HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.26.05 Planning Packet
City of Farminiton
325 Oak Street
Farmington, MN 55024
A Proud Past - A promisin
Committed to Providing HiS
Timely and Responsive Servl
Of Our Customers
eJ
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SPECIAL
Aprl126,2005
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a) Conditional Use Permit - Auto Sales in a B-1 Zone
Applicant: Ivan 8: Janet Janssen
b) Conditional Use Permit - Painted Wall Sign - 311 Oak Street
Applicant: Paul Otten
.
3. DISCUSSION
a) None
4. ADJOURN
.
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463~2591
www.ciJarmington.mn.us
TO:
WC-
Planning Commission
FROM:
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
SUBJECT:
Conditional Use Permit - Auto Sales in a B-1 Zone
Applicant: Ivan & Janet Janssen
DATE:
April 26, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Ivan & Janet Janssen, owners of 1024 8th Street, are requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the
northerly portion of their property to sell automobiles from this location.
DISCUSSION
The northerly portion of the property at 1024 8th Street was recently approved for a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment from Low/Medium Density to Business and a rezoning from R-2 to B-l. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of these actions on April 12, 2005 and the City
Council approved the actions on April 18, 2005 (Exhibit A).
A Conditional Use Permit typically requires a engineered site plan; however, because of the timing
between the approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning by the City Council on
April 18th and the need to submit a plan by April 22nd in order to insert the plan into the Planning
Commission packets, the City has accepted a hand-drawn site plan by the applicant showing the
proposed improvements on the property (Exhibit B). Staff has requested that the engineered site plan
be submitted to the City on or before May 6, 2005. Additionally, the applicants have submitted a
letter of intent for the improvements (Exhibit C). Attached are photos of the existing site where the
new car lot is proposed (Exhibit D).
Site Plan - Applicants Submittal
The applicants propose to have the following improvements completed by November 15,2005 (Staff
comments are italicized):
1. A decorative block wall will be constructed between the existing lot and the northerly lot with
steps leading to the new car lot. The block wall needs to meet engineering requirements.
2. A six to eight foot opaque fence will be installed along the west and north border of the new
car lot. The fence and/or landscaping needs to meet the screening requirements of Section
.
10-6-9 (B) where a 100% opaque screen is required when a business use is within 100 feet of
a residential use.
3. The new car lot will be paved with asphalt to the limits ofthe lot and to the foundation of the
existing garage. Section 10-6-4 (B) requires that any of/street parking lot and driveway shall
be graded for proper drainage and surfaced with concrete or bituminous material.
4. A storm sewer line will be constructed to the west with a catch basin for water runoff located
towards the middle of the new car lot. This proposed line will be connected with the
proposed storm sewer line along 8th Street that is associated with the construction of Ash
Street. The utility plans need to meet engineering requirements.
5. The garage is proposed to be re-roofed and painted within 2 years of the approval of the
Conditional Use Permit.
6. If lights are proposed for the car lot in the future, the applicant will be required to amend the
existing Conditional Use Permit (if approved on April 26, 2005) at a public hearing.
The Code also provides criteria that must be satisfied for the Planning Commission to grant a
conditional use permit:
.
1. The proposed use conforms to the district permitted and conditional use provisions and
all general regulations of this title.
2. The proposed use shall not involve any element or cause any conditions that may be
dangerous, injurious or noxious to any other property or persons and shall comply with
the performance standards listed below.
3. The proposed use shall be constructed, designed, sited, oriented and landscaped to
produce harmonious relationship of buildings and grounds to adjacent buildings and
properties.
4. The proposed use shall produce a total visual impression and environment which is
consistent with the environment of the neighborhood.
5. The proposed use shall organize vehicular access and parking to minimize traffic
congestion in the neighborhood.
6. The proposed use shall preserve the objectives of this title and shall be consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
City staff has reviewed the conditional use permit application and has determined that the request
meets all applicable City requirements for the permit. The Engineering and Planning Divisions need
to review and approve the site plan concerning utilities, screening, and site layout after the engineered
site plan is submitted on or before May 6, 2005.
The City has also required that the applicants waive their rights to object to any assessments on the
property for improvements. The applicants have verbally agreed to this requirement.
RECOMMENDATION
.
Approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow auto sales on the northerly portion of 1024 8th Street
with the following conditions:
.
.
.
1. The applicants waive their right to object to any assessments on the property.
2. A professionally engineered site plan needs to be submitted to the City on or before May 6,
2005 showing the proposed improvements discussed at the April 26, 2005 Planning
Commission meeting.
3. The Engineering and Planning Divisions need to review and approve the site plan concerning
utilities, screening, and site layout after the engineered site plan is submitted on or before May
6, 2005.
