Agenda Packets - 2010/08/09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Longview Estates Variance Appeal Report August 9, 2010 Page 2 This seven-acre parcel is large enough to be subdivided into more than the requested 10 lots if there were lots fronting on both Longview Drive and Silver Lake Road. The City approved the applicant’s last request for a 15-lot subdivision in 2003, but the approval expired since the applicant did not record the plat with Ramsey County. It should be noted that with the 15-lot subdivision, neither the City nor Ramsey County liked the plan as it would have added seven driveways onto Silver Lake Road. The Harstads request that the City approve a 10-lot subdivision for the site. The propsed plan has the lots running east to west, but with street access only onto Longview Drive. In a wetland district, the minimum lot size is 125 feet wide (as measured at the building setback line) and 20,000 square feet of lot area. While the proposed lots satisfy the expanded lot area requirement, they do not all meet the expanded 125 foot wide requirement. Based on the 125 foot minimum width requirement, only eight lots would be allowed. The Harstads are requesting a variance to have reduced lot widths in order to subdivide the property into 10 lots. All of the proposed lots meet the 20,000 square foot requirement, and two of the lots meet the 125 foot width requirement. The proposed lots range from 90 feet wide to 152.42 feet wide. The Harstads are requesting City approval to have 10 lots because when the City constructed Longview Drive in 1966, 10 water and sewer service stubs were installed for this parcel in anticipation of a subdivision. The Harstad family has owned this property since the early 1970’s. The cost for installing the 10 utility services had been assessed to the property taxes to be paid back over many years. The Harstads received approval from Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) in 2004 for the 15-lot subdivision. The RCWD Board met on June 9, 2010 and determined that the 10-lot subdivision was a better plan for the site with less negative impacts, and as such, approved the proposed 10-lot plan. The builder or contractor also would need to apply to the City for wetland alteration permits for each of the future homes since each of them would be set back less than 100 feet from the wetland. Variance Considerations: For the Council to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial, it must find that, in its opinion, there is a demonstrated, substantial hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to the property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. The City has set these criteria in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria are as follows: