The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8/12/08 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street "armington, MN 55024 . . AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2008 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) July 8, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes b) July 8, 2008 Workshop Minutes 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A Proud Past - A Promising Future Committed to Providing High Quality, Timely and Responsive Service to All Of Our Customers a) Amendment to CUP and site plan for a Bus and Truck Terminal - Lot 3, Block 1, Farmington Industrial Park 208th Street Addition Applicant: Patrick Regan POR-MKR Real Estate, LLC 101. 10th Street E., Suite 300 Hastings, MN 55033 b) Variance to allow the construction of a monument sign larger than 50 square feet in a residentially :zoned area Applicant: Independent School District 192 421 Walnut Street Farmington, MN 55024 4. DISCUSSION a) Terry Ellison variance request (detached garage) - 5620 Lower 182nd Street b) Draft text amendment for commercial/recreational use in IP district c) Draft amendment to Section 10-6-4(M) regarding parking in residential areas d) Draft cell tower code amendment 5. ADJOURN . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.463.7111 . Fax 651.463.2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner J~ SUBJECT: Amendment to CUP and site plan for a Bus and Truck Terminal- Lot 3, Block 1, Farmington Industrial Park 208th Street Addition FROM: DATE: August 12,2008 INTRODUCTION . On July 10,2007 the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit [CUP] and site plan that was submitted by Patrick Regan for the property legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, Farmington Industrial Park 208th Street Addition. Mr. Regan has now requested an amendment to his approved CUP and site plan in order to move the location of the property's access drive. Attached as Exhibit A is an email from Mr. Regan outlining his proposal. DISCUSSION As shown on the Exhibit B the access drive that was approved as part of the CUP and site plan extends south through the "handle" portion of the Mr. Regan's property and connects with 20Sth Street. In addition, the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved construction plans that depict the location of the access drive in the location mentioned above. It should be noted that the approved access drive on this property would be a temporary drive that would be required to be removed if and when Eastview Avenue is extended southerly from the Middle Creek East subdivision. The approved access is deemed temporary because it would create safety concerns as it would be too close to the intersection of 20gth Street and Eastview Avenue, when Eastview Avenue is extended south. . Mr. Regan has since discussed with staff an option of locating the majority of the access drive off his property and onto the property located directly east of his which is owned by Bernard Murphy and the City of Farmington's Economic Development Authority [EDA]. Mr. Regan's proposal (Exhibit C) is to upgrade an existing gravel drive which currently provides access to a single residential trailer that is owned by Mr. Murphy to a 24 foot wide paved road. This existing gravel drive extends north to the trailer from 208th Street through a portion of an EDA owned Outlot (Outlot C Farmington Industrial Park 2nd Addition). The existinl gravel drive then crosses onto Mr. Murphy's property approximately 260 feet north of the 208 Street ROW. As shown on Exhibit B, Outlot C is a 16.5 foot wide corridor that was preserved for a future trail extension from the Middle Creek subdivision south to CSAH 50. The gravel driveway that . . . currently exists was allowed to remain as it was a pre-existing condition prior to plat approval and constitutes minimal traffic use. The EDA is the owner of Outlot C, therefore, staff felt it prudent to have them review this request and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission on this proposed expanded encroachment. The EDA met on July 28, 2008 and reviewed the proposal by Mr. Regan and recommended to the Planning Commission approval of the use of the EDA owned outlot (Outlot C) as proposed by Mr. Regan. The EDA made that recommendation with a vote of 4-0. Staff has concerns with allowing the use of a City owned outlot for access to a site that has ample area for an on-site access. Staff would caution the Planning commission on this request as it could open up the potential for anyone to request to improve any City and/or EDA owned properties. I have attached a letter (Exhibit D) dated July 1, 2008 that was sent to Mr. Regan outlining staff's position on this issue. Additionally, I have attached as Exhibit E a letter from the Park and Recreation Director outlining his concerns with the proposal by Mr. Regan. As of the date of this memo staff had not received any documentation from Mr. Regan that an agreement had been reached with Mr. Murphy regarding the use of his property for the proposed driveway. Because of this factor, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission deny the request to amend the CUP and site plan. If it is determined by the Planning Commission that this request is unreasonable and formally denies the request, the applicant has the right to appeal the decision to the City Council. This would require a written letter by Mr. Regan within ten (10) days of the Board of Adjustment's (Planning Commission) decision. This appeal would then be forwarded on to the City Council for consideration. RECOMMENDATION Deny the request for a CUP and Site Plan amendment. Respectfully submitted, IW~- PI " Tony Wippler, , ssistant City Planner Cc: Patrick Regan, POR-MKR ex. A Tony Wippler am: Sent: To: Patrick Regan [poregan14@hotmail.com] Monday, July 21, 20086:21 PM Lee Smick; Dave Sanocki; Kevin Schorzman; Peter Herlofsky; Tony Wippler; Grant Jacobson; Rich Hocking; Nathan Denny Subject: POR-MKR Real Estate/Bernard Murphy Shared Driveway Dear Lee, et al: As requested by Peter Herlofsky last week when we met on site of our new 208th Street Industrial Park property, I am writing to make a formal request to have the City Planning Commission and City Council act to allow us to relocate our driveway on this site to a location which has been agreed to by me and Mr. Murphy via Temporary Easement Agreement. This is a change from the site plan originally approved for my property, but is a change we publicly discussed and anticipated at the time of site plan approval in late 2007. The reason for this revision is to establish one shared, upgraded, and paved driveway in essentially the same location as is now used by Mr. Murphy along the the border of our two properties. His current gravel driveway is located over the City outlot within which we have recently installed utilities to serve our site. These utilities were increased in size at our expense and under the direction of City Engineering Staff so that they would be able to serve future development in the area. Mr. Murphy and I have since come to an agreement on a shared, paved, 24 foot wide driveway along our property lines and over the 16.5 foot wide City outlot. This outlot was acquired by the City from Mr. Murphy a few years ago as part of the DR Horton development to the North of our properties. This outlot and .d driveway design are both in line with what is anticipated to be the future extension of Eastview Avenue to the south s Middle Creek and to it's eventual connection with 208th Street. Since the final road easements are not yet in place, Mr. Murphy and I have agreed to a Temporary Easement, which allows the City to retain all it's current and future rights to the outlot. In the future, along with any extension of Eastview Avenue south to 208th Street, my driveway as currently designed and approved, would be rendered unnecessary and superfluous. We always planned for a direct driveway entrance off of an extended Eastview Avenue once it is constructed. These are some assumptions which caused us to trade land on 210th Street and Hwy 3 with the City for this Industrial Park lot. We understand the risk we took since the necessary road easements for Eastview Ave were not in place when we closed on that trade. Nor was there ample opportunity or reason to make an agreement with Mr. Murphy at that time. We have since gone to great time and expense and have had many cordial, productive meetings with Mr. Murphy which have resulted in our agreement. Our agreement basically improves his driveway and the neighborhood at my expense. It eliminates an existing gravel driveway in the area. In the interim, we have agreed with City Staff and Mr. Murphy to share the gravel driveway, which we have already improved significantly, until the City can take formal action on this request for a site plan revision. Our new building and parking lots are nearing final completion. We think they'll look just great. We have met personally with our neighbors at the Daycare to discuss our landscape plans and screening of our parking lots. Our tree plantings far exceed what was originally required and approved. I'm most happy to report to you that since we received approval for this project, which was largely speculative at the t__ Marschall Line, Inc. has expanded to the point ~ we will now fully occupy this property in August. We have secured another school bus contract for an adjacent School Dblrict which will result in 100 new jobs being brought into the Farmington Industrial Park. We would now ask that the City simply agree to this minor site plan revision, which will allow us to save on the unneeded expense of building a long blacktop driveway across our 7/22/2008 property which not only restricts the maximum the use of our site, but will also be useless upon the future extension of Eastview Avenue. _ill also provide copies of engineer's drawings and the Temporary Easement Agreement to the City for consideration prior to your meetings in August. Thank you for your consideration. Pat Regan POR-MKR Real Estate, LLC . . 7/22/2008 . . o B:i i~ . ~ o,;~~ ~ ~?2e ;' . 8 0 ;:~ i ~ g ~ ~ 002 ." ~~~i~~ ~o E 0 ;~~? B [: ~~o ; s 0 0" 0 ~ ~nnnnd i I:; n i iaK ~~ ~~ ~q~ ~~ ~ ;~~ ~ n ~~ ;~ ~~ ;~ ~~ ~e ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ u: :HPHn~ ~ ~a~ ~ ~ ;~ ,r~ ~: ~: ;: 7; :~ i. ~~: ~ ; :: l(~; ~<( !ll~ 0:( P: .o:~ ~~ ...,foe ~ ~ .;" ~~~ oQ ~~ t::J: l(~ g~ u~ ~8~ Cl. 0 lt~ ~ ~~ ~ _ ~~ ~" ~~ ~~ :0: ~ ~ ~, . III :: IL.Gl 02 ~~:2 :; 0 011 -' ..., ..., 5~ :d : ; g~ ...... ..; ~ I I i o 5 . o , ~ '" w ... ~ W IL '" Z~e Lo/tO/La ........-.. """""\.1-' :J"Ir"'- B~'J I 3S~Hd ..0," ,~'~;;,;.';::,,';~~',:,~~...-m '", ,wss '" 'O"ONllJ",' - N~1d 3"" 'ONI '"N3"d013A30 "00 "''' "33'"5 "BOt N0I1\1:J013~ ,)N101111'i3 O~dd't '<!!lOd 1.:::l3rO<!!l~')\Ilj01S ~~~-~Od 03S0dO<!!ld ~ ~~t:..::.~ / / /~ . ~ ~ I :! / .c 0 ~ u / ~: 8 ~ ~ ~ / 8~: ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~~ ~ !! ~ / ~c ~:~.:~ / ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ / ;:: ~ 0 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ // ! ,II! 11.:1 1.1: I il! i~ i Jill ,I' ~ , . i"1 "''l'''; I "" ~ / . ~: / ~- / , . . : ! ~ ~ ~ : : 5 . . o ~ ~ <II <I{ <II It: o . . ~ ~ ~ p D~~8: ~s~~~ ~ J ' ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ; ~ I- Z ... W >l ~~~i~ [ ~ H ~ I <( . ~ uJ oJ) <t I D- \ ~, I U 1-. uJ ~ " ~ oJ). ~ ~ d} ~ - l " l z o ;:: <t > uJ ..J uJ I I- ::J o oJ) z o ;:: <t > ~ 9 uJ ~ r ~ ~ ~ uJ ~ ~ J ~v-J~' r [ , I ' \~^.1 ' {( , d1J1)(JL-~1 . J i.V'r;. ~, f1 /1 t'fl, 'lft ! L/ vO Ji/' / Ii fJ"\, t . c 1, /t~ ^, \l~ . ~, I I " /Iv u'./'v/' //JIi; '. (' 0 k '7' ~ a. J-t'AI\ ..fl'-J\ I ,"", ) ~ v (I If/lit, 1 U /'lts ; 7J . 