My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
09/11/1996 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
1996
>
09/11/1996 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2014 10:46:54 AM
Creation date
7/16/2014 11:09:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
09/11/1996
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.
/
20
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, 1996 <br />Mr. Dunn stated that he believes the ordinance should be enforced. The problem is <br />that the structure exists and looks good. To move it will be an eyesore to neighbors <br />and a hardship to the Sullivans. The structure is fastened to a cement foundation and <br />does not obstruct traffic sight lines. <br />Mr. Pete Kluegel stated that the survey was unclear as to where the right -of -way ended <br />and the line of the Sullivan's property. <br />Chair Schaps asked if there was a specific discussion by staff or direction about a <br />precise location for the structure. <br />Mr. Kluegel stated that staff tried to identify the location of the property line over the <br />phone. He does not recall direction being given on a precise location. The Sullivans <br />would state the opposite. He added that a permit is not required for accessory <br />buildings. <br />Ms. Wyland noted that an anonymous party called the City to report the location of the <br />accessory structure. <br />Chair Schaps stated that the building is clearly not where it should be located. It would <br />be his suggestions to come to an arrangement to move the building with the City <br />sharing in the cost rather than trying to find the culpable party who gave misinformation. <br />Ms. Kim Sullivan stated that the features associated with this property make it difficult <br />to put the structure in another location that would not be a problem for their neighbors. <br />Chair Schaps stated that the overriding issue is that the building is located in the <br />setback, and he believes the best action is to not grant a variance. <br />Ms. Sullivan displayed a map of the property and pointed out the grade. The City <br />requires a 120 -foot lot width on corner properties. This property has only 93 feet in the <br />rear or side, which is less than any corner property in Lino Lakes. This fact pushes the <br />setback into the yard. The shed is 17 feet from the curb. That is the reason a variance <br />is requested. Neighbors have petitioned against moving the structure because it will <br />look out of place in the neighborhood. In order to move it, they would have to remove a <br />tree. <br />Mr. Brixius stated that the odd - shaped lot configuration and smaller width is not a <br />unique situation in Lino Lakes or any other city. The topography, however, is unique. <br />The important consideration is if the building did not exist, would the City grant this <br />18 <br />• <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.