My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
#5254 - variance - 2004
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
C
>
Casco Circle
>
3135 Casco Circle - 20-117-23-43-0029
>
Resolutions
>
#5254 - variance - 2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 4:00:55 PM
Creation date
2/24/2016 12:04:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
3135
Street Name
Casco
Street Type
Circle
Address
3135 Casco Circle
Document Type
Resolutions
PIN
2011723430029
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
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
� � o� <br /> � o <br /> - ������:- CITY of URONO <br /> � �:� ,,. ; � <br /> �� ��, :a�"�`- �ti <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ��kESII�4��' N0. ��' ;�=- ;`�. -� <br /> NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of <br /> Oroizo, Miiulesota: <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 loeated 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 �vidth of 60 feet. <br /> 3. The Plaiuling Commissioi� revie�ved 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 eai•th. <br /> c, After engineering reviews, the interdependency of the wall on the decic <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 ret�ining 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 /> Page2of6 <br />„... _ <br />_ I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.