Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />September 11, 2002 <br />Page 6 <br />Staff noted this application for a Variance is driven by three site constraints: location of a <br />septic system, well, and a pond. Each of these constraints prevent siting the proposed <br />garage in a location next to, or behind, the house, in compliance with the Lino Lakes <br />Zoning Ordinance. As a result, staff feels there is a demonstrated need/hardship that is <br />site - driven and quantifiable, and so justifiable. Staff would recommend approval of the <br />proposed Variance with the following condition: <br />1.) The proposed garage be placed no closer than 62 feet from Wood Duck Trail. <br />2.) The 10 x 10 shed is to be removed. <br />Mr. Lyden asked what was the number of accessory buildings. Ms. Gretz stated she <br />believed it was two. <br />Mr. Lyden stated when he drove out to the site, there were two sheds and asked if they <br />were both owned by Mr. Sullivan. <br />Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. <br />Mr. Sullivan, 8065 Wood Duck Trail, replied there was a 10x10 shed that would be taken <br />down once they got a dumpster for the construction of the proposed garage. <br />• Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Sullivan agreed to adding the 10 x 10 shed to be removed as a <br />part of the conditions. Mr. Sullivan replied he did agree to that requirement. <br />Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to approve Michael & Laura Sullivan, 8065 Wood Duck <br />Trail, Variance subject to staffs recommendations and conditions as outlined in staffs <br />report. <br />The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden. <br />Motion carried 4 -0. <br />C. Donald Lindahl, 855 Ash Street, Minor Subdivision & Variance <br />Staff stated this item was presented at the August 14th meeting of the Planning & Zoning <br />Board. After consideration of the issues, members voted to table the application pending <br />additional information from the applicant. Specifically, Mr. Lindahl was asked to present <br />alternate configurations for the proposed one -acre lot (Tract B), in hopes that it might be <br />possible to achieve the required 330 feet of lot width/road frontage. <br />Mr. Lindahl has presented two alternate configurations for consideration by members. <br />Both proposals would meet the minimum lot width/road frontage requirement of 330 feet. <br />However, as a result of meeting the width requirement, lot size then increases over the <br />one -acre threshold. Since there are only 11 acres total to be used between the two <br />proposed lots, such an increase in the size of proposed Tract B, then decreases the size of <br />proposed Tract A under the 10 acres minimum requirement for property in a Rural zone. <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />