PL MINUTES 06161981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• -3- When he reconvened the meeting at 8:30. P.M. , .Chairman Bjorklund reported that., when Mr. Sopcinski called him to tell him he would be unable to be present for .the .hearing, the Commission member had said he wanted to go on record as opposing the Danelski request because of the magnitude of the variance which would be necessary and because he is not .convinced the project will result in a heat savings during the winter. . Mr. Sopcinski did not believe it had been satisfactorily demonstrated that denial of the variance will result in an undue hardship for Mr. Danelski. Mr. Bowerman .said he had walked around the Danelski property and concluded the requested addition will pose no traffic hazard on either. 33rd or Croft Drive. He said he agreed with Mr. Sopcinski ' s concern with the extent of the variance requested, but questioned why there should be a 30 foot setback required where -there is already. a 15 foot right-of-way along- 33rd. He said he had gone- away from the last meeting perceiving this was "nothing more than a request for an addition with solar energy thrown' in." , .but now had become con- vinced, "after viewing the actual rendering of the plan on the architect' s sketch and learning the technology which will be utilized to accomplish solar concept" , that he could .vote in favor of the proposal. Mr. Jones agreed a 45 foot setback did not seem necessary and cited the fact that there were no indications of opposition to the pro- posal from Mr. Danelski ' s neighbors and indicated he believed the addition, as proposed', would be aethestically pleasing where Mr. Danelski "couldn' t tie an addition on the back of this house because • it would look terrible" . He further contended that the conditions set in the City ordinance for granting this type of variance had been developed in a period of low .energy costs when energy conserva- tion was not a consideration. and believes , "the Planning Commission must now consider the needs of the community to utilize existing floor space and, .at the same time, the technology .necessary for energy efficiency" . Mrs. Makowske said she was "wavering in her first opposition to the proposal" , but was still concerned that the conditions set in the ordinance had not been met'. She said she would "like to be convinced because I 'm very much in favor of improvements being made to existing structures in the City" . Mr. Bowerman replied that he perceives the solar concept applied- to ppliedto this home as a "natural step after all the other .improvements and landscaping Mr. Danelski has done on his home" . He felt the ordin- ance was "imposing a hardship on Mr. Danelski by interfering with his attempts to improve the value of his home" . Mr. Enrooth characterized himself as "somewhat of a futurist" . He did not believe the consideration,-of whether the Berg firm operated in Plymouth or St. Anthony was relative because he perceives "Jim to be a pioneer in the utilization of a new concept in St. Anthony-" , and wanted the Commission, "to address the questions raised and -move into the 80 ' s with its ordinance He speculated • the conditions set for granting variances had been formulated ten or twenty years ago, at a time when "there was no anyone could have considered solar utilization as a determining criteria" . He did not believe the conditions should serve as a criteria for judging a proposal but, rather, as only a factor in the decision process.