4. No work shall commence until approval of the engineered site plan by the Engineering and
Planning Divisions.
5. The applicants abide by their letter of intent dated April 20, 2005.
Respectfully submitted,
(jk!!2 ~
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
cc: Ivan & Janet Janssen, 1024 8th Street
.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
City of Farmington, 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
651-463-7111 FAX 651-463-1611
/ t/4'/f..J n/4A/ 55 E;t/
Applicant Address 02-~ f?ii< s-;- ~ ~
Street City
Phone_(G/Z) z.tl7-6t/tJ2- Fax_()
Legal Description of Subject Property: (lot, block, plat name, section, township, range)
/OL-?J 'Y..:;-u 'Sf-
,
For office use
. Permit Number
Applicant Name (please print)
~z
Zip Code
.
Current Land Use '.'
Current Zoning District
Specific Nature of Request:
-r1dz; -5~~ 1/1
~.// d'/;5h/?{;-+
,
Following Attached: (please check) _ Proof of Ownership _ BoundarylLot Survey
_ Application fee _ 6 Copies of Site Plan
_ AbstractJResident List *(rEquired 350' from subject property)
.~_ _ __ 0 os (Owu<;(s Dublicate Certificate of Title Required)
Property Owner's Signature X~ ~ Applicant's Signature
Date / Date
For office useonly>:.:, .,
Request SubmittedtOP1lmningstafl" on
Public Hearing Setfor.
. . ,'-.' -..-,-'-,' ,-,-,,".
-' ,'.- ..--,,'., :" -,'.
.>" '. ":,,'._ ,:,;'- .'..:",.'.... ,-"','_' ,"'" c",:,,--,
"(- ':_>'--",:.;.>~.-;.:,:,:'.";','-',:;':>:',":":':" .. ,-,,'!
..:..,.,..:...._..,...::'.';.......<'_,>..::.'..,...."._.:.:.c.:....: ;", '.-,0:.
',';-- ,".":-::.:.'-",..,---,':'.,,._'--',- ',.;-,,-'
:'-- _ :- '-"'" '-', ,-.''-: ,',",..-,-,". ,','.-..,,---..
.' . Advertisec:tiJ:J;Local Newspaper.
PJan~ing cornrnissi6IlA.ct1onz'" i"');Appr()V~' . ....;"<Dellie<ir'<'.
CityCouncilActioIl(i(nec~)=:_Approved--2- Deni~~
CommentS:
. ".... :.:-;',:;..,,;
.
Cotlditi6nsS~: . ............,., . .. " ,
. - . : '. :,:', -.. ~-'
.' '; ~. " ,,:,.-,;'.'.,',
}?Iannih.'. gCo.ordinatol": .'.'
. - , ',' , "
Date:
Hickory St
1 000 8th St
+
N
('f)
I
I-
1012 8th St
+-'
en
..c
+-'
Proposed location 00
of cars
(1020)
+-' Recent lot
CJ) combination
:S
I"-
1024 8th St
Ash St
alflt?174
1 6
E;Kffl6rf 0
Request for Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Current Comprehensive Plan Map
(1/ r /rtffl1 :Yf'It'n/l't'/ 9; $t7 3
Lo
....
l:U
~
....
lI')
~
....
"-
Hickory Street
'''C/o
i tJ( 2.-
....
l:U
~ ~
lI')
~
....
00
10 2-D"
it! u.;
lY)
~
~
~
~
.~
:r:
Ash Street
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________e
Farmington
N
A
Castle Rock Township
13XHf6tT f3
.
N
VII clife ~
(}J \J
J fYJ:tJ
u..
\0 112tifb'7eP ~ ?
\f. A?PH~
~ fA V I r(
. .
-..9
.. 8 roo, f"~a...
Se;..,AIt tWIt.. E
00
~
1
~ b' <JJ
~ *
~
(iJ>{ /)ovJtJ To
S N E..vJ l.t> r
Q.
t
0~
~~
"~
~
w~-
5
.
\)
c,
1'- ~ \
1" 0 ~ -\
~~~\;
~
-;!:-
~~~
~ !~
" \
~'
eXHibit C
.
April 20, 2005
Dear Sirs & Madam - Farmington Planning Board
This is a letter of intent of our plans to develop the parcel of land north of K & K Auto
Ranch as an extension of our existing car lot.
We have contracted with Delmar Schwanz to plan and design the lot according to the
specifics set forth by the City.
It is our intent that the following items will be a part ofthe over-all plan.
.
1. A decorative block wall between the existing lot and the new with steps leading to
the new area.
2. We will put in a six to eight foot opaque fence along the west and north border of
the new lot.
