Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.09.91 Planning PacketAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JULY 9, 1991 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES June 11th and June 25th 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. 7:00 P.M. Cory Dees Conditional Use /Variance Request for 980 Square Foot Garage Continued from June 11, 1991 b. 7:15 P.M. Request from David Nielsen, 909 Hickory Street, for a Front Yard Variance to Build a Garage /Storage Building c. 7:30 P.M. River Valley Clinic Revised Site Plan 4. DISCUSSION a. Possible Requirements Which Would Be Suitable for Any Teen Center Conditional Use b. Possible Rezoning of Lots 1 2, Block 16, Original Town of Farmington c. Possible Variance and Redivision of Lot 1, and the East 50 Feet of Lot 2, Block 3, Original Town of Farmington d. Radio Tower Notification Questions Raised by the City Council Regarding Distance Requirements for Mailed Notice e. Evaluation of Budget Mart Parking Problem Requested by Councilmember Mayer. f. Invalidation of Conditional Use at Farmington Mall. 5. ADJOURN AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JULY 9, 1991 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES JUNE 11 AND JUNE 25. 3. PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. Cory Dees Conditional Use /Variance Request for 980 Square Foot Garage, 3 Feet from East Property Line The site plan has not been drawn to scale. Therefore, there is some distortion in the appearance of this lot as drawn. A "drive by" of the property will provide a better insight as to what is happening. Staff assumes that the listed dimensions are accurate and that all recorded distances will be maintained during construction. The existing garage is 308 square feet in area, and is located 3 feet from the east property line. The request is to add 672 square feet, maintaining the 3 foot side yard setback. The entire garage will then total 980 square feet. The main question that appears to be on the collective mind of the Commission is how the additional space will be used. Because there is no alley, all access will be from Spruce Street. The house is 13 feet from the corner of the existing garage; access to the addition will either be through the existing garage or across new paving between the house and garage. The former will be inconvenient for the property owner and the latter will substantially reduce green space on the lot. A site plan of the lot should be produced if the conditional use is approved. Since the application was filed, the City Council adopted an amendment limiting building coverage to 20% of the lot area. In this particular parcel, 2,160 square feet may be built upon. If the garage is 980 square feet, the house may only be 1,180 square feet in area. Measurements submitted by Mr. Dees indicates that the house is 1,242 square feet including the deck, which suggests that the garage addition should be reduced by approximately 60 square feet or not exceed 920 square feet overall. Recommendation Approve the conditional use for a 610 square foot addition which maintains the 3 foot side yard setback subject to the submission of a site plan, drawn to scale, which shows a minimum amount of paved area and the submission of building elevations showing that the garage will blend with the character of the existing dwelling. Inform the applicant that the structure may be used for personal storage, but if he contemplates a home occupation at this site, another hearing would be required, and there is no guarantee that it would be permitted. 4. PUBLIC HEARING- 7:15 P.M. Request from David Nielsen, 909 Hickory Street, for a Front Yard Variance to Build a Garage /Storage Building The property is described as Lot 4, Block 3, Henderson Addition, and is a corner lot. While setback requirements in Farmington are extremely liberal, once a neighborhood begins to develop, the setback of existing housing sets the standard for the entire block. In Henderson Addition, housing was built with a standard 40 feet for each principal use. An earlier request within the past 2 years for some variation in the setback requirements was denied. But, the Commission later decided to provide some flexibility in the ordinance and recommended an amendment allowing for a small variation in setbacks. Section 10- 4 -1(G) states, in part, that "the Board of Adjustment may permit front yard setbacks to be reduced up to five feet (5') The application does not give any reason why the building cannot be placed in line with existing structures. Based upon the lack of any demonstrated hardship, and action by the Commission in this same neighborhood to deny any variation in setback, it would appear that the best that can be offered to the applicant is a 5 foot reduction in front yard setback. Recommendation Approve a 35 foot setback for the proposed storage building. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M. River Valley Clinic Revised Site Plan The Minnesota Department of Transportation has refused to accept storm water runoff from the site unless retention ponds are built and the County Highway Department has refused to grant an additional access on County Road 72. The site, therefore, has been significantly reworked to accommodate the demands of both. Because neither agency has responded formally to the revised plan, any approval must be made subject to approval from both. One change which appears to have been made with the building, at least on the detail plans, is that the screen wall on the north side of the building which was designed to obscure an air conditioning unit from County Road 72 has been removed. This wall is still on the site plan and its return to the set of detail drawings is recommended as a condition of approval for this project. It appears to be a relatively minor expense on a project which will be a visible part of the community for several generations. Another recommended change is that since the hospital is losing one entrance from County Road 72, both parking lots should be linked by a driveway. The Planning Commission, during the first hearing, spent a considerable amount of time discussing parking at the hospital. The consensus was that once the clinic is closed for the day, its parking area should be made available to hospital visitors. By separating the parking lots, traffic conflict on County Road 72 will be increased substantially, particularly when the hospital lot is filled and ample space is available in the clinic parking lot. A third condition for approval involves raised islands and four maple trees that have been removed from the plan because of on site temporary ponding in the parking lot. Removal was recommended as a safety feature during high water periods. This is acceptable as a temporary measure. However, once the Southeast Area Storm Sewer project is in place, the clinic shall be responsible for adding the islands and four 3 inch caliper sugar maple trees. In Tom Kaldunski's review of the revised site plan, he has advised the clinic to insulate all storm and sanitary sewer lines to avoid freeze up. One suggested alternative was to run some of the storm water in open ditches. The Planning staff is opposed to this because of the potential for disturbing existing tree cover. Insulation would appear to be a better alternative. One minor problem with the site plan is that it shows only 3 of 6 mugho pines that are listed in the planting schedule. Staff would suggest that space appears to be available for these on the south side of the main clinic entrance. In addition, the clinic architect provided a colored rendering of the structure during the first hearing. This was taken back by the architect during the redesign process. Another set of elevation renderings need to be submitted for the conditional use file. Recommendation Approve the revised site plan subject to:l a. Addition of the air conditioner screen wall on the north side of the building. b. Introduction of a driveway connection between the hospital and clinic parking lots. c. The Clinic agreeing to add the two raised islands in the west parking lot with a total of four 3" caliper sugar maple trees once the Southeast Area Storm Sewer project is completed. d. Addition of at least 3 mugho pine trees to the south side of the main clinic entrance. e. Submission of a new set of colored renderings which indicate the relative difference between the hospital and the clinic architecture. 