Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 07-05-2000MINUTES C) REGULAR NIEF.TINC - I%IONTICFLLO PLANNING COMMISSION llJ, Wednesday, July 5, 2000 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten. Dick Fric. Roy Popilck. Robbie Smith and Council Liaison Clint Iierbst. Members Absent: None Staff: Steve Grittman. Jeff O'Neill 1. Call to order. Chair Erie called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and declared a quorum present. 2. Annroval of minutes of the regular meeting held .lune 6.2000 and the snecial mectinr held.lune 26.2000. Rod Dmgsten asked about the architectural review standards for commercial buildings along Chelsea Road. Steve Grittman was asked to prepare information on the standards and to have this matter on the agenda for the August Planning Commission meeting. ROBBII` SMITII MOVI-'D TO APPROVIi TIII: MINUTES OF TI11- JUNI:6.2000 REGULAR PI.ANNING COMp11SSION 1111:STING. ROD DRAGSTI:N SI:CONDI-D TIIL MOTION. MOTION CARRIED IJNANIMOUSI.Y. RICIIARD CARI.SON MOVED 1'O APPROVI:'fNl: MINUTI:SOF 7'111: JUNI: 26. 2000 SPECIAL MI:1-:TING. ROI' POPII.I:K SI:CONDED'I'I11: MO'T'ION. MO'T'ION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Consideration of adding items to the neenda. None. 4. Citiiens comments. None. 5. Public Hearing - Cnnsideration of a variance reauest to the side yard setback standards. ( Annlicant: Wavne Cox. Steve Grittman gave the staff report on the request of Wayne Cox. 306 411 Street East for a 1 1 Planning Minutcs - 7/5M variance in side yard setback from 10 list to approximately 7 fret in order to construct an addition to his residence. The lot in question is a platted lot with a width of 66 fact. 'Me existing residence is approximately 9.5 feet from the side lot line and the proposed house addition would encroach further into the setback. Steve Griuman noted that it would be possible to construct the proposed addition without encroaching into the setbacks so the property does not meet the hardship criteria for a variance. The fact that the property is used for a residence with space Ibr a garage allows for reasonable use of the property. 'Ilse Commission has considered variances in the setback requirements for the platted lots with smaller lot widths in the older area of the community when the purpose was to add a garage. I lowevcr. in this case the variance is for a house addition so that rationale would not apply. The staff felt the request I'or a variance did not meet the definition of hardship and reasonable use as set firth in the ordinance. The staff did fecl that it was important to do something door those lots that were platted prior to the establishment of the ordinance requiring 80 feet lot width. These earlier platted lots generally have a lot width of 60-66 feet and cannot meet the current setback requirements without a variance. This may discourage the propcny owner from making improvements to the property. To rectify the situation it was suggested that an ordinance amendment be considered for those properties that were platted prior to the current ordinance that would provide for different setback requirements than for lots that do conform to 80 feet lot width standard. Primarily the lots that would be adTeeted by the ordinance amendment would be the lots in the Lower Monticello plat and the Original Townsiie plat. City Planner. Steve Grittinan. indicated that ordinance amendment language could reference the affected properties by plat designation or by date of placing but the language could be specific enough focus on a given segment of lots. Chairman Fric opened the public hearing. Wayne Cox. the applicant. explained his reason for requesting the variance. I Ic noted that while it was possible for his proposed house addition to be attached to the existing garage and not encroach in the setback area. doing so would limit access to his back yard which he felt was a hardship. While he was aware of the hardship criteria in granting a variance. he was not aware that the City was considering an ordinance amendment for existing non-confnmting lots. Chairman Prie then closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission asked if an ordinance amendment was proposed what would be considered reasonable setbacks. Steve Griuman indicated that some research would have to be done in this area as far as what the existing conditions were when the property was platted but he felt that a six foot side yard setback could he a possibility. Mr. Cox was asked his time frame for construction and whether he could wait until the August Planning Commission meeting when a public hearing could be conducted on the proposed ordinance amendment. ROl' POPILEK MOVED TO DEN)' 7'111: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IN TIII: SUN - PARD SETBACK FOR 306 EAST 4111 STREET BASED ON A FINDING TIIAd" fl If: EXISTING I IOME CONSTI'I'UTIiS REASONABLE USE OF TIIE PROPERTY AS AN ADDITION COULD BE CONSTRUCTED 11'111C11 MITTS' III. SIDE PARD SIi1'RACK / Planning Minutes - 715.00 ` REQUIREMENTS. R013BI1: SN -11'1'H SIiC'OVDED'I'lll: NIOT'ION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HARING ATTHE HE AUGUST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON TIlE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AAII:NDPII:N'I'ON SET'11ACK REQUIREMENTS FOR RI-SIDENT'IAI. PROPERTY PLAT"I'I:D PRIOR TO Tl1E CURRENTORDINANCE TAKING EFFECT. RICIIARD CARLSON SI -CONDI -DTIII: MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 'fherc was further discussion on what options Mr. Cox could pursue regarding the addition to his property. ROD DRAGSTE.N MOVED TO GRANT A VARIANCE POR 1111: PROPERTY AT 306 EAST 4"' ST'RI:ET TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION 01: AN ADDI'T'ION SO LONG AS 11' MAINTAINS Till- SAME: SIDI: YARD SI-TIJACK AS TT11: 1:\IST'ING RESIDENCE AND T'l1ERE IS NO FURTHER I:NCROACIIATI?N'I' IN'1'0'1'111: SFI BACK. RON' POPILI:K SECONDIiD TI11: MO'T'ION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Public Ilearina - Consideration of an nnnlication for n variance allowinm construction of a deck within the 10' minimum setback standards. Annlicant: Paul Kiefer. It was determined ufier further review that a variance was not required and the request was withdrawn. Public Ilearina - Consideration of n reauest for n conditional use hermit nllnwin%.n planned unit develonment containine a multi -family structure with more than 12 residentinl units. Annlicont: Silver Creek Real Estate Develonment. Steve Grittman provided the background information on this item. The proposed planned unit development shows 25 town homes located on this site along Th Street lust. The primary issue with this development is the density. In the R-3 District town homes are permitted and based on the acreage of the parcel. a maximum of 16 units could be placed on the site and still meet the requirements of the ordinance. The ordinance also restricts town homes to clusters of no more than eight units and the proposal showed a cluster often units. If the proposed develop- ment was laid out as a multiple family project 25 units would he an appropriate density. Even though town homes and multiple family units are permitted uses in an R-3 District the density requirements for each are different. If the Planning Commission preferred the town home concept. they may want to consider an ordinance amendment that would set density requirements by zoning district rather than by type of use. Steve Griuman briefly reviewed the site plan and commented on a number of areas including driveway widths, landscaping concerns. number of units in a cluster. aesthetic considerations. ` alternative paving materials for central area. and issues such as storm water drainage and Planning Minutes - Minn utilities which would he further renewed by the City Engineer and Public Works. 'their were additional questions concerning the density issue and what the positives and negatives were in regulating density by zoning district rather than by use. Stere Grittman noted that the language in the City*s ordinance %%as commonly used in the zoning ordinances established in the 1070's and emphasized that town home units tend to use up more green space than multiple family units which was why their density was less than multiple family dwellings. It was also pointed out that currently a single family dwelling is an allowable use in an R-3 District and if there was going to be an amendment to the R-3 District it should be considered whether the single family should continue as an allowable use in that district. Chairman Frie then opened the public hearing. Brucc I Iaverly. representing Silver Creek Real Estate spoke briefly regarding the proposal. Ilc explained that they had looked at various layouts including multiple family but felt that aesthetically the town homes better suited the site. Ile indicated that the density ofthe units may be reduced somewhat. possibly. to 23 units and the cluster often units would he broken up. It is proposed that the units