Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-2003 Planning Comm. AgendaAGENDA CITY OF LITTLE CANADA PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2003 Call To Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Minutes -September 11, 2003 PRESENTATIONS: Amendment to a Conditim~al Use Permit to modify the site plan for Valor Enterprises and a Variance from the City's parking requirements - 3165-3167 Spruce Street -Fred Sedaghat, Valor Enterprises Correspondence Pages 1 through 35. Other Business 6. Adjourn !) ~~ PAID ~~~ Rec. No Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning District Amendment Text Amendment Other Applicant ~~LL'V L-u~1~~ ~ ` (Name) Owner (Name) Property Location (Street Address and Legal Description): ?j (~L'J i Conditional Use Permit ~VI,L'V1~~VL'lG4'~~ Variance Subdivision Planned Unit Development , Plan Review ~~ ~~ (Address (Phone) (Address) (Phone) Description and/or Reason for Request (Cite Ordinance Sections): <S~~ ~~~~~c G1 In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zon- ing and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in 'he application procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from. the City pertaining to additional applica- t axpense. L. _ i (Siynature of Appli ant) (Date) WHITE-Office CANARY-~-Customer PINK-File GO LU~-Planner ~~:a,iln dJAYOR blichnel I. Patiey COliNC7I_ Jim t.aValle ibtace ~~lnderson Rid: ~lom~om~ liill 13lesener S15 Little Canada Road, Linte Canada, ~4v 551'17-'t000 (651) 766-4039 /PAS: (651) 766-~~}043 Alln~llt\rLSTI~fITOR www.ci.licde-cmtadamn.~.is Joel R. Hanson CITY OF LITTLE CANADA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMF..NT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & VARIANCE PROPOSAL: A request for an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to modify the site plan for Valor Enterprises and a Variance from the City's parking requirements. The property in question is zoned Light- Industrial (I-1). APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER: Fred Sedaghat Valor Enterprises, Inc. 3165-3167 Spruce Street Little Canada, MN 55117 PROPERTY LOCATION: 3165-3167 Spruce Street Little Canada, MN 55117 PLANNING COMMISSION: The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at their Thursday, October 9, 2003 meeting. The meeting begins at 7;30 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. CITY COUNCIL: Notice is hereby given a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council to review this request on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as parties may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, October 9, 2003 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, October 22, 2003. Sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the necessary arrangements. Joel R. Hanson City Administrator Cl (~ (ctY' /'Cl/`~ /~lC'SI/ f'L%' /LLt ~L/2's~'y''1CLGY2~'~~~ ~ '? ~; ~1,~ ~E=fir >t7;>t~' ~`: ~-1U, ~;l/Gr_c ~~' ~"c'~~'c~/<:~~`. S '/U / ,~ /{'l ~l'G~/~' ~tJCi~~Cv~~.L.. C~~' Ci'2C.1~- l'<~~`-,S/i'LC:.C__j Ji~~~I~:.L~ S~-~/?7`, ~~ f C%`v~Ct' - C(L~~ ;Lti' /~~ CJ~/5if7 G'tr' G~%lC`f-`~~ /~Zl~~ r e2~~i~~ / / J ~%/- ~l/v~~L~'i/YI C'/l (mil!/' GAG: LLLLC~/ L LG!/ b'~Ct L>`~,~>G"~';5 C~i~ ' / ,-7 ~ CiL'j'Zl~n1 ~CL~.'LL (_• I C~~ ~iG~ G'y/ `~~ll /,~ (,.~ L ~- I S // ~ J / ~'~C / C'C ::S j e'cG~ `[-~. G C t f ~I L ~ ~ ('. ~: f ~>'' lL G 2-G~.,~ ~c /~? <?,%? .. ' ~~~ 6'~''L~ 5 ~ Yti ,. / • ~/U'ltiet~ G'L~ C'- ~~' L-%?r~2 / ~tL /~"~L ~ L ~! J i i2G%'. _ ``~~~rCc~.~rG~,r~_ ~CrY C~LLf ~ ~„%(Z' GZE<%z (' ~~~~ f ~~~> f GC~'~l~ GL.~~GLGL''~'/LL? c'~~ ~l~L. ~r'~ ~yc"/ ~`ir~.~ C~.i~$Io1~C~~' j~i'~%~-~C46_,~ i't 5~~~~' /'~~~~'.'~ ~''f yl~:,. / _ '/p /JGC.G~CIJILGj. GC ~~ J~C~ZCG~L~ TGG(% {JL"`'ff~C~dY~ C~~~~~I J / ~ir~' ~s'~' ~L, G~ G~~) vr.-j~C' i' 1%l Z ~ ~ z ~fL S - f""~G~ ~'~~f i ~ ~~L`CGd ;';~ G'' ?'l `~~c~. ~G' f` GZ ~,f -~'/ 1/I/ jyJ'~dZ(~~ d,~L,Z %r(~ C~~~f~.. `i.~i.~°(~ GI,G~ `~GrGr~>/.~r~j'i2~~i~fi ` ~. r;i~ /7hr(.~i_ -, ~~-~c / 1 ~~,' / t,~~ / G~)C G°/LL,'Gf'~= ~~' ~L~~LC.cZ ~~(~/~2/ %Y.~ ~C~7Cz:'ir. /L`<~('" ' ,~ i ~ ~'?~ `C~e~ `~F 1~iy Cpl ~-. ! ~ CCc'~-l/ fC' l; ~',./ S~ /<;1. /, i `~- GLc%~ ~.~ -, ,~ ~ ~,) `; . i, - ! i~ .t ~. ,: / ,~, - - ----_. ~G!:_'~- ~' ill, j~~i CC °.,~ f'^~~j.~-%::.~G ~~~C'~Z'~~ C~.~`~GC?_~J~ _ }~-t i--1~'._._. r, ~C%%'~ G' G~ l> ~'x r"J~C'~.y~~''-G~~ ~-:CSC' c`.'.5 ~i ~; ~, ~-r ~- ~';-z.t/~' i _ ) / ~,C L l ~` `~ ,~/! / `C,G ~Gj l ~'~ ~/G"/l{r. `~i°~~ `~~/C-C~ G~'c c r' ~ ~~ ~"~2~%~ C.i'( 5/ Z •~'iL~'..~> C/ /7i'l._e._ ~~r~'i ~ L~: ~.x-` ~-~C-~%yWj !~''Zlf~~,Z_... / ~/ ~ ~ ..`7 {Z ' ''1'1- G~-CGZ,,, / /2G~ l~ GC G ;'G~ /~z~~ ~`"/ lCG ~-~.<, l"~CL-CJ /2-~C~'!'.S~ L~ G%~L~' `?i.C:Si 6C~ ~;.~ f~""f 7~LL~':~.---~ l i `~I era ~~c.-~ ~-c~ ~° G ~~ ~,~~Gi .4--~' / ~j , c C~ t~C'~"' ~~~G ~ ?; '~! Sys-~'~`~~ \J/ y(~/~1l~I (~ II //{{_ / / / (/, 1 /~ ~:~ ~ / ','"~/ /may ~ ~, ~IJJ~/ / ~~ _/ /I/ r / V /J`C'L G l ~G. L. 4 ~lV"ir" ~S' ~ L ~L.i'~ G "~C.-N lam` L ~~ / ~j l .C_' .~ ~~j f~ / ~ ~_G~./..~A-•' 4. 1 G~-2. ~~-G't~G2~ ~=~5' j !~ `~-~~ / /c'~~-t'~2 c~i- z-z.{/ `2G~_ i Yl~"CC'~~~iZ"li~"aC'_ (iC"~~'-LL~`E%.~J,'a Y-~' ~'l~.l'" 1'~~~5%GL~~s. ~~ ~~ i ~'~','~'t.~Z! .C~2 .. CLL; .s ~~' ~2/> ~Z~ C ~~''~ G'Z-L ~ '> ~ C-~ C!. S ~rc~' f L2 S ~~-G9 L ~GC ~ f +t'~''>rY%-- / h-c % s^ c ~ci /Z C_L-~/ ~. , ~ .~ / / - L,'~i G~. ;' ~'- c. C, ~l.t ~. (-' G r /+..__- G `''1,C~C/ (' ' ~/'4 ' L G C. l ) I _ G~'C'~LGL ~c ~j f7,~GC-'/~... l~C'__. '1.e. Cc~ f~ y- >~~-Lr1_ ~~, c~~G~..%/ ;~ t . . / (1_t j; c~C>` ~' !C:{)~,Yi~LU'~i 1_~.~,? 1~% LLi::~--~ C~~~C a~;.C~~~I ~,~,, ~~` w~ `r'<.~, (~° iii' ~~~~~ /,~~-c.cz ~ ..~~~%~. ~~,,,~~ / 7r / ~'l 1 ~,.~ `i.,'~C' 1~~...- l ~. C,}i.L'~/ ,`,",, G'7 ~ C? ~ ~~ ~C.:'7 ~ ~~~ ~ `' `^!=•1l~ (, ~~~'1 C ~ L(S ~ ~,~~,~ `~G~_Y C GL C~-G~.G_~,L' .S ~.~j'C' GC_''--~~ ~ /;; ' ' ~ / ~; I G fC.%C S ~,~" ~~~LL L^~G~ .5C'~%L!~ -~~J L~'. ~ G t,~C~ C! /~.~ ~ ~ T~ 1 `~~wlL S C L ~~~ CL'(JG~ ll~~ lr~i/,~/'C'C l /' +'%~ 5~ ~~ ~ / '7I_r~.,, / / ~.(~ t- X / ~ii l i ~:"L~ ' ")'2; }'iii. f L`w-~ C~ L~4 C/ , ~ n ,~ ~~ ~~. ~ ~_ ,, _ ~, -~_ ~~ ~j~~,~., i ~~ ~ ~ ~, ,--_. _ N~~-r~l ... ~ `l }..._~ n ~ s 1 ~~ ~ ` ~ ~,.