Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council December 10, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 16 <br />Mr. Harstad indicated that by using the 125 foot wide lot requirement he would be able to get a <br />minimum of 14 lots on the site but stated he did not think Council or the residents would like to <br />see that type of development in the area. He also stated he did not think it made good planning <br />sense to do it that way because the development as proposed matches up with the development <br />across the street. <br />Mr. Harstad indicated he had stated trees could not be saved on the site but had been corrected by <br />his engineers. He indicated that because of the ditch trees can be left in the buffer area as well as <br />whatever trees are in the wetland. He explained that the only areas they are proposing to go in <br />and grade is the mitigation sites shown on the map. He further explained that the storm water <br />would be treated in a pond prior to discharge into the wetland and that is not currently happening. <br />Council Member Marty commented that he felt approving this variance could set a precedent for <br />other wetland property owners to come in and ask for the same thing. <br />Council Member Quick asked City Attorney Riggs if the City needed to be concerned with <br />setting a precedent in this case. <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated that Council always has discretion and needs to apply the <br />standards of the City's Code to each unique situation. <br />Council Member Quick clarified that what happens here is unique and would not apply to other <br />properties. <br />City Attorney Riggs agreed with the comment of Council Member Quick. <br />Council Member Thomas indicated that Council has had to judge several situations in the last <br />year and Council would be in error to allow a precedent where it did not judge each case on its <br />individual merits. She commented that she did not feel this would set a precedent but stated she <br />has an issue with establishing the hardship. She then asked Community Development Director <br />Ericson to review for her why he feels the hardship requirement has been satisfied. <br />Director Ericson indicated that, per his Staff report, Staff is not so sure that it clearly meets the <br />hardship requirements but a case could be made that it does or could meet the requirements. <br />Director Ericson listed the seven criteria and gave Staff's interpretation of each as follows: <br />1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply <br />generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, <br />topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective <br />date hereof have had no control. <br />The property proposed for residential replatting was originally platted in 1963 as part of the <br />Mueller Addition. Sanitary and water utility stubs were installed during the road's <br />