Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.09.89 Planning Packet4. PUBLIC HEARING 7:10 P.M. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:20 P.M. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR AUGUST 8, 1989 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES JUNE 13 AND JULY 11, 1989 3. PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. VARIANCE REQUESTED BY LYNN HOFFMAN, 420 OAK STREET CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED BY EMC DEVELOPMENT, BLOCK 17 PUD CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED BY EMC DEVELOPMENT, BLOCK 18 6. DISCUSSION REPLAT OF LOTS 1 -10, BLOCK 18, TOWN OF FARMINGTON REQUESTED BY EMC DEVELOPMENT 7. DISCUSSION PROPOSED REVISION TO SIGN ORDINANCE 8. DISCUSSION POPULATION AND LAND AREA PROJECTIONS FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. Call to Order 7:00 P.M. 2. Approve Minutes June 13 and July 11 3. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. Variance Requested by Lynn Hoffman Mr. Hoffman owns a lot now measuring 60x100 feet without a garage situated at the southwest corner of Fifth and Oak Streets. He has two automobiles and one camper which he plans to store in a proposed garage measuring 22x26 feet immediately behind the existing house. The site plan is a bit confusing in that the request is to build within 2 feet of the south property line and within 4 feet of the west property line, whereas they are drawn 3 feet and 5 feet respectively. The ordinance requires that all structures must be built 6 feet from side and rear lot lines. The plan does not appear to provide any reasonable pedestrian space between the house and the proposed garage. Such a placement will not be attractive and will contribute to neighborhood clutter when viewed from Fifth Street. It is noted that the lot is smaller and the house design does not leave much useable space for a contemporary garage. On the other hand a garage could be built on this lot without any variances being approved. A 24 or 25 foot wide attached garage, for example, would easily fit on the lot and also would be considerably more attractive. Recommendation AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR AUGUST 8, 1989 Deny the variance based on the fact that it does not meet the criteria listed in Section 10 -8 -6 for granting a variance. 4. Public Hearing 7:10 P.M. Conditional Use Requested by EMC Development In June, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use request at this site, Lots 10 -13, Block 17, Original Town of Farmington, for a 42 unit apartment complex with 29 parking spaces. In refining the plan, the developer found that the building was too large for the site and could not be built without a number of additional variances. The plan currently calls for 42 units with 21 parking spaces. The developer believes that the pickup and drop off drive in front of the building will be more beneficial than a full complement of spaces. It is true that from an aesthetic point of view the pick up and drop off area will provide a more attractive entrance than if the parking lot were to be continued straight across to the entrance walk. The alley north of Oak Street has been redesigned to turn south into the former railroad right of way and ultimately into Oak Street. All of the railroad land now belongs to the HRA and, therefore, the east property line is essentially meaningless. All setback lines have been observed and the only variance required is for 21 parking spaces rather than the 13 originally granted. The principal suggestion is that the alley intersection with the driveway should provide access from the alley into the parking lot. The inter- section should, therefore, include a 15' radii to provide for a smooth inter- section. This same portion of the site plan contains an awkward sidewalk configuration where it attempts to follow the parking lot and comes within 1 foot of the building. This perhaps could be reworked to meet the building and follow it straight to the walk coming from the east end of the building. The area between the walks and parking area could then be covered with a ground cover other than grass. It is unusual for a building of this type to have so little planting adjoining. The only small plant materials recommended adjoin the main entrance. It is suggested that the east and west entrances also have a landscape treatment other than grass. During one of the plan presentations, it was suggested that the trash pickup would be accomplished in the building corner adjoining the former railroad right of way. The site plan shows no pad for this area and no screen fence to cover up the trash collection. The fence should be built of the same materials that are used in the building. On the west side of the building it is recommended that the vegetable garden walk be extended to the north alley. The parking lot requires that one 18" maple tree must be sacrificed. It is recommended that the one which will remain should be left in an area measuring 12 feet wide by 15 feet long. It appears that this can be accomplished by taking 1 foot from the turning area on the west entrance drive and moving the east entrance drive and all of the adjoining parking spaces 2 feet to the east. The walk from the front entrance to the west property line will remove an existing mock orange. This plant should be accommodated elsewhere on the site. The portion of the site within the Oak Street right of way has some problems which need to be addressed by the developer. The concrete sidewalk adjoining the site is in extremely poor condition and must be replaced. In addition, the existing curb cut on Oak Street, if not eliminated by the west access drive, must be removed with new curbing installed. The contract for landscaping needs a section dealing with the damaged 14" maple on Oak Street. That portion of the tree which was partially blown away needs to be pruned and the cut treated. From a maintenance point of view, ground cover other than sod is recommended in those areas between City sidewalk and the parking lot. Another maple tree and more rosa rubosa in the east turning area of the parking lot are recommended. While the note regarding sod suggests that the entire site will be covered, it probably should be rewritten to say that unless otherwise noted, the entire site will be covered with new sod. The handicapped parking stall is one foot short in width, but can be accommodated if the walk is redesigned toward the east end of the parking lot. The only