Laserfiche WebLink
A 1IESOLOTION DENYING <br />APTER-THB-PACT VARIANCES TO <br />MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE <br />SECTION 10.22r SUBDIVISION 1 (A) & (B)» <br />SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, <br />SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B), AND <br />SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 <br />PILE #1353 <br />WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized <br />and existing under the Vuws of the State of Minnesota; and <br />WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. <br />seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations <br />for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare* and <br />WHEREAS, John and Nancy Piebelkorn (hereinafter "the applicants") <br />are the owners o: the prope . xocated at 2730 Shadywood Road within the <br />City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: <br />Tract C, Registered Land Survey #%20, Hennepin County, Minnesota <br />(hereinafter "the property"); and <br />WHEREAL, the applicants have applied to the City of Orono <br />(hereinafter "the City") for after-the-fact variances seeking approval of <br />structures and hardcover within 75' of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka <br />where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed per Municipal Zoning <br />Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A), Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, and <br />Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and seeking approval of an after-the-fact <br />variance to allow encroachment of an accessory structure nearer the lake <br />than the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally <br />allowed per Municipal Zoning Code Section 1^,22, Subdivis 1 (B),'an6 <br />seeking approv:\l tor a side yard setback variance for a pool maintenance <br />equipment shed structure located less than 10* from a side lot ^ ne where a <br />10* side yard setback (a normally requi’.ed per Municipal uirg Code <br />Section 10.24, S^bdivisicr. 5 (B); and <br />WHEREAbi 'hr ^ity Coiincil has reviewed the application; t la <br />recommer itions of the City staff and the Planning Commission; and the <br />comments and written statements submitted by th*: applicants, applict/it^ <br />a'^torney, and the ir;pplicants* consultants. <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ci <br />Minnesota herety denies the after-crie-fact applicat.^ <br />based on one ur more of the following findings o.. <br />property? <br />Page 1 of 8 <br />incl 1 ' ono, <br />ove <br />^ this