Laserfiche WebLink
17-3988, 17-3989, 17-3990 <br /> November 20,2017 <br /> Page 4 of 10 <br /> Governing Regulation:Variance (Section 78-123) <br /> In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the <br /> proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and <br /> anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect <br /> on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider <br /> recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances <br /> where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique <br /> to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is <br /> demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning <br /> Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties <br /> also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. <br /> Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, <br /> subd. 2,when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a <br /> variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the <br /> affected person's land is located.The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary <br /> use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. <br /> Variances (Wetlands,width) <br /> According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2)variances shall only be permitted when: <br /> 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The <br /> intent of the wetland setback is to preserve the wetland. The applicant proposes <br /> minimal improvements in the only location feasible. The applicant plans to utilize BMP <br /> to minimize and protect the wetland. <br /> The intent of the driveway width maximum is to minimize hardcover in the shore <br /> setback. Allowing for a 12' wide shared driveway to gain access to two parcels is in <br /> harmony with the purpose of the Ordinances, which is to manage hard cover in the 0- <br /> 75'. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan notes <br /> the need to protect the natural environment,including wetlands. The reduced setback, <br /> coupled with the management practices employed protects the wetlands. Allowing <br /> access and proper drainage for two newly created lots in consistent with the <br /> comprehensive plan. <br /> 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. <br /> a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not <br /> permitted by the official controls;The applicant's request to construct a 12'wide <br /> driveway and create proper drainage to serve the two newly created lots is <br /> reasonable.There is no other location available that would avoid impacts to the <br /> wetlands and outside the lake yard without impacting the adjacent residential <br /> lot. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; <br /> The applicant did not develop the point,or place wetlands on the property. The <br /> unique circumstances were not created by the applicant in either variance <br /> situation. <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The <br /> encroachment is non-structural and connects to the existing access for <br /> neighboring parcels. <br />