Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> 2) if enough lots were legally combined to form a five-acre lot with 50 feet on the <br /> • sides. The city relied on Respondents' request for legal combination of all six lots and Outlot <br /> A to confirm that the building site met the five-acre minimum and 300 foot minimum lot width <br /> requirements for issuing a building permit without requiring Respondents to go to the City <br /> • <br /> Council for a variance. <br /> Moreover, if Respondents wanted to build on the smaller lots today, they would have to <br /> • conform to Section 10.03, Subd. 6(A)(3), which provides that such a lot "must meet the area <br /> and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter and shall not be utilized for single family <br /> detached dwelling purposes without Council approval." That approval would require <br /> S <br /> variances, which would be prohibited under Section 10.02, Subd.10(A)(6). That section states <br /> that the city shall not approve variances unless it makes findings that "the variances will not in <br />• any manner vary the minimum requirements for a lot as set forth in the Zoning Chapter of the <br /> City Code as applied to the entire subdivision." None of Respondents' lots meet the five-acre <br /> minimum area requirements and most do not meet the 300-foot width standard. Therefore, <br />• <br /> Respondent fails to meet the third condition of Section 31.203 of Ordinance 172, which <br /> requires compliance with other applicable zoning ordinances. <br />• The courts require strict compliance with the conditions outlined in a zoning ordinance <br /> that provides for a conditional-use permit from either party. For example, in Day v. Wright <br /> County, 391 N.W.2d 32 (Minn.App.1986), the ordinance provided that a lot of record on the <br />• <br /> date of the ordinance was a buildable lot as long as it had access to a public right of way and <br /> an area of at least 20,000 square feet. The county denied the permit to the landowner since <br />• there was no proof that his lot met sewer or setback requirements in the zoning ordinances. <br /> The Court compelled the county to grant a conditional use permit and further stated that the <br />• 10 <br />