Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.13.97 Planning Packet ....._-'-.~~. - ... ~ ~ tIS C 'tl -r! ~. III e tV 0 .s:::u .u tn .s:: ~ ..u -n -r'! ~ ~ ~ nl 'tlr-i iV t:l< 'tl ;:1 H r-i nl Or-i c: ~ -r'! tn tV OJ l-l .0 .u o X ..u Q) ~ OJ e Q) -r'! .s:: .u .u I:lr-i -n -,.j .u 'tl I:l iV ;:1 .u Q)'tl r-i Q) o-r-i e.o o nl o .u .u Q) 0.0 I:l ~. :3:..c: m 'tl I:lr-i N nl N :> o r-i \-l 'r'! 0- \-l 0- o-rd .:( \-l ~ -,.j o Q) .s:: m E-t Q) .u I . Etntn .r'! ~ ~ e -,.j -,.j r-i.u Q) -,.j Q) .s:: rd Q) E-t E E . '\ ~, \ AGENDA PLANNI~G COMMISSION Regular l\lo\ Y 13, 1997 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE MINUTES a) April 8, 1997 (Regular) b) April 22, 1997 (Special) 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) East Farmington 3rd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat (continued) b) Conditional Use Permit for South Suburban Medical Facility(continued) c) Dakota Mini-Storage (continued) 4. Discussion a) Riverside Estates 2nd Addition b) Variance for lot coverage - 911 Honeysuckle Lane - James Purdy c) Revision to Fence Ordinance d) Development Approval Process 5. ADJOURN -- . . . ... .-\GE:\D.-\ PLANl\I:\G COMMISSION Regular :\1.-\ Y 13. 1997 1. CALL TO ORDER J APPROVE MINUTES a) April 8, 1997 (Regular) b) April 22, 1997 (Special) 3. PUBLIC HEARI~GS a) East Farmington 3rd Addition PreliminQl:v and Final Plat (continued) East Farmington 3rd Addition consists of 80 single-family lots and the overall area for the plat consists of approximately 36 acres. The platted outlots have been reduced since the April 22nd meeting due to the recent sale of outlot N. The site is located to the north and east of East Farmington 1 st Addition. The deyeloper recently submitted this plat in January showing 145 single-family lots with lot sizes varying from 5,300 to 8,750 square feet and lot widths from 53 to 75 feet. ho\veyer. because of density issues, the plat has been resubmitted to show lot sizes varying from 6.000 to 8,000 square feet and lot widths between 60 and 80 feet. The resubmitted lat tollows the typIcal block and lot layouts found in ast armington 1 st and 2nd Additions. South Subur an MedIca enter is lOcated to the west of-the proposed plat and the Prairie Waterway is located to the east. T~e City engineeri~g sta~f has reviewed the reyised Plat. an~ has resolved all major issues iJ. WIth the developers engmeer. /1 II t;.'.lj' I L,:; l<i'.d tl' JtL i/I O~ N-1 to 1::J.6ftA./,) At the April 22nd meeting, the Planning Commission stated that the plat should be ~.IIlYC.e..-/ identified as Park Place, as noted at pre\Oious Commission meetings. The staff has researched the plat name with the deyeloper and discovered that the Park Place name is a marketing tool developed by real estate dewlopers selling home lots. Dakota County has been questioned concerning the name change. and it \vas determined that a plat in Rosemount already possesses the name "Park Place". From this information. the developer will continue to plat the property with the name "East Farmington". The preliminary and final plat fees haye been paid. '" ~ dl4 '1 ......, ;' .Y") ,J J Recommendation Forward a recommendation of approyal for the ]"reliminary and final plat of East . Farmington 3rd Addition to the City Council. b) Conditional Use Permit/or Sourh Suburban Medical Faciliry (continued) South Suburban Medical Center is seeking a Conditional Use pern1it for their site located at 3410 2l3th Street West. This is a continued hearing from the April 22nd Planning Commission meeting. The conditional use pennit seeks to allow a medical clinic \vithin an existing R-l zone. The proposal is to construct a 12.464 square foot building at the south end of the existing medical center to proyide for doctor's oHices and a 1.224 square foot pharmacy. The use should be viewed as to \\'hether a medical clinic should be allowed within an existing R-l zone. Factors to consider is \vhether the medical clinic expansion is compatible \vith the surrounding residential area and \\'hether the clinic can exist cohesively within the area. A number of issues \\'ere discussed at the April 22nd meeting concerning the possible extension of the new street from Elm Street to Oak Street. A transportation engineer will be on hand at the May 13th meeting to answer any questions concerning the extension, ho\veyer. the conditional use permit should be the main topic of focus on whether a medical clinic should be allowed in an existing R-l zone. The Executive Director of South Suburban ~ledical Center has consented to abide by the list of requirements drafted by staff in the report of April 22nd and the revisions will be sho\\'TI on the building permit plans. . Recommendation Approve the conditional use permit for the expansion to South Suburban Medical Center. c) Dakota lvfini-Storage (continued) Requested information concerning the Dakota :.1ini-Storage project was not received in time to conduct a thorough reyiew of the plan by the engineering department. The owner is requesting a continuance of the public hearing. 