Laserfiche WebLink
LL <br />3. <br />4. <br />The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 16, 1995 and <br />recommended unanimous approval of the variances and conditional use permits as <br />proposed and recommended appro\ al of the comprehensive application based on the <br />following unique findings and hardships: <br />a. <br />b. <br />c. <br />e, <br />The eastern shoreline of West Arm is severely impacted by ice mo\ ement in <br />the early spring. The bank at a 1:1 slope is unable to retain ground cover and <br />is subject to severe erosion. <br />The 2' treated timber retaining wall will pro\ ide a temporary solution to the <br />erosion and will not address the issue of ice pressures on the shoreline bank. <br />The installation of riprap would result in the loss of the natural sand beach <br />along the shoreline. <br />There is n sufficient depth between the shoreline and the lakeside of the <br />residence to allow- for the alteration of the baitk to a 3:1 slope. The majority <br />of applicants' hVeshorc yard would be lost w ith the alterations. <br />Applicants shall provide a matching excavation below the 931.5 elevation to <br />olfset 14.8 cubic yards of filling w ithin the floodplain of Lake Minnetonka. <br />f I he accessory structure will meet all required setbacks. <br />g.fhe proposal will not result in an excess of structural coverage. Structural <br />coverag e will be maintained at 14.6% where 15% is allowed. <br />h.The majority of hardcover w ithin the 0-75' setback area at 907 s.t. is the <br />residence structure and access stairs at 855 s.f or 22.8%. <br />The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to <br />it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting <br />the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire <br />hazard or lUher danger to neighboring properties, would not merely serve as a <br />Pace 2 of 5