Laserfiche WebLink
rER, <br />PLANNING CatUSSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 17, 1976,- Page 5. <br />The history which leads up to now is as folloivs. <br />May 30, 1974. Lot purchased from DiCon. <br />June § July of 1974. Coramunicsted with Dexter ^^arson, City <br />Planner, about ny proposal to remove part of the bank. He wasn’t <br />sure \diat regulations affected my proposal, but told me I must <br />apply to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and to the <br />Minnehaha Creek Water Shed District before the Village would con­ <br />sider my proposal. I spent a long time attempting to find out <br />hoiv to get peimission from these t^vo agencies, only to find that <br />they hai*. no jurisdiction over my proposal. It took Mr. Marson <br />awhile to be convinced, but aft'sr several weeks he agreed with <br />me. It was about this time that Mr. Marson left the City of <br />Orono. <br />July - August, 1974. Was told to deal with Mike Scheller, Orono <br />Building Inspector. He also was not sure which ordinances con­ <br />trolled my application and told me to talk to Mr. Malkerson, one <br />of the City’s attorneys. Mr. Scheller has also left the City of <br />Orono. <br />August 13, 1974. Talked to ^h•. Malkerson about my application <br />r i.'he said to mail him the survey so that he could understand <br />what I was asking for. The survey was mailed that day. <br />Au^st 28, 1974. Talked to Mr. Malkerson on the phone. He <br />said that my application fell under ordinance #167-31.700. He <br />also explained that there was a new proposed code being prepared <br />and that it xvould be effective in 6 to 8 months. <br />SAMUEL MARFIELD LETTER, <br />cont. <br />September 16, 1974. Proposal I. rejected by the Planning Con»- <br />mission. <br />Septemb^er 25, 1974. Sent letter to Mr. Malkerson asking for <br />^All of the rules \diich govern this 75’ area". <br />October 1, 1974. Received the rules from Mr. Malkerson. Label­ <br />led as Exhibit *'A" was an ordinance dated June 28, 1974, 31.700 <br />and 31.705. 31.710 was not included. 31.710 said, among other <br />things, "the requirement of Section 31.700 are not intended to <br />govern the normal and customary grading in the area of....newly <br />constructed building. .—any unusual eartii filling or removal <br />of grading shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the <br />Planning Commission..." I believe since the grading was shown <br />on the building permit and was also evident from the design of <br />the house that this section of the ordinance would have exempted <br />me from having to apply for a variance. It was the Building <br />Inspector’s responsibility to refer any "unusual" work to the <br />Planning Commission. Apparently, he did not think that the work <br />was unusual since he did not refer it to them. The newly pro­ <br />posed ordinance was also enclosed as Exhibit "B". <br />October 16, 1974. Proposal li'. was submitted to the Planning <br />Commission and rejected. <br />November 1, 1974. My attorney, Donald J. Fraley, sent a letter <br />to Mr. MalKerson explaining the reasons why the proposals should