10/14/2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• COUNCIL MINUTES Septic Issues OCTOBER 14, 2002 Soils tests confirm that the proposed 10 -acre parcel is capable of accommodating a septic system. In addition, there is adequate room for both primary and secondary sites. The one -acre parcel already contains a septic system, with adequate room for a secondary site. Access Issues The existing 11 -acre parcel contains a second driveway, not used by the Lindahls but existing on their property, which is the sole source of access for the neighboring property to the west, at 815 Ash Street. Without this driveway, the property at 815 would be landlocked, with no access out to Ash Street or any other road. The minor subdivision approved in 1997, which created the parcels at 815 and 855 Ash Street, required an easement agreement be drawn up. for this driveway. This agreement was approved by the City attorney and recorded with Anoka County, In addition, as a further condition of approval in 1997, the driveway was approved by the Fire Chief. The driveway is currently used primarily by the residents at 815 Ash;Street, as the Lindahls have their own access drive. Further subdivision of the Lindahl's 11 acre parcel would require shared use of this driveway by the future owners of proposed Tract A Such= -:situation may or may not pose a legal issue: the easement agreement states the easement is "for the exclusive benefit of Tracts B (855 Ash Street) and C (815 Ash Street)." Further, the agreement states that "no party may unreasonably increase the burden of the driveway and utility easement:" The agreement can be amended only with IPthe written consent of both parties. The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that n' considering all requests for variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1.) That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. ,r s Comment: The property is betingubdivided according to the homestead clause of the City Zoning Ordinance(Section 3, s`ubdiv. 3.A.2.b.2), which allows minimum lot size below what is normally required under Ordinance. The proposed property can not take advantage of the homestead (which allows lot size down to one acre in size) while also meeting the normal minimum lot size requirements of Ruraly zoned property (which requires lots to be at least 10 acres in size). 2.) That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property, not created by the land owner. Comment: While the existing lot of record, while meeting the area requirements as prescribed in the ordinance, does not have the necessary frontage required under minimum Rural lot width standards. 3.) That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a • reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 8