3. We will work with the Ash Street project for storm sewer run-off installing a
catch basin, tying into the new 8th Street line. The catch basin drain will be
located in the north middle section of the new lot according to our design per
Delmar Schwanz.
4. The new lot will be paved with asphalt. The cars lined up facing TH 3.
5. Since our business operates during daytime hours, we do not anticipate putting in
additional lighting at this time.
6. It is our intention to keep the existing garage on the property with plans to roof
and paint within two years.
We hope to complete this project in a timely manner by November 15,2005.
Thank you all for your kind consideration.
Ivan & Janet Janssen
.
.
~
.
,
'\ \,
:~
~ t.,
P' 1
," ~
.....
"
l
i
l1li
; "
, ,
II
III
. a
t ~
)
.
.
I'l
....
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
Planning Commission
rPV
FROM: Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit - Painted Wall Sign - 311 Oak Street
Applicant: Paul Otten
DATE: April 26, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Paul Otten, owner of 311 Oak Street, has commissioned a local artist to paint a wall sign on the east
wall of his building at 311 Oak Street (Exhibit A). Under Section 10-6-3 (B) 1 subd. (1) of the City
Code, all painted wall signs need to be reviewed as a Conditional Use by the Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION
According to the Sign Code, the painted wall sign is only permitted on a structurally sound and
homogeneous surface. The east wall of 311 Oak Street has been approved as being sound by the
Building Official. The east wall does have paint peeling issues (Exhibit B), therefore, the artist, Guy
Smith, proposes to utilize a canvas and attach it to the brick building using adhesive. The wall will
be primed for the adhesive by sand blasting the brick, thereby, removing the existing painted surface.
There are three cables that exist approximately 2 to 3 inches from the wall face that will need to be
worked around as the canvas is applied to the building. The artist will then paint the mural on the
canvas (Exhibit C). A graphic of what the sign may look like when applied to the wall is also
attached for your review (Exhibit D).
With the CUP process, public hearing notices were sent out to properties within 350 feet of the
proposed sign location. Staff has received a comment letter from a business owner who was notified
of the meeting, and the letter is attached for your review (Exhibit E).
The Code also provides criteria that must be satisfied for the Planning Commission to grant a
conditional use permit:
1. The proposed use conforms to the district permitted and conditional use provisions and
all general regulations of this title.
2. The proposed use shall not involve any element or cause any conditions that may be
dangerous, injurious or noxious to any other property or persons and shall comply with
the performance standards listed below.
.
3. The proposed use shall be constructed, designed, sited, oriented and landscaped to
produce harmonious relationship of buildings and grounds to adjacent buildings and
properties.
4. The proposed use shall produce a total visual impression and environment which is
consistent with the environment of the neighborhood.
5. The proposed use shall organize vehicular access and parking to minimize traffic
congestion in the neighborhood.
6. The proposed use shall preserve the objectives of this title and shall be consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
City staff has reviewed the conditional use permit application and has determined that the request
meets all applicable City requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the Conditional Use Permit concerning the painted wall sign (Exhibit C) on the east wall of
311 Oak Street.
Respectfully Submitted,
· fttfL~
Lee Smick, AICP
City Planner
Cc: W. Paul Otten, Otten & Associates, P.A.
.
.
.
.
..<.",,",,-"1<\
$zoo. QE -P-ee....
CITY OF FARMINGTON
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
City of Fannington, 325 Oak Street, Farmington,!vfN 55024
651463-7111 FAX 651-463-1611
For office use
. Permit Number
Applicant Name (please Pri~J.J. 0 ~ [ 0f.Ie1l
Applicant Address 3 J / Q;;/CS/i U'IH-;;;;"-k,., IJ1 /IJ
Street City State
Phone (fs;)..) 7?('-?300 Fax. (t?5~)73"-3t/~O
~al Description of Subject Property: (lot, block, plat name, section, township, range)
~wI111&",;~ G)(W 70 rf-.5 JI/ frOF /tJqLj Frtg 1 w of LOTS 7J.& ;13
Current Land Use d Current Zoning District -fi-t-
~:?t/
Zip Code
Following Attached: (please check) _ Proof of Ownership _ BoundarylLot Survey
,X... Application fee _ 6 Copies of Site Plan
_ Abstract/Resident List *(required 350' from subject property)
Torre s (Owner's Dublicate Certificate of required)
Property Owner's Signati _ _ Applicant's Signa
Date Date
For office use only
Request Submitted to Planning staff on
Public Hearing Set for.
AdVertised'ii:1 Local Newspaper.
