Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 I I I 1.0Q ,.~) iJ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JANUARY 20, 1981 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson, Members Gerten, Feely and Hoyer Absent: Member Carey Also Present: City Administrator Ford 2. Motion by Gerten, second by Feely to approve the minutes of December 9, 1981 as presented. APIF, motion carried. 3. The Commission proceeded with a second advisory meeting with Mr. and Mrs. O. T. Nordseth and Mr. Charles Tooker their planner, Thore Me'yer'and Bob Roh'lin, engineers representing the Nordseth's. Many general features of the proposed plat were discussed, including: 1) Consider a technical amendment to the zoning ordinance which would provide for zero lot set back for both duplexes and multiple dwellings in condominized structures using the same density figures presently in the ordinance; 2) donation of parkland, 3) distribution of sewer and water; 4) timing of annexatio~ ; 5) provision for an arterial right-of-way as shown in the comprehensive plan. Motion by Hoyer, second by Gerten that no right-of-way for an arterial roadway be provided within this plat. Voting for: Hoyer, Gerten, Feely. Abstained: Hanson. Absent: Carey. Motion carried. 4. The Planning Commission Members and the developer both expressed satisfaction with the resolution of inten4 which had been adopted by the City Council in regard to this development. 5. Motion by Hoyer, second by Feely that the regular meeting of February 17, 1981, will be replaced by a special meeting on February 24, 1981. APIF, motion carried. 6. Motion by Gerten, second by Feely to set a special meeting for February 10, 1981. Voting for Gerten, Feely, Hoyer. Abstained: anson. Absent: Carey. Mo t i on ca r r i e d . 7. The primary purpose for the special meeting of Fe ruary 10, 1981 was to accommo- date the construction and public improvement on sched Ie distributed by the City Administrator as it relates to the Nordseth's Develop ent. 8. (Commissioner Feely excused at 9;00 P.M.) 9. The Commission asked the City Administrator to re Iy in memo form to the HRA regarding their invitation to meet jointly with the Planning Commission in February. The reply should state that the Planning Commission i anxious to meet with the HRA and looks forward to such a meeting, but requests that it be deferred to the regular Planning Commission Meeting in March due to t e work load with which the Planning Commission is faced during the month of Febr ary. '~lVPj'sld.e meeting of F W-i-l-+5 RCJ31at previously a 10. The Commission agreed that at their review the comments received on the ~. to several organizations and individuals the Council concerning those comments. bruary 10, 1981 they would 3\\1\~\ wh i ch had been d is t r i buted ~1J- d make recommendations to 200 11. The Commission examined the final draft of the rewritten revised City Comp- rehensive Plan and decided to withhold their final recommendation to the Council I until the meeting of February 10, 1981, after which it is expected the final guide- lines as prepared by the Metropolitan Council governing the Comprehensive Plan amendment procedure should have been received. 12. Motion made and seconded to adjourn. at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~tN...~~ Wi II i am J. Ford -, . City Administrator APPROVED: ~/6/!1 WJF/pp I I I I I ?01 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL FEBRUARY 10, 1981 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman. Present: Chairman Hanson, Members Gerten, Hoyer and Ryan Absent: Member Carey Newly appointed Commissioner Tom Ryan was sworn in by the Administrator. 2. Motion by Gerten, second by Hoyer to approve the minutes of January 20, 1981 as submitted. APIF, motion carried. 3. The Commission then reviewed the preliminary plat and supporting data for Riverside Addition. Representing the developer, who was also present, was Charles Tooker and representatives from the engineering firm of Meyer-Rohlin, Inc. A review of the information presented resulted in the following conclusions: 1) That overall average density is 3.5 units per acre. 2) That outlots would be platted for either future subdivision and development or for drainage. 3) Soil boring tests showed the water table to be between 2 and 4 feet at three test boring sites. 4) There were two surface drainage exits for the whole subdivision. One located through the center of the designated park area into the Vermillion River and another at the eastern edge of the subdivision draining into the railroad right-of-way. 5) At the 100 year flood level it could be reasonably assumed that water would be backed up on to the subdivision streets for a period of time, but at no time would the water level reach the buildings within the plat, and further, that the water standing on the streets for a period of time would not be unusually deleterious to the street conditions. 6) All drainage ways would be platted in such a way as to remain the property of the association, rather than publicly owned. 7) The streets, curb, sewer and water lines would be publicly owned and part of the municipal system. 8) Comments on the plat had been received back from the Dakota County Soil District Office, the Farmington Water Commission and the General Services Superintendent, all of which presented no problem according to the City Engineer. No comment had been received back from the county. 9) The subdivision would be served by a sanitary sewer line eight inches in diameter, an average of .4 fall. Questions yet to be answered are: 1) The engineer must determine what other properties, if any, would be served by the services installed within this plat, and 2) What easements or rights of access must be obtained. It was the general concensus of the Commission that the proposed subdivision can be served and that a recommendation be made to the Council favoring approval of the plat. f) ( \ f) ,uV~ 4. The item on the agenda dealing with the review of the City Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Councils Comprehensive Plan Amendment Guidelines was deferred because the City had been informed that the guidelines would not formally be I adopted by the Metropolitan Council until February 26, 1981. 5. The Commission reviewed the staff recommendations concerning amendments to the City Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance. Although no specific recommendations were made there appeared to be no serious objections to the recommendations. 6. The Commission then reviewed the request by Mr. Clyde Thompson to locate a convenience store on land owned by Alice Harris, which is immediately north of and adjacent to 18061 Pilot Knob Road on a plat of land the northern boundary of which would also be the northern boundary of the City of Farmington. During the discussion it was pointed out that this land was presently zoned R-A, which would not allow for a special exception for commercial use. There were misgivings on the part of at least some of the Commissioners to rezone a one to two acre parcel in that it might be interpreted as spot zoning. This matter was carried over to the meeting of February 24, 1981. 7. The Chairman announced that the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for February 17, 1981, will be held on February 24, 1981 instead. 8. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, a.;,.~~/$;:tf William J. Ford r City Administrator APPROVED: 43 t/frJ I WJF/pp I I I I ?n~ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL FEBRUARY 24, 1981 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:30 P. M. Present: Chairman Hanson, Members Carey, Gerten, Hoyer and Ryan Absent: None Also Present: City Administrator Ford 2. Motion by Hoyer, second by Gerten to approve the minutes of February 10, 1981. APIF, motion carried. 3. The Commission resumed their discussion carried over from the previous meeting with Mr. Clyde Thompson regarding his proposal to construct a convenience store on the west side of County State Aid Highway 31, immediately south of Farmington's north border. He proposed an area of approximately 1.3 acres with a frontage of 190 feet on which would be constructed a convenience retail grocery store and a limited number of gasoline pumps. The following facts were deter- mined from the ensuing discussion: a) The land is presently zoned R-A, residential agricultural, which would not allow such a land use either as a permitted use or as a special exception. b) The Comprehensive Plan, presently under review by the City, suggests and area of approximately 5 acres to be zoned for this type of land use, east of 31 and somewhat south of the area now under consideration. c) That once the Comprehensive Plan is adopted and we get into the imple- mentation phase the zoning ordinance might very wel I be amended to provide for a separate zoning district to cover, highly localized~confined convenience retail outlets. Motion by Gerten, second by Hoyer that the Planning Commission determine that the proposed development by Mr. Thompson, be found to be incompatible and incon- sistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and with current zoning ordinances. APIF, motion carried. 