Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 I I I 81 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JANUARY 21, 1986 1. Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. Members Present: Hanson, Angell, Rotty, Sampson. Members Absent: Gerten. , Also Present: Planner Tooker. 2. The minutes of December 17, 1985 were reviewed by the Commission. Motion by Rotty, second by Sampson to approve the minutes of December 17, 1985 as distributed. APIF, motion carried. 3. Planner Tooker described the request of Darrel Franke for a variance to build a garage within 3 feet of the alley which forms the north boundary of his property at 212 First Street in Farmington. Mr. Franke said that the primary reason for his request was to save a flowering crab tree in his yard which would be disturbed if the required setback were to be observed. Member Rotty said that he believed in setting a public hearing for anyone seeking a variance, but that the applicant should be made aware of the criteria the Commission is required to follow in any action it takes. Motion by Rotty, second by Angell to set a public hearing to discuss the request of Darrel Franke to construct a garage within 3 feet of an alley on the north 100 feet of Lot 6, Block 15, Feely's Addition to the City of Farmington at 7:00 P.M., February 18, 1986. APIF, motion carried. 4. Planner Tooker described the request of Town and Country Computer Systems to erect a freestanding sign in front of the former Dakota Electric Building at 821 Third Street in Farmington. It brings up a problem within the existing Zoning Ordinance regarding changes of legal non-conforming uses. Section 2-47(C) 1., states as follows: "The new non-conforming use will apply only to the specific use proposed and is not transferable to any other use." In addition, the minutes which approved business office use for the former Dakota Electric Building as a special exception included the following condition: "That no change, alteration, expansion or modification of the condition of this special exception, including change of tenants, be affected without the approval of the Zoning Board of Adjustment." Member Rotty was excused at 7:35 P.M. by a call for the Farmington Rescue Squad. Following a lengthly discussion, the consensus of those members present was that, while Town and Country Computer Systems was a different use from those in the original appli- cation, it is essentially a business office and of the same character as the uses originally approved at this site. In addition, other tenants could occupy vacant space within the building without securing approval of the Planning Commission unless they were considered to be considerably different from business office use. Regarding the sign request, the consensus of those members present was that the free standing sign is too large for a residential district and not consistent with the original special exception. They did agree that a 20 square foot wall sign would be an acceptable addition to the Special Exception granted in 1981, but that a freestanding sign of this size would require a public hearing on a new request for a special exception. 5. The Commission next considered the rezoning of Dakota County Estates P.U.D., the plan for which is now under consideration by the City Council. Motion by Sampson, second by Angell to recommend rezoning of Dakota County Estates PUD from R-l to PUD contingent upon approved of its plan by the City Council. APIF, motion carried. 82 6. A motion was made and passed to adjourn at 7:49 P.M. Submitted by, ~.~\~ ~ Charles Tooker Planner CT/mh Approved I )~g/~~ ( ( I I I I I 83 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR FEBRUARY 18, 1986 1. Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Hanson, Angell, Gerten, Rotty, Sampson Members Absent: None 2. The minutes of January 21, 1986 were reviewed by the Commission. Motion by Angell, second by Rotty to approve the minutes of January 21, 1986 as distributed. APIF, motion carried. 3. Chairman Hanson opened the public hearing for a variance requested by Darrel Franke to build a garage within 3 feet of the alley which forms his west property line at 212 First Street in Farmington. Mr. Franke had previously requested a continuance of the hearing since he is currently out of town. Members present expressed concern about the precedence such a request would have on other set- back requirements. Motion by Gerten, second by Rotty to continue the public hearing until 7:00 P.M. on March 18, 1986. APIF, motion carried. 4. John Glynn on Flagstaff Avenue appeared before the Commission to complain about the Christensen trailer approved by the Commission late last year. He indicated that while the trailer is intended as the residence of a family member, to his knowledge that person works away from the farm. Chairman Hanson said that the trailer was approved on the basis that there would be some involvement with the farm by Mr. Christensen's daughter and in no case would the trailer be used as a rental unit for non family members. Mr. Glynn also complained about the lack of landscaping. Commission members suggested that because of winter weather, it would be difficult to effectively screen the new unit. Mr. Glynn said that he would continue to monitor the situation. 5. Motion to adjourn at 7:25 P.M. was unanimously approved. Submitted by, cY~ ~~ J~ Ken Hanson Chairman KH/mh 3/ .;).,,/t& , Approved I I I 85 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MARCH 7, 1986 1. Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M. Present: Angell, Gerten, Hanson, Rotty, Sampson. Absent: None. Also Present: Administrator Thompson. 2. The purpose of the meeting was to set a public hearing for a Special Exception requested by AVID, Inc to construct and operate a meat processing facility in Section 36. Motion by Angell, second by Rotty to set a public hearing on the 19th day of March, 1"986 at 7:30 P.M. in a joint special session with the City Council. APIF, motion carried. 3. There being no further business the motion to adjourn at 5:15 was seconded and adopted. Submitted by, ~M\ \f-L~ Ken Hanson ~ Chairman q!5~" Approved I I I 87 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL JOINT SPECIAL MARCH 19, 1986 1. Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Present: Angell, Gerten, Hanson, Rotty, Sampson. Absent: None. Also Present: Administrator Thompson, Attorney Gorgos, Planner Tooker, EDC Director Robert Williamson. 2. The purpose of the meeting was to conduct a joint public hearing on the proposed beef processing facility by AVID, Inc. Following a brief introduction by the Mayor, Chairman Hanson opened the public hearing advertised for 7:30 P.M. The president of AVID, Inc, Ray Whitmore outlined the request for a packing plant using the most modern technology available. He also introduced his prime contractors, Ron Yeates for Koch Manufacturing and Don Anderson for Chief Construction. A brief description of the site was provided by Planner Tooker. A lengthy discussion followed whereby members of the Council and Planning Commission were able to ask questions after the topic had been thoroughly ex- plored by the residents present. The Commission decided to close the public hearing but continue discussions on the meat packing facility at later meetings. Motion by Rotty, second by Angell to close the public hearing. APIF, motion carried. 3. There being no further business the motion to adjourn at 10:15 P.M. was seconded and adopted. Submitted by, (})~~ Charles Tooker ~ Planner Approved '-I)~/~ CT/mh I I I 89 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MARCH 25, 1986 1. Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Present: Angell, Gerten, Hanson, Rotty, Sampson. Absent: None. Also Present: Planner Tooker and Administrator Thompson. 2. Chairman Hanson asked for comments on the minutes of February 18, 1986. Motion by Rotty, second by Sampson to approve the minutes of February 18, 1986 as distributed. APIF, motion carried. 3. Chairman Hanson opened the continued hearing for the request of Darrel Franke for a variance to build a garage within 3 feet of his north property line. Dis- cussion by the Commission focused on the probability that without a variance, Mr. Franke would likely remodel the existing garage which is now on the property line. The requested variance would also allow Mr. Franke to save an existing tree in his side yard. Motion by Sampson, second by Angell to close the public hearing. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Gerten, second by Rotty to approve the requested 3 foot variance since it will improve the existing setback situation. APIF, motion carried. 4. Planner Tooker presented the request of Paster Enterprises for a special exception to expand retail sales and restaurant space at Towns Edge Shopping Center on Highway 50. George Frisch, attorney for Paster indicated that the current B-1 District provides for retail trade only as a special exception. Approval for a variety of uses acceptable to the City within a structure that will accommodate an optimum floor space in relation to parking is necessary before the firm can get financing. General discussion by the Commission indicated an interest in the improvements proposed by Paster Enterprises for Towns Edge Center. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to hold a public hearing to discuss the Special Exception required for expansion of Towns Edge Center at 7:00 on April 15, 1986 in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center. APIF, motion carried. 5. Planner Tooker presented an update of the Farmington Hills PUD and preliminary plat for Phase I. A distribution of submitted materials is scheduled to go out this week with notice that the Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council on April 15th. Frank Reese and Haroldlsraelson provided additional information on housing and engineering aspects of this development. Commissioner Ratty asked about the lots sizes in comparison with minimums currently being developed in Apple Valley. Planner Tooker said that this information can be made available in time for the April 15th meeting. Commission members appre- ciated the opportunity to view the PUD and Preliminary Plat in advance of the meeting. 6. Chairman Hanson then asked for comments on the staff memorandum on AVID, Inc. special exception request. Particular interest was directed toward the perfor- mance standard on odor. Several people in the audience asked for recognition to speak to the problem of potential odors in both residential and industrial areas. Commission member Angell asked for clarification of several items, which could not be answered by Mr. Whitmore, president of AVID, Inc. Administrator Thompson indicated that he would take a list of questions prepared by Commissioner Angell and those of anyone else and either prepare a response or forward them to the City consulting engineering firm for answers. Mr. Whitmore indicated that 90 Economic Development Director Williamson also has some information which relates to the questions raised. Commission members agreed that another meeting should be scheduled prior to the City Council continued hearing I on April 7, 1986. It was the consensus of those present that the next meeting shall be on Thursday, April 3, 1986 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers to further discuss the Special Exception requested by AVID, Inc. 7. A motion was made and seconded to adjourn at 9:45 P.M. Submitted by, Q1J;;t{'~ Charles Tooker City Planner Approved tj)sft(; I I I I I 91 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL APRIL 3. 1986 1. Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Present: Angell, Gerten, Hanson, Rotty, Sampson. Absent: None. Also Present: Planner Tooker, Administrator Thompson, Economic Development Director Williamson. 2. Chairman Hanson indicated that the City Administrator had received several letters pertinent to their discussion of the request by AVID, Inc. for a special exception to build a beef packing plant west of the downtown on Highway 50 and he suggested that the members take time to read them. After all of the letters in hand were passed back to the Chairman, members began a series of questions for both the staff and the developer. Member Gerten indicated that since the residents are concerned most about odors, is there a way that the City can be more restrictive than the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency? Community Development Director Williamson said that he has been talking with various communities that include rendering plants and has decided that the Quad System is an effective pollution control device. However, incineration is probably more effective but it is also more costly. The question about restrictive standards gets to the issue of who will draft them or at least pay the cost of having them drafted. The next issue would be who will enforce them? Will the staff be plagued by requests to terminate all odors connected with the process? Member Angell asked if the plant were to be built, how can the City control its activity. Administrator Thompson said that would be handled through fines and injunctions. Member Angell then said that if something were wrong with the system, but where no flagrant pollution occurred, the City would be stuck with whatever minor odor that is released. A question was also raised about the chemicals used in the packing process. Economic Develop- ment Director Williamson indicated that chemicals will not be used. The ren- dering process is intended as a way to capture protein which can be used as fertilizer and animal feed. But, Member Angell suggested that the rendering specifications indicate that it is an electro-chemical process. What are these chemicals? Ray Whitmore said that he did not know. Member Angell also was concerned that any approval, subject to certain criteria, would tie the City's hands in case the Environmental Assessment Work Sheet or Environmental Impact Statement pointed out other concerns. Chairman Hanson said that he felt that it is already covered in the draft of conditions under which the Special Exception could be approved as prepared by the City Attorney. City Administrator Thompson pointed out that this request should be carefully weighed by the Commission, since any approval runs with the land. Economic Development Director Williamson also suggested that the team of Administrators put together by AVID, Inc to run the proposed plant is probably a more important consi- deration than the type of hardware used in the process. Administrator Thompson said that under no circumstances should the Commission feel forced into a decision. If more information is desired, both the staff and the developer would try to obtain it. The Commission then discussed the options of approving the Special Exception subject to specific conditions, or to table pending preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. 92 The Commission then began to discuss the scope of the project in some detail after Planner Tooker suggested that the 40 acres in the Southeast k of the I Northwest ~ of Section 36 does not include the incinerator needed for the operation shown in the plot plan. Chairman Hanson asked Mr. Whitmore if this would prove to be a problem. Mr. Whitmore said that the plant would work if contained on the 40 acre site being discussed. but that he would prefer it if the plan would be approved as submitted since ultimately, they want control of an 80 to 100 acre site. Member Angell asked what the appli- cation requested. Planner Tooker said that the file does not include the application. Ray Whitmore said that he still has the application and would turn it in right after the meeting. Member Angell asked if this did not invalidate the entire proceeding. Administrator Thompson said that the actual application is an administrative tool and has no official status in the process. Motion by Hanson, second by Rotty to approve a Special Exception permit for AVID, Inc. in the following manner: See Special Exception Permit for AVID, Inc. on file. In favor: Hanson, Gerten, Rotty. Opposed: Angell, Sampson. Motion carried. Chairman Hanson said that he favors the proposal since staff investigations indicate that odors will not be a problem and that meat processing in the industrial district would be a compatible use. Member Angell said that he opposes the project on several grounds as follows: a. b. Proper application procedures have not been followed. Paragraph F precludes imposing more stringent standards later if the E.I.S. suggests other problems. We have no awareness of the projects impact on adjoining property. A wide variety of information is available but some of it appears to be conflicting. 1:M ~ ~+eMe.xt >f- It would be better to have an Environmental AogeoomcHt WULk~h~et pre- pared prior to any decision by the Commission. Section 2-4-4 (B) would not appear to be satisfied. I c. d. e. f. In voting yes, Member Gerten indicated that the two problems or concerns raised by citizens have been odor and waste water and he is convinced that both problems can be handled. Member Rotty said that he votes yes because he believes that the conditions of Section 2-4-4 and 2-4-5 have been satisfied. Member Sampson said that he votes no because in his opinion none of the criteria in sections 2-4-4 and 2-4-5 have been met. 3. A motion to adjourn at 9:00 P.M. was adopted. Submitted by, (Jh~ ~~ Approved IJ1v ~ 'I/5bo I Charles Tooker Planner I I I 93 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR APRIL 15, 1986 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Angell, Gerten, Hanson, Rotty, Sampson. Members Absent: None. Also Present: Planner Tooker. 2. Chairman Hanson asked for comments on the minutes of March 7, 19, and 25 and April 3, 1986. Member Angell requested that the minutes for April 3, 1986 be changed with respect to his opposition to the special exception granted for the Southeast * of the Northwest * of Section 36 in item e. Change Environmental Assessment Worksheet to Environmental Impact Statement. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to approve the minutes of March 7, 19 and 25 and April 3, 1986 as amended by Angell. APIF, motion carried. 3. Planner Tooker introduced the special exception requested by Paster Enter- prises after Chairman Hanson opened the hearing advertised for 7:00 P.M. Member Rotty asked how the volume of the storm water runoff pond could be main- tained if the area covered is reduced. Reed Banet for Paster Enterprises said that he has been assured that the bottom of the pond, when deepened, will be above the water table but, if the volume of water currently held by the pond cannot be maintained, the shopping center and parking lot would be reduced propor- tionally. Steve Erickson reviewed a revised plan prepared by Paster Enter- prises which responded to concerns registered by the City staff. Member Rotty asked if the revisions were satisfactory from the point of view of staff. Tooker indicated that they are. Chairman Hanson asked if the new driveway did not have to maintain a 20 foot setback from the adjoining residential property to the east and Member Gerten asked if the Minnesota Department of Transportation would approve a second access onto Highway 50. Existing tenants of the building suggested that the new driveway access is an important addition to the site since the existing Highway 50 access is crowded and too close to the Highway 3 intersection. George Frisch, attorney for Paster Enterprises, said that the buyer is more interested in the volume of floor space that will be permitted on this site than a specific site plan. The consensus of the Commission however, was that the plan is important for the record of this special exception as it will guide the staff in reviewing future development. Motion by Rotty, second by Angell to close the public hearing. Following general discussion, it was decided to approve the request with two motions. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to approve the existing retail, office and restaurant space at Towns Edge Shopping Center for the uses submitted by Paster Enterprises with the application for Special Exception excepting therefrom, Bowling Alleys and Ice/Roller Skating. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Rotty, second by Sampson to approve the plan for retail expansion at Towns Edge Shopping Center for up to 12,400 square feet as indicated on the revised site plan in- cluding those uses attached to the application other than bowling and ice/roller skating subject to: a. I ",-.....t-e. s s~e f1'- G/;Jo!tr. Approval by MnDOT of a second access from Highway 50 with a D~ minimum setback of 20 feet from the adjoining residential lot to the east. b. Approval by the City Engineer of the land area necessary to retain the present volume of water in the on-site pond. c. Approval by the City Planner of the landscaping plan. 94 d. Size of the addition limited by parking requirements of the code. e. Other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are followed. f. A solid fence adjoining the residential lot to the east if demanded by the property owner. In favor: Gerten, Hanson, Rotty, Sampson. Opposed: Angell. Motion carried. I 4. At this point in the meeting, members of the audience asked if the Commission was planning to discuss a possible revocation of the special ex- ception granted for a meat packing facility on the Petersen land in Section 36. The Commission decided to discuss the request by the City Council for the Planning Commission to consider revoking the special exception permit granted for the Southeast * of the Northwest * of Section 36. Planner Tooker read a staff memorandum interpreting advice of the City Attorney indicating that there is no authority to revoke the Special Exception for one year and that to do so would expose the City to litigation by the applicant. Member Angell indicated that he did not agree with the City Attorney's interpretation and believed that the City Council request to reconsider should be given adequate time for dis- cussion. Motion by Angell, second by Sampson that the Planning Commission con- sider City Council request for possible revocation of the Special Exception granted for the Southeast * of the Northwest ! of Section 36 at the next regularly scheduled meeting notifying the fee owner of the property of the intended dis- cussion 30 days in advance of the meeting. Chairman Hanson said that this clearly would put the Commission in the position of singling out a particular use since it had never before revoked a special exception in such a short period of time. I He said, therefore, that he would introduce a substitute motion. Motion by Hanson, second by Rotty to ask the City Attorney for written opinion of the ramifications of revoking this special exception and for further legal clari- fication of action that might be taken. In Favor: Gerten, Hanson, Rotty and Sampson. Opposed: Angell. Motion carried. 5. Del Ziemer for Marigold Foods then asked the Commission to establish a public hearing to discuss a variance for a free standing sign fronting on Fourth Street. Planner Tooker said that a variance would not be required if a flat sign were affixed to the face of the building. However, Marigold had ordered the sign prior to investigating ordinance requirements. Motion by Sampson, second by Angell for the Planning Commission to set a public hearing at 7:00 P.M. on May 20, 1986 to discuss a front yard variance with the maximum setback possible on site in front of the main entrance to the Marigold Foods building. APIF, motion carried. 6. Planner Tooker introduced discussion of Farmington Hills pun and Preliminary Plat by discussing recommendations from MWCC, Dakota County Plat Review Com- mission, Farmington Park and Recreation Commission, Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation District, the City Engineer, plus portions of the Agenda Report. City Engineer Kaldunski summarized the main thrust of his comments on the plan. Tooker indicated that changes suggested by the City Engineer and information yet to be provided by the Developer prevented any recommendation by the Planning Commission at this time. William Scarborough, the developer, asked if the Commission would consider a special meeting prior to their next regularly scheduled meeting. The Commission agreed that this was possible but wanted all of the missing information in hand before scheduling the meeting. I 7. Edwin Luetzow, President of Minnesota Technical Research Incorporated, approached the Commission regarding the possibility of expanding an existing I I I 95 non-conforming use at the southwest corner of 8th and Pine Streets. He currently rents the building, but would consider purchasing it if, in the future, it could be expanded. Chairman Hanson replied that such a request would require both a special exception and a variance since the building already covers most of the property involved. Mr. Luetzow said that he would like to proceed with a hearing in order to find out what limits might be placed on any future expansion. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to adver- tise a public hearing at 7:30 P.M. on May 20, 1986 to discuss a possible variance and special exception for the north half of Lots 9 & 10, Block 3, Dittman's Addition to the City of Farmington subject to the submittal of an application and appropriate fees. APIF, motion carried. 8. The Commission adjourned at 10:10 P.M. upon a motion, second and affirmative vote. Submitted by, ~~~ /4 Charles Tooker Planner 5/;].Dh" Approved I I I 97 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MAY 20, 1986 1. Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Angell, Gerten, Hanson, Rotty. Members Absent: Sampson. Also Present: Planner Tooker, Engineer Kaldunski. 2. Chairman Hanson asked for a discussion of the minutes of April 15, 1986 with respect to a letter requesting changes in the wording of the Special Ex- ception granted Paster Enterprises from attorney George Frisch. Member Rotty indicated that his intent as maker of the motion that a second access from Highway 50 would require approval from MnDOT only if the developer elected to add one. Item "a" of the motion should be revised to read as follows: a. Approval by MnDOT of a second access from Highway 50 if future expansion by the developer includes one which has a minimum set back of 20 feet from the adjoining residential lot to the east. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to approve the minutes of April 15, 1986 as amended. APIF, motion carried. 3. Chairman Hanson opened the public hearing advertised for 7:00 P.M. to discuss a variance requested by Marigold Foods, Inc. to erect a sign 84 square feet per face and 30 feet high, 15 feet from the Fourth Street right of way line. Planner Tooker indicated that a variance from setback requirements could be justified because of the location of the building, which is closer to the right of way than the listed setback. However, the height variance and size variances are subject to question as there appears to be no hardship. Del Ziemer for Marigold Foods, Inc said that truck maneuvering in front of the building would be interfered with if the present height limits were enforced. Member Gerten suggested that both the size and height of this particular sign looked in scale with the building and perhaps the size of a sign should be increased for industrial signs. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to close the public hearing. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to grant a variance of setback as indicated on the plan since the sign serves an old building which itself does not observe current setback requirements; to grant a variance in height requirements of 10 feet in order for the sign to be clear of maneuvering space for trucks; and, to grant a variance of 9 square feet per face in the area or size requirements for the sign based upon a need to reevaluate the current size restrictions for industrial signs in the zoning ordinance. APIF, motion carried. 4. Chairman Hanson then opened the public hearing advertised for 7:30 P.M. to discuss the variance and special exception requested by Minnesota Technical Research Inc. to expand an existing building at 100 8th Street 20 feet into the front yard for office space with employee facilities on the second level. Mrs. Sauber, the adjoining property owner to the south, indicated that they opposed an extension of the building into the front yard, since it would then place their house 20 feet behind the industrial building. She did say that she is not opposed to an addition to the second floor but was only troubled by the proposed reduction of front yard setback. Motion by Angell, second by Rotty to close the public hearing. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Gerten, second by Rotty to deny the request for a variance and special exception to expand 100 8th Street into its front yard on the basis that another option, a ~ 98 second story, has not been explored, off street parking will not be available and the applicant has failed to prove that a hardship exists. APIF, motion I carried. 5. Chairman Hanson opened discussion of the AVID special exception by asking Planner Tooker to read the letter from City attorney David Grannis regarding the ramification of any action the City might take to invalidate the special exception. On the basis of the attorney's letter, it was the consensus of those present that any move toward invalidation should be initiated by the actual property owner. 