10/09/2002 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 8 Staff stated soils tests confirm that the proposed 10 -acre parcel is capable of accommodating a septic system. In addition, there is adequate room for both primary and secondary sites. The one -acre parcel already contains a septic system, with adequate room for a secondary site. Staff indicated the existing 11 -acre parcel contains a second driveway, not used by the Lindahls but existing on their property, that is the sole source of access for the neighboring property to the west, at 815 Ash Street. Without this driveway, the property at 815 would be landlocked, with no access out to Ash Street or any other road. The minor subdivision approved in 1997, which created the parcels at 815 and 855 Ash Street, required an easement agreement be drawn up for the driveway. This agreement was approved by the City attorney and recorded with An a County. In addition, as a further condition of approval, the driveway was approved b Chief Staff noted the driveway is currently used p the Lindahls have their own access drive. F would require shared use of this driveway, whi easement agreement states the easement is "fo Ash Street) and C (815 Ash Street)." Furthe unreasonably increase the burden of the can be amended only with the written c Staff stated the Lino Lakes Zonin variance or peal and in taking sub nts at 815 Ash Street, as acre parcel r may n ' #` e a legal issue: the e benefit of Tracts B (855 tates that "no party may sement." The agreement a "in considering all requests for ent ac ity shall make a finding of fact: 1.) That the property in qu conditions the of be put to a reasonable use if used under ntrols. been, % nd currently is, being put to reasonable use. g for a further intensification of use. 2.) That the p his property, ers is due to physical circumstances unique to the land owner. Comment: The lan ner is asking for a further subdivision of his land, which he was advised "would probably not be recommended" when he first purchased his property. 3.) That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Comment: There is no hardship demonstrated or apparent; rather the proposed lots simply do not meet the minimum lot requirements for property in a Rural zone. 4.) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district.