07-25-2022 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 21, 2022 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 9 is Hennepin County governed so the City defers to the County to proceed with a removal if they so choose. Al Azad, 165 Bederwood Drive, said the garage is not in good shape and they are trying to rebuild it where it was as the property was built in 1946. Chair McCutcheon asked Mr. Azad if he would consider moving the garage closer to the existing home. Mr. Azad replied yes, they might be open to that. He also called the DNR and has not heard back from them. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. Bollis would like to see the garage out of the easement but if the DNR is okay with it, he would also be fine with it as it is making the situation better. He would be willing to vote yes pending DNR approval. Kirchner stated this is not something he can support for many of the reasons Erickson noted regarding encroachments and easements. Even with DNR approval he does not believe it is a good practice as a Commission to approve projects that create an encroachment. He cannot support the item. Ressler said similar to lake yards that have tight setbacks where one is able to rebuild like-kind, the City prefers to improve those positions and he is seeing that here. He recognizes Kirchner’s points that this is an easement so it is not quite that simple. However, Ressler follows Bollis in recommending approval contingent upon DNR providing their blessing. Libby cannot comfortably support this having experience with proprietary real property asset ownership of both the DNR and Dakota Rail. He has seen decisions go either way (not at a City level) but it would appear that the Dakota right-of-way encroachment into railroad property is more DNR park land; he noted they have categorically denied, refuted, refused, and actually caused loss of historic buildings and accoutrements because there is a standing policy in their legal department that they will not allow it. If this is truly real property asset owned and controlled with a decision made by the DNR, there is still another governing authority that will have to decide. From past experience he cannot support this application as it is an encroachment, whether it is historic or “grandfathered” in. Curtis asked for clarification from the Commission: if the encroachment into the easement is not acceptable, they still have a10 foot setback from the side and for the Applicant’s sake she’d like to know whether the Commission is supportive of that encroachment. Kirchner stated he would be fine with the setback, however he has an issue with the encroachment. Bollis and Ressler agreed. Chair McCutcheon thinks there is an opportunity to change the design and not be inside the encroachment which would be more likely to be approved.