Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.11.05 Planning Packet City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farminrton, MN 55024 A Proud Past - A PromisinJ Future Committed to ProvidfngHfgh QJJalfty, Timely and Responsive SerVIce to All Of Our Customers ." AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 11, 2005 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a), December 14, 2004 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Farmington Business Park Design Standards .. DISCUSSION a) Mattson Farm Final Plat 8: Wetland Conservation Act Permit Applicant: M.P. Investments b) Hometown Inc. Concept Plan Applicants: Hometown Inc., Kim Friedrich and Terry Mahoney c) Findings of Fact for Variance Denial - Doug Malszycki d) Discussion of Possible Rezoning of Certain Property Located Near Farmington Industrial Park e) Discussion of possible Code Amendment Regarding Signs for Nonresidential Uses in Residential Zoning Districts 5. ADJOURN '. * The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission have submitted their DRAFT minutes from their December 8, 2004 meeting for information only. r , ( I ) hi . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: / (, Planning Commission ,... r FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Mattson Farm Final Plat &. Wetland Conservation Act Permit DATE: January 11, 2005 INTRODUCTION M. P. Investments is seeking a recommendation for approval of the Mattson Farm Final Plat and the Wetland Conservation Act Permit. The plat consists of five (5) lots and three outlots on approximately 5.09 acres of land located east of Akin Road and northeast of Eaves Way (see Exhibit A). . DISCUSSION Recent Approvals Through a policy approved by the City Council on November 3, 2003, MUSA may be granted to a parcel less than 5-acres in size administratively. Therefore, the Mattson Farm property has been extended MUSA. The Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plat for Mattson Farm on September 28, 2004 and the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat on November 1, 2004 with conditions. Plat Layout 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 and north is platted into three outlots as described below. The front yard setbacks are proposed at a minimum of 20 feet and the lot sizes are proposed at a minimum of 10,000 square feet, meeting the R-1 zoning district requirements. 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 Outlot B Outlot C Transportation Lot Size 16,188 square feet 13, 173 square feet 13,581 square feet 15,826 square feet 14,795 square feet Lot Size 82,111 square feet 17,593 square feet 4,898 square feet Lot Width 100 feet 76 feet 86 feet 79 feet 100 feet Description Wetland Storm Water Pond Right-of-way for future 203rd Street 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 full intersection. Shed and Drain Field Issues The shed and drain field issues continue to be unresolved at this time. As was the case when the preliminary plat was approved, a shed owned by the property owner to the south (Ken Gerdts, 20380 Akin Road) is partially located on the Mattson Farm property (see Exhibit B) and needs to be removed and/or relocated from the Mattson Farm property. The shed currently exists within a soon-to-be acquired City outlot. The City will not accept conveyance of title to this outlot without proof that the transferor (M.P. Investments) has good title without any encumbrances upon the outlot. The Developer (M. P. Investments) and Mr. Gerdts are currently working to resolve the issue. City staff has been informed that Mr. Gerdts may intend to remove the northerly portion of his shed only to the property line shared with Mattson Farm, in order to remedy the encroachment upon the Mattson Farm property. However, the property owned by Mr. Gerdts is zoned R-1, which requires a minimum side yard setback of 6 feet. If Mr. Gerdts intends to remove only the portion (two to four feet) of the building that is on the Mattson Farm property, Mr. Gerdts will be required to apply for a variance from the side yard setback requirements. City staff and the City Attorney believe that the best course of action would be for Mr. Gerdts to remove enough of the northern portion of the shed to (a) eliminate the encroachment onto the Mattson Farm property and (b) keep the remainder of the shed out of the six-foot side yard setback. This would eliminate the need to seek a variance (the granting of which would certainly not be guaranteed), and it would also help ensure that the shed would not be adversely affected by excavating and grading on the Mattson Farm property (which is expected to be done right up to the property line). . In addition to the outstanding shed issue, a septic drain field that serves the property to the south (Gerdts) appears to encroach upon the Mattson Farm property (see Exhibit B). Staff has observed that piping from the drain field is located to the west of the shed previously discussed (see Exhibit C). A survey of the existing drain field needs to be performed in order to verify its location. The drain field needs to be located 10 feet from the property line as per Minnesota Statute 7080 in Figure 0-4 (see Exhibit D). City staff and the City Attorney believe that the best course of action would be for Mr. Gerdts to move the septic system drain field far enough to the south to (a) eliminate any existing encroachment onto the Mattson Farm property and (b) keep the entire drain field at least 10 feet away from the property line, as required by law. There appears to be more than enough room to the south of the existing drain field and to the north of the Gerdts' driveway to accomplish such a relocation. City Attorney Joel Jamnik has advised staff that final plat approval should be contingent upon the removal or relocation of the shed and drain field and that the City should not sign the final plat until the issues are resolved. Potential Alignment of 203rd Street . The Developer and the City have reached an agreement to allow for the potential right-of-way of 203rd Street along the northerly border of the Mattson Farm Final Plat. The Developer has included right-of-way on the plat for future 203rd Street in Outlot C. Wetland Conservation Permit The Developer has submitted its Wetland Conservation Act Permit application. John Smyth, the City's Wetland Specialist, has recommended that the City approve the Wetland Conservation Act Permit (see Exhibit E). Engineering Review The Engineering Division has provided comments to the Developer's Engineer concerning minor revisions to the plat, and the plat approval is contingent upon meeting those requirements. ACTION REQUESTED Recommend approval of the Mattson Farm Final Plat and the Wetland Conservation Act Permit and forward the recommendation to the City Council contingent upon the following: . . . . 1. The shed encroachment upon Outlot B of the Final Plat must be remedied in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. 2. The septic drain field encroachment upon Outlot B of the Final Plat must be remedied in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. 3. The Final Plat approval is contingent on the preparation and execution of the Development Contract and approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering Division. Respectfully submitted, ()/~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner cc: M. P. Investments Ken Gerdts, 20380 Akin Road exHI8 rr A ~ ~ !;~~ lO I ~ ~&\~ ~ ""& ~ n e~lll ! I~ i!~~ ~ II ~ ~ v ~ . -1"1 I '11 r! i!; ~ ~ ! ~ :1_u~ I -- t.I ~ ~i ~ h l!) . ~ u I ~ I i J ~~ z> ! ~~~I -z ~! : = l "'", e ~8 I , ~i "'... is I _+_~ ~ -ls "'''':::!i ~ ,- "I I 1~ .01 i;!- I~~ls ~! lIli!;o I ~ II"? II 5l~v m "'" 0 ~ ~ ___!_u-l I - I :z; []~ 1_j~ ; sti~ CL ~ S8~ ~I~~ ls III ~~ __i ~ ;Ii :S~!;W I !~I! i~ ~ ~o n 8 . 0 0' '" . /:~I" -' () . ~' f- ~ 0" , 'v <:l , '" " ~ .. , 0 v . "- ,+' () ~ < .. ~ z ... 0 . rn E-i E-i /' < ~ --- --- --- ---- I ~ ! ~ Ii " t~: I ~: I ~i I ,. L~~, I ~~\,,---- .,,\.~,c.: ~....\"': ~# ... ..-:lfII. d ____ f'-. \ \'<rr!. 't~.. I ...' ^-< ___ ~ >,_ .' ~ \/ \ I~ - '1 ~ \ ~ l- I ~ a:; I ~ I I I . L --J ::l/l\Q\Oko.l~\IOld\S"l'fNI..I\'"'''_IUowld"\.a...'.a'a\d"",ro.o\pO''''I''''\;~ --- . _-I \ .'1 .... \ <' (/) \ \1.1 3: \ \ .... \ 1 (/) \ Cl \ ('(. . \ '" ~ 0 L- c< --- . ~it,. ".'.:~' ", ~ . , /_---<--0 ~'J ...,1 _......... -- ............- ~ ~ EXHIE>lr tB~;~.~l i mHI!ff~P . t !r"'i-i!i:U J Q, Jjj" ~..:::!~II ~ i Hj~i.HtI~~ , ~" "l'iir;' H A 9; ~ J!Dl:::";:il:JI"a I ~ ii ~J!~ji:~"~! i II m!HmH! i j.litJU"Url · I! ~Ih'aIi!": il~ !. J.j~,.h'!U '1 I 1~.1.12' r ;! }J Hj;ilmih Ii ;1 ~ ~ Ol ..... o ~ tJ .0 .;:: :e ~ l E ~ '~= 'I' ! i ~. 8 i !t"~!~1 w I ~ q ~:: ~ E ; ~ +-' Z c ~i: .s~i- a. ~E :::E ... ~ S\.':!I.&\'31~Y. 4\g.~f> Cl " '< .... .... '" l:: po "'" ~'" 'Nui ,,,,. ~~ .r. ,/ ',---/' \ , I I ./' ~ > ~ ~i \!~ ~~ ... ,,1;1 ;::l! ai 8~ ~ < c i i ~ :; . ; V~ ~g (!) .. ~ Z~5 CCZ~ \IIf~ ~~~ ~ ~j ~ 'UI]JI<~.J"I Jll'ldJ>l'i'UQI<SlI JU\H".....lU ....1"'"' ';(. .t! i~' )', 'j, ExI//p/i:C . ~ t ,. . . r /' ( , . " l ,-( ~ .. ' I~ ; ~ ..,..-:':., -',. ;'" I '>~ .,," ,." -4 # ,..~ f'. . , t, ,~, . " ,. . l .. , -! ...' "*.~ I ' . ... .., -r ,; '\ $ , ...,",.. 1?:~ .' ~ ~ . "l .'l ',,,,.. '~'J... " . ;" . J ~ I.,.. ."i'it I". .r~' t ,t;:\' 1',...,. ':1 r' . .1. f j-:....-t...., ~j ~ '.. . ' 'H :';t~'.1 '" .~ < I, .J ~JI.".,. . . I ) , ,,'\ ~; ~. ,.. ~~. r "l . IlI'..j.,tL f! I _ '. r ~../'-:'r'! . ';I., .,t,..;,,",'A(~'l .' ~ ", t~,. ., L~".~ f'" !~ J, ~ r #1',' I I . \,! ,. ,. \ r , J " 1 J, . . ,'1 . ' ~ . ' ! I" . " I \1 I I i · ".. <.1 ., J ' , 'f ...~ I ~ ,J, ,,1< . I ., jl I, \ i. ~ G !' t,f k,l , . " l t.j , , . ,- { .'1. :"" I .~, '- r ".,i.: I . '. ',' , l.l \ , r . .' ~ t )4) " f f J . \, H, iJ' "' I ~)\. , - \ i . . 'fc . ,. it! ~(., "" · I I->r . .. "'. ....~ I rk . \., T 1!;P'" . ~,' , ..:u.~~~Ct I.' , l:J.11'~ ,~. ..~- ~ t ~ ,~\;, \.' . ..::... \ .1 ~-I ....~' 'lof 8111811.]) D-5 . The construction of a seepage bed is essentially the same as that for a trench, except that the bed is wider. Chapter 7080 requires that the bottom area of seepage beds be 50% greater than present sizing standards, to allow for the fact that there is very little sidewall with a seepage bed, and low oxygen transfer. Drainfield rock must be used in seepage beds. Seepage beds are only allowed in locations where the slope is less than 6%. Seepage beds may not be used where soils have percolation rates slower than 60 mpi or in floodplains.* *7080.0170,2A Pressure distribution must be used for all seepage beds where the soil percolation rate is 0.1 to 5 mpi or where the soil has a medium sand texture or coarser.** If pressure distribution is used, the bed may be sized equal to trenches. *** **7080.0150, 3A3 ***7080.0170, 57 Separation Distances Figure D-4 shows the separation distances of the soil treatment unit with respect to water supply wells, bodies of water (defined under the Shoreland Management Act), buildings and trees. Trenches may be installed in and around trees but not so close that extensive root pruning takes place that will injure the trees. . Tree roots will not penetrate into dry trench rock, however roots will grow around a trench rock that is filled with liquid. The tree roots will grow to the rock/ soil interface to take liquid and nutrients. Whenever trees are present or likely to be present, such as on a residential lot, it is recommended that 12 inches of rock be placed under the distribution pipe in the trench. Figure 0-4: Location of Soil Treatment System Item Minimum Setback Water supply well with less than 50 feet of casing and not encountering 100 feet 10 feet of impervious material Any water supply well or buried water suction pipe 50 feet Building 20 feet Stream, lake, or other body of water (Shoreland Management Act) 50, 75, 150 feet .* Property line or any buried pipe distributing water under pressure 10 feet EXNIDrr t emo .11. Bonestroo II Rosene "IilI Anderlik & 1\11 Associates Engineers & Architects Project Name: Mattson Farm Client: City of Farmington To: Lee Smick File No: 141-04-217 From: John Smyth Date: 11/2/04 Re: Recommendation of Approval of Wetland Conservation Act Permit Remarks: Proiect Summary MP Investments of Farmington, Minnesota is proposing a single-family residential development on an approximately 5-acre parcel in the City of Farmington. The project includes development of 5 single-family lots, a cul-de-sac, and a stormwater detention pond. The site is located east of Akin Road, north of Eaves Way, and south of203rd Street with an unnamed property boundary to the east. The site consisted of a farmstead adjacent to a wooded slope and wetland at the northeast corner. ro osed Wetland 1m acts e applicant proposes to fill 7,413 square feet of a wetland to facilitate the development. The applicant consultant indicates the proposed impacts are within a drained Type 1 wetland dominated by reed canary grass and box elder to allow for proper grading to facilitate the construction of two of the five house pads. Proposed Wetland Replacement Mitigation for the proposed impact will be accomplished through the purchase of 7,413 square feet of New Wetland Credit and 2,357 square feet of Public Value Credit from a certified wetland bank. The remaining 5,056 sq. ft. of Public Value Credit will be derived from the on-site stormwater pond. Recommendation The Wetland Permit Application was sent out for review and comments were received until October 5th. The main issues that the applicant has subsequently addressed included signing the application and provided a purchase agreement for the wetland banking credits. The proposed impacts are within a wetland classified as "Utilized" by the City's Classification system, which indicates it, is a lower quality basin. In addition the impacts proposed are less then 10,000 square feet. Taking into consideration the small amount of impact and the wetland classification it is recommended that the permit application for the Mattson Farm be approved .onestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. www.bonestroo.com o S1. Paul Office: 2335 West Highway 36 51. Paul, MN 55113 Phone: 651-636-4600 Fax: 651-636-1311 o Milwaukee Office: 1516 West Mequon Road Mequon, WI 53092 Phone: 262-241-4466 Fax: 262-241-4901 o Rochester Office: 1127'" Street NE Rochester, MN 55906 Phone: 507-282-2100 Fax: 507-282-3100 o Willmar Office: 205 5th Street SW Willmar, MN 56201 Phone: 320-214-9557 Fax: 320-214-9458 o St. Cloud Office: 3721 23'" Street S 51. Cloud, MN 56301 Phone: 320-251-4553 Fax: 320-251-6252 o Grayslake Office: 888 East Belvidere Road Grayslake, IL 60030 Phone: 847-548-6774 Fax: 847-548-6979 . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Hometown Concept Plan DATE: January 11, 2005 INTRODUCTION The applicants, Kim Friedrich and Terry Mahoney of Hometown Inc., have submitted a concept plan for a proposed 28-lot single-family development that would be located south of 209th Street, east of the American Legion on Trunk Highway 3, and north of the Marschall Lines bus garage. The process for submitting a concept plan is outlined in the City's Subdivision Ordinance and allows the Planning Commission to provide comments prior to preliminary plat submittal. DISCUSSION The concept plan consists of two separate properties that are currently located in Empire Township. The westerly property is owned by the American Legion and comprises 4.67 acres. The easterly property is owned by Steve Frandrup and comprises 2.97 acres. The owners of Hometown Inc. have signed a purchase agreement for the two properties. The City's MUSA Review Committee recently approved MUSA to the two properties contingent upon annexation of the properties. Concept Plan Review Hometown Inc. proposes to develop 28 single-family lots on a total of 7.64 acres with a density of 3.53 units/acre. Hometown Inc. has proposed a subdivision development with minimum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet and minimum lot widths of 60 feet. Therefore, Hometown Inc. would have to (a) petition for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow low/medium density on the property and (b) request R-2 zoning to meet the density requirements. Transportation As shown on the concept plan, the only access into the proposed subdivision would be from 209th Street. The interior roadway is proposed with a 60-foot right-of-way and roadway width of 28 feet. The proposed roadway requires a sidewalk on one side of . . . the street as per City standards. The proposed cul-de-sac length to the southern cul- de-sac is approximately 1,100 feet, requiring a variance to the City's maximum cul- de-sac length of 600 feet. In 2001, the Planning Commission approved a variance of 910 feet for the cul-de-sac in Middle Creek Estates to allow a total length of 1,410 feet. The roadway width in Middle Creek Estates is 32 feet and the development totals 26 single-family lots. UtUities Both water and sanitary sewer were constructed along the eastern border of the Hometown Inc. site in 2000 to service the Tamarack Ridge development to the north. The existing water and sanitary sewer lines are located within an existing 42-foot wide utility easement on the east side of the Hometown Inc. concept plan. Utilities for the proposed Hometown development would connect to these existing utilities. A storm water pond is also required for the Hometown Inc. development. The applicants have proposed a pond in the southeast corner of the development that will outlet to the Prairie Waterway to the east. The Engineering Division has reviewed the concept plan and has provided a number of comments to the applicants concerning engineering requirements on the plan. Park and TraU Requirements Randy Distad, the Parks 8: Recreation Director has provided comments concerning the concept plan that are attached to this packet. He recommends that trails and sidewalks be included within the development; however, because of the close proximity of Tamarack Park to the north of this plan, he will make a recommendation to the Parks 8: Recreation Committee that the City take cash-in-lieu of park property from the applicant. Development Committee Comments At the January 4, 2005 Development Committee meeting, the members suggested revisions to the concept plan. Those suggestions included relocating the storm water pond to the southwest and/or to a location along the southern property line to provide a buffer from the existing volleyball courts owned by the American Legion and/or the bus depot owned by Marschall Lines. Additionally, the members suggested a buffer from these existing uses through the planting of trees and fencing. The members also suggested that if the pond remains where it is proposed, it needs to be reconfigured to remain out of the roadway boulevard. Additional comments included the concern of buildable lots on 1, 8, 12, 20, 24, 27, and 28. ACTION REQUESTED Provide comments to the applicant regarding the concept plan. . . . Respectfully submitted, ~~ Lee Smick, AICP City Planner cc: Hometown I nc. . o z z o m ,~ c.::> c..> ~ ~~.~~: ~~L -S ':~~ ~ Cl.. w ..- w o z <( 0::: -q- , l I , : I : I t_____ ..- ..- 0.... :r: (f) z 3: o I- m N Z o I- U W (f) Cl!l:2tl___ u_.- ~ ~ I' \, OJ o z \ ~Iti z >- i Ii ~ II II ~ II II c..> l: l: x D D t:~ t:~ w 5l~ ~~ '" ... ID d z NOlJ.d3:lX3 ... '0 N CUfl_ - r66~ - - ilAlll I . I : ~ IJ ~!:!~ I I d~ I sz~ ~ ~~ i l~~ I I I I . 01) d z z o l- ll. ... o x ... . 4/) OD"GCiL . OO"tCL ZO'S99 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --I lO"Otl M.Zv,SO'OON lO"all: I I I I I I I dt ~ I: I 0 !~~~ I '''\1loJ I I I - " ... -' '" z o z o l- ll. ... o x ... :: z c u '" ... 2 C F/t.L. ~~ . \ \ \ ;\-"'T-- II -~QQI_ \ \ \ ~l \ m ..- w o z <( 0::: -q- ~~ ..- ..- 0.... .... (7j ~~ z 3: 0 I- ~~ ~ i N l") Z 0 I- U W ~ (f) R - - - - - -- ) HJJlOR - - I ~ . t.> fI) t.> 5 . Ill: ell II I~ ~1 . . . . ~ 4 ~ ~~ jl 1I . SnONlrlfUI8 . OO'06~ sse~" ss cr! ./ AI w"~ "'---=-______~2--____ _c6lOao_ ..g " oliN '" N -~':----I--- I ~o ~~ ~~ I I L =-=- =-=- =-=- =-=-::.:- =-=- --f..J L ::.:-t:':6- J -1 r---,--l I ;:::.. I", :t~ I ~'I ~ N 0 0 I r, '" 0'" I '" I c!'ci L =-=-t~ .t6- ..J r---:-;-l 1 "d-I!? I .-, .. l) :.1 ~ t') 0 0 I~: "f ~~ I llCI L =-=-t~'t6~ I r--_::-;-l 1 I "': I!? I ", li l) !2",'1 ~ v 0 I r, ", 0.,. "f ~ci 11'" L =-=-tn6-~ r---::-;-l 1 "d-I!? I ;;.) .. g I ~I ..; It) 0 r, '" 0'" I '" I c!'ci L =-=-t~.t6-..J J r---.;:;-l l 1 "d-I!? I ;;.) .. g I ~I ..; COo ,_, '" 0'" I llCI I c!'ci I L =-=-t~'t6-~ l III 18 o ao . III ~ o "t- "t- O ./ '<' 0- -v> c.) + -v> III o o Ig ~ 'ON N 0 I 1 d 3 ~ X 3 CC'C:f:,..L- 1+00 I 2+00 I ~ NOll. r:i3:JX3 OO'06~ _ ~ Q. ~ 0 L. 0 NO/ .1. d ,g ~ -- _ OO'O6~_ III · ;t 3:JX3 III ~ ~ I~ 01 V '0 N N 0 I 1 d 3 ~ X 3 . III III OO'06~ Oo'ggr- . . z~ -0:: u..J \ 41< Q.~ ~S' 0< U bl~ ~~ ~~ ~u o_ X .~ 0:: o::u mC'l ~41 Q. CX)OI 0:: LLQ. ~41 W (J)- 0(1) LLQ. ",< 0(1) -< 5+ .ss-~ I ~ I<==+~ ,.\\ - -- - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - -- ~ ti'oe I _- ~ I GQ' +t-Odr--::---l/ -.. 0 I cr~ q I:!; I ~ .. 0 001 _ I "'ao I ~ qci I I L-~rror~-~-L I rl-= ~ :l--=---Y1 -=---t~'or~ ~-=--'II o at; 0 iij 0 I~ I ~ ~ 0 ~Il NOlo I ~I L ~- ~~ror~---=-uJ1L-=---tror~ ~JJ j I r--....-;,-----~-------::-;;;-, I o . I &~ ' I &~ I 0 /q I <Xl .. g ~II N .. g I ql o.....ao 0 NOI 0 ~'" I ~~ *'f I ~~ l~llCI L_ .....rl"or~--_=-.J L-=--.=.!!'or~ ..... ---l r--~.. ------, r-------;:-;l l.c> I I . " 10 li t; 81 t') li t; I ::;1 ~ I ~~~ 0 I N~~ I g '" I ao--: '" I ao--:j LL-~~-_=-_=-~~-90.8ZI-~j J I r----;rl"or~---*-----7 :.;:/ I :::: = I 1 ;; :l / ....~/' o 0" t; 0 0" .. / J/ Iq I co .. 0 '1/1 v .. g t;;:,t;;:,. o ..... C'I /f?/ N ..... 1 l' ~llCI L_J;___$I L___ ~~/ / r -lZ}O~-==- -, r - =eo'6a=- ----j -.. I ., 18 I' It) :t i 81' ;;:l \ r--, ~g I .....~~ ~f : ~!! \ ~ ~ ~ L.:tOl ~: ~ci /'}^ ~~ ~ ~~()h~O ;::: .. I ,/ / '- ~.. -r-- ~ ...., o I cr~ b ~~~'/, ...... I /' C'I 10 I v .. 