Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 18,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> that shows the main level,the lower level,and the upper level of the house,there seems to be a doorway <br /> and some kind of wall structure above the garage that then is not depicted in full on the drawing. <br /> Smuckler indicated it is attic space. <br /> Coward stated at the time the contiguous property owners received notice of the hearing,they took the <br /> time to review the plans. Over the last couple of days,we have found that the contiguous property <br /> owners have a common view about this particular project and that he has been asked to read a summary <br /> statement of the neighbors'view of the project. Coward apologized for not submitting it prior to tonight. <br /> "Dear Members of the Planning Commission: We are writing to inform the Planning Commission that <br /> the four property owners who reside on land contiguous to the subject property, as well as property <br /> owners in the adjacent neighborhood area, urge the Commission to deny the request for variances. We <br /> submit the following points for your consideration: <br /> One,we individual and collectively oppose the granting of any setback variance for 1910. This includes <br /> both the lakeshore sight line setback and the wetland setback. <br /> Two,further,we consider both of these setback zoning rules to not be technical but two of the more <br /> important rules on the books. They influence more than others perhaps the protection of neighbors' <br /> enjoyment of their respective properties,property values, and the preservation of ecologically important <br /> land. <br /> Three,Mr.Fehresti,the applicant, should have been fully aware of these existing rules when he purchased <br /> the property. It is not now the City's or the neighbor's role as a matter of courtesy or obligation to void <br /> the conflict between the rules and the development plan by granting a setback variance. This property <br /> had been on the market for many years. Mr.Fehresti bought the land in foreclosure. Instead of <br /> purchasing the property with a contingency relating to the City granting certain variances,he simply <br /> closed on the sale. Therefore, at the time of purchase,he assumed the risk that these rules might affect his <br /> plans. The request now for a variance is a request of the city to waive their rules because those rules do <br /> not conform with his plans. Mr.Dougherty,who lives at 1900 Shoreline Drive, stated he spoke to Mr. <br /> Fehresti before the purchase and specifically pointed out the existence of the lakeshore setback rule. <br /> In regards to the Heritage Drive marsh and wetland area at the rear of this property, it is fed by a natural <br /> spring,which comes off of the 1920 property,and the stream from which crosses the applicant's property <br /> in a well-defined stream bed and feeds the marsh bed that is principally owned by the Daytons and the <br /> Cowards." Regarding the 1860 Shoreline Drive situation,the water from the Heritage Drive marsh goes <br /> under Heritage Drive,goes to the Fox Hill pond and wetland area,and from there goes to the Tanninger <br /> Lake and wetland area and then finally Lake Minnetonka. <br /> Gaffron indicated it may actually go west of Brown Road but that it eventually goes to Tanninger. <br /> Coward stated a third concern is the McMansion that is being proposed. "The lot is significantly <br /> substandard as to both buildable area and width. In addition to large square footage,the plan includes a <br /> large garage which we believe is intended for storage of a car collection and/or boats,so it is an oversized <br /> garage. The development plan is not in keeping with the character or the use of the existing <br /> neighborhood." <br /> Page <br /> 13 <br />