Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD APRIL 12, 1993 <br />( * #7) #1783/ #1784 DAVID CARLSON, <br />610 BIG ISLAND - <br />VARIANCE /CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION #3265 <br />It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution <br />#3265 for Applications #1783/ #1784 for David Carlson, 610 Big <br />Island, approving a variance to allow a seasonal dwelling to be <br />constructed in front of the average setback line, and a conditional <br />use permit to allow such construction within the flood plain. Ayes <br />4, nays 0. <br />( * #8) #1785 DAVID CARLSON, <br />610/620 BIG ISLAND - <br />FINAL SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION #3266 <br />It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution <br />#3266 for Application #1785 for David Carlson, 610/620 Big Island, <br />approving the plat of Island Pointe. Ayes 4, nays 0. <br />• ( * #9) #1795 LUANN WALTERS, <br />3800 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION #3267 <br />It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution <br />#3267 for Application #1795 for LuAnn Walters, 3800 Wayzata <br />Boulevard, granting a conditional use permit for a day care use. <br />Ayes 4, nays 0. <br />( #10) #1804 MICHAEL REVIER, <br />2691 ETHEL AVENUE - <br />VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3268 <br />Mabusth explained the applicant seeks an average lakeshore setback <br />variance for a proposed house to be located completely in front of <br />the average Lakeshore setback line, which has been determined based <br />on an adjoining lot that is platted with a narrow corridor to the <br />lakeshore. The former residence located on the property was also <br />in front of the average setback line. She reported Mr. Amundson, <br />the most impacted, neighbor, has no concerns. She indicated that in <br />a recent conversation with Mr. Kauffman, neighboring property owner <br />to the southeast across the narrow corridor lot, that if his house <br />were used to determine the average setback line there would be no <br />need for the variance. Mr. Kauffman had concern about the proximity <br />of the proposed driveway to the lot line, and the applicant has <br />• proposed plantings along the lot line to screen the drive. The <br />Runkles, adjoining property owners to the north of the subject lot, <br />are in strong opposition to the project. <br />3 <br />