Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2007

Home

of information on the IOO-year flood elevation (the applicant has since revised the sketch plan to include this information). The Board of Adjustment ultimately denied the variance because City Code is clear on the need for City sewer and water before creating any new buildable lots in the MUSA. Since the Board of Adjustment meeting, staff has received comments from the DNR on the proposal. Because the proposed 101 would not be connected to City sewer and water, DNR staff does not recommend that the City approve the proposed subdivision. Community Development Director Trudgeon advised tonight they are specifically dealing with whether or not the Council would consider overturning the decision of the Board of Adjustment to deny the variance request. If the Council decides to sustain the Board's decision, the issue as far as development of the property is dead. If Council decides to overturn the Board's decision, the specific subdivision would be reviewed at a future meeting. Just because a variance was to be granted does not necessarily mean the outlot can be developed. Included in the Council's packet are the Findings of Fact drafted by the Board of Adjustment. There are also neutral Findings of Fact that Council could consider, as well as a resolution approving the issuance of the variance. City Attorney Goodrich has a resolution prepared for confinnation of the Board of Adjustment's decision. Mayor Gamec stated for the record, the City received a letter,from :Mr. and :Mrs. Robert Brant and a copy of the petition that the request be denied. He stated when this property was developed everything was at 2.5 acres and they could not work out the 2.5 acre development for this outlot so it was left as vacant. It was mentioned at the meeting that it could be used by people, but it was never recorded that way. :Mr. Garniss at the time said he would wait until there is sewer and water and the adjacent properties were developed to develop that lot. His opinion is that he would look at taking the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the request for the variance. A variance would need to show a hardship, and in this case he does not think they can show a hardship. Councilmember Strommen pointed out the variance decision was made by the Board of Adjustment rather than the Planning Commission. This is an appeal and it would be overturning a decision made by a body that has the authority to make a decision, rather than an advisory board. That is an important clarification. Councilmember Jeffrey stated he spoke to a lot of the residents, and also talked to folks from the Board of Adjustment. "What tipped it for him to uphold the Board of Adjustment's decision is the letter that came from the DNR where it states that this current proposal for development of Outlot A does not include City service and based on this they cannot recommend approval of this subdivision. For him that is telling. The Board of Adjustment decision and the DNR letter were the two things that tipped it for him; he is not 'willing to overturn the Board of Adjustment's decision. Councilmember Dehen requested clarification from the City Attorney regarding the standard of review with these types of appeals that come before the Council. City Attorney Goodrich replied he is not aware of having done this in the recent past. The ordinance requires adopting a Findings of Fact. He does not think appeal boards typically adopt City Council / August 28, 2007 Page 15 of 33 P63