CC PACKET 11122002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 9 October 22, 2002 Page 9 1 Councilmember Horst stated it is not unprecedented that the Planning Commission may 2 be reversed and he thinks in this case it is warranted. He stated it is more beneficial to the 3 City to have this project than it is to stick with the letter of the law, which is what the 4 Planning Commission is required to do. Councilmember Horst commended the Planning 5 Commission for their work and stated he thinks the Council needs to look beyond that 6 and at what is good for business. 7 8 City Attorney Gilligan explained that undue hardship is required by the Code and that is a 9 difficult standard to apply in some cases. He stated that in what he saw from the 10 testimony, the NSP utility easement pushes back the building, required parking, and truck 11 movement, and the diagonal railroad easement also pushes the building towards 12 Macalaster Drive. He stated those are circumstances that can be cited for an undue 13 hardship. 14 15 Councilmember Faust stated that he also served on the Planning Commission and realizes 16 that is a difficult position to be in. He stated the Planning Commission did the right thing 17 to make a recommendation so it can be considered by the Council. He stated that when 18 he looks at the application conditions he thinks the uniqueness of the property and 19 surrounding areas makes it unique in that only certain uses can be made of this property. 20 He stated he thinks this project will make the neighborhood better and is the compelling 21 reason for him to consider granting the variance. He stated he appreciates that they are 22 good neighbors, but that is not a consideration under this application. 23 24 Councilmember Faust stated that he does not want the Planning Commission to take that 25 as a vote of no confidence, should the variances be approved. He stated he would vote in 26 favor of the variance. 27 28 Councilmember Horst stated Berger Transfer made compelling arguments to satisfy some 29 of the criteria and should that have been done before the Planning Commission it may 30 have been easier for them during their deliberations. 31 32 Councilmember Sparks indicated she has nothing to add to what has already been stated. 33 34 Mayor Hodson explained that for the last three years St. Anthony has been involved with 35 being a smart growth livable community and the City is rethinking all development in St. 36 Anthony in the spirit of smart growth and livable community standards. Mayor Hodson 37 stated that considering the circumstances with the lot size and density request, he would 38 support this application. He noted that to do otherwise may be questioned by the 39 Metropolitan Council. 40 41 Mayor Hodson reviewed language that would approve the two variance requests. 42 43 City Attorney Gilligan stated the draft resolution can be amended to include those criteria. 44