HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.28.02 Work Session Packet
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
A Proud Past - A Promising Future
Committed to Providing High Quality,
Timely and Responsive Service to All
Of Our Customers
AGENDA
JOINT CITY COUNCILIPLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
May 28, 2002
5:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVE AGENDA
3, TOPICS OF DISCUSSION
a) Growth of Community - FinneganlMurphy Parcels
b) Sign Ordinance - Pylon vs. Monument Signs
c) Industrial Park - Mini-Storage Proposal
d) Middle Creek East - 203rd Street and 208th Street Issues (Discussion at 6:30 PM)
e) Annexation Issues
5. ADJOURN
Oty of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.d.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Mayor. Council Me}Y.bers, Planning Commission,
City Administrator lJ.
FROM:
\/.!l V
Lee Smick, AICP vr
Planning Coordinator
SUBJECT:
Discussion on Growth - Finnegan/Murphy Properties
DATE:
May 28, 2002
INTRODUCTION
City staff proposes to discuss potential growth and development of the Murphy/Finnegan properties located
south of 195th Street and Autumn Glen and east of Akin Road. This area was reviewed last year in connection
with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning petition filed by the respective property owners for the
Murphy/Finnegan parcels. At that time, the City Council denied the petitions and no further study of the
parcels was directed by the City Council.
DISCUSSION
City staff presents this topic at the Joint Workshop because a development request has recently been received
to develop the Finnegan property. Town and Country Homes, a development company, has entered into a
purchase agreement with Mr. Finnegan to develop his property. Mr. Murphy has also inquired as to the
development schedule for his property and the property owned by his daughter. Developers have recently
approached Mr. Murphy to develop his property as well.
The property owned by David Finnegan consists of 88.5 acres. The Bernard and Molly Murphy parcels consist
of 197.36 acres. The combined total of the parcels consists of285.86 acres.
Background
One year ago, Bernard Murphy, Molly Murphy and David Finnegan requested both a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezoning for their respective properties. Bernard Murphy requested a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment from Restricted Development to Low Density Residential and a Rezoning from C-l
(Conservation) and A-I (Agricultural) to R-l (Low Density Residential). Molly Murphy requested a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Restricted Development to Low Density Residential and a Rezoning
from A-I (Agricultural) to R-l (Low Density Residential). David Finnegan requested a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment from Restricted Development to Low Density Residential and a Rezoning from C-l
(Conservation) to R-l (Low Density Residential).
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on these petitions on April 10, 2001 and continued the public
hearing to May 8, 2001 in order to receive additional information. Upon closing the public hearing on May
8th, the Planning Commission voted to deny all of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendments and
Rezonings on the basis that the City's Thoroughfare Plan, Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan,
Comprehensive Water Plan and Surface Water Plan needed to be updated prior to considering residential
development in this area,
The City Council reviewed the petitions at the May 21, 2001 meeting. The attached minutes reflect that the
petitions were denied for the same reasons mentioned by the Planning Commission.
2020 Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan makes specific reference to the Murphy/Finnegan area as a "community green" that
will connect the northern and southern sections of the City. See "Land Use Policy and Strategy #5" on page
18 of the Comprehensive Plan (copy enclosed). This land use strategy intended that the "community green" be
a "nature influenced activity node where natural, residential and recreational uses dramatically combine to
provide distinctive residential opportunities, a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities and a
unique community gathering place." Since this strategy was still conceptual, the Land Use Designation of
Restricted Development was assigned to this area until this concept could be refined.
Since the completion of the Comprehensive Plan almost two years ago, several potential aspects of the
"community green" have evolved. The idea of one larger man-made lake has evolved into a chain-of-lakes
concept that may result in a linear series of smaller lakes and/or ponds that began in Autumn Glen and could
possibly extend to the northerly City limits east of Dakota Estates and south to the main branch of the
Vermillion River.
Another potential aspect of the "community green" was a City developed park and ball field complex south of
195th Street in this area. The Park and Recreation Commission has recently determined that its preferred
location for this facility would be on the north side of 195th Street possibly in the Seed-Genstar Orderly
Annexation area.
Potential Development
Town and Country Homes has proposed to develop a single-family community on the Finnegan property. Mr.
Murphy is interested in reviewing development offers for this property. Additionally, the extension of 195th
Street to Autumn Glen has opened the possibility of growth to the south of the roadway.
Advantages of development in this area include the following:
1. Development adjacent to 195th Street may encourage Dakota County to assist with the
completion of 195th Street to Trunk Highway 3, thereby providing additional transportation
routes to alleviate congestion on Akin Road.
2. Provides a link between the northern and southern portions of the City.
3. Provides a chain-of-lakes concept for meeting recreational goals in the City.
4. Additional north/south transportation routes may be gained from the development of these
parcels.
5. Provides additional tax revenue to the City.
Disadvantages of the development in this area include the following:
1. Increased traffic on Akin Road until the 195th Street connection with Trunk Highway 3 is
completed.
2. Additional housing in this area may increase the number of housing units stated in the
Comprehensive Plan. The plan states that between 2000 and 2020 an additional 5,775 housing
units will be created at a growth rate of275 homes per year.
3. Environmentally sensitive areas exist in the area and development may adversely affect these
areas.
ACTION REQUESTED
City staff requests that the City Council and Planning Commission determine if this area should be developed,
what type of development should occur, and if staff should begin Comprehensive Plan studies for potential
water, sewer, surface water management and transportation facilities.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
cc: Bernard and Molly Murphy
David Finnegan
Town and Country
Council Minutes (Regular)
May 21, 2001
Page 4
c)
~ d)
Consider Resolution - Bristol Square st and 2nd Re-Plat - Community
Development
Mr. Jim Allen, Allen Homes, is seeki City Council approval to replat portions
of both the Bristol Square 1 st and 2nd dditions. The applicant is seeking plat
approval in order to accommodate an a rnative design and floor plan of
townhomes that are narrower but deeper an the originals. The replat is proposed
for Lots 1-6, Block 1 and Lots 1-6, Bloc 2, Bristol Square 1 st Addition and also
Lots 1-7, Block 2, Bristol Square 2nd Ad ition. The proposed replat would result
in an additional two lots being added to e original 173 unit development. The
proposed changes would result in a lot at is 4 feet narrow and 2.67 feet deeper,
Staff recommended approval of the Bri tol Square replat contingent upon the
following:
1. The developer make the necess changes to the landscape plan
concerning the addition of a six-fi ot fence and/or over-story trees for
additional screening,
The developer submit a revised reliminary Plat of the remainder of the
Bristol Square development if y changes are planned concerning
revisions to lot dimensions to ac ommodate the split entry model
townhomes.
The developer agrees to any additi nal development fees that result from
the creation of additional townho e units.
2.
3.
Mayor Ristow asked if it was common to have a re-plat. Staff replied it is
common to come back with a new style or rrangement if something is not
selling, or the developer wants to try some 'ng new. Acting City Attorney
Poehler stated of those existing lots that sold within Bristol Square 3rd
Addition, the homeowners would also ha e to sign the plat approving this request.
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Ver adopting RESOLUTION R51-01
approving the Bristol Square 3rd Addition lat contingent upon the above listed
contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRI D,
Consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Bernard and Molly Murphy
Property - Community Development
Bernard and Molly Murphy have petitioned the City to amend the City's
Comprehensive Plan for two parcels they currently own east of Akin Road and
south of the future alignment of 19Sth Street that comprise 197.36 acres from
Restricted Development to Low Density Residential. The original petitions filed
by Bernard and Molly Murphy requested both a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
from Restricted Development to Low Density Residential and a Rezoning from
C-1 and A-I to R-l. Upon closing the public hearing on May 8, 2001, the
Planning Commission voted to deny the requested Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Zone Change at this time on the basis that the City's
Thoroughfare Plan, Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan, Comprehensive Water
Plan and Surface Water Plan need to be updated prior to considering amending
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to allow residential development in this area.
Since the Planning Commission recommendation was made, Bernard and Molly
Council Minutes (Regular)
May 21, 2001
Page 5
Murphy have amended their petitions to withdraw the rezoning request portion of
the petition. The Comprehensive Plan makes specific reference to this area as a
"community green" that will connect the northern and southern sections of the
City. MOTION by Ristow, second by Verch denying the requested
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and that no further study be completed, APIF,
MOTION CARRIED.
