HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.10.04 Planning Packet
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
.
A Proud Past - A Promising. Future
Committed to Providing High QJJality,
Timely and Responsive Servfce to Al(
Of Our Customers~.
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 10,2004
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a) July 13, 2004
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a) Amend 2020 Thoroughfare Plan included in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan
(continued) .
.,
e.
. b) Mattson Farm Preliminary Plat
Applicant: M. P. Investments
. c) Request for a Variance of 31 '10" Feet in Height for a Milk Storage Silo Proposed .
along Willow Street
. Applicant: Kemps LLC
d) Conditional UsePennit -Mixed~Us~ in the B-2 Zoning District ..
Applicant~ Brad Hauge
e) Request for a Variance Regarding Fence Height in a Front Yard
Applicant: Ronald a: Kathy Brunelle, 19615 Evensong Avenue, Farmington, ..
MN .55024' .
f) Conditional Use Permit -Farmington Lions - Public Information Signs at City
Limits (continued)'
Applicant: Farmington Lions
g) . Amend Section 10-6-4 of the Zoning Code to include Commercial Vehicle
Parking on Private Property in Residential Districts (continued)
4. DISCUSSION
a) Riverbend Final Plat
..
b)
Concept Plan - Knutsen Property
c) MUSA Review Committee Recommendation
d) Conditional Use Permit for Grading
Applicant - Manley Land Development
e)
Conditional Use Permit for Grading
Applicant - Colin Garvey
. I
f)
Next Planning Commission Meeting - Wednesday, September 15, 2004
.
5. ADJOURN
.',
a-...
~..'-
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
C't Pl . C ., IG pc....
1 y anmng OmmlSS10n
FROM:
Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Thoroughfare Plan Amendment for the Area East of Akin Road
DATE:
August 10, 2004
INTRODUCTION
The Farmington Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 13, 2004
for consideration of a Thoroughfare Plan amendment for the area east of Akin Road
and south of 195th Street. The Commission continued the public hearing until August
10, 2004 in order to receive further input from affected property owners and the
City's traffic engineer. The traffic engineer, however, is unavailable for the August
10, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Therefore, staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission continue the public hearing until its next meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED
Continue. he public hearing until September 15, 2004.
.
.
.
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
Planning Commission
(~C/
Lee Smick, AICP \
City Planner
Mattson Farm Preliminary Plat
August 10, 2004
The Developer, M. P. Investments, is seeking approval of the Mattson Farm
Preliminary Plat. The plat consists of five (5) lots and an outlot on approximately
5.09 acres of land located at the east on Akin Road and northeast of Eaves Way.
PlanninR Division Review
Applicant:
Attachments:
Referral Comments:
Area Bounded By:
Existing Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Existing Conditions:
M. P. Investments
4889 - 192nd Street
Farmington, MN 55024
651-463-1405
1. Location Map
2. Preliminary Plat
1. Lee Mann, Director of Public of Works/City
Engineer
2. Erik Peters, Bonestroo
Agricultural land to the east, Akin Road to the west,
and single-family residential to the north, south and
west.
R-1 - Single Family Residential District
Low-Density Residential
The property currently has a dilapidated house on
the site. The property increases in elevation from
south to north, however, a substantial drop off exists
in the central portion of the site and drops off by
approximately 27 feet to the east. A utilize wetland
exists on the east side of the property.
.
.
.
Parkland and Trails:
A trail currently exists along the east side of Akin
Road adjacent to the proposed subdivision.
DISCUSSION
As shown on the attached plat, the Developer is proposing to create five (5) lots on
the western portion of the property. The remaining portion of the property to the
east would be platted as Outlot A in order to preserve the wetland area.
Lot Sizes
The Developer proposes 5 single-family lots. The R-1 zoning district requires a
minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and a 75-foot lot width. The Developer has
met these requirements with the following lot sizes and widths:
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 4
Lot 5
Outlot A
Lot Size
25,807 square feet
17,342 square feet
14,446 square feet
32,926 square feet
19,012 square feet
68,936 square feet
Lot Width
100 feet
76 feet
86 feet
79 feet
100 feet
Transportation
The Developer proposes a 204-foot long cul-de-sac adjacent to the easterly right-of-
way of Akin Road. The three lots on the north side of the property will access the
radius of the cul-de-sac, while the southerly two lots will access the remainder of the
roadway. The cul-de-sac will line up with Eaves Way to the west, creating a t-
intersect ion.
Housing Types
The five lots are proposed for full basement construction with walk-outs. The front
yard setbacks of the housing pads vary from 30-75 feet in length. The housing costs
will start at approximately $400,000.
Engineering Review
The Engineering Division recently completed the review of the preliminary plat and
grading plan. As shown on the attached memos from City Engineer Lee Mann and
Bonestroo consultant Erik Peters, they are recommending that the preliminary plat
not be forwarded to the City Council at this time until a revised grading plan is
submitted that meets the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)
requirements governed by the MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). As stated
in both memos, the plat will require a pond to pre-treat the runoff from the site and
an outlot for the pond needs to be shown on the plat. Because of this requirement,
lots currently shown on the plat may shift in configuration. Therefore, the
.
.
.
Engineering staff is recommending that the plat not be forwarded to the City Council
at this time.
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff recommends a continuance of the Mattson Farm Preliminary Plat in order for the
Developer to resubmit a plat showing a pond on the site and a grading plan that will
meet the requirements of the NPDES permit governed by the MPCA.
Respectfully submitted,
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
cc: M. P. Investments
203rd Street
~
.
.
.
APPLICA7ION FOR PLAT REVIEW
DATE 6 -/8-0 v
~a;7;CJ"u N/~.5
Eo' o~./1 ~'J /cd /V
AREA BOUNDED BY /! //:v- /& iI/~I/a~ ~
,
~ 0 9 /Ie
R-/
NAMES & ADDRESSES OF ALL Ow"NERS Lf8S'1"" ICf~V1J ~;-. W.
f tVY VV\ " "^ ~ 1-0."" I lA1 JJ
PLAT NAME
0/ d0ve5 aJ~v
..-
Zes/deA/Ce
LOCATION
TOTAL GROSS ~~
ZONING DISTRICT(S)
550;lL.{
PHONE: &5/- l( (,:5 - 1 Lf 05
NA.'1E & ADDRESS OF L.~\TD SUP3EYOR/ENGI~EER ft-~k z~ /AJee;--/~ Cb />>c
/t:PCJO e. /'-I6-e~5r 3v'A/.71//4 /0//(/ 5.5$:57 PHONE 9S-Z-Q.>Z-x::?OO
NA.'1ES & .<lJ)DRESSC:S OF ALL .8JODrING PROPERTY Ow"NE~S AVAILABLE FROM: 5ee..
/a.d;/}" ~~?'rl- ON:
PLAT REVIEW OPTION: /?-e ,;;~/'.vd/Y
-'
PRELI~INARY & FINAL TOGET~~~:
PRE PLAT ADMINIST~\TIVE F~~:
IN SEQUE~lCE:
PRE PLAT SURETY:
I HEREBY CERTlr{ Ta~T I .~~ (WE ARE) THE FEE OWNER(S) OF THE ABOVE L~~D, TIL~T THE
PERSON PREPARING THE PL\T a\s RECEIVED A COpy OF TITLE 11, ca~TERS 1 THRU 5,
ENTITLED "SUBDIVISIONS" ..1.-\"0 TITLE 10, CHAPTERS 1 THRU 12 ENTITLED "ZONING" OF THE
FA&~INGTON CIr{ CODE AND ;;1:L PRE?~ THE PLAT IN ACCORD~~CE WITH T~E PROVISIONS
CONTAINED THEREIN.
f!11i~~.
b --/8-c/~
DATE
ADVISORY MEETING:
1. SKETCH PLAN
2. STAFF A.~D DEVELOPER CONSENSUS
,
,
1_' .... ~ "-",::,~~",,:,,, c..."'." ~
'r--v '(""~
I:~: ~ ---1 ::~ r
... \ l:.l
y
\ ~~ \
\ ;~ \
r()
\ 0 \
('...I
'"
,5
~~-
I .0
,.
~~
, ~:'
~' ;i
~~
~~
. '::..
.
::r:
E-<
P::
o
Z
----------
-------
~ u u
S ;~
"';<11"":
~~: ~
l:~tj I. ~!~!
a.. .. L., ~ a i:j .. ..
'81:~.!! >-a~~
'0";'" al.a. _)-V!)o
too V1~~ a . S -8 u'is
~V1~:
~
~
OJ... ~~ 1i ~
~~ 8" ~ . ~
~"3 H a : oi
5 ~ ~ .t= 3 ~ ~
!~f ~~~~ ~ g
iU HH ~ ~
~ ~ ~ j
~ 2
l -S
~ ~
~ ! 0 -ig:.r
:>~!~ht
I ~~.!~........
;1"" H>
z:: f~ i;~!-
~ i 'l;5iiJ1
Q 0 ~,h~'
5 ~.. ai:~~;
(f).l g.Hi,~
w j~ l~.8l!i;~
a ~, .:~,di
~ =! >n!i~i
~ C5~,; j;;S:j~".
~ g; h li:;-:d
~ ~ ~ ill .i~.!:.3 tl"e..
Q ;~ .~::!!~;
;f :.;~j~U
'ion> .p.
d !Hh:!
a....H'
a
..
. ~
.~ ~
~ Jl
'"
.
~
,
~
~
419.55
111a"51'31"'11
<(
(f I
/
~
;
b ~
-l
I-
~
o
o.
z"
.., .
~.'
l- .~
W .
" .
\
/
../
../",/
/~..
'f..,,,,O':')
,. _~,,:'-'o"\
I'......'.> . ./
.. -",- ../
../
~\ \ '~<. \ ~\'~
rt:~ c; ~\ \)
----------
----- -,'
,I'" \' \ \ \
~4.'" \ ',,!, \...,J ,~.. .~...
\~
'~:::,\
/,~> '"
-----
\..-
'l.
.~
\
""
----------
---------------
.._ \ ~ \ t:
~..J \ I'..!. ,-~
"
en
.....:::s
o:~
~IZ.
,g Z
-0
.1: en
~~
o.:si
z
o
~
S
~
~.
a ~
!';: /1: 11
~i4...
Z ~ ('oj
~ .. ~
Vi ~ z
(oJ ~.
~ ~ g
-~g.
a..: (JI "e
::!i ~ ~
.-/
r
~
~
~
.
~
i
~Q
,3
g~
~, _ i
~~ v m
~B
C) .. ~
Z:>.
c:z~
w<C~
wwc... ~
=~~ 8
~j
"0
".
z
<
~ ~ "
~,,~;~
~~~~)O ~
~:li~~~ ~
~~~:n~ ~
~,-,~EB 0
ljW~1 ~~~~~ ~
~ ~55~~ ~
~VlVlln
~iU~ ~
c c
~t~jj I
id 1
~i
",,""
.
<(
4\9.00
SI3'0\'31"~
g
to-
=>
o
~
Cl~~ ~
~", :::l
..... ~.. 5J
~..~ u:
S:: ~
~
l
o
..:...
~::
~---
---- \
.--- \t~
ll.
\ .-.
tfj
~ l.l
:?;
\ ...
'.11
\ C)
,...
r0
0
('.J
, "'l\ /l-'t-\~ RO/l-Q
~~~OO ---
'/.\6.00 ---- --- -----
~ .-.;;; soP ---
~ €.~. \~ .:::--
--- --- ---
\
\
\
\
\ "-t-
'0/
"" '~~:::t)
"
.
c::
,Q rn
0..: S
.ol-t
;.:::: <<l
:51:..
0~
o 0
.~ .;1
~<<l
~~
0..:
./
~] ~
E ! ~
- ~ ~
'" ~.
~ ~ g
-~g.
a.. Ql "e
~ ::q~
I
i
~i
G~
.lis
~~
~~
~
i
.
~
vi
~8
t!) ,,~
z:>-=
;:;:z:
\Ua::~
\U\Ua...;3
c::lZ::E8
~J
'1
~i
a<l: 3 ~;1l1
" ~ ..~
. ~ . ~ i. ~~~
~. ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~i~
~ I ~ i j ~ ~ · ~ ~ 9.58
B~'i nnP~~
i==l nP ~~~~~~'i
~ ~n~ ~~n~db
<::l ~~.~ __5~~~~~
t':1 ~ ~ ~:; ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~
:5:5:S~ ~3i'~~S55
C,{( !;~!~~!~~~
;;n1tt):!
i d ~ ; I
<:
/
I / /
/"./ /
II~/:-m
/ !_~,/ 'I '\
_-1i-.J<-;.t::~_t/(-- \
_rr-r I I ,.--.-/ ) 1
, / / / 1/ ---- \
- / / (
- - / I \
\'/ /: \
\ I \ I (
\ I \
\ \ \ \
l \ \
1 \ \ '\
L "
\ \ \
\ '" \
"
'-
.
5
-l.
I-
:J
o
\
---
---
\~
,.
I
I
\
,.-
(,:1
t:..\
~
f--
0:/')
,:)
.,-
r0
,-,
C.J
15
F
<(
i'!:
CIl
~
~ ~ ~
; i :
" ~
~ .
3
S\~~\"37"'E
",\Q.~6
~
~1~ ~
. :::l
~:/ [U
'- 1': Li:
~ / ~
~
u:
g
N
N
.,.
,.:
u::
0-
(/J
'"
:;:
/'0-
1/ II
~ ~
<( <(
Q Z
w 0
~ t=
~ <(
0. '-'
;;; t=
Q :E
Z Q
:5 5
~ ~
UJ UJ
~ ~
O<i! ~
Ci
b I-
~@
c::
.Q
Cl
~E
.c:: ...
-s ....
or:.
c3
d
~o
o!J
.S <<i
]~
~
Cl
/'
"
.
~
--'.
I
~~
h
n . i
ga. v.i
~8
~ .
:z :>: ~
;;:::z:
wa:~
\Uwa..3
a:l:Z~~
d!:j
~
~
;
~
~
g; i
Z
"
"0
u
(J)
"
~
~
o
z
w
(9
W
-.-J
<.'>Vl
~~
Qffi
",Vl
>-~
lD~U
gs OCj!;
~ S~~
8 ~ 5~~
~ ~ ~~8
~ a I
~ U ~ a
~ ~ ::::i ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ l&.
tQ 5i ~ ~
n!~1
I \ :
; I I
Ii)
.a S
.;:;; s..
15 aj
t;r:.
<3 l::l
Ol~
.S .+oJ
..... .+oJ
.!!2 aj
~::;:
fi;-'. ~
I .5.: -1-
"- ~u:2, :2 I
<( _, -- r-u--:
;;; , . ~ I
:>-" wj"'
[- 11. (Kj--+- I
~ ~2L_-L2: I
;;: L I ~' -c-u~
: -q., I 11-'
L-L-: '70' I
.L --.J
-~
'i
~
'"
u
<:
'"
o
.'i
i
o
...
u..
Vl
"'
~-
N
N
d
u
~
0-
<f.
2
/
/.///
1/'. /
'/'13
/1//- \
j~.k/ '\
,J/r-- ~
I I ,--.-/ .n
/. (~/ \
/ I
I ) I \
I \ \
I I { (
\ I \
\ \ \
\ \
\ \ \
t "-
, \ '\
\ \
\ '" \
"
4l9.OO
Sl~'O\'~7"1>
~
~/ ~
q;:1.... ::>
~.." @
.~ 1~ jj:
s; / ~
d
'--
----
"
~
~
~
.
.
~
~
vi
ZI:i
C)-~
Z::;'. ~
=z~
\U~ Ii: ~
ooZ ~ 8
~j
n
~~
"~
~~
;:; .. 5
t::
o ~:::~i;:~
~ nH!~H~
~ ..~g.::f8egi
~ HHHHi
u
, ~
~~
-'"
;;.
e=
'~.9
.~~
'0
~:~ .. 8
!; 0 ~
0_
:~ ~ ~ 8
~E ~
vo ~
D<
;;
.~
:' ,!
Ii ~ ~
"
.
~
h
'l
"
. ~~
.. Si~
;i ."
~. h)
!~ ..!
., ., ii~ ~
t. ~o~.
""':I", d
.." .~
"---J ..'
1,
~
~'::.'.~
--\
.
[
o
o
o
,
~
~.
~ ~.~ ~
S 5~ ~ ~
; !!l!i
~ ~ E ~ "13
i H~~;
; liIljj
S "","l:l.o.
;,g.g,g g.~
.t; E 4'-63 OJ ii
: ~UH!
.Ii <ci
;3
'"
U
2
<Ii
~3
~ J is
k ~ e
. 2 ~
...~ j tii
L, z
.. 0
~f ~
ji ~
ili CO
2
o
l3
::J
~
2
i cp 8
i !,: Iii
u .1U ~ ~
~jiil,! ~ 0
.1.11." ,0
'I jl.!'! ~
J; ~H~,I''i ~
il a:l~l ~
Ii H~~;~ ~ ~
1
;
!!
,;
: ~
li
j,
:!
C/l
U
'"
0-
C/l
~g
i.I
,sa
~E
~~
u',n
~5
"0
/-
~~
~;
It
~~
~3
<-
~
ao
o
Ii
~E
I: ~
~7~ S
.. &;~ "" i
.0 0 e>.:!i.!O
&g:~~E~~
1Will!
;~ l#r~~~
~
"
~~
~ ~
ij';
~~
~;;
E -s. ~
!LH
o.t; !'i ~ .3
~; t~ i
g it .. 0
i1 i ~ I
~~o~~
HIH
.x~ t ~~
~~ ~:~
o 0:; ~1:
gl ~.;"'
5 S l5 = E
000 ~ jg
~~
~E 8 ~s
~
~
go'"
!~
-gg
i~
Q 5
il~
~ ~
~~
<
~
go.
"
!
~o
~~
~.
~~;
.;~;
iHI
a ~"l:l t
"'~;;:
.~ g1~
~ f~f
=B~N
.~i~~
Hi!
E 5 ~: ." '0
[~
Iii!
";to
0_
00
_0
~3
_0
~g
H
~
"
2
~
5
~ ~
~ ~
......J~
~ B
I "
diQ
, ~ ~
i i c:!
>-
'2
o '"
w ::.
~ ~
ti
~ ~
~
~ffi
.,
0"
~8
~~
~
u
i2
'"
..J
5
al
2
o
F=
&3
C/l
I;j
'"
'"
Iii
~
il:
f:
d
:~
]HllH31.Nl)!JJ~S
~
~
rn
s
c: ~
o ....
a::P<..
:::: l:l
o 0
.... l'I.l
<ll-ioJ
C:l-ioJ
ctl
::.!l
~ I: ~I
. ^ .
!' ""
i :;,
'" . . .
2 ~., ..
'"
CO
~
,..
g (I) OJ .
C ~ ~
'" - ~
~ ~ ~
Q)" .;
> 0 0
cN-a.
- ~.!i:
a. m E
~ ::s ~ ~
0
I
-- ....
C/l
~
'"
C/l
::J
o
J:
llo,P.,....llO\.....llO\.1.~~\OI_...,.~~'.....""po...,...\.'!I
CO
2
J:
u
z
'"
'"
9
:iji a J
h; ~ ,
ii: :
i"'~ .
.~ q ,
?1..~ii. .'.
S I ~ ~^ ~
~
~
.
~ '
~ ~
~
~~
h
~ffi
i~
~
5
vi
~:;;
<!) ,,~
~~i
a::a::
~c..~
~~~ i
Ol!) 0-
cLJ
<
o
~
z
z
.
<
o
.
z
z
.
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Lee Smick, City Planner
FROM:
Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT:
Mattson Property Preliminary Plat
DATE:
August 4, 2004
Engineering staff has reviewed the above referenced preliminary plat. The attached storm water
review memo indicates that a pond is necessary to pre-treat the runoff from this site, per NPDES
(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Construction Permit requirements. It is our
recommendation that this preliminary plat not be forwarded to the City Council for approval until a
revised grading plan is submitted that meets the NPDES requirements.
