06-23-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

<! IH03-2869 May 20 2003 /June 18.2003 Page 3 Planning Commission recommended by a 3 to 3 vote to: Approve the variances to permit keeping horses on the island of land on his property on an intermittent basis with the following conditions: 1. No more than 4 horses for a period of two weeks at a time and no more than 20 weeks out of a calendar year will be permitted on the island; and 2. Fencing may be located no closer than 26 ’ from the OH WL of French Lake. Wetland vs. Lake Boundary Discussion; Future Shed (MPG 6-18-03) An issue for discussion is the status of the wetland as part of the French Lake basin vs. as merely a large wetland with a smaller open water lake in the center of it. This lake basin is unique to some extent in that its boundary was established by the DNR in 1991-92 as the border between the wetlands and the high ground, as opposed to the border between the open water and the wetlands. Prior to that date, the City had treated the wetlands merely as wetlands, and had allowed structures to be built up to the 26 ’ wetland setback line. Adoption of th : Shoreland Ordinance in 1992 established a 1 SO’ setback requirement, making a number of existing homes nonconforming and severely limiting the ability of surrounding properties to develop. It has been noted by the applicant and in the resolution findings that the 150 ’ OHWL setback makes a significant portion of the property unusable for many uses that would formerly have been allowable. From the island of land in question, wetlands extend some 600 ’ before open water is reached; and this is 600' to the edge of the permanent wetland, not to the edge of floating bogs which visually would make the open water basin vary in shape over time. The applicant has suggested that the unique nature of this basin, with 600 ’ of wetland to filter runoff before it reaches open water, should be considered as supportive of allowing horses to graze (and allow a fence to be constructed) as near as 26 ’ to the wetland edge while maintaining an undisturbed 26 ’ buffer. This would have been the City ’s policy before 1992. Applicant suggests that a finding that this should functionally and administratively be considered as a wetland rather than a lake, would result in the City not having to grant a variance and therefore not set a negative precedent. Although staffagreed with applicant during a meeting with him on 6-J8- 03 that this may have merit, on second thought it is merely a strong argument for granting the variance rather than to justify administratively ignoring the established lake boundary. Applicant would prefer to not have to make a future variance request to the City for a loafing shed less than 150 ’ from the OHWL, and would request that a general approval be granted as part of this application to allow such structure if he chooses to build it, meeting the 26 ’ setback but not forced to meet the 150 ’ setback. No specific location is proposed, but applicant has noted and Planning Commission has acknowledged that the only location meeting the 150 ’ setback would be at the high point of the island where a shed would be most visible to tirighboring la;tdowners. Granting the variance would allow the shed to be placed where it would have minimal visual impact. 3 1i