Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 2002-427CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION 2002-427 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOBILE TOUCH UP PAINT BUSINESS AND A VARIANCE FOR PARKING SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9625 36TH AVENUE NORTH. (2002106) WHEREAS, Zerwas Enterprises, Inc., has requested approval of a conditional use permit to allow operation of an automobile touch up paint business and variance for parking setback, for property legally described as: Lots 1 and 2, Glen Erie Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public meeting and recommends approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by Zerwas Enterprises, Inc., for approval of a conditional use permit allow operation of an automobile touch up paint business and a variance for parking setback, subject to the following conditions: 1. A conditional use permit is approved to allow operation of an automobile touch up paint business and variance is approved to allow zero setback for the side yard parking setback, according to the plans received by the City on August 9, 2002, except as amended by this resolution. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the parking area to the south of the building must be striped to provide a minimum of 8 parking spaces. The parking spaces shall be striped in conformance with the parking standards in Section 21135.07 of the Zoning Ordinance. Resolution 2002-427 File No. 2002106 Page 2 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the appropriate information to the Fire Inspector to determine if a paint booth would be required by the Fire Code. 4. Any equipment and vehicles currently stored in the paved area to the south of the building shall be moved to the approved fenced storage area in order to allow use of the parking area for the proposed Aero Colors business. 5. A variance is approved to alloNN- zero setback for side yard setback to parking, where 20 feet is the minimum setback specified by the Zoning Ordinance, based on the finding that: a) The existing conditions of the property result in a particular hardship to the owner, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. The location of the building centered on the lot leaves two small parking areas on each end of the building, which limits the amount of land available to meet the parking setbacks. There is a width of approximately 63 feet from building to the south property line, however due to the existing loading dock and retaining walls only 40 feet is usable for drive aisle and parking. Requiring a 20 -foot drive setback would greatly reduce the area that could be used for parking and would not allmv an adequate drive aisle. b) The conditions for the variance are unique as the property is undersized and has a very limited area in which to construct additional parking. The lot is less than one acre, which is the minimum lot area allowed in the C-5 zoning district. Requiring the parking setback would not allow the applicant to make improvements to the parking on the site. The property is unique as this area is currently paved directly to the property line, therefore allowing the variance would make little difference to the appearance of the property. c) The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The variance request is necessary to improve parking arrangement of the site and to provide parking for the proposed business. d) The circumstances surrounding the variance request were not self-created. The conditions were created by previous owners, prior to the current applicant. e) The proposed improvements would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land in the neighborhood. Allowing the variance would permit the owner to stripe the parking area to provide a more orderly parking arrangement, where there is non currently. The zero setback from the parking to the side lot line would not distort the visual appearance of the property. There is a chain link fence that separates the neighboring use, which contains a parking lot adjacent to the site. f) The proposed improvements would not impair an adequate supple of light and air to adjacent property, endanger public safety, increase congestion of the public streets, increase the danger of fire or substantially diminish property values in the neighborhood. Resolution 2002-427 File No. 2002106 Page 3 g) The requested variance would be the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. The proposed parking would meet front and rear setbacks. 6. Separate building permits are required for any interior building modifications. 7. Signage shall compl�v with the sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. 8. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per Ordinance provisions. This approval shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner or-- - - Formatted: Bullets and Numbering applicant has substantially started construction of the project, or unless the landowner or applicant has received prior approval from the City to extend the expiration date for up to one additional year, as regulated under Sections 21030.06 and 21045.09 of the Zoning Ordinance. ADOPTED by the City Council on September 24, 2002. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on September 24, 2002 with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this day of City Clerk