0 011 ,'J.. /' ;:::....... ,/ ~ c:i ..... '" .,. c:i I /)7. / c7 ~ .., / r - -- ~ .. N '" I ~- '" ,/,/ co..g II!') crl!? t- '0 ~I I_'/~'/ N.,. " ,.....g f L_ "'_=..=-......J v / ~~ 'Ii!! NglO r -L.Z'tO~- -,/ ao 0 ,/ II1ci I ~ ~ .. -, L _ _ -g6.tZ~- - - --1 L - -90'~6- - J ~ ~~:~~~ 0 *" -, -.Joe I ~.. I I /''''----q)~ I cr e I uSa -\ q/' ~ l(j N .. g ..... I....J'" <r) ,~oo.,. ~ -- -- Z I "'... C'I t.- '::::''2.,90",,"\ ~ ~ 1...:6 ci C'I ..- \ o. ~ \. 6'~;---::l A' ^'~<. I " ~ ---r- ..~' / '-~... I ;; :l ...... 'fl'6t \ ,/,/ ...... ............ .......J g~ / moO 1/1"---\\( ;;:l............. ~~ Ir.! ~.. \~ lit; I mO //6,0 'I!? ,<4' ::",0 I / /~. 0 li g \ ..r 0 '" C'I .::::' "'.,.C'! 0 /1 .....~ao \ \ mO cci I / 1 ~ci \ \ \ i LL.t'6t-' L - - -9nZ~- - _.J '- - -86't8- _..J g- ~~ roo.gr r---,--l I :::::l I I 0"" I I o ,... '" g I 0 o 01..... 0 o lO--: I 01 ao '0 ao II L__~__J _>n6 .-:; 3+00 it44;74 I 6:!: 8 ~- -1 . 8 ili -n 8 +- ... n + a 8_ ;!: nl I n <== 8 ~- D c- _ _ ...Lr.L____ t- I I :. (J) z o '" W ...J 8 ;- . 8 ~-n 8 ~- co ci z z o t- c.. w o . ~ I" f"J C,') ;I- m rr"'; '.j .' 0"'~ i' " " "- .... 1\ 1\ " i' "- " " r- i' " j\ 1'. " " " " ~~'I...~, '" Z o ...J 5 lD '" z F (J) X w 10 ..... r.: ao C'I o ari o co ........- ........- \ ~ .to ~~ I I \ -----c----J ci I \ z I I z I 0 I Q') ci l- I z I 0... W z I ~ ~ z 0 I () '!I. X ~~ ~~ ~i I- w I "z ~ I Ill;;: :;" 0... i:i'" iil:l ~~ ~m w (J) i5c a I :;- ~~ () ..- I ~5 x w jl t:~ ":15 w G :i!~ 1;:.. Z U 2~ <( 0::::: M.~t .lKl.OON C~ \ ~~~, .' ->> .:. ~~ Cs' ., ), '. ... ~ t' ,.....-.J- W ~ V~, "L"__ P' . 1....T...\........ · · ~ . (J) N Z o I- U W (f) , , , , , , , , , , . , , . 1..------------- 1:: ,.; 1tJ . . . _lilgl_ . 4i\ .\ . ~. c:,_ . tLW r . o ~ \ ,e'. o .~:",. \ "\ ~i. 1 ~~~ . '-_ (J)) :I ~ .t'4 -a-! ~ ~~t5 '" L- z VJ ~. <( 0 c:L. ~ 0::::: t r ii~ -T-!~ ~ ~ :J. ~ ~ 1 .~ I ~ ...t: (f) · c ,. ..c ~ -.r Vi c.U ~ II! '" - .~ ..." ~ 8- e p;. 1 ~ . . . . ~ ~ ..- ..- 0.... I ~\~~ I- ,~ ~ '" z 9 :; CD '" Z ~ <II X ... o-M.lt.9Q.OON _ _ _OO"06L_ _ _ ~ ~ N n z o I- U W (f) I~ 1'& t '0 N N 0 I 1 d 3 :> x 3 00'0.' -.J1i - - OO'9iiL - - roow o oti o co d z I I I I I I I I~ I I I I I I I I ---- ---- I ;l;- ria ~ S! ~ on d z Is z I~ 0 I- a. ... u x ... I I I I I I ~Is ~... ~I:ll I I I I I I I -- -- a I- a. w u x w I- a. ... u x ... ... l:l in l ! ~ R = t..l . rJl I~ ~ II: 15" ~ I ~.B c:: ~ a ;: d z z o z o ~ nn-c:c:a OO'Kl ZO'S99 lO'OtoL NOO'08'42.W I M.Zt.ao.OON ll)'Qt? <C + ~ - :--.c ~ l-L\ (':3^'v' 3lVON3ddIHJ) ~'ON ^ 'v'MH~IH >l N mJl 31\115 ~~~ HJ.l/ON - I . . . 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: Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director RE: Comments on Hometown Conceptual Development Plan DATE: January 6, 2005 INTRODUCTION I received the Hometown Conceptual Development Plan and wish to provide some comments about trails, sidewalks and parks within this development. . DISCUSSION The submitted conceptual development plan does not identify any trails, sidewalks or a park. I have attached for the Planning Commission's consideration a concept plan that contains proposed trail and sidewalk locations. It is shown as Exhibit A. While none of the trail and sidewalk locations are identified on the City's trail master plan, I nonetheless feel that there needs to be some pedestrian and bike connections made to Tamarack Park, which is a City park located just to the north of this development and across 209th Street West. Within Tamarack Park there have been trails constructed that will provide a connections to other future trails that will constructed as part of the City's comprehensive trail system. As you can also see, constructing these trails in the locations identified in Exhibit A allows for a future trail connection to be made to the south where it could connect to a future east/west trail that is proposed to run along former railroad right of way that is currently owned by Marschall Line, Inc. This proposed future east/west trail along the former railroad right of way will allow a trail connection to be made to Trunk Highway 3 to the west and to the Prairie Waterway Trail to the east. The trails and sidewalk locations proposed by staff within the development and combined with existing trails in Tamarack Park will provide a variety of walking and biking loops of varying distances to be created. Still even more loops of varying distances could eventually be created should trails in the development be connected south to a proposed trail along former railroad right of way. At this time I would recommend that the City not require the developer to dedicate any land for a park in this development for the major reason that Tamarack Park is located within close walking distance of this development and with the construction of trails and a sidewalk should allow for good, quick access to Tamarack Park. I would recommend that the City take cash-in-lieu of park land from the developer for this development. ACTION REQUESTED Require the developer to amend his concept plan to show trails and a sidewalk in the locations as shown in Exhibit A or when a Preliminary Plat is submitted by the developer to the City, the developer would be required to show the locations of trails and a sidewalk as shown in Exhibit A. ~~tfUllr;t;tp . Randy fttad Parks and Recreation Director cc: Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Members . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: l GfG. Planning Commission FROM: Jim Atkinson Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Findings of Fact for Variance Denial - Doug Malszycki DATE: January 11, 2005 INTRODUCTION Mr. Malszycki applied for a variance from the minimum lot size requirement in the A-1 (Agriculture) zoning district. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 14, 2004 and unanimously denied the variance. . DISCUSSION After action was taken on the variance, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare Findings of Fact, which outlines the basis for the denial. The Findings of Fact are attached to this memo. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the Findings of Fact. Respectfully submitted, q-~ Jim J\tkinson Assistant City Planner . . . . CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA IN RE: Application of Doug Malszycki For a Variance to the Minimum Lot Size Requirement in the A-1 Zoning District FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION On December 14, 2004, the Farmington Planning Commission met to consider the application of Doug Malszycki for a variance to the minimum lot size requirement in the A-I (Agriculture) zoning district. The applicant was present and the Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is located at 19585 Flagstaff Avenue and is zoned A-I (Agriculture). 2. According to the City Code, the minimum lot size requirement is 40 acres. 3 The applicants have requested the variance to create two (2) additional lots consisting of approximately one (1) acres each. Each lot would be approximately 39 acres less than the minimum lot size requirement. 4. The City requires that the minimum lot size be in compliance with the City Code if a hardship is not determined. 5. In granting a variance, the following findings are required: a. 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. If the Code amendment had not occurred in 2002 to increase the minimum lot size to 40 acres, the applicant could proceed with a plat and be in complete compliance with the Zoning Code. The amendment was adopted, however, to prevent the creation of parcels for new construction less than 40 acres, which is what is proposed in this case. The proposed variance would allow a subdivision that is inconsistent with the intent of the existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation. A hardship is not present. b. 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. 61335 1 . . . When the City Code was amended to increase the minimum lot size in the A-I District, several properties became nonconforming. That is, there is nothing unique about the Malszycki parcel from a land use or zoning perspective. c. 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. A hardship is not present. d. 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 variance to create two one-acre parcels would alter the character of the area. The intent of the A-I zoning district and the Urban Reserve Comprehensive Plan designation is to (1) maintain an agricultural environment and (2) preserve large tracts of land for future development after 2020. The variance would allow the construction of two new housing units on lots that would be significantly smaller than allowed in the district, thereby altering the character of the area. e. 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. f. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. A hardship is not present. DECISION Applicant's request for a variance from the minimum lot size requirement in the A-I (Agriculture) zoning district is denied. CITY OF FARMINGTON BY: Planning Chair ATTEST: Its Administrator 61335 2 DRAFT . Farmington Parks and Recreation Advisory Commi,ssion Minutes from the Regular Meeting on December 8, 2004 Members Present: Randy Oswald, Paula Higgins, Mike Buringa and Robin Hanson Members Absent: Dawn Johnson Other's Present: Parks and Recreation Director Randy Distad. I. Call To Order Chair Oswald called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Quorum was present. II. Approval of Agenda. Hanson moved and Buringa seconded to approve the meeting agenda. APIF. Motion carried. III. Approval of Minutes. Hanson moved and Higgins seconded to approve the November 2004 meeting minutes. Members voting in favor: Higgins, Hanson and Oswald. Member abstaining: Buringa. Motion carried. IV. Presentations None . V. Old Business A. Approve Agreement with Farmington Youth Hockey Association (FYHA) Director Distad informed Commission members that FYHA Board of Directors has reviewed the one revision to the Agreement related to if a new arena were constructed that the Agreement would be opened up and the concession stand lease would be reviewed for application to a new facility. Buringa moved and Oswald seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of the Agreement with FYHA. Members voting in favor: Buringa, Hanson and Oswald. Member abstaining: Higgins. Motion carried. B. Farmington Business Park Preliminary Plat Director Distad provided an update on the continuation of the public hearing by the Planning Commission on the Farmington Business Park Preliminary Plat. Based on the most recent preliminary plat submitted, Commission members felt that the trail alignment should be revised to take advantage of a future trail being constructed around the perimeter of the new storm water ponds. The construction of the ponds included a gravel base being installed along the north and east side of the ponds. Since the base work was completed as part of the project, it was felt that the developer would then only have to pay for the cost of paving a trail on top of the existing base. Commission members also had a safety concern with the trail crossing at the 12th Street and Trunk Highway 50 intersection since it was only a three way intersection and the speed limit is 55 miles per hour on that section of Trunk Highway 50. Commission members also agreed with trail connections being made through the two cul-de-sacs. Motion by Hanson and seconded by Higgins to recommend to the Planning Commission that the Farmington Business Park Preliminary Plat trail alignments be revised to show trail connections through the two cul-de-sacs, a paved trail being shown on the west side of the development and along the east side of the storm water pond, a trail being show on the north side of the business park along the storm water pond and the previously proposed trails being eliminated. APIF. Motion carried. . C. Giles Construction Concept Plan Director Distad explained a revised concept plan that Parks and Recreation Department staff had been working on that would allow two (2) four-field ballfield complexes to be constructed on a larger park area than what the developer proposed on the concept plan. He further stated that two of the four fields planned for one of the ballfield complexes would have to be constructed on land that is currently not annexed into the City. However should the land be annexed into the City sometime in the future and then developed, he would recommend that the City require the developer to dedicate the land for park in this area that is identified for constructing the two . . . remaining ballfields as part of the four-field complex. By consensus Commission members were in agreement with the revised concept plan that showed space for two (2) four-field ball complexes. D. Charleswood NE Preliminary Plat Director Distad updated the Commission members on the status of the Charleswood NE Preliminary Plat. He informed Commission members that staff members have been trying to get the developer to show additional trails that would connect a proposed small parking lot to existing trails that lead to some of the park amenities such as the playground equipment, shelter and basketball court. He also stated that the developer has included the location of the boardwalks that were approved as part of the park master plan for Meadowview Park and a trail along Pilot Knob Road. Higgins moved and Hanson seconded that a recommendation be forwarded to the Planning Commission that the additional trails proposed by staff to connect the parking lot to existing trails and park amenities be shown on the preliminary plat. APIF. Motion carried. E. Community Center Steering Committee Meeting Update Director Distad informed the Commission members that more than 300 community center surveys have been completed and returned to the survey consultant. He reminded Commission members that 300 surveys was the minimum number needed in order for the consultant to tabulate and the survey to be considered valid should all demographic groups be sufficiently represented in the returned surveys. Director Distad stated that he would be checking with the consultant to see when the cut off date is for surveys to be returned, when the consultant will be tabulating the surveys and when the survey results might be presented to the community. He said that he will bring back this information to the January 2005 Commission meeting. F. 2005 Fees and Charges for Outdoor Fields Director Distad explained that staff were recommending that the participant fee to use the ball fields was