My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
09/23/2002 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2002
>
09/23/2002 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/5/2015 2:41:00 PM
Creation date
2/5/2015 2:08:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
09/23/2002
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 <br />the new owners; thus, the residents at 815 would no longer have exclusive access to it, but will share <br />it with the new owners of the proposed 10 -acre parcel. This may or may not pose a legal issue, as the <br />easement agreement covering the access drive states that the easement is "for the exclusive benefit of <br />Tracts B and C," which are the properties at 855 and 815, respectively. Further, the agreement states <br />that "no party may unreasonably increase the burden of the driveway and utility easement" and that <br />the easement can be amended only with the written consent of both parties. <br />Associate Planner Gretz stated it should also be noted that, as Ash Street is a County road, plans for <br />the Minor Subdivision have been forwarded to Anoka County for review. Anoka County has <br />requested dedicated right-of-way along Ash Street for use in the expansion/improvement of Ash <br />Street in the future. Mike Kelly, of the Anoka County Highway Department, is currently exploring <br />exactly how much right-of-way the County will require. A complicating issue may be the Incarnation <br />Cemetery, with existing grave sites which may lie within the right-of-way proposed by the County. <br />Although it is unclear at this point how much, if any, right -of- the County will require, it should <br />be noted that any right-of-way dedication would decrease the siz • th proposed lots, with the <br />result that neither of them would then meet the minimum lot siz = equi ent. <br />Associate Planner Gretz explained that overall, the propose <br />Variance from the minimum lot width requirements for <br />Zoning Ordinance directs that "in considering all req <br />action, the City shall make a Finding of Fact," base <br />Subdivision will require a <br />a Rural zone. The Lino Lakes <br />Variance, and in taking subsequent <br />llowing five points: <br />1.) That the property in question canna a reasonable use if used under conditions <br />allowed by the official controls. <br />2.) That the plight of the landown <br />and not created by the lando <br />3.) That the hardship is not d <br />for the property exists up <br />4.) That granting the Varia <br />that would be de <br />district. <br />5.) That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. <br />o physical circumstances unique to his property <br />mic considerations alone and when a reasonable use <br />of the Ordinance. <br />will not confer on the applicant any special privilege <br />nance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same <br />Associate Planner Gretz stated that in reviewing the application, staff has found no hardship or site - <br />driven circumstances which would justify a Variance. Rather, the land simply does not meet the <br />minimum lot requirements for the new use the applicant has in mind. As a result, staff cannot <br />recommend approval of the proposed Minor Subdivision and Variance. <br />Mayor Bergeson inquired regarding the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board. Planning <br />Associate Gretz stated they recommended approval with conditions. <br />Don Lindahl, 855 Ash Street and applicant, stated the eleven acres lies nicely and meets all <br />requirements except 330 feet on the street. The Planning and Zoning Board looked at other ways to <br />shape the one acre or add to it. However, the Planning and Zoning Board went back to the original <br />proposal of leaving it at one acre because to lay the lot with 330 feet on the street, the property line <br />22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.