CCP 11-25-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A�prove�l Staff would recommend the applicant consider a revised Site Plan, eliminating the need for a variance. Ilowever, staff recognizes a desire to allow a setback less than 30' due to the development characteristics of Brighton Village, just across the street. Staff would recommend that if the Commission wants to allow a reduced setback it be accomplished through adoption of an overlay district. Baker asked staff if an overlay district has been done in the City before in New Brighton. Gundlach replied that it has not been done in this City before. Schiferl asked if' the overlay would be only on the cast side of Silver lake Road. Gundlach replied that would be up 'for discussion, since an overlay district has not been done in the City before. Staff also indicated direction from the City Attorney on how such an overlay district would be crafted and what properties would be included. Zisla asked the applicant to fixrther explain a statement in their hardship narrative that the parcel cannot be developed unless a variance is granted for additional parking lot. Applicant replied that the lot is narrow and the parking setbacks in the front and back of the lot, only one row of'parking is allowed. Zisla asked if a smaller building would meet the criteria. The applicant replied that a smaller building does work, however it would eliminate a tenant and would be cost prohibited due to the cost of the land. David Aldrich, owner of the Spectacle Shoppe, stated that this is an important building because it would bring new business into the area and maintain current businesses. 1ie stated that this new location would be good for his business since many people will not drive up Silver Lake Road from Hwy 694. Phillips asked the applicant about the timing of the building. Murlowski replied that they are currently behind and if they are not in the ground by Dec 1, construction would not start until this spring, which risks loosing the tenants. Zisla replied that if the applicants weren't long-term businesses within the City, this discussion would be handled differently. Schiferl stated current owner of the property needs to meet the criteria of the zoning code and the current proposed building is too large for the site. He stated that price of the property is not a hardship. Murlowski replied he is not using price as a hardship, but the small size of the lot. Zisla asked how much the building would have to be reduced to meet the set back criteria. Murlowski replied the building would have to be reduced by one-third to meet the set back guidelines. Schiferl stated that it is the owner's responsibility to gain tenants that would be able to correctly use the site. Murlowski replied that they had tried various scenarios and this is the best Solution. Zisla stated that he is worried about the timing of the project and believes that there should be a solution, but is not sure it can be met within the time frame. Schiferl stated that this arca could have been addressed at the Comprehensive Plan review and it will now take time to address this issue. Baker stated that if an overlay is approved, it would take additional time. He added State law prohibits an approval of a variance when the hardship created by the property owner and economics, both of which are stated by the applicant. John Steinglien stated that hardship of the site is configuration of the lot is too small. He stated that by making the building smaller it would not case the hardship due to the