Laserfiche WebLink
FILE #LA23-000061 <br />November 20, 2023 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br />maximum hardcover requirement of 25%. <br /> <br />Applicable Regulations: <br />Lake Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) <br />Retaining walls are not permitted within 75 feet of the lake, in order to construct two new <br />retaining walls to replace the existing boulders, a setback variance has been requested. <br /> <br />Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) <br />In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the <br />proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and <br />anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect <br />on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider <br />recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances <br />where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique <br />to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is <br />demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning <br />Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties <br />also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. <br />Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, <br />subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a <br />variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the <br />affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary <br />use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. <br /> <br />According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: <br />1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. <br />Preserving and protecting existing trees in the lake yard is in harmony with the intent <br />of the ordinance. The requested variance will preserve a hillside from erosion and <br />protect an existing mature oak tree. This criterion is met. <br />2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed retaining walls <br />will continue to maintain the integrity of the slope and protect the existing tree and <br />shed. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This criterion is met. <br />3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. <br />a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not <br />permitted by the official controls; The owner proposes to install two new <br />retaining walls which are residential in nature and reasonable from a <br />residential scope. <br />b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; <br />The applicant has proposed retaining walls to protect the existing tree and <br />existing shed on the property. There are existing boulders on the property that <br />are no longer preserving the hillside. The proposed walls will support a new <br />lake stair and preserve the integrity of an existing shed and mature tree. The <br />current erosion of the hillside is not the result of actions by the owner; and <br />c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance <br />to permit two new retaining walls within the 75-foot lake setback will <br />preserve an existing tree and existing structure on the property. This will <br />preserve the character of the area. This criterion is met.