04/04/00 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Lot 2 not meeting the lot width requirement of 200-feet at the either the street frontage or 40-foot setback line established in the rural area. Lots 1, 2, and 3 need a variance to the 10-acre minimum lot size requirement for .11 acres, .4 acres, and .21 acres respectively. Lot 4, the remnant parcel is acceptable at 9.1 acres because the minimum lot size for remnants is 7.5 acres in size. The applicant is also asking that Lots 1 & 2 be granted variances to the 200-foot lot width requirement of 81.75 feet and 150 feet, respectively. Variances to lot size have been granted in the past as long as compliance with the 4 in 40 density regulations is maintained. Variances have also been granted to lot width or street frontage requirements. City Staff recommends approval of the lot size variance because the lot size variances requested are very minimal and compliance with 4 in 40 density regulations is maintained. Staff is also recommending approval of the lot width variance because there is sufficient area for four (4) homes, but the configuration of the property and the County ditch limits the design or layout options. Citizen Input There was none. Motion by Board Member Kociscak and seconded by Board Member Johnson to close the public hearing. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioners Kociscak, Johnson, Dempsey, and Wivoda. Voting No: None. Absent: Board MemberNixt. Board Business Board Member Johnson asked if platting the land this way precludes the property to the west from having future access. Community Development Director Frolik stated an easement was looked at to continue 178th to the west in the future, but it was decided that the property had sufficient access to County Road #63. Chairperson Anderson stated that approving this item would be taking care of one problem but it would not be solving the larger problem. Board Member Johnson noted he did not have a problem with the size of the lots, but he asked for the applicant's reaction to the possibility of stubbing a road across the property. Philip Johnson, 6367 178th Lane, stated he had considered putting a road across the plat, but the land north of the ditch is wetlands. He said that the land south of the ditch is developable. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the road would have to be on the north side of the ditch, and this would be too close to the wetlands, and it would be hard to meet the 10 acre minimum lot size requirement. Board Member Johnson stated he did not think smaller lot sizes were as significant as losing a Board of Adjustment/April 4, 2000 Page 5 of 7