Agenda - Council - 06/10/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CASE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO REQUIRED SITE IMPROVE1V[ENTS; CASE OF DOUG AND JIJLIEANN HILLS Background: In 1993 the City Council amended the performance standards for the B-l, B-2 and B-3 Business Districts to require all unimproved commercial sites to install the required site improvements (pavement and curbing) by January 1 of 1997, unless an extension was applied for and approved by the City Council. On November 26, 1996, the City Council granted an extension to ail non-conforming properties to install the required site improvements by October 1, 1997. Doug and Julieann Hills entered into a contract for deed to purchase the property at 7445 Hwy. #10 N.W. in 1984. They have taken the position that they have lawful non- conforming (grandfather) rights for automobile sales, lease and repair on their property. City Staff is not disputing the use of the property. As a matter of fact, in 1990 the City Council rezoned the property from Industrial to B-3 Highway Business, a newly established district that allowed motor vehicle sales, lease and repair as a permitted use. There was a brief period from 1990 to 1993 where outside display areas required a conditional use permit. But, in 1993 Council again amended the code requirements to establish that outside display areas were a permitted accesory use as long as they were paved and curbed and any pre-existing display areas, driveways and customer/employee parking areas not paved and curbed had until January of 1997 to do so. Doug and Julieann Hills have also taken the position that they have grandfather rights to conduct commercial activity on their property without the required site improvements being in place and that the City does not have the legal authority to place a sunset or closure date on non-conforming site standards. And if the City does have such authority, then they are requesting an unlimited extension to these requirements. In the correspondence received from Doug and Julieann Hills, there is a handwritten note that I will refer to as Exhibit G. Julieann indicates that she has learned from Mn/DOT that cities cannot require blacktop driveways along State highways; only the State has that authority and they do not require blacktop driveways and to do so requires a permit from Mn/DOT, not the City. Staff's response is that Julieann's understanding of the regulations is partially correct -- the State does not require blacktop driveways along State corridors. However, the City does have the legal authority to require blacktop driveways and does. Further, when a property owner submits a proposal to develop their site, the City forwards a copy of the plans to Mn/DOT for review and a standard response from Mn/DOT is that any work within the highway right-of-way requires a permit from Mn/DOT. The developer is obligated to comply with that requirement and the State is the enforcement agency.