Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission November 7, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 2 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> <br />3. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda <br /> <br />There were no resident comments on items not on the agenda. <br />_______________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />4. Approval of Minutes: <br /> <br />a. October 3, 2001 <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Johnson. To Approve the Minutes for October 3, 2001 as <br />presented. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />5. Planning Case No. VR01-010 <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson explained that this case is a request for a variance to <br />allow for reduced lot widths. He then indicated that Mr. Harstad had applied for the subdivision <br />in June and Staff had discovered that Section 1010 of the City Code requires a minimum lot <br />width of 125 feet and a minimum square footage of 20,000. He further indicated that Mr. <br />Harstad had redrawn the lots to increase the square footage and all of the lots meet the minimum <br />20,000 square feet. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that the discussion at the last meeting, during the public hearing, <br />focused on the potential impact to the wetland. He then noted that Rice Creek Watershed <br />District has tabled approval of the development pending receipt of a couple of documents with <br />authorization for administrative approval when those documents are received. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that the applicant must meet the hardship requirements to be granted a <br />variance. He then commented that Staff did not feel the applicant caused the conditions, the <br />utility stubs are in place, and the comprehensive plan calls for residential zoning. He further <br />indicated that Staff had said at the last meeting that its interpretation was that hardship was <br />satisfied but said this is a subjective type of interpretation and the Planning Commission needs to <br />discuss the matter. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that due to the split opinions of the Commissioners at the last meeting <br />Staff had drafted a resolution to approve the variance and a resolution to deny the variance. He <br />then asked that the Commission discuss the matter and act on one of the two resolutions. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller indicated she had asked how many utility stubs were installed at the <br />property and Mr. Harstad had answered 10, yet he has proposed 11 lots. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that there were 10 utility stubs installed at the property.