Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/9/06 -:-, City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 ~. A Proud Past - A Promising Future Committed to Providing High QJ.Iality, Timely and Responsive Service to All Of Our Customers AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION May 9, 2006 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) April 11 , 2006 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Non-Designated to Commercial and Rezoning from A-1 to B.1 or A.1 ,. to B-3 (Con't) Applicant: 6 properties; City of Farmington , b) CUP aUowing the construction of a public building in an R-D District (Con't) Applicant: City of Farmington .' c) Text amendment in IP and B-1 zones under Conditional Use - Auto-repair, major (Con't) Applicant: City of Farmington d) Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Industrial to Commercial and Rezoning from IP to B-1 for the property addressed as 5119 212th Street, Farmington, MN (former Duo Plastics Building) - (Con't) Applicant: City of Farmington e) Text amendment in B-1 zone under Conditional Use - Trucking Terminal (Con't) Applicant: City of Farmington f) Amend Section 10-2-1 of the City Code - Building Height Definition and Amend Section 10-5-8 (B) 1 of the City Code - Maximum Building Height for Two-Family and Townhouses in the R-3 Zoning District ' Applicant: City of Farmington 4. DISCUSSION a) Swanson Acres Final Plat c) Jerry Sauber Residential Concept Plan - 3186 Vermillion River Trail 5. ADJOURN . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission //0:> L- FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Amend Comprehensive Plan from Non-Designated to Commercial and Rezone the 6 Properties at 3400 220th Street W., 3338 220th Street W., 3360 220th Street W., 3050 220th Street W., 3282 220th Street W., and 3240 220th Street W. to one of the following options: 1) A-l (Agriculture) to B-l (Highway Business) 2) A-I (Agriculture) to B-3 (Heavy Business) DATE: May 9, 2006 INTRODUCTION . The City of Farmington simultaneously annexed the 6 properties (Exhibit A) designated above on November l5, 2004. With the approval of the annexations, MUSA was also extended to the properties. The properties are currently zoned A-l and are not designated within the City's Comprehensive Plan, therefore, staff is proposing to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Rezone the properties. DISCUSSION Option 1: Commercial Comprehensive Plan and B-1 Zonin2 At the April ll, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, staff discussed the proposal for amending the Comprehensive Plan from Non-Designated to Commercial and rezoning the 6 properties from A-I to B-1 (Highway Business). Staff stated that the proposed B-1 zone would be the best and highest use for the area because of its proximity to two major roadway corridors (TH 3 and TH 50) and its location as a major entrance into the City of Farmington. However, concern was voiced from some of the property owners attending the meeting that the proposed B-1 zoning was not compatible with the existing uses (major auto repair, collision repair, home building, and single-family residential) on the properties. As stated in the meeting, ifthe B-1 zone was approved, any existing use that did not meet the B-1 zoning requirements (Exhibit B 1) would be considered a legal non-conforming use. The owners of the above-mentioned uses asked the following three questions concerning the potential legal non-conforming status of their properties: . 1) If the B-l zone was approved and the current uses became legal non-conforming, could property owners lease their buildings for similar uses and not be required to meet the B-1 uses? Yes, property owners could lease their buildings for similar uses and not be required to meet the B-1 zoning uses. . 2) If the B-1 zone was approved and the current uses became legal non-conforming, could property owners sell their properties to buyers that wanted to continue the same types of legal non- conforming uses on those properties? Yes, the property owners could sell their properties to buyers that wanted to continue the same types of legal non-conforming use on those properties. 3) If the B-1 zone was approved and the current uses became legal non-conforming, could property owners extend, expand, or change the legal non-conforming uses (buildings)? Upon approval of the Board of Adjustment (Planning Commission), legal nonconforming uses may be extended, expanded or changed as required in Section lO-4-2 (B) 1 of the City Code. According to the City Attorney, "changes in tenancy or ownership won't affect the legality of the nonconformity. Abandonment, discontinuation or conversion of the use, however, would terminate the nonconformity, but even temporary changes or lapse in the use may not cause the grandfather rights to lapse." In summary, the legal non-conforming uses may continue (or be expanded) if the properties were zoned B-1. If the property owner decided to convert a legal non-conforming use to a "legal" B-1 use, the property would not have to be rezoned to accommodate that use. Option 2: Commercial Comprehensive Plan and B-3 Zoninl! . At the April II th Planning Commission meeting, some of the property owners and some Commissioners agreed that most of the existing uses and buildings fall under the B-3 zoning code. Parkway Collision Services, Starr Automotive, and Contract Management & Services (assembly of monolithic panel homes) would be permitted uses in the B-3 (Heavy Business) district (Exhibit B2). Additionally, because of the close proximity to the Farmington Business Park, zoned B-3 PUD, the continuation of the B-3 district for the 6 properties would arguably be appropriate. The benefit to zoning the 6 properties to B-3 is that most of the existing uses would be permitted. However, staff feels that the B-3 zoning is a short-term solution to properties that may benefit more by being zoned B-1 for the long-term. Since the existing uses could be retained as legal non-conforming uses in the B-1 zone, any hardship on property owners with future business plans could be minimal. Existinl! Conditions - 6 Properties The following information identifies the existing conditions for each of the 6 Properties (Exhibits C-I, photos of existing conditions). Parcel 6 - 3400 22(jh Street W. The parcel