70 FT. V.1DE TEMPORARY EASEMENT FOR CaNST. PURPOSES PRIVA1E EASEMENT REQL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION CORE-DRill EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE AT BENCH ELEVATION ,FIELD VERIFY) AND INSTAll 5.5 RISER AND 178 LF. OF 6' SANITARY 1. SEWER SERVICE @ 1.0% SLOPE. RISER INV. = 897.62 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF 12" 1C FROM NNG PIPELINE TO PROPOSED 16' 11 WATER MAIN. PROPOSED 16" WATER MAIN SHALL BE ROUTED BELOW THE EXISTING 1: NNG PIPELINE. INSTALL 16'x 16' TEE AND INSTAll 255 LF. OF 16' DJ.P. WATERMAIN, AND 16' GV. RELOCATE HYDRANT AND WATER VALVE IF NECESSARY. .~ ,~. +' CONCRETE CURS & GUTTER .\-TYP.) o.,~:1" ELEV.=915.28 ... . .-.-'" ___-' c...rr'1 (pVfZ-6rr- - Mr-Ue.PH-7 p(2.o~~ i<~ /4-iv PP-.O jOeF-r:J ~X,C 1 ';LL;1/0Y (& v (' ---.l 2 3. 4. 1: 1. 1 ~ 11 l' 11 1! . . . Ey,D City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.463.7111 . Fax 651.463.2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us July 1, 2008 Mr. Pat Regan POR-MKR Real Estate LLC 101 10th St E Suite 300 Hastings, MN 55033 RE: POR-MKR Property (Driveway Access) Dear Mr. Regan: Thank you for meeting with staff on June 30, 2008 to discuss your driveway proposal for the POR-MKR property. Staff reviewed the proposal to utilize and upgrade Mr. Murphy's existing driveway on top o{the City's 16.5-foot wide outlot. Staff initially stated that if you were to obtain an additional 54-foot wide easement to the east of your property from Mr. Murphy that staff would be amenable to approving the use of Mr. Murphy's existing private driveway and the City's outlot as access to your POK-MKR property. Another option that staff would be amenable to would be to obtain an additional 24-foot wide right of way to the east from Mr. Murphy and construct a road to the north that would cross the City's outlot at a 900 angle to limit the encroachment of the outlot to one location. If the above options are not achievable, staff needs you to comply with the approved site plan dated July 10, 2007 (Ex. A) and approved construction plans. As you know, once Eastview Avenue is constructed, your primary access will be from Eastview, and the access shown on the site plan will need to be removed, therefore staff will not require you to curb the driveway beyond the property line. However, the commercial concrete driveway apron (City Plate STR- 15) will be required as approved on 20Sth Street. . If you have any questions concerning this information, please do not hesitate to call me at 651 463-1820. . . . Sincerely, ~1JZ4- Lee Smick, AICP City Planner cc: APPRO Development, Inc. Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator Kevin Schorzman, City Engineer Joel Jamnik, City Attorney File fA', E . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.463.7111 . Fax 651.463.2591 www:ci.fannington.mn.us TO: FROM: EDA Members Tina Hansmeier, Economic Development Specialist SUBJECT: Request to Encroach into EDA owned Outlot with an Access Drive DATE: July 28, 2008 INTRODUCTION On July 10, 2007 the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use PermitECUP] and site plan that was submitted by Patrick Regan for the property legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, Farmington Industrial Park 208th Street Addition. Mr. Regan has now requested an amendment to his approved CUP and site plan in order to move the location of the property's access drive. . DISCUSSION As shown on the attached site plan (Exhibit A) the access drive that was approved as part of the CUP and site plan extends south through the "handle" portion of the Mr. Regan's property and connects with 208th Street. In addition, the Engineering Department has reviewed and approved construction plans that depict the location of the access drive in the location previously mentioned. It should be noted that the approved access drive on this property would be a temporary drive that would be required to be removed if and when Eastview Avenue is extended southerly from the Middle Creek East subdivision, along the eastern border of Mr. Regan's property. . Mr. Regan has since discussed with staff an option of locating the majority of the access drive off his property and onto the property located directly east of his which is owned by Bernard Murphy and the City of Farmington Economic Development Authority [EDA]. Mr. Regan's proposal (Exhibit B) is to upgrade an existing gravel drive which currently provides access to a residential trailer that is owned by Mr. Murphy to a 24 foot wide paved drive. This existing gravel drive is located in a portion of an EDA owned Outlot (Outlot C Farmington Industrial Park 2nd Addition). As shown on Exhibit B, Outlot C is a 16.5 foot wide corridor that was preserved for a future trail extension (Please see attached memo from Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director) from the Middle Creek subdivision south to CSAH 50. The gravel driveway that currently exists was allowed to remain as it was a pre-existing condition prior to plat approval with minimal traffic use. This information is being brought before you because the EDA is the owner of the Outlot where Mr. Regan is requesting to improve his driveway. Staff's position would be to . deny the request as it would set a precedent that could open up the potential for anyone to request to improve any City and/or EDA owned properties. ACTION REQUESTED \ Staff would like the EDA to provide direction to the Planning Commision on this item as the owner of a potentially impacted property. The CUP Amendment will be going to the August 12th Planning Commission meeting Respectfully submitted, i Oe? r,/uer; Q \ r ___ """ --- r 1/ ~ \~ l 1/ "l{-iJ'W)"XVG~ " ) Tina Hansmeier, Economic Development Specialist Cc: Peter Herlofsky Jr., City Administrator Joel Jamnik, City Attorney Lee Mann, Consultant Bruce Mans, Consultant . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.463.7111 . Fax 651.463.2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lee Smick, AICP \J~ City Planner '(/) SUBJECT: Variance to the size of a Monument Sign in the R-1 Zoning District DATE: August 12,2008 INTRODUCTION . The applicant, ISD #192, is seeking a variance (Exhibit A) from Section 10-6-3 (B) subdivision 2c of the City Code permitting one monument sign per street frontage in the R -1 zone not to exceed 50 square feet in sign area and 10 feet in height. The variance is to allow a monument sign at 112 square feet in sign area (28 feet long x 4 feet tall) as shown on Exhibit B. The monument sign meets the height requirement of 10 feet tall by measuring at 6' 2" tall (Ex. B) and 10 feet from the property line by locating the proposed sign 50 feet from the property line (Ex. C & D). The District's architect has also included their point of view for the variance approval (Ex. E). DISCUSSION Section 10-6-3 (B) sub. 2c defines the permitted nonresidential use monument sign as follows: Permitted Nonresidential Uses: For permitted nonresidential uses, one freestanding monument sign is allowed per street frontage if an access drive is present. Each sign shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet in sign area and ten feet (10') in height. Signs shall be located at least ten feet (10') from property lines and in no case shall be permitted within the thirty foot (30') triangle of visibility at street intersections. Wall signs shall not exceed twelve percent (12%) of the building facade or three hundred (300) square feet, whichever is less. . Section 10-2-1 of the zoning code defines sign area as follows: That area measured within the perimeter lines of the sign which bears the advertisement; or in the case of messages, figures, or symbols, including those attached directly to any part of a building. 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 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 (2) identical sign faces are readable from anyone point, both shall be computed. When two (2) 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 (2) sign faces are placed does not exceed forty five degrees (450). ISD #192 is requesting a variance of 62 square feet from the required 50 square foot maximum in order to install a 112 square foot sign to be seen from a 900 foot distance along Flagstaff Avenue. The need for the larger sign face is to allow drivers sufficient time to access the site or safely read the display. Additionally, the variance approval is unique because this is one of the largest single parcels in the R-l zone at 115.01 acres in size. The City Code provides the following criteria that must be met for a variance to be approved: 1. Because the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the regulations of this Title would cause undue hardship. Economic consideration alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this Title. Because of the size of the property at 115.01 acres and the topography of the land, any smaller sign would not be safely seen from Flagstaff Avenue. 2. 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. This is one of the largest single parcels in the R-1 zone at 115.01 acres in size making it unique from any other parcel in this zoning classification. Additionally, the topography on Flagstqff Avenue and the property make visibility of a 50 square foot sign a hardship. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Title and has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the parcel of land. The hardship of visibility was not created by the applicant. 4. The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the parcel of land is located or substantially diminish property values. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to other property in the vicinity. . . . 5. 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 variance would not create any of the above-mentioned adverse effects. 6. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. In order to assist with the visibility of the monument sign, the requested 62 square foot variance is the minimum action required in order to eliminate the hardship. ACTION REOUESTED Approve the variance of 62 square feet to allow the monument sign on the new Farmington High School site on Flagstaff Avenue ;;;~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner CC: ISD #192 School District ~A . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us . VARIANCE APPLICATION Applicant: ~~ ~~~ \~I\-.relephone: 42h ~~ . ~ Fax: ~ ~. ~lb Address: J1J ~~ur ,~ , ~lN~ ~ ~"Oll-t Street City State Zip Code Owner:{~~~~V(~l~~elephone:~ffio~-t7()DO Fax: ~_~~. &:50(6 Address: +1-l W~~ ~6\:1f (f~~ltJ.(=r~N ~\'l "5?C'2.. ~ Street City State Zip Code PremisesInvolved:N6\N ~"'.(N~~ ~l€t\~ 1J,(Qt?'7 ~ t''\l6> Address! Legal Description (lot, block, plat name, section, township, range) f\-l Current Land Use . €Copies of Site Plan €AbstractlResidential List (adjoining property owners only) €Torrens (Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title Required) Date Signature of Applicant Date . . . @ , ~ Z6L aSI - S100H~S ~118nd NOl.8NIV\I~\f~ G# "8>1d 018 lOOH8S H81H NO.L8NIV\I~V::l 81/\l1.301'v1:J3N38 V> '" i7i z 0:: z oi '" '" ~ ~ '" V> Z 0 0:: B 0 z 0 0 < Vi ~ ~ < ~ CD ~ => 0 0 < U '" '" CD '" ::l e en >-Ll < '" :::> i7i .,.; ~ < Z ~~ z 0 >-Ll Oz ~ l? CD< :> ",c. ~~ 0 ~ <r:: ~ "'0 '" ~ "'z '" ~ 0"'" g ~ Zo <z ~ Z ~ za Coo '" Vi< '" Cf) 0 <r:: .....:J ~ L!") L!") '-D 0 N .ZIL 11-,9 lS~J3~d a31S~18 aN~S .OL-,. <0 ~ ~~ o "'u CDc. a,.. CD "'z c.z <0 i!'Ou V> '" ~ ::l'" ~~ u~~ 1-0 8f~ ~: ~~~~ 11:~ "'<w < ~ c- o 0... O:::W--I <(W<( 000::: ro. <.:> 0::: -.q- l=:! 0::: wlzW o -~ - ~ <( w'-...o WVl~lL. 0:::<( UJ oooz - W<( ~G9fl:: o:::<(Vl ~--I--I Ocoro w 0 --Iz W _ 'c I ~ '" I to ",V> 8~ ~'j <.... f;!'" Iji~ --,c. '" "'::i b3 -< V> "'''' 8 I:! ~'j <>- u::l ~z a: --' ",::i 3 <0< .D-,L .OL .8 .9 .OL .OL-,. .0-,' .t-,z ~g ~8 E:~ ~~ ~cc ~Q:: .......... N old l.&J15 ~CC2o..g:\..\... ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ :I: U V> ----{i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .l-,9 .z/l 6-,t L'O~\f .0-,\ .0 ,L -..-......--......-.....,.....e $JO\JQw\ !iujuu~ld 6IlY8a\i!6u3 a1~JIP.l\f dnoJ!) }I10 ~ ex. J.P.OJ4,sd - W06 \:0( eOOl '\l lor 6'P'LO-0 LO-ZZ\J~\6.pv \0 1-9. LtO-Ot\SD3f'O~d\ :~ . . .:"4 ',Ii, : 4It .. . ." .' ",J .. ., ..t; %i#. .. ... . jj, .. ... 