10-26-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STAFF REPORT TO: Mayor Keis and Members of the City Council FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Associate Planner DATE: October 20, 2016 RE: 32 S. Owasso Boulevard Appeal City staff has been working for quite some time with Uldis Erdmanis, Property Owner of 32 S. Owasso Boulevard and Business Owner of Buck Blacktop, regarding permitted and “grandfathering” rights of the outdoor storage that occurs at 32 S. Owasso Boulevard. This most recent clarification of what uses were allowed began with Mr. Erdmanis in 2013 when city staff observed as part of our outdoor storage licensing that there were contractor materials unrelated to Buck Blacktop operations in the storage area. In 2014 and 2015, city staff again observed other contractor trucks and semi-trucks in the storage area. Mr. Erdmanis has indicated the rental of a portion of the storage area still occurs today so the trucks/equipment are still on the property. These discussions have led to an impasse with Mr. Erdmanis on the interpretation of what is considered grandfathered use of the site. Based on the City’s position that the use of renting the outdoor storage area is not permitted nor grandfathered, Mr. Erdmanis has filed an appeal the Council to allow the current uses to remain as a continuation of the grandfathering rights. To give the Council some history, this property was rezoned from I-1, Light Industrial to I-P, Industrial Park on October 26, 1988. At that time, the Buck Blacktop operations that legally existed on the property became a grandfathered use (Attachment A). This grandfathering distinction allows the property the right to continue use of the site (i.e. type of business and outdoor storage) as it was at the time of the rezoning, but this does not include the expansion of use(s). When the rezoning occurred, these two districts were essentially the same for the type of uses this allowed (with the exception that the I-P would not allow auto repair). However, the distinction between the two was that the I-P zoning district would require more landscaping and higher quality site improvements and building materials (i.e. metal buildings would be precluded). During the rezoning discussions in 1988, Mr. Erdmanis did bring up concern over the building materials standard for the I- P District and his concern over being able to rebuild the structure. As such, the meeting minutes reflect the city would allow properties impacted by the rezoning to rebuild or expanded up to 25% of the existing floor area without having to bring the property into conformity as long as the existing non- conformity was not being increased. This allowance for expanding the building is provided for under Minnesota State Statute 462.357 and adopted under City Code 903.010.G in the following language:  Subject to the requirements of MN Stat. Chapter 462.357, Subd. 1.e., if at any time a non- conforming building, structure or use shall be destroyed to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its fair market value, said value to be determined by the City Assessor, and where no building permit has been applied for within one hundred eighty (180) days of said destruction, then without further action by the Council, the building and the land on which such building