HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-03 P & Z
..
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission hel
meeting on October 3, 2000, at 6:30 p. m.
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 3,2000
PRESENT:
Commission Member Alan LaMotte
Commission Member David Kilian
Commission Member Rob Sheppard (arrived 7: 1
Commission Member John McLean
Commission Member Ray DeVine
Commission Member Brian Hanson
Commission Member Barry d (arriv
ABSENT:
None.
COUNCIL:
STAFF:
-I.
n. POOL C
1.
er McLean felt that he should remove himself from discussion in regards to this
fact he is a neighbor of the Hasiaks.
iak stated several reasons for requesting a variance, they own eight (8) vehicles and would like
to - ose them in an attempt to enhance the appearance of their yard and give her husband space to
repair same. Mrs. Hasiak stated that they have little to no space available for storage and the existing
crawl space underneath the residential building can not be utilized due to foundation erosion and
Page 1 of 13
sewage/water backups. Mrs. Hasiak referred to a videotape in her possession that she wished to play for
the committee and stated that Mr. March had previously viewed same. Mr. March told the Committee
he had viewed the tape earlier in the day and noted that the condition of the home is a civil issue to be
handled with the previous property owner.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers questioned Mrs. Hasiak as to why her situation was a special
circumstance that would warrant the granting of a variance. Ms. Hasiak stated that the building is
considered a non-conforming structure; however, they would like the opportunity to enjoy a garage and
have storage similar to a basement.
Mr. March stated he felt the criteria for granting a variance had been met in regards to the repairs on the
interior of the building; however, exterior adjustments or improvements should not be included. Mr.
March stated that other residents in the community have the opportunity to sheetrock, cement the floor
and insulate their garage space if so desired. Mr. March stated that the Hasiak's non-conforming
structure is much larger than most garages, which benefits the Hasiaks. Mr. March also noted that the
Hasiak's property is large enough to be split, hence two assessments for service stubs on their property.
Mr. March stated that the second special assessment placed on the Hasiak's property had been
previously deferred by Council for 10 years excluding interest.
Commission Member Brainard inquired if Mr. March believed the hardship requirement could be met.
Mr. March indicated the basement is not suitable for storage. The Planning and Zoning Commission
and the Council knew the building was there. The neighbors knew the building was there when they
moved in. He explained he feels allowing the improvements to the interior provided proper permits are
obtained would be agreeable to everyone. However, he expressed concern for allowing an enlargement
to the building.
Commission Member McLean commented in the capacity of a neighbor rather than a Commission
Member. Mr. McLean indicated he did not have concerns with the interior improvements to the
building; however, he was concerned with the exterior improvements. Mr. McLean indicated that the
Hasiaks would benefit differently than any other resident of the community due to the fact that their
accessory structure currently is larger than allowable and others are exempt to building accessory
structures of similar size.
Mrs. Hasiak stated that their priority is to be allowed to complete the interior improvements.
Commission Member LaMotte questioned the location of the accessory structure versus the property
line. Mrs. Hasiak stated that the structure is approximately fourteen (14) feet from the property line.
Commission Member LaMotte stated that storage of automobiles is the responsibility of the owner not
the City. Mrs. Hasiak indicated she has three (3) antique cars and would like to store them inside the
structure.
Commission Member LaMotte questioned the Hasiaks whether they were capable of adding an attached
garage to the house. Mrs. Hasiak stated that the lot size did not allow for an attached garage.
Motion by Commission Member DeVine. seconded by Commission Member LaMotte. to continue
the public hearin~ to the October 11. 2000. City Council Meetin~ at 6:00 {l.m. All in favor.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m.
Page 2 of 13
2. Salazar Fence
Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. and Mrs. Pedro Salazar appeared before the committee and requested a variance to be allowed to
construct a six (6) foot wooden privacy fence in their rear yard. The property is a comer lot located at
7336 Old Mill Road. According to Ordinance #4, the Salazars have two (2) front yards. The Salazars
would like a variance to leave the north side of the fence facing Old Mill Road located where they have
already dug the fence post-holes. These holes are approximately one (1) foot into the road right-of-way.
Construction was begun without a variance and a Stop Work Order was issued on the project.
