My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/28/1996 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
1996
>
10/28/1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/18/2017 12:42:00 PM
Creation date
7/17/2017 4:23:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
10/28/1996
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.
/
58
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
STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland <br />DATE <br />TOPIC <br />1996 <br />Kim & John Sull <br />iil, Variance <br />Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan have requested an "after the fact" variance <br />which was tabled at the September P & Z. meeting. At the September <br />18th Council Work Session, some members of the Council indicated <br />that a dangerous precedent would be set were the Council to agree <br />in any cost sharing in relocating the building as originally <br />suggested by the Sullivans and some members of the Planning and <br />Zoning Board. Council suggested the Sullivan's review their <br />original request, make some modifications if necessary, and return <br />to the P & Z with a petition from the adjoining property owners <br />regarding the request. <br />After staff discussions with the Sullivan's, they have opted to <br />request permission to allow the building to remain in its present <br />location. We have received a petition from the adjoining property <br />owners indicating no objection to the location of the accessory <br />building and a copy is attached for your review. <br />The Planning & Zoning Board denied the Sullivan's request at their <br />October meeting on a 5 to 2 vote. The Planning and Zoning Board <br />did not believe a variance to allow the building 1 1/2' from the <br />property line was acceptable even though the building is existing <br />and some miss -communication occurred between the Sullivans and City <br />Staff. The P & Z did, however, acknowledge that a variance of 10 <br />or 15 feet would receive a` more acceptable review as there is some <br />apparent hardship to the land. <br />Staff would adhere to our original recommendation of denial in t <br />present location. (See attached report) <br />OPTIONS' <br />1. Deny variance as requested. <br />2. Consider a variance for feet. <br />3. Return to staff for further consideration <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.