Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda Packet 09-23-1996 SpecialAGENDA SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELL0 PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 23, 1898 - 6:30 p.m. Members: Dick Frie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten 1. Call to order. 2. Public Hearing --Consideration of a variance request to parking lot and building setback requirements. Applicant, John Rondhus. 3. Public Hearing --Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment which would define "auto maintenanoe facilities" and allow auto maintenance facilities as a conditional use in a PZM zone; Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing an auto maintenance facility in a PZM zone; Consideration of a variance to the buffer yard standards. Applicant, Investors Together. d. Adjournment. 14 n4 .w6.4 ,fk,l d - I' -s2 J"-5..'-� Special Planning Commission Agenda - 9/23/96 Public, Hearing n sideration of it variance newest to the rear yard setback 1=uimment A. t.� irl Bondbus CorVaradn& (J.O.) A RFFFRPNCF AND BACKGROUND: John Bondhus requests a variance to the 40 -ft rear yard setback requirement for parcels located in the I-1 zone. This variance request is similar to the request approved in 1989. The current request calls for an extension of the existing building line at the current 3 -ft setback for a length of 179 ft. As you71 note on the attached meeting minutes from the Planning Commission meeting in June 1989, the original variance request was granted based on the finding that the variance will not result in a depreciation of adjoining land values and due to the infrequency of use of the Burlington Northern railway. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the variance request based on the same finding determined in 1989. Also, due to the unique shape of the parcel, it is not possible to obtain reasonable use of the property for 1-1 purposes without a variance. 2. Motion to deny the variance request based on the finding that the original variance was granted for a relatively short stretch. The additional wall length will triple the length of the wall covered by the variance granted in 1989. It could be argued that the railroad may not be getting much use today, but in the future there may be intense use along this corridor. C STAFF RF .O MFNDATION: Staff recommends that the variance be granted as requested due to the fact that a precedent exists with the variance granted in 1989; and due to the narrowness of the lot, it is very difficult to obtain functional use of the available property without a variance. It is our view that the unique situation relating to the narrowness of the lot creates a hardship that can be used to blunt precedent. Copy of site plan; Copy of Planning Commission minutes of 8/6189. Planning Ca®ission Minutes - 6/6/89 Public hearing - A variance reTmt to allow a building addition to be built wltnln the sloe yard 6etDack requirement. Applicant, Bonanus borp6raElM. Bondhus Corporation was represented by Mr. John Bandhus, owner of the Bandhus Corporation, and Mr. Dick Van Allen. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, indicated to the Planning Commission members the location of the proposed variance request as shown an the easel in front of the Planning Commission members. Mr. Van Allen indicated that in talking with the gentleman from Burlington Northern Railroad, they do not have a problem with a building being extended out to within three feet of their property line and would also have no objection to constructing a roadway to go around the building also. Mr. Van Allen, along with Mr. Bondhus, then explained the use of the proposed new facility, that being a heat treat facilityr and instead of the 10 -foot side wall height that is in their existing building, the new building would need an 10 -foot side wall height to accommodate the new heat treat equipment to be installed within this addition. Problems with locating this addition on another part of their building would be that they would encounter moving of the main transformer which provides the electricity to this building and also capping an existing well and drilling another well. With no further input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. Bearing no further input from the Planning commission members, motion wan made by Richard Martie, eecar4ed by Mori Malone; to approve the variance request to allow a building addition to be built within the side yard setback requirement. The motion carried unanimously, with Dan MCConnon absent. Reason for granting the variance request: The Burlington Northern Railroad has no intense use of the existing railroad an the tracks which go by this proposed variance request, not would there be any impairment an the neighborhood, that being the Burlington Northern Railroad or the neighboring properties which are adjacent to this variance request. We to also not contrary to the intent of the ordinance. 0 OUGHT CO. HOLT• NO. 15 CIA py TaeG LING � 1+Me �lcE ,r51TE PLA N 4& bT. /IINyC,• . R�+MIT4 e U I L 40 x 1300 p t TIO mM , 4 o�°i�AIy�.A4 bis.. .. "---'�1 •-_. �p ///11I/e/x//1a/T>Ho eul4allo yl•►TT. wwP iJ p•p;7. &+E4. 109. A' gpWL NEm LOA I 414 �. -,�. k �� ��Y rte.,►.—�"�� _J''�"�"'"�_ A�4T1°�EE'yy��y�4ar M}TOT�IglAT01YpR�y���f''Q�DM T�EtDy TACEM .►+"—" �00�T�MO°INTRi1N. <N„AED"4AMCICYRY@rov �Y' MU16�T64• MOT°MIDOT MO I�aMds A `` p�TRA�'TpRa OlytRA�`TORO DMA44 Gr Y R T 9}(19 of COMOF ITOM! AND YOT1�T T11C AQQQCMIRCT Or AMT dltRE•AkGaID. I�NfiW LP.YT EA$fi7tlL.II711Li8 64fsY RCCAILAR q n HANDICAP 04A '0AP R,1(JICAT64 EO•y'►2s YAM ACCR9°t°40 i * N6w 6WY. T7 TOTAL TI 06 owb rb1E' A" el.&ATICN4(N8w) TYPtGL GTAu, ONOWN A46 TO OF AKNA%T, 0"-.4 NOT6o 0 Special Planning Commission Agenda -9/23% , -.1 , •. •. i r :. A- RF.F .R .N .. AND BACKGROUND: This agenda item is addressed both to the City Council and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is meeting immediately prior to the City Council meeting to discuss this matter. At a recent meeting of the City Council, a request to establish a new zoning district (B -3A) was denied. This request would have enabled the development of the mini -lube facility as requested by Investors Together- At the same meeting, on a 3-2 vote, the City Council called for a public hearing on a request to amend the zoning ordinance to allow auto maintenance facilities as a conditional use in the PZM zone. This is the same request made by Investors Together back in May 1996. Two weeks ago, Investors Together made a request for a conditional use permit and associated variance to the buffer yard ordinance. Please note that the ordinance amendment called for on a 3.2 vote by the City Council cannot be adopted without a 4.1 vote; therefore, one of the two Council members generally opposed to the development of a mini -lube facility at this location must change their vote in order for this item to be approved. Attached is a report from Northwest Associated Consultants regarding the definition of auto maintenance facilities and the implications of establishing auto maintenance activities as a conditional use in the PZM zone. This report was written in May of 1996 specifically for the initial request by Investors Together. You will note that certain portions of the report are deleted. The sections deleted pertain to a request by Investors Together to allow minor auto repair at this site. Investors Together has withdrawn this request; therefore, the sections of Northwest Associated Consultant's report that pertain to this subject have been deleted. In their conditional use request, Investors Together is requesting that the auto lube facility include an area for auto detailing and cleaning, which could be construed as an expansion of the car wash activity. However, auto maintenance facilities can be defined relatively broadly; therefore, this additional activity is being requested under the current conditional use permit request for the permission to operate tho auto maintenance facility. Special Planning Commission Agenda - 9/23/96 DECISION 1- CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY ALLOWING AUTO MAINTENANCE ACTWITY AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE PZM ZONE Motion to approve allowing auto maintenance facilities as a conditional use in the PZM zone. Motion is based on the finding that auto maintenance facilities with conditions identified in the planners report are sufficient to ensure maintenance of the character and quality of PZM neighborhoods; therefore, the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the city. Under this alternative, the City Council is comfortable that allowing this type of facility in the PZM district will not result in a proliferation of auto lube facilities in other more sensitive PZM areas. The City has recently received a request from an individual interested in developing an auto lube facility on PZM property directly across from the public works building on West County Road 39. It would appear that it would be quite difficult to block development of an oil/lube facility at this site based on the precedent of allowing the Investors Together mini -lube site as proposed. As noted earlier by City staff and Steve Grittman, allowing this type of use in all PZM areas does not necessarily mean that the City must grant conditional use permit approval to every application. The City does have some authority to deny approval of conditional use permits in a PZM zone where it is clear that the facility proposed is not consistent with the neighborhood. An example of this would be the downtown location adjacent to single family residential homes in an area without direct access to the main road. It is likely that the City would prevail in denial of a conditional use permit at such a location. On the other hand, at a location such as directly across from the public works building, it is likely that an applicant desiring a conditional use permit for this type of facility would prevail. Motion to deny allowing auto maintenance facilities as a conditional use in the PZM zone. This motion could be based on the same finding used in May of 1996 which denied the zoning ordinance amendment due to the finding that auto maintenance activity is not consistent with the purpose of the Special Planning Commission Agenda - 9/23/96 PZM zone and could result in a degradation of the character and nature of PZM areas; therefore, the use is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. C. STAFF 11FCOMMENDATION - 0RnINANQF MRNDMF.NT: The zoning ordinance should have some flexibility to allow reasonable change to occur over time to the ordinance and its associated requirements. At the same time, there is a good reason why 4/5 vote of the Council is required before a zoning ordinance is allowed to change. It could be argued that unless there's an overriding or compelling reason to change the code, it probably makes sense to leave things as they are. In reviewing this case, Council needs to determine to what extent the code really needs to be changed and what are the risks associated with the change. If there is a risk of such a facility harming other properties in other PZM zones, then perhaps the zoning ordinance should stay as is. IDECIRION 2 • CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE PEFLKIT ALLOWING AUTO MAINTENANCE FACUMES IN A P M ZONE Attached is the site plan review that was prepared previously by Northwest Associated Consultants. The site plan has not changed appreciably to warrant preparation of a new report; however, it should be noted that sufficient parking space has been provided on a revised report, and Investors Together has indicated that they will provide any level of landscaping needed by the City to offset the setback deficiency to the butler yard ordinance. Motion to approve conditional use permit allowing an auto maintenance facility in a PZM zone based on the finding that the use as proposed at this location and the proposed site design is consistent with the character and geography of the neighborhood. This alternative assumes that City Council has amended the ordinance to allow this type of use in this area in the first place. A motion to approve the conditional use permit would be based on a finding that the silo plan and conditions as proposed are consistent with the neighborhood in which it's located. Motion to approve the conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions: Conditions identified in planners report. Removal of lot tine separating Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Macarlund Plaza. Approval of the variance to the buffer yard requirements, Special Planning Commission Agenda - 9/23/96 This alternative also requires that the Council make the finding that the merging of the two lots does not sufficiently change the car wash site to justify amendments to the conditional use permit governing the car wash site. Motion to deny the conditional use permit allowing an auto maintenance facility in a PZM zone. C. STAFF F..O ENDATION - VONDUMNAL IJSRREQUEST: Staff recommends approval if the ordinance is changed to allow the facility. DECISION A - CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO THE BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS According to the buffer yard requirements code, there is a 40-R buffer yard requirement between the single family residential