My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/14/2020 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2020
>
10/14/2020 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2021 3:15:01 PM
Creation date
10/9/2020 12:02:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
10/14/2020
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.
/
61
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
floodplain areas to the extent necessary to maintain eligibility in the National Flood <br />Insurance Program and not increase flood damage potential or increase the degree of <br />obstruction to flood flows in the floodway. <br />Note: This language is also consistent with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 4U.357, Subd. <br />1e. <br />22.The variance shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan. <br />In our review of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, we do not see any inconsistencies with our <br />request and the plan's delineated objectives. <br />23. There shall be practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. "Practical difficulties" <br />as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes <br />to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance. Economic <br />considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties: <br />Without the variance, our deck would only be five feet wide. It is not practical to replace our <br />deck on that basis. Without the deck, we are not able to put the property to a reasonable use <br />as has existed for about 30 years. <br />24. The plight of the landowner shall be due to circumstances unique to the property and not <br />created by the landowner. <br />The creation of the deck non -conformity was not our doing. The non -conformity has existed for <br />around 30 years and we only became aware of the issue when applying for a permit to repair. <br />It should be noted that the encroachment was worse (approximately 1' off the property line) <br />and a repair we made over 15 years ago reduced the non -conformity to 2.5 feet. We are asking <br />for the variance so we can continue to enjoy our property in the same manner as has existed <br />since our purchase of this property. <br />25. The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality. <br />As a residential neighborhood, the continuation of our deck non -conformity will not alter the <br />character of the neighborhood or the community. <br />26. A variance shall not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for the <br />property in the zoning district where the subject site is located. <br />We are and will continue to use the property as asingle-family, residential property. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.