pf_03140 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2.5 The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has reviewed (August 31,1999) this variance request. The MnDNR cannot recommend deck expansions based solely on the repair and expansion of the shoreline. 2.6 The existing home dates prior to 1967 and has a pre-existing non-conforming structure setback condition based on the City Shoreland Code adopted in 1978 and amended in 1994. 2.7 Mr. Kadrie has proposed to retain only the three (3) foot maintenance deck ofthe first floor deck extension previously denied by the City Council in 1993. The remainder of the deck would be removed 3.0 STAFF COMMENTS & FINDINGS: In reviewing this request, staff made the following findings: 3.1 Section 1016.22C requires a minimum shoreland setback of75 feet, but allows for nonconforming structures if: the house was built prior to March 27, 1974; no reasonable alternative deck location could be found; and, the proposed deck extension would not exceed 15% of the existing structure setback from the lake or be no closer than 30 feet, whichever is the greater setback. 3.2 The closest a nonconforming deck structure can be extended to the shoreline is 30 feet; in the Kadrie request the maintenance deck would be within 23'6" of the original shore and 29'6" from the repaired shoreline. 3.3 The amended proposal is consistent with the purposes of the shoreland code, which is to reduce structure development and density adjacent to the shoreline, improve aesthetics, reduce runoff and erosion, and retain water quality. By removing the original deck, the Code requirements would be met and the maintenance walkway would be 29 feet, six inches from the repaired shore. 3.4 By filling the shoreline, the applicant asserts that some additional relief from setback requirements should be provided. Filling and shoreland protection is not considered a method to further encroach structures on the shoreline. If this structural encroachment were considered the incentive, more lake and shoreland filling would occur, reducing the public water body. The MnDNR has objected to this reasoning and increased encroachment on the shoreline. 3.5 Section 1013.02 of the City Code requires the applicant to demonstrate a physical hardship and to demonstrate that no practical alternatives exist that would reduce the need for a variance. Mr. Kadrie has described the physical hardship as the inability to exit the main kitchen space or maintain the 14 to 16 high glass wall without a 3 foot maintenance walk. 3.6 Because the requested structure already occupies the site, the proposed variance, if granted, will not further adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, provided standards! conditions. RCA (102599).docPage 4 of6