My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
2005-123 Council Resolution
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
2005
>
2005-123 Council Resolution
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/12/2014 11:01:30 AM
Creation date
9/12/2014 10:26:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Master List Resolution
Meeting Date
08/22/2005
Council Meeting Type
Regular
Resolution #
05-123
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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 />Erickson Variance <br />page 2 <br />both sides of the proposed building site without the approval of a variance, however, in <br />this instance the survey submitted depicts that the setback of the property to the south is <br />78.7 feet, and that the property to the north is not developed with a dwelling at this time. <br />The survey does depict the dwelling on the next developed lot to be setback 94.9 feet <br />from the O.H.W.L. <br />DNR <br />Tom Hovey, an Area Hydrologist with the DNR commented that a hardship is not <br />discussed by the applicant in their letter, nor demonstrated on the plans; that alternatives <br />appear to exist that would not require a variance; and that the shoreland management <br />program is intended to eliminate nonconformities, not increase them. Furthermore, if any <br />fill has occurred on this or adjacent properties the DNR needs to review the situation and <br />determine if the fill was permitted and legal. <br />Findings <br />Findings of Fact. In considering all requests for variance or appeal and in taking <br />subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: <br />a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br />• conditions allowed by the official controls. <br />• <br />The lot is already developed with a single family dwelling and though it <br />might be more costly, due to the need to remove /renovate /replace existing <br />detached accessory structures and driveways, additions could be made north <br />of the existing home that would not encroach further into the setback from <br />the O.H.W.L. <br />b. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his <br />property not created by the land owner. <br />The site does constrain development due to the lack of depth and the <br />setbacks required from the right -of -way and the O.H.W.L. At the shallowest <br />point, the lot depth from the right -of -way to the O.H.W.L is 145 feet. <br />Considering the 30 foot front setback and 100 foot rear setback (from <br />O.H.W.L) the result is a building footprint that is only 15 feet deep. This <br />would not typically be enough footprint depth to build a standard dwelling, <br />however working with the existing setbacks for the dwelling an addition <br />could be added that would not further the encroachment into the O.H.W.L <br />setback. <br />c. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use <br />for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. <br />As mentioned previously, if money was not an issue, the existing accessory <br />structures and driveways could be removed /replaced /renovated to allow an <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.