'*' e) Consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Dave Finnegan Property-
Community Development
David Finnegan has petitioned the City to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan
for a parcel he currently owns east of Akin Road and adjacent to the south side of
the future alignment of 195th Street that contains 88.5 acres from Restricted
Development to Low Density Residential. The original petition filed by David
Finnegan requested both a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Restricted
Development to Low Density Residential and a Rezoning from C-1 to R-l. Upon
closing the public hearing on May 8, 2001, the Planning Commission voted to
deny the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change at this
time on the basis that the City's Thoroughfare Plan, Comprehensive Sanitary
Sewer Plan, Comprehensive Water Plan and Surface Water Plan need to be
updated prior to considering amending the Comprehensive Land use Plan to allow
residential development in this area. Since the Planning Commission
recommendation was made, Mr. Finnegan's attorney has indicated Mr, Finnegan
would consider amending his petition to withdraw the rezoning request portion of
the petition. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg denying the requested
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and indicating that no further study be
completed at this time. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a) Flagstaff Avenue Update - Engineer' g
At the April 2, 2001 City Council Me ting, staff provided Council with options
for improving the conditions on Flag taff Avenue. Staff was directed by Council
to prepare a report describing the fe ibility of improving Flagstaff Avenue by
adding additional gravel to the road and performing some ditch work. The
improvement option involves the install at n of geotextile fabric covered by 8" of
Class 5 crushed limestone watered and rol d, Additional gravel will need to be
added every other year, or as needed to m intain a consistent 8" layer of Class 5
and keep the geotextile fabric from being xposed. Staff also proposes to
excavate material to create ditches at sel ted areas, and to add culverts to the
driveways that need them, to allow wate to adequately drain away from Flagstaff
Avenue. The total estimated project co tis $500,476. Councilmember Strachan
stated he would like some input from F nance Director Roland regarding the
status of street funds relative to other ojects. The homeowners also need to be
aware of what the assessments will be. ouncil tabled a decision until the June 4,
2001 Council Meeting so further informati on funding can be received from
staff.
Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update
separates the industrial district along CSAH 50 from other residential sections ofthe City.
With this natural buffer, the City wants to expand this industrial district westward to
include an area west of Pilot Knob Road. Although the City wants to diversify its tax
base by expanding its industrial areas, it also wants to upgrade these areas. A good
percentage of the new industrial uses will be developed within a business park setting.
Of the total 506 industrial acres provided by the year 2020 to meet the projected demand,
176 acres will be developed as business park uses along the south side of CSAH 50. The
business park uses should exemplify high quality design, landscaping and site plan
development standards and permit a mix of complementary hi-tech business, office, light
industrial and recreational uses.
The Industrial uses will continue in their existing downtown locations, but they should
not be expanded. New industrial uses should be directed to the CSAH 50 industrial
district. Downtown industrial uses should also continue to be buffered from adjacent
residential uses.
Maintain Working Farms
2,395 acres within the existing city limits are currently devoted to agriculture.
Farmington wants to preserve and maintain its working farms along the western and
southwestern sections of the City. This policy will reinforce Farmington's small town
character and these agricultural areas will act as a natural boundary between Lakeville
and Farmington. The City will designate 2,072 acres, ofthese agricultural areas as urban
reserve areas, which will protect farms until at least 2020 and allows for very limited
residential development of one unit per 40 acres. A total of 323 agricultural acres will be
redeveloped for light industrial and residential uses by the year 2020.
Protect and Conserve Natural Resources
The City currently has 1,311 acres of natural resources conserved in their natural state:
wetlands, floodplain areas, steep slopes, river and creek corridors. Farmington has
decided to designate 1,713 acres divided between environmentally sensitive areas and
natural areas restricted in terms of development. These areas will form a green network
of multi-user trails, and a community preserve of natural open spaces to naturally weave
the City together. This community preserve of natural resources will also buffer
incompatible land uses, and enhance residential, commercial and business park
developments.
#
The City has decided to connect its northern and southern sections of the City together by
creating a Central Park--a natural showpiece--a "community green". This "community
green" will be a nature-influenced, activity node where natural, residential and
recreational land uses dramatically combine to provide distinctive residential
opportunities, a focal point of a lake/ golf course/ open space, passive and active
recreational opportunities, the hub of the city-wide trail system and a unique community
gathering place.
10
Land Use Element
Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update
The City currently has 135 acres of neighborhood and community parkland. A City
standard has been established to provide 20 acres of parkland per 1,000 population,
which by the year 2020 would mean a total of 542 acres are needed to support a
population of27,090.
11
Land Use Element
Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update
LAND USE POLICIES AND STRATEGIES
General
.JV 1. It is the policy of the City of Farmington to provide for quality controlled growth in
cr stages. .
Strategies
* Manage and guide the direction of growth to accommodate the projected total
population of 27,090 by the year 2020, while maintaining the small town
character of Farmington.
* Prioritize growth according to the staged growth plan.
* Guide quality growth on the existing vacant parcels within the current boundaries
of the City in a way that is compatible with the character and density of
surrounding neighborhood districts.
* Proceed with the annexation of the 989 gross acres of Seed/Genstar property in
Empire Township when it is removed from the Agricultural Preserve District in
2002.
* Concentrate and maintain the existing agricultural uses in the southwestern and
western sections of the City.
* Preserve the City's existing agricultural uses and character as a natural edge
between Farmington and Lakeville and as a distinctive feature of Farmington's
small town character.
* Promote high-quality architecture and design development standards in new
housing subdivisions.
* Promote conservation subdivision design by requiring developers to protect a
parcel's natural features by conserving a certain percentage of the development
parcel for open space preservation. These open space areas should be connected
to the City's trail system.
rf 2.
It is the policy of the City of Farmington to plan new neighborhoods and to
enhance existing viable neighborhoods to maintain a small town character.
Strategies
* Develop design standards for existing and new neighborhoods that are pedestrian
friendly, compatible with the existing neighborhood context and which promote a
sense of community.
* Maintain the following density levels for existing and new neighborhoods:
a) Low-Density - 1 to 3.5 units per acre
b) Low/Medium - Density - 2.5 to 5.5 units per acre
c) Medium-Density - 5.5 to 14.0 units per acre
d) High-Density - 12+ units per acre.
12
Land Use Element
Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update
eY.
Develop the following strategies for new traditional neighborhoods:
1. Require one tree per forty linear feet of right-of-way, preferably between the curb and
sidewalk.
2. Promote traffic calming in residential areas; reduce traffic speeds on local streets to
state standards.
3. Establish neighborhood centers focused on a park, open space or a public facility as
community gathering places.
4. Promote streets scaled for typical uses not worse case scenarios.
5. Promote neighborhood commercial centers that are pedestrian in character and whose
uses meet everyday needs (drugstore, bookstore, grocery, hardware, personal
services, and cafes.)
6. Promote the preservation of open space and the conservation of the land's natural
features in all new residential developments.
/If · Develop the foDowing strategies for aU existing neighborhoods:
1. Enhance the public center of the neighborhood, i.e. the park or school.
2. Preserve and promote old historic homes for their contribution to neighborhood
character,
3. Promote historic rehabilitation.
4. Promote infill housing of high quality design that is compatible with the surrounding
context and also preserves and contributes to the existing neighborhood character.
5. Maintain edges between the residential areas, connector streets, and other uses
through landscaping buffers and clear separation of uses.
6. Connect all neighborhoods to downtown by expanding the existing bike and walking
trail system through the Vermilion River corridor and the environmentally sensitive
areas. As a result, the natural and built environments of the City will be woven
together to create a organized whole and to merge at the Farmington central
"community green."(Refer to policy statement 5).
7. Preserve existing mature shade trees and green spaces.
13
Land Use Element
Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update
Specific Neighborhood District Planning Objectives:
A. District I-North Central District
1) Provide for low-density residential development along the western border
in the proposed expanded MUSA area.
2) Preserve the natural open space and creek corridors as a natural boundary
between the residential developments and the agricultural lands.
3) Provide for medium density residential development surrounding the
commercial district along Pilot Knob Road.
4) Preserve and enhance the area's natural features; its open space, sloped
land and mature trees.
5) Provide for park space in the designated protected wetland to the west of
the Pine Knoll Subdivision.
6) Provide for additional neighborhood parks at appropriate locations.
B. District 2-North East District-(The SeedlGenstar property to be annexed)
I) Provide for low and medium density residential development
2) Locate medium density residential developments near transportation
access and along the rail line as these uses can serve as a buffer between
low-density uses and the rail line.
3) Preserve the natural open space as a passive recreational area and extend
the City trail system into this area.
4) Maximize preservation of the district's rolling topography and other
natural amenities through new subdivision standards that require
environmental conservation measures.
5) Design a future commercial center to be pedestrian and neighborhood-
oriented in scale and character.
6) Promote only neighborhood-serving commercial uses in well-designed
and pedestrian friendly commercial districts along Trunk Highway 3. No
commercial strip developments will be permitted.
fc
District 3-Central District
1) Provide for medium and high-density residential developments along
major transportation corridors-Akin and Pilot Knob Roads- and close to
nearby schools.
2) Create a Farmington "community green" in the center of this district
where the City's natural assets can beautifully converge. The "community
green" would be a nature influenced activity node where natural,
residential and recreational uses dramatically combine to provide
distinctive residential opportunities and a variety of active and passive
recreational opportunities. (Refer to policy statement 5, which outlines
this "Community Green" concept).
3) Create an amenity rich residential community surrounding the Farmington
"Community Green". (Refer to policy statement 5).
4) Provide for low-density residential development along the western edge of
the proposed expanded MUSA area.
14
Land Use Element
Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update
Strategies
* Provide for the development of a City Arts and Cultural center downtown.
* Promote and provide for the location of art, entertainment and cultural activities
in downtown.
* The downtown streetscape plan should artistically express a cultural, or historic
theme that is integrated into Third Street's design standards and articulated
through its building facades, signage, street lighting, street furniture, landscaping,
public art and other public improvements. Create an aesthetically pleasing
downtown environment.
* Provide for the establishment of a variety of art and cultural organizations in
downtown.
* Promote and support public art throughout downtown and along the riverfront.
Hold community contests and sponsor commissions.
* Promote and support downtown arts and cultural festivals/events.
* Require public art as part of new downtown commercial developments.
-;ts.
It is the policy of the City of Farmington to create new parks: a 'Farmington
Community Green" connecting the northern and southern sections of the City, new
mini- and neighborhood parks.
Strategies
* Create a Farmington "community green" in the central district of the City where
the City's natural assets can beautifully converge and connect the northern,
western and greater downtown areas of the City. The community green will be a
nature-influenced, activity node where natural, residential and recreational uses
dramatically combine to provide distinctive residential opportunities, a variety of
active and passive recreational opportunities and a unique community gathering
place. This "community green" is predominantly natural. It will reflect
conservation of the City's natural assets, while providing sensitive design of
residential uses and opportunities for recreational uses by residents of all ages and
lifestyles.
* Create this community green to be an exciting convergence of complementary
land uses consisting of the following:
1. a high quality, market rate and high end, golf course/open space residential
community where nature and housing are harmoniously woven through:
2. the hub of an extensive multi-user, "green" trail system linking all parts of the
City through the environmentally sensitive areas and the river corridor;
3. a focal point of either a small lake with a community center, or a golf
course/open space conservation area with a community center; surrounded by
well-designed, high amenity housing;
4. active recreation opportunities-soccer, play fields and passive open spaces.
* Establish new mini-parks and neighborhood parks in the Northeast, North Central
and Central Districts that will support all new residential developments.
18
Land Use Element
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Mayor. Council Me~ers, Planning Commission,
City Administrator 7'.\.
It'1 v
FROM:
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
SUBJECT:
Sign Ordinance - Pylon Sign vs. Monument Sign
DATE:
May 28, 2002
INTRODUCTION
At the December 12, 2001 Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting, City staff presented a draft
revision of the sign ordinance. The discussion mainly consisted of pylon signs vs. monument signs and the
proposed height and setback of these signs. The workshop discussion on Tuesday will focus on these issues in
order for staff to clarify recommendations made by the City Council and Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION
Definitions
The monument sign typically is more aesthetically appealing because of the materials used at the base of the
sign. The monument base has a more "stout" appearance because of its mass than the pylon sign with a single
or double pole construction. This is witnessed by the attached photos showing the Premier Bank and Kwik
Trip pylon signs versus the Cub Foods and Target monument signs. The following are definitions for a pylon
sign and monument sign.
Pylon Sign: A pylon sign is a detachedfreestanding sign supported by one or more poles.
Monument sign: A sign which is attached to or supported by a monument structure which is freestanding on
the ground, extending horizontally for a minimum of 80 percent (80%) of the entire length of the sign face.
The sign base shall be constructed of anyone or combination of the following materials: brick, stone
decorative masonry, plastic, aluminum, colored metals, or decay resistive wood
Height and Setback
At the December 12, 2001 meeting, staff proposed monument signs at a height of 6-10 feet. The City Council
and Planning Commission expressed concern over the proposed height of 6 feet, stating that the signs may not
be seen along roadways. Therefore, staff proposes that the monument signs be allowed at a maximum of 10
feet in height with a setback from 1-10 feet from the property line or 20 feet in height with a setback between
10-20 feet from the property line. See the attached illustration showing sign height and setbacks. The
definition of height and sign area includes the following:
Sign Height Computation: The height of a sign shall be measured from the base of the sign at the adjacent
curb elevation to the top of the highest attached component of the sign. .
Sign Area Computation: The sign area encompasses the extreme limits of the written message, representation,
emblem or other display used to convey the message of the sign, together with any material or color forming
an integral part of the background of the display or used to differentiate the sign from the backdrop or
structure against which it is placed The area of a sign face shall not include any supporting framework,
bracing or wall and is clearly incidental to the sign itself
The area of the sign face with more than one sign face shall be computed by adding together the area of all
sign faces readable from anyone point, When two identical sign faces are readable from anyone point, both
shall be computed When two identical sign faces are placed back to back, the sign area shall be computed by
the measurement of one of the faces provided that both faces are not readable from anyone point and the
angle at which the two signfaces are placed does not exceed 45 degrees.
The sign area definition was included to explain how the size of the sign would be computed. However, staff
is continuing to research surrounding communities' maximum sizes for the sign area to determine
Farmington's approach to sign size.
The following table lists existing sign heights as a reference.
Zoning Location Current Size
District Height/SF
B Districts Farmington Mall 22 ft/156 sf
Conoco 21 ft/156 sf
Akin Hills Pet 26 ft/108 sf
Super America 26 ft/155 sf
Prairie Centre 12 ft/75 sf
Kwik Trip 18 ft/50 sf
Vet Clinic 11 ft/ll 0 sf
ACTION REOUESTED
City staff requests that the City Council and Planning Commission determine their preference between pylon
signs and monument signs and direct staff in determining sign height and setbacks.
Respectfully submitted,
u: [;~.
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
b
T"'"
zLJ.J
LJU
-<C
Vl L.L.
18
10l
c
.~
en
...
c f...-
a>
E
::J
C
o
~
zLJ.J
uU
-<C
Vl L.L.
IL
....J
_ a..
~E
o
~
....J
_ a..
~E
e
'+-
,0 ~
....J
a..
E
o
. '-
'+-
~~-
(J)el.
a.~
o (J)
...c
el. .-
...J
"E
~
(J)
"3
..9,9 .8
-e
:J
<.>
t;\i
\::J ~
'\{\
\1.
r~
....
t::
~
E
;:3
t::
o
~
....
t::
~
E
;:3
t::
o
~
t::
o
>-.
0-,
t::
o
>-.
0-,
4,f~
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Mayor, Council Members, Planning Commission Members, City AdministratorfY
FROM:
Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Possible Mini-Storage Facility in Industrial Park
DATE:
May 28, 2002
INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION
Shakopee resident Mark Kreissler has contacted the City regarding his interest in building a mini-storage
facility in the Industrial Park, I have attached three informational sheets that Mr. Kreissler has provided,
captioned "A Little About Me," "Business Philosophy," and "Business Plan."
Mr. Kreissler is currently weighing the relative merits of a one-story facility vs. a two-story facility. I have
attached preliminary floor plans and preliminary elevations that he has prepared regarding each option. Mr.
Kreissler is aware that any building that he might construct would have to comply with Section 10-6-19 of the
City Code, captioned "Industrial Park Design Standards" (attached). Mr, Kreissler's preliminary plans have
been reviewed and discussed by the Planning Division and by the Development Review Committee, and if this
matter moves forward, City staff members are prepared to discuss a few required modifications with Mr.
Kreissler,
Only three lots remain available in the Farmington Industrial Park: two adjacent 2-acre lots located at the
comer ofCSAH 50 and Eaton Avenue (right at the entrance to the Industrial Park), and a 9.37 acre lot located
on the north side of 208th Street in the northeast comer of the Industrial Park. (See attached map.) Mr.
Kreissler is primarily interested in one or both of the lots that face CSAH 50, although I believe that he might
also consider the other remaining lot (north of 208th Street) under certain circumstances.
The main issue presented by Mr. Kreissler's proposal is zoning related. The Industrial Park is (perhaps not
surprisingly) zoned IP or "Industrial Park." Mini-storage is neither a permitted nor a conditional use in an IP
zone. Mini-storage ~ a permitted use in an I-I ("Industrial") zone, and a conditional use in a B-3 ("Heavy
Business") zone. Mr, Kreissler does not believe that the City's existing I-I and B-3 zones provide suitable
opportunities for him, for reasons that include location, owners who are not ready or willing to sell, and lack of
developable land. Mr. Kreissler has therefore focused his attention on the Industrial Park.
