Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />CITY OF ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />NO. 7381 <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />2. The Property is located in the LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. <br /> <br />3. The Property contains 23,247 square feet in area and has a defined lot width of 75.14 feet at the 75- <br />foot lakeshore setback and a lot width of 75.14 feet at the OHWL. <br /> <br />4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25 % according to the Stormwater Quality <br />Overlay District. <br /> <br />5. Applicant has applied for the following variances: <br />a. 75 foot Lakeshore Setback <br /> <br />6. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and <br />recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances upon the <br />health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and <br />air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding <br />area. <br /> <br />ANALYSIS: <br /> <br />1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent <br />of the ordinance . . . .” Preserving and protecting existing trees in the lake yard is in harmony with <br />the intent of the ordinance. This criterion is met. <br /> <br />2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive <br />plan.” The proposed retaining walls will continue to maintain the integrity of the slope and protect <br />the existing tree. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This criterion is met. <br /> <br />3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical <br />difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in connection with <br />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 /> <br />The owner has proposed retaining walls to protect the existing tree. The existing failing <br />walls are not the result of actions by the owner. This criterion is met. <br /> <br />b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the <br />landowner. <br />