Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 I 11 'I 1 f)!=; MINUTES JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL JANUARY 15, 1980 1. The meeting was held at 7:00 P.M. in the Conference Room, City Hall. This was a joint meeting of the two groups which had been announced by the Planning Commission at their meeting of December 18, 1979 and by the Council at their meeting of January 7, 1980. 2. The Dakota County Tribune carried at least one article stating the meeting would be held and the Dakota County Tribune was informed personally by phone that the meeting was to take place. 3. In attendance for the Council: Mayor Pat Akin; Councilmen Johnson, Kuchera, Orr and Whittier. In attendance for the Planning Commission: Chairman Hanson, Commissioners Carey, Feely, Gerten and Hoyer. Also present: City Administrator Ford and City Planner Charles Tooker. 4. The purpose of the meeting was related to the reVISions to the City Comprehen- sive Plan on which the Planning Commission has been working the past year. More specifically, to rate of growth on which a ten year capital improvement plan can be structured for inclusion in the revised comprehensive plan. 5. No members of the press or of the general public were in attendance. 6. The entire evening consisted of a lively, free and open exchange of views and opinions regarding virtually all aspects of City planning and future goals and objectives. ' 7. The following statements of policy were agreed upon: 1) The projected 10 year population growth rate for the City shall be targeted at an "optimum" of 6% annual average. 2) "Optimum" was defined as the point up to which municipal incentives would remain operative ,and after which they would be applied more selectively and sparingly. 3) A list of specific municipal tools expressed as council policy, intended to encourage desirable, reasonable, orderly growth, will be formerly adopted. 4) One of the tools will be the willingness of the city to use municipal bonds for assessable improvement projects within a set of guidelines that developers can rely on and that will assist the City in attaining its stated objectives. 5) The 'revised comprehensive plan will contain a section or statement which defines the city attitude, intentions and goals as they pertain to annexa- tion of abutting unincorporated territory. ~bm~~ William J. Fa;! . City Administrator APPROVED l\ \ APPROVED '---- . .-)! I '\ / ~ C '1/( I~o I WJF/kf 1~7 I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR FEBRUARY 19, 1980 I. The meeting was called Present: Chairman Hanson, Absent: Member Feely Also Present: City Planner to order by the Chairman at 7:30 P.M. Members Carey, Hoyer, Gerten Charles Tooker 2. Motion by Hoyer, second by Carey that the minutes of December 18, 1979 and January 15, 1980, be approved. APIF, motion carried. 3. The Commission reviewed applications for two special exceptions for home occupations, as follows: I) That of Ralph and Joan Leistiko, 504 Willow St., Mail Order Business, I-I Zoning District. 2) That of Gregory Thomas, 105 Elm Street, Antique Furniture Finishing business in garage, B-3 Zoning District. I The discussion that followed in regard to these two applications disclosed that both are legal continuing non-conforming uses, in that they are residences in a commercial or industrial zoning district, and that technically under the zoning ordinance home occupations would not be allowed. There was a concensus on the part of the Planning Commission that (a) these home occupations would be looked upon favorably if the ordinance permitted them and (b) a recommendation should be made to the Council that the ordinance be amended to permit them. Since the City Council was meeting in an ajoining room at this very time, word was sent to the Council recommending that a Public Hearing be set in this matter. Both applicants were told that they would be informed as to when and if the ordinance is amended permitting the Planning Commission to act favorably on their petitions. 4. In an informal advisory meeting with Mr. AI Conklin of Petrie Development Corporation, the Commission tended to look favorably upon his tenative proposed multiple housing for low income which would be located at the north west intersection of Division and Spruce Streets, immediately south of the medical clinic. Mr. Conklin explained that if he were to proceed with this project it would be based on a HFA, Section 8, Multiple Housing Grant Approval. He indicated that he would proceed further with his plans and come back to the Planning Commission when more specific information was ava~lable. \ I 5. The balance of the evening was devoted to a discussion with City Planner Charles Tooker concerning a possible check list of development incentives which had been presented to the commission and to the Counci I earlier as separate Schedule B, in a development study dated January 15, 1980. After a lengthy interchange of ideas the commission recommended the following numbered incentives be recommended to the Council: 3,4,5, 8,9, II, 12, 15, 18. The Commission further indicated that numbers 6 and 14 might be possibly recommended with additional explanation. The matter of developing guide lines for the triggering of assessible projects under 429 as a develop- ment incentive was deferred to the next meeting. 168 6. The commission further recommended the following practices or pro- cedures: I) A program of educating potential developers and the general public in the review and approval process of plats and developments. 2) Require preapplication meetings with staff prior to submittal to the Planning Commission of all plats and development plans. 3) Staff to provide information in writing to prospective developers concerning the zoning and subdivision and development requirements. 4) An expanded and more detailed administrative review of plats and development plans prior to submittal to the Planning Commission. 7. I twas dec i ded that the regu 1 a r meet i ng of Ma rch 18, 1980 be changed to March II, 1980 at 7:30 P.M. 8. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kenneth Hanson Chairman APPROVED: jilt! jtJ I I I 'h~' I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MARCH 18, 1980 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson, Members Gerten, Feely Absent: Members Carey, Hoyer Also Present: City Planner Charles Tooker, City Administrator Bill Ford. 2. Motion by Hoyer, second by Feely to approve the minutes of February 19, 1980. AP I F ,mot i o'n carried. I 3. The Chairman opened an informal advisory meeting with Mr. Bill Bissonett, a realtor, representing the owner of the Sayers property one-half mile west of 31 on Highway 50. Mr. Bissonett informed the Planning Commission that the land was owned by the St. Paul First National Bank, that it was presently zoned industrial and that he was curious in receiving suggestions or opinions from the Planning Commission as to how it best could be developed. It was brought out during the discussion that at one time in the recent past, an inquiry had been made regarding the converting of the zoning to residential and that the Planning Commission did not look favorably on that. It was the consensus of the commission that any reasonable, desirable development that would be consistent with the comprehensive plan, would be considered and that rezoning would not perse be excluded. 4. The Commission considered the request for a side lot set back variance from Mr. Bill Vetscher, for the construction of a swimming pool at 309 Walnut. In reviewing the request it was the consensus of the members that it did not meet the definition of hardship as used in the ordinance. The first inclination was to deny the request. However, since Mr. Vetscher was not in the audience to speak for himself they decided instead to defer the matter to the next meeting to allow an opportunity for Mr. Vetscher to appear before the commission. 5. The agenda item labled Jim Reisenger, Rezoning was taken up and set a- side, since Mr. Reisenger did not appear. 6. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the City respond to the Metropolitan Council requiring comments on the Lakeville Comprehensive Plan in a positive manner and that no adverse comments be recorded. 7. The commission then got into the review of the proposed final draft of the land use section of the comprehensive plan revision with City Planner Charles Tooker. The rest of the evening was devoted to this endeavor. Several comments were made and lengthy discussions ensued in which the City Planner was instructed to make certain changes. The City Administrator agreed to review the due date of the revised comprehensive plan with the City Planner and to submit to the Metropolitan Council a formal request for extension of time based on the projected call dates that could be worked out. I 8. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 10:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Wi II i am J. Ford City Administrator APPROVED: 4/t5 /to I I I 171 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR APR I L 15, 1980 I. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson, Members Carey, Feely, Gerten and Hoyer. Also Present: Charles Tooker ('n()J'c.h' ~ 2. Motion by Feely, second by Gerten that the minutes of ~ 18, 1980, be approved with the fo 11 ow i ng changes: In pa rag raph 2 change mot i on by Hoye r to read "Mot ion by Gerten". APIF, motion carried. 3. The Commission discussed in general the request of Mr. Bill Vetscher for a side lot set back variance request at 309 Walnut, at the conclusion of which Mr. Vetscher withdrew his request. 4. Motion by Feely, second by Gerten to set a Public Hearing for 7:30 P.M., May 5, 1980 in the matter of request for home occupation, Gregory Thomas, 105 Elm, furniture repair. APIF, motion carried. 5. Motion by Feely, second by Gerten to set a Public Hearing for 7:30 P.M., May 5, 1980 in the matter of request for home occupation, Ralph Leistiko, 540 Willow, mail order business. APIF, motion carried. 6. Motion by Hoyer, second by Carey to set a Public Hearing for 7:30 P.M., May 5, 1980 in the matter of request for height variance P. H. Feely & Sons, 420 2nd Street, grain leg construction. Voting for: Hanson; Carey, Gerten, Hoyer. Voting against: None. Abstaining, Feely. Motion carried. 7. The commission then discussed with the City Planner the transportation section of the comprehensive plan and revisions presently in the works. After discussing the transportation section the commission agreed that Mr. Tooker should put the comp- rehensive plan into final first draft condition, attach in a section of statute 429 incentives and other supplemental data and to prepare maps and overlays all of which would then be presented to the Council at their meeting of May 5, 1980. It was decided that the Administrator should be asked that this item be put on the Council agenda for approximately 8:30 P.M. which would then allow the Planning Commission to have its regular meeting prior to going into the council meeting. 8. The commission reviewed the Capital Improvement Plan section which had been submitted in conjunction with the comprehensive plan revision and it was the concensus of the commission that it be forwarded to the Council without recommendation or comment in that the fiscal decisions required therein is within the purview of the Counc i I on I y . 9. The commission took note of the fact that the City Council had set a Public Hearing to consider the amendment of the zoning ordinance in such a way as to permit exterior signs in conjunction with home occupations. Motion by Hanson, second by Carey that the Planning Commission be on record as recommending to the Council that such an ordinance amendment not be adopted. APIF, motion carried. 10. After a short discussion it was unanimous among the members of the Planning Commission of Farmington that members not be paid. II. Mr. Tooker informed the commission that in his best estimate it would cost another $3,000 - $5,000 to complete the work in conjunction with the comprehensive 172 plan revision and to guide i, t through f i. na 1 acceptance by the Metropolitan Council. I 12. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 9:15P.M. Respectfully submitted, . ~ ~~GI-~ ., 5 /5 /P() Wi II iam J. Ford I' APPROVED: City Administrator I I I I I 17~ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MAY 5, 1980 I. The meeting was, called to order by Chairman Hansen at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Hansen, Members Carey, Feely. Absent: Members Gerten, Hoyer 2. Motion by Carey, second by Feely to approve the minutes of April 15, 1980. APIF, motion carried. 