10-16-2017 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

FILE#17-3947 October 16 2017 Page 5 of 7 the rules and development guidelines outlined in the Zoning Code;the proposed development of the property is not in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance.This criterion is not met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.The applicants proposed configuration results in a number of variances of convenience which are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.This criterion is not met. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The applicants' proposed plan merely modifies an existing challenging configuration of the properties and is unreasonable; solutions exist which would be more in line with the rules and development guidelines outlined in the Zoning Code.This criterion is not met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The applicants own both properties and have the opportunity to make changes which alleviate and in some cases eliminate the "unique circumstances" impacting both properties.This criterion is not met;and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicants'attempt to maintain the existing private driveway access for an intensification of use may not alter the visual character of the driveway itself,the traffic resulting from an additional residence will change the character.This criterion is not met. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn.Stat.§216C.06,subd.2,when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a residential development is an allowed use in the LR-1B District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Special conditions have not been identified which support the granting of the requested variances.This criterion is not met. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. Special conditions have not been identified which support the granting of the requested variances.This criterion is not met. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The purpose for granting the requested variances would be solely for the convenience to the applicants.This criterion is not met. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.As currently proposed, the plan is contrary to the language and intent of the land use chapter of the code,where the land use regulations provide for orderly development in the interest of life,safety,and general welfare.This criterion is not met.