05/13/1991 Council Minutes (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

1 COUNCIL MEETING MAY 13, 1991 fact be made a part of the Council motion. Mr. Miller noted that if the variance is not granted, the developer will revise his plans to show the street being moved north. The DRB has recommended approval of the variance. A member of the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) has said a variance cannot be granted in this case. Mr. Miller explained that this was an erroneous assumption by that person and noted that this is an issue that must be resolved by Lino Lakes, not the RCWD or the DNR. There are only two (2) ways to resolve this issue, 1.) grant the variance, or 2.) move the street. Letters were delivered this evening to the Council from the attorney for the Otter Lake Homeowners Association. The letters refer to a particular court case. Mr. Hawkins explained that he had just received the letter and was not familiar with the court case cited in the letter. However, it appears that the attorney is trying to allege that the developer created his own hardship simply by buying this particular parcel of land. Mr. Hawkins felt this is not the question, no matter who owns the property, they are entitle to access. Mr. Adamson did not create the situation. It is an unusual piece of land. Mr. Hawkins explained that a variance has been requested and the Council will have to decide if the request can be approved based upon the City ordinances. He read a portion of the ordinance regarding granting of variances. Mr. Hawkins also read the standards for streets as outlined in the ordinances. He noted that the ordinances are not strict standards but gives flexibility to the City to develop property that ordinarily does not meet ordinance standards. Mr. Miller explained that the letter from the attorney alleges that the street cannot be constructed to minimum street standards in the proposed location. This is not true. The street can meet all street standards as outlined in the ordinances. Council Member Reinert asked how many variances have been requested on the Oak Brook Peninsula subdivision. Mr. Miller explained the first variance was for a cul -de -sac longer than is allowed in the ordinances. Mr. Miller also explained that this particular portion of the ordinance is being reviewed because it appears to be outdated. The second variance request is for construction of a private street within the subdivision. This street would be constructed to full street standards. The third variance is the one now being considered. The variance for a private street was discussed. Mr. Hawkins explained that a homeowners association will have to be legally formed for the upkeep and maintenance of the street. He also explained that some time in the future the residents along the PAGE 4 141