Planning Commission Agenda Packet 07-05-1983AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICEUO PIANNING COMMISSION
July 5, 1983 - 7:30 P.M.
Members: Jim Ridgeway, Don Cochran, Joyce Dowling, Fd
Schaffer, Richard Carlson.
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held on
Juno 14, 1983.
3. Approval of the Minutes of the Joint Meeting Hold on
June 21, 1983.
4. Public Hearing - Sideyard Variance Request for Attached
Garage - Ricky and Rebecca Haugeto.
5. Public Hearing - Conditional Una Request - Minor Auto
Body Repair - Patrick Townaend.
G. Mal Woltora - Proposed Amendment to the Ordinance to
Allow Flea Markets.
7. John Sandberg - Proposed Subdivision of City Wt to
Allow Construction of Two Single Family Houaoa.
Additional Information Itemo
1. Conditional Una Raquoot - Monticello Acoembly of
God Church.
The regularly ochoduled mooting for the Planning Commieaion
in tentatively ochodulad for Auguat 9, 1983.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELIA PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 1983 - 7:30 Y.M.
Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson,
Don Cochran.
Members Absent: Ed Schaffer.
1. The Meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission was called to
order by President Jim Ridgeway on June 14, 1983 at 7:46 P.M.
2. Approval of the Minutes.
A motion was made by Dowling, seemded by Cochran and unani-
mously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
of May 17, 1983.
3. Public Mearanq - Sideywd Variance Request - Tom and Shirley
Giroux.
Mr. Tam Giroux requested a sideyrard variance to build a 26 foot
by 26 foot attached garage to his home to within 9 feet of the
property line. His home is located at Rt 1, 132 Marvin Elwood
Reed, Wilhelm Estates. Mr. Giroux'a home is currently setback
20 feet from the north property line which moats City ordinance
requirements, but by adding a 26 r 26 foot garage, a variance
would be necessary since the northwest corner of the garaye
would be within 9 feet of the property Itne.
Tho abutting property owner to the ':eat wn. notit ted of the
public hearing and did not exprcas any ul.ln.,.tion t., th,
variance request.
no Planning Conmisolon members yuoutioned Mr. :.iruux on the
reason for building the attachod double car garage and Mr.
Giroux'o response was that he wonted to store his vehicles
inside and aloo to bo able to service them himself in the
garage. The Planning Cormiaaion nuted that thin would be a
dofinite improvement to the property, therefore, a motion
was made by Don Cochran, seconded by Richard Carlson to
recommend approval of the variance request allowing a garago
to be built within 9 foot of the property Ileo since the
abutting proporty owner did not object. Voting in favor were
Ridgeway, Cochran, Carlson and Schaffer wau aboont.
rK
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/14/83
5. Public Hearing - Variance to Allow Construction of a Privacy
Fence Adjacent to Property Line and to Allow Construction of
of a Deck Adjacent to Property Line - David Brouillard, 103
North Locust Street, Block 50, North 1/2 of Lots 11 and 12,
Original Plat.
Mr. David Brouillard is requesting a variance to allow con-
struction of a privacy fence and deck abutting his house to
the proposed privacy fence in a B-4 zone. His home is
located at 103 Locust Street, Original Plat, Block 50,
North 1/2 of Lots 11 and 12.
Mr. Brouillard's home,which is currently located in a B-4
regional business district, requires that a privacy fence
can be constructed if it is at least 6 feet high but not
more than 6 feet in height. An acconscry building or an
addition may be constructed with a variance, and a privacy
fence itself could be built on the property lot line, if
so desired, but Mr. Brouillard would like to build the
privacy fence on his side of the lot line. The abutting
property owners and property owners within 350 foot radius
wore notified of the public hearing and no one haq expressed
opposition to his variance request.
The Planning Commission members inquired au Lo why Mt.
Brouillard was constructing the privacy fence, the need for
it and also if the fence and deck would lx of any improvement
to t1w property. Mr. Brouillard indicaLod that the privacy
fence would screen his property from the abutting pruperty
to the south of him. The abutting property owners within
350 feet were notified of the public hearing and have not
expressed any opposition to the variance request. Nr.
Brouillard also stated that he requested these variances
because he wanted privacy and also to screen his side yard
from the abutting property which is rental property. It
would be so constructed in a manner that would be attractive
to the property and would increase the value of his property.
