Laserfiche WebLink
J <br />CITY <br />OF <br />ORONO <br />. -j <br />*/v <br />i <br />>J <br />City of ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. 2292 ______ <br />A. Per Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.55, <br />Subdivision 8, major alterations of lands within the 0-75 feet <br />setback area involving excavations within 5 feet of the shoreline <br />and the removal of hundreds of cubic yards of fill. <br />B. Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 and 20, major alterations <br />of lands within 75 to 300 feet of the shoreline involving <br />proposed changes in existing draingage for 5+ acre watershed <br />providing a swale along the north side of the house instead of <br />providing retention in a ponding area and final transmittal of <br />surface run-off to lake via an underground tile as existed <br />befoie. <br />C. Per Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (A), a building height <br />variance is required since alterations around the principal <br />structure would now classify the lower basement as a full story <br />(per UBC, Definition Section 417.240) exceeding the allowed 30 <br />feet height along the lakeshore side by 9 feet and 7 feet at the <br />rear. <br />25. The Planning Commission reviewed Application No. 1177 at their <br />August 17, 1987 and September 21, 1987 meetings and voted unanimously <br />to deny the after-the-fact application based on one or more of the <br />following findings noted by Commission Members; <br />A. The City would never have approved this type of grading <br />before-the-fact. <br />B. Applicants have contributed to the drainage problem by <br />increasing the footprint of the house threefold and by occupying <br />a portion of the retention area that treated run-off. <br />C. The applicants never corrected the City's assumption that <br />drainage drained away from the lake to the retention area rather <br />than draining to the lake via the existing underground tile. <br />D. Drainage appears a conv€*nient explanation to grant the <br />v;alkout design which never showed on the plans. <br />E. If the City was to approve an after-the-fact application of <br />this type, a .'.egative precedent, would be established in dealing <br />with future applications dealing with similar violations. <br />26. At the Council meeting of October 26, 1987, the Orono Council <br />denied the after-the-fact application and directed staff to draft the <br />appropriate resolution noting the following findings: <br />Page 7 of 13 I