~ L~ ~ t, j ~~P~ , 6 ~~ {. ~' 6/13/03 I conducted a site inspection at 3167 Spnice Sheet for the renewal of their auto licenses and CUP compliance. I met with Fred the owner of Valor Enterprises and he walked me through the lot. The first area we went through was the rear yard. The rear yard ou the site plan shows storage on the east side and auto sales on the west. The rear lot was entirely storage of vehicles. The outdoor storage in the CUP states the lot can have a maximum number of twenty (20) vehicles. On the side and rear yard combined he had 40-50 cars stored. Some of the vehicles needed minor repairs with some just clippings of the car. Storage of doors, fenders, engine motors, tires, hubcaps, etc. were all outside along the Uuilding. (CUP clearly states no storage of wood pallets, ban-els, junk tires, or car parts.) The side yard to the north was supposed to have designated parking which was curbed and striped this was not completed - 30 spots. The area in front of Uie storage area and Uuilding was supposed to Ue green space. The parking and green was estaUlished in front of the building, but in front of the storage area this was converted to his used car lot. This was a paved area with fencing around it had about 10-15 cars inside. He indicated to me he would not Ue abie to run his business if he could not store his parts, tires and vehicles outside. The lot in the back of the building was not paved and had numerous standing water spots. He indicated because of the drainage in the rear yard he was not able to sell cars back there because customers could not walk in the mud. I commented this area was supposed to be paved and he maybe able to pave the lot in a way that would provide for Vetter drainage. He stated we were using our power to push him out of business. With economic times the way they are he is not able to complete any of the things needed to his lot. He stated he needed to take in more cars than allowed because he needed the money. I indicated he could apply to have his CUP amended or he would have comply with the original agreement. He submitted the site plan and now he needed to comply with it. I said he could set up a timetable as to when he would have items done and we could work item by item. He said he did not have the money and would not Ue able to do these things. His said his business would not survive if he did not store parts outside and keep cars for clippings on other cars. That is the only way he can run his business. I stated we appreciate his predicament, but he agreed to comply with the terms and ample time has been given to do so. I told him if he did not apply for an amendment, he needed to give me a timetable as to when items would be brought into compliance that we could work through. I would give him time, but he needed to show he was working towards compliance. He said he did not have the money and would not be able to do these items. Plus, he was not willing to move the sales from the front yard to the rear yard as shown on his site plan. He also stated that he did not agree to these terms his wife did when she was Uefore the council and they are since divorced. Note: The check that was sent in for their auto license renewal is signed by his wife. We set up a time for him to meet with the City Planner on 6/16/03 to determine if proceeding for an amendment was right for him. If it was not he needed to have a timetable to me within a day or so of that meeting to get the property into compliance. He again stated it was not possiUle for him to operate his business if he had to agree to the teams of the CUP. C\~~ o~ Little CdndQ,d w COCIMUNIP! PRIDE 1959 - 2CG3 515 L.irde Canada Road, lacde Canada, :AIV' Ssri--'t6i)U {651) 766=1029 / FAQ: {651) 766--4048 mww. ci.licde-cnn ad a. uui. u s June 17, ?003 Valor Enterprises Attn: Fred 3165 Spruce Street Little Canada, MN 55117 RE: Amending Conditional Use PermiC Dear Fred: ~i~r ~roti \Iic6acl I. rahe~- )im LnValle Marc :lndei~son Ricl; AIon~our Bill 731esene~~ _~ iD<1(IiV 1S'TR~ 1TOR )oel R. i-Ianson After our meeting yesterday with the City Planner, I wanted to send you a letter recapping our discussion. You had indicated the purpose of the revision would be to move the location of the sales lot, reduce parking requirements, and modify outdoor storage allowed. Steve Guttman, City Planner, told you that you would need to draw ^p a new site plan. On the new plan, you will need Co show the layout of the lot as you would like to see it after the changes are made. Also, attaching a letter detailing why you need to make these changes and your reasoning for allowing the outdoor storage. You will need to be as specific as possible when amending your permit. I also wanted to remind you, that making application for amending your conditional use permit does not guarantee it will be approved. City staff will review your plans and make a recommendation to the City Council, but ultimately they make the decision. It should be understood that if you propose a revision to your site plan that does not comply with ordinance requirements, staff will be recommending against its approval. If the Council does not approve the amendment, you will be required to bring the lot into compliance immediately as ]aid out in the original permit. The paperwork needs to be submitted by Monday, June 23 @ 3:00 p.m. If you do not apply by Monday, Tune 23, we will be commencing enforcement action under the current permit. If you have any questions, please call me at (651) 766-4046. Sincerely, ~/ ~', JesslcaUagoe Code Enforcement 6/24/03 Meeting with Fred from Valor Enterprises, Joe] Hanson, and Jessica Jagoe to discuss CUP compliance. At this meeting, Fred indicated with the change in the economy the site plan that was approved in 1999 is not going to meet his needs. He also was not aware when he purchased Che property that the rear lot had drainage issues. He noted he was not able to bring his customers back there due to standing water most times. He explained the nature of his business. Fred will purchase a car and use that car for parts needed on other cars. (Ex. He will take one car and will use the bumper for one, the taillights for another, and so on. This way he gets three or four good cars. In the end he scraps the one car he bought for parts.) Fred indicated he will usually have the scrap car around for about 90 days to get full use of it. He also does auto body work aizd repairs for customers. Customers are either new clients or existing clients bring work back to him. Joel reminded Fred about the issue of outdoor storage and although this is needed to nm his business he was not approved to store the scrap parts. Fred inquired about putting a shed in his rear yard for storage. Joel told him that would not be a problem. He would need to amend his CUP and pull a building permit. Joel asked Fred about how many cars were on the lot today. Fred commented he would estimate he had 100 or so cars on the lot. Joel indicated to Fred that 100 cars exceed what was allowed under his CUP. Joel asked Fred if given 30 days would he be able to reduce that to 75 cars. Fred agreed. Joel commented that if Fred was to show that he was willing to bring his property into compliance we would work item by item. Fred said "yes" he waarted to be in compliance. Joel also asked about in that 30 days removing all the parts and tires from the outdoor storage area. Fred agreed to remove it from the property or store it inside. Joel repeated that in 30 days we would be stopping out to Valor and he needed to be down to 75 cars and have junk, parts, tires removed. Fred agreed. If in that 30 days he has not completed the work the city will take strong enforcement action against him. At the end of the 30 days then new