02/09/2000 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • AGENDA ITEM V. D. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Mary Kay Wyland DATE: February 9, 2000 TOPIC: Tom & Roxanne Traver, 6750 West Shadow Lake Road, Variance DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: This case involves a variance request to allow construction of a single family home at 6750 West Shadow Lake Drive within 100' of the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) of Reshanau Lake. The property is Zoned Rural but considered a pre- existing non- conforming lot of recorded as it was platted in 1982 prior to adoption of the 10 acre minimum requirement for rural lots and adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance. The applicant has agreed to construct the house at the 30' front setback line. The proposed setbacks are as follows: Front Setback Side Setback OHW Setback 30' (30' required) 20' (10' required for house, 5' for garage) 73' - 84'(100' required per Shoreland Ordinance on Recreational Development Lakes, unsewered) A variance of 16' - 27' from the OHW is requested. The Zoning Ordinance and the Shoreland Ordinance allow construction on nonconforming lots of record and a variance procedure. According to the Ordinance "in evaluating the variance, the City Council shall consider sewage treatment and water supply capabilities... ". The DNR must be notified of any hearings. Staff has received a recommendation from Tom Hovey, DNR Area Hydrologist concerning this request. His comments are attached and indicate that he "would not object to the granting of a variance if the lake setback is maximized and a condition involving vegetation is placed on the variance". He has recommended that the shore impact zone be maintained or established in native, unmowed vegetation. The Environmental Board reviewed the request and concurred with his recommendation but suggested an unmowed area of 40' from the OHW. They also suggested the applicant work with the Environmental Specialist on modifications to the septic system that would include a pretreatment system. We believe the variance criteria can be met in review of this case. There is a hardship, not created by the property owner; the hardship is not economic; the property is unique as it was created prior to the adoption of the 10 acre minimum requirement in the Zoning