HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011.07.05 RESO 2011-16.a*
RESOLUTION 2011-16
APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THOMAS HOUCK IN THE
CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT
5525141$` STREET NORTH ALLOWING 18 PARKING SPACES FOR A
RETAIL USE WHERE 32 SPACES ARE REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, Thomas Houck has requested approval of a variance from the parking
requirements and is legally described as follows:
7utlot A. Traegers Addition, Plat 2
WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning and Appeals has reviewed said variance on June 23,
2011 and recommends approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HUGO, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve a variance
from the parking requirements for Thomas Houck, based upon the following findings:
1. The variance as requested is permissible by law.
The variance request is permissible by law.
2. The strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship because of
circumstances unique to the individual property not caused by the land owner.
The property is unique because it is a building in a commercial district with an existing
parking lot without enough parking spaces to meet the requirement for most uses that
would typically be found in a commercial district. If the variance is denied, the applicant
may be limited to the building's only possible legal use, as a daycare center. If the
market conditions are not favorable for a daycare center, the applicant may be without
any viable use for the building, creating a hardship.
3. The granting of the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
The spirit and intent of the parking regulations in the ordinance is to ensure that adequate
parking is in place for the intended use. Staffs opinion is that the proposed parking
spaces are adequate for most commercial/retail uses. The variance on the property is in
keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
4. The property can not be put to reasonable use without the granting of the
variance.
Considering the dimensions of the existing building and the restricting buildable area on
the property, if the variance is not approved, the site may not allow the owner to find a
suitable user. It is in staff s opinion that the request to allow less parking than required is
a reasonable request.
Resolution 2011-16
Page 2
5. The variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality in
which it would be located.
The existing parking lot for the building does not meet the City's requirements for
parking. Granting a variance for less parking than what is required by ordinance would
not alter the character of the area.
6. The variance, if granted shall not have the effect of allowing, in any district, any
use prohibited in the district.
A commercial/retail use is a permitted use in the Central Business Distinct.
7. The variance, if granted shall not permit a lower degree of flood protection than
required by the ordinance.
The property is not located within the Floodplain District.
& The sewage treatment system and water system of the subject property is in
compliance with city and state codes.
The property is served by City sewer and water.
ADOPTED by the City Council this 5h day of July, 2011.
ATTEST:
v- Y`.
Michele Lindau, City Clerk