goals will be set to continue bring the property into compliance. Jessica commented that if Fred did not want to move his sales lot to the rear yard due to water he still needed to amend his CUP. Jessica also noted that although we are agreeing to start by removing 25 cars Fred will still need to bring it down to 50 as approved in his CUP. The site plan also shows parking in the area where the cars are currently for sale. If he moves the sales lot he still needs to account somewhere else for the required parking. Parking needs to be striped. Fred understood those terms. of Little Cd nt~i~°oIt ~;~~`I ~d(~Q~ Michael 1. Fahey m C(JliNCII, lim LaValle \4atc.Anderso~~ C0~1~1UIVIN PRIDE Rid: A4oncoar 195 - 200 13i1I 13leseaer 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, DIN 55117-'1600 (651) 766-4039 / PA%: (65'1) 766-4G48 Alli1dIl~~LSTI~CI~OR wmw.ci.litde-canada.mn.us 1oc112. bIanson June 25, 2003 Valor Enterprises Attn: Fred 3165 Spruce Street Little Canada, MN 55117 RE: CUP Compliance Dear Fred: I wanted to send a letter to you recapping our meeting yesterday and the terms both parties agreed to. In the meeting it was discussed how your business operates. You indicated you do arrtobody work, car repairs, and auto sales. For auto repairs, you typically use one car to repair several cars. That one car is stored on your lot for roughly 90 days. At the end of the 90 days, then that car is scrapped and removed from your lot. You were told, that car parts and clips were not approved as part of your outdoor storage and needed to be stored inside. You requested to build a shed in your rear lot because you did not have adequate storage in your existing building. Joel told you that you could amend your CUP to have a shed on the lot and pull the appropriate permits. The shed would need to meet City needs for inside storage. Also, in the meeting you indicated you had roughly 100 cars stored on the lot. That 100 cars included cars for sale or repairables. You were told as part of your CUP you needed to bring your car storage down to 50 cars. The current CUP allows for up to 30 cars for sales and storage of 20. It was agreed that in 30 days you will bring the total number of cars on the site down to 75. Also in that 30 days, you agreed to also remove all the tires, scrap parts, junk and debris not approved in the CUP. At the end of 30 days, all parties will meet again to discuss how to continue to bring your lot into compliance. You expressed that you did want to bring your lot into compliance and possibly seek an amendment to your CUP. Joel stressed to you that the City is willing to work with you, but if you do not continue to bring your lot into compliance we will take enforcement action. I will also be mailing you in the next week, your renewal auto repair and auto sales license. I am only issuing a temporary license at this time to ensure compliance. I will issue the licenses good through August 1, 2003. If at that time you are still working to bring your lot into compliance we will discuss the next steps for license renewal. If you have any questions, please call me at (651) 766-4046. Otherwise, I will call you in 30 days to set up a meeting to come out and review your continued compliance. Sincerely, Jessica Jagoe Code Enforcement Officer ~ Little ~d ~,rrt~°oR o n L~'Cy dad ~n~~,.,e, z. rahep Jim LnValle titan ~lndei~so^ COR1RIUIVIN PRIDE Rid: ,Ylontom~ 1959 - 2009 I3iJl 131esc~e~~ S15 Lirele Canada Road, Little Canada, b[N 55117-1600 (651) 766-4029 / 1's1S: (651) 76G-4048 All~1~I7i~7S7T~1TOR wunx%ci.liuie-wnada.nm.us loci R. Hanson August 28, 2003 Valor Enterprises Attn: Fred 3165 Spruce Street Little Canada, MN 55117 RE: CUP Compliance Dear Fred: In continued efforts to work with you to bring your property into compliance, I wanted to send you a letter on the current status. The City issued you a temporary license for the month of July 2003 to make efforts towards your CUP compliance. Joel Hanson, City Administrator and myself met with you at the property on July 31, 2003 to go over your progress. To that point, you had reduced the number of cars and removed almost all the items being stored outdoors. At this meeting, it was explained to you that this progress showed promise towards compliance, but not compliance. The decision was made to issue you a license for the remainder of the license year as long as progress was being made and the site was eventually brought into compliance. You were informed of the items still needing eorreetioit inorder to make your site compliant. You indicated the existing CUP did not meet your business needs and you would need to revise your CUP terms. We set a meeting with you and the City Planner, Steve Gritfman, on August 18 to go over your plans. You did not show for this meeting. I called you on that Monday and you said you were not ready. I explained parC of continuing to operate your business with the license, was you needed to show progress towards compliance. On the phone, I explained that the deadline for filing for a CUP amendment was Monday, August 25. You said you would be in by that deadline, but would need help filling out the paperwork. I told you if you brought in the plans, we could help with the paperwork. Reminding you several times that the deadline was Monday. You assured me there was no problem and you would be in to fill out the papers. As of today, we have not received any paperwork or application for a CUP amendment and you have not contacted my office to make other arrangements. The next deadline for the next CUP amendment cycle is Monday, September 22. You have until that deadline to get your paperwork submitted for the amendment or bring the property into compliance with the current CUP approved. If I do not hear from you, the City will take further enforcement action for violation of the current CUP. Sincerely, Jessica Jagoe Code Enforcement Officer MAS'012 Michael L I:ahey 515 Liifle Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 484-2177 /FAX: (651) 484-4538 Email: cityhall@ci.little-canada.mn.us Planning Report TO: Mayor & Council Members Little Canada Planning Commission FROM: Elizabeth Mursko, Zoning Administrator DATE: November 30, 1999 RE: Conditional Use Permit 3161-3167 Spruce Street COUNCIL. i3evedy Scalze Jim La Valle SCeve Morelan 13ob Pedersen AIJMINISTRHT072 Joel R tlansai The applicant, Mr. Alan Holm & Lori Peterson, have applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for open and outdoor storage equipment (maximum number of repairable "held for resale" vehicles-20) as an accessory use in the side and rear yard, at 3161-3167 Spruce Street, in Ryan Industrial Park. The applicant indicates that there is one business (Valor Enterprise) located in the building with a total of two (2) employees and several independent contractors. Site and surrounding areas This property is an interior lot located on a 1.84 acre parcel on the west side of