My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 5058
Orono
>
Resolutions, Ordinances, Proclamations
>
Resolutions
>
Reso 0001-7399
>
Reso 5000 - 5099 (June 23, 2003 - January 12, 2004)
>
Resolution 5058
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/13/2015 12:34:22 PM
Creation date
11/13/2015 12:34:22 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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 /> -, - <br /> � O� <br /> O � O <br /> � - � CITY of ORONO <br /> � • ��a t '� <br /> � <br /> � G RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL . <br /> L`�kEsKO�� . rvo. 5 0 5 � <br /> NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of <br /> Orono,Minnesota: <br /> FINDINGS <br /> 1. This application was reviewed as Zoriing 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' property 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 August 18, 2003.. The City Council reviewed the application at <br /> regularly scheduled meetings held on September 8 and September 22, <br /> 2003 and granted conceptual approval of the hardcover variance for the 0- <br /> 75' zone based on the following findings: <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 /> � <br /> � Page 2 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.