Mr. Salazar stated that he had contacted Paul Palzer, Building Official and questioned the positioning of
the fence and was told twelve (12) to fourteen (14) feet from the curb. He then split the difference and
installed the fence post-holes 13 feet from the curb. He stated the project was a three-step process
involving grading the lot, sprinkler system and the fence. He has the comer holes in and if he were
required to move them they would interfere with where the sprinkler system has been installed.
Commission Member LaMotte questioned the distance from the fence to the sidewalk. Mr. Salazar
stated approximately one (1) foot.
Commission Member Brainard questioned if Mr. Salazar was told he would not need a permit. Mr.
Salazar stated he was told if the fence was kept under six (6) feet he would not need a permit.
Commission Member Kilian questioned the distance between the curb and the fence. Mr. Salazar stated
approximately thirteen (13) feet.
Mr. Salazar explained that he has waited over a month to continue work on the fence and would like to
complete the project prior to the ground freezing.
Commission Member McLean questioned if the six (6) foot fence would cause visual obstruction. Mr.
March stated that the fence would not extend beyond the comer of the garage so visibility is not an
Issue.
Commission Member DeVine questioned Mr. Paul Palzer whether he remembered speaking to Mr.
Salazar. Mr. Palzer stated he did recall speaking to Mr. Salazar; however, the project was started three
months prior to the conversation. Mr. Palzer indicated he had stated, "twelve (12) to fourteen (14) feet
is typical". However, in this case the City right-of-way ends at thirteen (13) feet, eight (8) inches due to
the fact the street is not centered. Mr. Palzer stated his opposition to leaving the fence in the City right-
of-way.
Commission Member Brainerd questioned Mr. Palzer as to what his opposition was. Mr. Palzer stated
that there could be problems with snow plowing or if in the future the City needed to enter the right-of-
way. If entering the right-of-way necessitates the removal of any or part of the fence it would be done at
the property owners expense.
Commission Member Brainard questioned whether Council had informed Mr. Salazar he needed a six
(6) foot fence. Mr. Salazar stated he wished to go beyond City requirement to ensure the safety and
comfort of the neighbors and to provide a proper exercise area for the dogs. Mr. Salazar stated he felt it
Page 3 of 13
was the responsibility of the City to tell him he was placing the fence in the wrong place prior to him
getting this far along in the process because the City knew he was building the fence.
Chairperson Hanson questioned as to how he arrived at starting the fence at thirteen (13) feet from the
curb. Mr. Salazar indicated he used thirteen (13) feet because it is between twelve (12) and fourteen
(14) feet.
Commission Member DeVine spoke as a neighbor of the Salazars and indicated he is in favor of the
fence. Mr. DeVine stated he had spoken to another neighbor who voiced her support of the fence. Mr.
DeVine also stated he does not believe one (1) foot either way will make very much difference.
Commission Member Kilian agreed one (1) foot is not a big difference. Mr. Kilian stated he would like
it to be made clear, however, if the fence stays in the City right-of-way and the City needs to remove it
for any reason it would be the responsibility of the Salazars to repair and replace it at their expense. Mr.
Salazar expressed his willingness to agree to repair and replace the fence, at his cost, should the need
arise if the City needs access to the right-of-way or if the fence is hit by the snowplow.
Commission Member Brainard noted it is not the responsibility of the City to survey a property or
determine for the property owner where the lot lines exist. He indicated the City can give guidance, but
it is ultimately the responsibility of the property owner. Mr. Salazar said he believed he should be able
to rely upon information received from the City.
Commission Member De Vine stated he does not think it is right to call City Hall and get information as
to where the fence should be placed and then have the City place a stop order on work because the
information given out was incorrect and the fence is now in the City right-of-way. Mr. Palzer noted
there was a three month time period between the telephone call and the start of the project. Mr. Salazar
indicated he was waiting for an available contractor to begin the project.
Mr. March explained to the Commission he had sent out a certified letter as follow-up to Mr. Salazar's
appearance before the Council on the dog issue. In that letter it informed the Salazars that a variance
may be required to build a fence. The certified letter was refused by the Salazars and returned by the
post office as undeliverable. The letter was then delivered by the Centennial Lakes Police Department.
At that time period, construction of the fence had already begun. Mr. March indicated that the City had
tried to preempt the current situation by sending the letter and that by not accepting the letter; the
Salazars have created the current situation.
