Planning Commission Minutes 11-07-1989
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, November 7, 1989 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present:
Richard carlson, Mori Malone, Richard Martie, Cindy Lelmn,
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
7:35 p.m.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held september 5, 1989.
Chairperson Richard Carlson indicated that the City staff requested this
item be tabled until the November 13, 1989, special planning COlmnission
meeting.
3. Approval of minutes of the special lneeting held September 11, 1989.
Chairperson Richard Carlson indicated that the City staff requested this
item be tabled until the November 13, 1989, special Planning COlmnission
meeting.
4.
Approval of minutes of the regular lneeting held October 3, 1989.
Motion was made by Dan MCConnon, seconded by Cindy Lelmn, to approve the
minutes of the October 3, 1989, regular planning COlrnnission meeting
minutes. Motion carried unanill'ously.
5.
Public hearing - A variance request to allow a residential subdivision
lot to have less than the minimum lot frontage on a public right-of-way.
Applicant, West Prairie Partners.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Adlninistrator, explained to planning
COlmnission members the background of this variance request. The
developer had chosen within the layout of this residential subdivision to
create as many minimum 12,000 square foot lots as possible. The prob1eln
occurs with Lot 5 having only 32 feet of lot frontage on a public
right-of-way where the ordinance requires two-thirds of the minimum lot
frontage on a public right-of-way. The minimUln lot frontage on a public
right-of-way is 80 feet, and two-thirds of 80 feet is 53 feet at the
setback line on a public right-of-way. ~1r. O'Neill explained an earlier
subdivision that was platted prior to the adoption of this ordinance,
that being the Sandberg Riverside Addition. In that particular addition,
we ended up with a lot of silnilar nature being created to fully utilize
the land that was there and two lots were created with less than the
minimum lot frontage on a public right-of-way. After the approval of the
subdivison plat known as the Pitt Addition, Mr. O'Neill indicated to
Planning COlmnission melnbers the ordinance was amended to get away from
the short lot widths on a public right-of-way just to create additional
lots.
1
.
.
.
Planning Crnronission Minutes - 11/7/89
With no further input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson then
closed the public hearing and opened the meeting for input from the
planning COlronission melnbers.
With no further input from the Planning COlronission melnbers, lnotion was
made by Mori Malone, seconded by Cindy Lelron, to approve the variance
request to allow a residential subdivision lot to have less than the
minimum lot frontage on a public right-of-way. Voting in favor: Cindy
Laron, Mori Malone, Richard Martie, Richard Carlson. Opposed: Dan
McConnon. Reason for approval: The hardship created by this variance
being noted as the access to the property created by the layout within
this subdivision. Also, a) it will not impair the adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property; b) it would not create an
unreasonable increase in congestion in public safety; c) it would not
increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety; d) it would
not unreasonably dilninish property values within the neighborhood; e) it
would not be contrary to the intent of the ordinance.
6.
Public hearing - Request to allow expansion of an existing mobile home
park. Applicant, Don Heikes.
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Adlninistrator, explained the background to
Mr. Heikes' expansion of a mobile home park which is actually permitted
by the perlnit process. Mr. O'Neill explained that Mr. Heikes has
returned after several Inonths' delay trying to interpret how this could
be handled for zoning Inatters through the public hearing process. It was
deterlnined that this is not a conditional use or a variance, but it is in
reality by ordinance a permit to allow expansion of a mobile home park.
There were several conditions that were considered in the previous
request which was approved by the planning COlronission that was detennined
to be Exhibit A, and that was a sUlronary of approved plan for expansion of
the West Side Mobile Hrnne Park. Most of these conditions are applicable
in his new request as silnilar to his old request for developing four lots
instead of his new request asking to develop only one lot in this area.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the
public. Mr. Pete Lindquist, secretary of the Riverside Cel~tery
Association, explained to Planning Crnronission melnbers some concerns of
the Association board melnbers as follows: 1) that the northwest corner
lot stake be put back in; 2) that the retaining wall be constructed froln
the northwest corner easterly to a point where it is not needed due to an
equal land topography between the two properties; 3) a screening fence be
constructed on the north side of the property and also along the west
side of the property.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then closed the public hearing and read aloud
two letters that were received froln the pUblic, the first letter being
froln Mr. Scott Hill stating his opposition, and the second letter was
from the Riverside cemetery Association stating their opposition.
2
.
.
.
planning Crnmnission Minutes - 11/7/89
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the
planning Crnmnission members. Questions raised by the planning COlmnission
lnelnbers were that the screening fence and the northwest corner lot stake
should be sOlnething that should be considered between the two affected
property owners, Mr. Don Heikes and the Riverside Celnetery Association.
The Crnmnission members felt that this is entirely a matter that should be
dealt with between the two property owners and not be considered as part
of conditions to Mr. Heikes I lnobile home expansion permit process.
with no further input from the planning COlmnission members, motion was
made by Dan McConnon, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the permit
to allow expansion of a single mobile home site at the West side Mobile
Hrnne Park in Monticello with the following conditions:
a. A fire hydrant be constructed within 300 lineal feet of the proposed
new lot.
b. A bituminous surface be constructed frOln the existing concrete hard
surfaced driveway to the proposed new lot.
c. Concrete slabs shall be installed per the design drawings as shown on
Attachment A-2.
d. The electrical, phone, and cable t.v. wires be installed underground
only.
e. The lower level of the duplex lnaintained by the park caretaker will
be available at all times for the use of a stonn shelter. Each
resident of the park will hold a key to the storm shelter. The
shelter shall have a sign placed above the door indicating its status
as a storm shelter, and all new tenants shall be informed that the
lower level of the duplex maintained by the caretaker also serves as
a storm shelter.
f. The perlnit for the expansion of one single lot site only.
g. No further expansion occur of this mobile home site unless all the
minimum conditions of the development of a mobile home park are met.
h. The owner/developer is responsible for the snow relnoval to this lot
along the new driveway to this new lot.
i. A solid 90% opaque screening fence be installed along the south edge
of the proposed mobile home park expansion.
j. A retaining wall be constructed along a portion of the south property
line for a distance up to where the topography of the two lots are
equal.
Motion carried unanimously.
7.
Public hearing - A conditional use request
(single and two family residential) zone.
Fyle.
to allow a tri-plex in an R-2
Applicant, Brad and Cindy
Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Adlninistrator, explained to Planning
Crnmnission melnbers and lnelnbers of the public the applicants' conditional
use request to allow a tri-plex in an R-2 (single and two family
residential) zone. Mr. 0' Neill indicated to Planning COlmnission melnbers
that the developer had failed to sublnit a site plan at the writing of the
3
Planning Crnrnnission Minutes - 11/7/89
.
agenda supplelnent which would indicate where the proposed six off-street
parking spaces would occur. The suggestion by City staff is that if the
tri-plex was approved, the maximum off-street parking spaces which would
occur in the area of the existing attached double car garage be created
with two enclosed off-street parking spaces in the existing attached
garage and two off-street open parking spaces be created directly in
front of the attached double car garage. The area to the east and west
of the existing driveway to serve this attached double car garage be put
back into a green area. The two additional parking spaces that would be
needed be created off of the side street which would be Maple Street. A
new curb cut would have to be created with an apron put back in its place
and two hard-surfaced off-street parking spaces be created. Therefore,
with this proposed layout, the character of the neighborhood should not
be changed a whole lot in the off-street parking in front of the existing
attached two-car garage and the applicant and/or the developer would be
utilizing lnore of his entire property instead of just in front of the
property as it exists today.
.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the public hearing. The
applicant, Mr. Fyle, explained his concerns to the Planning COlmnission
lnel~ers and mel~ers of the public and his intent to create three
off-street enclosed parking spaces along the west side of the existing
attached garage with three additional spaces being created in front of
the existing garage and an additional space being created in front of the
entry to his proposed tri-plex.
Chairperson Richard Carlson asked for any additional input from the
public. Marlene Helllnan, a neighboring resident to the proposed
conditional use request, explained to Planning crnmnission lnel~ers that
they shouldn't consider the lack of cOlmnunication that the applicant had
with the City staff lnel~ers, that they should consider the petition that
was submitted before them and recommend denial of this conditional use
request to allow a tri-plex in this area.
With no further input frOln the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson opened
the meeting for further crnmnents from the Planning COlmnission melnbers.
Concerns raised by the Planning COlrnnission melnbers were that the
developer had not done anything since the initial conditional use/silnple
subdivision request at the last month's meeting to show a site plan which
would consist of six total off-street parking spaces. They felt the
applicant should utilize his entire property for the creation of his
tri-plex and the full development of the minimum requirement of six
off-street parking spaces.
.
With no further input from the Planning COlmnission lnel~ers, motion was
lnade by Richard Martie, seconded by Mori Malone, to deny the conditional
use request to allow a tri-plex in an R-2 (single and two family
residential) zone. Motion carried unanil~usly. Reason for denial: The
applicants' failure to sublnit a site plan fully utilizing his entire
property to accOlrnnodate the minimum six off-street parking spaces. The
Planning Crnrnnission mel~ers felt very concerned about the conversion of
the existing two-car garage into a three-car garage for three enclosed
4
Planning COlluoission Minutes - 11/7/89
off-street parking spaces an9 then having three open off-street parking
spaces directly in front of the existing attached garage and attached
entry of this proposed remodeled house into a tri-plex. In addition, the
site plan as proposed is adverse to the ordinance, as it is inconsistent
with character and geography of area and would likely serve to depreciate
area land values.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
1. Set a special Planning COlmoission meeting for November 13, 1989,
6:30 p.m.
2. A variance request to allow a detached garage to be constructed within
the side yard setback requireloent. Applicant, Florence Tapper. Council
action: No action required, as the request did not come before them.
3. A variance request to allow a detached garage to be constructed within
the front yard setback requirement. Applicant, Lawrence and Lynn
Gantner. Council action: No action required, as the request did not
COloe before them.
4. A simple subdivision request to allow two R-2 (single and two faloily
residential) zoned lots to be resubdivided into two residential lots. A
conditional use request to allow a 4-plex in an R-2 (single and two
faloily residential) zone. A variance request to allow a resubdivided lot
to have less than the lOiniloUlo lot square footage to allow the existing
residential structure to be converted into a 4-plex. Applicant, Brad and
Cindy Fyle. Council action: Approved as per planning COlmoission
recOlmoendation less two conditions.
5. Consideration of K-Mart/Lincoln Crnnpanies TIF proposal relative to the
cOloprehensive plan. Council action: It was discussed also at the City
Council meeting.
6. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning COlmoission
meeting for Tuesday, December 5, 1989, 7:30 p.m. It was the consensus of
the five planning COlmnission melllbers present to approve this next meeting
date.
7. The llleeting adjourned at 9:36 p.lO.
Respectfully submitted,
GarY~s'o~A/M
Zoning Administrator
5