Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-18 City ofFarrington A Proud Past-A Promising 430 Third Street Future Farmington,MN 55024 Committed to Providing High Quality, Timely and Responsive Service to All of Our Customers AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION January 9, 2018 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (a) Approve Planning Commission Minutes 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS (a) Variance request from Section 6-2-14 of the City Code to allow more than two dogs on a residential property (b) Variance request from the front yard setback requirement of the I-1 (Industrial) zoning district for the installation of two stainless steel silos 4. DISCUSSION (a) 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update (b) 2018 Meeting Calendar 5. ADJOURN oEFARM/ , City of Farmington (y 430 Third Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.280.6800 - Fax 651.280.6899 .,,,,,,n+ www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Approve Planning Commission Minutes DATE: January 9, 2018 INTRODUCTION Attached, are the minutes from the December 12, 2017 regular meeting. DISCUSSION NA ACTION REQUESTED Approve the minutes from the December 12, 2017 regular meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Type Description ❑ Backup Material December 12, 2017 Regular Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting December 12,2017 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty,Franceschelli,Kuyper, Rich Members Absent: Bjorge Also Present: Tony Wippler,Planning Manager 2. Approval of Minutes a. MUTON by Franceschelli second by Kuyper to approve the minutes of November 14, 2017. Voting for: Franceschelli,Kuyper,Rich. Abstain: Rotty. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings—Chair Rotty opened the public hearings a. Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Recreational Vehicle Storage Facility in the B-4 Zone—20522 Akin Road The applicant is Eric Ruud. He is proposing to open a recreational vehicle storage business on this site. It would hold 150 storage spaces. The existing building will be used for a shop/storage area. He will add asphalt to the north and west side of the existing building,remove 4"of topsoil where needed especially along the east side of the property, overlay the entire useable space with 1.5"of lime rock to be used for storage of the vehicles,trim trees as needed, improve the existing berm along Akin Road and add a berm to the south side of the driveway, add a 6 ft. high chain link fence around the entire property for security,add fence screening to the west side of the chain link fence along Akin Road, install automated gate with keypad, add surveillance and lighting as needed. Staff finds the storage of recreational vehicles on 1.5"of lime rock acceptable according to code. There is a plan to pave a bituminous drive aisle through the site, but the applicant is requesting a year to complete this. The installation of lime rock will need to be completed prior to the storage of vehicles. There are two wetlands that impact the site along the north and the east sides. All parking areas must be located outside the wetland areas. There are six criteria for approval of the CUP. 1. The proposed use conforms to the district permitted and conditional use provisions and all general regulations of this title. 2. The proposed use shall not involve any element or cause any conditions that may be dangerous,injurious or noxious to any other property or persons and shall comply with the performance standards listed below. 3. The proposed use shall be constructed, designed, sited, oriented and landscaped to produce harmonious relationship of buildings and grounds to adjacent buildings and properties. 4. The proposed use shall produce a total visual impression and environment which is consistent with the environment of the neighborhood. 5. The proposed use shall organize vehicular access and parking to minimize traffic congestion in the neighborhood. 6. The proposed use shall preserve the objectives of this title and shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Planning Commission Minutes December 12,2017 Page 2 Approval of the CUP is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant obtains all necessary building permits from the city's building official. 2. A sign permit is applied for and approved for any external signage that may be placed on the premises. 3. The 1.5"lime rock parking pads must be installed prior to the storing of any recreational vehicles on the site, 4. The bituminous drive aisle shall be installed no later than December 12,2018. 5. The applicant must provide documentation to the city that the wetlands will not be impacted by the proposed use. Mr. Matt Soucek, 20497 Akin Circle,regarding the transportation he cannot figure out why 100 yards is 50 mph and the rest is 45 mph. He asked if the entire road could be 45 mph because of this business. There are no turn lanes. Chair Rotty stated the commission doesn't have the authority to change speed limits. Mr. Soucek asked with the future use, will a building be built. He would like a place to keep his boat, especially right across the street. His concern is people that bring their junk and store it there. He saw the 6 ft. chain link fence with the mesh so what is the point of that? People will still see it and he would prefer not to see it. Now he sees animals running around in there. He wanted to know what the intentions are,but a building will not be built and he wished it would. He would like to see indoor storage. He didn't have an issue with it,but he does not want to see accidents there. Mr. Brian Murphy, 6730 Lakeville Blvd, stated the water coming out of the church goes along the ditch and it gets trapped where it cannot go to the north. He felt this is something that should be reviewed. Staff will look at drainage issues. Member Franceschelli asked if a berm on the applicant's side would be sufficient to protect the wetlands. Staff will look at it. Member Franceschelli asked what hours the shop will be available for operation. His concern is the shop is running at 10:00 p.m. and the neighbors are trying to sleep. Mr. Ruud stated they will accommodate any reasonable business hours the city wants. Member Franceschelli noted this will be one of the conditions. Regarding security and surveillance,the intent is to put in lighting and cameras. He asked that the lights not spill over into the neighbor's property and stay contained within the storage property and when siting the cameras,take into account the neighbor's privacy. Mr. Ruud stated there are four flood lights on the building now and that will remain, As far as cameras, he will do whatever is required. Regarding the drainage issue, the parking area will be 1.5"lime rock so the water should not change. He will make any concessions needed. He will not be altering the ditch on the south side unless it would benefit surrounding properties. He will take responsibility for anything that needs to be done on the property he is purchasing. Member Kuyper was also wondering about the lighting and operations. There have been a lot of studies about the speed limit. The speed limit of 45 mph was a compromise. This will upgrade the property and the berm will help with the noise. Member Rich asked if Mr. Ruud is representing someone. Mr. Ruud stated he is the buyer. Member Rich asked about the shop space and if it is for the RV owners to use or if there will be some kind of service there. Mr. Ruud stated the hope would be to lease Planning Commission Minutes December 12,2017 Page 3 the shop out to a separate entity. We would still