unanswered question is the amount of parking that will be available to this building. The earlier plan was more liberal than the one shown for approval now. On the other hand, the entrance to the building is likely to be more attractive than any previous housing for elderly building. There is a precedent for extremely low parking to apartment ratio for elderly housing in Spruce Place. It has been occupied for a number of years without any apparent parking problem. Recommendation Approve the Conditional Use Permit for a 42 unit senior housing building on Block 17 subject to the following: a. Addition of a paved trash service area with a six foot fence built with the same materials used in the apartment structure. b. Construction of a new sidewalk adjoining the site and replacement of existing curb cut if necessary. c. Addition of a 15' turning radius between the alley and the parking lot. d. Additional unpaved space around the 18" sugar maple tree in the parking lot. e. Provide a revised sidewalk plan at the east end of the parking lot and to the vegetable garden. f. Provide additional entrance plantings at the east and west ends of the building. g. Provide groundcover, one additional maple tree and more hardy rose bushes between the City sidewalk and the parking lot. h. Prune and protect the street tree on Oak Street and reuse the existing mock orange. 5. Public Hearing 7:20 P.M. PUD Conditional Use Requested by EMC Development The proposed townhome project which will become known as Rosebrier Village has been approached as a PUD since the City Zoning Ordinance will allow only one principal structure per lot unless platted as a PUD. The property is in the process of being rezoned from B -3 Commercial to R -3 High Density Residential which will allow up to 14 units per acre or 34 units over the entire site. In essence, the property could have been divided into five lots and meet proposed density requirements. In a PUD, on the other hand, the ordinance states that building coverage shall not exceed 20% of the site. The project proposed includes 24 units of 1,158 square feet which works out to a 25.7% building coverage. By eliminating four units, building coverage would drop to 21.47 or if two units were to be eliminated the coverage would become 23.67. In viewing the project, the question becomes one of evaluating the intent of the ordinance. There is reason to believe that the elimination of two units would create a more pleasing living environment. But, by dividing the property differently, the 24 units proposed could be built. It is with this background that staff recommends a variance of 5.7% to the building coverage requirement in order for the project to proceed. The developer has made an attempt to save existing tree cover on this site, particularly in the area of the central court. However, there is an existing Chinese Elm located south of Building 5 which should be protected and five common lilacs that should be shifted from their location, either adjoining Building 2 or under it, to the areas north and south of the proposed vegetable garden. In addition, it is recommended that the central court should include 5 honey locust to grow as replacement trees for the Chinese elms which are being saved. Another area in need of additional planting is the grass strip between the Elm Street sidewalk and Rose Court. French lilac or another intermediate sized plant would appropriate to separate the walk from the driveway. There is a walk proposed along Elm Street but none along First and Main Streets. It is appropriate not to include one along Main since there are no plans currently to upgrade this street. First Street, however, will be improved later this Fall or early next Summer. A sidewalk should be added to the PUD plan documents. The interior bituminous walk either should be redesigned at the south end or made to enter the City walk across Rose Court. An alternative would be to extend it to Rose Lane. The north end should be augmented by adding an extension to the east /west portion of Rose Lane. Vistor parking is not a requirement for elderly housing. The developer has proposed 1/2 space per unit. Need for these spaces is difficult to evaluate since there has not been housing of this type built in Farmington. All of the other townhouses have been traditional units requiring two spaces. Staff would suggest an additional six spaces as a safety valve but the number is arbitrary and could prove to be unnecessary. The east side of Building 3 would be a possible location for additional spaces. There has been considerable discussion about the advisability of having traffic enter the site from Elm Street. Staff endorses the proposal since it puts traffic directly onto an arterial street which is designed to carry heavy volumes of traffic. The plan does provide an alternative outlet on First Street. This access was selected because First Street will be improved very soon and it also will tend to discourage through traffic. One proposal the staff is less sure about is the recommendation to plant 250 Rosa Rubosa or hardy roses. They enclose each terrace in a way that will allow access directly onto the green areas or less directly, in at least one instance, not at all. While the name of the development and the plants do go together, a variety of plant materials could be more pleasing. On the other hand, while in bloom, they could have considerable impact. The terrace area is the only area where residents will be able to express individuality. The plan does not suggest that flower borders are possible. It should be interesting for the developer to explore this further. Recommendation Forward a recommendation for approval of Rosebrier Village PUD to the City Council subject to results of the hearing discussion. 6. Discussion Replat of Lots 1 -10, Block 18, Town of Farmington The mailing on this plat has produced no response. It is being platted to eliminate the alley and current easements. Staff recommends approval to both the Planning Commission and City Council subject to responses that are available either on August 8th for the Planning Commission or August 21st for the City Council. 7. Discussion Revision of the Sign Ordinance We have reached the six month time line. Any suggestions? 8. Discussion Population and Land Use Projections for the Comprehensive Plan As indicated in my letter to Paul Baltzersen, this is a Planning Commission statement of policy. Are there some other thoughts which should be expressed? �a- Charles Tooker Planner