HomeMy WebLinkAbout13.B.1. Appeal of Board of Adjustment Determination-CityWide Insulation, IncCITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
CASE NO.: 10 -032
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark Noble, Planner II
SUBJECT: Appeal of Board of Adjustment Determination — CityWide Insulation, Inc.
MEETING DATE: November 23, 2010
SITE INFORMATION:
/3, 13,
Applicant: Lon Carnahan, CityWide Insulation, Inc.
Location: 1725 3rd Avenue West
Current Zoning: Highway Business (B -1) Zone
INTRODUCTION
Lon Carnahan, CityWide Insulation, Inc., made application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for
the property located at 1725 3rd Avenue West. That application was reviewed by the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals at their November 4, 2010 meeting, and by a unanimous decision, voted to
approve the CUP request and deny the variance request. Mr. Carnahan has since submitted an application
to appeal the Board of Adjustment and Appeals determination regarding the variance request. Please see
the attachments for the staff report to the Board of Adjustment, property location, plans submitted, and
information supplied by the applicant.
DISCUSSION
The site presently is utilized as an office and warehouse for the CityWide Insulation business, with
existing multiple buildings on site, including one that is constructed out of corrugated metal. The
property owner would like to construct a 48 foot by 204 foot addition to the existing building, with the
addition to be constructed of corrugated metal. The applicant has commented that the request would
allow him to continue the exterior appearance of the existing building, and that there are other metal sided
buildings in this area and that he would not be asking for anything that is not already provided in the area
(see attached applicant narrative and exhibits)
City staff has consulted with the City Attorney regarding the recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision
overruling the longstanding municipal variance standard (Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka), and
determined that staff cannot support the findings for approving a Variance, particularly Finding 1.A.,
which reads that" the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions
allowed by the official controls ". Based on the Supreme Court decision, staff has determined that the
applicant is not able to demonstrate that he is unable to utilize the property under conditions allowed by
the City Code. The City Code does allow a number of permitted building materials that could be utilized
on this building addition; therefore, staff recommended that the Variance request not be approved, which
was supported by the Board.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Offer and approve a motion upholding the determination of the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals, requiring the applicant to utilize a building material that is permitted by the City Code
regulations.
2. Offer and approve a motion granting the appeal of the applicant and allow for the proposed
building addition to be constructed with metal siding, and direct staff to prepare a resolution
with findings in support of this motion.
3. Table a decision and request additional information from staff and/or the applicant.
ACTION REQUESTED
Offer and approve a motion upholding the determination of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals,
requiring the applicant to utilize a building material that is permitted by the City Code regulations.
Mark Noble
Planner II
*id°
I INSULATION I
November 10, 2010
On Thursday November 4, 2010, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals denied a variance request for the
continued use of preformed metal panel siding on an addition to our existing warehouse building. I am
appealing their decision to the city counsel members. The location of this property is unique, as the
northern property line is adjacent to a DNR trail system and Agricultural Preservation Zone (AG) see
Exhibit A and B. I believe that there will never be any future development on this property as there is
annual floodings. There is also a 20 - 30' bluff between these two properties with a mature growth of
trees approximately 20 -40' tall and about 100 -200 yards wide. Our current warehouse is virtually
invisible from the north.
On the eastern property line, all that can be seen is the existing buildings, see Exhibit A. The property
adjacent to the east is a RV /Mobile Home park, see Exhibit A and B. The western property line is in
Jackson Township, that property contains an office /warehouse that is constructed with metal panel
siding. The southern property line is the Union Pacific Railroad Line. Adjacent to the Railroad Line is
North Imports which is an auto salvage yard and also a mini - storage facility, in which all of their
buildings are constructed with metal panel siding, see Exhibits A and B. Also on the southern property
line is Shelter of Shakopee, LLC which has multiple buildings on the property (4), all of which are
constructed with metal panel siding. Within approximately the last 2 years, they were granted a
variance to use metal siding on a newly constructed building.
I have also enclosed 5 pictures, Exhibit C 1 -5, taken from various locations on County Road 69 of our
existing buildings.
Thank you,
C L ee i cv_
Lon Carnahan
I725 W. 3rd Avenue
P.O. Box 298
Shakopee, MN 55379
(612) 445 -1387
Across County Road 69, there are several other businesses that are constructed with metal panel siding,
Exhibit B (Heller Drywall /Premier Floor, Link Lumber — 6 buildings, Minnesota Plumbing — 3 buildings,
Link Cabinets —1 building, Adventure RV Rental).
I request a variance for the conditional use of metal panel siding. I believe the use of metal panel siding
would have minimal impact on the surround community. The existing building and proposed addition is
well hidden from any public right of way and would not appear any different from the existing building.