Mr. March stated he believed the fence would be an amenity to the property and would not detract from
it. Mr. March stated that the current Ordinance #4 needs to more clearly define front yards pertaining to
comer lots. Mr. March also stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission would be discussing this
issue in the near future and at present the concern is the placement of the fence in the right-of-way.
Motion by Commission Member DeVine. seconded by Commission Member Brainard to continue
the public hearin2 to the October 11.2000 City Council Meetine at 6:00 p.m. All in favor. Motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Salazar presented to Mr. March letters of support for the fence from two (2) of his neighbors.
Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.
3. County Bank
Page 4 of 13
Chairperson Hanson opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.
County Bank is requesting a variance for their proposed sign to be located at the northwest comer of the
intersection of Main Street and 21 st Avenue. Craig Bode, Branch Manager, and Dave Shannon of Color
Sign were in attendance. The variance request is for a larger and taller sign than Ordinance #4 permits.
A new schematic for the sign was presented and the revised schematic showed a two (2) foot taller sign
than originally proposed, along with an instant cash sign below the main sign. The proposed sign would
be approximately 26.58 feet tall and 211 square feet in size. Ordinance #4 requires a maximum height
of twenty (20) feet and eighty (80) square feet in size for a free standing sign in a commercial district.
The variance request includes a time and temperature reader board, which is currently not allowed by
Ordinance #4.
Commission Member De Vine indicated there are proposed amendments to Ordinance #4 allowing
message reader signs and to increase the size of the signs based on the frontage of the property in order
for Centerville to compete with Lino Lakes.
Mr. March questioned if there was a way the bank could provide a frame of reference as to how the sign
would look with the building. Mr. Shannon indicated the Amoco sign was approximately two hundred
fifty (250) square feet and thirty-five (35) feet high. County Bank is proposing a sign that would be nine
(9) feet shorter and fifty (50) square feet smaller. Mr. Shannon stated that it would be very difficult to
incorporate the copy and logo on a smaller sign.
Commission Member Kilian stated that based on the location of the sign to the building, he believed it
would look proportionate.
Commission Member LaMotte inquired as to why the bank is applying for a variance at this point when
Ordinance #4 is to be revised. Mr. Shannon indicated the need to place the footings in the ground prior
to the ground freezing. Mr. Shannon stated that the permanent bank building would be open February 1,
2001 and that they desired to have the sign up by then.
Commission Member Brainard questioned whether Ordinance #4 could be modified rather than granting
a variance. Mr. March stated that County Bank did not want to apply for a variance after the ordinance
was revised if their sign ended up being larger than the requirements subsequent to amendments. Mr.
March stated that the sign ordinance is rather lengthy and would require ample consideration from the
Commission. Mr. March also stated that the sign proposed by County Bank is similar in size to signs
that are located in other communities such as Center City and Forest Lake.
Commission Member Kilian stated his unwillingness to allow a reader board sign similar to that of a car
dealership located in Forest Lake due to the fact that it distracts peoples driving attention and is
unsightly. Mr. Shannon stated that the sign the bank is proposing is much smaller than the one in Forest
Lake and could be programmed to allow the printing to be stable. Mr. Shannon felt that the sign could
be an asset to the community by announcing community events.
Commission Member Brainard questioned the materials that would be used for the temporary sign and if
footings would be needed to support same. Mr. Shannon indicated footings were not needed for a
temporary sign; however, the bank would like to place the footings for the permanent sign prior to the
ground freezing and have the sign in place prior to the anticipated February 2001 opening.
Page 5 of 13
Commission Member Brainard expressed a desire to amend Ordinance #4 rather than granting a
VarIance.
Commission Member Kilian questioned why the footings and steel posts could not be placed this fall
prior to the ground freezing and modifying at a future date subsequent to the amended Ordinance. Mr.
Shannon stated he has not built signs that way but indicated it was possible.
Mr. March stated he concurred with Commission Member Brainard and stated that if the sign ordinance
is not amended that the bank should apply for a Special Use Permit rather than a variance.
Commission Member LaMotte expressed his desire to revise the sign ordinance rather than granting a
VarIance.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated that she would prefer revisiting the sign portion of Ordinance
#4 rather than granting the variance.
Motion by Commission Member DeVine. seconded by Commission Member Sheppard to continue
the public hearin~ to the October 11. 2000 City Council Meetin~ at 6:00 p.m. All in favor. Motion
carried unanimously.
Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
III. APPEARANCES
1. Mr. Roger Shimon - Zoning/Electrical Fencing
Mr. March indicated Mr. Shimon was unable to attend the meeting and had requested that the
Commission table the matter to the November 14,2000 meeting.
Motion by Commission Member Brainard. seconded by Commission Member McLean to table
Mr. Shimon's appearance before the Plannin~ and Zonin& Commission to the November 14.2000
Plannin~ and Zonin~ Commission Meetin& at 6:30 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
2. Ground Development
Mr. Terry Hannah, Ground Development, appeared before the Commission to present a proposed
development plan for the former Gor-em Property. The property is located south of the Center Oaks
Development.
Mr. March noted some initial concerns based on the plans presented. Those include double frontage
lots, access to the two (2) homes that are already located off of Short Street, rear yards that have useable
property on the other side of wetlands, proposed trail location and dead-end roads not ending in
temporary cul-de-sacs.
Mr. Sterm, Ground Development's engineer, addressed the concerns of Mr. March by indicating their
willingness to work within City requirements. Mr. Sterm stated that there are several ways to modify
and improve the plan and they are open to suggestions.
Page 6 of 13
Mr. March questioned whether Ground Development had considered other plans prior to presenting the
plans to the City. Mr. Sterm stated that they usually have one (1) plan they feel strongly about and not
several plans.
Commission Member Kilian questioned whether the residents to the north had been consulted as to
whether they wanted a trail running behind their property. Mr. Sterm said that they had not contacted
these residents, however, they would be willing to do so.
Chairperson Hanson questioned whether the. developer anticipated a traffic problem on Centerville Road
being the only access to the development. Mr. Sterm indicated a traffic study has not been completed,
but one could be done. Mr. Sterm also indicated he will be working with Anoka County with regards to
Centerville Road being the only access and additional road requirements needed.
Commission Member LaMotte questioned whether the development was contained in the MUSA. Mr.
Hannah indicated two thirds (2/3) of the development is contained in MUSA for 2001 and the final one
third (1/3) is contained in MUSA for 2005. Mr. LaMotte also questioned if the development would be
built in phases based on the MUSA line. Mr. Hannah stated it would be built in phases beginning with
those lots closest to Centerville Road.
Commission Member LaMotte questioned how Ground Development intended to handle the
development where the drainage ditches are concerned. Mr. Hannah indicated they were just made
aware of the ditches and would work with the City Engineer to comply with requirements and
recommendations of the City.
Mr. March stated that it would be the City's preference for temporary cul-de-sacs rather than pads for
turn-arounds based on the fact the turn-arounds in the past have been used for extra storage of boats and
vehicles rather than turn-arounds.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated, as a property owner to the south of the proposed
development, she would prefer to have the cul-de-sac so that it would look like the road had ended. She
noted if the street appears to go through; off road vehicles, including snowmobiles, will go straight
through onto her property and she would prefer not to have that type of problem.
Commission Member DeVine questioned whether the City would require a park in the development.
Mr. March indicated the Parks and Recreation Commission had not meet on the issue but he thought
they would prefer a park dedication fee.
Commission Member LaMotte questioned the type of homes Ground Development anticipates building
in the development. Mr. Hannah stated they would use a diverse group of builders so there would be a
diverse type of homes. Mr. Hannah stated that it is their preference to have as many ramblers and
walkout ramblers as possible rather than split entry homes. He believes having ramblers rather than split
entry homes will enhance the value and appearance of the property.
Mr. Hannah provided a copy of the covenants and restrictions required in Ground Development's
development in the City of Independence.
Mr. March questioned how the developer intended to enforce the outside storage covenants and
restrictions. Mr. Hannah stated that the covenants are given to builders who in turn give them to the
property owners. Mr. Hannah stated he works in conjunction with the builder, the City and the property
owner to make sure outside storage complies with the developer's covenants and City ordinance.
Page 7 of 13
Mr. March questioned if Ground Development was open to the City requiring a minimum size for
garages within the development. Mr. Hannah stated that Ground Development was open to all
suggestions from the City.
Commission Member DeVine stated an interest in reviewing the elevations for the lots to determine
what type of buildings the lots would accommodate.
Mr. March stated the City is looking for higher valued homes to balance out the housing stock in the
community, as there are currently a high number of entry-level homes. Mr. Hannah agreed and stated it
is the preference of Ground Development to build as many full basement homes as possible to increase
home values.
