05/08/2002 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2002 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES However, Section 5, subdiv. 2.B.1 of th e Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance required a minimum lot size of 10 acres for property locat ed in an R-X Zone, which would preclude such a subdivision. Staff explained property was defined by its legal descrip tion. Every property had a Parcel Identification Number. The County w ould not allow the property to be subdivided unless the City had approved the subdivisi on. The City used the PIN and legal description to determine what the parcel was. Since the property in question has one PIN and the legal description included all the prope rty, it was considered one parcel. Division of any parcel must comply with C ity requirements, including lot size. Staff stated Mr. Joyer and the Thorps were questioning when and how the two lots became combined under one PIN. It was their contention that the two lots were purchased separately and should never have been combined under one PIN. Were this the case, Lot 28 would exist as a legal non-c onformity and could be sold to Mr. Neeck. Staff noted what was known, is that in 1983 Anoka County records show that Lots 28, 29, & 30 were owned by the Thorps under one PIN (09-31-22-24-0030). In 1998 the Thorps sold Lot 30, leaving the resulting Lots 28 & 29 combined as they are at this time. In reviewing such a transac tion, the separate sale of Lo t 30 in 1998 clearly should not have taken place or been allowed according to City Ordinance, for the same reasons that preclude the sale of Lot 28 at this time. However, an administrative oversight seems to have taken place, as records showed that the Lino Lakes City Clerk certified the subdivision of the parcel to break off Lot 30 without City Council approval. Staff presented its analysis by explaining C ity Ordinance required property zoned R-X to be a minimum of 10 acres in size. The Thor ps’ property currently existed as a legal non- conformity, as did most all of the lots in the Lake View Woodlands subdivision. Further subdivision, however, would increase, or exace rbate, the non-conformity of the property, violating City Zoning Ordinance. For this reason, it was the recommendation of staff to deny the request for a Variance from the mini mum lot size for property located in an R-X Zone as well as the Minor Subdivision. Chair Schaps asked how much under the 10 acres was the lot. Ms. Gretz replied it was approximately 2 acres, consisting of lots 28 & 29, each of which is about an acre. Mr. Corson asked if staff had spoken with the County with respect to their records. Ms. Gretz replied that staff did not know what happened before 1983, and what they had found out was outlined in staff’s report. Jeff Joyer, 8174 Lake Drive, on behalf of the applicants, stated they had an unresolved mystery pertaining to this lot. He stated in 1963, one property was bought, Lot 29 and 30. Two years in 1965 later they bought Lot 28. He stated this was all part of Lakeview Woodlands, which was approximately 70 one-acre lots. He stated a ll of the lots were built out, with the exception of Thorp’s lo t. He stated in 1983, all three lots were combined by the County under one PIN. He stated the Thorp’s had always intended on selling this lot for retirement and now with health issues, they need the money for