Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 03-07-2006MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION • WEDNESDAY MARCH 8th, 2006 6:00 PM Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, Craig Schibonski, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy Council Liaison Present: Glen Posusta Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann and Steve Grittman - NAC 1. Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and declared a full quorum of the Commission. Dragsten welcomed new Commissioner Craig Schibonski. 2. Anvroval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday. February 7th, 2006. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2006. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. NONE. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for variance to the sidevard setback relating to the extension of a drivewav in an R-1 (Single-Familv Residential) District. Applicant: Michael Moree Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the variance is being requested to expand the existing driveway to the edge of the property line. The ordinance requires a three foot setback along property line edge. Grittman presented the applicant's site survey, illustrating the location of proposed driveway. Grittman explained that the extension of the driveway is proposed to accommodate parking a recreational vehicle. The variance would accommodate the storage of a larger vehicle on that space. Grittman stated that when considering variances, the Commission is required to make a finding that there is a hardship in putting the subject property to reasonable use: essentially that without variance, the applicant couldn't make reasonable use of their property because of a physical condition. Grittman indicated that to extend the driveway as proposed in this case would eliminate a setback area intended to be used for screening plantings and also raises potential for drainage issues. As staff has indicated in their report, Grittman stated that they do not believe there is a hardship. Use is being made of the property now Planning Commission Agenda 03/08/06 according within the parameters of the code. As a result, staff does not recommend approval of the variance as it does not meet criteria warranting a hardship. Schibonski, asked how close to the house on the adjacent lot is to the property line. Grittman responded that the house is shifted to the north property line. From the photo that the applicant provided, the side of the adjacent home is visible and in relatively close proximity to the existing driveway. Spartz stated that there may not be a good answer, as to where people want to see recreational vehicles stored. Spartz inquired whether there are alternate solutions to the applicant's issue. Grittman stated that the eave of the house seems to be the problem prohibiting storage of the larger vehicle on the existing driveway. Dragsten noted that there is presently room for the current vehicle. However, the applicant is proposing the driveway extension to store a new one that is taller. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Mr. Moree, 9190 Oriole Lane, addressed the Commission through certified signing interpreter Judy Leach. Moree stated that he currently has a travel trailer on the property that he is using. The vehicle is parking under the eave of the building. However, the eave is only 12 feet high, which won't work for the new vehicle. He would like to move the driveway over to the property line, which he indicated that his neighbor has no problem with. Moree stated that he doesn't want to pay for storage elsewhere; he wants to be able to leave it on the property. Suchy stated that the Commission is obligated to find a hardship in granting a variance. Suchy asked for Moree's opinion of what his hardship is. Moree responded that he has considered parking the unit in the backyard, but because of the way the land slopes upward he is concerned about safety. Dragsten asked if Moree would be going around the garage to get to backyard. Moree stated that there is an alley behind the house that he could use, but there is at least a three foot grade difference, so it would be difficult for parking. He noted that there is a drainage area there that he does not want to impact. Dragsten inquired whether the applicant has considered lowering the area beside the garage so that the trailer would fit under the eave. Moree responded that lowering the driveway may cause drainage issues, as well. He noted that there are also trees there and possibly electrical lines. Dragsten commented that electrical lines might be in the 3' setback easement. Dragsten stated that trying to find a hardship in most requests is difficult. Moree stated that three or four neighbors have their trailers have in the same location. He commented that he doesn't know if there is a difference in the slope or if they have simply moved their driveways out. Moree indicated that he does not feel he is being treated fairly. Dragsten stated that he too, had noted that other homes have hard surfaced the sides of their garages, although he doesn't know whether they were three feet off the property line. 2 Planning Commission Agenda 03/08/06 Grittman stated that he is not aware of any variances granted for this kind of request. O'Neill responded that contractors may do pave to the property line, but not with City knowledge. Grittman stated it isn't uncommon to have side drive aisles, in this case the consideration is the location in relationship to the lot line. Our presumption is that they should meet the code. Moree stated that the slope of the land is different, so his situation is different. Hilgart stated that he doesn't see that there is a hardship. He noted that unfortunately, Moree is penalized for going through the proper channels in that the City doesn't know if other people are following three foot rule. He stated that as far as he's concerned, there is no hardship. Schibonski had no comment. Dragsten commented that the vehicle storage does look nice on the side, as the idea is to keep clutter neat and orderly. However, it appears hardship is not proved. He recommended that perhaps Moree could meet with City staff to discuss lowering the area. Moree stated he wants to make it clear he wants to follow rules and appreciates the opportunity to come and discuss this. Dragsten stated that he would be willing to look at alternate solutions. Grittman stated we could look at dropping elevations and that City staff has the resources to assist the applicant in those areas. Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO DENY THE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 3-FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR DRIVEWAYS, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: a. That the property is currently being put to reasonable use without the need for a driveway setback variance. b. That the property is a fully conforming single family residential parcel. C. That the proposed variance results from the actions of the applicant through the intended parking of a large recreational vehicle in the side yard. d. That the intent of the 3 foot setback is to ensure that there is room for drainage from driveways to adjoining property lines. A zero setback from the driveway to the property line may negatively impact the surrounding property. MOTIN SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. O'Neill stated that the applicant has the opportunity to appeal to the City Council. The appeal request has to be made within 5 days. Planning Commission Agenda 03/08/06 • 6. Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance, Section 11-6-1(A). reQulatina park dedication requirements., Applicant: City of Monticello Grittman stated that staff is requesting that this item be tabled at this time. He indicated that it should be ready for the April meeting. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO TABLE THE REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS TO THE APRIL MEETING OF THE PLANNIN COMMISSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED. O'Neill stated that they will be visiting the YMCA property and reviewing an asset inventory for negotiations with the YMCA as part of comprehensive planning. O'Neill also noted that the comp plan process is moving forward. O'Neill inquired whether any of the Commissioners would like to be involved. Schibonski and Spartz volunteered to serve on the reviewing committee, along with Chairman Dragsteb. 7. Consideration to review the recommended conditions for front yard storage in I-2 areas within the proposed amendment to the Open and Outdoor Storage ordinance. Schibonski noted that this item was removed from the agenda. Grittman explained that the item was included for information purposes, as prior to Council review, conditions of approval for front yard storage in the I-2 will need to be included in the proposed amendment. No action is required. 8. Adi ours. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 0