2000_0327_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LARKIN, HOFFMAN� DALY �YL LINDGREN� LTD. NIr. Thomas Paschke February 7, 2000 Page 2 At the January 24, 2000 City Council meeting, the Roseville City Council provided direction to City staff regarding interpretation of Section 1006.02(C) of the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council directed staff to exclude street easements from the shopping center property's "lot area." As applied to Har Mar, the City Council also directed City staff to include all of the existing buildings on the entire Har Mar Mall property owned by Bradley (main shopping center, theater, TCF, Firestone, and Ground Round) in the building size figures for purposes of calculating allowable lot coverage. Based on the Sunde Land Surveying Boundary Survey of Har Mar Mall, dated December 2 I, 1999, Bradley prepared the enclosed Har Mar Lot Coverage Table (Exhibit A). The "net lot size" figures in Exhibit A correspond to the "lot area" interpretation directed by the City Council. Based on City Council direction, Exhibit A shows that the existing net lot area of the Har Mar Mall property is 1,820,737 square feet. The "building size" statistics shown on Exhibit A also correspond to the City Council direction concerning percentage of lot area occupied by buildings. They show that 5 12,927 square feet of the Har Mar Mall property is currently occupied by buildings. This equates to 28.17% of the net lot area excluding street easements (24�.30°!0 of the gross lot area). As shown on Exhibit A, the Cub store results in a very minimal increase in Har Mar's existing net lot coverage percentage: a 0.74% increase without enclosed loading and trash (28.91% total net lot coverage) and a 1.02% increase with enclosed loading and trash (29.19% total net lot coverage). Section 10 13.02 of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Roseville City Council to grant variances fiom the strict letter of any of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance ". ..[w]here there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships. .." The City Council is also authorized to impose conditions in the granting of variances ". ..so that the public health, safety and general welfare may be secured and substantial justice done." The power of municipalities to grant variances is governed by Minn. Stat. $462.357, subd. 6(2). It authorizes the granting of variances where strict enforcement of the literal provisions of a zoning ordinance would cause "undue hardship" and when such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. §462.357, subd, 6(2) further states that "undue hardship" in connection with the granting of a variance means ". ..the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance."