My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
01/28/2008 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2008
>
01/28/2008 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 12:31:19 PM
Creation date
5/2/2014 2:13:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
01/28/2008
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.
/
108
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 />Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved <br />its adoption: <br />CITY OF LINO LAKES <br />RESOLUTION NO. 08-15 <br />RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE DETACHED ACCESSORY <br />STRUCTURE SETBACK FOR THE PROPERTY AT 2221 REILING ROAD. <br />WHEREAS, the City has received an application for a Variance to allow an existing <br />detached accessory structure to remain at 2221 Reiling Road, described as follows: <br />Lots 11 and 12, Otter Lake Hills, Lino Lakes <br />and; <br />WHEREAS, the zoning ordinance requires a 5 foot side setback for detached accessory <br />structures; and <br />WHEREAS, the property owner constructed a detached accessory structure that is 4.29 <br />feet from the side property line; and <br />WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning & Zoning Board on January <br />9, 2008; and <br />WHEREAS, as required by Section 2, Subdivision 4 of the zoning ordinance, the City <br />Council made the following findings of fact regarding the structure: <br />a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used <br />under conditions allowed by the official controls. <br />Reasonable use of the garage, which was permitted, constructed, and <br />inspected at what was believed to be the appropriate setback; would be <br />eliminated if the setback was strictly enforced in this case. <br />b. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique <br />to his property not created by the landowner. <br />Due to the topography of the lot, the location of the rear property corner is <br />extremely difficult to ascertain and verify. At the time of the building permit <br />for the structure, no survey was required and the property owner believed he <br />was meeting the setback requirement. <br />—59— <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.