Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 18 <br /> <br />alteration plans, and because the lots all exceed 20,000 square feet with significant dedication <br />of easements, staff believes the variance for the reduced lot widths would not be materially <br />detrimental to the purpose of the Wetlands Zoning Regulations. <br /> <br />7. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent <br />property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger <br />of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values <br />within the neighborhood. <br /> <br />It is not expected that the proposed variance for reduced lot widths would not result in any <br />of the above-cited adverse effects. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that Staff had stopped short of saying they are wholeheartedly in <br />support of the variance because there are wetlands and the wetlands provide an important <br />function to the City’s ecosystem. He then indicated that Staff had drafted the two resolutions <br />because Staff feels that a case could be made in support of the variance but it is a very subjective <br />review and the Planning Commission felt that the hardship simply was not there. <br /> <br />Council Member Thomas indicated she did not see where the hardship requirement had been met <br />and noted the City is not denying Mr. Harstad the right to develop his property in accordance <br />with City Code. <br /> <br />Acting Mayor Stigney asked how many sanitary sewer lines were put in. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that the sewer was in for 10 lots. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney questioned whether the sewer lines would line up properly if the <br />development were reduced to eight lots. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that four or five lines may be lined up properly if the development was <br />reduced to eight lots. <br /> <br />Council Member Thomas indicated that the utilities were installed in 1963 but noted that the <br />number was not based on an actual approval it was based on a proposed plat. Based on that, she <br />noted that she does not feel that using the utilities already being installed at the property as a <br />basis for hardship is appropriate. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomas. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5659, a <br />Resolution Upholding the Planning Commission’s Denial of a Variance for Reduced Lot Widths <br />for the Proposed Longview Estates Major Subdivision. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 2 (Marty/Thomas) Nays – 2 (Stigney/Quick) Motion failed. <br /> <br />Director Ericson suggested tabling the mater until the next City Council meeting for <br />consideration before a full Council.