Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 26, 1987 <br />#1119 W. DUNCAN MACMILLAN CONT. <br />Councilmembers Sime and Goetten expressed their concern <br />over the possible subdivision of the property. They <br />stated that an acreage condition needed to be a part of <br />the resolution of approval and that their preliminary <br />support of the application was based in part on that <br />understanding. <br />Mr. McNulty noted that the owners have made no attempt <br />to date to subdivide the property, however, it is in the <br />2 acre zone and at some future date this may become a <br />desirable option. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson noted one minor amendment <br />in the Resolution, Page 5, Condition #7 should read as <br />follows: "recording of resolution and the covenants in <br />the chain of title. " <br />Councilmember Sime stated he is in favor of staying at <br />the 13+ acres, and if they want to change it they can <br />come before the Council at a later date. <br />Councilmember Callahan noted he also feels they should <br />stay at the 13 acre minimum. Also, he would like to <br />amend the Resolution, Page 2, #C by deleting the <br />following: . "Additionally, the City ordinances would <br />allow . . . both should be treated similarly." <br />It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember <br />Sime, to table acceptance of the resolution with the <br />amended changes to give Mr. McNulty time to review the <br />minimum acreage and inability to subdivide the property <br />at a future date with the owners and this item to be <br />brought back to the June 8th meeting. Motion, Ayes 5, <br />nays 0. <br />#1135 ROBERT HANNING, JR. <br />4220 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <br />RESOLUTION #2183 <br />No one was present for this matter. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson explained that Council <br />had directed staff on a 3 -2 vote to draft a resolution <br />approving the proposed variance for a berm to extend up <br />to 11' above the crown of the road on private property. <br />Councilmember Callahan asked staff if the resolution was <br />worded in such a way as to protect the wetlands adjacent <br />to the berm.and staff concurred that it did. <br />It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by <br />Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2183 per <br />staff and Planning Commission recommendation. Motion, <br />Ayes 4, Nays 1. Mayor Grabek voted nay stating he did <br />not like the thought of having an 11' berm along 600' of <br />roadway with a small break for the driveway. <br />h <br />