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