Planning Commission Minutes 04-10-1984
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
April 10, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Don Cochran, Ed Schaffer.
Members Absent: Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson.
Also Present: Tom Eidem, City Administrator.
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission
was duly held at 7:30 P.M. on April 10, 1984, in the City Council
Chambers. Members present were: Ridgeway, Cochran, Schaffer. Members
absent were: Dowling, Carlson. Also present was Tom Eidem, City
Administrator. The meeting was called to order by Ridgeway. On
a motion by Cochran with a second by Schaffer, the minutes of March 13,
1984, and March 26, 1984, were approved as read.
3. public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow a Self-Service
Car wash and a Self-Service Gas Station/Convenience Store in a B-3
Zone, Applicant - Samuel Construction.
.
Ridgeway convened the public hearing requesting any public comment.
Mr. Sam Peraro, representing Samuel Construction, addressed the
Planning Commission providing a brief explanation of his proposed
project. He noted that all conditions as stipulated in the Ordinance
were to be complied with. Mr. Peraro acknowledged that in an earlier
discussion with Gary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, he was made aware
of the fact that he would have to increase the number of parking
spaces or apply for a Variance. Peraro indicated that Mr. Anderson
advised him that he would require eight parking spaces instead of
four. peraro also indicated that immediately prior to this meeting
he had met with Ridgeway and Eidem to discuss the parking problem
and was informed that the project would require 13 spaces rather
than eight parking spaces. Peraro noted that he had ample land to
supply those parking spaces and that he did not wish a Variance to
have lesser parking spaces. He agreed to provide a new architectural
rendering of the site showing all 13 spaces. peraro indicated that
he would have the rendering available to present to Anderson at the
time of filing for the building permit.
There being no additional public comment, Ridgeway closed the public
hearing. A motion was made by Cochran, duly seconded by SChaffer,
and carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council that a
Conditional Use for a self-service car wash and self-service convenience
store/fuel station be granted.
.
- 1 -
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/10/84
.
4. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow a Sideyard Variance Within
Five Feet of a Side Lot Line and a Variance Request to Allow Another
Driveway Access Within 40 Feet of an Existing Driveway, Applicant _
Best in Webb.
.
Ridgeway convened the public hearing asking for any public comment
on the proposal. Mr. Wayne Bidwell, representing Best in Webb,
came before the Commission to provide detailed explanation of the
site plan. He explained that in order to accommodate the size of
expansion his firm required, the building would need to be
built within five feet of the side lot line. In referring to the
Variance Request for the second driveway, he explained tllat two
loading berths were required for the new building and that it would
be virtually impossible to serve the building if the driveways had
to be 40 feet apart. Commission member Cochran questioned Eidem
with respect to a letter that was submitted by John Simola, Monticello
Public Works Director. Cochran's question referred to the following
statement: "We are opposed to these types of Variances." Eidem
explained that Simola's comment was primarily addressing two Variances
that were not officially applied for, viz, that off-street parking
shall not be allowed within 15 feet of street surfacing and that
the boulevard portion of any street right-of-way shall not be used
for parking. He explained that the configuration of the loading
berths when occupied by trucks would violate both of these provisions.
He stated that Simola's comment was primarily from the Public Works
Department but that it had general staff support. Eidem noted that
while these variances were not in the form of formal requests,
approving the building and site configuration would implicitly
approve these Variances. This was Simola's concern.
Mr. Bidwell indicated that it would be easy for him to move his
proposed building westerly 10 feet, but that he had designed it so
that the east wall of the proposed building would be in line with
the east wall of the existing building for aesthetic purposes.
He indicated he saw no real difficulty moving the building westerly
to accommodate the loading berth requirements. Bidwell noted that
to move the building westerly would not really alter the submitted
Variance requests. He indicated he would still need a Variance to
place the building within five feet of the side lot line and a Variance
to have two driveways wi thin 40 feet of each other. Prior to the
making of any motion, the Commission asked Bidwell to confirm that
the site configuration would be amended to show the proposed building
being placed westerly 10 feet from its proposed location to address
the loading berth question. Bidwell agreed to that provision.
There being no other public comment, Ridgeway closed the hearing.
A motion was made by Cochran, duly seconded by SChaffer, and carried
unanimously to grant a Variance to Best in Webb for two driveway
accesses within 40 feet of each other and to grant a Variance allowing
a building to be within five feet of the side yard line.
.
- 2 -
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/10/84
.
5. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow Another Driveway Access
Within 40 Feet of an Existing Driveway Access, Applicant - Dairy
Queen of Monticello.
