HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.23.02 Special Planning Packet
,,!"' "."''', '
'"!
City of Fannmgton
325 Oak Street
Fanningtoo, MN 55024
.If Proud Past - .If Promising Future
Committed to Providing High Quality,
Timely and Responsive Service to All
Of Our Customers
.
AGENDA
SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 23, 2002
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
;.\
;~
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC BEARINGS
a) Variance Request - Encroach Seven (7) Feet into Front Yard Setback with Above-Ground Pool
Applicant: Jeff & Barb Kubat, 5441 193rd Street West
b) Variance Request - Encroach Forty (40) feet into Front Yard Setback with Pylon Sign.
Applicant: Controlled Air, 21210 Eaton Ave
c)
Conditional Use Permit - Construct 12 Townhome Units within the R-T (Downtown Transitional Mixed Use
District)
.
Applicant: Farmington Development Corporation
d)
Variance Request - Exclude the Off-Street Parking Requirement
Applicant: Farmington Development Corporation
e) Variance Request - Maximum Lot Coverage of 35%
Applicant: Farmington Development Corporation
f)
St. Michael's Place Preliminary and Firial Plat
Applicant: Farmington Development Corporation
Ordinance Amendment to Section 10-5-6 (B) - Lot Coverage Requirement in the R-l Zone
g)
3.
ADJOURN
Planning Commissioners:
Dirk Rotty, Todd Larson, Chaz Johnson, Ben Barker, Bob Heman
City Staff.
Kevin Carron, Community Development Director
Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator
Michael Schultz, Associate Planner
.
.
.
.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
City Planning Commission
Michael Schultz
i\ssociatePlanner
lWG
Variance Request - Encroach Seven (7) feet into Front Yard Setback with i\bove
Ground Pool
i\pplicant: Jeff & Barb Kubat, 5441 193rd Street W.
July 23, 2002
The applicants, Jeff & Barb Kubat, are requesting variance approval to encroach seven (7) feet into the
minimum twenty (20) foot front yard setback in the R-l (Low Density Residential) zoning district.
Plannini!: Division Review
Applicant:
Attachments:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Lot Size:
Existing Zoning:
Jeff & Barb Kubat
5441 193rd Street W.
Farmington, MN 55024
1. Variance i\pplication
2. Location Map
3. Site Survey (i\pplicant and staff site plan)
4. i\djacent north property owner survey
5. 10-3-6 (C): Variances
6. 10-6-1: Residential Pools
7. Property pictures
5441 193rd Street W.
Lot 3, Block 3, .Akin Park 2nd i\ddition
12,442 square feet
R-l (Low Density Residential)
2020 Comprehensive Plan:
Existing Land Use:
Surrounding Land Uses:
Low Density
Single-family Residential
Single-family residential is surrounding the property.
.
.
.
Year Building was Constructed:
1995 (according to Dakota County Property records)
Recent Variance Decisions:
The Planning Commission has not rendered any decisions within
the last 5 years involving variances for accessory structures
encroaching into the minimum front yard setbacks; the
Commission has granted variances involving the principal
structure.
Aug. 1994, Commission approved a six (6) foot
encroachment into front yard setback (comer lot) to allow
connection from patio door to rear yard deck. Landscaping
required.
DISCUSSION
The applicant's, Jeff & Barb Kubat, are seeking variance approval to allow a seven (7) foot encroachment
into the minimum twenty (20) foot front yard setback. The applicants claims that a hardship exists due to
the house being placed 30- feet off of both front property lines (along both 193 rd Street W. and English
Ave.) making it difficult to utilize the smaller than normal rear yard.
The property was platted with depths of only 107.89 feet (north to south) off 193rd Street W. and 114.15
feet (east to west) from English Ave. The house depth from front of garage to the rear of the home is
approximately 54 feet. Adding the 30-foot setback of the home and subtracting the lO-feet of drainage
and utility easement, the homeowner have approximately 20 to 22 feet of usable rear yard space.
The pool ordinance requires that all pools meet the minimum setbacks according to each zoning district.
The City Code also requires residential pools to be set a minimum of six (6) from the home's frost
footings to avoid any damage.
Planning staff was unable to find any recent Planning Commission decisions involving the encroachment
of residential swimming pools within the required minimum front yard.
The Board of Adjustment may vary the regulations of this Title if anv of the following requirements are
met:
1. Because the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or
other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the regulations of
this Title would cause undue hardship. Economic consideration alone shall not constitute an
undue hardship if reason able use for the property exists under the terms of this Title.
The property is located on a corner lot within the Akin Park subdivision. The lot's "front"
toward 193rd Street W narrows and the rear yard width is only 114.15 '.
2. The conditions upon which a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the
variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other properties within the same
zoning classification.
The developer of the Akin Park subdivision adopted a front yard setback of 30-foot for the homes
located along 193rd Street W, because it was constructed as a minor collector roadway (the
City's minimum front yard setback for the R-1 zoning district is 20-feet). The additional setback
.
requirement on the corner lot did not allow for a rear yard area that would be equal to other
properties within the development or within the R-l zoning district. It appears that other homes
within the development have varying setbacks, most of the homes along English Ave. for instance
have a 20-foot minimum front yard setback.
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Title and has not been created by any
persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
The City's swimming pool ordinance requires residential pools to be located in the rear yard.
The homeowners' developer instigated the additional setback requirement along 193rd Street W
4. The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be
injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the parcel of land is located or
substantially diminish property values.
The home located on the property to the north has a 21.67-foot front yard setback; the
applicant's proposed pool would be located infront of the adjacent home.
5. The proposed variance will not substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or
increase the danger of fire, or be detrimental to the public welfare or public safety.
The proposed variance would not substantially increase the congestion of public streets or
increase the danger of fire or be detrimental to the public welfare or public safety.
. ACTION REOUESTED
Determine whether the variance request of a 7-foot front yard encroachment meets anyone of the
variance requirements given above and if the proposed pool location would not negatively affect the
adjacent homeowner. If the Commission votes in favor of the variance, staff recommends that the
homeowner be required to install a solid six (6) foot wood fence in order to provide proper screening of
the structure.
R~pe~y SUb~
#'4~4G-f(eP~,/
Michael Schultz
Associate Planner
Cc: Jeff & Barb Kubat
.
.
Applicant Name
For office uSe
Permit Number
mN
5 {"c L t.l.
Zip Code
block.:J>lat name, seCtion~ShiP' range
r LAd Oddn \u:.-6-
Current Land Use
Current Zoning District
.
Specific Nature of Request I Claimed
I
Following Attached: (please check) _ Proof of Ownership _ BoundarylLot Survey
_ Application fee ($200) _ Copies of Site Plan
_ AbstractJResident List (adjoining property owners only)
_ Tor ens (Owner's Dublicate Certificate of Title Required)
For office use only
RequestSubmittedto the P~~ Commission on " ?~ g -:- 0";2
'. Public Hearing Set for: ".,-', .5- 0 ;2... Advertised in Local Newspaper:
Property Owner's Signatur
Date
1:-1/-0 =<
Planning Commission Action:
Comments:
---..:... Approved _ Denied
Conditions Set:
.
~lanning Coordinator:
Date:
ENCORE CT
"
c
o
.-
-+---I
CO
U
o
--.J
~
>-
1::
'"
Cl.
e
Cl.
u
.c
"
U)
at! 80N>l.lOlld
~..-
r-
,r
'"
z.~
~
\
N
e
OJ)
c
Q)
E
t
'"
Cl.
Q)
o
>-
Q)
c:
"
(f)
'"
"C
c:
'"
-'
>-
c
"
o
U
'"
~
o
ern
o :J
-ou
w ro
Vl_
ro e
.ow
~ l3
roo.
(f) w
e ~
0-
.~ g
w>-
E ro
'6E
-g-g ~
roro u
~ B.!d ~
00 e (f)
:.;:;..c "C::
Ct'Ia.a.~
gCiio ~
_'_ 0 (f)
C)<U~ ro
.~roc C)
~~:a ~
~~E ~
z
I
'c
/
r
1_____1
~-
1 s-
A~~L,c~
D\<<.uJ'~
.
.
~~
lU"
64/11/95 ~:22
VALUE REAL TV I NC
liD 002/002
tt89i~ '
2422 Entltp'rll' Orlve
Mendota Hel9hts. t.lN !!~120
(812) U1-1814 tr~U1-M8I
"""'..ft>Cr/lllt.ct...._
..NiV!;;........ ___ _It"'.
620 HIQIIWO:ll 10 N.t.
Blaine. MN 55434
(t12) 783-t.. FAX:7&1-1883
Certificate of Survey for: ~~g:TRO C~ASSIC HOMES
\
, \
\
N8~(tnfE
LCA.r9~
b ;rc.. ~ r e'L
S~e
r)
"-
I
. - I
leu 'co~ I
sr f'T'e2.4
1-,
O:JJ/
8[NtfUlAR~ TOP"-
~~~"":,E~
I~
,&
--
DRIVEWAY
30' AT P
, AT CURB
PERTY
I'ROPOSED IllVIOfS lIH01IH I'tJI OIlNllllv I'tNI BY! JIEIltIlIlD
MOltl IIlJIlIllN4l JlIUQlftH$ - _ fOR HOIIZOIllA\. AlII VEllll~l
LW"'!lQI4 r;jF S'lRUeM\C$ CItll Y. SEE ~0lIIM. ."NlS rOR lIUUIlNO
/\NO rcuNl)A11OII DINEI<<!IOMS.
IIQ1D COMllIAC- _f _Y _Vl"'''Y Ot:!IION.
MOlt; NO liI'EQf1C lIllL' tM'S1lO"l1ON l'\A5 lIED! eu,lPl.ETED ON lH1\1
lOt "y 1l1E SUll'IIlVllft. 1111: sun.......n Of' SOLS ~ SVl'l'llIlT 1H(
S'l!:llIf1CllWilE 1'fI0I'0lIED IS ItOT 111[ REllPON--.nY or H ~
liltS CDlTf'ICA"lI: DOli NOT PUIlI'Oftt 10 SHow EAWMfHts
OlHEl\ _ THOR ~ lIII "TIC _0 P\At.
SCIILt : 1 INCH .. JO fttT
IIINlItGlI _ AM AllllIJIiC
PROPOSED !-lOUSE EU:VA noN
l.ownt 1'1001' EI.'IOtlon: '1'7.3
Top of Block tl_t1on: 'l6$, 4-
Goroi1' Slob Elevation: fill> 4. :s
x aao.oo Denotn Elllttlng EI.YlItlon
( O()O,OO ) 0,"01., Ptl,1fXJ8.d Elevation
=== Denot... Drolttave a: Utility E:as..-ne<.t
-- benotes Oralno9o Row O..."Uon
- '*- Donol.. Monum.,-.t
---ta--- O,no\." Offnt Ilub
v.t: HEREBY Cf:RTlFY TO METRO cv.SSIC HOI.4E:S lHAT THlS IS A TIlUE AND CORRECT
REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEYor THE BOUNOARIES Of'~
lOT 3, BLOCK 3t AKIN PARK 2ND ADDITION
DAKOTA COIJNTY, lrt4INNES9TA
IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO 'SHOW IMPROvE!.4DlTS OR ENCHROACHM~lS. EXCEPT ^S ~O~, AS
5lJRVEYEO BY ME OIl UNDER MY OIRECl S\JPERVISION THIS $lH OAY 01" APRIL, 19$.5.
~ P.'"
