My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
02/12/2003 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2003
>
02/12/2003 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/18/2014 2:59:38 PM
Creation date
6/10/2014 9:31:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
02/12/2003
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
216
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning & Zoning Board <br />January 22, 2003 <br />Page 8 <br />1 X, Single Family Executive District lot requirements by extending a cul -de -sac into the <br />property from the west. <br />Staff indicated approval of the proposed minor subdivision will require the City to <br />approve four variances from City Code requirements with regard to minimum lot size, <br />minimum lot width, frontage on a publicly dedicated road and finally allowance of a <br />private street. <br />Staff noted variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance may be granted in <br />instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of <br />circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. <br />Staff stated in considering all requests for variance and in taking subsequent action, the <br />City shall make a finding of fact: <br />1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under <br />conditions allowed by the official controls. <br />2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his <br />property not created by the landowner. <br />3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a <br />reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Ordinance. <br />4. That granting the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special <br />privilege that would be denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or <br />buildings in the same district. <br />5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />Ordinance. <br />Staff stated following review of the applicant's request, it is difficult for staff to justify <br />granting of the necessary variances when the above - enumerated criteria are applied. <br />Staff stated with regards to the lot size and lot width variances staff agrees that there may <br />be physical circumstances due to existing wetlands on the site that would warrant a <br />deviation from typical standards. Additionally, the proposed subdivision would maintain <br />the same rural density of four units per forty acres that is established by the 10 acres <br />minimum lot requirement. However, it is staff's opinion that these issues are more <br />adequately addressed through the Planned Development Overlay process. <br />Staff indicated there appears to be no suitable reason to allow variances for public road <br />frontage and the improvement of said road to City standards outside of the Planned <br />Development Overlay process. <br />Staff stated the intent of the PDO District is to permit greater flexibility and, <br />consequently, more creative and imaginative design of the development of residential, <br />commercial or industrial areas than are generally possible under conventional zoning <br />DRAFT MINUTES <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.