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 4 <br />Chair Schaps indicated the Ordinance allowed Mr. Poser to have a structure, but not the number <br />he wanted or the size he wanted. <br />Ms. Lane asked if the shed were removed, what size structure would Mr. Poser be allowed to <br />have. Ms. Gretz replied he could build a 1,100 -foot building. <br />Mr. Hyden asked about the driveway access off of 62nd. He asked if this would be a problem. <br />Mr. Powell replied the driveway construction would go over an easement and they would need to <br />receive permission to go over the easement, but this was not unusual and this was done all of the <br />time. <br />Mr. Corson asked if there was any problem with having two driveways. Mr. Powell replied the <br />Ordinances did not prohibit it, but he strongly advised against it. <br />Ms. Lane stated she was in agreement with Mr. Zych for allowing this, but only if the smaller <br />shed would be removed. <br />Ms. Lane made a MOTION to allow the variance on the condition that the small accessory <br />building of 160 feet be removed, and the driveway be moved 29,feet further east, and was <br />supported by Mr. Zych. <br />After further discussion, Ms. Lane withdrew her motion.and Mr. Zych withdrew his second. <br />accessory building in excess of <br />Zych. Motion carried 5-0. <br />Ms. Lane made a MOTION to deny the variance to al <br />maximum allowable square footage, and was supported <br />Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the new garage contingent with the driveway being <br />placed in compliance 20 feet east and th, resent Qccessory building be removed for the reason <br />that Mr. Poser was extremely close in me mg the,Ordinance, and he had the permission of the <br />adjoining landowners, and was suppo WZych. <br />Mr. Corson stated staff mi g t wantrrchapge this Ordinance. <br />Chair Schaps clarified that what they were allowing was one accessory building and the shed <br />would need to be removed. <br />Motion carried (4-1 Corson). <br />B. Rick Piper, 6153 Oakwood Drive, Variance <br />Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had applied for a variance from the <br />required 5 -foot side yard setback for accessory buildings in order to construct a 465 square foot <br />addition on to his existing 624 square foot attached garage. The proposed addition would be <br />used primarily to house a third car, a secondarily for storage. In addition, applicant argued that <br />several homes in the neighborhood had three -stall garages, and that such an addition would add <br />value and marketability to the subject property. <br />Staff presented its analysis of the request by explaining applicant wanted to build a 31' X 15' <br />addition onto his existing attached garage. The current garage was located in the northeast <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.