:;::::;0--
l
geO.O 30 \
I
\
li~, \
"'.4- :0 ~ ,
ca !'fA
I",
'. IX 1J I
. I ~~1a"
/f ELI'IA11ON ".: 'eI.1i,
it /1. ·
~ ~ ,!!j
~~ 1<
~ i~
30 .5
C.R. /z
t"Gr~ ,0) 961.0 Lii
.-lnD. ~ '
t' ~:\ ~ /
' $().~1J~
_____.... ~ ..~~h-'51 I
LD+ At-ea.::; 12,~'i '2 $.f. -- ___ ~ I
11......~e ~u..; 1,1 ') 5" s..~ 7 193 "'R--"'D - ___ _ I
S '^-c..l A-t u...::. /'2. 0 J . .... . S"" J
iL.d.c- Az:..c..c....:. / yo ~ :f.. ~ ' · --- ~ --:.J
To+-l ~=. Z-,2?5 s.t::. C-ou<S:. It. Z~7o
I'F!OPOSED UMO[s 1HOWH ptft ORIIDING I't.1H BY! IIEVLUfU)
eoltl IIlJllWolO 1JIWJI8OMS SHWN. _ fOR HQNZQlltlA\. Noll VU,.CAI.
~"1Q4 tIF S1IlUC1\IM$ (ItIlY. !tl ~..1t:ClVAL ....AHS fOR IlAOlNO
IlH) FCUNO"nott DlNENSOMS.
II01D ~~ 1IIU$T 'IfJIt1I'( blIaYlllll\.Y Of:9GN.
1tOn:; NG ~ 1CLt Wf01IQ~11OM 'iAS IIEEM ~ aM lH1S
1.01 ey 'UE Ut'4YOft. 1M!. S\DlMMU'N Of SOU to SUPPORT K
..one tGJ~ ~orosm IS MOT mE ~TY (Jf' H ~
~.77 i-
! fa
I ~
JO
/.
I
I
I
1
I
(
- I
....
. - ~~~E }12
-_/
~
S+o..~.y b~u.J~~
_ \ ~2-5,t2.S-E
\ " 114.15
96t.8
.
~...._--c-
-
963.'
r)
L-
~
~a
~
~
=
f.
,(1) J.,-
...-
I "_RK lOP
~~"58
(,~t,s)
A-R 070'7'58-'96i. --
.. 13.55 ...,:-=-=---',
3.72 gGt ~ J
~ .c.
.
o
't-
---
x oaa.oo Denota.. ElCl.ttnQ Eltwtlon
( 1)(10.00 ) Denot.. Propolled fftvoUon
= _ _ Denot.. DrdlrtOCjJe ac utmty Easement
... "enoles Drain ago Row Dir.cUon
_ .._ DttI1ot.. Monum."t
--r,a.-- 0-'0\." OlIn' Hub
\
DRIVEWAY
30' AT P
lHIS CUUI',C4'1[ DCllI NOT PUItPOftt 10 ~ E~ts
O'De l1WI lMOSl ~ ClN 1HI ~D P\A1.
SCALE : 1 INCH · JO nET
~ SHQItt AM ASSM:D
PROPOSED HOUSE BiVA nON
lowut rlQor Er.votlon: ",7,1
Top of B10ck tleYQuon: qbS.~
Garage Slob !lovatlon: q,4..,
WE HEREBY CERllF'1 'f0 METRO CLASSIC HoMES "THAT nus IS A TJ1UE ANI) CORRtCT
IRESENTAT10N OF A SUR'JEY or "THE BOUNOAAIES OF: '
T 3, BLOCK 3, AKIN PARK 2ND ADDITION
OAKotA COlJNiY. tt4INNESC)TA
IT ooe.S NOT PURPORl TO 'SHOW IMPROvEMetlS OR ENCHROAcHMf;N1S. E)(CEPT AS SHO~, 1\S
'SlJRVEYEO BY ME on UNDER MY otRECl SUPERVISIoN THIS OTH OAY Of' ^PRIL, 19$5.
Q/J P1~EtR t:~,-;;t P.A.
~k___~ < ~
- -..... -- ---
, ATC
PER~
.
-,
-~
-~
..J
.~
~:.i
1'/ ~~'~~
!'~o\ !'.\
~.)
.
~
...~
9'. /"
%
/
.
I
i ( ,
EatabUshed In 1862
LOT SURVEYS CaMP ANY. IMC.
LAND SURVEYORS
REGISTERED UNDER THE LJ. WS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
?eOl 7ard 04........ MartI> 611-6eO-lIOlI3
ras Mo. 6lIO-3Il2a
INVOICE NO. 44405
F .B.NO 729-69
SCALE: 1" - ~'C2Ii'
o Denot.. ~on ~t
o ,Denot.. Wood IUl s.t
fcw .,._atlon ClflIy
xOOO,D Denol.. Exlatlng ~yotlon
~ Denot.. PrcpoHd ~Yatlon
- Qlnat.. Slrl_ Dr.....
'<<.b,o PrapaHd Top of Illock
qb$;.S PrcpoHd Gar. Floor
'15&,1 Propou4 L_t Floor
Type of IluIcIIng
4- l~"SL-
KI.......poU., KI......ota Ii6dlI
ltur..,yor8 cn,rUfirah
STARLIGHT HIIlES
II
Property located in Section
24. Township 114. Range 20.
Dakota County. Minnesota
~&'I ~~.J
~ )'"
. ' ~ ~ .01-'" ...
",. .
'"
l
(.
~
~
{Il
2:
C
rn
/
I
%kS3
\,~ ---
%5.7
@
s U-"=>', <..(...<+
?t--c~-\~
L€>~'o/'
..... 4.J,,-e
'""^ \Lbf k r. ~
.vi '\..{ <75 .. ~5""J
fft',,4
f'I\,"v'(S-( Lot 1. BlOCk 1. AKIN PARK 41" ADDITION
~(/k tt~d~ (~-cD -;t"1\L .
/. c..c pro N" 'l-\)
{'re\"',.J~"" ",0-00 1Hl
m{ /(~ ;/a (.ee<J ec K
Proposed building ;nformation mUlt b. checked with approved building
pIon before excavation and construction.
The only easements shown Qfe from plots of reGord or informQtion
provided by client.
We hereby <:crtif1 thG\ lhis i$ Q true and correct representation of
o survey of the boundaries of the above described land and the
loc:ation of aU buildings and visible encroachments. if any, from O( on
sOld land.
Surveyed by us this 2nd day of August 19 96 fl.E'IISEC> 8-ZP-%
. NiC:3~" $T"......
S1pcI
r1U2J 1 fla~~
CharIaa. F. ~ .... .-.. No.2I7S3
.
.
.
Chapter 6: Performance Standards:
10-6-1 Residential Swimming Pools
Any enclosure, in ground or above ground, having a water surface area exceeding one hundred (100)
square feet and a water depth of not less than one and one-half feet (11 h') shall be considered a swimming
pool which must meet the following location restrictions:
(A) General:
1. Pools shall not be located within ten feet(10') (measured horizontally} from underground
or overhead utility lines of all types.
2. Pools shall not be located within any private or public utility drainage, walkway or other
easement.
3. Pool lighting shall be directed toward the pool and not toward adjacent property.
4. Pool area shall be enclosed by a nonclimbable-type safety fence at least five feet (5') in
height to prevent uncontrolled access to the pool area. The fence shall have a self-closing
and self-latching gate with its latch located at least four feet (4') above the ground level.
(B) Single-Family Residential:
1. Pools shall not be located within any required front, side and rear yards and shall be at
least six feet (6') from any principal structure or frost footing.
2. In addition to observing yard setback requirements of each district, the filter unit, pump,
heating unit and any other noise making mechanical equipment shall be located at least
twenty five feet (25') from any residential structure on adjacent property.
(C) Multiple-Family Residential:
1. Water surfaces and pumps, filter or other apparatus used in connection with the pool shall
not be located closer than fifty feet (50') to any lot line.
2. Landscaping as outlined in Section 10-6-14 of this Code shall be placed between the pool
area and adjoining low density district lot lines.
3. Deck areas, adjoining patios or other areas used in conjunction with the pool shall be
located at least fifteen feet (15') from any lot line in an adjoining low density district.
(Ord. 088-198, 2-1-88)
.
,-..,
Back yard of5441 193f Street W.
.
.
.
.
.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
City Planning Commission\tf V
Michael Schultz
Associate Planner
Variance Request - Encroach Forty (40) feet into Front Yard Setback with
Pylon Sign.
Applicant: Controlled Air (Pettis Properties, LLC)
July 23,2002
The applicant, Controlled Air, is seeking variance approval to encroach forty (40) feet into the
minimum fifty (50) foot front yard setback in the IP (Industrial Park) zoning district and also
along a minor arterial roadway. The proposed sign measures nine and one-half (9.5) feet in
height.
Planninl! Division Review
Applicant:
Attachments:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Lot Size:
Existing Zoning:
Controlled Air (Pettis Properties, LLC)
21210 Eaton Ave
Farmington, MN 55024
1. Variance Application
2. Location Map
3. Site Plan
4. Proposed Sign
5. 10-3-6 (C): Variances
6. 4-3-1: Sign Ordinance (portions)
7. Property pictures
8. Energy Alternatives Sign Permit
21210 Eaton Ave
Lot 5, Block 1, Farmington Industrial Park
63,307 square feet
IP (Industrial Park)
.
2020 Comprehensive Plan:
Industrial
Existing Land Use: Office/Showroom
(Three tenants exist within the building, Controlled Air,
Fireplace Showroom and Energy Alternatives)
Surrounding Land Uses: Single-family residential is located to the east, currently
vacant industrial space sits to the north and west of the
property. C.S.A.H. 50 and the Dakota County Highway
Department are located to the south of the property.
Year Building was Constructed: 1995 (according to Dakota County Property records),
expanded in 2000.
Existing Signage:
The property currently contains three wall signs and two
monument signs. Staff was unable to locate a sign permit
for the Controlled Air or Fireplace Showrooms wall signs
or the freestanding monument sign out front. Also, the
Energy Alternatives sign permit only included a wall sign,
the other freestanding monument sign was for Energy
Alternatives was not included in the sign permit. Of the
five signs located on the building, only one, the Energy
Alternatives wall sign, is legal (according to City sign
records).
.
Recent Variance Decisions:
- Lori Ecklund, Akin Hills Pet Hospital! Anchor Ban1e
Planning Commission approved 33-foot encroachment into
50- foot minimum front yard setback. Sign would be placed
17-feet off Pilot Knob Road right-of-way easement.
Approved 4-21-01
- Schwiness, LLC, Farmington Market Place commercial
center. Planning Commission approved 40-foot
encroachment into 50-foot minimum front yard setback as
part of the Final PUD Agreement. Sign would be placed
lO-feet off Pilot Knob Road right-of-way easement.
Approved 2-12-02
DISCUSSION
The applicant is seeking Planning Commission approval for a variance to allow for a proposed
nine and one-half foot (9.5') pylon sign to encroach forty (40) feet into the minimum fifty (50)
foot front yard setback.
The property currently contains three wall signs and two monument signs. Staff was unable to
. find on file a sign permit for the Controlled Air or Fireplace Showrooms wall signs or the
.
.
.
freestanding monument sign. Also, the Energy Alternatives sign permit only included a wall
sign (April 2001). The existing freestanding monument sign for Energy Alternatives was not
included as part of the sign permit application (see attached permit application). Of the five
signs located on the building, only one, the Energy Alternatives wall sign, is legal (according to
City sign permit records).
Precedents for the proposed variance have been established by prior Planning Commission
decisions. The Akin Hills Pet Clinic/Anchor Bank sign was approved to encroach thirty-three
(33) feet (17 feet from front property line) for a 1 50-sq. ft. pylon sign. The new Farmington
Market Place received approval as part of the Final PUD Agreement to place its pylons (one on
each parcel, l50-sq. ft. each) to encroach forty (40) feet into the minimum front yard setback.
