My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-27-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
01-27-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2023 2:25:12 PM
Creation date
7/31/2023 2:19:30 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
309
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Zoning File #2196 <br />November 15, 1996 <br />Page 4 <br />Intensive Vegetation Removal <br />Shoreland Ordinance Section 10.56, Subd. 16(1) prohibits removal of live trees within the 0-75' <br />setback zone that are 6" or greater in diameter, unless a permit has been issued by City staff. That <br />section requires replace of an equivalent number of trees of a size and nature found acceptable to <br />staff. Section 16(1-2) prohibits intensive vegetation clearing within 75' of the shoreline and on steep <br />slopes and in bluff impact zones. Intensive vegetation clearing is defined as the complete removal <br />of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row or block. Since virtually the entire feature is <br />within the bluff impact zone, excavation in an area approximately 100' wide and 200' long certainly <br />would be considered as intensive vegetation clearing. <br />• <br />Hardship Statement <br />Please review applicant's statement of hardship on the second page of Exhibit D. Applicant suggests <br />that the property area and configuration would not allow the proposed use without the hardcover <br />variances. One can either construe this fact as a hardship to the property, or can conclude that the <br />property is not suitable for the proposed use. The safety concern is also noted as a justification for <br />granting the variances. <br />The compelling reason for the request ultimately is the over-development of the dockage sysi^m on <br />Tanager Lake. In 1989 the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District approved an expansion from the <br />pre-existing 25 slips on Tanager Lake to 64 slips, an increase of 39 slips. The LMCD approved this <br />apparently without consideration of the ability of the land bast to support such an increase in <br />intensity of use. LMCD gianted a special density license based on Minnetonka Boat Works <br />providing a number of public 'amenities' (See Exhibit Q). The City Council subsequently and upon <br />advice of the City Attorney, chose not to oppose the LMCD and ultimately allowed Minnetonka <br />Boat Works to increase the size of the parking lot on the east side of County Road 15 to <br />accommodate these slips, at the City required ratio of 6 stalls per 10 slips. However, a variance was <br />granted at that time to allow those stalls to be across the County Road from the slips they serve. <br />Genmar is now concurrently proposing a revised use of their property on the east side of County <br />Road 15 which requires additional parking spaces. In order to provide those spaces and also to <br />provide a safer parking area for the Tanager Lake slip users, the current parking lot request has been <br />submitted. <br />Safety Issues <br />When the 39 slips were added on Tanager Lake, a requirement of the City's parking expansion <br />approval was striping of a pedestrian cross walk approximately at the north end of the Genmar <br />property. Windward Marina (to the immediate north of the Genmar property) was redeveloped at <br />about this same time. Staff has been advised by the owner of Windward Marina that on busy
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.