Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7490 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 1983/10/17S-ez.,- RESOLUTION NO. 7490 'L-( -(0 A RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF KAYO OIL COMPANY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER SECTION 14-109(2)(f) AND 14-156(15) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF TWO CANOPIES OVER THE PUMP ISLANDS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE B-2, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AT 5600 WEST LAKE STREET BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK: Findings 1. On August 8, 1983, Kayo Oil Company filed an application seeking a special permit to permit the construction of two canopies over the pump islands to encroach 14.5 feet into the front yard and 11.5 feet into the side yard setbacks for property located in the B-2, General Business District, at 5600 West Lake Street for the legal description as follows, to -wit: Lot 8, Auditors Subdivision No. 323, Hennepin County, Minnesota 2. On August 24, 1983, the Planning Commission met and recommended denial of the special permit on a 7-2-1 vote. 3. On September 19, 1983, the City Council held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, discussed the application, and moved to defer the matter to October 3, requesting additional information. 4. On October 3, 1983, the City Council reopened the public hearing and received additional testimony. 5. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the City Council makes the following findings: a. Section 14-109(2)(f) states in part that in the R -B, I, and I-3 Districts, canopies, skyways and similar structures to accommodate pedestrian movement may be permitted by special permit to extend to and over the street if there is no other practical alternate solution. b. The requested special permit does not meet the requirements of Section 14-109(2)(f) because there are other practical alternative solutions available to the applicant to provide canopies in a manner consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. A review of the history of the enactment of that section reveals that encroachment into the setback areas was to be allowed only in hardship cases because of the potential erosion of the setback requirements. No such hardship exists in this case. c. The requested special permit is for a use not allowed by Section 14-109(2)(0. The intent of that section is to provide protection for pedestrians as they are moving to and from a building at any given location. To construe the language otherwise would result in an uncontrollable distortion of the ordinance setback requirements. If this section had been intended to apply to service stations, provision for such would have been made in Section 14-150(3)(a) which sets forth detailed standards for service stations. d. Granting of the special permit under this section would be contrary to the provisions of Section 14-150(3)(a) which sets forth design development standards for service stations including the required setback area. e. Since June of 1971, the original adoption date of Ordinance 1146 specifying design standards for service stations, several existing and new service stations have constructed or modified their facilities including in several instances the construction of canopies which have complied with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. If the present request were granted, it would not provide fair and equitable treatment to such service stations but would instead appear to be an arbitrary, capricious, and improper use of the zoning powers and zoning provisions of the City. f. Because of the findings in 5a,b,c,d, and e, the request does not meet the requirements of Section 14-212, since the proposal is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance. g. Granting of the requested special permit would, if approved, be a violation of Section 14-105 and 14-106 governing the application of the Ordinance and non -conforming uses. CONCLUSION The application for the special permit is denied based upon the findings set forth above and on the grounds that conditions required for approval do not exist. Reviewed by administration: Adopted by the City Council October 17, 1983 o Approved as to form and legality: City A orney