09-06-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 For the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a 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. Staff responded to the criteria as follows:  Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do apply to the property in that at only 13,000 square feet, the lot does not offer much area upon which to construct a viable commercial business. This situation is further complicated by the fact that the parcel is a corner lot that demands greater setbacks than would be otherwise required for an interior lot. Last, the development potential of the lot was further reduced when the County took ten feet of the property (1,320 square feet) for additional right of way.  The literal interpretation could deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district because of the County-acquired 1,320 square feet, the large setbacks and the size of the lot, the property owner has been unable to find a developer willing to consider this parcel.  The special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that this appears to be a very unique situation not applicable to many other properties within the City. The applicant contends that in fact the reverse may be true, in that there are many examples of reduced setbacks in the City, and that he should be afforded the same consideration.  While it would be possible to construct a smaller office building and the required parking on the site without the need for any variances, the resulting building would be too small, according to the applicant, to make a viable development project. From the applicant’s perspective, the variance requested is the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship.  In this situation, granting a variance for reduced building and parking lot setbacks would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code or to other property in the same zone.  The reduced setbacks would not impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. According to the City Code, all of the identified criteria shall be satisfied in order to justify the granting of a variance. While it appears to Staff that in this case all requirements could be met and that a hardship probably does exist, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, it must find that all the criteria are satisfied.