My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-22-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2000-2009
>
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, March 8,2004 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />Bohl stated that it was the intent of the applicant to allow for two residential lots from the <br />beginning, and they have been taxed accordingly. He felt the trunk fees to be excessive for one lot. <br />White moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5128 granting Preliminary <br />Subdivision Approval for Property located at 3220*3240 Watertown Road - File no. 2971. <br />VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />10. #04-2973 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES. 4753 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - <br />VARIANCE <br />Gundlach stated that the applicant requests the follow'ing in conjunction with a previously approved <br />project: A conditional use permit to allow retaining walls to be constructed within 5 ’ of the <br />property line. She explained that the City Engineer visited the site with the City Building Inspector <br />and made specific recommendations which were incorporated as part of a Planning Commission <br />recommendation: however, the applicants arc still requesting a conditional use permit to allow the <br />retaining walls to remain within S’ of the property line. <br />Gundlach indicated that staff would recommend denial of the application consistent with City <br />Building Inspector Bruce Vang’s comments to allow a 4’ setback for a retaining wall when 5 ’ is <br />normally required. <br />Murphy questioned whether allowing the extra foot for the side entrance was a matter of safety. <br />Bob 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 within S* of the property boundary as the plans can be revised to eliminate approval of the <br />conditional use permit, and direct staff to draft a denial resolution for the next regularly scheduled <br />City Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />11. #04-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1801 WEST FARM ROAD - <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 5129 <br />Gaflron explained that the Council tabled this item on February 9, 2004 and directed staff to <br />explore ways to allow the kitchen to remain. Gaffron stated that the primary issue is whether to <br />allow retention of the kitchen, or whether even just the sink, will be allowed. He maintained that it <br />has been staffs opinion that the existence of the kitchen is what functionally differentiates a ‘guest <br />house’ from an ‘accessory building with plumbing’, and is what gives the guest house the ability to <br />function as a dwelling. <br />PAGE 8 of 16 <br />•r ' <br />i
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.