My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05/29/2001 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2001
>
05/29/2001 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/20/2014 4:14:30 PM
Creation date
2/20/2014 12:24:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
05/29/2001
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.
/
135
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
01 -69 <br />Council Member <br />introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. <br />CITY OF LINO LAKES <br />RESOLUTION NO. 01-69 <br />RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY BUILDING <br />TO BE CLOSER TO THE FRONT LOT LINE THAN THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING <br />WHEREAS, a request has been submitted to the City Council for a Variance from the City of <br />Lino Lakes Zoning Code, and <br />WHEREAS, the legal description of the property is: <br />The east 658 feet of the west 1314 feet of the North Half of the North Half of the Northwest <br />Quarter of Section 12, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota. Subject to roads. <br />and <br />WHEREAS, Section 3 Subd. 4.D.1.c. of the Lino Lakes zoning ordinance states that "No <br />detached accessory structure shall be closer to the front lot line than the principal building or its <br />attached garage ", and <br />WHEREAS, the applicant desires to construct an accessory building closer to the front lot line <br />than the existing house, and <br />WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes makes following findings of fact: <br />1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions <br />allowed by the official controls. The existing drainfield and need for a secondary <br />drainfield area prevents the accessory building from being built to the southwest of <br />the house. <br />2. The plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property <br />not created by the landowner. The location of the low, wet area prevents an <br />accessory building from being built to the southeast of the house and it would be <br />unreasonable to require a driveway through the wet area to reach the far southeast <br />comer of the property. <br />3. The hardship is not due to economic considerations alone. This application is not <br />driven by reluctance to spend extra money to avoid the need for a variance. <br />4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege <br />that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the <br />same district. The physical features of the site create the hardship. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.