My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
08/14/2002 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2002
>
08/14/2002 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/6/2014 3:54:26 PM
Creation date
6/6/2014 11:23:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
08/14/2002
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
114
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 />Bachman Minor Subdivision & Variance <br />August 14, 2002 <br />• Septic Issues <br />Soils tests confirm that the proposed 11 -acre parcel is capable of accommodating a septic <br />system. In addition, there is adequate room for both primary and secondary sites. The <br />18- acre parcel already contains a septic system, with adequate room for a secondary site. <br />Access Issues <br />The existing 29 -acre parcel contains an access drive onto Ash Street. A second access <br />drive will be required for the proposed 11 -acre parcel. As Ash Street is a County road, <br />plans have been forwarded to the Anoka County Highway Department for review and <br />approval. <br />FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE <br />In considering all requests for Variance and in taking subsequent action, the City shall <br />make a finding of fact: <br />1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls. <br />• Comment: The property has been, and currently is, being put to reasonable use for <br />agricultural purposes. <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 />Comment: There is no unique physical circumstance existing on the property; there is <br />simply not enough width and road frontage to meet the minimum lot requirements for <br />a property in the Rural zone, as established under City Ordinance. <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 />Comment: There is no hardship demonstrated or apparent; the lot simply does not <br />meet the minimum lot requirements for a property in the Rural zone. <br />4. That granting the Variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special <br />privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or <br />buildings in the same district. <br />Comment: Granting a Variance without the demonstration of hardship or unique <br />physical circumstances would confer special privilege upon the applicant. <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.