Resolution 2182 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� Clt� o� ORONO • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �,� NO. 2182 tJl� ' • - • • 16. The Council would ask the applicant to employ other alternatives to deal with possible problems related to vegetation. 17. The applicant wishes to store his boat out of the water because of the potential of damage created by wave action. Council can appreciate this concern especially on Long Lake given its size and level of boating activities. As with Lake Minn.etonka, Council recommends increasing the number of ties used to secure boat in addition to designing the slip such that ties can be installed on three sides, slip structure to be provided with "cushioning" like protection. 18. Mr. Crosby, in the letter referenced in Finding #7 dated May 5, 1987, responds to concerns involving the Council's policy/procedure in dealing with similar structures that exist throughout the Orono community. Crosby states in denying the Shull variance application for a boat ramp and allowing other similar structures to remain would appear to be selective enforcement of the City's ordinances. • 19. In 1985, the Council adopted a similar policy in dealing with the issue of the storage of boats in excess of the al lowed 20 feet length on residential properties. The Council responded to neighbors' complaints and denied a variance application that sought to al low an applicant to store a boat 30 feet in length in a side/street yard area (Resolution No. 1749 - Application No. 884). Staff was directed to deal with each case uporr complaint of affected neighbor, and to request a variance application if resident was not a'�le to meet boat storage standards for residential property. 20. The City of Orono has never approved a variance for a residential boat ramp. The Shull application would be the first such application. 21. The situation of the landowner is not recognized by the Council as unique to this property as varying intensities of lakebed vegetation exist throughout the shoreline areas of the City. 22. Economic considerations shal 1 not constitute an undue hardship if other reasonable measures of boat storage are available. 23. In denying this variance application, the City is not depriving the applicant of the continued enjoyment and preservation of a substantial property right. Navigational access to the property is not inhibited with this .denial. � ; • 24. The reasons as presented by the applicant are not considered hardships within the standards set forth in the Municipal Code to warrant approval of this variance request and, if approved as proposed, the City would be responding on the basis of a convenience to the applicant. Page 4 of 5