Laserfiche WebLink
Christine Mattson <br /> From: rbtfld@juno.com <br /> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 11:43 AM <br /> To: Melanie Curtis <br /> Subject: Variance Applications 09-3410 , Safar, and 09-3411, Fox <br /> Dear Melanie Curtis, <br /> Thank you for meeting with me to discuss the details of these two variance applications. After discussing <br /> them with my family, we think the Safars' proposed addition is a reasonable and beneficial improvement to the <br /> 980 property and that it would not negatively impact the marsh or our property. The shed along the east <br /> boundary of the 980 property is ideally located to provide a privacy and view barrier between our home and the <br /> Safars' home and proposed addition. This shed also provides an ideal barrier to noise from the proposed <br /> addition construction and after that will continue to block the daily driveway use, vehicles, vehicle parking, and <br /> garage noise on the 980 property. The location and existence of this shed is a great benefit to our property for a <br /> number of reasons, and it is important that this shed remain in its current location to screen activities and noise <br /> between the the 980 and 960 properties where the two homes are closest to each other. The proposed addition <br /> would impact our property adversely if this shed were not providing a barrier function in its current location. <br /> The use of a 75 foot setback from the OHWL is unreasonably burdensome and detrimental to the 980 <br /> property and should not be used, or used to deny this proposed addition. The marsh is itself a natural filtering <br /> system for all runoff and sediment before any such material would enter Lake Minnetonka. This very dense <br /> marsh plant growth and slowly flowing water unquestionably possesses a far greater capacity to receive and <br /> adequately filter out all runoff than would the open waters of Lake Minnetonka. The use of the same 75 foot <br /> setback on this marsh as would be required on open water of the Lake itself is not reasonable. This marsh was <br /> already long ago protected by the 26 foot setback of long standing without any need for an additional new <br /> setback of triple that distance. The anticipated r�noff from a single family residence with a cedar shake roof and <br /> brick exterior is not some kind of toxic waste or material harmful to this marsh or Lake Mirinetonka. This marsh <br /> exists and is in such good condition due solely to the great care and appreciation of the many past and present <br /> property owners who have preserved and enjoyed it long before the City or Watershed District ever had any <br /> regulations to protect it. The exceptional history of this marsh includes the past 980 and other adjoining <br /> landowners transferring large tracts of private property ownership and possession to the Nature Conservancy <br /> many years ago to protect this marsh and Lake Minnetonka permanently. The longstanding additional City and <br /> other rules and regulations further protected any wetlands not owned by the Nature Conservancy and included <br /> an additional 26 foot setback from the wetland delineation line. It is unreasonable to impose yet another buffer <br /> to the buffer redundantly. Private residences and other reasonable improvements within 7� feet of this marsh are <br /> no threat to this marsh or Lake Minnetonka. We are not dealing with a commercial or industrial establishment <br /> or any high vehicle traffic and resulting runof£ A different standard of setback should be applied to a marsh <br /> than to the actual open waters of Lake Minnetonka, which clearly lack the capacity and plant life of a marsh to <br /> handle and process runoff as efficiently. The City should not be asserting a 7� foot setback from Ferndale <br /> Marsh on residential structures and improvements. A 26 foot setback is ver}� adequate and appropriate, not 7� <br /> feet. <br /> To impose another 7� foot setback from the private pond in the front of the 980 property is also overly <br /> burdensome and creates too much of a hardship as this property is surrounded by water and wetlands and cannot <br /> be e�pected to attain a 75 foot setback in all directions and reasonably contain the existing house and amenities <br /> within the resulting land that would be left after a 7� foot setback is imposed. Obviously the driveway and other <br /> features must e�ist within 75 feet of the pond and wetlands, as there is no other way to reach this property or <br /> adequate space available to alternately locate these items outside of the 75 foot setback. The great majority of <br /> i <br />