My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-11-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
07-11-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2023 10:24:49 AM
Creation date
1/12/2023 9:37:59 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
548
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, June 27,2005 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />McMiltaa Moved, SoMcvere Mcoadod, that the guest house be allowed to remain until such time that It Is <br />redeveloped based on eilstlag hardshlpe due to septic sites, back-lot scenario and the topography of the site. <br />VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, White and Murphy dissenting dne to the lack of hardship. <br />McMillan moved. White seconded, that Lot 6 be considered a back-lot, with the elimination of the Fox <br />Street access for safety reasons. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />WHh regard to the septic sites, Gaffron pointed out that the first septic site must be built now to serve the main and <br />guest houses, before final plat approval. <br />Murphy moved. White seconded, that the City CouncU accepts the premise that two 7-bcdroom septic <br />monnd systems are saflkieat with one to be built within one year, and a second site to be preserved for <br />Ihtursnse. VOTE: AyesS,Nays0. <br />White moved, and then withdrew a motion to require the applicant to complete a tree survey, as no policy is in <br />place to demand this of an applicant, thus unfair in this situation. <br />¥ <br />Abukhadra suited that his family wishes to preserve as many trees as possible, though removal of some trees is <br />necessary. <br />McMillan questioned how the lakeshoie or shoreland overlay might impact fUture access via docks etc. <br />Abukhadra stated that there is one dock at the peninsula of the property currently. <br />Though difficult to define, Gaffron pointed out that, since the property is at the 929.4 elevation, it is within the <br />Lake Minnetonka boundary, and should therefore be subject to lakeshoie setbacks of 75’ from the shoreline. He <br />asked whether Council would accept a dock. <br />McMillan stated that she folt preservation of the lakeshore was essential; therefore, a 75’ setback was important <br />with the allowance of a small dock at the peninsula, though no canopies. , <br />Pa^9of 17
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.