The Board of Adjustment may vary the regulations of this Title if any of the following
requirements are met:
1. Because the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography,
or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the
regulations of this Title would cause undue hardship. Economic consideration alone
shall not constitute an undue hardship if reason able use for the property exists under
the terms of this Title.
The property does not have a unique shape, configuration or contain topography that
may restrict the construction of a sign. The property does contain a 27-foot wide utility
easement for the overhead power lines. The easement is set off the front property line
approximately 32-feet.
2. The conditions upon which a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for
which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other properties
within the same zoning classification.
The property is located on a corner lot within the IP (Industrial Park) zoning district.
The lot size and conditions of the property do not appear to have any unique
characteristics.
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Title and has not been created by
any persons presently having an interest in the parcel ofland.
The City's sign ordinance requires the same minimum front yard setback for pylon signs
as it would for building setbacks. The minimum front yard setback in the IP zoning
district is fifty (50) feet, the building is setback approximately ninety (90) feet from the
front property line. The property's parking lot is located approximately forty (40) feet
from front property line. Required sign setback would place the structure within the
property owner's parking lot.
.
.
.
4. The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be
injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the parcel of land is located or
substantially diminish property values.
The proposed sign would not appear to alter the essential character of the neighborhood
nor would it appear that it would substantially diminish adjacent property values.
5. The proposed variance will not substantially increase the congestion of the public
streets, or increase the danger of fire, or be detrimental to the public welfare or public
safety.
There would not be any negative impact to either the general public or adjacent property
owners.
ACTION REQUESTED
Planning staff recommends approval of the variance to encroach forty (40) feet into the
minimum fifty (50) foot front yard setback contingent upon the following:
1. Both of the freestanding monument signs are removed prior to the construction of
the proposed pylon sign;
11. The property owner submit a sign permit application (with appropriate sign
diagrams) of all existing wall signs and submit the appropriate signage fees in
addition to the fee owed for the proposed pylon sign.
7-
Michael Schuhz
Associate Planner
cc: GeoffPettis, Controlled Air
Greg Rendall, Attracta Sign
.
.
.
Applicant Name
Applicant Address
CITY OF FARMINGTON
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Farmington, MN 55024
651-463-7111 FAX 651-463-1611
~ ON17<oLt.. tE]) Ih te..
2 f'2..t 0 E.AroJJ A-V&' FG-rAI /11/./
Street City State
!J5"'l> 2'1
Zip Code
For office use
Permit Number
Phone Number
Legal Description of Subject Property: (lot, block, plat name, section, township, range)
LOI / BLocK. 5"'
Current Land Use CbItIM UtlPrf../INIJV.5TZI{l-f.,. Current Zoning District :::t:P
,
Specific Nature ofRequestj Claimed Hardship: II/STALL NeW
E/lCJ-~~ ~o ~ ,~~ M'^t~tA~ J'1t>{ u;.lVd
<:"--L~~.d:::.
L/6HT€j) 516/../
SZ) - {;;,,+ ~~d- (} f'~
'J
Following Attached: (please check) _Proof of Ownership _ Boundary/Lot Survey
v Application fee ($200) ~ Copies of Site Plan
_>S\bstract/Resident List (adjoining property owners only)
.~ "To~er'S Dublieate Certificate ofTitle Required)
Property Owner's Signature .N 4..~~ ... .
Date ~- 29-02.-
Fo~otJi<:e'tiSC-;()lliy/' .'.. .... . . ...' .....
RequestSuhmitiedto the Planning Commission on. 7 d 3 0 ;A & -;; 8'- 0 "2-
PubliclIearingSetfor: .... q-;J. 3 -t):t AdvertisedinLocaINewspaper: '7-/1- d:2
Planning Commission Action:
Comments:
_ Approved _ Denied
Conditions Set:
Planning Coordinator:
Date:
.
s....
<3:
-0
Q)
o
s....
+-'
C
o
e?
c..
CO
~
c
o
.-
+-'
CO
U
o
.....J
.
~
t
Q)
c..
o
s....
a..
8"N
~
Ql
C-
o
...
a.
-
c.J
Ql
"E
:J
VJ
PILOT KNOB RD (CSAH 31)
'"
Z.~
"
~
roo.
-gro
:J~
0_
COO)
>.~
~ro
Ua..
~1J
E
<1> c:
Eo
~:~
<1>0
00>
>.C:
~ .~
" '"
(/)0:
<<lc:
'OJ'!
c: 0>
'" c:
...J ,-
>.E
C ro
"l.L.
0_
Uo
"';;-
~U
~i'
82
~ '"
" <1>
o ~
(/)u
o
l!)
r--
II
I 1RANSFORlJER
1lI[.1L.1\.J \"1
bi ..
:.'-
FIRE
CONNECTION
I
I
I
WAREH')USE AREA! ' I.'
(4000 SJ.) PROPOSED BUI LDING!'
iDATUM ELEVATION = 912.3' I
ARC~ITECTURAL ELEVATION = 1 ~'-O" I. .
..-._~~i--r-" --
I cx:l!~ .
I I
I \
I I
I I
.1 t
I I
. i I 120' -0' I
."'--'-----'-"---~-.---- ---.....-.... ....-- ... r...----. . - .--'--- ---.---'-
~ 1 CM:IWJ. ,
r I
i' 1 '
- Kuur Ur"""'1
SPLASH BL
(SEE A2)
24'-0"
G.6S
uETER
A1CH BASIN
EE CIVIL
OfTrCE AREA
(2400 SJ.)
WAREHOUSE
(3200 S.L)
FU1L
BUill
EXPP
. I
i
0--~
. .~
:.</:.~} I~~
[/ -: '. .!
HA~DICAP ~ARKINd
SIGN.- SEE 1/A1:
LAWN IRRIGATION SERvlCE
RAMP!
SIDEWALK
DOWN TO
DRIVE' -
SEE KJ.
1 . i
l'
..
cs-t
I'
~-
.' .
, .
: i
CONCRETE SIDEWALK - :
PROVIDE CONTRol JOINTS
~ 5'-0": D.C. (~.N.O.) ,
~ . .
S'.., (
RADI
TYF'I[
-4'
@: _ =45'-0' 8'-0': 8'-0': 11 STAlL~ @ 9'-O'.~ 99'-0" '8'-0.
-------+--~~_. . -=\_.. - ,-
-- f~~~~-11 ;~~ii~:I::~Su-u -.~--:- m___ \um - -- - ~_u - - --
4" BASE. t ASPHALT) I ~ BUILDING S~ BACK UN
....<;.
- - - - -- - .- -- - - .- - - - .- ~ - - - - -- - -. ~ -- -- - -- -' ~ - ~-PARKING ~~~A~~ -L~~J;
'~~ i\..3.- 'Th ~ S ~
~~W ~ "',,\Cs-N ~ . OVERHEAD POWER UNI
Sk"iJ. ~SITE SIGN FL},GPOLE~ V> SITE SIGN~
~~U~ SEE ,,, _ _t_S~E_A1~__nj~Jn-m~S~~~NT_~E_:'~~_
- - m - --- - ~ - - - - - - - - - -~ ~~.;,~~~ - - il< E^.'l!ij Allu-..J,'2s PROPERTY LINE
1i 26~O~' N89"'7'0fJ~ ~:~^\ f~t^.~ --
EXISTING ~
SHUTOFF FOR
DOIlESTIC
WATER LINE
FU1L
PARI
_ _ .D::e;
~R POLE
ROX. LOC.)
~ PROVIDE SHUT -OFF BY UNDERGROUND CONTRACTOR
~ EXISTING FIRE PROTECTION w.JN (APPROXI~TE LOCATION)
. L Oc.'"'-. iro f\ Dt:
~ ,,"ora s.-c.~ s: (~ /\
J
,
:i
..
..
1
1
.
J
z;:
..
o
tit
.
CI
-'
<<
o
>-
YJ
>-
<<
~
V'l
>-
~
Z
:::l
o
U
C
~
o
~
C
Q
..
N
.....
N
L-
.,
~
CL
CI
~
U
o
~
~
e
ll:S
:I
III
L-
:I
CL.
i,;
fjI
.
1IC
:I
f.
~,. <<.i J~
g t:'f~';:, t!
III <<W-"'- II:.
c:.- C ~
GJ ~ &&.I
>~ a:: ~
GJe ~ ~
:I -
o >- ~
U I- L-III
Z GJ_
:::l U.c:
o ~
U ~
.oe
< GJO
I- L-
o GJ-o
~ .c:_
< ll:S
Q - CL
~3N alff./-O ;!H./!/ fse;;,_
\"'-..-
I-
(I)
W
~
NOJ.YEI
..-
-.- ~O 'oty---
I
ftS
~
o
III
GJ
c:
e
-
L-E
GJ
L- ..
~~
ll:Sc:
GJ::S
L-O
U
~~ ~
g~l~
Q Q
~
'"3
c::-\~
Q..i
(/\ .-
'2-.J
- !t
fjI C""
c: -
CI
L- .- "I
~
-
-0 ~
c: ...,
ftS
GJ ~
CI
::s a:: .c:o-
-0 r.. &&.I
0 Q ~-
III a::
GJ 0 ~ ..
)( U ~
ftS LIJ -
..., a:: r.. ...,
GJ r..
..., >- .0 .,
e I- !
GJ Z U
::s :::l z
c:T 0 ~
e U ..., .c
- e .,
ro- < I r..
cu I- .,
-0 0 :I ~
~ U
0 < 0
Z Q Q -
a::
o
I-
-
C
~
<
>-
I-
Z
~
o
U
6€ €~ I
to- .9
Il\ I....
eo: .
~ ~
.J-... 1_
-..: .
-
,
,
,
Q.
<
~
z
0
-
....
c(
0
(} 0
..J
'"
~)
O~
tit
Ii
.;
..
..
..:
.
III
~
c
U
fI)
o
z
.. E 'ON avo.. '0:)
o
10
o
Z
>-
.
z:
III
...
C
..
.
.
..
.
u
..
.
~.
a.
~.
..-
..
..
a,,-
IE
~..
,-
.
~'"
'1'1\
1 () .
:> \)
~~
~
()
..
.
..
C
Z
C
10
tit
.
Z
o
t:
u
1&1
.
~
~
I~
Ii
'"
~
1-
W
UJ
If-
.~
-~':'::
-oo'or;z - Tfft 1\\- =- -;6i.pz-~\1 h
~ jj I I '{.u.aw~se:J /..f//lfh) I \ I
'9~& 'ON '::Joa!/ 'I pUt! a61111!e..lCl 1.1, I O~
I- UCJWdSf?3 'OJ;' ~I I I: 0."
ote_ls wa4fJON ~lllg ~? ~: ~I ~ I, ~ I
t'-, CS ~ L. := I . ~ ~
r,:~ ~'!-, f lC) ~i ~I ~'i ~
\1)/1 J '- :1 I~ I ~
II V\ 0: ~I ,1' I i
II r"l 4~
00 'O~L _ _-1 L _ -5:..0 '5t7L -I-:....J I I
-to' _ 1-01"
I I () I:
I I ~ '
I 1 ~ -1'"
---ZO"O-f,f:.-- I -1--- I
JY oP: I-------~-lil II
I It:" fC,::,,1 I
Ill..... ''''-'-j I I I
~ ~ r'- '--.1
I t: ~ II) I i-,.:, - I
-t~'" I I \----J--,
Ie ~\t\: I :~l
o ~ '-". I
I~ ~ ~ :s 'ti t:: I : m ....
It\! ~ ~ ~ 0\ I I (\AI 'm
~ I.i 0" I I
,-.10\'1 I I
I Cl .\,) Q ~ I I
)-. ~ l. "tl I I
5~ 8 I Q ~?tcl : I
t:: ~ ~ L' 00 'o1?~ .. f I I
~~ Y) L _-------1-1--1
~, , ~
~ i i r- -,:- - -""".tIJ!6, J#peON , - J ,I
. I I \J'" i I I
I- I ~ >t, ·
1ft
OS/20/2002 MON 09:17 FAX 6514606276
-- --
CONTROLLED AIR
i i:!
- -
ill .
I
~
4-
~
<::)
~
:i
~
I
II
z,o
X
\./)
['
~
'\
~ - '
~ ' '
, ."'+-....--+ .DC -1-
I (..0&) gol (~~~)
IZI 003
I~Pl
w~
~ ~
. .J 10
~ ~i
t.,J lil Ml
~J3 ~
~-~I
~~
- i
f?!
...
II
:
00
.......
(")
~
::I
~
Q
I
"
w
i
I
I
I
I
I
.
!
I
I
I
I
I
II
:f,~
..~
~~
~'~
.:i7},
W~;
-it a
.~ ~
!:.~
U)Z~~
zc.?~~
gwg~
~~'1:'
~.t1~~
u~.ii:
w~ ~ ~
~~g~
U) <( ufo
au.. 'lI ~
3:0,.'2-
: ; ,~~~
<!)w~'-')
.2 0..;;;'
~o.~
:':t. a.:: ~!:1
" a....:~o
OW2t:
-..,..':,l;:I
rA~E_i
WJ U1 .:!' "s
::r.. a:. ~j ;
i-~:=: E
z
f
~
~I
~l
Q!
i
>k- 10-3-6: VARIANCES:
The Board of Adjustment shall have the power to vary from the requirements of this Title, and to attach
conditions to the variance as it deems necessary to assure compliance with the purpose of this Title.
.
(A) The following exhibits shall be required unless waived by the Zoning Officer:
1. A boundary surveyor an area survey including the property in question and up to three
hundred feet (300') beyond showing: topography, utilities, lot boundaries, buildings, easements
and soil test data if pertinent.
2. A site development plan showing buildings, parking, loading, access, surface drainage,
landscaping and utility service. (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986)
(B) Procedure for obtaining a variance from the regulations of this Title are as follows:
1". The property owner or agent shall file with the Zoning Officer an application form together
with required exhibits plus a filing fee in an amount established annually by the City Council.
(Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986)
2. The Zoning Officer shall set a public hearing, transmit the application directly to the Board of
Adjustment and mail a notice to property owners adjacent to the subject property disregarding
public rights of way. Failure of such owners to receive notice shall not invalidate the proceedings.
(Ord. 094-339, 11-21-1994)
3. The Board of Adjustment shall, within sixty (60) days of submittal of all required exhibits,
approve, deny or approve under conditions accepted by the applicant.
.
(C) The Board of Adjustment may vary the regulations of this Title if any of the following requirements
are met:
1. Because the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or
other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the regulations of
this Title would cause undue hardship. Economic consideration alone shall not constitute an
undue hardship if reason able use for the property exists under the terms of this Title.
2. The conditions upon which a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the
variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other properties within the same
zoni~ classification.
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Title and has not been created by any
persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
4. The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be
injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the parcel of land is located or
substantially diminish property values.
S. The proposed variance will not substantially increase the congestion ofthe public streets, or
increase the danger offrre, or be detrimental to the public welfare or public safety.
6. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship.
.
(D) Upon appeal of a decision by the Board of Adjustment, the Zoning Officer shall set a public hearing,
transmit the application directly to the City Council, and mail a notice to the Board of Adjustment and
property owners adjacent to the subject property disregarding public rights of way. The City Council
shall, within sixty (60) days of the public hearing, decide to affirm or overturn the decision of the Board
of Adjustment with a four-fifths (4/,) vote of the City Council. (Ord. 097-393, 4-7-1997)
10-3-7: INTERIM USES:
(A) The Boarc:lJ?fAdjustment may grant permission and set conditions for an interim use of property if:
.
.
.
4-3-3
495
4-3-3
"
shall not extend beyond the drainage and utility easements on those
lots adjoinin the rincipal entrances. (Ord. 090-228, 2-5-90)
"
Signs in the B and I Districts:
1. Option A - Wall Signs: Under Option A only wall signs shall be
allowed.
(a) The maximum number of signs on any principal building shall
be two (2) and, in all cases, each sign shall be placed on a separate
wall frontage. The maximum size of wall signs under Option A shall
be as specified below.
(b) When a building faces two (2) or more streets, the total
allowed sign area shall be based upon the gross silhouetted area' of
the two (2) smaller building sides facing streets.
(c) For multiple occupancy buildings, each tenant may have one
business sign, however, the design, color and typeface shall be
regulated by a plan developed by the property owner and as
approved by the Planning Commission. The following standards shall
apply to said signs:
(1) Multiple occupancy buildings shall submit a sign plan
which will coordinate signage for the entire project.
I
. (2) The plan shall address height, location, size, number type,
decorative theme, design, color and materials to be used on
the building.
(3) The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner prior to the issuance of a sign permit for the building.
(4) The owner of the building is responsible to obtain the sign
permit, prescribe to the approved sign criteria and insure that
signs erected are in compliance with the approved sign plan.
(d) Signs may be placed on the side of a building not facing a
street, but the total sign area on the building shall not exceed that
allowed in Option A as follows:
City of Farmington
4-3-3
,-_<4.:!:,
.
.
;-.
OPTION A - WALL SIGN ONLY
Basic Size
Size Based On Blda. Face
B-1
B-2
B-3
1-1
24 sq. ft.
50 sq. ft.
75 sq. ft.
100 sq. ft.
12%
16%
18%
20%
2. Option B - Wall And Pylon Signs:
4-3-3
Maximum
300 sq. ft.
400 sq. ft.
400 sq. ft.
500 sq. ft.
(a) Under Option B, both wall and pylon signs may be used, but
only one pylon sign is permitted. The maximum allowable sign area
for any wall sign in this optIon shall be specified below.
(b) When a building faces two (2) or more streets, the total
allowed sign area shall be based upon the gross silhouetted area of
the two (2) smaller building sides facing the streets.
(c) For multiple occupancy buildings a sign plan shall be
prepared and approved with the same conditions as listed under
Option A above.
(d) Signs may be placed on the side of the building not facing
.the street up to one sign per tenant, but the total sign area shall not
exceed that allowed in Option B as follows:
OPTION B - WALL AND PYLON SIGNS
Basic Size Size Based On Blda. Face
B-1 24 sq. ft. 10%
B-2 50 sq. ft. 14%
B-3 75 sq. ft. 16%
1-1 100 sq. ft. 18%
(Ord. 095-347, 2-6-95)
3. Pylon Signs:
Maximum
200 sq. ft.
300 sq. ft.
300 sq. ft.
400 sq. ft.
)j-
(a) No pylon sign shall be located in a required yard, except
freestanding signs under six feet (6') in height may be located ten
feet (10') from a street right of way.
(b) Pylon signs shall not be closer to a driveway or parking
space than five feet (5'). '
City of Farmington
1095
.--..-----.----'. -."
-- ._-~
4-3-3
.
.
.
1095
4-3-3
(c) Areas and height of pylon signs are controlled by the speed
of automobile traffic along the frontage street as follows:
..~
Speed (mph) Area (SQ. ft.) HeiQht (feet)
30 50 18
35 75 20
40 100 22
45 125 24
50 150 26
55 175 28
(d) The area identification sign for a shopping center, stating the
name of the center and the major tenants, shall be allowed. The
maximum size, and height shall conform with the requirements of
subsection (B)3(c) above.
4. Marquee Signs: Signs may be placed on the roof of a covered
walk or marquee in a building complex on the vertical face of a
marquee and may project from the lower edge of the marquee not
more than twenty four inches (24-), but the bottom of a sign placed
on a marquee shall be no less than eight feet (8') above the ground
at any point. No part of the sign shall extend above the top of the
roof line for a covered walk or above the top of the vertical face of
the marquee. (Ord. 090-228, 2-5-90)
5. Portable Signs:
(a) Sign Size And Placement: Established local businesses shall
be allowed to display on the sidewalk adjacent to their business, a
portable two (2) sided sign, up to two feet (2') wide and three feet
(3') high, during regular business hours. Such signs shall be placed
in front of the business they promote and shall not restrict pedestrian
traffic flow.
(b) Permit Required: It shall be unlawful for any business to
display a portable, sign without first having obtained a permit from
the City. Application for a permit shall be made in writing to the City
Clerk, and applicants shall state the location of the proposed
portable sign and such other facts as may be required and
applicable to the granting of such permit. The permit shall be valid
for a period of up to one year and is not transferrable to another
business without authorization of the Council.
City of Farmington
fe'
:' "
.
:.... .)
"
4-3-4
4-3-5
4-3-4: NONCONFORMING SIGNS: Any sign that is nonconforming to the
requirements of this Chapter, whether by variance previously
granted or by conformance to existing sign regulations at the time the original permit
for said sign was issued, shall either be removed or brought up to code requirements
within the time period prescribed herein dating from the effective date of this Chapter.
Amortization Schedule
Actual Cost of Sign
Period for Removal
$ 500.00 or less
3 Y2 years
500.01 to 1,000.00
3 Y2 years
1,000.01 to 2,500.00
4 Y2 years
Over $2,500.01
lOrd. 088-209, 9-19-88)
5 Y2 years
4-3-5:
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS:
*(A)
No sign shall be erected, changed or relocated without a permit issued by the
Zoning Officer. Any sign involving electrical components shall be wired by a
licensed electrician.
The permit application shall be signed by the applicant. When the applicant
is any person other than the owner of the property, it shall also be signed by
the owner of the property. The application shall contain the following
information:
1. Name, address and telephone number of the property owner, sign owner
and erector.
2. Location of the sign or structure.
3. Scaled drawing showing position of the sign in relation to the nearest
buildings, structures, public streets, right of ways and property lines.
. 4. Plans and specifications and method of construction or attachment to the
building or in the ground, including all dimensions, showing all light sources,
wattage, type and color of lights, and details of any light shields or shades.
5. Other information as may be required by the Zoning Officer.
(8) Fees: The schedule of fees for sign permits is established each year by the
City Council. Signs which require a conditional use permit must pay both a
sign permit fee and a conditional use permit fee. No fee shall be required for
the signs listed below:
'.)
~... .
. '286; 1088
.
.
~
*
.
4-3-5
4-3-9
-,
B)
1. Public signs
2. Temporary signs
3. Temporary real estate signs
4. Integral
5. Announcements of concerts, plays, lectures and club activities
6. Election signs
7. No trespassing signs
8. Interior window signs
9. On-premises directional signs
10. Nameplate signs
In addition, fees may be waived by the City Council for signs containing a
religious, civic, school or public interest subject.
4-3-6: CANCELLATION: A sign permit shall be null and void if the work for
which the permit was issued has not been completed within a period
of ' six (6) months after the date of the permit. A permit may be renewed one time
and no additional fee shall be collected for renewal.
4-3-7: REMOVAL OF SIGNS: The Zoning Officer shall order the removal of
any sign erected or maintained in violation of this Chapter.
Thirty (30) days' notice in writing shall be given to the owner of the building, struc-
ture or premises on which such sign is located, to either bring the sign into compliance
with the Chapter or effect its removal.