have to comply with the permitted use for that district. The long term goal would be to utilize it for storage. Right now we don't know who would be the end user in that building. Member Rich assumed there would be some kind of office there for business hours that would be staffed. Mr. Ruud stated yes, there will be a small 10 x 10 office that would be for the storage and the shop is much larger. Hopefully there would be one user that would utilize the remainder of the shop because of how it is constructed. It could be divided for two separate users. Member Rich asked if there is staff there, if water and sewer are available. Mr. Ruud stated there are holding tanks on site. Tying into the sewer line would have to be discussed. Member Rich asked about what kind of documentation will be needed to satisfy that the wetlands will not be impacted. Staff stated we need to have an understanding of where the wetlands are on site and that will be part of the documentation to make sure they are not impacted. Likely, a professional report will be needed. Chair Rotty stated the commission has dealt with this property for a period of time and most recently when we rezoned it to B-4 to allow a wider type of use. The residents mostly to the west were here in force and wanted to have a voice in it. Mr. Ruud is concerned for the neighbors and doesn't want this to be an eyesore. That was Chair Rotty's biggest concern, that the neighbors not be negatively impacted. The applicant has that in mind. Chair Rotty asked about the amount of asphalt. Mr. Ruud stated it will be the entire front end of the property from the west to the road. Chair Rotty noted the entire space will be covered with 1.5"of lime rock. He asked if the engineer determined that amount. Mr. Ruud stated the concern is more to minimize the amount of asphalt because the soils are not conducive to support that entire property with asphalt with regards to water runoff. Chair Rotty asked about the fence on the west and south sides and if it will go behind or on top of the berm. Mr. Ruud stated the fence will be on top of the berm and it will slope down to meet the area that will tie into the shop. The berm on the north side is 4 ft.high. To the west everything will be screened to where you would not know what is behind there from the road. They would not be opposed to going higher than 6 ft. with the fence on the front side. Around the rest of the perimeter it would be cost prohibitive to go higher. Mr. Ruud stated there are some trees that are hanging over the property boundaries so those will be trimmed aggressively in some areas. It will be year around storage. Chair Rotty noted the residents had a concern about semi's. Mr. Ruud stated there would be no intention of having semi's running on the property. Staff stated the CUP being approved tonight is for recreational vehicle storage. Mr. Ruud stated they are limited with the B-4 zoning and have no intention of running something that is not permitted. Chair Rotty asked as part of the visibility,there are campers almost to the property line on the north and south borders. He asked if pushing them back would help with visibility. Mr. Ruud stated they will be visible from certain sides of the property no matter what. In the summer there will be foliage to cover,but in the winter, the depth wouldn't matter. They haven't proposed to do any screening on the sides or back with the 6 ft. fence. Chair Rotty asked about the operation. Mr. Ruud stated there will be hours of operation for picking up and dropping off. He needs to determine if the software allows the keypad to operate during certain hours. Chair Rotty clarified there will be 150 people that will know the code to the keypad. Chair Rotty stated he will support this because he believes Mr. Ruud will be a good neighbor and do this right. Planning Commission Minutes December 12,2017 Page 4 Staff's recommendation for Iighting is there is a code that allows a certain amount to spill over. Regarding hours of operation, that is subjective. Mr. Ruud is receptive to having hours placed on this use. Staff does not have any history for this type of use. Chair Rotty stated if the commission were to set hours and it does not work, then they could be adjusted by staff. Staff agreed. Member Franceschelli noted the software for keypads can support 300 to 400 unique ID codes for individual slots. Then we would not need hours of operation. Hours could be for the use of the shop, but that is up to Mr. Ruud. Member Franceschelli felt the hours should not be restricted at this time. MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Rich to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Regarding hours of operation for the shop, Chair Rotty recommended 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. This will be condition number six. Any changes to hours would be done administratively through staff. MOTION by Kuyper, second by Rich to approve the conditional use permit allowing a recreational vehicle storage facility to take place at 20522 Akin Road, subject to the six conditions. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a. Draft Ordinance Regarding Fencing Staff presented a draft ordinance with changes to the code regarding fencing. In September the commission discussed amending this code. The current draft strikes the materials portion. Adjacent cities do not address the type of materials used. The other change deals with the construction and maintenance of fencing. Language was added to strengthen the code stating, "Every fence shall be constructed in a substantial workmanlike manner and of substantial material reasonably suited for which the fence is proposed to be used. Every fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair, free from deterioration, lose or rotting pieces, holes,breaks or gaps,not otherwise intended in the original design of the fence, and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger or constitute a nuisance,public or private. Any such fence which is or has become dangerous to the public safety,health or welfare is a public nuisance and abatement would be required. All exterior surfaces of any fence shall be protected from the elements by paint or other protective surface coating or treatment which shall be maintained in good repair to provide the intended protection from the elements." Ms. Kim Walton, 19933 Dover Drive,previously the commission talked about not having eyesores in Farmington. She felt if the code changes, it is open to interpretation and you can put up any kind of fence you want. Since there were already rules in place,these owners decided to ask for forgiveness not permission. They put up what they felt like. She looks at the fence every day. Not only is it sheet metal which was specifically on the list before of not being allowed,it is rusted sheet metal. In our community there needs to be rules and we should try our best to follow the rules. If we change it where there is no language where before it said no plastic sheeting, no sheet metal,we will have everything. That is not what she sees as a vision for Farmington. What would keep Planning Commission Minutes December 12,2017 Page 5 someone from putting up chicken wire or barbed wire? If there are no rules, she doesn't understand why there wouldn't be rules. She does not have a fence,but if she did, it would be a wood fence. She wants the community to be pretty and not look like a hodge podge of whatever material. She asked who enforces these rules. Is there someone that drives around and looks for issues like this? She has wondered who is in charge of when there is grass behind a fence and then there is a path, who