Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.12.89 Planning Packet1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 2. APPROVE MINUTES a. August 8, 1989 3. APPEAL Denial of Variance Requested by Lynn Hoffman 4. PUBLIC HEARING 7:10 P.M. Conditional Use for Renewal of Off- Premise Directional Sign Requested by Farmington Floral 5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:20 P.M. Variance Requested by Farmington Floral to Build an 8 Foot Fence in R -2 District 6. PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M. Conditional Use Requested by Allen Brosseth for Accessory Apartment 316 Main Street 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7:40 P.M. Variance Requested by Gordon Wichterman, 18265 Exley Avenue to Build a Garage Within One Foot of Property Line 8. DISCUSSION Placement of Dumpster in Relation to Front Yard Setbacks Requested by "Gil" Gilbertson. 9. DISCUSSION Reactivation of Silver Springs Plat Requested by Jack Benedict 10. DISCUSSION Proposed Revisions to Sign Ordinance Recommendation Reaffirm the original action. AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES August 8, 1989 3. APPEAL Denial of Variance Requested by Lynn Hoffman Mrs. Hoffman was disturbed about the Planning Commission's action on August 8, 1989 since someone at City Hall told her that the hearing would be held on August 21, 1989. She therefore asked if she could be placed on the agenda during the next regular meeting without being charged another hearing fee. I indicated that she could come to the meeting and discuss the application but that the Commission has not looked with favor on yard variances in the past. I explored the possibility of an attached garage with her, but she said that it would eliminate an important kitchen window. She also said that a tree would be saved, but I did not locate it. It sounded as if they did not like the neighbors' fence and believe that better use can be put to this space than current City yard requirements. The previous motion was appropriate since there is no hardship under terms of Section 10 -8 -6 of the City Code. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 7:10 P.M. Conditional Use for Renewal of Off- Premise Direction Sign Requested by Farmington Floral The Conditional Use for a continuation of the directional sign should be renewed. Both the site and the sign have been well maintained. The next renewal application, however, likely should involve the property owner if the HRA has been successful in attracting an industry to this site. The original request assumed that the sign would be placed on unused railroal right of way. The HRA either has acquired or is about to acquire this property and it will be sold for manufacturing if at all possible. The new property owner may not wish to advertise another business from this corner. The applicant should be aware that without permission from such an owner, this directional sign could have a relatively short lifespan. Recommendation Approve the renewal request. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 7:20 A.M. Variance Requested by Farmington Floral to Build an 8 Foot Fence in an R -2 District Farmington Floral removed some very large spruce trees from the property line and would like to replace them with an eight foot tall fence. In Section 10 -6 -15 of the City Code, fences 8 feet in height are permitted within business and industrial districts, except in a front yard. In residential districts, fences may only be 4 feet in front yards but 6 feet in side and rear yards. In this situation we are dealing with a non conforming business within a residential district. It would be appropriate to allow a higher fence in this front yard since it will separate a parking lot and selling area from an adjoining residential property. However, it is difficult to find any hardship as defined in Section 10 -8 -6 for a 2 foot variance along side and rear property lines. Every request must be accompanied by justification that meets the particular needs of the site. In this instance, we are called upon to evaluate the right of adjoining property for access to adequate light and air. The applicant has already been informed that the planter must be off the public right of way. Recommendation Approve a variance to build a six foot fence in the front yard, but deny the request for an eight foot fence along the east property line since it fails to meet the criteria for a variance listed in Section 10 -8 -6. 6. PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M. Conditional Use Request from Allen Brosseth to Recognize an Existing Accessory Apartment at 316 Main Street As indicated on the application, Mr. Brosseth purchased the property with the understanding that it was a duplex. However, the distribution of trash containers was made on the basis of City records. A complaint from renters indicated that, while it has been used as a duplex for 35 years, the billing for services has recognized it as a single unit. The purpose of the hearing it to correct the record and relieve the renters of the inconvenience caused by an overcrowded trash container. The property is well maintained compared with the duplex next door at 200 4th Street, and includes two garages. One has access from Main and the other has access from the alley. There are five other conversions from single family to two family dwellings in this block. The total brings the number of units to 18 which would be the normal capacity of this block if developed at 5.5 units per acre. The land area included is 3.4 acres. The accessory apartment ordinance would allow up to 125% of the maximum density or 23 units. Recommendation Because the duplex does not exceed densities provided for in the ordinance and has been in place for years, staff recommends that the Conditional Use request should be approved. 