A motion was made by Dowling, seconded by Carlson to recommend
the approval of the variance request allowing the privacy
fence to be constructed and an attached deck to the house in
a B-4 zone. All voted In favor.
C�4 ,
RN
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/16/83
6. Mel Wolters - Proposed Amendment to the Ordinance to Allow Flea
Markets.
Mr. Jack Ubel, representing Hel Wolters, made a presentation to
the Planning Commission on a proposed flea market ordinance.
This not being a public hearing, the Planning Commission
listened to the proposed request by Mr. Ubel and offered
suggestions to the proposed ordinance but due to the lack of
Staff information on the proposed ordinance, the Commission
asked for further time for Staff input and recommendations
as to the proposed arvendment ordinance. A motion was made
by Carlson, seconded by Dowling and unanimously carried to
table this request for further Staft revie•a and recommendation.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS.
1. Conditional Use Pecruest - Assembly of God Church.
This item was brought before the Commission for the proposed
next mooting for the Planning Commission for their information -
2. Conditional Use Permit - Patrick Townsend.
This item was also brought before the Planning Commiscion for
their information in regard to the next meeting.
3. Rezoning of Lots 9, 10 and Part of 11, 7bomas Park Addition,
From B-3 to I-1 Zone.
This also being an informational item for the Planning
Commission for the next mooting.
Monticello Planning Commission Request.
The Planning Comstosion has reguooted that Gary Anderacn, Planning
and Zoning Administratot,try to not up a meeting with the Monti -
collo City Council at a date that would he convenient with them,
proferrably in the morning. The Planning and Zoning Adminictrotor
took this under advisement and will notify the Monticello City
Council and got back to the Planning Commiasion members on a
tentative data Get for June 21, 1983.
The Planning and Zoning Mmintstratnr Lrouyht up the tentative ly
uehodulod i ext meeting date in July and ,t wan the concenau• oS
the Planning Co=inaion members to mcrt une w,.rk print to tl.e
regularly ochoduled meeting , therefore the next scheduled meet any
in set for July 5, 1993, at 7130 Y.M.
A motion wan made by Don Cochran, aeconded by Joyco Dowling to
adjourn. /
Gary . ruon, Zn- c Planning Adminiotrat-
M
v
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/83
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
4. Public Hearing - Sideyard Variance Regeest - Ricky and
Rebecca Haugeto.
Mr. Ricky Haugeto has requested a sideyard variance to build a
26 foot X 26 foot attached garage to within 12 feet of the
corner property lot line. His home is located at 37 Fairway
Drive, Country Club Manor. According to the site plan
enclosed with the agenda, the house is currently setback
38 feet from the west property lot line which currently
meets City ordinance requirements. By adding on a 26 foot
by 26 foot garage, a variance would be necessary as the west
side of the garage would be within 12 feet of the property
lot line. Ordinances require a 20 foot setback on a corner
unless a variance is requested.
If the variance is granted allowing the garage to be built
within 12 feat of the property line, it should probably be
noted that if the Golf Course Road should at acme day in the
near future be widened and with the now attached garage,
the drainage ditch would be moved closer to the garage than
what it is right now. The garage presently would sit with
a granted variance approximately 6 to 8 feet from the top
part of the elope to begin the slope to the bottom of the
ditch. As you will note in the enclosed site plan, the set-
back on the cast aide of the house is 20 feet instead of the required
10 foot. If the house had been act 10 feat from the cast
property line to allow for a 42 foot house with a 26 foot
garage, we would have been at least 22 foot from the west
prcparty line, but this is how the original site plan woo submitted.
The building permit was issued and the dovoloper's
intention woo only to build a single car attached garage
instead of a double, which would have been fine with the
site plan enclosed. But now we are faced with the
conridoration of approving or denying a variance request
on a 26 foot wide garage.
POSSIBLE ACTIOIJi Conaiduration of approving or denying the
variance roquost to allow the garage to be built within 12
foot of the corner property lino, an 8 foot varianco.
W-FERENCESi A map depicting the location of the property,
a site plan noting the location of the attached garage.
A photo noting the location of the property to be prosented
at the Planning Ccmmisaion meeting.
�ii
m W 1
J
Sideyard variance request to
build an attached garage within
12 feet of property lot line.
RICKY AND RLBECCA NAUCE'W
y
41
M
Nt
41
M
J
•
M
Planning Cot -mission Agenda - 7/5/63
5. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request - Minor Auto Body
Shop Repair - Patrick Townsend.
As you rmy recall, Mr. Pat Townsend at the November 16th, 1982
Planning Commission meeting, requested a conditional use per-
mit to be allowed to operate a minor auto repair shop at his
home located at 107 Locust Street. Mr. Townsend was basically
working with transmission and radiator repairs and the Planning
Commission granted the conditional use on a temporary one year
basis. As you may recall, It. Pat Townsend at the April 12,
1983 Planning Ccamisison meeting, requested a conditional use
permit to be allowed to operate an auto repair facility in the
body shop area of the old Monticello Ford building contingent
upon that the parking areas for the business be behind the
building; that the variance on the blacktopping be granted fvr
one year at which time it will be reviewed; that the old
conditional use permit granted to Mr. Townsend be expired for
an auto repair facility and that the conditional use permit
is to Mr. Townsend only at this facility.
During discussion at the April 12th, 1983 Planning Commission
meeting, at no time did the Planning Commission or Mr. Pat
Townsend address the situation of an auto body repair facility.
In looking back at our def init ions in regard to automobile
repair, we define minor auto repair as being minor repairs,
incidental body and fender work, painting and upholstering,
replacement of {arts and motor services to passenger cars and
trucks, not exceeding 9,000 pounds gross weight, but not in-
cluding any operations specified under major automobile
repair. Mr. Townsend, the rofore, is now requesting that he
be allowed automobile repair major at his facilities to in-
clude auto body repair. nofinition for autanobile repair
major is major general repair, rebuilding or reconditioning
engines, motor vehicles or trailers, collision servicing
including body, frame or fender straightening or repair,
overall painting or paint job vehicle oteam cleaning. Mr.
Townsend is therefore requeoting that only the auto body
repair be attached to his conditional use permit, therefore,
if we would like to address an addition to his conditional
use permit which woo granted on April 12, 1983, tliat toing
an automobile repair major, or re-cotablioh a whole new
conditional use requoot including major automobile repair
and taking into consideration the 4 cunditiono that were
attached to tho April 12, 1983 conditional use request that
wan granted.
- 2 -
•
M
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/83
Yz . Townsend has agreed to abide by the conditions that were
stipulated in the April 12, 1983 conditional use permit and
acknowledges that they were granted for only one year and
that being from April 12th, 1983.
Mr. Townsend stated that his business has expanded to include
auto body work and that being a major portion of his work now
necessitated the need for a conditional use request. Public
hearing notices have been sent to all property owners within
350 feet and as of the date of this item being prepared, no
comments in opposition have been heard from anyone.
POSSIBLE ACTION: Consideration of recommending approval or
denial of a conditional use permit for the auto repair
facility for a major auto repair facility in the body shop area
of the old Monticello Ford building.
REFERENCES: A map dopciting the location of the property and
a sketch of the body shop area of the building, agenda
supplement for the April 12th, 1983 meeting and a photo
depicting the area to be used as a major auto repair facility
to be presented at the July 5, 1983 meeting.
- 3 -
ell
nal age � shop fec Y rog
coli o1 auto t"
o Tota b�
a n aj N�^tiool 9
vowov
r
tit
/lc �7
1
1
C�
�7
Planning Cor minsion Agenda - 4/12/83
7. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for a Minor Auto Repair
Facility in a B-4 Zone and Consideration of a V rianee from Hard
Surfacinq of Parking Area - Pat Townsend.
As you may recall, Mr. Pat Townsend at tlw November 16th, 1982
Planning Commission meeting, requested a conditional use permit
to be allowed to operate a minor auto repair shop at his home
located at 107 locust Street. Mr. Townsend was basically work-
ing with transmission and radiator repairs and the Planning
Commission granted the conditional use Permit on a temporary
one year basis.
Mr. Townsend has now re-applied for a conditional ime pomi.t
to open a minor auto repair facility in a portion of the totocr
Monticello Ford Garage located auro,s Lir btteet from hlu: pre.lent
home.
Mr. Townsend is requesting to use the former body shop portion of
the Monticello Ford Garage which is located on the north end of
the building which has access through the alley off of Locust
Street. The sire of the body shop he will be renting from Mr.
Larry Flake is 30 feet by 52 feet and would have sufficient
size for at least 2 vehicles at one time. His former location
was in a garage at his residence which basically had only one
service stall at a time. The City ordinances require that a
conditional use be granted for an auto repair facility in a
e-4 zone oven though the present location was previously used
as a auto repair facility.
Parking requiremento an cite for thio type of busin000 would
require 8 parkirol spaces consisting of 4 for the auto ropair
buoinemo and 2 spaces for each stall availablu. The proposed
area for parking would he on the north end of the Wilding off
of the alloy and there would be sufficient upice for the Baru.
An sans of you may recall, approximately 3 yearn ago after
Monticello Ford moved to its new location on 1-94, the building
inspector Inspected thu Monticello Ford Wilding and reconicnonded
that the building not be occupied foe any bueineoo until the
building wan brought up to Wilding cotes utructurally. Tlm
building inapector at that time along with the City Enyincor
fult that the building wan otruutura fly unsinund and would need
major repairs to be nafc for other uses. The City has not
allowed thu building to lar ural dor .Mir, i urpure otlior than
storage since that timu but in roviewiml thu matter with tis'
City Attorney. Gary Pringle, it ten cmc to our attention th,L
the main concerns of On City Council arui the building inspector
provioubly, roto with the old basic building aiul did not include
Planning Commission Agenda - 4/1$/83
the body shop area which was added on after the original building
was built. According to the City Attorney, it was his under
standing that the actual body shop building where Mr. Townsend
Js proposing to locate his repair facility was strnoturallp salud
and was not in question at the time an order was issued to have
the building brought up to standards.
Mr. Townsend would only be renting the body shop portion of the
dealership complex and would propose to not have any access into
the other portion of the building from the body shop. Be had
indicated that the doors would be locked from the body shop to
the rest of the building and possibly if this conditional use
is approved, it maybe should be recommended that the doors
from the body shop area be permanently sealed so that Mr. Town-
send would not have any access into the other portion for
storage, etc.
The parking areas on the proFQrty of tit,, ioriticallu Ford buildirej
aro currently not hard surfaced and ,rc.wriu ry to the City ordi-
nances all parking areas should be bl.n:k toppewl or concrete.
Mr. Townsend along with building owner, Larry Flawe, also re-
quested that a varianco be granted from hard surfacing the p" k-
ing arca required for Mr. Townsend's repair facility as Mr.
Flake does not wish to exlMnd any money improving the parking
area as he does not know the future of the entire building.
Public hearing notices have been sent to all property owners
within 350 feet and as of the date this item is being prepared,
no commonts have been heard from any other area property amore.
P0SSIBIE ACTION, consideration of roc: Wing approval or
denial of conditional use permit for an auto repair facility in
the body shop area of the old H=ticello Ford building.
RFPERENCESr A map depicting location of the property and a
oketch of the body area of the building.
Ctouncil Agenda - 4/25/83
i
a 9. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit for a Minor Auto Repair
Facility in ca B-4 7.ona and Consideration of a Variance frcm Hard
Surfacing of Parking Area - I -at Townsend. (R.M.) and (T.E.).
As you may rr-a411, Me. Pat Townsend at nhe tiivembur ll,th, 1982
Planning Co®lssion meeting, requested a conditional use permit
to he allowed to operate a minor auto repair shop at his home
located at 107 Locust Street. Mr. Town-;cnd was basically work-
ing with transmission and radiator rept ir5 and the Planning
Commission granted the conditional u•� permit on i, tccporary
one year basic.
Mr. Townsend has now re-applied for a a,atditional •35c larm,r
to open a minor auto repiir facility in .1 portion of the former
Monticello Ford Garage located acrot;u the street from his present
home.
Mr. Townsend is requesting to use the former body shop p.ertion of
the Monticallo Ford Garage which is located on the north end of
the building which has access through the alley off of Lr curt
Stract. The silo of the body shop he will be ranting from Mr.
1ttty Flake is 30 feet by S2 feet and would have su[ficicnt
sire for at least 2 vehicles at one time. Rio former location
wan in a garage at his rosldeneo which basically had only one
cervico stall at a time. The City ordinanceo require that a
conditional Lase be granted [or an auto rel,air facility in e
R-4 zuno even though tlw present IMat ion wail previously used
ea a auto repair facility.
1-arkinq requirements on site for this tyl..• of Istsinuaa would
requiro B parking spaces consisting of for the auto rapair
1,uninesa and 2 spaces ror each at.tll ay.,, lahlu. 11w ptupociA.
area for parking would to on the n.,ru, enol of tlu,_ Wilding off
of lhu alloy aha there would hn suf f w,out up aco lot tho earn.
