Planning Commission Minutes 10-04-1988
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 4, 1988 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present:
Richard Carlson, Cindy Lemm, Richard Martie, Mori Malone,
and Dan McConnon.
Members Absent:
None.
Staff Present:
Gary Anderson, Jeff O'Neill.
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at
7:32 p.m.
2. Motion was made by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Mori Malone, to approve
minutes of the regular meeting held August 2, 1988. Motion carried
unanimously.
3. Motion was made by Dan McConnon, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve
the minutes of the regular meeting held September 6, 1988. Motion
carried unanimously.
4. Motion was made by Mori Malone, seconded by Dan McConnon, to approve the
minutes of the special meeting held September 14, 1988. Motion carried
unanimously with cindy Lemm abstaining.
.
5.
Public Hearing - A variance request to allow 1) a garage to be
constructed within the front yard setback requirement; 2) a garage to be
built with a siding in excess of the 12-inch siding width allowed.
Applicant, Vivian Jean Abrahamson.
Mr. Mike Drayna was present to propose Mrs. Abrahamson's variance
request. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, explained to planning
Commission members Mrs. Abrahamson's variance request. Mrs. Abrahamson
was proposing to build a detached garage within the front yard setback
requirement. The location of the proposed new detached garage would be
within one foot of the front yard setback requirement. The minimum
requirement is a 3D-foot front yard setback.
---
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the
public. Mr. Lonnie Worth, the adjacent property owner to the north, was
present to voice his objection to the variance request in that the sight
line distance would be obstructed, and he would be looking at the back of
the new proposed detached garage while looking out the windows of his
existing house. Mr. worth also indicated with the current wind
directions within the city that there would be problems with snow
blocking the roadway of Front street and Linn Street, which run past
these properties. Assistant Administrator, Jeff O'Neill, noted that the
Planning Commission must determine if the variance is justified based on
the hardship associated with complying with the requirements of the
ordinance. He noted that in the past the presence of trees has not been
sufficient grounds for justifying variances to yard setbacks. Home
builders have always been required to meet yard setbacks regardless of
impact on trees located on the property. The applicant through Mr. Mike
Drayna had indicated the preservation of the trees and also not having to
have a power pole removed as the reason for the selection of this
location for the proposed detached garage.
--~
I
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/88
Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and opened the
meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. With no further
input from any of the Planning Commission members, Mr. Richard Carlson
questioned whether any additional layout of this garage was considered so
as to not need a variance request or if a garage could be constructed
within the minimum setback requirements. Zoning Administrator Anderson
indicated to Mr. Carlson that there hadn't been any additional layouts
presented for this garage; and the reason they had chosen this location
for the garage was that as part of the 1977-3 project (streets, curb, and
gutter project), that was the location that was chosen by previous City
staff members in that near this location of the proposed detached garage
she has a hard surfaced off-street parking area already in existence.
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was
made by Dick Martie, seconded by Mori Malone, to deny the variance
request to allow a garage to be constructed within the front yard setback
requirement. Motion carried unanimously. Reason for denial is that no
hardship had been demonstrated and that the proposed location of the
garage would definitely block the neighbor's view of the street.
6.
Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow a cold storage
building to be built in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone. Applicant,
Ruff Auto.
Mr. Randy Ruff was present to propose Ruff Auto's conditional use request
to build a detached cold storage building along side an existing garage
storage building on his dad and mother's place (Harold and Phyllis Ruff's
residence). The Harold and Phyllis Ruff residence, along with all of the
Ruff Auto Salvage yard property, is all under the same parcel
identification number. Mr. Ruff indicated that if the conditional use
request was approved, he would purchase that property from his father and
construct a detached pole type cold storage building. The reason the
application was filed under Ruff Auto is that he was the applicant even
though the owner of the property was Ruff Auto.
with no input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened
the meeting for any comments from the planning Commission. Mr. Richard
Carlson questioned whether Mr. Ruff was circumventing the ordinance when
the applicant, as published in the public hearing notice, was Ruff Auto
when in reality it was Mr. Randy Ruff, one of the sons of the owners,
that is the actual applicant. zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson,
indicated to Mr. Carlson that it definitely was a request by Randy Ruff,
but is currently under the ownership of Ruff Auto; and the land would be
sold over to Mr. Randy Ruff if the conditional use was approved. Cindy
Lemm questioned Mr. Ruff when the property would be sold from Ruff Auto
to him. Randy indicated that as soon as the conditional use permit was
approved, the land transaction would take place. Mr. Harold Pittman
indicated that the planning Commission members should vote in favor of
the conditional use request to allow a cold storage building to be built
in a PZM (performance zone mixed) zone.
2
.
.
.
planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/88
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was
made by Mori Malone, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to approve the conditional
use request to allow a cold storage building to be built in a PZM
(performance zone mixed) zone. Motion carried unanimously.
7.
Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow minor auto repair in
a B-3 (highway business) zone. Applicant, Dale poganski.
Mr. Dale poganski was present to propose his conditional use request to
allow minor auto repair in a B-3 (highway business) zone. Mr. poganski
is proposing to construct a pole-tyPe metal sided auto repair business
building. The location of the proposed business building would be
adjacent immediately north of the existing General Rental business
property.
With no further input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson then
opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission members.
Mr. Dan MCConnon questioned if the applicant was aware of the site plan
which was enclosed which entailed all of the minimum building
requirements. Mr. Poganski countered that he had not seen the enclosed
site plan. Mr. Gary Anderson, City Zoning Administrator, indicated that
the enclosed site plan merely showed the location of the building to meet
the minimum setbacks and all of the minimum off-street parking that would
be required. Mr. Harold Pittman commented that this was a good use of
the property and that we should welcome new business into the City of
Monticello. Mr. Jeff O'Neill questioned Mr. Poganski if he was familiar
with all of the conditions which are attached to the conditional use
request to allow minor auto repair in a B-3 (highway business) zone.
Mr. poganski indicated that the Zoning Administrator had sent him all the
minimum requirements and that he was familiar with them and would adhere
to those requirements. Mr. poganski also indicated to Planning
Commission members that he had not purchased the property yet, but he
wanted to make sure that if he did purchase the property, the building
could be built for this use when he came to apply for a building permit.
Mr. Richard Carlson indicated that this particular business use would be
conducive to the existing business which exists to the south of this
property tOday, the General Rental business. Mr. Dan MCConnon questioned
in looking at the site plan it would show a different type of front on
the building which fronts Highway 25 but questioned whether or not there
should be something on the rear also which would front a public
right-of-way if the new building type zoning ordinance amendment is
adopted. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Mr. MCConnon that
Mr. Poganski is aware of the break up of the metal siding, as he would
have to use a different type of siding on a portion of the building which
would front a major highway or a public right-of-way.
With no further input from the planning Commission members, a motion was
made by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the
conditional use request to allow minor auto repair in a B-3 (highway
business) zone. Motion carried unanimously.
3
.
.
.
Planning commission Minutes - 10/4/BB
B.
Public Hearing - A variance request to allow 1) less than the minimum
usable open space; 2) less than the minimum front yard setback
requirement; 3) less than the minimum parking space size; 4) less than
the minimum driving aisle width; and 5) less than the minimum number of
parking spaces required. Applicant, Metcalf & Larson.
Mr. Jim Metcalf was present to propose a variance request to allow a
2B-unit elderly subsidized housing project to be constructed on this site
with the above variances needed to locate this building on this site.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from
the public.
Mr. Pat Townsend questioned if the alley behind the existing businesses
within this block wasn't a fire lane, it should be a through lane from
Walnut street to Locust street. Mr. Bud Schrupp indicated that with his
business, the alley would be needed to be opened all the way through to
accommodate semi-truck tractors which unload goods at his carpet store
and to allow them to get back out of this alley without having to back up
onto a public street from this alley. Mr. Metcalf reiterated that one
could call this an alley but it is not an alley; it is private property
even though it has been used for many years as an alley for the public.
Mr. Stan Douglas indicated that the use has always been a public alley
and it should remain so. Mr. Schrupp reiterated how hard it is to enter
into this property let alone having to back out of it with a semi-truck
tractor. Mr. Scott Douglas indicated that the use of this alley does
receive considerable use, and it is not a very limited use for the
majority of the property owners which utilize this alley or private
property. zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, indicated that the
Topel's were unwilling to sell their unsightly looking storage building
which is located to the rear of their property to accommodate the alley
relocation to the rear of these private properties. Ollie Koropchak,
Economic Development Director, was present and indicated that she had
done a study with the property owners of which the affected business
properties were notified of some proposed improvements that could be done
as part of this elderly project. Questions centered around the process
of seeing if a different alignment could be done or using the existing
alignment as presented by Mr. Metcalf to open up the flow of traffic
through this alley portion of the business private properties. Mr. Jeff
O'Neill commented that the node or the parking island could be removed to
allow the travel portion to be opened up to allow semi-truck trailer
movement. Mr. Jim Metcalf indicated that he had received no contacts
from the Topels in regards to the Topel's indication that they would like
to see the alley closed off in its entirety. Mr. Harold pittman
indicated that he felt the Topel building should be condemned, that it is
an unsightly building and hazardous building. Chairperson Richard
Carlson indicated to Mr. Pittman that the City does not make it a
practice to go out and condemn private buildings for public use.
Mr. Pittman reiterated that he felt the relocation of this building would
open up the alley to a much better open type use. Mr. Jeff O'Neill
reiterated the rationale for the hardship with the variance requests and
4
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/88
.
that the City willingly knew that to get a project in here with the
limited site area of the downtown business sites for land use that it
would require some tyPe of variance request to get this elderly project
on this site.
.
Mr. Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and opened the meeting
for input from the Planning Commission members. Mori Malone questioned
Mr. Metcalf if he could purchase the Topel's building. Mr. Metcalf
indicated no, that the City purchased the Ford property and the HRA has
optioned the Stelton, O'Connor, and Jones properties. And it is up to
the City to negotiate to purchase any additional property if they so felt
they needed. Mr. Richard Carlson indicated to the public that they
should understand just where the City stands on this alley situation, and
that it is private property and they should deal with their private
property for the use of it as a collective unit of business property
owners. Mr. Harold Pittman questioned why the City is purchasing
property on which we are currently receiving taxes and replacing them
with an apartment building on which we will see a lesser amount of tax.
Jeff O'Neill indicated that tax increment financing is only a tool to
exchange business places with the apartment buildings. Mr. Richard
Carlson reiterated that at previous Planning Commission meetings
consideration was given at that time whether the use of the property was
better for an apartment or for a business tyPe of use. Mr. Dan McConnon
questioned whether or not there could be any variance reductions by any
other tyPe of placement of this building on this site. Zoning
Administrator, Gary Anderson, indicated that no other possible
relocations of this had been done but would only eliminate one variance
and gain another.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then read a letter from Mr. Keith Kjellberg
opposing the City's purchasing of existing vacant business buildings and
replacing them with apartment buildings. Mr. McConnon questioned
Mr. Metcalf if he had any problems with losing one parking space to
relocate the island delineator for the alley. Mr. Metcalf indicated he
saw no problems with the elimination of one parking space if that's what
the planning Commission members chose.
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion by
Richard Martie, seconded by Dan McConnon, to approve the variance request
to allow less than the minimum usable open space. Motion carried
unanimously.
Motion by Mori Malone, seconded by Dan McConnon, to approve the variance
request to allow a building to be placed within the minimum front yard
setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Mori Malone, to approve the variance
request to allow a parking lot to be constructed with less than the
minimum parking space size. Motion carried unanimously.
.
5
planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/88
.
Motion by Dan MCConnon, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the
variance request to allow less than the minimum number of parking spaces
as required by ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.
9.
Public Hearing - A preliminary plat request for proposed new residential
subdivision plat. Applicant, Tom Holthaus.
Tom Holthaus was present to propose his preliminary plat request for a
proposed new residential subdivision plat. Mr. Holthaus indicated that
what he would like to do is to be able to sell off the existing house on
this unplatted residential tract of land to create a separate tract of
land which would be a recorded tract of land which would be left in the
form of an outlot on which to develop at some point in time in the
future. Mr. Harold Pittman indicated that he felt the preliminary plat
should be approved for this request.
.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and opened the
meeting for comments from the Planning Commission members. Mr. Dan
MCConnon questioned the use of the existing driveway to serve this
residence in that this would be onto the outlot portion of this proposed
subdivision plat. zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, indicated to
Mr. MCConnon that the gravel portion of this driveway was used to
accommodate ingress and egress into this property. Once this is recorded
this driveway would be vacated, and the old trail or driveway would come
in from the north and proceed southeasterly into the back of this
existing residence.
with no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion by
Cindy Lemm, seconded by Dan Mcconnon, to approve the preliminary plat
request for a proposed new residential subdivision plat. Motion carried
unanimously.
10. Public Hearing - A replatting request to replat an existing unplatted lot
into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot. Applicant, Floyd
Markling.
Mr. Jim Metcalf was present to propose a replatting request to replat an
existing unplatted lot into eight townhouse lots and one common area
lot. With no input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson then
opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. Mori
Malone questioned if this was the same plat that was presented before
them in the rezoning request. zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson,
indicated to Ms. Malone that this was the same plat which they had seen
in the previous rezoning request. Mr. Harold Pittman indicated that he
felt this replatting request should be approved. Chairperson Richard
Carlson clarified the replatting request that basically it's back before
them like it has been for other replatting requests of another applicant,
Mr. Jay Miller, on his Colony by the Greens townhouse subdivision plats.
.
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was
made by Richard Martie, seconded by Dan McConnon, to approve the
replatting request to replat an existing unplatted lot into eight
townhouse lots and one common area lot. Motion carried unanimously.
6
.
11.
.
.
planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/88
Public Hearing - A simple subdivision request to allow two residential
lots to be split, with the two lots when subdivided would be less than
the minimum lot square footage. Applicant, Dan Frie.
Mr. Dan Frie was present to propose his simple subdivision request to
allow two residential lots to be split, with the two lots when subdivided
would be less than the minimum lot square footage as required by today's
ordinance. Mr. Frie indicated that he has come back over one year later
with basically the same request in that he is not requesting any
variances at this time, but they have redone the proposed simple
subdivision and that each of the lots as proposed would be less than the
minimum lot square footage that was required when these lots were platted
with that being 10,890 sq ft. He has also eliminated any variance
request for an encroachment in the sideyard setback requirement.
Mori Malone questioned as to what would happen with the existing garage
on Parcel B. Mr. Frie indicated that prior to building permit
application, the garage would be removed from parcel B in its entirety.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from
the pUblic. Mr. Harold pittman indicated he would recommend approval of
the simple subdivision request. Mr. Marvin woolhouse indicated to
planning Commission members when he purchased his property that the
previous property owner had to purchase additional land area to meet the
minimum city requirements. The City staff was not aware of the previous
property owner having to purchase additional land area before he could
purchase this property. Mr. Ken Link, an affected property owner across
the street from this residence, questioned whether or not the property
would have enough square footage as the existing two lots as platted
would have. Mr. Richard Carlson then read letters that were received by
the City staff, and they were as follows.
The first one was from Mrs. Genevieve Weiman, 624 East Fourth street.
She objected to another residence being built on this simple subdivided
lot. The other letter was received from Mrs. Verla vork, 316 Ramsey
Street. She indicated she was in opposition to another house being built
on the simple subdivided lot. With no further input from the public,
Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and opened the
meeting for any input from the planning Commission members.
Richard Carlson indicated whether or not there should be any conditions
attached to this. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated that there
should be two conditions attached to this: 1) Prior to building permit
application, the garage be removed from Parcel B1 and 2) Prior to
building permit application, the addition be removed from the existing
house.
With no further input from the planning Commission members, motion by Dan
McConnon, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to approve the simple subdivision
request to allow two residential lots to be split, with the two lots when
7
.
12.
.
13.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/88
subdivided be less than the minimum lot square footage with two
conditions as follows: 1) Prior to building permit application, the
garage be removed from Parcel B; and 2) Prior to building permit
application, the addition on the southerly side of the existing house be
removed. Motion carried with Richard Martie objecting and Mori Malone
abstaining.
Public Hearing - A variance request to allow placement of an attached
garage within the sideyard setback requirement. Applicant, David Tice.
Mr. David Tice was present to propose building an attached garage within
the sideyard setback requirement. With no input from the public,
Chairperson Richard Carlson closed the public hearing and opened the
meeting for any input from the planning Commission.
Mr. Dan McConnon questioned the distance between the structures and if
the proposed attached garage, when built, would encroach in any side lot
line easements which we have on this property. Zoning Administrator,
Gary Anderson, indicated that there would be 24 feet of separation
between building structures where the minimum requirement by ordinance is
20 feet of separation, and there would be a I-foot separation from the
proposed attached garage and would be right up to the easement line on
the 6-foot drainage and utility easement on the side lot line.
