04-22-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR MARCH 18. ItM <•2481 Chdt PMrsofl, conUniMd) on one lot. The Applicants are proposing to keep the existing cabin, which Staff cannot support, and Staff has stated the cabin on Lot S shall be removed prior to the filing of the subdivision wMh Hennepin County. The State Building Code does not allow buildings to be located within three feet of property boundaries. Weinberger stated this proposed lot line rearrangement would reduce density on Big Island and the eventual removal of structure and hardcover and returning the area more to its natural appearance. Currently the cabin located on Lots 5 and 6 shares a well located to the south, which would be moved to 650 property should the lot line rearrangement be approved, and also shares a septic systerr serving the property at 670. Staff is requesting that the septic lines be capped, and the proposal would be one septic site for one residence. Staff b also requesting that the easemenb and any other agreemenb relating to the well and septic systems be vacated and eliminated. At the time thb was platted, there would not have been drainage and utility easemenb to vacate over the old property line, but Staff b requesting that there be five feet on each side of the interior property line and ten feet across the rear of the property line for drainage and utility 6as6fn6nt$. staff b recommending approval of the lot line rearrangement to create the two tax parcels with Lob 3,4, and 5 making up one parcel, and Lots 6,7, and 8 making up the other parcel. Staff b requesting that the cabin located on Lot 5 be remov^, along with the deck, stairway, sidewalk, and removal of the shed, prior to the filing of the subdivision with Hennepin County. Staff b also requesting that title opinions be delivered to the Crty for Lob 3 through 8. PlarMn stated the property was acquired from Betty Fisher who had requested at the time of pui^se that the cabin remain for a period of time due to sentimental reasons, which was aoreed to by Bryson and Johnson. Chair Smith inquired what the use of the cabin will be should it remain on the property. Br^n Indicated that they have no intentions on utilizing the cabin and are willing to remove It in two to three years. JohnMn stated, if possible, they would like the cabin to remain for the next five yaars, but if the Planning Commission decided otherwise, they would be willing to remove the cabin. There were no public commenb. Lindquist indicated he would be agreeable to allov^ng the cabin to remain on the property for two yddfs* Smith commented that the only issue with thb application appears to be the cabin. Weinberger remarked that City staff does have concerns regarding enforcement should the cabin not be removed. Pierson stated the City could require that the cabin be removed, and if not, a court order for ib removal could be issued. Lindquist commented a bond could be required at a reasonable cosL it was the consensus of the Ptanning Commbsion to allow the cabin to remain for two and a half Pages