My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
04/12/2010 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2010
>
04/12/2010 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2014 11:15:59 AM
Creation date
3/24/2014 12:26:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
04/12/2010
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.
/
106
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
c. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if <br />reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. <br />There is no hardship that staff can identify in this request. The request is <br />based on a desire to overdevelop a site. <br />d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant <br />any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other <br />lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. <br />The city has regularly enforced the accessory structure limitations on <br />property owners, and an approval of this request would confer a special <br />privilege normally denied on other lands. <br />e. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent <br />of the ordinance. <br />The spirit and intent of the accessory structure limitations is to insure that <br />sites are not overdeveloped with outbuildings, and the proposed request <br />would do just that. <br />Planning and Zoning Board <br />On March 10th, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 5 -1 to recommend denial of the <br />request. <br />At the Planning and Zoning Board, the applicant indicated that the largest existing structure is <br />being used as rental storage space and not by the property owner. This is an indication that the <br />allowances of the ordinance are not too restrictive in this case, but rather that the property owner <br />is underutilizing the structures they already have. <br />Recommendation <br />Staff is recommending denial of the Variance with the Resolution 10 -26, based on the <br />findings of fact within. If the Council wishes to approve, alternative findings will need to <br />be made and a new resolution created. Additionally, the following conditions are <br />recommended in case of approval: <br />1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction of the proposed structure. <br />2. The structure may only be maintained as long as the additional acreage to the south is <br />leased by the applicant. <br />3. An escrow account must be established to cover the cost of removal should the <br />applicant fail to maintain a lease on the additional acreage. <br />Attachments <br />Resolution No. 10 -26, Location Map, Site Plan, Nordstrom Justification Letter <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.