PL MINUTES 05191981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, -4- the petitioner had been been caused by the City Ordinance" , since there would seem to be alternative methods of utilizing solar heat. The Commission member was concerned a "dangerous precedent might be set" for the many similar projects he foresees in the future. • Mr. Sopcinski believes from his own experience with a three season patio that "passive solar heating for Minnesota is very minimal because of the many cloudy days we have during the winter" . He believed he could vote for the proposal only if Mr. Danelski could provide engineering data supporting the proposed siting of the addi- tion as the most energy saving. Mr. Peterson agreed, saying he sees the Commission needs to seek expertise in this area before they can come to an educated decision on this new concept. The Chairman pointed out to Mr. Danelski that he is requesting a larger variance than has historically ever been granted in the City and he doesn' t believe "Mr. Danelski has demonstrated the City Ordinance is a greater hardship for him than for the rest of the property owners who are bound to the zoning setback requirements" . He closed the hearing at 9 : 45 P.M. Mrs . Makowske told Mr. Danelski that, although she is always happy to see City property upgraded, she could not vote for his proposal because of the size of the variance, the precedent it would set and the fact that he has not satisfactorily addressed the three condi- tions set for granting the variance he proposes . The Chairman reported Mr. Jones , who had a business commitment which • had prevented his attendance at the meeting, had called him and asked him to indicate Mr. Jones would be in favor of the Danelski proposal. Mr. Enrooth perceives the Commission needing more concrete data "to act on the proposal in a responsible manner, considering the certainty of many similar requests coming before them in the future" , and said he would like to see the proposal tabled. The Chairman told Mr. Danelski if he could demonstrate that "none of at least eight other solar systems I personally know of, which wouldn' t require variances , would not work on your property" , he might be able to consider the hardship condition had been fulfilled. Mr. Sopcinski wanted to find out whether other municipalities have permitted solar concepts to override their existing zoning require- ments before acting. Mr. Peterson agreed the Commission doesn 't have the expertise to consider this concept and suggested the State Planning Agency might provie helpful in this area. Mr. Danelski said it will cost him between $500 and $1,500 to have an architect draw up the plans for his proposal but agreed to see if he "can employ one of the firms who are bidding on the project to come before the Commission to answer the questions which have been • raised" . When Mr. Peterson moved the request be tabled, Mr. Enrooth asked, as a point of clarification, whether the request could be brought up again, if tabled. The Chairman told him "anyone can move it from the table or it can just be placed back on the agenda for another meeting" .