3. The Chairman then opened three public hearings simultaneously, notice of which had all been published earlier. Taking first the request for a Home Occupation Special Exception by Gregory Thomas, for an antique furniture repair activity at 105 Elm Street. Motion by Feely second by Carey to grant the Home Occupation Special Exception. APIF, motion carried. 4. They then considered the request for Home Occupation Special Exception of Ralph Lerstiko, for a mail order business at 504 Willow. Motion by Carey, second by Feely that the special exception be granted. APIF, motion carried. 5. They then considered the request for a height variance by P. H. Feely & Son, for the construction of a grain leg at 420 - 2nd Street. Motion by Hanson second by Carey that the variance be granted. Voting for Hanson and Carey. Abstaining Feely. Absent: Gerten and Hoyer. Motion carried. 6. The commission then discussed with Mr. Dwight Tange, President of Towns Edge Plaza Townhouses, their request for side and rear lot set back minimum area lot size and minimum lot size variances to permit the construction of garages. Motion by Feely, second by Hanson that a public hearing in the matter be set for June 17, 1980. Voting for Feely and Hanson. Absent: Gerten and Hoyer. Abstaining Carey. Motion carried. 7. The Planning Commission then at 8:35 P.M. adjourned so that the members could move into the Council Meetin~ which was then in progress and at which time the City Planner would present the finished draft of the proposed amended City Comp- rehensive Plan. 8. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 8:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~Gr:./. ~ Wi II i am J. Ford City Administrator 0//7 /t6 APPROVED: WJ F /pp I I I \ \ I, MINUTES \PLANN I NG COMM I SS ION REGULAR JUNE 17, 1980 17,1 I. The meeting was called Present: Chairman Hanson, Absent: None to ord~r by Chairman Hanson at 7:30 P.M. Membert Carey, Feely, Gerten and Hoyer. I 2. Motion by Carey, second by Fe~ly that the minutes of May 5, 1980 meeting be approved. APIF, motion carried. The Commission called attention to a clerical error made in the minutes of Aprif 15, 1980. The date referred to in paragraph 2, should read "March" instead of "Apri 111. 3. The Cha i rman then opened the Plrev i ous I Y pub I i shed not i ce of pub I i c hea ring at 7:30 P.M. to consider the request pf Townsedge Plaza Townhouses for a variance for (a) side and rear lot set backifrom 61 to II, (b) minimum lot area of from 10,000 to 440 square feet, restricted to garage construction, and (c) zero lot set back as between garage lots. ~ppearing in the audience as interested residents, were Mr. Dick Godfrey, Ron Mickels$n, John Ristow. The request was presented by Mr. Dwight Tange, President of Tow~sedge Plaza Townhouse Property Owners Association, who was accompanied by his wife. Following a lengthy discussion the chair then called for a motion on the matter. Motion by Hoyer, second by Gerten that the requested variances hereby be gran~ed, subject to those conditions which shall be set forth in a companion agreement Iwhich shall be attached to and become part of this grant of variance. Voting fo~: Hoyer, Gerten, Hanson, Feely. Voting against: Carey. Motion carried. ' 4. The Commission then considered the request of Mr. Kenneth W. Rose for a home occupation at 610 Elm Street for the conduct of an upolstery activity. Motion by Feely, second by Carey to set a public hearing in the matter for 7:30 P.M. July 15, 1980. APIF, motion carried. 5. The Commission took note of the\fact that the City Council at a special meeting called for the purpose of receiving \final comments on the Proposed City Comprehensive Plan on June 30, 1980. 6. Motion by Hoyer, second by Gert~n that in the area of Townsedge Shopping Center and Townsedge Plaza Townhouses that I(a} a study be conducted to determine the need of additional fire hydrants, and (b) that the Townsedge Plaza Townhouse Property Owners Association be requested to pirovide, in the fence that they will erect, a removeable section or sections bet~een their property and the rear of the shopping center to be utilized for fire fight~ng purposes. APIF, motion carried. I 7. Mr. Dwight Tange, representing t~e Townsedge Plaza Townhouse Property Owners Association indicated that the above\resolution presented no problems. 8. The Planning Commission took the position of being in total disagreement with the recommendation and sentiments expressed by the HRA in their memo to the Council dated June 5, 1980. I 9. Motion made and seconded to adjou\rn at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ! ~jr..P~ Wi II i am J. Ford -, City Administrator APPROVED: 1/15 It; -1------- I --- I ,ryQ ; , I . MINUTES P~ANNING COMMISSION \ REGULAR \ JULY 15, 1980 I. The meeting was called Present: Chairman Hanson~ Absent: None Also Present: to order by Chairman Hanson at 7:30 P.M. Members Carey, Feely, Gerten and Hoyer City Admini\strator Bill Ford I 2. Motion by Gerten, seco~d by Feely to approve APIF, motion carried. the minutes of June 17, 1980. 3. The Chairman opened th~ Public Hearing, notice of which was previously published, to consider theiapplication for a home occupation of Mr. Ken Rose, 610 Elm Street, dealing with an upolstery repair activity. There being no objections from t~e audience, there was a motion by Feely, second by Gerten that the special !exception be approved. APIF, motion carried. 