Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/9/07 City of Farmington .,,__325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 . AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 2007 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) September 11, 2007 3. CONTINUED BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS A Proud Past - A Promising Future Committed to Providing High QJlality, Timely and Responsive Service to All Of Our Customers a) Variance Request to Encroach into Drainage a Utility Easement - 19874 Dover Drive Applicant: Stephen PierskaUa and Karen Davis 19875 Dover Drive . Farmington, MN 55024 b) Bischel-Sperling Preliminary and Final Plat Applicant: Michael Bischel and Kimberly Sperling PO Box 194 Farmington, MN 55024 4. DISCUSSION a) Joint Planning Commission/City Council Workshop 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 Lee Smick, AICP of / City Planner {f FROM: SUBJECT: Variance Request to Encroach into Drainage & Utility Easement - 19874 Dover Drive - Continued DATE: October 9, 2007 INTRODUCTION At the September 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners continued this item to allow the City Engineer and Building Inspector to review the rock wall constructed by Stephen Pierskalla and Karen Davis at 19874 Dover Drive, to determine if there was a slope hardship. As the Planning Commission recalls, at the September 11, 2007 meeting, Stephen Pierskalla and Karen Davis were seeking a variance to encroach into a drainage and utility easement by 6.5 feet with a rock wall and walkway (considered structures in the City Code) on the west side of their house. A letter from the applicants is attached as Exhibit A for the Commission's review. DISCUSSION City Engineer, Dave Sanocki and Building Inspector, Darrell Gilmer, reviewed the property on September 25, 2007 and determined that the original slope from the house to the owner's property line was 33%, which is the maximum allowed slope on a newly constructed site. Therefore, it is determined that there is no slope hardship (see Exhibits B, C, & D). Additionally, as the Commission recalls, on two separate occasions during the construction of the wall and walkway, Mr. Sanocki and Mr. Gilmer told the applicants to stop the construction because of the encroachment into the drainage and utility easement. They explained to the applicants that access to the holding pond with large City equipment would not be possible if the construction continued. The applicants have submitted a building permit for a deck; however, per the City Attorney's recommendation, the City has not released the building permit until the existing violation is remedied. Staff has reviewed other instances where property owners have had to remove walls, steps, and pavement in order to remain outside of the drainage and utility easement. In the case of 4549 198th Court, the property owners were required to remove retaining walls from the west side of . . . the house and pavers from the east side that were within the drainage and utility easement as shown in Exhibit E, F, & G. Additionally, the owners at 18620 Denali Way were required to remove a terraced retaining wall system from both sides of the home (Ex. H). Turf replaced the retaining walls as shown in Exhibit I. The City Code provides the following criteria that must be met for a variance to be approved: 1. Because of the particular physical surrounding, 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. The rock wall that exists outside of the easement, adjacent to the house provides enough stability to hold the slope. Access to the rear of the property could be gained through a grass walkway (since the area has already be leveled for the rock walkway) which would not inhibit access to the pond by City equipment. There is no hardship concerning the particular physical surrounding, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved. 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. There are no conditions unique to this property that would create a viable hardship. As previously mentioned, there is a reasonable alternative by way of a grass walkway in order to obtain access to the rear of the property. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this title and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. The hardship is not created by the City Code. The code does not preclude the property owner from reasonable use of the property. 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 would 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. 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 proposed variance would 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. . . . 6. The requested variance is the minimum required to eliminate the hardship. There is no hardship pertaining to this variance request. ACTION REQUESTED Not all of the requirements referenced above have been met for this variance request. Therefore, staff is recommending to the Planning Commission to deny the variance request to allow the encroachment of the rock wall and walkway by 6.5 feet and direct staff to work with the City Attorney to draft Findings of Fact. Respectfully submitted, ~J: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner Cc: Stephen Pierskalla and Karen Davis exA ~ . 8-27-07 V n~on nau;s & C'i-op1-.en D;o~C"lTalla n..aI \.Ill.lJ . Y 1 LJ 1.\.I II 11.1 1\.11;:)!\.. II Variance for Rock Wall The variance is for a rock wall on the West side of our home. We decided on a rock wa11 that would blend in with the natural beauty of the lot. It would not be an eye sore like a very tall block wall would be. There by the natural looking wall would enhance the lot and increase the value to all lots in the area. It is a two tiered wall with a natural walkway to get from the front yard to the back. At the start of the construction, we were unaware of a missing asbuilt survey that was supposed to be provided by our builder. The walk way was constructed so no-one would fall down the hill and be injured. It is wide enough for children to use. . The wall is at least 23 feet from the pond shore. This is more than the 15 foot easement that would be present if 2 homes were built side by side. There would also be enough room to drive any type of machinery within this area. Our "immediate neighbor" on the West side of the home is a small holding pond. The "neighbor" behind us is larger holding pond. The water run off would not be disturbed as it would naturally run into the pond. It will prevent the erosion of soil that could run off without a barrier such as this wall. The 2 tiered wall is a natural solution to a very large slope of land from the house to the pond area. The designer of our landscaping is our son, Nick Davis. He has put a lot of thought and energy into designing a functional solution to an area that would stabilize both the land next to the foundation and any possible erosion of dirt and runoff into the pond area. . There is a plan to put a lawn sprinkling system in with sod in the rest of the yard. We are sorry that we did not have the asbuilt survey when we started the construction. We were given insufficient information from the builder. Weare not trying to take advantage of anyone or trying to build on anyone else's land. The wall is completely on our property, but about 6.5 feet is over the easement line. Thank you, ..~ cJQ~ c1\~llw,S- Karen Davis and Stephen Pierskalla c,x.A . \ . . c,x.A . There is a plan to put a lawn sprinkling system in with sod in the rest of the yard. We are sorry that we did not have the as built survey when we started the construction. We were given insufficient information from the builder. We are not trying to take advantage of anyone or trying to build on anyone else's land. The wall is completely on our property, but about 6.5 feet is over the easement line. Thank you, ~~~ Karen Davis and Stephen Pierskalla . . ~I .. , .. " CONSUL llNG ENGINEERS, ....... .JI!e A OB E PLANNERS and LAND SURVEYORS.... ,~NGINEEAING POST JOB....... COMPANY INC., , '\ 1000 EAST 146lh' STREET. BURNs.LTENADDRfSSo~" CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Legal Description: LOT 37, BLOCK 6, MYSTIC MEADOWS 1 ST ADDITION, "?)~'" LXCEED~OJA fOUNIY, MINNESOTA. SLOPE)~,.9 'h,' &.L2.~ DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION WI L REQUIRE A (Q/7,o) DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION , , '-. ." - INDICATES DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE R~IMING WALL l QI7.44 = fiNISHED GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION ~ " . .1l'l " 19P7. 90 = BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION 917,9~ = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION (GAR46G) ) 916.6/ = ToP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION (ttOlJ7G) -'IN{)r~: (l/IN/A1VI#1 UW ~/hJ,e cUV47iIJN = 907,9tJ YORWAY HOMES PROJECT NO, 13182.00 BOOK PAGE E~d0P' - , . ~ ' ,i i" ,', ~" '" t;- ~~ ci> <$;: p""". it (j ~232-n 15'1Q House Area = '2} ,,<I. Pi" Cover % = I J ' 3 ? Setbacks = 0(< TW @?(Jj) .PSOIL RESPREAD FtEQU\?ED OJ r<J 1--- (-, ...~J I __J DR", '-......~ ttV-'lo ~'" CURB STO~ CASIjNG n U~RED IN DRiVEWAY Po /y L~ a~ () , '7Jv.. . ... ~~ ~ i( ~?bo <f.. ~ '~~...~ 7':;:;0 DRIVEWAY 30' AT CURB(~iV .. T FENCE REQUIRE~ 30' AT PROPERTY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a tract as shown and described hereon. As prepared by me this ~ day of DEUIV1E;GFI.. . 2005. ~ f? ~ Minn. Reg, No. /9086 ti. E" . . .1- ., .... " I' ';" I \1' I -\ ~, I" t J ,e;.. ~~~ .. .~. j ')J: tl \ I ,~~, L-~J ,. d . I r I I I ' e1 . :t,",; .. " !, I ~ - '.idiJ~\i. ~. r-_~J ~ .,;J'\. J, ~1~ ,\ {I. .., _ ..'l'-~ f J' (r~ ' .. $ Jld J M" " 1 l 4':~ y" ,~,lo, ~ ':J.~,. ", .J r .., " '. oJ .. \\ 'l; L' ~ . , ~ , ' n "' ~.;, . \l ~ 1 ,)1':' J-- ," 'I' ,\ .... l"! , ~ .Ii ~:~l~, J. t') t ~-, I" { 1 vf{f " " .l ~ " '" ';'" . ~>...,.. b"t ~ ~.. I (.l -1 ,-' ..'./' } . ,," ,-1 -.~ .. u lo '\. ....~-...,I.. ,,~~~;. ).J4 _...~ . 11 iI''' D<"~,.1 ...~I rl ;II r.... ,.It ~~ I: )$.0 ~ ~ " 1 ~. b 1 ~ P, . . J !Jj.-~} I / ~ I J j ~ ~ . ll:i ll:i ~ ~'" /;; ~ "<' <::" II ; ~ ~ ~ '(~ ~ 'lI .... II) ~ ... ... o '" '" VI -' '" 'C . '!' o . c: 2 g' E c .~ g ~ ,2 ~ ::E 6 g 0 ! ~ ~ ~ c: t '0 ~ ~ c: ~ i:5 -g g ~ ~ :3 _ .Q .0 ~ : ~ ~ II It 1/ I ~ ~ ~~i ::c: V) ~ h a:: ' t~ 0 t5i vJ ~ ~ ..,..: :::;: lD o.J..., l:l:: :: O::~ :$Q ~~~ lJj..:JCl Cl ~ '<1:", ""'iJ")"":~ ~~ol'- m m 0) c;:; II I tt ~ ! ~ : ... . 5 ii 1) lij ~ ffi ~ g 8. '0 Vi tL: e Q. ; 1il ~ :!. .9 G: 1 1L..~~.i:' ! I~,! I IV! 1 ~;Ll~ I ~ ~ ,I ~-'---' . O.i \ == == == ] ] .z z !l' ~ ~ !l' o ~+ z ~~ "'-. ~ ~ ~ '>11y?~ ~, ~ l; $? ~ ~ ~ ti s..., :::s ~ CI) 04.) ~ :-:::: :::s ..Q . ~ ~ ...... & 0 ~ 3r---. l.t)' Q,) 0 IV) -" ...... 04.) Cli) Ctl g~ 0 > ~ 'C: ..... ~ 04.) "l- s..., .CV ~ l.t) ...... "- CO <- ~ ... '" .. ~m ~, :I: ' -~ 0;;; ... zOi 0..>< ~g in .g(l)' Eoll '" g'" c8~ .9 g> 1 s z ~ Q 2! f- c 8~ ...~ ~~ i:: ~ :;..~ ,Q Cl - ii'i Cl .e- ::;; '5 .... () 0> ~ ~ ~ 2l ~ ! >.. ,...: "0 t:il~ ~ 03. ~ I:! ~ ~ D. .3..9 . ~ ~ ~ OJ \D 0 lD lD Z ~ Ol 0 ~ \D " Z z I- :J c/) 0 U '<t ::;; N III "' '1 ., 0 tI1 in 0 \D 0 a: 0 0:: \D 0.. I " <C '<t 0 III t;j 0 " " ~ III 8 "- J: \D Cl UJ J: Cl III > o a: 0. ~ ~ III 0 .J N 13 ~ II o UJ - "'-. ;$? ~'S:l;~\\illJUf!IIIIf, ~~\'''''''''~: :"."_ -.-~'/'4.. u.' ", ,"" ......', "'*f.~~;:, (;) .1.~' . o&~' -<(0 ~a:~ " ~ ~ n t~~ ..~~ ~~'~ 1S~~ ~~" a~~ h~ ~t"~ il .!l1 ~ ~'tO '" .. ~ I ~1l!;j - t~ ~ I l'J~~..9 ~t~ ~a~ ~ . 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 :; Q/ City Planner ~ f' SUBJECT: Bischel Sperling Addition Preliminary & Final Plat DATE: October 9,2007 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION This is a continuation of the review of the Bischel Sperling Addition Preliminary & Final Plat. The plat was reviewed at the September 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, where a number of issues were raised including the following: . 1. Letter of concerns from Larry and Shannon Walsh. 2. Building on Lot 3 over the 30% lot coverage. 3. Narrow strip ofland on north side of property belonging to Lot 3. 4. Request from Planning Commissioners to discuss lot splits at the Oct 17th CC/PC workshop. Responses to the Walsh's letter of concerns are shown on Exhibit A. Some of the concerns from the Walsh's were derived from the Walsh's reviewing the plat dated August 20, 2007 that was sent to them and the surrounding neighborhood in a public hearing notice on August 30, 2007. Staff did not receive a revised plan from the Developer's engineer until August 31, 2007 where a number of the Walsh's concerns were remedied. The Developer's engineer submitted a revised plat on September 25, 2007 showing a reconfiguration of the lot sizes for Lots 2 and 3. Lot 2 was 16,017 square feet in size and is now proposed at 14,861 square feet. Lot 3 was 11,052 square feet in size and is now proposed at 12,208 square feet. Lot 3 still does not meet the lot coverage maximum of 30% because the building is shown at 31 %. Lot 3 is continued to be shown with a narrow strip of property 6 feet in width on the north side of the private driveway, Additionally, the new lot configurations have not been revised on the landscape plan, the sanitary sewer and watermain plan, and the property owners plan, The landscape plan also needs to be revised to eliminate any proposed plantings in any drainage and utility easement. . . . . At the September 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, some of the Commissioners requested that the splitting of lots in established neighborhoods should be a topic at the October 17,2007 Planning ComniissionlCity Council Workshop. Because of the outstanding issues that continue to need to be addressed, staff is recommending that the plat be continued to the November 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. ACTION REQUESTED Recommend that the Bischel Sperling Preliminary & Final Plat be continued to the November 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Respectfully submitted, Lee Smick, AICP City Planner Cc: Michael Bischel Kimberly Sperling Larry & Shannon Walsh . z o - I- - C C <C c:::;:::'J @l @b~ ~Z b- @l...l og a: o~ w @Q. @:CI) ...I W :J: () CI) - . -----, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ___...J :Z o f: "- ;;: v '" '" o >; ti ~ " ~ i:'o s~ obi> f/l'i: "'." '" ~ c::e ~] '" ~ s-= 0"- ~~ '" ~ .....LLJ ~.W '" ~ "'- ~:'~ +- OJ) 0 o " ~ ]~~.s 0'" '" - " V'l _ ;;- t"'lo..- €:cJi z~5 ILl 0 E -BI-E '- ." .::;:::; 6 " "0 ~.S! ll.I g~-5 _"'0 ~ '0 ~ a~"E " ~ 0 ~o~ .;,: '" '" <( f- V '" (3 '" c.. :-!J ~ ." '~ '" 2:- ';;; " Cj E ~ ~ ~ ~ o -l '" c>: (; ;z; :z o N Cl '" '" a "- a '" c.. .;j o ;z; f: '" X '" ~ ~ ;;;; o < " .5l] '" . " - ~~ '" cld.~ ~ .~'~ ~ ~rg;z .5 ti ~ ell..e .. ~g~ -6Vl~ e ~ ~ OJ_CQ ~ 0- '" '" a >- '" > '" :J '" ii: '" '" ~ o i5 ~ '<> :;; 0< '" "- a -l '" > '" o Oi '" ;z; '" c u '" :J ~ oilo~ .: e:z 1icn~ ~ . U?-~ ];:::;:; ~~~ "''''"'' (lJ (lJ L +" VJ I I I I , I I I 1 [I ~_u___uu__u~ :: I I I I I I I I ~--_u---uu-__i i~ I J I I'" e~ I I 10: :1 r I I I I~ I ! i------r--------i L____--1_____~-1I _J I I I r------,-----r- -1 I I II I I 1 I I II I I I L______'-_______J r f r l I I II I I I I I [I I I I I I II I I I I I II I I I I I II I I I r------r-------l I I I I I I II I I I I I II I I I I I II I I I I I II "6uu,,1O I I I L---:~8~Ifs-----~fpu6~~S~---L----J (lJ 0.. o 2 J .Z'U:r.oo N'" DO-on .cQ: UQ (lJ1.. (lJ.... mef i; ,; J .Z".l:r.OQ N l~ ---~ .1nUS ONOOas.; ~ --T-----r----- 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 ->=--..1 : -4 I I I : I ---:---L_ po.O..//1o. I : ----L ' & :JI)/:Jo. ___J ~-u---u---u-:..-:...-..."7:~o;.;;~- UO/Un . ---, , I +88J+S r--------------__________ , I --- ] ~ 0- r:: 0- '" " E ~ :i- .~ t>- o ~ ~ ~~;~ VJ 0 f- .. t5:O:;Vl ;;; W .; w ~E!~ z "- I " - g.8 (f) ~ di >,..... :; ~:i 0 <:<N N "'::::I"'OfI'I ~ In 0 0 ~ <V 5 u ~ ~ .a lL. E 0 E_:s 2 -" ~.oo~ Q. <V -~:5-g (j] f- ,,' " :s fr ~ '- "- W ~ Q. o~.8 > W :>. <V I co >.~gt '" (f) ~ ~:~ ~ ~ ..... ~ 0 ~ 1:1 ~ 0 ",0.0 I lI):I0- 0 _ .... fIl-J 0 , '" N ro ..>! ~ ~ ...... = S ~ = "" c:q 0... LW (/) ." ~ o c. e "- .i 0- CIl "" C N "j ~ @ ~ ~ ~ .!! ~ ~ ;t. '<> '" ~; ~ i ~ c. e c.. ;i ~ ~ eO c 'C:~ ~'E t.ij~ O:!! < '" ~ .S "'CIl b~ v f- a -l :B ';: ~ ~ ';;; o '<i <ii c ';;; o N Ii 0- '" o o o '<i ;;.; -l ~ < t>- JJ -l o ~ '" '" N Vi f- a -l <ii c 'c o N r:: d- en o o c. ~ ~ o ~ ~ ." ~ C ~ .~ t>- '- o 2:- C ,;.; ~ u -.: co f- OJ '" 0: 0- '" ~ 00 '<i -g '" ~ 2 .!:- E <f! o ~ N ~ 'c ~ ~ ,;.; f- e ..1 e g " '" ;;.; ..1 ~ < t>- o '" [- OJ N Vi f- a ...J tii v < t>- '" :J '" '" :J a :> '" OJ c.. ~ Cl<( Z OJ >: w " >1/1 II: ~~ oil;!: ~~<.O z'i::a a:on IllUl~tD 3!!;:gzg; ~~~I w +-' ~L{) " OJn I-o=~ Q U1 '> Z Ul'--' cncN a:;:~~ CD.....m-...- ';: :J "" .,; ;;.; f- Vi :z w o .., ....., (lJ (lJ ill L ....., >L VJ -+-' .c UJ U (lJ ill OJ m 0.. 0 :2 I I I I I I L____--.J_____ r-----,----- , I ~ J I ~ , u I e: 0: I .. ~ l -1 ~I l I T I I I " I.q. > I I -+-...- -1 "- I' . Z <..: g 0 " 0 . g z ~ ::; .~ "'- - " - ~ ~. I- ~ 5 0 ~ >> ..J~ " '" I .,. ~ :z: >-' < I u - 51 ,; 0 '" . \U C 0 Ci5:E Q z " 8 :g ~g z 0 >> ~ ':i . ~] ~ c::; l :i ~l g " Q ~ oS 5 '" g" . .. 0 '" j 0", z .~ ~ H ':i " <C . '" '" :< l! ~"g ~ 0 z ~ . i:; ... 0 c. 'g ~ U I- >- 0 ~ n ~ ~ I- ~~ . Cl U :< " '" '" >> ~ '" .s ~ :r: ~ ~ ~ 8~ I- '" 'e '" I J 6 0 ~, 0 Z 0 c >- '" 13I z c '" '" 0 U I- ~ 0 "' ;:..'3 ~ " u . ~ 1;; '" "~ . \U ii '" -s . .~ ;- .. . i!: '" ~] ~ - '" '" ~ ~ Q:;:'- ~ ci 0 ..J ~~ ::; ~i " ui <~ '" U ..J >- "''' ~ ~ ~1, 8 ~ > l- ." 0 0 ~'~l u " 0 .0 H z '-! Is.. z j r'~ C g >- -s] , OJ a: ~ si- 5 I- 1;; 8 '" z ~ ~f ~~ z ..c.!: ~ z 0 u '" 'fi ~ f"\ H :J ~~ u .,. E 0 ~.2 . z .8 0.- ~ I- ~8 u 5z 5 W "- .of. g -: :! 0 . ~ ~ u ~~ '" 0 '" . 00 ~8 u z . < ~ ~'O 0 l'1= 0 ~~d '" i~ boo g ;;; c.. '" 0'0 ~ 0 0"" '" -< o . ~ uo Ci (IJ . ..J W :E: o (IJ - a3 II ..J 0 .u ~.s a .S ~"O -:;. ~ j .~ ..J >> dE ~e- ..Jo. "'~ ;:~ ~ ~ :.:.J"O :r: c, (; .S 1ii] =~ e" ~~ :- 0 z.: ;.u 0 ~.~ -. ~ ~.~ i.I.l 0.- "'~. ;.J a 5! ~ ~.~ ::oo~ z ~'- ~ i~ ::l~ci1 iU ~::Jo - c ~.s . c ~.~ <;ol"E g~ o . a.;.:; " . ~ . B 511 '" 0 ~~ ~~ i!,o ~~ ]1 s:~ N" ~" ~ :; ;iO::....: ~~J tZ~ t' ~ gj -1-- ~~~ ~jJ f~' ~ 0 ~~ o :;; ~ " ~" i ~ ;z .~ Q~ I-.!? 8~ <0. 0:.2 ~ ~ ..J 0 '" C lJ.l ~ e;~ -' . '" . :r: . ~~ c::l 5 rd 5 ].s ..:!! n i~ {'iI~ ~ " f~ 0.0 : 5. .0 " C..;: ~~ ~;~ ] 0 g ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ x:g a ~ " o . o ~ ~ t u f ~ " 'E ;:; ~r-: .0 ~ ??~ ~ u_ J'! 0 0= j.fi E~ g Q. ~~ .0. g U g ~ ;:; -~ c. >.'