Laserfiche WebLink
13 September 2010 <br /> FILE#10-3468 <br /> Page 5 of 5 <br /> The parking spaces on the site as it is currently being used are too few by 56 spaces. A <br /> � 2009 CUP approval allowed a six-lane bowling center which requires 60 parking spaces. <br /> The applicant demonstrated that, including the 9 spaces allotted to the beauty salon on <br /> the adjacent property, 42 of the required 60 spaces could be accommodated on the <br /> lower level parking area. The applicant was not required at that time to pave the 18 <br /> additional spaces on the gravel parking area above. It was left that if the bowling center <br /> was successful, and was occupied to capacity, the 18 spaces on the upper lot would be <br /> paved. The bowling center has not yet opened but on September 13, 2010 the City <br /> Council extended their deadline to open. These 60 spaces continue to be a factor. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission feel the plans, as presented, are appropriate for <br /> this site? <br /> . 2. Should the applicant receive a variance for structural coverage on Lot 1? <br /> 3. Should the applicant receive a variance for hardcover on Lots 1 and 2? <br /> 4. Should the applicant receive a variance from the required number of parking <br /> spaces on Lot 1 and Lot 2? <br /> 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> The current owner purchased this property in 2007. Requests to improve and expand <br /> the retail use of the property have been discussed with the City by this owner since late <br /> 2008. Different ideas for expansion of the existing building have been presented to the <br /> City by the applicant on numerous occasions and direction was given. The plans <br /> contemplated within this report are the applicant's most recent attempt at meeting City <br /> requirements. The Planning Commission should review the attached minutes from the <br /> City,Council meeting last December. This was the most recent meeting between the <br /> Council and the.applicant at which general direction was given. <br /> Knowing about the recent MN Supreme Court ruling on variances, the applicant <br /> attempted to revise their request to minimize the number of variances requested with the <br /> August 24�' plan. However,,.Staff is not convinced that, even without the recent MN <br /> Supreme Court ruling, the current plan would have been appropriate for the property. <br /> . Staff has had an ongoing concern that the applicant is simply trying to put too much on <br /> this site. This is evidenced by the variances requested. <br /> Planning Staff finds that the applicant has a reasonable use of the property and the <br /> variances requested are not supported by a hardship. Further, the applicant has not <br /> demonstrated that enforcing the hardcover, structural coverage or parking requirement <br /> provisions of the Zoning Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their <br /> property. In summary, Staff recommends denial of the application. � <br /> , ' <br />