01-23-1989 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

riF THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ALL 14 COMMUNITIES, THEN:] f (6120 3300 subp. 3 J) that do not meet setback requirements may be fideS to existing str^ctSres if all of the following criteria and standards are 1) a thorough evaluation of the property and structure reveals no reasonable alternative location.Consensus _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2) the deck encroachment toward the OHL does not exceed 15 percent or 30 £eet whichever is more restrictive.Consensus the deck is constructed primarily of wood, and is not roofed or screened.Consensus_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ j^'^^opJse^iltemative standards for placement of these structures B. Provide no standards 6.What limits should be placed on the height of structures in communities? Existing Status: DNR Proposal Height 25 feet Community Range , .x25 feet upwards (out of the shoreland; There are nearly as many ways of defining building height as there are agency .evolved - level at the or hipped roof." SUGGESTIONS: Adopt this definition.a.Consensus b. Establish 35 feet as the maximum building height value for aitructures in the shorelands, while encouraging more restrictive standards. Consensxis — X r Buildine heieht of structures outside of the shorelands effect the even beyond the lakeshore community boundaries. We need to address this difficult issue. We propose to delay this discussion until the February f reach a consensus on the remaining issues contained in this the interim we would like each city to discuss this concept Manaeers Mayors and Council Members as appropriate. The problem^is not uniq to Lake Minnetonka. The City of Minneapolis is heavily involve- .n P^®® ®®, ^ this iLue on Lake Calhoun. We need to determine what our po should be. p^LhS: :l s^^nire^fm^lits (“^“criix and other Hatlo^l Parka) 2) use of vertical zoning similar to that used near airports 3) establishing tiers based on distance from the lake, each wit different height limitation. 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I