Agenda Packets - 2010/08/09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Longview Estates Variance Appeal Report August 9, 2010 Page 4 e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for some lots 13 feet to 35 feet narrower than the minimum width required by the city code in order to be able to use the ten utility stubs that are already in place for this property. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The intent of the wetlands ordinance and the resulting subdivision requirements is to protect the integrity of the hydrological system and the City’s surface water management system. In addition, wetlands preservation and sensible land use management are critical to the present and future health, safety and general welfare of the land, animals and people within the City. That being said, such preservation and conservation efforts need to be balanced with the right to develop one’s property. Because Rice Creek Watershed District, the local regulatory agency governing wetlands development, has approved the plat and the alteration plans, and because the lots all exceed 20,000 square feet, staff believes the variance for the reduced lot widths would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Wetlands Zoning Regulations, especially considering that fifteen lots could be platted on this site, which would be much more intense of a development. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The requested variance should not cause any of the adverse effects as stated above. The proposed 10 lots would be the same density as the homes across the street and should not negatively affect the wetlands or storm water drainage in the area. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, a public hearing is required. City staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the Longview Estates parcel. Staff has not received any resident comments with this recent notification, but did receive two emails and a few phones calls before the Planning Commission meeting from residents who stated they were against the City granting the variance. Council Actions: The City Council should hold the public hearing and consider testimony and documentation. If the Council believes that the Planning Commission’s action was appropriate and that the findings contained in Resolution 927-10 are proper, the Council could approve version 1 of Resolution 7658. This is a resolution that upholds the Planning Commission denial by rejecting the applicant’s appeal. If the Council finds there is in fact sufficient hardship to justify the applicant’s variance request (thus overturning the Planning Commission’s denial), the Council could approve version 2 of Resolution 7658. This is a resolution that approves the variance for reduced-width lots to have 10 lots within the Longview Estates Major Subdivision.