My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-10-1989 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1989
>
04-10-1989 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/4/2025 9:31:14 AM
Creation date
4/1/2025 2:01:17 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.
/
552
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
3155 North Shore Drive <br />Wayzata, MN 55458 <br />March 17, 1989 <br />Orono Planning Commission Members <br />Orouo Council Members <br />Orono City Staff Members <br />CTil OF ORONO <br />P. O. Box 66 <br />Crystal Bay, MN 55323 <br />Ladies and Gentlemen: <br />I really don't like to write a letter like this, but given the <br />Palm's request that they now be allowed to retain the old detached <br />garage, I feel T simply have to write and express my views to you. <br />As most of you no doubt know already, I'm the owner of the property <br />at 1690 Shadywood Road, immediately to the north of the Palms, and <br />therefore am the property owner most affected by whatever they do. <br />When their remodeling requesc first came before the city many years <br />ago, I went into the city offices and looked at the plans of what <br />they were proposing. I had absolutely no objection to those plans. <br />In fact, I thought it would be a significant improvement both to <br />their property and to the entire neighborhood The plan to build <br />an attached garage and tear down the old detached garage by the <br />road was particularly appealing. Had I been in their shoes, I <br />thought, I would do the same thing. So I never appeared before any <br />of the Planning Commission or Council meetings on their request <br />because I had no objections to it. <br />But now, after the fact, when they come back to you requesting that <br />they be allowed to retain the old detached garage, that puts things <br />in a whole different light. Personally, I'm very much oppv.--ed to <br />them retaining that garage and I would strongly encourage you <br />reject their request. You already have been more than generoi i <br />with them in the hardcover allowances wuich you allowed them, both <br />in the 0-75 foot zone and in the 75-250 foot zone. They should be <br />happy as a pig in mud with what they already have. For them to <br />eve. allege that old garage is an "historic structure" is pure <br />poppycock! An old, run down, poorly maintained building what <br />it really is. If it were that "historic structure", I th.ink they'd <br />want to take better care of it than they have. If you'll drive by <br />and look at it, you'll see that they've got more junk p 1against <br />it than the city dump.. And that's the way it's been : ;r as long <br />as they've been engaged in their remodeling project. .. t'r* a fi.4.st <br />class eye sore! <br />over
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.