Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, July 1, 1987 .... <br />Page 2 <br />CASE #87-20 (Cont'd) Moved by Meury, seconded by, Savage, that the Commission <br /> recommend to Council approval of Case #87-20, Lot Split <br />and Consolidation of property at 3731 New Brighton Road, James & Carol Milton, . <br />conditioned upon the applicants submission to the City of a surveyor other <br />recordable document acceptable to the Ramsey County Recorder for administrative <br />review and approval. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) <br />CASE #87-21; SITE Planner Miller reviewed his memorandum of June 25th and <br />COVERAGE VARIANCE; referred Commission members to an excerpt from the <br />1275 RED FOX ROAD, Board of Appeals meeting of 6/30/87; he noted the Board <br />EVEREST II vote was split, two voting in favor and two opposed. He <br /> outlined the reasons stated by the Board for each vote. <br />Miller explained the applicant is proposing to enlarge the existing parking lot <br />to provide 31 additional spaces, to accommodate the building tenant's (Deluxe <br />Check) parking demand. The proposed expansion will result in total site <br />coverage of 79.5 percent (maximum permitted in the I-2 District is 75 percent); <br />therefore, a 4.5 percent variance is required. <br />The Planner briefly explained the modification of the site plan that provided a <br />50-foot setback which could eventually accommodate future extension of <br />Northwoods Drive. He noted that the site currently meets all setback <br />requirements and the applicant has stated the existing landscape materials will <br />be relocated in the narrower right-of-way. <br />As discussed at the Board of Appeals meeting, and given as a basis for two <br />members recommending denial of the variance request; Miller stated that it is <br />difficult to identify any hardship related to the site upon which to base the . <br />approval of the coverage variance. The additional parking is being proposed to <br />accommodate the relatively high parking demands of an established use. Miller <br />noted that if a recommendation for approval is given, it should be conditioned <br />upon restoration of the existing landscaping as shown on the plan submitted. <br />Chairman Curtis asked if the land use was currently at the 75 percent maximum <br />coverage permitted. <br />The Planner advised that is what his calculations show. <br />Robin Davidson, representative from Nielsen Associates, gave a brief background <br />of the facility and it's use; he stated that growth expectations for the <br />property have far exceeded initial estimates and noted the following reasons <br />for the requested variance: <br />- The request would not cause negative impact on the area; may actually <br />enhance the site and fulfill the parking needs of the current tenant. <br />- The landscaping would be preserved and relocated on the site. <br />- There is currently a large open space on the north of the building, <br />owned by the State of Minnesota, and it is his opinion the site will <br />still have the appearance green space because of the relocation of <br />the current landscaping. <br />- The basis for hardship, in his opinion, is the unusually high parking <br />required for the tenant. <br /> . <br />