11/12/1997 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 6 The required width of the easement was questioned. Mr. Ahrens responded that the minimum is a 20 -foot paved surface for emergency vehicle use. Chair Schaps suggested that Mr. Thompson would have to meet certain requirements regarding installation of the proposed driveway in order to satisfy the fire code. Mr. Ahrens clarified that the easement is for 20 feet, while the proposed driveway is 10 feet in width. He added that the City's fire chief would have to approve the proposed driveway. Mr. Thompson agreed that emergency vehicles would have to be able to negotiate the driveway. Mr. Brixius stated that the City's zoning ordinance also contains requirements as to driveway width and surface, which must be satisfied. Mr. Herr asked if the City has in the past allowed something less than 20 %. Ms. Wyland explained that the 20% upland requirement is new to the City's ordinance. Previously the requirement was for 80% for a 10 -acre minimum. Mr. Dunn asked if other options had been explored, in light of the large amount of wetlands. He asked if a wetlands parcel could be created, ensuring that the area would remain wetlands and unbuildable for infinity. Mr. Brixius stated that the disadvantage of splitting the wetlands off as a separate parcel is that it would most likely go tax forfeit. Remaining part of the larger parcel it would stay within single ownership, it would be protected from future development by the easement, and it would remain a property of value. Mr. Thompson pointed out that a portion of the land northwest and south of the subject site, although inaccessible, is dry, potentially buildable parcels of land. Chair Schaps asked about variance criteria. Ms. Wyland cited five findings of fact, as follow: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowner is due to physical circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other land, structures or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.