1Qri..,....~- . , 4 .: $ t ~\ 4i ~ ~ '# .. . .'. .. . .~ .It, .11 ~ ~ . ~ ,t ~ .t ~ f' ( . >>t, .M' ,~, J' ill ;-. .. . ~it .;ft. . .' . . . . - -~.., _..,...,..,,==~ G6~ 081- SlOOH8S 811Snd NOINIL^J}:fV'.:I '::'~ ~ ....';i,~w 13Sa31VaIlOSNOJ~#'!)){daI8l00H::)S H81H N018NIl^J~V::l ex. ~ ~&Illl'Uald~1OY39J~ dnoJQ ~Ila ~ . ~I ;1 , ~~ ~ <" ~~ .~ w~Q~~ .~~~w ~~~~~ ~'~~~ ~al~~. ~~~~~~ ,if il); Q:~~.~ ti~' ~~ ~~I~ - '" I~e ~~I I ~t :~ eo : ~tt I" I I I ~~ {r + .OD+S. " \. ::/7 :::::}~, >~~- ._QO_+9L., .0 ji ~:! ~] ~ 0 '0> n._ < < o. ~I:H ~E. ~:]! ~ ~ o . < ~o mil s~~=~ 1~~t;8 e'T II) 0( ii III:;; ~ ~ '0 U.COItl........ "- x -; ~1 .:i: ~i ~5 g" ~: :I." EE i! @ i . i ; _~ I iu~,.W"i @l~ !iiJ II!w ill (~ ~ , ! ~ I i ii~,~ · i ! I , ~il~, i H" ~,., n @DBmBO~D h. r- ill In ill I -!I liill In ! l!u' ..WI' i In f"L i b dil" z .ai .. ,1 (1 J i!, j iti ! \ ~ I ) I !.::.... I I~~ I :~~ I !i[ : l~~....._-j ~~~ f ~~~ l I ~~~ Pffi!< j\ '.. j b!;(~ Zw. ~~~ <:1 , ~~ ; G~ I 5!3 I i" t ~~ I / ~ i i I \ . ~. A -<: .. r. 01)' ... .~ "-l }' ". ;,r. {;. f" ,,4 ,. ",. ~. , ...'. ".., *,~".- .. . l- . ,'., "'::;,,',,:It '<;~. . .,,':'. ,'" .... i ".., >J ". "I)'. ....,~.. '''l~; '", fl;>... '~ ~. .,. .,.., ,-' '.,., ,..",,:. .iIfiJ'." '.";~rl~..; l .';.. " .' 4> . '. . . @ . . . :pSleo 0) - - - - (:6~ OSI- SlOOH8S 81l8nd NO.l8NI!^1Cl'i7'~ l.# "8)1d 018 lOOH:JS H81H NO.l8NIL^JC:lV=l } JJ~~ ~ ~~ "'~ !ei' V\ : q l: ~ ~ 1~ o ~ {J. ~ 1) ~i ffi i l'l .()-.O~ ~......,,'~..,....---...._-......~ &JOU9lUl flUluullld 5U!J.aQu!6u3 aJf'l~~!4:).l'v' ' dnOJ9 ~1l0 Gj.P 1 v> ~ 10 1: :::> ~ ~ C) ~ i -.5 j z .u\ , of " 4' 11{ ." <t " .. ,j ........ ". . "" '. . ,"' ",.'. .!f.. 'U ~ t';~. . /t ..,. .. .'. '*":llt .^'. .. . ~i" '.' t. ,,4" ,;V..,;~ . -tt. ... ,_~ ".t.. ~" ,(~ 1I, r . .';~t ~ '.r,.." C;.,..;, ,.. . . I ."7~ .' .. . ..~. ,;,:~,,!' ~. " ..., .;,.. ~",. . .:';-. ...', ....... ,.. . ~, .. " . - .... ~:~ 'j,J l' <:, .. . . l6~ 081- SlOOH88 81lSnd N01.8NWJ~\I':l l-# "8>ld GI8 lOOH8S H81H N018NIV\I~'v'::1 . -----.,.,_.......0lI0I(!> O(-9t~f{H)9 !fx. -' 0 en- -' 0::: ~ ~i::~Po::: Z I- oci8tJ: <( wwz50wO -' I-~ Zz-,w 0.. CDIC2-COo..s: <(-<(0::: ~I- t)o::i::o ~w I-:::':::en~ W en 0::: Z " I- CD~~<(~ZO UW 0D:Q8 Ci5 Ci5wWO<(CD~ wU W ><( o..uenl- CDuuzwCi5S: . <(L!. Ou::W<( I Z<(::;<(O:::ZI-CD I::l W-enU I- (3L!.CO!z-,oW~ O~ enuWO Z -,W=>w<(en:::':::O OWI-' 0 -Io..OZo:::S::!:::::! I-en ~ful-~ 0 ffil-~=>Qwl-=> @o:::~ W 2<(I-I-I=WCO enWW O:::Ouj<( I- 002en(3 IW ol=w o..l-wen 0 ~O::WWO'::lI-I WenUw Z ZL!.II<( 0::1- o..Wo.. >o::Z> W =>01-I-z80~ ~~i:: <(O~- 0:: II- ~ OWo::W<(I-L!.I o..enZ WCi5l-o <( :Z~W6.-:..ZS!::: enWCD S:5rDw en -'=>>COO=> s: -I- 0 -'00<(- 00.. XI-en en 0 wS::! 0:: <( W w~enen o .0 W-I-> <( S::ZCO~o..Z(3!z CClenl- ><(<(0:: 0 en 0:: 0:: o::O-W CO ci~::l<(i::a::<(W enwW ol-[en W Zo..-~zwen> WI-lL. o::WOO 0::: (3~S:9CDI<(~ O::I-W 0 o..Wo:: w(9o::Z U ='WenWCi51-0I 2-'~ 1-<(0..<( en =>I-O:::o..~S:WI- 28:;E WZo..en W col-~r::I-Oeno:: 2(9<(W 0::: 6~ti:iz~u:J~0 Ol-=> i:i:enoz => <(Z- g:<i!~:S I- O~-'(9WCClCOlL. I-=>O eno~ =>~ I=>WenWo-'O:: ZZenen~ lL.c.O uZen~I,-,~ W2en <(Q~ffi~ oU en~~I5~~z IZW Zo I--I 2t)O:::Wg: Z=>I-I-I-:::.:::OW Zo..l- <(Z -1 <(-' =>WUo::U Q3~ ~~~ffir:: 0<( :2<(00u<(<(W W"<t 0 wt;zenZCOO(9 !:::ZO:: 1-(3lL.IZ en . N ~-,qS:(9 ON 0 I<((3~~I-CO(Jj 0-<( o..c.: r- O~s: wo..w- I 0:: I-U:::::!I-I-lli~en lL.Zor-en 0,,-: . U <( ;s::gffi~rD~i!:~ <(30 ~[U5@~ 0::0 a. ~<(I- o..u en I <.9 I 0 W W I- 0 <(W~ 0 wz!::: Z Iw W~ rDow o:::!:::o I-W I(9en 0 5iCOWIw :2zl= W oen<( en I- 0:: I--W I=-,IDI-I- -' -' L!.<(O <(<( oenI I- -' =><(- 0 -'-'~W Z _2 CO I-zO:: U~O enwr- <.9 <(~~Oc[ <( <(2 w~ en -,Ien Owco ttl08 0:2r- Ww o::~ u..i 20=> S:o -' <(r-en Z I 0:: 1-lL. 0 I- <(en go::." lL. ~-' W=>o:: COZ <( OZW '-Z W WWW I--'W OW er ZOU Z I-weno(.) en ~Q(9 -,L!.CO 0::0> Z='lL. 1-> W <(I-U lL.I<(WZ <(1-- =>ZW WW 0::: W>- o..en<( W~g: <(enC2 0<(0:: I- WX<( OI-WenW I<( i::~6 -,-' <( I-WO <( -'WW~I I-s: IO>- =>0::1- 20 . coO ~ Ci51-r- LL ~ti:ii!:0S: w=>- 1-0..1- Ow>- ~~6 <(0 (9 Ow CDOen O::enz ena..-, OI w.-;w ~a::2[tt 1-> OlL.I a.. _ Z IX~ S Z- <(<(u OenCD LOen(9 enuien ZU 0 8::~~~~ -0:: zl-U:: lL.W- <(en I-Wl- >-0 wUen ~:2:E wow -' u...1-1- ill (9enL!. I-~I wO -u..i Z <((.) lL. <(en ~~ eno~ (.)(.)<( z ~<( -'w =>1- Owz CDW~en~ Z<(I ~(9t;:: CO-' COw WIW wI I-ZI- WII- (9Z0 ~I-O <(=> Zo:: -,I-S::! ZO:::ZI--' >1- Z<(W er5~ Ci5QI- :20 <(~ <((9u... N j::<(6~lL. -Z W(90 Wenl- o::ZO ~~ (.)Zu... C) CO ~~Q.O~ g;o o::Z=> ~OZ II-Z OWZ :20 en-=> ..- ZW W--, <(en<( I-OW UUW ~U . I(.) WO", 0 =>Zen~I -> lL.OU W-' u...OU Z<(I- (9 en (9 !::I- I<(en I- 0 owen I- <(- lL.='Z enIQ. 0lL.<( --'en O>-Z S:en I-~O:: U N W:2~~O:r: :2f2 o=>- I-I-W <(Wd ZO<( 0::<(0 2WW WCOI- enl-!:: (9<(W a..c[=, (9<( 0::: N O::WUUZa.. w<( 2:crS@ Wo:::<( Ci5~W z(.) Oco2: N ~6<(U~2 I-, w<(en ~:5ui enen=> _w 0::-,0:: I- "'10::0::; en LO 1--, lL.Zenuj =>ZW I-I-I ZO~ 0..0:: u...-,O ..2:- ~~ lL.QWI- @oi!: Woen Z21- WQ. 8~~ en CJ)o..~<(o::LO oenOZ -,en=> Wo!;;: (9-'I Wo :::l ;:::~ Z~~ -'(.) O::Oz COOlL. . Ci5='1- :::.:::z 0 -:l -'-'OW 3ffz I-en- uWuiQZI- -'- <(WZ2 Sl~o <(:;!O~ zS:z ~<( C20::S: _lL. S:o>-w wO -1 i:i:!:::I-!:::=>- s:lL. 5~Q3 ~<(o ZoCD 000 W~ W>-' 0 Z I-en-ow~ W~ I-Uw Ow (.)1- OwCi5 j::O::w o::u rDi:i:<i!;..: ~-,enos:-' I-o..eno UOI- -'enZ<( :2r-z <(<(-' <(- 0 0 >1- <(o~o <i!oWer zffi o-'W<( .0 eren i:i:-'O 0<(0 20=> (90.-<( I -,<(Iozw enZ2Z I-ZZ wo..=>o.. wZ- o::CClO enwg-' en OZI-~Ow o=> W<(CClO en (9 en IOOO I-~I- ol-w Qw <(ICJ)o.. U en owen j::o.. enCCl Ol-=>- o en;:: I-O::wo:: <(=>~ lL.ZI en I- s:i2B en IIen uen en 0:: =>en en 0 l-o..ff8:: ~-'o:: zWU w:E Z (.)S:~u..iw<( W<( -'0 en=> -'I-Z ->en IS: ZuOw (.)-' OZ- <(wO<( ::2='0 WWen I- m enu..i(.)~~~ (.)=> (.)0..-0:: owO IIwO 3enlL. . 1-0 Q:Efl:I Z <((9 ~-,II- I20.. I-I-enw S::!~~ Zz ens:wl- ::> ~CD6lL.0<( <(I-en -,O::ZCCl I-W Zz 'Z u=>en 020-' w- >IW 0<( w:2-'o ill en W;2I-~(')I en 0:: Qoeno enz:E z(9Q.<( Cit::~g: 0::1-> eno . 0 ~uenl-IO <(0 eni=~U 1-01- <(-0(.) ~'::l5i:: ~ciw -'w IO!E~ Z ill w<(r-ent;;1- Wz Z::2 I-ena:::en ::fa::: ::0::80:: t9 0..Q.~~0@ I<( !:!2u<(w ~<(tt enr-o..w ~2ffiz uw>- ffi~ ou...w>- ill ::2WO:r: O::ZWCCl --'I- 1-", -,-,- ww-,-, 0... <( WWO-,N :::>0:: CClO::CClI- ZlL.<( ~WIO o=>enQ CClOZ I- - NUWtJ: ill Z O(9o..u...W~ 00 =>owz wOr- Z21-1- o::~u!;;: =>o::=> <(0:: Ci5~CCl<( ~<(a:::::2O::o.. "'I- ~;;ia::::E I- o..<(W =>~II- 0.::2::;> 0..1-::2 ::2<( 0 t9 w0:::>0~0 ww(9 wZ::2 w~ wl--'W w- _(901- 0::: wo!::.....! W=>CClW I5Q='o:: Z I-OO:::::> a::: I!:!2 ~Ci5~~ <I: 00::<( I-':::>-' IOO I 0:: en 1-(/)lL. lL.lL. 0.. 1-> a. ~<(U: S::2S:~ I-<(o..w I-UU I- a.. I-OS:O . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.463.7111 . Fax 651.463.2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lee Smick, AICP I 1 V City Planner V' 6(,J SUBJECT: Terry Ellison variance request (detached garage) - 5620 Lower 182nd Street DATE: August 12, 2008 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION Mr. Terry Ellison, 5620 Lower 182nd Street, would like to discuss a potential variance opportunity with the Planning Commission concerning his property which consists of 25,661 square-feet in area. The width of the lot along Lower 182nd Street is 140 feet and the width along Euclid Avenue is 146 feet (Ex. A). He would like to retain a 616 square-foot shed that currently exists on his property and also construct a 960 square-foot shed in order to store his classic car collection. Section 10-5-6 (B) 2 of the Zoning Code states that one accessory structure of a maximum of 1,000 square feet and one accessory structure of a maximum of 120 square feet is allowed in the R-1 zoning district. In Mr. Ellison's case, he would be asking for a variance from this code section because he wants to retain the existing structure at 616 square feet and build a new structure at 960 square feet. The existing structure is constructed of 3 rooms of which the furthest building to the west is approximately 120 square feet (Ex. B). Staff would recommend against this variance since the existing structure could be removed or reduced to 120 square feet and the new structure could be built to 1,000 square feet, eliminating the need to apply for a variance. Please see the attached information from Mr. Ellison (Ex. C). ACTION REOUESTED Discuss the possibility of a variance for this property. Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SITE MAP P.O RTY ID NUMBER: 14-32900-061-02 F ER: TERRY ELLISON 5620 LOWER 182ND ST W FARMINGTON MN 55024-9109 2007 ESTIMATED MARKET VALUES (PAYABLE 2008) 56,200 145,500 201,700 192 LOT SIZE (EXCLUDES ROAD EASEMENTS) 20,974 sa FT 0.48 ACRES LAND: BUILDING: TOTAL: PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5620 LOWER 182ND ST W FARMINGTON MN 55024 SCHOOL DISTRICT: LOCATION: NE1I4 NE1/4 SECTION 14-114-20 PAYABLE 2007 TAXES PAYABLE 2008 HOMESTEAD STATUS: FULL HOMESTEAD NET TAX: SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: TOTAL TAX & SA: 2,246,12 0,00 2,246,12 WATERSHED DISTRICT: VERMILLION RIVER PAYABLE 2008 ASMNT USAGE RESIDENTIAL LAST aUAlIFIED SALE DATE: 7/1994 AMOUNT: 88,400 J / ( , ! ; I --"-~-----~ m=..L__.___._._..L~._-:::--_-==-_=-=-=~-_-=-~=-: ___ ___ ____~_____ - - ; _____..___~=::~:~_~:~:=__-~:::::.::::=:~::~~:::__=_:::__-::-_~:_=l_ ND ST W lower /?zdJ 1if 2007 BUILDING INFORMATION (PAYABLE 2008): TYPE S,FAM,RES YEAR BUILT 1969 ARCH/STYLE ONE STORY FOUNDATION sa FT 1040 FINISHED sa FT 1534 BEDROOMS 4 BATHS 1.75 FRAME WOOD GARAGE sa FT 440 OTHER GARAGE MISC BLDG =:==:=--==-:=-.:::::--.::=::-:=--==j-------f~=~==-::=:=:::::=::-~:::-:::-:~=.l--------..i--:==:=--::::.-=----::='=---:--:::--:-=--==:::-=-:~==--==-===.:===:::---::::<::., ;' ! I \ \, ! . I \\ I i I !I . /171 f1 t;'h2fl b~Y /t?ZI1 (J Sf- D D 16/6;1 D D . NOTE: Dimensions rounded to nearest fool. i ! I ! i , i , ! I ! i i) i i I! _._----~~ pj c:: n t-' H tl ~ PLAT NAME: HILL DEE ADDITION TAX DESCRIPTION: W 40 FT OF LOT 5 BLK 2 & ALL OF 62 Copyright 2008, Dakota County - This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one, This drawing is a compilation of records, infonnation and data located in various city, county, and state offices and other sources, affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. Dakota County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are found, please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department. Map Date: July 21, 2008 Parcels Updated: 5/31/2007 Aerial Photography: 2002 a: ,A (I N ~ a,e . . Hi. nw n211leis Ternr Ellison and I reside at 5620 Lenv;;," 182nd Street West in F31mington ..; .'.' - lvJN. 55024. J have lived ai ihis add.ress fOf 16 :rears and \vould like to apply for a building permit \'ariCln(~e. The v;~rjance is requested to build (1 24 X 40 outbuilding / garage. Currently ill(;f:; is all ov~r8iz\': outbuilding on the property that was built by one of the previous O\vners of fh\7 property. The old shed ~va8 built encroaching the Dakota Electrjc 15-foot easement. This easemt~nt encroa~hment \'V3S disclosed to me during the purchase closing of the home/property. 1his easement encroachment has not ever been a problem for Dakota Electlic or mysdfbUI it makes adding on to the existing building impossible. The old shed is in good condition and J would like to keep it as well. I do have a fuJJ lot and another half lor adjoining. The new outbuilding would mostly he built on the half lot, which is cun-ently empty. Tilt building would be built 10 match the house with all of the necessary permits and inspections adhered to. The neighbors have been asked ahoutthe building and all were in favor of allO\ving it to be built. Some even otTered to help. The building ,vould be used to house and work on tn,V classic. cars and 111lcks. Also enclosed are two letters fi'om IllY insuranct companies stating that they \vould prefer to have the vehicles garaged on site. This way fhey are tolally in lilY (;.onll'Ol. A.lso enclosed .ire pictures of the classic cars and tlUcks. Other large items to be stored in tht: old out building are race cart, dding lawn mower, snowlllobile, Polaris 4x4, Harley Davidson, and Che\oTolet 4x4 pick-up. Please allow for the v3Ji"lllce and Thank-You Jor your lime. -....,~..