The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.a. Paul Walsh Appeal of Zoning Ordinance InterpretationEXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 17, 1991 AGENDA ITEM: Paul Walsh Appeal of Planning AGENDA SECTION: Commission Zoning Ordinance Interpretation New Business' PREPARED BY: Lisa Freese, Director of Planning AGENDA�JtM # 6 A ATTACHMENTS: Appeal Ltr, PC Review, Misc. APPROVED BY: Supporting Materials U Mr. Paul Walsh would like to locate his business, Pro -tune from Farmington to the southern portion of the building located at 14785 South Robert Trail. Pro -Tune repairs motorcycles and snowmobiles and sells new trailers, parts and other related products. The property in question is zoned C-2 Community Business, and motorcycle and snowmobile repair are not explicitly permitted in that district. Mr. Walsh feels that his business is similar in nature to the previous tenant of the building, South Robert Autobrokers, a nonconforming use, and therefore his business would be merely a continuation of that use. When Mr. Walsh asked the Planning Department about whether this type of business was permitted at the proposed location, staff told him that it was not a permitted use and that staff did not feel that it was a continuation of the previous nonconforming use. Upon exploring the options available to Mr. Walsh, Staff recommended that Mr. Walsh request a Zoning Ordinance Interpretation from the Planning Commission pertaining to nonconforming uses with regard to his business. At the September 10 Regular Meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed Mr. Walsh's request and unanimously determined that Pro -Tune is not a continuation of an existing nonconforming use and that it does not meet the intent of Section 13of the Zoning Ordinance, Non -Conforming Uses. Mr. Walsh is appealing the Planning Commission decision. He believes the Planning Commission erred in their determination and that his business is a continuation of an exiting legal nonconforming use. The attached staff review discusses the issues that relate to this request. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS A motion to uphold the Planning Commission's Interpretation of the Non -Conforming Use Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to Paul Walsh /dba as Pro -Tune. ALTERNATIVE MOTION: A motion to overturn the Planning Commission's Interpretation of the Non -Conforming Use Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and determine that Paul Walsh /dba as Pro -Tune is a contin- uation of an exiting legal nonconforming use in compliance with Section 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. COUNCIL ACTION: (Pity of Rosemount PHONE (612) 423-4411 2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota FAX (612) 423-5203 Mailing Address: P. O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-0510 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lisa J. Freese, Director of Planning DATE: September 7, 1991 SUBJ: September 10, 1991 Regular Meeting Reviews ATTACHMENTS: REQUEST FROM MR. WALSH SITE PLAN LOCATION MAP 5$. NEW BUSINESS: PAUL WALSH DBA PRO TUNE -ZONING ORDINANCE INTERPRETATION REQUEST MAYOR Vernon Napper COUNCILMEMBERS Sheila Klassen John Oxborough Harry Willcox Dennis Wippermann ADMINISTRATOR Stephan Jilk RECOMMENDED MOTION: Motion to determine that Mr. Walsh's request is not a continuation of an existing legal nonconforming use and that it does not meet the intent of Section 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, Non -Conforming Uses. ALTERNATIVE MOTION: Motion to determine that Mr. Walsh's request is a continuation of an existing legal nonconforming use and that it meets the intent of Section 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, Non - Conforming Uses. NATURE OF REOUEST: Mr. Paul Walsh would like to locate his business, Pro -Tune, from Farmington to the building located at 14785 South Robert Trail. Pro -Tune repairs motorcycles and snowmobiles and sells new trailers, parts and other related products. The property in question is zoned C-2 Community Business, and motorcycle and snowmobile repair are not explicitly permitted in that district. Mr. Walsh feels that his business is similar in nature to the previous tenant of the building, South Robert Autobrokers, a nonconforming use, and therefore his business would be merely a continuation of that nonconforming use. After consultation with Planning Staff, Mr. Walsh is requesting an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to