mows that? Is it the city or the property owner? She drives around and there are tall weeds behind fences. She believes in rules and following them. Chair Rotty stated one of Ms. Walton's biggest concerns is the materials used in making a fence and that they should be appropriate and not an eyesore to the neighbors. The other one is who enforces the city code and who enforces the maintenance side of the code. Planning Manager Wippler, stated he is the zoning administrator and enforces the zoning code. He does not drive around looking for violations. We do not have a dedicated code enforcement officer or community service officer. So we do not have a dedicated person driving around looking for things. In the past it has been on a complaint basis. This past summer we did have a part time water patrol employee who also did proactive code enforcement. As of right now we do not have a full time code enforcement officer. Chair Rotty explained the commission will be discussing fencing material and the commission makes a recommendation to the City Council, who approves the ordinances. Member Kuyper stated we used to have a community service officer who would look for violations. It would be nice if that was included in the budget again. There are many new products coming out for fencing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The maintenance is his biggest concern and that is covered in this draft ordinance. He asked if other city's process is different when it comes to fencing. Staff stated most of the communities are similar to Farmington in how we approve fencing. A building permit is required only for fences over 6 ft. in height. A variance is also required for this height which is approved by the Planning Commission. Most have a$75 fee. Member Kuyper stated currently if a fence does not meet that criteria we don't know what material will be used. Staff stated we do ask that a site plan or survey be provided showing where the fence will be located. As we don't require a permit,many times the city does not receive that information. Member Kuyper asked if there was a way to charge a fee to get more information upfront. So we know where the fence will be and the material. Staff stated if we do require a permit,then there would have to be an inspection. It would need to be determined as to who would do the inspection. Member Rich stated if we have various standards and we don't have a means of communicating those standards and approving fences then we shouldn't have the standards. This draft correctly moves in that direction. He was not sure he is comfortable with that direction. There are two intentions;one, is there some kind of fence permit or not, and the other is the aesthetics. We either give up entirely on that or we figure out whose eyes are dominant. There is never a good way to work that out. Regarding the last paragraph about the exterior surfaces being protected from the elements, does that rule out barn wood? That is a very popular item. The more rustic, the more desirable it is. How about untreated lumber? That would not have protection on it. If we are not having standards,how do we even enforce that? The specific fence that came to attention is another example of material that to some people is quaint and Planning Commission Minutes December 12,2017 Page 6 nostalgic and to others is an eyesore. He would prefer that we have some expedited permitting process and have some standards. We either give up entirely and not have any permitting, or that goes together with having certain standards. Member Franceschelli read item F of the ordinance regarding a site plan and building permit. The two sentences are contradictory; either a permit is required at 4 ft. or 6 ft., you cannot split it. You can't enforce this. You don't have a permit system. You don't have anything that tells people what the restrictions are. You do address corners and being a good neighbor with various setbacks, but this is not enforceable without a permit. We should seriously look at building permits. Then we can have an opportunity to review the construction of the project before it is an expenditure on the home owner. Distressed wood is very vogue right now. Untreated lumber has a tendency to change from a nice fresh look to a grayish tone. When we had the Heritage Preservation Commission and you lived in the historic overlay district,the restriction was the fence would complement the era the house was constructed. You couldn't have a fence that was attached to a structure; it had to be free standing at the corners. That needs to be incorporated into this so we can propose to our residents something that is aesthetically pleasing, something that is of durable material, something that is enforceable. This is a good first step,but we need to be more involved in it. Staff would like to have this done during the first quarter of 2018. Chair Rotty stated what stood out to him was"substantial workmanlike manner"and"substantial material." That could be different to different people. As far as protected elements,the question is who deternnines that and how old if paint is 10 or 20 years old. Is everyone grandfathered in who has a fence? Staff noted they would have to be. Chair Rotty wondered if we should look at the permitting side and what would that look like, do we have the resources,what would the cost be,what hindrance would this be to the residents, etc. Staff will look into a permitting process. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Kuyper second by Franceschelli to adjourn at 8:05 p.m. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Muller Administrative Assistant 0,44--2 City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.280.6800 -Fax 651.280.6899 �►.,MOO* www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Variance request from Section 6-2-14 of the City Code to allow more than two dogs on a residential property DATE: January 9, 2018 INTRODUCTION The applicant, Rachelle Cotter, is seeking approval of a variance to allow the keeping of third dog on a residential property. The subject property is 20581 Camden Path. Planning Division Review Applicant: Rachelle Cotter 20581 Camden Path Farmington, MN 55024 Attachments: 1. Variance application 2. Aerial photography of property 3. Letter from the applicant Variance Request: to allow the keeping of more than two dogs on a residential property. Existing Zoning: R-2(Low/Medium Density Residential) 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Low Medium Density Residential DISCUSSION Section 6-2-14 of the City Code states that it shall be unlawful for the owner of any parcel of land within the corporate limits of the city of Farmington to own, keep, or harbor, or allowed to be owned, kept or harbored on said parcel more than two (2) dogs. The current code provision does allow an exception(Section 6-2-14(B)of the city code)to the number of dogs allowed and reads as follows: The owner of a parcel of land in the city of Farmington shall be allowed to own and keep up to a maximum of four(4)dogs on a temporary basis under the following conditions: 1. All dogs shall have been owned prior to residency in the city. 2. All dogs kept under provision of this section shall be unsexed as documented by a veterinarian's certificate. 3. All dogs kept under provisions of this section shall be sheltered within the primary residence on the parcel of land. 4. Dogs shall be allowed outdoors only on the owner's property and secured within a fenced perimeter. 