Laserfiche WebLink
Citi- of ORO, -NO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. -. J <br />A RESOLUTION GRANTING <br />VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL CODE <br />SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 AND 2, <br />SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 <br />AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <br />PER SECTIONS 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 AND 20 <br />PILE NO. 1223 <br />WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized <br />and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and <br />WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq. <br />the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted a Community Management <br />Plan and Zoning Regulations for the protection of the public health, safety <br />and general welfare; and <br />WHEREAS, John and Lynn Waldron (hereinafter "the applicants") are <br />the owners of the property located at 1951 Concordia Street and legally <br />described as follows: <br />The Southerly 1/2 of Lot 7 and all of Lot 8, Gust S. Johnson's <br />Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and <br />WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of 1.1rono <br />for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and 2 <br />and Section 10.55, Subdivisicn 8, for construction of a deck which <br />constitutes structure and hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone <br />where no such hardcover and structure is normally allowed, and which <br />encroaches on the required average lakeshore setback; and for a further <br />variance to Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and a conditional use permit per <br />Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 and 20 for filling, grading and excavation <br />within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where such work is not normally <br />allowed; and <br />WHEREAS, on November 16th, 198'", the Orono Planning Commission <br />held a public hearing on this matter, at ,.hich time any and all members of <br />the public wishing to comment on the proposal were heard. The Planning <br />Commission then voted 4 in favor, 0 against, 1 abstention to recommend <br />denial of the applicants original proposal to create a walkout by <br />excavating within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, finding that other <br />methods for bank stabilization exist, that the walkout excavation was not <br />related to the bank erosion stabilization needs, that the walkout <br />excavation would not be in character or in comformity with the majority of <br />neighboring residenc(-s, and that allowing the walkout excavation would set <br />a precedent in conflict with current City philosophy and past denials of <br />similar prop-sals; and <br />Page 1 of 10 <br />