will be constructed so they could be sold olTas individual units. Chairman Frie then closed the public hearing. Roy Popilck stated that in addition to the items noted in the agenda from the site plan review. he also had concerns about open arcas(play arca for the children. Bruce I laverly indicated that educing the number of units would open up some additional arca for open space but stated that because of topography. the northwest arca of the parcel would be kept for drainage. The Planning Commission also addressed parking facilities not only for the residents of the writs but also visitor parking. There was concem that while a good number of these units are 2-3 bedroom units there are only single car garages for many of the units (approximately 213 of the units had single car garages). The Planning Commission felt parking would probably not be adequate and could have a negative impact on the ability to sell the units. JcffO' Neill indicated that the City's zoning ordinance only specified garage unit m4uirements for single family and two family dwellings. Bruce I laverly indicated that the development will have a homerw ner's association and that each unit has individual sewer access which tends toward individual ownership rather thvt rental. Dick Fric asked if the only entrance to proper was off I.auring and whether one entrance was adequate as far as the Fire Department was concerned. Steve Griuman noted that this would be looked at further when the plans were renewed by Public Works. Dick Frio also asked about signage for the development. Mr. Ilaverly indicated that there would be just a single entrance sign. Ile also indicated that the median price for the units would be about S130.000. There was additional discussion on the density of the dcvclopmcm. \Ir. I laverly was asked if 16 units. which would comply with the ordinance provisions. was not economically feasible. Planning Mimics - 715;00 what number of units determined whether it would he economically feasible. Mr. Flaverly indicaiLd that above 20 units would be feasible. DICK FRIE MOVI;D'I'O RI-CO\IMEND APPROVAI.OI''I'IIE CONCEPTPLAN FOR A PUD AS TOWN IIOMIi PRO11iC'I' INCI.UDING CO\iMl'sN'I'S A -G AS NOTED INTHE AGENDA ITEM AND SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW Of LANDSCAPING. UTILITY AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS BY TIIE CITY ENGINEER AND STAFF AND TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC IIIiARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ACCOMMODATE TOWN 110MES OF TIIE PROPOSED DENSITY IN' IIF R-3 AND TIII? CCD DISTRICTS. ROBBIE SMIT11 SECONDED THE MO'T'ION. Richard Carlson noted that the reommendation is based on the proposed density but that the Planning Commission felt the density was too high. Stew Grittman suggested rather than specifying a number of units. they could create a green space requirement that everyone would have to meet. lie indicated that 35%-40°16 was the requirement of communities that he was familiar with. RICHARD CARLSON MOVED TO AMENI) TIIE MOTION TO INCLUDE A LOT COVERAGIJGREEN SPACE REQUIREMENT A'f A PERCENTAGE TO BE. DI's'I'IiR\IINI:D AS RI: COMMENDEI) BY I'HI? CITYPLANNER AND STAFF. ROT' POPILEK SECONDED TIIE AMENDMENT. UPON VOTE BEING TAKEN THE ORIGINAL MO'T'ION WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. UPON VOTE BEING TAKEN TIIE AMENDMENT TO Till: MOTION WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Public Ilearine - Consideration of rezoning from 1-1 In I -IA. Construction 5.Outlat A. 1lnnlicant: Cih• of Monticello, Planning Commission. 1cff O' NciII provided the background information indicating that previously when the Planning Commission had considered rezoning land along r Start from I -I to I - IA this parcel was inadvertently omitted. It was now coming before the Planning Commission so that this omission could be corrected. Chairman Fric opened the public hearing. Joseph LaFromboise. 2326 Eastwood Circle. the owner of the property was present and stand his belief that an 1- I A zoning would not be the best use of the property. Ile felt that the appropriate zoning should be R-3 and asked that the Planning Commission consider the R-3 designation for this parcel. No one else %vas present to speak for or against the proposed rezoning. Chairman Fric then closed the public hearing. Rod I)mgsten concurred that the R-3 zoning designation may be a more appropriate use for the property. ` Planning Minutes - 71510 (\(` ROD DRAGS'rEN MOVED TO DENT' APPROVAL OF TIIE RIiZONING OF OUTLO'I' A, CONSI'RUC'I'ION 5 ADDI'I'ION FRO\11.1 '1'O 1-I A. Motion died for a lack of second. RICHARD CARLSON MOVED TO RKOMMEND APPROVAL OF' III REZONING OF OUfl.OT' A. CONS'T'RUCTION 5 ADDITION FROM I -I 'T'O HA BASED ON TIIE l'INDING'I'IIA'I' TIT[: PROPOSED RHONING IS CONSISITNT WITII TIIE COMPREIIENSIVE PLAN AND CONSIS'T'ENT WII I1 TIIE CHARACTER OF TI Ili AREA. RO1113II3 SMITH SECONDED THE MO'T'ION. MOTION CARRIED WITI l ROD DRAGSTEN VO'T'ING IN OPPOSITION. Continued Public Ilearine - Consideration of an amendment In a planned unit develonment in a H-3 District to allow the e>,nansion of an auto sales and store ens Int. Annlicant: Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford. It was noted that the applicant had requested continuation of the public hearing as the site plan information was not yet completed. The Planning Commission discussed the number of times an item can conic before the Planning Commission without either having to reapply or having notice sent again. Matters coming before the Planning Commission should tic acted upon within a reasonable length of time and not allowed to dragon. It was also noted that the property is being used for a purpose that has not been approved. It was discussed whether a time frame. such as 90 days could be set requiring that the applicant get all information to the Commission for action on a request. ROD DRAGSI I -N MOVED TO CONTINIJE'IIII- PUBLIC IWARING ON TIIE A\11iNDMI-N'I' I'O A PI.ANNIiD UNIT DIiVIiI.OPMI--N'I' IN A H-3 D1S'I'RIC'I 1*0 AI.LO11''1'111i EXPANSION OI' AN AUTO SAI.1-S AND S'I'ORAGIi I.O'r AND'1'O NOTIFY '1'1IE APPLICANT II IAT 1'lll':Y ARE UNLAWFULLY USING II IE SII'li AND IF Tl lli APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE'1 HE INFORMATION FOR TIIE AUGUST 1.2000 ITCOULD Bl- RIiCO\1\fENDIiD'1'O'1'lllX1'1'1' COUNCII.I'IIAT'I'HI: CARS BE RI -MOVED. ROBBIE S\11'1'11 SECONDED TIIf- MOTION. There was some discussion on the wording of the motion. It was noted that requiring the information for the August I" meeting would not allow time for rcyicw if the information was not submitted prior to August 11. 'The applicant should be made aware that the Planning Commission could recommend to the Council that both the amendment be denied and that the cars be removed. Steve Grittman suggested specifying a sct date for the submittal of the information. Ile noted that typically 2.3 works prior to the monthly meeting is the deadline for submittal and indicated that by July 1 r all data should be submitted to the staff. ROD DRAGST'EN AMENDED TIII: MOTION TO INCLUDE TIIAT illli APPLICANT MUST MEET" I'l1E JULY 17"t DATE FOR SUHMITrAI.OF INFORMATION TO THE STAFF ON TI Ili AMI-NDMENT TO TIII? Pill). ROBBIE SMII II SECONDED I'll . AMENDED MOTION. MOTION C'ARRII?D IJ\'ANI\1OUSI.Y. CPlanning Minutes - 7/5100 10. Discussion on the Cit• Ordinance regardine enfnreement of the Public Nuisance Ordinance. In the absence of Fred Patch. Jeff O' Neill gave a verbal report on the enforcement action taken on blights/nuisance properties. Out of the 93 properties that were notified of violations 28 had been corrected at this time. A number of the violations had been turned over to the City Attorney. At the present time two positions remain unfilled in the Community Development Department. The City is looking at the various needs in the organization as pan of the rehiring process. It may be necessary to modify one of the job descriptions to include emphasis on code enforcement. Ile also indicated that staff members and the Mayor had toured the community and reviewed some of the blight properties. Dick Fric stated that the blights had been brought up numerous times by the Planning Commission. It is an arca of concern to the Commission members and a matter that they felt should be addressed. The question is whether to give staff another opportunity to resolve it or submit the matter to the City Council. The Planning Commission rcqucsted staff to place on the August I" Planning Commission agenda a comparison between current enforcement system and a system that would include issuance of citations. The comparison should include projections on percent of violations corrected and cost of enforcement. Richard Carlson also suggested that the City consider garage requirements for all residential districts not just R -I and R-2 districts. It. Ad'nl urn. ROlil311: S\11'1'11 \IOVI-D TO ADJOURN A'f 9:20 P.\I. ROY POPILEK SECONDED 1'llli MOTION. \101'10N CARRII:D UNANIM(.)USI.N'. Recording Secretary 'r