Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.13.92 Planning Packet1. Call to Order 2. Approve Minutes 3. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. September 8 and 29, 1992 4. Old Business Discussion a. Francis Valek 607 Oak Street b. James Pluntz 20226 Akin Road c. Pat Devney 4900 203rd Street d. Ed Gieseke 28 4th Street e. Gordon Chant 621 Oak Street AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR OCTOBER 13, 1992 to discuss rezoning of lots 8 9, block 17 from R -2 to B -2, plus a Conditional Use and Variance on lots 8 thru 13, block 17 to construct a 45 unit apartment building with only one off street parking space per unit. 5. New Business Discussion a. Trent Larson 19025 Echo Lane b. Donald Youngkrantz 512 6th Street c. Zoning Ordinance Amendment d. Joint Meeting with City Council 1. CALL TO ORDER 7 :00 P.M. AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR OCTOBER 8, 1992 2. APPROVE MINUTES September 8 29, 1992 3. PULBIC HEARING to discuss rezoning of Lots 8 9, Block 17 from R -2 to B -2 plus a Conditional Use and Variance on Lots 8 thru 13, Block 17 to construct a 45 unit apartment building with only one off street parking space per unit. The Public Hearing for this application is complicated by the fact that the site is located in two zoning districts, B -2 and R -2, and the 45 unit apartment building is too large for the site if every unit must have two off street parking spaces as required by the City Code. Therefore, the original Conditional Use to build a multiple family dwelling in the B -2 District also includes a rezoning and variance. The rezoning is also complicated in that the HRA decided that the house on the west end of the block should be purchased since its value could be adversely impacted by the proposed apartment building. The HRA has been negotiating a purchase of the Ostlie house at the end of the block but so far has not come to terms with the Ostlies. Therefore, while the rezoning and conditional use applications identify all of the lots on the south side of this block, the HRA has not indicated that the Ostlie lot is included and the proposed site plan has ignored it. The building includes 9 two bedroom units with dens, 21 two bedroom units and 15 one bedroom units for a total of 45 units. The parking requirements for apartments are 2 per dwelling unit. Because the project started out as an elderly housing complex, the number of off street parking places never appeared to be an issue. However, the lender may be the Department of Housing and Urban Development which suggests that the parking shall conform with City requirements. In the meantime, the Developer has continued to tell the HRA that the entire promotion program has been oriented toward senior citizens. The questions raised by this background suggests that the building may not get financing unless there are two off street parking spaces per unit. On the other hand the site cannot accom odate that much paving even if the Ostlie property were to be added. The most attractive aspect of the site plan is that the designer has saved three substantial maple trees to the southeast of the building. In the process, one large maple had to be sacrificed. One change in the arrangement of parking that is suggested would be to eliminate one parking space adjoining the alley on the north side of the site and replacing it adjoining the walk leading to the building from Oak Street. This has the disadvantage of "closing in" on the pedestrian access to downtown but would substantially reduce the amount of paving adjoining the Hardee's drive through. This corner would be an ideal location for additional tree planting. The site plan shows no landscaping other than the existing trees that will remain and the plan of pedestrian walks. The walk leading to the building from the direction of downtown would look better if it were 8 feet wide rather than 4 feet. It should be augmented by both evergreen and flowering shrubs. The building needs a landscape plan prepared by a registered landscape architect and the entire project would better fit the site if the Ostlie house were added and used as a landscaped yard for this building. The architect has done an excellent job on the layout of individual units and the public spaces within the building. Members of the Commission would benefit from personal inspection of the plans prior to the meeting. The City draft comprehensive plan shows the entire south side of block 17 to be high density residential. The zoning ordinance permits apartment buildings within the B -2 District. Rezoning is recommended as proposed. While the 45 units do include 9 units which could be interpreted as 3 bedroon units, the community interest in securing additional units for adults and the developers promotional program suggests that the building will be occupied by older couples and singles. Admittedly there is risk that families will occupy some of the units. However, alook at both existing senior apartment buildings indicates that parking is not a problem even where there are fewer spaces than units. This experience would justify a variance to the code requirements. The conditional use is also recommended for approval subject to the revisions in landscaping suggested in the foregoing. 