4-3-8: FINES: Any person, organization, corporation or their representatives,
found in violation of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and upon conviction, shall be punished bya fine not to exceed five hundred dollars
($500.00) or by imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days, or both. Each day
that a violation exists shall constitute a separate and distinct offense, punishable as
aforesaid.
4-3-9:
APPEALS: To provide for a reasonable interpretation of the provisions
of this Chapter, a permit applicant who wished to appeal an
,
;
_,,__of
288
f5l:}.,
;.'
.
~< .e'"
.
~
4-3-9
4-3-12
interpretation by the City Zoning Officer may file a notice of appeal with the
Planning Commission and request a hearing. The Commission shall hear
appeals or requests by the following cases:
Appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement,
decision or determination made by the Zoning Officer in the enforcement of
this Chapter.
Request for variances from the literal provisions of this Chapter in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship. (Ord. 086-173,
2-21-86)
4-3-10: SEVERANCE CLAUSE: If any section, clause or provision or
portion thereof, of this Chapter shall be found to be invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall
not affect any other section, clause, provision or portion thereof of this
Chapter. (Ord. 086-173, 2-21-86)
4-3-11: REVOKE PERMIT: The Zoning Officer is authorized and
. empowered to revoke any permit upon failure of the holder of
said permit thereof, to comply with any provisions of this Chapter. (Ord.
086-173,2-21-86)
4-3-12: MAINTENANCE: All signs shall be maintained in a safe,
presentable and good structural condition at all times.
Maintenance shall include painting, repainting, cleaning, replacement or
repair of defective parts and other necessary acts.
Any sign which is found in a dangerous or defective condition, shall be
removed or repaired by the owner of the sign or the owner of the premises
on which the sign is located. (Ord. 086-173, 2-21-86)
294
City of Farmington
.
..--.-
:r:
~
~
U
"'0
c:
ro
v
>
-<
c:
o
......
ro
LI.l
'-
o
l-
V
E
o
u
.
......
Ul
ro
v
..c:
t::
o
c:
E
o
t/::
"'0
v
:::
v
0>
I
>-.
t::
v
0...
o
l-
e....
.
.
C/l
Q)
>
+-'
".... ',.: ~I '. CI:l
,. ..., E
"
c;' . , Q)
t'-"~. +-'
~
>-.
C!}
I-.
Q)
C
u..J
'"0
C
CI:l
~
(3
0
I-.
:::
0
..c
r./)
Q)
u
CI:l
0..
Q)
I-.
r..L:
~
:.<
'"0
Q)
-
. (3
I-.
+-'
C
0
U
en
c
C!)
'00
~
:::
,";' on
c
.{., +-'
C/l
"~
Q)
Q)
Q)
I-.
..c
+-'
I
C!}
c
;0
"5
.D
I-.
:.<
'"0
Q)
-
(3
I-.
+-'
C
0
U
'-+-<
0
. +-'
C
0
I-.
~
14:27 FAX 651 463 1611
CITY OF FARMINGTON
l4J002
CITY OF FARMINGTON
SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION
Permit #
Of-oo;)..
tf/;;<Io/
,
Date
Site Address or Legal Description of Sign
21210 Eaton Ave. Suo C
Farmington, MN 55024
1. Applicant Name: Energy Al ternati ves, Inc. /Gina Larson
Addre~ 21210 Eaton Avenue Suo C Farmington, MN 55024
651.460.6100
651. 460 .6717
PhonelFax
2. Property Owner Name: Pettis Properties
. Address 21210 Eaton Avenue Suo A
PhonelFax
Farminaton. MN 55024
3. Sign Owner: Energy Alternatives, Inc.
Address 21210 Eaton Avenue Suo C
Farmington, MN 55024
Phone/F~~ 651.460.6100
651.460.6717
.
4. Contractor Name: Godfrey Signs
Address 19682 Chippendale Ave. W. Farmington, MN 55024
651.463.4519
651.460.4410
PhoneJFax
5, Zoning District Commercial
6. Estimated Value of Sign $1,500
7. Type of Sign: 0 Advertising Billboard* 0 Public Service Info 0 Freestanding
[] Wall DOff Premises Directional 0 Marquee 0 Dev. Project
.. Distance from nearest advertising billboard (1500' minimum), Distance from nearest intersection (500'
minimum)
The: following information must be included along with signed sign application and permit fee (see reverse)
Application Checklist - completed by applicant
~ Sign Dimensions
~ length & width
_ height (if freestanding or pylon)
_ depth of sign
NA Proposed Illumination Type
* Type of Construction
==== DiagramlIllustration oEProposed sign(s)
--.:. Ifwall sign. diagram should indicate placement of sign on building and dimensions of building (width &
* height) to determine area of building face.
_ Complete Detailed Plans and Specifications (i.e. footings. post, size of all materials and all fasteners etc)
For Billboard Applications
Distance from nearest billboard
sign or signs
.1.
Signs which need a conditional use permit must pay hoth the established sign permit fee, plus the
conditional use permit fee.
2.
Fees are not required for signs exempted by Section 4-3-5 (B).
*On Attachment
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.d.farmington.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
Lee Smick, AICP 'ffC/
Planning Coordinator
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Conditional Use Permit - Construct 12 Townhome Units within the R-T (Downtown
Transitional Mixed Use District)
Applicant: Farmington Development Corporation
DATE:
July 23, 2002
INTRODUCTION
Farmington Development Corporation has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to construct
twelve (12) townhome units on property bounded by Spruce Street on the north, 5th Street on the east,
the School District's Alternative Learning Center on the south, and 4th Street on the west. The
property was formerly owned by St. Michael's Church. The property is zoned R-T (Downtown
Transitional Mixed Use District).
Plannin!! Division Review
Applicant:
Farmington Development Corporation
22098 Canton Court
Farmington, MN 55024
Attachments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Application
Location Map
Zoning Map
2020 Comprehensive Plan Map
Section 10-5-4: Zoning Districts - Permitted and
Conditional Uses, R-T (Downtown Transitional
Mixed Use District)
Section 10-3-5: Conditional Uses
Site Plan! Landscape Plan
Building Floor Plan
Building Elevations
6.
7.
8.
9.
Location of Property:
Property bounded by Spruce Street on the north, 5th Street on
the east, the School District's Alternative Learning Center on
the south, and 4th Street on the west.
Surrounding Land Uses:
Single-family to the north and east, multi-family development
to the west, school to the south.
.
.
.
Existing Zoning:
R-T (Downtown Transitional Mixed Use District)
Comprehensive Plan:
Public/Semi-Public
Current Land Use:
Vacant church
Proposed Land Use:
3 townhome buildings (12 total units)
Lot Size:
61,200 square feet (1.4 acres)
Minimum Lot Size:
15,000 square feet
Minimum Lot Width:
100 feet (per building)
Proposed Lot Width:
128 feet
Maximum Density under R- T:
Townhouse:
8.5 units per acre
Proposed Density:
8.5 units per acre
Streets and Accesses:
Vehicular access would be permitted along any of the street
frontages (4t\ 5th, and Spruce), vehicular access would also
be permitted along the rear alley.
Utilities (Water, Sewer & Gas):
Sanitary sewer exists along Spruce and 5th Street, water exists
along Spruce Street.
Sidewalks:
Sidewalks currently exist along Spruce and 5th Streets.
DISCUSSION
The applicant, Farmington Development Corporation, has submitted a conditional use permit
application to construct 3 single-level townhome buildings (12 units) on a 1.4 acre site, zoned R-T
(Downtown Transitional Mixed Use District). Townhomes are identified as a conditional use within
the R- T zoning district.
A vacant church currently exists on the property. The convent was demolished and the garage was
moved on July 12, 2002. Single-family residential exists north and east of the site, institutional
(school) to the south, and multi-family (apartments) to the west.
The following criteria are utilized when evaluating a proposed Conditional Use as outlined in Section
10-3-5 (C):
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.
2020 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
The property is identified as Public/Semi-Public on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing
for the amendment of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan from Public/Semi-Public to Medium Density
Residential is scheduled for July 30, 2002. The approval of the conditional use is contingent upon the
approval ofthe 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Building Elevation and Floor Plan
The townhomes are proposed to be constructed similar to the Oak Place townhomes constructed by the
developer in 2000 (see attached photos). The townhomes are proposed as single-level, slab-on-grade
construction. The exterior is proposed with a light tan vinyl siding on the exterior of the unit and
garage. The side of the units facing the street will be constructed with a rock facade. The roofing
material is asphalt.
Each floor plan consists of two bedrooms, two baths and a 20' x 20' garage. A covered porch is
located in the rear of the unit and may be converted into a 4-season porch or additional enclosed room.
Transportation
Public streets including 4th, 5th and Spruce are adjacent to the property. The street widths are 80 feet.
Parking is allowed on both sides of the streets. A public alley exists on the south side of the property
and is 40 feet in width. Parking is not allowed in the alley except for loading and unloading of
vehicles.
Off-Street Parking
A total of 2 parking spaces are required for each unit. An additional 0.25 spaces per unit is also
required within the common area. Therefore, 3 parking spaces (0.25 x 12) are required within the
common area. The developer is seeking a variance to this requirement.
Lot Coverage
The density for a development within the R-T zoning district is 8.5 dwelling units/acre. Therefore, a
maximum of 12 dwelling units may be located on the 61,200-square foot (1.4 acre) site. Each
dwelling unit is proposed at 1,960 square feet for a total of23,520 square feet for the three townhome
buildings. The maximum allowable lot coverage in the R-T zoning district is 35%. Calculating the
dwelling units per acre, the proposed lot coverage is 38.43%, 3.43% over the allowable lot coverage.
.
.
.
The proposed development is 2,099 square feet over the required lot coverage maximum. This
amount is roughly equivalent to the square footage for one dwelling unit. The developer is seeking a
variance to the maximum lot coverage requirement.
Utilities
Utilities are readily accessible to the site. Sanitary sewer exists within the right-of-way on Spruce
Street and 5th Street. An 18-inch water line exists along Spruce Street. Storm sewer exists along 4th,
5th and Spruce Streets. Easements will be required for all utilities on private property.
Parks, Sidewalks
The developer is required to submit park fees for the project. The developer proposes to remove the
existing sidewalk and replace it during construction. A sidewalk is proposed along 4th Street.
Landscaping
Eighteen deciduous trees line the boulevard on 4t\ 5th, and Spruce Streets. Eighteen deciduous trees
are required to be located within the boulevard. The landscape plan currently shows thirteen
boulevard trees, four along 4th Street and nine along Spruce Street. No boulevard trees are proposed
along 5th Street. Comments have been submitted to the developer requiring additional trees along the
boulevard to meet the street tree requirement.
The developer has also proposed that twelve existing boulevard trees be relocated within the interior of
the site. The City has informed the developer that this would not be allowed. Any boulevard trees
that require removal will be relocated to other boulevards in the City. A revised landscape plan
showing the location of existing and proposed trees needs to be submitted by the developer.
Demolition Permit
The construction of the proposed townhomes would require the demolition of (the former) St.
Michael's Church. The CUP applicant has applied for a demolition permit. The demolition permit
will be provided to the applicant when certain information requested by the City has been received,
reviewed, and approved (see attached letters dated March 27, 2002 and July 16, 2002). Staff is not
recommending that the approval of the Conditional Use Permit be contingent upon the final release of
the demolition permit. Staff merely wishes clarify the fact that even if the CUP is approved, the
proposed townhomes cannot be constructed unless or until the demolition permit has been released
and the church has been demolished.
Historic Preservation Commission's Recommendations
The Historic Preservation Commission met on May 16, 2002 in compliance with Section 2-11-5 (D) to
discuss the project proposal (see attached minutes). The Commission stated that "the concept plan as
presented is inappropriate for this neighborhood". Also attached is a memo from Robert Vogel,
Preservation Planning Consultant for the City.
ACTION REQUESTED
Recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit contingent upon the following:
.
.
.
1. Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for St. Michael's Place from Public/Semi-Public
to Medium Density Residential.
2. Submission of a Landscape Plan indicating existing trees, trees to be preserved, and trees to be
replaced.
cc: Farmington Development Corporation
.
CITY OF FARMINGTON
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
Fanningto~ wIN 55024
651-463-7111 FAX: 651-463-1611
For office use
Permit Number
Applicant Name (please print) e"I,'~
Applicant Address eo. ~. 'JS-O 2- <..
J- StreeJ State Zip Code
Phone (t, S-( ) -/~ 3 - 't S 2 S- Fax ((,)1) Y''- ~ - yg 5- 0
Legal Description of Subject Property: (lot, block, plat name, section, township, range)
k+- J ;2. 3 ~/S;Z" tJ /1:- /.;2 S~ jJ1~'Cr~41~/) 1'/(1-9 ~.
,
Current Land Use 111l<C e ""Vl. +--
Current Zoning District
~-r
,ecifiC Nature of Request:
{;~
-h~.., )/0""'" ..&j
v:' . L
Following Attached: (please check) .::...~of of Ownership --=:-BoundarylLot Survey
_~"Ap~ication fee _ ~Copies of Site Plan
_ ~tractIResident List "'(required 350' from subject property)
~orrens (Owner's Dublicate Certificate of Title Required)
Property Owner's Signature {! fl1 ~* Applic:mt's Sig..ture ~ fJr(*
Date ~-(}2-. Date C:-l_
For office use only
Request Submitted to Planning staff' on ~ -to - 02-
Public Hearing Set for: ,,- l}S- ...,:J Advertised in Local Newspaper.
?--zj-02-
Planning Commission Action: _ Approved _ Denied
City Council Action (if necessary): _Approved _ Denied
Comments:
Conditions Set:
.
Planning Coordinator:
Date:
.
.
.
MINUTES
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
May 16,2002
1.
CALL TO ORDER~Vice-Chairperson Flynn called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.
Present:, George Flynn, Jackie Dooley, Beverly Preece, Tim Rice, Earl Teporten,
Absent: Susan Strachan, Harbee Tharaldson
Also Present: Consultant Vogel, Administrative Services Manager Finstuen
2.
APPROVE AGENDA-as presented.
3.
APPROVE MINUTES-Motion by Preece, second by Teporten to approve the minutes of April
25,2002 as presented. APIF, motion carried.
4.
PUBLIC HEARINGS-None
5.
REPORTS-None
6.
PROJECT UPDATES
a. Heritage Preservation Award - will be given to Verne and Glenda Dye, 600 Spruce
Street, for their contributions in preserving Farmington's historic neighborhoods by
investing in a quality restoration of their home. At the City Council meeting of May 20,
2002, the Mayor will present the award and Earl Teporten will present the sign to be
displayed in their yard through Dew Days - June 23, 2002.
7.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS-None
8. NEW BUSINESS
a. Middle Creek Estates Historic Cemetery-The Commission walked the proposed path
leading to the cemetery and found the probable survey markers. The area that contains
the burial sites is a cleared area (approximately ~ acre) defined by scrub brush and is
contained within a much larger wooded area (approximately one acr~). A plan will be
developed of the approximate ~ acre piece by defining the boundaries with natural
plantings. The ground cover will be determined and perennials may be planted. Any
loose fragments on the site will be buried on the site. An historic marker should be
designed, giving information about the site and installed at the spot where the path
. empties into the cemetery and should carry the name Middle Creek Estates Historic
Cemetery, formerly known as Farmington Presbyterian Church Cemetery.
MarIys Guildner presented information about burial records within the site and is
attempting to reconstruct the history of those families buried in the cemetery. She will
work with the Farmington Historical Society and present this information upon
completion of her project.
">- b.
Redevelopment of St. Michael's-In compliance with city code2-11-5(D) the HPC
reviewed the sketch plan for the proposed redevelopment of the north half of the former
St Michael's Church property (Section 10-6-22 Site Plan Review). The commission
stated multiple ways to revise the plan so it would reflect the character of the historic
neighborhoods surrounding the site. Members also recalled suggestions made by
representatives of the University of Minnesota Design Team who with input from
Farmington residents, contributed to the design of the Prairie Waterway and East
Farmington neighborhood and commented on the quaint historic nature of Farmington's
downtown streets. Reference was also made to the recent survey of Farmington residents .
and their desire to maintain the historic nature of the downtown area. MOTION by
Preece, second by Dooley that the concept plan as presented is inappropriate for this
neighborhood and that this be conveyed to the Planning Commission and City Council.
APIF, motion carried.
9. MISCELLANEOUS-The next meeting was scheduled for July 25, 2002 to discuss the.
commission's vision for Farmington's historic neighborhoods, and their intent to ultimately invite
the City Council and Planning Commission to ajoint workshop with the Heritage Preservation
. Commission.
10. ADJOURN-MOTION by Rice, second by Dooley to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. APIF, motion
carried.
Respectfully submitted,
~~v- 8;4~ut:~
Karen Finstuen
Administrative Services Manager
.
. -.. .,-~-...- .- - .~ -- ---
.
.
.
.
Farmington neighborhood and commented on the quaint historic nature of Farmington's
downtown streets. Reference was also made to the recent survey of Farmington residents
and their desire to maintain the historic nature of the downtown area. MOTION by
Preece, second by Dooley that the concept plan as presented is inappropriate for this
neighborhood and that this be conveyed to the Planning Commission and City Council.
APIF, motion carried.
9.
MISCELLANEOUS-The next meeting was scheduled for July 25, 2002 to discuss the
commission's vision for Farmington's historic neighborhoods, and their intent to ultimately invite
the City Council and Planning Commission to ajoint workshop with the Heritage Preservation
Commission.
10.
ADJOURN-MOTION by Rice, second by Dooley to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. APIF, motion
carried,
Respectfully submitted,
d6cLLv-- 95Gv~ui:c~
Karen F instuen
Administrative Services Manager
..:._~--
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
20 May 2002
TO: Michael Schultz, Associate Planner
FR: Robert Vogel, Preservation Planning Consultant
RE: Site Plan for Redevelopment of St. Michael's Church
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the sketch site plan submitted by
Farmington Development Corporation for the S1. Michael's Church property. The City's historic
preservation code and comprehensive plan establish priorities for dealing with historic resources
and provide a framework for integrating historic preservation into community development
planning. These policies provide the basis for my comments, which can be summarized as
follows:
1) The St. Michael's Church building is historically and architecturally significant, therefore,
demolition would be contrary to the city's stated policy of protecting significant, non-
renewable heritage resources.
2) The .suburban" type design of the proposed new construction is inappropriate for its setting
and visually incompatible in scale, size, materials, color, and texture with the historic
character of the surrounding neighborhood.
3) If built as shown in the sketch site plan, the new town homes would negatively impact the
value of nearby preserved historic properties.
4) \Nhile city policy recognizes that historic properties must sometimes give way to modern
development, the proposed redevelopment does not address mitigation measures (e.g.,
relocation and recordation).
Historic preservation is public policy in the City of Farmington, where the city code treats historic
properties as scarce, nonrenewable community resources worthy of protection and provides a
form of overlay zoning as a community development planning tool. The comprehensive plan also
recognizes that older buildings and neighborhoods help define its vision of Farmington as a 21st
Century community and establishes clear goals and policies for managing historic resources. In
community development terms, the St. Michael's Church property and the surrounding historic
neighborhoods (Oak Street and Downtown) help give the city its special character and cultural
depth, and this sense of time and place provides the basis, both legal and philosophical, for
making sound judgments in land use planning.
The city's historic preservation ordinance authorizes the Heritage Preservation Commission
(HPC) to review all development projects and requires the Planning Commission to allow the
. HPC a reasonable opportunity to comment on such projects before making their recommendation
to the City Council. The city has not yet adopted architectural design standards or guidelines for
infill construction in any of its traditional neighborhoods; however, it has, by ordinance, adopted
the Secretary of the Interior's standards for historic preservation projects as the basis for design
review decisions, and these standards address new construction in historic areas. The city's
comprehensive plan makes it clear that the primary goal of design review is to insure that no
significant historic property is destroyed as a result of "any action permitted, licensed, funded,
or assisted" by the city. In the context of regulating real estate development projects, the city is
committed to making a "reasonable effort" to preserve historic properties "which have been
found eligible for registration but which may not have been designated as heritage
landmarks" (emphasis added).
.
To paraphrase the Secretary of the Interior's standards, new construction should be kept to a
minimum in historic areas and should be designed to be compatible in materials, size, scale,
color, and texture with the other buildings in the neighborhood. As a general rule, contemporary
designs are not discouraged for infill construction in historic neighborhoods; however, the new
construction should not attempt to imitate an earlier style or period of architecture. The
neighborhood surrounding St. Michael's Church is characterized by detached single family
dwellings constructed between the 1880s and the 1930s, with a high proportion of historically
significant properties. (It is important to keep in mind that even the older homes which lack
individual distinction are distinguishable historic entities that contribute to community heritage,
regardless of their individual eligibility for landmark designation.) The typical historic home in this
part of town is a two-story, frame cottage or bungalow with wood siding, a front porch, and a
medium pitched open gable or hip roof that was built around 1910-1920. In terms of stylistic
influences, the neighborhood reflects a mix of Late Victorian period and early 20th century
Craftsman influences, with a scattering of post-World War II infill construction.
In my opinion, the proposed townhomes are architecturally incompatible with the built
environment that surrounds the St. Michael's Church property. The comprehensive plan states
that one of the city's land use priorities is to promote infill construction "of high quality design
that is compatible with the surrounding context and also preserves and contributes to the
existing neighborhood character" (emphasis added). Although the front setback and building
height of the townhomes may be appropriate to the scale of historic buildings (the precedent for
single-story construction with small front yards exists in all of Farmington's historic residential
areas), the shapes and textures are entirely at odds with the character and mood of the
neighborhood. The monotonous bullnosed facades lack the rhythm and diversity that make up a
typical streetscape in the city's older neighborhoods. The dominant design feature appears to be
the garage: in stark contrast to the nearby homes, the visual impression at street-level is of a
garage with a house attached to it. This is not the "high quality design~ needed to enhance the
traditional values of the neighborhood.
.
If built as. shown in the documents that accompanied the site plan, the town homes would
significantlY change the appearance of the streetscape and degrade the character of the
neighborhood. In economic terms, the visual impact of the new construction would have a
negative effect on nearby older homes, especially preserved historic houses and properties
eligible for designation as heritage landmarks. These adverse effects would be reflected in
declining resale values for preserved historic homes, which realize part of their prestige and
distinction from their visual relationships with other historic properties. The negative effects of the
townhomes would also be felt by owners of historic properties in the Oak Street neighborhood
outside the viewshed of the project, inasmuch as its approval by the city would be perceived as a
lack of public commitment to heritage conservation.
Returning to the issue of preserving the St. Michael's Church building, several mitigation
strategies are available to avoid complete loss of the historic resource should the city determine
that redevelopment of the church site is in the public interest. These include relocation of the
historic building to another site and recordation (i.e., the compilation of photographs, drawings,
and. written data to the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey). An appropriate
mitigation strategy should be made a condition of plan approval.
.
2
.
comprehensive plan makes it clear that the primary goal of design review is to insure that no
significant historic property is destroyed as a result of "any action permitted, licensed, funded,
or assisted" by the city. In the context of regulating real estate development projects, the city is
committed to making a "reasonable effort" to preserve historic properties .which have been
found eligible for registration but which may not have been designated as heritage
landmarks" (emphasis added).
To paraphrase the Secretary of the Interior's standards, new construction should be kept to a
minimum in historic areas and should be designed to be compatible in materials, size, scale,
color, and texture with the other buildings in the neighborhood. As a general rule, contemporary
designs are not discouraged for infill construction in historic neighborhoods; however, the new
construction should not attempt to imitate an earlier style or period of architecture. The
neighborhood surrounding St. Michael's Church is characterized by detached single family
dwellings constructed between the 1880s and the 1930s, with a high proportion of historically
significant properties. (It is important to keep in mind that even the older homes which lack
individual distinction are distinguishable historic entities that contribute to community heritage,
regardless of their individual eligibility for landmark designation.) The typical historic home in this
part of town is a two-story, frame cottage or bungalow with wood siding, a front porch, and a
medium pitched open gable or hip roof that was built around 1910-1920. In terms of stylistic
influences, the neighborhood reflects a mix of Late Victorian period and early 201h century
Craftsman influences, with a scattering of post-World War II in fill construction.
.
In my opinion, the proposed townhomes are architecturally incompatible with the built
environment that surrounds the St. Michael's Church property. The comprehensive plan states
that one of the city's land use priorities is to promote in fill construction .of high quality design
that is compatible with the surrounding context and also preserves and contributes to the
existing neighborhood character" (emphasis added). Although the front setback and building
height of the townhomes may be appropriate to the scale of historic buildings (the precedent for
single-story construction with small front yards exists in all of Farmington's historic residential
areas), the shapes and textures are entirely at odds with the character and mood of the
neighborhood. The monotonous bullnosed facades lack the rhythm and diversity that make up a
typical streetscape in the city's older neighborhoods. The dominant design feature appears to be
the garage: in stark contrast to the nearby homes, th'e visual impression at street-level is of a
garage with a house attached to it. This is not the "high quality design" needed to enhance the
traditional values of the neighborhood.
If built as. shown in the documents that accompanied the site plan, the townhomes would
significantly change the 'appearance of the streetscape and degrade the character of the
neighborhood. In economic terms, the visual impact of the new construction would have a
negative effect on nearby older homes, especially preserved historic houses and properties
eligible for designation as heritage landmarks. These adverse effects would be reflected in
declining resale values for preserved historic homes, which realize part of their prestige and
distinction from their visual relationships with other historic properties. The negative effects of the
town homes would also be felt by owners of historic properties in the Oak Street neighborhood
outside the viewshed of the project, inasmuch as its approval by the city would be perceived as a
lack of public commitment to heritage conservation.
Returning to the issue of preserving the St. Michael's Church building, several mitigation
strategies are available to avoid complete loss of the historic resource should the city determine
that redevelopment of the church site is in the public interest. These include relocation of the
historic building to another site and recordation (Le., the compilation of photographs, drawings,
and, written data to the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey). An appropriate
mitigation strategy should be made a condition of plan approval.
.
2
.
For your information, I have enclosed some information on historic neighborhood design review
and infill housing. I will need the National Trust booklet returned, but the rest you can keep for
your own files.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about this memorandum. I would
be happy to provide more detailed information on design review standards as well as architectural
treatments for both historic buildings and new construction.
.
.
3
enf--
(l)
en E
~.E:
en ~~
0..-
0>
C (l) ~
c ()
co ~
0-
Na..
en
c-
O (l)
CO
.-5
'E~
"-
CO""';
u.C/)
\po- "'C
o (l)
~en
~o
Ug-
"-
a..
I
I.
w
z.~
;;:
~ i
c ~ j II
CD ~ c J~
g> 1i ~i~ f~
-1 .~ j~~~~::-_:~
_ ~ _ ~ c~,,~c~.!j
'S ~_= E .. ~.; ='2~.2'c "6
6 a=.~i8 j ':i~~='i~ -~I
>0 lit (I] " ::J 41l-= 2'0: 0 .- a: I; <0 :- j
~ CIJ .! _ c::.~ al.!: ~.! 8; >. ~ ! ~?~ ~ 3: ;!.
] ~~ I ~ ~c!~ ~ ~ ~~~a.'~:g~~'i! ~ i ..:. 'f
a~<;'~ ct1~~s~~~]~jl~~.t~~1.9 ~ i.
~~ ~ c5 .g ~~i!8l I~~8'~ ~ ]1118 ~ .. ~ J~
~_.:-g 0 -~ 'c::-Q';"";;~::;";=-d2e;:--;;---!2..!3: ,Q
::EpU: E( :E rS ci 0: cD cD cOcO a. '7 ~8scr:iQ:J:i:i~ ~~ l~
<<~+l~II"'I.lllmlillll H
,D
t~
-
,--
I
I
1
1
I
-
.';- F
,I
'--
1.0
.
I~~
../1'-
,
I
I I
J "
,
l:~
I
~~~
",
L..I
I
(~
f:tl
I....
I~~
2'">7 11::
}'",,'. 1/, "
. I-,r ;\;;
~ (/ ,:,:
"""'" C:~
I iT.:
~ ~8 ::( c:~
" .
is HiS
,-
~~
'o'
is HiP
...... ......
...... CJ) CJ)
CJ) w ......
~ U :::J
:J Z
0 a: <t
n.
CJ) S
is a~E
.
c
00
a..
(])
en
::>
C"'O
o C
""""00
g>....J
"E ~
~"-
00 en
.ffi
o..c
~~
:!::a.
OE
o
o
a
'"
a
'"
.
.LS H.LL
I-
(f)
~
o
>.
t
Q)
0-
o
l-
0...
~
~
o
.LS H.LS
.LS aCl~
w
~.~
c:
~ 3 ~
~c
~ .- Q
:g ~ E
"C -g ~ g.~
; ~ ~.. CD~~.g
O)..J ~ .1C l'CIQJa.
Q) ~ III :;;~1:cc.~
-J ';""",e ;~ti Q.. c: CD:! 4J
c=: ~o "'"u.- rn lU 4J E.::cn
~ ~ =g E i :;; -s ~ g~ e .g]
~~:; .= ~ E ~ .~ ~ .z .; -=:g <(
E ~ ~al 018"0" "::iLfia:a.z
~~
<:>
N
.
.
.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.d.farmington.mn.us
City Planning Commission
ltf'V
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
Variance Request - Exclude the Off-Street Parking Requirement
Applicant: Farmington Development Corporation
July 23, 2002
The applicant, Farmington Development Corporation, is seeking variance approval to exclude the off-
street parking requirement to construct an additional 0.25 parking stalls for every 1 townhome unit for a
total of 3 off-street parking stalls (Section 10-6-4 of the Farmington City Code).
Planning Division Review
Applicant:
Attachments:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Lot Size:
Existing Zoning:
Farmington Development Corporation
22098 Canton Court
Farmington, MN 55024
1. Variance Application
2. Location Map
3. St. Michael's Place Preliminary & Final Plat
South of Spruce Street between 4th and 5th Streets
Lots 1,2,3,4,5 & 6, Block 12, Town of Farmington (north half
block offormer St. Michael's Church property)
1.4 acres
R-T (Downtown Transitional Mixed Use District)
2020 Comprehensive Plan:
Public/Semi-Public
Existing Land Use:
Surrounding Land Uses:
Vacant
Single-family residential is located to the north and east, School
District building to south, multi-family to the west.
. DISCUSSION
.
.
The parking requirement was instituted to provide additional overflow parking for visitors to townhome
developments. The code requires 2 parking spaces for each dwelling unit be supplied plus 0.25 parking
spaces per unit for off-street parking in the common area. The applicant proposes that on-street parking is
sufficient to accommodate additional cars visiting the property. The applicant wants to maintain the
common area north of the alley as open space. Vehicle parking would encroach into this space if the off-
street parking requirements were met.
The Board of Adjustment may vary the regulations of this Title if anv of the following requirements are
met:
1. Because the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or
other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the regulations of
this Title would cause undue hardship. Economic consideration alone shall not constitute an
undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this Title.
The open space within the common area would be reduced if the regulations were strictly
adhered to as required by the City Code,
2. The conditions upon which a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the
variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other properties within the same
zoning classification.
The lot coverage is at a maximum and because of the lot size, the off-street parking
requirements would create undue hardship by reducing the amount of open space in the
development.
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Title and has not been created by any
persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
The amount of open space would be reduced due to the requirements of the off-street parking
provision.
4. The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be
injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the parcel of land is located or
substantially diminish property values.
Public parking is allowed on the public streets surrounding the development. No alteration
of the essential character of the locality will occur due to existing parking conditions within
the neighborhood
5. The proposed variance will not substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or
increase the danger of fire, or be detrimental to the public welfare or public safety.
Parking on the public streets surrounding the development has been planned for and no
increase of congestion of the public streets is envisioned.
.
.
.
ACTION REQUESTED
Staffrecommends approval of the variance to Section 10-6-4 of the Farmington Code to exclude the off-
street parking requirement to construct an additional 0.25 parking stalls for every 1 townhome unit for a
total of 3 off-street parking stalls contingent upon the following:
1. Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for St. Michael's Place from Public/Semi-Public to
Medium Density Residential.
Respectfully submitted,
htt~
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
cc: Farmington Development Corporation
.
.
.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
City Planning Commission
il pU
Lee Smick, AICP ~\
Planning Coordinator
Variance Request - Maximum Lot Coverage of 35%
Applicant: Farmington Development Corporation
July 23, 2002
The applicant, Farmington Development Corporation, is seeking variance from the maximum lot
coverage of 35% in the R-T (Downtown Transitional Mixed Use) as required in Section 10-5-11 of the
Farmington City Code.
Planning Division Review
Applicant:
Attachments:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Lot Size:
Existing Zoning:
Farmington Development Corporation
22098 Canton Court
Farmington, MN 55024
1. Variance Application
2. Location Map
3. St. Michael's Place Preliminary & Final Plat
South of Spruce Street between 4th and 5th Streets
Lots 1,2, 3, 4, 5 & 6, Block 12, Town of Farmington (north half
block offormer St. Michael's Church property)
1.4 acres
R-T (Downtown Transitional Mixed Use District)
2020 Comprehensive Plan:
Public/Semi-Public
Existing Land Use:
Surrounding Land Uses:
Vacant
Single-family residential is located to the north and east, School
District building to south, multi-family to the west.
. DISCUSSION
.
.
The density for a development within the R-T zoning district is 8.5 dwelling units/acre. Therefore, a
maximum of 12 dwelling units may be located on the 61,200-square foot (1.4 acre) site. Each dwelling
unit is proposed at 1,960 square feet for a total of 23,520 square feet for the three townhome buildings.
The maximum allowable lot coverage in the R-T zoning district is 35%. Calculating the dwelling units
per acre, the proposed lot coverage is 38.43%, 3.43% over the allowable lot coverage. The proposed
development is 2,099 square feet over the required lot coverage maximum. This amount is roughly
equivalent to the square footage for one dwelling unit.
The applicant, Farmington Development Corporation, is requesting a variance from the maximum lot
coverage requirement. A variance alleviates a hardship that is inherent in the physical characteristics of
the land that is proposed for development. A financial hardship should rarely be a consideration in a
variance review unless it relates to the physical characteristics of the land.
Density vs. Lot Coverage
In addition to regulating land use, zoning determines the size and placement of buildings on a property.
Intensity or density of development is generally controlled by linking the number of units to land area.
