HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.10.06 Planning Packet
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 OUf Customers
.
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 10, 2006
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a) December 13,2005
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a) Variance to the Off-Street Parking Requirements in the Vermillion River Crossings Phase I Project.
(Con't)
Applicant: Pedersen Ventures
14831 Energy Way
Apple Valley, MN 55124
..
'""
DISCUSSION
a) Findings of Fact - Variance to Roodplain Overlay District Requirements - David Marsh
b) Appoint Planning Commission Representative to Empire/Farmington PlaMing Advisory
Committee, Farmington/Castle Rock Discussion Group, and the MUSA Review Committee
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
\(~Ci
FROM:
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
SUBJECT:
Variance to the Off-Street Parking Requirements m the Vermillion River
Crossings Phase I Project - Block 3
Applicant: Pedersen Ventures
14831 Energy Way
Apple Valley, MN 55124
DATE:
January 10, 2006
INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Pederson Ventures, is seeking a variance from Section 10-6-4 of the City Code
(Exhibit A) to allow for a shortage of 36 parking spaces in Phase I (Block 3) of the Vermillion
River Crossings project (Exhibit B1 to B3). At the November 8, 2005 Planning Commission
meeting, the Commissioners directed staff to review parking standards for surrounding
communities to determine if revisions to the current code are warranted (Exhibit C1, C2).
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission continued the public hearing on December 13, 2005 because the
applicant agreed to a 60-day extension to allow staff to research parking standards. The
expiration date of the additional 60 days is February 21, 2006. Staff will discuss
recommendations for parking revisions to the City Code at the January 10, 2006 Planning
Commission meeting and make a final recommendation regarding the variance request at the
February 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
Developer's Proposal
The applicant currently proposes 164 parking spaces in Block 3 to provide parking for retail,
hotel, and employee parking (Exhibit B 1 to B3). The required number of spaces per the City
Code is as follows:
Retail
25,750 sf: 1 space per 200 sf of retail =129 spaces
25,750 sf: 1 employee per 2000 sf (industry standard for retail) = 13 spaces
.
.
.
Hotel
55 Rooms: 1 space per room = 55 spaces
3 employees (employees/shift information from franchiser): 1 space per employee = 3
Total Number of Spaces Required per Section 10-6-4 of the City Code
200 Parking Spaces
The 164 parking spaces proposed by the applicant is therefore 36 spaces less than the minimum
required by the City Code.
Analysis of Parking Standards in Other Cities
Attached is an Excel spreadsheet prepared by staff that provides an overview of the parking
requirements of nine metro-area cities (including Farmington) (Exhibit D). It is important to
note that the allowable uses specified within the attached spreadsheet represent the permitted and
conditional uses identified in the Spruce Street Commercial District (Exhibit E). After reviewing
the parking requirements of other cities, staff is suggesting a possible amendment to Section 10-
6-4 (Off-Street Parking). The suggested amendment is in reference to modifying the existing
parking standard for Retail Sales and Services. The City Code currently requires that one (1)
parking space be provided for each 200 square feet of retail area, plus one (1) space for each
employee.
Staff is suggesting the following code amendment:
Retail sales and services:
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 than 30,000 square feet. (this is
proposed to replace existing code provision mentioned
above)
As mentioned earlier in this memo, the Developer of Vermillion River Crossings is proposing
164 parking stalls within Phase I, which under the current code is short 36 parking spaces,
thereby necessitating a variance. However, if the parking standards were to be amended as
shown above, the required number of parking spaces for Phase I would be calculated as follows:
Retail
25,750 sq.ft.: 1 space per 250 sq.ft. of retail = 103 spaces
Hotel
55 rooms: 1 space per room = 55 spaces
3 employees: 1 space per employee: 3 spaces
2
.
.
.
Total Number of Spaces Required per "Suggested" Code
161 parking spaces
If the parking standards were to be amended as suggested, the developer would be providing an
excess of 3 parking spaces. However, the Planning Commission must determine whether or not
the current parking requirements are adequate. Staff is looking for direction from the
Commission on this item.
Proof of Parking
The Developer has proposed to staff the idea of implementing a "proof of parking" for Phase I
(Block 3) of the Vermillion River Crossings project. The Developer has indicated that they are
willing to "set aside" or allocate the 36 parking spaces that Phase I is short within Outlot C when
it becomes developed.
Five out of the eight communities that staff researched have a provision within their parking
standards that allows for a reduction in the required number of parking spaces, provided certain
criteria are met. Essentially, ifit is determined that the proposed use will not require (utilize) the
minimum number of parking spaces determined necessary by City Code, a request may be made
to reduce the number of on-site parking stalls that would normally be required for a given use.
This is allowed when it has been proven that there is enough on-site room to accommodate the
expansion of the parking facility to meet the minimum requirements of the City's parking
standards should the parking demand exceed the on-site supply. Therefore, the proof of parking
would require a location on-site for "ghost" parking.
Staff does not believe that proof of parking, as the developer is proposing in this instance, would
meet the aforementioned criteria.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission should discuss staff recommendations and direct staff to prepare
revisions to Section 10-6-4 (Off Street Parking) if warranted.
Respectfully submitted,
4~~)
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
cc: Pedersen Ventures, Inc.
Bob Weigert, Paramount Engineering
3
10-6-4: OFF STREET PARKING:
10-6-4: OFF STREET PARKING:
.
Page 1 of 4
[7j!113/1 A ~
-
Off street parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the specifications of this section
in all districts except the B-2 downtown business district whenever any new use is established
or existing use is enlarged.
Spaces Required By Land Use Categories:
Uses
Accessory apartment
Animal clinics
Auto repair, major
Auto repair, minor
Bowling alley
Churches, funeral homes and theaters
Clinics
Clubs
.
Commercial recreation uses
Convenience stores, with and without gas
Dwellings, multi-family
Dwellings, quad; townhouse and two-family
Dwellings, single-family
Group daycare facility, 13 to 16 persons
Group homes, (6 or less persons; 7 to 16
persons; commercial) and nursing homes
Health clubs
Home occupations
Hospitals
.
