Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 09-23-1996 (Special Meeting) . . . MINUTES SPECIAL MINUTES. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 23, 1996 - 5:30 p.m. Members Present: Dick Frie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Joe Merchak, Wanda Kraemer 1. Call to order. Chairman Frie called the special meeting to order. 2. Public Hearing--Consideration of a variance request to parkine- lot and building setback reQ.uirements. Applicant. John Bondhus. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported John Bondhus is requesting a variance to the 40-ft rear yard setback requirement for parcels located in the I-I 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 you'll 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 infrequency of use of the Burlington Northern railway. Also, there is a request for elimination of curbing along County Road 75 and on the east side of the property. If the applicant can show possible expansion to the east the curb elimination can be taken care of administratively. The curbing along County Road 75 will need to be installed unless the applicant can demonstrate a hardship via a separate variance process. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. The Commissioners questioned parking spaces. O'Neill stated the parking exceeds the requirements because there are 57 spaces needed and Bondhus currently has 72 spaces. Next, the Commissioners asked if Bondhus was aware of the possibility of County Road 75 being changed to a four lane in the next few years, location Page 1 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 9-23-96 of driveway entrance and also if the current traffic in and out of Bondhus would change drastically in the near future? Mike Blackstone, Manufacturing Manager for Bondhus, replied he had met with staff to discuss the site plan and was informed of the four lane plans for County Road 75 and had also discussed where the driveway entrance should be. Blackstone added the expansion was to store the inventory presently at many off site locations so the traffic volumes will not be affected. Blackstone also informed the Commissioners Bondhus had considered building to the west but would have had to remove around 100 very large trees so that is the main reason the current site plan was chosen. O'Neill added Bondhus does have enough trees on site to meet the landscaping requirements but had agreed to plant trees along the pathway to break up the view of the parking lot area. COMMISSIONER BOGART MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CARLSON, TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE SAME FINDING DETERMINED IN 1989. ALSO, DUE TO THE LONG AND NARROW SHAPE OF THE PARCEL BETWEEN COUNTY ROAD 75 AND BURLINGTON NORTHERN IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR 1-1 PURPOSES WITHOUT A VARIANCE. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Public Hearing--Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment which would define "auto maintenance facilities" and allow auto maintenance facilities as a conditional use in a PZM zone; Consideration of a condition use permit allowing an auto maintenance facility in a PZM zone. Consideration of a variance to buffer yard standards. Applicant. Investors To~ether. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the applicant had withdrawn their request shortly before the meeting began. The City Council referred the zoning ordinance amendment back to the Planning Commission for further review so that portion of the item should be discussed. However, Investors Together could withdraw their request for a conditional use permit and variance so that would not be discussed. Chairman Frie stated for the record that the Planning Commission should give direction to the City Council on this matter even though the applicant Page 2 . Planning Commission Minutes - 9-23-96 has withdrawn. Jeff O'Neill gave the following summary of events that have taken place. 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 faciltiy as requested by Investors Together. At the same meeting, on a 3-2 vote, the City Counicl called for a public hearing on a reuqest 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 Togehter 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 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. O'Neill stated the question that needs to be answered, Is the proposed use consistent with the intent of the PZM zone? He then indicted on the zoning map where all the PZM districts were. Tom Perrault, City Council member, had compiled a list of guidelines for PZM zones that O'Neill also went over. . Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Jim Shun, resident, corrected the summary of events on the council 3-2 vote to state the 3-2 vote was to return the item to Planning Commission not the vote on the item. Dan GassIer, A Glorious Church, stated Investors Together chose the property in a zone that was incorrect with not enough space for expansion. In his opinion there was no hardship demonstrated and he could not see any reason for the council to bend over backwards to changes the requirements. He wanted a statement from the Planning Commission taking a stand on this issue so the public was not subject to changes in the PZM zones every few months. O'Neill stated that the City cannot deny an applicant from applying unless the ordinance is changed limiting this. Chairman Frie stated this is a free country but there should be a purpose to the PZM zones and that is what was being contemplated. . Page 3 . Planning Commission Minutes - 9-23-96 Dan Mielke, Owner of Quick Lube, stated he was just finishing construction on the other side of town and was not opposed to competition. However, he was opposed to competition that did not have to play by the same set of rules. First, he had met with City staff before his project was started and was told the B3 one would be the appropriate place to build. Mielke had chosen a site for his lube facility in a B3 zone meeting the set backs, parking, square footage, and landscaping requirements. He was against a lube facility in the PZM zone because that zone does not have the same criteria as B3. He stated the noise of auto maintenance equipment would be loud next to the residential zones. The last point Mielke made was the applicant had requested 3 bays for detailing. This will involve people dropping their cars off for many hours and not service while you wait. In his opinion it would be impossible to enforce the service while you wait. Jim Lawrence, resident, was concerned that every time the council members changed this item would be back unless addressed. Chairman Frie stated even if there is a council change the past history is usually considered. . Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. The Planning Commissioners discussed the fact that the PZM zones were created as transition zones allowing for a mixture of commercial and residential uses. The PZM zone is therefore a sensitive district that must include only those commercial uses that will not detract from nearby residential uses. There was a question pertaining to the signatures on the petitions against the request because some of the petitioners lived outside of the City. Jim Shun, resident, explained a portion of the signatures were members of A Glorious Church and not property owners near the site. Chairman Frie replied the City has a professional planner that had just completed an update to the comprehensive plan and had not changed the intent of the PZM zones. Frie feIt it was the position of the Planning Commission to work within this framework. . COMMISSIONER FRIE MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTIE, TO DENY ALLOWING AUTO MAINTENANCE Page 4 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 9-23-96 FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE PZM ZONE BASED ON THE FINDINGS 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 PZM ZONE AND COULD RESULT IN A DEGRADATION OF THE CHARACTER AND NATURE OF THE PZM AREAS, THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 4. Adjournment. COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOGART TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Respectfully submitted, MJUOk )(~ Wanda Kraemer Development Services Technician Page 5