Laserfiche WebLink
LA22-000038 <br /> July 18,2022 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> • <br /> additional retaining wall structure within the 75-foot lake setback will help to <br /> maintain the existing slope and character of the area. <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. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code <br /> Chapter 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 residential improvements are permitted to <br /> support a residential 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 slope of the property combined with <br /> the pre-existing improvements are unique conditions affecting the subject property. <br /> 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which <br /> the land is located. The property's slope instability combined with the existing <br /> improvements create conditions which do not apply to adjacent properties. <br /> 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a <br /> • substantial property right of the applicant.Granting a lake setback variance to allow the <br /> retaining walls within the 75-foot lake setback is reasonable and necessary to preserve <br /> the property rights of the owner and supported by the vulnerable lake yard slope on <br /> the property. <br /> 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort <br /> or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the <br /> lakeyard setback variance allowing the retaining walls within the 75-foot lake setback <br /> will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any way be contrary <br /> to the ordinances. <br /> 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but <br /> is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The proposed wall repairs within the <br /> the lakeyard will preserve the integrity of the slope and there are no conforming <br /> locations for the retaining walls which would protect the slope. Preserving the existing <br /> wall is necessary for the protection of the slope and the lake. <br /> The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. <br /> Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the <br /> impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use <br /> permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. <br /> Engineer Comments: <br /> a. This Application: The applicant has provided a letter from a licensed engineer, Ronald <br /> Vickery, with the assessment that a slope failure is imminent. Further the same engineer has <br /> • provided a plan for stabilizing the slope using retaining wall in front of the failing existing walls <br /> and installing soil anchors. I believe the proposed fix does address the potential slope failure. In <br />