Respectfully Submitted,
~M~
Lee M. Mann, P .E.,
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
cc: file
j/U 8onestroo
II Rosene
~ Anderlik &
1\11 Associates
Englneers & Architects
. Memo
Project Name: Mattson Farms
Client: City of Farmington
To: Lee Mann
File No: 141-04-217
From: Erik Peters, John Smyth
Date: July 29, 2004
Re: Review of preliminary grading plan dated
6/18/04
Below are recommendations regarding drainage and wetland issues.
1. The grading plan should follow an earlier version found in the Wetland Delineation Report dated
6/7/04. The grading plan in the Report is better at avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts.
2. If wetland impacts are over 2000 square feet, then the developer will need to submit a wetland
application for review and processing. If impacts are less than 2000 sf the developer will need to
submit for a De minimis exemption.
3. Drainage into wetlands should be pretreated to protect water quality. Pretreatment should conform
to the NPDES requirements. The project lies within 2000 feet of a special water (Vermillion River
. trout stream designation).
4. Design the flared end section into the pond to discharge at 8 feet per second or less for erosion
control.
5. Submit drainage calculations showing that proposed runoff conditions (rate) will meet NPDES
requirements for rate and volume control.
.
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc.
2335 West Highway 36 + St. Paul, MN 55113 + Phone: 651-636-4600 + Fax: 651-636-1311
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Planning Commission
ItfC-/
FROM:
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
SUBJECT:
Variance Request - Height Requirement
Applicant: Kemp's LLC - 15 4th Street, Farmington, Minnesota
DATE:
August 10, 2004
INTRODUCTION
Kemp's LLC, 15 _4th Street, is seeking a height variance. Kemp's is located in the Industrial
Zoning District (1-1). The maximum height in an 1-1 district is 45 feet. Kemp's is requesting a
variance of 35 feet 8 inches (see Exhibit A).
. DISCUSSION
.
Kemp's LLC proposes to install a fourth silo storage tank along Willow Street at a height of
76'10". The silo will be installed on a 46" tall concrete pad, creating an overall height of
80'8". As shown on Exhibit B, the proposed silo has a capacity of 60,000 gallons of milk. The
new silo will be constructed directly to the west of the 3 existing silos along Willow Street
immediately adjacent to silo #5 on the attached site plan (see Exhibit C). The 3 existing silos
(#5, #3, and #4) are 55'6" in height and are constructed on a concrete pad of 46", creating an
overall height of 59'4". These 3 existing silos never received a height variance; therefore,
they are legal non-conforming structures. The proposed silo will store milk for the company's
operations. Kemp's has stated that their milk and whey productions have increased and that
some of the existing silos are becoming obsolete for storing their product to industry
standards, necessitating the need for an additional storage silo. Kemp's has recently
completed the construction of the 46" tall concrete apron (Building Permit #FA020865 issued
on July 7, 2004) in preparation for the construction of the 76'10" tall silo. The concrete
apron meets grandfathered setback requirements because the apron does not go beyond the
existing building front along 4th Street and the pads along Willow Street.
Silo A, along 4th Street, illustrated on the attached site plan was constructed in 1983 at a
height of 74'6" (see Exhibit D, E and F). This silo is constructed on a pad at 65" in height,
creating an overall height of 79' 11". The City has no record of a height variance for silo A,
thereby, the structure is also considered a legal non-conforming use. Silo D along 4th Street
(see Exhibit 0 and F) was constructed in 1989 at a height of 56 feet, this excludes the height
of the pad. Marigold Foods applied for a height variance of 11 feet in 1989 after the work for
construction of the silo was ordered (see Exhibit G). The Planning Commission waived
setback requirements and approved the 11-foot height variance "since it will be no taller and
no closer to 4th Street than the existing silos." The only other variance that Marigold Foods
.
received, with the exception of the most recent variance in 2001, was a variance from
setback requirements, sign height requirements, and sign area requirements in 1986 (see
Exhibit H).
In 2001, Marigold received a front yard setback variance for a cardboard compactor along 5th
Street (see Exhibit I). Conditions of approval of the variance included the requirement to
screen the cardboard compactor from street views. This required the installation of
Arborvitae planted at 5-6 feet in height and 4-5 feet on center. Additionally, the City
suggested that grass (by seed or sod) be installed between the curb and the building and from
driveway to driveway in order to soften the area. Upon inspection of the property at 15 - 4th
Street, there are four 5-6 foot tall pines screening the compactor. With the 5th Street
reconstruction project, the project requires that sod be installed by the project's contractor
in front of the cardboard compactor, meeting the requirements of the 2001 variance
requirements.
The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, must determine whether the
reasons provided by the applicant warrant approval of the variance. The City Code provides
the following criteria that must be met for a variance to be approved:
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.
.
Research by staff has determined that the property has been an industrial use
since at least the 1950's. Therefore, surrounding neighbors are familiar with
industrial operations at the site. Milk silos have been installed throughout this
time period to allow for milk storage on the site and therefore, are common to
the visual landscape of the neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed silo's height
will eliminate the need for two additional silos that meet the 45-foot maximum
requirement in the '-1 zone. The hardship for the applicant is space constraints
for additional silos. By requesting one silo over the 45-foot requirement rather
than two that meet the '-1 height requirements, the silo requested for the
variance will meet limited space requirements on the site.
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.
Again, the industry has been operating within the neighborhood for a number of
decades, and the silos are common to the visual landscape.
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 45-foot maximum height required in the 1-1 zoning district is too restrictive
and does not allow for enough storage capacity of milk at that height for the
business to operate.
2
.
.
.
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.
Granting the height variance would not alter the character of the area or have a
negative impact on other property in the vicinity due to the operation of the
industry for several decades in the neighborhood and the existence of 9 silos on
the property.
5. The proposed variance will not substantially increase the congestion of the public
streets, or increase the danger of fire, or be detrimental to the public welfare or
public safety.
The proposed variance would not result in any of the above mentioned adverse
effects.
6. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship.
The requested variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship.
ACTION REQUESTED
Review the above variance requirements and determine if "any" of the conditions apply to
allow a 35'8" height variance for Kemps LLC located at 15-4th Street.
R~
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
cc: Jeff Kinnell, Plant Engineer, Kemps LLC
3
.
.
.
.li
CD
CITY OF FARMINGTON
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Farmington, MN 55024
651-463-7111 FAX 651-463-1611
Applicant Name K1f:fs I.. L.C-
Applicant Address '~{:h. s I F~t4A..,..... r fo ,"-
Street City ~
Phone Number {pst fifo3.. 1'013
Legal Descriptij n of ub' ct Property: (lot, block, plat name, section, township, range)
MfJ
State
C;5{)Z.~
Zip Code
CnrrentLand Use ~H/L/.5';-n~ Current Zoning District r 1.
Following Attached: (please check) _ Proof of Ownership r BoundarylLot Survey
/ Application fee ($200) -L.... Copies of Site Plan
_ AbstractJResident List (adjoining property owners only)
_ Torrens (Owner's Dublicate Certificate of Title Required)
Property Owner', Sign~~:: 9iF-: u- f1~-I E-o/"<'"-u-
I
.
HOLDOOWN
DETAIL 2
.
/,,,//----1/2. DIA 'ADVANCED
HEAD ~/ sfi lRICKlE WARNING HOlE'
~~' I -1 ~
H 2 m-.9..
II dr-
'.,
, ! I: - rtJ
1 ,.1
\ III :.(
Ii! APPROX VOlUME : I :
.. Iii 60,000 GALLONS Iii / 2-3/"'"
\ I" fl'
'1' '
I': !il "
!I! li~'/
.... r I. : )
''-llj DETAIL ~. ~
NOT TO SCAlE
'"
:I:
'il
'"
6
00
>:0
;;1>
(J)~
~~
oil::
...~
g
o
;;1
.
9 9
~~ ~~
;-0 ;~ :s;
... ...!ii
"'~ "'8 ;:t
~lil ~:i: ~o
~ !:1 r~
~ ~ 2!-=-
~ ?ii l!!~
iI:: iI:: r; (J)
2: 2: ;;1g
a ~ ?8
z ~ 'C)
~ ~ ~~
% % "'~
'" '" "'"
g g o.
~ ~ (I)~
~..:
>!='
Iil
%
..
o
~~
'" ~;!';
Z r ",--.0
~:: b-
!'> .oil:::
~ ~~t:r:j
a :!"~
i~.~~
~:~~
o~.o :u
...~:~p
...~ ......i
~ '"0.
D !;o;....
.. ~:i:
~~
'-3'"
....0
1:0
l>>
~~
to
0%
l>P
~
z
'"
!I! ill
1:1<
'"
"'>
2-
...
CD
I APPROX YCl.IJUE -'<.~l
160,000 GAU,lIlS ",I
I ='1
I "I.
:1'1
I nl:
I nil
I\,l
I 1111
".'
I nil
11,1
"I'
, ~.
1 11,1
:I,:
I nil
I II,'
~!i
'I 1111
I a-I
i I =1:
--r--'-- -4- "I'
I - I-------.m'
I I I,ll
, I ".'
, "I'
: D,I
I I "II
I I 11,1
1 ~!!
! I Illl
, I U'l
I 11"
: t ~I':
I I 11,1
i I ~!!
I I "~I'
t ll.l
I I II:
, I 1'1
: E!Yj'II:
~ I (' III"
, I ,II
I ="1
I II"
I I 11'1
--r--~ "I,
I I _;L
: I ~,:
I I ;!I!
I ~'I
! u!:
I ID!
,II
73 -0.
(876")
STR. SIDE
76'-10"
(922.)
APPROX.
OAH
~
12.
r
3/4' PER FOOT PJlQi
ELEV AT/ON
sa: PL\N VIEW
RII; 1RUE <Imll'AlDl
I'
.
00
a..-"
....""
() to
<0
.
~
~
-1:
~
rnCJ
~
~
""
~
~
.
~-
:_'.- -
....-.
@
o
@
o
o
....,
to
,.,0>
~(])o
...co
300
o
.,.
7;;/A-I- S , I/J
--E'::--
o
.
,cUlL]
'"
I I
I I
I I
I ~
I I
I I
I
I~
:~
i~
I I
. I
I I
.1
. I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I I ._____.._
-..-..-..-..-..-
I~-------------'--~d-'--'-'
L----------------."'s .8-------~ J.331:1J.SHJ.l:lnOT------------.
~
~
z
Q.~==~=~.'
.J
-
::;)
m
~
I I
I I
I I
I
-I I
I I
I I
1 I
I I
I I
C':I r--I I I
:-.J r-!I _---1___1'
tA~ Ll~1 ----,>co <::d-:c-1v' I
'" ["::::.---u;----- :
~~ II-:N: r:
'lI \:::: I'."::'iil Ii
~ ~ V~j.ll rr=='" <=-11
~'J f\ ,rn Ii ~
~~ tl'~ :',:~' '., :;
~ i Ulh"[' r~ f=-=_'!, r-'~
L '" ~" :' I'
r-~-_I', ~ I 11 \
\ II U7; ~~ j J' il
<[ lL-'....-r-'=J F~"'::"'"
I ~ .z rJ-c--,"- " r
I ~ : lit LL\I \.U l!
Lg-~-r,-.....)' \_.....,J I
~~:i!!
UA4P !:
.)l;~uJ_~_:_~I: :
; .. 1t1,~"-.-
:t~'~:=--l~ ~ - - :~ - ~
!~'.;.=.::;-"~.-~.._",
, jif-.~-- ~-- I';'
,.., '"\: ~ r"
2;~=~j;~.:
- ;:
V'.1--.-,._.-,.'. ".
" tI'J
-
><
LIJ
<~==-===-)'.-
"
"
"
I.
t\.~~~'
!i
=il
II
r-==--=--~-:..:j---=---=,=-"
(i
il
!I
~~ =:...0='_-':: =:_-=t.:~,::;~,=::;=::;~:~ i.!
,"
..
"$
~
Il
Ii
!i
ii
Ii
- ,
:;~-~I6l~~=o=,=" co=olL=_=~=c~'~7\i
. ii
[[="1-] r=~:--=:--=-=~;
Il=Jl J,~-~.=.==-1_==".-
. I i ~ ir !!; ;
I ~~: fi 1~l?:' .,~~" '<I
i, "', , ,
IF}TI.),J ;":,1, i',
!M ~ r=='
Ii
ii
Ii
i!
ii II
ir'T~irA Ii
lh~J~~~=c~:===c=~"==~1f;;P~(~(;(~~.. ~=t:E~
~~ i- -I ;i~ I : : L::~__~__,
8 q ~~ ~ : :
gi : : : "1Y:)UIJ,:)]13 C!N~l.9,!n_ _"'''' _ _...
w~ __1_ oJ__ ___ ___ __ _ _ _ _ _ -_._._._._._._
C--
L-
I
I
I
L._._._._._._._
~
..
"e
--~
..-...-.-.-.- .
----------~.~----------
.
150-1/2'bl A.
BOLT CIRCLE
EXl ~ /., . --r: {[ 5; ~
~
@
"
144" 1.0.
8!lliIO
L /(,."
W FOR ];:2!'MAX. WALL
2;1.." THICKNESS
STD. LOCATIONS OF REFRIGERATION
c..ONNECTIONS SHOWN ABOVE. BOTH
INLET & OUTLET TO BE ON THE SAME
SIDE. PLEASE SPECIFY RIGHT OR LEFT.
t
12"
I I .1
I
I I 5
I I 15
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I lA
I "
L-___ I VIEW A-A
d I
- ---=.-. --- UA
j
. WORKING CAPACITY:
EST. WT. EMPTY:
EST. GROSS WT.:
60,000 GAL.
42,000 LBS.
558,000 LBS.
~ I. FOR IN.PLANT PIPING &. EQUIPMENT.> WE RECOMMEND
THAT THE OUTLET Cl BE 18"- 24" ABOVE PLANT
FLOOR. CHECK YOUR CIP EOPT, FOR HGT. REQUIRED.
2. SEE ORDER SPECS. FOR EOUIPTMENT FURNISHED.
DATE:
QTY.:
4/8/83
(1)
ORDER NO.: 83-D-30148
SER. NO.: 83-D-30l48-A
TO: Marigold Foods
Rochester, MN
SHIP TO: Marigold Foods
Farmin ton MN
.UST. P.O. NO.
DRAWN: 8R
DATE: 9- i4-79
CHECKED:
VERTICAL SILO -TYPE
STORAGE TANK'
FO Rt.l NO.
x - 6040
APPR(}{ED:
REV. i,
.
.
.
v
g: \.
\
\
\
\\
...'\
j
jJ
~t
f/
-<
~<I,
v),
.J
,
/.. "c.;;. I
~
'" II
V)
.......
OJ
OJ
L-
.......
VI
..c
.......
~
E
o
L-
'+-
.......
Vl
ro
OJ
..c
.......
L-
o
C
on
C
~
o
o
--..J
~
o
~ ..c:
00 Vl
~ ....
o..c:
0001)
~ 'Qj
...<::
..2 Q)
.- ....
Vl '"
-0 8
Q) .-
Vl ~
o 0
0,.....
o 0,
.... 0,
0...-<
~
'<t
~
0\'
V)
_-:-
M
.,.....
o
~
.9
~
E
o
L-
'+-
..c
.......
::J
o
Vl
on
c
~
o
o
--..J
.
.
.
~
~
,
\J
~
~
CITY OF FARMINGTON
325 OAK STREET
'1 :/S-~(
1005733
@
DATE
NUMBER / ~ 1
1. APPLICATION FOR: VARIANCE
v
~I( ?3'C.
CONDITIONAL USE
2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
I-I
3. FEE OWNER'S NAME
ZONING DISTRICT
MtVLrcl ~d4
:::;7;cA/1 it( t:"5#::ii f PHONE
dvz ~ ---(; if
t~~~~
4i . 4/1.. 4h~
dv?c
4~3-?09~
ADDRESS
/5
4. PRESENT LAND USE
5. SPECIFY NATURE OF REQUEST AND GROUNDS
/MA,-Pl/ ~~J- ,,~tO :tf~
~ K,- .~ U
6. ARE THE FOLLOWING ATTACHED:
PROOF OF OWNERSHIP
APPLICATION FEE (~.ctt/
~l '/
BOUNDARY SURVEY
COPIES OF SITE PLAN
~ '
,'!/e a~
PoP ICANT~ATURE
~~p ,{ - '5'
DATE
a1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON
Date
ACTION: DENIED
REASON
PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR
FINAL ACTION: DENIED
APPROVED
REASON
COMMENTS
DATE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
.
I
~
Ie
\
201
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL
SEPTEMBER 26. 1989
@
1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.
Members Present: Dau, Hanson, Rotty, Strelow, Schlawin.
Members Absent: None.
Also Present: Planner Tooker.
2. Chairman Hanson immediately opened the public hearing requested by Thomas
Quam for a Conditional Use to create two upper level apartments at the corner
of Third and Oak Streets. Questions raised by Commission members ranged from
stairway access to windows in bedrooms. It was agreed that the Building Inspector
will require that the units meet code since he has already required Mr. Quam
to involve an architect in planning. Chairman Hanson was concerned about children
living in downtown units which have no outdoor play area. Mr. Quam said that he
would prefer to rent to a~ults only, but the Dakota County HRA would not allow
him to discriminate against adults with children. Members agree.d that the
Chairman raised a good point, but that any such limitation on use likely would
be unenforceable. Member Schlawin asked about parking. Mr. Quam said that he
would recommend that tenants use the City parking lot adjoining City Hall.
MOTION by Rotty, second by Schlawin to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED_ MOTION by Rotty, second by Dau to approve the Conditional Use for two
apartments on the upper level of the existing building at the northeast corner
of the intersection of Third and Oak Streets subject to a similar approval by
the Farmington HRA which has control of building design within the downtown
district. APIF. MOTION CARRIED.
3. Chairman Hanson opened the Public Hearing for a height variance requested
by Marigold Foods, Inc. to install a milk silo to replace an existing chill water
tank at its plant on Fourth Street. The silo will be 56 feet high and join
others which are taller. Member Rotty indicated his displeasure with the timing
of the request since it is the second time that Marigold Foods, Inc. has come
to the Commission with a variance request for an improvement that was either in
place or in the process of being constructed at the time of the hearing. He asked
that staff forward a letter to the plant manager suggesting that in the future
all changes in the plant design and building coverage should be reviewed with
City staff prior to scheduling the improvements. There was general agreement
with this request. MOTION by Rotty, second by Schlawin to close the public hearing.
APIF. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Schlawin, second by Hanson to approve the requested
11 foot height variance to install a new milk silo in line with others existing
on site since it will be no taller and no closer to 4th Street than the existing
silos. APIF. MOTION CARRIED.
4. Planner Tooker said that an agenda add on concerns the Conditional Use granted
to Willy's Minneapolis at 301 Pine Street in September of 1988. The site plan
presented appears not to have been followed regarding the paving that was recently
installed and neither the eight foot fence behind the building nor the landscaping
in front have been started. The letter of credit provided will expire on
September 27, 1989 unless an extension is agreed upon. However, the letter of
credit assumed the work to be complete and if it is not, the certificate of deposit
can be cashed by the City. Tooker said that some consideration for an extension
had been suggested by Mr. Larson with the Commission, but the minutes of November 22,
1988 indicate that discussion of an extension did not make sense at that time.
.
@
September 27, 1989
Del Ziemer, Plant Manager
Marigold Foods, Inc.
15 4th Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Dear Mr. Ziemer,
.
The Planning Commission at its special meeting held on September 26, 1989
approved the requested 11 foot height variance and waived setback requirements
for the requested milk silo. However, there was general dissatisfaction with
the timing of the request particularly since the building sign was erected
under similar circumstances less than two years ago. Members agreed that
in the future, all changes in this operation should be explored before work
is ordered, so that the Commission can discharge its responsibility in an
orderly fashion.