-= ~ .5 I~ :2 ~ ~~ ~0 ,g:J ...0' "'z ~:i ~'" j~ ~~ .'" .:r: ~~ "'" .- = ~ U ~~ ~ ~:gt ~~~ ~!5 .::-~ fn~:lgV: 5;~~~~ ...J >. 0 U 0 UJ'E ~:aVl 13 ~ J! ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ rd::~{jri HiB 5 ~ ~.~ t ~;; s::: 0 ~ f.~.8~~ .g !' ~ ~:; >. ~..c -i:i ~ !~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ .~} 1: ~ ~.~~~1~ ~~~~~~ 0. loo,g :e. 0 t "l:! c.... l)IjC:..c lij ~ a~ ~ ~ '0 li~,5 ~1 ~ ~] 1 i .~ ~ ': i c..;-8 ...5!!i;~c..8 mm t Cl Q.. ~ ~ 0- =~~j.~ ~ ...."'''l:!...: ,.11 -s c~ n .:j 8 1;"' ~ .5 "'~ ~~ ~ ~ ~:5 -~ o . ~ ~ ~~ -s;:;; ~ 'I ~g i3? ~ 01 E" sr-=' .~ ~ ::S ~ f 'I H f~ g, ] >. c. _.g8 ~< 0'" ~~ ~~ ;:;;'" ",0 0>- ~!Z ",,,, 1;i8 till ~ Cl ;0 I ,~lO III ..0 III Cl..., iE ::;:2~ ~ g i~ 1Il.c I ~ '" ~ ~~.~ ~ r') ~N a::'- '-If) lID r-- ~ 0"1 _00_ :j <3 ~, ~? LL..:..... ~-al ijj ~~ ~ C'C-g :i ~.~ 0 ~~ 5 ~ g IX ~~ ~ <Il '.II ...J E 5. w '~~ is .=~ ~ g;;: "'0 ~~ ~o ;:;;"- ",0 0>- ",f- I-Z <OJ 1;;8 .-- = R. = .n ~ c<> @ [t (/) ~ ~ ,., CD ~ '0 ... ~ ~I ~ ~ .!? .ll ~ f I~ .~ ~ 0 ~z ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~.~ .:< S...: "'~ .~~ ~:C ..9~ .'" ~E I 1 I I "~ I ~ III ^II '~I f\ I C \ ~ III A I \ I I_I I I' N I ~ III AI' ~ I f\ I C \ ~ III A I \ II_I I I f\ I 1 'II 'IIV 11 I 'IV...L,.l1 ~IV 1<:::! V _J 111'11 'IIV 1 1 'IV...L,.l1 'IIV j<:::! V _J I V...L I 1~11f\1 Ilnnu " 1 -]'l ";-]LJIC' +-' r - - - - - - - - - - - - - -ll ~ V I...L I '-J '-J V -.::, /" _~ 1 C _~ I II-'::...c Q) ~ 1f\111 Innu C'-]f\IAI "IAI I I I U Q) I 'I V II...L I '-J '-J V , -....:; _~ V V j V 1 I I I Q) L I I I I Q)+-' I II Im~ L - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ...l. ...L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J ;~ ~ :j. <3 <3 J :j. S P U 0 J <3 S ~ ;~ 3 "zv,zr,oo N ji 09'OLO I - - - - -- - - - - -----...... ------ -:.@ . ~ z o - I- - C C <C . CJ Z - ...I tel W.-J 0. cn----T--------- I ~ 'l I ...I I I w: : :1:1: +-' : Q)I 0.: Q)I 'I '-I ,^ +-'16 Vir i UJj-") ai: Q)p I: I 9l L I 01 I 21 1 I I -I-. I I --..J__ I J I I -J..._ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -1___ I : i-- I I I J L_________ f\ I V...L .0" -Y r------ 1 I I - I g I g_ I '0 3: j----~-, I o~ ~~ I ~~ ~~~ ..::Z O'lN I li. '" z:5 Z " 6' y /.---> . :j.88J:j.S ~ <:j . CIl " :;: .. '" . '" " " o~ ~ -0 ~j :; "~ E~ ~~ .g~ ] " :5~ ~z ~~ ~g ~I . . 0 .. :5~ :>.:,:j I -~ ~~ E. ~~ i!; "u E ~~ ::::-e 0 .~:~ _u ~ 6 ~ ~~8 0_ :~z ~~ 0 ~:5o 0 "zV,~r.oo N oo'on ~331::1~S aN003S~ ,,-,,0 \ ..., I I I I I ~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~ : ~ 8~ ij) 101"" ~ j~-Qv;~.:~ z I -t' I LL ,(041-JO_llt61~ . POOJ,!O~ POO.J/IO .d J.IJ.I:] 0 d -- - --------- ~jl~ 210.. r rHl$ a:::<( 2 ..II ~ '"'I "II I /..), ;::: Z _W'V I 0' ;;;>-,0 -"""-""-. \~ II~ I i= ~n:~:l~~::::J::- 0 ~ <( II~ I ~ /T'""'r -- ~ f'o'") U ":-p I" ~ 0 II *'V I *J' ~ ...J <11 in :J :5 -~ v '0 _Q,l .S!:5;. ~:2lA .- :t 0\ " C r-r- .!!:I.E"c I ~ ~QJ~ r- .c l1.I 0 I o~"C I ~~6-, ~ c: .0 I goilo.. I ~~~~ r-~ ~:~~ L .~.2.~ c I QJ.~~~ I ~:[~: L ~ "0 -~- ~ .~~~ ~ ~ g 3~ c ~ o "'" "' ~ ~ ..... = s ~ = ~ -;-1 :ij" I ~ I o 1 " I ~ I -I .-J I ~ I .~ _1 _ --1 6 >.n '"" 0- W (/) ~ @ ~ ~ 'S '0 C o lXl '" ..., 3: o o ~ ~ o Z " o "' ~r uno -?- Y /.---> -- /1 ./' L UO!Un //j/j __ 1// ~~ + S.J!.J - - - - ~~ -- III Z >< .. 0 >- a: .:; =<11 fII , .,~ III 3: I.~~ .. 0..., ~ ~:g~ CJ 02: (j) Z t~"I ...c '" ...:i'V"1") Q Ji5 ~ z ~~ CC f""'l eN ~ ~~e . I I I I I I I ~ I ~ I .. I '0 >: I c ~ I"" ., u c < I I "" :::; .0 +" . '" ~ c I . I E. I I Q) C';: +" I .- o. Q) I I Q) I I = 0 I ~ I ~" I I '- <a. Q) I +" ___1__-.1 '- r--~-~--+--L-~--J (f) +" (f) L '" 1----1 I I I--I-I~-l u c Q) Q) . I I Q I I I I I ,S I Q) w 0 ~ m I .. I 0 I :g I c I I I ~ OJ ~ I 0 0 g- u 0 is c I ~ I '" "' 'l 0 I I I I . I I z 0 "" "" '" .~ " c ~~ "" I I I u . I :2 . I .. I ""~ I I "" c., 0.. '" :2~ I . I .2 .~ g ~ .,. ~'" 0'0 . I ~~ I 00 I .~ .!!! I ~~ I . , I {l E o. "'''' "'>: ~i I '" I 'l I I UOJ I I I I I .Wl -~__-L____~ L--~-___~__L_~__J . 188J1S pUO::l8S~ . -1-aaJ+-S- - - -P UD:}B ~ - T --1-------1 : I ~ I I ~ I OJ I Q;I ~ I ~ I ~l ~ 1____8____J UJI <( I JaMaJ8 uaa/410>i '? uOl\3 I (])I f..-::-___ I g. - - L Su,~ - - - I ~I -- -- -- ~a=-a:>toO.J8 I I -t-- - -1- - -1- - -1- - - - T - - - - ., I I I I ~ I I I I ""~ ~ I I I ~ l"ii ~ ! I E I E I ~ I ~~ - I ~ I ~ I ~ ~____ ! .~ I ~ I a. 1 ~ I ~ I ~ 1 ~,=~_ l~~~ I ~ I ~ J I ~~~ : i : ! : ~ i~--- I I I I ~ ---,__ I I 1& --r-__L Ii ---..j 3 .z.,zr.oo N OO"ot'L ,-- I I ~ Li_ I ~ I ell I ~ I ~ I Ui I ~, r- z ,. .n gi ~ z ~ ~ -- -- -- -- SJ;;lUj I I - 'fd -- -- __ PU<ilI'JO dJO::; -- __ -J <ilH Jf'V:J 6u'P{OH PUO I I - - _ _ (POOM I L ~61 OSI - - _ _ ---------~ --------~- --,--,-, I I I +" I I I ~ J J J ~ (f) I I I Q) I I I I I:l I I I I ~ I I I I I c ~ ] o ~ U . 188J1S +S..J'.:J ,--------------- ~61 'ON 1.;)'/.JISIO . IOO,-/;)S J uapl.JiiJdapU/ ~ ~ "- ~ 0 = '" = "" ~ .... @ "'- LW U') ~ ~ >. CD I I I I I I L__ I-I I I I I I f;' I ~ I ~ l,g I ~ I ~ I! I Ui L__L____ 188J1S PUO::l8S -~ . o 11' o I"iiN I VO ~ . . 1~~ I :r~ ~~ - ~ --ill VO U X "- '" . "' " E :g E c 00 ,~ O~ c= .,. 0" ~vo r- IJ) f- W W I IJ) lL.. o f- W W I IJ) r-- o 1 o I "' N a:; Cl<( Z <u ;:~ W :J >Vl a: . ::l~ III :(l ailS: Cl ~ <.0 Z ,- 0 ii:on elvo~<.O Z vo <.0 _oz(J) Clt;::;;i ffi:5 .lJ"l :J<un ~o=<t C Vl '> Zf'0~N C~'-lJ"l a:r-.:J(J) lD~m~ ~: .- -I . . . >- i ~ .~~ -" ~~ "> ~a. "'. ~v ~] ~] 2~ .~.~ E: ~! 0", ~~ u2 4.l'c ~o ~"' ~H ._A-,-\- I "A-<<-<<-<< ,.j, .LUIU.S GNGOiS -, I -j'--- Ii - I I!I ~ I j ,----;::---, I I II I.n I :~: L---~ Ill! - 1.';::1 I ~: 'I .=-r.. I j'l I : ^ r-r '\.. ,. I ~I I L i~'--.1 ~~ ~ ~: ^: ~<<_" z I I I - - f- ~ I ."'-1' _ ---.J..._ J :::::I--.- I ---~ L-..J -"'-=::r~ pa."~~ -JJ:::r-- 011 .'1;)OJ~~ _ _ II ~ I I -I-t-- I I ----__ -.I '-_______~__:.....~_ I I II I I II L_ _ _1.._ ___...LI_ __ ~ 188J1S PUO::l -~~~,1L-._ _ J i~i- I I 1 10110IS !.lQ9~~~ I po.~WWl)'" to'lt9+\ (rIIOIS8A!J(]:lluaJ) .- .Ii -~ - - j~ I .--- --...--. ~:~ :J ~ I u s: a. .. . '" " j! ( s <;,;;) = '" = In ~ CO> Cl... @ t:S ~ ~~ ~ ~~ .. -1 \ i~ I J II I I II I L _ _ _ 1.. _ _ _ _ -1..1_ _ _ L ~ 188J1S P UO::l8 J .Z",lf.OO '" oo'on '-,- "'" I ~ I ,--- I I I I Q; I I I wi ~---~ 'I~- ~I I G:' I . Ii; I ~ I~.. ~~ ~ I I Z ~ gi 81 I I '-----J ~I: W' ~ r--l -~ I ~I_I ~.J...____~ ~ ~S'1:.~~ljS L.- I - I -t--__ I ---__ '- - - - - - - - _--:.....~ - - ~i1aHJ.s ONO:)i1S tlI \ I i I r I 10'-'0)$ !JOJ_IUIiO:>) 99"6Z+L I I P08 ..atz~;r- , -f-e (tl JOI1l8il!'OI-a\tla:JL- '-l::::t-.... -=--- ~ ~ o a; o o '" o '" aJ ji!--.. .!i~ E" !Ci ::i ,;! -ii l" ie- "' Il " . ....., ~ ~ '1 0 --,,- . '" ~ . .. I f---: ~- ; OL06 ~ 0"l06 i ~ l . "LOr . "-L06 - 'L06 + .. ~ "'906 II 0"606 ~ u 0606 . ~ . O'6() N 0'606 ~ - '906 + ~ 6-906 " 606 + .; ~ i 0-606 ~ + a 0'606 - .JI 0"606 0 0"606 . Oli06 -- ~ ~ o '" aJ t" 06 (/) [- W Zw OI F=(/) is ON <t ClLL zO I... O:J N ill '0-0:: " w [- ill Q W (/) U) w Ie: -.J I o w~ I-:: Q 8 CU)I ,<;; rn 0 + I '" N CD C o E L. ill ~ ~ PJ 9"S06 06 0"606 : e <( Z <lJ >~ W ::J >V1 a: . ;:)- UJ ~ oll~ ~~<O Z ,- 0 a:Or-t1 1::lU1:;i<o ZU1 <0 _OzO'> ~t;::;;1 15:5 . If) ::J<lJ1"l 1-0'=,"" QV1> Zn~N C L.1f) a:r:::::JQ) m..-OJ,-" iJ'6Q"6 ,'"" 9-606 ;~J&- ~ 91l0s m~ 0"606 0 0-606 "'~ 0"60 + 0"606 ;~,;;;; ~ 0"S06 ;::- ~ ("606 ;~;;,"; ~ 9"608 . . z o - I- - C C [5<C @ @1~ @)Z @,:i @ @a: ~W [5 a. ~(f.) ..I W ~ () (f.) - m . I I .. ! !!~!I I~J i~. ~ I ~ i '~i ~. 'it 'i; 1 11';1 1 i III '1 f f q I : f I h ,j I!! t,: i I. I t i I ] it :' ,IJ '"Illll i III I" II '11 I ! 1 II I !,' I !i I I "I "I E I I I . '. Ii · u is: J J '"j ,. Ill'! I II i : i' II f' I, Iff 111 ; i 1 ! E i - l - J. S "1' ~ ; d ! ' ! I "H I lil I '! ~ IHP I ~ i l II ~d II.: Ili i 1 z IlJr~J"I-Lr.!sIJl;lJi! Jl~ I) ~ . !.' ;. I". ill I Ii! III . I ~ In! ~ i l! !f: H II n :1 n! r ! UJ I- W W I UJ ~ , I~ I. f - ~e I !~ 'f fSI Ii ~d I: II :1 ~ I U I 0 ~ i; ~ ~ pi J a.~ i;1 i . Al · i:j IiJI i !!: ~ i~ t ~ Pin ~ =~ ==i1 i 8 d !::\!IX it 0 LL o I- W w I UJ c--' oW I U U1 OJ " o I o I '" N ro l!! ~:l~H ~ ~ ? ~~~~:~ I I!, H~ : !jl Hi pj 1 'j"' 1j l ! ~ Jl ~<( Z Q) ;:~ W :J >(/) a; . :1- Ul (/J Q) all:;;: ~ Q) Z ,,,= <D _~o a; 01") l::l(/J~<D Z (/J <D c;2z~ Z~~I W _ .lD ... :J Q) I") Q~~'<t Z (/J~ c(nCN 0:'-1....1.{') m~~e "J 1 r ' HH ~ I jJ'J'llil · . HiP -Ii ~ I III !hhl ~ : i~~~i~~~~~: q J . ; i ~ I i ~ ! i ~ i 1 ~ i I ~ Ii! ~ 'I j I ~ II! Ii ~ Ii. 'j 0 Iii I pi! !il!ll~ .p,iil.i ; J! 11. ~ i'liPi:!!: Ii lU!ii! ~ z 8 ~ ~ ~ eJ ~ ' u ~~ ~. :1 '" " 0~ -::J ~ r-- = S R. = on ~ C'> a.. @ ~ ~ PS ~ . I ~ I e 0: . :i............................ ~Q <II ~ ] " ! N N N 1 E in Ii il ! ~ lne E :g.......cncn... .. ~J . 0 U ~ " c i5~~~~~:;:~~~ p~ ~ U 7ii. aNN..,P'lN........~~ ~ u . ~ :sjjj . p~: ... ;ittl . .....8H~~. ,- J " ~111~~~~!1 ! ~ " - ..; !~~@~t3~~~ dSn II 11, -5Wt'PS' It> <<p.UI/n-t:?, U/<'re ~ wAdle", t-C'e 4d'-.e tu~re J4t1-1 J1f;ffl~C'r~c:fJ 1/1 ~ ~~,) \' ~ Aee J/41/c.K- . . . c~~ Item A Questions Per Drawings- /J _ J _ /J ' ' Why no utilities/right of way/designated SnO""1J1o'hi1e trail on lot #2 and #3 pJUtyllCK pM 7-31 do.<<. Sewer and water to lot #2 and#3? 12., e!'It(" t'fie.,'?P /d Y~JI /I~. Driveway and garage to lot #17 J!LU1e~e/ ~H #-:!I /~. /) What does 1800 sq. ft. envelope mean? (# 1) ..