10/08/2003 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2003 Kivel Variance Accessory Building Requirements The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance (Sec. 3, subd. 4.D.8.f) directs that the subject property is allowed up to 1,200 sq.ft. of accessory building footage. The number of accessory buildings is limited to either two detached accessory structures OR one detached and one attached structure. The proposed garage would meet these requirements. The Zoning Ordinance (Sec. 5, subd. 2.C.3) further states that all dwellings located in the R -X District shall have a double garage. Otter Lake Road Right -of -Way Otter Lake Road (CSAH No. 84) is a County Road, and classed as a major collector under the Lino Lakes Transportation Plan. The County reports it currently has 50 feet of right -of -way from centerline, but will require an additional 10 feet of right -of -way for future road improvements, for a total of 60 feet of right -of -way from centerline (NOTE: the Kivel survey shows 55.5 feet of existing of right -of -way; this survey is not an official Certificate of Survey, and bears no signature that it was prepared by a licensed land surveyor). The County's future needs are detailed in Exhibit #2. This ten -foot increase in right -of -way would extend into the area proposed for the garage. Thus, the variance would likely increase public costs for future road improvements, as the County would be in the position of not only buying the needed additional right -of -way, but also paying the costs associated with the loss and demolition of the garage. Additionally, the Lino Lakes Park & Trail plan shows a future trail to be located along Otter Lake Road. Public Safety Director Rick DeGardner states that any such future trail should be adequately accomodated within the 60 feet right -of -way that the County requires (Exhibit #3). Anoka County Right -of -Way Acquisitions staff person Mike Kelly, however, counsels that Anoka County — in light of budget cuts — is currently reviewing how it administers its right -of -way and urged Lino Lakes to consider its own right -of -way needs for paths /trails in situations such as the subject application, rather than fully relying on the County. Conclusion There is definitely hardship demonstrated in the form of the location of the holding tank and drain field, the locations of which are precluding a garage from being sited in areas which would satisfy zoning ordinance requirements. However, in spite of this demonstration of hardship, there are further right -of -way constraints acting on the property that preclude siting a garage in the location proposed. Most notably, the area to be used for the proposed garage is the very area that will be needed for road right -of -way. Thus, approval of the variance would result in increasing public costs for future road improvements: the County will not only have to pay for the