Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Item No: 09E <br />Meeting Date: July 14, 2003 <br />Type of Business: Council Business <br />City of Mounds View Staff Report <br />To: Mounds View City Council <br />From: James Ericson, Interim City Administrator <br />Item Title/Subject: Consideration of an Appeal of a Variance Requested <br />for a Reduced Front Yard Parking Lot Setback and <br />Modification to the Provisions of Resolution 5527 at <br />2402 County Road I; Planning Case VR03-004 <br /> <br /> <br />Introduction: <br /> <br />The subject property is a small, commercial lot improved with a two-story office building at <br />the southwest corner of County Road I and Greenfield Avenue. The property is zoned B-3, <br />Highway Business Commercial and is designated as Neighborhood Commercial in the <br />Comprehensive Plan. The variance request would allow the property owner to expand the <br />parking lot by an additional two parking stalls toward Greenfield Avenue, reducing the <br />permitted setback from 10 feet to 2 feet. <br /> <br />Variance Discussion: <br /> Soon after the building at 2402 County Road I was completed and occupied, staff began <br />receiving complaints from residents regarding tenants and clients from the office building <br />parking on Greenfield Avenue, overflowing from the parking lot. After a series of meetings on <br />the subject, the Planning Commission recommended and the City Council approved a <br />parking restriction on the east side of Greenfield Avenue, 350 feet back from the corner, <br />except the area directly across from the office building. The No Parking signs have been <br />installed and have been effective in eliminating parking in front of the single-family dwellings. <br />Mr. Steve Farrell, the owner of the office building, was not in favor of the parking restriction. <br /> <br />Variance Considerations: <br /> <br />For a variance to be approved, there needs to be demonstrated hardship or practical <br />difficulties associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly <br />burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing <br />body (the Planning Commission) review a set of specified criteria for each application and <br />make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section <br />1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists <br />when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria are as follows: <br /> a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply <br />generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, <br />topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the <br />effective date hereof have had no control. <br /> <br />b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights <br />commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. <br />