My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-22-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
03-22-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 8:54:44 AM
Creation date
1/19/2023 3:25:48 PM
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.
/
390
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
/. <br />MIN U1 Ul* THIS • <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, March 8, 2004 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />10. #04-2973 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES, 4753 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - <br />VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. <br />Oundlach suted that the ^>plicant requests the following in conjunction with a previously approved <br />project: A conditional use permit to allow retaining walls to be corutructed within S’ of the <br />property line. She explained that the City Engineer visited die site with the City Building Inspector <br />and made specific recommendations which were incorporated as part of a Planning Commission <br />recommendation; however, the applicant’s are still requesting a conditional use permit to allow the <br />retaining walls to remain within S’ of the property line. <br />Oundlach indicated that staff would recommend denial of the consistent with City Building <br />Inspector Bruce Vang’s comments to allow a 4' setback for a retaining wall when S' is normally <br />required. <br />Murphy questioned whether allowing the extra foot for the aide entrance was a matter of safety. <br />3ob Piper and Steve Sexton, of Minnetonka Custom Homes, indicated that they placed the safety <br />railing inside the block retaining wall. <br />Gaffron pointed out that the original plans the Planning Commission saw showed the entrance <br />facing the street and not a side entrance. <br />McMillan pointed out that there is a drainage problem that needs to be addressed and that is why <br />the Engineer had suggested a S’ separation and construction of a drainage swale instead of <br />retaining walls. <br />White moved, Sansevere seconded, to deny the conditional use permit request to allow a retaining <br />wall widrin S’ of the property boundary as the plans can be revised to eliminate approval of die <br />conditional use permit, and direct staff to draft a denial resolution for the next regularly scheduled <br />PAGE 11 of 23
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.