Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> • <br /> • PLANNING CASE NO. 442-96 <br /> STAFF REPORT FOR JUNE 05, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MTG. <br /> PAGE THREE OF FOUR <br /> difficulty in the future in making a distinction as to which types of <br /> new structures can be built on a nonconforming use property and <br /> which types of new structures cannot be built on a nonconforming <br /> use property. <br /> In Planning Case No. 438-96, Attorney Bob Long provided a letter, <br /> dated April 25, 1996 that included copies of two Minnesota court <br /> cases. These cases clearly state that a gas pump canopy, like the <br /> one considered in Planning Case No. 438-96 and 442-96, is a <br /> structure or building within the meaning of zoning code language <br /> similar to that of Mounds View Zoning Code and under tax law and <br /> subject to the tax on real property under the tax law. <br /> Additionally, following further consultation of this variance request <br /> with City Attorney Long, an interpretation by the Planning <br /> Commission that a canopy is not a"structure" within the meaning <br /> of the Code may create several unintended negative impacts. <br /> An interpretation by the Planning Commission that a canopy is not <br /> a"structure" would be inconsistent with findings presented in <br /> Planning Case No. 438-96, and adopted by the Planning <br /> • Commission and City Council. If a canopy were interpreted not to <br /> be a"structure" then no setbacks nor any other control measures of <br /> the Municipal Code would apply. <br /> Notice of a Public Hearing for a variance request to encroach eight <br /> feet into the required thirty foot front yard setback was mailed out <br /> to residents_within 350 feet of the 2280 County Road I property. <br /> The Public Hearing is scheduled for 7:05 p.m. at the Juen 05,1 996 <br /> Regular Planning Commission meeting. <br /> Recommendation/ <br /> Analysis: Resolution No. 448-96, denying a variance, has been drafted for <br /> your review and consideration. Staff has drafted a resolution <br /> denying the variance, since the revised proposal continues to <br /> present the issue of a legal nonconforming use, as was found in <br /> Planning Case No. 438-96. It is certainly within the Planning <br /> Commission's right to grant the variance. The issue at the meeting <br /> • would be to find findings supporting approval for the Resolution. <br /> At the May 15, 1996 Planning Commission Agenda Meeting, the <br />