Due to the number of existing buildings in this locality, which also utilize the same metal panel siding, I
don't feel granting this variance would change or alter the essential character of the locality. I have
notified all the other adjacent property owners of this variance request and no one has raised any
objections.
This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not
intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records,
information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and
other sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference
purposes only. Scott County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein
rnMninndl If rncrnancnrina am 4v ,nnl nrnflcu rnnlort thn Arne Cni mh, I
Scott County, [MN EXk0 A
Map Scale
1 inch = 182 feet
Ma Date
Real Estate Map
1. City Wide Insulation
2. North Imports & Shakopee Public Storage
3. Wilton Peterson RV Park
4. Robert Schatzle Shelter of Shakopee
5. Heller Drywall / Premium Poured Floors
6. Link Lumber
7. Minnesota Plumbing
8. Link Cabinets / Resurrection Auto Repair / Adventure RV Rental
9. General Heating & Air Conditioning
Page 1 of 2
''Stir,^ 1 .
T- c
(�� e tv = &)r)-, <u Ro 6?
.K157ING O F (GC�v,k r /--Fo ccs
■
•
Jr
•...TY _ +"*F: W
U STi N LJ A,,ezi o es
. :•• — c • .4,9C.05.--4., „ .r•' mow_ _ —__
/6 r
•p A e
_
1 • if: rA4E
ze .p
14,0
• •
4 • •
wrroomovii
- , L/ 1 Etc' Fko),1-1 ( (22 './.)
• \ . ,to
, 1
4
L _ •
. 7 r ,.•
This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not
intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records,
Information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and
other sources affecting the area shown. and Is to be used for reference
uurooses only. Scott County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein
Scott County, MN
Map Scale
1 inch = 570 feet
a Date
Property Information
Parcel ID: 271110020
Taxpayer Name: CARNAHAN LON R & LINDA
Taxpayer Addressl:
Taxpayer Address2:
Taxpayer Address3:
Property Addressl: 1725 3 AVE W
Property Address2: SHAKOPEE MN 55379
School District: 720
Estimated Land Value: $270,000
Estimated Buildings Value: $225,000
Total Estimated Market Value: $495,000
Home Style: N/A
Prime Square Footage: 17536
Bedrooms: 0
Bathrooms: 0
Year Built: 1994
Last Sale Date:
Last Sale Value:
Deeded Acreage: 0
GIS Acreage: 3.17447
Zoning Classification:
Legal Description: SubdivisionName RLS 099
SHAKOPEE CITY Lot TCT Block OOA
SubdivisionCd 27111 LYING SW OF LINE
COM 970' NE OF S COR, NW PARALLEL
Plat Name: PLAT -27111 RLS 099 SHAKOPEE
Block: OOA
Lot: TCT
Unique Well & Boring No.:
Well Depth Drilled:
Well Date Drilled:
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
CASE NO.: 10 - 025
TO: Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals
FROM: Mark Noble, Planner II
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit request for multiple structures on one lot; and a
Variance for use of corrugated metal as an exterior building material
MEETING DATE: November 4, 2010
REVIEW PERIOD: September 23, 2010 to January 19, 2011
INTRODUCTION
After the distribution of this report to the Board and the applicant, city staff was made aware by the
City Attorney that due to the recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision overruling the longstanding
municipal variance standard (Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka), that staff erred in how they
determined their findings of Variance, particularly Finding 1.A., which reads that" the property in
question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls ".
Based on the Supreme Court decision, staff would interpret that finding differently, and would
determine that the applicant is not able to demonstrate that he is unable to utilize the property under
conditions allowed by the City Code. The City Code does allow a number of permitted building
materials that could be utilized on this building addition; therefore, staff recommends that the Variance
request should not be approved. Staff has provided a revised resolution consistent with that
recommendation for the Board's use at this evening's meeting.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve Resolution No. PC10 -025, a resolution approving the variance to allow metal siding,
with findings as proposed, and approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a development
containing more than 1 principal structure per lot, with conditions as presented.
2. Approve Resolution No. PC10 -025, a resolution approving the variance to allow metal siding,
with findings as revised, and approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a development
containing more than 1 principal structure per lot, with revised conditions.
3. Approve Resolution No. PC10 -025, a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit as
presented, and denying the variance request, and move its adoption.
4. Approve Resolution No. PC10 -025, a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit, with
revised conditions, and denying the variance request, and move its adoption.
5. Deny the Conditional Use Permit and Variance, and direct staff to prepare a resolution with
findings as proposed by the Board.
6. The Board may continue the public hearing for additional information.
7. The Board may table the request for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that this request does comply with required criteria for approving a Conditional Use
Permit, but not a Variance; therefore, staff is recommending Alternative 3, approve Resolution No.
PC10 -025, a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit as presented, and denying the variance
request, and move its adoption.
