Re: bridge - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

R Marvin & Nancy Blair Public Hearing Memo, 2/3106, Page 2 3. Code Section 1.07 Subd. 3 states the length limitations prescribed by this ordinance may be adjusted to allow the construction and maintenance of a dock in the Lake to a water depth of four feet, measured from 929.4' NGVD, at the outer end of such dock to provide adequate water depth for navigation and to protect the environmental quality or natural habitat of the water adjacent to the dock. Water depth measurements were taken within the inlet adjacent to the applicant's property where the dock use area typically would be. The measurements where a dock could be installed ranged from 3'to 3'/2 when the Lake is at 929.4'NGVD. (Staff will provide a drawing with the documented water depths at the 2/8/06 board meeting) For the applicant to reach a water depth of 4' at the end of the dock, it would extend approximately 400'and would be located near the boat launch ramp of the North Arm Public Access. The LMCD Board has historically granted dock length variances to obtain a water depth of 4' at the end of docks. Utilizing a bridge would pull the structure and boat storage away from the boat launch ramp.The proposed bridge is approximately 322' long to the peninsula. The proposed dock off of the peninsula for the storage of watercraft is approximately 225'from the boat launch ramp. 4. 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 Cotle, 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 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? Staff questions whether the proposed use is reasonable because the property has access to open water with a lesser dock use area variance but only has 3'to 3 '/2' of water depth when the lake is at 929.4' NGVD. In the fall,the lake typically can go down a foot.Two neighboring properties (3825 and 3818 North Shore Drive) have homes,which are separated by a wetland to land that they own on the peninsula. They each have a long bridge to reach the peninsula and have docks on the lakeward side of the peninsula to store watercraft.This is the only way for these properties to access open water. The Blair property has access to open water in the inlet. In review of the proposed variance application, staff believes that it would be unreasonable to require the applicant to conform to Code relating to the extension of the eastern side site line. The lot line converges and does not give the applicant a reasonable dock use area. Under normal application of LMCD Code the applicant would not be able to install a dock to the length a property with the same