5. All owners keeping dogs under provisions of this section shall come into compliance with Subsection (A)of this title through attrition. The applicant, Ms. Rachelle Cotter, currently owns two dogs and would like to add a third dog to the residence. The Planning Commission shall not approve any variance request unless they find that"practical difficulties" exist as defined in City Code using the following criteria: 1. Because the particular physical surroundings, or shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the regulations of this title would cause practical difficulties. Economic consideration alone does not constitute practical difficulties. Not applicable in this instance. The property is a standard residential lot 2. That the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Approval of the requested variance would not affect the Comprehensive Plan guidance of the property The property is guided for Low Medium Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and would remain as such if the variance were approved. 3. That the variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this title. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this title. 4. The conditions upon which a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other properties within the same zoning classification. Not applicable in this instance. The property is a standard residential lot 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this title and has not been created by any persons having an interest in the parcel of land. The practical difficulty is that the current code provision does not allow for the keeping of more than 2 dogs on a residential property except under specific circumstances as outlined above in this memorandum. 6. The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to other property within the vicinity in which the parcel of land is located or substantially diminish property values. Granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to other property within the vicinity and should not substantially diminish property values. 7. The proposed variance will not substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or be detrimental to the public welfare or public safety. The proposed variance would not result in any of the above mentioned adverse effects. 8. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulties. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulties. 9. Variances may not be approved for any use that is not allowed under this title for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located except that the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling may be authorized by variance. The keeping of dogs on residential property is allowed. The variance is for the number of dogs. ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends approval of the variance request to add a third dog to the residence located at 20581 Camden Path, subject to the following conditions: 1. That all dogs on the premises be licensed through the city. 2. That the conditions outlined in Section 6-2-14 (B), except condition#1,be applied to the variance. ATTACHMENTS: Type Description ❑ Backup Material Cotter Variance Application o Backup Material Aerial Photography ❑ Backup Material Cotter Letter n� 4 DEC 1 32017 Fuer. City of Farmington •~AS430 Third Strect � Fanniagtnn Minnesota tBy 651.280.6800-Fes 651.280.6899 wwwd.fvmsag+a.maxs VARIANCE APPLICATION Applicant: (%0 Telephone:F1S -Lc= Fax: (• ) <�C� Address: �'� (G� Street City State Zip Code Owner: ��Y�^�- Telephone:( ) Fax: LJ Address: Street City State Zip Code Premises Involved: S l (`G.rrvsl_t Address/Legal Description(lot,block,plat name,section,township,range) Current Zoning District Current Land Use Y. . x Specific Nature of Request/Claimed Practical Difficulties: SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ❑Proof of Ownership ❑Copies of Site Plan )gapplication Fee($200) Q Abstract/Residential List(adjoining property owners only) ❑Boundary/Lot Survey 0 Torrens(Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title Required) i 4 - (Z -I.) Lz. t> Signature of Property Owner Date Signature of Applicant ,Date Request Submitted to the Pl �}g Commission on 1,;11/3/17 For offs a use only Public Hearing Set for: l7I /y Advertised in Local Newspaper: /1/)P f/7 Planning Commission Action: Approved Denied Fee Paid x $200—City of Farmington q:3)—Dakota County Recorder Comments: Conditions Set: Planning division: Date: 9/06 DRAFTED BY: City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington.MN 55024 Dakota County, MN r _$ �* • ' n,# A.. " C llittliaa t. ..t . DIY 'r. . ..-4 ' . ' it ,.1. N 4,., .f . Lint- . • . /.., 5,ft.. .•-,... ,, ,.**, ..... . -jillr----...„.....L.s lirr -.-,.- ,--,4....;,-,- ' ... 4' ' if- \.., , 102 � ., 'qty 2'y•, 1.. 3ilkf 41; . \ l �. t..fir. ' ;i''' Aft/ r it ,...„.,:, _,. :.: . .,,,,, ,...II, sil7 11‘; 11::). ,,,\ 8:111. vo:tr-1"::. ::::- ..4-., . �� :i. ;.- � • -• :rte ic:'; i... ,,. .... Atillt ii lee yO t w. ` `irk. ..I• _ _ : 41--•".-1/1. --.i A': 1.-' :: • "il ` fir. :� �Yl� wr' aP' ..��""+.,. �. ; yi -,.- 1C.-V-- { ,k1 : �� .. J,'1.:,.."... / ., ..;, January 4, 2018 1:1,200 0 55 110 220 ft r' , , ' I 1 • ' i • , 1 0 15 30 60 m Property Information Dakota County Disclaimer Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate,but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal,survey,or for zoning verification. To whom it may concern: I spoke to Mayor Larson on December 4th and he recommended I submit for a variance to the City to consider my request to adopt a third dog. I am currently working with a rescue organization specific to senior and/or special needs dogs and would like to bring in a third dog into my home. The rescue I am working with will not(and rightfully so) place a dog into a home above the city allowance. Based on my observations of the City, it would appear that the two dog limit is not pursued or actively enforced. I could choose to adopt from a less reputable rescue and/or buy a third dog from a store and I would not have any issue with the City- but it is very important for me to rescue from this specific organization. I have two small dogs currently-both under 10 pounds;the third I would be bringing in is also a small breed. My property is partially fenced and my dogs are put out on runs,they are never loose in the yard. My dogs are not left outside unattended,they are not noisy and they are well behaved. I respectfully ask the City to approve my request to give me the same opportunity that everyone else has in Farmington. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Rachelle Cotter 20581 Camden Path, Farmington FARM, City of Farmington I,� s 430 Third Street Farmington, Minnesota k, j 651.280.6800 -Fax 651.280.6899 t•A pg00. www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Variance request from the front yard setback requirement of the I-1 (Industrial) zoning district for the installation of two stainless steel silos DATE: January 9, 2018 INTRODUCTION Marigold Foods, Inc (Kemps LLC) is seeking approval of a variance to reduce the required front yard setback within the I-1 zoning district for purposes of installing two new stainless steel silos and vestibule addition. The subject property is located at 15 Fourth Street Planning Division Review Applicant: Kemps, LLC 15 Fourth Street Farmington, MN 55024 Owner: Marigold Foods, Inc. 1270 Energy Lane Saint Paul, MN 55108-5225 Attachments: 1. Variance application 2. Aerial photography of the property 3. Site and Code Plan Variance Request: to allow a reduced front yard setback within the I-1 zoning district for the installation of two silos and a vestibule addition. Existing Zoning: I-1 (Industrial) 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Industrial DISCUSSION Kemps, LLC is requesting a 16' -6" variance