consists of an existing single-family home built in 1973. The lot area is 39,600 square feet. Parcel 7 - 3338 22(jh Street W. . The parcel consists of three commercial uses in one building constructed in 1976. The lot area is 44,438 square feet. One of the commercial uses is Townsedge Barbers and Beauticians, which would be a permitted use in the B-1 zoning district. Northwest Auto Sales is the second commercial use which would be a conditional use in the B-1 district. The third commercial use is Parkway Collision Services. This type of use is considered "auto repair, major," and is not allowed in the B-1 zoning district. However, the business would be considered a legal non-conforming use if the zone was approved as B-1. The remainder of the lot is used for the storage of auto parts and wreckage. A 6-8 foot tall chain link . fence encloses the storage area. Parcel 8 - 3360 22Uh Street W. The parcel consists of two commercial uses including the former Cannon Log Homes business on the north portion of the lot and Starr Automotive on the south portion of the lot. The lot area is 64,241 square feet. The buildings were constructed in 1976. Contract Management & Services has recently signed a lease to assemble monolithic panel homes in the former Cannon Log Homes building. The building is suitable for this type of use because of the existing crane in the building. The crane will assist the owner in loading and unloading the assembled panels and raw material. The Building Official and Fire Marshal have examined the building and have approved it for occupancy. This type of use is not allowed in the B- 1 zoning district; however, the business would be considered a legal non-conforming use if the zone was approved as B-1. The south building consists of Starr Automotive. The use is auto repair, major and will be considered a legal non-conforming use upon approval of the B-l zone. The remaining portion of the property consists of a storage lot for cars to be repaired and for employee parking. A 6-8 foot tall chain link fence surrounds the entire parcel and the storage lot. Parcel 9 - 3050 22(jh Street W. The parcel consists of an existing single-family home built in 1900. The lot area is 50,490 square feet. . ParcellO - 3282 22Uh Street W. The parcel consists of a vacant commercial building constructed in 1968. The lot area is 46,200 square feet. The remainder of the lot consists of a storage area for semi-trailers and cars. A 6-8 foot tall chain link fence surrounds the entire parcel Parcelll - 3240 22(jh Street W. The parcel consists of a commercial use known as c.R. Fischer & Sons. The use is classified as office, and would be an allowed use in the B-l zoning district. The lot area is 92,400 square feet. The building was constructed in 1978. The lot is currently being used for employee parking and the parking of business trucks which is a conditional use in the B-1 zoning district. A 6-8 foot tall chain link fence surrounds the property on the east, west and south, and a 6-8 foot tall wood fence provides screening on the north portion of the storage area. ACTION REQUESTED Recommend one of the following two options below, and forward the recommendation to the City Council: . 1. Amend Comprehensive Plan from Non-Designated to Commercial and Rezone the Properties at 3400 220th Street W., 3338 220th Street W., 3360 220th Street W., 3050 220th Street W., 3282 220th Street W., and 3240 220th Street W. from A-I (Agriculture) to B-1 (Highway Business). . . . 2. Amend Comprehensive Plan from Non-Designated to Commercial and Rezone the Properties at 3400 220th Street W., 3338 220th Street W., 3360 220th Street W., 3050 220th Street W., 3282 220th Street W., and 3240 220th Street W. from A-I (Agriculture) to B-3 (Heavy Business). HRespectfu~llY Submitted, " ,.. .... Lee Smick, AICP City Planner ;V"\/ ..../ 1\ ' . . ~ - , . , ~ ~ . t 5: k / .f ".. . (? .---- I.' ", It ..e;. 11 ( I S~ ... '. ,. ~ ..."!'. r "',_:4r~. .-;,; '>to :. {: \;; I , \ I ~ t '{ I I \ t . "\ \ . . r?;\ I 'i"l ,L.--/ ~ ~ . . . ,r-; ~ /;:;- ~'( Vi ~ '\ . . . ./ b'>Y. -c; ( ()o ~ . . " . f ,/ .1 /;:v v/\ , Gr ~1 \:)-- .1: . . . ell/I '/" I ,I Q ----- ~ . . . r:;;./( / -It -- ~ ~ ~ . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: PI . C " \[~V annmg ommlSSlon FROM: Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit allowing the construction of a public building in an RD zoning district (Continuation) DATE: May 9,2006 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION The City of Farmington requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the purpose of constructing a public storage building and a Police impound lot at the property located at 710 1st Street. The Variance was requested to reduce the amount of off-street parking that is required for the proposed 3,963 square foot public building. . April]]. 2006 Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding these matters on April 11, 2006 and took public testimony on the applications. Attached to the end of this memorandum is the staff report that was previously prepared for the April 11, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to approve the variance in order to reduce the required amount of off-street parking stalls for a public building from 20 to 5 parking stalls. However, the Planning Commission elected to continue the public hearing as it pertains to the Conditional Use Permit because the Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding staff s recommendation on the screening of the impound lot (chain link fence with slats). A number of Planning Commission members felt that a six (6') foot high wooden fence would be more desirable and aesthetically pleasing at this location than a chain link fence that has plastic slats installed. The Planning Commission's rationale was in large part due to the residential uses that surround the subject property. Staff informed the Commission that the budget impact of installing a wooden fence versus a chain link fence with slats for this project was unknown, and that staff would like the opportunity to discuss other screening options with the Parks and Recreation Director and Chief of Police (applicants) before the Commission makes a formal recommendation on the CUP application. Additional Screening O/Jtions . Since the April ll, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, staff discussed the option of installing a wooden fence with the applicants and the main concern expressed with a wooden fence versus a chain link fence has to do with the overall security of the site. It is the opinion of the Parks and Recreation Director and Chief of Police that a chain link fence provides the best and most efficient security for this site. However, they did indicate that a combination of vegetative screening either on . . . the inside or outside of a chain link fence in lieu of a wood fence would be feasible if determined acceptable by the Planning Commission. Staff is looking for direction from the Planning Commission on the issue of screening this site. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. The identification of screening that is acceptable to the Planning Commission. 2. The impound lot be paved per City Code. 3. The submission of a Landscape Plan that is acceptable to the Planning Division. Respectfully submitted, .r ~ U~ Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner Cc: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief . . . TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us Vjt~ Planning Commission Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner 1) Conditional Use Permit allowing the construction of a public building in an RD zoning district 2) Variance to reduce the required off-street parking for a public building April ll, 2006 The City of Farmington has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct an approximately 3,963 square feet public building (storage building) and a Police Department impound lot in the RD zoning district. In addition, a variance has also been requested to reduce the amount of off-street parking that is required for public buildings. The proposed facilities are to be located on the lot located at 710 1 st Street, Farmington, MN. Plannine: Division Review Applicant: Attachments: Location of Property: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 l. Preliminary Site Plan 2. RD Permitted and Conditional Uses 3. CUP and Variance applications 710 1 st Street Surrounding Land Uses: Single-family residential to the north, east, and south with school district and FAA property adjacent to the west. Existing Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Current Land Use: RD (Downtown Residential) Public/Semi Public There is an existing well house located in the southeast portion of the site. There is also an existing 4,800 square foot City . . . owned storage building, which will be torn down as part of this project. The well house will remain. Proposed Land Use: Public building (tempered and cold storage) and impound lot. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit According to the City Code, public buildings are conditionally allowed in the Downtown Residential zoning district. The Code provides the following criteria that must be met in order for the Planning Commission to approve a Conditional Use Permit: 1. The proposed use conforms to the district permitted and conditional use provisions and all general regulations of this title. 2. The proposed use shall not involve any element or cause any conditions that may be dangerous, injurious or noxious to any other property or persons and shall comply with the applicable performance standards. 3. The proposed use shall be constructed, designed, sited, oriented and landscaped to produce harmonious relationship of buildings and grounds to adjacent buildings and properties. 4. The proposed use shall produce a total visual impression and environment which is consistent with the environment of the neighborhood. 5. The proposed use shall organize vehicular access and parking to minimize traffic congestion in the neighborhood. 6. The proposed use shall preserve the objectives of this title and shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Provosed City Storage Building The City of Farmington is proposing the construction of an approximately 4,000 square foot storage building on this site. An existing storage building is located on site and will be torn down with the construction of the new facility. Approximately 3,152 square feet of the proposed building will be utilized as tempered storage for various City equipment/vehicles. The remaining 810 square feet will be utilized as work space and cold storage. The design of the proposed building as well as the overall construction plans for the site have not yet been finalized. These will be presented to the Planning Commission within the next few months at the site plan review stage. Lot coverage will not be an issue with this proposal. The lot coverage upon construction of the proposed building will be approximately l2%. The RD zoning district allows properties to be covered with structures up to 35%. . Proposed Impound Lot The preliminary site plan shows a Police Department impound lot placed where the existing storage building is currently located on the northern portion of the site. The preliminary site plan shows the installation of a six (6) foot tall chain link fence to secure the lot. Slats will have to be installed within the fence to provide additional screening. It should be noted that the impound lot must maintain a five (5) foot setback from all property lines. The impound lot will have to be paved per City code. Section 10-6-4 (Off-Street Parking) requires that all vehicles parked in residential areas be parked on hard surface driveways or parking aprons. In addition, all parking areas shall maintain a five foot (5') setback from side and rear lot lines. The site plan will have to be modified to reflect the above-mentioned requirements. Setbacks Section 10-5-12 of the City Codes reqUIres that all buildings maintain the following setback requirements: . Front yard setback: 20 feet . Side yard setback: 5 feet . Rear Yard setback: 6 feet . The setbacks for the proposed storage building will be a minimum of ten (10) feet from the rear and side yards of the property. As previously mentioned in this memo, there is an existing well house located on this site. A fifty (50) foot radius must be maintained around the well casing to allow complete access to the well. The proposed building will not be located within that fifty foot radius. All other setbacks meet or exceed the minimum requirements mentioned above. Parking Section lO-6-4 of the City Code provides parking requirements for public buildings (1 per employee plus 1 per 200 square feet of building). No City employees will be working directly out of this location. The proposed storage building is to be approximately 3,963 square feet in size. This would require that the City provide 20 off-street parking stalls. As shown on the preliminary site plan, attached as Exhibit A, there are 5 off-street parking stalls provided for the proposed building. A variance is required to reduce the amount of off-street parking as shown on the attached preliminary site plan. The variance will be discussed later within this memorandum. LandscapinwScreening Section 10-6-9 of the City Code stipulates that screening consisting of a fence, wall, landscaping or earth berm shall be required in residential districts where: . 