4. The Commission then took up the on-going review of the proposed Riverside Plat. This matter had been before the Planning Commission for some time and the Commissioners had had copies of the preliminary plat in their possession for approximately 2 1/2 weeks. Also, the plat had been distributed to various individuals and agencies requesting comment. Motion by Hoyer, second by Gerten that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the proposed plat of Riverside Addition be approved with the following stipulations: a) That arrangements be made for dedication for a street easement which connects the plat to County Road 31 over Northern Natural Gas property. b) That drainage ways through the plat be owned by the association with a public drainage easement" in favor of the City. c) Storm drainage easements should be distinquished from sanitary sewer and water easements. Take special note in outlot' and H. d) Easements must be granted by the City across its own park land, if the the park land is acquired prior to the final filing of the plat and if the park land is not acquired prior to the final filing of the plat, easements should be shown on the plat. There should be adequate municipal or utility easements at the boundaries of all lots. 204 e) Arrangements must be made with the Chicago, Milwaukee, Pacific and St. I Paul Railroad where the surface drainage outfalls from the plat along the railroad right-of-way and thence southerly to the Vermillion River. f) An easement should be provided for the extention of the water line northeasterly at Block 5, Lots 19 and 22. g) All outlots shown on the plat must meet the minimum areas in the zoning ordinance. h) All utilities are required to be underground. All voted in favor but Commissioner Hanson. He stated that he was in favor of the plat but that his no vote registered his disagreement in that the plat does not provide a right-of-way for a future arterial road. Motion carried. 5. Motion by Hoyer, second by Gerten recommending to the Council that the request to rezone the land in question presently in Farmington and that land to be annexed from R-1 to R-3. APIF, motion carried. 6. Motion by Hoyer, second by Gerten recommending to the Council to approve annexation of the lands so requested. APIF, motion carried. 7. Motion by Gerten, second by Carey that the Commission recommend to the Council that the improvements be constructed within the proposed plat under Chapter 429 as specially assessable improvements. APIF, motion carried. 8. Mr. Carey asked that another vote be taken on the motion to approve the plat. A new vote was taken as follows: Voting in favor: Hoyer, Gerten, Ryan. Voting no: Hanson and Carey. Commissioner Carey at that point joined with Mr. Hanson i~ I his disclaimer. Motion carried. 9. The Commission then studied the recommended changes to the zoning ordinance as presented in a memorandum from the City Administrator dated February 9, 1981. Motion by Ryan, second by Gerten that Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 1, be amended as proposed. APIF, motion carried. 10. Motion by Hoyer, second by Carey that Title 10, Chapter 8, Section 3 be amended as proposed. APIF, motion carried. 11. Motion by Carey, second by Hoyer that Title 10, Chapter 8, Section 4 be amended as proposed. APIF, motion carried. 12. Motion by Gerten, second by Ryan that Title 10, Chapter 8, Section 2 be amended as proposed with the following change: That language be inserted which allows for and requires uniformity of set back where there are exisfting buildings within the lot. Voting for: Carey, Gerten, Hoyer and Ryan. Voting against: Hanson. 13. Motion by Gerten, second by Ryan that Title 10, Chapter 8, Section 6 be approved as proposed. APIF, motion carried. 14. Motion by Carey, second by Hoyer that Title 10, Chapter 8, Section 7 be amended as proposed. APIF, motion carried. I 15. Motion by Gerten, second by Hoyer that Title 10, Chapter 8, Section 8 be ammended as proposed with the following changes: That 10..8-8(b), 'itlefinitions" be moved to and incorporated in Title 10, Chapter I, Section 3, which is the I I I ?,Ofl section containing definitions for the entire zoning ordinance and that Section 2(d) be changed to read "Unit extend to the property line". APIF, motion carried. 16. Motion by Gerten, second by Hoyer that Title 10, Chapter 10, Section 5 be ammended as proposed. APIF, motion carried. 17. The Commission then reviewed the suggested amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance as recommended in a memorandum from the City Administrator dated February 9, 1981. Motion by Carey, second by Hanson to amend Title 11, Chapter 4, Section 5 as proposed. APIF, motion carried. 18. Motion by Carey, second by Gerten to amend Title 11, Chapter 4, Section 6 as proposed. APIF, motion carried. 19. It was determined that no amendment to Title 11, Chapter 5, Section 6 was now needed because of the previous recommended change in Title 10, Chapter 8, Section 2. 20. Motion by Carey, second by Ryan that the copies of the County Comprehensive Plan be given to_ the City Planner and reviewed and his comments to be submitted to the Planning Commission at their March meeting. APIF, motion carried. 21. The Commission decided to defer a final review of the City Comprehensive Plan to the meeting of March 17, 1981, by which time the final guideline procedures should have been adopted by the Metropolitan Council. 22. The City Planner was requested to prepare and submit to the Commission a work progress schedule, a time schedule and a budget projection for the imple- mentation phase of the revision of the Comprehensive Plan. 23. Motion by Hoyer, second by Ryan that the bills be approved as presented. APIF, motion carried. 24. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, " .d---/J ~~JT'~GJi~ Wi II i am J. For7 City Administrator APPROVED: 3/11/t; WJF/pp I I I ~()7 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MARCH 17, 1981 1. The meeti g was called to order by the Chairman at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson~ Members Carey, Gerten, Hoyer Absent: Memb r Ryan Also Present: Administrator Ford, Planner Tooker 2. This was joint meeting held with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to discuss ma ters of mutual concern. 3. Motion by Hoyer, second by Carey that the minutes of January 20, 1981, with a correction in paragraph 10, by changing the words in the second line "Fair Hills Rep I at'l to "R i vers i de Add i t i on". AP IF, mot i on carri ed. 4. Motion by Hoyer, second by Carey to approve the minutes of February 24, 1981, as presente~. APIF, motion carried. 5. Member n arrived at 8:15 P.M. 6. Motion by Hoyer, second by Gerten that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Coun il that the Comprehensive Plan be approved. APIF, motion carried. 7. The balan e of the meeting was devoted to topics of general interest to both the Planning ommission and the HRA. 8. Motion ma e and seconded to adjourn at 9:30 P.M. ubmitted, 'd ~~$;&f Wi II i am J. Fo -, City Administ ator Respectfully ~ WJF/kf APPROVED 5 ~9 iiI I ~Oq I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MARCH 31, 1981 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 5:00 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson, Members Gerten, Carey, Hoyer, & Ryan Absent: None Also Present: Administrator Ford 2. The Chairman stated for the record that mailed notice of this special meeting had been made timely to the members. 3. The purpose of the meeting was to receive an advisory meeting inquiry, from Henry Brobach, as to whether or not a stngle family dwelling plat consisting of approximately 15 acres of land east of CSAH 31 and north of 190th Street would be appropriate and desirable. The Commission members discussed the proposition, looked at various maps and drawings, and determined that the land is zoned R-l, Suburban Residential, and that a plat of that type would be consistent with the zoning ordinance. 4. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 5:35 P.M. I Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Wi II iam J. Ford {l City Administrator APPROVED: s //1 Ih . WJF/sz I ?11 I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR APRIL 21, 1981 NOTE: THIS MEETING WAS CANCELLED BY MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE MEMBERS BECAUSE NO BUSINESS WAS BEFORE THE COMMISSION. A REPRESENTATIVE WAS PRESENT AT THE DOOR OF CITY HALL AND A NOTICE OF CANCELLATION WAS POSTED ON THE FRONT DOOR OF CITY HALL. END OF MINUTES. Respectfully submitted, ~.I..