HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.09.93 Planning Packet1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M.
2. APPROVE MINUTES
a. January 12, 1993
b. Findings for Conditional Use Requests from Craig Bongard
and James Reisinger
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR
FEBRUARY 9, 1993
a. 7:00 P.M. Consider Rezoning Lots 8 9, Block 17 from
R -2 to B -2
b. Continued Hearing Preliminary Plat of Riverside SW 1/4
of Section 30
c. Continued Hearing Schematic PUD Plan for East
Farmington E 1/2 of Section 32
4. DISCUSSION
a. Very Low Density Housing Option for Southwest Farmington
b. Informal Request from Jerry Ristow on Potential Division
of 1014 -1020 7th Street
c. Pat and Roberta Devney Playhouse
1. Call to Order 7:00 P.M.
2. Approve Minutes
3. Public Hearings
a. 7:00 P.M. Consider Rezoning Lots 8 9, Block 17 from
R -2 to B -2
This proposal has been returned to the Planning Commission
because the list of property owners within 350 feet of the
rezoning did not include the owners of Lots 8 9, Block 17.
Normally, the petitioner and landowner are the same
individual or corporation and there is no need for a mailed
notice to the owner of the property being petitioned for
rezoning. In this instance, the HRA together with the
developer have initiated the request for rezoning but they
do not own the property and it appears that negotiations for
one of the properties became stalled. The HRA has decided
to proceed with the project through any of the options that
are still open. The Commission, on December 8, 1992,
forwarded a recommendation for approval of the rezoning on a
three /one vote with one abstention. The proposal has not
changed since that vote was taken two months ago.
Recommendation
AGENDA REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR
FEBRUARY 9, 1993
Forward a recommendation for rezoning Lots 8 and 9, Block 17
from R -2 to B -2 to the City Council.
Continued Hearing Preliminary Plat of Riverside in SW 1/4
of Section 30
The developer has information put together on the flood
plain but does not have a clear direction yet for the
wetlands on this site. He would like to continue the
hearing until a special meeting to be called by the Chairman
on February 23rd at 7:00 P.M.. The main issue will be where
to mitigate the wetlands that are replaced as there is not
enough room within the plat for required replacement.
Mr. Benedict plans to meet with the City Engineer on this
and other questions discussed in the previous agenda report.
Continued Hearing Schematic PUD Plan for East Farmington
in the E 1/2 of Section 32
Councilmember Galler brought the attached clipping from the
Wall Street Journal on "neotraditionalism" which really gets
to the essence of the Sienna proposal. Based upon the first
part of the public hearing on January 12, 1993, the
developer has revised the proposal to accommodate the level
of detail required in a PUD and to better define the
wetlands issue on site. As mentioned during the first phase
of the Public Hearing, the developer also plans to provide
detail on the style and type of housing that is proposed
within the PUD.
Regarding land use detail, the revised plan now shows an
office building at the intersection of Larch and Highway 3,
200 apartment units fronting on Highway 50, and 64 garden
apartments fronting on County Road 72. Office and
Institutional use, adjoining the Hospital property, have not
been further refined. As a submittal this satisfies all but
the phrase of the PUD Ordinance which indicates that the
height, bulk and approximate location of buildings and other
structures must be provided for the office and institutional
use. This is important since the proposed layout of the
office structure on Highway 3 and the wall of apartments on
Highway 50 raises questions about how well these uses square
with the notion of a neighborhood which replicates the
central neighborhood of Farmington. The wetlands have been
defined generally, but this also raises a question about
where mitigation will occur.
The staff Development Committee has been reviewing the
general proposal and looks upon it favorably. The East
Farmington approach to neighborhood development represents
an efficient use of land that offers a number of advantages.
Some of these are enumerated as follows:
1. It can help the water table problem in Farmington by
moving surface water quickly from roofs, lawns and paved
driveways and streets into a drainage system which will
be in place.
2. It can help accomplish soils correction both by fill on
housing sites and the excavation of NERP ponds to help
clean the storm water runoff before it gets to the
Vermillion River.
3. It will increase the potential for a more active retail
and service center downtown.
4. It reinforces the values present in the older areas of
he City by encouraging a pedestrian oriented
neighborhood.
5. It will provide open space amenities in the neighborhood
which will help maintain and /or increase housing value.
6. It will make the Hospital an integral part of the
central area neighborhood.
7. It will eliminate the "ragged" east edge of Farmington
by extending full community services east of Highway 3.
8. It is likely to provide enough school age children to
assure the continuing need for Farmington Elementary
School.
