Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.18.87 Planning Packet1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES JULY 21, 1987 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR AUGUST 18, 1987 3. PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. Donald Tietz 5370 182nd Street West, request for a variance to build a fence in front yard. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 7 :15 P.M. Williams Stiles Jr., 104 Fifth Street, request for a variance to build a storage shed in front yard. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 7 :15 P.M. John P. Sauber, 100 Third Street, request for a conditional use to expand a building for retail and service use. AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR AUGUST 18, 1987 1. Call to Order 7:00 P.M. 2. Approve Minutes July 21, 1987 3. Public Hearing Variance Request from Donald Tietz The City staff has discussed the "Tietz" fence for some time. It was found to be on the public right of way after complaints from the General Services Department suggested that snow removal would be a problem. Mr. Tietz was given time to remove, and has removed, the fence from the public right of way but no hearing was scheduled to discuss the 2 feet that the fence exceeds zoning requirements. Enforcement of the ordinance has now brought about this variance request. As indicated in the application, the house "fronts" on two streets and, therefore, has a limited opportunity to create a private rear yard. Section 10 -6 -15 of the City Code Fences is very specific on this point. Four foot fences are permitted in any yard, but six foot fences must be limited to rear and side yards. The applicant in this situation could have a six foot high fence if it were to be located 20 feet back from both Upper 182nd Street West and Emerald Trail. The basis for the application is that this rule denies the owner use of property that others in the same district are permitted because of property configuration. The tests for a variance in Section 10- 8 -6(C) appear to be met with the possible exception of 4. It is the question of intent that causes the most difficulty. A fence on any corner lot probably should respect the front yard setback requirements. But, what is the difference between a 4 foot fence and a 6 foot fence in terms of visibility at intersections? If there is no difference, the ordinance probably should state that front yard fences at corners are prohibited. The neighbor on Lot 3 is likely to feel as closed in by a six foot high front yard fence as by a building that does not observe the setback. Recommendation A definite recommendation is that the fence along 182nd Street should not extend beyond the front of the house if it remains at 6 feet high. The fence along Emerald Trail essentially is a judgement call between the rights of lot owners 3 and 4. It is difficult to note any difference between a 4' and 6' fence other than the owner of lot 4 will lose the right of privacy for a substantial portion of his lot if a four foot high fence is required. 4. Public Hearing Variance Request from William Stiles, Jr. The property at 104 5th Street was discussed earlier as a possible candidate for alley vacation. It contains two small dwellings, one of which sits on the alley. The property was ultimately purchased by an adjoining land owner at 421 Main Street. The owner, Mr. Stiles, therefore controls the south 50 feet of Lots 1,2 and 3 plus all of lot 12, block 30, Original Town of Farmington. Mr. Stiles requires the use of a shed to store newspapers until they can be delivered. He would like the shed to be placed in front of the two single family dwellings, which is permitted, except that he would like it to be in the front setback area. Upon inspection, a shed already appears to be standing which is within the public right of way at 104 Fifth Street. The application was taken and the hearing advertised with the understanding that a site plan would be forthcoming. As yet, there is no site plan. Had one been required at the point of application, the applicant could have been notified that he has not right to use, and the Commission has no right to grant, the use of a public right of way. The application states that a storage shed at the rear of 104 5th would not be useful. Field inspection suggests that this 50 foot lot is already overburdened by the use of tenants and their vehicles. On the other hand, a shed at the rear of 421 Main Street could be encorporated into the design of the existing two car garage and not become a noticeable addition to this neighborhood. Recommendation Deny the request on the basis that none of the provisions of Section 10- 8 -6(C) of the City Code have been met. 5. Public Hearing Conditional Use Request from John Sauber The request for retail and service use in the expanded plumbing shop at 100 Third Street only partially meets the requirements of the zoning code. Listed conditional uses include retail sales but not personal services. The applicant has indicated that the barbershop /beauty shop is the strongest possibility since the dress ship includes a number of reservations which might interfere with this use moving to this site. Either one of the uses could move to the site and come close to meeting off street parking requirements. Both of them, however, are too large for the site. The barber /beauty shop at 1,200 square feet would require 16 off street parking spaces. The dress shop at 400 square feet would require 4. The site plan presented by the applicant indicates a maximum of 8 spaces with 3 at the rear. The staff has serious reservations about encouraging retail and service uses away from the downtown, particularly at a time when the HRA has engaged a designer to attract investors. A major decision for the Commission is whether or not personal services should be added to the heavy business or to consider the possibility of rezoning the area to B -2. Farmington appears to be in a transition considerably more noticeable now then in the recent past. Residential development is moving rapidly and the HRA is working with several potential developers interested in commercial development. The plumbing shop might, in the future, be better suited for retail sails than the mixed category that it is now situated. For now the requested building expansion looks too large to satisfy off street parking requirements of the zoning ordinance. A more cautious approach might be considered subject to several conditions, as follows: a. amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow personal services b. development of an architectural rending of the proposed building c. development of a site plan showing the parking and landscaping that will be introduced without any reference to parking on Third Street. Recommendation Explore alternatives with the applicant and seek input from the HRA regarding the impact of this proposal on downtown development. N o.Akt.. Charles Tooker Planner