Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.20.83 Planning PacketAGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DECEMBER 20, 1983 1. Approve minutes of November 15, 1983. 2 Public Hearing Special Exception request by Jon Falkowski Hospitals and clinics are listed Special Exceptions in the R -2 Zoning District. The building exists and the applicant expects no changes to the exterior. The most relevant part of 2 -4 -4 would be subsection (E) as follows: The special exception shall organize vehicular access and parking to minimize traffic congestion in this area. The existing parking lot is paved and access appears to have been completely unregulated from the alley. Dr. Falkowski asked if a private citizen could pave an alley, in this case to eliminate maintenance problems. I would suggest that parking lot access should be restricted to one 22 foot wide driveway on Hickory and possibly one secondary access to the alley also 22 feet in width. In essence, alleys are not intended as a public right of way for other than service activity. The use of this alley as a drive- way for a business use would clearly be unfair to adjoining pro- perty owners. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Special Exception if access to parking can be satisfactorily solved. 3 Discussion of a Request by Kimberly Morris for a Special Exception public hearing to conduct Contract Sewing at 308 Oak Street. The City Council has recently adopted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which list light manufacturing as a Special Exception in the B -2 General Business District. Section 2- 4 -4(E) is also relevant since industrial uses require 2 off street parking spaces for each 3 employees on the maximum working shift. In this par- ticular instance, the landlord participated in a property transfer which created an illegal lot. The Planning Commission refused to grant an after the fact variance for that lot but so far there has been no follow through. This particular request offers an opportunity to bring the illegal lot into focus. RECOMMENDATION: Establish a Public Hearing at 7:00 P.M. on January 17, 1984 to discuss the proposed Special Exception. 4 Discussion of proposed amendments to the Zoning Subdivision Ordinances regarding conflicting language in sections dealing with open space requirements in P.U.D.'s See Thompson and Tooker memos dated November 3rd and December 13th, respectively. 5 Discussion of a recommendation to the City Council that the Ser- vice Area Policy of the Farmington Comprehensive Plan be amended to allow continued development of Dakota County Estates in the NE k of the NW 4 of Section 13. The attached news item from a December 8, 1983 copy of the Dakota County Tribune indicates the excitement for first home buyers generated by Dakota County Estates. The material from the memo to Paul Baltzersen, added to the Farmington Compre- hensive Plan following negotiations between Farmington and Metro Council staff, illustrates two important points; 1. The Comprehensive Plan anticipated service area was a guess with two possible scenarios requiring amendment; and 2. The City accepted the Metropolitan Council discharge rate of .81 mgd on the basis that their staff would periodically review popu- lation trends in Farmington to test the need for a larger ser- vice area. Both the Planning Commission and City Council have an opportu- nity here to transfer land which until this point, two years after development of the Comprehensive Plan, has shown no sign of developing, to an area of City that has generated 14 building orders in four months. The areas currently under consideration are owned by Robert Stegmaier, Sr., Jerome Harrington and Mathias Fischer. The last two mentioned individuals plan to be in attendance arguing against movement to the post 1990 catergory. It is difficult to determine if the arguments presented by these developers have more or less substance than those offered by O.T. Nordseth. However, the rationale used was to recognize platted land. But, Riverside illustrates the example of a platted property which may or may not have any capital to move from paper plat to developed land. The three alternatives available would be to: A. Remove the unplatted residential land generally along the lines decided on November 15, 1983. B. Directly switch with property owned by Robert Stegmaier. This holds the disadvantage of a possible further amendment if the low and moderate cost housing continues to command wide interest. C. Remove all designated land to a pool which may be drawn upon as the City enters into developer agree- ments to install improvements. This was done by Lakeville originally and appears to work. However, it could place a developer in the position of platting land which might be placed on hold until after 1990. RECOMMENDATION: Follow through with the recommendation initiated on November 15, 1983 explaining to the affected landowner that the change will be temporary. For example, the sewer area will be ex- panded based upon the number of building permits issued in Dakota County Estates. The City actually may develop at the six percent rate anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. 6. Gil Gilbertson P.U.D. pre- preliminary review West View Acres. Mr. Gilbertson will discuss the latest design configuration of the Plat but has not actually applied for P.U.D. status. Charles Tooker Planner CT /mh AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DECEMBER 20, 1983 1. Approve Minutes of November 15, 1983. 2. 7:00 P.M. Public Hearing Special Exception on Lot 1, Farm Bureau Addition requested by Jon Falkowski, DDS to operate a dental office in the former Seventh Day Adventist Church building in an R -2 District at 916 8th Street. 3. Request by Kimberly Morris for a Special Exception public hearing to operate a contract sewing manufacturing plant at 308 Oak Street in an existing B -2 Business District. 4. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Zoning and Sub- division ordinances regarding conflicting language in the sections dealing with open space requirements in P.U.D.'s. 5. Discussion of a recommendation to the City Council that the Service Area Policy of the City Comprehensive Plan be amended to allow continued development of Dakota County Estates in the NE 4 of the NW 4 of Section 13. 6. Gil Gilbertson P.U.D. pre preliminary review West View Acres.