05-26-1987 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 26, 1987 11117 WILLARD C. SHULL Mayor Grabek felt that approving the application would be setting a precedent and the hardships noted do not justify this structure. He also noted that if staff receives complaints or sees any violation of the ordinances regarding these ramps, they should be handled in the appropriate manner. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that these structures are in violation of the 0 -75' zone hardcover limit. Also, storage of the boat on land and in the front yard is also in violation of the zoning code. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the applicant has only 30' of lakeshore not included in the conservation.easement. Councilmember Goetten asked.the applicant what his course of action will be if the application is denied. Mr. Shull stated he will start an application with the DNR for a permanent dock with dredging. He also noted that approximately 1/2 of the sand bottom of the lake is silt. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Sime, to adopt Resolution #2182 denying the variance per Planning Commission recommendation. Ayes 3, Nays 2. Councilmembers Goetten and Peterson voted nay. .119 W. DUNCAN MACMILLAN 1700 FOX STREET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE Mr. McNulty, representative for the applicants, was present. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that at the last meeting, Council directed staff to draft a resolution to allow the variance for. the construction of a sports center with a conditional use permit for the caretaker residence. The resolution outlined 5 conditions which should be addressed by covenants which - needed°to be met by the applicant, subject to satisfaction and acceptance by the City Attorney. One of the conditions involved setbacks and also left an unspecified amount of acreage for the Council to deem appropriate, in order that the primary house and recreational structure are always preserved as one. Mr. McNulty, representing the applicant, felt that by setting the 150' setback --limit on the recreational Structure and the caretaker's residence from other properties, that should basically satisfy the issue without putting in the additional acreage restrictions (9.5 acres would meet the 150' setback). Applicant would prefer that the City drop the acreage requirement as part of the covenant. The 9.5 acres would leave a 4 acre parcel to the north and west, but removing the 9.5 acre restriction would allow a possible 2 acre split from the southeast corner of the property. 6