Laserfiche WebLink
O.Ai CITY OF ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />y. <br />c.,‘, <br />NO. 7280 <br />j4'- <br />ES H O' <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. Lake Setback Variance <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. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes <br />and intent of the ordinance . . . ." Preserving and protecting the existing lake yard slope is <br />in harmony with the intent of the ordinance. The proposed retaining walls will be screened <br />with vegetation to maintain the rural nature of the lake wherever feasible. <br />2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the <br />comprehensive plan." The proposed retaining walls will continue to maintain the integrity <br />of the slope and protect the slope from catastrophic failure which protects the lake. The <br />proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. <br />3. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are <br />practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties,' as used in <br />connection with the granting of a variance, means that: <br />a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, <br />however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. <br />The owner proposes to install retaining wall improvements which are residential in <br />nature and reasonable from a residential scope. <br />b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created <br />by the landowner. <br />The owner has proposed retaining walls to protect against failure of the slope. The <br />existing slope of the lake yard was not the result of actions by the owner; <br />c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." <br />2