4. OLD BUSINESS DISCUSSION a. Francis Valek 607 Oak Street Mr. Valek has requested that the Commission grant a time extension for the removal of a shed that was a condition granting the conditional use for an oversized garage. He would like to have until May 1, 1993 since the building is loaded with items which need to be sorted and either discarded or moved to a new building. b. James Pluntz 20226 Akin Road Mr. Pluntz has asked abut moving his shed to his neighbor's property as a way to satisfy the conditions under which his conditional use was granted. I indicated that the Commission would need a site plan showing both the new location of the shed plus a map identifying the location and size of other buildings on that property. c. Pat Devney 4900 203rd Street Mr. Devney has asked for a time extension for the removal of the offending portions of his storage facility /play house since it was a project designed by his father -in- law. Because the father -in -law is available to rebuild the structure only in the summertime, he has asked to have until September, 1993 to bring the shed into compliance with the City code. d. Ed Gieseke 28 4th Street The original letter to Mr. Gieseke was delivered to another address and a follow up was written giving him until the regular meeting on November 10, 1992 to respond. e. Gordon Chant 621 Oak Street The Chants have not responded to the letter requesting removal of the concrete pad in the 7th Street front yard. On October 7th the pad was still in place. Someone may wish to look at the site again over the weekend. 5. NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION a. Trent Larson 19025 Echo Lane Mr. Larson has asked for an informal discussion of the oversizing problem outlined in his letter dated September 23, 1992. He proceeded to build the shed without checking with the building official. The structure is 2 feet wider and 4 feet taller than it can be under the code. The building will be 144 square feet rather than the allowed at 120. Mr. Larson would like to know if a variance is possible for this structure. b. Donald Youngkrantz 512 6th Street Mr. Youngkrantz has two questions. The first involves extending the existing setback of his garage, which is one foot from the north property line, in order to build a 12'x 22' workshop. The second involves the building coverage on his lot which is in the R -2 District. The lot measures 60' x 79.5' for a total of 4770 square feet. The existing building on site covers 1156 square feet or 24% of the lot area. The proposed workshop would add 264 square feet bringing the total coverage to 29.7% of the lot area. As you remember the Planning Commission has made a recommendation to the City Council which if accepted would increase the lot area coverage to 30 The City Council will be setting a public hearing on this on October 19, 1992 and if they agree, the ordinance would be changed at the November 2nd meeting. The Commission in the past has granted side and rear yard variances up to the established building line which suggests that the "A" location on the applicant's site plan will be acceptable. A second point that should be considered is that the workshop will be less intrusive to the neighborhood, if it is behind rather than beside the existing garage. The main concern at this point is weather or not the City Council will agree with the Planning Commission and change the building coverage requirement. Recommendation: Advise Mr. Youndkrantz to apply for avariance for the setback requirement with the understanding that there is some risk that the building coverage amendment might not pass. However, the answer should be apparent before the variance hearing could take place on November 10, 1992. c. Zoning Ordinance Amendment In April of this year, the Planning Commission discussed and forwarded a recommenda- tion to the City Council requesting the removal of churches and schools from the list of permitted uses in the Agriculture and Residential Districts, and to be placed instead among the listed conditional uses. This recommendation did not go forward and was not discovered until a representative from Northern States Power asked about any City requirements for the improvement of power lines. It was the consensus of the Development Committee that all trunk lines should be conditional uses in all districts. (The representative of the utility under discussion suggested that the ordinance should be directed to new construction rather than upgrading.) In addition, the Development Committee raised the issue of churches and schools and added funeral homes which are listed as permitted uses within the R -3 District. The Development Committee recommendation was to move churches and both public and parochial schools from the permitted use column in all agricultural and residential districts to the list of conditional uses and funeral homes from permitted uses to conditional uses in the R -3 District. In addition, the Development Committee suggested listing trunk utility service lines as a conditional use in all districts. An interesting aspect of the Northern States Power line is that less than a mile of it is located within Farmington. Almost three miles are situated in Empire Township within close proximity to Farmington. The discussion should focus on the question raised by Northern States Power about the need to regulate upgrading of the existing of facilities as opposed to those utilities which will be new to this community. d. Joint Meeting With the City Council The Council would like to meet May 12, 1992 meeting including and the overall Land Use Plan. Planning Commission evening by regular Commission business to again to cover issues that were brought up during the architectural standards, very low density housing One suggestion includes meeting on the regular having the meeting starting early enough for be conducted prior to the beginning of the joint session. Currently there are two potential conditional use hearings and one variance hearing which could be on the agenda. Charles Tooker City Planner