09/23/2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 the new owners; thus, the residents at 815 would no longer have exclusive access to it, but will share it with the new owners of the proposed 10 -acre parcel. This may or may not pose a legal issue, as the easement agreement covering the access drive states that the easement is "for the exclusive benefit of Tracts B and C," which are the properties at 855 and 815, respectively. Further, the agreement states that "no party may unreasonably increase the burden of the driveway and utility easement" and that the easement can be amended only with the written consent of both parties. Associate Planner Gretz stated it should also be noted that, as Ash Street is a County road, plans for the Minor Subdivision have been forwarded to Anoka County for review. Anoka County has requested dedicated right-of-way along Ash Street for use in the expansion/improvement of Ash Street in the future. Mike Kelly, of the Anoka County Highway Department, is currently exploring exactly how much right-of-way the County will require. A complicating issue may be the Incarnation Cemetery, with existing grave sites which may lie within the right-of-way proposed by the County. Although it is unclear at this point how much, if any, right -of- the County will require, it should be noted that any right-of-way dedication would decrease the siz • th proposed lots, with the result that neither of them would then meet the minimum lot siz = equi ent. Associate Planner Gretz explained that overall, the propose Variance from the minimum lot width requirements for Zoning Ordinance directs that "in considering all req action, the City shall make a Finding of Fact," base Subdivision will require a a Rural zone. The Lino Lakes Variance, and in taking subsequent llowing five points: 1.) That the property in question canna a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2.) That the plight of the landown and not created by the lando 3.) That the hardship is not d for the property exists up 4.) That granting the Varia that would be de district. 5.) That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. o physical circumstances unique to his property mic considerations alone and when a reasonable use of the Ordinance. will not confer on the applicant any special privilege nance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same Associate Planner Gretz stated that in reviewing the application, staff has found no hardship or site - driven circumstances which would justify 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. Mayor Bergeson inquired regarding the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board. Planning Associate Gretz stated they recommended approval with conditions. Don Lindahl, 855 Ash Street and applicant, stated the eleven acres lies nicely and meets all requirements except 330 feet on the street. The Planning and Zoning Board looked at other ways to shape the one acre or add to it. However, the Planning and Zoning Board went back to the original proposal of leaving it at one acre because to lay the lot with 330 feet on the street, the property line 22