Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.20.84 Planning PacketAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR NOVEMBER 20, 1984 1. Approve Minutes of October 16th and October 30th, 1984. 2. Discuss Resolution regarding the temporary duplex approved at 1202 Fairview Lane. 3. Discuss Jack Benedict's PUD. Dakota County Estates Third Addition. 4. Public Hearing Dakota County Lumber Non conforming Special Exception 7:30 P.M. 5. Discuss Variance of Subdivision Ordinance required for Subdivision Waiver requested by James L. Pluntz 20226 Akin Road. 6. Discuss Variance of Zoning Ordinance required for Special Exception requested by Dirk Rotty, 506 Spruce Street to legitimatize existing duplex. AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR NOVEMBER 20, 1984 1. Approval of minutes, October 16th and October 30th, 1984. 2. Discussion Potential resolution calling attention to the time limit placed upon the duplex approved at 1202 Fairview Lane. Staff asked for advice from the City Attorney regarding the best way for the City to enforce the time limit placed on the Lonnie Stark duplex. The response was that the Planning Commission could adopt a resolution, the wording to be specifically drafted by the attorney, which could be filed at the Court House with the property abstract as a warning to any future buyer about the limitations of this Special Exception. Chairman Hanson has suggested that it may be more economical to request the Building Inspector to create a suspense file reminding him to re- inspect the property at the end of the period specified. The issue has been placed on the agenda because questions were raised at the meeting about the likelihood of future enforcement. 3. Discussion Jack Benedict P.U.D. Dakota County Estates Third Addition. Mr. Benedict now has control to the eighty acres immediately south of Dakota County Estates. His intention is to create a convenience commercial center at the intersection of Upper 183rd Street and Akin Road with some adjoining high density residential rental units and the bulk in 6000 square foot single family construction. The financing is such that the development will be accomplished in stages with the first two phases well within the 1990 sewer limits established by the Farmington Comprehensive Plan. The concept will feature one initial con- venience store to be followed by a smaller "strip center" and restaurant as well as up to eight 8- plexes and some quad homes plus a continuation of the single family construction. The concept is fluid enough to accomodate a density decrease if demanded by the prevailing market. RECOMMENDATION Ask the developer to work with the Farmington City Engineer on a staging plan which will be possible to accomplish and to submit a preliminary plat on only the land now included within the 1990 urban service area. 4. Public Hearing 7:30 P.M. Special Exception for a change in an existing non conforming use situated at 100 5th Street. Steve Finden has spent time with the Building Inspector discussing a potential conversion of the existing Minnesota Department of Transportation warehouse and supply yard to a retail outlet. The Planning Commission does have power to authorize changes in non conforming uses under provisions of Section 2 -4 -7 of the City Code. The statement of the applicant and site plan together with or- dinance provisions provide enough information to handle this request. However, the main consideration of the Planning Commission should be focused upon the neighborhood. Will the proposed use be any more damaging to the quality of housing here than the existing use? The basic objective of the Comprehensive Plan is for the use of someday to be converted to residential use. In the mean- time, the Commission is charged with providing residents of the area some pro- tection of their present investment. After establishing a hearing for the requested use, a representative of the Department of Transportation property division called for information about uses open to this site. It appears that the applicant was not the high bidder on the property. In my letter to Mr. Vandersteen, I offered the possibility that the high bidder might also wish to apply for a Special Exception. This has not happened. The Planning Commission must therefore take action on the existing appli- cation and let the Department of Transportation decide on the rental question. RECOMMENDATION Grant the request without any increase in building coverage subject to landscaping which will help blend this business use with nearby residential construction. 5. Discussion Subdivision Waiver Variance requested by James L. Pluntz 20226 Akin Road. Section 11 -5 -5 of the City Code says in part: "Every lot shall be provided with access adequate for use of public safety vehicles and other public and private purposes and shall be served by a public or private street system, improved in accordance with this Title and connected to the general street system." Section 11 -6 -2 of the City Code further states: "Streets: The streets shall be graded if such is required by the Council to the grades and dimensions shown on plans and profiles and approved by the Council. (D) Pavement shall be required on all streets." The staff has reviewed the subdivision waiver requested by James Pluntz and determined that it cannot take action, based upon the two previous quotations, without a variance granted by the City Council. Section 11 -7 -2 reads as follows: "Variances: The Council may grant a variance upon receiving a report from the Planning Commission in any particular case where the subdivider can show that by reason of exceptional topography or other physical con- ditions, the strict compliance with these regulations could cause un- necessary hardship A variance thus granted shall be recorded in resolution form entered into the minutes of the Council setting forth the reasons which justified the action." ANALYSIS The ordinance appears to be very specific about the type of improvements that are acceptable in Farmington. It does not matter whether streets are public or private but they shall be paved and pass in front of every lot. The variance section does not appear to be any more helpful in that they shall be based upon physical limita- tions. In this particular instance the owner could divide the property in a manner such that two lots would have direct access to County 31. RECOMMENDATION Forward a recommendation to the City Council that a variance, if requested, should be denied. 6. Discussion Zoning Ordinance Variance for a Special Exception requested by Dirk Rotty, 506 Spruce Street. Mr. Rotty purchased a duplex which he assumed was recognized by the City. The pre vious owner, several years prior to its sale, notified the City that the duplex had been converted to a single family structure. Experience on the Planning Commission lead Mr. Rotty to begin paying sewer and water service charges on the second unit. The City Staff however, cannot accept payment since it is not regarded as a legal use. RECOMMENDATION Establish a Public Hearing to discuss a variance for a Special Exception creating a duplex at 506 Spruce Street. 0 Charles Tooker Planner CT /mh