Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.14.94 Planning Packet ..' -. . . . AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JUNE 14, 1994 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES - MAY 10, 1994 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 P.M. - Variance Request - Exceed Building Lot Coverage - Roy and Audrey Rademacher - 312 5th Street 7:10 P.M. - Variance and Conditional Use Request - Recognize Former Duplex - William and Sandy Olson - 409 Oak St. 7:20 P.M. - Conditional Use Requests - Move and Convert Existing Metal Shed to Apartments/Consider Vacation of Main Street between Third Street and Railroad - Dave Finnegan 7:50 P.M. - Conditional Use Request - Develop Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3 - Dakota County Estates Third Addition - as Condominiums Rather than Apartments a. b. c. d. 4. DISCUSSIONS a. Complete Action on Wetland Mitigation for Prairie Waterway and East Farmington PUD b. Amend Sign Ordinance - Multi-Tenant Buildings c. Amend Zoning Ordinance - Industrial District Setbacks d. Amend Zoning Ordinance - Size of Accessory Buildings in Unplatted Areas e. Planning Commission By-Laws -J . . . AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JUNE 14, 1994 1. Call to Order 2. Approve Minutes - May 10, 1994 3. Public Hearings a. 7:00 P.M. - Variance Request - Roy and Audrey Rademacher - 312 5th Street - to build a 14' x 16' deck The existing house and small barn (storage shed) cover 26.68% of the Rademacher lot. (The staff calculations differ from those of the applicant.) A 14' x 16' deck will increase building coverage to 30.68%. The maximum coverage allowed in the R-2 District is 30%. If these calculations had been done initially by the staff, a hearing for a variance likely would not have been advertised. The Commission may wish to provide guidelines for future requests. However, since the hearing has been established, the applicant should be aware that this building coverage will exceed the maximum allowed in this district by 38 square feet involving an area of less than 5' x 8'. The integrity of the ordinance will not be threatened if a variance of this magnitude is granted. As a practical matter, the deck if built at ground level would not involve the variance process. Because it is two feet above ground, it is considered to be a structure that is regulated by the coverage requirements of the ordinance. To suggest that the applicant keep the deck at ground level would eliminate its utility. At 5200 square feet, the lot is smaller than the minimum lot size of this district. This fact alone suggests that the variance requested meets all of the criteria of Section 10-8-6 of the City Code. Recommendation Approve the variance as requested since literal enforcement would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. b. 7:10 P.M. - Variance and Conditional Use - William and Sandy Olson - Recognize for.mer duplex at 409 Oak Street. This property was likely zoned B-2 General Business because it has been allowed to fall behind in general maintenance and it is located adjacent to a parking lot which serves the business building next door. In contrast, the adjoining building to the east which is of similar age has been well cared for and has maintained its architectural integrity. If the property were zoned R-2 Medium Density a reasonably modest addition to the first floor would qualify the building as a two family structure under the accessory apartment provisions of the City Code. Because it is zoned B-2 General , . . c. . Planning Agenda - 6/14/94 - Page 2 Business, the applicant would be allowed to convert the unit to a multiple family dwelling utilizing the conditional use process. Instead, the applicant has asked for the original two unit building to be recognized. This is the reason for the requested variance. Multiple family dwellings are permissible conditional uses but duplexes are not. Given the transitional nature of the property, both the variance and conditional use should be looked upon favorably. The structure, at some point in time, may be re-evaluated as a single family dwelling considering the neighborhood in which it is located and the demand for this type of housing. The only information which staff would still like in support of this application is some indication of how the property will be upgraded. Neighborhood housing has been improved to a degree that adjoining property owners can legitimately be concerned about what the two rental units will look like. This probably needs to be explored during the hearing. Recommendation Approve the requested variance and conditional use recognizing a former two family dwelling at 409 Oak Street as a way to protect further deterioration of architectural character within this neighborhood. 7:20 P.M. - Conditional Use - David Finnegan - Move existing metal clad building within Block 25 and to convert it to a 12 unit apartment building. The request to move the building is reasonably straight forward. application requires photographs of the building together with a plan and list of improvements to the structure. The principal requirement that the City is interested in is that the building has insurance and can provide a certificate to satisfy the City Finance Director. In addition, surety must be filed again with Finance Director to assure clean up of any problems which could result from the move. The site mover the could The second conditional use is perhaps more challenging since the applicant has asked to convert the moved structure into a 12 unit apartment building with units that average 800 square feet in size. The original concept was to create 10 units within the existing structure. The request currently is to add 24' to the length of the existing building and develop the entire structure into a 12 unit building. The zoning code allows multiple family dwellings within the B-2 General Business District on a minimum lot of 10,000 square feet. The lot in question approximates 28,800 square feet or two thirds of an acre. Based upon density standards in the ordinance, the site can hold 13 dwelling units. The staff has raised questions about the site plan and requested changes that should be available in time to go out with the agenda report. There has been an effort to increase the amount of brick on the building face. The developer has agreed to increase the amount Planning Agenda - 6/14/94 - Page 3 . somewhat, but the most recent agreement indicates that most of the brick will