HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/07
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
.
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 11, 2007
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a) November 13, 2007
3. CONTINUED BUSINESS
a) Bischel-Sperling Preliminary and Final Plat- Revised
Applicant: Michael Bischel and Kimberly Sperling
P.O. Box 194
Farmington, MN 55024
..
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A Proud Past - A Promising Future
Committed to Providing High Qpality,
Timely and Responsive Service to All
Of Our Customers
. a) FairhiU Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PUO, and Preliminary Plat
b) Revise Section 10-4-2 (0) concerning the frontage of lots
5.0ISCUSSION
a) AUina Medical Clinic - Sketch Plan
6. ADJOURN
.
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, Minnesota
651.463.7111 . Fax (,51.463.2591
www.ci.farmingt\m.mn.us
TO:
Planning Commission
Lee Smick, AICP .1~ J
City Planner U'/l>
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Bischel Sperling Addition Preliminary & Final Plat
DATE:
December 11, 2007
INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION
Mr. Bischel and Ms. Sperling have submitted a letter requesting that the Planning Commission
"reconsider" a revised Preliminary & Final Plat for the Bischel Sperling Addition located at 808
2nd Street and waiving the 120 day plat review period, which expires on December 31, 2007
(Exhibit A). The revisions include lot area, coverage, width, and easement widths (Exhibit B).
Additionally, the private street has been revised to include 10-foot easements on both sides of the
street.
The Planning Commission should address whether to "reconsider" the revised Bischel Sperling
Addition Preliminary & Final Plat due to the action at the November 13, 2007 Planning
Commission where the Commission denied the plat on the following basis:
1. Private road does not meet 10-foot wide easement requirements on either side of road per
City plate standard STR-07.
2. The proposed plat does not meet the existing development patterns on 2nd Street because
the existing lots in this area all front on a public street, whereas, the proposed plat will be
split on a private street.
3. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan intended to continue with the existing development
pattern in this area (1 building on existing lot) and therefore, the intensity of this
development (3 buildings on existing lot) does not meet the intention ofthe Plan.
If the Planning Commission allows the reconsideration of the revised Bischel Sperling Addition
Preliminary & Final Plat, the following information describes the proposed plat:
Total Acres = 0.86
Lot Area (Exhibit E)
Lot 1 = 6,011 sf for single-family use
Lot 2 = 13,823 sf for two-family use
.
Lot 3 = 13,260 sf for two-family use
Lot area meets all requirement of Code - SF minimum lot area = 6,000 sf, Two-Family
minimum lot area = 11,000 sf - Two-family buildings are proposed at 3,658 sfin size (Exhibit F)
Lot Width
Lot 1 width at front yard setback = 70 feet
Lot 2 width at front yard setback = 105 feet
Lot 3 width at front yard setback = 82 feet
Lot widths meet all requirements of Code - SF minimum lot width = 60 feet, Two-Family
minimum lot width = 75 feet
Net Density = 5 units/0.86 acres = 5.81 dulac
Max Net density = 6.5 dulac, meets Code
Setbacks = All setbacks meet City standards or exceed setbacks for SF = 20 feet in front, 6 feet
on side/rear. For Two-Family setbacks are 20 feet in front, 6 feet side/rear.
Lot coverage meets all City standards of30% in R-2 zone.
Lot 1 - SF = 1,800 sf/6,011 sf= 30%
Lot 2 - Two-Family = 3,658 sf/13,823 = 26.4%
Lot 3 - Two-Family = 3,658 sf/13,260 sf= 28%
.
The Planning staff has determined that general standards for lot area, setbacks, uses, net density,
and lot coverage have been met. Engineering staff has required a 10- foot wide drainage and
utility easement on the west side of Lot 3. Engineering states that the proposed 26-foot wide
private street and turnaround meet city standards. The volumes are acceptable.
The following issues that were raised at the November 13,2007 meeting are addressed below.
1. The developer's attorney has drafted a revised Easement and Covenant Agreement
(Exhibit C), that states that "on or before January 1 st of each year, owners of Lot 1, 2 and
3 shall meet to determine what driveway maintenance is necessary or desired for that
year, to agree who will perform or provide for the performance of the driveway
maintenance, and to agree on a budget reflecting the estimated driveway maintenance
costs for the following twelve months".
2. The Engineering Division has submitted a memo stating the requirements for the width of
drainage and utility easements on each side of a common lot line (Exhibit D).
3. The Planning Division has submitted comments (Exhibit E) to Ms. Walsh's letter dated
November 13, 2007 (Exhibit F).
4. The developer's engineer, Ray Brandt, has submitted clarifying comments concerning
issues expressed by Ms. Walsh at the November 13th Planning Commission meeting
(Exhibit G).
ACTION REQUESTED
City staff recommends the following:
.
1. Review the applicant's request and determine if the Planning Commission will reconsider
the revised Bischel-Sperling Preliminary & Final Plat.
.
.
.
2. If the Planning Commission decides to reconsider its previous action, the hearing should
be reopened and additional input from the applicant and citizens should be heard.
Following that, the Planning Commission should make its recommendation to the City
Council. If the plat is reconsidered, staff is still recommending denial of the Bischel-
Sperling Preliminary & Final Plat because of the two remaining Planning Commission
denials. If the plat is reconsidered, the Planning Commission recommendation
should include a request that City staff prepare findings of fact to be sent to the City
Council consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Respectfully submitted,
&'~
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
Cc: Michael Bischel
Kimberly Sperling
Larry & Shannon Walsh
6t.~
.
TO:
Lee Smick, City Planner
FROM: Michael Bischel
DATE: November 26, 2007
SUBJECT: Bischel-Sperling Preliminary & Final Plat
I would like the Planning Commission to reconsider the Bischel-Sperling Preliminary &
Final Plat at the December 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. I have revised the
plat to meet the requirements ofthe Private Street design and therefore, the plat has been
revised from its original form as seen by the Planning Commission on November 13,
2007.
I want to also waive the 120 day plat review period, which expires on December 31,
2007. This will allow the plat to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and/or City
Council after December 31, 2007.
JJdJJ
Michael Bischel
.
.
z
o
-
t-
-
C
C
=<(
@
@b~
~Z
b-
@..I
~a:
iw
'@)CL
@:,C/)
..I
W
:I:
o
C/)
-
aJ
---,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
___oJ
n-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---L.
I -
I I:::~ I
~_nu_~_____u,: Lu---'--u-'f5-
I I I II
( I 1 r----j-----r-
I I II I I
! I II I I
L______I________J I I I
I I [I I I
I I I' I I
I I II I I
I I II I I
I I II I I
r------r-------l I I I
f I II 1 I
I I II I I
I I II I I I
I I II I I I
L---:~88J1S-----~f~[~~~S~---L----J
~
f=
"-
01
u
V>
UJ
o
>-
~ ~
~15
ii-
~..c
o Oil
CJ}";::
"'0
-= "
- 0
"- ~
c:=
'-tl E
:c; u
'5-5
0....
~~
-= "
-UJ
'0 ~t)
t: ':-'
" '"
c.-
(tj~
-54)<.0..:
~ ell 0
o s::; ~
- " "
""'-=
~ p-
o:! ~
;q ~ ~
~:ffi~
;Z ~ 5
" 0 e:
iiI-I:
"- ."
0"'" ;;.
'" 0
].2 ~
g~-=
_enO
s~ ~
ot:a
~~8
~O'~
j :;J:
..J 0
~ t:: on
~8~
15.. g ~
~~~
~~]
a5~j
'"
o
>-
UJ
;>
'"
=>
en
ii:
UJ
UJ
;Z
G
;Z
UJ
Qi
UJ
"-
o
..J
UJ
;>
UJ
o
ii:
UJ
~
o
+J
V
V
'-
+J
UJ
I
I
\
I I
L______________J
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
r--------------l
I
V
0..
o
2
] .l~.Z(.OO N ...
OO'Ofl
'",
3iUUS aNO~3S11
-<(
"
.5~
'"' -
" -
C:: ~
a~
~.~~
gfo ~
.;::: CIl""'
,,~;z
on:::;
Cll"c ...
c::s~
wo:;::
-aCl'lt;
ij::: I:
~.... ~
al-al
"
jj
~
"
'"
=
~
o
C
~
o
o
o
'"
o
;z
z
o
N
o
UJ
en
o
"-
o
'"
"-
o\j
"
;z
i=
en
X
UJ
~
"
<
;;2
C
Ii:
ci-
en
'"
'"
~.