The Planning Division would like to determine whether the Planning Commission and the City Council would
support a revision of the City Code to make a mini-storage facility a conditional use in the IP zone. Briefly,
some of the possible advantages and disadvantages of doing so are as follows:
Possible Advantaees:
I, Moves the Industrial Park closer to "completion."
2. Generates income from the sale of the lot(s), at a time when no other firm offers are pending.
3. Enhances the City's tax base.
4. Provides a useful service that is not currently available within the City's borders,
5. Makes extra storage space available for other Industrial Park businesses that may not have enough storage
space on their own property,
6. Makes "warehouse" space available for new or existing in-home businesses that may prefer (or need) to
store products, supplies and materials "off-site,"
7, Adds a building to the Industrial Park that (if properly designed) "looks" like the other structures in the
vicinity. .
Possible Disadvantae:es:
1, Does not fall within the commonly accepted definition of an "industrial" use,
2. Renders one or two Industrial Park parcels unavailable for a more ''traditional'' industrial user, if one
should express an interest in moving to Farmington before we are able to secure additional property for an
expansion of the Park.
3. Creates only one employment position.
I have been advised that another mini-storage proposal was not favorably received by the Planning
Commission and/or the City Council a few years ago, which is partly why early input from both bodies is
being sought at this time, Although I cannot speak to the merits of the previously rejected proposal, I can say
that Mr. Kreissler has been exceedingly professional, prompt, courteous and receptive to suggestions during
my interactions with him thus far. He is easy to work with, and he seems genuinely committed to doing
whatever is necessary to ensure a high-quality project.
ACTION REOUESTED
Staff members are seeking input regarding whether the Planning Commission and the City Council would
support a revision to the City Code that would make a mini-storage facility a conditional use in the IP
("Industrial Park") zoning district.
e in Carroll
Community Development Director
cc: Mr. Mark Kreissler
14561 Alabama Avenue
Savage MN 55378
~
a::
q:
Q..
-J
q:
......
a::
.....
CI)
::>
Q
~
......
~
o
.....
C)
~
......
:E
a::
q:
u..
Q) 0
rn (0
Cll CO
Q) ....
0: >.1'1
.... (0 .:.:
~.~~ (ij
c:: E.... a..
~E~
~8i
Q) - '-
>= 0
~gt>
_cu2:?
guo
.g.~ c
~~ ~
~"O g.
~.l9Qj
:I c:: >
o8~
'-
Q)
c
6
~
~
f
i
I
~
c
.
E
~
~
o
~
i
()
1;
I
iJ
1:
~ ~
ro ro
'5' a..
16 <( 16
:s ~ 'C
(/) .c+-'+-'
-5-g "C..:l~
.so-g31~-g ~
a.. 'a ro ..0 - 0
5o.;:,.croQ) ...J
_'-o~~:S
Cl;:,U;:,w.,..
.5 Z 0 a.. ~ ~ 'It:
E ~
'- u
ro 0
u.. iij
Iii
l!!
Q)
5
-
o
ro
Q)
<C
~ ....,.
'-,." (-.:')
~ ,.
>.
~Q.
c: ..
,,::;:
c\l'B
];>~
.- ..
Uo..
~O
A LITTLE ABOUT ME
Mark Kreissler
Mini storage in Farmington
Mark Kreissler
14561 Alabama Avenue
Savage, MN 55378
952-440-6216
Married to Kenna Kreissler for 15 years
Two boys ages 8 & 6
1986 Graduate of Eastern Illinois University
Majored in Business and Economics
Employed at Barrett Moving & Storage since 1987
Residential and commercial Account Executive from 1987-
1998
National account and commercial Account Executive from
1998 to present
Partial owner of Barrett Moving & Storage
1998, 1999,2001 recipient of United Van Lines Masters Club
A ward
BUSINESS PHILOSOPHY
Mark Kreissler
Mini storage in Farmington
Make my company profitable.
Do everything possible to keep the customer happy.
Abide by the policies in the City of Farmington regarding business
in their community.
Present my company as a premier, professionally managed
business to its customers and the city of Farmington
Maintain the property in a professional manner
When possible give back to the community
BUSINESS PLAN
Mark Kreissler
Mini storage in Farmington
Purchase at least 2 acres adjacent to County Rd 50 with an option
to purchase the adjacent 2 acres. Or possibly purchase the 4 acres
right away.
Phase I will be built on 2 of the 4 acres
Assuming there is demand for additional storage facilities, phase 2
will be built on the remaining 2 acres
The building
~ Structure is classified as a Type II-N by the Uniform Building
Code
~ There are 3 buildings attached by a roof
~ There are 2 interior driveways allowing direct access to all
storage units
~ North and south sides of building will be constructed of
architectural concrete block
~ West and east sides of building will have roll up doors and
painted steel jams
~ Load bearing partition walls will be constructed of steel
components
~ Building will be completely surrounded by a security fence
~ West and east sides of building will be screened with
landscaping to hide the garage doors or if the city allows,
architectural upgrades will be used
~ The building will contain an office with a handicap restroom
~ On site manager during regular business hours
~ Security gates will operate from 7:00am until 10:00 pm
~~
m
I~
~~
-u
r
)>
Z
~
~
1=1
~ ::sl5.........N-ic
F =::::::::::!~
I1il .a.........
::I
~ x
~ ~
A m
~ .oo.~1.15~~~-<
~
"51
~~
~'i.
?l'-
~-;
~~
IF.~
'%~
7-
...
5INC~t-E
..... ---"'. . ,.) I
<",\ .'. .. - .; l..-,/.
~,oI-.....""-
, ;; pp'..c./
t;,,/ ilt:-
i
\
~-,-
AI
..
t
1-- -- -- -- ~~ -$- ~ 1d~-2]
L... III'" . . .. 1
1 : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : = = .' t I
i I ~...... ...:.::....... ~ l i
I !. :...+.... ~...' :
Ii <t: : : : : :: .... .1. . ... ~...: n ~
: ~ 0ltlYll.... II:
I~ ~_ ..I. .. r:.. ff a:!H . .. F! H a -10 :: 1- 10 I
I Y~A~' .: ~ I
I .. ~ ,.i~ .. '" .......... '" '" .. .. '" ... '" .. ..: ~ I
I ". .: I
I . I ..- ~ I~~I ~ I
L. d_ Tf~~________ ~~~ I~ __J
-....
~
:u
m
!.!l
J
(~
lJ\
}-
(/'l
\J
I
L- STREET--".
(6t-T? tJ)
...
I .... ..,.. .... ... /~
. ...,..- .- SITE/FLOOR PLAN
I (I-STORY)
.... -.. .. BUILDINGMNrR:MS, INC.
i MARK KREISSLER MINI STORAGE ... ...... ~
-- ~
- --
CXI'I'MICJ(C)aDOalilPllD....SISIDlS,INC.
I i
".- ". . .-,,~ ......
,. I
,-
J
I
CD
-I
:u
m
- m
-I
J
\.J
"'-
"
''\...
,~
~
,'\
A
... .... -
\ -u
\ ~ i
I Z I
~
Z
\~
/'
~
~
A
'='
...........-ic I
oo6t56iS6o........!Z ~
;;;;;;;::;;:===i :0 !
:1 m q
X ~
....n~....~S J
!~
C/)
~
~
rDJ
~
~
'='
~
~
"fl"tl
"'~
"8~
:lI'i
~\
~~
~~
o~
z
~
~
(;
rDJ
~
A
'='
~
~
...........-~ C
6fi-66515iSlSlIII....1! Z
;;;s;;;:~;~:= =i
:1
X
~
m
,..".~~.Ii~~-{
...
~
,-- -- -- -- -- -- W~-2]
~ ~
q
I "'" 1
i....... w....
1 .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . I
~
t. q
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
I ~ 'i I
I I 0llMl TIlllU ~ I
q
I . . . . . . . . . . . . I
I . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. ~ ~ ~
.1 <t .. .. ..a ..a ... ..a ..a ... ... ... ... 00" .. . .. .. .. .. .t; q q
. . .
~'
I ~ I
I ~ 0llMl TIlllU I
lti.-+ q I
-1- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J" .. .. ..
I Y ~ . I
I .. h~ ~ I
I ~e~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . I
-j~;1
I II." ~ ~~ ~ I
I d. If ~ " ~~I! q I
. - uJ
L _::. _~___u__,__u I~
.......
