Laserfiche WebLink
Danl K Hansen. Architects <br />3841 Thoma* Avenue South <br />Minneapulia, Minnesota .^5410 Telephone 612*920*6232 i1 V <br />24 August 19v2 t <br />J <br />^UG 2 6 2£'-2 <br />Mayor Barbara Peterson attd City Council Members - <br />Kdward Callahan, J. Diann Goetten, Gabriel <br />Jabbour & Mary Butler <br />City of Orono, Municipal Offices <br />P.O. Box 66 <br />Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 <br />Re; #1750 Charles and Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place - <br />Variances for Hardcover & Lot Coverage <br />Dear Mayor Peterson and City Council Members; <br />Continuing in the process to receive a variance for hardcover & lot coverage <br />on the above property, Charles Shireley Pyle & myself attended our 2nd <br />Planning Commission Meeting on 17 August 1992. We had expected to receive <br />unanimous approval on the request for variance, because we had fully complied <br />with the directive., of the Planning Commission Members at our first meeting, <br />20 July 1992. <br />This compliance was documented by Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning <br />Administrator, in her 11 August 1992 memo to Chairman Kelley and Planning <br />Commission Members. Our revised plan following the Planning Commission's <br />directives included the following items; <br />■“ Reducing roof structure below the directed amount. <br />“ Increasing the amount of hardcover reduction by 172 sq. ft. over the 1445 <br />sq. ft. previously proposed. <br />- Submitting a replanting schedule for two large oak trees to be removed. <br />Because of our compliance with all the directives, we were completely <br />surprised by the 17 August Planning Commission Members vote against our <br />application as submitted. We were also surprised bv the fact that only one <br />Planning Commission Member had been at the last meeting and was the only <br />17 August Member to have visited the site. He was the only Member to vote <br />for approval aa submitted but was not seconded. We find the lack of continuity <br />between the two different Planning Commission groups confusing and frustrating <br />In our attempt to proteed with an addition that we and the adjacent neighbors <br />feel is a big improveswnt to the property. Both neighbors were willing to <br />come and voice their approval, but we told them it was not necessary. <br />The whole point In moving a two car garage adjacent to the house, was to <br />give a unified appearance to the house as a whole and have a covered connection <br />from garage to house. Existing bedroom windowa prevent attaching tha garage <br />to the house.