2001 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

� Item# 4 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: September S, 2001 Title: PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCED MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR A PROP4SED LOT AT 2525 COUNTY ROAD I; PLANNING CASE NO. VRO1-009 Introduction: Mr. Ernie Gustafson, owner of land located at the northeast corner of Long lake Road and County Road I, has requested approval of a variance to allow for a reduced minimum lot width for a proposed lot within a yet-to-be-submitted major subdivision. Neal Zinser of Hamilton Creek Companies has entered into a purchase agreement for the land and now will be handling the request. The properties are currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, although the City Council on July 9 approved the first reading of Ordinance 683, an ordinance which would rezone two of the proposed five lots of the yet-to-be-submitted major subdivision from R-1 to R-2, Single and Two Family Residential. - Discussion: The Planning Commission discussed this request at the August 1, 2001 meeting. One of the main concems articulated at the meeting was ihe lack of a clear understanding of what the applicani was proposing. A good site plan was not provided, thus making it difficult to determine a hardship and grant the requested variance., The Planning Commission directed Staff to work with the applicant to either better define the request or fmd an alternative to the requested variance. The City Code requires that corner lots have a minimum width of l OQ feet. As shown on the site plan, proposed lot #3 wauld have 95 feet of frontage along County Road I, five (5) feet less than the minimum required. The reason for the variance request is due to the location of the existing house on the property. If the proper lot width were maintained for the proposed lot #3, the existing house would not comply with the required side yard setback. Mr. Zinser, however, has informed staff that a survey of the property shows that the existing house would still be located within the side yard setback even with the requested five {5} foot variance. Therefore, Mr: Zinser has modified the request from a five (5) foot variance to a six (6) foot variance, even though the site plan shows the original request. Although the request is the same, the applicant's approach to the proposed subdivision has changed slightly. The original reason for the variance was so lot #4 would meet the rr�imum lot width requirements for an R-2 zoning designation, thus creating more value for the land and greater profit for the applicant. This reason directly conflicted with the criteria for granting a variance, specifically that economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Now, the zoning of Iot#4 is not an issue. Since entering into a purchase agreement for the land, (minus ihe parcel for Mr. Gustafson) Mr. Zinser has indicated that the zorung for lot #4 would not affect this proposal. Instead, both Mr. Zinser