Planning Commission Agenda Packet 07-14-1987AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 14, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
Members: Richard Carlson, Joyce Dowling, Richard Martie,
Barbara Koropchak, Jim Ridgeway
7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order.
7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held June 9.
1987.
7:34 p.m. 3. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow a deck
to be constructed within the sideyard setback requirement.
Applicant, Tom Lindquist.
7:54 p.m. 4. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow placement
of a pylon sign within the pylon sign setback requirement.
Applicant, Wayne Brinkman.
8:09 p.m. 5. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow construction
of a swimming pool within the rear yard setback requirement.
Applicant, Bob Neiman.
8:24 p.m. 6. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow construction
of a house and garage within the eideyard setback
requirement. Applicant, Janette Leerssen.
8:39 p.m. 7. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow a curb
cut within 40 foot of a street right-of-way, and to
allow a street right-of-way to be used for a parking
lot driving lane, and to allow a parking lot to be
constructed without a 5 -foot groan area around its
perimeter. Applicant, Al Janos.
8:54 p.m. B. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow a portion
of a parking lot curbing to be omitted. Applicant,
Al Joyner.
Additional Information Items
9:09 p.m. 1. Conditional use request to allow more than 12 apartment
units in a downtown commercial building. Variance
request to allow five existing apartments to remain
on the first floor of a downtown commercial building
as a non -conforming use. Applicant, Gary Ha=r.
Applicant requests Planning Commission to table his
requests for a period of one year, as he has now entered
into a lease agreement for the restaurant portion
of his building.
Agenda
Planning Commission
July 16, 1987
Page 2
9:14 p.m. 2. A variance request to allow construction of a garage/porch
addition within the sideyard setback requirement.
Applicant, Max and See LeVelle. Planning Commission's
variance approval stands approved, as there were no
appeals.
9:16 p.m. 3. Consideration of approval of final platting of a replatted
lot to be known as Colony by the Greene Third Addition.
Applicant, Jay and Vivian Miller. Council Action:
Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
9:18 p.m. 4. A proposed subdivision to be known as Highland Heights
Addition. Applicant, Rivera Financial and Development
Company. The preliminary plat request will be coming
before the Planning Commission at the August 11, 1987,
meeting.
9:20 p.m. S. Set the next tentative data for the Monticello Planning
Commission for Tuesday. August 11, 1987, 7:30 p.m.
9:22 p.m. 6. Adjournment.
MINUTES
L REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 9, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Richard Martie, Jim Ridgeway,
Joyce Dowling, Barbara Koropchak
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Gary Anderson
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at
7:36 p.m.
2. Motion by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the
minutes of the May 12, 1987, Planning Commission meeting. Motion
carried unanimously with Barbara Koropchak absent.
Barbara Koropchak arrived at the meeting at 7:34 p.m.
3. Public Hearin - A conditional use request to allow more than 12
apartment units in a downtown commercial building. A variance request
to allow five existing al?artmento to remain on the first floor of
a downtown commercial building as a non -conforming use. Applicant,
Gary Hammer.
Mr. Gary Hammer was present to propose hie request to renovate his
building and have the restaurant removed to allow comma rcial/retail
office rental space in the former cafe rental apace. Mr. Hemmer
explained the reason for terminating the restaurant wan that they
tried originally to otart up the restaurant business on their own.
They purchased the equipment themselves. They have had three previous
people in there just to run the restaurant with the intention of buying
the equipment, and none of those three have been able to make money
at this; therefore, Mr. Hammer would like to terminate the restaurant
business.
Mr. Hammer did indicate that after he filed his application for the
public hoaring notice, he did meat with a now prospective tenant
to rent the restaurant portion of the building and hoo proposed to
hoc a one-year laaae with the lease including outright purchase of
the restaurant equipment. Mr. Hammer indicated hie intent was to
got input now from the Planning Commission, ohould the now lease
not take place, whether or not he could convert the use of the restaurant
to a rental retail/commorcial space.