~ Wi Iliam J. Ford ~ City Administrator APPROVED: I WJF/sz I I I I "13 MINUTES FARMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MAY 19, 198 1 1. Meeting called to order by Chairman Hanson at 7:35 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson and Members Gerten and Ryan Absent: Members Carey and Hoyer Also Present: Planner Tooker 2. Motion by Ryan, second by Gerten to approve the minutes of March 17,31, and April 21,1981. APIF, motion carried. 3. Ann Hopkins, Dakota County Highway Engineers Office, was present to discuss apparent discrepancies between the Farmington Transportattons plan, and current proposals of Dakota County. She stated that County Road 70 on the east side of Lakeville was drawn to precipitate discussions by local units of government. A long range connection indicated between MinnReg Road and County 66 east of Farmington was included to suggest the need at some time for an east-west link in this part of the County. She suggested that the most effective way to tie down future alignments is for the community to request the County Board to establish specific alignments by resolution. 4. Motion by Gerten, second by Ryan that while the City has gone on record in terms of demanding dedication of a new north-south alignment for Pilot Knob Road when farm land is being divided, and east-west arterial route may actually be more important. The Farmington Planning Commission, now therefore, recommends that the City Counci I adopt a resolution asking the County Highway Department to place a high priority on establishing a specific east-west alignment through Farmington. APIF, motion carried. 5. The request for a blanket special exception for single family dwellings in the R-3 zoning district does not appear to be necessary since single family dwellings are permitted uses within the R-3 district. 6. The procedural amendments to the platting ordinance were deferred for more specific information. However, Commission member Ryan requested that whatever changes are made to the zoning map regarding intensity of use, i.e. low density to high density residential, - emphasize public partici- pation particularly through the use of advance advertising of the required public hearings. 7. Dwight A. Tange, Townsedge Association, requested that the Planning Commission review the revised parking plan for the condominium plan, particularly with respect to garage placement and the elimination of individual parcels for each garage. Following a lengthy discussion it was decided that the Planning Commission would request an interpretation from the City Attorney to assure that the ownership plan proposed in the revised documents will protect the City from the sale of garages by future owners of the units, leaving a parking problem both within the property and upon city streets. The Planning Commission further requests that the City Engineer review the developers grading plan to assure that the surface water on the proposed site of the garages will be carried off the property. 8. Bill Carey arrived and Ken Gerten was excused at 8:25 P.M. ')1 ,II ./ <,..~ ....-1.-'" 9. Dwight A. Tange, Townsedge Townhouse Association, agreed to leave copies of the by-laws, covenants and articles to be reviewed by the City Attorney. Following this review and the involvement of its City Engineer the Planning Commission will again take up the matter of the revised condominium plan. I 10. The area of 1-1 zoning north of Spruce Street plus the area of B-3 zoning adjoining the railroad across from downtown Farmington should be the subject of a staff study to bring into focus a community policy on interim uses in areas of transition from residential to commercial- industrial activity particularly in view of the need to adopt a revised community comprehensive plan within the current year. 11. Motion by Carey, second by Ryan to recommend payment of bill from C. Tooker. APIF, motion carried. 12. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Charles Tooker Planner APPROVED: /, /, {p Iii CT/sz I I ~1~ I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL JUNE 2, 1981 1. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hanson at 5:00 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson and Members Hoyer and Gerten Absent: Members Carey and Ryan Also Present: Administrator Ford 2. The Chairman took note that notice of the special meeting was mailed to all members on May 28, 1981. 3. Representatives of the Townsedge Townhouse Association appeared to renew a request they had made at the meeting of May 19, 1981. They were asking that the Commission modify the terms and conditions of a variance they were granted on June 17, 1980 which allowed for the construction of 16 residential double garages on Parcel Outlot A, Townsedge Replat. Motion by Gerten, second by Hoyer that the terms and conditions of the above variance be modified as follows: I 1. That the construction of garage No.9 (see attached drawing) is optional at the discretion of the Association. If not built now, a new building permit will have to be obtained under the modified variance and wi II have to tie into and match the others, if bui It later. 2. The stipulation that the land be used only for the construction of residential garages and the garages be accessory to the townhouses be made a condition of the granting of the variance and the actual mechanics of accomplishing same be left to the Association. 3. No structure shall be placed any closer than 10 feet to the north property line and the existing grade in that area not be raised. 4. That a copy of the drainage plan showing existing and finished grades be furnished to the City as a matter of information. 5. That the time limit effective with the original variance be renewed. 4. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 5:30 P.M. I Respectfully submitted, ~~Yel-~ Wi II iam J. Ford ~." City Administrator APPROVED: 1f'JI AI WJF/sz 217 I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JUNE 16, 1981 1. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson, Members Carey, Gerten, and Ryan Absent: Member Hoyer Also Present: Administrator Ford 2. Motion by Carey, second by Gerten to approve the minutes of May 19, 1981 ~s presented. APIF, motion carried. 3. The minutes of June 2, 1981 were deferred. 4. The Council deferred payment of a bill from Charles Tooker in the amount of $100.00 and requested additional detailed information from Mr. Tooker. I 5. The Commission discussed a special meeting held on June 2, 1981 which had been called by the Chairman specifically to deal with the request of modification to a variance for Townsedge Townhouse Association, Inc. It appeared that although the normal procedure for mailed notices of special hearing was followed in this case that the mailing did not get out to the members. The Commission discussed this problem at length. Two specific decisions emanated from that discussion: 1) that henceforth it will be the policy of the Planning Commission that all special meetings of the Planning Commission shall be only upon mailed notice at least three working days prior to the meeting itself. 2) that the Administrator should contact the Water Board and determine the status of the installation of additional hydrants in the Shopping Center area and inform the Planning Commission. 6. Motion by Gerten, second by Carey to grant an administrative blanket special exception to all single family lots previously platted in Westview Acres Third Addition which had been for single family dwellings which had been platted prior to the amendment of the ordinance which now requires a special exception for a single family dwelling in an R-3 zoning district. APIF, motion carried. 7. The Planning Commission reaffirmed their adamant position taken on the City's population projections contained within the Comprehensive Plan, and reaffirmed their support to the Administrator in his dealings with the Metropolitan Council in the review of the Comprehensive Plan. I 8. The Commission again instructed staff to immediately begin a study concerning the appropriateness of the current zoning of the area in the downtown Farmington business district immediately west of the Railroad tracks, and report their findings and recommendations to the Planning Commission. 9. Motion made and seconded to ~pe ful1.y sUb~mi ~ /1 ?a~ ~~ I I I i am J. Ford City Administriior adjourn at 9:15 P.M. 1/ {)-I hi APPROVED: ~lq I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JULY 21, 1981 1. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson, Members Carey, Gerten, Hoyer, Ryan Absent: None Also Present: Administrator Ford, Planner Tooker 2. Motion by Hoyer, second by Gerten that the minutes of June 2, 1981 be approved as presented. APIF, motion carried. 3. Motion by Gerten, second by Hanson that the minutes of June 16, 1981 be approved as presented. APIF, motion carried. I 4. The ftrst item on the agenda was an advisory meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Jim Reisinger, who were seeking a special exception for multiple dwellings on a development in the northwest quadrant of Spruce and Division. The type of development contemplated would be 80 units of market rate condominiums in two separate buildings on a parcel of ground - approximately 4t acres. The units would be 1 and 2 bedroom accomodations and would provide for 160 parking spots; one half of which would be an underground garage - the maximum height on one elevation would be 45 feet and on the other, 35 feet. The units would contain both elevators and stair towers. Although this was not a public hearing, the Commission allowed comments, questions, and statements from the large audience in attendance, which touched on the following points: 1. the effect on vehicular traffic 2. the effect on off-street parking 3. adequacy of municipal sewer service 4. on-site recreation facilities 5. average persons per unit 6. comments from Park & Recreation Advisory Commission 7. location of Vermillion River 8. site grading required 9. location of parking lots 10. architectural features such as stairwells, balconies, roof profile, maximum height 11. sale price range of the units 12. effect on surrounding property values Motion by Gerten, second by Hoyer that the Planning Commission determine that multiple dwelling is an appropriate land use for the parcel in question when based upon an acceptable plan approved by the Planning Commission over which the Commission has continuing jurisdiction and further, sets a public hearing for the purpose of reviewing such a plan for 7:30 P.M., September 15, 1981. APIF, motion carried. I 5. The next agenda item was the request of Mr. Gary Cameron for a waiver of platting to split a parcel of land in half located at 18437 Pilot Knob Road. This request was referred to the Planning Commission for comment by the City Council. After reviewing the request and discussing it among them- selves and with the principals who were present, the Planning Commission arrived at a consensus. Motion by Hanson, second by Ryan that the Commission 220 recommend to the Council that the subdivision waiver be granted upon receipt of a letter from the principals stating that they had been made aware of the possible problems that might be pre- sented in the future by the subdividing of this parcel, and that the City shall not be held responsible in any way, or to any degree, for those problems, nor does the City waive its authority to apply certain development requirements when and if the area is to be developed in the future. APIF, motion carried. I 6. The next agenda item dealt with a review of the current zoning of an area in the downtown business district immediately west of the railroad tracks which is included in the HRA Downtown Redevelopment Plan. This subject was first raised at a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the HRA on March 17, 1981. The suggestion was made at that time that perhaps the area had not developed in the way that it was anticipated that it would develop, and that perhaps a re-examination of the current zoning would dictate an appropriate change in the zoning presumably from B-3 - heavy business, to R-2 - urban residential. The City Planner, Charles Tooke~ had been asked by the Planning Commission to present his analysis, and recommendations which he then presented to the Commission. In a memo dated July 17, 1981 his recommenda- tion was that the Planning Commission consider rezoning the area between First Street and the railroad tracks and between Elm Street and Spruce, excluding the Lampert Lumberyard and Fred's Mobil Service Station from B-3 to R-2. Motion by Hanson, second by Gerten that the above recommendation of the Planner be referred to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for their comments along with the statement that the Commission tends to favor this change but recognizes the need to work with the HRA to avoid any conflict between the zoning ordinance and the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. APIF, motion carried. I 7. The next item dealt with a letter from Dakota County indicating that the 6 months local review of the County's Comprehensive Plan was now complete and effective June 30, 1981, and that they had received comments from most units of government including the City of Farmington. It indicated further that the entire Dakota County Plan would go to the Metropolitan Council for their review on July 1, 1981. The letter stated that most comments from the communities were related to the Transportation Plan portion of the County Comprehensive Plan, and it was being suggested that a policy advisory group be appointed with representation from the various communities to reconcile and make recommendations for specific policies to the Dakota County Board to deal with these comments. The Planning Commission designated the City Admin- istrator Bill Ford to represent the City of Farmington on that group. 8. The next agenda item concerned the Metropolitan Council review of the City of Farmington's Comprehensive Plan. It was stated that a letter from the Metropolitan Council dated June 15, 1981 informed the City that a temporary suspension of the review process bad bee''LpuL into effect, pend; ng rece i pt of add it i ona 1 i nformat i on from the City. City Planner, Charles Tooker, presented copies ofa letter which he had written to the Metropolitan Council under I 221 I date of July 21, 1981 in which he has furnished the required additional information. 9. Motion by Hoyer) second by Hanson to approve the payment of bills. APIF, motion carried. 10. Motion by Ryan, second by Hanson to recommend to the Council approval of the final plat of Riverside Addition. APIF, motion carried. 11. The Commission deferred to the next meeting the matter of suggested amendment to the zoning ordinance exempting churches and public schools from the set back required for parking lots and driveways abutting an JR' lot line. 12. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 10:45 P.M. I Respectfully submitted, ~~;}j;sf Wi II jam J. Ford -, . City Administrator APPROVED: ?IJ~h J I I I I ??~ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR AUGUST 18, 1981 1. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson, Members Carey, Gerten, Hoyer, Ryan Absent: None Also Present: Administrator Ford, Attorney Gorgos 2. Motion by Hoyer, second by Ryan to approve the minutes of July 21, 1981 as presented. APIF, motion carried. 3. The first agenda item dealt with the proposed development of Whispering River Condominiums by Mr. & Mrs. Jim Reisinger. The specific purpose of this item on the agenda was to present to the Planning Commission specific information dealing with five subjects involved in the development and to inquire of the Planning Commission whether or not any additional information would be required by the Planning Commission dealing with these subjects. The basis of the discussion was a memorandum from the City Administrator dated August 14, 1981 with attachments as follows: a) legal opinion from the City Attorney, b) letter from the City Engineer concerning municipal services, c) a critique on traffic matters, d) an analysis of the flood plain ordinance, e) a letter from the Park & Recreation manager. There was a lengthy general discussion involving members of the Commission, the developer and their representatives, and members of the audience. The following conclusions were arrived at by the Planning Commission: 1) a letter from the City Engineer clarifying and reaffirming his opinion concerning capacity of the sewer lines in which the proposed development would connect. 2) for the City Administrator to check on the availability and cost of securing a traffic count on Division and on Spruce. 4. The next agenda item dealt with the former Dakota County Electric Association building at 821 Third Street. Appearing as representative for the owner was Mr. Otto Pede He was appearing in response to a letter written to the owner by the City Administrator dated August 7,1981 informing the owner that any use to which the building was now being put:was:in_technical violation of the City zoning ordinance in that the building was a continuing non-conforming use which was grandfathered in when the original zoning ordinance was adopted and that that status had been abandoned by the owner when the building was vacated. Mr. Ped informed the Planning Commission that the building was now being used on a lease basis by the PATCO union. The lease was to expire August 31, 1981 and that also he was negotiating for a lease with the Federal Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Commission presently located in the Townsedge Shopping Center. It was the consensus of the Commission that a transitional special exception could be granted for a specific portion of the bui Iding and the Und ~but appl icac- tion must be made for each specific special exception and in order for the Commission to make a decision as to the compatibility of the proposed use the application for the special exception should contain such information as: a) the specific location within the building to be utilized and areas outside the building to be utilized, a description of the type of activity to be conducted, the days of the week to be utilized, . the hours of the days in which activities wi 11 take place, an estimate of the level of off-street parking generated, the maximum capacity of the largest room involved in the activities, changes anticipated to the interior and to the exterior of the building to accommodate the activities requested, a statement of compliance by the owner to the performance standards in the zoning ordinance under Section 2-4-5(a-j). The Planning Commission set a public hearing to consider the request the Dakota Electric Association for a transitional special exception Third Street for 7:30 P.M., September 8, 1981 with notice of hearing published in the official newspaper August 27,1981. 224 b) c) d) e) f) g) h) I of at 821 to be 5. The next agenda item dealt with the petition of Mr. Darrell Moench for a special exception to construct a storage accessory building in the F-l flood plain zoning district at the rear of 19 Elm Street. City Planner Charles Tooker had prepared a memo for the Planning Commission dated August 14, 1981 setting forth the provisions of the flood plain ordinance that would have to be complied with before the Planning Commission could take action on this petition. It was agreed that the City would furnish to Mr. Moench whatever information they have that would be useful to him and would be required by the ordinance. Motion by Carey, second by Ryan to set a public hearing in the matter for 8:00 P.M., September 8, 1981. APIF, motion carried. I 6. Motion by Ryan, second by Carey to set a public hearing for 8:30 P.M., September 8, 1981 to consider the petition of Ken's Upholstery for a home occupation at 20315 Akin Road West. APIF, motion carried. 7. Motion by Ryan, second by Carey that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council that the zoning ordinance be amended in Section 10-8-1 (d) by providing for a six foot set back from any JR' lot line of a church parking lot or driveway. Voting for: Carey, Gerten, Hoyer, Ryan. Abstaining: Hanson. Motion carried. 8. The Commission reviewed a proposed service agreement between the City and City Planner Charles Tooker. Motion by Gerten, second by Hanson that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council that said service agreement be approved and entered into. APIF, motion carried. 9. Motion by Hoyer, second by Gerten to approve the payment of $510.00 to Charles Tooker for planning services. APIF, motion carried. 10. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 10:30 P.M. Res:7ZIlY. SUbmlt~e.~ d, /J ~ .,.Jje/~ William J. Ford' City Administrator WJF/sz I APPROVED: 4 /15 /~I l)\~'5 /.J :..! \.. I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL SEPTEMBER 15, 1981 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson, Members Carey, Gerten, Hoyer, Ryan Absent: None Also Present: City Attorney Gerald Gorgos, City Engineer Glenn Cook, City Planner Charles Tooker, and Deputy Clerk Karen Finstuen 2. Motion by Hoyer, second by Carey to approve the minutes of August 18, 1981 as presented. APIF, motion carried. 3. The Chairman opened the previously published public hearings scheduled for 7:30 P.M., a request from Mr. & Mrs. James Reisinger for a special exception to allow multiple dwellings in an R-2 zone and a request from Ken Rose for a special exception for a home occupation at 20315 Akin Road West. The Reisinger matter was continued and the Rose matter was taken up. I 4. The Planning Commission discussed the request of Ken Rose to move his current home occupation from 610 Elm to his new residence currently being built at 20315 Akin Road West. Motion by Carey, second by Ryan to close the public hearing. APIF, motion carried. There was a brief discussion by the Planning Commission. Motion by Ryan, second by Gerten to grant the special exception. APIF, motion carried. I 5. The public hearing, On the request of Mr. & Mrs. James Riesinger for a special exception, was then taken up by the Commission. At the outset, the Chairman explained the procedure to be followed. Petitioners would present their proposal after which members of the audience would be recognized. Gary Tush~e~ architect with Saunders and Thalden,lnc. presented the proposed development which consisted of 80 condominium units located at Spruce and Division. He displayed a site plan which showed two buildings of 40 units each, 160 parking stalls, a drainage plan, and floor plan. Next, Mr. John Wolflex of BRW presented to the Commission a traffic study showing the anticipated traffic to be generated and estimated that it would be 560 trips per day. He also said that the development would cause no air quality or pollution problems. Next, Gary Solomonson of Solomonson and Palm and Assoc. gave an Economic Feasibility Study of the present housing in Farmington and also the needs of the community. He stated that there is a need for people who cannot or choose not to have a residence that needs outdoor maintenance and that cannot afford a single family residence. Glen Nord, attorney for the Reisingers stated that this construction is not low income housing and is not subsidized. The units would be individually owned and the tax assessor gave him an estimate that these buildings would bring an additional $36,868 of tax dollars per year to the City. It was pointed out that the DNR had recently sent a letter to the City stating that they had discovered that the City Zoning map differed from Flood Plain Insurance maps. At this time the Chairman opened discussion from the audience who then called upon Eileen Roberts, an attorney representing a group of objectors, who stated that she represented COTMDARR (Citizens Opposed to Multiple Dwellings at Rambling River.) She stated that the development was not appropriate for the area, it was in a flood plain, that the increase in housing would cause traffic problems to the area, {"' .J that something of that size was not appropriate next to the park, it did not visually fit. They felt that a traffic study made in one day was not adequate and reiterated that there would be too much useage of the park by this one development. Also, that the sewer system in this area was ~ause for concern and inadequate. The public hearing was at this time continued until later in the meeting. I 6. The Chairman opened the two public hearings that were scheduled for 8:30 P.M. They were: (1) a request from Dakota Electric Assoc- iation for a special exception, transitional uses at 821 Third Street and (2) a request of Darrell Moench for a special exception, accessory storage bui lding in the F-l Flood Plain District. Darrell Moench asked that his hearing be continued to a later date. The Commission continued the hearing to 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, September 22, 1981 and set a special meeting of the Commission for that time. The Commission continued the public hearing on the Dakota Electric request until later in this meeting. 