Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 7/25/1988

Home Browse Search

1)1SCUSSION A. There are no Minnesota Cases Which Treat a Sewer Stub as a Basis for Lot Size Variance. We have canvassed Minnesota law and find no cases which assert that a sewer stub creates a basis in law compelling lot size variances. Mr. Henrich's counsel also told me today that he is aware of no such case. B. Granting Variances to Similarly Situated Lots Does Not Preclude Denial of Henrich's Application. Henrich's attorney has argued that Henrich is entitled to a variance because the City has never denied buildability to a lot on which a sewer connection was available and which has paid a full sewer assessment. The assumption that a sewer assessment has in the past been conclusive on a variance determination is unsupportable. In the past, a sewer assessment has never been the sole criteria for determining a variance request. Many other factors are considered in this determination. As noted in the "Synopsis of LR-18 Variance Requests," included in the materials presented to the Council for review of this mattes, these factors include: - The existence of other land to combine with the subject parcel - Possible adverse effects on light, air, noise and other conditions - Possible adverse effects of granting variances on spirit and intent of the zoning code and comprehensive plan of the City, including setting an adverse precedent - Status of lot for tax purposes - Whether or not the property in its current state presents an undue hardship to the applicant In addition, as is evident from studies by the city staff concerning previous variance determinations, a situation precisely similar to Henrich's has never been presented to the Council. The lot in question is unusually small, significantly smaller than any lot in the one acre district which has previously been granted a variance. Since 1980, the City has only approved two existing lots smaller than Henrich's for building sites, both occurring in the