04-17-2003 Planning Commission Meeting

Home Browse Search

ro cannot be put to a reasonable property p use under conditions allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a hardship.) 2. Are there exceptional circumstances unique to this property,which were not created by the landowner? 3. Can the variance be granted without upsetting the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? 4. Can the variance be granted without altering the essential character of the surrounding area? State law would allow you to attach relevant conditions to the variance approval to mitigate any negative impacts that a variance from the Code would have. Staff Findings: When applied to this property, the City's ordinances would provide for a building that was only three feet wide. Obviously, it is not reasonable to construct a three foot wide home and, therefore, it seems that the City's ordinances are so restrictive that they do not provide for reasonable use of the property,which is an essential finding of a hardship needed to grant a variance. For your consideration,we offer the following findings of fact: 1. The ordinance allows a building envelope of 30 feet by 3 feet,which is not large enough to build a home. The property can not be put to reasonable use under the current ordinance. 2. The property is a pre-existing,non-conforming lot. It was legally created prior to the adoption of the current ordinance and therefore the imposition of the current ordinance was not created by the landowner. 3. Conditions could be applied to mitigate the negative impacts of the decreased setbacks. 4. The locality currently has a number of small cabins on small, non-conforming lots. A small cabin on this property would not alter the character of the surrounding area. Planning Commission Direction: The Planning Commission has the option to identify a hardship and approve the variance. The Commission may also vote to deny the variance. Either motion needs to be supported by findings of fact. At this point,the Commission may also table the request. Staff Recommendation: There are a number of items unclear with the drawings submitted, but what is clear is that there is a hardship on this property created by the setback to the lake. There is no apparent hardship that would justify a 2+foot sideyard setback It is not clear if there is a hardship that would allow an impervious surface greater than 25%. The Planning Commission may wish to table the application to obtain more information from the applicant including: - size and location of the parking area CITY OF PEQUOT LAKES PAGE 2 APRIL 2003 STAFF REPORT