08-19-1991 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1671 August 15, 1991 Page 3 of 4 business does not need the high volume customer counts as did the former retail use. If this conditional use permit is approved, as in earlier approvals, the City will require strict controls on any growth, i.e. expansion of structure, expansion of employees, expansions in use. It should be noted that there is no longer any exterior storage planned by the applicant. On all previous retail site plans, the grocery/vegetable store use was approved with a 20' X 25' outside sales area to the east side of the structure which often became a problem with encroachment into the immediately adjacent State right-of-way. I have enclosed an opinion from Suesan Pace-Shapiro dealing with the property located at '*960 Shoieline Drive, Exhibit I, for this review. In that opinion, Shapiro advised the City that if it were to consider variances to non-conforming uses that the Attorney should be advised to proceed with research into Minnesota cases and cases from other jurisdictions to determine how courts have treated the questions of whether or not a variance can be granted to non-conforming use provisions of a Code. The City has yet to be challenged as to the granting of variances to this section although it has done so ir th#* past for 1960 Shoreline Drive, The Dog House on Highway li ap*.i + or rhe subject property. The current Code (Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (J)) would suggest that the City can consider granting variances to these performance standards. It would be staff's recommendation that before the City proceed with any formal action that the City Attorney be directed by the Council to provide an opinion as to the City's leoal right to grant variances to non-conforming use standards. Staff Recommenda' ion Options of Action If Planning Commission finds the application to be in conflict with the RR-IB zoning and that its use would present a hazard to the public health, safety and welfare, members may vote to deny the current application. If it is the opinion of members that there are many positive aspects to this application and that the proposed use would result in a less intensified commercial use of the residential property, members may conceptually approve the •'lication and ask that Council consider these findings and if they concur with the Planning Commission recommendation to direct the City Attorney to provide an opinion that would determine if the City has a right to grant variances to standards set forth for non-