Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, February 27, 2017 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />8. #16-3814 ALEXANDER DESIGN GROUP ON BEHALF OF PETER AND MELISSA <br />SANTRACH, 1700 BOHN'S POINT ROAD, REVISED HOUSE LOCATION -RESOLUTION <br />NO. (continued) <br />Printup stated he is fine with the average lakeshore setback. <br />Walsh noted the applicants did not request a stru ctural coverage variance so the City Council cannot grant <br />a variance. <br />Gustafson noted the square footage of t his house is actually smaller than what was originally approved <br />even though the structural coverage number is higher. <br />Dankey moved, Crosby seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. , a Resolution Amending <br />Resolution No. 6613 Regarding Variances Granted for Property Located at 1700 Bohn's Point <br />Road, File No. 16-3814. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />#17-3901 MIKE DEMENGE, 4380 SIXTH A VENUE NORTH, VARIANCES- <br />LUTION NO. <br />Printup :ved, Seals seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO., a Resolution Approving-·Variances <br />from Muni~ l Code 58-47 and Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-395, for the pr91ferty located at <br />4380 Sixth Aven e North, File No. 17-3901. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ,/ ~ / <br />10. DEVELOP~~T PROCESS REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOM1'JE~DA TIONS <br />. ,, 1l·· <br />Barnhart stated the Developirt'eJ)t Process Review committee has met twice' since the beginning of the <br />year. This committee is comprfs~ of builders, users of City services1,sfaff, and two Council Members. <br />The goal of the committee is to rev~ the City's processes to see )Yl'iether any improvements can be <br />made. Some of the recommended cha~s can be implemented_immediately and some changes will <br />require an amendment to the City Code. 'M9-st of the change~.fo City Code require a review by the <br />Planning Commission and a public hearing.'"' ... ·· <br />"-., _.,· <br />The Committee is recommending the following: '\,( <br />/ "-,, <br />1. Removal of the escrow agreement for _prbjects th1 t--0:o not include a new building or an addition to <br />a building. The escrow agreement 9asically guarantees. that the builder is going to pay their bills <br />as part of their permit. Staff does,•not suggest removing-·th_e protection between buyers and sellers <br />found in Section 58-77. , .. / ' , <br />,,:•,·· ·," <br />2. Removal of the requiremerti for an escrow deposit. Staff does not.recommend this change since <br />this is an effective tool in completing and maintaining erosion control i&sues and providing the as- <br />built surveys and ot~i-documentation, as well as payment of pass-through __ ~ngineering and legal <br />fees, to the benefit-bf the general taxpayer. ·-., <br />~ <br />3. Modification,t6 what is required in surveys or, at a minimum, when surveys are required. To <br />meet the G✓mmittee goals, Staff recommends amendment to Section 86-68 which stipul . tes when <br />a survey.o'r site plan must be completed by a person registered by the state of Minnesota.-", <br />l "'l / ~ <br />// Page 16 of 23 /. <br />/