from the front yard setback off of Fourth Street for the installation of two 10,000 gallon, 26 foot high(including the concrete pad), stainless steel silos and a vestibule addition. The proposed foundation for the silos would be setback 13' - 6" from the property line adjacent to Fourth Street. The property is zoned I-1 (Industrial) and requires a front yard setback of 30 feet. As shown on the attached aerial and site plan, the silos and vestibule addition are proposed to be located near the south west corner of the Kemps facility. History A number of variances have been granted for this property, the most recent in July 2009. That particular request was for a height variance to allow 10 new vertical silos on the second floor of the facility along with a height variance for the alleyway and stairwell addition that accompanied the ten silos (shown on the attached aerial as "L"). A variance was approved in August 2004 for a height variance to allow the installation of an 80' - 8" ground silo (shown as silo H on the aerial). As shown on the attached aerial, silo A, along 4th Street was constructed in 1983 at a height of 74' -6". This silo is constructed on a pad at 65" in height, creating an overall height of 79' - 11". The city has no record of a height variance for silo A, thereby, the structure is also considered a legal non-conforming use. Silo D along Fourth Street was constructed in 1989 at a height of 56 feet, this excludes the height of the pad. Marigold Foods applied for a height variance of 11 feet in 1989 after work for construction of the silo was ordered. The Planning Commission waived setback requirements and approved the 11 foot variance "since it will be no taller and no closer to Fourth Street than the existing silos." Variances from setback requirements, sign height requirements, and sign area requirements were granted in 1986 as well. In 2001, Marigold Foods also received a front yard setback variance for a cardboard compacter along Fifth Street. The Planning Commission shall not approve any variance request unless they find that"practical difficulties" exist as defined in City Code using the following criteria: 1. Because the particular physical surroundings, or shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the regulations of this title would cause practical difficulties. Economic consideration alone does not constitute practical difficulties. Research by staff has determined that the property has been an industrial use since at least the 1950's. Therefore, surrounding neighbors are familiar with the industrial operations at the site. Milk silos have been installed throughout this time period to allow milk storage on the site and therefore are common to the visual landscape of the neighborhood. The practical difficulty for the applicant is space constraints for additional silo capacity 2. That the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the subject property for Industrial use. The proposed use that is associated with the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan guidance. 3. That the variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this title. Staff believes the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning title. 4. The conditions upon which a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other properties within the same zoning classification. Again, the industry has been operating within the neighborhood for a number of decades, and the silos are common to the visual landscape. 5. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this title and has not been created by any person having an interest in the parcel of land. The 30 foot setback required in the I-1 zoning district is too restrictive in this instance. Due to the constraints of the site, there is not area to meet the required setback and to accommodate the additional storage needs of the facility. 6. The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to other property within the vicinity in which the parcel of land is located or substantially diminish property values. Granting the setback variance would not alter the character of the area or have a negative impact on other property in the vicinity due to the operation of the industry for several decades in the neighborhood and the existence of 21 silos on the property 7. The proposed variance will not substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or be detrimental to the public welfare public safety. The proposed variance would not result in any of the above mentioned adverse effects. 8. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulties. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulties. 9. Variances may not be approved for any use that is not allowed under this title for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located except that the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling may be authorized by variance. The use of the property as industrial will not be changed with the approval of the requested variance The existing use of the property is allowed in the I-1 (Industrial)zoning district ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends approval of the variance request to reduce the front yard setback within the 1-1 zoning district by 16' - 6" for the installation of two stainless steel silos and a vestibule addition at the property addressed as 15 Fourth Street, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant obtaining all necessary building permit approvals prior to the installation of the silos and constriction of the vestibule addition. ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Backup Material Kemps Variance Application ❑ Backup Material Aerial Photography ❑ Backup Material Kemps Site Plan �`f,s R i,,,, City of Farmington I ak- 430 Third Street DEC � ti, 651280-6800•Fax 651280.6899 t www ti aratingtonmum c IBY _ VARIANCE APPLICATION Applicant: Darin Jones Telephone:(651)_460-7822 Fax: ( ) Address: 15 Fourth St Farmington MN _ 53024 Street City State Zip Code Owner: David Seefeldt Telephone:(612)282-0726 Fax: ( ) Address: 15 Fourth St Farmington MN 53024 Street City State Zip Code Premises Involved: Kemps Dairy Facility at 15 Fourth St Farmington,MN Address/Legal Description(lot,block plat name,section,township,range) Current Zoning District II Current Land Use Commercial ' Specific Nature of Request/Claimed Practical Difficulties: Request a 16'6"variance to the required setback from Fourth St.to accommodate the installation of 2 stainless steel silos used in the manufacture of dairy products.The proposed foundation for the silos would be set 13'6"from the property line. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ❑Proof of Ownership ❑Copies of Site Plan ❑Application Fee($200) ❑Abstract/Residential List(adjoinin: . .,.erty owners o. 2 Bou ary/Lot rve / , orrens(Owner's Duplicate Ce :of T- - ' -.. -4) Signature of Property / 0/7 S1 g Owner Date Sign. re of App6c t t Date Request Submitted to the Pla g Commission on /dl t it 17 For office use only Public Hearing Set for: P/ 1g Advertised in Local Newspaper: idf?g/17 Planning Commission Action: Approved Denied Fee Paid A( $200—City of Farmington $46—Dakota County Recorder Comments: Conditions Set: Planning division: Date: 9/06 DRAFTED BY- City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington,MN 55924 Dakota County, MN 1.,3 ,. r =: i.p «•as j rr 11 A, r .. , E .#fig S HI #`' .s • g' 111 • .• �, 1, ....«»''v `romp . C r. 1 i ? k ., - .MI . - WI 1 ,ii 0 -- - 4 A, 4 of ` r • �.•• tI i V MI .II 5:11 �� ,�. ' lai ...3� t `:11111111 ' I L. • Ia. ..-- �♦ N.5 • 71ggdgglIll ---•• ••••• me. « s , sy `tOCPti '- i a r, w i • r_ :. T:6 VII ft . . :,•... 