My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-11-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
08-11-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2023 9:00:11 AM
Creation date
8/1/2023 8:53:40 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
296
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Request for Council Action continued <br />Page 4 <br />August 8,1997 <br />Zoning File # 2269 Conley Brooks, Jr. and Gerald McCourtney, 980/1045/1055 West Femdale <br />Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement <br />7. <br />Floyd's property in exchange for Floyd eliminating his interest in Parcel B. <br />An additional issue is that Brooks wishes to separate Parcel C from 905 West <br />Femdale to which it has been legally combined in the past; the issue for the <br />City is reducing the 0-75' lot area for 905 West Femdale, noting that the <br />majority of the house at 905 is within 75' of the lake, and Parcel C may have <br />been used for calculating hardcover for 905. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Staff has been in contact with the attorneys for both Floyd and Brooks, and they have each <br />provided information clarifying their concerns. I have advised each that they will have an <br />opportunity at the Council meeting to make their positions known regarding this application. <br />It is staffs opinion that the proposed splitting of 1045 in conjunction with the proposed <br />combinations, is a positive conclusion from the City's perspective. This is because the Skarp <br />property is nearly all within the 75' setback, and if it is not purchased as additional land area <br />for an adjacent property, there would be pressure on the City to grant variances to allow <br />construction of a single family residence on this extremely substandard lakeshore property. <br />It is also staffs opinion that this subdivision/recombination can be accomplished without the <br />City making any commitments as to future usage of Parcels B, C and D, each of which has <br />separate issues related to its existence or usage, and each of which may require separate <br />applications and separate City approvals for the various existing or proposed uses or ownership <br />transfers. <br />Therefore, staff recommends approval of the proposed division subject to combination of <br />Parcels G and I with Parcel J, and Parcel F with Parcels A, E and H. The following are <br />recommended as additional conditions of approval: <br />1. Removal of the existing house on Parcels G and I should happen immediately. <br />2.Allow Brooks no more than one year to resolve what will happen with the non- <br />conforming garage on the north side of the road, and at the end of that time <br />require it be removed if it hasn't been. <br />If Hennepin County will not allow legal combination across the roadway. Brooks <br />must complete a "Special Lot Combination" for filing in the title of Parcels A, <br />E, H and F.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.