4A - Variance to Replace Non-Conforming Structure with Larger Dwelling within Lake Setback

Home Browse Search

GOMMUNITY'GROWTH } (Gges--��- I N S T I T U T E l eq Expo*ris in Small Touw Planning ig. The variance will not create a land use not permitted in the zone. The variance is \.. for placement of an SSTS, which is an allowable use in the Shoreline Residential Zone. 2o.The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. 21. The variance is not for economic reasons alone, but reasonable use of the property does not exist under the Ordinance. Board of Adjustment Direction: The Board of Adjustment can approve, deny, or table this variance to gather additional information. Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the application be tabled to provide the applicant an opportunity to modify the plan to more closely align with the Code. A recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision provides clarity for cities addressing variance requests. The Court has directed that a variance can be granted only if, absent an approval, reasonable use of a property will not exist. If this variance is denied, the property owner still has substantial use of the property and would have many alternatives to maintain the current dwelling they are seeking to rebuild. Based on the recent guidance of the Supreme Court, it is our opinion that the City cannot approve this variance as requested. As stated in the proposed findings, the property has ample area for construction of a conforming dwelling. Once the dwelling is removed as proposed, the only inhibiting factor limiting its placement is the garage that has been constructed. Some thoughts for how the application can be modified to more closely conform to the code: - The applicants can obtain a permit to maintain the structure, including a complete replacement. As part of that process, they could request a variance for modifying the roof pitch to ease in future maintenance and snow removal. There are reasonable health and safety factors that could justify such a variance. (The same would not apply to expanded living space by adding a full basement and increasing the overall height of the structure). - The applicants could develop a new plan that would remove the existing dwelling, as proposed, and then incorporate a new structure into the existing garage with the entirety falling within the setback. This would not require a variance so long as impervious coverage was reduced,which it easily could be in such a scenario. - The applicants could remove the existing garage along with their proposal to remove the existing dwelling. This would provide ample room to construct a new dwelling and garage in a conforming location. This would also not require a variance, so long as impervious coverage limitations were complied with. We also anticipate that it is going to be difficult for the City to approve a project of such scope without a more aggressive approach to reduce impervious surfaces and handle the stormwater runoff generated on the property. The house, decks and garage take up only 12.4% of the property, an amount that is not excessive and would be consistent with Pequot Lakes Staff Report 3(a)-5 September 16,2010