Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />CITY OF ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />NO. ________________________ <br /> <br /> <br />Page 2 of 6 <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, on March 9, 2020, the City Council with a 4 to 0 vote, directed <br />preparation of findings for denial of the after-the-fact variances; further the Applicant was directed <br />to obtain after-the-fact building permits in order to remove the unpermitted improvements to the <br />boathouse. <br /> <br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota <br />hereby denies the after-the-fact variances pertaining to the unpermitted improvements as <br />described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: <br /> <br />FINDINGS OF FACT: <br /> <br />1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA20-00005. The analysis contained within <br />staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above <br />mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are <br />hereby incorporated by reference. <br /> <br />2. The Property is located in the LR-1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. <br /> <br />3. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater <br />Quality Overlay District. <br /> <br />4. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: <br />a. Hardcover variance to exceed 3,389 s.f. (26.3%) approved per Resol. No. 6796. <br />b. 75-foot Lake setback variance. <br />c. Hardcover within the 75-foot lake setback. <br />d. Average Lakeshore Setback variance. <br /> <br />5. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and <br />recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances <br />upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic <br />conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values <br />of property in the surrounding area. <br /> <br />ANALYSIS: <br /> <br />1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes <br />and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The variances for expansion of non-conforming structures <br />in the lake yard are not supported by practical difficulties. Lake yard construction <br />prohibitions are intended to maintain the natural lakeshore and encourage development <br />away from the lake. Additionally, the goals of the average lakeshore setback requirement <br />include protecting views from land into the lake, the requested variances to expand the