>Ma/ 5' ;'1// i:tI/ /1-1 ;oeUk"1 Lot width's not shown, why? What are tbey? ,ee,f11~/tedl (;IUI o~-3II'7~. Does Lot #2 meet the square footage for a lot as defined in City Code 11-1-67 A lot is defined as a portion of a subdivision, or other parcel of land intended as a unit for transfer of ownership or for development. In detel1nining the size of a lot, no part of a right of w~ay., ~ c>(! stre,et, cro~swalk or eas~ment, other than utility, may be included. '{!.e1//:!f' fP< /;: ~d$A" _ J Can a lot mclude a requrred turnaround for a development? Iftheyan own~s~ a m~eCJ~j/~~~ the~ rcs~onsible for rnainten, ance and snow removal and fr9fJJ' keepi:o~..:-rs from parking on J () theIr lot In the turnaround? rt" 4U 11111/:7 ,~1JtIt&J( IP ~(/Ia{ ,I'J1tt#1tC'I1~ q~ 'i'~~ What is the squar.e footage of garages to all three l~? ~r! '1 ttJr;Z - 11'0 pi to-r ~~I/~ 11 What is the City's plan for ensuring adequate snow removal (inc1udi11g quant'igr, storage.., L f etc,) for a private drive that exceeds 150 feet in length and is 26 feet wide? )#.4 ~~~PT- ~tjtd/t.. City~s plan for garbage remo~al7 Will the trucks back in, drive in and turn ar,.?und lwh,at? kq'f'~ /1'4P What are the City's computatlOns for lot area and per each of the thr_ef.l~~?~ Jff!t/,d ~ ~ What is the City~s density computations per each of the three 10ts?!.-!-~:6.f;~ II; tJ'5'Z1;I What is the City's lot coverage calculation of all structures for all ~lt16ts~ 1'-Z9,1~ l-Jj,,6~ ?--5f,Y;i'J What is the maximum structural height for all. three lots and why isn't it on the drawing? Y3 ff-Al~tt!11 How does the developer Rrgpose to save tree ~ ,~~n it is located in the middle of the 611p!P dwelling on lot # I? )Jevz/ 11/ frl/!!:tf II 10/ Does the drawing show storm water drainage on west property linse' . g onto the It Railroad right of way? If so~ why is this allowed? y'e,:; I MMtrl i" M 't? /fP//tj- Does the drawing show storm water drainage on the south property line dra ni"y.g to tqe 5~th and then. turning left 90 degrees at the property line'? How is this possible? ~el14~tll!J/ otfJt !-3/ /'I~. Where on the dra~ngs does it qll~lify w~,at the var.io~ nU1Jl~e~SJ1l, ~,bols~ etc. meao a94 how does one deCipher these drawmgs Without guessmg? ",#~ 4tJ 1?/ld1() ~f ~/1 tf/. Measurements and location, of existin~ fire hydrant, p,ower lines, etc, as requ.ired in City code 11-3-2B,Item#4 1J~eP 4v ~Id~# ~~~ City's explanation as to why they waste staff and public time, taxpayers money on a plan that does not comply with City Codes especially after the Planning Commission and staff repeatedly told the developer not to bring a plan that was not compatible? As a preliminary/final plat why do the drawings not contain any specifics about the struct'Ul'es ~ A /t. e to be built (building sizes, materials, doors and window placement, etc.)?.J/a:fjJ1JJ[t{ftt{~~clff/l 'It/I/< Where ar.e the labeled stt'eet addre~~es as requir~d pe~ City Code 11-2-3 (Dt J!1ditl?,f;;.tf(Jt4 ?;8If~. Based on the poorly defined defimtlOnal offan:llly Clty Code Il.2-1, what IS the potentIal maximu~j1umber of peJsoPf who could o9fuPY a p~icular dwelling on each of tbe three lots? If M'./r-dd>fet/ fiel'>t1J1f cfr7 ~tldt. tli11-1 According to an email from the city planner dated August 30, 2007: The R-2 zoning district requires the following for minimum lot area and width. The depth is not cited because to meet the minimum lot area, the lot width multiplied by the depth gives you the minimum lot area. The lot width is defined as the following: The front yard setback is 20 feet for both single-family and two-family uses and is measured from the curb of the road to the structure. Therefore, Lot 1 is 6,011 sq ft, and 1 . . . 88 feet in width meeting the requirement below for single family standard~ This calculation would result ~n aJ(}t_ depth of 68.306818 feet. "7/ubf~ ~rrl!"d ~bd!Z ~fll ~ ~ 1# ttU:f>cf11. Lot 2 is 16,017 sq ft in area, and 108 feet in width measured at the frol1t yard setback, meeting the requirements for two-family standards. This calculations would result in a lot depth of 148.30555 feet. Oy/~cf: ' . Lot 3 ;s , 1,052 sq ft in area:, and 77 feet in width measured at the front yard setback and also meets the two-family standards below. This lot calculation would result in a lot depth of 143.57142 feet. Are these three lot c};pth calculations correct and consistent with the measurements shown on the drawing. Cb;/t/e't:,-t. ~ :5 ~ Also in the August 30~ 2007 email from the city planner in response to our question regarding lot line measurements she states: The plat does show lot line measurements. You may review the plat at your convenience at City Hall, I stopped by City Hall on August 30, 2007 and asked to see the plat which was provided and when I noted that measurements were not included I was told tbat the development was not yet at the stage whe~ measurements weT} a:t' r;f7H?e needed, Why was I told to drop by to review when i:t isn't available? Lde;f /11f;J~tl:(-rf1. ~-ZO.. Why if this is the preliminary and final plat hearing is there no final plat drawing? ~d Zerf!Z The public hearing notice is not dated. Additionally, why aren't citizens invited to sollclt questions concerning the final plat if they are being reviewed simultaneously as in reas<Jl Jj.ne " - ~ of the memo: Preliminary and Final Plat - Bischel Sperling Addition. Plf f//>)ft?1( (J<f' tye~ r::;;~ In the city planner's email to us dated August 30,2007 she stated that: Lot 2 is 16,017 sq ft in lIP /,.~~, area. and 108 feet in width measured at the front yard setback and Lot 3 is 11,052 sq ft in area, and 1c~6~' 77 feet The preliminary plat included with the public hearing notice shows on the legend a ~~/JIf. ~ lot sizes of 11,052 for the two-family lots while tl1lewing shows one lot at 11,052 and the' fJ.. . other at 16,017. What size is lot #2? 1b.10/7 Why is preliminary plat included with the public h aring notice is stamped received August 20,2007 but the revision date listed by the engineer is August 21, 2007? /;'11"t'~T M plMrl/, . . 2 . . . Item B Given the ~ity's codes, rules, regulatiQ:n..s~ etc',;~~tl~se items be legally allowed on these three lots? Ye=' J If 411btI t41e./ 5Lf/tJ~. 1. Outdoor door patios/detks ' 2. Recreational fire pits 3. Swimmingpools 4. Playground equipment 5. Accessory structures Item C Why does the City th.ink if s a good idea to repeatedly build dwellings on top of a railroad? . How far would a tTain car travel if it derailed at the City's max.inJ,um. allowed speed limit? . What does the City do to enforce its speed limit? . Why is there no buffer between these conflicting land uses? . Why docs the planning department igno.re its responsibility to protect the public's safety? *C+/~ /()-r"/ (C) >I-~es c/Nd ~ ~-?/& J,r f/lt:,:S ~1?1. r~"td/, ~tJtt/ ~ ~c?U/Jp-t L'odt ~~.s ~ JJ~ J7~q'l, /14fT.. <k ~,r",kR r:-~/"'~ ftf/d f,d-;- ~J r~~ 3 . . . Item D We are requesting the applicant and city provide copies of the neighborhood survey done by tbe applicant including all correspondence to city officials as a result of the survey be provided to the plt~1ic an, d to all planning c~~is~yn mernAers'/7 ' J. ~ . J. M' ~./A ~r.t#a/~ 1~c-f;~n 11-3-2 7}J/~lV's .yn('trl:; 4~ ~TJ?/I.e*c'H'--7 IHi~ . We are also requesting lli; following: 14t::r-r ~ ~. A.. 1. Official final plat checklist items ".t/~ 5'tlPjM(l-4Y /lr /ffi?/~/P/c:r. 2, Official storm water calculations as per letter dated August 1 ~ 2007 from Lee Smick and when were they r.eceived /I tLt{ ztJ1 za; 7 3, Detailed list of all engineering Issues (#4, August J,O, 20J}71~, r. to developer frOln City and details of developers addressi~~ theA issu~ /I#~ 4. Officialland.scape plan 4#~ 5. Documentation fr9{ll, developer that lots wi}! on1y)~e soldlleased/~nted to senior c~~:e~(1,k /' II 1 3~2 D Item #2) LOtl~~ ~ tIin I/tJ/I- j/JeeF vI~ f;e r-e't/I.xzr .fH;4f (-I(/~ 6. Before existing structure is allowed to be raised we ask that the City require the developer to l11-fr, do a competent, independent historical survey done by a knowledgeable professional. It is imoossible to ascertai.n the history of a structure by merely looking it as per an email from the city planner dated August 10,2007. The review process is not being circumvented by not reviewing the project with the Heritage Preservation Commission. The City's Historic Preservation Consultant, Robert Vogel, surveyed this area a few years ago and determined that the house at 808 2nd Street has 00 t,istorical significance, as you may understand by the condition of the home. The only thing anyone can tell by the present condition of the home is that neither the owner nor the City are doing anythin~to rn.aio,ta1.1J, it. Thj~ has 99thi1JJ1; whatsoever to .~~lit9 jts,,_ I/., 1//, history, -p.l a/>ft!r/?lt/ tl'#(L/Jr~ S:'~7 #"1/ /1bt fdlt1l/1~ta q./fdT q/&l.I"tJ" /~ 7. Documentation from the de)JelOp'er yoncerning the private driww~ maintenance agreement.1J~"PJ1 '.> 11-3-2 D Item #2). Jld~4" cfp Pt!Yeff~4f /~r ct-/ltJl/#11' . 8. As per City Code 11 ~4-2 (A) what c}ty ~o.nj,ng on1iJ1ance establiS, hn; s t~~minimlUn wid~l and ~# 9'- depth ofa lot? JJ~ftt #' lor /:.J lIt?! /~~UI//.c"-- /tV!W.?r I#~~f # ~/~ 9, As per City Code 11-~-2 (D) what city zoning ordinan& establishes the required minimum ~ frontagli: on an approved street per. lot? ] 0, Documentation of and comments, changes, etc. from staff and advisory body review of this plat as ref~rence in City Code 11-2-2 (C) and .