Um, roll call has been taken. We have a quorum. Hopefully, I see everybody eventually got their packets. >> I got today. >> Me, too. And Matt's shaking his head. Um, so
hopefully, um, you've had a chance to peruse and look over the material. Look for a motion to approve the agenda as printed. >> Motion. >> Motion by Leo, second by Dennis. All those in favor say I. >> I.
>> Opposed. Motion is carried. Um on the same line of thinking, meeting um the minutes from August 19th. Any additions or corrections or changes? Hearing none, look for a motion to
approve the minutes as printed. >> So moved by motion by Dennis. >> I'll second. >> Second by Travis. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Is there anyone in the audience that
wishes to speak to something that is not okay? Okay. So public hearing we have uh Michael Ward doing business as Benchmark Builders has a request for a variance. The applicant is seeking approval of a
variance to reduce the the road rightway setback for an attached garage at 21639 167th 62nd Avenue Barnesville Minnesota on partial
16 070.0050 0050 in lot 005, block 001, Pearl View Estates, section 27, Township 301379N, range 45W, Humbult Township. I'm look
for a motion to open the public hearing. >> Make a motion. >> Motion by Leo. >> Second. >> Second by Dennis. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Public hearing is open. Take it away, Matt. >> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a point
of clarification, it's a road centerline setback. Um, is the variance request. So, this property is located uh east of Barnesville um in the Pearl View State Subdivision um off of uh Highway 34.
All the properties are zoned um Egg General. Uh it's a residential property with a single family dwelling in a detached garage. Um they're looking to place an attached garage about 66 feet from the road center line. That minimum road center
line setback for a local township road is 90 ft. Um the current garage would be converted to part of the house. So you can see that attached garage right here. Um this is the practical difficulty that was provided by the applicant. Uh power,
sewer, water make construction elsewhere virtually impossible. A garage addition to the west encroaches on the side boundary setback and makes passage to an existing detached garage more difficult. So really just not a lot of room on the side here. And then you've got your um
your your gas well electrical kind of around the house here and then septic as well. So they're looking at adding right here um that would be the garage. This would be converted to the as part of the dwelling and about 66 ft from the road
center line. Um their existing garage is about 3 637 ft. The detached garage in the back um is 837 ft. Just looking at the subdivision currently all the structures
um in this on every lot in the sub division do meet or exceed setbacks. And just to note that there was a variance denied um in 2020 to construct an attached garage 60 feet 60 feet from the road center line and the board at that
time gave um the the variance would alter the essential character of the locality. I should note um that variances are not precedent setting. So just because that variance was denied, it was unique to that property and this
property is different situation, different circumstance. So just a closer look at that right here. So this is the property here and their property is about 98. It's about 100 ft off off the um
um the setback right now or the road center line right now as it stands. Really the one um goal in our P comprehensive plan related to this would just be to maintain a um and operate a safe, accessible,
efficient transportation system uh in Klay County. Um 66 ft red would be a 27% reduction. It doesn't really appear that it would impact um any sight lines at all. I did speak with the the county engineer
because the county does provide um maintenance and snow removal uh on this property or on this road and he said that he that there wouldn't be any issue from a road maintenance perspective
um just due to the slow speeds on the road. Um plows aren't really thrown out throwing out a lot of snow. So um so ultimately as with every variance request you just really need to go through that that practical difficulty and if it meets that um three factor
test. Um the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the land owner and the variance if granted will will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Any questions for me at all? >> Is it like a 24 by 24? >> I'll defer to the applicant on that. >> Just more curious. It doesn't look like there's, you know, looking at your blue map here, it doesn't look like the whole garage is really in it obviously, but
I'm curious how much of it is in it. >> You will have a chance just not just instant. >> It would essentially the garage edition would extend up to this lighter blue line. So the the dark blue is the 90
foot setback and then the lighter color is the 66 foot setback. >> Yeah. Okay. Anyone else have questions for Matt? Hearing none. Would the applicant care to speak
and please introduce yourself or state your name for the record? >> Sure. My name is Michael Ward with Doing Business as Benchmark Builders. Uh representing Mr. Kyle Schmidt, the land owner here. Um yeah, just to answer the question, the the proposed dwelling or
garage would be 26 ft wide, roughly 32 1/2 ft deep. So I think we we're currently roughly 8 feet away from that current setback. So, you know, um
the new Sorry, I can't do the math in my head. The new uh the new garage would be encroaching into that setback by 24 ft roughly. That make sense?
