Laserfiche WebLink
ick.0.4/ CITY OF ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> „s„ tri,114 <br /> tqko�ti No. 7387 <br /> SH <br /> A10. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and <br /> recommendation of the City Staff and the effect of the proposed emergency slope repair <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 of <br /> property in the surrounding area. <br /> ANALYSIS: <br /> B1."Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes <br /> and intent of the ordinance . . . ." Preserving and protecting the lake yard slope is in <br /> harmony with the intent of the ordinance. The Applicants are restoring the <br /> improvements destroyed by fire. Staff recommends the proposed retaining walls, <br /> deck, and shed be screened with vegetation to maintain the rural nature of the lake <br /> wherever feasible. <br /> B2."Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the <br /> comprehensive plan." The retaining walls will continue to maintain the integrity of <br /> the slope and protect the slope from catastrophic failure which protects the lake as <br /> well as neighboring properties. The reconstructed improvements will be as close to <br /> in-kind replacements as permitted by the existing slope conditions. The proposal is <br /> consistent with the comprehensive plan in this manner. <br /> B3."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 <br /> manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The <br /> Applicants have installed replacement retaining walls, improvements which <br /> are residential in nature and reasonable from a residential scope. <br /> Additionally, it is reasonable to permit the in-kind reconstruction of the <br /> destroyed deck, stair, and shed. <br /> b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not <br /> created by the landowner. The Applicants have designed and constructed <br /> retaining walls to protect against failure of the slope resulting from a <br /> catastrophic fire. The existing improvements within the slope of the lake <br /> yard were not originally constructed by the owner and are permitted to be <br /> reconstructed as close to in-kind as permitted by the existing slope <br /> conditions; and <br />