My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05/28/1996 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
1996
>
05/28/1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/3/2017 10:59:38 AM
Creation date
7/3/2017 10:27:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
05/28/1996
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD <br />MAY 8, 1996 <br />Ms. Wyland stated that this application is for a minor subdivision and variance. Mr. <br />Dorschner's current driveway encroaches approximately 10 feet onto his neighbor's <br />property. When the house and garage were built in 1982, the City did not require a <br />survey and allowed the garage and driveway to be situated as they are today. The garage <br />is 26 feet from the property line. The encroachment was discovered when a survey was <br />done by Mr. Uhde for development on the adjacent property. <br />Ms. Wyland stated that two options are presented: 1) to allow the sale of 10 feet to Mr. <br />Dorschner to maintain his existing driveway, and therefore, allow Mr. Uhde's property a <br />lot depth variance of 10 feet; 2) suggest Mr. Dorschner secure an easement from Mr. <br />Uhde for use of the westerly 10 feet until the garage can be reoriented to Lilac Street. <br />Staff is recommending the easement option. <br />Mr. Dorschner stated that he did not know of any problem until a month ago, when Mr. <br />Uhde had a survey done for development. He has lived in his house approximately four <br />years. There are two driveways on the property. The driveway in question has been there <br />since the house was built and is the only straight access to the back yard. He put up a <br />cedar wood fence along the driveway last year, replacing an existing roadway. <br />Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Dorschner ever had a survey done when he put up the fence. <br />Mr. Dorschner stated that he had a survey done last week, and it agrees with Mr. Uhde's <br />survey. When he put the fence up last year, a survey was not required. The Building <br />Inspector indicated that as long as he was replacing an existing fence, a permit was not <br />required. His lot is 166 feet wide, and he -had no reason to believe there was a problem. <br />Had he known of this problem at the time he bought the property, he would have had <br />stipulations put in the purchase agreement. <br />Chair Schaps asked if the property was inspected at the time of Mr. Dorschner's purchase. <br />Mr. Dorschner stated that the property was inspected, but there was no survey. He and <br />the mortgage company received a property sketch indicating the orientation of the house <br />on the property. <br />Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Dorschner researched the file to see if a survey had ever been <br />done. <br />Mr. Dorschner stated that to the best of his knowledge a survey has never been done. <br />There is nothing on file with the county. <br />Mr. Robinson asked if there is an old fence north of Mr. Dorschner's property along the <br />tree line. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.