As Gem Lal you tang recall, apprvxicn,te,•; ) yearn ago after
Monticello Ford moved to ato net+ locat.,.,, ..% 1-94, tha btaildinl
in..Imctor incpactod the Munticull. F•ai tu,ltlimj at.d ttccrmn,cndr..l
that the building not Lw occupi.d 1... ,u,r l.uou,euo ust,l th,•
Luildiny won brought up to h•iluu.-n tot.in ativ,•turally. Tho
building Intij.Kn rr at that time alcaq W" 11 the City Utgi,nett
felt that tl,e building was otruvtutaiiy untuurxl and wouldi nocd
ritlor repairs; to be safe for otter uct,,. Tho City has not
allowed the buildiny to lu uoad fur any purpotio tither than
bttirago $Inco that timo but in rovtowing the matter with the
City Attotnoy, Gary Pringle, It hap coati to our attention that
t tie Pain conr-elno of the City Council arra the !wilding inspector
Itcviuunly, %faro with the old hnsiC Willing and did not include
4
I'ouer,il Aq!,.nla -
the body shop area which was added on after the original building
was built. According to the City Attorney, it was his under-
ntanding that the actual body shop building where Mr. Townsend
Is proposing to locate hiu repair facility was utrueutrally sound
and was not in question at the time an urder was issued to have
the building brought up to standards.
Mr. Townsend would only be renting the buiy uhop portion of the
dealership complex and would propose to not have anyaccn..s into
the other portion of the building from the body shop. lie had
indicated that the doors would Ic locked fr.m the hay shop to
the rest of tLe building and pooaibly .l this cond,tioual use
is approved, it maybe should tti, rec.mm:nded that the doors
from the body shop area be permanently t:oaled so that Mr. Twn-
uend would nut havu any access into Un• other portion for
storage, etr.
The parking areas on the pnop.urty of Lhe MonLieollu Ford hrildinq
aro currently not hard suifaced and arcurding to the Caty urd.-
nances all parkin areas sherild tn: blb-k '.tpped of tuccretr.
Mr. Townsend along with tr.tileiing mann, 1:ttr)' Flaks, altru re-
quosted that a variance bu jrantnd fro: hvd e.urf.acing the Lark-
Ing area Lt.Klusred for Ms. Turn+sand'- rr•y.,.lr fauility an Mt.
Flake dopa not wish to exiluod any twele}' im}roving the parking
arca as he does not know the lutuce r,f the entire buildiny.
Ili., planning Ctmmtaniun iccc.mm:rrk<1 rpgrtovjlof aconditiunal use
permit fnt an auto cepa Lr facility in Uvi Lady uhop area of t1w
uld Monticello Ford Dnildiug contGalontt ul•ont
1. That the parking areas for the btuinuno be behind the
innilding unly.
7. That a variance on tho black topping and the conditional
ucu permit to granted fur one year at which time It would
he reviewed.
J. That the old condirnunal u..0 purnit granted to Mr. Tuwnsunul
be considered explrcd for an aura t.ulrair facility.
4. That the conditional u,.0 porm.l iu to lac. Tuwuocnd only at
this facility.
In addition to the pruvialonc: that Ur rlanntng Cotemiueton Iwo
ntwillated, t thiol: it would I- trnr, to attach to th, lermit,
nutitication that th.• condicional uc., it-ovli, lifted with lU or
. J dayu notlec should the City or thr tIMA :,•conte th,) owner of
uai.1 I,rrgurty. As yuu ewer-, it.e t.nt,re Ftako Crmg,l.r i•, part
.n tl.e rv,1,vvlopanent hoes and wuuldlk , v,lnthle 1,,o, of It q.tr-,
r*,.Li i.or.0 tax im,romeut IIranr.ng m, -,w -.Id we have , dev.l ,en.
G.un� i 1 Ayuiula - 4/21,/111
I would hate to see thn opf-orcnn.ty to " ,ftu :, mt;a,. Jucc;e;,-
ment bn otallod because I4r. T„wnc:vw1 ....: l :M.: 1— tv ;. 1,n hie
conditional use for his rad iatur rel -air c ,,:p, r. rare] linq the
conditional uac is about th, only w,ry wt- nald e,�ntrul the u:.e
of the building. Rogardlesc of the 1c•,.•;u, of thrs loo:;e I,e may
enter with the present omer, if the permit were lifted at the
time the City purchased the property, Mr. Irwnsend could not
conduct any business an the site. Should he lose the right
to conduct his business, I am assuming that he would be more
than happy to move back to his original site so he could con-
tinue his work.
