Laserfiche WebLink
MINiniS OF A PLANNING COMMISSION ^€ETING HELD FEBRUARY 17, 1976 - PAGE 8.^R, <br />t'M <br />m <br />this is the infoimation provided by them showing what they are <br />going to do to rectify the illegal grading and tree removal <br />that took place last spring. <br />In looking over the information provided I have the following <br />comnents: <br />1. On Page 3 of his Februaiy 10 letter I think he has offlited <br />one rather important date which must have been sometime between <br />November 1, 1974 and Jiily iS, 1975. This would be the oate at <br />which time the grading end tree removal actually took pldee <br />which was done by ^fr. Marfield without a permit from die Village. <br />2. It would be my recommendation to the Village Council that <br />pursuant to any agreement with Mr. Marfield that he must agree <br />to have this work done under the direct supervision of both <br />yourself (Mr. Muhich) and our Village Engineer. 1 would fjpel <br />that it would be reasonable that We be notified prior to the <br />work being done at least 2 days and that we be allowed access <br />to the property both before, during and after the wotk has been <br />accomplished so that we caii detemine what the condition of the <br />property is before and after the wotk has been dOne ih ordet to <br />assure the Village that the problem caused by Mr* Marfield has <br />been adequately rectified. <br />3. Pertaining to the drawing by Hickock and Associates, I <br />find that the scale to vdiich the drawing has been made is totally <br />insufficient. The plan view lieed only show the immec late area <br />where the grading is to take place but it should be drawn to <br />scale of not less thai 1*'*10' so that we can determine exactly <br />what he plans to do. I also notice on Section bB that there is <br />a notation made that that section at least is hot even drawn to <br />scale. Certainly any information that is provided on this <br />drawing must be drawn to scale if it is to have meaning to us <br />at all. I do not believe that the drawing need to show the con­ <br />tour and plan view of the entire Dicon subdivision as does the <br />drawing by Hickock dated February 3, 1976. It certainly would <br />be sufficient only to show the area that is being changed. <br />The one thing that ccnccms me about this proposal is that Mr. <br />Marfield is alleviating his illegal action by doing more of the <br />very thing that we are trying to prevent with our Ordinance that <br />is disturbing the land masses surrounding the shoreline of Lake <br />Minnetonka. In other words we are allowing Mr. Marfield to <br />clear himself of a grading violation by doing even more grading <br />within the 75* protected area. I am not all sure that this ac­ <br />tion is in the best interest of the Village. Signed: Brad <br />Van Nest (End of Letter) <br />The Planning Conmission concurred with the Van Nest letter and <br />stated that they still held the opinion that Mr. Marfield should <br />con^ly to the previously stipulated Village requirements. <br />Guthrie moved, Woolley seconded, that the meeting be adjourned <br />at 9:50 P.M. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). <br />SAMJEL MARFIELD <br />VAN NEST LETTER, cont. <br />ADJOURNMENT <br />j