(Or-d. 002-4JO, 2-JJ-20~ and in an email from the City planner on August 2,2007. 6ee ~~. The sketch plan was determined adequate on June 28th, The sketch plan was placed on the July 10th Planning Commission meeting. As stated on the website and in Section 11-2-1 of the City Code, the Sketch Plan allows the developer to receive feedback prior to a plat being prepared. 11-2-1: SKETCH PLAN: In order to ensure that all applicants are informed of the requirements and minimum standards of this title and the requirements or limitations imposed by other city ordinances or plans, prior to the development of a preliminary plat, all applicants shall present a sketch plan to the city planning division prior to filing a preliminary plat. The planning coordinator will review the proposal with the development committee, city staff, and the planning commission. 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. The process allows the developer to receive feedback on the plat prior to the expense of preparing a detailed plan on projects that may require substantial revision before formal approval is given. (Ord. 002-470, 2-19-2002) 4 . . . Item E Reasons not to put these or any dwelUng units on a undersized/sma1110t at this location or any other location in the city. Open/play space for the currently existing (non-confi,rming) duplex, unit is currently i.nadequate. There are no convenient city park in the immediate area. Increasing the density to the degree proposed with only exasperate an already tense situatioJl, Examples of current and past activities all of which are Ulegal stemming for the two existing duplex units on abutting north hOlmdary ofthis property are as follows: }, Kids play football, baseball and Frisbee on neighbors property aud in street 2. K;,ds play basketball in street 3. Extra vehicles parked on lawn 4, Recreational fIre on neighbors property, on City right of way, too close to structures 5. Recreational vehicle parked on lawn or neighbors property 6, Swimming pool placed on neighbors property 7. Accessory structures placed on n.eighbors property. 8. BB gun, shootin.g practice commencing on the neighbors lot to the south, Targets are extended further into the property on the south and the ammunition is discharged to the south, Please note that each of the four duplex abutting the property under discussi,oo. ar.e occupied by young families, There are at least four children living in these units of various ages despite the fact that these duplexes are also smaller in size, one level and could be considered as ideal for senior citizen housing. In the seven yeats we bave lived in this neighbor.hood there has been OIle renter. sever.al yeats ago who could be classified as a senior citizen but the rest have been. families (parents ,vith young children). These children have no room on their own property to play and mar;;~~~vate road J:UIIDing just a rew feet from their backdoor. 5 . . . Item F 111ere is an inherent unfairness of review system Other departments get minimum of 15 days Planning commission 70 days City Council 50 days Public 10 days. In this case five of those days City Hall was closed (Labor Day and weekends). Furthermore, as the city planner (see eroails below) allowed the developer until September 5, 2007 to fmalize plans in.stead of five days the public has three days to prepare for the meeting by review plans and asking the city questions. Public should receive at least 45 working days to review, etc, including equal access to development staff, city staff and city resources and data especially as the public heari,ng is the only opportunity that citizens are guaranteed an opportunity to participate in this process. City planning staff repeatedly ignored the City's approval process policy to pick and choose at their discretion which steps they woul.d or would not follow. This abuse of processes resulting in the blatant bi.. io. filvor ofth.~evelo er at, the ~triment of the citizens 95-the a4 CityofFannin~isunfair~~7.1. 1t11Lf" re~tW//R~e.~:s",. tv:, ~ Wlle<< t?/! c.(/lltJ -:;fIJ . pt:l/.e$j~r ft/# 4L/~ I~#~' A~kple of thi.s can be seeln the Incomplete Letter fro~he city planner dat A~ust -7- /Z;-;~ 10, 2007 which states: Vou will need to submit these items on or before August 20th jn order to be ~ tentatively scheduled for the September 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. The next incomplete letter from the city planner dated August 24, 2007 (four. days after the August 20th deadline) states: Please call me at 651 463-1820 to schedule a meeting with City engineers concerning the plat. At this time, the plat will not be scheduled for the September 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting because of the information still needed for a full review of the plat. And finally email from the city planner to us dated August 28, 2007 (eight days after the deadline) states: There are some issues that need to be resolved on the plat, however, the City has scheduled a public hearing for the Bischel Sperling Addition preliminary and final plat for September 11, 2007 at 7 PM at City Hall. If the issues are not resolved by September 5th, staff will recommend continuing the public hearing to the October 9, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Additionally, the city attorney and city planner outside ofthe public forum "made up" a new City policy regarding outlot vs. easement giving a distinct advantage to tb, ,e developer tQ~b ( W .5 determine of the City's r.esidents, a blatant misuse of their positions. 11Rf:.e. ~ff(;. ~ It 1/!/5tH ~ We would like the commission to please explain why the City allows a eaeve~per fu p10 ee3' ?/~ . and present a final plat for approval when the Planning Comm.ission has yet to appr.ove even. a sketch plan as it seems to be a considerable waste oftl).e Ci!y's time and taxpayer dollar~ 7J1efc411~ tUJ;:J//P//?6? cf ~ttN c?cf ~ _!1_ //- . '1- /~..-tJ 1. 6 . . . Item 0 R~, ons WhY~he ~. will noj allow presc9t conditions to "limp along". J c/' /#~/ ff't/e:f, C'1::1 4- C7t7U-rIP1//~~ =Iff) re/l~tZ/ (~!~ (1' h d/ a)/IJ 1. Still need to lain fout gas meters vs. triplex dwelling f::7t';b1d /tt:wt' plC/H c1t1ffi ~J - /... ~ 2. How asphalt got ill the middle of a driveway that was never paved (the reason cited by the &~~. City not to require updated driving way paving). 3, More than six vehicles wj]J require parking screening (City :must product its vehicle counts as promised), City code requires 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling. 4. Painted Styrofoam siding. City must prove it has considered the appropriaten.ess oftms siding material as promised. 5, Doors and windows on second floor that are nailed shut, including fire escape door. 6. Storage of construction debris on site. 7. Garbage littering property, 8. Continuous weed violations 9, Historical lack of adequate garbage service. 10, Current lack of any garbage service despite continuing tenant occupancy. The tenant has been without garbage service for at least six months. 11, Peeling paint 12. Mismatched roof and siding materials and paint 13, General overall lack of maintenance and upkeep to property as reflected by surrounding properties 7 . Item H Second Street in Farmington is a good place to live . . A Ofthe properties surrounding this site on Second Street 40 of 42 properties are single faJJ)ily homes and over 85% are owner occupjed. All properti.es face the street and have on.ly one housing structure per lot. The two non-single family homes are as follows: A triplex which is W1distinguishable from a large single family split level from the outside. 111is property has four detached garages off the alley so the coming and goings of the various tenants has minimal impact on the surrounding properties and the tTaffic on See.ond street. A side-by-side twin home with both sides owner occupied. It was built in the late 1990's and has two bedroom, two bathroom and double garage units. It fits in well with the neighborhood. . In just the past couple of years four older properties on Second Street have been purchased and completely updated, . There are simply no properties 011 Second Street (or Fannington. for that matter) that look anything like what is being proposed and there is no reason to ignore city code to cram in, three structures totali.ng five housing units onto what is now one lot that can,n %,ilY ~modate a single family home or one twin home that can be owner occupied, ~lee Precedent . One of the reasons we oppose the plan is the precedent it would set for the neighborhood. On. the next page we have outlined a potential future for 2nd Street which could include an additional ten residential units ifthe proposal at 808 Second Street is able to progress as currently planned. No one can argue that it's a good idea for another ten properties to be added to the five lots that currently have only one property increasing the l1eighborhood density 50% but once th~ity has set precedent there 'is little recourse to stop additional development ,J.J!4'C~, ", . Precedent on Second Street may also have repercussions on the future of 7th Street. 