04-22-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.v^4 . ■«. 'V mm BKLD MAY 26, 19874 MZimnS OP THB KBCDLAM ORONO COOWCZL M •lUT MILLARD C. Grabek felt that approving the application would be setting t precedent and the hardships noted do not justify this structure. He also noted that If staff receives complaints or sees any violation of the ordinances regarding these ramps, they should be handled in the appropriate manner. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that these are in violation of the 0*75' zone hardcover limit. Also, storage of the boat on land and in the front yard is also in violation of the zoning code. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the applicant has only 30' of lakeshore not included in the conservation easement. Councilmember Coetten asked the applicant what hie coujfsa of action will be if the application is denied. Hr. Shull stated he will start an application with the DMR for a permanent dock with dredging. He also noted that approximately 1/2 of the sand bottom of the lake is silt. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Sime, to adopt Resolution 12182 denying the variance per Planning Commission recommendation. Ayes 3, Hays 2. Councilmembers Coetten and Peterson voted nay. MAiOaiXAR on PnMZT/VARZANCBMr. McNulty, representative for the applicants# was present. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that at the last meeting. Council directed staff to draft a resolution to allow the variance for the construction of a sports center with a conditional use permit for the caretaker residence. The resolution outlined S conditions which should be addressed covenants which needed to be met by the applicant# subject to satisfaction and acceptance by the City Attorney. One of the conditions involved setbacks and also left sn unspecified amount of acreage for thh Council to deem appropriate# in order that the primary house and recreational structure are always preserved as one. 1^. NcNttlty# representing the applicsnt# felt that by setting the ISO* setback limit on the recreational structure and the caretaker's residence from ether properties, that should basically satisfy the issue without putting in the additional acreage restrictions (9.5 acres would meet the ISO' setbackl. Applicant would prefer that the City drop the acreage recuirement as part of the covenant. The 9.S acres would leave a 4 acre parc^h'l t.' -he north and west# but removing the 9.5 acre restrict.o *ould allow a possible 2 acre split from the aouthea .. corner of the property. (• Sn I* r* I I.r ■ 4 7 ‘V m % j. <• V. i