Because you have indicated the possibility that this facility may require ex-
pansion at some time in the future, I hope that we can keep communication
flowing in a manner that will be of mutual benefit. I look forward to working
with you in the future.
Sincerely,
~01~
Charles Tooker~
Planner
.
Cihj ~ FlVUtCiugto.K 325 Oak S!Iteet · FaJultiluJIM. UHf 55024 · (612) 463.7111
.
,.
I :
.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR
MAY 20, 1986
97
(0
1. Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Members Present: Angell, Gerten, Hanson, Rotty.
Members Absent: Sampson.
Also Present: Planner Tooker, Engineer Kaldunski.
2. Chairman Hanson asked for a discussion of the minutes of April 15, 1986
with respect to a letter requesting changes in the wording of the Special Ex-
ception granted Paster Enterprises from attorney George Frisch. Member Rotty
indicated that his intent as maker of the motion that a second access from
Highway 50 would require approval from MnDOT only if the developer elected to
add one. Item "a" of the motion should be revised to read as follows:
a. Approval by MuDOT of a second access from Highway 50 if future
expansion by the developer includes one which has a minimum set
back of 20 feet from the adjoining residential lot to the east.
Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to approve the minutes of April 15, 1986
as amended. APIF, motion carried.
3. Chairman Hanson opened the public hearing advertised for 7:00 P.M. to
discuss a variance requested by Marigold Foods, Inc. to erect a sign 84 square
feet per face and 30 feet high, 15 feet from the Fourth Street right of way
line. Planner Tooker indicated that a variance from setback requirements
could be justified because of the location of the building, which is closer
to the right of way than the listed setback. However, the height variance and
size variances are subject to question as there appears to be no hardship.
Del Ziemer for Marigold Foods, Inc said that truck maneuvering in front of
the building would be interfered with if the present height limits were enforced.
Member Gerten suggested that both the size and height of this particular sign
looked in scale with the building and perhaps the size of a sign should be
increased for industrial signs. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to close the
public hearing. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Ratty, second by Gerten to
grant a variance of setback as indicated on the plan since the sign serves an
old building which itself does not observe current setback requirements; to
grant a variance in height requirements of 10 feet in order for the sign to be
clear of maneuvering space for trucks; and, to grant a variance of 9 square feet
per face in the area or size requirements for the sign based upon a need to
reevaluate the current size restrictions for industrial signs in the zoning
ordinance. APIF, motion carried.
4. Chairman Hanson then opened the public hearing advertised for 7:30 P.M.
to discuss the variance and special exception requested by Minnesota Technical
Research Inc. to expand an existing building at 100 8th Street 20 feet into the
front yard for office space with employee facilities on the second level.
Mrs. Sauber, the adjoining property owner to the south, indicated that they
opposed an extension of the building into the front yard, since it would then
place their house 20 feet behind the industrial building. She did say that
she is not opposed to an addition to the second floor but was only troubled by
the proposed reduction of front yard setback. Motion by Angell, second by
Ratty to close the public hearing. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Gerten,
second by Rotty to deny the request for a variance and special exception to
expand 100 8th Street into its front yard on the basis that another option, a
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting
December 11,2001
the materials in and out of the site would be a tandem dump truck, approximately 15 tons.
Larson asked about contractor's trucks. Mr. Kirk stated that they would approximately be I to
5 ton.
@
Commissioner Larson asked if Marigold Foods uses the same streets [for truck routes]. Staff
replied that they do.
Tom Hemish, 413 Main Street, asked what the zoning is for Dakota Lumber and Marigold
Foods and what the buffer requirements would be for commercial along a residential zoning
district.
Schultz replied that Mr. Hemish's property is zoned R-2 and the zoning for Marigold and
Dakota Lumber is I-I (Light Industrial). The 2020 Comprehensive Plan does show Business
as the future use of the proposed rezoning properties. Schultz added that the Code requires
100% screening between commercial and residential uses with fencing andlor landscaping.
Chairman Rotty asked if there were any other questions from the public. There were none.
Rotty reminded those attending that additional public testimony would be taken in January.
MOTION by Larson, second by Privette to continue the public hearing to the January 8, 2002
Planning Commission meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
5.
Planning Chairman Rotty presented the variance application to encroach within the required
50-foot setback for Marigold Foods.
Associate Planner Schultz presented the staff report. Schultz stated that the applicant is
seeking a forty (40) foot variance to construct a new ground level power transformer to
replace the existing overhead transmitter located on power poles next to the building. Schultz
stated that staff discussed the issue of definition of "structure" admitting that is was somewhat
vague when it involved the proposed use. Schultz added that it was the City Attorney's
opinion that power supplies could be viewed as an accessory use.
Schultz stated that either way, staff and the applicant wanted to ensure that the proper
requirements were being met and variance approval would resolve those questions.
Chairman Rotty asked if the representative of Marigold Foods had any additional comments.
He did not.
Rotty if there were any questions or comments from the public. There were none. Rotty
asked if there were any questions or comments from the Commission.
Commissioner Privette asked if the Fire Marshall had reviewed the proposal and made any
recommendations.
Planner Schultz stated that he did review it and requested only that they follow State Building
and Fire Code guidelines, specifically the spacing of bollards ifrequired.
Commissioner Larson asked if the structure[s) would hinder any site lines from any public
intersections or for the trucks entering and existing Marigold.
2
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting
December 11,2001
Schultz replied that the structures still are proposed to be setback from the property line but
the units would not encumber and site lines from the public roadway or of the truck staging
area.
(i)
Commissioner Barker asked if there would be any fencing (around the transfonners).
Schultz replied that fencing is not required but the applicant would be acceptable to installing
it if the Commission felt it necessary. Rotty stated that fencing could cause problems to
gaining access to the units and also could cause possible site line concerns (being taller than
the units).
Commissioner Johnson questioned the possible closing of the southern parking access and the
required installation of boulevard trees.
Schultz replied that the applicant would now likely close the southern access and re-establish
the area with sod and boulevard trees.
Chainnan Rotty questioned if essential services should be viewed as structures and directed
staff to review the language in the Code for revisions, but added that this (hearing] did provide
an opportunity to review the situation.
MOTION by Privette, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to approve the 40-foot variance to
construct a ground level power transfonner for the Marigold Foods facility contingent upon
the following:
1. The property owner must install proper protection around the units per the MN Fire
Code and approved by the City's Fire Marshall;
11. The property owner must demonstrate that there would be no net loss in off-street
parking and that the vehicular circulation of the site is still feasible;
111. If the south drive is shut off from use, the property owner will be required to install
turf and boulevard trees on the boulevard.
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
6. Planning Commission Chainnan Rotty introduced the Riverbend Preliminary Plat for
Newland Communities.
Planning Coordinator Smick presented the staff report. Smick stated that the applicant is
proposing to plat 140 single-family lots on 107.23 acres of land located west of Dakota
County Estates. Smick presented infonnation on proposed lot sizes, housing characteristics,
population projections, traffic analysis, wetlands, floodplain and parks and trails.
Planner Smick stated that the Dakota County Plat Commission has requested that the
developer preserve a seventy-five (75) foot wide half right-of-way for the possibility of a
future east-west roadway. Smick stated that the County is currently completing an east-west
corridor study that is identifying future roadway locations. The proposed north-south roadway
...". 3
.
.
.
@
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463~2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
September 24,2001
Marigold Foods, Inc.
Attn: Jeff Kinnell
15 Fourth Street
Farmington, MN 55024
RE: Cardboard Compactor Location
Dear Mr. Kinnell,
This letter is in reference to our recent discussions involving the proposal to place a cardboard compactor
on the east end of the Marigold Foods plant, facing along Fifth Street.
City staff researched the proposal and found that the building, according to a recent property survey, is in
fact eleven (11) feet from the property line and found that five (5) feet of the Fifth Street right-of-way was
vacated (see attached resolution, R2-86).
In our meeting on Thursday, September 20th, it was noted that the compactor specificatibnswidth was
only eight (8) feet and the unit itself would be set off the building two (2) feet; accmding to these
measurements'the compactor unit would not encroach into the City's right-of-way. .
. ,
Also discussed during the meeting was a desire to screen the unit from the street in order to soften its
appearance. City staff revie'Ned the proposed location and recommends the,following:
Arborvitae (5-6' high) to be planted 4-5' from compactor (it was staff's intent to attempt to keep the trees
slightly off the line of the power poles) at 4' on center spacing (see attached suggested landscaping). This
should adequately screen the compactor (see attached screening Ordinance) from street view. These
plantings should be completed as soon as possible after the compactor is installed.
Staff also highly suggests establishing grass (by seed or sod) in the area between the curb and building
and from driveway to driveway; this would additionally soften the area.
cc: Property file
69/66/2001 68:20
.
;')
::-
I'l
r.... ...
.. . i
_,~ \.1. III
--~ ~. i
ir Ul
:
:
I
!
I
:
\
i
:
\
I
:
I
!
I
i
!
I
I
1'......j
l: II I
,:t'.~IJI'
""'w
Ii 1, :
~ t I I
-!.:!_.
I '
, '
I I
f' __.t -,
l !
L._ ..(I
.
.
)1 p1
.. l'l~
.. tlj
,
I
:
i
i
:
I
i
i
I
I
:
I
I
!
(
I
I I
hj'--' ...;
Ii I I .
W\. L.~,ltl:
i\j!\./!nl
U_'l-_..LW
-.-t.+-.
, '
, \
I '
('_~_ J_~
i I
, I
1-! rl
I' "
,!
I I
I I
I I
I .."-- -.- I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I ill"tl
1 I I
I I
I :, I ml:O
I I I l> 0
I I I ~ I'
I I (T1 U1
I I I 21</l
I I I -i :E
I
I I I -ill>
I I l> (T1
I I J ~I:O
I I I
I
I I
-l
I
,.... ,~, .
.. .. '" ..- 1--
t I
." !
1:>
c....I,J,.r:\:.... ..~i-
~083752919
MEAD AND HUNT
PAGE
02
IE
._, L_' I .
b ~r}-::D=J: r;+_I~._. IQ'.+,
I . I 1fj"
, I ~ ~ ,"
_., I I J I
I' I
- ~_-,! . I - ; : I
'-'-cr.':-:; _.::~-=,-:.:-,::...~L. _._.~--;!ti L.'
_. --"ll 1"\-- .i-' - ~.-
r-, ,_' ",1.. I I -r'-'
I I r :.0__ 0=-:.--,..11. ~ I
__ '_.1 1 --,--'- I -
1 I - - .; - .
T ;-.
I l. -'
I
...
I
-'-J
I :
I .
'-'-1
I
::t::..
, r-
~t
__-----f~ffjtl~T~-------
I'
lr
T'
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO: City Planning Commission ~c...
FROM: Jim Atkinson
Assistant City Planner
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Mixed-Use Building in the B-2 (Downtown
Business) Zoning District
DATE: August 10, 2004
INTRODUCTION I BACKGROUND
Mr. Bradley Hauge has requested a conditional use permit to allow renovation of the Dandy
Sports building (former Lyric Theater) to include office uses on the lower level and" a
residential apartment on the upper level.
.
DISCUSSION
The City Council approved an amendment to the City Code regarding mixed-use buildings at
its meeting on August 2, 2004. The City Code now allows mixed-use buildings as a conditional
use in the B-2 zoning district. Mixed-Use buildings are defined as follows:
A single building that includes offke, retail, or commercial uses on at
least one (1) floor and residential apartments or condominiums on
upper floors.
The proposed renovation on the subject property would be consistent with the definition of
mixed-use building provided in the City Code.
ACTION REQUESTED
Approve the requested Conditional Use Permit contingent upon the following conditions:
. The appl1cant shall obtain a building permit.
. The applicant shall comply with all applicable building codes.
Respectfully Submitted,
· Cd ";;;n!!=
Assistant City Planner
N
A
314 Oak Street
Elm Street
Oak Street
....
~
;;::
-e
M
Spruce Street
....
~
;;::
~
100
I
o
100
200 Feet
,
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
~c.
FROM:
Jim Atkinson
Assistant City Planner
SUBJECT:
Variance Request - Maximum Height Requirement for Fences
Applicant: Ronald and Kathy Brunelle - 19615 Evensong Avenue
DATE:
August 10, 2004
INTRODUCTION
The applicants are seeking a variance from the maximum height requirement for
fences to allow a recently constructed fence to remain. The fence is greater than six
(6) feet in height and is located in the front yard of the subject property. The
. property is located at 19615 Embry Lane in the Charleswood Development.
DISCUSSION
According to the City Code, fences up to four (4) feet in height are allowed in the
front yard of a property in residential zoning districts. As shown on the attached site
plan, the applicant has constructed a section of fence along the west property line
that is greater than six (6) feet in height. At the tallest point, the fence is
approximately 7.5 feet tall when measured from the ground. The west property line is
adjacent to the neighbor's driveway. According to the applicant, the fence was
constructed to screen a commercial van that is typically parked on the driveway.
The Planning Commission must determine whether the reasons provided by the
applicant warrant approval of the variance. The City Code provides the following
criteria that must be met for a variance to be approved:
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 west lot line of the subject property is adjacent to the neighbor's
driveway and a commercial van is typically parked on the driveway. The
.
.
.
Planning Commission must determine whether the proximity of the
neighbor's driveway and the existence of a commercial van create a
hardship on the subject property.
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 location of the neighbor's driveway in relation to the applicant's
property and the presence of a commercial van on the neighbor's driveway
are not unique to the subject property.
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Title and has not been
created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
The alleged hardship was not created by the applicant.
4. The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the
locality or be injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the parcel
of land is located or substantially diminish property values.
The additional height may alter the appearance of the neighborhood as
viewed from Evensong Avenue. The variance would not cause any of the
other adverse effects mentioned above.
5. The proposed variance will not substantially increase the congestion of the
public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or be detrimental to the
public welfare or public safety.
The variance would not create any of the above-mentioned adverse effects.
6. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the
hardship.
If the Planning Commission determines that a hardship exists, the
requested variance may be the minimum necessary to provide appropriate
screening.
ACTION REQUESTED
Consider the requested variance.
Respectfully submitted,
f1,^- ~.
'.ii~ Atkinson
Assistant City Planner
2
. EVENSONG Avt.NUf.
Pj. /
~e:A ;;:: t 7. .380 SQ. FT.
ARt.A ~ , 1730 SQ. fT.
.
lOCC\+101'\
91
.
fC)
(0
.....
3
51te Piau
'-
.
o
o
.
o
.
~
.
.n
o
959.3 N
N
. ,
o
o
2:
C)w .....
4 2U\
~ :;:)966.
_0
X:r
L..J
957.4
3:
.
.
. "",-,. ..,.. ~'t.J
.
'\
~
.
~
~
\:t
~\U
'~
lr)
.
J.-l.Q.
;
:l
i
I
I
I
\
j
1
J
1
I
\-
{.j..
"
rJ
1
l
I
I
.,........
.
.
.
}} .......
diJ1111
::::;.:::::.;.:-:-..:-....:..:::::;.:.:.:\}::...;;
. .. ~
.
.
.
Page 1 of 1
Lee Smick
From: jeff beal [bea/daddy@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 20044:24 PM
To: Lee Smick
Subject: Request for variance of a fence by the Brunells'
In regards to the petition by Cathy to get a variance for an oversized fence. I am against the City
of Farmington granting this petition. An oversized fence of any kind in a front yard in a residential
area is simply unsitely. It will add no value to her home, her ability to enjoy her home, or anyone
else's ability to enjoy the view of her well kept yard. Cathy has made it clear that the only reason
she wants this fence is so that she won't have to see her neighbor's work truck. I have a more
direct view of this neighbors yard and driveway than she does and I see absolutly nothing
offensive. His truck is a clean well kept van with simple lettering on it and some ladders attached
to the top. He parks it straight in his driveway and generally keeps to himself. I find that his
home and his yard are well kept and I wish that more properties in Farmington looked this good.
Cathy has shown a blatent disregard for her neighbors and the City of Farmington by erecting this
fence without getting the proper permits from Farmington or The Charleswood Homeowners
Association, she didn't even try to discuss the issue with the neighbor she is trying to block out
whom she has rarely if ever spoken to. Furthermore, I have found that when my son goes past
her house to play with his friend that her fence prevents me from seeing that he has arrived
safely or when he is leaving there to come home. Thank you.
8/1 012004
.
.~
.~
ei
Page 1of1
Lee Smicl<
From: jeff beal [bealdaddy@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 20044:24 PM
To: Lee Smick
Subject: Request for variance of a fence by the Brunells'
In regards to the petition by Cathy to get a variance for an oversized fence. I am againsttheC-tty
'of Farmington granting this petition. An oversized fence of any kind Ina front yard In aresid.ntial
area is simply unsitely. It will add no value to her home, her ability to enjoy her home, oranvone
else's ability to enjoy the view of her well kept yard. Cathy has made it clear that the only reason
she wants this fence is so that she won't have to see her neighbor's work truck. I have a more
direct view of this neighbors yard and driveway than she does and I see absolutly nothing
offensive. His truck is a clean well kept van with simple lettering on it and some ladders attached
to the top. He parks it straight in his driveway and generaUy keeps to himself. I find that his
home and his yard are well kept and I wish that more properties in Farmington looked this good..
Cathy has shown a blatent disregard for her neighbors and the City of Farmington by erecting this
fence without getting the proper permits from Farmington or The Charleswood Homeowners
Association, she didn't even try to discuss the issue with the neighbor she is trying to block out
whom she has rarely if ever spoken to. Furthermore, I have found that when my son goes past
,her house to play with. his friend that her fence prevents me from seeing that he has arrived
safely or when he is leaving there to come home. Thank you.
')
8/1012004
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
FROM:
Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Conditional Use Permit - Locate Lions Emblem Signs by Farmington Municipal
Entrance Signs (Applicant: Farmington Lions)
DATE:
August 10, 2004
INTRODUCTION
The Farmington Lions have submitted a conditional use permit application to place their
emblem signs at all five (5) Farmington municipal entrance monument locations. This
matter was considered at the Planning Commission's meeting on July 13, 2004. It was
continued at that time so that further research could be conducted.
.
DISCUSSION
The currently unresolved issues fall into three categories: MnDOT issues, Dakota
County issues, and City issues. Each of these issues is addressed separately below.
1. MnDOT:
Three (3) of the locations at which the Farmington Lions want to erect signs are
within MnDOT's right-of-way (at the north and south entrances to Farmington on
Trunk Highway 3 and at the east entrance on Trunk Highway 50). MnDOT has
historically been very restrictive regarding the placing of items within its rights-of-
way.
For example, it took the City of White Bear Lake several years and many hours of staff
time to get MnDOT's consent to put the signs of six local service organizations on the
City's entrance monuments. MnDOT took the position that its "Guidelines for
Installation of Municipal Identification Entrance Signs" (see attached Exhibit A)
prohibited any sign or message that contained "advertising for a commercial product
or service or any non-profit organization." White Bear Lake argued that a sign or logo
for a local veterans group or service club did not constitute "advertising" for any such
organization. MnDOT refused to change its position, so White Bear Lake sought an
opinion from the Minnesota Attorney General's Office. The Attorney General's Office
. concluded, in an opinion dated April 4, 2003 (see attached Exhibit B), that "the
.
placement of logos of veterans and service organizations on the City's entrance signs"
is not prohibited by any law or statute of the State of Minnesota.
However, the fact that it is not prohibited does not mean that it is automatically
allowed under all circumstances. MnDOT still has the right to impose reasonable
regulations on the placement of signs within its rights-of-way. Mr. Keith VanWagner,
the Roadway Regulation Supervisor for MnDOT's Metropolitan Division, has advised
City staff that MnDOT would probably allow the logos or signs of local service
organizations to be attached to the City's existing entrance monuments. However,
the design of our monuments is such that any attachments to the face of the
monument would obscure portions of the text and/or graphics, and would adversely
affect the aesthetics of the monument. We have not yet been able to determine
whether some type of new structure could be fastened to the top and/or sides of the
monuments, to which service club signs could then be attached. Even if that would
be possible, we haven't determined whether MnDOT would authorize or approve it.
.
It is clear that MnDOT would almost certainly not approve service club signs attached
to individual posts in the right-of way. There is a slightly greater chance that MnDOT
might approve a single structure (separate from, but near, an entrance monument) to
which individual service club signs could be attached. To explore this possibility,
MnDOT will require that a very specific written request be submitted for review and
approval. City staff members are prepared to draft and submit such a request at the
Planning Commission's request or direction.
Another possibility that can be explored would involve putting service club "sign
panels" on the green "City of Farmington" entrance signs (that is, the signs that show
the City's population as of the date of the 2000 census). MnDOT's Traffic Engineering
Manual (see attached Exhibit C) includes provisions that allow "supplemental sign
panels" to be attached to "City Name Markers" under certain circumstances. This
may be a viable alternative to putting service club signs on or near the City's concrete
entrance monuments.
In short: further research and communication with MnDOT will be required before
definitive answers can be obtained regarding which signage options are viable.
2. Dakota County:
.
Two (2) of the locations at which the Farmington Lions want to erect signs are within
Dakota County's rights-of-way (at the north entrance to Farmington on Pilot Knob
Road and at the west entrance on CSAH 50). Dakota County's position with regard to
the sanctity of its rights-of-way is slightly less restrictive than MnDOT's policy.
According to Gordon McConnell, an engineering tech in Dakota County's
Transportation Division, Dakota County would strongly prefer that any service club
signage be physically attached to the City's entrance monuments (which raises several
related issues of the type addressed in the MnDOT section of this Memo, above).
However, Dakota County is apparently willing to at least consider signs that are not
.
.
.
physically attached to our entrance monuments as long as they are (a) located within
the landscaped areas around the monuments and (b) located outside of the "clear
zone" (which is determined by the speed limit, road design and other factors). As
with MnDOT, however, it appears that Dakota County would strongly prefer a single
structure to which individual service club signs could be attached, rather than a
collection of individual posts and signs.
3. City of Farmington:
What the City of Farmington does or doesn't do in this situation will be largely
dependent upon what the two aforementioned jurisdictions will or won't allow. It
would be pointless for the City to approve a Conditional Use Permit for signs that
MnDOT and/or Dakota County would not approve (and that they might, in fact,
remove if the signs were installed before any required permits or approvals had been
obtained from MnDOT or Dakota County).
If it begins to appear, after further staff research, that signage options acceptable to
MnDOT and Dakota County can be achieved, consideration can then be given to
revising the City Code to specifically allow certain types of service club signs to be
placed on or near City entrance monuments, and/or elsewhere within a right-of-way.
Currently, Section 10-6-3(C)(6) of the City Code provides that "no sign shall be upon
or overhang any public right of way."
Any remaining signage-related questions can be addressed after the preceding issues
have been satisfactorily resolved.
RECOMMENDATION
Continue the public hearing again to provide additional time to conduct further research
regarding the issues identified above.
R7tfU ;)
. !!fi/1/l, ti,//A
Kevin Carroll ~ I.
Community Development Director
.
\ . ~ l
AUG. 5.2004 3:18PM
WBL CITY HALL
NO. 809
P.5
.,......Uol:f
((I'
fI~~l~~
.
.
Keith VanWag/1er
Roadway RegulatIon Supervisor
Metropolitan DMslcl'l
'500 West County Road B.2
Roseville. MN 55113
Mobile/Pager: 65'.775.0404
Fal(; 1351-582.145.:
OffIce' 65'-582.1443
:)tn Depnrtmcnt ofTI'3!lSprwtation
ltcnnncc Bulletin Number 97-2
September 16, 1997
BILL WARDEN
TO:
Area Maintenance Engineers
Maintena.nce Superintendents
Signlng Supervisors .. OJ If L
Perrn[~ Specialists /J ! I (t(,{/t--
Rodne} A. PLetan. F.E. 011 It.)
State Maintenance Engineer
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Municipal Identification Entrance Signs
The following guidelines for the installation of Municipal Identification Entrance Signs have
been developed by the Traffic Engineering Organization, have been reviewed by the Federal
Highway Administration and have been approved for all Trunk Highway and National Highway
System Routes.
GUrD~LIN1i;S FOR INSTALLATIQN OF MUNICI:e.AL In~NTIF(CATION
ENTRANCE SIGNS
A MU'.licipal [dentification Entrance Sign meeting all ofthe foHowing g~idelines may be
considered for installation within trunk highway right of way: .
..,A. The sign (l11ess~ge. color) shaH not simulate a traffic control device.
~ The sign shaH not be erected or maintained in such a place or manner as to obscure or
otherwise physically interfere with an official traffic ;:ontrol device or a railroad safety
signal or sign. or to obstruct or physically interfere with the drivers I view of approaching,
merging or intersecting traffic.
~ Distracting flashing or moving lights shall not be allowed [MS 173.15, (7)]. Minnesota
Department of Transportation issued Technical Memorandum 92-3S.ES-07 dated
October 1, 1992 which states that "Lighting which presents a new message, pictorial
image or change illumination at a rate less than once e\'el)' six seconds is determined to
be n flaShing or mo\'tng light and is in violation of MS 173.15, (7)".
$ A sign may be installed along nny two-lane, two-way con\'ention~: hihw~ or.
. c~pressway with at-grade intersections. E1<", lIS ~ r
A
.
.
.
A~G. 5.2004 3:18PM
WBL CITY HALL
NO. 809
P.6
t
~On freeways and ex:.pressways with interchanges, signs m~y be installed only at exit
ramps. \
. -
.
'.
?:. Only one sign shall be allowed per trunk. highway approac:ht into a municipality.
-
-
,/1: Signing is only allowed for inc?rporated municipalities.
/fl A sign shall not be placect any further than 2 miles from the corporate limits and not
before or within the limits of an Other municipality.
~ The sign s~all face trafflc enfCrlng the municipality and may be located on the left-hand
or right-hari~'side of the roadway. ..
,...J:' The sign shal~ be ground mounted and located outside the clear zone as close to the right-
of-way line as practical. .
rThe sign size, including border and trim, should be no larger than 250 square feet. This
size limitation excludes the sign supports or structure. :: 5'''< I 0'::. ~(;)r"" '1'.-
-of Z. ~ /0 ; q~Fr:v
A:':'" Tlte sign may incorporate a logo and a short promotional slogan which has eel!
historically used in identification of the municipality.
Z. . @he sign mess~j!:' s~U not contain advertising ror a commercial product or .e",ice or ,:"Y
'" ~nl1rofi t or~""'zal1on. ~ ""~ 04:t.....! v",.t...---. .,. -f ~ ............... ~.
...J*: The sign shall not cO!ltain any animated Dr moving parts.
~he sign shall not utilize flashing disks.
~: Sign lighting shall be in conformance with MS 173.16, Subd. 3.
@be. sign shall comply with local ordinances. :5 -f~ I ~I V'
SPEcrAL PROVISIONS
I have attached, fot' your convenience, special provisions th~t may be used on any limited use
permit to be issued to a municipality for the erection ofa Municipal Identification Entrance Sign
and a copy of Minnesota Department of Transportation form T.P. 1723, currently under revision,
for your information and use.
cc: Mar,\< Trogstad-Isaacson, 6A
Mik~ Weiss, MS 725
..
.
.
.
.
AUG. 5.2004 3:18PM
WBL CITY HALL
NO. 809
P.?
~
SPF.:Cr.-\L PROVrSr07'.~
,...;I. The permit issued to the municipality is granted solely for the purpose of establishing,
maintaining, and constructing the Municipal Identification Entrance Sign at the location
sho"'~'n in accordance with the attached drawings.
XThe establislunent, maintenance, and construction of the Municipal [dentification
Entrance Sign will be the responsibility of the City at nQ expense to the Department of
Transportation.
/"" It is understood and agreed that the City will be allowed access from.r.he Trunk Highway
roadway for the p~ose of maintaining or repairing the Municipal Identification
\ .
Entrance Sign. ;
~
~. Approval from the Area Maintenance Engineer Will be required for any changes or
deviations from the drawings or special provisions.
1"5': The sign shall be located on the top of the backslope near the right-of-way line. The sign
will not be perntitted in the clear zone (as determined by Department of Transportation
standards), on the shQulder inslope, or in the ditch bottom.
'y"The sign cannot be placed at a location where it will interfere with tbe effectiveness of
any signing, traffic contrQI devices, or interfere in any way with the safe operation of ",'"
motor vehicle traffic, or the safety of pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles. ,.
r The sign installation shall be maintained in good repair. If this requirement is not met,
the applicant will be notified to remove the sign.
~. The City shall be responsible fQr the installation of tempo racy erosion control meaSUres
concurrent with the construction operations or as soon thereafter as practicable.
Temporary erosion control measures are; but not limited to, straw bale structures, silt
curtains, sediment traps, or other means to temporarily protect the overall work prior to
restoration Qfthe work site.
/' T.he City, Upon completion of the Municipal Identification Entrance Sign, shall restore all
dIsturbed slopes and ditches in such a manner that drainage, erosion coC\trol, and
aesthetics are perpetuated.
;Q No assignment of this permit is allowed and no commercial activities will be allowed on
Department ofT ransportation right-of-way.
,.
~1. No advertising in any form. shape, or size shall be constfUcted or permitted to be
constructed upon the right-Qf.way subject to this pennie.
/H. The City will preserve and protect all utilities located on the lands covered by this permit
.
.
.
. AUG. 5.2004 3:18PM
WBL CITY HALL
NO. 809
P.8
~
at no expense to the Department of Transportation; and it shall be the responsibility of the
City to cat! the Gopher State One Call System at 1-800-252-1166 at least 4& hours prior
to performing any excavation or driving any posts.
KThe applicant is required to preserve all existing survey monuments, If the Minnesota
Department of Transportation determines that monuments have been disturbed or
destroyed during construction activities, the applicant shall accept full responsibility for
all costs incurred in the re.establishment of monuments.
Ahis pennit does not release the City from any liability or obligation imposed by Federal
Law, Minnesota Statutes, local ordinances or other""agencies relating thereto; and any
necessary permi~relating thereto shall be obtained by the City.
.
\
7 Any Use permitted by this permit shall remain subordinate to the right.of-way of the
Department of Transportation [0 use the property for highway and transportation
purposes.
jkThis permit shall be subject to cancellation and termination by the Department of.
Transportation for good cause by giving the City written notice at least 60 days prior to
the date:,when such termination shall become effective.
~Upon canceltation of said permit, the City shall be required to remove the Municipal
Identification Entrance SignJ't:ld restore the area to a condition satisfactory to the Area
Maintenance Engineer. R(moval shall be at no expense to the Department of
T ransportati6n.
.'
04,/UAUG. 5.210104L. 3:23PM~BL CITY HRLL --,---.--_.
O~/Q4Ii003 11:21 'AX a5~2811~SS ATTPINEY GE~ apPlCS
NO. SilO
P.7g0B3
.., ~.o....- .
"
"
.
~~~::~~,.
~..1j!.""'.'-~l"., '"
~"~ ..r:/lf"
t,>"":;.:f.::~~~"..\
. ',ft'!~~'~l" ':f
-~~.. ....... ."....
Or" ....' IC . .+.
~,' ,"."," .'. ,.l~""7-
'f..~L:~...~..;
;"~!'}~iI\'~~~
~=:t~E:~~~'
STATE OF MINNESOTA
omcB OF T:BB ,\TrO)lNKY GltNDAL
~ BA'tCIJ
A'rtC'IQ(B.Y ~~1,
April 4.2003
~""'P;Il'I.&T
~24'
11'. p.~""MI'f GgPNJ";
.~~t)m.,1l1D
Mr. Rogor A.Jensen
~, BE.T..L, C~5E k BlUasON
1500 Minnesota Warid Trade Center
30 Ba$t Seventh Street
St. Paul. MN 55101
VlAFAcS~
ANDU.s.MA.JL
R.e: Request for A.UAJmey General" OpiDioD for CiW ofWhlte Bear Lake.
Pla.:emen.t of Semce :md VeterllJl Ol1:ani_tion J,.Ol!os on Mulddp'd
lden$cation :Entreee Sips in.PlIblte RJghlB of Way
Your File !lio. 312.1.1
DeBI'Mr. JenSiBll:
.
Thank you fet your letter dllted .Tanuuy 2.4, 2003 requesting ~ opinion from the mey
General with respect to the p.1ace:oen1 of Cit)' of Wh;te ~ellt Ls1e signs on Slate trUnk ghway
rights-of-way. I apologize for my late ~p~8B. .
FACTS
Yo~ sta~ tl'!:at you sra the Ci~ AttomCy for t.bs City of White Bear Lake., Mi esDta
(the UCity"), YOU$m= that the City hu placed .'mumcipal idcntificatiOJl'. signs wi n state
highway tights-of..way at principle emrance& to the Cif,Y. '111e siBn! conwn the essagc
.'Welcome to 'White Bear I...akt:. Oty of La1c=s Ie Legends." Belew the sign panel contai ng that
lOessage 5& a soparate panel contaiuing logos of v=te:ran a:n.d !~rvicc oxpnizatio'O& having bllptJ::ui
in the City. including the R.otary, Lions Club. VFW. AmBrlcan Legion and Masons. yoq y chat
officialli of the Mj,nnBSota Departr;n.ent of Tran,portaEion (MnDOT) have tmn the posi on that
inclusion of the logos on the signs ls contrary to Mll'ln. StJ-t. i 169.071 which prohibitA in er clia,
. a.ny ttaffic:. signor signal bea:cing Hco;mmerciaJ adv~ising.~'
YOll dQ rIot bll~ave tbat Section 169.01 appliea to the present sitaation bec.ause C;tyls
entrance signs QO not C01l&tilUte "traffic signa", Mofeovlin". you do not 'believe that the 1 gOI for
the ~iee snd v~t<<ans organizations constSwu:. "conuncrci1l1 advert1sing". You rcquelt at this
Office provide the City with an opinion tb~t t1;le CityJs c::nmmCl!l $.igns do not violate . n. Stat.
, 169.07. .
.
~llSllIlllcl (6'1) :S'7.J2.JS - Tnl (GSI) :ag2-25"lS -1llJ1 PrllE wllCl1 c800J "70\\78' (\I'Qicc:). (BOD) 3Ga.4112 (IT"f:) · wwlII,a~.te- a.1I1:
An Equal Oppmal1iL)' ~Q\PlaytfWIIO Vllllll!~ ~1VCl!il)' (I Prtl\lCd l:II\ SOlJ rIIt)'ded ~ [I3~ oat CQJ'ISIl",llI' eOllrtnll
· E~Jh.'7 B
.l..-
"
.
.
.
U4/Ut=lUG. 5.2004.( 3:23PM nitwBL CITY HI=lLL "Al'f"Jl"''f..D.CiJ,.J...l..urn~OJ:i
0:4104/ZOD.3 H= U... FAX U..lll71UB ATTOJOm'i cmmmAoL OPF~CB
.
NO.S10
p.SIUU",
ii OllZ
'"
::
Roger A. Jensen
Aprl14.J003
Pap 2.
LAW ~~J) ANA.LYSJS
ReBponsibility and authority tor manllg=oent and X8~Btian of the Bta.te tronk high ays,
. including highway rj~ht.s.of-w~, hes been delegated by tb,a legi&l~ to tM Cosnmissi e,r of
Transpootadon. Sefe. e.g. M'mn. Stat. it 160.02, Subd. 25, 161.20, 173_02.5 (2002). 'sin this
Offioc lVOYidcs 1egall1.dvicc: a.nd reJ)l'e~ntation to the commislioner in COJ)D.cc.tion ~f her
duties, we are unab1!' to pm~c:lc to you a fonnaJ opinion on tba issue.. Notwitkatandin this
limhation. 1 belic,ve that I ca,n provicle th~ fooD owing comments. wl1ich I hope that you wi find
nelptuJ-
It does not appear that the logDI of veteraJlS and sm:vicm 1DI0& constitute lOt: . a1
acl veni sing" for Pm.Pole& of Minn. Stat. 1169.07. MinD. Stat. t 169.07 dees not efine
"commarcialadvertisinK'. As used in c:amm.0Jl parlance, however, "conm:iCldaI" is dc:fi as
"pertaining te, at engaged in oOlmI1QI'Oe}' 'Th~ A1nt!11can H~7frQge .Dit:rio1ft!/.~ 267 ( 981)-
"Commerce" i~ defined as "the buying Of selling of goo~ ... business; trade." la-
The organiz~tignjl: whose logos iJ1'e plac:cd on rhe City's entrance cians Ilt'e pres bly
nDnprofit o~gal1izal:ians e$tablishcd to serve the community and its meJ:nbern. The orgmiz tjOllS
do not appcm to be: enga~d in What is commDnly thought of as cmmn=e csr business, but ther
philanthropic, memb~sbip lUld comm.unity activities. As a tesult, we do not beUlIlye t the
placement of thail' logos on City enlr.mcc sips constit11le9 "'comrnerQa! adv~ising".
With respect to whechet the entra.nce signl c:cnlltitutc "traffic signSt'" ",e do not n to
addte!s tbat ig8UC sinee we do not beliB\'e [hat the logos, in any event, CQITstitUte ~'CD erciaJ
a.dverti&ing .'.
CO~CLUSION'
I -
: In light of the ,above, we dD not- believe that the placement of logos of yeter
S=Mce organizations on the Cir:y's =ntnlncc signs is probibirad by Minn. Stat. 1169.07.
re ;B. , JR.
AssiBt~nt Au'Ot11cy G~l
(liSl) 297-1141
'.
~,
AUG. 5.2004 3:26PM.,. WBL CITY HALL.
. 'TRRF'F=IC ,ENplNEERING Fax:6S1-205-4~26
. Mar 8 '01
NO. 811 P.10.
11:34 ,P.02
July 1. 2.QOO
-
TRAFFlC ENGiNEERING 'f.V~NUA.L. .
..
2. Qperll,Llomd Gui s .
S,ign XiJmbtr 12-3 ~~ ld norm1Hy be install!:~ a.t
the: attU\ll corpora.te ,oundaI)', 5ubje~t to t\1e
fOllowing guidelir.es:, .... .
!. ~etropo\ita.l\ eM : (Sevcl\ .Count)'
)'1inneapolis-St. I.Metto Mea and'Duh.r:ch)
. .
lnl\ta1\ ~i81l'I2.3 or n=ur th~ corporate limits .
on ':111 trunk hig WilY~. inchu.1illg iacc:rn.a.te
'highways.' .', . .' .
.b. AU .orner areas or., l\esQ~
instill Ssi!n 12.3 at ne'ar the,.corporate limits.
, o!" all. trUl1k hlghw s, u.c:lu~ing inrerstate
"t~h.\II&Ys: , .
, ,.
c: On inter, stine high s, ~ following' criteria
.' '"apply:' '..
1) [f the corpo ,litniu of a community l\t'e
cross~d by tl rerst~te highwa.y, anti there. is
no irtterchlln servin]j'the c:ol'rununity, ,inst:l.l1 . '
~ ~ign 011 e intersutl:l: hig~way at the
. , ,corpot"4.le Jimt rQSSl~s:
2) If. the corporat Umit$ o( a. community "rQ
" cro:ised' by the ntersca~ highway" and an
interChange di"r tly se~es The community
and the: co~mu 11 is not identjfied, on either'
thc major inte ange guidill 51:'15 Dr on a
supplet:nental ide sign. install th~ sign' on '
. .the interstate ghway at the c:otpornte Umit
crosslng~., " '"
3} If the corpo e limits' of a corMlunitt':a-t':
crossed by lnte:rst9Ie' highway. . and a.n,
inrereh:u\ge .etdy serves ,(be communitY
and thF comm it)'is identified on either (h.~ .
major imerch $a' gu.ide, s.igns. at. on 9.
s\1pp\~entat g id~ siFn, do nDt. install the,
. sign on thf: int tat~ hl,g~way. .
