Laserfiche WebLink
r s- . i Piap <br />are not allowed <br />La considered an <br />t shoreline than <br />encroachment is <br />osed structure <br />>ver allowed in <br />Lon to raise the <br />ng grade, where <br />le 0-75* zone. <br />t structurei and <br />t zone. <br />m mtmFm:'•■*• V\- :~f^: :; .•■■■.■:.■■ ■ ■ ■"-■ <br />lired side yard <br />lis on which the <br />Idles a property <br />than 120 s.f. in <br />Brmit, it still <br />* the additional <br />} the pool apron <br />:ontained within <br />rsu.eably slower <br />pod. Similar <br />uggested by the <br />le in lakeshore <br />in Orono. Hote <br />t of the debris <br />into the ground <br />Zoning File #1353 <br />November 14, 1988 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />In addition to not meeting any of the City of Orono's requirements, <br />the pool and patio does not meet the minimum 50' setback for <br />structures as is required by the DNR for new structures, and does not <br />meet the criteria for being less than 250 s.f. in area as is currently <br />proposed by the DNR in their proposed shoreland standards. For the <br />record, the City of Orono since 1975 has maintained stricter land use <br />and setbacks for lakeshore properties than are required by the DNR. <br />The City has the legal right to require more restrictive standards <br />than the DNR. <br />The applicants suggest that past dredging of the lagoon adjacent to <br />their property is a hardship, because it has made the lot area <br />smaller. In fact, the dry buildable lot area has not changed <br />substantially since 1970, as can be verified by a review of the 1970 <br />airphoto attached as Exhibit M. The house was constructed in 1972, <br />current restrictive lakeshore zoning standards which were <br />adopted in 1975. However, the house itself essentially meets the <br />current 75' lakeshore/10' side/35' street setbacks. Without a doubt, <br />this property is very restricted by current zoning ordinances. <br />However, these restrictions are similar throughout the neighborhood <br />and the community, and there is nothing unique or unusual about this <br />particular situation. <br />Regarding the applicants' description of unusual property conditions, <br />the applicants make the statement "rear-yard area Is a bluff dropping <br />down a relatively sheer face at the rear to the shores of an inlet <br />Lake Minnetonka. The surface of applicants' rear yard <br />is not visible from Lake Minnetonka. The existence of a pool or <br />proposed decking surrounding a pool cannot be seen from Lake <br />Minnetonka." It is a fact that the lagoon is considered part of Lake <br />Minnet-^nka, that the applicants' pre-e2:lstlng rear yard was very <br />visible from the lagoon area under norma', lake elevation conditions, <br />and that the pool, proposed decking, and proposed 2-3' high retaining <br />wall 15* from the normal shoreline of Lake Minnetonka will be very <br />visible encroachments into the required setback area. Staff would <br />note that the entire yard area from the house to the lake is less than <br />a 5% slope, and in no way can be considered a bluff area such as you <br />wight find on Casco Point, where often there is a 30-50* sheer drop <br />from the yard to the lakeshore.