Laserfiche WebLink
� c�t� .o� oR,oNo <br /> • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> � NO. 2292 <br /> � <br /> ' • � • • <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 finaY transmittal of <br /> surface run-off to lake via an underground tile as existed <br /> bef ore. <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 /> folYowing findings noted by Commission Members: <br /> A. The City wouYd 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 Iake via the existing underground tile. <br /> D. Drainage appears a convenient explanation to grant the <br /> walkout 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 negative 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 resc?lution noting the following findings: <br /> Page 7 of 13 <br />