08/26/2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2002 Associate Planner Gretz stated the required minimum lot size for property in a Rural zone is ten acres. While both proposed lots would meet this size requirement, the Certificate of Survey for the property indicates that the 11 -acre parcel would not meet the minimum lot width requirement of 330 feet, having a width of just 221.6 feet. As the proposed lot will not meet the minimum width requirements for property in a Rural zone, it would also not meet the requirement that "all lots shall abut for their full frontage on a publicly dedicated street," as specified in the Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance. For this reason, the applicant is asking for a Variance from the minimum lot width requirement. Associate Planner Gretz noted both proposed lots will meet the required minimum upland area of 20%. Soils tests confirm that soils on each of the proposed lots are capable of supporting a septic system, and that there is room for both primary and secondary sites. Associate Planner Gretz explained that since the property is located on Ash Street, which is a County road, plans have been forwarded to the Anoka County Highwa • artment for review and approval of an access drive for the proposed 11 -acre parcel. Associate Planner Gretz noted that while the property is zon :w, development is likely at some point in the future, when utilities become available. suc time, minimum lot requirements become important, because they safeguard access for sucln f cture as roads and utilities. For example, because proposed Parcel A measures 221 fe t r than 330 feet, placing a 50 -foot wide home in the middle of the lot would not then allow . ugh om on the lot to accommodate the necessary road and setbacks, which will be neede the land north of the site develops. Associate Planner Gretz stated that overall from the minimum lot width requirement Ordinance directs that "in considering a City shall make a finding of fact," ba oposed Minor Subdivision will require a Variance in a Rural zone. The Lino Lakes Zoning s for Variance, and in taking subsequent action, the ollowing five points: 1. That the property in question . be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the offici 2. That the plight of the 4 •`• yrs 1 due to physical circumstances unique to his property and not created by the lando ner. 3. That the hardship is not .fie to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Ordinance. 4. That granting the Variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. Associate Planner Gretz stated in reviewing the application, staff has found no hardship or physical circumstance created by the site itself, which would dictate the necessity of a Variance. Rather, the land simply does not meet the minimum lot requirements for the new use the applicant has in mind. As a result, staff cannot recommend approval of the proposed Minor Subdivision and Variance. Councilmember Carlson asked about the report from Anoka County on the access. Associate Planner Gretz stated nothing has been received. 19