Planning Commission Minutes 06-09-1987
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 9, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Jim Ridgeway,
Joyce Dowling, Barbara Koropchak
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Gary Anderson
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at
7:34 p.m.
2. Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the
minutes of the May 12, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. Motion
carried unanimously with Barbara Koropchak absent.
Barbara Koropchak arrived at the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
3. Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow more than 12
apartment units in a downtown commercial building. A variance request
to allow five existing apartments to remain on the first floor of
a downtown commercial building as a non-conforming use. Applicant,
Gary Hammer.
Mr. Gary Hammer was present to propose his request to renovate his
building and have the restaurant removed to allow commercial/retail
office rental space in the former cafe rental space. Mr. Hammer
explained the reason for terminating the restaurant was that they
tried originally to start up the restaurant business on their own.
They purchased the equipment themselves. They have had three previous
people in there just to run the restaurant with the intention of buying
the equipment, and none of those three have been able to make money
at this; therefore, Mr. Hammer would like to terminate the restaurant
business.
Mr. Hammer did indicate that after he filed his application for the
public hearing notice, he did meet with a new prospective tenant
to rent the restaurant portion of the building and has proposed to
her a one-year lease with the lease including outright purchase of
the restaurant equipment. Mr. Hammer indicated his intent was to
get input now from the Planning Commission, should the new lease
not take place, whether or not he could convert the use of the restaurant
to a rental retail/commercial space.
Planning Commission Chairperson Richard Carlson opened the meeting
for the input from the public. There being no input from the public,
Planning Commission member Jim Ridgeway questioned why the Planning
Commission should consider changing the conditional use when we went
through extensive planning work to allow this operation as a conditional
use in the first place. Commission member Joyce Dowling questioned
-1-
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/9/87
.
why he would be changing the use when he indicated he already had
a lessee for the restaurant. Joyce also questioned why he would
be changing the use of the restaurant space when we already have
downtown many office retail spaces that are vacant, or do you already
have somebody in line to rent an office retail space from you? Mr.
Hammer countered that he had intentions, if the restaurant business
did not work out, of converting it to some type of allowable commercial
business type use in a 8-4 Zone where he could start his own business.
Commission member Barbara Koropchak questioned if the tenants in
the upstairs and main floor rental units of this building are using
the restaurant facilities. Mr. Hammer indicated that the tenants
aren't obligated to use the restaurant as part of their lease; but
with the type of people that are renting the units, most of them
being construction workers, they do patronize the restaurant business.
Commission member Jim Ridgeway questioned if his retail rental space
does not go over, what will stop him from converting it entirely
into apartment units. Zoning Administrator Anderson said we have
enough teeth within our ordinance that this could not be allowed;
but conceivably it could be allowed if someone would come in and
apply for it as a conditional use.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Chairperson Richard Carlson
that he had received a letter and would like to enter it into the
record for public testimony.
.
The letter was read by Chairperson Richard Carlson. It was from
Dr. Kasper, a commercial property owner across Cedar Street from
the applicant's building. The basic content of the letter was voicing
his objection to the conditional use when some of the tenants of
the rental units in this building are taking up prime parking spaces
in front of his building or in his private parking lot and parking
their vehicles there all day long.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and asked
for a motion. Motion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Joyce Dowling,
to table Mr. Hammer's request for a conditional use to allow more
than 12 apartment units in a downtown commercial building, and a
variance request to allow five existing apartments to remain on the
first floor of a downtown commercial building as a non-conforming
use. Motion carried unanimously. The reason for denial is that
the owner, Mr. Hammer, has a prospective tenant or lessee for the
restaurant portion of his building at this time, and maybe some concessions
could be made between the owner and the lessee where this lessee
could make a go of the restaurant business.
.
Zoning Administrator Anderson asked Mr. Hammer if he would consider
the letter we received from Dr. Kasper and talk with the caretaker
of his building or notify all the tenants in the building to take
their daytime parking of vehicles into another area that wouldn't
be in the prime parking spots for other commercial businesses in
or near the restaurant portion of this building. Mr. Hammer indicated
-2-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/9/87
he would talk to the caretaker of his building after the meeting
tonight and notify all the tenants to make sure that they are going
to park off street during the daytime hours and park in a public
parking lot near the old Monticello fire station.
