HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-28-1980 Planning PacketMm.■ I
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 1980
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 7:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
1. Call to Order/Roll
ACTION ITEMS
2. #508 Paul Scherber, 1420 Bohns Point Road - Reconunendation
for south lot line.
3. #528 R. J. Haefele, E. Martin, and R. Hassel, Navarre Lane
VACATION
4. Proposed Fence Ordinance
5. Proposed Accessory Structure Ordinance
WORK SESSION
6. #537 David J. Butler, 4685 North Shore Drive
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
7. Meeting of January 14, 1980
INFORMATION ITEMS
8. 1980 Approved Meeting Schedule
9. Reappointment of Planning Commission Members
"V
r
\
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission and Council #50
Jeanne A. Mabusth# Zoning Administrator
DATE:January 21, 1980
SUBJECT:#508 Paul Scherber, 1420 Bohns Point Road
Determination of South Property Line
- SUBDIVISION
The Scherber application received preliminary approval from Council
at their October 30, 1979 meeting. One point was left unresolved
that the applicant and his neighbor, C. Bruce Solomonson, agree
upon a transfer or sale of a piece of land to provide a minima
setback for Solomonson's encroaching structure.
is asked to make a recommendation concerning deems
should be. Mr. Solomonson is agreeable to any setback the Ci y
necessary (see letter dated January 4, 1980). .^^herber wants a
cetbark the minimal setback required by the Building Code. Sta
Ls luggesied I To- setback, the minimal required by the Zonrng Code.
Review of hardships cited for applicant (see David Carlson's letter
received in this office on January 15, 1980):
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hinder future expansion of main structure or on attached garage.
Aesthetics of existing yard.
Negative financial effect - resale.
Unfair to expect Scherber to bear full responsibility for
encroaching structure.
\
II
r
. . IM* • A >X W ■ t
#w I'.lt •* A* w^'-* J
,-. .. • r . • -.n--}
A#'* . •• J#. ^
#/ #.# •• »,* r *n > .' f . •
#5
.Ow .»*• ...t ^
^ulf. '••r.'.Ui
t*. i? c R. -*• " •*
lu « *^-!r • • . tf
1.. t ' ^ - V.
liT-. ; ! *. * -U
.j # . . I ’*-1
.1 t .!. If - -•
. i- ; V.; ^
« «••‘ » »
l .4.. ti !i • T If •. ■ ** 1 • •
,t ; i. Tc»J •• s' -A • * •♦ •
• , . Ill i:f 4. 4 \ it r
L i ; .4.: 4.'»•. •• .. *.^ ••
. "mIt. l.‘5«. . »rrP • •
.: 1 • n? •in .iv 1 • r 4
4 V . 1 •: ' ; " * t .: 1
rff . r I*» i i • .r» t. 1 *,
*: U . if *!. . ,f. ••
1. ;. V* t*Of l.» i •
t ’ r
; ‘it « •
.1 • - • t j
,-t. er ti . «t.r • .'! ••- '*■ ”
\ C‘ ** rfi'.rl'jul >»?rlw Io?5 ,
*• .* Qr \ *-. I vHI ti -wfl lll*«
* T * ' I • di l^fr» of 24-^ r»rtj tf.tnctf
4* .. . ^ : ir •' ^ ^ ..twtxrl
• •• M
j , I i*. s» * , • I. *^ r • lo*‘• t?'. r.TA
I* I .4 If • .:** .'/I'-’w . - t '’'n. U c-t uoi
«%*aI • 1
t0 \* ; V-i
4 I Ir n
Wtelw.l ^ .:**
1
>-7
I >*• .;:. ‘ . c *. IT . - ‘
: • • 1 V * I • 1 /• *
«r«A : *4,x.jr T *"* cr a
•* ^.l r. I •• •'
•.ivtr ■ • !• ‘Aiir U .1^ .l-rV/S
, .1 J .»•••% • O ■■ t»j I-J4IV I *
din* Vlnr.nrotw
►r.» r * . -* •* • ••*.. c mi.\ *f
'4
•I1
i
V
C. Bruce Solonionson
D
JU
l£ ®1E
JAN ‘I
CITY OF ORONO
January 4» 1980 5 0 8
/■ J
Nr. Alan P. Olson
Village Planner
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Olson:
55323
In regard to Subdivision 508, Bohns Point Road, as far as I
am concerned, the rearrangement of the property line as shown
on the enclosure or any other arrangements that are suitable
to the City of Orono would be acceptable to me.
