My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05/27/2003 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2003
>
05/27/2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2014 3:14:11 PM
Creation date
7/11/2014 11:43:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
05/27/2003
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.
/
120
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 />• <br />City Council <br />May 27, 2003 <br />Keller Variance <br />2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his <br />property, and not created by the landowner. <br />Comment: there are no physical circumstances that are unique in this situation. Like <br />many properties in the City, the lot on which the home is placed is simply not large <br />enough to accommodate the further expansion as proposed — at least to the south. <br />3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone, and when a reasonable <br />use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. <br />Comment: the property can, and has been, put to reasonable use under the ordinance. <br />The applicant's desire to expand, which is not an issue of hardship, is not precluded <br />by the directives of the ordinance. Rather, by making other design choices, the <br />applicant would be able to expand while upholding ordinance requirements.. <br />4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special <br />privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or <br />buildings in the same district. <br />Comment: granting the variance would confer special privilege, in the absence of <br />hardship being demonstrated. <br />5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />ordinance. <br />Comment: in terms of variances, the spirit and intent of the ordinance is upheld only <br />when a clear hardship is identified. <br />CONCLUSION <br />The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum street setback requirements for <br />all City streets as a way of providing buffer space between traffic and structures, as well <br />as providing for future right -of -way requirements when streets are constructed or <br />enlarged. The portion of 62 " street east of Red Maple Lane, while not currently <br />constructed, is designated on the Lino Lakes transportation plan to be constructed at some <br />point in the future as a collector street, and will thus require a 40' setback. Staff would <br />recommend denial of the proposed variance in order to preserve full right -of -way for 62nd <br />Street. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.