My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
06/24/1996 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
1996
>
06/24/1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2017 12:38:24 PM
Creation date
7/3/2017 11:34:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
06/24/1996
Council Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
207
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
C. That the hardship is not due to economic <br />considerations alone and when a reasonable use of the <br />property exists under the terms of the ordinance. The <br />applicant could consider a smaller sized pool or locating <br />the pool in a different area on the property although it <br />may be more costly. The Council could consider the slope <br />of the land a hardship. <br />D. That granting the variance requested will not confer <br />on the applicant any special privilege that would be <br />denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or <br />buildings in the same district. Staff is anticipating <br />adoption of the revised zoning ordinance which would <br />eliminate the need for this request. <br />E. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably <br />diminish or impair established property values within he <br />neighborhood. Property values should not be diminished <br />one way or the other - however, that is a subjective <br />statement. <br />F. That the proposed action will be in keeping with the <br />spirit and intent of the ordinance. The intent of the <br />ordinance was to provide a separation between existing <br />neighboring residences and pool equipment. Placement of <br />the pool itself requAres a 10' setback according to the <br />existing ordinance and revised ordinance. <br />For Council information, the applicant has supplied staff with a <br />petition from twelve(12) adjoining property owners, including the <br />owners immediately to the south, indicating no objections to the <br />variance request. <br />The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed this request and recommended <br />approval of the Variance to allow the pool to be set back 10' from <br />the side property line. There was considerable discussion, at a P <br />& Z Work Session, when the recommendation was made to change the <br />pool ordinance and the proposed request conforms to the recommended <br />change. The P & Z did not have an opportunity to review the side <br />yard variance request for 5.5' into the required 30' setback. <br />Staff would recommend denial of this request as the pool may be <br />moved toward the back yard and meet the setback requirement <br />although this may require removal of the existing fencing and a <br />possible retaining wall. <br />1. Approve Variance request to allow pool construction. 10 feet <br />from side property line and 5.5' within the required side yard <br />setback of 30' with condition that pool equipment be located <br />adjacent to existing dwelling. <br />2. Approve Variance request to allow pool construction 10 feet <br />from side property line and deny request for 5.5' variance into <br />required side yard setback with condition that pool equipment be <br />located adjacent to existing dwelling. <br />3. Return to staff for further consideration. <br />.................................... <br />...................................... <br />Option 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.