My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05/29/2007 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2007
>
05/29/2007 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2014 2:37:38 PM
Creation date
3/11/2014 10:37:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
05/29/2007
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.
/
118
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
• <br />• <br />FINDINGS <br />In considering all requests for Variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the <br />City shall make a finding of fact: <br />a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls. <br />The property is currently developed with a single family home that can easily be put <br />to a reasonable use without the addition of a porch covered with a roof structure. <br />b. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to <br />his property not created by the landowner. <br />The existing structures lack of a significant entry feature and the placement of the <br />existing home only 15 inches from the front setback are physical circumstances that <br />were not created by the current landowner. <br />c. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use <br />for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. <br />The request made by the property owner has nothing to do with economic <br />considerations; the placement of the home on the lot when it was constructed <br />simply prohibits the addition of the proposed covered porch under the strict <br />enforcement of the zoning ordinance <br />d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any <br />special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, <br />structures, or buildings in the same district. <br />Allowing a 1.5 foot variance to the 27 foot setback (based on the 3 foot <br />encroachment allowed) is very minor in scope at roughly 5% and would not confer <br />onto the applicant any special privilege. <br />e. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />ordinance. <br />The spirit and intent of the setbacks required by the ordinance is to allow separation <br />between roadways and homes and to increase visibility at intersections. Allowing a <br />1.5 foot encroachment that is only 10 feet in width would not violate that spirit or <br />intent. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Staff is recommending adoption of Resolution No. 07 -74 based on the finding of fact in the body <br />of the Resolution and the plans submitted on April 9, 2007. <br />Attachments: <br />1. Resolution No. 07 -74 <br />2. Schally Plan Packet Received April 9, 2007. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.