The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07.13.99 Planning Packet . .' '. I. ; 1,,/ ... ~ I AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular July 13, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers 325 Oak Street 1. CALL TO ORDER 2-. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) May 2S~ 1999 b) June 8, 1999 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 PM a) Application for a Conditional Use Permit - Lot 3 in Block 16, Town. of Fat1l1ington - Lamperts Lumber b) Variance ~ Lighted sign within residential zoning district/front yard setback ~ Bible Baptist Church c) Variance - Encroachment into frQnt yard setbacks - 300 1 st Street d) Shertllan Townhomes Preliminary and Final Plat/Final PUD e) Application for COfl(litionalUseP~nnit-Brett & Amy Jensen 4. DISCUSSION a) Requestto revise the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update Larry Ii Dol)eene Wenzel Property t;;, b) Autumn Glen Sketch Plan c) Response to Dakota. County and City of Lakeville Comments - 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update d) l Public Facilities TaskForce-Commission Appointments S. ADJOURN . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington. MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.fal.J!li~on.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission Lee Smick, AICP 0 ty Planning Coordinator ~ FROM: SUBJECT: Application for a Conditional Use Permit - Lot 3 in Block 16, Town of Farmington DATE: July 13, 1999 INTRODUCTION Lamperts Lumber is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for Lot 3 in Block 16, Town of Farmington to allow a supply yard within a B-2 zoning district. Planning Division Review Applicant: Attachments: Location of Property: Current Land Use: Proposed Development: Area Currently Bounded By: Lamperts Lumber 109 Spruce Street Farmington, MN 55024 I. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. B-2 Permitted and Conditional Uses The property is located north of Lamperts Lumber along the south side of Oak Street. Lumber/Supply Yard located on Lots 1 and 2. Lot 3 is Vacant. The owner proposes to expand the supply yard to the northwest into Lot 3, Block 16, Town of Farmington. Proposed townhome development to the north, rail line and grain elevator to the east, Lamperts Lumber retail and warehouse building to the south and a single-family home to the west. . . . DISCUSSION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning of Lot 3, Block 16, Town of Farmington from R-2 to B-2 on June 8, 1999. The City Council approved the rezoning on June 21, 1999. Lamperts Lumber proposes to expand their lumber supply yard to this lot. In Section 10-3-2 of the City Code, supply yards are allowed as a conditional use within a B-2 district. There were three items that were contingencies to the rezoning of the property. These contingencies are also required for the Conditional Use Permit and include the following: 1. Pave the parking lot along Spruce Street and provide landscaping in order to fulfill the requirements of the 1993 approval. 2. Screening shall be provided within the expansion area requiring slats to be installed within the proposed chain link fence. 3. Installation of landscaping along Oak Street at the north side of the property is required. A landscaping plan needs to be submitted and approved by City staff. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the Conditional Use Permit for Lot 3 in Block 16, Town of Farmington to allow a supply yard within a B-2 zoning district subject to the three above conditions. GZ~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: Lamperts Lumber . c: o .... C') c: .- E ~ m u.. I+- o C 3:0. ~m ~~ ~c: o ~.- u"" o ~ -0 co....J I+- o ('I') '"0 C m N ~ CJ) .... o ....J . II Ii II II I !: I iJ 11 i~ I ~o.~ >- (tl (tl Q) .... "0::2: 0. (tl 3 _ 0 -go~o: ::J a:1 .... _ o c{ (tl (,,) a:1 (/) a. .~ ~:::>.~ .g 0::2:0 (/) liD I I I I LJ i '--------I : ~-'--------' 1.S a~t .LS ONz !-~- peOJl!eti 'd 'J - ---T-------______ I : I: If i Ii I i ~ ! I i ! i i , , i I I ' i ! i I 1 ! i ~ I i I I ~- I I ! L~__~-------, I ~I~= I - ~~i-~- i __J ~ r-----~ , I ' i J ---------, ~----~--- i II : j r--->-- I i i ~-~---~ i i I I- I--~--- mi :=1 ...J w i r---- I L---- I I ______ 1.S 1S I, 1- ___" I-~ , ~ '" z.~ ?; L--1 i ~ t-------~-~ \~------L-i_--, ... C\I cd ~ ~ I- m ~ c:( o ~ i~____~__ ,:c.,// ~y! l:e " , 41 r ig-( I a:i l-u: , 41' I~ I i ~:- II ~ r------I I I i I I f-~---~ f---------- I I I ---- . I- I : I ----.-- ',____ I .~ I I i I, , f--~-------. I ~___"._J r-~--! l- (/) w u :::> 0:: a.. m j i ~- ------~ I , ---------' I-~---- , 1 i r---------~ I I r--- I ~- I 1 r - m m ;;; c o in ;; o Ol c C c '" 0: i:: o >- -" " .. 1il .. U I I -I I 10-3-2 . '- (G) - ~.~ (H) '.-\ \,. .. ,J 1 0-3-2 (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 088-198, 2-1-1988; Ord. 091-246, 5-20-1991; Ord. 092-284, 9-21-1992; Ord. 093-298, 2-16-1993; Ord. 096-378, 8-19-1996) Permitted Uses Conditional Uses B-1 Limited Business District (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; 091-246, 5-20-1991; Ord. 3-1-1999) 1. Water recreation and water storage 2. Public buildings 3. Public utility buildings 4. Farm implement sales, service, repair 5. Offices 6. Wholesale business 7. Supply yards 8. Fast food establishments 9. Theaters 10. Mini-storage units 11. Outdoor sales 12. Personal and professional services 13. Car wash 14. Solar energy systems 15. Daycare facility serving more than 16 persons 16. Recreational assembly places 17. Auction houses 18. Residential care facilities serving more than 6 persons amd. Ord. 090-227, 2-5-1990; Ord. 095-345, 1-3-1995; Ord. 099-424, 1. Retail business 2. Auto sales, service, repair 3. Restaurants 4. Hotels and motels 5. Animal clinics 6. Commercial recreation 7. Recreational equipment sales, service and repair 8. Motor fuel stations, major 9. Clubs, health clubs 10. Home and trailer sales and displays 11. Parking lots 12. Clinics B-2 General Business District 1. Retail business 2. Restaurants 3. Offices 4. Personal and professional service 1. Water recreation and water storage 2. Research laboratories 3. Public utility buildings 4. Solar energy systems 599 City of Farmington 10-3-2 . . (I) . 10-3-2 Permitted Uses Conditional Uses 5. Multiple-family dwellings ~Wholesale business 7 Supply yards . Funeral homes 9. Elderly and handicapped housing 10. Churches 11. Light manufacturing 12. Outdoor sales 13. Fast food establishments 14. Farm implement sales, service and repair 15. Equipment and storage yards 16. Research and testing laboratories 17. Mini-storage units 18. Motor fuel stations - minor 19. Hotels and motels 20. Recreational assembly places 21. Residential care facilities serving more than 6 persons (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 088-198, 2-1-1988; Ord. 091-246,5-20-1991; Ord. 099-424, 3-1-1999) 5. Public buildings 6. Auto sales, service and repair 7. Commercial schools 8. Commercial recreation 9. Animal clinics 10. Clubs - health clubs 11. Home and trailer sales and display 12. Parking lots 13. Recreation and equipment sales, service and repair 14. Clinics B-3 Heavy Business District 1. Mechanical sales, service and repair 2. C,ommercial services 3. Animal clinics ~holesale business . upply yards . Warehousing 7. Light manufacturing 8. Research and testing labs 9. Parking lots 10. Public buildings 11. Auto sales, service, repair 1. Public utility buildings 2. Offices 3. Water recreation and water storage 4. Home and trailer sales and displays 5. Manufacturing 6. Petroleum bulk storage 7. Mini-storage units 8. Equipment and storage yards 9. Outdoor sales 599 City of Farmington . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.falJ11inilon.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission ~c{) FROM: Michael Schultz, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Variance - Lighted sign within residential zoning district / front yard setback DATE: July 13, 1999 INTRODUCTION Bible Baptist Church has made application for a variance to locate a new freestanding illuminated sign within the front yard setback in a residential zoning district. Planning Division Review Applicant: Attachments: Reference: Proposed Sign Dimensions: Subject Property: Current Zoning: Surrounding Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: Bible Baptist Church 19690 Akin Road Farmington, MN 55024 1. Location Map 2. Pictures of Existing Structure 3. Applicants Site Plan 4. September 13, 1994 Planning Commission minutes 1. 10-8-6: Variances 2. 4-3-1: Signs; Billboards sign area 6' x 10' with a 5' base 19690 Akin Road R-l (Low Density) R-l (Low Density) surrounds property except for C-l (Conservation) located behind property . Public/Semi-public . . . Current Land Use: Public/Semi-public Surrounding Land Uses: Single-family and Public/Semi- Public (Akin Elementary) DISCUSSION Bible Baptist Church has made application for a variance to place a free standing illuminated sign in a residential zoning district and to encroach within the required front yard setbacks for signs. According to the zoning code illuminated signs are not permitted within Agricultural, Conservation and Residential zoning districts as outlined in 4-3-2 (B) I of the Zoning Code. Also,no sign shall overhang any public right-of-way as specified in 4-3-2 (B) 7. Signs also are considered a structure in order to apply yard and height regulations as defined (see below sign definition) in the Zoning Code. The applicant would be required to have a fifty (50) foot setback from their property line, placing the sign within the parking lot. Signs are defined in the Code of Ordinances as: "Any written announcement, declaration, demonstration, display, illustration, insignia or illumination used to advertise or promote the interest of any person or persons when the same is displayed or placed out of doors in the view of the general public, or a pylon exterior wall or building surface. A sign shall be considered as a structure or part of a structure for the purpose of applying yard and height regulations except as herein stipulated." Bible Baptist Church was granted a variance to locate their current sign fifty (50) feet from the centerline of Akin Road rather than fifty (50) feet from the right-of-way line in September of 1994 (see attached minutes). The sign is currently located on the south side of the driveway entrance. Although the sign ordinance does not make reference toward types of uses within residential zoning districts; staff suggests that the Commission follow the guideline outlined in 4-3-3 (B) 3 that describes any freestanding sign six (6) feet in height be located ten (10) feet off the property line in business zones. The Commission may also want to consider limiting the height of the sign to eight (8) feet (including the base). Staff feels that freestanding signs within residential zoned areas should be regulated in height, which is not regulated within the current sign ordinance. The Commission has granted recent variances for illuminated signs within residentially zoned districts. Those cases include: . 12/9/97 - South Suburban Medical/Trinity Lutheran Hospital for 3 illuminated signs; . 6/24/97 - Dental Health Center - 4 x 6 illuminated sign along Trunk Highway 3. Staff feels that the property meets the criteria established within the City Code in that: . . . · Literal enforcement of the City Code would result in undue hardship due to the required fifty (50) foot minimum front yard setback makes placement of a structure difficult due to the existing facilities; · The topography and natural resources found on the property made it difficult to position the church along with the required parking to meet the required setbacks for placement of a sign; · The hardship is caused by the adopted minimum front yard setback provisions of the Zoning Code and was not brought on by actions of the person having interest in the property; · The variance observes the spirit and intent of the Code and produces substantial justice that is not contrary to the public interest; . The variance will not effect a lower degree of flood protection. It is staff s conclusion that a variance is required for placement of the sign because of undue hardship brought on by the requirements of the City Code and that by following such guidelines the sign would be required to be placed within the parking lot area of the church. ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends the Commission approve the variance to locate an eight (8) foot freestanding illuminated sign ten (10) feet from the property line contingent upon: 1. The applicant submits a revised sign plan indicating dimensions and placement of sign on the subject property. Staff recommends to the Commission to initiate a review of the current sign ordinance and obtain ordinances from adjacent communities. The existing sign ordinance is at times difficult, outdated and inflexible. The Commission will hear at least two additional sign variances for churches during the next several months. Michael Schultz Associate Planner cc: Bible Baptist Church . m Q) ~ <( Q) o c: m ~ ..... c: W .r::. .~ .r::. o . ..... f/) +:i c.. m m Q) - ..c .- m --_.^..~-~.~" '\ I 1 l i I I j ~j I I I I I I I I i I i i I <Iz /' v ~ . m Q) L- <( Q) o c: m L- Q) ...... c: w en L- :J ..c U ...... en .- ...... 0.. m OJ Q) - .c .- m . (:) It) fI) <{z ~ ~ .... o ...J OJ c: 32 ..... tV a.. _./ l ~ I . 18 I . , PROPOSED SITE PLAN ~ NORTH ? _.~ T - . . f' '(~s~~ S~~^ 7 -------~ I I l ( ! r -^ +t-c:?/'o ~ , I . t5 ~ Sk ~ri<'~+ /oDk~~ ~Ov..-~ . i i ! l I , . --', mi ~! ~, " I (/)1 ' , :" ~'.: . '. :" ::> i 1 , 1 i ~f I ~I r' 'I J ; I ~"I f .' i EH :.' i r/lj f Ir\J I ~ ;:.~ : ,/ '1 iOo.c: i ""Iqqoi -iCl()~OI '^'-o~CD! ,,101:0: ., ~ Ii I ! I 'I"'l'q! I I .::; C'I ' iOm~i "lcotSc'n! ' I .2 ~. iii: : I Q. c' '10 ,01 . , 0 I ilAoQ., ;C'tJ>-i i~c~i r-:;,oCD: '11\ _. i~..O [ 1,-';:<" J .... Q. CD : i'tJoE. i~~t=i . . . ~ ~7 #11 17";,: b. that granting a variance would not be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare; and c. the variance is to correct inequities resulting from extreme physical hardship. VOTING FOR: Harmel ink, Thelen, Gramentz. OPPOSED: None. ABSTAIN: Schlawin. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Chair Schlawin opened the public hearing advertised for 8:15 P.M. as requested by Bible Baptist Church for a variance to the setback regulations for signs along County Road 31. The ordinance requires that all structures maintain a setback of 50 feet from the highway right of way. The church parking lot is closer than 50 feet and they would like to place the sign between the parking lot and the County Road. Chair Schlawin asked about lighting for the proposed sign and indicated a concern about light shining onto the public right of way. Members Gramentz and Thelen were interested in the size of the sign. Richard Ozment said that light would not be a problem because the sign is lower than the road surface and he also said that the size is smaller than permitted by ordinance. MOTION by Harmel ink , second by . Gramentz to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Harmel ink , second by Gramentz to approve the variance to the setback requirements of the zoning ordinance because of special conditions on the lot which required building the church and associated parking lot in the northwest corner close to the public right of way. The sign will be placed 50 feet from the centerline of the road rather than 50 feet from the right of way line. APIF, MOTI~N CARRIED. 6. The City Planner introduced an informal request from Harris Thompson to build a 40 x 46 or 1840 square foot garage to store two milk trucks at 21612 Chippendale Avenue in Farmington. The maximum size for an accessory storage building is 1000 square feet and the Commission has not, in the past, granted any variances to this section of the Code. The lot is large but it potentially will have adjoining lots in the proposed East Farmington neighborhood that are relatively small. Following a general discussion by the Commission, it was the consensus that a 1000 square fo~t building likely would be approved through the conditional use process but that anything larger would not be approved. 7. City Planner Tooker introduced an informal discussion of a variance request from Performance Industrial Coatings, Inc. (PIC) to build a driveway which is forty feet wide at the curb on Edmonton Avenue. The request would have had a hearing advertised but the application was misplaced. In order for the curb breaking to be authorized, the staff needs to know that when a public hearing is advertised, the Commission would grant a variance. The justification for a wider than 32 foot width involves the products being painted, which are light poles manufactured by Lexington Standard. As a clarification, Lexington Standard was granted a similar variance when it was developed. If the Commission agrees informally that a 40 foot opening is acceptable, the hearing will be scheduled during the regular October meeting. . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.far:p1int:ton.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission ~ FROM: Michael Schultz, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Variance - Encroachment into front yard setbacks DATE: July 13, 1999 INTRODUCTION David King, 3245 Vermillion River Trail, is applying for a variance to encroach within the front yard setback to both Elm Street and 151 Street. A variance of six (6) feet is requested along Elm Street and a variance often (10) feet along 1'1 Street; front setback requirements in an R-2 zoning di.strict are twenty (20) feet. On June 8, 1999 Mr. King was granted a conditional use permit to locate a duplex within an R-2 (Medium Density) zoning district, a variance from the minimum lot size requirement and a special exception permit to move and existing structure into the city. Plannine: Division Review Applicant: David King 3245 Vermillion River Trail Farmington, MN Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Pictures of Existing Site 3. Applicants Site Plan Reference: 1. 10-8-6: Variances Subject Property: 300 1 sl Street (SW corner of 151 Street and Elm Street) Legal Description: N 75 feet of lots 1 and 2, Block 14, Town of Farmington Lot Size: 9,032 square feet Current Zoning: R-2 (Medium Density) Surrounding Zoning: R-2 (Medium Density) surrounds property except B-2 located on NE corner of 151 and Elm Streets (reference City Zoning Map) . Comprehensive Plan: Low/Medium Residential Density Current Land Use: Unrecognized Two-family- Vacant Surrounding Land Uses: Single-family, Multi-family and Commercial DISCUSSION David King has made application to the City for the approval of a variance permit to encroach six (6) feet into the front yard setback of Elm Street and encroach ten (l0) feet into the 151 Street front yard setback. City staff is still awaiting the final survey of the property, however, the survey will be available at the Planning Commission meeting on July 13, 1999. In the meantime, the attached GIS map will serve as the document showing approximate locations of the existing structure. . Mr. King proposes to raze the existing damaged structure along with the garage and replace it with a duplex unit that would be positioned over the existing foundation. The proposed structure to be moved onto the property is a rambler style house measuring twenty-eight feet (28') by sixty-four feet (64'). The applicant also plans on placing a two-stall garage on the property with access off of 151 Street. Mr. King will need to apply for demolition and building permits for the work to be done. The variance request to use the existing foundation and remain within the front yard setbacks would not vary greatly from the surrounding neighborhood. In the attached GIS map, other adjacent properties have encroached into the required front yard setback area. In instances such as this where structures were constructed before adoption of a zoning code, makes it more difficult to meet current standards, especially front yard setbacks where it is probably more appropriate to maintain a consistent setback with other properties. The proposed structure to be placed on the property also will "appear" less intrusive by the height of the structure. The existing structure is a two-story home while the proposed structure is a one-story rambler. Staff contacted Dakota County Highway Department concerning the reconstruction of C.S.A.H. 50/Elm Street. Jerry Kingrey, Right-of-Way Manager, indicated that the County does not anticipate a need for additional right-of-way along that stretch of road. Although the structure is legal nonconforming (according to tax records the home was built in 1890) the provisions outlined in Title 10, Chapter 6, Section I, subsection "C" of the Code referring to nonconforming uses, contains the following language: "Any nonconforming structure damaged by fire, flood, explosion or other casualty to an extent exceeding fifty percent (50%) of its fair market value as indicated by the records of the County Assessor, if replaced, shall conform to the requirements of this Title." . Recent Variance Applications . . . Though the Commission has granted front yard variances in the past, staff could not locate a variance request to utilize the existing house foundation. Listed are references to recent variance applications that were heard by the Planning Commission. . Don and Karla Kenning in 1997 were denied a variance on a nonconforming garage that encroached four (4) feet into the side yard setback. The resident proposed to expand both the length of the garage along the side yard setback and away from the property line. The Commission felt the resident was replacing more than 50% of the structure and continuing the nonconforming structure. . In 1991 the Commission approved a front yard variance of five (5) feet to Clayton and Alice Nielsen at 508 First Street in order to construct an owner occupied duplex. The variance was needed because all of the homes fronting Spruce Street were located at thirty (30) feet. Staff feels that the property meets the criteria established within the City Code in that: . Literal enforcement of the City Code would result in undue hardship due to the required twenty (20) foot minimum front yard setback makes it difficult to place an attached or detached garage without having access off of C.S.A.H. 50/Elm Street; . The depth of the property makes it difficult to position the house to the required setbacks and place any accessory storage structures such as a garage; . The hardship is caused by the adopted minimum setback provisions of the Zoning Code, and the City's and County's desire to limit the number of accesses onto C.S.A.H. 50/Elm Street, and was not brought on by actions of the person having interest in the property; . The variance observes the spirit and intent of the Code and produces substantial justice that is not contrary to the public interest; . The variance will not effect a lower degree of flood protection. ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends the Commission approve the variance to encroach six (6) feet within the front yard setback of Elm Street and ten (10) feet within the 151 Street front yard setback contingent on the final survey illustrating approximately the same evidence and since the encroachment will not adversely effect adjoining property owners. Respectfully Submitted, O~;;~ ~~) ~. ~ Michael Schultz Associate Planner cc: David King . en (I) 1:: (I) a. o L- a... C) c: .- "'0 c: :J o L- ~ en ~ ] ~ (I) (I) L- ~ en +-' en ~ o o M . I J ro l-~---I ; t--- 1----- J ~-~~~2f~\~ J L I-i-: -- -----~ [--- L_ I (______J ---j l [~j -~--~-Ll .<j Z .-.L1 JCl L '[~-I uTI] Ii ,J-~- i il I J \ i t; ::i ..J W o II) :t: <i. uj cj [~ b N ...!.. + lS lS~ I vZ -/+ I I ____~_ i 1- _~ I - - -. _1__1 [Jj ~=~Y -- ,-----, r~11 1'.--1,__--' "_____~ " ~~ '~-=L_ I' l ,--L.S-----L.~ '----' I/) Cl c:: III .s= Iii > o Q) 'tl ;:, 13 .= Kl :s t) ;:, liS 300 lST s+ Cook:~ uJes+ . \ 300 I~TC;~ Look:^J "SD,^-~ JJor~ S;&-e.. o~ sl.lv\. st. ftc:r--OS 5 ~M SOL) I St--S+ ))D~U sJkcKs . . 1-WY9J stE wI< IL I 17,6 75,0 I 2B.O L .n ; S ':lI:'" 13:D (?B,O I I .1-8.01-<'3.0 &t.0 :1 i I I I I 19J.0 . x bt '3TFEET ( si:E ',/ill<: . ~ t:; . . , ~ ~ ~ ffi II I '=! ~ c: K' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~.,>- " '~\ I 1'. ' /// ~\~. ii, - ~ /? \\ 'Ii '\ t~////\X\, ~\ I'"~'" \ ,\ /,f' :: 'j ,)-j</< \~\ II '. ." \ //1 / ii' :\ 'X \} //?\ l\~\'- \~ ' (, './/' Il~' "\ J, 1/ /Il :' " /, \ '1/./ ,j" Iii . /. , , ~; \ \/ / ;t" /1 /J ~.D,/ i I // if :\/vJf \ l ~ ,fl \ /, \1>.1 ,\ Ii' \,\ ;,;/ \~? lit 51IfIT . It ] -1q ; ] I I 1-'" i! I Co L.J I I I i !03 I I I I I ! i ! q ~ . /, (I \ >- >< N~ >< >-~ -- - . />- ..\1 ,. \ \ / I ( \ / //\\\ 1'" / // \\ \~>.t." / I / ~\ \~/ ,.: ,:// '~~" \ / II \\\ il!1 /~'\\.. .1\ \\\'. /1' II \ \\\ I. '/' I / ,\ '. \.\\ I' ,', \ I \ /' ..' I ,.;'<: \ ,') \' '\ I I ,.;.-.G ~ \" \ III /\{\ H \\\ /~I,/ ' ,/ \f~'. ~~\ \, ,I. I \ \\.> I' /, ,L l\ \\ l I ' ,A ,I A~, // \ m" 'I roll II' /1'/ H/ ';//. ' I' \ ' :8>>:' / .: ./ I ' , H \ ,.I II .. . ~!I' "I! / I' // \. /' \ ' \ \,j I I / , II "I d' , I '/ Y, \' I \l" II I Ii { ,,~ Y I .I'~ I / II; \ 61 t / /1 I II ~"/' \I I:~'/ Ii /'/ u, \ I /1 II \/ /;/ f / ~v! ' ,'\ II II II 'y 1/ \\ II \\ /I V . > \ \ N-"::: . . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.fa!.Jllinlton.mn.us TO: City Planning Commissin~ Lee Smick, AICP ./ ~I Planning Coordinator FROM: SUBJECT: Farmington Townhomes 1 st Addition Preliminary and Final PlatlFinal PUD DATE: July 13, 1999 INTRODUCTION Sherman Associates proposes a 16-unit rental townhome development on 1.6 acres of land south of Budget Mart and the East Farmington PUD development, east of Trunk Highway 3, west of the East Farmington PUD development and north of the Henderson Addition. This property is located within an R-2 Medium-Density Single-Family PUD zoning district. Three roadways surround the property including the frontage road for Trunk Highway 3 on the west, Larch Street on the north and Ninth Street on the east. Plannine Division Review Applicant: Sherman Associates 1525 So. 4th Street, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55454 612-332-3000 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Neighborhood Meeting Summary 4/28/99 4. Building Plans Proposed Development: The proposed development consists of 16 rental townhome units on approximately 1.6 acres yielding a density of 10 units/acre. Location of Property: Located to the south of Budget Mart and the East Farmington PUD development, east of Trunk Highway 3, west of the East Farmington PUD development and north of the Henderson Addition. .' . . Area Bounded By: Single-family residential development to the west, commercial and single-family residential to the north and single-family residential to the east and south. Existing Zoning: R-2 PUD Medium-Density - Single Family Residential Existing Conditions: A vacant barn currently resides on the property. The remainder of the lot is vacant. One large tree exists near the barn and seven trees have been installed along Larch and Ninth Streets (four along Ninth and three along Larch). The street trees will remain within the boulevard; however, the trees along Larch will be moved to allow for the driveway accesses. One tree along Ninth will be relocated to the south to allow for a driveway access. Streets and Accesses: The proposed plat shows all of the driveways connected to the units will access directly onto the TH 3 frontage road, Larch Street or Ninth Street. Parking Requirements In Section 10-6-8, 2 parking spaces are required for each townhouse unit. The Developer has met these requirements by providing a parking space within the one car garage and a parking space on the driveway. The Developer has also included 2 additional parking spaces for each four-unit complex illustrating 40 off- street parking spaces on the site plan. Sidewalks: Sidewalks exist along Ninth Street and run the length of the eastern property line and along Larch Street. However, the sidewalk along Larch Street runs from the northeast corner of the site and terminates towards the west at the East Farmington PUD property line. Topography: The site topography is generally flat and drains to the east and west with a high point in the center of the lot. Wetland: No wetlands exist on the site. Flood Plain: There is no flood plain that effects this property. Parkland: The Parkland dedication has been met within the East Farmington PUD development. DISCUSSION This property was part of the original East Farmington PUD project submitted in January of 1993. The property, along with acreage on the north side of the PUD near County Road 72 and along CSAH 50 on the south side of the PUD were proposed as multi-family developments in the ./ . . initial conceptual plans brought before the Planning Commission in January of 1993 and before the City Council in March of 1993. In 1998, the northern multi-family area near County Road 72 was removed to make room for additional single-family homes. The PUD amendment was contingent on retaining the remaining multi-family areas (southern area near CSAH 50 and the proposed Farmington Townhomes property). This property continues to be a part of the Livable Communities Act requirements. In 1995, the City of Farmington adopted the Housing Goals Agreement under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. The housing incentives program is intended to provide funding for municipalities that adopt the program. The program provides funding for affordable and lifecycle housing opportunities for the community. In 1998, the City of Farmington adjusted the Livable Communities Act housing goals to a range of 32-36%. The Farmington Townhomes property is an integral part of meeting these housing goals. The site plans shows 4 two-story townhome buildings each including 4 townhouse units in each building. The square footage for each unit will be approximately 1,400 S.F. and each unit will consist of three bedrooms. Each building will be provided with steel siding and a cedar porch and railing will be installed at the entrance of each unit. The driveways from each unit access directly onto public streets. The transportation engineer has reviewed the driveway configurations and recommends that the buildings be relocated towards the center of the lot so that access drives from the surrounding streets may connect the driveways rather than cars backing directly onto public streets. However, the engineer understands the importance of the green space and additionally, all of the single-family homes in East Farmington have driveway accesses directly onto public streets. Therefore, the transportation engineer recommends that the driveway not access directly onto the surrounding streets because of the close proximity to intersections, however, there is no set standard to prevent the configuration. The Developer will install a 6- foot high wooden fence along the southern border of the site to screen the property and prevent pedestrian access from the south. Additionally, the Developer will install a number of landscape plantings along the fence and southern border of the property to insure an effective screen from neighboring properties. The preliminary plat shows a public right-of-way easement in the northwestern corner of the property. Research by the Developer needs to be completed to define the owner of the frontage road. If the frontage road in this area belongs to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Developer must apply and receive approval for an access permit from MNDOT to allow the driveways to access the frontage road. The Developer held a neighborhood meeting on April 28, 1999 to allow residents to comment on the proposed townhome project. A variety of questions were asked at the meeting and a summarization of the questions was drafted by the Planning Coordinator present at the meeting. . . . ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends forwarding an approval to the City Council for the Farmington Townhomes 1 st Addition Preliminary and Final Plat/Final PUD Plan property contingent on the following: I. Engineering comments are addressed. 2. Establishment of the public right-of-way easement ownership, thereby possibly requiring an access permit from MNDOT. DZSU~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: Sherman Associates . en Q) E o ..c c: ~o. .~ E.Q '- ....., Q)CO .cO (/)0 ~ "'C Q) en o Q. o '- a.. . <'l z+oo ~ o ::> a. 5 Q, Ol~al C:al~ .- "C - Ec:G> .... :::l ~ alOal U-coa. Ui.a-.a- al._._ woo .. >'.>11 ,<':'LJ ~ " ,Il In :~ o '" " '" " III a: ,., '" o ~ I o [ I "" I ~ ~MM Hll~ t-- ~ I-- ,.- - >- ~ I f-----1TI>- D~~~ r--- ;= ~ @ ""'i1"""L- t; a.-I=~,= , -z .... '--:2 ~ .... g=T= HI- I 0 '" ~~~~~~M~~iftm 0 _or -~ Z -=> _8 = ~ Hr'll-~- III.~ h C1 I r n r = :jrr M 3A'lf 31'lfON3ddIHOIt AMH )INnl:ll ~ fE~ ~8 8~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i~-~ lItH] ~ ~g~~~;~~'m ~~~~ T I I:H I -~ 0IllIJJ H\ ~ uJ ~ ~ Inr1 III H H ITTIillIJ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ctJ BJ ffilffi ~I I-- I-- h ~~~~~~~~~_W tr~ =:=L - ~Q~~-~~ 1S O~t b9WT ~0IIIIIIllJ~ II I I~[[[[]~ITIID I~ .--:: n~ L In TITIII 13:1 I ITTlllJlllllll~1 II11 l . . . City of Farming:"'dn 325 Oak Street. Farmington. MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Neighborhood Meeting - Sherman Townhome Project - East Farmington DATE: May 13, 1999 Attached please find a summary of the neighborhood meeting held by George Sherman with the residents of East Farmington. Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator attended this meeting and prepared the attached summary. If Councilmembers receive calls inquiring about this project, please feel free to refer any calls to me regarding the project. Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of mis- information being conveyed regarding this project. Accordingly it would be in the City's best interests to clarify project particulars whenever possible. This project will require a public hearing at the Planning Commission to consider the Preliminary and Final Plat. Final approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat would be considered by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, p ~~ DaVl L. Olson -- - Community Development Director cc: John F. Erar, City Administrator Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator .; City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farminlton.mn.us TO: Dave Olson, Community Development Director FROM: Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: George Sherman Townhomes - Meeting Summary - 4/28/99 DATE: May 3, 1999 . A meeting was held on April 28, 1999 with George Sherman and the surrounding residents of his proposed 16-unit rental townhome project to discuss the elements of his proposal. Mr. Sherman stated that the he proposes affordable rental townhomes and the household has to make less than $36,000 per year to qualify. The monthly rent is proposed at $790 for each unit. To afford this amount of rent, the renter will have to generate between $24,000 and $36,000 per year. Criminal background checks will be required for each renter. The residents' questions and concerns are italicized below and responses by Mr. Sherman follow the inquiries and comments. 1. Why is this property being developed as rental vs. owner-occupied townhomes? The rental option allows those who cannot afford a down payment on a home or do not have good credit to establish better credit through the program or save enough money for a down payment. The proposed rental option is forecasted to be the first step to homeownership. The Dakota County HRA has approved a financing package for affordable townhomes in this location and the project also assists in meeting the City's goals for the Livable Communities Act. 2. Instead of rental townhomes, could you develop this property for senior citizen housing? Financing for senior citizen housing is much more difficult to acquire than financing for affordable housing because there is a greater need for affordable housing in the metro area. However, senior citizens may apply for these units if they meet the above-mentioned criteria. 3. What type of clientele do you expect? Will they be part of the transient population with a large amount of children? Will you allow Section 8 renters? The type of renters will vary, however, Mr. Sherman stated that he could not discriminate . against the number of children or Section 8 renters. This would be in violation to . State statutes. He feels that the type of person required to make the $790 monthly rent payments will have to be a person who is interested in moving out of the complex in a few years after they have built good credit or gathered money for a home down payment. 4. The citizens are concerned about the devaluation of their homes because of the type of renters and the number of children that will most likely inhabit the complex. What will you do about the increased amount of problems at the Budget Mart caused by kids? Will this influx add to the problem? Mr. Sherman had no concrete evidence concerning the problems at the Budget Mart due to the proposed influx of children, however, City staff was asked to research the problems at the store and show the increase in crime to the area. The following is a summary of the number of police calls to Budget Mart over the last five years. Year Number of Police Reports 1999 3 1998 7 1997 12 1996 36 1995 8 1994 5 . 5. Will the rent ever be lowered? The rent most likely will never be lowered because the mortgage needs to be paid on the complex; however, this is no guarantee. Payment of the rent must be received. 6. Will you (Sherman) live in the complex? Will there be an on-site caretaker? Will the caretaker be full-time or part-time? What are the caretaker's duties? How will you select a caretaker? A caretaker will live in one of the 16-townhome units and will be a part-time employee. The duties of the caretaker include management of the property, tenant control, administering background checks, receiving rent payments and providing minimal maintenance work. Mr. Sherman hasn't determined if he will hire a landscaping company to mow and fertilize the grounds. The caretaker will b~ selected through a screening process and must have training in professional rental management, lawn care and light maintenance. 7. Where will the renters park? Will there be visitor parking areas on-site? Will they be allowed to park on Larch Street or Ninth Street? Where will campers or boats owned by the renters be parked? The renters have two parking spaces; one in the garage and one in the driveway. The City's Planning, Engineering and Police Divisions will do an evaluation of this site plan to answer the remaining questions. . 8. What type of landscape enhancements (berms, trees, fences, etc.) will be installed on the site? There is a great need for a fence on the south side of the property to . . . deter children from trespassing on to the property to the south. A berm and landscaping will be provided on the south side of the site and Mr. Sherman will review the request for a six-foot fence in this location as well. The Planning Coordinator will review landscaping locations and varieties. 9. Where will the mailboxes for the complex be located? Because of this high traffic area, the locations on Ninth or Larch Streets would be inappropriate. The Post Office determines the location of the mailboxes for the site. 10. Some of the residents stated that this location was designated as single-family, however, others who were at the East Farmington PUD meetings knew that this property was designated as multi-fami/y. Why wasn't the rental complex built first? How can the City allow rental townhomes rather than owner-occupied townhomes? The rental complex was not built because of economics in the City and now the City needs to provide a rental townhouse area because no rental units have been built in the last ten years. The City's Zoning Code cannot differentiate between rental and/or owner-occupied properties. The Code can only determine if the proposal meets the use and Code requirements. Therefore, the City must review this proposal by evaluating the multi-family use and engineering requirements. Mr. Sherman stated at the end of the meeting that he is providing the following planning elements to this project: * Reduce the density from 20 multi-family units to 16 multi-family units. Provide a green space on the lot. Require a caretaker to live on the property. Increase the aesthetics compared to the 1994 design. * * * If you have any questions concerning this information, please call me at 463-1820. 6P~ Lee Smick, AICP cc: John F. Erar, City Administrator Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Michael Schultz, Associate Planner .' .. . is ... ~~ ... . I~ 1- < III ~ ~ . ~ u :J ~ 2: ~ ! a l- 17l oItI ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ :::E l- .. i~ ~ D... - ~ e ~ ~"i=' a ~ 80SS~ ~3HS ~ 90 'd 8888888 'ON X~j LV :6 301 66-61-N~r . ~ I \! . I l S! .. " 'b I h N ::1 I I ~ I ! .. " . uO-.~ ~ I I t I 'D1I .~ S3SVWl Jllllll I I ------------------ I I I I I I I I I ~..__u__.1 -~----- --------... I .--......---..---- , I :;l I :i I I I it io I a I . J I ~ I-I) ) II b I 1l .. I I R I I .. ~ .. I ~ ... I D I I . I :9 I I L___...___....____ $ I , I I I 0; i Iso I ~ I ,.. _________J lJO-,Lr 'lO-,~l e- 8888888 'ON X\J~ EO 'd ~ a. Q:'b o I ~~ ~~ ~ JOSS\J 3HS ~ 9v:6 301 66-61-N\Jf . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us TO: City Planning commiSsi('j/{r Michael Schultz ~ Application for Conditional Use Permit- Brett & Amy Jensen FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: July 13, 1999 INTRODUCTION Brett and Amy Jensen are seeking a conditional use permit to establish a fast food restaurant and office/warehouse space within a B-1 (Limited Business) Zoning District. The property is located at the southeast corner of Pilot Knob Road and Upper l83rd Street. Planninl! Division Review Applicant: Brett & Amy Jensen 19438 Everest Path Farmington, MN 55024 Attachments: 1. CUP Application 2. 10-3-2: Permitted and Conditional Uses 3. Location Map 4. Site PlanlElevation Drawings 5. Memo from Jerry Auge, City Engineer, dated April 9, 1999 6. Memo from David Sanocki, City Engineer, dated May 6, 1999 7. Memo from Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator, dated July 2, 1999 Subject Property Location: Lot 1, Block 1, Dakota County Estates 9th Addition (southeast comer of C.S.A.H. 31 and Upper 183rd St. W.) Size of Property: +/- 1.1 acre Existing Zoning: R-4 (PUD) (B-1 overlay zone) Existing Comprehensive Plan Use: Business Existing Land Use: Vacant . . . Surrounding Land Uses: North: Business East: Multi-family (townhomes) West: Single-family residentiallROW South: Vacant Business Proposed Use: Fast Food Establishment and Office Space/Warehouse Proposed Building Size: 4,000 square feet (80' x 50') DISCUSSION Brett and Amy Jensen are proposing a 4,000 square foot commercial building on the southeast corner of Pilot Knob Rd and Upper 183rd Street W. containing a fast food establishment and two (2) leasib1e office spaces. The applicants are also reserving space to the north for future expanSIOn. The fast food establishment will make up just over two-thirds of the floor space of the building, the office/warehouse space would contain the remainder of the floor area. The applicant's masonry and automobile lettering businesses will use one of the leasible office/warehouse spaces. The front portion would be comprised of the sales office of the masonry business, while the warehouse portion, which will have an overhead door, is proposed to be used for both the storage of landscape vehicles and automobile lettering. The Jensen's have stated that there will be no outdoor storage of landscape/masonry material or heavy machinery. During site plan review staff identified a situation relating to the reconstruction of Pilot Knob Road directly effecting the subject lot. A fifteen-foot (15') permanent easement was identified on the property running parallel on the west side of the lot. The City Attorney has referenced Section 10-4-1 (J) of the City Code in which the setback will be fifty (50') feet from the planned right-of-way line. The developer has re-surveyed the property and has made the appropriate changes in respect to setbacks from the easement. Staffhas completed a review of the proposed site plan submitted on June 301h. Proposed Landscaping - The landscape has been modified since the last submittal. Norway Maples and Colorado Spruce have been added along with Green Ash and Pyramidal Arborvitae. The landscape plan proposes a three-foot (3') high berm along the east property line adjacent to English Ave to provide screening to residents across the street. Jack Benedict, developer of the property, will be required to install the remaining boulevard trees. The developer has proposed a planting plan of fifty-four (54) trees. Staff feels this amount of trees is too much for the property. Attached is memo from Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator, suggesting changes to the plan. Staff will work closely with the developer and architect on making appropriate changes. Recommendations: . See attached memo from Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator. . . . Proposed Parking/Access- The revised site plan has added eight (8) parking stalls increasing the number from thirty-seven (37) to forty-four (44); forty-one (41) stalls at the typical 9 x 18 feet, plus three (3) handicap stalls. This amount satisfies the City's parking requirements for fast food establishment and office/warehouse space. The main customer parking is shown along Pilot Knob Rd., and parking in the rear will be mainly employee parking. Staff suggested that the parking lot be extended south to the property line to enable vehicle access from site to site on at least one portion if not both portions of the parking lot. The architect has made that connection in the southwest corner ofthe site. Recommendations: · Appropriate markings and signage should also be detailed within the site plan. · A diagram of the handicap parking should be given detailing width, length and aisle width. At least one stall should provide van accessibility. · Accesses should align with existing accesses into the Budget Mart strip center on the north and the access into the Dakota Meadows Townhomes. The site plan does not indicate where these accesses exist to the east. Staff s review of the location of the northerly access onto