----- 6-- Ivvwv'Y TCI:Y EHisoU r/(\,\ c::-.-'), \)6Ijl\~~ y,S. Y/..EASt:. W1:tf0 L~) Tt\E. fr\~ rJ8ZT' ~DL~ YTlu:r)~ WtvER.E { 1 s \flANKS f ~ . . . . Thursday, May 29, 2008 05:23 AM . . . \hurSday, May 29, 2008 05:26 AM . . Thursday, May 29, 2008 05:26 AM . . Thursday, May 29, 2008 05:27 AM . '.- ......- t;:~:':~~r:':".:~ --:- ... -~ .... ~~'. ..." -. ~~. ":.:'.,; . ~d~. "-4~..J.'~-"; ~;;____ . C ~_. ....' .- '",.;;., ~ .... . Thursday, May 29, 2008 05:27 AM . ~~jf~'~~~:~.I~: ..t'~-~"P"- ~~~,.'!- ...". "'~,,A.;'~ .~-y>'-~,~~~~",~ 'l.i..' ",11 ' ,,'I; '.. '..... .' . t"'c"'~~~=. ~. ,",~ ,..."..:~. . ~ ~~'W'a"'"_~ ...ftt .....~ .... . - .. . Thursday, May 29, 2008 05:23 AM . . JULIE NADEAU INS AGENCY Auto-Life-Health-Home and Business 7801 E BUSH LAKE ROAD SUITE 200 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55439 PHONE (952) 937-2020 May 28, 2008 TERRY R ELLISON 5620 LOWER 182ND ST W FARMINGTON, MN 55024-9109 IT IS OUR PREFERENCE THAT THE INSURED VEHICLES FOR THE ABOVE NAMED PARTY ARE STORED AND GARAGED AT INSURES PREMISES. PLEASE CALL IF QUESTIONS. T~ Jty11!':'NADEAU . . . COLLECTIBLE MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE Terry R. Ellison 5620 Lower 182nd Street West Farmington, MN 55024 May 14, 2008 Re: Garaging Policy# PS098J8429 Vehicle(s): 1932 Ford Dear Terry: In order to keep our rates as low as possible we require that all insured vehicles be kept in a fully enclosed locked garage when not in use. Our records indicate that on the original application it was stated the vehicle is stored in an enclosed locked garage at your residence in Farmington, MN. Please submit proof that your vehicle is garaged at your residence. If you have any questions, please call customer service at 1-800-257-9496. Matthew Orendac Marketing Manager SUITE 203. 121 EAST KINGS HIGHWAY, MAPLE SHADE, NEW -JERSEY OB052 1-800-257-9498 . r8561 234-3434 . FAX r8561 234-1 :::ln7 . WWW,CONOONSKELLYr:nM Design # 92612 .~ .T ake this sheet to the Building Materials counter to purchase your materials. 5/14/2008 rou have selected a Garage with: 24' Wide X 40' Deep X 9' High The options you have selected are: Gable roofw/4/12 pitch trusses 2' O.C, 30 LB Roof Felt 2x4 Wall Framing Material 12" gable/it eave overhangs '1/2" ass Wall Sheathing Johns Manville Prewrap 1/2" ass Roof Sheathing 8" SmartLap Lap Siding 1x4 Smart Trim Outside Corners 25 yr, SL'perglass; Dual Grey Shingles PlaStic Roof Vent; Black White Vinyl Soffit & Fascia While Hegular Hoof Edge .li~t~: Vin}! Ov(:rhead Door Jamb Fron! View Back View . )," I~ I __ I. '=~1 rI1 w i Il' J I L -~~ I ____- --_1--- __~____'_____._ ,.un____________ t:__~~--~rm~rWi T oday's cost for materials estimated in this design: *.se price includes 0" Eave/D" Gable Overhangs, Framing Materials, *(BASE pr'lce)' " B Roof Sheathing, 20 yr. Fiberglass Classic - Onyx Black Shingles, · Pme Fascia, Galvanized Regular Roof Edge, 8" Textured Vertical Hardboard Siding, No Service Doors, No Overhead Doors, No Windows, or Any Other Options. /;i1 "llormatlon on this form, other than price, has been provided by guest and Menards is not responsible for any errors in the information on this estimate, including but nollimiled !o quantity, dimension and quality. Please examine this estimate carefully, MENARDS MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL, WRITTEN OR OTHERWISE, THAT THE MATERIALS LISTED ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE BEING CONSIDERED BY THE GUEST. BECAUSE OF THE WIDE VARIATIONS IN CODES, THERE ARE NO REPRESENTATIONS THAT THE MATERIALS LISTED HEREIN MEET YOUR CODE REQUIREMENTS. $5,342.23 $2,917,65 . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.463.7111 . Fax 651.463.2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us . , TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lee Smick, AICP (jJ,/ City Planner ~ SUBJECT: Draft text amendment for commercial/recreational use in IP district DATE: August 12,2008 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION There has been a request from a real estate broker concerning the vacant space in the Vinge Tile building at 21205 Eaton Avenue in the Farmington Industrial Park. The vacant space consists of 7,000-8,000 square feet with an interior wall height of 19 feet. Staff is contemplating a text amendment to allow commercial/recreational uses in the IP zone as a conditional use. The Development Committee met on August 5, 2008 and was in agreement with the text amendment. The commercial/recreational use is defined as follows: COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL USES: The provision of entertainment, games of skill or lessons to the general public for a fee, including, but not limited to, dance and karate studios, golf driving range, archery, and miniature golf. The commercial/recreational use is currently allowed in the 1-1 zone as a conditional use. This use is also allowed in the SSC (Spruce Street Commercial) and Mixed Use districts. Staff is not only interested in filling this space, but as Exhibit A shows, the play structure is 15 feet in height and the 19- foot tall interior walls in the Vinge building would allow the structure adequate clearance. It is typical to find tall interior walls to house these types of uses in industrial areas such as shown in the literature from Party Bound in Lakeville (Ex. B) and Tags in Apple Valley (Ex. C). The potential lessee of the space has provided information concerning its proposed business attached as Exhibit D. The off-street parking for a commerciallRecreational use is 1 space per every 2 customers. If 125 children are expected at one time, that would require at least a total of 63 parking spaces. Mr. Vinge originally proposed 44 parking spaces on the property (Ex. E), however, that is difficult to discern since the parking lot has not been striped. Mr. Vinge does own the property to the west of the building (Lot 4) where additional parking could be located, however, he would . have to combine that lot with the one that his building occupies (Lot 3) and construct a parking lot to City standards. Of course, this text amendment should be reviewed on the merits of whether this type of use is compatible in the IP zone as a conditional use, rather than looking at the specifics of one particular site. ACTION REOUESTED Discuss the possibility of preparing a text amendment to allow commercial/recreational uses in the IP zoning district. Respectfully submitt , ~c~. AICP City Planner . . ] It; II> IV it a: ;;( <3 i re c .2 iil c il:i ~ 8 N .g ~ lC 'Q ::l Co aJ == E L:: aJ 0:: -<:: II> > IV .D .9 In 5 .~ IV .!; Ie <{ -g "0 <:: aJ In .S; .: IV L- a In K5 c ; (WLS.P) ..0-,5 L -" <:: o "D IV 'D -u::; IV g> .Vi II> ffi II> ~ E "0 Q) en lC .s ~ >. .. lC > :>. !e t,l ~ -5 .:( iii a z e-:- .1 I . (w96"C) 1l0-.~ ~ c o :.;:; ro > Q) ill -t-J C e LL I I "I I ..I I I ., ex. 4 (wLs'vL.o-.SL .1 I I (Wf;~'Z) .1 "O-.L I I (wet '2:) ..O",L c o :;::; ro > Q) ill Q) :2 (f) ...... ..c .2> ex: ~ I o :; u ~ E~ >-.:l!o: :lll0 ta (I-CO"" .00. _ ;:z:;......l,l...u:-:. o.li,.;~,,:~~5 _ ~"tI=.,.. <<I'" . ca~nC:CtrJ...=F.' c:~:;:,~'iigd o~c.:~~~~~ .. '" u ~~! 2 } ('CJaCJ~j.l~t~ ENf~~~~~ ! g- wI; " ~ c...J ~ " ~" .."-; ~...,.() (e~.',~O ., ,.. :'Nl .!!i c (l) C o U a; (l) J:: UJ ...... -- : E 91"- - lCJ In . C/) T"" ~ s::xx o. .- - E +''TCt') m. lCJ >~ . Q) "" CX) -xx w- e E ." li.l NI'- M . ......0) - , ro n::..-o , ,00 .wUON ~ o:i ;, .. T".: f-..coo Z->, Z>' .0'0 ro .. c~..Q~ $ :> U (f) -. ~i6\D>lD cnot3~8 ~ .... ,......, oZ o~ m - u.>- t: Q) :::::l ro u.> ~Q) -- .- a. lD E a. ~ m <( zu.~ 13 QI "Q rl: ] ~ gs >> i:r 4: 8 >- ~ re c .2 a; c "- III 1: 8 tt ~ rQ 'Q '" c. a; -5 >- .0 L: III '= 'C: ~ 111 .0 52 '" [5 'Vi C III E . ~ ~ o 15~ "0 . c: 0 III I ;/l Co .~ (0 III .c '0 In ~ C ;;;j ~ c: o -c III -c 'in 111 g> -LQ 11> ro In ~ E "D Q) OJ rQ ,5 ~ ~ >. . o r.> a; ;;;j ~ it: '0 z ~ ;.... +1 --- E t{) ,.... e:.- o I N M E co co ~ (WBS"v) ..O'.9~ ~ I. . (W'8s'a) ..o-,ac; .. ~I ~ 1::_ <II <II ,- .... c: <I.l .- 1:: LL_ .... 0 o >- ~ ..Q,a LL ....., (W99"8) ..O'.G~ (UJB~rv) ..O'.9~ ~ '. o - E ~ U CI - ... II 3 v >., .!~~-...8~ ~ g>::lft:!!,3's c.. ~4&i~ ;E-~ -<nEO=";;2<J ca'<:~~~~'OR c.tau~~ "'-.; om ._~ :!~ ..~g;t"~li:t ra a >..;...~::,i ~ c N t1~ -:-...:" ~ ]' w~~ C -l : -<:l..~ ...".. '1,.A,'"O 0 ~ =' o , ;: " ~ .., ~'.IHI . oW ::s o >. ra ...J l/I t: IV t: o u Qi CJ .t::. (J) , co 0:::...0 '00 u.i<.)o~ 0cri ;,;;,... I- .. o:l Z >. ">> a:; z.o-oc~ w 0 "' ~.::<: ,- ,. ~ ~ a:l .~ .<B ~~6~~ (l) E ro z 13 Q) B ct >-,....., """z ~2 n:l - u.>. <J) c:= :J rn u.> >.~ =0.. E a. m~ U. "Special Nights for Kids with Special Needs" . 2nd n.ursday 01 ~ month '6-7:JOprn . Agl!!l 12 and und.., 1$6 P'"' child) . "arl!nls, "CAs and Call!glv..,s arl! tr~ . Rl!!ll!lVstIons Rl!qulr..d ~ar:ty_B_o_u ndJ=!hoto_~1 bum . 4- Attractions Giant Slide Sport Bouncer I --\ Basketball Game ! Gravity Ball Birthday Chariot r:~~~~;~;~ 'W~;~;"'";: ., Basketball Game Challenge your friends to a game or play alone by t~ssing a 24" ball into an enormous freestanding " basketball hoop!! -$,,\,,. .&~t;.J .,..~.. "Special Nights for Kids with Special Needs" 2nd Thursday of every month . 6 - 7:30 pm . Ages 12 and under ($6 per child) . Parents, PCAs and Caregivers are free . Reservations Required *attractions are subject to chang,!'! ,~'-'" ' , ;t t;Y " .~ .t '~: :.'rfi. .~:~., y ->,:;" };- 1'1. - ~ 1" ,~ .;0,. .; ~- " ','",- '~ '. II 6',.." ." ''Y_ - :... ;~ 6X ~ . . ~ . . 1 . . . EY. p Re: Recap Family Entertainment Center (final name TBD-working name Family Fun Factory ) 1.0 Executive Summary Family Fun Factory will be a new indoor play center that is addressing the needs of Farmington, Minnesota and surrounding areas. We will provide guests with a safe, sanitary and most importantly fun atmosphere with a variety of party options and fun family evenings. High guest satisfaction by rendering excellent service and quality equipment will be the norm during our day-to-day operations. We will also maintain a fair, fun and creative work environment, which respects diversity, ideas and hard work. Our strategic focus will be children between the ages of 1 to 10. Farmington presents an excellent growth opportunity for the Family Fun Factory. There is a definite need for an indoor play center. Our space need is estimated at 7,000 square feet and will be an end unit. The location provides easy access for our guests and ample parking spaces. 1.1 Mission Family Fun Factory strives to create lasting memories by making each child's birthday party an unforgettable experience. We strive to go above and beyond by providing each guest the extras without the extra price. 2.0 Equipment and Services Family Fun Factory will provide a high quality indoor playground and inflatable jumpers in a fun safe environment. Guests will be able to choose different party options, open playtime and a variety of family fun nights out. It will be themed as a factory with colorful tubes throughout the building. Our largest piece of equipment will be an indoor soft playground. The playground will be large enough for 125 children and parents to play comfortably inside. It will be multiple levels with each level focusing on climbing, bouncing, exploring, sliding, and playing games. Each event in the play system provides children the opportunity to play interactively. The lower level will be designed for our littlest of guests to explore. The thing that makes this unit unique from the rest is the comfort parents get from being able to see where their children are in the playground. It is designed with all webbed sides, which provide the advantage of high visibility and good ventilation. All equipment is designed for both children and parents to interact. We highly encourage the parents to jump and climb with their children. Family Fun Factory will also feature 3 inflatable jumpers. The mix will consist of mini combo jumper for the toddlers, a huge double slide and fun house. ~ . The center will focus around one large park area that contains the indoor soft playground along with the inflatable jumpers. We will also have a sitting area for the parents to relax and watch their children play. There will also be a snack area near the park with snacks and refreshments available for purchase. Located right off of the park there will be 4 separate party rooms. We will have a few different size rooms to accommodate a variety size of parties. 