Laserfiche WebLink
'. f. <br />vironmental impacts are <br />onslder this application <br />i the character of the <br />:ainly has a hardship to <br />k is necessary to restore <br />LI must determine whether <br />method proposed to allow <br />e lakeside of the houses <br />he existing grade, which <br />would appear to be no <br />rties' views of the lake, <br />for the encroachment in <br />aid need a railing. The <br />I proposed deck would be <br />:he lakeshore remains in <br />le would be approximately <br />isly recommended approval <br />:o removal of the deck at <br />SiKi <br />.... -a'-s. <br />i to remove the lakeshore <br />B that the foundation of <br />some added stability, <br />roslon did not occur (the <br />glneer Glenn Cook feels <br />)f the pojts and the fact <br />:, but the decking itself <br />and Council are left to <br />structure outweigh the <br />increase of 0.64% if the <br />onable value) is removed), <br />the deck was removed. <br />mum <br />i-m -4 <br />mi <br />m <br />I? - ■ ■V - .v^ V. : . <br />sgarding decks not being <br />I before but have never <br />W^ ,. \ -rv-r umu- ■ ■ 'Ui <br />mm <br />\a,m■m ■•"■!'■ «3i'^'0 r, fi -fe^■ •: ■ •.- •■•• ■....' -r;:mm <br />-mm <br />mm <br />mmm: r-mmmi <br />-» •Cm~ta\, STH«TS?i &Arro—St*# ft? Lmm 9ajtr9 M». #09 jjiiwrjyrry AiftkiMM mm H5Wm -3B® <br />Ksrai i, llfi <br />Nichasl Caffron <br />Assistant Plannlisg ft lonlng Administrator <br />City of Orcmu} <br />P.O. Box 6€ <br />Crystal Bay, Minnesota 5S323 <br />Rs: John and Lynn Waldron Property <br />19S1 Concordia Street <br />Dear Michaelt <br />This letter asts forth our arguments in sufqport of the Mst <br />recent proposal of ours to remedy the bank erosion problem created <br />by the July 23, 19S7, storm. As you can see frcmi the sheets <br />exKlosed with my letter of Psbruary 29, we are no longer proposing <br />a walkout cut but rather are proposing a regrading of the <br />lakeshore yard to reduce the elevation of the yard three feet over <br />the area in front of the house «d\ere the severe erosion occurred. <br />Thus, we would be cutting back the lakeshore slope at its crest, <br />which is one of the recosmmndations of the Hennepin Conservation <br />Diatrict as outlined in their Nemorandiui of August 14, 19S7, a <br />copy of which was attached to the staff Report of December 9, <br />19S7. <br />First, and foremost, we continue to maintain that the July 23 <br />storm created a severe physical hardship on our property within <br />the meaning of the city ordinances. In other words, our plight is <br />due to circumstances uniqpie to our property and not created by us. <br />Although ether properties on the lake suffered bank erosion <br />problems, this fact does not destroy the unique character of the <br />occurrence. The uniqueness stems from the fact that the situation <br />is not one generally prevailing in the locality. <br />One of the reasons for the Planning Commission recommending <br />denial of our walkout proposal was that the walkout cut was not <br />related to the bank erosion stabilization needs. Our present <br />proposal is clearly related in that it is one of the <br />recommendations specifically made by the Hennepin Conservation <br />District to deal with a bank erosion problem such as this. <br />As you know, the City Engineer has stated that our present <br />proposal is neutral from «m engineering standpoint with the other <br />proposed methods of bank restoration suggested by the City <br />mm^m <br />: rt <br />tS. .