My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-15-1993 Planning PacketC
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1993
>
11-15-1993 Planning PacketC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2023 11:38:10 AM
Creation date
11/2/2023 11:31:55 AM
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.
/
326
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
STATI or <br />(M! 0^ [1 ^ ® <br />PHONE NO. <br />^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />RETPO waters - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 <br />772-7910 ritENO <br />Octobor 14, 1993 <br />Miko Gaffron <br />City of Orono <br />P.O. Box 66 <br />Crystal Bay, Minnasota 55323 <br />RE? LAND USE APPLICATIONS, CITY OP ORONO, HENNEPIN COlTITy <br />Dear Mr. Gaffron: <br />I have coiaments on the following land use applications which are <br />scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Comaission on <br />October 18, 1993. <br />#1874. Sailers World. 1955 Shoreline Drive. The applicant requests <br />several variances in order to place two storage units on a portion <br />of the property that is currently vegetated. DNR Metro Waters <br />recommends that the city deny the variance requests as they are <br />currently proposed. The site is already non-conforming and the <br />proposed addition of storage units would exacerbate the non <br />conformity. Storage units on a portion of the property that is <br />already hardcover and meets the lakeshore setbacks may be <br />acceptable as an alternative, but not the current proposal. We <br />also question whether hardship exists. <br />475 The applicant requests <br />after-the-fact approval of a variance to allow intensive vegetation <br />removal within 75 feet of Lake Minnetonka. DNR Metro Waters <br />recommends that the city deny the after-the-fact variance request <br />and require restoration of the site. Selective removal of <br />vegetation in order to obtain a view of the lake from the residence <br />would have been acceptable, but not intensive vegetation removal. <br />The restoration/landscaping plan should include larger caliper <br />trees to replace the larger diameter trees which were removed, and <br />should place particular emphasis on replanting of vegetation in the <br />area closest to the lake (i.e. the shore impact zone). <br />Following are some additional specific points for the city's <br />consideration that would apply to all the variance requests: <br />1.Hardship must be demonstrated to justify approval of a <br />variance request. The approval of a variance due to hardship <br />should be based on the following prerequisites: <br />A. The proposed use is reasonable <br />AN equal opportunity EMPLOYEH
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.