4.0 Market Analysis Summary Family Fun Factory will focus on the south metro market. The majority of our clients will be children between the ages of2 - 10. As the area grows, so will our business. We expect our business will grow 10-15% each year. . . q s ,,"~~ . '.. ;'-"i" !?' I.W ~ z ~g ~ :w Vi~~ ....% LZ..!. 0 W :: ;i~ % ,. I- 0 .. it " ;: ~i~ m ~~ W) ~<~ . ~ %- :I.~'.~ ~ ",-- , " ~" - I.W '" =>=>'" ~ o~ ::: .... >- %>- ~ % ~'" ,. . >z st " -;:: I- " I.W >- " :;;" (j w >- w w - ~ ~- Z % 2% " "" '" -'", .. .. > . ~~ ~{ ~~ j~11 "0 ~~:if~ -': ~ih D Q . ..~ ~ ~~ ~. ~i ~~. ~<~ ~ Ii! ~~i~ E'-! :!=i~ ! ~i M~\ \ i i; 3 B! " ~~~ .60 . ~ fp :N .;<1,.. I~ .~ ," .z Is .3 r I I z ~ " :s ~. ... . <( ... ~ 4- !::: '" i f 6i -:t~ tx...e' o >- < ~IA ~ ~" ~ \ o < ... < ... .... 210sauulW 'UOJ8U!WJ;ed; 3NOl.S "i/ 311.l 3!JNI^ SUlPl!na paSOd"Jcj >- ... Z ~ o u ( tf) -- --~ i5 ~U ~ II i~ :~;. 'II ~:'~ i r !2 ~ II :~ ~i : I !~ ~~P! I ~ ~~ ~H!:!: ,I ~ g~ ! ~~ g e~ i --'-0 ,>ll' 8'~ii -~ ~j 31." NOiVl ~ ~ j; " r ~ ~ I ..' ~ ( ,: ...: ~ ~ ;~ -~8 ~ !;e ~ 1 ~ i ~ 30N3^V NO.LV3 a~ ~ ~ili, . -'i.1 _. -. -'!:r';--' -. -.:: ~-, - If I" ~~: Je;', . N!;;=J . ~ ~ i ! ! : ~'k!;; ;...t I ! I , "liIal' !'-d . y; i. I ~~! I ]:); , ~<l . --------......--, I ;~. I , , i i ... ~I ", " l~ ' :~~----~~---!-- I ' ~~----~,z a;--j~- ::: ~:gg ~ -~ 0'50- ------~-~--- - , ' ~ ft-JR.... .o-PJl. f~ --'1 ------"-----1' - '~~ I I ~ !'< ~ --. ~f;"r- ~I r '! "1~1i I \ i ~, ' . ~ i ! l~' , r ,'~...... _ _ I - - - ---. r"'-::I i M.K"~ UOK ~-:-------------~-: : ! ': I i I', I ',; , : I I.; I . ~ 1'~'1 !,I ;1/11' ! _____----- ----~);: I I i 1\ \ ! ii' ': , j ~I~\jr' 1",---, i I ~ .\ [-I i I. '\ I I ~ '---------ID----'l-r--I I . Ii! ,. ~ll!D ;: :: j:" I I (, ! ; 2~ lit .~ w. II,!, : I ~ i ii:~ L': II ~ I ill i 1 ~--------------I --1' i t ~! !;,J II ! I, _ i I :: I i~ 8 I II \' ! I r~ i . -, , 'o:. ,I I ~ ~ ' . \:----+-------' =' ~--=::-:J . ~ . I L____________" I' , I 1.. ~ .~ I ______.....__............______._.__._...__.m._"'\ ~+- 1'-1 ~ ~~'~_______--_-_-L ;;j ! .J ~ .ftl ~._._._._._.-1 4. -. - . -' - . - . - . - . -; ~~;- ~;; . -~ - . - . - ~I~ -,M ,Nj ~ ..o-,(Jl:~ (' J l I ! '----. .R-.1"6 ... ~ ... ... w .. ... '" .c ... "t ?; }j _.,.__...., ..'".."..............,......,,'_.~~_.'N...........-....."".~...r...,.._' :....""<-Wf..;;;.-.'" """~. ..~... ..--.-....~~..,~-.... 6.oIp-~v-39IM\nI. 3:lpI. "~l:I . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.463.7111 . Fax 651.463.2591 www.ci.fannington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner $" FROM: SUBJECT: Draft amendment to Section 10-6-4(M) regarding parking in residential areas DATE: August 12, 2008 INTRODUCTION At a previous Planning Commission meeting, staff had discussed with the Commission the possibility of amending the City Code as it pertains to off street parking, specifically, parking in residential areas. This discussion occurred in response to a variance request from a downtown property owner to construct a driveway adjacent to his side lot line. . DISCUSSION Section 10-6-4(M) of the City Code states that all vehicles must be parked on a hard surface driveway and that the driveway must be setback a minimum of five (5') feet from the side and rear lot lines. This code is largely in place to ensure that a "hard surface" is not constructed within any side or rear drainage and utility easements. The code as it currently reads is particularly troublesome in the downtown residential areas where there are generally no side and rear drainage and utility easements recorded on lots. Additionally, many of the existing driveways (whether paved or not) are currently located adjacent to the side property line or within the required five (5') foot setback. This code is not conducive to many of the "older" properties in town and would require a variance similar to the Valek request a couple months ago if the owners of many of these properties wanted to pave an existing gravel driveway or improve an already paved driveway. Below, I have provided the Commission with two options to consider for a code amendment to try to address the issue identified above. The proposed text to be added is underlined. . Option #1: (M) Parking In Residential Areas: All vehicles shall be parked on a hard surface driveway or parking apron. All parking areas shall maintain a five foot (5') setback from side and rear lot lines. Exception: those parcels located in Section 31. Range 19. Township 114. Dakota County. Minnesota may have a driveway constructed that abuts the side and rear lot lines provided there are no drainage and utility easements recorded on said side and rear lot lines and subject to the submittal of a lot survey and grading plan acceptable to the City Engineer. . . . Option #2: (M) Parking In Residential Areas: All vehicles shall be parked on a hard surface driveway or parking apron. All parking areas shall maintain a five foot (5') setback from side and rear lot lines. Exception: parcels that have no recorded side and rear drainage and utility easements may have a driveway constructed adjacent to the side and rear lot lines. This exception is subiect to the submittal of a lot survey and grading plan acceptable to the City Engineer. The difference between the two options staff has provided is that option # 1 is area specific. The proposed exception would only be allowed in Section 31, Range 19, Township 114. Section 31 encompasses the "old" part of town from Linden Street to the north, Ash Street to the south, Trunk Highway 3 to the east and Denmark Avenue to the west. The second option would allow any lot within the municipal boundary to pave a hard surface driveway adjacent to a side and rear lot line provided there are no recorded drainage and utility easements located on those lot lines. The last part of the proposed code amendment (in both option #1 and #2) that is worth discussing is the need for a lot survey and grading plan to be submitted to the City Engineer. Staff feels the need for this requirement is twofold. First, it would ensure that the driveway would not be constructed on an adjacent property. Secondly, it would provide the City with the necessary comfort that the placement of the driveway will not negatively affect the storm drainage in the area or intensify an already existing drainage problem for surrounding properties. ACTION REQUESTED Provide comments, if any, on the proposed code amendment. In addition, staff would like direction from the Commission on a preferred option. Respectfully submitted, I 6J --() Ton~iPPle~t City Planner .. . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.463.7111 . Fax 651.463.2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission Lee Smick, AICP .~' City Planner l FROM: SUBJECT: Draft Cell Tower Code Amendment DATE: August 12,2008 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION The Planning Commission directed staff on June 10, 2008 to begin preparing a revised Cell Tower ordinance (Ex. A) to allow monopoles within the PIOS (Park/Open Space) district (Ex. B). Staff reviewed other communities' ordinances and prepared a matrix as shown in Exhibit C. The following is a list of items proposed for revision in the ordinance. 1. Monopole maximum height of75 feet in the P/OS district (parks with facilities only). 2. Monopoles in parks with facilities will be set back 75 feet except when qualified engineer report specifies that any collapse of pole will occur within a lesser distance. 3. Allow towers in IP (Industrial Park) district. 4. One additional user is allowed on monopole. 5. No crows nests, platforms, or guy wires allowed on monopole. 6. Antenna arms are to be separated by 10 feet. The Development Committee met on August 5, 2008 to discuss the proposed revisions and was in agreement with them. Commissioner Bonar has submitted an article concerning the locating of cell towers in parks, which he would like the Commissioners to review (Ex. D). ACTION REOUESTED Discuss the proposed ordinance revisions. Res~eA submitted, ~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner @,A . 10-6-14: TOWERS: Towers are necessary to facilitate and accommodate the communication needs of the residents and businesses of the city, provided they comply with the following minimum guidelines: (A) Minimum Guidelines: 1. Minimize adverse visual effects through the use of careful design and siting standards; 2. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure by adhering to accepted structural standards and setback requirements; and 3. Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings in order to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community. (8) Districts Allowed: . 1. Towers supporting amateur radio antennas and conforming to all applicable provisions of this code shall be allowed only in the rear yard of residentially zoned parcels. 2. Towers supporting commercial antennas and conforming to all applicable provisions of this code shall be allowed as a conditional use within the A-1J. aM 1-1 districts, and PIGS districts (parks with facilities). 3. Use of existing towers is encouraged and will be exempt from the conditional use process. Permitting will involve the requirements listed in title 4, chapter 4 of this code. (C) Colocation Requirement: 1. A proposal for a new personal wireless communication service tower shall not be approved unless it can be documented by the applicant that the communications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one-half (1/2) mile radius of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following reasons: . (a) The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower or building, as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the existing or approved tower cannot be reinforced or modified to accommodate planned equipment at a reasonable cost. J . (b) The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost. (c) No existing or approved towers or commercial/industrial buildings within a one-half (1/2) mile radius meet the radio frequency (RF) design criteria. (d) Existing or approved towers and commercial/industrial buildings within a one-half (1/2) mile radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer. (e) The applicant must demonstrate that a good faith effort to colocate on existing towers and structures within a one-half (1/2) mile radius was made, but an agreement could not be reached. . 2. Any proposed commercial wireless telecommunications service tower shall be designed in all respects to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least two (2) additional users if the tower is over one hundred feet (100') in height or for at least one additional user if the tower is over sixty feet (60') in height. Towers must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at varying heights. (D) Tower Construction Requirements: All towers erected, constructed or located within the city, and all wiring therefore, shall comply with the requirements set forth in title 4, chapter 4 of this code. (E) Tower And Antenna Design Requirements: Towers and antennas shall be designed to blend into the surrounding environment through the use of color except in instances where the color is dictated by federal or state authorities. One monopole allowed in parks with facilities. No crows nests or platforms allowed on monopole in any approved district. Antenna arms are to be separated by 10 feet. (F) Tower Setbacks: 1. Towers shall meet the setback requirements of the zoning district 'Nhere located to 3 height of forty five feet (45'). Towers in parks with facilities will be set back 75 feet except when Qualified enQineer report specifies that any collapse of pole will occur within a lesser distance. . 