Agenda Packets - 2005/05/23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ace Supply Variance Appeal Report May 23, 2005 Page 2 One Staff concern is that if approved, nearly the entire two-acre site would be covered with impervious surfaces, which would prevent water from permeating into the ground. The applicant submitted a drainage plan, which is being reviewed by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates (BRAA), the City’s engineering consultant. If the City Council approves the setback variance, the approval will need to incorporate any comments from BRAA. Based on the fact that the site is less than 2.5 acres in size, it appears that a Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) permit would not be required, however, BRAA has suggested that we require the applicant to get an exemption letter from RCWD, so that the City has written verification that a RCWD permit is not needed. Old Highway 8 is a County road and Staff contacted Ramsey County to find out their opinion on allowing a parking area to directly abut the right-of-way. Staff was told that generally it is not a good idea to allow a zero setback in case the roadway is ever widened or the County needs to acquire additional right-of-way. Ramsey County did say that they did not think the zero foot setback would cause a problem in this case, but reiterated that it should generally be avoided. Due to the fact that the subject property directly abuts the City of New Brighton, Staff contacted staff members at New Brighton to allow them to comment on any concerns that they might have. The New Brighton Civil Engineer and the City Planner both reviewed the drainage and site plan and have no concerns about the proposal. Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the City Council, in this case) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The lot is not irregularly shaped. The size of the lot is also not irregular, however, it is not large enough to accommodate the existing development on it. 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. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, in that most properties have adequate parking and circulation.