1. Any off-street parking lot contains more than six (6) parking spaces; 2. Any material and equipment is stored other than recreational equipment, construction . A 100% opaque screen is not required in this instance because the property is residentially zoned. There is an existing six (6) foot tall chain link fence that surrounds a majority of the property (the entire lot except the northern part of the lot containing the existing storage building). However, staff is suggesting that the existing six (6) foot tall fencing have slats installed to provide additional screenmg. Variance As previously discussed, the City Code requires that one off-street parking space be provided for each employee on site plus one per 200 square feet of building. It is important to note that City employees will not work directly out of this location. The proposed storage building is to be approximately 3,963 square feet in size. This would require that the City provide 20 off-street parking stalls. The Preliminary site plan that is attached shows 5 parking stalls to be located on the northern side of the proposed building, therefore requiring a variance. The Planning Commission must determine whether the reasons provided by the applicant warrant approval of the variance. The City Code provides the following criteria that must be met for a variance to be approved: . l. Because the particular physical surroundings, or shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the regulations of this Title would cause undue hardship. Economic consideration alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this Title. Due to the shape of the property as well as the location of a well house on site the developable area of the site is somewhat limited. Therefore, strict adherence to the code would cause an undue hardship. In addition, City employees will not work directly out of this location. 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. Due to the shape of the property as well as the location of a well house on site the developable area of the site is somewhat limited. Therefore, the property is unique. 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 alleged hardship was not created by the applicant 4. The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the parcel of land is located or substantially diminish . property values. . The property has been historically utilized in a manner that is very similar (public use) to what is being proposed. Therefore, staff does not believe that approval of a variance would cause any of the adverse effects mentioned above. 5. The proposed variance will not substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or be detrimental to the public welfare or public safety. The variance would not create any of the above-mentioned effects. 6. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. The reduction of the parking standards by 15 spaces from the required 20 off-street parking spaces is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the Conditional Use Permit and Variance from the required parking standards subject to the following contingencies: 1. The installation of slats within all fencing surrounding the property. 2. The impound lot be paved per City Code . 3. The submission of a Landscape Plan that is acceptable to the Planning Division. Respectfully submitted, .--r-; 1_ )__ _ fl ~ ..,---~~ Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner Cc: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief . . . . l< _.~ l.'i I 1 n::) ~ \~ .o#~'C .... PUBLIC FACILITIES STUDY City of Farmington ~' . .. .1-~' . '. ~. I .IF ., ~". 1 / 'IIIli "1' r:' ~.' "I_to .... c: ..~ L ,:: =1f, {... .J ..~ c.....-' "'J:- lot;...' I ...~ .~ ::t~ V /'1 .;r~ V /'1 '~!;fj M8r~ :;i1',;~f ~ ,. ~ "';:,1'., V :/1 '?{:;1 r;: ~ ~( I ~GATB .. 'h -".'''' ~::...:.. ~:,,~,\, rtJ'"'1"): I ."]1;: ,-.,},t Girl - " __IU- ~ "t N PARKING., MAIN o ~"....""'~'''''''''JY "t..."", '......,....,.." ..... . :~J~I~~7Ir-,~~ . P 1 ~ ~ ~11t~1 ':ISX '~:?!1msnN I '+. r -, ir" u WBLL { I:~ / I :1 L~30' \.. / ..iJ '" / -- - ................ ......- . STBBR. - - - -.........,""~_.... ".-;."~ . -.;[::~ii. .-.. -, n::?, ii-~. "".I;. .. .. ~::'," "(il'~' ...- ,'.j'-' . {.~: ".~~ . , --:,.....:.#' 200 SF I COLD l STaR.. 800 SF I MEZZ. 180' . '" ~ ~ .- . - DOWNTOWN GARAGE: TEMPERED STORAGE- COLD STORAGE- BunnING TOTAL: SrrE AREA: 3,152 SF 810 SF 3,963 SF 33,017 SF (0.76 ACRES) Page 19 WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS I ~ . ~ ~ 3: 10-5-12: R-D DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Page 1 of3 10-5-12: R-D DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: . (A)Purpose: The R-D downtown residential district recognizes the development patterns of the original residential areas of Farmington adjacent to the downtown. The purpose of the R-D district is to accommodate existing higher density single-family and two-family residential development and promote infill of high density single-family residential development within the downtown area in order to strengthen the downtown, create pedestrian friendly neighborhoods, and decrease the need for automobile use. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002) (B)Bulk And Density Standards: 1. Minimum Standards: Lot area Minimum 6,000 square feet Maximum 14,400 square feet Single-family 6,000 square feet Two-family 11,000 square feet . Other 11,000 square feet Lot width Single-family 60 feet Two-family 75 feet Front yard setback 20 feet Side yard setback 5 feet Rear yard setback 6 feet Height (maximum) 35 feet Maximum lot coverage of all structures 35 percent 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 Lesser of 1,000 square feet or http://66.ll3.l95.234/MN/Farmington/l30050000000 12000.htm 4/5/2006 lO-5-l2: R-D DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Page 2 of3 square feet of principal use . Storage 120 square feet Apartment 1,800 square feet Maximum number 1 of each Side yard setback 3 feet Rear yard setback With alley 10 feet Without alley 3 feet Height (maximum) shed 12 feet Height (maximum) garage 20 feet All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002; amd. Ord. 004-515, 8-2-2004) (C)Uses: . 1. Permitted: Daycare facilities, in home. Dwellings, single-family. Group daycare, 12 or less persons. Group home, 6 or less persons. Public parks and playgrounds. 2. Conditional: Bed and breakfast. Churches. Clinics. . Clubs. Dwellings, multi-family. http://66.l13.l95.234/MN/Farmington/130050000000l2000.htm 4/5/2006 10-5-12: R-D DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: Page 3 of3 Dwellings, townhouse. . Dwellings, twin home. Dwellings, two-family. Group daycare, 13 to 16 persons. Offices. Public buildings. 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) . . http://66.l13.l95.234/MN/Farmington/130050000000l2000.htm 4/5/2006 . . . 10-6-9: SCREENING: Page 1 of 1 10-6-9: SCREENING: The screening required in this section shall consist of a fence, wall, landscaping or earth berm and shall not encroach into public right of way. Natural features such as differences in elevation and tree masses may negate the need for man made screening in certain areas: (A)Screening In Residential Districts: Screening shall be required in residential districts where: 1. Any off street parking lot contains more than six (6) parking spaces. 2. Any material and equipment is stored other than recreational equipment, construction material currently being used on the premises. (B)Screening In Business And Industrial Districts: A one hundred percent (100%) opaque screen consisting of: 1) a six feet (6') to eight feet (8') wooden opaque fence and landscaping, 2) landscaping and berms, or 3) a combination of both shall be required in business and industrial districts where: 1. Any structure, parking or storage is adjacent to and within one hundred feet (100') of property zoned for residential use. 2. Any side or rear yard of a business or industry that is across the street from a residential zone. 3. Any material and equipment stored outside except in display yards or for those being used for construction on the premises. (C)Screening Of Stored Waste Material: Screening shall be required in all districts where waste material is stored other than in an enclosed building. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002) (D)Screening Of Roof Mounted Equipment: All new construction in the R-1 (nonresidential uses only), R-2 (nonresidential uses only), R-3 (nonresidential uses only), R-4, R-5, B, 1-1, IP, SSC, business/commercial flex, and mixed use zoning districts shall require rooftop equipment to be centrally located, except in cases where the property owner can show that this is not feasible, in which case the most unobtrusive feasible rooftop location shall be used. Screening shall consist of either a parapet wall along the roof edge or an opaque screen constructed of the same material as the building's primary vertical exposed exterior finish. Equipment shall be painted a neutral color. The site plan shall indicate all mechanical rooftop equipment and shall include elevations. (Ord. 005-545, 10-17-2005) http://66.ll3.l95.234/MN/Farmington/13006000000009000.htm 4/5/2006 . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: ~(j Planning Commission y" FROM: Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: 1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Industrial to Commercial and Rezoning from IP to B-1 for the property located at 5119 212th Street, Farmington, MN (former Duo Plastics Building) 2) Text amendment in B-1 zone under Conditional Use - Trucking Terminal 3) Text amendment in the IP and B-1 zones under Conditional Use - Auto-repair, major DATE: May 9, 2006 INTRODUCTION I DISCUSSION The Planning Commission at its April 11, 2006 meeting continued the public hearings for the three City staff initiated amendments that are identified above. Staff has been in conversations with Marschall Bus Lines, a tenant within the former Duo Plastics Building located at 5119 212th Street, about the possibility of locating a commercial spray booth within a portion of the aforementioned building. All three of the above-mentioned amendments would be necessary if the spray booth were to be installed at this location. However, staff has been informed by a representative of Marschall Bus Lines that these amendments are premature because the project has been postponed indefinitely and that the amendments should be withdrawn. Because of this, the public hearings that have been continued to the May 9, 2006 Planning Commission meeting should be closed as City staff is requesting that the amendments be withdrawn. STAFFRECO~ENDATION City staffs requests the withdrawal of the three amendments and recommends that the Planning Commission close the public hearings for the above-referenced amendments. Respectfully submitted, ~ [J~~ Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner Cc: Tom Severson, Marschall Bus Lines .' City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us TO: Planning Commission Kr'-- FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Amend Section 10-2-1 of the City Code - Building Height Definition and Amend Section 10-5-8 (B) I of the City Code - Maximum Building Height for Two-Family and Townhouses in the R-3 Zoning District DATE: May 9, 2006 INTRODUCTION . On April 11, 2006, the Planning Commission discussed the merits of revising the current building height definition and the possibility of increasing the maximum height of a building in the R-3 Zoning District from 35 feet to 45 feet. The Planning Commission agreed that the revisions should be pursued and directed staff to prepare a public hearing for the revisions. DISCUSSION Building Height Definition The current City Code defines the building height as follows: BUILDING HEIGHT: The vertical distance