Spruce Street. The property is zoned "I-1" Light Industrial. The purpose of the I-1 zoning district is to provide for the establishment of warehousing and light or limited industrial development, which because of the nature of the product or character of activity requires isolation from residential or commercial use. The principal uses within this building is storage/warehouse and office surrounded by the following land uses: North Industrial Property South Industrial Property East St. Paul Water Utility West Spruce Street /Industrial Property See attached site plan dated November 22, 1999 Setbacks Front yard 40 feet from the property line Side yards Not less than fifteen (15) feet on any one side, nor less than forty (40) feet on the side yard abutting a street. Rear yard 20 feet from rear boundary line Open & Outdoor Exterior Storage (Accessory Use) The applicant is requesting a new accessory use of open and outdoor storage of equipment (maximum number of repairable "held for resale" vehicles-20) in the rear and side of the building as indicated on the site plan. The zoning ordinance allows for exterior storage of equipment and materials to be stored in the side and rear yard by conditional use permit (CUP). The open and outdoor storage may encroach into the required side and rear yard setback, but in no case shall equipment be located closer than ten (10) feet to a rear yard or side yard lot line. (903.020.D.3) Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use is permitted with a conditional use permit (CUP) within the Light Industrial District (I-1) provided the following conditions are met: 1. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses or if abutting an "R" District in compliance with Section 903.020.G. 2. The outdoor storage area must be fully screened from view from the public right- of-way in compliance with Section 903.020.G. 3. All fences and walls shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of Section 903.020.F.4. 4. Business and Industrial District security fences require a building permit and a land survey establishing true boundary lines and must be completed by a Registered Land Surveyor and submitted to the City's Building Official. 5. The storage area must be paved with asphalt, concrete, or other material approved by the City Council. 6. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Section 903.020.1. 7. The storage area shall not take up parking space as required for conformity to the zoning ordinance. 8. The provisions of Section 921.010C of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. Fence and Screening Requirements The site plan shows a chain link fence with slats will be established surrounding the storage area in the side and rear of the property. The chain link fence with slats meets the zoning code screening requirement. Storage Area Surfacing The storage area must be surfaced with a Class V material as indicated on the site plan. This is an acceptable surfacing material for the storage area. Off-Street Parking Requirements The zoning ordinance requires the off-street parking area of five (5) or more vehicles including associated drives to be paved with but not limited to, asphalt, bituminous or concrete in order to control dust and drainage. This property has two parking categories: Office: 40' x 16 Three (3) spaces required (3) (1) space for each 200 square ft. (3) Auto Related: 144' x 40' Eight (8) spaces required (8) One (1) space per 200 sq. ft. floor/minus 2,000 sq. ft. (16) Total required parking spaces for property: 30 parking spaces The site plan shows thirty (30) parking spaces in the front and side yards. The required parking spaces to the north of the building are surfaced with asphalt. The required parking spaces to the south of the building need to be established and surfaced with asphalt. Both parking areas will need to be curbed and stripped to meet zoning requirements. RECOMMENDATION Based on the information discussed in this report, staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit (CUP) application for an exterior storage as an accessory use provided the following conditions are met: 1. The equipment and materials storage areas as defined in this report and as shown on the site plan must be contained, maintained and arranged in a manner as to have a well-organized and uncluttered appearance. 2. Junk, debris and other materials not approved, as part of this conditional use permit shall not be stored in the designated storage areas. Examples of materials not approved by this permit: wood pallets, barrels, junk tires, and storage of car parts. 3. The maximum number of repairable "held for resale" vehicles is twenty (20) in the designated outdoor storage area on the site plan. 4. The equipment and materials defined in this report must be stored in the rear yard and may encroach into the side yard setback, but in no case shall equipment be located closer than ten (10) feet to a rear yard or side yard lot line. 5. The outdoor storage area must be fully screened from the public right-of-way. The wood fence is acceptable for screening purposes in this district. 6. The storage area must be surfaced and maintained with asphalt, bituminous, concrete or Class V material. 7. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way and must be in compliance with Section 903.020.1. 8. The required thirty (30) parking spaces must be established on the property. 9. All of the above mentioned conditions must be completed by December 31, 1999. 10. Property compliance with other zoning code compliance issues mentioned in the following section. Other Zoning Code Compliance Issues 1. The off-street parking areas and associated drives leading to and in the rear yard must be paved with asphalt, bituminous or concrete. 2. The off-street parking areas must be striped with white or yellow paint lines not less than four (4) inches wide. 3. The off-street parking must have a continuous curb barrier or concrete curb stops surrounding the front and rear parking area. 4. All junk and debris must be removed from the side and rear yards along with creating order to the storage of materials on this site. 5. Green areas must be established to meet zoning requirements. • All required off-street parking areas must have at least a five (5) foot landscaping and continuous curb barrier setback to any line and a total of fifteen (15) foot setback from the street surface. • All areas not used for parking in the front yard must be landscaped (40 feet from property line). 6. Property owners are responsible for compliance with Minnesota State Statute requirements regarding the establishment and compliance of handicap parking guidelines. 7. All of the above mentioned conditions must be completed by June 30, 2000. Attachments: 1. Site Plan submitted November 22, 1999 2. Submitted background information 3. Additional background information 4. Section Map 5. Zoning Map CC: Lori Peterson, Applicant Alan Holm, Applicant Kathy Glanzer, Deputy Clerk C7 ~~ ~~ -, a W 11r~r' ~W V lenud~ ~ . Pnva slabs •. ~r~ `:.,, Y ,1~ C " ''- i i C ~ ~. ~ ~; _ ~:. ~ ~~ Sto2.~(,~E _._ .. _ -J ~)~ L61' 1-iNE ----~} SAS r~n~ ~ ~~s -_~ 112= ,` ,~ , ., ,~' ~,.~~ ~ .~ •,r ,~ I ~ i ~ -'"I r_ I ~~ ~ :a1 ~ I I ~~y "' ~ I X ' ~ X~ , S r-=- NO~:TN r ,. ; \ ~~~~' ~y ~~ , ~. '(~ ,~ ~ z - 3v sPacES 9xz~ ~r-y: - _..... v' ,..v- , -s~~ ~T 8~ Fk~a eno Dlk i'~S 30 (,seRS AT 38Osf/ ate'' ~~ I~r~ nnGti . x ;. r` Y V 30'-~ ~G a h F j ~rr~ LY a 4~`-0'- - ~~ X x ,5Q~4\ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 1999 Motion seconded by Keis. Motion carried 5 - 2. Barraclough and Carson voted against. Mr. Montour recommended approval of the rezoning of 3104 Edgerton Street and 608 County Road D East from Light-Industrial (L-i) to Business-Industrial (B-I) District. Motion seconded by Duray. Motion carried 6 - 1. Barraclough voted against. CUP'S $c Lori Peterson, Valor Enterprises, appeared before the Commission VARIANCE - requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for open and 3161-3167 outdoor storage of equipment as an accessory use in the side and SPRUCE rear yard of the property located at 3161-3167 Spruce Street, as STREET - well as a Variance from distance separation requirements for auto VALOR sales lots and a Conditional Use Permit for an auto sales lot. ENTERPRISES The City Planner reported that the City's ordinance requires a 500- + foot separation between auto sales lots in the City. The property directly across the street from this site has been issued a retail auto sales license. In addition to separation requirements, the City's ordinance limits retail auto sales licenses to four. Three have been issued. Lori Peterson reported that 90% of their vehicles they own, repair, and sell on a wholesale basis back to dealers through the local auctions. The other 10% they repair and sell to the general public. Therefore, they are requesting the retail sales license. Peterson suggested that the hardship to justify the variance from the distance requirement is that without the retail license, they will suffer a reduction in their business. Peterson pointed out that all retail sales are conducted by appointment only, in response to ads placed in the newspaper. The sales lot is not the typical lot with traffic coming and going. This retail sales activity is a limited portion of their business. Keis asked if the repair operation involved clips of cars. Peterson replied that it did not. They purchase all parts from parts suppliers and would not be storing parts on site. However, as cars are being repaired, parts would be removed, and the vehicles may have to t2 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 1999 wait for a day or two until replacement parts are received. The storage of vehicles would be screened. Keis asked about compliance with the recommendations of the Zoning Administrator for cleaning up the property. Petersen reported that they are agreeable to all the conditions recommended. However, they did have an issue with the 30 required parking spaces, and felt this number was excessive for their needs. The Zoning Administrator pointed out that the recommendation is based on the City's ordinance for an auto-related business, which uses both the use and the size of the building in determining required parking. The applicant has the option of going through the proof-of-parking process as provided by Code. The City Planner reported that parking requirements for auto- related businesses are based on the past experience that the City has had with these types of businesses. The proof-of-parking process could reduce the requirement, while retaining the City's ability to impose full requirements in the future if the need for the additional parking becomes apparent. However, proof-of-parking process requires application for a CUP. Peterson noted that all the parking of their vehicles for sate will occur in the storage area and not in the required parking area. There are currently five employees of the business. Therefore, five spaces would be required for these employees as well as some additional for customers, delivery vehicles, etc. Peterson suggested that the 14 paved parking spaces that already exist on the site would be more than adequate. Kraemer asked about compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner and Zoning Administrator. Lori Peterson reported that some of the issues will be addressed by Valor Enterprises and some will be addressed by Dan Sebesta, who currently has a contract-for-deed on the property. Peterson reported that Mr. Sebesta has already made efforts to clean up the site and is continuing to do so. The Commission decided to first act on the Conditional Use Permit for the open and outdoor storage. 13 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 1999 Kraemer recommended approval on the Conditional Use Permit for open and outdoor storage of equipment as an accessory use in the side and rear yard at 3161-3167 Spruce Street as requested by Valor Enterprises subject to compliance with the recommendations of the Zoning Administrator as outlined in her report dated November 30, 1999. Motion seconded by Carson. Motion can ied 7 - 0. Montour pointed out that the City's ordinance limits retail auto sales licenses to four and asked if property owners had the ability to barter and exchange these licenses. Peterson pointed out that these licenses are not transferable given the application and bonding requirements. Tl1e Commission discussed what hardship was present to warrant a variance from the separation requirement between retail auto sales lots. Peterson pointed out that the City would have control over the business, and should there be a problem with it, the City has the ability to revoke the CUP. Peterson questioned the reason for the 500-foot separation requirement. The City Planner replied that the City adopted this requirement so that it would not end up with a row of retail auto sales lots. The City also limited the number of licenses to discourage this as well. Keis felt that rather than grant a variance to the separation requirement; it seemed more practical to eliminate the separation requirement. Keis was concerned with the precedent the variance would set, and did not feel there was a hardship present to warrant the variance. Knudsen suggested that the Variance could be granted upon the condition that retail sales does not become the primary component of the business. Keis suggested that such a restriction would be unenforceable. Kraemer suggested that the City could limit retail sales to two cars per week and require that Valor Enterprises submit proof on an annual basis. It was noted that this would be the fourth retail sales license issued; therefore, no additional licenses are available. 