11' *11M .' k moi. i • ';. ,,,,'et Ilir a .'? ,,,,, r le a � k _ s +ice • I Ili, r'''icts-' .7':'r';;:1;:i:;"..A. '. , i. ' .,,.., 114,-,• , January 4, 2018 1:1,200 0 55 110 220 ft r ' I t . , ti I 0 15 30 60 m T r•tr4k Property Information Dakota County )isdaener.Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate,but accuracy is not guaranteed.This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal,survey,or for zoning verification. • \ILA 10) — }ail \I tIry11lt9S REQ ILL TS =mills RAMC?) WILLOW STREET Coo[ANALYSIS A Sransncs euaen9..e.rVen / e MUD 6 HUNT,]M0. eY 6501 Watts Rand,Suite 101 �' d' sr e a 11.1i�.ar[WI Or �u..aer.ee Yadbcn,Wisconsin 53119-07D0 608 273 6380 rm.. . I UM aru r n.•etar.v e r..nem., F-..,6013,27O 6391 .�I nm rvmrw we-1..-Y.I.-we-1..-Y.I.-.1 Nmp., GARAGE NaP 0,110022.e. ':3-.. .uwu.L 1311013..cv MA' i.LLOW0AL AlIrno NAM UFA 7(1 —_ ...__ __ Peer I L. 0.1511111 sun I 20111 .ra N0.m.re area , '..::.'. L- INTERIOR 41 z n RENOVATION . In CJ O M WRIEE ® :A LI F2 ' O ow 1 F z oO ❑O Lr 0 re 0 o J Zz O : o c t'Fr�a;._ O r • • e.:.n.ommun1e 1 3B f® n 0R. _,,, C.- / G. :--'"°'----- B Q d• A396-009 .. rEs.2,2001 ma o.�3n ..NOM ,•~� Nam 0.433,1,11.6 ACT M Mk -1�9.— v-. IFAMAPVAIrcntr"" il0-[t[urt[ner =F �� , lb SITE AND CODE PLAN 517E AND CODE vQvr3 PLAN "6�1"— ry x31 1810 - 11131,011111 ill arca C 1 I 1 4-ildiii City of Farmington 6�`'raz 430 Third Street *e-i- Farmington, Minnesota / 651.280.6800 - Fax 651.280.6899 erw+�' www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager SUBJECT: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update DATE: January 9, 2018 INTRODUCTION Jeff Miller from HKGi will be in attendance at the January 9th meeting and will provide the Commission with an update regarding the city's 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. A memorandum is attached outlining the areas that will be presented. DISCUSSION NA ACTION REQUESTED Hear the presentation by Mr. Jeff Miller and provide any feedback that the Commission deems appropriate. ATTACHMENTS: Type Description ❑ Backup Material HKGi memorandum MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. min TO: City of Farmington Planning Commission FROM: Jeff Miller and Laura Chamberlain, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi) SUBJECT: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Project DATE: January 9, 2018 CC: Tony Wippler, City Planner Greetings— At the January 9th Planning Commission Meeting, we will be presenting the key proposed updates to the Land Use Plan and Housing Plan chapters of 2040 Comprehensive Plan,which include the following: Land Use Plan Chapter Housing Plan Chapter • Future city growth and land use needs • Types of future housing needs • Land use designations • Projected housing growth • Future land use plan map • Housing goals/policies • Land use goals/policies We will also provide a summary of input from the December open houses and the online survey. Land Use Plan Topics Future City Growth and Land Use Needs Below is the projected growth between now and 2040 for the City of Farmington's population, households, and employment. 2010 2014 Change Census (Est.) 2020 2030 2040 2014- 2040 Population 21,086 22,386 24,300 28,300 32,500 10,114 45.18% Households 7,066 7,557 8,500 10,100 11,800 4,243 56.15% Employment 4,438 4,595 5,600 6,200 6,800 2,205 47.99% Hoisington Koegler Group,Inc. 123 North Third Street,Suite 100 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55401 (612)338-0800 Fax(612)338-6838 www.hkgi.com The proposed 2040 Future Land Use Plan chapter and map are intended to provide the necessary guidance for future development needs between now and 2040. HKGi has compared amount of land needed to accommodate the projected growth in households (4,243) and jobs (2,205) above with the amount of land within the city that will be developable between now and 2040. There is currently enough undeveloped land within the city's boundaries that is already guided for future development in the current Comprehensive Plan (residential, commercial, or industrial) to meet these 2040 growth projections. The two major development areas are the planned Fair Hill mixed-use area in the northeast and the Spruce Street Master Plan area west of downtown. However, since the last update to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, there has been a change in the properties enrolled in the Agricultural Preserve Program. 655 acres of agricultural land in the western portion of the city that previously had no expiration date now will expire and be removed from the Agricultural Preserve Program in 2019/2020. Some of these property owners may be interested in changing the land use guidance of their land from Agricultural to something else. Based on this change and the other factors above, we are proposing updates to the future land use guidance in key areas in the western portion of the city. Additional updates include the downtown area based on the Downtown Redevelopment Plan approved in 2016, agricultural land north of downtown that is currently guided for Restricted Development, and adjustments to the Highway 50/Pilot Knob Road development area west of downtown. The foundation for the 2040 map is of course the 2030 Future Land Use Plan Map in the City's current Comprehensive Plan. The intent is not to significantly update the 2030 map but rather to address the City's projected growth over the next 20 years and changes that have occurred since the City's 2011 amendments to the plan. Draft Land Use Designations The current Comprehensive Plan contains description of the City's zoning districts. Land Use Designations should be more general and long-term in nature than zoning districts, which are focused on the current environment and regulatory. HKGi is adapting the zoning district descriptions to more general land use designations. In addition, a new land use category is being added, Mixed Use (Commercial/Industrial), to address the City's desire for increasing flexibility of the types of commercial and industrial in the Spruce Street Master Plan/Pilot Knob Road area. The draft land use designations are as follows: Agriculture The agriculture designation is intended to preserve the city's agricultural uses in order to protect farms until at least 2040 and to create an urban reserve for such time when there is a need for additional urban development and public utilities may be extended. Uses include agriculture, associate activities, and single family residences serving these agricultural areas which are not connected to sewer and water. Low Density Residential The low density residential designation provides for existing and future low density single-family 2 development with full public utilities with a density range of 1.0 to 3.5 units per acre. Uses include single family detached houses,and could include twin-homes with appropriate design. Low/Medium Density Residential The low/medium density residential designation is intended as an area which incorporates older existing development as well as undeveloped land suitable for single- and two-family development that are served with full public utilities and a density range of 3.5 to 6.0 units per acre. Uses include single family detached homes,twin-homes, duplexes, and townhome/rowhome developments,where appropriate. Medium Density Residential The medium density residential designation are areas of the city for development of townhomes in areas with access to jobs, services, public facilities and transit and that are served with full public utilities and a residential density of more than 6.0 to 12.0 units per acre. Uses include twin-homes, duplexes, townhomes, small apartments or