<'
UJ
'"
-<(
I-
U
UJ
23
'"
"-
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
~~
:l
-"
---T-----'-----
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
-.(--J :
I
I
I
I
--1--- Poo~~o
I ---L (j :Jljl:Jo
I _" d
~--------------~~~;~~l
t88JtS
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:~
Iu
I'"
.cQ
UQ
VI..
V""
mV
j;
-,
J .l~.lr.OO N jJ
.!!..9'O~
- - - - -----.g
:;
E
~
~o
'C
ij
l<l
~
~
E
~
6
~
N
~
"~
~
cii
I-
o
..J
il
8-
g
"-
Ii:
ci-
en
'0
~
o
Q.
o
.t
~
E
;t.
o
'"
-:i.
'"
..,.
fi
II
'"
-0
..J
olI
~
'"
'"
,..:
N
"
'"
-0
..J
]
8-
g
"-
if-
~
oil
"
'"
~
<ii
"
~
UJ
> .
0-
~j
3~
(;.~%~
]:.~Vl
~E~:5
" '
> OIl "'_
'5~30
(/):;J"Ol/t
... 0 ~
.!!! 0 ...J
:5lLlEt,l
E~z
-"
.R..ao~
-~=-g
,,~ 0
~ fr~ ~
t.I ..... 0 ~ .
u ~ c ~.8
~~.~~ lJ
~ _"S; 2
~ <5 'ti 'O:i
a. a. c
t,l:JO-
_'-<11-10
IJ)
f--
W
W
I
IJ)
0J
u...
o
~
;;;
o
z
"
0>0
" 0
"'N
=
~
.t
ci-
V>
o
..,
~
f--
W
W
I
IJ)
~
:;
.c
on
"
""
o
N
i?fl
""
o
N
,....
o
I
o
I
if)
N
a;
"
~
il
0-
~
.~
=>
~
.t
ci-
en
o
'"
o
.c
;;.:
..J
~
<f.
'"
'"
..J
"
~
en
UJ
N
V;
I-
o
..J
ill
>tD
";: 0
on
1Il~<O
III <0
~Z01
u:;;;1
.<= lJl
:) a) n
o "<T
U1 ">
en~
neN
~lJl
,,::lm
OJ ___
Ii:
ci-
V>
o
o
o.
]
'C
~
=
o
g.
.~
"
'"
"-
o
o
C
cii
:..:
u
-<(
a:l
I-
UJ
Vl
0<(
Z ill
;:
W ::l
>U1
II:
::::l en
(J) ill
ell 3
o
Z
a:
W
W
Z
a
Z
W
l-
e
Z
.c
II:
III
;;.:
..J
~
<
'"
6
~
I-
UJ
N
v;
I-
o
..J
;;.:
l-
v;
Z
UJ
o
!H
. i:l:
~~~~j~
"~O_!_
!q.~
~~!I l~
~t~!~l
+J
V
V Q)
'-
+J >L
UJ
+-'
.c (f)
u
V Q)
v
m 0.
0
:2
I
I
I
I I I
L____-.J_____
r----'-----
I I ~ J
I ~ ,
u I ~:
!E I is'''
ec ~ -J
['51
,
I
T
I
I
I
, I~
>
\
-...,.~_ I
I -::-5~l
T'-- I I
\JI I
_J I
I
- I I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
-+--
- J "'- "'---
~
l
~
.~
~~
J~
2~
.5'~
~:
...0
-~
o~
~~
uE
~~
~ ' , "
I I II
I I II
I I II
>--' "---~-18~jfs-----~J.puo~-
,__ '" _..,~ _~~t~~.!L..._ _
I .
-l : "n:-:-:::'::'.:.._~<Fs1!. LlIiI"'S CIHOOiS __
: :!: J'II~
! J ': I.n p 1
:...1 I ~ I
:~: ~-----,! II!'~
I '-I I ~\
-l ~I I ~~ I' I'" .
- I "I I Z ~ I -, -I-~- ,\I
I r :01: ~ ~f\I <t:N
: (1)1 I I. . \I> ~~
I~ I '-- z
lj. W-, :~.- _I_~~
1----'-___ . I I
~ --:,,~
: ~ ..~."."" S __
I I
-i---+----- ~
I I ----__
.J ~___________-=--=-_____-:...-__
-----
~
!':l
;:3.
.,
f,l
0:
""
< .
'"
"
~~
..
-J
J ~
I Iii I
I I II I
L______~_______~~____~
. :j,,8J:jS P UO::l8
J .~t.z:t.oo N
oo'OCI
~-I
I ~
, r----
I I
i i i =lI
1<--', I
~J ~-----~!+ ~
~' I ~ I
V'J: i ! _" -:~\"~ ~;
~: I I \I> ~~
gi: f-> -:1 z
~:: 'T~
:: I
--~_ I I " _1_....
I --J...-____...sf /
~.~--
---1 ~
,------ ~
I --__
I ---_
L______________~~~_______
~.LS CIHO03S
101.>>J" !J(]JOlur.:J) I _
99'6Z-tL I
~iMWW~
trL'ttl+L
I ~
(c \ 101 -lJ(l .\w:lL- (~__
100X1,S; !.lQ41ur.:J)
99"62:+1 I
poa ttz~~ --rs
I
(t 1 .101 -!J(J \\1801-- (f-- _ _
o
0;
i!
ire f
I
I
I
\
i! I
i~
;
. if"--.,.... ~~
ill
I
I
--fe-
;!
i~
I
I,
I
/
(
I
I
o
o
en
,Ii"'"
~::
I~ i i
I~ ..
~H
~
o
. -
[
~
..
.
~
'"
..
.
~
~
'-
~
~ ~
N
~
~
-To
o ..~
~
1
- ~
~
'!
o
"
o
en
co
..- ~
HO'
lI"aos
,..- .
.
0"60&
..... ~
0-'"
- ~
0''''
0'606
b_ ~
'60'
,.""
-- ~
9'S06
9'606
0
en
<Xl
(f)
f-
W
ZW
OI
i=(f)
is
ON
~ <l: u...
0($ ~ 0
Qj~~
;;: W
<]) 0..
<fl If)
c
o
E
<])
"'"
2:
o
N
f-
W
W
..JI
W~
Q 8
If) I
as 5
I
'"
N
iii
9"906
c
o
,...
0'1506
0'606
CJ<l:
Z Q)
>::::
W:J
>(/)
II: _
:::)~
II) :G
..:;:
CJ~<D
z.- 0
ii:an
lllen~<D
z en <D
_OzO>
~~::<I
1&1...... RuJ
:J Q) rr)
1-0="<1'
Q (/) ',>
Zn:g'N
C_I.....L.()
1I:r---:J0>
ID_CI:l-...-
0....
,....
n05
0"06
O"L06
m. ~
L06 ~
."906
0'606 _
0'606
~
0'S06
~
6"1106
)"606 ~
0'608
0'" ~
0'606
&:ggg i
z
o
-
I-
-
Q
Q
[SCC
~
@:CJ
@z
-
ll--'
@a:
~W
~a..
dUJ
--'
W
:J:
o
UJ
-
I:D
;
; I I
'I I I l~! f
1:. ;' I I' I
,'I ! I ~ l' :i'
. j j 1 ;' I I . 't f I
III !II! i j' l. ~ il II !
il" 1.,,1 Ilj' 1I I'
~~~ [ 1 ; f J 'st!! 1 II ~ I
dl pi d ! 11 I ! 'I I i I I
II" I'" till ,- I
III I p 1,"Ji l I,l jll ri
I~!t ' ; II' II ,!.iI III 1 !
i !llt!!! P II I' J'd ill ,', III H
! 1"1-"1 f I'. . .1' I I
!ii i I' i ;..a i I Ii" Ii II; f I
. I ,I r III II '1m: I
~ '
I~ Ii
I!~ ~I
fh I,
~d I:
II!
'Hi
~~! :!!~
ij
, .!. .
I, t jl f ;:
I l"ll II'
.) i l~ 1 ~
q
I , ~
J I ~
I i ~
. . z
~i !
i ~ -
in i
~+
I
aSn
i! .
II
II
II! I ~
,i; ! ~
! Ii I ~
i:1 i .r
. ,! . '"
I 510 i ~
; If I! ~
iaill g
r:I~;5 ! 8
i! !:lll 0
o
I
I!
