11-05-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Velmeir Variance November 5, 2003 Page 2 The attached site plan indicates a total of 95 parking stalls for the proposed pharmacy/retail buildings with an additional 10 stalls indicated as proof of parking. Interior floor plans have not yet been submitted so staff is unable to accurately determine how many parking stalls will be required with this development—that would occur at the development review stage of the planning process. While other building configurations are possible, (multiple scenarios have been contemplated by the developer and by staff) without the variance, 39 parking stalls would be forfeited. The applicant has submitted a statement in response to the criteria the Planning Commission will be reviewing for the variance request. This statement is attached for the Commission’s review and consideration. 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 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 primarily zoned B-3 and is proposed to be improved with a 15,500 square foot, two-tenant retail development. The lots are irregularly shaped and additional irregularly shaped land will be added to the site to help meet parking and ponding needs for the redevelopment of the former Amoco gas station. 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. Because the site is less than the minimum allowed for a PUD, the developer does not have the same opportunities and allowances granted to other PUD-based developments. 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 multi-lot land consolidation with local and national property owners, taking into consideration the individual lot limitations, improvements and irregularities.