Planning Commission Minutes 05-01-1979 (Special Meeting)
.
.
.
.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 1, 1979 - 7:30 P.M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Fred Topel, Ed Schaffer, Dick Martie.
Loren Klein (ex-officio)
Members Absent: Dave Bauer
1. Approval of Minutes.
A motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Fred Topel and unanimously
carried to approve the Minutes of April 17, 1979 as presented.
2. Consideration of a Variance on a Sideyard Setback and Subdivision of
a Parcel - Mr. & Mrs. Harry Benson.
Mr. & Mrs. Harry Benson, owners of Lots 6 & 7 in Block 11 in Lower
Monticello, are requesting the following:
A. Variance from sideyard setback requirements of 10' to allow an
existing garage to have its drip line right up to the abutting
property line to the west.
B. Subdivision of parcel to allow a garage to be entirely on their own
property.
Currently, there is an existing garage that straddles the property
line between that of Mr. & Mrs. Harry Benson and that of Kevin Olson.
Apparently, this garage was built before a permit was required several
years ago, and now the situation is trying to be rectified in light of
a potential sale that Mr. & Mrs. Harry Benson have of their property to
Mr. Gene Carlson. Mr. & Mrs. Benson are negotiating to purchase a strip
of land that will be 10' wide and 135' deep from Mr. & Mrs. Kevin Olson
to allow their garage to be entirely on their own parcel. In exchange
for this parcel, Mr. & Mrs. Benson will give Mr. Kevin Olson a strip
that will be 30' x 66' towards the southerly rear end of their property.
A motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by Fred Topel and unanimously
carried to approve the subdivision as indicated above.
A motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by Fred Topel and unanimously
carried to approve of the sideyard setback variance.
A motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by Fred Topel and unanimously
carried to recommend to the City Council that they go on record as approving
a sideyard setback variance from the east property line for Mr. & Mrs.
Kevin Olson or a subsequent owner of their parcel. This variance would
apply to the possibility of a future garage being built on the parcel
owned by Mr. & Mrs. Kevin Olson, and also the motion was contingent upon
all safety precautions being taken care of at the time. Purpose of this
motion was to satisfy Mr. & Mrs. Kevin Olson for their concern in allowing
10' of their easterly property line to be deeded over to Mr. & Mrs. Harry Benson
.
.
.
.
Minutes - Planning Comm. - 5/1/79
and what effects this may have on a future garage if they were to build
one on their parcel or a subsequent owner were to build one. It is
further understood that if the Council ultimately decides to accept the
recommendation, that one council cannot bind another.
3.
Consideration of a Variance Request on a Rear Yard Setback - Mr. & Mrs.
Ed Klein.
Mr. & Mrs. Ed Klein, who owns lots 1 & 2 of Block 37, upper Monticello,
propose to divide their lots in order to have the length run east and
west instead of north and south.
With the change of lot line, it is necessary to request a variance
because the rear yard setback for the existing house on Lot 2 would
only be 26' instead of the required 30'
Motion was made by Fred Topel, seconded by Ed Schaffer and unanimously
carried to approve of the variance request.
4. Consideration of a Variance Request on Sideyard Setback - Janet Irvine.
Janet Irvine would like to build a garage on her property, Lot 5, Block E,
Riggs Addition, within 6' of the sideyard property line. Address is
325 E. 4th Street.
MS. Irvine has presented a letter from the abutting property owner stating
no objection to the proposed 24' x 24' garage. A motion was made by
Ed Schaffer, seconded by Fred Topel and unanimously carried to approve
of the variance request.
5.
Consideration of a Variance Request for Two Accessory Buildings -
John Kiebel.
Mr. John Kiebel is requesting a variance to build a double garage on his
property at 424 East 4th street (Lots 3 & 8, and W ~ of 2 & 9, Block 36
Lower Monticello). A variance is necessary because the Monticello
Ordinance does not allow more than one garage or accessory building
per lot.
presently, Mr. Kiebel has one single garage on his property setting
on permanent footings, and is proposing to make an accessory building out
of it if he builds his new garage.
A motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by Ed Schaffer and unanimously
carried to approve of the variance request.
6. Consideration of Variance Request from Minimum First Floor Square Foot-
age Requirements - Marvin George - Balboul Estates.
