My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
04/03/2000 Park Board Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Park Board
>
Park Board Meeting Packets
>
1999-2020 Park Board Packets
>
2000 Park Board Packets
>
04/03/2000 Park Board Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/24/2014 12:47:45 PM
Creation date
7/24/2014 10:22:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Park Board
Park Bd Document Type
Park Board Packet
Meeting Date
04/03/2000
Park Bd Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
117
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
COUNCIL MINUTES <br />SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 <br />3. Park Dedication is assumed collected on the existing homestead. Park Dedication on <br />the remaining Tract A shall be deferred until future development occurs. <br />Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. <br />Consideration of Sue Walseth's Variance Request, 6408 Cassiopeia - Mary Kay Wyland <br />(3/5 Vote Required) - Sue Walseth is constructing a new home on the northeast corner of Holly <br />Drive and Cassiopeia Court. She has an above ground pool and a large, out -door dog, and would <br />like to install a 6' privacy fence in her rear & side yard. The Ordinance prohibits the construction <br />of a 6' fence from the setback line of the adjoining home on Holly Drive (40') and also along <br />Holly Drive to the front of her home. The Ordinance would allow a 4' fence. <br />Staff reviewed the Findings of Fact required for a variance and concluded that the criteria <br />outlined by State Statutes and the City's Zoning Ordinance could not be met in this case. That <br />criteria includes the following: <br />1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable <br />conditions allowed by the official controls. The applica <br />fence, rather than the requested 6' fence. <br />d under <br />11 a 4' high <br />2. That the plight of the landowners is due to p a irc1 ances unique to his <br />property not created by the landowners . a typical corner lot with <br />typical restrictions as to fence hei; ht. <br />3. That the hardship is not du o <br />use for the property ex ter s of the ordinance. The hardship is not <br />economic. <br />considerations alone and when a reasonable <br />4. That grant <br />privilege th <br />buildings in <br />may set a pr <br />ance requested will not confer on the applicant any special <br />d denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or <br />sage district. Staff has recommended denial, granting the variance <br />dent for other fences on other corner lots. <br />5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />ordinance. Denial of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />ordinance which is to restrict fence height on corner lots when a rear yard abutts a <br />front yard. <br />The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed this variance at their September 8, 1999, meeting. <br />Kirk Corson made a motion to deny the variance request. Motion failed with two (2) ayes, two <br />(2) nays, and two (2) abstained. Chair Schaps was unable to attend the meeting but did send the <br />Board a memo supporting the staff recommendation of denial. <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.