Loading...
1991-09-24 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 DRAFT The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 24, 1991, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 o'clock p.m. The following Commission members were present: Friel, Koll, Duggan, Dreelan, Krebsbach, Tilsen. Excused members were Chair Dwyer. Also present were Public Works Director James Danielson, Planning Consultant Tim Malloy, and Administrative Assistant Kevin Batchelder. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Friel moved approval of the August 27, 1991 minutes. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Tilsen) CASE NO. 91-34: CHEESEBROW VARIANCE Mr. Nick Cheesebrow, of 594 West Marie Avenue, was present to explain his requested variance. Mr. Cheesebrow stated that his old garage was a carport originally and that he had it modified in 1965 and it now needs new work. Mr. Cheesebrow stated that Marie Avenue is a dangerous road to enter from his property because of the hill on Marie and the traffic as it comes over the hill at the corner of Callahan and Marie. Mr. Cheesebrow stated that most visitors to his home park on Callahan because of the situation on Marie Avenue. Mr. Cheesebrow stated that he desires to have a two car garage and has requirements for more storage needs. He stated that should he receive permission to build his two car garage that he would be removing the detached shed on his property that he currently uses for storage. Mr. Cheesebrow stated that the house is constructed as passive, solar and that is the reason it is skewed towards the side lot line. Mr. Cheesebrow stated this is why the corner of the garage, as proposed, is two feet four inches over the side yard setback. He stated the encroachment on the setback was a total of seven square feet. Commissioner Koll stated that the two car garage looked like an improvement to the home and that it appears the traffic problem is real at the hill on Marie. Commissioner Koll inquired if the garage apron was 30 AYES: NAYS: CASE NO. KEITHAHN feet from the right-of-way on Marie Avenue as required in the new Zoning Ordinance. Public Works Director Jim Danielson responded that the driveway meets the requirements of the Ordinance and is approximately 45 feet from the intersection. Commissioner Friel stated that this seems to be a minor request and inquired if the orientation of the garage could be moved two feet to avoid the variance. Mr. Cheesebrow responded that his original design for a two car garage showed a larger garage of 28 feet. Mr. Cheesebrow stated he revised the size of the garage downwards by moving it nine inches to the west and he cut the length of the garage from 21 feet to 20 feet. Mr. Cheesebrow explained that there was a skylight on the west of the house that illuminates his front entry. Moving the garage further west would cause this light to be eliminated. Mr. Cheesebrow stated that he is already removing the four foot skylight and replacing it with a three foot skylight in order to adjust the garage. Mr. Cheesebrow stated he doesn't want to lose the skylight as it illuminates his interior front entry and provides an amenity to the home. Commissioner Duggan inquired if the shed is coming down and Mr. Cheesebrow responded yes. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council approve the requested two foot four inch side yard abutting a street setback variance. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. 6 0 91-37: VARIANCE Mr. John Spencer, of Sawhorse Builders, appeared before the Planning Commission to explain the requested rear yard setback variance of 2.6 feet for Mr. Larry Keithahn, of 697 Decorah. Mr. Spencer explained that the home was constructed without any crawl space for expansion and that the expansion is needed for a growing family. Vice-Chair Krebsbach inquired if there was a full basement on this house. Mr. Spencer responded no. Commissioner Tilsen stated that it appears the City will be receiving a lot of these types of variances in this neighborhood. Tilsen stated that Delaware Crossings was built without basements and that he believes the lots are minimal in size for the size of houses constructed there. Tilsen stated that caution should be urged on variances in this area. He stated that it appears many houses in this neighborhood had been built without family rooms and no basements. Vice-Chair Krebsbach inquired how many houses in this area have no basements. Public Works Director Jim Danielson responded that it was his impression that most of the houses in this neighborhood do have basements. Commissioner Duggan responded that he knew people in this neighborhood and that the lack of basements was probably the exception, rather than the rule. He stated he has visited houses in this neighborhood and that most of the basements are damp during wet weather. Commissioner Dreelan suggested to Mr. Spencer that sump pumps and drain tile be installed as most of the area has a history of wet basements. Commissioner Koll inquired about what type of gutter runoff plans there would be. Mr. Spencer explained the gutter plan and that it wouldn't drain onto the neighbors property. Mr. Spencer stated that they would be relocating the Juniper bushes to another location in the yard and that the big tree in the back yard will remain. Commissioner Koll moved to recommend that the City Council approve the requested 2.6 foot rear yard setback variance. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 91-29: RESURRECTION SIGN VARIANCE Mr. Jon Louris, Assistant Superintendent of Resurrection Cemetery, appeared before the Planning Commission to discuss a request for temporary signs that require a setback variance and a time limit variance. Mr. Louris explained the recent approvals for the new sign system that has been constructed at Resurrection Cemetery. Mr. Louris stated Resurrection Cemetery now realizes that the old entrance needs to be closed with some proper traffic direction to the new entrance. He stated Resurrection Cemetery will be removing the old entrance and fencing it shut. Mr. Louris stated it is Resurrection's intention to have a temporary sign internal on the lot warning about the closing of the entrance on October 15th. He stated Resurrection would be sending letters to all funeral directors in the area. Mr. Louris explained when the gate is closed Resurrection Cemetery would then like to place a sign on the gate explaining the new location of the main entrance. Commissioner Duggan inquired about the size of the signs, if they met the requirements. Public Works Director Jim Danielson stated temporary signs are allowed to be 25 square feet and both of these signs are significantly less than 25 square feet, approximately in the neighborhood of six or seven square feet. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that City Council approve a setback variance to allow a temporary sign to be placed on the property line for a period of one year. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 91 -35: KNAEBLE SUBDIVISION Mr. Peter Knaeble appeared before the Planning Commission to discuss his proposal to split 1760 Dodd Road into a three lot preliminary plat that would require two variances to the required 100 foot lot width and would require wetlands permits to place the two houses and a culvert. Mr. Knaeble explained their proposal includes two new flag lots with a common drive. Mr. Knaeble submitted for the public record an outline discussing his presentation. (See attached.) Vice -Chair Krebsbach asked Mr. Knaeble to locate the barns and the sheds on the project. Mr. Knaeble stated the shed and the barn are structures that will come out. He stated the existing house faces on Dodd Road and he further clarified that the red barn is on someone elses property to the rear. Mr. Knaeble stated the plan shows setbacks to the adjacent creeks. He stated the 100 foot setback requirement takes up one half of the property. Mr. Knaeble stated that the front two lots would both exceed 30,000 square feet and that the rear lot would be 60,000 square feet and that this matches neighboring properties on the east side of Dodd Road. Mr. Knaeble stated on the west side of Dodd Road is a subdivision with mostly 15,000 square foot lots. Mr. Knaeble stated he met twice with City staff and on the second occasion the setbacks to the creek were adjusted to 80 feet to allow for homeowner /buyer preferences for larger houses. Mr. Knaeble stated that a 60 foot right -of -way to serve the rear of this property with a cul -de -sac would put the existing homes into non - conformance regarding their side yard setbacks. Mr. Knaeble stated a public street would require four variances whereas his proposal for two flag lots requires only two variances. Mr. Knaeble stated his proposal, with private drives to the rear of the property, was more sensitive to the trees and the creeks in the area. Commissioner Koll announced the Planner's Report stated that some organization for this area was needed, instead of considering variances for each lot. Commissioner Koll stated a plan is preferred for the area rather than disorganized development on a case by case basis. Commissioner Koll stated that she was concerned about emergency services to flag lots with long private drives. Administrative Assistant Batchelder stated roadway plans and area plans had been considered in the past for this square block area and that some of these plans were dated back to the early 1960's. Batchelder stated that the City has not adopted any of these plans. Planning Consultant Tim Malloy gave a presentation on an area plan for a roadway system and development of the "super block" done by Midwest Planning in 1961. Malloy stated at that time a roadway configuration was proposed and showed a park dedication in the middle of the block. Mr. Malloy stated Ridgewood Drive was proposed to go through to Delaware and that cul -de -sacs were shown on the north side of the proposed subdivision before us tonight. Mr. Malloy stated, in the area where these cul -de -sacs were shown, the Ridders own platted lots that are in the shape of a right -of -way, however, they are not dedicated as a right -of -way, they are private platted lots. Mr. Malloy stated any roadway master plan in this area is complicated by the large amount of wetlands and