My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
09/11/2001 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
2001
>
09/11/2001 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2014 11:47:36 AM
Creation date
7/15/2014 11:49:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
09/11/2001
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
Planning & Zoning Board <br />September 11, 2001 <br />Page 2 <br />VI. ACTION ITEMS <br />A. Steve Poser, 6180 Ware Road, Variance <br />Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had applied for a variance from the <br />prohibition of accessory buildings in excess of 1,120 square feet on a lot of less than one and <br />one - quarter acres in.order to construct a 1080 square foot detached garage on the northern part of <br />his property. A second variance from the prohibition of building a second detached accessory <br />building in excess of the allowed one attached garage and one detached accessory building <br />would also be required, as there was a 160 square foot shed already in existence on the property. <br />This shed was sited closer to Ware Road than the house, and so it was currently in violation of <br />City Ordinance Section 3, Subd. 4.D.1.c, which prohibits detached accessory structures from <br />being placed closer to the front lot line than the principal building. <br />Staff presented its analysis of its request by explaining Mr. Poser wa ed to b d a 1080 square <br />foot detached garage on the northern part of his property, with ac s 62nd reet, for storage <br />of recreational vehicles and trailers. The current garage was at , ch to "� ; ruse, which existed <br />on the western part of the property with access via Ware Ro R •> e w . 10' X 16' shed <br />located to the north of the house on the northwest portion • ` he p 'e %. Staff noted that this <br />shed was currently in non - compliance with City Code ctio . 3, Su s . 4.D.1.c, as it was placed <br />closer to the front lot line than the house, and the City w • :° . ect that the shed be moved to a <br />location which met City Code. Staff stated the s ." r tem was located to the south of the <br />house. Staff indicated the lot was wooded, wit o app 3= nt wetlands. <br />Staff explained the property was locate <br />and 62na Street and zoned Rural. Staf <br />north of the property and zoned R <br />subdivision was located to the n <br />property to the west, south <br />Staff indicated Mr. Poser : ?f'; ort <br />north, east and south. <br />corner of the intersection of Ware Road <br />s South Glen subdivision was located to the <br />le Family Executive. Staff indicated Fox Trace <br />and oned Residential Single Family. Staff stated the <br />e similar in size and zone to that of the subject property. <br />his variance from his three immediate neighbors to the <br />Staff explained the pro <br />about 1.2 acres, or just u <br />building of the size and n <br />348 X 150 feet, or 52,200 square feet. This put the acreage at <br />der the 1.25 -acre lot size required for the construction of an accessory <br />mber desired by Mr. Poser. <br />Staff explained City Code allowed either one attached garage and one detached structure, or two <br />detached structures, on a lot of less than 1.25 acres, but allowed one attached garage and two <br />detached accessory buildings on a lot in excess of 1.25 acres. Staff stated Mr. Poser already had <br />a detached structure in the 10' X 16' shed located in his front yard (non - conforming). Thus, <br />adding a second accessory building would also require a variance for a lot with his square <br />footage. <br />Staff stated the existing accessory square footage was 820 square feet: a 660 square foot attached <br />garage and a 160 square foot detached shed. Addition of the proposed detached garage would <br />result in 1,900 square feet of total accessory building footage, 780 square feet over what was <br />allowed under City ordinance. Staff indicated if the current non - conforming shed were <br />eliminated from the total accessory square footage, the proposed garage would still be 620 <br />square feet over what was allowed under City ordinance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.