Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.17.89 Planning PacketAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JANUARY 17, 1989 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES Meeting of December 20, 1988 3. PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. Variance Requested by Charles B. and Cynthia M. Hansen 18211 Empire Trail 4. PUBLIC HEARING 7:10 P.M. Variance Requested by Jim Haugen Dodge at Third and Elm Streets 5. DISCUSSION Zoning Ordinance Amendments Landscaping and Resource Recovery 6. DISCUSSION Meeting Dates for New Year 1. Call to Order 7:00 P.M. AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JANUARY 17, 1989 2. Approve Minutes December 20, 1988 3. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. Variance Requested by Charles B. and Cynthia M. Hansen 18211 Empire Trail The Hansen's have erected a storage shed for lawn mower, garden tools and bikes that is both larger and closer to property lines than required by the Ordinance as indicated on the submitted drawing. The issue on size likely comes from the Uniform Building Code which exempts one -story detached accessory buildings such as tool sheds and playhouses from re- quired building permits. The City Zoning Ordinance follows this by requiring that all storage sheds shall not exceed nine feet (9') in height and one hundred twenty (120) square feet in area. While it is unclear where the 120 square feet came from, both ordinances agree upon this size cut off. The yard requirements were established by the Planning Commission to be six feet (6') from both the side and rear yard lines. The shed was built within 3 feet of both the rear and side property lines. The applicant has failed to indicate that there is any hardship present, other than the inconvenience of relocating and reducing the size of the shed. It would appear that storage sheds could become a nuisance to planning administration in all housing areas developed on small lots. On one hand, housing is small and limited in the area that can be devoted to storage. On the other, lots are small and large exterior storage sheds can cut dramatically into available open space on the lot. Recommendation Deny both requests on the basis that neither meet the criteria listed under 10 -8 -6 (C) of the City Code. 4. Public Hearing 7:10 P.M. Variance Requested by Jim Haugen Dodge at Third and Elm Streets. Jim Haugen Dodge currently has no sign other than the temporary drawings on the showroom window. The current ordinance was drafted limiting the total sign area for business uses in the B -1 and B -2 Districts to 100 square feet. Free standing signs, if used, are limited to 75 square feet. The maximum height of such signs is 20 feet. The request from Jim Haugen Dodge is to erect a sign pole close to 24 feet in height and more than 81 square feet in area. The ordinance was adopted in 1986 and the first sign to be regulated was for Marigold Foods which was granted a 9 square foot variance providing a surface of 84 square feet in area. The size variance was granted on the basis that the sign looked to be in scale with the building and that some adjustment for larger signs probably should be developed in industrial districts. Since that time, Midwest Federal was granted a variance to build an 81 square foot freestanding sign in 1987 based upon a miscalculation by City staff whereas Hardee's did not seek a variance for its freestanding sign in 1988. This experience suggests that business ventures have been granted whatever size of sign that they believe to be appropriate. This means that the business people who work within size limitations of the Farmington Zoning Ordinance are at an advertising disadvantage and the City comes to accept ever larger advertising signs in its business district. The size problem is fostered by corporations which develop their advertising signs to be seen at long distances on 55 mile per hour highways. The Midwest Federal sign makes sense in shopping areas along major transportation routes, but not necessarily in downtown Farmington. A decision by the Board to grant a variance to the sign ordinance must be based on undue hardship. In this particular instance, it is difficult to find any hardship. Hardee's for example is within both the height and size limits of the Zoning Ordinance. An 81 square foot sign, 24 feet in height for the auto dealership is clearly out of proportion to the 20 foot high, 63 square foot sign recently built by Hardee's. The Ford dealership sign is larger, but was built before the ordinance was adopted. Assuming that no special permit was issued, it will fall under the jurisdiction of the amortization schedule in the Sign Ordinance. If the Planning Commission now wishes to allow freestanding signs larger than 75 square feet and taller than 20 feet with the B -2 District, a recommendation to amend the sign ordinance should be forwarded to the City Council specifying the size and height of sign that will be acceptable in the future. Recommendation Deny the request for both the height and size variance has failed to show that a hardship exists. 5. Discussion Zoning Ordinance Amendments Landscaping A copy of the revised draft of the proposed changes in attached. because the applicant and Resource Recovery the ordinance are 6. Discussion Future Meeting Dates The Planning Commission and City Council would have fewer conflicts with Monday Holiday meeting places if the Planning Commission moved its monthly meeting to the second Tuesday of the month. If such a change were to take place, I would suggest that the revised schedule begin with the April meeting. k Because of staff error in reading the calendar, both hearings scheduled for this meeting were not given a full ten day notice in the newspaper. Since they were advertised, the hearing should be conducted but positive action should be delayed to a continued meeting early in February, possibly in the late afternoon. AAA.eA0'7', Charles Tooker Planner