ACTION REQUESTED
Offer a motion approving Resolution No. PC10 -025, a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit
as presented, and denying the variance request, and move its adoption.
H:\BOAA -PC\ 2010\ 11 -04 \I 0025_CUPNariance Citywide.doc
Mark Noble
Planner II
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A
BUILDING ADDITION WITH CORRUGATED METAL SIDING, AND APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING
MORE THAN ONE (1) PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE PER LOT, IN THE HIGHWAY
BUSINESS (B -1) ZONE.
WHEREAS, Lon Carnahan, CityWide Insulation, Inc. , applicant, and Lon & Linda
Carnahan, property owners, have filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit under the
provisions of Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning), of the City of Shakopee City Code,
Sections 11.36 and 11.87, to allow for a development containing more than one (1) principal structure
per lot; and a Variance for use of corrugated metal as an exterior building material, under the
provisions of Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning), of the Shakopee City Code, Sections 11.89;
and
and
WHEREAS, the subject parcel of land is presently zoned Highway Business (B -1) Zone;
WHEREAS, the legal description for the subject parcel of land for which the request is
being made is:
That part of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 99, Scott County, Minnesota, lying sousthwe sterly
of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the southeasterly line of said Tract A, distant 970 feet northeasterly (as
measured along said southeasterly line) of the most southerly corner of said Tract A; thence
northwesterly, parallel with the southwesterly line of Tract A, to its intersection with the
northwesterly line thereof and there terminating; and
WHEREAS, notice was provided and on November 4, 2010, the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the
Community Development Director or his designee and invited members of the public to comment;
and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND
APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
That the application for Variance is hereby DENIED, based on the following findings with respect to
City Code Sec. 11.89, Subd. 2, "Criteria for Granting Variances."
Criterion 1
Finding I.A.
RESOLUTION NO. PC10 -025
The property can be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the
official controls. There are building materials other than corrugated metal that can
be utilized to construct the proposed building addition in compliance with the City
Code Section 11.60, Subd. 4, Construction Materials.
Finding 1.B. The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property; the
existing building onto which the applicant would like to expand is a corrugated metal
building; however, an addition can be constructed of materials that are permitted by
the City Code.
Finding 1.C. The circumstances were created by the property owner's desire to expand the
operation.
Finding; 1.D. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding I.E. The considerations are not economic for this request.
Criterion 2
It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this
Chapter.
Finding 2 The proposed variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 11
(Zoning).
Criterion 3
The request is not for a use variance.
Finding 3 The request for a variance of the building material standards is not a use variance.
Criterion 4
Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance to protect the
adjacent properties.
Finding 4 (Not applicable since no conditions are proposed)
Criterion 5
Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria:
Finding 5 (Not applicable since the property is not located in the flood plain overlay zone.)
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
That the application for Conditional Use Permit is hereby APPROVED, based on the following
findings with respect to City Code Sec. 11.85, Subd. 1, "Criteria for Granting Conditional Use
Permits. ":
Finding #1 The Board finds that the use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in
the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair
property values within the immediate vicinity, provided the conditions identified in the
resolution are met. There are several other businesses located in the vicinity of this use that
incorporate similar building materials to that which is proposed in this application.
Finding #2 The Board finds that the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses allowed in the area,
provided the conditions identified in the resolution are met.
Finding #3 The Board finds that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessaiy facilities
exist to serve the proposed use, provided the conditions identified in the resolution are met.
Finding 114 The Board finds that the use is consistent with the purposes of the Highway Business (B -1)
Zone, provided the conditions identified in the resolution are met.
Finding #5 The Board finds that the proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the Comprehensive
Plan, which guides the subject property for commercial use.
AGAIN, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND
APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
That the application for Conditional Use Permit is hereby APPROVED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Development of the site shall be generally consistent with the plans depicted on the Site Plan
(dated 9/21/10), and Floor Plan (dated 9/08/10), except as noted below.
2. The proposed building expansion shall be reviewed for compliance with the city's building
code and design and performance standards of the Shakopee City Code at time of building
permit review, except that the structure may be constructed of corrugated metal, consistent
with the submitted Elevation Plan (dated 9/08/10).
3. The project shall be subject to all requirements of Section 11.60 of the Shakopee City Code
regarding noise and vibration, smoke and particulate matter, odor, toxic or noxious matter,
hazardous materials or waste, infectious waste, and pollutants, radiation, electromagnetic
interference, preservation of surface waters and ground water protection.
4. Landscaping shall be provided, subject to the provisions of Section 11.60 Subd. 8 of
Shakopee City Code, and shall be reviewed for compliance at the time of building permit
review.
5. The applicant shall implement the use of Best Management Practices for erosion control and
stormwater management during construction.
6. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Fire Code
(MSFC 503).
