Laserfiche WebLink
-WA/ CITY OF ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> yF �� NO.7265 <br /> t4kEsHo�`�' <br /> 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA21-000076. The analysis contained <br /> within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the <br /> above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings <br /> are hereby incorporated by reference. <br /> 2. The Property is located in the LR-1B Zoning District. <br /> 3. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater <br /> Quality Overlay District. <br /> 4. Applicant has applied for the following variance: <br /> a. Retaining walls within the 75 foot lakeyard <br /> 5. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and <br /> recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance <br /> upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic <br /> conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values <br /> of property in the surrounding area. <br /> ANALYSIS: <br /> 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. <br /> Preserving and protecting the existing slope in the lake yard is in harmony with the <br /> intent of the ordinance. The proposed retaining walls are of natural materials and <br /> will be screened with vegetation to maintain the rural nature of the lake. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed retaining walls <br /> are protecting the slope on the property consistent with the 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 owner proposes to install retaining wall <br /> improvements which are residential in nature and reasonable from a <br /> residential scope. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The <br /> owner has proposed retaining walls as a solution which will protect against <br /> failure of the slope. The existing slope of the lake yard was not a result of <br /> actions by the owner. and <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality The variance to <br /> permit retaining wall structures within the 75-foot setback will help to <br /> maintain the existing slope and character of the area. <br /> 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic <br /> considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. <br /> 2 <br />