Laserfiche WebLink
<br />areas available to be buildable given the challenging soils on the site. The property is found to be <br />of unique circumstance because of these challenging soils and the development configuration is <br />the best and highest use of the site to be able to construct the addition. The applicant stated that <br />he originally planned to build the addition on the east side of the parcel, but after hiring American <br />Engineering to drill 5 test holes to check the soil conditions, he learned from the soil report that <br />there was 45-50 feet of peat and bad soils before good soil conditions were found. There is also <br />high ground water because of the creek. The west side of the parcel is more conducive to building <br />due to stable soils on that side. <br /> <br />The lot configuration of the parcel and building placement also prove to be unique as the rear <br />area of the property is essential unusable leading to the placement of the addition being placed on <br />the west side. <br /> <br />City staff does not find this proposal to be detrimental to the public health, welfare, or injurious <br />to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. The proposed addition <br />development is in keeping with the I-1 District as well as the neighboring areas. <br /> <br />The physical factors of the property are the main reason for the variance request in that it produces <br />an extreme hardship that is limited to the topography and wetland located on the site. In addition, <br />under Minnesota law, we find that practical difficulty has been met, meaning (1) the property <br />owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner permitted by the ordinance, (2) the <br />owner's plight is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner. <br /> <br />The request for variance is not based on an economic hardship and solely based on the physical <br />aspects of the site and is the best and highest use of the property. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Building Official Comments: The City’s Building Official has reviewed this proposal. <br /> <br />Planning Commission: <br />The Planning Commission, at their March 10th, 2022 meeting, reviewed the application and <br />recommended unanimous approval to the City Council. <br /> <br />