Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />O <br />THE PLANNING COMMISSKW ACTION MEETING - August 18, 197S <br />4. nenoval of two existing structures along east lot <br />line prior to obtaining certificate of occupancy for the <br />new b\iilding. <br />Ayes (9), Iteys (0). <br />The Eisinger landfill proposal was again opened for <br />discussion with no representative present. The 'ni6ject <br />was again deferred until later when a representative <br />might appear. <br />The banning Conndssion discussed peimitting accessory uses <br />these panon <br />ered. <br />parcels. Private and multiple docks were consid- <br />Kallestad moved, Pesek seconded to recoianend approval of a <br />variance from our requirements for docks as accessory struct­ <br />ures and approve individual private docks for lots one through <br />six. Because of the extraordinary small lot sizes, these docks <br />would consist of a naidJiixR of two slips for the mooring of <br />two privately owned boats only. <br />After some discussion the Planning Commission agreed that a <br />review trauld be necessary before ^texmining fence standards • <br />Hannah moved, Guthrie seconded <br />view time. <br />Ayes (9), Nays (0). <br />Van Nest moved, Curtis seconded to defer reconmendation <br />until wetlands map could be reviewed. <br />Ayes (9), Hays (0). <br />The proposal was opened for discussion <br />representing the petitioner. <br />The fbllowing points were brought up during the discussion; <br />1. Previous recommendations of denial by the Planning <br />Comnission on two different occasions. <br />2. The proposal would require variances from our wetlands <br />ordinance and the minimum setback requirements for filling <br />of marshlands. <br />3. The short distance of the proposed fill from the creek <br />vhidi flows directly into Lake Minnetonka. <br />4. 'No provisions in 1967 zoning ordinance for sanitary or <br />demolition landfill operation as permitted on conditional use. <br />5. Standards of M.C.T^.D. (all of Orono in watershed district). <br />6. 'Proposal as presented-^ditional fill and berm both <br />req^re variances. <br />7. Proper procedure for consideration would be amending the <br />zoning code. <br />8. Hidcok recommendations. <br />9. Current policy and decisions denying fill of wetlands. <br />Page 4 <br />GAYLES miNA-BLDG. <br />PERMIT APPUCATION <br />(CONTINUED) <br />EISINGER LANDFILL- <br />RE-EVALUATION <br />RALPH BURNETT- <br />SOOTT PROPERTY <br />VARIANCE <br />2040 Shoreline Dr. <br />FENCE ORDINANCE <br />ADOPTION OF WETLANDS <br />MAPS. <br />EISINGER LANDFILL <br />RE-EVALUATION <br />H <br />iirtiliiiiiiii-rit' i iiii n