Upper 183rd Street differs from that of the architect's. Proposed Building/Design- The applicant is proposing a four thousand square foot (4,000-sq. ft.) building constructed of concrete with a brick veneer around the entire building. The roof is at a 4/12 pitch and will be shingled. The building design appears that it will transition well with the residential homes on the east side of English Ave. The floor area of the fast food establishment is approximately 1,700 square feet, while the middle office/warehouse unit is approximately 1,120 square feet and the end office/warehouse unit is approximately 1,180 square feet. The Building Official has done a preliminary review of the project based on the site plan and has listed several concerns; those include firewall separation between restaurant and warehouse, handicap accessibility in the middle unit bathroom. Both the Building Official and the Fire Marshall will complete a full review upon formal submittal of a building permit and complete set of architectural plans. Recommendations: · Staff has suggested that the windows be enlarged to allow adequate window display and signage; the alternative to that would be additional temporary outdoor signage. Signage- Signage for the building tenants is proposed along the front fascia of the building, the fascia is measured at two feet (2') in height. The applicant has indicated a desire to utilize the existing 151 National Bank sign already on the property. The sign is currently considered legal nonconforming at this time because of the reduced setback from Pilot Knob Road. Signage for multi-tenant buildings will need Planning Commission approval through submittal of a signage plan per the City sign ordinance; this can be completed at a later date when application for a sign permit is made. Parking Lot and directional signage will be observed during this process also. . Recommendations: . Staff will work with the applicant regarding the signage plan and forward it on to the Planning Commission at a later date. Recycling/Trash- Placement of the trash containers is proposed in the rear of the building and enclosed within a 4' 8" brick enclosure, resembling that of the building, with locking wood doors. The enclosure will be screened by placement of trees along Upper 183rd Street West. Staff did note that the placement of enclosure is in alignment with one of the back entrances. This will need to be modified. Recommendations: Staff will work with the architect on placement of the enclosure to ensure that adequate waste management services are met. Sidewalks/Trails- Five (5') feet wide concrete sidewalks are proposed along both Upper 183rd Street W. and English Ave per the City's Sidewalk/Trail Plan. The sidewalk will stem off the existing trail along Pilot Knob Road and run along Upper 183rd Street W. turning south along English Ave to eventually connect to the existing sidewalk near Super America (English Ave and Elk River Trail). The architect has made all appropriate changes concerning the placement of the sidewalk to 1;2' off of the property line. . Recommendations: . See attached memo from Dave Sanocki concerning engineering review. Exterior Lighting Plan- The developer is proposing two (2) light pole standards on the exterior edge of the parking lot, one centered in the front and one center in the rear parking lot. The light spill should not effect neighboring properties. Recommendations: · A detailed diagram of the light standard will need to be shown on the plans. Staff will work closely with the architect at resolving this issue. ACTION REQUESTED Planning Staff recommends that the Commission approve the conditional use permit for a fast food restaurant and office space within the R-4 (PUD)/B-l zone contingent upon the following: . 1) The architect work closely with Planning Coordinator Smick to modify the landscaping plan; 2) The architect indicate on either a revised site plan or upon submittal of building construction plans, details on dimensions and signage for handicap parking; 3) That the architect and staff work closely on determining the appropriate alignment of the accesses along Upper 183rd Street and English Avenue. 4) Appropriate changes are made to the location of the trash enclosure in relation to door accesses and also to work with waste management on the dimensions of the enclosure to ensure adequacy. These changes should be shown on either a revised site plan or upon building construction plan submittal. . . . 5) That all engineering plans and specifications are meet per the attached Engineering Division reVIew. cc: Brett & Amy Jensen David Darrell file 02/24/99 12:59 tr61Z 4ij3 lUll - L Ill: t'.'U<AlU'll.>lUl'l ~ UUj,UIUUJ.6 ..... .. . r City ofFarmingtonVarianeelConditional Use Permit 325 Oak Street, FarmingtoD, MN 55024 612-40-1111 FAX 61%-CO.2S91 APPUCAUON FOR: 0 Va.dancc er6>~onal Use. If"'. oJ.Ji<< use (p1~QSe check) ~ ... abstadoa ClCtIiftc:allC of 0W1lCIS wbhIn 350 It. NUMBER (avenp cost - $2SO-JSO) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROP"ERTY: (lo~ block, plat name. Section, township. range) LOT I I \OLO,-" I CAk:.Q'TA (out-JT'1 ~S"Al~ q-ih ADDITI.orU I ZONING DISTRICT R. 4 P UO PHONE crZ-469 -3'/0 '9 55d24 . Zip Code FEE OWNER'S NAME . BRETT J Et-,)~ F tJ . ADDRESS;_1'l45~' E\JErt~51 PATt-' MN Street StOle PRESENT LAND USE:Vft~ANr ~_~~ SPECIFY NAlURE OF REQUEST AND GROtmDS: ,:". 1=000 / D~r:I('E. - t./p.fleI-/OfJ$E- FOLLOWING AITACHED: (please cbcd::) 0 ProofofOWnersbip 0 Boundaty Survey CErApplicarion Fee (3'Copies of Site Plan GfAbsUB.Ct OTm=(O-'S~;$. ..~ Applicant.s Si~ ~~ Applicant's S. Da1C 3- ~-9 If Dare for oJftu use only -'. . REQUEST SUBltullOJ TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ACTION: OPubUc HearIDc set for: o Desaied Reason: FINAL ACTION: 0 Approved COlDmenu: o Denied ReaSOR: UlNlNG ADMINISTRATOR: DATE: sfgnature: . . . . -* (G) 10-3-2 10-3-2 (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 088-198, 2-1-1988; Ord. 091-246, 5-20-1991; Ord. 092-284, 9-21-1992; Ord. 093-298, 2- 16-1993; Ord. 096-378, 8- 19- 1 996) B-1 Limited Business District 1. Water recreation and water storage 2. Public buildings 3. Public utility buildings 4. Farm implement sales, service, repair 5. Offices 6. Wholesale business 7. Supply yards 8. Fast food establishments 9. Theaters 10. Mini storage units 11. Outdoor sales 12. Personal and professional services 13. Car wash 14. Solar energy systems 15. Day care facility serving more than 16 persons 16. Recreational assembly places 17. Auction houses (Ord. 086-177, 3-17-1986; amd. Ord. 090-227, 2-5-1990; Ord. 091-246, 5-20-1991; Ord. 095-345, 1-3-1995) 1. Retail business . 2. Auto sales, service, repair 3. Restaurants 4. Hotels and motels 5. Animal clinics 6. Commercial recreation 7. Recreational equipment sales, service and repair 8. Motor fuel stations, major 9. Clubs, health clubs 10. Home and trailer sales and displays 11. Parking lots (H) B-2 General Business District 1. Retail business 2. Restaurants 3. Offices 4. Personal and professional service 5. Public buildings 6. Auto sales, service and repair 7. Commercial schools 8. Commercial recreation 9. Animal clinics 10. Clubs - health clubs City of Farmington 1. Water recreation and water storage 2. Research laboratories 3. Public utility buil9ings 4. Solar energy systems 5. Multiple-family dwellings 6. Wholesale business 7. Supply yards 8. Funeral homes 9. Elderly and handicapped housing 597 J~~ CJ o ] II-Il] [~O [J ...." 'o--:::-==-==--= r--- ") i i \ \ I \ . i ( \ '[ I I I~I ~~!,~I=j I I--S-- J '~II'UI L, I 1\ I,i i \! (I U )' L.I I I ! \ ) ! t ! \ i / \ f ,I \ Sl,Al.:,jLt:.;+ \1-D~t\~ lA, I ~ 'S,.l 'Sf- W:. ------~._---- \ n! / ! I I I !-,j~J'~--r---....7' / !~J--~'J-----J""J'----- /j [I II /j r \ +/- 99' oJ. ..0 ~ ~ ;\ II C\ '\"\ ,\ \ \ \ \ - /~~/\ \ \ \_--/\.~~~/\-----\..--- \ \ \\\ \ \ \) -,' \j ..J.o o - 0:.. ~ <t -i .;; ,J? ~~ ~ . . r HI :~ ~l ~ ~;~, ". ~! .r." . " i~'~ f .e..l ~ L .ilrl!' i , 'hJ~ ; i ..' ~ f 'j frO I I. , .,- -- . ~ ; r. ..-:;. ---..-. ......"....,. nW~l-r~.N.,. \ \ \ -, I r , '- ...:.~~~ ",""_ .,~~~_.._~....~...~..;"'_~~"n~"_L';:';'.';""'~"'~"___' 70:::.- .."_~_,-,.'.:"......,,, '/ ,t! .- \<. -. - -" '\ \ / / ''>'1. ~r~ i . '-, JIL__ ., i< ,11 ! I. \ " :v: .J. / ....(...., ~ >!. iii t .. o ';-, . " ~. I I I ; i ,; I i !t It:.! 1 I ! : I i l"/'. \ ,,' I' , " "'., , I ! ~ i ' r~ri' \"'~ 1_ -! j'" 1 :, ')ft.l LJ I I I l!t i \\ i,\,'" -'~H .,\t~,:~~_:,;?~~~Lit!~.;:~t:':~~~'~.i~~~.I~: i { :, \\:--,\",.",-\i.~,_.,'_'_ ____~_____._____ \o4'l,..., ,/ ~ .. ..' . .._u_._.'--____.___.~_,~..,~. .......TK'. '~,~.;. .,-,: .l.~: :"111 -. - ..........."'<.,.,,,. - ---. ~--._._._,.--;::..,,;;.:-_.~~:'-:-''=;..-~.;;::;..,''::::'-:'''':.;'::'''''::'::':..'':' _.._._----_._~--_...__. '--'.~' .,.--'-- _._- -_. _.__u_ .'.' ',_. ,_.~"' - ,....-.....,..... ~,----~_.~'.~-^. ,..,..,- .... .....-.....,,-...-.....- --.--"-'- -.- - -....,."--.....,..-........-..."'.,-..."'.--..-'"-.........,.,...............0..-, .-,. .".:-.p,-Il'..""" St_."", -,:,v:'',; ',;>,) q ('.; ':'J. "=" l,::;~.l..l'j l'i. ~ 'r. -..,. 'of ") 1 ~ . ',.. ~, t~ ",H *1 ;~ ,I '.~ ii -]i . C1~~1~ fl! ~;; ~j " .j,....,J. ~, ;. " .-~ , }i II 'J::H~l.. ."~;~ / /'''1110- I .olll..:).'t.....~..'. .~ ;,~i ~ ,.;; j. :, . ..~.,( j . ..~~." f-.fJ.. i~:.... "" :'~f~" i'.~. ..~'. ~~h ~l~.i " / "hI> / ~~; ~e 1: J "11; $ j~~~ " ~~"J.~ /,1__ / ~- --.:-:.1. ....:-1; " ,.ry r', 1"~-. -I. \ 'I i \ I J~ \j~ (~~,~~,~ i '1""( ,.-...---' ,."; <l' "-..,...__.. " . ;~~. i ... ,-': " ., .. ~-~.~ "11 -T'" ( '."'_.,' .. L=,-- j>~ ["h [I ~t >" I''''''~'''''''''I '..1, Ul.. 11 ~ "t 'J.) ..--:~-J,,, j"' ~*-. t ./ ',> ..'. t "'. t." ~ )r \.; 'I ~i ,- , -'. i .. l~ j } 1 ~"t. ~--'.tit.T~;:.~:;~';'~~-r-~" .----+-. _~:~~;.:::-.J::~"!::~==~=. '__~.__ -,----- I .'" f -,. >f o .' ~ . . ..-;. ,jr.; ,:'i;. .', ~. ...-. o}ll dfa" ~':; . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cl.farmln~on.mn.us TO: Mike Schultz, Associate Planner FROM: Jerry Auge, Jr., Civil Engineer I SUBJECT: Blimpie Sub Preliminary Review DATE: April 9, 1999 The City of Farmington has reviewed the preliminary grading plans for the above submitted project. The following requirements are requested prior to further engineering review: . 1. Existing and proposed elevations submitted on a 24" x 36" grading plan sheet. This shall include any lighting, utilities, and site layout. 2. The storm sewer is proposed to be placed through the future extension area. Relocation of the storm sewer is recommended. Profiles of all utilities need to be included in the plans. 3. All dimensions of parking lots and drive lanes need to be shown on the plans. . Show all high and low points in the parking lots. Access and parking lot radii shall be large enough to accommodate garbage and fire truck access. The Fire Marshall will need to approve the layout. .4. Show proposed size and locations of water and sewer services. 5. Sidewalk is required along Upper 183rd Street and English Avenue. These. comments need to be addressed in the next submittal and are preliminary in nature. Additional issues may be identified when the complete set of plans is submitted. Sincerely. ?c:2 'i &'~' Civil Engineer I . ~ . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mike Schultz, Associate Planner FROM: David R. Sanocki, Engineer Division SUBJECT: Blimpie Sub Construction Plan Review DATE: May 6, 1999 Following are Engineering comments for the construction plans that were submitted for the above referenced project. The following comments should be addressed with the next submittal: Sheet At 1. Remove the site plan from this page or revise to reflect the conditions proposed on sheet A2. Sheet A2 1. Extend the westerly parking lot to the south property line. 2. Place siltfence at perimeter/property line of the project (City plate #ERO-Ol). 3. PlaCe one rock construction entrance (City plate #ERO-09). 4. Recommend placing stop signs by entrances and exits (City plate #GEN-09). 5. Provide storm sewer profiles. Storm sewer may need to be modified to pick up all drainage and get storm sewer away from proposed building (City plates #STO-09, #STO-07 and #STO- 05). 6. Provide storm sewer calculations with attached drainage map. 7. Label all high and low points within parking lot. 8. Provide parking lot section (No inverted sections). 9. Place sidewalk per City section and 0.5' away from the property-line (City plate #STR-21). 10. Place sidewalk curb ramps (City plate #STR-I7). 11. Place commercial concrete driveway aprons with sidewalk (City plate #STR-16). 12. Place curb and gutter per City standards (City plate #STR-Ol). 13. Existing services are 8" sanitary PVC, 8" DIP watermain (fire protection) and 2" copper watermain (Domestic). See attached information for existing services and locations. 14. Detail plates should be drawn on the plans or placed in the project specifications. Sin=elfJ R li David R. Sanocki Engineering Division . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmin~on.mn.us TO: Michael Schultz, Associate Planner FROM: Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Landscape Plan Review for Restaurant/Office Building at Pilot Knob Road and Upper 183rd Street DATE: July 2, 1999 The Planning Division has performed a review of the landscape plan for the above referenced project. The following are staffs comments: 1. The Norway Maple and Marshall's Green Ash are required to be installed at 2 W'in caliper per Section 10-6-14 (G 1) of the City Code. 2. The Colorado Spruce are required to be 5 to 6 feet in height when installed per Section 10-6-14 (Gl) of the City Code. 3. The Pyramidal Arborvitae are required to be 3 to 4 feet in height when installed per Section 10-5-14 (Gl) of the City Code. 4. A total of 6 trees are required to be installed along Pilot Knob Road as required in Section 2-9-12 and be planted no closer together than 30 feet. No evergreen trees are allowed along this street frontage. Trees may not be planted closer than 3 feet from curbs and sidewalks per Section 2-9-13. 5. A total of 7 trees are required to be installed along Upper 183rd Street and the requirements established in item #4 above shall apply to this street frontage. No evergreen trees are allowed along this street frontage. 6. A total of 9 trees are required to be installed along English Avenue and the requirements established in item #4 above shall apply to this street frontage. 7. It is recommended that the Colorado Spruce be planted no closer than 12 feet apart to allow for the spreading of the tree at maturity. 8. The green space areas shall be sodded to prevent erosion control per Section 11-4-5 H of the City Code. . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.falJ11il1gton.mn.us TO: City Planning Cnmmissinn /) Lee Smick, AICP PLY Planning Coordinator" FROM: SUBJECT: Request to revise the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update Larry & Doneene Wenzel Property DATE: July 13, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City has received a request from Mr. Gary G. Fuchs, Attorney at Law, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Larry & Doneene Wenzel to re-designate three acres of their property to business on the 2020 Land Use Plan (see attached letter). The Wenzel property lies south of 195th Street and east of the newly aligned Pilot Knob Road expansion. DISCUSSION At the June 8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning staff gave a brief presentation concerning this request and mentioned that it would be presented at the next City Council meeting. The request was presented at the June 21, 1999 City Council meeting and it was determined by the Council to send the request to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. Currently, this item is at the discussion stage and the Developer is seeking an acknowledgement on whether the Planning Commission would be in favor of revising the Comprehensive Plan to include the three acres of business proposed by the Developer. If the Planning Commission and City Council respond favorably to the request then a public hearing will be held to amend the Comprehensive Plan at a later date. In the February 1998 approval of the MUSA Expansion, this property showed approximately 11 acres of business along the west side of the newly aligned Pilot Knob Road expansion. At the time, the business area was perceived as a logical location for a business strip center in close proximity to dense neighborhoods and along a highly traveled traffic corridor. However, during the Comprehensive Plan visioning sessions held in June of 1998, it became apparent that maintaining the downtown area was a high priority and extensive commercial areas located outside of the downtown business district could detract from the downtown revitalization goals set at the visioning sessions. The Planning Commission and City Council examined this property in March and April of 1999 and determined that the business area shown on the Wenzel property was too large in scale and may detract from the downtown by drawing businesses to this new location. They also . . . determined that since the Charleswood development to the west had already designated the southwest corner of 19Sth Street and Pilot Knob Road as a businesslhigh density residential use, the location of an additional business use to the east on the Wenzel property may become too populated with businesses and further detract from the downtown revitalization goals. Therefore, the business strip was removed from the Wenzel property. Throughout the Comprehensive Planning process, Mr. Wenzel did not comment on proposed changes to the land use designations for his property. However, with the prospects of development on his property, the developers have begun to formulate conceptual plans that include both residential and business land use designations. The attached conceptual site plan shows high, medium and low-density designations along with a three acre business designation directly to the south of the City's proposed general maintenance facility. The residential areas generally comply with the 2020 Land Use Plan shown on the Wenzel property with the exception of the business use proposal. At the City Council meeting, concerns were voiced involving the type of businesses that would be allowed in this location. The Council acknowledged that neighborhood businesses such as in the B-4 District would be more suitable to the area than businesses allowed in the B-1 district such as gasoline service stations. However, the Comprehensive Plan does not distinguish between various hierarchies of business uses as the zoning ordinance does. But, conversations concerning future uses to the proposed business location should occur at this stage in the planning process. Since the City Council has determined that this is a land use issue and because of the changes proposed for the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update, the Planning Commission has been asked to review the request and make a recommendation to Council. ACTION REQUESTED City staff recommends that the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update remain unchanged due to the policy of maintaining the downtown commercial area. This policy was agreed upon at the visioning sessions in July of 1998. In order to maintain the downtown area and not detract from it by allowing a large number of neighborhood business centers throughout the City, staff recommends limiting the locations of these uses. Since a 10-acre business center exists at the southwest corner of Pilot Knob Road and 195th Street within close proximity to the Wenzel property, staff agrees that this area will provide the needed amount of neighborhood business services without detracting from the downtown area. ~Ub~:Q Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: Mr. and Mrs. Larry and Doneene Wenzel Mr. Gary G. Fuchs, London Anderson Antolak & Hoeft Mr. J. Michael Noonan, Rottlund Homes . . . London Antolak Anderson oeft, Ltd. 15 sourn FIFIH STR.EET. SUITE 1200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55402.1063 · U.S.A. TElEPHONE: 612-33&4400 . FACSIMll..E: 612.338-4311 ATTORNEYS AT LAW June 2, 1999 Mr. David Olson Community Development Director City of Farmington 326 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Re: 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan Larry & Doneene Wenzel Property Dear Mr. Olson: Thank you for the time you took last week to visit with me regarding the City's ongoing efforts to revise its Comprehensive Guide Plan and how those efforts affect the land owned by Larry and Doneene Wenzel, my clients. On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Wenzel, I request that they and their representatives be placed on the Council agenda for the June 21, 1999 Council meeting for the purpose of presenting a request that a portion of their property that lies south of 19Sth Street and east of Pilot Knob Road be designated on the 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan for future Business uses. We are currently working on identifying the specific portion of the property to be guided for Business use. I will contact you as soon as we have a decision and will give you as much information ahead of time as I can. In the meantime, please place the matter on the Council agenda, and if you have any questions, please cali me. Very truly yours, LONDON ANDERSON ANTOLAK & HOEFT 8a~6. ~ Gary G. Fuchs GG~ cc: Larry Wenzel . D:\GGFiOLSON L TR 06-02-99.doc(lmIk) MINNEAPOLIS, MN . ApPLE VALLEY, MN · SPOONER, WI . - \'- , . 'f - t -. .. '" 11pj~ . ," ." ., i:f~l?: I'GP .flu". ~ \. " t I~ '}Q~ .. ~. : ~Ir 4.c.r. ,.~ ~r- .,q~ ~ . 1i1105 ~ ~ . . . . : , ~ J~ . . . . . . '~~~iMN~ .A.- tjt$' ~ I"~' \tU' 'I'Jm~ r~i I fa~i~, *<; ft;ttlWi ~1"1I'Hl . . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.faI:J11ineton.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission Lee Smick, AICP (\LfJ Planning Coordinator Y' FROM: SUBJECT: Autumn Glen Sketch Plan DATE: July 13, 1999 INTRODUCTION Arcon Development proposes a 153 lot single-family residential development on approximately 102.86 acres of land east of the Akin Park Estates and Limerock Ridge subdivisions. This property is located within an R-l Low Density Single-Family residential zoning district. Plannin~ Division Review Applicant: ARCON Development, Inc. 7625 Metro Blvd. Suite 140 Edina, MN 55439 (612) 835-4981 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Autumn Glen Sketch Plan 3. City's Thoroughfare Plan 4. Letter to Malinski - 1/18/99 5. Letter to Malinski - 4/5/99 Proposed Development: The proposed overall development consists of 153 total lots on approximately 102.86 acres yielding a density of 2.62 units/acre. This falls below the maximum density requirement of 3.5 established in the R-l zone. Approximately 42.55 acres on the property consists of woodlands and wetlands. Location of Property: Located to the east of Akin Park Estates and Limerock Ridge subdivisions, to the south of the proposed Prairie Creek East subdivision, to the west of the 52 acres of . City-owned parkland and to the north of the proposed 195th Street right-of-way. Area Bounded By: Single-family residential development to the west, proposed single-family residential to the north, parkland to the east and the proposed right-of-way for 195th Street to the south. Existing Zoning: R-l Low Density - Single Family Residential Existing Conditions: The western portion of the property is densely vegetated on steep slopes. The central portion is currently farmed and is relatively flat and the eastern portion consisting of the wetland area is densely vegetated on relatively flat ground. Lot Coverage and Sizes: The maximum lot coverage for an R-l Single-family zone is 25%. The minimum lot size for the development is 10,000 sq. ft. The minimum lot width is 75 feet. The smallest lot is 10,209 square feet and the largest lot is 17,201 square feet. Lot widths range from 75 feet to 112 feet meeting the requirements of the City Code. . Streets and Accesses: The proposed sketch plan contains four accesses. Two accesses from the north to the property include Embers Avenue and 193rd Street from the proposed Prairie Creek 5th Addition subdivision. The third access includes 193rd Street from the west and the fourth access would is to the south along Embers Avenue to the proposed 195th Street. Sidewalks: A sidewalk will be required along the east side of Embers Avenue and 193rd Street because of its minor collector status per City Code requirements. An eight- foot trail will be required along the south side of 193rd Street to match the existing trail in Akin Park Estates to fulfill the sidewalk requirement. A sidewalk will also be required along 19Sth Street. Topography: Site topography is generally flat throughout the site except along the western edge of the property where existing topography shows 20% or greater slopes. Elevation changes on the slopes range from 920 to 970 and are densely vegetated. Wetland: Wetland areas exist on the eastern edge of the property adjacent to the City-owned parkland. The wetland is designated as utilize classification on the Surface Water . . Management Plan's Wetland and Waterbody Classification Map. A Manage 2 wetland is also located at the southwest corner of the property. A wetland delineation report was performed in August of 1998. Wetland mitigation will be required where 193rd Street encroaches into the wetland. Flood Plain: There is no flood plain that effects this property. Parkland and Trails: The Parkland adjacent to the Autumn Glen development and owned by the City was originally two parcels. The City purchased the northern parcel while the southern parcel was dedicated to the City by John Malinski to meet parkland fee requirements. The Developer proposes to dedicate Outlot A to the City and install a trail on the southern side of 193rd Street. Access to the wetland area will be near the intersection of 193rd Street and Eric's Way. DISCUSSION . In the fall of 1998, Arcon Development proposed a similar subdivision development on this property that consisted of 174 lots. In November of 1998, the Developer determined that the development of this property was not feasible and withdrew the project. Arcon Development has now revised their plan and is preparing to develop the property with a smaller number of lots proposed for the project. The Developer is proposing a 153 lot single- family residential development on approximately 102.86 acres of land east of the Akin Park Estates and Limerock Ridge subdivisions The property is zoned R-l Low Density Single-Family residential and requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of75 feet. Topography The topography on the property is relatively flat in the central and eastern portions of the site, while the western edge of the site consists of slopes over 20% in grade. Section 11-4-8 of the City Code requires that no construction or significant alterations to the natural drainage system are allowed on slopes over 20%. Arcon Development has acknowledged agreement with a letter sent to Ross Malinski (4/16/99, see attached) concerning this property stating that the 20% sloped area will become an outlot and be dedicated to the City to preserve the slope and trees. Transportation There are four accesses proposed on the sketch plan including two at the north end of the property. Embers Avenue and 193rd Street will provide the northerly accesses. 193rd Street has been realigned to provide a future minor collector as shown on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan . Update. . . . 193rd Street also connects to the west and divides the Limerock Ridge and Akin Park Estates subdivisions. Embers Avenue also provides a southerly access from the property and will eventually intersect with 195th Street on the southern border of Autumn Glen. The Developer will be responsible for 22.5% of the roadway construction costs as stated in the letter to Jon Malinski on January 18, 1999 (see attached). The Developer is to share the costs of the roadway from the southwest corner of the property to the southeast corner, including the ponding area shown as Outlot A on the plan. Wetland Requirements The City has recently approved the Wetland and Waterbody Classification Map and Wetland Ordinance. The Map identifies the wetland area shown on the property as a utilize wetland. A utilize wetland is a wetland that has been significantly altered and degraded through past disturbances such as agricultural uses. There are no setback requirements from a utilize wetland. A wetland mitigation plan will be required because of the need to fill a portion of the wetland for 193rd Street. A Manage 2 wetland is located at the southwest comer of the property and is required to have a minimum buffer of20 feet and a structure setback of 10 feet from the outer edge of the buffer. Staff recommends the following issues to be addressed in the preliminary plat stage: 1. The Developer will need to participate in the costs of improving 195th Street and will need to waive all rights to object to assessments for those improvements. 2. The wetland areas are to be delineated on the preliminary plat. 3. The water table elevation needs to be determined and shown on the preliminary plat. 4. All requirements of the Surface Water Management Plan must be met. 5. All other engineering requirements indicated during plan review must be met. 6. All other information required to be submitted on the preliminary plat checklist City staff is encouraged by the revisions in the proposed plat as submitted by Arcon Development. The reduction of the number of lots, the enhanced circulation patterns for the roadway systems and the preservation of the sloped area and ponding area have created a increased benefit for potential homebuyers to this site. ACTION REOUESTED For information only. ~:~.pecc~tfull SUbmi~d, . /1 /~e-~~~ I. Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: Arcon Development Autumn Glen Development Location Map L ~*tIUffit~~~h=~ ~~' ,\:;~ )f/ r::v \' t- ,.I~\::A~\. M F y I~ l-\\1\ ,\ ~ 13. ~~~. [lIIIIII'lmI\'O-A I 9 Io;ry-'--- 1111;1 ~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~ / f}::ltifa ex: -j f- I '*'" -t. ~ >< 1= "\ Im~!~~ ~ ):y~ A I~I--' \::J ---- l' ~~.\ ~~\ ~,;~~ ~ \~\ ~ I I - I NJIT[L~" ~IUld L::( r\ k:)1 L 1)0 S(( '>.'</~ Y .--\ " 'f-J::- )_()( N I--N f- ~E=\\ ~I ti -.." I--f.... "--.)--1. y~, W f-, J~~ --=1 ~:D 1-- \" ~ U: f r::::. ::t:j 11 \ %\ ' f N .lJ ~:.--\vy 1-1 \= IT I / ]( 'i~ ~,~ ~ n ::+--l 1 -<-J. I~~~~ I m7CIL~ \ ~Er ~!~ \'". ~~~ ~~ O~ ~\\ '\ W\I\\ I o Subject Pro e / CIy Pari< I ndeveloPed) I ~\ ~ ~"~ ~j' I ~~n=\t=E N W+E S . -:D n%:D .OQO ~ '7 z" ~ ~ 1ft 1ft !Ii1= i~Z ~. Q ~- .~ I y,(! {I' ...::,. '."'.,\: i I ..:.'\~~':~,~i;,~~,., .. \'.",~.j,,: ..,-{< 1-\ , ' 1 ' i ,.... ........\ \ ~ Ii ~ f1~~ ~ z... 0 ~;IO ~ ~ill ~~ .... 11~1~1~~i ~~ ~!!O i~ g-< i~ ""f -'~:I ~ ~J -- [iJ J= @ I [jiij] - CJ ~ ~ (jiii] ~ d . ~W~~~~~~ff~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I'~~"I'lr.IWI""!.W~.'!.W'",.p,~"" I;!. !'~l'!! !,!jl;!ij.!r I'!i !'