Laserfiche WebLink
City of OR ONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. <br />b) ]he applicant ,.and previous owners have received ta>; <br />benefits from the legal combination of Lots 3, 4 and <br />feet of Lot 2. <br />c) Lot ' is taxed on an incremental basis., not a�- a <br />buildable lot. <br />5. it is the opinion of the City that the strict <br />enforcement of the performance standards of the subdivision <br />regulations of the City will preserve well founded <br />environmental standards in future development of Ial::eshore <br />property within the City. <br />6. Variances to the minimum requirements for a lot as set <br />forth in the zoning chapter of the Municipal Code would be <br />in complete conflict with the intent of the Comprehensive <br />Flan, the intent of the LR-IC zoning district and the intent <br />of the subdivision regulations of the City. <br />7. To approve lot area and lot width variances concurrent <br />with subdivision applications would establish a negative <br />precedent in similar reviews. <br />P. Mi t-4iesota Courts find the application of the law as <br />relevant in decision making as the intent of the written <br />law. It the City was to grant variances in this case, the <br />City would be bound to apply the same standards to other <br />applicants or be aCCLASse•d in a Court of acting arbitrary and <br />capricious or denyir!g an individual of equal protection <br />under- the : aw. <br />9. In review of the faCtual findings noted in nm 3, the <br />applicant may best serve his purpose by asking le City to <br />amen' its official map rather thr-n expect the -ity to place_ <br />itself in the position of having to approve A similar <br />variance applications. <br />Page 4 <br />