Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCRes_05-09• Resolution 2005-09 CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA July 13, 2005 VARIANCES 1. PERMIT. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of • Falcon Hei hts hereb ants the followin variances: g Y ~' g • lot width variance to allow a 56.97 foot wide lot • side yard setback to allow a five foot side yard setback on the east side of the property • side yard setback to allow a zero foot setback on the west side of the property • parking space requirement to allow eighteen parking spaces • parking space size to allow 8.6' x 18' parking space • landscaping/lot coverage to allow 758 square feet of landscaping • rear yard setback (to parking lot) to allow an eight foot setback • 119623v01 1 2. PROPERTY. The variance is for the following described property in the • City of Falcon Heights, Ramsey County, Minnesota: The South 215.125 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Lindig Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota 3. CONDITIONS. The variance is issued subject to the following conditions: • The subject property shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the site plan on file with the City Clerk dated July 13, 2005 prepared by Michael Medina, AIA. • The business on the subject property may not be open to customers between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. • The owner of the subject property must maintain for customer and employee use at least six off-site and off-street parking spaces within one- half mile of the subject property. Proof of parking must be kept on file • with the City Clerk. 4. LAPSE. If within one year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: July 13, 2005. CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS BY: Susan L. Gehrz, Mayor ~ ` AND ,c~'~ , ~~~~~ /~~i~~~~~~~ Heather M. Worthington, City Administrator/Clerk • 119623v01 2 • • • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 18th day of October, 2005, by Susan L. Gehrz and by Heather M. Worthington, respectively the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk of the City of Falcon Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. STACEY TERESE KREUSER NOTAR PUBLIC NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA W Commh~ion 6~int J~a. a~, t0~o ^ DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 13 80 Corporate Center Curve 317 Eagandale Office Center Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 RNK 119623v01 3 ~,~ • CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS NO. 2005-09 COUNCIL RESOLUTION Date: July 13, 2005 RESOLUTION REGARDING VARIANCES FOR 1871 LARPENTEUR AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Falcon Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on the attached variances at their regularly scheduled June 28, 2005 meeting; WHEREAS, the City Council adopts the following findings of fact related to these variances: a. That the granting of the variance(s) will not be detrimental to the public welfare. 1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds that these variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare as they recognize existing conditions on the property and no prior detriment • has been shown to exist. 2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping: Staff finds that these variances will minimize any future detriment to the public welfare. The proposed plan seeks to establish an optimum balance between the community's interest in keeping as much parking on site as possible and the need to maintain appropriate greenspace. Additional landscaping provided in the public right of way will provide additional buffers around the business on the west and south. b. That the granting of the variance(s) will not substantially diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area. 1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds that these variances will not substantially diminish or impair property values as they recognize existing conditions on the property and no prior impact on values has been shown to exist 2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping: Staff cannot predict whether these variances will substantially diminish or impair property values. It is a fact that allowing the site to deteriorate would have a negative effect on property values. Placing a different business in the existing structure would not necessarily have a better impact; the last few such businesses have failed. Any owner proposing to establish a vital, successful business on this site would need to make significant investments in upgrading the property and would need variances to do so. c. That the granting of the variance(s) is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Staff finds that the granting of these variances is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. In fact, under its present zoning, any use of this property at all 119623v03 1 RNK:r07/14/2005 would require some combination of variances. • d. That the variances(s) will not impair an adequate supply of fight and air to adjacent property. 1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds that these variances will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent properties, as these conditions already exist and have not been shown to impair the supply of light and air to adjacent properties. 2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping: Staff finds that the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent properties. e. That the variance(s) will not impair the orderly use of the public streets; 1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds that these variances will not impair the orderly use of the public streets, as these conditions already exist and have not been shown to cause such impairment. 2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping: Staff finds that the variances will not impair the orderly use of the public streets. The prospective owners have made a good faith effort to keep as much parking as possible on the site and to confine the traffic impact to the part of Lindig that is immediately adjacent to the restaurant. f. That the variance(s) will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety; 1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds that these variances will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety, as these conditions already exist and have not been shown to endanger public safety. • 2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping: Staff finds that the variances will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. g. Whether the shape, topographical condition or other similar characteristic of the tract is such as to distinguish it substantially from all of the other properties in the zoning district of which it is a part, or whether a particular hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience to the owner, would result if the strict letter of the Chapter were carried out. This property, a legal lot of record, is distinguished from other B-1 properties in that the sum of the required side setbacks is greater than the total width of the property. This creates a particular 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 119623v03 2 RNK:r07! 14/2005 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA: The City of Falcon Heights City Council approves the attached variances for 1871 Larpenteur Avenue, and adopts the above findings of fact related to the application. • ADOPTED by the Falcon Heights City Council on July 13, 2005. Susan L. Gehrz, Mayor ATTEST: H ather M. Worthington, City Ad mistrator/Clerk • 119623v03 3 RNK:r07/ 14/2005