HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Resolution 448-96
.
.
.
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 448-96
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION DENYING A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR FINA, 2280 COUNTY ROAD I,
PLANNING CASE NO. 442-96
WHEREAS, Thomas Manke and Leon Theis, applicants and owners of Mounds
View Fina, have applied for a variance to permit the construction of a 20 feet by 40 feet
canopy over a gas pump island located at 2280 County Road I in the City of Mounds View;
and
WHEREAS, if the variance were granted it would permit an enlargement of the
existing structure which is a nonconforming use and would encroach 8 feet into the required
thirty foot front yard setback; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of Mounds View met on June OS, 1996 and
held hearing on the requested variance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has heard the testimony of the applicants and
has considered the staff report and the written legal opinion of the City Attorney;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following
findings and resolves as follows:
1. That Chapter 1123,01 of the Mounds View Zoning Code (the "Zoning Code")
declares it to be the purpose of Chapter 1123 'that all nonconforming uses shall be
eventually brought into conformity."
2. That Chapter 1123.02, Subdivision 1, of the Zoning Code states that a
nonconforming use or structure "shall not be enlarged but may continue at the size and in
the manner of operation" existing at the time of a zoning use change,
3. That the applicants' proposed gas pump canopy is a structure as defined by
Chapter 1102.02, Subdivision 105, of the Zoning Code.
4. That no exceptions are found to apply to the applicants' request.
5. That the use of the applicants' property is nonconforming in the B-2 District
where the applicants' property is located and if the variance were granted it would result in
substantial structural enlargement of the existing structure by creating a new structure on
the property contrary to Chapter 1123,
6. That even if the use were conforming, the applicants have not demonstrated
that they would be subjected to undue hardship or practical difficulties in the use of their
property.
'.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 448-96
PLANNING CASE NO. 442-96
PAGE TWO OF TWO
Based upon these findings, the applicant's request is hereby denied.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs Staff to forward
this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes,
Adopted this 5th day of June, 1996.
ATTEST:
(SEAL) ,
~?~
Chairp , son' eterson