PCAgenda_05Jun28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

hardship for any owner if the strict letter of the Chapter is carried out because it renders the • property literally unusable for any permitted or conditional use defined for a B-1 parcel. h. Whether the variance is sought principally to increase financial gain to the owner of the property, and to determine whether a substantial hardship to the owner would result from a denial of the variance. Staff finds these variances are not sought principally to increase financial gain to the owner of the property other than the ordinary gain from the running of a viable legal business. Staff finds that substantial hardship would be imposed by denial of the variances on lot coverage and parking. If the lot coverage requirement were enforced, a much greater variance on parking would be needed and the overflow parking and traffic would spill into the neighborhood. The lot is too small to accommodate all the required parking for this use, even if all landscaping were to be eliminated. Either alternative would impose substantial hardship on the owner. Substantial hardship would also be imposed by requiring an owner to set up business in the existing building as this building is too small to accommodate this legal use, and parts of it do not meet the requirements of the State building code. i. Whether the conditions which give rise to the application for the variance arose after the adoption of this Chapter of the Code of the City of Falcon Heights or any amendment thereto which placed the tract in a zoning district different from what it was under the Chapter. In the consideration of this item, the City shall make diligent inquiry as to all changes in the property and shall refuse to grant the variance if the problem is one that can • be solved through a proper application of a conditional use permit or an amendment of the Zoning code. Financial hardship shall not be a basis for the granting of a variance when the owner purchased the property in reliance on a promise that a variance would be granted, and the City shall dismiss the appeal if it shall appear that the property was purchased on such reliance. Not applicable. Comments from Residents: A public meeting was held on June 23 to give information about the proposed new business at 1871 Larpenteur. Notes from that meeting are attached to this report. The resident of 1708 Lindig, the adjacent property on the north, submitted a written statement, which is also attached. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the first three variances for the following reasons: • They formalize existing conditions on the site. Staff recommends approval of the remaining four variances for the following reasons: • Staff Report: 1871 Larpenteur Variances June 28, 2005 Page 4 of 5