6. Chairman Hanson called upon Herb Matteson who is interested in the rede- velopment of Block 18, Original Town of Farmington. Mr. Matteson indicated that Larry Thompson, City Administrator, could explain his interest in this property. Administrator Thompson said that they had already appeared before the Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority with plans for approximately 9 acres including Block 18, with the exception of the Austin Products building. The grain bins and fertilizer plant ultimately would become involved in a warehouse/office park oriented to the Vermillion River. The first phase would require removal of four houses to be replaced by industrial buildings offering 20,000 to 30,000 square feet of space to a variety of tenants. A green space link between the park system along the river and downtown Farmington would be involved. The HRA had not yet said that it was willing to condemn the property but does have an interest in bringing about implementation. of the Comprehensive Plan and providing additional economic activity in close proximity to downtown. The Commission is not being asked for any specific action but is only being made aware of a proposal the Economic Development Director is now working on. I 7. The Chairman asked for discussion of the variance request presented by Roger and Gloria Hagen to build a garage 2 feet from their side property line at 18215 Empire Trail. Mr. Hagen said that a garage built further into the yard would later make it difficult to build a deck adjoining the house in the rear yard. Member Gerten indicated that the request shows an inconvenience but no hardship and suggested that the request be withdrawn. Mr. Hagen said that he would withdraw his request and ask for a return of his application fee since the hearing was not scheduled. 8. Planner Tooker then introduced a request by Mary O'Neill for a variance to build a garage within 5 feet of the west property line at 5830 Upper 183rd Street. The applicant was not present and members of the Commission were not satisfied that a hardship exists. The Commission decided to table the request until the appli~ant could either be present or more information could be provided. The Chair called a 5 minute recess at 8:15 P.M. before proceeding with the discussion of the preliminary plat of Farmington Hills. 9. Chairman Hanson recognized George Frisch, attorney for Paster Enterprises, who continued to be dissatisfied with the minutes of April 15, 1986 with regard to the special exception granted to Towns Edge Shopping Center. The problem is the language regarding the site plan and whether or not the plan is binding or to be used as a guide in evaluating future expansion plans of Paster Enter- I prises. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to reconsider the motion to approve the minutes of April 15, 1986. In favor: Gerten, Hanson, Rotty. Opposed: Angell. Motion carried. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to approve the minutes of April 15, 1986 subject to the following wording changes: I I I 99 1. The word substantially should be added before the word indicated in the first sentence of the motion; and 2. Item a of the motion revised to read: Approval by MnDOT of a second access from Highway 50 if future expansion by the developer includes on which has a minimum setback of 20 feet from the adjoining residential lot to the east. In favor: Gerten, Hanson, Rotty. Opposed: Angell. Motion carried. 10. Planner Tooker reviewed the history of Farmington Hills PUD and Subdivision and the request of the Developer to limit consideration of this plat to the 40 acres on the high land immediately east of Akin Road. The Dakota County Platting Commission sent a letter which gives conditional approval to the developer's proposal provided that access to the west side of the road is gained by a cross intersection. Tooker said that the original PUD linked both sides of Akin Road by means of a through street and that the Platting Commission would prefer this location, subject to the regrading of the high land west of the curve on Akin Road to increase visibility of the proposed intersection rather than ultimately looking forward to two "T" intersections in close proximity. Tooker further stated that the 50 acres west of Akin Road would be limited to one access point since the developer does not control the Akin homestead. Warren Israelson said that the development team is still interested in purchasing the Akin homestead but~this property should not hold up development of the property east of Akin Road. He also disagreed with the Planning and Engineering staff regarding their recommendation to move the major north/south street away from the steep slope on the west side of the property. They hope to sell "walk out" housing sites and began negotiating with the staff on how little a move away from the slope would be permissible. The Commission was asked if it wanted to approve the plat subject to conditions or to meet in special session once the developer has revised his plan. It was the consensus of those present that a special meeting would be preferred. 11. A motion to adjourn at 9:45 P.M. was seconded and approved. Submitted by, o~r4~ Charles Tooker Planner Approved GJI1(~G I I I 245 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MAY 29, 1986 1. Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. Members Present: Hanson, Gerten, Rotty, Sampson. Members Absent: Angell. Also Present: Planner Tooker, Administrator Thompson. 2. Chairman Hanson called upon Harold Israelson to describe changes involved in the Preliminary Plat of Farmington Hills Subdivision and Planner Tooker to review staff comments. In essence, the developer encorporated changes suggested by the Planning Commission at a previous meeting. Most of the comments from members of the Commission centered on the need to recognize future development potential across County Road 31 and that access from 31 will only be available through the Akin homestead since it lines up with the major east- west street in the Farmington Hills Plat. Mr. Israelson said that he and his partners were trying to negotiate the purchase of this property for the purpose of including it within their development west of County 31. Motion by Gerten, second by Sampson to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Farmington Hills to the Farmington City Council, subject to the stipulation that development on the west side of County 31 must be linked to "A" Street in a cross intersection and that all comments of the City Engineer shall be followed. APIF, motion carried. 3. There being no additional business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 6:30 P.M. Submitted by, ~~~~ Planner CT/mh I I I 101 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JUNE 17, 1986 1. Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 7:20 P.M. Members Present: Hanson, Rotty, Sampson. Members Absent: Angell, Gerten. Also Present: Administrator Thompson. 2. Motion by Rotty, second by Sampson to approve the minutes of the May 20, 1986 regular meeting. APIF, motion carried. 3. Administrator Thompson informed the Commission that he had set a public hearing for July 15, 1986 at 7:15 P.M. to consider the conditional use permit to locate a retail business at 28 4th Street, presently zoned B-3. 4. Administrator Thompson reported that the proposed crossing on CSAH #31 related to the Farmington Hills Preliminary Plat had generated considerable discussion during the Council's public hearing and that the Council had re- quested clarification of the Commission's intent. Pat Akin, owner of a parcel of property directly across from "A" Street asked if the Commission would indicate if he would be required by the Planning Commission to locate a crossing street through his property if he decided to plat the property, or if the Planning Commission would allow him access to the property via a cul de sac. Administrator Thompson recommended that a through street be platted to serve the entire 50 acres, and that "A" Street on the Farmington Hills plat be moved approximately 50 feet to the north to allow the south part of Akin's property to be platted properly. Member Rotty stated that the Pl~ning Commission had ~ paid close attention to the "A" Street alignment ~~~C;;(i.. the developer had indicated that he wa~ planning to purchase the Akin homestead1k Mr. Akin stated that he was seeking direction from the Planning Commission so he could plan accordingly. Mr. Akin added that he knew this action would not be binding on the Commission. Chairman Hanson noted that the developer had been notified that the Planning Commission would require access from the west to serve the 50t acres west of CSAH #31 and the Akin homestead could pose a problem. Motion by Rotty, second by Sampson indicating the Planning Commission's intent to locate a through street crossing aligned with "A" Street and to recommend that, due to potential hardship on the property owners west of CSAH 1131, "A" Street of the Farmington Hills Plat be moved approximately 50' north. APIF, motion carried. 5. Administrator Thompson stated that the Farmington Hills Plat was not located within the pre-1990 Urban Service area, and that the City would not sign the Plat until the Comprehensive Plan was amended to include the pre-1990 service area. Mr. Thompson noted the Metropolitan Council was considering amending the Development Guide which would incorporate the plat in the urban service area without staging, but it was not known if or when the plan would be adopted. Mr. Thompson recommended that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Council amending the Comprehensive Plan to change the Farmington Hills, Farmington Hills First Addition and Akin Homestead to 1980-1990 Urban Service Areas. Mr. Thompson stated that as an option, if the aforementioned amendment is not accepted by the Met Council, that the 30t acres west of CSAH #31 in the NWi of the NWt of Section 24 presently within the pre-1990 service area be transferred to the Farmington Hills Plat, the Akin Homestead and the remainder to Farmington Hills First Addition. Motion by Rotty, second by Sampson to 102 forward the abovementioned recommendation to the City Council. APIF, motion carried. 6. Administrator Thompson informed the Council of a problem with a street I easement in Dakota County Estates Third Addition, as outlined in the June 16, 1986 memo to the City Council. Motion by Sampson, second by Rotty to reaffirm the Planning Commission's position that a street connect Dakota County Estates Addition and Dakota County Estates Third Addition, and to recommend that the Council take necessary steps to acquire the western portion of Lot 13, Block 1 Dakota County Estates Addition, needed to complete the street. APIF, motion carried. 7. Motion by Rotty, second by Sampson to adjourn at 8:20 P.M. APIF, motion carried. Respectfully submitted, ~m!f City Administrator -* Approved W 0~.R'~ -y l \'6l~\p I I 103 I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JULY 15, 1986 1. Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Gerten, Hanson, Rotty, Sampson. Members Absent: Angell. Also Present; Planner Tooker. 2. The Chairman called for comments on the minutes of May 29, 1986 and June 17, 1986. Member Rotty said that the minutes of June 17, 1986 in Item 4 should be changed to read as follows: "Member Rotty stated that the Planning Commission had paid close attention to the "A" Street alignment and the developer had indicated that he was planning to purchase the Akin Homestead." Motion by Rotty, second by Sampson to approve the minutes of May 29th and June 17th as amended. APIF, motion carried. I 3. Chairman Hanson asked Planner Tooker to review the request of City Council for Commission input into the requested alley vacation in Block 30, Orignal Town of Farmington. Tooker indicated that the character of this neighborhood had changed considerably since Dakota County Lumber was permitted to use the abandoned Minnesota Department of Transportation building on Fifth Street. The activity generated by the lumber yard suggests a need to consider changing the boundary between industrial and residential use from the railroad track to the alley in Block 30. This suggests a reason to keep the alley since the public right of way will provide a stronger boundary than a utility easement. This suggests that the existing housing should be removed to provide expansion space for whatever business or industry locates in the form highway department shop. Harbee Tharaldson was then called upon to explain his interest in the alley vacation. Motion by Gerten, second by Rotty to recommend that the City retain the alley in Block 30 since it will continue to carry utility lines and it someday is likely to mark the boundary between industrial and residential zoning. APIF, motion carried. I 4. Chairman Hanson opened the public hearing advertised for 7:15 P.M. to discuss the Special Exception requested by James Gammill for Mid America Dairy. The purpose of the Special Exception will be to operate a cheese store in the B-3 Heavy Business District across from Marigold Foods at 28 Fourth Street. Planner Tooker indicated that, while a retail operation normally would be encouraged within the downtown, much of the business generated by the store will continue to be from milk haulers who pick up items for farmers for the next milk pickup. Tooker also suggested that the Commission would need a detailed site plan drawn to scale showing off street parking, landscaping and access to existing streets. James Gammill said that, while he had spoken with the Planner, he was still unclear as to what would be necessary for Planning Commission review. Members present said that they had no problem with the use of the existing building as a cheese store even though it would likely serve more people than drivers of milk trucks, but that they would need to see how the site will be utilized. The site use can best be determined by scaled drawings. Motion by Hanson, second by Sampson to continue the hearing to a time at the call of the Chairman to allow Mr. Gammill some flexibility in preparing documentation to be reviewed by the Commission. APIF, motion carried. 5. Planner Tooker reviewed the reason for the next item on the agenda regarding Lot 1, Block 3, Dakota County Estates Third Addition. Jack Benedict' architect, Roger Johnson, is in process of developing a set of plans for the. 16 unit apart- ment building to be placed on this lot and has determined that general parking 104 belongs at the front of the building rather than as currently shown in the PUD. He has also suggested a garage building on site within 7 feet of the rear lot line. General discussion of those present suggested agreement with the plan proposed by Roger Johnson including the location of a garage building within 7 feet of the rear property line. Member Rotty suggested, and others affirmed, that minor alterations of PUD site plans not involving changes in land use, should be approved by the Planner. However, any change in land use would be forwarded to the Commission with public hearings scheduled by the City Council since land use changes constitute a major alteration of cncept within a PUD. Mr. Johnson was advised that he could proceed with his design work for the apartment building and that Planner Tooker would advise the building inspector of the site plan changes for Lot 1, Block 3 in Dakota County Estates Third Addition. I 6. Planner Tooker provided the Commission with background on the Comprehensive Plan amendment regarding the year 2000 urban service area. The City Council was uneasy with the draft of the amendment which would move areas within Sewer District 1 that had been assessed for trunk sewer lines to a time period beyond the year 2000. They asked the Commission to re-evaluate the proposed amendment with input from the Metropolitan Council staff since the City could be in jeopardy of legal recourse if an assessed land owner were to be refused access to urban services paid for. The City staff received a letter from Sandra Gardebring the following day which states that any land assessed for trunk and lateral sewer lines should be included within the urban service district. The City staff is now in process of preparing a revised draft of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment which recognizes this major change in philosophy with regard to Farmington. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to forward the City staff revised draft of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the City Council with the recommendation that it be given conditional approval contingent upon a determination by the Chairman of the Metropolitan Council that there is no impact on metropolitan systems. APIF, motion carried. I 7. The Chairman then recognized Gary Carlson of 5479 Upper 182nd Street West who presented the concerns of three householders who believe that construction of an Ensley Lane link with Upper 182nd St. W. will bring excessive amounts of traffic to the latter unless the City is willing to restrict turning movements to favor residents of Dakota County Estates. They also wish to request land- scaping at the intersection to cut down on the intensity of headlight glare that will be directed into their homes. The group is concerned about the amount and speed of traffic on County 31 with regard to leaving Dakota County Estates. Chairman Hanson indicated that the resident group should talk to the subdivision developer regarding extra landscaping and probably the City Council regarding an approach to the County Engineer on traffic controls for County 31. The City Council would also be able to direct staff to investigate regulations on turn movements within Dakota County Estates. The group decided to investigate the options outlined. 8. Upon an approved motion, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 P.M. Submitted by, ~~~ Charles Tooker /111---. Planner Approved 'b Iql~iJ I CT/mh I I I 105 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL JULY 29, 1986 1. Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M. Members Present: Gerten, Hanson, Rotty & Sampson Members absent: Angell Also Present: Planner Tooker 2. Chairman Hanson opened a continued hearing for the special exception requested for Mid America Dairymen to operate a cheese store at 28 4th St. in Farmington. Planner Tooker indicated that Gene Jacobson had prepared a site plan for the proposed cheese store which shows 5 parking spaces off street plus a drive through for larger vehicles. The number of parking spaces is based on three for retail customers and one each for the two employees on the maximum work shift in the area devoted to storage. Tooker also pointed out the need for a hard surface parking lot and drive through lane. Chairman Hanson indicated that the site plan shows parking in areas that are now grass covered and the developer should be given some flexibility with the paving requirement to allow for adequate settling. There was general agreement among the members present. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to close the public hearing. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Gerten, second by Sampson to approve the requested special exception to create a cheese store at 28 4th Street subject to the completion of signing and painting shown on the submitted building elevation plus subject to the addition of Class 5 gravel to the proposed parking area. The special exception is also to be granted subject to completion of paving requirements of the zoning ordin- ance by September of 1987. In addition the developer is requested to maintain the grass areas and existing shrubs and tree cover shown on the site plan. APIF, motion carried. 