7. The Chairman reopened the public hearing in the Reisinger matter and comments were invited from the audience. Mr. David Leuthe from the Department of Natural Resources stated that in reviewing the City's zoning map and the Flood Plain Insurance maps, that it was his opinion that the City had acted in good faith when telling the developers that it was not located within the flood plain. He stated that on the two maps the boundaries were reasonably close and when the people from the DNR reviewed the maps they erred when approving the City's zoning map. Mr. Gorgos, attorney for the City, responded that with the DNR's previous approval of that zoning map, it was there- fore the current flood map and that which would determine whether the subject property was within or out of, the flood plain and it was determined that it was not in the flood plain. Several members of the audience then made comments and gave opinions, some of which were, that the Fire Department would not have a truck that could serve a three story building. The architect responded that all three floors had access to ground level and would not require additional fire equipment. Complaints from the audience were that the sewer system would not be adequate to serve this development and that current res- idents in that area were having problems with the sewer backing up into their basements. City Engineer Glenn Cook then referred to a letter he had prepared concerning the sewer stating that they were adequate and that the increased flow would not create any additional problems and may possibly help problems that were caused by low flow. During peak periods, Cook indicated that the sewer lines could be surcharged. He also stated that blockages that do occur would, with additional flow, rise more rapidly and to a higher elevation but that blockages can occur at any point in the City. The Chairman then asked if there was an alternate site plan showing the buildings located out of the floodway. The developer did have copies and presented them to the Commission at this time. Motion by Gerten, second by Ryan to close the public hearing. APIF, motion carried. After some discussion by the Commission the Chairman called for a motion. Motion by Carey, second by Gerten that the petition for special exception be denied for the following reasons: I I C) ?11 .-. I I a) The development would be injurious to other property in the general vicinity by creatirig an overload on the existing sanitary sewer system. b) There was insufficient showing by petitioners that vehicular access and parking would not create conjestion in the area. c) There was insufficient showing by petitioners that the proposed development would have adequate fire protection. Voting for: Carey, Gerten, Ryan. Voting against: Hanson, Hoyer. Motion carried. Upon voting, Commissioner Ryan stated that he would have voted for the petition if the proposal had consisted of only 40 units instead of the proposed 80 units and further that Farmington needed as much development as possible. I 8. The Planning Commission reopened the continued public hearing in the matter of Dakota Elec;tric Association, transitional special exception. Mr. Ped suppl ied the following information: 1) The owner intended to rent space to three tenants: a) Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District, Soil Conservation Service, and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation, Service. 0) Metro 7 Realty. a) Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO). 2) Space would be utilized only in the existing office and former dispatch portion of the building. Parking spaces would be rented to tenants in the garage space. 3) The type of activity would consist of normal general office use only. 4) That the existing parking lot has 50 stalls. 5) Maximum capacity of the largest room is 25-30 people. 6) Only minor remodeling of the building consisting of partitions is contemplated at this time. Motion by Hanson, second by Gerten to close the public hearing. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Gerten, second by Ryan that the transitional special exception for bu~iness offices be granted in accordance with 2-4-7(c) with the following stipulations and conditions: 1) The special exception is restricted to the office building, the former dispatch office and the garage for tenant parking only. I 2) The activities be restricted to those normally and ordinarily found in a general business office. 3) Activit&es normally be restricted to Monday through Friday from 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. with occasional deviations. ()()s. uu 4. Off street parking, generally, be limited to 25 vehicles. 5. The necessary permits for remodeling be obtained from the building inspector. 6. The OtJner sign and filea statement of compliance of the performance standards contained in Title 2, Chapter 4, Section 5 (a-f) of the City Code. 7. That no change, alterationl, eocPFlnlS~IOO. or modification of the condition of this special exception including change of tenants, be affected without the approval of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 9. The Commission set a special meeting for October 6, 1981 at 7:30 P.M. 10. Motion by Ryan, second by Carey to set a public hearing for 7:30 P.M., October 6, 1981 to consider amending a previously granted special exception to allow an addition to an existing greenhouse at 519 Wi llow Street, which is located in the R-2 zoning district. APIF, motion ca r r i ed . 11. Motion by Hanson, second by Gerten to set a public hearing for 7:30 P.M., October 6, 1981 to consider the request of Ron Ersfeld for a variance for a corner side lot setback variance of from 20' to 1418" at 820 Third Street. APIF, motion carried. 12. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 11:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, -tJClu--~. ~ IO/ft, /~l { Karen M. Finstuen Deputy Clerk APPROVED: KMF/sz I I I ??Q , f ",..1'0. I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL SEPTEMBER 22, 1981 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson, Members Carey, Hoyer, & Ryan Absent: Member Gerten 2. The Chairman opened the public hearing in the matter of a request from Darrell Moench for a Special Exception, accessory storage building in the F-l Flood Plain District, that had been continued from the September 15, 1981 meeting. Mr. Moench added information that he had read from the Corps of Engineers to the existing file. The Planning Commission agreed to submit this information to the City Engineer and asked for an opinion, based on the information submitted by the applicant. Motion by Hoyer, second by Ryan to continue the public hearing to 8:00 P.M., October 6, 1981 at which time they hoped for an opinion from the Engineer. APIF, motion carried. 3. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 7:57 P.M. APIF, motion carried. I Respectfully submitted, ~~ Kenneth Hanson Chairman APPROVED: /O/tp/tJ I KH/sz I ')~l I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL OCTOBER 6, 1981 1. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson, Members Carey, Hoyer, Ryan Excused: Member Gerten, who was hospitalized. Also Present: Administrator Ford 2. Motion by Hoyer, second by Ryan that the minutes of September 15, 1981 be approved. Commissioner Carey asked that the motion be amended to include the following change: paragraph 7(a) - first line; after the words "propertyll add the words lIand envi ronmentll. The motion to approve was so amended and a vote was called for on the motion to approve the minutes with the above changes. APIF, motion carried. 3. A letter to Chairman Hanson dated October 1, 1981 signed by Thomas A. Angell, which had been submitted to the Planning Commission prior to this meeting, requested that the minutes of September 15, 1981 in~lude certain language which Mr. Angell set forth in his letter. Mr. Angell and others in the audience then queried the Commission whether or not the requested language would be inserted as amendment to the minutes. After a short discussion it was determined that no member of the Commission would move the inclusion of the requested language. I 4. Motion by Carey, second by Hoyer to approve the minutes of September 22, 1981 as presented. APIF, motion carried. 5. The Chairman at 7:30 P.M. opened the public hearing to consider the request of Farmington Floral to amend a previously granted special exception. The Commission took note of the fact that in the official public notice of the meeting the notice inadvertantly carried the word IICouncil1l instead of "Planning Commission". The requested amendment to the special exception concerned approval to build one additional green- house on a site already being used for the sale of plants. The area to be enclosed consisted of an area approximately 241x841 on the south side of the existing greenhouse. Motion by Ryan, second by Carey that the public hearing be closed. There followed a short discussion. 6. Motion by Ryan, second by Carey that the amendment to the special exception hereby be granted. APIF, motion carried. 