07-28-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r LiM Ryskamp Public Hearing Memo, 6/S/D3, Page 2 watercraft storage required by Code beyond are 20’. The proposed permanent dock would comply with this Code requirement: however, the existing permanent dock does r.comply with it 3. Code Section 1.07 states that “Where practical difficulties or particular hardships occur or where necessary to provide access to the handicapped, the Board may permit a variance from Code or may require a variance from what is otherwise permitted by the Code, provided that such variance with whatever conditions are deemed necessary by the Board, does not adversely affect the purposes of this ordinance, the public health, safety and welfare, and reasonable access to or use of the Lake by the public or riparian owners’. In review of the proposed application for variance from Code, the Board should ensure that the applicant has proposed practical difficulties or particular hardships that are cause by the application of the Code. In addition, the Board should apply the following decision standards in the review of the proposed variance applications. • Is the proposed use reasonable? • Would it be unreasonable to require conformance to the ordinance? • Is the difficulty of conforming to the ordinance due to circumstances unique to the property? • Is the problem one created by the applicant? • Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? In review of the proposed variance application, staff believes that the proposed permanent dock length of 119 ’, with two watercraft, is reasonable. The Code allows for dock length variances beyond the 100’ long authorized dock use area for this site to reach a water depth of 4’ from the 929.4’ level at the outer edge of the dock. The applicant has documented three feet of water depth 100’ Into the Lake and approximately four feet of water depth 119 ’ into the Lake. In the past when dock length variances have been granted, the Board has periodically restricted the size and number of watercraft at the proposed dock. The two watercraft to be stored at the proposed dock seems reasonable; however, the Board might want to consider discussing whether it would be appropriate to restrict the size of watercraft to be stored at it, which is currently proposed at approximately 35’. In compliance with MN DNR General Permit 97-6098, the MN DNR and the City of Orono were previded copies of the proposed applications on 5/29/03, with comments due in the LMCO office by 6/9/03. To date, staff has not received feedback from the MN DNR or the City of Orono on the proposed applications. recommendation staff cannot take action on the proposed Permanent (Non-Multiple) Dock License until Ihe Board makes a decision on the proposed Variance application. Staff believes that a particular hardsh^ of shallow water exists at the site for a dock length variance and the Board can direct the LMCD attorney b prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the Variance application.