measured from the established grade to the highest point of the roof surface for flat roofs, to the deck line of mansard roofs and to the average height between eaves and ridge for gable, hip and gambrel roofs. The Planning Commission agreed that the proposed revision to the code is more "straightforward" in determining the building height. The proposed revision is as follows: BUILDING HEIGHT: The maximum possible distance measured adjacent to the building foundation at right angles from the natural undisturbed ground slope and natural grade to the highest possible point of a structure. The exceptions are chimneys. flues. vents or similar structures that may extend 2 feet above the specified maximum height limit. . . R-3 Zone - Increase of Building Height The R-3 zoning district (medium density residential), "designates areas of the city for the development of town homes in areas with access to jobs, services, public facilities and transit and that are served with full public utilities and a residential density of more than 5.5 units per acre". The definition for a townhouse dwelling is as follows: DWELLING, TOWNHOUSE: Single-family attached units in structures housing three (3) or more contiguous dwellings, sharing a common wall, each having separate front and rear entrances; the structures are a row type house as distinguished from multiple dwelling buildings; not to exceed eight (8) units in each structure. The R-3 zoning district currently allows a maximum building height of 35 feet for Two Family and Townhouses. The Planning Commission agreed that the height should be increased to 45 feet to allow slab-on-grade, 3-story townhouse buildings in the R-3 zone. The proposed revision is as follows: Height (maximum) Two Family and Townhouse 35 feet 45 feet The Two Family reference included in the height code is a typographical error since this type of use is not allowed in the R-3 zoning district. Staff plans on revising portions of the zoning district code in the near future. ACTION REQUESTED . Recommend approval of the building height definition and the increase to the maximum height in the R-3 zone and forward the recommendation to the City Council. Respectfully Submitted, ~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner . . . . CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 006-_ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10-2-1: ZONING DEFINITIONS- BUILDING HEIGHT AND SECTION 10-5-8 (B) 1: HEIGHT (MAXIMUM) IN THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 10-2-1 of the Farmington City Code is amended as follows (added text is underlined, deleted text is stmek): BUILDING HEIGHT: The yertioal distance measured from the established grade to the highest poiRt of the roof surface for flat roofs, to the deck line of mansard roofs and to the average height between ea'/es and ridge f{)r gable, hip and gambrel roofs. The maximum possible distance measured adiacent to the building foundation at right angles from the natural undisturbed ground slope and natural grade to the highest possible point of a structure. The exceptions are chimneys. flues. vents or similar structures that may extend 2 feet above the specified maximum height limit. SECTION 2. Section 10-5-8 (B) 1 ofthe Farmington City Code is amended as follows (added text is underlined, deleted text is stmek): Height (maximum) Two Family and Townhouse 35 feet 45 feet SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this _ day of ,2006, by the City Council ofthe City of Farmington. . . . CITY OF FARMINGTON By: ATTEST: SEAL Approved as to form the _ day of By: Kevan Soderberg, Mayor Peter Herlofsky, Jr., City Administrator 2006. Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of By: City Attorney ,2006. . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: A\V Planning Commission f \' FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Swanson Acres Final Plat DATE: May 9, 2006 INTRODUCTION Double E Development, LLC., Mark Emond and Jamie Elvestad, has submitted the Swanson Acres Final Plat for the property located on the west side of Akin Road and north of Middle Creek Estates (Exhibit la and Ib). The current address of the property is 20441 Akin Road (Exhibit 2). . DISCUSSION The developers are proposing seven single-family lots on 3.52 acres (153,378 square feet) in the R-l Zoning District. Excluding the pond (15,754 square feet) and arterial road right-of-way (Akin Road; 42,760 square feet) results in 94,864 net developable square feet or 2.18 net acres, resulting in a net density of 3.2 units per acre. The 3.2 units/acre exceeds the Metropolitan Council's requirement regarding densities at 3.0 units/acre and above. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat on April 11, 2006 and the City Council approved it on April 17, 2006 with the following contingencies: 1. The satisfaction of any engineering requirements including the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities. 2. The evergreen trees need to be changed to deciduous trees surrounding the pond. 3. The satisfaction of the Heritage Preservation Commission's requirements. 4. A demolition permit will need to be applied for by the developer to demolish the existing home on the property. Existing Conditions . The existing site topography shows a 48-foot fall from the west side of the property to the east side of the property, creating an 11.8 % slope. The property is almost completely wooded . . . (Exhibit 3). Wetlands or floodplains do not exist on the property. An existing home is located on the property; however, the developer proposes to demolish the structure before construction begins. A demolition permit will need to be applied for by the developer. Proposed Lot Sizes and Widths The lot is located in the R-1 Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of75 feet. The lot sizes and widths are proposed as follows: Lot Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot Size 13,424 sf l7,820 sf 10,839 sf 16,594 sf 10,050 sf 10,004 sf 16,133 sf Lot Widths 96 feet 75 feet 75 feet 76 feet 76.7 feet 75 feet 89 feet All ofthe lots sizes and widths meet the minimum standards ofthe R-1 Zoning District. Proposed Housing The proposed housing construction will include one full-basement, one full-basement with a walk-out and the remaining five lots will be full-basement splits with