My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06 - Planning & Zoning Report
Laserfiche
>
City Council (Permanent)
>
Agenda Packets (Permanent)
>
2009
>
11-03-2009 Council Meeting
>
06 - Planning & Zoning Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2014 11:51:04 AM
Creation date
6/19/2014 11:49:46 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mr. Hallan agreed that there should be a temporary construction easement that includes <br />`- restoration of the neighbor's lot to its original condition. <br />Nk . <br />Public Comment: None. <br />Mr. Hallan asked how the dwelling would appear as viewed from the lake. Staff <br />indicated the dwelling would not be any higher than neighboring dwellings and would <br />not block any views. Mr. Hallan further stated a reference point should be established for <br />the first floor elevation. He suggested either 1253 or 1252.5. <br />Mr. Habein stated there is a fairly new accessory structure that is now higher than the <br />dwelling. Once the dwelling is raised, it will be in better balance with the accessory <br />structure. <br />A motion was made by Tom Adams, seconded by Bill Habein, to approve the Variance <br />request based on the following Findings of Fact: <br />For a Variance to Enlarge a Non - Conforming Structure <br />1. The Ordinance would allow repair to the existing foundation, but not expansion. <br />However, the expansion of a basement and walkout as proposed is <br />inconsequential. The footprint is not expanded and the intensity of the overall <br />structure is not increased. Deny this proposed use would create an undue <br />hardship. <br />2. The strict interpretation of the Ordinance would be impractical because the <br />expansion is inconsequential and incidental to the repair of the foundation. <br />3. A deviation, with conditions would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />Ordinance as the foundation on the existing dwelling is in need of repair and the <br />proposed basement is an inconsequential and incremental addition to the repair <br />project. <br />4. The proposed residential use is permitted in the Shoreline Residential zone. <br />5. The variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Adjacent properties <br />have homes that have basements and small, non - conforming lots. <br />6. Reasonable use of the property currently exists as residential use is already <br />established, but the repair and expansion project, as proposed, is a minor and <br />reasonable approach. <br />On the construction on a non - conforming lot: <br />7. Strictly applying the minimum lot width and size requirements would prohibit any <br />construction on the property and thereby creates an undue hardship. <br />8. The lot size, which was not created by the land owner, creates a situation where <br />strict adherence to the Ordinance would be impractical. <br />9. A deviation to provide for construction on a non - conforming lot would be in <br />keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, which would be to provide for <br />residential construction on the property. <br />10. The proposed residential use is permitted in the Shoreline Residential zone. <br />Minutes <br />Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br />October 15, 2009 <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.