Agenda Packets - 1996/06/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STAFF REPORT FOR INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 584 • JUNE 24, 1996 PAGE TWO OF THREE The Planning Commission first considered whether to recommend approval or denial of a code amendment to exclude canopies as an enlargement of a legal nonconforming use zoned property. The Planning Commission did recommend approval of the proposed code amendment. The unapproved minutes of the June 05, 1996 Planning Commission Regular meeting are attached for your review on the discussion which took place on this item. The Planning Commission was instructed to consider the code amendment and variance as two separate issues since simply granting the variance without the code amendment may create several unintended negative impacts. Namely, that an interpretation by the City Council that a canopy is not a"structure"would be inconsistent with findings presented in Planning Case No. 438-96 and adopted by the City Council. If a canopy was to be interpreted as not a structure (as would be done without a code amendment), then no setbacks nor any other control measures of the Municipal code would apply. Planning Commission Resolution No. 448-96, approving a variance for an eight foot encroachment into the required thirty foot front yard setback off Adams Street was approved by the Commission on June 05, 1996. A contingency was added that if the applicants failed to receive a code amendment to Chapter 1123 entitled "Nonconforming Buildings, Uses and • Structures," that the variance would be void. Resolution No. 448-96 is attached for your review as well. Applicant Tom Manke, has gathered a petition, including 269 names, in favor of the canopy at the site. See a breakdown on the attached map. The intent of Chapter 1123 of the Municipal Code is listed as: "the intent of this chapter is that all nonconforming uses shall be eventually brought into conformity." The proposed Ordinance No. 584 would exempt canopies on a legal nonconforming use site from being considered an enlargement of the property. Thus, a canopy on a legal nonconforming use site would not be considered an enlargement, but would be required to adhere to required setback of the zoning district. Staff has researched how many commercial or industrial properties are zoned as legal nonconforming uses. It appears that four commercial properties are currently exeunt as legal nonconforming uses. Specifically, the following are currently zoned as a legal nonconforming use: (1) Bumper to Bumper, 2701 Highway 10 NE- the use was in place in 1973 when B-3 zoning districts did not require a conditional use permit for auto service facilities; (2) Citgo/Jiffy Mart, 2395 Highway 10- although the zoning, B-3, is compliance with zoning requirements for a gas station, no conditional use permit for gasoline sales has been issued. The use was in place in 1955 when a conditional use permit to operate a gasoline sales station was not required; (3)Mounds View Fina, 2280 County Road I- this property is currently zoned B-2, however, the Municipal Code requires a conditional use permit in a B-3 zoning district to operate a motor fuel station;