14 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 1999 The City Planner indicated that the Commission should have reasons for granting the Variance. Knudsen felt that the 500-foot separation requirement did not make a lot of sense. The City Planner noted that Ryan Industrial Park is not intended to be a retail site and pointed out that retail traffic would interfere with the industrial traffic in this area. Peterson pointed out that the auto repair businesses in Ryan Industrial Park generate a lot of retail traffic. Mr. Barraclough recommended approval of the Variance from distance separation requirements for auto sales lots based on the fact that the business location is Ryan Industrial Park, that the size of the property is limited, that retail sales is not the primary part of Valor's business, and conditioned that Valor Enterprises be limited to retail sales of 100 vehicles per year, as well as approving the Conditional Use Permit for a retail auto sales license. Motion seconded by Kraemer. Motion carried 4 - 3. Duray, Knudsen, and Keis voted against. AMEND Mr. Keis recommended approval of an amendment to the Zoning PUBLIC Code allowing outdoor storage of wood chips as an interim use in ZONING the Public District subject to the amendment of Item #8 making the DISTRICT City Council the responsible party for determining whether or not the site is a public nuisance. Motion seconded by Knudsen. Motion carried 7 - 0. REZONING - Mr. Montour recommended approval of the Rezoning of City CITY PROPERTY- property on Country Drive from Light-Industrial (I-1) to Public COUNTRY DR. (P) as recommended by City staff and approving an Interim Use Permit to allow the stockpiling of wood chips on this property. Motion seconded by Carson. Motion carried 7 - 0. IS iVIINUTES CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 15, 1999 Morelan introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOI. UTION NO. 99-12-258 -AMENDING THE L,4ND USE PORTION OF THE CO~LIPREHEN.SIVE PLAN TO REFLECT A BUSINESS-INDUSTRIAL USE FOR PROPERTYL OC.4TED AT 310. EDGERTONSTREETAND 608 COUNTYROAD D AND INSTRUCTING THE CITY PLANNER TO ~I'fAKE THE NECESSARY AMENDMENTS The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Fahey. Ayes (4) Morelan, Fahey, Pedersen, LaValle. Nays (1) Scaize. Resolution declared adopted. REZONING Fahey opened the public hearing to consider the rezoning of property OF 3104 located at 3104 Edgerton Street and 608 County Road D from Light- EDGERTON Industrial (I-1) to Business-Industrial (B-I). Tlie Planning Commission AND 608 has recommended approval of the rezoning. COUNTY ROAD D There was no one present t}om the general public wishing to comment on this matter. Upon motion by Fahey, seconded by Morelan, the public hearing was closed. Morelan introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RE.SOI UTIONNO. 99-72-259 -APPROVING THE REZONING OF PROPERTYAT 3104 EDGERTON STREET AND 608 COUNTY ROAD D FROMLIGHT-INDUSTRIAL (I-1) TD 13USINESS- INDUSTRIAL (B-I) The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Pedersen. Ayes (4) Morelan, Pedersen, LaValle, Fahey. Nays (1) Scalze. Resolution declared adopted. CUPS & Fahey opened the public hearing to consider the applications for VARIANCE - Conditional Use Permit for open and outdoor storage of equipment as 3161-3167 an accessory use in the side and rear yards, a Variance from distance SPRUCE requirements for auto sales lots, and a Conditional Use Permit for an STREET - auto sales lot at 3161-3167 Spruce Street as requested by Valor VALOR Enterprises. The Planning Commission has recommended approval ENTERPRISES of these applications. tt MINUTES CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 15, 1999 There was no one present, other than the applicant, wishing to comment on this matter. Upon motion by Morelan, seconded by LaValle, the public hearing was closed. Lori Peterson, Valor Enterprises, reported that retail auto sales is a limited portion of their business. They are requesting a CUP in order to conduct retail auto sales, and do not wish to find an additional location to conduct this portion of the business. Peterson indicated that she understands that in order to justify the granting of a variance, a hardship must be present. She also understands the concern that the City would not want to see retail sales as the primary portion of the business. Peterson indicated that if retail sales was their primary use, another location would have been chosen, Peterson pointed out that the only problem under the Code with their proposed use is that they do not meet the 500-foot distance separation requirement. Fahey pointed out that when this Code was put in place the concern was that retail auto sales lots tend to congregate. The City wanted to ensure that it did not have a row of vehicle sales lots along Rice Street. Scalze indicated that the variance process is not the correct procedure for this request since there is no hardship present. Fahey agreed, and indica±ed that if the Council feels the 500-foot separation requirement should be addressed, then a text amendment should be considered. Morelan asked what districts retail auto sales lots are allowed in. The Planner replied that they are allowed in all the business districts as well as I-I by conditional use permit. Morelan stated that he understands the rational behind the 500 foot distance separation, but suggested that given the number of licenses are limited to four and this would be the fourth license to be issued, the provision should be eliminated. Morelan indicated that the worst case is that there would be four auto sales lots along Rice Street, and he did not see that happening. Scalze pointed out that this ordinance came into effect when additional auto sales lots were proposed in the area of Tom's Auto Sales on County Road C. Fahey pointed out that the Council cannot amend the ordinance tonight. However, the Council can give the applicant an indication of whether or not it would support elimination of the 500-foot separation requirement. 