Resolution 2576 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7 r 1 LJ City of oR,olvo RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2576 12. The following code sections were violated with the construction of the dock: Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (A) - Time of construction. No accessory structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. Section 10.25, Subdivision 5 (A) - Accessory uses. Any accessory uses regulated in the R-lA zoning district, any private docks subject to the City Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations. 13. On May 20, 1988, staff met with Al Michaels, the attorney representing persons with an interest in the property, regarding the violation and advised of the necessary administrative steps to be taken in order for the City to determine that a dock can be legally installed on the property, as a dock is considered an accessory structure, staff recommended that a lot area variance application be filed with the City in order to determine if the lot was a buildable lot. If the lot was deemed unbuildable, then it was appropriate for the current owners to ask what other reasonable uses can be made of the property. 14. Tracts F & G of RLS #1216 were purchased by the applicants in 1987. The tax records refer to the fee owners as Coffee Landings. 15. At a preliminary application conference with the applicants, they advised staff that they had met with the Administrator of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District prior to constructing the dock in order to determine if there was legal authority to construct a dock on the property. The Administrator has since advised staff that he cautions all persons to check the regulations of the local jurisdictions before any improvements or use is installed. Applicants failed to contact the City of Orono even to question the need for a building permit for such construction. 16. On May 26, 1988, the applicants filed a lot area variance application with the specific purpose of maintaining a dock on the property without a principal structure., 17. The applicants were allowed to retain the dock until the buildability of the property was resolved by the Council. The app 1 icants were asked to not use the dock unti 1 the Counci 1 had made a final decision concerning the future use of the property. Is 18. On June 20, 1988, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the lot area phase of the variance applicationand recommended denial of the requested variance based on the following findings: Page 4 of 9