03-14-2022 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LA21-000076 February 22, 2022 Page 2 of 4 Retaining walls are not permitted within 75’ of the lake, therefore the applicant is requesting a setback variances. The applicant’s plan involves replacing the existing concrete slab style retaining walls, with more natural looking boulders and to support the new style stair. The applicant is hoping to proactively prevent any further erosion and potential failure of the lake yard with tiered retaining walls to stabilize the area. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 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. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Preserving and protecting the existing slope in the lake yard is in harmony with the intent of the ordinance. The proposed retaining walls will be screened with vegetation to maintain the rural nature of the lake. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed retaining walls are protecting the slope on the property consistent with the comprehensive plan. 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 owner proposes to install retaining wall improvements which are residential in nature and reasonable from a residential scope. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The owner has proposed retaining walls as a solution which will protect against failure of the slope. The existing slope of the lake yard was not a result of actions by the owner. and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality The variance to permit retaining wall structures within the 75-foot setback will help to maintain the existing slope and character of the area. 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