Sincerely,
C. Bruce Solomonson
f
CBS/jp
^ O REALTORS
0
il
“V
»"['■
5 .•- T.
Se. '
14.
/
South Office
7412 Lyndale Ave, So.
Richfield, Mo. 55423
866 3025
West Office
3554 Shoreline Dr.
P.O. Box 8
Navarre, Mn. 55392
471-8575 D)ltt
North Office ^
13025 Central Ave. N.E.
Blaine, Mn. 55434
f7i
JAN 15 3980
Dear Council persons,CITY. OF ORONO
I am contacting you on behalf of Mr. Paul Scherber, owner of the property
located at 1410 & 1420 Bohn’s Pt. Rd. within the Village of Orono, which has recently
been before you and obtained your preliminary approval for subdivision, subject to
several conditions, referring to your notice,Control No. 508 on the meeting of
October 30, 1979.Mr. Scherber is in agreement with all the conditions set forth,with
the exception of the planning Department’s recommended solution to the last condition
IE; Sell or grant to the Solomonson Property that land which his shed& fence presently
occupy due to an encroachment, plus an additional 10 feet, to allow more proper
setbacks to be created for the benefit of said property. It is Mr. Scherber’s
sincere opinion that although Ideallsticly from the point of view of the Solomonson
property and the planning dept, this would be a very desirable solution, yet he finds
it would be highly detrimental to his property for several reasons. The fact that it
would hinder possible future plans for expansion of the home and or the addition of
a garage, which will have to be placed on that end of the home due to setback require
ments, by sight and peace of mind being that a fence, hedge or other obstructions
might be placed there, which would awkwardly jut into what is now a smooth and free
flowing lawn,not to mention the obvious quantity of land just lost from the yard.There
are also certain financial effects to take into consideration, due to the alteration
presently and in the future upon any resale.
Having need of council approval to complete this subdivision, which has been
totally within all the requirements of the village statues and regulations, Mr.
Scherber has felt that the village has possibly applied undue pressure upon him to
accept total responsibility for this encroachment situation. Yet the problem exists
whether or not the subdivision is completed, also examining the origination of the
problem, the responsibility would not lie with the party who had been trespassed
upon but with the trespasser and the governing body which was to enforce the zoning
and set back requirements at the time building permits were Issued and construction
was being completed. Mr. Scherber does not want to pinpoint blame, create a legal
entanglement with his neighbors,or draw on the patience of the Village Council too
heavily, realizing that none of you reading this, were involved with what happened
then. He would sincerely appreciate your acknowledging the merits of, and accepting,
his proposed solution. He is willing to grant, without cost, to the Solomonson
property, that land contained in "out lot A" on the accompaning survey, which will
allow the mlnimun 3 ft. setback required by the State without all the possible
turmoil that can sometimes result out of boundary disputes and without it being
too detrimental to his own property and well being.
I believe Mr. Scherber has been very objective in his consideration of this
situation and also very generous with the proposed solution. It may not be the
most ideal, viewed strictly by s«Jt back requirements, but 1 sincerely believe it
to be roost fair to all parties concerned in obtaining an equitable solution.
Thank you.
Very Truly Yours, ;
David E. Carlson
I
I
3
,
w
*.. •» ••:i y
TO:Planning Commission and Council
FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator
DATE:January 21, 1980
SUBJECT: #528 Navarre Lane Vacation
At our meeting on November 26, 1979 staff was asked to report
on the responses from the following agencies, consultants and
department heads:
1. County Highway Department to determine the amount of right
of way they might require for a possible expansion of County
Road 15 and 19 intersection. In this report, the question of
retaining the access to Shadywood for the service station should
be resolved.
2. Public Works Department, Gas and Telephone Companies should
determine existing location of utilities within Navarre Lane.
3. City Attorney to answer the following: What kind of finding
must the City have to allow vacation?
A. Comments from the Public Works Director
1. How costly would it be for the City, gas and telephone companies
to locate the four underlying utilities?
The cost for the location of all utilities should be borne
by the party requesting the vacation. We can assist by
making sewer and water as builts available to them.
