Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 11-02-1998 . . . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, November 2, 1998 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten, Dick Frie, Roy Popilek and Robbie Smith. Also Present: Council Liaison Clint Herbst. Absent: None 2. Consideration of approval of minutes of regular meeting held October 6. 1998 and special meeting held October 12. 1998. MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGScrEN AND SECONDED BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 6, 1998 REGULAR MEETING. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION WAS MADE BY ROY POPILEK AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 12, 1998 SPECIAL MEETING. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. No additional items were placed on the agenda. 4. Citizen comments. There were no citizen comments. 5. Public hearing: - Consideration of a request for a simple subdivision and combination of lots within the R-2 Zoning District. Applicant. Rick Fair. Steve Grittman presented the staff report explaining that the applicant is proposing to combine Lots 8,9, 10 & half of Lot 7 and then divide the lots into two parcels. The two parcels would meet the area and width requirements for lots in the R-2 Zoning District. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Rick Fair was present but did not address the Planning Commission regarding this proposal. There were no residents present who spoke for or against the proposed subdivision. Chairman Frie questioned whether any easements were required for this parcel. Steve Grittman indicated that normally 12 foot easements are required along the front and back property lines and 6 foot easements arc required along the side property lines. The casements would have to be shown on the survey prior it to being recorded. Chaimlan Frie closed the public hearing. . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 11/3/98 MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED SIMPLE SUBDIVISION BASED UPON THE FINDING THAT TIlE PROPOSED LOTS MEET ALL REQUIRED ZONING STANDARDS AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE APPROPRIATE EASEMENTS ARE IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial laundry pick up and beauty shoo and a Conditional Use Permit for combined commercial and residential uses in one building and a Public Hearing for consideration of a variance in the rear yard setback. Applicant: Pat & Susie Townsend. Steve Grittman presented the staff report on the proposal submitted by the Townsends. The original request for the Conditional Use Pcrmits was tabled by the Planning Commission so that the project could be redesigned to more closely conform to the ordinance requiremcnts. The variances originally requested by the applicant had becn dcnied by the Planning Commission. The redesigned project eliminates the second story apartments which reduces the requests for Conditional Use Permits from 3 to 2. Conditional Use Permits are requircd for mixcd commercial and residential uses in a PZM District and for the proposed commercial use as a laundry pickup and salon. A variance of 8 feet is being requested from the rear yard setback of 30 feet. In granting a variance, the test of whether there is a physical hardship or some special circumstance that would prohibit reasonable use of the property must be met. It was the recommcndation of the staff that thc property did not meet the hardship requirement. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. Susie Townsend spoke regarding the 8 foot variance request which she stated was to allow for a hallway to her shop as well as access to the basement. Pat Townsend indicated that the 8 foot encroachment would not be readily noticcable and he stated that he didn't feel one person should be making the decision on how he could use his property. No one else spoke for or against the proposal. Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. Richard Carlson addressed the comment that was made by Mr. Townsend about onc person making a decision on the use of his property. Mr. Carlson stated that it is the intent of the Planning Commission to enforce the provisions of the zoning ordinance in a reasonable and consistent manner. Richard Carlson explained that the rear and side yard setback requirements protect the privacy of the property owner and adjacent residents and for that reason hc was rather adamant about not granting variances to the rear and side yard setbacks. Mr. Carlson also pointed out that the Planning Commission has handlcd 2 . Planning Commission Minutes - 11/3/98 many variance requests and that the Planning Commission has been eonsistent in the procedure they follow in handling variance requests. There was discussion on the setback requirements and it was noted that if it was felt that the requirements were too stringent then the appropriate action would be to amend the zoning ordinance rather than routinely grant variances to the ordinance requirement. Pat 'l'ownsend cited an instance where a garage in the setback area was allowed to be rebuilt in the same location. The Planning Commission recalled the instance and pointed out that the garage was required to be moved 5 feet so that it met the setback requirement. Chairman Frie reiterated that the Planning Commission is not arbitrary and capricious in its action and that deviations from the ordinance requirements must be supported by findings of fact. The Planning Commission asked if there was any way the plan could be re-configured so that variance, if one was still needed, would not be so great. Pat