07.01 - Planning Commission Report

Home Browse Search

In the Staff Recommendations,the Staff Report states that this property is ineligible for a one-time addition under Section 17-4.4, Subpart 4,Nonconforming Structures and Uses. The Planning Commission asked why it is ineligible. Mr. Marohn stated because of K, "No permits shall be granted under this provision for homes constructed after July 1, 1995 or where a previous variance has been approved " Mr. Schulz stated that there had been several surveys completed resulting in different lot lines. One was done by Landecker and the other by WSN. One moves the line to the east, closer to the house. They are using the most restrictive survey. The westerly line might be 3 to 4 feet further west. Mr. Schulz also had a copy of the 1997 Variance. The Boschees may have contacted the City to vacate the ROW. The current building,the northwest corner,how close is it to the lot line? Drawing might be 4 to 5 feet, not 10 feet. No, it is not 10 feet. The new addition, if ou extend the building straight back, by the time you are done you are about 1 foot from the lot line. Does the new addition encroach on setback? Jay Weiher acknowledged it is less than 10 foot setback. The new part may be able to be slid over. The Variance granted in 1997 was for construction to 4 feet from property line. They can be at 4 feet. The new part of the house would be more than 4 feet from the property line, but less than 10 feet. We don't need to revisit that. Where the ground is disturbed, they plan to keep it as it is, natural. The existing lawn does not grow well. The Planning Commission questioned, after removal of previous additions and construction as planned,will the remainder of the existing cabin withstand the new construction. Another concern is that it is so close to the lake; the step is less than 8 feet from the water. The steps are the most permanent structure and they are that close to the lake. That may not be a good idea. Mr. Schulz is willing to remove the steps. A Planning Commission Member stated that there is buildable area existing on the lot that would meet the setback requirements and should be considered. Another Planning Commission Member stated that he was not an engineer but the fireplace appeared to look all right. After seeing the addition drawing, it appears appealing. He would recommend to not insist on a new driveway with the vegetation removal. If the City wants to utilize the ROW in the future, they can adjust the driveway then. It would be more appealing from the lake without removing the trees for a new road. Tear down cabin, but look where... Move garage back so future building of a new cabin could argue to be closer to lake than setback. Could use as a hardship in the future. Well in ROQ another issue. Sepration from lift station. ...garage affecting a building envelope. MINUTES 2 Pequot Lakes Planning Commission November 20, 2008