06/12/1996 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

AGENDA ITEM V B STAFF OR XNATOR Mary Kay Nyland DATE TOPIC June 6, 1996 96-14-S, Lino Lakes Family Dentistry, 6691 Blue Heron Drive, Site Plan Review/Conditional Use Permit, and Variance Lino Lakes Family Dentistry is requesting a site plan review and conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 5,874 square foot office building on Outlot A of Rice Lake Estates. In 1985, when the property was platted, this Outlot was Zoned Neighborhood Business NB) and set aside for some future commercial development. Professional Offices are permitted in this Zoning District with a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Variance that would allow the building to be located 28' from an adjacent residential district - the Ordinance requires a setback of 35,. The proposed structure has been designed to fit into the general character of the existing neighborhood. Access will be provided off Blue Heron Drive and screening provided r the oat residence VARIANC According to the Zoning Ordinance, a setback of 35' from any residential district is required in the NB Zoning District. The proposed structure indicates a setback of 28' from the adjoining residential district, therefore, a Variance of 7' is required. Staff would recommend approval of the Variance request based on the following Findings of Fact: A. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. A smaller building could be constructed on the site and meet the setback requirements, however, the applicant has determined that the size requested is a minimum for their intended use. 5,840 sq. feet is not a larger structure and there is an odd shape to the existing lot. B. That the plight of the landowners is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. The property in question is an odd shaped lot calling for unique design considerations. Additionally there is a large ponding/wetland area to the rear which further restricts design. C. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the proper exists under the terms of the ordinance. The hardship in this case appears to be the shape and configuration of the lot, not an economic consideration.