V'l STREET -,..
\J " \
, {./'-rwu ~~/Y2/
"---____~~~! ( "^J
tr)
I C /
\ /
\./
UJ
-l
:0
m
m
-l
J
~
q
,u ~
q
"'"
....... w.... w....
ul
I
)~;a .......t
~~~~ i
~
~
e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
uJ
.----
l I I DENIm ::
51 _II A\.. EfHIEE] ~ FEE:EEIl r;:EEEB ~
m ~ '17' ~-~~
T i~ .......m~~
.~i m~m
I ~
t" I q
'~ L ~
-~
0""-- STA, EET -,.. ",
t24--? (, N )
/""
11M[; ,,7-411 ~
f'II:N.lD. .... SITE/FIRST e. SECOND
I FLOOR PLANS (2-STORY)
I\) METRO
...... ... BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
i MARK KREISSLER MINI STORAGE ---~
'"";1L':$. b:.
-... _ClJIIIlN:1lII5
OJP'l'lIQfl"(C)2002YmlO~SYSlDI5,IIC.
...
...----/
I
UJ
-l
:0
m
m
-l
J
')>
~-/
<5
z
~~ ~~ ~i
r~
~i ~; ~i
~~ ~~
~
.......
~ "- ~\J \\J
'" V1
~ ~ j ~
~ ,J
~
51 ~ ~ \\
~~ ~ -'x ~
~'i '"
%~ ---...:.:... "<.
\\
~i
~~
-z.
~
~
iw
i
IMK: ...7-01
-..-
_8'1':_
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
MARK KREISSLER MINI STORAGE
CCIP'l1llQHf (C) 2002 MEnlO..... SYSIOI$, IIIC.
~
METRO
BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
.... --.=.....
~....
III!OIllW) _aJl1tN:IlllS
<5
z
J J~ J~
i ff
...
II i ~
A
J J~ J~
i ff
p
q
I ~~ $
~ g~, ,,~
~q~ ~~
new wetland.
Chapter.
d off-site shall meet the requirements of this
8. Wetland and buffer area plantin s that are completed for mitigation shall meet the
standards for plantings specifie in Section 10-9-7 of this Chapter. (Ord. 099-433,
6-7-1999)
10-6-18: Manufactured Homes
Manufactured homes may be located in any R-3 Distn t with an approved Conditional Use Permit under
the following conditions:
Installation: Approval of manufactured housing developme
systems defined and approved by the Minnesota Department
rules of" u~ng.stlf'l"t*1 . -down systems
7.34, (Ord. 086-177, 3-17:~
10-6-19: Industrial Park Design Standa
shall be based upon anchoring and support
f Administration, Building Code Division,
uthorized by MSA sections 327,31 and
(A) Platted: Development in which the entire pa el is to be divided into platted lots to be sold
individually shall conform to all requirements for subd visions as set forth in Title 11 of this Code.
(B) Unplatted: Development in which sites will e made available for rent shall conform to the PUD
Chapter of this Zoning Code I.
(A) Building Material And Design:
1. Exterior Walls: Exterior walls of buildings to be constructed shall consist of one or more
of the following materials and shall receive prior approval of the City:
(a) Brick: Size, type, texture, color and placement shall be approved.
(b) Stone: Stone shall have a weathered face or shall be polished, fluted or broken
face.
(c) Concrete Masonry Block: Concrete masonry block shall be those generally
described as "Customized Architectural Concrete Masonry Units" or shall be broken
faced brick-type units with marble aggregate. All concrete masonry units shall be coated
with a City-approved coating. There shall be no exposed concrete block on the exterior of
any building unless approved by the City.
(d) Concrete: Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or precast; and shall be
finished in stone, textured or coated, with a minimum life expectancy often (10) years.
2. Alternate Materials: Alternate exterior surface materials of pre engineered metal may be
substituted in an amount not to exceed six percent (6%) of the exterior wall surface area of each
building if the following conditions apply:
(a) Used for housing or screemng equipment necessary to the manufacturing
operations;
(b) Architecturally compatible with the building as a whole as determined by the
City Planning Division;
(c) Compliance with any additional screening and/or landscaping requirements of
the City; and
(d) Modifications are made with pnor written approval of the City Planning
Division.
3. Alterations To Buildings: Any alterations to buildings shall meet all requirements of this
Chapter,
4. Canopies: Canopies with visible wall hangers shall not be permitted. Design of canopies
shall be in keeping with the design of the building and shall be approved by the City prior to
construction or alteration.
5. Roof-Mounted Equipment: All rooftop equipment shall be set back a minimum of twenty
feet (20') from the edge of the roof and shall be screened. Screening shall consist of either a
parapet wall along the roof edge or an opaque screen constructed of the same material as the
building's primary vertical exposed exterior finish. Equipment shall be painted a neutral color.
The site plan shall indicate all mechanical rooftop equipment and shall include elevations,
6. Loading Docks: The design of the loading docks shall be incorporated into the overall
design theme of the building and constructed of materials equal to or the same as the principal
building. The loading dock areas shall be landscaped and/or screened so that the visual and
acoustic impacts of their function is fully contained and out of view of adjacent properties and
public streets. The required width for a landscaped yard along a local collector/industial or local
street is ten (10) feet. The architectural design shall be continuous and uninterrupted by ladders,
towers, fences, and equipment. Businesses that abut County Highway 50 and/or County Highway
31 shall not construct loading docks that front these roadways.
7. Trash Containers: Trash containers or trash compactors shall not be located within twenty
feet (20') of any street, sidewalk or internal pedestrian way and shall be screened by a six foot (6')
masonry wall on three (3) sides of the trash unit.
8. Coverage: Unless otherwise approved by the City, the ratio of building square footage
and parking area shall not exceed sixty five percent (65%) of the total square footage of any
building site within the affected property,
(D) Utilities: All buildings and structures shall be served by underground utility distribution facilities.
The installation of such utilities shall not change the grade or contour of the City-approved grading plan
for the site.
(E) Building Setbacks: No building or other structure shall be erected within fifty feet (50') of the
front property line; or twenty five feet (25') of the side and rear property lines, If two (2) or more lots are
developed as one site, the interior common lot line shall be ignored.
(F) Parking Areas:
1. Surfacing: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all parking areas, driveways
and loading areas shall be surfaced with asphalt or concrete pavement following the City's
Engineering Standard Plates. In the event said surfacing cannot be completed due to weather or
seasonal restrictions, a temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued contingent upon the
extension of the security or letter of credit required under subsection 10-6-4(A) of this Chapter.
All parking lots located in the front of buildings or adjacent to street rights of way shall be
curbed.
2. Off-Street Parking Spaces Required: Off-street parking shall be provided to serve each
site. The minimum number of parking spaces shall be the greater of:
(a) One space for every six hundred (600) square feet of industrial space; and
One space for every two hundred (200) square feet of office space; and
One space for each two thousand (2,000) square feet of storage area
or
(b) One space per projected employee per shift.
3. Screening: All parking areas shall be screened as required in subsection (G) of this
Section.
4. Location: Parking shall not be permitted within ten feet (10') of the front property line
(those facing any dedicated street), or within ten feet (10') of any side or rear property line unless
otherwise approved by the City.
(G) Landscaping: All open spaces shall be dustproofed, surfaced, landscaped, rockscaped or devoted
to lawns. Not less than two-thirds e/3) of the required building setback area from any dedicated street
shall be landscaped with lawns, trees, shrubs and walkways of a design approved by the City Planning
Division. Landscaping shall be installed within ninety (90) days of occupancy or substantial completion
of building, whichever occurs first, weather permitting.
The following landscape standards shall apply to all proposed projects within the overlay zones:
1. Street Trees: Street trees shall be planted at one canopy tree per forty feet (40') of street
frontage.
2. Perimeter Parking Lots: One tree and three (3) shrubs per forty feet (40') of parking lot
perimeter frontage. Plants are to be installed within ten feet (10') of the parking lot frontage area.
3. Interior Parking Lots: One planting island per twenty (20) parking spaces. One tree and
three (3) shrubs are required within each planting island. The planting island shall be curbed with
concrete.
4. Buffer Area: When the industrial district is adjacent to a residential district, a twenty five
foot (25') buffer is required and shall include a six foot (6') high wooden fence and landscaping to
screen the adjacent property.
(H) Screening:
1. Storage Areas: Without prior approval of the City, no outside storage areas shall be
allowed nor shall any articles, goods, materials, incinerators, storage tanks, refuse containers or
like equipment be kept in the open or exposed to public view or view from adjacent buildings. If
outside storage is given City approval, all materials and/or containers and equipment shall be
screened from view. Required screening shall include: a) a six (6) to eight foot (8') high opaque
wooden fence and landscaping; b) landscaping and berms; or c) a combination of both to fully
screen the outdoor storage.