Il
o
I
o
I
o
I
o
I
rI
d! II ~
Ii" ~
l! I ,I I ~
I" i I . ~
Ii: d I i ~
j11iP1: ~
Ii ~U, ! ill ~
~
~
u
z
o
i=
00
o
c<l:
Oc>
Z
<J)::J
0::
oW
uo..
rnUl
c--'
oW
I
U
Ul
as
i..J...
o
I-
W
W
I
(J)
,
r--
o
I
o
I
tfl
N
CD
CJ<l:
i: Q)
>~
III :J
>(/)
a:
::l~
en ffl
Q)
oIl:;;
CJ Q)
z ,?, <D
_'-0
a:on
IfjfflL(")<D
ZfflL(")<D
c;~z~
Z~~I
1&1....... . U1
1-5~n
1Cl(/)5v
Z ffl~
.ncN
a:~,-L(")
lDl':J'"
~(IJ~
~
~ '
>l ~:
" ..
~. -J
'"
1'1 T
i I 0 r IT I
~
.
j"""''''''''''''' ...1... C'I
1:
. j
"
~ N I
.!l N N t
OJ i
~ j
- 0
l.......",IDID.N..... ~; ~
u h {
iCl!~OOOO
,,!l!:l::l::l:;i~~~~ Ih".
;--1
ii5-
: . i ~
'DIGIti re.'
OJ H] "
:"" ~IH; Ji-
II " i U!J
. -~r
. -Ill:! al! I
I !{__;!!!i8C;!l
... ........
z
o
-
I-
-
C
C
<C
Cl
Z
-
..J
a:
ILl
en
..J
ILl
:I:
o
en
-
m
U1
" ~
OJ
Z OJ
>= .L
11/ (j)
>
II:
::> C'-l
(/)
... . '+-
" ~ 0
Z ~
ii: ><0
';;:0
11/ "'"' ~
11/ VI~I.O
Z OJ
a . <0 OJ
OZO>
z o~l .L
11/ :5 .If) (j)
I- ,~"'
a ~~:
z
<C "' eN
~'"
II: ;::~Ol
<.: 0 ~II CII ~<Il~
0 5
~ "'~
'" g to 0
e ~.a' -~
~ ~ ~ I [I
E 0
.~ ~
-0
;; ~ I '" .
~' i:E~
0( ~ s
.... . a :s a-o t 8:
~ , -a~ l~
.; 8 -0 ;g~
J. .
~ >
z i ~~
z C 6~
:E 0( . ] ~ 3 ~
.... a
i I, ~ ~ ]:;; u ~
0 to .c uJ=o
.... ~ . ~ ~ ,
0 ! ~ ~i
z -0 ,
;; ;; <;. .-0
a< 7.. ~ ~ !=:"O
z:: C ~ -0 :;
.q .... .8 g .s:i
~ '"' c:; Ii a<
'" ~ ~ ~ - .E '1
>- ~ ::; 8 " ]t
.... a< ~ v; Q .-~ g.
u -0 ::: ~ OJ ":~
.. ao a 0( ~ii
" .~ 1"'1 "- . '" .-0 i ":1
.... c '" a to .z g '"
~ E >- 0 a '" to
E .... >- ~ ~ tS~ 0 a .
Z <5 c ~~ UJ ~; a< 2~
0 " ~ 0( 0 .~ ~
'" .. a< .. ~ ~ u I
~ a " ';.'!! ii: ~~ ~ a< ~ it a , ..
h .... ~~ .... .5~r..: ~ g '" :s
~ ~ :f'~ >- c ~ >- >- 2
.... 5 r"l .... a~g 1~ .... a o:E
0 -' ~ ~ z ] . 0'" z -s ~ ('I " ~ -5
C OJ ~~ ::l ,d' ;.J
U ;:...t:.. 0 C ~~ 0 c li
0 >,-0 5 "' . u u '5z u ;z .~ I
"' I . . 0 ~8
z a C 0( 0( "0 < a
:z . ~ '"' ~ .1 .... i i3 >-1= ....u f- ~ ~ o:u
z ~.s c a: . ilo ~. c "'~ '" ~.
>- 0 :< ~,:g ~ '" a a :< ~ e 0 . 'E '0
0( ] !:: >, ,,, Q. ,,,
-' "-a :s~ . 0( 0( ~~ o . 0( ~ ~' a o .
"- 0( a U '"' .. 0 "- "'....0 0 uo Q 0 a uO
-0 0
.-
B
-' 0
.u
i~
~~
~
:i -a
-' ~
e
d1t.
z 2
gi
f1'~
-' .
",-0
X'"
~ .~
~~
f' "
~-5
~'o
~ ~-
:.l.I'C .".
'" "--
~!~
:.u ~ Sl
~~l
Olo'"
z ;.'0
~ !it;
-l E Vi
~~~
~]]
~3ti
~
o
" .
,,~
~:s
~~
~ ~
a~
~ ~
...<..!.
it
CI1 8:
.s~
~.s
a'o
'ii (Q
-5..
'c ~I
]:E:
0'"
~, .
~ ~J
~~~
~;~
]~f
00<11
::! 1-0. C
~ - .
~ ~ ~
~~~
...."
]~
~-g
o .
-0 .
-g ~'
; 'j!
Q~
....,2
0<;
~~
o:S
~5
a< e
to _
.. 0
<:r.~
uj iQ
"'"
u e
'" ~
Iii 5
~ e
-0 .
~-s
. "
:~
:;j~
] ~
~,
t:E:
,",
i~
;~
~1
.s.s{
] :2 0
~ ~ t:
:3.~ ~
~~ a
-0
.
~
t
~
u
.~
. 0
~~
~~
~.c
~~
~~ i
Ii
u
g
:g
::l
~-o
i:~
I~
~ g
;;~
2 .
.g~
.li-'
]0
f5
;;0::
~~
~..J
.'"
.x
_u
5!:!3
~~
.~~ .
.~~ [
~:g~
~~i
&'
~
-0
S
sr-:
~ ~~
~
~
c
;z
:J'Q
ffii;'
~~I
"'
:r .
~i j
~.~ ~
H ~
1 ~ '"
~ ~ ~
!i ~
~
-0
..
e
'-
0(
....<
0....
<110
UJ:<
~d
::;:"-
,,-0
0>-
LLlS2
~5
inu
'"
is
1
~~
"0
~~
.$ ~
~~
~=
~ ~~
~~
00
.0
~ :~
'- 2
~o
:.U
0: :;..,
z:::;:
:..:l -o::i
Z 5 :;..,.g
~g~]~
~ il 3 8 ~
...J ~ e ~ <r\
L&.l u: or. e:I C
~~~~j
~~~fi
_ to> _ 5 :::J
~~~]~
~HH
]-6~.s~
]~]~~
;- a <I1"'BtE .
~~ ~.~,~ g
~~~~i]
-='':: e ::g m I:::
~~~]~.s
-[[.s ~g~
~ i~~~:i
~' 8 'c ] ~~
~.;.s-a.s~
H1Hi
;'~~.8~~
l~HH
19~9.~~
_<.s-5i~-:
0(
f-<
0....
"'0
"''''
z<
Zo
:E"-
,,-0
0>-
"'....
E~
~u
~o
f~
, .
'" 0
-oZ
j ~
4.~
a-'
e .
~~
x ~
;;-.5
0:::;:
~
'c
~
-0
.0
~~
~[
~~
5 #',
~.[
~~
o ~
~:~
c:: E
~o
:.u
~i
:s
~
]
-0
~
-0
.
j~
~oo
~~
H
~~
ts
~:::;:
j~
~.
o -
'0 ~
~IX
<8 ~.
.a<
~E
if)
--
(\)
(\)
..c
Vl
N
C!I
Z
> <<
~2
a: .~
::11/1
.. ,
.. -;;
C!I~
I.~:g
III 0'"
III "'
~ ~lt)
C!I Oz
z tJ~
III '"
.... --;~
Q ~3
z 0~
C f""l eN
II: ;::. 5 ~
1III....a:l-
c,;
::>
=:
-~i).
o .11)....
u..c.... 0
~~~~
. 0'"
r- - '4 - .~.5'c-
I I ~ '0 c
I Q 1~:g~
I 00"0 ~
I ~... 5~
."
I ~ 5~~
I .cO ~.~ ~
r-~ :Q.5-g::
'i-.-....
I 0: v..9:
0- .
j ~ g"~ g
I .!:S:5 1-
L ~ l()~O]
_'L-_ O"o~
~~~~
~
o
N
c
~
o
-55
o
o~
jJ
o~
v.
;~
~ :5 0
i~ h
~j 5 i
i .
