Laserfiche WebLink
The City needs an accurate infrastructure inventory that includes the age and state of <br /> disrepair. <br /> Urban and rural road standards might be necessary. <br /> Transportation is the next section and overlaps with this section. How do we want to <br /> approach the highway issue in the Comprehensive Plan? We have to deal with it; it <br /> doesn't matter whether it gets built or not. It needs to be included because of the cost if it <br /> goes through town. The infrastructure in town is an unsustainable dollar amount that the <br /> City can't pay. It will put a debt burden on the citizens. <br /> We could go through the municipal consent process and align our approach to work with <br /> that decision and nothing happens. We should transcend that; our plan is going to adapt <br /> to it and when it goes around, our plan will be that much better. There are people that <br /> don't think the through town option is a dead issue. The through town option doesn't <br /> work for the discussions earlier. <br /> c. Transportation—No information submitted. <br /> The meeting was called to order by Chairman Woog at 7:07 p.m. <br /> Chairman Woog called the public hearings to order. <br /> PUBLIC HEARINGS: <br /> APPLICANT: David Lind <br /> Applicants requests a Variance to replace Non-conforming Dwelling with Larger <br /> Dwelling within Lake Setback, and also to Encroach SSTS within Side yard and <br /> Street Setbacks <br /> Mr. Marohn amended the Staff Report as there is an existing basement. The applicant <br /> had proposed to increase the basement by 2 courses. Applicant was present. Mr. Marohn <br /> explained the Minnesota Supreme Court decision on when variances could be granted. <br /> One standard we need to look at is reasonable use. If we deny this is reasonable use <br /> denied. There is an existing dwelling and use and the applicant is looking to make <br /> changes making this a sticky issue. The City Attorney's guidance is consistent with our <br /> recommendation. Staff recommends this be tabled so the applicant can come back with a <br /> new plan that would more closely align to the Supreme Court's ruling. <br /> Mr. Marohn explained that the applicant could obtain a permit to maintain the existing <br /> structure, including a complete replacement. As part of that process, the applicant could <br /> request a variance for modifying the roof pitch to ease in future maintenance, etc. There <br /> are reasonable health and safety factors that could justify such a variance. The same <br /> would not apply to expanded living space. <br /> Minutes 2 <br /> Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> September 16, 2010 <br />