My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02614
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2600
>
pf_02614
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:59:13 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 12:12:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2614
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
1281 JOSEPHINE RD
Applicant
KADRIE, CHUCK
Status
APPROVED
PIN
032923120007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
174
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 />phrase "integral structural element" was used in the same fashion <br /> <br />as saying it is not appurtenant to the building. <br /> <br />There was no <br /> <br />invention of limitations by the staff. Even though the grade level <br /> <br />patio has been termed a "deck" in the past, it is clear that it is <br /> <br />not the same as the first floor deck, which is attached to the <br /> <br />structure and therefore appurtenant. <br />Black's Law Dictionary defines "appurtenance" as "[a]n article <br /> <br />adapted to the use of the property to which it is connected, and <br /> <br />which was intended to be a permanent accession to the freehold" <br /> <br />Black's Law Dictionary 94 (5th ed., 1979). By definition, for the <br /> <br />patio to be appurtenant to the structure, it must be connected to <br /> <br />it; this patio is not. <br /> <br />Even if the grade level patio is considered appurtenant to the <br />structure, the Zoning Code is clear that the substandard dimensions <br /> <br />of a substandard use cannot be increased. <br /> <br />Mr. Kadrie argues that <br /> <br />"substandard dimension" is defined as the setback requirement set <br /> <br />forth in Section 18.080 (8) of the Zoning Code. This interpretation <br /> <br />of the code would only restrict construction that horizontally <br /> <br />encroaches on the lakeshore. That interpretation is not consistent <br /> <br />with the purpose of the Zoning Code. <br /> <br />The Minnesota Court of <br /> <br />Appeals has stated: <br /> <br />[T]he purpose of nonconforming use ordinances, is to <br />achieve the eventual eradication of non-conforming uses <br />or structures while avoiding waste and unfairness. <br />Allowing structures to be altered so as to exacerbate the <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.