BY COUNCILOR GILBERT:
The City Council finds as follows:
(a) The planning commission, on March 14, 2006, by a vote of 11 members, granted the variance from strict application of Ordinance 51-29(e)(1) to the premises at 3802 Trinity Road, which variance was requested by Scott and Susan Hansen (applicants);
(b) The council has heard the appeal of the decision of the planning commission and bases its decision upon the entire file of the city and the planning commission and the testimony and materials presented to it;
(c) The standards for granting this variance are found in state law and in City Code, sections 51-30, 51-2;
(d) The requested variance ________________ (does/does not) compromise the general purposes or intent of Article III of Chapter 51 and of Chapter 51 because ______________________________________________;
(e) The grant of a variance must be based upon a showing of the existence of a hardship.
The claimed hardship is:
(1) That the following circumstances are unique to the property in question: The project cannot go forward without a variance due to the unique circumstances of the property in question;
(2) The strict application of Section 51-29 (e)(1) would not allow the property to be used for the reasonable use of operating a service station, because an impervious surface is a major land use of operating a service station.;
(3) The plight of the applicant is caused by ______________________ and is not created by the landowner;
(4) The claimed hardship is not made up of only economic considerations;
(f) The following propositions set out above have been shown:
_____________________________________________________________________ (insert above only ones from this list that have been shown or proven: paragraphs (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4));
(g) In order to qualify to receive a variance, all propositions from the list in paragraph (f) above must have been proven and shown. Because all ____________ (were/were not) proven or shown, the applicants ______________ (are/are not) qualified to receive the requested variance;
(h) Any additional important, relevant consideration that have been shown are ________________________.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the decision of the planning commission to grant the requested variance from impervious surface limits for construction of an allowed use located at 3802 Trinity Road (Scott and Susan Hansen, F.N. 06019) is reversed and the variance is not granted.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: Scott and Susan Hansen applied to the planning commission for a variance to increase the impervious surface coverage for their proposed service station at 3802 Trinity Road. Thirty percent impervious surface coverage is permitted without a variance. They have requested 71 percent coverage. The site is located at the northeast corner of Trinity Road and Anderson Road.
The property was previously occupied by three homes and a service station. These properties were purchased by the Minnesota department of transportation (Mn/DOT)to accommodate improvements to Trinity Road (Highway 53). This action by Mn/DOT forced the Hansen’s to purchase a portion of their original parcel from Mn/DOT and they sought assistance from DEDA in the acquisition of additional land to allow for the development of a service station. To assist the Hansen’s DEDA approved, with conditions, the transfer of Mn/DOT land to the Hansen’s on March 6, 2006.
In addition to the variance for impervious surface coverage the Hansen’s have applied for a special use permit for grading and filling and a zoning reclassification from R-1-b, One Family Residential, to C-2, Highway Commercial. Both of this actions have been recommended for approval by the planning commission as well.
The planning commission approved the variance request as it was determined the project cannot be developed without a variance. Methods to reduce the impervious surface coverage are not practical for service stations. Pervious pavers would allow gas, oil and other products a direct route to ground water, with a subsequent impact on Miller Creek which is located directly across from the proposed service station. Applicant will be installing stormceptors that will separate petroleum products from stormwater runoff thus reducing environmental impacts. In addition the pervious surfaces areas will channel potential spills away from public roadways into the on-site drainage system that directs spills and fluids to the stormceptors.
This resolution reverses the decision of the planning commission to approve a request to increase the impervious surface coverage from 30 percent to 71 percent for the construction of a service station on property located at 3802 Trinity Road.
If the city council approves this resolution it is required to state the factual basis for its finding in the blank spaces provided in the body of the resolution. Such factual findings are required by the district court in order to avoid a determination that the decision was arbitrary and capricious.
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 15.99, the city council must act no later than June 16, 2006, which is 120 days from the date of application.
APPLICATION DATE: February 21, 2006
FINAL ACTION DATE: June 16, 2006