Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.27.97 Special Planning Packet . . . I" . AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Special MAY 27, 1997 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) 7:00 PM - Variance for Lot Coverage - 911 Honeysuckle Lane - James Purdy -1 ~ it; 7: 15 PM - Variance for Side Yard Setback - Dakota County Highway Shop Dr- b) c) Dakota Mini-Storage (continued) 3. Discussion a) Waiver of Plat - 500 Pine Street b) Fence Ordinance 4. ADJOURN . . . " AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Special MAY 27,1997 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) 7: 00 PM - Variance for Lot Coverage - 911 Honeysuckle Lane - James Purdy The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed variance at the May 13th meeting. Mr. Purdy is building a new house at 911 Honeysuckle Lane. In reviewing the building permit, staff discovered that the lot coverage for the house including a proposed 14' x 16' three seasons porch and an existing detached garage came to 32%. The maximum lot coverage in an R-2 zone is 30%. The lot consists of9,312 square feet and the house, porch and garage consists of 3,004 square feet. Mr. Purdy has agreed to initially build the house without the attached three seasons porch. He is asking for a variance for the lot cove~.a e so ~e may con.,s, tyu~t the, three seasons porch at a ,.later time. / ',~ ~.,'.'~ ,~~ -' \::;;0+ Ild.ecfJ II/! ~ 6 S - ((PI ~ . g/~aJ1' Reco mendat40n ~.---- =/C)(::t?7 S Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a ~iance to allow a 32% lot coverage within an R-2 zone at 911 Honeysuckle Lane. I ~s 30~~ b) 7: 15 PM - Variance!or, Sit:Jl ard S;!JCk - Dakota County Highway Shop Dakota County is seeking f7s~k variance to build a 2,600 square foot garage on the east end of their existing building. The project is located in an 1-1 zone and requires a side yard setback of twenty-five feet. The proposed garage will encroach upon the side yard setback by five feet. Dakota County Highway Shop is located on the south side of Highway 50 in the west 10 acres of the SWII4 ofthe NE1/4 of Section 36, Township 114, Range 20. Dakota County proposes to expand their existing 8,992 square foot building to include two 2,600 square foot garage expansions on the east and west side of the existing building. The proposed buildings will include three garage bays facing towards the south, similar to the existing building and garage door configuration, in order to store construction and highway equipment. The eastern expansion is planned for 1997 construction due to the County's immediate facility needs and timed together with the underground storage tank removal in the same vicinity. . . . " The variance is being requested in order to maintain the garage doors facing the south away from Highway 50 traffic. With the bays facing south, minimal visibility of heavy ; construction equipment will be encountered from Highway 50 because of the screening of the building. . The variance request meets the regulation requirements because the literal enforcement of I % [I the ordinance would result in Wldue hardship with respect to the property. In this event, vJ,~'e~1 there are no other solutions to locate the building elsewhere and provide screening from ..Jv' V~, Highway 50. A letter drafted by the developer's engineer is attached for your \JO ~ information. U. o-f I tYJ,'\.. 7b i 1 11, /,~-j;jt _..4 I .\ l r 0 1; ~ pI lY - '. \19\ Recommendation (I 0""'" r 3 J' , 'St, ~ I iJ Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve oIthe variance setback to' A ~ ~ allow the proposed building to encroach within the side yard setback by five feet. 1\ \. I c) Dakota Mini-Storage Preliminary and Final Plat (continued) Mr. Peltier and his engineer, Grant Jacobson, were sent a letter drafted by Lee Mann, City Engineer, on May 19 concerning a list of required information remaining to be submitted before a thorough review of the engineering can be accomplished. The letter is attached , for your review. Staff is recommending that the preliminary and finalf:l t be continued. I J e.10 .. to the June 10th Planning Commission meeting.. I ~ tn-t. t . ,vi. I ~\ ~)J., l-{tJ~ I\COI\~ ~~ ~_~JtLv-.vlvt J tv } Recommendation (~L\M Cf:r l ~ 1 Continue the public hearing to June 10th in order to allow adequate time for the developer's engineer to submit required information and a full review of this information can be executed by the Engineering Department. 