|
Variance Board Meeting
<br />Minutes –Wednesday, November 5, 2014
<br />Page 2
<br />At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Biggs reviewed the logistics in getting the boat in and out
<br />47
<br />of the future structure via a rail system.
<br />48
<br />Member Cunningham questioned Mr. Biggs’ options if the Variance Board approved some portion
<br />49
<br />of the variance requests, butnot the intended size, and how he would resolve the extra storage
<br />50
<br />needed.
<br />51
<br />Mr. Biggs responded that the current structure is of the right size for his family’s water-related
<br />52
<br />equipment in that space, thus their intention to keep it roughly the same size.Ifthe approval
<br />53
<br />indicated a smaller size, Mr. Biggs responded that they would need to leave some items out of
<br />54
<br />the storage shed, or carry it further up to their home and/or garage, which would not be practical.
<br />55
<br />Mr. Biggs clarified that the intended new structure will be somewhat smaller than the existing
<br />56
<br />structure, and located in an area that should prove healthier for the shoreline.However, Mr. Biggs
<br />57
<br />advised that all of the storage available in the new structure would be needed.
<br />58
<br />Member Cunningham stated thatshe was struggling with the potential to set a precedent, even
<br />59
<br />though she recognized the applicant’s intent to preserve the mature tree and shoreline; however,
<br />60
<br />in seeking an expanded size for the structure beyond current ordinance, she was not entirely
<br />61
<br />comfortable approving the request.Member Cunningham asked Mr. Paschke if the City’s
<br />62
<br />ordinance was outdated, as suggested in his staff report.
<br />63
<br />Mr. Paschke advised, that from his perspective in the City’s Planning Division for fifteen years,
<br />64
<br />and with the current ordinance dating back to 1979, and based on the original DNR ordinance
<br />65
<br />model recommended for municipal code at that time, he did consider it currently out-of-date given
<br />66
<br />how things and times have changed since that time.
<br />67
<br />From the standpoint of the boathouse itself, Mr. Paschke advised that from staff’s perspective,
<br />68
<br />such structures today housed many things other than boats (e.g. jet skis, paddle wheel boats,
<br />69
<br />and other water-related equipment).Basically, Mr. Paschke noted that the structure was intended
<br />70
<br />as an accessory storage structure, and by doing so, their lot would be kept tidy, avoiding other
<br />71
<br />problematic situations in the yard and in the neighborhood.Even though the proposed structure is
<br />72
<br />somewhat larger than current City Code allows, Mr. Paschke opined that the users of the
<br />73
<br />equipment would need space to maneuver things within the storage area.
<br />74
<br />Member Cunningham stated that her concern was based less on this particular request requiring
<br />75
<br />approval by the Variance Board versus whether the current ordinance needed to be changed;
<br />76
<br />and if that was the case, she was supportive of making necessary changes.
<br />77
<br />Mr. Paschke reviewed the history of the current DNR-modeled ordinance, which during Governor
<br />78
<br />Pawlenty’s administration was recommended for revisions, but with those original revisions not
<br />79
<br />approved, and returned to the DNR for additional revisions.However, then Governor Dayton was
<br />80
<br />elected, with different elements, and therefore, the DNR has yet to finalize the final model
<br />81
<br />ordinance to present for their approval.When that occurs, Mr. Paschke advised that the City
<br />82
<br />could then update their ordinance based on that new model and its various nuances the DNR
<br />83
<br />prefers applicable municipalities to incorporate into their community ordinances.Mr. Paschke
<br />84
<br />noted that the City could proceed prior to that DNR model, but opined that he would prefer to
<br />85
<br />await their model and feedback as a guide in drafting the City’s revised ordinance.
<br />86
<br />Member Cunningham questioned, if the City didn’t wait for DNR-modeled language, would staff
<br />87
<br />recommend increasing the size for a boathouse structure as one of the elements of that revised
<br />88
<br />ordinance.
<br />89
<br />Mr. Paschke advised that his recommendation would be to provide less specificity, and call it an
<br />90
<br />accessory structure, no matter its use; while taking into consideration average lakeshore
<br />91
<br />properties and good placement standards for such structures, which may or may not increase
<br />92
<br />their size, but be of such a flexible nature on a case-by-case basis, that a variance process would
<br />93
<br />not be required.Mr. Paschke clarified that the code considered many other elements as well,
<br />94
<br />including protection of slopes, location of homes, topography, and protection of adjacent wetland
<br />95
<br />areas.Mr. Paschke noted that many details required for consideration of placement of such
<br />96
<br />accessory structures; and suggested that any revised ordinance would also compare other
<br />97
<br />municipalities and their ordinance revisions over the last seven years.Mr. Paschke noted that
<br />98
<br />
<br />
|