08/25/1997 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 25, 1997 proposed construction is the most logical placement for the addition. The City s Shoreland Management Ordinance requires a setback of 75 feet on a Recreational Development Lake which is sewered, such as Reshanau Lake. In addition to the variance criteria within our City Zoning Ordinance, the Shoreland Ordinance asks the following: 1. Is the property used seasonally or year-round. 2. The characteristics of development on adjacent properties. This site is a year-round residence. The adjacent properties indicate the following: 6649 East Shadow Lake Drive - dwelling located 25 feet from OHW - decking located 15 feet from OHW 6665 East Shadow Lake Drive - dwelling located 60 feet from OHW 6673 East Shadow Lake Drive - dwelling located 36 feet from OHW It also appears, from aerial photos, that there are other properties on the lake side of East Shadow Lake Drive that are located closer than 64 feet or 60 feet to the OHW; however, Staff had not verified additional properties. Ms. Wyland stated that she has spoken with Tom Hovey of the Department of Natural Resources concerning this variance request and he has indicated that the Department has considered the characteristics of adjacent properties when reviewing similar variance requests. An average of the setbacks for the dwellings listed above would equal a 40 -foot setback. Mr. Johnson s request is for a 46 -foot setback. Variance criteria includes the following: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The subject property can be put to a reasonable use as it currently exists. 2. That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. This subdivision was developed prior to the Shoreland Ordinance; if developed today the lot depths would be much greater to allow for a 75 -foot setback from the OHW. The plight was therefore not created by the landowner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. There is no economic hardship involved. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special priilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Other property owners with similar circumstances would be allowed the same consideration. 5. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood. Property value should not diminish and, in fact, should increase if this addition is allowed. 12