Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting January 14, 2003 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Heman, Johnson, Larson Members Absent: None Also Present: Lee Smick, City Planner; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner 2. Election of Officers MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to nominate Dirk Rotty as Chair. Voting for: Barker, Heman, Johnson, Larson. Abstain: Rotty. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Heman to nominate Chaz Johnson as Vice-Chair. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Heman, Larson. Abstain: Johnson. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Approval of Minutes MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to approve the December 10, 2002 minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. Discussion a) Bristol Square 4th Addition Final Plat (This item was moved forward to accommodate the audience). Mr. Jim Allen, developer, proposes to plat 39 townhome lots in the Bristol Square 4th Addition Final Plat. There are two outlots on the proposed plat. Outlot A is located to the north of Prairie View Trail and adjacent to the Prairie Waterwa~ and will contain future townhomes. Outlot B is located in the center of the 4t Addition and would be utilized as a play area or common area. Staff recommended approval of the final plat contingent upon the execution of a Development Contract and submission of security, payment of all fees and costs and submission of all other documents required under the Development Contract. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to approve the Bristol Square 4th Addition Final Plat with the above contingency. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Public Hearings a) SeedlGenstar Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) The applicants have requested that this item be tabled until a future date to enable them to review the AUAR document. MOTION by Johnson, second by Heman to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Variance Request - Minimum Lot Size Requirement Mr. Ben Ward is seeking variance approval from the minimum lot size requirement in the Agricultural zoning district to create a 4.7 I-acre parcel. Mr. Ward is proposing to combine a soon-to-be-vacated right-of-way from Dakota Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2003 Page 2 County with his current 3-acre parcel. The newly created parcel would be 35.29 . acres less than required for a property in the A-I District. The previous minimum requirement was 1 acre and was changed to 40 acres. Therefore, Mr. Ward's existing property is considered a legal nonconforming parcel since it existed in its current state prior to the code amendment. All the requirements for a variance have been met. MOTION by Heman, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to approve the variance from the minimum lot size requirement in the A-I district to allow a waiver of plat to proceed to create a 4.71-acre parcel. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Glenview Commercial Addition Preliminary and Final Plat Mr. Tim Giles is seeking approval of the Glenview Commercial Addition Preliminary and Final Plat. The plat consists of 4. 71 acres located at the northeast corner ofTH 3 and 2I3th Street. Ninth Street was realigned from the west side of the proposed commercial addition to the east side. The new alignment of Ninth Street separates the Glenview Townhomes from the proposed commercial addition. The former alignment of Ninth Street included a connection to TH 3 along the north side ofthe proposed plat. There is a drainage and utility easement present along the former roadway. In order for the plat to proceed, this easement must be vacated. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to continue the public hearing until the drainage and utility easement located on the north portion of the property is vacated. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . d) Ordinance Amending Sections 10-5-10, 10-5-14, and 10-5-18 of the Farmington Zoning Code to Conditionally Allow Commercial Daycare Facilities in the R-5, B-2 and BP Zoning Districts Staff has been contacted regarding opening a commercial daycare facility in the vacant medical clinic on the Trinity Hospital site. The property is zoned R-5 which does not currently allow commercial daycare facilities. Staff proposed to amend Sections 10-5-10, 10-5-14, and 10-5-18 of the zoning code to conditionally allow commercial daycare facilities in the R-5, B-2 and BP zoning districts. As a conditional use, commercial daycare facilities would be reviewed by the Planning Commission to determine whether a specific site could accommodate such a facility without negatively affecting the surrounding area. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the proposed amendments to the zoning code to conditionally allow commercial daycare facilities in the R-5, B-2 and BP zoning districts. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Ordinance Repealing Title 4 Chapter 3, Amending Section 10-6-3: Signs, Billboards and Amending Section 10-2-1: Definitions Staff is continuing to make revisions to this ordinance and recommended continuing the public hearing to the February 11,2003 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to continue the public hearing to February II, 2003. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . Planning Commission Minutes January 14,2003 Page 3 . 5. Discussion b) Emmaus Grove Preliminary and Final Plat and Wetland Alteration Permit Farmington Lutheran Church is seeking approval ofthe Preliminary and Final Plat for the Emmaus Grove Addition for the construction of the future Farmington Lutheran Church facility. The applicant is also seeking approval of a Wetland Alteration Permit. The proposed plat consists of one platted lot and five outlots as follows: Block 1 Lot I Outlot A Outlot B Outlot C Outlot D Outlot E Development of Church Future Development Future Development Wetland/Stormwater Pond Wetland Future Development The southerly access is shown as a temporary cul-de-sac because this roadway will be extended to the east in the future when development occurs. The cul-de- sac currently does not meet City standards for width and needs to be redesigned as a hammerhead to meet emergency requirements. The roadway will access Akin Road at the entrance to the Middle Creek East development. The following issues need to be addressed: . 1. 2. Engineering issues related to the grading and stormwater requirements. The Burr Oaks proposed along Devonport Drive need to be replaced with an acceptable street tree species. The cul-de-sac currently does not meet city standards for width and needs to be redesigned as a hammerhead to meet emergency requirements. Any Engineering Department requirements. 3. 4. The Commission agreed to continue the preliminary and final plat to a later date so the applicant can address the above issues. c) 2030 Blueprint Staff presented the latest 2030 Blueprint. In October the Blueprint showed the western portion of the city as agriculture. Staff met with the landowners and they would like to see their land developed. Staff has received a revised Blueprint from the Met Council showing development in that area. 6. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . Respectfully submitted, // " /~ - . ---::----;:7 ly "z7t.<'<,c )'7 7 <-.c.L Cdf'<:--' <.:../ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved dh~3 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting February 11, 2003 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Heman, Larson Members Absent: Johnson Also Present: Lee Smick, City Planner; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) January 14,2003 Regarding Election of Officers, change to motion by Larson, second by Barker to nominate Dirk Rotty as Chair. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker approving the minutes of January 14,2003 as amended. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Variance Request - Minimum Lot Size Requirement Applicant: Mark Kindseth and Robert & Donna Kindseth Mark Kindseth and Robert and Donna Kindseth are seeking a variance approval from the minimum lot size requirement. The property is located along Hwy 50, at 6050 21ih Street. Mark Kindseth would like to split the property into two parcels, 1.42 acres and 1.69 acres. Mark Kindseth would retain the 1.42 acres, and Robert and Donna Kindseth would purchase the 1.69-acre parcel. An amendment to the city code was approved in May 2002 changing the allowable lot size requirement from I acre to 40 acres in an A-I district. The Board of Adjustment may vary the regulations of the title for the following reasons: I. Because of the physical surroundings, strict adherence to the title would cause undue hardship. The amendment to the code changed the parcels to non-conforming parcels, eliminating the ability to subdivide. Without the code amendment, the Kindseth's could proceed with the waiver of plat. That is their hardship. 2. The conditions upon which the variances are based are unique to the parcel of land. When the code was revised a number of properties became non-conforming. 3. The hardship was not created by the Kindseth's, or any other person interested in the property. 4. Granting a variance does not alter the area or have a negative impact on other properties. Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2003 Page 2 5. The variance would not result in increased danger of fire, or be detrimental to the public welfare or safety. MOTION by Larson, second by Heman to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the variance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Conditional Use Permit for a Billboard (West of Pilot Knob Road) Applicant: Fredrickson Outdoor Advertising c) Conditional Use Permit for a Billboard (East of Pilot Knob Road) Applicant: Fredrickson Outdoor Advertising The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to locate billboards on the west and east sides of Pilot Knob Road. The conditions ofa billboard include: They are set back as the zoning distance requires. The north billboard would be in the I-I district and the south billboard in the IP district. They cannot be located within 500 feet of an intersection. They cannot be located within 1500 feet of each other. The billboard must be removed when the property is developed. Staff recommended if the CUP is approved for the south billboard, the CUP should state the billboard would have to be removed upon platting. Both billboards meet all the provisions. Commissioner Barker noted a proposed ordinance regarding billboards, to be discussed later in the meeting, states billboards are permitted only in the 1-1 district along Hwy 50 and Hwy 3. The billboards along Pilot Knob Road would be non-conforming if Council approves the ordinance. Chair Rotty asked why they should look at the billboards and look at an ordinance making them non-conforming. Staff stated they have to follow the current ordinance until the new ordinance is in place. Commissioner Larson stated the billboards along Hwy 50 have been cleaned up. It would not look any better to have billboards along Pilot Knob Road. Chair Rotty was concerned and cautious with approving a CUP when the commission would also be looking at a sign ordinance. Staff will check with Joel regarding this issue. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to continue the public hearing for a CUP for a billboard west of Pilot Knob Road to the March 11,2003 meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Heman to continue the public hearing for a CUP for a billboard east of Pilot Knob Road to the March 11,2003 meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Conditional Use Permit - Operate a Bed and Breakfast in an R-l Zoning District Applicant: Bruce Conner Mr. Conner is proposing to open a bed and breakfast in the Akin house. These are allowed as a conditional use in the R~l district. All 16 conditions have been met. . . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2003 Page 3 Staff toured the bed and breakfast and compiled a punch list of items that need to be completed before they open, not necessarily before the conditional use permit is issued. The number one item is the septic system. It would have to be expanded. This is based on the number of bedrooms. There are currently 4 bedrooms and one owner bedroom. The Connor's are transforming one of the bedrooms into a sitting room, which would reduce the size of the septic system needed. The septic system installed was larger than what was planned and larger than what is on record with the city. Staff is reviewing this situation, so they may already have an adequate septic system. City sewer is across the road, and is not close enough to require the Connor's to connect to city sewer. . Mr. Bruce Connor, 19901 Langford Lane, they know the septic system is adequate for what is there. They are changing one of the bedrooms to a sitting room. Because of the location and uniqueness of the home, they will be putting a row of mature trees, 10 -12 feet high between their property and the new lots. They will also be putting a hedge on their side. There is a pole shed in back that is 110 feet long and 30 feet deep which covers most of the back part ofthe property. The Connor's would like to try some special events in the home. They have received requests for business meetings, ladies groups meetings, etc. They have off street parking that will hold 20 vehicles. Because of the isolation of the property, they believe they could use the property more extensively than a bed and breakfast. Mr. Connor asked the Planning Commission what procedures they would have to go through to get the special use permits which are mentioned in the bed and breakfast ordinance. If there was a business meeting, how do they go about catering a luncheon? Staff stated a condition could be added to this CUP allowing so many events per year or certain types of events, or a separate CUP could be prepared. The Planning Commission was willing to address the Bed and Breakfast request, but felt they needed more time to consider the special events. The Commission would definitely be willing to look at a request for special events. Staff suggested the Connor's give staff a list of the kind of events being planned, how long they would last, number of people, etc. The CUP could later be amended to address special events. Any amendment to the CUP would require a public hearing. The special events would include meetings, and possibly small weddings of approximately 30-40 people. MOTION by Heman, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the Conditional Use Permit along with four contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Emmaus Grove Preliminary and Final Plat and Wetland Alteration Permit Applicant: Farmington Lutheran Church Staff requested this be continued as the owner and engineer needed to submit some items to staff and just recently submitted the final item. Their 60-day notice . Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2003 Page 4 has been extended. MOTION by Heman, second by Barker to continue the public hearing to the March 11,2003 meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . 1) Ordinance Repealing Title 4, Chapter 3, Amending Section 10-6-3: Signs, Billboards and Amending Section 10-2-1: Definitions This ordinance has been reviewed by the Planning Commission previously. There have been some changes and it has been reviewed by the City Attorney. Commissioner Heman asked about banners, and did not see where it says they can be mounted on trees, fence posts, or public right-of-ways. Staff stated they are not allowed that way and staff is working to get some of those taken down. MOTION by Heman, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker approving the amendments to the Signs, Billboards ordinance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion Regarding the opportunity grant area which includes the Spruce Street corridor, Knutsen, Peterson, Adelman, Allen properties and Dakota County, staff is putting together a task force to deal with that issue. The first meeting will be February 20,2003. Hoisington Koegler has been hired to do the master plan for that area. The Planning Commission felt a commissioner should be on the task force. The task force is currently comprised of a resident from the north, a resident from the south, a business owner from the Farmington Marketplace north area, a business owner from the downtown, a business owner from TH3, a representative from CEEF, and Eureka township. The master plan will be brought to the Planning Commission in August. . 5. Adjourn MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, (J' ~ . -- -' e:,:Y;/-? - , r ~,.- / /"..~ ~._~(. ..t::-4:c) 7<--<: ..."- J Approved 3h ~-3 Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting March 11, 2003 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Heman, Johnson, Larson Members Absent: None Also Present: Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to approve the February 11,2003 Minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Heman, Larson. Abstain: Johnson. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Conditional Use Permit for a Billboard (West of Pilot Knob Road) Applicant: Fredrickson Outdoor Advertising b) Conditional Use Permit (or a Billboard (East of Pilot Knob Road) Applicant: Fredrickson Outdoor Advertising Mr. Duane Fredrickson is proposing to construct two billboards on Pilot Knob Road north ofHwy 50. One will be located to the west of Pilot Knob and one closer to Hwy 50 east of Pilot Knob. Billboards are allowed as a conditional use in industrial zoned districts. There are regulations concerning size, location, setbacks, and distance from intersections. All of these conditions are met. One additional regulation is that billboards are permitted in undeveloped land areas until the area is platted. Both of these areas are being considered for future expansion of the industrial park. The applicant and property owners are aware of this regulation. This item was tabled at the last meeting to allow staff to consult with the city attorney regarding what impact a new sign ordinance would have on these conditional use permits. One revision included in the new sign ordinance was that billboards would not be permitted along Pilot Knob Road. The Planning Commission did recommend approval of this ordinance at the February II, 2003 meeting. If these billboards are permitted on Pilot Knob Road they would become non-conforming. The Planning Commission wanted to know if they should be approved as the application was submitted prior to the ordinance being approved. The City Council did approve the sign ordinance at the March 3, 2003 Council meeting with some changes. One of the changes was to remove the prohibition on Pilot Knob Road. Therefore, the new sign ordinance does allow billboards on Pilot Knob Road meaning these locations are consistent with the sign ordinance. Chair Rotty stated the ordinance also addresses the maximum size of a billboard which is 300 sq. ft. and the maximum height is 30 ft. Both of these billboards Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2003 Page 2 meet these requirements. The ordinance also addresses location, they cannot be . within 1500 ft. of another billboard, cannot be within 500 ft. of a park or residential zoning district, and cannot be within 500 ft. of any intersection. The billboards also meet these requirements. Mr. Duane Fredrickson wanted to reinforce the fact that when these locations are constructed, his primary goal is to do business with people within Farmington. Since the last Council he has received phone calls from a bank and a realtor saying they would like to be advertisers. This shows it is a good use and needed. Chair Rotty wanted to make it clear that when these areas are developed, the billboards would have to be removed. Mr. Fredrickson understood that requirement. Commissioner Barker asked if the city was limited to these two signs due to distance requirements. Staff replied that is correct due to regulations of 500 ft from intersections and 1500 ft between billboards, there would not be room for anymore. Commissioner Larson asked since the Council removed the provision of signs on Pilot Knob, would this be conforming or non-conforming. Staff replied it would be conforming. The Council removed the entire provision that prohibited billboards on Pilot Knob with the understanding there is only room for these two. Commissioner Larson asked if the billboards would be illuminated. Mr. Fredrickson stated he would like to have that option, but not right now. He would . like to construct them now due to weather constraints and to minimize the impact on cropland. MOTION by Johnson, second by Heman to close both public hearings. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker approving a conditional use permit for construction ofa billboard on the west side of Pilot Knob Road with two contingencies: I. The billboard be removed prior to platting of the property. 2. A sign permit shall be issued prior to construction. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson approving a conditional use permit for construction of a billboard on the east side of Pilot Knob Road with the same contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Conditional Use Permit - Farmington High School Addition Applicant: ATS&R ATS&R is proposing an addition to the high school of 6000 sq. ft. and renovating the existing school of21,000 sq. ft. The addition would be an addition to the cafeteria including a grill area, staff lounge, and additional room for students. Another small addition would be in the loading dock area. Staffhas reviewed the plans and found no problems, all codes are met. . Planning Commission Minutes January 14,2003 Page 3 . . . Mr. Dean Beniga, ATS&R, stated this is a phase II of what was done to the school in 1995 when classrooms, a gym, and auditorium were added. As the student population increases there is a bottleneck in the cafeteria and serving area. This would allow the students to get their food faster and offer a larger selection. This is an attempt to bring the building up to current and future needs. There will also be an additional locker room for visiting teams. Mr. Rob Binder, A TS&R stated the patio area will also be improved to allow it to be used to its full potential. MOTION by Johnson, second by Heman to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve a conditional use permit to construct an addition at the Farmington High School with one contingency, that the applicant must secure a building permit prior to construction. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Preliminary and Final Plat and Wetland Alteration Permit - Emmaus Grove Applicant: Farmington Lutheran Church The property is located along Akin Road north ofHwy 50. There are several outlots and easements to allow for utilities. One of the easements is for a storm sewer system. Engineering staffhas determined the current system would not be adequate for the site. The city and the applicant have been designing a new system. A new easement would be needed for the new location of the storm sewer system. Churches are a conditional use in R-1 zoning districts. Outlots A and B are for future development. Outlots C and D are storm water ponds and wetlands. Outlot E is also for future development. Outlots C and D would be conveyed to the city. There will be a north and south entrance. The north entrance would have the most impact on the wetland. When the Planning Commission previously reviewed the plat there was an issue of wetland banking, where the church had to come up with some credits. Staff replied, ideally any wetland fill or alteration would be done on site. The church has to look to Rice County in order to mitigate what they are losing on the site. They are mitigating 1.26 acres. Mr. Leon Orr, Farmington Lutheran Church, stated regarding the wetland mitigation, the church did mitigate a small portion on the site and purchased the remainder. The purchase has been completed and it is proceeding through the state wetland withdrawal program. Regarding Outlots C and D, it is undecided as to whether they will be deeded or issue a permanent easement. Chair Rotty stated the consultant suggested a protective easement. Either one would be fine with the church and the city. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Heman recommending approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat and Wetland Alteration Permit for Emmaus Grove with the following contingencies: I. Comments made in Mr. John Smyth's memo regarding wetland issues and protective easements have been resolved. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2003 Page 4 2. The city approved easement with storm sewer be completed. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . e) Preliminary Plat - Meadow Creek 3rd Addition Applicant: Progress Land Company The main issue deals with the Lake Julia ditch. It needs to be expanded, but it needs to be determined how big and deep does it have to be, and does it need to be moved to the north or south or remain where it is. After discussions last week, the basic location was determined and improvements necessary. The new location would not affect the lot configuration on the current plat. Another issue is the lot width, which has to be 75 feet across. There are some lots less than 75 feet wide at the right-of-way edge. However, the width is measured at the front yard setback, not the property line. Progress Land has verbally confirmed the lots do meet the 75 ft. requirement at the setback, however staff will verify this prior to going to Council. There are also some engineering issues. Chair Rotty stated in addition to the 75 ft. requirement, there is also a requirement of a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. or greater in an R-l zoning district. Each lot does meet this requirement. Commissioner Larson stated he wanted to avoid the ditch problem. There is also a contingency that no building permits will be issued for lots 1-5, block I until the ditch is constructed. Commissioner Larson suggested no building permits be issued until the ditch is constructed. Staff stated Engineering felt comfortable given that the design would be complete. The only problem would be . construction ofthe ditch in close proximity to the homes. This is the reason for not issuing building permits for those lots until construction of the ditch is complete. Chair Rotty stated he does want confirmation ofthe width ofthe lots. He agreed the five lots need to be held back. MOTION by Johnson, second by Heman to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson recommending approval ofthe preliminary plat for Meadow Creek 3rd Addition with the following contingencies: I. The applicant shall verify that all lots meet the minimum lot requirements of75 ft. as measured from the front yard setback line. 2. The applicant shall comply with the comments provided by the City Engineer. 3. No permits shall be issued for lots 1-5, block 1 until construction ofthe waterway ditch is complete. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. t) Preliminary and Final Plat - Glenview Commercial Addition Applicant: Tim Giles The Glenview Commercial Addition consists of three lots in the front and outlots. The three lots in the front will be combined into one lot. The plat was tabled in the past due to easements. The city has a water main running across the property . Planning Commission Minutes January 14,2003 Page 5 . which was part ofthe TH3 right-of-way. With the replat, the easements are not adequate for the existing water main. The current easements need to be vacated and re-established. When it goes to Council they would vacate the easement and consider approving the plat. The area is currently zoned B-1. There are currently no tenants for this commercial property. Chair Rotty asked about Outlot A along the east side of 9th Street. Staff stated that it will be landscaped as it is too small to be developed. It will be left as is and perhaps add a buffer for the Glenview Townhomes. Mr. Greg Eppich, 1061 Willow Trail, commented that Outlot A is currently a pond and then the townhomes are beyond that. He would like to see a buffer along that area. He was also concerned about notification to the residents. He has not heard of anyone within 350 ft. that was notified by the developer. The townhome association does own the outlots that border the pond and the road. Chair Rotty stated the outlot will be considered when the project comes through for platting, and the commission will encourage the developer to help buffer the area. Staff stated notification was sent for the public hearing and the outlot area will be included on the list for the future. Mr. Epick asked if there was another opportunity for comment in the future. Staff stated there will be another public hearing when businesses are developed and another notice will be sent. . MOTION by Johnson, second by Heman to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker recommending approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat for the Glenview Commercial Addition with the following contingencies: I. Existing drainage and utility easements shall be vacated prior to final approval. 2. Execution of a development contract between the developer and the City Council along with the necessary security and fees be completed and the development contract processed. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. g) Rezoning - 18 Walnut Street (Tower View Apartments) R-4 to R-S Applicant: City of Farmington Last spring the property was rezoned from R-2 to R-4 to make it conforming. There were too many units on the property. It is also non-conforming being zoned R-4, so staff recommended rezoning it to R-S to make it conforming. R-4 allows a maximum density of 12 units per acre. R-5 allows 21 units per acre. The number of units in the apartment complex require the higher density. . MOTION by Larson, second by Heman to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Heman, second by Larson to recommend zoning map amendment for the Tower View Apartments from R-4 to R-5. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2003 Page 6 4. Adjourn MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . Respectfully submitted, t./vd~ /7'7ueii~ ,~ I " CYnthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved tf}-~ <is ;?~ , I . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting April 8, 2003 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Heman, Johnson, Larson Members Absent: None Also Present: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) March 11, 2003 MOTION by Larson, second by Heman to approve the March 11,2003 minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Bed and Breakfast and Hold Special Events at 520 Oak Street Applicant: Steve and Lisa Bolduc There are several conditions that must be met for a bed and breakfast. A few are: -The structure must be listed on the national historical register, or designated on the list of Farmington heritage landmarks, or identified as a historically significant property by the Heritage Preservation Commission. This property has met this requirement. -Parking requirement for a 3-unit bed and breakfast is 5 spaces. They are close to complying now with the driveway and have discussed expanding the driveway on the 6th Street side. Parking cannot be located between the street and the front face of the building. This requirement would be met. -Regarding signage, they are allowed a 4 sq. ft. sign identifying the bed and breakfast. They will need to apply for a sign permit later. -They need to be licensed by the state for food, and would only be able to serve registered guests of the bed and breakfast. The applicants are requesting permission to hold special events. They would like to hold 12 events per year with up to 150 people per event. After public notice two parties responded. Both were in favor of the bed and breakfast, one was in favor of the special events, and one was opposed to the special events due to the parking. The last issue is timing. The code calls for a one-year period after granting a conditional use permit before it expires. If improvements to the property in order to open the bed and breakfast are not completed, they would have to reapply. Given the amount of renovation required, the applicants are requesting an extension to give them 1-2 years to complete the remodeling. As a condition of Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 Page 2 approval, the conditional use permit will become null and void if significant progress is not made by April 8, 2005. . Mr. Steve Bolduc, stated they want to maintain the historical significance of the house. Ms. Lisa Bolduc will actually be running the bed and breakfast. The commission asked what type of special events were planned. Mr. Bolduc stated small groups, weddings, and graduations. Mr. Tim Dougherty, 517 Spruce Street, stated he does not have a problem with the bed and breakfast. It is a good utilization of the house. He is concerned with the events issue and parking, and how late the events will go. He would be opposed to late night events. He is not sure how the parking would be handled with 100 people. Chair Rotty stated there are 16 requirements the applicants have to follow before it is approved. On a conditional use there is a lot of room for attaching certain conditions. If special events are considered, certain conditions can be set as far as timing and parking. Mr. Dougherty asked if there will be alcohol, wine, or beer. Also music and how would that work? Security could be a concern, and also parking. Mr. Bolduc stated the main purpose is to be a bed and breakfast. If someone asks ifthey can have a special event, he would like to have that opportunity. There would not be long evening hours, no later than 10:00 and weekends only. Music could be kept down to a certain level. This could be included in the agreement with the guests. He has not thought too much about parking, right now it is on 6th . Street. Chair Rotty asked as far as security, how would Mr. Bolduc prevent guests who park 2-3 blocks away from crossing through neighbor's yards and dropping litter, etc. Mr. Bolduc stated that could also be placed in the agreement to have respect for the neighbor's property. Chair Rotty asked how they would control the guests that are leaving. Mr. Bolduc stated they could have someone standing out there, monitoring the guests. Chair Rotty asked if the bed and breakfast is contingent upon having special events or could the two be separated? Mr. Bolduc replied the two would be separate, but he doesn't want to be limited to just a bed and breakfast. The number of people allowed could be lowered. Ms. Mary Kay Haas, 601 Oak Street, stated she does not have any problem, even with the special events. Last year she had a birthday party for her husband, with 100 people and they were parking everywhere. There was no problem. She would have no problem with four events a year. To be able to make a historical home look better, is worth it. Mr. Ray Juvland, 420 Sixth Street, stated he is ok with the bed and breakfast, but the document for special events says 12 times a year. How can 100 people be controlled? He does not want to live next to it. He is against the special events. Ms. Sharon Olszewski, 419 Sixth Street, asked about how they are going to expand the parking area? Mr. Bolduc stated there is a gravel area that has been . Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 Page 3 . added. That would be expanded and angled to 16 ft. It will be concrete. She does not have a problem with the bed and breakfast, but would like a better understanding of the size of the special events. Under 50 people would be ok, but she has a concern with 100 people and if there is alcohol. Mr. Earl Teporten, 521 Oak Street, stated he thinks this is a wonderful opportunity to enhance one ofthe historically significant properties in town. A lot of people are concerned about the 150 figure. This will be reviewed after one year. No one knows how many events will be there or the size. It would be good to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and try it for a year. If it does not work out, it can be brought up again. As far as security, some cities have ordinances where if there is a certain number of people gathered for an event they have to have an officer there. He is very much in support of this request. . Commissioner Heman stated his main concern is the parking and the number of people. He has no problem with the bed and breakfast portion. Commissioner Larson also did not have a problem with the bed and breakfast or the special events. He suggested to start small and keep a close eye on them. Commissioner Johnson agreed and was concerned with cars blocking driveways and children running out. He noted there was a condition of a right to terminate. Commissioner Barker was also in favor of the bed and breakfast. He asked if the building official or fire marshal had inspected the house in terms of maximum occupancy. Staff replied the building official is creating a punchlist. Commissioner Barker asked ifthe city or residents will be notified when these special events will be occurring. Staff stated that provision could be included in the conditional use permit. He also liked the provision of reviewing it again in a year. Mr. Bolduc stated he is looking at special events as being a wedding, or something small. Chair Rotty stated the residents are in agreement with a bed and breakfast, but he would like a more defined proposal of a special event. As the bed and breakfast will not be in operation for 1-2 years, the Commission offered to separate the bed and breakfast portion from the special events and act on the bed and breakfast. Contingencies include: I. Comply with the zoning code 2. Obtain the proper licenses 3. Apply for signage at a later date 4. Improvements should comply with the requests of the building official and fire marshal 5. Driveway needs to be modified for additional parking 6. As the conditional use permit expires after one year if nothing is done, the Commission will extend it to two years. . Special events are not included in the Conditional Use Permit. The process is a permit would be issued, conditions would be specified, and the applicant would Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 Page 4 bring the permit back to the Planning Commission for approval to modify it to allow for special events. Residents would be re-notified of this public hearing. . Staff noted a re-use study is being done for the Church of the Advent and suggested weddings could be held there, and have the reception at the house as they are a short distance apart. MOTION by Heman, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson approving the Conditional Use Permit for a bed and breakfast at 520 Oak Street. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Preliminary and Final Plat - Riverside West Applicant: John Benedict and Brian Budenski This proposed development is located on the corner of Akin Road and 208th Street and would contain 5 lots. The current cul-de-sac would be removed, and the street extended to form a new cul-de-sac. This would involve three properties and would require removing pavement and would require a re-plat to bring the property line down to the right-of-way line. Each lot does meet the size requirement. There is a gas line easement along the east side and an electrical easement along the west side of the properties. The flood plain runs along the back of the homes. In order to protect the flood plain, staff requested it be designated as an easement. Connected to Outlot A, there is a 30-ft. strip that staff would like to have included with lot 5. This 30-ft. piece was planned to be used . for a trail to a future park. If this is included in lot 5, the city will still have a 10- 15 ft easement. Mr. Scott Molitor, 4440 207th Street, asked who pays for extending the driveway and sod to the street? If work needs to be done on the easements requiring the driveway to be torn up by the gas company, is there a cost to the owners and will they be notified in advance of this possibility? He felt the owners of these 5 lots should be made aware of the ramifications of easements on both sides of the house. Staff stated the elimination of the cul-de-sac was not initiated by the adjacent property owners. Therefore, they should not be subjected to any expense. Full restoration should be at the developer's expense. Mr. Ernie Darflinger, Attorney, felt extending the road to a new cul-de-sac would not work as there would have to be a re-plat. The road to these five lots should come in from the north and south and a portion of the cul-de-sac would be vacated. Chair Rotty asked ifthe developer is willing to pick up the cost? Mr. Brian Budinski asked why take out the current cul-de-sac? He would prefer to leave it in and extend the street to a new cul-de-sac. The Commission and staff felt that would not look appropriate and may present problems with turning traffic. . Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 Page 5 . However, if the residents would like to have the first cul-de-sac remain, that could be considered. Ms. Kelly Carufel, 4457 20ih Street, stated she doesn't know what it would look like with the cul-de-sac removed. She would like to see a drawing first. She also asked how close the trail will be to her property? Staffwill need to add the location ofthe easement to the plat. There could be 10-15 feet off the property line before the trail starts and still be within the easement. . Mr. Brian Budinski stated they are giving 3.5 acres to the city for a park. There is already a trail along Akin Road. The trail could go from Akin Road to the park, rather than between the properties from the cul-de-sac. Chair Rotty understood the purpose of the trail was for local residents to use to reach the park. Mr. Keith Carufel, 4457 207th Street, stated he does not like the two bubbles, it looks strange. He bought his property with the idea to be at the end of the bubble. It would look better to remove the first cul-de-sac and have a straight road. Mr. Jeff Johnson, 4460 20ih Street, if the street is going to be extended and leave both bubbles, he would like the public hearing extended to give residents time to think about the ramifications. He would like clarification on where the costs will be incurred. It is likely the driveway will have to be redone and the grading, sprinkler systems, etc. He then asked if the gas line easement will stay or will it be platted with lot I? Staff replied that will stay as an easement. Regarding easement notification, future buyers of the lots need to be notified of the easements. The easements will be shown on each individual survey. There is not an official process of ensuring the survey reaches the buyer. In the future, knowledge of the easements hopefully would come up in the title work. It is also possible to place small signs along the easements and wetlands. Mr. Todd Arey, 20651 Devonshire Avenue, he would rather not see the development in his backyard. If this is approved, his concerns are based on the pipeline easement and electrical easement, the creek and the floodplain. He asked what the value will be of these houses to be trapped on three sides by these obstacles. Based on where the existing cul-de-sac is and where the proposed one will go, there is a difference in elevation. There will have to be a hill to get up to the cul-de-sac. The developer stated the homes will be comparable to what is currently there. Chair Rotty asked if the difference in grade will make more wetness for the current residents. Staff stated engineering has reviewed this and will make sure the grading works. . Mr. Keith Carufel asked if there could be an access from 208th Street. Staffwill review this request. There could be a public safety issue with being too close to the intersection. Mr. Carufel then asked if the first cul-de-sac was removed from the north and south the trees would be off the boulevard. Would that be Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 Page 6 overlooked? He put a lot of time into the trees and does not want to move them. Would there be more boulevard trees put in their place or would they be moved . forward? Staff stated that will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Boulevard trees are proposed all the way around the cul-de-sac. Mr. Jeff Johnson would prefer the area not be developed, but single-family housing is better than the alternative. He would like to see a restriction on construction traffic during the time school buses are coming and going. Chair Rotty stated this plat does meet current city code. The commission is taking residents and commission comments to make the development the best it can be. There are two or three items still uncertain and need to be resolved before the plat can be approved by the commission. Mr. Johnson asked who would be responsible for turning the cul-de-sac into a street. Staff replied engineering will have to determine which alternatives are acceptable to the city. Staff would then meet with the developer, and the developer will hire people to do the work to the city's specifications. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to continue the public hearing to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on May 13,2003. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Discussion Regarding Operating a Daycare in the Industrial Park Applicant: Jan Karrmann Currently the area in question is one lot. Staffhas been discussing opening a daycare facility with Ms. Jan Karrmann. One of the problems with this lot was that it was too big for businesses that wanted to be in the industrial park and there is a pipeline easement running through the property. Staff felt the lot should be split into three separate lots. This would minimize the pipeline easement by putting it along a property line between two new lots, with half of the easement on each lot. Staff would like Ms. Karrmann to consider lot 2 as she does not need a lot as large as the other two. Lot 3 has an extension to 208th Street to allow access to the lot. A building would face east and in the future there would be a road along the east side ofthe lot. Ms. Karrmann and her builder will be appearing before the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Staff would like Planning Commission input on four issues. The first issue has to do with the commission's thoughts on splitting the lot. Chair Rotty felt it was reasonable to split the lot due to the easement. Staff commented there is more interest in 2-4 acre lots, than one large lot with a pipeline easement running through it. . The second issue involves a variance from the lot width requirement. According to the zoning code, lots in the industrial park have to have 150 ft. of street . Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 Page 7 . frontage. If the eastern road was there along lot 3, that would be the front of the lot. With the extension to 208th Street, staff proposes that be 100 feet wide. If it has to be 150 ft. wide it would cut into the lot for Ms. Karrmann. Chair Rotty felt the hardship would be the pipeline easement and the need to access lot 3. The third issue is the conditional use permit. Ms. Karrmann has not applied for one yet. As daycare is specified in the zoning code as a conditional use what she has proposed is consistent with that. When she does apply, the staff recommendation would be to approve it. Staffwould like to know if there would be any special conditions the commission would impose on the conditional use permit. The commission agreed they would support a daycare facility in the industrial park. . The fourth issue has to do with the appearance of the building and the building materials. There are design standards for buildings in the industrial park to ensure the buildings constructed meet minimum standards with an interest in higher quality construction materials and more permanent materials to enhance the buildings. The building standards specify brick, stone, concrete masonry block, and concrete. Pre-engineered metal can be used but should not exceed 6% of the exterior wall surface area. Staff would like to know if there is going to be daycare in an industrial park, should it comply with the design standards or can it deviate because of the nature ofthe use itself. One option would be to build a daycare facility, but you have to comply with the design standards. Another option would be you are proposing to build a wood frame structure with lap siding that has portland cement in it, which is a higher grade than a hardboard siding, and approve it. The third option would be to grant a variance of some kind, but not for what is proposed, and request more of the exterior exist of the products in the code. Commissioner Larson was aware of two building owners that were not allowed to build their building the way they wanted and had to comply with the code. Mr. Larry White, builder for Ms. Karrmann, stated they are proposing a building just over 6,000 sq. ft. A driveway would be on the eastern side, aligned with Eaton Avenue. There would be double parking in the front with no parking in the drop off area. There would be a large fenced playground and screening. As far as the building, they are proposing gables from the roof, trim around windows and doors, brick veneer up to the windows, and siding along the sides and rear of the building. . The commission discussed the building materials. It was suggested to consult the city attorney as to whether the portland cement siding met the design standards. Staff stated there are three lots left and two of those are close to being sold to companies that will put standard design materials on the outside. That leaves this one lot for Ms. Karrmann. At most there will be two more buildings that will be adjacent to the daycare. Chair Rotty would like there to be more brick on the front. If the HRA agrees to sell the property to Ms. Karrmann, but requires her to Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 Page 8 change the appearance of the building, the Planning Commission would be in support of that. If the HRA does not insist on changing the appearance, and still . agrees to sell the property with the current building materials, the Planning Commission would grant a variance for the building materials. b) Sketch Plan Review - Knutsen Property Applicant: Matt Alexander - New Century Staffhas reviewed the sketch plan and discussed several points. The first one is a connection to Spruce Street. The main entrance to the project comes from Hwy 50. The plan shows the main entrance ending at the front of the grocery store. Staff feels this should extend through to Spruce Street. The alignment for Spruce Street will be determined in the Master Planning process. The second issue is minimum lot size. The requirement is one acre. The lot in the northwest corner is under that by 13,000 sq. ft. There are also two lots in the southern portion which are also under the minimum. The third item is the front yard setbacks. In the Spruce Street commercial district, it is the intent to get the buildings close to the street. There is a front yard setback requirement of 20 feet maximum. In this case, there are several structures along Hwy 50 that are set back farther than the maximum requirement. The fourth item is conditional uses. Four types of businesses are considered a conditional use, which are convenience stores, hotels, grocery stores, and fast food restaurants. . The fifth issue is that there are two uses on the sketch plan that are not provided for in the Spruce Street commercial district. One is a bank. This falls under the category of personal and professional services. That is not provided as a permitted or conditional use. A text amendment to the zoning district would be required. The second one is office/medical. Another use is automotive, which would require more clarification. The sixth issue is parking lot landscaping. The landscaping ordinance requires a landscaping island every 20 spaces in a parking lot. An additional consideration would be to not eliminate too many parking spaces. Number seven is parking for lot 16. Lot 16 does not have any parking shown. There is a provision in the code that would allow this with Planning Commission approval. As far as traffic circulation the traffic engineer has provided comments. Access to the site includes three entrances on Hwy 50. These would have to be approved by the county. There is a right-in only on the western side, and a right-in and right- out only between the main entrance and Denmark Avenue. The traffic engineer also mentioned the connection down to Spruce Street would be necessary and the . Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2003 Page 9 . right-in only on the northwest portion is not shown as connecting to anything. The median on the main entrance drive may be too wide to handle it as one intersection. The alignment of Spruce Street also needs to be determined. . Mr. Matt Alexander, New Century, stated when the plan was developed there was nothing south ofthe grocery store. There was 200 ft. for a potential Spruce Street corridor. He would agree to phasing the plat, and building the businesses along Hwy 50 first and wait for the rest until the Spruce Street plan is ready. He is willing to work with the lot size issues. Mr. Alexander understood the front yard setback for a downtown look, but he doesn't think that applies along Hwy 50. Chair Rotty asked if the large parking lots give a feel of being able to walk around. This design is more of a mall design. Mr. Alexander replied people will use their cars in this area, he didn't feel this area was within walking distance. Chair Rotty stated this reminds him of County Road 42 with fast foods, and then a shopping center. There are some nice amenities like the hotel, a bank, medical office which are reasonable uses. He would like to see these same types of uses along Spruce Street. Coming from Spruce Street, Commissioner Larson would like to see a nice, open, friendly corridor with lights and sidewalks. The whole idea was to work this into the downtown area. Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to see the main artery have a walking area, and an old town feel. Commissioner Barker would also like to see it tied more to the Spruce Street area. He would like to see a flow between Spruce Street and Hwy 50 to allow for walking. Commissioner Heman agreed the median should be narrowed. The concept is good, but there needs to be more flow from Hwy 50 to Spruce Street. Commissioner Larson asked if there was a way of creating a downtown behind the grocery store. Mr. Alexander was not sure how much traffic would be going down Spruce Street. There could be some local businesses in that area. Mr. Alexander then asked about a staff comment regarding incorporating housing into the concept. Staff replied that information would come from the Master Plan process. Whether it's viable depends on the creativity of the plan. In some cases it is putting housing above businesses or high density apartment buildings close to the businesses. The commission was excited about seeing more commercial business, and was glad the developer agreed to the AUAR. 4. Adjourn MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.r Respectfully submitted, ~.I.. j P' _7~ ?"~ Lt:", 7~ /. ~m--<--, ynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting April 29, 2003 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Heman, Johnson, Larson Members Absent: Barker Also Present: Lee Smick, City Planner; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner; Lee Mann, City Engineer 2. Public Hearings a) Preliminary and Final Plat - Riverside West (continued) Applicant: John Benedict and Brian Budenski The applicants are proposing 5 single-family homes at the corner of Akin Road and 20Sth Street. The proposed lots are to be located beyond the cul-de-sac on 207th Street. There are two issues still unresolved. One is the trail issue. Outlot A contains Middle Creek, with a small section coming to the cul-de-sac. It is proposed to provide a trail from the cul-de-sac to a proposed park area. Another trail would come from Akin Road and connect to the present trail to the park. The concern is whether there should be a trail at all, and where it should be located. It is city policy to connect trails through cul-de-sacs whenever possible. Instead of having this as Outlot A, staff proposes to have this area as part oflot 5 and take an easement over the area. Staff would like to not see the trail immediately on the property line, but 30 feet from the property line. The second issue is the existing cul-de-sac on 207th Street. The proposal shows the street going straight into the new cul-de-sac and remove the current cul-de- sac. Three lots would need to be replatted on the current cul-de-sac to bring the property lines down to the future right-of-way. The developers thought the impact of doing this would be too great. In order to remove the cul-de-sac, the driveways would have to be re-graded all the way to the garages. Given that impact, staff looked at two options. First to continue with the requirement to extend the street straight through and replace the current cul-de-sac, or leave the cul-de-sac and have a double bubble. Since both options could work, it should be left to the residents as to what happens. The existing cul-de-sac is more of an engineering issue, rather than a condition of approval. Staff has removed the recommendation that the three lots be replatted. With the existing cul-de-sac there is one issue whether it is left as is or remove it. The property on the corner runs along the back of the cul-de-sac to a point. The City Attorney recommended a right-of-way easement over the corner in order to extend the road. Staff is recommending the easement be agreed upon between the property owner and the developer prior to the plat moving forward. The City Attorney stated this should not be required as a condition of approval. He felt there are a few ways to get access back to the cul-de-sac and the property. Ifthis easement is not granted, the Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 2003 Page 2 City Council would need to deny the plat. Because the land is developable and is . zoned properly, the lots meet the requirements, the Council denying the plat because of a condition could be a problem in the future. The City Attorney recommended removing the easement as a condition and placing it in the development contract as an engineering issue. Commissioner Larson stated if the easement is not included, shifting the road will be an odd enough situation the way it is. He cannot see having two cul-de-sacs, let alone not having them straight. Mr. Jack Benedict, developer, stated there was a misunderstanding at the last meeting. When Riverside was developed, it was agreed that it would be a temporary cul-de-sac. At the time, the Planning Commission required it be paved and with curbing. With the current project, Mr. Benedict proposed the street go straight through and leave the existing cul-de-sac. He felt there was no problem with the easement. City Engineer Mann stated prior to the April 8 meeting staff wanted to see the roadway go straight through and the ears of the cul-de-sac removed. The plans shown at the April 8 meeting showed how that would occur. There was some concern of the ability ofthe developer to do that. Last week the developer expressed concern as to whether that was feasible. Staff surveyed the cul-de-sac and adjacent yards to see what the ramifications would be. The driveway to the house on the north side of the cul-de-sac would need to be removed to the garage slab. It would have to regraded up to the house, several trees would have to be moved or replaced. Across the street, the easterly house on the south side would have somewhat less impact. Grading would need to go 15 feet into the yard. For the westerly house on the south side, most of the grading would occur in the right- of-way, approximately 5 feet from the curb. In addition, staff's other concern was regarding drainage. Currently the cul-de-sac drains fairly well. After that analysis, staff understood the property owners were not interested in seeing that amount of disruption to their properties. Coupled with the fact the drainage works well now, staff felt both options were reasonable. If the residents are opposed to this, it is typically the city's desire to have as little impact on existing residents as possible within the confines of city standards. Engineering is open to what the commission desires and what the residents' issues are. Regarding right-of-way issues, there are ways staff could look at shifting the cul-de-sac to the north and narrowing the street. Based on the fact the property is developable, and the code is being met with the rest of the plat, the city would not win in court to deny the plat based on not being able to achieve the triangle. Commissioner Larson stated there was a high point in the cul-de-sac and how it would affect traffic. Staff replied people coming to this cul-de-sac would typically stay in the middle ofthe street. There are options such as landscape islands to keep drivers going around the cul-de-sac. . . Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 2003 Page 3 . Commissioner Johnson noticed there is a fire hydrant on the south side, and asked if that would be moved. Staff replied it would be moved and it is typical to do that. Ms. Jennifer Molitor, 4440 20ih Street West, she is one of the three residents affected by this development. She is very much opposed to either option due to a morality issue. She spends her days working with Third graders and teaches them it is important to be honest. The residents were told the property would never be built on. This was the first time she heard it was a temporary cul-de-sac. From Mr. Budendski, all they heard was that no one would ever build there, the gas line is there, and the electrical wires. Now we will have people building there. Houses are fine, but they are losing their cul-de-sac. She bought her property for the purpose ofthe cul-de-sac, for the safety of her children, and for the peace of mind knowing it would be a quiet area. She does not appreciate the fact she was lied to. She wants her cul-de-sac and she does not want a double bubble. . Mr. Jeff Johnson, 4460 207th Street, had a few comments. One of the requirements for final platting is that they provide driveway access from a street. That is not resolved. They are not happy with either option, and issues have not been adequately address. This is not a temporary cul-de-sac, and there are three things that indicate that. One is that promises were made, that is what people based their decisions on. It is also clear from the houses that were built, his house is built at an angle, designed to be around the cul-de-sac. Also from the angle of the other driveways, it is evident the cul-de-sac was meant to stay. The third item is the platting itself does not take this into account. It is evident from the easements to obtain access to these lots. There are no provisions in the code to extend permanent cul-de-sacs. It is not reasonable to cause this disruption to the existing homes. He has no objection to the developer running a driveway off the cul-de-sac and building one or two houses. Mr. Benedict stated what he said was that the city made them put the cul-de-sac in. It was not their desire to do that initially. What they should have done when it was platted, was show it to go straight through. He tried to make the road go straight, and the city would not allow it. Commissioner Larson stated if that is the case, why does a property extend into where the proposed road would be. Mr. Benedict could have stopped this lot from being where the road is supposed to be. Mr. Benedict stated it was platted 10 years ago. This is the last development he will build and he would like it to be pleasant. He does not need this hassle. He also commented about the school taking his property. At that point, Commissioner Heman stepped down from his seat, due to a conflict of interest, as he was on the school board at that time. . Mr. James Harms, 2065 Devonshire Avenue, stated one of the things that was promised was that there would not be a development in this area to encourage people to build their houses in Riverside. When he was on the HRA one thing that they emphasized was that everything be honest. That was to be a permanent Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 2003 Page 4 cul-de-sac. By the way the house at the end is angled, it is clear it was meant to . be a permanent cul-de-sac, and the grading would have been different. He does not feel any of the five houses should be built. The developer should be kept to his original promise. He felt the city should make sure that original promise stands firm. Ms. Kathy Bettinger, 4422 207th Street, stated Mr. Benedict was paid for the land where the school is built, it was not taken. Mr. Benedict has put up in his words 500 houses. Mr. Benedict or Mr. Budenski do not live in Farmington. In her opinion, Mr. Benedict should go home and stay there. Commissioner Larson stated he has never seen a temporary cul-de-sac curbed and guttered, and asked if there was anything in the minutes. Staff will review those minutes. City Engineer Mann replied if there was a way to make it work without curb and gutter, they would have done it without. Commissioner Johnson asked if there were any covenants with the city that this land would not be developed. Staff was not aware of any. Commissioner Johnson stated he is not happy with this development, but would need solid facts to deny it. Commissioner Larson asked if there is a reason five houses have to be built? Why not just build two houses around the cul-de-sac that is there? Chair Rotty stated we would have to review a plat for two lots. They have come in with a plat for five lots. At the April 8 meeting, he did not think these issues were that significant. He understood staff would meet with the residents, and the developer would meet with residents. He thought the issues were with the trail and whether or not to . keep the cul-de-sac. He is surprised this is a much more complicated issue and thanked the residents for coming. It is the Planning Commission's role to look at plats and make them as workable as possible. When the plat is sent to the Council, it is with a degree of comfort for both parties. Weare not there yet. He is not comfortable with the double-bubble and that the development is in the best interest of the city. The Commission agreed they were not comfortable with sending this on to the Council. Staff informed the Commission of the timeline, the project came in on March 7, the 60 days is up on May 7. Staffis allowed a 60-day extension. The developer would have to be notified. Final resolution by the Council would have to be by July 7. The developer's engineers will need to meet with the city engineer to resolve the cul-de-sac issues. If the residents are opposed to disruption to their yards, staff would like to clarify ifthere are two major options or one option with some adjustments that need to be made. Mr. Jeff Johnson, stated he disagreed it is an engineering issue. Neither option is acceptable and the legal issue is, you are trying to extend a permanent cul-de-sac and treat it as though it is temporary. Code requires you have an approved street before you proceed with platting. He sees neither one as meeting the standard of reasonableness required by code. It is not a matter of choosing one or the other, neither one is acceptable, except for building a split driveway off the cul-de-sac. . Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 2003 Page 5 . Ms. Holly Johnson, 4460 207th Street, when they moved here in August, they understood it was possible there might be houses added, they said nothing about a road. To change the permanent cul-de-sac into a road or even a double-bubble is not right. You cannot argue it looks like a permanent cul-de-sac. Even the builder called it a permanent cul-de-sac. . Mr. Michael Brobeck, representing Steve Finden and Steve Finden Properties, LLC, stated Finden Properties is considering purchasing the property from Mr. Benedict and Mr. Budenski. Mr. Finden appreciates all of the input from the residents, however, we have strayed far from the issues the Planning Commission is charged with considering. I) The subdivision as proposed meets all of the ordinance requirements. 