Planning Commission Agenda Packet 08-01-1989AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MOITPICELLO PLANNING COMMLSSION
Tuesday, August 1, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Z
Members: Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Dan McConnon, and
Mori Malone
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to order.
7:32 p.m.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held July 5, 1989.
7:34 p.m.
3. Ordinance amendment to allow as a conditional use a bed and
breakfast in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant,
Merrill Busch.
7:45 p.m.
4. Consideration of application for conditional use permit which
would allow operation of a bed and breakfast in a PZM zone.
Applicant, Merrill Busch.
7:54 p.m.
S. A simple subdivision request to allow a subdivision of a B-3
(highway business) lot. A variance request to allow less
than the minimum 5 -foot green area separation from property
line to parking lot curb. Applicant, Monticello Auto Body.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
8:14 p.m.
1. A variance request to allow a deck to be constructed within
the side yard setback requirement. Applicant, Michael and
Dixie Talbott. Council action: No action necessary, as the
variance request did not cone before them.
8:16 p.m.
2. A variance request to allow a canopy to be c*nstructed within
the front yard setback requirement. Applicant, American
Legion Post #260. Council action: No action necessary, as
the variance request did not come before them.
8:18 P.M.
3. A variance request to parking and driveway area curb
requirements. A variance request pertaining to hard surface
requirements and driveway areas. A variance request
pertaining to off-street parking requirement of 25 stalls.
Applicant requests a variance of 8 stalls. A variance
request pertaining to screening of storage areas from the
public right-of-way. Applicant, Pair's Garden Center.
Council action: Appealed by Councilmember Dan Blonigen.
Will be heard before the City Council at it's first regularly
scheduled meeting in August on August 14, 1989.
8:20 p.m.
4. A conditional use request to allow expansion of a storage and
aales area asaociated with a landscape center in a B-4 zone.
Applicant, Pair's Carden Center. Council action: No action
required, as the conditional use request did not come before
them.
8:22 p.m.
5. Bet the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for Tuesday, September 5, 1989, 7:30 p.m.
8:24 p.m.
6. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELL0 PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, July 5, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Cindy Lem, Richard Martie, Mori Malone,
Dan MCConnon.
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill.
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at
7:30 p.m.
2. Approval of minutes.
Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lemur, to approve the minutes
of the regular meeting held June 6, 1989, with the following change:
Under item Od, after "Dan McCo:non absent", it should read "and Cindy
Lemur abstaining."
3. Public Hearin- A variance request to allow a deck to be constructed
witnln tee side yarn setoacx requirement. Applicant, Micnael ana Dixie
Talton. nJ
Mr. Michael Talbott was present to explain to Planning Commission members
his variance request to be allowed to construct a deck addition onto his
house. Mr. Talbott explained that the reason for the variance request is
to allow some character to his proposed deck and to allow for the
swinging door to open onto the proposed deck, that being his rationale
for the variance request. Also within the 12 -foot width that Mr. Talbott
is proposing would allow him to place chairs and tables on there and
still have room to maneuver around them.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and opened the
meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. Questions raised
by the Planning Commission members were, why couldn't he construct it on
any other portion of the house if it could not be constructed to the rear
of the house, and why a smaller deck could not have been constructed to
be within the setback requirements.
with no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was
made by Dan MOConnon, seconded by Cindy Lenin, to deny the variance
request to allow a deck to be constructed within the aide yard setback
requirement. Reason for denial: There is no unique situation created
with the land to warrant a variances there is no financial hardship
created by the proposed variances and there are feasible ways to
construct a deck without needing any variances. Motion carried
unanimously.
1Z
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/5/89
A variance request to allow a canopy to be constructed within the front
;ra setback requirement. Applicant, Monticello American Legion
t #260.
American Legion Post /260 is proposing to construct a vinyl covered
canopy addition within the side yard setback requirement. The proposed
canopy would serve as a weather -type shelter for the handicapped people
entering and exiting from their building. The proposed canopy would be
constructed up to within one foot of the side property line.
With no further input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson then
closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for discussion amongst
the Planning Commission members. Questions raised by the Planning
Commission members were that they didn't feel there would be any
obstruction of view from the public right-of-way: and with the
handicapped people which utilize this as the front entrance, even though
it is within the side yard setback requirement, they felt it would be
beneficial to the handicapped people or disabled people which would be
utilizing this entrance into the building.
