Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-065 Council Resolution• • • ' Council Member O Donnell introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 10 -65 DENYING VARIANCES TO THE NON - CONFORMING STRUCTURE SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF A NON - CONFORMING BUILDING AND TO THE STREET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE RURAL ZONING DISCTRICT TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING AT 909 MAPLE STREET. WHEREAS, a request has been submitted to the City for the approval of a variance at 909 Maple Street, and WHEREAS, review and approvals of variances are governed by state statutes and City ordinances, and WHEREAS, the Lino Lakes City Council makes the following findings: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The existing building has been operating as an auto body repair shop for a number of years without the proposed addition. The addition is tied to the desire to serve customers of the proposed auto sales lot, which was denied by adoption of Resolution 10 -64. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. The land owner's desire to expand his non - conforming building on a standard, rectangular lot is what is creating the inability to meet the ordinance requirements. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Staff considers reasonable use of the property to be continued use of the site as an auto body repair shop. KI Auto Page 5 of 6 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. The ordinance does not allow expansion of non - conforming structures anywhere in the city, and approving an expansion of this non - conforming structure would grant a special privilege to this applicant. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The intent of the non - conforming section of the ordinance is to bring all non - conforming uses and buildings into conformance with the ordinance over time. Allowing expansion of non- conforming uses or structures will only serve to prolong the timeline for conformity. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby denies the variances for ex... ' • of a no i - • nforming structure and front setback reduction. • ATTEST: Jul! : Bartell, iN y Clerk Jeff Rein - , y ayor Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 23 th day of August 2010. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Gallup and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor O Donnell, Gallup, Rafferty, Roeser, Reinert thereof: The following voted against same: none Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • KI Auto Page 6 of 6 • • AGENDA ITEM 6.A. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson CC MEETING DATE: August 23, 2010 TOPIC: Resolution No. 10 -65, Denying a Variance to allow expansion of a non - conforming structure and a reduced front setback for an addition to the existing structure at 909 Maple Street. BACKGROUND The property at 909 Maple is 13,393 square foot in area and is currently developed with a 3,057 square foot building that is occupied by an Auto Body Repair Shop. The metal building on the site was approved via a Conditional Use Permit in 1983. This Conditional Use Permit was then amended in 1991 to allow the operation of an automotive body shop in the existing building. On July 26, 2010 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10 -64 denying the applicant's request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Conditional Use Permit to add motor vehicle sales to the site. The final portion of the request, the variances for the expansion of a non - conforming structure and reduced front setback were postponed for further discussion. On August 11, 2010 the City Council discussed the recent Supreme Court case law and how it applied to all variance requests, and requested that the variance request be added to the regular agenda for August 23, 2010. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and Zoning: The table below identifies the existing land use and zoning as well as guided land uses for the area. Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Auto Body Shop Low Density Sewered Residential Rural North Residential Sand Blasting Low Density Sewered Residential Rural General Business South Residential Low Density Sewered Residential Rural East Vacant Low Density Sewered Residential Rural West Residential Low Density Sewered Residential Rural The applicant received approval to attach an `eyebrow' roof structure on the building that does not have support posts and therefore is essentially just a roof overhang and not an expansion of the building. At that time the applicant also partially installed an enclosed entry feature on the building. This was done • without a permit and after the Building Official informed the applicant that a permit was required. The current installation does not meet building code requirements. • • The attached `Reference Plan', sheet S1, depicts the location of the new entry'. The notes on the plan were written by the Building Official prior to issuing the permit for the eyebrow roof addition to the `pole barn building'. The building (and site) is considered non - conforming because it is setback 24.8 feet from Maple Street, where 30 feet is required and it is 1.4 feet from the rear property line where 30 feet is required. Additionally, the building itself does not conform to the architectural standards for Commercial /Industrial /Institutional Buildings. According to the ordinance, the structure is allowed to remain on the site but may not be expanded. The non - conforming section of the ordinance is depicted below: Subd. 2. Non - Conforming Uses and Structures. A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to provide for the regulation of nonconforming buildings, structures and uses and to specify those requirements, circumstances, and conditions under which non - conforming buildings, structures and uses will be operated and maintained. The Zoning Ordinance establishes separate districts, each of which is an appropriate area for the location of uses which are permitted in that district. It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of these districts that non - conforming buildings, structures and uses not be permitted to continue without restriction. Furthermore, it is the intent of this section that all non - conforming uses shall be eventually brought into conformity. B. Provisions. 1. Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: a. The nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year; or b. Any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In this case, the City may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property. KI Auto Page 2 of 6 • 1. Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. The City may, by ordinance, permit an expansion or impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfare, or safety. This subdivision does not prohibit the City from enforcing an ordinance that applies to adults -only bookstores, adults -only theaters, or similar adults -only businesses, as defined by ordinance. 2. Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the City shall regulate the repair, replacement, maintenance, improvement, or expansion of nonconforming uses and structures in floodplain areas to the extent necessary to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program and not increase flood damage potential or increase the degree of obstruction to flood flows in the floodway. Staff has made an official determination that the proposed entrance addition is above the ordinance limits in regards to expansion of a non - conforming structure. If the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council agree with this determination, a Variance would be required in order to allow this expansion. The findings required in order to approve a Variance are as follows: Findings of Fact. In considering all requests for variance or appeal and in 4111 taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: • 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The existing building has been operating as an auto body repair shop for a number of years without the proposed addition. The addition is tied to the desire to serve customers of the proposed auto sales lot, which was denied by the City Council as part of Resolution No. 10 -64. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. The land owner's desire to expand his non - conforming building on a standard, rectangular lot is what is creating the inability to meet the ordinance requirements. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Staff considers reasonable use of the property to be continued use of the site as an auto body repair shop. KI Auto Page 3 of 6 • 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. The ordinance does not allow expansion of non - conforming structures anywhere in the city, and approving an expansion of this non - conforming structure would grant a special privilege to this applicant. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The intent of the non - conforming section of the ordinance is to bring all non - conforming uses and buildings into conformance with the ordinance over time. Allowing expansion of non- conforming uses or structures will only serve to prolong the timeline for conformity. PUBLIC NOTICE A public hearing notice was printed in the Quad Community Press on June 29, 2010, and direct mailings were sent out to 49 property owners within 600 feet of the subject site on June 28, 2010. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD On July 14, 2010 the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing and after discussion voted to recommend denial of the requests. RECOMMENDATION Per the findings made in the body of the report, staff recommends denial of the Variance request and immediate removal of the offending improvements to the building. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 10 -65 2. Reference Plan (entry addition) submitted June 11, 2010 3. Site Photos submitted at July 14, 2010 P & Z meeting 4. Site, Grading, and Utility Plan submitted June 11, 2010 KI Auto Page 4 of 6 SCOPE REVIEW OF AN EXISTING EYEBROW ROOF CONSTRUCTED ONTO THE SIDE OF A TIMBER POLE BUILDING, AS WELL AS DESIGN OF A SIMILAR ROOF SYSTEM ONTO THE ADJACENT CONCRETE MASONRY BLOCK BUILDING, WITH THE POTENTIAL TO CONNECT THE TWO LOW ROOF ELEMENTS. CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE DRAWINGS, STANDARD INDUSTRY PRACTICE, AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE. NOTES 1. THESE DOCUMENTS APPLY TO STRUCTURAL ONLY. ARCHITECTURAL ITEMS INCLUDING FLASHING, MATERIAL PROTECTION, AND INSULATION ARE BY OTHERS, AS WELL AS REVIEW OF PROPERTY RESTRICTIONS THAT COULD PREVENT THE CONNECTING OF ROOF ELEMENTS BETWEEN BUILDINGS. 2. A SITE VISIT WAS PERFORMED BY TREVOR AXNER, PE SE OF ULTEIG ON MAY 19, 2010 TO REVIEW EXISTING CONDITIONS. ONLY EXPOSED ELEMENTS AND THOSE WHERE FINISHED MATERIALS HAD BEEN REMOVED WERE OBSERVED DURING THIS VISIT. CONTACT ULTEIG IF CONDITIONS VARY FROM THOSE SPECIFIED WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT. 3. ADEQUATE SHORING DURING CONSTRUCTION IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. MATERIALS LUMBER: SPRUCE - PINE -FIR #2 GRADE (SPF) LOADS ROOF SNOW LOAD: ROOF DEAD LOAD: 35 PSF 10 PSF CODES 2007 MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE w/ AMENDED 2006 IBC EXISTING EYEBROW ROOF THIS END POLE BARN BUILDING K./0 EYEBROW CONNECTING ELEMENT TO BE CONSTRUCTED SIMILAR TO 1/S3 w/ 9Y" LVL VERTICAL BEAM AND (2) 2 x 10 HORIZONTAL BEAMS END POST SUPPORT TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON APPROVAL TO CONNECT BUILDINGS �v(:.�vccJ CMU BUILDING 3' -0" IMO AIM MEM r i- ed By: Ryan Mack Rev Date 17' -0 "± 0 S1 1 REFERENCE PLAN AT EYEBROW ROOF LOCATIONS RECEIVED 2010 CITY OF LINO LAKES Eyebrow Roof Addition 909 Maple Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 K. I. Auto 909 Maple Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 © COPYRIGHT ULTEIG ENGINEERS INC. 2010 Project: Client: I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date: 6 -2 -10 License Number: 45470 Signed: Print Name: Trevor‘Axner Project Number: 10.01163 Drawing Date: June 2, 2010 Sheet: 1 of 3 SI 5201 East River Rd Suite 308 Minneapolis, MN 55421 Tel 763-571-2500 Fax 763 -571 -1168 www.uheig -com SITE PLAN, GRADING PLAN and UTILTITY PLAN -for- K.I. AUTO BODY 909 Maple Street Lino Lakes, MN. 55014 Tel: 651- 784 -2367 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION : The East 100 feet of the West 1600 feet of the North Half of Lot 4, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 138, Anoka County, Minnesota. 4253 x91230 (i 9110.5 6 FFrar -a � (Rural Zoning) 0.r1" R1.CE 91203 911.86 J10ExND -rl iENCE-CL iENCE -0. • «J qq g� -_._�_ Ifa0-PE9AR 099 ...ices AMR 0619 OH Ei✓�ExD- 91053 o e9 910.69 910.22 84.00509 9199000 (Rural zoNng) 6' WOOD PRIVACY FENCE, N. OF LDNE 23 0.65 589°47'58 "E 771.00.10 slam 910.07 919.07 FEN FEN •.: FENCOR 0109 A (Zoned General Business) 9910.20 CHAILINE N LINK FENCE ON • nSEw 05 0� %91.82 814. M 912.31 99{DGCm 84.09500 (Rurol Zoning) 811.70 941.9 BLOC DR 911.50 : 911.19 OHW 2.5' POP20 -2 F10.88 ENEND 910.99 999.09 909.43 T 19/1 1 \1 H 4 9-_ 1 909.11 EBIi E &r 127 Existing Bituminous Surface, VACY FENCE CHAAN. LINK'. F- CUPITY GATE 1QM hE 10010JS 910.03 910.36 I $0 % 0 800 0 0 -0- • FEN ONW- &&DD OR 9ppggc60 9lD Cai sisal 8 Existing Bituminous Surface. NO curb and utter • 90988 .:EBa.+ SECTION MAPPING = .:::900.89...:.. 909.49 ®g09t3 `9ETIRASSTA3P11 15x1 / 5 /100 109Q.',5 N89°53'05 "W.; 81- 2,737 L. Lam, i E.C. Rill a SONS, INC. Professional Land Surveyors www.eg ud.com 6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Tel. (651) 361 -8200 Fax (651) 361 -8701 (Rural Zoning) DRAWN BY DWO JOB NO' 08523LS I DATE 01/12/09 CHECK BY.: DWO SCANNED 2 3 N0. 0,41E DESCRIPTION BY I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a dui Registered Land Surveyor under the ,d�s of the State o. Minnesota. DANIEL W. OBERMILLER Date: .1/4 /o,...9 License No. 25341 • SITE NOTES PROPOSED STRIPING OF FIVE 9' BY 20' FOOT PARKING SPACES FOR VEHICLE SALES. EXISTING BITUMINOUS AREA EXISTS ON SITE FOR 9 ADDITIONAL STALLS. SHOWN IS 380sf OF SALES AREA FOR EACH OF 5 PARKING SPACES (38005 =19005f). SEE HATCHED AREA. PROPOSED ROLED BITUMINOUS CURB (OR CITY APPROVED EQUIVELANT) TO BE PLACES AT ALL NON - CURBED EDGES OF THE EXISTING BITUMINOUS SURFACE AREA. EXISTING DRAINAGE TO REMAIN SAME AS CURRENTLY DRAINING. NO CHANGE TO DRAINAGE PATTERN PROPOSED. NO CHANGE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA PROPOSED. NO CHANGES TO ANY UTILITIES PROPOSED FOR THIS PLAN. .••• :• +:iii . • 0 OW DENOTES 1900sf SALES AREA. DENOTES PROPOSED ROLED BITUMINOUS CURB. LEGEND DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LABELED DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET, MARKED RLS# 25341 DENOTES SEPTIC CLEANOUT OR PIPE DENOTES GAS METER DENOTES POWER POLE AND OVERHEAD WIRES DENOTES EXISTING KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DENOTES CHAIN LINK FENCE (TYPE AND HEIGHT AS LABELLED) DENOTES DENOTES DENOTES _....� DENOTES 72,z0m DENOTES 6' WOOD PRIVACY FENCE CONCRETE SURFACE BITUMINOUS SURFACE EXISTING CONTOURS EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION DENOTES EXISTING AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE (BOTH THE SAME) DENOTES PROPOSED GUTTER ELEVATION (SAME AS EXISTING BITUMINOUS EDGE) • S\ ,°d1C04\39p,oJ•00523LSSUBS23d.9 12/2/2909 9,1622 AN CST VICINITY MAP PART OF SEC. 4, TWP. 31, RNG. 22 i 4DD 3 I; TION (9'] 2 tee) f NEM AUDITOR'S I1) Dr] 0..o e) tm 75- Uf9a - n " 4222 .e ORANGE STREET 76 7s /$1tza li1= EARKIN fI NN too CH 11®®111111®. t2] I'"] S u D 11,3 I D) 6 1241 • f - s 3 0 N � pn �. '1F,1e 6 iz., ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA (NO SCALE) PROPOSED BITUMINOUS CURB DETAIL EXISTING BASE 1 -1/B" RADIUS MATCH EXIST. BITUMINOUS EXISTING : INOU,S7 // /S GRAPHIC SCALE 0 10 TO (• IN FEET ) 1 inch - 20 14. NORTH