My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-18-1986 Planning Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
02-18-1986 Planning Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/20/2022 10:43:08 AM
Creation date
10/20/2022 10:41:23 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 18, 1986 <br />#999 EVAN IyELINE continued <br />Mr. Belden stated that the County intends to sell some <br />portion of the adjacent property at a public sale in <br />March, at which time they plan to bid on the property. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed the plat <br />map indicating the parcel of property Hennepin County <br />intends to sell. He further explained the variances <br />which would be necessary with -he proposed plan whether <br />the applicant acquires additional property or not. <br />McDonald <br />questioned Mr. <br />Belden <br />on when the existing <br />hazardous <br />foundation will <br />be <br />removed. <br />Mr. Belden stated that the foundation is presently <br />capped and will be removed as soon as possible, weather <br />permitting. He noted that the delay has been Mr. <br />Me 1 ine's absence and the weather. <br />McDonald stated that any new residence being built <br />should be built within the boundaries of the existing <br />foundation and would not be in favor of granting any <br />variances enfringing on the Fegers property. <br />Goetten stated that she would not approve the <br />application as presented, but acquisition of the <br />additional property may affect her decision. <br />Rovegno stated that it is a problem lot in that if <br />applicant was not allowed to build, it would '-)ecome a <br />maintenance problem, however, if the additional property <br />were acquired, a modest dwelling could be built within. <br />limitations. <br />Chairman <br />Kelley <br />stated he <br />has a very hard time approving <br />this as <br />being a <br />buildable <br />lot. <br />McDonald agreed with Chairman Kelley. <br />Taylor stated he would be willing to consider a proposal <br />for construction of a new house under one of two <br />conditions 1 ) i f the adjacent property cannot be <br />purchased, consider a structure no larger than the <br />one thats been there 2 ) if the adjacent property to the <br />west can be purchased, consider a proposal similar to <br />the one in concept presented at the December meeting. <br />Taylor noted that the current owners purchased the <br />property as if mid -January. <br />McDonald stated that someone should be fined for not <br />complying with the resolution ordering removal of the <br />foundation. <br />rA <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.