Laserfiche WebLink
ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. Habein, Aye; Ms. Brown, Aye; Mr. Derksen, Nay; Mr. <br />`- Williams, Aye; Mr. Hallan, Aye, Mr. Pederson, Aye. Motion Carried. Aye 5 -Nay 1. <br />A motion was made by Mark Hallan, seconded by Bill Habein, directing Staff to review <br />the lighting plan information, confirm that it meets the intent of the approval from our <br />last meeting and report back to the Planning Commission next month. All members <br />voted "aye ". Motion carried. <br />Staff was directed to look at digital signs. <br />Mr. Williams stated that there seems to be excess temporary signage on the site now. Mr. <br />Marohn stated Staff is looking into that. The Nor -Son site is also being looked at. Mr. <br />Williams asked if that constitutes a violation on this site. Mr. Marohn stated that the <br />excess signage is not listed as a violation; it is still under investigation. <br />APPLICANT: David Kennedy <br />Applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation <br />Mr. Kennedy submitted a written request to postpone this public hearing. A motion was <br />made by Bill Habein, seconded by Mark Hallan, to table this public hearing. All <br />members voted "aye ". Motion carried. <br />APPLICANT: Thomas Link <br />Applicant requests a Variance for an Accessory Structure in Side -Yard Setback <br />Mr. Marohn explained the Staff Report. Applicant was present as well as his attorney, <br />Thomas Fitzpatrick. <br />Mr. Fitzpatrick explained that the Planning Commission had made a previous decision on <br />this matter and should not look at this as a review. This is a new application and asked <br />that the Planning Commission approach it that way. The applicants are requesting a 4.3 <br />foot variance request. <br />He further explained that the property involved is on Middle Cullen Lake and was platted <br />approximately 90 years ago and does not resemble current standards. There is a <br />challenging topographic hill to the rear. Neighbor Elaine May did not like the pontoon <br />trailer being parked on her side of the garage. A very small portion of the garage is <br />within the setback, 5.7 feet from the property line itself. An area of about 15 square feet <br />is within the side yard setback. In 2008 the Planning Commission denied their request <br />for an after -the -fact variance leaving them with the choice of moving the building which <br />is very costly, a minimum of $8,000 and disruption of the Link property or removing the <br />garage. <br />There has been change between 2008 and now. The legal standard that applies to <br />variances of this kind happened almost simultaneously with your decision. August, 2008 <br />in Ottertail County there was a case with basic facts similar to this case. There was a <br />preexisting lot that did not meet the performance standards. The Minnesota Supreme <br />Minutes 10 <br />Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br />March 18, 2010 <br />