Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />August 10, 2005 <br />Page 3 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />cause the redevelopment of the street and th e possibility of utilitie s being put in on W. <br />Shadow Lake Drive, but it woul d not affect this applicati on and Mr. Erickson would still <br />need to obtain the variance as they would be encroaching closer than the neighboring <br />properties. <br /> <br />Mr. Hyden arrived at 6:50 p.m. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. <br /> <br />Brad Erickson, 6868 W. Shadow Lake Drive, stat ed they were upset with the City staff <br />and summarized the process they had followed for this variance. He indicated they were <br />over 100-feet from the lake. He noted they ha d worked closely with staff on this and had <br />spent a lot of money for this variance and moved ahead with their plans. He stated he <br />believed they had followed everything th e City staff had directed and he was <br />disappointed the staff was reco mmending denial. He indica ted they had spent several <br />thousand dollars on this, which they would not have done if they believed this would not <br />be approved. He indicated he wanted to be treated the same as everyone else in the <br />neighborhood. He stated he has lived in th e neighborhood for 25 years and has never had <br />any problems with flooding or wa ter sitting in his yard. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty stated he belie ved staff was trying to help him through this variance, but <br />unfortunately, the DNR was saying there were other ways of doing this. <br /> <br />Mr. Erickson asked why was their neighbor allo wed to build a porch. He stated he did <br />not believe his project would affect the lake quality. He noted the City and DNR until <br />recently did not have any interest in the lake and if anything the residents had tried to <br />improve the quality of the lake. He noted most of the main structure was set closer to the <br />lake than he was. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty stated he had l ooked at his site and the guidelin es in place were to keep <br />standardization and reducing a 100-foot setback to 50-feet, was pushing it. Mr. Erickson <br />noted there were a lot of houses on the lake sitting on the setback and most of those <br />houses were put in before setbacks were in place. <br /> <br />Chair Rafferty noted the elevation for the 100-year flood was farther up in his yard. Mr. <br />Erickson responded his neighbors had brought in f ill years ago to build up their yards, but <br />he had no need to do that because he did not have flooding issues. <br /> <br />Mr. Hyden asked if the 100-f oot setback would change if W. Shadow Lake Drive went <br />on City sewer and water. Mr. Bengston replie d it would be reduced to 75-feet, but this <br />property would still need a variance. <br /> <br />Mr. Hyden asked if the neighboring house ha d gone through a similar process. Mr. <br />Bengston replied staff had looked at this and there had been homes closer than 100 feet, <br />but they had met the shoreline ordinance. He noted there were a couple of homes that <br />were almost on top of the ordinary high water line that had been there for quite awhile. <br />