My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
06/12/1996 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
1996
>
06/12/1996 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/7/2017 12:15:56 PM
Creation date
7/3/2017 4:14:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
06/12/1996
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
AGENDA ITEM V I <br />STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland <br />DATE June 6, 1996 <br />TOPIC 96-21-V, Gary Sandahl, 478 Lonesome Pine, <br />Variance <br />Mr. Gary Sandahl is requesting a Variance from Section 4, Subd. 31 <br />Swimming Pools (1) (D) which states: <br />The pool filter unit, pump heating unit and any noise <br />making mechanical equipment shall be located at least 35 <br />feet from any adjacent or nearby residence and not closer <br />than 10 feet to any lot line. <br />The Planning and Zoning Board may recall that the proposed Zoning <br />Ordinance has been modified under the swimming pool section by <br />deleting the "35 feet from any adjacent or nearby residence" <br />reference but keeping the 10 foot setback requirement. <br />The proposed pool is currently located in a position that does not <br />allow the property owner full view of the pool area from the <br />kitchen area of the home as it must be located 25' from the <br />property line to maintain a 35' distance from the adjoining <br />residence. The applicant would like to locate the pool 10' from <br />the side property line which would place it 20' from the adjoining <br />residence. This would require a variance of 15' from the existing <br />ordinance. No variance would be required if the proposed ordinance <br />were approved as revised: For your information, the applicant does <br />intend to locate the pool equipment adjacent to his existing <br />residence. <br />The Findings of Fact to consider in review of a Variance <br />application include the following. <br />A. That the property in question cannot be put to a <br />reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by <br />the official controls. The pool could be located within <br />the required setback, however, full view would not be <br />available from within the home. <br />B. That the plight of the landowner is due to <br />circumstances unique to his property not created by the <br />land owner. There are no unique characteristics to this <br />reques t . <br />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 al though it <br />May be more costly. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.