04-15-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Robert's CUP Report April 15, 2009 Page 5 2. 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 not necessarily deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone. As noted above, City staff is not aware of any similar variance requests in Mounds View since the City approved the current code standards for having outside sales. The applicant does have the right to have some outside sales on the property (as do all businesses with the same zoning in Mounds View). It is not possible to determine if denying the request would put the owners in an unfavorable position based upon the City's past practices since there have not been any similar variance requests in Mounds View. 3. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. This criteria is more difficult for the applicant to meet. The actions of the applicant to date are to request the variance to have more outside sales area than the City Code now allows. Mr. Halverson has not changed the physical layout of the property nor is he proposing any new construction for his request. One could argue that the special conditions are a result of the actions of the City in adopted the Code but one also should note that it is the responsibility of a property owner or a business operator to research all code standards and regulations before putting a business plan together or before making a request of the City. 4. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of otherlands, structures orbuildings in the same district. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that property owners have the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and viability of their business. However, it is important to note, that such an approval in this request would be the first in Mounds View and other business owners and operators may view such an approval as a precedent by the City to grant the others approvals for similar outside sales areas. 5. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The applicant asked at the April 1, 2009 planning commission meeting to have 98 parking spaces dedicated for auctions and outside sales. (Please see the enclosed parking plan from the meeting). At 190 square feet per space, that would be about 18,620 square feet of the parking lot used for the outside sales activities. As 1 noted earlierin this report, the City Code would allow 3,389 square feet of outside sales area on the property — about 20 parking spaces. The planning commission discussed limiting the outside sales area to about 80 parking spaces (about 15,200 square feet). It is not possible to determine at this time what the minimum amount of outside space the applicant needs to have a reasonably sized outside sales area on the property. To