The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6/13/06 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 A Proud Past - A Promising Future Committed to Providing High Qpallty, Timely and Responsive Service to All Of Our Customers . AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION June 13, 2006 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) May 9,2006 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) b) c) . d) Amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map for ISO #192 School District's Property. Applicant: City of Farmington Amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and review the Schematic PUD for the property known as FairhUl$, Applicant: Newland Communities Conditional Use Permit to allow off-premise directional signs. Applicant: Roundbank, Blaine Eggum A Conditional Use Permit to allow minor boat and lawn mower repair. Applicant: Dale Hutter 4. DISCUSSION a) Farmington Family Housing Sketch Plan Applicant: Dakota County Community Development Association b) Sunrise Ponds Final Plat Applicant: Bridgeland Development c) 195th Street 8: Pilot Knob Road Applicant: Oppidan, Inc. d) 621 Elm Street Sketch Plan - Townhome Proposal Applicant: Jason Stelter 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 IUd c.- FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution and Ordinance - Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Urban Reserve to Public/Semi-Public and Rezoning from A-I (Agriculture) to R-l (Low Density Residential) for Independent School District #192's New High School Site. DATE: June 13,2006 INTRODUCTION . The City of Farmington is proposing to amend the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan and rezoning the property owned by Independent School District (IS D) #192 west of Flagstaff Avenue and one third of a mile north of CSAH 50, formerly known as the "Christensen Property" (Exhibit A). The City intends to amend the Comprehensive Plan from Urban Reserve to Public/Semi-Public and rezoning the property from A-1 (Agriculture) to R-l (Low Density Residential) for the 1l0-acre site. School facilities are a conditional use in any R-l zoning district. DISCUSSION The City of Farmington submitted a public hearing notice to the Farmington Independent on May 26, 2006, requesting the review of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning by the Planning Commission for the ISD #192 property. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Urban Reserve to Public/Semi-Public (Exhibit B) and a rezoning from A-I to R-l (Exhibit C) are the first steps in preparing the School District's property for a new high school campus, including a building of approximately 450,000-470,000 square feet, various sports facilities, and supporting infrastructure. An initial capacity of 2,000 students in grades nine through twelve is proposed to be constructed by 2008. ISD #192 has submitted a supplement document to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning request for review by the Commission (Exhibit D). Text Amendment The proposed amendment from Urban Reserve to Public/Semi-Public currently is not consistent with the portions of the text of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment is intended to supersede any such inconsistent provisions until they can be addressed in or by the City's 2030 Update of its Comprehensive Plan, which must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council before or during 2008. . MUSA City staff currently intends to ask the City Council to adopt a resolution finalizing MUSA for the property at the Council's meeting on June 19,2006. City staff will thereafter forward the MUSA request and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (if approved by the City Council to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval). . Sketch Plan The 110-acres of existing farmland located west of Flagstaff and one third of a mile north of CSAH 50 will be developed into the new high school campus (Exhibit E). The campus will consist of a three-story building and adjoining athletic fields and parking lots. The south side of the building will house the classrooms, science labs, and art studios. Gymnasiums will be located on the east end of the building, with a pool area located on the west side. Office areas, recital hall and lecture hall will be located between the classroom area and gym area. Outside facilities include: two baseball fields, three softball fields, six football/soccer fields, eight tennis courts, an oval track at the perimeter of the football field, one track & field event area (west of the building), one physical education space and a football stadium. Staff and student parking will be located east of the building, while visitors will have a separate parking lot located near the south public entrance. The sketch plan currently shows approximately 1,142 parking spaces. Bus loading areas will be provided to allow students to travel between buses and the building without crossing vehicle lanes. The facility will comply with applicable ADA, safety code and energy use regulations and guidelines. As part of the new high school project, Flagstaff Avenue will be upgraded and paved with bituminous material from CSAH 50 on the south to the Farmington city limits on the north. Two entrances from Flagstaff Avenue will provide access to the new high school. An intersection at Flagstaff Avenue and 208th Street will be constructed in the future when development pressures require the east/west roadway. . The sanitary sewer service to the new high school will extend from an existing Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) sewer south of CSAH 50 north to the new high school 1 and north to 200th Street. The sewer extension will immediately serve the new high school and has been designed and sized to accommodate future development in the vicinity of the new high school. The City will construct and install a dead end water main from the intersection of CSAH 50 and Pilot Knob Road to the new high school's south entry way. From the existing water main at CSAH 50 and Pilot Knob Road, the City will install a 16" main running west along the north side of CSAH 50 and an 18" main running north in the right-of-way of Flagstaff Avenue, per the requirements of Farmington's Water Supply Plan. Storm water ponds are proposed on the south and east sides of the site to handle runoff from the northwest. ACTION REQUESTED City staff recommends the following: 1. Recommend approval of a resolution amending the 2020 Farmington Comprehensive Plan from Urban Reserve to Public/Semi-Public for the new high school campus on Independent School District #192's property. 2. Recommend approval of an ordinance rezoning the property in question from A-I (Agricultural) to R-l (Low Density Residential). . . . . Respectfully Submitted, dJ~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner cc: Dr. Brad Meeks, ISD #192 Superintendent Peter Herlofsky, Jr., City Administrator File . . N eA D Q ISO #192 Property ex: A " ISO #192 140270001011 39.97 Ac $ 'E GU ~ (3 ISO #192 Q) ::J C Q) > <( :t:: I1l Ui OJ l!! u. 140270002290 70.03 Ac FARMINGTON HIGH SCHOOL REVISED LAND USE PLAN Ex- 13 . Legend Revised 2020 Land Use Plan New Hiqh School Site Change Land Use from Urban Reserve to Public / Semi Public [ .^.I City Boundary t / MUSA Boundary t:nvironmentally Sensative - Flood Plain/M ajor Wetlands _ Flood Plain Boundary Within Developed Area Flood PlalnNV etlard Boumary in Undeveloped Area Comprehensive Land Uses Urban Reserve Business Industrial Business Park Low D enslly R esldentlnl LowlMedium Density Medium Density HlQh Density PublIC/Semi Public City Park/Open Space Restricted Development Natural Open Space ROW . . Note: Graphics and Legend taken from City of Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan 6X. (! FARMINGTON HIGH SCHOOL REVISED ZONING PLAN . eo . Legend Revised Zoning Plan -------, 1\ \ I I I I I Ju I l:~L ~ -, ' ~I ,"/ N r- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , .. - - - - - L - MUS A Boundary City Boundary Historic Properties A-l (Agriculture) PIOS (Park/Open Space) B-1 (limited Business) B-2 (DowntO\lvn Business) B-3 (Heavy Business) 6-4 (Neighborhood Commercial) Business Commercial Flex Mixed-Use IP (Industrial Park) 1-1 (light Industrial) Spruce Slreet Cooridor BP (Business Park) R-l (low Density Residential) R-2 (low/Medium Density Residential) R-3 (Medium Density Residential) R-4 (Medium/High Density Residential) R-5 (High Density Residential) R- T (Downtown Transitional) RD (Downtown Residential) Waler ROW (Right-ot-Way) pu~ District -~ ~ A-l -1-- - j- i A-l ..., L~_____ "" New High School Site Change Zoning from A-1 (Agriculture) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) I \ ... I I ,- I I 1-; I I I I I "" I I l_ L "" II :: ~1 >------ I' - . I '- r I I "" r I 1- 1= ::...___J~ - .JJ Note: Graphics and Legend taken from City of Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan e)(. P . SUPPLEMENT TO CITY ACTION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 1. Introduction. On May 6, 2006, Independent School District No. 192, otherwise known as the Farmington School District (the "District") and the City of Farmington (the "City") entered into a Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement"), providing for a settlement of the "Legal Action" (as defined therein) in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and additionally entered into a Stipulation for Suspension of Legal Action (the "Stipulation"). On May 8, 2006, the Dakota County District Court approved the Settlement Agreement and ordered the suspension of the Legal Action and a stay of all time periods within the Legal Action, subject to and in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to Section 3 of the Settlement Agreement, the City is obligated to: . undertake and initiate all such actions as shall be necessary to effect an amendment of the City's existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances to allow for the construction, operation and use of the High School Improvements [as defined in the Settlement Agreement] on the Christensen Property [as defined in the Settlement Agreement] for public school purposes, and of all Public Improvements [as defined in the Settlement Agreement), in accordance with the terms and provisions set forth in [the Settlement Agreement]. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, such actions include both amending the land use designation for the Christensen Property from "Urban Reserve" to "Public/Semi-Public, and the zoning designation for the Christensen Property from "Agriculture" to "R-1 (Low Density Residential)". In accordance with the foregoing, the City has scheduled the foregoing actions for consideration at a public meeting of the city council for the City (the "City Council"). Cooperating in good faith with the City in connection with these actions, the District hereby furnishes this Supplement in support of such actions. For purposes of this Supplement, the following definitions shall apply: (a) "Plan" shall mean the City's Comprehensive Plan; (b) "Project" shall mean the proposed "High School Improvements" (as defined in the Settlement Agreement); and . 1381487-1 1 . . (c) "Property" shall mean the "Christensen Property" (as defined in the Settlement Agreement). 2. Rezoning Petition. As previously noted, contemporaneous with existing actions by the City to effect an amendment to the Plan, the City has also commenced action to effect a rezoning the Property from A-1 (Agriculture) to R-1 (Low Density Residential). To the extent applicable, this Supplement should be construed support such rezoning action by the City. 3. Proiect Summary. Although the Project currently remains in the design phase, such that a detailed design of the overall Project is not presently available, the concept plan for the Project includes the following features: (a) A new, approximately 450,000 to 470,000 square foot, three story, Farmington High School with an approximate initial capacity of 2,000 students, including the following features: classrooms, science labs, cafeteria, library/media center, theater/auditorium. gymnasium(s), locker rooms, and swimming pool. (b) Parking Areas, consisting of approximately 1,142 parking stalls, for administration, staff, teacher and student parking, together with driveways and bus-drop off areas. (c) Recreational and playing fields, including approximately six physical education fields, tennis courts, and softball fields, two baseball diamonds, and one football stadium. (d) Creation of wetland project areas in conjunction with site water retention work. 4. Existina Site. The Property was fonnally part of the Christensen family farm, and was actively farmed by, or on behalf of, the Christensen family. Under the terms of the Purchase Agreement, between the District and the Christensens, the Christensens farmed the Property for the 2005 growing year. The Christensens are expected to continue to farm the Property for the 2006 growing year under the terms of a lease to be entered into between the District and the Christensens. . 5. The Neighborhood. The Property is currently designated as Urban Reserve under the Plan, and is also zoned A-1 (Agriculture). Adjacent and much of the immediately surrounding property located within the Farmington city limits is similarly 1381487-1 2 . designated as Urban Reserve and zoned A-1 (Agriculture). Notwithstanding the above, adjacent to the Property, and located immediately to the west, two residential developments exist immediately inside the Lakeville city limits: (a) Ardmoor, an established mobile home community; and (b) Spyglass, a new and expanding multi-unit residential community. Furthermore, located immediately to the north, east (across Flagstaff Avenue), southeast (across Flagstaff Avenue), and south, there are ten individual residential properties, each ranging in lot size from approximately 2-12 acres. In light of the above, and notwithstanding the current Plan designation and zoning, the neighborhood surrounding the Property combines both agricultural and residential characteristics. See Exhibit A attached hereto. . 6. Soecialized Pooulation. The District's future use of the Property contemplates principal use and occupation by high school students from Ninth to Twelfth Grade, with ages ranging from approximately 14 to 19 years old. The District has a public and legal responsibility for the care and safekeeping of all of its public school children, including its high school student population. The Property offers the District with a secure setting in that it affords the District with a completely self-contained school site without existing traffic lanes severing the property, and additionally allows the District the ability, based on the site configuration, to minimize frontage along Flagstaff Avenue, resulting in placement of recreational fields well away from vehicular danger. While other development may eventually cluster around the Property, such development would then need to take into account an existing school facility, offering the City the opportunity to control such development in a manner most conducive to ensuring the continuing safety and security ofthe District's student population. 7. Conformity of Proiect with Existina Plan. The District supports the current actions by the City to effect an amendment to the Plan. Such actions include only a change in the land use designation for the Property from "Urban Reserve" to "Public/Semi Public". While the Project is anticipated to include features compatible with agricultural property generally, such a change in land use designation would more accurately reflect the intended use of the Property by the District, and would be consistent with land use designations for the District's existing facilities. Excepting the specifics of the anticipated amendment, both the Property and the Project remain in general conformity with the Plan. . 1381487-1 3 . (a) Public school exosnsion is not exoresslv addressed in the Plan. The Plan does not expressly address comprehensive planning for public school development or expansion. For example, the Plan does designate certain areas in or adjacent to the City's urban centers as "Public/Semi Public", which areas include, among other things, the District's existing school facilities. See Plan at pp. 5-11; See also, Plan Map 3.1 (2020 Land Use Plan). Beyond that, however, the Plan does not appear to designate additional Public/Semi Public areas as expressly for future educational facility expansion. This is understandable in that it may be unrealistic for the City to incorporate within its comprehensive planning the District's unique facilities needs.1 However, by maintaining s specific land use designation applicable to school and other public facilities, the City has implicitly recognized the ongoing need for periodic amendments to the Plan in order to accommodate ongoing public school development to serve the District's growing school population. (b) Pooulation arowth suooorts oroiected need for additional school facilities. . The Plan confirms that residential growth has increased at the rate of 194 housing units per year since 1990, resulting in a near doubling of the city's population from 1990 (5,940) to 1998 (10,641). Projections through 2020 indicate estimated growth to continue at a forecasted rate of 275 households per year, with a 2020 population estimated at 27,090 persons. See Plan at p. 4. In contrast, the City's website currently indicates population growth in excess of those projected in the Plan, with the City's 2004 population exceeding 18,000 persons, as compared to the a projected 2005 population of only 16,310. Thus, actual and projected population growth within the City, alone, indicates the probability of increased population pressure on existing educational facilities, and supports the District's own projected overcapacity problems. In fact, the City has noted the impact of such growth on the District, in commenting as follows: As documented in the School District's report in 1998, the continued need for single-family homes will also be strong because of the increase in kindergarten to elementary school aged children, signaling the growth of young families with the community. . 