03-12-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A RBSOLOTION GRAHTIII6 VARIAMCES TO MOMICIPAL aOHlIIG CODE SBC---E 10.22, SUBDIVISIOW 2 ABDSBCTIOH 10.03, SOBDIVISIOH 19 PILE *1468WBBRBAS, George and Sally Pillsbury 1300nd legally described as follows.ibit A attached (hereinafter "the property")? and unpvPAS the applicants have made ®PP^^ Or"on™“l' v^.rU^nVes tc Hunlolpal w, i'? within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone per Sect! uL-Ti.^ision 19* HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council Of linnesota: FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1469. The property is located in the ^p-lA Single Family ceshore Residential zoning District. The property is approximately 2.96 acres in area. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed thU a^lication October 16, 1989 and recommended a°\*o\e ^of ^5-2, based riance and conditional use permit on a vote of the following findings; Page 1 of 5 f ' iH A) The retaining wall and associated grading proposed at the top of the lakeshore bank is necessary for preservation of the lakeshore bank, which is currently exhibiting some slumping effect. The 24"-30" proposed height of the single proposed retaining wall is low enough that the wall can be easily screened using existing and additional vegetation coupled with the stone construction materials proposed.B) The proposed 96 s.f. hardcover Increase resulting from the tops of the retaining wall and stair timbers in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone is an increase of a fraction of 1%, and is relatively minor in its Impact on the lake given the relatively large 0-75' zone. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district? that granting the variance for grading and retaining walls in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties? would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty? is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants? and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the proposed grading and retaining walls in the 0-75' zone will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5