12/14/1983 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

10 December 14, 1983 Mr. Hawkins should specifically address Subdivision 7 of the Zoning Ordinance in his response. Further, Mrs. Klaus would like to know exactly where the septic systems are so that this problem will not come back to the Planning and Zoning Board again. Mr. Ostlie said he would like to know where the septic systems are in relation to the lines on the proposed subdivision plot. Mr. McLean felt that Mr. Hawkins should give the Planning and Zoning Board the rational or basis for dealing with this variance. Mrs. Klaus moved to table the request for a lot size variance for Mr. Phillip Osheim at 75 Shadow Court, Lino Lakes, until the Board can get a written opinion from the City Attorney especially in regard to the Zoning ordinance, Subdivision 7, Variance and Appeals which we seem to have a problem with the hardship situation in this case and would request that when Mr. Osheim comes back to this Board that he has the exact location of the septic tanks and drainfields so that we know that the proposed division line would be correct as far as containing the septic system and fields within the new proposed lot. Mr. McLean seconded the motion. Motion declared passed. PROPOSED LOT SPLIT - MOSE PARISEAU Mr. McLean introduced Mr. and Mrs. Pariseau who asked to have a proposed lot split presented to the Board tonight although the item was not on the agenda. The Board agreed to hear the proposal as a feasibility. Mrs. Pariseau described the property as containing 32 acres and two residences located at 6209 and 6217 Centerville Road. She is pro- posing splitting the lot into a ten acre lot (Lot B) and the second lot containing the remainder of the property (Lot A). Lot B has a 90+ frontage. Lot A has a 400' frontage. This property is in the Rural zone. Mr. Prokop said he could not approve of creating a lot that would not conform to the present Code since Lot B has less than the required frontage. Mr. McLean pointed out the newly created lot would contain the required frontage, the remainder of the property would have less than the required frontage and did not know the legal ramification of this. Mr. Kluegal suggested that the proposal be submitted to the City Planner for his remarks. Mrs. Klaus did not feel the Board would create a substandard lot. Mr. McLean suggested that possibly the remaining lot B be treated as a road easement. It was pointed out the original farm buildings are on this lot. Mr. and Mrs. Pariseau were told that this subdivision will be referred to the City Planner for his review indicating the Planning and Zoning Board's thoughts of labeling Lot B as a road easement. The Pariseaus were told there would be a charge for the Planner's review.