Laserfiche WebLink
MDOTES OF A PLANNING OMIISSIO^ ^€ETING HELD FEBRUARY 17, 1976 - PAGE 4. <br />nt. <br />nm\ <br />ane <br />4 <br />1 <br />is my third house on the lake and have lived right on the lake <br />the last 10 years, enjoying its beauty and charm. I enjoy sit­ <br />ting and looking at the lake, its trees, and its v;aters. I like <br />fishing, boating, and just watching the world pass by in front <br />of my house. I think the lake is a wonderful asset and si ould be <br />protected with all efforts. Many of my relatives and friends <br />live on the lake. I believe that their rights along mth mine <br />and the general public should be preserved and protected. I do <br />not wish to harm the lake and do not believe I have done so. I <br />do not intend to haim it in the future, and do not think that <br />anyone else should be allowed to. <br />1 believe in your ordinances and thinlc they arc good and bene­ <br />ficial to the lake. At no time have I attacked the constitu­ <br />tionality of the ordinance nor have I tried to strike it down in <br />any way. I believe, however, that you did not apply it properly <br />in my case. I believe that ^en an ihdividual comes in with a <br />legitimate request for a variance which is properly engineered by <br />a ccmiTCtent and respected engineer that a thorough and proper <br />consideration to that request should be given. Your City en­ <br />gineer also thought % request was a '‘legitimate request for a <br />variance". <br />The work which I did and as nav exists folloivs my Proposal I. <br />My engineer's assessment of that change was ". .the net <br />change in grading should be beneficial in that slopes will be <br />reduced and covered with vegetation, thus allowing the slower, <br />better quality run-off". The City engineer gave general con­ <br />currence to this. I believe that the City's objection to Pro- <br />pvysal I was that, even though the run-off is slower, that this <br />advantage might be off-set by the ncreased water which would <br />run to the lake. I then submitted Proposal II. This proposal <br />shewed no "new" water running to the lake. It showed a new <br />point in the law in front of my walt-out which was in the same <br />general location as the old high point, ^^y engineer's assess­ <br />ment of Proposal II was as follows. "The area draining directly <br />to Lake Minnetonka is unchanged fron existing conditions. How­ <br />ever, slopes have been reduced which will result in better qua­ <br />lity run-offs. The remaining area will drain as now to the ad­ <br />jacent marsh prior to entering the lake." Again, the City En­ <br />gineer gave general concurrence to this. This Proposal was also <br />rejected by the City. <br />Proposal III which is being submitted with this letter establ­ <br />ishes the same general drainage pattern shown in Proposal II. <br />Both Proposals call for the cutting of trees over 6". Pro­ <br />posal I called for the cutting of 3 trees. Proposal II for 2. <br />Only 2 trees over 6" were cut, as there were no other trees <br />over 6" in the excavated area. <br />The City has stated that the cutting of the two trees was <br />detrimental to tlie lake. I do not agree. I have some 50 <br />trees along my lake shore and cannot believe that the loss of <br />2 trees could be detrimental. Since the steep slope has been <br />removed, where these trees were standing, it would seem that <br />the trees are now unnecessary. Regardless of whose opinion <br />prevails, I am offering to plant 9 new trees. <br />SAMJEL MARFIELD LETTER, <br />cent.