E~
.g~
"'z
~~
>.:J
.a~
j ~. -fi~
yUJ ~~
tz~ ';::-E
5~N (I),,=,
:.:::5f'l ~6
~~g jj
..z
':::5'0 0
Q)
(\)
..c
Vl
en -7-'
c S' I
E I
~ I
" I
I
l
..J
I
~ 0 I
g _.1_..J
'0
Ci
'"
5 .
en
f<
0:
0-
< .
'"
"
~
>-
::>
z
o
-
....
-
C
C
c(
"
c
o
CJ
Z
-
...I
a::: I
W'~
0-
UJ----'I---------
I ~.a~
'l I r------'"
...I I I I
W'I I I
. I I I ~
:z:1 : I I 0
+-J I I ~_
Q) I [ :;;.;
0:: Q) I t----~-~
I- I I '011:J\~
1ft.' I -+---' 16 [ ~~ ~g!
V,:..j[ (j) I ~ I ~~ ill
_, I [/\) z- z
"".: Q) \ ) I
.... I - i'-- L I
: 131 I
1:21 I
I I I
I I I
_I- I I
, I --..J I
1 I --.1-
I I
I I
I I
I 1
I I
I I
1 I I
-1- 1
I -I-_
I --
I I
J I
L______________~~~__
I I I I
o~ I~ 111^l1 '~I/\ 1 L\~ III^I\ II_I' IoN I~ III^I '~I/\ 1 L\~ III^I\ ILl II /\ I
I ~I ~IV 11 I ~V...L,-JI ~IV 1(::! V .J III~I ~IV 1 I ~V...L,-JI ~IV 1(::! V _J I V...L
I I~II/\I 1 Innu C" I -]'1 -:-]LJIC" -+---'
i--------------ll ~VI...LI'-1'-1 V ..,)(/\_~ IC_~, 'I..,)...L Q)
~ 1/\111 Innu C"-]/\I^I OI^1 I I I U Q)
I ~ V I r'- I '_1 '_1 V , ..,) _J V Y 1 Y ~ I I [ Q) l-
I I I I Q)-+---'
I I I I m(j)
L - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -L J.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J ;:
~ +88J+S p UO:l8S~ !;
/\ 1
V...L
"
3 "lv,ll:,OO N j~
09'OLO L
---- ---------------------~
3 "lV,ll:,OO N
OO'Ol:L
~331US aN003S~
"'
'"
"r-----------...., 01
, ,
" ,
, ...,
.' ,
ii' I
" I
I I
IiL___________....I
. .
, -
'0
,...
" ,
,
I
I
,
,
~ 1
. ,
,
I IO(
i.-h---:r"'i:OOiiol
, .
~
,
I
I
,
,
~ C'I!
~ I
~:
~
" 0
0
"'" ~ ~o'j ~I
z~ Q
"','" t H1S <(
NN ~ a:'
0'- 2
"'''' II I ;1
'" "- ~
z - '/11 I z
'0 _ W1- I "'.5' 0
c >-'
~iF!~3~~gCa '01 i=
, <(
0 II~ I ~ n-r -
~ ()
"-ti 1'/ z
0 0
II ~1- I ~.5' f= ~
U
LU
1/1
-<
~
6
'I,> 1
~ i
L
'-
C')
6
1
-;1>
-..(
'1-
~'>
./
A'O-'l-JO_1461~
. pOoJ/!olj
---
POO.J/!Oc;
/1
L
::J!J!::JOd
UO!Un
//f/f
j/ / \~
+ S.J!.:J--- ---~"
--
+88J+S
6t..~
.
DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS AND COVENANTS
This Declaration of Easements and Covenants ("Declaration") is made this day by
Bischel-Sperling, L.L.C., a Minnesota limited liability company ("Declarant").
WHEREAS, Declarant is the fee title holder of real property in Dakota County,
Minnesota, legally described as follows:
. Lot l, Block I, Bischel Sperling Addition
("Lot I"); and
Lot 2, Block 1, Bischel Sperling Addition
("Lot 2"); and
Lot 3, Block I, Bischel Sperling Addition
("Lot 3 "); and
WHEREAS, Declarant desires to establish permanent easements for ingress and egress
purposes and driveway maintenance covenants for the benefit of Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3;
NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant declares as follows:
1. Declarant hereby establishes a perpetual non-exclusive easement for pedestrian
and vehicular ingress and egress purposes over and across certain portions of Lot 2 as depicted
.
.
on "Exhibit A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, for the benefit of Declarant and the
subsequent owners and occupants from time to time of Lot 1 and Lot 3.
2. Declarant hereby establishes a perpetual non-exclusive easement for pedestrian
and vehicular ingress and egress purposes over certain portions of Lot 3 as depicted on
"Exhibit A", for the benefit of Declarant and the subsequent owners and occupants from time to
time of Lot 1 and Lot 2.
3. The easements created by this Declaration are perpetual easements, running with
the land and binding upon Declarant and its successors and assigns and shall benefit the owners
of Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 and their respective tenants, guests, invitees, heirs, successors and
aSSIgns.
4. The owner of each Lot shall use the easements created herein for the purposes of
. vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress only, and shall not obstruct or block the driveway
located within the easements created herein.
5. On or before January 1 of each year, the owners of Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 shall
meet to determine what Driveway Maintenance is necessary or desired for that year, to agree
who will perform or provide for the perfOlmance of the Driveway Maintenance, and to agree on
a budget reflecting the estimated Driveway Maintenance costs for the following twelve month
period. "Driveway Maintenance" includes all repairs, resurfacing, cleaning, clearing, snow/ice
removal, maintenance, and replacements of the driveway located within the easements created
herein now or in the future (the "Driveway") or any part thereof, which are reasonably necessary
to maintain such Driveway in good order and a safe condition and in compliance with all
applicable governmental laws and regulations. The cost of all Driveway Maintenance on Lot 2
.
- 2-
.
.
and Lot 3 shall be divided equally among the owners of Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3, with the owner of
each Lot being responsible for one-third (1/3) of such cost.
6. Any claim, dispute or other matter in question betWeen the owner of Lot 1, the
owner of Lot 2 and/or the owner of Lot 3 arising out of or related to this Declaration which is not
resolved through good faith negotiations shall be subject to binding arbitration. The arbitration
shall be decided in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration
Association currently in effect. Any demand for arbitration by an owner shall be filed in writing
with the other owners and with the American Arbitration Association within ninety (90) days
after the claim, dispute or other matter in question has arisen. No arbitration arising out of or
relating to this Declaration shall include, by consolidation or joinder or in any other manner, an
additional person or entity other than the owners of Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3. The owners shall
have ten (10) days to select a mutually agreeable qualified arbitrator. The arbitration shall be
held in Dakota County, Minnesota, unless another location is mutually agreed upon. The
foregoing agreement to arbitrate shall be specifically enforceable in accordance with applicable
law in any court having jurisdiction thereof. The award rendered by the arbitrator shall be final,
and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with applicable law in any cowt having
jurisdiction thereof. The arbitrator shall award attorneys' fees and costs to the prevailing party in
the arbitration and shall have the authority to detemline the prevailing party for purposes of an
attorney's fees award in arbitration. The costs incurred in connection with such dispute
resolution shall be shared equally by the owners.
7. The rights and obligations provided in this Declaration shall not merge with the
fee ownership of Lot 1, Lot 2 or Lot 3 regardless of the fact that the fee ownership of such
parcels may be held by the same person.
.
- 3 -
.
8. This Declaration shall be construed and governed under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Bischel-Sperling, L.L.C., has caused this Declaration to be
executed as of the _ day of
,2007.
BISCHEL-SPERLING, L.L.C.,
a Minnesota limited liability company
By:
Its:
.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of ,
2007, by , the of Bischel-
Sperling, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the limited liability company.
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
SEVERSON, SHELDON, DOUGHERTY & MOLENDA, P.A.
7300 West 147th Street, Suite 600
Apple Valley, MN 55124
(952) 432-3136
(MDK: 6288-26776)
.
-4-
.
.
.
~.D
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, Minnesota
651.463.7111 . Fax 651.463.2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
Kevin Schorzman, P.E. ~ ~
Assistant City Engineer ~
Plat Review-Utility Easements Along Lot Lines
November 26, 2007
The Engineering Department was asked to provide information on our plat review process as it
specifically relates to utility easements along lot lines. When we evaluate the engineering
adequacy of utility easements that are shown on plats, we look at what types of utilities may
occupy the easement, as well as the depth of those utilities.
