09/11/2001 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 2 family lot. A variance would be required because the new lot did not comply with the minimum lot depth of 135 feet. Staff presented its analysis of its request by explaining Lino Lakes had sewer and water two blocks to the east in Sunset Drive. Lots along Sunset Drive would connect. Utilities were not available to the rest of the neighborhood to the west of those lots. However, Blaine utilities were available to the lots on Sunset Road and several were connected to the Blaine utilities. The subject property was one of them. Utility service for the proposed new lot would need to connect to the Blaine system. The property was zoned R -1. The new lot would not meet the minimum lot depth requirement. A variance would be necessary. Staff reviewed the five findings for variance, as stated in the zoning ordinance that the City shall make in considering all requests for variance in taking subsequent action. Staff pointed out that the existing use of the lot as a single - family residence was not threatened by the status quo. There were no unique physical circumstances. The sole purpose of the variance was to allow an additional lot to be created to provide economic gain. Granting an unjustified variance would be conferring a special privilege and would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Staff indicated whether it was advisable to allow for the creattoraf additional lots in this neighborhood by splitting the existing lots was a policy question that might merit consideration by the City. However, the application under considefatiori ould create a lot that did not meet current requirements and there was no justification for' he requested variance. Without the variance, the minor subdivision could not occur. Staff recommended denying the variance basedon.Iackpl'justification and denying the minor subdivision because the lot did not meet the mini` um lot depth. Mr. Lyden stated as he drove doWnlairriteiktrappeared there were many lots that were split, as this applicant wanted his lot tobe,s lit 4� le asked why some lots were split and some were not. Mr. Smyser replied those *l6ts were many years ago and under the existing guidelines, those lots would not have been ai wed to be split today. Mr. Lyden noted he understood fie variance, but for practical purposes, he did not understand why the lot could not be split. Mr. Smyser replied making a profit on the lot was not a condition for a variance. Mr. Lyden stated it was a variance of less than 10 feet and while he understood the variance, he had a difficult decision about not splitting this lot. Mr. Corson asked if the lots were serviced by City sewer and water. Mr. Smyser replied they were not. Mr. Corson asked if applicant was requesting Parcel B be served by City sewer and water. Mr. Smyser replied it was being requested to have service by the City of Blaine, which would need the City of Blaine's approval as well. He expressed concern about opening up this type of a situation. However, it was technically feasible to have the sewer and water serviced by the City of Blaine.