Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 . Planning Commission Minutes Regular February 9, 1999 1. Interim Chair Schwing called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Schwing, Larson, Rotty, Ley, Johnson Members Absent: None Also Present: Community Development Director Olson, Planning Coordinator Smick, Associate Planner Schultz 2. Community Development Director Olson read aloud the sworn oaths of office signed by Commissioners Rotty and Johnson. 3. Schwing requested nominations for the election of the Planning Commission Chairman and Vice-chairman. Commissioner Larson nominated Schwing as Chairman, seconded by Ley. YES- Larson, Ley, Johnson, Rotty; ABST AIN- Schwing. MOTION CARRIED. Larson nominated Commissioner Rotty as Vice-chair, seconded by Schwing. YES- Ley, Larson, Schwing, Johnson; ABSTAIN- Rotty. MOTION CARRIED. 4. Chair Schwing requested comments concerning the December 8, 1999 minutes. There were none. MOTION by Rotty, second by Larson to approve the minutes. YES- Rotty, Ley, Larson, Schwing; ABST AIN- Johnson. MOTION CARRIED. . Chair Schwing opened all scheduled and continued public hearings as this time. 5. Planning Coordinator Smick presented the report on the B-4 Neighborhood Business District and the resulting comrnents from the City Council which reviewed the proposed district at the January 19th meeting. Smick went on to read aloud the revised permitted and conditional uses. Questions were posed from the Commission of the appropriateness of some of the uses. Staff replied that the Commission would need to make that decision of what is appropriate. . Comrnissioner Ley asked if there are any other areas within the City that this zoning district could be applied to. Smick replied that there are several areas that staff is reviewing as possibilities. Chair Schwing entered into the record the legal opinion of Andrea Poehler of Campbell Knutson (City Attorney) of the methodology in which to entertain the issues in order they appear on the agenda. Schwing also entered into the record the written statement from Ron Ersfeld, 820 Third Street. Marv Wier, 808 Third Street, voiced concerns over limiting delivery truck size, outside lighting and signage. Smick replied that it is difficult to determine what the appropriate truck size would be. Community Development Director Olson added that it is a challenge to meet all the concerns of the property owners but staff is attempting to limit it to the appropriate size and scale of the site. Planner Smick stated that staff would require a luminary plan at the building permit stage for review to ensure that the lighting is not directed toward residential housing. Smick continued by replying that signage would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Schultz added that multi-purpose buildings require approval at the Planning Commission. . Schwing requested any more comments or questions from the public and the Commission. Commissioners voiced concern over the restriction and limiting of type of truck and if there were alternatives such as limiting it to the number of axles or weight. The Commission agreed that limiting it to "straight-trucks" as to be defined by staff and reviewed by the City Council. MOTION by Rotty, second by Ley to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Rotty to approve and amend Sections 10-2-3, 10-3-1 and 10- 3-2 or the Farmington City Code and forward to the City Council with the elimination of gross vehicle weight to a more appropriate restriction, second by Larson. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. Chair Schwing began the public hearing on the proposed definitions amending Title 10 of the Farmington Zoning Ordinance. Smick read aloud the definitions for "Day Care Facilities", "Residential Care Facilities" and "Personal and Professional Services". Smick continued by stating that the amendment would also include changes to 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 pertaining to "Hospitals and Clinics" as permitted uses and certain "Residential Care Facilities" as conditional uses in the B-1 and B-2 Districts. Smick stated that the City Attorney has reviewed and approved the proposed amendments. . Smick continued by stating that because of the proposed Neighborhood Business District amendment additional definitions will also need to be added and requested that the Commission review the defmitions for Neighborhood Services", "Personal Health and Beauty Services". Smick stated that because of the ongoing discussions of the B-4 district that these definitions will be voted on at a later meeting and that only the latter definitions and amendments will need to be adopted and forwarded at this time. Commissioner Rotty voiced concern over the possible confusion of the term "Residential Day Care" and the definition for "Personal Health and Beauty" in that therapeutic massage had a separate approval process and suggested that jacuzzi and saunas be excluded. MOTION by Rotty, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Rotty, second by Johnson to amend 10-1-4 of the Farmington Zoning Ordinance for the definitions of "Day Care Facilities", "Residential Care Facilities" and "Personal and Professional Services" and also to amend 10-3-1 and-} 0-3-2 pertaining to "Hospitals and Clinics: as permitted uses and certain "Residential Care Facilities" as conditional uses in the B-1 and B-2 Districts. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 6. Planner Smick presented the staff report on the applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone the property located at 821 Third Street. Smick stated that the applicant is seeking to amend the Comprehensive Plan frorn Low Density Residential to Business and Rezone the property from R-2 (Medium Density) to B-4 (Neighborhood Business). . . . . Dave Kennedy, 312 Maple St., wanted to clarify and make record of the statement that the residents at the January 7, 1999, neighborhood meeting, did not object over the issue of the proposed uses. Chair Schwing noted statement. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to close the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Rotty, second by Larson to close the public hearing on the application to rezone. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Rotty, second by Larson to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and forward it to the City Council contingent to the following: a) Approval of the amendment to Section 10-2-3, 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 of the Fannington City Code to add a Neighborhood Business District to the zoning designations, and; b) Subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to approve the rezoning from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to B-4 (Neighborhood Business) can forward it to the City Council contingent to the following: a) Approval of the amendment to Section 10-2-3, 10-3-1 and 10-3-2 of the Farmington City Code to add B-4 (Neighborhood Business) District to the zoning designations; and b) Contingent on the application of a building pennit for any unauthorized construction within the building; and; c) Subject to Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 7. Associate Planner Schultz presented the staff report on Arlender Nordvik and IDS Properties application for a conditional use penn it for the continuation of a legal non- confonning use. Schultz stated that the applicant is seeking the permit in order for the City to recognize the Airlake Ford operation located at 821 Third Street. Schultz briefly explained the history of site and the results of the past public hearings. Schultz stated that staff recommends approval of the conditional use penn it based on several contingencies which were read aloud. Chair Schwing opened the hearing for questions from the Commission and the public. Commissioner Ley wanted clarification on contingency #5 of the staff report on vehicles "owned" by Airlake Ford. Staff noted the change to reflect within the contingencies. Mr. Blanch of Airlake Ford also wanted to clarify that their operation does not include priming of vehicles. Mr. Blanch also added that it is possibly their intent to prime and paint in another unit of the building. Chair Schwing asked staff if the pennit was "unit" or property specific? Community Development Director Olson stated that the penn it would be property specific. Olson added that the Commission has some discretion at what type of operations to penn it. Chair Schwing asked Mr. Blanch specifically if Airlake Ford is currently priming or painting? Mr. Blanch stated no. . Peggy Schmidtke, 719 Third St., voiced concern if this was an appropriate use and that the property owners now have more flexibility with the new zoning district. Dave Kennedy, 312 Maple St., added that he would like to concur with Mrs. Schmidtke's comments. All parties continued discussion on questions and concerns of the recognized use. Commissioner Rotty asked if time restrictions can be placed on this type of conditional use permit? Community Development Director Olson stated that he would like to get a legal opinion before answering that question. The Commission request<<::d that staff research that possibility. MOTION by Rotty, second by Larson to continue the public hearing to the March 9, 1999 Planning Commission meeting and for staff to research the possibility of placing time restrictions on conditional use permits. YES- Ley, Larson, Johnson, Rotty, NO- Schwing. MOTION CARRIED. 8. Associate Planner Schultz presented Melissa Blasier's request to discuss with the Commission her proposal to re-establish the upstairs portion of her home located at 300 Main Street as an accessory aparbnent. Schultz stated that Mrs. Blasier would need a conditional use permit per City Ordinance and a variance due to the lot not meeting minimum lot standards. . Commissioner Larson asked if the house meets all building code requirements and if the City would have a Building Inspector look at it? Schultz said that it has not reached that point and that staff would have to discuss if the City would inspect the property or if it would be done independently. The Commission recommended to Mrs. Blasier to inquire about having a building inspector inspect the home for code violations and that the Commission were aware of no glaring concerns of the proposal. 9. Planner Schultz presented to the Commission the sketch plan for the proposed townhomes located in the East Farmington development along Larch Street and Eighth Street. Schultz stated that the developer was proposing a sixteen (16) unit rental townhome complex located on approximately 1.68 acres of land, with a density level of 9.55 units per acre. Schultz stated the units would consist of 1,400 square feet, three bedrooms, I Y2 baths and a one-stall attached garage. Schultz added that the layout wiIl attempt to be replicated with a park area in the rear of the developments. Schultz stated that Engineering's preliminary review has indicated a concern with driveway distance from the Eighth Street frontage road which may effect the overall layout. The Commission had some general questions and concerns of the project and approval process; those questions included traffic and traffic controls, rental rates, off-street parking and landscaping between the project and existing homes. The Commission . . . . closed by recommending to the developer to possibly hold a neighborhood meeting to answer any questions or concerns they may have before any public hearings. 10. Planner Smick informed the Commission of the March 17th meeting with the City Council concerning the 2020 Land Use Plan. Smick presented the City Council recommendations toward the proposed 2020 Land Use Plan; those included an industrial site in the north portion of the City adjacent to the railroad, the multi-family and commercial at 220th St and Denmark Ave. The Commission was not support of the industrial area to the north or the commercial land at 220th and Denmark. The Cornmission reminded staff of an agreement with downtown business owners of no new commercial areas on the downtown fringes. Smick will report the Commissions recommendations back to the City Council. 11. Smick presented to the Commission the proposed 2020 Thoroughfare Plan. Smick presented the major changes to the plan which included the proposed County Road 60 (or 179th Street), concern with 20Sth Street and an alignment with Lakeville and the changes to interior minor collector roads. The Commission questioned the County Road 60 proposal and how it would effect property owners and the City's desire to complete 19Sth Street. Smick stated that some of the issues will continue to be resolved through further discussions with Lakeville and Dakota County. 12. Planner Smick presented the revised Landscape Ordinance. Chair Schwing questioned if there would be a period of time in which the ordinance would take affect and for property owners to be aware of it. Smick replied that there would be a three month period between adoption and enforcement. Smick added that if the Commission had any additional comments to contact her. 13. There being no further business the Commission agreed to adjourn 10:30 P.M. Submitted by, Michael Schultz Associate Planner q~ Approved . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular March 9, 1999 1. Vice Chair Rotty called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Schwing, Larson, Rotty, Ley, Johnson Members Absent: None Also Present: Community Development Director Olson, Planning Coordinator Smick, Associate Planner Schultz, City Engineer Auge 2. Rotty requested any comments or corrections for the January 12, 1999 Planning Commission minutes. There were none. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to approve the minutes as presented. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Rotty requested any comments for the February 9, 1999 Planning Commission minutes. There were none. MOTION by Ley, second by Larson to approve the minutes as presented. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Chair Schwing arriving late assumed Chair. 3. Community Development Director Olson presented information to the Commission concerning an Interim Use Permit that cities are permitted to do, but Farmington does not have such ordinance within the Code. Olson noted the example ordinance within the report. Olson stated that if the Commission desired, they could direct staff to continue work with the City Attorney's Office to draft a similar ordinance. Comrnissioner Rotty stated that this tool would be helpful not only for the 821 Third Street situation but for future cases. Chair Schwing asked if the applicant's application could be changed in the middle of the process? Olson responded yes, as long as what is introduced is more permissive instead of more restrictive. Commissioner Ley questioned what would occur if the Council rejected the Interim Use Ordinance. Olson responded that that is always a possibility. Chair Schwing requested that a re-notification be sent out to the residents involved in the 821 Third Street conditional use permit. Chair Schwing presented three letters in support of the CUP to enter into the record. Chair Schwing requested any comments from the public. Dave Kennedy, 312 Maple Street, requested verification of the process with the proposed Interim Use Ordinance. Clarification on staff's recommendation was given. Don Hunter, IDS Properties, presented a petition from residents in favor of the conditional use permit. The petition was entered into the record. Commissioner Larson asked if this ordinance would allow a permit to be renewable, Larson suggested that would be something to research. Chair Schwing presented the possibilities to the applicants on the action they would desire to take at this time. Discussion took place on the processes and the possibilities that exist . at this time. MOTION by Rotty, second by Johnson to continue the public hearing to April 13, 1999. YES: Larson, Johnson, Rotty; NO: Ley, Schwing. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Schwing, second by Johnson to direct staff to re-notify the surrounding property owners of the continued public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Rotty, second by Johnson to direct staff of the text amendment concerning adopting an Interim Use Ordinance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Chair Schwing began the next public hearing on the application to amend the Cornprehensive Plan for Silver Springs 3rd Addition. Commissioner Rotty suggested that the Commission take the next item also concerning the application to rezone of Silver Springs 3rd. Associate Planner Schultz informed the Commission that the applicant did not submit an Abstractor's List in time for the public hearing notices to be sent to residents after public notification was given in the newspaper. Commissioner Rotty suggested that the applicant, Mr. Giles, hold a neighborhood meeting prior to the public hearing to resolve any issues with the neighbors. Olson replied that staff can suggest that to the applicant but we can not legally require that a neighborhood rneeting be held. (Action was not necessary due to an incomplete submission for a public hearing, the . hearing will be re-advertised for the April 13, 1999 Planning Comrnission meeting) 5. Planner Schultz presented to the Commission the staff report on the preliminary and final plat of Oak Place townhomes. Schultz stated that a number of issues were discussed in a meeting between Engineering staff and the developer's engineer, which included; the placement of water lines, replacing the existing sanitary sewer and replacing and moving a catch basin on the property. Schultz added that staff recommended some landscape changes in the type of tree species on the plan. Chair Schwing requested any comments or questions from the public and the applicant. Commissioner Johnson asked why staff was requiring the sanitary sewer line upgrade and placement within the street. City Engineer Auge responded that the four inch (4") line was not adequate and the suggested placement of the line by the developer would interrupt other utilities that are typically put in the suggested location. MOTION by Rotty, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to approve the preliminary and final plat of the Oak Place Townhomes and forward the plat to the City Council contingent on: a) all engineering issues be resolved; b) all landscape issues be resolved. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 6. Chair Schwing opened the hearing on amending Title 10, chapter 4, Section 4: Non- conforming lots. Cornmissioner Rotty suggested that because staff is recornmending continuing the public hearing that all discussion be held until the next scheduled meeting. . . . . MOTION by Rotty, second by Johnson to continue the public hearing to the April 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. 7. Planning Coordinator Smick presented to the Commission the report to amend the definitions portion of the Farmington Zoning Code, Title 10. Those definitions as described included: Neighborhood Services, Personal Health and Beauty, Light Manufacturing and Assembly, Straight-trucks and Hospitals. Smick stated that the City Attorney has reviewed and approved the new definitions. The Commission and staff briefly discussed details of the new definitions and possible revisions to avoid situations. Chair Schwing questioned the difficulty of enforcing sorne of the language in the new definitions without adopting some type of supporting definitions or performance standards. Community Development Director Olson stated that staff would begin to review the possibility of adopting such standards. MOTION by Rotty, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Ley, second by Johnson to approve the amendment to adopt the definitions of Neighborhood Services, Personal Health and Beauty, Light Manufacturing and Assembly, Straight-trucks and Hospitals, pending the review of the "optical" portion ofthe Neighborhood Services definition. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. Planner Smick presented to the Commission the proposed Land Use Element, Policies and Strategies of the 2020 Farmington Comprehensive Plan Update. Smick briefly highlighted some of the elements, policies and strategies of the plan. Planner Smick requested any questions of the element. Chair Schwing asked where the Plan puts the City for Livable Communities. Schultz replied that the Plan falls within the 32-36% that was agreed upon with the Metropolitan Council. Commissioner Ley requested clarification on the existing park space and how much is needed by 2020. Staff agreed that clarification may be needed because all City owned park and open space is included and that a differential may need to be shown between irnproved parks and unimproved parks. Staff will review that issue. The Commission questioned the wording on several other policies and strategies. Staff will review the wording to better clarify the intent ofthose policies and strategies. MOTION by Johnson, second by Ley to accept the Land Use Element, Policies and Strategies with staff review of those issues brought forth by the Commission. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. There being no further business, the Commission agreed to adjourn. Respectfully Submitted, Michael Schultz Associate Planner Approved . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular April 13, 1999 1. Chair Rotty called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Larson, Rotty, Ley, Johnson Members Absent: Schwing Also Present: Community Development Director Olson, Associate Planner Schultz 2. Chair Rotty requested any comments on the minutes for March 9, 1999. There were none. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to approve the March 9, 1999 Commission minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Rotty requested any comments on the minutes for March 23, 1999. Rotty noted that the discussion of Commissioner Schwing resignation was not present along with the election of officers. Staff will make the necessary changes. MOTION by Ley, second by Johnson to approve the March 23, 1999 minutes as amended. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Chair Rotty briefly explained the public hearing process to audience members and the items that were on the agenda. 3. Rotty opened the public hearing for Melissa Blasier, 300 Main Street, who is seeking a conditional use permit and a variance for the re-establishment of an accessory apartment. Planner Schultz informed the Commission that applicant was seeking the conditional use permit for an accessory apartment within an R-2 (Medium Density) zoning district and a variance was needed for the minimum lot size requirement. Schultz stated that the subject property is only 6,000 square feet and the minimum lot size requirement is 10,000 square feet. Schultz continued by stating that, according to both the applicant and City water billing records, the home had at one time an apartment but was abandoned approximately four (4) to five (5) years ago. Schultz added that the City Building Official has inspected the home as recommended by the Planning Commission and finds the home to be structurally sound, adding that some minor improvements will be necessary. Commissioner Ley asked if the off-street parking requirements were being met. Schultz replied that they were. Rotty opened up for any public comments. There were none. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to approve the conditional use permit. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to approve the variance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Chair Rotty indicated that staff is recommending to continue the public hearing to the April 27, 1999 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow staff to continue the review of adopting an interim use ordinance. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to oontinue the public hearing to the April 27, 1999 meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Rotty opened the scheduled public hearing for Tim Giles concerning the application to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone property located at the northeast corner of Pilot Knob Road and 190th Street West. Community Development Director Olson outlined the applicants petition request to amend the Comprehensive Plan for portions of the subject property from Low Density to Medium Density and Business. Olson explained that the applicant is suggesting an R-3 (High Density) and B-1 (Limited Business) zoning districts. 5. Staff has expressed concern about the possible heavy traffic related to the permitted uses within a B-1 zoning district and have suggested the recently adopted B-4 (Neighborhood . Commercial) district which staff feels would be less intrusive. Olson read aloud, for the benefit of the residents present, the permitted and conditional uses in both the B-1 and B-4 zoning districts. Chair Rotty asked Mr. Giles if he had any additional comments. Mr. Giles pointed out that the one lot (of two lots) along l89tb Street W. did meet the minimum lot requirements during the initial platting of Silver Springs but because of the park space dedication it does not. Mr. Giles argued that other businesses existed along Pilot Knob Road without direct access. Staff replied that that was correct but that those areas were zoned for commercial as part of the plats and the accesses are directly off the side roads. Discussion continued over what zoning options existed for the property. Mr. Giles commented that he would deal with the (City) Council if the Planning Commission did not approve what he petitioned for. Mr. Giles excused himself from the public hearing. Chair Rotty opened the hearing for any comments or questions from the residents. Greg Young, 5354 189th Street W.: The original plat of Silver Springs indicated those parcels as outlots and the construction of English Ave aHowed those to become platted. The residents of Silver Springs would like to see the two lots (along 189tb Street W.) to become part of the park dedication. Also the covenants of the development read that all lots be occupied by single-family units. Bob Weigel, 19035 Enchanted Way: Is there a need for another convenience store in the area? Also concerned with the recent high speeds of traffic along English Ave with the proximity of the park. Julie Endersbe, 5322 189th Street W.: I'm concerned over the use and speeds along English Ave. Mr. Giles told my husband and I that there would be a park land set aside; Suggested that the neighborhood participate in building a park. . Brian Walters, 18930 English Ave.: There wouldn't be enough room for two houses (along l89tb Street W.) and the park is too small to have sufficient park equipment. Tim Payne, 18821 English Ave.: The speed and use of vehicles along English Avenue would increase the traffic in the neighborhood with any additional commercial. Howard Hennen, 18854 Emblem Crt.: Mr. Giles identified those two lots (as shown) as future park space when we purchased our house. Roxanne Mainz, 18941 Englewood Crt.: Does the City have a minimum size park standard and where do they decide where parks are placed? David Olson responded by explaining the City parkland dedication ordinance and the responsibility of the Parks & Recreation Commission. Brian Kelly, 18897 Elgin Ave.: Does the City have any architectural requirements if Mr. Giles were permitted to place a commercial building on that property? Community Development Director Olson responded that the City does not have in place any . specific architectural requirernents, staff can only make suggestions to the developer. 2 . . . Renee Myers, 18893 Elite Crt.: There are many children in the neighborhood and the resource of a park would be beneficial. Chair Rotty commented that it appears the residents aren't satisfied with the (size of) tot lot being proposed. Karen McKinley, 18810 English Ave.: With the opening of English Ave. the residential feel has been lost because of the amount of traffic speeding through the neighborhood, nobody walks or rides their bikes anymore. The Commission, staff and the residents continued the discussion at length of the issue of the proposed rezoning of the property and the need for park space in the neighborhood. Chair Rotty requested any additional comments from the Commission. Commissioner Ley requested more information on why English Avenue was extended to 1901h Street W., was it apart of the Pilot Knob Road project? Olson responded that staff would research that question. Commissioner Larson commented that if the developer does not care about what the Commission recommends he would be in favor of retaining the R-l zoning district. Chair Rotty commented that he would not be in favor of the proposed R-3 district as a "transition" zone between commercial and residential, also that he would not approve of a lot that did not meet the minimum lot requirements. Rotty requested staff to forward the comments of tonight's meeting to the Parks & Recreation Director and discuss the issues with the Parks & Recreation Board. Rotty added that he would not be in favor of recommending B-4 because he is not sure the developer would even want that. Rotty also requested that staff attach a finding of fact to the minutes. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Ley, to deny the applicants petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density to High Density and Business; and rezone from R-l (Low Density) to R-3 (High Density) and B-1 (Limited Business) of the subject properties located at the northeast comer of Pilot Knob Road and 190th Street. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. The Planning agreed to take a 5 minute recess. 6. Chair Rotty opened the hearing for the application of Brett and Amy Jensen for a conditional use permit to locate a fast food establislllnent and office/warehouse space. Planner Schultz presented the staff report to the Commission outlining the staff review of the proposed site plan. Schultz explained that there were a number of issues identified by staff-that should be addressed by the developer and his architect before any staff recommendations are forwarded to the Commission. Schultz requested that staff and the developer meet prior to the next Planning Commission meeting to resolve all issues. Rotty requested any comments from the Commission and the public. Commissioner Larson asked if it were any safety concerns in having warehouse space next to a fast food establislllnent specifically any stored chemicals and fire separation. The applicant 3 stated that there wouldn't be any chemicals stored in the space and that is under discussion with City staff the type of fire wall separation needed . Mary Pennington, 18334 English Ave: Will the automobile detailing shop have vehicles coming and going and will vehicles be parked overnight? Brett Jensen: The business is an automobile lettering shop, placing advertising lettering on vehicles. Some vehicles may be parked overnight. Commissioner Larson asked if there were plans for outside storage? Mr. Jensen responded that there might be a work vehicle parked in the rear but there will not be any trailers or heavy equipment parked outside. Commissioner Larson asked if the proposed building lines up with the Budget Mart and Super America? Schultz stated that because of the taking of Pilot Knob Road that they may not line up exactly, but he will research it further. Mary Pennington: How many accesses will there be? Planner Schultz replied two, one off Upper 183rd Street and one off English Ave. Mary Pennington: Where will the dumpster be located? Will it be enclosed? Schultz responded that there will be a berm and landscaping screening the enclosure in the rear, the enclosure will be masonry that will match the exterior of the building. Rotty asked if there were any questions or comments from the Commission or the public. Commissioner Larson asked if all the lots met the minimum size required for R-I? Schultz stated that they meet and exceeded the minimum lot sizes. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Ley, second by Johnson to forward a recommendatioR to amend the Comprehensive Plan from Agriculture to Low Density and rezone the properties from A-I (Agriculture) to R-I (Low Density) to the City Council. 8. The public hearing was opened by Chair Rotty for Charleswood 2nd Addition. Community Development Director Olson presented the staff report concerning the fifty-four (54) lot 2nd Addition. Olson presented some of the minor changes that are being made in this phase, one of which is that the front yard setback will increase from twenty (20') feet to twenty-five (25') feet. Olson also presented sorne developer added amenities that include landscaped . 4 . . . medians in the cul-de-sac and gateway monuments. Olson also noted that the developer will be modifying the landscape plan to have trees planted every fifty (50') feet to allow for deciduous trees in the boulevard as approved by the Planning Coordinator. Steve Juetten, Genstar Land Company, gave a brief presentation explaining the changes in setbacks, the landscaped cul-de-sacs and the gateway monuments. Juetten stated that the homeowners association through the covenants of the development would maintain the cul- de-sacs. Juetten also stated that a revised landscape plan is already being worked on. Rotty opened up for discussion from the Commission and the general public. There were no questions from the public. Commissioner Larson asked staff what type of engineering issues remain? City Engineer Mann responded that the main platting issue that remains relates to easements for storm sewer. Olson stated that one other minor modification relates to what is sometimes referred to as flag lots. Steve Juetten responded that an additional lot could be added on cul-de-sacs using this design. He added that this design allows houses to be pushed back further and promotes higher priced housing. MOTION by Johnson, second by Ley to close the public hearing. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson, to approve the preliminary and final plat and forward it to the City Council contingent upon additional Engineering requirements. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. Community Development Director Olson began the public hearing for East Farmington 6th Addition by presenting to the Cornmission the staff report. Olson stated that the addition will consist of seventy-six (76) single-family lots and will essentially be a continuation of the East Farmington development with the exception of the approved block design amendment. Chair Rotty recognized Rod Hardy, Sienna Corporation and Jim Sturm, James R. Hill & Associates for any additional comments. They had none at this time. Joy Eldred, 8 I3 10th Street: Are the lot lines for the homes (in the next phase) that develop behind the existing lots on 10th Street to match? Olson responded that there was some discussion during previous public hearing that the developer would agree to research the options that may include berming and landscaping between the properties. Rod Hardy added that he intends to meet with the residents before the filling of the 7th Addition to resolve this matter. There is some concern with berming because of the flatness of the land. Craig Schlawin, 19001 Euclid Path: Requested that the record be clear that there was some discussion on the previous Planning Commission that those lot lines were to match and that the developer have continued discussions with the residents to resolve the situation. Rod Hardy responded that he would have future discussions with the residents at resolving the situation. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to close the public hearing. MOTION by Ley, second by Johnson to forward a recommendation to approve the preliminary and final plat of 5 East Fannington 6th Addition contingent upon any Engineering requirements. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . 10. Chair Rotty noted that staff had recommended to continue the public hearing for Title 10, Chapter 4, Section 4: Non-conforming lots. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to continue the public hearing to the May 11, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. Chair Rotty opened up for discussion the issue of a conditional use permit and a variance for the property located at 300 1 st Street. Olson gave a brief staff presentation of the request. Mr. Dave King, the owner of the subject property, presented a proposal to move a duplex into an R-2 zoning district. Mr. King added that he intends to use the existing foundation and would be seeking a variance in front yard setback along the 1 Sf Street side. Commissioner Ley asked if the County Road SO reconstruction may affect the property. Olson responded that staff will review that aspect when it the information is submitted. The Commission and Mr. King continue to discuss some possible issues. Chair Rotty suggested that Mr. King work with staff as closely as possible. 12. Community Development Director Olson presented to the Commission a draft proposal of the Interim Use Ordinance from the City Attorney. Olson stated that the ordinance addresses a temporary use of the property until a particular date. The ordinance language establishes conditions of an interim use, termination of the use, application, public hearing and notice and provides an appeal process. The Commission, staff and residents continued to discuss and gave clarification of particular language within the ordinance. 13. There being no further business the Commission agreed to adjourn at 10:30 P.M. . Submitted by, Michael Schultz Associate Planner Approved . 6 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular May 11, 1999 1. Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Larson, Rotty, Ley, Johnson, Dougherty Members Absent: None Also Present: Associate Planner Schultz and City Attorney Jamnik 2. Planner Schultz read aloud the sworn oath of office for new Planning Commissioner Tim Dougherty . 3. Chair Rotty requested comments on the minutes for April 13, 1999. Rotty pointed out that "to close the public hearing" was missing in #3. Schultz stated he would make the correction. No other comments were rnade. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson. Roll Call: YES: Rotty, Larson, Ley, Johnson; ABSTAIN: Dougherty. Chair Rotty opened all public hearings at this time. Rotty infonned the public that the items on the agenda will be taken out of order due to the City Attorney's limited time. 4. Chair Rotty introduced a proposed amendment to Title 10, Chapter 8 to add Interim Use Penn its to the Zoning Code. Associate Planner Schultz presented the staff report on the interim use amendment. Schultz explained the basis of the amendment and clarified text in the ordinance that was questioned at the previous Commission meeting. Commissioner Larson: If passed, can another similar use go into the same zoning district?,:: Planner Schultz stated that that was correct, as long as they applied for the interirn use penn it. Commissioner Ley: Doesn't this defeat the whole purpose in the case of 821 3rd Street? City Attorney Jamnik responded that the Cornmission has the option of denying or approving with conditions any application, the Council can also repeal the ordinance at any time. The City is unable to draft a site-specific ordinance with more restrictions; the Commission is able to place restrictions that they see necessary to the penn it. The Commission, residents and City staff discussed the ordinance in relation to the situation at 82 I Jrd Street. A majority of the Commissioners stated that the ordinance would be a good tool for the City in allowing flexibility within the zoning code. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to approve the amendment to Title 10 Chapter 8 adding Interim Use penn its and forward the recommendation to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. Chair Rotty introduced a proposed amendment to Title 10 Chapter 4 Section 4 of the Zoning Code. Planner Schultz presented the staff report that would amend the zoning code to allow non-confonning lots to be viewed as a one contiguous property. Schultz presented several examples of when the ordinance could be used. May 11, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes Chair Rotty questioned why seventy percent (70%) is used in relation to the ordinance? City Attorney Jamnik stated that this is a common number that is found in many zoning codes, although arbitrary, most cities use the same number. . Chairman Rotty asked if this would effect new subdivisions? Attorney Jamnik replied that this ordinance is only for previously platted lots of record. Rotty asked for any questions from the Commission and public. There were none. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to approve the amendment to Title 10 Chapter 4 Section 4 and forward it on to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Jamnik excused himself from the meeting. 