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 /> <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 /> <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