Laserfiche WebLink
»■ I <br />t-Y 18, 1988 <br />ing were noted. <br />tional Use Permit <br />approximately 200 <br />.t of the July 23, <br />eceived a copy of <br />lation, others had <br />was considering, <br />be no fill, no <br />5 and a cuardrail <br />rh. <br />Tr.*.\v <br />1 never ha» been. <br />to maintain the <br />y suggested this <br />'ity to work this <br />to work this out <br />iccess. Mabusth <br />} the Road to be <br />nka Beach. Leesa <br />etonka Beach and <br />id nobody uses it <br />by citizens of <br />iay Road. Kelley <br />isphalt back into <br />>lan and felt an <br />he City told the <br />so. <br />f unacceptable tc <br />when it came tc <br />rided. <br />It. <br />ically pit as ing. <br />Dperty owners' <br />ng wall and the <br />adeaic since the <br />ration. ^al^sth <br />and the matter <br />L use permit had <br />i this resolved. <br />i " •: 'ii - <br />.iS" <br />t fa-VM <br />MIMOTBS OP THE PJANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 18, 1988 <br />CRYSTAL BAY ROAD IMPROVEMENT-CONTINUED <br />Kelley stated that this was the first time since this matter has come to <br />his attention, even though it has been a live issue for a year. <br />Hanson asked whether the group of neighbors had a plan for an <br />alternative access to their properties, and if a homeowner's association <br />existed to take responsibility for the road. Hanson noted that apparently <br />there is none, as the City has been plowing the road. Mr. Schupp stated <br />that he had met several times with Public Works Director Gerhardson and <br />finally wrote a letter to the Mayor which is why this matter was now before <br />the Planning Commission. He asked for direction from the Planning <br />Commission to gc t this matter resolved. Mabusth told Mr. Schupp to contact <br />her. Mr. Kelley asked Mabusth who would fund this. Mabusth stated that <br />the City is proceeding with this as a City 'oject. <br />It was moved by Cohen, seconded oy Kelley, to table the matter until <br />the residents could work with the City to work up a proposal to bring back <br />in front of the Planning Commission. Motion, Ayes*7, Nay«0, Motion passed. <br />#1303 ALLAN REZABEK <br />1989 EAGERNESS POINT RuAO <br />VARIANCE <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. <br />Mr. Rezabex and Mr. Fisher were both present for this matter. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that she was using Mr. Fisher'& <br />survey for the presentation of this matter. Kelley asked if Mr. Rezabek <br />agreed with the use of this survey. Mabusth visited the site in question <br />to determine where the designated lot line was in conjunction with the <br />location of the fence. It was established that the reason for the fence <br />being located 1/2 foot to a foot on the Fisher property was due to a recent <br />torrens action where the Courts determined the location of the shared lot <br />line. Judicial markers have been placed, indicating the actual lot line. <br />In so doing, it was determined that the Rezabek fence encroached on the <br />Fisher property 12" on the west side and 6" on the east side. Mr. Rezabek <br />explained the situation and stated that he would like the fence that was <br />torn down restored on his property and would like to move that portion of <br />the fence still on the Fisher property to his property. <br />Mr. Kelley explained that the job of the Planning Commission is tc <br />approve or deny the variance to relocate the existing fence and allow that <br />portion that was torn down to be installed on Rezabek's side of the lot <br />line. Mr. Rezabek expressed his displeasure with the City in that they did <br />not inform him of the need of a variance to move the fence. The existing <br />Ordinance states that there cannot be a fence of any kind within 75' of the <br />Lake. In light of the Ordinance, Mr. Rezabek would only be permitted tc <br />install approximately 20* of the fence since that is the amount of property <br />that does not lie within the protected lakeshore setback area. <br />Mr. Kelley asked for the hardship in this case. Mr. Rezabek stated <br />that the hardship was that the fence existed at the time he purchased the <br />■ ^ V^ -' <br />I <br />■M <br />VI <br />.Mm <br />s' ■ • *•. <br />::II. ^ <br />Mayor Bria <br />City of Mi <br />2945 WestW( <br />Minnetonka <br />Dear Mayor <br />During thi <br />extensive < <br />City and t] <br />to researcl <br />wherein th« <br />Several al <br />the early <br />Minnetonka <br />would cbje <br />Minnetonka <br />and the con <br />The resp <br />Superinter <br />closing t <br />alternati <br />developed <br />submitted <br />design and <br />requested <br />Therefore ‘ <br />review thii <br />their deci; <br />are request <br />I will als <br />If you cou: <br />notify the <br />If there are <br />attention to <br />Sincerely, ^ <br />/ ^ < <br />John R, Gerhj <br />JRG/ls <br />Messrs.