Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />HATE: <br />8 1994 <br />ITEM NO.: ^ <br />Niat Mkhid P. Gaffiroa <br />AfcMia <br />Zoning <br />TMc <br />VI neUmd Flexibility Request - City of Mound <br />Attached is a seccnd 9»idaiid Flexfinlky Request from the CiQr of Mound. Note that <br />as the shoieland review process matured. DNR reduced the comment preiod from 45 days to 10 <br />days, leaving only a short window for review by adjacent cities. <br />Mound initially asked for flexibility as to lot size and width, PUD density, haidcover, <br />building height, and an allowance for lockboxes at the shoreline similar to Orono’s ordinance. <br />They have now requested flexibility in two additional areas: <br />1. 10’ setback from the top of a Muff in existing developed areas rather dum 30* <br />(still would require 30 ’ for new development). <br />2. Decrease in structure setback from Federal, State or County roads from 50’ to <br />20*. Otono’s similar request %ras accepted. <br />The actual impact of a 10’ top of bluff setback is dependent on defining the top of the <br />bluff, coupled with tte minimum required lakeshore setback. Staff has not reviewed Mound’s <br />entire ordinance, but, assuming » minimum 50’ setback from Lake Minnetonka and assuming <br />use of DNR’s "common sense" top of bhiff definition, the visual inqiact could be severe in <br />cases. However, it can certainly be argued that their proposed ordinance will reduce the number <br />of bluff setback variance requests for additions or reconstruction in existing devek^ied areas. <br />COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: <br />Direct staff to respond to DNR and Mound if Council feels a response is necessary.