Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grant City council denies variance for 1.1‑acre lot on 89th Street North after public hearing
Summary
After a public hearing in which neighbors objected and staff noted missing documentation, the council voted to deny a variance request for a 1.1‑acre lot on 89th Street North; the owner and applicant had argued the lot was grandfathered based on a 1966 deed.
The Grant City Council voted to deny a requested variance for a 1.1‑acre lot on 89th Street North after a public hearing in which nearby residents urged denial and planning staff reported gaps in the application record.
Planner Jennifer Swanson explained that the subject parcel is about 1.1 acres, guided rural residential‑agricultural and zoned A2, and that the applicant seeks relief from multiple dimensional standards including the 5‑acre minimum and the required one‑acre buildable area. Swanson noted the property’s estimated buildable area is about 39,000 square feet — short of the 43,560 square feet required — and that the staff packet did not contain county septic test results or clear documentary proof that the lot had been platted or deemed buildable before the adoption of the current ordinance. "We were not provided with any correspondence demonstrating that [Washington County] had approved this location or that the septic test complied," she told council.
Several neighbors who have lived in the area for decades spoke in opposition, saying a new house would sit unusually close to existing homes and would change the neighborhood’s rural character. "We are asking that you do not approve this variance," said resident Dave Hedin, who lives adjacent to the parcel and described concerns about density, proximity and property values.
Owner James Philippowski joined by Zoom and said the lot was platted prior to 1966 and recorded in August 1966; applicant Daniel Hill told the council he had septic design documents and that Washington County had reviewed them. Staff said those materials were not in the packet and offered to accept supplemental evidence if the council wished to table the application for further review.
Council members said the record lacked definitive proof that the lot qualified for an exemption from current minimum‑lot rules. A motion to deny the requested variances was moved, seconded and approved on a roll‑call vote; the council’s action denies the variance request and preserves the city’s existing dimensional standards.