area and the auto maintenance structure. The site plan shows an 18 -ft separation; therefore, a variance of 22 R is required. The applicant proposes to provide a combination of berming, fence, or landscaping necessary to create adequate buffer between the two uses. It is their view that the unique shape of the lot and the tight distance between front and rear lot lines established a unique situation that justifies a variance to the buffer yard requirements. Motion to approve the variance to the buffer yard requirement based on the finding that sufficient landscaping, fencing, and berming will be installed to accomplish the intent of the buffer yard ordinance, and the variance is justified based on the finding that a unique hardship exists associated with the shape of the property and that reasonable use of the property cannot be gained without a variance to this section of the code. Motion to deny the variance to the buffer yard ordinance. City Council could argue that the buffer yard ordinance is necessary to maintain a proper separation between residential and commercial sites and that a sufficient hardship has not been demonstrated. The applicant could reduce the size of the building in order to maintain the proper separation required by the buffer yard ordinance. Special Planning Commission Agenda -9123/86 C. STAFFFRF .OMMF.NDATION. V RTANr.F. RRQ1TFRT; It is our view that a unique situation does exist with this situation in that the property is relatively narrow and that functional use of the property would be greatly diminished if the buffer yard ordinance was followed to the letter. As long as sufficient berming, landscaping, eta can be installed to meet the intent of the buffer yard ordinance, it is our view that the variance should be granted. D. f3LiPPORTING DATA Investors Together Auto Maintenance Facility Chronology; Northwest Associated Consultant's report from May 1996, which includes the definition of auto maintenance activities and the ordinance amendment establishing auto maintenance facilities as a conditional use in a PZM zone; Copy of site plan; Conditions pertaining to establishment of the adjacent car wash facility. INVESTORS TOGETHER - AUTO MAINTENANCE FACILITY CHRONOLOGY Application summm Rata April 1996 Request: Investors Together request a zoning ordinance amendment which would allow Auto Maintenance facility as a Conditional use in a PZM zone. Action: Planning Commission recommended approval on a 4 to I vote. City Council denied based on finding that such a facility is not consistent with purpose of P2M zone. Council was concerned that it would be difficult to enforce the 'while you wait" requirement and it would open the door to similar facilities in other PZM areas. Also, this use was not considered to be consistent with the character of the PZM district. July 1996 Request: At the request of Investors Together, Planning Commission calls for a public hearing on creation of text amendments establishing a new zoning district (B3A) which would allow Auto Maintenance Facility as a conditional use. The Planning Commission also called for a zoning map amendment which would identify the B3A zoning district location. Investors together applied for the associated conditional use permit. Action: Planning Commission recommended denial of establishment of a 03A the new district based on the finding that current code provides sufficient number of commercial zoning districts - creating another district to satisfy this particular interest is therefore not appropriate. City Council voted 3-2 at favor of the zoning ordinance amendment but request fails due to the need for a 4 - I vote. Council then voted 3-2 to call for a public hearing bring the hem back as a request to allow the facility as a conditional use in a PZM zone. Sept. 1996 Request: Investors Together applies for a conditional use permit and requests that the public hearing requested by Council be held at a special meeting on September 23, 1996. Action: rrrrrl 9 rrMAY-08-1996 0734 NAC 612 595 4837 P.02/12 IryA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Cj C0M0U01TT PL ARMING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Monticello Mayor and City Council Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Bob I(I mis/Stephen Grittman DATE: (8ED RE: Monticello -EWessLuba - Zoning OrdinanceAnlerldr oWCUP FILE NO: 191.07 -96.03 BACKGROUKD Invost:ore Together Ina has submftted plans to construct a 1,352 square foot 'Express Lube' facility upon a 15,800 square foot parcel of land located north of County Road 75 and west of County Road 118. In the long term, the applicant plans to Conduct a ± 1,170 square foot building addition which would aomnunodate minor automobile repair activities. The subject property is zoned PZJM, Performance Zone Mixed. To accommodate the applicarWa imn seta and long ramp development plan, the following approvals have been requested: 1. Zoning Ordinance amendment to establish *automobile matntenar= facilitles' as Conditional uses In the PZM Zoning DM%t � e 3. Conditional use permit to allow an automobile maintenance within a P211 Zoning District 5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555 -St. LOUIS Park, MN 55416 -(812) 595.9836 -Fax. 595-9837 b Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment Exhibit D - Site Plan ISSUES ANALYSIS PZfltr Dis&kt Amendments Automobile Maintenance Facilities. To accommodate the proposed 'Express lube' facility an amendment to the PZM District provisions is necessary. Specifically, the establishment of 'automobile maintenance facllMW as a conditional use In the district has been proposed. In consideration of such amendment, the City should make a determination as to the acoeptability of such use within the PZM District. According to the Ordinance, the purpose of the PZM District Is to provide a land use transition between high density residential land uses, as well as the Intermixing of each such lend use. In some respects, an automobile maintenance facility is considered comparable in intensity to several existing conditional uses in the PZM District, including car washes, dry cleaning and retail commercial activities (a car wash facility currently exists to the east of the subject property). Alternatively, it is debatable whether a Gear distinction exists between an 'automobile maintenance facility' and 'minor automobile repair factllty' While justification for approval of the requested amendment may exist, a decision regarding the appropriateness of such amendment is considered a policy matter to be determined by City of vials. Attached as Exhibit C Is a draft Zoning Ordinance amendment which would establish automobile maintenance facilities as conditional- in the PZM, Performer= Zoning Mixed District. Such amendment tndudes various conditions intended to mitigate potential adverse impacts. In review of the draft amendmord, it should be noted that 'automobile maintenance facilitlos' are referenced as Section 10-SX1. While less than Ideal, such formatting rospords to an existing fomrattbtp oror in the PZM section and Is handed to expedite the amendment process. Under the current Ordinance format, the following are listed as conditional uses In the PZM District 9 MRY-06-1996 07:34 rA': N_ Apartment Density Bonus 0- Findings of Fact P_ Standards 0- Project Review Process Rather than reformat extensive volumes of Ordinance material at this time, a simple reference to automobile maintenance facilities as item K1 under PZM conditional use is considered appropriate. �rn hl lildine j�•nans To -jewel IN -4-- "T— 9 1 .. /; Lift f C ,. c.m H:w�...