4.
Public Hearing - A variance request to allow construction of a garage/porch
addition within the sideyard setback requirements. Applicant, Max
and Sue LaVelle.
Mr. David Crummy was present on behalf of the applicant, Max and
Sue LaVelle, to propose their request to construct a garage/porch
addition onto their existing house within the sideyard setback requirement.
Mr. crummy indicated the seback on the southeast corner of the garage
addition would be approximately 12 feet from the side property line,
and the southwest corner of the garage addition would be approximately
17 feet from the side property line. The minimum requirement of
a sideyard setback on a corner lot is 20 feet. Mr. Crummy indicated
the proposed addition would be a garage and a screened porch and
a storage area, with the existing garage to be remodeled into a rec
room or family room. Commission members questioned how the City
staff felt in regards to the applicant's request. Zoning Administrator
Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members that staff had
no problems with the applicant's variance request in that the minimum
square footages for the proposed house and the garage/porch addition
met the minimum requirements, were within the maximum requirements
of the ordinance in that the maximum lot coverage was less than the
maximum allowed of 30 percent, and with the additional right-Of-way
with West County Road 75 which goes by this property, there is sufficient
right-Of-way and no sight lines would be obstructed at the intersection
of Oakview Lane and West County Road 75. Chairperson Richard Carlson
then closed the public hearing and asked for a motion.
Motion by Barbara Koropchak, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve
the variance request to allow construction of a garage/porch addition
within the sideyard setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously.
5. Consideration to approve the final platting of a replatted lot to
be known as Colony by the Greens Third Addition. Applicant, Jay
and Vivian Miller.
Mr. Jay Miller was present to propose final platting of a subdivided
residential lot into eight townhouse lots with an outlot to be known
as the Colony by the Greens Third Addition. Chairperson Richard
Carlson questioned if the staff had any concerns with the final subdivision
plat. zoning Administrator Anderson indicated that all of the minimum
setback requirements and minimum townhouse and garage square footages
were met, and the only Change from Colony by the Greens First and
Second Additions is that these have an upper level. Chairperson
Richard Carlson then asked for a motion on the proposed final platting
request.
Motion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Joyce DOWling, to approve the
final platting of a replatted lot to be known as Colony by the Greens
Third Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
-3-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/9/87
Additional Information Items
Zoning Administrator Anderson went through the additional information
items with the Planning Commission members, and they are as follows.
1.
A request for partial subdivision of a residential outlot, Outlot H,
Meadow Oak Addition, to be known as the Meadow Oak Fourth Addition.
Applicant, Dickman Knutson. Council action: Approved with conditions.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
that the Council approved in its entirety with a few additional conditions
Mr. Knutson's request for partial platting of the Outlot H to be
known as the Meadow Oak Fourth Addition. The only change was that
the entire Outlot H has to be platted prior to recording; and by
allowing the whole thing to be platted, the Council granted staging
of it with the first part of the first 14 lots would be platted only
at this time. Other conditions such as drainage and grading of the
existing area around the lots, with the drainage being directed to
the pond between the Meadow Oak Second Addition and the Meadow Oak
Estates, were agreed upon and put into a signed agreement between
City staff and Dickman Knutson. Three other items were included
in the agreement as follows. 1) An additional catch basin be installed
at the intersection of Oakview Lane and Meadow Oak Drive; 2) A
catch basin be constructed to the rear of the lots near the White
Oak Circle cul-de-sac in the Meadow Oak Estates Addition; 3) Money
be put up front by the developer to pay for the entire sealcoating
of the Meadow Oak Second Addition. Also as part of the agreement,
the developer went back to the original concept of the Planned Unit
Development, that being a minimum of two trees to be planted in the
front yards of bare lots where new houses are constructed, and the
sod or seeding of the entire area not taken up by the house back
to the rear of the house.
2.
