Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR MAY 10, 1999 <br />• (Public Comments, continued) <br />Harvey Reder, 3596 Livingston Avenue, said that his property borders one of the subject <br />properties. He said that Mr. Forrester has a legitimate complaint. <br />Alexandra Swenson, 2285 Blaine Avenue, said she also has to look at these two properties. <br />She said she has complained to the City, but nothing has been done. She said she lives in a <br />beautiful area and she does not want to look at the garbage on the two properties. She wants <br />something done as soon as possible. <br />Sansevere asked if someone can be forced to finish a house. <br />Peterson asked what the time frame is for a building permit. <br />Moorse said he would get that information. <br />Forrester said that he talked to Lyle Oman about the permit and if one nail a year is pounded, <br />the permit is good. He said the owner of the property lives in Inver Grove Heights and never <br />shows up at the property. <br />Flint said that when neighbors complain, the City should take some action and this situation is <br />• inexcusable. <br />0 <br />ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT <br />( 0) #2466 JAMES RENCKENS, 3020 WATERTOWN ROAD - REQUEST FOR <br />RECONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION <br />James Renckens and John Winston, applicants, were present. <br />Gaffron presented the staff report. He stated that on April 12th the Council voted 2 -1 to <br />approve the preliminary plat subject to the platting of the 50' road outlot along the north <br />boundary of the property, but granting a variance to the "back lot" ordinance standards by <br />allowing the creation of a flag lot. He said that the applicants are in opposition to platting the <br />50' road outlot and are requesting that the Council move to reconsider the action of April 12. <br />Staff met with the applicants on May 6 and concluded that there are issues presented which <br />deserve additional staff research and consideration. The neighbors and interested parties have <br />not been notified for reopening discussion. He said that if the Council wants to reconsider the <br />matter, one of the two Council members who voted in favor of the motion on April 12, could <br />make a motion to re -open consideration of the application. If the matter is re- opened, staff <br />would recommend that it be tabled for two weeks so that all the interested parties can be <br />notified. <br />Page 3 <br />