HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.14.05 Planning Packet
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
A Proud Past - A Promising Future
Committed to Providing High Quality,
Timely and Responsive Service to All
Of Our Customers
.
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a) May 10, 2005
b) May 24, 2005
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a)
Request to rezone property east of CSAH 31 and south of Middle Creek from IP to B-1
Applicant: John Devney
.
and
Request to rezone property located at the northeast intersection of CSAH 31 and CSAH 50 and
northeast of Duo Plastics from IP to B-1
Applicant: Airlake Development, Inc.
b) Request for Text Amendment to Section 10-5-14 of the City Code to allow public and
parochial schools in the B-2 Zoning District as a Conditional Use
c) Request to amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan from Urban Reserve to Public/Semi-Public for
the property located west of Flagstaff Avenue and south of CR 64, amend the text of the
Comprehensive Plan in various respects to allow the placement ofa high school on the
property in question, and rezone the property in question from A-1 to R-1.
Applicant: Independent School District #192
. . .
d) Request for Text Amendment to Section 10-2-1 defining special event signs and Section 10-6-
3 (B)(1) of the City Code to allow special event signs
e) Request for Text Amendment to Section 10-6-3 (B)(1)(p) of the City Code to increase the size
of garage sale signs
f) Request for Text Amendment to Section 10-6-3 (B)(1)(u) of the City Code to allow A-Frame
signs on private property
.
g) Request for variance to sign height and size for proposed sign on north side of Elm Street at
City Center
Applicant: Tom Wartman
h)
Request for Consideration of Executive Estates Preliminary Plat (con't)
Applicant: Colin Garvey
.
4. DISCUSSION
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
FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Discussion of Possible Rezoning of Certain Property Located Near Farmington
Industrial Park
DATE: June 14,2005
INTRODUCTION
A recommendation from the Planning Commission is desired with regard to a possible rezoning
of certain property located in or near the Farmington Industrial Park. This concept was
previously discussed with the Commission on January 11, 2005 and on May 24,2005.
. DISCUSSION
See attached Memo dated January 11, 2005 for relevant background information. One change
that has occurred since January is the acquisition of the Berglund property by Mr. Patrick Regan
(or by a corporate entity with which he is affiliated). Mr. Regan has entered into discussions
with a trucking company that is interested in constructing a truck terminal on the property in
question. Those discussions have recently included the possibility of acquiring a portion of the
adjacent Devney property (located to the immediate north) to create a lot of the size and shape
desired by the trucking company. The ~ortion of the Devney property that is being discussed lies
south of the proposed extension of208t Street.
The latest lot configuration proposed by Mr. Regan would have the effect of moving a proposed
interior north/south access road (just east of and parallel to Pilot Knob Road) approximately 200-
250 feet to the east of the location in which it formerly appeared (compare the attached maps that
depict the earlier concept plan and the recent modifications). Mr. Regan has proposed that all of
the property located between this interior road and Pilot Knob Road be rezoned from Industrial
Park [IP] to some type of non-industrial zoning classification. City staff members believe that a
B-1 zoning designation would be appropriate in the location in question.
.
The primary disadvantage of this proposal is a further reduction in the already-limited supply of
vacant industrially-zoned land that is available in Farmington. The proposal would result in a
corresponding increase in available retaiVcommercial land, of which there is currently an
adequate supply; however, at the moment there seems to be more demand for commercial land
.
.
.
than industrial land. Due to the size and shape of the lot desired by the trucking company,
keeping the interior north/south road in the original location would result in a narrow and less
marketable strip of industrially zoned property between the north/south road and the western
border of the trucking company's property. It arguably makes more sense to move the road to
the east so that it can (as originally suggested) continue to serve as the boundary between the
industrial land and the commercial land.
All things considered, the advantages of slightly modifYing the original "rezoning concept plan"
seem (at least to City staff) to outweigh the disadvantages. The City staff recommendation is
therefore that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Council approve
the proposed rezoning, as depicted on the attached map dated May 20, 2005.
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to recommend that the City Council rezone, from IP (Industrial Park) to B-1 (Highway
Business), e property shown (in pink) on the attached map dated May 20,2005.
.
.
.
10-5-13: B-1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT:
Page 10f3
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
http://66.113.195.234/MN/Farmington/13005000000013000.htm
6/13/2005
10-5-13: B-1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT:
Page 2 of3
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.
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.
http://66.113.195.234/MN/Farmington/13005000000013000.htm
6/13/2005
10-5-13: B-1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT:
Page 3 of3
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.
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
6/13/2005
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463.7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Discussion of Possible Rezoning of Certain Property
Located Near Farmington Industrial Park
DATE:
January 11, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Only two HRA-owned lots remain available for sale in the Farmington Industrial
Park, and the HRA has negotiations in progress regarding one of them. If that
potential sale is finalized, there will be only one vacant lot with IP (Industrial
Park) zoning available for immediate sale in the entire City of Farmington. The
City and the HRA have always anticipated that industrial development would
eventually proceed westward from the existing Industrial Park. There are two
large parcels located west of the Industrial Park and east of Pilot Knob Road:
the 40-acre Devney parcel and the 28-acre Berglund parcel. To date, neither
property owner has shown a high level of interest in industrial development. It
may therefore be appropriate to consider re-examining the zoning on these
parcels, in the interest of facilitating a combination of commercial and
industrial development in this area rather than exclusively industrial
development.
DISCUSSION
Attached hereto is a very preliminary drawing that reflects a staff-generated
concept regarding the possibility of rezoning portions of certain IP (Industrial
Park) and 1-1 (Light Industrial) properties to a commercial designation. I have
also included, for comparison purposes, a copy of an earlier map that depicted
the type of Industrial Park expansion that was envisioned in 2002 and 2003. The
primary disadvantage of the new concept is that it will admittedly reduce an
already limited supply of land that is zoned for industrial uses(s). The
presumed advantages, however, include the following:
.
The proposed rezoning would make better use of the high-
visibility and high-traffic Pilot Knob Road and Highway 50
corridors. Visibility and traffic counts are typically more
important to commercial uses than they are to industrial uses.
.
It appears that the owners of the Berglund (3rd Addition) and
Devney (4th Addition) parcels will be more interested in allowing
their respective properties to be developed for industrial purposes
in the near future if portions of their parcels can be rezoned for
commercial purposes. They believe that the commercial portions
would sell faster and generate relatively more income than the
industrial portions; in effect, commercial land sales would help
subsidize industrial development on the remainder of their
property.
.
· The rezoning of the Pilot Knob Road frontage at the northwest
corner of Pilot Knob Road and Highway 50 could be made
contingent upon the property owners' agreement to remove that
property from the Agricultural Preserves program, thereby
opening up more land for eventual industrial development.
Property that is in the Ag Preserves program cannot be developed,
and even after a landowner applies to get his land out of the
program, it must remain in the program for 8 years.
. Commercial redevelopment would be more likely to "clean up"
the northeast corner of the intersection of Pilot Knob Road and
Highway 50 than industrial redevelopment of the parcels in
question.
.
The attached conceptual drawing was discussed with the HRA members at their
meeting on December 13, 2004. The HRA believes that that concept has
considerable merit. Although the HRA members do not relish the "loss" of
property that is zoned IP, they recognize that having property zoned IP doesn't
necessarily mean that the owner will agree to actually have the property
developed for industrial purposes at any specific time in the near future. The
HRA members believe that if rezoning a portion of the property in question to
allow commercial uses will result in the remainder of the property being made
available for immediate (or at least earlier) industrial development, the HRA
and the City will be better off than if the entire property remains undeveloped
indefinitely.
ACTION REQUESTED
rding the topic addressed above.
.
.i:
....
rJ)
.~
-
.
.~ I
CL )
C1>
o
C
o
U
c
o
.en
c
ro
c.
><
W
..:.:::
s...
ro
a..
(ij
"'0
C
co
~
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Planning Commission
14c..
FROM: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
City Planner
SUBJECT: Text Amendment to Section 10-5-14 (C)(2) to allow Public and Parochial Schools in the
B-2 District
DATE: June 14,2005
INTRODUCTION
e
At the May 24, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners informally discussed ISO 192's
interest in constructing classrooms and conducting Special Education classes in the former Wide Open
Throttle building located on 3rd Street across from Kwik Trip and the Eagles Club. The Commissioners
unanimously agreed that the school use was suitable in the downtown business district, and stated that
they would favor a text amendment to the B-2 zone as a conditional use.
DISCUSSION
School District staff members inspected the former Wide Open Throttle location on May 18, 2005. The
owner of the building, Joe Heinen, indicated in a subsequent e-mail (Exhibit A) that he could
accommodate the School District's plans in the building in question.
This building is located in the B-2 (Downtown Business) district (Exhibit B). The B-2 district currently
does not allow public and parochial school uses. Staff is proposing a text amendment to the B-2 district
to allow public and parochial schools as a conditional use.
Currently, there is a legal non-conforming school use in the B-2 district. District 917 has provided a
classroom adjacent to the Dakota County Library for a number of years. Staff believes that the proposed
text amendment would allow the students attending classes in the former Wide Open Throttle building to
be in close proximity to businesses in the downtown district, thereby utilizing "real world" experiences
for programs in the classroom.
.
Parking for school staff would need to be reviewed; however, that issue would be addressed during the
Conditional Use Permit process. The students would be dropped off and picked up at the classroom by
buses. No student parking would be required.
.
.
.
ACTION REQUESTED
Recommend approval of a text amendment for Section 10-5-14 (C)(2) to allow Public and Parochial
Schools in the B-2 District and forward the recommendation to the City Council.
KevIn Carroll
Community Development Director
cc: Independent School District #192
.
e
N
.A
Former Wide Open Throttle Location Map
Main Street
~b
~ D
D
h-~ D D
Q)
Q)
....
.....
(j)
-0
....
(") D
I
IJL
0
Elm Street
.
.
.
Page 1 of I
e-j 1/1/311 A
Lee Smick
Subject: FW: ISO 192 in [former] Wide Open Throttle space
From: Joe Heinen [mailto:heinen@ghjm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:11 PM
To: Kevin Carroll
Subject:
Kevin:
From my point of view, the meeting today with Doug and Carla went very well. They've now been through the site
and we've discussed in some detail the plans and specs I've prepared relative to the architectural work they've
already completed. I think both sides recognize that the layout is ideal for their use (I can accommodate the plans
they've already prepared) and the proximity to downtown is a strong plus relative to the industrial park. They are
going to get back to me tomorrow regarding their level of interest with the expectation that this can be set up as a
discussion item during Tuesday's planning meeting.
Separately, I have contacted Ken to initiate the 4th & Main process. Thanks for passing that background
information along.
Joe
5/20/2005
fi'/fIIsrr g-I
.
10-5-14: B-2 DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT:
(A)Purpose: The B-2 downtown business district identifies a variety of general
commercial and higher density residential uses for the downtown area in
order to expand and strengthen the downtown as the primary commercial
district for the city, create a pedestrian friendly downtown, and promote the
city as a cultural center. Objectives of this district are to preserve historical
buildings, require high design standards, and provide a diverse mix of
community oriented commercial and cultural activities that are pedestrian
oriented and accessible to area residents.
(B)Bulk And Density Standards:
1. Minimum Standards:
.
Lot area 5,000 square feet
Lot width 50 feet
Front yard setback 0 feet
Side yard setback 0 feet
Rear yard setback 0 feet
Height (maximum) 45 feet
Maximum lot coverage of all structures 100 percent
All standards are minimum requirements unless noted.
(C)Uses:
1. Permitted:
Animal clinics.
Clinics.
Clubs.
Coffee shops.
Commercial recreational uses.
Commercial services.
Neighborhood services.
.
Nonprofit recreational, cultural and entertainment uses.
6jIlIFlI1}-Z-
.
Offices.
Personal and professional services.
Personal health and beauty services.
Public buildings.
Recreation equipment sales/service/repair.
Restaurants, class I, traditional.
Retail facilities.
Sexually oriented businesses - accessory.
2. Conditional:
Auto repair, major.
Auto repair, minor.
Bed and breakfast.
Child daycare center, commercial.
Churches.
Convenience store, with gas.
Dental laboratories.
Funeral homes.
Grocery stores.
Hotels.
Motels.
Mixed use building.
Multiple-family dwellings.
Outdoor sales.
.
.
t;y1-1/$/fC-6
.
Public utility buildings.
Restaurants, class II, fast food, convenience.
Restaurants, class III, with liquor service.
Restaurants, class IV, nonintoxicating.
Solar energy systems.
Theaters.
3. Accessory:
Parking lots. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002; amd. Ord. 002-483, 12-2-2002;
Ord. 003-484, 1-21-2003; Ord 004-513, 8-2-2004)
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463.2591
. www.ci.farmington.mn.us
lJfV
TO: Planning Commission \
FROM: Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner
SUBJECT: Text Amendment to Section 10-2-1 defining special event signs and Section 10-6-3
(B)(l) of the City Code to allow special event signs
DATE: June 14,2005
INTRODUCTION
At the May 24, 2005 Special Planning Commission meeting further discussion was held regarding the
revision of the City's Sign Code to allow special event signs that announce community events.
.
The Commission, at the May 24th Special Meeting, directed staffto publish a public hearing notice
for the June 14,2005 regular Planning Commission meeting regarding the above-mentioned text
amendment.
However at this time, staff is requesting that the public hearing for this amendment be continued to
the July 12,2005 Planning Commission meeting as staff needs additional time to research the issue
further.
ACTION REQUESTED
Continue the public hearing for the text amendment to allow special event signs to the July 12, 2005
Planning Commission meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
T~W~
Tony Wlppler, Assistant City Planner
.
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
U
Planning Commission \ uP
FROM:
Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner
SUBJECT:
Text Amendment to Section 10-6-3 (B)(l)(P) of the City Code to increase the size of
garage sale signs
DATE:
June 14, 2005
INTRODUCTION
At the May 24, 2005 Special Planning Commission meeting further discussion was held regarding the
revision of the City's Sign Code to allow an increase in the size of garage sale signs from the required
two (2) square feet to four (4) square feet in size.
The Commission, at the May 24th Special Meeting, directed staffto publish a public hearing notice
for the June 14, 2005 regular Planning Commission meeting regarding the above-mentioned text
amendment.
However at this time, staff is requesting that the public hearing for this amendment be continued to
the July 12, 2005 Planning Commission meeting as staff needs additional time to research the issue
further.
ACTION REQUESTED
Continue the public hearing for the text amendment to allow the increase in size of garage sale signs
from two (2) square feet to four (4) square feet to the July 12, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
~L0~
Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
. www.ci.farmington.mn.us
.
.
tR(/
TO: Planning Commission \
FROM: Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner
SUBJECT: Text Amendment to Section 10-6-3 (B)(l)(u) ofthe City Code to allow A-frame signs
on private property
DATE: June 14,2005
INTRODUCTION
At the May 24, 2005 Special Planning Commission meeting further discussion was held regarding the
revision of the City's Sign Code to allow A-frame signs on private property.
The Commission, at the May 24th Special Meeting, directed staff to publish a public hearing notice
for the June 14,2005 regular Planning Commission meeting regarding the above-mentioned text
amendment.
However at this time, staff is requesting that the public hearing for this amendment be continued to
the July 12, 2005 Planning Commission meeting as staffneeds additional time to research the issue
further.
ACTION REQUESTED
Continue the public hearing for the text amendment to allow A-frame signs on private property to the
July 12, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
-...
T~ kJ~
Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.d.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Planning Commission
~v
FROM:
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
SUBJECT:
Variance to Height and Sign Area - Pylon Sign - City Center
DATE:
June 14,2005
INTRODUCTION
The applicant is seeking a variance from the sign height and sign area requirements as regulated
in Section 10-6-3 (B)(3)(c) of the City Code. The applicant proposes to remove the existing sign
on the north side of Elm Street (Exhibit A) and install a taller and larger sign in its place. Since
the applicant proposes that the sign be over 10 feet in height (the maximum height allowed for a
monument sign), the proposed sign is considered a pylon sign in the Code.
DISCUSSION
Section 10-6-3 (B)(3)(c) of the sign code provides that pylon signs shall not be allowed closer
than 5 feet from a driveway or parking space. The existing sign is located 8 feet from a parking
space, which satisfies this requirement. However, the applicant will have to submit a site plan
with the sign application, identifying the location of the new (proposed) sign in order to ensure
that this requirement is met. Additionally, safe sight lines for traffic leaving the City Center
complex need to be maintained.
The sign will be installed along Elm Street, which has a speed limit of 30 mph. Section 10-6-3
(B)(3)(c) ofthe sign code requires that a sign located within a 30 mph speed zone be a maximum
of 18 feet in height and 50 square feet in sign face area (Exhibit B). The applicant proposes to
remove the existing sign and replace it with a 24'8" tall sign with a sign face area of 150 square
feet (Exhibit C). Therefore, the applicant is proposing a sign height variance of 6'8" and a sign
area variance of 100 square feet.
The existing sign for City Center was installed in 1997. The height of the existing sign is 17' 11 "
and the sign face consists of 48 square feet (Exhibit A). The sign height is defined in the code as
follows:
SIGN HEIGHT: The height of a sign shall be measured from the base of the sign at the adjacent
curb elevation to the top ofthe highest attached component of the sign.
.
.
.
The sign area is defined as the following:
SIGN AREA: That area measured within the perimeter lines of the sign which bears the
advertisement; or in the case of messages, figures, or symbols, including those attached directly
to any part of a building. The sign area encompasses the extreme limits of the written message,
representation, emblem or other display used to convey the message of the sign, together with
any material or color forming an integral part of the background of the display or used to
differentiate the sign from the backdrop or structure against which it is placed. The area of the
sign face with more than one sign face shall be computed by adding together the area of all sign
faces readable from anyone point. When two (2) identical sign faces are readable from anyone
point, both shall be computed. When two (2) identical sign faces are placed back to back, the
sign area shall be computed by the measurement of one of the faces provided that both faces are
not readable from anyone point and the angle at which the two (2) sign faces are placed does not
exceed forty five degrees (450).
As stated above, the sign area for the applicant's proposed sign is 150 square feet, which
"encompasses the extreme limits of the written message, representation, emblem or other display
used to convey the message ofthe sign" (including the top ofthe Econo Foods fruit emblem).
Development Committee Meeting June 7. 2005
The Development Committee met on June 7, 2005 to discuss the requested variance. The
Committee suggested that the sign height remain at 18 feet as stated in the Code in order to
maintain similar sign heights in the downtown business district. The Committee did indicate that
consideration should be given to increasing the surface area of the new sign, due to the additional
businesses being built in the City Center complex
Variance Requirements
The City Code provides the following criteria that must be met for a variance to be approved:
1. Because the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography,
or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the
regulations of this Title would cause undue hardship. Economic consideration alone
shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under
the terms of this Title.
Sign height - Because other signs in the B-2 district do not exceed 18 feet in height
(Subway - 15.5 feet, Kwik Trip - 18 feet, Burger King - 17 feet), denying a height
variance would not create a hardship.
Sign area - Because the condition of the parcel has changed due to the increased
number of businesses in the City Center complex, a variance should be allowed in
order to advertise the new uses.
2. The conditions upon which a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for
which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other properties
within the same zoning classification.
2
.
Sign height - When considering heights of signs in the B-2 district, the parcel of land
is not unique to other properties in this area where signs are at 18 feet in height or
less.
Sign area - This parcel of land is unique in the B-2 zoning district because it contains
the only parcel of land in this district that comprises a number of businesses located
on land owned by one property owner.
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Title and has not been created by
any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
Sign height - The proposed sign height of 24'8" is proposed by the applicant and was
created by persons having an interest in the parcel. The ability for people to see the
sign at a lower height is similar to a taller sign and therefore, the 18-foot height
requirement will meet the needs of the applicant.
Sign area - Because of the increase in additional businesses within the City Center
complex, a variance to the sign area is requested in order to allow space for the new
businesses.
.
4. The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be
injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the parcel of land is located or
substantially diminish property values.
Sign height - The proposed sign height will alter the character of the downtown
business district since the sign will be over 6 feet taller than other signs in the
district. (Subway - 15.5 feet, Kwik Trip - 18 feet, Burger King -17 feet).
Sign area - As long as the proposed sign is not markedly larger than other nearby
signs, the essential character of the locality will remain essentially unchanged.
5. The proposed variance will not substantially increase the congestion of the public
streets, or increase the danger of fire, or be detrimental to the public welfare or public
safety.
The variance would not create any of the above-mentioned adverse effects.
6. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship.
Sign height - There is no hardship for the requested sign height of over 24 feet.
Sign area - The requested variance is the minimum necessary to meet these needs of
advertising for additional businesses currently being constructed in the City Center
complex.
.
3
. ACTION REQUESTED
.
.
I) Deny the 6'8" variance to the sign height since a hardship does not exist.
2) Approve a sign area variance, in an amount deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission,
to allow additional space for additional businesses within the City Center complex.
~y submitted,. .. '"
-e..e.. c2r-~~-v,--
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
cc: Tom Wartman
4
t. L ~OlO::>
'ON o1J.lS
w
W <NOI<\^"
SO/OZ/SO
l1."~S
SAONV
NI'V.l.d'Q'IDf
VIOS3NNIW 'N019NIW~V~
3::>1~~O / 1IY 13~ ~31N3::> N019NIW~V~
so/so/so
:U'tfCl3n<;;$1
81'-<09
'ON.oro&!
wo:>'SrelU8wn/Q@OIU!
J('(:lvl6G:'19S/C9L
LSLS' ~9S1C9l.
so ~G-oC1>$ NVi 'J8IU90 uA()IOOJa
:>UI ~";~~~~; / SID~uawnlg
.
,0 - ,L
"1'-,,
,O-,f]
"f] - ,1'2
n
"1'-,,
.0 -,L
OJ
UlL
<{<f)
lQo
;:).rl
<f)-
z<{
S2~
<f)<{
,,0 -,<; .0 - ,2
;,.
=-
U)
U)
W in
Z in
l-
t-(
u..
0
0
fn
. CIJ
l- .- in
E ~ in
E z
0
r-
;,. D-
=- 0
~ q
0
-.l II
,,0 - ,L 0 Q
U ('()
,f] - ,1'2
eXI!/crT
c
.
.
~
9
8
~
<
u-,
0'
Z
o
~
~
UJ
tSl
~
UJ
III
UJ
1,;1
....
<
UJ'
'"
6
Z
~
~
D
Z
<
~
Z
o
tn
:B
"-
III
~
Z
o
I~
tSl
:::>
I~
III
o
u-,
UJ'
III
<I
~
ZI
~I
tSl
~!
1*1
I~
':c
ItSl
~I
o
8
UJ
i!:
[
~ill
~
u.
o
C
:l::
w
Q..
o
g:
w
::I:
. ~ N~
0_"1",..."
c::::~~~
ttz~~
:J:;:carcrr
~ ~.~~
...............
~~~~
-zo-
"':c
~Q.
~
(.)
z
~
Ci
:r
~"')
...c
~!2"
"C~ ~
ra/&
.c -;
u r:
vt
V'l
=:z ~;::::
w ~~
~ ~r--..~
<( ~;xr:3
o~~'B~
~_oW"~
~5~~~
-czz_
~o~~~
~o.;O~1.l..:
~Z
ZwZO
Qw~i=
\l)tlI:<:u
~~(tlI:,6
2<'0
tlI:-~tlI:
~1--=2:tL
Zzl\l
\l)w_w
(5~8t
- u 1- <(
\l)o~~
>-D~z
~~~~
tlI::::::o<:
\-\-~Cl
DZ<D
<:-~\l)
J:a...J~tri
U~w;;::w
\l)<D ~
wtll:z8tl1:
~tn~\l)$
~~tlI:WCi
>-.....o~
!O::!c)Z;(
~w~~z
III ~ ~ u Q
:::::<(z>-t:
-z:::;ZD
\.!)Q-'<(D
z \l) g: . <(
~W<J)Dz
< I . LU-
Ql....<J)> I-
D\L~~S
<J)0i=1l..\l)
- Z <: Il.. III
~Q~<(~
U-\-C)D...J
o~w~~
;;!D~I-D
6~~~~
tIltl...~tlI:tlI:
Il..z.....tlI:;:;
1l..\5~0\l)
<(w<:u
I!O:;::w\l)
l-'o~tlI:<
~Ft-:<(:::::
w
~
C
lJJ
~
<
2
D
lJJ
l\2
o
Il..
2
Q
IU
III
::J
III
~
Z
o
110
...
~
o
=
a.
a.
<l:
=
w
~
e
III
::J
U
o
z
o
iii
;;
W
ex
0
0
0
0
(3
~ a: 0
W
ZZ c:: w9 w
~lJ.j III cO ...;.... ~
ctlt2 w:.L ct,
"'u U:t
ex< ct- ;.:
CD III III 111_ W
ex
--' w ll)
~ !;(z 0
III ~2 ll) <IS
III III 0 0
III ~ .....
111 I.\)
I-
Z G 0
111 Z IU~ w
=u ~ ~9 ~
WZ
~ ~~ ~ 0(0) C
00 Z Z~ ~
~ ~:;:; ~~ lUG
0 1112 ...N c;:
::Jl\I. _t!:\
-< 110 III 0
ulf Uu.
.
0
0
0
0
~ l1: 8
...
zz 0: ...9 ...
.f- ~UJ IIlrLi ...;.... !;t
9 t <([>/. ..." <( " C
[>/. "'u
0:< <(- U"t
9 0 CD Ill[>/. Ill;::: ..,:
~ ...
0:
-' ...
~ !;tz lD
0
III ....2 lD ~
[>/. III 0
[>/.
III i> i.Q
I-
Z a a
III z ...i> ...
o:U ~ ~9 !;t
IollZ
~~ l,:l <(0) C
01:) z z"t (j
t-~ ~~ loll a
III 2 ...N ii
=>>[>/. _10
-< ~[>/. 0
ulE Uu..
.
.
III
~I
8
...J
<
~I
u..
o
z
o
~
~I
III
I~I
~
WI
~.
<
W
10
5
z
~
:::;:
Q
Z
<
~
5
III 1
W
~
I~I
151
~
I~I
Igl
u..
I~I
<
\.!)
I~I
I~I
~
Ii:
III
~I
~I
i::
T'
~p
~
~
'r
i<1
N
\Q
.
en
-. "t)
I J 0
~I~
~d
~c
",,-0
~ ~
c:i~~z
O::""'NN
t::~tt
::i""'i''''i'
u ~ N N
..u~l!;:l!;:
-'--
9>wx
.o~z,~
-":0-
~:I:
""Q.
u..
o
c
15 :::T
!~~
~ .c ~,.
~ U J.
~ lit ~
o
'"
5:.
-~ ~;;:;;
w ~~
~. ""',...., r:::::
<: 7...0...0
o ::;~~
~g:o~~
Z)(~:;6
~ozzU"oo
::;;":00-
....oO:::I:~
~o.:OQ.,,,,-
'-'l Z
~ liJ ~ 9
-Lu3:t-
U)tIl<u
U)\')Clt::::l
~<a8
:L-<,[lCl{
Uj.,...:T:tL
(\..zl-Cl{
U)w~w
~~8tL
-UI-<
U)O<,[l\')
liD--'z
<ill~~
~Ic5<
~-~~U
DZ<D
<-GjU)
~~wIU)
Ij) \.- D f-- uJ
Ill~Zf?i3
;::\-<U)<
\') ~ ~ III I
>---'O\')U
~-l~z....J
III W 8 < <
Cl{ '" I Z
W'-'~UO
:r:<z>-t:
-Z::;ZD
\!)~--'<D
zU)~ .<
~Wu)DZ
< I - W-
Dl\-~>~
DU.9~::::l
U)OI-(\..U)
-Z<(\..w
i!:o',J.<Clt
LL~G~~
::::::l~<~
,(8U)\-D
(5[l/.WU~
1Illl..2:~1Il
ll..Z--'Clt;'O
ll..(5--'oU)
<w<u
ItU~w\f)
\- :;'tIl<
~8;::<I
loll
!;t
Q
I
...
~
o
0:
~
~
<(
0:
loll
~
o
t-
III
=>>
U
UJ
l,:l
<
2
D
UJ
I-
III
o
tL
2
Q
loll
III
=>>
III
t-
Z
o
~
o
z
o
Iii
;;
...
0:
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Planning Commission J lflC
FROM:
Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner
SUBJECT:
Executive Estates Preliminary Plat Review
DATE:
June 14,2005
INTRODUCTION/DISCUSSION
At the May 24th Special Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners again continued the public hearing
initiated at the May loth Planning Commission meeting for the Executive Estates Preliminary Plat due to the
need to address the following unresolved items:
1. The connection with the Tollefson property to the west.
2. Park and trail locations.
3. Additional engineering information that is needed concerning utilities and grading.
On the morning of June 8, 2005 staff received a revised Preliminary Plat. However, what was submitted was
not a complete application as it did not address any of the aforementioned issues. It should be noted that on
June 2nd staff sent Mr. Garvey an extension letter providing the City an additional 60 days for review of said
plat. The initial 60 day review period for the Executive Estates Preliminary Plat expired on June 4,2005. For
your information, I have attached the extension letter that was provided to Mr. Garvey to the end of this
memorandum.
At this time, it is staffs opinion that a complete and thorough review of the Executive Estates Preliminary Plat
cannot be completed as the items mentioned at the beginning of this memo have not yet been addressed.
ACTION REQUESTED
Continue the public hearing for the Executive Estates Preliminary Plat to the July 12, 2005 Planning
Commission meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
.~L0~
Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner
Cc:
Colin Garvey
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
June 2, 2005
Mr. Colin Garvey
22098 Canton Court
Farmington, MN 55024
Re: Application for Executive Estates Preliminary Plat
Dear Mr. Garvey:
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 15.99, subd. 3(t) the City of
Farmington is extending the time period for review of your application for the Executive Estates Preliminary
Plat that was submitted by you to the City on April 5, 2005.
The reason for the extension is City Staff is awaiting additional information that was not provided at the time
of submitting the Preliminary Plat.
The anticipated length of this extension is an additional 60 days from the date of expiration of the City's initial
60 days for review provided under Minn. Stat. S 15.99. The time extension will allow the City to meet the
deadlines of the development review process that includes the review of the preliminary plat at the City
Council.
Please feel free to call me at (651) 463-1822 with any questions you may have regarding your application or
the City's process for review of your application.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Wippler
Assistant City Planner
cc: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Lee Smick, City Planner
File