Conditional use request to allow minor auto repair in a B-4 (Regional
Business) Zone. Applicant, James Eisele. Council action: Approved.
Council followed along with Planning Commission's recommendation
for approval of Mr. Eisele's proposed renovation of the existing
building. However, Mr. Eisele had submitted an alternative proposal
to the City Council which was not presented to the Planning Commission,
that being removal of the existing building with a new building to
be constructed further back on the lot. The Council granted the
conditional use permit with the condition that the applicant hook
up to water and sewer and that it be installed prior to issuance
of a certificate of occupancy.
3. Consideration of Adopting Tax Increment District #7. Council action:
Approved.
This was the establishment of Tax Increment District #7 for the new
H-Window Company to be known as the North American Window Company.
-4-
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/9/87
.
4. A request for open discussion of proposed sketch plan for unplatted
property. Applicant, Rivera Financial and Development Corporation.
Council action: Send back to Planning Commission.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated that Mr. Rivera had
Mr. Dennis Taylor present at the citizens comments section of the
last City Council meeting on May 26. The Council informed Mr. Taylor
of the minimum requirements of the ordinance and that he should take
it back to the Monticello Planning Commission to go through the proper
channels for filing his request. Zoning Administrator Anderson also
informed the Planning Commission members that Mr. Rivera will be
back before them at the next Planning Commission meeting in July
to propose a rezoning request and have a preliminary plat for his
proposed new subdivision to be known as the Highland Heights Addition.
5. Annexation Update.
.
zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
that the public hearings for the annexation have been completed,
and the State Municipal Board has up to two years to render their
decision. The City of Monticello has received some indication from
the Municipal Board that a decision may be forthcoming in or about
90 days. If this decision does come within that time, one could
assume that there would be an appeal filed by the Monticello Township
Board.
.
6. Consensus of the Planning Commission members was that they set the
next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission meeting
for Tuesday, July 14, 1987, 7:30 p.m. Zoning Administrator Anderson
asked if he could receive some input from the Planning Commission
members on the blight portion of our ordinance. zoning Administrator
Anderson indicated that there are approximately 110 blight letters
that have been sent out for excessive grass height and weeds and
non-current licensed vehicles. The overall response has been very
positive from the blight letter recipients in that they have taken
the necessary steps to correct the blight within a very short time
upon receipt of the letter. The problem Zoning Administrator Anderson
indicated to the Planning Commission members was that the ordinance
is set up where they get 14 days to correct the blight. If it is
not completed within 14 days, it is turned over to the city attorney's
office. That's where the problem comes in. They are not processed
immediately from the city attorney's office, and he puts a timetable
on them at his own discretion. Most of the time the delay from the
initial sending of the letter to the letter being sent out from the
attorney with the completion date of correcting the violation can
be anywhere from two to three months. Many times after that period
of time, the violation still hasn't been cleared up. The consensus
from the Planning Commission members was that the ordinance be adhered
to in its entirety. When the 14 days are up, corrective action should
be taken by the City to eliminate the blight problem which exists
rather than going through the route of sending it on to the attorney
and then his sending a letter to the property owner.
-5-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/9/87
7. Planning Commission member Jim Ridgeway questioned Zoning Administrator
Anderson what the City was doing on the downtown redevelopment.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Commission members that
the Council had approved an expenditure to have OSM prepare a computer
aided mapping of the entire downtown area. With the new mapping
of the area, different areas could be developed and copies made of
prospective development showing exactly what is existing on each
of these blocks within the downtown redevelopment area. Commission
members questioned Joyce Dowling, as she is the only business person
on the Planning Commission Board, of what her feelings were on the
downtown development progress. Joyce felt that the general consensus
of the property owners downtown was to get something going, and they
were waiting for the City to follow through on their end. Mr. Ridgeway
volunteered his support and time to make the contacts with the business
people downtown to get something going on the downtown redevelopment.
He wanted it made very clear that he is an independent person willing
to help out to see something happen in the downtown area.
Motion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Richard Martie, to adjourn the
meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
dj!!8~
Gary Anderson
zoning Administrator
-6-