I a , '
Where proper city n. have two. wordS. it milY be .'
. desirl1ble to ammgc th nilllle on two lines ~hcr 'than
. one, '~speciO\Uy whcm ~ wordS are long. City na.mes
. , shall not be abbreviate " ': '
,AU cit)'na:!1e signs sh. ;nc:lu.dc the population fl~\1~.
The figure used shall hat of the last official Feaeral
~r StOl.te census. Popul ion figures ~ changed ol\ly
ilf'tel' :m aft1dll.\ census~ f il community dl!C;idts it does
not want \Qe 'pcp~l:ltion ~ltidcQ, on this sign. ~tnJ,Da1:
,,-'ilI.cover thIS legend. , , .
An e~'ception ~o the a ve applias \0 unincorporated
c'omli.lltnitit.S which' \\13. . nt city name signs. but for'
'which popui:stion cou" sie not ilvaitn,bte. Th~ siari
installed. at tnesa to tion$ shall c::arrv cn\y the'
com..-nLlnity t\.i'tt\le=: .
'.
.
. ,
.
.' ,
. ,
_1
~~f@lr(@J,
~~~~
6-8:02.04 CommfJn~ . Reao' nition S;gQsJpanets)
1. .mu-cdl1ctlon Ba.cl:gronn','
There, has !jIeen' a cDntinuing series of requestS by
. citi~ to attllch. s'\1pplemcntat sj~ 'p~nels to the ~ity .
Name Ml\rk~'s'an. The Co~unlty R~cgI1lnon
, Sign Program allows' communities to exp~ss' their
oWn~ iden*y~ Pennittin. t '. a ino- of si
,panels' aUow.s... i: .comtt1l1ni to Ie w 31
.locall .im orea.m or' $t :U10l'l On tr\1n hi13b\V3:
, ~ \[s-Q -way.
. 2. R.csttiCl\O'l\S .
CQm~unity Rec:o~njtion Signs '~ill n~t"be' a;lIo~ed
0[1 Interswt: fC'l:i;w",y~ !Statewide, or on fr~wa.ys
. an:dex.pces~wlL)'S. in the' seVet)..eoun~ ~o area
(Anakll.. CaNer. D3kota, ~enaepin:, Ramsey. Scott;
~d W~hington counties). . .",
3- General GllidcUl\cs . , ..
a. ~~ple!i of ~ p.anels ~t :Ire ~itted:
l) Non,.,prof'jt $crvi~r: or~i7..a.tions
2) Speci:1l ~ro!!;rains, ~ithcr': pcim3nc:nt or
t~porary~ e.,g. DARE, rree.~ity, etc. .'
3) City logo ", .
- --.., ' '
,'. '1) City.n:cognit{on' slo:ans; e.g. State Baseball .
Ch~plons, . .." .
, ~) Drl:Dking W~te.r Pro~ec:tion' ^~:'S. sign p:lne1
b~ The: ~ign pll.hcts shall be initiatl?d ~d
. coQrdini1tcd. by t.h.r: communit)'.
c. v of $'... oe:.l$' ma be
, ]l!:rmittec1. up to a ~QW of 1800 nun .1(1
'J=ngfu cy GO rom .. _f In tl'" t. ese p:ll'1e s
, m~y, be m!:C1 On:loftra y et e:r, bdow the.
City Name Marker siiJ1 or. i.f preferred, by :[he .
di~rricddivision.. below ;lI\ ejt."isring 'St~ City'
!:ign 'pane\ if ~t is mounted on itS own StIUCtl1fi. ..
d. The messa~ on '~isn p2.n~\s' sh~n nOt $l.muJa~e a
. m.ftic: control d,;:vicc Of ,contain.. directional s.ign
mes;ages,. or advcnising for .to commerci3J
p'C'Odu~t or service. . .
e.' Political Qr c:ommeft=l:l.t tdvet'\tslng' wilt. no\ be
, .."l\o.....ed 0" sign panel!.. " .
r. Tl~e sign ,Panei dasi~ Shl11 be approved,liy ~he
dist(ic:eld~,'i~ion tr:l-mc e('\~inccr.' .'
~Ih&-r .c...
6-60
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463.2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
tt'fV
City Planning Commission
FROM:
Tina Schwanz
Planning Intern
SUBJECT:
Amend Sections 10-2-1 and 10-6-4 of the Zoning Code to Regulate
Commercial Vehicle Parking in Residential Districts
DATE:
August 10, 2004
INTRODUCTION
Staff proposes to amend Section 10-6-4 of the City Code to include regulations regarding
commercial vehicle parking in residential districts. The current City Code does not
address commercial vehicles and staff would like to specify which types of commercial
vehicles are appropriate on private property in residential districts.
.
BACKGROUND
On July 13, the Planning Commission continued the proposed amendment of sections 10-2-
1 and 10-6-4 of the Zoning Code to allow staff additional time to research issues related
to the regulation of commercial vehicles in residential districts. One of the items
identified for further research was the weight classification cutoff for the Class I
commercial vehicle definition. The proposed Ordinance stated that vehicles with a gross
weight of ten thousand pounds or more would normally not be allowed to park on private
property in residential districts. The Commission felt this weight to be too restrictive and
directed that more research be completed.
Staff has completed further research on the above mentioned item and has attached
sample pictures of different commercial gross vehicle weights for viewing purposes.
DISCUSSION
.
Based on complaints staff has received there is a need to determine what types of
commercial vehicles mayor may not be permitted to park on private property in
residential districts. After reviewing several other city codes that regulate commercial
vehicle parking in residential districts, staff decided to classify commercial vehicles into
two different categories. The categories are: Class I - regulated by gross vehicle weight,
and Class II - all commercial vehicles other than Class I commercial vehicles. The reason
for separating commercial vehicles into two categories is to enable the City to limit the
circumstances under which larger or visually obtrusive vehicles [Class I] can be parked in
residential areas, while allowing smaller or more common trucks and vans to be parked at
.
.
.
residents' homes. Staff is now recommending that the threshold for Class I vehicles be
raised from 10,000 pounds to 21,000 pounds.
ACTION REQUESTED
Recommend approval of the proposed (attached) Ordinance amending Title 10, Chapters
2 and 4 of the Farmington City Code, the City's Zoning Ordinance, concerning off-
street parking of commercial vehicles.
Respectfully Submitted,
Tina Schwanz
Planning Intern
.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTERS 2 AND 4
OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE,
CONCERNING OFF -STREET PARKING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 10-2-1 of the Farmington City Code is amended to add a
definition of "Commercial Vehicle" to read as follows:
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE: Any vehicle used for commercial purposes including but
not limited to: trailers, motorized wheeled or tracked vehicles or vehicles displaying
company signage, company logos, commercial equipment, fixtures or tools.
CLASS I: Vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of twenty-one
thousand (21,000) pounds or more, or any ofthe following types of vehicles
regardless of weight, including but not limited to: semi-trailers, the tractor portion
of semi-trucks, garbage trucks, tank. trucks, dump trucks, flatbed trucks, tow
trucks, cattle trucks, coach buses or school buses designed to carry more than
. twenty (20) persons or any similar vehicle.
CLASS II: All vehicles other than class I commercial vehicles including pickup
trucks, vans, trailers and school buses designed to carry twenty (20) persons or
less.
SECTION 2. Section 10-6-4 of the Farmington City Code is hereby amended by
adding the following provision as a new subsection N and re-alphabetizing the existing
subsections N-P as subsections O-Q:
(N) Commercial Vehicle Parking On Residential Property: No commercial vehicles
or contracting or excavating equipment may be parked, stored or otherwise
located on any residential lot within the City except as provided herein:
1. Class I Commercial Vehicles:
a) Class I commercial vehicles may be parked or stored on a residential
lot with a minimum lot size of two and one-half (2 Y:2) acres. The
commercial vehicle must be entirely screened from neighboring residential
property with a one hundred percent (100 %) opaque screen consisting of
wooden fencing, landscaping, berms or a combination of the foregoing. A
commercial vehicle shall not be parked or stored within one hundred fifty
feet (150') of any neighboring residential dwelling unit.
.
.
b) Class I commercial vehicles may be parked on a residential lot when
loading, unloading, rendering a temporary service benefiting the premises
or providing emergency services.
2.
Class II Commercial Vehicles:
Class II commercial vehicles may be parked on a residential lot if used as
the resident's primary form of transportation to the resident's job or if
associated with a permitted home business.
3. A Class I or Class II school bus may be parked on a residential lot
(Monday-Friday) between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon
its passage and publication.
ADOPTED this _ day of
of Farmington.
, 2004, by the City Council of the City
CITY OF FARMINGTON
(SEAL)
.
Gerald G. Ristow, Mayor
ATTEST:
David Urbia, City Administrator
Approved as to form the
day of
, 2004.
City Attorney
Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of
, 2004.
.
.
.')....~
' ," ~t i ~ ~
~ I~ '" \ =, - W
I" '1\ \ f .
! I DR4/~
~ l,()~
j ~
2 t:f
. ,~
~ ~....'
l~'.)\~
..
. '
,i 'J,. ' , \
.~ "... \ ' '1:
. ~ :.'..:'tJ~~ i' i"
~/l .'
. --
j' ~iJj.\O
f"l. O.
,{r 0 -
~' .....
y./,. ~,..,..,
~,r tv ~
l' I"~O' (:l)
1'-' ~ C/l
. . 0 en
: \ 9.
., 0".
I" <.t
(,I ::s Jl
'-'",
/' ;"",
Ii .
.'~"''''' ..
l)'rJ.-" '.t~
.....,,~.~~, r"
.....,,, '
=
~I.'.~E
=,. s:
~ '" " ~ m
~~ , 2 Z
me.:' ". PCil
o,cn..m-
~~ )>01
tO~..~~
~ , Z m
~ CilD
g: .,
\i
Ai
JJ
. . I~ I
, J~ ~~
, If It-
L___ ..J~.....I ~~\
.
.
'\
~,
~"'~
\0.....
~ (:l)
OU)
Oen
0'
I'm
J
--
v\O
o
o
.....
I
.....(1
tv ......
v (:l)
Oen
oen
0'Tj
o
<
::s
'-'"
.
.
.
J
I ,
,.-..,
.....
VI
'0(")
0.....
.....p)
I tIl
..... tIl
~OO ::r:
o
o.
o
"-"'
II
.. '";::J
Vi
~ ~~ a (")
11 0 ~
" ..... p)
I tIl
..... tIl
~~
o
o
"-"'
rJ
to
1;'1
.
~
tv
~O'\
o
o
.......
'n
v.> __
v.>~
~ CIl
OCll
g~
o
-<
:E
'-'
.
.
I
l
r :
f
.~~
~'.~;~f~
.~
r'l\~l,
~l
~"',:l::.
<~
. ;B~
,a"
i~,. ...'_
\. ,
v.' ,
&'. "
I lZ, .
I '
.~' "
.
..
1~ )
.,
~
,@~
VI
o
o
.......
,~l I n
Ij. VI ~
.......~
. ~ CIl
'i'. g CIl
'f. 0 Z
.0
.: -<
~:E
. '-'
.,
~
07/15/2004 14:38 FAX
.
.
.
6514056188 ~
it)
/'0' .
\ \~" i .'
~ ~
@002l002
MSP DISTRICT 4700
.,'t.',
11' ,i'
~ 'If),) \~,
(a) On ~rucks and tractors except those in this chapter defined
as farm truc~a. on truck-tractor and semitrailer combinations
except those Qefined as farm combinations, and on commercial
zone vehicles, the tax based on total gross weight shall be
graduated according to the Minnesota base rate schedule
prescribed in this gubdivision. but in no event less than $120.
Minnesota BaSe Rate Schedule
Scheduled taxes include five percent
surtax provided for in subdivision l~
TOTAL GROSS WEIGH'!'
IN POUNDS TAX
A 0 - 1,500 S 15
B 1.501 - 3,000 20
C 3,001 - 4.500 25
D 4,501 - 6,000 3S
E 6.001 - 9.000 45
-F 9,001 - 12.000 70
G 12,001 15,000 lOS
B 15.001 - 16,000 145
I .18,QOl - 21.000 190
J 21,Q01 - 26.000 270
~ 26,001 - 33,000 360
L 33,001 - 39.000 475
M 39,001 - 45,000 595
N 45,001 - 51.000 715
o 51,001 - 57,000 865
P 57,001 - 63,000 1015
a 63,001 - &9,000 1185
~ 69,001 - 73,260 1325
S 73,281 - 78,000 1595
T 78.001 - 91,000 1760
(b) FOr purposes of the Minnesota base rate schedule, for
vehicleS with six or more axles in the uS. and "T" categories,
the base rates are $1,520 and Sl,620 respectively.
(c) For each vehicle .ith a geose weight in excess of
81,000 pounds an additional tax of S50 is imposed for each ton
or fraction t~ereof in excess of 81,000 pounds. s~bject to
subdivision 12.
(d) Truck-tractors except those herein defined as farm and
commercial ~One vehicles sh~ll be taxed in accord with the
foregoing gross weight tax schedule on the basis of the combined
gross weight of the truck-tractor and any semitrailer or
semitrailers which the applicant proposes to combine with the
truck-tractor.
(el Commercial zone trucks include only trucKs,
tr~ck-tractors. and semitrailer combinations which are:
(1) used by an authori~ed local cartage carriec operating
under a permit issued under section 221.296 and whose gross
transportation revenue consists of at least 60 percent obtained
golely from local c~rtage carriage, and are operated solely
75
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Planning Commission K r '-
FROM:
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
SUBJECT:
Riverbend Final Plat
DATE:
August 10, 2004
INTRODUCTION
Newland Communities proposes to final plat 140 single-family residential lots on 107.23 acres in
the Riverbend Final Plat (see Exhibit A). The proposed subdivision is located west of Dakota
County Estates and north of the Meadow Creek development in the northeast corner of the City of
Farmington (see Exhibit B).
DISCUSSION
Platting Process
The Developer received City Council approval of an R-2 Planned Unit Development on February 5,
2001 (see Exhibit C). The concept approved at this meeting showed 272 single-family lots ranging
in size from 6,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet. Because of the number of lots proposed in
this concept plan, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was required.
However, because of the strong opposition from neighbors in surrounding subdivisions concerned
about the traffic impacts associated with the number of lots proposed, the Developer reduced the
number of single-family lots from 272 to 140, eliminating the need for an EAW and reducing the
overall traffic impacts from the proposed subdivision. The preliminary plat was approved by the
City Council on December 17, 2001 showing 140 single-family lots (see Exhibits D and E).
The Subdivision Code at the time of approval of the preliminary plat required that the Developer
submit a final plat within 100 days of approval of the preliminary plat. (The current code under
Section 11-2-2 (D) subd. 3 allows the submission of a final plat within one year of the approval of
a preliminary plat.) The Developer requested an extension of the 100 days to August 1, 2003. The
Developer received approval of this extension from the City Council on March 18, 2002 (see
Exhibit F). Due to further issues associated with the plat including FEMA approval for a Letter of
Map Revision (see Exhibit G) on July 21, 2003 (see Exhibit H) the City Council granted a further
extension for the submittal of the final plat to August 1, 2004 (see Exhibit I). The Developer
submitted the Riverbend Final Plat on July 14, 2004.
.
Final Plat
The Developer proposes to plat 140 single-family lots on 107.23 acres in the Riverbend
development. A total of five out lots make up the remainder of the plat. Outlots A, B, and C
consist of storm water management ponds, Outlot D consists of the neighborhood park, wetlands,
and floodplain, and Outlot E is preserved for the east/west corridor right-of-way
Lot Sizes ft: Housing Characteristics
The Developer proposes lot sizes ranging from 10,000 square feet to 26,566 square feet with lot
averages at 12,751 square feet in the development. The Developer proposes an average lot width
of 86 feet. The minimum lot size within the R-2 PUD single-family zone is 6,000 sq. ft. The
minimum lot width is 60 feet measured at the front yard setback. All of the proposed lots in the
project meet or exceed these requirements.
Two housing types are proposed including 89 split entry lots and 51 split entry walkout lots. The
property is marketed toward housing in the $275,000-375,000 price range. Amenities to the
project include low maintenance entryway features, boulevard tree plantings, wetland
preservation, parkland dedication, standardized mailbox structures, sidewalks and trails and
architectural controls that will ensure the construction of a quality neighborhood. Approximately
80% (112 lots) of the lots proposed in Riverbend will be provided with amenities such as a park,
pond or wetland adjacent to the lots.
Population Projections
. The Developer has estimated a maximum build-out of 140 units. The maximum population of
Riverbend would be approximately 350 persons.
Traffic Analysis
The Developer proposes four accesses from the Riverbend project including two accesses to the
west through Dakota County Estates at Upper 182nd Street and Upper 183rd Street. These
roadways are classified as local streets and are proposed at 32 feet wide front to front with a 60-
foot right-of-way. Three accesses are proposed to the south through the Meadow Creek
subdivision. Dunbury Knoll and Duluth Street are classified as local streets and are proposed at 32
feet wide front to front with a 60-foot right-of-way. Dunbury Avenue is classified as a minor
collector and is proposed at 38 feet wide front to front with a 70.foot right-of-way. The access
from Riverbend to the north will connect with a County east/west corridor in the future. At the
December 3, 2001 Dakota County Plat Commission meeting (see Exhibit J), the Commission
approved the preservation of a 75-foot wide right-of-way for a proposed east/west corridor
through Lakeville and Farmington. This proposed east/west corridor has been identified by
Dakota County to connect between Pilot Knob Road and Trunk Highway 3. As indicated by the
attached letter from the City of Lakeville dated December 3, 2001 (see Exhibit K), Lakeville does
not agree with the County's plan for an east/west corridor north of Riverbend because of a
wetland mitigation site located north of the project and the need to bridge the railroad.
The estimated daily traffic volumes for four of the roadways are as follows:
.
.
.
.
180th Street - 350
Upper 182nd Street - 165
183rd Street - 80
Upper 183rd Street - 440
Cul-De-Sac in Meadow Creek
The Developers for Riverbend and Meadow Creek have agreed on the connection of a cul-de-sac to
allow lots to be platted in the northwest corner of the Meadow Creek plat.
utUWes
Water access is available through Dakota County Estates. Sanitary sewer access will be provided
through a connection to the Metropolitan Council interceptor line to the east of Riverbend. A 60-
foot wide gas line easement runs from the southwest corner of the site to the northeast near the
central portion of the easterly half of the site. No structures may be located within the
easement.
Wetlands
The wetlands shown on the site are classified as Manage 2 and Protect wetlands. The Manage 2
wetlands are located in the central portion of the site. Manage 2 wetlands have typically been
altered by human activities. Manage 2 buffer widths require a minimum buffer of 20 feet and a
structure setback from the outer edge of the buffer of 10 feet, thereby requiring a structure
setback of 30 feet from the wetland. The Protect wetland is located in the northeast portion of
the property and will not be affected by development.
Floodplain
The floodplain takes up most of the easterly half of the property. A letter of Map Revision was
sent to FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) in 2002 and the Developer has received a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision allowing the Developer to grade on the property. After grading
has been completed and as-built surveys have been performed and documented, the Developer
will apply for a Formal Letter of Map Revision from FEMA.
Parks ft Trails
The Developer proposes a park area in the central portion of the site and trails located throughout
the easterly portion of the development. The Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed the
preliminary plat and has approved the park location and trails. The Developer currently shows a
trail connection with Meadow Creek in the south central portion of the Riverbend plan along with
a sidewalk on the east side of the north/south collector street. The City of lakeville has
suggested that a trail connection with Riverbend be established with a proposed trail in lakeville.
The Farmington Parks & Recreation Commission has directed the Developer to provide a 10-foot
wide trail connection with lakeville.
The Engineering Division has approved the Riverbend Preliminary Plat contingent on the approval
of construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities.