Planning Commission Chairperson Richard Carlson opened the meeting
for the input from the public. There being no input from the public,
Planning Commission member Jim Ridgeway questioned why the Planning
Commission should consider changing the conditional use when we went
through extensive planning work to allow this operation as a conditional
use in the first place. Commission member Joyce Dowling questioned
-1-
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/9/87
why he would be changing the use when he indicated he already had
a leasee for the restaurant. Joyce also questioned why he would
be changing the use of the restaurant space when we already have
downtown many office retail spaces that are vacant, or do you already
have somebody in line to rent an office retail space from you? Mr.
Hemmer countered that he had intentions, if the restaurant business
did not work out, of converting it to some type of allowable commercial
business type use in a B-6 Zone where he could start his own business.
Commission member Barbara Koropchak questioned if the tenants in
the upstairs and main floor rental units of this building are using
the restaurant facilities. Mr. Hammer indicated that the tenants
wren -t obligated to use the restaurant as part of their lease; but
with the type of people that are ranting the units, most of them
being construction workers, they do patronise the restaurant business.
Commission member Jim Ridgeway questioned if his retail rental space
does not go over, what will atop him from converting it entirely
into apartment unite. Zoning Administrator Anderson said we have
enough teeth within our ordinance that this could not be allowed;
but conceivably it could be allowed if someone would come in and
apply for it as a conditional use.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Chairperson Richard Carlson
that he had received a letter and would like to enter it into the
record for public testimony.
The letter wan read by Chairperson Richard Carlson. It was from
Dr. Keeper, a commercial property owner across Cedar Street from
the applicant -s building. The basic content of the letter was voicing
his objection to the conditional use when some of the tenants of
the rental unite in this building are taking up prime parking spaces
in front of his building or in his private parking lot and parking
their vehicles there all day long.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then cloned the public hearing and asked
for a motion. Motion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Joyce Dowling,
to table Mr. Hammer's request for a conditional use to allow more
than 12 apartment unite in a downtown commercial building, and a
variance request to allow five existing apartments to remain on the
first floor of a downtown commercial building as a non -conforming
use. Motion carried unanimously. The reason for denial is that
the owner, Mr. Hammer, has a prospective tenant or lessee for the
restaurant portion of hie building at this time, and maybe soma concossions
could be made between the owner and the lessee where this losoce
could make a go of the restaurant business.
Zoning Administrator Anderson asked Mr. Hammer if he would consider
the letter we received from Dr. Kasper and talk with the caretaker
of his building or notify all the tenants in the building to take
their daytime parking of vehicles into another area that wouldn-t
be in the prime parking spots for other commercial businesses in
or near the restaurant portion of this building. Mr. Hammer indicated
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/9/87
he would talk to the caretaker of his building after the meeting
tonight and notify all the tenants to make sure that they are going
to park off street during the daytime hours and park in a public
parking lot near the old Monticello fire station.
4. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow construction of a garage/porch
addition within the sidevard setback requirements. Applicant, Max
and Sue LeVelle.
Mr. David Crummy was present on behalf of the applicant. Max and
Sue LaVelle, to propose their request to construct a garage/porch
addition onto their existing house within the sideyard setback requirement.
Mr. Crummy indicated the seback on the southeast corner of the garage
addition would be approximately 12 feet from the side property line,
and the southwest corner of the garage addition would be approximately
17 feet from the side property line. The minimum requirement of
a sidayard setback on a corner lot is 20 feet. Mr. Crummy indicated
the proposed addition would be a garage and a screened porch and
a storage area, with the existing garage to be remodeled into a rec
room or family room. Commission members questioned how the City
staff felt in regards to the applicants request. Zoning Administrator
Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members that staff had
no problems with the applicants variance request in that the minimum
square footages for the proposed house and the garage/porch addition
met the minimum requirements, were within the maximum requirements
of the ordinance in that the maximum lot coverage was less than the
maximum allowed of 30 percent, and with the additional right-of-way
with Nest County Road 79 which goes by this property, there is sufficient
right -of -ray and no sight lines would be obstructed at the intersection
of Oakview Lane and Nest County Road 79. Chairperson Richard Carlson
than closed the public hearing and asked for a motion.