be situated on the north side of the building and a combination of brick and vinyl siding on the other three sides. The actual proposal will not be available until this report is due in the mail. Therefore, some additional adjustments may be necessary during the hearing. The applicant has also asked for the vacation of Main Street between Third Street and the railroad. The property north of Main Street has been negotiated which would mean that the applicant could use the entire vacated Main Street to expand upon this apartment complex. Because the City is involved in negotiating two additional crossings of the railroad, the timing of this request is poor. Once the new crossings have been secured, this request likely can be approved. Recommendation Approve the conditional use requests to both move the building and create a 12 unit apartment building on Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block 25. Regarding the proposed street vacation, deny the request until Farmington completes negotiations on two additional crossings to the north including 208th Street and 195th Street. d. 7:50 P.M. - Conditional Use - Wensmann Homes - Develop Lot l, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3 of Dakota County Estates Third Addition as 16 unit condominium sites. . The PUD for Dakota County Estates indicates that Lots 1 in both Block 2 and 3 were designed for 16 unit apartment buildings. The Developer, at one point, considered building two eight unit buildings on each site and now has found a buyer who is willing to build 16 "deck homes" on each site and to sell each one as a condominium. The density of housing units will not change, but the ownership will. Instead of two rental buildings containing a total of 32 apartments, the property will be individually owned and an association created to deal with overall maintenance. . The question before the Commission is whether or not this change constitutes a major or minor amendment to the PUD. If it is a major amendment, the City Council will need to officially amend the PUD following a public hearing. Because the density has not changed, the staff would recommend that the Commission consider the project to constitute a minor amendment. Telephone calls from residents in the Dakota County Estates neighborhood all focus on the rumors that the apartment lots will be developed into subsidized rental units. This proposal should put an end to this anxiety. The only substantive change in the neighborhood development pattern is that the deck home concept will involve more paving because of the two car garage per unit and the extra parking in front of each unit. In the site plan developed for review, the paving plan for Lots 1-16 is considerably better than for Lots 17-32. The latter lot is smaller, which means that there is a minimum amount of space available for landscaping. One suggestion that could help break up the paving would be to divide . . . Planning Agenda - 6/14/94 - Page 4 the parking area between each unit for at least one car length rather than to show a break in pavement between every other unit. Recommendation Approve the conditional use for two 16 unit condominium buildings in Dakota County Estates Third Addition subject to appropriate conditions that may surface during the public hearing and in the process rule that the change in the PUD is a minor amendment. 4. DISCUSSION a. Complete action on the Wetland Alteration Permits for the Prairie Waterway and East Farmington PUD Both the Prairie Waterway and East Farmington PUD are "hung up" in the permitting processes of the DNR, PCA and Corps of Engineers. In essence, the major roadblock to approval of all permits is the EAW for East Farmington. The City staff, together with the City Engineering Consultant and the Developer, are working toward answers to remaining questions of various staff members of these agencies. A meeting is again scheduled to meet with the staff of both the PCA and the DNR on Friday, June 17th. At that point, provided all of these questions are answered, the City Council would be in a position to issue a negative declaration on the EAW and the necessary permits could fall in place. This background is not necessary for an understanding of the wetland alteration issue, but it does provide an indication of how near and yet how far these projects appear to be. The wetland alteration permit for East Farmington was advertised on March 3, 1994. The same permit for the Prairie Waterway was advertised a month earlier. According to the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, Local Units of Government have between 30 and 60 days to respond to the permit. If there is not a response within the 60 day time period, the applicant could assume that the application has been denied and appeal the decision to the Board of Soil and Water Resources. Since the City is the applicant for the Wetland Alteration Permit for the Prairie Waterway, the staff would prefer that the decision is made in the community. So far, the Developer of East Farmington has not indicated how it interprets the lack of any action by the City. The prairie Waterway wetland alteration needs permits from both the Corps of Engineers and the PCA. The East Farmington PUD needs permits from both of these agencies and the DNR. The staff believes that these permits should be treated exactly the same as the Wetland Alteration Permit for Prairie Creek which was authorized by the Planning Commission on December 14, 1993. The actual Corps of Engineers permit was not issued until June 3, 1994, some five months later. Probably a more compelling reason to take action is that the City Code in Section 10-8-5(B)1 reads as follows: "The Board of Adjustment must take action within sixty (60) days unless the petitioner agrees, in writing, to a time extension...." . . . Planning Agenda - 6/14/94 - Page 5 Recommendation By separate motion, approve both requests for Wetland Alteration Permits with whatever conditions are considered appropriate. b. Amendment to the Sign Ordinance with respect to Multi-Tenant Buildings The existing Benedict Plaza has signs totaling 440 square feet. In the existing City sign ordinance, because there is a pylon sign associated with one business, the plaza is actually limited to a total sign area of 75 square feet. The proposed City liquor store would like to utilize the sign area which identifies Benedict Plaza with a lettering area measuring 3 x 10 feet or 30 square feet. Before issuing a permit for a sign replacing an illegal sign, it would be appropriate to change the language in the sign ordinance. Benedict Plaza has been a fact of life for at least six years and in all of that time, no one ever noticed or complained about excessive use of signs. Assuming that there are six tenants in the building, each one could be assigned 75 square feet. It is noted that Budget Mart itself uses a substantial portion of the 440 square feet which means that the liquor store will only be able to use the 30 square feet indicated above. The following language is proposed as a replacement for Section 4-3-3 l(C): (C) For multiple occupancy buildings, each tenant may have one business sign. However, the design, color and typeface shall be regulated by a plan developed by the property owner and as approved by the Planning Commission. The following standards shall apply to said signs: 1. Multiple occupancy buildings shall submit a sign plan which will coordinate signage for the entire project. 2. The plan shall address height, location, size, number type, decorative theme, design, color and materials to be used on the building. 3. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a sign permit for the building. 4. The owner of the building is responsible to obtain the sign permit, prescribe the approved sign criteria and insure that signs erected are in compliance with the approved sign plan. 5. The total area of all such signs shall not exceed 75 square feet per tenant to a maximum of 450 square feet. .... . . . Planning Agenda - 6/14/94 - Page 6 In addition, the following language is proposed as a replacement for Section 4-3-3 2(C): (C) For multiple occupancy buildings, a sign plan shall be prepared and approved with the same conditions as listed under Option A above. c. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance with respect to Industrial District setback lines Both Dakota County Lumber and Marigold Foods, Inc. have experienced the limitations of setback lines within the I-I Light Industrial District at approximately the same time. Marigold Foods would like to expand in the southwest corner of its facility utilizing the existing line of silos fronting on 4th Street as the new building setback line. Two or three years ago, the Planning Commission allowed construction of the silo identified as proposed new in the plan. The justification for this was that the existing silos already have established the setback on this lot. Dakota County Lumber at the other end of this long industrial cluster is also experiencing growth pressures. It now needs a large lumber shed enclosed on three sides to protect its supplies from weathering while waiting to be sold. The I-I Industrial District includes setback requirements that establish front yards at 50 feet and side yards at 25 feet. These yards would appear to be excessive when the rationale for establishing setbacks in industrial areas was, in effect, for safety including fire protection. In more recent times the emphasis of industrial facility design has shifted to industrial parks which, as the name implies, provides for grass and trees around each industrial building. The problem for Dakota County Lumber is that the property involves front yards on two sides. This limits the flexibility of use that one might expect to find on such a relatively large site. The Development Committee reviewed a request from the lumber company for some relief to its problem. The most direct solution would be to cut the setback requirements to something that will be reasonable for the industry but will also protect adjoining residential development. Suggestions ranged from berms to landscaping added to a reduction in the amount of setback. Earlier this year, the Commission had a similar problem in dealing with a business loading dock which faced residential development. In this instance, the Commission related the loading dock setback to the type of street, as follows: Arterial Street Collector Street Local Collector/Industrial Local Streets 20 feet 15 feet 10 feet 5 feet A similar spread could be developed for structures except that the lowest common denominator should be established in the 10 to 15 foot Planning Agenda - 6/14/94 - Page 7 '. . range both for safety and light and air considerations. Looking at the Marigold building, a 15 foot setback appears to be reasonable. The lumber shed built by Lamperts has no setback, which means that a landscape screen cannot be installed. Looking at that building today, 15 feet would provide a better opportunity for landscape screening than 10 feet. The proposed location for the Dakota County Lumber building adjoins Pine Street. The right of way of Pine Street currently includes a lilac screen which will serve the Pine Street residents well during the summer months, but is clearly not adequate for the other six months of the year. Recommendation Look at all of the sites mentioned and be prepared to offer a recommendation to the City Council as both local industries are anxious to implement their expansion plans without resorting to the variance approach. d. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the maximum size of accessory buildings in unplatted areas of the City. . James Pluntz could not live with the limited size of accessory structures in R-l Districts. His attorney suggested that, while the size limit makes sense in platted areas, Farmington has a relatively large land area outside of MUSA limits that is zoned R-l. Based upon recent discussions with the Metropolitan Council staff, it may be a very long time before any of this area can be platted. In the interim, local "hobby farmers" possibly should be allowed more use of their acreage than would be appropriate in a neighborhood with full public services. One approach that may provide continued protection to urban neighborhoods but allow larger accessory structures in unplatted areas would be to exempt parcels of 2 acres and larger from the conditional use process established to deal with accessory structures in the 800 to 1000 square foot range. A suggested starting point is situated in Section 10-4-1(L) which could begin with the phrase: (L) Except for unplatted lots 2 acres or larqer...... Additional discussion may be required, but this particular issue has been on hold for approximately six months. e. Planning Commission By-Laws The Planning Commission ~OSSiblY when the agenda _I ~ If! 1),11- Charles Tooker City Planner needs to address the issue at some time, has fewer issues to decide.