|
<br />City of Roseville - Planning Commission
<br />
<br />Page 2 of8
<br />
<br />Chair Klausing explained the difference between the use of the land use and the variance,
<br />
<br />Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke to provide a verbal
<br />summary of the project report dated March 8, 2000, He noted the variance, if approved, would allow an
<br />additional 18,000 sJ. of building on the site, Thomas Paschke explained the Council definitions
<br />regarding lot coverage, Current lot coverage is 28,17%; the proposal would add 1,02% to the lot
<br />coverage.
<br />
<br />Thomas Paschke explained the variance framework for determining findings,
<br />
<br />Member Egli asked what other shopping centers meet the 25% requirement. Staff explained two of eight
<br />meet the requirement.
<br />
<br />Member Cunningham asked what would happen if the request was not approved; would they be able to
<br />use or expand the space?
<br />
<br />Member Mulder asked if the terminology for a property that exceeds the dimensional criteria of the site
<br />was a "non-conforming site"? He asked what issues would allow for a building to become a "conforming"
<br />structure, Joel Jamnik stated non-conforming uses may continue, but not expand, Member Mulder
<br />asked if the current uses would need a variance to use the existing space, (No, if not enlarged,
<br />Intensification is not allowed without a variance as compared to common repair or maintenance),
<br />
<br />Member Rhody noted that parking was a concern - is it conforming? (yes, based on previous
<br />conditional use permit and Council approval),
<br />
<br />Member Egli asked when the City Council changed definitions, how many exceeded 25%? (no clear
<br />answer because other centers have no boundary survey),
<br />
<br />Member Egli asked how the interpretation change created non-conformity, Joel Jamnik noted there was
<br />no historical record of how the Council previously interpreted the Code, The Council interpretation may
<br />have some flexibility over time because of the difference in the governing body,
<br />
<br />Member Wilke asked Thomas Paschke if Har Mar lost property to MnDot and Ramsey County, Thomas
<br />Paschke responded that road easements did decrease usable lot area from both Snelling and County
<br />Road B, Member Mulder asked if the road authority paid for the easements (no answer),
<br />
<br />Linda Fisher and Tim Prinzen were present representing Bradley Operating Partnership. They explained
<br />the 67,956 sJ, of grocery store and over 4,000 sJ. of enclosed loading space, Ms Fisher referred to the
<br />historical staff interpretation of the site and the statistics of the request for coverage of the site. She
<br />explained the court case history regarding variances,
<br />
<br />Three elements of hardship were described: reasonable use, unique circumstances, and essential
<br />character. Bradley's reasonable use is a Cub Store, Securing an anchor in southeast corner is a key
<br />element of reasonable use. It is a permitted use,
<br />
<br />Ms, Fisher addressed the unique circumstances, which are different about the subject property such as:
<br />1 , Har Mar is unusually configured;
<br />2, Orientation to streets, surrounding property development;
<br />3, Green space buffers in existence;
<br />4. 1987 Phase II was approved, 1995 Home Place expansion approved;
<br />5, Vacancy of Mall Theatres long term viability;
<br />6, Har Mar is an aging mall which may lost the market.
<br />
<br />Tim Prinzen presented the "undue hardships", He noted Har Mar is very unique - experts asked why
<br />Har Mar was built the way it was. The 54,000 s.f, Home Place site is unique - 70 possible tenants have
<br />
<br />http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planninglminutes/pm000308.htm
<br />
<br />6/20/00
<br />
|