Minutes - 2000/05/08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 21 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 property owner of the rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners in the area. He explained that the need for the variance must not result from the actions of the property owner, and that granting the variance would not bestow upon the property owner special privileges. He advised that the variance request must be the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship, it must not be due to economic conditions alone, and that it shall not impair the adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property. Furthermore, the variance must not be materially detrimental to the Chapter of the Title. City Attorney Long advised that if the Council makes all of these findings, they could grant the variance to the applicant, and if they chose to proceed in this manner, he would recommend that the Council make those findings, which would become part of the record, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for formal action at the next meeting, and also move to approve the issuance of permits based upon the findings in the motion to approve the variance. He explained that through this process, the Council would be granting the appeal, as well as the variance request. Mayor Coughlin inquired if it was within the purview of the Council to define the hardship. City Attorney Long stated this was correct. He pointed out that occasionally situations will come forward wherein one property owner requests a higher level of screening or buffering on their property to provide a greater screening from a visual perspective or otherwise, from. a neighboring property. He explained that this sometimes occurs when there is a change in use or activity on a neighboring property that requires one property owner to seek a variance for a higher level of screening, in closer proximity to the property line. He pointed out that in this situation, there may be some change in the use or activity on the neighboring property that has resulted in this property owner's request for a taller fence. • Mayor Coughlin stated he would offer as a motion that the Council finds that the situations testified to at the Council Work Session, in conjunction with the staff reports and the Police reports that were involved in this matter, this situation rises to the level required for a variance,