Laserfiche WebLink
o <br /> <br />10. <br /> <br />11. <br /> <br />12. <br /> <br />13. <br /> <br />14. <br /> <br />15. <br /> <br />16. <br /> <br />17. <br /> <br />18. <br /> <br />19. <br /> <br />20. <br /> <br />That the current business operating on the Subject Property has 78% (seventy-eight <br />percent) impervious surface lot coverage. <br /> <br />That the proposed additions to the building and off-street parking areas result in an <br />impervious surface lot coverage calculation of 86% (eighty-six percent). <br /> <br />That the subject property is approximately 1,000 feet from the Mississippi River. <br /> <br />That the 30% impervious surface restriction is designed to limit site runoff to the <br />Mississippi River. <br /> <br />That the Applicant has submitted a Grading and Erosion Control Plan prepared by <br />Surveying & Engineering Professionals, Inc., dated March 11, 2004, demonstrating the <br />provision of on-site storage and treatment of site run-off to an extent that is less than <br />currently exists on the Subject Property. <br /> <br />That the proposed on-site ponding will provide a basin that is 98% effective as a basin <br />designed to meet NURP criteria in the removal of suspended solids and 93% effective in <br />the removal of total phosphorous. <br /> <br />That the Applicant has applied for a permit from the Lower Rum River Water <br />Management Organization, which was approved on March 11, 2004. <br /> <br />That similar variances have been granted in the past. <br /> <br />That there are unique circumstances applying to the subject proposal, namely: a) the <br />Subject Property was developed prior to the adoption of the Critical River Overlay <br />District Development Standards and already exceeds the maximum impervious surface <br />lot coverage for the Critical River and Wild and Scenic River Overlay District; b) <br />approximately one-third of the Subject Property is outside of the Critical River Overlay <br />District boundary. <br /> <br />That the unique circumstances causing the undue hardship did not result from the actions <br />of the Applicant. <br /> <br />That if denied, the Applicant has stated that he will be deprived of implementing a <br />business decision that will help to ensure the future viability of the bowling lanes. <br /> <br />That if granted, the variance will not grant the Applicant any special privilege that is <br />denied to other owners of lands, structures or buildings in the same district. <br /> <br />That if granted, the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to <br />adjacent property. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION #04-04-087 <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />