08/05/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE # PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PARKING LOT SETBACKS AND NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF XKIMO STREET AND 142ND AVENUE; CASE OF JOHN C WEICHT AND ASSOCIATES, LLP By: Tim Gladhill, Associate Planner Background: City Code Sec. 117-112 states that high density residential developments shall provide 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit, of which one (1) shall be enclosed. The Site Plan for the Transformation House, a proposed high-density residential treatment center for the chemically dependent, is proposed as a dorm - style structure with office space in the front of the structure. City Code 117-356 states that there shall be one (1) space per 300 square feet of office space. The site plan indicates 30 proposed stall with proof of parking for 16 spaces. However, three (3) spaces would need to be removed to access the proof of parking area for a total of and additional 13 spaces. Observations: The Subject Property is approximately 3.08 acres in size, assuming the RIVERS BEND BLUFFS subdivision is approved. There are 13 dwelling units 1,845 square feet of office space. This equates to a minimum requirement of 33 spaces for the residential portion and seven (7) spaces for the office portion, for a total of 40 required parking stall. The proposedsite plan provides for 30 spaces, none of which are enclosed. The site plan provides for an additional 13 spaces as proof of parking. Due to the unique nature of the proposed development and the unique topography and water features of the Subject Property, the Applicant is asking for a Variance to parking lot standards. Furthermore, a reduction in the minimum required parking stalls, the impervious surface is reduced, a goal of the Wild and Scenic Overlay District. It appears that the parking lot would be ten (10) feet from the front property line. As a reminder, the Board of Adjustment is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. Unlike the Planning Commission, the Board of Adjustment is not a recommending body, rather is deciding on approval or denial of the Variance, subject to appeals to the City Council. A recent Minnesota Supreme Court . decision has impacted how the City is required to interpret an undue hardship. City Staff will present an update at the meeting as to the impact to review of this case. Limited legal review and interpretation . of this recent court action exists, as this decision was rendered in the past two months. The League of Minnesota Cities is preparing a response to the recent action. When reviewing Variance requests, the Board should be considering the following points, per Minnesota Statute 462.357: • Can the Subject Property be put to a particular reasonable use without a Variance? • Is the plight due to circumstances unique to the Subject Property not created by the Property Owner? • Will the Variance, if granted, alter the locality's essential character? 29.