Agenda Packets - 2002/01/07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 11 ______________________________________________________________________________ On November 7, 2001, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to deny the variance for reduced lot widths within the proposed Longview Estates Major Subdivision. The Commission did not find sufficient hardship to warrant granting the variance and as such approved Resolution 678-01 denying the variance request. Mr. Harstad has appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council. Discussion: 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. These criteria are set forth 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 following criteria and analysis was presented to the Planning Commission for their review at the November 7, 2001 meeting: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The property proposed for residential replatting was originally platted in 1963 as part of the Mueller Addition. Considered marginal property because of the wetlands, it was never developed. The vast acreages of available land made its development cost prohibitive. Even so, sanitary and water utility stubs were installed during the road’s constructions in anticipation of eventual development on the west side of the road. To not use the preinstalled utilities would cause a hardship upon the applicant and would take away to some extent a preexisting development expectation. The plat was approved and the utilities installed prior to the City’s adoption of the more restrictive wetland zoning regulations in 1992. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties under the terms of this Title. If the code requirements in Section 1010 are taken literally, the applicant would lose the potential to develop three lots. Other property owners within this wetland zoning district would face similar requirements. However few if any other property owners would have a preexisting vested interest in their undeveloped property as in this case. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The land was originally platted in 1963 and the utilities were installed not too long thereafter. The utilities were installed with the expectations of future development.