Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.21.86 Planning PacketAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR OCTOBER 21, 1986 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11 16, 1986 3. MINNESOTA TECHNICAL RESEARCH CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING 4. PUBLIC HEARING 7:15 P.M. RICHARD ORNDORFF VARIANCE 1412 LOWER HERITAGE WAY 5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M. ROOPRAJ OUDHRAJ CONDITIONAL USE 315 PINE STREET 6. PUBLIC HEARING 7:45 P.M. ROBERT AND ELAYNE DONNELLY REZONING 20080 FLAGSTAFF AVENUE 7. PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 P.M. DOUGLAS J. HANSEN VARIANCE 708 4TH STREET 8. LEE HAWKINS CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF APPEAL 9. SILVER SPRING SCHEMATIC PLAN DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR OCTOBER 21, 1986 1. Call to Order 2. Approve Minutes September 11 16, 1986 3. Minnesota Technical Research Continuation of Public Hearing "The City does not have the authority to allow Minnesota Technical Research to build in the right -of -way of a street. The City does not own the street. It has an easement to use the property for roadway purposes." This response from City Attorney, David L. Grannis III, came regarding the Planning Commission's request for guidance. It does appear that the applicant has tried to minimize any adverse impact on the neighborhood by constructing a fence. And, to date, there have been no complaints registered with the Building Inspector. In addition, the Inspector has not yet looked upon any activity at this site as a hazard. It would appear that Mr. Luetzow can continue to use the property as it now exists, until such time as a complaint is directed to the Building Inspector. Action by the City to restrict the use of this operation would likely result in the loss of this industry to Farmington unless there is a comparable effort to relocate the use in an adequate industrial site. 4. Public Hearing 7:15 P.M. Richard Orndorff Variance The Building Inspector has had several requests to build closer the rear property line than twenty feet. The old zoning ordinance made rear yard set- backs the same as side yard setbacks since light and air and safety protection offered would be comparable. The new ordinance made rear yard setbacks the same as front yards to allow parking in front of garage doors with automobiles completely off the alley. This probably was a mistake since a very small portion of the community is served by alleys. The original reason for rear yard setbacks was to keep carriage houses, and the horses inside, away from neighboring properties. Today it is a matter of keeping garages far enough away from property lines to help control the spread of fire. With this as a background, perhaps the ordinance should be amended to reflect standards that relate to size of lots and return the rear yard setback requirements to correspond with those of side yards. This will make interpretation of setbacks of corner lots easier for the Building Inspector. Approve a variance of up to 14 feet or the right to build within 6 feet of the rear yard line on the basis that a recommendation will be forwarded to City Council to amend the rear yard setbacks to conform with side yard requirements as indicated on Table 1 of the Ordinance. 5. Public Hearing 7:30 P.M. Roopraj Oudhraj Conditional Use The subject property is located in the B -3 Heavy Business District which lists equipment and storage yards as a special exception. The intent of the ordinance is to provide opportunities for a variety of business use in this district. The applicant is looking to utilize the structure as an accessory building that will be a convenience for the principal use which is residential. The appli- cant has also indicated an interest in building a series of mini storage units, at a later time, some 140 feet from Pine Street. 7. Public Hearing 8:00 P.M. Douglas J. Hansen Variance The request to build within 3 feet of the north property line was initiated in order to line up the garage building with an existing concrete driveway and to keep the new structure from being located behind the existing house. The project involves moving an existing garage to the rear and two feet closer to the north property line than it is now. Past experience on the Commission suggests that new structures are allowed to come as close to the side lot line as they are currently, but not to encroach any further, particularly when no hardship has been demonstrated. RECOMMENDATION Approve a 1 foot variance which will maintain the 5 foot side yard setback. 8. Lee Hawkins Continuation of Appeal Discussion "A reasonable argument can be made that maintenance and servicing of commercial vehicles is a commercial use that is not allowed in a residential zone. Such a use would not qualify as a "home occupation" because it is not carried on "in a dwelling unit" as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The best way to control this type of activity is to regulate parking of commercial vehicles in a residential area" In addition to the above, Mr. Grannis provided an example of such a regulation which does not appear to speak to the Lee Hawkins situation. It does, however, raise a question about how much the City Planning Commission wants to be involved in what type of vehicles, and under what conditions, these vehicles are stored on private property. It would appear that a ruling that commercial vehicles may be parked on private property provided that they are not serviced and maintained and that no generators are allowed would fit with criteria outlined by the City Attorney, and would not jeopardize every other commercial and service vehicle parked on private property within residential districts. If it is determined that parking of commercial vehicles does violate the intent of the ordinance, this determination should be coupled with a decision that Section 10- 6 -13(A) shall be enforced. "Screening shall be required in residential districts where any material and equipment is stored other than recreational equipment and con- struction materials currently being used on the premises." Screening in this instance may be a fence, wall, landscaping or earth berm which does not extend within fifteen feet of a public street. RECOMMENDATION Approve parking of the commercial vehicles only subject to completion of screening requirements outlined in Section 10- 6- 13(A). 