Laserfiche WebLink
ZZC^\r <br />4 V.*.ITKC; 2. :5'00 !4:45 JT. 14:56 XO. } i <br />KiHSHAW & CULBbRl tiv. .s <br />AfrLETON.WWCONSLN <br />iUXEVlLU.aU)10IS <br />BkOOIVnU). WIHCOKSLN <br />CU AMT AlON. tU.D>Ol3 <br />CnlCAOO.ILUNOU <br />CItr 5TAL LAH. ILLINOIS <br />rr laudiuale , fujrioa <br />jACUONVILli. FLORIDA <br />lOUBT, aUNOIS <br />LULR.IL1IHOU <br />MiAMi,n.okn>A <br />PimiAFnAYTOVSH <br />fumstoojaa sovm Mnmt <br />MimiEAFOUS, MDWSOrTA JXOl <br />tslcfa X 4iajM.*t«» <br />Thomas J. Barrett <br />Diiact; 612.334^676 <br />TBeo«tt<giluiii4uwlaw.com <br />January 6,2000 <br />MILWAUKW. WISCONSIN <br />MVHmK,OmA)4A <br />PBOIO\IU4MOI9 <br />FllOOfW, AJUt<n<A <br />ROClCFORD.lLUiWIS <br />*T. LOUl«. MXaSOURt <br />SAN FRANCISCO, CAUf ORHIA <br />APSTKariBiD. axcKois <br />TAMPA.FIOR1DA <br />WAUKtCAN. ILUNOIS <br />Rick J. Sheridan, Hsq. <br />Continental Property Group, Inc, <br />253 East Lake Street <br />Wayzata, MN 55391 <br />in A rArMrTi/m.E AND UNITED STATES HAHa <br />Re: Bradley Hoyt v. City of Orono, el al. <br />Court File No.: 99-CV-I034 (JRT/FLN) <br />Our File No.: 4I288 ’75203l <br />Dear Rick: <br />This letter is written to further address the steps which your client should^e m order to <br />present its case for a variance from the requirementa of the Orono City <br />Sirisea out of your eUem’s appUcation for a Conditional Use Permit for a waU wbeh he coMtructed <br />near the shore of Lake Minnetonka without a permit. As we hav© di«cuMed,^e Oinditional Use <br />Pennit for which be made application requires conformity to all parts of the City <^de. SmM the <br />City Code prohibits hardcover or structures in the area of shore land wito 75 feet of the lake, it <br />be necessary for your client to seek and obtain a variance from those ordin2t»c« in order to bnng the <br />retaining wall within the requirements of the Code. The Ordinances in question are: <br />Section 10.22. Subdivisbn 1 and 2 <br />Section 10.55. SubdiviskmO <br />Section 10.56. Subefrvision 16(L) <br />Section 10.56. Subdivision 16(C)(5) <br />The Planning Commission, at its November 15,1999 meeting, recommended denial of the <br />request for a Conditional Use Permit, because it concluded that the waU should not have been <br />sranted a variance under the code and because it had difficulty understanding the nature o e <br />msioD problem which h was claimed that the waU would prevent The City Council remanded the <br />mAtfky to Planning Commission in order to allow yOur client to make an ^propnatc record o c <br />J for variance from the requirements of the Code.il- <br />The City of Orono has a longstanding policy against allowing hardcover or structure wito <br />75 feet of the lake. The City’s comprehensive plan also discourages devices like a wall Oh the <br />fiO®W4?OT/16503l42.V2 inruxA A PAMNIK1B17 tNOJUDCHO FROfB«a«AL OOWORAITOO