6. DISCUSSION Possible Requirements Which Would be Suitable for any Teen Center Conditional Use Police Chief Dan Siebenaler has supplied some thoughts on conditions which might be placed on the approval of teen centers in Farmington. They include the need for adult supervision, a mandatory tobacco, alcohol and drug free environment, and an owner /operator background check. As indicated in the memo, Chief Siebenaler will make himself available to the Planning Commission upon request. 7. DISCUSSION Possible Rezoning of Lots 1 2, Block 16, Original Town of Farmington Lampert Yards has negotiated the purchase of two lots �n the south side of Oak Street immediately west of the railroad and wishes to use the space for outside storage. The area is zoned R -2 Medium Density Residential, which is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Comprehensive Plan indicates that this site shall become a high density residential area consistent with the 34 unit adult housing proposed north of Oak Street across the street. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority Plan also indicates multiple family housing on these lots. Both proposals are based on a desire to encourage more people to live within walking distance of downtown shopping facilities. Both plans indicate expansion potential for Lampert Yards west of the current operation rather than to the north. From a design point of view, investors in the proposed adult housing would likely prefer no amendment to the present plans. On the other hand, the request from Lamperts could become an opportunity to substantially clean up the existing storage yard. If the existing yard and the lots to be acquired were to be rezoned B -2- General Business District, the expansion could be handled as a conditional use. This would require submission of a site plan involving paved and planted areas that possibly would make the yard an acceptable neighbor to the adult housing. The Planning Commission, however, should defer to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority since the site is within the Farmington Redevelopment Project. Recommendation Refer the applicant to the Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority for direct negotiations on downtown land use. 8. DISCUSSION Possible Variance and Redivision of Lot 1 and the East 50 Feet of Lot 2, Block 3, Original Town of Farmington The site described above is the white house and adjoining vacant lot situated at the southwest corner of Spruce and First Street. These lots are not within the Farmington Redevelopment Project. A proposal from Clayton Nielsen is to ultimately redivide the two lots into three. However, a problem exists regarding the placement of the old white house. In order to provide it with a minimum side yard of six feet, the 9,900 square foot lot at the corner is too small for a duplex which has been proposed. A further problem is created since Mr. Nielsen wishes to divide the duplex with each half being on its own lot. When this occurs, the corner lot needs to be 12,000 square feet rather than 11,000 square feet. The ordinance will allow duplexes on 11,000 square feet, but individual units must have a minimum area of 6,000 square feet. The only way that three units may be placed on this site would be for the old white house to be removed so that the corner lot can meet land area requirements of the code. This will be possible since the original lot is 18,700 square feet in area. Mr. Nielsen does not wish to replace the old white house. He is requesting an informal discussion to find out if the Commission would be willing to grant any land area variances. Recommendation Advise the applicant that the City has not granted land area variances in the past and to do so now without any observable hardship would eventually lead to a reduction in existing land area requirements. It is also noted that to create 3 lots out of 2 will require submission of a plat. 9. DISCUSSION Radio Tower Notification Question Raised by the City Council Regarding Distance Requirements for Mailed Notice. At the time of the City Council review of a series of recommended Zoning Ordinance amendments, a considerable amount of time was spent on determining how far the City should go in the notification of area residents. A 500 foot tower, it was felt, would have an impact on an area considerably wider than 350 feet. Therefore, the notice area should reflect this by also expanding. The Commission has been asked to review this item and forward a recommendation to the City Council. 10. DISCUSSION Evaluation of Budget Mart Parking Problem Requested by Councilmember Mayer In October of 1981, the Planning Commission approved a Special Exception /Conditional Use for a retail use in addition to an office use and wholesale supply yard at 701 8th Street. Site plan requirements were reasonably loose at the time and the file documents show the configuration of the buildings, canopy and sign, plus about six parking spaces. There is a penciled note indicating another 50 parking spots. Councilmember Mayer has a concern about short term parking between the gas pumps and the main entrance. When automobiles are parked at the curb in front of the entrance, it is difficult to use the adjoining service lanes at the gas pumps. He has suggested that the Commission discuss this and look for a solution to the short term parking problem at Budget Mart. 11. INVALIDATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE AT FARMINGTON MALL One section of the City Code that has not been followed in any systematic way is the provision in Section 10 -8 -8 which outlines the way in which conditional uses and variances may be declared null and void. Essentially, it says that upon recommendation of the Zoning Officer, any conditional use or variance which has not been acted upon may be declared null and void by the Board of Adjustment. The Zoning Officer has made such a recommendation for the conditional use granted to Paster Enterprises for Towns Edge Shopping Center /Farmington Mall in 1986. A specific list of business uses were approved for the center when it was anticipated that the center would expand. Nothing has been done to the center which would justify continuing the conditional use. In addition, there has been interest in a number of uses at the mall which are not on the approved conditional use. Recommendation Declare the conditional use at Farmington Mall null and void due to the lack of substantial progress to implement its purpose. Varto ar Charles Tooker Planner