Laserfiche WebLink
5. The hardship claimed is the direct result of actions by the applicant by his <br />failure to combine several substandard lots of record that are contiguous. <br />6. The applicant's existing reasonable use of the subject parcel is established by <br />the fact that, when the area of the subject parcel is combined with the area of <br />the three additional contiguous parcels owned by the applicant, and the land <br />area proposed to be purchased by the applicant from the City, the resulting <br />sum area is substandard for a single residence by R -1 standards. There is no <br />hardship demonstrated by lack of reasonable use of the subject parcel. <br />7. The approval of the variance would be inconsistent with the provisions of <br />Section 300.09, Subd. 2 of the City Code regarding contiguous non- <br />conforming parcels of record in common ownership. <br />8. Application assumes ownership of property not controlled by the applicant <br />and if this property is subtracted from area described in the first Whereas <br />clause hereof, the degree of variance compared to the City code requirements <br />becomes ever more severe, especially in regard to limited lot area. <br />WHEREAS, at its May 7, 2002 meeting, the Lake Elmo City Council reviewed <br />the zoning variance application of Daniel Rude; <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Lake Elmo City Council <br />hereby denies the zoning variance application of Daniel Rude based on the <br />recommendation and findings of the Planning Commission. <br />ADOPTED by the Lake Elmo City Council on May 7, 2002. <br />Lee Hunt, Mayor <br />ATTEST: <br />Mary , ueff City A i istrator <br />