Motion by Barbara Koropchak, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve
the variance request to allow construction of a garage/porch addition
within the sideyard setback requirement. Motion carried unanimously.
9. Consideration to approve the final platting of a replettod lot to
be known as Colony by the Greene Third Addition. Applicant, Jay
and Vivian Miller.
Mr. Jay Miller was present to propose final platting of a subdivided
residential lot into eight townhouse Iota with an outlot to be known
as the Colony by the Greene Third Addition. Chairperson Richard
Carlson questioned if the staff had any concerns with the final subdivision
plat. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated that all of the minimum
setback requirements and minimum townhouse and garage square footages
were met, and the only change from Colony by the Greene First and
Second Additions is that these have an upper level. Chairperson
Richard Carlson then asked for a motion on the proposed final platting
request.
Motion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the
final platting of a replotted lot to be known as Colony by the Greens
Third Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/9/87
Additional Information Items
Zoning Administrator Anderson vent through the additional information
items with the Planning Commission members, and they are as follows.
1. A requeet for partial subdivision of a residential outlot, Outlot H,
Meadow Oak Additions to be known as the Meadow Oak Fourth Addition.
Applicant, Dickman Knutson. Council action: Approved with conditions.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
that the Council approved in its entirety with a few additional conditions
Mr. Knutson6s request for partial platting of the Outlot H to be
known as the Meadow Oak Fourth Addition. The only change was that
the entire Outlot H has to be platted prior to recording; and by
allowing the whole thing to be platted, the Council granted staging
of it with the first part of the first 14 lots would be platted only
at this time. Other conditions such as drainage and grading of the
existing area around the late, with the drainage being directed to
the pond between the Meadow Oak Second Addition and the Meadow Oak
Estates, were agreed upon and put into a signed agreement between
City staff and Dickman Knutson. Three other items were included
in the agreement as follows. 1) An additional catch basin be installed
at the intersection of Oakview Lane and Meadow Oak Drive; 2) A
catch basin be constructed to the rear of the lots near the White
Oak Circle cul-de-sac in the Meadow Oak Estates Addition; 3) Money
be put up front by the developer to pay for the entire aoalcoating
of the Meadow Oak Second Addition. Also as pert of the agreement,
the developer vent back to the original concept of the Planned Unit
Development, that being a minimum of two trace to be planted in tho
front yards of bare Iota where now houses are constructed, and the
sod or Beading of the entire area not taken up by the house back
to the rear of the house.
2. Conditional use request to allow minor auto repair in a B -d (Regional
Business) Zone. Applicant, James Eisele. Council action: Approved.
Council followed along with Planning Commiasion'e recommendation
for approval of Mr. Eisole-a proposed renovation of the existing
building. However, Mr. Eisele had submitted an alternative proposal
to the City Council which was not presented to the Planning Commission,
that being removal of the existing building with a now building to
be constructed further back on the lot. The Council granted the
conditional use permit with the condition that the applicant hook
up to water and Bever and that it be installed prior to issuance
of a certificate of occupancy.
3. Consideration of Adopting Tax Increment District 17. Council action:
Approved.
This was the establishment of Tax Increment District 47 for the now
H -Window Company to be known as the North Amorican Window Company.
-a-
vN
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/9/87
4. A request for open discussion of proposed sketch plan for unplatted
property. Applicant, Rivera Financial and Development Corporation.
Council action: Send back to Planning Commission.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated that Mr. Rivera had
Mr. Dennis Taylor present at the citizens comments section of the
last City Council meeting on May 26. The Council informed Mr. Taylor
of the minimum requirements of the ordinance and that he should take
it back to the Monticello Planning Commission to go through the proper
channels for filing his request. Zoning Administrator Anderson also
informed the Planning Commission members that Mr. Rivera will be
back before them at the next Planning Commission meeting in July
to propose a rezoning request and have a preliminary plat for his
proposed new subdivision to be known as the Highland Heights Addition.
