My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-11-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
10-11-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 1:35:22 PM
Creation date
1/25/2023 1:30:07 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
102
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, September 27, 2004 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />5. #04-3049 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB, 200 WOODHILL ROAD - CUP - <br />RESOLUTION NO. 5230 <br />Sanscvere moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5230, a Resolution <br />approving placement of a temporary office module near the tennis barn during major <br />remodeling of the Club’s main buildings which are in Wayzata for approximately 9 months. <br />VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0, McMillan Abstaining. <br />*6. #04-3050 MIKE MCCLELLAND, 2170 MINNETONKA AVENUE - VARIANCE - <br />RESOLUTION NO. 5231 <br />Murphy moved, Sanscvere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5231, a Resolution <br />granting lot area and lot width variances in order to construct a new single family residence <br />on the property located at 2170 Minnetonka Avenue in the RR-IB, 2-acrc zoning district. <br />VOTE; Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br />*7. #04-3051 KEVIN AND JULIE FITZPATRICK, 356 WESTLAKE STREET - <br />VARIANCES -RESOLUTION NO. 5232 <br />Gundlach explained that the applicants had requested lot area, lot width, and north and south side <br />yard setback variances in order to construct a new residence on an existing lot. She stated that it <br />would be staff ,s recommendation to approve the variances as a house has existed on the 50’ wide <br />lot since 1957, the applicants are not able to acquire any other land, the lot was legally formed at <br />the time it was platted, and if the 30’ side yard setbacks were enforced the lot would have no <br />buildable area. She pointed out that the Planning Commission supported approval of the plans on a <br />5-1 vote. <br />A memo presenting the reinforcement of staff s comments was distributed which further clarified <br />staffs support for the lot area/lot width and side setback variance request. In summary the memo <br />stated that the City has neither formally or informally established a policy of denying lot area and <br />width variances in order to force owners of substandard developed lots in single separate <br />ownership to wait to redevelop until they can accumulate additional land. <br />In fact, the Gundlach memo noted that the City has generally granted variances to rebuild on <br />substandard lakeshore lots where hardcover and lot coverage standards could be met. Setback <br />variances have oAen been granted where proposed setbacks are consistent with those in the existing <br />neighborhood. <br />The memo by Gundlach continued, noting that because a number of substandard lots exist in each <br />of Orono’s 'A acre. 1-acre, and 2-acre zoning districts (for example, only 1/3 of the existing LR-IB <br />and LR-IC lots were conforming to the respective minimum area requirements m 1983), vanances <br />to lot area and lot width have been granted on a regular basis. .\ny new policy that would delay <br />redevelopment until additional land becomes available, would be a significant departure from past <br />City practices. <br />PAGE5ofl3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.