10-11-2018 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

C. Conditions Governing Consideration of Variance Requests: 1. In considering all requests for a variance and in taking subsequent action, the City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council serving as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall make a finding of fact that the proposed action will not: a. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. b. Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. c. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. d. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any way be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance. e. Violate the intent and purpose of the City Comprehensive Plan. 2. A variance from the terms of this Ordinance shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that: a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved. (1) Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water conditions or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness, shallowness, insufficient area or shape of the property. (2) Special conditions and circumstances may not be primarily economic in nature. b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. c. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. e. Practical difficulties exist in complying with the literal terms of this Ordinance. The applicant has provided narrative that illustrates the design process and a number of factors that inhibited the potential for a building expansion in any other direction. The north elevation has grade variations between the property line that prohibit expansion. On the east elevation there is the stormwater pond and loading docks. The irregularity of the lot also became a challenge for expansion especially when reviewing the east elevation. It may appear that the south elevation could be an option for the building expansion. However, the applicant has provided factors to support otherwise. A building expansion to the south would trigger a reduction in the number of parking spaces. Staff has calculated the required parking with the building expansion would equate to 90 parking spaces. Without those spaces abutting the building, the property would not meet the minimum requirement with only the main parking lot (to the south). The most significant factor which prohibits an expansion to the south is the impact to the existing north access drive from Rice Street. This is a shared drive aisle with the Tri-State property at 71 Minnesota Avenue. The Aldi’s parcel, Arby’s, and Tri-State (formerly Bally’s) properties were all under one ownership when they were originally platted. The Aldi’s parcel was the last to be developed in 2003. These sites were established with shared access drives between all three properties. Modifications to that drive aisle would impact traffic circulation on this property and the two adjacent parcels. Planning