Agenda Packets - 2000/05/22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 20 Mayor Coughlin stated it was the consensus of the Council to proceed in this direction. D. Taking Action on the Request of 8438 Groveland Road, Appealing Denial of a Variance Request by Mounds View Planning Commission. Planning Associate Ericson stated at the Council Work Session on May 1, 2000, the property owner of 8438 Groveland Road was before the Council to express her desire to have the Planning Commission’s denial of her variance requested overturned by the Council. He indicated some discussion was held regarding her significant hardship, and there was much discussion regarding the possible means that could be utilized to address her situation. He explained that one of the options proposed was to draft an emergency ordinance to allow her request for an 8-foot fence to be erected, and this was pulled off of the agenda for further discussion with the City’s legal staff, in order to put this matter in proper legal form. Planning Associate Ericson stated the item before the Council at this time is the initial request of the property owner to have the Council act upon her appeal. He stated the issue, in terms of what the property owner is presenting to the City Council, is that she is of the opinion that she is experiencing a significant hardship that would warrant the overturning of the Planning Commission denial of her request. He explained that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, was required to take a very narrow focus, in terms of interpreting the definition of a hardship. He advised that they examined the Code, and addressed the issue in terms of how the property impacts the property owner, and in what respect the topography and configuration of the lot limits her ability to utilize her property in the same manner as any other property owner. He explained that in this regard, the Planning Commission chose to deny the variance request, however, the City Council has the opportunity and the discretion to determine a different interpretation of a hardship. Planning Associate Ericson advised that in order to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of the variance request, a hardship would still be required, and the property owner is requesting that the Council consider her situation, and act in her favor to overturn that denial. He stated the City Attorney has discussed this matter with staff, and may have some information to offer in terms of whether or not this should be done, and if so, how the Council should proceed. City Attorney Long advised that when the Council is sitting as a body in consideration of an appeal, the question of what constitutes a hardship is somewhat of a matter of interpretation for the Council to determine at its discretion. He indicated that if they find that the particular facts before them constitute a hardship to the property if a variance is not granted, it is within the Council’s authority to make a different interpretation than that of the Planning Commission, and this would not be extremely uncommon. He explained that the Planning Commission must make a very strict interpretation from a land use standpoint, however, the Council has greater policy latitude, and they have the opportunity to examine the matter on a case-by-case basis. City Attorney Long advised that under the City Code for granting a variance, the Council is charged with making several findings. He explained that one of the criteria for these findings is whether or not there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that apply to this particular property that do not generally apply to other properties. He indicated other criteria relate to the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Title, in terms of whether this would deprive the