RECOMMMED ACTION: Based on the recommendations of the Plan-
ning Commission, I el so recommend that the cnadit ionel use be
granted, but that all of the conditions stated by the Planning
Commission as well as a notification provision be included and
attached as part of t14e permit.
REFERENCES: A map depicting location of the property and a
sketch of the body chop area of the building.
21
-1]-
AGENLA SUPPLEMENT
Below is a sucgested list of reculations for an
ordinance amendment to allow flea markets as a
conditional use in a B-3 zone. Plarning Ccemission
membere may have suggestions for additions or deletions.
Flea Market defined as designated ares for the
sale of merchandise goods and efiblo food products.
Items for Sale:
A. Clean used merchandise.
B. New hand -made craft items.
C. Food that is not to be consumed on the property.
Size of Sales Spaces
A. 8' x 12' sales area maximum.
1. Minimum area allowed but not more than two
vendors in maximum area.
B. 8' front foot area.
1. Maximum of two vLndorn allowed per front
foot area.
Parking Space Required:
A. 6 spaces per vendor.
B. 0 spaces por vender apace if shared by two vendors.
C. Rardourfaced and concrete curb end gutter.
Rest Room FaeilitiCU:
A. On site rootroom facility for beth sexes or
B. Approval to use restroom facilition on
abutting property.
sanitation Facilitleai
A. Screened off area for garlagc disposal.
B. Oartago dumpotor.
Prcperty Lino Sotbackoi
A. Minimum lot width - 100 ft.
D. Minimum lot doEth - 150 ft.
C. Minimum lot area - 15.000 ay, ft.
D. Front yard setback - 30 ft.
F. Side yard setback - 20 ft.
F. Roar yard notback - 30 ft.
O. Maximum vendor area - 30%. excluding parking.
Other t
Oporater rcoponoiblo for prnviutunj of ordinance
regulating tranoiont merchants.
u
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/83
7. John Sandberg - Proposed Subdivision of City Lot to Allow for
Construction of Two Single Family Houses.
Mr. Sandberg would like to subdivide the westerly 21 2/3 feet
cf Lot 4, all of Lot 5, Block 7, Lower Monticello Addition.
This being a lot next to the river, right off of east River
Street, the requirements for subdivision of the lots would be
that the residential lot facing towards River Street would be
a minimum of 12,000 square feet, which he does have, and the lot
to the rear that would be off of the river has to maintain
a minimum of 15,000 square feet in size. Mr. Sandberg exceeds
that minimum amount of setbacks, sideyard, rear yard and front
setback and would be adhered to within his proposed subdivision
of the front lot. On the rear lot, the sideyard, the front yard,
rear yard setback, and setback off of the river would be
adhered to also within his proposed simple subdivision. The
minimum front footage of tho lot is exceeded here also with
the minimum being 80 feet and he has 107.66 feet. The service
to the front lot off of River Street would be serviced by an
existing service line out into the street. However, service
to the rear property lot would be serviced by a 10 foot ease-
ment granted along the front property lot line to the east
side of the lot extending through the rear lot line of the
front property. Along this casement line would be the water and
sewer linea to service the rear subdivided lot. Entrance for the
front lot would be off of River Street and entrance to the rear
Lot would be off of Now Strcot. Now Street has not been
vacatod therefore it ie atill a developed city street. We
have other houses along cast River River here that also use
our city street as a driveway to service one lot or two
residential lots, therefore, waiving the right to have a now
street put in with curb and gutter.
Enclosed photos at Tuesday night's meeting will show other
instances where this has taken place in the City.
POSSIBLE ACTIONt Approval or denial of a simple subdivision
of a ronidontial lot in the City meeting the zoning require -
menta.
REFERENCESi A map dopicting the location of the lot, a of to
plan showing the proposed subdivision of the lot. Photou to
W presented at Tuesday night'o meeting.
`
o .,`f V < w // ... 11 • ..,#•
IS -
lei
Ob
� `�. ♦ err, �� \r • : f
o
17
a
D
�1 5ewt4 A�
loelt,
Ease oal 1101,
Rog Lot
/45 /