. Planning Commission Action: _ Approved _ Denied
. City Council Action (if necessary): _Approved ~ Denied
,', Comments:
; Conditions Set:
, Planning Coordinator.
Date:
.
.
.
t:i
w
~
t\
c
~
M
OAK STREET
o
I
75
~xHIB/T A
[lorn
t:i
~
t\
~
Proposed location of painted wall sign
150
I
300 Feet
I
&
"
'"
[.
'.'
.... ~r--
"-
"-
,
"
'\.
"-
"-
'"
\ \ I \'1 ' \
, I \ I \
\. 'I I I I '
: \ 1 .' ' \ \ \ id~
~~ \ ! \ \ II.' I
t.r ~\ ,1~ I I'
I ,Nit
~' I~\~ -I. I ' ),.
1,\1 ""~\ ,II
i ~ ~ '~ I; ;': I.'
,fi ," I,....
, ,,' I"
I :.1' \ I ~,:
\.~ .~
,I" . ~" j I "-
~, I \'1'.'-
~ l't I'~'-:, .'
l I ~ I.. ~'t i ~~.
~ ~ I \)!j- \~ '- \
I \ j I \ ,,0'i-..,.
\ \ .\ i : .~~'
\ I
\ \ I
\ _. I
\ '
J
~
~ I I-
~~...
..
. } -.
I J'. I - ~
0' "
I .
:.. t
. .
~.,-l..!!'
\ ,~
~.
\. "
r-
II ~ " .
IfF'
1 . ~
, \'
..
:.. L_,. '
. ~.
"
I-
,c I
I I 1
, ,
I
!j
,
1,-
1 ,
-.f ...
alll131T C
".if
~iil:"
:':, '. 'jj~
~~"l
".
~
't
',;l!
r~
f<>.. --..r-
'"
'.
~-
;-
~
",
'f~
"
\h~, ·
~~.
\
\ : I
I
~
I.
1100
'I
I I
I \ r. \.~
"
.
.
.
Page 1 of 1
EX/l181r C
lee Smick
From: Heikkila Studios [heikkilastudios@frontiernet.net]
Sent: Thursday, Apri/21, 2005 3:57 PM
To: Lee Smick
Subject: Proposed Wall Sign
Dear Lee,
Thank you for your notice in regards to the proposed wall sign intended for 311 Oak Street. 1 am pleased to
hear that a project to repaint the backside of this building is being considered. My thought however, is that it
would be nice to see something that reflects the history of Farmington. Hastings for example chose to paint a
picture of the Spiral Bridge on the backside of one of its downtown buildings. Perhaps we could celebrate
Farmington's history with a picture of a horse drawn carriage or the train depot or a farm scene, something that
represents the history of our community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Pam Heikkila
(~j'~~ ~ 9j<<~~{;-y)
349 Third Street
Farmington, MN 55024
651-460-8359
h~ikkil::lstlJdim:@frontiern~t net
Visit our website at heikkilastudios.com
4121/2005
.
.
.
Planning Commission
Minutes
Regular Meeting
March 8, 2005
1.
Call to Order
Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson, Richter
Members Absent: None
Also Present: Lee Smick, City Planner
2.
Approval of Minutes
a) February 8, 2005
MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to approve the February 8, 2005
Minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Richter. Abstain: Larson.
MOTION CARRIED.
3.
Public Hearings
a) Amend 2020 Comprehensive Plan from Restricted Development and
Nondesignated to Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential
(Murphy 350)
Applicant: Giles Properties, Inc.
This includes properties Ql and 8 on the MUSA map. Autumn Glen is to the
north, and Parkview Ponds is to the west. When the Comp Plan was approved in
1998 and 2000, a portion ofQl and 8 were not in the City. In 2001 Ql was
approved for annexation and 8 was recently annexed into the City. Staff is
proposing to amend Q 1 from restricted development and nondesignated to low
density residential. 8 is proposed to go from nondesignated to low density and
medium density in the northeast comer. Ql is 91. 7 acres and 8 is 93.3 acres
totaling 152.7 acres. These properties have received MUSA and will be
developed first. The developer would like to begin development soon. The City
Engineer would like to see a sanitary sewer line going from the metropolitan
interceptor in Empire Township to Parkview Ponds to service Parkview Ponds
and the Giles/Murphy property. Parkview Ponds is proposing a lift station.
Commissioner Larson asked if the medium density was a little close to the flood
plain. Mr. John Anderson, Giles Properties, stated they have submitted a
preliminary plat and rezoning. The plan is out of the flood plain with all buildable
units. He noted the total area covers 185 acres which is what MUSA was
approved for, but phase one is 152 acres.
Commissioner Barker asked about the medium density. The reason for the
medium density was because of Seed-Genstar to the north. Now 195th Street will
be a major collector to the north and would act as a buffer from the Seed-Genstar
property. There will be a lot oftownhomes and 60 ft. lots on the south side. He
asked ifthey wanted that one comer to be medium density instead oflow density.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 8, 2005
Page 2
.
.
.
Low density would be consistent along 195th Street. Mr. Anderson replied there
have been numerous changes from the concept plan. Because of the groundwater
issues, they are struggling with densities. They are not sure where the densities in
the southern portion stand. They are just looking at phase one.
Chair Rotty felt it would fit in and did not see a ne~ative transition between the
low and medium density. Staff noted most of 195t Street will front along the
Seed-Genstar property. Commissioners Johnson, Larson and Richter had no
problems with the amendment. Chair Rotty felt it was appropriate to make the
comp plan amendment at this time and it would help facilitate getting the sanitary
sewer across. MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to close the public
hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson
to recommend approval of the comp plan amendment. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
b)
Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Public Facility in the R-l (Low Density
Residential) Zoning District - (Fire Station 2 - North Satellite)
Applicant: City of Farmington
197th Street is along the south side ofthe North Municipal Campus, Pilot Knob
Road is to the west, the Police Station is to the north, and the Maintenance
Facility is to the east. Staff was requesting a conditional use permit to allow a
public facility in an R-l zoning district. The front yard setback along 197th Street
meets the requirement of 20 ft. The front yard setback along Pilot Knob is
supposed to be 50 ft. because it is a minor arterial. Currently it is 35 ft. and will
require a 15 ft. variance. There are 11.45 parking spaces required and the plan
shows 18 parking spaces. There needs to be four more boulevard trees. The flow
ofthe fire trucks will be to come in and park inside facing south. They will come
out ofthe bays and go south onto 19ih Street. Staff is proposing to reduce the
trees and use shrubs at a maximum height of 3 ft. for better sight distance. The
Development Committee has discussed the need for warning lights south of 1 97th
at the crest heading north on Pilot Knob Road. There is the need for a trail on the
east side of Pilot Knob Road.
Commissioner Johnson asked if notices were sent to homes within 350 ft. Staff
replied notices were sent. He thought the area seemed low and was concerned
about the drainage and if the elevation would be the same as the Maintenance
Facility. Mr. John McNamara, Wold Architects, replied their intent is to fill in the
area and flatten the grade. The plan is to bring in 13,000 yards of fill. The trees
will be relocated to another location on the property.
Commissioner Larson liked the idea of the shrubs rather than trees. He did not
feel warning lights are needed. Commissioner Richter did not feel warning lights
are needed and Commissioner Barker had no comments. Chair Rotty felt this was
a reasonable addition to the area. He agreed with the landscaping
recommendations and left the decision regarding warning lights to the public
safety officials. He agreed with extending the trail. MOTION by Johnson,
Planning Commission Minutes
March 8, 2005
Page 3
.
.
second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to approve the conditional use permit.
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
c)
Variance to the 50-Foot Setback Along an Arterial Roadway - (Fire Station 2
- North Satellite)
Applicant: City of Farmington
Chair Rotty noted the setback along Pilot Knob Road is closer than the
requirements so staff is looking for a variance. The proposed fire station will be
located 35 ft. from the property line. Between the right-of-way and the edge of
pavement along Pilot Knob Road is another 40 ft. for 75 ft of clear zone. Dakota
County has reviewed this and they have no problem with this. Staff is requiring
all six variance requirements be met. They are requesting a variance due to the
pipeline easement running through the property. This is the reason for the
hardship. The variance will not cause any adverse affects. Staff requested
approving a variance of 15 ft. from the required 50 ft. setback along a minor
arterial to allow the construction of a fire station.
Chair Rotty asked if Pilot Knob was two or four lanes in that area. Staffreplied it
is proposed to be four lanes and that has been taken into consideration.
MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF,
MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to approve the
variance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
4. Discussion
(These items were moved forward to accommodate the audience).
.
a)
Charleswood Crossing Final Plat
Applicant: Chad Onsgard, Centex Homes
The flat consists of 43 single family lots and 108 multi-family units on 62.9 acres.
195t Street is to the north, and Pilot Knob Road to the east. Council approved the
preliminary plat on December 20, 2004. The single family lot sizes range from
6700 to 13,700 sq. ft. The front yard setbacks will be 25 ft. and side yard
setbacks of 7.5 ft. The Planning Commission had requested the developer look at
shifting the cul-de-sac over to try to save more trees. Because if the closeness to
Pilot Knob Road, they could not make that work. There will be 29 additional
parking spaces throughout the multi-family area. Staff typically requests
turnarounds at the ends ofthe cul-de-sac because they are over 150 ft. in length.
