Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23,1995 <br />(Public Comments - Continued) <br />Huit said she recalled the application noting the problem with side yard and roof <br />overhang. Goetten said she would need to review the application Callahan did note that <br />the applicant himself was not presem at the meeting where it was denied He was <br />represented by his architect, Greg Frazee. <br />Callahan moved. Goetten seconded, to put the application back on the Council agenda <br />for the Novembtf 13 meeting of the Council. <br />Hurr questioned if by law the Council can reconsider a denial within the six month time <br />period. Barrett said a Council member who had a prevailing vote could vote to <br />reconsider the application. <br />Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0 <br />ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT <br />(•#4) #1820 HENNEPIN COUNT\’ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL <br />MANAGEMENT - NORTH ARM ACCESS - CONDITIONAL USE <br />PERMIT/VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3620 <br />Hurt moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3620. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />(#5) #2000 CORTLEN G. CLOUTIER, 2480 CASCO POINT ROAD - CLASS I <br />SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION #3621 <br />The Applicant was present. <br />Mabusth reponed that the application is for a Class I subdivision requesting the division <br />of Lot 1 from legally combined lots 3. 4. and ouUot 1 Tie Planning Commission had <br />tabled all consideration of the application providing applicant adequate time to consider <br />the impact of code and options for fiiture divisions The property was purchased by <br />Cloutier in 1967, who legally combined the lots but said it was done in order to receive <br />one ta.x statement In proceeding with the review of the division of Lot I, all LR-IC <br />standards are satistied Combined lots 3 and 4 meet standards for lakeshore lot of LR-IC <br />distnet. There wa.s a question regarding the access driveway with the division of Lot 1. <br />The Planning Commission was concerned if the dnveway was to remain serving both lots, <br />an easement would need to be created. It has been determined that there will be 1/2 acre <br />of dry buildable west of the shared driveway. The area of easement dnveway has b^n <br />deducted StalT supports currem division of lot 1 from lots 3. 4. and outlet I Stafr has <br />asked to state in the resolution that the City and Cloutier agree to disagree but division <br />may occur but future division is subject to City regulations. <br />Cloutier inlbrmed Callahan that he has seen the resolution and is satisfied.