Laserfiche WebLink
. . , , <br /> � Cit� of ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> � NO. 2649 <br /> • - • • <br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of <br /> the City of Orono, hereby denies the application for placement of <br /> fill and construction of retaining walls in the 0-75' lakeshore <br /> setback zone based upon one or more of the following <br /> findings of fact concerning this property: <br /> FINDINGS <br /> 1 . This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1391. <br /> 2 . The property is located in the LR-1C Lakeshore <br /> Residential Zoning District and contains approximately 0.30 <br /> acres in area. The LR-1C District requires 0.50 acres in <br /> area. <br /> 3. Applicant constructed a single family residence on the <br /> property in 1984, at which time grades around the residence <br /> were established. The applicant maintains that the grades <br /> established at the time the residence was constructed do not <br /> allow for ease of maintenance of the lawn in the area <br /> proposed for fill , and that placement of fill and <br /> construction of retaining walls as proposed will alleviate <br /> this problem. Applicant also maintains that the fill and <br /> retaining walls in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone are <br /> necessary to prevent drainage from flooding the neighboring <br /> property. <br /> 4. The applicant proposes a retaining wall along the side <br /> lot line to a point as close as 40' from the shoreline, kith <br /> placement of fill as near as 30' to the shoreline. <br /> 5. The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and recommended <br /> that the retaining wall be constructed no closer than 70' <br /> from the shoreline, and that fill placement be limited to <br /> only that necessary to f i 11 behind the wa 11 and such f i 11 <br /> being placed no closer than 45' to the shoreline. <br /> 6. On May 15, 1989, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed <br /> the proposal and recommended approval subject to the <br /> conditions recommended by the City Engineer as noted above, <br /> finding that the retaining wall as originally proposed by <br /> the applicant is not strictly necessary to accomplish the <br /> Page 2 of 7 <br />