Centex decided to sprinkle the buildings and therefore did not require
turnarounds. The solid waste division has required the developer to create
concrete pads at the entrance to the 20 ft. wide townhome driveways. They can
no longer pick up garbage cans in front oftownhomes on driveways that do not
have turnaround access. Because of the danger of backing the trucks up 150 ft.
staff has proposed residents will need to bring the garbage up to the pad locations.
The developer has proposed along 195th Street a porkchop at the intersection
requiring a right-in, right-out. Dakota County has also requested this. The Parks
Planning Commission Minutes
March 8, 2005
Page 4
.
.
.
and Recreation Director requires a trail from the cul-de-sac to the wetland area
along with additional trails throughout the development. The plat needs to show
an additional 15 ft. of right-of-way for the expansion of 195th Street.
Contingencies include approval ofthe engineering comments, construction plans,
grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering division. Also meeting
requirements of the Parks and Rec division, Solid Waste division and Dakota
County Plat Commission.
Commissioner Larson asked how many units will share one pad. Staff stated they
have not obtained this information yet. Solid Waste came up with the idea. He
noted that things need to stay 5 ft. away from the garbage cans and wanted to
make sure there was enough room. The garbage cans would only be there on
garbage day.
Mr. Onsgard stated they have never had to build pads for garbage. He asked if
other developments had to do this. Staff replied no because most have looped
roads. Staff offered this and the Fire Marshal also stated there should be
hammerheads for turnarounds. Mr. Onsgard stated it would have to be a 20 ft.
concrete slab, 5 ft. deep. It would be very unsightly. The worst case would be to
build the pads and put in landscaping.
Chair Rotty felt this was something significant to overcome. He agreed that it
might become more of a nuisance to other property owners by leaving the garbage
cans out there. He felt this needed to be resolved before sending this to Council.
The developer would like to look at some alternatives. The commission agreed to
table the plat until this issue is resolved.
Commissioner Larson asked how many trees would be lost and what type of trees.
Mr. Onsgard replied they did move the cul-de-sac over to save some trees. They
also revised some grades so they would not take out so many trees. They saved
approximately 10-20 trees. Commissioner Larson was not in favor of the clear
cut in the area. He felt staff should look at a tree ordinance to take care of this
Issue.
Chair Rotty noted surrounding residents were in favor ofthe single family homes.
The tree issue was discussed during the preliminary plat and hopefully the
developer will work with the City. He asked if the solid waste pads were a last
minute option. Staff noted the Solid Waste division suggested the pads because
of the proximity of the pipeline and trying to construct a hammerhead. That is
why they decided to sprinkle the buildings. Commissioner Larson noted they can
put in a hammerhead, they just will not have as many units. Staff noted they are
working with the problem of the pipeline. The City did grant a variance to cross
the street because of the gasline. Chair Rotty stated the pads may be unsightly
and could pose a problem for the residents. Mr. Onsgard asked if Solid Waste has
guidelines or fines they impose for leaving the garbage can out. Commissioner
Richter stated someone would have to enforce it. She can see it being an ongoing
Planning Commission Minutes
March 8, 2005
Page 5
.
.
.
problem. Commissioner Johnson stated it seems common sense to rotate the
buildings counter-clockwise and have two buildings instead of three. You
eliminate the sprinkler system and the garbage issue and possibly have a roadway
along the back side. He cannot image they would want those pads in front ofthe
townhomes. Mr. Onsgard stated rotating the buildings would increase costs
because of sewer and water and the streets. Ifthey have to look at hammerheads
they will see ifthere is a solution. If they build the pads they could landscape
them or fence them and include in the association documents rules on garbage
cans.
Chair Rotty recommended not sending this on to the Council until the commission
is comfortable with it. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to table the final
plat until the next regular meeting. If something is ready prior to that, a special
meeting can be called. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
b)
Parkview Ponds Final Plat
Applicant: Frank Blundetto, Manley Land Development
The Parkview Ponds final plat consists of 147 single family lots on 88 acres. This
development is located southeast of Autumn Glen. Lot sizes range from 10,000-
17,006 sq. ft. The developer is proposing a number of storm water ponds in order
to use material from the ponds to raise the housing pads. There is a north-south
road proposed, Diamond Path, and this development will have some connections
to this road. Embers A venue going through the development was reduced to 32
ft. wide for traffic calming. 198th Street will terminate at Embers Avenue. It will
be determined in the future if 198th Street needs to connect to Akin Road. For
now, the plat shows two outlots in that area. The Fire Marshal was concerned
about emergency access. The developer is required to upgrade the farm road to
the south for emergency vehicle access only. Dakota County was concerned
about the temporary access to 19Sth Street. The City decided because ofthe
platting for the Giles/Murphy property, the north-south road will be constructed
before any development occurs in this area. If a temporary access is needed, the
developer would have to obtain a permit from Dakota County. The City and the
County will require Manley Land Development to construct the northerly portion
of 19Sth Street. When it becomes four lanes, Dakota County will assist. A 4.3
acre park is included in the development. Parks and Rec would like to see a
parking lot for the park area. A number of trails are proposed throughout the
development. The City is pursuing the 12-inch sanitary sewer line to connect
with the Met Council interceptor so they will not need a temporary lift station.
