Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.12.89 Planning Packet1. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES a. November 14, 1989 3. DISCUSSION a. Non Conforming Sign William Uhlin, 20750 Easter Avenue b. Non Conforming Sign Jon Falkowski, 916 8th Street 4. DISCUSSION Variance from Zoning Amendment Dennis and LaDonna Riste 209 Oak Street 5. DISCUSSION a. Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Add Day Care to B -1 Business District 6. DISCUSSION AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DECEMBER 12, 1989 a. Proposed Amendment to Sign Ordinance AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DECEMBER 12, 1989 1. Call to Order 7:30 P.M. 2. Approve minutes of November 14,1989. 3. Discussion Non Conforming Sign William Uhlin The attached letter was mailed to Mr. Uhlin following the last regular meeting. Mr. Uhlin called to say that the saw sharpening business is a retirement project which does not generate enough money to pay for a public hearing. He indicated that the sign was installed to let people know that his service is available. However, if the ordinance requires a public hearing to conduct a home occupation which would include a sign, he would rather take the sign down. On the other hand, he does wish to talk to the Commission to see if he can maintain the sign without a home occupation hearing. Recommendation Explain to Mr. Uhlin that all similar services are required to go through the hearing process and the cost of a hearing is a one time charge. In any event, his sign is too large and will need to come down either permanently or to be replaced by a 1x2 nameplate if he decides to request permission for a home occupation. Discussion Non Conforming Sign Jon Falkowski Dr. Falkowski called in response to the attached letter and asked to discuss the present sign with the Commission. When the Conditional Use was approved, the sign was not discussed. If it had been, the sign likely would have been built to the size limitation of twelve square feet. Dr. Falkowski makes the point that, while the zoning for this property is R -2, the building is situated across the street from the shopping center and one block from a used car lot which was also approved by conditional use without reference to signs. It would appear that a case could be made for a sign variance for the sign based on all of the above, but Dr. Falkowski would need to request a hearing and follow existing procedure. Another approach might be to discuss with Dr. Falkowski the life remaining in this sign and determine its value and the time period when the sign could be brought into compliance with the ordinance. Whatever is done here will have a bearing on other signs for non residential uses in residential districts. 4. Discussion Variance /Zoning Amendment Dennis and LaDonna Riste 209 Oak Street The Ristes have two existing apartments on the second level of 209 Oak Street. They wish to add two efficiency units to an area not currently used. In checking density requirements of the ordinance, an odd discrepancy became apparent which came to the ordinance when Spruce Place was first proposed. In the down- town area, it is possible to build a structure allowing 60 units per acre if it is for the elderly or disabled, but only 20 units per acre for all other housing. It appears that the downtown area needs people to support existing business activity and will need many more people before investors are likely to fill up existing commercial space. The draft of the revised Redevelopment Plan for Down- town Farmington put together in January of 1989 includes as an objective "pro- viding for sound housing with particular concern for middle and low income, elderly and families It would appear to make sense to provide an opportunity for market rate housing in downtown Farmington equal to the standards for subsidized housing. The 20 units per acre will allow 1.7 units in the Riste property, whereas 60 units per acre will allow 5 units. If the ordinance were amended, it would not be necessary for the Ristes to request a variance. 5. Discussion Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Paster Enterprises has a tenant lined up to rent a portion of the shopping center on Highway 3 which is a Day Care to serve approximately 20 adults and 40 children. The City Zoning Ordinance provides that Day Care Centers are conditional uses in the R -3 High Density District and the State Legislature has made small volume day care facilities permitted uses in all other residential districts. Because of the nature of the day care industry, it would be reasonable to add Day Care Centers as conditional uses in the B -1 Limited Business District. Other nearby communities have done it principally for large franchises which typically are located in their own building and have adequate exterior play space. By placing Day Care Centers in the conditional use section, the Planning Commission will have an adequate say in the relationship between interior and exterior space for children and the way in which children will be buffered from automobile traffic from other uses in the business district. Recommendation Forward a recommendation to the City Council that Day Care Centers should be added to the Conditional Use portion of the B -1 Limited Business District. 6. Discussion Proposed Amendment to the Sign Ordinance The basic issue in the current sign ordinance is that it does not address the size of free standing or pylon signs when used in combination with wall signs. In the past, pylon signs were calculated as if wall signs did not exist and vice versa. The variance granted Jim Haugen Dodge for its pylon sign suggested the need to liberalize the general standards for signs. In looking at the requirements in other communities, the ordinance adopted by Burnsville appeared to offer the type of flexibility necessary for sign regulations in Farmington. It should be noted however, that the maximum sizes were scaled down somewhat in the first two drafts of the proposed amendment. This third draft now shows Option A and Option B maximum size for wall signs at 50% of the size permitted in Burnsville. The pylon signs have been left at approximately the same size as found in the Burnsville ordinance since anything less is likely to require frequent variance requests. Recommendation Forward the revised sign ordinance amendment to the City Council with the recommendation that it be approved. Charles Tooker Planner