Laserfiche WebLink
from strict compliance. In recommending any variance, the Commission shall prescribe any <br />conditions that it deems necessary to or desirable for the public interest. In making its <br />recommendations, the Planning Commission shall take into account the nature of the proposed <br />use of land and the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons to reside or work in <br />the proposed subdivision and the probably effect of the proposed subdivision upon traffic <br />conditions in the vicinity. A variance shall only be recommended when the Planning <br />Commission finds: <br />A. That there are special and highly unique circumstances or conditions affecting said property <br />which are not common to other properties in the City and that the strict application of the <br />provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. The <br />applicant has submitted supplemental information regarding the existing conditions and unique <br />circumstances related to this property, of the 9.67 acres of site area, only 7.08 acres are <br />available to be buildable given the topography and also 2.60 acres are considered wetland as <br />well as 1.38 acres of wetland buffer that is located on the site. The property is found to be of <br />unique circumstance because of these two areas and the development configuration is the best <br />and highest use of the site to be able to construct the fifteen single-family homes. The lot width of <br />the individual parcels needs to be reduced slightly given the street and cul-de-sac configuration <br />to avoid the lower lying wetland areas, so the lot width of the parcels is narrower at the street, <br />however the lots and homes themselves are of good size and widen out toward the rear of the <br />properties. The cul-de-sac length as well is needed to be lengthened to reach each individual <br />parcel. <br />B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, welfare or <br />injurious to other property in the territory in which property is situated. City staff does not find <br />this proposal to be detrimental to the public health, welfare, or injurious to other property in the <br />territory in which the property is situated. The single-family home development that is proposed <br />as well as the lot size and character in design is in keeping with the R-1 District as well as the <br />neighboring areas. <br />C. That the variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme hardship limited to <br />topography, soils or other physical factors of the land. The physical factors of the property are <br />the main reason for the variance request in that it produces an extreme hardship that is limited <br />to the topography and wetland located on the site. In addition, under Minnesota law, we find that <br />practical difficulty has been met, meaning (1) the property owner proposes to use the property in <br />a reasonable manner permitted by the ordinance, (2) the owner's plight is due to circumstances <br />unique to the property not created by the owner, and (3) the variance will not alter the locality's <br />essential character. <br />D. That the request for variance is not based in an economic hardship. The request for variance <br />is not based on an economic hardship and solely based on the physical aspects of the site and is <br />the best and highest use of the property. <br />After consideration of the Planning Commission recommendations, the City Council serving as <br />the Board of Adjustment and Appeals may grant variances by a vote of a majority of the entire