Mr. Harold Pittman indicated that he would recommend approval of the
variance request.
With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was
made by Mori Malone, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the variance
request to allow placement of an attached garage within the sideyard
setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously. Rationale for approval
was that the developer had so placed the houses on the center of the lot
that the maximum size garage that could be built on these would be an
attached single car garage that would stay within the minimum sideyard
setback requirement.
Public Hearing - A variance request to allow no hard surfacing, curb, and
gutter of a proposed parking lot. Applicant, J & K properties/Maus
Foods.
Mr. Jim Maus was present to propose the variance request to allow no hard
surfacing, curb, or gutter of their existing employee parking lot.
Mr. Maus indicated that they are looking at another area for existing
off-street parking, are negotiating with another property owner now, and
want consideration for no hard surfacing, curb, or gutter of this
existing employee parking lot until some time next summer. Mr. Maus felt
that by the granting of the variance it would allow them additional time
to possibly negotiate with another property owner for spring construction
on another property or the completion of the hard surfacing, curb, and
gutter on this existing property with the employee parking lot on it
right now.
8
.
14.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/88
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from
the public. Mr. Harold Pittman recommended that the variance be granted
to Mr. Maus. Mr. Pat Townsend, representing some of the residents of the
Cedar Crest apartment complex, indicated that some of the residents have
no objections to Mr. Maus's variance request.
Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lemrn, to approve the variance
request to allow no hard surfacing, curb, or gutter of the proposed
parking lot with the following conditions: 1) hard surfacing, curb, and
gutter to be completed by no later than June 15, 1989; 2) a letter of
credit be submitted to the City as soon as possible indicating that there
are sufficient funds in a lending institution to accommodate completion
of the hard surfacing, curb, and gutter by June 15, 1989; or money in the
amount of 1-1/2 times the amount be submitted in a cashier's check to the
City of Monticello to complete the parking lot if it is not completed by
June 15, 1989. Motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing - A conditional use request to allow incineration or
reduction of waste material in an 1-2 (heavy industrial) zone.
Applicant, Arthur Fretag.
Arthur Fretag was present to propose incineration of waste material
within an 1-2 (heavy industrial) zone. Mori Malone questioned his
experience and the disposal of the sharps (needles) and their plastic
containers. Mr. Dan McConnon questioned if he had filled out an
environmental impact statement. Mr. Fretag indicated that he doesn't
have any formal experience in this particular tyPe of business but that
he has background experience in different entities which revolve around
this. The disposal of the sharps (or needles as they are also called)
and the plastic containers are all through the incineration process. The
residue or debris, which would be the ash, is what can be disposed of at
the local landfills. Mr. Fretag did, however, indicate that he felt he
didn't need to fill out an environmental impact statement. If he was
required to do that, it would be a very expensive statement to have
completed. The cost would run into the thousands of dollars. Mr. Jeff
O'Neill indicated that in his conversations with Mr. Lou Chamberlin of
the Pollution Control Agency, under its basic requirements, he would not
be required to obtain a license from Pollution Control and that he would
only be burning 300 lbs per hour, which is under the minimum licensure
requirement of 1,000 lbs per hour. There are possible concerns that
should be addressed with the amount of plastic that is burned.
Mr. Fretag did indicate that he had answered all of the suggested City
staff conditions. Ollie Koropchak indicated in her conversations with
Barb Schwientek that they are allowed to continue to burn their
disposable infectious waste materials at their hospital site. Mr. Pat
Townsend indicated with the prevailing winds in the area, it would blow
the smoke which is generated from this incineration plant directly over
his building. Mr. Harold Pittman indicated that there is a
9
planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/88
.
significant amount of infectious waste that is currently burned at the
Monticello-Big Lake Community Hospital now. Mr. Dan Jackson indicated
the perception of this business to prospective employees at his business
would be devastating. He indicated the chances of his being successful
in attracting good qualified candidates for positions that he may have at
the Fingerhut corporation business would be quite restricted with this
type of use nearby.
.