4. Discussion A.Vrl a) Riverside Estates 2nd Addition sktrch Plcm, JIll I +j lIt~' ~ f5lJU""' 'e /tJ--' The project proposes 55 townhome units on a 12.82 acre site creating a uniu'acre density of 4.3 in an existing R-3 zone':'Riverside Estates 2nd addition is located to the east of the proposed 208th Street extensi\ n. The proposed project is surrounded on the north by vacant land located in Empire fownship, the south by Farmington :vliddle School. the east by the CP Railroad. and the \vest by the Riyerside single-family home subdivision, The site plan consists of a loop road at 24 feet in width and provides two cul-de-sac roads . ., . . . ; well under the maximum length of 500 line3J feet. The site plan also provides for a holding pond at the southeast comer of the site. The flood fringe is located at the southeast comer of the site. An initial review of the project by the engineering staff verified that the tlood fringe limit was at the 901 contour line and that no building pads \vere to be constructed below this elevation. Within the flood fringe zone (F-2), no placement offill over 1.000 cubic yards may be located within the tlood fringe zone without a conditional use permit. Therefore. the developer would have to follow these guidelines for the excavation of the pond soil. The engineering staff is also reviewing the proposed 208th Street extension with Dakota County to determine the exact location of the roadway. Preliminary elevations for the to\\nhomes illustrate an aluminum finish. The Farmington park trail system is located to the east of the railroad and eventually turns to\\-ard the south side of the proposed parcel along Farmington Middle School property. The design layout illustrates a separate driveway located for each unit. Curved driveways are not recommended because of the difficulty to back out of the space. The units located directly to the north of the shorter cul-de-sac area should be relocated because of the traffic problems associated with backing onto the cul-de-sac roadway and the location of the driveways at the curve on the loop road\vay. b) 'Variance for lot coverage - 911 Honeysuckle Lane - James Purdy 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 01'9.312 square feet and the house, Porch and lZaralZe consists of 3.004 square feet. ~vlr. Purdv has alZreed to init~' allv build the , '. . .~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ e: I..V . (1,-<-- ,4R-C.-LLA<~~ house \vithout the attached three seasons porch. He would like to ~fel"e a ariancet'or-- the lot coverage so he may construct the three seasons porch at a later time. c) Revision to Fence Ordinance The City Council returned the fence ordinance to the Planning Commission for further review at their Mav 5th meetinlZ. Reasons cited for further review included 1) the proposed ordinanc~ was unfair ;0 citizens living on comer lots t~~ot have the same advantages as interior lot owners, 2) other communities in the metro area allow property o\mers with comer lots to construct six foot fences. and 3) no visual problems were apparent at intersections with six foot high fences. The City Council would like the Planning Commission to review and revise the fence ordinance as quickly as possible to eliminate any delays in approving the ordinance during the prime building season. . . . . d) Development Approval Process The City Council has reviewed the recent now chart process presented at the April 22nd Planning Commission meeting. The City Council has approved the process. A minor change since the Planning Commission's review of the chart, shows that the public hearing for a preliminary plat will be held at the Planning Commission level only. State law requires only one public hearing either at the Planning Commission or the City Council level. Staff has recommended that the Planning Commission provide the public hearing because the Planning Commission's duties as a planning entity and because any problems with a project should be reviewed and resolved at the Planning Commission level before sending the project to the City Council. The /low chart and corresponding information is attached at the end of this statT report. 