Townsend responded that he worked up a number of designs but this one is the most viable from his standpoint. Chairman Frie asked Mr. Townsend to respond to the question of whether he would have reasonable use of his property if the variance was not granted. Mr. Townsend felt from an aesthetic standpoint the design he submitted was the best one and he couldn't see how it could be improved. . MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK '1'0 DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK OF 30 FEET BASED ON THE FINDING THAI" REASONABLE USE CAN BE MADE OF THE PARCEL WITHOUT THE VARIANCE AS EVIDENCED BY THE CONFORMING SINGLE F AMIL Y HOME AND A CONFORMING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 2300 SQUARE FEET JUST 10 PERCENT LESS THAN THAT PROPOSED. Motion carried with Chairman Frie voting in opposition noting that it was his understanding that there was some possibility in the future of the applicant acquiring ownership of the adjacent parcel and if that would happen the proposal would meet ordinance requirements. MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL USE SUBJECT TO A CONDITION THAT AN APPROPRIATE BUFFERING AND SCREENING PLAN IS SUBMITTED FOR CITY APPRO V AL. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE AND SECONDED BY ROY POPILEK TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MIXED COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE PZM DISTRICT SUBJECT TO . 3 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 11/3/98 A FINDING THAT THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES MEET THE INTENT OF THE SEPARATE FLOOR REQUIREMENT. Motion carried unanimously. Steve Grittman pointed out that since the apartment units were withdrawn, there was no Planning Commission action required on a conditional use permit for more than two residential units. Fred Patch indicated that if the applicant carne back with a revised plan that met all ordinance requirements, it would not be coming back to the Planning Commission for review. Pat Townsend requested information on the appeal process and Jeff O'Neill provided information on the procedure for appealing Planning Commission action. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for variances to the setbacks for parking and drive aisles in the CCD Zoning District. Applicant: Citv of Monticello. Steve Grittman presented the stafI report explaining that when the setback requirements were established for the CCD District buildings were allowed to be built with a zero lot line but parking and driveways were not exempted from the setback requirements. The City is requesting a variance to allow the driveway and parking spaces for the Community Center to encroach into the five foot setback along the Burlington Northern property and along 6th Street. Mr. Grittman also noted several other instances in the CCD District where the City has allowed encroachments into the parking setbacks. In these cases the City found that the variance allowed for a better design and better function of the project. There was discussion on whether a hardship must be shown in granting a variance. Steve Grittman responded that there should be equality of opportunities for various projects within a district. If other projects within the district were granted this type of variance and granting of the variance would improve the project quality, the variance should be considered. Chairman Frie opened the public hearing. There were no citizens present to speak on the proposal. Chairman Frie closed the public hearing. In discussion of the variance request, the Planning Commission reviewed those other projects where variances were granted. It was pointed out that where the green space was maintained the appearance was aesthetically pleasing even though there was a reduction in the setback area. The Planning Commission also questioned why the variance request came up so late into the development of the proj ect. Jeff O'Neill stated that because the placement of the building on the site could not be determined until the location of the utility pipes were established, it delayed the City having a final site plan until just recently. The Planning Commission also discussed whether it would make sense to revise the parking setbacks for the CCD District or review each project individually as to the parking setbacks. 4 . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 11/3/98 MOTION WAS MADEBY ROBBIE SMITH AND SECONDED BY RICHARD CARLSON TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES BASED ON THE FINDING THAT REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY AS A COMMUNITY CENTER REQUIRES MAXIMIZING THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND CIRCULATION ROUTES AS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSED PLAN. Motion carried unanimously. 8. Sketch Review - Rolling Woods Jeff O'Neill reported that the staffhad met with the developer and that revisions have been made in the proposal that lessened the impact on adjacent properties. Chairman Frie asked if the Parks Commission had an opportunity to review the proposal. The staff responded that the Parks Commission was looking at developing a neighborhood park as part of this development. There was some discussion on the procedures for this proposal coming before the OAA Board as well as an update on other OAA action. MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN AND SECONDED BY DICK FRIE AT 8:30 P.M. TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Motion carried unanimously. () (\ ~ 1 ~-\r-- .....A , Recording Secretary ...L..G.. ~~ ~':l.. A...-..-.c'l) Q ......~~~ c'S 5