Mr. Townsend indicated to Planning commission members if they considered
how devastating this would be to the existing businesses which are
currently in the Oakwood Industrial Park. Mr. Rod Dragsten, part owner
in the Silver FoX Inn, indicated the amount of an investment of $250,000
for an addition to his business, how it would relate to the investment
that Mr. Fretag is proposing for his business, and how it would impact
Mr. Dragsten's prospective future business with an infectious waste
incineration plant very near his business. Mr. Townsend questioned the
rationale for the permit and why there would not be a permit needed to
burn under 1,000 1bs of waste per hour. For him just to dispose of
automotive debris, he is required to get a permit from the pollution
Control Agency, and it has to be disposed of at an approved site. He
questioned whether or not any type of waste from this incineration plant
could be disposed of in the local landfill, the Yonak Landfill. Ollie
Koropchak indicated the Industrial Development committee was also very
skeptical of Mr. Fretag's proposed use of a heavy industrial lot within
the industrial park on this. They would not voice any type of approval
to him until they had found some more information out about his
infectious waste facility.
Mr. Fretag indicated the boundary of his service area would be from
Highway 2 to the north and Highway 212 to the south. Mr. Jackson
responded that the Fingerhut Corporation itself does not burn any paper
whatsoever. Harold Pittman recommended that the applicant's request be
denied.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and asked for
comments from the planning Commission members. Mr. Richard Martie
suggested that the City staff check with the Industrial Development
Committee and other communities which Mr. Fretag had suggested have any
size waste disposal burners within their communities. Mr. Dan McConnon
indicated that definitely the PCA would be involved with this project,
and he was quite sure Mr. Fretag would also have to do an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet. Mori Malone indicated that the burning of this
waste would be a definite concern of the public, and that the public
should be involved in Mr. Fretag's request.
.
Motion by Dan McConnon, seconded by Richard Martie, to table the
conditional use request to allow incineration or reduction of waste
material in an 1-2 (heavy industrial) zone. Reason for tabling of the
conditional use request: They feel that an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet would have to be filed and that they would look at that as a
requirement, and also that the surrounding communities be contacted
10
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/88
where the infectious waste burners are in existence today to get their
input on how things are working out with incineration in their
communities. Motion carried with Cindy Lemm absent and Mori Malone
opposing.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
1. Consideration to approve Modification #3 for Tax Increment District #2.
Ollie Koropchak indicated to planning Commission members the Tax
Increment Financing District Modification Plan. With no further input
from Ollie, motion was made by Mori Malone, seconded by Richard Martie,
to approve the Modification plan #3 for Tax Increment District #2.
Motion carried unanimously with Cindy Lemm absent.
2. A variance request to allow expansion of an existing parking lot up to
within the 5-foot green area setback requirement. Applicant, Monticello
Eduplay Childcare Center. Council Action: No action necessary, as there
was no appeal.
3. A variance request to allow a pylon sign to be constructed in excess of
the maximum sign square footage and height requirements. Applicant, Torn
Thumb Store. Council Action: No action necessary, as there was no
appea 1.
4.
A variance request to allow a parking lot to be constructed within the
5-foot green area requirement. A request to allow this parking lot to be
constructed in two phases. Applicant, Bridgewater Telephone company.
Council Action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
5. Rezoning request to rezone a lot from R-l (single family residential) to
R-2 (single and two family residential). If rezoned, a request to replat
this residential lot into eight townhouse lots and one common area lot.
If replatted, a conditional use request to allow up to eight townhouses
on an R-2 (single and two family residential) lot. Applicant, Floyd
Markling. Cbuncil Action: Approved as per planning Cbmmission
recommendation.
6. Simple subdivision request to subdivide one unplatted lot into two
unplatted lots. Applicant, Tom Holthaus. Cbuncll Action: Approved as
per Planning Commission recommendation.
7. Tabled request for a preliminary plat review for a proposed new
subdivision plat. Applicant, Charles Ritze. Council Action: Approved
as per planning Commission recommendation.
8. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello planning Commission
meeting for November 1, 1988, 7:30 p.m.
11
.
.
.
planning Commission Minutes - 10/4/88
Motion by Mori Malone, seconded by Richard Martie, to set the next
tentative date for the Monticello planning Commission meeting for
November 1, 1988, 7:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously with Cindy Lemm
absent.
9.
Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Mori Malone, to adjourn the
meeting. Meeting adjourned at 11:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
4~~
Gary Anderson
zoning Administrator
12