My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1990 - request of revisions to Res 2763
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
W
>
Westlake Street (2)
>
332 Westlake St - 05-117-23-23-0039
>
Correspondence
>
1990 - request of revisions to Res 2763
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 5:20:30 PM
Creation date
1/30/2020 9:02:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
332
Street Name
Westlake
Street Type
Street
Address
332 Westlake St
Document Type
Correspondence
PIN
0511723230039
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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).
View images
View plain text
CITY of ORONO <br /> CITY- <br /> Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay,Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices <br /> OF <br /> .ORONO- On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka <br /> June 25 , 1990 <br /> Blake Bichanich <br /> 332 Westlake Street <br /> Long Lake, MN 55356 <br /> Dear Mr. Bichanich: <br /> You have requested some minor revisions to Resolution #2763, as <br /> follows : <br /> 1. Revise language in Condition 4 to minimize the <br /> perceived impact and risk on the part of the Contract <br /> for Deed holders. <br /> 2. Revise Condition 5 to not preclude a future City <br /> Council from granting the necessary variances to allow <br /> expansion of the residence on Lot 5 northward into Lot <br /> 4, possibly incorporating all or portions of the cabin <br /> into the principal structure, once Lots 4 and 5 are <br /> combined. <br /> Having reviewed Condition 4 with City Administrator Mark <br /> Bernhardson, it is our opinion that the current language is <br /> reasonable given the intent of the Council in granting variances <br /> based on your control of both lots. In fact, the last sentence <br /> of Condition 4 could have been worded to preclude future separate <br /> residential use of Lot 4 rather than suggesting that the City <br /> would merely "not be obligated" to allowing such a use. This is <br /> a risk of which the current property owners must be aware. <br /> Condition 5 could be reworded as follows : <br /> 5 . The structure on Lot 4 shall remain merely as a <br /> storage building, shall not be provided with <br /> plumbing, and shall not serve as a second dwelling <br /> unit on the property, except that this condition <br /> does not preclude a future Council from granting <br /> setback or other variances which might be <br /> BUILDING&ZONING-473-7357 • ADMINISTRATION&FINANCE-473-7358 • PUBLIC WORKS-473-7359 <br /> ASSESSING FAX-473-0510 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.