!i r.!i I'~ 1!!II'~ Hrl'!!i1!i 11!i i!!i r.fi! l:!l I'!! i.1,!.fil1!i I.ri i1lr 1,'Ui!ll.fj 1.11 1,,('. h,t1.;, l'it !.~ !'ii !'i,.I'I',I'ii l,ij !'ii 1,11' !lli 1,11: !'Il/I'lf I'll l'li hli l'lj lilt !'Ii l'illll~\ I.;i I'll I..f lo;i II' .Pl..l ~flj 'f I(~i Ijllf !ii'ifli~i 'i~ P't'it'jPft' 'PII,frlli!'; fir P lijp'{ f,pjl' 1';!IiP P:iIP',il;~iiliilirl!I,!1 Ifp I'i!"flp'jflp' .:'ll/lql l!h' Ii (:.,;,;r, . 'i" ,;:.~:~.~..~:~ .!:.....-:~~~:2".."j /.,/1 :~~!l: , -"",- ,.... '--I~~'--r'~~--'-~''''' ,,)!J ',/, , '-\;.. ."\! '" .r"! \' /".1': ,.,."".'" , , , '., i,', ,'" <1 .'_ J '1,'iPR'-'ttfi:' RiD;";:: ~,/< ',' ,', , ..--~, ~_,__ ~1 __ ~,~~:":'-~~r-___! 9-- 1\\ I, },,, ',:~</ i):'~':<::;" u :~',l. -~.~.~~~ M .-t.--. _.:r:.'.~::.i.~:.:<-~-{-:~.I11 , L.. .. ii .~ II~ Ii ~ ~b ~,.. . oil ~f! Oil" :~6 ;-.~. ~ HII ES~e5 ~ 5 ;; ~~F! ~:::k ~ AU i = II II N~ II . .~ ~- .e.,e ..... 'OUTLOT 0 '........""'" ~ ,~ ...!! ~ o. i- h . iL. ..I .. .:$ ~. ~ ~. , '.~ "i:J' "0'" Z o Z " "')> .. "" ,., )> .... .~g~. )>r:! ..~.'O.. .{;)-1.... ):. I , "1" t... , , ']. .i -"', .-..-.. ~7"~ -""-c-' - .../ I , i ~", . I" .-.-.:'./','-' "'1" , I __ -- j / "",.~' " - - : j I i ,. }' ;t j': /:/ "," // /~.. /,.;" .~" -l r )> Z o ~ . i'- '" " '" '" '" '" '" \ S 1=':- . . ..l~" ,r-. i-'; T- [:1:5:1_ . · ',- '- '" '" \ \ ,/ \'10;...1 ~ Ii >\ ." ;;~ .~:;:I /(.,/;")/>/"~('>/ JiJ;; Il~ -I Jjm.. ~ S. ltUl q iDtl ~ III f~-l IHlllO II ! I Z I I J -0 o z o Z " )> ;u ,., )> Ii L lJ) o o ii" I , , I .' I', l' ......a-~ .' o ~ : '''-. ~ --.:. _ '-.0.00 _. _~ ." - - - - - - -- -. - - - - - - - _. - - - -.'- - - - - - - - -.. -- - - -" - - -" - - -. - - - - .. - - . .~I . .U 'r' ~~ ;~~ .', , f'''''' . :r,:-.. ~~l =i ?.:: ~::~ 4_ " I /,- . . 2020 Thoroughfare Plan City of Farmington . Map 9.1 PROPOSED COUNTY ROAD 60 ,/ :-~- lpm.. - . 81lffiHtj~ e- ~i~= I I ~I~~ I ~,~~-N \'i'iiTiliT CI trIiIIirilrnmmm I . : ki~~~~ ~ ~ I ;I · .,' ~- -- I "_ ~ ' ~~. f . ..: lit", ,,,,r~.: /1 c ' -gill - w< '/ , ~1 :-e::i; It:lf: C.R. 1195THSTW L ;?Ld 64/1 6TH STL II ~~ c 30~ > . .- ,~ \ :d .~ I !i L :J\ i 1 l i \ f'> ~ ~ . . I -; 15 ~ n -. ,~ -- j C. s. A. H. 5 0 , : \ \\ I I 1: _ '~ u, \ U-, """~, ~ : ZV\ -. i ~ r Ellllllll ~ .~-~ -~..~. ~ \~ I IF ~....,~ ~ 0' ',,- l I ~ ' I ~~ ll-~ ~ ,7\ ~_ .? !/ ~~v _-::-1 ~ I · ~ I _ _H- '} J / i.\ I-~ I~,~__ ..... <08 ~ ~ - ..... .... It~ I I ~ J J AD'ffiHHHJ8..L SJ I - I '-- -- -- ~ 208THSTW - ~m:::S -,___f _ I / / 11u ~I~\~W 1 n rr 1 ~ tlffi~1 ~_ --~ ~"""~ L __ j :r~. I ~ I J~~ ~""1'~~c=iil~litl~ ~ _ _ H~ w._~w! h. .(!! ",~mjjjl ~il Jlfr---l,-:- n I C. 74/Af15Tjit!1i1 Ll!.... _~ Jill I II ~ 220TH ST W I '1 ~~ t:::-u lGlI~ . I ,rrn. >- .~ J: " J: '" Z " I:; I 111111 1I11 r- [ nh !~ ;0;: '" " it ~_.~- IF~ ..r--------: ! -----' U g Legend ~ Future Minor Arterial ~ Existing Minor Arterial /\'1 Future Collector N. Existing Collector ," I Future Minor Collector /'I, ; Existing Minor Collector (\~~ City Boundary City Parcel Map N W*E S Scale 0.5 I o 0,5 1 Miles I City of Farmington Planning Division, 21'99 . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651)463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us January 18, 1999 Mr. Jon Malinski 8535 E. 230th Street Lakeville, MN 55044 Dear Mr. Malinski The following is a summary of the City of Farmington's responses to the issues you raised at a meeting with City staff regarding your revised development plans for your property known as the proposed Autumn Glen development: 1. Regarding the Conservation Area along the ridge line abutting Limerock Ridge: . In keeping with the City's Comprehensive Plan, city staff is recommending that this heavily wooded slope be considered an environmentally sensitive area and that it be preserved in its present condition. To ensure that this is accomplished, staff is recommending that this area be considered for dedication to the City as a conservation area. City ownership would provide for better control of the area and the City could restrict the cutting and/or clearing of trees and other vegetation. To reflect the value of this conservation area being potentially dedicated to the City, you as the Developer would receive a credit in the amount of the area development charges (including trunk water, sewer and surface water management fees) that would normally be calculated against this area of the proposed development. This recommendation if agreeable, would have to be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the development contract for this project. 2. Regarding the calculation of development fees to be charged over the area identified as Outlot B: . Outlot B is to be utilized for storm water ponding purposes. The City's Surface Water Management Plan identifies the need for a trunk ponding facility in the vicinity of Outlot B. Per City policy, a credit is given to the Developer's Surface Water Management Fee for the construction of storm ponding facilities that serve as "trunk facilities" including a credit for the land value for the land on which the trunk facilities are located. In addition, . that are not necessary for the trunk facility would be charged surface water management fees. 3. 195M Street (County Road 64) Assessments The attached map shows an illustration of property owners adjacent to the proposed 19Sth Street extension to the east. Dakota County has stated that they will pay 55% of the costs of constructing the roadway to the eastern city limits of Farmington. The County will pay 100% of construction costs for the roadway from the city limits of Farmington to Trunk Highway 3. Proposed annexation of the Seed/Genstar property may further extend the city limits to the east, however, resolution of this matter is still pending. From the southwest comer to the southeast comer of the Autumn Glen property, you as the Developer of the property would be responsible for the 22.5% of the roadway construction costs. The property owners on the south side of this frontage would also be responsible for 22.5% of the roadway costs with Dakota County funding the remaining 55% of the roadway. If you have any questions concerning this information, please call me at (651) 463-1860. Sincerely, . c~z~ David L. Olson, Community Development Director cc: John F. Erar, City Administrator Lee M. Mann, City Engineer/Public Works Director Lee Smick, Blanning Coordinator . - l,urrent ..-.roperty uwners ADjaCent to Pro )sed County Road 64/195 St Alignment Q1Y OF LAWRENCEW F'NNNGraN WENZEl. .. OIY OF ~ tWtEL G . __Ta< ..i RUTH RSSINGEA <Oil! !~ .. ,. [] '" .^ 1500 . Scale o 1500 3000 Feet . <"> ~ ~ , 1/1111111 N w+. s . City of Farmington' 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us April 16, 1999 Mr. Ross Malinski 8535 E. 230th Street Lakeville, MN 55044 RE: Meeting Summary - April 5, 1999 At the meeting on April 5, 1999 attended by you, your engineers and City staff, a number of topics were discussed concerning the proposed Malinski development. . The following City positions were determined: 1. Conservation area along the ridge line abutting Limerock Ridge. It was determined that the ridgeline should be designated as an outlot on the plat and dedicated to the City. This will allow for better control of the area rather than providing an easement to the conservation area. Signs for each lot along the ridge will be posted by the City stating that the land is a conservation area and no cutting or damage to trees or plants shall be allowed. No trunk or area charges will be assessed to this area in exchange for the dedication. 2. Outlot A and D. The areas should be shown as outlots on the plat and dedicated to the City. These outlots will be included in the surface water management fee calculations along with the remaining acreage of the property. 3. Wetland and Ponding Areas . The wetland and ponding areas shown along the east side of the property should be platted as an outlot and dedicated to the City. No trunk or area charges will be assessed to this area in exchange for the dedication. . . . 4. 193,d Street status. The layout of 193rd Street through the Malinski property needs to show a more continuous connection to the north to comply with the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan. The existing 193rd Street shows a street width of 44 feet; 38 feet will be allowed for this project. Upon further discussions after the meeting on April 5th, staff would encourage that a neighborhood meeting be held with the residents of Limerock Ridge and Akin Park Estates in order to inform them of your upcoming project before the preliminary plat public hearing. Your abstractor's list will provide a resource for establishing a mailing list for residents living within close proximity to the property. If you have any questions concerning this information, please call me at (651) 463-1820. Sincerely, ~~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: David L. Olson, Community Development Director John F. Erar. City Administrator Lee M. Mann, Director of Public W orks/City Engineer . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 fax (651) 463-2591 www.cl.farp1inifon.mn.us TO: City Planning Commission Lee Smick, AICP tx-fJ Planning Coordinator FROM: SUBJECT: Response to Dakota County and City ofLakeville Comments DATE: July 13, 1999 INTRODUCTIONffiISCUSSION The City of Farmington has been involved throughout the past year in updating the Comprehensive Plan as required by the Metropolitan Council. A draft of the Comprehensive Plan must be submitted to adjacent governmental units and school districts for a 60-day review and comment period. The City of Farmington submitted the plan on April 14, 1999 to the City of Lakeville, Empire Township, Castle Rock Township, Eureka Township, Independent School District #192 and Dakota County. . The City has recently received comments at the end of the 60-day review period on June 15, 1999 from Dakota County and the City of Lakeville. .No other jurisdiction submitted comments to the City. The attached information includes responses to both governmental units concerning their comments. City staff will be gathering feedback from both the Planning Commission and City Council concerning the responses. The City Council will review the responses at the July 19, 1999 Council meeting. Upon approval of the responses by the City Council, City staff will submit the responses to each respective governmental unit. The City Council will also be requested at the July 19, 1999 meeting to provide a preliminary approval of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan subject to the Metropolitan Council's review and comment. City staff will submit the final draft of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council on or before July 30, 1999. ACTION REQUESTED Review and comment on the responses to each respective governmental unit and forward any recommendations to the City Council. . Respectfully Submitted, %~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cl.farminifon.mn.us TO: Dave Olson, Community Development Director FROM: Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Dakota County Comments DATE: July 7, 1999 The following information addresses the comments made by the Dakota County concerning the City of Farmington' s 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update: Chapter 3 - Land Use Element General Policy Decisions Regarding Land Use . Page 10 - Maintain the West Rural District with densities of 1/40 units per acre rather than allow higher densities such as large lot development. In Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update, the West Rural District is designated as urban reserve. The urban reserve area will be maintained in a post-2020 holding zone for future urban service and development. The Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint requires the following: · Residential densities should be no more than one unit per 40 acres. · Land uses and development patterns should be consistent with a rural lifestyle. . Overlay-ghost platting should be required of any large lot development and tied to a capital improvement program. On page 51, the Regional Blueprint also states the following: "provisions for residential densities greater than one unit per 40 acres is acceptable if the development will be clustered. Such clusters will be considered temporary until full urbanization occurs around them. Local plans and ordinances will need to require that the temporary clusters be connected to central sewer and other city services when they become available and that the temporary clusters be designed and laid out in accordance with local subdivision regulations, including dedication of future utility and infrastructure easements." Therefore, the City of Farmington would like to continue with this provision for the West Rural District. The wording in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update will be revised to reflect the . above requirements in order to insure that clustering will be limited to meet the provisions. . Growth Staging Element Page 40 - The proposed annexation of the North East District creates some land use planning and transportation challenges. The City realizes that the floodplain and wetlands of the North Branch of the Vermillion River creates land use planning and transportation issues because of the supposed isolation from the downtown and north central districts of Farmington. However, through proposed transportation routes the North East district can become connected. The construction of 195th Street to the south of this proposed annexed area provides the key to linking the North East district to the west. This proposed linkage is shown on the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan. Trunk Highway 3 is an under-utilized roadway system and can provide an additional north-south route to connect to the downtown district. There are plans to reflect a north-south local street between Akin Road and Trunk Highway 3; however, they have not been designated on the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan due to the fact that Empire Township property separates the north east and downtown areas. Chapter 7 - Historic Preservation Element The City will send a copy of this chapter to the Dakota County Historical Society for their comments. Chapter 9 - Transportation Element . Functional Classification System Page 73 - Provide a transportation policy that addresses the need and commitment for access management by the City of Farmington. The City will include the following statement in "the vision and policies for transportation in Farmington" section on page 72 of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update. "The City of Farmington will comply with the Dakota County Access Spacing Guidelines specified in the Dakota County Transportation Policy Plan." Page 75: CR 64 will be illustrated as a B-Minor Arterial on Map 9.2, 2020 Functional Classification System Plan to be consistent with the Dakota County Transportation Policy Plan. CSAH 50 will be illustrated as an A-Minor Arterial from Akin Road to TH 3 on the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan. Pilot Knob Road from CSAH 50 to Ash Street and Ash Street from Pilot Knob Road to Denmark Avenue will be illustrated as a "future roadway" on Map 9.1, 2020 Thoroughfare Plan. These roadways were originally classified as future minor arterials because they were extensions of CSAH 31. However, the City will illustrate the routes as "future roadways" and work with the County to determine the functional classification of these systems in the future. . 