4. The request of Mr. Ste~en Krech for a side lot variance of from 61 to 21 at 308 - 7th Street, in \connection with the construction of a garage be deferred until the appl~cant could appear and provide addition information. I 5. Mr. Tom Taylor, Faribau!lt, representing PBG Enterprises appeared in an advisory meeting with the commission to discuss possible development of a parcel of land on the north, west corner of Division and Spruce, commonly referred to as the Feely prbperty. In general terms, Mr. Taylor inquired about the acceptability of ~ multiple dwelling special exception for any- where from 70 to 80 units of two story condominium plan structures, which would be privately financediand individually sold in a phased construction schedule. There was a cons$nsus among the members of the Commission that such land use for that parc~l would be in conformance with the intent of the zoning ordinance. I 6. The City Administrator Mad distributed a memo dated July 15, 1980 informing the Planning commJlssion of the interest expressed by many parties in the Feely property. The Administrator warned the Planning Commission of being caught in the unfa orable position of having to select the best of many qualified proposals.' The memorandum suggested that to avoid this situation that at any stage after the advisory meeting that the commission deal only with a proposal offered by a developer who can show proof of beneficial title or control pf the land and is therefore, capable of pro- ceeding with his proposal if, the necessary special exception and other approvals by the commission ~re granted. The commission agreed that this is the procedure that will bt followed. i 7. Mr. Harold Rice then app~ared before the commission in regard to his on going proposal to relocate his bowling lanes. This was not an agenda item, but a memorandum had been distributed earlier to the Planning Commission indicating that Mr. Rice woutd be in need of a new special exception granted to a new building next door to the bui lding which previously was under consideration. The new building would be a former factory building at 510 Willow Street. At this ~eeting, however, Mr. Rice informed the commission I 180 that the building at 510 Willow Street was not now under consideration, but that the new owner would be willing to build a new structure for the bowling lanes next door to the building at 510 Willow Street. Mr. Rice I was informed that before the Planning Commission could consider action to grant a special exception a satisfactory site plan would have to be presented which would clearly set forth in scale the boundary lines of the parcel, the existing structures, and the proposed structures. Mr. Rice agreed to have the individual who would be making the drawings contact the City Administrator the next day and meet with him to review the require- ments necessary for the Planning Commission to proceed. The Planning Commission also informed Mr. Rice, that upon completion and submission of the drawings the Planning Commission would act favorably upon a request for a special meeting. 8. The Planning Commission was interrupted by a severe storm, which in- cluded winds up to 80 and 85 miles per hour, during which the power in City Hall was completely knocked out and the auxilliary and flash lights were resorted to. 9. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~.~(;J!$;;sf William J. For~ - City Administrator APPROVED: t !t5 /!D I WJF/pp I I I I -------1------ I I \ \ \ MINUTES PL~NNING COMMISSION . REGULAR A~GUST 19, 1980 lRl I. The meeting was called to! order by the Chairman at 7:00 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson, Me~bers Carey, Gerten, Hoyer Absent: Member Feely I Also Present: Administrator ford 2. Motion by Carey, second by Gerten to approve the minutes as presented of July 15, 1980. APIF, motion ~arried. 3. The Commission was remind~d that starting approximately one year ago, Mr. Rice had embarked on a pr~posed plan by which he would move his bowling alley from its present locatiqn on Elm Street to the form Frederick Willys building located on 27 - 5th ~treet. They were further reminded that previously both the Planning Commission ~nd the City Council had taken certain conditional actions in this regard to impl\ement such a change, but that such a long time had now elapsed since those aqtions were taken that the whole process would have to be redone. The conditions of the actions previously taken required certain performance on the part of Mr. Rice, which he was unable to perform. Information was provided to the Commission that at the Council Meeting of August 18, 1980 the Council had agreed to set ~ Public Hearing for September 2, 1980, at which time they would consider amendling the Zoning Ordinance, which would allow a l'commercial recreation" land ube in the I-I district. Motion by Gerten, second by Carey that the Planning Co~ission hereby recommend to the Council that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to! provide for a I'commercial recreation" land use as a special exception in the I-I zoning district. APIF, motion carried. 4. Motion by Carey, second by Hoyer that a Public Hearing be set for 7:30 P.M., September 2, 1980 to con$ider the request of Harold Rice for a "commercial recreation" special exception In the I-I zoning district, at 27 - 5th Street, said hearing and consideration\to be contingent upon the Council having amended the zoning ordinance to provid~ for such a special exception. APIF, motion carried. i 5. The Commission then opened ,an advisory meeting with the Becker Brothers who appeared at an advisory me~ting to discuss with the Council the possibility of rezoning from R-l to R-3 a )3 acre parcel of land which they own east of Trunk Highway #3, presently unPllatted. Several matters were discussed in this regard back and forth between t\he owners and the Commission during which it was pointed out that two severe! problems which they may encounter would be surface drainage and sanitary s~wer. There appeared to be a consensus, however, among all concerned that whatev~r problems might exist for an R-3 zoning would also exist and more severely for an R-l zoning. The point was made by several persons that because of the economic situation, the housing market, and change in lifestyles that multiple dwe~lings were more prevalent and probably more marketable than single family d~ellings. There appeard to be a consensus on the Planning Commission that an!R-3 multiple dwelling zoning for that area would not be incompatible with the intent of the zoning ordinance, assuming of course, that an acceptable plan could b$ prepared and approved. Motion by Hoyer, second by Gerten that the PlannIng Commission recommend to the Council that this area be rezoned from R-l t~ R-3, multiple dwellings. APIF, motion carried. 