My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2001 Planning Commission Packets
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
2001 Planning Commission Packets
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/29/2012 9:14:03 AM
Creation date
2/27/2012 4:13:01 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
932
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
} <br />i i. - . i <br />Harstad Variance Report <br />November 7, 200I <br />Page 3 <br />f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to <br />other property in the same zone. <br />The intent of the wetlands ordinance and the resulting subdivision requirements is to protect the <br />integrity of the hydrological system and the City's surface water management system. In addition, <br />weilands preservation and sensible land use management are critical to the present and future healih, <br />safety and general welfare of the land, ani�mals and people within the Ciiy. That being said, such <br />preservation and conservation efforts need to be balanced with the right and allowance to deveiop one's <br />property. Because Rice Creek Watershed District, the local regulatory agency governing wetlands <br />development, has approved the plat and alteration plarxs, and because the lots all exceed 20,000 square <br />feet with significant dedication of easements, staff believes the variance for the reduced lot widths would <br />not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Wetlands Zoning Regulations. <br />g. The proposed variance will not impair an adeguate supply of light and air to adjacent <br />property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the <br />danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair <br />property values within the ncighborhood. <br />It is no� expected �hat the proposed variance for reduced iot widths would not result in any of the <br />above-cited adverse effects. <br />Staff Interpre�aiion: <br />As stated on October 17, it appears as though there is sufficient hardship associated with this property <br />to warrant approval of the variance requested. However, because the interpretation of these criteria <br />can be and often is a subjeciive consideration, the Planning Commission will need to once again <br />review the criteria and previous testimony to determine if in fact a hardship does e�st. As a result of <br />the discussion generated at the last meeting, staff has drafted two resolutions—a resolution of <br />approval based upon sta�s in�erpretation, and a resolution of denial, based on comments made by <br />some of the Commissioners. <br />Recommendation: <br />After continued discussion concerning this request, the Planning Commission should act upon one of <br />the two presented resolutions. <br />James Ericson <br />Community Development Director <br />763-717-4021 <br />- : ;': � <br />--- N;IDATAIGROUPS\CONIDEV1Development Cases\VROi-010 (Harstad Varianee)1Harstad Report- Oct 17, 2001.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.