12-19-2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Greenfield Estates Variance December 19, 2007 Page 2 The existing parking is currently non-conforming, as it provides a total of 286 parking spaces, which is 27 spaces short of the 313 required spaces. The proposed parking would provide 12 more spaces than the total number of required spaces, however it would provide 25 spaces less than the requirement for covered parking. In a letter addressed to the City, the applicant, Mr. Menning, explained the hardship that Greenfield Estates is experiencing. The existing garages have had three fires in the past several years due to juveniles breaking into the garages. The garages are appealing for this type of activity because half of them are vacant and not visible to the rest of the property. Staff agrees that the current garages are somewhat unsafe, as the back side of the garages are very isolated. As Mr. Menning explains in the letter, because of the configuration of the existing garages, the resident using the garage must step out of their vehicle, open the door, drive into the garage, then close the garage door once they exit. The proposed garages would be fully enclosed with only two vehicle entrances, one at each end of the building. Each resident with a garage stall would have an electronic device to open and close the doors. When a resident drives up to the garage, they can open the door without leaving their car and the door will close behind them. The resident can then exit the garage through a side door (facing the apartment buildings). The applicant is also proposing to add other safety features, such as additional lighting for the proposed garages and some additional fencing. The other consideration is that the garages have a very high vacancy rate. The applicant provided information regarding the percentage of garages rented over the last ten years. On average over the last ten years, only 54.3% of the garages have been rented. The decision made by the Planning Commission for this request would only be approving or denying this variance and would not constitute an approval or denial of other site plan modifications (such as rearranging parking, adding a fence, etc.) Any other modifications done to the property would need to meet code requirements and would require a permit. 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 Planning Commission, 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.