However, Mr. Blundetto has stated he will construct a temporary lift station to
make sure his houses will be serviced by sanitary sewer. He is trying to work out
the timing for the connection with the sanitary sewer line. Contingencies include
approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the
Engineering division and also Park and Rec requirements.
Commissioner Barker asked about the outlots for the ponding. Where the roads
are open and the pond comes up to the road, is the developer required to build a
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 8, 2005
Page 6
bridge similar to Meadow Creek. Staff replied it is not necessarily a bridge, it is
an upgrade ofthe roadway. Commissioner Barker was referring to a box culvert.
Mr. Frank Blundetto stated there have been questions about moving the water
from one pond to another. The City has suggested some unique engineering
structures and they will comply with what the City requires. Mr. Blundetto stated
he does not want to build a lift station ifhe does not have to. There are many
factors outside of their control. They are receiving pressure from the City to build
a certain number of homes by a certain period oftime and that is good. In order
to make good on their expectations he needs to make sure he is servicing this
property. If there is anything that does not allow for a gravity system to the east,
he needs to make sure they are holding true to the expectations set. They are
enjoying a good working relationship with Giles Properties.
Commission Johnson asked about outlots H and G. They will be signed as a
future roadway. Chair Rotty complimented staff and the developer on working
well together. This will be a nice addition to the community and they have
worked within the environmental constraints. He felt leaving outlot H open was
reasonable planning. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to recommend
approval of the Parkview Ponds final plat with contingencies. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
3.
Public Hearings
d) Review Ordinance - A-Frame Signs
Business owners have requested allowing the use of A-frame signs. This
ordinance is to allow that use in front of their business during business hours. The
City Attorney made some minor modifications. The City needs to approve the
permit with additional terms including location, duration and design. The Zoning
Officer will make sure the business has the proper insurance coverage. The
appeals will be heard by the Planning Commission, not the City Council. These
signs are proposed for the B districts, the Spruce Street Commercial and Business
Commercial Flex zoning districts.
The only concern Chair Rotty had was if they block the sidewalk, but with a little
monitoring that should not be a problem. MOTION by Larson, second by
Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION
by Johnson, second by Larson to recommend approval. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED.
4.
Discussion
d) Eggum Concept Plan
Mr. Blaine Eggum of Valley Mining is proposing a retail development. CSAH 66
is to the north, and TH 3 is to the west. The retail development would include a
bank, another retail pad and some outlots. A storm water pond will take care of
any water runoff. Outlot C is Cascade Drive which is a public roadway. To the
east is Catalina Way which is a private road. The property is zoned B-1. Staff is
concerned with a one-way access road in the back of the building. This is
Planning Commission Minutes
March 8, 2005
Page 7
.
proposed for loading and unloading of trucks. This should be signed trucks only.
Catalina Way is in close proximity to this entrance. The Development Committee
would like to see:
1. Transportation. They are not in favor of Concept A. A north-south road
should be provided behind the retail building at a minimum width of 22 ft. The
loading areas behind the retail building should be in addition to the 22 ft.
2. 100% screening is required along the east property line of outlot A to
screen the commercial versus residential. The townhome association has possibly
consented to a fence and screening on their property.
3. Catalina Way needs to intersect at a 90 degree angle with the proposed
north-south road.
4. Identify the location of an enclosed refuse area.
5. Vacate the easement of Cascade Drive west of the north-south roadway.
6. The proposed building needs to comply with setbacks from the north
property line in Outlot A.
.
