Laserfiche WebLink
12. The following code sections were violated with the construction <br />of the dock: <br />, Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (A) - Time of construction. No <br />accessory structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the <br />time of construction of the principal building to which it is <br />accessory. Section 10.25, Subdivision 5 (A) - Accessory uses. <br />Any accessory uses regulated in the R-lA zoning d. strict, any <br />private docks subject to the City Code and other applicable <br />regulations, including boat storage density regulations. <br />13. On May 20, 1988, staff met with Al Michaels, the attorney <br />representing persons with an interest in the property, regarding the <br />violation and advised of the necessary administrative steps to be <br />taken in order for the City to determine that a dock can be legally <br />installed on the property, as a dock is considered an accessory <br />structure, staff recommended that a lot area variance application be <br />filed with the City in order to determine if the lot was a buildable <br />lot. If the lot was deemed unbuildable, then it was appropriate for <br />the current owners to ask what other reasonable uses can be made of <br />the property. <br />14. Tracts F &.R of LRS #1216 were purchased by the applicants in <br />1987. The tax records refer to the fee owners as Coffee Landings. <br />15. At a preliminary application conference with the applicants, they <br />advised staff that they had met with the Chairman of the Lake <br />Minnetonka Conservation District prior to constructing tne dock in <br />order to determine if there was legal authority to construct a dock on <br />the property. Applicants failed to contact the City of Orono even to <br />question the need for a building permit for suci construction. <br />• <br />16. On May 26, 1988, the applicants filed a lot area variance <br />application with a specific request to maintain a dock on the property <br />without a principal structure. <br />17. The applicants were allowed to retain the dock until the <br />buildability of the property was re/jolved by the Council. The <br />applicants were asked to not use the dock until the Council had made a <br />final decision concerning the future use of the property. <br />18. On June 20, 1988, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the lot <br />area phase of the variance application and recommended denial of the <br />requested variance based on the following findings: <br />A) There is only approximately 5,500 s.f. of area within the <br />defined building envelope, with an approximate depth of 100'. <br />Page 4 of 7