My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 5254
Orono
>
Resolutions, Ordinances, Proclamations
>
Resolutions
>
Reso 0001-7399
>
Reso 5200 - 5299 (June 28, 2004 - April 11, 2005)
>
Resolution 5254
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/18/2019 2:23:22 PM
Creation date
11/9/2015 2:31:52 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
� , � � °� <br /> o , o <br /> � - C ITY of ORONO <br /> ,� ,. � <br /> ti <br /> ti <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L <br /> ��`9kESI3��'�G NO. � � � � <br /> NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of <br /> Orono, Miiuiesota: <br /> FINDINGS <br /> 1. This renewal application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-3047. The <br /> original application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2936. <br /> 2. The property is located in the LR — 1C zoning district, which requires a <br /> minimum lot area of '/Z acre and a minimum lot width of 100 feet. The <br /> applicants' propet�ty is .49 acres and has a width of 60 feet. <br /> 3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing <br /> held on September 20, 2004 and granted approval of the renewal <br /> hardcover and lake setback variance for the 0-75' zone based on the <br /> following City Council findings of original 2003 application: <br /> a. The nature of the property in the 0-75' zone is steep slopes being <br /> supported by retaining walls. <br /> b. Currently, the existing lakeshore deck is bolted to a concrete retaining <br /> wall which is supporting 8' of earth. <br /> c. After engineering reviews,the interdependency of the wall on the deck <br /> is inconclusive; however, Council action to require removal of the <br /> deck may have unintended negative consequences. Should the deck be <br /> required to be removed and detached from the retaining wall, there is <br /> the potential that the retaining wall may fail, subsequently causing <br /> slope failure. <br /> d. The existing conditions of the retaining wall and attached deck support <br /> the slope. <br /> e. Absent the unique conditions noted above, the lakeshore deck would <br /> normally not be allowed to remain, as it is a nonconforming structure <br /> � and the property is undergoing a complete teardown/rebuild of the <br /> principal structure. <br /> Page 2 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.