1 It is important to note that the District's attendance boundaries extend well beyond the City, and additionally include a small portion of the City of Lakeville and Vermillion and Hampton Townships, as well as substantial portions of Empire, Castle Rock and Eureka Townships. Consequently, the District's facilities needs are dependent only in part on population changes within the City, and instead are a direct response to population growth on a larger regional basis as well. 1381487.1 4 . See Plan at 47. Consequently, and although not expressly provided for in the Plan, it can be assumed that the City has anticipated the District's need for additional public school development through 2020. (c) Expansion of some Public/Semi-Public areas is proiected in the Plan. The Plan does project an increase in unspecified Public/Semi-Public areas through 2020 in the amount approximately equal to 145 acres. See Plan at p. 6. Whether this increase contemplates school growth or some other Public/Semi- Public expansion is unclear. While the projected 2020 growth under this category is admittedly well below the District's actual acreage needs, taking into account the District's immediate overall K-12 growth needs, there is at least inferential support for the proposition that the Plan envisions some expansion of the District's facilities needs. (d) Existing zonina desianation SUDDorts inference of continuing school eXDansion. . Consistent with the foregoing, and although the Plan does not specifically designate additional "Public/Semi Public" areas for future public school development, it is important to note that the City has included public schools as an allowed conditional use in the vast majority of all presently existing developed and undeveloped real property within the City limits (excluding only certain business, commercial and industrial districts). See Farming Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5. Although zoned "A-1 (Agricultural District)", the Property, as now designated by the District for its new Farmington High School site, also retains this favorable zoning designation. Consequently, and although the District believes an R-1 (Low Density Residential) zoning designation would be more appropriate for a public school facility, the Property remains eligible for public school development as an allowed conditional use under its existing zoning designation. See Farmington Zoning Ordinance ~ 10-5-5 (C). (e) The Project is compatible with the City's established goal of preservina and maintainino its wor/fino farms. The Plan establishes a goal of preserving and maintaining working farms located along its western and southwestern sections. See Plan at 10. See also, Plan at 12. While admittedly the Project will remove existing agricultural acreage from production along the western section of the City, elements of compatibility will still exist and in some respects will be advanced. First, the District's current, and projected future, high school curriculum encompass a significant focus on agricultural course work, including classes in animal science, agrl-business management, and horticulture, as well as well as class work providing actual hands-on experience in livestock and crop production. This curriculum is enhanced by placement of the school within an active, vibrant agricultural setting. Moreover, the District's current vision for the Project also encompasses on-site . 1381487-1 5 . agricultural features, including one or more wetland retention areas. Opportunities to enhance education in agricultural areas will have the effect of furthering support for the overall preservation of the City's, and surrounding communities', agricultural heritage. This can best be accomplished within a true agricultural setting. In fact. placement of the Project in a more urban, residential setting may have the effect of limiting certain of those functions. (f) The City's strateav of oreservina a natural edae or buffer between the City and Lakevi/le is accomolished bv Proiect. The Plan establishes land use strategies of preserving a natural edge or open space buffer between the City and Lakeville. See Plan at 12 and 15. This strategy is effectively implemented by the Project's combined features of open, recreational fields, wetland areas, etc. Approximately 75 acres of open, recreationaL-spaces--wilL serve~as--a--permanent-buffer between the two municipalities. It is additionally important to note that the lifespan of the Project would substantially exceed the Plan's 2020 time horizon, and will likely additionally survive much, if not all, of the existing agricultural character of the City's western corridor, assuming uninterrupted and continuing urban expansion within the City, as suggested by historical and projected population trends within the City. (g) The City's strateav of oromotina residential clusterina of homes consistent with minimum lot reauirements in aGricultural districts is not incomDatible with Proiect. The City has established a strategy of promoting residential clustering of homes consistent with minimum lot requirements in agricultural districts. See Plan at 15. To the extent that the Project is deemed to encourage residential development within the western corridor, such would operate to facilitate this strategy in tandem with the continued preservation by the City of its minimum lot requirements. In fact, the precise location of the Project within, and adjacent to. an existing cluster of homes may have the effect of localizing further clustering in its immediate vicinity-rather than elsewhere in the western areas of the City. Suggestions that the Project may produce a contrary result in the erosion of the agricultural districts through higher density development pressures ignores two factors: (i) the City controls minimum lot requirements and would, itself, need to accommodate such residential growth for it to occur; and (ii) high school facilities are not necessarily residential development magnets. It is not uncommon for new development in the vicinity of an existing high school to incorporate design features that buffer such development from the school. (h) The City's strateav of orotectina workina farms and limitina infrastructure within Urban Reserve is not incomDatlble with Proiect. The City has established a strategy of protecting working farms in western areas of the City through the designation of such areas as Urban . . 1381487-1 6 . . Reserve, and through the limitation of infrastructure in those areas. See Plan at 23. The Project is not incompatible with this strategy or its underlying goal. As previously discussed, agricultural elements of the District's curriculum, combined with various components of the Project, should operate to enhance the protection of working farms-particularly among families residing within the Districts attendance boundaries, whose students would presumably attend the District's high school. While infrastructure will be required to support the Project, such infrastructure will not detract from the agricultural character of the area. Moreover, road infrastructure in particular should operate to enhance the lives of the existing residents in that area. (i) The City's Do/icy of maintainina and exoandina existina aaricu/tura/ oreserves is not materially incomoatib/e with the Project. The Plan establishes a goal of maintaining the existing agricultural preserve and further expanding that preserve. See Plan at 23-24. While it is true that the Property has been removed from agricultural preserve by the District for the purpose of implementing the Project, this Districts actions in this regard merely accelerated by only a few years a decision previously implemented by the prior owners-the Christensens, when they filed to remove all of their land, including the Property, from agricultural preserve. While the decision by the Christensens may have been incompatible with the goals established in the Plan, their actions should not be attributed to the District. Given the inevitability of the Property's removal from the preserve, the District's role in that process was no more than nominally incompatible with the Plan. Moreover, the agreement between the District and the Christensens ensures the continued use of the Property for agricultural purposes for the 2005 growing season, further minimizing any impact resulting from the District's actions. Finally, as indicated above, the Project itself conceptually incorporates essentially permanent agricultural and open space characteristics that are generally compatible with agricultural preserves. m Restrictions aaainst allowance of infrastructure imorovements in urban reserve areas not incomoatib/e with Plan as amended. . Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the City and District have reached general agreement as to all infrastructure improvements associated with the Project. Absent an amendment of the Plan to change in the Property's land use designation from "Urban Reserve" to "Public/Semi Public", the District realizes that the provision of major infrastructure improvements to the Property, while in conformity with the Settlement Agreement, might be technically incompatible with the Plan. A change in the land use designation to "Public/Semi Public", however, should operate to eliminate this possible technical inconsistency. As such no further amendment to the Plan should be necessary. It is additionally important to consider current plans under discussion among the Met Council, Dakota County, Empire Township and the 1381487.1 7 . Cities of Farmington, Lakeville, Elko and New Market in connection with the proposed MCES interceptor, as well current planning for the Cedar Avenue rapid transit corridor. Existing proposals for these sewer and transit projects envision the possible installation of a forcemain along Flagstaff Avenue with an eventual possible tie-in to the new interceptor line that would be located along 225th Street West. Location of the District's Project on the Property, together with the District's planned infrastructure improvements along Flagstaff Avenue, effectively make the District a potential financial partner to the possible benefit of the City. In short, the City and its taxpayers may realize benefits, from what might otherwise appear to be wholly independent projects, due to the possible coincident need for infrastructure development on Flagstaff to support both the Project and regional sewer and transit projects. In connection with the foregoing and pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the City and District have agreed to explore with both the Metropolitan Council and other interested parties the possible viability of a regional sanitary sewer system. It is premature to evaluate any outcome of such efforts at this time. . (k) The Proiect is not incomDatible with the City'S Do/icv of staoed orowth based on availability of infrastructure. The City has established, as part of its development planning processes, a strategy of considering the desirability of extending services to an area before the area can develop. See Plan at 33. This is a laudable strategy and warrants consideration in this instance, as in all others. It is noteworthy, however, to observe that the Plan does not establish a prohibition against such extension of services. Rather, the Plan contemplates a thoughtful analysis by the City of the corresponding benefits and detriments. In this case, under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, all "Public Improvements" (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) shall be constructed at the District's cost and expense and without direct financial obligation of the City. Moreover, and while development on this basis may not be viewed as compatible in many other instances, such is not the case for a high school facility. The sheer size of the project, combined with traffic, stadium, noise, lighting and other issues, though individually applicable to various developments, are collectively unique to high schools, and pose location problems for both school districts and city planners as they endeavor to strike a balance among the programic and other needs of the school district, the city's desire to properly manage development within its jurisdiction, and the understandable interest of neighboring property owners to preserve the pre- existing sanctity of their homes and businesses. These problems are compounded exponentially when high school location is accomplished in the same manner as other staged development-as the proximate location of a high school to existing urban development is precisely the event that triggers many of the problems that are sought to be avoided. Conversely, placement of a high school more remotely, thereby allowing subsequent urban development to evolve around it on a planned basis, reduces or eliminates these problems. The reason for this is that commercial, retail and/or residential developers and property owners are then aware of the high school's location and site configuration, and . 1381487-1 8 . can plan development in a manner to better take into account both the advantages and disadvantages posed by the high school site. All of this tends to enhance a more hannonious development relationship between both the school district and the municipality and their corresponding constituents. (I) The Proiect is cOffloatible with the City's lana term vision for its West Rural district. The City identifies in its Plan a relationship between the agricultural character of the West Rural district and the City's twofold vision to maintain and enhance the existing rural character of the City, and to provide an open space buffer between the City and Lakeville. See Plan at 40-41. As more fully discussed above, the Project is compatible with this vision in that the curricular, recreational and agricultural characteristics of the Project should operate to indefinitely preserve elements of the City's rural character, and should provide a permanent open space buffer between the two municipalities. The Plan further identifies, among others, the following underlying reasons prompting this vision. In many respects, the Project is compatible with these reasons. (i) The orooerty owners' desire to keeo the district in aaricultural use. . Ignoring for the moment the Project's retention of agricultural elements, the District does not dispute that a portion of the Property will be taken out of agricultural use as a result of the Project. This outcome, however, does not appear to be contrary to the existing desires of proximate property owners. In the case of the Christensen family, from whom the Property was acquired in an entirely voluntary transaction, it is clear that they did not oppose high school development on the site. In fact, the Christensens insisted on it, expressing a strong desire that the Property be used as the District's new high school site. That expression is reflected in the parties' written agreements-which actually require the development of a pubtic school on the site within only six years. It is important to note that the Christensens will continue to reside on, and fann, land located adjacent to the Property, as well as other land located in the West Rural District. Similarly, the District has not been informed of any significant opposition among other property owners within that district, with many such owners openly supporting the Project. . 1381487-1 9 . The need for sianificant infrastructure uoarades to SUDDort develooment within the district. The City and the District have acknowledged the need for many such upgrades as a condition to development of the Project on the Property, provision for which has been fully set forth in the Settlement Agreement. (iii) The need for continued oondina alona the southeastern Dortion of the district. (ii) Such ponding is required under the Surface Water Management Plan. The Project will not interfere with the preservation of such ponding, and in fact will include additional ponding on and adjacent to the Property in the form of wetland retention areas. . The need for fulfillment of the City's vision for an aaricultural buffer. The Plan makes varying references to both "agriculturalU and "open space" buffers in connection with this concept, and the precise distinction between these terms remains unclear. Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth above, the Project should operate to preserve the City's vision for such a buffer. Moreover, the anticipated permanence of a high school facility within an active and growing community suggests that the buffer afforded by the Project may in fact dramatically outlast open space buffers comprised solely of agricultural property. (m) The Proiect is comoatible with the City's surface water and weYand management goals. (iv) The Plan addresses goals for surface water management in conformity with the City's Surface Water Management Plan (the "SWMP"), and for ensuring the continuing protection of the wetlands in compliance with the City's Wetland Ordinance (the 'Wetland Ordinance"). See Plan at 58-61. As discussed above, the Project contemplates ponding to address on-site storm water issues, as well as an expansion of the storm drainage system as part of the proposed infrastructure upgrades. Finally, and although no wetland is anticipated to be affected by the Project, it is additionally expected to include, as part of the ponding, a wetland retention area. It remains the District's intent to comply with the SWMP, Wetland Ordinance and other state and local laws and rules governing surface water management issues. . 1381487-1 10 . (n) The Proiect is not incompatible with the City's 2020 Thoroughfare Plan. In the City's 2020 Thoroughfare Plan, 208th Street is designated as an east/west major collector from Cedar Avenue in Lakeville to Trunk Highway 3 in the City. See Plan at 90. Under an improved alignment for 208th Street, as established and detailed under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the retention of 208th Street as an east/west major collector to Lakeville is both preserved an enhanced. . (0 ) The Proiect furthers the implementation of the City's proposed park and trail system. The Plan reflects a City vision for a comprehensive system of parks and trails, consisting in part of a combination of mini parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, community preserves, and lineal trails. See Plan at 116-119. In presumed implementation of the City's planning recommendations set forth in the Plan, the City has compiled an Existing and Proposed Park, Trail and Open Space Plan. That plan identifies a proposed 25-acre park facility substantially on land comprising the Property. See City's Existing and Proposed Park, Trail and Open Space Plan Map (Revised as of September 10, 2004). Given many of the recreational features of the Project, and the fact that a public high school facility affords the general public with many park-like amenities (subject, of course, to the administration of a school district's educational and extracurricular curriculum), the Project is functionally in direct conformity with the City's future community park plans for the West Rural district. . 1381487-1 11 I3X, ~ I . ~:;&V:.~~"=:: lOOHOS HE:lIH N01E:lNW\lCl'v':l N'v'ld 311S -- ~:O'~~ ...........OuIUU..d"""'""'llu dnoJ~:;m ~ > ..I Z o ,..:.... u.a.. ~~ 00 ~~ <(0 ~~ ~(!) ..I- wa: a:o a..u. . ., ~t ~t l~ ii S1~ JH~ ~!~1 . ~~ji I Ji!i 81 I ~Ifl~~~ 1, ~u.~5jia I I I .l! j~ l ... ~~ ;;I~~ en iil ;H 5h i ~ : Ii ~~ ~~ ~..H !IJ N6;Hl eo :.~ , . . --l '<: --jf' I), - '1"--' ~j 1,)1 1 I I -- --- ~ ~- ...:."cc.__J., L . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission V f0 FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Amend the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan for the Fairhills Property and Review the Schematic Plan DATE: June 13,2006 INTRODUCTION Newland Communities has applied for an amendment to the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan to relocate the existing Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and Commercial land uses on the current plan and propose five additional land use designations on the current plan including Parks & Open Space, Environmentally Sensitive, Low-Medium Density Residential, Mixed-Use (Commercial/Residential, and Mixed-Use (PubliclResidential). . DISCUSSION The amendment encompasses 965 acres, which includes 520 acres within the recently annexed area formerly known as the "Seed/Genstar" property. The property's name has been changed to "Fairhills" to recognize the farm that has existed on the property for years. The Fairhills project is located on the west side ofTH 3 and north of the Mystic Meadows development. The developer is proposing to construct 2,100 to 2,700 homes on the property. The maximum count in the 2004 AUAR was 3,896 homes. The developer proposes between 8-10 single-family housing styles and 3-5 multi-family styles. The single-family lot widths will vary from 35-85 feet and the gross density is proposed at 2.9-3.8 units per acre. The developer proposes 134,000 square feet of retail compared to the 248,000 square feet noted in the 2004 AUAR. As discussed in the information (attached to this packet) provided by Newland Communities including the Narrative Statement, the Landscape Strategy, and the folder of information concerning the development process for Fairhills, the developer is proposing a wider variety of land uses than what is currently shown in the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan. As stated in the information: . "Newland envisions a fully-integrated pedestrian-friendly community, offering a full range of housing choices to residents, connected by a vast network of public trails leading to neighborhood lifestyle amenities such as retail/commercial services, and parks and . . . open space. Central to Newland's master plan is the protection of large areas of tree stands, wetlands, scenic vistas and a community park. " Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Exhibit A shows the original land use configuration within the Seed/Genstar property that was approved in 2000 as an update to the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan. As illustrated, the 25-acre commercial area was shown in the northeast portion of the property. This location was proposed because of the potential intersection of the 179th Street east/west corridor and Trunk Highway 3, as shown on early renditions of the East/West Corridor Study proposed by Dakota County. Since the approval of the land use plan in 2000, Dakota County has determined that a more northerly route for the "I 79th Street corridor" would alleviate the need to further mitigate the existing wetlands north of the Riverbend development. The County has abandoned the original 179th Street east/west corridor in the northeast portion of the Seed/Genstar Property. Because of the abandonment of the 179th Street corridor, Newland Communities has determined that the commercial area should be relocated to the intersection of 195th Street and TH 3. This area will be a prominent intersection for commerciaVoffice/residential, and staff feels that the relocation of the commercial area, proposed to be designated Mixed Use (CommerciaVResidential), will be beneficial to the City's and developer's visions of a "fully-integrated pedestrian-friendly community". Exhibit A of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan also shows five tracts of medium density residential located throughout the Seed/Genstar Property. Once again, with new roadways and routes proposed for the project, Newland Communities is proposing to consolidate most of the medium density land use from the 2020 plan and locate it adjacent to the Mixed Use (CommerciaVRetail) area at the intersection of 195th Street and TH 3. The medium density along TH 3 will generally remain in the same location, however, the medium density residential area adjacent to the Riverbend development is now proposed for low- medium density residential. Amendment to the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan Newland Communities is proposing revisions to the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan including the relocation of existing uses and the addition of a variety of land uses not currently shown on the existing plan (Exhibit B). Proposed Text Amendments The developer and City staff are jointly proposing two new land designations, which will require text amendments in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update. The text amendments are as follows: Mixed Use (CommercialJResidential). An area that consists of: a. a building or buildings containing commercial and residential uses within the same structure(s); or b. separate commercial buildings and medium density residential buildings that are located in close proximity to one another and that are functionally integrated with pedestrian and vehicular traffic; or c. both "a" and "b," above. Mixed Use (Public/Residential). An area that consists of one or more of the following: a. a public or semi-public facility; b. a public park and/or public open space; 2 . . . c. low-medium density residential (not to exceed 40% of the total acreage) Land Use Revisions to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Revisions included on the proposed updated plan are the following: . Low-medium density residential and park & open space have been included on the proposed plan. The low-medium density residential offers more density transition throughout the site. . The former commercial area proposed at the north end of the study area is now proposed for low- medium density residential. . The former commercial area at the northeast comer of the property is now being proposed to be located along Trunk Highway 3 at the intersection with 195th Street because of the accessibility potential in this area. The proposed Mixed Use (Commercial/Residential) area will include neighborhood commercial, office, and residential uses and will not detract from the City's downtown commercial area. . The medium density residential area adjacent to the Riverbend development has been revised to low-medium density residential. . The medium density residential acres have increased by 28%, which will assist the City in meeting its Livable Community Goals. . The low density residential shown on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan has been reduced by 70%. The low density residential product consists of single-family homes on 65' -85' wide lots. . The commercial acres on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan have been reduced by 28%, however residential housing is also proposed within this land use designation. . New roadways, including extensions of 195th Street and Diamond Path Road are proposed to serve this area. . Park & open space was not shown on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The developer originally proposed a 51-acre park designation along the west side of the railroad. The Park & Recreation Commission met on June 7, 2006 and stated that its first priority for land dedication is the southwest comer ofthe property shown as Mixed Use (public/Residential). The next priority was ensuring that the trails shown on the City's Trail Plan are included on the Final PUD. The last priority is park acreage elsewhere on the property that meets park dedication requirements. The Commission also mentioned that they would like discussions between the Commission, the School District, and the City to commence soon in order to discuss co-location possibilities for shared facilities. . The 72-acre Mixed Use (Commercial/Residential) area is proposed for an elementary school, park & open space (community center), and low-medium density residential. The developer is proposing to construct a maximum of 40% of the total acreage as low-medium density residential in this area in the event that no agreement for an elementary school in this location is achieved and all park dedication is satisfied. If the elementary school, community center, and parks are located within the 72 acres, the low-medium density residential will not be constructed. . The final land use proposed is Environmentally Sensitive (FEMA floodplain) and consists of North Creek and its floodplain and the steep slopes in the central portion of the property. This floodplain area is unchanged from the original Comprehensive Plan. This use will preserve important natural resources and habitat connections, and will provide natural areas for walking trails and passive recreation. The steep slope area will be preserved as required in the City Code for slopes over 20%. The following table indicates existing land use, the 2020 Comprehensive Plan land use, and proposed revisions by the developer to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan: 3 Land Use Category Existing 2020 Comp Plan Revisions to 2020 Comp Plan Acres Acres Acres . Existing Rural Residential 56 0 0 Vacant or Agriculture 950 0 0 Low Density Residential 0 638 182-192 Low-Medium Density Residential 0 0 315-365 Medium Density Residential 0 119 156-166 Mixed Use (Commercial/Residential) 0 25 (Commercial) 18 Mixed Use (PubliclResidential) 0 0 72 Parks/Open spacelPondslROW 0 224 Not yet determined Environmentally Sensitive 0 0 137-147 Public/Semi-Public 0 0 5 Total Area 1006 1006 885-965 (w/o parks/open space) Schematic Plan The developer has also included a schematic plan showing more detailed locations of the proposed land uses (Exhibit C). Section 10-5-24 (D) of the City Code provides that the schematic plan shall meet the following requirements: 1. The planning commission shall review the application and make a recommendation to the city council based on and including, but not limited to, the following: . (a) Compatibility with the stated purposes and intent ofthe planned unit development. (b) Relationship of the proposed plan to the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be located, to the city's land use plan and to other provisions of the zoning title. (c) Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or densities; circulation and parking facilities; public facilities, recreation areas and open spaces. Intent of the Schematic Plan The developer's intention for the Schematic Plan is to fulfill its commitment to develop a master plan community in the City of Farmington that: 1) pays its own way; 2) provides diverse homeownership opportunities and "quality of life" benefits for existing and future Farmington residents; 3) preserves key habitat and protects the local character of the community; and, most important; 4) forms a partnership that honors the City's past heritage, while creating a bridge to its future. Consistency with the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan The proposed development is consistent with the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan, and will help the City meet the following goals: . 1) Provide for low and medium density residential development. 2) Locate medium density residential developments near transportation access and along the rail line as these uses can serve as a buffer between low-density uses and the rail line. 3) Preserve the natural open space as a passive recreational area and extend the City trail system into this area. 4 . 4) Maximize preservation of the district's rolling topography and other natural amenities through new subdivision standards that require environmental conservation measures. 5) Design a future commercial center to be pedestrian and neighborhood-oriented in scale and character. 6) Promote only neighborhood-serving commercial uses in well-designed and pedestrian friendly commercial districts along Trunk Highway 3. No commercial strip developments will be permitted. Density, Circulation, Recreation, and Open Space Proposed Housing Density and Types Newland Communities proposes a variety of housing products within the residential designations on the land use plan. The developer proposes housing that will reflect Farmington's period styles such as the Farmhouse Vernacular, Greek Revival, Folk Victorian, Craftsman, and Prairie designs. The developer proposes to encourage I, I 112, and 2 story massing for the homes. Additionally, the developer will encourage four-sided architecture for all product types and desires to de-emphasize the garage as part of the overall structure. . Low Density Residential includes the traditional single-family home proposed on 65' -85' wide lots with a price range between $350,000-$700,000. The developer proposes the construction of 450-550 traditional single-family homes. The designation provides for a residential density range of 1.0 to 3.5 units per acre in this designation. . . Low-Medium Density Residential includes traditional 1) alley-loaded single-family homes (750- 1,000 units) with a density of 2.5 to 5.5 du/ac proposed on 45'-65' wide lots. Additionally, the developer proposes 2) alley-loaded single-family homes (250-350) with a density of 2.5 to 5.5. du/ac proposed on 45'-65' wide lots. Assets to these homes include an inviting street and traditional small town character. . Medium Density Residential includes single-family alley-loaded courtyard homes and townhomes. The single-family homes (140-190 units) are proposed on 35'-55' wide lots with a density of 5.5 to 8.5 dulac. The executive townhomes (75-100 units) are proposed at a density of 5-7 dulac. The townhome product (450-550 units) proposes a density of8-14 dulac. Circulation The schematic plan shows the proposed roadway alignment for 195th Street. Additionally, the plan identifies the location of Deerbrooke Path that continues northerly from the Mystic Meadows development. Exhibit D shows the developer's road framework. As proposed on the framework, a number of accesses to the development are shown along TH 3. The proposed accesses will have to comply with the Access Management requirements of MnDOT. As the development progresses in detail, the road framework will be examined more closely. Another possible location for an access is from 194th Street within the boundaries of Empire Township. On November 1, 2004, the City Council approved an amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan (Exhibit E). Some of the revisions approved on that date were located north of 195th Street. The proposed collector . referred to on the approved Thoroughfare Plan amendment map is on the same alignment as a ~lanned southerly extension of Diamond Path Road, which currently ends at a "T" intersection at 160t Street (County Road 46) on the Rosemount/Lakeville border. Lakeville intends to extend this road to at least 170th Street, and potentially to the 179th/180th Street area along the Lakeville/Farmington border. A 5 . further extension of Diamond Path Road through the Fairhill area would bring it south to on 19Sth Street where it would "meet up" with the recently constructed portion of Diamond Path Road along the west side of the Mystic Meadows development. The eventual result would be a new, major north/south regional corridor mid-way between (and parallel to) Pilot Knob Road and Trunk Highway 3. Additionally, a proposed minor collector extending from 189th Street is also proposed within the Fairhill property. All of the above-mentioned roadways should be included on the schematic plan and eventually the final plan for approval of a PUD in this area. Recreation and Open Spaces As stated above, the Parks & Recreation Commission is primarily interested in acquiring land in the southwest comer of the Fairhills project. This will allow for the development of ballfields, soccer fields, recreational spaces, and possibly a community center. The developer has also proposed to provide approximately 260 acres of open space throughout the development as shown on the schematic plan (Exhibit C). A number of trails will be constructed by the developer throughout these open space areas. Amendments to the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan As mentioned above, the amendments to the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan include the relocation of the existing Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and Commercial land uses on the current plan and the inclusion of five additional land use designations on the current plan including Parks & Open Space, Environmentally Sensitive, Low-Medium Density Residential, Mixed-Use Commercial, and Mixed-Use (Public/Residential). The amendment also proposes text amendments to the Farmington 2020 Comprehensive Plan. . ACTION REQUESTED City staff recommends the following: 1. Recommend approval of amendments to the 2020 Farmington Comprehensive Plan to relocate the existing Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and Commercial land uses on the current plan and to propose five additional land use designations on the current plan including Parks & Open Space, Environmentally Sensitive, Low-Medium Density Residential, Mixed Use (Commercial/Residential), and Mixed Use (Public/Residential). 2. Recommend approval of the Fairhills Schematic Plan and forward the recommendation to the City Council. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ Lee Smick, AICP ... City Planner . cc: Krista Flemming, Newland Communities File 6 : ~ Ne\'vland : ~. COt\IMUNITIES AI r: r:.....u ~I.....: ',' t.\"I i;:' .~--- - - -, i - ____ __M_ .\ .. . ............\ \,\, :>) . ~ -,! ' . :..... 'V'\, ~" ''-........... ,." , \.... - ... , , , , , ,.' .\/">: <'\. . '/ . \. \. . J ~ ~ I LEGEND c:::J SITIt BOUNDARU:S: _ BUS1N.... " , , , , \ '\\ '- , ' ~ . \ --- - -- ------ -- ( \ \ -I , .,~I,~:c~,;:>,.~\.:. :.~, .:\ '. ,. ~.' LOW DI:N$IT,. RESIDE"'TIAL ~ATU""'I. O'"F'" SPACE _ MI:DIUM DC:...ITY R':SIDE;NTIAL _ CITY PARK,OPEN SP....CE . -- ,. r (; " . ~1 ,,'. ':;""-=' t' . :, - - - -.-. - .-.... ex. A , f ~ - Market Research/Analysis · Eco~mioS'/ , .I · Demoglaphics · Hout~~ Market · Copnpeti' ive Market / · CCDnsume Research . . . . e . CY.B LEGEND ! \Jt::= LOw DEN~H": 102.192 AC (1.0-:).5 OU/AC) 1.-1 PUaLlQ'SEM,.PUflL'C: 5 AC .. Low-MII':OlU,", Ot':NS"V; 31S-36SAC (:l.5-5.5 DulAC) ENVIAO..MENT...Ll-T S[NSllIVE AREAS: 131-1.01' AC MIXED-USE (PlJBLIQ'RfS10[NTIAL):12 AC ) _ h4EO'U,,", Ot.N'''''': 156- 1 66 AC (5,5.'....0 DulAC) D PROP'R'. LoR' _ ....'XEO.USIl':: 18 AC !:.-:J MUSA LINt: (COMMER1Al.jRII':StOE ,..'IAL) TOTAL ACRES: 965 ACRES \ ) /) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT [1'''''-'''''' r7~~iii FAIRHILL lliErJ ;) Moa:DU~l!: ,PuAUQ'RItS'otNTIAL) LEGEND Low DEI":JIlY (1.0-3.5 DU/AC) . _ Low-Mr:mUN Df"'~I'Y (2.5-5.5 DUlAC) _ PUBLIIQSEMl-PuHLk: > CI G!:NEJ:M.LOPU.S""'aAR-....., _ Mil!: DIUM DEN5ITY, AlLl!:Y, SF (5.5- 0.5 DUlAC) D f>qopfHn'LlNf: _ MEDIUM DENSITY, EXEC, TawNHOMf" ~~ MUAAlINE ,5-7 DU/AC) _ ""I"DllJM DENSITY, TOWNHO"'ES (9-1" OU/...C) _ MlJ(EO USE tCOM...f~Cl...l./RESIOII!'NII...LI \ . ) :-<\\ , :::: -- '----' .............. -4NN~J( ---- '__ .......-4r . SCHEMATIC PLAN rw~~ F"'UtHILL :7:-~ii Iim3l3 E/, D ~ Newland" ~. COMMUNITIES ~ ^,""'''^R100G''^T'''''G COlnlnunit Conce t Land Plan - Road Framework I \" 1 I~ t: I: I I I I I, - ~'WII-'. -- ...... i.~ "- ~I! ~ ~/IQ\'" . ~s I~ ~-- '- ~/I/I\\V T I ~,'I"I... '" 'I'.... ~~j ~ "III I'\' :k I I " ~"I~/~ '" ~ .ilr.... ,~ _ J' - -_ ~..,f,.~- , I 1,1( LI I I JI-1 "'0;,.. Thoroughfare Plan Amendment Area East of Aki n Road (Adopted on 11/1/04) ll1~t(jEj ~:i -~ ~__ I -, I -.. L --, - - 4 ~ -- ~,~\TIII'r,~ - ~ I J~-~---T---"'-"'-----;rl-. " ,.~ '01'1 i -I' "/ 1 I I ' I ,'V'\ i I I I I . I' I ,~ I tT~trihtu, I Y I , , 'I I I Illll>lIni - .. ..... ~ r . .>7.-1 \ :: ~ :,: ,-- -----J.,j...... I, " I \11 !,,- Y\"liIT,:I';-;;llfrr, -i-J;-,;:;ITTIn1IITil;rmmllI~ ~= \ 'I- - t - ;++ - r t~~i!l1rr'll jlw[j1;ril~!Hf}1l\'jf(H!1lh~;}%~ I II II~ ~ 8}?-1Y' B{'~<,1,~.~ll[:O- L'111Ht1H;~:i~ii1il~~"r~~ 1 Ii "},l.ml.1,i( I. :~!II'il;~ ~%~~ ~ '}'*I[I!]ljilj Ii Iii Uiluldb 1 dfr"il~, ~;II;)]I\-<<:~,trfmHji!l1lj , I I I V tJ)- I' j ~' I 11 ": ri:' TL.!;j r, :\,-'Yz,t;jiJi,Hilt11rJ l!lIlliFHJl: , \ ~ f- , t l_tJi!JlUm, \,'Jhllul ')C[lBb:f\1'V~~~llJlq~ \ I \, I r '~-fT'I'[1!rNF,1\\ ' ~ V'L!TI)! 11-1P<';J!~~"II:~"hb~ \ \ f I ~\:3" '~~{Uh"JI-1 I \ '\j [- ~/~; 11(S1m'I~I::W<Wl.J \\ \ I ).,Y\. ~'<J:'<<.u J \",~~ "~'/(illli;fllNi\TIrilli'$\{ I t ,1[ft'\-7-">~JIZ- ~I!J :)~:m":;:1t:rnrrrp!!mJ'p: ~t\\L, - (\ I- r- - r r\ <' "\\~/; I l Ii' ..' J lIT lUJl,l~ l \ J~ 0.".J f};?-ll'~~',:ttmli!Il)~7j i '~l'>..~\' \ I I -,uX// i;L{j'l,.oJ~D~1 "\T -'~ ,-V;:C.h / r:::rf:i '1\ I ~~1~~<<1'lj~~~~~-t~gjulIJ~~---- c\ \ \ I ilf rg~~~qtI\tt] H,\:'11wmjg\~~ jnjIH!lt~~ '< ,~I ) , \ \ \ I il\ '~Vfll;; :::Fl/fi'f:)/I'< 1'[1~I:ltJr_' "--:>~rJlfj'l;::J[t~I'/'~~_ I I ~/!I!}/ fj7j/if~' '." '11 B1J.:i~~ r. F ll'll[[] 1110f.89/t~~ ~ I \ \\ ii, "I'll:HJ8;Jfih~;:; ..- -, I i.JclU\tf'J<..- /;v: It L,[rm,;'1~1. ~~\rll"el!~ , \ I ,!]lqql,'B;::X~~-: )--:\Il.M\I\!jL'~ ~f!WJnllIj1nlt-v.:..,{lIJ-iJ.ll.. I. \ II? IK'''- '~\\ ..- ~ "":<.ii 'JI'l . r ili}:1. II t v J IHlTI :JUJ-\"\,~ /\i;:\\ 11: [/\1' I ,: I F "'IJ\JTJil ii 1J' llirWl:\; _ _ .. _ \ ~ 1 tlIfi' .lJ I IT l~Jl.lcn ::'. U 1l!1 ~J lIIJ.:~ '~,,>\J [ J ~ .iIl.!~: / I ,I;I;JHt~ 1 i I · I "7 I II t{~t~~l?1~\~fj}f,\11~1~1@'~\\\~~11~~1~L'~ /; ~Jf~k~t~W I ,,~\IJ ~ill 1"'ili,ttJtijjd;If~(:-1ll' 8\\\:,1'1 ""HC"_V':;;;%".~ ". \\ >- fglf:1?/li//!},\'i/fi :lft~~\\=B\L!\-\'[;~nmJ1ttrt,S-< 1 I.. 11, ~):r~(!t~~~~!lrL;rlf~{\\l\\L:\~\~,~mi#h~~fffi:: 7' ..~ T L ~~ ~}-N~~f~r0/;,'(n.r11! 1 ~\1f17{~!~j 'J.! jJr I / " .. jl I r,fT'lIJ 111 to!lJlll$(.> <-lkc:i(/);(jJ\i, \t.\l-;:){. ;:"'1 J"""[i / · 1\' jl jLllrUlll\'L(]~~'111~~1. __ ',vs~ 195thSt~~ - J ~. _ I l' 1~ ~illLl:[j;~I(~C'-.~ li( 1;( c,,\~\\~_ -I : 1 I ... '\ \ 'I: ~~ar1'''':- I 1\ '--J · 1 I . , - j )~\'\~~ I Ii I j! \ '~,I .. I. : \ I 1 rr :.~r,~~~J} I~ (I \t), ,,~!.~ .' I 19nhc I ~";,&ff( ~\\ -:c;:_, 'jIlt I J L~&: 1~ ~....... ..... ........., \ ....['.I-JP ~~~7f~1- j I\\\-~ ~~~~lm~rJ~~f~\\1\ I'. :~... 1'1 =;g~F~ 10.'".)0:70., II \\\ I . 1 ~ it ,/ 'I "<LIllI J I I \~:\I I. .. 'I" 1 t l \ ~~~ - \, \r 1 -I' +\ I I.~ ~ I :IT I: \-\1';f1 - r 11 \\ I -( \\ i. .. ,'a I; I ~ Qj ~ I ,~\ \ ~ I . :J ' I (:Y~ll-~\ I r~~~::. -~-\ \\ II ...!: I I . ~ (,\:.\'1; '-...j I ~\J2-~ ~ .................t... ii ' 1: (~~.( T1>:<;lJ i I ) i\:?',~\:.~.. I' _ , . Ir: qtl\ ~' -:\ dJ5?<J1f~ f',d' stfeetAl..., - - \ I : ' ~' --- A +'T'i..Y~ ( ('103r ,~_. \~ \ , I N Ty-T- ;~-<:!;'fJ0tt~,; [l-~lJ~~);) ': ~ If f ' " ~~t~ f (j\'._ _L}/~t(O\~\/-1 i ::,- ~ L i I \ ~ '1 \', - / II /J ~.'9%~ "'\ II :;: .... r' '205th Street J .. T~' --'~'- \ , I /Q'ior;v-T '0..1 'I ,s. c' ' 01" .1 11~lu "11'1'.'1,/ \)1 i "f::?' J\ ..-~' I ~ .0' " I , '\ '\..:i ,n~ '(~*~nport Dr. c::g: '1 C I' J/- \ ~'1\ J \('If' ~~\:: ',-) · _o~!~_!~__~' "-~rn'=~ , : ',;:;, '\(1 /~'cc'L~; /,,- t~ - J!f Y)- I 1 r~ I \ ---AIr I -/rll'/j'''I" ~ l' L I "-- D- , f ! Access RestrlCte~ \\'ii:):. .,n 1, I !, 11: I ,j ~'^ f! 'I . - r L_I '? ' '-----, ,- /';r ;~~~h ~t~~~~ i.-'</ 1 II 1\ "r" U .. l' 11--' d - - .1-- ~'- / 1 ft-~ '.,~-' J,', 'J"jl r~- .: _: I'i II) I ii, t" I~H 11Hf" J I I ;'lr I I !~ f /'1 1/,.;.'1~"1,t:,J rrlJ1?,~, :~ . e \ \ -=- Proposed Minor Arterial --- Proposed Collector ..... Proposed Minor Collector --- Proposed County Road MunkipalBoundary D D D City of Farmington Empire Township City of Lakeville . N W+E 1000 o 2000 Feet 1000 6X, E -- Newland@ ~. COMMUNITIES . AT THE HEART OF GREAT LIVING Narrative Statement of Newland Communities In Support of Comprehensive Plan Amendment This narrative statement supports the application of Newland Communities for a Comprehensive Plan amendment relating to the master-planned Fairhill development, which is proposed for the Newland/Seed site in northeast Farmington. This amendment encompasses the entire 965-acre Newland/Seed site~ of this acreage, 520 acres are currently annexed into Farmington pursuant to an Orderly Annexation Agreement ("OAA") with Empire Township, Minnesota. The remainder of the Newland/Seed site is scheduled for annexation in future years. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan amendment is to reconcile the City of Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan (as amended in 2000) with the land uses proposed for Fairhill, notably the realignment of the proposed Fairhill business/commercial center from the northeast corner of the Newland/Seed site, to approximately the southeast corner of the site, adjacent to the planned intersection of TH 3 and the extension of 195th Street. In addition, this application implements the City's prior approval of urban services (MUSA) serving 520 acres based on prior approvals of the City Council. . Newland envisions a fully-integrated pedestrian-friendly community, offering a full range of housing choices to residents, connected by a vast network of public trails leading to neighborhood lifestyle amenities such as retail/commercial services, parks and open space. Central to Newland's master plan is the protection of large areas of treestands, wetlands, scenic vistas and community park. Newland's plan identifies a possible City community center/active recreation area in the southwest corner of the Newland/Seed site. In addition, Newland proposes a possible location for an elementary school adjacent to the City's community,center, with an alternative residential land use option. The planning for the bridge overpass for 195th Street along with the trail network allows for direct linkages between Fairhill and the area of Farmington south and west of the Newland/Seed site. . Newland's proposed Comp Plan amendment adheres to the City's land use categories, with the following exceptions: Newland is proposing a mixed use designation encompassing 18 acres. Guided uses within this land use category would include retail, motor fuel/convenience, restaurant, commercial and medium density residential. These uses will be "neighborhood scale" and consistent with the City's existing Comp Plan. In addition, while Newland is discussing with the Farmington School District the possibility of an elementary school being located in the southwest corner of the Newland/Seed site, we are showing an alternative Low-Medium residential classification in the event the school does not go forward. This change allows for potential site arrangement alterations regarding the community park area. Lastly, the amendment proposes to add the City's "Low-Medium Density" designation. This offers more density transition throughout the site and acknowledges the larger open space area along road corridors, easements, rail corridor, steep slopes, etc., that will be permanently managed by public or private community ownership. This also accounts for a transfer of a Medium Density designation in the northwest corner that now is shown as City Park. . . . ~ Newland@ Ii. COMMUNITIES AT THE HEART OF GREAT LIVING The use categories and associated acreages are summarized below and on the enclosed Comp Plan amendment. Low Density: 182 - 192 acres (1.0-3.5 dulac) Environmentally Sensitive: 137-147 acres Low-Medium Density: 305 - 315 acres (2.5-5.5 dulac) City Park/Open Space: 51 acres Medium Density: 156 - 166 acres (5.5-14.0 dulac) PublidSemi-PublicILow-Medium Density: 76 acres Mixed Use: 18 acres An annexation request for the remaining portion of land (445 acres) will take place in the next couple of years, when appropriate. Additional MUSA extension will coincide with the annexation request and the City's staged MUS A extension planning for the site, including 250 acres in 2009 and the remaining 195 acres in 2012. In conjunction with its proposed Comp Plan amendment, Newland is requesting approval of a Schematic pun Plan for the Newland/Seed site. The Schematic Plan mirrors the Comp Plan amendment in essential detail, but defines more specifically the acreage allocated to residential use categories. Newland's overall projected residential densities fall within a range of 2.7 to 3.3 units per gross acre, consistent with the density projected under the City's current Comp Plan. Newland's projected housing unit count of 1,900 - 2,500 is well below the number allowed by the City, and meets the intent of the original planning efforts set forth in the 1998 Comprehensi ve Guide Plan. Newland's Comprehensive Plan amendment and related SC,hematic Plan fulfills its commitment to develop a master plan community in the City of Farmington that: (1) pays its own way; (2) provides diverse homeownership opportunities and "quality of life" benefits for existing and future Farmington residents; (3) preserves key habitat and protects the local character of the community; and, most important, (4) forms a partnership that honors the City's past and heritage, while creating a bridge to its future. We look forward to reviewing the master plan for Newland's Fairhill development with the City in the corning months. FAIRHILL 6/8/2006 . Landscape Strategy 1 Rural Context The rural character has been formative in shaping the landscape character of the Fairhill site and has been enhanced in supplemental landscape treatments at the perimeter of the site as follows: 2. Highway 3 · Designated a scenic route . Generous set-back with hedgerow planting character · View corridors into project . Maintenance of wetland areas along edge areas 3. Rural Landscape Edge . Creation of an agricultural landscape character, incorporating geometrically structured hedgerow planting and grass. . 4. Project Gateways . Landscape walls and signage, designed to complement both the rural and industrial railway themes · More intense orchard tree planting framing entrances . (possible reflecting tightly spaced bosque planting reminiscent of orchard . geometric form of crop planting using a simple palette of grasses and groundcovers 195fh Corridor . Generous landscape buffer be developed along both sides of the ROW . strong landscape character to the road from the existing forest . single dominant character should be adopted that will provide a strong and unique character to the road and the project. 5. 6. North Creek Environmental Enhancement Area . Integrate elementary school, Civic Center and Environmental Center as regional destination and local amenity . Community facilities directly linked to North Creek regional open space trail system, connecting to downtown Farmington . North Creek wetland, open space system significant regional environmental park, with enhanced habitat values and interpretation/environmentallearning . Natural landscape character, incorporating trails, boardwalks, wetlands and lakes, picnic facilities and enhanced environmental planting. 7. Railway Corridor . Significant open space setback to residential areas, providing noise and visual buffer . Pedestrian crossing of rail line, providing linkage between residential development to east and school and civic park to west. . Open space buffer integrating natural drainage bio-swales and water storage. 8. Rldgeline Open Space · Combining rural formal and informal planting character · Enhanced views over North Creek and to hills to west . Integrated pedestrian/bicycle trails connecting recreation facilities, village center and residential neighborhoods. . Diverse recreational amenities, including sledding hills, informal play areas, picnic facilities, children's playgrounds, ampitheatre · HOA facilities in enhanced parkland setting . EDAW . . . FAIRHILL 6/812006 9. Neighborhood Design . Distinctive landscape character identifying individual neighborhoods . Hierarchy of open spaces and parks as focal point to neighborhoods, catering for local play and recreational needs 10. Village Center . Mixed use neighborhood center as the heart of Fairhill . Walkable main street with small town character and wide pavements reminiscent of old Farmington . Mix of uses including convenience retail, local commercia', visitor's center and community facilities. . Integrated village green with informal recreation facilities, gathering spaces and opportunity for farmer's market and seasonal events. 11. Streetscape . Establish clear hierarchy of streets with identifiable landscape character . Parkway entries create view corridors into open space . Loop road developed as continuous boulevard/parkway linking all neighborhoods within Fairhill . Small scale, pedestrian friendly local streets with high level of landscape amenity. EDAW 2 .~~~J~~g' Community Product . ^' Itll HlAKT or '-"UAT lAl~G Residential Low Density- Traditional Single Family: - Typical Gross Density: 1 - 3.5 du/ac - Typical Price Range: $350 - $700,000 - Typical Lot Width Range: 65' - 85' - Number of Homes (range): 450 - 550 - Assets: Traditional Housing Product . . Community Product Residential Low/Medium Density - Traditional Single Family: InII Newland' ~. COMMUNITIES . AI Htl HIJ\IlI Of au.T UVlSC. - Typical Gross Density: 2.5 - 5.5 du/ac - Typical Price Range: $250 - $550,000 - Typical Lot Widths: 45' - 65' - Number of Homes (range): 750 - 1,000 - Assets: Traditional Housing Product ~~ /,~~ ~ II JI.JJ II I I ~i . Low/Medium Density - Alley-Loaded Single Family: - Typical Gross Density: 2.5 - 5.5 du/ac - Typical Price Range: $250 - $550,000 - Typical Lot Widths: 45' - 65' - Number of Homes (range): 250 - 350 - Assets: Inviting Street Character, Traditional Small Town Character, Garage in Alley . . . . Community Product Residential .-uI Newland" ~. COMMUNITIES M Ttl[ tllMl Of GRU\! lMo,;C. Medium Density - Alley-Loaded Courtyard Homes - Single Family: - Typical Gross Density: 5.5 - 8.5 du/ac - Typical Price Range: $275 - $350,000 - Typical Lot Widths: 35' - 55' - Number of Homes (range): 140 -190 - Assets: Shared Open Space M Hll ti(AltT Of GalAI lIV1~G Community Product Residential .-MI Newland' ~. COMMUNITIES . Medium Density - Executive Townhomes: - Typical Gross Density: 5 - 7 du/ac - Typical Price Range:$250 - $450,000 - Number of Homes (range): 75 - 100 - Assets: Access to Amenities . Medium Density - Townhomes: - Typical Gross Density: 8 - 14 du/ac - Typical Price Range: $180 - $275,000 - Number of Homes (range): 450 - 550 - Assets: Access to Amenities, Fully-Maintained . .~~~J~~~~ Comprehensive Land Use . Al THE HUtaT Of GREAT UVlNG Summary · 134,000 sq. ft. Retail - 248,000 sq. ft. in 2004 AUAR · 2,100 - 2,700 Homes - 3896 was max in 2004 AUAR - 35' - 85' wide SF lots . - 8-10 Single Family product styles - 3-5 Multiple Family product styles · 2.9 - 3.8 Units per Gross Acre Density . . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission \ 4- '--' FROM: Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit - Off Premises Directional Sign - Roundbank and Blaine Eggum DATE: June 13, 2006 INTRODUCTION I DISCUSSION Roundbank and Blaine Eggum, on behalf of Tamarack Retail Center, applied for a conditional use permit to install two off-premises directional signs. Since the time when the formal application for the CUP was made, the applicants have requested that the conditional used permit be continued to the next Planning Commission. The applicants wish to have the public hearing continued as exact locations for the proposed signs have not yet been identified. Variances may be required depending on the proposed location of the signs. ACTION REQUESTED Continue the public hearing regarding the CUP application for two off-premises directional signs for Roundbank and Tamarack Retail Center until the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Respectfully submitted, 7tMfW~ Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner Cc: Larry Thompson Blaine Eggum . . . 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 ~v Planning Commission , Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner Conditional Use Permit allowing the use of a portion of a property for repairing boat motors and lawn mowers (minor repair) - Lake Marion Marine and Lawn June 13,2006 Dale Hutter of Lake Marion Marine and Lawn has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of utilizing a portion of a structure within a B-1 zoning district for minor repair of boat motors and lawn mowers. The subject property is located at 5465 21th Street and is owned by Barbara Ackerman of Pilot Knob Properties. Plannin2 Division Review Applicant: Property Owner: Attachments: Location of Property: Lake Marion Marine and Lawn Dale Hutter 11381 242nd CT E. Lakeville, MN 55044 Barbara Ackerman 5487 21th Street West Farmington, MN 55024 (1) CUP Application (2) B-1 Permitted and Conditional Uses (3) Site Map 5465 212th Street West Farmington, MN 55024 Surrounding Land Uses: Existing Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Industrially zoned property to the east and west, and commercially zoned property to the north and south. B-1, Highway Business Commercial . . . Current Land Use: There are three structures located on the site. Currently two out ofthe three buildings on site consist of warehousing uses. The third building is utilized as office space. The remainder of the property is utilized as outside storage space. Proposed Use: Utilize 3,000 square feet of the building on site that is located closest to Pilot Knob Road for the purpose of repairing boat motors as well as lawn mowers (Exhibit A). DISCUSSION According to the City Code, minor repair businesses are conditionally allowed in the Highway Business zoning district. The City 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 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. It appears that all above-mentioned criteria will be met with this application/use. Proposed Use The applicant, Dale Hutter, is rroposing to utilize 3,000 square feet of one of the two warehouse buildings located at 5465 21 t Street West for boat motor repair as well as lawn mower repair services. As previously mentioned, the B-1, Highway Business, zoning district does conditionally allow minor auto repair uses. Staff has determined that the use being proposed by the applicant best fits this use classification. The definition for auto repair, minor is as follows: The replacement of any part which does not require removal of the engine head or pan, engine transmission or differential; incidental body or fender work, minor painting and upholstering service. The applicant is not proposing any outside modifications and/or additions to the building with this proposal; therefore, building setbacks and lot coverage will not be affected. The applicant has mentioned that he will have some minor outside storage - mostly consisting of boat parts. The storage area will have to be properly screened per Section 10-6-9 of the City Code. The code requires 100 percent opaque screening in business and industrial districts where any material and equipment is stored outside. The screening can consist of the following: 1) a six foot (6') to . . . eight foot (8') wooden opaque fence, 2) landscaping and berms, or 3) a combination of both. The applicant has indicated that he would screen his storage area with a fence. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow Dale Hutter to operate a boat motor and lawn mower repair servicing shop in a portion of a building located at 5465 212th Street West. Respectfully Submitted, '/~W~~A Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner Cc: Dale Hutter Barbara Ackerman . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463.2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us Applicant: Dt>... t!.- \-I v-\--\ .e.. r Telephone: (1s:~ 1l3t( ZI.{z,...._Q c..Ts:. LA-!.eil/LU Street Cj~ owneu A.ll....,.... ~ ~ tlc.~ Address: S"~ a 7 -' I..l... +h s.J- W Street CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION q g':). 101'"( Fax: (1S-1- lfl,,1. z:; s 8' Address: ~N State 5-~-c.4'i Zip Code . Telephone: W tt ~ 0 -" I 0-( Fax: (IaaiJ <I- (,b ~ ~ 0 if ~ h"..".......,h,." m;J City State 4.-l.. ( Premises Involved: 5'-1 (p S- ~ J,;).. $ +-. W ;J-fUl,...,.., : I't 1..f11'-. Address/Legal Description (lot, block, plat name, section, township, range) Current Land Use W lr{t e HOJ..lSt: .:S so..:( 1 Zip Code HlJJ ,:l5" {).,). t Current Zoning District Specific Nature of Request: () '5 E P /2." PC: R 1'( t=o .1. R [ Phi ILl Nt} Bolt. MoTe (2 S .,.. LA-w,.; ;VI v L-V Ell J SUBMITTAL REOUIREMENTS o Proof of Ownership 0 6 Copies of Site Plan o Application Fee 0 AbstractJResidential List (required 350' from subject property) o Boundary / Lot Survey 0 Torrens (Owner's Duplicate CeI1ificate of Title Required) \ ")) ".J-h.,{t c;''- ddO J,..,....t- ac..la.u.-.. 1-.JcJ--~ ~ :/~'\ / J'5-ijJ'J~ gnature of Owner Date Signature of Applicant Pil,,+ X""lob Pr~+;C$ LLt- t.{ - 2 ~- .0 , Date . 10-5-13: B-1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT: Page lof3 10-5-13: B-1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT: . (A)Purpose: The B-1 highway business district is intended to provide pockets of convenience type uses along major thoroughfares that are both pedestrian accessible from adjoining neighborhoods and automobile accessible for short trips and through traffic. (B)Bulk And Density Standards: 1. Minimum Standards: Lot area 10,000 square feet Lot width 75 feet Front yard setback 30 feet Side yard setback 10 feet Rear yard setback 10 feet Minimum side and rear yard abutting any residential district . Off street parking and access drives 10 feet Public and semipublic buildings 35 feet Recreational, entertainment, commercial and industrial uses 50 feet Height (maximum) 35 feet Maximum lot coverage of all structures 25 percent All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. (C)Uses: 1. Permitted: Animal clinics. Clinics. Clubs. Coffee shops. Commercial recreational uses. Convenience store, without gas. . Health clubs. http://66.113.195.234/MN/Farmington/I3005000000013000.htm 6/7/2006 10-5-13: B-1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT: Page 2 of3 Hotels. . Motels. Offices. Personal and professional services. Personal health and beauty services. Recreation equipment sales/service/repair. Restaurants, class I, traditional. Retail facilities. Sexually oriented businesses - accessory. 2. Conditional: Auction houses. Auto repair, minor. . Auto sales. Car washes. Child daycare center, commercial. Convenience store, with gas. Dental laboratories. Grocery stores. Group daycare centers, commercial. Hospitals. Nursing homes. Outdoor sales. Public buildings. . Public utility buildings. Restaurants, class II, fast food, convenience. http://66.113.195.234/MN/Farmington/13005000000013000.htm 6/7/2006 10-5-13: B-1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT: Page 3 of3 Restaurants, class III, with liquor service. . Restaurants, class IV, nonintoxicating. Solar energy systems. Supply yards. Theaters. Wholesale businesses. 3. Accessory: Parking lots. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002) . . http://66.113.195.234/MN/Farmington/13005000000013000.htm 6/7/2006 ~6E S . .... <-"*: r:'l (e) Copyright 2005. Pietornetry International . Creation Date: Apr 18, 2005 10:41 Modification Date: Ju114, 2005 15:43 . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission \Wc/ FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Sketch Plan - Farmington Family Housing Proposal DATE: June 13, 2006 INTRODUCTION . The Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) has submitted a sketch plan for a proposed 50-unit rental townhome development along with 6 single-family lots that are located directly west and north of Executive Estates on what is currently known as the Tollefson property (Exhibit A). The process for submitting a sketch plan is outlined in the City's Subdivision Ordinance and allows the Planning Commission to provide comments prior to preliminary plat submittal. DISCUSSION The CDA is proposing a 50-unit rental townhome development along with the platting of 6 single-family owner-occupied homes on the south side of the property (Exhibit B). The proposed single-family homes will provide a transition from the Executive Estates development on the south to the townhomes on the north. The property is zoned R-4 (Medium-High Density Residential) and consists of 13.95 acres. The net density for the townhome and single-family projects is approximately 4.0 dulac. Staff may want to review the R-4 zoning classification to determine if the zoning should be revised to R-2 (Low-Medium Density Residential) to meet the criteria of 5.5 dulac. Transportation The sketch plan shows two access points to the proposed development. The first access is located in the southeast comer of the property (223rd Street) that would be extended to the west from the Executive Estates development. The second access is located at the southwest comer of the property that would connect with Executive Estates from the south. The sketch plan provided in the packet shows a "Y" intersection, however the developer is revising the plan to show a "T" intersection for safety reasons. . Shelly Johnson, Farmington's Transportation Consultant, has determined that the amount of traffic generated from the CDA development would not require an access to TH 3 (Exhibit C). Vehicle trips from the CDA project could be accomodated through the Executive Estates . property to 225th Street without the need to have the CDA project to connect to TH 3. The traffic counts could allow the developer to terminate 223rd Street at the western property line of its project without a connection to TH 3. However, if staff reviews the project regionally, a better solution for traffic circulation for the CDA project, Executive Estates, and the commercial businesses along TH 3 would include the construction of a "backage" road that would extend from the terminus of 223rd Street in the CDA project to the northwest comer of the CDA property. Additionally, a connection to TH 3 could be made to the west at the 33-foot wide strip of property on the north side of the BP gas station. Of course, both roads would require a 70-foot wide easement, which would necessitate the redesign of the ponds on the CDA property and the need to acquire additional land for the 33- foot wide strip. Regionally, the backage road could continue to the north behind Happy Harry's, Castle Rock Bank and other businesses in that location and allow the "frontage" road to be removed next to TH 3. The 33-foot wide strip of land generally lines up with Centennial Drive on the west side ofTH 3. This is the logical location for an intersection midway between TH 50 on the north and 225th Street on the south. If this intersection was improved, turn lanes would be required on TH 3. The CDA will review this proposal before Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and state their position on both proposals at the meeting. Parking . At the time of this writing, it was unclear how many parking spaces were proposed by the developer for the project. The plan currently shows 25 off-street parking spaces, however, it is unclear how many one and two car garages are proposed with the units. The CDA will have the information at the meeting on June 13th. Per Section 10-6-4 of the Zoning Code, townhome projects require 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit plus 0.25 per unit in common parking space. In this case, the required number of parking spaces is 122 townhome spaces and 12 single-family spaces at 2 per unit. Utilities Water and sewer lines are stubbed to the project from Executive Estates. The developer will be required to construct a 3-acre storm water pond for surface runoff. Park and Trail Requirements Randy Distad, the Parks & Recreation Director, provided comments on trail locations for the CDA project when Executive Estates was being reviewed. The developer will need to show trails on the north and west sides of the site in order to connect with the newly constructed trails in Executive Estates. Additional Information . The CDA has provided additional information in this packet for the Commissioners to review (Exhibit E). The CDA has also included the following information on the presentation that will be conducted at the June 13,2006 meeting by Maxfield Research, Inc.: "Maxfield Research Inc. was engaged by the Dakota County Community Development Agency (Dakota County CDA) to conduct a comprehensive housing needs assessment for . . . Dakota County. Based on an analysis of demographic growth trends and characteristics, the County's existing housing stock, and current housing market conditions, the needs assessment calculated housing demand in the County through 2030 and recommended housing products to meet demand over the short-term. The Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment finds that job growth and changes in housing preferences will create demand for over 80,000 new housing units in Dakota County from 2000 to 2030. About 77% of the demand is projected to be for-sale and 23% rental housing. Maxfield estimates that 69% of total housing demand will occur within the "growth" area of the county, including Apple Valley, Farmington, Hastings, Lakeville and Rosemount. Affordable rental housing demand is nearly 9% of all new housing units, and modest for-sale housing is nearly 19% of all new for-sale units". ACTION REQUESTED Provide comments to the developer regarding the sketch plan. Lee Smick, AICP City Planner cc: Dakota County Community Development Agency Tollefson Development . e N ~ CDA Project CDA Property cx A Q {J Executive Estates 225th St . .. ~ - 3 ~ c i - ~ : ! I u I~ ~iJ II J ~ d f!!! t:i c5 II> <'> U .E:~ .2=' c I.l) c::~~ :::J c::: '" 011>11> (.)uc::: c.5 .e ~:::a;; ~Ol-c: ~~CORS -co~5l' ~C ~W i h C) :z :zen o=>> .