My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-11-1988 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
07-11-1988 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/27/2012 4:26:08 PM
Creation date
8/27/2012 4:26:08 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988 <br />proposes to move the house and, and in selecting the new site, she <br />• will consider required setbacks if there is a future division of <br />the property. Mabusth explained that the house would be <br />positioned on property so that at least one acre could be <br />subdivided in the future. Goetten stated that she just assumed <br />that the house was going to be built about where it was and was <br />concerned about any other additions now that the location of <br />building has been moved. Mabusth stated that everything would be <br />left as it is depending upon where the driveway for the 'new <br />principal residence would be located. Callahan inquired as to how <br />far it was from the Channel to what appears to be the lot line <br />-running parallel to the vacated alley ?. Mabusth said it was <br />farther than 751. Is it possible to divide this property into <br />three? Mabusth stated it was if they meet the 140 ft. lakeshore <br />standard. She has no idea where the Applicant proposes to place <br />the house. Bernhardson stated that it was approximately 380' wide <br />:and it would take 420!: of width to create, three lots. <br />Goetten expressed concern as to whether the City would be giving <br />Applicant a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house and caretaker <br />house and they are now talking about moving the house. Mabusth <br />explained that that was the whole reason why they had to ask the <br />Applicant to come in for the Conditional Use Permit, because of <br />the proposed construction of anew residence. The City Planning <br />staff has to give the Applicant the most background so that when <br />they are planning for the future, when they place that new <br />principal residence, if they are planning to divide the lot in the <br />• future, that it has the correcrt setbacks. More than likely the <br />guest house and caretaker house would not stay. Mayor moved to <br />accept the Planning Commission recommendation as stated, seconded. <br />Goetten asked for additional findings showing the additional non- <br />conforming structure. Motion by Mayor Grabek, seconded by <br />Councilmember Peterson to adopt Resolution #2468 approving C.V.P. <br />Motion, Ayes -4, Nays -0. <br />j <br />#1101 HOWARD BISINGER <br />REQUEST TO EXTEND CONDITIONAL -USE PERMIT <br />RESOLUTION #2192 <br />Howard Eisinger was present for this matter. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson explained that Mr. Eisinger was <br />granted a Conditional Use Permit for his property on Wayzata <br />Boulevard last year that ran for one year. The expectation is <br />{ that he is going to get fill from the I -394 construction and use <br />substantial fill in his property. Zoning Administrator Mabusth <br />outlined some of the options. The Council could deny any <br />;. extension of the Conditional Use Permit that was granted last <br />year. They could approve it fora specific period of time with an <br />extension, as suggested by Mabusth until October 31. We have been <br />given an indication that the bond has been extended. The concern <br />of the City, which stems from a conditional use permit that was <br />granted after Mr. Eisinger's, is the issue of the amount of time a <br />person has to complete the construction once the construction <br />starts. Mabusth suggested in her staff report possibly within -a <br />30 to 60 day time period. Applicant has indicated that that would <br />not be a sufficient period of time. The City is concerned with <br />two issues: How long this would be extended in total; and from <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.