nonconforming uses with regard to his business. BACKGROUND: The building is owned by Mr. David Lawson. He purchased the building 10 years ago and established his autobody shop in the northern portion of the building. The autobody shop remains in operation at this location. When he purchased the building, the southern portion was occupied by ann tenant, Big A Auto Parts. Big 6vertylkings (Pouring `Ub gosemounl11 Page Two Walsh A sold auto parts and serviced vehicles from that location. Approximately a year and a half ago, Big A moved out and Mr. Lawson used the southern portion of the building for auto sales and general storage. Now he would like to lease the building to Mr. Walsh for Pro -Tune. He told Planning Staff that he plans to retain his second hand dealers license and will occasionally have vehicles for sale on display on this site but probably not more than two or three at any one time. REQUIRED FINDINGS: In 1989, the current Zoning Ordinance was adopted. The regulations and accompanying official zoning map rendered all of the uses in this building legal nonconforming because none of these uses are permitted in the C-2 district. Section 13.1 states that "[i]t is the intent of this ordinance to permit the continuation of ... uses ... which legally exist on the effective date of this ordinance but which do not conform to the provisions herein set forth for the district within which said ... use... is located". While the ordinance allows such uses to exist it also limits them by prohibiting enlargement of the use or re- establishment after abandonment. The overall objective of these provisions are to eventually eliminate uses that do not conform with the zoning district requirements. Attached is a copy of the Non -Conforming Use Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. DISCUSSION: Planning Staff's initial response to Mr. Walsh's inquiry was that his proposed shop did not constitute a continuation of the previous nonconforming use of auto sales. In making this determination, staff viewed very narrowly the definition of non -conforming use. By this definition, the only use that could continue in that space would be auto sales. Since that initial determination, however, staff has found out that previously the space was used for car parts sales and servicing. This makes the issue a little more cloudy as to what the legal non -conforming use of the property should be defined as. Because of the gray area and lack of standard within the Zoning Ordinance, Planning Staff felt that it would be appropriate to ask the Planning Commission for an interpretation and/or clarification on this request. In making a decision the Planning Commission should limit the discussion to whether or not the proposed business is the same as the previous businesses at this location. And if yes, whether or not the proposal by Mr._ Walsh constitutes an expansion or intensification of the legal non conformity. You should remember that by virtue of the fact that these businesses are not permitted in the zoning district that the property is zoned, it has be determined that these types of businesses are inappropriate at this location. Any decision you make regarding Page Three Walsh the use will not affect this previous policy decision unless the zoning ordinance is changed to allow it as a legal conforming use. The zoning ordinance does not explicitly permit motorcycle and snowmobile repair, but in reviewing the permitted uses in the zoning ordinance it would be most similar in nature to automobile repair. There is no definition in the ordinance for an automobile. Motorcycles and snowmobiles are licensed by the State of Minnesota as motor vehicles. If the intent of the ordinance was to include all motor vehicles, then the proposed use could be possibly be considered a continuation of the previous auto service/sales uses. The second issue to consider is whether or not the proposal is actually an expansion of a nonconforming use. If permitted, there will be repair and sales activity at this location for both autos, motorcycles, snowmobiles and related equipment. This is very difficult to measure and their is no criteria established in the ordinance to provide decision making guidance. Whatever route the Planning Commission decides to take, it should consider that the existing buildings were designed for auto related uses. To attempt to lease the space to a use of a conforming nature will be difficult if the body shop continues to operate next