2. What type of access would be necessary if the.entire area
was grassed?
If the entire area is grassed, this does not create a problem
as long as there are no fences or barricades.
3. Would a 10' easement be sufficient for each of the utilities?
We would need a 20 ft. easement which is the normal utility
easement.
4.Does the Orono road department use Navarre Lane from the
intersection of Olive to the west? Do you see any future use?
The Orono street department maintains that part of Nav^a.rre
Lane to allow access to the church parking lot and fire
hydrant accessibility^.
5. Input from the gas and telephone companies as to the feasibility
of the application.
N/A
i
- *
jMP
January 21, 1980
#528 Navarre Lane Vacation
Page 2
^S2S
A» Comments from the Public Works Director (Cont.)
I only wish to suggest that we should determine what effect if any
this would have on our total miles in the City in regard to M.S.A.
monies. We should also be concerned that the fire hydrant at the
south end be accessible to the gas station on the corner, perhaps
the street cannot be vacated all the way to County Road 19.
B. Hennepin County Highway Department's Response
The Traffic Division and Preliminary Design Section reviewed the
CSAH 19, CSAH 15 intersection revision along with your vacation of
Navarre Lane. To allow for channelization at the intersection, we
are requesting an additional 33 ft. of right of way through the
Navarre Lane corridor, making the right of way 66 ft. from the center
of CSAH 19. I have attached a half section map showing the area
requested.
Although Mr. Weigelt's letter does not respond specifically to
Mr. Martin's request to maintain his access off Shadywood (Cty. Rd. 19),
he has assured me that there would be no problem. In fact the
additional right of way requested by the County would assure that
access.
C. City Attorney's Response
I have enclosed a copy oi State Statute 412.851 - Vacation of Streets
for your information.
D. Staff Recommendation
I recommend a partial vacation of Navarre Lane, that portion encroached
by a corner of the church building, based on the following findings:
1. City maintains the eastern portion of Navarre Lane from the
intersection of Olive Avenue - serving church parking lot at rear.
2. If completely vacated, the City would be responsible for enforcing
all conditions - to maintain site.
3. Hennepin County Highway Department wants an additional 33' of
Navarre Lane at the western end to assist in their plans for expanding
County 19 & 15 intersection. The City has stated very clearly that
they are against such expansion plans.
4. Gas, telephone, water and sewer lines are located throughout the
Navarre Lane right of way. City would be liable if fire hydrant on
south side is not accessible in case of emergency.
5. Partial vacation will give clear title to the church and alleviate
their financial burdens.
i i
1.
'j . Jr:
^ , r’ ' '"■ ^ ^ t *' •*
• ' '*., - % ^ ^ .
•-*, ^ ■' 'll ^ • . '* A ’ 'Hiii
9) ,
hed
••1
ng
statutory CITIES 412^1
*!«, -n.. c„.».ci. m.y by oni,,.^<, n»Ke lunhcr r,«u.atiuns for 0.0 .afoKr,p(n.
25 disbursement of the funds of the city.
^ 1949 c 119 s 90; 1973 c 123 art 2 s i subd 2 ]
»2.nt EMERGENCY DEBT CEBTIOCAT^ If in ^„j;:3"„t!,SS'?or^h"
a«es or rthrr sources should '"5"i^IJ^lMiilly or any other public einerBen«Ti should
^dinary expenses of city or exUaordinary extx-nditures. the coxincil
JSject the dty to / " ure^of ^ergen^debt certificates to non --t
nay authorize the sale by ^ more than seven percent per ye.<r \
to exceed two years and to bear mtcrest t j^all be levied as part c' ^
taa sufficient to redeem all of an issue of such emergency- debt
by all U.C n.^^o, 0.^-
[ 1949 c 119 s 91: 1974 c Xt7 s 14 ]
412.761 I Repealed, 1967 c 289 s 18 1 | M ■ •
412.771 I Repealed, 1967 c 289 s 18 1 # #