2 . Lanes Per Roadway The extension of Pilot Knob Road between CR 64 and CSAH 50 will be illustrated as a four-lane divided roadway on Map 9.3, Lanes Per Roadway. 2020 Thoroughfare Plan Page 81 - Map 9.3, Lanes Per Roadway will be revised to illustrate a four-lane divided roadway between CR 64 and CSAH 50. Pages 81-82 - The information stated in Dakota County's comment letter (6/15/99) will be included in the Transportation Element in regards to the extensions and/or realignments of east- west alignments (CR 64, CSAH 60, etc.). Pages 83-84 - A brief description of Flagstaff Avenue will be included in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update to show the future benefits of the north-south collector. Provide a north-south collector in the eastern part of the City between Pilot Knob Road and TH 3; ideally extending from 208th Street. The City agrees with Dakota County's comments concerning the north-south collector between Pilot Knob Road and TH 3. There are plans to reflect a north-south local street between Akin Road and Trunk Highway 3; however, they have not been designated on the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan due to the fact that Empire Township property separates the north east and downtown districts. . Chapter 11 - Parks and Recreation Element Statement of Goals. Obiectives. Policies and Action Steps. Page 112 - Goal 1: Explore a Centrally Located Community/Regional Park Facility and/or Recreational Public Lake. Pedestrian and bikeways trails are shown on Map PM-I. The trails show the connection of the "community green" with inter-linking trails running north and south throughout the community. The Community Green area is identified on Map PI-12 of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The discussion of the trail linkages is also included in the Land Use Element on pages 2 and 21. Page 117 - Goal 8: Work with Dakota County, Independent School District #192, Surrounding Communities, the City's Boards and Commissions and Private and/or Non-Profit Organizations on Developing Joint Ventures for Recreational Parks, Open Spaces, Facilities and Trail Systems. The City will include a brief description of the County's comments concerning joint venture opportunities with the County under Goal 8 of the Parks and Recreation Element. . 3 . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmineton.mn.us TO: Dave Olson, Community Development Director FROM: Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Lakeville Comments DATE: July 7, 1999 The following information addresses the comments made by the City of Lakeville concerning the City of Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update: Land Use Plan . Floating zones in District 2 - The "floating zones" were located to show possible areas of medium density and business development within District 2. However, the zones will not be finalized until portions of that property are annexed into the City and approved through the Planned Unit Development process. This process includes the review of a schematic plan, approval of a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the property. Comments will be requested from the City of Lakeville when the property in District 2 abuts the City of Lakeville. . The drcift for the Southern Dakota County Planning Collaborative comprehensive plan designates the "SeedlGenstar" property for agricultural uses while the Farmington comprehensive plan designates the property for urban residential and business uses. Which plan will have legal standing? - The Southern Dakota County Planning Collaborative comprehensive plan does not reflect the recent approval in May of 1999 by the Minnesota Municipal Board to accept the orderly annexation agreement between Farmington and Empire Township for the Seed/Genstar property. Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update should set the precedence for the type of land uses proposed on this property, since the area will be annexed into the City in the next few years. A comment letter has been sent to the consultants for the Southern Dakota County Planning Collaborative comprehensive plan to reflect these changes on their plan. Do agricultural uses have more long-term viability in District 2 than in District 6? Both areas have the potential in producing valuable agricultural products, however, additional criteria was also reviewed in determining the future growth areas for the City. The following information will be included in Chapter 3 of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update in order to address the reasons for developing District 2 over District 6: . District 2 - North East This district is currently not within the City limits; however, the State of Minnesota Municipal Board approved an orderly annexation agreement between Farmington and Empire Township in May of 1999. The district consists of 989 gross acres ofland and with the approval of the orderly annexation agreement, the property will be annexed into the City sometime after the year 200 I. The property currently resides in agricultural preserve and this designation will expire in the year 200 I. The Metropolitan Council requires that comprehensive plans illustrate land that has already been annexed into the City at the time of plan review by the Metropolitan Council or there is an orderly annexation agreement between the City and Empire Township. The City determined the following reasons for illustrating growth in this location: . 1. The owner (Seed Family) desires to develop the property in the future. 2. The Seed property is adjacent to Trunk Highway 3, which is an under-utilized traffic corridor and will provide existing access to a minor arterial roadway. 3. Dakota County has proposed the location of County Road 60 to be north of the City limits, creating a highly desired east-west corridor from 1-35 to Trunk Highway 3. Therefore, major traffic corridors will be located on the north and east boundaries of the Seed property providing adequate corridors for moving traffic. 4. An existing 48" trunk sanitary sewer interceptor line is located within the proposed property. However, the line would need to be extended to the east under the existing rail line to serve the eastern portion of the property. 5. The Water Distribution Plan proposes a 16" water line along with an underground water storage tank within the Seed property. 6. The Surface Water Management Plan shows the need for ponding areas along North Creek and the rail line. These areas are required to meet the Surface Water Management Plan. 7. A wetland plan shows a large wetland area along North Creek on the western side of the rail line. A wetland boundary survey is required at the time of development. These areas will provide natural habitats as well as require the need for clustering developments throughout the Seed property creating a variety of land uses. 8. The vision of providing an agricultural buffer on the western side of the City adjacent to the City of Lakeville will be met by showing growth on the Seed property and fulfilling the 753 acres of residential land needed by the year 2020. 9. The vision of connecting the northern portion of the City to the southern portion will be fulfilled because the Seed property is located closer to the central core of the City as opposed to proposing growth in the northwest corner and creating no connection between the north and the south. . Therefore, it is important to note that the Seed property annexation will not create an increase in the amount of projected growth in the City, it will only shift where that growth will occur. The 2020 Land Use Plan will reflect the Seed annexation in order to set aside the 753 acres of residential development in this location, thereby, preserving the northwest corner of the City for agricultural use to the year 2020. 2 . District 2 offers a variety of land use choices because of the existing rolling topography and the accessibility potential from Trunk Highway 3 on the eastern border, the proposed roadways of CSAH 60 on the northern border and County Road 64 on the southern border forming boundaries of the property on the north and south respectively. A large portion of the district is proposed for low-density residential as illustrated on Map 3.4. Medium-density residential and business designations are also shown within the district, however, these are considered "floating zones" at this time, because of undetermined development scenarios within District 2. The "floating zones" are being shown in areas where potential transportation access will occur and along the rail line where medium-density residential uses can provide a buffer between low-density residential and the CP rail line. The final land use is the natural open space that consists of the North Branch and its floodplain. This use will assist in buffering the low and medium-density residential areas from the rail line and will provide natural areas for walking trails and passive recreation. The business area is located along Trunk Highway 3 and the proposed location of County Road 60 because of the accessibility potential in this area. The land use will only support smaller neighborhood business uses and will not detract from the downtown business area. This area will provide convenience-type services that may be accessed by walking or through short vehicle trips. . District 6 - West Rural This district contains most of the agricultural lands within the community as illustrated on Map 3.8. The district relates to the vision to maintain and enhance the existing rural character of the City and provide a buffer of open space between the developed City of Farmington and the City of Lakeville. The district will be maintained as working farms and is designated as agricultural/urban reserve. The urban reserve areas will not be developed until after the 2020 time frame, however, the owners of property in this area wanted to have the opportunity to develop their property in densities of 1 unit per 10 acres if City infrastructure was available to the property. These situations will be handled on a case by case basis and growth in this area will be limited. The vision statements for the City determined that this district would remain in agriculture and was unsuitable for growth at this time because of the following reasons: . 1. The owners of property in this part of the City have indicated a desire to keep it as an agricultural use, for at least the next 15 to 20 years. 2. Flagstaff Avenue would require an extensive and costly upgrade to the City's transportation system considering the condition of the existing roadway and the need to upgrade the entire road (to CR 50) to a collector status as proposed in the City's Thoroughfare Plan. 3 . . . 3. A 15" sewer line is proposed for this area, however, the nearest connection for the trunk sanitary sewer facility would be at 195th Street at the northern edge of the Charleswood development. 4. The Water Distribution Plan proposes a 20" water line along with an underground water storage tank in this area. A 16" water line has been constructed at the western edge of Pine Ridge Forest and provides a readily accessible connection for water services in this area. 5. The Surface Water Management Plan indicates ponding in the southeastern portion of the area. These areas are required to meet the Surface Water Management Plan. 6. The Wetland Map illustrates a wetland area on the east side of Flagstaff Avenue. The map also shows a greenway along the eastern portion of the area. A wetland boundary survey is required at the time of development. 7. The vision of providing an agricultural buffer on the western side of the City to the year 2020 will be fulfilled by the 753 acres of residential development proposed elsewhere in the City. The strongest argument for maintaining this district as agricultural is illustrated by the property owners living in the district. Some of the landowners hold large acres of land and expressed their desire to continue farming in this area. An additional argument consists of the lack of adequate transportation routes and available sanitary sewer in this area. The final argument consists of the City's vision to maintain and preserve working farms within the City while providing a natural buffer to the west. . Expansion of urban development beyond already established municipal boundaries appears to be inconsistent with the Regional Blueprint. The December 1996 Metropolitan Council Regional Blueprint shows District 2 to be located within three different classifications. On the west side of District 2, the Regional Blueprint shows the illustrative 2020 MUSA boundary. This boundary will accommodate at least two-thirds of forecasted growth within the 2000 MUSA boundary. It will require the planning of no more than one-third of the forecasted growth within the City to be located within the mutually agreed upon 2020 MUSA boundary. The boundary also requires densities to be closer to historic patterns of the past. The central part of District 2 resides within a urban reserve area, which determines that these lands are to accommodate the region's growth in households to the year 2040. This classification also requires that short-term development conform to eventual urbanization, generally limiting it to one dwelling unit per 40 acres in the interim. And finally, the east side of District 2 is classified as permanent agriculture, requiring that the land be protected from urbanization and development be limited to one dwelling unit per 40 acres. The permanent agriculture area consists of a very minor amount of land along the west side of Trunk Highway 3. District 6 is shown to be located in the urban reserve area on the Regional Blueprint, which is also designated as urban reserve in Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update. As the City of Lakeville understands, the December 1996 Regional Blueprint will be revised once all of the comprehensive plans for communities in the seven-county metro area have been reviewed and approved. The December 1996 Regional Blueprint shows the location of land use lines as illustrative only, and local governments and the 4 . Metropolitan Council will redefine them when all of the comprehensive plans have been approved. It is also important to note that the expansion of urban area communities into adjacent townships through the mechanism of orderly annexation agreements is consistent with the language contained in the Regional Blueprint, the Council's comprehensive development guide for the metropolitan area. Transportation Plan · Farmington identifies County Road 60 on their comprehensive plan, however, Lakeville has identified an alternative alignment that involves 195th Street to be utilized as the east/west corridor with more appropriate spacing from CR 46. The City of Farmington is in agreement with the City of Lakeville upon the identification of 195th Street as an east/west corridor. The City of Farmington understands the difficulties with the location of CR 60 due to wetland mitigation associated with CSAH 31. However, since Dakota County identifies the corridor on their 1998 Road Plat Review Needs Plan, the City determined that the roadway should be identified within the City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update until further studies revise the location of this roadway. . Lakeville shows 190th Street east of Cedar Avenue as a minor collector. Does the City of Farmington propose a minor collector west of Flagstaff Avenue to tie into 190th Street in Lakeville? The Farmington 2020 Thoroughfare