� P'... ...i..l• OJ GMl�wnl [].• 1_1 +1 i �• 1. ..a.: -- 1 7 Wp9�/y Industrial-Distriate Co^^i^'� w �,r,:'�;''.',.� If, 'i;St� ��2�'; .Ile repair , it is WWwW of our orri i! .j jV.. qU ..I J does npi iot�>11M PW i ' . higher L6tw City MAG / lip1 .(.'� • hl:/, ii ! *.4jinor 3 0 Condidona/ Use Pemrit CUP Review Criteria. As mentioned previously, an amendment to PZM District requirements is necessary to accommodate the immedlate development plans of the applicant In this regard, a draft Zoning Ordinance amendment has been prepared which would establish 'automobile maintenance facilities' as conditional uses In the PZM District Per the attached ordinance amendment (Exhibit C), a'automobile maintenance fedIV is defined as: Automobile Maintermtrics Facility. A business which provides short term, while you wait automobile maintenance service to automobiles and light trucks of nine thousand (9,13W) GVW or less. Service activities include oil clinging, lubrication, tire rotation and the like, but in no case may include repair activities. Automobile maims facilities shall be distinguished from mirror automobile repair facilities in that only while you wait service may be provided and vehicular storage shall be prohibited. The purpose of the required conditional use permit process Is to enable the City Council to assign dimenslons to a proposed use or conditions surrounding it after consideration of adjacent uses and their functions and the special problems which the proposed use presents to provide the City of Monticello with a reasonable degree of discretion In determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety. Procedurally, the Planning Commission and City Council must consider the possible adverse effects of the proposed conditional use. Its judgement shall be based upon but not limited to the following factors: Relationship to municipal Comprehensive Plan. The geographical area Involved. Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area In which It is proposed. The character of the surrounding area. The demonstrated need for such use. Neighborhood Charaetsr. As noted previously, the Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commisslon and City Council to consider the character of the area In which the use has been proposed, The following is a listing of uses which Us adlacent to the property In question: PPY-M-1956 e7: St� WL Ovection Use North Multiple Family Residential (Townhomes) South County Road 75/Rag Line East Commercial (Car Wash) West Single Family Residential Of key importance in detemdning the compatibility of the proposed use with the neighborhood will be compliance with applicable buffer yard requirements of Section 3- 3.13. Details relating to such buffer yard requirements are highlighted In the following section of this report Provided aWtabie buffer yard requirements are satisfied it is believed the proposed use can compatibly edst upon the subject site. ScreenftqJRd1sclWnW8uffer Requirements. As a eonditlon of CUP approval, a landscape plan should be submitted which identifies the type, location and size of all proposed site plantings, as well as compliance with the aforementioned buffer yard requirements. According to the Ord'ulance, the following buffer yard requirements are applicable to the subject property. Direction Minimum Ru0dtng Buffer nerd Width Number or Plants Per setbadr 100 Fero!of Property Une• North 20 feet 20 feet ro South NA NA NA East Nom Nona None West 40 fast 30 feet 120 • Location of an opaque fence or earth berm at laael Me feet in helgM within buffer yard " be considered credit toward plant unit requirtarnat a The munber of mqulrod plant units may be reduced by 50 percent. Lot Area Roqulremerrt There are r10 specific lot area or width requirements imposed in the PDN District 5 0 P FUiY d6 -195e 6'I:.» Ni -0- _-. — . .-. -- Setbacks. As shown below, the proposed 'E*mw Lune' facility does not meet all applicable PZM District (6-3 District setbacks applicable). Required Front Yard 30 feet Side Yard - East 10 feet Side Yard • West 40 feet• Rear Yard 30 feet, • Buffer Yard Setback Requirement Proposed 89 feet lei �—vd I.a•�tQ 32 feet ?�etdtc� As a condition of CUP approval, the site plan should be revised to meet applicable structure setback requirements. Bcadtdtng HalghVIBLd rig Materials. To determine compliance with City building height and building material requirements, building elevations (drawn to scale) should be submitted which identity structure height and finish materials. Off -Street Parking. Parking Supply. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a specific off-street parking standard for automobile maintenance facilities. As part of the attached amendment however, an off-6treet parking requirement applicable to the proposed use has been included. Such standard is referenced In an American Planning Association (APA) document entitled 'Off -Street Parking Requirements for Oil Change Fadlltles'. As calculated below, and assuming two service bays, the proposed automobile maintenance facility Is required to provide six off4treet parking stalls. 6paces UPA Ratio Recuired Automobile Maintenance Two spaces plus B Facility (two cervica bays) two space service ba per OOf According to ft submitted site plan, a total of four off-street perking stalls have been proposed. Aa a condition of CUP approval, the site plan should be revised to provide six off-street spaces. Dimensional Requirements Al proposed parking stalls and drive aisles have been found to most or exceed minimum Ordinance requiremonts. 