Laserfiche WebLink
fieiMs REAODRS <br />South Office <br />7412 Lyndale Ave. So. <br />Richfield, Mn. 55423 <br />666-3025 <br />West Office <br />3554 Shoreline Or. <br />P.O. Sox 6 <br />Navarre, Mn. 55392 <br />471-6575 <br />Dear Council persons. <br />jAH 15 M0O ^ <br />CITY. OF ORONO <br />North Office <br />13025 Central Ave. N.E. <br />Olaine, Mn. 55434 <br />I aa contacting you on behalf of Mr. Paul Scherber, owner of the property <br />located at 1410 & 1420 Bohn's Ft. Rd. within the Village of Orono, which has rt.. ntly <br />been before you and obtained your prellalnary approval for subdivision, subject to <br />several conditions, referring to your notice,Control No. 508 on the meeting of <br />October 30, 1979.Mr. Scherber Is In agreement with all the conditions set forth,wlth <br />the exception of the planning Department's recomended solution to the last condition <br />IE; Sell or grant to the Solomonson Property that land which hlsshed& fence presently <br />occupy due to an encroachment, plus an additional 10 feet, to allow more proper <br />setbacks to be created for the benefit of said property. It la Mr. Scherber's <br />sincere opinion that although Ideallstlcly from the point of view of the Solomonson <br />property and the planning dept, this would be a very desirable solution, yet he finds <br />It would be highly detrimental to his property for several reasons. The fact that It <br />would hinder possible future plans for expansion of the hone and or the addition of <br />a ga;rage, which will have to be placed on that end of the hone due to setback require­ <br />ments, by sight and peace of mind being that a fence, hedge or other obstructions <br />might be placed there, which would awkwardly Jut into what Is now a smooth and free <br />flowing lawn,not to mention the obvious quantity of land just lost from the yard.There <br />are also certain financial effects to tate into consideration, due to the alteration <br />presently and In the future upon any resale. <br />Having need of council approval to complete this subdivision, which has been <br />totally within all the requirements of the village statues and regulations, Mr. <br />Scherber has felt that the village has-possibly applied undue pressure upon him to <br />accept total responsibility for this encroachment situation. Yet th'' problem exists <br />whether or not the subdivision Is completed, also examining the origination of the <br />problem, the responsibility would not lie with the party who had been trespassed <br />upon but with the trespassor and the governing body which was to enfor'*e the coning <br />and set back requirements at the time buil'^ing permits were issued and construction <br />was being completed. Mr. Scherber does not want to pinpoint blame, create a legal <br />entanglement with his neighbors,or draw on the patience of the Village Council too <br />heavily, realising that none of you reading this, were Involved with what happened <br />then. He would sincerely appreciate your acknowledging the merits of, and accepting, <br />his proposed solution. He Is %d.lllng to grant, without cost, to the Solomonson <br />property, that land contained In "out lot A" on the accompanlng survey, which will <br />allow the mlnlmun 3 ft. setback required by the State without all the possible <br />turmoil that can sometimes result out of boundary disputes and without It being <br />too detrimental to his own property and well being. <br />I believe Mr. Scherber has been very objective in his consideration of this <br />situation and also very generous with the proposed solution. It laay not be the <br />moot Ideal, viewed strictly by set back requirements, but I sincerely believe It <br />to be most fair to all parties concerned in obtaining an equitable solution. <br />Thank you. <br />Very Truly Tours <br />David E. Carlson