2000_0327_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i Chair Klausing explained the difference between the use of the land use 2 and the variance. 3 4 Chair Klausing opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke s to provide a verbal summary of the proj ect. He noted the variance, if approved, 6 would allow an additional 18,000 s.f. of building on the site. Thomas Paschke 7 explained the Council definitions regarding lot coverage. Current lot coverage is 8 28.17%; the proposal would add 1.02% to the lot coverage. 9 l0 11 12 13 14 ls 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Thomas Paschke explained the framework for determining findings. Member Egli asked what other shopping centers meet the 25% requirement. Member Cunningham asked what would happen if the request was not approved; would they be able to use or expand the space? Member Mulder asked if the terminology for a property that exceeds the dimensional criteria of the site was a"ncn-conforming site"? He asked what issues would allow for a building to become a"conforming" structure. Joel Jamnik stated non-conforming uses may continue, but not expand. Member Mulder asked if the current uses would need a variance to use the existing space (no, if no enlargement, intensification is not allowed without a variance as compared to common repair or maintenance). Member Rhody noted that parking was a concern — is it conforming? (yes, based on 1976 conditional use permit). Member Egli asked when the City Council changed definitions, how many exceeded 25%? (no clear answer because they have no boundary survey). Member Egli asked how interpretation change created non-conformity. Joel Jamnik noted there was no historical record of how the Council previously interpreted the Code. The Council interpretation may have some fle�bility over time because of the difference in the body. Member Wilke asked Thomas Paschke if Har Mar lost properry to MnDot and Ramsey County. Thomas Paschke responded that road easements did decrease usable lot area from both Snelling and County Road B. Member Mulder asked if the road authority paid for the easements. Linda Fisher and Tim Prinzen were present representing Bradley Operating Partnership. There are 67,956 s.f. of grocery store and over 4,000 s.f. of enclosed loading space. She referred to the historical staff interpretation of the site and the statistics of the request for coverage of the site. She explained the court case history regarding variances. Planning Commission Minutes, March 8, 2000 Page 2 of 10