6 MFlY-06-19% 0735 N4- --- __- ---- ......._ Handicap Stalls. In accordance with State American Disability Act requirements, one off-street handicap parking stall must be provided upon the site. Curbing. in accordance with Zoning Ordinance requirements, all off-street paAcing areas must be provided a six Inch non -surmountable concrete curb. Surfacing. In accordance with Ordinance requirements, the proposed off-street parking area is to be surfaced In a bituminous material. Curb Cut In what is considered a positive site design feature, a shared 35 foot wide curb from County Road 75 has been proposed. As a condition of CUP approval, such curb cut access must be subject to approval by the Wright County Highway Department and City Engineer. Loading. The Zoning Ordinance does not provide a specific off-street loading requirement for uses such as that being proposed. As a condition of CUP approval, however, a specific off-street loading space should be designated upon the submitted site plan. Ugh&O it has not been indicated w bather any wderior lighting is to be provided on site. Arty ligating used to Illuminate off-street parking or outdoor storage areas must be hooded and directed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. Signage. As a condition of CUP approval, all applicable City sign requirements must be satisfied. Grading and Oralnege. As a condition of CUP approval, a grading and drainage plan must be submitted Such plan will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Noise. PZM District provisions (proposed) state that intermittent sounds produced by automobile maintenance facilities must not be audible to users of adjoining PZIN or residential properties. The applicant will be required to provide information regarding proposed noise mitigation efforts. Trash. The efts plan does not indicate whether trash is to be stored outdoors. If a trash receptacle is to be stored outside the principal structure. It must be screened from view of neighboring properties. 0 MAY -de -1996 tar:.0 f++- --- --- -1 - • — — an r, -1--.i T.... _., ' .. .. . .. . . _ Js addition in i DECISION ONE - PZM ZONING DISTRICT AMENDMENT - AUTOMOBILE (MAINTENANCE FACILITIES Alternathre A - Amendment Approval Approval of the requested amendment would establish automobile maintenance facilities as conditional uses in the P2M District. Provided various conditions we Implemented, N is the opinion of our office that such use can compatibly exist in the PZIVI District It should be noted. however. that some question does exist In regard to a dear distinction between 'automobile malntenance facilities' and "minor automobile mW. Should the City choose to approve the requested amendment, such action should the be on the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment and resulting use is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and goals and policies. 2. The proposed amendment and resulting use Is consiatent with the general Intent of the zoning district purpose of the PZM District Altemadvo B - Arttendrnent Danlal A second alternative available to the City would be to deny the requested amendment to conditionally allow automobile maintenance facilities within PZM D1WcW. Such denial would also have the effect of denying the simultaneous CUP request as the mechanism to receive such CUP would not exist. 8 W u MAY -W-1996 Ert:fib f4L Should the City deny the requested amendment it should be based upon ti -ie following findings: 1. rhe proposed amendment and resulting use is not consistent with the spirit and irtent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. rhe proposed amendment and resulting use is likely to have an adverse impact upon surrounding properties. 3. The proposed use is not consistent with the purpose of the PDM District DECISION TWO - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTOMOB LE IMAIINTENANCE FACILITY AltemasSm A - ConcRUanal Use Pend t Approval (With Corsdldom) This alternative would allow the estat0shyrord of an automobile mar tenamj facility upon the subJect property, provided several conditions ars imposed to insure use canpadbility and progpw site functioning. Should the CIV afire the requested amendment to allow such uses in the PZM District, we vmId recontrnertd approval of the requested conditional use permit be approved based upon the following ffndings and conditions: 1 Findings: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the spirit and Intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan goehe and pollaea end in keeping with the Intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. the proposed project Is consistesit with the purpose of the perbmu nce standards cf the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed project wIU not have any adverse Impacts, as ourtlined In the conditional use permit sedlon of to Zoning Ordinance. 4. Z1ro proposed project shall meet "Nmun screening and landscaping requirements as outlined herein. S. The proposed project shell provide adequate parking srW loading as outlined herein. 6. The proposed project shell rat impose any undue burden upon public facliftles and sorvlces. 9 D MAY -M-1996 07:36 Nf;l. �........ ..... .._ _� 7. The proposed project is designed in such a manner to tone a desirable and unified environment with its boundaries which will not be detrimental to future land uses in surrounding areas. Architecture and site treatments shall be compatible with adjacent structures and site plans and shall respect the privacy of neighboring businesses. Conditions: 1. The City approve the requested PZM amendment to accommodate automobile maintenance facilities. V2. The site plan is revised to meet applicable setback requirements (buffer yard). 3. Use of the facility is limited to automobile/light truck oil changes. 4. The applicant demonstrate compliance with City building height and building material requirements through the submission of building etevatiom. S. The site plan is revised to Illustrate a total of six off-street parking stalls. 6. One handicap parking stall Is provided in accordance with the State American Disability Act requiremeMs. 7. Al o8-strset parking areas are provided a six Inch non -surmountable concrete curb. S. The proposed 35 foot curb cut is subject to approval by the Wright County Highway Department and City Engineer. 9. The site plan is modified to illustrate an off-street loading space. 10. A landscape plan is submitted and approved which identifies the type, location, and size of all site plantings. Such plan shell also domonstrate compliance with applicable buffer yard requirements. 11. All lighting used to illuminate off-street parking be hooded and directed to deflect light away from adjacent properties and public rlghte-of-way. 1Z All City sign requirements are satisfactorily met. 13. A grading and drainage plan Is VAMICod subject to review end approval by the City Engineer 10 0 r�r-r,8-1956 a'7 � 36 rak 14. Intermittent sounds produced by the oil charge operations are not audible to adjacent properties. 