Laserfiche WebLink
He also stated there has been change between 2008 and now. The legal standard that <br /> `... applies to variances of this kind happened almost simultaneously with your decision. <br /> August, 2008 in Ottertail County there was a case with basic facts similar to this case. <br /> There was a preexisting lot that did not meet the performance standards. The Minnesota <br /> Supreme Court made a distinct ruling as to the standard to be applied to these types of <br /> variances, an area variance not the use of the property. <br /> The Minnesota Supreme Court is the highest court for review. The court said one of <br /> practical difficulties could be resolved by variance. <br /> 1. How substantial is the variation in relation to the requirement: 15 sq. ft. of a <br /> building is protruding into the setback or 4.3 feet. <br /> 2. What is the effect on governmental services: none. <br /> 3. Will the variance affect the character of the neighborhood or have substantial <br /> detriment to the neighborhood: it won't make any change or detriment to <br /> neighboring properties. After the public notice went out 5 responses were <br /> received—four in favor who support it. The fifth piece of correspondence was <br /> from Elaine May who had two concerns—safety and whether it would have a <br /> detrimental value to her property. The Supreme Court said it is a factor only if it <br /> is going to be a substantial detriment. It is the nature of the neighborhood and it <br /> will not have a major detriment to the May property. Mr. Fitzpatrick passed out a <br /> survey that indicates the May garage encroaches within two feet the entire length <br /> of the garage. <br /> 4. Whether the practical difficulty can be solved by other than a variance: Economic <br /> considerations do play a role in the analysis. There is a significant cost to make <br /> the change. Granting the variance will alleviate the practical difficulties. <br /> 5. How did the practical difficulty occur: The builder built the garage that way and <br /> the applicant was in the Twin Cities. <br /> 6. Whether, in light of the above factors,will the interests of justice be served: <br /> There are practical difficulties. <br /> There is another problem that has been discovered by Staff—the impervious coverage is <br /> over 25%. The Links are willing, as a condition of the variance approval,to bring the <br /> impervious coverage into compliance within a reasonable time frame, such as the 2010 <br /> construction season. They will bring it down to the 20% standard or 25%with a <br /> stormwater plan. If you grant the variance with that condition,they are willing to help <br /> alleviate the concerns by Miss May over the pontoon trailer by providing privacy <br /> screening along the property line along the side where the pontoon trailer is parked. <br /> Public Comment: None <br /> Mr. Habein stated the impervious coverage is more of a concern than the 15 sq. ft. area in <br /> the setback. <br /> Mr. Derksen stated that there is more than just a corner of the garage in the setback. The <br /> cement approach to the garage and tar driveway goes to the property line. Mr. Marohn <br /> \.. stated that the ordinance requires all driveways outside the setback. There is a provision <br /> Minutes 11 <br /> Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> March 18, 2010 <br />