-0 ; C) :I: i ~>- i ~ :::::E= II~~ {I, ~ ! ~ (.) -!i = ! ~~ ~ .~I ~Uh . / '" I \ \ \ \ --- -_<&l _ lp"ol9 M..yZ,pUOON " I \ -~~---~ \ ~ \ / , ( I I 1--- I " ~ I '- .> <: Cl I- et. \ Lw () X: Lw \ \ / " / . I / I I I I I I \"'~G .-/1; ~Q'~~~----~-.c\ ",-- r---:::::...~ ! / \ / ~ I / !l:;~ rt --./ / 1 --.----" : r : .J : I ~~ \ . --=;;:--- ~ :Y.J(J:f3<j$:JSaN~7'!.~ ,; gq,?:o. ------ -r-' /"" ~ - _ =-- ==-- /2-- ,---91 ----9 ~ - ~:v. 40~';- tC- r\ ~ : '~.-/ 8 un OS 2006 1:14PM HP LASERJET 3200 JUN-0S-2006 15: 04 CITY OF FARM[i'GTON 651 45:3 1611 . ~lV) ~ it ~f' 0: ~ \\ f ~ ~ ~ 4 " ~ ~ ~ r- :t ~ - 3. -.. - ~ Q . ~ I q & ~ a ~1"'" r~ ~ J'~ ~ ~ ~ 1 'll "It 4 r.... 0 ~~-v . lr.. .. ~ ~- . c , o.~I...:a....-. ~Hno~ ../100 J..l'l'IV^ HIYLNIl'>~ l ,")) ~s o~ ;.j [\0 :~ ,.:. -I rl '-' ~~ ~~~;:~'if;; 'QUUUUlJ..." i s " ... III lJ ~ ,~s~.. " t, to ti ~ \"'IJ~Hi. ,~B~HU !nhU!i~ g;UuiU ~ ~U~IlUgo .. iutiU ' ~ ~IlUHi"i r al!i!ltIIW\=!'" i ~~~~Iz:cn ..." ~B ~u~ 5 i i;. ... ...~ Uii ~<...ltl!~~ ~';3~ri!'.: ..~a~:i~-i! ~ !I!ii~i~: i !lIiU5lB!~~ ,~ U~U~Bi p.2 P.03 cr: · .... I i ~ c..> ~i b,z ~ 't.!" '"' ~~ ~ .. ... ~ 2 lQ I ~ I ~ ~ z'" ~i1l 'I ~. 'I' ~C>'l I ...~ z , ~ ~ UJ . i ! I 111._', L .,: df t!,C Jun 06 2006 1:17PM JUN-05-2006 15:04 . I'vl ~ ,~~ ~ ~ ~\) ct~ \\,~ t~ ~ l~ .f'~l ...A 3 . --- ~ ~~ ~ l1.- e~ .~ ~ a ~ :{~~ E.' ~ ~ ... ~ ~~~ ~ ~tti . HP LASERJET 3200 8r.V CITY OF F~RMrN3TON 651 463 1611 P.03 51, u i! ~n .I~~ J: nil ' J~ Ii. .. t !~ ;i 31~ r ,. 'I! ! R =~. II iiill I gle !~. I. I I'~ I ~~ ~ 't ; Ij( ~ ih 'Ill I, ii If II~~ Iii: ~ 11~ :!:; 7 i ,dn j: yW;f. lab l 51 a" .. . !E" .,i~ I;'" aW . 1!==r;::.IR"N i~! >: ~.I.',.I.H ~ ~ d~l W"lI ..~~ J~(, 2i ~ ~(~ ~~ /z --..,. ( ,,"S> ~S O~ ~ ~ , I ~m a ~5 i i ". CI) U ~ l'i II..... ~ t~~u ~uu~H~.. ~~HlnU Irn~U1U triU~nn e dUtllUj" .. ~~\!'l}i H ' ~ ;!lHHi~1 :!l QIUili......~~ .. ! ~jj~n~U <.. ... ~~~ lli l!j tl~ 55 g: 1'1"" ,,& ~U: ), . . . ~ ,<moll:1i!~ ~~3SH~F. ~".:':J~'" ! a ~ ~ U 10 "lot ., ~ ! ~ nUluu p.3 ~ . LoJ t I ~ I V ~-= <~ E~ ~~ "':i ~~ ... ~ .. II: ~ u 1 .. tFji .a j .,JJ . .x I 'US, r 4J:c..... t VI . cr; j ~ iI !s! I ~~ I- fS' ,. ~t1.'1 ~ I {5 . i5 ~ j l . I 4 hi. _! f t I ,hll1 . . . ex, Summary of Findings Farmington Housing Needs and Recommendations From the Report: Comprehensive Housing Needs Assessment For Dakota County, Minnesota Prepared for: Dakota County Community Development Agency Eagan, Minnesota November 2005 .. j xfield ... R..~..arf'h Inc.. 615 First Avenue NE Suite 400 Minneapolis, MN 55413 612.338.0012 Farmington Summary of Findings - Dakota County Housing Study Introduction . Maxfield Research Inc. was engaged by the Dakota County Community Development Agency (Dakota County CDA) to conduct a comprehensive housing needs assessment for Dakota County. Based on an analysis of demographic growth trends and characteristics, the County's existing housing stock, and current housing market conditions, the needs assessment calculated housing demand in the County through 2030 and recommended housing products to meet de- mand over the short-term. The following are key findings pertaining to Farmington from the study, which was completed in November 2005. Kev Demol!raohic and Market Findinl!s I. For analysis, Dakota County was grouped into three submarkets, with Farmington being in the Growth Communities. Growth Communities will account for the majority of the County's growth, as sites for new housing are limited in the De- veloped Communities and the Rural Area is primarily reserved for agricultural uses. 2. Demand is projected for over 82,000 new housing units in Dakota County between 2000 and 2030. This includes about 56,000 new units in the Growth Communities, and nearly 8,700 new units in Farmington. Dakota County Suhmarkets Coun.,. S.lmlarl.rt\ CJ lk"....llCtl C.n1"'l1flili~li CJ Gr."th ("flmmUII.de~ CJ RllrllIArC'A '\111'''. \"JtIh', 1~~C'111k- o . o CI 3. Job growth is a key creator of housing demand. Projected strong employment growth in Farmington, as well as in other nearby communities in Dakota County will continue to make Farmington an attractive housing loca- tion for many individuals and families. Population, Household, and Employment Growth Farmington, 2020 to 2030 Population Households Employment 2000 12,365 4,169 3,833 2010 21,070 7,720 6,600 Sources: Metropolitan Council; Maxfield Research Inc. 2020 27,970 10,840 8,400 2030 32,900 12,850 9,900 Change 2000 - 2030 20,535 8,681 6,067 . MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. . . . Farmington Summary of Findings - Dakota County Housing Study 4. As the adjacent chart shows, the strong population and household growth that Farmington experi- enced during the 1990s is pro- jected accelerate over the next three decades. Farmington has an abundant supply of vacant land and is poised to capture al- most 11 % of the County's household growth between 2000 and 2030. 5. All age groups in Farmington will increase in population over the next three decades. Middle- aged adults will increase rapidly as families move to the commu- nity for new single-family homes. The adjacent chart also shows that Farmington's 55-75 population is projected to in- crease by 6.5 times between 2000 and 2030 - to about 5,500 people in 2030. Projected Growth, Farmington, 1990 to 2030 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 I 5,000 o 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 - Populatim - Households -Empbyrrent Distribution of the Adult Population Farmington, 2000 to 2030 12,000 10,000 8,000 .. -a 6,000 .. .. 11< 4,000 2,000 0 2000 2010 - 18-34 - 35-54 2020 -55-74 -75+ 2030 6. No market rate apartments have been built in Farmington since the early 1970s. Overall, Farmington has a low percentage of renter households (12.5%) compared to the County (22%). This analysis supports that 9% of all new housing added in Farmington by 2030 should be general-occupancy rental, and that one-quarter of new rentals be affordable. 7. New single-family housing is primarily satisfYing demand from move-up buyers, while older existing homes are providing some of the housing for entry-level and first-time buyers. In 2005 the average price of new homes in Farmington was calculated at about $380,000 for single-family homes and $185,000 for townhomes/condominiums. Meanwhile, the average resale price of existing homes was calculated at $26 I ,000 for single-family homes and $177,000 for townhomes/condominiums. 9. Senior housing is a relatively new phenomenon in Dakota County, as over 80% of the County's market rate senior units were built after 1995. Currently, Farmington has two sen- ior subsidized project, no affordable adult rental projects, one market rate project with no services (Cameron Woods) and one with services (:rrinity,Terrace). MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 2 Farmington Summary of Findings - Dakota County Housing Study Housin2 Demand Calculations . 10. The projected demand of 8,685 housing units in Farmington from 2000 to 2030 is shown by type below. . For-sale single-family homes 5,030 units (58%) . For-sale multifamily 2,125 units (24%) . Rental market rate 570 units (7%) . Rental affordable/subsidized 175 units (2%) . Rental senior affordable 350 units (4%) . For-sale senior market rate 235 units (3%) . Rental senior market rate w/ services 200 units (2%) Total 8,685 units II. With an ample supply of vacant land zoned residential, Farming- ton is projected to satisfy a large portion of the County's for-sale housing needs over the next 30 years. Because of Farmington's distance to major employment centers, rental demand is less. Adding the projected rental/senior housing demand (1,295 units) result in Farming- ton's homeownership rate re- maining at about 86% through 2030. Housin2 Recommendations Projected Housing Demand in Farmington by Decade 3,500 3,000 Zl 2,500 "2 ;:l 2,000 .... ~ 1,500 Z 1,000 500 o .''}' . 2000 - 2010 I!J For-Sale 2010 - 2020 2020 - 2030 tI Senior* III Rental * Senior housing includes affordable rental, ownership, and housing with services The overall projected need for various housing products to satisfy demand from current and fu- ture residents in Farmington through 2030 is presented in the table on Page 5. Specific recom- mendations to address the affordable housing needs of low- and moderate-income households in Farmington (as presented in the table) over the short-term are summarized below. For-Sale Housing Recommendations With rising development costs, there will be virtually no new single-family homes built that are affordable to moderate-income buyers. Farmington should encourage for-sale multifamily hous- ing, as these units are generally more affordable. . MAXFIELD RESEARCH L"lC. 3 Farmington Summary of Findings - Dakota County Housing Study . Housing Rehab Recommendations With an aging housing stock, housing rehab will become increasingly important to maintain the quality of Farmington's housing stock. The Dakota CDA will need to be prepared to steadily in- crease the number of Home Improvement loans issued to low/moderate-income households in Farmington from about five rehab loans annually during the beginning of this decade to about eight loans annually between 2015 and 2020. Expanded promotion of all housing rehab pro- grams (e.g., MHFA) should be a higher priority for the city. Subsidized/Affordable Rental Housing Recommendations There is demand in Farmington for rental housing that is affordable to low- and moderate- income households. However, developers of affordable rental housing will face strong competi- tion for available sites from developers of other types of housing, including senior and for-sale multifamily. Farmington should promote mixed-use buildings (mixed-income residential and commercial/residential) as a means of adding subsidized and affordable rental housing. In addition to mixed-use buildings Farmington should support the development of30+/-unit fam- ily townhome developments by the Dakota County CDA or a similar development by another agency/firm (up to three projects by 2020). These projects, as well as mixed-use buildings, should be promoted in areas where residents would have convenient access to shopping, ser- vices, and transit. . Preserving the quality of the existing stock of older apartments in the community will also be important to providing housing to lower-income renters over the long term. Thus, Farmington should promote the use of rental rehabilitation programs. Affordable Senior Rental Housing Recommendations The Dakota County CDA's senior housing program has been very successful in providing af- fordable housing to lower- and moderate-income seniors. Farmington has no such projects cur- rently. We recommend the development of a 60- to 65-unit affordable senior rental project in Farmington in about 2010 and another one towards the end of next decade. Special Needs Recommendations A portion of Dakota County's population have disabilities or have experienced circumstances that make it difficult to maintain private housing. Based on our research, we recommend several special needs housing projects in Dakota County over the next decade. These include housing for homeless persons/families (one or two small apartments for families whose householder has mental or chemical health issues and a 20- to 24-unit housing project for homeless youth) and housing for people with mental illness (two or three 36-unit permanent supportive housing pro- jects, such as Haralson Apartments in Apple Valley, and a shared housing project for single dis- abled adults). While these projects should be added throughout the County, we recommend Farmington seek potential locations for one or more of these projects. . 4 MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. ~ "'0 = ...... 00 OJ) = .... '" = o == ~ ...... = = o U C':S ...... o ~ C':S ~ I '" OJ) = .... "'0 .S ~ 1000 o ~ - ~ = 00 = o ...... OJ) = .... s - C':S ~ ;.- ~ ::.;~ ::.;,.. 0" rIlZO ~~~ ~~;, \>;)...0 ~o~ " ~!: ~u o = o .., o .... S o .... o .... - ,- o .... o .... S o ... o .... - r- o ... o .... S o o o .... - " Z .... rIl o o = ~ ~ *.... .g " tIJ 0'$ .... ..... "" ..... ~~ ..,e ..... ".", :0 ~ ~~ @~ "::tIJ ~ 0'" 00 ..... ~~ CO ~ ]2 lil " ;:EC<: o~ oCO .., ..... ~~ ....::; * .... o 2 v tIJ ".", :0 1:l .a'i3 ~] ..::a ~ v lil 0; ;:EC<: *.... o '2 v rIl v"" :0 1:l -E~ ~~ " -'< v lil 0; ;:EC<: ~~ :5'$ .... "> Vl~ ....." ~~ "> ~'$ ....0- ~'$ .... '0 lI'l~ ..,,,< ~'$. ..... lI'l~ ..... "" ~'$ ""'> 8'$ ...."" , , ~~ "< ~ '" '" =0 s'c> ~::: .~ ~ ... '" ~Cl.. o &'~ ... o o " V) N V) V) N "" o o ~ o o "'. ... o ..... "". ... o ..... "t V) N 00 V) N '" o o ..... N o o M N V) ..... 00 V) ..... '" o V) 00 o V) '" o o o N o o ~ ... <Il .~ g ~ o U ~ o o o ~ '" o ,.., '" '" V) N 00 V) N '" o ~ o o ...... o ..... ..... N o '" N N o V) v. o V) ...: s 00 N o o v N V) ..... N N V) ..... "'. ... o o ...... ... o o v. ... o S '" o o V) N ~ o E- a @ 8 i3 o 7J Cl ;;: ~ ~ I * ~~] o .... ~~~ tIJ~ '- .-- ~ .... rIl o o = \>;) ~ ~ o ... ~ ~ o , * M:B_ ~~] o .... ~~~~ tIJ~ L- ~ ~ B:~ ~~] o .... ~:~ tIJ~ L- .... o 'S V tIJ o '0 ... c, ...CO , , ~~ o~ o e '" ..... ~~ Vlo- Vl~ ....'0 '" ..... ~~ Vl"< ..... .... o 'S v tIJ o~ "'"" ~~ "" ~~ 0\ co .... o 'S V tIJ , , g~ 0\" :!l~ 00" ,...;..... g~ ....."" ,...;..... o~ 0\0- , , ~~ '0 ~'$ '" '0 :=~ '" ..., o ~~ ~ ...."< , , ~~ ~~ ~ '" '" " =u s'c> otJ- - '" .= ~ a ::: ... '" ~Cl.. o V) ..... o V) '" V) N N v) V) N '" ..,f o V) N '" o V) 00 N o V) '" o o '" o o N ~ o o 00 00 o o "'. ..... o o V) ...: o 00 V) o ..... v o o o 00 o o v ...: V) o M S V) o V) 0\ <Il .~ 'I o u ~ o .... " o V) ore ... v ~ o V) :1 '" -'< lil Ei .... <8 v J:J o '" N '" '~ '- e:; .c .", ~ ~ 'g o o ~ v :0 .a @ " '3 .", " .... <8 v J:J o 00 ..... v) o o '" ..,f o o o v' o o ;:; o V) "t ... '~ o N o N .... V ~ " .", ~ a v .", v -:5 '- e:; .c "5 o J:J " ~ :2 ~ :? g o 00 ..... N o ..... ... N ... o V) :; ... o V) o. o 00 ...: o ..... '" V) '" N. V) V) v o V) o ..... i V) o v :5 ~ o E- a @ o u i3 o 7J Cl v J:J .~ ;;l s v .", .c a <is '3 a v ~ ~ <8 v -:5 '- o t?- V) ..... "5 o J:J " .", ~ +' o o o o o V) ~ '" v Ei o .c v ,~ "5 <) v >< v .", ~ ~ ~ '0 .", V) o o N Ei o o o o o V) <A o V) ... '-' o o o o o M ~ g- o, > o Ei .... <8 v J:J ~ = ~ '3 .",,..; ~ ~ ... <) J:J C -E 0 @ ~ ~ a tB ~ v = .o~ ~il otl N '~ ~ " v .,; ~~ .8 ~ .", <: ~ 0 a~ .g 1l ~1: ~ ~ 25 ~ S ~ v 0 '" ~ v " -:5-:5 '- OJ) o ,5 =a ~ ~.2 ~ :; z~ * '" '~ = o i " ~ ,5 "g ~,..; .",0 .c8 as(' <iSN o,'(j Oh'-' ,5 ~ ~ 'g -:::.", '- v ~ .~ " Co .c-8 ~ ~ t'15 :> a : ~ V") . . u ..s "2 " v '" v C<: .", Qj -= ~ ;:E 8 !:l o tIJ u z ..... == u ~ < ~ '" ~ ~ ...:l ~ ~ < ~ . . . . 