Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning & Zoning Commission Report and Recommendation. <br /> <br />The Planning & Zoning Commission met on November 13, 2007, to hold a public <br />hearing to consider a request of Lloyd & Diane Hanson and Erick and Lynae Marshall for <br />a variance to permit platting their property with substandard shoreline frontage. <br /> <br />Findings: <br /> <br />1) The applicant provided evidence that a frontage variance was granted previously but <br />that the properties were not required to be platted at that time. <br />2) The applicant provided evidence that the two properties that make up the property <br />exist by recorded metes and bounds descriptions. <br />3) The Commission finds that there would be substantial benefit to both the City and the <br />applicant property owners by platting the property. <br />4) The applicant did provide evidence to support a finding of "undue hardship" as <br />defined by Minnesota Statute 467.357, subd 6, and City Code Chapt. 154, Sec. <br />154.310, Subd. A, and specific findings in this regard are: <br /> <br />a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical <br />conditions of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as <br />distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly <br />enforced. <br />The Commission finds that it would create an undue hardship to require that an <br />existing home be removed in order create one conforming lot and thus avoid the required <br />variance. <br /> <br />b. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to <br />increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct <br />extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other <br />property in the vicinity or zoning district. <br />The Commission finds that the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a <br />desire to increase the value or income potential of the lot. The Commission specifically <br />finds that the nonconforming lot frontages are already existing and would continue with <br />or without granting the variance. <br /> <br />c. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not <br />been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. Special <br />circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and do not <br />result from the actions of the petitioner. <br />The Commission finds that the hardship existed by virtue of a variance previously <br />approved for the petitioner. <br /> <br />d. The variance will not adversely affect public health, welfare and safety and will <br />not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The <br /> <br />J2cv <br />