PLANNING COMMISSION – REGULAR MEETING – JANUARY 21, 2014
Regular Meeting of the Morris Planning Commission was called to order at 5:15
p.m. this 21st day of January, 2014, by
Vice Chairperson Rudney in the Council Chambers of the Morris Senior
OF THE ROLL: Roll Call was taken with the following
members present: Commissioners
Granger, Livingston, Kurpiers, and Vice Chairperson Rudney. Commissioner Hoffman arrived at
5:17. Absent were Chairperson
Kuchenreuther and Commissioner Gades.
Also present was City Manager/Zoning Administrator Hill. Ex-officio Miller arrived at 5:30.
BUSINESS: Election of Chairperson and Vice
Chairperson for 2014:
Commissioner Kurpiers moved, seconded by Granger, to continue with the
same officers for 2014 – Kuchenreuther as Chairperson and Rudney as Vice
Chairperson. With all present
voting in favor, motion carried.
Commercial District Discussion: Commissioner
Granger pointed out three typographical errors in the draft. Subd. 2.D.1. should
read, “No parcel shall be larger than three (3) standard 50 X 140 ft. lots or 21,000
sq. ft.” instead of 2,100 square feet.
In Subd. 2.C.12, the last word should be plural – structures. In Subd. 2.D.4 (b), Granger feels in the
second sentence, the word “he” should be changed to “they”. It was the consensus to make these
asked why parking lots are listed as permitted under Accessory uses, and then
are listed again as Conditional uses.
Hill indicated he interprets that as parking lots are for a
business, and automobile parking lots as listed under Conditional uses are as
a business. It was the consensus to
change the wording of C.14 to Automobile parking lots as a primary use.
questioned the maximum lot coverage of 40%. She indicated if a parcel included 3
lots for a total of 21,000 square feet, that would mean a building could be
8,400 square feet which is larger than about every
building in Morris. She calculated
building sizes and as a comparison, Bank of the West is 5,600 square feet, City
Hall is 4,000 square feet, Dakotah Bank is 6,300 square feet, and McGinnis
Appliance is 3,500 square feet. She
feels this district should be more compatible with residential neighborhoods,
and an 8,400 square foot building wouldn’t be compatible. Granger suggested 30% coverage per lot
– one lot would allow 2,100 square feet of coverage, two lots would allow
4,200 square feet of coverage, and three lots would allow 6,300 square feet of
coverage. She suggested it could be
reduced to 25% for the largest parcels.
Another suggestion would be to put a limit on a combination of parking
and building size. Rudney
indicated he feels it would complicate things to limit the combination of
parking and building size, and feels the size of the building only should be
indicated the Planning Commission is trying to make this new district
compatible with residences, and she feels 30% coverage would accomplish
that. Hill indicated that he
figured the setbacks on a lot, and 40% coverage was what was left over. That is how he came up with 40%. He noted it was originally 30%. Hoffman indicated he feels 30% would be
compatible with the residential neighborhood. Hill noted the R zone addresses coverage
by lot size – a lot less than 7,000 square feet is allowed 30% coverage,
and a lot of more than 7,000 is allowed 25%
coverage. Hoffman noted that in a
new structure, the bathrooms alone take up a large amount of space. He feels nothing will be done in this
district if the Code is too restrictive.
the consensus to allow up to 40% coverage (2,800 square feet) on one lot, 30%
coverage (4,200 square feet) on two lots, and 25% coverage (5,250 square feet)
on three lots.
yard setbacks are 25’ in the R and RM zones, and that is what is being proposed
in this new zone. Granger pointed
out the rear setback in this new zone is proposed to be 20’, but it is 30’ in
the RM zone and 28’ in the R zone.
She questioned if the rear setback should be 30’ as in the RM zone. Side yard setbacks in the R zone are 10’,
and that is being proposed in this new zone. Granger feels this setback is too
small. Kurpiers suggested screening
could help. Granger feels screening
cannot be accomplished with a 10’ sideyard setback. Hill pointed out the sideyard setback is
5’ on a 50’ lot in the Residential zone.
Wilcox stated the corner lots have to be taken into consideration. Hill noted in the R zone there are
interior sideyard and street sideyard setbacks. Granger pointed out with the setback
requirements in this zone a 50’ lot would accommodate a 40’ wide by 70’ deep
asked what the difference was between 3 under Permitted Uses, “The renting of
rooms or the providing of table board to not more than three persons per single
family dwelling”, and 5 under Permitted Uses, “Boarding and Lodging
Houses.” Hill indicated the
difference is that the renting of rooms listed under Permitted Uses is a
primary use of the property, and boarding and lodging houses in Permitted Uses
asked for clarification between on and off sale liquor establishments under
Conditional Use Permits, and Restaurants listed under Permitted Uses. It was noted restaurants would not sell
alcohol, whereas the liquor establishments would have a liquor license.
indicated she feels the 5-story building height for residential multi-family
structures is out of scale. Hill
indicated the Planning Commission could change that.
Kuchenreuther could not make it to this meeting, but sent a note to the
Planning Commission regarding screening.
She feels the 2nd sentence of Subd. 2.D.6. should
read, “However, the Planning Commission may permit a lesser degree of screening
if it is presented with an alternative plan that adequately promotes and
protects the use and enjoyment of properties within the adjacent residential
districts or…” It was the consensus
to include this language.
was held on signage and allowable sizes.
Hill noted the only thing he had for signage is that this district should
be included in a category in Performance Standards. Granger indicated she feels signage in
this district should be limited more than the Central Business District, which
allows up to 16’ X 16’ signs. There
is no limit on size in either CBD, HB, I1 or I2 if a
sign is painted or attached to the front of a building. It was the consensus to include the NC
District under Subd. 2.D.i of Sign Regulations in Performance Standards as it requires
smaller signs for commercial buildings.
indicated she proposes 15’ to 20’ sideyard setbacks. Rudney pointed out that those setbacks
leave very little buildable space on a 50’ lot. It was the consensus that 10’ sideyard
setbacks are adequate.
indicated that presently an entire lot can be parking
lot except for the right of way.
She feels that should be restricted. Kurpiers pointed out parking lots are an
accessory use, and small scale automotive sales are
allowed. It was the consensus to
add (e) to Subd. 2.D which states there is a 25’ street
sideyard setback for non-residential uses.
asked about addressing towers and satellite dishes in the Performance
suggested adding to Subd. 2.D.10 which states “Where the City Code talks about
Residential and Commercial Districts, the Neighborhood Commercial District will
be considered Residential and the more restrictive rule will apply, except for
signage.” Livingston asked if this
would prevent someone from getting a variance. Hill indicated a person could still get
a variance. It was the consensus to
add this phrase.
explained the new draft will be sent to the City Council for their review, the
Planning Commission should set a public hearing on the new zone to be held at
the February meeting to take City Council and public comment, and then the
Ordinance should be sent to the City Council for 1st and 2nd
readings, and final passage.
Commissioner Kurpiers moved, seconded by Livingston, to do the three
things listed above. Motion
ADJOURNMENT: There being no
further business, Commissioner Granger moved, seconded by Livingston, to
adjourn. Motion carried and the
meeting adjourned at 6:33.