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 FROM: Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Sunrise Ponds Final Plat DATE: June 13, 2005 INTRODUCTION Bridgeland Development Company has submitted the Sunrise Ponds Final Plat for the property generally located west of Cambodia Avenue and north of Bristol Square (Exhibit A). The current address of the property is 21085 Cambodia Avenue. A Joint Resolution regarding the annexation of the property was approved by the Empire Town Board on February 28,2006 and by the Farmignton City Council on March 6, 2006. The Joint Resolution was approved by the Municipal Boundary Adjustment Unit ofthe Office of Administrative Hearings (MBAU) on March 9, 2006. DISCUSSION Prior Approvals The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Sunrise Ponds Preliminary Plat on March 14, 2006. Additionally, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD Agreement and Design Standards for this development at the March 14, 2006 meeting. The City Council approved the Preliminary Plat as well as the PUD Agreement and Design Standards on April 3, 2006. At its meeting on February 14, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a comprehensive plan amendment from Non-designated to Low/Medium Density Residential and a rezoning ofthe subject property from A-I to R-2 PUD. The City Council reviewed and approved the aforementioned comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning at its meeting on March 20, 2006. The City's MUSA Review Committee met on March 8, 2006 and recommended approval of immediately allocating MUSA for this property. The City Council approved the MUSA allocation at its meeting on April 3, 2006. Final Plat Layout Review The developer is proposing a two phase development. The first phase consists of the southwestern portion of the property. An initial fifty-six (56) single -family lots are being proposed on 17.09 acres. The remaining buildable area (outlot F and G) is shown as outlots and will have to go through the final plat process at a later date to create additional lots. Outlots D and E will be utilized for the expansion of the existing stormwater pond located to the south of this property. Outlot C will consist . . . of a private park that will contain a gazebo and small tot lot. Outlot A will be the internal private road for the first phase and Outlot B will be a sixteen (16') foot wide paved alley for access to rear loaded garages. The plat consists of detached single-family lots with lot widths ranging from thirty-six (36') to forty- six (46') feet. The lot areas range from 3,373 square feet to 10,478 square feet in size. The setbacks for the development are proposed at twenty (20') feet in the front, six (6) feet on the side, and ten (10') feet in the rear. Homeowner's Association The road network consisting of Outlots A and B as well as the private park area in Outlot C will all be privately held and maintained by a Homeowner's Association. Transportation The development is adjacent to one existing roadway - Cambodia Avenue. With the overall development of this property, the City is requiring that the developer upgrade and extend Cambodia Avenue north to the plat boundary. For phase 1, the developer will be responsible to construct Cambodia Avenue to the first entrance of the development. The remaining portion of Cambodia Avenue will remain a gravel surface and will be graded and constructed with phase 2 of the development. The majority of Cambodia Avenue, with the exception of a portion in the northeast comer of the property, is not within the plat boundary. An easement has been obtained by the developer from the Kral family for the portion of Cambodia that encroaches on their property. Cambodia Avenue will be classified as a collector road and will have a right-of-way of sixty-eight (68') feet with a road width of thirty-three (33') feet. In addition, the plat shows the western extension of 21 oth Street through the northerly portion of the site. 210th Street will be constructed as a seventy (70') foot right-of-way with a thirty-three (33') foot wide street from curb to curb. This road will be classified as a collector, therefore, no parking will be allowed on 210th Street. It should be noted that 210th Street will not be paved with phase 1. The developer will provide a 20' wide temporary gravel road that will extend from the easternmost entry off of 21 Oth Street to Cambodia Avenue. This will allow for a secondary access in and out of the site. 210th Street will be fully constructed with phase 2 ofthis development. Utilities Sanitai-y sewer service to this development is located to the west of the site. Additionally, water service is located to the west and southeast of the site. Utilities for the Sunrise Ponds development will connect to these existing utilities. All wells and septic systems that are currently on site will have to be abandoned with this development. Park and Trail Requirements Randy Distad, the Parks & Recreation Director has submitted a memo stating that the Parks & recreation Advisory Commission has approved the location of the trails on the plan (Exhibit B). Engineering . . . Engineering has recommended approval of the Sunrise Ponds Final Plat contingent upon the satisfaction of any engineering requirements. ACTION REQUESTED Recommend approval of the Sunrise Ponds Final Plat and forward the recommendation to the City Council contingent upon the following: 1. A demolition permit will need to be applied for by the developer to demolish any of the existing structures on the property. 2. The Final Plat approval is contingent on the preparation and execution of the Development Contract and approval of construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division. Respectfully submitted, ~w~ Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner Cc: Bridgeland Development Co. Terra Engineering (/) c z o 0.. . - It: Z :J (/) .~ 0 III :5'O~ Cilll~ :S~~q) lii'~ ~.Q Q"l::iOQ ii<"- o..~~- ~8:~ ~~~1I1 ~~~q ~.s: ~~ -~.... ~i]~ ~~~~ ~~2~ "'08 "'"Q ~~~~ to"" ~~~l ~fj t5.- ~~sl a'g.s ~ ~]]~ ]:.t~ Q ~~:S Q.~1i... "'Q1fI....c;, ~~ a;i l:i~~ ~o~._ ~~~~& !;!2.c:,,'i Q ~ 1Il:.S 0 ~~i~~ ~~g~~ -....lSt:lQ.. <-~E~~ ~~~~~ ::.... CO ,..,.2 ~.!!!:5~ g ~i1~f - s ,,0 ~S ~~ ~~ ~ ti .to ,,~ o e-~ c :.;8~ Q. i-g~ ~ E C o' (s ~~~ ~ Iij Q"g ~ ~.g~ ~ !!.4 0 01 ~i~ 1 i~{ ~ " 01\ ii' <ll.'" " 0]'0 8 ~.~~ "C E 3 C ~o8 f5 ~~1 ~ ~~~ ~:5g ~~~ ~ ~b CiH :O;~a ::1<>" ~~i ~~~ I I I I I I I a 1 l::: h I ~" _ E ~~ I" - < . 13~ "E'...J I~E ~~ I ~.~ I~" .!; i " ~ o ~ '" 9; .. ~~ ~~ ~ < ~~ N~ ]8 -E ~~ ~ o f;- " 1 I I I , ~ % , J ~ s ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ! ~ .C: ~ ~ Co: 01': ~ "0 E G " .~ ." j '" .~ ~ - .Q ~ " ~ i~ "'''' ~ , 110 , 11 If I 18 I III II \ I~ I.~ I o'~ :;;:\fI ~.~ E 11:-0 0<'> 0>, '''''' ~ ~ " il .g- .., . . H 0_ Jl ~"g _0 ~~ ~l~"ti ~~~~ ;::Cj.!;.., ~J:: t)lQ:j "~." - ~~ ~~ ~~~..Q ;;5-8 lI)O~"'" ~l ~~ sf -'" 0- -- .'" f8 '" ~.c &~ ~'" "':! .Q "\j.g. ~] .s.('.j "Ii"' i~ ~ii ~~ a "0 ~ ~H ~a~ b iii~ ~~1 ~~-l: !~~ ~]~ ~~l 'O~~ ~i~ ~ct;s 1.2", :':::'0<<1: ~:5 ~'Il'l)515lD:515 ~oo tl!ii'2'a ~:S"6g.o."6~~~:i;; :5 t3 ~ a ~ ~~~ c 15; :I III 2 'ti f o!llolJ"'fl=':oo.!!~.!oI;:8(Q :"ti_ ~'<t' cs.bii;.... 2'g~ ='" % ~.~ a]~~ ~f~~E lIlQ) = ~ It! ~tJ,~ 8~ o~~ti~~~~ ~~:5 O\E =eiti5 Qli It! C)~'E tiI It!050'l1flQ::l.!?~UIll~"":::J",'~ ~~""~""Ifl~O"'~~~!~""~ ~!li~J~~~i~l~c~t ~~~:.l!~l~l~u~.~ ~....~....~ ~:::J~~~~~~_ ~n~~~~~",il~i~.6i It,j Q............ ",t.:? Ui .... '-'1) Q, ~~o'Oo:15-g:!~~~::,,5Q ~~~~~~.~n~~!~:g: ~~]55~:0\~~g~~~~- ~S~~]~~'~~~~~:~]; ~~coi~O~~~~....5~~~ t8:~IJ~~~~~O~o~~~ ~]~i~S~~~~~~~3~~ ~~il~J~l~;e:~o~~ o~~~g~2~i~ou~~~~ ~~o~~~~~~~11!5~ii; ~~~~~~~!~:2~~]~: ~~i5~~~~5~~~~~~~ ~o ~iJ~~.2l ~~ ~ u~:!i~ 0\ ~~s~e~~~~o~:~~~~ ~"'Ol'tio-.!!-",....c::c::ooN ~~5~0l~(Q~~....1lI0Q"'~~ g~~:i~~81~:5i~t~~ 1lI~ O\.Q]: at'\i ~ E3;!.2 oS elJj~ :5:t.2~ii:~~~~~o~~ ~tJl2~Q;",~8~!r~'O 011) 1) S!'S ... \,j IJ :: " 5 0 III .~~ E" 5~] = ~~ IJ =~~~ ~ jb~~:lt~~l!]~~iii; Q::l~oo:5oo~~~eE~e~~ g 0. l ~ ~ o ~ " < , 8 .t- o . S ~ '" o f;- " s ~t ~~ .~ G €~ ~~ ~~ ~]~ .g~ ~~ . '" o ~.~ ~-l; ~~ .g~ >,- 1! .Q ~ ~ - .g:5 ,,~ ~o ",,, ~~ O-~ ~~ ~: "';; . - 0;' ". ~5:2 :!.: 1Sl5:S "l!:~ i~i ~.!:! 0 "':g~ ~ Q.~ o~ :... :.1.1 ~ ~~ = . ". ss~ 1.2~ 6.!~ ~i~ ""0 . l 1 ~I ~I 8 21 ~I 1:'0 ~% il .!; :~ ,,- < - o~ ~'a <.>~ i~ E" 1},!! ]>, -" "''' ,,- ~.~ ~~ cl3 0 ~ ~; ~ 1IlC:: ~ ....Ill ~ t ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~:S ~ ~"2l() ~ ~~~ ~ ~ '" ~ " Ji Jl <i on s: ~ ~ ~ ~ 0; 1 ~ E 1 " " ~ " 1} ~ '" ~ !i! !E 0\ "0 ~ ~ .t- 8 <> 'J 1\ '" '11) ~ I'" ,~ I~ ~ o 0. ~ , I I- i d: 1 I~ ~ I~ ~ ~ <0 o 0>, ~~ ,~ l~ I~ IS I'J I ~ 'O~ f;-O "I~ ~ ~~ < E E 1} ~1 ~~ "2" ~~ "i~s., ~ cis IS ~"o~ lS"t8 ~~s ~ ~t'Q ~ ~~~ ;t .!<i""C.,Q ~ o..~ "~~ ~: ~~ 2'~" ~;t~::C8. ~~~!~ <ri 2 '" I , I , J f: I , ~ o:C: j2i ~ ii ,,- e't; &g .\!" ~IS "'~ ~2 ~ii "'& >".!; "'0; ~; o 0. ." S " - j " ] !l ~ "' ~ 8 'J 1\ '" <? ~ " ! ~ o .Q ~ !I, '" '" o - " " ~l5 ~ ~g ~ ~'" ~.; ~! 0" l~ 0 Q- g ~g Ol.t- ~~ '" ~11' .c; ~ ~ 1: o..t:: '0 <>- '" , I IE I ~ l.~ I~ I I~ I , III III , I III Iii I'''' I,g-.~ ~.~ ~~ ~~ - . - .Q i~ .'" ~ . o .Q - ~ ~ " ~ .!:! 0 ig tl ", ~I a~ 0- , ~~ "'0 .~ ~ ~~ ~" o . :a.,~ a~ 5] ~ g'~ ~ ~" <: i~ ~ ","" ~ .~i ~ ~= i::: .s a u ~ ~ '" .!; il '" ~ . '" ~ 0- bi .2!i: ~a (; !'O g '" .t- ~ o ~ '" '" '" s:,'O ~; <>s o'i i5 '" e5~ ~~ Ci ~ ~ i ~f I ~~ I <>- , >,c "0 ~~ 0" "'" J; !~ I~ ....l~ o~ %~ I~ ~~ E~ - " ~~ _ 0 "0 ~:.:: &:a I 1:Q. I "i~ 00 .l1" I ~~ p.'ii I _ 0 s I ~ ~,g~ I 0 2 O\~ I ~ .~.~ 8 3:: O\~~ I~ ~~t"ot ~ Io!~g~ ~e~5~ '" '" ~ ~ ~ !l 1 '" >, . ~ <: ~ l 8 g ~ ~ ;- i I I g ;ll 01 I J _._-----~ .... - ~ i ~\II"Z ~ ~ 8 o ~ '" '" '" i I' 0 I oj I.~ I '" I~ I I~ I III II' III I' I II II~ '''' .!i~ j~'~ II:-~ oU I~~ o ~ ')/. ~ o Z dI Q .J LLI ii: i 0( ~ LLI III II. o ti III X UI V> "0 ~Ig ~::'5~ "'<on N~;;; g~S ~8~ ......~o ...."'N g~:n I t?~5 " tSf 'if I' ~~_~... L'J I ....0.... S I ~ i >. I ~~~ ~ ii : ~~ I d~~ ~ t',j ......(!N3IfflNOff NOM JS'f'~..u1WlOO V10XYQ aNIW:ilJ 9L'Z~~ /' L ~~1,-:/J:;;1~<<~~ 1("1101 ~~IiQ~~ f>> '. ------- ~ SaNaA y ~~7'" ~~ ~.... ~. ~ \. P/t ~--: . _U!!._ "~~ 00"99 3tiN]/,,'t 'tlCOf?:J1J't:J "~:::~1 __" r/OQ/(rp.:J >.;- i ,:<~~Itf.~r.st.6(/N :!IflN:!IiI V Vlaofl1'lV:J-, ~~... : lISn' ."g''''~9 '. ~ ~o .. c ~ .... i:! ~ ~ < u V> 8l '::3 '~.:; '1 '6~ ':;35 .dO :./ ~ 3S U) 0' C rL <!I Z b g 0 0 a.. ,~ < . , >- S . - 0:: Z m " :J . U) . ~ ~ ( ) ~~ ~~ Ld ~~ en ~~ ~~ ~" ~lV ., L'_ 0 .. "" t ~ ,~~ 'i '" ".;:~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o.. " " ~o <,)J:~ ;;:<('" '" ~ " ~ i:~~ ., ~ 3nN3A .,. ,,> UJ~U 111008,.,.,.:1 '" ~ ~ ,. ~5 ~ 0-.... " I-Z.... ~= " 01-0 r. <> ~ <> w i;j ",Uz co ~ .' :> '~t'" ~::. Ul N UJ Z r 'ON 0 11 ..... 'S ':} B ~ '" lJ) .. " o .~, 'C, \.> c\.. \ \ \ \ \ \ Cl \ II. \ ~ \ 0 <::.\ <~ & liJi ~W ell ., II .. II '" ~ S .. '" ~ .... t'I I 2 !! " ;:lj III I :: :! III I ~ .~ " '~ i !! ~ .. !t> ~ .. I ,. :! 0> -7, ! ~ = ;, ! \,)Jo ~ ~ .. ~ ~ I .. ~ ! N ~ . ., or ~ ~ ~ I 1;3 Sf ~l; o z ::> 2 .... z '" " ::> ~,.; "8 ~gj %d i5~ zV> -z ...w .u >-::1 <D>- i5~ z'" -'" N'" ,< ." V>o ~z 0< z.... ww oV> o I I I I I I I -L .... ~ " ::> z o " z ~ ...."'0 i~~~o~ ~~~3~~ ~~~~~1D ~~i~~fii 6;~~~~ QJOIM~lD::I ~~~~ :;;.~ zg::l~~.... ~~~~~~ g~g~~~ OIX~UJ"":Jl"'J z~~F~g~ ~~~~~~: :zlf)::!....::!Q;:z z u .. 1tf.Ig,eaoos t~,: ,: :./ l" ~ Sl]:l ~~ I!i~q~ _ '" ~t i ~ ~! , ~- : U n.." ~ .... : ~-- T '~ _ "of' ;~;~:' '.J'o t~.../.: J::,~, .. .. "v UI "', ~ : ad!: O;i J b/:i 1 ~g. ,~ ""'_ .... 5'; " -.,/ i o~i ~ f i ;00 ~ ~~I ~ ~J' rr) o ~ ~ ~ Z ell 9 1&1 Ii: ~ CI 1&1 ~ g :5 ... l" 0> 1'> ~ ~ \: j L,' Vl - <: '" II. o N t III X Ul ::l 0, G:: .........--_. HflNHA V VlaOEIWVJ u""'" tg'6g!; M. H;,6D.OOS II. ~~~ b ~.~ !i~ ..J .l~!?' " ~ ... :J ..; 0 :g ~:- . ~ !.ii en c z o ,} DO'" M .~I."Lf)() 5 ~ 1IO.,. r en - ~ Z :J en _oo~!..~_ Y .l07.l1l0 ..... I r--- -~ ~~:; r I 10 I ' ~____J "',, I I. '~ r [ II...... 'If I I~ .I~ L____...J " ~r !: to) I t ;!L____...J ~'r "-' ~'I~' & i I N I. ... t~ · ~ I 1::-1, ~ "L____...J ""~ = I "'.q.~""1 ~ r · ~ Ii: I :":'i", !~)'!~ ~ff I 0'1 a I . r'" .... ......., 7 ~ i l. I I "I"~ I I.' I 10 /~ I L____...J ..' L_~__..J ~ I :: L ... ..../.<'11'., ~ ' ..p'.,j I...,~. to. .. --- "oJ "".s" '..' b'~::1'r", ",,101, I,~ i;P~ "'I#,'I'",,,~" JlfT'" ,'"".,..'). ~__'!'S'~: _~ Hl"OZJ I cw."!: ,/~",,,,. ~J 00 ft.,," "l'JOllllO.:JOTn'DlQ ----_.L......!l__ oJiI;p - lHlIrJ$'VJA.U7Un.3:!l"l'NlYIIO Y.L07.LflO ...A".....os !: -/,- .. OO'~ I to) I. I'" I'. L___...J :! r I II) I I L____...J I 'If lIe h I'" I ~... ~a L___.J o'~ ...I '. III) 1.!5h I'" 1'0 & L___.J 'jft ... l'l Pl 0, ~ }u ~ ..., n It> :ot 01 fll . 110 1- L I. I ~ ...J . ..... . ) @~I :;~~ ~.o ~ 8 ."~ "~. I 2' I 3.'. ~ I L-i lj!~ ~ I 8 I ~~. 3:: . I ,,; I of! ~~ ~ I _LJ I~~ ~~ L___ ~". < r f --, t9. 01 ~ /- ~ I I h, " I ~:! " I ~~~ I " ,,; I ~ :~~~ ~i~i r-- 1 r-- , I to) I ILO L__ z ~~.. r- I I N I I L r-- r-- I I I 10 I II) I I I I L__..l" L__ r-- I I 'If I I L__ gf:'~9t 3.9f:.r:v.ION ._----.. 0 1'1 ~ I&. 0 ~ 1'1 Iii III :J: 0 VI Z ctI ci ..J \1/ i&: ~ IS \1/ ~ I "I~" i: . 'a. z 'I.~ ~ t~ --I~~ ~I" ... I; · I::l .0 ::-1,. ~I- I::l i . l'tt ~ o. I~o. 'If I I I o:::t I ~ L____...J l< ~ ~ ~ <: w~_ I- -~ O<a ..J ~~ ... '. :Jh o~o il ~ ~~~I a:f::l:l ~Iii~~ ~~~Iii =~~~ ~~-~ ':C....~:I ~~~~ .~h g~o. ~.I~ i;: ~s ~g. ~~ ~~p gg~ ;~ z....~ii;j ~ ill ~~ ~ ... ... ... ~ ~ ill City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director RE: Comments on Sunrise Ponds First Addition Final Plat DATE: June 7, 2006 BACKGROUND Staffhas reviewed the Sunrise Ponds First Addition Final Plat (Final Plat) that was submitted by Bridgeland Development (the Developer). DISCUSSION The Developer has correctly shown Outlot C on the Final Plat as the park area in the Sunrise Ponds First Addition development. All trails shown to be constructed in the Final Plat for the First Addition are also correct. . Any remaining park dedication requirements beyond the credit that the Developer will be given for Outlot C will be taken as cash-in-lieu. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending the Final Plat for the Sunrise Ponds First Addition be approved since the trail and park locations are in compliance with what was previously discussed with the Developer. 1<:AIEJ Randy Distad Parks and Recreation Director cc: Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Members Dave Sanocki, Engineer . . . . TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us Planning Commission ~ U Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner Sketch Plan - 195th Street and Pilot Knob Road (Commercial Development) June 13, 2006 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION Paul Tucci of Oppidan, Inc. has requested a sketch plan review for a commercial development to be located at the southwest intersection of Pilot Knob and 195th Street (Exhibit A). The current fee owner of the property is Astra Ventures, Inc. Planninl! Division Review Applicant: Property Owner: Attachments: Location of Property: Oppidan, Inc. Paul Tucci 5125 County Road 101, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Astra Ventures, Inc. 70 Main Street South Providence, RI 02903-2907 (1) Site Plan (2) Sketch Plan Requirements (3) B-1 Zoning Code (4) Well house map The southwest intersection of Pilot Knob Road and 195th Street Surrounding Land Uses: The property is surrounded by residential developments to the north, south and west. Municipal property is located to the east. Existing Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Current Land Use: B-1, Highway Business Commercial The property is currently vacant. The property is bisected by a 60 - foot wide Mid-America Pipeline gas easement. In . addition, there is an above ground pipeline structure located on site as well. Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcel into three lots to be utilized for retail purposes. Sketch Plan Review The City Code provides for the submittal of a sketch plan prior to the formulation and submittal of a site plan. Attached as Exhibit B are the Sketch Plan requirements as specified in Section 10-6-3 (C) of the City Code. The sketch plan has been provided to the Planning Commission for its comments concerning (among other things), the general site design, setbacks, access, parking, and other potential impacts to surrounding properties. It should be noted that these comments are intended to be advisory in nature and do not constitute a binding decision on the sketch plan. Individual site plans will be necessary for each of the proposed lots at a later date. A conditional use permit may be required depending on the type of use that will be proposed for the various buildings. I have attached the conditional and permitted uses allowed within the B-1 zoning district as Exhibit C. . The applicant, Paul Tucci, is proposing the subdivision of an approximately 5 acre piece of land at the southwest intersection of Pilot Knob Road and 195th Street. The overall development will consist of three retail buildings; a 12,000 square foot structure for a pharmacy, a 10,950 square foot retail structure and a 10, 000 square foot two story structure for a possible bank facility. Transportation The site is located adjacent to three existing roadways, those being: 195th Street to the north, Pilot Knob Road to the east, and Eureka Avenue to the west and south. The applicant is proposing three accesses to the site, all from Eureka Avenue. The City's Transportation Engineer, Sheldon Johnson, has preliminarily reviewed this sketch plan and offered the following comments: . 1. The access drive into the site closest to the intersection of 195th Street and Eureka Avenue is too close to that intersection. There should be a minimum of two hundred (200) feet between the intersection and the access drive. 2. The second or middle access into the site straddles the property lines of the three proposed lots, therefore, cross easements would be necessary to allow ingress and egress at this access point. Mr. Johnson expressed concerns regarding the severity ofthe curve of this access road. In addition, this access point must have two outbound lanes (left turn and right turn lanes). 3. The intersection of Eureka Avenue and Pilot Knob Road is a right-in, right-out intersection. 4. Truck turning movements in and out of the docking area shown for the proposed pharmacy building may be difficult. The developer will have to perform a turning analysis in this location to ensure that the loading dock will work in this location. 5. There will be a need for two northbound lanes on Eureka Avenue (1 left turn lane and 1 right turn lane) at the intersection of Eureka Avenue and 195th Street. 6. The sketch plan shows single loaded parking bays within the eastern parking areas of this proposal. Dimensions need to be verified to ensure that this will work. . . . 