Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.19.85 Planning PacketAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR NOVEMBER 19, 1985 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 1985 2. Continuation of Public Hearing to consider Special Exception requested by Mark Grundman for a three unit addition to an existing three unit structure at 808 2nd Street. 3. Discussion with School Board regarding potential City interest in acquisition and development of a school park site within Sewer District I area of Farmington. 4. Discussion of Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework Draft regarding population projections. AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR NOVEMBER 19, 1985 1. Approval of minutes September 17, 1985 2. Mark Grundman request for Special Exception Mr. Grundman has been unable to develop plans with enough detail to be considered by the Planning Commission. He has therefore requested a continuation of the hearing until 7:00 P.M. on December 17, 1985 during the regular monthly meeting. 3. School Board Discussion of School Park concept. A School Board search for the most appropriate site to locate the proposed elementary school is now focused on a 36 acre site situated at the northwest corner of the intersection of Akin Road and 195th Street. Because this site is larger than the needs of the School District, the Board wishes to explore City interest in developing a neighborhood park on part of the site. Planning theory has, for many years, promoted the idea of combining public facilities at the center of one mile square areas called neighborhoods. The theory also includes the concept of a series of neighborhoods called communities with a transportation system made up of arterial streets that form neighborhood boundaries. A review of the long range land use plan for Farmington indicates that the site in question has been designated for high density residential develop- ment and is at the center of the developing residential area along County Road 31. The site is also at the extreme southwest corner of one of the proposed neighborhoods adjoining the intersection of two proposed arterial streets. North -south County Road 31 is proposed to be relocated along the section line between Sections 23 and 24 and a new east -west arterial, linking Trunk Highway 3 and Cedar Avenue is proposed along the alignment of 195th Street. From the perspective of planning theory, the site is less than ideal, but, planning theory does not take into account the reality of communities comprised of many neighborhoods which may in fact be served by two or three elementary schools. From this perspective, an elementary school site at the edge of a neighborhood is preferable since only a small portion of enrollment will actually walk to school. Contemporary transportation needs of the school system places a high value on a site situated adjacent to at least one arterial street. This site is situated at the intersection of two. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies the subject site as part of the land area that will be provided with utility service following the year 1990. Several adjustments have been made in the past by trading pre and post 1990 service areas depending upon an evaluation of actual development activity compared to proposals of record when the plan was drawn. Because Farmington building activity has been greater than projected by the Metro- politan Council staff, a service area amendment to include the proposed site within the pre 1990 service boundary can be justified without any need to trade for another 36 acre site. Subdivision activity within the northwest area of Farmington has focused upon Dakota County Estates which has averaged 50 single family housing units over the past two years. Fair Hills, an eight acre subdivision west of the subject school site, has had considerably less success in the housing market based on the sale of lots to builders rather than dealing directly with the home buying public. Proposed parkland within Fair Hills is limited to a three acre site which is suitable for playground equipment but little else. A recent proposal involving the Akin. Farm could contribute more than 600 housing units to the metropolitan area housing supply over the next ten years if the developer is able to secure adequate financing. This site lies immediately north of the subject elementary school site and does include a substantial parkland dedication on the current schematic plan. One drawback to this proposal is that while residential neighborhoods are planned on two separated elevations, the park land will largely benefit the lower level neighborhood. It would appear then that a case can be made for City participation in a neighborhood park for the upper level neighborhood adjoining the proposed school site. Other opportunities for public open space also exist in close proximity to the subject school site. The Akin homestead, for example, is also avail- able for sale and the developer of the 600 acre residential project has indicated an interest in developing the farmstead in a way that would preserve its historic character. Park and Recreation departments in other suburban communities in the metropolitan area have recreated farmsteads from an earlier era in which urban children are provided opportunities to become acquainted with farm animals and the life of a particular period of time. Economic development efforts in Farmington have suddenly suggested an agri- cultural theme ranging from commercial vegetable growing to co- composting municipal solid waste and sewage septage for use as a top soil additive. This agricultural emphasis could be greatly enhanced by creative reuse of the Akin homestead. In summary, the proposed school site looks like an excellent opportunity for joint City and School District participation in a living and learning environment far more interesting than if these objectives were pursued separately. The possibility exists that the proposed 600 unit residential development of the Akin Farm could be amended and extended onto that portion of the proposed school site which exceeds school needs. In addition, the City could acquire a portion of the Akin Farm and add it to the homestead to provide a unique recreation resource for Farmington that builds upon the traditional school -park concept. This complicates the original proposal by involving private investors in the process. RECOMMENDATION Provide the School Board a response positive enough for them to seek feed- back from both the Park Board and City Council. 4. Draft Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework Development activity in Farmington has been followed closely since adoption of the City Comprehensive Plan in 1982. The plan called attention to several developers with platted land capable of expanding the 1980 housing supply by 500 units. One objective adopted by the City Council was to actively encourage new construction at a rate of 90 units per year or at an annual growth rate of 6 The actual construction activity within Farmington failed to respond to the optimism suggested in the plan until 1983. The figures for 1983 through 1985 suggest an average of 83 new units per year whereas the totals for 1981 -85 repeat the conservative growth pattern of 55 units per year recorded between 1970 and 1980. Now that Farmington has a moderate cost subdivision with a market of 50 units per year, it is difficult to imagine that the Farmington growth rate will drop below an average of 5% or the equivalent of 75 units per year. Assuming such a basic increase between 1986 and 1989, the number of avail- able housing units will have increased by 600 between 1980 and 1990 and 750 between 1990 and 2000. Metropolitan Council estimates are 400 and 300 units respectively for the same time periods. This disparity is important particularly since Farmington is situated within an area of the Twin Cities in which there are constraints in sewage treatment plant capacity as indicated in figure 3, page 27. The Farmington School District is in the process of acquiring and developing a new elementary school to serve population growth in the northwest corner of the City. Once developed, it will reinforce the current housing demand and argue strongly against the current urban service limits suggested on figure 7b on page 46 of the report. RECOMMENDATION Ask the City Council to request changes in the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework that reflects current and anticipated development activity.