11-19-2018 Planning Commission Packet

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

The Honorable Mayor Dennis Walsh and City Council Members • July 20, 2018 Page 2 developer's uniqueness argument where other properties were subject to the same zoning ordinances). See Also Mohler, 645 N.W.2d at 632 (holding variance was not justified where there was no "unique condition under the statute."); cf. Minn Stat. § 394.22, subd. 10 (requiring, in context of county variance, that there be "exceptional circumstances"for a variance to issue). In this case, the Dunkleys have made a number of decisions, including the positioning of the proposed lots,the combination of existing parcels, and construction of a massive addition to their home, all of which preclude the proposed subdivision and house pad. Consequently,they have failed to demonstrate unique circumstances which justify the grant of a variance. Conclusion In conclusion, the request by the Dunkleys cannot be supported by existing law or the required findings for a variance under the City Code. In 2017,the Dunkleys decided to withdraw their previous application because it was not supported by the Planning Commission or City Council. They used the lot combination process through Hennepin County to circumvent the subdivision requirements so that they could expedite the construction of a massive addition to their home. In doing so, the applicants made an election between expanding their home and creating a second lot with a conforming building pad. Once this election was made,they foreclosed the legal basis for obtaining variances for the proposed lot and building pad. The Dunkleys cannot meet the legal burden for obtaining variances for the proposed subdivision and should be advised accordingly. We appreciate your careful attention to this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, William C. Griffith, for Larkin Hoffman Direct Dial: 952-896-3290 Direct Fax: 952-842-1729 Email: wgriffith@larkinhoffman.com cc: Greg and Kelli Hueler Soren Mattick, City Attorney Melanie Curtis, City Planner