Laserfiche WebLink
City of OR ONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. <br />b) 1he applicant and previous owners have received tax <br />oenef i is from the legal combination of Lots 7, 4 and 5 <br />feet of Lot 2. <br />c) Lot 3 is ta:ced on an incremental basis, not as a <br />buildable lot. <br />5. It is the opir„r-,n c,f the City thet the strict. <br />enforcement of the performance standards of the subd?vision <br />regulations of the City wi11 preserve well fvundtd <br />ervironmental standards in futork development of lal eshore <br />prorerty within the City. <br />6. Variances to the mi ni mur., ren-!i cements for a lot as set <br />forth in the zoning chapter of tr.e Municipal lode would be <br />in complete conflict with the intent of the Comprehensive <br />Flan, the intent of the Lk -IC zoning district and the intent <br />of the sundi vi si on regulations of the City. <br />To approve lot area and lot �+idth variances concurrent <br />with subdi vi si oro appl i cati ores would establish r- negat.i ve <br />precedent in similar reviews- <br />P. Minnesota C:,urts find ttie apc- l i cat. i on of the law aG <br />relevant in decision mating as the intent of the written <br />law. If the City was to grant variances in this case. the <br />City would he bound to apply the me standards tc ot`cr <br />app) i cants or be aCCUSsed in a Cour -_ of act i nq :.,rhi t rar y and <br />capricious or denvinq an individual c.,f equal protection <br />r inder the 1 aw. <br />C�. In review of the factual' findings noted in item '•, the <br />applicant may best serve his purpose by aslinq the City to <br />amend its official map rather than expwct the City to place <br />itself in the position of having to approve .' sirr,ilal- <br />voriante applications. <br />Page 4 of <br />