01-27-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

** f.• f Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 3 January 24, 1997 Zoning File #2196 2.The hardships presented are self-created and inadequate to support an approval recommendation. 3.Any safety concerns associated with the need for slip customers to cross County Road 15, can be addressed in other ways. Bas's for Denial In reviewing this application, Planning Commission was asked to consider the issues of safety, environmental sensitivity, the character of the locality, and whether the request is supported by adequate hardships. In weighing the environmental impacts of eliminating a natural bluff feamre which is protected by the Comprehensive Plan generally and the City's Shoreland Ordinance specifically. Planning Commission concluded that the lack of documented accidents seems to outweigh the inconvenience suffered by slip customers who must cross County Road 15 from the parking lot. Planning Commission also considered that the need for parking on the west side was in part created by the applicant in 1989 when the number of slips on the Tanager Lake side was increased from 25 to 67 slips. Planning Commission also considered the visual impacts of bluff removal, not only from properties in the immediate area but from a visual impact as viewed from the lake. Considering that the Comprehensive Plan clearly indicates that lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. Planning Commission felt that the proposed "toppii.g" of the bluff would be contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Com.mission briefly reviewed other options for access ^rom the east to the west side of 15, including the possibility of a bridge, a tunnel, a walkway underneath the Tanager Lake bridge, etc. The possibility of installing a pedestrian crosswalk controlled by a semaphore was given little if any consideration, considering the possible implications for impeding traffic movement. It was noted that this concern was discussed at length in 1989 and none of the options seemed feasible. Comments from the Hennepin County Department of Public Works suggested that there is a safe location for an access entrance if the parking lot is approved. Hennepin County did not comment on the application other than as to the potential entrance location. The Department of Natural Resources staff indicated that in their opinion this bluff should not be removed, and that the hardship is self-created, noting that if the parking on the Browns Bay side of County Road 15 was inadequate to serve the Tanager Lake facility, the Tanager Lake facility should not have been expanded by 42 slips.