Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.21.87 Planning PacketAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JULY 21, 1987 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES JUNE 16, 1987 3. PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. VARIANCE REQUESTED BY JACK BENEDICT FOR A SECOND FREE STANDING SIGN IN THE COMMERCIAL STRIP CENTER ON COUNTY ROAD 31 4. DISCUSSION CITY ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL CHANGES IN THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE THAT MIGHT ACCOMPANY ANY RESPONSE TO THE CONCEPT OF VARIABLE SETBACKS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JULY 21, 1987 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES JUNE 16, 1987 3. PUBLIC HEARING JACK BENEDICT REQUEST FOR VARIANCE While the application and public hearing notice indicates a need for both a front yard and second sign variance, the applicant indicated during the June meeting and afterward to the City Administrator that the bank is willing to observe the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The variance under discussion therefore, shall be limited to the perceived need for a second sign in this shopping center. The Sign Ordinance, adopted by Farmington City Council in February, 1986, was based largely on a similar ordinance prepared for the City of Prior Lake, which, in turn, was drawn from several metropolitan area community sign ordi- nances. The practice of limiting area identification signs for shopping centers is common, as can be observed by looking at other developed centers in nearby communities. THe area identifications sign which exists at this center currently could be adapted to identify the bank and any other tenant which locates there. As is, the advertising on the existing identification sign for Budget Mart merely duplicates two other signs on the face of the building. As indicated in the earlier discussion, the representative of the First National Bank believes that the "L" of the center is at an advertising disadvantage since the space cannot be observed from the north. On the other hand, the bank will be extremely noticeable to those people travelling north- ward. In addition, anyone living in this neighborhood will be aware of all tenants in the building. However, a decision by the Board will be based upon the tests for hardship identified in Section 10- 8 -6(C) rather than an interpretation of need. It is the opinion of Staff that none of the tests for hardship are satisfied by this application. Recommendation Deny the request for a second area identification sign since it fails to observe the spirit and intent of the zoning code. 4. DISCUSSION CITY ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE A. Amend 10- 4 -1(L) by changing the phrase "In the R -1 Residential District" to read: In all Residential Districts. This was brought to the attention of Staff when a resident of the original plat of Farmington wished to build an excessively large garage to use as a workshop and to store equipment. B. Amend 10 -6 -8 OFF STREET PARKING by changing the phrase "In any district" to read In all districts except the B -2 General Business District and to amend 10- 3 -2(H) by moving hotels and motels from permitted to conditional uses. These changes are being offered since the emphasis of the downtown plan now being prepared by Milo Thompson places great emphasis on Street Parking and the ordinance generally is being interpreted in a way which waives off street parking requirements downtown. Staff believes that the conditional use section of the ordinance will protect the downtown parking space from long term over- crowding. This is the motivation for shifting hotels into the conditional ti use column. C. Amend 10 -4 -1 by adding (P) as follows: (P) A vehicular access plan shall be required which links every site with an improved public street or alley before any building permit is issued. This will discourage requests for street and alley improvements in areas without planned projects. D. Amend 10 -6 -2 WATER RECREATION AND WATER STORAGE by substituting as follows: 10 -6 -2: Residential Swimming Pools: Any enclosure, in ground and above ground, having a water surface area exceeding one hundred (100) square feet and a water depth of not less than one and one -half feet (1i') shall be considered a swimming pool which must meet the following location restrictions: A. General 1. Pools shall not be located within ten feet (10') (measured horizontally) from underground or overhead utility lines of all types. 2. Pools shall not be located within any private or public utility, drainage, walkway or other easement. 3. Pool lighting shall be directed toward the pool and not toward adjacent property. 4. Pool area shall be enclosed by a non climable type safety fence at least five feet (5') in height to prevent uncontrolled access to the pool area. The fence shall have a self closing and self latching gate with its latch located at least four feet (4') above the ground level. B. Single Family Residential 1. Pools shall not be located within any required front, side and rear yards and shall be at least six feet (6') from any principal structure or frost footing. 2. In addition to observing yard setback requirements of each district, the filter unit, pump, heating unit and any other noise making mechanical equipment shall be located at least twenty -five feet (25') from any residential structure on adjacent property. C. Multiple Family Residential 1. Water surfaces and pumps, filter or other apparatus used in connection with the pool shall not be located closer than fifty feet (50') to any lot line. 2. Landscaping as outlined in Section 10 -6 -14 of this code shall be placed between the pool area and adjoining low density district lot lines. 3. Deck areas, adjoining patios or other areas used in conjunction with the pool, shall be located at least fifteen feet (15') from any lot line in an adjoining low density district. The reason for this change is to eliminate the requirement for fencing adjoining natural and man made water features that are considered amenities in residential development. Currently, these features are not fenced and there are sound legal reasons why the City should not be identified as a potential enforcer. E. Amend Chapter 4 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT by the repeal of sections 2 -4 -3 through 2 -4 -8 which have been encorporated into the Zoning Ordinance itself when the comprehensive amendment of March 17, 1986 was adopted. F. In addition, bring a copy of the Agenda Report for the June 16, 1987 meeting for the commentary on Variable Setback Requirements. Charles Tooker Planner 1