Laserfiche WebLink
new construction will be within the SIZ, but very close. The new foundation work will <br /> be behind the SIZ. A Commission Member stated the Comprehensive Plan states we <br /> should get nonconforming structures into conformity. We are trying to get the older <br /> structures outside the SIZ. How much of the old structure can withstand the new <br /> construction. The Property owner has to understand that no improvements can be made <br /> to the existing structure. No walls or windows can be replaced in the SIZ. Eventually the <br /> front is going to need major repairs. At that time they could maybe tear off the old and <br /> add behind new addition. It may be better to swallow the pill now than redo later. <br /> The driveway involves 3 different parcels. This is not the way to let things remain; we <br /> need to think about future use, sales, etc. We should require a new driveway to access <br /> the property as shown on the second drawing. The neighbor would also need to add a <br /> new driveway. There would be 2 entrances instead of one. There is no Agreement to <br /> share the driveway. The Ordinance allows an easement or agreement to drive across <br /> other property. We are not creating a new lot. There is no mechanism to address this. <br /> Mr. Weiher gave the following assessment of the structural integrity: The foundation <br /> looks very solid,joist are in very good shape and solid, inside closets look solid, roof <br /> fairly straight, fireplace solid, no indication front half of house needs repair, no water <br /> stains indicating rot. New windows are planned throughout the house, including the <br /> existing portion and new siding. Windows on lakeside are leaking and falling out. <br /> The Planning Commission asked what would happen if they denied the request. Could <br /> `., the cabin remain in Second Street? Does the cabin have to get moved no matter what? <br /> Mr. Marohn stated that Staff had not spoken to the City Attorney. If we don't grant the <br /> Variance tonight,we will need to contact the City Attorney. There has been an <br /> Agreement drafted by the City Attorney regarding the well location. We would need to <br /> grant ability to let the cabin remain, acknowledging that it is not on their property. The <br /> proposed conditions do not include that. <br /> The total square footage of the dwelling, including remainder of the existing structure and <br /> new addition, will not exceed 1,564 square feet. <br /> A motion was made by Scott Pederson, seconded by Mark Hallan,to approve the <br /> Variance request, based on the following Findings of Fact: <br /> For a Variance to Enlarge a Non-Conforming Structure <br /> 1. Adhering to the Ordinance and not allowing an addition to the existing dwelling <br /> would not create an undue hardship. There is an existing structure that has been <br /> used on the property for decades. If this is not sufficient for the owners of the <br /> property,there is ample room to build a conforming structure. <br /> 2. There are no characteristics of the property that make strict adherence to the <br /> Ordinance impractical. While the lot is narrow, it is large and has ample room for <br /> construction. <br /> MINUTES 3 <br /> Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> November 20, 2008 <br />