Planning Commission Agenda Packet 07-09-1985v AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
July 9, 1 985 - 7:30 P.M.
Members: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Richard
Martie, and Ed Schaffer.
7:30 P.M. I. Call to Order.
7:32 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held June 11 , 1965.
7:34 P.M. 3. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow Lees
than the Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Required
and to Allow no Cubing in Certain Areas of a
Parking Lot - Applicant, Jim Powers.
7:19 P.M. 4. Public Hearing - A Development Plan for a Planned
Unit Development - Applicant, John Ko rnovich.
8:00 P.M. 5. Public Hearing - A Revised Development Plan for
a Planned Unit Development - Applicant, Mike Rehor.
Additional Information Items
8:34 P.M. 1. Sot tho next tontative data for the Monticello
Planning Commiso Son meeting for Tuooday, Auguot 13,
1985, 7:30 P.M.
9:04 P.M. 2. Adjournment.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/85
3. Public Hearing - Variance Request to Allow Leas than the Minimum
Number of Parking Sjpaces Required and to Allow no Curbing in
Certain Areas of a Parking Lot - Applicant, Jim Powers. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Jim Powers, partner in Powers Strength 6 Health, Inc., is
proposing to be allowed less than the minimum number of parking
spaces required for a parking lot. In calculating the total
number of spaces required for the different sections of the building,
Mr. Powers would need a total of 209 spaces. Mr. Powers currently
has 121 spaces and needs a variance for 88 spaces. In calculating
the spaces broken down, Mr. Powers needs 35 spaces for the lounge
area, 38 spaces for the retail rental space, and 136 spaces for
the health club itself, for a total of 209. Also, when the lot
to the north is developed, Mr. Powers is proposing to have a
shared parking facility with this adjoining lot. With the lot
line on the north side of his existing lot, he is proposing to
have no curbing placed within 5 feet of the lot line. With the
large size of the proposed health club and the different amounts
of people coming at different times of the day, we could possibly
look at a variance in this case on the total number of parking
spaces for a period not to exceed one year and see if the current
total number of parking spaces he has is adequate for his business.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow lees than the minimum
number of parking spaces.
2. Deny the variance request to allow l000 than the minimum
number of parking apacoo.
3. Approve the variance roquoot to allow l000 than the minimum
number of parking spaces for a period not to exceed one year,
when it would be reviewed and determined at that time if
additional parking spaces are needed.
d. Approve the no curbing along the north portion of his parking
lot.
5. Deny the variance roquoot to allow no curbing along the north
oido of hio parking lot.
6. Approve the variance request to allow no curbing along the
north oido of the property for a period of one year. At
that time it would be reviewed; and if additional parking
Io needed, the additional parking could be put in and a now
curb line established. If it io not needed, the no curbing
could remain intact until now propartico aro developed on
the adjoining lot.
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/85
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to allow less than the
minimum number of parking spaces required, with this variance
being approved for a period of one year only, if not sooner.
The property would be reviewed once a month after it opens; and
if it necessitates the need for additional parking to be provided
at that time, Mr. Powers would be informed that he would have
to create additional parking spaces. Staff also recommends
approval of the variance request to allow no curbing along the
north side of the property; but should a building be built on
the adjoining lot to the north and a shared parking for that
proposed building not tie needed, a curbing would have to be installed
on Mr. Powers- property.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of
the site plan; Copy of the calculations for the total number
of spaces needed.
-2-
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/85
4. Public Hearing - A Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development -
Applicant, John Kornovich. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
City staff, Thomas Eidem and Gary Anderson, met with the owners
of the proposed new development to be called West -Cello Apartments,
Lionel Kull and Steve Upgren, on Wednesday afternoon to go over
staff review of their development stage of the Planned Unit Development.
In going through the development stage of the Planned Unit Development
guidelines, we noted a couple of things that weren't marked on
the plane yet. They are basically dimension lines, which will
be put in prior to the Tuesday night Planning Commission meeting.
You will, however, note a change in the overall layout of the
proposed apartment buildings on the site. Building #3 has been
moved to the far northeast corner of the property to allow for
more parking area along the east side of the proposed park property.
They have also proposed a playground to be constructed immediately
to the east of building 03. The comments from our Consulting
Engineer, John Badalich of OSM, have boon addressed and are so
noted on the enclosed development plan. Also, numerous comments
from Consulting Planner, John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow and
Uban, Inc., are also included on the revised development plan.
In soma locations, we may look at surmountable curbing instead
of non-surmountablo curbing along the parking areae on the east
side of the property. Also shown would be the easement surrounding
the entire property. The locations of the dumpators, which are
indicated "PE" on the plan,might be relocated to a different
area.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the development stage of a Planned Unit Development.
2. Deny the development stage of a Planned Unit Development.
3. Approve the development stage of a Planned Unit Development
with any conditions as attached by Planning Commiooion and/or
otaff.
4. If the development stage is approved, than approve the final
otago of a Planned Unit Development.
5. if the development stags in approved, than deny the final
stage of a Planned Unit Development.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has opont a conoidorablo amount of time with the ownero
of the project, Mr. Upgran and Lionel Kull, and they have boon
very cooperative in mooting all our requiromento of a Planned
-3-
Planning Commission Agenda — 7/9/85
.� Unit Development. They have also adhered to a new landscaping
plan which we are proposing to adopt, but which hasn't been adopted
at this time. Staff feels the few items which they are short
now will be penciled in on the final copy to be prepared before
recording. With these changes as indicated on their rough copy,
we would look at approval of the development stage as presented
and also final approval of the Planned Unit Development in its
final form.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the revised development plan.
-4-
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/9/85
V 5. Public Hearing - A Revised Development Plan for a Planned Unit
Development - Applicant, Mike Rcher. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Mike Reher is proposing a revised development plan for his
Victoria Square Planned Unit Development. As part of Phase I,
he is proposing townhouse units rather than his originally proposed
office units with condo living quarters above. In review of
his development plan for his revised Phase I, we note everything
to be in order. The part we are concerned with and we do not
have at this time is a copy of the other phases of the Planned
Unit Development and their intent for a proposed use. In talking
with Mr. Reher this morning, he indicated he would bring to the
Planning Commission meeting a copy of the entire proposed development
of the Planned Unit Development with the proposed uses of each
phase and also the proposed rededication of existing and new
streate.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the revised development stage of a Planned Unit Development.
2. Deny the revised development plan for a Planned Unit Development.
3. Approve the revised plan for a Planned Unit Development with
�- any additional conditions to be attached by Planning Commission
or City staff.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff rocommendo approval of the reviood development otage for
the Planned Unit Development. This approval in for Phase I only;
and prior to approval of thio, we aro looking at the entire use
of all the additional phaooe of this proposed Planned Unit Development,
with some conditions to be added upon review of the propocod
other pha000.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the propooed Planned Unit Development;
Copy of the oito plan for the proposed 27 townhou000.
-5-