Laserfiche WebLink
-7 / <br />City Council meeting of 4/3/8+9 <br />Page 3. <br />lanning Commission has been discussing the future of commercial <br />evelopment on Highway 61, and that this type of commercial/industrial use <br />may not be consistent with the direction the city is Headed. It was also <br />pointed out that the City Council has directed the staff and Planning <br />Commission to consider the elimination of auto reduction yards, by SUE', <br />from agriculture or residential zoning districts within the city. The <br />applicants were informed that the Commission recognizes the need for used <br />auto parts and the disposable of old vehicles, but that since adoption of <br />the city's Comprehensive Plan, the direction of the city has been not to <br />allow any more of these types of commercial/industrial uses in or near <br />agricultural and residential zoning districts. After a lengthy <br />discussion, the PC unanimously recommended denial of this SUP request on <br />Parcel 9.:.008-3200, based on the following findings of fact: <br />1. The proposal in question appears to be inconsistent with Part 11, B, <br />##5 and b of the city's Comprehensive Plan. <br />2. The retail sale of automobiles in an agricultural zone is not <br />permitted as per the city's zoning ordinance. <br />3. There appears to be three established residential dwellings abutting <br />on the north and south boundaries of the site at Highway 61. and at <br />the northeast corner of the site. <br />4. The actual boundaries of the site are not clear on the site plan. <br />5. This request is inconsistent with the City Council's direction to <br />eliminate auto reduction yards by SUP from the city's zoning <br />ordinance. <br />The city does not feel this proposal is consistent with the city's <br />Comprehensive Plan, Part I1 -A2,, calling for "quality, light industrial <br />development". <br />7. The site identified in the petition is significantly larger than the <br />area to be used for auto reduction as noted on the site plan. <br />If t.i`rt: City Council feels that the proposal in question is consistent with <br />the city's Comp Pian and the direction the city is headed with regard to <br />this type of commercial/industrial activity, we would recommend that <br />approval of this permit be subject to compliance with the site plan and <br />the 21 special conditions listed in the PC minutes. It was pointed out to <br />the applicants that even if they secured the required SUP, they are; sti.11 <br />required to get the annual auto dismantling license permit as per city <br />ordinance. <br />Kelly Driscoll., representing the applicants, reviewed the site plan as <br />submitted and reiterated that they will have to look "impressive" in order <br />to attract certain clientele to their business operation. Mr. Driscoll <br />stated that they were open to any recommendations/suggestions by the <br />Council that would be needed to get city approval.. Flavor Atkinson <br />referenced the intent of the Citi; Council to eliminate auto reduction <br />yards from the city's zoning ordinance. <br />Atkinson made motion, McAllister seconded, to deny the application of <br />arrel Hathaway and Fletcher Driscoll for a Special Use Permit to operate_ <br />-i auto reduction yard in an agricultural district bayed on the folll_+4'di.C'g <br />indings of fact: <br />