5. AD.JOlJRN . . . . . roads. Smick said that she will forward those comments to the City Attorney and solicit any further recommendations from Mr. Granis. Concerns were brought up by Schlawin about the storm water management of the project. Smick stated that the City Engineer. Lee Mann, is working with the developer on ponding, outlet and drainage issues. MOTION by Larson. second by Schwing to continue the public hearing on the Dakota Mini Storage. 5. The public hearing for the amendment to the height regulations ordinance for Air Lake Airport was opened by the Chair. Smick stated that the proposed ordinance was satisfying the Metropolitan Councils requirement for a process of notification within the height regulations ordinance for the airport. Smick stated that an addition to the amendment would also include a reference to Section 10-6-20 (F) stating the requirement for height requirements for towers. Smick stated that this was part of the requirements for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the MET Council. MOTION by Larson. second by Schlawin to close the public hearing. APIF. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Schwing to forward the amendment to the City CounciL second by Simones. APIF. :\IOTION CARRIED. 6. Discussion on the fencing requirement for the Budget Mart. located on Hwy. 3. west of East Farmington, was started with Planner Smick stating that the owner/manager, Mike Wheelock, will be installing a 6 foot wooden fence between the subject property and the adjacent residential development along the property lot line. Smick stated that there was a problem with a stand of trees located behind the car wash. Smick stated that the adjacent land owner. Rod Hardy would not allow the trees A (\ ~ to be cut down to allow for the construction of the fence. Schl~in stated that there was ~J.P- no specific path that the fence line had to follow but was concerned with the setback of ~ . ,,"" ~~ the fence. Schlawin went on to state that the fence was a pan of the conditional use for II ~c.; the car wash and did not need a variance. A consensus was given from the Planning Commission for the fence. 7. Discussion was opened with the Commission concerning the Special Hearing set for April 22, 1997. T.he Commission discussed \vith the Planning Coordinator the items being proposed for the meeting. 8. Motion by Larson, second by Schwig to adjourn at 9:30 P.M. APIF. :\IOTION CARRIED. Submitted by Lee Smick, Planning Coordinator Approved 1 7~ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY . I hereby certify that this is a correct repr~tation of 0 :survey of: Lot 13. Slock 2. REl-I.(AC ADDITION. Dakota County. Uinn~ta. according to the recorded plot thereof. And that this :survey and certificate wos prepared by r:;e or 'under my direct :supervision end thot I om a duly licensed land surve)<lf under the lows of the Stote of l.4innesota. sc::au N ~ o 20 ~ I eo ~~/ :;[~'"".--/,~--' (;en/! L Jacob . I.4N Lie. No. 7734 Doted thi~ 31 ~ Day of January. 1997 10 XI . 6= 78038' 30. L=32.06 .J-ANE WE<::- ~I 70.00 20 '1) , , \J ;J' , 'l '-, " '" '" l(') l(') {~ c5 13 ~f~ 2 2' I; w fl II~ _~ c.:: ,.., Ilj ~ -1 C Z ./6 ~I t WEST j 98.58 ) 1. 9'~rl 4' HiGH-- ~ 0 CHAiN liNK I \ 1'"';" I L- FENCE L.V ., co CO Q!. (\j CO I I--!:! I . , a _"'1 -< I' ,...J .... 01\. ~ I--.. , < -< I' \ .....J .... n ;/ , '" :RA WN: S'W!.. )ATE: 1-31-97 REV1SED: SCALE: 1 . = 30' JACOBSON ENGINEERS . SURVEYORS P.O. BOX 541 LJ.i<E\1lLE. MN 55044 612-469-4328 9EAR1NGS A?E: ,-SSUMED DATUM I PRC~: o - DENOTES IRON MONUMENT I F.B.: 97010.21 1 41 - 77 ~REPARED . ~OR: MR. JIM F'_~OY 8 HICKORY STREET FARMINGTON, MN 55024 . . . PRO P 0 SED CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE Amending Title 10, Chapter 6, Section 15 - Fences THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMI~GTCN HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I: Title 10, C~apcer 6, Section lS - Fences - shall be amended by adding (";-derlined) and deleting (otruc]c) as follows: 10-6-15: Fences: Fences shall ~e pe~"~c~ed in all yards subjecc to the following: A) Fences in residential districts may be located on any lot line to a height of four feet (4') except that a fence ~p to six feet (6') in height may be erected on the side and rear lot li~e behind the nearest front corner of the principal building. B) Fences on corner lots may be located c~ the lot line abutting both streets and shall be cQnstructed to a maximum re'ght of four feet (4') in both required front yards as required by Section "O-4-1(A). C) Should the fence be located between principal buildings with varying setbacks on