08-01-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission August 1, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no resident comments on items not on the agenda. ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Planning Case No. VR01-009 Planning Associate Atkinson explained that Ernie Gustafson, owner of the land located at the northeast corner of Long lake Road and County Road I, is requesting approval of a variance to allow for a reduced minimum lot width for a proposed lot within a yet-to-be-submitted major subdivision. The properties Mr. Gustafson owns 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. Planning Associate Atkinson noted the width of the lot fronting County Road I is 296.74 feet. The lot could be subdivided into three parcels as Mr. Gustafson would like without the need for a variance were it not for the fact that Mr. Gustafson would like two of the three lots 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, is an impediment to a three-lot subdivision To allow for the necessary ten-foot setback from the existing home, the proposed lot at the corner would have to be reduced to a 95-foot width rather than the required 100-foot width. The variance request is for the reduced, 95-foot width. Planning Associate Atkinson presented Staff's suggested alternative variance possibility. Rather than approving a variance to allow a non-conforming lot to be created, Staff believed it would be more appropriate to consider a variance for a reduced side yard setback for Mr. Gustafson’s home. Mr. Gustafson responded to this by pointing out that his water and sanitary lines exit his house on the west side, the side where the Staff suggested five-foot setback would be. The other problem with maintaining the required minimum 100-foot lot width at the corner is that the lot in the middle would only be 96.74 feet wide, 3.26 feet less than the 100 feet required for an R-2 zoned lot. So while Staff would rather not see the creation of a non-conforming lot, Mr. Gustafson’s proposal would be the most straightforward unless Mr. Gustafson would agree to have only one of the lots rezoned R-2. Planning Associate Atkinson indicated that for this variance to be approved, there needs to be demonstrated substantial hardship 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. Planning Associate Atkinson stated that based on Staff’s review of the request and the Code requirements, it does not appear that there is sufficient hardship and practical difficulty