1954-1978 Resolutions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Board of Adjustment 5-8-78 whereas, the City Council has determined that it is in the City's best interests to acquire those portions of Parcel 1480 which the City does not presently have an interest in, and whereas, Parcel 1480 is presently a 66-foot private easement use~ for ingress and egress purposes, and whereas, the City has maintained 50-foot wide strip of land through Parcel 1~80 such that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, said 50-foot wide strip of land is deemed dedicated to the public, and whereas, the City's Planning Commission recommends granting the requested variance to the applicant, and the Planning Commission further recommends acquiring all of Parcel 1480 in its full 66-foot width, and whereas, the Board of Adjustment has held a duly published and noticed public hearing concerning said variance request. NOW,~ THEREMO~, the Board of Adjustment' and Appeals adopts the following Findings of Factt 1. That Parcel 1~80 is an unbuildable ~arcel. 2. That it is in the best interests of the City that Parcel 1480 become a service road to Westerly Development. 3. Acquisition of Parcel 1480 will take it off the tax roles for the present owner. Granting of the variance will add to the City's tax base by permitting added taxable development. 5. That Roger (Bill) Dickenson has concern regarding the potential drainage problem which could be created by the additional building should the variance be granted. 6. That the City Engineer advises that drainage to the North side ef the building will naturally go to the East of the property (ParceI 1480). 5 That the Council adopts as fact, based on the public hearing information, and the files an~ records of the applicati~, the conditions as described in Section 170.018E Variance Criteria, Paragraphs A through E. 170. O18E Variance Criteria ae That there are exceptional, unique, or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in ~e same zoning districtl b. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity~ c. That the authorizing of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the intent ar~ purpose of this ordinance or the public interest l That the condition or situation of the specific piece of property, or the intended use of said property, for which the variance is sought, is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the fo~mmulation of a general regulation f~r such conditions or situation~