Variance-Expand a Non-Conforming Use• November 20, 1984
Case No: 84 -40
Applicant: Ed Robbins
Location: 62 - 6th Avenue South
Request: Variances to expand a non - conforming use
STAFF FINDINGS & COMMENTS: Anderson
1. Applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing structure at
62 - 6th Avenue South, the present site of Ed Robbins Auto Cleaning. The
subject site is zoned I -1.
2. The applicant is requesting a side yard variance, a rear yard variance, a
variance to exceed the Floor Area Ratio, and a variance to expand a non -con-
forming use.
3. The proposed addition will be approximately 683.4 square feet. The addition
will have a 2 foot rear yard setback and there will be no side yard setback.
Ordinance 427.38 requires a 40 foot sideyard setback when abutting an R District
• and a rear yard setback of 20 feet. The applicant is requesting a side yard
variance of 40 feet and a rear yard variance of 18 feet. The existing building
is a legal non - conforming structure, located 13 feet from the side yard, and
thus, in reality the applicant if approved, would only be receiving a 13 foot
side yard variance from conditions as they presently exist.
4. The subject parcel and building are currently legal non - conforming uses. Ordin-
ance 427.06(9) states that non - conforming uses shall not be expanded beyond the
building in which said use is located at the time the ordinance becomes effective.
5. The existing building is 2400 square feet and the lot is 3725 square feet. The
minimum required lot size for a lot if it were platted in an I -1 District today
is 10,000 square feet.
6. The current floor area ratio is .64 and with the proposed addition the floor area
ratio will be .82. Ordinance 427.38 requires a maximum floor area ratio of .60.
7. The subject parcel is located within a small area of industrial development. Most
of these buildings are presently non - conforming. To the east of the subject parcel
are apartment buildings, to the north is the fenced storage area of Hammerlund,
to the south County Road 3 and to the west Hammerlund.
8. The proposed addition will be constructed of cement block and two 8x10 foot doors
will be installed on the east side. An existing curb cut and sidewalk are located
on the east side. If the structure were an accessory building, the ordinance
• would require the entrance doors to have a 20 foot setback.
• Case No: 84 -40
Page 2
9. The applicant was granted a side yard variance of 37 feet in 1982 to construct
a car port on the east side of the building where the proposed addition is to
be built.
10. The applicant has stated that he needs the proposed addition for additional
room for his business during the winter months. He has stated he would contact
his neighbors concerning their opinion of the request.
•
•
�\ n� 0A
� \
y
2 �U
r o
\�
'Ae hereby certify
correct plat of a serve
and thot part of Lots 19, 20
,. ^� \ • , \con
�C 0 �' of a line parallel .wifn and `�0
J \ \
�� /\ �G�O • measured at right angl f the Sout
a—� \; lots. III in Eilcc�c 2, r.�s Minneapolis;
E
FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION ONLY
NOTE: The purpose of a variance is to provide relief to a property owner when
the strict enforecment of the Zoning Ordinance would cause an undue hard
ship to the property owner or deny reasonable use of the property.
Hardship to the applicant is the crucial test. Variances will be granted
only in unusual situations which were not foreseen when the Zoning Ordin-
ance was adopted. Economic situations are seldom unique and are rarely
considered a valid hardship.
Hardship A.
Explain why strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause undue
hardship:
r' e_M'A S 1201 ca_ -Po f -1,c_ Uv f1-UJ_ - t o c - f - \ i i n u e>
bus" -( n.Q
I 1 0
Conditions B.
What are the special conditions (shape of lot, exceptional topographic
conditions, etc.) of this request that are unique to this property and
do not apply generally to other properties in the district?
List of Homeowners
Contacted by Applicant C.
Submit a list of names and addresses of neightobrs contacted.
C
•