My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-20-1998 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1998
>
04-20-1998 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2023 1:14:18 PM
Creation date
7/27/2023 1:06:01 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
356
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
April 18, 1998 <br />Members of the Planning Commision <br />And City Staff <br />City of Orono <br />2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 <br />Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 <br />Re: Planning Commission Meeting of April <br />20, 1998; Item No. 2362, Bob Howard, <br />1300 Shoreline Drive-Variances <br />Gentlemen; <br />Mr. Bob Howard discussed with me this morning his plans to re <br />place his residence destroyed by fire some months age. He left for my <br />signature the City of Orono Form "Adjacent property owner's acknowledge <br />ment". Rather than sign that form, I have determined to comment on this <br />matter by this letter. Since I received this form today and since your <br />Notice of the Public Hearing was undated, I see that this letter will not <br />be in your hands "10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date". Nevertheless... <br />I have no comment, pro or con, on Mr. Howard's specific proposals <br />on the size or placement of the new dwelling. I am not aware of the par <br />ticular variances that may be required to accomplish his proposals. I am <br />assuming that the Planning Commission and the City Council will address <br />the issues raised by his variance requests in a manner that conforms to <br />the City's established practices, procedures and precedents. <br />I do have definite concerns about some non-variance matters re <br />garding the property that I believe need to be addressed at this time and <br />may need to be a part of the variance considerations. Mr. Howard's pro <br />perty lies north of the easterly end of our property. Technically the <br />two properties are divided by Fox Street which at this juncture is platted <br />but unopened. Save for unopened Fox Street, Mr. Howard's property also <br />lies just north of the easement v/hich we granted to the City some years <br />ago for a pumping or sewer lift station. Mr. Howard began what I believe <br />was some basement or footing reconstruction on his "old" house some 3-4 <br />years ago. As a part of that reconstruction a considerable amount of <br />earth-moving was done which affected not only Mr. Howard's platted lot, <br />but also ground lying within the platted but unopened Fox Street. Dirt <br />was piled against our existing fence (admittedly old and Yagile) and <br />the fence and gate near the pump station are no longer in existence. <br />Within the pest year^ I would guess, Mr. Howard has removed <br />the mounds of dirt on the fence line, but the pre-existing grade has not <br />been re-established. In a somewhat hilly terrain, I believe surface <br />water drainage has been diverted somewhat south over my property and <br />over the pump station area. Additionally ungraded mounds of dirt and <br />APR ? 0 195A <br />cri Y io.'.'o
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.