Laserfiche WebLink
•• M I. <br />Feb. 21, 1997 <br />Mr. Ron Moorse <br />City Administrator <br />City o-f Orono <br />2750 Kelley Parkway <br />□rono, Mn. 55356 <br />Dear Mr. Moorse, <br />I have a question regarding our Fox Hollow subdivision at 565 Leaf St., <br />□rono. <br />The three lot subdivision was approved by the City Council on Sept. 25, <br />1995. The question that has arisen relates to Lot 2, which has an <br />existing cottage on the property. I have sold Lot 2 to another party, <br />and in January asked Jeanne Mabusth about preparing a covenant between <br />the City and the new owner regarding future use of the cottage. The <br />covenant requirement was included in the staff report to the Planning <br />Commission and Council. (Please see attachments). <br />Jeanne reviewed the files and sent me a letter on Jan. 28, 1997 (copy <br />attached) in which she concluded that the subdivision approval did not <br />consider the question of the existing structures use as " an accessory <br />structure with expanded living space but no kitchen" as was stated in <br />the staff report. <br />My clear understanding of the Planning Commission and Council approvals <br />was that the existing structure could "either be part of a principal <br />residence or may remain as an accessory structure with expanded living <br />space but with no kitchen," and that "the future owner will be asked to <br />execute a covenant if the structure remains as a separate accessory <br />structure to alert all future owners that the structure could never <br />serve as an independent residential unit." <br />I am asking for your assistance in resolving an honest difference in <br />understanding between Jeanne Mabusth and me. I am including copies of <br />Jeanne's letter to me of Jan. 28, 1997 and my letter to her of Feb. 3, <br />1997 asking her to review her conclusions. I am anxious to resolve this <br />difference. As I stated in my letter, my sale of the property was based <br />on my representation to the buyer of what I believe to be the allowed <br />future use of the cottage. It seems to me that the required covenant <br />gives the city good assurances that the cottage would not be used as an <br />independent residence. <br />1*1.' I.< mI Sill I I, ( )||>I|1I. Mllllii N-il.l ».L* III <br />(|>I M i;.’I,:':' r.\x (M:») i:'i :n:>i.