Planning Commission Minutes 09-07-1993
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, September 7, 1993 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson,
Brian Stumpf
Members Absent: None
Staff Present:
Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cindy Lemm at 7:00 p.m.
2. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded Brian Stumpf to approve
the minutes of the regular meeting held August 3, 1993. Motion carried
unanimously.
A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to
approve the minutes of the special meeting held August 9, 1993. Motion
carried unanimously.
A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to
approve the minutes of the special meeting held August 23, 1993. Motion
carried unanimously.
3.
Public Hearing--A request to amend Section 3~3 [C1 of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance by changing- the R-1 (sing-Ie family residential) side yard setback
requirement from ten (10) feet on both side yards to six (6) feet on one side and
(10) feet on the other side. Applicant, Tony Emmerich.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained Mr. Emmerich's request
to be allowed to construct garages on the garage side of the house up to within
6 feet of the side property line. Proposed garages when placed on their lots
attached to their houses would have 12 feet of separation, 6 feet on each side
of the property line between the two garage structures. The applicant is
requesting the 4 foot encroachment into the side yard setback which would
allow a 3-car garage to be attached onto the house with a portion of the house
and garage structure to have more view of the house showing as viewed from
the front of the lot in driving by on the street. Mr. O'Neill also outlined the
letter he received from Mr. Steve Grittman, consulting planner, in regard to
the pros and cons for approving an encroachment into the side yard setback on
the garage side only.
Page 1
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/7/93
Cindy Lemm opened the public hearing.
With there being no input from public, Cindy Lemm then closed the public
hearing and opened for input from the Planning Commission members.
Mr. Jon Bogart would like to abstain from voting on above applicant's request,
stating that he has a conflict of interest with this owner/developer. The
Planning Commission member's discussion centered on the closeness of the
structures to the property line, referring to the Meadow Oak Development.
When it was developed, they allowed houses to be constructed to within 5 feet
from the property line as long as there was 15 feet between structures, which
caused some of the problems that exist today out there with the closeness of
the structures to the property line.
There being no further discussion from the Planning Commission members, a
motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Brian Stumpf to deny
the zoning ordinance amendment based on the finding that the zoning
ordinance as presently written is correct, and there is no reason to change it
at this time. Reducing the side yard setback requirement on the garage side
is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and could result in the
depreciation of property values in the R~ 1 zone. Motion carried unanimously
with Jon Bogart abstaining.
4.
Public Hearing~-A conditional use request to allow open and outdoor storage
as an accessory use in an 1-2 (heavv industrial) zone and a variance request to
allow a forty (40) foot curb cut. Applicant, H-Window Company.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained the applicant's two conditional
use permit requests and the one variance request in conjunction with the
expansion of the H-Window Company.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING OUTSIDE STORAGE
With the expansion of this facility, a small area on the south portion of the
building will be utilized for outside storage of window glass pallet containers.
At this end of the site, there exists these outside window glass pallet
containers, and over on the north side of the building, exists building materials
stored outside for use in the building of the new windows which currently have
no screening in these two outside storage areas.
Page 2
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/7/93
STALL, AISLE, AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The H-Window Company requests to be allowed not to install curbing in the
parking lot expansion areas.
VARIANCE REQUEST ALLOWING A 40~FOOT CURB CUT
Cindy Lemm opened the public hearing.
The site plan shows a 40-foot curb cut on the most easterly access drive on
Dundas Road on the south side of the building and a 32-foot curb cut on most
southerly driveway on the west side of the building. The minimum
requirement by ordinance is a 24-foot curb cut.
There being no input from the public, Cindy Lemffi closed the public hearing
and opened for discussion among Planning Commission members.
.
Comments raised by Planning Commission members were as follows: They
would like to research the possibility of allowing larger curb cuts in the
industrial zoning areas in the City of Monticello. A suggestion was made that
instead of approving the variance request, the applicant go through the
ordinance amendment process, as it was hard for the Planning Commission
members to come up with a rationale for granting the variance with there
being no hardship demonstrated.
Mr. Craig Fast, representing H-Window Company, explained to Planning
Commission members that without the driveway curb cut width their
expansion cannot proceed without driving onto Dundas Road to do the
maneuvering to loading/unloading dock areas.
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, a motion was
made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon Bogart to approve the
conditional use request allowing outside storage and allowing a stall, aisle, and
driveway design conditional use permit. Approval was contingent on the
compliance with the requirements noted by ordinance. The motion was based
on the finding that the outside storage and parking design is in compliance
with the pertinent regulations; therefore, the request should be approved.
Theconditional use permit is consistent with the character and geography of
the neighborhood, it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and will not
result in the depreciation of adjoining land values. Motion carried
unanimously.
.
Page 3
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 917/93
A motion was made by Jon Bogart and seconded by Richard Martie, to deny
the variance request to allow a 40-foot curb cut and a 32-foot curb cut based
on the finding that a hardship is not demonstrated. Planning Commission
members felt sympathetic with the applicant and proposed to call for a public
hearing for a proposed ordinance amendment at the next earliest possible
special Planning Commission meeting date, that being Monday,
September 27, 1993, 6:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously with Cindy Lemm
opposing.
5.
Public HearinJ:!--A request to amend Chapter 10 of the Monticello ZoninJ:!
Ordinance by adding a provision that would increase the maximum size
allowed for private ~ara~es accessory to a residential use in a PZM
(performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant, Randy Ruff.
Mr. Brian Stumpf stated that he would like to make no comments or decision
on this agenda item. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, updated
Planning Commission members on the proposed ordinance amendment to allow
an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 square feet. Mr. O'Neill outlined the
existing accessory building requirements and the proposed zoning ordinance
amendment allowing larger accessory buildings in the PZM zone.
Accessory Building Size and Setback
The accessory building is regulated by a maximum of 1,000 square feet or at
least no larger than the principal structure. The accessory shall not occupy
more than 25% of the rear yard. The existing setback requirements for
accessory structures is a side yard setback of 10 feet and a rear yard setback
of 5 feet. Under the proposed ordinance amendment the setbacks would be
doubled, in this case a 20 foot side yard setback and a 10 foot rear yard
setback.
Design Standards
The minimum building design standard is a 3:12 roof pitch and a minimum of
6 inch soffit. The accessory building must be anchored to a permanent
concrete foundation.
Accessory building shall be designed and finished on all sides with materials
consistent with the principal structure. Mr. Ruff is requesting to be allowed
to construct his entire structure with a metal building siding material and
metal roofing material. The proposed limitations on the height as it exists is
15 feet in height. Mr. Ruff is proposing to have 15-foot sidewall height with
approximately 22 feet to the peak of the roof.
Page 4
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/7/93
Activi ties/U se
The ordinance limits the use of the building for uses accessory to the residence.
No commercial storage, manufacturing, etc. is allowed. Mr. Ruff is proposing
to utilize his building for the storage of his recreational vehicle, boat, motor,
and trailer, and other automobiles.
Cindy Lemm opened the public hearing.
Mr. Ruff commented that he would be able to answer any questions that the
Planning Commission members had of him.
Cindy Lemm closed the public hearing and opened for comments from the
Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members felt
sympathetic to Mr. Ruffs request but were very hesitant to approve accessory
structures under the proposed ordinance in excess of a 1,000 square feet in the
entire PZM zone. In looking at the enclosed map that was submitted with
their agenda, there were several areas in town which an accessory could be
built on, especially on a small lot were a person could end up with a big garage
on a small lot.
With no further discussion from the Planning Commission members, a motion
was made by Richard Carlson and seconded by Jon Bogart, to deny the zoning
ordinance amendment to allow accessory buildings or garages with a floor area
in excess of 1,000 square feet. The Planning Commission makes a finding that
the proposed zoning ordinance amendment is not consistent with the
geography and character of the PZM zoning district and is not consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. The motion carried unanimously, with Brian Stumpf
abstaining.
6.
Adjournment. A motion was made by Richard Martie and seconded by Jon
Bogart to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
G y Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Page 5