2001 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting October 17, 2001 Page 3 generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity over which the applicant has no control. Community Development Director Ericson then explained that the property ii� questioii was originally platted in 1963 as part of the Mueller Addition and noted that even thoi�gh the property was not developed due to the costs involved with altering the wetland at that time, sanitary sevver and water stubs were installed in a�Iticipation of future development. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the second requirement was that the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others, Community Development Director Ericson then indicated that if the Code were iiterally intezpreted the Harstads wonld lose the ability to develop three of'the lots, which would apply to other property owners in the same distzict. He then said, however, other property owners in a similar district probably would not have a vested interest in the undevelopad property as is the case here because the sewer and water stubs are already installed. Commuriity Development Director Ericson indicated that the third reqnirernent is that the special conditions or circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. He then indicated that the sewer and water stubs were installed shortly after the land was originally platted in 1963 indicating that it was always the intention to develop the property. He further indicated that even though the applicant was aware of the constz-aints involved with developing the site, the applicant did not cause the special conditions or circumstances. Community Developrnent Director Ericson indicated that the fourth reyuirement is that granting __% the variance requested wouId vot confer on the applicant any special privilege denied to others in the same district. He then indicated that granting a variance in this case would not confer special przvileges to the applicant as all other platting requirements would be met by the proposaI. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the fifth requirement was that the variance requested is the minimum.uaria�ce which would alleviate the hardship, He then indicated that the variance requested �vould be considered the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship if you made the. assumption that the subdivisian, less the wetland zoning district overlay requirements, would eonstitute the standard by which the hardship was measured. � Community Development Director Ericson indicaied that the sixtl� requirernent was that the �ariance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code or to other properties in the same zone. He tt�en indicated that the purpose of this part of the Code was to protect the wetIands. He fizrther:indicated ihat all the lots exceed the minimum square footage of 20,000 ' square feet and Rice Creek Watershed District has approved the plat and wetland alteration plans. He then sfated that in light of those facts, Staff is satisfied that reduced Iot widths would riot be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Wetlands Zoning ReguIations. Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the seventh requirement was that the proposed variance would not impair an adequate suppIy of light and air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion on public streets. He then indicated that Staff did not feel that gran�ing the variance would have any real impact on the light, air or traffic congestion.