look-outs. Parks & Recreation The Parks & Recreation Director has determined that the developers will be required to submit cash-in-lieu for park dedication requirements because the development is less that 5 acres in size and contains only seven lots. Randy Distad, Parks & Recreation Director, has attached a letter stating this information (Exhibit 4). A trail currently exists on the east side of Akin Road. There are no adjacent existing trails or sidewalks located on the west side of Akin Road, therefore, the developers will not be required to install a sidewalk or trail on the west side of Akin Road. Transportation The preliminary plat shows seven lots arranged around a 235-foot long cul-de-sac that will connect to Akin Road. The cul-de-sac length meets the requirements of the City Code. The cul- de-sac roadway width is proposed at 32 feet measured from face of curb to face of curb within a 60-foot wide right-of-way. An 8% slope is proposed for the roadway at its highest point, leveling off at the entrance to Akin Road at 2.9%. The developers are proposing a 60-foot wide radius to the cul-de-sac, which meets City requirements. 2 . Landscape Plan The Developer is proposing to install boulevard trees at 40-foot on center to comply with the City Code (Exhibit 5). The Developer has also made a revision to the evergreens that surrounded the pond. Deciduous trees are now proposed near the pond in order to allow for greater accessibility to the pond for maintenance. Engineering Review A water main and sanitary sewer line currently exist on the west side of Akin Road, providing readily available access to these utilities (Exhibit 6). A storm water pond is proposed at the north end of the site adjacent to Akin Road in order to infiltrate surface water runoff from the existing drainage ditch along the west side of Akin Road. An arched culvert currently exists under Akin Road and will be utilized for both surface water runoff and drainage from the pond. . Retaining walls are proposed on the south and west property lines (Exhibit 7). The south walls are proposed at heights up to 4 feet and the west walls are proposed at heights up to 10 feet. An additional retaining wall is proposed for the east side of Lot 1 at a height up to lO feet. Any retaining wall over 4 feet in height needs to be structurally engineered. Due to the grading cut into the slope for house construction, the developer is proposing to install a chain link fence on the south and west property lines adjacent to the retaining walls. A 4-foot tall black vinyl chain link fence needs to be installed on the Swanson Property adjacent to the cemetery's shared property line. The Developer proposes the use of a Category 4 erosion control blanket to be installed at the southwest comer of the property. The control blanket and seed mix will be installed within 7 days after construction of the 3:l slopes in this area (Exhibit 8). The remainder ofthe site will be seeded, mulched, or disc anchored. Middle Creek Historic Cemetery - Heritage Landmark . As discussed during the preliminary plat stage, the City of Farmington owns a cemetery at the southwest corner of Swanson Acres. The Middle Creek Historic Cemetery was approved as a City Landmark on February 18, 2003 by the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). Per Section 2-11-5 of the City Code, the following is required: D) Development Projects: Every application for a preliminary or final plat, variance or conditional use permit in relation to a significant historic property in the City shall be reviewed by the HPC and their recommendation shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration in making their recommendation to the City Council. In determining whether or not a project will have an adverse effect upon a significant historic property, the HPC shall consider the following factors: 1. Whether the development will substantially alter the appearance of an historic building, site, structure, object or district so as to remove the features which distinguish the historic property as a heritage landmark; and 3 . . . 2. Whether the use of the property will destroy, disturb or endanger a known or suspected archeological feature. The HPC reviewed the development at a special meeting on April 4, 2006 to determine if the "development will substantially alter the appearance of an historic site". The City's Heritage Preservation Consultant, Bob Vogel, identified four issues that should be contingencies to the approval of the Swanson Acres Preliminary Plat. The issues are as follows: 1. Mr. Vogel needs to be notified by the developer when grading near the cemetery commences. He needs to monitor the grading on site to insure that the cemetery is protected and if any possible burial sites on the Swanson Property are discovered that grading is stopped immediately. 2. If work is not being done near the cemetery, the area should be flagged in order to protect it from any construction activity. 3. A 4-foot tall black vinyl chain link fence is installed on the Swanson Property adjacent to the cemetery's shared property line. 4. A lO-foot buffer setback will be required between the cemetery's property line and the retaining wall and no work will be allowed within the buffer. The HPC determined that the Swanson development would not visually intrude on the cemetery and the chain link fence would buffer the historic cemetery. ACTION REQUESTED Recommend approval of the Swanson Acres Final Plat and forward the recommendation to the City Council contingent upon the following items: 1. The satisfaction ofthe Heritage Preservation Commission requirements as stated above. 2. A demolition permit will need to be applied for by the developer to demolish the existing home on the property. 3. The Final Plat approval is contingent on the preparation and execution of the Development Contract and approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division. cc: Double E Development, LLC. File 4 . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission ^",U \vr FROM: Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Jerry Sauber Sketch Plan - 3186 Vermillion River Trail DATE: May 9, 2006 INTRODUCTION The applicant, Jerry Sauber, has submitted a sketch plan for the property located off of County Road 66 and north of the Tamarack Ridge subdivision, addressed as 3186 Vermillion River Trail (Exhibit A). The developer/owner is proposing 3 single-family lots on 1.62 acres of land. DISCUSSION The developer is proposing 3 single-family lots on 1.62 acres (70,745 square feet). Excluding the .467 acres (20,343 square feet) of road right-of-way (CSAH 66) resulting in 50,402 net developable square feet or 1.16 net acres, and providing a net density of 2.59 units per acre. The 2.59 units/acre is just shy of meeting the Metropolitan Council's requirements for densities at 3.0 units/acre and above. 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 The proposed plat consists of 1.62 acres of land. The property was annexed into the City of Farmington on March 9, 2006. MUSA was administratively allocated to this property at the time the property was annexed as it is under 5 acres in size. There is an existing l,274 square foot home as well as a shed located towards the rear of the property that will remain. The property was annexed into the City in order to provide City sewer and water services as the property has a failing septic system. Dakota County Plat Commission The proposed sketch plan was reviewed by the Dakota County Plat Commission on April 17, 2006 as the property abuts a County Road (CSAH 66). The Plat Commission agreed that the relocation of the existing driveway to the north between the newly created lots is acceptable. The existing driveway access (located towards the southern boundary of the property) will have to be abandoned with this project. The plat will have to go back to the Plat Commission for final approval. It should also be . noted that cross easements will be necessary for the future property owners to access the proposed private drive as it straddles the various lot lines that are being proposed. Zoning Prior to plat approval, a rezoning of the property will be necessary as it is currently zoned A-I (Agricultural). Based on the submitted sketch plan, an R-l (Low/Medium Density Residential) zoning designation appears to be appropriate for this development. The R -1 district requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet with a minimum lot width of 75 feet. The Tamarack Ridge Subdivision located directly south of this development is zoned R-2 PUD, which would allow 6,000 square foot lots. However, the majority of the lots within the Tamarack Ridge Subdivision meet or exceed the 10,000 square foot minimum of the R-l zoning district. The rezoning could be applied for and acted on by the City Council prior to the preliminary plat submittal or simultaneously with the platting process. The proposed building pads shown for the two lots closest to CSAH 66 show a setback from the right-of-way of approximately twenty-five (25') feet. City Code requires that the minimum front yard setback for all land adjacent to a minor arterial street shall be fifty (50') feet from the planned right-of-way line. A variance will be necessary to allow the construction of homes in the locations that are being proposed with this plan. Comprehensive Plan . The property is currently comprehensively guided as non-designated. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment from non-designated to low density will be required due to the proposed development of this site. The process for the Comprehensive Plan amendment could follow the same track as the aforementioned rezoning. Proposed Lot Sizes and Widths As mentioned earlier in this memorandum, the property and proposed density appear to be appropriate for an R-l zoning designation. The R-l Zoning District requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 75 feet. All lot sizes and lot widths meet or exceed the minimum standards of the R-l Zoning District. Engineering . The Engineering Division has preliminarily reviewed the sketch plan and is generally satisfied with the layout of the utilities for this development. The sanitary sewer service for this development will be provided from an existing 8" line located in the ROW of CSAH 66 that currently ends at the southwestern corner of this property. This line will be extended with this development to the northern boundary of this property. In addition, a sanitary sewer stub will be provided for the future connection of the adjacent property located to the north. However, the applicant's engineer must show a 4" sewer service extending southeasterly down the proposed drive to service the existing home located towards the back of the property. This will have to be shown on the Preliminary Plat. The water service will be extended northerly from a hydrant located in between Lots 7 and 8, Block 3 of Tamarack Ridge Subdivision via a 6" line. This line will then connect into a 16" water main that will be extended from the southwestern portion of this site where it currently ends. The proposed line . . . running between the above mentioned lots will fall within existing drainage and utility easements which were dedicated with the platting of the Tamarack Ridge Subdivision. By proposing the water services as shown, the applicant is looping the water system which in turn will provide for more efficient and higher quality water service. It should also be noted that the water service is being proposed to be stubbed to the adjacent lot to the north as well. Engineering will continue to review the project when the plat is submitted. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission should comment on the sketch plan. Respectfully submitted, 7~W~____ Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner Cc: Jerry Sauber Grant Jacobson, Jacobson Engineers and Surveyors Todd Tollefson, Dakota County Plat Commission . . ~ g ~ . " T Z i 1"'1 1"'1c.... ::0" Ul() o OJ ~:g ::oZ ;$j -< o ::0 Ul I ;;'~~ iI ~.Sl~ i~~ ~~~ z;,:i ~~" s~ +[ (") o z (") '" " .... " r > Z . ~~ ;::;:: zr "'c ....0 OZ z . ;;j ~~ r () " s:: o 1"'1 Z f)1 m Z ., ~ " ~ ~ " .... ~ I ~ "'I~ '" ~ ~I~ ~j -l~ NZ !~ ~~ ~~ "'=, 'i1 ~ +'lI>,=,~ [~ ;f!ff i~ft~ ~ i[ i;zf, IN; ~ ~ ~! !:~~tl tzfr!.::J ~ ... 5"40:;E.....O !!p....e. ~ ". .,,~- ~.,; ~ f" .~;~: 1;:;-;1 . f i: ~ll!! f{r~ i \1 I. ~"1~1 .~,,~ ~ ~i ;,,~i:f .>.cl;'~ Cl ~ ;! i.1! tff!; ~ Zl i~'~P ~~lS ~ 1- ~~~;~ [n- .~ ~i t;~=~ ;iif e ~ ~~ti; rlt~ ~ ~ f~ i[t if~! j' l~~'; H!f e r}~ ~r=~ !~~ EXHIBIT 1/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ p. , . M. I ~ g H ~nll' . d~.1 .S !!" d ~ 51 ~ z//""--..