04-10-1989 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE OROMO COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 27, 1989 ZONING FILE 11364-GAGE CONTINUED lakeshore setback zone. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1382 JOHN ROGERS 755 TONKAWA ROAD VARIANCES RESOLUTION #2605* It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve Resolution #2605, granting variances for additional structure in the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone for John and Lois Rogers, 755 Torkawa Road. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1366 LOREN BUTTERFIELD 3925 WATERTOWN ROAD SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #2610 City Administrator Bernhardson reviewed the factors involved in this request for a subdivision. A portion of the five acre lot involved is across the Luce Line Trail. The property of Lot 2, north of the Luce Line contains the 2-acre minimum dry contiguous land required for building. The DNR has granted a public easement to cross the Luce Line, however, that easement does not connect in any way with Lot 2. The steep topography bordering this property limits the ability to access it. The southern portion of Lot 2 contains wetlands and the northern portion has a retention pond which Mr. Butterfield installed in 1953. The pond is used mainly for collecting runoff that results from Mr. Butterfield's nursery and is recycled back into the nursery operation and a reserve for fire. Mr. Butterfield hc.s used the wetlands as a source of peat for his nursery, although he does not sell it commercially. A drainage easement for the pond on Lot 2 is being recommended and would allow Mr. Butterfield to continue pumping from the pond. A conservation and flowage easement on Outlot A and B, for the utilization of wc'ter and peat is recommended and would be subject to the guidelines of a conditional use permit. A variance would be required due to the greenhouse structure being located 1* from the proposed lot line of Outlot C. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the Planning Commission recommended that no accessory structures be allowed south of the Luce Line Trail. Mr. Butterfield would like an exception to the recommendation. A secondary issue would be the setbacks. The setbacks may vary depending upon what would classify as the rear lot line. If accessory b»:ilaings were allowed south of the Luce Line, appropriate setbacks Vvould need to be determined. The standard 26* from tha wetlands would apply. Mr. Butterfield oointed out the fact that prior to applying for the subdivision, he could put accessory structures south of the Luce Line. He did not understand how a subdivision application could take away rights that he previously possessed. He also commented that there are other lots south of the Luce