10-24-2007 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Application of the 500 Foot Cul-de-sac Standard Does Not Deprive Lauren & Company of the Reasonable and Minimum Use of the Land. The Applicant set forth no special and highly unique circumstances or conditions affecting_ the property which are not common to other properties in the locality. The Applicant also produced no evidence that the 500 foot cul -de -sac standard results in the deprivation of the reasonable and minimum use of the land. Contrary to the City Planner's claim at the Planning Commission that the City determines what is reasonable and minimum, Minnesota's Appellate Courts have held that the deprivation of the reasonable and minimum use of the property "is demonstrated by the landowner's inability to put his land to any beneficial use unless the variance is granted." (Emphasis added). Holasek v. Village of Medina, 303 Minn. 240, 244, 226 N.W.2d 900, 903 (1975); County of Pine v. State, Dept. Natural Resources, 280 N.W.2d 625, 630 n.3 (Minn. 1979). The Applicant submitted no evidence of the deprivation of the reasonable and minimum use of the property based on the 500 foot cul -de -sac standard because the Applicant previously submitted a plan to develop 12 lots on a 500 foot cul -de -sac in December of 2006. This plan demonstrates that the Applicant has reasonable and minimum use of its land when following the 500 foot cul -de -sac standard. (Ex. 5). The City Planner admitted the 500 foot cul -de -sac plan satisfied the Little Canada Comprehensive Plan. (Ex. 6, p. 2). The City Planner also admitted that the 500 foot cul -de -sac proposal has the potential to provide connection access to the west through a portion of Lot 10. (Ex. 6, p. 2). With respect to connection access to the east, the Applicant agreed it was willing to lose a lot from this proposal in order to meet City Code requirements. (Ex. 6, p. 3). Despite the loss of 1 lot, the Applicant's 500 foot cul -de -sac plan gives the Applicant more than 5 times the minimum use of its property. The Planning Commission disregarded its December 2006 finding as well as this City Council's December 2006 finding that this use was possible with application of the 500 foot cul -de -sac standard. There is no evidence to the contrary and the requested variance cannot be approved. 2. The Applicant Does Not Dispute That A Variance for a 1 050 Foot Cul -de -sac is Detrimental to the Public Health, Welfare and is Injurious to Little Canada Property. The 1,050 foot cul -de -sac subjects the public to the safety risks of limited emergency vehicle access, which the 500 foot standard was designed to protect against as demonstrated by the previous testimony of Traffic Engineer James Benshoof There is no evidence to the contrary. The 1,050 foot cul -de -sac compromises environmentally sensitive land. The Applicant's engineering (Ex. 18) and the Applicant's wetland delineation (Ex. 19) demonstrates that the cul -de -sac terminates in environmentally sensitive land. In fact, these soils, Seeleyeville Muck, will limit anyone's ability to extend the cul -de -sac west from the currently proposed 1,050 foot terminus which only services Maplewood (Ex. 18). This is detrimental to the public welfare and development value of Little Canada properties. The Applicant does not dispute this. The 1,050 foot cul -de -sac curves to the west at the Little Canada - Maplewood border and then terminates. This cul -de -sac only benefits Maplewood at the expense of Little Canada residents. This cul -de -sac results in three lots in Maplewood, for which Maplewood alone will derive the tax benefits while Little Canada residents will be stuck with the additional property tax to maintain the cul -de -sac to Maplewood. This is detrimental to the welfare of the public. There is no evidence to the contrary. The 1,050 foot cul -de -sac to the Maplewood border damages the development values of Little Canada properties immediately adjacent to the proposed development. A cul -de sac along the -27-