6. Chairman Rotty introduced the conditional use permit for Colin Garvey to locate a greenhouse/landscape business at the property located at 100 5th Street. Associate Planner Schultz presented the staff report for the conditional use permit. Schultz stated that the property was recently owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and used at a maintenance facility and added that Mr. Garvey's proposal would be an appropriate reuse of the property. Commissioner Larson questioned the requirement to upgrade the curb located in front of the property. Mr. Garvey stated that he had requested in the past for the City to.repair the curb. Planner Schultz clarified that the reuse of the property and the need for parking warrants an upgrade to the curb, Schultz than pointed to Gerten's Greenhouse an eXaIllple. Schultz agreed to consult with Engineering staff to clarify the matter. . Questions arose over the screening and landscaping of the property, Schultz stated that the details can be worked out between staff and the applicant in the type and the issue of tree overgrowth in the existing south fence-line, the Commission was agreeable. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to approve the conditional use permit contingent upon the applicant and staff resolving the issues listed below. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 1) installation of curbing along 5th Street; 2) landscape material be placed along the eastern fence line; 3) storage lirea must be screened from view to the adjoining R-2 district. 7. Chairman Rotty introduced the continued public hearing on the conditional use permit for Brett and Amy Jensen. Planner Schultz informed the Commission that because of new information that was discovered by staff concerning an easement on the property City staff is requiring the applicant to have the property surveyed. Schultz stated that the original plat did not contain the fifteen-foot (15') permanent easement that was acquired during the Pilot Knob Road reconstruction. Schultz stated that in conferring with both the City Attorney and Jerry Kingrey, right-of-way manager for Dakota County, that the easement acts like right-of-way in which the County has the ability to widen the roadway when needed. Because this new information alters the site plan the applicant will need to make the appropriate changes. . . . . May II, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes Schultz outlined outstanding issues that need to be addressed on the site plan, those issues included: exterior lighting, landscaping, continuous parking lot to the south lot, placement of sidewalk and various engineering issues. The Commission and staff continued to discuss the range of issues and what could be done to rectify some of them. The Commission and staff agreed to continue working closely with the applicant and their architect. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to continue the public hearing contingent upon when all requested information that has been submitted by the applicant. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. Chairman Rotty introduced the proposed wetland protection ordinance amending Title 10 Chapter 9 of the Zoning Code. Associate Planner Schultz presented to the staff report and a copy of the ordinance to the Commission. Schultz continued by outlining a list of answers to questions that were previously asked during discussion at the previous Commission meeting. The Commission was satisfied by the prepared responses. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to amend Title 10, Chapter 9 of the Farmington City Code to provide a wetland protection ordinance and forward the recommendation to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. There being no further business the Commission agreed to adjourn. Respectfully Submitted, Michael Schultz Associate Planer Approved . . . Planning Commission Minutes Special May 25,1999 1. Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00P.M. Members Present: Larson, Rotty, Johnson, Dougherty Members Absent: Ley Also Present: Planning Coordinator Smick, Associate Planner Schultz Chair Rotty opened all scheduled public hearings at this time. 2. Chair Rotty introduced the interim use application for Arlender Nordvik and IDS Properties to locate an automobile repair facility within a B-4 zoning district. Rotty explained that because this is the initial application for an interim use it would require a text amendment to the Zoning Code with approval by the City Council. Associate Planner Schultz presented the staff report to the Commission. Commissioner Larson questioned the "sunset" clause recommended by the City Council. Schultz replied that the sunset date allows the Commission and Council to review the status of interim use permits. Commissioner Dougherty asked what time line other cities establish for sunset dates. Schultz stated that it really varies depending upon land use, zoning and extent, the Commission and Council do have some flexibility in establishing dates. Comrnissioner Larson asked what is the total square area of the service area of Airlake Ford. Steve Burrows, IDS Properties, replied that it is 5,000 square feet. Chair Rotty asked if the applicant had any additional comments. Mr. Burrows replied that they would like to be considered for a 5-year interim use permit that would be concurrent with the new lease with Airlake Ford. Planning Coordinator Smick informed the Commission of a resident concern with the unpaved parking area on the east side of the building adjacent to the back alley. Dave Kennedy, 312 Maple Street: The resident read a prepared statement against the approval of the interim use permit for Airlake Ford. Concern was voiced over semi- trucks still entering the property. Mr. Kennedy presented pictures of the rear of the property. A resident petition against the approval of the permit was submitted. Chair Rotty wanted clarification if semi-trucks were still entering the property and if the trucks were involved with Airlake Ford. Steve Burrows replied that they have spoken with the tenants on resolving the issue with semi-truck delivery. Dan Blanch, Airlake Ford, added that they do not have any semi- truck delivery of any products. May 25,1999 Planning Commission Minutes The Commission encouraged any residents to contact the City if any jointed semi-trucks are seen delivering on the property. . Concerns were voiced over the storage of dumpsters, parts and materials. Chair Rotty suggested working with staff on constructing a screened enclosure. Peggy Schmidtke, 719 3rd Street: Voiced concern that enforcement of the property would be difficult and that the 5-year permit is to long for this use. The Commission, residents and staff continued discussion over enforcement issues on the property. Chair Rotty clarified that separation should be given between possible existing code violations with other tenants of the building and the use of the permit. Chairman Rotty opened Commissioner comments on the interim use issues. Rotty stated that although there was concern over the precedence the permit was setting he welcomes the interim use process as a tool to phase out uses. Chair Rotty requested comments from other Commissioners on the interim use. All Commissioners stated that they prefer moving forward and began discussing conditions of the permit. Rotty discussed the staff outlined contingencies with both the residents and applicants to gauge if both were agreeable to them. After some discussion both residents and applicants were agreeable to the contingencies with minor modifications made. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to approve the interirn use permit based on the following contingencies: 1. The length of operation be limited to 3 years; 2. Time of operation be limited to Monday through Friday 7 A.M. to 5 P.M. and Saturday 8 A.M. to Noon; 3. Operation be limited to body repair only, no priming or painting of vehicles; 4. No outdoor parking of repaired vehicles; 5. No exterior storage of parts, work with staff on construction of enclosure; 6. Limit exterior noise based on resident complaints; 7. No expansion of existing facility (5,000 sq. ft.); 8. Improvements be made in the rear parking area with class 5 gravel; 9. City Council considers a 5-year sunset clause on the text amendment. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . 3. Chair Rotty opened the public hearing on the preliminary and final plat of Nelsen Hills Farm 7th Addition, the last and final phase ofthe development. Planning Coordinator Smick presented the staff report with recommendation to approve the preliminary and final plat and forward it to the City Council contingent upon approval of final engineering plans and submittal of a landscape and street lighting plan. Chair Rotty requested comments from the developer Dave Heller, Heritage Development. There were none. Chair Rotty requested comments from the public and the Commission. There were none. . . . . May 25,1999 Planning Commission Minutes MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to approve the preliminary and final plat of Nelsen Hills Farm 7th Addition and forward it on to the City Council contingent upon: 1. approval of final engineering plans; 2. submittal of a landscape plan; 3. submittal of a street lighting plan. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Chair Rotty opened discussion on the final plat of Cameron Woods Cooperative. The plat consists of 82 units of senior housing located west of Pilot Knob Road, north of Nelsen Hills Farm. Planning Coordinator Smick presented the staff report of the final plat with recommendation of approval based on the listed staff contingencies and forward it to the City Council. Rotty asked the developers ifthere was anything to add. Tom Sand, Wensco Inc., added that they did add one more unit to each building without changing the footprint of the building. Mr. Sand stated they did this by eliminating the guestroom on one floor. MOTION by Johnson, second by Dougherty to continue to approve the final plat and forward it to the City Council based upon the following contingencies: 1. Compliance with engineering requirements; 2. Continuing discussions concerning the connection of Euclid Street to the north and south of the proposed developrnent will need to be addressed in the Development Contract; 3. A detailed landscape plan showing locations and species of plantings surrounding the buildings is required; 4. Approval of the Final Plat is contingent on the subrnission and approval of a street lighting plan. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. There being no further business the Commission agreed to adjourn. Respectfully Submitted, Michael Schultz Associate Planer Approved Commissioner Chair . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular June 8, 1999 1. Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Rotty, Ley, Larson Members Absent: Johnson, Dougherty Also Present: Planning Coordinator Smick, Associate Planner Schultz 2. Chair Rotty requested comments on the April 27, 1999 Planning Commission minutes. There were none. MOTION to approve minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Chair Rotty requested comments on the May 11, 1999 Planning Commission minutes. There were none. MOTION to approve minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Chair Rotty opened all scheduled public hearings at this time. 3. Chainnan Rotty opened the public hearing for the conditional use pennit requested by Independent School District 192 to place classroom space within an R-3 zoning district. Associate Planner Schultz presented the conditional use pennit to the Planning Commission. The applicant seeks to convert the building located at 421 Walnut Street from office space to classroom space for the School District's Alternative Learning Center. If student enrollment expands, the School District would offset the need for additional classroom size by extending service hours. George Flynn, 320 Walnut Street: Would like the School District to strongly recornmend to the staff and students to utilize the parking lot rather than the street to park their vehicles. Bob Endersbee, School District #192 Superintendent: Yes, we would be agreeable to that request. George Flynn, 320 Walnut Street: Will the school extend it's service hours before they would expand the building to allow additional students? Bob Endersbee, School District #192 Superintendent: Yes, that is the School's proposal. School hours would be later in the afternoon and during the evening hours. Chairman Rotty: Any addition to the building would require the School District to apply for further expansion of the building. George Flynn, 320 Walnut Street: Could the parking lot be landscaped or curbed because it is a residential? I. Applicant secures all proper building pennits. 2. Applicant secures sign penn it for change of signage on front of building. 3. The applicant applies for a new conditional use pennit if any future additions are needed on the existing building or property. June 8, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes MOTION by Ley, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson contingent on the compliance of the above requirements, second by Ley. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . 4. Chair Rotty opened the scheduled public hearing for David King who is seeking a conditional use permit to establish a duplex within an R-2 zoning district, a variance from the minimum lot size for duplexes and special exception permit to rnove a duplex structure along City streets and locate at 300 1st Street. Associate Planner Schultz presented the conditional use, variance and special exception permits to the Planning Commission. The duplex is currently located in Scott County. The existing structure on the property was damaged by fire in January of 1998. The applicant proposes to raze the building and the garage and locate the duplex on the existing house foundation. The applicant needs to apply for a variance to the front yard setback for a future Planning Commission meeting. Chair Rotty requested comments from the applicant. David King, 3245 Vermillion River Trail: An existing duplex has already been moved and needs a new location and is a ready-made duplex. There is no need to divide the structure. Will set the structure on the existing house location and extend the foundation 23 feet to the west. Will re-roof structure and install new chipboard and vinyl siding on the structure. Will look like new home after completed. Will rent both units. Larry Oldenburg, neighbor: Is this a split entry or will it have a full basement? Is it two bedrooms? Will you rent out four units? . David King, 3245 Vermillion River Trail: The units will have full basements and could be used as a third bedroom because of the installation of egress windows in the basement. The sides of the structure will be split entries. There will only be two units for rent. No drive will be located off of Elm Street. Larry Oldenburg, neighbor: Who owns the property? Will the units be three bedrooms? David King, 3245 Vermillion River Trail: I own the property and I will leave the option open for 2 three bedroom units. Bob Richardson, 35 Elm Street: Would the entrance off of Elm Street be used or closed? Would the garage be a new structure or a used structure? David King, 3245 Vermillion River Trail: Elm Street access would be closed because of the reconstruction of Elm Street. The garage would be a new structure and would be accessed off of I st Street. Luanne Richardson, 35 Elm Street: Will Mr. King be the landlord? David King, 3245 Vermillion River Trail: I will not live on the property, but I will be the landlord. . . . I. a) b) c) d) e) 2. 3. 4. I. 2. 3. . June 8, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes Chairman Rotty: Mr. King, are you aware of the contingencies and do you agree with them? David King, 3245 Vermillion River Trail: Yes. Mr. King understands that he has 60~days to upgrade the exterior of the structure and 90- days to landscape the lot after the structure is set on the foundation per the requirements of the City Code. David King, 3245 Vermillion River Trail: Will remove the existing structure and leave the floor and foundation only so rain or kids can't access the basement. Will begin construction towards the end of August. Will put up orange fence around foundation. Commissioner Ley: Is there a problem with the front yard setback? If we deny the front yard setback variance will this stop the project? I have asked Mr. King if he has spoken with Dakota County concerning the widening of Elm Street. Has he done this? David King, 3245 Vermillion River Trail: No. Associate Planner Schultz: Staff is under the impression that the County does not need right-of-way needs in this area. Commissioner Ley: Need to contact the County Engineer. MOTION by Ley, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Contingencies to the approval include the following: Applicant secure all proper permits including: Building Permits Demolition Permit Oversize Load Permit from MNDOT Any Engineering Permits (i.e. curb breaking, additional water stub out) Necessary setback variance if the existing foundation is to be utilized. Applicant complete an upgrade of exterior of structure within 60 days and any appropriate landscaping (to be determined by staff) within 90 days upon approval of permit. Applicant deliver an acceptable surety equal to the cost of the work to be done to ensure completion. Applicant remove the driveway access onto Elm Street. MOTION by Ley, second by Larson to approve the conditional use permit based upon the above contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Ley, second by Larson to approve the variance based upon the above contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Ley, second by Larson to approve the special exception permit to move the structure over City streets and based upon the above contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. June 8, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes Chair Rotty opened discussion on the scheduled public hearing for the application from Lampert's Lumber to rezone Lots 1,2 and 3 in Block 16, Town of Farmington from B-2 and R-2 to B-3. . Commissioner Larson stepped down from the review of the rezoning because of his involvement with the project. Planning Coordinator Smick presented the staff report on the rezone application. Lamperts Lumber seeks B-3 Heavy Business in Lots 1, 2 and 3. City staff recommended that the zone be revised to B-2 General Business thereby requiring the rezoning of Lot 3 only. A plan drafted in 1993 was shown to the Planning Commission and illustrated conditions required for the approval of the 1993 plan. The conditions included landscaping and asphalt in the front of the store along Spruce Street. The only conditions that were met included the slats installed in the fence and the installation of bituminous material in the driveways and supply yard area. Lot 3 is proposed to be an expansion of the supply yard and Lamperts Lumber proposes to slat the fence that will be installed around the perimeter of Lot 3. Chairman Rotty asked the applicant for any statements. Mr. Pete Chow, Lamperts Lumber: The 1993 plan was the site plan that I wanted to comply with upon approval of the expansion of the lumber yard. However, there was never any consensus to finalize the contingencies of the plan because there were two plans. The two trees near the railroad should not be installed in this location because of the difficulty to see around the trees. All of the other landscape plantings are agreeable to Lamperts Lumber. We also are agreeable to pave the front of the store. We would like to see the property be rezoned to B-3, however, we can work with the B-2 recommendation. . Chairman Rotty: What are your future expansion plans? Mr. Pete Chow, Lamperts Lumber: We would like to expand to take up the entire block and locate the store at the corner of Oak Street and 1 sl Street and provide a parking lot. Mr. Don Feely, Owner of Lots 4 and 5 in the R-2 District: What effects will this rezoning have on my property? Planning Coordinator Smick: They will rernain R-2. Commissioner Ley: Concerned about the number of contingencies and why didn't the 1993 contingencies get completed? Chairman Rotty: Lack of enforcement was most likely the cause, however, it is appropriate to require these 1993 contingencies to be completed. George Flynn, 320 Walnut Street: Do you have a quorum because there are only two Planning Commissioners present at the table? . June 8, J 999 Planning Commission Minutes Chairman Rotty: Yes, we asked the City Attorney and it is a quorum. . Associate Planner Schultz: Will you remove the unmountable curb? Mr. Pete Chow, Lamperts Lumber: Yes, we would remove the unmountable curb and replace it with surmountable curb. MOTION by Ley, second by Rotty to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Rotty, second by Ley to rezone Lot 3 from R-2 to B-2 with the following contingencies and forward it to the City Council: 1. Staff recommends changing the original rezoning request of B-3 Heavy Business to B-2 General Business, thereby rezoning Lot 3 of Block 16, Town of Farmington to B-2 General Business and maintaining the B-2 General Business zone for Lots I and 2, Block 16, Town of Farmington. 