.
.
.
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff recommends approval of the Riverbend Final Plat and forward the recommendation to the
City Council contingent upon the following:
1. Execution of a Development Contract between the Developer and the City of Farmington
and submission of security, payment of all fees and costs and submission of all other
documents required under the Development Contract.
2. Any engineering issues be addressed and approval of construction plans for grading, storm
water and utilities by the Engineering Division needs to be granted.
2~ed'
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
cc:
Brian Wellman, Newland Communities
File
@
.
~
~
f5
s
tc
f l ~I
~ 1 ~
~ .~
i I~
.. ~
! .,
~ Ii -I
5 0 5
~ ~ ,~
l ~ .0
; " ~~ ~ I .
i g
" ~ ~.~ ~ ~
, G ~ ., ~
5 , .' t~
5 l ~~ ~ ~~ ~'"
.. /~ ~~ ~A ~~ ...
{ i ,~ ~i ~8
.j ~ ~o ~~ ~.2 ~o
i ~ j d~ n H p ~j
, ~ ~ u~
! ~ ~ :~ ~
., I' -., ~~
, .~
<- :E"a
~ -.
5 ~~ 0,
ff ~ Iii s~
t ~ ~~ ., I
.
" .. ~~
0 ~~ :::.'\1
i .. ,0
~ Sa LI
.! .1 ~~
!~ :I ~=; ~o
I~ .. " ~~. :~
u . ~ !H 5.
{' ~j I ~
~ii
u. ~i; ~ ~! ,;
r
:, ~ ~.5 ~~ . . ~~i
l~ . ~l ~ Ui t:i; l;:ii'
aii ~ s;i , ~'. ~h
~ ~ ~5 Q-
~
<C
:z
:E
::i
w
a:
~
~ t li~j; & ii i 1 ~
.< .g i: ~_s ;
~ I 15 .::a ~ '~ ~ o~ o~ ~
~Ho~ ~l$ <(i ~ ~:i~ ~
s ~ 1~
~ ~:z: _'" .~~ ;,; ~i;1 ~ ~
".~ I a ~ ~
f~ ! -;;S..:l<IS s~ . ~. ~l~: .
~~ll! ,2:5 :,i
. a:i. ~..o: ~& 8l:r~ t~~:!
'tI'i; ! ;5 i~i
~Q H ~ 0: ~rl g'~' ~
~: ., :!:~~ ~o .< .J i li......o:. ~~
. ~ .J '. ~~i~~
.2"5 0; a; i~ j~ ~
~ ~ .H.~~ I ~ F ~:~~~ ~~
~ lr~~~ ~i ~S 5
~~ ~ .. ~ ..
h ~~ "0 Q~:... Q ~~ 0 ::
00 j ~a~:: f ~ .t-~ .. l~~ &~
j'~ ::1 1;15;':5 .i u. i ! ~i ~ !
H i a~ ~iatl
:3t:~i .. ~ ~. ~c I
" .. ~ ".~ g!
. .....~ . ~~ 151:& &~ts~
. . l~ ! ~ ~j. '"liii
!~ E :6t~s] ~~t ~~ H~,. .5;;: ~J
jj j .- !~ H
s~ ~:~~i n i! II! it~~~ ..
.' ::Ci
." :f ~~':is ~i jt ~ ~~ ~ ct'0!:~ "a ~ 3 ~~ ~ e ~i~
~~ ,. ""~._~
i~ ~ li.!-as~ I:lo n 0 I m ~t~~:C: j
5 " ~.~ I:~l~ ". ~ li.:.s;f~ ~~
H :! i~~l!~l 12 ~!]S;
~~ l' 9.., jI~ r-
oO & =:.!~r: d ~s ~~~~: ~~
~i .~t.~:~: !~ ..
'* ~~ 1):t:,~ ~ ~".Q ~=
~" 'Q ;:s:~ s::i p " fiJ 1~~!: _ i
i! .' ~l ~~
~ ~~:isl ~= g g I) 1 ""s~~ ..
&;;""'2-1)&" it ~l ~~~ .~:&~ ~1
Ol~ i~~!;!l: :~ o~ i~::i ~-'.i ~I
:n ~t !s~i~
,.~ ~rs:~l~~ 3:5i i~t ~~i~; ~H
..~ ~~ - 1: ~ ~~~
I! ~-t ~_i:'" ~l::- ~~!:~ ~ .
:.ra~j;~j :~~ i~ i ~~.. i ~~
.:, :?'-i E~v;
I) \) \)0.. ~ ~~a i~ tIoc a ~ i~;~ [!s2!
~~ ~~~l~.!~~ bU.
~~li~'~~i ~;i iff ~~r~~ 1'::~a1 ~~h
~. ". ' ~" !~~.~.
~~ .n fil ,. "'I- ='< ~~.I
s. lit lS~,< _ u:S~.lii t; IS...
~:').
[!!!!j-'
~ ~
= "<t
I!!!!l
@ ~
I!!!!l
~
Q,
OS
o~
~1
...~
f3i
:t~
o
.
~
~
f5
s
ct
.21'"--------"
~ ~,J ~ :
:Of l:! '
1:' ___J
~! $ I $ :
:s: ~: ~ :
r.:..::,,:~~
"
,..~~
~~'b
~ ol~
s~~
~;:~
. .0
~ i'o
l;j
.. oJ ~
"<ll.
~
<C
:z
::E
::::i
w
a:
a..
llh
iO~:S
~~j:
~~:~
t:i I ~
lj~~
~~.~ ;
~ 5.1j!.
:t ~.li_
~
~
~ .,
~
~ J:
/,?r,- - - - - - _J.;..fJ()~t~~ - - - - - 70fifl - - - - - ----!!:..~ -.: - -,r - - -~..
/ ! rl''-S''/13l'f_J'>_I~ \
~ , :
~~il ~,
li~::t:l I I "
~~l~~ : \
, J
:~ !
,3 i
, '
I :
I 1
, '
I :
, '
, :
, :
1 :
I, '
I' :
~ i
1= i
,. ,
, :
, :
1 :
, :
, :
I :
I :
, :
I, :
.
~
~
(:-~~
t
, -'>
"l~;.-
i
.
~
I
"
~
,>
~.
.'
<'
":~:""
\'
q
i
,
i~
,~
s-
.!!. <:>
.-
.s;
::!:~ :!
....::; '<i
;: ~
.s. I1J
~. ; :t
- ,
~l ~
Q. '" I'l
"
~ III
..
:"
b
:>
~
"" :z >:
.,
h~
.::f'" ii~
s . ~J'
if~~~~"
a::;:
53..:..':'':'$3
.
.
~
~
m
s
i:t
.
f?::-:"!f
:.~~
~~-b
~ J:
5~:
'a~a
h:
s~-
g~~
~&~
>-
a:
<
:z
::i!:
::;
w
a:
Q,.
~i~
Oi'fil
8's;=~
~s.:~
!:~~
;j~.~
l!ti~
:.i ~,
~~ as
a; %'0
e..:;.!ols;
o tfi ~
Z ....!ii_
~ j ,\
i
,
~ 8~
"
~~
~ ~~
..
-."
,~
",
fi"
.11
~~
- ,
~s
i .-
~ 0:
~
_ _ ----=..!fI'jUZ
tl ~ '~/'3N_P'-_-j:::;r- - -- '8::m:- - - - L-i'!!:.W'..e!!......
--~Q-
J.~;').Tlr)'!"~. \ Q ~
..~j'.,."o!> \ () ~
~1~~~.# ~ l
.....
CI)!
~~
::&~
/r- - - -
,
I
,
,/~1
I I
: I
: I
: ~:
!,
,
,
I
,
,
,
I
I
I
.1
'I
~l
i:1
"I
"
I
I
,
,
,
I
,
I
"
./
fJ
c'
",
....I~)
-,'
,>'
530.08
.....,
r; ~)
I H! I
.,./ .
. /
../
S 08026'10. !
~ z
"'':M$'~/I:JIj''''JO_~,
Ncwee,:,
S3:.'t.:.51
't}.C>I'tC
.It.:,B
S31't}.S3
.'.1....r:o:;
't;,C>I'tC
~ Q, 1!
~ "" 0$
li~ j : o~ i
!:t: . , Us !:II:: .~ ..
~ ~~";i<i :!-~ . I ~si ....; "a
. I
. - :-a. 0 01--< .s;~i !/)a ~
.:;4., ti!:l !:~
lii~ ~~ ~ I ~ ~.
'( " , . r--- ---, . .t
Z g ., :;~ i ~~ I .. ~~J ~ ~,: :; I .!
IS.~-,s ! L__J 11 ...... ~ :0" r .
t~~i ~. I>l =~ ~ ~ ,
'. ~ --r ----, o ~ 6..!. /:1 ___J ~
i~~; ~l ~ I ~ stl 5! ;, I .
" r , ;, I ,
E~E~ : ~ 5 r ~~~ '" , .
~ r ..
'%l a~ :.; ~ , .s;.2;; I ~ ,
:li! 01--< ~I~ ("PII_~ .
~~ , ~..,,_:t':) :l
~ .~ I ....~2'<i
g ~ .. ,
~~ is , lif;
,
.
.
~
~
m
:s
tt
>-
a:
<4:
Z
:E
.:J
w
a:
0..
"'
.d
....~
Ill~
~n
"'i
:;;
,if
i~
r
,
a'
a'
1
I
L__ OO~j
;- '-0""."'-
ar
.,
I
L____Of!.~1
f- u,......
a,
.,
I
L____oo'!!.,_
~ r--3SI.60.DON-
~~: ~
. I
11: L____i?!?~1
f- L"';;'"
a,
..
.,
'"
~ i'i~
0"_1
~ ...
il'
..
"~'t/I:JllMUJ._' '
3 .~l.tJO.oo N
.
.
~
~. lQl
-.... ... ~
""'" lI.I ~
~~ (I) i
!itii
:s ...!
rc
.
>-.
~
Z
~.
:::;
w'
a:n
Q.
~ ~ ~~--
::ji ....~J
~l
~!
---.,.
~ :
lot I
-;-1
~ I ~ I
t : ~ :
r? _ -:y':f .l
~ j
"
~
" $
.
f& J
""" .j~""I3N"W,*_W-"",
..., ,.. ...,,.. OOI~
::'1' II . '.
-I I " ""It 1 -., ;~, '"'~ ~
~l I, ;-"11 '" ~iJ:il ~'
" 81 I..,: .., )::1 I:: I
81 I:! ~: :~ ... l!i , . ~S=-S
.1 I I ~ il
.1 I , ~'!!~!
'I
~
1.S 0l:/OI I:EIJ4I 'gll-
~i;.l~-
8
~
s t
:it ..i
"""I r---~~l1- i \/ 11
: : 7 ~ :
:--i : L.~- -~.1
~ it la !Q:
a: :' ,
~I I J
'I I
II :
..J L_ O!!~j.J
AI .t.'.~~ N ... rtn, ~
qg~t.
~
t
qat'
6 ~!i
E!W
~c1o':
J
.-
"i-.s;
a:~:S
Oi'fi'i
~.sl~
~~i~
i,.o
H~
l~~~
:~p
~] ~~
nP
~~a
~ e:.!O_
,
,
,
I
I
0'.....
,
,
i 10 It) I
! __ L_ J
~ -'-T ---,
i I
:; 1
g Ol~
go I
.5 '
~ :
,
lie
~~ ~
:1I'i
? ~H
eX:" ~
<) ~li..!.
~ i'~.i
.s;..2..
:.~~
:t1t
~it~
!li
.,:..
&~
,"
i~
~~
~~
: ~
.,0
:;.'4!
\~.
. .
~~
8
i L
.
,
.
J
...
~
~
a
~
s
f_
~~
0$
l!I:::~
.....
(I)~
!lAJ
~~
.
.
.
~ ~
~~ 0
8
O.I ~
~
~~ ~
.....
(1)1 ii
~! ~
!!h
~Q~:
~~t~
t~~i
~~!;
~~ E~
ne,
E~ii 1.
.g~.!O-
.
~
118
~si
.s.l~
;.li: ~
ji.i
! ;;~
II) ~ S{
~ .c:lfl..
~:i~
'- '
-5;.9:.
~:~!~
~!.st
~~!..
~ a <:1:5
----.,
~ \
~ :
~ I -~-l
~ 1 ~ :
("l'tI_l"'WJ .d
Ir"""'If'~
I
I
I
1
0' --I
I
I
I
i It) l___J
J --r ---""1
" 1
~ :
l Olj
I
I
:
1!i
t.!:
:~
~~
,~
:'>~
~.2
~~
~i
~:
j~
~~
.. (""---
~l
'1; '-I
::o~
/::l
~i
'"
--.::::z
~ .S;
~ i
~
LLi uI
~ tA~
h. ~~
~ ""'%
S~
[t
fi:
<C
Z
~
:J
w
a:
a..
~
.
,
1
.
,
-,'
() i~~
6 ;i~
I;! .il'
~ b.3
,."
."
.
'.
.
@
Site Location
"
o
-t
2
o
to
;0
C
.
.
.
@
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 001-459
An Ordinance Rezoning the Grace M. Seed Family Trust, Astra Projects, Inc., James M.
Seed and Astra Genstar Partnership, L.L.P. property from R-l and F-3 to R-2 PUD.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON HEREBY ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the City Council approved a petition to rezone the Grace M. Seed Family Trust,
Astra Projects, Inc., James M. Seed and Astra Genstar Partnership, L.L.P. property as legally
described in Exhibit A on the 5th day of February, 2001 from R-l and F-3 to R-2 PUD; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a public hearing held on January 9, 2001,
recommended approval of the rezoning contingent on the delineation of the floodplain and
approval of a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Farmington hereby amends
the City Zoning Ordinance rezoning the Grace M. Seed Family Trust, Astra Projects, Inc., James
M. Seed and Astra Genstar Partnership, L.L.P. property from R-l and F-3 to R-2 PUD.
Enacted and ordained on the 5th day of February, 2001.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
~~
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Approved as to form the t day of:te- . , 2001.
~
/" '.
.Y"CITY AT RNEY
SEAL
Published in the Farmington Independent the /5+aay of ~/,.... ,2001.
Riverbend Legal
That part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 114 North, Range 20 West,
lying southwesterly of the following described line and its northwesterly and
southeasterly extensions:
Commencing at the southeast comer of said Northeast Quarter of Section 13;
thence North 00 degrees 28 minutes 08 seconds East, assumed bearing along the east line
of said Northeast Quarter, a distance of 431.28 feet to the point of beginning of the line to
be described; thence North 31 degrees 16 minutes 39 seconds West, a distance of2567.26
feet to the north line of said Northeast Quarter, and said line there terminating.
,
I
I
~
.
.
Council Minutes (Regular)
February 5~ 2001
Page 3
6. CITIZEN COMMENTS
@
7. CONSENT AGENDA
Item 7a) Approve Minutes (1/16/01) (Regular) was pulled so Councilmember Cordes
could abstain from voting as she was absent from that meeting. MOTION by Soderberg~
second by Verch approving Council Minutes (1/16/01) (Regular). Voting for: Ristow~
Soderberg~ Strachan, Verch. Abstain: Cordes. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION by Strachan~ second by Soderberg to approve the Consent Agenda as follows:
b) Approved Changeorder Downtown Streetscape Project - Engineering
c) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Fire Department
d) Authorized Advertisement for Bids - Fire Department
e) Received Information Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation
f) Received Information Capital Outlay. -Public Works
g) Approved Safety Training Agreement - Administration
h) Approved CEEF Funding Request - Administration
i) Adopted RESOLUTION RIO-OI - Capital Outlay - Parks and Recreation
j) Adopted RESOLUTION Rll-Ol - Amend Fees - Parks and Recreation
k) Received Information 2000 Liquor Operation Sales Report - Finance
1) Received Information School and Conference - Fire Department
m) Approved Bills
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
.
8.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. AWARD OF CONTRACT
.
10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a) Consider Ordinance - Riverbend Schematic PUD - Community Development
Astra Genstar Partnership proposes to develop approximately 126.2 acres of land
in the northeast comer of the City directly east of Dakota County Estates. The
developer proposes to rezone the property from R-l (Single-Family Residential)
and F-3 (General Flood Plain) to R-2 PUD (Medium Density Residential Planned
Unit Development) within the 67 acres of developable land. Because of strong
opposition from the neighbors within Dakota County Estates, the Riverbend
Schematic PUD has been revised eliminating the multi-family land use. The
revised concept shows 272 single-family lots on 67.1 acres of upland area
resulting in a 4.01 unit/acre density. Four accesses are proposed, two to the west
through Dakota County Estates at Upper l82nd Street and Upper 1 83rd Street~ and
two accesses proposed to the south through the proposed Prairie Creek East
subdivision. Lot sizes range from 6~000 square feet to 15,000 square feet. In the
first phase, the Developer proposes 60 to 70-foot wide lots in the southwest comer
of the property marketed in the $120,000 to $180,000 price range. Water access
is available through Dakota County Estates and sewer will be available through
the Prairie Creek East development.
Council Minutes (Regular)
February 5, 2001
Page
Mr. Patrick Hanson, 5037 Upper 182nd Street, is concerned with traffic and the
width of the streets. Upper 1 83rd Street will be an exit, but you cannot turn left
off of Pilot Knob so that leaves two accesses. The streets are not wide enough.
These are starter homes and there are a lot of kids on the streets. In the summer
there are cars parked on both sides of the street. If there is oncoming traffic or a
child runs out from between cars, there could be an accident. Why does it have to
be rezoned? Mayor Ristow stated it is a request by the developer and the request
meets all the requirements. In the 2020 Comprehensive Plan this area has been
designated as an R-2 area. Mr. Hanson stated the majority of the bigger lots are to
the south rather than to the north. It would be nice to spread them out more. He
is very concerned about the traffic situation. Councilmember Soderberg stated an
EA W will be done which will include a traffic analysis, but that cannot be done
until it is rezoned.
MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan adopting ORDINANCE 001-459
approving the Riverbend Schematic PUD rezoning the 67 acres of developable
land from R-l and F-3 to R-2 PUD. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
b)
Consider Resolution - Charleswood 4th Addition Final Plat - Community
Development
Newland Communities is seeking Final Plat approval of98 single-family lots
within the Charleswood 4th Addition; this is the final plat involving the single-
family portion of the Charleswood Planned Unjt Development. The Charleswood
development will have a total of300 single-family platted lots. Because of the
alignment of 200th Street at Pilot Knob Road, to the west will be 200th Street and
east of Pilot Knob Road will be 203rd Street. There will be a trail on the north
side of 200th Street leading eastward toward Pilot Knob Road and the future
construction of a trail along Pilot Knob Road leading to the trail system
throughout the remainder of the development. A park is planned on the east side
of the development, and wetlands are planned to the south and the east. The
Planning Commission recommended approval contingent upon the following:
1. The developer submit an easement agreement acceptable to the City to
provide street and utility access to the Nordseth property across Lot 14,
Block 1;
2. Amend the Landscape plan substituting the sugar maples with another tree
species accepted in Title 10-6-14(0);
3. Correct the street name from 203rd Street W to 200th Street W;
4. Engineering review and approval of fmal construction plans;
5. Execution of the Development Contract
MOTION by Verch, second by Strachan adopting RESOLUTION R12-01
approving the Charleswood 4th Addition Final Plat contingent on the above
conditions. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
.
i
,
,
@
RESOLUTION NO. R115-01
.
APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLATIPUD
RIVERBEND
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 17th day of
December, 2001 at 7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan, Verch
None
Member Soderberg introduced and Member Cordes seconded the following:
WHEREAS, the preliminary plat of Riverbend is now before the Council for review and approval;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing of the Planning Commission was held on the II th day of December,
2001 after notice of the same was published in the official newspaper of the City and proper notice
sent to surrounding property owners; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the preliminary plat; and
.
