Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 <br />Regular Meeting Page 20 <br />• redevelopment opportunity. He advised that at some level, the City should probably view this as <br />an opportunity to seize the moment and do something positive with Highway 10, not only in <br />terms of safety, but also for further development. <br />Community Development Director Jopke stated he has discussed the matter with the Design <br />Center, and they have expressed excitement at the opportunity to assist the City in this regard. <br />He indicated they have requested the City consider helping to fund a graduate student, to assist <br />them in this effort. <br />Mayor Coughlin stated he concurred with Council Member Marty, in that the sooner they can <br />proceed, the better. He inquired if staff was requesting Council action at this time. <br />Community Development Director Jopke stated staff was attempting to determine if the Council <br />was in agreement, and if there was a general consensus regarding the new process that has been <br />outlined. <br />Mayor Coughlin stated it was the consensus of the Council to proceed in this direction. <br />D. Taking Action on the Request of 8438 Groveland Road, Appealing Denial of <br />a Variance Request by Mounds View Planning Commission. <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated at the Council Work Session on May 1, 2000, the property <br />• owner of 8438 Groveland Road was before the Council to express her desire to have the Planning <br />Commission's denial of her variance requested overturned by the Council. He indicated some <br />discussion was held regarding her significant hardship, and there was much discussion regarding <br />the possible means that could be utilized to address her situation. He explained that one of the <br />options proposed was to draft an emergency ordinance to allow her request for an 8-foot fence to <br />be erected, and this was pulled off of the agenda for further discussion with the City's legal staff, <br />in order to put this matter in proper legal form. <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated the item before the Council at this time is the initial request of <br />the property owner to have the Council act upon her appeal. He stated the issue, in terms of what <br />the property owner is presenting to the City Council, is that she is of the opinion that she is <br />experiencing a significant hardship that would warrant the overturning of the Planning <br />Commission denial of her request. He explained that the Planning Commission, acting as the <br />Board of Adjustment and Appeals, was required to take a very narrow focus, in terms of <br />interpreting the definition of a hardship. He advised that they examined the Code, and addressed <br />the issue in terms of how the property impacts the property owner, and in what respect the <br />topography and configuration of the lot limits her ability to utilize her property in the same <br />manner as any other property owner. He explained that in this regard, the Planning Commission <br />chose to deny the variance request, however, the City Council has the opportunity and the <br />discretion to determine a different interpretation of a hardship. <br />. Planning Associate Ericson advised that in order to overturn the Planning Commission's denial <br />of the variance request, a hardship would still be required, and the property owner is requesting <br />that the Council consider her situation, and act in her favor to overturn that denial. He stated the <br />