2001 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

. , .. , � - . - . Resolution 678-01 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and received resident input regarding this request on October 17, 2001; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or e�raordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's control; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Mt�nicipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a Variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact related fo this zequest: The proposed lots as depicted on the subdivision plan comply with the subdivision requirements of Chapter 1202. The lots are located within a wetland zoning district, however, which has more restrictive lot width requirements than Chapter 1202. 2. The minimum lot width for within a wetland zoning district is 125 feet. 3. Exceptional or e�raordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in that the property proposed for residential replatting was originally platted in 1963 and that sanitary and water utility stubs were installed � during the road's constructions in anticipation of eventual development on the west side of the road. 4. The Iiteral interpretation of the Code would deprive Mr. Harstad of rights coznmonly enjoyed by other groperties in the same district in that while other properiy owners wittun this wetland zoning district would face similar requirements, few if any other property owners would have a pree�usting vested interest in their undeveloped property as in this case. 5. The special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that the land was originally platted in 1963 and the utilities were installed not too long thereafter. The utilities were installed with the expectations of future development. While the applicant was fully aware of the development constraints instituted in 1992, the applicant did not cause the special conditions or circumstances. 6. Crranting a variance in this case would not confer a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in �hat the app�icant is proposing single family homes in a single family home district on lots that exceed the minimum standard subdivision requirements.