LMCD - variance application/findings

Home Browse Search

Jeff 8�Jiil Pugh Public Hearing Memo, 617107, Page 2 `' • �. . 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 caused by the application of the Code. In addition,the Board should apply the following decision standards in the review of the proposed variance application. • 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? The criteria used by the Board in the past to evaluate dock length variance applications is to establish four feet of water depth at the outer edge of the DUA, adjusted to the 929.4' contour. The applicants have documented water depths of 2.8 feet at 60', 3.3' at 70', 3.7' at 80',and 3.9' at 90'. Based on these water depths, the applicants have documented that a hardship for the dock length variance exists, shallow water. However,a longer DUA at this site has a greater impact on the abutting properties because it is narrow and pie-shaped. In evaluating the variance application,this should be taken into consideration by the Board. If this site had parallel side site line extensions,which are common for the majority of sites on Lake Minnetonka, the width of their DUA would be approximately 11'. However,the converging lot lines at this site significantly reduces the DUA. Because of this, I believe it would be unreasonable to require the applicants to conform to the ordinance because of the uniquely platted lot by the City of Orono. To address this,the applicants have proposed to locate the dock along the westerly extended side site line and an 11'wide area to store the two proposed watercraft. To accomplish this,the applicants have proposed a 23 degree deflection of the easterly extended side site line,with a five foot setback from the adjusted DUA. The abutting property to the east, Bob Pieper from Minnetonka Custom Homes, has expressed a concern about adjusting the DUA entirely to the east and recommended that this balanced between the two abutting properties. The abutting property to the west is owned by David and Megan Cannistrachi. 3. Code Section 2.02 outlines the number of restricted watercraft that can be stored at a residential site based on the amount of 929.4'shoreline and the ownership of the watercraft. Specifically, it allows: 1) General Rule-one restricted watercraft for each 50'of shoreline (without reference to ownership), 2) up to two restricted watercraft may be kept at a dock for a residential site in existence on 8/30/78 (without reference to ownership), and 3) three or four restricted watercraft are allowed at a residential site if all watercraft are owned and registeretl to the residents of the site. A boat and a personal watercraft have been proposed by the applicants. In the past, the Board has typically restricted the number of restricted watercraft that may be stored at a site that requires a variance from LMCD Code. I believe that to be the case in this proposal and the Board should decide how many restricted watercraft are appropriate at this site.