2) As such the impacts of the property platted and proposed subdivision on the adjacent land can only be considered in very limited fashion as the city attorney has pointed out. The Planning Commission's charge is not to consider those issues. The Planning Commission's charge is to consider whether the subdivision as proposed, is in conformance with the ordinance, and if so, and if there are impacts, the Planning Commission sends it on to the Council with a recommendation in the Development Contract between Finden Properties LLC and the city to address some of these issues. It is very important to understand that when a development takes place adjacent to other developed property, the city can require the developer ofthe new subdivision to do certain things to mitigate the impact of the new development. However, this situation provides a perverse example of a proposed development which if it goes through as the applicant and the developer want it to, there will be minimal impact on the four lots on the cul-de-sac. If option 2 goes through with a change to the first bubble, the impacts on the adjacent neighborhood are enormous. This is the opposite of the usual situation. The developers own proposal causes the minimum impact to adjacent properties. The developer has proposed the most reasonable scenario in terms of impact to the immediate adjacent landowners. The current proposal reflects none of the engineering considerations, grading problems, or the necessity of taking a driveway out to the garage slab. This is economically infeasible, as is reducing the number oflots from five to two. That renders the project economically infeasible. He understood the city attorney to be in agreement with this. He believes the city attorney has said to pass this on to the Council and engineering considerations can be dealt with in a Development Contract, but this subdivision meets all the requirements under the ordinances and its impact on the adjacent landowners is minimal. Sometimes the conditions of the land or the current layout of the streets, requires the city to do something different. We are talking about five houses, not 50. The project as proposed and approved must be economically worth doing. The residents' problems of the past do not factor in, in the city's calculation legally of how this subdivision proceeds. . Chair Rotty stated what he heard the Commission say has nothing to do with denial. There are issues out there where the Commission is not ready to send it to the Council yet. As far as what the city attorney said, the Commission was not Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 2003 Page 6 involved in those discussions. Mr. Brobeck stated his comments regarding the . City Attorney were based on what City Engineer Mann said. He has not spoken with the City Attorney. Chair Rotty stated the city attorney's comment was that the small part that needed the right-of-way easement was not an issue at this time, and the Commission should not consider it as a contingency in any motion. Mr. Benedict stated he wanted the Commission to say they are denying this, and if not, he wanted the Commission to say what it is they want to do. Mr. Benedict stated the Commission is going against the recommendation of Planning, Engineering, and the City Attorney. He felt they have done everything they are supposed to do. Mr. James Harms stated the lawyer said there is no justification. There is a moral justification. Promises were made. A moral justification was made for denying this plat. All cities have the right to take into account the affect it will have on the neighborhoods. What is minimal? Minimal is what people bought into, knowing there was not any traffic. Mr. Brobeck is not going to live there. The city has every right to say it does not fit into what makes sense, and what was promised. Chair Rotty stated he did not see any recommendation for approval of this from staff or the attorney to send it on to Council. Staff replied, the attorney felt it would be appropriate ifthe Planning Commission felt comfortable to forward it to the Council. Chair Rotty asked for Engineering's recommendation on the configuration of the road. City Engineer Mann replied their preference would be . to put the roadway coming off the cul-de-sac in the same alignment as 207th Street. In his discussion with the residents, they did not want to see the disruption caused by removing the cul-de-sac. He would leave the current cul-de-sac as is. This alignment would necessitate the acquisition of a roadway easement on the corner of the most westerly lot south of the cul-de-sac. The property owner would have to agree to that. If that agreement is not reached, they would need to look at other options where the easement is not necessary while keeping the first bubble. City Planner Smick stated there is the possibility the roadway would have to be moved, which changes the plat. We cannot send it on until there is a solution as to where the road is going. We do not have a plat that is ready because we do not have a property owner's approval granting the easement. The road might shift, and then we would have a different plat, and we could go through this process again. Staff recommended waiting until approval of the easement is granted and the road alignment is correct. Mr. Benedict stated, or the Commission could approve it as is, on the condition he receives a condemnation. Since he meets everything that is acceptable, he would recommend that and pass it on. Then the Planning Commission is off the hook. Staff replied the Planning Commission cannot recommend a condition of condemnation. That is up to the Council. There is a possible resolution, and staff does not like to send the possibility of condemnation to the Council if there is a possible resolution. . . . . Planning Commission Minutes April 29, 2003 Page 7 Chair Rotty is still in favor of a continuation. He would like the developer to meet with staff regarding the alignment of the road. The Commission is not able to approve a plat that is not in front of them. Mr. Jeff Johnson, stated there is no provision in the code for extending a permanent cul-de-sac. He disputes that there is no legal basis for denying this. He needs time to obtain legal counsel, and two weeks is not enough time. Mr. Brobeck stated he is confused. The Planning Commission is saying to discuss the triangular piece of land and the road alignment. The property owner, Mr. Johnson, is saying no option is acceptable. Commissioner Larson stated if this works he has no problem with the five houses. He has a problem with the double-bubble. If it is a temporary cul-de-sac, it should be taken out and a street put in, and make it look like a normal street. He does not think they are doing the existing residents justice leaving the cul-de-sac in there. Mr. Steve Finden, stated the problem is the existing homeowners on the cul-de- sac. Mr. Johnson's house is tilted. The correction does more harm than to leave it as is. Mr. Carufel's property has to be regraded completely to his garage slab. Leaving the cul-de-sac is the lesser of two evils. Commissioner Larson stated in any other development, the temporary cul-de-sac would be removed and become a street. Mr. Finden, replied that is right, but this is a permanent cul-de-sac. Mr. Jeff Johnson stated that enforces the fact it is permanent. Commissioner Johnson stated the plat conforms, but the road alignment is the issue. The only plus to keeping the cul-de-sac is the extra parking. He recommended continuing the public hearing. Commissioner Larson agreed. Chair Rotty stated there are issues that still need to be worked out, and would not send it on to Council. If the property owner says no to the easement, the road needs to be shifted to the north. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to continue the public hearing to May 13, 2003. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Adjourn MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, d 7L~?;?/~~ ----~,.. (Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved . City Council/Planning Commission/HRA W orksbop Minutes April 30, 2003 Mayor Ristow called the meeting to order at S:OO p.m. Present: Mayor Ristow, Councilmembers Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg Dirk Rotty, Ben Barker, Bob Heman, Chaz Johnson, Todd Larson Todd Arey, Yvonne Flaherty Joel Jamnik, Ed Shukle, Kevin Carroll, Robin Roland, Cynthia Muller Paul Hardt, Nick Roberts Dale Pettis, Jeff Thelen, Jan Karrmann, Larry White, Michelle Leonard Absent: Also Present: Industrial Park Lot Split . The meeting was held to discuss the splitting of a lot in the industrial park into three lots. One of the lots is being discussed for a daycare. Council first took a poll to see where they stood. Councilmember Fitch was in favor of the concept, as well as Councilmember Cordes, however there should be conditions placed on the type of building materials used. The Planning Commission would be willing to look at a lot split, and decide on a conditional use permit. Attorney Jamnik stated all three bodies needed to be on the same page. A simple majority is required of each body. A no vote would end the project. Staff stated the lot in question is in the 2nd Addition of the industrial park. There is park/open space to the north and a pipeline easement through the middle, which does not allow for structures. By splitting this area into three lots, there would be a 50-foot easement along the border of each lot. Lot 3 would have a future road on the east side, and the building would face east. This lot would include an extension to 20Sth Street for access until the road to the east is built. It is easier to sell smaller lots. Council asked about bringing in utilities and if the pipeline has been abandoned. The process is not that far along to review utilities and the pipeline has not been abandoned. Council stated within five years there have been no serious inquiries regarding the lot, and questioned how dividing this into three lots would make people buy it. Staffhas received inquiries about smaller lots. Once the lots are split, they would be available to advertise. Council then asked if there was additional cost for utilities to be run to three lots rather than one. Staff stated PIC had a similar issue and needed rerouting of the sanitary sewer. The HRA allowed additional funds through TIF for the project. . Council expressed some concern that a permanent access from lot 3 to 20Sth Street would prohibit the city from imposing an assessment against the lot for the cost of the future road on the east side of the lot. The HRA felt the access to 20Sth Street would be temporary and future access would be from the east. The temporary driveway is too close to the intersection. This would be made clear when the lot is sold. City Counci1/Planning CommissionIHRA Workshop April 30, 2003 Page 2 The Planning Commission has dealt with lot 2. They would like a consensus if the lot split is approved. The city needs to decide if they should wait for a tenant for one large lot, or split the . lot, and take the tenant for lot 2. The HRA asked if there were any drainage issues by splitting the lots. Staff stated the drainage would be addressed when the lots are split. Drainage costs have been dealt with and assessments would be paid by the developer of each lot. Mayor Ristow stated he has no problem with the lot split as long as architectural designs are met for the industrial park. The Planning Commission asked if the siding for the proposed daycare is concrete. Mayor Ristow stated according to the building official it is lap siding. Councilmember Soderberg stated the siding proposed did not fit the definition of tip-up siding or poured concrete. When the design standards were set, this material was not anticipated. The HRA agreed to the lot split with the contingency that access to lot 3 be changed from 20Sth Street to the east once the road to the east is built. Staff stated the lots are priced at $1.50/sq. ft. and include all assessments with the exclusion of County Road 31. As to when the road to the east will be built, depends on when the Murphy property is sold. The Planning Commission asked regarding the property for the daycare, what the building inspectors thought of the material. If it does not meet the design standards, the Planning Commission would have to approve a variance in order for Ms. Karrmann to be able to use HardiPlank. Attorney Jamnik stated the role of the building inspectors was to determine if the material requested matched the list of materials in the design standards. The quality of the material was not considered, just if it matched the list. The material did not exist when the list was made. A variance can be granted. Attorney Jamnik also stated that considering the lot split does not mean an agreement has been reached to deviate from other standards. . Chair Rotty stated the Planning Commission needed to determine whether a daycare is a reasonable use in the industrial park. Ifthey do not think it is appropriate, Ms. Karrmann needs to be advised. Commissioner Heman felt it was a good location for a daycare. He also thought the building materials could meet the requirements as the requested siding is poured and tipped up on site. He is in favor of the project. Commissioner Johnson agreed. The daycare could be utilized by industrial park employees. He agreed to consider the requested siding, but wanted more input from Council regarding the building materials. Commissioner Barker stated there might be a better location, but Ms. Karrmann is trying to keep her business in Farmington and he felt it could be a benefit to the industrial park. Commissioner Larson stated he is not against the daycare being in the industrial park. However, the requested siding does not meet the original intent of the industrial park. Chair Rotty stated the Planning Commission did support the Conditional Use Permit, however they did not reach a full consensus on the building materials. Councilmember Soderberg asked if the daycare is not approved, does this prohibit other businesses from in house daycare? Attorney Jamnik stated the daycare would be defined as a separate or incidental use. To have daycare listed in the code as a conditional use avoids this. Ms. Jan Karrmann stated she has put several years of research into this project. There is not enough daycare in Farmington, and why should residents go out of town? There are two daycare centers in the city and they both are at maximum capacity. Industrial park businesses felt this would be a valuable asset to their employees. The industrial park is a great location. She does . . . . City Council/Planning Commission/HRA Workshop Apri130,2003 Page 3 not want to construct a pole barn. Her building will look as good as any other building out there. Councilmember Fitch stated as far as design standards, the city has turned down other businesses that would not comply with those standards, and asked Ms. Karrmann if it would be a hardship for her to comply. Ms. Karrmann replied it would, as she might not be able to buy as much playground equipment, kitchen equipment, etc. Any additional equipment would have to be purchased later. She felt each case should be dealt with individually. This is not an industrial application. Mr. Larry White stated the siding is 90% cement and sand, and therefore considered a concrete product. They could build a building out of concrete block and paint it to meet the standards, but it would not look as attractive. They would like the building to have a more warm feeling to kids. The siding is warranted for 50 years. The building could be converted to light industrial use in the future if needed. Mr. Dale Pettis stated he is concerned about traffic, but is for the daycare. He would like to see 20Sth Street extended. Mr. Jeff Thelen asked if3M were here with a daycare, would it be allowed? He listed several businesses that were turned down. He asked how these businesses could be turned down and the city still consider a daycare. The city did not want the property used for a city garage but wanted to save room for an industrial use. He does not see the logic in allowing a daycare. Mr. Thelen then stated there are covenants written to allow a maximum of 10% steel covering. He asked if the city or HRA was hoarding property for their own use on 3rd and Spruce Street and saving it for a City Hall? Staff stated the City Hall Task Force has targeted that property for a new City Hall and is awaiting Council's decision. The HRA has a letter of understanding with Vinge Tile on 2 lots on Hwy 50. Mr. Thelen agreed that Vinge would be a good fit for the industrial park. HRA Chair Arey stated the HRA owns the lot at 3rd and Spruce Street and under staff recommendation they are not marketing it due to a possible new City Hall. Councilmember Cordes stated the siding is not an acceptable use. Attorney Jamnik stated if the Planning Commission feels the siding is acceptable, the Planning Commission can recommend a change to the ordinance. Hardi-Plank is not a listed acceptable use and the building official says it does not meet the design standards. Councilmember Soderberg stated it is a poured cast product, and he has no problem with it. Councilmember Fitch stated it is fine for residential use, but high standards have been set for the industrial park. Other businesses have been turned down that did not meet the standards. The question for the Planning Commission is does it meet current standards of the industrial park? Chair Rotty recommended a text amendment to the ordinance. Staff stated the covenants were adopted during the first phase of the industrial park. During the second phase the covenants became part of the ordinance. Council requested staff investigate the covenants and decide if the ordinance should be changed. Council agreed to divide the lot. Councilmembers Soderberg, Fogarty, and Fitch reached a consensus that daycare should remain as a conditional use in the industrial park. Councilmember Fitch stated the conditional uses should be reviewed for the future. Staff stated the requested building materials do not meet design standards for the industrial park. If Ms. Karrmann would like to appeal this, it would need to go to the Planning Commission. City Council/Planning Commission/HRA Workshop April 30, 2003 Page 4 Blaha Propertv The HRA felt the best development opportunity for 3rd and Spruce Street would be to market the lot with the Blaha property. Mr. Blaha is willing to sell the property for $265,000. He will not sign a right of first refusal with the city. Council has agreed to decide on whether to move forward with the proposed City Hall project within 45 days. Councilmember Fitch suggested if the property is used for a City Hall, the HRA should buy the property. The meeting adjourned at 11 :20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, fi ---:A/'''- , . <<'~"? 0Y'I-</C-"~L~ /?/ d-CX~.J U-' Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant . . . . . . City Council/Planning Commission! Spruce Street Corridor Area Task Force Workshop Minutes May 5, 2003 Mayor Ristow called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Present: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Fogarty, Soderberg Johnson, Heman, Larson Deb Nevala, Kris Akin, Jim Gerster, Jim Allen, Charlie Webber, Don Peterson, Bob Knutsen, Stan Knutsen, Doug Bonar, Mike Heinzerling, Larry Johnson, Mark Koegler, Randy Pederson, Glen Nord, Casey Wohlschlager, Mark Kujawa Ed Shukle, Kevin Carroll, Randy Distad, Jim Atkinson, Cynthia Muller Aaron Tinklenberg Also Present: Audience: Mr. Mark Koegler, of Hoisington Koegler, gave an overview of the planning process and tasks completed by the Spruce Street Task Force. The purpose of this meeting was to seek Council and Planning Commission input on the assembly of a master plan for the area. The planning process should be finished in late August. There is a market area surrounding Farmington that could support as much as 650,000-700,000 sq. ft. of commercial/retail space. A large area is agriculture and will be for several years. There are areas to the north ofthe city that have a good opportunity for retail, which is bad for Farmington. There are a number of grocery anchored areas being developed. Mr. Koegler then gave an overview of the layout of the area to be discussed which lies south ofHwy 50 and west of Denmark Avenue. The work of the Task Force yielded three concepts. Concept A - Main Street design; Concept B - Town Square design; Concept C - Parkway design. The Task Force liked Concept C with some elements of Concepts A and B. These were combined into Concept D - Composite Concept. Housing would be located to the south and mixed use on the north, with a trail to Rambling River Park. Mr. Koegler asked for comments and direction from the Council and Planning Commission. Commissioner Larson, who served on the Task Force, stated the reason for choosing the parkway is the other concepts had residential and commercial backing up to open space. Concept D draws people to the open space, and the parkway is for everyone to enjoy. Mayor Ristow was concerned with the rooftops and no room for the buildings to expand. He would like to see areas shifted to allow room for expansion. Mr. Koegler stated the Task Force liked the roadway split, but wanted it to reach to the town square area. Phasing of the area to the north should also be considered, which would allow flexibility. Pilot Knob Road could be a significant possible retail location. Mayor Ristow was concerned with traffic congestion on Denmark Avenue and restrictions on the trout stream. Councilmember Fitch stated if Pilot Knob Road is extended, Denmark would turn back to the city. He asked if the city was getting ahead of the process without an AUAR being completed. Mr. Koegler stated an AUAR requires an assumption of land use patterns. This plan would help shape the land use plan in the AUAR. . Councilmember Cordes felt the more open space there is, the better. Commissioner Larson stated the Task Force wanted to create a place people will want to come to. Councilmember Soderberg stated the amount of commercial space would be significantly more than 660,000 sq. ft., and he liked the parkway design. Mr. Koegler stated the intent is for the area to be a comfortable pedestrian corridor. Mr. Heinzerling felt the city is in need of apartments. In the southern portion ofthis area, the Task Force was looking at medium to high-density housing. Councilmember Soderberg asked ifthere would be many businesses fronting Hwy 50. Mr. Koegler replied there would be some frontage, but they are trying to focus inward toward the development. Councilmember Soderberg noted there are three interior corridors to Hwy 50. One is across from the entrance to the industrial park. In the future, if the county maintenance facility does not move, the city will have to phase around it. Councilmember Fogarty asked about infiltration basins. Mr. Koegler stated all concepts will have environmental techniques to control storm water. Councilmember Fitch inquired about controlling traffic without over- controlling it. Mr. Koegler replied they would be working with the traffic engineer. The concept provides a variety of ways to enter and exit the area. There are also various connections to trails and roadways. The view from Hwy 50 is not a wall of commercial businesses, which creates an attractive environment. Commissioner Johnson wants the businesses, but access also needs to be convenient. He would like to see a north-south connection. Commissioner Heman mentioned the roundabouts and felt they do not allow for good traffic flow. Mr. Koegler will work with Concept D to include a connection for easy access, storm water issues, and transportation. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 8:54 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . Respectfully submitted, ~~Lc~ /77d~/ (Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting May 13, 2003 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Heman, Larson Members Absent: Johnson Also Present: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner; Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Tim Gross, Assistant City Engineer Audience: Jeff Johnson, Jim Harmes, Jennifer Molitor, Kelly Carufel, Jan Karrmann, Larry White, Gary Heron 2. Approval of Minutes a) April 8, 2003 MOTION by Barker, second by Larson approving the April 8, 2003 Minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) April 29, 2003 (Special Meeting) MOTION by Larson, second by Heman approving the April 29, 2003 Minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Heman, Larson. Abstain: Barker. MOTION CARRIED. . 3. Public Hearings a) Variance from the Minimum Setback Requirement for Accessory Structures and a Variance from the Maximum Height Requirement for Accessory Structures to Construct a Garage at 611 Walnut Street Applicant: Stephen Hawkinson According to the zoning code, a 10- foot setback is required for detached garages located adjacent to an alley. Mr. Hawkinson is proposing a 3-foot setback. There is a 100-year-old tree on the property. Moving the garage to the 10-foot requirement would require removal of the tree. A 3- foot setback would not be inconsistent with surrounding garages. The second variance request is for height. The zoning code requires a maximum height of 20 feet for accessory structures. This garage is proposed to be 22 feet in height to allow room for a daycare van and to allow adequate storage on top. Mr. Stephen Hawkinson stated a 3- foot setback would be adequate for site distance. Regarding the height, if they were to turn the trusses, they would loose two feet, and there would not be room for storage, it would only be a crawl space. There is no intent for permanent occupation, strictly storage. . There is another garage in the area that is at the maximum height. Therefore, this garage would not be inconsistent with the area. MOTION by Barker, second by Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 2 Larson to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker approving the setback variance. APIF, MOTION . CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Heman approving the height variance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) An Ordinance Amending Section 11-4-9 of the City Code Imposing Park Land and Trail Dedication Requirements Applicant: City of Farmington Parks and Recreation Director Distad spoke on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission requesting to amend the Parks and Trail Dedication Ordinance. There are four differences between the proposed ordinance and the current ordinance. One is that the dedication requirement is based on density, rather than a gross area of the entire development. The second is that the developer entirely pays for the trail shown on the trail plan for the city. The third difference is the developer would be required to pay halfthe development costs of the park, and fourth, the city is requesting the developer turn the land over to the city after meeting certain conditions including grading and seeding the park area. Under the proposed ordinance, the city would be paying less in park development, and the developer would pay more. Park dedication would be based on the net area, after streets and ponding areas are subtracted. Chair Rotty stated he liked the proposed ordinance. It will put more burden on the developer, but for the residents, parks will be developed sooner. Staff felt a . benefit to the developers is that land closer to a park will sell faster. The city will be taking less land for park development, but is asking developers to come up with more money to develop parks. It typically costs $30,000 to develop a park, including basketball courts, softball field, playground equipment, etc. Staff would like to have input from the developers before this goes to Council. It was discussed continuing the public hearing, in case any issues arise with the developers. Staffwill send a letter along with the proposed ordinance to developers requesting any comments. MOTION by Larson, second by Heman, to continue the public hearing to the June 10 Planning Commission meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Preliminary and Final Plat - Riverside West Applicant: Jack Benedict and Brian Budenski The developer is proposing to plat 5 single-family homes at the corner of Akin Road and 208th Street. One issue that remained outstanding is the existing cul-de- sac. The applicants submitted a revised proposal, shifting the right-of-way to the north. The actual cul-de-sac location has not changed. The road is now 28 feet wide. Mr. Jeff Johnson, 4460 20ih Street W, he would like the city attorney to provide guidance on three things: That the proposal violates city code and has to be . Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 3 . rejected, it has to do with the requirements to submit the proposed extension in the original platting; there are requirements that the platting relate well to adjacent neighborhoods; and there is no merit to anything he has said, in which case there are a lot of things rendered meaningless in the code in terms of previous decisions the Council has made in the original platting. This development clearly does not fit well with the existing neighborhood and was not planned for in the original development. There was a plan submitted for a cul-de-sac in the proposed location that was rejected at the time Riverside Estates was developed. No plans were submitted to indicate any future extension. To change this now, would be inconsistent with a decision that was made by the Council when the original plat was approved. . Attorney Jamnik stated the Planning Commission and Council have limited discretion in reviewing plats. Design standards are specified, and ifthey are met by the developer, the Planning Commission and Council are required to approve the plat. There is limited discretion to make judgements. The Planning Commission and Council are required to evaluate whether the proposed development is in keeping with the character ofthe neighborhood, so it fits into the community. In that regard, design standards and special features of buffering can be attached as reasonable terms of conditions of approval. When there is a situation like this, where the design standards meet the code, where the acreage is provided for the lot, it abuts three rights-of-way, there is no legal basis to deny the plat. As far as Mr. Johnson's first point, it is not a valid stance for the Commission or Council to make. There are too many design standards that are met. As far as item 3, the language in the subdivision ordinance does not limit the Planning Commission to a public or private street, and it does not lock the city into a ridged design standard. There is some flexibility on the part of the Planning Commission and Council to modify developments. The design standards in the code provide some of that flexibility. It is up to the Planning Commission to decide which alternatives they would like to see. It is not a situation where the plat could be denied based on the challenges presented by the lot. Mr. Jeff Johnson, stated that is rendering language regarding street plans and temporary cul-de-sacs to be meaningless. Such an interpretation would not be upheld in court. He does not understand how that can be written off. The plat maybe acceptable, but the portion in question has to do with the planning that is required and is there to protect a situation like this where it is inconsistent with the existing neighborhood. Adequate planning has not been taken into account. The original platting was not designed for this. . Attorney Jamnik addressed the code provisions for temporary and permanent. The concept in the design standards where there is an anticipated extension, is that there is a distinction between temporary and permanent in the sense of it is anticipated there might be future development. If there is, a turnaround should be provided, and a planning or ghost planning for future connections should be shown. Even though road designs are characterized as permanent designs, they Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 4 are not eternally locked in. Mr. Johnson stated this is not for the interest of the public, this is for the interest of the developer relative to the interest of a . neighborhood. Mr. Jim Harmes, 20625 Devonshire, stated the effects on the neighborhood need to be discussed. Changing the valuation of homes was discussed. According to the county assessor, there could be a 10% decrease in the value of the property. He then asked about the width of the road and what effect it would have on driving. There is still the compromise where two houses could be built, and maintain the current cul-de-sac. By doing this it sets a bad precedent for Farmington. It says that any developer, as long as they can meet a majority ofthe requirements, can take any development they want and stray from original development agreements. He does not think this should be allowed. Ms. Jennifer Molitor, 4440 207th Street, stated she is not happy with the double bubble. She drove around Lakeville, Farmington, Rosemount and did not see anything that looked like this. She does not want the double bubble for looks and for safety of the children. If the path goes through, there will be the issue of other people coming through, and feels it would be very unsafe. What is the real issue, the money or the safety of our children? Her other concern is the pipeline and if it needs to be dug up. Who will pay the cost if the cul-de-sac needs to be torn up? Attorney Jamnik replied as far as who pays would depend on the nature of the work. Usually the franchise agreement would require the utility company to seek permits and then restore. In some situations, where the pipeline is there first, and . a road is placed over it, as a condition of releasing the easement to construct the road, utilities sometimes require a transfer ofthe financial responsibility. This would have to be addressed in the development agreement. Ms. Kelly Carufel, 4457 207th Street, stated she looks to staff and the engineers for the right answer. She does not want her yard ripped up, and she does not want to look at a double bubble. She asked the Planning Commission to put themselves in her house and make the best decision they can. Mr. Todd Arey, 20651 Devonshire Avenue, stated he is concerned about the development. In listening to the comments, it does seem like this is being all done for the benefit of the developer. The offsetting ofthe road, to not deal with Mr. Johnson, so the developer does not have to pay for a small piece of property to eliminate the double bubble, the shrinking of the road size, seem to point towards accommodating the developer and not the residents. There is no storm sewer grate at the end of the cul-de-sac so the water runs out into Devonshire Avenue and towards his property. The cul-de-sac and road have been flooded twice in the last 7 years. The additional blacktop will add additional water going to the storm sewer. Typically people at the end of a cul-de-sac pay an extra $10,000 to purchase property at the end. To extend the road and build a new cul- de-sac, no thought has been given to compensating current owners for that extra $10,000 they paid, that is now being taken away. . Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 5 . Commissioner Heman stated the plat does meet the existing code, but he does not feel it meets the best interest ofthe neighborhood. There are numerous easements, and when he visited the area after a rainstorm it seems ironic to ok a plat where there will be wet yards, even though they meet existing code. We were appointed to review the code and uphold it, but we are also supposed to look at what is best for the town and the existing neighborhood. He could not send this forward to the Council for approval. Commissioner Larson stated he is not against the five houses if it works. The double bubble is not acceptable. Ifhe lived on the cul-de-sac, he would hate it. It is not just for the people that are there now. If there is a way to get rid of the cul- de-sac, maybe put a driveway in to serve those five lots, something needs to be figured out other than the double bubble. In good faith to the citizens, he cannot go forward with the double bubble. There has to be a better way. It may cost more money or thought. Commissioner Barker was also not against the plat, but he is against the double bubble. Shifting the road to the north looks even worse. There will be the issue of snow removal and traffic. He would recommend denial of the plat. . Chair Rotty stated we have a plat that meets city code. He agreed with the commission that there are some undesirable aspects of it, but the majority of the commission has spoken in denial of the plat. Addressing Attorney Jamnik, Chair Rotty stated the majority of the commission is looking at that percentage of difference that does not meet the design standards. Would this be a just decision in recommending denial? Attorney Jamnik replied, no. The bubble to the east of the plat is city property. If the Planning Commission is recommending that the bubble to the east be removed in order for the plat to go forward, that can be attached as a condition of plat approval. The Council would then take that recommendation and vacate the ears ofthe bubble, and design the road to go straight in so there are not two cul-de-sacs. That would be a reasonable term of condition to attach. To deny the plat based on a city controlled street outside of the plat would not be legally sufficient. Chair Rotty stated by straightening out the bubble to the east we run into drainage issues and issues dealing with the residents. From an engineering standpoint, this is the most viable option. Assistant Engineer Gross stated it is feasible to straighten the road. It mayor may not be desirable. There would be a lot of disruption and going a long ways into private property to get that to work. It is very flat, but the drainage is feasible. . Commissioner Barker asked how this is different than the Meadow Creek subdivision. The Commission sent it to the Council, they sent it back to the Commission, and the developer redesigned it. Now we are being told we cannot say no. That plat also met the requirements, but the developer and engineering staff redesigned it. Chair Rotty stated it was the Council that denied it. We cannot anticipate what they will do. Attorney Jamnik stated those design features Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 6 were all internal design features. Here we have city improvements that abut the . proposed platted area that the developer does not control. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Heman to deny the preliminary and final plat for Riverside West. Voting for: Larson, Barker, Heman. Voting against: Rotty. MOTION CARRIED. This will be taken to the May 19,2003 Council meeting. 4. Discussion a) Appeal of a Zoning Officer Decision Regarding Building Materials in the Industrial Park Applicant: Jan Karrmann Ms. Karrmann is currently working with the HRA to construct a daycare in the Industrial Park. One factor to the project is that the industrial park has design standards. Ms. Karrmann is proposing a material called Hardi-Plank. There is some debate as to whether that is an approved building material in the industrial park. Staffhas determined that Hardi-Plank does not meet the design standards. Ms. Karrmann is appealing that decision. Ms. Karrmann stated she wants to build a beautiful facility, not a concrete box. She wants the building to be comfortable to children, not intimidating. All . concerns are being taken as far as safety. The industrial park is a fantastic place. She has had nothing but positive comments from the industrial park businesses. Hardi-Plank is concrete, it is poured. Even though it does not meet the design standards, that does not mean it is not acceptable. Mr. Larry White stated the design concept will give a warm, residential style feel, but it is a durable product and low maintenance. The concrete block is not a long term finish. The finish on the Hardi-Plank siding has a 15-year warranty. The product itself has a 50-year warranty. The building will appraise for $80-$90/sq.ft range with this product. The products that do meet the ordinance are concrete block, concrete, and stone. All products, including Hardi-Plank are made of portland cement, sand and water, and are formed. When the ordinance was developed, it was not in this marketplace. Mr. Gary Heron, a representative ofHardi Plank, stated one of the benefits to the product is the warmer feel. This product was also used in Apple Valley approximately 5-6 years ago. Mr. Heron gave a background of the company and explained how the product is made. This product will not burn, it is a very safe product. It will not blow off, if applied correctly, in 140-mph winds. Commissioner Larson stated the industrial park businesses do not care for the lap siding look. He asked if there was another product to be put on the building that did not have a lap siding look, such as vertical or stucco. Mr. White stated the . Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 7 . product comes in different widths and they are proposing to use a 7 -S inch exposure, which is the size of concrete block. From the street, it will be hard to distinguish between this product, stucco, or concrete block. Community Development Director Carroll stated when staff is asked for opinions on the code, they have to give what the intent was. It is hard to say whether this type of material was envisioned when the code was adopted. It is appropriate for cities to be open-minded. It is preferable to have durable, low-maintenance material in the industrial park. No one is saying this would be unattractive, it would look different than the other buildings out there. Chair Rotty asked if the commission would be opening this product up for any building in the industrial park. Staff stated there could be other businesses that come in and say this product has now been approved. It could be addressed on a building by building case through a variance. The code could also be changed to include this material. Chair Rotty stated the commission felt using this product on a daycare building would be appropriate. He would have preferred to have done this through a variance for this building and then go back and direct staff to look at this and other products that should be included in the design standards. By overriding this appeal, this product will be allowed wherever anyone else wants it in the industrial park. . Attorney J amnik stated the staff interpretation of code 10-6-20 is that the material does not qualify as brick, stone, or concrete under sections A, B, and C. Under section D, which authorizes concrete products, although it contains portland cement, it is not concrete and if it is considered concrete, it is not poured in place until tipped up. The commission's decision is whether to sustain or overturn the code interpretation. If the commission interprets the material does qualify as concrete, staff will be bound by that determination for subsequent reviews of building materials. Commissioner Heman stated it is a product that is poured on a bed, it is cured similar to concrete block, it is similar to the product made out at Fab-Con. When it gets to the site it is tilted in place. He felt it meets the definition of concrete. Chair Rotty stated he agreed with Commissioner Heman. We are here to talk about product, not necessarily design standards. Attorney Jamnik clarified that in paragraph Al some definitions do include appearance. The concrete defInition does not contain as much of the design aspect as the other materials. Commissioners Barker and Larson stated they do not have a problem with the product. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to overturn the staff determination and that the materials do meet the definition of concrete. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Discussion Regarding Design Standards in the Industrial Park Zoning District Community Development Director Carroll stated staff believes there may be some benefit to review the design standards. The current design standards go back S or . Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2003 Page 8 9 years to the covenants that were originally adopted with phase I and they were . carried forward with some changes, and then were incorporated into the code. The fact some materials were appropriate then, does not mean other materials are not appropriate now. Staff would like to contact other cities to see what materials they have listed for design standards. The HRA could be involved in the process, as they make the ultimate decision to sell the property. The commission agreed for staff to move forward with obtaining this information. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Heman, second by Barker to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~r~~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting June 10,2003 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Johnson, Barker, Larson Members Absent: Rotty, Heman Also Present: Lee Smick, City Planner; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director 2. Approval of Minutes a) May 13, 2003 - These will be presented at the next meeting as there was not a quorum to approve the minutes. 4. Discussion b) Appeal of a Zoning Officer Decision Regarding Pygmy Goats Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Doug Dingman (This item was moved forward to accommodate the audience). Mr. & Mrs. Doug Dingman are currently raising two pygmy goats in their backyard. This is a violation of city code Section 6-4-2b, which reads, "any horse, mule, donkey, pony, cow, goat, sheep, or animal raised for fur bearing purposes may be kept within the city under the following conditions: The enclosure must not be located closer than 500 ft to a residence not owned by the keeper of the animal." The enclosure is 100-300 ft from any property comer, therefore it is a violation ofthe code. Mr. & Mrs. Dingman are appealing this decision. Ms. J ody Dingman, 18841 Embry Avenue, stated they did call the city before they purchased the goats and did receive permission. If they had known about the 500 ft requirement, they would not have purchased the goats. Only one neighbor has objected. All other neighbors think they are a welcome addition to the neighborhood. She spoke to police department staff and was told this type of animal is ok in town. Ms. Dingman stated no limits were mentioned. Staff stated normally zoning would handle this issue. Ms. Dingman stated she talked to Planning staff about the size of the structure. So Planning approved another shed structure on their property and the police department approved the goats. That is where it got lost in the communication. Ms. Dingman stated the goats are very well behaved, and do not make any more noise than dogs in the neighborhood. The complaint received was that property values would go down and the goats continue to bleat. The neighbor said they could hear it throughout the evening. Ms. Dingman stated they do not make much noise. There is a hay rack on the side of the shed. One of the goats jumped in and got stuck. She might have been in there the better part of the day crying to get out. They did call the neighbor to explain the situation. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2003 Page 2 Mr. Charles Peddley, 18853 Embry Avenue, stated his lot is the closest to the goat pen. The goats are not an issue. The Dingman's have done a nice job placing the pen in a wooded area, away from the street. It is not obvious to anyone driving by. They do not make any more noise than anything else in the neighborhood. The children like to see the goats, and it is encouraging for the neighborhood. He noticed the ordinance says 500 ft, Mr. Peddley feels the ordinance was intended to keep farm animals out of the city. Pygmy goats were not around when the ordinance was written, and pygmy goats were created for domestic purposes. He wondered if pygmy goats fall under the intent of the ordinance. Staff has begun to look into a domestic animal ordinance, for pot-bellied pigs, ferrets, etc. Staff could develop a domestic animal ordinance for animals that are in our culture now. Commissioner Larson agreed the ordinance was meant to keep farm animals out of the city, and felt a domestic animal ordinance is needed. First, he would like to see where calls go to at City Hall straightened out. That should not have gone to the police department. The Dingmans are acting on good information. There is only one neighbor complaining, and felt the Commission should let the issue ride unless it becomes a problem, and consider a pygmy goat a domestic animal. The city needs a domestic animal ordinance, but these people received good information from the city that this was ok. If the police department would have said no, the Dingmans would not have purchased the goats. Commissioner Barker stated he has talked with neighbors in the area and they do not have a problem with the goats. He could not find the pen and neighbors had to point it out to him. They only make noise when someone approaches the pen for feeding. It is the same excitement a dog would have. He agreed the Dingmans were given good information. But the issue is the code, and is the pen within 500 ft.? Staffhas said it is not. However, the goats are more ofa domestic animal than a farm animal, so maybe the ordinance does not apply. Commissioner Johnson asked how many complaints have been received? Staff replied it is a city policy that once a complaint is received, the situation is reviewed and if it is a code violation a letter is sent. If it continues a second letter is sent. Under the code, this is a violation as the code does include goats. Staff suggested the Commission direct staff to look at a domestic animal ordinance. The Dingmans can continue to keep the pygmy goats because it is an in process situation. It allows staffto look at what other types of animals are out there. The Commission agreed for staffto establish a domestic animal list. While this is in process the Dingmans can keep the pygmy goats. 3. Public Hearings a) Variance from the Minimum Lot Size Requirement in the A-I (Agriculture) Zoning District Applicant: Terry Donnelly . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2003 Page 3 . Mr. Donnelly has requested a variance to the minimum lot size requirement to subdivide an 80-acre parcel at 18679 Flagstaff Avenue. He is asking to split off 5 acres and a 75-acre parcel. According to the zoning code, which was recently changed, the minimum lot size in the agriculture zoning district is 40 acres. The old minimum was I acre. There have been 3 variances granted by the Planning Commission regarding lot size requirements in the ag district. In this case, we are creating a 5-acre parcel. The other parcels were non-conforming at the time of the variance request, there were lot combinations rather than lot splits, and the combinations took a non-conforming parcel and increased the non-conformity by making it bigger. Currently, Mr. Donnelly's home and related buildings are located on the 5-acre piece. This separates the buildings from the rest of his property. There would not be any other development. The appearance of the property would not change. There are some tax purposes for doing this. There are six criteria: . 1. Whether or not there is a hardship. Mr. Donnelly stated he had planned on doing this prior to the amendment last spring. The Commission must consider whether or not that constitutes a hardship. Commissioner Larson asked about the ordinance change and that Mr. Donnelly had planned on it a year ago. What kind of notification was sent when we did the ordinance change? Staff replied because ofthe zoning code being such a large text amendment change, it was notified in the paper. It was not possible to notify each individual home. Commissioner Johnson asked how many days did the owners have if they wanted to apply for a variance, or is there a grace period? Staff replied the city does not have a timeline. Staff did talk to the Donnellys about going from an A-2 district to an A- I district for the entire area. 2. Whether or not this is unique to this parcel. There are others that are conforming that do meet the 40-acre requirement. The rest of the criteria have been met. Mr. Terry Donnelly stated he spoke with staff a year ago and he did not know the zoning had been changed. He does not want to sell the property. Splitting the property is for tax purposes. . Commissioner Barker stated the intention was for tax purposes, he is not trying to sell the property or develop it. He did not object to approving the variance. Commissioner Larson agreed. This is something Mr. Donnelly intended to do. Commissioner Johnson asked if approving this would set a precedent? Staff replied it would. Commissioner Barker asked how many properties in the city do we have like this? Staff replied there are property owners along Flagstaff that under the A-2 they were allowed to get I-acre parcels. They have all become non-conforming because ofthe new code. Commissioner Barker felt any other requests should be reviewed on a case by case basis. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2003 Page 4 MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, . MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the variance based on the recent zoning change, and the applicant had intended to do this prior to the zoning change. Future requests will be reviewed on a case by case basis. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) An Ordinance Amending Section 11-4-9 of the City Code Imposing Park Land and Trail Dedication Requirements Applicant: City of Farmington Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated he was directed at the May 13, 2003 meeting to send a letter to developers requesting feedback as to the proposed trail dedication ordinance. The only developer that contacted staffwas Mr. Steve Juetten, Newland Communities. His main issue was clarification on how density was figured, how determined, and how density drove the park dedication requirement. Mr. Juetten was not opposed to the ordinance and supported it. Mr. Juetten asked what happens if the developer does not want to give additional land beyond what he is required to give? Mr. Distad told him that staff would be willing to work with developers on this. In a neighborhood park, the city would not be asking for more park land than is needed. In the situation of a community park, that would be indicated in the comprehensive plan so the developer would know up front. The developer would be compensated based on the appraised market value of the land. Mr. Juetten also asked about the park tree requirement. He believes in trying to save as many trees as possible. There might be some instances where trees have to be removed that are undesirable or less significant. If trails are put in a wooded area, trees will be lost. That is something the city wants to do and it is not the developer's fault for that. Regarding Section Q, other conditions to be met prior to deeding, they discussed that many ofthese items would be met during the park development process. They agreed this section should be struck from the ordinance because it is addressed under the park development fee. Under section R, park development required, Mr. Juetten asked where the money would be spent and how it would be accounted for. Staff is looking to create a proj ect number the funds would be coded to so the developer can see where the money is being spent. The money meant for park development would stay for park development. . MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to approve the Park Land and Trail Dedication Ordinance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Variance from the Minimum Lot Width Requirement for a Proposed Lot in the Industrial Park Zoning District Applicant: City of Farmington Staff is asking for a variance to the minimum lot width requirement for a lot in the industrial park located in the northeast corner. The site is owned by the HRA and is one of the last remaining lots. The reason for that is a gas line easement running through the middle of the property. In the last year the city has received . Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2003 Page 5 . inquiries for smaller lots in the industrial park. Therefore, the city thought it was wise to divide the lot. Ms. Jan Karrmann would like to purchase one ofthe lots for a daycare. Staff is proposing 3 parcels. Parcel 3 would have temporary access to 20Sth Street. Currently 20Sth Street deadends at the end ofthe property. In the future, a road is proposed to run along the east property line into the Middle Creek development. The industrial park zoning district requires 150 feet of frontage on any street. Staff is proposing 100 feet to eliminate unusable space as part of parcel 3 in the future. There are just over 2.5 acres on parcel 2 and just under 3.5 acres on parcel 3. With any variance there are six criteria. With the gasline easement running through the middle of the property, staff feels that would be the hardship to the property. Commissioner Johnson asked if with the variance, that would also work as a temporary access if someone purchases the back piece to 20Sth Street? Staff replied that is correct. When the road to the east is developed, the back parcel would obtain access from that road. Commissioner Barker stated that when parcel 3 comes before them, he wants to make sure it is addressed that it is a temporary access. Once the collector comes in, that access should be closed and access should come from the collector to the east. Staff stated it could be placed in the motion that there should be a new access location within 60 days of construction of the north-south roadway. . Mr. Colin Garvey asked if there was a creek to the back. Staff replied there is a wetland area to the north of the parcel. Eventually a bridge will be constructed to allow the new road to come in. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson, to approve the variance as long as the variance is with a temporary access and that as soon as the north-south collector is constructed, within 60 days that temporary access is vacated. Commissioner Larson wondered ifthe next item should have been reviewed before this one. Staff stated the reason they are in this order is so that the commission could act on the preliminary and final plat and have a variance in place. Without a variance, the plat cannot proceed forward. Commissioner Larson asked if the variance is contingent on approval of the plat? Staff replied yes. This is added to the motion. . Commissioner Larson stated he will vote no. Because over this whole project he does not think the right hand knows what the left hand is doing as far as the city, Council, and Planning Commission. He does not think everyone is getting the same information. If it were up to him, he would table this whole thing until everyone got all their ducks in a row. Commissioner Barker stated the workshop dealing with the splitting of the lots was for that purpose. Regardless of whether the daycare would go there or not, the best interest for the city was to divide them Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2003 Page 6 up. The question was posed to the Council and HRA, regardless of the daycare is it best for the city to divide up this parcel. His understanding was the answer was yes to be able to market it. Commissioner Larson agreed with that. At the time that discussion took place, he did not think they had all the information that has since come out. He does not think everyone has the same information to make the same decisions at the same time. Commissioner Barker asked if he was talking about the plat or the daycare. Commissioner Larson replied the whole situation out there. Commissioner Johnson stated if the Commission approves this and the preliminary and final plat, they will stand by themselves. Commissioner Larson wondered if it was too soon to approve all of this, or should we take a step back, make sure everyone is on the same page, and make sure everyone knows all the covenants and ordinances in the industrial park. Commissioner Barker stated that has to do with the structures, not the property. Commissioner Larson stated the splitting of the lot is based on the daycare issue. Ifwe split these lots, and they are approved, and the daycare does not get approved, now we have three lots instead of one. Is that the best thing? Do we have all the information we need to make the best decisions? Staff stated one of the main reasons for splitting the parcel is not just the daycare. There are other inquiries besides Ms. Karrmann. The reason this is being presented together, is that she was on the forefront of the people coming in. It has sat vacant for a long time mainly due to the gasline easement. Whether the daycare comes in or not, it would still be in the best interest ofthe city to market three smaller parcels where the gasline easement would have less impact. As far as lack of information, we are in the process of doing this. The Planning Commission and HRA only meet once a month. As information changes we try to get that out as soon as possible. The HRA had a meeting last night, and we have more information for the Commission tonight to back through the entire history. Weare all on the same page. Commissioner Larson stated that is my point. You said we are in the process of getting everyone on the same page. Watching the other meetings and reading the minutes, he did not remember seeing the information the City Council had, such as the covenants. He does not think everyone is on the same page right now. He would like to table this and let everyone get the same information and make a decision then. Staff stated given tonight's meeting and the history of where this is and the action the HRA took last night, clarifying the issue based on the conditional use permit as far as the daycare, is really a separate issue from this. The Commission is the only body that acts on this. Like any plat, the Planning Commission reviews it first, and then passes it on to the City Council. The daycare is a separate decision to make with the conditional use permit that would end with the Commission. As with any other plat, does it meet our code requirements as far as lot size and everything else? If it does, would you forward it if any other plat would meet the same requirements? Commissioner Larson asked don't you see the problem with that? The HRA had a meeting last night. We will get the Commission up to speed tonight. There is no time to digest the information. Commissioner Barker stated the information brought to the HRA has to do with the daycare, not about the . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2003 Page 7 . land. They are two separate issues. Commissioner Larson stated they are two separate issues being driven by one issue. That is something we should not think about, but we have to. Is everyone on the same page to be making this kind of decision right now? It is his opinion everyone is not on the same page. He received some information that was not in the packets, that he felt the Commission should have had months ago. . Staff stated you are referring to the covenants. The covenants are present and do affect this parcel. We also have a city code that affects this area. The city code is regulated by the Planning Commission and City Council. You would make a decision based on the city code. You do not have any authority to make any decision whatsoever based on the covenants. The HRA is in charge of making all decisions based on covenants. The covenants are almost word for word as to what is in the city code. Which creates some confusion, because we have a parallel track to the same requirements and who approves what was unclear for awhile. Last night the HRA gave formal action on the covenants and how they apply to building materials and other design standards that are found in the covenants themselves. They did not act on the city code. They did not consider the city code except they acknowledged that they are very similar documents. It is the Planning Commission's charge to look at the city code aside from the covenants and base your decision on that. As far as the building materials, and the conditional use permit, we will look at the city code. As far as going between the Planning Commission and HRA, it is a parallel track, but a separate track. Commissioner Johnson agreed. When we are looking at the plat, we are looking at the plat. . Mr. Jeff Thelen stated it is confusing. He was also at the April 30, 2003 joint meeting. He remembered the decision was based on the overall understanding, that the building design that was going to be accepted that night, was to be conforming with the covenants and the ordinance. Even though that night, there was a denial that the covenants existed. That was a determination by the City Attorney and Community Development Director. That is not the Commission's charge, that is the HRA's charge to take care ofthe covenants. The majority of the Council stated they would not approve the lot split unless the buildings that were to be built on the lots conform to the other buildings out there. As of right now, that is not happening. He would agree that everyone is not on the same page. He has appealed a decision that was made a month ago by the Planning Commission. Should the Council override the decision that was made, that would throw all this in limbo again. It would make sense to wait until their decision was made before we come back and review this, so everyone is not making decisions in a vacuum. We keep saying don't you as the Planning Commission worry about what the HRA says. The HRA, last night, said don't you worry about what the Planning Commission has decided. But when they based their decision last night, the HRA wanted to know whether you had approved Hardi-Plank as a buildingpmaterial. They are very much interested in what your decisions are, as well as the City Council's. Planning Commission Minutes June 10,2003 Page 8 Commissioner Johnson stated he looks at it as a plat issue, and is not considering the conditional use for the daycare. Ifwe want to put this off and continue this until the City Council makes a decision, he is looking at this as a plat. If this is a city issue that we want these split, that is where it is. It is not what happens with the daycare center. Mr. Thelen stated he was going to reserve his comments until the Commission got to that issue, but as we are already talking about the third item up for discussion, it is already being mixed together. Commissioner Johnson stated that is what he is trying to avoid and that is why he does not look at it that way. He looks at it as a plat and a variance. If the plat fits all the other specifications and we say it is a 100 :ft variance and we are going to split the lots, that is the next item up. These two items are irregardless what happens with the daycare. Mr. Thelen stated even though the City Council has said otherwise. Commissioner Johnson stated he is trying to keep them separate. He remembered what happened at that meeting, and was shocked, he did not think the Hardi-Plank would be approved. He knows about Mr. Thelen's appeal, but he is looking at this as a variance item and splitting the lots. Then we wi11look at the daycare center. Voting for: Johnson, Barker. Voting against: Larson. MOTION CARRIED. d) Preliminary and Final Plat - Lot 1 of the Farmington Industrial Park 2nd Addition Applicant: City of Farmington Staff would like to create 3 parcels. This plat is for the existing HRA owned parcel in the northeast comer of the industrial park. Commissioner Johnson stated he is looking at this as splitting the lot for the city and does not have a problem. Commissioner Barker stated he also does not have a problem with it. It is contingent on the variance just approved. Commissioner Larson stated if this is the best thing for the city, he is not against it. But he does think the Commission is making decisions before everyone is getting all the information at the same time. He felt it should be tabled until everyone gets the same information at the same time and has time to digest it and then make a decision. He does not think it would hurt to let it sit for a month. Ms. Jan Karrmann, stated it is her understanding that the 9-acre parcel has set empty for years with no interest or inquiries until she inquired. It was recommended by the HRA to split the lots. Since then, there has been at least one person that has come to an HRA meeting. You are getting it off the books, and it helps everyone as far as taxes go. It is a plus for the city. Anything on those lots is better than nothing. Are we waiting for someone like 3M to come in and buy 9 acres? We have waited 8 or 9 years. It is not happening. She does not see how it is harmful. Do we let it set empty, or do we get the parcels sold and get the revenue coming in? . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2003 Page 9 . . . Commissioner Johnson stated he looks at this as a city staff issue in conjunction with the HRA and the Council. This was our idea to split the parcel. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Larson asked if anyone has ever inquired about this lot? Staff replied there has not been a serious inquiry in 7 or 8 years. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to approve the preliminary and final plat with the contingency of the variance that was just approved. Voting for: Barker, Johnson. Voting against: Larson. MOTION CARRIED. e) Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Daycare in the Industrial Park Zoning District Applicant: Jan Karrmann Staff outlined the history of the project. Daycare is allowed as a conditional use in the Industrial Park zoning district. The first issue is, should daycare be allowed in the industrial park and the second issue is the building materials. The proposal for the building itself was to construct it using Hardi-Plank which is a cement fiber product. The Industrial Park has design standards which buildings must comply with. The design standards call for brick, concrete and other materials. In April Community Development Director Carroll declared Hardi-Plank was not an approved use in the Industrial Park. He felt Hardi-Plank did not meet the definition of concrete. Mr. Carroll's decision was appealed by Ms. Karrmann to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission voted to overturn Mr. Carroll's decision to not allow Hardi-Plank. That decision would apply to the entire Industrial Park zoning district saying that Hardi-Plank is a form of concrete and therefore would be allowed in the Industrial Park zoning district. Mr. Jeff Thelen then appealed the Planning Commission's decision. That appeal will be heard at the June 16,2003 Council meeting. At this time, Hardi-Plank is an acceptable use in the Industrial Park. Next week, we do not know ifit will be or not, based on the outcome of Mr. Thelen's appeal. The covenants are almost word for word as the design standards in the city code. The covenants are enforced by the HRA, not the Planning Commission. There are two different documents that must be acted on by two different bodies. The Planning Commission is in charge of the city code, the HRA is in charge of enforcing the covenants. Last night the HRA held a meeting and looked at two options for building materials. Option I is a combination of brick and Hardi-Plank on the front ofthe building and 100% Hardi-Plank on the remaining three sides. This is the preferred option. The second option is for a 100% architecturally brick building. This would comply with the design standards. The HRA looked at whether options 1 and 2 are acceptable based on the covenants, and whether daycare is an acceptable use in the industrial park based on the covenants. The HRA approved both options. In the future when building permits are pulled, the applicant will have to specify which option they will use. The HRA said the Hardi-Plank material is consistent with what is in the covenants, and it is a form of concrete. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2003 Page 10 They also said daycare is a permitted use in the industrial park based on the covenants. As a contingency of approval with the conditional use permit, both options are listed. Based on the city attorney's advice, both options can be approved. If the Council overturn's the Planning Commission's decision thus rendering Hardi- Plank unusable in the industrial park, Ms. Karrmann could choose option 2 without having to go through the conditional use process again. Regarding the April 30 workshop, some members of the Council stated they would agree to the lot split in conjunction with the daycare if the building materials were complied with. The two are separate. The city cannot let a building be constructed in the industrial park that does not meet the standards. Staff is not asking to change the requirements. Both the Planning Commission and HRA have interpreted what the city code and covenants say. Any building in the industrial park would be required to meet the design standards. Staff feels the criteria have been met in granting a conditional use permit. Ms. Jan Karrmann stated a daycare is a conditional use in the ordinance. We need to consider what is best for the community. She has worked on this project for two years, and there has not been another daycare coming to the community. This would help the businesses in the industrial park. It keeps employees happy and makes businesses more productive. She has received no negative feedback except from Mr. Thelen. Daycare is a service that is needed. Schools are being built, growth is being recognized in that area, but not for the younger children. In order to do affordable daycare Hardi-Plank is a necessary asset to the business. Using concrete block would raise the cost vs using Hardi-Plank. The daycare will be sprinkled. However, allowing Hardi-Plank would make it easier to attract other businesses and they would in turn more easily be able to afford the fire sprinklers. She is not sure why this project is not being embraced for the community. She is not sure why everything is dependent on someone else. Why doesn't the Planning Commission do their job, the HRA do their job, and the City Council do their job? She has attended all of the meetings to get through the process. The urgency in getting through this part of the process, is we are coming up on winter building season. It will cost more to start building in the winter. Weare also coming to the end of the bidding season. Commissioner Barker asked about her small business loan. Ms. Karrmann stated it is a one-year contingency. Her bank has called and has never seen such a delay. For being a business friendly community, she is not getting through things in a very business friendly manner. Commissioner Johnson stated the reason this came about was because Ms. Karrmann brought in materials no one had ever seen. They needed someone to decide if the materials fit in the box or not. If she had come with bricks and mortar it would not have taken so long. He was not comfortable with rubber stamping the project. They did not have enough information. Ms. Karrmann stated she is glad she found a new product that may . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2003 Page 11 . also fit other businesses. Just because something was not available before, that should not preclude someone from doing something new. Commissioner Larson stated the Commission was told no one objected to the daycare. He has received two letters that were presented to the Council dated May 19. He felt the Commission should have had these letters earlier. He also now had a copy of the covenants. He would like to take a step back and have everyone on the same page. The Commission is not getting information like the Council is getting and the HRA is probably not getting information. He wants everyone to have all the information so everyone can make the same decision based on the same information. Ms. Karrmann said at this time we are addressing the CUP. If the Hardi-Plank is upheld, great. If it is not upheld, she will use the concrete block. She meets the ordinances and the covenants. . Commissioner Barker stated the Commission cannot deny the CUP if she meets all the requirements. If the Council overturns the Commission's decision from last month, she has a backup plan. Commissioner Larson asked are we getting all the information everyone else is getting before we make a decision? Commissioner Barker replied but is that an issue with this project or an issue in general that we need to talk with staff and Council about? Commissioner Larson stated he is saying do we make the decision tonight and then find out there is a piece of information we did not have that would have made us make a different decision? That is why he does not want to decide now. Commissioner Johnson stated the one factor that remains is that the Commission has approved Hardi- Plank. Looking at the CUP itself, Ms. Karrmann does have a second option. Commissioner Larson stated when he reads the covenants, it reads all walls have to be concrete. This is something the Commission should have been talking about from the beginning and never have because we never knew about it. . Mr. Colin Garvey asked if it would be easier to table this and change the ordinances and the covenants and open it up to the public instead of putting Ms. Karrmann through this and other businesses that have tried to go in the industrial park and got shot down because ofthe covenants. Why not table it, change the ordinances and covenants so other businesses are allowed and make it fair to other businesses. He heard they are coming out ofthe woodwork for the other lots. No one around town knows these lots are available with different ordinances and covenants. Wouldn't it make more sense to make it fair to the public that they know this. There have been other inquiries about that lot. We sat here five weeks ago with the City Administrator and he was aware there was an offer on that lot. There is a lot of misinformation and Mr. Garvey thinks it goes back to the HRA Director 5 or 6 years ago. There have been several other businesses in this town that wanted to go out to the industrial park that could not because ofthe covenants. To make it fair, why not change the covenants and zoning and open it up to the public instead of just one person. Then Ms. Karrmann would not have to go through this. Commissioner Barker stated the HRA has the option of changing covenants. Mr. Garvey stated they did that last night and no one knows Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2003 Page 12 about it. They changed it like that without a public hearing and yet for years they kept other businesses out of here. If you are going to change it, change it to the public. Commissioner Barker stated the Commission is looking at the code. It came in front ofthe Planning Commission last month in terms ofthe Hardi-Plank. The Commission determined it met the building materials. Therefore, that meets part ofthe code. The Commission also directed staff to take a look at it for both the industrial park, the business park, and the Spruce Street aspect to find out how it all reflects. Mr. Garvey stated the covenants do overlap with the codes. If you look at the covenants this should not have gotten off the floor according to the covenants. Why not change the code and covenants together and let the businesses come in. People have been trying to get this changed for years. It is going around the back way, how you are doing this. Commissioner Barker stated Ms. Karnnann has proposed the Hardi-Plank. It has been appealed to the Council. If the Council says no to Hardi-Plank, then Ms. Kanmann has an option for that. Mr. Garvey asked why put her through that? Why not just change it? Commissioner Johnson stated it is not the Commission's right to change it. Mr. Garvey stated you are supposed to be working together. We talk about these problems with staff and communication. There is a lack of communication, that is obvious. Commissioner Barker stated we can talk to staff and continue working on communication between the HRA and the Council and Planning Commission. We had a workshop and that was great. That needs to continue. We have to go through a process to change the code. Ms. Kanmann has requested a Conditional Use Permit with two options contingent on what the Council does. Ifthe Commission approves the CUP, we are not putting the Council in the bad place. Commissioner Johnson stated if Council accepts the appeal, Ms. Kanmann will go with option 2. Mr. Garvey stated we are still not solving anything. Why not open it up for the rest of the community to have these chances at these other lots. If you are going to change things, why not have a public meeting so everyone knows about it. It seems like just the HRA Director and a few others know about these changes. Commissioner Barker stated they can talk to staff about communicating this information. Councilmember Soderberg stated he appreciates the job the Commission does. The Hardi-Plank seems to be the thing that has caused the controversy. The process we go through will flush all that out whether it is an acceptable product or not. Mr. Garvey has said the HRA changed the covenants, and the HRA did no such thing. The HRA simply recognized that in an ancillary use in the industrial park, that Hardi-Plank would be an acceptable product in that circumstance. When you look at the covenants, which the HRA is tasked to look at, brick is not going to stand by itself. It would be put on some sort of frame. There is some misinformation in regard to the covenants themselves, and being changed. They were not changed. The HRA looked at this project and said the materials are an acceptable material. Looking at just the project itself, the daycare is an ancillary use as the HRA identified in the covenants themselves. The covenants also say it has to meet the current zoning and the code. The code specifically says a daycare is a conditional use. That is what you are talking about tonight. The issue with . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2003 Page 13 . the Hardi-Plank is a separate issue and the process is ongoing to do that. As far as getting the letters, someone perhaps dropped the ball, and that can be addressed outside of this issue. Councilmember Soderberg stated as far as he knows, there is no other additional information that is not getting to the Commission. He does not know if those letters would have changed any decision already made. Commissioner Larson stated these letters are from property owners in the industrial park and their concerns about the daycare itself. We have the daycare in front of us and we are making a decision without input regarding these letters. Councilmember Soderberg stated he suspects those letters should have been part of the packet for the public hearing. Commissioner Larson stated that is his whole issue, that everyone should be on the same page. He does not want to make a decision without all the information. Councilmember Soderberg stated that can be addressed with staff. All of the Planning Commission should have received those letters as part of the packet. The Hardi-Plank has caused the big controversy and the decision is yours. . Mr. Colin Garvey stated ifthe materials have been changed that are in the covenants, that is a change in the covenants. In phase 2 it was supposed to be mostly brick or masonry buildings. Now they have changed the covenants for that building, so they have changed the covenants. Staff asked what words were used to change the covenants? Mr. Garvey stated they allowed Hardi-Plank as an alternative material. Commissioner Larson stated they are considering Hardi- Plank concrete that may be poured in place, tilted up or precast. Mr. Garvey stated Hardi-Plank is not precast or tipped up, it is siding. Ifwe are going to change it, let's change it for everybody. Commissioner Larson stated when the Commission approved it they had information that said it was 90-95% concrete. It is poured in place and tipped up. Mr. Garvey stated that is pushing a fine line. Ifwe are going to change it, let's change it for everybody. Let's get it changed because there are several businesses that wanted to go out there but because of the buildings and the covenants they were not allowed to go out there. Commissioner Barker stated we are in the process of doing that. Commissioner Johnson stated when the joint meeting was held, he was looking for direction of whether it fit. He wanted the Council and HRA's input. In front of the Commission is a conditional use permit for the daycare. He recommended to staff that the Commission needs more information as to what is expected, depending on what the Council decides. Ms. Karrmann will have either option 1 or option 2. The Commission can continue this for another month, then we will have the Council's approval or denial of Hard i-Plank, and the Commission will continue to say Hardi-Plank fits and the Council upheld our ruling. It Council accepts the appeal, she has option 2. . Mr. Garvey stated when Ms. Karrmann came to the HRA Director and said this is what I am proposing, he should have been aware of the covenants and said this is not allowed. If you are going to change it, wouldn't it be easier to change the process rather than put everyone through this? Commissioner Johnson stated he does not want people to feel like they have to jump through hoops. The problem Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2003 Page 14 is we have never seen this product before. The conditional use permit is contingent on the following: She has met the first three contingencies and the applicant shall utilize one of the following building materials. Option 1 is the Hardi-Plank and option 2 is the painted architectural concrete block. Mr. Garvey stated what he is talking about is the process. Doesn't anyone ever wonder why our industrial park has sat so long not filled up? Maybe it is the process that everyone is put through. Commissioner Barker stated we are all in agreement, they are just separate issues. Mr. Garvey said you are all supposed to be on the same team and it has not been working. Staff stated the nice thing that is going to come out ofthis, is that it will bring the HRA and Planning Commission together. The HRA might be interested in changing their architectural standards out there, the Planning Commission might follow along with the HRA, and we might have a new ordinance instead of covenants. Mr. Garvey stated wouldn't it make sense to table this, change it and then you don't have to go through this process. Commissioner Johnson stated that puts this off two or three months for Ms. Kamnann. Mr. Garvey replied not if you got together quickly and made up your mind. The HRA changed their mind last night and the covenants are a legal contract. That should have been a public hearing. Commissioner Johnson stated he cannot change it and fix it tonight. Commissioner Barker stated we have to make a decision on the conditional use permit. He asked Ms. Karrmann if she decided to go with the stucco texture on the Hardi-Plank if option I is approved? Ms. Kamnann stated no, it is a Hardi product and we are trying to please too many people. It is the same product with a different look. Commissioner Barker stated he is in favor of the stucco. Ms. Karrmann stated that is fine. The cost is about the same either way. She just wants to make everyone happy. She looks forward to resolving this either way and getting along with the other members of the industrial park. Commissioner Barker would like the stucco put in as a contingency to option 1. Ms. Kim Soderberg, 1312 Fairview Lane, stated as a mom she thinks a daycare in the industrial park would be a great asset to the businesses there. What a great way to get employees coming in, knowing they can leave their children right there. There has been talk about developing commercially across Hwy 50. Again, that will be close. We need to keep our tax dollars in town. We need a broader base for all the families coming in. Ms. Kamnann needs to get started because fall is coming and those kids will need a place to go when school starts. It is a great asset to the community. There is a need. The houses are expensive that are coming in and that causes the families to be two-income families. They need somewhere close to leave their children. . . Mr. Jeff Thelen stated he has never seen a discussion with the Councilor Planning Commission with so much lack of information or miscommunication as this. He finds it ridiculous. Commissioner Barker has said the more open communication there is with everyone the better the process is. The legal requirement for notification for a public hearing is 350 feet. How many people were notified ofthis public hearing? Commissioner Barker stated it was also in . Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2003 Page 15 . the local paper. Staff stated those within 350 feet were notified. Given the size of the properties in the industrial park, 350 feet does not go too far. A packet was sent to Mr. Thelen. Mr. Thelen stated the packet that was sent was the information on the HRA meeting. He also said there are 12 buildings in the industrial park. An issue like this affects every one of them directly. Even though it does not say so in the code, he did not think 12 phone calls or letters would be too much for staff. Even like we were notified of the April 30 meeting, stick a notice in the mailbox. He has yet to receive a phone call from the Community Development Director to come in and talk about this. Mr. Thelen takes offense to that. It is not Jeff Thelen that is against daycare. What he is against is a daycare center in the industrial park. Ideally it would be in a commercial or residential setting. He is asking for the process to be open. He does not know how many of the building owners know this meeting is taking place tonight. He is aware of three business owners that know about this. One of them claims he did not receive his mailing. Mr. Tim Milner, nT, told him he never received a letter. Mr. Thelen thinks a better job of communicating could be done. The current Commission does not know what happened six years ago. What was the thought of the people when they made these covenants? Also in 1998 or 1999 when the zoning was changed to make the new zoning for the industrial park, what was the mind thought ofthose people? They changed some things and added daycare as a conditional use, even though it was not specifically in the covenants. Where did that come from? Staff stated Lakeville has a daycare requirement for a conditional use in their industrial park. Bumsville has a daycare as a permitted use. There are a number of communities that allow daycare because of the influx of people coming in to work in those areas and drop their children off in a convenient location. That was the reason for staff proposing daycare in the industrial park. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was a business in the industrial park that inquired about placing a daycare in the business itself? Staff replied yes. Mr. Thelen stated that is his suspicion as to why other communities did that. Staff replied they are stand alone. Lakeville has a stand alone daycare in the code. Mr. Thelen stated the 9-acre parcel sat empty for 8 years without any inquiries. It would have been full now if the covenants had not been so restrictive all along. When they say there have been no serious inquiries about that, there have been no serious inquiries about people putting up a span-crete building. In fact, there would have been people taking that lot had the covenants not been so restrictive. As far as Jeff Thelen being the only one that objects to a daycare, that is not a true comment. . . Commissioner Barker stated he does not have a problem. Ms. Karrmann meets all the requirements of the CUP. The only contingency he would add to option 1 is that the stucco texture is used. Commissioner Larson stated he would like to table this until after the City Council meeting regarding Mr. Thelen's appeal to the Hardi-Plank. He will do his best to make sure he has all the information that everyone else has. Commissioner Barker asked if you are going to make sure you have all the information, if the Council approves the Hardi-Plank and it comes back to us, does that change anything? Even if you gather more information, Ms. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2003 Page 16 Karrmann is still meeting all the CUP requirements and then it comes in front of the Commission with option 1. If they deny, then it comes in front ofthe Commission with option 2. What is changed? Commissioner Larson stated that is what he wants to find out. He received some information today. He wants to find out if there is more information so they can make the proper decision. Commissioner Barker stated no matter what information is provided, isn't she still meeting the CUP? Commissioner Larson stated he is not prepared to vote until he knows he has all the information that everyone else has and everything we need. He is not prepared just because he received some information today. . MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to table this item until after the June 16, 2003 City Council meeting. Commissioner Barker stated he has problems with tabling this. We have gone through all the hoops and looked at it closely. He does not know if there is more information that could be provided no matter what the Council does. She is still coming back to us with a CUP and she is meeting the requirements. It is just a matter of it being option I or 2. Commissioner Johnson stated he will second the motion just for the well being of Commissioner Larson and not having the opinion of the other two commissioners. He apologized for continuing this. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . 1) Zoning Code Text Amendments for Camping, Garage Sales, Zoning Officer Designation, and Setbacks along Minor Arterials Applicant: City of Farmington When the zoning code was revised there were several pieces inadvertently omitted. Staff is requesting four items be put back into the code. The first amendment is regarding regulations on overnight camping, and connecting to sanitary sewer and water. Staff does feel it is valid to hook up to the city water system as the duration is limited to three days. The second amendment is regarding garage and yard sales. These are limited to a 3-day sale, 3 times each calendar year. The third amendment is regarding front yard setbacks, which should be 50 feet from the planned right-of-way line. The fourth amendment is regarding title changes for employees. The Zoning Officer was listed as the Planning Coordinator. That title has now been changed to City Planner. Staff is requesting the Zoning Officer designation be changed to City Planner. . Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2003 Page 17 . MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to amend the zoning code for camping, Section 10-6-13. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to amend the zoning code for Section 10-6-14 regarding garage and yard sales. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to amend the zoning code for Section 10-4-1, minimum front yard setbacks. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to amend Section 10-3-1 designating the City Planner as the Zoning Officer. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. g) Preliminary Plat - Meadow Creek 4th Addition Applicant: Progress Land Company Progress Land Company has modified the plat since it was submitted. They requested this be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to continue the Preliminary Plat - Meadow Creek 4th Addition. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Final Plat - Meadow Creek 3rd Addition Applicant: Progress Land Company The Council approved the Preliminary Plat in April. There has been a slight change involving 12 lots that were originally platted as one outlot in the 2nd Addition. Because of the Lake Julia waterway the city initiated the requirement that the lots not be platted at that time. This was due to waiting for the design of the ditch and how the lots would be affected. The design of the ditch has now been clarified. Previously no building permits would be issued for the first 5 lots until the ditch is constructed. The same is true for these 12 lots. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to approve the 3rd Addition Final Plat with three contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . 4. Adjourn MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ )-?"7~~ c;7 Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting July 8, 2003 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Heman, Johnson, Larson Members Absent: None Also Present: Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) May 13, 2003 MOTION by Barker, second by Larson. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Heman, Larson. Abstain: Johnson. MOTION CARRIED. b) June 10, 2003 MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker. Voting for: Barker, Johnson, Larson. Abstain: Rotty, Heman. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Conditional Use Permit - Operate a Commercial Daycare in an IP (Industrial Park) Zoning District (continued) Applicant: Jan Karrmann This public hearing was continued from June 10,2003. The City Council has approved the preliminary and final plat for the industrial park lot split. A variance was needed from the lot width requirement in the industrial park zoning district. That was granted by the Planning Commission on June 10, 2003. The covenants have been discussed several times. The HRA has discussed whether the building materials meet the covenants. The HRA has determined that Hardi-Plank does meet the intent of the covenants. They also agreed daycare is an allowed use in the industrial park. The last piece for the Planning Commission to deal with is the Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Karrmann is asking for the front of the building to be brick and Hardi-Plank, and the remaining three sides to be Hardi-Plank. Previously the Planning Commission had requested the stucco-type Hardi-Plank be used. Some conditions of approval include a signed permit be required, design standards must be complied with, the replatting of Lot 2 Block I of the industrial park must be approved. Commissioner Johnson asked why the covenants are handled by the HRA instead ofthe Planning Commission? Attorney Jamnik stated the covenants are handled by the HRA. The design standards are in the city code and are administered by the Planning Commission and the city. There is an overlap because of the historical development of the area. Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2003 Page 2 Mr. Tim Milner, owner of JlT Powder Coating Company, 21020 Eaton Avenue, had some comments about the process. He was surprised that on May 19, 2003 he sent a letter to Mayor Ristow expressing reservations regarding the use of industrial park land to put in a daycare facility, and at this point, he has not had any contact from anyone to address the concerns raised in his letter. The letter has been attached to two separate mailings. There seems to be some perception that a concern about a daycare might be directed to one or two individuals. He expressed concern in May and has not been invited to any discussions. His second item is this is the third time that he has received less than one business day's notice of a public hearing that affects the industrial park and could affect the way his business operates. As a business owner he would appreciate the fact that a little more time should be given so an owner can rearrange their schedule to effectively participate in these meetings. He wanted to attend the meeting to voice his concerns regarding the daycare so they would be on the record. He then restated what was in his letter. He did not speak to covenants. His concern is having a daycare facility in an industrial park environment. He does not believe that is a compatible use. He has concerns about traffic, the volume of people coming in and out, and just in general about what goes on in an industrial park area. The reason an industrial park is built on the outskirts of town is that an industrial park area has things that do not necessarily appeal to a residential or commercial enterprise area. There is noise, they may not have the cleanest operations, the businesses do things people would not want to see done in a residential area. As parents come in, how much of that type of activity will become an issue? When he has to unload a truck in a loading dock area outside, will that be a problem when the fork truck turns around in the street? When Lexington Standard delivers product to him from across the street on a forklift is that going to be an issue? Will outdoor storage become an issue? It isn't right now to anyone in the park. Because those are considered normal industrial type activities. Will that be the case when we have residents bringing in their children and see those types of things going on? He has serious concerns about this. He found 47 licensed daycares in Eagan, Farmington, Rosemount, and Lakeville. Most seem to be single family homes. The ones that are not, none of them are in an industrial park. His question is why? Why don't those industrial parks have a daycare facility? He comes back to the same answer, because it is probably not the best use. Having a large daycare in the city is an outstanding idea. It will be a big benefit to his employees who are in need of high quality daycare. But the question remains, does it belong in an industrial park? That is the question before the Planning Commission tonight. The fact that it is allowed has been established, but that does not mean it should be. That is the question before the Planning Commission, and is the question he raised in May, asking the process engage the local business owners in some discussion as to what the issues are so some sort of agreement could be reached so everyone would be in support of this endeavor. That has not happened. Chair Rotty stated the Commission does have a copy of his letter along with a letter from Performance Coating. Staff stated everyone within 350 feet was . . . Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2003 Page 3 . notified, and Mr. Milner was included in that mailing. There was also a notification in the newspaper. Mr. Milner stated he has always received all of the information. It has been hand delivered, but only one business day's notice. Chair Rotty stated whether the daycare is an appropriate use, that is the question the Commission will be addressing. Staff stated typically cities give whatever notice is required by their code or state statute. In this case, the information hand delivered to the businesses in the industrial park, was not required by the city code or state statute. Staffknew there was an interest regarding these issues, and took it upon themselves to deliver information to the businesses at least twice. Staffwent over and above the notice that is required. As to when it was received, in an ideal world staff would like to get the information further out than that. The Planning Commission packets are finalized on Thursday or Friday and delivered on Friday or sometimes on Saturday for a Tuesday meeting. Last week was a holiday and a couple other distractions in town consumed staff time. There are risks involved in giving notice in ways and at times that is not required, because people come to rely on that. When staff falls back to what is required, then people ask why it was not hand delivered. As far as interaction regarding pending issues, the reason information is provided to people is to give them an opportunity to express their views to people who are making the decisions. Staff is available eight hours a day for anyone who wants information. . Mr. Larry White, builder for Ms. Karrmann, stated it is his understanding the Commission is here to set the conditions for the daycare use and that daycare is allowed as a conditional use and therefore, the Commission would only be setting the conditions for it, not whether it is allowed or not. Is that correct? Chair Rotty replied that is being very generous to the applicant. The hearing is to determine whether the conditional use is appropriate. Attorney Jamnik stated as a practical matter the conditional use is a permitted use in the park. The question for the Commission would be whether or not the conditional use as it is proposed is acceptable. If it is not, it would be a basis for rejection even if it is an otherwise allowed use with a conditional use permit. Mr. Milner stated so it has already been determined that this use is appropriate. Now the Commission is defining further conditions that will allow the use to go forward? Attorney Jamnik replied no. Ifthe application as proposed does not include terms and conditions satisfactory to the Planning Commission, it would be a basis for denial even though it is a conditional use in the district. Chair Rotty stated the Commission will look at the criteria and that is what the decision will be based on. . Mr. Jan Karrmann, 18614 Egret Way, owner of Just Kidding Around Daycare, wanted to respond to Mr. Milner's comments. She has contacted every business owner in the industrial park to get their views and concerns about having a daycare center there. When people do not return calls, there is not much she can do to address their concerns. Those concerns should be addressed in private as a courtesy. The people that will benefit greatly from this service are the industrial Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2003 Page 4 park employees. If the people work in the industrial park, they will not be . offended by the area. If other residents want to come, they will choose her daycare based on its location and the services provided and the surroundings. The businesses are located close to each other. She is not concerned about the noise and does not see the traffic as being a problem. Commissioner Barker stated it has been reviewed numerous times. He felt it does meet the conditional use requirements and would be in favor of approving it. Commissioner Johnson agreed, and does understand Mr. Milner's concerns. He hoped there would not be any ordinance changes in the future regarding anything that would be unacceptable in the industrial park. Ms. Karrmann is choosing to come into the industrial park. Commissioner Larson asked if it would be the stucco or the lap Hardi-Plank? Mr. White replied from the soffit line down to the brick and the other three sides down to the ground, the surfaces would be the stucco panel. This gives more of an office look rather than a residential look which was a concern ofthe Commission. Where the gable ends are on the east and west ends and the gable ends on the front, they would like to use the Hardi- Plank to give it a little different texture. There will be brick up to the windows in the front and the two front corners. Commissioner Larson stated the HRA and Council have approved it. The six criteria have also been met. He would approve it. Commissioner Heman stated he thought this was a good idea, and does not have a problem with it. Chair Rotty stated there have been some issues with building materials and lot splits. Those issues have been resolved. As far as the . business owners' concerns with traffic, it is a similar concern whether you are a parent driving to a daycare or an employee driving to a business. Things need to be done safely in the industrial park, regardless of who is driving. He did not think anyone would have a problem if a daycare was added to an existing business. It will be done in a fashion that looks appropriate and the safety of the children, parents, and employees are ofthe utmost importance. He would support the conditional use for the daycare. MOTION by Larson, second by Heman to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to approve the conditional use permit for a daycare in the industrial park. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Meadow Creek 4th Addition Preliminary Plat (continued) Applicant: Progress Land Company This plat is located north of the Meadow Creek 2nd Addition and east ofthe Prairie Creek development. Two lots on Dunbury Avenue have been removed due to wetland issues. Two lots have been added in Block 4. There are a total of 122 lots. Access would come from the 2nd and 3M Additions and also from Dunbury Avenue which continues north to the future Riverbend Addition. The lot width distances are measured at the front yard setback line. On some ofthe pie shaped lots, the number is less than the required 75 ft. width at the property . Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2003 Page 5 . line. However, they do meet the minimum width requirements at the setback line. A trail will connect from the Lake Julia Waterway up to Dunbury Avenue. Another trail will run along the east side to connect to Dunbury. There is a utility easement that would be used for the trail easement. Mr. Mike Olson, Progress Land Company, stated this is the first he has been notified ofthe comments regarding the trails and their location. He did not know whether their engineering would have any issues with the trail locations, especially along the east side next to the wetlands. He did not know what type of soil was there to construct trails. In the past, he had met with the previous Parks and Recreation Director and City Planner, and they were going to dispense with the trail. He was surprised this was brought up, however it could be their engineer was informed. Mr. Olson would like to work with staff prior to the Council Meeting on this issue. Chair Rotty asked Mr. Olson ifhe would like them to continue the public hearing, as any recommendation by the Commission would include the trails as recommended by staff. Mr. Olson replied he would like to have the preliminary plat acted upon now. Any conditions will be considered after that. He felt it could be worked out with staff prior to the Council Meeting. . Commissioner Heman did not have any concerns with the requirements. Commissioner Larson also did not have any concerns. He asked if Park Director Distad's recommendations regarding the trail easements should be left in his letter, or brought out in the open? Chair Rotty replied they would be incorporated in the platting. Assistant City Planner Atkinson stated the original proposal for the 4th Addition showed more ponding. The original intent of Park and Recreation Director Bell was to have a portage area. Staff reviewed the area and agreed it would not be necessary to require larger ponds. The developer was allowed to make smaller ponds and add a few more lots. The project engineer was notified ofthe trails and is still reviewing that issue. Staff advised keeping the recommendation in tact, but after further review it might not be possible. Outlots A and B are storm water ponds. Regarding the outlots, some type of access easement is being considered for maintenance. This was added as a contingency. Commissioner Johnson confirmed that the first contingency regarding the 75 ft width has been removed. Staff confirmed this. He stated he was not the only one who did not receive Park and Recreation Director Distad's letter in his packet. Staff apologized and stated his comments are included in the staff memo. Commissioner Barker asked if there was a sidewalk along Dunbury Avenue. Staff stated a sidewalk is proposed. Commissioner Barker then asked about the wetland to the east and how it relates to the wetland buffer that is being proposed as a possible ordinance? Staff replied it is not affected with this plat. It has been city policy to not allow lots to be platted within wetland buffers. Commissioner Larson noted on Mr. Rigg's letter it refers to the construction of68 single-family lots. Staff stated it is a misprint on his memo. There are 68 lots in the 3rd addition. Chair Rotty stated he sees four entrances and egresses which was a major concern in the past. This splits the traffic flow. Protecting the wetlands . Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2003 Page 6 to the east is done. The lots meet the city code. He would support sending this to . the Council with the contingencies. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTON by Larson, second by Heman to recommend approval of the Meadow Creek 4th Addition Preliminary Plat with contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Variance Request - Minimum Setback Requirement for Accessory Structures Applicant: Todd Larson, Sl9 7th Street Commissioner Larson stepped down from his seat at the Commission table. The property is zoned R-2 and alOft setback is required from alleys. There is an alley running along the back. Mr. Larson is proposing a 6 ft setback. There are several criteria which constitute a variance. One reason Mr. Larson would like to move the structure forward 4 ft is due to the radius. The garage would be sitting behind the house which includes an attached garage. In order to have access to this structure, Mr. Larson is proposing a driveway along the side of the house and to get appropriate radius to turn into the garage, he needs to have it set back as far as possible. Turning the garage is a possibility; however utility poles and the sewer line may prevent that. . Mr. Larson stated he did look at other options such as turning the garage and facing it south. There is a utility pole in the way, and the sewer line comes around the side ofthe house and then to the back alley. He cannot build on the sewer line. Staff stated this does still meet the maximum lot coverage requirement. The Commission agreed there is a hardship and it did grant a similar request in the past. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to approve a 4 ft variance request for a minimum setback from the alley. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Larson took his set at the Commission table. d) Zoning Code Text Amendments for Title 6 Chapter 4: Domestic Animal Ordinance Applicant: City of Farmington At the June 10, 2003 meeting there was an appeal regarding pygmy goats. The owners had two pygmy goats and the structure that housed the goats was in violation ofthe ordinance. The ordinance requires a 500 ft separation between the enclosure and any adjacent homes or structures. This decision was appealed to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission directed staff to look at options for an ordinance that would regulate domestic animals, including pygmy goats, and allow them in some fashion. The appeal was never formally acted on. . Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2003 Page 7 . The City Attorney suggested the Commission take action on the appeal. That would not change the fact that staff is looking at a domestic animal ordinance which was presented to the Commission. Other cities have been contacted regarding domestic animal ordinances, and staff has received a lot of information. There are several things the ordinance could contain such as the structure, reducing the minimum distance to other homes, and the types of animals allowed are just a few examples. Staffwas looking for direction from the Commission in order to develop an ordinance that would regulate domestic animals in the city. . Chair Rotty wanted to take the two issues together to allow for discussion which could result in a decision for the appeal. He is not sure if these types of animals belong within the city. If there was a large lot where the animals could be separated from the neighbors, it would be better. On the other side, domestic animals can cause as much noise as a farm animal. He asked the Commission to decide on the limits as far as animals. Is it just domestic animals that will be allowed or certain types of animals? Commissioner Barker asked if the ordinance goes forward, and it says no hoofed animals, we have the pygmy goats. Does that mean they are non-conforming and now they have to get rid of the goats? Attorney J amnik stated that would depend on how the Planning Commission rules on the appeal. Staff interpretation is that the current maintenance of the goats is not conforming because the structure is not proper and the animals are not allowed in that zone. If the code is clarified to allow that or if the Planning Commission rules that the structure is authorized it becomes a legal use. Ifthe Commission rules against it, it would be an unlawful use under the current code, but would allow the Council and Planning Commission to modify the code to make it an allowable use. Commissioner Barker stated he has talked to the neighbors and they did not have an issue with the goats. It does get a little noisy around 5 p.m. when the residents come home, but no more than a dog. The structure had to be pointed out to him, he could not find it. Commissioner Larson asked how the Commission deals with the issue that the owners talked to the Police Department and were told it was ok. Attorney Jamnik stated legally if staff gives an incorrect answer the city is not bound by that answer. Practically, it is a major concern for the city where there is inconsistent advice given or an improper response from someone outside of the department where the question should be answered. The city does take that into account in any follow-up enforcement. In this case, if someone incurs an expense relying on city advice, the courts would take that into account to phase it out. Such as you can keep the goats for two years or if the goats die, you may not replace them. An error does not bind legal enforcement action. . Chair Rotty stated the appellant felt it was acceptable by the information received from the city. He would like to work out a way they can maintain their two animals, not replace them, not get anymore, if they move, the animals go with Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2003 Page 8 them. Attorney Jamnik recommended the appeal be tabled with the appellants . consent for a reasonable period oftime, in order to study the domestic animal ordinance. If there is no consent, the Commission is bound to act on the appeal within 120 days by state law, and under the ordinance within 60 days. Chair Rotty asked Mr. and Mrs. Dingman if they would agree with tabling the appeal which would allow them to maintain the animals until the ordinance is amended. Mr. and Mrs. Dingman agreed to allow the Commission to table the appeal. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to table the appeal on the staff decision for three months. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. The Commission then discussed how to amend the domestic animal ordinance. The Commission suggested listing types of hoofed animals, weight, number of animals, size of structure, distance from neighbors, control of pigeon coups, rabbits, etc. There needs to be some control and the ordinance needs to be looked at not only for the owners, but for the surrounding neighbors. The Commission suggested staff bring ideas to the Commission over the next 2-3 months. Staff noted an option might be to focus attention on the original issue. There seems to be a fair amount of confusion about what the impact of the original staff decision was. The underlying issue was the distance of the enclosure from the neighbors. The question asked of the police department originally was, are goats legal or illegal in Farmington? They are not illegal and are legal under the right circumstances which are having an enclosure the right distance from nearby houses. The police department gave correct information, but not complete . information. When Planning became involved in dealing with the complaint that is when the distance ofthe enclosure became an issue. Staff believes the Dingman's would have taken that into consideration if it had been brought to their attention in the early stages. Staff needs to make sure different departments in the city communicate properly. Since the code now says you can have a goat if you have an enclosure within the right distance staff asked if the Commission wanted to focus on just that aspect. That would eliminate the need to get into a review of a wide variety of different types of animals. Another option would be exploring an agreement with the Dingman's regarding phasing out of the goat occupancy. If it becomes an ongoing problem with the neighbors, perhaps they can find another location for the goats. Other cities have spent large amounts of time dealing with animal ordinances. MOTION by Johnson, second by Heman to table the ordinance until it is revised. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Zoning Code Text Amendments for Title 10 Chapter 6 Section 24: Model Home Ordinance Applicant: City of Farmington Some residents were concerned with having a model home in their cul-de-sac. An ordinance amendment was presented limiting the number of model homes per . Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2003 Page 9 . builder, timing of issuing building permits, hours of operation, and parking. Staff asked for the Commission's input and the amendments would also be forwarded to the builders. The Commission and staff discussed certain portions of the proposed amendment. MOTION by Larson, second by Heman to table the amendment. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 1) Zoning Code Text Amendments for Section 10-6-17 (E): Wetland Buffers Applicant: City of Farmington . Currently wetland buffers are included in the lots with a setback from the buffer where no structures can be built. Wetland buffers cannot be mowed or maintained like a yard. Staff is proposing lots not be platted in the wetland buffer and have the property line come to the buffer line. The 10ft buffer setback could still be included in the lot. It will affect the plats, as there may not be as many lots allowed as there are now. Staff would like to place signs showing where the wetland buffer line is. An orange fence is also proposed to show where the wetland buffer is while the lot is being prepared and leave it in place for a short period of time. The Commission agreed with the proposed amendment. This has been an informal city policy for some time; however staff will notify builders prior to this going to Council. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to recommend approval of the zoning code text amendment to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Joint City Council/Planning Commission/Spruce Street Task Force Meeting - July 16,2003 - 6:00 p.m. The purpose of the meeting will be to present a draft Master Plan of the Spruce Street Corridor Area and to receive comments from the Council and Planning Commission. The Master Plan will be distributed prior to the meeting for review. The city received a $40,000 Opportunity Grant from the Metropolitan Council to assist with the costs of developing the Master Plan. Staffhas also applied for a $1.6 million Development Grant to pay for extending Spruce Street from Denmark to the west, build a bridge over the Vermillion River, and extend Spruce Street from the west edge of the bridge far enough west to connect with a north- south road from Hwy 50. This would eliminate the need to assess all of the cost to the developer or property owners, and it would eliminate the need to make the construction of the road a condition of the development. This grant application will be reviewed during July and August. In September it will go to the Livable Communities Committee of the Metropolitan Council and the grants will be awarded on December 10. It is important to get the Master Plan approved by August or September as the Master Plan is referred to in the Development Grant application. . Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2003 Page 10 5. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Heman to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . Respectfully submitted, Approved 75 ~;)../o_~ /) -7"-# c ;h?~~ :?-' . C/C.::.~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting August 12, 2003 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Heman, Larson Members Absent: Johnson Also Present: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner Four additional issues to be discussed include: I. Tier One Proposal for Industrial Park 2. Possible Redevelopment of the Blaha Site 3. Update Regarding Pygmy Goat Issue 4. West Farmington Development Proposal 2. Approval of Minutes a) July 8, 2003 MOTION by Barker, second by Heman to approve the July 8, 2003 minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Variance Request - Minimum Setback Requirement for Accessory Structures Applicant: Tim Donnelly - 1208 Fairview Lane Mr. Tim Donnelly has requested a variance to build a detached garage in the rear of the house close to the property line. The required side yard setback is 6 ft. for detached garages. In this case, the distance between the proposed garage and the property line is 3 ft. The property is irregular shaped and there is a large tree in the backyard. One of the reasons for the proposed location is to keep it close to the house and away from the tree and also to allow a turning radius into the garage. The main criteria to grant a variance is that there be a hardship. Given the location and size of the tree, configuration of the lot, and the placement of the house on the lot, there is a hardship on the property. The required distance between the garage and the house needs to be 10 feet. To locate it closer, it would need to be fire proofed. This will be reviewed during the plan review. MOTION by Larson, second by Heman to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the variance request to 3 ft for minimum side yard setback contingent on Building Inspector's approval ofthe 5 ft separation between the house and garage. Voting for: Barker, Heman, Larson. Abstain: Rotty. MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2003 Page 2 b) Review of a Draft Master Plan for the Spruce Street Corridor Project The process began February 3,2003. There are 19 steps and staffis currently at step 15, which is the public hearing on the Master Plan. There was ajoint Council/Planning Commission Workshop on July 16, and there was also a public meeting on July 31 where residents had an opportunity to ask questions. A public hearing is not required for a Master Plan, but staff wanted to provide another opportunity for public comment. A few changes made include: . - Transportation routes to include a north-south corridor. - Parking lots for the practice athletic fields. - Added text regarding the connection between the future commercial area and the existing downtown Mr. Randy Oswald, 19282 Evenston Drive, stated he liked the overall look of the Master Plan. He is also a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission. He does take exception to the word "practice" fields. The programs will want to use those fields because they do not have space. The inhouse baseball program had 600 children this year. He believes the fields will be used for regular games, instead of just practice. The major portion of the land set aside for park land is land that cannot be used for anything else. He has asked staff to see what can actually be done with that land. There are other things that can happen in Park and Rec and not just ball fields. Why is it unusable land that is donated? Chair Rotty asked if Mr. Oswald sees it as being wrong if the practice fields are being . used as part of the regular inventory of fields? Mr. Oswald stated he does not see that as being wrong. He does not like to see them labeled as "practice" fields, because they will be used for more than just practice. Chair Rotty did not feel it was wrong to have the fields used for regular use and agreed with Mr. Oswald's comments. He has heard comments that the city is moving toward a sports complex. There are a lot of avenues for parents and children to move into that the Park and Recreation Commission is looking into. Commissioner Larson stated a sports complex has been discussed for years and asked where that stands. Mr. Oswald stated a sports complex of some sort is still being discussed. A location has not been determined. He sees the park area in the Master Plan as being an enhancement to Rambling River Park, not as a sports complex. Mr. Stan Knutsen, property owner, stated we the Knutsen's want to go on record of the approval process that our 60 acres is not included into the Master Plan. As of April 1 the Council approved for our property we were not to be a part of the Master Plan Spruce Street Corridor process moratorium. Since then we have been pulled into it. We feel that if any reason this approval goes with us as a part of it, we could get slowed down for another two years. So we will be going for a pre- plat approval on September 3 to be approved by November 3 under a PDU and we would like to let the Council know on this. We do not want the 60 acres to be included in the Master Plan. Chair Rotty stated the Commission is aware of Council action in the past. . Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2003 Page 3 . Community Development Director Carroll stated over the course of the last couple months, there has been some confusion as to what is included in what. Some people have blended the moratorium issue with the Master Plan issue and assumed they were the same. The moratorium proposed by staff started out being related to the Master Plan process. It did not make sense to have development occurring, or put the Planning Commission and Council in the position of having to rule on applications while there was a Master Plan process for that same property in progress. The Knutsen's and their representatives asked the Council to exclude their property from the moratorium which the Council did. Staff's understanding was that the grant application was based on reviewing 450 acres for future development and that a plan would be prepared based on that acreage. This is the first time staff has heard that the Knutsen's wanted their property excluded from the final report. An effort has been made to include them in the process from the beginning. They were also members ofthe Task Force. Staffhas made it clear that since their property is not included in the moratorium they could submit at any time any applications they wish to submit. Staffhas met with them regularly to go over procedures that would be involved in submitting an application for a preliminary plat. Staff understands they intend to do that. The Knutsen's have been given information about what a timetable for that would be. They have also been given alternate timetables. If the Council chooses to adopt the Master Plan at the August 18 meeting, that will not have any adverse impact on the Knutsen's ability to proceed with their development plans. What will happen is that when the plans are submitted, the Planning Commission, the Council and others will compare what is submitted to the Master Plan and determine whether what has been submitted is acceptable or not. The Master Plan will not be the sole determinant of that. A lot of factors will determine the acceptability of a plat. The Master Plan is a guide. It is not in the Comprehensive Guide Plan or the zoning code. As the schedule indicates, at some point after the Master Plan is adopted, staffwill come back to the Planning Commission with suggestions as to how the zoning code and the Comprehensive Guide Plan can be changed in a manner that is consistent with the Master Plan. Staff's understanding is that the proposal they will make will be consistent with what the Knutsen's intend to do with their property. Staffhas been willing to expedite the code revision process so the Knutsen's can have some guidance as to which types of uses will be permitted and conditional. It is important to make clear the moratorium is related to, but does not parallel the Master Plan process. Staff's understanding was that the Planning Commission and the Council were in support of doing some planning for the area as a whole which has been done. . . Chair Rotty stated the Commission wants to see quality development and wants some good thought put into it. The Commission supported the Master Plan concept, and understood at the time the Knutsen property was not under the moratorium. But the Commission thought it was good planning to have everything included so we are not doing postage stamp development. The community anticipates this will be a high-quality development of commercial and retail uses. It is not the intent of the Commission to hold development of the Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2003 Page 4 property up, but when it is developed, they want it done in a way that benefits the community. . Community Development Director Carroll addressed the practice field issue. He did not want the terminology to lead people to conclude that the fields would only be used for practice. They were identified as practice fields because they are over pipelines and there are some restrictions as to types of permanent improvements that can be made. The other issue is the companies that have the pipeline easements are sometimes very restrictive about how much grading can be done over the pipeline. Because of these restrictions you might not get the quality of field you would like. Mr. Randy Peterson, New Century, stated they have no problem with what has been said. Regarding the approval process of the Spruce Street Corridor and the Master Plan, they need to be excluded from that process either in word or something. They have a feeling somewhere down the road, there might be issues that could slow them down. They think they are on the same page with staff and feel very confident. In the Commission's recommendations to Council, Mr. Peterson would like some type of wordage that the 60 acres is not part of the Master Plan. Whether it conforms or fits is not the issue. They would like some type of wordage in case something might go a little different than what everyone is thinking, that the 60 acres can proceed on it's own and is not part ofthe Spruce Street Corridor Master Plan. It has nothing to do with Council or any of the issues. Commissioner Larson stated it was his understanding from day one, you . were going to participate in the Master Plan process you just weren't part of the moratorium. Commissioner Larson stated Mr. Peterson had said from day one that they did not want to go against the city, they want a development that fits with everything else, and that they were going to be part of the Master Plan but not part of the moratorium. Mr. Peterson stated that is not the total understanding. They are not part of the moratorium, but they were brought into the Master Plan further than what they had anticipated. It isn't that they do not want to work with staff or they do not want to make a beautiful corner mark for the city. The Knutsen's own everything they do, so they are built of higher quality. From their consultants and from what they have done in the past, they have found these Master Plans can sometimes slow down the process. They were ready to go in in May and they slowed that down in working with staff to get the zoning worked out. They feel there needs to be a statement in the approval process that states the 60 acres is not part of the Master Plan. That is what they had interpreted from the Council approval. Commission Larson asked approval of the moratorium or the Master Plan? Mr. Peterson replied the commercial process they went through. It was the intent they would try their best to work with the Master Plan, but the 60 acres is not part of it. With their dealings with staff, no one has a problem being on the same page, but that wording needs to be there so that ifby chance something might go astray they can keep moving. That is his only concern. Commissioner Larson asked if Mr. Peterson was seeing something down the road he would like to let the Commission in on. Mr. Peterson replied he has no real . Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2003 Page 5 . specifics. He would just feel more comfortable to know that their agenda, the layout of the approval process, and future discussions will help the Commission. It just needs to be directed some way that the 60 acres is not part of the Master Plan and Spruce Street Corridor. Commissioner Barker stated he remembered when the Master Plan issue came before the Commission and agreed with Commissioner Larson, that the moratorium was separate and that the Knutsen's were willing to work with staff and the city on the Master Plan. He asked if staff had any idea of what happened at the Council level. Mr. Peterson stated he was not part of that. He came in after that. Mr. Stan Knutsen stated Mr. Peterson is referring to when the Spruce Street Commercial zoning was done at the April meeting. They agreed at that time they would work through the process of the Master Plan issues and that is as far as they would go. They would not slow their process down, but wanted to make sure everything would fit. . Commissioner Larson asked how this affects the Master Plan. Community Development Director Carroll replied one way it could affect it is staffhas applied to the Met Council for a grant based on a review of a 450 acre area. They awarded the city a grant based on that. Staffhas not received the grant proceeds. Those are applied for once the process is completed. If a Master Plan is submitted that excludes the most critical corner in the 450 acres, they could say the city has not fulfilled the commitments under the grant agreement and the city would have to pay the $40,000 rather than the Met Council. The grant money was going towards the cost of the preparation of this plan. Staff would prefer to handle things in succession rather than all at the same time. Staff has made compromises, one being that staffhas gone ahead with the environmental review work needed for this area in the interest of expediting development. In order to do an AUAR you have to be able to specify the uses that will go on the property. The Master Plan has provided staffwith needed information to get the AUAR done. If the 60 acres is excluded there will be questions regarding what the uses on that property will be, what the densities will be and that would have the potential impact of having this property excluded from the AUAR. Which means the AUAR process would go forward without this property and they would have to do the environmental review on their own or a way would have to be figured out to accommodate the fact that the AUAR started out being based on certain types of uses and ended up based on different types of information. This would have to be discussed more with staff. Commissioner Larson suggested past minutes should be reviewed. . Commissioner Heman stated with what has been said, he would be reluctant to send this on to Council until we know definitely how this will affect the process. Commissioner Larson agreed there are some things that need to be straightened out. He was part of the Task Force and stated he does not like to see so many Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2003 Page 6 buildings between the road and the natural areas. It was discussed quite a bit to keep the road next to the river with a commercial building here or there. The plan changes every time he sees it and there is more and more separation between the park, the river and the road. It has taken away from the amenity ofthe area. He would like to see less building between the road and natural areas and shift the road south quite a bit. Commissioner Barker stated there was a time table for the Master Plan and asked what the deadline was. Staff stated the moratorium issue came up after the application was submitted. The timetable presented is consistent with the timetable given to the Met Council initially. Commissioner Barker stated this may also affect the timetable for the other grant application. Staff replied the other grant application is in the works at the Met Council. Staff has received calls regarding the process of the Master Plan. The estimate of extending Spruce Street and building the bridge was based on a working draft of the Master Plan. The Met Council is expecting a final version of the Master Plan to be completed soon. In the event the review process is done, and the Master Plan is not completed, it would undermine the likelihood of getting a second grant. Commissioner Barker stated he liked the Master Plan and had concerns with holding it up. We have a grant and another grant applied for. He wants to have a solid plan to go forward with. There could be legal issues with having a grant for 450 acres and then lose 60 acres, we could lose a $40,000 grant. He is not willing to take that risk. The second grant was submitted for $1.1 million. Chair Rotty stated he does not understand the reason why the Knutsen's would say they do not want to be part of the Master Plan. It is just part of good planning. They are not part ofthe moratorium and they can proceed. Staffhas been doing things to help them proceed. He does not see where the Master Plan has held anything up. From a Planning Commission and staff point of view, you would not want to cut out the 60 acres and say we don't care what they do or if the roads line up. Chair Rotty remembered the discussion on the AUAR, and the previous representative saying we do not want to do our own, and will do it with the rest of the area. There is benefit in doing that. At that time, there was agreement to do the plan as a group and get the roads lined up and make sure the wetlands are taken care of. That is how we proceeded up until tonight. He could not under good conscience say take that comer out, we do not need to plan it like the rest. The committee did an excellent job with the consultant and representatives of the Knutsen's and other property owners. He does not know why they want to pull this out because maybe sometime in the future something might hold us up. By Council action, they are not under the moratorium. He does not know why they would not want to be part of a good plan. If Council does not want it in the Master Plan because of their decision on the moratorium that is their decision to make. Chair Rotty is not looking at the grants, he is looking at it as a planning issue. He would feel more comfortable sending the plan to the Council as is and say here is a good plan. It does not exclude the 60 acres, because we feel everything should be planned as a whole as we discussed over the last year and not at the 11 th hour say don't look at those 60 acres. If the Council says they made an earlier commitment and they do not feel it is right to have it in the Plan, . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2003 Page 7 . . 4. . they can make that decision. Chair Rotty did not feel it was right to send Council a plan that does not include the 60 acres. Commissioner Larson stated he agreed, the 60 acres should be part of it. If the minutes show the 60 acres was not supposed to be part of it, he does not know what to do. Chair Rotty stated it would not have gone this far if they were not supposed to be part of it and they would not have been part of the committee. Commissioner Larson stated when they agreed to go along with the AUAR, that made them part of the plan. Chair Rotty recommended they send the Master Plan to the Council as a whole with their action on the moratorium and if they want to exclude the 60 acres fine, but from a planning standpoint he does not think they should send a blank 60 acres. The Master Plan should be sent to Council the way it is. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTON by Barker, second by Larson to send a favorable recommendation of the Master Plan to the Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Zoning Code Text Amendments for Title 10 Chapter 6 Section 24: Model Home Ordinance (continued) Applicant: City of Farmington The proposed ordinance would regulate the construction and operation of model homes and temporary real estate offices. The ordinance was sent to builders and developers for their comments and two responses were received. The ordinance contains a clarification of the difference between a model home and temporary real estate office. The main difference is parking. The other issue addressed is the duration a model home is allowed to exist. The permit shall terminate three years from its date of issuance or when 85% of the development is completed. This ordinance will affect any new model homes, not existing model homes. Some minor changes and clarifications were discussed. Regarding allowing model homes in cul-de-sacs, it was suggested to not allow model homes in cul-de- sacs and require a variance to allow them in a cul-de-sac. A revised ordinance will be given to builders showing the provision for cul-de-sacs, and will be brought back to the Planning Commission. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to table the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Discussion (This item was moved forward to accommodate the audience). b) Discussion Regarding Potential Text Amendments to the Spruce Street Commercial Zoning District The list of permitted and conditional uses was developed in May 2002. This list needs to be reviewed further. Staff and the Planning Commission are jumping quite a bit ahead of normal procedure, by two months, to try and accommodate the Knutsen property. An overall zoning text amendment for medium density, Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2003 Page 8 high density, mixed use, business commercial flex will be presented in a couple months. . The permitted uses currently on the list include: Child daycare center, Commercial recreation indoor (dance and karate studios) Commercial recreation outdoor (golf driving range, mini golf, water park) it was proposed this be a conditional use Health clubs Restaurants, class I, traditional (Embers, Perkins) Restaurants, class 3, with liquor service Retail sales and services Added permitted uses include: Personal and professional services Personal health and beauty Commercial services Clinics Current Conditional Uses: Convenience store, with gas Grocery stores Hotels and motels Public utility buildings Restaurants, class 2, fast food Theaters . Added Conditional Uses: Public buildings Minor auto repair Major auto repair (the definition is being reviewed) Commercial recreation outdoor Dwellings Regarding dwellings, the Knutsen's are proposing patio homes and townhomes. Staffhad envisioned the dwelling units above a retail shop, senior condos, and apartments. Commissioner Larson suggested a multi-unit apartment building. He did not think that was a good spot for patio homes or townhomes. It is more of a commercial corner. Chair Rotty felt the transition would be too abrupt from commercial to townhomes. Senior housing or a larger building would be better. Mr. Peterson stated the twinhome was miss-worded. It is actually a mixed use senior component above retail. It is not twin or patio homes. This will be brought back to the Commission on September 9, 2003 for a public . hearing. Planning Conunission Minutes August 12,2003 Page 9 . . . a) Discussion Regarding Future MUSA Allocation The Council would like the Planning Commission to be involved with the MUSA allocation from the beginning as far as the composition, the criteria used last time, and discuss a timetable for the process. Chair Rotty suggested having two Planning Commission members on the committee and also have two Councilmembers, two staff members, two school representatives (one from the school board and one staff). Staff suggested having two Park and Recreation Commission members or one member and one Park and Recreation staff Staff will request Council approval of the above composition of the committee. b) Tier One Proposal for Industrial Park Tier One, landscaping contractors, came to the August II HRA meeting regarding a lot in the industrial park. They do not sell retail items, they are contractors and are hired by homeowners and companies to do landscape work. They would build an industrial looking building. They initially talked about building it for their own business, however, due to the size of the lot, they are considering having a tenant. They are considering using Fabcon tip up concrete panels or concrete block. The appearance is more of a standard industrial park appearance. The other half of the building could possibly be occupied by Braun Intertec, which does soil borings. Braun would fall under a research type facility, which is a permitted use. The discussion at the HRA was whether the landscaping business is a permitted use. Staff concluded what they propose to do could fall under office showroom, office warehouse, or warehouse facility. They would have an office, and also have a portion of the building used as a showroom. The rest of the space would be used to store materials and vehicles. They understand the need to have screening to shield any outdoor storage or vehicles. Commissioner Larson did not see any difference between this business and Controlled Air. Chair Rotty did not feel it would be an unusual business for the industrial park. The Commission agreed this would be a permitted use. c) Possible Redevelopment of the Blaha Site The Blaha property is located at the corner of Spruce Street and Second Street. Mr. Blaha has made arrangements for his tenant to move by September 30, 2003. Staffhas asked the City Attorney for guidance in the event the HRA is in favor of acquiring the property. The City Attorney has indicated that the HRA has to submit an application to the City Council. The application has to contain a redevelopment plan, a statement of the method proposed for financing the project, and a written opinion of the Planning Agency. The Commission has to decide whether they think the acquisition or redevelopment of the property would be a good idea. The timing issues are that Mr. Blaha would like to move forward. The Council will set a public hearing for a redevelopment plan on this property to be held September 2,2003. If the Council approves the redevelopment plan, then staff would be authorized to enter into a purchase agreement with Mr. Blaha for the property. Planning Commission Minutes August 12,2003 Page 10 Chair Rotty asked where the process is for using this area for a new City Hall. Staff replied the City Hall Task Force will be meeting with the Council on August 19,2003. The original understanding was that the Task Force was looking at downtown only. After the report was issued, there was some discussion regarding areas outside of downtown. Chair Rotty stated if the site will be used for a City Hall, that is the redevelopment. If not, is the HRA still interested in the property? Staff replied yes, that is a critical half block in the downtown. If the parcels are consolidated, the HRA can get better development proposals ifnot used for a City Hall. Public buildings or any of the uses discussed are permitted uses in the downtown zoning district. Commissioner Larson stated if the HRA is comfortable with purchasing the lot, he would be in favor of it. Chair Rotty stated he would feel more comfortable if there was a definite use for the property. He would be in favor of it if Council agreed to use it for a City Hall, but to buy a half-block and hope we get a developer, he did not know if the city should finance that type of thing, but that is an HRA issue. Staff cannot predict how long it will take for the Council to decide on a location for City Hall. There may be a limited amount of time to acquire the property, as Mr. Blaha wants to sell it soon. If someone else wants the existing building and Council later decides to build a City Hall there, the property is either not available or has to be acquired through condemnation. Chair Rotty stated strictly from a land use, he has no problem with purchasing it. Staff suggested the opinion could be conditioned by saying the redevelopment of the site is worth pursuing subject to the approval or with the consent of the City Council. The Commission agreed. d) Update Regarding Pygmy Goat Issue Staff felt the last meeting ended with an agreement between the Commission, staff, and the owners of the goats, that staff would get the opinion of the neighbors regarding the goats and the structure. A survey was prepared with a cover letter giving a background of the situation. It points out that pygmy goats are not prohibited in the city. There is a provision in the code that states the structure must be 500 ft from any adjacent residence. The survey asked for their opinion as to the distance of the structure from adjacent homes, and if they have seen or heard the goats from their property. The owners had some reservations about the wording and the fact the survey was going to be sent to homes within 500 ft. The owners are not opposed to the survey but want it limited to the homes immediately adjacent to their own lot. Staff asked the Commission if they are in favor of this type of survey to obtain more information and who it should be sent to. The owners would like the goats taken out of the category of animals that have to have outdoor enclosures a certain distance from other homes. . . Commissioner Heman felt the survey should be sent to residents within 350 ft. as that is the normal distance used for notices. He did not care whether residents could see or hear the goats, he wants to know if they think a confinement should . Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2003 Page 11 . . be 100 ft, 300 ft, or 500 ft. away for non-domestic animals. Chair Rotty agreed the 350 ft. is a good compromise. Any comments regarding types of animals should be left out. Staff felt without any explanation, residents would be mystified as to why they were receiving this. If they call, staff will be obligated to tell them. Commissioner Barker suggested in terms of identifying the goats, list examples of non-domestic animals. Chair Rotty stated by surveying 20 of the neighbors, we are making these people a lightning rod and now we are talking about making the survey vague enough so they will not understand that it has to do with these neighbors. He wondered if there should be a survey. He suggested staff review other ordinances and come back with a recommendation. The Commission agreed to not send a survey. The recommendation should be based on distance and not which animals are allowed. e) West Farmington Development Proposal A letter has been received from a real estate development that was sent to three property owners. The area is east of Cedar Avenue, north ofHwy 50, south of the future extension of 19Sth Street, and the eastern boundary is Flagstaff Avenue. Two of the parcels are 160 acres and one is 168 acres. The developer has made a proposal regarding a national builder acquiring one or more of these parcels for residential development. The city's 2020 Comprehensive Plan shows this area would not be ready for development until 2020. There are sewer and water issues involved. It would be prohibitively expensive for the city to extend sewer and water to the far western boundary of the city. The developer and the realtor suggested they have contacted Lakeville regarding extending sewer and water over the boundary to allow development. Staffwill be meeting with Lakeville staff tomorrow to find out what the level of contact has been. The City Council will also be notified. A letter will be sent to the property owners and to the developer indicating what the city's 2020 Comprehensive Plan envisions and what they are proposing is inconsistent with that plan. Chair Rotty stated the City Council has goals and one of the goals is orderly growth. He encouraged staff to talk to Lakeville and the developer and he would not consider this type of development good planning for the city. MOTION by Larson, second by Heman to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~vzX{ci- }71~%--u iCynthia Muller Executive Assistant . Approved . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting September 9, 2003 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Heman, Johnson, Larson Members Absent: None Also Present: Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner; Sherri Buss, Bonestroo 2. Approval of Minutes a) August 12, 2003 MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the August 12, 2003 Minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Heman, Larson. Abstain: Johnson. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Rezone of 1000,1012, and 1020 8tb Street from R-2 to B-1 Applicant: Ivan & Janet Janssen, Levin & Patricia Olson, and Harold & Karen Gillespie & Grace Anderson This is a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning amendment. The three properties are located on 8th Street, south of Hickory Street and north of Ash Street. The current designation is low/medium density residential. Just to the south the zoning is business and to the north is business. The request is for these three properties to have a business designation and to re-zone to B-1. A letter was received from Mr. Stephen Wensmann, ofIngrahm & Associates, on behalf of a neighbor further to the west of the properties. The letter raised a few issues. First is that the B-1 designation may be too intense for this area. Possibly a lesser business designation such as a neighborhood business would be appropriate. The other issue is drainage, and the third suggestion is to table this item until a specific development plan is brought forward. Mr. Roger Halweg, representing the owners, stated on behalf of the three property owners that submitted for the commercial re-zoning, the idea was to get it all re- zoned at the same time as there was business at both ends. As far as the drainage issue, there is no real change in the properties as far as drainage. Water along the back of the properties drains to Hickory Street. The houses on lots 3 and 4 will remain. Lot 2 had a house on it and it was removed and filled with sand. Lot 2 is connected with the property on lot 1 which is a business. One reason to do this was anticipation of a turn lane being installed from Hwy 3 onto Ash Street. This would cut off a lot of frontage on the first lot. The owner of lot 2 would like to be able to utilize the lot as a commercial lot. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2003 Page 2 Chair Rotty stated he understood the logic for lot 2. He did not follow the logic for lots 3 and 4 and asked ifthere was a business plan in place. Mr. Halweg replied nothing had been planned, but with lot 1 and 2 there, it is logical that some day there will be business or commercial property anyway, so they might as well get it done at the same time. Mr. Halweg thought it would be a simpler plan for the city. . Commissioner Larson stated if there is no plan for these properties, why re-zone now? Mr. Halweg stated to go along with lot 2. Mr. Orville Swenson, 1007 7th Street, stated they have bought the center lot where there is still a building. They have lived there since 1978. Seven of the neighbors have been there before him. It is an old, established community. It is quiet with homes in good repair and good for quite a few more years. The biggest problem is the lot adjoining the car dealership because of the drainage. The two lots containing the homes are elevated. As a result all drainage from the lot next to the car dealership comes into Mr. Hennek's yard. The northwest corner is the low spot. The problem has become worse since the house was removed. Mr. Swenson showed pictures of the drainage in the area. When the house was on lot 2, the land sloped to the east. Now the area has been filled higher than it was. Mr. Swenson felt the community would be better served to keep the present zoning and asked the Commission to deny the re-zoning. Mr. John Prinsen, 1000 7th Street, asked if anyone had ever seen a business that . did not cement and asphalt everything in site. That will add to the problem. They cannot stand anymore water on the corner. He asked the Commission to deny the re-zomng. Mr. Cy Hennek, 1011 7th Street, stated lot 3 is also owned by the same owner as lots 1 and 2. It is rented out and not maintained. Brush has been piled up for 5 years and there are various animals and rodents on the property. He strongly urged the Commission to not change the zoning, because they have no idea what will go in there. Mr. Roger Halweg, stated the pictures show property that is not owned by any of these people. It is looking from the west toward the fence and that is the neighbor to the west. It has nothing to do with this property. Chair Rotty stated he took the fence as the screening between a B-1 and a residential lot. Mr. Halweg replied yes, that has been there for years. Regarding the water, a permit was obtained to remove the house on lot 2. The request was to backfill the hole with sand and additional sand was put on the lot to absorb the water. The water always ran to the back of the lot. If there was high water, it might go onto the neighbor's property, but it is also on this lot. The intent would be to put a rock base over the top. The city would have to approve covering the area with blacktop. . . Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2003 Page 3 Chair Rotty stated if any business were to go in there, it would be required to have paved parking. The item the residents are bringing up is that there is a drainage issue in the area already, and ifit is re-zoned and added more impervious surface, it could make the problem worse. Commissioner Larson stated the Commission is saying if you are going to make improvements, you need to take care of the water problem. Mr. Halweg stated the drainage would still have to go to the back of the lot. Commissioner Larson stated you still need to figure out what you are going to do with the water, are you going to pond it there, how are you going to keep it from going on to adjacent properties. Mr. Halweg stated that would mean developing something so the water cannot go off the back of the lot. Commissioner Larson stated if you put down anymore asphalt, you are going to create more water runoff. You will have to pond it or figure out how to get it off your property without putting it onto the neighbor's property. Mr. Halweg stated if the lot was left with gravel, it would absorb the water. Commissioner Larson stated if you are going to extend the parking for the car lot, you would have to pave the parking. . Mr. Steve Wensman, representing Ms. Ann Fischer, 904 7th Street, stated the Comprehensive Plan for this area was not promoting the idea of business on these lots. The B-1 zoning district is a big jump in intensity from R-2. He stated Ms. Fischer is not opposed to a business use, but the neighborhood business district is less intense and more appropriate with less impervious surface and smaller buildings. It does not open the door for as many potential uses. Without a site plan, it puts a greater burden on the developer of the property to re-zone it at that time to address all the issues in terms of buffering. Mr. Orville Swenson stated if a car lot came in, at least part of it would have to be paved. In the past, they have been getting some water, but it is filtered water. Now it would come right off the paving and it would not be clean water. At a car dealership, the front row of cars looks very nice, but they put the junkers and those leaking oil or anti-freeze back in the corner. It would seep into the water. Commissioner Larson stated the drainage is a huge issue. Strict buffering is required, especially from a B-1 district. He could not approve this with that drastic of a jump, from Residential to B-1, without seeing a plan and what is intended for the use. That part of the town, and especially that corner is subject to more of a redevelopment or redesign in that whole area. He could not approve changing the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning until that has been done. Commissioner Heman agreed. The change from Residential to B-1 is a huge jump. Without a plan, he would like to table the item until they see what will be done. . Commissioner Barker was also not in favor of this. Going from a Residential to B-1 is very drastic. Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2003 Page 4 Commissioner Johnson agreed, especially looking at what is allowed in a B-1. It . is ajump from R-2 and we have to take the neighbors into consideration especially without a plan. Mr. Roger Halweg, stated when the issue came up to move the house, and they received permission to backfill, etc., he stated the city told them to join lots 1 and 2 because that was a business. He stated that was a recommendation by the Planning Division. He felt it would be logical to go through the process for a re- zoning. Chair Rotty stated he agreed with the other Commissioners. He felt B-1 would be too strong of a zoning. He is not sure how the drainage issues would be resolved. There would be a lack of a buffer to the properties to the west. He would even have to look at a B-4 for a neighborhood business. Chair Rotty stated he is not aware of the discussions with the moving of the house and is not sure if it meant anything beyond that. It was strictly for moving the house. The Comprehensive Plan does not show this area as B-1. The residents have certainly opposed any change in the zoning. At this time, it is premature for any type of re-zoning for this area. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to deny the Comprehensive Plan amendments and the re-zoning. APIF, MOTION . CARRIED. b) Zoning Text Amendments for Section 10-5-17: Spruce Street Commercial District - Permitted and Conditional Uses, Creation of a Business/ Commercial Flex Zoning District, and Creation of a Mixed-Use Zoning District Applicant: City of Farmington All the text amendments involve the Spruce Street Area, south ofHwy 50 and west of Denmark Avenue. The first one is the Spruce Street Commercial zoning district permitted and conditional uses. Second, staff would like to create a new zoning district called a Business/Commercial Flex zoning district. The third is a Mixed Use zoning district. The Spruce Street Commercial zoning district includes commercial recreation indoor, commercial services, personal and professional services, and personal health and beauty. Conditional uses include outdoor commercial recreation, major auto repair, minor auto repair, mixed-use buildings, and public buildings. As far as major auto repair there are two sections of code that would address any negative impacts such as noise, odor, vibrations, etc. A major auto repair use would not be approved if those conditions were present. Another section of the code addresses screening which would address any cars in the parking lot. With . Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2003 Page 5 . these two provisions, staff could regulate major auto repair such as all repairs would be made inside the building. The zoning does allow for some residential, however it should be mixed with commercial. A new trend in this area is to have retail on the bottom floor with residential above. Staff is not recommending stand alone housing, townhouses, apartment buildings, etc. The intent of a commercial district is to have commercial business. Mixed-use buildings will include office, retail, or commercial uses on at least one floor and residential apartments or condominiums on upper floors. Staff is recommending the creation of a business commercial/flex district. The area in the northwest corner has this designation. This would include offices and small retail. A building could be fronted up to the street, or set back for a larger office use. The intent of the business commercial/flex is to allow such flexibility. The proposed new zoning district is mixed-use. This would be for smaller units, the width of the lots is 40 feet, to keep the larger uses out of this district. Mixed- use buildings would be included with retail below and residential above. . Chair Rotty stated he does not see any problems with the conditional uses in the flex district. He wanted them left as conditional uses to have the ability to determine certain aspects of the business. His biggest concern was the major auto repair, but after the explanation of the types of repair, he does not have a problem with it. Commissioner Larson agreed everything should be under conditional use so it comes up for review. MOTION by Barker, second by Heman to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to approve the text amendments and forward it to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zoning Amendments for Selected Properties South of CSAH 50 and West of Denmark Avenue Applicant: City of Farmington . The entire 450 acres is included in the Master Plan. When looking at the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning changes, the Knutsen property in the northeast corner is excluded. This area was previously rezoned to Spruce Street Commercial and Parks and Open Space. The Comprehensive Plan was also amended to the Business designation. The majority ofthe area to the north of the river is Business Park, to the south is Urban Reserve which limits development until 2020, to the east is low density, low-medium density, and medium density residential in the southeast corner. The proposed changes are consistent with the Master Plan showing pockets of high density and medium density residential. Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2003 Page 6 The center portion surrounding the river would be environmentally sensitive. To . the north would be Spruce Street Commercial and Business/Commercial Flex. Mr. Mike Devney, 5810 21th Street, asked how this would affect their farming operation, especially the feed lot operation. He asked if any future business could shut them down. Community Development Director Carroll stated if you are conducting uses on your property that are consistent with the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan, if someone objects to that there is nothing that can be done to affect you, unless someone suggests to the Council that the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan should be changed. The current Comprehensive Plan indicates a number of very important guiding principles. One of them is the preservation of existing farming operations. Council and the Planning Commission believe in that strongly. There may be some cases where some types of farming operations are incompatible with business uses. The development will progress from east to west. The property closest to the Devney's would probably be the last to develop. He felt the City would be supportive of the continued operation of the Devney's business there. Mr. Devney requested a copy of the Minutes for this meeting, which staffwill provide. Chair Rotty stated he would agree. That is one of their goals. He cannot guarantee there will not be any issues years from now. Commissioner Heman was concerned about Denmark and whether the County has given any indication as to whether it will be improved from a two-lane road once . this area develops. Staff stated a transportation consultant has done some analysis, and he believes the traffic will come to this area through roads other than Denmark. 220th Street to the south is envisioned by the County over the next few years as developing into a major east-west thoroughfare. That will be a primary access to the residential area and then through that into the commercial area from the south. Pilot Knob will also be a major access once developed from Hwy 50. Hwy 50 will be the primary access to the area. The County's current plans are not to improve Denmark Avenue. Commissioner Heman felt the County should look at Denmark as the current conditions are very hazardous. It has been requested the speed limit be lowered, but nothing has been done. It is hoped since the school district plans to build a new high school, the high school students would not be there. Commissioner Heman stated the traffic would get worse as there would be more buses for the Middle School. Staffwill continue to monitor the situation. Chair Rotty agreed this is consistent with the Master Plan and it was supported and approved. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson recommending approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zoning amendments. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 9,2003 Page 7 4. Discussion a) Meadow Creek 4tb Addition Final Plat This area is to the north of the Lake Julia Waterway, and south of the future Riverbend Development. The plat consists of 126 lots, minimum lot size is 10,000 sq. ft. Since the Preliminary Plat was approved, three lots have been added to the south. The area was platted as one outlot in the third addition. The reason for the outlot was the design of the Lake Julia Waterway had not been completed. As the design is now finalized, a condition of those three lots is that building permits not be issued until the construction of the waterway has been completed. This is consistent with the lots to the west along I 87th Street and to the east on Dunbury Avenue. Two changes are requested to the plat including easements for accessing the trail. Staff is recommending an easement between Road C and E along lots 31 and 32 of block 5. All lots do meet the 10,000 sq ft minimum size and 75 ft. width. MOTION by Johnson, second by Heman recommending favorable approval of the Meadow Creek Fourth Addition. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Review/Approve Seed/Genstar AUAR The AUAR is a review of the potential environmental impacts of the development of this area. It includes a mitigation plan that specifies how those impacts would be mitigated for as the development proceeds. The Council would adopt the mitigation plan, and then the city, the developer, and the agency would be bound to that plan for mitigating any of the potential environmental impacts. The area is to the northeast of Farmington. It is currently in Empire Township, however there is an orderly annexation agreement with the city. The area is proposed mainly for development of residential units, 2200 detached units and 1600 attached units. The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There are two major issues, one is storm water management. Most of the area drains to North Creek, which drains to the Vermillion River. This part of the Vermillion River was designated as a trout stream by the DNR. Bonestroo worked very closely with environmental agencies to manage the storm water. The proposal includes 16 additional acres throughout the development that will be used for infiltration of storm water from any impervious surfaces. Transportation was a more difficult issue. To accommodate the 30,000 new daily trips Hwy 3 would need to become a 4-lane divided highway. That is not currently scheduled in MnDOT's plans. Work was done to figure out how to phase the development given improvements that are proposed on east-west highways. The city will need to work with the developer to implement the mitigation plan and to stage it as proposed. The city may want to start talking with MnDOT to get the Hwy 3 improvement on the schedule. If the Planning Commission approves the AUAR, it would go to the Council for approval to distribute to the agencies. There would be a 30-day comment period for the agencies, Bonestroo would make any changes based on the comments, and then a final AUAR would be distributed. The agency receives another 10 days for Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2003 Page 8 review, the Council adopts it and is obligated to enforce the mitigation plan as the area develops. Mr. Steve Juetten, AstralGenstar, wanted to emphasize the study was solely based on the Comprehensive Plan which exceeds the density they could get on the property. The document should cover everything more than they will ever need. The agencies have seen the plan and attended the meetings from the beginning. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the Seed/Genstar AUAR and forward to Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Discussion of MUSA Review Criteria (The order of items was changed to accommodate the audience). The Council approved the Planning Commission's recommendation for the composition of the committee. The next step is to look at the expansion criteria. Staff presented criteria which was used the last time this process was done. Staff has heard a lot of discussion regarding the city's interest in expediting commercial and retail growth. A number of businesses that look at the Spruce Street area say the population has not risen to the point to support the businesses and location of the residences are not close enough to the Spruce Street area. The Planning Commission recommended approval to rezone the area to the south of the river high and medium density residential. A portion of the property does not have MUSA. IfMUSA was extended to the area, it would result in residential development occurring sooner. The plan for residential development would be a plus for proposed businesses. Staff suggested adding this to the list of criteria, whether or not a particular area would expedite, facilitate, or help with commercial and retail growth. Another item to consider would be to update the reference to transportation corridors, by adding 220th Street. A third item is filling in the central area of the city, east of Akin Road to the Empire Township border. Chair Rotty was concerned with adding traffic on Akin Road. It would not be one of his top criteria. He stated they need a good list of criteria to follow. He did not see a lot to be changed from the previous criteria. He agreed with adding commercial and retail. Chair Rotty would like to think more about tying residential growth around it. Getting the necessary corridors is also important. Commissioner Larson had a concern with the criteria stating development must occur within 5 years. He felt that was too long a time period. Staff suggested the time be shortened to 4 or 3, or that priority would be given to proposed developments that are eminent. Chair Rotty agreed eminent development would be appropriate. However, after further discussion it was agreed to leave it at 5 years. The Commission also agreed with adding the retail/commercial criteria and including the residential growth surrounding it which would help obtain the retail/ commercial growth. StaffwilI work on this additional language. . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2003 Page 9 . . 5. c) Discussion of Research Concerning Separation of Animal Pens from Adjacent Homes Staffhas researched other communities regarding outdoor animal enclosures and how far away they need to be from neighbors. Other cities address the issue by specifying a minimum lot size, or specify a minimum distance from the outdoor enclosure to the closest property line, or the enclosure to the neighbor's home. The third is prohibiting the keeping of farm animals on non-farm properties unless an interim use permit is issued. Staff recommended a I-acre minimum lot size. If anyone currently has farm animals on a residential lot, they would be able to keep those animals because they had possession of those animals before the code was changed, but they could not expand the non-conforming use of the property. Meaning ifthey moved the animals off the property, they could not be replaced. For people who do not have farm animals, no one who had a lot smaller than the minimum size could have farm animals. Currently the code requires a distance of 500 ft between adjacent homes and the enclosure. Staff recommended it be reduced to 100 ft. from the enclosure to the adjacent home. Commissioner Larson was concerned with the I-acre size, as some cul-de-sac lots could be larger than an acre. It was recommended to increase the acreage to 1 ~ acres. MOTION Johnson, second by Barker to amend the ordinance to 1 ~ acres and 100 ft separation between the enclosure and adjacent dwellings and forward it to the Council. Attorney Jamnik asked if the Commission was asking Council to confirm the Commission's intent to modify the ordinance, or to have a notice published for the hearing on the zoning change. The Commission would handle the hearing. The recommendation could be sent to the Council for an advisory and if the Council confirms that, the Planning Commission would notice the hearing. The other alternative is to direct staff to publish notice of the hearing to modify the ordinance as suggested by staff. The Commission recommended advising Council of the proposed changes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Heman to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, T,e;~ }~~i2J Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant . Approved . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting October 14, 2003 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson Members Absent: Heman Also Present: Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) September 9, 2003 MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to approve the September 9, 2003 Minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings 4. Discussion a) Discussion of MUSA Review Timeline and Application Process Staff discussed the revised criteria from the last meeting, the timetable for the process and the application form. Staff presented the current criteria and the proposed criteria. Changes include under number 1 adding 220th Street; under number 3 expanding the boundaries of the city to include everything east of Pilot Knob Road, south of 19Sth and within the existing city boundaries up to TH3. Chair Rotty asked about the conservation land on the east side of Akin Road and if that would be included. Staff replied it would be included and whether development could occur there still has to be determined. Chair Rotty stated his view is that it is environmentally sensitive land and he is not sure that would be the top location on his list to start developing. Staff continued with the following changes such as number 5 regarding proposed land uses that support and are consistent with the city's 2020 comprehensive plan, added "and/or consistent with the city's zoning map." Number 7 is a new item stating preference will be given to MUSA applications that could reasonably be expected to expedite retail and commercial growth. The time line is to be used as a guide. This will go to Council next week. The MUSA Review Committee will convene in November to review the process. The application forms could be distributed to property owners the end of November or December. This will be publicized in the newspaper. January will be the deadline for submitting application forms. In February the applications will go before the MUSA Review Committee, and continue that to March. The MUSA Review Committee's recommendation will go to the Planning Commission in March to make a recommendation to the Council for consideration in April or May. Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 Page 2 The application form was then reviewed. The only comment added was for the . applicant to include the specific criteria. Questions were taken from the existing application form, such as proposed use for the property, the timing ifnot able to develop would they be willing to give up their MUSA until the next time. The criteria was also included in the application form. Chair Rotty liked adding the criteria and letting the applicant comment on it. Regarding question number 2, he suggested deleting it as anybody coming in will probably not answer it or answer it the way staff wants it answered. He felt this item could be negotiated when the MUSA request comes before the Council. Member Barker was also in favor of striking it as it could be decided during the application process. Member Larson suggested taking it out of question form and making it a statement that they do have five years. Staff also asked about question 1 and whether it was worthwhile to include it. One of the criteria discusses whether it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance. If it is not zoned properly, what zoning would you propose? Chair Rotty suggested asking if they are looking at a PUD, having a combination commercial/residential zoning. Chair Rotty stated he liked number 7 under the criteria. The city needs more retail/commercial growth. Member Barker liked staff's question regarding the zoning aspect. Staff suggested having a follow-up question to number 5, if it is . not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or zoning map, what would you change it to. Member Barker stated it gives them the option to think about what they want the property used for. Member Larson agreed it is important to have the option for changing the zoning. The Planning Commission reached a consensus to send the timeline and application process to the City Council. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ ?r7~~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved . . . .' Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting November 12, 2003 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson Members Absent: Heman Also Present: Lee Smick, City Planner; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Parks and Recreation Commission members 2. Approval of Minutes a) October 14, 2003 MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to approve the October 14, 2003 Minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Properties Located at 1000, 1012, and 1020 stb Street from Low/Medium Residential to Business Applicants: Ivan and Janet Janssen, Levin and Patricia Olson, and Harold and Karen Gilles~ie and Grace Anderson b) Rezone of 1020 st Street from R-2 (Low/Medium Residential) to B-1 (Highway Business) Applicants: Ivan and Janet Janssen The applicants appeared before the Planning Commission on September 9, 2003 with a similar request. The Planning Commission recommended denial. Prior to the Council Meeting the applicants changed their request, so staff is bringing this back to the Planning Commission. One reason for denial was the uncertainty of what would go on the lots. The second reason was a concern regarding drainage. The property would be used for an expansion of K&K Auto Ranch to expand their sales lot. A drawing has also been provided showing their screening plan. Another adjustment to their request is a re-zoning for one property instead of three properties. The biggest concern was drainage. The city would require a grading plan showing drainage before any building permits are issued. There is currently a project for Ash Street and the drainage problems in the area would be addressed with that project. The Planning Commission had several options: 1) They could approve the Comp Plan Amendment for the three properties and the rezoning for one property. 2) They could approve the Comp Plan amendment and rezoning for the one property and recommend denial for the Comp Plan amendment. 3) They could table the request for more information. Planning Commission Minutes November 12,2003 Page 2 Mr. Ivan Janssen, owner of lots I and 2, thanked the Planning Commission for taking time to review the plans. K&K Auto Ranch has been located on lot 1 for 22 years. They are a neighborhood business. Six out of every 10 vehicles are sold to Farmington residents. They are providing a service to the community. K&K also provides employment and income for five families in Farmington. They also create $200,OOO/year in tax revenue and income for Dakota County and the State with the sale of the vehicles. They know the highway department is considering taking a portion of his lot for a turning lane onto Ash Street. When this happens it will cripple his business and create a hardship and possibly a termination of the business. That is why he needs this expansion. Ifhe waits until the highway department starts the project, it would take up to a year to complete the expansion ofIot 2. With the drainage and other things that need to be addressed, he would be putting his business at risk during the interim period. He spends 100 hours a week operating his business at a very difficult time. He is short on space and has no place to park transport vehicles. With the loss of any portion of his lot, all of his hard work, financial investment and dreams would disappear. They bring a lot of people into town and to other businesses. He is considering adding a rental car service to his business. He apologized to his neighbors. He had no intention of creating any water runoff with the piles of snow. Regarding the brush pile, that has been cleaned up. He has tried to set up the fence behind lot 1, but it is so rotten it keeps falling apart. This area would be replaced with the expansion ofIot 2. He would like to be a good neighbor, and asked the neighbors to let him know of any problems. He thanked the Planning Commission for their time and consideration. Commissioner Larson noted there are two drains shown on the site plan. He asked where the drainage will go. Mr. Janssen replied he does not know. They want to tie it into whatever the city plan will be to address the drainage in the area. Commissioner Larson stated the water problem is the biggest issue for him. He then asked if a variance is needed for the fence. City Planner Smick replied yes, as the fence is measured from the ground up, anything above 6 feet to a limit of 8 feet would need a variance. Mr. Janssen stated he will comply with whatever the city requires. Mr. Steve Wensman, oflngraham and Associates, represented Ann Fischer at 904 7th Street. Ms. Fischer has not seen the drawings, but is opposed to the Comp Plan Amendment for the other two lots, and is concerned with the drainage. The site plan does not fully address the drainage, lighting for the evening hours, what type of vegetation will be used, setbacks are not shown, whether the city will let K&K pave up to the lot line, and what kind of parking will be shown for the rental cars. He did not feel there was enough information. . . Mr. Orville Swenson, 1007 7th Street, has photos of the area from last spring. The Commission remembered the photos from a previous meeting. Mr. Swenson stated it was brought up at a Council Meeting that it was illegal to move snow from a commercial lot to a residential lot. Mr. Swenson stated if any zoning is '. Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2003 Page 3 . changed it would make moving extra snow into that area legal. The drainage is a problem. He stated he has been told by the engineers that they do not see how Ash Street will alleviate any of their problems. He stated it was also brought up at the Council Meeting that the fill was brought in illegally. The additional fill has made the situation much worse. Mr. Cy Hennek, 1011 7th Street, stated the drawing showed a retaining wall with a fence on top. This changes the pitch so the water will run east instead of west. Chair Rotty stated it would appear they would have the drainage run east to the drains shown in the drawing. Mr. Janssen explained the back part of lot 2 would be a little higher and run towards the drain and everything from the front of lot 2 would drain to the back to the two drains. The wall would be a decorative block wall with footings. Mr. Hennek asked if the garage would remain. Mr. Janssen stated that would have to be addressed. Mr. Hennek stated he did not like to see the lot changed to a commercial area. . Mr. Swenson stated he did not understand that if the lot is not going to be up to the same level as lot 1, how will the water be kept from running to the west. Mr. Janssen replied the back of lot 2 would be sloped to drain towards the two drains. Mr. Swenson asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of the drains. Staff replied the property owner. Mr. Swenson then asked how far from the west edge of the lot would the pavement go. Commissioner Larson stated there would be a buffer zone. Mr. Janssen stated lot I would drain to the frontage road and lot 2 would go to the drains. The Commission stated the drains need to be installed and would be tied into the storm sewer. Mr. Swenson stated until that time, there could be a lot of flooding. Mr. Janssen stated they will not do anything until the storm sewer drains are set in place. He will not put any more snow on that lot. City Planner Smick asked Assistant City Planner Atkinson if Mr. Janssen had met with the Engineering staffto discuss how Ash and Hickory Streets are going to drain. Assistant City Planner Atkinson stated they are not to that point yet. City Planner Smick asked Mr. Janssen ifhe would be willing to talk to Engineering regarding the drainage. He could learn what will happen with Ash Street and the timing for MnDOT's turning lane, and also discuss Hickory Street. City Planner Smick recommended denying this now due to the time limit of 60 days and bring this back after talking with Engineering. Mr. Janssen agreed that was a great idea. City Planner Smick stated regarding approving the Comp Plan Amendment for all three properties, within one year the other two properties would have to be rezoned to B-1 to be compatible with the Comp Plan. Chair Rotty stated he would still question adjusting the Comp Plan for those two lots. There is too much uncertainty. . MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to deny amending the Comp Plan for the three lots on 8th Street. APIF, MOTION Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2003 Page 4 CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to deny rezoning the property at 1020 8th Street from R-2 to B-1. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . Commissioner Larson asked what zoning a conditional use for a car lot would be in that would not be business. Staff replied there isn't one at this time. It is a permitted use in B-1. c) Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Commercial Daycare within an R-S, High Density Residential Zoning District on the Property Located at 901 Elm Street Applicant: Anna Achtenberg Ms. Achtenburg is the owner of Anna Banana's Daycare. She is currently located in the Farmington Mall and would like to move to the old Farmington Family Clinic. She would like this location due to the building having more windows, a larger playground, more room to work, and possibly become licensed for more children. She currently has 127 enrolled in the daycare. Trinity owns the property and she would lease it from them. Trinity would like to see the playground on the west side of the Farmington Family Clinic. Originally they proposed to block off the Elm Street entrances. The traffic engineer was concerned about the entrance being closed off. As a result, Anna's has proposed a new site plan which keeps the access open. 35 parking spaces are required. Traffic will enter from Elm Street, make a circle, and exit. A conditional use permit is being requested because daycare is a conditional use in the R-5 zone. . Chair Rotty asked about the fence surrounding the play area and how close it will be to the access drive. City Planner Smick replied it will be very close. An 8-foot chain-link fence is proposed with some type of barrier between the road and the fence. Chair Rotty was concerned if the chain-link fence would be strong enough to protect the children from a car going through. He agreed that something else was needed such as some concrete barriers. Ms. Achtenberg will investigate the issue. Staff stated if the fence is over 6 feet it will require a CUP. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson approving the Conditional Use Permit for Anna Banana's Daycare contingent that the access to Elm Street remain open and that the applicant complies with the 35 parking space requirement. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Regarding Future Walking/Biking Trails Applicant: City of Farmington Parks and Recreation Director Distad presented an amendment earlier this year to the Parks, Trails and Open Space Trail Dedication ordinance. The amendment specified the developer would be required to pay for the construction of trails if they were shown on the Trail Master Plan. The next step was to update the Trail Master Plan. He reviewed the contents of the Trail Master Plan with the Planning Commission and how it was developed. Once the Trail Master Plan is approved it . Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2003 Page 5 . will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. There are four greenways, the Vermillion River corridor, the North Creek greenway, the Middle Creek greenway, and South Creek. Chair Rotty complimented Parks and Recreation Director Distad and the Parks and Recreation Commission saying this is one of the best reports he has seen. It is very easy to read, thorough, and addressed a lot of points. They have done an excellent job in promoting recreation in Farmington. Mr. Randy Oswald, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission, wanted to acknowledge that this is the second Parks and Recreation Director he has served under. When Parks and Recreation Director Jim Bell retired, Mr. Oswald was worried as to how this would be followed up. Mr. Oswald stated Parks and Recreation Director Distad has brought a freshness to the commission, new vision, and talks about being proactive. A question during elections has been how to tie north and south Farmington together. This is one way to do that. Mr. Mike Buringa, Parks and Recreation Commission member, stated Parks and Recreation Director Distad did a fantastic job putting together a workable document. Farmington should be very proud of their vision of the trail system. Former Parks and Recreation Director Jim Bell did an exceptional job. We still have a long ways to go to keep pace with the surrounding communities. . Chair Rotty asked about providing trails in older communities where they do not exist and if the roads were wide enough. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied it is possible, but politically it might be difficult to do. A bike trail can be designated by signage. They would like to keep people off the street as much as possible. Chair Rotty then asked about trail safety and security and if they had thought about lighted trails in the future. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied it is an issue where trails run behind houses or through parks. That idea could be initiated with residents before a park is developed. Chair Rotty was pleased that trail maintenance was also addressed in the plan. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to forward a favorable recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding the Walking and Biking Trail Master Plan. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Amend Section 6-4-2 of the City Code Regarding the Keeping of Animals Within the City Applicant: City of Farmington Changes to the current ordinance include adding a minimum lot size requirement of 2.5 acres. Another change was to decrease the minimum distance between an animal enclosure and a neighboring residence to 100 feet. The amendment also includes regulations for some types of fowl. Also included was a definition for house pets and farm animals. Commissioner Johnson asked how current farm animals within the city would fit the requirements. Staff replied they would be . Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2003 Page 6 non-conforming. Chair Rotty stated if they met one of the two conditions they would come in as legal non-conforming. They cannot add more animals, but can keep the current animals. . MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council regarding the keeping of farm animals within the city. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Appoint Two Planning Commissioners to the MUSA Review Committee Chair Rotty stated as in the past, the representatives from the Planning Commission serve on the committee on behalf of the Planning Commission. Any direction will be given by the Planning Commission to the representatives. Chair Rotty and Commissioner Larson agreed to be on the MUSA Review Committee. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~..zL2;=- ?,~c.:.~-v L-Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting December 9, 2003 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson Members Absent: Heman Also Present: Lee Smick, City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) November 12,2003 MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to approve the November 12, 2003 minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings 4. Discussion a) Discussion of Responses to Comments for the Seed/Genstar AUAR The AUAR is an environmental review to look at environmental impacts, transportation impacts, and population impacts that occur on a piece of property when it gets developed. The Seed/Genstar property is 950 acres west ofHwy 3. Right now this property is outside ofthe city limits. An orderly annexation process will start in 2004. An orderly annexation agreement has been previously approved with Empire Township. Staff and Bonestroo compiled the AUAR and then sent it to various agencies for comments. Six agencies commented on the AUAR, the Met Council, MnDOT, the DNR, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, Dakota County, and the city of Lakeville. Staff then responded to the comments received from the agencies. All the comments are then given to the City Council for any revisions. The responses then go back to the agencies for review. By January 2004 a final AUAR and mitigation plan should be presented to the Council for the Seed/Genstar property. Most of the comments were informational. The largest numbers of comments were regarding transportation and how it will impact Hwy 3. Empire Township, MnDOT, Dakota County and the City of Farmington will need to meet to discuss how Hwy 3 will need to be expanded. There were also comments on the wetland and North Creek. North Creek is outside ofthe trout stream designation area so there is not a good rationale for a higher classification of wetland, as the DNR requested. There is a large floodplain on the property which contains the wetlands. The wetlands will need to be protected. Chair Rotty stated in reviewing the comments, the transportation issue stood out. The estimated trips were 30,000 when fully developed. 250 acres was granted MUSA on the south side of the property a few years ago to help facilitate the building of 195th Street. He agreed Hwy 3 will need to be widened to handle the additional trips. He did not want to proceed too quickly with moving forward until the transportation issue is resolved. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2003 Page 2 Mr. Steve Juetten, representing the Astra/Genstar partnership, stated they . understand there is a need to look at the transportation in more detail. He noted the AUAR was compiled based on the Comprehensive Plan which is the maximum that could be developed on the property. Most of it would be single family at 3 units per acre. The AUAR states it could be developed at 3900 units. Mr. Juetten stated there is no way they could get close to that number. Although the plan says there could be 30,000 trips, he does not see it reaching that number. There will be an impact on the roadways, but not as dramatic as the plan states. Once the AUAR is approved, they will commission a market study to see what uses the market says would be workable in the area. Then the Master Plan would start. The Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and school district would be involved. The process should take 9-12 months before a Master Plan is developed. Chair Rotty asked once the development starts, how long will it take for the area to be fully developed. Mr. Juetten stated there are a lot of factors, possibly 150- 250 units a year would be developed, which would take several years before full development. Commissioner Larson stated he serves on the Empire-Farmington Planning Committee. They have been discussing the issue and Empire is extremely concerned about the impact on Hwy 3. There was a Hwy 3 study done this summer and he did not believe they took this development into consideration. . City Planner Smick stated that was an access management study and they were looking for potential accesses. They did take this property into account as far as the number of accesses, but they did not look at the number of trips. Commissioner Larson felt once the Master Plan is finished, MnDOT should do another traffic management study with the number of units and the exact number of trips. Staff agreed. Chair Rotty asked what level should be included in the AUAR addressing traffic and design and should it be detailed. City Planner Smick stated the response to comments will be incorporated into the final AUAR. The design issue will come after the AUAR is approved. The AUAR feels out what type of impacts are happening. Chair Rotty did not want to create any more traffic congestion issues in the city, and if nothing is done before this starts, that will happen. He felt 195th needed to be extended and Hwy 3 needs to be improved before this property develops too far. Mr. Juetten stated when the first draft ofthe AUAR was put together almost a year ago, it said that there would be 30,000 trips/day and because ofthat Hwy 3 needed to be upgraded to four lanes. After discussions with Bonestroo he suggested they look at four or five thresholds and say if there are x number of trips, these are the improvements that are necessary. This is stated in the AUAR. Chair Rotty stated as a community we need to deal with the traffic issue. That means more thinking and planning before going ahead, we need to do that. . Commissioner Larson agreed. Chair Rotty would like to see the roads done before the congestion problem occurs. He would like to see agreements with other agencies in place. Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2003 Page 3 . . MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson that the Commission has reviewed the AUAR, offered comments to staff, and recommended forwarding this to the Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Discussion of Monopole Personal Wireless Communication Towers within Residential and Park/Open Space Districts Staff was approached by a wireless communication company regarding putting up a monopole next to the Daisy Knoll water tower. That is an R-l district, and according to the zoning code they are only allowed in A-lor 1-1 districts. They could put the monopole on top of the water tower, but the company is concerned there is too much up there already. They would like to put up their own monopole next to the water tower. They have looked between the Daisy Knoll Park and Hwy 50 for high ground. Daisy Knoll is one place, and near the Donnelly farm is another area. Staff wanted to discuss the idea of allowing monopoles on city property which is either in the R -lor Park and Open Space districts. The high ground in the city is by the Donnelly agricultural area, the Daisy Knoll water tower, and Autumn Glen. The industrial park is in the lower area. Staff surveyed several cities regarding their policy. The monopole has to be below 200 feet due to the airport. Chair Rotty was surprised at the number of cities that allow these poles. Daisy Knoll is a nice park and to put in alSO - 200 ft. tower is something to look at. The ordinance states 4 ft. for every 1 ft. of height for a fall zone. There is room on the water tower. The company mentioned interference, but what do the other companies do that are already there. He did not feel it should be allowed as there is a usable place on the tower. It would be intrusive to put this high a tower in an existing residential area. Commissioner Larson agreed that putting this up in an existing neighborhood would create problems. Commissioner Barker agreed it should not be in a park in a residential area. Another possibility would be by the Police Station, but agreed if there is room on the water tower, that is where they should be. Commissioner Johnson also agreed it should not be placed in a park. Staffwill forward the comments to the communication company. 4. Adjourn MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~?){!{~~n')t:dt?-J ~a Muller Executive Assistant . Approved