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was
made by Mori Malone, seconded by Dan Mcconnon, to approve the variance
request to allow a canopy to be constructed within the front yard setback
requirement. voting in favor: Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Mori
Malone, Dan McConnon. Opposed: Cindy Lekma. Reason for approval:
Because of the unique situation of this building being situated on a
corner lot, it would serve as a protective covering for the handicapped
or disabled people using this entrance to the building, and there would
be no visual obscurity with vehicles at the intersection of west Third
Street and Elm Street.
The meeting then recessed at 8:09 p.m. for the Planning Commission
members, members of the public, and City staff to walk over to the Pair's
Garden Center site to look at the proposed variance and conditional use
requests.
The Planning Commission meeting was reconvened at 8:44 p.m. to consider
the following:
5. A variance request to parking and driveway area curb requirements. A
variance request Qertalninq to nara surface re
quiremenf in arivewan
erects. A Valence [eguest Qertainin9 to orf -B -Erase Qarkln requ1Z11asnt
or z5 etalla. A�liWnt [e�kteats a variance or b etalls. A Variance
request p_Ulainin9 Eo screeninl or storaje areae tram Elie p oiic
rlgnt-ori!ay. Applicant, Pair a Garden Qenter.
Planning Commission members chose to look at each area of the site and
consider the variances separately. Even though there may be a variance
for the same thing in another portion of the lot, they chose to only deal
with portions of the site one at a time, and they are as follows:
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/5/89
A. A variance request on the total number of parking spaces required,
which would have been a total of 25 parking spaces required. City
staff was recommending a total of 17 total spaces.
Motion was made by Dan McConnon, seconded by Cindy Lamm, to approve
the variance request to allow a variance of 8 stalls from the minimum
requirement of 25 total parking apace stalls, of which the applicant
will be required to install 4 additional stalls for a total of 17
total spaces. Motion carried unanimously. Applicant has 30 days to
stripe the parking lot for these 4 additional parking spaces. Reason
for granting the variance: Due to the nature of the business, people
stopping in, getting their merchandise and leaving, and the length of
time that the customers stay to patronize this business, the
Commission members felt that the 17 spaces would be sufficient for
off-street parking spaces at this time.
B. Consideration of no concrete curbing around the perimeter of the 4
additional parking spaces, which would be needed to create the 17
total spaces for which the previous variance request was approved.
Motion was made by Cindy Le®, seconded by Dan MCConnon, to approve
the variance request to allow no curbing on the east and west portion
of the 4 -stall parking lot. As a condition to the no curbing
requirement, the applicant to to remove the existing blacktop from
this area and install a 5 -foot green area in the 36 lineal foot area
in front of these 4 parking stalls. The applicant is also to install
this by September 1, 1989. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Proposed area marked in yellow on the enclosed site plan in which the
applicant to proposing to put a type of surface called a red
lime atone surface rather than a hard surface material, blacktop or
concrete.
Motion was made by Cindy Lem, seconded by Mori Malone, to approve
the variance request to allow no hard surfacing of the area marked in
yellow to be the area north of the proposed 321x15' sales lot, the
northerly 20 -foot area lying north of the proposed 321x15' sales area
lot, and also lying north of the 17106' existing rock bins, and also
the 20 -toot driveway portion which runs north and south and then
turns easterly and then turns northerly up to the proposed 20'x20'
residents parking area. This area is to receive a minimum of a
3 -inch to S -inch surface of red limestone. The condition with this
to the applicant is to keep the area described above and marked in
yellow on the enclosed site plan in a neat and driveable condition,
that being any potholes or areas that are disturbed have to be filled
in and reshaped to retain the minimum 3 -inch to 5 -inch thickness of
this red limestone material. Also as part of the motion, the 20 -Coot
north/south driveway strip starting from the southerly entrance at
the 20 -foot driveway entrance, continuing northerly up to in line
with the northeasterly portion of the cement slab in front of the
rock bins, is to receive a minimum of a 2 -inch bituminous hard
surfaced material within 3 years from the 10th of July. 14fe motion
carried unanimously. The applicant is to install the red limestone
driving surface within 30 days from tonight's meeting date, July 5,
1989.
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/5/89
D. This item dealt with the curbing which would surround the area as
described in letter C. This area was to receive no curbing.
Motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Dan McConnon, to allow
no curbing in the area as described in letter C. Motion carried
unanimously.
E. This item dealt with the hard surfacing of the area as outlined in
red on the proposed site plan.