3. Discussion a) Waiver of Plat - 500 Pine Street Mr. Tom Dobson has recently purchased the lot at 500 Pine Street in order to split the lot and build a house on the remaining portion. This particular lot was brought before the Planning Commission at the April 22nd meeting to discuss the possibilities of a variance. The owner is interested in replatting the existing 120' x 170' lot and creating two lots by the use of a waiver of plat. The lot is located in an R-2 zone and requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, a minimum of 60 feet in width with a front yard setback of 20 feet, and side and rear yard setbacks of six feet. An existing house and garage built in the 40's is located at the west end of the property. The owner plans on removing the existing garage and splitting the lot east to west. This will provide for two 85 x 120 foot lots or . . . " 10,200 square foot lots and will comply with R-2 zoning standards. The waiver of plat process has to meet two conditions in order to be allowed: 1. The property is part of a recorded plat or both parcels created by the subdivision are. situated outside of the urban service area. . ' 2. The lots meet the minimum lot requirements of the Zoning Ordm.;::h zP;)/ This is presented for information only. /~ ~. ~ V ~ b) Revision to Fence Ordinance The letter by C.J. Simones is attached in order to review the format and content and determine if the letter will be sent to the City Council at their June 2nd meeting. Also enclosed is a matrix showing fence ordinance requirements for surrounding communities and a plat of a residential lot in the Troyhills subdivision which portrays possible visibility problems if a six foot high fence was located on the lot line of the property. 4. ADJOURN j~ j\P . . . ," McCombs Frank RoosAssocIales, Inc. 180150 DId Awnue NoIttI. Plymouth. t.tnnesota 55447-4739 leIephone &12141e-8010 1512/476-8532 FAX Engineers PlanneIB SWveyors May 22, 1997 Ms. Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 55026 SUBJECT: Dakota CoWlty Highway Maintenance Facility Site Plan Submittal and Variance Request Farmington, Minnesota MFRA#11662 Dear Ms. Smick:: On behalf of the Dakota County Highway Department we are requesting a variance from the City's 2S.feet industrial zone sideyanl setback for expansion of the County's mamteDance building. The eastern building expansion will mend S.feet into the sideyard setback. At some time in the future, the County will also expand the building westward as shovm on the Site Plan. The eastern expansion will include an additional three garage bays with doors facing south, similar to the exi$tina building and garage door configuration. The eastern expansion is planned for 1997 construction due to the County's immediate facility needs and timed together with the underground storage tank removal in the same vicinity. ~ these two projects together, will reduce access complications and reduce overall project costs. The variance is requested in order to best utilize the existing building confipration and location on site. Although. the site is approximately 10 acn:s. the long and narrow property boundary makes it difficult to stay entirely within City setbacks. The remainh,,! building and site improvements proposed with this project, meet City setback: requirements. The variance is also requested to maintain garage doors facing south away ftom Highway 40, and to provide good circulation patterns behind the garage facility for the large constmction.