08-28-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

:d to oper ions: >n No. rom :11 idled to be ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 2000•/. U2599 Bob and Wendy Beutler, 684 Tonkawa Road—Variances—Resolution No. 4504 —Contin ued Flint moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4504 granting variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit new residential construction on a 0.68 acre lot where 1.0 acre is required and having a lot width of 85 feet where 140 feet is required, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C)(6) to permit a 12 foot encroachment of the average lakeshore setback where no encroachment is normally allowed. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *5. #2600 Brian Kerber, 740 Orchard Park Road—Variances—Resolution No. 4505 Flint moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4505 granting variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) to permit construction of a 2,160 square foot pole barn (60’ x 36*) where 2,000 square feet is allowed, and Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) to permit the existing garage to be relocated on the property 72.9 feet from the north property line where 100 feet is required. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 6. #2602 Thomas and Jennifer Graham, 1065 Tamarack drive—Preliminary Subdivision—Resolution No. 4506 Thomas and Jennifer Graham, and John Graham, son, were in attendance. Weinberger stated that the developed 5.1 acre lot is proposed to be subdivided to create a 2.0 acre building site north of the existing house. Both proposed lots meet or exceed standards of the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Hennepin County has requested additional right-of-way for trail purposes along County Road 6 that would require about 10 additional feet of right-of-way and would be dedicated on the final plat. The final request from Hennepin County was 50 feet from the centerline of County Road 6. An issue discussed was the future use of the accessory building, a bam currently used for equipment storage, located on proposed Lot 1. The applicants have requested that the accessory building be allowed to remain after the lot is subdivided as long as the two properties remain in common ownership. The applicants have stated they would agree to file a covenant on the chain of title alerting future property owners a time limit would restrict the length of time the building would be permitted to remain on the property once the lots are no longer under common ownership. The Planning Commission recommended that the bam be removed or a residence constmeted on Lot 1 within 18 months of recording the final plat, regardless of L__