My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
2001-153B Council Resolution
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
2001
>
2001-153B Council Resolution
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2015 10:29:42 AM
Creation date
11/30/2015 9:04:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Resolutions
Meeting Date
09/24/2001
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.
/
18
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
Planning & Zoning Board <br />September 11, 2001 <br />Page 3 <br />Staff indicated construction of the proposed garage in the area desired by Mr. Poser would <br />require a separate, second driveway with access via 62nd street. Staff stated City Code did not <br />preclude construction of such a second driveway. There were, however, easement issues. Staff <br />stated there was an eighty-five foot United Power Association easement along the southern side <br />of 62nd Street. The proposed garage did not impact this easement, but the driveway would cross <br />the easement. Similarly, construction of the proposed garage does not appear to impact the <br />current road right-of-way, however the driveway would be affected by any future improvements <br />to 62nd Street. <br />Staff explained Mr. Poser stated that he wanted to locate the garage on the northern part of the <br />property with access via 62nd street for two reasons: 1) the septic system was located on the <br />southern part of the property and precludes sitting there, and 2) there was less traffic on 62nd <br />Street. <br />Staff reviewed the five findings for variance, as stated in the zoning ordinance that the City shall <br />make in considering all requests for variance in taking subsequent action. <br />Staff recommended denying the variance for the reasons outlinedin the staff's report. <br />Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. <br />Steve Poser, 6180 Ware Road, stated he was .05 acres hort,from being allowed to do what he <br />wanted to do, which was the equivalent of 5 feet. Secoc a was not sure why there was a <br />violation on the present shed he had on his proprty. He -st4tsd he had obtained a permit and was <br />not informed at that time he would be in violation; <br />Chair Schaps asked if he had given any thought tq eliminating one of the structures. Mr. Poser <br />replied he could do that, but at there hdid not know when he applied that he was in <br />violation. <br />Chair Schaps indicated the Ordinances were there for a purpose, even if he was only .05 acres <br />short. Mr. Corson agreed and stated they did need to draw the line somewhere, and he could not <br />support this variance. ' ; <br />Mr. Zych stated Mr. Poser was only .05 acres short from being able to put as many buildings as <br />he wanted to on the property. He stated the neighbors had indicated it was okay with them, so he <br />did not see why they did not grant the request. Mr. Corson replied that the line needed to be <br />drawn somewhere and the rules were there for a purpose. He expressed concern about setting <br />precedence if this was granted. <br />Mr. Corson stated Mr. Poser did not have a unique hardship and therefore, did not qualify for this <br />variance. <br />Mr. Smyser stated the issue was that he already had an accessory building. Mr. Poser stated he <br />wanted to put the garage up to store additional trailers in. He stated the shed could not be seen <br />from any of his neighbors' yards. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.