2. The City recommends Lamperts Lumber to pave the parking lot along Spruce Street and provide landscaping per the 1993 plan in order to fulfill the requirements of that 1993 approval. 3. The City recommends that screening be provided within the expansion area requiring slats to be installed within the proposed chain link fence. . 4. The City recommends landscaping along Oak Street at the north side of the property. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Chainnan Rotty welcomed Commissioner Larson back to the table. Planning Coordinator Smick began a discussion of the Larry Wenzel property. The City received a letter from the Wenzel's attorney to locate a three-acre business use within the property. The Planning Commission originally removed the business use from the property citing 1) that the vision of maintaining the downtown commercial area was important, and 2) that a ten-acre business area was located at the southwest comer of Pilot Knob Road and 195th Street in close proximity to the Wenzel property. The attorney will address the City Council on June 21, 1999 concerning this request. City staff wanted the Planning Commission to be aware of this request. The City Council needs to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission because the commission is the advisory board for the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Ley wanted to know about the vacant house across the street from his house. He stated that it is a health hazard and the City needs to address the problem. City staff stated that they would review the situation. . Commissioner Ley had a second issue concerning the overgrown weeds on the comer lot in the Limerock Ridge subdivision. Associate Planner Schultz stated that Mr. Mann, City June 8, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes Engineer will contact Lyman Development to infonn them of the high grass and weeds on the property and infonn them that they have to address the situation immediately. . 6. There being no further business the Commission agreed to adjourn. Respectfully Submitted, Lee Smick Planning Coordinator Approved Commission Chair . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular July 13, 1999 1. Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Rotty, Ley, Larson, Johnson Members Absent: Dougherty Also Present: Community Development Director Olson, Planning Coordinator Smick, Associate Planner Schultz 2. Chair Rotty requested comments on the May 25, 1999 Planning Commission minutes. There were none. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to approve minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Chair Rotty requested comments on the June 8, 1999 Planning Commission minutes. There were none. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to approve minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Chair Rotty opened all scheduled public hearings at this time. 3. Chairman Rotty introduced the conditional use application from Lambert's Lumber for a supply yard on Lot 3 Block 16, Town of Farmington. Commissioner Larson excused himself from the table because of his interest in the development of the property. Planning Coordinator Smick presented the staff report. Smick stated that the property is currently vacant and zoned B-2 (General Business). Smick reiterated the contingencies attached to the rezoning of the property and recommended attaching the same to the conditional use permit in order to fulfill the original 1993 conditional use permit and landscape plan. Chair Rotty requested comments and questions from the applicant. Mr. Cordova, representing Lampert's Lumber, questioned whether the area needed to be asphalted because of possible future expansion of the facility. Class five gravel was proposed. Rotty asked the applicant that if Lampert's were to expand in the future that the paving would all be done at once? Mr. Cordova responded yes. Commissioner Ley asked how long before the next expansion? Mr. Cordova replied possibly in the next 2 to 5 years. Commissioner Ley stated that he was concerned about the dust that might be created from trucks and forklifts. Rotty opened the discussion for public comment. There were none. Chair Rotty stated that if the applicant did not want to asphalt and could tolerate the mud he could not see a problem, however, based on a by-complaint system that Lampert's July 13, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes take care of any problems that may arise from the gravel base such as dust. Rotty asked if the applicant had a problem with that contingency? Mr. Cordova responded that he did not. . MOTION by Ley, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. Roll Call: YES: Rotty, Ley, Johnson; NO: none; ABSENT: Larson, Dougherty. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Ley, second by Johnson to approve the conditional use permit based on the following contingencies: 1. Pave the parking lot along Spruce Street and provide landscaping in order to fulfill the requirements of the 1993 approval; 2. Screening shall be provided within the expansion area requiring slats to be installed within the proposed chain link fence; 3. Installation of landscaping along Oak Street at the north side of the property is required. A landscaping plan needs to be submitted and approved by City staff. Roll Call: YES: Rotty, Ley, Johnson; NO: none; ABSENT: Larson, Dougherty. MOTION CARRIED. 4. Chair Rotty introduced the variance application for Bible Baptist Church. Planner Schultz presented the staff report. Schultz stated that the applicant is seeking forty-foot (40') variance to the required fifty-foot (50') front yard setback and also a variance for an illuminated sign within a residential zoning district. Schultz informed the Commission that the applicant had received a variance in 1994 for both setback requirements and illumination of the sign. Schultz stated that the only difference is that the sign is slightly larger, 6 feet by 10 feet on a 5~foot base and is interior lit. The sign is proposed to be located north of the driveway. . Schultz added that the property meets all criteria to grant a variance but is concerned about the proposed height of the structure and recommended approving an eight-foot freestanding sign. Rotty requested any additional comments from the applicant. Louis Camacho, representing Bible Baptist, requested that the Commission consider allowing a nine-foot sign because ofthe need to allow room at the ground level to replace lettering. Chair Rotty asked for any clarifying questions from the Commission. The Commissioners agreed to wait after resident comments. Rotty requested any comments or questions from residents. Troy Corrigan, 19691 Akin Rd, stated that a sign of this size and to be illuminated would be inappropriate for this area. Chair Rotty - "Would (the sign) be on a timer?" Schultz replied that had not been clarified during discussions. Mr. Camacho added that he assumed it would. . 2 . . . July 13, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes Chair Rotty - "Why does the sign need to be illuminated?" Mr. Camacho responded that because of previous accidents to the existing sign and for visibility and recognition by passing motorists. Commissioner Johnson responded that the sign being illuminated on Akin Road along with the lights in the parking lot does not seem to detract from the neighborhood. Commissioner Larson suggested installing a timer on the sign to avoid having it illuminated all night. Commissioner Ley voiced concern with the size and height of the sign in a residential area. Chair Rotty agreed and thought the staff recommendation of eight-feet was appropriate. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to approve the sign variance for an 8-foot tall illuminated sign to be placed 10-feet from the front property line. Roll Call: Yes: Johnson, Rotty; NO: Ley, Larson. MOTION DENIED. MOTION by Rotty, second by Johnson to direct staff to begin reviewing the current sign ordinance and to update the ordinance by comparing it with adjacent communities. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. Chair Rotty opened the public hearing for a variance request from David King, 3245 Vermillion River Trail for the property located at 300 I st Street. Associate Planner Schultz presented the staff report to the Commission. Schultz indicated that the applicant is seeking a 6-foot variance along Elm Street and a 10-foot variance along 1 st Street to enable the applicant to utilize the existing foundation in order to move a rambler onto the site. Schultz rerninded the Comrnission that the applicant has already been granted a conditional use permit, special exception permit and a variance at the June 8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting to move an existing duplex rambler onto a smaller than minimum lot. Schultz added that he has contacted Jerry Kingrey, Right-of-Way manager at Dakota County in which he indicated that it is not anticipated there will be a need for additional right-of-way for C.S.A.H. 50 in that area. Chair Rotty asked if the applicant was present. Schultz stated that the applicant is unable to attend because of other business. Rotty asked for any comments or questions from the public. Mr. Richardson, 35 Elm Street: Would the driveway off Elm Street be closed off? Planner Schultz replied that the driveway would be closed off and that it was addressed and agreed upon by the applicant at the previous meeting. 3 July 13, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes MOTION by Ley, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by to approve the variance of 3.9 feet on Elm Street and 11 feet along 1st Street. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . 6. Chair Rotty introduced the scheduled public hearing for the Farmington Townhomes 1st Addition Preliminary and Final Plat/Final PUD. Planning Coordinator Smick presented the staff report. Smick stated that Sherman Associates is seeking Planning Commission approval for the 16 unit rental townhome project on approximately 1.6 acres in the location of Trunk Highway 3 frontage road and Larch Street. Smick added that the project is part of the East Farmington Planned Unit Development and meets the proposed land use of multi-family. Smick indicated that the multi-family area that was designated near County Road 72 was amended in 1998 to clear room for single-family development in a POO amendment which was approved contingent that the remaining identified multi-family areas would remain. Sm.ick stated that the property has been identified and is part of the calculations of the Livable Communities requirements. Smick continued by outlining details of the townhome project. Chair Rotty requested if the applicant had anything to add to the staff report. George Sherman introduced himself and presented a color site plan of the project. Mr. Sherman discussed the neighborhood meeting that was held earlier in the year and shared with the Commission some of the resident concerns toward the project. Mr. Sherman stated that rental housing is a vital component of the City's housing mix. He continued his presentation with details relating to the project. . Chair Rotty requested any comments or questions from the public. Karen Nichols, 604 Fairview Lane: How much has the City met toward the Livable Communities Goal? David Olson responded that the City in 1995 was around 25%. The City has not had any new rental housing since probably 1986. Karen Nichols voiced concern about the number of driveways and the number of people that will be backing out onto the streets with the number of children in the neighborhood. Mr. Sherman defended the proposed layout with the original layout that was accepted as part of the POO. Ronald Galloway, 617 10th Street: Asked about the lease agreement and the number of adults permitted in each unit. Mr. Sherman replied that only two related adults are allowed and that the lease and financing agreement will specify that. The rents are geared for families that earn 60% of the median income in Dakota County, which is currently $61,000. Cynthia Sandey, 901 Larch Street: How come there is no screening in the front of the units, but only on the south side? Also voiced concern over the additional traffic. . 4 July 13, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes . Lee Smick replied that there will be trees planted every 30 feet on the boulevard. Barb McHenry, 708 9th Street: Traffic in the area is already bad because of Highway 3 and Budget Mart, why can't a traffic study be conducted before the townhomes are constructed? Chair Rotty replied that the Police Department would need to conduct that study. Pam Galloway, 617 10th Street: Will the units have maintenance rules? Mr. Sherman replied that the units need to be maintained by the requirements of the investors and there will also be a manager on site. Lawn services will be contracted. Dave Fischer, 708 10th Street: Voiced concerned about the number of driveways on Larch Street. Kevin Hand, 509 10th Street: Asked Mr. Sherman if he would be willing to adopt the Homeowners Association agreement for the development? How long are the leases? Do the Bristol Square Townhomes go toward the Livable Communities goal? Mr. Sherman responded that he would be willing to review the covenants of the association and possibly adopt them. Leases are 1 year. . Cornmunity Development Director Olson responded that the Bristol Square development does count toward the multi-family portion of the Livable Communities formula. Tony Wading, 704 9th Street: If the property is sold will the maintenance requirements stay with the property? Mr. Sherman answered that they must retain ownership for at least 15 years, after that time ifit were sold he is not sure if the same requirements would run with the property. Paul McHenry, 709 9th Street: Stated that the 1993 PUD plan should not be relevant to the proposed townhome plan because the City was unaware of how much the City would grow. Also questioned the unrelated adult restriction. David Olson, Community Development Director, replied that the both the City and development have probably exceeded their growth expectations. But the City and . developer were aware of the types of uses and the need for adequate accesses. Paul McHenry: Will sidewalks be added along Larch Street and south on the frontage road and can parking be restricted on both sides of Larch Street? Lee Smick replied that a sidewalk along Larch would be possible, but to extend it south along the frontage road may require MNDOT permission plus the sidewalk would not tie into any other existing sidewalks. . Chair Rotty responded to the restricted parking question by stating that both the Police Department and City staff will need to examine that issue. 5 July 13, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes Shirley Wood, 816 Maple Street: Voiced her concern about the placement of the driveways along the frontage road and that she would be in favor of a sidewalk along the frontage road for the safety of the residents. . Terry McClaflin, 700 9th Street: Isn't there a concern over the location of the driveways across from the Budget Mart driveway? Chair Rotty responded that the number and location of the driveway accesses may warrant additional review by staff because of potential safety concerns. Discussion continued over citizen issues related to the project. The Commission and staff also explained to residents what remained of the approval process. The Commission and staff also agreed to re-notify residents of the City Council meeting; though the City is not legally required to do so. Chair Rotty requested any comments or questions from the Commission. Commissioner Ley commented that the proposed layout blends with the surrounding neighborhood in that they front the street and there is common space in the rear, though there is concern with the alignment of the driveways with the Budget Mart. Commissioner Larson agreed that there might be a concern with the driveway alignment with Budget Mart and more time should be taken by staff to analyze the situation. Commissioner Johnson stated the property may be limited to an alternative land use and that if some of the issues such as driveway alignment and traffic can be resolved that it should be acceptable. . Chair Rotty asked if there is time to continue the public hearing. Staff stated that they are still awaiting comment frorn MNDOT to approve connection on the frontage road, so there is time to continue the hearing. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to continue the public hearing to August 10, 1999. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 7. Chainnan Rotty introduced the continued public hearing for the conditional use pennit for a fast food establishment and office space for Brett and Amy Jensen. Planner Schultz presented the staff report. Schultz briefly described the location of the project. Schultz outlined each of the requirements and staff recommendations . relating to the project. Schultz stated that the proposed landscaping after staff review is over planted and that staff wiIl work directly with the architect to modify the landscape plan. On-site parking meet City standards but additional diagram details on signage and handicap parking are needed, also accesses should still be shown to align with the Budget Mart shopping center and Dakota Meadows Townhomes. Schultz went on to briefly describe the building design and suggested to the developer that they consider larger commercial size windows to accommodate advertising. Signage for the multi-tenant building can be discussed at a later date. Signage plans for multi- . 6 . . . July 13, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes tenant buildings will need future Planning Commission approval. Schultz noted that the placernent of the recycling and trash container be aligned with the back wall instead of the back overhead door. Schultz stated that the exterior lighting changed to two light poles on the exterior of the parking lot, but staff is still concerned with lack of lighting throughout the parking area, will work with architect. Chair Rotty asked if the applicant or the architect had anything to add. There were no additional comments. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to approve the conditional use permit for a fast food establishment and office space within the R-4 (Dakota County Estates PUD/commercial zone) contingent upon the following: I) The architect work closely with Planning Coordinator Smick to modify the landscaping plan; 2) The architect indicate on either a revised site plan or upon submittal of building construction plans, details on dimensions and signage for handicap parking; 3) That the architect and staff work closely on determining the appropriate alignment of the accesses along Upper 183rd Street and English Avenue; 4) Appropriate changes are made to the location of the trash enclosure in relation to door accesses and also to work with waste management on the dimensions of the enclosure to ensure adequacy. These changes should be shown on either a revised site plan or upon building construction plan submittal; 5) That all engineering plans and specifications are meet per the attached Engineering Division review. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. Chairman Rotty opened discussion for a request from Larry Wenzel and Rottland Homes to consider revising the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update. Planner Smick presented a proposal with a sketch plan from the property owner and potential developer to have included in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan approximately three acres of commercial to be located just south of the City water tower. Mike Noonan, Rottland Homes, prf?sented their situation to include commercial in that area. Mr. Noonan stated that he believes that it would be a convenience to those residents in the neighborhood without really detracting from the downtown area. Discussion continued over the appropriateness of amending the Comprehensive Plan before it is just to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council. Staff suggested that based on the proposed sketch plan that the area may warrant a PUD approval, which staff and the Commission could analyze at that time. It was agreed by both the Commission and staff that they will analyze the proposed commercial area when the developer submits a Planned Unit Development plan. 9. Planning Coordinator Smick presented to the Commission a sketch plan of the proposed Autumn Glen development from Arcon Development. Smick pointed out that most of the concerns that were discussed at the original sketch plan submittal concerning the wooded area/conservation easements; retaining wall and on-site ponding have been met in the revised drawing. 7 July 13, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes Larry Frank, Arcon Development, was present and detailed additional information to the Commission on the project. Mr. Frank stated that there are fewer units in this plan than on the previous one presented. . David Olson asked Mr. Frank how many of the units would be full basements. Mr. Frank estimated 75% would be full basements. The Commission and Mr. Frank briefly continued discussing other details of the plan. 10. Planner Smick presented the response comments from Dakota County and City of Lakeville. Some of those concerns included the classification of roads to be consistent with Dakota County, the connection of the Seed/Genstar Property to the north with downtown. Smick stated that LakeviIle's main concerns were wastewater flows and the timing of our growth. . Another concern of Lakeville' s was the "front loading" of future MUSA. Smick and David Olson explained the method the City is using that is acceptable in the Local Planning Handbook. Smick stated these concerns will be either changed in the Comprehensive Plan or will be addressed in a return letter. Chair Rotty asked if there were any additional questions or comments concerning the response questions. There were none at this time; Smick added to contact her if the Commission had any future questions. 11. Smick informed the Commission of the Council's authorization to create a Public Facilities Task Force. Smick stated the purpose of the task force was to study and formulate recommendations to the City Council on the need for new public facilities. Smick informed the Commission that one representative is needed. Chair Rotty requested that the Commission have an appointed representative and an alternate. Staff agreed that would be appropriate. Chair Rotty stated his interest in representing the Commission. Cornmissioner Larson volunteered as an alternate. . 12. There being no further business the Commission agreed to adjourn at 10:55 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Michael Schultz Associate Planner Approved Commission Chair . 8 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular August 10, 1999 1. Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Rotty, Larson, Dougherty Members Absent: Ley, Johnson Also Present: Community Development Director Olson, Planning Coordinator Smick, Associate Planner Schultz 2. Chair Rotty requested cornments on the July 13, 1999 Planning Commission minutes. There were none. MOTION by Larson, second by Rotty to approve minutes. Roll Call- YES: Rotty, Larson; ABSTAIN: Dougherty. Chair Rotty opened all scheduled public hearings at this time. 3. Chairman Rotty introduced the continued public hearing for the Farmington Townhomes Preliminary and Final PlatlFinal PUD. Planning Coordinator Smick presented the staff report. Smick stated that the main concerns from the Commission and residents from the previous meeting were landscaping/screening, traffic and the number of driveways. Smick responded by stating that the proposed tree plantings will suffice in screening the interior open space. The Planning Coordinator also noted that a majority of the traffic generated from the project would travel in the direction of the Trunk Highway 3 and not through the rest of the project. Smick then introduced three revisions to the site design, submitted by Sherman Associates, addressing the layout of the buildings and driveways. George Sherman, the developer, gave a short presentation explaining the rationale behind the reduction in (and sharing of) the number of driveways. Chair Rotty requested comments on the proposed revisions. Rotty voiced his approval of revision #4 explaining that it addressed the concerns of driveway access without major changes to the site plan. Commissioners' Larson and Dougherty agreed in revision #4. Discussion pursued from both the Cornrnission and the public. Paul McHenry, 708 9th St.: "Could the sidewalk extend down to the last driveway (along the frontage road) contingent on City Engineering and MNDOT approval?" Discussion pursued on the possible location of the sidewalk. The Commission felt the sidewalk could be extended to the southern most drive along the frontage road. The developer would be agreeable if approval is given by MNDOT. Paul McHenry: "Will there be central or individual garbage removal?" George Sherman responded that the garbage collection will be individual using City sanitation services and that the guidelines within the covenants of the development appeared reasonable. Paul McHenry: "Can parking be restricted on Larch Street?" . . . August 10, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Larson replied that that is beyond the control of the Planning Commission and that it is a responsibility of the Police Department and City Council in which they would need to review the possibility. Commissioner Larson asked if the Fire Chief has reviewed these plans? Planner Smick replied that he has not because some of the revisions were only recently submitted but he is scheduled to review them. Larson questioned the width of the narrowest section of the driveways. Mr. Sherman did not know the exact distance but estimated twelve feet (12'), he added that the driveways were not designed for passage of more than two cars. Community Development Director Olson asked if the turning radiuses are sufficient to enter into the garages. Mr. Sherman responded yes. Chair Rotty asked if the Comrnission had any additional questions or comrnents. There were none. Chair Rotty commented that he believes the that the developer has made the necessary changes to the site plan and addressed the concerns of the Commission and neighbors and feels comfortable forwarding it to the City Council for approval. MOTION by Larson, second by Dougherty to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Dougherty to forward a recommendation to approve the Farmington Townhomes Preliminary and Final PlatlFinal PUD along with site plan revision #4 to the City Council contingent upon final engineering and MNDOT approval. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Chair Rotty introduced the variance application for Bible Baptist Church. Planner Schultz presented the staff report. Schultz stated that the applicant has made revisions from their initial proposal but are still seeking a forty-foot (40') variance to the required fifty-foot (50') front yard setback and also a variance for an illuminated sign within a residential zoning district. Schultz stated that the applicant now requests an 8' by 5' interior illuminated sign placed on a 3' base, for a total height of 8'. Schultz informed the Commission that the church has received a previous variance for their existing illuminated fifty square foot sign. The Associate Planner indicated that the property meets all criteria to grant a variance. Rotty requested any additional comments from the applicant. Bill Veeniga of Bible Baptist Church introduced himself to the Commission. Mr. Veeniga informed the Commission that the revisions come after research was completed on church signs relating the size, area and placement of a sign to attracting new parishioners. Rotty requested any comments or questions from the public. 2 . . . August 10, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes AI Corrigan, 19715 Akin Rd, voiced his concern with the need for that size of sign when other churches in surrounding communities don't compare in height and area, coupled with the parking lot lighting, that passers-by couldn't mistake it for anything else. Mr. Veeniga responded that most of the churches mentioned are located in other communities and added that the proposed sign would permit messages and present a good appearance of the church. The lighting in the parking lot is necessary for security. Mr. Corrigan agreed that the church is a good neighbor but pointed out that the grade at which the sign is proposed to be place will appear well above the road level. Mr. Veeniga disagreed with Mr. Corrigan's analysis and added that if the sign height were to be lowered it would be hindered by snow. Chair Rotty asked if staff had the opportunity to inspect the site? Schultz replied that he has been to the location and that the grade at the location of the proposed sign is near grade or slightly above grade where the sign is proposed, but rises as you travel north. Chair Rotty asked Mr. Corrigan if his concern with the sign is the area, placement or height? Mr. Corrigan replied that it's the height of the sign. The Commission discussed the issues brought forth by the residents. Commissioners did not have any concerns to the proposed sign area, but did voice concern toward the illumination and height. The Commission suggested that the sign be placed on a tirner and recommended that the sign be placed on a lower pedestal. MOTION by Larson, second by Dougherty to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Dougherty to approve the sign variance based on the following: a) Size of the proposed sign 5' high x 8',40 square feet b) Maximurn total height of 6' c) Illumination of the sign is permitted between the hours of7 A.M. and 10 P.M. d) Sign may be placed no closer than 50' from the centerline of Akin Road. Contingent upon resubmittal of sign diagram and site plan. APIF, MOTION APPROVED. 5. Chair Rotty opened the public hearing for a variance request from Trinity Lutheran Church to encroach within front yard setbacks and illuminate the sign within a residential zoning district. Planner Schultz presented the staff report. Schultz explained that the church is seeking the variance due to the 20' setback requirement and placement of the church and new addition on the property. Schultz stated that the variance distance desired is 11 feet along 6th Street and 5 feet along Walnut Street. Schultz stated the church variance application meets all criteria specified within the City Code. Schultz explained that Trinity Lutheran is proposing the sign at a farther distance than originally proposed. Chair Rotty asked the applicant if they had any additional comments. 3 . . . August 10, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes Mary Christensen, 904 10th Street, representing Trinity Lutheran added information about some of the features ofthe sign. Chair Rotty asked for comments from the public. There were none. Rotty requested comments from the Commission. Commissioner Larson asked the applicant if there would be a problem with a timer placed on the sign? Mrs. Christensen stated that that had already been discussed at the church and it wouldn't be a problem. Chair Rotty asked if the sign would produce any site line hazards for that intersection. Schultz responded that the sign is tucked between the building and the new church entrance, coupled with a large boulevard, it will not pose a siteline problem. Rotty asked if the Commission had any additional questions. There were none. MOTION by Larson, second by Dougherty to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Dougherty to approve the variance based on the following: a) Encroachment of 11 feet along 6th Street and 5 feet along Walnut Street. b) Permitted illumination of the sign between the hours of7 A.M. to 10 P.M. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 6. Chair Rotty introduced the scheduled public hearing for Conditional Use/Home Occupation permit for Tom and Sue Matter, 18227 Empire Trail. Associate Planner Schultz presented the staff report concerning an existing bindery operation and the applicant's request to continue the operation. Schultz stated that the business has been in operation for approximately 7 to 8 years after city staff had given a "verbal" approval. Schultz continued by stating that because a complaint had been filed and the Matters' operation had grown to the point of needing subcontractors take orders home to complete, staff requested that they seek a conditional use permit to be legally recognized as a home occupation. Schultz outlined the requirements for approving a home occupation permit, and indicated that the only issue involved 10-6-11 (F) of the City Code. Chair Rotty asked for any comments from the applicants. Torn Matter added that he was not aware of any resident complaints of his operation. Rotty requested comments from the public. Flloyd Urban, 18219 Empire Trail: Commented that the Matters' home business has not been a problem in the neighborhood. Chair Rotty asked the applicants for an explanation about the subcontractors and bindery operation itself. 4 . . . August 10, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes Tom Matter responded that subcontractors pickup anywhere from 500 to 2,000 pieces and supply them with tape and supplies. The subcontractors usually return the order when another pick-up was available. Chair Rotty: "What time do the subcontractors usually pick up orders?" Mr. Matter responded that most come between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M., usually no later than 9 or 10 P.M. Rotty added that even though he was happy to see their business has grown there comes a time if the operation were to continue to grow that it should not remain in a residential area. Mr. Matter agreed to the statement. Rotty asked for comments from the Commissioners. Both Commissioner Larson and Dougherty agreed with Chairman Rotty's observation and added that if residents were against the operation they would have been present. MOTION by Larson, second by Dougherty to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Dougherty to approve the permit conditional to; a) The property owner stay within the Home Occupation guidelines as outlined in 10-6- 11 ofthe Farmington City Code, and; b) The Commission will review the conditional use permit if resident complaints are filed against the property. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 7. Chair Rotty began discussion on appointing a representative and an alternate to represent the Planning Commission on Independent School District #192 - Growth Planning Task Force. Discussion ensued on the availability of Commission members. Rotty suggested appointing co-representatives if the School District was acceptable to that option. Cornrnissioner's Larson and Rotty agreed to represent the Planning Commission. 8. There being no further business the Commission agreed to adjourn. Respectfully Submitted, Michael Schultz Associate Planner Approved 5 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Special August 24, 1999 1. Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Rotty, Larson, Ley, Dougherty Members Absent: Johnson Also Present: Community Development Director Olson, Planning Coordinator Smick, Associate Planner Schultz Chair Rotty opened the scheduled public hearing at this time. 2. Planning Coordinator Smick presented the staff report on the Arcon Development Preliminary and Final Plat for Autumn Glen subdivision along with an application for a conditional use grading and excavation permit. Smick gave an overview of the proposed 103-acre, 153 single-family lot development. Smick stated the plat is similar to the sketch plan subrnitted last year, with the exception of a lower number of lots. Smick stated that the developer is dedicating additional park space adjacent to the existing City park space on the eastside of the development. The developer will also be dedicating outlot B as conservation easement, which consists of a tree-lined hillside bordering along the Limerock Ridge development. Planner Smick explained to the Commission the situation with the wetlands located within the platted area. Smick stated that the utilize wetland will be utilized as part of the storm water runoff plan, while the other wetland located on the southern edge of the parcel will be further discussed with the County due to the alignment of future 195th Street. Smick also pointed out an issue with property owned by the City where the existing sanitary sewer line runs. Smick stated that the developer is proposing to cap the line and realign it with Embers Ave. Chair Rotty asked the developer is he had any additional comments. Scott Johnson, from Arcon Developrnent gave a brief presentation on the proposed development. Discussed was the future alignrnent of the roads leading into the Progress Land Co. property to the north. Mr. Johnson explained that he has been unable to contact the property owner but thought the City has the option of where the road would be located. Chair Rotty stated that the City prefers that the developers settle the issue on the location of the road but will take into consideration the inability to contact the landowner. Chair Rotty requested comments from the public. Craig Davis, 5151 193rd Street, voiced concern with the number children in the neighborhood and the amount of construction traffic accessing and exiting through on 193rd Street. Chair Rotty asked the developer if they have considered any alternate routes. . August 24, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes Scott Johnson, Arcon Developer, stated that the site is limited in access, but they did approach the County on the timeline on 195th Street and that was not an option. He added that most of the needed fill for the project will derive from the storm water ponds reducing the number of trips of construction vehicles. Rob Blomster, 5038 193rd Street: also voiced concern about the number of construction vehicles and the possibility of placing a stop sign at the corner of 193 rd St and Ellington Trail. Chair Rotty explained the Commission's role in the review of plats. Planner Smick informed Mr. Blomster that she would suggest it at the Development Committee. Tom Rasmussen, 19126 Echo Drive: Questioned the alignment of Embers Ave, the need for a retaining wall and abandonment of the sanitary sewer line/easement. Scott Johnson replied that the current alignment of Embers Ave would require the construction of a retaining wall to allow for back yards in the lots on the west side of the road. Also the proposal calls for the sanitary sewer line to be placed along Embers road and abandoned in the existing location. Cameron Kracke, 18980 Embers Ave: Will the roads be kept clean if Embers Ave is used and can the hours of grading operation change for Saturday due to work? . Chair Rotty and staff informed Mr. Kracke that the developers agreement requires developers to keep streets clean from mud and dirt. Scott Johnson, Arcon Development, replied that he would not have a problem pushing back the hours of operation on Saturdays one hour to 8 A.M. Douglas Wright, 18994 Embers Ave., voiced concern over possibility of trees being removed south of his property because of the higher price he paid on his lot for the trees. He stated that builder told him there wouldn't be any development to the south. Mr. Johnson explained that they have not been able to contact Mr. Israelson concerning the possibility of subdividing that property into a lot, but it would make sense to do so. The Commission asked Mr. Wright if he owned the trees and if he has taken the issue up with his builder? Mr. Wright stated that the trees are not on his property but he purchased the property because of their location adjacent to his property. He added that his builder "does not exist anyrnore". Mr. Johnson explained the possible scenario with Mr. Israelson in swapping properties and that the resident, Mr. Wright, should take the issue up with Mr. Israelson or his builder. . Rich Johnson, 5108 192nd Street: Expressed concern over the number of trees that will be removed to construct the (storm water) ponds. Would like to see as many trees preserved as possible. 