Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.17.07 Work Session Minutes Council / Planning Commission Workshop Minutes October 17, 2007 Mayor Soderberg called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Absent: Also Present: Soderberg, Fogarty, McKnight, Pritzlaff, Wilson Rotty, Burke, Larson, Oswald Barker Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator; Lee Smick, City Planner; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner Present: Comurehensive Plan Uudate Planning staff presented a spreadsheet to the City Council and Planning Commission showing that between 2000-2007 Farmington had granted 2,270.29 of MUS A acres. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan proposed a total of 1,620 acres of MUS A by 2020. The City Planner explained that in 1998 when the 1,620 acres was proposed, there was a total of 30 acres of low/medium density residential and 0 acres was proposed for high density residential. Additionally, there was only 20 acres proposed for commercial. This showed that in 1998, there was not much emphasis put on these types of land uses. Another factor that was discussed is that the City has annexed 1,407 acres ofland between 2004-2007 that was not even imagined as a possibility in 1998. The City Planner stated that she has had numerous discussions with the Met Council Sector Representative Patrick Boylan concerning the overage of2,270.20 acres versus the 1,620 acres proposed in 2020. She stated a number of factors that were agreed upon by the Sector Representative concerning this overage. 1) Farmington will review the 2030 Comprehensive Plan every 2-3 years in order to follow the growth rate more closely. 2) Farmington currently has a 3-4 year supply of vacant lots at 879, justifying the need to review the 2030 plan every 2-3 years. 3) The City Council has agreed to the Metropolitan Council's 2020 population forecast for Farmington of 32,000. 4) Farmington will grow into the allocated residential MUSA of 1,102.27 acres. 5) The City has submitted 15 Comprehensive Plan Amendments within the past two years, allowing the adjacent jurisdictions to sign off on the growth in Farmington. 6) The City Planner is constantly in touch with the Metropolitan Council Sector Representative. 7) The Sector Representative has stated that because ofthe expansion of the Empire Treatment Plan, Farmington's growth could be accommodated. The schedule shows a September 12 2008; submittal to Met Council, but staff can request an extension. The market study has slowed down the process comprehensive planning process. The City Council and Planning Commission suggested removing all commercial and industrial west of F airgreen Avenue and designating it agriculture. If a willing land seller requests MUSA, Farmington will only review a proposal that has a concrete development plan. The market study shows that the commercial acreage total is 140 acres. The 140 acres includes the 128 within the Spruce Street Commercial area that is comp planned as commercial but is vacant. The Charleswood Marketplace development constituting 4.56 acres would also be a part of the 140 acres. The City Council and Planning Commission also suggested that commercial be designated at the northwest corner of Pilot Knob Road and CR50 because this intersection will be highly utilized in the future. Staff suggested going 500 ft in on both sides of Pilot Knob toward CR50 and designate that as commercial and the rest as industrial for now. A consensus was reached with staffs recommendations. Staff is proposing November 8, 2007 for a neighborhood meeting. Council/Planning Commission Workshop October 17, 2007 Page 2 Downtown Lot Subdivisions The two residential zoning districts that ring the downtown area are R-T and R-D. Both ofthese allow for the existing older high density residential as well as higher density two-family dwellings. There are two properties that meet the requirement for a lot split. Some ofthe properties have homes that are newer, the location of the home may prohibit the lot split, but meet the size requirements. Typically you want higher density closer to downtown. Staff wanted to know if the Council and Planning Commission are comfortable with allowing lot splits in the downtown area. The R- T and R-D was set up for higher density. The R-2 is for single and two-family homes. The question was raised whether higher density should be allowed by individual lot or if an entire block should be designated for high density. It was also noted in the downtown none ofthe homes look alike and there is a certain feel to the downtown area. Staff is working on the historic overlay district for the downtown area. So far this district goes to Walnut and encompasses a large part ofthe R-D district. Infill development would be required to follow the standards set in the overlay district. Members asked about the intent for the lots in the R-2 district and if the larger lots were intended to be a buffer for the railroad tracks. This may not concern the City at large, but it could be a concern for neighbors. A resident noted the residential area next to downtown as been in existence for 147 years and asked the City to think twice before messing with 147 years of precedence and start putting homes in people's backyards. Another resident noted going south from Feely Elevator, the lots become larger. From Honeysuckle Lane the lots are smaller with newer development. Currently there are no homes that do not have street frontage. A resident wants to divide their lot for two duplexes and a single family home and make them one-story to match the other homes. There are two duplexes north ofthis property. Staff noted the code needs to be reviewed, as a street is defined as any street or roadway, public or private, but not to include private driveways. In another portion of the code it says a lot can be split on a City approved street. Staff needs to determine if a City approved street is a street that will be maintained by a homeowners association and can be split with no right-of-way, or is a City approved street a public right-of-way. Staff will talk to the City Attorney regarding the definition of a City approved street. The City Council and Planning Commission determined that lot splits should not occur unless on a City approved street. Ordinance Revisions City Planner Smick explained the problems that are occurring with people putting landscaping in the drainage and utility easements. Some of the landscaping is affecting the swale ofthe water. There are also problems with parking of recreational vehicles. Currently the codes states recreational vehicles can be parked on the drainage and utility easement if there is decorative rock. This is also causing problems with water flowing to neighbors property instead of out to the street. Anything parked in front of the house has to be on a paved surface. Many homes only have a 6 ft. setback on the sides and this does not leave room for recreational vehicle parking. Staff proposes allowing decorative rock for parking, but it must stay out ofthe drainage and utility easement. Staff is proposing sheds be less than 240 sq. ft. of floor area, right now they are at 120 sq. ft. The height will continue to be 12 ft. A building permit will be required for any accessory structure over 120 sq. ft. Currently a paved driveway is required for detached garages, however, Counci1/Planning Commission Workshop October 17,2007 Page 3 a paved surface is not allowed in drainage and utility easements. The City could allow people to drive on their grass to reach an accessory structure. The City could tell drainage and utility companies they are no longer allowed on private property. In new subdivisions, owners will have to locate utility lines and can plant trees anywhere outside this area. Building Inspections is trying to catch encroachments into easements as inspections are done or the City will go out when there are problems with drainage. Staff is proposing nothing in the drainage and utility easements except utilities and turf and fences. Recreational vehicles would have to be parked within the property. No pavement will be allowed in these easements. Engineering would like to continue to keep the drainage easement in the front yards. Staffwill research the utility companies and the 30 ft. setback. Ifthe City starts telling residents they cannot have landscaping in easements, that will affect a lot of people. Before an ordinance is approved, the City will need someone to enforce it. Staff wanted to know if they should just deal with the problems and start to educate people. If everyone agrees that the ordinance should be enforced, it would make things easier. When these are brought back to Council, they should be addressed one at a time. Due to the time of year, this will be discussed again at a later time. The meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~)-r?~ ~thia Muller Executive Assistant