2000_0327_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4. S The economic issues that may (in part) justify a variance include ... 4. 6 The alternative designs that allow use of the site but do not require a variance include.. . 4. 7 The impacts of the project, if the variance was issued, would (would not) create significant community impacts on the health, safety, or general welfare including. . . 4.8 Other findings deemed appropriate by the City Council. 5.0 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 5.1 On March 8, 2000, the Roseville Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the Bradley request (draft minutes attached). At the meeting citizens spoke in favor and in opposition to the requested variance. 5.2 Lee Keller questioned the City's interpretation of the parking requirements for Har Mar Mall. 5.3 A petition was presented with 190 signatures opposing the variance due to issues of increased traffic, truck routes, and pedestrian safety. 5.4 The Planning Commission deliberated on similar issues (traffic, truck routes, and pedestrian safety) to those of the residents. The Commission recommended (4 to 3) that the request by Bradley Operating Limited Partnership for a variance (PF 3194) from Section 1006.02C (Lot Coverage) and 1011.02 (Non-Conforming Uses: Existing Structures or Uses) permitting an 18,508 square feet of retail sales area, enclosed loading area and enclosed trash area at Har Mar Mall, 21000 Snelling Avenue, be denied. The recommendation by the Planning Commission is based on the following findings: A. The strict enforcement of existing ordinance would not cause an undue hardship on the applicant. Specifically, that within the current lot coverage limitations, the applicant is still able to put the property to a number of reasonable uses. B. There is nothing "unique" about the property under consideration. All shopping center districts are subject to the same lot size coverage restrictions. PF3 194 — RCA (032700) Page 4 of 5