In general, a five foot easement on each side of a common lot line is adequate for small utilities.
This provides a minimum ten foot easement for small utilities (electric, gas, phone, cable) along
the common lot lines. The exception to this would be a water, sanitary sewer, or storm sewer
line that is either very large or very deep. In these instances, we require larger easements along a
common lot line.
~.E
.
December 11, 2007
To Planning Commission and Mr. and Mrs. Walsh,
Response to Walsh's Questions as submitted to the City on November 11,2007.
A. The lots front a City approved street as required in Section 11-4-2 (D).
B. Minimum frontage means Lot Width in the Code. LOT WIDTH: The distance
measured between lot lines parallel to the front lot line at the minimum required
front yard setback. Per the staff memo, all lot widths meet the Code.
C. The side lot lines meet right angles a the curb line.
D. A drainage and utility easement is proposed over the entire private street, which
may be counted as part ofthe lot area per Section 11-1-6:
LOT: A portion of a subdivision, or other parcel of land intended as a unit for
transfer of ownership or for development. In determining the size of a lot, no part
of a right of way, street, crosswalk or easement, other than utility, may be
included.
E. The following definition is how net density is calculated by the City of
Farmington, the Metropolitan Council, and across the country.
.
Net Density - The result of dividing the number of total dwelling units existing on
a site by the net acre in acres. Net density is expressed as dwelling units per net
acre. Therefore, the 5 units proposed on the site is divided by 0.86 acres = 5.81
dulnet acre. The 5.81 dulnet acre is below the maximum of 6.5 dulnet acre
because the project proposes two-family buildings on the property for a max of
6.5 dulnet acre.
.
F. The drainage and utility easement is shown on Sheet 2 of 2 of the Final Plat. The
drainage and utility easement over the private street is for easy access to the
infrastructure, similar to infrastructure in public streets.
G. Exhibit in the staff memo addresses the easement issue.
H. Noted.
1. Lot widths on revised plat dated November 20, 2007 meet City Code.
J. See D above.
K. Driveway shown on revised plat for Lot 1 meets City requirements and is not
shown on Lot 2.
L. A portion of City Code 11-2-1 states "The sketch plan will be made available for
review to the parks and recreation commission, water board, and housing and
redevelopment authority for review and comment". Parks Director Randy Distad
stated the following, "I have not talked to PRAC about the plat because it is so
small of a development that it would not make any sense to require them to
dedicate park land. I recommended that in the Bischel Plat that the City take
cash-in-lieu of land based on the direction that the PRAC has been taking with
wanting larger parks and not small mini-parks. I have made recommendations to
take cash in lieu of land in other small developments (Mattson Farms and the
.
development right across Akin Road that backs up to the historic cemetery)
without reviewing them with PRAC".
M. City Engineer Lee Mann stated that the Water Board relies on staff to review plats
concerning any water issues. If there are significant issues, they are sent to the
Board for review. Mr. Mann reviewed the plat and determined that it did not need
formal review by the Water Board.
N. The Code needs a language change since the Housing & Redevelopment
Committee is now the Economic Development Authority and only deals with
business activities.
O. Parking meets code. Two-family requires 2 parking spaces plus 0.25 spaces for
visitors. Two spaces in the garage, 2 spaces in the driveway - meets code.
P. Six foot tall fence is proposed on the south side of the development to provide
pnvacy.
Q. Noted.
R. Engineering staff has stated that drainage is minimal and not measurable.
S. Dakota County Abstract performed a certified listing on July 25,2007.
T. Noted.
U. Provided as Exhibit in staff memo dated December 11,2007.
V. I don't understand this request.
W. Section 10-4-1 (E) states the following: Rear and side yard lot lines abutting a
railroad right of way are exempt from rear and side yard setbacks in all districts.
The tracks closet to the proposed duplex is not used, as shown on the plat. The
track that is in use is 57 feet from the closest comer of the duplex to the utilized
tracks.
X. The land uses between a single-family home and a two-family home is not
considered as conflicting uses since both of the uses are residential. The
"intensity" (number) of these uses is an issue that the Planning Commission and
City Council need to act upon.
y. Shown on Signature page of plat.
Z. Lot 3 is located on the south side of properties to the north.
AA. I was unaware that the neighborhood requested a neighborhood survey. A
public hearing allows the neighborhood to voice its opinions.
BB. Submitted in responses to Ms. Walsh in September and October.
CC. This property does not have historic significance deemed by the Heritage
Preservation Commission to become a historic landmark.
DD. The Solid Waste Division has stated that they will pick up garbage from 2nd
Street.
.
.
Respectfully submitted,
~
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
.
.
.
Additional Submission Of Questions, Concerns and Complaints as Part of the November 13, 2007
Pnblic Hearing on 808 Second Street Redevelopment Plat Proposal /!!it. F
List of issues not addressed or resolved as per city code 11-2-2 (C)
A. City Code 10-2-1 - defines LOT as: A parcel of land occupied or capable of being occupied by
one or more structures, having principal frontage on a public street and intended as a unit for
transfer of ownership.
Lot 2 and Lot 3 do not meet this requirement, a violation of city code. In fact, these two lots
front private property, not a street at all.
B. 11-4-2 (D) Frontage - Every lot must have the minimum frontage on a city approved street other
than an alley as required in the city zoning ordinance.
Lot 2 and Lot 3 do not meet this requirement. Please note that we have repeatedly asked city
staff for ordinance minimums, most recently in our written comments and questions to you.
While the city did provide some responses to specific questions, minimum frontage was not one
of them.
c.
11-4-2 (C) Side Lot Lines - Side lines of lots shall be approximately at right angles to street lines
or radial to curved street lines.
Side lot lots for Lot 2 and Lot 3 are disconnected from the street lines, they run parallel to the
street and are not at right angles. They do not meet this code requirement.
D.
Code 11-1-6 defines lot as LOT: A portion of a subdivision, or other parcel of land intended as a
unit for transfer of ownership or for development. In determining the size of a lot, no part of a
right of way, street, crosswalk or easement, other than utility, may be included. As per the
city planners memo to you dated September 11, 2007 the private drive is on as easement and
cannot be used to determine the size of the lot.
Therefore lot size needs to be recalculated for Lot 2 and Lot 3. As the plan does not have
measurements it is impossible to calculate the exact percentage oflot coverage of all structures
but the officially submitted plat refers to coverage of 32.46% based on the .86 lot size. Which
means even inclusion of Second Street still results in an illegal coverage percentage. 30%
coverage is the maximum coverage allowed per 10-5-7 and will only increase when the
easements and street are removed from the calculations and resulting percentages that could
easily be as high as 40% - 50%. Furthermore it is impossible to calculate this coverage on Lot 1
until the city knows the square footage for the garage. Also, as specific building plans have not
yet been provided the city cannot confirm that maximum height of35 feet for R-2 zoning has
been met.
E.
The proposal is to divide what is currently one lot into three separate lots. Each of the three lots
must have their net density calculated individually just as it is being calculated for structural
coverage as this is a proposal to split the lot, not leave it intact. Per R-2 code a lot can only one
principal structure (single family or two-family home) can be built on a lot. City documents do
not provide this calculation but city code 10-2-1, defines net density as the number of dwelling
units per acre. Lot 1 has a net density calculation of7.14 exceeding the code maximum of 5.5
1
.
.
. T.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
for a single family home. Density for lot 3 also calculates to 7.14, exceeding the code maximum
of 6.5 for a two family. Lot 1 and Lot 3 do not meet city code. .
F.
The September 11, 2007 memo from the city planner states drive will be platted as an easement
but the easement is not marked on the plat a violation of code 11-3-2 C (4). Which makes it
difficult to know where the required ten foot wide code mandated easement 11-4-4 stops and
where the driveway easement begins. A problem as City code requires driveways to be paved
(10-6-4 B) but forbids pavement in a drainage easement (11-4-4 D). This proposal violates the
drainage easement.
G. City code 11-4-4: (A) states that an easement for utilities at least ten feet (10') wide shall be
provided along all lot lines. Of the 19 property lines on this proposal 8 of them do not have the
code required 10 foot utility easement. A violate of city code. Additionally, lot 3 has a six foot
strip of property running the length of the drive against the property line, a six foot strip of
property can't have a 10 foot easement. A violation of city code.
H. Inadequate/incomplete snow storage plan
I. Lot #3 City states 77 feet in width, measured at the front yard setback. Measurements from our
drawings show it to be 66 feet. City code 10-5-7 sets minimum for two family home at 75 feet.
