Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.17.84 Planning Packet1. Minutes of June 19, 1984 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JULY 17, 1984 2. Vern Schoolmeester, 420 Oak Street,. Discussion -of B -2 District on Oak Street between 4th and 5th Streets. 3. Mike Kelly, 610 Elm Street, Discussion of undocumented duplexes within R -2 District. 4. Potential appeal of City policy on manufactured housing within the R -1 District. AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JULY 17, 1984 1. Approval of minutes, June 19, 1984 2. Vern Schoolmeester, 420 Oak Street, discussion of B -2 Zoning Mr. Schoolmeester has listed the above property for sale having purchased another property within Farmington. A number of potential buyers have asked if it would be permissable to build a garage on the property at a later time. Upon investigation it was determined that this single family dwelling is a legal non conforming use within the B -2 Business District. As such under 10- 10 -1(A) the use may not be expanded except as permitted by the Board of Adjustment. The Board is limited by 2- 4 -7(A) to an expan- sion which does not violate area and yard requirements of the district. Because the lot is small (60 x 100) with an average to large dwelling, it may be difficult to add a garage without encroaching on required yards. The primary reason this particular block is zoned B-2 is that the compre- hensive plan anticipated an expansion of the existing business district to the east. It can be said that the district did expand eastward along the Highway 50 right of way whereas only one lot in six on both sides of Oak Street are now in business use. Actually one of these, the beauty shop, includes more residential than business activity. A reasonable question raised by this request is that after approximately fourteen years of business zoning and little business development should the zoning be changed to more directly reflect existing land use? A similar discussion two years ago regarding Oak Street between 1st and 2nd Streets resulted in rezoning two full blocks from business to residential use. At a time when the city appears to be entering a growth cycle involving up to one hundred new residential units a year, a further reduction of options for business development may be unwise. However, the change contemplated would only involve rezoning the non business uses on both sides of Oak Street. The Comprehensive Plan will remain the same as it currently is, leaving the way open for a sequential expansion eastward if the need occurs. In order to reflect actual land use the zoning of lots 1 5, block 21 and lots 8 12, block 24 should be rezoned R -2. RECOMMENDATIONS: Forward to the City Council a recommendation that a public hearing should be held to consider rezoning the above described property from B -2 to R -2. 3 Mike Kelly, 610 Elm Street. Private action by the staff determined that the structure at the above address was converted to a duplex without any record of its existence at the City Hall. The property was sold during the month, and Mr. Kelly indicated that the apartment was in place when he purchased the building in 1981. The history of the building is blank from that point in time, so the staff is unaware if the apartment was in place when the zoning ordinance was originally adopted or if it is an illegal conversion. It brings to attention the fact that within the B -2 district, there are a number of duplexes that suggests a double standard within Farmington. Those who ask permission are at a distinct disadvantage over individuals that proceed without city involvement. The property in question appears to be in violation of the building code in that bedroom windows are not large enough to be used as fire escape routes. RECOMMENDATION: Review Metropolitan Council handout prior to the August meeting in anticipation of a response to the Mohn request. 4. Potential appeal of City policy on Manufactured housing An individual well versed in the statute on Manufactured housing requested permission to erect a double wide unit within Terra Subdivision. When told that the City Ordinance will allow this type of construction within the R -4 District, or Dakota County Estates, he asked for a copy of the ordinance and when the Planning Commission will next meet. The history of this issue in 1983 can be summarized best by the following: a) The staff recommended adding area requirements to the ordinance and changing it to allow manufactured housing in all residential districts. b) The Planning Commission recommended retaining the restriction on Manufactured Housing by allowing for it only in the R -4 District. c) The City Council agreed with the Planning Commission and passed an ordinance slightly modifying the 1983 wording regarding manufactured homes. RECOMMENDATION: Check the agenda file at City Hall prior to the meeting for. more detailed information on the above summary.