08-01-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission August 1, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ associated with this property to warrant approval of the variance requested. The Planning Commission, however, should discuss these criteria and open the floor to public comment before coming to any conclusions. Planning Associate Atkinson agreed that the five-foot variance requested is minimal (representing a five-percent reduction in the width of the lot), which is comparable to reducing a 10-foot side yard setback to 9.5 feet. Where Staff has the most concern, however, is that once the variance request becomes a function of the proposed rezoning and not the location of the house, the element of hardship is no longer apparent. Staff does believe that there would be just cause and reasonable hardship to reduce the side yard setback of the proposed middle lot because it would be based upon the location of the house and not solely on economic factors. This would result in only one of the lots (Lot 5) being able to be zoned R-2, however. Planning Associate Atkinson advised that, based upon the findings as presented and the lack of demonstrated hardship, Staff recommends denial of the proposed variance and has drafted Resolution 668 for the Commission’s action. If the applicant would consider scaling back his rezoning request to only proposed Lot 5, Staff would be willing to recommend approval of a reduced-side yard setback variance, associated with the proposed middle lot. Chairperson Stevenson suggested that if Mr. Gustafson’s lot were reduced as suggested, an easement be provided on the west side of the lot for his utilities. He also suggested that if there was not sufficient space on the west side of Mr. Gustafson’s property, the easement should extend into the adjacent lot through a lease agreement. He stated that he would prefer that Lot 3 maintain a minimum width of 100 feet and he agreed that there is not sufficient hardship associated with this property to warrant approval of the variance request for Lot 3. Planning Associate Atkinson stated that an easement along the property line may be possible. Commissioner Miller stated that she read the criteria listed in the staff report that must be met in order for the variance request to be approved. She stated that she did not feel any of the criteria were met in this case and she too would prefer a minimum lot width of 100 feet for Lot 3. Chairperson Stevenson invited the applicant and the public in attendance to address the Planning Commission. Ernie Gustafson, 2525 County Road I, stated that he was shocked by Staff’s recommendation for denial of his variance request since he could see no reason to not be granted a small five-foot variance on a 95-foot wide lot. He noted in June the City Council had approved the rezoning of the lots, providing the Planning Commission approved of the five-foot setback variance. Mr. Gustafson stated earlier this summer he had begun advertising the sale of his property and indicated that one interested party had wanted to construct townhouses, however, he was not willing to agree to this type of development. He stated a young couple from Afton, Minnesota had been interested in constructing a single-family home on Lot 3, however, because this process