Commission Member Brainard state he would like to see the development come to Centerville.
Mr. March stated he preferred Ground Development's design concept to the design previously submitted
by Gor-Em.
Commission Member De Vine questioned whether Mr. Palzer had any questions or concerns. Mr. Palzer
stated that he had concerns regarding the cul-de-sac to the northwest of the development not meeting the
lots to the north. Mr. Palzer also stated that the same lots may be large enough to be divided in the
future and there is a potential that they may be assessed double sewer and water assessments. Mr. Sterm
noted he would check to see if they were large enough to be subdivided.
Mr. March expressed a concern for Lots 1 through 7 of Block 3 due to the fact that Dupre Road runs
behind the lots and there would be no privacy in the back of those lots. Mr. Sterm stated that something
different could be done if it is the desire of the City with those lots such as leaving it a natural wetland.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Hasaik Variance Request
Commission Member De Vine questioned if the Hasaiks would need a variance to do the interior work if
the building were not non-conforming. Mr. March said there would not be a requirement for a variance,
but a building permit would still need to be obtained.
Commission Member De Vine stated he would recommend partially approving the variance to allow for
the interior modifications provided the proper permits and inspections were obtained.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers questioned Mr. Palzer whether sheet rocking the interior of the pole
bam would fall under the definition of "expanding the use" of the building. Mr. Palzer stated it was his
interpretation that sheet rocking the interior of the building intensified the use of a pole building and that
is the reason a stop order was placed on the improvements.
Commission Member Kilian questioned whether all the interior improvements would need to be
removed for the inspection. Mr. Palzer stated he would visually inspect the improvements prior to the
official building inspection to ascertain which items needed to be removed prior to the official
inspection.
Page 8 of 13
Chairperson Hanson questioned the status of the interior work. Mrs. Hasiak stated that the sheet rock
and insulation has been installed, but the finishing drywall has not been applied.
Mr. March stated that he feels the interior finish work meets the criteria required for a variance but that
enlarging the building does not.
Chairperson Hanson stated his opposition to granting a variance for expanding the building due to
setting a precedent for others to request variances for larger accessory buildings than allowed by
ordinance.
Dave Radeck, 6960 Meadow Circle, appeared before the Commission and stated that he drives past the
property every day on the way to and from work and the pole building is an eyesore.
Mrs. Hasiak stated the pole barn is in better shape than the house is due to the crawlspace's foundation
collapsing.
Chairperson Hanson made a point of order comment indicating issues relating to the civil dispute
between Mrs. Hasiak and the former property owner should be kept out of the discussion regarding the
variance request.
Mrs. Hasiak stated the house would not have been sold without the pole barn being there is no garage.
Mr. Palzer indicated the Hasiaks have the right to add an attached garage to the house.
Council Liasion Broussard Vickers questioned how long the building would be allowed to remain on the
property as a non-conforming structure. Mr. Palzer indicated under the old Ordinance #4 it was thirty
(30) years and under the new ordinance there is no timeframe.
Motion by Commission Member DeVine. seconded by Commission Member Sheppard to
recommend to Council approval of the variance to allow for the interior chan~es provided the
proper buildin~ permits and inspections are obtained and to deny the variance request for
expansion of the non-conformin~ structure. Ayes - 5 Nays -1 (Brainard) Abstain -1 (McLean).
Motion carried.
2. County Bank Variance Request
Chairperson Hanson stated he would prefer not to grant the variance and that the sign ordinance needs to
be reviewed and amended.
Council Liasion Broussard Vickers stated she would prefer to revisit the sign ordinance in depth rather
than grant the variance. She also indicated she believed it was the general consensus of the Council that
County Bank's sign would fit within the parameters discussed, however, no final agreement on changes
to the sign ordinance were made. Therefore, there is no guarantee the sign proposed by County Bank
would conform to ordinance requirements.
Commission Member De Vine stated he would like to amend the sign ordinance to designate a special
district east of 20th Avenue on either side of Main Street to allow for signs such as the one proposed by
County Bank.
Page 9 of 13
Commission Member Kilian stated it was his preference that County Bank put in the footings and leave
the pipes long enough for a larger sign should the sign be approved and if the sign is not approved the
pipes may be cut to the proper length for a sign to conform to City ordinance.