2. Towers in residential, conservation and agricultural districts will be set back four feet (4') for every foot of height exceeding forty five feet (45'). rz,. . 3. Towers in industrial districts will be set back two feet (2') for every foot of height exceeding forty five feet (45'). (G) Tower Height: Towers, including all attached antennas, shall be limited to a maximum height of two hundred feet (200'). Towers in parks with facilities shall be limited to a maximum heioht of eiohtv feet (75)'. (H) Tower Lighting: Towers and their antennas shall not be illuminated by artificial means, except for camouflage purposes (designed as a lighted tower for a parking lot or a ball field) or the illumination is specifically required by the federal aviation administration or other authority. (I) Signs And Advertising: The use of any portion of a tower for signs other than warning or equipment information signs is prohibited. . (J) Accessory Utility Buildings: All utility buildings and structures accessory to a tower shall be architecturally designed to blend with the surrounding environment and shall meet the minimum setback requirements of the zoning district in which they are located. Ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view by suitable vegetation, except where a design of nonvegetative screening better reflects and complements the architectural character of the adjoining neighborhood. (K) Abandoned Or Unused Towers Or Portions Of Towers: 1. All abandonments or unused towers and associated facilities shall be removed within twelve (12) months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the city planner. In the event that a tower is not removed within twelve (12) months of the cessation of operations at the site, the tower and associated facilities may be removed by the city and the costs of removal assessed against the property. 2. Unused portions of towers above a manufactured connection shall be removed within six (6) months of the time of antenna relocation. The replacement of portions of a tower previously removed requires the issuance of a new conditional use permit. (L) Antennas Mounted On Roofs, Walls And Existing Towers: The placement of wireless telecommunications antennas on roofs, walls and existing towers may be approved by the city planner provided the antennas meet the requirements of this code, after submittal of: 1. A final site and building plan. . -1 . 2. A report prepared by a qualified and licensed professional engineer indicating the existing structure or tower suitability to accept the antenna, and the proposed method of affixing the antenna to the structure. (M) Interference With Public Safety Telecommunications: All applications for new telecommunications service shall be accompanied by an intermodulation study prepared by a registered professional engineer which provides a technical evaluation of existing and proposed transmissions and indicates all potential interference problems. Before introduction of new service or changes in existing service. telecommunications providers shall notify the city at least ten (10) calendar days in advance of such changes and allow the city to monitor interference levels during the testing process. (N) Submittal Requirements: 1. A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which: (a) Describes the tower height and design with cross section and elevation; (b) Documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co located antennas and the minimum separation between antennas; . (c) Describes the number and type of antennas that can be accommodated; (d) Documents the steps the applicant will take to avoid interference with public safety telecommunications; (e) Includes the engineer's stamp and registration number. 2. A letter of intent committing all commercial wireless telecommunications service towers to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees, in writing, to meet reasonable terms and conditions for structures. 3. Proof that the proposed tower complies with regulations administered by the federal aviation administration and a report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which demonstrates the tower's compliance with the aforementioned structural and electrical standards. . 1 . Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2007 Page 2 ex. 13 2. The applicant must vacate any existing easements. The vacating of the easements will be taken to the July 7, 2008 City Council meeting so that the required two week notice can be issued. The preliminary and fmal plat can be taken to the City Council with these same contingencies. Anna's Banana's will not be able to apply for a building permit until the vacations are recorded. They would be able to start grading between June 16th and July 7th. MOTION by Bonar, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Stokes to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Conditional Use Permit to operate a church within the B-2 Zoning District Applicant: River Church P.O. Box 214 Farmington, MN 55024 . The applicant would like to operate a church in the B-2 downtown business district at 408 Third Street in a portion of the building commonly known as the Dueber's Building. The space would consist of roughly 5,800 square feet in the southern portion of that building. The congregation is approximately 100 individuals and services would be held on Sundays from 10:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. and they would also have youth activities on Wednesday evenings. There would be a sanctuary and some office space in the leased space. There are no parking requirements in this district. There is parking on the north and east sides of the lot as well as the 2nd Street parking lot. The approval of the conditional use permit would be contingent upon the following: 1. The applicant obtains all necessary building permits for the conversion of the space to a church. 2. A sign permit shall be required for any sign to be placed on the site. A letter was received from resident Jackie Dooley regarding the conditional use and it was presented to the Commission for their review. Pastor Mike Abros of the River Church shared a blueprint of the proposed space. Commissioner Bonar asked if there are currently any churches in this zoning district. Staff stated that the First Presbyterian Church on Elm Street is also in this zone. Pasto Ambros stated that they hope to begin holding services in the space in September 2008. MOTION by Bonar, second by Stokes to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Stokes, second by Barker to approve the conditional use permit. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Cell Tower Discussion The Parks and Recreation Director has been contacted by T-Mobile regarding the placement of cell towers in City owned parks. They have proposed a 90 foot tower to be placed in Daisy Knoll Park. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (P ARAC) discussed this issue on May 14, 2008 and they agreed that the towers should be allowed. Currently the City of . ? . Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2007 Page 3 Farmington only allows cell towers in the A-I and I-I zones. The current code is antiquated due to the new technology that is available. The setback requirements currently in place are extreme and are not in line with other communities throughout the metro. We have a 4:1 foot setback requirement whereas other communities are requiring a 1: 1 foot setback. The towers can be modified to include lighting and the towers can be a potential source of revenue for the Park Improvement Fund. Staff would like to discuss the possibility of towers being located in the Park and Open Space zones and direction to begin looking at updating the existing code regarding cell towers. Staff would recommend that cell towers remain a conditional use. . Kelly Swenseth from FMHC Corporation which represents T -Mobile stated that the reason that they have an interest in going into parks is because they are typically located in residential districts. She said that there has been an increase in the use of cell phones in the home and use of cellular phones as the primary home phone rather than a land line. There is a potential for increased institutional use as well, including placement of antenn,as in bell towers and on flag and light poles. Chair Rotty asked what kind of screening is provided for the accessory equipment. Kelly stated that T-Mobile would work with the City to design the screening based upon the park requirements. Pat Conlon stated that the equipment could be camouflaged in any way that the City feels appropriate. The heights of the poles are determined by the topography and availability of tall structures. The tower being proposed would be 75 feet in height. Commissioner Bonar asked if the PARAC vote was unanimous. Staff stated that it was. Commissioner Bonar asked how he could obtain more information regarding the market. Pat Conlon stated that she would only have access to information regarding T -Mobile's sites. For information for the other carriers there is a web site called www.crowncastle.com that has a very extensive list of sites in the metro area. They may not have information on every site however. The site proposed would provide opportunities for 00- location. Commissioner Barker asked if we would be able to make restrictions and requirements for screening and other items as part of the conditional use permit. Staff stated that the code would need to be written that way, but yes that would be possible. Chair Rotty stated that he would like to have staff look at other opportunities for locations such as athletic fields and churches, etc. Commissioner Barker stated that he is concerned that if the locations are opened up to private land the city will lose a great deal of control over what is put up. Staff will work on the ordinance and will bring this item back. T -Mobile would like to install their tower in late 2008. . b) Ken Gertz -Expansion of Non-Conforming Pole Building Mr. Gertz lives at 20380 Akin Road, just south of the Mattson Farms development. Mr. Gertz would like to determine what the Planning Commission's opinion would be if he were to put an addition on the back side of his pole building where there is currently a lean-to. He would be building a 16' x 21' addition to the existing structure. The existing building is a non- conforming use and he would need to obtain a variance. Mr. Gertz stated that he would like to have inside storage for an airboat that he has purchased. He ~ - . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.463.7111 . Fax 651.463.2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Cell Tower Discussion DATE: June 10, 2008 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION The Parks Director, Randy Distad, has recently been approached by T-Mobile requesting to locate a cell tower in the Tamarack Park. Mr. Distad presented the request to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission on May 14, 2008 and the Commission was generally in support of this proposal. Planning staff has researched the issue and determined that towers are only allowed in the A-lor I-I zoning districts and a text amendment would be required if towers were to be installed in the P/OS district. Planning staff also reviewed the existing tower ordinance and determined that an update to it would be beneficial since new technology in tower construction may eliminate the need for such large fall zones as required in Farmington's existing code. Additionally, by allowing towers to be located in PIDS zoning districts the Park's Improvement Fund may be subsidized through a monthly fee from the tower company. Attached is a survey of park revenue that has been received by communities that allow cell towers in city parks (Exhibit A). Representatives from T-Mobile will be on hand to answer any questions concerning the new technologies in the construction of towers and any other concerns that the Planning Commissioners might question. I have attached an analysis of the Farmington Tower Ordinance along with the ordinances from Maple Grove, Eden Prairie, Plymouth, and Lakeville that was compiled by T-Mobile (Exhibit B). As illustrated by this information, the communities listed allow towers in park areas. 