05/22/2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

-2- hanger on the Carl Street side of the lot. There was no discussion, at that time, concerning the hanger location as the Zoning Ordinance did not address the location of accessory structures outside of setback restrictions, nor did it prohibit accessory structures in front of the principal building. • On October 14, 1996 the City Council also discussed ponding and grading issues on the Air Park property that were completed without permission, or easements, from the Air Park Association. The Council ordered that no further building permits be issued for the Lino Air Park North until resolution of the easement situation (building permits were issued for Lots 13 & 14 September and October of 1996, therefore, the moratorium applied only to Lots 10, 11, & 12). On October 23, 1996, the City Engineer (Dave Ahrens) sent a memo to the Building Official advising him that no permits were to be issued for the Lino Air Park North until further notice. On April 23, 1998 the Building Official was notified, by the City Engineer, that permits could now be issued for the remaining lots. Mr. Johnson has submitted a letter outlining his reasons for the variance request. To summarize, he believes the moratorium on construction of his lot was beyond his control. He further states that, in his opinion, the runway is the predominant feature of the property and he would like his home oriented south toward the runway with the hanger adjacent to Carl Street. Mr. Johnson has also submitted a letter signed by the owners of Lots 9, 12, 13, 14 and from the Vice President and Secretary of the Air Park Association indicating no objection to the variance request. There are 19 developed lots within the Air Park. Three (3) have hangers in front of the dwelling, one (1) has an attached hanger, eight (8) have hangers on the side or behind the principal building, and seven (7) have no hanger. In considering all requests for variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.