111is street has eight lots in a row raD,ging fTOm .39 acres - ,77 acres. The majority of which have the additional feature of alley access. Following the potential dev~pment pattern on Second Street could add an additional 14 houses on 7th Street. AJ~<fe&!.. . We sent an email to the city planner asking: where in fa~~ington can we see in a property in an R~2 zone which is similar to what is proposed at this property? We have serious concerns aboutfive dwellings running entire length of our property in a single .family neighborhood and seeing it somewhere else would help us, and I believe the Plannin.g Commissioners, put the entire project into perspective. We received the response on July 26, 2007: Ms. Walsh, you are correct that this type of development is one of the first proposed in the R-2 district most likely because of its existing lot size. As we've just established lot size isn't mu, ch of,dc:t~,' nt of Second or on th Street (which currently has a .74 property for sale). j)~~) . Also, in an emaiJ dated 8/1107 the city planner stated: Additionally, the Planning Commission and City Council will review this 'proj~, to determine how well it fits into the neighborhood even if it meets all City standards. AJ O~ev .. 8 . . . Our Objections . We purchased tbis property because we enjoy the outdoors. As the property at 808 Second StTeet clearly predated our occupancy and was not in the plus column it wasn't so awful that we opted not to buy. Had we known at that time how little interest the city has in enforchlg it's own code and correcting violations we probably would have bought somewhere else - but you don't know what you don't know. . We also didn't anticipate that in over three years of ownership that the property owner would fail to provide any exterior maintenance. . In the plus column we had a property with a large backyard and no backyard neighbors and no backyard fences. That's pretty hard to find. Our property not only has a large backyard but also green space surrounding it and that was important to us. . As soon as we can eat our meals outside without heavy coats we set up the table for the season. That's also when we set up for backyard tent and take turns sleeping outside with Ollr young daughter. We have a slide, a swing, a glider, a ~nd box, flower gardens, a fir.e pit, a compost bin, a badminton net, horseshoes game, beanbag game, a wading pool i,n the summ.er and a ice rink and igloo each winter. And unless it's raining the majority of our free time is spent outside, year round. We have chosen to forgo a hom.e computer, cable TV., etc. to spend as much time outdoors as possible. . For u.s, tbe idea of having five different families be able to sit j,n the comfort oftheir own home and watch us in our yard relaxing is oompletely unten.able, It would be like being an animal at the zoo, Adding a fence would give privacy but erase any enjoyment of green. space and block light to our yard and gar.den space. . Very few items within these plans fits into this neighborhood. Should this redevelopment occur per these plans the planning commission, the City of Farm.ington staff, advisory comm.ittees, attorney, city administrator and city council would be depriving us and our neighbors of our privacy, reducing tbe resale value of our properties and diminishing our quality of life all to feed the profiteering greed of a limited liabiUty company currently operating in our neighborhood as absentee slumlords. This is unfair, unjust and if it's not illegal, it should be. Business losses are tax deductible but the loss of peace of mind and the quiet enjoyro,ent of ones own home is without price. /tfld? 9 . . . Item. J . Reasons for the Planning Commission to reject this preliminaJ:Y plat. . Both City's justification for outlot vs, easement unsubstantiated and made up by the City Attomey. Also based OlJ no existent City policies per mail from city planner on July 31,2006: The City Planning Department does not have a written policy on outlots or easements. . Density, Density, Density _ R2 lot coverage density maximum is 30%, per City Code 10-5-7. _ Plat drawing lot coverage density of35% is wrong, RD d.ensity is 35% (10-5-12), As indicated on the plat drawing zoning district is R-2. _ Lot area is not 0.86 acres. Dakota county declares lot size to be 0.76 acres (see enclosed Dakota County Real Estate Inquiry statement). Calculating actual density based on law (no easement, no road right of way) puts the actual density well over 40%, perhaps as high as 50%. City Code states land as part of thoroughfare is not to be calculated as part of lot size. (10- 2~ 1: LOT, MINIMUM AREA: The measurements of a lot computed exclusive of any portions of the right of way of any public thoroughfare.) _ City code states that easement is not to be calculated as part oflot size (10-2-1: LOT AREA: The area of a lot in the horizontal plane bounded by the lot lines but not including any area occupied by the waters of a lake or river or area which has been dedicated or intended as an easement for a oublie thorougbfare or road.) _ The city planner states in her email of August 30, 2007: The lot size and area are one in the same. The City has determined that the lot area is 0.86 acres and allows for 5.81 units as a net density. Furthermore, net density in the R-2 zone is 5.S for single-family and 6,5 for multi-family. This pr.oject exceeds the legal limit of 5.5 for single-family per acre. . Off Street Parking _ Inadequate as required by City Code (10-6-4: Dwellings, quad; townhouse and two-family 2 per dwelling unit plus 0.25 per unit in common parking space) Par.king area not on plat (11-3-2 (C) 8, Oedicated Or Reserved Areas.. .intended to be dedicated or reserved for. public use, including the size of sucb ar.eas _ Lot #1 parking is non-existent as required by City Code 10-4-1: Dwellings, single-fami.ly 2 per dwelling un.i.t) and City Code 11-4-2 (J). Garage space as required by City Code 10-4-1 (G): Sing1e- and two-family dwellings shall be erected over a basement and include a single car garage of at least three h.undred (300) square feet, If a basement is either not possible or not desi.red, th,e construction shall include a double car garage of at least four hundred forty (440) square feet. . Plan does not ensure adequate privacy as required by City Code 10-1-2 (H) . Plan does not protect or promote the public welfare of the of the community as defined in City Code 10-1-2 (A) . Plans do not show utilities (water, sanitary sewer) as required by City Code 11-3-2-(C), item. 9 and 10. Nor do they show these utilities placed somewhere other than under the driveway as dlrected by the Planning comm.ission at the July 10, 2007 sketch review meeting. . Proposed draining and utility easement shown on drawing received August 6, 2007 on the south property line i.s not 10 feet as required by City Code 11-4-4 (A). . Tree inventory is incomplete and trees of close pro:lCiroity but on other properties are not being given enough consideration in violation. of City Code 10-6-10 Item #2. Tree inventory also marked mature cottonwood tree to be saved while also showing it in the middle of the house on Lot #1, 10 . . . . Easement locations, dimensions and purpose of all easements are Dot given as required by City code 11-3-2 (C) Item 4. .. List of adjoining property owners as provided on Map 3 dated August 6, 2007 is not certifi,ed or complied by an abstract company as reqllired by City Code 11-2-2. .. Placing a dwelling on. or near a railroad track and easement is a very, very bad practice and an incompatible use. The city needs to change its laws, policies and practi,ces on this subject. . In violation of City code 10-6-10 Item #4) absolutely no buffer between residential dwelling and rail road right of way, a conflicting use. . Side lot lines of lots #2 and #3 are not at right angles to street lines as required in City Code 11 ~4-2 (C) . Frontage lot of #2 and #3 have little to no frontage on City Street as required by City Code 11- 4-2 (D) . Stonn water drainage onto adjoinin.g property in violation of City code 11-4-2 (K). .. Four two family (duplex) lots abutting each other set bebind another single family property should be considered an incompatible use, . There is also no buffer as outlined in City Code 10-6-10 A #1-#4 and (B )Landscape Plan Requirements: Plans for required landscaping jn the B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, sse, IP and I-I districts and for multi-family dwelli~s shall be submitted to the planner for approval before any permits are issued. The plan shall be based on accurate final site plans and consist of a planting plan and exterior lighting plan. A registered landscape architect, registered architect, certified arborist, hortiCU;;U,1 rist or landscape designer shall prepare the plan. (Ord. 005-526, 3- 21-2005) ,A/~R. 11 . ...... Q.) ~ C'J .... on ~ on c.e ...o~ _ ,.. 0" '(;)0\<1') 00..0 ... . t--. uNN ~ II - 00 00 r<"'lV;-CI'l ~vl~ Q)"-,,t\S ~OOo.. t:l)t"'!- "t:)~II' s::= ..... o CI'l In ~ 5 '0 ""o~ .~~ ,....... d '8 '0 - !:.:.. rn o o o 1..0" '-" o r"I r--- ~2 -\0 l7.ln tr--i t'CI II ("'1,-... ~'r: ..... V) Q.) '-' ~r<"'l ~~ "Oc a'a t.> II) ~~ 0- ~z r- ~ 8~ o('i t:!1I \Or-.. ~on t)~ ~r"l rn":t: ,,>.. t:: .