The Development Committee is not in favor of the concept plan. Mr. Jim
Ostenson, James Development Company and owner of Outlot A, stated they
wanted a reaction from the Planning Commission so they can proceed. Round
Bank has already been discussed and the developer was glad to plan a shopping
center at the same time. As far as the north-south road, they do not have a
problem with it being a private or a two-way road. They do have a concern with
the spacing in the loading area. A couple things are in jeopardy. If the building is
moved to the west it may decrease some parking and jeopardize being able to put
an L on the building and have to go back to a straight building. They can work
with staff on this. The rest of the traffic flow works great. They met with the
townhome association regarding the screening. The 22 ft. road can be pushed to
the property line and have the screening on the townhome property. They would
like to keep the L in the building. The other items on Catalina Way become
problematic. The developer does not own that road. The developer would have
to ask them to take out part of their road. They could say no. The problem is at
the north end. The refuse area is not a problem. The storm sewer area of Cascade
Drive would have to remain an easement. Round Bank will be platting to the
middle of the easement. The plat will show three lots. The developer will
comply with the setbacks.
As far as pushing the 22 ft. road to the property line, staff noted there is a
requirement where lots in any non-residential zoning district are within 100 ft. of
a residential zoning district a 10ft. landscaped yard in width shall be installed. If
the developer can work with the townhomes, that may not be required.
.
Commissioner Johnson was concerned with Catalina Way and what the Fire
Marshal's response would be to a T intersection. He would be willing to look at
the number of parking spaces. Commissioner Larson suggested flipping the
building and have the back facing TH3 and the front facing east. It would open
the area and the road could be a T intersection easily. The fire lane could be
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 8, 2005
Page 8
between the building and TH3 for a loading area. It would provide more room to
buffer. Mr. Ostenson stated typically you would have to have glass on that side
and there would be a double front. Tenants like to have a loading area. You
would be loading on the side that should be the most attractive. Commissioner
Larson stated he did not like the current plan. He felt traffic would not flow. The
developer stated he met with the Traffic Engineer and this was his idea. He
suggested making an L-shaped building and pull it to the front. Commissioner
Larson did not agree with it. Chair Rotty was concerned that if cars take a left
they would be using the parking lot as a roadway. He liked the original plan
better. Commissioner Richter did not like the traffic flow, but liked the front of
the building facing TH3. Along the back, ifthe road will be narrower, she wanted
to make sure it was wide enough for loading and unloading. Commissioner
Barker also liked to have the building facing TH3. He was concerned with the
flow of the traffic. He would rather have the road behind the building be two-lane
and work on something with Catalina Way. Chair Rotty agreed with having the
road as a two-lane. He would like to see the building stay as an L-shaped
building. He would prefer natural screening rather than a fence. Catalina Way
may be an obstacle but encouraged the developer to work with the townhome
association. Commissioner Larson stated if they do have a two-lane road, make
sure it is wide enough.
3.
Public Hearings
d) Review Ordinance - Delete BP (Business Park) Zoning District
Staff is proposing to delete the business park zoning district from the City code.
This is no longer shown on the zoning map. MOTION by Johnson, second by
Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by
Larson, second by Barker to delete the text amendment from the City Code.
APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
e) Review Ordinance - Screening of Public Utility Facilities
Staff recommended continuation. MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to
continue the hearing to April 12, 2005. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
4.
Discussion
c) Discussion of Gravel Parking Lots in Downtown Residential Districts
All residential areas have to have vehicles parked on hard surfaces with a 5 ft.
setback from side and rear lot lines. The Mayor requested the Planning
Commission look at allowing gravel parking areas adjacent to gravel alleys in
only the downtown district. All alleys are gravel. The Mayor suggested not
requiring a hard surface parking area next to gravel. This was originally a request
from a resident. The Commission should discuss whether to limit gravel parking
areas to the downtown district, the aesthetics, how they will be maintained, the
size of the lots, the number of cars allowed, the setback from the alley, should we
look at a gravel driveway in front of a home, the upkeep of a gravel surface, or
should the City pave all of the gravel alleys and continue to keep the hard surface
parking lot.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 8, 2005
Page 9
Commissioner Larson stated the only benefit he sees is that there will be less
runoff with gravel. In the back of a house he did not have a problem. He felt
setbacks should be maintained. Commissioner Richter did not have a problem
with allowing this. Commissioner Barker asked how many people this affects.
Staff replied there are a lot of gravel driveways in the downtown area. He did not
have a problem with this. Commissioner Johnson agreed to stay with the gravel.
Chair Rotty would have preferred to stay with a hard surface. Commissioner
Richter felt if there is a new parking area, it should be paved. Staff noted this is a
brand new home in the downtown area and they have put in a gravel parking lot
behind their home off of a gravel alley. Chair Rotty asked if a driveway off of an
alley would be any different than the width of a driveway off a public road. He
felt some of the requirements would hold true whether it is off the front or the
back of a home. Staff noted it has to be 30 ft. wide. The majority of the
commission seemed to be comfortable with gravel off of gravel.
4.
Adjourn
MOTION by Richter, second by Johnson to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~
CCynthia Muller
Executive Assistant
Approved