Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.17.83 Planning Packet2. Public Hearing 3. Public Hearing AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MAY 17, 1983 7:00 P.M. 1. Minutes of April 19, 1983 and April 26, 1983. 7:00 P.M. Request for Home Occupation, Special Exception, 313 Walnut. 7:00 P.M. Request for Special Exception, Townhouses, Reisinger. 4. Discussion Adding used car lot to I -1 Industrial District. 5. Discussion Manufactured Homes. 6. Request Changes to Home Occupation ruling of 10- 10 -8(C)2 by allowing the hiring of 1 person. FARMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT REGULAR MEETING MAY 17, 1983 2. The tests for home occupations listed in 10 -10 -8 (c) suggest investigation of the following: a) one per structure and only in a one or two family dwelling b) conducted by persons living fulltime in the house c) the activity does not involve manufacture of goods d) the activity does not deal with the general retail public or generate unusual automobile traffic e) the activity will be conducted wholly within the structure. The only question which comes to mind in reading the ordinance while re- viewing this application is how to interpret "general retail public Many home occupations have been approved which have as their only pur- pose dealing with the general retail public. It would appear that some time could be well spent rewriting the home occupation section of the ordinance to make it more consistent with actual practice. Recommendation Grant the home occupation special exception based upon existing precedent for similar requests. 3. The request for a special exception to build Townhouses at the intersection of Spruce and Division involves 36 units on 4.56 acres. The property is zoned R -2 and capable of accomodating up to 40 units. During the discussion phase, the developer provided a workable traffic circulation pattern and has no more than six contiguous units in any cluster. Actually two clusters of six and one of five comprise the only dense pattern of development. The remaining units are scattered among two, three, and four clusters. The devel- oper shows two housing types in the plan and what appears to be an un- related building elevation. The basic units include tuck -under garages but six are shown with detached garages. Floorplans range between one and four bedroom units. The "typical" elevation appears not to relate to the site plan in that it indicates a garage placed behind and attached to a one bedroom unit. The only problem this creates is that the Planning Com- mission does not yet have enough information to act on the special ex- ception unless the developer is ready at the public hearing to designate the location and configuration of each unit. The typical layout shows only the one, two and three bedroom units, yet the development plan shows four 4 bedroom units. One other problem which shows up on this proposal is that the landscape treatment is minimal. A few scattered trees among buildings does not comprise a landscape plan. The plan needs attention from a landscape architect who can show location of paving other than for automobiles, berms and shrubbery. Both the City Engineer and the Department of Natural Resources have found no major problems with this development. Recommendation Assuming that the developer can indicate more coordinated information regarding the location of all units which relate to the building layout approve the special exception subject to the submittal of an acceptable site plan 4. The City of Burnsville in the I -1 Limited Industry District includes as a conditional use: Retail sales or rental in structures in conjunction with an open sales lot Similarly, Apple Valley in its I -1 Limited Industrial District includes as a conditional use: Outdoor storage of vehicles or materials or open sales lot. While this is not an exhaustive sampling of neighboring communities, they are communities large enough to have had this question raised in the past apparantly without ill effect. Recommendation Add Auto Sales Service and Repair as a Special Exception in the I -1 Light Industrial District. 5. See staff memorandum dated May 11, 1983. 6. The request to add the hiring of one person to Home Occupation came from an individual with an approved homeoccupation who apparantly has become successful. The theory behind home occupations has always involved an idea that an individual should not be prevented from augmenting or even providing for his entire income at home as long as the activity does not become detrimental to the neighborhood. When employees are added, by de- finition it cannot any longer be considered a home occupation. It is a business which probably belongs in a business district. Recommendation Deny the request to add the hiring of one person for each home occupation.