Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#17-3979 <br /> 20 Nov 2017 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The <br /> home and deck on the property in 2016 where conforming with respect to lake and <br /> average lakeshore setbacks.The proposed screen porch will encroach approximately 3 <br /> feet into the 75-foot setback; and approximately 20 feet into the average lakeshore <br /> setback line. Neighbors have indicated that the screen porch encroachment into the <br /> average lakeshore setback does not block their views of the lake, however there exist <br /> other reasonable areas to expand indoor/outdoor spaces without encroaching into <br /> setbacks.At this point,the minimal 75-foot setback variance requested is purely for the <br /> applicants' convenience as the screen porch is already constructed; therefore this <br /> criterion is not met. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.The screen porch addition to the <br /> existing home could be constructed in a conforming location and is not consistent with <br /> the comprehensive plan.This criterion is not met. <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 screen porch addition will increase the <br /> bulk and massing on the property within the average lakeshore setback(and to <br /> a minor extent the 75-foot setback) which is currently conforming. The <br /> improvements could be constructed in a way which would conform to the code. <br /> This criterion is not met. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; <br /> The applicant has not demonstrated that the property is unique to justify the <br /> need for a variance. This criterion is not met;and <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The visual <br /> massing of structure within the average lakeshore setback and additional <br /> hardcover within the 75 foot setback will alter the character of the locality, <br /> particularly when viewed from the lake.This criterion is not met. <br /> Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be <br /> granted as follows: <br /> 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic <br /> considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. <br /> 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight <br /> for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as <br /> defined in Minn.Stat. §216C.06,subd. 2,when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter <br /> 78.This condition is not applicable. <br /> 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under <br /> Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is <br /> located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a screen porch addition to the <br /> home is an allowed use in the LR-1B District. <br /> 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling <br /> as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. <br /> 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such <br /> property or immediately adjoining property.The home on the subject property and the <br /> neighboring homes are mostly in line and situated ±30 feet from the rear/street <br /> property lines resulting in a narrow area for improvements conforming to the average <br /> lakeshore setback line. This condition applies to the immediately adjacent properties. <br /> This criterion is met. <br />