door. Mr. Walsh and the property owner should also be aware that a determination that will permit Pro -Tune does not change the nonconforming status of the property. Therefore, no improvements could be made to the property that would constitute an expansion or enhancement of the facility (i.e. adding another bay, putting in a new paint booth). SECTION 13 NON -CONFORMING USES SECTION 13.1 PURPOSE It is the intent of this ordinance to permit the continuation of structures, uses and signs which legally exist on the effective date of this ordinance but which do not conform to the provisions herein set forth for the district within which said structure, use or sign is located. A. To limit the number and extent of non -conforming uses by prohibiting the enlargement, the re-establishment after abandonment and the alteration or restoration after destruction. B. To eventually eliminate uses which do not conform with district requirements or to allow alterations so they do conform. 1 SECTION 13.2 ALTERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, RECONSTRUCTION, ABANDONMENT A. Non -conforming structures, uses and signs shall not be altered or enlarged unless the change brings the structure, use or sign into conformance with district requirements. B. Routine maintenance and repairs may be performed on a lawful non -conforming structure or sign to correct normal deterioration, obsolescence and wear but shall not constitute more than thirty percent (30%) of the assessed value thereof. C. Any non -conforming structure or sign damaged by fire, explosion or other causes may be restored, rebuilt or repaired provided that such restoration does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of its assessed value. D. Whenever a non -conforming structure, use or sign has been abandoned for a period of six (6) consecutive months, such discontinuance shall be considered evidence of legal abandonment and said use shall thereafter be used in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. E. Non -conforming uses shall comply with all regulations for off-street parking, loading, screening, landscaping and performance standards. SECTION 14 ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT SECTION 14.1 PURPOSE, DEFINITIONS, GENERAL PROVISIONS The City Council shall designate a zoning administrator, who shall administer and enforce the provisions of this ordinance and for the purpose of this ordinance shall have the power of a police officer. The zoning administrator shall also maintain current and permanent records of this ordinance, including but not limited to amendments, variances, appeals and conditional uses. SECTION 14.2 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES Any person who violates or fails to comply with any provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished to the maximum extent authorized in Minnesota Statutes Section 412131, as amended from time to time. Each day the violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. SECTION 14.3 BUILDING PERMITS CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY A. Permit Required No structure shall be erected, altered, wrecked or moved until a building permit has been issued by the City of Rosemount. A Certificate of Occupancy, issued by the Building Official after final inspections which demonstrates code compliance, is required prior to the use or occupancy of any structure or part of any structure. 47 �lJyA��%`}�_�.�1.._• IvJ\V"._:.1._w(LL.O�_�!►t.i��n-' � �L�....� �_�.�_�-t - - _._- _____ _,.�ma+�,�: �a.� `�-Via..._... Q►,rwu.�.e� r►�p..�.�►�r_�an�waA,c�nci.�r�._._._._._.:- _..rll,. A -M _ Lina aen aim ----- �-��t._.P.�_o--,_�-_fid_ �.��.�d._,��...� �-�.�.:�.�.-•-�,_. __ CaJ N 4a fl VII s 4 C�C 4 1N o. J � VII s O ZL v/ e c. 141L -I - •— cast LINE 0t Sw 1A R Me. 39, TwP. 113, ROE. It L "1 '.>/.v /so 0 90 120 IE 3CAt[ IN 1�[T Theeast line of the DWI/4 of See. 29, TwF 19 is •soled to have s bearing of South I minutes 01 seconds West. Q Denotes found Judicial Landmark. LOCATION MAF SEC. 29, TWP.115. RCE, be swu w NE ✓4 ■ l 389e49'42'w i �aH 4 �i � 299'Wi2 ►,; fd _J CL L11 r •. � I � 1 F h Imo\ N y 8 ' --J a... S3 •,, Y W i _ V i � tr.>w Li.� �s2 w M . � s �:. Ler' �-•- Cr ; Y �3 CT) 2 w e O It2.1S JN9/'.i 12 w •, F. m l 14 ' '� w N �_ x . a '.>/.v /so 0 90 120 IE 3CAt[ IN 1�[T Theeast line of the DWI/4 of See. 29, TwF 19 is •soled to have s bearing of South I minutes 01 seconds West. Q Denotes found Judicial Landmark. LOCATION MAF SEC. 29, TWP.115. RCE, be swu w NE ✓4 ■