08/14/2002 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Comment: The property has been, and currentl y is, being put to reasonable use for agricultural purposes. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property and not created by the landowner. Comment: There is no unique physical circum stance existing on the property; there is simply not enough width and road frontage to meet the mini mum lot requirements for a property in the Rural zone, as established under City Ordinance. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic c onsiderations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Comment: There is no hardship demonstrated or apparent; the lot simply does not meet the minimum lot requirements for a property in the Rural zone. 4. That granting the Variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other la nds, structures, or buildings in the same district. Comment: Granting a Variance without the demonstration of hardship or unique physical circumstances would confer special privilege upon the applicant. It should be noted that ot her parcels along Ash Street which do not meet minimum lot width requirements exist as lots of recor d, and did not require a Variance from the City Zoning Ordinance for their creation. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Comment: The proposed action would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance, as variances are to be granted on ly in cases where hardship/unique physical circumstances are present. In conclusion, staff noted the creation of the proposed 11-acre parcel will not satisfy the 330’ lot width requirements for property located in the Rural zone, and thus will also not yield full frontage on a street , as required under the Lino Lakes Ordinance. For these reasons, staff cannot recommend a pproval of the Minor Subdivision. Staff stated as there are no hardship issues demonstrated or unique physical circumstances apparent on the property, staff cannot recommend approval of the Variance from the minimum lot width requirements. Chair Schaps asked if the corner on parcel A was owned by someone else. Ms. Gretz replied that was correct. Mr. Lyden stated the reason th ey had the Ordinance and standards was so things were done in an orderly, standard way. As far as lot width, he noted that the property is zoned