going to be increased from $4.00 to $6.00 that each participant would pay in 2005. He also informed Commission members that City staff members have made a proposal to school district staff members about the City wanting to quit dragging school district ball fields during the summer season. He stated that Department staff members have met with school district personnel to present the proposal. The proposal stated that the City would continue to drag the school district ball fields once a week during the 2005 summer season but that they are proposing as part of the transition plant to have the school district drag their fields for all tournaments in 2005. Then in 2006, the school district would take over the dragging of their ball fields during the summer season. In addition to the ballfield dragging, it was also discussed about each entity scheduling and issuing permits only for their own fields. Commission member Hanson expressed concern about the participant fee going from $3.00 to $6.00 over a two year period in effect doubling the fee in two years. Director Distad stated that the participant fee does not cover the entire cost to maintain and prep the fields for play. He estimated that it costs the City about $20.00 per field to drag each time. Since all members of the Commission have children who participate in youth sports, Commission members did not vote for any recommendation to either support or oppose the increase in the participant fee from $4.00 to $6.00. VI. New Business A. Park Master Planning Review Director Distad informed Commission members that there was good attendance at the first public open house for master planning Middle Creek, Vermillion Grove, Silver Springs and Hill Dee Parks. He also stated that there were several comments received via email and regular mail. Staff attempted a new format in trying to receive comments for initial input on the park master plans by including a questionnaire in the packet that was mailed to residents that allowed the questionnaire to be mailed back or dropped off at City Hall if a resident was not able to attend the meeting in person. The announcement about the public open house and the questionnaire were also posted to the City's web site for the public to access, download and email their comments to staff. He stated that Commission member Johnson attended the public open house along with several newly elected council members and current council member Christy Fogarty. He stated that the initial input received will be used by the consultants to develop the first draft of the park master plans for the four parks and will be presented to the community on January 13, 2005, when the second public open house will be held. He informed Commission members that staff will be meeting in the next week with the consultants to review the comments and ideas received from the first public open house and help assist with creating the first draft of the park master plans. . . . B. 2004 PRAC Goals Reviewed Commission members reviewed goals that they set and achieved in 2004. C. 2005 Goal Setting Chair Oswald asked for ideas on goals that the Commission would like to identify and work towards achieving in 2005. Commission member Hanson stated that she had thought of several goals that she would like to see the Commission work towards achieving in 2005 and they were as follows: 1. Analyze and determine outdoor recreational facility needs. 2. Analyze and determine future opportunities and direction for the Farmington Outdoor Pool. 3. Explore and determine possible dedicated funding sources for parks and trails other than through park dedication money that flows into the Park Improvement Fund. 4. Research and develop a policy on utilizing volunteer labor for outdoor fields. Director Distad stated that along with these goals that were identified at the meeting, he will also include on a list other possible goals that Department staff would be interested in having the Commission members consider when they set 2005 goals. He said that he will mail a list of potential 2005 goals within the next several weeks so that Commission members have time to review and prioritize all of the potential goals. VII. Additions to the Agenda (None) VIII. Staff Report Director Distad presented information about a recent phone call that he received from SportsCom a company that is exploring interest in the region about constructing a super rink in Lakeville. Apparently the Lakeville School District is investigating whether or not if there is a need to build a larger rink facility in the south metro area and has asked this company to do some investigation with surrounding communities about their interest. Director Distad made Commission members aware of drawings for the future Spruce Street bridge that will span the Vermillion River as part of the commercial development that will be constructed just to the west and north of the bridge. IX. January 2005 Meeting Agenda Topics 1. Set 2005 goals 2. Review first draft of the park master plans 3. Community center survey update 4. Updates on pending preliminary plats X Adjournment Higgins moved and Hanson seconded to adjourn the meeting. APIF. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8: 12 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Randy Distad Parks and Recreation Director and Recording Secretary . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Pl . C .. \(,.~V anmng ommlSSlon FROM: Jim Atkinson Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Farmington Business Park Design Standards DATE: January 11, 2005 INTRODUCTION Colin Garvey has applied for a rezoning (from A-1 to PUD) and adoption of design standards for the proposed Farmington Business Park located south of Highway 50 near Canton Court. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed PUD standards and the proposed design standards at its meeting on December 14, 2004 and recommended approval of the PUD but continued the public hearing for the design standards. The Commission generally agreed to adopt the existing Industrial Park design standards with minor modifications. Each proposed modification is discussed below. DISCUSSION The Industrial Park design standards are located in Section 10-6-20 of the City Code. The following modifications should be considered by the Commission: Exterior Building Materials The existing Industrial Park design standards require certain exterior building materials (brick, stone, concrete, etc.) on 100% of the building. The Planning Commission agreed that this type of regulation would be a significant deviation from existing businesses in the area. Therefore, it may be appropriate to require brick, stone, concrete on 100% of the side of the building that faces any public or private road. The remaining portion of the building that does not face a street could consist of a specified percentage of alternate materials such as metal. There was some preliminary discussion at the December 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting about the possibility of allowing up to 80% of the "non- street" sides of buildings to consist of alternate materials such as metal. While that is certainly an option, it should nevertheless be acknowledged that: . 