Agenda Packets - 2010/08/09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Resolution 7658 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the following documents about this appeal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. 2006 Wetland Map 4. Proposed Subdivision Plan, dated May 20, 2010 5. Applicant’s Narrative, dated May 21, 2010 6. Staff Report, dated August 9, 2010 7. Planning Commission Resolution 927-10 WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the code requirements imposes a substantial hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, the intent of the wetlands ordinance and the City subdivision requirements is to protect the natural environment, the integrity of the hydrological system and the City’s surface water management system, however such preservation and conservation efforts need to be balanced with the right and allowance to develop one’s property; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact about this request: 1. The proposed lots as depicted on the subdivision plan meet the subdivision requirements of Chapter 1202 of the City Code. 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 within a wetland zoning district is 125 feet, and the applicant has submitted to the City a site plan with 10 residential lots - eight lots that would range from 90 feet to 112.67 feet wide, a 125 foot wide lot and a 152 foot wide lot. 3. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in that the property now proposed for residential replatting was originally platted in 1963 and that sanitary and water utility stubs were installed during the construction of the adjacent street in anticipation of eventual development on this site. 4. The literal interpretation of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that while other property owners within this wetland zoning district would face similar requirements, few if any other property owners would have a preexisting vested interest in their undeveloped property as in this case.