3. Chairman Hanson the recognized Douglas P. Kempf representing Israelson, Reese, Ellingson & Associates for his presentation of Farmington Hills and Farmington Hills First Addition dated July 17, 1986. He said that the City Council returned it to the Planning Commission since the original public hearing advertised only Farmington Hills and the Council wanted to be sure that the .commission had reviewed both portions of the plat. Planner Tooker asked if it was the intention of the developer to divide the plat as shown in the drawing. Mr. Israelson said that this was their intention. Tooker then said that the staff had some difficulty with the two temporary long cul-de- sacs since the second phase could be delayed or not built at all leaving the City with a difficult long term maintenance problem. Mr. Israelson said that he thought the major sticking point with this development was its intersection with County Road 31. Tooker said that yes this was indeed the major problem because of the affect it will have on future development of the Akin Estate. However, the staff was also concerned about the length of time two temporary cul-de-sacs will be in place. William Scarborough indicated his interest in seeing the Planning Commission approve the plat since the current development season is drawing to a close and it is important to the development group to be able to start construction during the current year. Warren Israelson said that since the Commission had previously given approval to the plat it would not be reasonable to delay the process further. Tooker said that the approval given in May was subject to the stipulation that the intersection with County Road 31 must be linked in a fashion that will allow a cross intersection to 106 serve the fifty or more acres west of the road. Member Rotty said that this access to County Road 31 has always been of concern to the Commission be- cause access to the west side of the road is necessary for good planning. I and that it would benefit the developer to include the Akin Estate in its proposal. Douglas Kempf asked if the Commission would approve the plat subject to a satisfactory resolution of the Akin Estate access opposite Embry Lane. Tooker said that the staff proposes an unfavorable recommendation to the City Council until the location of the cross intersection on Akin Road has been resolved. Douglas Kempf said that the developer would be better served if the Commission took no action. A denial would require the development group to start over. Chairman Hanson suggested that the group should agree upon who the developer actually is for this subdivision and that person or persons should then sit down with representatives of the Akin Estate and return a proposal that the Commission can act upon without reservations. The Commission is willing to meet in special session at any time once the, access problem has been worked out with staff. Mr. Kempf said that since the Council hearing was continued to the meeting of August 9, 1986, they would request that it be removed from the agenda. Tooker said that such a request should be directed to Administrator Thompson. It was the consensus of those present that further discussion of the plat should be delayed until staff is satisfied that the proposal relates to the development potential of surrounding property. 4. A motion to adjourn at 6:50 P.M. was approved. O~'IZ~ I Submitted by, Charles Tooker Planner Approved 1/ Iq/~1t CT/kf I I I I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR AUGUST 19, 1986 107 1. Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Angell, Gerten, Hanson, Rotty. Members Absent: Sampson. Also Present: Planner Tooker. 2. Chairman Hanson asked if the minutes of July 15 and 29, 1986 appear to be correct as submitted. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to approve the minutes of July 15 and 29, 1986 as distributed. APIF, motion carried. 3. Chairman Hanson then said that Lee Hawkins was out of town and therefore would be unable to present his appeal of a ruling by the Zoning Administrator regarding business activity in the R-2 District at 105 Oak Street. Tooker indicated that Mr. Kuchera had been notified that the Commission was unlikely to take action during the absence of Mr. Hawkins. The complaining neighbors therefore also would wait upon the return of Mr. Hawkins. 4. Planner Tooker then said that the Farmington Hills plat had been withdrawn from the agenda by Mr. William Scarborough, who appears to be in control of the plat once again. 5. Chairman Hanson then asked Robert Stegmaier if he wished to proceed with a discussion of the proposed plat or would he rather wait until his engineer -arrived. Mr. Stegmaier said that he would like the discussion to proceed and that his engineer, Harold Israelson, could catch up with whatever discussion may be in process. Planner Tooker then described the approach of staff in reviewing the two concept plans submitted by Mr. Israelson. Concept #1 was rejected because of its emphasis on cul-de-sacs and the amount of grading that would be necessary. Concept #2 was used to develop a slope analysis and revised to better link this development with the neighborhood to the south, more access to Pilot Knob Road northward away from the existing slope, eliminate some unnecessary streets, provide a neighborhood park requested by the Park Board and to anticipate a revised alignment of Pilot Knob Road between 190th Street and 195th Street. The revised plan would shift the east/west sanitary sewer and gas pipe line into side lot easements for approximately 1000 feet before entering the neighborhood park. The plan also recommends a street to cross the steep slope area which separates the plat of Farmington Hills from most of the Stegmaier property. The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and believes that a 10% slope can be achieved within the alignment shown. Tooker said that this street is difficult to recommend since it crosses a slope of 20% which will require extensive regrading to create housing sites. The plan does provide wide and deep lots which will be helpful in creating useable "pads" for construction. In weighing the adverse impact of not connecting various portions of the same neighborhood against building on steep slopes, the need for good neighborhood circulation was given more emphasis. The discussion of this staff proposal by Mr. Stegmaier and members of the Commission suggested that both parties were satisfied that it represented a good approach to development of this property. Planner Tooker then said that the staff will need the following information as part of a preliminary plat application: 108 A. Ownership - Is the developer an individual, partnership or corporation? The names of all "players", including the spokesman for the development, shall be included. B. Adjoining Property Owners - The names and addresses of all adjoining property owners shall be included. C. Filing Fee - To cover the cost of staff checking, reviewing and advertising for public hearing, a filing fee of $2000 shall be required. Mr. Stegmaier indicated that he was aware of the reasons for this request and would be able to comply at the time of filing the preliminary plat. 6. Chairman Hanson then recognized Patrick Finnegan who had been directed by Staff to approach the Commission regarding their attitude about develop- ment of the Hanson estate on the west side of Akin Road in Section 25. Various proposals were discussed, but one which appeared to offer the best immediate approach for Mr. Finnegan was for the estate to petition for rezoning of 40 acres from industrial to either residential or agricultural districts. Mr. Finnegan asked if the Commission would look favorably on such a change. Chairman Hanson said that the Commission would need some time to think about such a request if it comes. 7. Chairman Hanson said that the City Engineer was interested in the Commission's reaction to a proposed closing by the Railroad of the Main Street crossing. It was the consensus of those present that until rede- velopment of the land on either side of the railroad occurs, the City should retain this crossing. 8. With no further business to conduct the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 P.M. Submitted by, nf fJ '< ~ (~ W aljl ~(~ Approved . Charles Tooker Planner I I I 109 I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL SEPTEMBER 11, 1986 1. Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. Members Present: Angell, Gerten, Hanson, Rotty, Sampson. Members Absent: None. Also Present: Planner Tooker. I 2. Chairman Hanson asked for a discussion of the preliminary plat of Farmington Hills. Planner Tooker outlined changes in the plat since the earlier discussions took place. The major change was a shift in the lo- cation of 193rd Street 100 feet to the south adjoining the south property line for a distance of 400 feet eastward. This change was introduced in order to provide a cross intersection with County 31 without damaging development potential of the 3 acre parcel on the west side. The drainage plan was described as well as reason for jogging the side property lines where they intersect with rear property lines at the middle of blocks. The side property lines are required to approximate 900 angles at their intersection with the street right of way in the subdivision ordinance because to do otherwise could result in "front yards" that possibly belong to another property owner. The drainage plan needs some adjustment to more evenly divide sloping yards between the housing fronting on 192nd and 193rd Streets. Also, the sanitary sewer easement should probably coincide with the storm water runoff between both streets. The developer was also made aware that the City will require a complete loop of 191st and 192nd Streets in the first phase of this development, if the owner decides to complete the plat in more than one phase. The use of 193rd Street as a bike path was also discussed. Motion by Gerten, second by Rotty to recommend that the preliminary plat of Farmington Hills be approved by the City Council. APIF, motion carried. 3. Planner Tooker also described an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance drafted by the City Administrator to control the use of campers and RV's parked within the City. It was the consensus of those present that the amendment would be an appropriate control to indiscriminate use of such vehicles as long term living quarters. 4. The meeting was adjourned by consent of members at 6:10 P.M. Submitted by, c1~~ I Charles Tooker Planner Approved 1 D/&\ I ~(o Cl'/mh 111 I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SEPTEMBER 16, 1986 1. Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Angell, Gerten, Hanson, Rotty, Sampson. Members Absent: None. Also Present: Planner Tooker. 2. Chairman Hanson asked for comments on the minutes of August 19, 1986. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to approve the minutes of August 19, 1986 as distributed. APIF, motion carried. 