Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />OftONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />JULY 17, 2000 <br />(U2602 JOHN GRAHAM, Continued) <br />Stoddard commented it was his understanding the City was attempting to keep away from <br />easements and request outlets. Stoddard noted this property consists of 5.1 acres, which may not <br />leave enough room for the creation of an outlet. <br />Gaffron stated the City tvpically does not require an outlet on a shared driveway serving two <br />residences, but tends to look at it differently if there are more houses being serviced by the <br />driveway. <br />Stoddard stated that keeping the existing building may need to be reviewed further prior to <br />approval. <br />Lindquist inquired whether the two lots would be kept combined for tax purposes. <br />Graham stated he would like to keep them combined. <br />Weinberger indicated once they are subdivided, they become two separate tax parcels and <br />requires a new subdivision application if you were to separate two combined lots. Weinberger <br />stated the Applicant could consider the option of obtaining prcliminaiy plat approval and <br />extending that approval every year. <br />Graham stated they utilize the building currently for storage. <br />Kluth noted City Code does not permit an accessory building to exist on a lot without a principal <br />structure. <br />Graham noted ownership of both lots would not change. Graham suggested a period of time be <br />given in which the shed has to be either removed or a principal structure constructed should <br />ownership of the property change. <br />Kluth inquired why the Applicants arc proceeding forward with the subdivision at this time if they <br />do not plan to develop the property. <br />Gndiam stated they would prefer to have the property subdivided at this time since they are able <br />to subdivide the property under the existing codes. <br />Lindquist commented he has concerns with leaving the accessoiy building on the lot without a <br />principal structure. <br />Stoddard indicated requests arc sometimes made to the Planning Commission to leave an existing <br />accessory structure while construction is undergoing but not for an unspecified period of time. <br />Smith suggested a period of 18 months be given to allow for the lot to be developed, and if the <br />lot is not developed within that period of time, the shed be relocated elsewhere. <br />Graham stated the use of the property w ill not change at all until the lot is sold. <br />PAGE 10