Laserfiche WebLink
to allow in the setback if there is no alternative. On one side they share a driveway and <br /> on the other is the approach to the garage. All are required to be outside unless there is <br /> no other alternative. <br /> Mr. Hallan asked how current Planning Commissions are dealing with the Supreme Court <br /> decision. Mr. Marohn stated it was decided on an after-the-fact case. The main <br /> difference is that Staff had gone out to the Ottertail County site 2 or 3 times during <br /> construction and said it was okay. Then after a period of time had elapsed stated the <br /> building was nonconforming. It was a residence and not a garage. <br /> Mr. Williams asked what the appraised value of the Link property' s. He was <br /> wondering if the $8,000 to move the garage was a significant amount of that property <br /> value. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated it is a significant amount when it hso come out of their <br /> check book. Mr. Williams was looking for significanvalue. <br /> F 7 <br /> t�F <br /> Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if it will have a significan ange to the neighborhood. The <br /> character of the neighborhood has buildings u. all ov 3F the lots. <br /> Mr. Adams stated the letter from Elaine May indicat ro talked to both the contractor <br /> and Mr. Link and that he had called her and stated heurhere the property line was. <br /> She offered to split the cost of the survey and he said no. <br /> Mr. Link explained on October 7, a Sundry evenfig die contractor called and said Mrs. <br /> May came over and said f arage is too clos 'to her property. The builder said he told <br /> her he had it where it d that it is where it was marked, The builder said that <br /> maybe because yo �age is't ;close to the tot line it makes it look closer. She said it <br /> was okay. The bd .jd he , uld call Mr. I: and she said not to bother. He did <br /> call Mr. Link and explai . are 1 Jeet from the lot line. Mr. Link didn't <br /> have Mrs. 1Vlgy a er talke fakers on the other side and asked if he <br /> could see anythrng usual aker hadn't noticed. Mr. Link called Mrs. May and <br /> she saicl:she had told the"builder" ,even call him. It's no big deal and don't worry <br /> about it der pet peeve is ooking , ° at trailer and asked if it could be put somewhere <br /> else. Mr. Link stated that i the o spot to put the trailer. <br /> The builder built ip the gong spot. A-1 Builders has been approached and does not <br /> take any responsibii �'i he stated he didn't make any mistakes. <br /> Mr. Williams asked what the applicants propose to reduce the impervious surface. Mr. <br /> Fitzpatrick stated they would bring it into conformity;the impervious coverage would <br /> need to be calculated by an engineer. It may be to reduce by 2%and file a stormwater <br /> plan or remove 7%and get the impervious down to no more than 20%. They would <br /> bring it into conformance by the end of this construction season. <br /> Mr. Adams stated the impervious items in the Shore Impact Zone would be appropriate to <br /> remove. Without having someone from WSN or somewhere look at this it is difficult to <br /> know where the 20%or 25% should come from. <br /> Minutes 12 <br /> Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> March 18, 2010 <br />