7. The Chairman then opened the public hearing of the request for a variance on the corner side lot setback at 820 Third Street. At this point the Commission was informed that the applicant had withdrawn the request for a special exception and instead had found a way to meet the setback requirement, at which. point the Chairman announced that it was no longer necessary to hold the public hearing, and that it was closed. No action was taken. I 8. The next agenda item was the request of Arthur Leibfried to amend a special exception granted in 1977 for 701 Eighth Street. That special exception allowed land uses of office, wholesale business and supply ()02' - '-' ..J yard. This request would be for an additional land use, that of retail grocery. The applicant then would intend to continue the special exception land use of office and the automotive service. If granted this amendment he would drop the land uses of wholesale and supply yard. Motion by Ryan, second by Hoyer to set a public hearing in the matter for 7:30 P.M., October 27,1981. APIF, motion carried. I 9. The Chairman opened the continued public hearing at 8:00 P.M. in the matter of the request of Darrell Moench for a special exception to construct a storage shed in the flood plain at 19 Elm Street. The Chairman introduced into the record a letter dated October 6, 1981 from City Engineer Glenn R. Cook in which he stated that insufficient infor- mation had been furnished to him in order for him to present a report to the Commission as required by the ordinance. Mr. Moench was in the audience and agreed to furnish to the Commission: (a) the building plans and specifications, including flood proofing protection details and storage procedures within the building, and (b) a hydraulic analysis of the 100 year flood, based on the encroachment of the building in the floodway prepared by a registered engineer. Motton by Ryan, second by Carey that the pub Ii c hearing aga in be conti nued to 7:30 P.M., October 27, 1981. APIF, motion carried. 10. The Commission decided to cancel the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of October 20, 1981 and in its stead hold a special meet i ngon October 27>> 1981. 'V I 11. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, /f!rftf!~(!%Af City Administrator APPROVED: ,op.~J WJF/sz I I I I ?,~~ MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR OCTOBER 27, 1981 1. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson, Members Carey, Gerten, Hoyer, Ryan Absent: None Also Present: Administrator Ford 2. Motion by Carey, second by Ryan to approve the minutes of October 6, 1981 as presented, APIF, motion carried. 3. The Chairman opened the public hearing which had been continued from October 6, 1981 dealing with the request of Darrell Moench for a special exception to build i.n the F-l floodway district a storage building not having human habitation. The Administrator warned the Commission that Mr. Moench had been in and stated he would not be at the meeting and that he did not have any further or additional documentation to submit. During the discussion it had been brought out that this public hearing had been continued three times. Motion by Gerten to deny the request for special exception. The motion died for lack of second. There then was a motion by Hoyer, second by Carey that the public hearing in this matter be continued to November 17, 1981 at 7:30 P.M. Voting for: Hoyer, Carey, Ryan. Voting against: Gerten, Hanson. Motion carried. 4. The Chairman then opened the previously published public hearing to consider the request of Arther Leibfried for an amendment to a previous special exception. The request was for 701 Eighth Street in which he aSked for a retail business land use in addition to the office use which he already has, and a wholesale and supply yard use which he already has. He further stated it would be his intention to conduct a gasoline sales operation for which no special exception is required. It was pointed out that the parcel in question is located in the B-1 zoning district and existed p~ior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance and therefore would be e~empt from the minimum area requirement. However, the minimum area r~quirement, in this case, would be 20,000 square feet since he has municipal water. The area of the whole parcel is 48,000 square feet. The ordinance requirement for parking spaces was computed to be 48 and the plan showed ai capac i ty of over 52 park i ng spaces. A I so, it was shown on the p I an that he would be capable of observing the 20' buffer required for any parking Ipt or driveway abutting an 'R' zoning district. Motion by Gerten, second b~ Hoyer that the Board of Adjustment finds that the requested amendment tp the special exception meets the requirements of Title 2, Chapter 4, S~ction 4 of the City Code and compHes with the intent of the zoning o~dinance in all respects and therefore that it be granted. APIF, motion carried. 5. There had been referred to the Planning Commission three proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance dealing with flood plain matters. The oirdinance required a recommendation from the Planning Commission before the Cpuncil could act on these proposed amendments. On the amendment changing t~e date in the ordinance referring to the Flood Plain Study from June 20, 1~78 to September, 1978: Motion by Ryan, second by Gerten to recommend to the Council adoption of this amendment. APIF, motion carried. i,~I~; 6. On the amendment removing the Farmington Ice Arena from the F-l flood- way district and putting it into the F-2 flood plain district: Motion by Hoyer, second by Hanson that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council adoption of this amendment. APIF, motion carried. I 7. On the amendment removing the River's Edge Medical Clinic from the F-l floodway district and putting it into the F-2 flood plain: Motion by Gerten, second by Hoyer that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council adoption of this ordinance. APIF, motion carried. 8. Members of the Commission inquired of the City Administrator whether or not the Planning Commission could be furnished at their meeting each month a recap of the building permit registry covering activities in the preceding month. The City AdminIstrator informed them that it would be taken care of. 9. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 8:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, A' / · 14- ~ 7?~)ic. ~~ Wi II iam J. Ford .' City Administrator APPROVED: '07/P7 I WJF/sz I ?~[) I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR NOVEMBER 17, 1981 1. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Present: Crnairman Hanson, Members Carey, Gerten, Hoyer Absent: Member Ryan Also Present: Administrator Ford 2. Motion by Hoyer, second by Carey that the minutes of October 27, 1981 be approved as presented! APIF, motion carried. I 3. The Commission addressed themselves to the matter of the request of Darrell Moench for a special exception to construct a storage structure in the F-l floodway and reopen the public hearing in the matter at 7:30 P.M. The Commission reviewed the history of this request for special exception and it was pointed out that this hearing had been continued on four occasions prior to tonight's meeting. The Commission was also reminded that the City Engineer, on October 6, 1981, informed the Commission that he had not received building plans and specifications covering the flood proofing protection details and stOrage procedures nor did he receive a hydraulic analysis of the 100 year flood based on the encroachment of the building in the floodway. During the deliberations by members of the Com~ mission, the fact was made known that this applicant had begun construction prior to obtaining a building permit and in fact, had then continued to complete the building after the Building Inspector had "red-tagged" it. Motion by Gerten, second by Hanson that the public hearing be closed. APIF, motion carried. 4. Motion by Gerten, second by Hanson that the petition for special exception be denied in that all of the information required by the ord- inance had not been submitted. Voting for: Gerten, Hanson. Voting against: Carey, Hoyer. Absent: Ryan. Motion not carried. The Chairman ruled that the motion to deny the petition had not carried and in his inquiry as to whether a motion would be made to grant there was no response from the Commission. It was understood by the members of the Commission that no special exception was granted and that the public hearing had ended and if Mr. Moench wished to pursue the matter, he would have to reapply for a special exc~ption. I 5. Mr. Felix Tillges appeared before the Commission to request a favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Council to rezone a parcel of land identified as Outlot A in the Fair Hills subdivision. Mr. Tillges explained that Outlot A was a very large piece of ground in the northwest corner of the subdivision for which there were no immediate plans to develop but it was his opinion that when and if the area was to be developed it would be more beneficial and appropriate that it be for multiple dwellings, and the basis for his request for rezoning at this time was to consummate the rezoning prior to the sale of any lots to single family dwe II i ng,~property owners abutt i ng Out I ot A. Mot i on by Hoyer, second by carey that the Commission recommend to the City Council that Outlot A Fair Hills Addition be rezoned to R-3 multiple dwellings. APIF, motion carried. 0Q6 6d 6. The Commission considered the request of Mr. Tom Mosby for a home I occupation at 1002 First Street at which he wIshed to conduct a commercial photo operation. Mr. Mosby was not in the audience and it was the con~ clusion of the Commission that perhaps he had become confused because of his presence at the City Council meeting the previous night. Motion by Hanson, second by Carey to set a public hearing tn this matter for 7:30 P.M., December 15, 1981. APIF, motion ca~ried. 7. Mr. & Mrs. James Reisinger then formally presented a revised proposed development of Whispering River Condominium on 4.5 acres on the northwest corner of Division and Spruce Street. Their consultants made a presentation to the Commission explaining that this was a revision of the original proposal and reduced the number of total units from 80 to 60; that the development still consisted of two buildings which were shorter in length than on the original; that were 451 high in the front and 351 high in the rear for an average of 40'; that the parking provisions were one inside and one outside parking area per unit; and that the open space for the development was increased to 63% of the gross area. Motion by Hoyer, second by Gerten to set a public hearing in the matter for 7:30 P.M., December 1, 1981. APIF, motion carried. 8. Motion by Gerten, second by Hoyer to approve the payment of bills as presented. APIF, motion carried. 9. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 8:50 P.M. I Respectfully submitted, ~.w.I/..~ Wi II i am J. Ford l' City Administrator APPROVED: 1'-/t5/n WJF/sz I I I I ~~7 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL DECEMBER 1, 1981 For the purposes of this public hearing, the Planning Commission was sitting as the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 1. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson, Members Carey, Gerten, Hoyer, Ryan. Absent: None Also Present: Administrator Ford, Attorney Gorgos, City Engineer Glenn Cook. 2. Minutes of the previous meetings were deferred. 3. The purpose of this special meeting was to hold a public hearing to consider the revised proposal of Whispering River Condominiums which would provide for multiple dwellings at the northwest corner of Spruce and Division. The Chairman requested that the record show that notification of the meeting had been published in the Dakota County Tribune on November 19, 1981. 4. The developers, James and Therese Reisinger, were represented by Mr. Glenn Nord, Attorney; and Mr. Gary Tushie, Architect. In their presentation, they made the following points: 1. That the revised proposal now before the Board of Adjustment represents a compromise proposal reducing the density by 25% from 80 units to 60 units. 2. That the 60 unit proposal represents the absolute minimum number of units that can be financially feasibly considered. 3. The plan showed a retention pond for surface drainage which is not required but they considered useful, that it would have a maximum depth of six feet with no fencing, and it was not yet determined whether or not they would maintain a level in the pond. 4. That according to City Engineer, Glenn Cook, the municipal sewer line to which they would connect has a capacity of 500,000 gallons per day. That this proposal would generate 15,000 gallons per day and that there is presently going into the line approximately 250,000 gallons per day. 5. They anticipated no fill in the F-l with the minor exception of the foot of embankment. 6. The proposal did show a sidewalk in the F-l, but it would be at grade level. 7. Grading, trees, shrubbery, berms, retention pond, walks, and parking lots and parking driveways would be constructed in accordance with the scale model presented to the Board. 8. The height of the building in front would be 351 and the height of the building in rear would be 451. 9. There would be 60 garage parking stalls provided and 60 parking spaces outside provided. c,n8 ':'.r--<'" .', " ~. ..1 "'-." ' 10. The plan presented, included a general drainage pattern. 11. The open space in the revhed proposal has been increased now to 63% of the gross area. I 12. That the berms between Division Street and the parking lots would be at a variable height, but at a maximum of approximately four feet. 13. That the Farmington Fire Chief had told the developers that the development presents no problems from the standpoint of fire protection. 5. The Citizens Opposed to Multiple Dwellings at Rambling River (COTMDAR~) were represented by Eileen Roberts, Attorney. Speaking against the revised proposal, she made the following points: 1. The revised proposal does not original proposal was denied: alter (a) .(b) (c) the conditions on which the fire protection sewer capacity traffic 2. That an environmental assessment worksheet is required and has not been produced. 3. The notice of public hearing was faulty because it stated that the hearing would be held before the "Planning Commission" instead of "Zoning Board of Adjustment". I 4. The proposal should be denied because the ordinance allows only "Permitted" uses in an R-2 zoning district when an F-2 flood district is superimposed. 5. Several other objections were raised by Attorney Roberts, quoting from her letter to the Zoning Board of Adjustment dated November 27, 1981, a copy of which the Commission agreed to put in the permanent file at the request of Commissioner Bill Carey. 6. There fotlowed,a lengthy open discussion between representatives of the developer, representatives of the opposition group, the general audience, and members of the Board. 7. At 9:20 P.M., Motion by Hoyer, second by Ryan that the public hearing be closed and at that point the Zoning Board of Adjustment took a brief recess. 8. The meeting was reconvened at 9:30 P.M. at which time the members of the Board discussed the revised proposal among themselves. Motion by Hoyer, second by Gerten that the revised proposal of Whispering River Condominiums development be granted a special exception in the R-2 zoning district for multiple dwellings and for filling in the F-2 district with the following conditions: 1. That the residences to the east of the development on Division Street be adequately screened from parking lot activity by the combined use of shrubbery, trees, and earth berms. I 2. That the parking lots shown on the plan be physically separated to prevent vehicular cross-over. I I I Minutes - Planning Commission - December 1, 1981 - continued 3. That the driveway on Spruce Street be located as far west as is feasibly possible. 4. That plans and specifications be presented for approval based on the content and scale of the model presented to the Commission. 5. That the developer accept the determination of the City Council concerning the form of the parkland contribution. Voting for: Hanson, Hoyer, Gerten, Ryan. Voting against: Carey. Motion carried. 9. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~r/"~ William J. Ford. City Administrator 1~;'5 4, APPROVED: WJF/sz ,~(~ " I I I 241 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DECEMBER 15, 1981 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:30 P.M. Present: Chairman Hanson, Members Carey, Gerten, Hoyer, Ryan Absent: None 2. Motion by Ryan, second by Hoyer that the minutes of November 17, 1981 be approved as presented. APIF, motion carried. 3. Motion by Gerten, second by Carey that the minutes of December 1, 1981 be approved as presented. APIF, motion carried. 4. At 7:30 P.M., the Chairman opened the previously published public hearing for the purpose of considering the petition of Thomas Mosby for a home occupation special exception at 1002 First Street to operate a portrait studio. The Commission discussed with Mr. Mosby the amount of activity that a portrait studio would incur. He was also questioned about the satellite receiver that is presently on his property. He informed the Commission that it was for his own personal use and was not part of his request for a home occupation. The Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:57 P.M. Motion by Ryan, second by Carey to grant a special exception for a Portrait Studio home occupation to Tom Mosby at 1002 First Street. APIF, motion carried. 5. Gil Gilbertson was present for a preliminary discussion with the Planning Commission on their general feeling regarding rezoning and type of development needed for Blocks 4 & 5, Westview Acres Replat. The Commission advised him to proceed with his proposal to submit a plan and his request for rezoning. 6. The Commission was informed that Mr. Darrell Moench intended to re-submit petition for a special exception to construct a storage building in the F-l, flood way zoning district. They were informed that the required information could not be obtained sooner than 60-90 days. Respectfully submitted, I /'. /1 /; (l/p:)/ Kenneth Hanson Chairman Arfr6veJ KH/sz