7. Provide emergency vehicle access to the site during construction. Access to be approved by
the Shakopee Fire Department (MSFC 501.4).
8. A compliance inspection on the Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) in accordance
with the Scott County Individual /Community Sewage Treatment System Ordinance No. 4,
which states that a compliance inspection is required when a permit is applied for to building
a horizontal addition onto an existing structure, or to build an accessory structure on a lot
having an existing ISTS.
9. The applicant shall dedicate a minimum of ten (10) feet of drainage and utility easement
adjacent to all property lines.
10. The applicant shall provide a detailed site survey, at the time of building permit application,
clearly showing pervious and impervious areas.
11. Approval of the CUP does not constitute approval of the submitted drawings.
12. The applicant shall submit a detail for building support- non frost pad in connection to frost
depth of existing building.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota this
4 day of November, 2010.
ATTEST:
Community Development Director
Chair of the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals
CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION NO. PC10 -025
I, Judith S. Cox, City Clerk for the City of Shakopee, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and
correct copy of Resolution No. PC10 - 025 presented to and adopted by the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals of the City of Shakopee at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 4 day of November,
2010, as shown by minutes of the meeting in my possession.
Dated this day of , 2010
Judith S. Cox, City Clerk
Prepared by:
THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE
129 Holmes Street South
Shakopee, MN 55379
SEAL
CASE NO.:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: November 4, 2010
REVIEW PERIOD: September 23, 2010 to January 19, 2011
SITE INFORMATION
Applicant:
Property Owners:
Location:
Current Zoning:
Lon Carnahan, CityWide Insulation, Inc.
Lon & Linda Carnahan
1725 3` Avenue West
Highway Business (B -1) Zone
Adjacent Zoning:
Comp. Plan:
Lot Size:
Attachments:
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
10 -025
Shakopee Board of Adjustment and Appeals
Mark Noble, Planner II
Conditional Use Permit request for multiple structures on one lot; and a
Variance for use of corrugated metal as an exterior building material
North: Minnesota River /Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone
South: Railroad /Agricultural Preservation (AG) Zone
East: Highway Business (B -1) Zone
West: Jackson Township
Commercial
3.57 Acres
Exhibit A: Location/Zoning Map
Exhibit B: Site Plans/Elevations
Exhibit C: City Engineering Memorandum
INTRODUCTION
Lon Carnahan, CityWide Insulation, Inc., has made application for a Conditional Use Permit and
Variance for the property located at 1725 3` Avenue West (see Exhibit A). The subject site is 3.57
acres in size, and is zoned Highway Business (B -1) Zone.
The site presently is utilized as an office and warehouse for the CityWide Insulation business, with
existing multiple buildings on site, including one that is constructed out of corrugated metal. The
applicant has recently submitted a building permit to add onto an existing metal building being
utilized for warehousing of materials. However, there is no record of approval of a CUP for
multiple structures, nor any record of approval of a Variance for the material use; therefore, the
applicant has made application to be allowed to expand his operation. As identified in the
submitted drawings, the site presently consists of two existing buildings. The property owner
would like to construct a 48 foot by 204 foot addition to the existing building (in two phases), which
requires approval of a conditional use permit application, along with a variance application to allow
the addition to be constructed of corrugated metal. The applicant has commented that the request
would allow him to continue the exterior appearance of the existing building, and that there are
other metal sided buildings in this area and that he would not be asking for anything that is not
already provided in the area.
Planning staff notes that there are no records of approved variances or CUP' s that would explain
how the site received approval for the existing metal sided building and for the multiple structures
on site; however, there were building permits issued for the buildings in their current configuration
and design. Staff did receive several comments from city, county and regional governmental
agencies regarding this project, which are attached to the staff report and have been incorporated
into the draft resolution. Specific issues raised in the comments include that the request must meet
the conditions noted in the city code, and that if approved, the applicant shall submit a detail for
building support- non frost pad in connection to frost depth of existing building. Additionally, City
Engineering provided a memorandum identifying several conditions should this request be
approved.
CONSIDERATIONS — VARIANCE
The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the existing warehouse building, utilizing corrugated
metal as the exterior building material, stating that the siding proposed is the most feasible and
practical of materials for the type of structure that is proposed for this project. The City Code states
that sheet metal, corrugated metal or unfinished metal shall not be used as exterior materials. The City
Code does allow copper or other metal specifically engineered for exterior architectural use.
Additionally, staff stated that stucco and Novabrik would be acceptable materials for this addition
should he wish to not process a variance application.
CONSIDERATIONS — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
City Code Sections 11.36 (Highway Business Zone), Subd. 3 (Conditional Uses) X (developments
containing more than 1 principal structure per lot) provide guidelines for development of this
property, of which a number are listed as conditions of approval in the draft resolution.
