Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />August 14, 2002 <br />Page 5 <br />Comment: The property has been, and currently is, being put to reasonable use for <br />agricultural purposes. <br />2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property <br />and not created by the landowner. <br />Comment: There is no unique physical circumstance existing on the property; there is <br />simply not enough width and road frontage to meet the minimum lot requirements for a <br />property in the Rural zone, as established under City Ordinance. <br />3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use <br />for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. <br />Comment: There is no hardship demonstrated a pp ireht, the lot simply does not meet <br />the minimum lot requirements for a property <br />4. That granting the Variance requested will not c <br />privilege that would be denied by this ordinan <br />the same district. <br />the applicant any special <br />ands, structures, or buildings in <br />Comment: Granting a Variance without lion of hardship or unique <br />physical circumstances would confer s ial ale s on the applicant. <br />It should be noted that other pare, <br />width requirements exist as lo <br />Zoning Ordinance for their cre[ <br />which do not meet minimum lot <br />of require a Variance from the City <br />5. That the propos of be in key rx ith the spirit and intent of the ordinance. <br />Comment: <br />Ordinance, a <br />circumstances ar <br />id not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />anted only in cases where hardship /unique physical <br />In conclusion, staff note' dw ' x eation of the proposed 11 -acre parcel will not satisfy the <br />330' lot width requirements or property located in the Rural zone, and thus will also not <br />yield full frontage on a street, as required under the Lino Lakes Ordinance. For these <br />reasons, staff cannot recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision. <br />Staff stated as there are no hardship issues demonstrated or unique physical <br />circumstances apparent on the property, staff cannot recommend approval of the <br />Variance from the minimum lot width requirements. <br />Chair Schaps asked if the corner on parcel A was owned by someone else. Ms. Gretz <br />replied that was correct. <br />• Mr. Lyden stated the reason they had the Ordinance and standards was so things were <br />done in an orderly, standard way. As far as lot width, he noted that the property is zoned <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />