Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING CASE NO. 442-96 <br /> STAFF REPORT FOR JUNE 05, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MTG. <br /> PAGE TWO OF FOUR <br /> amended." <br /> Attachments: 1. Zoning Map <br /> 2. Site Plan <br /> 3. Letter dated April 25, 1996 from Attorney Bob Long <br /> regarding proposed Planning Commission Resolution <br /> and findings in Planning Case File No. 438-96 <br /> 4. Letter dated April 12, 1996 from Attorney Bob Long <br /> regarding legal opinion for application of <br /> Nonconforming Use and Hardship Standards Relating <br /> to the Request to Construct a Gasoline Pump Canopy <br /> Requiring a 24-foot setback Variance <br /> 5. Application <br /> 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 448-96 <br /> Background: This is a revised plan from the site plan submitted for Planning Case <br /> No.43 8-96. As you may recall, the previous variance request, <br /> which was denied by the Planning Commission and the City <br /> Council, proposed a 24'x 44' canopyatop a gas pump islandto <br /> encroach twenty-four feet into the required thirty foot setback. <br /> When Planning Case No. 438-96 was presented to the City Council, <br /> • the applicants were notified that the City Council would consider a <br /> new proposal for less of an encroachment into the required <br /> setbacks. <br /> The last time the Planning Commission considered a request for a <br /> variance to allow placement of a canopy into the required setback, <br /> Attorney Bob Long supported the Planning Commission taking a <br /> strict interpretation of Chapter 1123 of the Code, thereby denying <br /> the application. Denial was based on findings that adding a <br /> significant new structure, such as the gasoline pump canopy, would <br /> be an enlargement of the existing structure or use on the site and <br /> would thus be prohibited under Section 1123.02, Subd. 1, of the <br /> City Code. <br /> The intent of Chapter 1123 of the Municipal Code is listed as"the <br /> intent of this chapter that all nonconforming uses shall be eventually <br /> brought into conformity." It was the Attorney's opinion in <br /> Planning Case No. 438-96 that by allowing new structures to be <br /> built in connection with a nonconforming use, it is more difficult to <br /> bring the nonconforming use into conformity and may create some <br />