Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.15.86 Planning PacketAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JULY 15, 1986 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES MAY 29, 1986 AND JUNE 17, 1986 3. ALLEY VACATION BLOCK 30, ORIGINAL TOWN OF FARMINGTON 4. PUBLIC HEARING 7:15 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 28 FOURTH STREET 5. REVIEW SITE PLAN LOT 1, BLOCK 3 DAKOTA COUNTY ESTATES 6. REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT URBAN SERVICE AREA t AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 1986 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE MINUTES 3. ALLEY VACATION BLOCK 30, ORIGINAL TOWN OF FARMINGTON The attached request has been directed to the Planning Commission by the City Council for a recommendation. The main questions raised during its discussion by the Council was of what benefit would such a vacation be to the City of Farmington? The City Engineer has indicated that three utilities, Centel, NSP and Metro Cable run lines on the poles shown at the center of the alley. Both the City Administrator and City Engineer have recommended that, if the alley is vacated, a utility easement shall be maintained to service these lines. Two houses now occupy the lot created from the south 50 feet of lots 1,2 3, Block 30, and one encroaches approximately 5 feet into the alley. If the power poles are at the center of the alley, there is a house built entirely across the alley on the Fourth Street side of the block. All three houses are old and the one not included in this application is in very poor condition. When driving Fifth Street, it becomes apparent that use of the Highway Department building by Dakota County Lumber has transformed this residential street into a commercial industrial environment. If the life expectancy of the two houses is adversely affected by the lumber yard, and the lumber yard continues to prosper, there may be some justification for re- evaluating the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In viewing this neighborhood now, it looks as if the alley would be a better dividing line between resi- dential and industrial uses than the railroad spur right of way. For this reason, the alley probably should be retained. RECOMMENDATION Forward a negative recommendation to the City Council 4. PUBLIC HEARING 7:15 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 28 FOURTH STREET The request by James A. Gammill to create a retail cheese outlet at the corner of Pine and Fourth in the B -3 Heavy Business District is based upon the list of Conditional Uses presented in Chapter 3 of the Ordinance. From a purely planning prospective, such a use would be an ideal addition to Downtown Farmington and one that could easily find space. Conversely, the downtown has several industrial uses that would much better fit within this heavy business district. Such arguments, however, carry little impact or at least suggest more control than lay Boards, Commission or Councils wish to impose on the community. From a practical point of view, a retail store at this location represents another individual stop shopping event that tends to keep people dependent on their automobile compared with park and shop opportunities available at shopping centers. Farmington has a number of vacant buildings and store fronts and one can assume therefore that Mid America has found the most suitable location from its point of view. The task for the Planning Commission is to review this application with respect to Section 10- 8 -5(C) of the Zoning Ordinance. The most relevant items are contained in paragraphs 3 -5 which deal with the site plan. The site plan submitted is not drawn to scale and does not offer the kind of guidance that the ordinance requires for a decision. There is no landscaping that will either enhance the business or protect adjoining residential use and there is no indication that the parking lots and driveways will be surfaced. RECOMMENDATION Continue the hearing until a time when the applicant can supply documentation that will justify the request. 5 REVIEW SITE PLAN LOT 1, BLOCK 3, DAKOTA COUNTY ESTATES Roger Johnson, architect for Jack Benedict, is developing a set of plans for the first apartment building to be located in Dakota County Estates. In a Planned Unit Development, minor changes in the location of buildings may be authorized by the staff if required by engineering or other unforseen circumstances. In this situation, the building is being moved further back on the property to allow parking in front. The reason for this is that the design of the building indicates a need for parking in front rather than in the back. The developer is also considering the addition of garages which were not included in the site plan. I suggested that the plans should be reviewed by the Commission since this is the first instance where staff has had authority to approve minor changes. If it is the opinion of the Commission that the change requires a public hearing, the hearing would be conducted by the Commission with a recommendation for action by the City Council. From a land use point of view, the change being considered is minor since no additional units will be added and the building is being shifted to present its best elevation toward County 31. In addition, the building being designed corresponds directly with the original plan submitted by the developer. RECOMMENDATION Establish a policy that gives staff additional guidelines to those that are outlined in the ordinance. 6. REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT URBAN SERVICE AREA Following the June meeting of the Commission, the staff of the Metropolitan Council forwarded a map discussed with the Farmington staff regarding the amount of land that would be acceptable within the urban service district. This was discussed as alternative 3 with the City Council. However, Mayor Akin asked about the legal ramifications of removing areas that have paid special assessments for trunk sewers particularly within Sewer District #1. Both the Administrator and the Planner agreed that this can be a problem, but that the Council staff has not given any indication that a larger urban service area would be approved. The City Council then directed that the staff review alternative and any other options that come to mind regarding urban service boundaries. The very next morning Administrator Thompson received the attached letter from Sandra Gardebring responding to his protest of June 18, 1986 which says in effect that assessed property must be included within the urban service area. The only problem that staff can foresee at this point is that none of our industrial potential has had any utility assessment and therefore, may be outside of acceptable urban service limits. A revised urban service map will be presented at the meeting which will serve as a basis for a recommendation to the City Council at their meeting of July 21, 1986. To the Metropolitan Council Charles Tooker Planner