-;:: 8 ~ Q.) ~ l:'.>Q ~-- N Q,) oo:Z ~ I.f) 01 r- N II ,...... on ..0 '-" ('<'\ t'-: l;- .... (I) ....; ~ J!A - .1:;) g"z ~ dl q2 ~V"\r;. _.....c: CI) 0 .... Q.) . e ~ -::t' ....... t'CIn"g rt'I,.......>,. t'--;lI'I- ...... ,^'j;j Q.) '-' ~ ~("')r$S ~l"':..:!: '" c-S !=:l..... 6 8~o ~f3g 0..... ~ 01:;)- O'\Z:::' I V) V) tn .... ~ e .~ E Q,) '0 o C,,) N I ~ ~ 0\ r' c;; .... () tIS J- Q) J:l.. '~ -a .... 'E ~ .;;) ~ V) V) II ..." e I,) tIS N - .~ - Q) II) .... - t:I) "t:) ~ v Q.) rn o o 0\ " a ""cci N . oOt:,t< .. CI) 000 &j::: :::~ ..0 r-~ ..." ~ _ 00 ..- 00 - 's .~ 2l a:i ...... t:: 'a g ~ ~ 3 \,~ :.:: 0 01) ('I C3 P. s:: :::_ =:0 '00) (1)0 N.......- ~ 0\ 0 t'CI " lob 11)... ~ ..s::- ti~.8 C,,)OO tIS- t'CI", ...a:-::l \1)1I,)~\1)3~ ....... --2 0.. r::: '~ o Q.) ~ fI);;;!...... Q) .... ..... ..... .. Co) - ~ O"'s 'S .g tIS ~ '" .... ... .... .... .... tIS ~ c.. bI) QJ) t; ~ ... >....... t:: I=:::S c..Q) Cd 0._............. tI'J c.. It) d:::: == == .....~ >.. bJ)1l.I!!>Q.)" - tIS ~ ::; ~ r::: 'a ~ ..... "0 ro tIS 01) ~ >o..................c:<+-1 O""""'cc:.:::,, 1i) Q) ~ ~ "" u"'Ci1...tlJ::(l)- bO~:S~~~ .-J b U U U q 'r;; Of) ~ Q) >-- -6 - .- -0 II) -0 ~ ...... v .S .~ ;5 E ~ o ... c.8 El ~ .S ~ B Il) -0 o u N ~ a,) .... C,) tIS .... \1) 0.. Ul 'a ;::S ~ c.. o a. ~ . ~~ 0.. . ;::S t:,t< -0 "" ,-.., .- ObI;"-- S::N .@ c.f "E~ o e Co) v I tC 23C'1 r:::"""; "-" - tIS ',p r::: \1) -0 .... en Q) .... VJ r- II ", Q) ... g ~ - Co') .~ 0\ 01)" "'0 .6 € .g C) (l) ;:s ..og. -0 ib e. 0\ .9 'Qj ot) Il) c: s:: rI) ~ "t:) "i3 .<;::: ", d.... s:: II) t'CI 0 :;j'.z:::: .= l- ~ "t:) ot) Q,) II) ~ ,5 c.. :::: ... == ~ t:I)~ ~~o.. ]i) ~,,~ Oil) tH", v.::s .. 0 0 ~C;: t:I) e.... 0..V) ..~ v Q.) 0 . 00" g;l,O....ln 0S::= ....a~~ 00 8 V"'l & :3 ~ :-:: ...... Q) r::: Q.) S o tZJ ~ z: -c; ti,~ l\.) 00 ';:::1';:::1 ~ cd -; ~~ 3 :3 0 tOil 0; <.t-< 0.0 OD s:l., !:l. 5 > 0.S.5 e <fl'[fl o td:::: ~ c...~ ~ OQ)GJIlJ-o=ln o~~:::s:l""..o _""t<:I01)oo C "g 'E is E ,9 .c:: (l)..... Q) Q) Il):::l :.::l l:: g;l .... t:: t:: a.> (i) ;j "0 ;! ;j ;:s ::: ~ u~uuuO'O rn Q,) .... C,,) I:';l c-.. t""; OIl ~ U \'\l 01 t"'! S o .;:: Oll ,9 OD ~ .... ::= o .... to ,9 tl o - ~ .... Q) ~ ~ .a j..j CIl cd ~ (l) IlJ ~ -s {'- ~ o rn c; o .;:J ..; ~ ~ C,,) Co) ~ ~ o.~ ~~ ~La \1)tH > 0 tIS (l) -Cz o cd -2~ a] ~ 0 -- .c C,).... llJ"'O '..... "'0 8 1:0 ~~ :g~ ~ ~ O.J:l -;;;: E;] l:t~ ~1j ..D ~"c o 0 c: .~ ~ E !d (1) ~-C o...r- PIN: 14-03100-010-59 2007 Est. Value [Payable 2008): $214,300 Owner: BISCHEL-SPERLING lLC ~Q,Qf!~ll~~~~_Y9.JY~JP_~y'f;!,QJ.~t?.9_Qlt $212,400 &ggr~$~~ 808 2ND ST Pavable 2007 Tax: $3,240.12 ~ FARMINGTON. MN 55024 Total Acreaae: 0.76 Y~~.LJ?.1Jj!t 1880 Dakota County Real Estate In.quiry Dakota County Real Estate Inquiry DatE! Updated 91612007. NeecJ H.!?lP.1 What's New? . Map navigation . Select option and click on map: ., g Zoom In C Zoom Out C Pan C Identify I Details T61X: Stub Statement Plat Comp Sales Neighborhood . Page I of 1 Legend Real. E'ttate Parcels: IEiJ P arl:els mlI Comrncll'l, OWllershlp IIilWater Iii RfW. Easement o Dedicated RiW ~, Tax Parcels C Market Value C Recent Sales C Year Built Co Air Photo C Torrens Chooae ONE l'lgerch method. enter criteria. and click GI;) or I1lt enter key, I 'liMl House #: ......,.._.. ..........,..".. ......,...........: ~ OR PINt ....,....... ......'.... ...., ,.,.. ,,:!Ii Birds Eye Photo I PLEASE READ DISCLAIMER This application wa5 devell;)peo by the Dakota County Qllli';e oLCllii. in cooperetion with ~~.!?g,!!~l!l,QJ?,~ryJ.!;P..!. :rl!;lJi!~~r...=_~fl-~,g! and r.:CQP',E1J:!Y_B!l!;.QI~..~ Departments 50~ COUNTT Click on the Dakota County Logo above to retum to the hDme page . http://gis,co,dakota.mn,us/scripts/esrimap.dll?Name=webq 1&Left=496622,24l &Bottom=99791.2181 &Ri... 9/7 /2007 . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 w-ww.d.farmington.mn.us August 9,2007 Bischel-Sperling, LLC 20931 June Court Lakeville, MN 55044 RE: Bischel Sperling Addition - Preliminary Plat Review Dear Mr. Bischel Engineering staff has reviewed the Preliminary Plat that has been submitted for the above . referenced project and forward the following comments: Preliminary Plat Comments . 1. Reference the City of Farmington engineering guidelines and standard plates for specific City requirements, 2. Submit for review a soil report with geotechnical recommendation. 3. 4. An easement or outlot will be needed for the private drive (Will this be maintained by homeowners association?), 5, A 10' easement is required on the north, south and west side ofthe project. 6, A 10' easement is required at the rear oflot 1. 7, The watermain will require a minimum of a 20'easement (10' on each side of pipe centerline). 8. If the sanitary sewer will be maintained by the City there must be a minimum of a 20' easement (10' on each side of the pipe centerline). 9. Additional easement will be necessary wherever drainage from one lot flows onto another lot (Southwest corner oflot 2, north side oflot 2, etc.), 10. Lot 3 drainage must be confined to remain on the development and not flow into railroad right-of-way. 11, All grading must tie into existing topography on neighboring lots. This may result in the necessity of storm sewer or rerouting drainage (Minimum grade for drainage swale is 2%), . . . 12. A fee in lieu of a pond will be required. However site drainage will have to be addressed with either the installation of storm sewer (Connection located at 2nd Street and Maple St) or the construction of a rain gardenls, Additional easements may be required depending on how site drainage is handled. 13. Where will the driveway access be for lot I? Please address each of these comments and re-submit the preliminary plat. If you have any questions, please contact me at (651) 463-1602. SincerelY'JYJK, ~. David R. Sa..'1ocki, P .E, City of Farmington Engineering Division cc: File Lee Mann, City Engineer/Director of Public Works Lee Smick, City Planner . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us SUBJECT: Planning Commission Tony Wippler r ~ V Assistant City Planner v~ 0 Michael Bischel Sketch Plan - 808 2nd Street TO: FROM: DATE: July 10,2007 INTRODUCTION The applicant, Michael Bischel, has submitted a sketch plan (Exhibit A) for the property addressed as 8082n Street. The applicant is proposing 1 single-family lot and 2 two-family lots in the R-2 Zoning District (Exhibit B). . DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing 1 single-family lot and 2 two-family lots on 0.76 acres (33,035 square feet). Before a preliminary plat is submitted for review, a sketch plan review is required at the Planning Commission. It should be noted that comments by the Planning Commission are intended to be advisory in nature and do not constitute a binding decision on the sketch plan. Existing Conditions (Exhibit A2) The lot consists of 0.76 acres ofland (33,035 square feet). The property contains an existing tri-plex that was built in 1880. In addition, there is an approximately 600 square foot accessory building located on site as well. Both of the buildings currently located on site are proposed to be demolished. The subject property and all adjacent properties are zoned R-2, LowIMedium Density Residential, Adjacent to the north are two existing duplexes, the SOO line railroad is located to west and single- family residential is located to the south and east of this property. Proposed Lot Sizes and Widths The proposed lots are located in the R-2 Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 60 feet for single-family lots and 11,000 square feet and a . minimum lot width of75 feet for two-family lots. The lot sizes and widths are proposed as follows: Lot Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot Size 6,000 SF 11,009 SF Lot Widths 73.65 feet 157.09 feet . . . Lot 3 11,007 SF 83.88 feet All of the lot sizes and widths meet the minimum standards of the R-2 Zoning District. Access The applicant is proposing to access the 2 two-family lots off of a 22 foot wide private street that would need to be outlotted in a plat. The proposed private street consists of the northern 22 feet of the subject property. Twenty-two (22') feet is the minimum width that is allowed for private streets. The proposed private street is 230.25 feet in length thereby requiring a turnaround for emergency purposes. The turnaround being proposed encompasses the northeast corner of Lot 3 and a small portion of the northwest corner of Lot 2. The turnaround as proposed would encroach into two side drainage and utility easements that would be required to be dedicated as part of a plat. Per Section 11-4-4 (D) this would not be allowed, The applicant has stated that he would be willing to pipe both of the affected drainage and utility easements to make the drainage work. Engineering Additional review will be required by the Engineering Division to ensure that drainage will work with this proposed development and will not adversely affect the surrounding properties. A grading and drainage plan will have to be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Division. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission should comment on the concept plan. Respectfully submitted, ~ " / G~ TO~iPPler, Assistant City Planner Cc: Michael Bischel . . . ,8/213137 13'3: 213 9524352929 BRANDT ENG SURVEYING J \" J ;.. - - - - - ~- - -1- - --l I I I I I I I I I 35 / \"..1 ~ ""-.. N 89'42'36"\ W I 0 V 2 ~ ""-. 1 09.98 ?5..02 , 7.09 '" ----, ~___-.J '" UI 5 1.1 N 89'042 36 W '" $1 - - I :.1 Q) I : I 6.000 5Q, Ft. I I ~ I 0.24 o.cres I Ll eL _ ---1 ~ ~ 8f.+8 ~ 302.47 N p,q'A.?' \F;" W PAGE 02/132 , ~x,111 ~ 20 W n OC'ol O~ ~ dC'ol t<")!0 .....0 0 '" Z 20 ~ 35. SITE MAP tK. ;12- 2007 BUILDING INFORMATION (PAYABLE 2008): TYPE TRIPLEX YEAR BUILT 1880 ARCH/STYLE TWO STORY FOUNDATION SO FT 1469 FINISHED SO FT 2445 BEDROOMS 5 BATHS 3 FRAME WOOD GARAGE SO FT 600 OTHER GARAGE MISC BLOG 2007 ESTIMATED MARKET VALUES (PAYABLE 2008) P.RTY 10 NUMBER: 14-03100-010-59 F ER: BISCHEL-SPERLING LLC 808 2ND ST FARMINGTON MN 55024 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 808 2ND ST FARMINGTON MN 55024 PAYABLE 2007 TAXES NET TAX: SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: TOTAL TAX & SA: PAYABLE 2008 ASMNT USAGE:RESIDENTIAL . . Dimensions rounded to nearest foot. Copyright 2007, Dakota County - LAND: BUILDING: TOTAL: SCHOOL DISTRICT: 71,300 143,000 214,300 192 LOT SIZE (EXCLUDES ROAD EASEMENTS) 33,035 SO FT 0,76 ACRES LOCATION: SE1/4 SW1/4 SECTION 31-114-19 :j 1\ 3,183,50 56,62 3,240,12 PAYABLE 2008 HOMESTEAD STATUS: NON HOMESTEAD WATERSHED DISTRICT: VERMILLION RIVER LAST OUALIFIED SALE: DATE: 812004 AMOUNT: 165,000 !! - ~~_,,_"'_H'_.i \._...........__.__.--,1 I '=~J6--~~ ~=_-~ D 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, information and dala located in various city, county, and state offices and other sources, affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only, Dakola Counly is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained, If discrepancies are found, please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department. Map Date: July 3, 2007 Parcels Updated: 5/3112007 Aerial Photography: 2003 ....~~ ~~........ r 1 -------.-- .... ~t~~ -- ~-,L.._,__,__..__..______ --------- -- DO D-- 11----,'-....--.....,..,........., -....,- ,......--- ,-,---..,_.--'-' LJ- t~J-- n PLAT NAME: SECTION 31 TWN 114 RANGE 19 TAX DESCRIPTION: S 130 FT OF N 250 FT OF SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 E OF RR 3111419 ,'," [ - c ..,---,-_.., ..,---..'-,_.._-, ,-, ...'-- ~'- ..,-_..c it , , ~,-:_ _.__..M...... 10'1 --" i',,> , , ........._........../1 ' -.--.- N i 10-5-7: R-2 LOWIMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Page 1 offt, B . 10-5-7: R-2 LOW/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: (A)Purpose: The R-2 low/medium density residential district is intended as an area which incorporates older existing development as well as undeveloped land suitable for single- and two-family development that are served with full public utilities. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19- 2002) (B)Bulk And Density Standards: 1. Minimum Standards: Lot area Single-family 6,000 square feet Twin home 11,000 square feet Two-family 11,000 square feet Other 11,000 square feet Lot width . Single-family 60 feet Twin home 37.5 feet Two-family 75 feet Front yard setback 20 feet Side yard setback Single-family 6 feet Twin home 6 feet and 0 feet Two-family 6 feet Rear yard setback Single-family 6 feet Twin home 6 feet . Two-family 6 feet Townhouse 10 feet J lr r .. .. ~ .. n,. 1"'\"'" ... " ~ T I~ _ _uu :__ _.L__ /1 .., {\f\~^f\I\f\f\f\f\()'7f\{\{\ 'h.+- 7/"-//007 10-5-7: R-2 LOWIMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Page 2 of 4 . Height (maximum) 35 feet Maximum lot coverage of all structures 30 percent Net dwelling units per acre (maximum) Single-family 5,5 Twin home 6.5 Two-family 6,5 All standards are minimum requirements unless noted, 2, Accessory Structure Standards: Accessory structures must be located behind principal structure in the side or rear yard according to the following requirements: Maximum size Detached garages Lots up to 0.5 acre Lesser of 1,000 square feet or . square feet of principal use Lots 0.5 to 1 acre Lesser of 1,250 square feet or square feet of principal use Lots 1,0 acre + Lesser of 1,500 square feet or square feet of principal use Storage 120 square feet Apartment 1,800 square feet Maximum number 1 of each Side yard setback 6 feet Rear yard setback With alley 10 feet . Without alley 3 feet Height (maximum) shed 12 feet 'I.. II" 11"" 1 ^~ ....."" A rt.. .rt..TJT"'t . 6 /1 ""^^r"^^"^^^^^""^^^ L.t...___ '"7 Ie l'"Inn"'7 . . . 10-5-7: R-2 LO\V/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Page 3 of 4 Height (maximum) garage 20 feet All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. 3. Minor Arterial Setbacks: The minimum front yard setback for all land adjacent to minor arterial streets shall be fifty feet (50') from the planned right of way line. (Ord. 002-469, 2- 19-2002; amd. Ord. 004-514, 8-2-2004) (C)Uses: 1. Permitted: Daycare facilities, in home. Dwellings, single-family. Dwellings, twin home. Dwellings, two-family. Group daycare, 12 or less persons. Group home, 6 or less persons. Public parks and playgrounds, 2. Conditional: Accessory apartment. Bed and breakfast. Cemeteries. Churches. Clinics. Funeral homes. Group homes, commercial. Hospitals. Nursing homes. Public and parochial schools. Public buildings. .... 111"'/.... """ .. f"\r" 1"\'" A III ~T/T:'_~___.=~_~__/1 ,..,,,nCf"\,,^^{){)(\(\'7{\(\f\ t..~ 7/t;,/,)()()7 . . . 10-5-7: R-2 LOW/MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Public utility buildings. 3, Accessory: Accessory structures. Home occupations. Solar energy systems. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002; amd. Ord. 002-483, 12-2-2002) L..u..':'_ . fIr r 1 1.., 1 n.~ "'.... A n. .I""t.. T frI_ _____ ~__ _.L _ __ /1 .., ""r^^^"n^^^'-",,,^ 1_.......__ Page 4 of 4 "'7/1: /"'IAA"'7 . Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2007 Page 5 a) Development Sketch Plan - Michael Bischel- 808 2nd Street Mr. Michael Bischel is re~uesting sketch plan review for redevelopment of the property located at 808 2" Street. There is an existing triplex on the site and a detached garage, The plan includes the construction of two twin home lots and one single family lot on .76 acres ofland. The property is zoned R-2, The surrounding properties are also zoned R-2. The access would be a 22 foot wide private drive, The drive is over 150 feet in length and would therefore require an emergency turnaround. On the sketch plan, the turnaround would be part of an outlot and in an easement. If the turnaround is completely located on an outlot; the lot requirements may no longer be met for all three lots proposed. Mr. Ray Brandt, the applicant's engineer asked why the street would need to be located on an outlot. Staff stated that the City Attorney has stated that this is how the private drive should be handled, Mr. Bischel stated that the twin homes would be one level and wheel chair accessible. There would be a two car garage for each unit. Ms. Kimberly Sperling stated that the legal description states that the lot is actually .86 acres. She also stated that the single family home included in the plan would face 2nd Street and provide a more attractive view, Chair Rotty stated that he feels that the City Code will need to be followed, The issues will need to be resolved and City Staffwill be in contact with the City Attorney to arrange a meeting with the applicant. . b) Discussion concerning Drainage and Utility Easements and Recreational Vehicle Parking Staff is proposing changes to the language in the City Code regarding drainage and utility easements. The vagueness of the current wording is causing issues out in the field for inspectors. There are inconsistencies in how. different homeowners are interpreting the requirements and how they can be enforced. The proposed change would include changing the wording to only allow turf grasses and fences in the easement areas. There are some proposed changes to the recreational vehicle parking section as well. Right now recreational vehicles can be parked on decorative rock that goes all the way to the property line; which also effects the drainage easements. The Commissioners felt that they would like to see additional information regarding the drainage and utility easement changes. . c) Discussion concerning Sheds/Detached Garages The proposed changes to the section of the City Code pertaining to sheds and detached garages would include increasing the maximum size allowable for sheds without a permit. Currently any shed 120 square feet or less in size may be constructed without a building permit. The proposed change would increase that size to 200 square feet. The height requirement of 12 feet or less would remain unchanged. The Code currently requires private garages to have a paved driveway. The proposed change would add a new category for garages that would be called garage-detached. The new definition would include requirements that are not part of the City Code for garage-private. The new garage category would not require a paved driveway and would be based on a range of sizes. Chair Rotty felt that he would not want to require the color to be the same as the house. Commissioner Larson would like more information regarding height requirements.