Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.10.95 Planning Packet l> . . . 1 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JANUARY 10, 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Continued Hearing - Vermillion River Housing 4. DISCUSSION a. Maximum Size of Accessory Buildings b. Revised Draft of Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendment c. Two Requests for Wholesale Business - Townsedge Center d. Request to Extend Kwik Trip Conditional Use Permit 5. ADJOURN , " . AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JANUARY 10, 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES - DECEMBER 13, 1994 3. PUBLIC HEARING a. Continued Hearing - Vermillion River Housing The Vermillion River Housing hearings were continued to await upon which the City Engineer could base his recommendations. in and five major issues came to the surface. engineering detail The material came The first involved the flood plain in at least two specific areas. The drawing appeared to indicate that the west building and/or the grading around it encroached upon the floodway. A more refined look suggests that this is not the case but, if indeed there is a problem, the west building can be moved by up to l5 feet to the east to eliminate the problem. The second area of flood plain involvement is that the access road is subject to flooding and will need to be raised by up to one foot to assure that residents will not be cut off in times when the Vermillion is outside of its banks. This can be accomplished without . affecting the capacity of the floodway to function properly. The second major issue involves the proposal to flood proof the basement of the buildings for additional off street parking. The concerns are essentially the safety of building residents and the need to equalize pressures inside and outside during a high water event. Among the items raised are the ability to readily get water into and out of the garage area; to keep all equipment and utilities out of the water; and to prepare an emergency parking plan to serve the residents during a flood. In essence, the approval of the development can only proceed subject to a positive Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) review of the project. The third issue includes utility planning. Initial plans indicated a shift of the sanitary sewer to serve the project onto the railroad right of way and an internal loop of the water main which did not include consistant sizing. It has been agreed that an 8" loop with 2" domestic and 6" firefighting lines to the main buildings will be adequate. The sanitary sewer line has been brought within the site. . The fourth issue includes some confusion about the extent of NURPing requirements for the project. Storm water this close to the river is a major concern since much of the site is either paved or covered with buildings. The developer's engineer has designed aNURP pond that will handle runoff from a 2 inch event, whereas, the City Engineer calls for at least a 2 l/2 inch rainfall capacity. The developer has accommodated this by enlarging the proposed NURP pond on the southeast corner of the site. A recommendation from the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, on the other hand, has recommended a NURPing capacity to handle a loa year storm, or roughly 6 inches of rainfall. . . . t, Planning Agenda Report - 1/10/95 - Page 2 The current plan shows a central panel of grass which will be raised approximately 3 feet to permanently store excess soil on site. In the meantime, the PCA has requested removal of landfill material such as decayed wood, garbage waste and construction material. There is a possibility that a grant can be secured to help pay for this removal. If so, the central panel in the site courtyard could be depressed two feet to serve as a pre-settling pond before the storm water goes to the NURP pond. The capacity of this additional area would go a long way toward responding to the SWCD recommendation for handling a lOO year event. The final issue involves site planning questions, including turning radii that will accommodate firefighting equipment, the relationship between this site and Farmington City Center, and the location of walks to extend Depot Parkway. So far, access to this site has been assumed to be provided by First Street. However, there currently are openings into the City Center parking lot which suggests the possibility of resident use of ~short cuts" to get into downtown. The plan needs some refinement to illustrate how the sites will be linked. If linkage takes place, it needs to be accomplished in a manner that will discourage through traffic. The Park Board would like both east/west and north/south trail links. The developer is willing to bring a trail north to the river to connect with a City installed pedestrian bridge, but is not willing to respond to the other request. This issue needs more study, particularly to determine if such a link would be of benefit to the overall trail system. The developer has already responded to the turning radii question. 4. DISCOSSION a. Maximum Size of Accessory Buildings Brian Harmelink has drafted the following as a proposed amendment to Section lO-4-l (L). 10-4-1 (L): In R-l, R-2 and R-4 Residential Districts, the total area utilized by detached private garages shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet. However, detached private garages of up to one thousand (lOOO) square feet may be approved through the conditional use process in the above specified residential districts where the lot size does not exceed forty thousand (40,OOO) square feet. Detached private garages of up to one thousand five hundred (l500) square feet may be approved through the conditional use process in the above specified residential districts where the lot size exceeds forty thousand (40,000) square feet. However, if a R-l, R-2 or R-4 residential lot exceeding forty thousand (40,000) files for subdivision below forty thousand (40,000) square feet, any private detached garage on that property must conform to the size requirements for the smaller lot before subdivision will be considered. All garages must comply with maximum percentage of lot coverage listed