Minutes - 2001/12/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 17 construction in anticipation of eventual development on the west side of the road. To not use the preinstalled utilities would cause a hardship upon the applicant and would take away to some extent a preexisting development expectation. The plat was approved and the utilities installed prior to the City's adoption of the more restrictive wetland zoning regulations in 1992. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties under the terms of this Title. If the code requirements in Section 1010 are taken literally, the applicant would lose the potential to develop three lots. Other property owners within this wetland zoning district would face similar requirements. However, few if any other property owners would have a preexisting vested interest in their undeveloped property as in this case. 3. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 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 of the site, the applicant did not cause the special conditions or circumstances (the wetlands and the wetlands ordinance of 1992.) 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same distract. The parcel is zoned R-1, single family residential. The applicant is proposing a development consisting of single-family homes. Granting a variance in this case would not confer a special privilege denied to other property owners. All other platting requirements would be met by this proposal. 5. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The variance requested would be considered the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship if one were to make the assumption that the subdivision less the wetland zoning district overlay requirements would constitute the standard by which the hardship was measured. 6. 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