My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/09/1996 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
1996
>
10/09/1996 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2014 10:45:37 AM
Creation date
7/16/2014 11:20:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
10/09/1996
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.
/
9
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 />Planning & Zoning Board <br />October 9, 1996 <br />Ms. Sullivan further stated that one neighbor would not sign the petition <br />because he felt that the issue is between the Sullivans and the City. He did state <br />that he has no concern about the shed as long as they continue to add <br />landscaping. Safety concerns have been discussed with neighbors, and they <br />support leaving the shed in its present location. <br />Mr. Dunn stated that with the submission of a petition by affected neighbors who <br />endorse the current shed location, the variance should be granted. While he <br />supports following ordinance provisions, this is an unusual case due to a number <br />of circumstances, one of which could have been City involvement. The Sullivans <br />have acted in good faith and not unilaterally. With even the slightest doubt of the <br />City's participation in the misunderstanding, he would support the full variance. <br />Mr. Johnson stated that there are two issues involved: 1) land use and 2) <br />communication. The Board's responsibility is to deal with land use questions. <br />He does not believe a storage shed should be so close to the street and would <br />oppose granting the variance. If the variance is denied, the Sullivans can appeal <br />to the Council. It is the Council's responsibility to handle both land use issues <br />and communication issues. He will vote to deny the variance on the basis of <br />land use. <br />Mr. Gelbmann agreed with Mr. Johnson and added that he believes there are <br />additional difficulties when the two issues are crossed. He would not favor <br />granting this variance. <br />Mr. Herr stated that he also supports Mr. Johnson's position and expressed <br />concern about the neighbor most affected who did not sign the petition. <br />Ms. Dahl stated that she agrees with Mr. Dunn. The reason she is changing her <br />position is because of the confusion resulting from the Council's <br />recommendation to the Sullivans that they pursue a variance and submit a <br />petition. The Council is the policy maker, but staff is not recommending that <br />policy. <br />Ms. Wyland responded that the Council's concern is for adjoining property <br />owners. Staff has to look at what the ordinance requires to grant a variance. To <br />apply the ordinance criteria, staff would have to recommend denial. Staff cannot <br />recommend location of an accessory structure 1.5 feet from the property line. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.