the multiple ownership of private property in this area. Commissioner Tilsen inquired under what scenario could this master plan happen in order to give residents an idea of when this could occur. Planner Malloy stated it would involve doing a master plan for the area, re- examining existing conditions, property ownership, topography and looking at the potentials for development in this area. Commissioner Tilsen stated the southeast area master plan was a different beast than this because there was really only one major owner. Planning Consultant Malloy stated when they started the master plan for the southeast area there were at least a dozen owners involved. Commissioner Friel stated there was a difference between the southeast area and this. He stated there was coordination among the owners that a master plan was needed. Planner Malloy stated announcements could be made and public hearings could be held in order to do a master plan process and that it would take approximately six to nine months. Mr. Knaeble stated his subdivision was simply a three lot split with private drives that would not preclude any future master planning or roadway systems in this area. He stated he felt his subdivision would not impact or prevent that type of system from occurring in the future. Vice-Chair Krebsbach inquired if a master plan had ever been formally presented in the past. Public Works Director Jim Danielson stated that these roadway plans were presented back in the 1960's and 1970's. Commissioner Friel stated he had some concerns about Outlot A and inquired what was the logic behind this outlot. Mr. Knaeble responded they had looked at this outlot with two options. The first option was Outlot A could go to lot three to enlarge it or the second option would have Outlot A being made available to the neighbors to the south at 1770 Dodd Road. The rear of their property is only 90 feet wide and if they wish to develop in the future it appears they could use some buildable area. Commissioner Friel inquired about the two ten foot driveways shown on the plan. Mr. Knaeble explained that there are two ten foot property strips, however, there would only be one single 15 foot wide driveway and that would provide legal access for each property. Commissioner Dreelan inquired about interest on buying the lots as proposed. Mr. Knaeble responded that, yes, there has been interest and that is why they approached staff to inquire about an 80 foot wetlands permit setback in order to allow bigger houses that prospective buyers intend to build. Vice-Chair Krebsbach opened the public hearing for comments from the audience. Mr. Jim Fischer, of 1758 Dodd Road, stated he lived just north of the subject property and explained there is a lot of water running through that creek in the springtime. Mr. Fischer inquired what will happen to the rate of the water flow through his backyard with this new development. Mr. Fischer stated he was concerned about retaining water as it flows through the creek and can back up into his property. Mr. Knaeble responded that the flow of the water would be handled by a culvert. Mr. Fischer inquired what would become of the house at 1760 Dodd Road. Mr. Knaeble responded the house will remain as existing, however, the barns and the sheds at the rear of the property would be removed. Commissioner Friel inquired about the extra impervious surface of the new homes and driveways and how that will drain into the watersheds. Mr. Knaeble responded this would not be a significant increase in the amount of water going into the watersheds and he stated he felt the watersheds could handle that additional water. Mr. Jake Deeb, of 1780 Dodd Road, stated he lives to the south of this property. Mr. Deeb stated he has seen the water up to four feet from his house and that in the springtime large amounts of water flow through this creek. In fact, he stated he has canoed it in the spring before. Mr. Deeb stated his house is 15 feet higher than the proposed home levels and the creek rises on occasion pretty high to his house. Mr. Deeb stated he can't perceive that you could dig four feet down anywhere in this area and not have the hole fill up with water. At the request of the Commission, Public Works Director Jim Danielson explained the drainage in this area. Danielson stated the creek on the south has water coming all the way from West St. Paul. Mr. Danielson stated the creek on the north is a small creek and not near as large as the creek on the south. Danielson stated both creeks are identified on the City's wetlands map and any development in this area must seriously consider elevations, drain tiles, soil conditions and culverts to enable the first creek to be crossed and not impede the flow. Danielson stated a City street in this area was not feasible and a private drive was a better way to handle access to this property and preserve the trees and the drainage ways. Mr. Danielson stated the size of the culvert pipe to cross the first creek would have to be coordinated with the City's Engineering Department. Mr. Danielson stated he did not feel this culvert would create any adverse impact on the neighbors. Ms. Juarez, of 1756 