1998 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

DonateIle's Variance Planning Case No, 538 -98 November 4, 1998 Page 3 The Donatelles property is a small, unusual pie - shaped lot at the intersection of two major roadways through the City. Being less than an acre in area, the lot without question creates practical difficulties which the present owners did not create. This criterion is met. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. To enforce the thirty-foot parking lot setback onto the Donatelles property after thirty years of operation in its present state would potentially deprive the property of as many as 50 parking stalls. A reduction of spaces by that amount would effectively prohibit the restaurant from operating any further at that location. This criterion is met. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is only seeking to improve the appearance and functionality of the parking lot and to lessen the extent of the nonconformity. The applicant did not create the conditions which necessitate the approval of a variance. This criterion is met. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Donatelles restaurant was one of the first businesses located in the City of Mounds View, a fixture that has continued to do business through four decades to the present. At the time the restaurant was established at its present location, there were no setback requirements. Granting a variance in this situation would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege, in that any property owner in a similar circumstance would be given the same consideration. This criterion is met. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship in that the intent of the request is to lessen the extent of the existing nonconformity and to improve the overall appearance of the property. This criterion is met. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The Zoning Code was not drafted with the intent to prevent a legally conforming business from improving its operation. Granting the requested variance would serve only to