08-09-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

City of Lino Lakes May 11, 2021 Page 3 Relief Requested Applicant is seeking the following City approvals: 1. Variance from Animal Unit Restriction. Applicant is seeking a variance from the Stable Ordinance’s animal unit restrictions and the cap of 25 animal units. Applicant is requesting fifty (50) animal units to be kept on the Property. 2. Amended Conditional Use Permit. Applicant seeks issuance of an amended conditional use permit reflecting that fifty (50) animal units may be retained on the Property. Applicant requests that the amended permit excise prior condition number 12, requiring that “PID #05-31-22-22-003 and PID #05-31-22-22-0005 shall be combined with Anoka County.”3 Variance Criteria and Conditions Under the City Code, variances must meet the following criteria: 1. The variance shall be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The variance being sought is in conformance with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The City Code, at § 1007.080(1), states the purposes for the rural zoning district. These purposes include: a. To preserve productive land for agricultural use and maintain ‘open space’ within and near to urban areas. . . . c. To provide a method by which the urban farm can be guided so as to control urban sprawl and still conserve land in an economic status until such time as the need is present for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The Property will continue to be maintained as an open space. The Property will continue to stand as a bulwark against urban sprawl. Moreover, it is noteworthy that for veterinary hospitals (a conditional use in this zoning district) up to forty (40) animals may be boarded on a property irrespective of its size. See City Code § 1007.080(7)(e). Horses boarded on the Property include 3 Resolution No. 20-129 “observed that [t]here are three (3) parcels of land . . . under common ownership and operate as a single enterprise.” Indeed, these parcels have long been committed to the same operation and purpose. There is no need to require consolidation of these parcels. Instead, a CUP condition could be crafted that required that all three parcels be held in common by the same person or entity. Requiring consolidation of these parcels unnecessarily reduces the marketability of the parcels where there is a less restrictive condition that could be incorporated into a revised CUP.