9A - Minutes 031810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

He also stated there has been change between 2008 and now. The legal standard that applies to variances of this kind happened almost simultaneously with your decision. August, 2008 in Ottertail County there was a case with basic facts similar to this case. There was a preexisting lot that did not meet the performance standards. The Minnesota Supreme 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 require t: 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 neigl o ; ° have substantial detriment to the neighborhood: it won't make an hange detriment to neighboring properties. After the public notice went out 5 re , a es were received—four in favor who support it. The fifth piece of corre ence was from Elaine May who had two concerns,—safety and whether it wo ve a detrimental value to her property. The Suprine Court said it is a facr only if it is going to be a substantial detriment. It is the xtature of the neighborhood and it will not have a major detrim Ito the May property. Mr. Fitzpatrick passed out a survey that indicates the May encroaches within two feet the entire length of the garage. �� 4. Whether the practical difficulty c be s other-than a variance: Economic considerations do play a role in the is. s a significant cost to make the change. Granting variance alleviate tie practical difficulties. 5. How did the practical t iculty occur.4 R builder built the garage that way and the applicant Wvas in the Twin Cities. 4' 6. Whether, in light tfthe ibb,vc,factors,�l the interests of justice be served: Th tical di Dcultie Ther z mother roblat has bean discovered b Staff—the impervious coverage is p '� � y p over 2 e Links are Ming,as,` condition of the variance approval,to bring the imperviou�� .`, erae into c �, pliance within a reasonable time frame, such as the 2010 constructions n. They' 11 bring it down to the 20% standard or 25%with a stormwater plan out the variance with that condition,they are willing to help alleviate the conce k iss May over the pontoon trailer by providing privacy screening along the `perty 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 Minutes 11 Pequot Lakes Planning Commission March 18, 2010