2. Structure: No accessory structures (including, but not limited to, water towers, storage
tanks, processing equipment, cooling towers) or outside equipment shall be constructed, erected
or placed on the affected property without prior approval of the City. If such approval is granted,
such structures shall be screened from public view and the view of adjacentbuildings in a manner
approved by the City Planning Division.
(I) Signs: All signs shall be of a design and material approved by the City Planning Division. Unless
otherwise approved, wall signs must be attached to the building, and be parallel to and contiguous with its
walls and not projecting above its roofline. No sign of a flashing or moving character shall be installed
and no sign shall be painted on any building wall. Pole signs will not be allowed. Advertising billboards
are not allowed within the overlay zone. (General guidelines for signage - available through the City
Planner.)
(1) Maintenance:
1. Owners and occupants of any or all of a site have the duty and responsibility, at their sole
cost and expense, to keep the site, including buildings, improvements and grounds, well
maintained, safe, clean and aesthetically pleasing. Such maintenance includes, but is not limited
to, the following:
(a) Prompt removal of all litter, trash, refuse and wastes.
(b) Provide such care as required to maintain all vegetation III a healthy and
aesthetically pleasing appearance.
(c) Maintain exterior lighting and mechanical facilities in good working order.
(d) Maintain parking areas, driveways and roads in good repair.
(e) Prompt repair of any exterior damage to any buildings and improvements.
10-6-20: SPRUCE STREET COMMERCIAL ESIGN STANDARDS
1, All storage and displays shall be enc sed within the principal building.
(A) Site Development Standards (in additi to minimum Performance Standards that may be
applicable):
2. Off-street parking areas should be de igned and located to minimize their impacts on
adjacent development, street and pedestrian rridors. Parking areas shall not be located within
10-5-19: IP
INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT
(A) Purpose. The IP Industrial Park District 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.
(B) Bulk and Density Standards.
1. Minimum Standards
Lot Area 40,000 square feet
Lot Width 150 feet
Front Yard Setback 50 feet
Side Yard Setback 25 feet
Rear Yard Setback 25 feet
Minimum side and rear yard abutting
any residential District
Off-street parking and access drives 10 feet
Public and semi-public buildings 35 feet
Recreational, entertainment, 50 feet
commercial and industrial uses
Height (max.) 45 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage of all 35%
structures
* All standards are minimum requirements unless noted
(C) Uses
1. Permitted
a. Light Manufacturing Facilities
b. Office Showroom
c. Office Warehouse
d. Research Facilities
e. Warehousing Facilities
2. Conditional
a. Child Day Care Facilities, Commercial
b. Manufacturing Facilities
c. Public Utility Buildings
3. Accessory
a. Parking Lots
4. Interim
a. Mineral Extraction
..'
1,1 J, "., C;,'
~. . t.~(r \I.,.,
S-~{ (,II
!'A' tI' / elf
,J "" t,... If
~\I
~ LA ~ /./l-:>
!Vlrf; V"'V
10-5-20: 1-1
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
(A) Purpose. The I-I Industrial District allows for the continuation of
existing industrial uses but not their expansion in the downtown area.
(B) Bulk and Density Standards.
. 1. Minimum Standards
Lot Area 20,000 square feet
Lot Width 75 feet
Front Yard Setback 30 feet
Side Yard Setback 15 feet
Rear Yard Setback 15 feet
Minimum side and rear yard abutting
any residential District
Off-street parking and access drives 10 feet
Public and semi-public buildings 35 feet
Recreational, entertainment, 50 feet
commercial and industrial uses
Height (max.) 45 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage of all 350/0
structures
* All standards are minimum requirements unless noted
(C) Uses
cc:
d.
1. Permitted
a. Auto Repair, Major
anu ac
Mini-Storage Units
Off) ces
e. Research Facilities
f. Supply Yards
g. Truck Terminal
h. Warehousing Facilities
1. Sexually Oriented Businesses
es
~
2. Conditional
a. Agriculture
b. Commercial Recreational Uses
c. Food Processing Facilities
d. Manufacturing Facilities
e. Public Utility Buildings
f. Recycling Facilities
g. Solar Energy Systems
h. Towers
3. Accessory
a. Parking Lots
4. Interim
a. Mineral Extraction
10-5-15: B-3
HEAVY BUSINESS DISTRICT
(A) Purpose. The B-3 Heavy Business District is a transitional district
designed to provide space for certain existing commercial and industrial uses
which are compatible together but are more intense and therefore incompatible
with uses identified in the B-1, B-2 and B-D districts.
(B) Bulk and Density Standards.
1. Minimum Standards
Lot Area -5,000 square feet
Lot Width 50 feet
Front Yard Setback o feet
Side Yard Setback 6 feet
Rear Yard Setback 6 feet
Minimum side and rear yard abutting any
residential District
Off-street parking and access drives 1 0 feet
Public and semi-public buildings 35 feet
Recreational, entertainment, commercial 50 feet
and industrial uses
Height (max.) 45 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage of all structures 350/0
* All standards are minimum requirements unless noted
(C) Uses
1. Permitted
a. Animal Clinics
b. Auto Repair, Minor
c. Auto Sales
d. Commercial Services
e. Convenience Store without gas
f. Mechanical Sales, Service and Repair
g. Offices
h. Public Buildings
1. Restaurants, Class I, Traditional
j, Retail Facilities, greater than 3000 sf
k. Supply Yards
1. Truck Terminals
m. Wholesale Businesses
n. Sexually Oriented Businesses - Accessory
2. Conditional
a. Auto Repair, Major
b. Car Washes
c. Convenience Store with gas
d. Group Day Care Center, Commercial
e. Home and Trailer Sales/Display
"J....MarutfafittlriBg F3Cilit~S
(""" g. Mini-storage U~
--.,-...h._-Dutdo.oLSales--
i. Petroleum Bulk Storage
j, Public Utility Buildings
k. Solar Energy Systems
L Nurseries
3. Accessory
a. Parking Lots
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.d.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Mayor, Council Members, Planning Commission,
City Administrator
J?fJL
FROM: '
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
SUBJECT:
Middle Creek East - 203rd Street and 208th Street Connections
DATE:
May 28, 2002
INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION
At the May 20, 2002 City Council meeting the Middle Creek East Preliminary Plat was tabled due to the need
to review the 203rd Street and 208th Street connections from the subdivision. At the meeting, it was
recommended that additional information concerning these issues be discussed at the Joint City
CouncillPlanning Commission Workshop,
Staffwill present the proposed 203rd Street roadway connection at the meeting along with issues raised by Mr.
McCarthy, Staffwill also discuss the 208th Street connection.
Staff will be meeting with Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Murphy before the workshop to determine their issues with
the roadway connections. These discussions will be forwarded at the workshop meeting.
ACTION REOUESTED
Review and discuss the roadway connection issues.
Respectfully submitted,
~d2.B
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651)463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Mayor, Council Members, Planning Commission Members, City Administrator
FROM:
Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Proposed Resolution Regarding Processing of Annexation Petitions
DATE:
May 28, 2002
INTRODUCTIONfDISCUSSION
After a series of preliminary meetings, discussions and letters (see attached) earlier this year, the City and
Empire Township agreed in April to "reactivate" the Empire/Farmington Joint Planning Board that met
periodically between 1996 and 1998. At its first meeting on April 29, 2002, the group decided to change its
name to "Empire/Farmington Planning Advisory Committee" [EF-P AC], in part because of a concern that the
phrase 'joint planning board" might imply that the group has special statutory decision-making authority
(which it clearly does not have), Minutes from the April 29th EF-PAC meeting have been attached,
The second EF-PAC meeting took place on May 16,2002. As a follow-up to the April 29th meeting, one of
the topics of discussion on May 16thst involved possible methods of improving communications and
interactions between the City and the Township, especially with regard to matters involving annexation. The
EF-PAC members discussed a draft of a proposed City Council resolution that I had prepared for their review,
which addressed certain procedural aspects of the "processing" of annexation petitions received by the City.
The EF-P AC members unanimously indicated their collective beliefthat the adoption of such a resolution
would effectively dispel much of the uncertainty that currently exists regarding how future annexation
petitions will be handled by the City, The EF-PAC members therefore felt that the proposed resolution could
significantly and immediately improve relationships between the City and adjacent townships.