1. Such a standard would represent a substantial departure from the standards that the City has adopted and enforced in and for the existing Farmington Industrial Park. 2. In many cases, the alternate materials (metal) on the "non-street" sides of buildings will be just as visible to roadway traffic, pedestrians, adjacent businesses and nearby homes as the fronts of the buildings. 3. Any given reduction in design standards could potentially create a "lowest common denominator" effect. That is, developers of future commercial areas in Farmington may argue that the design standards for their projects should not be any more restrictive than the least restrictive standards that exist anywhere else in Farmington. After discussing the issues identified above, the Planning Commission can provide staff with direction regarding the relative building material percentages to insert into the proposed design standards that are attached hereto. Setbacks The existing Industrial Park design standards establish the following building setbacks: Front Yard - 50 feet Side and Rear Yard - 25 feet . In order to be consistent with the proposed PUD standards for the Farmington Business Park, the design standards should require 20-foot setbacks in the front yard and 10-foot setbacks in the side and rear yard. The proposed modification is reflected in the proposed design standards attached to this memo. Coverage The Planning Commission discussed lot coverage related to buildings at its meeting on December 14, 2005. This requirement is found in the PUD standards but not the design standards. The Commission recommended that the maximum building coverage should be 35% for all uses except mini-storage facilities. Given the unique nature of mini-storage, the Commission recommended allowing up to 45% building coverage for this use. According to the existing Industrial Park design standards, the total area covered by buildings and parking areas (including driveways) cannot exceed 65% of the total lot area. This means that every lot would have at least 35% open space (pervious surface). The Commission did not discuss total building and parking coverage as provided in the design standards. The Commission should discuss the following options related to total building and parking coverage: . 1. The maximum lot coverage for buildings and parking areas should be 65% as it is in the existing Industrial Park design standards. 2. The total lot coverage should be increased for all uses. 3. The total lot coverage should be decreased for all uses. 4. The total lot coverage should be increased for mini-storage facilities (for example: 75%). . . . ACTION REQUESTED Recommend approval of the proposed Farmington Business Park design standards. Respectfully Submitted, (. >"7 11L-.. -. ~ ~ Jim Atkinson Assistant City Planner cc: Colin Garvey . PROPOSED FARMINGTON BUSINESS PARK DESIGN STANDARDS (A)Building Material And Design: 1. Exterior Walls facing a public or private street shall consist entirely (100%) of one or more of the following materials and shall receive prior approval of the city: (a) Brick: Size, type, texture, color and placement shall be approved. (b) Stone: Stone shall have a weathered face or shall be polished, fluted or broken face. (c) Concrete Masonry Block: Concrete masonry block shall be those generally described as "customized architectural concrete masonry units" or shall be broken faced brick type units with marble aggregate. All concrete masonry units shall be coated with a city approved coating. There shall be no exposed concrete block on the exterior of any building unless approved by the city. (d) Concrete: Concrete may be poured in place, tilt up or precast; and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated, with a minimum life expectancy of ten (10) years. 2. Exterior Walls not facing a public or private street shall consist of at least _% of one . or more of the following materials and shall receive prior approval of the city: (a) Brick: Size, type, texture, color and placement shall be approved. (b) Stone: Stone shall have a weathered face or shall be polished, fluted or broken face. (c) Concrete Masonry Block: Concrete masonry block shall be those generally described as "customized architectural concrete masonry units" or shall be broken faced brick type units with marble aggregate. All concrete masonry units shall be coated with a city approved coating. There shall be no exposed concrete block on the exterior of any building unless approved by the city. (d) Concrete: Concrete may be poured in place, tilt up or precast; and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated, with a minimum life expectancy of ten (10) years. Alternate exterior surface materials of pre-engineered metal may be substituted in an amount not to exceed _% of an exterior wall that does not face a public or private street if the following conditions apply: (a) The proposed alternate materials are architecturally compatible with the building as a whole as determined by the city planning division; and . . . . (b) The owner/developer complies with any additional screening and/or landscaping requirements of the city; and 3. Alterations To Buildings: Any alterations to buildings shall meet all requirements of this chapter. 4. Canopies: Canopies with visible wall hangers shall not be permitted. Design of canopies shall be in keeping with the design of the building and shall be approved by the city prior to construction or alteration. 5. Roof Mounted Equipment: All rooftop equipment shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet (20') from the edge of the roof and shall be screened. Screening shall consist of either a parapet wall along the roof edge or an opaque screen constructed of the same material as the building's primary vertical exposed exterior finish. Equipment shall be painted a neutral color. The site plan shall indicate all mechanical rooftop equipment and shall include elevations. 6. Loading Docks: The design of the loading docks shall be incorporated into the overall design theme of the building and constructed of materials equal to or the same as the principal building. The loading dock areas shall be landscaped and/or screened so that the visual and acoustic impacts of their function is fully contained and out of view of adjacent properties and public streets. The required width for a landscaped yard along a local collector/industrial or local street is ten feet (10'). The architectural design shall be continuous and uninterrupted by ladders, towers, fences, and equipment. Businesses that abut County Highway 50 and/or County Highway 31 shall not construct loading docks that front these roadways. 7. Trash Containers: Trash containers or trash compactors shall not be located within twenty feet (20') of any street, sidewalk or internal pedestrianway and shall be screened by a six foot (6') masonry wall on three (3) sides of the trash unit. 8. Coverage: Unless otherwise approved by the city, the square footage of all building footprints and parking areas shall not exceed sixty five percent (65%) of the total square footage of any building site within the affected property. (B)Utilities: All buildings and structures shall be served by underground utility distribution facilities. The installation of such utilities shall not change the grade or contour of the city approved grading plan for the site. (C)Building Setbacks: No building or other structure shall be erected within fifty feet (50') 20 feet of the front property line; or twenty five feat (25') 10 feet of the side and rear property lines. If two (2) or more lots are developed as one site, the interior common lot line shall be ignored. (D)Parking Areas: . . . 