in Table l of Section lO-4-2. . . . ~ 'Planning Agenda Report - 1/10/95 - Page 3 For the sake of brevity, staff would suggest the deletion of the third sentence and adding the following to the second sentence: and up to one thousand five hundred (l500) square feet where the lot exceeds forty thousand (40,000) square feet. In addition, give some thought to the practical implementation of the fourth sentence. For example, there was some dismay registered by members of the Commission when it was suggested that the illegal 300 square foot Pluntz shed should be removed. b. Sign Ordinance Amendment In June of 1994, the Commission voted to recommend an amendment to the sign ordinance, which established an upper size limit of 450 square feet, that would accommodate the needs of multiple tenant buildings and shopping centers. The reasoning was based upon the experience of the signs at Benedict Plaza. This did not address any difference between centers that included pylon signs and those that did not. The experience of developing Farmington City Center has provided some guidelines as to what might be acceptable upper limits on sign size. For example, More 4 on the east side of the building includes 277 square feet of signs on its east face which measures 6069.9 square feet in area. The coverage amounts to 4.6% of the surface and looks about right for the building. This part of the center includes a proposed pylon sign that will have a surface area of either 50 or 75 square feet depending upon the speed that automobile traffic must observe. Therefore, the Option B for the B-2 District listed under Section 4-3-3 {B)2 would need a maximum size limit of at least 300 square feet rather than 75. The hardware store, on the other hand, uses l74 square feet on a building face of l547 square feet. The surface area covered equals 11.2% and would, therefore, need a maximum size limit of at least 200 square feet under Option A rather than the 100 square feet listed under B-2. As a practical matter, a strip center without a pylon sign likely should be allowed larger individual signs. The total square footage established by the developer of the City Center strip of stores actually will use 303 square feet. The staff suggests using some flexibility on the maximum for such signs to at least equalize the advantage offered by pylon signs. Pylons are particularly difficult for multi tenant buildings since only one business usually can take advantage of them. An example would be the advertising of Budget Mart in the former Benedict Plaza strip center. It is suggested then that the comparable maximum for the B-2 District under Option A should be at least 350 or 375 square feet but could be larger. A maximum size of 400 square feet is suggested as a starting point for discussion. '. . . . '. Planning Agenda Report - 1/10/95 '. Page 4 The two tables in Section 4-3-3{B) should be revised as follows: Option A - Wall Sign Only Basic Size Size Based on Building Face Maximum B-l B-2 B-3 I-l 12% l6% 18% 20% 300 400 400 500 Option B - Wall and pylon Signs Basic Size Size Based on Building Face Maximum B-l B-2 B-3 I-l lO% 14% 16% 18% 200 300 300 400 The following language is proposed as a replacement for Section 4-3-3 Bl (C): (C) For multiple occupancy buildings, each tenant may have one business sign. However, the design, color and typeface shall be regulated by a plan developed by the property owner and as approved by the Planning Commission. The following standards shall apply to said signs: l. Multiple occupancy buildings shall submit a sign plan which will coordinate signage for the entire project. 2. The plan shall address height, location, size, number type, decorative theme, design, color and materials to be used on the building. 3. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of a sign permit for the building. 4. The owner of the building is responsible to obtain the sign permit, prescribe to the approved sign criteria and insure that signs erected are in compliance with the approved sign plan. In addition, the following language is proposed as a replacement for Section 4-3-3 B2 (C): (C) For multiple occupancy buildings, a sign plan shall be prepared and approved with the same conditions as listed under Option A above. Y, ~~ ~ Planning Agenda Report - 1/10/95 - Page 5 \. . c. Two Wholesale Business Requests for Townsedge Center During the past week, two business operations requested permission to rent space in Townsedge Center. Because both were primarily wholesale operations, I suggested that both needed to be discussed by the Planning Commission. In the B- 1 District, wholesaling is listed as a conditional use which requires a public hearing, an abstractor's list, and a specific request for consideration. One business sells spices to restaurants and would also make them available to individuals who come to the store. The machinery includes a mixing machine and packaging equipment. The current operation is situated on Lake Street in Minneapolis. Presumably it would not be detrimental to this center if it were moved to Farmington. However, because the ordinance is quite specific, I suggested that both put together an explanation of their business activities. At the time of this report, neither has submitted any additional information, possibly out of frustration dealing with this system. The purpose of the B-l District is to provide convenient shopping for nearby residential development. At one time, the Center served that purpose. Today, the Center appears to be entirely different with a decided highway orientation. This could change again, possibly back to a retail orientation for the adjoining neighborhood once East Farmington begins to be developed. The question remains what will it serve in the meantime? . d. Request to Extend Kwik Trip Conditional Use Per.mit The attached letters from Kwik Trip and the City Administrator speak to Section 10-8-8 of the City Code and the need to follow up on the progress of approved conditional use applications in the year following their approval. One is a request for an extension of time to implement the motor fuel station; the second is the Zoning Officer's recommendation to extend. &~ If} fl,~ Charles Tooker City Planner cc: file .