Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OPPENHEIMER WOLFF FOSTER SHEPARD AND DON N ELLY Mayor and Council Member May 3, 1982 Page Four 5. The DNR kogulations Provide a Meaningful Comparison as to the Unique Hardship which Strict Application of the Orono Ordinance has on Ba;sur Park Development. Although the City might not be bound to the DNR regulations con- cerning hard cover requirements, it is meaningful to compare appli- cation of the Orono ordinance w,th the application of the DNR regu- lations. We are aware that the City of Orono has conducted its own investigation on the effect of runoff in the City and Lake Minnetonka. However, the DNR has also ext2nsivcly studied the problem and some credibility should be given to a comparison with the DNR regulations DNR Regulation NR n3(c)(2)(ee) provides the following hard cover requirrxment: "The total area of all impervious surfaces on a lot shall not exceed 30% of the total lot area." This standard applies to both Recreational Development Water—; and General Devulopment Waters. The DNR feels it is appropriate to consider the total site to be developed and not just the buildable area in calculating credits for the land and the amount of hard cover on it. If the 30% requirement were applied #-.) the Baldur Park PRD, Tonka Lake Properties would be entitled to construct hard cover on almost 36,000 square feet of the site, or almost double of what it is proposing. The fact that Tonka Lake properties is proposing to construct hard cover which would be far less than that perm4,Aed by the DNR certainly gives some indication that the PRD is not unreasonable. 6. A Variance from the Hard Ccver Requirements, If Necessary, Should be Granted in this Case. One cannot help wonder, when the City enacted the present hard cover requirement, whether consideration was given to unique situa- tions where a piece of property was surrounded by water on more than one side. The rule of allowing 259. hard cover beyond the 75-foot setback seems to work well, and it is fairly consistent with the DNR rule of 30%, when there is water on only one side of a niece of property. It is conceivable that the Orono ordinances could be construed in a manner such that in calculating permissible hard cover, the 25% hard cover limitation applies to all property beyond 75 feet from the one side predominantly draining to the Lake, even if the property is on a three -sided peninsula. If that were the case, it is conceivable that Tonka Lake Properties would not even need a hart] cover variance in this case. Assuminq (to avoid thin problem of construing the Orono ordinance) that a variance would be necessary, t.hc facts of this case seem to