Plan will include 190th Street west of Flagstaff Avenue as a minor collector and will reflect this change on the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan. . . The Metropolitan Council identifies 190th Street as an "A" minor arterial that is not consistent with the Farmington Thoroughfare Plan. The City of Farmington has no record of a Metropolitan Council map identifying 190th Street as an "A" minor arterial. Dakota County and the City of Lakeville do not identify 190th Street as an "A" minor arterial, and therefore, the City of Farmington will continue to identify 190th Street as a minor collector. However, should Lakeville provide Farmington with information describing 190th as an "A" minor arterial, Farmington will consider this information within an appropriate transportation planning context. Surface Water Management . Is there support from the City of Farmington to partner with other communities in the Vermillion River Watershed and pursue best management and low impact development site design practices near South Creek? The Surface Water Management Plan (September 1998) addresses the issues of providing best management practices and low impact development site design within the Vermillion River Watershed. The requirements of the Vermillion Watershed program are stated in Section 2.2 of the Surface Water Management Plan, while agency requirements are presented in Section 2.3 and best management practices are provided in Section 2.4 of the Surface Water Management Plan. . A reference to the 1998 Surface Water Management Plan is made in Chapter 6 of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update concerning the best management and low impact site 5 . . . design practices. Additionally, partnerships with other communities in the Vermillion River Watershed will be considered as opportunities permit. Sanitary Sewer Plan . Population forecasts have increased creating the need for more sewage capacity. Was Farmington's draft Sanitary Sewer Plan based on these projections? Farmington's 1996 Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan is based on the population projections shown on Figure 4 attached. The sewage flow projections were then revised in the City's MUSA Expansion request to reflect updated population forecasts. The Metropolitan Council approved the sewage flow projections on February 28, 1998 as shown on Table Al thereby updating the 1996 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Policy. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update shows the most current revision of the sewage flow projections illustrating the estimated sewage flows to continue to be below the required 2.3 MGD flow in the year 2006. . The City of Farmington currently shows a nearly nine year supply of existing residential MUSA. The City of Farmington agrees that there is currently (1999) a nearly nine year supply of residential MUSA acres. The Metropolitan Council has determined that a City should not go below a five-year supply of residential MUSA to insure that growth is staged to meet the needs of the future population. Therefore, by the year 2005, at a growth rate of 275 homes per year the City of Farmington will be at less than a two-year supply. To continue to meet the growth rate of 275 per year by 2005, the City determined that an additional 570 acres of residential MUSA be included in the residential MUSA supply to reach the five-year supply needed in 2005. With the additional 570 acres, the City of Farmington will once again be nearing a nine-year supply. By the year 2010, the City will fall to a nearly four-year supply until a request for an additional 470 acres is approved and added to the MUSA. The additional acreage will bring the City to over a nine-year supply in 2010. By 2015, the City falls to a four-year supply once again and with the approval of an additional 230 acres of MUSA, the City will see a seven-year supply of MUS A in 2015. Finally, by the year 2020, the City falls to a two-year supply. The addition of 138 residential acres will bring the City close to a four-year supply. Throughout the above scenarios, it is important to observe that the City of Farmington forecasts 5,775 household units to be added to the community over the next twenty years. Therefore, an additional 1,750 acres of residential MUSA is needed along with the existing 735 acres within the MUSA to meet the demands of this growth. . What assurances do the cities currently served by the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant have that their allocation of the existing 12 million per capacity will not be prematurely consumed by non-staged growth in Farmington? The Metropolitan Council has indicated on numerous occasions that no municipality is entitled to a pre-ordained or pre-determined allocation of sewer capacity. The use of sewer capacity is determined by a respective municipality's on-going growth and development, and consequentially, its 6 I I. I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I 4IPOPULATION PROJECTIONS I FARMINGTON. MINNESOTA I COMPREHENSIVE SEWER POLICY PLAN 14159R02.DWG 4/96 COt.4t.4. 14159 22 20 18 16 ~'0 14 _"0 ~C ~ ~ 12 ::J:J 0.0 O~ 10 o.C 8 6 4 2 o 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 YEAR 2000 YEAR 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 FIGURE 4 2010 2020 CIlY 1916 2300 3464 4370 5940 11220 16580 20700 MET COUNCIL 9360 12780 16200 .11. Bonestroo .. Rosene II Anderlik 4 ,\I, Associates .sewage Flow Projections Farmington, Minnesota Yw 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 . Homes Added 63 84 117 260 309 334 237 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 Estimated Total Homes 2064 2127 2211 2328 2588 2897 3231 3468 3743 4018 4293 4568 4843 5118 5393 5668 5943 6218 6493 6768 7043 7318 7593 7868 8143 8418 8693 8968 9243 9518 9793 Estimated Added Populatiol1 176 235 328 728 865 935 664 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 Table A 1 Estimated Total PODulation 5940 6116 6352 6679 7407 8272 9208 9871 1 0641 11411 12020 12790 13560 14330 15100 15870 16640 17410 18180 18950 19720 20490 21260 22030 22800 23570 24340 25110 25880 26650 27420 Estimated Added Employees 203 199 148 192 188 182 180 176 172 168 164 160 156 152 148 144 140 133 132 128 124 120 116 Estimated Total Employees 2342 2961 3165 3364 3512 3704 3892 4074. 4254 4429 4601 4769 4932 5092 5248 5399 5547 5690 5830 5963 6095 6222 6346 6465 6581 Estimated Average Sewage Flow ~ 0.85 1.10 1.21 1.32 1.42 1.53 1.64 1.75 1.86 1.97 2.07 2.18 2.29 2.39 2.50 2.61 2.71 2.82 2.93 3.03 3.14 3.24 3.35 3.45 3.56 :, . . . future needs for expanded capacity within the limits prescribed by its comprehensive plan and regulatory control by MCES. Every municipality has the same basic and equal right to capacity use at MCES Regional Treatment Facilities. Accordingly, no municipality should consider its right to capacity as preeminent to that of another community. The Metropolitan Council has stated that average flows for the City of Farmington must stay below the 2.3 mgd by the year 2006. As Table 10.4 reflects, the estimated average sewage flow in 2006 will be 2.05, meeting the requirement of the Metropolitan Council. The average flow of2.3 won't be met until through the year 2008. Additionally, the table provided by the City of Lakeville in their comment letter identifies Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan sewer flows and the Metropolitan Council's preferred sewer flows for the City of Farmington. As witnessed in the table, the 2020 Comprehensive Plan sewer flow numbers remain below the Metropolitan Council's preferred sewer flows between 2000 and 2020. . The City of Lakeville opposes the "undesignated MUSA reserve" staging option. As discussed on page 3.7 of the Metropolitan Council's Local Planning Handbook, "a community may elect to adopt an undesignated MUSA reserve agreement with the Council." The undesignated MUSA reserve agreement allows a community to designate the number of acres, types and density of land uses for each five-year stage to 2020, with the exact location of each stage unspecified. Table 4.1 and Map 4.1 of the Farmington's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update identifies this information required by the Metropolitan Council. The City of Farmington elected to designate their staged growth areas under the exact specifications of the Metropolitan Council. The City of Farmington will follow the undesignated MUSA reserve agreement requirements stated in the Local Planning Handbook found on page 3.8. It is unclear why the City of Lakeville would be opposed to the undesignated MUSA reserve option for the staging of growth, since the Metropolitan Council allows this option to exist. 7 . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.fannin~on.mn.us TO: Housing and Redevelopment Authority Planning Commission Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: John F. Emr, City Administrator SUBJECT: Public Facilities Task Force - Commission Appointments DATE: June 14, 1999 INTRODUCTION At the June 7, 1999 Council meeting, Council authorized the creation of a Public Facilities Task Force. The purpose of this task force will be to study and formulate recommendations to the City Council on the need for new public facilities. DISCUSSION In order to move this process forward, the Council is seeking City Commission input in the form of one representative from each of the two commissions listed above and the HRA. The HRA and Commissions are free to designate a member of choice to serve on the Task Force. It is requested that each Commission and HRA submit a letter to this office naming their choice to the Public Facilities Task Force. It is anticipated that Council will make appointments to the Task Force at their July 19, 1999 Council meeting, with the first meeting scheduled in early August, 1999. I have included additional information on the Scope and Objectives of the Task Force to assist the Commissions in discussing this very important process. ACTION REOUESTED Please feel free to communicate any questions you may have on this process to this office or appropriate staff representatives. Cc: Jim Bell, Parks and Recreation Director Dave Olson, Director of Community Development Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator . . PUBLIC FACILITIES TASK FORCE TASK FORCE COMPOSITION1 . Citizens-at-Iarge and Business Representatives (5) · Council (1) . City Commissions (HRA -1, Planning -1, Parks and Recreation -1) . School District Board or Staff Representative and Student (2) . City Administrator (1) Ex-Officio staff members comprised of department directors from Community Development -1, Finance -1, Police -1, Fire -1, Parks and Recreation -1, Public Works-I. It is anticipated that Task Force members would select a Task Force Chair to guide and facilitate the discussions of the group. Ex-Officio members would contribute to the deliberations of the task force by providing requested information and supporting group discussions as appropriate. SCOPE OF TASK FORCE REVIEW The scope of task force review will include an analysis of facility space needs and review of the following public facilities. . Central Maintenance Facility . Police Facility . Fire Satellite Station . Ballfield Complex . City Hall Offices TASK FORCE OBJECTIVES The following objectives have been placed under the authority of the Facilities Planning Task Force to support the development of a final advisory recommendation on public facilities to the City Council. . Review the Condition and Space Needs Requirements of existing facilities . Determine the need for new facilities based on operational data, deficiencies in existing facilities and community need factors . Review space need requirements for n.ew facilities . Review and/or recommend proposed locations for new facilities . Recommend the construction prioritization of new facilities . Recommend the method(s) to financially underwrite the cost of new facilities . Develop a preliminary forecast on future (7+ years or more) public facility needs . J Approved by City Council on June 7,1999 Census figures indicate continued population drop in Minneapolis, St. Paul . By Corale Carlson Star Tribune Washington I Bureau Correspondent . WASHINGTON, D.C Shrinking populations in Min- neapolis and St. Paul and bur- geoning growth in suburbs such as Woodbury and Savage showed up again in federal census esti- mates Tuesday, as they have throughout the 1990s. Between 1990 and 1998, Min- neapolis' population dropped 4.5 percent to 351,731, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated, while St. Paul's fell 5.5 percent to 257,284. Woodbury was Minnesota's fastest-growing city with an increase of 101.4 percent, to about 40,431, the bureau said. That makes the St. Paul suburb the state's 19th largest city. Other fast-growing cities include Savage, up 73.1 percent to about 17,151; Farmington, up 71.1 percent to 10,166; and Lino Lakes, up 64.3 percent to 14,469. Duluth declined 5 percent during the eight-year period to an estimated 81,228, and Wmona slipped 4.9 percent to 24,187. The bureau based its esti- mates on housing units and birth, death and tax return infor- mation at the county level, said Gregory Harper, a bureau . spokesman. Last year the Metropolitan Council, using different calcula- tions, reported similar trends as part of its annual estimates. It re- ported the seven-county metro area's population at 2,515,119 as of April 1, 1997, up 1.3 percent from a year earlier. Michael Munson, senior plan- ner for the agency, said then that Minneapolis' and St. Paul's declines have become smaller and that. their populations appeared almost to have stabi- lized. Tuesday's census bureau report suggests that has not yet happened. Elsewhere, the bureau reported that Phoenix's popula- tion rose by more than 21 per- cent to 1,198,064 to become the nation's fastest growing large city in the 1990s. San Antonio was second among cities of 1 million people or more with an increase . Minnesota's top 10 growing cities Percent EstImated In~ 1998 since popuIa- aty 1990 tion 1~,!;)!!!~m,I~!~ji!..I)ji Savage .. ...'73.1 17.151 . ~..\I!;ljjl!.j@w;!'lli.ilf.~, Uno Lakes 64.3 14,469 "'ij;jl[,ij'liZ;I!liljlli;;._j Andov~ 572 23~18 ~~j}I~~I:jl\1"i\i!~1.1jj Rosemount 53.7 13,249 ..[i!)11iji:';.I!lii!lii!;!ill_~ Oakdale 45.1 26,663 Source: us. Census Bureau Star Tribune graphic of 14.1 percent, to 1,114,130. The jump made Phoenix the nation's seventh most populous city in 1998, climbing from ninth in 1990. San Antonio rose from lOth to eighth place. New York City remained the nation's most populous city, with 7.4 million people, followed by Los Angeles with 3.6 million. The next three fastest- growing big cities were San Diego, up 9.9 percent to 1,220,666 in 1998; Houston, up 8 percentto 1,786,691, and Dallas, up 6.8 percent to 1,075,894. The population of all U.S. cities containing at least 10,000 people grew 6.6 percent between 1990 and 1998, while cities with populations of more than 1 mil- lion in 1998 grew by 3.5 percent. Statistically, gain or loss is magnified when applied to a smaller population base. Overall, the bureau said 892 cities experienced double-digit growth rates during the eight- year period and 691 had 1998 populations between 10,000 and 50,000. Among the 2,578 cities with 10,000 or more people last year, 1,854, or 71.9 percent, gained population between 1990 and 1998, while the remaining 724 lost population. - Staff writer Dan Wascoe Jr. and the Associated Press contributed to this report.