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has rendered an opinion that the proposed plat can be feasibly
served by municipal service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above preliminary plat be approved with the
following stipulations:
1. The preliminary plat approval is contingent on the approval of the construction plans for
grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division.
This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the
17th day of December, 2001.
~O~
Mayor
Attestedtothe~dayof /UC",o_..d-d ~ _ ~
C dminisffiitor
SEAL
.
Council Minutes (Regular)
December 17,2001
Page 5
@
.
.
.
if the cemetery is located outside the City limits. Councilmember Strachan asked
if the HPC has determined how it will be cared for. If it is overgrown, it should
remain overgrown. Administrative Services Manager Finstuen stated the HPC
will develop a plan but most of the discussion so far has been to leave it in it's
natural state, but to make it look more cared for and perhaps provide a trail to
reach the area. If there were some type of hedge, it would periodically be
trimmed and leaves collected perhaps every three years. The developer has
agreed to mark the boundaries. Discussions are being held as to whether it would
be comer stones or an insignificant fence.
MOTION by Strachan, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R114-01
agreeing to accept an abandoned cemetery from the First United Presbyterian
Church contingent on county action. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
b) November 2001 Financial Report - Finance
Council received the budget to actual review for November. Revenues for
licenses and permits exceeded what was expected. The expenditures are running
under budget. The general fund is well under it's required budgetary amount.
c)
Consider Resolution - Riverbend Preliminary Plat - Community Development
Newland Communities proposes to plat 140 single-family lots on 107.23 acres in
the Riverbend Preliminary Plat. The proposed subdivision is located west of
Dakota County Estates and north of the proposed Meadow Creek development in
the northeast comer of the City. A total of five outlots make up the remainder of
the plat. Outlots A, B, and C consist of storm water management ponds, Outlot D
consists of the neighborhood park, wetlands, and flood plain, and Outlot E is
preserved for the east-west corridor right-of-way. Lot sizes will range from
10,000 to 26,566 square feet. Two housing types are proposed including 89 split
entry lots and 51 split entry walkout lots. The property is marketed toward
housing in the $170,000 - $200,000 price range. Grading and utility installation is
proposed to occur in 2002 with housing construction to begin in late 2002 or early
2003 with fmal build-out in 2005. Approximately 80% of the lots will be
provided with amenities such as a park, pond or wetland adjacent to the lots. The
developer revised the schematic PUD to 272 single-family units from the original
168 single family lots and 94-201 multi-family units to cut down on the amount of
traffic. There is also a 75 foot right-of-way for a future east/west corridor. If the
east/west corridor does not go through, the lots along this area will be that much
deeper.
Four accesses are proposed from the Riverbend project including two accesses to
the west through Dakota County Estates at Upper 182nd Street and Upper 183rd
Street. Three accesses are proposed to the south through the proposed Meadow
Creek subdivision. The access to the north is currently under review by Dakota
County for a connection with a proposed east/west corridor. The proposed east-
\ ;est corridor has been identified by Dakota County to connect between Pilot
~ob Road and Trunk Highway 3.
Council Minutes (Regular)
December 17,2001
Page 6
Floodplain takes up most of the eastern half of the property. No final platting of
lots will be allowed in areas currently identified within the floodplain until the
Letter of Map Revision is approved by FEMA.
.
The Developer currently shows a trail connection with Meadow Creek in the
south central portion of the Riverbend plan along with a sidewalk on the east side
of the north/south collector street. The City of Lakeville has suggested that a trail
connection with Riverbend be established with a proposed trail in Lakeville.
Councilmember Verch asked what the possibility is of installing cement
sidewalks in the existing Dakota County Estates? Planning Coordinator Smick
stated the residents petition if they want sidewalks, then they are assessed for the
sidewalk. Residents of Dakota County Estates would have to initiate the request.
Councilmember Cordes asked if the northeast corner is developable? Planning
Coordinator Smick replied that is part of the Seed/Genstar property.
Mayor Ristow stated regarding the two cul-de-sac streets to the north, will there
be a barrier or cul-de-sac? When traffic gets to the end of the street, is there some
type of turnaround there? City Engineer Mann stated in the past the City has
installed temporary cul-de-sacs. The street can be signed that it is a dead end, and
there will be a barrier with signs stating a potential through street. This can be .
reviewed in the construction plans. . .
Councilmember Verch asked if a temporary road could be installed for
construction traffic. Planning Coordinator Smick stated Lakeville is not amenable
to that. Councilmember Verch asked if one road would be designated for
construction traffic? Mr. Steve Juetten, developer, stated one road can be
designated for construction traffic, probably from the stop light at Pilot Knob
Road. Councilmember Verch stated he would like to see speed humps on that
road as there is a park there and the traffic is bad enough already. The speed
humps should be paid for by the developer or the City and not assessed to the
residents.
Councilmember Strachan stated the letters from Lakeville are specific about
having no intention going past Pilot Knob Road with an east/west corridor. For
Lakeville there is no upside to go through the process. He is not confident that
1 78th Street will go through. Councilmember Strachan would feel more
comfortable with something in writing from Dakota County stating they are
committed to one mile spacing for east/west corridors. Planning Coordinator
Smick stated Dakota County will be actively looking at east/west corridors
through Lakeville, Farmington, and Empire. Attorney BroId stated that could not
be a contingency and the City should not expect a binding letter from the County.
.
, .
Council Minutes (Regular)
December 17, 2001
Page 7
.
.
.
MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R115-01
approving the Riverbend Preliminary Plat contingent on the approval of
construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering
Division.
Mr. Pat Hansen, 507 Upper l820d Street, stated all this traffic will go by his
house. A 38 foot wide street will go into a 32 foot wide street. Traffic will use
only 2 exits. There are 2 bus loads of children. There is too much traffic to cross
the street to the park. He has no problem with the development. It would be fme
if there were decent roads going in and out. The streets cannot handle 500 more
cars a day. It was suggested to put in sidewalks, the lots are not very big now.
Some people have boats and campers they cannot get to their back lawns. In the
winter they park on the front lawns. He does.not want the plat approved without a
road developed to the north.
City Engineer Mann stated on a 32 foot wide street, the plans include 8 feet for
parking. If there are two cars parked directly across from each other there is 16-
20 feet left for cars to pass. The standard width for a neighborhood road is 32
feet. Parking is allowed on both sides. The wider the street, the faster the traffic
will go.
Councilmember Verch asked if it could be postponed until discussions are held
with the County regarding an east/west corridor to the north. Councilmember
Cordes stated the road system is there. It is not perfect, but the roads can handle
the traffic. Council cannot come up with any findings of fact to deny it.
Mr. Hansen asked if I 820d Street has weight or noise restrictions? City Engineer
Mann replied most roadways are not posted. When limits are on, the City
requests construction traffic use the shortest route. Significant deterioration of
roads has not been seen in recent developments.
V oting for: Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan. Voting against: Verch.
MOTION CARRIED.
d)
Consider Resolution - Approving Meadow Creek 1st Addition Development
Contract Addendum - Engineering
The trunk sanitary sewer pipeline that was installed as part of the Prairie Creek 4th
Addition could have been installed 5 feet deeper than it was. The sewer pipeline
is not deep enough to service future phases of the Meadow Creek Development in
accordance with City standards. The Developer has been aware from the outset of
the project that either the site would need to be raised or the sewer line would
need to be lowered. Another option that may be viable in the third and
subsequent additions is the possibility of service from the proposed Riverbend
development from the north.
9
(/ ~
lli!!I
~ C5
c
<'
= ....,
lli!!I -
@ e;
z
lli!!I
~
.
r-
liil
f lii
l-U
, B.!
3 11
;
'1
ii,
Ij:
:i,i
i;l
Hi
I.-
i;li
~l
.t.,
11>
:;lU
d:l~
in!!
,-=- ~
j
11!1~
,;:~
,it:
iU;
.
j
i 1
If 11
j I j
r ' ,
H!
I ' ~
I I j
. I U
\ ...
1 ;:.....
'o) (\
~.')', .
(,. -\
l
.
I
j
I
I
I
.
I
I
~
I.
I'
1-
d
i It
~
lI)
@
-I
]
41
.t:l
~
>
iil
~
f
~ 11
II.A
J
~ .1
~ I
III
b
1<
I
llJj
1111
11II
II ! I
I~j II
ii, I
i!j .
Hi I
iji I
hi I
'tJ'
gl
~Il!i
~I!ll
It:
.
.
.
(f)
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Mayor, Council Members,
City Administrator
FROM:
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
SUBJECT:
Request for Time Extension for Filing of Final Plat - Riverbend
DATE:
March 18, 2002
INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION
The Developer, Newland Communities, received approval from the City Council for the Riverbend
Preliminary Plat on December 17, 2001. Section 11-2-2 (D) 3 of the City Code requires that upon approval of
the preliminary plat by City Council, the Developer shall submit the final plat within 100 days of the approval,
unless a time extension is requested by the Developer and submitted in writing and approved by the City
Council. Therefore, the Riverbend Final Plat needs to be submitted by March 27, 2002 to meet this deadline.
However, Newland Communities has submitted a letter to the City dated March 7, 2002 requesting that the
City Council grant an 18 month (August 1,2003) time extension to this requirement. The Developer has made
this request because of the need for FEMA to approve a Letter of Map Revision to the existing floodplain and
the unknown timeframe for this approval to occur.
ACTION REQUESTED
Consider a time extension of 18 months (August 1,2003) for the submittal of the Riverbend Final Plat.
Respectfully submitted,
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
cc: Steve Juetten, Newland Communities
o
Council Minutes (Regular)
March 18, 2002
Page 3
b) January and February 2002 Financial Report - Finance
The revenues and expenditures are approximately the same as 2001. Funds are
expended out of the General Fund as the City does not take in a lot in revenues.
Revenues do rise in March and April due to building permits.
.
c) Approve Extension of Riverbend Final Plat Submittal- Community
Development
City Code requires that upon approval of the preliminary plat, the Developer shall
submit the final plat within 100 days of the approval, unless a time extension is
requested by the Developer. The River bend Final Plat needs to be submitted by
March 27,2002 to meet this deadline. Newland Communities has submitted a
letter dated March 7, 2002 requesting that the City Council grant an 18 month
time extension to August 1, 2003 for submittal of the Riverbend Final Plat. The
request is due to the need for FEMA to approve a Letter of Map revision to the
existing floodplain and the unknown timeframe for this approval to occur.
.
.
Mr. Steve Juetten, Newland Communities, stated the grading plan has been
started, but not fmalized. No work has been done on utilities. The project will
not start this year. MOTION by Cordes, second by Verch approving a time
extension of 18months, until August 1,2003, for the submittal of the Riverbend
Final Plat. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
d)
Approve Extension of Wilson Property Final Plat Submittal - Community
Development
The developer previously received a time extension for submittal of the Wilson
Property Final Plat to July 1,2002. The developer is now requesting a second
extension to October 1, 2002. The reason for the request is due to the amount of
work required on 203rd Street to determine how it will be laid out. City policy has
been to grant a one-time extension for the recording of final plats. In the new
ordinance there will be 1 year allowed between submittal of the preliminary plat
and final plat, currently there is 100 days. MOTION by Soderberg, second by
Strachan allowing a second time extension for the submittal of the Wilson
Property Final Plat to October 1,2002. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
e)
Consider Ordinance Amendment - Scoreboard Signage - Community
Development
ISD #192 approached the City with the proposal to install scoreboards at their
baseball fields at the northeast intersection of Akin Road and CSAH 50 and their
softball fields on the High School property at 800 Denmark Avenue. The School
proposes to install a 6.5' x 27' scoreboard with advertising located on the front and
back of the scoreboard. Advertising will be 3' x 27'. The signs will not be
illuminated. The ordinance governing advertising signs will be changed to read,
"Scoreboards on public school property may include billboards and advertising
signs in any district." Councilmember Soderberg asked if there will be multiple
signs advertised. Planning Coordinator Smick stated only one business will be
advertised on the back.
.
01
NEWLAND
COMMUNITIES
NEWLAND MIDWEST
Suite 101
11000 West 78th Street
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
952.942-7844
Fax 952'942'8075
.
.
@
July 9, 2003
Ms. Lee Smick
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Re:
Riverbend Final Plat
Dear Ms. Smick,
On March 18,2002, the Farmington City Council approved an extension
of time until August I, 2003 to submit the Riverbend Final Plat.
Unfortunately, do to several unforeseen issues, Astra Genstar Partnership,
LLP, needs to request an additional twelve-month extension of time.
Since March 18, we have continued to work toward the resolution of
several items. We have received FEMA approval of the Letter of Map
Revision and we have continued to work with City Staff on the completion
of the final grading plan. However, due to issues that only surfaced in the
last few months regarding the need to coordinate grading plans with the
developer to the south, City staffs requirement to survey the existing pond
in Dakota County Estates to ensure that the existing properties in Dakota
County Estates are protected from drainage problems, and recent results of
the Dakota County EasUWest Corridor Study - resulting in the need for
City staff to reevaluate whether the need still existed to provide right-of-
way for the construction of an east/west roadway along the north line of
the plat, an update of the grading plan has only recently been completed
and submitted to City Staff for review.
In order to ensure the best design of the project, it is our desire to wait
until the final grading plan is approved prior to starting the final utility and
street plans and final plat. By waiting until City Staff has approved the
final grading plan, the utility and street plan design and final plat will be
completed according to the approved grading plan. Further, because of
the time of year and the economics of the project, no site work is expected
until 2004.
.
II
It is our belief that another extension of time is appropriate and would
allow everyone the necessary time to continue to work through the issues
that may surface regarding the grading plan, utility and street plan and
final plat to ensure that the final design will be consistent with City
policies prior to bringing it to the City Council for approval.
Thank you for consideration of this request for a twelve-month extension
of time to submit the Riverbend Final Plat. Please contact me if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
~
Steven P. Juetten
Genstar Land Company Midwest, LLC,
Managing Partner ofthe Astra Genstar Partnership, LLP
.
.
.
.
.
/0 I
<J
@
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Mayor, Council Members,
Interim City Administrator
JjP/
FROM:
Jim Atkinson
Assistant City Planner
SUBJECT:
Request for Time Extension for Filing of Final Plat - Riverbend
DATE:
July 21,2003
INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION
The Developer, Steve Juetten of Newland Communities, received approval from the City Council for the
Riverbend Preliminary Plat on December 17,2001. Section 11-2-2 (D) 3 of the City Code requires that upon
approval of the preliminary plat by the City Council, the Developer must submit the final plat within 100 days
of the approval, unless a time extension is requested by the Developer and submitted in writing and approved
by the City Council. On March 18, 2002, the City Council approved an I8-month extension of the IOO-day
final plat submittal requirement. The I8-month extension is scheduled to expire on August 1,2003.
The developer, however, has recently submitted a request for an additional extension of twelve months. The
attached letter from Mr. Steve Juetten dated July 9, 2003 explains the need for additional time. If approved, the
new deadline for submitting the final plat would be August 1, 2004.
ACTION REQUESTED
Approve the requested time extension of 12 months (August 1,2004) for the submittal of the Riverbend Final
Plat.
Respectfully submitted,
q ~ e:t=-
Jim Atkinson
Assistant City Planner
cc: Steve Juetten, Newland Communities
Council Minutes (Regular)
July 21,2003
Page 8
@
.
have generic paper boxes, which raises the cost to the residents. Staff stated some
developments have covenants that regulate paper boxes, however this particular
neighborhood does not. Attorney Jamnik stated if there is a homeowner's
association, the paper boxes could be regulated under the covenants for the
homeowner's association. It is sometimes difficult to do this after development is
finished.
Mayor Ristow asked if there is anything regarding screening for commercial
vehicles. Staff stated the code does not address screening for commercial
vehicles. If they are parked on the side of the house, there might be other
regulations. But in this case, the vehicle is parked in the driveway.
Councilmember Soderberg drove to the area. The van is not rusty and is a newer
vehicle. He noted the van was parked in the driveway. The ordinance says either
on decorative rock or hard surface. Along the edge ofthe driveway is an 18-inch
strip of decorative rock. It falls within what is allowed by code. Regarding the
paper boxes, Councilmember Soderberg would favor allowing paper boxes in the
boulevards. If there are associations, it is up to them to restrict them.
Councilmember Cordes agreed.
.
Staff stated they have not contacted the owner of the commercial vehicle as there
is no violation of code. Councilmember Fogarty asked ifit was possible to talk to
the owner? Councilmember Cordes stated that is more of a neighbor dispute.
Interim City Administrator Siebenaler stated if staff were to tell him his neighbor
has a problem with the van in the driveway, it would identify the neighbor. The
complainant has clearly stated she does not want to be identified. Councihnember
Fitch suggested contacting surrounding cities to see how they handle the situation.
Council suggested amending the ordinance to attach paper boxes to the
mailboxes, but not limit the number and to make them an allowable use. Staff
urged the paper boxes be attached to the mailboxes due to plowing.
Councilmember Cordes suggested simply adding paper boxes to the allowable
uses in the code. Staffwill forward an ordinance to Council regarding paper
boxes and do some additional research for commercial vehicle parking.
j)
Request for Extension of Time - Riverbend Preliminary Plat - Community
Development
The Council approved the Riverbend Preliminary Plat on December 17, 2001.
According to ordinance, the final plat must be submitted within 100 days of
preliminary plat approval. On March 18, 2002, Council approved an 18-month
extension of the 100-day requirement. The extension will expire on August 1,
2003. The developer has requested an additional extension due to coordinating
grading plans with another developer to the south, working with FEMA, etc.
Staff is recommending an extension of approval for 12 months, which would
expire August 1,2004. Councilmember Cordes recalled a discussion a couple
years ago regarding how many extensions should be allowed. Attorney Jamnik
stated there might have been something in the Development Guidelines.
.
-----
.
.
.
Council Minutes (Regular)
July 21, 2003
Page 9
Traditionally, when an extension has been adopted, it was specified in the initial
extension it is a one-time only extension. This has been communicated to
developers in the past. This case may be justified due to the grading plans. It
would be at the discretion of Council to indicate whether it is open to another
extension. Councilmember Soderberg noted the developer has been very
cooperative in working with the city and surrounding neighbors. MOTION by
Soderberg, second by Cordes to approve the requested time extension of 12
months (August 1,2004) for the submittal ofthe Riverbend Final Plat. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED.
11.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
12.
NEW BUSINESS
13.
COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE
Councilmember Soderberg: Regarding the Spruce Street Task Force meeting last
Wednesday, he wanted to apologize for his lack of attendance. After looking at the
Master Plan he thinks it is a good project and will meet with staff for an update.
Some time ago, a noise ordinance was discussed. He received a call from a resident
regarding trucks jake-braking. To pick on truck drivers is not legal, however Council can
adopt a noise ordinance and place signs that a noise ordinance will be enforced. This
would include trucks, cars with deep base sound systems, trains, etc. Interim City
Administrator Siebenaler stated there have been court rulings regarding jake-braking that
say you cannot use the phrase 'jake-braking" in a sign. Any ordinance adopted would
have to address noise. It would have to be consistently enforced on all noise. It would
certainly include engine noise and those vehicles with the deep base stereo system.
Unfortunately, it could also include an ice cream truck. The city has to be careful how
such an ordinance is written. Staff will research noise ordinances in other cities.
The next issue has to do with an anonymous letter he received today. He read a quote
from a newspaper which read, "To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be
right in doing it." The envelope he received deals with an issue he has been very vocal
about and very much opposed to. The individual that sent it seems to want to live in the
past. It is history. Even the events to which Councilmember Soderberg are referring to
are history. We need to get over it and move on and do what is right for the city.
Councilmember Fitch: He asked Interim City Administrator Siebenaler ifbeing
Interim City Administrator also makes him the City Clerk? Interim City Administrator
Siebenaler replied he will assume that it does. Councilrnember Fitch asked ifhe has to
meet the bonding requirements? Attorney J amnik stated the city has to change the name
on the fiduciary bonds. Finance Director Roland replied that was done two weeks ago.