Hotels/motels
Kennels, commercial
1 per dwelling unit
5 per doctor plus 1 per additional
employee
3 per bay plus 2 per service station
2 per bay plus 2 per service station
5 for each alley
1 per 4 seats in principal assembly
room. Define seat as 22 inches
5 per doctor or dentist plus 1 per
additional employee
1 per 3 customers to maximum seating
capacity
1 per 2 customers to maximum
capacity
1 per 200 square feet or retail plus 1
per employee
2.5 per dwelling unit
2 per dwelling unit plus 0.25 per unit in
common parking space
2 per dwelling unit
1 per employee plus 1 per every 5
clients
1 per employee plus 1 per every 5
clients
1 per 200 square feet
2 spaces in addition to the requirement
for dwelling
1 per 3 beds plus 1 for each 3
employees on maximum work shift
1 per rental unit plus one per employee
1 per employee plus 1 per every 1,000
square feet
http://66.113.195.234/MN/Farmington/13006000000004000.htm
1/6/2006
, 10-6-4: OFF STREET PARKING:
.
Manufacturing/industrial facilities
Offices, personal and professional services
Personal health and beauty services
Public and parochial schools - elementary and
junior high
Public and parochial schools - senior high
Public buildings
Restaurant, class II
Restaurants, class I, III, IV and coffee shops
Retail facilities
Warehousing facilities
Wholesale businesses
Page 2 of 4
1 per 600 square feet
1 per 250 square feet
2 per operator station
1 per classroom plus 1 for every 30
children
1 per classroom plus 1 for every 3
children
1 per employee plus 1 per 200 square
feet
1 per every 2 customers to maximum
seating capacity
1 per every 3 customers to maximum
seating capacity plus 1 per employee
1 per 200 square feet plus 1 per
employee
1 per 2,000 square feet
1 per 1,000 square feet
(A)Other Locations: Parking spaces may be located on a lot other than that containing the
principal use with the approval of the board of adjustment.
.
(B)Grading And Drainage: Any off street parking lot and driveway shall be graded for proper
drainage and surfaced with concrete or bituminous material.
(C)Lighting: Any lighting used to illuminate any off street parking shall be so arranged as to
reflect the light away from adjoining premises in any R district. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002)
(D)Access Driveways: All off street parking areas shall have access from driveways rather than
from public streets. Said driveway access shall be limited to thirty feet (30') in width at the
right of way line and thirty feet (30') at the public street paved surface, except that
driveways which serve as access for truck off street loading areas in industrial districts shall
be thirty two feet (32') at the street right of way line along collector streets and sixty feet
(60') at the street right of way line along local streets. (Ord. 004-521, 11-15-2004)
(E)Plans Submitted To City Engineer: Plans for parking lots shall be submitted to the city
engineer for approval before construction may begin. Such plans shall indicate two foot (2')
contours, paved surfaces, landscaping, drainage structures, lighting and other physical
features. Prior to approval of the parking lot plan, the applicant shall submit surety
acceptable to the city administrator in the amount of the established costs of complying with
the plan. The aforesaid surety shall be provided to guarantee completion and compliance
with the plan.
.
(F)Size Of Spaces: Parking spaces shall be a minimum of nine feet by eighteen feet (9' x 18').
(G)Location Of Parking Facilities: Required off street parking shall be on the same lot as the
http://66.113.195.234/MNlFarmington/13006000000004000.htm
1/6/2006
i Nov-01-05 12:27P Paramount Engineering
.I
II
I
.1
! I
I :
I
I
I
j :
I I
I
I
I : I
.
.1
~
'l
I I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I :
I
..J
.
651 771 0544 P.02
- 6<lIll3rl t',
I G 1- I - - ---'- .-=--~ior.. ~)- =" J ~ .- I- z g ~
-1 Iat'.~" ...... I 9. Z t) to
I f- r-"- - -.. '--1- ....--. ..,.:....... ~ _:z:
() I ~ ~ -~~ "'-,--, ~~.~..::....<:::........::..... ~ :) ~ ~!
I' , ~() 1"~6 .....~-.~ "-.. -. <~~ 'l, '- 0 JJI ~
~...._ 'i'~'1 ...._.. '- ~ ~ "ll ·
--.1 ~J.C574 ---.... '\ \ u ~
...____h --. 11 z~
. ~-=----:. 1-,-- / I \ <( ffi ~
I I :--.. .......J--.-. uJ a ~
CIe) _._..... ~~ I: ~5g:
........... ...... ..... I I c.. ~ l j
'. .......... 1\
....... ~
\
1
I
I I
: I
f"'" . '.
f.
I.
I .
I 1.
I .. -1 ..:..' .. .
I -~
"'l~
~~
I wm
(li t-
I ~~~.,' .3
L ..~,. .,..,...........
\,)
...... - - -- ~...- M" _ _ _ _ _ ___ '.. _._ _ _
CI!
Ll.J
~V)
et: lJ <
~ Z 8
:r Z_I
~ 0 V);z.'
~ ....I Vl I
i ...J 0
it ~~w:
clU
UJ
>
-,
- (
-
....- _.....~.._- -
- ..... .~.._._-
- - - - --. --- -- . .-- /
u' ~~~" ~~ ~ ~ ~~,~~~~':s.'^~,S-..~\
-~ .-
1..__
.....- -
..-v
u
-...- - ()
-1-'
~..- '-"- (Q
,
I
"'__ I ..
" ~ (f') - '-:-
.', ~... .. ;. .' . ':"f..". .
. " I
I
I
C;rH/8/7 IpZ-
---- I
I!
,~
lJ'r~f W -8- -
.."."..,,~ I, I I ~ILI - ..
. .'0 - -.", ....''''..
j " . d""" \0 - - - - - ........ -" -
_I ~ ' : , , "um. ",OY , - - - - ' ....."",
; ,'_ -".ll ",. "'no> "o,'hJ
I 3.<<I"~:' &: -!II.: ;; ..1
J.!m ".. L ~ ..:i~,' ON //,-,. i:;: !l ·
t'~-': :::<::-1fS-~~~::-":~!,,,:~_l..:~ o.
I_Ii I h ~ .~~ .......... - - - - -10 "-, ....
_ ;l ~,U~~ h h ;" '" ~ .
, _ U~_ ~ . · ~.,,, 0" ..".
';.S "- ill!l;! !" ~', .~ c" ... ~~
," 7' _ '" . . a1" .",'0.'"
, '~.'. -.", - . ",""'"
-- ~" -- . . ',",' , ...
,'" ... . ....~. . ,'" '.
!lj/ "" ;,~ ~"", ~ ~f ~,~~
, t' L ~ ,-?';\' "'.",,!L ,,' '''' :..'*
, ,l - .~,.. -" ,~,~ ...~
I I....", i ;"<,," _.~ -"'.0Ji'._ t- - ,,~ ~~
. ~", ..'~ I' . _ ,.,"", h'
, ,- ~.- . ..... '._.' -'... "-- ~..
, : - - "'" ;, '<"'-;--
, ,,- - "'" ---"", .
__ .tN~ ," ./1.
, _..." ":0-";1
, '" >0.", ~r~' ..
, ... "":;~ . .r. . )'( ·
, .;:; ~ ~ rf ·
~ -..,.- :
, ,.. 0 --
, ~ ~ ~ --
I ~ 5 ~
I 6 ~
I~ Q
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I ~
'<(
I
I
I~~
I~~
VJ
l~
I~
I~t
l>-~
1~8
1\-5
l~
I~
10
I~
1>-
l-
I?!;
18
I~
I~
Ie:;
I
I
I
I
\
\
..
~ ; I
l~-, hll
, .' 1,$. ~
sa ~ ~t; . "'
Il. il" ~,h:,i
i'iu!i I".
!"~... I_li~
CJ)
C!)
<:
~
CJ)
en
CJ
5
ct:
<:
CJ
~
-.J
-.J
~
~
C5
~
---'--:""E'!!
-"':-.:-CMI'.~
...
6
CJ
c5
I-
~
-.J
P.:.-
'"
l071no
I-
o
~
~
t.J
I-
~
~
~
~
""'1
CJ
Lu
c.n
c.n
'.::.:.::~~~~;:s - - -"~"! - - - -
~. ~I ~
~~l~~;~
j _\
~
I-
fb
t.l
_GL.
h':Yts':~:-
m ;-:""';;i/D;;;lJ;;;
l
~
~
~
~
~.{
~.
R ~
-Ih
-~
~
'"
~
--
~ \
:!~~:1!1 ~
;C::J,
l~iiql C'?
L:..::'.!l ("oJ
~L~
.
.
i
I
I
i
I
I
i
~
,\ I
l' I
~ I
~I
I
~r
\. I
'\:S '
~
"-
~ ,~I
~ ;~I
~:~I
I
.
........'"~,..'....;.9;-L.:;; ~Z;;
.. .133>1.1.$ HN3:> M3N
"---;"'~'''''-=~N3 A~n.1._
-- .----1"':'" I~O "'"V~Vd
---- -, -- ~
nnn -II.:::~"~~= iir;-l'" I
lr- I 3
Q!!U1;;; I ~ m
@. :::>
j \. - . - (!!![j~' <( _! I
' m_ -J_ 'u., ~~_ ,
-1' '- I -- -- - - -- ';' - - '---_ '__~C_'-
,.. .. --', , . -- -
: - u. -,= _c: ---'n: '- C -'.,,' _:' uu:-<.;. __ ____,
" "', " / ".~:" .'.. -. - , -.. --
ssC>~::> 11-
S~,r;; ~0111\N'l:I3^ l:::2
"tXHlel( ~3
:il :
ill. ',.i';
I :,
'16 ", \
I~I \ i
, il:: I i .~___
III __.#
III ___ ~_
...J
~
U
'"
~
o:::E
"'0
"'u
2t;j
Ow
"''''
<.J Q.. t;;
Z u.....
z ~~
O!!l8:
N GS '"
i/ ',_..
.,
~;
~i~!
'_,;10:
~:
, ,'!
! !
....:..~....~~
j i; .
/ ;' 1 !: ;,
~!]Ql
~~d~:
,
.... -j
-. ". --~
-t
>-
3
B
, \.,
; '.\"''''':
\\\
~ikj
~!~
~
III
o
-'
8
J
'j
! ,
/ '
1 i.:' /
.. -._'-. J///;,
. -_.- ( (,~< \
ql
,U<S3dO&J
I _
,h
.
.
.
C/HIt3/-r C-l
Planning Commission
Minutes
Regular Meeting
November 8, 2005
1.
Call to Order
Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson
Members Absent: Richter
Also Present: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Smick,
City Planner; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner
2.
Approval of Minutes
a) October 11, 2005
MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to approve the October 11, 2005
minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
3.
Public Hearings
a)
Variance to Allow the Addition to a Residential Home within the B-2 Zoning
District (cont'd)
Variance to the Floodplain Overlay District Requirements to Allow the
Addition to a Residential Home within a Flood Zone
Applicant: David Marsh, 204 1 st Street
b)
Mr. Marsh has had a survey done of his property. Staffis still waiting for
comments from the DNR on whether the property is in the flood plain or near the
fringe. Staff suggested continuing these public hearings to December 13, 2005.
MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to continue the public hearing to
December 13, 2005. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
:( 0)
Variance to the Off-Street Parking Requirements in the Vermillion River
Crossings Phase I Project
Applicant: Pedersen Ventures, 14831 Energy Way, Apple Valley, MN 55124
Pedersen Ventures is seeking a variance for the off-street parking requirements to
allow for a shortage of 36 parking spaces. The location is all of block 3 which
includes the proposed retail center and the hotel. CSAH 50 runs along the north
side of the property. There is a median cut in two locations directly across from
the access to Northern Natural Gas. Dakota County will not allow any other
location for a full intersection. There is a right-in, right-out in two other
locations. The applicant is proposing 164 parking spaces in block 3. This also
includes the parking on the north-south street. The code for off-street parking
states 1 space for 20 ft. of retail space, therefore, they need 129 spaces. They
have a 25,750 sq. ft. building. Employee parking requires 13 spaces. As far as
the hotel, 55 rooms are proposed. The requirement is 1 parking space per room
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 8, 2005
Page 2
plus three employees. The total number of spaces is 200, which means they are
short 36 parking spaces. The applicant is requesting the variance because of the
restricted surroundings which include the following:
- The Vermillion River Crossings roadway which is the fixed location of the
median cut on CSAH 50.
- The storm water pond has to be located on the west side of the pipeline
easement.
- They also wanted a certain size hotel and a certain size multi-tenant retail
building.
The variance requirements include:
Undue hardship - staffhas stated the north-south roadway needs to be located at
the CSAH 50 median cut and the storm water pond needs to be located west of the
pipeline easement creating a confined area to construct both buildings and a
parking lot.
The conditions are unique to a parcel of land for which the variance is sought -
the median cut and the storm water pond location, the various agencies have
required a certain amount of storm water drainage.
The hardship is caused by this title and has not been created by any person having
an interest in the parcel- the hardship was not created by the applicant. It was
created by the location of the median cut and the location of the pipeline to the
east of the development.
The granting of the parcel will not alter the character of the locality or be
injurious to other property - the variance will not alter the character or be
injurious to other property.
The variance will not increase the congestion of the public streets - the variance
would not create any adverse effects. Traffic congestion will be alleviated
through the numerous accesses to the site.
The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship.
The applicant has designed the development to meet the various requirements.
The Planning Commission can:
- Deny the variance. The applicant would have to reduce the square footage of
the hotel and/or retail building until the number of parking spaces matches the
code.
- Approve the variance without any conditions in which case there would be no
effective means of addressing future parking problems.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 8, 2005
Page 3
_ Approve the variance with conditions. One condition could be a requirement
that the shortage of 36 spaces be rectified in other locations such as outlots D and
F.
.
Staff recommends option 3, to approve the variance with conditions. The
contingency would be:
_ The shortage would be addressed later through a surplus of at least 36 parking
spaces within outlot D and/or F when site plans for these areas are prepared and
submitted.
.
Mr. Bob Weigert, Paramount Engineering, offered a fourth option. They would
like to offer a proof of parking that they would build the development and after
full occupancy of the leased building and the hotel is up and running they would
rely on staff to say it is under parked. They would offer a proof of parking in
outlot C to satisfy any under parking. The sub-part is that if it is under parked, the
developer will provide off-site employee parking in outlot C to make sure none of
the tenants feel adverse impacts for not enough parking stalls for their customers.
The Planning Commission discussed the distance from the various outlots.
Community Development Director Carroll stated the developer provided staff
with the Apple Valley city code, which shows this is how it is handled there. The
key is in the phrase "proof of parking." If the developer can prove that the code
requires more parking than they were likely to use, the Council has the right to
allow them to build 75% ofthe parking required by the code as long as they can
provide the additional parking spaces on site at some future time if the Council
determines it is necessary. The distinction here is that staffhas not heard anyone
proposing that this extra parking could be provided anywhere in close proximity
to these two buildings. The threshold question in Apple Valley is whether there is
convincing evidence that the City code's parking requirements are excessive.
Staffhas some reservations about this option. At a meeting with staff, Mr.
Allendorf suggested the City take a more comprehensive look at its zoning code
provisions related to parking. If staff does this and determines the parking
requirements are higher and if the Planning Commission and Council are in favor
of modifying the code to reduce the parking requirements, if that wipes out the
shortage of parking, then this contingency would go away. Mr. Weigert stated the
employees would not be parking in the main parking area. They would be
parking to the west. Staffnoted even moving all the employees to the west, that
does not wipe out the parking shortage. Mr. Weigert agreed they would be out 20
stalls.
.
Commissioner Larson asked how many of the 36 parking stalls could be made up
closer than outlot C. Mr. Weigert did not believe they could go in outlot D and
outlot F would be the same distance. He encouraged the Planning Commission to
revisit the parking requirements. In other cities, he has not seen the aspect of
employee parking. Apple Valley has gone to a net flooring requirement. Mr.
Weigert stated they used this tact when they were laying out the parking. They
assumed the City would be revisiting the parking requirements and move more
Planning Commission Minutes
November 8, 2005
Page 4
.
into the 21 st century with regard to parking needs. Staff felt the soonest they
could do this research would be January. Staff felt outlot F would be an
appropriate location for a mixed-use building. This may provide for some
underground parking. There is also the option of building a parking ramp.
Commissioner Larson asked if it would be better to go with a contingency or
tabling this item until a study was done. Mr. Weigert agreed to go with option 3
so they could move ahead.
Commissioner Barker agreed with option 3. Commissioner Johnson stated his
first question was is the hotel going to have a banquet room, pool, bar, catering to
weddings, etc. If it was just the hotel with rooms, he would be more inclined to
give them the variance. He was surprised that they are considering only three
employees for the hotel. He would support option 3. Mr. Weigert stated he did
not understand they were suggesting outlots D and F. He recommended outlot C.
There would also be parking constraints in D and F. Outlot C has some
flexibility.
Chair Rotty felt it was reasonable to review the parking requirements either
through staff or consultants. He felt they could not abandon what they currently
have. He agreed with the option 3 contingency for outlots D and F.
.
MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED. If the Commission was going to go with outlots D and F,
then Mr. Weigert agreed to postpone the variance for one month. MOTION by
Johnson, second by Larson to table any action. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
The Planning Commission requested staff to review the parking requirements for
retail/commercial sites.
'--
d) Amend the Comprehensive PlaD for the Existing and Proposed Park, Trails
and Open Space Plan Map
Applicant: City of Farmington - Parks and Recreation Department - Randy
Distad, Parks and Recreation Director
Staffrequested this be continued to the December 13,2005 meeting. MOTION
by Barker, second by Larson to continue the public hearing to December 13,
2005. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
e)
Variance Request - Setback Requirement for a Building from a Minor
Arterial Roadway
Applicant: City of Farmington Water Board
.
The Water Board is requesting a 20 ft. variance from the minimum setback for an
arterial road right-of-way. This is along Pilot Knob Road to construct a lSx30 ft.
well house on an easement that was dedicated with the Charleswood
development. The well house would be located at the northwest intersection of
Pilot Knob and 200th Street. The well house is proposed to be set back 30 ft. from
.
.
.
y 1I/!3f{ C:z..
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:
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
SUBJECT:
Variance to the Off-Street Parking Requirements in the Vermillion River Crossings
Phase I Project - Block 3
Applicant: Pedersen Ventures
14831 Energy Way
Apple Valley, MN 55124
DATE:
November 8, 2005
INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Pederson Ventures, is seeking a variance (Exhibit A) from Section 10-6-4 ofthe City Code
(Exhibit B) to allow for a shortage of 36 parking spaces in Phase I (Block 3) of the Vermillion River
Crossings project.
DISCUSSION
The applicant proposes 164 parking spaces in Block 3 to provide parking for retail, hotel, and employee
parking (Exhibit C). The required number of spaces per the City Code is the following:
Retail
25,750 sf: 1 space per 200 sf of retail =129 spaces
25,750 sf: 1 employee per 2000 sf (industry standard for retail) = 13 spaces
Hotel
55 Rooms: 1 space per room = 55 spaces
3 employees (employees/shift information from franchiser): 1 space per employee = 3
Total Number of Spaces Required per Section 10-6-4 of the City Code
200 Parking Spaces
The 164 parking spaces proposed by the applicant is therefore 36 spaces less than the minimum required
by the City Code.
The applicant is requesting the variance because of the somewhat constricted surroundings, which include
the following: the Vermillion River Crossings roadway (the primary north/south route) needs to be
located at the CSAH 50 median cut (Exhibit D) and the storm water ponds need to be located west of the
pipeline easement (Exhibit E). The applicant also stated that the hotel needs a certain number of rooms to
.
.
.
be financially feasible and the multi-tenant building needs to be of a certain size. However, as the
Planning Commission is aware, economic consideration alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if
reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this Title.
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.
The north/south roadway needs to be located at the CSAH 50 median cut and the storm water
ponds need to be located west of the pipeline easement, creating a confined area to construct
both buildings and a parking lot.
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.
The north/south roadway needs to be located at the CSAH 50 median cut and the storm water
ponds need to be located west of the pipeline easement, creating a confined area to construct
both buildings and a parking lot. Dakota County is allowing full access to the Vermillion
River Crossings site only at the median cut on CSAH 50. The DNR, SWCD, MPCA, etc. are
requiring storm water ponding on the site to infiltrate runoff before it discharges into the
Vermillion River. The only location of the pond is west of the pipeline easement.
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 ofland.
The hardship, if any, was not created by the applicant; it was created the location of the
median cut on CSAH 50 and the location of the pipeline to the east of the development.
4. The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be
injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the parcel of land is located or
substantially diminish property values.
The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to other
property in the vicinity.
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. Any potential
traffic congestion will be alleviated through the numerous accesses to the site.
6. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship.
The applicant has designed the development to meet the requirements of Dakota County
(median cut) and the requirements of the agencies (DNR, Soil & Water, etc) to provide a
storm water pond for infiltration of runoff before it discharges into the Vermillion River. The
requested variance is the minimum necessary to meet those needs.
2
.
City staff members recognize that whether or not the variance criteria are satisfied in this instance may be
a close call. The three most obvious options in this instance include the following:
1. Deny the variance, in which case the applicant will have to reduce the square footage of the hotel
and/or the retail building until the number of parking spaces matches the City Code's
requirements.
2. Approve the variance without any conditions, in which case there will be no effective means of
addressing future parking problems if customer and employee parking demands consistently
exceed the available spaces.
3. Approve the variance with conditions. One such condition could be a requirement that the
"shortage" of 36 spaces be rectified by providing a corresponding "surplus" of 36 spaces within
Out10ts D and F, which are located within a reasonable distance to the north and south
(respectively) of the hotel and the retail building.
ACTION REQUESTED
Option #3 above seems to make the most sense in this case. The staff recommendation is therefore that
the Planning Commission approve the variance request to allow for a shortage of 36 parking spaces in
Phase I (Block 3) of the Vermillion River Crossings project with the following contingency:
1. The shortage be later addressed through the creation of a surplus of at least 36 parking spaces within
Outlot D and/or F when site plans for these areas are prepared and submitted.
.~?
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
cc: Pedersen Ventures, Inc.
Bob Weigert, Paramount Engineering
.
3
.
gl
lii
~~I. ';'
1
i
<II
c
~ 0 ~
- a ~
I !~
g; %~
~ ~~
a. 8. X
II
E
~
H
~w
~
a.
c
. ~
E .
~,g ~~
g ~ ~:l
~~~rJ
~ .2~
~ ~.~
_ 0
c
~~~! ~
l~i~ Ci
~~~~ ~tl
~ ~i ~~
~;ij ~ ~
.
o
~ !
- ~ "
l~g~
g>:: 88
~ !i
.
1
I I
· 1:
~) ~~;
0'0 ~.~iij
...'0 .2~~
~~$ ~~8
'0 x. >- N N
a;:; % Cii'~ ~
~.a$ ~E~
~
. ~
8~~
'" 0 '0- III
:;}o~~
~~ ~ ~
i~~~
~~~.~--
g: g: -E lfl ~ 41
~2~~~ 0
.
. .
o "
~~
0.0
8. ~..
!~ I I
>
c.....(lJ "'Q'Q
~%~~ ~~
~~ig~ --
::E~~~~;
~~g~~:l'g-
g~!~X@~
~g ~~O\t').............
s~~ 8.2 8.&
. .
lii ~
, .
~~
N'
M~
~o
~l
I I
o
~.:
""': g ~
-=8 U
ON'
g 8.~
i:~ I
....t:~ _
~ E
1i E a:.!r ~ ~
~} g~~ ~~
~~~~~~~
g~~~~:i
~1;:;i~:
a. ~~~~-a
~
o
. .
II oPe
E~"'n)
~ G. 8.,~
l~~i
(Jl...J 0. E
~;;; i ~
a. ."
~~
hu
~~:; ~
~~-a~
c','f 80
~ :!~
0. ~~
E
~ ~~
~ !~
'; tii
.0
~.- .
a. !!
.
:a
~
!I i
!
"
"
u
.>
o~~....~{S
g~ g!! g. ~
~ ~~ ~ 8 ~
t;_~~M~
n~: i ~~
:1l,~or.~E~
!i~~!~!
o "
$ 8
X~
ii
g~
!~ 41
~
iJ
8
~
~
i
~
:a
~
~
'0 ~_ql
C::Ng~8~
g2~~ g
g ~ ~ q) ~
~!i;; ~
~H~ ~
~g ~8 !~
8 _
i8.~
N c
~~~
~ii
~ ~;
lfl ~ ~
~gg
c
g$
. >
.0
.0.
ti $
!&
b
_0.
..
!
"i' U
1 1
Jj
.
.
,
o
~
E a
~~! I
=0= ;~2 '"
~ ~~-i~:
! H~H
c
o
.
.
1il
.
o
"
o
.
o
~
~
o
.
.
"
i
tl5
III ~
'U
i~
~ f
~gGl ~ ~
- ;~
~
o
. .
. .
:; .
~~
0.0
~~
!~
~
.
"
.
.
o
N
.... :: ~ !
~~~'O~
~~!]~
~~g~!
G ~ ~:l ~
8'SC"lg-a
!~! i~-
i
o
o
N
.
.
!]
.
. .
~ ~
:;[8
ill'.:
g~
- 0_
:gc 0
- !]
.
.
o
.
~
1;
~
!Jj
l
~~
~~
~~
1; c
. a
~ lDu;
_.gc_ .
- !g
~ "
~~i
~ ~f €
~ ~~
:;~~
008
~ ~ ~-;-
!]!~
1;"
~ 8
~~
i~
~(jj
g ~
!~
~
~o 8_~
--
H
~: .-
~ ~~
N ;: g-
.
"
.~
s
!
t
~
1
~
~
i
~
~
~
1
~
~
~~
~ ~
~ c
~!
!~
~~
~~
l~
~"
i~,~ Qj
~ ~"S -s.>
'fi~Q.
<lI g :E
~ ~.2 "~~_
!g~ -
. .
;'0 _~
~j~~Qj
~ tI ~~ Z
u1:7U~<lI
~ 8. ~.6 :
&~5~~
""<lIOtl~
c_. ~
itH ~~
u ~s~.~~~ ~ ~
1 ~g.~~g~~~ 1
~!~~g!~~
[gnpS
:~H~g
Jj $
~i
, E
~~
N~
. 0
0'
_0.
~(;j~ ~g
'" s g- ~g
~;8~~~
~ gg.~:f~8~
~~~E~!
~o: ~g~:J~
_ ~~~~~:l
.
~
~
! ~
~
i !
<lI ~ ~
~ ~~!~_<lI
8'g~~g""~
=~115811:;
I ;~,;~i~.~
~ ~~~&~~]
tI ::~8~~8~-;-
~ ~~~~Jg~~l
.
.0
~ ~
~~
1; "
.i!
.-
!i
. "
tllll '" tT
~~~g~8
&",,!:::q::-,....
~~~~~&
,C"'...CJlo....
~.g ~ 1ti ~ 1ti
i~i~~~
....~.....s,~:S
'!:: .~'!:: ~
ci4J~ ~
;.> ~g!~
~ ~ ~-~ ~
,C....,Cc
~ ~~~5
~ 8. i X ~
~ ....41....E
.
o~ ~.
~o:~
:t~~
~~~
n~&
:g ~~-
!~~
Jj
.
.
o
..
~
~
i !
8
"
~ ~
S
~ ~
f j
i I
'" '"
'O!
o~ll~
~o;~
~~I!
~~~~
~~X; I
,....E,....~ _
" .
~~~~
~~;~
~~~i
28EO
~'~~~
!c ~E~,i~
_ ::g ~o E.
o
~ ~
E ..
= ~
".1:
~ ~
;gO uE
- !~
1
]
I !
8
~ a
j
{ -
~ I
~ i
~ i
8 8
u u
"
o
~
u
.
" .
. .
""
~ ~
:~
o
o
"
o
"
o
.
o
o
. .
o.
- .
~
~
11
N
0.
I
~
Of//131T P
..
1
i
.
o
~ 8.
" N
~! -a
~~ III
~ ~ ~
~8. ~
I
~~
~~ ~
~ E ~~
'fi 8 N tI
HH
<.l 0 U U
!i~!i
i5~~
i~:~
~~~ III Q. '" III
.... ~=~~--
!i ~~~~j
~~ ~~~~~
~~ ~E~_~~
~g ~~~o'"
!
~ ~ ~ 8-
; ~~~
~ 11~ ~!-
....'0.....2
! ~] ~ ~
I
,
"
~ !
~f
!i
"
o
o
~
a
!
1;
~
11
~~
.
o
~
0.
h
" 0
!f
I
"c
c ,
'-
a~
c ~
.;:-iji
!1;
" ~
=~
&~
_0.
!
0.
c
I
o
o
~
~
"
~
i
~
~
~
X
o
1
o
19
. - -
~ ~ J.
:I-a
~ ~- ~ ~
!~l I
~4.:
~~
~~
o ~ .
~~ ~
~8.~
.......~ Eo..
!~i
j
.
~
~
~
11
~ .
o >
. 0
. .
!~j
~,g ~
0.- <0
; i ~
g-g
!g~
.
~ gg. ~
<lI8::::N
"'<X!Ql"'q)'
~ -5 ~ ~ >
-a ~ ~ .... .8
B~~~~
~ ~ g c: ~
~ ~~ ~ ~
I
~ :
~ -
08
8::
!i
!
!
~
o
..
'"
o
1
11
N
0.
j
11
N
I
.
~
~
..
~
I
I
~
~
.
>
o
~
.
.
.
~
! ~~
! A-
! ; ~
j ~~
'" "''''
o
1
..
1
.
~~
;:: ~
N E
~,
~.~
g8.~~
~...gfl
~~
i~
5 E
~~
~~
~i
~:
o
"
a
~~
!~
~,g
. . .
cO'
g:: ~
l
~
o
.
.
o
.
n
15
~ "
~~i~
; i ~ ~
~ ~i~
~ ~ ~.~
8. &~ ~ $
.... ~ <0 III
"
o
~
11~
~ ~ ~
o . 8
c_"
- E
i&~tI~~
iii~ij!
gaiaflig~1:
~~~i~;g~j
g~~~~~g~i~
12o~z '"
~g:1~~a~
~ ~.~~~@E~
N~~:~=~~
gg~og~~t
gi~i~~~~ig
c....glll1i>~g~Qlc
f ~
. .
H
ill'.:
g~
0-
~ ~ 0
g~]
a
!
15
~-~
~ .
~~
o
.
~~
N~
~o
~ ~
~ ~ ~
OO~
c_u
o
.
~~
~ .
~n
~ ~
!!
~~~
~ gi
~~~ ~
~~~ ,C
~~'fi a:
~!ii
11
15
c
~~
. 0
~~
!~~
~-~~
~~:
]
~ -~
!~
~ig
c.... ~
]
...
i
1
~
~
~
!
~
15
~
.
.
10-5-17: SSC SPRUCE STREET COMMERCIAL DISTRICT:
Page 1 of2
10-5-17: SSC SPRUCE STREET COMMERCIAL DISTRICT:
E~fll13/T ~
(A)Purpose: The SSC Spruce Street commercial district is primarily designated for commercial
retail sales and services. This district is not intended to compete with the businesses in the
central business district; rather, it is intended to provide a location for those businesses that
have space needs that cannot be accommodated in the downtown or would be a disruption
to existing development patterns. Development in this district will provide design elements
and building and site relationships that emulate traditional mainstreet form to create a
walkable pedestrian friendly environment with connections to surrounding areas. The
relationship of the Spruce Street commercial district to CSAH 50, future residential
development, and the central business district will require a greater sensitivity to design
with higher quality standards in order to develop a pleasant, attractive and aesthetically
pleasing environment.
(B)Bulk And Density Standards:
Lot area
Lot width
Front yard setback
building front shall be
within 20 feet of the public
right of way or private
street edge
Side yard setback No requirement
Rear yard setback 20 feet
Height (maximum) 40 feet
All standards are minimum requirements unless noted.
1 acre
100 feet
At least 50 percent of the
(C)Uses:
1. Permitted:
Child daycare center, commercial.
Clinic.
Commercial recreation, indoor.
Commercial services.
Health clubs.
. Personal and professional services.
Personal health and beauty.
http://66.113.195.234/MN/Farmington/13005000000017000.htm
1/612006
10-5-17: SSC SPRUCE STREET COMMERCIAL DISTRICT:
Page 2 of2
Restaurants, class I, traditional.
. Restaurants, class III, with liquor service.
Retail sales and services.
2. Conditional:
Commercial recreation, outdoor.
Convenience stores, with gas.
Grocery stores.
Hotels and motels.
Major auto repair (confined to the interior of principal building).
Minor auto repair.
Mixed use buildings (shall include office, retail, or commercial uses on at least 1 floor and
residential apartments or condominiums on upper floors).
.
Public buildings.
Public utility buildings.
Restaurants, class II, fast food, convenience.
Theaters.
3. Accessory:
Parking lots.
4. Interim:
Mineral extraction. (Ord. 003-498, 9-15-2003)
.
http://66.113.195.234/MNlFarmington/13005000000017000.htm
1/6/2006
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Planning Commission
l(,~V
FROM:
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
SUBJECT:
Findings of Fact for Variance Denial- David Marsh
DATE:
January 10, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Marsh applied for a variance to the Floodplain Overlay District Requirements to allow the
addition to a residential home within a flood zone.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 13, 2005 and unanimously denied
the variance.
DISCUSSION
After action was taken on the variance, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare
Findings of Fact, which outline the basis for the denial. The Findings of Fact are attached to this
memo.
ACTION REQUESTED
Approve the findings of fact.
Respectfully submitted,
ck ~ (/LVJ
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
Cc: David Marsh
.
.
.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
IN RE:
Application of David Marsh
For a Variance to the Floodplain Overlay
District to allow the expansion of a
Non-conforming structure
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
On December 13, 2005 the Farmington Planning Commission met to consider the
application of David Marsh for a variance to the Floodplain Overlay District (Section 10-5-25 of the
Farmington City Code) to allow the expansion of a non-conforming structure. The applicant was
present and the Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak
and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is located 204 1 st Street and is zoned B-2 (Downtown Business
District) creating a non-conformity of the structure because the use is a residence.
2.
According to the City Code, a non-conforming structure shall not be expanded,
changed, enlarged, or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity.
3
A survey dated November 3, 2005 shows that the finished floor elevation of the
existing house is 902.9.
4. According to Erik Peters ofBonestroo, Rosene, & Anderlik and Patrick Lynch of the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the 100-year floodplain elevation
(regional flood protection elevation) is 902.5'.
5. According to the City Code, all structures, including accessory structures, additions
to existing structures and manufactured homes, shall be constructed on fill so that
the basement floor, or first floor if there is no basement, is at or above the regulatory
flood protection elevation (904.5'). (The regulatory flood protection level is an
elevation no lower than two feet above the elevation of the regional flood - 902.5).
The finished fill elevation must be no lower than two feet (2') below the regulatory
flood protection elevation and shall extend at such elevation at least fifteen feet (15')
beyond the limits of the structure constructed thereon.
6. The existing house is below the regulatory flood elevation of 904.5 creating a non-
conforming structure.
7.
According to the City Code, no variance shall allow in any district a use prohibited
in that district or permit a lower degree of flood protection than the regulatory flood
protection elevation.
8. In granting a variance, the following findings are required:
1
.
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.
Mr. Marsh moved into the home in November 1999. He has lived in the home
for 6 years in its current condition and could continue to remain in the house
as a non-conforming use without being displaced due to the flood ordinance.
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.
The conditions for a variance in the floodplain are not unique to this property
since the property to the north of the Marsh residence is within the flood
fringe and would also require a variance if that property owner wanted to
expand his residential use.
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Title and has not been
created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
.
The existing house was built in 1905, when floodplain ordinances were most
likely not in effect. Mr. Marsh did not locate the existing house in the flood
fringe, however any addition to the existing house will be created by the
person having an interest in the parcel of land.
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.
Most of the existing home's floor elevation is below the regulatory flood
protection elevation of 904. 5 ' (regulatory flood elevation) potentially creating
injurious conditions to the home from a 1 OO-year flood event.
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 create the continued potential for flooding of the existing
home because it's below the 100-year floodplain causing a detriment to public
welfare and safety.
.
6. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the
hardship.
Additional actions would be required if the home was expanded including the
need for the applicant to determine a location for the creation of additional flood
2
.
.
.
storage since the code requires the storage volume to be equal to the amount of
fill proposed. Additionally, the City Engineer needs to review and approve a
permit prior to the extension of a nonconforming use. State and Federal
Permits may also be required for construction within a floodplain.
DECISION
Applicant's request for a variance to the Floodplain Overlay District to allow the expansion of a
non-conforming structure is denied.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
BY:
Planning Chair
ATTEST:
Its Administrator
3
.
.
.
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:
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
SUBJECT:
Adoption of Findings of Fact for Variance Denial- David Marsh
DATE:
January 24,2006
INTRODUCTION
The Planning Commission has called a Special Meeting for January 24, 2006 at 5 PM in the
Council Chambers of Farmington City Hall. The meeting is being held in order to review and
adopt the findings of fact for the David Marsh variance denial.
DISCUSSION
David Marsh applied for a variance on September 27,2005. An extension letter (Exhibit A) was
sent to Mr. Marsh on November 3, 2005 notifying him of a 60-day extension to January 27,
2006. According to State Statute 15.99:
If the written statement (Findings of Fact) is not adopted at the same time as the denial, it must
be adopted at the next meeting following the denial of the request but before the expiration of the
time allowed for making a decision under this section.
Therefore, the Planning Commission needs to take action on the Findings of Fact before January
27,2006.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 13, 2005 and unanimously denied
the variance.
After action was taken on the variance, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare
Findings of Fact, which outline the basis for the denial. The Findings of Fact are attached to this
memo.
ACTION REQUESTED
Review and adopt the findings of fact.
. Respectfully submitted,
(j;tf~
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
Cc: David Marsh
.
.
2
.
.
.
!ix1//gITA
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
November 3, 2005
David Marsh
204 1 st Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Re: Variance Applications for Expansion of Non-Conforming Use and Flood Plain Ordinance
Dear Mr. Marsh:
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~ 15.99, subd. 3(f) the City of
Farmington is extending the time period for review of your variance applications for the expansion of a non-
conforming use (single-family home) and a variance from the Flood Plain Ordinance that was submitted by
you to the City on September 27. 2005.
The reason for this extension is to allow additional time for you to prepare building plans for your home and
for the DNR to comment on the variance to the flood plain.
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. ~ 15.99 (November 27,2005). The time extension will allow
the City to meet the deadlines of the variance review process.
Please feel free to call me at (651) 463-1820 with any questions you may have regarding your variance
applications or the City's process for review of your applications.
Respectfully submitted,
r!fr~
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
cc: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
File
,
.
.
.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
IN RE:
Application of David Marsh
For a Variance to the Floodplain Overlay
District to allow the expansion of a
Non-conforming structure
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
On December 13, 2005 the Farmington Planning Commission met to consider the
application of David Marsh for a variance to the Floodplain Overlay District (Section 10-5-25 of the
Farmington City Code) to allow the expansion of a non-conforming structure. The applicant was
present and the Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak
and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is located 204 1st Street and is zoned B-2 (Downtown Business
District) creating a non-conformity of the structure because the use is a residence.
2.
According to the City Code, a non-conforming structure shall not be expanded,
changed, enlarged, or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity.
3
A survey dated November 3, 2005 shows that the finished floor elevation of the
existing house is 902.9.
4. According to Erik Peters ofBonestroo, Rosene, & Anderlik and Patrick Lynch ofthe
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the 100-year floodplain elevation
(regional flood protection elevation) is 902.5'.
5. According to the City Code, all structures, including accessory structures, additions
to existing structures and manufactured homes, shall be constructed on fill so that
the basement floor, or first floor if there is no basement, is at or above the regulatory
flood protection elevation (904.5'). (The regulatory flood protection level is an
elevation no lower than two feet above the elevation of the regional flood - 902.5).
The finished fill elevation must be no lower than two feet (2') below the regulatory
flood protection elevation and shall extend at such elevation at least fifteen feet (15')
beyond the limits of the structure constructed thereon.
6. The existing house is below the regulatory flood elevation of 904.5 creating a non-
conforming structure.
7.
According to the City Code, no variance shall allow in any district a use prohibited
in that district or permit a lower degree of flood protection than the regulatory flood
protection elevation.
8. In granting a variance, the following fmdings are required:
1
\
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 ofthis Title.
Mr. Marsh moved into the home in November 1999. He has lived in the home
for 6 years in its current condition and could continue to remain in the house
as a non-conforming use without being displaced due to the flood ordinance.
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.
The conditions for a variance in the floodplain are not unique to this property
since the property to the north of the Marsh residence is within the flood
fringe and would also require a variance if that property owner wanted to
expand his residential use.
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 ofland.
The existing house was built in 1905, when floodplain ordinances were most
likely not in effect. Mr. Marsh did not locate the existing house in the flood .
fringe, however any addition to the existing house will be created by the
person having an interest in the parcel of land.
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.
Most of the existing home's floor elevation is below the regulatory flood
protection elevation of 904.5' (regulatory flood elevation) potentially creating
injurious conditions to the home from a 1 DO-year flood event.
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 create the continued potential for flooding of the existing
home because it's below the 1 DO-year floodplain causing a detriment to public
welfare and safety.
6. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the
hardship.
.
Additional actions would be required if the home was expanded including the
need for the applicant to determine a location for the creation of additional flood
2
,
.
.
.
storage since the code requires the storage volume to be equal to the amount of
fill proposed. Additionally, the City Engineer needs to review and approve a
permit prior to the extension of a nonconforming use. State and Federal
Permits may also be required for construction within a floodplain.
DECISION
Applicant's request for a variance to the Floodplain Overlay District to allow the expansion of a
non-conforming structure is denied.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
BY:
Planning Chair
ATTEST:
Its Administrator
3
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.d.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission Appointments to Advisory Groups
DATE:
January 10,2006
INTRODUCTION
The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission appoint representatives to serve
on various City advisory groups during 2006.
DISCUSSION
1. EF-PAC. Planning Commission member Todd Larson has served on the
EmpirelFarmington Planning Advisory Committee [EF-P AC] for several years. He has
expressed a desire to continue serving on the EF-PAC during 2006. He has been an active
participant and a valuable contributor, and continuity will be important as the EF-PAC continues
to discuss the possibility of a long-term orderly annexation agreement during 2006. The staff
recommendation is that Todd Larson be re-appointed to the EF-PAC for 2006.
2. Farmim!ton/Castle Rock Discussion Group. Planning Commission member
Sherry Richter served on the Farmington/Castle Rock Discussion Group during 2005. Her
Planning Commission term ended on December 31, 2005, and she did not apply for
reappointment. As a result, there is a vacancy on this group. The composition of this group is
different than the EF-PAC, in the sense that the EF-PAC includes a township Planning
Commission member, while the Farmington/Castle Rock Discussion Group does not (the Castle
Rock Township representatives include two Town Board members and the Township Clerk).
Having two City Council members on the Discussion Group, rather than one City Council
member and one Planning Commission member, would more accurately mirror the slate of
township representatives who serve on the Discussion group. The Planning Commissions
options at this point therefore include the following:
a.
Recommend that the City Council appoint an additional Council member to serve on
the Castle Rock Discussion Group with Councilmember David McKnight (who was
reappointed to the group at the City Council meeting on January 3), for the reason
referred to above, OR
.
.
.
b.
Appoint a Planning Commission member to serve on the Castle Rock Discussion
Group during 2006. The Discussion Group has been meeting every 3-5 weeks during
the last few months, and the meetings are typically held on a weekday afternoon.
3. MUSA Review Committee. Planning Commission members Dirk Rotty and Todd
Larson served on the MUSA Review Committee in the recent past. I have not had an
opportunity to ask them if they desire to continue serving in that capacity. They can indicate
their preferences in that regard at Tuesday night's meeting. The Planning Commission can then
take that information into consideration in making its appointment( s).
...............................................................................
It should be noted that the City Council will be meeting on Saturday, January 7 to interview
candidates for various City committees and commissions. It is possible that the Council may
appoint someone to fill the current Planning Commission vacancy at that time. If so, that person
would begin serving on the Planning Commission in February. I do not know whether the
Planning Commission members will want to consider that person (whose identity will probably
be known by Tuesday night) for any of the advisory groups referred to above. The Planning
Commission members will presumably want to review and discuss the appointee's experience
and familiarity with the issues in question before making that determination.
ACTION REQUESTED
Appoint Planning Commission members to serve on the three advisory groups referred to above.
ev' Carroll
Community Development Director
2