My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-14-1985 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1985
>
01-14-1985 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/13/2025 10:37:02 AM
Creation date
11/13/2025 10:24:50 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
399
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
A <br />LEGALLY <br />City of ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. <br />RESOLUTION DENYING AN AF'F'E,',LS APPLICATION <br />THAT WORLD EXEMPT THE DIVISION CF <br />COME+INED LOTS FROM THE SUPD?VISION REGULATIONS <br />OF THE CITY OF ORONO <br />WHEREAS, per Section 10.06 subdivision 2 John Ericson <br />(hereafter "applicant") filed an appeals application with the <br />City that sought to clarify the application of the subdivision <br />regulations of the City in the division of applicant's legally <br />combined lots described as Lot'_., Lot 4 and the south 5 feet of <br />Lot 2 Shadywood according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin <br />County, Minnesota (Hereafter "the property"); and <br />WHEREAS, the applicant was aware of the Orono City <br />Council's (he-reefter "City)) year long study and final resolution <br />of the matter of requests to sell r_r separate contiguous sewered <br />substandard lots held in common ownership, that resolution would <br />afford lots under common ownership the same review precedure <br />provided for substandard lots held in single separa.to ownership. - <br />and <br />WHEREAS, the applicant was advised that Section 11.4.3,, <br />66 Subdivision, Llassification, Item .' would require the f ling <br />of a formal subdivision application if legally combined lots are <br />to be divide; and that the proposed applicz-tion would also <br />involve multiple variance applications; and <br />WHEREAS, the applicant filed an appeals icati n <br />seeking direction from the City in order to ietermin if the <br />review procedure and performance• standards established for <br />substandard lots owned in common would now apply to the division <br />of lots legally combined for ta:: purposes; and <br />WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the <br />applicant's appeals application, the recommendation of the <br />Planning Commission, the written comments of the applicant's <br />attorney, the oral comments of both the applicant and applicant's <br />attorney. <br />Page 1 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.