Dodd Road, stated the streams are always full in this area and they very seldom run dry. She inquired if there was any guarantee the water won't back up or be retained towards their house which is to the north of the subject property. She stated when the Dodd Road culvert project was done that water backed up at that time and this is a pretty wet area and always has water. Mr. Knaeble responded they won't be damming or impeding the water flow and the culvert they would provide to cross the first creek should provide the same rate of flow as the current stream. Mr. Knaeble stated, as far as the water table is concerned, they had soil testings done with borings on the subject property and the results showed the proposal is feasible. Mr. Knaeble stated that the culvert will be sized in coordination with the City Engineering Department and their criteria for storm drainage. Mr. Deeb stated that there currently exists restriction on flow downstream from the subject property and inquired if the drainage plan for this area would increase that restriction. Mr. Knaeble responded the development project should not increase or change in any fashion the flow downstream from the subject property. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if the City had done any drainage plan for this area. Public Works Director Jim Danielson responded that no master plan for storm water runoff had been done for this area. Commissioner Tilsen stated as each parcel develops they appear insignificant by themselves, however, when all added together it makes a difference on the impervious surface runoff in this area. Tilsen stated this is a unique property because it's on the fringes of water on both sides and it's between two drainage ways. Commissioner Tilsen stated he felt utilities and emergency services would be better served from a system that provides interior access. Planning Consultant Tim Malloy stated a previous master plan for this area had shown a cul-de-sac from the north, however, this would have to be done in cooperation with other owners in the area. Planner Malloy stated a comprehensive look at a cul-de-sac such as this would provide a roadway and storm sewer system for the subject property. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if any attempts had been made to cooperate with adjoining property owners. Mr. Knaeble stated that yes the people to the south are in the audience tonight. Mr. Knaeble stated the properties to the north had not been contacted. Ms. Gretchen Arndt, of Burnet Realty, stated she is representing the Walker's in this real estate transaction. She stated that the Petersons, the property owners to the south, have been consulted. She felt a cul-de-sac proposal was too restrictive to the lot sizes in the area and would impact the wetlands and trees greater than a private drive proposal. She stated the private road design and Outlot A had been planned to help the Petersons should they decide to develop in the future. She also stated City water could connect to the Petersons with this scenario. Commissioner Duggan stated he was concerned about having two lots so deep with only 20 feet of access. Commissioner Duggan inquired about servicing gas, electric, phone, and water in the future should any of these utilities need to be dug up when there is only 20 feet of access. Mr. Knaeble responded the utilities would not necessarily be restricted to the 20 foot necks as proposed and there would be easements granted for access to all the utilities. Commissioner Duggan inquired how does any emergency service truck turn around in this area. He stated he had some concerns about a 500 foot long private driveway. Mr. Knaeble responded the same situation is occurring with many of the homes in this block. He stated he felt the privacy amenity outweighed the public safety concerns to most buyers. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if the sewers were feasible with the elevation shown on the proposed plan. Mr. Tilsen stated the house is only two feet higher than Dodd Road and there is a creek to be crossed. Public Works Director Danielson responded the feeder depends on the house elevation and that trunk lines do exist on Dodd Road. Commissioner Tilsen stated he was concerned about the level of the creek, the level of Dodd Road, the level of the houses, and basement elevations. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if they had talked to others in the neighborhood. Mr. Knaeble responded yes they had talked to other property owners but there had been no interest in coordination. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if there were others in the audience that were in favor of a master plan for this area. Mr. Fred Peterson, of 1770 Dodd Road, stated it was about time the City did something regarding decisions on development in this area. He stated if this area is developed, it should be done properly with the City and not with umpteen driveways. Mr. Peterson stated he would like to see a program developed by the City and that now is the time to do it without giving out special permits, variances, etc. Mr. Peterson stated the Fire Department needs to be able to get their new, expensive trucks back into this area. Mr. Jim Fischer stated he is not opposed to this proposal. He stated it is his belief that Mr. Ridder wants to keep this area as it is, in its current existing condition with large estate lots. Commissioner Friel says it's all good and well to have a comprehensive plan. He stated, however, that people who own property in this area must be in the position to carry it out once a comprehensive plan is decided. Mr. Friel stated he did not see the current property owners in this area stating a need for such a master plan. Commissioner Friel also stated that comprehensive plans can force development in an area and its been his experience that large developments can be a mess on the impact to the land compared to a small well done development. Commissioner Friel stated he is still troubled about Outlot A and he believes more information should be available on the drainage issues in this area. Commissioner Friel stated this proposal with large lots and private drives, is preferred. Commissioner Friel moved that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing until the October meeting. Commissioner Friel stated as a condition of continuing the public hearing the applicant should submit a better proposal for Outlot A and should submit some more drainage information. A friendly amendment by Commissioner Tilsen stated this site should be served by City sewer and water. A friendly amendment by Commissioner Duggan stated vegetation preservation and protection plan and tree study required in the Subdivision Ordinance should be provided and that the 23 factors in the Wetlands Permit Ordinance should be addressed by the developer. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Vice-Chair Krebsbach stated if the developer intends to put bigger homes on the preliminary plat, it should be shown as such. Commissioner Friel suggested the developer should attempt to honor the 100 foot wetlands setback and, as far as Outlot A was concerned, what he was looking for was a more definitive proposal that identifies the future use of that outlot. Vice-Chair Krebsbach stated the City staff should provide an overview of this area and suggested a City Planning Commission tour of the site and area. It was decided that at the end of the meeting the Planning Commission would adjourn to a special meeting on some Saturday in October in order to visit the site. CASE NO. 91-36: KING/MULFINGER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. and Mrs. King were present to explain their proposal for a conditional use permit to expand their detached garage and to have a rear yard setback variance. Commissioner Dreelan inquired about the tunnel on the plan. Mr. King responded that the tunnel is an idea that they would not necessarily build. He stated that the north side of the house is very icy in the winter and hard to maintain the walk. He stated that was what generated the idea of a tunnel. Commissioner Koll inquired about the drainage that comes out onto the concrete block retaining wall. She stated it was her observation that water moves onto the garage apron area where the proposed extension is designed to be. Mr. King responded the landscaping is proposed to change the drainage from Ashley onto the yard and a gutter system on the garage will help solve the water problem near their driveway apron. Commissioner Friel inquired if the plan could be adjusted to avoid the rear yard setback variance. Mr. King responded that in order to extend the garage in the other direction they would have to cut into the yard with a lot of excavation. Mr. King stated the poor visibility is due to the brush and existing vegetation, not the location of the garage. Commissioner Duggan stated he likes the garage design and the European feel. Commissioner Tilsen inquired if having a storage shed on top of the garage was appropriate. Commissioner Tilsen stated he had a concern that this storage shed not be occupied as living space in the future. Mr. King stated he was willing to have that included as a condition of his permit. He stated the garage is planned to be unheated but they would like the ability to heat the garage in the future. Commissioner Friel inquired about the height of the structure as outlined in the Planner's Report. Planner Malloy stated that according to his calculations a two foot variance is needed for the roof height. Commissioner Duggan moved that City Council approve a conditional use permit for accessory structure and a 17 foot 3 inch rear yard setback variance and a two foot roof height variance with the condition that the drainage plan for the project be approved by City staff. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 VERBAL REVIEW Public Works Director Jim Danielson provided a verbal review of City Council action on last month's Planning Commission recommendations and cases. ADJOURN There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned to a special meeting on Saturday, October 19th at 9:00 A.M. at City Hall for the purpose of visiting the Dodd Road subdivision site area. Commissioner Duggan stated he would provide the donuts. Adjournment was at 9:35 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant PINE CREEK ESTATES, MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 9/24/91 INTRODUCTION: Owner (Lloyd & Lucille Walker), 1760 Dodd. Rd. - Developer /Engineer (Peter Knaeble & James Taylor) - Asking for approval for a 3 lot Prelim. Plat. 2 variances. & a wetland permit LOCATION: NE corner of Dodd Rd.