1~2 6. The next item on the agenda was the appearance of Steven Krech, 308 - 7th Street, seeking a side lot set back variance. As a result of a discussion I with the Commission and suggested changes to which he agreed, it was found that a variance was not necessary. 7. Mr. and Mrs. James Reisinger then took part in an advisory meeting concerning their proposed development at the northwest corner of Spruce and Division Streets on what has commonly been referred to as the Feely Property. The two parcels involved amount to approximately 4i acres and it is their intention to pre- pare a plan for multiple dwellings and submit it to the Planning Commission. Such a plan would be the basis for the Planning Commission granting a special exception and he was told by the Planning Commission that they, in principle, felt that multiple dwellin~would be an appropriate use of the property and encouraged him to prepare and submit a satisfactory plan on which a special exception would be considered. 8. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~~I-..~ William J. Ford City Administrator APPROVED: ~q% I I I I I lR5 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL SEPTEMBER 2, 1980 I. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hanson at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chair an Hanson, Members Carey, Feely, Gerten, Hoyer Absent: None 2. Motion by G rten, second by Hoyer to approve the minutes of August 19, 1980 as present d. APIF, motion carried. 3. At 7:30 P.M. the Chairman opened the public hearing, notice of which had previously een published; in the matter of the request of Harold Rice for a Special Excep ion, Commercial Recreation, 27-5th Street. The Commission was informed th t earlier in the evening at a meeting of the Council, the Council had amended the zoning ordinance, which provided for a commercial recreation land use in the I-I zoning district as a special exception. Mr. Rice reviewed his proposal and special exception plan, including a site plan and drawing of the interior f the bui Idinlg which would include a bowling alley, food and liquor. An nalysis had b~en prepared and presented to the Commission by the City Adminstrator comparin~ the requirements of the various ordinance with the proposal and it was d~termined that no variances were required. The Commission did determine that the six foot set back for the front of the building was grandfathered in that the building was constructed long before the original zoning ordinance had been adopted. Motion by Carey, second by Gerten that the special exception be granted subject to publication of the amended ordinance. APIF, motion carried. 4. The Commission decided tha the regular meeting of September 16, 1980 would be held as scheduled and an open agenda prepared. 5. Motion made and seconded tG adjourn at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ./ ~~t:.I"~ ~~ J. Ford City Administrator q Illp /'/D APPROVED: I I I 1~7 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SEPTEMBER 16, 1980 I. The meeting was called to orper by the Chairman at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson, members Carey, Feely, Gerten and Hoyer Absent: None Also present: Administrator Ford 2. Motion by Carey, second by Feely t~ approve the minutes of September 2, 1980. APIF, motion carried. 3. The commission reviewed the request of Ken and Karen Fortm~n, 5775 Upper 182nd Street for a height varian~e under the zoning ordinance from 45 feet to 50 feet to erect an amateur radio anten~a. Motion by Gerten, second by Carey to set a Public Hearing in the matter of October 21, 1980, 7:30 P.M. APIF, motion carried. 4. An advisory meeting with the Planning Commission was conducted with Mr. and Mrs. o. T. Nordseth concernimg their proposed Riverside Addition. This was a proposed plat in the northeast qu~drant at the intersection of Trunk Highway 50 and Cou~ty Road 31 co~sisting of a total of 160 acres, a portion of which is located in Empire ToWnship. A preliminary drawing IMas presented to the Commission intended to co~vey to them the concept rather than to be interpreted as a firm preliminary plat. The drawing showed a ~rojected maximum number of units consisting of 536 dwellings included within 134 qu~d homes. The drawing also indicated the incorporation of approximately 69 acres of open space and into 91 acres of develQped are~. Throughout the informal discussion the following points were made: I) The presentation was made 'at an advisory meeting at which the Planning Commission took a broad viiew of the proposal and confined itself to conceptual factors only. 2) The multiple dwelling land use for that area presently zoned R-l, is consi5tent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. 3) The proximity of municipal sewer and water apparently means it can be easily served, subject to an engineering feasibility. 4) The proposal could be accqmmodated under existing ordinanr-es by: (a) planned unlt dpvelopment (b) rezoning to R-3, multiple, or (c) special exceptions. 5) The proposal is consistent with thp current City Comrrehensive Plan and the plan as revised and also meets the criteria of the Metropolitan Co'!ncil for orderly development bv expandin~ existing municipal services. 6) A preliminary opinion is th~t improvements could be installed under Chapter 429 without assessing property outside the plat. 7) The normal plat review rr~cedure will have to be interrupted in this case diverted to the Coundl I to obtain a reply to the developer's reql!est for a committment bf municipally - bon~ed improvements, which is essential to the development. 188 8) If such a committment is obtained the normal process of plat review can be resumed with the Planning Commission. Motion by Hoyer, second by Gerten that the Planning Commi~sion looks favor~bly upon the Riversine Development in concept, that the develo~er be encouraged to prepare a preliminary plat and that the City Council consider committment to the developer to instal! municipal services as assessible projects with whatever contingencies the Council deems rtppropriate. APIF, motion carried. I 5. The Commission discussed with City Planner Charles Tooker his memorandum dated August 26, 1980 dealing with the newly inacted Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Act and its effect on the City of Farmington, in particularly, on the recently revised Comprehensive Plan for Farmington. It was decirled that no action be trtken at this time, but that Planner Tooker inve~tigate the al- ternatives available to the City when he meets in a staff review with the Metropolitan Council to review the revised Comprehensive Plan which has been ~ubmitted to the Metropolitan Council. 