Motion was made by Dan McConnon, seconded by Richard Martie, to
install a minimus 2 -inch bituminous hard surface in the area as
outlined on the enclosed site plan in red. The area to described as
beginning at the south property line at the 12 -foot easterly entrance
to this property extending northerly at a 12 -foot driving width
intersecting with the 30'x52' area in front of the existing
201x22-1./2' garage and in front of the 20100' equipment parking and
storage area. Also to receive the hard surfacing would be the
201x20' residents parking area which is located to the northwest of
the blacktop area described above, and the 201x30' equipment parking
and storage area. Motion carried unanimously. Applicant is to
install the hard surfacing of the area described above by
September 1, 1989.
P. This item dealt with the installation of concrete curbing around the
area described in letter E above.
Motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Dan McConnon, to
approve the variance request to allow no concrete curbing in the area
described on the map as marked in red and as described in item E.
Motion carried unanimously.
Q. This item dealt with the installation of screening material along a
portion of the north property line and the east property line.
Motion was made by Mori Malone, seconded by Cindy Lenin, to approve
the variance request to allow a portion of the east property line
beginning at the southeast corner of the property extending northerly
along the easterly property line to a point at the northwest corner
of the existing Doug Pitt rental residence. This area is to receive
no landscaping or screening fence. Motion carried unanimously.
Conditions are as follows:
1. A minimum of a 6 -foot high, 100% opaque, wood cedar fence to be
constructed beginning at the northeast corner of the greenhouse,
extending easterly along the northerly line to the northeast
corner of the lot, then extending southerly along the easterly
line to a point up to the existing lilac bushes. Also a gate and
screening of the same screening fence material, 6 -foot high
cedar, 1001 opaque fencing material, would be installed from the
southeast corner of the garage easterly intersecting with the
y east property line. The same material would be constructed from
the northwest corner of the garage northerly intersecting with
the north property line.
4
Planning Commission Minutes - 7/5/89
2. The area lying southerly along the easterly property line from
the existing lilac bush to the northwest corner of the existing
Doug Pitt rental residence along this easterly property line to
be installed with a 906 opaque, natural, 6 -foot screening
material to be constructed of a combination of different types of
trees and high growth shrub plantings.
The applicant has until September 1, 1989, to install the screening
fence and the natural screening material in the area described above.
H. This item dealt with the area in front of the existing over -story
tree nursery stock in the front yard area of the existing owner's
house.
Motion was made by Dan MaConnon, seconded by Richard Martie, to
install a split rail fence beginning at the southwest corner of the
existing over -story tree nursery sales area extending easterly along
the southerly line of the nursery sales area to a point six feet
south of the southwest corner of the existing owner's house, then
extending northerly to the southwest corner of the existing owner's
house. This fence material is to be of a cedar hand split rail
fencing material. Motion carried unanimously. The installation of
the cedar split rail fence is to be installed by September 1, 1989.
I. This item dealt with the area of the landscaping material lying south
of the existing rock bins or in front of the existing rock bins.
Motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Gemma, that the
east and west 17 lineal foot ends of the existing rock bins be
landscaped with the same materials as used on the entire southerly
portion of the existing rock bins or with a minimum fence height up
to the top of the existing rock bin board with a cedar lattice
material or a cedar opaque fence material. The motion carried
unanimously. The material as described above to be installed by
September 1, 1989.
6. Conditional use Permit request to allow expansion of storage and sales
area associated witn a
,guest
center in a 8_4 Zone.
Having heard the variance requests, a motion was made by Dan MOConnon,
seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the conditional use request to
allow open and outdoor storage as an accessory use and to allow open and
outdoor sales as a principal and accessory use on the entire area of the
property owned by Pair's Carden Center with the following conditions:
1. That the gross floor area be increased to approximately 300% of the
principal use.
2. M escrow account be established by the City staff and presented to
the City Council and to be submitted by the applicant prior to the
City Council meeting an amount equal to 1-1/2 time the dollar amount
of work needed to complete all of the landscaping, screening,
concrete curbing, and hard surfacing requirements.
0
7
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/89
3. The westerly driveway entrance be closed off with the existing sales
area material, that being the patio blocks on their palates be
located in this area to block off this driveway entrance.
Motion carried unanimously. The conditional use request to be approved
for a period of no longer than one year from today's date, July 5, 1989.
rNPORMATICMM ITEMS
1. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow a building addition to be
built within the side yard setback requirement. Applicant, Bandhus
Corporation. Council action: No action necessary, as the variance
request did not come before them.
