Laserfiche WebLink
item# 6 <br />City of Mounds View <br />Planning Commission Report <br />Meeting Date: August 1, 20D1 <br />Title: PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE <br />REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED NIINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR A <br />PR�POSED LOT AT 2525 COUNTY ROAD I; PLANNING CASE NO. VRO1-009 <br />Introduction: <br />Mr. Ertue Gustafson, owner of land Iocated at the northeast corner of Long lake Road and County <br />Road I, is requesting approval of a variance to allow for a reduced minimum lot width for a <br />proposed lot within a yet-to-be-submitted rnajor subdivision. The properties Mr. Gustafson owns <br />are currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, although the City Council on July 9 approved <br />tbe first reading of Ordinance b83, an ordinance which would rezone two of the proposed five lots <br />of the yet-to-be-submitted major subdivision from R-1 to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential. <br />Discussion: <br />; The width of the lot fronting County Road I is 296. 74 feet. The lot could be subdivided into thee <br />--= ` parcels as Mr. Gustafson would like without the need for a variance were it not for the fact that <br />Mr. Gustafson would like twa of the three lots rezoned to R-2. In addition, the location of Mr. <br />Gustafson's home, which was built closer to Long Lake Road than to the east property line, is an <br />impediment to a three-lot suhdivision To aliow for the necessary ten-foot setback from the <br />existing home, the proposed lot at the corner would have to be reduced to a 95-foot width rather <br />than the required 100-foot width. The variance request is for the reduced, 95-foot width. Refer to <br />the attached E�ibit A for the five-lot subdivision scenario. <br />Staff suggested an alternative variance possibility. Rather than approving a variance to allow a <br />non-confornung lot to be created, staff believed it would be more appropriate to consider a <br />variance for a reduced side yard setback for Mr. Gustafson's home. Mr. Gustafson responded to <br />this by pointing out that his utilities—water and sarutary lines�xit his house on the west side, the <br />side where the staff suggested five-foot setback would be. The other problem with maintaining the <br />required minimum 100-foot Iot width at the corner is that the lot in the middle would onIy be 96.74 <br />feet wide, 3.2b feet less than the 100 feet required for an R-2 zoned lot. So while Sta$'would <br />rather not see the creation of a non-conforming lot, Mr. Gustafson's proposai would be the most <br />straightforward uniess Mr. Gustafson would agree to having only one of the lots rezoned R-2. <br />For this variance to be approved, as with any variance request, there needs to be demonstrated <br />substantial hardship or practicaI dif�iculties associated with the property that makes a literal <br />interprefation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require <br />that the gaverning body (the Planning Commission} review a set of specified criteria for each <br />application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in <br />