15. All erdedor trash handling facilities are screened from view of adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. 16. Developer agrees that it will be responsNe for any reconstruction or restoration in the event that the City needs to do drainage and utility work in the City's easement Alternative B - Conditional Use Permit genial A second altemative available to the City would be to deny the requested conditional use permit. If the City &*oses to deny the conditional use permit, it should be based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed use is not consistent with the spirit and Intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed use is likely to have an adverse impact upon surrounding properties. Ii1.I.:A. A Z.,I .Alla I...dr��i lv � .rIw11Wf�8n. i�pp4u�.,, ea -Mn' the P M nwdr4 --- --- -i i�= .... ,;a�a..�:.f-'i dt. - W ct tamp d, I,, ,, 1 I 1 ��t�mobite 11 G TOTAL P.12 DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) TO ACCOMMODATE AUTOMOBILE MAINTENANCE FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE PZM DISTRICT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Title 10, Section 202 of the Monticello City Code (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following: AM(1) AUTOMOBILE MAINTENANCE FACILITY: A business which provides short term, while you wait, automobile maintenance service to automobiles and light trucks of nine thousand (9,000) GVW or less. Service activities include oil changing, lubrication, fire rotation and the like but in no case may include repair activities. Automobile maintenance facilities shall be distinguished from minor automobile repair facilities in that only while you wait service may be provided and vehicular storage shall be prohibited. Section Z Title 10, Section 3-5.1-1 of the Monticello City Code (OB -Street Parking Requirements) is emended to add the following: 28. Automobile Maintenance Facilities: Two (2) spaces plus two (2) spaces per _ service bay. Service bays or pumping areas shall not be considered off- street parking space. Section S. Title 10, Section 10-8 of the Monticello City Code (PZM Conditional Uses) is hereby amended to add the following: K 1 Automobile Maintenance Facilities provided that: The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting Influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. EXHIBIT C • DRAFT ZONING OROINANCkAAA T. 3 2. The use of the facility is limited to short term, while you wait automobile maintenance activities and not repair. 3. Buffer yard requirements of Chapter 3, Section 3.G of this Ordinance are satisfied. 4. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered. 5. Parking spaces shall be screened from view of abutting residbntial districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2[G] of this Ordinance. 6. The entire area other than occupied by the buildings or plantings shall be surfaced with material which will control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 7. The enfire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 8. All lighting shall be hooded and so &ecled that the light source is not visible from the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [Hj of this Ordinance. 1 9. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement, and shall be subject to the approval of the Clty Engineer. 10. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9 of this Ordinance. 11. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 12. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 13. Automobile maintenance facility shall have direct access to major thoroughfare via driveway or frontage road. 14. Intermittent sounds produced by automobile maintenance facility shall not be audible to users of adjoining PZM or residential properties. 2 9 Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED by the Monticello City Council this day of 1996. ATTEST: By Rick Wotfsteller, Administrator CITY OF MONTICELLO By- ATTEST: y Brad Fyle, Mayor AYES: NAYS: 0 SI TE PLAN FV INVESTORS TOGETHER, INC. f N 4 Y e� Iwcara u✓rfc r,d PART OF LOT 3, MACARL UND PLAZA, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA. ?;.6ov;Q Are4 WC.1+ �r[ Y(L/Y La, r.a(o sa LOT . rl.SO 24 FT. -/- e14;pr %! .v�ec. . Council Minutes - 9/11/89 7. ordinance stmudm^.nt. to allw an a canditiortal line a la,nnlrumnl/any cleaners In a PEM Zmme. Applicant, Curt and Anita Mao Ihylund. AID B. Ordinance aw—hent to allow as a conditional tine a car wash fn the PVI Iperfurmance tom wired) core. AND 9. Conditional use rerlsest to allow a laundroaat/dry cleattern its a PVI ilpor(ormance Zana Mired) rare.t llcant, Curt and Amur Hae Ihgbunl. I.ocaElon: Irate 3 aind A, Hachr lunar Plaza. O'Neill reported that the applicant proposes developsut of a two-story structure matching the existing Riverruad Plaza. Each level will cant Ain 3,200 equate feet of usable apace. One quarter of the lower level will be used for dry cleaning processing and service center which Features drive through service. 11m remainder of the lower level will house a laundroret facility. 11m upper floor will be used exclusively as an apartment for the owner/operator with a long term goal of develo+lrw the upper floor an office space or for use an a three -unit apartment. 71m applicant InLerds on developing a car wash facility at name time In Lim future. The request for an amendment to the ordinance today and Lim conrditional use permit application pertaining to the car wash will not be furlbcoming until saes point In the future. o'thlll outlined the Planning Cumodmim's recommendation and noted that Planning Commission recommerded approval of the proposed zoning ordlnance amendment associated with Issuance of the conditional use permit. Ile also revi,,imil the suggested conditions associated with the zaring ordinance amendment and the conditional use permit. After discussion, motion "a made by Shirley Andorsrm, seconded by Den Blonlgen, to amend the Monticello toning Ordinance by alluwlrw3 dry clntaning processing as a conditional use In the PVI zone subject to Lim following conditions: a. Dry cleaning operation mast meet all 0.'11A safety otan,lardn. b. Dry cleaning operation 811611 he self-cmLnfmd In term of m+inn and fumes with no venting to outaide of building. c. Dry clenning facility shall have direct assess to major thoroughfare via driveway or frontage road. d. Screening of abutting residential units ami landocal'inrl most. Ito In corpllaae with chapter 1, sny.ion 2101, or tlr zoning ardbwnwr. e. voice ampiaiers used In monjtmctlon will. drum tln-31- pn—n Shall not be sudiblo to adjoining residential atom. and