2. Public Hearing - Consideration of an ordinance amendment to Section 3-1,
Non -conforming Buildings, Structures, and uses, which would allow limited
expansion of a non -conforming residential use in a B-4 (regional
business) zone. Applicant, City of Monticello. Council action:
Approved as per Planning Ca®dssion recommendation.
3. Consideration of a previous Planning Commission recommendation to rezone
Evergreens Subdivision outlots A and B to B-3 (Highway Business).
Applicant, Rent Rjellberg. Council action: Approved as per Planning
Oomission recommendation.
4. Tabled conditional use request to allow expansion of an open and outdoor
storage as an accessory use in a B-4 (regional business) zone. A tabled
conditional use request to allow an expansion of an open and outdoor
sales as a principal and accessory use in a B-4 (regional business)
zone. Applicant, Pair's Carden Center. Council action: No action
necessary, as the conditional use request did not come before them.
5. It was the consensus of the Planning Cknmmission mambere to set the next
tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting for
Tuesday, August 1, 1989, 7:30 p.m.
6. Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Dan McConnon, to adjourn the
meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
. ,e t��
wry wnaersan
Zoning Administrator
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/1/89
3. Ordinance amendment to allow as a conditional use a bed and breakfast in a
PZM (Perrormance Lone mixea) Zone. AppllCent, Merr111 BUscn• (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND LVXCMWW:
Merrill Busch, owner of the Rand house in Monticello, requests that the
City consider establishing an ordinance amendment which would allow a bed
and breakfast facility to operate in the PSM zone. If the Planning
Cmsission recommends that the proposed zoning amendment be approved, then
the Commission is asked to provide a recommendation regarding the Busch
application for a conditional use permit. This agenda item pertains to
the potential ordinance mendment. The discussion of the conditional use
permit will be included in the next agenda item.
Establishment of a bed and breakfast use either as a permitted use or a
conditional use can sometimes cause controversy in R-1 and R-2 zones where
the commercial activity associated with the bed and breakfast can at times
impact the residential neighborhood. Tote proposed amendment in this case
will not create this type of controversy, as the area affected by the
proposed zoning amendment which would allow bed and breakfast activity is
the PSM zone, which does not contain low density `residential uses. The
impact of a bed and breakfast facility in the PSM zone will not likely
have an impact on the other activities allowed in the PSM areas. If
anything, activities n,)[molly associated with the PSM may impact the
operation or "ambiance" associated with the bed and breakfast experience.
Again, this zoning amendment does not apply to R-1 or R-2 areas.
Therefore, prior to es teblishment of a bed and breakfast area in the R-1
or R-2 zones, another zoning amendment must occur that pertains to those
areas.
After considering possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment,
staff recommends approval of the amendment based upon the following
factors:
1. The proposed amsndxwnt is consistent with the municipal Comprehensive
Plan.
2. The proposed amendvent is compatible with the geographic area and
character of the surrounding area.
3. The proposed amendment will not tend to or actually depreciate the
area in which it is proposed.
4. The need for such use has been sufficiently demonstrated.
Following is the actual amendment as proposed which will be included in
the list of conditions 1 use activities allowed in the PSM sane. Please
note the various condi tions attached and be prepared at the meeting to add
or delete from the list of proposed conditions.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/1/89
I. Bed and breakfast facilities provided that:
1. Bed and breakfast operations shall be limited to residential
structures existing prior to the date of this ordinance.
2. When abutting R-1, R-2, R-3, or PZR district, a buffer area with
screening and landscaping shall be provided in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 2 (G), of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
3. Adequate off-street parking and an access shall be provided in the
form of one parking space per rental unit, plus one space for each
ten rental units, and one space for each employee on each shift.
4. Food served on the premises may be served only to overnight guests
of the bed and breakfast.
5. The owner, operator, or manager of the bed and breakfast shall
reside on the premises.
6. Activities shall be limited to those customary to the operation of
a bed and breakfast facility. Commercial use of the property for
other activities not normally associated with the operation of a
bed and breakfast such as wedding receptions, parties, etc., are
not allowed under this conditional use permit.
7. Material used for the parking area shall consist of duet and
erosion resistent materials that will not cling to vehicle tires
and track onto public streets. The materials used shall also be
capable of supporting vehicular traffic.
8. operation of the bed and breakfast facility shall comply with all
state regulations governing such facilities.
B. ALTMWTIV6 ACUORS:
1. Motion to approve proposed amendment which would establish a bed and
breakfast as a conditional use in the PEN cone.
Motion based on the finding that the proposed amendment is consistent
with the municipal Comprehensive Plan, compatible with the geographic
area and character of the surrounding area, the proposed amendment
will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposed, and the need for the amendment has been sufficiently
demonstrated.
2. Motion to recommend denial of establishment of the proposed
conditional use permit.
Planning Commission Agenda — 8/1/89
C. STAPP R&IMMIMATION:
Staff recomsmes that Planning Commission review the conditions associated
with this proposed amendment and make changes accordingly. After the
modifications have been made, it is recommended that Planning commission
approve the establishment of bed and breakfast activity as a conditional
use in the PQI zone, as such activity, when regulated by the conditions
noted, does not appear to have the potential for adverse impacts to other
properties in the P8M zone.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
None.
14
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/1/89
4. Consideration of application for conditional use permit which would allow
operation or a bea anc breattast in a PEM zone. Applicant, Merrill Busch.
(J.O.)
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the zoning amendment
which would establish a bed and breakfast facility in the PEM zone, then
Planning Commission is asked to consider an application for such a
conditional use permit submitted by Merrill Busch. Attached is a site
plan for your review. Following is a brief description of the site plan.
The Rand house has wonderful potential as a bed and breakfast facility.
The Busch family has done a tremendous job in renovating and recapturing
the flavor of the original architecture associated with the Rand house.
he you will note when you visit the site, the house is well buffered on
all sides by either land area or trees and lilac bushes. even though the
house is in the vicinity of high density residential areas and also near
the freeway, the trees and land area tends to separate it from the nearby
higher intensity land uses.
The proposed operation is consistent with the conditions suggested by
staff with the previous agenda item. However, it appears that a slight
adjustment may be needed for the parking area in order to gain sufficient
parking for five vehicles. The Rand house has established four units that
will be used for the bed and breakfast activities. According to the
conditions noted, one parking Wee is needed for each unit, and one
parking space is needed for each employee. Thcrefore, five parking spaces
are needed. The site plan shows a sufficient number of parking spaces.
However, the layout of the plan may require some adjustments in order to
increase room for vehicular movement.
B. ALTFMATIV6 ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the conditional use permit which would allow bed and
breakfast operation at the Rand house now owned by Merrill Busch
subject to the conditions listed in the recent amendment to City
Ordinance.
Planning Commission may wish to attach an additional condition to
those that were listed in the ordinance, that condition being the
requirement that the applicant provide a revieed site plan which
corrects problems with the parking area layout.
2. Motion to deny approval of the proposed conditional use permit.
C. STAFF RHDJM ENDATION:
Staff recomtmend@ that Planning Commission approve the conditional use
permit provided that all the conditions noted in the City Ordinance are
met. It is also recommended that the applicant resubmit a revised site
plan which shows required adjustments to the parking area. This
recommendation is based on the fact that approval of the conditional use
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/1/89
permit is consistent with the municipal Comprehensive Plan. Although the
facility and associated operation is not necessarily consistent with the
existing lard use in the PSM area, the building is of historical
significance and the proposed use of the historical structure is not
necessarily incompatible with the geographic area involved, nor
inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area. Pinally, the
need for the conditional use permit has been sufficiently demonstrated.
D. uue d �-- DATA:
Copy of the Rand house bed and breakfast site plan.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/1/89
5. A simple subdivision request to allow a subdivision of a B-3 (hi
business) lot. A varfance request to allow less than the minimum 5 -foot
green area separation from property line to parking lot curb. Applicant,
Monticello Auto Bogy. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Monticello Auto Body is proposing a simple lot subdivision to subdivide
their existing lot, Lot 4, Block 2, Sandberg South Addition, into two
lots. The minimum requirements for a 5-3 (highway business) lot
subdivision is that the lot has to have a minta:m of 100 feet of frontage
on a public right-of-way. As noted on the certificate of survey enclosed
in your supplement, Parcel A does have the minimum 100 feet of frontage on
the public right-cf-way, with Parcel B having 130.09 feet on the public
right-of-way. If consideration for approval of the simple lot subdivision
is to be considered, some conditions should be added to ensure that the
proper subdivision will occur. The first condition is that the drainage
and utility easements as recorded on the new lot line between Parcel A and
Parcel B be drafted and recorded within 30 days of the Planning commission
meeting date of August 1, 19891 a letter of agreement be recorded with
Parcel B indicating that this parcel is not served by City water and
sewer. The buyer or seller of Parcel B is to pay for the complete
installation of the City water and sewer utility extension in its
entirety, this document to be recorded within 30 days of the Planning
Commission meeting date of August 1, 1989.
