Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#17-3971 <br /> 16Oct 2017 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> reviewed critically. The variance requested to construct retaining walls is purely for convenience <br /> and aesthetic reasons;therefore this criterion is not met. <br /> 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.The Comprehensive Plan talks at length on <br /> the need to preserve the lake, both water quality and visually. Construction of retaining walls and <br /> disturbance with the existing established vegetation on the lakeshore slope is inconsistent with the <br /> City's goals for natural lakeshore and may impact the stability of the currently stable slope.This <br /> criterion is not met. <br /> 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. <br /> a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by <br /> the official controls;The proposed lot line adjustment reduces opportunity to build a home <br /> meeting the requirements of the ordinance. The slight bow of the lot into the lake does not <br /> support then need for a 52 foot extension into the average lake shore setback. Further the <br /> current shoreline is stable and vegetated.There is an existing lake access stair which can be <br /> rebuilt or reconfigured without variances.The proposal to potentially interrupt the stability <br /> of the slope and construct retaining walls with a path graded for ATVs is inconsistent with <br /> the City's guiding for natural shoreline areas.This criterion is not met. <br /> b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The <br /> (proposed)change of the lot lines significantly limits options for improvements which could <br /> conform to the average setback and Code. Further,the owner recently removed vegetation <br /> and conducted grading within the 75-foot lake yard in the area currently within the subject <br /> property.This activity was commenced without proper City permits and approvals.The <br /> request for retaining walls in this area to stabilize the slope was caused directly by the <br /> owners'actions.This criterion is not met;and <br /> c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The visual massing of <br /> structure will impact the neighbor immediately to the east.The mass and setback of the <br /> proposed home combined the proposed pool will alter the character of the locality, <br /> particularly when viewed from the lake and neighboring property.This criterion is not met. <br /> Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as <br /> follows: <br /> 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have <br /> not been a factor in the variance approval determination. <br /> 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar <br /> energy systems.Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § <br /> 216C.06,subd. 2,when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.This condition is not applicable. <br /> 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City <br /> Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.This condition is <br /> not applicable,as the use for a residential home is an allowed use in the LR-1B District. <br /> 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two- <br /> family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. <br /> 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or <br /> immediately adjoining property.The owners'recent acquisition of this property and intended lot line <br /> rearrangement limits the options for conforming development on the property as the size of the <br /> property has decreased significantly.The proposed retaining walls and drivable lake access path <br /> would not be consistent with the neighborhood. <br /> 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is <br /> located.The property is in line with many of the adjacent properties in the neighborhood to the <br /> east.The owners' residence property(2709 Walters Port) begins to create an anomaly with respect <br /> to the average lakeshore setback as the shoreline curves to the north and results in an extreme <br /> average lakeshore setback.This criterion is met. However with respect to the retaining walls and <br /> drivable lake access path,the desire for vehicular access to the lake is common. Ordinance preserve <br />