Based (in part) upon the initial progress that the EF-PAC had made with regard to the procedural issues
referred to above, the Empire members of the EF-PAC recently spoke with their fellow Empire Planning
Commission and Town Board members regarding the City's earlier request that Empire Township allow the
City to serve as the Responsible Governmental Unit [RGU] for the planned Alternative Urban Area-Wide
Review [AUAR] for the Seed/Genstar Orderly Annexation Area, This discussion took place at ajoint meeting
of the Empire Planning Commission and the Empire Town Board on May 21st, Although minutes ofthat
meeting are not yet available, I have attached a copy of a May 24th letter that was faxed to me by Dean
Johnson [Empire's Planner], which indicates that the Empire Town Board has "agreed in concept" to the
City's request regarding the RGU designation. A few minor points still need to be clarified, but I am confident
that we will be able to do so in short order,
I have attached a copy of the proposed resolution that was referred to in jaragraphs # I and #2 above, along
with a "Statement of Principles" that the EF-PAC adopted at its May 16 meeting, The proposed resolution
has the support of City staff, Its adoption by the City Council would enhance the EF-PAC's ability to continue
to productively address issues of common interest to the City and Empire Township.
ACTION REOUESTED
Input regarding whether the Planning Commission and the City Council are in favor of adopting the proposed
"Resolution Regarding the Processing of Petitions for Annexation,"
;
../
,/
cc: Dean Johnson, Empire Planner
Community Development
Department
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington MN 55024
651-463-1860 (Fax 651-463-2591)
March 26, 2002
Ms, Karen Gerten
Empire Township Clerk/Treasurer
3385 19ih Street
Farmington MN 55024
RE: Empire Township/City of Farmington Joint Planning Board
Dear Ms. Gerten:
I appeared before the Empire Township Planning Commission at its meeting on March 4, 2002, at
which time I spoke with the Commission about the City of Farmington's interest in "reactivating"
the Empire/Farmington Joint Planning Board that met periodically between 1996 and 1998 (it
appears to me that the last meeting of the Board was held on April 30, 1998). I personally believe
that there are, and will continue to be, issues of common interest to Farmington and Empire
Township. Good communication is the key to effective cooperation, and it seems to me that a
rejuvenated Joint Planning Board would provide new and better opportunities for regular and
productive interactions between the City and the Township,
On January 7, 2002, the Farmington City Council appointed three members (me, Councilmember
Kevan Soderberg, and Planning Commission member Todd Larson) to represent Farmington on the
Joint Planning Board, if or when it begins to meet once again. When I left the March 4th meeting of
the Empire Township Planning Commission, I was told that the Commissioners' views on this
subject would be conveyed to the Town Board, and that the Town Board would discuss the topic at
one of its future meetings, Would you be willing to provide each of the Supervisors with a copy of
this letter at tonight's meeting, so that they are aware of the City's continuing interest in
determining whether the Town Board is willing to "reconvene" the Joint Planning Board by
appointing Township representatives to serve on it?
On a related note, I indicated to the Planning Commission on March 4th that the City intends to
utilize a comprehensive AUAR [Alternative Urban Areawide Review] process for the Seed/Genstar
property in order to make well-informed decisions with regard to issues involving infrastructure and
the environment. Typically, the expectation of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board [EQB]
is that a "Responsible Governmental Unit" [RGU] will be identified for the AUAR process. If the
Seed/Genstar property were currently within the boundaries of the City of Farmington, the City
would be the ROU. The terms of the applicable Orderly Annexation Agreement reflect a joint
expectation that the Seed/Oenstar property will eventually be entirely within the City boundaries,
but my understanding is that Empire Township has previously expressed a strong preference for
proceeding with the annexation in phases, rather than all at once. To accommodate this preference,
the City believes that it would be useful to be able to demonstrate to the EQB that the City and the
Township are in agreement with respect to who will be responsible for the work required by the
EQB (and the costs related to that work) in connection with the AUAR process. The City is
therefore interested in determining whether Empire Township is willing to indicate (by letter and/or
by a motion adopted at a Town Board meeting) its consent to the City of Farmington serving as the
RGU in the A UAR process involving the Seed/Genstar property, If this issue is not on the agenda
for tonight's Town Board meeting, could you ask the Supervisors if they would still be willing to
discuss the subject tonight?
I have attached, for reference, a copy of a letter dated February 14, 2002 from the Bonestroo
engineering firm regarding the topics that will be addressed in the AUAR process. If you would
like to have a City staff member and/or a member of the Bonestroo firm attend a future Town Board
meeting to answer any questions that you may have about either the AUAR process in general or
the ROU designation in particular, please let me know. I can be reached at 651-463-1860 (City
Hall) or 651-775-5962 (cell phone)
I look forward to hearing from you or from the Town Board regarding these subjects. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kevin Carroll
Community Development Director
cc: Ed Shukle, City Administrator
Dean Johnson, Resource Strategies Corp. (via fax to 952-513-9549)
Community Development
Department
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington MN 55024
651-463-1860 (Fax 651-463-2591)
April 2, 2002
Ms. Karen Gerten
Empire Township Clerk/Treasurer
3385 197th Street
Farmington MN 55024
RE: Empire Township/City of Farmington Joint Planning Board
Dear Ms. Gerten:
I had [separate] telephone conversations with Terry Holmes and Dean Johnson on March 27th
regarding the Empire Town Board meeting that occurred on March 26th. Each of them indicated
that the proposed reactivation of the Empire/Farmington Joint Planning Board [JPB] was briefly
discussed toward the end of the Board meeting, but that no formal action was taken, in part because
of the absence of Mr. Stelzel (who was attending a funeral in Wisconsin). One or both of them
indicated that the Joint Planning Board would probably be discussed again at tonight's meeting of
the Empire Planning Commission, and that some of the Town Board members would probably be in
attendance. As I have previously indicated to the Planning Commission (collectively) and to Mr.
Holmes and Mr. Johnson (individually), I will do my best to make myself available for any
meeting(s) at which this subject is addressed, if anyone believes that my presence would be useful.
Please call me at 651-463-1860 (City Hall) or 651-775-5962 (cell phone) if you would like me to
attend tonight's meeting, After 5:30 p.m" you can reach me at my home in Rosemount (651-423-
7070); I would be able to get to the Empire Town Hall within 10 minutes or so.
I have enclosed some additional copies of my letter to you dated February 26, 2002, which you
were kind enough to pass along to the members of the Town Board at the meeting that took place
that evening. Could you distribute the enclosed copies to the members of the Planning Commission
tonight?
If the Empire Town Board ultimately chooses to appoint representatives to a "new" Joint Planning
Board, that action will presumably not take place until the April 9th Empire Town Board meeting, at
the earliest. The three [already-appointed] Farmington JPB representatives would be available for
an initial evening meeting of the JPB on the following dates between April lOth and April 30th:
Monday, April 22Dd; Monday, April 29th; or Tuesday, April 30th. Ifa decision is made to proceed
with the reactivation of the JPB, please have someone contact me directly to finalize the scheduling
of the initial "organizational" meeting.
As always, please feel free to contact me at 651-463-1860 if you have any questions. I look
forward to hearing from you or from the Empire Planning Commission or Town Board regarding
this subject. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kevin Carroll
Community Development Director
cc: Ed Shukle, City Administrator
Dean Johnson, Resource Strategies Corp. (via fax to 952-513-9549)
EMPIREIFARMINGTON
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
April 29, 2002 Meeting Minutes
A meeting of representatives of the Town of Empire and the City of Farmington convened at
7:00 P.M., Monday, April 29, 2002, at Farmington City Hall. The purpose of the meeting was
to resurrect the former Joint Planning Board of the two communities. Representatives
appointed by each community and in attendance at the meeting included:
Kevan Soderberg, Farmington City Council Member
Todd Larson, Farmington Planning Commission Member
Kevin Carroll, Farmington Community Development Director
Ed Gerten, Empire Town Board Member
Greg Feely, Empire Planning Commission Member
Dean Johnson, Empire Planner
Member Carroll distributed an agenda which began with organizational matters. The group
agreed to refer to itself as the Empire/Farmington Planning Advisory Committee (PAC). The
Committee agreed to meet at least monthly for the short term and to re-evaluate meeting
frequency in several months. The PAC agreed to alternating meeting sites between the City
Hall and Town Hall. The host community for a meeting will prepare and disperse an agenda
and other materials. The host community will also facilitate the meeting, while the non-host
community will record meeting minutes. Notices for meetings will be emailed to members,
with a telephone reminder.
Member Gerten questioned what the purpose and expectations of the PAC may be, both
internally and externally. Member Carroll distributed a draft proposed Statement of Principles.
The group reviewed the ten principles and accepted them unanimously, with a few revisions. A
revised Statement of Principles will be presented at the next meeting for formal approval.