J. Drainage easements were included in lot area calculations a violation of City Code 11-1-6.
K.
If you look closely at the plan you'll notice the driveway leading to the garage on lot 1 is located
on lot 2. So when the single family home owner parks in the driveway outside his garage he is
literally parking on his neighbors lot.
Sketch plan was not presented for review and comment to Parks and Recreation Committee.
City Code 11-2-1.
Sketch plan was not presented for review and comment to Water Board. City Code 11-2-1.
Sketch plan was not presented for review and comment to Housing and Redevelopment
Committee. City Code 11-2-1.
Inadequate off street parking as required in code 10-6-4.
Does not ensure adequate privacy as required by City Code 10-1-2 (A).
Does not protect the public welfare as defined in City code 10-1-2 (A).
Storm water draining on the railroad right-of-way is a violation of City Code 11-4-2 (K).
List of adjoining property owners on August 6, 2007 was not certified or complied by an abstract
company as required in City code 11-2-2.
Need to review plan to include the following:
a. Measurements and location of existing fire hydrants, power lines, etc. as required in City
Code 11-3-2 (B) Item #4.
b. Legend for all drawings
2
.
c. Removal of tree #154
d. Drawings of structures containing building sizes, building materials, building heights,
door and window placements, etc.
u.
Copies of all covenants. Paperwork establishing homeowners association, documentation of
homeowners maintenance agreements, etc.
v.
Documentation of city ordinance establishing minimum lot frontage 11-4-2 (D) and minimum lot
width and depth 11-4-2 (A).
w.
Conflicting land use with rail road needs adequate buffer between plats. 10-6-10 (A) 1-4 & 2-2-
1
x.
Conflicting land use with duplexes on north property, needs adequate buffer between properties.
10-6-10 (A) 1-4 & 2-2-1
y.
Final plat does not show dedicating statement of easements as required in city code 11-3-3 (J).
z.
Properties bordering to the north will have parallel streets on their front and rear property lines.
This is a violation of City code 11-4-2 (H). , (J
ttS' fe~ CA~~
Request for responses from neighborhood survey conducted by developer JB.TIl reiu 11'1 '
AA.
BB. Response from developer to City Engineering department letter dated August 9, 2007 was not
. provided as requested.
Cc. Request of Planning Commission to order a historical survey on the property before demolition
of existing structure and review/comment by the Historical Preservation Committee not heeded.
DD. Garbage pick up plan inadequate, not thought out.
.
3
~~. 6-
.
BISCHEL SPERLING ADDITION
Response to Nov 12 Planning Commission comments by Mrs Walsh.
The City Code requires easements of 10 feet along all property lines. This can be
interpreted to mean 10 feet on each side of the property line or 5 feet on each side ofthe
property line, which totals 10 feet. The City Engineering staffhas determined it to mean
5 feet on each side of the property line. I reviewed plats that are within a mile ofthis
proposed project. Ofthe 4 most recently recorded plats, the side line easement has been
5' on three of the plats and 6' on the fourth plat. Thus the staff has been consistent with
their interpretation of the Code.
The City Engineering staff has asked me to provide a 10 foot easement along the south
line ofthe project. Again, the code can be interpreted to be 5 feet on each side of this line.
This project would provide the 5 feet on the north side ofthe property line and the
property owner on the south side would provide the 5 feet on the south side of this
property line at the time that his property would develop. However, I will plat a 10 foot
wide easement as requested by staff.
.
The code may have a conflicting requirement. It requires 6 foot setbacks from the side
and from the rear lot lines. If the rear lot line setback is 10 feet, the 6 foot setback doesn't
work. I realize that the staff can require the 10 foot rear setback. I'm just saying that I
believe that the staff is correct in determining that the 10 foot easement for a lot line
should be 5 feet on each side of the lot line. That would remove what could be a
conflicting requirement.
A concern was expressed about the driveway for Lot 1 going onto Lot 2. Lot 3's
driveway also goes onto Lot 2. There will be an agreement with all owners that will allow
for this to happen.
It was said that Lot 1 would become a comer lot if the private street was a public street.
The private street is a city approved street, albeit a private street, and thus Lot 1 is not a
comer lot.
A concern was raised regarding the "principal frontage" not facing a city approved street.
I believe that the private street provided on this proposal is a city approved street. In
townhome developments, very few of the units face a dedicated street. They almost
always face a private street within the project. Some ofthose private streets are on outlots
and some are on easements.
A question was raised regarding the density calculation but I believe it was adequately
answered by Lee. The calculation is made based upon the situation as it exists and the
area for this property is 0.86 acres.
.
There was a question as to how the ownership of the duplexes will be. A Common
Interest Community is probably the most common method. However, I could plat each
.
duplex lot into 2 lots as long as each would have 5,500 sq. ft., according to how I
interpret the City Code. The Code calls for 11,000 sq. ft. for a duplex lot and side-yard
setbacks of 6 feet and 0 feet and this should be doable.
A concern was raised regarding the placement ofthe garbage and recycling containers. If
this becomes an issue, the garbage trucks could enter the private street and make their
pickups at the residents. The turn-around that works for the firetrucks will work for the
garbage trucks.
A concern was raised about the catch basin that will drain the proposed pond at the end of
the turn-around. It was expressed that the storm sewer pipe would freeze and not provide
drainage and that the pond would build up and drain onto the property to the south. First
of all, the storm sewer pipe will not freeze unless it freezes downstream and backs up to
this pond. In the unlikelyhood ofthat, and ifthe pond didn't have the underground outlet,
it would overflow to the north to the private street and then easterly to Second Street. The
property to the south is at a higher elevation than the private street turn-around.
Ray Brandt
.
~~
.
.
.
.
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 . k
FROM:
SUBJECT:
a) Comprehensive Plan Amendment
b) Fairhill Schematic Planned Unit Development [PUD]
c) Fairhill Preliminary Plat, Phase I/Site Plan
DATE:
December 11, 2007
INTRODUCTION I DISCUSSION
Newland Communities has submitted the aforementioned items for review by the Planning
Commission. However, the applicant has requested that these items be continued to the January
8, 2008 Planning Commission meeting to allow for additional time to respond to Engineering
and Park and Recreation comments. In addition, this continuance allows for additional time for
the Developer and the City to finalize a draft PUD agreement for review by the Planning
Commission.
ACTION REQUESTED
Continue the public hearing for the Fairhill Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Schematic
Planned Unit Development, and the Preliminary Plat, Phase I/Site Plan to the January 8, 2008
regular Planning Commission meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
----I I I -
O1L'( u~~
Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner
Cc: Shelly White, Newland Communities
Peter Coyle, Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd
. ... Newland~
.. COMMUNITIES
AT THE HEARl Of GRfAT UVlNG
14000 IVYWOOD TRAIL
WOODBURY, MN 55129
651-998-0226
December 7, 2007
Ms. Lee Smick
Planner
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
. Subject: Newland Communities Farihill Project
Dear Lee:
With regards to the Newland Communities, Fairhill development project, Newland Communities,
has requested a continuance of the Farihill Project plan presentation to January 8, 2008.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 651-998-0226.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
~~
Shelly White
Vice President Operations
Newland Communities, Midwest
cc: Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO: Planning Commission
Lee Smick, AICP ,~Q/
City Planner ^!)b
FROM:
SUBJECT: Revise Section 10-4-2 (D) concerning the text amendment for frontage oflots in the design
standards section of the Subdivision Code
DATE: December 11, 2007
INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION
The City Council and Planning Commission met at a joint workshop on October 17, 2007 to discuss the
splitting of lots in the downtown residential district. At the meeting, the City Council and Planning
Commission determined that lots splits should not occur unless on a City approved public street.
.
The City Attorney has determined that a revision to Section 11-4-2 (D) of the Subdivision Code (see
below) should be performed in order to eliminate the vague language concerning a "city approved street"
as shown below and proposing that the language should be revised to "city approved public street".
(0) Frontage: Every lot must have the minimum frontage on a city approved street other than an
alley, as required in the city zoning ordinance.
Additionally, the City Attorney has recommended that language concerning a private street should be
included in this section. The revised language (Exhibit A) is proposed as follows:
Private streets that are consistent with City Standard Detail Plates & Engineering Guidelines will only be
allowed in Planned Unit Developments within outlots owned by a homeowners association and subject to
covenants providing for long term care and maintenance of the private streets.
.
