Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 11, 1995 <br />( #7 - #1958 Louis Oberhauser - Continued) 0 <br />Mabusth noted that a renter is in one house and would need to be given a 30 day notice. <br />Mabusth was asked if the final subdivision could be subject to the removal of the <br />structure. Mabusth asked what if the final approval was one year away. Goetten <br />suggested a time of 30 days for one structure removal and another in reasonable time and <br />until final approval. <br />Oberhauser said he would remove the two boarded up houses as soon as possible in <br />January, but he wanted some assurance that the building envelope would be approved. <br />Oberhauser agreed to move the proposed residence out of the 0 -75' zone but asked for <br />structural hardcover variance as Lot 1 would be smaller than it is now. <br />Hurr said she was not convinced that the shoreline for each lot needs to be equal. <br />Oberhauser said it would make sense to have 75' of lakeshore. If this was not possible, <br />he said he would leave the one house. Mabusth commented to Oberhauser that he would <br />need a variance to remodel the house. <br />Callahan said the City would like the buildings removed by final plat and suggested <br />setting a deadline with a letter of credit posted by a certain date. <br />Jabbour reiterated that the two lots would be exclusive of hardcover in the 0 -75' setback <br />zone. An additional variance would be granted to the setback to a 5' from the road right - <br />of -way with a lot area variance for lot 1 with the understanding that two buildings be <br />eliminated within 30 days and the other within 90 days. <br />Goetten said she would like the packet brought back before the Council. <br />Jabbour asked that the letter of credit and developer's agreement be done immediately to <br />expedite the matter. <br />Callahan asked Mabusth if the applicant withdrew his application, does the City have any <br />rights concerning the removal of the houses. Mabusth referred this to the City Attorney. <br />Barrett said the nature of the hazard is demonstrated by the hazardous condition and <br />would be allowed by count order after significant litigation. <br />Callahan said that something must be done. He asked Barrett to suggest what is required <br />but asked that court proceedings begin on January 30, 1996. Court proceedings will <br />occur on that date unless the City has the letter of credit and the developer's agreement is <br />signed. <br />Hun asked if approval would be conceptual. Mabusth said yes as Staff would need to <br />see the shared driveway plans and the building plans. i <br />8 <br />