7. A left turn lane will be needed on 195th Street at the intersection of Eureka Avenue. 8. A left turn lane will be needed at the intersection of eastbound Pilot Knob Road and 195th Street. 9. The site will generate approximately 4,000 trips per day. These issues will have to be addressed as this development progresses. Well House Location The City has identified the need to acquire a well site within this property. Two areas have been identified as possible well house locations (please note the possible locations on the attached Exhibit D). The applicant has identified well site number 2 as the preferred location of a well as it provides for more green space and does not encroach as much into the parking/driving areas of the site. This issue may cause some significant modifications to this sketch plan in order to make adequate room for a well house. The City will continue to work with the developer to come up with a mutually acceptable location for a well within this development. Minimum Bulk and Density Standards The subject property is zoned B-1, Highway Business and requires the following minimum bulk standards: . Lot Area: 10,000 square feet . Lot Width: 75 feet . Front Yard Setback: 30 feet* . Side Yard Setback: 10 feet . Rear Yard Setback: 10 feet Minimum side and rear yard abutting any residential district: . Off-street parking and access drives: 10 feet . Public and semipublic buildings: 35 feet . Recreational, entertainment, commercial and industrial uses: 50 feet . Maximum lot coverage of all structures: 25% *The building setbacks off of Pilot Knob Road must be at least 50 feet per Section 10-4-1 (L) of the City Code, as Pilot Knob is classified as a minor arterial road. All other bulk standards mentioned above will have to be verified at the site plan stage. Off-street Parking The sketch plan shows approximately 222 off-street parking stalls being provided throughout the entire development. The parking requirements for retail facilities per the City Code are as follows: At least one off-street parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area up to a total floor area of 10,000 square feet. At least one off-street parking space for each 250 square feet of floor area in a building that has between 10,001 and 30,000 square feet. At least one off- street parking space for each 300 square feet of floor area in a building that has more that 30,000 square feet. . . . Based on the attached sketch plan, a total of 142 parking spaces would be necessary for this development. These numbers will have to be verified at the site plan stage. Gas Pipeline As previously mentioned, the site is bisected by a sixty-foot wide gas pipeline easement. The developer will have to work with the gas company in order to encroach upon that easement with parking areas. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission should comment on the sketch plan. Respectfully submitted, .--r-- ...... / b?t( &-->~'- Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner Cc: Paul Tucci ~ 0 !~ "j 0/1< t;:;2 ~'" ~ .a j~J !nO ~ ~ "J, . :r::~ !nO z ~ ~..... ~ ~ i5: I a eXtf'IQlr A I~tlllllll ~"J 1 ~~II ~ I ~ ~~~ ..- ~. H~ ~~i~.i 1111 , ~~ 1 ~ 11II1I111111 ~~ . . li . ..1' · Ie_ .._._._..___.-.-..-..-.-.-.-..-~ . . "" @ I · I i . I i i ~ i ~I I 1&. . II I I i i i I i7 I i I I i i I \ i I PILOT KNOB ROAD __"'_, ......... ............. ........................................... ......... ......... 10-6-23: SITE PLAN REVIEW: Page I of9 bfhDIT B 10-6-23: SITE PLAN REVIEW: . (A)Purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish a formal site plan review procedure and provide regulations pertaining to the enforcement of site design standards consistent with the requirements of this chapter. (B) Exceptions To Review: The following shall be excepted from the foregoing requirements: 1. Agricultural developments. 2. Single-family detached dwellings. 3. Two-family attached dwellings. ~C)Sketch Plan] 1. Prior to the formulation of a site plan, applicants shall present a sketch plan to the zoning officer prior to filing of a formal application. The plan shall be conceptual but shall be drawn to scale with topography of a contour interval not greater than two feet (2') and may include the following: (a) The proposed site with reference to existing development on adjacent properties, at least to within two hundred feet (200'). . (b) General location of proposed structures. (c) Tentative street arrangements, both public and private. (d) Amenities to be provided such as recreational areas, open space, walkways, etc. (e) General location of parking areas. (f) Proposed public sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage. (g) A statement showing the proposed density of the project with the method of calculating said density also shown. 2. The zoning officer shall have the authority to refer the sketch plan to the planning commission and/or city council for discussion, review. and informal comment. Any opinions or comments provided to the applicant by the zoning officer, planning commission, and/or city council shall be considered advisory only and shall not constitute a binding decision on the request. (D)Minor Projects: . 1. Review Of Minor Projects: The following shall be considered minor projects and subject to review procedures as indicated: (a) No Site Plan Review Required: Building projects that comprise less than ten percent http://66.113.195.234/MN/Farmington/13006000000023000.htm 6/8/2006 1 0-5-13: B-1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT: Page 1 of3 E:% 11"181 r c.. 10-5-13: B-1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT: . (A)Purpose: The B-1 highway business district is intended to provide pockets of convenience type uses along major thoroughfares that are both pedestrian accessible from adjoining neighborhoods and automobile accessible for short trips and through traffic. (B)Bulk And Density Standards: 1. Minimum Standards: Lot area 10,000 square feet Lot width 75 feet Front yard setback 30 feet Side yard setback 10 feet Rear yard setback 10 feet Minimum side and rear yard abutting any residential district . Off street parking and access drives 10 feet Public and semipublic buildings 35 feet Recreational, entertainment, commercial and industrial uses 50 feet Height (maximum) 35 feet Maximum lot coverage of all structures 25 percent All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. (C)Uses: 1. Permitted: Animal clinics. Clinics. Clubs. Coffee shops. Commercial recreational uses. Convenience store, without gas. . Health clubs. http://66.113 .195 .234/MN/Farmington/I30050000000 13000.htrn 6/8/2006 10-5-13: B-1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT: Page 2 of3 Hotels. . Motels. Offices. Personal and professional services. Personal health and beauty services. Recreation equipment sales/service/repair. Restaurants, class I, traditional. Retail facilities. Sexually oriented businesses - accessory. 2. Conditional: Auction houses. Auto repair, minor. . Auto sales. Car washes. Child daycare center, commercial. Convenience store, with gas. Dental laboratories. Grocery stores. Group daycare centers, commercial. Hospitals. Nursing homes. Outdoor sales. Public buildings. . Public utility buildings. Restaurants, class II, fast food, convenience. http://66.113.195.234/MNlFanningtonf13005000000013000.htm 6/8/2006 10-5-13: B-1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT: Page 3 of3 Restaurants, class III, with liquor service. . Restaurants, class IV, nonintoxicating. Solar energy systems. Supply yards. Theaters. Wholesale businesses. 3. Accessory: Parking lots. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002) . . http://66.113.195.234/MN/Farmington/130050000000 13000 .htm 6/8/2006 rQ !~ oj ~ D ~'I~~I~i I~tlllllll ~~I 1 ~1 ~ ~J ij~ .~~~ ~ t;;~ . . ~~ ! i'~ I ~"" ~I' . n ~ 111111111111 il I. . ~ 0\0 ---' ii: I I a ' lli ~I ~ B k________-___-__-__-__ PR..OT KNOB ROAD _.~-I '\. I I , - I I I , I .. i ~; ......... Iii . I \ I . I I I I I i I I I I I I I . I EXllltJlT j) - ------ ~ . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission I?P0 FROM: Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Sketch Plan - 621 Elm Street Multi-Family Proposal DATE: June 13, 2006 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION Terry Brasel of Terry Brasel Construction has requested a sketch plan review for a six unit multi- family building proposed to be located at 621 Elm Street (Exhibit A). The current owner of the property in question is Jason Stelter. Plannin2; Division Review Applicant: Terry Brasel Construction, Inc. Terry Brasel 105 Honeysuckle Court Buffalo, MN 55313 Property Owner: Jason Stelter 621 Elm Street Farmington, MN 55024 Attachments: (1) Site Plan (2) Building Elevations Location of Property: 621 Elm Street Farmington, MN 55024 Surrounding Land Uses: The subject property is completely surrounded by single-family residential uses (please note the attached aerial). Existing Zoning: R-D, Downtown Residential Comprehensive Plan: Low Medium Residential Current Land Use: The property currently consists of a converted single-family residence that up until this past winter was utilized as a Chiropractic office. If a conditional use permit is approved for . this project, a demolition permit will be required to be obtained in order to tear down the existing structure on site. Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing a six unit multi-family building on site. Sketch Plan Review The City Code provides for the submittal of a sketch plan prior to the formulation and submittal of a site plan. Attached as Exhibit B are the Sketch Plan requirements as specified in Section 10-6-23 (C) of the City Code. The sketch plan has been provided to the Planning Commission for its comments concerning (among other things), the general site design, setbacks, access, parking, and other potential impacts to surrounding properties. It should be noted that these comments are intended to be advisory in nature and do not constitute a binding decision on the sketch plan. The applicant, Terry Brasel, is proposing the construction of a 3-story, 3,240 square footprint multi- family building on the property located at 621 Elm Street (please note the attached elevations). Section 10-5-12 (R-D, Downtown Residential District) does conditionally allow multi-family dwellings, therefore, a conditional use permit will be required to be approved by the Planning Commission at the time of the site plan review. Minimum Lot Standards for Multi-Family . . The R-D zoning district specifies that a lot must have a minimum lot area of 11,000 square feet for multi-family uses. The subject lot meets this requirement as it is 11,922 square feet or 0.27 acres in size. . The required setbacks within the R-D District are as follows: Front: 20 feet Side: 5 feet Rear: 6 feet The proposed building meets or exceeds the setback standards mentioned above. . The maximum lot coverage of all structures within the R-D zoning District is 35%. The proposed building footprint is 3,240 square feet (30' x 108'). The subject lot is 11,922 square feet in size, equaling a lot coverage of 27.18% upon buildout, thereby meeting this requirement. . The maximum building height allowed in the R-D zone is 35 feet. The structure being proposed will have a height of 34' - W', thereby meeting this requirement. Lot Access . There are two proposed access points into the subject lot: one from ih Street and the other from the alley in the rear. The locations of the accesses appear to be sufficient to provide adequate circulation within the site for the proposed use. . . . Off-street Parking Section 10-6-4 (Off-Street Parking) stipulates that 2.5 off-street parking spaces must be provided for each multi-family unit that is being proposed. The applicant is proposing a six unit building, thereby requiring a total of 15 off-street parking stalls. The attached sketch plan shows a total of 15 off-street parking spaces (5 striped stalls along the southern property line, and 10 garage stalls). Building Elevations As previously mentioned in this memorandum, the building is being proposed as a three story, 34' - Yt" high structure with garage parking on the first level. The building features include the following: . Shake wainscot on the front with 6" reveal horizontal lap . 4 board and batt siding on the sides and rear of the building The elevations show four entry doors on the eastern side of the building. The remaining two entry doors are to be located on the south and north of the proposed building. Dumpster Location A dumpster location has not yet been identified with this proposal. This will have to be identified with the site plan for the CUP. The dumpster location will have to be reviewed and approved by the City's Solid Waste Supervisor. Landscaping A complete landscape plan will have to be submitted along with the CUP and site plan submittal. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission should comment on the sketch plan. Respectfully, Submitted, .~/ L0~Q. Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner Cc: Terry Brasel . e . ~ m~ ~... (Pm :!;1l Ci ~ m <0 Q ~ Q lS Wl3 .....J ---t I (p ---t r-.-- -- --.--.--.--.-- --.--.--.----', I I I g) ~ I i I ~ I \I' .. I Q I' . I L_.__ __._ _.__._ _._ _.__.__.__.__._ _.__..J &IDEWALK r-----l r--------------------- --1--\1' --, @ .. ~ -1 ~ i j nL~:~::.T---[---r-~1: -~1Q :: I:i!'i!'i!'i!'i!/ i II O!I~I~I~I~I~- I ~ ~ :; ~ Li ~ i ~ i ~ i ~ i ~ :~ i ~ "! I I 0 L~-L~-L~-L~-L~--J,~ I Q ~ I I ~ ~" : ;Jl M_ :~:;Jl :J: i! / I ~ i~i ~;it I I "! I~I ffl I I _ _ _ _ _ :~: _ _! _ _ _~ _ _ _ ~=======~~~~~i~=~== : SETBACK i j- I I (j) I I l : : u '-T--.J L_~ ._-, I I I I I I L_.__.__....l .r Q OJ CJ G'\ .r-1-l I-~ r t<A i~1 ii I '<[Y 101 II I i~i II I I~I II I i~i II I I I n I I I n I I I I I I I M II I ~ II I ~ "i I I ' I Z I I ~ I 0 I I 0 I l'l I I ?) I ~ I I ~ I m I I m I I I I I 1 I 10>1 I 161 I Iml I j~i I N'\ 1'1 I W i"i II ~ - SETB~CK ~ !- - - ~ - - - - - - r=-~--=-=-~--=-=-~n.:- ; ~ Iii _ II - I L_____J C~=1I L __ __ __ __ __:_...J ~,J L~.~311~ .. "! 11 o o -t 1) /0 z -t 11 ~ ;it :I m Z ... {:XftlBII II - I ~ ij Il! ~ r ~ J. ~ iTem Brase Const tZ> '''!i ]V[ain Floor Plan. r-- -'- lli Farmington 6-Plex MICHAEL PORc-IELLO lD.lbUlllllb1llile,1Ilf 612 366-S1S1 . . . IU m 1>- IU m r m < 1>- -t () Z lem [E] lem lem [E] lem lem Em lem lem Em lem [E] lem lem [E] lem lem ~ r ~ J. ~ i Terrv Brasel CO!lSt ....... 5i '" ::E..1. ~"""'V" a.:t1 C>r:L:OS r -'- ~ Farmington 6-Plex "nJ"''''EO~(f>''' OJ "oxxzoOJt~ c ~~~~2~~~~ r= ;{) J!l>r ;{)~E 0 D I: .....oQ;iJ..... l>0_ ~Q~liij!!!~*~ Z (;\ IJ'E;{)-:IOO G\ (f>' OJ - o;{) .....;;:j-mxxOJ.....o It -{ xr'" I:>.....n m II ",r "'::10:!i ri;1l-{ (f>z~ p.. I:> _OJ ri" -j r:I~ ~;{) C o zo (;\~ m ~~ (j) (f>\l' Q" m~ l>;ii Zl> Or ~I: 1:>0 ;{)!!! N ~ ..... l> r r l> ,ll ~tX/f1BIT ,4-;L. 1 ID ,. :~ I~ ~ 11 n ~~ i:= I- r: l~ ~t H "'~ ~~ Ii '. b' ~ I~ }. 1 ~ ~ I- .J!! 11 IU () Z -t m r m < 1>- -t () Z r r~ . .. on F I Em Em' em, Em Em\ em, , ~CJD 0 ~CJD Em' 0 [E] emJ I I [E] Em\ IBBB em, IBBB Em Em\ emJ Em Em\ emJ f: I 0E S . p~otat.11 . Creation Date: Apr 18, 2005 09:57 Modification Date: Iul 18, 2005 18:34 10-6-23: SITE PLAN REVIEW: Page I of9 E"XHI/51 r .8 10-6-23: SITE PLAN REVIEW: . (A)purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish a formal site plan review procedure and provide regulations pertaining to the enforcement of site design standards consistent with the requirements of this chapter. (B) Exceptions To Review: The following shall be excepted from the foregoing requirements: 1. Agricultural developments. 2. Single-family detached dwellings. 3. Two-family attached dwellings. ITC)Sketch Plan: J 1. Prior to the formulation of a site plan, applicants shall present a sketch plan to the zoning officer prior to filing of a formal application. The plan shall be conceptual but shall be drawn to scale with topography of a contour interval not greater than two feet (2') and may include the following: (a) The proposed site with reference to existing development on adjacent properties, at least to within two hundred feet (200'). . (b) General location of proposed structures. (c) Tentative street arrangements, both public and private. (d) Amenities to be provided such as recreational areas, open space, walkways, etc. (e) General location of parking areas. (f) Proposed public sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage. (g) A statement showing the proposed density of the project with the method of calculating said density also shown. 2. The zoning officer shall have the authority to refer the sketch plan to the planning commission and/or city council for discussion, review, and informal comment. Any opinions or comments provided to the applicant by the zoning officer, planning commission, and/or city council shall be considered advisory only and shall not constitute a binding decision on the request. (D)Minor Projects: . 1. Review Of Minor Projects: The following shall be considered minor projects and subject to review procedures as indicated: (a) No Site Plan Review Required: Building projects that comprise less than ten percent http://66.l13.l95.234/MN/Farmington/13006000000023000.htm 6/8/2006