My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-22-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
11-22-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 3:39:26 PM
Creation date
1/25/2023 2:21:44 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
361
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of <br />Orono, Minnesota: <br />1. <br />3. <br />FINDINGS <br />This renewal application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-3047. The <br />original application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2936. <br />The property is located in the LR - 1C zoning district, which requires a <br />minimum lot area of '/: acre and a minimum lot width of 100 feet. The <br />applicants’ property is .49 acres and has a width of 60 feet. <br />The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing <br />held on September 20, 2004 and granted approval of the renewal <br />hardcover and lake setback variance for the 0-75’ zone based on the <br />following City Council findings of original 2003 application: <br />a. The nature of the property in the 0-75’ zone is steep slopes being <br />supported by retaining walls. <br />b. Currently, the existing lakeshore deck is bolted to a concrete retaining <br />wall which is supporting 8 ’ of earth. <br />c.After engineering reviews, the interdependency of the wall on the deck <br />is inconclusive; however. Council action to require removal of the <br />deck may have unintended negative consequences. Should the deck be <br />required to be removed and detached from the retaining wall, there is <br />the potential that the retaining wall may fail, subsequently causing <br />slope failure. <br />d. The existing conditions of the retaining w*all and attached deck support <br />the slope. <br />e. Absent the unique conditions noted above, the lakeshore deck would <br />normally not be allowed to remain, as it is a nonconforming structure <br />and the property is undergoing a complete teardown/rebuild of the <br />principal structure. <br />Page 2 of 6
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.