Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-15-1973 Planning Minutes€> VtLUGE OF ORONC Rcfiular Meeting of the Planning Comnission, January 15, 1973 8:20 P.M. Tne Planiiiug Couission met on the above date with the following members present: Cnairman Poisson, Elliott, Gasch, Kokesh, Kullberg, Ryerse, Senrles, and Van Nest. Also present: Zoning Administrator Marston. t f Van Nest moved, Kullberg seconded, that the Minutes of the ^^cgular Meeting of January 2, 1973, be approved, ffotion. Ayes (8) - Nays (0). MINUTES Chairman Poisson read a memo from the Village Engineer stating his opposition to the vacation of Hill Street because of concern for exiting to tile property to the east, between Bayside Addition and Leaf Street; also, one from the secretary stating the exiting as it existed. He now opened the meeting to the public. Tne following spoke: PUBLIC HEARING liill Street Mrs. Esco, one of the adjacent property owners. She stated the reason for ashing for t!ie vacation was because both their house and garage were on the street. She said the house of 1930 vintage and the garage, even older, were on the roperty when purchased‘in 1969. At this time, the encroaciiment was not noticed by tne Veterans Administration, the realtor, and Title Insurance and they did not become aware of this until they had their own survey made at a later date. Steven Anderson, owner of Lot 7 to the east, lie was concerned about access to this lot was tile owner of 50', Lot 6 in Bayside Addition that could give access from Crestview Avciiue, also, a 17' easement from Bayside Uond. He stated he could see no reason for using Lot 6, valued at $1,200 for an access wneii he could use Hill Street, liembers of the commission had reservation as to whether Hill Street could be used as a street on account of the terrain. Riciiard ilclby, owner of a home and four lots on Crestview Aveiiue, said he had no objection to the vacation and spoke of discrepancy in surveys in the area. dodiiey Schumacher, adjacent home on Hill Street, said he had no objection to the vacation. (Continued) 4 I ! MINUTES OF A REGULAR ?fEETIHG HELD JANUARY IS, 1973 Page 2 Jim Dueholni, attorney for the Eskos. spoke on the dilemma they were in on account of the encroachment. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) Since no one else wished to be heard, tne meeting was closed to the public. Members felt they should have legal advice before giving a recommendation. They postponed a decision until later in the meeting when the attorney was scheduled to appear. Loren Butterfield represented himself in a P®fition for a conditional use permit for a new plastic greenhouse, the removal of an old one and a replacem'-n-, and an equipment shed. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3925 Watertown Road Discussion was held on the following: 1. I'/hether this was an agricultural or commercial usage. It was noted landwise Mr. Butterfield came under agriculture because he had 20 acres. He stated all his oroducts were trucked out of the premises the same as any other agricultural usage. 2. Questions were asked to why he was granted a conditional use permit a short time ago when he was not even applying for a greenhouse. Was this to establish a non- conforming usage? 3. The proximity to adjacent property. It was establisned, one side was pasture and he was approximately 250* from the property line on the other side. Members asked Zoning Administrator Marston for an opinion. He stated there had to be a cutting-off point at some time in this kind of usage and it was up to members when they wished to do this. Searles moved, Kullberg seconded, approval should be recommended. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). Maurice Wagener represented himself in a petition to dredge a wildlife pond on his premises. He presented a permit from the J.iJ.R. stating they would pay one-half the cost up to $300 for this project. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1230 Woodhill Avenue A memo from the secretary was read stating any evaluation of wetlands was impossible in the winter but the grodetic map showed the area to be on the edge of a marsh area. (Continued) ! I \ : t MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELH JANUARY 15, 1973 Page 3 Kullberg had reservations about the drainage in the area and questioned whether there would be problems in the spring. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Continued) Nagener countered there should be no more problems with a pond than there are now. Marston stated he bad contacted Mr. Mixa of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Mr. Mixa was of the opinion these projects had value providing the ponding area was not reduced by the castings from the dredging. Van West moved, Searles seconded, that approval should be recommended. Motion, Ayes (7) - Ways (1). Kullberg Nay for the reasons stated above. Attorney Whitehead appeared. He was asked for an opinion if there were any alternatives to vacating Hill Street and still give the Eskos the clear title they wanted. He was of the opinion there was not. STREET VACATION Hill Street © Van Nest moved, Elliott seconded, that the approval be recommended for vacation of the south half of Hill Street east of Crestview Avenue, ffotion, Ayes (8) - Nays (0). Ron Vantine appeared as the attorney for the Hendel estate presenting a plat showing the proposed division of the estate. DIVISION Julius Hendel Estate Attorney Whitehead spoke on divisions of large estates into large parcels. He felt that strict adherence to the platting ordinance in its entirety was very costly for a division that requires very little planning, no streets, no storm sewers. He cited our municipal ordinance that states subdivisions are not required for parcels over five acres used for agriculture. While the term "agriculture" made the ordinance "fuzzy", most municipalities do not require strict adherance to a platting ordinance in the larger divisions. Searles had reservations about an access to Willow Drive to the east on account of the wetlands ordinance as shown on the plat as submitted. Mr. Vantine was of the opinion that since the easement was serpentine, the high contours on the property were followed. (Continued) I i 4 % t. I! •MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 15, 1973 Pag« 4 Searles novad, Gasch seconded, that the division be recoasended conditioued on: DIVISION (continued) 1. That approval of the division is not to be constiued a blanket approval of the property as a building site. 2. That r. coabination of the property aade so no part could be sold off *'land locked". Motion, Ayes (8) - Nays (0). Mr. Howell appeared in a division of what was a part of tne above Hendel esta.r and recently pruchased. Since the saae guide* line was apropos for this as the above. DIVISION Old Hendel Estate Van Nest aoved, Elliott seconded, that aporoval be rccoaaended conditioned on passage of title to the Uhite family, notion. Ayes (8) - Nays (0). Kullberg moved, Searles seconded, that approval be recommended since the division was apnroved in theory along with the conditional use permit issued approving tJie Freshwater Biological Institute. TIotion, Ayes (8) • Nays (0). DIVISION Freshwater Biological Institute Ryerse moved, Kullberg seconded, that the meeting be adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Motion^ Ayes (3) - Nays (0). ADJOURNMENT Discussion was held with Commission members, Couiicilmen Butler and Massengale, and Planner Loucks regarding the comprehensive plan and proposed IDS project. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Respectfully submitted. Mike Scheller Secretary