Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />Harstad Variance Report <br />November 7, 2001 <br />Page 2 <br />a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not � <br />apply generally to oiher properties i� the same zone or vicinity and result from lot <br />size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the <br />property since the effective date hereof have had no control. <br />The property proposed for residential replatting was originally platted in 1963 as part of the Mueller <br />Addition. Considered marginal property because of the wetlands, it was never developed. The vast <br />acreages of available land made its development cost prohibitive, Even so, sanitary and water utility <br />stubs were installed during the road's constructions in anticipation of eventual development on the <br />west side of the road. To not use the preinstalled utilities would cause a hardship upon the applicant <br />and would take away to some extent a preexisting development expectation. The plat was approved <br />and the utilities installed prior to the City's adoption of the more restrictive wetland zoning <br />regulations in 1992. <br />b. The literal interpretation of the pravisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of <br />rights commonly enjoyed by other properties under the terms of this Title. <br />If the code requirements in Sectzon 1010 are taken literally, the applica.nt would lose the potential to <br />develop three lots. Other groperty owners within this wetland zotung district would face similar <br />requirements. However few if any other property owners would have a preexisting vested interest in <br />their undeveloped property as in this case. <br />c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions oi the <br />applicant. <br />The land was originally platted in 1963 and the utilities were installed not too long thereafter. The <br />utilities were installed with the expectations of future development. While the applicant was fulIy <br />awaze of the development constraints of the site, the applicant did not cause the special conditions or <br />circumstances (the wetlands and the wetlands ordinance of 1992.) <br />d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special <br />privilege that is denied by this Titie to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in <br />the same district. <br />The parcel is zoned R-1, sirngIe family residential. The applicant is proposing a development <br />consisting of single-family homes. Granting a variance in this case would not confer a special <br />privilege denied to other property owners. All other platting requirements would be met by this <br />proposal. <br />e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the <br />hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. <br />=--� <br />The variance requested would be considered the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship if one <br />were to make the assumption that the subdivision less the wetland zoning district overlay ' f <br />requirements would constitute the standard by which the hardship was measured. <br />