Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 26, 1995 <br />to that, there was adequate acreage to make three (3) <br />10+ acre parcels of property. Therefore, circumstances <br />are unique to this property and were not created by the <br />landowner. <br />C. That the hardship is not due to economic consideration <br />alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists <br />under the terms of the ordinance. If the hardship, in <br />this case, is considered to be the construction of <br />I35W, it is not an economic consideration. <br />D. That granting the variance requested will not confer on <br />the applicant any special privilege that would be <br />denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or <br />buildings in the same district. <br />E. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably <br />diminish or impair established property values within <br />the neighborhood. Property values should not be <br />adversely affected with the granting of this variance. <br />Property to the north can be platted at five (5) acre <br />minimums (in Columbus Township) while property to the <br />south is at 10 acre minimums. Additionally, there is a <br />five (5) acre parcel immediately south of this <br />property. <br />F. That the proposed action will be in keeping with the <br />spirit and intent of the ordinance. The spirit and <br />intent of the ordinance is to provide for large parcels <br />that can be further divided when utilities are <br />available. The purpose and intent of the ordinance <br />would remain in tack should this variance be granted. <br />The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed this item at their June <br />14, 1995 meeting and recommended that the variance request be <br />denied and allow a subdivision of two (2) lots (one 10 acres in <br />size, and the other 19.4 acres in size). Mr. Brixius advised the <br />Board that the public action to condemn the I35W property could <br />be used to justify the variance request. <br />Mr. Meredith was unable to attend the Planning and Zoning Board <br />meeting, however, since that time he has advised staff that he <br />owns 12.5 acres of property immediately north of this parcel in <br />Columbus Township. He asked if it would be possible to add .6 of <br />an acre from that parcel to the Lino Lakes property and thereby <br />meet the 10 acre minimum requirement. Such action would not be <br />allowed by the Anoka County Assessors office since it would <br />straddle taxing jurisdiction lines. <br />PAGE 11 <br />