5. Annexation Update.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
that the public hearings for the annexation have been completed,
and the State Municipal Hoard has up to two years to render their
decision. The City of Monticello has received some indication from
the Municipal Board that a decision may be forthcoming In or about
90 days. If this decision does come within that time, one could
assume that there would be an appeal filed by the Monticello Township
Board.
6. Consensus of the Planning Commission members was that they eat the
next tentative date for the Monticello Planning Commission mooting
for Tuesday. July 14, 1987, 7:30 p.m. Zoning Administrator Anderson
asked if he could receive some input from the Planning Commission
members on the blight portion of our ordinance. Zoning Adminiatrator
Anderson indicated that there are approximately 110 blight lettoro
that have been sent out for excessive erase height and weeds and
non-current licensed vehicles. The overall response has boon very
positive from the blight letter recipients in that they have taken
the necessary steps to correct the blight within a very short time
upon receipt of the latter. The problem Zoning Administrator Anderson
indicated to the Planning Commioolon members vas that the ordinance
in oat up whore they got 14 days to correct the blight. If it is
not completed within 14 days, it in turned over to the city attorneys
office. That's whore the problem comes in. They are not processed
immodiatoly from the city attornoy'a office, and he puts a timetable
on them at hie own discretion. Most of the time the delay from the
initial sending of the latter to the latter being sant out from the
attorney with the completion data of correcting the violation can
be anywhere from two to three months. Many times after that period
of time, the violation still hasn't boon cleared up. The consensus
from the Planning Commission members was that the ordinance be adhered
to in its entirety. When the 14 days are up, corrective action should
be taxon by the City to eliminate the blight problem which exists
rather than going through the route of sending it on to the attorney
and then his sending a letter to the property owner.
-S-
U
Planning Commission Minutes - 6/9/87
7. Planning Commission member Jim Ridgeway questioned Zoning Administrator
Anderson what the City ties doing on the downtown redevelopment.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Commission members that
the Council had approved an expenditure to have OSM prepare a computer
aided mapping of the entire downtown area. With the new mapping
of the area, different areas could be developed and copies made of
prospective development showing exactly what is existing on each
of these blocks within the downtown redevelopment area. Commission
members questioned Joyce Dowling, as she is the only business person
on the Planning Commission Board, of what her feelings were on the
downtown development progress. Joyce felt that the general consensus
of the property owners downtown was to get something going, and they
were waiting for the City to follow through on their end. Mr. Ridgeway
volunteered his support and time to make the contacts with the business
people downtown to got something going on the downtown redevelopment.
He wanted it made very clear that he is an independent person willing
to help out to see something happen in the downtown area.
Motion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Richard Martie, to adjourn the
meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:13 p.m.
Respectfully /submitted.
r Gary Anderson
V� Zoning Administrator
-6-
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/14/87
3. Public Hearin@ - A variance request to allow a deck to be constructed
within the sideyard setback requirement. Applicant, Tom Lindquist. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Lindquist has already completed installing a deck around the
above -ground pool behind his house and also a deck adjacent the pool
off the rear of the house. The deck around the above -ground swimming
pool was placed within six feet of the side lot line. In driving
by the property, you will note that all the work had been completed
without obtaining a building permit to do the work. In this case,
any action you take will be after the fact, as the project has bean
completely done for over a month. However, City staff does not see
any problem with the variance request other than the work was done
without a permit. Therefore, we feel that a building permit should
be issued and the fee should be doubled for the total permit amount
for the work that has already been done.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow a deck to be constructed
within the sideyard setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a deck to be constructed within
the sidoyard setback requirement.
3. Approve the variance request to allow the dock to be constructed
within the sideyard setback requirement and the building permit
be issued with the fee doubled to the applicant.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
In this case, any action that the Planning Commission will be taking
will be after the fact, as this project has boon completely finished.
Staff feole very strong that the applicant be put on notice that
the he first obtain a building permit before starting any future
work on his residence; and secondly, the minimum building permit
fee be at least doubled to the applicant for his work that has already
been completed.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the
site plan for the variance request.
Ma
Variance request to allow a deck to be
constructed within the sideyard setback
- ----------------------I \`� requirement.
Tom Lindquist.
i
I
••o.. %� 1i J \�\\
i
Ip
r •� �: .oA
r
4 �w
tl
3.,a
LU.iM
OfQ�t
It
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/14/87
4. Public Hearing - A variance regueat to allow Placement of a pylon
sign within the pylon sign setback requirement. Applicant, Wayne
Brinkman. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Wayne Brinkman. owner of the new National Bushing Parts Store,
is proposing to place the pylon sign just within the curb line approximately
five feet from the property line. Minimum requirement is fifteen feet
from a public right-of-way. Therefore. Mr. Brinkman Will be looking
for a 10 -foot variance. With a proposed extension of West Seventh
Street at sometime in the future, Mr. Brinkman -e front property line
would be extended with the realignment of West Seventh Street.
S. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow placement of a pylon sign
within the pylon sign setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance request to allow placement of a pylon sign
within the pylon sign setback requirement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow a pylon
sign to be constructed within five feet of a public right-of-way.
With the realignment of West Seventh Street at sometime in the future,
this property will gain additional property on the front side of
their building.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the
site plan.
-2-
L
JI1�:
\•� moi' :;��. � � "� �� �
e �W�' A� PROPOSED
7700f
BUILDING e"
I • 11, F
VA:.l.-� vAawa AWS
=A;-03 "U: S
/ Q ►A
�.?4. 0
.I SEVENTH STREET j
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/16/87
r
5. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow construction of a swimming
pool within the rear vard setback requirement. Applicant. Bob Neiman. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Neiman is in the process of building a new house on one of the
lots abutting the river in the Pitt Addition. Mr. Neiman is requesting
to be allowed to construct as inground swimming pool within the 50 -foot
rear yard setback requirement. The location of the applicants request
falls within the area for the management of the Mississippi Wild,
Scenic, and Recreational River System and the shoreline areae of
the city of Monticello. I have been in contact with Mr. Dale eomuth,
staff member, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Cloud
Division, St. Cloud, Minnesota, in regards to the applicantle request.
Mr. Homuth indicated that as a representative for the Department
of Natural Resources, they would have no problem with the applicants
request.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Approve the variance request to allow construction of a swimming
pool within the rear yard setback requirement.
2. Deny tho variance requost to allow construction of a swimming
pool within the rear yard setback requirement.
\` C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow placement
of an inground swimming pool within the rear yard setback requirement.
As per discussions with Mr. Dale Homutl,, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, they have no problems with the applLcant's request.
No, likewise, render our dociaion. Ono possible condition we might
want to add to this is that the drain for the swimming pool must
be connected to the City sanitary sewer system.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the variance requests Copy of tho site plan
indicating the location of the pool on this lot.
-I-
____- \�
_ _ I A variance request to allow construction
I •.� -Tof a swimming pool within the rear yard
setback r
� equltement.
Bob Weiman.
� s
I --- , tp \
\%rS
ISI ''� �
l., . �' " f
1•,
c�
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/14/87
6. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow construction of a house
and garage within the sideyard setback requirement. Applicant, Janette
Leerssen. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Pars. Leeresen is proposing to construct a new house with an attached
garage on the residential lot immediately west of her existing house.
The house which Mrs. Leerseen is proposing to build will meet the
minimum setback requirements; but to allow placement of this house
and garage on this lot does mean that the existing house in which
Mrs. Leerssen is living will be only 4 feet from the side property
line. In looking at the site plan, you can see where the proposed
house and garage will be set on Lot 3 in relationship to the existing
house immediately west owned by Mt. 6 Pars. Toenjes and Mrs. Leerssen-s
house immediately east of the proposed new house and garage. When
Mr. G Kra. Toenjes- and Mr. 6 Mrs. Leeresen's houses were constructed,
they were constructed within the 10 -toot sidoyard setback. However,
at that time there probably weren't any setback requirements.
