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 -
.