Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.16.87 Planning PacketAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JUNE 16, 1987 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES: MAY 12, 1987 3. DISCUSSION: VARIABLE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS /ZONING ORDINANCE 4. PUBLIC HEARING 7:15 P.M.: CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED BY MARLON BAILEY TO BUILD A DUPLEX AT 916 THIRD STREET 5. DISCUSSION: HRA REQUEST TO REZONE LOTS 1 3, THE EAST 40' OF 4 AND LOTS 10 13, BLOCK 17, ORIGINAL TOWN OF FARMINGTON FROM B -3 R -2 TO B -2 6. DISCUSSION: REQUEST BY JACK BENEDICT FOR ONE EXTRA SIGN IN FRONT YARD OF SHOPPING CENTER AT 183RD STREET AND COUNTY ROAD 31 AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JUNE 16, 1987 1. Call to Order 7:00 P.M. 2. Approve Minutes May 12, 1987 3. Discussion Variable Setback Requirements /Zoning Ordinance It is proposed that Section 10- 4 -1(G) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be expanded to read as follows: (G) In older residential neighborhoods, where structures on adjacent lots or parcels have front yard setbacks different from those required, the minimum front yard setback shall conform with existing adjacent structures and an addition to an existing building may be extended utilizing whatever setback that has been established. However, the Board of Adjustment may permit front yard setbacks to be reduced up to ten feet (10') as long as the setbacks are never less than twenty feet (20') from the right of way line. Such variances may be granted for either the principal structure or the garage, but not both. Front yard setbacks shall not be determined by structures that are placed to accommodate extreme natural features. In new residential subdivisions on which construction has not occurred, the owner may elect to adopt a variable setback plan with a minimum front yard setback of twenty feet (20') provided that the following conditions are met: 1. The maximum difference in setback on two (2) contiguous lots shall be ten feet (10') and where a change is indicated, the minimum difference on two contiguous lots shall be two feet (2'). 2. No more than three (3) contiguous lots shall have the same front yard setback. 3. Lots which are adjacent to previously developed subdivisions shall utilize the setback of existing structures. 4. The owner shall adopt the variable setback plan by filing a copy with the Planner during the platting process showing the setback for each lot. After the sale of the first lot included in such plan, changes may be made if agreed to by at least seventy -five percent (75 of the owners of lots included in the plan. The changes shall be made in the form of an amended plan filed with the planner and signed by the required number of owners. 4. Public Hearing Marlon Bailey Conditional Use Request Currently, 916 Third Street is an 18 x 22 square foot dwelling, one story, situated on the west side of Third Street between Beech and Hickory Streets. The applicant wishes to add approximately 800 square feet of living space on both the first floor and basement elevations to be used as additional living space plus an accessory apartment. The lot contains 10,200 square feet and the expanded structure will include approximately 2,100 square feet of finished living space exclusive of the garage. The rental unit will include less than 300 square feet of living space and no other legal duplexes or multiple family dwellings exist on the block. Parking for 4 vehicles can be accommodated in the proposed garage and driveway immediately in front. The applicant has submitted elevations of two sides of the residence and the building mass proposed will greatly improve the appearance of this structure. The yard space available for the private use of residents greatly exceeds the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has not been asked to provide a landscape plan and the architects sketch indicates a wider lot than exists. The major concern of staff is that the addition should not be allowed to encroach into required side yards. Recommendation Approve the Conditional Use for a duplex requested by Marlon Bailey at 916 Third Street subject to a condition that six foot wide side yards are maintained because it meets the criteria listed for accessory apartments outlined in Section 10 -6 -3 of the Ordinance. 5. Discussion HRA Request to Rezone a Portion of Block 17, Original Town of Farmington from B -3 and R -2 to B -2 A representative from Hardee's Restaurant has recently noticed the land cleared by the HRA for senior subsidized housing at the intersection of Second and Elm Streets. By coincidence, the developer who has been working with the Farmers Home Administration on financing of a 37 unit residential structure for this same site is once again interested in proceeding. Both have agreed that the site can handle two projects and Hardees is quite anxious to start construction of a fast food restaurant fronting on Highway 50. Under the 1971 Comprehensive Plan the site was recommended to be developed by business and light industrial uses. But, with ten years of no activity in this area the 1982 Comprehensive Plan suggested that perhaps the best long term use for the site would include residential use. Similarly, the zoning of all but existing business uses was changed from B -3 Heavy Business to R -2 Medium Density Residential. The HRA began purchasing land in this area last year for a high density residential project and currently holds title to more than 75% of the property. The City staff indicated that rezoning would be required since elderly and handicapped housing is a listed conditional use only in the B -2 General Business district. Action was deferred until a redeveloper showed interest in the property. The planning staff endorses the concept of mixed residential and commercial use of the site subject to refinement of the proposals. The representative from Hardee's has indicated a willingness to work with the City on its site plan especially in the area of landscaping. Parking requirements are met in the current proposal. The elderly housing proposal, in its present con- figuration is slightly larger than the site can hold. There has been discussin about the elimination of Second Street which is on railroad property. However, a 31 car parking lot at the end of a cul -de -sac would not be desirable. It appears that both the City and the Developer will need to contact the railroad about future use of this right of way. The Developer has indicated a pre- ference for vacating the alley between the restaurant and the apartment building, but, it seems that this would greatly reduce useable green space on the site once a turn around is built at the end of the alley. Rezoning will allow the restaurant as a permitted use whereas, a Conditional Use hearing must be conducted before the senior apartments may be built. Recommendation Forward a recommendation to the City Council that both the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to accommodate the proposals now under consideration by the HRA. 6. Discussion Shopping Center Signage, Dakota County Estates Jack Benedict and a representative from First National Bank will be in to request two variances for signs in the new shopping center. The Zoning Ordinance limits freestanding signs at shopping centers to one. Both the gas station and the bank would like freestanding signs. The gas station wishes for a typical identification standard, whereas, the bank wants a time and temperature standard similar to the one in downtown Farmington. Both wish for a variance from the setback requirements in order to place the signs as close to the County 31 right of way as possible. It would be helpful if everyone looked at the new structure and its proximity to County 31 before the meeting. The developer believes that without the identification offered by two signs in the front yard, both businesses will suffer. The highway is straight at this point and visibility appears to be the least of the problems both will have. The staff believes strongly that either the existing ordinance should be observed or that amendments to both the sign and the zoning ordinance should be introduced by the Planning Commission. The staff favors the former. Because the developer decided only on Wednesday to proceed with this request, a hearing, if held, would take place during the July meeting on July 21, 1987.