adjacent lots, a fence up to six feet (6') in height may not extend beyond the average set~ack of the two (2) buildings. ~) FenceD conotruc~cd ~ithin the builci~blc ~rcao of any lot may be ~p =0 eight :cct (8') in height. D) Should t~e rear lot line of a lot be common with the side lot of an abutting lot, t~at portion of the rear lot line equal to the required front yard of the abut~i~g lot shall not be fenced to a height of more than four feet (4'). E) A variance is required for fences c~er ~iX feet (6') and up to eight ~eet (8') 'n height ~hen constructed ~ithin -~Q buildable areas of lots in residential districts. F) Fences located within commercial ana i~dustrial districts may be located on any lot line up to a heightcf eig~~ :eet (8') except in the required front yard. G) A site plan or legal survey with ~~Q :ccation of the ~roposed fence shall be submitted to the Building I~~pect'c~ ~"'!ision for approval for ail :ences over ~our feet (~') in height. ~~ appl"~a="cn :cr a building perm~t "5 rQqu~red :or all fences exceeding six :eet ~,. "~ ~eight. . . . H) :ences in all districts. exce~t agr"c~l~~ral. shall ce censtructed of materials widely acce~ted i~ t~e fe~c~~q 'ndustrv. No olywood boards canvas, ~lastic sheeting, metal sheeting or cimilar material shall be used for any fence construction. I) All fences shall be maintained in ceed ~cndit'cn and ve~tical ~osition. and any missing or deteric~ated wood sla~s. ;ickets, cthe~ fencing material. or structural elements shall be ~eplacQd "n a timely manner with thQ same ~~ality of material and workmanshi~. SECTION II: After adoption, signing and attestation, this ordinance shall be published one time in t~e official publication of the City and shall be in effect on and after the day following such publication. CITY OF FAR~lINGTON DEVELOPl\lE~TPPROVAL PROCESS . 1. Initial meeting with staff to detennine project & possible Issues * Denotes meeting date ') Submit ~plan & corresponding infonnation 3. Review by development comminee & staff - Review proposal at Planning Commission meeting ~. Developer submits preliminary plat to Planning & Engineering staff with comments addressed and all required infpnnation along with payment of fees - 60 day time limit begins 1 5. ?'-:otice for Public Hearing is published 10 days p~icir to Planning Commission hearing . 6. Planning Commission date for preliminary plat review , Public Hearing for preliminary plat with all issues resolved. 1 recommends plat be 7. Planning staff prepares report sent to City Council / for City Council concerning review of preliminary plat at City 1 I Council 8. Preliminary Plat is reviewed by City Council - 9. Developer prepares final plat Upon approval. resolution for ' ! and submits to Planning preliminary plat is adopted ! Coordinator along with payment I of fees I 1 11. Final Plat is reviewed by ] O. Planning Commission City Council - Upon approval. . reviews final plat and sends resolution provides for recommendations to acceptance of all agreements for City Council improvements. public dedication and other requirements indicated .l. by City Council 12. Developer's Agreement is drafted by CDPlanning 13. Developer' s Agreement is & Engineering statI , included on consent agenda and approved by City Council upon 1 approval of developer 1~. Developer provides all 1 I 15. Final Plat is signed by required fees. final plat I \layor and Chair of Planning documents and signs. I 1- Commission and released to developer's agreement I developer for recording along ! . - . with certIfied Developer s Agreement J~t ~r; '()..JJ~' I " fJ .rv {, 1J . j I~ o~ . Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 . Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 . CITY OF FAR'lL\GTON DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS An initial meeting lrith staff to determine project requirements and possible issues. This meeting serves as a mechanism for the developer to become aware of City development ordinances and standards. Staff also prepares development approval schedule. discusses checklist and informs developer of associated fees involved in development process. Submit sketch plan and corresponding il~formQ[ion. The Developer submits the Sketch Plan to the Planning Coordinator along \vith other pertinent information. Review by Development Committee and City Staff - Review proposal at Planning Commission meeting. Planner reviews the proposal with the Development Committee. City Staff and Planning Commission to provide all groups the opportunity to become familiar \vith the project prior to formal action or public hearing. It gives the developer