98-092 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.., ...... Ii RESOLUTION No. 98 -92 CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON 1. ., RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND ApPROVAL OF VN-320. WHEREAS, an application for a variance has been made by Randy Manning of PDQ for a twenty- five (25) foot side yard setback variance to Section 11-020 (f) of the Zoning Ordinance to maintain the existing O-foot drive aisle setback from the west property line as part of the redevelopment of PDQ; and WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. An application for a variance was filed with the City of New Brighton on August 27, 1998. 2. The Planning Commission, pursuant to published and mailed notices, held a public hearing on September 16, 1998, and all persons present at the hearing were given an opportunity to be heard. 3. On September 16, 1998, the Planning Commission unanimously ( 6-0 vote) recommended approval ofthe variance subject to conditions. 4. On September 22, 1998, the City Council considered VN-320. Now THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council makes the following Findings of Fact in respect to VN-320: I. The subject site is zoned B-3, General Business. 2. The applicant is proposing a twenty-five (25) foot side yard setback variance to maintain the existing O-foot drive aisle setback from the west property line as part of the redevelopment of PDQ. 3. Access is gained to this site from the adjacent property to the west over an access easement held by PDQ. 4. The City of New Brighton Zoning Ordinance, Section 11-020 (f), restricts the minimum side yard setback adjacent to residential development within the B-3 District to not less than twenty-five (25) feet. 5. Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of the City of New Brighton Zoning Ordinance, the Council shall have the power, in a specific case, to permit a variance from the provisions of this ordinance. The crucial points of the variance are: a. Undue hardship b. Unique circumstances c. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan d. Variance shall not be detrimental to adjacent property or to the public as a whole. 6. In this instance the undue hardship is caused by the small size of the lot, and that the property is accessed from the west via an easement. Therefore, the applicant cannot expand the green area, to meet the setback requirement, without also expanding green area on the adjacent property, which is not owned by PDQ, and reducing the size of the structure. 7. This site is unique to other properties within the B-3 Zoning District, due to the fact that the required setback is from land over which PDQ holds an easement for access. G:ICDl-9B-CCIRESOIVN-320.WPD