Bulk requirements include building height limitations, lot coverage requirements, building setback or yard
requirements, and minimum lot sizes.
Bulk requirements are design requirements and determine lot coverage. Traditional bulk requirements,
specifying the shape of the lot and a three-dimensional area into which any building must fit, were created
in part to give predictability to development, allowing adjacent property owners to (1) know where
buildings would be located through setbacks and (2) understand that only buildings of a size allowable
under the lot coverage requirements would be permitted.
Therefore, the density states the number of units allowed 10 a development and the lot coverage
determines the allowable size of a building.
The Board of Adjustment may vary the regulations of this Title if any of the following requirements are
met:
1. Because the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or
other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the regulations of
this Title would cause undue hardship. Economic consideration alone shall not constitute an
undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this Title.
There are no lot constraints for this development that include hardship from the physical
surrounding, shape, configuration, or topography of the lot. The proposal is development-
induced and no hardship exists concerning the lot.
2. The conditions upon which a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the
variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other properties within the same
zoning classification.
There is no uniqueness to the parcel of land. The parcel is as wide and deep as a typical
half-block within the City.
.
.
.
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Title and has not been created by any
persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
The maximum lot coverage in the R-T zoning district of 35% is the highest bulk calculation
for all of the residential districts. The proposed hardship has been created by the developer's
desire to provide townhomes at the size presented on the plan.
4. The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be
injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the parcel of land is located or
substantially diminish property values.
The percent of lot coverage on parcels surrounding St. Michael's Place calculates to 35% for
Spruce Place, and less than 25%for the single-family homes north and east of the property.
The variance sought for 3.43% or 2,099 square feet may be detrimental to the public welfare
due to the construction of an additional townhome. Property values within the single-family
area surrounding the property may be diminished due to an additional townhome.
5, The proposed variance will not substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or
increase the danger of fire, or be detrimental to the public welfare or public safety.
Neither increased congestion of public streets nor increased danger of fire is anticipated.
The approval of the variance would create precedent regarding lot coverage approvals in the
future. The variance sought for 3.43% or 2,099 square feet may be detrimental to the public
welfare due to the construction of an additional townhome. Property values within the
single-family area surrounding the property may be diminished due to an additional
townhome.
ACTION REQUESTED
Staff recommends denial of the variance from the maximum lot coverage of 35% in the R-T (Downtown
Transitional Mixed Use) as required in Section 10-5-11 of the Farmington City Code based on the
attached Findings of Fact.
:ZZlfJt
Lee Smick, AICP
Planning Coordinator
cc: Farmington Development Corporation
.
.
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
. ,JPV
Lee SmIck, AICP y'
Planning Coordinator
FROM:
SUBJECT:
St. Michael's Place Preliminary and Final Plat
Applicant: Farmington Development Corporation
DATE:
July 23, 2002
INTRODUCTION
Farmington Development Corporation proposes to plat 12 lots on 1.4 acres located south of Spruce
Street, west of 5th Street, north of the School District's Alternative Learning Center, and east of 4th
Street. The property is the site ofthe former St. Michael's Church building. The property is zoned R-
T within the R-I (Downtown Transitional Mixed Use District).
Plannin2: Division Review
Applicant:
Farmington Development Corporation
22098 Canton Court
Farmington, MN 55024
Attachments:
Application
Location Map
Zoning Map
2020 Comprehensive Plan Map
Preliminary & Final Plat
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Location of Property:
Property bounded by Spruce Street on the north, 5th Street on
the east, the School District's Alternative Learning Center on
the south, and 4th Street on the west.
Surrounding Land Uses:
Single-family to the north and east, multi-family development
to the west, school to the south.
Existing Zoning:
R-T (Downtown Transitional Mixed Use District)
Comprehensive Plan:
Public/Semi -Public
Current Land Use:
Vacant church
Proposed Land Use:
3 townhome buildings (12 total units)
.
.
.
Lot Size:
61,200 square feet (1.4 acres)
Minimum Lot Size:
15,000 square feet
Minimum Lot Width:
100 feet (per building)
Proposed Lot Width:
128 feet
Maximum Density under R- T:
Townhouse:
8.5 units per acre
Proposed Density:
8.5 units per acre
Streets and Accesses:
Vehicular access would be permitted along any of the street
frontages (4th, 5th, and Spruce), vehicular access would also
be permitted along the rear alley.
Utilities (Water, Sewer & Gas):
Sanitary sewer exists along Spruce and 5th Street, water exists
along Spruce Street.
Sidewalks:
Sidewalks currently exist along Spruce and 5th Streets.
DISCUSSION
The applicant, Farmington Development Corporation, has submitted a Preliminary and Final Plat for
St. Michael's Place. The property consists of 1.4 acres and is zoned R-T (Downtown Transitional
Mixed Use District).
A vacant church currently exists on the property. The convent was demolished and the garage was
moved on July 12, 2002. Single-family residential exists north and east of the site, institutional
(school) to the south, and multi-family (apartments) to the west.
A variance to the maximum lot coverage will be reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 23,
2002. If the Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance, City staff s recommendation
will be that the Preliminary and Final Plat be denied because of the variance ruling. If the variance
request is denied, the applicant will be required to show 11 townhome units at a reduced size rather
than the 12 units proposed on the plat, or the applicant may reduce the size of the 12 units to bring the
lot coverage into compliance. Therefore, if the variance is denied, the plat needs to be denied or
continued until the plat is in compliance with the zoning code.
2020 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
The property is identified as Public/Semi-Public on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing
for the amendment of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan from Public/Semi-Public to Medium Density
Residential is scheduled for July 30, 2002. If approval of the Preliminary & Final Plat is granted, it
should be made contingent upon the approval of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment.
.
.
.
ACTION REQUESTED
Recommend denial of the St. Michael's Place Preliminary & Final Plat based on the attached Findings
of Fact.
Respectfully Submitted,
4~
Lee Smick, AICP ~5
Planning Coordinator
cc: Farmington Development Corporation
.
City of Farmington
325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024
(651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO:
City Planning Commission
FROM:
Michael Schultz
Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
Ordinance Amending 10-6-5 (B) of the Farmington Zoning Code -
Increasing Maximum Lot Coverage from 25% to 30%.
DATE:
July 23, 2002
INTRODUCTION
The City of Farmington proposes to amend Section 10-6-5 (B) of the Farmington City Code: R-l
(Low Density Residential District), Bulk and Density Standards. The proposed amendment
would increase the maximum lot coverage within the R-l zoning district from 25% to 30% lot
coverage.
. DISCUSSION
.
The issue involving the proposed amendment to the maximum lot coverage within the R-l
zoning district originated when a number residents of the Autumn Glen subdivision were
concerned that they would be restricted due to the minimum footprint requirements established
by the developer.
The Planning Commission directed staff to review the possible alternatives that would give
homeowners the ability to complete future additions. Planning staffs proposal to increase the
maximum lot coverage from 25% to 30% was to allow homeowners within the R-l zoning
district the same bulk and lot coverage controls as permitted within the R-2, R-3, R-4 & R-5
zoning districts. The R-T & R-D zoning districts allow a maximum 35% lot coverage.
The minimum lot size requirement within the R-l zoning district is 10,000 square feet, the
average lot size is 13,844 square feet (based on 1,135 lots). Attached is a chart diagramming the
differences allowed in the maximum lot coverage from 25% to 30%. A homeowner within the
R-l zoning district would be given an additional 500 square feet (2,500 sq. ft. to 3,000 sq. ft.) of
maximum lot coverage if the lot was at the minimum lot size (10,000 sq. ft.). The average lot
size (13,844 sq. ft.) would be permitted an additional 692 square feet of building coverage (3,461
sq. ft. to 4,153 sq. ft.).
.
.
.
It is staffs opinion that the additional 5% to the maximum lot coverage in the R-l zoning district
would allow homeowners the same, or similar, lot coverage guidelines as the other residential
zoning districts.
ACTION REQUESTED
Forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council amending Section 10-6-5 (B) of the
Farmington Zoning Code increasing the maximum lot coverage for all structures from 25% to
30%.
;;;;~zt~
Michael Schultz
Associate Planner
~,.."' :",.;"",,,,,
, ~~~j~~~:,~}~;~:r,~,",'i
.
.&....v.~_ ____...-___....
c. Solar Energy Systems
. !'~~-:
10.5-6: R-l LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(A) Purpose. The R-I Low Density Residential District provides for existing and futw"e low-density
single-family development with full public utilities.
(B) Bulk and Density Standards.
I. Minimum Standards
Lot Area
Single Family 10,000 square feet
Two-Family ---
Townhouse ---
Multi-Family ---
Other ---
Lot Width 75 feet
Front Yard Setback 20 feet
Side Yard Setback 6 feet
Rear Yard Setback 6 feet
Height (max.) 35 feet
Maximum Lot Coverae:e of all structures 25%
Net Dwelling Units per Acre
(max.) 3.5
> ~
. * All standards are minimum requirements unless noted
2. Accessory Structure Standards
.
Accessory structures must be located behind principal structure in the side or rear yard according to the
following requirements:
Maximum size:
Detached garages
Lots up to 0.5 acre Lessor of 1,000 s.f. or sJ. of principal use
Lots 0.5 to 1 acre Lessor of 1,250 s.f. or s.f. of principal use
Lots 1.0 acre + Lessor of 1,500 s.f. or s.f. of principal use ...
Storae:e 120 sauare feet
Maximum number: 1 of each
Side Yard Setback: 6 feet
Rear Yard Setback 6 feet
Heie:ht (max,) Shed 12 feet
Height (max.) Gara2e 20 feet
* All standards are minimum requirements unless noted
3. Minor Arterial Setbacks
The minimum front yard setback for all land adjacent to minor arterial streets shall be fifty (50') feet from
the planned right-of-way line.
(C) Uses
1. Permitted
a. Agriculture
b. Day Care Facilities, In-home
T'\u._l1=__... C:__1.a. "C'ft.......:l"
.
.
.
0 0 0 0 0 0 C\J
Q) 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO 0'>
() LO LO CO CO ,...... ,...... CO
C
~
~
0
";$!!. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ('I')
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO
Q) 0 0 ('I') CO 0'> C\J LO ~
C> ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ~ ~ ~
~
Q)
>
0
()
+-'
0 ";$!!. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
.....J 0 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO CO
E LO LO ,...... 0 C\J LO ,...... ~
C\J C\J C\J ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I')
::J
E
"X
ro
~
0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
4:: 0 0 0 0 0 0 GO
C'" 0 ~ C\J ('I') ~ LO ('I')
en ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-
Q)
N
en
+-'
0
.....J
-
en
....-
+-' 0
() ro t5 LO
'i::::
+-' ~ "i:::: C")
en +-' ~
0 <( en ~
+-' 0 c:
C> 0 0
C .....J ~ -0
I Q)
C ~ Q) c:: en
0 I ~ co
N c:: C .0
"- -
.
.
.
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
CITY OF FARMINGTON
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 CHAPTER 6 OF THE
FARMINGTON CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE
CONCERNING SHORELAND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The Farmington Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
23rd day of July, 2002 for the purpose of taking public testimony, and whereas the Planning
Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval.
SECTION 2. Title 10, Chapter 6, Section 6 (B) of the Farmington City Code is
hereby amended by the following:
R-I Low Density Residential District
Maximum Lot Coverage of all structures
~ 30%
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage
and publication according to law.
ADOPTED this _day of
Farmington.
, 2002, by the City Council of the City of
CITY OF FARMINGTON
By:
Gerald Ristow, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
City Administrator
SEAL
By:
City Attorney
Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of
, 2002.