the chance to receive feedback prior to the expense of detailed plan preparation on projects that may need substantial revision before formal approval is given. Meeting 1 - Sketch Plan is reviewed at PlanniDg Commission meeting. Developer submits preliminary plat to Planning and Engineering staff ll'ith comments addressed and all required information along with payment of fees - 60 day time limit begins. The developer shall submit a) an application for preliminary plat. b) fifteen (15) copies of the plat. c) five (5) copies of support documents. d) an abstractor's list of property owners living within three hundred fifty feet (350'). and e) filing fees and surety as specified in the City's annual fee schedule. All of this inr rmation must be included in the submission in order for the Planning Commission to act upon the preliminary plat. Major engineering and planning issues must also be addressed before the preliminary plat is approved at the Planning Commission level and sent to the City Council for review. The 60 day time limit for reviewing and approving the preliminary plat begins when all of the above information along with engineering and planning issues are addressed. .votice of Public Hearing is published 1 f) days prior to Planning Commission hearing date for preliminary plat review. Notice of public hearing is mailed to properties on abstractor's list and affidavit of mailed notice is fiiJ. Planning staffnotities affected agencies. jurisdictions and utilities and requests C' ,iments concerning preliminarY plat. Planning Commission Public Hearing/or preliminary plat with all issues resolred. recommends plat be sent to C. COllncil. Planning Commission does not approve preliminary plat until all information is submitted and all issues are addressed. If approved. Planning Commission recommends plat be sent to City Council. . . . Meeting 2 - Preliminary Plat is re\'iewed at Planning Commission Public Hearing. Step 7 Planning staffprepares reportfor City Council concerning re\'iew of preliminw:v plat at City Council. Step 8 Preliminary plat is reviewed by City C olmcil - Cpon approml, resolution for preliminary plat is adopted. City Council reyiews preliminary plat and adopts resolution for preliminary plat upon approyal. :\1eetiDg 3 - Preliminary Plat is re\'iewed at City Council meeting. Step 9 Developer prepares final plat and submits to Planning Coordinator along with payment offees. The developer submits a final plat of any portion that was not recorded by providing t\velve (12) copies of the final plat and two (2) copies of all final engineering drawings. Planning and Engineering staff reyiews and prepares agenda report materials on the plat. Step 10 Planning Commission re\'iewsfinal plat and sends recommendations to City Council. Planning Commission reviews plat and fO!lxards recommendation to the City Council. Meeting 4 - FiDal Plat is reviewed at Planning Commission meeting. Step 11 Final plat is reviewed by City C ounci/ - L /Jon approval, resolution provides for acceptance of all agreements for improvements, public dedication and other requirements indicated by City Council. City Council adopts resolution approving and authorizing signing of plat contingent upon preparation of developer's agreement. Meeting 5 - Final Plat is reviewed at City Council meeting. Step 12 Developer 's Agreement is drafted by Community Development/Planning and Engineering staff Developer prepares cost estimates for required developer improvements and City Engineer prepares financial guarantees for developer's agreement. After preparation of agreement. staff forwards draft developer's agreement to City Attorney for approval. After approval by City Attorney, staff forwards draft to developer for review, comment and, if necessary, to arrange for a meeting to work out unresolved issues. Step 13 Developer's Agreement is included on COIL. if agenda and approved b,v Ci(V Council upon apprm'al of developer. Deyeloper" s Agreement is reviewed and upon approyal of developer. City Council approyes Developer's Agreement. Meeting 6 - Developer's Agreement is reviewed at City Council meeting. . . . Step 14 Dereloper pro rides all required/ees. .tincd plaT documenTs and signs clcrclope,.'s agreement. Developer provides all required fees. final plat documents, including one full size and one 8 1/1" x 11" mylar of final plat, and signs dewloper's agreement. Three copies of agreement are required to be submitted to City. Step 15 Final plat is signed b:v jlayor and Chair afPlanning Commission and released {o developer for recording along l\'iTh cerrified Dereloper '.'I Agreement.