04-20-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Snyders Report to the PC April 20, 2005 Page 5 1. Satisfactory photometric analysis 2. Satisfactory stormwater management system and pond (water feature) creation 3. Submit plans for signage and the garbage dumpster enclosure 4. Installation of a bituminous trailway from Long Lake to Edgewood 5. Dedication of an easement at the northwest corner for additional right-of-way for turning radius at Bronson Drive and Long Lake Road—if necessary 6. Approval of variances 7. Enter into a development agreement outlining in detail the terms of the redevelopment. Variance Discussion: 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 Mounds View) 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 property is zoned B-3 and is proposed to be improved with a 5,975 square foot, one- story retail building. The lot is irregularly shaped and is fronted on three sides by street right of way. These can be considered exceptional circumstances. 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 create a hardship for the applicant in that the applicant is facing unique redevelopment challenges not normally associated with raw land development. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The special conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is attempting to undertake a redevelopment project on a irregularly configured lot. d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. There are other similarly zoned properties in the community with the same reduced front setback. This site is even further constrained by three street frontages and non-rectangular dimensions. Granting the variance would not appear to be a special privilege.