7 ACTION REOUESTED Discuss the possibility of towers being located in the P/OS district and direct staff to further research the topic and/or prepare an ordinance. Respectfully submitted.2 ~c' (/ (tlA/~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner cc: T-Mobile - . . Cell Towers in Parks Report &'x. A City Cell towers Location of Height of Annual lease Annual Term of Fund in parks tower within cell tower amount inflationary lease revenue Dark increase Dlaced in Inver Grove Heights no n/a n/a n/a nla n/a n/a Apple Valley no n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Bumsville yes on existing 50, 60 and $40,000 annually 5% or CPI-U, 5 years park athletic field lights 1 00 feet total collected whichever is with option improvement from cell towers greater of fund in three parks renewing for additional three 5 year periods Bloomington yes on existing 70 feet 2007 - $17,199 5% 5 years general fund athletic field lights 2008 - $18,059 2009 - $18,961 Hastings no n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Rosemount no n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Lakeville no n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Champlin yes existing athletic 70 feet $24,000 3% 25 years park field light poles improvement fund . St. Paul no n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a bury yes monopole in park 75 feet $24,823 5% 5 years general with four automatic 5 year extensions for a total of 25 years . <D ~x.g . Summary of Farmington City Zoning Ordinances: 10-6-14: Towers L Location: a. Allows location of towers in A-I and 1-1 districts. ii. Amateur radio antennas may be allowed in rear yard of residentially zoned parcels. iii. Use of existing towers is encouraged and will be exempt from the CUP process. II. Conditions: a. Collocation: i. Applicant must document that proposed tower cannot be accommodated on existing tower within Yz mile radius of proposed tower ii. Accommodate both the applicant's antennas and antennas for at least two additional users if the tower is over 100 feet in height iii. Accommodate at least one additional user if the tower is over 60 feet in height m. Height: a. Antenna towers limited to 200 feet in height IV. Setback for newly constructed towers: a. In A-I or 1-1 district. i. 45 feet in height or lower: meet setback requirements of A-lor I-I district ii. Towers in residential, conservation, and agricultural districts: Set back 4 feet for every foot over 45 feet iii. Towers in industrial districts: Set back 2 feet for every foot over 45 feet . v. Permit Requirements: a. Application for conditional use permit is submitted to the planning division for review at the Planning Commission b. Submit report from qualified and licensed professional engineer . ~ . Summary of Local City Zoning Ordinances: Personal Wireless Antennas Maple Grove: I. Location: a. Allows location in all zoning districts 1. Preference for antenna location on an existing structure, building or tower, without limitation to location in any zoning district ii. If the proposed antenna or tower cannot be accommodated on an existing structure, building or tower antennas and towers may be located on available public or institutional land 1. Antennas on institutional land in residential districts shall be incorporated into the principal structure rather than placed on a tower separate from the principal building. 2. On public property, antennas shall be mounted on structures that serve other purposes such as light standards or emergency siren poles. 3. Ifpublic or institutional land is not available, antennas and towers may be located on private property, with the exception of residential districts. II. . ill. IV. v. . kelly swenseth Conditions: a. Collocation: i. Accommodate both the applicant's antennas and antennas for at least two additional users if the tower is over 100 feet in height ii. Accommodate at least one additional user if the tower is over 60 feet in height iii. Must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas and to accept antennas mounted at varying heights Height: a Antenna towers limited to 150 feet in height Setback for newly constructed towers: a. In or adjacent to residential district: i. 50 feet in height or lower: One foot from any lot line for every foot oftower height ii. Higher than 50 feet but no higher than 100 feet: 50 feet plus 2 feet for each foot oftower height over 50 feet from any lot line iii. Higher than 100 feet: 150 feet plus four feet for every foot oftower height over 100 feet from any lot line b. All other zoning districts, the tower shall be set back one foot for every one foot of height Permit Requirements: a. Application for such a permit shall be made to the building department in the same manner as a building permit b. If the applicant is proposing a location other than an existing structure, building or tower, the applicant must submit information and documentation with the application to sufficiently demonstrate the existence of one of the following conditions: i. The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved structure, building or tower, as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the existing or approved structure, building or tower cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost. ii. The planned equipment would cause interference materially impacting the usability of other existing or planned equipment at the structure, building or tower as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost. Page 1 6/5/2008 jlJ . iii. An existing or approved structure, building or tower within the one-mile radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer. iv. Other unforeseen reasons make it infeasible to locate the planned telecommunications equipment upon an existing or approved structure, building or tower. Eden Prairie: I. Location: a. Towers shall be allowed only in the following residentially-zoned locations: i. Parks, when compatible with the nature of the park; ii. Schools; and iii. Public streets and rights-of-way when attached to, or part of a public utility structure. n. Conditions: a. Collocation: i. Eden Prairie does not require newly constructed towers to be co-locatable for additional users Height: a. In all zoning districts the maximum height of a tower, except those which are public utility structures located within a Public Street or right-of-way, shall not exceed one foot for each four feet the tower is set back from a Rural or Residential Zoning District up to a Maximum height of 150 feet. b. No antenna shall extend more than 20 feet above the highest point of a public utility structure. Setback for newly constructed towers: a Towers located within a Public Street or right-of-way, shall meet the setbacks of the underlying zoning district, except industrial zoning districts where towers may encroach into the rear setback area, provided that the rear property line abuts another industrially zoned property and the tower does not encroach upon any easements. b. Towers, except those which are public utility structures, located within a Public Street or right-of-way need not be set back from a street or right-of-way line c. Towers except those which are public utility structures, located within a Public Street or right-of-way, shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street, with the following exceptions: i. In industrial zoning districts, towers may be placed within a side yard abutting an internal street. ii. On sites adjacent to public streets on all sides, towers may be placed within a side yard abutting a street. d. A tower's setback may be reduced or its location in relation to a public street varied, at the sole discretion of the City Council, to allow the integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such as a Place of Worship steeple, light standard, power line support device or similar structure by a new structure provided the structure is substantially similar in design and color to the existing or proposed structure and extends no more than 20 feet above the highest point of the existing or proposed structure. e. The set back and height requirements shall not apply to Water Towers and poles supporting emergency warning devises to which are attached antennas nor shall the height and setback requirements apply to Place of Worship sanctuaries, steeples and bell towers to which are attached antennas. Permit Requirements: a. An applicant for a permit for the construction oftower shall make a written application to the City. b. The application shall include, but not be limited to the following: i. Name, address, telephone and fax numbers of applicant. m. . IV. v. . kelly swenseth Page 2 6/5/2008 \\ . Plymouth: . . kelly swenseth ii. Location of proposed tower, including the legal description. iii. The locations of all existing towers within one mile of the location of the proposed tower, together with the distances between the existing towers and the proposed tower. iv. Description of the tower, including its height, size of base, configuration, design, number of antennas to be attached to the tower, potential for additional antennas, color and camouflage treatment and lighting, if any, and materials out of which the tower will be constructed v. A certificate by a qualified registered professional engineer in such form as approved by the City Manager or his designee that the applicant's commercial wireless telecommunications services equipment cannot be accommodated on an existing tower and a certificate by a qualified registered professional engineer selected or approved by the City Manager or his designee that the commercial wireless telecommunications services to be accommodated on the proposed tower or increase in size or capacity on an existing tower will not interfere with public safety wireless telecommunications. vi. That application shall be accompanied by payment of such fees as provided by City Council resolution. Fees shall include reimbursement to City of its costs, including those incurred for consulting and technical advice relating to the proposed tower. I. Location: a. With certain conditions, Plymouth allows towers to be located in: i. Residential and Publidlnstitutional Districts ii. Commercial or Business Districts iii. Industrial Districts Conditions: a. Collocation: i. If a new tower is constructed, it shall be designed to accommodate the applicant's antenna and comparable antennas for one additional user. b. A proposal for a new tower shall not be approved unless the Zoning Administrator finds that the antennas cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower, building or structure within: i. A one (1) mile search radius for towers 100 feet or more in height ii. A one-half ( Y2) mile search radius for towers under one hundred (100) feet in height c. Wireless communication towers shall be of a monopole design unless the City Council determines that an alternative design requested by the applicant would better blend into the surrounding environment. Height & Setback Requirements a Residential or PublidInstitutional and Commercial or Business Districts i. For antennas located upon an existing structure or tower: 1. Antennas mounted on public structures shall not extend more than fifteen feet (15') above the structural height of the structure to which they are attached. 2. Roof-mounted antennas shall not extend more than ten feet (10') above the roof, and shall be set back at least the height of the antenna structure from the roof edge. 3. Wall- or facade-mounted antennas may not exceed more than five feet (5') above the cornice line and must be constructed of a material or color which matches the exterior of the building. ii. For antennas requiring the construction of a new tower: II. m. Page 3 6/512008 /2.. . . IV. Lakeville: I. II. m . kelly swenseth '. 