Laserfiche WebLink
Variance and Nonconforming Use Request – Big Louie’s Restaurant <br />Planning Commission Report; 11-20-18 <br /> <br /> <br />Page 5 <br />(cont.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />The requested variance is a 17’ variance from the required 30’ setback from the right- <br />of-way for Highway 88 <br />General Variance Standards <br />1) Is the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the <br />Zoning Code? <br />Applicant Input: This variance is needed to make the property look updated. <br />Staff Analysis: The requested variance appears to be in alignment with the intent <br />of the zoning code. Legal nonconformities are protected by state statute, and the <br />proposed updates to the building will not change the existing nonconformity. The <br />proposed improvements will enhance the existing building with no potential <br />impact on surrounding properties. Criteria met. <br />2) Is the Variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? <br />Applicant Input: The proposed remodel will blend in with the rest of the building. <br />Staff Analysis: The requested variance is not in conflict with the comprehensive <br />plan. The plan intends to provide an avenue for the betterment of all property <br />within the community, and seeks to ensure land uses are compatible throughout <br />the City. The proposed improvements will both improve the subject property, <br />and will have no impact on surrounding areas. Criteria met. <br />3) Has the applicant established that practical difficulties exist on the site? <br />a. Does the applicant propose to use the property in a reasonable manner <br />not permitted by the zoning ordinance? <br />Applicant Input: Same use as before. No change in square feet. Just the roof will be <br />higher. <br />Staff Analysis: The applicant is simply replacing an existing room of <br />questionable value given Minnesota’s winters, and replacing it with the same <br />size room which will be better insulated and match the rest of the building. <br />As legal nonconformities are protected by state statute and as the proposed <br />addition will not be expanding the nonconformity towards Highway 88, we <br />find the request is reasonable. Criteria met. <br />b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to this <br />property that were not created by the landowner? <br />Applicant Input: none