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7:40 P.M. Variance Request from Gordon and Sherry Wichterman, 18265 Exley Avenue to Build a Second Garage Attached to the Existing Residence Within One Foot of the Property Line The existing house is nine feet from the south property line and eleven feet from the north property line. At 55/42 it includes 2,310 square feet of ground floor space, including the garage. While it is understandable that garage parking for one car is inconvenient, it is clearly not a hardship as defined by Section 10- 8 -6(C). In addition, a one foot side yard is clearly not adequate for maintenance of the building and an imposition on the property owner directly to the north. The applicant should be encouraged to explore the possibility of extending the existing garage five feet to provide additional inside storage but that a two car garage on this structure will be detrimental to this neighbor- hood. Recommendation Deny the request on the basis that a hardship has not been created by the ordinance. 8. DISCUSSION Placement of Dumpster in Relation to Front Yard Setbacks Requested by Gil Gilbertson. The pictures of the driveway to the townhouse parking area in the Westview or Gils Addition PUD focus on the topic for discussion. A dumpster is situated at the edge of the parking area at the corner of Ash Street and County Road 31. Mr. Gilbertson would like to move the dumpster to the edge of the right of way adjacent to the cul -de -sac and enclose it with a lattice screen like the one sheltering the patio area on the east side of the building and shown in the photograph on the bottom right. The question raised by staff is whether or not such an enclosure is a structure or if it is just a fenced area? A similar fenced area at Hardees is part of an accessory building and is treated as a structure. Structures are defined as anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires a fixed location on the ground but not including fences among other things. This enclosure will be erected on a concrete pad and is intended to be four feet in height. If it is a fenced area, the enclosure may be placed in a front yard as long as it does not exceed four feet. If it is a structure, it will have to recognize all setbacks which in this situation is 20 feet from all public rights of way. Such a structure would then have to be placed between the driveway and the building since the driveway appears to adjoin the building setback line. Recommendation Agree that the proposed enclosure is a small fenced area suitable for placement in a front yard unless it is believed that a poor precedent will be set by such an action. It should be noted that the developer has been working on a solution for this problem for some time and has determined that the enclosure and its location will be an improvement to the existing treatment of trash collection. When the PUD was designed, trash containers were to be placed inside the garages. The 90 gallon containers put an end to this because of their size. Now this storage must take place outdoors and the PUD plan does not address this issue. 9. REACTIVATION OF SILVER SPRINGS PLAT REQUESTED BY JACK BENEDICT The attached minutes indicate the sentiment of the Planning Commission when this plat was discussed in April of this year. Since that time, the staff has worked with Heritage development on the proper location for a street con- nection to Highway 31 and has made an inquiry with the County Plat Review Commission regarding the number of accesses that will be permitted. Without looking at a definite proposal, the staff has said that only one access is possible in the southwest quarter of Section 13, and it must line up with what ever street is proposed in the southeast quarter of Section 14. The only exception that might be made is if the City requests two access roads to fit a specific situation. When we discussed the proposed plat with Mr. Benedict, we were not aware of the new, stricter requirements on road access to arterial streets. If Mr. Benedict wishes to plat only the south 56 acres of the southwest quarter, the Commission could forward the plat and request that the Plat Review Commission consider the topography and the relatively large area that will be served by only one access to see if two intersections in this area would be approved. If so, the plat can be developed with one collector street planned to intersect with County Road 31 at the base of the hill and another which will follow parallel County 31 entering Dakota County Estates at Embers Avenue. The additional access to this section could then be provided to line up with the road connection to the Nelson land. If not, the Plat will need to be redrawn to provide access lining up with the proposed road on the west side of County Road 31. 10. DISCUSSION PROPOSED REVISIONS TO SIGN ORDINANCE Please bring Draft II for action. Charles Tooker Planner