The PAC also agreed in principle that individual members would not disseminate information
about unresolved issues or other speculative matters discussed at meetings until minutes of the
meetings had been approved.
Members Gerten and Feely noted that the issue of orderly annexation agreements and
permanent common boundaries between the communities should be discussed. Member Carroll
noted that the City has a new informal policy to refer all annexation petitioners to the Township
for consultation prior to the City's acceptance of any petitions. He noted that the City is
preparing a formal policy for City Council review. The members agreed that these items would
be placed on the next agenda for discussion.
Member Johnson presented a summary of the Empire Smart Growth Study, entitled
Perpetuating the Hard Edge: An Urban-Rural Interface Smart Growth Pilot Study, The PAC
also briefly discussed common issues including TH 3 access management, east-west highway
corridors, and the Seed property AUAR. These items will be placed on the next agenda. Ed
Shukle, "new" City Administrator, will attend the next meeting and be introduced to the
Township members.
The next meeting will be held at the Town Hall at 8:00 P.M., Thursday, May 16, 2002. The
tentative date for the following meeting at the City Hall is at 8:00 P.M., Wednesday, June 12,
2002.
The meeting was adjourned at 11 :05 P.M.
Summarized by Dean Johnson, Empire Planner,
Page 2 of2
Community Development
Department
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington MN 55024
651-463-1860 (Fax 651-463-2591)
May 21, 2002
Ms. Karen Gerten
Empire Township Clerk/Treasurer
3385 197th Street
Farmington MN 55024
RE: Empire/Farmington Planning Advisory Committee ["EF -PAC"]
Dear Ms. Gerten:
This letter will be accompanied by copies of the following items:
1. The "Statement of Principles" that the EF-PAC adopted at its meeting on May 16th,
2, A proposed Farmington City Council resolution that will be considered at a joint
meeting of the Farmington Planning Commission and the Farmington City Council
on Tuesday, May 28, 2002, The EF-PAC discussed a preliminary draft of this
resolution at its meeting on May 16th; the revised draft that I have attached to this
letter reflects various modifications that EF-PAC members suggested at that meeting.
I would appreciate your cooperation in distributing copies of this letter and its attachments to the
members of the Empire Planning Commission and the Empire Town Board at their joint meeting
this evening,
Sincerely,
Kevin Carroll
Community Development Director
cc: Ed Shukle, City Administrator
Dean Johnson, Resource Strategies Corp.
EMPIRE/FARMINGTON PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
~TATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE~
Adopted May 16, 2002
1. We will focus on the future, not the past.
2. We recognize and accept the fact that we are advisors, and perhaps
facilitators, but not decision-makers.
3. We will jointly work toward a new way of planning that will avoid
the divisiveness of past planning efforts.
4. We will provide our respective jurisdictions with prompt, fair, and
accurate reports regarding what transpires at our meetings.
5. When we make a recommendation, we will put it in writing to
reduce the likelihood of confusion or misinterpretation.
6. We will actively seek out opportunities to work together for our
mutual benefit.
7. We accept the fact that we will not always agree, but we will not
let disagreements weaken our resolve to work together wherever
possible.
8. Although we were appointed to represent our respective
jurisdictions, we will also try to consider what is best for the
.
regIon.
9. We will make all decisions by majority vote, and record minority
positions, to ensure that all views are heard and all interests are
represented.
10. We will work out our differences within the group and not in
public forums.
""~~
()~r
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE PROCESSING OF
PETITIONS FOR ANNEXATION
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Farmington, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the _ day of
2002 at P.M.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Member
introduced and Member
seconded the following:
WHEREAS, the owners of certain parcels of property located within townships adjacent to the
City of Farmington have recently notified the City of their current or potential interest in having
their parcels annexed into the City of Farmington; and
WHEREAS, City staff members believe that some or all of the aforementioned property owners
may file Petitions for Annexation in the near future; and
WHEREAS, neither the Farmington City Code nor any administrative policy or practice currently
utilized by the City provides clear or specific direction regarding certain aspects of the processing of
petitions for annexation; and
WHEREAS, various township representatives have, in the past, indicated their belief that the
elected and appointed officials of affected townships have not been given reasonable advance notice
of proposed annexations, and that they have not been provided with adequate opportunities to
express or convey their opinions regarding such proposed annexations; and
WHEREAS, the City asserts that it has, in the past, fully complied with any and all applicable
statutory requirements by providing whatever manner of notice may have been required by law, and
by conducting whatever public hearing(s) may have been required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City is nevertheless interested in working with the adjacent townships to find
mutually acceptable ways of improving relationships and interactions between the City and said
townships, and the City believes that it can further that objective by adopting new procedures
regarding the processing of annexation petitions and by expressing its continuing interest in
effectively managing growth and preserving this region's agricultural heritage; and
WHEREAS, the City believes that the adoption of clear and specific guidelines regarding the
processing of petitions for annexation will benefit City staff members, the City Council, township
staff members, township elected officials, township property owners, and the public in general;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Farmington hereby adopts the
following procedures regarding the processing of petitions for annexation, and directs City staff to
act in conformance herewith:
1. When the owner of any parcel(s) of property located within a township adjacent to
the City of Farmington contacts the City to indicate a desire or intention to file a
Petition for Annexation regarding said parcel(s), the Planning Division shall direct
said owner to discuss the proposed annexation with the town board of said township
at one of its regularly scheduled meetings.
2. The Planning Division shall direct the owner of said parcel(s) to provide the
Planning Division with reasonable advance notice regarding the date, time and
location of any town board meeting(s) at which the proposed annexation shall be
discussed.
3, The Planning Division shall direct the owner of said parcel(s) to request that the
town board provide the City with written evidence of (a) the town board's
consideration of the proposed annexation and (b) the town board's opinion regarding
the proposed annexation, Said written evidence shall be in the form of either
approved minutes from the town board meeting at which the proposed annexation
was discussed m: a letter from a duly authorized representative of the town board.
4. The Planning Division shall not request that a Petition for Annexation be placed on
an agenda for consideration by the City Council until the Planning Division has
received the written evidence referred to in Paragraph #3 above, unless statutory
requirements regarding the timely processing of the Petition necessitate that the
Petition be considered by the City Council prior to the Planning Division's receipt of
said written evidence. A Petitioner's failure or refusal to comply with any of the
requirements specified in Paragraphs #1, #2 and #3 above shall be expressly
considered by the City Council in connection with its final decision regarding the
Petition in question.
5. The Planning Division shall provide the clerk of the affected township with
reasonable advance notice regarding the date, time and location of any City Council
meeting(s) at which a Petition for Annexation shall be considered, along with a map
indicating the location of the parcel(s) in question and the name(s) and addressees) of
the owner(s) of record of said parcel(s).
6. Prior to any City Council meeting at which a Petition for Annexation is scheduled to
be considered, the Planning Division shall provide the City Council with any written
evidence that the Planning Division has received regarding the opinion(s) of the
town board regarding the proposed annexation.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
day of , 2002.
Mayor
Attested to this _ day of
, 2002,
City Administrator
RESOURCE
STRATEGIES
CORPORATION
14001 RIDGEDALE DRIVE
SUITE 300
MINNETONKA, MN
55305
952/513-9548
FAX 952/513-9549
May 24, 2002
VIA EMAIL
Mr. Kevin Carroll
Community Development Director
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
RE: Planning Advisory Committee
Dear Kevin:
This is a follow-up to our earlier conversation, regarding action taken by the
Town Board on May 21. The meeting minutes have not been completed or
approved at this time, so the following is my interpretation of the issues
pertaining to the Planning Advisory Committee, The Board reviewed the draft
annexation policy you had forwarded to the Township and passed a motion in
support of the City's adoption of the resolution. The motion basically
indicated the Board's appreciation for the proposed policy, which will improve
communication and cooperation between the two communities.
We also discussed the issue of the City's proposed Seed Property AUAR and
the unresolved RGU status. Supervisor Gerten and Planning Commissioner
Feely informed the Board of the positive nature of discussions at the Planning
Advisory Committee meetings and the City members' commitment to involve
the Township in the AUAR process and suggested that the Board consider
assigning the RGU status for the AUAR to the City. The Board passed a
motion agreeing in concept to relinquishing any RGU authority to the City for
the AUAR, subject to clarification of the Township's involvement in the
process, the evaluation of multiple east-west corridors to TH 3, and the
possible evaluation of a north-south corridor on the west side of the railroad
(Diamond Path alignment).
I hope this is helpful for your joint meeting discussions next week. Thank you
for your genuine interest and assistance in this matter, Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
ISI
Dean R. Johnson
Empire Planner