2001 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

,.: � i .. ; :.:.': ;: _ Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Nof on the Agenda There were no resident comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Plaaning Case No. VRO1-009 Planning Associate Atkinson explained that Ernie Gustafson� owner;of the land located at the northeast corner of Long lalce Road and County Road I, is requeSting approval of a variance to allow far a reduced minimum lot width for a proposed lot ,�ithin�a,:yet �to�-b�;-submitted majox subdivision. The properties Mr. Gustafson owns are curreritly zonecl R-1, SYngle Family Residential, although the Ciry Council on July 9 approved the first reading of,Qrdinance 683, an ordinance which would rezone two of the proposedjfi�e lofis�of.;the yet-to-�ie-s,iibmitted majaz subdivision from R-1 to R-2, Single and Two F��i�l'y�Resid'enfial: ,� j;:_. ,:. � . Planning Associate Atldnson noted the widtli of the loi fronting �ounty Road I is 296.74 feet. The lot could be subdivided into three parcels as Mr: Gustafson. would like without the need for a var�ance were it not for the fact that Mr.,Gustafson would like,tvuo of the three Iots rezoned to R- 2. In addition, the location of Mr. .�Gustafson's,home, which was built closer to Long Lake Road than to the east property line, xs an,:impedimenf to: a three lot subdivision To allow for the necessary ten-foot setback from the existing.home, th.e proposed lot at the corner would have to be reduced to ;a 95-foat width rather than the required'1�0-foot width. The variance request is for the reduced;,95-foot w�d�fh Planning A.�socia�e,�itkinson presented StafPs suggested alternative variance possibility. Rather than approving a varianc.e to aIlow: a n��conforming lo# to be created, Staff believed it would be more appropriafe to consid�r a variance .for a reduced side yard setback for Mr. Gustafson's home Mr: `Gustafson ��sp��ided to this by pointing out that his water and sanitary lines exit his house"on�the west side, th�,�f�e �,�ere the Staff suggested five-foot setback would be. The other prQb�'em with maintaimng�tlie �required minimum 100-foot 1ot width at the comer is that the Iot in the'iniddle would only be`96:74 feet wide, 3.2b feet less than ttze 100 feet required far an R-2 . zoned lot. So while Staff would rather not see the creadon of a non-conforming lot, Mr. �'rustafson's proposal. would be the most straightforward unless Mr. Gustafson would agree to � hav� only one of tt�e=�ots rezoned R-2. ,En. . i'. Piaririing :Associate Atkinson indicated that for this variance to be approved, there needs to be demonstrated substantial haxdship or practical difficulties associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. He indicated that the City Code mentions seven specific criteria that must be met in order for a variance to meet the hardship requirement. August 1, 2001 Page 2 Platining Associate Atkinson stated that based on Staff's review of the request and tha Code requirements, it cioes not appear that there is sufficient hardship and practical difficulty l �