The whole intent of this variance request is to recognize that a
house and garage can be placed on Lot 3 and meet the minimum setback
requirements of the ordinance, but the variance request is that it
be allowed to be placed there, that the existing houses on the east
and west aide of this proposed Lot 3 were constructed within the
sideyard setback requirements today.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow construction of a house
and garage within the aideyard setback requirement.
2. Deny the variance roquost to allow placement of a house and garage
within the eidayard setback requirement.
C. STAFF RECOKKENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Kra. Loersaon's variance request to
allow a now house and garage to be constructed meeting the minimum
setback roquiromente but also with it placed on the lot that two
existing structures on each side of this lot are non -conforming with
the setback requirements that are required today.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the
site plan for the variance request.
File number: LEEkSSEN LGT 3 131- K '9 Exhibit A
Z /
� 6 /
er J
v )
` RnPorte � / �eT
/ * /,. s
�aN
/ 7
4 n Ve hereby certify that we have made an inspection of the property herein described.
and that this plat shove that location of the improvements thereon, and that there are
no encroachments unless indicated theron. This plat and certificate are for mortgage
purposes only."
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/14/87
y 7. Public Rearing - A variance request to allow a curb cut within 40 feet
of a street right-of-way. as to allow a street right-of-way to be
used for a parxin% lot driving lane, and to allow a parking lot to
be constructed without a 5 -foot green area around its perimeter.
,!Pplicant. Al Jones. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Al Jones purchased the former Figs -it -Shap and is renovating
it into two commercial rental spaces, one rental commercial space
for retail operation of his business and the other for the resurfacing/
grinding of stones for his business. To create more off-street parking
for this particular site, certain variances would be needed to facilitate
this. There currently exists a driveway within 40 feet of the street
right-of-vay at the corner of Fourth Street and walnut Street. By
allowing this curb cut to remain and be used as part of his parking
lot layout, a variance would be needed for a driveway within 40 feet
of a street right-of-way. The second variance, if you want to call
this a variance, would be allowing the street right-of-way on the
north side of west Fourth Street to be used for a driving lane for
the to -be -created parking lot. The third variance would be to allow
this new parking lot to be created without a 5 -foot green area around
its perimeter. In reviewing Mr. Jones's layout for his proposed
parking lot, we recognize a couple of conditions that we have addressed
to Mr. Jones that need to be put in as part of hie variance should
it be approved. The first condition would be that any snow removal
on this street right-of-way that is being used for a parking lot
driveway be at Mr. Jones -s expense. The second condition would
be that should the City or any utility company have to come in and
maintain the utilities or put in new utilities underneath thin portion
of the street right-of-way thatts used for Mr. Jones -a parking lot
driveway, it would be at Mr. Jones -e expense, paying for complete
restoration of this portion of street right-of-way.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance requests to allow a curb cut within 40 feet
of a street right-of-vay, allow a street right-of-way to be used
for a parking lot driving lane, and to allow the parking lot
to be constructed without a 5 -Loot green area around its perimeter.
T. Deny the variance racuest to allow a curb cut within 40 feet
of a street right-of-way, to allow a street right -of -ray to be
used for a parking lot driving lane, and to allow a pocking lot
to be constructed without a 5 -foot green area around its perimeter.
3. Approve the variance request to allow a curb cut within 40 feat
of a street right -of -ray, to allow a street right-of-way to be
used for a parking lot driving lane, and to allow a parking lot
to be constructed without a 5 -foot green area around its perimeter
with the two following conditions:
-5-
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/16/87
a. Any maintenance, snow removal, resurfacing, etc., of the street
V . right-of-vay portion which Mr. Jones to going to use for
a driving lane for his parking lot be at lir. Jones's expense.
b. Should any utility work be done within the street right-of-way
portion which Mr. Jones in using for a parking lot driveway,
restoration expanses for this be at Mr. Jones -s expense.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION;
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow the curb
cut within 40 feet of a street right-ofway, and to allow a street
right-of-way to be used for a parking lot driving lane, and to allow
a parking lot to be constructed without a --foot green area around
its perimeter with the conditions as stated above in alternative
number three.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the site plan.
