Laserfiche WebLink
r! tr <br />; I ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR AUGUST 11,1997 <br />(#5 - U2267 John O Sullivan - Council Site Plan Approval - Continued) <br />Jabbour asked for staffs opinion. Gappa indicated he supported the additional access and the stop <br />sign would be OK. ^ <br />Jabbour asked O'Sullivan if he had a problem with the stop sign. O’Sullivan indicated he had no <br />problem with a stop sign. Kelley indicated the stop sign may serve no real purpose. <br />Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, approval of temporaiy^ additional access for the O'Sullivan <br />development as shown on the plan listed as Exhibit A in Staffs memo, with the condition that a <br />permanent access be provided as part of the development of the church property, addition of a 6' <br />railing and deletion of the striping of a crosswalk in the middle of the parking lot and to eliminate <br />the stop sign at the entrance to the parking lot off the new access. Goetten asked if the new access <br />was to be temporary. Kelley answered yes. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />( #6) #2269 CONLEY BROOKS & GERALD McCOURTNEY, 1045 FERNDALE ROAD <br />WEST - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT <br />Mr. and Mrs. McCoumtey, Mr. and Mrs. Conley Brooks, Jr. and Bob Mitchell their attorney were <br />present. <br />Gaffron stated this is a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement in that the applicants have purchased <br />the property at 1045 West Femdale and proposed to divide the property. McCourtney will combine <br />the westerly portion of this parcel with his adjacent homestead property 1055 West Femdale Road. <br />Brooks proposes to combine the easterly half of this parcel and the two parcels north of the road, <br />with his adjacent homestead property at 980 West Femdale Road, which is on the north side of the <br />road. <br />Gaffron snted Planning Commission reviewed this request at their July 21st meeting. Their <br />recom ..tended for approval is subject to: <br />1. The westerly portion being legally combined with the McCourtney property. <br />McCourtney to remove the e.xisting residence on that projierty. <br />Tha» the easterly portion of 1045 be combined with Brooks' residence and the two northerly <br />parcels. <br />Hennepin County will not allow this combination across the roadway that Brooks must <br />complete a "Special Lot Combination" for filing in the title of those parcels (identified as <br />Parcels A, E, H and F on the submitted survey). <br />Planning Commission agreed the garage on Parcel H needs to be removed, but acknowledge <br />Brooks may want to leave it as is until he firms up his plans for potentially replacing it. As <br />a result. Planning Commission did not make removal of the existing garage a condition of <br />approval. <br />Planning Commission and staff made it clear that the recommendation for approval does not <br />include approval of, or implied approval of, any actions in regard to Parcels B, C or D as <br />shown on the survey, each of which does not appear on current County plat maps as a <br />separate ta.x parcel, and each of which may require City action or approvals as yet <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />6.