3. Chairman Hanson opened the public hearing advertised for 7:00 P.M. to discuss a variance requested by Minnesota Technical Research Inc. Planner Tooker explained that because the application came in without a site plan, the hearing was advertised before it became apparent that there is no land on which to build the requested additions. Edwin Luetzow said that insurance costs have motivated his attempt to store flammable materials outside of the manufacturing area. The Commission, following its discussion, decided that legal advice will be required before any decision can be made. Staff was requested to check with the City Attorney on the legitimacy of Commission action that would allow private construction on a public right of way. Motion by Rotty, second by Angell to continue the Public Hearing until October 21, 1986 at 7:00 P.M. APIF, motion carried. I 4. Because the second hearing scheduled could not be opened, the Commission decided to discuss an agenda add on regarding rear yard setback requirements in the residential districts. Richard Orndorff of 1412 Lower Heritage Way was present to ask for consideration of his request to build a storage shed 4 feet from his rear property line. Planner Tooker said that the old ordinance listed rear yard setbacks as being the same as side yard setbacks. The new ordinance, however, increased it to 20 feet which would make it the same as a front yard setback. In other words, a building "envelope" within each lot would assure that front and rear yards would be free from structures within 20 feet of the right of way line. This becomes important in the older part of town where alleys are involved since automobiles can be parked in front of a rear facing garage without encroaching on the alley. There is probably less justification for this separation where alleys are not involved. It would be possible to amend the ordinance to allow for both situations, but care should be exercised in the amount of lot that can be covered by structures. Motion by Sampson, second by Gerten to set a public hearing on October 21, 1986 at 7:15 P.M. to discuss this variance request based on the apparent need to review rear yard setback requirements. APIF, motion carried. I 5. Chairman Hanson opened the public hearing advertised for 7:15 P.M. to discuss the Conditional Use request of Kindernook Nursery School to tranfer the operation from Faith Methodist Church to Farmington Presbyterian Church. Marvel Swenson indicated that all aspects of the nursery school would remain the same, that the kindergarten has an enrollment of 80 with only 20 on site at a time. The hours are 9:00 A.M. until 3:00 P.M. and outside use by the children is for supervised 20 minute breaks during good weather in the spring and fall. The nursery operates on the school system calendar. After being assured that student noise would be minimal, the Chairman entertained a motion 112 to close the hearing. Motion by Rotty, second by Angell to close the public hearing. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Angell, second by Sampson to approve the use of the south wing of Farmington Presbyterian Church as a nursery school operated by Kindernook Nursery. APIF, motion carried. 6. Chairman Hanson then opened the public hearing advertised for 7:30 P.M. to discuss the request of FEI, Inc. for a variance to build within 10 feet of the east property line. The hardship described results from the earlier request of the Farmington City Council to leave a 70 foot wide setback along the west side of the property to accownodate a future relocation of County 31. The first building honored that request and a second, to be at all useful, will need to be spaced 40 feet away for maneuverability of large equipment. After being satisfied that the road to serve future industrial development north of FEI, Inc. and Duo Plastics will more likely adjoin Duo Plastics, the Chairman entertained a motion to close the hearing. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to close the public hearing. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to grant the 15 foot sideyard variance requested by FEI, Inc. since the setback requested by the City Council on the west side has reduced the usefulness of the east side of the site unless the required setback is reduced. APIF, motion carried. 7. Chairman Hanson then called on Planner Tooker for a clarification of the appeal being requested by Lee Hawkins. The Planner said that the City Administrator has ruled that the storage of commercial vehicles and their service at this residence constitutes a business use which is not permitted in Residential Districts. Mr. 1lawkins has appealed this decision and the Commission has 60 days to render an opinion. Both Mr. Hawkins and Eugene Kuchera, representing the neighbors who have complained about this activity, were given the opportunity to provide background information. It was the consensus of members of the Commission that they needed more guidelines from the City Attorney regarding the difference between a business use and a home occupation. Chairman Hanson said that a decision in this case will have implications for many other people who offer services from their residence. The Commission agreed that staff should supply more foundation for this discussion with particular emphasis on a legal interpretation of the difference between business uses and home occupations. 8. Planner Tooker indicated that Robert Stegmaier had asked for a few minutes with the Commission since he would like to alter the schematic plan approved by the Commission during the August meeting. After Mr. Stegmaier's presentation, Chairman Hanson said that this could be handled by staff and need not be reviewed again by the Commission unless a major change was contemplated. 9. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. after it was determined that no other issues had been presented to staff. Submitted by, ~.I~ J4V Charles Tooker Planner \o\;\~ , Approved I I I 113 I MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR OCTOBER 21, 1986 1. Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Angell, Gerten, Hanson, Sampson. Members Absent: Rotty. Also Present: Planner Tooker and Administrator Thompson. 2. Chairman Hanson asked for comments on the minutes of September 11 & 16, 1986. Motion by Gerten, second by Sampson to approve the minutes of September 11 & 16, 1986 as circulated. APIF, motion carried. 3. Chairman Hanson introduced the continued hearing on the request by Minnesota Technical Research to build a cover for the existing loading dock and a storage shed in the right of way of Pine Street. Planner Tooker read from a recommendation received from City Attorney Grannis suggesting that the Commission had no authority to grant such a request. Chairman Hanson said that he had talked with Mr. Luetzowabout the attorney's opinion and that the applicant had decided not to discuss the issue further. Motion by Sampson, second by Angell to close the public hearing. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Gerten, second by Sampson to deny the application based upon the opinion of legal counsel that the Commission has no authority in this matter. APIF, motion carried. I 4. Chairman Hanson opened the public hearing advertised for 7:15 P.M. to discuss the variance requested by Richard Orndorff at 1412 Lower Heritage Way to build a storage shed four feet from the rear property line. Planner Tooker indicated that this request is one of several that have come to the Building Inspector since the revised ordinance was adopted. The staff believes that the new ordinance, which makes rear yards the same width as front yards, probably should be amended to return rear yard setbacks to the same width as side yards. Currently, the need for setbacks at the side and rear is based upon reasonable separation for fire protection and therefore, both should be the same. Some concern was raised regarding the way the Commission should proceed with the request of Mr. Orndorff. Motion by Sampson, second by Angell to close the public hearing. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Sampson, second by Gerten to approve the variance of up to 14 feet on the grounds that the Commission is looking toward the possibility that an amend- ment will be recommended making rear yard setbacks the same as side yards as early as the regular meeting in November. Approved: Gerten, Hanson, Sampson. Opposed: Angell. Motion carried. I 5. Chairman Hanson opened the public hearing advertised for 7:30 P.M. to discuss the Zoning Amendment requested by Robert and Elayne Donnelly to rezone the NEt of the NW~ of Section 26, Township 114N, Range 20W from R-l Residential to A-2 Agricultural. Planner Tooker indicated that the reason for the change was to allow the Donnellys to put this quarter quarter section into the Agricultural Preserve, thereby saving them some tax liability. Mrs. Donnelly indicated that the land, while above the flood plain, was mostly low lying pasture and unlikely to be suitable for residential development. Motion by Gerten, second by Sampson to close the public hearing. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Gerten, second by Sampson to approve the request 114 and forward it to City Council with the recommendation that it be approved. It is also recommended that the Comprehensive Plan shall be amended at I the same time to show this quarter quarter section as Agricultural. APIF, motion carried. 