Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 2010 <br />Regular Meeting Page 2 <br />____________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />5. Planning Cases <br /> <br />A. VR2008-005; Re-Approval of Variances for the Select Senior Living <br /> Development Applicant: Joel Larson, Select Senior Living <br /> <br />Planning Associate Heller stated Select Senior Living received approval for variances for a 95- <br />unit senior housing project in 2008, just about the time the banking industry collapsed. The <br />developer has now secured financing for the project. The variance approvals have become void <br />due to non-use after one year. Select Senior Living has requested that the Planning Commission <br />reapprove the variances for their senior housing development. The resolution in front of the <br />Planning Commission is the same as the one approved in 2008. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Miller questioned the financing using housing revenue bonds and asked for <br />clarification. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Heller stated the City is not funding the project but has allowed the developer <br />to go through the state bond pool for financing. Also, by doing this, the City will receive a fee in <br />the process. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Smith. Resolution 934-10, Re- <br />Approving Variances to Allow for Increased Site Density, Reduced Unit Sizes, Reduced Number <br />of Parking Spaces and to Allow Roof Overhang and Building Setback Encroachments at the <br />Select Senior Living Development to be Located at 2865 County Highway 10 and 7980 & 8020 <br />Groveland Road. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. <br /> <br />______________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />6. Other Planning Activity <br /> <br /> A. Discussion about Variances <br /> <br />Community Development Director Roberts stated the Supreme Court case ruling of July 21, <br />2010 has changed the way cities can handle variances. He provided a brief history of the court <br />case and clarified the new ruling. He stated the state statute is very restrictive and unless there is <br />no other use for the property then you cannot grant the variance. He stated Mounds View could <br />have difficulty with this new hardship interpretation, but added that a City can set their own <br />individual criteria for determining variance requests and continue with the process. There is <br />hope that when the legislature meets next year they may change the state law to let cities have <br />more control over granting variances. He felt the Planning Commission should take a harder look <br />at approving variances in the future. <br /> <br />Commissioner Schiltgen questioned the ramifications of the City approving a questionable <br />variance.