Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 22, 1991 <br />( #3)ZONING FILE #1497 - TOBERMAN CONTINUED <br />signature on the Waiver will be in regard to any new owners of <br />this property. <br />Barrett replied, "The Land Use Statutes in Minnesota allow, <br />and in fact require, us to file Conditional Use Permits against <br />the land. We have also provided that the Waiver, which Mr. <br />Toberman would sign, would be filed with the Conditional Use <br />Permit. To that extent, any subsequent purchaser is on notice of <br />the condition." <br />It was moved by Butler, seconded by Goetten, to adopt <br />Resolution #2953, and accept the changes that have been made by <br />the applicant's attorney. Motion, Ayes -3, Mayor: Peterson, <br />Callahan, Nay. Motion passed. <br />( #4)ZONING FILE #1629- MCNULTY CONSTRUCTION <br />1700 FOX STREET <br />VARIANCE <br />James McNulty, Hugh MacMillan, Duncan MacMillan, and Jack <br />Taylor, Attorney, were present. <br />Bernhardson stated that based -on action taken by Council at <br />their April 8, 1991, meeting, a denial resolution is being <br />presented for Council's review this evening. He noted that the <br />Cit1 Attorney's office had only a brief opportunity to review <br />this resolution, and suggested that Council may wish to table <br />this' matter. <br />Mayor Peterson asked Jack Taylor if he would like Council to <br />table or proceed with this application. <br />Taylor stated that his clients would prefer to proceed, and <br />he asked for.the opportunity to make a few brief statements. 'He <br />said, "There are three factors I would ask Council to consider. <br />First, the City has adopted no policy with respect to lot <br />coverage for a principal residence on lots exceeding two acres. <br />ks • 'was--the- case,.- in - 1987., and is . still true . today,, these <br />improvements could have been made to the principal structure. In <br />1987, Council did find sufficient hardship to merit approval of <br />the Variances requested. I believe those hardships, set forth;in <br />Resolution #22.04, still exist today. Based on the 1987 approval, <br />the applicant constructed the building in accordance with the <br />requirements and conditions. What we now have, as applied to <br />this Variance, is a piece of property and improvements that <br />comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Based on the action taken by <br />Council in 1987, and what the applicant agreed to in 1987, with <br />regard to restrictions, this property is now truly unique. The <br />accessory building has been operational for two years, and there <br />have been no adverse consequences to the neighborhood. We feel <br />these factors need to be considered by Council wren they make <br />their decision. <br />- 6 - - <br />