Laserfiche WebLink
•ROM •THU; 2. :0‘00 14:42/01. 14;36 NO. S76:)04470: 2 2 <br />hiKSHAW & CULBEKl .s <br />ArrLnoH,wMCONsu« uLUvauLiLUiion <br />•loomus. wiiaDKiLN <br />CMAMrAlON. IU.IHOI9 <br />ciacAOo.axiNou <br />OtTStAL un. lunois <br />rr. LAUMtOAU. nAMPA <br />JACMONVIUI.FLOWDA <br />MLSr.lLUMOU <br />unAiLUxou <br />MiA>a,n«ftnA <br />PIFUlAmAYlUVtt <br />sumiiflft <br />mmiEAf OUS, MWHE90TA »>49t <br />ilMSUill <br />nUTAX 4tUlA. <br />ThonxftS X Bsirtti <br />Dkvct 612.334.3676 <br />jBaa«tt^lunAc«vlAW.eom <br />J&nuary 6,2000 <br />wu.wAUKn.wBeoii9it< <br />MVMriU.B(BIAMA <br />f80*U,ILU»»» <br />niOS<S(.AlUtOHA <br />ROCKTOKD.ILUMOIS <br />wr. LOUIA. MDSOURI <br />$AN rVAHClSCO, CALIFORNIA <br />UPtmoFIBLO. (LLIHOIS <br />TAli?A.Fl011DA <br />WAUKIOAV. ILUNOti <br />Rick J. Sheridan, lisq. <br />Contkicotal Propeity Group, Inc. <br />2S3 East Lake Street <br />Wayzata, MN 55391 <br />VTA FACSiMTr eANn STATES MAIL <br />Rg: Bradley Hoyt v. City of Orono, et cl <br />Court File No.: 99-CV-1034 (JBT/FLN) <br />Our File No.: 41288^752031 <br />Dear Rick; <br />This letter is written to further address the steps which your client should t^e in order to <br />present its case for a variance £rom the requirementa of the Orooo City Code. Tto , <br />erises out of your cUent’s appUcatbn for a Conditional Use Permit for a waU which he <br />near the shore of Lake Minnetonka without a pennit. As we hnva discussed, foe tondilional Use <br />Pennit for which be made application requires conformity to all parts of the City C^de. SinM <br />City Code prohibits hardcover or structures in foe area of shore land wh^ 75 fe« of the lal^^ it vm <br />be necessary for your client to seek and obtain a variance from those ordinance in order to bring foe <br />retaining wall the requirqnenta of the Code. The Ordinances in question ate: <br />Section 10.22. Subdivision I and 2 <br />Section 10.55. SubdivisioaS <br />Section 10.56. Subdivision 16(L) <br />Section 10.56. Subdivision 16(CX5) <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 foe waU should not have been <br />gmitod ft variftncc under the code end bectusa it had difficulty understanding the nature of e <br />erosion problem which h was claimed that the wall would prevent. The City Cou^il rcmatMCd e <br />jnatfAr to Planning CoounissioD tti ordcf to sUow yOUT cUeQt to make an ^piopriate record o e <br />need for variance from the requirements of the Code. <br />The City otOroifo has a long standing policy against altowing hardcover or stiucturwwitlun <br />75 feet of the lake. The City’s comprehensive plan also discourages devices like a wall on. the <br />nCMDSV 4t9T/ t4M3142.vS yiOMO A»AJOVinBD> WOLUDIMO ntcn«n9«ALOORrosAirato