6. The Commission reviewed with Mr. Brian Christensen, Soil and Water Conser- vation District Representative his offer to assist the City in the plat review process by agreeing to comment at no cost to the City on plats as they pertain to soil erosion, storm water management, and other items. Mr. Christensen indicated that this review which he is offering could be done withi~ the Planning Commis~ions normal time table and would involve a five step process: a) Introduction to land conditions. b) Rev!ew existing conditions. c) Critique of proposed plat d) Methods of overcoming site limitations e) Recommendations for overcoming environmental impacts. Motion by Hoyer, second by Carey that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council the execution of an agreement between the City and the Soil and Water Conservation District for the renderin~ of ~uch services in the plat review process. I 7. Motion by Hoyer, second by Carey th~t the bill from Ch~rlps Tooker in the amount of $150 be approved. APIF, motion carried. 8. Motion made and seconded to adjourn ~t 9~40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~L%zI Wi II i am J. Ford -, , City Administrator APPROVED: 16 h./f'tO & I I I J 'I R9 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR OCTOBER 21, 1980 I. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson, members Carey, Gertent Hoyer Absent: Member Feely Also present: City Planner Tooker 2. Motion by Hoyer, second by Carey that the minutes of September 16, 1980 be approved. APIF, motion carried. 3. The Chairman opened the public hearing as previously published to consider the granting of a variance at 5775 Upper 182nd Street to resident Mr. Ken Fortman for a height variance of from 45 feet to 59 feet to permit the erec- tion of a ham radio tower. It had earlier been determined that the proposed antenna did not require a special license under Title 4, Chapter 4 of the Uni- form Code, entitled Electromagnetic Antennas and Towers. The Commission studied the various drawings, the application form and the building permit application. Motion by Hoyer, second by Gerten that the variance hereby be granted. APIF, mot i on ca r r i ed. 4. Mr. Marv Alexander and Mr. Dick Hunter presented to the Commission their petition for rezoning from B-3 to R-3, lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 6 of original Town. This property is located at the southeast corner of Spruce and First Street. The Commission also reviewed a memorandum written to them by the City Administrator informing them that the subject property was located in the HRA Redevelopment area and that the HRA approval would be required in addition to whatever action the Planning Commission and the City Council might take. The Commission, in general, had serious misgivings about rezoning this property, but took no action pending receipt of comments from the HRA to which this matter was now referred. 5. The next agenda item dealt with correspondence which had been received from the Metropolitan Staff concerning a preliminary review of the City's amended Comprehensive Plan. The comments were extensive, precise and to some extent, critical. It pointed out several deficiencies and made several recom- mendations for change. The gist of the discussion between the Commission and Mr. Tooker emphasized two points: I) To reduce the detail and specificity in the plan and make it more general, and 2) to replace the narrative format and style with specific sections with subheadings and table of contents. 6. The Commission set a special meeting of the Planning Commission for November II, 1980 at 7:30 P. M. with the first item on the agenda to be a review of the revisions made by Mr. Tooker. It was the Commissions intent that this special meeting be in lieu of the regular meeting normally held on the third Tuesday of the month. 7. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~-;1:~/f%;;/ City Administrator WJF/pp APPROVED: illJs/to I I I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL NOVEMBER II, 1980 I. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson, Members Carey, Gerten, Hoyer Absent: Feely Also Present: City Administrator Ford and City Planner Tooker 2. The first agenda item was a discussion with the City Planner regarding the City Comprehensive Plan presently under revision which has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council and abutting jurisdictions. The discussion centered around three main considerations, (A) rewriting of the comprehensive plan, (B) guidelines for amending the plan now in preparation by the Metropolitan Council and (C) an agricultural land preserve program. (A) REWRITING OF THE COMP PLAN The Commission was informed that following submittal of our plan to the Metropolitan Counci I the City had received an informal staff review which disclosed several inadequacies in the plan as to form and content, as a result of a discussion on this matter the Commission instructed the City Planner to rewrite the plan by incorporating the following ins truct ions: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Replace the narrative style with a more terse, factual presentation. Eliminate or reduce sharply the amount of detail, particularly when it involves phased development. Divide the plan into separate sections and use headings and sub- headings. Number the pages and provide an index. Include additional maps, charts and graphs. Retain the "neighborhoods'l concept by distinguish that from develop- ment area. Express the philosphy that it is the City's intent to reach a ba1ance between prediction of the future and control of the future. Include a section of surface drainage. Show that some building wi II be allowed in non-platted areas, but no platting wi II be permitted where municipal services are not avai lable. Eliminate the detailed sequence of development in those areas capable of being served and instead, estimate the maximum units per year within a categorical type of land whereever located. 