Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 04-04-2000 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/04/00 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 4, 2000 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Roy Popilek, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Council Liaison Clint Herbst Stafl Present: leffO'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman and Lori Kraemer 1. Call to order. Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7 PM. Chair Frie thanked Acting Chair Richard Carlson for filling in for him at the regular meeting in March. 2. Approval of minutes of the reg.ular meeting held March 7. 2000. ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINVTES OF THE MARCH 7,2000 REGVLAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried with Chair Frie abstaining. ,., .). Consideration of adding items to the aQ.enda. Chair Frie addressed staff on an issue between the School District and the City commissions and staff and the lack of communication between them. This stemmed from an article in the Monticello Times regarding growth/population in the City. The members discussed ideas to better communicate with the School District. Jeff O'Neill added a discussion regarding the Comprehensive Plan which was placed as Item 7. Roy Popilek added discussion regarding the City's pathways in regard to seal coating. This was placed as Item 8. Fred Patch wanted clarification on an item from the March meeting. This was placed as Item 9. 4. Citizens comments. None -]- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/04/00 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a side yard setback variance for Lot 6, Block I and Lots 2 and 3. Block 2 of Parksidc at Mcadow Oaks Addition. Applicant: [-larold Shermer Stevc Grittman providcd the report. The applicant, Harold Shermer, is requcsting side yard setback variances for Lot 6, Block] and Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, Parkside at Meadow Oaks Addition, the required side yard sctback for propertics in thc R-I District is 10 feet. Without the variance the buildable lot width at sctback for Lot 6, Block I and Lot 3, Block 2 cquals 40 fect. However, due to the angel of the casemcnt, the building area increases quickly as the front setback increases, thus the reason for the garage located in the front of the lot. Shermer indicated that thc additional 4' in width will enhance his ability to develop homcs at a value desircd in his developmcnt. The applicant must prove that they have non- economic hardship. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Scott Feldman, 950 Meadow Oak Drive, addrcssed the Planning Commission asking the reason for Mr. Shermer's variance request. Mr. Grittman explained the request was due to a gas line located near these three lots in question. Hearing no further questions from the audience, Chair Frie closed the public hearing. The members discussed the building pad sizes and it was stated by rred Patch, Building Official, that the pad sizes were equal and typical in size and are quite usable. It was noted that garages would have to be placed on the front side. ROY POPILEK MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE SIDE V ARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR LOT 6, BLOCK) AND LOTS 2 AND 3 BLOCK 2, PARKSIDE AT MEADOW OAKS ADDITION, BASED ON THE FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. . 6. Public I leari ng - Consideration of a sign variance request for a perpendicular professional sign. Applicant: Metcalf, Larson & Muth. P.A. Steve Grittman providcd the report noting the applicant's request f()f a sign variance from six (6) square feet to eight (8) squarc feet to allow the placement of a projecting sign at the property located at 313 West Broadway. Mr. Grittman provided a copy of the Ordinance amendment relating to these types of signs which limits projecting signs to six (6) square feet in area. Planning Commission rcviewed this same variance requcst one year ago and acted to deny the request bascd on the finding that no hardship exists and approving the variance would thus opcn the door to signs larger than the maximum allowcd. Thc DA T is generally supportive of this sign but had trouble finding a valid justification except for the statement that architecturally it would bc dillicult to place a smaller sign at the first level. A copy of -2- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/04/00 the OAr minutes of March 29, 2000 was provided stating their opposition to the variance by a 4 to I vote. Chair Frie opened the public hearing. There was no one present and Chair Frie closed the pubic hearing. Fred Patch, Building Official, stated that a reduction in the sign copy could be done, removing some of the lettering, which would make it possible to conform to the City's ordinance. It was noted by the members that Planning Commission had spent enough time on this item, and that the Ordinance was designed to be pedestrian friendly. DA T made no recommendation to change the ordinance, but remained neutral. ROBBIE SMITH MOVED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF A SIGN VARIANCE FROM SIX (6) SQUARE FEET TO EIGHT (8) SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW THE PLACEMENT OF A PROJECTING SIGN AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 313 WEST BROADWAY, BASED ON THE FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried unanimously. 7. JetfO'Neill, Deputy City Administrator, asked the Planning Commission to review information he provided from the Comprehensive Plan regarding future upgrades to "Northwest Monticello" which would be Broadway west of Highway 25. This information was brought to him by John Simola, Public Works Director. As stated in the comprehensive plan, this area is a mirror of Northeast Monticello, particularly with respect to Broadway Street and the adjacent single family homes. O'Neill stated that the County would be putting together a plan for improvements and will need the City's input. Staff would have to determine the cost to the City of putting in the median, left turn lanes and moderate landscaping. Council Liaison Clint Herbst stated that he did not think the Council would approve of this. The Planning Commission gave City staff direction to follow through as per the Comprehensive Plan, adding that it is not City staff's role to interpret the Comprehensive Pian. 8. Roy Popilek asked to discuss the City's pathway systems regarding the use of such course gravel for seal coating. He stated that roller bladers are not able to use the pathways when this course gravel is used. The members concurred that finding another type of material or perhaps renting a machine to roll the pathways once the seal coating is done, should be looked into. Steve Grittman, City Planner, stated that there are other types of finer aggregate available. It was suggested that this request be put in writing to the City Council and Clint Herbst stated he would also bring this to the Council's attention. 9. Fred Patch, Building Official, asked for clarification on action taken at the March meeting regarding City staff initiating action on zoning code amendments. He was advised by the members that they had discussed this item at length at their March meeting and feel that it is in their best interest to not authorize staff to initiate. ^' --)- . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 04/04/00 10. Adjourn. RICHARD CARLSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8 P.M. ROY POPILEK SECONDED THE MOTION. Motion carried. ~m~Urry -4-