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

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES issue: the easement agreement states the easem ent is “for the exclusive benefit of Tracts B (855 Ash Street) and C (815 Ash Street).” Fu rther, the agreement states that “no party may unreasonably increase the burden of the driveway and utility easement.” The agreement can be amended only with the written consent of both parties. Staff reviewed the five findings for a variance by explaining the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that “in considering all re quests for variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1.) That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Comment: The property has been, and currently is, being put to reasonable use. The applicant is simply asking for a fu rther intensification of use. 2.) That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner. Comment: The landowner is asking for a furt her subdivision of his land, which he was advised “would probably not be recommended” when he first purchased his property. 3.) That the hardship is not due to econom ic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Comment: there is no hardship demonstrated or apparent; rather the proposed lots simply do not meet the minimum lot requir ements for property in a Rural zone. 4.) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be deni ed by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Comment: Granting a Variance without the demonstration of hardship or unique circumstances would confer upon the applicant special privilege. 5) That the proposed actions will be in keep ing 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 only in cases where hardship/unique physical circumstances are present. In conclusion staff noted the proposed Minor Subdivision would result in two lots: Tract B would have a width of 155 feet, thus no t meeting the minimum lot width requirement of 330’ for property in a Rural zone, nor the requirement of full frontage on a road; Tract A would have 330’ of width and road front age, but it would not be contiguous width or frontage. As a result, staff cannot reco mmend approval of the Minor Subdivision.