Section 11.87, Subd. 2.K. lists the specific standards for developments containing more than 1
principal structure per lot, as follows:
1. shall be on a lot that meets all design standards and public improvement requirements
prescribed by Chapter 12; and
2. shall be designed and placed to facilitate ingress, egress, and overall circulation, both for the
development as a whole and for the individual buildings and structures within the
development; and
3. shall consist of structures that are owned, maintained, and operated under unified control in
accordance with a plan which contains provisions providing for the enforcement thereof.
The applicant is proposing the following to meet these standards:
1. The proposed structure will require approval of a building permit that will be reviewed by
County and City Departments; any listed conditions shall be met prior to issuance of any
certificate of occupancy.
2. The structures are located such that ingress, egress and circulation within the site are not
compromised.
3. The property owners presently own, maintain and operate all structures located within the
property.
FINDINGS — VARIANCE:
Section 11.89, Subd. 2, of the City Code contains provisions for the granting of variances only if all of
the following circumstances are found to exist. Staff has provided draft findings on each criterion. The
Board of Adjustment and Appeals may use or modify these draft findings as it sees fit:
The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause undue hardship because of
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Undue hardship means
the following:
1.A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official controls;
Finding I.A. The inability to construct the proposed building addition with metal siding
would make it practically difficult for the applicant to successfully expand his building/
operation in a feasible manner, as presently the existing building is 240 feet long and is
constructed with similar metal siding and structural framing to that proposed for the
addition.
1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property;
Finding 1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property; the
existing building onto which the applicant would like to expand is a corrugated metal building,
most recently added onto in the 1990's. The property is adjacent to railroad tracks and a bluff
over the Minnesota River Valley.
1.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner;
Finding I.C. The circumstances were created by the property owner's desire to expand the
operation. Staff believes that the benefit of the proposed project would have minimal impact on
the community as the building is well hidden from any public right -of -ways, and would not
appear much different than the existing buildings in the area.
1.D. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and
Finding 1.D. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. There are a
number of existing buildings in this vicinity that utilize some of the same material.
1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations
do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the
terms of the ordinance.
Finding I.E. The considerations are not economic for this request.
Criterion 2
It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of this Chapter.
Finding 2. The proposed variance would he in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter
11 (Zoning).
Criterion 3
The request is not for a use variance.
Finding 3. The request for a variance of the building material standards is not a use variance.
Criterion 4
Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance to
protect the adjacent properties.
Finding 4. (Not applicable since no conditions are proposed.)
Criterion 5
Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria:
Finding 5. (Not applicable since the property is not located in the flood plain overlay zone.)
FINDINGS — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
The criteria required for the granting of conditional use permits (per City Code Section 11.85, Subd.
1) are listed below.
The use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish
and impair property values within the immediate vicinity;
Finding #1 The Board finds that the use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially
diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity, provided the
conditions identified in the resolution are met. There are several other businesses
located in the vicinity of this use that incorporate similar building materials to that
which is proposed in this application.
The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses allowed
in the area;
The Board finds that the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses
allowed in the area, provided the conditions identified in the resolution are met.
Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been
or will be provided;
The Board finds that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary
facilities exist to serve the proposed use, provided the conditions identified in the
resolution are met.
The use is consistent with the purposes of the zone in which the applicant intends
to locate the proposed use;
The Board finds that the use is consistent with the purposes of the Highway Business
(B -1) Zone, provided the conditions identified in the resolution are met.
The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Board finds that the proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the
Comprehensive Plan, which guides the subject property for commercial use.
Criteria #1
Criteria #2
Finding #2
Criteria #3
Finding #3
Criteria #4
Finding #4
Criteria #5
Finding #5
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve Resolution No. PC10 -025, a resolution approving the variance to allow metal siding,
with findings as proposed, and approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a development
containing more than 1 principal structure per lot, with conditions as presented.
2. Approve Resolution No. PC 10 -025, a resolution approving the variance to allow metal siding,
with findings as revised, and approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a development
containing more than 1 principal structure per lot, with revised conditions.
3. Approve Resolution No. PC 10 -025, a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit as
presented, and denying the variance request, and move its adoption.
4. Approve Resolution No. PC10 -025, a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit, with
revised conditions, and denying the variance request, and move its adoption.
5. Deny the Conditional Use Permit and Variance, and direct staff to prepare a resolution with
findings as proposed by the Board.
6. The Board may continue the public hearing for additional information.
7. The Board may table the request for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that this request does comply with required criteria; therefore, staff is recommending
Alternative 1, approve Resolution No. PC10 -025, a resolution approving the variance to allow metal
siding, with findings as proposed, and approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a development
containing more than 1 principal structure per lot, with conditions as presented.
ACTION REQUESTED
Offer a motion approving Resolution No. PC10 -025, a resolution approving the variance to allow metal
siding, with findings as proposed, and approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a development
containing more than 1 principal structure per lot, with conditions as presented, and move its adoption.
H :IBOAA- PC120 1 011 1 - 0411 0025_CUPN ariance_Citywide. doc
Mark Noble
Planner II
RESOLUTION NO. PC1.0 -025
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
A BUILDING ADDITION WITH CORRUGATED METAL SIDING, AND APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING
MORE THAN ONE (1) PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE PER LOT, IN THE HIGHWAY
BUSINESS (B -1) ZONE.
WHEREAS, Lon Carnahan, CityWide Insulation, Inc. , applicant, and Lon & Linda
Carnahan, property owners, have filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit under the
provisions of Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning), of the City of Shakopee City Code,
Sections 11.36 and 11.87, to allow for a development containing more than one (1) principal structure
per lot; and a Variance for use of corrugated metal as an exterior building material, under the
provisions of Chapter 11, Land Use Regulation (Zoning), of the Shakopee City Code, Sections 11.89;
and
and
WHEREAS, the subject parcel of land is presently zoned Highway Business (B -1) Zone;
WHEREAS, the legal description for the subject parcel of land for which the request is
being made is:
That part of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 99, Scott County, Minnesota, lying southwesterly
of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the southeasterly line of said Tract A, distant 970 feet northeasterly (as
measured along said southeasterly line) of the most southerly corner of said Tract A; thence
northwesterly, parallel with the southwesterly line of Tract A, to its intersection with the
northwesterly line thereof and there terminating; and
WHEREAS, notice was provided and on November 4, 2010, the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals conducted a public hearing regarding this application, at which it heard from the
Community Development Director or his designee and invited members of the public to comment;
and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND
APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
That the application for Variance is hereby APPROVED, based on the following findings with respect
to City Code Sec. 11.89, Subd. 2, "Criteria for Granting Variances."
Criterion 1
Finding 1.A.
The inability to construct the proposed building addition with metal siding would
make it practically difficult for the applicant to successfully expand his building/
operation in a feasible manner, as presently the existing building is 240 feet long
and is constructed with similar metal siding and structural framing to that proposed
for the addition.
Finding 1.B.
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property; the existing
building onto which the applicant would like to expand is a corrugated metal building,
most recently added onto in the 1990's. The property is adjacent to railroad tracks and
a bluff over the Minnesota River Valley.
Finding 1.C. The circumstances were created by the property owner's desire to expand the
operation. Staff believes that the benefit of the proposed project would have minimal
impact on the community as the building is well hidden from any public right -of -ways,
and would not appear much different than the existing buildings in the area.
Finding I.D. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. There are a
number of existing buildings in this vicinity that utilize some of the same material.
Finding 1.E. The considerations are not economic for this request.
Criterion 2
It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this
Chapter.
Finding 2 The proposed variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 11
(Zoning).
Criterion 3
The request is not for a use variance.
Finding 3 The request for a variance of the building material standards is not a use variance.
Criterion 4
Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance to protect the
adjacent properties.
Finding 4 (Not applicable since no conditions are proposed.)
Criterion 5
Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria:
Finding 5 (Not applicable since the property is not located in the flood plain overlay zone.)
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AND APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
That the application for Conditional Use Permit is hereby APPROVED, based on the following
findings with respect to City Code Sec. 11.85, Subd. 1, "Criteria for Granting Conditional Use
Permits. ":
Finding #1 The Board finds that the use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in
the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair
property values within the immediate vicinity, provided the conditions identified in the
resolution are met. There are several other businesses located in the vicinity of this use that
incorporate similar building materials to that which is proposed in this application.
Finding #2 The Board finds that the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses allowed in the area,
provided the conditions identified in the resolution are met.
Finding #3 The Board finds that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities
exist to serve the proposed use, provided the conditions identified in the resolution are met.
Finding #4 The Board finds that the use is consistent with the purposes of the Highway Business (B -1)
Zone, provided the conditions identified in the resolution are met.
Finding #5 The Board finds that the proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the Comprehensive
Plan, which guides the subject property for commercial use.
AGAIN, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND
APPEALS OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
That the application for Conditional Use Permit is hereby APPROVED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Development of the site shall be generally consistent with the plans depicted on the Site Plan
(dated 9/21/10), and Floor Plan (dated 9/08/10), except as noted below.
2. The proposed building expansion shall be reviewed for compliance with the city's building
code and design and performance standards of the Shakopee City Code at time of building
permit review, except that the structure may be constructed of corrugated metal, consistent
with the submitted Elevation Plan (dated 9/08/10).
