My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
11/08/1995 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
1995
>
11/08/1995 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2017 10:35:51 AM
Creation date
7/7/2017 10:08:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
11/08/1995
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.
/
62
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
NOVI-03-1995 09:21 NAC 612 595 9837 P.10 <br />Variance Review <br />Accessory Building Requirements.. While the site's proposed accessory building does <br />meet R-1 District setback requirements, the size of the structure greatly exceeds that <br />currently allowed by ordinance_ Specifically, the R-1 District allows a maximum detached <br />garage building size of 1,100 square feet. At 4- 2,600 square feet in size, the proposed <br />structure more than doubles the maximum area requirement provided in the ordinance. <br />To accommodate the proposed accessory structure, a variance from the R-1 District size <br />standard is necessary. <br />Evaluation Criteria. In consideration of variance requests, Section 5, Subd. 7 of the <br />ordinance variances may be granted when strict enforcement of the ordinance would <br />cause undo hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under <br />consideration. <br />The ordinance also directs the City to make the following findings: <br />1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls <br />2. That the plight of the landowners is due to circumstances unique to his property not <br />created by the land owner_ <br />That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a <br />reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. <br />4 That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special <br />privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or <br />buildings in the same district. <br />5. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably diminish or impair established <br />property values within the neighborhood. <br />6. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />ordinance_ <br />in this particular instance, the need for variance results from a failure of the R-1 District <br />provisions to recognize that the non-residential conditional uses which are allowed in the <br />district (Le., churches, parks, schools, golf courses, etc.) may typically have accessory <br />building space needs that exceed a single family home <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.