10) (B) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT GUIDELINES The Administrator informed the Commission that he had attended the meeting in Eagan some time ago in which approximately eight municipalities had met to discuss the proposed guidelines now being formulated by the Metropolitan Council which would define an amendment under the statutes. Th~ Proposals being considered by the Metropolitan Council were con- tained in three alternatives. The first alternative would be a strict and literal interpretation of the law and would define an amendment as any change whatsoever to the Comp Plan. Amendment number 3 would be a moderate interpretation of the law and would define an amendment I "only those major changes which dealt with those elements which were . included in the systems statement, i.e. transporation, sewers, parks, airports." The Administrator informed the Commission that it was the concensus of the representatives of those communities in attendance at the meeting that if the Metropolitan staff position prevailed, the amendment process would be so unwieldily, so complex and so time consuming as to make it literally unworkable. The Commission reviewed a copy of a letter sent by the City of Rosemount to the Metropolitan Council dated October 23, 1980, which stated that the City of Rosemount would withhold submitting their comprehensive plan until such time as the guidelines for amending the plan had been established. It was the feeling of this Planning Commission that the form and content of the Comprehensive Plan would necessarily be dictated to some extent, at least, by the difficulty in amending the plan and, therefore, were recommending to the City Council that the City of Farmington adopt the position of the City of Rosemount, in that it withdraws it1s plan previously submitted to the Metropolitan Council and decides not to submit a plan for review until such time as the guidelines for amendment procedure have been established. (c) AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVE PROGRAM After a thorough discussion of this subject it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they recommend to the City Counci I that the City not participate in the Agricultural Land Preserve Program and I that no provisions for such a program be made in the Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: 1) That the plan was designed essentially for, and applied comfortably to, townships which are composed essentially of large parcels and are subject to little or no development. That land participating in the Ag Preserve Program could never be assessed for ~ sewer and water improvement. That the discretion of the City to distinguish selectively and geographically among like parcels as to eligibility, is certainly open to question and undoubtly subject to judicial challenge. That a provision inadvertently left out of the present bill which most certainly will be added in the next legislature would allow any property owner who is presently on Green Acres and participates in the Ag Preserve Program would be forgiven the normal three year pay back for current special assessments, having the tendency to to create serious shortfalls in the various effected funds. 2) 3) 4) 3. Mr. Matt Fischer appeared before the Planning Commission at an advisory meeting to discuss the possible development of land owned south of 50 and east of Highway 3, consisting of approximately 16 acres of land. It was pointed out that earlier the plans and specifications to bring sewer and water across highway 3 to that property ~ad been approved by the City Council and would un- doubtedly need updating. The entire parcel is presently zoned B-2, downtown retail business. Mr. Fischer explained that their present thinking was to provide I for B-2 type commercial development adjacent to Highway 3, but to the east of that utilize the land for some type of multiple dwelling. He explained to the Planning Commission that he was uncertain at this time whether to request rezoning or permission to proceed Lfhderua'planned urrh d~ve~hopltrent approach. It was the consensus.of the Planning Commission that his intended use of the land was consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance, that they would look favorably upon a reasonable proposal and that they would be willing to explore either the rezoning or the planned unit development procedure, I I I 193 4. Mr. Donald Gamer, 601 Walnut, appeared to request a corner side-lot set back variance of from 20 feet to 16 feet. Motion by Gerten, second by Carey that a public hearing be set in the matter for 7:30 P.M., November 25, 1980 or as soon thereafter as possible. APIF, motion carried. 5. At the Planning Commission meeting of October 21, 1980 Mr. Marv Alexander and Mr. Dick Hunter presented to the Planning Commission a petition for rezoning which they asked that the Planning Commission recommend favorably to the Council. The petition asked that lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 6 Original Tow~ be rezoned from the current B-3 to an R-3. The Chairman stated that the Commission now having had a chance to review this petition and to visit the property should now be prepared to render its decision. Motion by Gerten, second by Carey that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the above petition for rezoning be denied and that the current zoning remain in effect. APIF, motion carri ed. 6. The Planning Commission set a special meeting for 7:30 P.M., November 25, 1980. 7. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~GI-~ William J. Ford ~ City Administrator APPROVED: 105 /~ WJF /pp I I I 195 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL NOVEMBER 25, 1980 I. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson, members Carey and Gerten Absent: Members Feely and Hoyer Also Present: City Planner Tooker 2. Motion by Carey, second by Gerten that the minutes of October 21, 1980 and November II, 1980 be approved as presented. APIF, motion carried. 