Motion by Commission Member Brainard. seconded by Commission Member Kilian to
recommend to Council denial of County Bank's request for a si&n variance. Ayes - 4 Nays - 3
(DeVine. Shep{)ard. McLean). Motion carried.
3. Salazar Variance Request
Commission Member Kilian questioned whether Mr. Palzer had told Mr. Salazar the property line began
twelve (12) to fourteen (14) feet from the curb. Mr. Palzer indicated he had told him his property line
began twelve (12) to fourteen (14) feet from the curb as that is an approximate for a normal setback. He
also indicated it is the responsibility of the homeowner to locate the property line and that the
information received from the City should only be a guideline to assist him in determining the location
of the property line.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers noted it is the responsibility of the property owner not the City to
determine where the property line is before commencing work. She stated she does not support leaving
the fence in the right-of-way as the City did take steps via a certified letter to inform the Salazars a
variance may be required.
Commission Member Kilian stated his approval for the variance to allow a six (6) foot fence provided it
did not go beyond the back corner of the garage and is not in the City's right-of-way.
Commission Member McLean questioned Mr. Palzer's preference on the matter. Mr. Palzer stated it is
his preference to keep the fence out of the right-of-way to avoid problems in the future.
Commission Member DeVine questioned whether Mr. Salazar would be required to move the sprinkler
system if the City requests he move the fence out of the right-of-way.
It was the consensus of the Commission that any costs associated with the relocation of fence outside of
the right-of-way was the Salazar's responsibility.
Mr. March state that Mr. Salazar had indicated if the City does not grant the variance he will not put the
fence up "because the City won't let him."
Mr. Palzer stated that previously other residents have requested variances for the exact same thing and
were denied, as the old ordinance was in effect then which defined corner lots to have two front yards.
Mr. March questioned whether the intent of the Planning and Zoning Commission was to modify the
ordinance to indicate corner lots did not have two (2) front yards. If so, the six (6) foot fence would be
allowed because it would be in the side yard.
Council Liasion Broussard Vickers indicated she believed it was the intent of Council to modify the
ordinance as it relates to corner lots and indicate that a corner lot would only have one (1) front yard.
Motion by Commission Member Kilian. seconded by Commission Member McLean to
recommend to Council to ~rant the variance for the 6-foot fence provided the fence is on or inside
Page 10 of 13
the property line. Ayes - 3 Nays - 3 (DeVine. Sheppard. LaMotte) Abstain - 1 (Brainard).
Motion failed.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers stated she was unsure the variance request met the requirements, as
she does not believe the situation is unique and believes the situation was created by their own actions.
Ms. Vickers also stated that a minor revision to the ordinance to change the language to define comer
lots as not having two front yards would solve the problem.
Chairperson Hanson called a five-minute recess at 9:30 p.m.
Chairperson Hanson called the meeting back to order at 9:35 p.m.
4. Ordinance #4 - Building Official's Recommendation for Modification
Mr. Palzer raised an issue in regards to the newly adopted Ordinance #4. A resident recently questioned
how small of a garage could be built in Royal Meadows. Upon reviewing the new ordinance, Mr. Palzer
discovered garages that are attached to the dwelling unit have no minimum size and those detached from
the dwelling unit are limited by the "2% of yard" rule.
By definition, an accessory structure is allowed only to be detached as noted on page 2. On page 19, an
accessory building cannot be attached, so the entire first sentence of the second paragraph should be
deleted. Also the second sentence requires deletion of "unless attached to and made a part of the main
building: and the five (5) foot requirement should be changed to six (6) feet to be consistent with the
building code. Detached accessory structures used, as a garage should be allowed to be larger than 2%
of the yard area in the M-l and R-4 zones due to the very narrow and small lot sizes in these districts.
Most of the homes in these districts occupy most of the width of the lot.
The "District Regulations" should be modified with the addition of a minimum garage size. The
existing regulations require four hundred forty (440) square feet in the R-2 and R-2A zones and six
hundred (600) square feet in the R-5 zone. Mr. Palzer recommended a minimum of two hundred twenty
(220) square feet in the R-4 and M-l zones. The Commission may choose to add a maximum size for an
attached garage. Currently, the building code allows up to three thousand (3,000) square feet as a
maximum, which is extremely large in most of the residential districts in Centerville.
