06.01 - Ordinance Amendment on Non-Conformities

Home Browse Search

Court made a distinct ruling as to the standard to be applied to these types of variances, `-' an area variance not the use of the property. The Minnesota Supreme Court is the highest court for review. The court said one of practical difficulties could be resolved by variance. 1. How substantial is the variation in relation to the requirement: 15 sq. ft. of a building is protruding into the setback or 4.3 feet. 2. What is the effect on governmental services: none. 3. Will the variance affect the character of the neighborhood or have substantial detriment to the neighborhood: it won't make any change,or detriment to neighboring properties. After the public notice went out 5'f onses were received — four in favor who support it. The fifth piece of correspondence was from Elaine May who had two concerns — safety and whether it would have a detrimental value to her property. The Supreme Court said it is a factor only if it is going to be a substantial detriment. It is the nature of the neighborhood and it will not have a major detriment to the May property. Mr. Fitzpatrick passed out a survey that indicates the May garage encroaches within two feet the entire length of the garage. 4. Whether the practical difficulty can be solved by other than a variance: Economic considerations do play a role in the analysis. There is a significant cost to make the change. Granting the variance will alleviate the practical difficulties. 5. How did the practical difficulty occur: The builder built the garage that way and the applicant was in the Twin Cities. �- 6. Whether, in light of the above factors, will the interests of justice be served: There are practical difficulties. There is another problem that has been discovered by Staff — the impervious coverage is over 25 %. The Links are willing, as a condition of the variance approval, to bring the impervious coverage into compliance within a reasonable time frame, such as the 2010 construction season. They will bring it down to the 20% standard or 25% with a stormwater plan. If you grant the variance with that condition, they are willing to help alleviate the concerns by Miss May over the pontoon trailer by providing privacy screening along the property line along the side where the pontoon trailer is parked. Public Comment: None Mr. Habein stated the impervious coverage is more of a concern than the 15 sq. ft. area in the setback. Mr. Derksen stated that there is more than just a corner of the garage in the setback. The cement approach to the garage and tar driveway goes to the property line. Mr. Marohn stated that the ordinance requires all driveways outside the setback. There is a provision to allow in the setback if there is no alternative. On one side they share a driveway and on the other is the approach to the garage. All are required to be outside unless there is no other alternative. Minutes 11 Pequot Lakes Planning Commission March 18, 2010