MINUTES OF THE MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2016
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING - 6:00 PM
The Kandiyohi County Board of Adjustment met on Monday, April 11, 2016 at 6:00 PM in the Commissioners Room at the Kandiyohi County Health & Human Services Building located at 2200 23rd St NE, Willmar Minnesota. Members present were Rolf Standfuss, John Hauge, SuzanneNapgezek, and Steve Freese. Also present was Zoning Administrator, Gary Geer & Assistant Zoning Administrator, Eric Van Dyken.
Acting Chair Freeseopened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
The first item of business was to Re-organize. Motion by Hauge, second by Standfuss to nominate Freese for Chair. Motion carried. Motion by Standfuss, second by Napgezek to nominate Standfuss for Vice-Chair. Motion carried. Motion by Standfuss, second by Hauge to appoint the Zoning Administrator as Secretary. Motion carried.
A hearing was held on the application ofBrad Jans, Lot 16, Sunset Beach on Diamond Lake, Harrison Township. (5288 165th St NE). Applicant requests a reduced property line setback for a garage in an R-1 Shoreland Residential Management District.Brad Jans was present and explained his request.Jans noted that their practical difficulty is due to lot shape, in which the lot narrows significantly as it approaches the road and makes it difficult to place a reasonable accessory building. The lot would only allow for 10 to 11 foot garage while still meeting setbacks. Paul Sandquist, part owner of the property in question, stated that it makes more sense to them to build the garage toward the north side of the property. Sandquist noted that with this construction, two smaller sheds would be removed,one at this location and one near the lake. Freese asked if the proposed location is marked. Sandquist replied yes. Terry Marguth, neighboring landowner, stated that he is opposed to the request and that he feels 3 feet is too close to the lot line. Marguth noted that the LP tank on his property would have to be moved if the garage is built there because it would be too close. Marguth commented that he is also concerned about water flow. Standfuss asked if there is a setback for the LP tank to the property line. Geer stated that the zoning ordinance contains no setback for the LP tank to a property line. Marguth stated that the LP company does have a setback for the tank from the property line. Gary Guggisberg, neighboring landowner, stated that he hasoffered to do a land swap with the applicants that make the land wider at the road. Guggisberg commented that he does not want more soil hauled in because he receives a lot of runoff and does not want anymore. Hauge asked if there is room to move south and not be so close to the north property line. Sandquist noted that the proposed location allows room to walk to the cabin and preserves space on that side of the lot. Brad Jans noted that he feels 3 feet is really too close. Janet Jans, part owner of the property in question, noted that despite Guggisberg’s land swap offer, they would like this option to play itself out before considering that offer. Janet Jans also stated that 3 feet is too close and they would be closer to 5 feet in order to save several trees. Janet Jans noted that they have room to move their own LP tank and meet all setbacks. Standfuss asked if the house on the property is a year-round home. Janet Jans replied yes. Freese asked about if burying LP tanks would be an option. Janet Jans replied that she is unsure. Gary noted that building code setbacks remain in effect for buried LP tanks as well. Guggisberg asked if there is a setback for LP tanks from the road. Geer replied that LP tanks should remain out of road right-of-way. Hauge stated that he understands the desire to maintain sight lines and access to the house, but he thinks 3 feet is too close to the lot line. Sandquist noted that they really would like about 6feet. Geer read the staff report, noted the unique lot shape, and recommended approval with a 6 foot distance to the lot line on the north and 10 feet on south. Motion by Napgezek, to approve the request for a variance with the structure to be placed no closer than 5 ½ feet from the north lot line. Motion by Standfuss amend the motion to 6 feet instead of 5 ½ feet. Napgezek accepted the amendment as a friendly amendment. The original motion was seconded by Standfuss, based on the following findings as proposed by staff:
Findings
The Board of Adjustment finds that there are special circumstances affecting the land in question that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity. The Board of Adjustment notes that while there are other properties in the immediate area with similar circumstances, the term “vicinity” is applicable to the larger “lakes area” of the County in which case the circumstances are demonstrated to be unique. The Board of Adjustment also finds that granting of the variance will not materially adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the area adjacent to the property, and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area adjacent to the property of the applicant. In support of these general findings for granting of the variance, the Board of Adjustment finds the following:
1.The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control. Why or Why not?
The Board finds that the issuance of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance and will not increase or cause danger of life or property. The Board notes that the ordinance has administrative provisions that allow for encroachment into lake and road setbacks in many cases. The Board also notes that reduction to a 3 foot setback in this case will still serve to meet the intent of the ordinance to protect the general development lake from excessive impact from the proposed structure.
2.The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Why or why not?
The Board finds that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Board notes that the Comprehensive Plan; “Encourages a balanced and harmonious use of land consistent with natural features and socio-economic factors” (ref. Chapter 7, page 11). The Comprehensive Plan also states that “Strong consideration should be given to redeveloping and intensifying the use of already developed areas” (ref. Chapter 7, page 12).
3.The property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official control. Why or why not?
The Board finds that the accessory building use proposed by the applicant is reasonable. The Board notes that the site is zoned residential, that the property is able to support the use, and that the proposed use is consistent with other uses in the area. Additionally, the Board finds that strict enforcement of the sideyard setback standards would unreasonably restrict the proposed reasonable use.
4.The alleged practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. Why or why not?
The Board finds that the applicant has demonstrated a practical difficulty due in part to circumstances unique to the property and not directly created or attributed to the property owner. The Board finds that the unique pie shape of the lot creates a unique circumstance that was not created by the landowner. The Board notes that the property in question is virtually unusable for accessory structure establishment with strict enforcement of the sideyard setback standards.
5.The issuance of a variance will maintain the essential character of the locality. Why or Why not?
The Board finds that the issuance of the variance will maintain the essential character of the locality. The Board notes that the nature and feel of the area is that of a developed general development lake with residential and residential accessory structures.
- The alleged practical difficulty involves more than economic considerations. Why or why not?
The Board finds that the practical difficulty involves more than economic considerations. The Board notes that the unique shape of the lot in a developed area is involved in the consideration of the practical difficulty.
Motion carried with Hauge opposed.
There being no further business, meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Page 1 of 3