to auerd tum zoning ordinance by allowing car wash activity an a conditional use In the PVI zea subject to the following onrdltinat e. All conditions toted In the D-3 dlalrlcL roguleUonn portalnbg to car waatms. b. Car "ah facility ahall have direct access to major thonorpnfare via driveway or frontage road. c. Intermittent eoudo produced by car wash almnat too nu,4n en Iho attend of a vacuum or warning signal chadl not be audible Ln users of adjoining PIA or residential properties. and motion to Include granting of coudltlmmal use Imtalt wedeln would allow development or a InundroWL/dry cloaoor on Into 3 atwd /, MncAi land Platte, subject to Lim following cudltionat e. All condime rented Ipy ordlnarnce. b. Residentlel anuse of of ructuro shall be limited to owner or mnuger under proposed parking and driveway cunrt'lunatlon. c. Intonatfteallon of use of oLrucLore vin ,Invedoparrnt or olun Alia apartments or office shell require apprnpt lata ag+annl'm of parking. ons of upstairs As witi-family dwelling will repulme reorientation of circular di In through traffic pattaun. d. Candltlona associated with the use of thio structure shell be tocwded on the property doed. Motion based dm the finding that toning amendments and conditional tine permit are consistent with the municipal coopreMtnalve plan, geogral'bic area Involved, such now will not depreciate Uw arum In welch It In proposed, And the need for such use has been currleiently dommal.rated. "GLien Carflad UINIIIamUaly. DEE OIIUIMU'Ct AMLPUrIFJR. lap. Our. n 1B LL&BYERS, VA. —ATTORNEYS AT LA%— lac W. H— R-1 ammP1 W. Steil Fd..anl J. L1ufu'h h.. Rulon J. Fr1Lh•. Frank 1 Kunkm. Philhp L K"Ld Stern B. KmbaicW Lyme Sl. Ridg+ay Th1ma. P. Mtn. Piw 1. FuLhu Rotten J. Wuker•• Ek n A. tm S.n T. LB u ilium R. Sy,— C-4M. KLO ke Brun J. S.fimAm Mmk G. Pao HINSF1. Stinky J. Weilt w. Jr. Lau iotas M. Hall 114WQ731 C—P Byrn 119:4.19971 September 16, 1996 CITY OF MONTICELLO 250 EAST BROADWAY MONTICELLO MN 55362 FLN Ban► Plan IOIn We St.0 Sure t+,1•St. CYu1 SIX 541111 17]h j_-1114 . Fu 0201 —'12448.' ATTN: JEFF O'NIELL, ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR Re: Dan Mielke - Opposition to amendment of City Zoning ordinance Dear Jeff: As we discussed recently, our law firm represents Dan Mielke in his opposition to the proposed amendment of the City Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment would allow a quick oil change establishment to be operated in a PZM District by Conditional Use Permit. It is my understanding that Dan had originally looked at a site in a PZM District for such a business and was told that it was not allowed. The site is near a residential area and the City Comprehensive Plan requires very limited commercial uses on the site. Dan, acting on the City's recommendation, then obtained a site in a district which the City indicated allowed such commercial uses as a permitted use. Subsequently, another party applied to the City for an amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance to allow this type of commercial use at the same site by Conditional Use. This requested amendment was denied. This party then requested a spot rezone of the site to a commercial district but this request was also denied. I understand that the City Council then made a motion to again consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would allow this use in a PZM District by Conditional Use Permit. This is now being considered by the City together with a request for a variance to place the facility on the lot once the zoning ordinance is amended. Dan opposes any amendment to the City Zoning ordinance which would allow such commercial uses in a PZM District. on a personal level, this would, by City action, allow a competitor to place its business on the very site he was denied by the City. The is a blatant abuse of Dan's constitutional rights to equal treatment under the law. rMlNkeska 0.1tr •Cell Thal Spr,W1u --RM Pwp,m S/wi ho .U.a1dd 1)Mbu,r,oao .Gua RarAutt1'tmtr O . Q�aly/Ird MR Nrrnal City of Monticello September 16, 1996 Page 2 On a less personal level, it is also in the best interests of the City, the business owners and the residents of the City to have the various land uses separated into areas that encourage the specific uses and protect each from the encroachment by others. Individuals purchase homes in a residential area with the expectation that commercial uses will not follow them into their neighborhoods, destroying the residential character which attracted them to the area in the first place. The City should also consider that it's ability to continue to enforce its Zoning Ordinances and its Comprehensive Plan, which enforcement is tied to the consistency of its enforcement of the Plan and Ordinances. If different uses are allowed to encroach on each other by official action, providing preferential treatment for special interests, enforcement becomes impossible. Finally, Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357 empowers a City, acting through its board of appeals and adjustments to ". . hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance." That section goes on to state " 'Undue Hardship' as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner io due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." This section then adds by way of clarification "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance." It is my understanding that the property for which the variance is being requested is a very desirable• building site, rectangular in shape and suitable for any number of uses under the terms of the City Zoning Ordinance. The reason the variance is being requested is that the applicant wants to construct a bigger building so that it can be used for a more intense commercial use. The applicant is creating the situation by seeking the pool dkes"C". t tf O City of Monticello September 16, 1996 Page 3 amendment to the zoning ordinance which will allow a previously prohibited use to be allowed on the site and the sole purpose for the variance is the economic considerations which are tied to the size of the commercial facility. This appears to be a variance request which the State laws have not empowered the City to grant, is not within the spirit and intent of the law, and should not be granted by the City. Accept this letter as a formal objection to the City's motion to make an amendment to its Zoning Ordinance which furthers the private interest of one party rather than a public interest of the City and the application for a variance, in the event the amendment is granted. Request is hereby made that Dan Mielke and I be mailed copies of all further notices of public hearings sent with regard to this matter. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at your convenience. sincerely, HALL 6 BYERS, P.A. Stanley /J.9Weinberger, Jr. SJW JR cc3 Dan Mielke Stephen Grittman (via facsimile) � r�l�l►�2al. l tr 0 Please accept this petition from the following citizens to MjM the upcoming vote to allow an Auto Lube Company into a PZM zone. We feel because of the following reasons you should not allow this exception: A. At a previous meeting you voted 5-0 not to change the mning from PZM to BA -3. We believe this sends a loud and a correct message that we should not have a BA -3 business m a PZM zone. With your consideration to amend the zoning to allow a BA -3 business into a PZM zone you are contradicting your 5 to 0 vote. B. An Auto Lube Company does not belong in a PZM zone. If you allow this change, we feel that you are opening the door to alta to all of the zoning areas. What is the use of spending the money and putting 5orth the effort to organize the zoning in our city if we dont follow the zoning laws? We, therefore urge you to vote no, no, no, m, m (S - 0) to this arnendmaat. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # ln"5 s . D,, . d qs y/6 G 9 9 lows 'AA" j 194 7030 eM" 0,,r1 Y"'�' 9 w'� aw trG f• GG �CZr��,Fe� „�L.Nla.ey.� f�✓eoc��el �q'r'('�T� Fpr k N, ;y6- nsh � d l a.to 3 - toozZ I O Please accept this Petition front the following chinas to admi the upcoming vote to allow an Auto Lube Conq>any into a PZM zone. We feel because of the following reasons you should not allow this exception A. At a previous meeting you voted 5-0 not to change the zoning Brom PZM to BA -3. We believe this sends a loud and a correct message that we should not have a BA -3 business in a PZM zone. With your consideration to amend the zoning to allow a BA -3 business into a PZM zone you are contradicting your 5 to 0 vote. B. An Auto Lube Company does not belong in a PZM nine. If you allow this change, we Seel that you are opening the door to amendments to all of the zoning areas What is the use of spending the money and putting forth the effort to organize the zoning in our city if we don't follow the zoning laws? We, therefore urge you to vote no, no, no, no, no (5 - 0) to this amendment. ME ADDRESS _ PHONE ff `r //� p4'SJ,l3C,Y! Ate �a�z4, : r,_ �v c 39'5.34 t r _ I ./7n�•a�ss.s�•IK Mecca AAA 3 � foie „�� syprw• ��U1n1�1z—n i4enl,r t Ito, nAJ Ino Ml--Vi/irr Uini �h�nv. h�act'.tnm��ciJ2.a.�v Ili fYli�,u�� �. 2.�5.7`tl(c 11 f f ..�l.lt�.'1� ?_tX� M�rys-.nn. �� 2`f5-• 3rlci% �-^� • ,,IUi,'r .�S �i S:iS=�a �� a7`1S • d1� 0 Z15-212-3 0 16 ...... . Please accept this petition from the following citizens to rt= the upcoming vote to allow an Auto Lube Company into a PZM zone. We feel because of the foilowing reasons you should not allow this exceptions A. At a previous meeting you voted 5-0 not to change the zoning from PZM to BA -3. We believe this sends a bud and a correct message that we should not have a BA -3 business in a PZM zone. With your consideration to amend the zoning to allow a BA -3 business into a PZM zone you are com adictctg your 5 to 0 vote. B. An Auto Lube Company does not belong in a PZM zone. If you allow this change, we feel that you are opening the door to wend to all of the zoning areas. What is the use of spending the money and putting forth the effort to organize the zoning in our city if we dont fi)Bow the zoning laws? We, therefore urge you to vote no, no, no, no, no (5.0) to this amendment. NAME ADDRESSPHONE to u FS fly 774 vpjy �Y. ,Jy-Yl° fYlnr>GKPtYAL �.vYIJ% � JJJ � % �C lC �, �% � SSI �•- i apt, rn.•�, ,�. F,. � a .mss i11�`� 2 ;S 272.01 ,)r)5,'an a5 s • *a» q 3157 .20.5 22zz. /y f� 0 Please accept this petition from the following citizens to E�jw the upcoming vote to allow an Auto Lube Company into a PZM zone. We feel because of the following reasons you should not allow tbis eacepfi= A. At a previous meeting you voted 5-0 not to change the zoning flrom PZM to BA -3. We believe this sends a loud and a correct message that we should not have a BA -3 business in a PZM zone. With your consideration to amend the zoning to allow a BA -3 busioess into a PZM zone you are-..-.:.ii.::..e your 5 to 0 vote. B. An Auto Lube Company does not belong in a PZM zone. If you allow this change, we feel that you are opening the door w --dm— to a0 of the zoning areas. What is the use of spending the money and putting forth the effort to organize the zoning in out city if we dont follow the zoning laws? We, therefore urge you to vote no, no, no, no, no (5 - 0) to this amendment. NAME ADDRESS PHONE b e^ie� ��MaPe� Mw„b., o�'nColer�wi C}��erl� �iL3- Gena. Bev_ioff"�. &W Rtdehv,-T-►J Det. ags-a8IV r c6 /mis, ,245 S�1�1 9 Please accept this petition from the following citizens to MjM the upcoming vote to allow an Auto Lube Company into a PZM zoite. We feel because ofthe following reasons you should not allow this exception: A. At a previous meeting you voted 5-0 not to change the zoning from PZM to BA -3. We believe thu sends a loud and a correct message that we should not have a BA -3 business in a PZM zone. With your consideration to amend the zoning to allow a BA -3 business into a PZM zone you are corttradi ting your S to 0 vote. B. An Auto Lube Cornpany does not belong in a PZM zone. If you allow this change, we feet that you are opening the door to amendments to all of the zoning areas. What is the use of spending the money and putting forth the effort to organize the zoning in our city if we don't follow the zoning laws? We, therefore urge you to vote no, no, no, no, no (5 - 0) to this arnerdmenL NAME ADDRESS /►70t7)L PHONE # m►hdu Ped ACn 10,2,13 wc�st� Pct K I s vett [U042411d Z^ IIk,ntc Q7"7 -a.-69 r-6- -431 . ti tt tt 't Mw�i .r t/ 9043.9 rh WA ksm6 '.295.59%? Ur3 G 3 Please accept this petition from the f )Uowmg cuneus to ad= the upcoming vote to allow an Auto Lube Company into a PZM zone. We Seel because of the following reasons you should not allow this exception: A. At a previous meeting you voted 5-0 not to change the zoning from PZM to BA -3. We believe this sends a loud and a cortect message that we should not have a BA -3 business in a PZM zone. With your consideration to amend the zoning to allow a BA -3 business into a PZM zone you are contrudicting your 5 to 0 vote. B. An Auto Lube Company does not belong in a PZM zone. If you allow this change, we feel that you are opening the door to ants to all of the zoning areas. What is the use of spending the money and putting forth the effort to organize the zoning in our city if we dont follow the zoning laws? We, therefore urge you to vote no, m, no, no, no (5 - 0) to this aunt NAME ADDRESS PHONE # l� V ZQ5-Zg77 �, 29s-s�ye S 29S 39LI I 0