3. The commission discussed the request for variance by Donald Gamer, 601 Walnut Street. At the meeting of November II, 1980 a public hearing was set in this matter for November 25, 1980. This date did not leave enough time for the 10- day publ ication and a memo informing the commission of that problem dated November 13, 1980, suggested that the public hearing be set for the special meeting that was scheduled for December 9, 1980 and this was agreed to. Motion by Carey, second by Gerten that the previously scheduled public hearing be held on December 9th with official publication to state that date and the applicant so notified. APIF, motion carried. 4. It was the decision of the Planning Commission that the special meeting of December 9, 1980 replace the normal regular meeting scheduled for December 16, 1980. 5. The Commission then took up a matter which had earlier been addressed by the Commission in which Matt Fischer was requesting a favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission for rezoning of certain land east of Trunk Highway 3 and south of 50. The total area in the parcel consists of approximately 15. I acres of which the approximate 2.7 acres fronting on Highway 3 would remain in the B-2 zone and the approximate 12.4 acres is requested to be rezoned from B-2 to R-3. Motion by Carey, second by Gerten that the Planning Commission recommend to the Counci 1 that the above request for rezoning be granted. APIF, motion ca r r i ed. 6. Motion by Carey, second by Gerten that the special exception granted to Mr. and Mrs. James Reisinger on November 20, 1979 for the addition of another shop located at 20251 Akin Road West hereby be extended for one year with the expiration date to be November 20, 1981. APIF, motion carried. 7. The Commission approved the payment of a bill in the amount of $570 to Charles Tooker, City Planner. 8. The Commission requested and the City Planner agreed, to furnish projected expenditures for work remaining in the revision of the City Comprehensive Plan. 9. Motion by Gerten, second by Carey that the Planning Commission is in agree- ment with the suggested change in the subdivision ordinance which would bring all divisions or land splits under the jurisdiction of the ordinance. APIF, motion carried. 10. The balance of the evening was devoted to reviewing and discussion with the City Planner the rewritten land use portion of the comprehensive plan revision. t 1)6 l,~) :) 11. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Wi 11 jam J. Ford City Administrator APPROVED: I 1:1/9 #0 I I I I I 197 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL DECEMBER 9, 1980 I. Present: Members Carey, Gerten, Hoyer Absent: Member Feely Also Present: Administrator Ford The Chairman was delayed due to automobile trouble. 2. Motion by Gerten, second by Carey that Mr. Al Hoyer be appointed as temporary Chairman. APIF, motion carried. 3. Chairman Hoyer opened the meeting at 7:40 P.M. at which time he also opened the public hearing scheduled in the matter of the request for corner side lot variance from Mr. Donald Gamer at 601 Walnut, for from 20' to 161. The dis- cussion among the members disclosed that Mr. Gamer had violated the set back ordinance and that the structure was now substantially completed. They determined that to require him to remove the structure would be too harsh a remedy and they further determined that his violation of the ordinance was inadvertent and the result of an honest error. Motion by Gerten, second by Carey that the side lot set variance be granted. Chairman Hanson arrived at this point in the meeting and assumed the chair. APIF, motion carried. 4. Motion by Carey, second by Gerten that the minutes of November 25, 1980 be approved. APIF, motion carried. 5. The Commission then reviewed and considered at the same time a request for review of replat and for rezoning of portions of Block 2, Fairhills subdivision. Mr. Felix Tillges appeared as agent for the fee owner, Mr. James Seed. Mr. Tillges was requesting that Block 2 be rezoned from R-l to R-3, which would abutt and be contiguous to other land already zoned R-3 within the plat. He was also requesting approval of replatting of Block 2, which would reduce the total number of lots, but increase their average size to facilitate R-3 develop- ment. A lengthy discussion between the members of the commission and Mr. Tillges followed. Motion by Hoyer, second by Carey that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the petition to rezone and to replat be approved. APIF, motion carried. 6. During the review of Mr. Ti Ilges proposed replat and rezoning the Commission discussed several matters of the actual development which brought out what the commission saw as a need for a change in the subdivision ordinance. Mr. Tillges stated that on these particular lots in question, there was a problem with a rapid drop off of elevation from the street to the rear of the lot and although the lots were platted with far more than the necessary minimum area it might, in certain cases, be necessary to set the house farther forward on the lot in some cases as close as 20 feet which would not now be allowed in view of the 30 foot front yard set back. Motion by Gerten, second by Carey to recommend to the Counci I that the subdivision ordinance be amended to permit the Council, upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve during the plat review process for an entire plat or several lots within a plat a front yard set back building line of 20 feet rather than 30 feet. APIF, motion carried. 19B 7. The Commission then reviewed again the proposed revisions to the City I Comprehensive Plan and issued to Hr. Tooker, who was not present, the following . instructions: That he furnish to the City Administrators office no later than Thursday, January 15, 1981 for distribution to the Planning Commission prior to their meeting of Tuesday, January 20, 1981 six copies of the revised and re- written City Comprehensive Plan in its entirety between two covers, completely tabbed and indexed, including all charts, drafts, drawings and tables and in- cluding all changes called for by the Planning Commission and by the Metropolitan staff today. 8. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~(;/-~ Wi II i am J . Ford I" City Administrator APPROVED: {tin I I