Laserfiche WebLink
•• \ <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13» 1999 <br />(§7) U2S40 BRADLEY HOYT, 2523 KELLY A VENUE - Continued <br />states, “Consequently the applicant has applied for the necessary permits for the boulder <br />retaining wall.” He feels this is a statement that his client has applied for all the necessary <br />permits for the boulder wall which is contrary to Weinberger ’s assertion that Mr. Hoyt has not <br />applied for the variance. <br />Jabtour asked if Mr. Sheridan was reading from the most recent staff report. <br />Sheridan agreed that he had received the most recent report. He referred to the Background <br />sec*'on of the report which states, “Mr. Hoyt had requested a conditional use permit <br />application.” He said that is an incorrect statement. Mr. Hoyt came to the City Offices and <br />asked for an application for the necessary permits the City was requiring that he have for his <br />property. Sheridan said his client maintains that he didn’t need any permits or variances for his <br />property. <br />Sheridan referred to a letter that was sent to Mr. Hoyt in response to his application that <br />indicated that more information was required. That letter said the information was requested <br />for consideration of the conditional use permit and variances. They supplied the survey that is <br />being displayed and told Mr. Weinberger that, at that time, they did not have in their <br />possession a pre-existing survey. They didn’t say that there wasn’t one available, but that they <br />didn’t have one in their possession. Sheridan said it is their position that they have made all <br />t!ie applications that are required. <br />Sheridan referred to the second paragraph on page 2 of the staff report regarding the action <br />taken by the Planning Commission. He feels the entire paragraph is inaccurate. The next <br />paragraph says the Planning Commission offered the applicant an opportunity to revwe the <br />conditional use permit application to include variances, but went on to deny the application. <br />Sheridan said he does not understand what the basis for denial was. He does not agree that <br />they were offered an opportunity to revise the application. He does agree that they were <br />offered an opportunity to come back with a variance application. <br />Sheridan said his client maintains that he has not regraded within the 75’ lakeshore setback or <br />filled the shoreline with rip rap, which staff says his client has done. <br />Sheridan said he would like to discuss the issue of the conditional use permit. He and Mr. <br />Barrett had a discussion about this application and that Mr. Barrett told him one of the <br />conditions of the conditional use permit is getting a variance for hardcover. <br />Mr. Barrett said that misstates their conversation. Barrett said Hoyt could apply for a ^ <br />conditional use permit. The condition that is set out with respect to the retaining wall is that <br />such permit is subject to the other prohibitions and regulations of the City Code and other <br />applicable statutes and ordinances. As it stands, Mr. Hoyt’s application is in violation of <br />several salient city ordinances. Most specifically. Section 10.55, Subd. 8, says “Except as <br />Pages