2003-061 Council Resolution - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

City Council June 9, 2003 Keller Variance CITY COUNCIL MEETING — MAY 27, 2003 The City Council heard this application at their May 27th meeting, where they asked staff to consult with City attorney Bill Hawkins to draft a resolution approving the variance but with language that would protect the City from right -of -way acquisition issues in the future. OPINION The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum street setback requirements for all City streets as a way of providing buffer space between traffic and structures, as well as providing for future right -of -way requirements when streets are constructed or enlarged. 62nd street, while not currently constructed east of Red Maple Lane, is designated on the Lino Lakes transportation plan as a collector street, which pursuant to the zoning ordinance requirements dictates the 40' setback. It is staff's opinion that the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, with regard to the granting of a variance, have not been satisfied. The additional septic information presented by the applicant at the May 27th meeting does not change staff's contention that the applicant has at their disposal other design choices which would allow them to expand the garage and home, but still comply with the ordinance: first, by reducing the proposed expansion by 3 -1/2 feet or, two, by expanding to the rear of the lot rather that toward 62nd Street (the proposed septic tank locations are shown an undetermined distance from the rear of the house, and the applicant would still presumably be able to expand in that direction without impacting the siting of the septic tanks. As a result, staff would recommend denial of the proposed variance in order to preserve full right -of -way for 62nd Street. However, as requested by the city council the City Attorney has provided language to be included as a conditional of approval that should protect the City's interests if and when 62nd Street is extended easterly. Additionally, staff would recommend that any approval of the variance also be conditioned upon the suitable placement of an Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) on the site. While the placement of the sewage system on the site is a separate issue from the variance requested, granting of the variance and subsequent building may further limit the available locations of the sewage treatment system. In no case should the granting of the building setback variance be used as "hardship" for deviating from required sewage treatment setbacks. OPTIONS 1. Deny the proposed variance. 2. Approve the proposed variance. 3. Return to staff with direction. 3