1. If no existing structure which meets the height requirements for the antennas is available for mounting purposes, the antennas may be mounted on a single ground mounted pole provided that: a. The pole does not exceed seventy five feet (75') in height, except as may be allowed by approval of an interim use permit. b. The setback of the pole from the nearest residential property line is not less than the height of the antenna. Exceptions to such setback may be granted if a qualified engineer specifies in writing that any collapse of the pole will occur within a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. b. Industrial Districts i. For antennas located upon an existing structure or tower: 1. Building mounted antennas shall extend not more than ten (10) feet above the roof, and shall be set back at least five (5) feet from the roof edge 2. Wall or fayade mounted antennas may not extend more than five (5) feet above the cornice line and must be constructed of a material or color that matches the exterior of the building ii. For antennas requiring the construction of a new tower: 1. If there is no existing structure which meets the height requirements for mounting the antennas, the antennas may be mounted upon a monopole tower not exceeding one hundredfifty feet (150? in height, with a setback equal to the height of the tower, unless a qualified engineer specifies in writing that the collapse of the pole or tower will occur within a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. Permit Requirements: a. For antennas located in Residential or Public/Institutional and Commercial or Business Districts i. Antennas not located upon a public or quasi-public structure or existing tower shall require the processing of a conditional use permit. ii. Antennas to be located upon public structures or existing towers shall require the processing of an administrative permit. Location: a With certain conditions, Lakeville allows towers to be located in: i. Agricultural/ Rural or Residential Districts ii. Commercial or Public Districts iii. Industrial Districts Conditions: a. Collocation: iii. Lakeville Ordinance does not mention collocation requirements b. The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis prepared by a qualified engineer that location of the antennas as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency reuse and spacing needs of the personal wireless service system and to provide adequate wireless coverage and capacity to areas which cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive district. Height & Setback Requirements a. Agricultural/Rural or Residential and Commercial or Public Districts i. For antennas located upon an existing structure or tower: 1. Antennas mounted on public structures shall not extend more than fifteen feet (15') above the structural height of the structure to which they are attached. Page 4 6/512008 ~ . . . kelly swenseth IV. 2. Roof-mounted antennas shall not extend more than ten feet (10') above the roof, and shall be set back at least the height of the antenna structure from the roof edge. 3. Wall- or facade-mounted antennas may not exceed more than five feet (5') above the cornice line and must be constructed of a material or color which matches the exterior of the building. n. For antennas requiring the construction of a new tower: 1. If no existing structure which meets the height requirements for the antennas is available for mounting purposes, the antennas may be mounted on a single ground mounted pole provided that: a. The pole does not exceed seventy five feet (75') in height, except as may be allowed by approval of an interim use permit. b. The setback of the pole from the nearest residential property line is not less than the height of the antenna. Exceptions to such setback may be granted if a qualified engineer specifies in writing that any collapse of the pole will occur within a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. b. Industrial Districts i. For antennas located upon an existing structure or tower: 1. Building mounted antennas shall extend not more than ten (10) feet above the roof, and shall be set back at least five (5) feet from the roof edge 2. Wall or fa~ade mounted antennas may not extend more than five (5) feet above the cornice line and must be constructed of a material or color that matches the exterior of the building ii. For antennas requiring the construction of a new tower: 1. If there is no existing structure which meets the height requirements for mounting the antennas, the antennas may be mounted upon a monopole tower not exceeding one hundredfifty feet (150' in height, with a setback equal to the height of the tower, unless a qualified engineer specifies in writing that the collapse of the pole or tower will occur within a lesser distance under all foreseeable circumstances. Permit Requirements: a. For antennas located in Agricultural/ Rural or Residential and Commercial or Public Districts i. Antennas not located upon a public or quasi-public structure or existing tower shall require the processing of a conditional use permit. ii. Antennas to be located upon public structures or existing towers shall require the processing of an administrative "permit. a. For antennas located in Industrial Districts i. Whether or not antenna is to be located upon public structures or existing towers shall require only the processing of an administrative permit. Page 5 6/5/2008 If . . .s u 'C - tn C Ci .. c Q) "C 'w Q) 0::: - tn .:ll: .. CG 0.. . ,5 f Q) ~ ~ f!! .~ (J) ... en en (J) ::l L..;:_ (J) 0 m en _ c . =>_04= .- :.i:i (ij ... .- 0 c(J)"Oo oen"O~ :0::; ::l m ... :O(ijN(J) "Oc -> <(04=0 :.;::; o.~ :0<0... "0 ... C]) m ~ ~ ~o_ en ~ ... m e. ~ .~ m "0 ~ ~ (ij - o Z >< m ::E - .e :g C]) J: 4= o o N ... ~ I- .~ u c o - 0) c 'E ... m I.L. ~ f!! en C]) ._ en ... ::l C])- ~ ~ . .s .Q 4= _:t:::O .- "0 0 (j;"O~ en m L.. ::l N C]) - > maio c > en o 0 .- :e..e(j; "0 m ;: "0"'0 mo_ ~4=~ ._ c en :; ;: (J) ~ (.) .e .- (.) 8J;:~~<ti :0::;- e.= (.) := e. en ;: c (.) ~ 1:: C]) m ~><001ii .e C]) e. e.:O __C]) .- C]) ... - ... ;: (J) L.. 0 C]) en"" C])(J) en ~ LO (J)c ene. 8J "'1'- - [~ 'g> m m (.) 0 C C m (J) " ._ .- ..0 .... .e f!!-~ >.:t::: C])(J)lt=c~ ;:en=m oC])m- I- ..e 6- 5 4= LO I'- "0 (J) en o e. o ... a.. c o - 0) c E ... m I.L. ~ c f!! c a)~ 0 en,,, 0 _uo :.;::; .- '" :0::;'- -- m ... en m E ~ (.) (J) ::l (.) '"~ 0 ~(ij 0 ~~ I (J) - c. 6 ~ ~ 8 "0 - .Q 4= (.) m 0 .: :t::: 0 ..e -.; c (.) C]) "0 0 ~ - ~ .Q c en "0 T"- (J) :> - .- ::Jm... a eno ~en -N (J) ~..- "'- Cm _> ~ (j;4= EC 04= 0 - 0;:0 en - C]) :.;::; 0 .~ g _ ~ .~ g ~ :0 <0... en 4=... E en .: "0 ... ~ C]) 0 C]) (J) ::J C'O~:> 0 o>~ 00" ~o.s C ~o~ c~ "'0... C]) >.m >.m 'O.ELO(J) c Cc "OCC __ 4= ~ 0> 0 ~ C'O .- C]) ~ :c - N ._ -:s .- ~ _ ">.. N -= _ ,..., ~ C'O.- ~ .em 's;: ~- .e c' m .e;: '" :> (J) en 0 0) '::;::::i -... '" - ... > ..2 0 . Q) -E' 0" en ::l (J) 6- 8J ::J (J) C]) e. T"- .e (J) c . ~ g (.) C t+= g (.) o 4= ... ~ "0 C]) ~ 0 c C]) '0 0 c -0 ~ ,,,__ S.e ~-J9.e C])-J9 4= LO 0 :;;: - .... ~ e. = en ;: e. = .~ ~-=ai(J)o'O_en;::o_en~"O .. >... 0 e. 1:: C]) ... e. 1:: (J) ... (j;oooT"-~~ooC])~ooC]) ~o..e- (.)xe.e.~><e.e.~ o '"7 C'O 4= ..eC'O (J) ~ -0 (J) C]) ~ '0 C]) -o_~ _... _... "'0 It) 0.--... Q) CD Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) o >< en _C]) C]) en ~~ C]) en 4=...:....C'O _ ce. ~ce. C]) .e E (J) LO .- m LO'- C'O o ;: (.) (J)...... 0)= I'- 0)= LO.sm4= ::E m8 m8 4= o LO ~ 4= o LO ~ 4= LO I'- 4= LO I'- C]) > e (!) (J) 0.. m ::E (J) .;:: 'm ... a.. c (J) "0 W .e - ::J o E >. a.. (J) .:; ~ m .....J ~ en f!! ._ (J) ... en C]) ::J ;:- o m _ c . _.Q 4= -: :!: 0 (J)"OO en"O~ ::J m ... 00) -N(J) co:: ~_> c I 0 4= 0 m 0 :.;::; LO .~ :sCOen:ol'-... en C]) ... "0 ... (J) enen~m~~ C])::J::J~O_ - m m c c 0 o ._ .- - - .- .- "0 "0"0 -g m ~N -=-= - .e 0) 'Q) .e ... C]) ~ - - o ?fl. o N 4= o LO ~ 4= o co 4= o LO ~ en - .e 0) 'Q) ::c m :.0 E ::J o U C]) .:; en c ... ::J CO u.e ~ ~ .~ "0 ~ (ij (5 Z ... C ::J o E (J) en o 0:: l~ . . . + , + 4B 0 twincities.com St. Paul Pioneer Press Gx-.-P North suburbs StillWi Better cell tower sites sought Au au ~esidents, zoning limits create static By Brady Gervais bgen'ois@pioneerpress.com . Cell phone users in the sub- urbs may be gettlng spotty service, some providers say, because of tight zoning restrictions. Cellular companies are look- ing at ways to boost service as customers disconnect their landlines and rely on only cell phones. But roles prohibiting towers near homes can mean holes in service. . Customers are demanding "good in-home coverage, and . we are trying to respond to that," said Mark Wilson, a &}>Okesman for T-Moblle's . oentral region. . .M. first, towers were built along roads to fit mobile cus- . romers' needs. If users want the same kind of service at home, towers need to be clos- er to residential neighbor- hoods, industry leaders said. It's a safety issue, too: Cus- tomers can't have their calls dropped when dialing 911 Local leaders are grappling with whether they should change their rnles and allow the towers. Some cities, such as Bloomington and Stillwa- ter. have been able to work out agreements to bu1ld struc- tures in residential areas. They're getting creative: T-Mobile said 1t has built tow- ers inside church steeples, eliminating the eyesore. Last week, T-Mobile approached Blaine officials because the city forbids com- municaUon structures within 1,000 feet of residentially zoned property. The city has cell phone antennae on three water towers, as wen as on tan light poles and in some industrial areas, said commu. nity development director Bryan Schafer. But T-MoblIe said it has large gaps in service in parts of Blaine, which can be cor- rected only by installing new, smaller towers. They are looking at schools, churches or parks for locations. The Blaine City Council would have to amend its ordi- nance to allow companies to build towers jn places such as parks. Should it further explore changing the ordi- nance, the council has many long discusslons - and a pub- lie hearing - ahead of it "It may be OK, but I never say anything until we start talking to the people," Mayor Tom Ryan said. ''It doesn't bother me, but it does bother some people." This spring, T-Mobile asked to build an BO-foot tower in city-owned Hidden Oaks Park in New Brighton. The propos- al has stilTed heated emotions in the neighborhood. "There should be no cell phone towers in parks," said Gene B~alski, who lives near the park Residents fear it would cre- ate a precedentand that parks could become tower farms, he said. And they WOITY the inl- tiallocation proposed for the tower- near a playground- would be unsafe. New Brighton officials recently told the company to pick another spot inside the park, City Planner Janice Gundlach said. The compa- ny's proposal could come before the Planning Commis- sion again in mid.July. Since March, two other car- riers have made similar inquiries, Gundlach said. Staff has asked them to hold off until the city comes up with a resolution with T-Mobile. New Brighton can make up to $20,000 a year leasing the land to the cell phone providers, Mayor Steve Lar- son said. Residents think the income is small relative to the costs of having a tower in a public parle. ''We believe it's an intru- sion on the city's green space," B~alski said. "We believe the park space should be used as open space - not as income for the city." Winnl By Mary mdivine@/ In real ] an architt In Still Shefchik'l ervino is Twin Ci' Skarda gE Angeles tl The rea: tight to h in"Gfeell charity al the Sl en the Ameli ervino pa name iron "There v bookie, a York Yank said Mine Grant. "I baseball pI fd make l fine with 1 Sicilian an . lyn." . Shefchik, Pressrepo of "Amen tioned off characters charities CONTINU ) 'Gn potential U how much t Ib