Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission September 13, 2000 <br />Special Meeting Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />For the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or <br />practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code <br />overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing <br />body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance <br />with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City <br />Code. <br /> <br />Given the reconfigured site plan, Staff believes that the variances requested are the minimum to <br />alleviate the hardship and believes the hardship test has been met and that there are clear and <br />demonstrable practical difficulties associated with this lot which makes development <br />prohibitively restrictive. <br /> <br />Staff is recommending approval of the variances requested by Tony Mezzenga to construct an <br />office building at 7664 Greenfield Drive, with stipulations. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson asked for questions from the audience. <br /> <br />Herbert Zwirn of 7660 Greenfield Avenue stated he would like to object to the project for the <br />same reasons as he listed last week. He said he used to be an insurance agent and indicated at <br />times his office used 3 parking spots and at other times his office used 10 parking spots. He <br />feels the type of occupancy needs to be taken into consideration based on reduced parking <br />spaces. <br /> <br />Mr. Zwirn indicated he has to live with what the Commission decides and he doesn’t want to <br />have to deal with the fallout of the project such as debris, foot traffic and privacy issues once the <br />project is approved. He said he has many problems with the Tom Thumb that have not been <br />dealt with and he is afraid he will have even more to deal with once this property is developed. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson said the Commission is dealing with the application for a variance and all <br />the talk about Tom Thumb and maintenance of the fence and garbage should be dealt with under <br />the City Nuisance Code that was strengthened a couple of years ago. He then said Mr. Zwirn <br />needs to follow proper procedures to work with the City to bring Tom Thumb into compliance <br />with City Code. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson said the property owner of a lot in the City has the right to develop the lot <br />within the limits of City Codes and Ordinances and B-3 zoning allows many different uses. Tom <br />Thumb is not directly related to this variance request and he asked if Mr. Zwirn had contacted <br />City police in the past to report any incidents. <br /> <br />Mr. Zwirn indicated when he first moved in he reported to the police the foot traffic, the <br />activities in his yard and the graffiti. He indicated he does not want to have to spend his <br />evenings calling the police and turning people in all the time. He said he realizes this is not <br />about Tom Thumb but his point is he has trouble already with the commercial property next to <br />him and he is afraid of having yet another business he will have problems with. He then said in <br />his opinion the developer and the City are asking to put too big of a building on too small of a lot <br />and are attempting to get away with it by shrinking the parking lot.