Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 09-29-1981 (Special Meeting) . MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 29, 1981 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, John Bondhus, Bill Burke, Loren Klein. Ed Schaffer. Dick Martie. Members Absent: 1. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meetinq on_~tember 8, 1981. A motion was made by Bill Burke, seconded by Ed Schaffer and unani- mously carried to approve the minutes of the last regular meeting held on September 8, 1981. 2. Public Hearing - variance - Don Lundquist. Don Lundquist, who owns Lot 6, Block 1, Hoglund Addition, made an application for a variance to allow him to build a solarium on the front of his house, which would be 18 feet from the front yard property line, an area where ordinances require a 30 foot set back from the property line. This property is zoned R-l. . Mr. Lundquist's request for an 18 foot front yard set back was that he might be able to build a 12 foot wide and 18 foot solarium on the front of his house. Mr. Lundquistpresented a petition from his ne~ghbors containing their signatures stating they had no opposition to his request for a variance to build a solarium. There was no public comment made either pro or con on this issue. Unanimous approval was given to a motion made by Ed Schaffer and seconded by John Bondhus to grant this variance. 3. Public Hearing - Variance - Monticello Ford, Inc. At the regular meeting of the Monticello City Council on November 7, 1977, a motion was made and carried to approve a variance request for the curbing around the majority of the automobile sales lot at Monticello Ford at its new location on the southwest corner of 1-94 and Hwy 25 for two years, or until November 7, 1979. However, since occupancy of that building did not take place until October of 1978, it was thereby considered that the variance would be extended for two years, or until October of 1980. At this meeting, Mr. Larry Flake, president of Monticello Ford, was present and requested that he not be required to place that curbing for which he was granted a two year variance. His request was that he be granted a permanent variance for the elimination of that curb barrier which was not origina11y put in place. Also, at this time, Mr. Flake requested a variance to be allowed to maintain a vehicle display area on the grass to the north of the garage building across the driveway. . - 1 - . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 9/29/81 His request was based on his feeling that the grass enhances the appearance of the trucks and/or vehicles which are displayed there. His request was that he not be required to place hard surface or curbing around that proposed display area. Further, Mr. Flake requested that on the south side of his property where his variance request for the elimination of curbing was made, that he be allowed to develop an over flow car display area so that when he receives more cars from the manufacturer than he has area to place them, that he might be allowed to use that as an over flow area. After discussing the variance request with Mr. Flake and also dis- cussing possible alternates, a motion was made by Ed Schaffer and seconded by Bill Burke and carried unanimously to grant the following variance. 1. That Mr. Flake be allowed to eliminate the curb barrier permanently on the south and west sides of the existing hard surfaced area. 2. That Mr. Flake be allowed to develop the grassed area to the north of the existing building for a vehicle display area with no customer parking allowed in that area. 3. That Mr. Flake be allowed to develop the area to the south of the existing hard surfaced area as an over flow vehicle display area with no customer parking allowed. 4. That in light of granting the variance for the curbing on the south and west sides of the hard surfaced area, that in the future, should the area to the west of the Monticello Ford be developed, that consideration for drainage such as was discussed in the letter from the city engineer to the city administrator dated September 27, 1977, be taken into consideration for providing for proper storm water drainage from the area of Monticello Ford. 4. Simple Subdivision Request - Darwin and Shirley Straw. Darwin and shirley Straw, owners of the westerly 69 feet of vacated Elm Street between River Street and the Mississippi River and Lot 5 and the easterly 66 feet of Lot 6, Block 60, which is zoned R-2, have made a request for a simple subdivision to divide that property into two equal lots. The total frontage of that property on River Street amounts to approximately 135 feet. The Straws proposed to make two equal lots of approximately 67~ feet each. Those two newly created lots would be less than the 80 foot frontage requirement, as required by the present subdivision ordinance, however, it would be l~ feet more in width than the property which is located in that area of the original plat of the community. That original plat width was 66 feet. - 2 - Planning Commission Minutes - 9/29/81 . Presently, there is a dwelling located on the vacated Elm Street portion of the lot, but there is no dwelling on the portion of the lot which is comprised of Lot 5 and the east 66 feet of Lot 6, of Block 60. Since this was a simple subdivision request, that is; making two lots out of one, it was not necessary to go through the entire subdivision process to make these two lots. Mr. Straw indicated that if this proposal was granted, that he would most likely remove the existing older home on the vacated Elm Street portion of the property and would then build two new homes, one on each of the two newly created lots. A motion was made by Ed Schaffer and seconded by Bill Burke, and unanimously passed to recommend approval of this simple subdivision contingent upon the Straws providing the city a certificate of survey showing that the existing dwelling on the vacated portion of Elm Street would be ten or more feet from the newly created property line. If that distance between the existing house and the newly created property line were less than lO feet, then the Straws would be required to come back to the city for approval of this subdivision request and go through the public hearing variance process which would be necessary for a less than 10 foot variance set back. . 5. Some discussion took place regarding the review of the ordinances and updating of the ordinances, etc. It was decided that the city staff would present the Planning Commission with some recommendations for consideration of the existing ordinances prior to the meeting in November, to give the Planning Commission some time to review those considerations: and to possibly find areas which they felt themselves needed some discussion. D. ein Zoning Administrator - 3 - .