08/05/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

which were held in separate ownership from abutting parcels and the fourth case was a duo-ownership and the abutting parcel is still vacant. 16. That all four of the aforementioned homes built since 1985 were built 100'.150' from the ordinary high water mark; one was granted a formal variance in 1989 and it appears that the other three were approved for site location administratively based on setbacks of adjacent structures. 17. That the Applicant has stated that historically, he has been able to determine that the Subject Property was regraded after the flood of 1965 and prior to 1974 so that the highest elevation is approximately 100 feet from the river and the topography then declines toward the center of the lot and then rises again towards Bowers Drive. 18. That the Applicant has stated that the proposed house pad location is best for the following reasons: a) places structure at maximum elevation; b) provides excellent spacing for future well and 1 st and 2nd alternative drainfields; c) maintains established character of neighborhood; d) prevents the need to remove 3 mature and healthy oak trees; e) prevents placing the initial drainfield in an area flooded with backwaters in 1965 and 1997; f) prevent the need for fill and contour adjustments for a house pad, which would be an unnecessary hardship. 19. That if granted, the variance will not allow any use which is neither a permitted or a conditional use in the land use district in which the Subject Property is located. 20. That similar variances have been granted in the Critical River Overlay District. 21. That there are exceptional circumstances unique to the Subject Property which were not created by the Applicant: a) the Subject Property was a saleable, buildable lot when the Applicant purchased it in 1978; and b) the amendment to the critical river rules in 1985 regarding duo-ownership rendered the Subject Property non-buildable; while four other similarly sized lots not in duo-ownership have been developed since that time; c) grading on the property prior to the Applicant taking ownership resulted in the house pad location under today's standards being in an area that has proven susceptible to flooding in prior years. 22. That the strict enforcement of Section 9.21.07 of the Ramsey City Code wilVwill not result in unnecessary hardship to the Applicant. 23. That if granted, the variance is/is not contrary to the purpose and intent of Section 9.21.07 of the Ramsey City Code. ~I