Ridgeway convened the public hearing. There were no representatives
of the applicant present at the meeting. There being no public
response to the public hearing, Ridgeway closed the hearing. Planning
Commission members briefly discussed the request, with Ridgeway
noting that the adjacent property owner was also the applicant and
hence, the proposal could accommodate development on both parcels.
Motion was made by Schaffer, duly seconded by Cochran, and carried
unanimously to approve the request for a Variance allowing a driveway
access within 40 feet of an existing driveway access.
6.
public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow a New Detached Garage
to be Built up to the Front Property Line, Applicant - Norbert
Kelly, Jr.
.
Ridgeway convened the public hearing. The applicant was not in
attendance to address the issue. There being no other members
of the public wishing to address this issue, Ridgeway closed the
hearing. Commission members conducted a brief discussion familiarizing
themselves with the parcel in question and noting the restrictions
on the land because of its proximity to the Mississippi River.
Ridgeway noted that the garage is intended to replace an existing
shed. Further, he noted that a curb cut that will become non-
functional will be filled in at the applicant's expense. Motion
was made by Cochran, duly seconded by Schaffer, and carried
unanimously to approve the request for a Variance from Norbert Kelly, Jr.,
allowing the construction of a detached garage up to the front property
line.
7.
Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow Apartments in a
Business Building in a B-4 Zone, Applicant - Tom Hammer.
Ridgeway convened the public hearing. Ridgeway raised a question
relating to whether or not this is an appropriate request. He
indicated that he could not find in the Zoning Ordinance where
residential units were allowed as Conditional Uses within the B-4
Zone. Eidem noted that the discrepancy had been discovered by staff
during a conversation with Mr. Hammer's attorney. Eidem also stated
that he had been in touch with both Mr. Hammer and his attorney and
that they had requested a continuance of the public hearing to the
next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting since they could
not be in attendance on this particular evening due to an emergency.
Eidem went on to say that he had notified Mr. Hammer's attorney that
the Conditional Use Request seemed to be out of order and that upon
Mr. Anderson's return from Tennessee City staff would discuss the
.
- 3 -
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4/10/84
issue and respond to Mr. Hammer and his attorney. Motion was made
by Cochran, duly seconded by SChaffer, and carried unanimously to
continue the public hearing to May 8, 1984, the next regularly
scheduled Planning Commission meeting. The Commission directed
Eidem to try to resolve any misunderstandings and confusion over
the issues prior to that hearing.
8.
Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow an outdoor Sales
Lot and a Minor Auto Repair Business in a B-3 Zone, Applicant -
Eugene Kunke 1.
Ridgeway convened the public hearing. The applicant for the
Conditional Use was not represented. There being no other members
of the public present to speak to the issue, Ridgeway closed the
hearing. Mr. Cochran, upon noting the location of the proposed
Conditional Use, inquired as to the status of the Conditional Use
Permit that was granted at an earlier meeting to Murfin Landscaping
for the same site. Ridgeway indicated that Murfin Landscaping had
gone out of business, and hence, the Conditional Use was forfeit.
Eidem noted that there had been other Conditional Use Requests for
this site, and a major concern consistently arose over the landscaping
and hard surfacing requirements. Ridgeway noted that there were
18 requirements explicitly stipulated in the Ordinance for auto
sales and minor auto repair, and that the applicant had agreed to
abide by all conditions. Motion was made by Cochran, duly seconded
by Schaffer, and carried unanimously to recommend to the City
Council that a Conditional Use Permit be granted to Eugene Kunkel
to allow an outdoor sales lot and a minor auto repair business in
a B-3 Zone.
9.
Eidem requested the Planning Commission to address a non-agenda item.
Eidem provided Commission members with copies of a proposed resolution
granting approval to Tax Increment Finance District #4. He noted that
the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority had given their
approval to the Tax Increment Finance plan on April 4, 1984. Eidem
explained that while District #4 is a separate legal entity, the
project involving IXI is really an extension of Tax Increment Finance
District #1. He noted that individual districts were being established
to maximize the capturing of tax increment throughout the phased
construction of IXI' s complex. Eidem further advised that the project
proposal was in full compliance with all City planning and zoning
regulations. A motion was made by Schaffer and duly seconded by Cochran
and carried unanimously to adopt the following resolution: See
Resolution 1984 # 12.
Motion was made by Cochran, duly seconded by SChaffer, and carried unanimously
for the April 10, 1984, meeting of the Planning Commission to adjourn.
L--kLL
Thomas A. Eidem
City Administrator
- 4 -