The City Code requires that Planned Unit Developments be comprised of at least five (5) acres of
contiguous land in order to provide a private street. This proposal should eliminate the language
confusion between a public and private street.
Code Requirement in R-l ZOniD!! District
Staff would like the Commission to review the proposed text amendment above and determine ifit's too
over-inclusive or overboard by requiring R-l properties to be included. Akin Road properties (payne,
Wiebold, etc.) should be discussed to determine if they should be a part of this code requirement, or it
should limit it to R-2, R- T, or R-D districts only (Exhibit B). The City of Chanhassen uses the following
code to allow private streets at 20- feet in width:
Sec. 18-57. Streets.
.
s) Private streets serving up to four lots may be permitted in the A2, RR, RSF, R4 and RLM (when less
than four units per acre) districts ifthe criteria in variance section 18-22 are met and upon consideration
of the following:
(1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In
making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local
or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands.
(2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is
not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent
with the comprehensive plan.
(3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources, including
wetlands and protected areas.
ACTION REQUESTED
Review the text amendment, make revisions as necessary, and approve the amendment to Section 10-4-2
(D) concerning the frontage oflots as described and forward the recommendations to the City Council.
.
O.A
.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11-4-2 (D) OF THE
FARMINGTON SUBDIVISION CODE:
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The City of Farmington City Code, 11-4-2 (D) Frontage, is amended by adding the
underlined language as follows:
(D) Frontage: Every lot must have the minimum frontage on a city approved public street
other than an alley, as required in the city zoning ordinance. Private streets that are consistent
with City Standard Detail Plates & Engineering Guidelines will onlv be allowed in Planned
Unit Developments within outlots owned by a homeowners association and subiect to
covenants providing for long term care and maintenance of the private streets.
.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication
according to law.
ADOPTED this _day of
,2007, by the City Council of the City of Farmington.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
By:
Kevan Soderberg, Mayor
AITEST:
By:
Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator
SEAL
By:
.
City Attorney
Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of
,2007.
~.~
.
Dakota County, MN
.
.
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not
guaranteed, This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,
appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
Map Scale
1 inch = 413 feet
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, Minnesota
651.463.7111 . Fax 651.463.2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Planning Commission
f
FROM:
Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner
SUBJECT: Sketch Plan - Allina Medical Office
DATE: December 11, 2007
INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Allina Medical Clinic, has submitted a sketch plan for a proposed 10,704 square
foot clinic to be located at the intersection of Trunk Highway 3 and 213th Street in Farmington
(Exhibit A).
DISCUSSION
The proposed clinic is to be located at the northeast intersection of Trunk Highway 3 and 213th
Street. The property is legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Glenview Commercial Addition and
was platted in 2003. The subject property is zoned B-1 (Highway Business), and a clinic is a
permitted use in that zone. The Comprehensive Plan guides the property for commercial
development.
Sketch Plan Review
The City Code provides for the submittal of a sketch plan prior to the formulation and submittal
of a site plan. Attached as Exhibit B are the sketch plan requirements as specified in Section 10-
6-23 (C) of the City Code. The attached sketch plan has been provided to the Planning
Commission for its comments concerning (among other things), the general site design, setbacks,
access, parking, and other potential impacts to surrounding properties. It should be noted that
these are intended to be advisory in nature and do not constitute a binding decision on the sketch
plan.
The applicant proposes to construct a single-story 10,704 square foot medical clinic, with the
possibility of a future expansion area on the north side of the proposed building consisting of
5,000 additional square feet. As shown on the sketch plan, the applicant has future plans on
splitting off the northern portion of the existing lot to create a second buildable commercial site.
This would require a waiver of plat (lot split) for the property (at a later date) if or when the
proposed second site is to be developed. The lot coverage upon completion of the initial phase
will be approximately 6.84% and 10.04% with the completion of the future expansion area.
These percentages take into account the entire property (3.59 acres) as the property is not
.
.
.
currently being proposed to be split. The lot coverage for this development after the proposed
split would be 11.34% and 16.63% with the future expansion area included. The B-1 zoning
district allows for a building coverage of 25%.
The proposed location of the building meets all the setback requirements within the B-1 zoning
district. The required setbacks are as follows:
Required Setback
From 9th Street: 30 feet
From 213th Street: 30 feet
From Highway 3: 50 feet
From North Property Line: 10 feet
Proposed Setback (Aporox.)
From 9th Street: 32 feet
From 213th Street: 130 feet
From Highway 3: 80 feet
From Northern Property Line (w/o expansion area):
wlo waiver: 300 feet
w/waiver: 60 feet & 20 feet (w/expansion)
Proposed Use
A clinic is listed as a permitted use within the B-1 zoning district requirements. It is proposed
that the clinic will staff 9 physicians and employ 20 support positions.
Transportation/Parking
One access/curb opening to the site is being proposed. Site access will come from 9th Street. The
City's transportation engineer is in the process of reviewing the proposed layout and will supply
comments to staff for the Planning Commission meeting on December 11th. The applicant is
proposing a wrap-around parking lot that will be adjacent to the right-of-ways ofTH 3 and 213th
Street. A total of 83 parking stalls are shown on the sketch plan. Section 10-6-4 of the City
Code requires 5 off-street parking stalls be provided for every doctor plus 1 per additional
employee for a clinic use. The staffing counts provided by Allina Clinic at this time are 9
doctors and 20 support personnel, thereby requiring a total of 65 off-street parking stalls. The
applicant has met the off-street parking requirements.
The sketch plan shows a five foot sidewalk on both the south and east sides of the property
adjacent to 213th Street and 9th Street, respectively. Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation
Director, has preliminarily reviewed the sketch plan regarding trails and sidewalks. Mr. Distad
has requested that the sidewalk proposed along 213th Street be revised to reflect an 8 foot wide
bituminous trail. This change would be in compliance with the City's Existing Parks, Trails and
Sidewalks Plan. He is in agreement with the sidewalk proposed along 9th Street.
Solid Waste
The applicant has identified a location for a trash enclosure on the west side of the lot
approximately 90 feet north of the south property line. Benno Klotz, Solid Waste Supervisor,
has reviewed the trash enclosure location and has requested that the enclosure be relocated
further south (in line with the parking island - Exhibit C) to allow for easier pick-up and
circulation through the site for the City's trash collectors. The proposed location as shown on
.
.
.
the sketch plan would force unusual truck movements for the City collectors as the trash
containers are picked up on the right side of the trucks.
Building Elevations
Attached are two renderings (Exhibit D) of the AlIina Clinic that was recently constructed in St.
Michael, Minnesota. The building being proposed for the Farmington site will look very similar
to this however, there may be varying elements. It appears that the building materials will
largely consist of brick and stucco. Specific building elevations will be required at the time of
site plan submittal.
Signage
At this time no signage plan has been submitted for review. However, the sketch plan does show
locations for both a pylon and monument sign. A pylon sign at the corner of TH 3 and 213th
Street may not be feasible as a pylon sign cannot be located in a required yard or be within five
feet of a parking space (Section 10-6-3 of City Code). A monument sign, up to 100 square feet
in size and 10 feet in height, could potentially fit in this location provided it meets the setback
requirement of 10 feet from a property line. Additionally, a monument sign would be more
consistent with the types of signage that have been recently approved and installed on the TH 3
corridor (Tamarack Ridge Commercial, and the existing Allina/Trinity monument). A second
monument sign would be allowed as this is a corner site. However, the second monument sign
cannot exceed 60 square feet in size.
A signage plan will have to be provided at the time of submitting for site plan review. It should
also be noted that a sign permit application will have to be applied for and approved prior to the
installation of any signage on site. The portions of the sign code concerning monument and
pylon signs are attached as Exhibit E.
Landscape Plan
The applicant has provided a general landscape plan for the proposed development. A complete
landscape plan will have to be submitted with the site plan application and should include
specifics regarding species type and number of plantings.
Engineering/Utilities
A utility and grading plan has not yet been submitted. This will have to be submitted at the time
of site plan. As noted on the attached Glenview Commercial Addition plat (Exhibit F), there is a
twenty foot wide drainage and utility easement that would extend into a portion of the proposed
parking lot. This easement is for an existing water main and temporary hydrant that is located on
the western side of this property. The hydrant can be relocated closer to the proposed building to
provide the required fire protection. In addition, water has been stubbed to the southern
boundary of this property from an existing line within the 213th Street right-of-way. Engineering
has indicated that the stubbed line should be extended to connect with the existing main located
along the western boundary to provide a loop for the water system.