3. The project shall be subject to all requirements of Section 11.60 of the Shakopee City Code
regarding noise and vibration, smoke and particulate matter, odor, toxic or noxious matter,
hazardous materials or waste, infectious waste, and pollutants, radiation, electromagnetic
interference, preservation of surface waters and ground water protection.
4. Landscaping shall be provided, subject to the provisions of Section 11.60 Subd. 8 of
Shakopee City Code, and shall be reviewed for compliance at the time of building permit
review.
5. The applicant shall implement the use of Best Management Practices for erosion control and
stormwater management during construction.
6. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Fire Code
(MSFC 503).
7. Provide emergency vehicle access to the site during construction. Access to be approved by
the Shakopee Fire Department (MSFC 501.4).
8. A compliance inspection on the Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) in accordance
with the Scott County Individual /Community Sewage Treatment System Ordinance No. 4,
which states that a compliance inspection is required when a permit is applied for to building
a horizontal addition onto an existing structure, or to build an accessory structure on a lot
having an existing ISTS.
9. The applicant shall dedicate a minimum of ten (10) feet of drainage and utility easement
adjacent to all property lines.
10. The applicant shall provide a detailed site survey, at the time of building permit application,
clearly showing pervious and impervious areas.
11. Approval of the CUP does not constitute approval of the submitted drawings.
12. The applicant shall submit a detail for building support- non frost pad in connection to frost
depth of existing building.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Shakopee. Minnesota this
4 day of November, 2010.
ATTEST:
Community Development Director
Chair of the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals
TO: Mark Noble, Planner Il
FROM: Joe Swentek, Project Engineer
City of Shakopee
Memorandum
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Structures on One Lot and Variance for
Buiiding Materials (1725 West 3rd Avenue)
PID NO.: 27- 111002 -0 -0
CASE NO.: 10025
DATE: October 19, 2010
The application indicates a request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow
for multiple structures on one lot and a variance for building materials. The property is
approximately 3.17 acres and is located at 1725 West 3rd Avenue, north of County Road 69.
The engineering department has completed its review and offers the following comments at
this time for the applicant and for the planning department:
1. The applicant needs to dedicate a minimum of ten (10) feet of drainage and
utility easement adjacent to all property lines.
2. The appiicant needs to provide a detailed site survey, at the time of building
permit application, clearly showing pervious and impervious areas.
3. Approval of the CUP does not constitute approval of the submitted drawings.
Recommendation
Should the City recommend approval of the CUP, the engineering department suggests the
items listed above be attached as conditions of approval.
i
1 Rau e_t:
;, A DDIri o d
S53° 1 7 `:`W •
39ZroO
ni v1/4
kOpi fl rI
I ANDDA' R ! , z 0,{A t, l
L
�-
"vi Ty L oc vt1L-t A : •.
L
4C0 =
"Exisr i J6
P.�LDU
SI DI
102 + -- loz./ _ ( zcs
}
Pil —, z, )11°
P Cv S Pp,
lo
57D
•151°5• . q.2.i
Y - -'ly : °S . (V. 99
(J-J1 CAGE t OR l 1 1AI E l RA1
0
0
w
0
0
0
Co
6' -0"
DENOTES TYPICAL 2x6
CORNER BRACING
SEE DETAIL E/4
6' —0"
ALIGN THIS COLUMN W/
COLUMN ON OPPOSITE SIDEWALL
TO ALLOW FOR TRUSS BEARING
NOTE:
VERIFY LOCATION OF (2) 3'x6' -8"
SERVICE DOORS W/ OWNER
BEFORE STARTING CONSTRUCTION
12'x13'
OVERHEAD DOOR
12' -0"
— -
6' -0"
12'x13'
OVERHEAD DOOR
12 -0"
CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT
6' -0"
2' BOXED EAVE
2' BOXED EAVE
6' -0"
FLOOR PLAN
6'—
ALIGN TF
COLUMN
TO ALLO
12'x
OVERHEA
12'
12
EXISTING BUILDING
40' WIDE x14' -6" HIGH
RIGHT ELEVATION
LEFT ELEVATION
J
r'
EXISTING BUILDING
40' WIDE x14' -6 HIGH
SIDE ELEVATION
SIDE ELEVATION
N
N `.„
N
•
'T1 \
o b
N
o
-1- Z
1
\ '"te 7
t
0 °. -f n s.
r: . c
r
1 -ct fi,
rtr .i 6 ' i.. y
r .., ' P 6.
2 n
0 G l `
`
tl
1 --f ------>
y
ts51 l - k 1. ri\11.
z
1 1 . § i
1 ill
.� \ 6--7 ly � f
x !c
Ste'.
_J
r
s
ly
o
a co
1 ' : U Yeb ' '� a
v A t � o e o
r;P
in
et Ut
p r - , `r ° %cx 7o4 K
°9 C _ �, ,,._. y 6 c .