412.781 I Repealed, 1967 c 289 s 18 1
412.791 ( Retiealed, 1967 c 289 s 18 ]
412.801 ( Repealed, 1967 c 289 s 18 )
412.811 I Repealed, 1967 c 289 s 18 )
412.821 I Repealed, 1967 c 289 s 18 )
general and MISCFUANEOUS
. ISIF\1’SPAPER- The council shall, annually at its first t-412.831 omClAL N^srrix^i circulation in the city as i f-
mtcre,, .o b^c published in th,s manner
( /M9 ?! 19 s too; 1973 c 123 Vt 2 s 1 subd 2 ]
412.841 I Repealed, 1976 c 44 s 70 ]
4UBS1 VACAIRW -
Street, aUey, public ^1^^^ Sujtung on the street, alley, pubbe
petition of a majority of Jj ’* ° vacated When there has been no peUtic^
grounds. pubUc way. w ^ vote of four-fifths of aU members of the
the resolution W ** unless it upp^^r^ |n the interest ofcouncU No such vacaUon sh^^ rrw« um^s posted notice Alter a
tedosoafllf a hearing ,'L> Xk .haU pm^e a maicrof complerion ' • .e
n»dutionoT*vacation is adopted. j identification of the v.i >iv
proceedings which shall contain th and a description of the real estat md
a sutement of the time^ u p^*i!h!ill be uresented to the county auditor who shall
vacaUon Proce^lmgs c 735 s 12; 1957 c 3H1 s 1; 1967 c 289 s 15; 1969 c 9 s
( 1949 c 119 s 102. I^ C VM ^ ,g^g c 181 s 2 ]
85; 1973 c 123 art 2 s 1 subd 2. 1973 c 4^M s i j. «./
•re
it
i
rr
Lng
3
ate
Of the city upon comp-E.. ■-^.„„,piaint shall thereafter be made, lo wniE,. ...
S3? irpTead. and “ U“ke toT^"p.>l^e n^JJ^hal.
SS^'eT^r^c^riXi?™ ?"J “Iny .own nr cuy ,n .he coun.y. ... .he
Sheriff of the county, or all of them ^ ^ sufficient plea.bng of the
Subd. 2. Form and «hi*^ to them^y »-cri“n number or chap-ordinances or resolutions of the city to refer to them ny
HENNEPIN
department of transportation
320 Washington Av. South
Hopkins, Minnesota boJac)
' V» •• 'r '
935-3381
December 12, 1979
OEC U MU*
CITY, OF, ORONO
■ A- . ' •
Jeanne A. Mabusth
Zoning Administrator
City of Orono
Box 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Dear Ms. Mabusth;
The Traffic Division and ’"’"^5Ln^along^*ith°yourvacation of Sa H 19, CSAH 15 intersection rev, on^along^ Uh «e
are requesting an »'*<’’t’on®’ " J jg gg from the center
Tc%m ll"* r7e ftwcred a'hau se'ction map showing the area re-
'’”*'*^*'* ■,. ■ n mir input before proceeding with this vacation.Thank you for considering our input oeio h
Sincerely,•? i
; /-vV
Les Weigelt .Administrative Assistant
Planning & Programming
LDW/de
Attachment
File Orono general
- rvfscH^ir.'/reHminary Design
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an cquol opportunity employer
J
.
. *•'. ., S“'. *•
/
*• M .
•
%5 4 3 2 ■;1
%•«•/ • •
u#
1
zi 24 2f.26 2T 26
• .*
%
*.•♦<• ‘
6 5 4 3 2•• T
UonQ<^
Co fW. No ^5
V'\' ^-r , t Po^* of “iSlO
t • ♦
' Ml ^1 ^ c '*-
^ C ^ *><" f
^v Of
I-
L
.'i
TO:Council and Planning Commission
r/«Si
FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator
DATE:Januai 1980
SUBJECT:#537 David J. Butler, 4685 North Shore Drive
Conditional Use Permit - Work Session
Mr. Butler requests permission to construct a driveway, 10' width,
within an unimproved road easement of 20’ that abuts the east lot
line of his property. The steep slope that runs from County Road 19
to the lakeshore prevents egress in wet, snowy or icy conditions.
They have constructed an additional access furthex east that they
hoped would facilitate egress but there are days when 4-wheel drive
vehicles cannot make it up the incline. The applicant proposes
construction of a driveway at the southeast corner of his lot
continuing southwest within the 20' easement to the intersection of
Rest Point Road (see diagram enclosed).
The City recognizes its responsibility in providing a safe and
usable access for emergency vehicles to all house sites. Mr. Butler
has reviewed the hardships and the question of safety in his letter
of January 15, 1980.
