10-11-2018 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

staff has confirmed with Ramsey County that they would not permit a shift in this access drive location (south to accommodate building expansion) given the proximity to the south access drive. Both the loss of parking and access conditions demonstrate that the south elevation is also not feasible for expansion. It should be noted that the applicant has indicated in their narrative that the variance setback they are seeking is 20 feet. However, the site plans show the encroachment into the required front yard setback to actually be less than described. On the west building elevation, the north ½ shows a proposed four (4) foot encroachment and the south ½ shows a 13.7 foot encroachment. Planning staff has confirmed that the renderings submitted show a more accurate representation of the final encroachment. The Applicant is seeking a 20 foot variance to allow for some wiggle room in the design and construction process in case adjustments need to be made. However, they are flexible in the variance being sought if the Commission feels that this “cushion” should be reduced to more accurately reflect the site plans submitted. Staff’s recommendation is to approve the variance being sought based on the site plans submitted. Planning staff would like to incorporate into your consideration of an approval that this would also be subject to City Engineer review and comments. The City Engineer has completed a preliminary review of the site plans submitted. It is his recommendation that a grading plan be required to verify there is no directing of water offsite. As the Applicant has indicated that is quite a slope between this property and the school property to the north. This requirement will help ensure that no negative impacts are caused to the neighboring properties by the proposed expansion. Summary In considering a variance request, the Planning Commission is tasked with determining if the threshold for “practical difficulty” has been met by the applicant. Factors for this determination are: 1. the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance, 2. the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and 3. the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. City staff believes Aldi’s, Inc. has met that standard in our review of the materials submitted. Therefore, we are recommending approval of two motions -  Planning staff recommends approval of the Architectural Review as submitted by Aldi’s, Inc. and subject to review and comments by the City Engineer which includes submission of grading plan.  Planning staff recommends approval of a Variance from the 40 foot Front Yard Setback to 25 feet on the west elevation based on the following findings: o A building expansion in a different elevation is not feasible due to circumstances not created by the landowner as reviewed in this report. o The proposed building setback is in character with the area and does not negatively impact surrounding properties.