condominiums, and small lot single-family detached homes where appropriate. High Density Residential The high density residential designation are areas of the city for development of multiple-family dwellings in areas with access to jobs, services, public facilities and transit and that are served with full public utilities and a residential density of more than twelve (12) units per acre. Uses include attached housing units including townhomes, condominiums, apartments, and high density senior housing facilities. Mixed Use(Commercial/Residential) The mixed use commercial/residential designation is established to provide a flexible framework for the creation of high quality, comprehensively designed commercial neighborhood development with a multi-family component. A variety of developments are encouraged, with developments designed to promote walking, bicycling and potential transit use. Development is anticipated at a split of 50% commercial uses and 50%residential uses,with a minimum residential density of 9.0 units per acre. Commercial The commercial designation is for areas of the city that provide for a variety of uses of retail, services, and office. Uses include retail shopping centers, supermarkets, drugstores, service and retail businesses, and restaurants. Mixed Use(Commercial/Industrial) This designation allows for a mix of commercial, office, and high quality light industrial to expand the economic development potential of the city. Uses include a mix of corporate office buildings, office- warehouse, office-showroom, research and development facilities, restaurants and hotels. Industrial The Industrial designation allows for existing industrial uses within the city and promotes high quality architectural, landscaping and site plan development standards for new industrial development in order to increase the city's tax base and provide employment opportunities. Uses include manufacturing, warehousing, and goods movement/distribution. 3 Park/Open Space The parks and open space designation provides recreational and leisure opportunities through publicly owned land and recognizes vital environmental resources including steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains. Future Land Use Map& Table The key factors driving the proposed updates shown on the attached 2040 Future Land Use Plan Map include the following: • 2040 population, households, and employment projections • Quantity of vacant developable land within the city • Quantity and location of land that will soon expire from the Agricultural Preserve Program • Planned future roadways network • Planned sanitary sewer system expansion (MUSA) • Location of sensitive water resources, e.g. creeks,floodplains,wetlands • Community's interest in additional commercial areas near existing and new neighborhoods • Guiding land to accommodate the City's portion of the metro region's affordable housing needs Table: Developable Land by Future Land Use Designation Net Acres Available for Future Land Use Designation Development Agriculture 1,570.15 Low Density 816.87 Low Medium 533.20 Medium Density 471.85 High Density 101.88 Mixed-Use (Commercial/Residential) 81.36 Commercial 78.97 Mixed-Use(Commercial/Industrial) 118.81 Industrial 349.42 Total 4,122.50 Also attached is a draft 2040 growth phasing map. Open House Input Related to Land Use Agricultural Land At the two December Open Houses, many of the agricultural land owners attended and shared their thoughts.Timing of the City's extension of infrastructure was a very important topic. Commercial Land » People would like to see more retail options (e.g. restaurants, groceries, shopping) distributed around the community not just downtown 4 » People would like to attract more commercial and industrial to diversify the tax base and to give some tax relief to homeowners in the city Housing Plan Topics Types of Future Housing Needs 1. Affordable Housing 2. Mix of Housing Types 3. Development/Redevelopment Densities and Mixed Use 4. Employment/Housing Linkages 5. Concentrations of Lower-Cost and/or Substandard Housing 6. Comparison with Other Communities 7. Relationship to Regional Plans and Policies Projected Housing Growth Household Projections 14,000 11,800 12,000 - 10,100�-- 0 10,000 8,500 8,000 7,412 .,N. --0--Projected 6,000 4,169 -0-Census 4,000 2,065 2,000 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 As seen in the graph above,the City is anticipating the addition of 4,243 households between 2014 and 2040.Through the GIS analysis of future land use unit yields,the City is more than able to accommodate that growth with the densities designated. Furthermore, enough land has been designated at or above 8.0 units/acre to accommodate Farmington's share of the need of affordable housing in the region,which is 441 units. Land Use and Housing Goals/Policies Framework Draft Plan Vision Farmington will continue to grow as a community in ways that are high quality, balanced, and enhance our hometown feel. Farmington will be a desirable community for its friendly, safe, and well-maintained neighborhoods for residents of all ages. Farmington's hometown feel is also based on the community's natural open space character which entails strategic preservation of the community's natural and rural 5 character. The community's continued growth will bring opportunities for adding and locating schools, recreational facilities, retail businesses, job opportunities, and other community assets convenient for neighborhoods. Balancing the community's residential growth with business growth will improve residents' access to desired retail, employment opportunities, and the residential/business tax ratio. Draft Plan Guiding Principles • Balance the Mix of Land Uses for Economic Vitality and Growth • Protect and Conserve Natural Resources • Promote an Interconnected Community • Provide a Variety of Well Maintained Housing Choices • Ensure Quality and Controlled Growth Goals/Policies Definitions Goals are general statements of the things that a community hopes to accomplish, how the community would like to be in the future,or desired outcomes of the community. Policies are the rules or actions that a community intends to implement to meet its desired goals. Current Land Use "General Policy Decision"Statements » Balanced Land Uses and Quality Controlled Growth » Increase the Economic Vitality of the City » Connected Places » Develop within the Existing Residential MUSA Allocated Areas » Protect and Conserve Natural Resources Current Housing Policies 1. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to provide additional single-family and multi-family housing units. 2. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to establish residential density levels at Livable Community standards. 3. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to maintain the housing stock at a high level of quality. 4. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to provide a variety of housing types for people in all stages of life. 5. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to support a balanced supply of housing affordable to people at all income levels: from low and moderate to upper income. Low and moderate- income housing will be located throughout the City. 6. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to provide housing linkages to its commercial and employment centers. 7. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to provide adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and regional housing needs. Online 2040 Questionnaire Summary See attached. 6 ProposedC..hanges to 2040 Future Land Use r 0 'TW rn �i iii C,, +-STH•-..W Q@ -,..':.::;',1.11111110 y \ /� /,A.,J 3N-. \._ ��, • // 11F_ ... .