1986-02-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes February II, 1986 Schmidt asked, given the nature of the kinds of circumstances for which a developer or owner might apply for a variance on a hardship, if this was not a kind of circumstance that makes it possible and reasonable for the property owners to apply for a variance. LeFevere responded that, in general, standing water or wetlands can and often is found to be a justification for a variance, but the "reasonable use" is a judgement call. Williams asked how a request for a variance for the third floor within a shell of a building that is actually permitted without a variance would be characterized. LeFevere responded that in making variance decisions, council needs to consider the magni- tude of the hardship and the magnitude of the variance requested, because a small hardship does not justify a large variance. The variance application makes sense because the developer's argument would be that the hardship imposed by the wetlands makes less land available. In order to reach what otherwise might be the developer's potential on the site, he needs to comply with the additional parking spaces because of additional square footage on the third floor. The fact that the ordinance allows for three stories is not relevant. In response to Schmidt's question, Winkels responded there are approximately 1.9 acres on the property, or about 40%, is under- water. Schmidt asked for clarification that the total property is used to calculate floor-area-ratio, and that the variance is requested because of small amount of property that is actually developable; Winkels con- firmed. Brandt asked if any other Bl's are directly abutting Rl's; Winkels responded the Stony Lake Office Park abuts Rl zoning, but there is nothing in terms of a three-story building. Brandt asked what the reasonable or expected height of a two- story building would be; Winkels responded the Building Inspector indicated the average two-story building ranges from 28-34 feet in height. Kenneth Briggs, developer, stated he has received support from the Chamber of Commerce and believes Brad Martinson, the lawyer representing the neighbors, has been helpful. Briggs reviewed the outcome of the neighborhood meetings and believes the most important issue is the variance. Briggs stated the hardship is the wetland and noted he had talked to the Department of Natural Resources and the Rice Creek Watershed District regarding the drainage holding pond for the city. Page Six