12 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 15, 1999 Fahey also indicated that he would like to know how other cities address auto sales lots. He noted that it has been awhile since the City has looked at this issue, and there may be other standards that should be considered. Fahey felt, however, that the variance needed to be denied. He further noted that an ordinance amendment would have to go through the Planning Commission for their review and comment. Morelan asked about compliance with the Zoning Administrator's recommendations. The Zoning Administrator noted that Valor Enterprises is the potential purchaser of the property. There are some code compliance issues that Valor Enterprises has agreed to do, and others that the current property owner Dan Sebesta has agreed to. The Zoning Administrator pointed out her report dated September 14, 1999 in the Council agenda that notes responsibility for compliance. Peterson asked for a reading on how the Council feels about the elimination of the distance separation requirement. Fahey replied that it appears there is an openness on the part of the Council to look at this standard. However, he does not have enough information this evening to say more than that. Fahey noted that a text amendment wilt be presented to the Planning Commission at their January 13°i meeting, with a recommendation back to the Council at its January 26°i meeting. Morelan indicated that he is interested in finding a way to revise the code to make this situation work assuming that the solution will be fair for the rest of the community. Scalze indicated that she could not be sure of her position until she gets the recommendation from the Planning Commission. Fahey stated that he would like to see what other cities are doing. Scalze stated that she has no problem with the use in Ryan Industrial Park, however, was concerned about auto sales lots on Rice Street. Scalze noted that properties with an auto sales use generally to not pay a lot of property taxes. Morelan introduced the fol]owing resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 99-I2-260 - APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT AS ANACCESSORY USE IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS FOR 3161-3167 SPRUCE STREET A.S REQUESTED BY VALOR ENTERPRISES, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR i~ MINUTES CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 15, 1999 The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by LaValle. Ayes (5) Morelan, LaValle, Fahey, Scalze, Pedersen. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. Morelan introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 99-12-261-DENYING THE VARIANCE FROIhI DISTANCE SEPARATION REQ UIREMENTS FOR A UTO SAI ES LOTS FOR 3161-3167SPRUCE STREETAS REQUESTED BY VALOR ENTERPRISES BASED ON THE FACT TIIAT THIS REQUEST DOES NOT iLIEET THE REQUIREMENTS AS SET FORTH IN THE CODE, AND TABLING ACTION ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO SALES LOT PENDING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON A TEXT AMEND~YIENT RELATIVE TO RESTRICTIONS FOR AUTO SALES LOTS The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Pedersen. Ayes (5) Morelan, Pedersen, Scalze, LaValle, Fahey. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. AMEND Fahey opened the public hearing to consider amending the Zoning Code PUBLIC allowing outdoor storage of wood chips as an interim ~,ise in the Pubiic (P) DISTRICT District. The Planning Commission ]ras recommended approval of this amendment subject to the amendment to Item 8 designating the City Council as the entity to determine whether a site becomes a nuisance. There was no one from the general public present wishing to comment on this matter. Upon motion by Scalze, seconded by Pedersen, the public hearing was closed. Scalze introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOI. UTION NO. 99-I2-262 -AMENDING THE ZONING CODE ALLOWING FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE OF WOOD CHIPS AS AN INTERIM USE IN THE PUBLIC (P) DISTRICT SUB.IECT TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Fahey. Ayes (5) Scalze, Fahey, LaValle, Morelan, Pedersen. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. 1 ~l MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 2000 ZONING CODE The Commission reviewed the City Planner's report relative AMENDMENT- to the amendment of the Zoning Code regulating location and AUTO SALES number of motor vehicle sales lots within the City. The Planner LOTS pointed out that this issue arose as the result of the application by Valor Enterprises for an auto sales license in Ryan Industrial Park. ---""""'"`"`"""'~'" The property that Valor Enterprises is proposing to occupy is located directly across the street from another business holding a license for a motor vehicles sales lot. The Code requires a 500- foot distance separation between auto sales lots. The Planner reported that staff has surveyed surrounding cities to determine their criteria for regulating auto sales lots, and found that each city addresses the issue in its own way. The City of White Bear Lake requires a minimum lot size of two acres and a building at least 20% of the lot size. They also have additional landscaping requirements. The City of Vadnais Heights allows used vehicle sales in conjunction with new car sales except that certain auto-related uses can have a license for used car sales with a limitation of not more than five vehicles for sale. The Planner explained the rational that the Council used in creating the separation requirement as well as placing the limitation on the number of licenses. The Planner also noted that auto sales and storage has continued to be an issue for the City, particularly in the industrial park. There is not much of an issue with this along Rice Street given the redevelopment potential in that area. The Planner reported that it is staff s opinion that because of the issues the City has with motor vehicle sales and the difficulty regulating these businesses, the recommendation is to make no changes to the ordinance at this time. Knudsen suggested a limitation on the number of vehicles similar to what Vadnais Heights does. The City Planner indicated that he was not sure that afive-car limitation would be adequate for Valor's needs. Carson pointed out that the City wanted to limit the number of used car dealers to four. The Planner agreed that the intention was to limit the number of dealers as well as avoid the clustering of these dealers in the same area. MINUTES PLANNING COIVIlVIISSION JANUARY I3, 2000 Keis indicated that if the City adopted ordinances similar to Vadnais Heights', any car repair business could have a used car dealer's license for up to five cars. Duray felt that the 500-foot separation requirement should be removed from the ordinance, but the limitation of four licenses should remain. Carson agreed. Montour indicated that this is what the Commission recommended at its last meeting. The Deputy Clerk pointed out that the Commission recommended a variance be granted from the separation requirement for Valor Enterprises. The City Council felt that there was no hardship present to warrant a variance, and that an ordinance amendment was the proper way to handle the request, Lee Rossow reported that in 1989 his company was granted a motor vehicles sales license. Rossow indicated that his was the fourth license granted, and noted that they are located across the street from Eich Auto which has a motor vehicle sales license. Rossow indicated that his business, Comfort Bus, sells new and used buses. Rossow pointed out that at the time he got his license, the 500-foot separation requirement did not come into play. The Zoning Administrator reported that Mr. Rossow has a bus wholesaler license, not a motor vehicle sales license. The bus wholesaler license was not counted against the four motor vehicle sales licenses allowed by ordinance. Lori Peterson, Valor Enterprises, indicated that the issue was the 500-foot separation requirement. Peterson indicated that the Council did not want to grant a variance to the separation requirement given the precedent they felt it would set. Therefore, a solution would be to amend the ordinance elimination the separation requirement. The City Planner indicated that the ordinance actually has two separation requirements. One is for 500 feet in the B-W and I-1 Districts, and the other is for 2,000 feet in the B-2 and B-4 Districts. Carson recommended approval of an amendment to the Zoning Code eliminating the 500 foot separation requirement between motor vehicles sales lots in the I-1 District. