My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
2001-069 Council Resolution
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
2001
>
2001-069 Council Resolution
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/16/2021 6:51:59 PM
Creation date
2/13/2015 2:25:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Master List Resolution
Meeting Date
05/29/2001
Council Meeting Type
Regular
Resolution #
01-069
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
01-69 <br /> Council Member Dahl introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. <br /> CITY OF LINO LAKES <br /> RESOLUTION NO. 01-69 <br /> RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY BUILDING <br /> TO BE CLOSER TO THE FRONT LOT LINE THAN THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING <br /> WHEREAS, a request has been submitted to the City Council for a Variance from the City of <br /> Lino Lakes Zoning Code, and <br /> WHEREAS,the legal description of the property is: <br /> The east 658 feet of the west 1314 feet of the North Half of the North Half of the Northwest <br /> Quarter of Section 12, Township 31, Range 22,Anoka County, Minnesota. Subject to roads. <br /> and <br /> WHEREAS, Section 3 Subd. 4.1).1.c. of the Lino Lakes zoning ordinance states that"No <br /> detached accessory structure shall be closer to the front lot line than the principal building or its <br /> attached garage", and <br /> WHEREAS,the applicant desires to construct an accessory building closer to the front lot line <br /> than the existing house, and <br /> WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes makes following findings of fact: <br /> 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions <br /> allowed by the official controls. The existing drainfield and need for a secondary <br /> drainfield area prevents the accessory building from being built to the southwest of <br /> the house. <br /> 2. The plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property <br /> not created by the landowner. The location of the low, wet area prevents an <br /> accessory building from being built to the southeast of the house and it would be <br /> unreasonable to require a driveway through the wet area to reach the far southeast <br /> corner of the property. <br /> 3. The hardship is not due to economic considerations alone. This application is not <br /> driven by reluctance to spend extra money to avoid the need for a variance. <br /> 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege <br /> that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the <br /> same district. The physical features of the site create the hardship. <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.