Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 27,1997 <br />• ( #5) #2196 GENMAR INDUSTRIES, 1449 SHORELINE DRIVE - LAND <br />ALTERATION CUPNARIANCES - DENIAL RECOMMENDATION <br />The Applicant was represented by Mary McConnell and Jeffery Melby. <br />Gaffron reported that the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission, who <br />recommended denial of the proposed parking lot on the west side of CoRd 15. The 28 <br />proposed parking spaces would mainly be located outside of the 0 -75' setback but would <br />have a major impact on a bluff. A new access had been approved by Hennepin County <br />but the new northerly location would cause the driveway to extend into the 0 -75' setback. <br />This proposal would cut 15 -20' off of the bluff. The Commission felt the proposal is <br />inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The DNR also recommended denial of the <br />application noting the hardships to be self - created. The Planning Commission's <br />recommendation for denial is based on environmental issues and the lack of suitable <br />hardships. Staff recommends denial and asks for conceptual direction in order to draft a <br />denial resolution. <br />Jabbour acknowledged the Applicant's proposed withdrawal of Application #2196 when <br />approval was granted for Application #2195 but Jabbour preferred the draft resolution <br />for denial to show a history of what has occurred on the property and to tie it into <br />Application 92195. He noted that this property has been used twice in the past to gain <br />variance approval on the property located across the street (Application #2195). Gaffron <br />• said he would also prefer action taken and a record shown. Goetten agreed noting there <br />is no justification found for the parking lot as proposed. <br />Peterson questioned whether there could be more identification for the crosswalk to <br />increase safety. Jabbour noted the recent law whereby cars must stop for pedestrians <br />entering a crosswalk. This location does not allow for good sight distance, however. <br />Gaffron indicated that the crosswalk had been part of the 1988 review. Peterson asked <br />Staff to explore options, and Jabbour directed Staff to review the safety concerns of the <br />crosswalk. <br />Disturbance of soils in the 0 -75' setback was mentioned and the possibility of using fill on <br />this property. <br />Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to conceptually denial Application 42196 and direct <br />Staff to draft a resolution of denial for presentation at the February 10 Council Meeting. <br />Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br />