My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
09/11/2002 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2002
>
09/11/2002 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/6/2014 3:36:22 PM
Creation date
6/6/2014 12:10:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
09/11/2002
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.
/
80
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 />Planning & Zoning Board <br />Lindahl Minor Subdivision & Variance <br />September 11, 2002 <br />City attorney and recorded with Anoka County. In addition, as a further condition of <br />approval, the driveway was approved by the Fire Chief. <br />The driveway is currently used primarily by the residents at 815 Ash Street, as the <br />Lindahls have their own access drive. Further subdivision of the 11 -acre parcel would <br />require shared use of this driveway, which may or may not pose a legal issue: the <br />easement agreement states the easement is "for the exclusive benefit of Tracts B (855 <br />Ash Street) and C (815 Ash Street)." Further, the agreement states that "no party may <br />unreasonably increase the burden of the driveway and utility easement." The agreement <br />can be amended only with the written consent of both parties. <br />VARIANCE — FINDINGS OF FACT <br />The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that "in considering all requests for variance or <br />appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall 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 <br />use. The applicant is simply asking for a further intensification of use. <br />2.) That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to <br />his property, not created by the land owner. <br />Comment: The landowner is asking for a further subdivision of his land, <br />which he was advised "would probably not be recommended" when he first <br />purchased his property. <br />3.) That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a <br />reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. <br />Comment: There is no hardship demonstrated or apparent; rather the <br />proposed lots simply do not meet the minimum lot requirements for property <br />in a Rural zone. <br />4.) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any <br />special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, <br />structures, or buildings in the same district. <br />Comment: Granting a Variance without the demonstration of hardship or <br />unique circumstances would confer upon the applicant special privilege. <br />5.) That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />ordinance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.