My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-18-2022 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2022
>
07-18-2022 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2022 7:33:43 AM
Creation date
7/19/2022 7:17:06 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
122
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
FILE#LA22-000034 <br /> 18 July 2022 <br /> Page 2 of 4 • <br /> to a vertical straight line starting at the toe of the slope. Walls that are straight faced (i.e. have <br /> no batter or setback), cannot be built as high as walls that have a batter. Based on the wall <br /> design specifications,the installation will include batter of a 1 inch setback for each wall course. <br /> No retaining walls are permitted within the 75 foot lakeshore setback. <br /> Section 78-1680 and 78-1700—Hardcover Calculations: <br /> Retaining walls are exempt from hardcover totals for the property. Retaining walls are excluded <br /> from the hardcover calculations. <br /> Applicable Regulations: <br /> Lake Setback Variance(Section 78-1279) <br /> Retaining walls are not permitted within 75' of the lake, in order to replace the existing wall <br /> system,with a slightly expanded footprint a setback variance has been requested. <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. 14,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 /> According to MN §462.357 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. <br /> Preserving and protecting the existing lake yard slope is in harmony with the intent of <br /> the ordinance.The proposed retaining walls will be screened with vegetation to <br /> maintain the rural nature of the lake wherever feasible. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.The proposed retaining walls <br /> will continue to maintain the integrity of the slope and protect the slope from <br /> catastrophic failure which protects the lake.The proposal is 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 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; <br /> The owner has proposed retaining walls to protect against failure of the slope. <br /> II/ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.