05-08-2007 BA MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Kevin Anderson, applicant, 9927 154th Avenue NW -Stated that there are a number of 1- acre lots in Otsego where he previously lived, and there was not a problem with septic systems. He stated that the portion of his property in the Wild & Scenic area would remain as it currently exists. He did not feel there would be any impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Anderson stated that He did not want to split the property in half because that would drive the purchase price up too high for his son to buy it. Jim Engelstad, 15488 Fillmote Street NW -Stated that he felt he was not able to sell his home because of the condition of the surrounding property values. He stated that there is a jeep, tires and tar paper in the woods on the lot proposed to be sold by the applicant. He questioned the value of the house to be built on the lot, if approved. Mike Anderson, son of the applicant - He stated that the price of the he proposed to build would be approximately $150,000, not including the value of the lot. Mr. Anderson stated he did not see how the cost of house had anything to do with his father selling his land to him. There being no one to speak further to this issue, Chair Stevens closed the public hearing. Commissioner Westgaard asked for clarification on the property boundaries for the proposed lot split. Mr. Barnhart provided this information. Mr. Barnhart stated that staff struggled with the issue, but they felt they had to recommend denial of the variance because of the failure to meet the five standards. Chair Stevens stated that he concurred with staffls recommendation for denial. He stated he may have felt differently if the lot was proposed to be split in half. Cotmmissioner Lemke agreed that if the applicant were proposing to split the lot into a 2.5- acre lot and a 2.19 acre lot, the request would be more acceptable, and he was not comfortable approving a .916 acre-lot. Mr. Barnhart stated that the applicant chose not to split the property more equally and staff felt it was a variance of convenience and not hardship, since the property already has a single family home. Commissioner Westgaard stated that he also struggled with this issue, but the request was a large deviation from the minimum lot size. Commissioner Austad concurred. Commissioner Scott stated he felt approving the variance would set a negative precedent. Commissioner Anderson felt the variance was unnecessary and was not in favor of approval. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO DENY THE REQUEST BY KEVIN ANDERSON FOR A LOT SIZE VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LOT SIZE ARE CLEARLY DEFINED, AND NOT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED EVIDENCE OF A HARDSHIP. 2. THE LOT IS A RELATIVELY FLAT, CURRENTLY FARMED PARCEL RECTANGULAR IS SHAPE. THERE IS NO UNIQUENESS TO THE LAND WARRANTING A VARIANCE FROM THE LOT SIZE.