.
Survey and Land Information
Gary H. Stevenson, P.L.S.
County Surveyor
Land Information Director
Dakota County
Western Service Center
14955 Galaxie Avenue
Apple Valley, MN 55124-8579
952,891 .7087
Fax 952.891.7097
www.co.dakota.mn.us
.
.
o
Printed on reqded pa.per
with 30% pos1i-consumer waste,
AN EQUAl.. OPPORTUNITY EMPlOYER
~~
December 4,2001
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington MN 55024
Attention:
Re:
Michael Schultz
RIVERBEND
Cd)
~. ~ ~ cg; ~ 0 \:{j llili\~
\~~\ DEe I 1 2001 IW
The Dakota County Plat Commission met on December 3, 2001, to reconsider the preliminary plat
ofRlVERBEND. Said plat is adjacent to East-West Corridor Study, and is therefore, subject to the
Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance.
The October 22, 2001, review of the plat recommended that 150 feet of road right of way should
be dedicated on the north line of the plat for the proposed alignment of CSAH 60 identified on Li-}e
official Dakota County Plat Review Needs map. The alignment of CSAH 60 extends easterly
from CSAH 9 (Dodd Road) and follows the north municipal boundary of Farmington to Trunk
Highway 3. This alignment has also been identified through the EastfWest corridor study and is
needed for either a County highway or City street according to the Metropolitan Council's access
spacing guidelines for minor arterial roadways.
The City and developer are proposing to dedicate 75 feet for half of the right way. There was a lot
of discussion on the numerous problems that will be encountered in trying to put an east-west road
through this area with the wetlands, railroad crossing, existing development in Farmington that has
cut off some options, and the future plans that Lakeville has for the area.
A revised preliminary plat was submitted with a 75 foot outlot along the northerly boundary that
could be potential east-west connector road one-half right of way. Also the north-south connector
street alignment was moved further east to accommodate the guidelines. Again, discussion
centered on whether or not an east-west collector street should go through this area, considering
the wetlands and the County's mitigation area. It was the City of Lakeville's feeling that an east-
west collector street would probably be near 178th Street (one-quarter mile north of this
alignment), the City of Farmington concurred with these presumptions.
The Plat Commission has approved the preliminary plat and will recommend approval to the
Board of Commissioners when the plat is submitted in its final form.
No work shall commence in the County right of way until a permit is obtained from the County
Highway Department and no permit will be issued until the plat has been filed with the County
Recorder's Office. The Plat Commission does not review or approve actual engineering design of
proposed accesses or other improvements to be made in the right of way. The Plat Commission
highly recommends early contact with the Highway Department to discuss design features of any
construction in public right of way. The County Highway Department permit process reviews the
design and may require construction of highway improvements, including, but not limited to, turn
lanes, drainage features, limitations on intersecting street widths, allowance and size of medians,
etc.
Sincerely,
~
Fred Johnson
Secretary, Plat Commissio
c:
Westwood Professional Services
.
.
.
December 3,2001
~~: ~ ~:IE{l~ii
@
Michael Schultz
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
RE: Proposed Preliminary Plat for Riverbend
Dear Mr. Schultz:
This letter is intended to follow up to ,the comments that were provided to you in a letter dated
October 22,2001 from Daryl Morey.
City of Lakeville staff recently met with Dakota County staff involved in the East-West Corridor
Study. During this meeting, City staff recommended that the proposed east-west corridor located
at l79tlt Street east of Pilot Knob Road, near the north boundary of the proposed Riverbend plat,
be eliminated from the corridor study. The City's Transportation Plan calls for an east-west City
collector street along l75tlt Street from just east of Dodd Blvd. and ending at Pilot Knob Road. A
local street may be located further north of the proposed l79tlt Street east of Pilot Knob avoiding
the. wetland mitigation area and floodplain. The Street A stub to the north property line of the
Riverbend plat and Lakeville city boundary will no longer be required since there will be no east-
west street in this location to tie into in the future.
City staff also recommended that the County add 170tlt Street (C.R 58) east of Pilot Knob Road to
the Corridor Study.
If you or other Farmington staff have any questions or would like to discuss these issues further,
please contact Daryl Morey, Director of Planning at 952.985.4422.
cc: Keith Nelson, City Engineer
David L. Olson, Community & Economic Development Director
Dary I Morey, Director of Planning
Dave Zech, Acting County Engineer - Dakota County
Gene Franchette, Senior Planner - Dakota County
City of Lakeville
20195 Holyoke Avenue · Lakeville, MN 55044
Phone (952) 985-4400 · FAX (952) 985-4499 · www.lakeville.mn.us
.
.
.
October 22,2001
~..>, : 'if (~ I~? 11 \'._:'~ ~ -; : ='," ",
, I ' . '-='~? c:.~ IJ U I.. ,.. .
I;:! -. ---llJ;~
It; " It i I ~j
/. I , ."
./ J 'JI I;
u~1 OCT 2 3 200i I~
Michael Schultz
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
Dear Mr. Schultz,
The purpose of thi~ letter is to forward Lakeville staff comments related to the proposed
preliminary plat of Riverbend. Our comments center around two issues as follows:
1. The Street A stub to the north property line (Lakeville city boundary) should be eliminated
because the area to the north in Lakeville was established as a mitigation area by Dakota
County in conjunction with the Pilot Knob Road improvement project (see enclosed map).
As such, it is not feasible for Lakeville to tie into this street stub at a future date.
2. The Lakeville Parks and Open Space System Plan identifies a greenway trail corridor along
North Creek. This trail corridor is currently being established in two residential subdivisions
under construction south of 170lh Street. A 10 foot wide bituminous trail will be constructed
approximately 20 feet from the edge of the wetland located adjacent to the creek. This
greenway trail corridor will ultimately stretch from 160lh Street (C.S.A.H. 46) to the south city
boundary along both sides of North Creek. It is the City of Lakeville's desire to see this trail
extend south along North Creek to the Vermillion River.
It would be helpful if the preliminary plat plans included the adjacent wetlands and
topography to the north to assist staff in identifying the best location for the greenway trail
corridor in the Riverbend development. The preliminary plat proposes a trail along the rear
lines of several lots. Consistent with plats recently approved by the City of Lakeville
adjacent to North Creek, Lakeville staff requests that the trail corridor be located adjacent to
North Creek and away from the proposed homes.
If you have any questions regarding City staff comments on the Riverbend preliminary plat or if
you would like to discuss the greenway trail corridor in more detail, please feel free to contact
at (952) 985-4422.
R pec u~urs,
orey, A~mmunity and Economic Development Director
Enclosure
c: Robert Erickson, City Administrator
Keith Nelson, City Engineer
Steve Michaud, Parks and Recreation Director
David Olson, City of Farmington
City of Lakeville
20195 Hol.voke Avenue · Lakeville, MN 55044
Phone (952) 985-4400 · FAX (952) 985-4499 · www./akeville.mn.us
.
.
.
. .
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
FROM:
Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
Revised Concept Plan - Knutsen Property
DATE:
August 10, 2004
DISCUSSION
On Friday, August 6, 2004, the Knutsen concept plan was discussed at a two-hour
meeting that was attended by City staff, three City Council members, and several
members of the Knutsens' development team. The meeting focused on possible
modifications of the latest concept plan (Exhibit A) to address issues related to
relocation of Spruce Street, which was located too far south in the concept plan. The
final alignment of Spruce Street is shown on Exhibit B. Exhibit B also shows how the
relocation of Spruce Street resulted in a relocation of the Town Square, which then
"overlapped" two mixed-use buildings, parking areas and other portions of the
concept plan.
City staff prepared a revised version (Exhibit C) of the concept plan for discussion at
Friday morning's meeting. The assumptions underlying the revisions will be explained
at Tuesday night's Planning Commission meeting. One issue that will merit further
examination involves the east/west road that was shown on the Spruce Street Master
Plan's "Urban Design Concept Plan" (Exhibit D). A connection to this road is shown on
staff's revision of the concept plan. No such connection or road was shown on the
developer's latest concept plan (Exhibit A).
ACTION REQUESTED
Provide comments to City staff and other interested parties regarding the revised
concept plan for the development of the Knutsen property.
I ./-./ "-,
Resp....e..~t~. lC; SUbmirt ;/ j..~/). / -.,
/1 , ~ . /'
0' {~/V\ vt~'
Keyin Oirroll -" .../ ,
Community Development Director
l '
V.LOHNN""" .MT1V^ rw.IV
.J.33lU.S HJ.~ "N\. SL69
.A~n.LN3::> M3N
--
I - ~ -- ~:
_._-_..._-~ .111-
__ _=:===r.IlI"':''':.l.''&~ __
.-- b
!:> I'll S' "':> ~:::>
~3^1~ Nc... .jIW~3^ ...-mm
o
"""'-.... ..........
YIO'1'lllIlS._.........~'"'-
N~ .a'" ONIlr:BNON3
.lNnOTYV~V d
\ I
\. \
-- \
-.........._------~
~i
~~<,~,:~,~
~
f~
I
I ~
I ~
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~ Ii I
iii. .J
I
~1 \. 0tft1itH#HttID I
H '1 i dHmtttttmtto.
II II _.._._.U
11- I.', dffittttttmttID
I i ~ I ClHtJtWR)
\ 'LJ: i nillillJJJJJJ1JJ II
'-----==V. VTTJTTmTTTTTTTl
~lldOllIcI ~ \I".LO:ll'o'C1
"-- ---
o
--- ---_._---~_.--------_.-------.-.
..
., \
\........... \
..............._------~
~i
}
!
II
. /
I .
@
II ij ...
I-
a
..J
I
on ~ .-.;/
I- 'e ;U I l<' <-'1:>
a
..J
~ \0
~ ~
~ '1 ~
\ ~ ~
-' ~
III
I ~
:\
..
II ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
'<
(I~
. I
\0 I
"'I~
l".,j
S-Il.!J
<1<;:1
~I~
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
,
I
,
i
I
i
i
I
i
i
i
I
\
\ II ~
\.-
\ ;1
I' ..-'.-
I
i
I.
1.
~
.s;~
~ ~ f tU
~! t~ \-,
I t ~:5
L~ ~
I
. 'V. .
J
.1.!>l3dO>ld .l!N"'<7.)". !O)f'o'Q
,
. 1
.\
I
1
'"
"
c::
....
<u
.~
M@
.
. I .' . ~
101 101
o t'" ..,
7: 0' ~ :;J
@
'-'
:5
.. .. ..
i ~ ~ ~ ~
... :.. ~ ~ ~
"
\ ~! ~[.:
I z eX 0
g ~-i
"go ~~5
~ !Jj
l ~1!
>t j ~
a !!~.
.~
'5
:c
,
~
<u
~
Co.
C
~..J ~..J .oj ~ tii
15:5 <1)< :s 8 t.:l ~
!--< zl=: u;n- Vl ..J
Z UlZ ~ ;:) .,..
~t.:l OUJ el ~ ;;a ~
....0 -0 ~ 25..... ~ ~ ;:) t.:l ..J
a 9~ t5~ "'" VlG"J P::!--<!--<....
S -Ul 0;:)..... < < ..::
~ ~2::r:~ u >llE: ~ ~ z ~ ~
~ IIIIII 1
II
~
""::J
~
.
~
'J)
\1}
~
~
0::
....
OJ
....
en
~
~
~
OJ
....
-< a
t) 1;'0
b .~
UJ '"
OJU-.
U ~
8 ~
Q...-
UJU
.
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
FROM:
Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
MUSA Review Committee Recommendation
DATE:
August 10, 2004
INTRODUCTION
The MUSA Review Committee has recommended that the Planning Commission review and
recommend approval of ten (10) additional MUSA applications and "Letters of Interest," as
identified on the attached MUSA allocation map (yellow properties) and listed below.
DISCUSSION
Land cannot be developed within the City of Farmington unless it lies within the Metropolitan
Urban Service Area [MUSA]. Municipal sewer services cannot be extended to any area that is
outside of the MUSA.
Subject to subsequent approval by the Metropolitan Council, the Farmington City Council
decides which parcels of land in Farmington will or will not be included within Farmington's
portion of the Met Council's Metropolitan Urban Service Area. To assist the City Council in
making such decisions, initial research and screening has (in Farmington) traditionally been
conducted by a Council-appointed MUSA Review Committee.
Late last year, the City Council implemented some modifications regarding the composition of
the MUSA Review Committee. The Council then appointed 10 individuals to serve on the
Committee. The Committee began meeting in December of2003. The Committee conducted its
seventh meeting on June 23, 2004.
At their July 22, 2004 meeting, the Committee members unanimously recommended that all or
portions of six City parcels be immediately included within the Metropolitan Urban Service
Area, and that four Township parcels be included within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area if
they are annexed by the City at the request of the property owners. The Committee determined
that these properties meet the two highest priority criteria (and others):
Priority 1: Proximity of property to transportation corridors (i.e. 195th Street
between Akin Road and TH 3, 208th Street between CSAH 31 and TH 3, 220th Street
.
.
.
west of Denmark Avenue, etc.) to promote construction of transportation corridors as
identified in the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
Priority 2: Preference will be given to MUSA applications that could reasonably be
expected to expedite or facilitate retail and commercial growth.
The recommended properties are as follows:
Applicant Map Number of
Number/Letter Acres
Allen A 50
Peterson (northern portion) B 34
Adelmann (northern portion) C 10
Murphy D 19
Tollefson I 14
Murphy/Giles Ql 90
Empey 7 38
Murphy/Giles 8 95
Rother 9 50
Garvey 10 40
ACTION REQUESTED
e recommendation of the MUSA Review Committee and make a recommendation to
ouncil ding the extension of MUS A to include the properties listed above.
Ubm~
2
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
i~V
Planning Commission
FROM:
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
SUBJECT:
Conditional Use Permit - Excavating/Grading - Manley Property
DATE:
August 10, 2004
INTRODUCTION/DISCUSSION
Representatives of Manley Land Development, Inc. informed City staff during the
week of July 27th that they would be applying for a conditional use permit (CUP) that
would allow excavating and grading to begin on the Manley property prior to the
approval of a preliminary plat for the residential development that is expected to
occur on that property.
However, the Developer has not submitted the grading plan at this time, so staff is
requesting that the Planning Commission continue this discussion topic to the
September 14, 2004 meeting. Staff has requested this action because the CUP-
Grading Plan was noticed as a public hearing in the Farmington Independent for the
August 16, 2004 City Council meeting. At the August 16, 2004 meeting, staff will
request that the City Council continue the public hearing until after the September
14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED
Continue this discussion item to the September 14, 2004 Planning Commission
meeting.
;?~ted'
L:ee Smick, AICP
City Planner
cc: Manley Land Development, Inc.
.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
CONDITIONAL USE PERlVllT APPLICATION
City of Fannington, 325 Oak Street, Farmington, NIN 55024
651-%3-7111 FA..-,,( 651463-1611
For office use
. Permit Number
Applicant Name (please print) C nl. i~~('u (. Lf.
Applicant Address ~~Oq g Ca.Yl~ Ct. _L~ivi""\ M pJ
Street City State
Phooe_l.b21J~(P3- y~as . Fax_(0SI ) \j(P3-ttgSD
Legal Descrintion of,Subjec! Property: (lot, block, plat name, section- tn\Nndlio. range)
.. Sec:. ct~ecf. . -.
.5S0z.-c..f
Zip Code
. Current Land Use C6mnUvUlLf I ftsiderrfill! Current Zoning D'istrict
.
Specific Nature of Request:
6rrWJ ~
Following Attached: (please check) _ Proof of Ownership _ BoundarylLotSurvey
_ Application fee _ 6 Copies of Site Plan
_ Abstract/Resident List *(required 350' from subject property)
_ Torrens (Owner's Dublicate Certificate of Title Required)
Property Owner's Signature
Date
~
l-~f( ~
Applicant's Signature
Date
For office use only
. Request Submitted. to Planning staff on
Public Hearing Set for.
Advertised in Local Newspaper.
: Conditions Set:
, Planning Coordinator.
Date:
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmimrton.mn.us
TO:
Planning Commission K ~ t.,
FROM:
Jim Atkinson
Assistant City Planner
SUBJECT:
Conditional Use Permit - Excavating/Grading - Garvey/Empey
Properties
DATE:
August 10, 2004
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Colin Garvey has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow excavating
and grading to begin on the subject properties prior to the approval of a preliminary
plat for the residential and commercial development that is expected to occur. The
Garvey and Empey properties, currently located in Castle Rock Township, are located
south of Highway 50 and east of Highway 3 (see attached map). Although the
properties are currently owned separately by Mr. Garvey and Ms. Empey, Mr. Garvey
will be the sole developer for both properties.
The City of Farmington does not have the authority to approve a CUP for a property
that is not located within the City. It is appropriate in some instances, however, to
begin review of a grading CUP application for a property after a petition for
annexation has been submitted. As outlined below, the public hearing for a grading
CUP is conducted by the City Council after review by the Planning Commission. Final
approval of the grading CUP by the City Council would not occur until the annexation
of the properties is complete.
DISCUSSION
Normally no excavation or grading would occur on the Garvey/Empey properties until
after the City Council approved a preliminary plat, which would occur after the
property has been annexed. However, Mr. Garvey has indicated a strong desire to
begin grading immediately after the properties are annexed but prior to the approval
of a completed preliminary plat application package. There is a mechanism by which
an applicant can potentially do so. Section 3-22-5 (A) of the City Code provides, in
part, that:
An application for a mine or excavation permit shall be processed in
accordance with the same procedures and requirements... relating to
conditional use permits. However, the hearing shall be held by the city council
following a review and recommendation from the planning commission.
.
Mr. Garvey has submitted a petition for annexation for both properties. A public
hearing for the annexation petitions is scheduled for the City Council meeting on
September 7, 2004. The City Council would also hold a public hearing for the grading
CUP on the same date and could approve the grading CUP if the annexation is
approved.
Engineering Review
On July 27, 2004, Mr. Garvey submitted an application (see attached) seeking a
Conditional Use Permit for grading the Garvey/Empey properties. At the time of this
memo, the final concept plan and grading plan have not been submitted. Staff
expects the documents to arrive on Monday morning. The plans will be reviewed upon
receipt and comments will be provided to the Commission prior to the meeting on
Tuesday.
The applicant is applying for a Conditional Use Permit that would allow excavating
and grading to begin with the express understanding that the applicant is willingly
accepting any and all of the risks inherent in grading an area before the development
plan for that area has received all required final approvals.
ACTION REQUESTED
.
Review the Conditional Use Permit to allow excavating/grading to begin on the
Garvey/Empey properties and forward a recommendation to the City Council, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The properties shall be annexed prior to final approval of the conditional
use permit.
2. The applicant must obtain final City approval of the rough grading plan from
the City Engineer
3. The applicant must pay any applicable fees, provide adequate surety in an
amount and form approved by the Director of Public Works, and comply
with any other reasonable conditions imposed by the Director of Public
Works.
4. All excavation and grading activities must be consistent with plans
submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Works.
5. The applicant assumes all risk involved with grading a site before final plat
and street and utility plan approval. Any changes to the grading of a site,
including any corresponding costs necessitated by the resolution of any
design issues identified during the approval process for the final plat and
street and utility construction plans, are the sole responsibility of the
applicant.
.
~:Ul~
~ Atkinson
Assistant City Planner
Location Map
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~ ~
~ lEtJ-:U
Willi
~I/
~ -
f-- ~
- m f--
- ~
- - -
f--- C]
- '---- - n
.
jV CD r~ .
- ~
- lit
- ~~ iI
- /fl 0- J
- :.~
.~
l~ .
~
B~
~~
EffiD ~
FIAJ
PL-
I-- -
-- - ~I
~I ~
f--! IT .
f--
f-- -
f-- l----
- n-
f-- !
I I II
~ Subject Properties
f.u-u--l City Boundary
~--------~
N
A
300 0 300 600 Feet
, '