~ equipment utilized by the County. We believe that the site plan with the building as proposed, is a good use of the site, helps screen large vehicle activities, does not impact adjacent properties or tbeix fUtute uses. does not result in traffic congestion or cause public safety concerns. 2/1 'd 9899 'ON An Equa\ Opponunily Employsr SOOH }!NVM,i SHWO:l:lW WdLV:j ~661 'ZZ 'A8W . . . Ms. Lee Smick~ Planning Coordinator May 22~ 1997 Page 2 We appreciate the City's review of this request and will be at the May 27th, 1997 Planning Conmnssion meeting to further discuss these issues. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me 81476-6010. Sincerely, McCOMBS FRANK. ROOS ASSOCIATES~ INC. /1J.7n. {}A- Daniel M. Parks, P.E. nMPl.jb') ~:.--~ob Eg~ Dakota County Highway Department e;main:1l66Z:smkS-22 Z/Z 'd 9899 'oN SOO~ ~NVMA SffWOJJW vtd~Y: 1 L661 '2Z 'hew May 19, 1997 Mr. Grant Jacobson P.O, Box 541 Lakeville, MN 55044 RE: Dakota Mini Storage Dear Mr. Jacobson, We have. performed a preliminary review of the information submitted regarding the above referenced project. The information submitted is incomplete to perform a detailed engineering review. Following are conunents regarding what needs to be submitted along with some general conunents. 1. All hydrologic and hydraulic calculations for the site, the pond and the ditch need to be submitted prior to any further review. 2. The utilities will need to be shown more clearly on the plan with the necessary design information or a sepllrate plan for utilities should be submitted. 3. Flumes will not be allowed. Runoff from the site needs to be picked up in catch basins and conveyed to the pond through piping. 4. It will need to be shown how the storm sewer system for the site will be ultimately connected to the future proposed storm sewer. 5. The normal water elevation shown on the pond does not coincide with the outlet elevation. The pond will need to contain the 100 year storm with outflow only at the outlet of the pond. 6. The ditch will need to have a minimum capacity to take the 5 year storm event from the site and pond. Submit the calculation that shows what happens in the 100 year storm. Please include a profile of the ditch with stationing. 7.. Minimum grades across pavement and in the curb gutters need to be 0.5 %. eit~ o.t f},att.mingto.n 325 {!':ali St't.ect. ia"mingta.n, .H.\: 55('2+ · (612) 463-7111 · !l.a.-x (612) 463-2591 ~ . . . ." These comments are preliminary and a detailed engineering review will be performed when the requested information is submitted. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at 463-1601. Sincerely, ~'iY1~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer LMMIII cc: file . Lee Smick, City Planner John Erar, City Administrator Mark Peltier - -Xa-y~r5.-1997 1:38PM ROS]MOUN'r-EAG1W- -- No. 9290 P. I " . Th!3 puIpose of this letter is to inform the Farmington City COWlcil of the Planning Commission's ratiOl1ale for the proposed fence ordinance revision and to addreas the issues brought up by the City Council at its May S meeting. The PlmDiDg Commission recommends the proposed revision to the fence ordimuwe for the following reasons: · The members of the Plmming Commission shBre Il common vision for Farmington of, despite projected growth, maintaining a closer, "small town" community environment which values the more traditional community environment lltld fosters a sense of community among its residents. This vision is not constrained by the standards of other, surrounding commlUliues; rather we view distinctions as necessary to distinauish ourselves and attract future residents which share these values. . · Insofar AS the Planning Commission's mandate is to make recommendations to tho City Council which will benefit 'the entire community and not be influenced by political pressures, we believe the ordinance revisions previously submitted to the City Council "'i~ OIl ~ balanl>! ~ the ~ O(huIi~~ ) .