And one consideration we had, we we had discussed at one point um extending the the proposed garage to the west. Um, and initially talking about that, we thought, well, there still might be some room if we went to the west and
encroached on that western boundary that uh he could still possibly, you know, maneuver around the garage to get to his existing garage in the back or back a trailer up. Um, and when I was on the county GIS website, if we were to
maintain that same proposed dimension and just going to the west, we would actually be pretty much right on the property line because as the property lies now, um, it seems like there's more room there than there is. And without throwing the landowner under the bus, I
think he's actually encroaching on his neighbor's property as it is with with some of his landscaping. So, uh, building a in summary, building a comparable dimension garage going towards that western boundary would put us right on the property line and makes
access to that existing garage impossible. >> Back to your map. Yeah, that one there. And ultimately the uh garage would be finished as like it was built with the house. You won't be able to tell. >> That's correct.
>> Have you had any feedback from your neighbors? Have you had any feedback from your neighbors? Neighbors, Kyle, >> Kyle Schmidt, land owner. Um Ernie, uh directly to the west of us, talked to him about it. He didn't have an issue
with it. Um and oh, Cory Liry, uh in the northwest corner, um on the outside loop there, he's on the towns board. um township board. Uh he asked about it and he didn't have any issues with it um from talking with him. Uh my neighbor
John to the east one uh no issues with that. Uh he doesn't have an issue with it. And um I had talked to Tony and Janelle. Uh Janelle at the gas station. and she asked uh um cuz we had been
talking about it for a while and she'd asked kind of where it's at and I explained to her that we would want to put the garage out going north and uh she didn't seem to have an issue with it either. >> If we've made it to this point, all the neighbors would have gotten a letter too, right?
>> We didn't hear anything from the township or any >> and there's no one in the audience. No. So, >> anyone else have questions for the potential builder and land owner? >> You You're good? >> Yeah, I'm good.
>> Thank you. >> Um, hearing no uh other questions for Matt or the land owner or builder. Look for a motion to close the public hearing. Make a motion. >> Motion by Leo. >> A second. >> Second by Travis. All those in favor say
I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Public hearing is closed. Um, now we need to work through our findings of fact. Is granting the variance in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
Klay County Land Development Code? >> Yes. Is the requested variance consistent with the Klay County comprehensive land use? >> Yes. >> Does the applicant establish that there are practical difficulties in complying
with the strict letter of the Klay County Land Development Code by demonstrating the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by official control? Yes.
>> Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district or vicinity and which result from lot size, shape, topography, or other circumstances over which a landowner has
no control or influence. Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the property's locality. Practical difficulties as used in connection with granting of a variance mean that the property owner
proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance if granted
will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in
section 216 C.06 subdivision 14 when in harmony with the local official controls. Say yes. I would say yes. Would
the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Klay County Land Development Code deprive the right of the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance? >> Yes.
Is the variance being granted the minimum variance that would alleviate the practical difficulty? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Does the variance request meet all the below criteria? No variance shall be granted where any of the following
conditions are not met. Adequate sewage treatment systems or water supply can be provided. >> Yes. The plight of the land owner or the hardship is not due to circumstances created by the land owner.
>> Yes. >> The variance would not allow a use that is not already allowed in the zoning district. >> Yes. >> Yes. There would be no significant adverse effect on public health or safety.
>> Yes. staff has uh put some conditions on here. Conditions may be imposed in the granting of a variance. A condition must be directly related to and must bear rough proportionality
to the impact created by the variance. Condition one, the garage must not be closer than 66 feet from the road center line. I think that one >> put in there. I know we've had a few come through here
where there was concerns about getting too close to that road considering like plowing and stuff like that. And like you're saying, they'd like to wing it off the road and stuff like that, but in a a development like this, you can kind of see everyone's got extra garages here
and there. And just kind of looking at the dark blue line, light blue line. It's there were a few other houses that were it looked like they were darn close in that dark blue. So it wouldn't be >> there's nothing new to that subdivision.
>> Yeah. And obviously the plow going through there's not going 40 50 miles an hour. So >> pardon me. >> Yeah. I mean I'd be surprised that plow is maybe going 20 30 miles an hour through there as it is.
>> Yeah. And Mr. chair. That's essentially what I had heard from our um county engineer. Be a different story if it was maybe on the straight straighter part of the road or if this was a county road or a county um or even a township road
where the speed limits 55 miles per hour. >> Yeah. Or even you have considerations of agricultural equipment coming through there and dust and all that kind of stuff. And obviously there's not going to be anything agricultural coming through there. So I agree it's
okay. So any other discussion or questions or comments hearing? None. Look look for a motion to approve or deny. >> I'll make a motion to approve >> with condition one.
>> Okay. We have a motion by Leo to approve the variance with condition number one. I'll second >> and a second by Travis. Any discussion hearing? None. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Variance is
granted. Any unfinished business, Matt? >> Uh, nothing for me, Mr. Chair, unless someone else has something. >> New business. >> Same with new business. Okay. Well, um
I guess hearing no unfinished or old or new business, I look for a motion to adjourn. >> Motion. >> Motion by Leo, second by Dennis. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion is carried. Meeting is
closed. Thanks everyone.