10-24-2007 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SUMMARY TO THE LITTLE CANADA CITY COUNCIL The City has taken the position that a variance from the 500 foot cul -de -sac standard is not required for the Applicant's 1,050 foot cul -de -sac. Despite this position.. the Applicant has requested a variance from the 500 foot cul -de -sac standard, with the City Planner acting as the Applicant's advocate. The Applicant provided no detailed written explanation for the need for a variance from the 500 foot cul -de -sac standard, as required by Little Canada's Subdivision Variance Ordinance 1010.020 (a). At the Planning Commission, the Applicant stated he applied for a variance from the 500 foot standard "to avoid litigation." While this is the only reason given for the requested variance, the Applicant still must satisfy its heavy burden imposed by the Minnesota Statute §462.358, Subd. 6 and the Little Canada Subdivision Variance Ordinance. An Applicant seeking a variance from a subdivision ordinance must prove a variance is needed because of a unusual hardship "on the land" and it must be based solely on the specific grounds set forth in the subdivision variance ordinance. Minn. Stat. §462.358, Subd. 6 states: Subdivision regulations may provide for a procedure varying the regulations as they apply to specific properties where an unusual hardship on the land exists, but variances may be granted only upon the specific grounds set forth in the regulation. Unusual hardship includes but is not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Minn Stat. §462.358, Subd. 6. The Little Canada Subdivision Variance Ordinance, as opposed to the City Planner's reliance (and the Planning Commission's reliance) upon the zoning code, requires the Applicant to prove each of the following specific grounds before a variance can be granted: (a) That there are special and highly unique circumstances or conditions affecting said property which are not common to other properties in the City and that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable and minimum use of his land; (b) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which property is situated; and (c) That the variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme hardship limited to topography, soils or other physical factors of the land. (Emphasis added). Little Canada Ordinance 1010.010. The Applicant and his City Planner advocate provided no evidence at the hearing before the Planning Commission on any of these elements. Moreover, the Applicant and his City Planner advocate produced no evidence to negate the evidence produced by the community before the Planning Commission. The Applicant's stated reason, the avoidance of litigation, satisfies none of the ordinance's specific grounds. A. The Applicant Does Not Dispute There Are No Special and Highly Unique Circumstances or Conditions Affecting the Property Which are Not Common to Other Properties and the -20-