(Hwy. 149) & Marie Ave. Ex. lots to the south (on Marie Ave.) are 1 ac.; to the north (on Dodd Rd.) are 1/2 ac.; and to the west (across Dodd Rd.) are 15,000 sf (1/3 ac) EXISTING CONDITIONS: - Total site = 3.0 acres (approx. 180' x 770'), heavily wooded Existing zoning is R -1 (15,000 sf min. = 8 possible Tots) Ex. home in the front of the property facing Dodd. Rd. Large barn & 2 sheds in the rear (within 100' of the creek) 2 dry creeks /swales bisect property (drainage flows to the SW) - Permit required to work within 100' of these 2 creeks ( =1.6 ac. or 54% of site) Property along Marie if platted & property along Dodd. Rd. to the N is platted. The adjacent property to the south is unplatted, but due to the creek setbacks, there is only room for one building site. PROPOSED PROJECT: - Existing zoning would allow up to 8 lots, we are proposing only 3 large Tots (avg. 1 unit /acre). Large lot size: 30,800 sf; 30,700 sf; & 61,900 sf (0.7, 0.7, 1.4 ac.) vs 15,000 sf Our 1 acre avg. matches the 1 ac. lots to the south & is greater than the 1/2 ac lots to the north - 3 lots meet all R -1 zoning requirements except 100' lot width for Tots 2 & 3 (but these lots have 190' & 130' widths at the building line) 2 rear Tots would share a new bituminous driveway (permanent access easements) Existing barn & 2 sheds to be removed Only a 20' encroachment into 100' wetland setback area (same as ex. barn & house) 20' encroachment is necessary due to the size of the large homes proposed Site is heavily wooded, but 2 new home would be built in clearing or less dense areas No net change to wetland area or environmental impact (ie ex. driveway & barn in setback area already) The neighbor to the south has indicated to us that he supports this proposal Based on 2 meetings with City Staff, they indicated /concurred that public street option was not feasible for the following reasons: Trees loss; much more tree Toss w/ public street) Additional wetland encroachment (17,000 sf vs 3000 sf; over 5x more with public street) Environmental impact (significantly more with public street) Public street would require at least 4 variances, & 5x the encroachment into the wetland area - Public street is not economically feasible: 450' street through unbuildable wetland CONCLUSIONS: We are asking for: Preliminary Plat approval for 3 large lots (1 unit/acre) Wetland permit (similar to ex. driveway, barn & house encroachment; and 20' encroachment is not unusual per the City Engineer) 2 variances (even though we greatly exceed the lot width at the build. line). The City Ordinance (attached) allows variances for the following reasons: "Special circumstances affecting the property that would derive the applicant of reasonable use of his land" (ie: creek setbacks for over 1/2 of the property) "Variances will not be detrimental to other property" (helps property to the south) "Variance is to correct inequities resulting from extreme physical hardship such as topography, etc." (ie: trees, creek setbacks) Reasons: - Topography Trees Creeks Restrictions (3.0 ac. to 1.4 ac.) Economics Environmental impact " We concur, not with the consulting planner's report that this small plat needs additional study, but with the City Engineer & Planner that this proposal is the best solution (and has the least environmental impact). This proposal would keep well over 1/2 of the entire property in the wetland preservation area ". 9.1 GENERAL 9.1 (1) 9.1 (2) SECTION 9 VARIANCES The Planning Commission may recommend a variance from the pro- visions of this Ordinance when, in its opinion, undue hardship may result from strict compliance. In recommending any variance, the Commission shall prescribe only conditions that it deems necessary to or desirable for the public interest. In making its recommendations, the Planning Commission shall take into account the nature of the pro- posed use of land and the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons. to reside or work in the, proposed subdivision and the probable effect of the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. A variance shall only be recommended when the Planning Commission finds: (a) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive.the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. (b) That the granting of the variance wilt not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which property k situated. (c) That the variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship such as topography, etc. After consideration of the Planning Commission recommendations, the City Council may grant variances, subject to (a), (b) and. (c) immediately above. Any recommendations for variances to the City Council in connection with the acceptance of the Final Plat of a subdivision shall be made through the Planning Commission. (301) 25