ME
PLOT PT
IAODRE95 �iii��lll"''%1�� .: �'..' '.I PERMIT IA84EER
:LEGAI• .':�':., .11:.1 '::I1: .I /' �:i •�•.:; :..;
'CRIPTION':;LOT" BLOCK ADDITION
50, rT. Or SITE ARCA Nil. 1 •I• SO. R, Or. AREA OCCUPIED BY BUILDING
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT
rNla roR" MELD NOT DC USES WNCN ►LOT ►LAI.! O�AWN To aCALi ARC TILED WITH THC PCANIT APPLICATIDM.
TOR NCV DYIL0I NO S. ►ROVIDC TN[ rOLLOWINO INPORNATIONI LOCATIOM 0. PROPOSED CONSTAUCTIO. ..0 CKISTIHO
["PRO "CHT SNOW DUILOINO SITC AND SCTDACK OIM[NSIONS. SNOW CAaMENTa, FIN13H CONTOURS OR ORAINACC.
r IRST rLOO- CLCVATIONS.'ST-[CT ELEVATION AND 3"CR CLCVATION. SNOW LOCATION Or WATCR, SCW[R, CAS.
IN0 CLECTAICAL SC -VICE LILACS. 3NpV LOCATIONS Or SURV[Y FINS. SP[CIrY TME USC Or CACTI SUILo ING
.NO LACK NAWOR ►ORTION TMC R[0/.
.. ..—....__ 1
INDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE _ I _EACH GRAPH :CUARE EQUALS 101-0° BY 101-0"
......:...A..A..AA...A.A.........AA.A............A..A....:.:.:::.:.:..:::::.::.::'::::::::.::.:::::::::.:..:...
' (r0- CITY USE ONLY)
ZvmLU / 'U, PAWED BY DATE
n
L
�ImI��AIm1mlAxli.•iri
-AVL...
.'.�?]Y'�'!'.!'1..�:��.
' .- .. •.'ter
•
�.Y.,
VT
'_li?fie
-
i
J
1•
.
......:...A..A..AA...A.A.........AA.A............A..A....:.:.:::.:.:..:::::.::.::'::::::::.::.:::::::::.:..:...
' (r0- CITY USE ONLY)
ZvmLU / 'U, PAWED BY DATE
n
L
Planning Commission Agenda - 7/14/87
t
V
S. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow a portion of a parking
lot curbing to be omitted. Applicant, Al Joyner. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Joyner Innes is currently adding 12 bowling lanes onto the existing
bowling alley. With the construction of the new addition, additional
parking spaces have to be created. When the original bowling alley
was built, no curb or gutter was put in. Minimum requirements right
now are to have curb and gutter put in, and we feel that this to
a new addition and that the entire area should have curb and gutter
around the perimeter of the driveway and entire parking lot. We
do, however, look at an omission of a certain portion of the parking
lot with a rollover type curb or no curbing at all to push snow to
the east side of the parking lot.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow a portion of the parking
lot curbing to be omitted.
2. Deny the variance request to allow a portion of the parking lot
curbing to be omitted.
]. Approve the variance request to allow a portion of the parking
lot curbing to be omitted with the condition that the only portion
would be the portion to be used with a rollover type curb or
no curbing to push the snow out to the east and of the parking
lot.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
With the expansion of an existing building with an addition, oven
though the existing building when it was built did not have to put
in curb and gutter around its parking lot perimeter, we foal at this
time with an addition that it should at least be brought up to the
minimum requiroments which we require now, and that to curbing around
the entire porimmtor of the parking lot driveway. The one exception
would be in the area east of the parking lot to allow a rollover
typo curb or no curbing to allow for snow removal.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request; Copy of the
site plan.
-7-
I
Al
Xll
-....•31.:..r�......•. ...,.�.o,.�,• - � lire.+ w...- �- --•••----•-- --�•-- -
1•••� tee_ ..rwL A...Iw•wM\„ .I►M � 0.•..•. IYr•w. �.�M