The neighbors are understandably concerned about the high
water table in the area and want assurances that the
development will not increase existing water problems for
basements. The response should be that this neighborhood
will not be created without construction of the Southeast
Area Storm Sewer Project. The storm sewer project, if
built, will help the existing ground water problem by
collecting the surface water and diverting it into a stream
channel before it becomes ground water. The City currently
has a request before the Vermillion River Watershed District
for the implementation of this proposal.
Other questions involving the proposal for East Farmington
include the extent of wetlands, the amount of land area that
will be necessary to handle storm water settling ponds, and
the requirements of the Park and Recreation Advisory
Commission (PARAC) for parkland dedication. The Fire
Department has also raised questions about the design of the
two minor collector streets.
The most difficult of these issues is the wetlands which, if
the proposal proceeds as currently planned, are likely to be
moved and, therefore, must be mitigated (replaced) at a rate
of 2 acres for every acre disturbed. The revised Planning
Manual and associated plan for the PUD indicates that there
are 10 acres of wetlands which must be replaced within the
PUD. The area that has been discussed as available for
mitigation and NERP ponds is the edge park which contains
approximately 11 acres. This area, however, is also used as
a street which if platted would remove approximately 4 acres
from the edge park. We have a real deficit here of 13 acres
of wetland mitigation without identifying the land that will
be necessary for NERP ponds.
The principal expressed in this analysis is that all of the
requirements associated with this PUD belong within the PUD
or on actual alternative and should not be left to a later
decision by a completely different group of people. In
essence, the easternmost column of blocks should be
redesigned without interior parks. This would result in
blocks with two rows of 60 x 100 foot lots on either side of
an improved alley and a net loss of approximately 24 lots.
The open space for these lots in the resulting half blocks
is then in the Prairie Creek right of way where it can be
used both for NERP ponds and wetland mitigation.
The PARAC did not have a quorum at its meeting this week
and, therefore, has not responded to the active recreation
open space question. The Comprehensive Park Plan does call
for a ballfield, however, and at some point during the
discussion of this schematic PUD a decision as to its
location will be necessary. If the decision is to request a
central location involving one of the blocks, another 16
lots would be sacrificed.
One way to make up for this loss would be to redesign the
southern border of the PUD and replace the 200 apartment
units with two and one -half blocks of single family
dwellings. Such a redesign would likely require a
realignment of the east /west branch of the Prairie Creek.
If a ballfield is acceptable outside of the existing PUD,
such a redesign may not be necessary.
It will be important for the Planning Commission to have
input from PARAC and possibly other items in this analysis
can be discussed more fully if the hearing is continued for
2 weeks. A recommendation could then be forwarded to the
City Council with more assurance that the plan will more
closely reflect the ultimate development.
4. DISCUSSION
a. Very Low Density Housing Option for Southwest Farmington
The attached material on this issue, produced in July and
November, was directed to the Commission for its evaluation.
The first indicated how both the Comprehensive Plan Draft
and the Zoning Ordinance could accommodate such a change and
the second, together with the large scale section map,
worked out the mechanics of the way in which the ordinance
would be administered. The remaining work that needs to be
done is to develop additional language for the zoning
ordinance which will explain the mechanics. This can be
done, but so far a paragraph has not been drafted based upon
the negative response of many of the affected landowners.
If a positive recommendation goes forward to the City
Council, both the additional paragraph and a copy of the
zoning map which designates the new district will be needed
to accompany it. This has been an idea that has been
discussed for at least a year and some action by the
Planning Commission is expected reasonably soon. It
possibly may be a topic that should be added to the City
Council Retreat Agenda on February 20, 1993.
b. Informal Request from Jerry Ristow on Potential Division
of 1014 -1020 7th Street
Mr. Ristow previously brought an item to the attention of
the staff regarding the possibility of dividing a lot from
the rear of his property which fronts on 7th Street. The
new lot, identified on the drawing as Parcel A, would
approximate 6,475 square feet, which meets the minimum lot
area requirement of the ordinance. Parcel B, however, would
approximate 9,506 square feet, The City Zoning Ordinance
indicates that 11,000 square feet is required for a duplex.
In essence, 17,000 square feet would be required before a
split could occur and the lot includes 16,000 square feet.
In order for the split to occur, the Commission would need
to grant a 1000 square foot variance or the owner would need
to convert the duplex to a single family dwelling with an
accessory apartment. It is the understanding of staff that
the design of the duplex would not lend itself to such a
change. Mr. Ristow will be in attendance to ask the
Commission for a preliminary evaluation of his request.
c. Pat and Roberta Devney Playhouse
The enclosed letter from Ernest Darflinger arrived in the
office this week. Because the City Attorney has been ill,
staff has not been able to request a second opinion. An
analysis from Mr. Harmeyer will be necessary before a
response is drafted.
aa„ 1.
Charles Tooker
City Planner
cc: file