2 . August 24, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes Scott Johnson, Arcon Development, replied that they will need to remove some trees for the construction of stonn water ponds, but they will atternpt to retain as many trees as possible. Discussion briefly took place on the future of 19Sth Street and what the County's timeline is on constructing the road. Commissioner Ley asked what the County's issue is with the wetland on the south portion of the property. Planner Srnick stated that they had just received the letter but the County would like to avoid the wetland if possible. Discussion followed on what the possible scenarios of the future 195th Street alignment. Chair Rotty asked if there was any additional discussion on the preliminary plat or the conditional use/grading penn it for Autumn Glen. The Commission voiced concern over the County's letter toward the southern wetland and alignment of 195th Street. Chair Rotty pointed out that what before the Comrnission is only preliminary plat and the first phase is located to the north, away from that area. The Commission agreed to that staff should continue discussion with the County on the issue. Chair Rotty asked for any more discussion on the two motions requested by staff. There were none. . MOTION by Larson, second by Dougherty to approve the preliminary plat of Autumn Glen and forward it to the City Council contingent to the following: a) The Developer will need to participate in the costs of improving 195th Street and will need to waive all rights to object to assessrnents for those improvements. b) The Developer is required to apply and get approval of a wetland alteration penn it. c) All engineering requirements indicated during plan review must be met. d) All requirements of the Surface Water management Plan must be met. e) All requirements of the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District are met. f) A sidewalk/trail is required along the length of I 93rd Street. g) Modify the preliminary plat for Lots 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 in Block 1 until a resolution of the conveyance issue is completed. The Commission noted concern of lot 1, block I and lot 1, block 2 that they be conveyed and meet minimum lot standards before final plat approval. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . MOTION by Ley, second by Larson, to approve the conditional use/grading and excavation penn it and forward to the City Council based on the following conditions: a) Approval for the pennit is contingent on approval of the grading plan by the City Engineering Division. Issues have been identified that will require revisions to the grading plan. Further review of subsequent submittals may generate additional comments. Construction shall not commence until the grading plan is approved and signed by the City Engineer. b) The Developer grades the site prior to approval of street and utility construction plans at the Developer's own risk. Issues may be identified during review of the street and utility construction plans that may require adjustments to the grading. The Developer will be responsible for any such changes that may be required. 3 . . . August 24, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes c) The permit is not valid and grading cannot commence until the required development contract is signed, a surety is posted and the appropriate fees are paid by the Developer. d) All of the information required by the Excavation, Grading and Mineral Extraction Information Sheet should be submitted prior to City Council approval of the permit. e) That grading take place following City Ordinance for construction hours with the exception that work may commence at 8 A.M. on Saturday mornings. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. There being no further business the Commission agreed to adjourn. Respectfully Submitted, Michael Schultz Associate Planner Approved 4 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular September 14, 1999 1. Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Rotty, Larson, Ley, Johnson Members Absent: Dougherty Also Present: Planning Coordinator Smick, Associate Planner Schultz 2. Chair Rotty requested comments on the August 10, 1999 Planning Commission minutes. Rotty pointed out duplication in the names during the motion in item #4. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that he was not present at the meeting where his name appears in the minutes. Schultz stated that he would review the tape and correct the minutes. MOTION by Larson, second by Rotty to approve the minutes as amended. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Chair Rotty requested comrnents on the August 24, 1999 Planning Commission minutes. There were none. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to approve the minutes as presented. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Chair Rotty opened all scheduled public hearings at this time. 3. Planner Smick presented the report of the conditional use permit and variance for an off- premise directional sign by Colin Garvey for his business located at 100 5th Street. Smick stated that the business is located in a residential area and is difficult to locate. Smick pointed out that there are two existing signs, one of which is illegal, on the proposed location at the southwest comer of Willow Street and the Trunk Highway 3 frontage road. Chair Rotty asked the applicant if he had any additional comrnents. He did not. Rotty requested questions or comments from the public. Gerald Ristow, 706 2nd Street: Does the sign need a signage permit from the State of Minnesota? Smick responded that although the sign does not fall in the right-of-way she would verify with MNDOT the requirements. The Commission, staff and the applicant discussed what the process would be. All parties agreed to verify with MNDOT on the required permitting. Chair Rotty asked the applicant if the sign will effect any drainage and that he has worked with the property owner on the location of the sign. Mr. Garvey responded that the sign is on posts and should not effect drainage and he has worked with the property owner. MOTION by Ley, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Ley, second by Johnson to approve the conditional use permit for an off-premise directional sign contingent on the following: ~A'-'."""'- . . . a) The applicant apply and pay appropriate fees for a sign permit identifying the placement of the sign so that it does not conflict with the off-premises sign for Farmington Greenhouse or a legal Dakota Lumber sign. b) Maximum height allowed for sign is eighteen feet. The applicant shall not install a sign over this limit. c) Applicant secure all permits as required from the State of Minnesota for signs located along a state highway. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Ley to approve the variance of forty feet (40') from the front yard setback and thirty-six feet (36') from the side yard setback requirements, contingent on the previous contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Planning Coordinator Smick opened for discussion the proposed amendment to Title 3, Chapter 22 of the City Code concerning developers obtaining a conditional use permit for grading of the project. Smick explained that the current ordinance is redundant in the case of developers seeking grading permission. Smick went on to explain that the proposed amendment will allow the grading of a property after Preliminary Plat approval and the other conditions in the code are complied with. Chair Rotty stated his concern of rubber stamping grading approvals and that conditions should be attached to the permit. Smick replied that the same existing conditions to grading permits would apply. Commissioner Ley voiced concern if the City would be held liable if the developer was unwilling to change the grading plan if problems arose. Planning staff felt that the language in the permit and contract would be legally bidding to the developer and in the City's favor. There were no other comments frorn the Commission. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to forward the ordinance amendment to the City Council with a positive recornmendation for approval. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. There being no further business the Commission agreed to adjourn. Respectfully Submitted, Michael Schultz Associate Planner Approved . . . Planning Commission Minutes Special October 26, 1999 1. Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Rotty, Larson, Ley, Johnson Members Absent: Dougherty Also Present: Planning Coordinator Smick, Associate Planner Schultz Chair Rotty opened all scheduled public hearings at this time. 2. Planner Smick presented the proposed amendments to Title 2 Chapter 9 and Section 10- 6-14 of the Farmington City Code concerning the Landscape Ordinance. The revisions to the existing landscape ordinance involve allowable boulevard tree plantings, tree maintenance on City boulevards and screening requirements. Additions to the existing landscape ordinance involve the need for a purpose statement, definitions concerning the landscape requirements, the requirement for a registered landscape architect and/or architect, horticulturist or landscape designer to prepare the plan, perimeter and interior parking lot requirements, screening, planting specifications, builder installation of City boulevard trees, tree protection in construction zones and overhead utility line planting requirements. Planner Smick specified that most of the reVISIOns and additions to the landscape ordinance address commercial and industrial sites only and the City boulevard tree requirements address requirements for residential subdivisions. Commissioner Johnson questioned whether it was at the Planning Commission's or the Planning Coordinator's discretion to determine the cost that the developer is required to absorb on landscaping his particular site. Planning Coordinator Smick replied that the reason for requiring certain plant material every forty feet is because there is no discretion in the calculation of plantings. All developers will have to abide by the same planting requirements rather than using a percentage formula. Commissioner Johnson also questioned the need for a registered landscape architect or architect because of costs to the developer. Planning Coordinator Smick replied that a landscape architect, architect, horticulturist or landscape designer has a better knowledge of the functions of plant rnaterial to locate them in the most advantageous locations to keep thern alive or away from possible safety problems. Planning Coordinator Smick also added that she would review and make recommendations to the developer if the plants proposed are not suitable in their proposed locations. Commissioner Ley questioned why a certified arborist could not be part of the list of designers. Planning Coordinator Smick replied that this was a good proposal and Planning Chair Rotty stated that this proposal be placed within the motion. Planning Coordinator Smick also added that a landscape brochure would be provided in each development packet if the ordinance were approved at the City Council. Commissioner Larson mentioned that he had concerns over the requirement for interior planting islands concerning potential snow removal problems within a parking lot. . . . Planning Coordinator Smick stated that the City Council is also concerned with this requirement, however, she will propose this requirement to the City Council. MOTION by Ley, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Ley, second by Larson to approve Title 2 Chapter 9 and Section 10-6-14 of the Farmington City Code - Revised Landscape Ordinance and forward to the City Council with the addition of a certified arborist added to the list of landscape designers. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Planning Coordinator Smick reported that Mr. John Tschohl and his son Matthew are seeking a Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Recreation Use (Climbing wall) and Equipment and Maintenance Storage (Car repair) within a proposed 42' x 60' building. She continued to state that pole buildings are permitted within the A-I district per Section 4-5-4 permits. The site plan showed that the applicant proposes to construct the building 30 feet from each of the property lines. However, per Section 10-4-2, the required front yard setback is 50 feet considering that Fairgreen Avenue and 210th Street may become future roadways. Therefore, both sides of the building facing the property line are considered front yards and require 50-foot setbacks. The Tschohl's propose to use the building for the storage and repair of cars and the construction of a rock-climbing wall for recreation. As the Tschohl's stated in a letter, they feel that the storage of cars should be considered the same as the storage of boats, which is a permitted use within an A-I district. The City Attorney has approved this venture as a permitted use. The climbing wall is considered a commercial recreation use because monthly dues will be required for non-owner participants to use and maintain the facility identifying this as a commercial use. The car repair and storage falls under the equipment and maintenance storage category as a conditional use. The equipment maintenance and storage definition reads as follows: "A structure for maintenance, repair or storage of equipment on property owned by the owner of said equipment." The owner may repair cars that he owns within the facility, but the repair of cars not personally owned by him for a profit is not allowed in an A-I district. The Planning Commission was requested to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Recreation Use (climbing wall) and Equipment and Maintenance Storage (car repair) for the proposed 42'x 60' steel storage building at the northeast intersection of Fairgreen Avenue and 210th Street based on the following condition; I. The number of recreational users be limited to 20 at any given time during use of the climbing wall; 2. Advertising only be permitted for the storage of vehicles, property owner must submit sign application for proper review and approval by Planning staff; . 3. Hours of operation for the repair of vehicles and recreational use of the climbing wall be lirnited to the hours between 7 A.M. to 10 P.M.; 4. Vehicle or equipment repair is limited to vehicles owned by the property owner; 5. No outside storage of vehicles or vehicle parts is permitted; 6. All uses of the facility and property be limited to the applied uses as described on the conditional use application and property owners letter, any other uses, commercial or recreational, must be approved by the Planning Commission at a separate public hearing; 7. Building location must meet the mlmmum setback requirements for the zomng district. Matthew Tschohl was present at the meeting and stated that the 50-foot setback requirement was acceptable. He also stated that the climbing wall would be owned as a cooperative with 18 to 20 other rnen. He would like the hours of the facility to be open from 7 AM to 12 AM. He plans on fixing his own cars in the facility and will not work on cars that he does not own. . Mr. Kurt Huber - 9550 206th Street, Lakeville, MN Owner of the Huber farm east of the proposed site. Mr. Huber is concerned about the location of the building. He wants to know where the access to the site will be? Matthew Tschohl stated that his father might have an easement from someone near the site. Planning Chair requested staff to research existing easements to the site. Mr. Huber also was concerned about the 50-foot building setback near 210th Street and Fairgreen Avenue because potential development in the future would be inhibited by the building being located so close to these roadways. Planning Coordinator Smick stated that these roadways are not addressed on the 2020 Thoroughfare Plan but acknowledged that these roadways may be expanded in the future. Commissioner Ley offered that a 100- foot setback would be a more beneficial setback than the required 50-foot setback. Mr. Huber was concerned that he might be assessed for the road to the facility. Planning Coordinator Smick stated that he would not be assessed because the applicant is required to construct the access road to his facility. Mr. Huber continued by stating that he is concerned about the mining traffic on 210th Street and Fairgreen Avenue inter-mixing with traffic to the proposed facility. He is also concerned about theft to his mining operation from the opening of this facility. Mr. Steve Huber - Steve Huber stated that he was concerned about the inter-mixing of traffic on 210th Street and Fairgreen Avenue and also the late hours of operation. Planning Chair Rotty stated that the applicant should provide a clearer site plan showing the access to the facility. The applicant was not clear on whether an access easement was obtained for the property or whether they needed to obtain one from Babe Murphy. . The applicant stated at this time that the Mr. John Tschohl no longer owns the property and will lease a portion of his old property from Babe Murphy. Planning Chair Rotty stated that this was new information to the Commission and there was a need for staff and the City Attorney to review how a leased property works with a conditional use permit. . . . Mrs. Elaine Donnelly questioned the building along Flagstaff Avenue and why there were so many cars parked outside of the shed. Planning Coordinator Smick stated that the City staff is aware of the situation and will inspect the site to determine if they are not complying with City Codes. Mr. Kurt Huber questioned whether they would be notified on whether the proposed building was approved. Planning Chair Rotty stated that the Planning Commission still needed to discuss additional issues concerning the property. Mrs. Tschohl stated that the young men utilizing the facility are good men and they would not cause harm to themselves or others. Mrs. Darlene Donnelly questioned whether the cooperative owners would be owners of the vehicles within the storage building and was concerned that the storage of cars is a business within an agricultural district. Planning Chair Rotty answered that the storage of cars is permitted within an A-I district. The Planning Chair brought the discussion back to the table and stated that in light of the new information shared at the meeting, he did not feel that these new questions could be answered adequately at this meeting. He cited a number of issues that need to be answered including the following: owner/lease issues, easement for access, site plan requirement, cooperative issues, traffic issues, setbacks, Therefore, he requested that the public hearing be continued. MOTION by Ley second by Johnson to continue the public hearing to the November 9, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Planning Coordinator Smick discussed the proposed amendment to Chapter 7 of the Farmington City Code concerning the weed ordinance. She stated that at the October 12, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners discussed the need to include a defmition for a natural area in order to discern weeds versus natural plant material. The following definition was included in the ordinance: Natural areas on platted lots: Natural areas will be allowed on platted lots in backyards from the most rear comer of the home subject to a six foot (6') setback frorn the property lines, except in the case where the natural area is adjacent to another natural area or fence. A natural area contains native grasses rneaning those species of perennial grasses other than those designated as noxious weeds by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture in 1505.0730 and 1505.0740. MOTION by Ley second by Larson to make a recommendation to the City Council to approve Chapter 7 of the Farmington City Code concerning weed control. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. There being no further business the Commission agreed to adjourn. Respectfully submitted, Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator Approved . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular November 9, 1999 1. Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Rotty, Larson, and Ley Members Absent: Dougherty and Johnson Also Present: Planning Coordinator Smick, Associate Planner Schultz 2. Chair Rotty requested any comments on the minutes for October 12, 1999. There were none. MOTION by Larson, second by Rotty to approve the October 12, 1999 Commission minutes. Ley abstained. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Rotty requested any comments on the minutes for October 26, 1999. Rotty noted that the meeting was a special meeting not a regular one. Staff will make the necessary changes. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Chair Rotty opened all scheduled public hearings at this time. 3. Chair Rotty briefly introduced the application for a conditional use permit for a commercial recreation and equipment and maintenance storage building to be located northeast of Fairgreen Avenue and 210th Street in the A-I district. He stated that this was a continued public hearing from October 26, 1999 due to new information released at the meeting and the need for answers to questions raised at the meeting. The new information included owner-lease issues, easement access, site plan issues, traffic issues and setback issues. Planning Coordinator Smick discussed each issue at length stating that Mr. John Tschohl, the applicant no longer owned the property at the northeast intersection of Fairgreen Avenue and 210th Street and that Mr. Tschohl would be leasing a 147 foot by 147 foot square parcel at this location. The lease is for a period of ten years. The issue was whether the CUP runs with the property after the lease has expired or the applicant terminates the lease? The City Attorney relayed to Planning Coordinator Smick that a CUP might be granted to a person leasing a property as long as they comply with the conditions of the CUP. The second issue that Planning Coordinator Smick discussed was the 50-foot building setback and whether this setback should be increased? She stated that there was no basis for requesting an increase because the 2020 Comprehensive Plan does not address any expansions to Fairgreen Avenue or 210th Street. Therefore, the City could only require a minimum building setback of 50 feet per the City Code. Commissioner Ley asked where the property line was and whether Fairgreen Avenue and 210th Street would be expanded to the north and west. Planning Coordinator Smick explained that the property line was the centerline of the future roadways and that the 2020 Comprehensive Plan does not address the expansion of Fairgreen Avenue or 210lh Street. At this time, Chair Rotty asked where the applicant was and if he was going to attend the meeting. Planning Coordinator Smick responded that she called Mr. Tschohl, however, she did not get a returned phone call from him. Planning Commission Minutes November 9,1999 The third issue addressed the site plan and the need for an access easement for the 10-foot gravel road accessing the site. She explained that the City's Geographical Information System showed that the property encroaches into the right-of-way of Fairgreen Avenue thereby requiring no access from adjacent property owners. . At that time in the meeting, Mr. Tschohl and his son Matthew arrived.. Mr. Tschohl corrected Planning Coordinator Smick's staff report by stating that the property was owned by him until July 5, 2000. Mr. Tschohl also stated he would comply with the building setback requirement of 50 feet. Planning Coordinator Smick stated that the applicant would be required to apply for a building permit. She also stated that a site plan would be required for the project showing the parking lot and access. She stated that Lee Mann, City Engineer reviewed the site plan and stated that the 10-foot access roadway was not wide enough to handle the traffic to the building. Commissioner Larson questioned whether Mr. Mann had a problem with where the access was located in conjunction with Fairgreen Avenue and Planning Coordinator Smick stated that Mr. Mann did not have a problem with the access location. Planning Coordinator Smick addressed the issue of whether a parking lot would be located on the site? She stated that the City requires a parking lot and the applicant needs to show this on the site plan. Chair Rotty questioned Mr. Tschohl on whether he proposed to install a parking lot due to the number of individuals (18-20) using the facility. Mr. Tschohl stated that he assumed that people would park on Fairgreen Avenue because it is such a "desolate street." Matthew Tschohl stated that he proposed to place a floodlight on the building to light the area and that there could be a designated parking area next to the building. He also stated that there would never be 20 people at the building at the same time, but more like 15 people and not all at one time. . Planning Coordinator Smick continued with another issue concerning the adjacent property owner's (Mr. Huber) issues dealing with traffic conflicts and theft problems due to the building being opened from 7 AM to 12 AM. She stated that Fairgreen Avenue and 210th Street are public streets and personal vehicles are allowed on these streets, however, the applicant might want to notify the participants in the proposed building that mining trucks are continual in this area. She also stated that the Farmington Police should be notified of theft problems and Mr. Huber should secure items on his property, however security of a site is not a land use issue and should not playa part in the decision of the Planning Commission. Finally, she stated that at the October 26, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, Matthew Tschohl requested that the hours of operation for the climbing wall be extended from 7 AM to 12 AM to allow people from Minneapolis to climb in the evenings. The final issue dealt with whether a CUP can be approved if a portion of the building is leased cooperatively by the 18-20 participants in the climbing wall venture? Planning Coordinator Smick stated that if the use (climbing wall) fell within the requirements of the CUP in the A-I district and the lessees complied with the conditions of the CUP, then the CUP may be approved per the City Attorney's opinion. Planning Coordinator Smick stated the conditions ofthe CUP: . 2 . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. . . Pltmning:Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 The number of recreational users be limited to 20 at any given time during use of the climbing wall; Advertising only be permitted for the storage of vehicles, lessee must submit sign application for proper review and approval by Planning staff; Hours of operation for the repair of vehicles and recreational use of the climbing wall be limited to the hours between 7 AM to 10 PM; Vehicle or equipment repair is limited to vehicles owned by the lessee; No outside storage of vehicles or vehicle parts is permitted; All uses of the facility and property be limited to the applied uses as described on the conditional use application and property owners letter, any other uses, commercial or recreational, must be approved by the Planning Commission at a separate public hearing; 7. Building location must meet the minimum setback requirements for the zoning district. Chair Rotty pointed out that the repair of cars may be done only by the lessee on cars he owns, not by the members of the cooperative or on cars that they own. Chair Rotty questioned whether the applicant understood this condition. Matthew Tschohl responded that he would only work on cars in his ownership. Chair Rotty clarified that this condition would run with the length of the property not just for the time that the applicant leased the property. Chair Rotty questioned the applicant on whether they had any other issues. Mr. Tschohl stated that Matthew had a problem with the hours of operation between 7 AM to 10 PM. Matthew explained that the participants are climbing at their current gym until 10 PM on Wednesdays and 12 AM on Fridays. Mr. Tschohl further explained that the proposed building was in the middle of no where and at that hour of the night no one would steal anything and secondly, there was nothing to steal. Mr. Steve Huber stated that young kids took a front end loader from his property and buried it in the swamp. Chair Rotty stated to Mr. Huber that he would have time to discuss his issues when the Commission opened the meeting up for comments. Chair Rotty also stated that the Commission would take the staff memo comments and the Tschohl comments into consideration when the discussion of hours of operation was brought back to the table. Matthew Tschohl passed around pictures of the climbing club where the future participants currently climb. Mr. Tschohl stated that the participants do not take drugs or drink alcohol because they are athletes. Chair Rotty opened the meeting up for public comment but mentioned that since previous testimony was taken on October 26, 1999 the Commission would only review new issues from the public. 3 .Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Mr. Steve Huber asked whether there were any plans for 210lh to go through to the west. He stated that in a few years the street may go through and the proposed building may be within the setback. Chair Rotty stated that the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update does not show this road to be expanded at this time. . Mrs. Darlene Donnelly: Didn't the City obtain an easement for an east-west roadway? Planning Coordinator Smick responded that the easement was for 20Slh Street. Mr. Tschohl also added that the reason the City obtained the easement was to insure that the City would not have to take down any buildings on the Christensen farm. Commissioner Ley asked what the width of the right-of-way was on 210lh Street to the east. Planning Coordinator Smick responded that it might be 50 feet, where the City requires a 60-foot right-of-way width in current developments. Mrs. Elaine Donnelly questioned the Commission asking if this building was a commercial building? She continued to ask if the rest of the property owners in the A-I district would be allowed to TUn a repair shop as a commercial business on their individually owned properties? She stated that they reside in the agricultural district and that's what should be allowed there. She was also concerned that if Mr. Tschohl received an approval for the business, the rest of the farmers could start businesses as well. Mr. Tschohl asked Mrs. Donnelly if they fix tractors on her property? Mrs. Donnelly agreed that they fix tractors but they don't have a climbing wall or rent out space for the storage of cars. Mrs. Donnelly asked Matthew Tschohl about how many cars he plans on repairing on the property. Matthew stated that he owns four c.Cars. . Chair Rotty brought the discussion back to the table at this time. Commissioner Ley asked if the setback in an A-I district is a 50-foot minimum? Planning Coordinator Smick stated that that was correct. Commissioner Ley asked Mr. Tschohl if there would be a problem with him setting the building back ten feet further than the minimum requirement? Mr. Tschohl stated that the proposed leased property would be 147' x 147'. Commissioner Ley stated that he had a problem with approving the minimum 50-foot setback. He feels that the building should be set back now to the standard 20 feet from the right-of-way. Commissioner Larson stated that he feels that this is a business and it belongs in a business district not in an agricultural district. The parking on the street is not adequate, the floodlight on the building is not adequate per City standards, the setback of the building is a concern and where the driveway enters the site at the corner is hazardous. He continued to state that this type of building belongs in a business district and the building may not allow the room for all of the uses including storage, repair and a climbing wall. Chair Rotty also agreed with Commissioner Larson's comments and stated that the way the Commission looks at Conditional Uses, they don't place conditions on a building that can be moved in ten years, they place it on the property and he feels that the approval of commercial uses in this location with the possibility for future development would not be a wise move. He also stated that the equipment repair tends to cause problems because the equipment tends to move outside and causes unsightly views outside of the building. He stated that he did not think the Tschohl's would purposely store repair equipment outside, but that is typically the trend with equipment maintenance uses in the City of . 4 . . . Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Farmington. He also feels that this is not the proper piece of property to use for a commercial recreation use. Commissioner Ley also stated that if the building was to be built, the building needs a parking lot. No parking of vehicles on the street should be allowed. Mr. Ley asked Mr. Tschohl if there were mining trucks using the road? Mr. Tschohl replied "very rarely". Commissioner Larson stated daily. Mr. Tschohl also asked how long the mining permit for the Huber property was for and how long has the City allowed the mining operation? Commissioner Larson asked Mr. Huber when he would be mined out? Mr. Huber stated that he renews the mining permit every year administratively and he has one more year to mine his property. Commissioner Larson asked that within that year, the property would be mined out and restored? Mr. Huber stated that that was correct. Chair Rotty stated to Mr. Tschohl that the conditional use permit was not a clean and simple application. He continued to state that at the last meeting the Commission became aware of new information such as the building would be located on leased land, that the building would be owned by a cooperative, not by one individual. Mr. Tschohl stated that building would be owned individually, but the co-op itself would have members. Chair Rotty continued to state the Commission had trouble with the parking and lighting of the property and he hoped that at the last meeting the applicants were aware of the number of problems with the application. Mr. Tshohl stated that the property was in the middle of nowhere. Commissioner Ley asked Mr. Tshohl if the property was in the City of Farmington? Mr. Tschohl answered that it was in the City of Farmington but it was the most desolate area that you could pick. Commissioner Ley stated that it was still in the City of Farmington. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to deny the conditional use permit. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Tschohl stated that he had two questions. I) Can he appeal this to the City Council? Chair Rotty stated yes. 2) He wanted to know how the mining operation next to him was approved without him knowing about it? Chair Rotty stated that he could take that up with City staff. Planning Coordinator Smick presented information to the audience concerning their request to discuss Mr. Todd Cao's property on Flagstaff Avenue. She stated that she spoke to him and that he was required to remove the cars from outside of the building. Mr. Cao stated that he would store them in the building. 4. Chair Rotty introduced the next public hearing stating that Bernard Murphy and Farmington Lutheran Church are seeking approval to rezone property located on the east side of Akin Road north of the Vermillion River from the existing C-l (Conservation) and A-I (Agriculture) to R-I (Low Density-Residential). Associate Planner Schultz presented the application to the Planning Commission. He explained that the applicants would like to build a new church at this site within the next 3 to 5 years. 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 Mr. Leon Orr, representing the church, stated that they have already hired an engineering firm to do the surveying and wetland delineation for the site. He further stated that the church desires to retain the large number of mature oak trees and the wetland to the northwest on the site. . Chair Rotty was concerned over the conservation district being preserved. Mr. Orr stated that the church building would be located in the southern and eastern part of the property, thereby preserving most of the conservation district. Suitable soils for construction were found near the proposed location of the building. Chair Rotty asked whether the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) reviewed the information from the church's engineer. Mr. Orr responded that he wasn't sure. Chair Rotty asked if the church would be agreeable to placing a condition on the rezoning approval to allow the SWCD to review the rezoning. Mr. Orr replied that the church would be agreeable to that condition. Mr. Orr will provide the SWCD with the engineering analysis. Ms. Tess Resinger asked where the pond would be placed on the site. Mr. Orr stated that it would be located on the backside of Bongard's Trucking site. Mrs. Resinger was also concerned about the surface flow of water from the site. Mr. Orr stated that the storm water pond would assist in limiting surface water across her site. Mr. Orr stated that the drawings shown at the meeting were not the final plans. Chair Rotty brought the discussion back to the table. Commissioner Ley asked if Akin Road was still considered CSAH 31? Planning Coordinator Smick stated that Dakota County hasn't turned the road back to the City. Commissioner Ley asked if there was a 50-foot right-of-way for Akin Road? Mr. Orr stated that their surveyor shows a SO-foot right-of-way on the church's property. Commissioner Ley stated that it shows a 60-foot easement on the west side of Akin Road. Chair Rotty stated that as the project moves further into the platting process the right-of-way issue will be addressed. . Mr. Orr requested that the condition for requiring the SWCD to review the site occur at the platting stage rather than the rezoning stage. He stated two reasons for this request: I) that the building might not encroach upon an environmentally sensitive area on the site, and 2) he didn't want to see the purchase agreement be tied up with the need for an approval from the SWCD. Planning Coordinator Smick stated that the SWCD would review the project at the conditional use stage. Farmington Lutheran agreed that at the time of platting or conditional use permit that the SWCD would have to review the plans. Chair Rotty stated that the property is required to be reviewed by the SWCD. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Ley, second by Larson to recommend approval to rezone property located on the east side of Akin Road north of the Vermillion River from the existing C-l (Conservation) and A-I (Agriculture) to R- I (Low Density-Residential). APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Tess Resinger questioned the Planning Commission about the use of her land as shown on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. She was concerned that the restricted . 6 . . . -Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 development use would not allow her to develop her property at any time and she asked if this was true. Planning Coordinator Smick replied that her property is designated for restricted development but the City has yet to determine what the definition is for this type of use. Smick stated that the area was targeted in the Comprehensive Plan visioning sessions to be a lake or golf course with homes surrounding the area. Smick directed Ms. Resinger that she may market her property but the City would pay particular attention to the type of development proposed and how the development might effect the environment in this area. Smick stated that she would get back to Ms. Resinger concerning a plan that showed that her property could not be developed until after 2020. 5. Chair Rotty introduced the next public hearing stating that Progress Land Company is seeking a variance to encroach 42 feet off the permanent ROW Easement along Pilot Knob Road and 30 feet off the property line on Elk River Trail for the placement of a pylon sign for the commercial building located at 18556 Pilot Knob Road. Associate Planner Schultz presented the staff memo to the Planning Commission. He explained the hardship for the variance includes the following: . Literal enforcement of the City Code would result in undue hardship due to the required fifty (50) foot minimum front yard setback within the B-1 zoning district makes placement of the sign impossible, setbacks would put placement of sign in the location of the house; . The house and property became a part of the Prairie Creek development and was split onto a residential parcel initially, the developer intended to sell the home as single- family residence; but because of remodeling costs, became too costly. The original location of the home also poses difficulty for setback requirements; . The hardship is caused by the adopted minimum front yard setback provisions of the Zoning Code and was not brought on by actions of the person having interest in the property; . The variance observes the spirit and intent of the Code and produces substantial justice that is not contrary to the public interest; . The variance will not effect a lower degree of flood protection. Associate Planner Schultz stated that the sign would be placed outside of the 30-foot sight vision triangle. Mr. Mike Panky from Schad Tracy Signs explained that if the 50-foot setbacks were complied with, the building would block the sign from Pilot Knob Road to the north. He stated that the burgandy background on the sign would not emit as much light as the Super America sign across the street. Chair Rotty was concerned with the line of sight issues, however he was satisfied with the proposed location of the sign after reviewing the digital photos from the applicant. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Ley, second by Larson to approve the variance to encroach 42 feet along Pilot Knob Road and 30 feet along Elk River Trail for the placement of a pylon sign contingent upon the following; 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1999 1. All existing signage be removed from the exterior of the building upon completion of the pylon sign. . APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 6. There was one discussion item. Mark Hatten, 19073 Everest Trail, asked the Planning Commission if he should request a variance to allow a shed to be closer than 10 feet from his house. Associate Planner Schultz stated that Building Inspector Darrel Gilmer identified the construction of the shed approximately 2 feet from Mr. Hatten's existing house. Mr. Hatten explained that he didn't realize that he could not build the shed within 10 feet of his house. He stated that he would be willing to fire proof the shed. Associate Planner Schultz stated that State requirements allow 5 feet with a firewall, while the City took the initiative to require 10 feet from the building. Schultz will have further discussions with the Fire Marshal. Chair Rotty stated that the shed is tastefully done. Commissioner Larson stated that he thought the shed was a part of the house. Mr. Hatten stated that the berm in the backyard along 1901h Street has decreased the amount of space for constructing a shed and limited the use of his backyard. He feels that since the berm limits the location of the shed, he feels that he has a hardship case. Commissioner Larson feels that Mr. Hatten may have a hardship case. Chair Rotty stated that the staff should research this issue with the Fire MarshallBuilding Inspector to determine if the shed may remain and there are grounds for a hardship case. Associate Planner Schultz stated that he would take the lead on this issue. Chair Rotty stated that if the research shows that the shed may remain, the Planning Commission would entertain a variance hearing. . Mr. Hatten stated that there is a stop work order on his shed, but he would like to work on his shed during the weekend. Chair Rotty stated that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to remove a stop work order. Associate Planner Schultz stated that if Mr. Hatten did continue to work on his shed that it would be at his own risk. 7. There being no further business the Commission agreed to adjourn. Respectfully submitted, Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator Approved . 8 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular December 14, 1999 1. Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Rotty, Larson, Ley, Johnson Members Absent: Dougherty Also Present: Community Development Director Olson, Planning Coordinator Smick, Associate Planner Schultz, Parks & Recreation Director Bell 2. Chair Rotty requested comments on the November 9, 1999 Planning Commission minutes. There were none. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to approve the minutes as amended. Roll Call: YES - Larson, Rotty, Ley; ABSTAIN - Johnson. MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission agreed to move the public hearing for the Tim Giles/Silver Springs rezone to the third public hearing item. Chair Rotty opened all scheduled public hearings at this time. 3. Planning Chair Rotty presented the variance application from Mark & Cassandra Hatten, 19073 Everest Path. Planner Schultz explained that the applicant is seeking a nine (9) foot variance to encroach the accessory structure to within one (1) foot of the house, and that the requirement is ten (l0) feet. Schultz explained that the applicant is claiming hardship due to: a) the berm placed in the rear yard restricts placement of the structure; b) the thirty foot setback required in the development reduces the rear yard space; c) drainage patterns in the rear yard restrict placement of the shed; d) depth of the house type was to be less than what was constructed, reducing the rear yard space. Schultz went on to explain the existing options available for the resident and in which the Commission could base their decision on and the contingencies if approved. Chair Rotty recognized Mr. Hatten who gave a brief explanation of the situation and his position on the options available. Rotty asked for any questions or comments from the public. There were none. Rotty requested comments from the Commission. Rotty stated that he favors option #2 listed on the staff report. Rotty asked if this decision would set any precedence? Schultz responded that the Commission has granted variances in the past, but was not aware of the extent. Schultz recommended that if the ordinance is to be reviewed that a five (5) foot minimum seems to be a standard seen in other communities. Commissioners Ley, Larson and Johnson expressed that option #2 would not be a concern. MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission ~inutes Regular Meeting December 14,1999 MOTION by Larson, second by Ley to grant a seven (7) foot variance to allow placement of an accessory storage building three (3) feet from the principle structure, contingent upon: a) The applicant moving the structure to three (3) feet from the house within 120 days. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . 4. Planning Commission Chair Rotty presented the conditional use permit application of Wensco, Inc. to place an off-premise directional sign on City property. Planner Schultz presented the staff report explaining that the applicant is seeking the permit to allow off-premise directional signage for the Cameron Woods project at a City well house site located at the northwest corner of Pilot Knob Road and Euclid Path. Schultz went on to state that the Commission has granted similar permits for the Nelsen Hills Farm and Pine Ridge Forest developments contingent on approval of the City Water Board. Schultz explained the Water Board had previous agreements with the respective developers. Rotty requested if the applicant had anything to add to the staff report. Tom Sand, Wensco, Inc. replied that he did not have anything to add. Rotty asked for questions or comments from the public. Roxanne Mainz, 18941 Englewood Ct. - How far will the sign be placed off of the road? Schultz responded that the sign would be placed a minimum of twenty (20) feet off the property line. Rotty asked if there were any more questions or comments from the public. There were none. There were no further questions or comments from the Commission at this time. MOTION by Ley, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to approve the Conditional Use Permit contingent upon: a) Signage may not be erected until permission is granted by the Water Board; b) The signs be installed as to not be easily toppled or stolen from the property; c) The signs meet all setback requirements. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . 5. Chair Rotty opened the public hearing set for the Tim Giles application to rezone the property from R- I to R-3 and B-4. Planner Schultz presented the staff report. Schultz stated that the applicant is seeking the rezoning to allow for a professional commercial space on the corner of Pilot Knob Road and 190th Street and the R-3 to allow a three unit townhome to serve as a buffer between the commercial and the single-family homes. Schultz indicated that the developer would also dedicate a tot lot area, as requested by the Parks & Recreation Commission, at the time of platting the property along 189th Street. Schultz pointed out the outlots were a result of the redesign of the Pilot Knob Road and 190th Street area. Chair Rotty requested any additional comments from the applicant. He had none at this time. Rotty opened up for questions and comments from the public. . 2 Planning Commission Tyfinutes Regular Meeting December 14, 1999 . Linda Williamson, 18946 Englewood Court - Asked which lots are planned for duplexes. Planner Schultz explained which lots would be multi-family; future lot 4, block I is proposed to be a three unit townhome and future lot 1, block 2 would be a two-family. Linda Williamson also asked if the developer had an idea of what would be built on the B-4 property. Schultz replied that the developer would need to follow what is permitted within the zoning. Chair Rotty asked Mr. Giles of what his intentions were. Mr. Giles replied that it would be a professional office building, maybe a day care, chiropractic office, a beauty salon or similar small businesses. Joan Becker, 18835 English Ave. - Voiced concern of public and traffic safety along English Ave including, the steepness of English Ave, blind spots, lack of sidewalks/public areas, speed of traffic and the additional traffic a business would bring. Questioned how anybody could accept the rezoning when it is not harmonious with the neighborhood? Linda Storlie, 18887 Elgin Ave. - Voiced concern of accesses onto English Ave and number of parking stalls indicated on design plan; also voiced traffic concerns for the neighborhood as well as 190th Street and Pilot Knob Road. . Patti Hemmingson, 19071 Enchanted Court - Stated that English Ave should not have been a through street and asked why the Planning staff recommended approval of rezoning petition. David Olson, Community Development Director, explained who sits on the Development Committee and how decisions are arrived at. Discussion pursued with the public on the process of reviewing rezoning applications. Julie Endersbe, 5322 189th Street W. - Stated her concern about traffic safety, lack of parks in the neighborhood and that staff would vote in favor of rezone. Added that the covenants do not allow business or multi-family housing. Mr. Giles responded that the covenants do not cover the outlots and the area where Pilot Knob Road and 1901h St. were redesigned. Michelle Gildenzopf, 5434 189th Street W. - Voiced concern over the size and location of the proposed tot lot because of the amount of surrounding residents and traffic. Jim Meyers, 18893 Elite Court - Asked why the Commission would consider rezoning the property to commercial when commercial property sits vacant down the road (along Pilot Knob Road). Patti Hemmingson - Asked what type of traffic study would be prepared. . David Olson responded that because the proposed development is relatively small, a study is not warranted. 3 Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting December 14, 1999 Ken Chinn, 19066 Estate Ave. - Concerned that the rezone would depreciate his property. Stated that people should have been made aware ofthe possibility. . Brien Walters, 18930 English Ave. - Voiced his opposition to the business district, concern of increased traffic. Julie Endersbe - Questioned if the developer considered residential on the property. Tim Giles responded that commercial is the most feasible for the site because the property is fronted by three roads. Julie Endersbe suggested that the surrounding residents purchase the property and has presented this idea to the Parks & Recreation Commission. Jim Bell responded that the Parks & Recreation Commission did not desire a neighborhood park as part of the original plat, but now request a tot lot. Karen McKinnley, 18810 English Ave - Voiced concern of increased traffic, safety of children and road design of English Ave. Presented pictures of lack of visibility along English Ave. . The Planning Commission continued taking public testimony on the issue of the proposed rezoning. The following is a summary of issues and concerns of the surrounding residents: a) Concerns of additional traffic, lack of traffic control along English Ave and lack of sidewalks; b) Lack of parks within the neighborhood; c) No desire/need of commercial property when commercial property is available (on the 18400 block) along English Ave; d) Private covenants restrict anything but single-family residential. . Chair Rotty requested comments from the Commission. Commissioner Larson expressed that his initial review favored the rezoning, but with public opposition there are issues that should be addressed between the developer and staff. Commissioner Ley stated that he doesn't believe the uses that would be permitted (within the B-4) commercial area would generate any more traffic than if the property were single-family homes. Ley pointed out the uses will differ between the subject property and the area north of the Super America store. Commissioner Johnson agreed with the comments of Commissioners' Ley and Larson and added his concern that the sketch drawing of the building and parking lot may have been misconstrued as being proposed by both the public and the Commission. Chair Rotty suggested that the Commission weigh over the information submitted by staff and the testimony given by the public before making a decision. The other Commissioners agreed to the suggestion. . 4 . . . Planning Commission ~inutes Regular Meeting December 14, 1999 MOTION by Ley, second by Johnson to continue the public hearing to January 11,2000. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Commission agreed to take a five-minute recess. 6. Chair Rotty opened the public hearing for the application of the Vermillion Grove Planned Unit Development. Planning Coordinator Smick presented the staff report on the Rottlund Homes proposal of a mixed use Planned Unit Development. Smick indicated that the 122-acre development includes 97 units (on 41.8 acres) of single-family, 95 units (on 24.3 acres) Garden homes, 148 units (on 21.1 acres) of Villa Townhomes and 3.5 acres of commercial. Planner Smick explained the proposed types and styles of homes and the type of residents the developer is expecting in each (i.e., family, elderly, singles, etc.). Chair Rotty asked if all property has been attained for accesses. Michael Noonan, Rottlund Homes, responded that they have reached an agreement on the Pettis property. Smick informed the Commission of the status of the required EA W, future dedicated park space, staging of development and population projections. The Commission recognized Michael Noonan, Rottlund Homes, to give a brief presentation of the proposed project. Mr. Noonan requested flexibility on the proposed commercial site to change to medium density. Noonan stated there is some question to the marketability of a (3 acre) site that contains a pipeline easement. Discussion pursued if it was prudent to leave that area in "limbo" between commercial and medium density. Planner Smick pointed out that a similar split land use was permitted within Charleswood due to uncertainty of the commercial market. Commissioners commented that surrounding residents should be made aware of the future land uses of the site. Mr. Noonan stated that in previous developments the future commercial areas were fully disclosed with the new residents in which there was no opposition. Chair Rotty requested any questions or comments from the public. Chad Hovland, 4975 203rd Street W. - Asked if the peninsula area was part of the dedicated park space. Mr. Noonan responded that the peninsula area, between the wetlands, is essentially unbuildable due to the width and wetland setback requirements. Details of the type of park, being passive or active, will be worked out with City staff. Harvey Briesacher, 4999 203rd Street W. - Asked if the wetlands were to become part of the park system and if water levels will be affected. 5 Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting December 14, 1999 Planner Smick responded that the wetlands are protected under the Wetland Protection Act and can not be disturbed, storm water ponds will be created to contain water runoff from the development. Smick added the wetlands would be dedicated over to the City. . Being no more questions from the public, Rotty requested comments from the Commissioners. There were no additional questions from the Commission at this time. MOTION by Johnson, second by Ley to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to forward a recommendation to approve the Vermillion Grove Schematic PUD rezoning the property from R-l to R-3 PUD to the City Council contingent upon; a) Final road configuration; b) Park location and dedication; c) Access resolution off of Akin Road; d) Proposed commercial area maintain B-4 type uses. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 7. Chair Rotty introduced the DR Horton/Arcon Development Murphy Farm Schematic PUD. Planner Smick presented the staff report. Smick stated that the proposed mixed- use development located on 210 acres would consist of single-family, villa townhomes, garden homes, executive homes and parks and open space. Smick continued the presentation explaining aspects of the proposed road design, sidewalks, topography, wetland, flood plains and future parks and trails. Rotty questioned the reasoning for the request for narrower streets (28') and fifty (50') foot right-of-ways along the local streets. Smick responded that the developer is seeking to install sidewalks along most of the streets, with parking on only one side and twenty- five foot setbacks; this would give the area a neighborhood feel, a traffic-calming device and prevent tree loss. . Smick noted that there are still issues concerning property acquisition, right-of-way off of 20300 Street, access off of Akin Road and park location. Don Patton, DR Horton, responded that they have been in discussion with the appropriate property owners to resolve land acquisition and access issues. Smick stated that due to the number of issues pointed out in the staff report, staff is recommending continuance of the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Rotty asked if the developer had anything to add to the staff report. Larry Frank, project manager Arcon Development, gave a brief presentation on future park spaces and proposed street widths and sidewalks. Commissioner Larson asked the developer if they have done any other 28-foot streets. Mr. Frank responded that they just filed a plat in Savage with those street widths. Don Patton briefly explained the proposed styles of housing, ownership and associations that will be involved in the multi-family and the acquisition of the remaining properties. . 6 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting December 14, 1999 Rotty requested comments and questions from the public. Mike Haley, 20521 Akin Road - Stated that he has been in discussion with the developers on acquiring a portion of his property for access, he would eventually like to see a schematic of the lot layout; but otherwise did not have any issues with the project. Rotty questioned the situation with the property owner and the easement off of 203rd Street. Patton stated that they have come to a resolution with the owner but may request the City to become involved if no agreement can be reached. David Olson, Community Development Director, explained the process of condemnation to acquire the necessary right-of-way. Terry Herring, 20379 Eaves Way - Why has the multiples been shifted closer to the Pine Knoll neighborhood. Larry Frank responded that because of topography and open space in that area, less clearing of trees would be necessary to put in those units. Discussion continued over connection of204lh Street into the development. MOTION by Johnson, second by Ley to continue the public hearing to the January 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, to enable the developer and staff to resolve issues identified within the staff report. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. There being no further business the Commission agreed to adjourn at 10:50 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Michael Schultz Associate Planner Date Approved 7