My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10/11/2006 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2006
>
10/11/2006 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2014 11:24:33 AM
Creation date
6/23/2014 3:14:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
10/11/2006
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
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
St. Paul Regional Water Services, page 2 <br />()Lot Requirements: <br />The minimum requirements within the existing zoning districts are as follows: <br />• <br />• <br />In addition, the subdivision ordinance requires that `all lots shall have frontage on an improved public street that <br />provides the required lot width at the minimum front yard setback'. <br />FINDINGS <br />In considering all requests for Variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding <br />of fact: <br />a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by <br />the official controls. <br />These parcels are completely surrounded by the lake, right of way, or adjoining private property; and <br />would not be able to be developed as usable parcels due to the sizes or lack of road frontage. <br />b. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created <br />by the landowner. <br />The physical shape, location and isolated nature of the parcels prevent use for most anything except <br />for lake access for the adjoining property owners. <br />c. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use for the property <br />exists under the terms of the ordinance. <br />Economic considerations is not a major factor in this proposal, the intent is to minimize the <br />applicant's lakeshore holdings for the future. <br />d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would <br />be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. <br />There are very few other situations that can be compared to this one. Land locked parcels owned <br />and operated almost exclusively for public purposes would receive the same consideration. <br />e. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. <br />Combining these properties with the adjacent landowner's parcels will in no way violate the spirit <br />and intent of the zoning ordinance. <br />R (Rural) <br />R -1 (Single Family Residential) <br />Minimum Lot Area <br />10 Acres <br />10,800 square feet <br />Minimum Lot Width <br />330 feet <br />80 feet (100 feet corners) <br />Minimum Lot Depth <br />Not applicable <br />135 feet <br />In addition, the subdivision ordinance requires that `all lots shall have frontage on an improved public street that <br />provides the required lot width at the minimum front yard setback'. <br />FINDINGS <br />In considering all requests for Variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding <br />of fact: <br />a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by <br />the official controls. <br />These parcels are completely surrounded by the lake, right of way, or adjoining private property; and <br />would not be able to be developed as usable parcels due to the sizes or lack of road frontage. <br />b. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created <br />by the landowner. <br />The physical shape, location and isolated nature of the parcels prevent use for most anything except <br />for lake access for the adjoining property owners. <br />c. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use for the property <br />exists under the terms of the ordinance. <br />Economic considerations is not a major factor in this proposal, the intent is to minimize the <br />applicant's lakeshore holdings for the future. <br />d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would <br />be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. <br />There are very few other situations that can be compared to this one. Land locked parcels owned <br />and operated almost exclusively for public purposes would receive the same consideration. <br />e. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. <br />Combining these properties with the adjacent landowner's parcels will in no way violate the spirit <br />and intent of the zoning ordinance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.