• ve srw__,L il)-`41- !!!?.1:::•tkm- E:76,b0%. $, / • 17 • ••t /. • 'M _3�� ••- J4J1 ,y .J.7 . nr. ...,......,...:® l� 11 • ,_" L • :,, it •ER•\Bv4„F.,....... I i • � `1• NI: `;N„. : IST. &,n. ::Y': Imo®_ t.en, _ y —. ^µ L-_ ' t ��� ��� - ' C r \ ■`JL Eutw, . ed � •p �+�rh12 Vi"""".”` oo., sri® . • • m •• •• - • . • W L Z I • wC • ■ � xremtlllll L \�. s`. ewv �IF- f17h+s.7 S"e'17 14.E r„ \_/;- 1 _ • - ':.1::..i, + `\ I\ .. .._u , �,.. �,�i 1 • _-•,�qr of t > �- v. • L . -•-" ° irille v. t k ,• ••' _ ,v,.N _.3 66 _ � , F,, ••• T'_., Ni.,:I ■ E @'r'7. *1 .+.. . A H •tIF. ■fit■ , _ 1 Iml ' .•.�.. J 50 �►.,%'..._..._ ,,. . 70 I w I awe �i l _ �”' y'r6litti g ..67.1.7; . ..m!lijg. !7,"' - •Or•i ® l :® 7 �1 hr .O O• u1THsr•W •CMI ®i __•, ,# • iI_,rito1 _ I . .a =�' j• •I LIII 1 � 11/ ' e _ = .........".1 1 1 I I j lam —L L J —r-- j Ll 'J r C --t 7 ern 1 ! UI ti..••.i Change in Future Land Use -^-- Other Arterial Agriculture 111. Mixed-Use(Commercial/Industrial) OMajor Intersection ,'•.-. Future Other Arterial Low Density - Industrial •••• A Minor Expander Major Collector Low Medium - Public/Semi-Public ■■■• Future A Minor Expander •••• Future Major Collector ® Medium Density - Park/Open Space ▪ A Minor Connector • ......., Minor Collector - High Density ROW •••■ Future A Minor Connector ■••• Future Minor Collector Mixed-Use(Comm./Res.) - Non-Designated - Commercial • SOat tal—il.!-Ok;',$;:4,: �>d TN'SrIV tI��� Ij t,;;;;;:::11' .moi 1,111 I , Ii a7.:�i.l.I111 �,,..6,„ , •� gWa . . . pUP •yn � , • T� ? 11 YeiNo' : •^ �Ctic moi:0........„..._,,, • :,..„, ......--,.,v,.., , . .-- .. : _ Lg � ` .3 yeti;i � .S".�:i �y•✓\.L', iill 2,W• 7'� . • a'mi\ N■iiii ��0'�'0,5,inii 4Rppla. E .0 FN-c I:W %dap l- �'■ 'ee�■ ��I S�•i;�r J , IItl11 N�11/ .1N I,Wr c „r.p p ■Ilinmunlxm N w a tiff c.'. '; ,� S?'REM J 1 I w::•�•41a 1!utua Ul well _1 VA� mit !yp'�1 n BEtwat: yy�ir ,.ic,•JI: 1 FggCGG7 YTTBtltl!! NA nn im�,�°,twat:•��/. Ilk: - 2 ..., ....1 alma '4*.' \ Ill t. ors:._ aa' ?��'-��o •„ «._ =6:.uIR.�Lis.1.�•. i i!.r� ' h a •pa ry�yS .` I 'ilii'-� 0�. 1 fl I - a''' -=51-: :f-" :W':e4 r G6'•� re. ........ z sr 2 MA ..nto� " Ir ÷- 1 6:411::4::,;.20,,,r, -'1741111 6 .. �rrBmlu 66 In ilmv :(1, ..:4441e _.' - �qN■+ !Nw • Is 0 rzwi.„..7.,e,..-4-},ect ,- =: iZ p ,11 IR ,�Miall�r.m 2':311/.5 r_W T tl-■� LD-1 IIII L-r. 1 y� 'e'yq k lei - ! .IIIIII14.■ f ) rr `�. �� ��i� m■• it k�C� l :.-'4,e.11::;-: -� II 50 - 1 XrnI 1111 16/III,m® l MUM ..._...... _.__._.._ Z _ W31■�■ .1 /IBI Ip./�'n"i • ii:. .-F.: ■p■l'Al Iq ■ 1 ■ xll I.q µ;l {� 11■1 r ■I.II 1 1 11:III €'3 �' ■III ■n 51111 4U /III ME= — - _ • —`' lit-6 sr nnlw .nx m1 ■ ■ ! is "' µ�,y ��� 6' mxl s Llll:]� h.11l� IIIA 1 �'= M® ,_ 217 w M 14 n 0 50 7 I ru' II i I i f ... LI i___. ii 31 -- Ai i___ 311111111111 1E11111 Miles 1 2 I I Ll 78 I I U LJ F I I I L Anticipated Development Phase 2030-2040 Developed Post 2040 ;c .3, 2017-2020 Township — 2020-2030 11111 Park/Open Space 11 Farmington cannot ignore the tremendous residential growth of our 11 We need more community and the strain this will put affordable housing on existing infrastructure and amenities. in Farmington.We My biggest fear as a resident is that need options for Farmington will take on too much affordable housing residential growth without making for seniors and COMMUNITY INPUT necessary adjustments/investments in families of lower infrastructure,amenities,and schools. income levels. The proposed vision and guiding principles for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan are 11 We really need to take advantage based on the following: of Vermillion River running through n High level policies from the City's current 2030 Comprehensive Plan Farmington.We can protect it, along with build shopping areas, 11 The city of Farmington Is relying too much n 2040 Comprehensive Plan Vision Survey responses-Summer&Fall 2017 and restaurants along it to take on the residential taxpayers to pay for what - Online at City's website advantage of the beauty of it. they need The city needs a lot more retail, Building patios and walkways along restaurants,and services here so the tax dollars - City Hall it for these storefronts can act as a stay here not in Lakeville or Rosemount,etc.. - Library way to stop the erosion into the river. - Pop-up events at Music in the Park&Movies in the Park Make it a draw for people all times of the year. 2015 Community Survey responses Please select the TOP THREE attributes/ What do you think are the serious issues qualities/strengths that believe make facing Farmington today? Farmington a great place to live today Friendly/Safe/Welcoming145 Lack of businesses 238 Expand retail shopping ':• ' r'.w , t 214Community G.-. , Small town feel 111 High taxes 213 Decrease taxes and fees 198 Open space(Natural beauty of 98 Increase employment the area) Vacant storefronts 141 100 opportunities Location(Proximity to the Twin Improve recreational ? s Cities) 86 Lack of jobs -71 facilities/parks/trails facilities `� 5 91 School district 84 Rising crime .60 Improve roads 38 Affordability 82 Poor economy 52 Improve public transit 37 Close to family/friends -50 Parks and recreation Too much growth .33 Improve public safety i 28 opportunities 47 Lack of affordable housing ,25 Improve community services 25 Close to job 31 Appearance of homes and ■29 Too much density 21 Increase housing affordability 23 neighborhoods Close to shopping 12 Environmental Threats 1112 Improve quality of housing 1 15 Community services 7 Unsure 13 Increase choices of housing 10 types o�EAR,yj,, City of Farmington 30 Third Street Farmingtona , Minnesota 651.280.6800 -Fax 651.280.6899 �T.A,,,,r+`� www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager SUBJECT: 2018 Meeting Calendar DATE: January 9, 2018 INTRODUCTION Attached, for the Commissions information is the 2018 calendar for meeting dates. Please note the change in the meeting date for the month of August. The regular meeting in August will be Wednesday,August 15th in order to accommodate the Primary Election. DISCUSSION NA ACTION REQUESTED None, this is provided for information only. ATTACHMENTS: Type Description ❑ Backup Material 2018 Meeting Calendar City of Farmington 2018 Meetings, Holidays, Pay Days, Election Days January 2018 July 2018 O�i AR4f//� SMTWT F S SMTWT F S /'XVI 1p 3 4 - 6 1 5 7 U _' 7 8 > 9 10 11 12 13 812 13 14 14 15 17 1820151111117 18 1921 +21 23 24 26 27 2224 28 as 28 29 30 31 29 30 31444? CI �Opw� February 2018 August 2018 SMTWT F S SMTWT F S 1 . 3 1 2 . 4 4 6 7 8 9 10 57 9 10 11 City Holidays 11 15 17 12 14 16 18 18 19 21 23 24 19 21 22 24 25 .City Council 25 27 28 26 28 29 30 .EDA March 2018 September 2018 S M TINT F 5 5 M TWT F S ®Parks and Rec Commission 1 IIII 3 1 4 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 5 6 7 8 Planning Commission 11 1 15 17 9 10 13 . 15 18 20 21 23 24 16 18 19 20 21 22 RRC Advisory Board 25 27 28 29 31 23 25 26 _ 29 30 -Water Board April 2018 October 2018 ME Pay Days SMTWT F S SMTWT F S 13 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 Election Days 8 12 . 14 7 ;II 11 . 13 15 17 18 19 20 21 1416 17 18 19 2022 24 25 _ 28 2123 24_ 27 29 30 28 29 30 31 May 2018 November 2018 SMTWT F S SMTWT F S 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 6 1111 8 ji 1011:112 4 111 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 1516 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 22 23 D4 25<j 26 18111 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 30 31 25 27 28 29 30 June 2018 December 2018 SMTWT F S SMTWT F S 1 2 1 35 6 7 . 9 2 4 5 6 . 8 10 11 2® 14 15 16 9 10r 13 14 15 17 19 20 21 23 16 18 19 20 111122 24 26 27 29 30 23 24 25_ 28 29 30 31