My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
2003-062 Council Resolution
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
2003
>
2003-062 Council Resolution
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/5/2014 2:13:45 PM
Creation date
12/5/2014 11:59:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Master List Resolution
Meeting Date
05/27/2003
Council Meeting Type
Regular
Resolution #
03-062
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
City Council <br />May 27, 2003 <br />Laumeyer Variance <br />FINDING OF FACT <br />The Shoreland Ordinance specifies that variances to its provisions be evaluated as <br />outlined in the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance, which directs that when considering all <br />requests for variance or appeal, and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a <br />finding of fact: <br />1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls. <br />Comment: the property has been put to reasonable use, but cannot be expanded or <br />improved under the constraints of the Shoreland Ordinance. <br />2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his <br />property, and not created by the landowner. <br />Comment: the unique physical circumstance is the narrowness of the lot, which <br />precludes siting a structure in a way that both meets the setback requirements of the <br />Shoreland Ordinance as well as those required for Centerville Roadd, <br />3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone, and when a reasonable <br />use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. <br />Comment: the property has been put to a reasonable use in the past, but cannot be <br />expanded or improved under the constraints of the ordinance. <br />4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special <br />privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or <br />buildings in the same district. <br />Comment: there do not appear to be other properties similarly situated. <br />5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />ordinance. <br />Comment: the spirit and intent of the ordinance is upheld when hardship is identified. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.