In regards to the variance request on the miniaua width required from the
property line to the back of the concrete curbing, that being a 5 -Loot
green area, we feel that the property should be so laid out to be
developed that there are no variances required whatsoever. Under his
conditional use permit that was issued to him under condition 19, the
development shall conform to the minimum parking and landscaping
requirements of the ordinance. This variance request, in dealing with the
layout of the parking lot within this 5 -foot green area, would be in
direct violation of condition #9.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing B-3
(highway business) lot into two lots.
2. Deny the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing 9-3
(highway business) lot into two lots.
3. Approve the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing 9-3
(highway business) lot into two lots with the following conditions:
a. The proposed new drainage and utility ea rite be described and
recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
proposed development on this building site.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/1/89
b. A dooment be recorded with Parcel B indicating that Parcel B is
not serviced by City water and sewer and that the buyer/seller is
responsible for the complete installation of a water and sewer
installation into this Parcel B. The recording of this document
be recorded within 30 days of the August 1, 1989, Planning
oormnission meeting date.
c. Deny the variance request to allow less than the minimum 5 -foot
green area separation from the property line to the parking lot
curb.
4. Dory the variance request to allow leas than the minimum 5 -foot green
area separation from the property line to the parking lot curb.
C. STAPP REMKME iDATIQi:
City staff rewumends approval of the simple subdivision request to
subdivide out existing B-3 (highway business) lot into two lots. The
following condition should be considered as part of conditions to the
siuple subdivision request approval:
1. New descriptions for the drainage and utility easements around
Parcel A and Parcel B be described and recorded prior to 30 days from
the August 1, 1989, Planning Commission meeting.
2. A document be recorded that indicates that Parcel B does not have a
City water and sewer utility to service it and that the buyer or the
seller of this lot be ooepletely responsible for the installation of a
water and sewer service to this lot.
D. 60PPORTINO DATAt
Copy of the location of the proposed simple subdivision and variance
requntr Copy of the certificate of survey for the proposed simple
subdivision requestr Copy of the conditions for the auto body repair.
14
N•r 1 � '
�- �+iLI •qtY ill. �o-_ �_li
� I M. l al•tt:
! � � � � el•• ye le.t•e:
Irrt to '
I ��•�ry�•�rvlM •aM.ce sorr•�
.•If•I•wra. MMtt ` w � i ,nJ e•1+ {•. w• • ;n wleln.'
4� i � • , eoJ 4.r• i • 1.. ••
r,ewrnt. IM a .Iw11M 1•w1r
{ r ., a ..eM..••na.1..1•.(1•.e
• ee. Vie tMr w.l. Yrl.lr'
\ , [} •� -- - � � fe .•1 \ ;O M M.cr ,ee. r Cl.eer
ea•w w u: pce•N l..t e�Me
�� �IS • 1 r 1S INt M
+ ..et ••te 4 111• {Bence 1'+
f \ r�7\ l4 M MIa11N�i ,'1 (• Iw•
1 � � r N • � l , M v'' •let.wa. el •
�� � �• S eM r� .eet tt I..r
v,�vw�r 7�.rTl• 1 • w�erw• rrnt err I.M MIr
�Vn/R' , Neee,M•.t e.lerwet lno
~IN.. ``
13-4 (P) 13-4 (P)
(P) Auto body shop repair provided that:
1. Door opening to service area garage oust not face street
0175, 4/24/89)
O
frontage.
2.
vehicle storage area limited to 508 of floor space of
the structure housing the auto body shop.
3.
All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parts oust
be stored inside or in vehicle storage area.
4.
vehicle storage area shall be enclosed by enclosure
intended to screen the view of vehicles in storage from
the outside. Enclosure shall consist of a six-foot
high, 1001 opaque fence designed to blend with the auto
body shop structure and consisting of materials treated
to resist discoloration.
S.
The floor of the vehicle storage area shall consist of
asphalt or concrete paving.
6.
No work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be conducted
outside the confines of the auto body shop.
7.
The advertising wall facing the public right-of-way
shall consist of no more than 501 metal material.
8.
The secondary or non -advertising wall facing a public
right-of-way shall utilize a combination of colors or
materials that serve to break up the monotony of a
single color flat surface.
9.
minrUna and
The davaloament shallrxmform to min;.,a
ordim
landscaping remniremence — the xeninance.
.. 10.
No conditional use permit shall be granted for an auto
body shop within 600 feet of a residential or PM zone
existing at the time the conditional use permit is
granted.
0175, 4/24/89)
O