11-21-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

’’jlN iB are not allowed L is considered an ;he shoreline than no encroachment is oposed structure Icover allowed in ation to raise the iting grade r where the 0-75* zone. Its structures and icK zone. tquired side yard basis on which the raddles a property s than 120 s.f. in permit, it still of the additional Lng the pool apron I contained within tresu.iably slower be pool. Similar i suggested by the use in lakeshore id in Qrono. Note tost of the debris Id into the ground i m-■ -y \ 11:.■ j 1 1 ■ >■i ■'tkt 1 W:1 $ J !'■ i'.mtm Zoning Pile #1353 November 14, 1988 Page 4 of 6 7. In addition to not meeting any of the City of Orono's requirements, the pool and patio does not meet the minimum 50* setback for structures as is required by the DNR for new structures, and does not meet the criteria for being less than 250 s.f. in area as is currently proposed by the DNR in their proposed shoreland standards. For the record, the City of Orono since 1975 has maintained stricter land use and setbacks for lakeshore properties than are required by the DNR. The City has the legal right to require more restrictive standards than the DNR. 5. The applicants suggest that past dredging of the lagoon adjacent to their property is a hardship, because it has made the lot area smaller. In fact, the dry buildable lot area has not changed substantially since 1970, as can be verified by a review of the 1970 airphoto attached as Exhibit M. The house was constructed in 1972, the current restrictive lakeshore zoning standards which were adopted in 1975. However, the house itself essentially meets the current 75* lakeshore/10* side/35' street setbacks. Without a doubt, this property is very restricted by current zoning ordinances. However, these restrictions are similar throughout the neighborhood and the community, and there is nothing unique or unusual about this particular situation. Regarding the applicants' description of unusual property conditions, the applicants make the statement "rear-yard area is a blaff dropping * relatively sheer face at the rear to the shores of an inlet dredged out to Lake Minnetonka. The surface of applicants' rear yard is not visible from Lake Minnetonka. The existence of a pool or proposed decking surrounding a pool cannot be seen from Lake Minnetonka." It is a fact that the lagoon is considered part of Lake Mlnnet'^nka, that the applicants' pre-e:clsting rear yard was very visible from the lagoon area under norma.', lake elevation conditions, and that the pool, proposed decking, anr' proposed 2-3' high retaining wall 15* from the normal shoreline of Lake Minnetonka will be very visible encroachments into the required setback area. Staff would note that the entire yard area from the house to the lake is less than a 5% slope, and in no way can be considered a bluff area such as you might find on Casco Point, where often there is a 30-50* sheer drop from the yard to the lakeshore.