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 2000 Motion seconded by Duray. Motion carried 6 - 0. CUP FOR George Rossez, Advent Construction, and Corrine Schmidt, RESPITE - Northeast Residence, appeared before the Commission requesting HOME - approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a group home LITTLE CANADA facility providing short-term respite care as well as a Variance ROAD - from the setback requirements. The home is proposed adjacent NORTI3EAST to the St. John's Credit Union at the corner of Little Canada Road RESIDENCE and McMenemy Road. The City Planner reported that the respite home qualifies as a single-family residence according to State Law. The property is currently zoned Residential Business, and the respite home is a permitted use. A Conditional Use Permit is required because one level of the structure is proposed to be used for commercial office space. The Planner further noted that a variance is being requested to the City's setback requirements. The building was designed anticipating 10-foot side yard setbacks. The RB District requires 15-foot side yard setbacks. The Planner noted that the City Engineer has raised issues relative to the drainage of the site and is suggesting that a storm water retention pond will be needed on the site. The Planner pointed out that the building as proposed takes up most of the property. Parking is proposed to occur in the rear. Because of the side yard setback issue as well as the need to redesign the site to accommodate storm water retention, more analysis is needed to see what fits on the property. The Planner pointed out that the applicant is not excited about redesigning the building and has expended a considerable amount of money getting to the point they are at now. The Planner indicated that if the Commission were inclined to grant the variance, the narrowness of the existing lot of record could be used as a hardship. However, the Planner pointed out that the argument could be made that the lot could be developed without a variance. The building would just have to be designed differently. MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 26, 2000 RESOL UTION NO. 2000-1-I7 -APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPENAND OUTDOOR STORAGE OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AS ANACCESSORY USE AT 3100 SPRUCE STREET AS REQUESTED BY JIM BIRCH SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OUTLINED IN HER REPORT DATED DECEMBER 29, 1999 The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Scalze. Ayes (5) Morelan, Scalze, Pedersen, LaValle, Fahey. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. ZONING CODE Fahey opened the public hearing to consider an amendment to the AMENDMENT - Zoning Code regulating the location and number of motor vehicle MOTOR VEHICLE sales lots. It was noted that the Planning Commission recommended SALES LOTS elimination of the 500 foot separation requirement in the I-1 Zoning District. There was no one present from the general public wishing to comment on this matter. Upon motion by Morelan, seconded by Fahey, the public hearing was closed. The City Planner noted the Planning Commission's recommendation that the separation requirement be eliminated. He indicated that this would involved the elimination of that specific language from the ordinance. Morelan introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOL UTION NO. 2000-1-I8 -APPROVING ANAMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE ELIMINATING THE S00 FOOT SEPARATION REQUIREMENT BETWEEN MOTOR VEHICLES SALES LOTS FROM THE I-1 ZONING DISTRICT BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Foregoing resolution was duly seconded by LaValle. Ayes (5) Morelan, LaValle, Fahey, Scalze, Pedersen. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. CUP - 3161-3167 Mayor Fahey opened the continuation of Public Hearing to consider SPRUCE STR - a conditional use permit allowing a vehicle sales lot at 3161-3167 VALOR Spruce Street as requested by Valor Enterprises. The Planning .ENTERPRISES Commission has recommended approval of the vehicle sales license for Valor Enterprises. MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 26, 2000 There was no one present from the general public wishing to comment on this matter. Upon motion by Morelan, seconded by Scalze, the public hearing was closed. The Zoning Administrator reported that she received a call from the St. Paul Zoning Administrator who informed her that there are outstanding code issues with Valor's location in the City of St. Paul. Based on that information, the Zoning Administrator recommended that the Council require either a bond be posted or an escrow deposit made to ensure the required improvements and outstanding code violations are addressed at 3161-3167 Spruce Street. Lori Peterson, Valor Enterprises, reported that Valor does not own the property in St. Paul, but merely leases it. She indicated that the problems with the St. Paul property are those of the property owner, not Valor Enterprises. Peterson indicated that this is one of the reasons that Valor is seeking to purchase their own property rather than having to deal with tenant/landlord issues. Fahey pointed out that the City can place a condition on the motor vehicle sales lot license that the property must be brought into conformance with all Code requirements, otherwise the license will be revoked. The City Attorney pointed out that it would be the Conditional Use Permit for the motor vehicle sales lot that would be revoked if Code compliance is not achieved. Morelan introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTIONNO. 2000-I-79 -APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING A MOTOR VEHICLES SALES LOT AT 3I6I-3167 SPRUCE STREET AS REQUESTED BY VALOR ENTERPRISES SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AS OUTLINED IN HER REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 30, 1999 The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Scalze. Ayes (5) Morelan, Scalze, Pedersen, LaValle, Fahey. Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted.