My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
2001-161 Council Resolution
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
2001
>
2001-161 Council Resolution
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/16/2021 6:52:28 PM
Creation date
11/30/2015 9:51:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Resolutions
Meeting Date
10/22/2001
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
ANALYSIS <br /> An error was made in siting, and the home sits 6.8 feet from the property line rather than <br /> the required ten feet. The builder is requesting a 3.2-foot Variance from the City's <br /> required side yard setback of ten feet. The home in question abuts neighboring garages <br /> on both sides, rather than the residences. <br /> According to the City attorney Bill Hawkins, contractors and homeowners are ultimately <br /> responsible for making sure a home is sited according to specifications. Mr. Hawkins <br /> further offered the counsel that other Municipalities in similar situations have issued <br /> Variances when other remedies for correction were not suitable. <br /> The above report was presented at the October 10`h meeting of the Planning and Zoning <br /> Board. After consideration of the issues, the board voted to approve the Variance with <br /> the condition that the effected neighbor be notified. That notification has taken place, in <br /> the form of a letter sent out on October 121h to Jeff and Brenda Lucey of 6489 Clearwater <br /> Creek Drive. <br /> FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE <br /> In considering all requests for a Variance and in taking subsequent action, the City shall <br /> make a finding of fact: <br /> l. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br /> conditions allowed by the official controls. <br /> A Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued to a property currently in violation of <br /> City Code, without a Variance. Re-siting the existing home would be required to <br /> correct the violation and meet City Code. This seems impractical for a home that is <br /> 90% complete, thus a Variance is needed in order to allow reasonable use. <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 /> The plight of the landowner is due to a mistake in siting the home. <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 /> Reasonable use will require that a Certificate of Occupancy be issued, which will <br /> _ require a Variance. Hardship is exhibited due to difficulty in re-siting a home that is <br /> 90% complete. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.