-4IJt.. residents and an equitable, enforceable poli~~ntaUi~~s ... . ()..JJAY..~ Ci.~ safety _El r~~ BfBPl'JlliJ!Ji~b~~ There is nnmmow: agreement among mern. of the Planning Commission that to adopt m ordinance that is vague in interpretation, difficult to enforce and easy to deviate from will be virtually impOSSl"ble to administer :.. mul IlIeftla effective17 and equitably. . To address the specific iasuea brought up in the May 5th ~ Council meeting. -' n .,J<9 tf,X,1l,.0/) ~ lP->>~ ~ 1. The propoHd O.IIlOO was uilfaIi" to tidllllllli':'iit.e va evruW' loti 1tl nut hive the same advantages as mtenor lot on.rs. To mitf2ate the negative effects of a larger sctbadc on the BeCOnd side of the propmy, it has ~ the po. Hey Ofth,. ~. Plannine Commission for several years to require devel<>t,~ ~ ~,i!rto ac~$.. __0 f ~ when. dra~ dtvelopment platS. As a rt8U1t, tbt aVM'a2iA~ ~tSts 110 less t1wl those of interior lots nen With thl (JJd1ti()na/86tb(,j(]k l'iqiiit~ti1. With respect m the fence heiaht req~ It is appropriate to interpret property which faces a public street as bcfns ''fron~l~ 15 such, fences on these sideR should conform to standards consistent with 1IUIt interpretation. This interpretation enhances safety and contributes positively to the overall appearance of the commun.ity. M^- Allowing "privacy..type" fences on this portion of the property would give )W.overall . impression of I. ~ eel~. ". Y ~~:ft ... ~Y..friendly)c:ommum... 'ty." . ,", "" '., . . ---iJ-. 0.. L~.&. ~p4~~c Gv~~~ ~c~>--l., ...e;'v'\....,U v\..L~ ~ 2. Other communltlet hi the metro area aDow property ownen with corner lots to constrllct Its. foot ftnH5 lin the anal this ordlnanct woald prohibit). . . . . Ma~ I~ 1997 1:39PM ROSEMOUNT EAGAN No, ~Z9U P. Z BRIEF SUMMARy OF '!HE ORDINANCES OF SURROUNDINO COMMUNITI:ES: EAGAN, APPLE VALLEY, ROSEMOUNT, BURNSVILLE, LAKEVILLR) etc. (IF APPROPRlA TE. AND SUPPORTIVE Of THE POINT) That aside, it is not the: vision of the Planning Commission that Farmington adopt the policies and standm'ds of surrounding communities. We believe Fmninaton to be W1ique and its standards should reflect that uniqueneu by adopting those which foster a family-friendly, traditional sense of community. 3, No visual [lie] problem. were apparent at intersectioDs with sls toot high feiloos. This is subjective. There would inevitably be some effect on erecting higher fences closer to the street,. fUld there will always be disagreement as to the degree it affects safety. Regardless, safety would be improved if fences were required to comply with the proposed ordinance. GIven the additional benefits of this ordinance revi&iun, it would bet fooli~ to di~Ui1t it, ,"n. the adde4 safety aairhdoes not moot someone s arb1trary threshold. '~e..~ J.- 'iHt-b these reasons .~e phmn;r\g Commission believes its recotiimended changes to the fencing ordinance are t1pp~pI"iate aDd consistent with the overall Vision of how we ~wish!;~gton to evolve. We believe it hlcessary, R9t flair to be COfiSlstent in our vision,j\1.~ adopt standards that are understandable" *. 118iilmtl dF.rfoi.t~LiK.n, et!S)' to administer and entbrceable. We believe the recommendations provided by the Planning Commission accomplish these goals =do resubmit them for consideration by tlm City Council. Respectfully, Craig~htawin Chairman -t~~ Larson Karla Keagy Robert Schwing C. J. Simones _..._ S 0'10'4' I ,-;..;" 1315.65-- --- !"\ . ,~ ,....I 'f . ,-. ,..... L' t.' I , . ..J I' c( . --.. .::. ?J ;-: : ,.. ~.. ~ , ,'~ ~I """ i ; 1\.,;' &U4..,............\ItA. 'PI , ~ go. '\ . lL --..: .:~ ..J X:: ~ ~ ~. i: .."tt,.. ..' r<<r"'k~:\1 ~I . / ~:r.l:': ~g~ .; - - . .MM. . ," ;''i 1, ~ ~{ I i ~~ I i:-- 18 ~~ .-;. H .- s; ,I!>t ..1 . . , n-" ... , "1 ""... c., II I .) ~ ~ -.. .:t- ~ ;; ; t. , ! . 1 /'. 'I \ 01. I ; j '. " . \: LOT 8 " f~ojKtti.U.~; ;4-77500 ./ . ',r Ii~, i ~ /'/j) ~V~ ~- ,// L~1~. I ?-?1 . /~~ / ---/ ~~c__ $1 'V{,C~ . r {) r/n~ - ~/ft-ll rv1 . ~~, 7' L < S/n1~ .- f3.' 3S .