1. Surfacing: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all parking areas, driveways and loading areas shall be surfaced with asphalt or concrete pavement following the city's engineering standard plates. In the event said surfacing cannot be completed due to weather or seasonal restrictions, a temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued contingent upon the extension of the security or letter of credit required under this chapter. All parking lots located in the front of buildings or adjacent to street rights of way shall be curbed. 2. Off Street Parking Spaces Required: Off street parking shall be provided to serve each site. The minimum number of parking spaces shall be the greater of: (a) One space for every six hundred (600) square feet of industrial space; and One space for every two hundred (200) square feet of office space; and One space for each two thousand (2,000) square feet of storage area or (b) One space per projected employee per shift. 3. Screening: All parking areas shall be screened as required in subsection (F) of this section. 4. Location: Parking shall not be permitted within ten feet (10') of the front property line (those facing any dedicated street), or within ten feet (10') of any side or rear property line unless otherwise approved by the city. (E)Landscaping: All open spaces shall be dustproofed, surfaced, landscaped, rockscaped or devoted to lawns. Not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the required building setback area from any dedicated street shall be landscaped with lawns, trees, shrubs and walkways of a design approved by the city planning division. Landscaping shall be installed within ninety (90) days of occupancy or substantial completion of building, whichever occurs first, weather permitting. The following landscape standards shall apply to all proposed projects within the overlay zones: 1. Street Trees: Street trees shall be planted at one canopy tree per forty feet (40') of street frontage. 2. Perimeter Parking Lots: One tree and three (3) shrubs per forty feet (40') of parking lot perimeter frontage. Plants are to be installed within ten feet (10') of the parking lot frontage area. . . . 3. Interior Parking Lots: One planting island per twenty (20) parking spaces. One tree and three (3) shrubs are required within each planting island. The planting island shall be curbed with concrete. 4. Buffer Area: When the industrial district is adjacent to a residential district, a twenty five foot (25') buffer is required and shall include a six foot (6') high wooden fence and landscaping to screen the adjacent property. (F)Screening: 1. Storage Areas: Without prior approval of the city, no outside storage areas shall be allowed nor shall any articles, goods, materials, incinerators, storage tanks, refuse containers or like equipment be kept in the open or exposed to public view or view from adjacent buildings. If outside storage is given city approval, all materials and/or containers and equipment shall be screened from view. Required screening shall include: a) a six (6) to eight foot (8') high opaque wooden fence and landscaping; b) landscaping and berms; or c) a combination of both to fully screen the outdoor storage. 2. Structure: No accessory structures (including, but not limited to, water towers, storage tanks, processing equipment, cooling towers) or outside equipment shall be constructed, erected or placed on the affected property without prior approval of the city. If such approval is granted, such structures shall be screened from public view and the view of adjacent buildings in a manner approved by the city planning division. (G)Signs: All signs shall be of a design and material approved by the city planning division. Unless otherwise approved, wall signs must be attached to the building, and be parallel to and contiguous with its walls and not projecting above its roofline. No sign of a flashing or moving character shall be installed and no sign shall be painted on any building wall. Pole signs will not be allowed. Advertising billboards are not allowed within the overlay zone. (General guidelines for signage available through the city planner.) (H )Maintenance: 1. Owners and occupants of any or all of a site have the duty and responsibility, at their sole cost and expense, to keep the site, including buildings, improvements and grounds, well maintained, safe, clean and aesthetically pleasing. Such maintenance includes, but is not limited to, the following: (a) Prompt removal of all litter, trash, refuse and wastes. (b) Provide such care as required to maintain all vegetation in a healthy and aesthetically pleasing appearance. (c) Maintain exterior lighting and mechanical facilities in good working order. (d) Maintain parking areas, driveways and roads in good repair. . (e) Prompt repair of any exterior damage to any buildings and improvements. . . . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission '(I(C/ FROM: Jim Atkinson Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Discussion of possible Code Amendment Regarding Signs for Nonresidential Uses in Residential Zoning Districts DATE: January 11, 2005 INTRODUCTION The City Code currently allows one (1) monument sign for nonresidential uses that are conditionally permitted in residential zoning districts. The Code does not have a provision to allow a second monument sign if a property has more than one street frontage. The new Farmington Lutheran Church has expressed an interest in erecting signs at both the entrance on Akin Road and the entrance on Devonport Drive. Currently, only one (1) sign is allowed. DISCUSSION According to the City Code: 10-6-3(2)(c): Permitted Nonresidential Uses: For permitted nonresidential uses, one freestanding monument sign not to exceed fifty (50) square feet in sign area and ten feet (10') in height. Signs shall be located at least ten feet (10') from property lines and in no case shall be permitted within the thirty foot (30') triangle of visibility at street intersections. Wall signs shall not exceed twelve percent (12%) of the building facade or three hundred (300) square feet, whichever is less. If the Planning Commission believes that it may be appropriate to allow one sign per street frontage, the Code could be amended as follows: 10-6-3(2)(c): Permitted Nonresidential Uses: For permitted nonresidential uses, one freestanding monument sign per street frontage not to exceed fifty (50) square feet in sign area and ten feet (10') in height. Signs shall be located at least ten feet (10') from property lines and in no case shall be permitted within the thirty foot (30') triangle of visibility at street intersections. Wall signs shall not exceed twelve percent (12%) of the building facade or three hundred (300) square feet, whichever is less. . ACTION REQUESTED Provide direction to staff regarding the potential Code amendment. ae:llY aLd' Jim Atkinson Assistant City Planner .