10-10-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CiTY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, Sqitember 26,2005 7:00 o ’clock p.m. M. #05-3095 MINNETONKA PORTABLE DREDGING ON BEHALF OF GREGG STEINHAFEL, 2265 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 5380 Wklte moved, McMlIlu soconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 5380, a RcMlutlon granting a CUP to allow conttmctlon of a permanent piling dock in the bed of Lake Minnetonka to extend throngh a lake perimeter wetland for the reeidence at 2265 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayee 5, Nayi 0. *5. #05-3109 NAVARRE CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH ’S WITNESSES, 3655 TOGO ROAD - VARIANCE/REVISED SIGNAGE PLAN - RESOLUTION NO. 5381 White nwved, McMillan eeconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 5381, a Resolution <Mag previonaly approved R^ln^n #5331 with regard to signage for 3655 Togo Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *6. #05-3129 ASCENT INVESTMENTS, INC. ON BAHALF OF DOUGLAS KLINT, 1345 REST POINT LANE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5382 White moved, McMiUan seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 5382, a Resointioa graatiag lot area and lot width variaaces for 1345 Rest Point Lane. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 7. #05-3136 TROY BROITZMAN, 1860 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCE Curtis explained that a CUP to allow the addition of 5,400 cubic yards of grading was added to the applicant’s initial request for lot width and average lakeshore setback variances in order to construct a new home on the property. The exported fill would facilitate walk-outs on the front and back of the home. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot width variance and denial of the conditional use permit. Curtis stated that planning staff also reconunends approval of the lot width variance subject to the City Engineer’s approval of the proposed grading plan. She pointed out that the City had received numerous comments from neighboring property owners, many of which were present, and that issues for consideration include: is the grading plan appropriate for the neighbwhood: should the retaining wall along the driveway area of the 90X45’ paiidng apron be moved to meet a greater setback to allow for no need to im;>o>:: on the neighboring property, to allow for better screening opportunities, and to reduce the pcvtnx al impacts associated with a garage apron that could hold nearly 20 cars. Sansevere stated that he had reservations as to even allowing the lot width variance to go forward. He asked why the applicant chose to move forward to City Council having been denied by the Plaiming Conunission. Curtis stated that, at this width, the applicant will be losing his ability to adequately screen the proposed building if granted. With regard to Sansevere's inquiry, Broitzman stated that he saw no where in the City Code a reason for denial of what he proposed. He stated that he had gone to great lengths to be very PAGE 4 of 10 J