Laserfiche WebLink
t h e n a t u r e g r o u p , i n c . <br /> _' � Landscape design &build <br /> - -� ` RECEIVE� <br /> � 4�: N <br /> �-�-:�r_ 0� 1 5 <br /> � 2004 <br /> C1Ty OF pR�N� <br /> November 10, 2004 <br /> Ms. Janice Gundlach <br /> Planner, Clty Of OI'Ot10 VIA FASCIMILE AND U.S. MAIL <br /> 2750 Kelley Parkway <br /> Orono, MN 55323 <br /> Re; 1420 Sho�efine Drive <br /> Dear Ms. Gundlach, <br /> I received the letter that you sent via facsimile on November 4, 2004 and I <br /> wanted to respond as soon as I was able. I have reviewed the materials that <br /> you provided and I am confused as to why you are suggesting that I '�appeal the <br /> language of the variance." <br /> It is difficult for me to understand why the City, after reviewing and approving <br /> the building permit application and the land alteration permit application that <br /> were submitted and found to be in accordance with the zoning ordinance and <br /> applicable variance, has decided to change its position on the approval of the <br /> work. <br /> As I understand the history of this site, in April, 2001, the property owner <br /> applied for the re-issuance of a variance that had initially been granted in 1999. <br /> The initial variance granted certain exceptions from the City's setback and <br /> hardcover ordinances. The City characterized the 2001 application as <br /> "renew[ing] the variance as approved by the Council on September 27, 1999." <br /> Through the variance, the City found that the '�findings and conditions of <br /> Resolution No. 4353 [were] still valid." The City approved the re-issuance of <br /> this variance in May 2001. <br /> Following this process, building permit applications and land alteration permit <br /> applications were submitted to the City for review. As you have noted, the <br /> survey that was submitted with the permit applications, and reviewed by City <br /> stafF, delineates a bluff line that is different than what you reference in your <br />