6. Chairman Hanson opened the conditional use public hearing advertised for 7:45 P.M. to discuss the request of Roopraj Oudhraj of 315 Pine Street to build an equipment and storage shed. Planner Tooker outlined the difficulty presented by this request, essentially as the expansion of a non-conforming use since the applicant will be using the building as a storage area for personal property rather than as a business operated out this location. The Commission agreed that the applicant will need to prepare a site plan that identifies paved parking areas and landscaping with the same detail required of any permitted or conditional use in this district. Motion by Gerten, second by Angell to continue the public hearing until 7:15 P.M. on November 18, 1986 to allow the applicant an opportunity to provide better information in support of this request. APIF, motion carried. Dirk Rotty arrived at 8:10 P.M. 7. Chairman Hanson opened the variance public hearing advertised for 8:00 P.M. to discuss the request of Douglas Hansen to build a garage within 3 feet of the north property line at 708 Fourth Street. Planner Tooker indicated that the existing building is situated within 5 feet of the north property line and the Commission has in the past allowed new structures to be built with the same setback. Motion by Sampson, second by Hanson to close the public hearing. APIF, motion carried. Motion by Sampson, second by Gerten to grant a one foot variance to allow the applicant the right to build a new garage within 5 feet of the north property line. APIF, motion carried. I 8. Chairman Hanson asked Planner Tooker for a review of the City Attorney's opinion regarding the Lee Hawkins appeal. In essence, the Attorney said that maintenance and servicing of commercial vehicles is a commercial use not allowed in a residential zone. The Commission could however allow the vehicle or vehicles to be parked on the lot as long as it or they are screened as required in Section 10-6-13(A) of the City Code and that no service or rehabilitation work is done. Mr. Hawkins indicated that he would be able to develop a screening system. It was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. Hawkins work with the Planner and Building Inspector on a screening system for a parking area capable of storing the commercial vehicles in harmony with this residential area and bring it back to the Commission to review at the November meeting. 9. The Commission then reviewed the schematic plan for Silver Springs, a 60 acre residential subdivision proposed by Robert Stegmaier. Planner Tooker outlined an alternative proposal that would satisfy questions presented by the developers concept. The Commission members indicated to Mr. Stegmaier and his engineer, Harold Israelson, that they should work with the staff to arrive at a proposal that the staff could endorse. 10. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M. I Submitted by, Q1J0 \~~ Charles Tooker, Planner Approved \ l \ t~\ ~ " I I I 115 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR NOVEMBER 18, 1986 1. Chairman Hanson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Angell, Gerten, Hanson, Rotty, Sampson. Members Absent: None. Also Present: Planner Tooker. 2. The Chairman asked for comments on the minutes of October 21, 1986. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to approve the minutes of October 21, 1986 as distributed. APIF, motion carried. 3. Leslie Flanagan, 18210 Emerald Trail in Dakota about rear yard setbacks in residential districts. the subject wmlid be discussed later in the meeting her of any action that is taken. County Estates, asked Chairman Hanson said that and that staff could notify 4. Planner Tooker indicated that, although Lee Hawkins was notified that the Commission was expecting to review a proposed screening plan for his parked vehicle, there had been no response. The discussion which followed suggested that staff again contact Mr. Hawkins indicating that a final decision on his appeal would be made at the next regular meeting of the Commission. 5. Jack Benedict, developer of Dakota County Estates, made a presentation explaining the changes he is proposing in the PUD for Lot 1, Block 1, Dakota County Estates Third Addition. Planner Tooker said that, from a planning perspective, the proposal is better than the original layout for Lot 1. However, because neighbors complained about the PUD after the public hearing and after it had been approved by City Council, there was also a concern that altering the plan without notification could jeopardize credibility for the Commission. Commission members indicated that the proposed change appears to be minor but that Mr. Benedict should meet with immediately affected neighbors to make them all aware of the proposed change. Planner Tooker said that he could be available to meet with neighbors or ask the Chairman to set a special meeting to consider any potential adverse reaction. Mr. Benedict indicated that he would be happy to meet with the neighbors and to discuss the revised plan. 6. Chairman Hanson then opened the continued hearing requested by Roopraj Oudhraj for a conditional use to build a storage building at 315 Pine Street. Without a plan or an applicant, the Commission decided to continue the hearing until 7:15 P.M. on December 16, 1986. Motion by Angell, second by Sampson to continue the public hearing until 7:15 P.M. on December 16, 1986. APIF, motion carried. 7. Planner Tooker presented a revised Table I from the Zoning Ordinance in which rear yard setbacks were reduced to the width of side yards in each district. The problem with the current ordinance is that rear yard setbacks which duplicate those of front yards spoil the usefulness of many rear yards. If narrow side yards provide an adequate protection from spreading fires, wide rear yards appear to be both arbitrary and unnecessary. In addition, it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between side and rear yards at street intersections. Motion by Ratty, second by Sampson to recommend that the City 116 Council amend the Zoning Ordinance by making rear and side yard setbacks the same in each district as indicated on revised Table I. APIF, motion carried. I 8. There was general agreement that instructions printed regarding the way to substitute Zoning Ordinance Amendments into Commission booklets leave much to the imagination. 9. A motion to adjourn at 7:50 P.M. was offered and approved. Submitted by, [~~~~ c~ '-6 Approved I 1?+\p I~ Charles Tooker Planner I I I I I 117 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DECEMBER 16, 1986 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Hanson. Members Present: Gerten, Hanson, Rotty. Members Absent: Angell, Sampson. Also Present: Planner Tooker. 2. Chairman Hanson asked for comments on the minutes of November 18, 1986. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to approve the minutes of November 18, 1986 as printed. APIF, motion carried. 3. Chairman Hanson opened discussion of the Lee Hawkins appeal of the City Administrator's opinion regarding a business activity in a residence at 105 Oak Street. Tooker indicated that Mr. Hawkins had called the building inspector to ask about screening but had not submitted any plans for review. It was the consensus of those present that Mr. Hawkins has had ample time to respond to the October request for a plan. Member Rotty suggested that a strongly worded letter should go to Mr. Hawkins ruling out any further parking of commercial vehicles on the lot until screening is in place. Motion by Rotty, second by Gerten to deny the original appeal based upon information supplied by the City Attorney but to allow off street parking, with no servicing or maintenance of commercial vehicles, if an acceptable screening plan has been prepared and executed. APIF, motion carried. 4. Planner Tooker said that Jack Benedict has met with two families who had earlier complained about the proposed strip center on Pilot Knob Road. He said that both families were satisfied that the redesign of uses within the center would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Motion by Gerten, second by Rotty affirming that no substantial change would occur in Dakota County Estates Third PUD as a result of moving the gasoline pumps from the south to the north end of the proposed center. APIF, motion carried. 5. Chairman Hanson reopened the Conditional Use Hearing requested by Roopraj Oudhraj to build an equipment storage building at 315 Pine Street. Planner Tooker said that, while he had been in contact with Mrs. Oudhraj, Mr. Oudhraj had not submitted a site plan of the proposed improvements. Consensus among those present was that the applicant has had ample time to prepare the information requested during the October meeting. Without it, there is no basis to approve a conditional use application. Motion by Gerten, second by Rotty to deny the request of Roopraj Oudhraj to build a commercial storage building at 315 Pine Street for lack of supporting data. APIF, motion carried. 6. Planner Tooker reviewed the preliminary plat of Akin Road Elementary School Site. It is a one lot subdivision requested by staff because of a need to dedicate certain portions of the land for street purposes and to prepare an acceptable storm water storage pond. Roy Anderson, landscape architect for this project, said that two decisions by others are critical for proper design of the site. The first involves the location of a sanitary sewer link to the trunk line now situated on the Akin Farm. The second is a need to know what, if any, improvements are going to be made by the County on 195th Street West so that site grading will be compatible. A general discussion of this school and school district needs generally, followed between Commission members and Mr. Boeckman. 118 Motion by Gerten, second by Rotty to recommend that the City Council establish a public hearing on the preliminary plat of Akin Road School Site. The plan is endorsed by the Commission subject to comments from the City and County Engineer I and the Council is encouraged to request County regrading and paving of 195th Street West between Akin Road and the entrance to Fair Hills Subdivision. APIF, motion carried. 7. Planner Tooker called attention to an inquiry by Bernard Murphy to develop land south of Pine Knoll Subdivision and west of Akin Road. He then circulated copies of page 14 from the Farmington Comprehensive Plan, which says in item 2 of City Land Use Policies as follows: "Limited amounts of construction will be allowed in non-platted areas, but no platting will be permitted, where municipal services are not available." He suggested that an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan expanding the municipal services area would be required for Mr. Murphy to proceed with development but that such an amendment would not be acceptable to the Metropolitan Council. The Commission instructed Tooker to notify Mr. Murphy that development in this area is considered to be premature. 8. There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 8:00 P.M. Submitted by, ~0~ Charles Tooker ~ Planner Approved I I I;},O/ ~~ I I I