My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/28/2002 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2002
>
10/28/2002 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/6/2015 1:56:54 PM
Creation date
2/6/2015 8:46:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/28/2002
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
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 />COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 28, 2002 <br />Motion carried unanimously. <br />Resolution No. 02-152 can be found in the City Clerk's office. <br />Consideration of Resolution No. 02-153, Denying Variance, Brown, Tanda Gretz — Associate <br />Planner Gretz explained that Mr. Jamie Brown is the owner of property at 442 Main Street, which is <br />zoned Rural and 2.1 acres in size. Mr. Brown is asking for a Variance from the prohibition of metal <br />buildings on a property of his size and zone. In addressing accessory structures, Section 3, subdiv. <br />4.D.8.e of the City Zoning ordinance states : "no metal corrugated siding or roof, except upon tool <br />sheds less than 150 square feet in area." <br />Associate Planner Gretz stated it should be noted that Mr. Brown has already constructed the metal <br />accessory building which is the focus of this Variance application. It should also be noted that Mr. <br />Brown did not pull a building permit before constructing the building The building is 24' by 36', or <br />864 sq. ft., in size. Building Official Pete Kluegel noticed the structure`` earlier this spring. Staff then <br />notified Mr. Brown that such a building was prohibited under City code and that he would have been <br />advised of that fact during the permitting process if he would;hay.:applied for a building permit. <br />Associate Planner Gretz stated she sent several letter. .:Brown on this matter over the summer, <br />advising him that she could see only three ways to resolve the situation: <br />1. To remove the structure. <br />2. To bring the structure into compliance this would probably involve siding and roofing <br />the structure in some fashion. <br />3. To apply for a Variance. <br />Associate Planner Gretz stated that while she advised Mr. Brown that staff could not support his <br />request for a Variance, as there was no hardship demonstrated according to land use criteria, he was <br />told it was always his option f a�plying for one. <br />Associate Planner Gretz explained that repeated letters brought no resolution to the situation, and the <br />matter was handed over to City Attorney Bill Hawkins. After being contacted by Mr. Hawkins, Mr. <br />Brown contacted her and asked that prosecution of the matter be delayed until he was allowed to <br />apply for a Variance, which he has now done. <br />Associate Planner Gretz stated since the metal building that has been constructed is prohibited under <br />City Ordinance, staff cannot recommend approval of this Variance application. <br />It was noted that the Planning Commission had a split vote of 5 to recommend denial and one to <br />recommend approval. <br />Councilmember Carlson asked the size of the building and if it is within the square footage that is <br />• allowed so he could just side the building with something other than corrugated metal. Associate <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.