Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />I\-1EETING HELD ON OCTOBER 23, 1995 <br />(Public Comments -Continued) <br />Hurr 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 present ar 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 November 13 meeting of the Council. <br />Hurr questioned ifby law the Council can reconsider a denial \.vithin the SL'< 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 />~-- <br />ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT <br />(:l:#4) #1820 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARThlENT OF ENVIRONJ\fENTAL <br />MANAGEMENT -NORTH ARI\1 ACCESS -CONDITIONAL USE <br />PERMIT/VARIAN CE -RESOLUTION #3620 <br />Hurr moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3620. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />(#5) #2000 CORTLEN G. CLOUTIE~ 2480 CASCO POINT ROAD -CLASS I <br />SUBDIVISION -RESOLUTION #3621 <br />The Applicant was present. <br />Mabusth reported that the application is for a Class I subdivision requesting the division <br />ofLot 1 from legally combined lots 3, 4, and outlot 1. The Planning Commission had <br />tabled all consideration of the application providing applicant adequate time to consider <br />the impact of code and options for future 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 tax statement. In proceeding with the review of the division of Lot 1, all LR-IC <br />standards are satisfied. Combined lots 3 and 4 meet standards for lakeshore lot ofLR-lC <br />district. There was a question regarding the access driveway with the division of Lot 1. <br />The Planning Commission was concerned if the driveway 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 driveway has been <br />deducted. Staff supports current division oflot 1 from lots 3~ 4, and outlet 1. Staff 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 />Goutier informed Callahan that he has seen the resolution and is satisfied. <br />4