02/14/2000 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 2000 OHW Setback 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 non -conforming 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 advised a recommendation was received from Mr. Tom Hovey, DNR Area Hydrologist concerning this request. Staff referred to a copy of his recommendation in which he indicated 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". Mr. Hovey has also recommended that the shore impact zone be maintained or established in native, unmowed vegetation. The Environmental Board reviewed this request and concurred with recommendation but suggested an unmowed area of 40' from the applicant work with the Environmental Specialist on modificat would include a pretreatment system. so suggested the system that Staff advised they believe the variance criteria c . ;: i w of this case. There is a hardship, not created by property owner; the hard is,t economic; the property is unique as it was created prior to the adoption of the. �� 1• requirement in the Zoning Ordinance and the Shoreland Ordinance. There e property line to the OHW level. A 30' front setback and a 100' OHW set=�u eavonly 15' to build in, thus making the property unusable. The balan au ` ake properties maintain a similar setback to that requested. The variance cri r z,; a i llows: Findings of Fact. In c.' . 1 requests for variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall m'a "' ding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district.