. On site ponding is not required for this development as the pond located to the east of this site
was sized to handle the storm water run-off generated from this site.
There is an existing overhead powerline that bi-sects the lot (approximately at the location of the
proposed building) west to east to service the Glenview Townhomes. The applicant will need to
start discussions with Xcel Energy regarding the possible need to bury a portion of that line.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Planning Commission should comment on the concept plan.
Respectfully submitted,
_____'-jJ,l
, ) ,
/ !7tA7 {viS'1 .
Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner
Cc: Patrick Giordana, BDH & Young
.
.
.
.
.
f' X. It
o i
Z ~ I
g : ill ~
~ Q . .,i u
w I"{ 0
Iii I w
:r: = ~I ! ~ u
Cl~ ill:>"'
~ i t ~o
i
I
~ IIIII ~ 3
J ~ IIIII I ~
11 ~
~ -<
~)
t ~ ~
IlU ~
~ IIi iii ~Im~. ~I ~
~ II II II. ... t...~ 2 I
~ 1~~4; ~ ~ i ~ ~
I!! .Uld 1'11"1 ;! II.. ~ I !
<D.I I~!~! Iblllii : !
l~II;1 iil ii Illml II
z()
~
~
I!!
i)
u
!;
r---------------l '
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
r-------------------------------.1
~
c.:l
~
""
.....
C\l
( ail v YlVaNJIddIH'.J) [AVMHDIH
...__w, _""."'__ ......'_f.I"._ ..__,
__""n"",,,~""__
fx,/3
10-6-23: SITE PLAN REVIEW:
.
(A) Purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish a formal site plan review procedure and
provide regulations pertaining to the enforcement of site design standards consistent with
the requirements of this chapter.
(B)Exceptions To Review: The following shall be excepted from the foregoing requirements:
1. Agricultural developments.
2. Single-family detached dwellings.
3. Two-family attached dwellings.
:K:.. (C)Sketch Plan:
1. Prior to the formulation of a site plan, applicants shall present a sketch plan to the zoning
officer prior to filing of a formal application. The plan shall be conceptual but shall be drawn
to scale with topography of a contour interval not greater than two feet (2') and may include
the following:
(a) The proposed site with reference to existing development on adjacent properties, at
least to within two hundred feet (200').
. (b) General location of proposed structures.
(c) Tentative street arrangements, both public and private.
(d) Amenities to be provided such as recreational areas, open space, walkways, etc.
(e) General location of parking areas.
(f) Proposed public sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage.
(g) A statement showing the proposed density of the project with the method of
calculating said density also shown.
2. The zoning officer shall have the authority to refer the sketch plan to the planning
commission and/or city council for discussion, review, and informal comment. Any opinions
or comments provided to the applicant by the zoning officer, planning commission, and/or
city council shall be considered advisory only and shall not constitute a binding decision on
the request.
(D)Minor Projects:
.
1. Review Of Minor Projects: The following shall be considered minor projects and subject
to review procedures as indicated:
(a) No Site Plan Review Required: Building projects that comprise less than ten percent
.
.
.
Ex. ~
~: I
6:: ill
~: . m G
6~ h ! ~
~ ~ 1 0
~ 0
,......
~ -<
1
\
~
!
! a I1I1I ~ ~
~ l IIIII ! g
!
i -
~ ~ I
! 1- i
Z tt ~mll
() Iii iI- ur m ~ttw.
~.g g! tll III ~ ~1"~Io"
~.:i ~~ ~ ~,
~ I~~~!i ~ ~ ~
- .nll, 1~'G !~IG ;. n '
~ i I~~ I~~ I~~ ii
h . U~ U~ '~inti
duh iii iii ~I!li!l
~~
nm~
~B
~ II
I I
I .
I :
z()
lDD f-..
w ~
0- ~
d) C')
I ~
&J d. ~
::J ~J
0- ~.
ii' I ""
......
I ~
( a1 V nV(]/V'JJddIH'J) [' A VMH9IIJ
.....,--_. -.. .--,......-.....,.--..-..,
..._...........~"'..~.~-_.
rex: ()
.
"
.
Ol
Q)
,9;
~
<0
X
;;;
00
X
o
o
l{')
:::.
Ol
.9;
M
001
<n
E
ti
I1l
.
.
.
.
0;
,~
::E
<0
x
o
C')
CO
X
o
o
to
en
.9;
ex;
l.L.
E
u;
ro
tx, &'
.
* 3. B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, And 1-1 Zoning Districts:
scoreboard perimeter and shall not exceed three feet (3') in height or twenty seven feet
(27') in width. One business may be advertised on the back of the scoreboard.
(a) Wall Signs: One wall sign is permitted per building front as follows for each zoning
district:
B-1 10 percent of facade (200 square foot maximum)
B-2 14 percent of facade (300 square foot maximum)
B-3 16 percent of facade (300 square foot maximum)
B-4 16 percent of facade (300 square foot maximum)
1-1 18 percent of facade (400 square foot maximum)
(b) Monument Signs: Monument signs are permitted up to one hundred (100) square feet
in sign area with a height maximum of ten feet (10') from the ground (including the base)
to the top of the sign. The sign must be set back ten feet (10') or more from the property
line and shall not be located within the thirty foot (30') triangle of visibility at street
intersections. Monument signs in the B-4 district may be illuminated between eight
o'clock (8:00) A.M. and ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. and shall be in compliance with section
10-6-8 of this chapter.
. (c) Pylon Signs: Pylon signs are permitted as follows:
(1) No pylon sign shall be located in a required yard.
(2) Pylon signs shall not be located closer than five feet (5') from a driveway or parking
space.
(3) Area and height of pylon signs are determined by the speed of automobile traffic
along the frontage street as follows:
Speed (mph) Area (Square Feet) Height (Feet)
30 50 18
35 75 20
40 100 22
45 125 24
50 150 26
55 175 28
(4) Pylon signs shall not be permitted in the B-4 zoning district.
.
(d) Area Of Identification Sign: The area identification sign for a shopping center, stating
the name of the center and the major tenants, shall be allowed. The maximum size and
height shall conform to the requirements of subsection (B)3(c) of this section.
.
_.J 80
H1
i~
z
'<!;l
~o
m~
~~
~~
~~
i<l\\
~
"
l I-
I ~~
~c
'<ili
I ~o
m~
z~
",m
I _00
,0
~c
a~
I I\) ~~
UJ ;"\\
I '-i ~~
:r:
I '"
l;~
I ~il:
CO
'"
I (J)
--i
;U
I III
P'1
.,j
I
I BJ.~""~
I
~ :~
I
I
I
I
.
L---_________---1
g
g
~X.F
-:0 ~
"Z... i1
~2~ ~
~ '"
Z'" cl
;:=
~ ~; ~
"
.... . Q ;;
~ ~ il ~
~ i
U ~
~ ;;
. ~ I
uI
.~~
IN::'
ST t\ Tt:
T ':l' I ~ I'"
I r, tJ 1\1 t\
HIGHWAY
NO.3
(CHIPPENDALE AVENUE)
\- -WEST LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NW 1/4
\ OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 32
NOO"2?'32"E
804.20
~
~
,.-\
~"
"
.,
~-.
.'
....,~
~:::..
,~'\\
\ ^
')-)
,-,
" I
()
,-,
-"--
e;
~
...-;1
'::.i~
':~.:.
-'
-,
\, ,
.
(.f)
500"18'42"W
"I 200.61
III
I'
I
~~~
~cm
i;i
!il:i!~
~m..
o~~
1G,5!
~~
o
-,'
.,-,
):.....
,
(\ .J
j~ ' I
~c I
I;lili
~\\
~~
~~
~
: ~
/,
/
,
,
-,,"
t
,"Z~ c~o ~
I~: ~. 2 ~
<: \\5! ~19!~ .1 II: ::;
n a~~ J
Z ~~\\ ii\~~ ~ ;+
::J m~ ~ ==!~ i~~ ~ 5' t
-< )o,~
s:: i~~ ~ i
~ ieU i5 ~ ~; . ~z
h5! ~I'
~~~ ~ U I "
~~ ~ l!
. Ii
z~ ~
ill \\
it ~
Iii ~ ii
"
____"'lIDOClIoI
~'l<DiM;J<l'8!:)"l(IJI;kjCD;N9
1l3BWnN flNIMWl]
(')
o
a::
a:: 0
t?=j ~
~
(')
~
>
~
>
t;
tJ
~
I-j
~
o
Z
r:::