Laserfiche WebLink
i, <br />f <br />PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING <br />March 8, 1989 <br />After further discussion, a motion was made. <br />MOTION: Fred Chase moved to recommend to the City Council <br />approval of the request to grant a street easement for Aspen <br />Lane Extended. Sally Kuether seconded the motion, and the <br />motion was approved unanimously. <br />7:16 p.m. REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE IN SUNRISE MEADOWS <br />FROM THE CITY OF LINO LAKES. APPLICATION *89 -10 <br />In the summer of 1988, the city council approved a final plat <br />for Jack Menkveld's Sunrise Meadows Subdivision. The <br />development will provide 103 single- family and sewer - <br />available lots. <br />The city council has approved a trunk sewer location that <br />will follow the north -south Antelope Drive. However, to get <br />the trunk line to the catholic church land immediately north <br />of Sunrise Meadows, utility easements 50 feet wide must be <br />obtained from Menkveld. The easement would be located <br />between lots 6 and 7 of Block 1 of Sunrise Meadows with 25 <br />feet on each lot. <br />Sunrise Meadows is in the R -1 Single- Family Residential <br />Zoning District. Required front yard setbacks are 30 feet <br />and sideyard setbacks are ten feet on the house side and five <br />feet on the garage side. <br />The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance and Minnesota law require <br />that six findings of fact be made before a variance is <br />granted. They are: <br />1. That the property in question can not be put to a <br />reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by <br />the official controls. <br />2. That the plight of the landowner is due to <br />circumstances unique to his property not created by <br />the land owner. <br />3. That the hardship is not due to economic <br />considerations along and when a reasonable use for <br />the property exists under the terms of the <br />ordinance. <br />4. That granting the variance requested will not <br />confer on the applicant any special privilege that <br />would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, <br />structures, or buildings in the same district. <br />5. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably <br />diminish or impair established property values <br />within the neighborhood. <br />Page 2 <br />