Laserfiche WebLink
0 h <br />Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members <br />City Administrator Bernhardson <br />Proai: Jeanne A. Mabusthr Building & Zoning Administrator <br />Date: May 5, 1989 <br />Subject: #1135 Robert Hanning, 4220 Sixth Avenue North - <br />Request for Extension of Completion Date <br />from June 1, 1989 to September 30, a989 <br />Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.09, Subdivision 8 <br />List of Rsdiibits - <br />Exhibit A - Current Request of Hannings <br />Exhibit B - Resolution #2183 <br />Exhibit C - Application #1135 <br />Exhibit D - Council Minutes of 5/11/87 <br />Exhibit E - Amend' \ Grading Plan <br />In reviewing the above referenced ordinance section, staff <br />would call your attention to the line that reads as follows: <br />"A conditional use permit may be renewed for an additional <br />period of one year provided that the request be filed prior <br />to the expiration of one year from the date when the use <br />permit is filed with the zoning administrator." <br />The deadline for the jletion of the work was established <br />as June 1, 1989. The actual filing date of this application was <br />March 20, 1987. According to the directives of the ordinance, <br />any request to extend this application probably should have been <br />received before May 20, 1988. Unfortunately, the applicants <br />cannot apply under this section of the code, and must apply as a <br />special request to the Council for their three-month extension. <br />In earlier discussions with Mrs. Hanning, she advised that <br />they were unable to receive the amounts of fill originally <br />promised by Park Construction. My response was that I did not <br />feel that it would be appropriate for Council to extend this <br />conditional use permit beyond the two years if they could not <br />provide adequate proof that they reached a written/formal <br />committment for additional fill. It should also be noted that at <br />that time staff had not realized what the specific directives of <br />the ordinances were. <br />The berm as it exists today is approximately 4-5* above <br />existing grade, approximately 1* above the crown of Sixth Avenue <br />North. Remember the original berm was to be at an 11* height <br />(refer to the attached amended sketch). The berm has only been <br />constructed to the north side of the private driveway and has not <br />been filled to the south side.