Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-1996 PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Special Meeting April 17, 1996 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 The Mounds View Planning Commission was 1. Call to Order called to order by Chair Peterson at 8:20 p.m. on April 17, 1996. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners 2. Roll Call Johnston, Miller, Stevenson, Brasaemle, Brooks and Chair Peterson. ALSO PRESENT: Acting Community Development Director Pruitt, and Attorney Bob Long. Chair Peterson reviewed the variance request of 3. Consideration of • Fina, 2280 County Road I, and reminded the Resolution No. 444-96 Commission that the applicant is requesting a 24 Regarding Variance. foot variance from the 30 foot required front yard Request of Fina, 2280 setback to install an island canopy. Chair County Road I, Peterson expressed that the Commission Planning Case No. needed to examine two legal issues. One issue 438-96 is whether the canopy is considered a structure and in violation of the legal nonconforming section of the Municipal Code. The second issue is whether or not to grant a variance. Attorney Long addressed the Planning Commission and noted for the record that the Planning Commission has received an opinion from the City Attorney interpreting the Code, specifically Chapter 1123.02, regarding the continuance of a non-conforming use. Attorney Long stated that his opinion would be that the City of Mounds View has an ordinance that would not allow the enlargement of the structure. Mounds View Planning Commission April 17, 1996 E Special Meeting Page 2 Attorney Long discussed Section 1123.02 of the Municipal Code which cites the intent of the Chapter that all nonconforming uses shall be eventually brought into conformity, and believes it to be a proper and justifiable interpretation that would be totally upheld. Chair Peterson requested that the applicant restate his reason for requesting the variance. The applicants, Tom Manke and Leon Theis, were present. Mr. Manke informed the Commission that the main reason for this request was that they want to upgrade the property and make it look nicer. He indicated that the property is run down and, without these improvements, will continue to be run down. He also stressed that it is dark in this area and dangerous at night. He is afraid of a crime, such as robbery occurring. He stressed that this is a hardship for • him, his employees, and the customers without the canopy. He also indicated that they want to spend $250,000 to make it look nice like all of the other stations with canopies which have been allowed. He indicated that without the canopy, it gives them a disadvantage. Chair Peterson stated that in terms of the Commission and the issue of the non-conforming use, it is the general consensus that the Commission, as a body, is in charge of bringing non-conforming uses back into conforming uses, as time permits, rather than encouraging greater non-conforming uses on the property. For that reason, by allowing expanded use of the property by means of allowing a new structure would make it much more difficult to bring the property into conformity. Commissioner Stevenson reminded the Commission that the property is not zoned for a gas station, and therefore, is a nonconforming • use, and to allow a canopy only increases the nonconformity. Mounds View Planning Commission April 17, 1996 • Special Meeting Page 3 Commissioner Johnston added that we need to have a strict interpretation of the Code and the Commission does not have the latitude that elected officials have to make policy decisions; the Commission must follow the Code and the Codes states the Commission cannot allow the canopy. Commissioner Miller indicated that she is looking at this request as a variance issue, and because of the criteria used for granting a variance, she would have to deny the request. She added that they could not consider economic conditions alone. Chair Peterson expressed that the proposed improvements to the property would benefit the City, but the Commission is required to take a strict interpretation of the Municipal Code. • The Planning Commission agreed to modify the prepared proposed resolution which addressed the variance issue to address the nonconforming use issue as well. Attorney Long indicated to the Commission that at this time they could direct Staff and the Attorney to prepare a resolution that would include the findings that were made at this meeting which would focus on the nonconformity issue and the resolution could be approved at the next meeting or the Planning Commission could deny it this evening based on those findings. Motion/Second: Stevenson/Johnston to deny approval of proposed Resolution No. 444-96 denying a variance for Fina, 2280 County Road I, Planning Case No. 438-96. The Commission noted that Staff would be • referring to the provisions found in Chapter 1123.02 when preparing the new resolution. Mounds View Planning Commission April 17, 1996 • Special Meeting Page 4 Attorney Long mentioned that because they do not have a resolution at this time to forward to the Council, the Commission could capture its findings in the minutes or they could adopt the resolution at their May 1st meeting. Commissioner Johnston expressed that he feels badly about denying the request because he feels it would be a good thing for the City and hopes that the applicant pursues an appeal to the City Council. Commissioner Brasaemle stated that it is ironic that the first meeting he attends as a Commissioner he is faced with an issue that seems like a good idea on the surface but our Code prevents us from being able to move forward. 6 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried The applicant was informed at this time that his next step following a denial of his variance request by the Planning Commission would be to bring his request to the City Council if he desired. Acting Community Development Director Pruitt informed the applicant that she would contact him regarding this issue. There being no further business before the 4. Adjournment Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /as-e-i.&'(// Joyce Pruitt Acting Community Development Director