The following consultants and staff members will be asked to review
the proposal before action is taken by the Planning Commission.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Public Works Director
City Engineer
City Attorney
Building Inspector
Land Use Application
IXDCATION OF PROPOSAL (or property)
Address • S^ y » J M /* C- / U ^
Ahu/^'O.
Legal Description
APPLICANT Name !]/)/: //) 7“ U Td TeI
Mailing
Address ^'>4/17 A
TYPE OF REQUEST
Subdivision $150+$10.00/
Lot
^ Conditional Use $50
#.B 3
Riprap $15 ($65)
OWNER Name
Mailing
Address
Present Zoning
Tel #FEE .4*b.0Q
Date Rec*d 7*^ —
A. fW._ _ _ _ _
Present Use
Zoning Ordinance Section Relating to Request
Specify Ordinance Requirements
Explain your request and reasons for same
ew
V.’^RIANCE required
ea
Width
extent of nonconformity
Setback Front_
Other, explain
Specify hardships to prope
SUBDIVISION it ion Residential
Side Rear
Other, explain
No. of lots
CONDITIONAL USE AND OTHER - explain proposed use of property xn detail
,,.c.x >.T-. 777
A/P//■//(.' 4.. -z>f P K C/>
lA.aMLe- '-TO fy/57/,.v- AC.CrA^^- - - - - - --
MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE APPLICATION
(Must be submitted 10 days prior to Planning Commission meeting)
y 1. Application completed 5-
^5 Plat map section
Certificate of survey of property
sketch location and setbacks of
proposal
4,* Construction plans, if applicable
Certified Property CX^ner's list o
owners within (300') (MP^)“
Hennepin Co. Dept, of Finance
A-603 Government Center
Stamped, legal sized envelopes(#L
pre-addressed to each of the name
on the above list.
5 1/2 SEC. 7, fM7, R.23
. (
“1M.
te'—
b.-7"
»mm
'jy^rAtiT
% ■m
r^*ri:‘«
W-«'-' %c'
•4 -.'
:---r^-n
-• •V.
• ' f. ^
\ ‘ - ■ a’’-]'-)
.^^^iiirtiii--'rii
V-*-'
:• •»..
^ i> \ ^5r««tT «.;*'—' -’■’^ .
f »•. .>-'t^.* “• *.'iHSSWSST^
S'
e? Q O'O a
JanuoAU J5, I9t0
CUu 0^ OAono
Planning ConrncA6ion
CCtu Council
1535 Ri.own Poad S,
O^onOf fUnnunta
Vea.1 Gentleman,
I taUh to aequtit yoiui conAidenation and appAXfval to alloio me to
build a (OUveuxiy betioeen HoKth ShoAt Vnive and P&6t Point Poad,
booA.ding Lots 74, 75, 76, and Lots 77, 71, lohicJt I own.
This twenty (eet stAeel Aight-o^-ioay uvw used many yeans ago.
Its puApose, J*m suA.e, ivas to give access to lot 77, Uow it is
ovengnown with tfiees and bnush.
The problem I have is the topognaphy oi the lots. They have a
steep gnade ^Aom hlonlh Shoae V^ve to the lake. It was necessary
to jplac.e the home and the ganage on the lots in its location so
as to meet the city Aequinements and also (oa pAacticality ,
Because the oAode is so steep it is impossible in the spAing,
(all, and winteA to dnive a conventional vehicle back up the
dniveioay to UoAth ShoAe VAive, It is also a di((icult walk.
The existing dniveway I have had (OA many yeoAS pAioA to having
a goAage, Jt enteAS o(( UoAth ShoAe VAive.on the west side o( Lot
78, It is necessoAu (oa me to keep this dniveway cs to
(acilitate the use o( my ganage, (oa the best use o( the land,
and ingAess all yeoA long, I need a way to dsive (Aom (egAess)
my pAopeAty that is usable.
I (eel that it is essential to use the ticenty (eet stAeet
Aight~o(-ivay (oa pAacticality and sa(ety, I also (eel the
Aight-o(~way loas OAiginally planned to make Lots 77, and 78
useable (oa a building site.
Thank-you (oa youA considenation.
Vavid J, ButleA
4685 NoAth ShoAe VAive
OAono, Minnesota
471-67581471-5118