Marvin George Builders has made an application for a variance from
Monticello Ordinances requiring a one-story dwelling to be a minimum
of 1,000 square feet on the first floor.
- 2 -
Minutes - Planning Carom. - 5/1/79
.
Mr. Marvin George presented information at the meeting indicating that
he would like to have a variance to build homes that would be 24' x 38',
or 912 square feet. These homes would be three bedroom. Purpose for
the variance request according to Mr. George is as follows:
A. Mr. George felt a good mixture of split entries and ramblers makes
an area more aesthetic in appearance than an area with all split
entries. Mr. George indicated if a variance weren't granted, that
he would have to build all split entries in Balboul Estates.
B. By having a smaller minimum requirement for square footage or granting
a variance to Mr. Marvin George, he felt that the cost of homes
would be reduced and would make it more accessible to the person
in a lower income bracket.
c. If the variance were granted, split entry. homes and the ramblers
he intends to build in Balboul Estates would cost about the same
amount of money.
Mr. George further indicated that similar homes of the same size are
being built in Elk River, Clearwater and Buffalo.
Following is testimony received from residents opposed to the variance:
.
Don Christopher - Opposed to the variance, and felt that a home the size
of 28' x 42', or 1,176 square feet was about as small as the City
should allow.
Paul Lindblad feels the variance would change the quality of the
community, and was opposed.
Daryl Tindle - Opposed as it would devalue homes in the area.
Motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Dick Martie and unanimously
carried to recommend to the Council that they deny the variance request.
7. Consideration of Variances Relative to the Use of a Mobile Home as
a Sales Office in a B-3 Zone - Scott Potato Company.
Scott Potato Company, which operates a potato brokerage office during
the potato season south of Monticello Ford on a parcel owned by
Larry Flake, is requesting the following variances:
A. variance from building code provisions. Mobile home does not meet
building code, and would have been considered as grandfathered in;
however, it has been moved to a different location and this would be
subject to the building code.
.
B. Variance from hardsurface parking requirements for an office.
C. Variance from landscaping requirements.
.
- 3 -
Minutes - Planning Comm. - 5/1/79
.
Mr. Myron Jensen spoke in favor of the variance and indicated that it
was his understanding that Scott Potato Company is only asking for a
one year variance.
A representative from Scott Potato Company was not at the meeting;
however, a motion was made by Fred Topel, seconded by Ed Schaffer and
unanimously carried to grant a one-year variance to allow Scott
Potato Company to use the mobile home at the present site without
any improvements.
8. Consideration of Approval of a Subdivision of Land - Mr. Ed Rivers.
Mr. Ed Rivers would like approval to sell 15' of his property on the
west side to his neighbor, Mr. Dick Frie. Legal description of this
parcel is Lot 1, Block 1 of Kampa Estates.
In selling this property, Mr. Rivers would be reducing his present
lot from 16,875 square feet down to 14,850 square feet, which would
still leave the lot 2,850 square feet larger than is necessary in
that zoning, which is R-l.
Motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by Ed Schaffer and unanimously
carried to approve of the variance request contingent upon a certificate
of survey being presented to the City before final approval.
9.
Consideration of Scheduling Hearing on Ordinance Amendment for
Blacktop or Concrete Driveways.
.
City Administrator, Gary Wieber, informed the Planning Commission
that the Council previously had deleted, a building code section provi-
sion within the Ordinances which had required that all driveways,
including single and two family residences, to have blacktop or
concrete driveways. with the deletion of the Ordinance in the building
code section, the only provision the City now has relative to driveways
is in the zoning ordinance section, which requires all driveways to be
hardsurfaced with concrete or blacktop, except for single and two family
dwellings.
As a result of some of the concerns expressed at the meeting of the
Planning Commission, it was felt that this ordinance certainly
deserves consideration, and it was decided to advertise an ordinance
amendment for the Planning Commission's next meeting, May 15, 1979,
to consider the ordinance amendment which would require all driveways
to be hardsurfaced with concrete or blacktop, including single and
two-family residences. This provision would be required for all
new residences.
.
A motion was made by Ed Schaffer, seconded by Dick Martie and unani-
mously carried to adjourn the meeting.
.
t{)~
City Administrator
GW/ns
- 4 -