9. Silver Springs Sketch Plan The developer and engineer have met with staff on two occasions since the proposal was last discussed and an attempt has been made to respond to staff concerns. "A" and "E" Streets, for example, have been designed as neighborhood collectors which intersect in the northeast corner of the plat. "A" Street intersects with County 31 on level land at the base of Stegmaier's hill and "E" Street will determine the placement of the north /south collector in Farmington Hills plat. Two major problems with the proposed layout concern the use of steep slopes along "F" Street and the proposed park north of "A" Street. The Director of Parks and Recreation has indicated his preference for a park adjoining "A" and "E" Streets, but south of "A" Street rather than in the depression area to the north. The City Engineer on the other hand, objects to the placement of "F" Street on the slope north of Ken Hanson's property. He has a cross section of "F" Street at its low point which shows a 30 foot fill on Lot 27 which will allow a house without any useable back yard. He has prepared an alternative layout which links "D" Street with Farmington HIlls on a slope of 8 Staff is also concerned about the number of cul de sacs in this proposal and is developing an alternative that addresses all concerns for presentation at the meeting on the 21st. Following the meeting, the developer should submit an application for a preliminary plat including all revisions suggested by the Planning Commission and the following: ClAOL,L1 caft-O-LA_ Charles Tooker Kt Planner CT /mh 1. Name of all players i.e., individual, partnership, etc. 2. List of adjoining property owners with names and addresses. 3. Filing fee in the amount of $2,000. The property has several problems, including a nonconforming manufactured home and a flood fringe overlay district within 200 feet of Pine Street. Unfortunately, granting the equipment and storage building will likely extend the life of the manufactured home. On the other hand, the equipment and storage building could be converted to business use if the manufactured home were to be removed. If it is decided that this special exception should be granted, the Commission probably should indicate to the applicant that additional business use of the property will not be possible until the manu- factured home is removed. Section 10- 4 -1(M): Except in the case of a planned unit development, not more than one principal building or structure should be located on a platted lot or parcel of land. The proposed building will not interfere with existing Flood Fringe District. The applicant has not indicated what type of paved surface will be utilized or where paving will stop and landscaping will begin. The "Catch 22" in this request is that an accessory building to a residential use is not permitted by ordinance, whereas a commercial building needs the same careful attention to site planning paving and landscaping as would be required of any other use RECOMMENDATION Approve the equipment and storage building subject to the submission of an acceptable planting and paving schedule which has been detailed on a site plan prepared by a registered engineer. 6. Public Hearing 7:45 P.M. Robert Elayne Donnelly Rezoning The NEz of the NWk of Section 26 is separated from the rest of the NEk by a branch of the Vermillion River. This particular branch was selected as the topographic feature which will divide residential from agricultural land in Farmington for the next 50 years. Unfortunately, ownership of this quarter quarter section is oriented to agricultural development along Flagstaff Avenue, rather than the residential potential of 195th Street and Akin Road. The applicant attempted to put this quarter quarter section in the A -2 Ag- Preserve District in February. However, because of the residential desig- nation in both the land use plan and the Zoning Ordinance, the land is not eligible for Ag Preserve status. It was, therefore, deleted from the appli- cation by City staff. The County Auditor's office has refused to recognize the Donnelly application since a lot split actually dividing this quarter quarter away from the remaining farm did not occur. The City is now in the position of approving a lot split for a parcel which does not have frontage on a road and for which the owner does not want to sell; or, changing both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance to indicate the long term agricultural potential of this 40 acre site. The applicant has said that residential use of the property is questionable because of the high water table even though the land is not subject to flooding. The staff determined that the best interest of the City and the applicant will be served if both the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan are amended to show long term agricultural use in the NEk of the NWk of Section 26. RECOMMENDATION Approve the request for rezoning and recommend that the City Council amend both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.