4
G 1 'f OP
f
kiv
0 - alb °� - _. -. y ;r! CP
Z 09
E Ll z
\ � ��� \ \�\ I-- 48' -0"
m r�l m
N Rl fTl
N W N
8 -0 ,.
.p
N o m 8' -0" g'_p° 8' 0" g' -p" 8 , p „
-. n cn i
O1 n 2' BOXED GABLE
co - 01 - V) I --gyp w uu
O -I O I e
-' 1 O
I I
1�
(n n o
r n g 2 m
r -a o 0 _ Q - - m A Z
CJ) n e S I z 0 GI
iU " nF n ' O O � r�*) I
Ci I y _ O
W
(1 �° mD'0 G
r p o p'- =n
E °^N F I O � f � lf < Tl Z I'nD -InD
g. a 3 F < -T1�7�7 O O f_ a)
r „, m s I m N
o a v _ O < —fT7 x � Cz I
C m a m b I 40 N M o .. O
m IV I CI r * 7 m 1-
nin°g.(N �x OZ�
Y R u ' • 0 O - -4 0 (7 0 V7 - 1 -
F N ' I o W - 173 0 X700
O C7 o)
� �° ° I O Z�Z - O r
o zd 1 G� 1 T7C o
n g ^ -a � o � 7 0K
n in - 1
C7 r C (n Z
O o
n n I zzo�. U)m .-
G7 4 g al (n * N
_ F Fa 1 �z a7to� rn
7) m c� O W D 0 I
(7 7:) I O
I I o D CI
an -
0o I
11111 o
o N 4p . �
a
W cu
a cm
I
I
n o 0
o J
2.
r� 1 O rn
o
0 • = / * Q
O N
N
i rn O
ig a� o
- � p p m I Iv
/ r - D 0 1 O I
/ D < D I
0
-' / a) 1 = rCl
n I a) o I
o O
3
1 =�
I
0
1 1 000 10
_ � N I = N D C Z I 0
c > z
OZ -r
f 1 ' 1 x. 0 v
I W
Z
L o ° o a)
rnrn I O TX 00
Q W I I -0 I
CO — xoz
VI Li a
o I D Q 1
�-r r = - z D C
ET C
O l G7 1 -
I
D I O a)
z _ 0 I
t) N I = N I � _
i
-p 8 1 -
73 CD 1 ti a W
/ a)
K \ 1
0
0 I I
t
= J
01 I
I I I rn
o I I I
o vl o r-.a o-
O
o
� a 7 n
r R.-
3 _ s-�-. _ 1 I I a)
`W o 0 o n (D O I (,�
0 rtrn'w"° I 1 1 N 0 O
I.
0 0 0 s 1
o •
I GO p Z \ �' o Q O 8' -p„
1 m j ,--,-,.< �
•
o Z ° ° - 3 O EXISTING BUILDING
al
Et' ' o m -
o N 40' WIDE x14' -6" HIGH
c,',' D JY1Tfl(, 5
z II ..•caFi.
�
. 7 c O
m
J I'
J
,. ..„..?„
N Z N
D
J C 0 Z .
m
�m�
cn xi , I 111111111i
(D—v,- Pi 5
o rn 0 ----1 N = t--
I 1- NJ
1
-
Z x -11 _ .-- � �l I — � �
✓ .O R- ITI Q 1
-I o
t - ''' U f1 i i2 L_
J c)
• - - ANN O �W
n s °�v � SI O I -c /
n N 9 ' Z
rn s. U . -r.:.- '54 m 2 0 /
C c a n R S /
CI N co n /
g ao8 � / /
— in a n E /
F= a 1
" a R o /
/
Oppp O 1e lP m U
.. V R
a 7 F
-i
-I -
ID
a
co
X
2
S.
ca 1 -
O
m
o x
. C / r�
a x 67
O C7 U A CO
Pi — 71 C6 G
1 = z
m —I
I \ I I I W DTI -- 9
D i I I__;
a -
O O
3 — I
CD _ i
Cfi
< rn
p
a C
(� —
— —1
r
H
c co
O CD
z __ j
0 —
CO
lo
Z
•
o `° mm -, y 3 0
(0 07 N D
, _,_ CD , 01
C1-7M2 \ p N O D x
O , t A U 03 - f D x C)
co
E ri, i 09 o❑ a �W --
l d O D O D D t... Z , V 1
o Z7 Z O ❑ ❑ - O = G> 1
n O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
�. o i0 z C1 D S
L�' o z ,_ ,
❑ ID
_ N _
m O ' 2
p • D ❑
sc -'
c❑ C 3 O N
O 3
CI P ❑ ❑ D
2 ---.- a v N C n
— 2 a D
C a r)
N o Ii pz -
— 3 0" f
___—)
�}