10-24-2007 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Maplewood border forces Little Canada residents to develop only on the Little Canada side of the street without regard to environmentally sensitive lands and density concerns. A 500 foot cu -de -sac further north and away from environmentally sensitive lands allows Little Canada residents to develop on both sides of the street in accordance with density and environment concerns. The requested variance is detrimental to the development values of the Little Canada properties and the welfare of Little Canada residents. A 1,050 foot cul -de -sac will change the essential character of the locality and will not foster the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The average cul -de -sac length in Northeast Little Canada is 422.89 feet. (Ex. 21). A variance for a cul -de -sac more than twice the 500 foot standard will be out of character with the locality and result in diminished property values for the surrounding properties, to the harm of the public welfare and surrounding properties. To the extent some significance is placed on the fact that the City in the past has granted other variances from 500 foot cul -de -sac requirement is irrelevant. As a matter of law, the granting of a variance to one applicant does not establish a precedent or inure to the benefit of the subsequent applicant unless the two applicants are similarly situated in time and scope of project. See Kottschade v. City of Rochester, 537 N.W.2d 301 (1995)(because the applicant failed to show that he was similarly situated to a previous applicant in time or nature of project, the City did not violate the equal protection clause in denying the application for a variance from municipal subdivision regulations to allow the sale of property). See also Stotts v. Wright County, 478 N.W.2d 802, 805 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)(applicant failed to show that his requested variance (which was denied) and his neighbor's requested variance (which was granted) were similarly situated because they were separated in time.) The fact that the City may not have followed the cul -de -sac ordinance in other cases also does not make the ordinance unenforceable. McCavic v. De Luca, 233 Minn. 372, 378 -379, 46 N.W.2d 873, 876 -877 (1951). The simple fact is that the requested variance is hauuful to the public welfare and surrounding properties. 3. The Applicant Does Not Dispute That The Variance Fails to Correct for Inequities From Extreme Hardship Limited to Topography Soils, or Other Physical Factors of the Land. The Applicant's variance request is not the result of any inequities from an extreme hardship that is limited to topography, soils, or other physical factors of the land, as required by the Little Canada Subdivision Ordinance and Minnesota Statute. The Applicant admits that the variance is sought only to avoid litigation. The Applicant has not shown that soil, topography, or other physical factors of the land preclude a 500 foot cul -de -sac that will allow for future east and west connections. The Applicant's advocate, the City Planner, admitted that the December 14, 2006 proposal of a 500 foot cul -de -sac can provide connection access to the west through a portion of Lot 10. (Ex. 6). The Planning Commission also recognized that the elimination of one lot would allow for a connection to the east, which the developer agreed would be acceptable. (Ex. 6). The Applicant has failed to carry its heavy burden of proving the grant of a variance, which emanate from the desire to avoid litigation. The Applicant has produced no evidence to contradict that of the community. The requested variance should be denied. The City's behavior thus far demonstrates that its grant would be arbitrary and capricious. - 2 2 -