Mr. March stated he would like the City to require a minimum of six hundred (600) square feet of
garage space for all new construction in R2, R-2A and R-5.
Mrs. Richard Haug, 1965 South Robin Lane, stated she was the homeowner Mr. Palzer was referring to
and that she currently has no garage. Mrs. Haug stated she would like to build a garage, as it is her
desire to store some of her lawn and garden equipment, as well as to have a place to park some of her
vehicles.
Mr. Palzer indicated it may be possible for the property owner to attach the garage to the house with a
breezeway and then there would be no maximum square footage limitation.
Mr. March inquired as to the size of garage the property owner would like to construct. Mr. Palzer
stated it was approximately twenty-four (24) by twenty (26) feet or the equivalent of a two and a half car
garage.
Page 11 of 13
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers noted the ordinance needs to be revised defining minimums and
maximums for attached and detached garages.
Mr. Palzer stated it would be his preference to have the garage attached to the house rather than
detached because in his opinion the garage would be better maintained if it were part of the house.
Mrs. Haug inquired as to the height limitation for the structure. Mr. Palzer stated the maximum height is
fourteen (14) feet.
Council Liasion Broussard Vickers suggested Staff draft some suggested wording changes to Ordinance
#4 and present them for a public hearing at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Motion by Commission Member DeVine. seconded by Commission Member Brainard to table
discussion on Ordinance #4 to the November 14. 2000 Plannin2 and Zonin2 Commission Meetin2
at 6:30 p.m. to allow Staff to draft a revision to the ordinance. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
5. Sample Sign Ordinances
Chairperson Hanson recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission schedule workshop dates
to discuss proposed modifications to the sign section of Ordinance #4.
A consensus was that the Planning and Zoning Commission schedule workshops to discuss the proposed
modifications to the sign section of Ordinance #4 on October 17, October 24, November 21, and
November 28,2000 at 6:30 p.m. at the Public Works Building.
Motion by Commission Member DeVine to recommend to Council to amend the si2n section of
Ordinance #4 to establish a special district from 20tb Avenue east to the City limits on both sides of
the street to allow for si2ns two hundred (200) square feet and forty (40) feet hi2h. The motion
died for lack of a second.
Motion by Commission Member Brainard. seconded by Commission Member DeVine to schedule
workshop dates to discuss proposed modifications to the si2n section of Ordinance #4 on October
17. October 24. November 21. and November 28. 2000 at 6:30 p.m. at the Public Works Buildin2.
All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. 2001 Budget
Mr. March discussed with the Commission the 2000 budget with funds being $1,540 and questioned
whether or not the consensus of the Planning and Zoning Commission was to retain the same level for
2001.
It was the consensus of the Planning and Zoning Commission for the budget to remain at $1,540 for
2001.
2. Reschedule November Meeting Due to Elections
Page 12 of 13
It was the consensus of the Planning and Zoning Commission to reschedule the November meeting to
November 14, 2000 due to the elections.
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
There were no discussion items.
VII. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. July 19,2000 Joint Workshop Meeting Minutes
Motion by Commission Member DeVine. seconded by Chairperson LaMotte to approve the July
19.2000 Joint Workshop Meetine Minutes. All in favor. Abstain - 4 (Hanson. Kilian. Sheppard.
McLean). Motion carried.
2. August 1,2000 Meeting Minutes
Motion by Commission Member Kilian. seconded by Commission Member DeVine to approve the
Aueust 1. 2000 Meetine Minutes. All in favor. Abstain -1 (Sheppard). Motion carried.
Council Liaison Broussard Vickers noted she was in attendance at the August 1, 2000 meeting and
requested that it be included in the minutes.
3. September 5,2000 Meeting Minutes
Commission Member McLean requested the minutes be changed to reflect his attendance at the
September 5, 2000 meeting.
Motion by Commission Member McLean. seconded by Commission Member Devine to approve
the September 5. 2000 meetine minutes with the requested chanee. All in favor. Abstain - 4
(LaMotte. Kilian. Hanson. Brainard).
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commission Member DeVine. seconded by Commission Member Sheppard to adjourn
the October 3. 2000 Plannine and Zonine Commission Meetine at 10:00 p.m. All in favor. Motion
carried unanimously.
Transcribed by:
Joan Lenzmeier, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Page 13 of 13