The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting January 13, 2004 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: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Smick, City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) December 9, 2003 MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to approve the December 9, 2003 minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) East Farmington 8th Addition Preliminary and Final Plat Staff presented a drawing by Mr. Tim Giles for a development he is proposing for East Farmington 8th Addition. There are some issues that need to be resolved regarding ponding and wetlands. Staff proposed this be continued to the February 10,2004 Planning Commission meeting. Staffhas requested another 60 days for review. Commissioner Larson asked about Block 1 Lots 1 and 2 and Block 2 Lots 1 and 2 along the 9th Street curve, and if there would be enough room for stacking and sight distance at the stop sign. Staff will have the traffic engineer review that item. Commissioner Larson also asked if there should be a turnaround at 10th and 11 th Streets. Staff will also discuss this with the developer, however, the developer proposes to have temporary cul-de-sacs in these areas. The Development Committee is not interested in seeing temporary cul-de-sacs. They want permanent cul-de-sacs or hammerheads in that location. Mr. Giles will have to talk with Trinity to obtain more property from them for the turnaround to be permanent. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to continue the public hearing to February 10, 2004. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Review/Approve Spruce Street Area Draft AUAR The AUAR reviewed impacts such as natural, environmental, traffic, etc. In an AUAR, the land use of the property is determined and then the impacts on the land. Staff asked the Planning Commission for comments on the AUAR. Staff proposed the AUAR go to the Council on January 20, 2004. Then there is a 30- day review period by various agencies. It is also published in the EQB Monitor. The comments should be received by the end of February/early March. A final AUAR document is expected in March or April. Planning Conunission Minutes January 13,2004 Page 2 . One of the major issues is the Vermillion River which is designated as a trout stream. There are new trout stream requirements by the MPCA that the developer needs to follow. This will be in the mitigation plan. Another issue is the number of road and trail crossings over the river shown on the Master Plan. There are also traffic issues concerning 220th Street. It is proposed in the East-West Corridor Study for Dakota County as being a 4-lane road. Commissioner Johnson noted the maps do not show the 100 ft barrier along the river which would affect the southern east-west collector. He would like to see what will have to be done to adjust that. Staffwill review that issue. Chair Rotty appreciated the land owners agreed to have the AUAR done as one group. This will be a nice addition to the city allowing commercial growth and tying it into the downtown. He felt the trout stream will be preserved. We need to continue to plan ahead for traffic needs. He supported sending the AUAR to the City Council. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to forward the Spruce Street Area AUAR to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Discussion of September 15 Planning Commission Meeting The meeting calendar needs to be revised to show the September Planning Commission meeting on September 15th instead of the 14th. . c) Discussion of Spruce Street Design Standards The Spruce Street Commercial and Business Park design standards were changed in May 2002. Staff presented some proposed design standards. These have not been sent to the developers, property owners, or the task force. Staffwanted to talk to the Planning Commission first. When the document is closer to being finalized, it will be distributed to others. Staff proposed the design standards no longer be business park and Spruce Street Commercial. The Spruce Street Commercial, mixed-use, and business flex will be combined and have components from those. The north-south corridor leads to the town square from CSAH 50. It is proposed to have businesses on both sides of the north-south corridor. . Site Development Standards: All materials shall be stored and/or warehoused within the principal building. Dumpsters should be screened. The outside storage such as Menards Apple Valley was discussed, and the fact that there is a wall around the materials. Staff is prepared to be flexible with this. Commissioner Johnson felt location would dictate as to what or how much is allowed for outdoor storage. Staff asked if the Commission was interested in limiting outdoor displays in front of the building, such as snowblowers, etc. The Commission felt some of that is temporary and they did not want to be so restrictive that they would turn people away. Planning Commission Minutes January 13,2004 Page 3 . Sidewalks are proposed to be 15 feet wide. Downtown sidewalks are 12 feet. 15 feet would allow room for outdoor cafes. The brick pavers would look the same as the downtown and have the same pattern. Walkways bordering parking areas would be 8 feet. Landscaping, benches, signage would have a unified look with downtown. Screening of service yards, refuse and waste-removal areas should be screened with walls, fencing, dense planting, etc. Lighting will be uniform with the downtown area. Along the north-south corridor developers will have to come up with two on-site amenities such as a patio and plaza with decorative pavers, gathering places, water features, etc. They could also have mini-parks, squares or greens, a protected walkway or arcade, or a water feature such as a pond or fountain. Developers will be asked for these ideas to be included in the site concept. These areas would have to be provided for right away, however this has not been discussed by the Development Committee. Staff may require these amenities be done in the first phase of development. . Bicycle racks should be provided near building entrances. The commission suggested having islands jutting out for the bike racks so the sidewalk would still be 15 feet. Architectural Standards: Any building face and yard that abuts CSAH 50, Spruce Street, or Pilot Knob shall be considered a front and shall have a higher degree of aesthetic treatment. Buildings and/or the streetscape are required to be designed with a unifying design theme that promotes similar design features that occur on the north/south corridor and mixed-use district. The developers will have to think ahead as far as elevations of buildings and architectural treatments. Whatever is planned for the buildings on the north-south corridor will also have to be on the buildings along CSAH 50. The Planning Commission will be crucial in determining exterior elevations in the north-south corridor. The major exterior surfaces shall be architecturally treated concrete, cast in place panels, decorative block, etc. This requirement is contained in the city code. . For every tenant space along the building fa~ade length along the north-south corridor, they have to have modulated and articulated wall planes and roof lines. Staffis hoping some of the properties go in and out at least 6 inches or more. Two tenants would have to have different planes. This is to make it look like they are different buildings. Staffwants to avoid a long expanse of wall that is completely flat broken up into separate rental units that all look the same. Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2004 Page 4 . All buildings shall be constructed with 2 stories. This may have to be reviewed, as staff would not oppose a 3-story building. The marketing agent has informed staff that for at least two of the buildings along the north/south corridor, they have decided to build 2-story buildings with office space above. Staff wants to avoid buildings that all look different with nothing that ties them together. It could be as simple as a band of stone at the same height on each building, or it could be signage. Commissioner Barker liked the idea of being unified but was concerned about the first developer being able to set the standard for the rest of the developers. Staff replied this is only regarding the north-south corridor. All buildings will not have to be identical, but they should have a recurring motif, a unifying design theme. Windows shall be provided on walls that are adjacent to public or private right-of- ways, parking lots, and sidewalks. The buildings should have either awnings/canopies or projecting signs peIpendicular to the building. This is a move back to how signs used to be. The commission asked about directional signs within the development. This is currently allowed in the city code and staffwill review that option. . Buildings shall be designed with public entrances along public and private streets and parking areas. All entrances along the north-south corridor and along major roads within the Mixed-Use District shall be considered the front entrance of the tenant space. The tenants can decide if they want another entrance from the parking lot. . All applications shall comply with the requirements of Section 10-6-23(E) of the City Code for Site Plan Review. Site characteristics to be evaluated for this purpose include building and plant materials, colors, textures, shapes, massing, rhythms of building components and details, height, roof-line and setback. The Planning Commission will determine if these requirements are met. Chair Rotty asked if this would be a discussion item at the Planning Commission meeting or a public hearing. Staff replied a public hearing is not required. The developers and property owners would be in attendance. The Heritage Preservation Commission has also expressed an interest in having an opportunity to review the design standards. This is due to the emphasis that has been placed on new areas reflecting the downtown architecture. They understand they do not have any final authority with regard to the appearance of structures in new areas. But they do have enough interest to want to have some sort of role in the process. A copy of the design standards will be provided to the HPC before the next Planning Commission meeting, as the next meeting may be a public hearing on the design standards. This would provide the HPC an opportunity to provide comments to staff and to come to the public hearing. Chair Rotty stated the Planning Commission welcomes the HPC's comments. There is a lot of expertise there on designs. Commissioner Johnson asked if another insignificant hurdle is being added and whether what the Planning Commission is doing is cosmetic. Chair . . . Planning Commission Minutes January 13,2004 Page 5 Rotty stated when the workshops were held several years ago, it was the Planning Commission that pushed for high standards. It may add some time to the length of meetings, but it needs to be done. Staff also mentioned that corner buildings shall be distinguishable from the remainder of the building through towers, architectural treatments, arches, roof forms, or size and mass. Commissioner Johnson asked if 4-story buildings are allowed for mixed-use. Staffreplied mixed-use is residential on the second floor. Staff proposed a building height of 45 feet. Commissioner Barker asked regarding 2-story buildings and the variability in roof line heights, if that locked people into 2-story buildings. He did not want to be locked in to just 2 stories. Staff suggested saying up to 35 or 45 feet. Staff could also eliminate 2nd story and say upper or highest story. 4. Adjourn MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, /~. .~#. ~'7~ ~:)P' v.t.A:4.fi-' CCynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting February 10, 2004 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson, Richter Members Absent: None Also Present: David Urbia, City Administrator; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Tina Schwanz, Planning Intern; Matt Stordahl, Engineer 2. Election of Officers MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to nominate Dirk Rotty as Chair. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to nominate Ben Barker as Vice Chair. 3. Approval of Minutes a) January 13, 2004 MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the January 13,2004 Minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson. Abstain: Richter. MOTION CARRIED. 4. Public Hearings a) Conditional Use Permit - Home Occupation to Open a Barbershop Applicant: Diane Wiggert, 20075 Dunbar Avenue Ms. Wiggert has applied for a conditional use permit to open a barbershop in her home. The current zoning is R-l. The applicant meets the criteria contained in the code. A 2 ft x 2 ft sign will be allowed. Ms. Wiggert will have a small sign by the house directing customers to the entrance. She will not be hiring any other employees. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to approve the conditional use permit. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. East Farmington 8th Addition Preliminary and Final Plat Applicant: Tim Giles, Giles Properties, Inc. Mr. Giles proposes to plat 33 single family lots north of the East Farmington Addition. The parcel is zoned R-2. Lots will be a minimum of 6,000 sq. ft., with minimum lot widths of 60 feet. The maximum lot coverage is 30%. With the smaller lots, some homes are so large there is no room for sheds or decks. b) Conditions are as follows: 1. Require the developer to outlot the lots shown within the existing wetland. The developer has met this requirement by removing 6 lots shown in the wetland. 2. The developer obtain a temporary hammerhead easement from St. Francis to the north. Emergency vehicles and solid waste vehicles require a turnaround. Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2004 Page 2 The developer has shown them as temporary easements. Staff is requiring the developer provide for the location of the hammerheads until roadway connections are constructed, if ever, to the north through the St. Francis property. If the roadway connections are not provided, the hammerheads will remain permanent. Staff is adamant they want to see a hammerhead as a permanent structure or there will be roadway connections to the north. St. Francis has agreed to the easements. 3. Developer obtain a permanent drainage and utility easement along the north side of the 8th Addition property. 4. The Developer address the site line issues along 9th Street. There are sight line issues with two lots with backing out of the driveway. Staffis asking the Developer install appropriate signage as recommended by the Traffic Engineer, install turnarounds in each of the driveways for the two lots, and ensure the boulevard tree placement does not interfere with sight lines. The trees might have to be put on private property. 5. The hammerheads need to be 120 ft. wide as required on the standard city plate. 6. The Developer remove the temporary wording from the hammerhead turnaround on sheet 5 of the plans. Staff wants the hammerhead to be permanent or have a road connection in the future. 7. The Developer shows the future trail on the landscape plan. It should be noted there will be an 8 ft. bituminous trail running east and west. 8. The trail on the west side of the pond needs to be relocated to the back lot lines of lots 1, 2, and 3 in block 4. 9. The Developer provide language in the purchase agreement for each lot informing the buyer that lot coverage issues may not allow for a deck, shed, etc. on the lot. Mr. John Anderson, Giles Properties, stated they are in agreement with the contingencies. They have also spoken with St. Francis and they are in agreement with the easement. St. Francis does want the access for potential development in the future. They have no issues with the trees or turnarounds. They will be building the homes themselves. They will move the lot line for the three lots in question so the trail will be outside ofthe lot. Chair Rotty noted Mr. Anderson does not have the easement in writing, but has a letter from St. Francis agreeing to the easement. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the plat, it goes to Council. Council can consider the plat even if the easement documents have not been signed. The Council's approval would be contingent upon getting those documents. The plat would not be recorded until the easement documents are received. . . Commissioner Larson asked about the backyard/common space, if it would be consistent with the rest of the area. Mr. Anderson replied no, there will be two lots that are a little longer than the rest. Staff stated there was no park requirement, it was not part ofthe PUD. Commissioner Richter asked if the development would be part ofthe association. Staff replied no, it was not part of . Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2004 Page 3 . the PUD. Commissioner Johnson was concerned since they are unsure where the trails are going and uncertain about lot B being developed where the wetland is, he requested the owners abutting the property be notified there is the potential for having six more lots there. Mr. Tim Giles replied as soon as Bonestroo has the area figured out, he will be back for approval of the lots, possibly in June. Commissioner Richter asked if the pond would have to be moved, or if it would stay where it is. Engineer Matt Stordahl replied the pond right now is a borrow pit for the remainder of East Farmington. Because it was oversized, the area in the center is the wetland area. The area to the north is the proposed pond. It will be reconfigured, but maintain a similar look. Chair Rotty stated if they did not have anything from St. Francis in writing, he would be uncomfortable with sending this to the Council. City Planner Smick stated if the developer and engineer want to meet the requirements for the February 17, 2004 Council Meeting, the revisions need to be in by February 12, 2004. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Richter, second by Larson to fOlWard a favorable recommendation to the City Council on the East Farmington 8th Addition Preliminary and Final Plat along with the contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Amendment to Section 10-6-21 of the City Code Concerning the Spruce Street Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Business/Flex Design Standards Staffhighlighted some of the Spruce Street design standards. . Sidewalks should be 15 ft wide along the north-south corridor, and 8 ft wide for pedestrian walkways bordering the off-street parking. The lighting will be similar to the downtown with banners and hanging baskets. For each development one amenity per 10 acres of net developable land shall be required and installed at the time of construction. Bike parking racks shall be installed at 10% of the total number of automobile spaces within the development. Buildings and/or streetscapes shall reflect a unifying design theme that incorporates features found along the north/south corridor and within the mixed- use district. Staff and the Planning Commission shall determine whether development proposals satisfy this requirement. . Developers of buildings located along the north/south corridor and within the mixed-use district shall be encouraged to use fa~ade variations to differentiate separately leased commercial spaces. If this is not practical, facades shall be designed to reflect variations at intervals of not less than 20 feet nor more than 40 feet. Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2004 Page 4 False windows will be allowed. There are also provisions for projecting signs and . awnings. For commercial buildings located along the north/south corridor, each separate ground-level tenant space shall have at least one public entrance that faces the north/south corridor. For buildings located within the mixed-use district, each separate ground-level commercial tenant space shall have at least one public entrance that faces the nearest major public or private street. Developers are encouraged to also provide public entrances adjacent to off-street parking areas. Commissioner Richter raised a question regarding the wording under facades and whether it should read "shall use fa((ade variations to differentiate separately leased commercial spaces." It was decided to strike the words "be encouraged to" and place a clause at the beginning "unless otherwise agreed to by the Community Development Department, Developers of buildings along the north/south corridor and mixed-use district shall use fa((ade variations to differentiate. . .". Staff also informed the Commission that there could be some changes to the paragraph regarding fronts of buildings. More precise wording could be added giving the Developer more guidance. The Commission was comfortable with staff doing this. Mr. Patrick Garofalo, 5997 193rd Street West, stated he is a resident and member of the Heritage Preservation Commission. The HPC is very interested in the . Spruce Street Corridor development and specifically its effect on future design standards for the city. He asked about all buildings being constructed with one story or more and what considerations were taken into account for not requiring additional stories. Staff replied the north/south corridor should look like a downtown area. The Developer was initially inclined to build one-story buildings along the north/south corridor. Staff explained their desire to have two-story buildings or buildings that look like two stories. The Developer is beginning to come around to that idea. There are four buildings that are each a block long. At least two of those buildings will be two stories with offices in the upper level. Staff would also be receptive to having housing in the upper level. Staffhas encouraged the Developer to build two-story buildings, but if the Developer feels the spaces could not be filled, they will at least make them look like two stories. Chair Rotty thanked Mr. Garofalo for his comments and stated the Commission looks forward to working with the HPC. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . Planning Commission Minutes February 10,2004 Page 5 . . . 5. d) Amendment to Section lO-6-3(B) Subd. 5 adding (c) and (e) of the City Code Concerning Business Directional Signs and Projecting Signs The title has been changed to Spruce Street Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Business/Flex Zoning Districts. A statement has been added stating business directional signs are allowed within a development at no more than 2 sq. ft. in sign area to direct traffic to business locations. Regarding projecting signs: 1. No advertising signage is allowed, only the name of the establishment. 2. The sign shall be perpendicular to the surface ofthe building and no more than 1 ft in thickness. 3. The sign may project no more than 4 ft. from the front edge of the building and be no more than 12 sq. ft. in area. 4. The bottom ofthe sign should be at least 8 ft. above sidewalk grade. 5. Signs shall be approved by the Planning Commission during the sign permit application process. 6. The signs may be lit with extemallighting only and comply with code. 7. Signs may not extend over a public right-of-way or public property (except a sidewalk or trail portion) unless by conditional use. 8. Signs may not extend over a designated parking space or loading area. 9. Projecting box signs or cabinet signs are prohibited. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Discussion a) Site Plan Review - Pettis Properties Controlled Air has submitted a proposal to construct a 12,300 sq. ft. facility just north oftheir existing facility in the industrial park. The owner will use 3,000 sq. ft. for a warehouse, 3,000 sq. ft. for a showroom in the front, and 6,300 sq. ft. to be leased. The building will be constructed with insulated precast concrete walls. A loading dock is proposed along the northwest corner and will be screened with landscape materials. The plan meets code requirements for setbacks, lot coverage, lot area, and parking requirements. The following needs to be addressed: - The application for a sign permit needs to be submitted. - Provide detail for a proposed trash enclosure. The Building Official has asked the trash enclosure be relocated as it is too close to an opening. - One tree and three shrubs need to be shown along the border of the perimeter parking. - Sod limits. - All parking lots located in the front of the building or street right-of-way need to be curbed. - All parking areas, driveways and loading docks shall be surfaced with asphalt or concrete pavement. Mr. Jeff Pettis stated he would comply with these contingencies. Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2004 Page 6 Staff stated at the HRA meeting, the connection between the two parking lots was . discussed. Currently both buildings will be owned by the same company. The HRA asked Mr. Pettis ifhe would be willing to have a cross-access agreement recorded against both parcels to ensure the connection will be maintained in the future. Without the agreement, if one building was sold to another owner and they did not want the connection, he could close it off. Staff asked this agreement be made as an additional contingency. MOTION by Richter, second by Barker to approve the Pettis Properties Site Plan with the above contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Discussion of MUSA Applications Staffhas received 14 MUSA applications for 19 parcels. This covers 2,487 acres. There are 744.33 acres available until 2010. The MUSA Committee will be meeting with property owners or developers on February 25,2004. Commissioner Barker asked if the city can require which portion of the acreage would be approved. Staffreplied that staff would indicate where the MUSA will be allocated. 6. Adjourn MOTION by Richter, second by Larson to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Co, ~~ r7n~~ ~thia Muller Executive Assistant Approved . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting March 9, 2004 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson, Richter Members Absent: None Also Present: Lee Smick, City Planner; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner; Tina Schwanz, Planning Intern 2. Approval of Minutes a) February 10, 2004 MOTON by Larson, second by Johnson to approve the February 10, 2004 Minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Amend a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Special Events Associated with a Bed and Breakfast The Bed and Breakfast is located at 520 Oak Street and owned by Steve and Lisa Bolduc. They are requesting allowing special events such as weddings and receptions, company parties, tea parties, and historical event tours. The request also includes 10-12 events per year limited to I event per week. The hours of operation would be Monday-Thursday 10 a.m. - 9 p.m. and Friday and Saturday 10 a.m. - 11 p.m. with a maximum of 40 people if the event is outdoors and 25 people if the event is indoors. Parking is allowed on both sides of 6th Street and on the north side of Oak Street. Parking is not allowed on the south side of Oak Street. The applicant is requesting the no parking on the south side of Oak Street be waived for special events. However, the Planning Commission does not have the authority to make this decision. A public hearing notice was sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the property. Staffhas received one letter from an adjacent property owner that has raised concerns about parking, times of events, if music will be allowed and what kind, if alcohol is permitted, and how often the events will occur. A petition has also been received opposing the special events. Mr. Steve Bolduc stated the purpose of this is to get exposure for the bed and breakfast. They are not actually open yet. He feels it would be a wonderful opportunity to get people used to having a Bed and Breakfast there. Also for historical significance to have historical tours and historical weddings. Everything that is done will be done according to the time the house was actually built, an 1800's theme. Music will be held to a small instrumental group with 1-4 string or wood instruments. They also requested for company parties if there will be alcohol the customer would have to get a wine and champagne permit from the Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2004 Page 2 city. This would not be furnished by the Bolduc's. As far as they are concerned there will be no alcohol allowed on the premises. Regarding parking, they will not be long-term or overnight events. To have 40 people outdoors could be a normal party for anyone to have. There would be 25 people allowed indoors. The opening will be Fall 2005. Special events will be held to 10-12 events for the year and 1 event per week. He feels this would bring back some of the historical significance of Farmington. . Chair Rotty stated the Commission has received a petition from 7 individuals and a letter from Tim and Kelly Dougherty, 517 Spruce Street. Mr. Earl Teporten, 521 Oak Street, stated their property is directly north of the Bolduc's. They would be impacted as much if not more than any of the surrounding homes. He has no objection to having the conditional use permit approved. The surrounding neighbors have a concern over a lot of different issues. Mr. Teporten hoped the Commission would grant the approval for one year on a trial basis. If it does not work out, it could be revisited in a year. There is a lot of speculation and it does not seem fair to stop the Bolduc's from having this. Their intention is to have a Bed and Breakfast. That will bring traffic, but they are only talking about 40 people at the most. He does not think it will be a big impact. Commissioner Larson asked if Mr. Teporten was in agreement with the hours. Mr. Teporten replied yes. If some of the neighbors have a problem, perhaps they could invite the neighbors. The Bolduc's are very low keyed. The events will be very subdued and if they are not, there are all sorts of ordinances in . place to deal with that. He would like the Commission to give them the benefit of the doubt rather than speculate and worry about things that have not happened. City Planner Smick stated the Bolduc's are asking for hours of Monday-Thursday from 10 a.m. - 9 p.m. and Friday and Saturday from 10 a.m. - 11 p.m. Mr. Teporten still had no problem. The parking is on his side of the street so they would be impacted quite a bit. He felt allowing parking on the south side of the street would be a bad move, as it is a narrow street. Mr. Ray Juveland, 420 6th Street, stated he lives directly behind the Bolduc's. He is concerned about the parking. There are four driveways across the street on 6th Street so there is not much room for parking. Once something like this opens up, it started at 125 - 150 people, the last letter from the City said 45-50 people, and now it is down to 40 people. He did not think a residential neighborhood was the place for something like this. He knew their intentions were good, but good intentions do not always follow through. There is the possibility of liquor and who knows what the hours will be. With 40 people, you do not know what kind of people they will be. He feels it will reduce the value of their property. He has lived there for 37 years and not had a problem until now. The Commission has also received Mr. Juvland's letter. Ms. Sharon Olszewski, 419 6th Street, stated she is concerned about the parking. Sixth Street has the apartment building with cars going in and out and they . Planning Commission Minutes March 9,2004 Page 3 . sometimes park on the street. There is a blue house that has a car in the driveway and a car on the street. Regarding the liquor, she asked how the conditional use for liquor works. Assistant City Planner Atkinson stated they are required to have a liquor license. There is a Temporary Liquor License which is approved administratively. A full liquor license would have to be approved by the City Council. The Planning Commission does not approve or deny a liquor permit. Ms. Olszewski asked if the neighbors would know if that was obtained. City Planner Smick stated a liquor license is obtained annually in December or January. Ms. Olszewski could check with the City to see if a permit has been obtained. Ms. Olszewski stated she did not understand what a conditional use permit was. City Planner Smick stated staffwill ask the applicant to obtain a liquor license as a contingency to the conditional use permit. If they do not get one, their conditional use permit could be in jeopardy. . Mr. Steve Bolduc wanted to clarify they are not talking about strong alcohol. They are talking about champagne and wine. He asked if a permit was issued, would it be issued to whoever is having the event. City Planner Smick stated if they are going to have special events throughout the year, they are acting like a business, so they would have to get an annual license for liquor. Staffwill need to check with the attorney as to who the license would be issued to. Mr. Bolduc wanted to make it clear they are making the house available to people who would like to use the house. They are not talking about having events or parties specifically as a business. He is talking about champagne and wine, groups of 25 or less in the house, and 40 or less outside. They are talking about a small string instrumental group. The size of attendance is no larger than a private person may have in their home and serve liquor. They have had private parties in their own home where they have served liquor and do not know if it has disturbed any neighbors. They are not out to make it a bar or a dance club. They are offering this to the community as another place to experience the historical significance of Farmington. City Planner Smick wanted to make it clear, Mr. Bolduc is the owner of the Bed and Breakfast which is a quasi business so you would be the owner, you are profiting from that, so you most likely would have to get a liquor license. Staffwill check with the City Attorney. Even though they are not selling liquor, they are profiting from the event. Mr. Bolduc stated if a liquor license will be a problem, then he would agree to a no liquor clause. He does not want to get a liquor license for selling wine and champagne, he stated he is not selling it. He does not want to have anything to do with the liquor business. If someone wants to have it, they have to go to the City to get a temporary permit. He will not furnish it. City Planner Smick asked if Mr. Bolduc would be against staff recommending he obtain a liquor license if alcohol is served on the property. Mr. Bolduc stated he would be against that and would not allow it. They do not allow liquor at these events and if they want wine or champagne they must go for a temporary permit from the City. City Planner Smick stated that is the catch. Staff needs to contact the City Attorney whether Mr. Bolduc, as the owner ofthe property needs to obtain the liquor license or the people holding the special event need to obtain the license. Mr. Bolduc asked if someone decides they want to . Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2004 Page 4 have food brought in, will he have to obtain a permit to have food catered in? He . is not a restaurant. He stated this is also a private home. City Planner Smick stated this is a little different than a private home because there is a business being run out of a private home. Mr. Bolduc stated if this is going to be a contingency on whether they will be allowed to have a special event permit, they will not allow liquor. He will pull the champagne and wine request, but not the request for special events. Commissioner Barker stated even ifit is not part ofthe CUP, ifthey decide to serve alcohol, the City will require a permit and he can decide at that time. City Planner Smick stated if Mr. Bolduc is not interested in obtaining a liquor license then that will be removed as part of the conditions. If a special event requests liquor, they will have to get a temporary liquor license. Mr. Juvland asked why they are asking for the CUP now and not opening until 2005. Chair Rotty stated Mr. Bolduc will have to respond. Mr. Bolduc stated they are doing this so they can get some recognition for becoming a Bed and Breakfast, the T.C. Davis House. They are still under construction and feel it will take that long to get things ready. Chair Rotty asked ifhe felt the special events will be part of the success or failure of the Bed and Breakfast. Mr. Bolduc feels it would be a good promotion piece for the house. As much exposure they can get for the business, the better. Some historians have asked if they could have checker matches there. Commissioner Richter asked how many people they plan on have staying there. . Mr. Bolduc stated there will be three rooms, so two people per room. Mr. Earl Teporten, 521 Oak Street, stated there is another Bed and Breakfast in town and they have special events there. They served champagne at the Akin House. He asked if any residents voiced concern at that time. Chair Rotty stated he did not recall a hearing for special events, but does recall a hearing for the Bed and Breakfast. He would have to go back to the minutes. Mr. Teporten then asked, when individuals take up a petition, do they have to give their address. It would have helped to see where these people live in relation to the Bed and Breakfast. Chair Rotty stated he has seen petitions done in many different ways. This petition states the undersigned objected to the business holding special events in our residential neighborhood as asked for by the Bolduc's. It then lists seven names. Mr. Teporten asked if they are residents of Farmington. Chair Rotty stated he knows all but two and they do live in the area. Ms. Kelly Dougherty, 517 Spruce Street, hoped the Bed and Breakfast was successful. She is concerned with the special events, will the neighbors be notified. She would not want to be mowing the lawn if someone is getting married, or children being loud. Commissioner Barker asked ifthe applicant would be willing to let the neighbors know ahead oftime. He would like to see that as a condition. Chair Rotty asked the Commission if they support the application and if they would like to speak on . Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2004 Page 5 . some of the contingencies. Commission Barker stated he supports the application. Staff provided a couple suggestions for conditions, such as the time for Sunday-Thursday 10 a.m. - 8 p.m. and Friday and Saturday 10 a.m. - 10 p.m. The entertainment would not be more than four performers and only be wind and string instruments and amplification would not be permitted. He is in favor of this. One suggestion was a trial period, he would be in favor of this also. Commissioner Johnson stated he would be in favor of this and agreed with making it a temporary issue. As someone who has rambunctious neighbors on weekends, after you call the police once it is not registered until a second time. If there is a problem with the neighbors how would we keep track of that. City Planner Smick stated there will be conditions with the conditional use permit. There are residents in the audience that if they have any difficulties they should call the Planning Department. There is a Conditional Use Permit that may be approved for special events, and if they are violating any of these conditions, call the Planning Department. That is the only way staffwill know they are violating their Conditional Use Permit. . Chair Rotty stated if it is granted on a temporary basis, how do you measure the success of it. Is it based on number of resident complaints, or exceeding the number of guests allowed. What measures will the Commission use to determine if it is a success or failure and ifit has to be denied. Mr. Teporten stated if the conditions are being violated, he will be back. But give them the benefit of the doubt. Leaving it to the residents is a good idea. None of us want the value of our homes to be negatively impacted. We all have concerns, but give them the benefit of the doubt for a year and then we can come back. Chair Rotty stated the parking has been mentioned. One resident has a problem with the parking and another does not. How does the Commission measure that? Mr. Teporten replied there is no formula. You use judgment. Commissioner Barker stated staff proposed a trial period of three months or five events, whichever occurred first. Assistant City Planner Atkinson stated if they are in violation of the conditions, such as events getting over at midnight, that is a violation. They have to stay within the parameters of their approval. If people are blocking driveways or parking illegally, that would be a problem. If the events are annoying, that would be a judgment call. If they stay within the parameters, it should not be out of control. Mr. Bolduc stated the Akin House had a grand opening and held an open house. He did not want to be violating the permit if they have a grand opening and there is more than 40 people coming through. . Commissioner Johnson stated it is a great location and is all for it. It is up to the neighbors and the owners to keep an eye on the parking. Commissioner Larson stated he does not have a problem with it. He thought more people would comment on the ending times of9 p.m. and 11 p.m. He felt the restrictions are Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2004 Page 6 fair and is in favor of the trial basis. He does not see anything but small, quiet . gatherings. City Planner Smick asked if the residents have a problem with ending events at 9 p.m. weekdays and 11 p.m. on weekends, because staff is recommending shortening the time by one hour. Mr. Bolduc did not have a problem with shortening the ending time by one hour. Commissioner Richter felt this would be wonderful and did not oppose it with the conditions. She agreed with the one-year trial period. Chair Rotty encouraged having a Bed and Breakfast. What he looks at is we have a neighborhood that was all residential, we introduced a Bed and Breakfast, and he looks at not infringing on the neighborhood. That what they have they can continue to have and that their lifestyle is not impacted in a negative way. He puts himself in the situation. He is not against it. If we proceed with the special events, he would agree that it be done only on a trial basis and that the residents that live around there have a great deal to say on whether it continues or not. It puts a great deal on Mr. Bolduc to control things, but he is the one that is profiting from this. Chair Rotty is concerned that ifit is approved, once the trial basis is over, we have the same group of people and the same people had trouble with the parking, etc. But they say they are good events, we are back in the same place. Chair Rotty stated Mr. Bolduc is on notice that if the residents say it hurt their lifestyle or infringed on the neighborhood, he will not support the continuation. Chair Rotty would like to go with the staff recommendation on the time, the applicant would like to pull the liquor license request, but it does not mean he . could not get one at a later date. He recommended a maximum of 12 events per year. City Planner Smick summarized the following conditions: 1. Special events shall be allowed between the hours of 10 a.m. - 8 p.m. Sunday - Thursday and 10 a.m. - 10 p.m. Friday and Saturday. 2. The Planning Commission shall review the impact of special events after one year of operation. 3. The applicant shall not exceed 40 persons per event held outdoors and 25 persons per event held indoors. The applicant shall maintain documentation of all guests attending and provide such documentation to the City upon request. 4. Musical entertainment shall be limited to not more than 4 performers and shall include only wind andlor string instruments. Amplification of any kind shall not be permitted. 5. Maximum of 12 events per year, but not limited to one per month for the year and limited to one event per week. 6. Notify neighbors of upcoming events. Chair Rotty did not know how this would be done or how it would be enforced and how far away should residents be notified. Commissioner Barker intended this to be a courtesy between neighbors in the form of a flyer. It was decided to remove this as a contingency. 7. All the other conditions approved for the Bed and Breakfast on April 8, 2003 remain in effect. . . . . Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2004 Page 7 Mr. & Mrs. Bolduc agreed with these conditions. MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Richter, second by Barker to allow special events in conjunction with the Bed and Breakfast at 520 Oak Street. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, /.' ~ ~c.; . - :;e~~ /?'?e:.<-~ ..,/ ynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting April 13, 2004 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson, Richter Members Absent: None Also Present: Lee Smick, City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) March 9, 2004 MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the March 9, 2004 Minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) East Farmington 9th Addition Preliminary & Final Plat Mr. Tim Giles is the developer and is proposing to plat six single-family lots that were originally outlotted in the East Farmington 8th Addition. They were outlotted due to a wetland issue that needed to be resolved. Staff gave Mr. Giles the information on how to file a wetland exemption form. He received this exemption for the 8th Addition, however there is still a wetland which encompasses the 9th Addition. Mr. Giles will need to do a wetland mitigation plan. Staff has until May 15 to make a decision on the plan, however staffwill request a 60 day extension that would go to July 15. Staff recommended the plat be continued to the May 11, 2004 Planning Commission meeting until the wetland mitigation plan has been approved by reviewing agencies. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to continue the public hearing to the May 11, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Johnson wanted to know if the Commission felt staff should be directed to look at increasing the square footage of the lots in the R-2 zoning district due to the size of the homes and people wanting decks and sheds after the fact. With the size of the homes, he felt they were running out of green space. Commissioner Rotty recalled there have been a few instances where they have given conditional uses. He felt they would also have to look at the impact on other zoning districts. Staff will review this issue. 4. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, -:::;t;;;7 (1', ~:/~ ;n/ldfd-u , ~77Vt:4"U<'~ <--Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved t#ry / II ViJf . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting May 11, 2004 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Larson, Richter Members Absent: Johnson Also Present: Lee Smick, City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) April 13, 2004 MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to approve the April 13, 2004 Minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) East Farmington 9th Addition Preliminary and Final Plat (continued) Staff requested this be continued to the June 8 Planning Commission meeting as some additional work needs to be done on the wetland mitigation issue. A 60-day extension has been sent to Mr. Giles which will expire on July 15. After that date staffwill have to recommend denial. MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to continue the public hearing to June 8, 2004. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Farmington Gateway Shopping Center Planned Unit Development Applicant: Jon Einess, Schwiness, LLC Mr. Jon Einess is seeking approval of the final PUD Agreement to construct a 9,660 sq. ft. retail commercial building on lot 1, block 1 of Dakota County Estates 9th Addition. A sidewalk is proposed along the west side of English Avenue. There is a trail along Pilot Knob Road. The building will front Upper 183rd Street. The liquor store is planning on relocating from across the street to this shopping center. They will occupy 4700 sq. ft. on the west side of the building. There are 4900 sq. ft. on the east side of the building for other retail tenants. The liquor store will have an entry on Upper 183rd Street along with the other tenants. The trash enclosure is located in the southeast corner and it is possible they will move it closer to the middle of the building. Lakeville Sanitation will handle the cardboard recycling for the liquor store. Mr. Einess was also the developer for the Fannington Marketplace. The site will adjoin the Akin Hills Pet Hospital and Anchor Bank. They will have a shared access. Under the PUD Agreement, they have listed a number of proposed uses. Anything not on this list will have to be approved by the Planning Commission and Council as a Conditional Use. An amendment to the PUD Agreement will have to be presented if it is not in the B-1 zoning district. Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 2004 Page 2 The wall signs have to be a maximum of200 sq. ft. They are allowed a 26 ft. high pylon sign, but they are looking at a 24 ft. 8 in. sign to follow the topography so the sign will be the same height as the Farmington Marketplace. They are requesting a modification to the 50 ft. setback along Pilot Knob Road and are asking to place the sign 10ft. from the right-of-way easement. It is included in the PUD Agreement so a variance will not be needed. . There will be a berm and pines along English Avenue and the remainder of the property will be landscaped per city specifications. A public hearing for the PUD Agreement will be held at the May 17 Council meeting. Following are the modifications to the minimum requirements of the City Code: 1. The front yard setback for the pylon sign to be located 10ft. from the Pilot Knob Road right-of-way easement, instead ofthe minimum 50 ft. required setback; this is a deviation of 40 ft. 2. A third handicap parking space is required for the shopping center in order to meet the MN Accessibility Code. Mr. Einess stated this building will be mostly brick, using three different colors of brick. Chair Rotty asked if Mr. Einess planned to deviate from the allowed uses. Mr. . Einess felt any tenants would be on that list. Chair Rotty stated they try to not infringe on existing neighbors especially residential and was glad to see the berm and landscaping. MOTION by Richter, second by Barker to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the Farmington Gateway Shopping Center along with the two modifications. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Adjourn MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, /' '7;.__~7_ )-V7~~ ~.-c.~.<.4:.-- c(;'ynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved ~~~ wi . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting June 8, 2004 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Richter Members Absent: Larson Also Present: Lee Smick, City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) May 11, 2004 MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to approve the May 11, 2004 Minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Richter. Abstain: Johnson. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) East Farmington 9th Addition Preliminary and Final Plat (continued) Staff recommended this be continued to the July 13,2004 Planning Commission meeting. Work is still being done on the mitigation for the wetland. The developer has signed a consent to waive his rights for automatic approval after the extended period of 60 days. So the City is no longer under that 120 day requirement by state statute. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to continue the Public Hearing to July 13, 2004. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Farmington Spruce Street AUAR - Final AUAR - Responses to Comments The Spruce Street AUAR consists of 450 acres. The AUAR goes out to different agencies and they make a determination whether or not they will provide comments. Comments have been received from Friends of the Mississippi, Mississippi River, Metropolitan Council, MnDOT, DNR, Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District, Dakota County, PCA, and Northern Natural Gas. Commissioner Johnson asked about the status ofthe expansion ofHwy 3. Ms. Sherri Bus replied the status ofthe roadway has not changed. The City and other communities will need to work with the DOT to lobby for that status to change. It will affect the ability to build new neighborhoods along Hwy 3 and add additional traffic unless there is a change in status, turn lanes are built and intersections are changed. Council determined at the end ofthe last AUAR that they would start to work with the DOT through the Engineering staff to work on changing that status. Chair Rotty agreed this is the item he had the largest issue with. The Commission has raised the point before that some preliminary planning needs to go into the transportation. A major highway between this and the Seed property are being pushed to the limits. The fact that no funding has been identified for expansion of Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2004 Page 2 Hwy 3 within the next 20 years is a concern. He was glad the Council is being proactive and starting negotiations. Commissioner Richter asked about the roadway bridges over the Vermillion River and what will be done for those. Ms. Buss replied this is related to the trout stream and that will be decided as the City goes forward with designing the bridges and the storm water system. The City will need to get a permit from the DNR to cross the river. As a part of that permit the agencies will look at the bridge design and are already looking at preliminary designs. The Engineering and Planning staffhave been meeting with the Soil and Water District, the DNR, and others to start talking about the need for design. The Engineers feel they will be able to build the bridges so there will be no impact on the stream. The abutments will be outside the stream bed. There may be some minor impact to the floodplain that the City will need to mitigate for by creating a little more floodplain. The Engineers feel confident they will be able to build the bridges without any impact to the river, which is what the agencies will be looking for, and a minimum amount of crossings. Ms. Buss noted Dakota County suggested one more bridge was needed to handle traffic, and another comment from another group at the County saying there are too many bridges. This will be a serious issue throughout the project. As the City thinks about installing sewer and water pipes under the stream, there will have to be some review and discussion about how it will be done so it does not impact the bed of the stream. This gets down to the actual design of the infrastructure. Chair Rotty noted the Soil and Water District brought up erosion control and was sure everything possible would be done to mitigate any issues. He noted Dakota County mentioned land uses and possible disposal of hazardous waste. Ms. Buss replied there are a few sites where there have been issues in the past. One is Duo Plastics. City staff has been working with the County on the issue. There is a County highway building that has had some hazardous materials that spilled. As the land use changes in the future, there will need to be some cleanup. As development goes forward for any site where there has been an issue in the past, there will need to be a little investigation and a remediation plan written before residential units or other kinds of land uses can be built there. It needs to be determined whether soil needs to be taken away, or whether there needs to be a certain level of burial. Chair Rotty noted Dakota County referred to the extension of Pilot Knob on the west side. It is in their 2025 plan, and not yet in the CIP program. The City will have to work with the agencies to get that planned and built. Ms. Buss replied the environmental review documents become a good chance for communication between the City, County and other agencies to talk about other issues. Chair Rotty was uncertain about double left turn lanes and where this would be. Ms. Buss assumed it would be into the development off CR50. The City and developer will have to review the right-of-way. Chair Rotty appreciated the comments from the Friends of the Mississippi and stated everything possible would be done to maintain the trout population. Northern Natural Gas had possible issues with their easements. Ms. Buss replied after . . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2004 Page 3 Northern Natural Gas wrote the comments, they met with staff. Because this will be an urban or residential area there will need to be some changes in the pipes that will be very expensive. The cost will be shared among the rate payers for Northern Natural Gas. In the meeting, a lot ofthe issues were resolved. Chair Rotty recommended this be sent to the City Council. Ms. Buss stated staff is reviewing comments and it will go to Council on June 21. Once the Council approves it, the agencies have 10 days to object, and if they do not object then it is adopted. MOTION by Richter, second by Barker to send the Spruce Street AUAR to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Future Public Hearing Notices The July 13, 2004 meeting will contain five public hearing notices. There will be a hearing on variances, commercial vehicle parking ordinance, floodplain management ordinance, delete multi-family text from R-2 zoning district, and include mixed-use building as a conditional use in the B-2 zoning district. There will also be the newly revised Thoroughfare Plan which contains the area east of Akin Road, south of 195th Street, north of 20Sth Street, and over to the railroad tracks. This will be a Comprehensive Plan amendment. In addition there will be a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone for the comer of Elm Street and Hwy 3. Just south of Allina, there is a home that was purchased by a developer and he would like to change that from residential to business. Staff proposed this in 2002, however that was turned back because the owner wanted to remain in their home. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, /,7 '1 . ~ ./?' L~~~~'::"~ ~~<::Z~ .--;~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant /uir 1J,~z/ Approved . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting July 13, 2004 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson, Richter Members Absent: None Also Present: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner; Tina Schwanz, Planning Intern 2. Approval of Minutes a) June 8, 2004 MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to approve the June 8, 2004 Minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Richter. Abstain: Larson. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Amend 2020 Comprehensive Plan to Include Future Park and Open Space Map The Parks and Recreation Commission wanted to develop a systems plan that could be followed as development occurred. The goal was to create a vision for future parks, trails, facilities and open space. The following steps have been accomplished so far: - Amended the park dedication ordinance that identifies a new formula for computing parkland dedication requirements, trail funding and park development funding. - Developed a trail master plan that has been placed in the Comp Plan that identifies future trail locations. - Initiated a process of master planning the parks that involves community input in the design ofthe parks. - Conducted a needs study in what the community's recreational facility needs are and utilized a task force comprised of community members that determined those needs and also conducted a public open house to gather community input. The next step is to hold a public hearing for revising a map contained in the Comp Plan that identifies current and future parks and open space. Staff wanted to receive input from the public and the Planning Commission on the map. The Farmington Existing Parks, Trails and Open Space map focuses on developing a comprehensive system that includes trails, future parks and open spaces. The City will not purchase the land for parks now, but wait until development occurs and take the land through the park dedication process. The idea behind the location of the parks is that they are abutting adjacent land owners. This will provide the ability to enlarge the parks as areas are developed. The larger areas can be used Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2004 Page 2 for softball, baseball or soccer complexes. This will also provide space for a community center. Chair Rotty felt this will meet the community's needs in the future. It communicates the plans ofthe City to developers, property owners and residents where the community plans to go with its parks and trails. Commissioner Barker asked about the parcels butting up against another parcel, if the parks would be developed after both parcels are purchased. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied it is flexible. They are trying to encourage the community to get involved in planning the parks, particularly the residents in the neighborhood. The maps have already been distributed to the developers. Commissioner Johnson stated the parks identified are not set in stone. Staff replied it is somewhat floating, but not much. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council to update the Comprehensive Plan allowing the map for the parks and open space. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Amend 2020 Thoroughfare Plan Included in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan The area discussed is east of Akin Road and south of 195th Street. The map showed proposed roads through the area. The importance of the plan is so that as development occurs there are roads and connections in place. Staff brought this to the Commission through the MUSA process. Staff is not sure when or if the properties will be developed, but the owners are interested in developing. The MUSA Committee has recommended MUSA for the Manley property. A major component is 195th Street. The alignment has been changed to swing to the north. This is due to development in Empire and the right-of-ways were not secured in time. Another major east-west connection is 208th Street to Hwy 3. The internal roads will be minor collectors. The Traffic Engineer has said there should be three connections to Akin Road. They are at Devonport Drive, 203rd Street, and 198th Street. A letter was received from a resident talking about traffic controls on the west side of Akin at 203rd Street at Dunbar, and about development to the east of Akin Road and that perhaps the City is ahead ofthemselves and should keep the area natural. Mr. Dave Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, stated the main concern was if it cannot be done, then the development will have to be reviewed. To have three more connections to Akin Road, this road is a death trap the way it is. With three more connections it will be a suicide trap. There are already problems with the road. Traffic is backing up to 203rd Street. Mr. Pritzlaff also spoke about the speed . . . Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2004 Page 3 . limit on Akin Road. He felt instead of having three connections to Akin Road, there should be a main connection going to Hwy 3. . Ms. Sue Miller, 19962 Akin Road, when they bought their house in 1987, Akin Road was already an issue. As a County road the County would not allow anymore residential accesses (driveways) onto this road. The previous Planning Commissions did not want to see developments that accessed onto Akin Road. At some point we need to consider ongoing issues and have them addressed. Akin Road has had many new connections due to developments - I 95th Street, 19Sth Street, 203rd Street, Dyers Pass, Farmington Lutheran Church and the two schools. This has caused a lot of congestion on the road during the start and end of the schools, programs and events at the schools, churches and construction traffic, not to mention people have figured out Akin Road is a shortcut to Hwy 50. Nine months out of the year it is very difficult for people to get in and out of their driveways. There have been many accidents on this road because people do not pay attention to their surroundings or people ahead of them. It is completely unreasonable to add any additional accesses to Akin Road. The speed limit is 45 mph. Ms. Miller has waited in her driveway for as long as 10 minutes for a clear area to exit. If development must occur, use the access that are already existing. Ifpeople building south of 195th Street are aware of how they are going to corne and go they can make educated decisions on whether they want to build there or not. More traffic and more access points will be destructive to the people who live on this road. She realized that development is coming, and cannot stop it, but when City staff makes decisions for roads, they need to keep in mind the current situations that exist and ways to keep their residents safe. Putting in these two roads will not do that. It will create more traffic, more headaches for people that live along Akin Road as well as pedestrian traffic that must cross the street to access the walking path. She hoped the Planning Commission would take careful consideration ofthis thoroughfare plan and weigh any and all options before making a decision. . Mr. Brian Miller, 19962 Akin Road, asked why didn't City staff think about access to developable areas before developers are ready to begin. It will be going through wetland areas, going through neighboring communities and disrupting other people's lives. Community Development Director Carroll replied, your question pre-supposes that some developers have been allowed to develop out there. None have. They are in a MUSA process to determine whether or when these areas will develop. They cannot develop until they get MUSA, and if they do get MUSA they have to go through a platting process. No decisions have been made about development occurring. Mr. Miller stated when he first moved in, it was conservation. Now it is being changed over. Staff replied that area is now zoned restricted development. In the Comprehensive Plan this is identified as a residential area that will have certain types of features. Mr. Miller asked if there would be larger lot sizes. City Planner Smick replied the Comprehensive Plan does not state larger lot sizes, it is more high amenities that might mean larger lot sizes. Mr. Miller then asked why is it necessary to put another access Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2004 Page 4 approximately 300-400 yards south of 19Sth Street? Community Development Director Carroll replied the road connections are based on a number of factors. The primary one is anticipated traffic volumes. Spacing is another issue. They also look at elevation and wetlands. Mr. Miller then asked why City staff decided to go through the park preservation area. Staff replied City staffhas not decided to do anything. Staff is passing along to the Planning Commission and eventually the Council, the recommendations that an outside traffic consultant has made to City staff. Mr. Miller then asked how much of the wetlands, woods and marsh areas are going to be destroyed in order for the developments to gain access. Community Development Director Carroll replied a traffic plan like this shows general locations of roads. If the plan is adopted it indicates generally where the connections will be and generally where the road will go. As it is developed it may be necessary to fine tune it. Because of that, it is not appropriate at this stage to get into the impacts on wetlands because we do not know where the road alignment will be. If the concept plan is adopted, once development occurs, then roadway alignments will be determined and the impact on wetlands will be assessed. If a road went through a wetland area, the City would be obligated to mitigate for that. Mr. Miller asked how far will they have to dig down to reach good soil for filling with base material to keep the road from sinking. Staff replied it would be premature to do that at this stage. Mr. Miller asked what the projected cost will be to go through a wetland. Staff replied we do not know if any roads will be going through a wetland at this point, so it is premature. Mr. Miller asked who will pay for the access, the developers or the residents. Staff replied whenever you put in a public road the majority of the cost is attributed to the development. There would be some appraisals done to determine whether the cost of the road is equivalent to the benefit derived by the developing party. Mr. Miller asked if the City will be required to pay back the two to one requirement for wetland destruction or are cities exempt from this requirement. Community Development Director Carroll replied cities are subject to that. Mr. Miller stated if the City goes through with the thoroughfares in this wetland area, they will be destroying wildlife habitat that is becoming extinct in this City. He has been here since 1961. He has seen a lot of development and understands it. It is too bad we cannot start preserving a little of what we used to have. He moved in out there and thought he would stay there the rest of his life. He has seen so much destroyed, it is upsetting him. Commissioner Larson asked when Bonestroo did the study, was it necessary to have the three connections to Akin Road? Staff replied all three are required. Commissioner Larson stated since Akin Road has had so many changes, has there been an accident study? He would like more information. Before we put more traffic onto Akin Road, we need at least one access to Hwy 3. City Planner Smick stated we are preparing for the future. To be able to do this, 19Sth Street is a priority, but we also have to prepare for what is happening in the center. In the future, the Planning Commission and Council have the authority to say how quickly development will happen. Community Development Director Carroll stated the connection to Hwy 3 will not be a benefit to the people living in this . . . Planning Conunission Minutes July 13, 2004 Page 5 . area that want to go west. Commissioner Larson would like a study on the safety of the road since the changes have been made. Commissioner Barker liked it that we are planning ahead. As developments come in, that will allow 195th and 208th to go through. If traffic is getting backed up on Akin Road people will find alternate routes. Commissioner Johnson asked if they move the access point to Hwy 3, does that limit us to not having another access farther south, such as 203rd Street? Is there a potential for another access to Hwy 3? Staff replied no, because of the railroad. There cannot be anymore at grade crossings going east over the railroad. 19Sth Street would be on the north and 208th on the south. Commissioner Barker asked about connecting to Hwy 3 south of 195th. Staff replied it is based on the east- west corridor study done by the County. The line south of 195th Street on the east ofHwy 3 has just been platted by Heritage Development. They are preparing for a right-of-way along the north side of their property. That area is all platted. . Commission Johnson noted Akin does not really have any traffic controls. With the future development, there is the potential to address some of the traffic issues. Staff stated the traffic engineer has indicated that given the traffic counts, a stop sign would be placed at 198th Street. Currently, the warrants are not met. Commissioner Larson asked why only this area was picked to do the study and not areas A, B, and C on the MUSA map. Staff replied these areas already have a study done based on the master plan. Chair Rotty stated he raised concern at the MUSA Committee when this was presented because they showed 1500 lots and over 11,000 trips per day. He could remember when the residents said this was originally conservation land, and he was part of the process that rezoned it to restricted development. He did not envision it would create this many trips onto Akin Road. He agreed we need to plan ahead, but he would like the City to complete the process of creating roads that would take traffic east-west before we get too far into the planning of bringing more traffic north-south. Pilot Knob was to relieve a lot of traffic and now we are adding 1500 units where some may go over to Pilot Knob. He was not sure some ofthe planning was completed to get the east-west roads through. He was uncertain about this, and agreed with some of the residents. Are we sure we want to proceed rapidly with this type of development in this type of area? There are a lot of environmentally sensitive areas. This will impact a lot of residents in the northern part of the City. He would like to see more ability and more process. He was not comfortable with sending this on to Council and would like more time to review it. There are more steps he would like to see completed than there are now. . Mr. Dave Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, stated this is not a done deal. It is planning, and we are here for our future. He felt having a stop sign at 203rd Street will make it difficult to get out of his driveway. He suggested eliminating 198th Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2004 Page 6 Street and make a third access to 19Sth Street. He also suggested taking a road down to Hwy 50. Mr. Fred Vivie, 19920 Akin Road, asked why they don't finish Pilot Knob from 19Sth Street going south and making it four lanes. If it was four lanes, people would use it. He felt this should be looked at first. Commissioner Larson would like to table this. Commissioner Richter agreed. Commissioner Barker stated if the others want to table this, he will agree, but he is in favor of putting together a full plan. There are developments that will be coming in with MUSA. The only way to get 195th through is with developments. In order to look forward we need to put together a master plan so we can give this to the developers. Commissioner Johnson did not have a problem with tabling this item. If this is the best plan, then it needs to go forward. Items to be addressed include the size of the roads, and access to 19Sth Street. There has to be another answer besides putting everyone on Akin Road. If that is the only answer, then it is. He would like to see more accommodating roads going north. He liked the idea of dealing with this now. Commissioner Larson asked if it could be sent back to the Traffic Engineer to see if there is a way to relieve Akin Road from some of the pressure. Commissioner Richter would like to see an overlay map to see where people are already interested in developing. Staff stated after the MUSA Committee meeting, they will have a better idea as to which properties are likely to get MUSA. Then they would be able to provide a map. The Commission also asked for other options from the Traffic Engineer. Chair Rotty stated he has not seen a lot that has been completed in the thoroughfare plan that has alleviated any traffic on Akin Road. We have a plan that will put another S,OOO trips on the road. Some development does need to be done to the north to extend 195th Street. Commissioner Barker asked how long the Commission wanted to table this item and how does this affect things in terms of the Manley development and any future developments. Commissioner Johnson felt it would be a benefit to the Commission and the community to have a map similar to what we had for Spruce Street, just showing R-2, R-l, etc. Staff stated they are not at a point where they can show land uses. They can show environmentally sensitive land, wetlands, high water tables, etc. That would address the restricted development ideas that were in the Comprehensive Plan. The Parks plan will help with the environmentally sensitive areas, which will contain parks. Chair Rotty proposed having the Traffic Engineer attend a Planning Commission meeting and for residents to contact staff with their ideas. Chair Rotty wanted to give the residents more time to comment and the Planning Commission more time to review the item. MOTION by Rotty, second by Johnson to table this item to the August 10 Planning Commission Meeting. The Traffic Engineer should attend the meeting to explain some of the assumptions that were made and to give the MUSA Committee the opportunity to complete more of its work and have more things finalized in this area that will help the Commission make a better . . . Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2004 Page 7 . decision, and provide the residents an opportunity to comment further. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) East Farmington 9th Addition Preliminary and Final Plat (continued) Applicant: Giles Properties, Inc. The wetland mitigation plans have been received. The plat will impact .92 acres of wetland and contains 6 lots. The contingency was to comply with John Smyth's memo of July 6,2004 which states the pond should be designed a certain way and there should be wetland plantings. Mr. John Anderson, of Giles Properties, explained the wetland situation. Commissioner Johnson asked ifthere would be decks. Mr. Anderson replied the square footage of the house and the building meet 30% of the lot coverage, so there will be no problem with decks. They will comply with the same requirement as in the 8th Addition. City Planner Smick stated in the 8th Addition there was a condition that the houses be sized to allow room for decks. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Richter, second by Larson to recommend approval of the East Farmington 9th Addition Preliminary and Final Plat with the one contingency. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . d) Variance for 8-Foot Tall Fence in Residential District -19095 Embry Lane Applicant: Mark Calvird Mr. Calvird has requested a variance from the maximum height allowance for fences. He would like to construct an 8- foot fence along his rear property line. His property backs up to Akin Road and there is a trail along Akin Road. The code allows up to a 6- foot fence in rear yards and 4 feet in front yards. There are criteria that must be met to approve a variance. Mr. Mark Calvird, 19095 Embry Lane, stated he has no privacy from Akin Road and has a pool in his back yard. The bike path is 4 feet above the yard, so he will only have 3 feet of benefit from this fence. June 25, someone jumped over his fence and stabbed his pool, which caused $5,000 in damages. He would like to have some privacy. He currently has a chain-link fence. Mr. Dan Rezac, 19079 Embry Lane, lives next door. They have witnessed the same issues Mr. Calvird mentioned. When he moved in 12 years ago, he planted a row of lilacs along the back property line so he is blocked from the road. His lilacs are 10 feet tall. From his perspective an 8-foot fence along Mr. Calvird's property would not be a detriment to his property. . Commissioner Richter was in favor of the variance because the topography is lower. Commissioner Barker was also in favor, and wondered if this should be Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2004 Page 8 looked at as a big picture. There is also the same situation along the east side of . Pilot Knob. He suggested looking at this along the major collectors. It was agreed to look at this on a case by case basis. Commissioners Johnson and Larson also agreed with the variance. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to approve the variance request. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Conditional Use Permit - Farmington Lions - Public Information Signs at City Limits Applicant: Farmington Lions The Farmington Lions submitted an application for a conditional use permit to locate their Lions Club emblem signs at each ofthe five City entrance signs. Staff recommended continuing the public hearing to allow more time to look into issues such as County right-of-way, size of signs, co-location, types of organizations allowed, etc. Mr. Glen Anderson, President of the Lion's Club, wanted to make sure the Commission received pictures of the sign. The signs would be 3 ft. high and 2 ft. wide. Chair Rotty agreed there are a lot of good organizations in the community and staff wants time to review how extensive this should be. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to continue the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. t) Amend 2020 Comprehensive Plan from Residential to Commercial and Rezone Property from R-2 to B-1 at 213 8th Street Applicant: Colin Garvey . The subject property is located at the northeast intersection ofTH3 and Elm Street. In 2002 the Planning Commission did recommend approval, however, Mrs. Bunde lived there at the time and the City did not want to displace her. Chair Rotty supported the Comp Plan amendment and the rezone. Commissioner Richter did not support it because it is already a busy intersection. With the daycare close by it is nice to have it residential. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to recommend approval of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan from Low/Medium Density Residential to Commercial and rezone the property from R-2 to B-1 located at 213 8th Street. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. g) Amend Section 10-6-4 of the Zoning Code to Include Commercial Vehicle Parking on Private Property in Residential Districts Based on complaints received staff would like to regulate the larger commercial vehicles from parking in residential areas. In the proposed ordinance amendment staff defined a commercial vehicle with a general definition and then broke it down into two classes. Class 1 is the larger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight . . . . Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2004 Page 9 of 10,000 lbs. or more. Class 2 covers all other vehicles. The ordinance prohibits dump trucks, semi-trucks, etc. from parking in residential districts. Commissioner Larson felt 10,000 lbs. was too light. He felt the Commission needed more time to figure out what they want. Chair Rotty requested staff come back with a weight that would exclude the 1 ton pickups. The Commission did not want to see dump trucks and semi-trucks parked in residential districts. Chair Rotty did not want to become too restrictive. We have individuals that drive trucks for a living. Commissioner Johnson felt they do need to be specific as to the types of vehicles. MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to table this item. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. h) Amend Section 10-5-25 and 10-2-1 of the Zoning Code Related to Floodplain Management The DNR is responsible for monitoring the City's floodplain policies and procedures. They conducted a site visit late last year and they said the City is substantially compliant. However, a few changes need to be made to the ordinance. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Richter, second by Johnson to recommend approval to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. i) Amend Section 10-3-6(C) of the Zoning Code to Require "All" Rather than "Any" Variance Criteria Be Met Staffhas been working on a revision to the code regarding variances which currently allows any hardship criteria to be met. Usually with a variance, all the criteria have to be met. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to recommend approval ofthe ordinance amending Section 10-3-6 (C) of the City Code regarding variances. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. j) Amend Section 10-5-' (B) of the Zoning Code Concerning the Deletion of Rear Yard Setback Requirement for Multi-Family Staff proposed to delete the rear yard setback for multi-family use. Multi-family is not an allowable use in the R-2 zoning district. MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to recommend approval of an ordinance amending Section 10-5-7 to delete the rear yard setback for multi-family. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2004 Page 10 k) Amend Section 10-2-1 of the Zoning Code to Include a Definition of Mixed- . Use Building and Amend Section 10-5-14 (C) Subd. 2 of the Zoning Code to Include Mixed-Use Building as a Conditional Use in the B-2 Downtown Business District The City would like to include mixed-use buildings in the downtown area. However, there currently is not a code provision to allow this. One amendment is to include a definition of a mixed-use building, and to include this as a conditional use in the B-2 zoning district which is the downtown area. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to recommend approval of the proposed code amendments to include a definition of a mixed-use building and amend the zoning code to include the mixed-use as a conditional use in the B- 2 district. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. I) Amend Section 10-5-12 ofthe Zoning Code to Reduce the Rear Yard Setback from 20 feet to 6 feet in the R-D (Downtown Residential) Zoning District The code shows in the R-D zoning district a rear yard setback requirement of20 feet. To be consistent with other residential zoning districts, staff proposed a 6 foot setback. MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to recommend approval to amend section 10-5-12 Rear Yard Setbacks in the R-D district. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion . a) Middle Creek East 2nd Addition Final Plat D.R. Horton proposes to plat 53 townhouse lots in the second phase of Middle Creek East. The plat covers 10 acres. There will be two accesses to the area. There is a trail along Eastview A venue and staff proposes the boulevard trees not be placed between the curb and the trail, and plant them on the other side of the trail. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to recommend approval of the Middle Creek East 2nd Addition Final Plat with the contingencies and notifying the developer to add the trees in the third phase. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Conditional Use Permit - Grading Permit - Knutsen Property The Knutsen property covers 60 acres and is located on the southwest corner of CSAH 50 and Denmark Avenue. The primary features of the Spruce Street Master Plan are the extension of Spruce Street across Denmark, over the river and connecting with the town square and the first north/south road. The Knutsens have been working on a concept plan for the area. They have submitted a grading plan which has been reviewed by engineering. Engineering recommended a few routine changes. Normally grading is not done until a preliminary plat is approved for the entire project and until a final plat is approved for whichever portion they intend to construct first. There are some mitigating factors in this case that staff believes would justify a conditional use permit. The City would like to see development occur soon. If the Commission recommends issuing the . Planning Commission Minutes July 13,2004 Page 11 . conditional use permit, it should be discussed that any conditional use permit approval is based on an assumption that the applicant is assuming all risk involved with grading a site before the final plat is approved and before the street and utility plan is approved. This is a risk the developer is prepared to take. The Commission and Council want to avoid a situation where grading is done and someone makes a claim that a plat of a certain type has to be approved because grading has been done. Staff will make sure any environmentally sensitive areas are protected during the grading process. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for grading ofthe Knutsen property. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Concept Plan - Knutsen Property The concept plan showed a layout of proposed buildings for the Spruce Street Area and is generally consistent with the Master Plan. Staffhas not yet received a complete preliminary plat application. Staff feels this would create a downtown atmosphere. One issue is the location of the town square in relation to Spruce Street. The concept plan shows the edge of Spruce Street against the wetland. As the engineers looked at the wetland issues it became apparent the placement of Spruce Street is further south than it should be. . The engineers developed several alternate alignment options. One option would have angled Spruce Street to the northwest after it crossed Denmark A venue (heading west). This option avoided some wetland area, but it was about $400,000 more expensive, because it was longer and required a curved bridge instead of a straight one. The benefit of avoiding the wetland was more than offset by the added cost and other complications. The roadway option preferred by the City Engineer uses a straight bridge and follows a more direct east/west alignment. However, this alignment still is further to the north than the alignment shown on the Knutsen concept plan. Moving the road to the north causes it to overlap part of the town square, portions of the mixed-use buildings and some parking areas. Staff recommended that the developer accept the revised roadway alignment, move the town square to the north and make whatever adjustments are necessary in order to make the concept plan consistent with the new roadway alignment. Staffhas heard that the developer is either leaning toward doing that or is actively doing that. Staff would like to bring a revised concept plan to the next meeting and then to the Council. . Mr. Bob Weigert, Paramount Engineering, stated they have explored moving the town square further north to avoid wetland impacts. The town square is located according to the Master Plan. At the time they did not know vertical elevations, and this information has come up during the feasibility study. They are exploring moving the town square further north. Instead of three buildings down the main corridor, they would attach the southern most building (mixed-use) to the center Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2004 Page 12 building and eliminate the east-west driveway. It is not the most desirable . situation. The driveway provided direct access to the big box retailer. They are also exploring that the buildings have a second level. Either for office space or for storage for the first floor businesses. Commissioner Barker felt the concept plan was a good start. Commissioner Johnson agreed the alignment is a reasonable request. He liked the overall concept and felt they needed to preserve the town square. He would be open to sliding potential parking spaces to get it done. Commissioner Larson wanted to make sure staff reviews the traffic flow to make it easy to get in and out. He agreed with moving the town square to the north. Commissioner Richter also liked the concept plan. She was concerned with keeping the east-west driveway open to the big box retailer. They agreed with moving the alignment ofthe road. Chair Rotty also felt it would be advantageous to keep the east-west driveway open. He felt this is what Farmington is looking for and this is what is needed in the community. He liked the restaurant, convenience store, and two-story retail buildings with parking behind them. Staff stated if the town square is moved up, staff was thinking of taking off part of the mixed-use building and putting the angled part in a different location. This would keep the east-west driveway open. Some plans have shown a median on the north-south street. It may help with traffic flow, but the disadvantage is you are losing developable space. Without the median, you could push the buildings . closer together and make more room for parking. If you want a downtown atmosphere, the farther the buildings are apart, the less it feels like a downtown. Taking the median out and pushing the buildings closer together could offset the loss of some of the parking spaces due to the road alignment. Commissioner Johnson did not know if they were going to have plantings. If they do, as you drive north or south you will lose that view. He would not be in favor of it, especially ifthere would be 10-12 foot trees. Staff stated one of the advantages of having a town square is that is where you put the trees and grassy areas. There will probably be trees in some of the parking islands. Staff agreed the traffic advantages of having a median are offset by other considerations. Pedestrians may want to cut across the street from time to time and the more barriers you create for pedestrian traffic, the less you have. Commissioner Johnson then asked about the diagonal parking in front of the retail stores. His concern was with diagonal parking you have backing up, which creates congestion on a major access. Staffhas discussed this and is trying to determine if there is enough room for two north and two south bound lanes. Commissioner Barker suggested just having parking in back and leave the front for walking. Staff stated this would reduce pedestrian traffic. In traditional downtowns there is at least some parking in front of the business. d) MUSA Review Committee Recommendation - Manley Development . Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2004 Page 13 . There was some discussion at the last MUSA Committee meeting about the Manley property and the fact that it met so much of the criteria that they should not have to wait. The parcels can be accessed off of an existing road and the best way to get 195th Street extended is for development to occur to help offset the cost. The uses ofthe property are consistent with the Comp Plan designation. It will be all single family. The developer can begin developing as soon as they get MUSA and transportation issues resolved. This would be a higher amenity type development. Chair Rotty supported recommending approval. This will meet some big criteria and infrastructure needs for the community. Commissioner Larson agreed. MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to recommend approval for property H for MUSA expansion. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Sketch Plan Review - Manley Development The Comprehensive Plan designation is restricted development and this meets that definition. It is a unique design with all the ponds. There needs to be a rezoning from A-I to R-l this can be applied for with the plat application. Currently there is one access from 195th Street. Other connections will be made in the future. There are trails shown along the connectors such as Embers A venue. Currently sidewalks or trails are required on one side of a collector road. A question was raised as to why not require sidewalks on both sides. . Commission Larson liked the concept plan. Commission Richter liked the ponds and the parks. She agreed the trails should stay off the roadways and be with the ponds. She would like sidewalks on both sides. Commissioner Barker also liked the concept plan. He asked about the alignment for 198th Street. Staff stated the engineers and public safety have expressed a concern about development on 87 acres with only one access. It is not practical to get any entrances from 195th Street. The only other access that is feasible to construct is 198th Street. Commissioner Johnson also liked the plan, but had a concern with trails behind homes. Commissioner Richter suggested the trails being lower than the lots rather than higher than the lots. Mr. Frank Blundetto, Manley Land Development, stated they are testing for the ground water table. The ponds will be created. They have to be careful of sedimentation, flow, and temperature. The ponds are engineered to meet the criteria. As far as putting the trails lower, hopefully the water is the low point so naturally the homes would be higher. They might request a second entrance from 195th Street in a temporary manner. He is aware they are working with high ground water. The ponds will be significant that do the right thing and they will have to be created well. They will never spend as much money on excavation as they will here. . 4. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Minutes July 13,2004 Page 14 Respectfully submitted, /l -' ~r ~:/ L~~c:7.::- ';-"."7 &:.?e&-C/ /"':/ v.Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved ~ I", taJ/ . . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting August 10, 2004 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson Members Absent: Richter Also Present: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner; Tina Schwanz, Planning Intern 2. Approval of Minutes a) MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to approve the July 13, 2004 minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Amend 2020 Thoroughfare Plan Included in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan (continued) At the last meeting a Thoroughfare Plan for the area east of Akin Road was discussed. It was requested that the Traffic Engineer attend this meeting, but he was unable to be here. Staff will provide a revised plan at the next meeting based on comments received from the last meeting and comments from the Traffic Engineer, traffic counts and accident information for this section of Akin Road. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to continue this item to the September 15, 2004 meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Mattson Farm Preliminary Plat Applicant: M.P. Investments The Mattson Farm is located on the east side of Akin Road, across from Eaves Way. The developer proposes 5 single-family lots ranging in size from 14,000 sq. ft. to 25,000 sq. ft. around a cul-de-sac. The developer will be meeting with various agencies to discuss their plan. Staff recommended continuing the public hearing until the September 15, 2004 meeting. Mr. Dave Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, stated he understood there would be only five houses, but with it being a cul-de-sac he was concerned with additional traffic. People might assume this is a way to cross Akin Road and there is no crosswalk there. He felt this was too many houses for that property. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to continue the public hearing to September 15,2004. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 2004 Page 2 c) Request for a Variance of 31' 10" in Height for a Milk Storage Silo Proposed Along Willow Street Applicant: Kemps LLC Kemps is seeking a height variance for a proposed silo for milk storage. The location is next to the current silos. The current silos are 60 feet and the proposed silo will be 80 ft. The maximum height allowed by code is 45 feet. Granting the variance will not alter the surrounding area. The diameter is similar to the current silos. The area would be able to hold one more silo on the 5th Street side. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to approve the 35'8" variance request. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Conditional Use Permit - Mixed-Use in the B-2 Zoning District Applicant: Brad Hauge Mr. Hauge has purchased the Lyric Theater building and is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow office use on the lower level and apartments on the second floor. This area is zoned B-2 which allows mixed uses. The applicant will need to obtain a building permit and comply with the building codes. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to approve the CUP allowing a mixed-use in the B-2 zoning district with the above contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Request for a Variance Regarding Fence Height in a Front Yard Applicant: Ronald & Kathy Brunelle, 19615 Evensong Avenue Mr. & Mrs. Brunelle are seeking a variance request for the maximum height for a fence which is 4 ft. in the front yard. The location of their fence is in the southwest comer of their property. The neighbor's house has a garage on the east side and they park a commercial vehicle in their driveway. The fence is already built. The posts are 8 ft. tall and the bulk of the fence is 7.5 ft. tall. There are six criteria for granting a variance and the main one is hardship and ifthere is anything that would prevent the applicant from complying with the code. Letters have been received from neighbors opposing the variance request. . . Mrs. Kathy Brunelle stated they requested the variance due to the visual hardship. The neighbor has a commercial vehicle with ladders and it is 10-15 ft. from the front yard. The vehicle is sometimes parked along the side in the landscape rock and they can see it from their front windows. The Brunelle's see their fence more as screening, as it is more lattice than fence. They would be willing to change the color to beige and plant a vine to grow on it. This area is an association and the association has approved the fence. Commissioner Larson suggested planting trees or bushes rather than a trellis. Mrs. Brunelle stated they have been there for four years, plants are small when purchased, the area is in a utility easement and it would take a long time for the bushes to grow large enough to cover the vehicle. Commissioner Larson stated they could buy bigger shrubbery. This would benefit the Brunelle's rather than upsetting the neighbors. Mrs. Brunelle stated it would . Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 2004 Page 3 . be costly to plant an 8 ft. tree. They would have to be evergreens. They are not trying to upset the neighbors. The houses are very close together. Commissioner Larson stated they knew how close the homes were when the house was built. Mrs. Brunelle felt she has a right to enjoy her property like the neighbor has a right to use his property. Chair Rotty stated a letter has been received from Mr. Orres, 19601 Evensong Avenue and an e-mail from Mr. JeffBeel in opposition of the variance. Mr. John Orres, 19601 Evensong Avenue, stated the fence was installed at 8 ft. and stated the variance would allow the entire front yard to be fenced at 8 ft. Even if the Brunelle's were to move, the variance stays with the property. He agreed trees and shrubs would be a better screen. Even if the fence were at 6 ft., it would not improve the situation. The problem is money has been spent on the fence instead of on trees. The block has a clean look and this is like a billboard. Mrs. Brunelle stated for three years there was no ladder on the truck, it was just a pick-up. Now it is a commercial vehicle. They want to enjoy their property. Planting shrubbery would be dangerous due to the underground electrical wires. Mr. Orres stated he is gone all day and the truck is not there. . Commissioner Larson stated he does not like making someone alter or remove a fence after it has been built. Other fence variances like this have been turned down. There are other ways to do screening and he does not see the hardship. Commissioner Barker also stated he does not see the hardship. Commissioner Johnson agreed trees would be better. He stopped at the residence and discussed with the Brunelle's about making some improvements. He asked if this would set a precedent, and Chair Rotty confirmed it would. Commissioner Johnson would not approve the variance. Chair Rotty stated this is a neighborhood issue. The Commission's job is to interpret codes. There are many trucks in town similar to this. The City does not want an 8 ft. fence between houses. He suggested Mr. Orres park on the other side ofthe driveway as he can also understand the visual issue. Approving this would set a precedent and he does not see the hardship. Mrs. Brunelle stated she has seen so many businesses get what they want. She trusted she could come and get the right answers. The main part of her home looks at the neighbor's driveway. They would not put the fence all around the yard and they could take it down if they moved. Chair Rotty stated the Commission has to listen to all residents. Mrs. Brunelle stated Mr. Orres does not abide by the ordinance and he has been warned. City Planner Smick asked Mr. Orres to park on the driveway and not in the landscape rock. . MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to deny the variance request. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Staff will prepare Findings of Fact. Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 2004 Page 4 1) Conditional Use Permit - Farmington Lions - Public Information Signs at City Limits (continued) Applicant: Farmington Lions Staff recommended continuing this item to obtain more information. The Lions Club has purchased metal signs 30 inches in diameter. The signs have been mounted on poles and they would like to place them by the City entrance signs. Staff has contacted MnDOT and they are very restrictive about placing things in the right-of-way. MnDOT would not oppose attaching something to the monument signs. Otherwise, MnDOT would require a written, specific proposal. It would be difficult to attach a sign to the concrete monument signs and there is also the issue of other organizations wanting signs. Holes would have to be drilled into the concrete. The county has a different position. They are more liberal with allowing posts away from the monument signs. If the City were to place signs in the landscaped area around the monument sign, the county would not oppose it. This would set a precedent. MnDOT does allow signs to be attached to the City's name marker signs. Size is restricted to 24 inches high and 6 ft. wide beneath the marker sign. There can be individual signs that don't exceed the total at no charge. They would charge $200 if there are three or more organizations, as the county would have to move the marker sign up on the posts which would come to $1,000. The Lions Club sign is 30 inches in diameter and MnDOT does not allow that size on an individual post or on the City's monument sign. Staff is continuing to research this issue. Chair Rotty did not recommend altering the City's entrance signs. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to continue this item at the September 15,2004 meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. g) Amend Section 10-6-4 of the Zoning Code to Include Commercial Vehicle Parking on Private Property in Residential Districts (continued) This was continued at the July 13, 2004 meeting to allow staff to conduct more research regarding the cutoffweight for commercial vehicles. Staffhas decided to raise the cutoff weight from 10,000 lbs to 21,000 lbs for Class 1 vehicles. Anything over that would be restricted. Mr. Mike Heinzerling, 48889 192nd Street, asked if this is for overnight or extended stay parking. Staff replied it is for all the time to keep semis and dump trucks from parking in neighborhoods. Class 1 vehicles can be parked on a lot that is a minimum of 2.5 acres. Class 1 vehicles can be parked on residential lots for loading, unloading or temporary service. Mr. Colin Garvey cautioned the Commission that 21,000 lbs could be a large truck that extends over the sidewalk. Chair Rotty stated this is a common sense ordinance. 21,000 lbs could be on the high side, but it could border on size for someone doing business out of their home. . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 2004 Page 5 . Mr. Dave Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, asked if someone has a business would they be grandfathered in and if new residents would not be allowed to start parking these vehicles at their home. Chair Rotty stated he sees a lot of plumbing trucks. The weight does not correlate to size. Staff was in favor of granting the ordinance immediately and not grandfather current uses in, but that could be a legal issue. Commissioner Larson agreed it is a common sense ordinance and it is too bad the City has to regulate this. Commissioner Barker stated this was brought up because of a complaint, but agreed it is common sense. Mr. Pritzlaff asked if it is allowed if they have a garage large enough to put the vehicle in. Chair Rotty noted the ordinance states no commercial vehicle may be parked or stored within 150 ft of a residence. Staff stated that is why weight was raised as the vehicle would be too large for a garage. How would the City know if the vehicle is always parked in the garage? Mr. Garvey stated most vehicles in town are 12,000 - 15,000 lbs. Ifthe Commission goes to 21,000 lbs they might be promoting commercial use in residential districts. He felt the Commission needs to look at the repercussions. . Chair Rotty was concerned with government intervention into the rights of residents. It is common sense to not park a semi in a residential area. He does not want to restrict people's livelihood. Commissioner Larson noted they have not discussed combination vehicles. Staff stated commercial vehicles include trailers. Weight is not the only consideration. They should also consider size, but this is a start. If the City needs to reduce the weight and look at trailers, that can be done at a later time. Chair Rotty stated if someone comes in at 21,000 Ibs and then the Commission decides on the size, they are grandfathered in. Commissioner Johnson felt they have to be cautious with going below 15,000 - 18,000 lbs. Commissioner Larson suggested starting at 18,000 lbs. Chair Rotty was concerned with grandfathering and would like the City Attorney to review this issue. Staffwill do further research and bring this to the September 15,2004 meeting. Commissioners will submit any ideas to staff prior to the next meeting. 4. Discussion a) Riverbend Final Plat Newland Communities is proposing to develop 140 single family lots on 107.23 acres. The area is located west of Dakota County Estates and north of Meadow Creek. The PUD and preliminary plat were approved in 2001. The lots range in size from 10,000 - 26,000 sq. ft. The homes would be in the $275,000 - $375,000 price range. There are four accesses to the development. There is 75 feet of right-of-way on the north for the county's east-west corridor. The plat also includes parks and trails. There is the possibility they will have to bring in fill. . Ms. Krista Fleming, Newland Communities, stated as far as the grading, the plan is approved. There is a high water table which creates a unique situation. They are digging deeper ponds to have more fill. They are still looking at options and Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 2004 Page 6 will work with staff if necessary to bring in fill. They would like to begin in late . fall or early spring. There are suitable materials on site for at least half of the fill needed. Commissioner Larson asked if dewatering will affect the North Branch Creek and if it will change the water level or temperature. Staff stated engineering has been reviewing the situation. Chair Rotty stated there were twice the amount of lots in 2001 and concerns with traffic. This has been reduced and is a much better proposal. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to send a favorable recommendation to Council with the contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Concept Plan - Knutsen Property Staffhad a meeting last week with New Century. The issue discussed was regarding the road relocation due to engineering work. Engineering has determined the road could not be placed as close to the wetland as planned and it needs to be moved north. The developer and staff had ideas to remedy the situation. Staff recommended increasing the size of the mixed-use building, moving the town square up and changing the orientation of the big box. This creates a larger parking area and improves traffic flow. It allows for an east-west road south of the big box to the town square and allows for a mixed-use building on the south side of the road. Staff showed the previous plan and the proposed plan and reviewed the changes. The developer will contact the big box retailer regarding changing the orientation. . Mr. Randy Peterson, New Century, stated big boxes are usually facing the highway. The town square is not all on Knutson property so they have to work out the cost issue. New Century will meet with the Knutson's and work on costs. They would like to begin grading this fall. Some mitigation will be required to place the bridge over the wetland. The MPCA and DNR are looking at this project as a showcase for this area. c) MUSA Review Committee Recommendation The MUSA Review Committee has recommended approval of ten MUSA applications. Staff presented the MUSA map showing the location of the properties. The recommended properties are Allen 50 acres, Peterson (northern portion) 34 acres, Adelmann (northern portion) 10 acres, Murphy 19 acres, Tollefson 14 acres, Murphy/Giles 90 acres, Empey 38 acres, Murphy/Giles 95 acres, Rother 50 acres, Garvey 40 acres. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to send a favorable recommendation to Council to extend MUSA to the properties in yellow on the MUSA map. Voting for: Rotty, Johnson, Larson. Abstain: Barker. MOTION CARRIED. If the Council agrees the properties in the City should receive MUSA, the infonnation is forwarded to the Met Council, the developer prepares a preliminary . Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 2004 Page 7 . . . plat, and they need to extend the utilities. Development could occur early next year. If the properties that applied for annexation are approved by the Council, they will be on the same track. d) Conditional Use Permit for Grading Applicant: Manley Land Development Manley Land Development has requested this item be pulled from the August 16, 2004 Council meeting. They have just submitted their preliminary plat. Staff requested this be continued to the September 15,2004 meeting. e) Conditional Use Permit for Grading Applicant: Colin Garvey Mr. Garvey has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for grading for two properties in Castle Rock Township. They are south ofHwy 50 and east ofHwy 3. One is owned by Mr. Garvey and the other property is owned by Ms. Judith Empey. Mr. Garvey is the developer for both properties. A major component of the Ash Street project is the construction of a pond in this area. Mr. Garvey will spread the dirt taken from the pond over his property. Staffis asking if this is appropriate. It would benefit the City. The public hearing for the grading will occur after the properties are annexed. There are five contingencies: 1. The properties shall be annexed prior to final approval of the conditional use permit. 2. The applicant must obtain final City approval of the rough grading plan from the City Engineer. 3. The applicant must pay any applicable fees, provide adequate surety in an amount and form approved by the Director of Public Works, and comply with any other reasonable conditions imposed by the Director of Public Works. 4. All excavation and grading activities must be consistent with plans submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Works. 5. The applicant assumes all risk involved with grading a site before final plat and street and utility plan approval. Any changes to the grading of a site, including any corresponding costs necessitated by the resolution of any design issues identified during the approval process for the final plat and street and utility construction plans, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Mr. Garvey agreed with these contingencies. Chair Rotty felt this is justified because the pond is needed for the Ash Street project. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to send a favorable recommendation to the Council to approve the Conditional Use Permit for grading with the contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. t) Next Planning Commission Meeting The next meeting will be held September 15, 2004 due to elections being on September 14, 2004. Planning Commission Minutes August 10, 2004 Page 8 5. Adjourn MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, i::= fr7~~ Executive Assistant Approved Or- 15,2a>f . . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting September 15,2004 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Johnson, Larson, Richter Members Absent: Barker Also Present: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner; Tina Schwanz, Planning Intern 2. Approval of Minutes a) August 10, 2004 MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to approve the August 10, 2004 Minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson. Abstain: Richter. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Amend 2020 Thoroughfare Plan Included in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan (continued) The Thoroughfare Plan is regarding the area east of Akin Road. Since the last public hearing, staffhas made some revisions. There were three connections to Akin Road, one at 198th Street, one at 203rd Street, and one at Devonport. There was a concern with the connection at 198th Street because it was near a curve in the road, there were topographic issues, a wetland east of Akin Road, and there was concern whether there was a need for three connections. There were fewer concerns with the connections at 203rd Street and at Devonport. The revised plan features a north-south road that starts by Fannington Lutheran Church near the intersection of208th Street and Akin Road and goes straight through to 195th Street. Staff will indicate to developers that there should be no driveways along this road. There would be three or four connections. This would allow traffic to move through the area more rapidly and entice people to use this road instead of Akin Road. Traffic would come north on Akin Road from Hwy 50, and just past the bridge the road would veer to the right and go to the east just past Farmington Lutheran Church and continue north. Anyone wanting to take Akin Road would have to go to Devonport, take a left turn past the church and take a right turn onto Akin. This could discourage people from using Akin Road. Akin Road would be closed just south of its intersection with Devonport Drive. Staffhas decided to take out the connection to 198th Street into the Manley property. The plan also shows a possible connection to Hwy 3 from 203rd Street to 197th Street. The likelihood this connection would be built anytime in the near future is remote. Another major distinction from the previous plan is a north-south road from 195th Street north, curving to the east and back to the west going north of Farmington. There are two options going north from the Riverside Development. Option I Planning Commission Minutes September 15, 2004 Page 2 would go north from a future 20Sth Street extension to the east. Option 2 would connect with an existing road through the Riverside Development. . There was a traffic count in 1996 before Pilot Knob Road was built. On Akin Road there were 9,000 trips between Hwy 50 and 195th Street. After Pilot Knob Road was built, a survey done in 2003 shows traffic counts dropped to 6,500. Mr. Shelly Johnson, Traffic Engineer, stated staffhas presented a very good plan and they have done a super job of looking beyond the City. This is something the Met Council is asking cities to do. Mr. Dave Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, agreed with the Traffic Engineer that this is the best thing he has seen. It does connect all the cities together. As far as the roads that are between Akin Road and the new collector, would there be more roads that would make more available housing. If it does go through at 203rd Street, since there is a sidewalk on the south side, he would speculate they would want to continue some sort of bike path or sidewalk after 203m Street continues past Akin Road. He asked if there would there be a stop sign and a crosswalk for safety and what would be the speed limit ofthe new road. Community Development Director Carroll stated the focus of no driveways has been on the north-south route. There has not been a lot of discussion as to whether the east-west routes could have driveways. He felt the stretch of road from Akin Road to the north-south road should not have driveways if possible. . Traffic Engineer Johnson replied it is very difficult to keep driveways off collectors. The north-south road will be a major collector and that will be easier to not have driveways. There will be other roads within the subdivision. Community Development Director Carroll stated it would be the City's plan to have sidewalks or trails along one side of the road. If they are lower speed roads in residential areas staff is working toward sidewalks or trails on both sides. In some cases there might be a sidewalk in front and a trail behind the houses. Signals will come in the future when traffic volumes warrant. Traffic Engineer Johnson felt an all-way stop might be at 203rd Street and Akin Road, but not a traffic light. It is more likely there will be a traffic light at 203rd Street and the north-south road, than 203rd Street and Akin Road. The speed limit on 203rd Street would probably be similar in speed and design to 203rd Street west of Akin Road. The north-south road would probably be a maximum speed of 40 mph. He would not like to see the speed at 45-50 mph. It is not an arterial, it is a major collector. Mr. Priztlaff asked why would the north-south road be a lower speed than Akin. Akin is now 45 mph and 50 mph. He felt the north-south road should be 50 mph like Akin was. Mr. Johnson replied the process that will be followed will help answer that question. As development occurs and the need for the road becomes real and they have to start looking at the design, that is when they need to look at what they want the road to be. It will be designed as to whatever speed is . Planning Commission Minutes September 15,2004 Page 3 . decided. The City does not set the speed limit. We can design it and if we want it to County standards there are certain things the City will need to do. However, the State sets the speed limit. Once the road is operational, the State will do their speed studies and set the speed limit. They will know what speed the road was designed to handle. If the City wants the County to take it over, they have guidelines that need to be followed. Mr. Johnson stated he would like to see it at 40 mph, but that does not mean it will not be 45-50 mph depending on discussions that happen in the future. . Mr. John Anderson, representing Giles Properties, stated they are in the process of purchasing the Murphy property which is the majority of the property along the north-south collector. They have been working on a concept plan and hope to bring it to staff in the next couple weeks. He pointed out that the thoroughfare plan shows three or four connections. With the wetlands and gas line easements, they feel a connection every quarter mile would work, which would mean five connection points. This is the same spacing as Pilot Knob Road. He asked what the right-of-way requirement will be along the north-south road. Community Development Director Carroll stated staff needs to address whether the road will need to be four lanes in the future. The County looks for 150 ft. for four-lane divided roads. Staffwas looking at 100 - 120 ft., however, this decision will have to be made also. Mr. Anderson then asked if there was a sharing of cost involved with the over-sizing of the road. Chair Rotty stated some of those questions will be answered as staff works with the engineers and as far as cost, that would go to the Council. Community Development Director Carroll stated it has been discussed that the developer and the City put in the first two lanes, and get on the CIP with the County for future construction. They might fund the other two lanes if traffic warrants it. Commissioner Johnson liked the improvements made from the first edition. He was in favor of making sure enough right-of-way is obtained to expand the north- south collector. Chair Rotty received letters from Mr. Hertzfeld and Mr. Wefel, residents along Akin Road. . Commissioner Larson also was in favor ofthe plan. Regarding 203rd Street he questioned whether that road was needed to get to Hwy 3 as long as there was Diamond Path. He asked if they wanted to promote bringing more traffic to Hwy 3 which is over-utilized now, or promote the north-south road and have the 19Sth crossing and 20gth crossing. He felt it did not look like a very safe road. Staff stated it was hard to know if 19Sth and 20gth are going to be adequate to get traffic on and off ofHwy 3. They wanted property owners to know there is the possibility a road could go in. Traffic Engineer Johnson stated the value of showing it where it is now, if you look at Pilot Knob and Hwy 3 and you look east-west there is a 3 mile stretch. Without the 203rd connection, you have two roadways to go back and forth. Ultimately, the County envisions 19Sth to be a Planning Commission Minutes September 15, 2004 Page 4 four-lane road. 20Sth is not a four-lane road, it is a two-lane road. The space e. between 195th and 208th needs another connection, and it should be as straight as can be from Hwy 3 to Pilot Knob. Commissioner Larson would rather see a straighter road, he did not like the turns. Chair Rotty stated if there is one continuous road, 203rd Street it is more useable. He could also see Commissioner Larson's concern with the left turn. He agreed with staff's suggestion to have two options. City Planner Smick wanted to at least have the corridor for 203rd Street shown, so nothing is platted at the other end as was the situation with 195th Street. Commissioner Richter liked this plan better than the first one. Her only concern is where the access is restricted on the southern part of Akin, she did not understand why it was changed. She asked why it turns and why there wasn't an option to go one way or the other. Traffic Engineer Johnson stated it is showing the access is restricted. It is a cul-de-sac. Properties from south of Devon port to the cul-de-sac have to drive north to Akin Road. Creating a Y is a traffic operation mess. The best thing to do is bring Akin in at a 90 degree angle to the north-south corridor. Devonport is a good street to use as it is already there. Staff stated if you are coming south on Akin a Y would make sense. The problem is if you are coming south on the north-south road, at the intersection you would want to go south and you would have traffic merging in from the other side. Traffic Engineer Johnson stated a wider road would have to be built with an additional . lane. It would cost more to do that. Commissioner Richter felt that area looked congested. She liked the rest of the plan. Commissioner Johnson stated the issue was to try to get traffic offof Akin Road. He felt blocking it offwas the right thing to do. We are trying to get people to use the north-south road that would connect with Diamond Path. Chair Rotty thanked the residents for their comments. He would not have supported the first plan and felt the revised plan is much improved. This plan addressed many of his concerns. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. g) Amend Section 10-6-4 of the Zoning Code to Include Commercial Vehicle Parking on Private Property in Residential Districts (continued) Staffhas reviewed the cut-off gross vehicle weight for the class 1 definition of commercial vehicles. This ordinance deals with the parking of commercial vehicles on private residential property. There were several questions raised at the last meeting. One question was whether commercial vehicles presently located on residential property should be allowed to remain even though they do not comply with the ordinance. Staff is taking the position that the new ordinance . Planning Commission Minutes September 15, 2004 Page 5 . should be enforced with any vehicles that are not in compliance with the ordinance on or after its effective date. The City Attorney also agrees with this position. The second question was how is a combination unit's (vehicle and trailer) weight to be determined. Staff recommended the weight not be combined. This can be reviewed and modified later ifit proves to be problematic. Staffhas decided class 1 commercial vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 18,000 lbs would be restricted from parking on private property in residential districts. . Mr. Elser Hoeppner, 27 Walnut Street, had some pictures and asked ifthis would pertain to these vehicles. After seeing the pictures, Chair Rotty stated this vehicle would not be allowed to park in a residential area. Mr. Hoeppner asked ifhe cannot park in the driveway, can he park in the street. Chair Rotty stated he cannot park in the street. Staff stated no on-street parking is allowed from 2 a.m. - 5 a.m. for any vehicle. This eliminates any overnight parking, however it could be parked on the street during the day. Mr. Hoeppner stated he would like to have that reviewed. At night, the truck is parked in the driveway. If the ordinance is passed, it could not be parked in the driveway at all. Mr. Hoeppner asked what is the gross weight of a vehicle on First Street. Chair Rotty stated the ordinance would not allow him to park in the driveway at all, and he would not be allowed to park in the street for certain periods overnight. It could be parked in the street during the day. Mr. Hoeppner replied that is the problem, it is parked right behind his driveway. Commissioner Johnson thought there was a time limit for dropping things off or performing work. Community Development Director Carroll stated most of the complaints received were from people that did not like to see these vehicles parked in driveways and elsewhere on adjoining lots. Parking on the street has been less of a problem than parking in driveways. There are a lot of circumstances under which commercial vehicles are parked in the road. The combination of the new ordinance and the existing ordinance that prohibits parking overnight, may solve the problem, as there would be no where to park the truck overnight. Mr. Hoeppner stated the truck is running in the summer with the air conditioner on, which is loud. In the winter it runs in the driveway for an hour before he goes and then there is the diesel smell. Staff felt this ordinance was a step in the direction of solving the problem. . Mr. David Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, stated the last time this came up, he asked if certain vehicles would be grandfathered in. If the vehicle is too heavy for the street he did not feel it should be grandfathered in. If you are on a road that is designed to take that amount of traffic, would you be grandfathered in? Ifnot, if you have a garage large enough to put it in would it be grandfathered in. Commissioner Larson stated the ordinance would take affect immediately and nothing would be grandfathered in. Staff stated if you have a vehicle above the weight limit, the likelihood you could get it in a standard garage is small. There is a provision that if there is a lot 2.5 acres in size and you have a commercial Planning Commission Minutes September 15,2004 Page 6 vehicle that exceeds the weight limits, as long as it can be screened entirely from . a neighboring residential property, it would be allowed. Staff felt it was cleaner to say nothing can be grandfathered in. The only way to solve the problem was to get these vehicles out of residential neighborhoods. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Richter, second by Larson to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Conditional Use Permit - Farmington Lions - Public Information Signs at City Limits (continued) Applicant: Farmington Lions The Lions Club would like to have their organization signs placed near the City entrance signs. All entrance signs are on State or County right-of-way which have their own regulations. There is a provision in the City code that prohibits any signs in the right-of-way. The City code could be changed to allow placement of signs in the right-of-way under some circumstances. Staff presented a draft of an ordinance that would allow certain organizations to put certain signs, of certain sizes, in road right-of-ways as long as they meet certain requirements. Staff placed a definition of a logo sign in the ordinance. Signs for organizations would be allowed, but not commercial signs. The first requirement would be the sign would have to be approved by the Public Works Director. The Lions Club applied for a conditional use permit, which is cumbersome. Staff proposed organizations could fill out an application for a sign permit that would have to be approved by the Public Works Director. The proposed standards are: 1. The sign would be co-located with the City's entrance signs. The State will allow certain organizations to put sign panels below their population signs, but they cannot exceed 24" x 24". Staff felt any other signs should be consistent in size. Ifthe population sign has to be re-installed at a higher elevation, there is a charge. This applies if there are more than two signs. 2. The sign must be sponsored, requested and maintained by the organizations local chapter with an office located within the City. 3. Anyone who wants to put up the sign has to designate a responsible person for the maintenance of the sign. 4. The organization has to provide written proofthat they have obtained any permits or approvals required by any other governmental entity, such as the State or the County, for the placement of signs within the right-of-way. The City Attorney provided a memo with related constitutional issues. . Chair Rotty stated this is a public hearing because the Lions Club applied for a conditional use permit. He asked ifthis is truly a public hearing, or if the Commission will be asking staff to start preparing an ordinance. Staff spoke with the Lions Club informing them that the Commission was uncomfortable with continuing a public hearing month after month. It was explained that ifthe ordinance is approved, they would not need a conditional use permit. They would . Planning Commission Minutes September 15,2004 Page 7 . . . fill out a sign permit. Therefore, the Lions Club agreed to withdraw their request for a conditional use permit with the understanding staff would still work with the Commission and the Council to move this fOlWard. The Commission does not need to approve or deny the conditional use permit. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson authorizing staff to proceed with the preparation and publication of any notices for the ordinance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Zoning Map Amendment - Rezone Property from A-I (Agriculture) to R-l (Low Density Residential) - Parkview Ponds Applicant: Manley Land Development Manley Land Development is proposing to rezone Parkview Ponds. The area is located south of 195th Street and east of Akin Road. It is proposed to rezone the property to R-1. This property is also designated in the Comp Plan as restricted development. This is a high quality market rate and high end golf course or open space residential community where nature and housing are harmoniously woven together. The focal point would be a small lake or a community center surrounded by high amenity housing. The R-1 zoning is 1-3.5 units per acre. The plat shows 1.67 units per acre. Staff recommended approving the zoning map amendment. MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for rezoning. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Parkview Ponds Preliminary Plat Applicant: Manley Land Development The area is surrounded by 195th Street on the north, parkland on the west, and to the east is the Murphy/Giles property. There is an easement for a high power line along the east side ofParkview Ponds. Staff is proposing the north-south road along the easterly side. Staff recommended continuing the public hearing as there are a number of issues that need to be determined, including the Thoroughfare Plan. The Thoroughfare Plan will go to Council next week. As far as transportation issues, the plat shows a connection at Embers Avenue and crossing 195th Street. There will be several ponds in the area and the house pads will have to be raised. Therefore, the roads curve around the ponds. There will be driveway access off of Embers Avenue. Commissioner Larson did not see a problem with curving the north-south road. The 198th Street connection will be removed and replaced with an 80 ft. right-of-way (75 ft. for a home and 10 ft. for a trail). There is 1380 ft. cul-de-sac which the Fire Marshal is concerned about as there is no turn-around access. Staff asked the developer to look at the gravel farm road which accesses Akin Road. This could be used as an emergency route. Easements, access agreement for emergencies and upgrading the road would have to be reviewed. The only traffic using this road would be the neighbors to the west and emergency vehicles. Staffwill continue to work on this. Planning Commission Minutes September 15,2004 Page 8 As far as parks and trails, the Parks and Rec Commission have shown a Master Plan for this area. Along 195th Street they would like to see a trail. They also would like sidewalks in the development and trails along the ponds. . Mr. Frank Blundetto, Manley Land Development, stated they have worked closely with staff. He agreed with continuing the public hearing, but wanted to know staff's needs regarding revisions. It was agreed to continue the public hearing to the October 12, 2004 meeting. Mr. Mark Aubrey, 19455 Elkridge Trail, was concerned with what has happened with other developments in the areas beyond Autumn Glen. There were several hundred thousand loads of soil trucked down 195th Street. He was concerned that will happen with this development. Mr. Blundetto stated one of the benefits to addressing the site with the ponding amenities is they are able to focus on trying to balance the site. They have several things to watch as far as water management issues. It is to their advantage to balance the site. They do not want to truck in large amounts of dirt. He could not say they will not import dirt, he did not know that yet. Mr. Aubrey stated if soil is brought in, he asked there be a requirement they have to clean up after themselves on a daily basis. The mud tracks in to their garages and homes. He liked the idea of encouraging higher end housing. Farmington has a diversity and high-end housing is missing. The tax that will add to the community is a good thing. He also liked the open spaces in the plan. He . was concerned they do not have the north-south corridor yet that is proposed. He felt the traffic would be loaded on 195th Street and Akin Road. He heard it would be ten years for the corridor. Commissioner Larson thought MUSA was available to Hwy 3. Staffhas discussed with Seed Genstar and the County as to where 195th Street is in the County CIP. Astra Genstar has to decide if they want to pay for extending 195th Street. They will do a Master Plan the end of this year and early next year. They would like to begin building homes late next year. They propose to build the northern part in 2008. The road would have to go in to Hwy 3 before any development could be done in the southern portion. Traffic could use Hwy 3 or Pilot Knob. Staff asked if the Commission was in agreement with looking at the southern access and the emergency route. The Commission agreed. As far as the trail plan, Chair Rotty liked the plan and that it had access to other developments. Commissioner Richter would like to see sidewalks on both sides of the street. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated they have identified locations for trails to go through various parts of town. They looked at an opportunity to put the trails behind the homes and along the ponds in place of sidewalks. If sidewalks were on both sides, it would be over-kill and the trails behind the homes would be lost. He would rather sacrifice sidewalks on one side for trails along the scenic routes. . Planning Commission Minutes September 15, 2004 Page 9 . Chair Rotty was in agreement with the plans for the 198th Street connection. Commissioner Johnson asked if there should be a sign noting a possible through street. Staffwill bring this to the Development Committee. Mr. Blundetto stated they have done this before where they bring a stub road past adjacent lots with the understanding they may not need it. Commissioner Richter asked if the trails in back will be even with the lots or lower. Mr. Blundetto stated there have been comments with having the trails along the shelf of the pond. He was aware there is an elevation sensitivity. He agreed sight lines are important. MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to continue the Parkview Ponds public hearing until October 12, 2004. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Amendment to the Parks and Trail Map This is driven by the MUSA process. The Parks and Rec Commission are looking at properties outside the City boundaries that were not part of their original plan map. The map will be amended to include those areas that were given MUSA that will be going through the annexation process. The Parks and Rec Commission want to stay ahead of the development to identify future park and trail locations so developers have a better understanding of park and trail locations. Parks and Recreation Director Distad reviewed the revisions to the plan map. . MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. .. h) Mattson Farm Preliminary Plat Applicant: M.P. Investments Staff requested this be continued to complete wetland alteration permit requirements and storm water requirements. Action will need to be taken at the October 12,2004 meeting as the 120 days plus extension will expire shortly after that. MOTION by Richter, second by Johnson to continue the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Findings of Fact - Request for a Variance Regarding Fence Height in a Front Yard (continued) Applicant: Ronald & Kathy Brunelle, 19615 Evensong Avenue At the last meeting, the Commission denied the variance. Staffhas prepared Findings of Fact that outlines the basis for denial. The Commission found a hardship was not present and the property and conditions on the property were not unique to the property. MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to approve the Findings of Fact for denial of the variance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . ~ Planning Commission Minutes September 15,2004 Page 10 b) Garvey Concept Plan The Garvey and Empey properties were located in Castle Rock Township. Council took action at the September 7, 2004 meeting to begin the annexation process. A concept plan has been received from Mr. Garvey, developer of both properties. Staffhas received a preliminary plat for the Garvey property and the plat for the Empey property should be coming shortly. As far as the Garvey property, Hwy 50 is on the north and Canton Court extends to the south. A new cul-de-sac will extend off of Canton Court to the west. All properties annexed into the City are zoned A-I. Through the platting process, the property would be rezoned to B-3, heavy business. There may be a PUD overlay to accommodate a few other things. Regarding the Empey property, it will be all single family homes with lots ranging from 10,000 sq. ft. on the west and 15,000 sq. ft. along the golf course. There are three accesses along 225th Street. Staff recommended another connection be made to the Tollefson property. There would be one main east-west road. Mr. Garvey proposes a stub into the golf course property, which staff feels would be a benefit. There is no connection to Canton Court. The zoning would be R-l. The Comp Plan designation would be low density residential. . Commissioner Johnson asked why the lots on the west are not shown as outlots instead of partial lots. Staff replied they meet the minimum requirements of 10,000 sq. ft. Chair Rotty liked the single family and felt it will be a nice addition to the City. If the school is located in that area, there will be residential to help other development in that area. Commissioner Larson stated screening between the commercial and residential will have to be addressed. Staff replied Mr. Garvey has provided for a large amount of screening on the plan. c) Next Planning Commission Meeting The next meeting will be a special Planning Commission meeting on September 28, 2004. Two public hearing items will be addressed. 4. Adjourn MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, //; ;><./ -,. /7 ;;7 <:.? e:i:~~ ~ (~_> ,--/C/L' ~CL eYnthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved ~~ 2=,/ .J . . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting September 28, 2004 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson, Richter Members Absent: None Also Present: Lee Smick, City Planner; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) September 15, 2004 Correction to Minutes to show Barker absent. MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to approve the September 15,2004 minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Vermillion River Crossing Preliminary Plat Applicant: Randy Pedersen (New Century) Pedersen Ventures has submitted a preliminary plat on August 27, 2004 for the area at the intersection of CSAH 50 and Denmark Avenue. The area consists of 60 acres, of which 40 acres are developable. Parkland dedication requirements are currently under review. As far as street access, access into the site will be at a location on the west side, with a right-in and right-out, in the middle there will be a north-south road with a full intersection. There will be a third access from the north, right-in and right-out, along the east side of the property. The fourth access is along the potential Spruce Street extension. There is also a street access proposed to the west. Dakota County is in favor of the accesses shown on the preliminary plat, however they were concerned about north-south roadways. There is a north-south road that goes from CSAH 50 to 220th Street. Sidewalks are proposed throughout the plat, including the north-south street. In the Spruce Street design criteria it talks about sidewalks on both sides of the street, however they were not designated as public or private. The north-south road is a public street. The east-west roads are private. Staff asked if the Commission wanted sidewalks on both sides or on one side. The Development Committee feels sidewalks on one side of the private street is enough. The developer has submitted everything required for a preliminary plat. They need to look at three items. The first is the right-of-way on CSAH 50 and Denmark. They need to come out further with the plat. The Knutson's own an easement for the centerline for CSAH 50 and also the centerline and more of Denmark. This will need to be shown on the plat. The second item is the lot in the northwest comer. This is not an approved lot for acreage requirements. The code requires 1 acre. The area will be incorporated into lot 1. Comments have been received from several agencies stating some concerns. Staff, the developer, and the MPCA and DNR Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2004 Page 2 will be meeting to discuss the issues. If there are any changes with the lots, staff will ask Council to send the plat back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Randy Pederson, Pederson Ventures, stated he is confident they can work out the issues with the agencies. He would like this forwarded to Council to keep things moving. He guaranteed he will work with staff and the agencies to handle the issues before it goes to Council. Mr. Bill Fitch, 5816 Upper 183rd Street, member of the City Council, stated he has spent a lot of time in developer and staff meetings to make this project a reality for the City. Being sensitive to the agencies, their requests and issues, the City has demonstrated its good sense of willingness. The City has performed an AUAR for this property and surrounding properties to protect the trout stream. On behalf of himself and the citizens, the City has demonstrated their willingness to work with the agencies and does not see that changing. He asked the Commission to send this to the Council. Mr. Brian Watson, District Manager, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, stated their office has submitted a letter and there was a memo dated September 24 from Erik Peters to City Engineer Mann, that addressed comments from the DNR and Soil and Water Conservation District. A letter he received yesterday, addressed a number oftheir issues raised in the letter. There were some obvious things missing in the grading plan. There are several technical issues. One issue that needs to be addressed is does this project meet NPDES requirements by the MN Pollution Control Agency. If a preliminary plat is issued, what is the liability of issuing a preliminary plat at the Council level if things need to change? He spoke with City Engineer Mann regarding this and was told it is their liability and their risk. Mr. Watson wanted to make sure the City does not put themselves in the position from a legal standpoint, of changing grading work or design expenses that have already occurred. Chair Rotty asked Mr. Watson ifhe feels the issues raised can be worked out. Mr. Watson replied he believes they can be worked out. There is a difference of opinion on what is acceptable. The biggest concern is temperature and the construction of the infiltration basins. The MPCA would issue the permit. Soil and Water Conservation District and the DNR would provide input for the permit. Member Larson asked ifBonestroo has looked at the permit and not agreed with how it has been completed. Mr. Watson replied that is the issue. We have individuals determining that there is compliance, but it has not been concurred with the MN Pollution Control Agency. Member Larson felt Bonestroo should know the process better than anyone, and it does not seem they would approve something that was not qualified. Mr. Watson stated that is the issue. There are some concerns that the decision that this does comply are not accurate. Chair Rotty noted until these issues are worked out, the plat will not go on to the City Council. Mr. Watson stated they would like to see some vegetation in the infiltration basins. . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2004 Page 3 . Ms. Michelle Hanson, DNR Watershed Coordinator, wanted to express the DNR's concerns. The current proposed project has potential for thermal impacts to the river. They appreciate the City and the developer talking with the agencies and look forward to working out the issues. Chair Rotty asked if she feels the issues raised can be solved. Ms. Hanson felt having everyone in the same room will help to resolve the issue quickly. City Planner Smick stated preliminary plats cannot go beyond the City Council for EA W's. This is the largest project next to a trout stream in the metro. She feels there will be some agreement in the meeting. The developer and the City need to determine what the agencies want and how they can fulfill those requirements. This is a new topic for everyone. Member Larson noted there was no erosion control plan mentioned. Mr. Watson stated that was addressed in the memo to the City. There was nothing in the plans received. Subsequently Mr. Pedersen's letter included those provisions. The agency anticipates seeing that on the revised preliminary plat or future final plat. . Chair Rotty asked the commission to first look at the lot lines, and then review the discussion items, and then the technical issues. He asked the Commission for comments on the preliminary plat itself. Commissioners all agreed with the lot lines contingent on moving the lot lines addressed. Commissioner Barker asked if the parking spaces have to be changed to comply with the code, does that change the lots. Staff replied they were concerned about the parking spaces overall and whether the preliminary plat can be approved without the parking spaces meeting the code. According to the City Attorney, the preliminary plat cannot be held up due to parking spaces. That will be addressed in the site plan. If the developer needs to make smaller buildings to meet parking requirements they might ask for a variance for parking space requirements and will have to show hardship. Commissioner Larson asked if the code for parking spaces was too strict for a project like.this. Staff replied they are looking at other areas around the metro to see if the code is too strict. Chair Rotty asked the Commission to address right - of-way issues on CSAH 50 and Denmark and minimum lot size. Commissioners agreed once the lot lines are addressed the right-of-way issues and minimum lot size will be resolved. Chair Rotty stated the Commission has been very strict on minimum lot size. Any future lots need to comply with minimum lot size. . Chair Rotty then asked for comments regarding the letters from the agencies. Commissioner Johnson did not have a problem sending this forward as long as staffwill follow-up on the issues. Commissioner Larson agreed. He liked the idea of having all the agencies meet and felt the issues can be resolved. Commissioner Richter also agreed with sending this forward as long as the agencies reach an agreement. Commissioner Barker agreed, but had concerns with the agencies comments that there are issues to be resolved before moving forward. He trusted staff to resolve these issues before it goes to Council. Chair Rotty appreciated the agencies comments. He wanted it mentioned in the motion that this does not go on to Council until agency issues and the permit have been Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2004 Page 4 approved. A mistake on the environmental side could make this a poor development. He wanted the agencies to be forceful and strong and not give up until they get what they need. City Planner Smick noted the NPDES permit is approved after the final plat. Staffwill ask for the issues to be resolved to finalize the pennit. Chair Rotty supported sending this to Council with the contingencies that environmental issues are worked out. Chair Rotty asked if there were any major site plan issues. Regarding front yard setbacks, he was not ready to comment on that tonight. He wanted to see what staffs contention is. It needs to be decided what should be visible from CSAH 50. He felt the few conditional uses are reasonable. Parking spaces will have to be reviewed in the future. Commissioner Barker's biggest concern was the parking. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to send a favorable recommendation to Council with a strong contingency that the preliminary plat does not go to Council until number one and number two and number four, environmental issues, have been resolved with the appropriate agencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Mattson Farm Preliminary Plat (continued) Applicant: M.P. Investments One outstanding issue is a shed that was discovered on the property, owned by a neighbor. This will be resolved. Engineering is pleased with the progress made on the ponding issue. The lots do meet the size requirements. Commissioner Larson stated the shed and the septic system concern him. To move a septic system could be costly. If land has to be purchased from Mr. Heinzerling, is there room to redesign the pond if necessary. Staff did not know that information yet, as they are learning where the drainage field is located. If the pond needs to shift, it can go north and stay out of lot lines. Commissioner Johnson asked about the entrance off of Akin Road and asked ifthe Fire Department had any concerns with the curve. The Fire Department has approved the design. Chair Rotty liked the cul-de-sac and the way it lines up with Eaves Way. Regarding the two contingencies, the Commission does not get into negotiations between developers and property owners and asked that they be resolved before going to Council. MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to send a favorable recommendation to the Council with the two contingencies and that they be resolved prior to going to Council. Mr. Mike Heinzerling, MP Investments, stated he is having discussions with Kellogg Environmental Services who have started the process of delineating the wetlands and purchasing wetland credits. Mr. Brian Watson stated he has met with Mr. Heinzerling and staff and the issue is the DNR wetland. The DNR has waived their jurisdiction to the City. The biggest question is do we have wetlands on the lot or do we impact a little more wetland to avoid having wetlands on a . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2004 Page 5 . . . buildable lot. That is desirable. He is comfortable with the wetland impact. This was added to the motion has a third contingency. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Amend Section 10-6-27 of the Zoning Code to Establish Erosion Control Measures Staff recommended revising the code to establish erosion control measures. There is nothing in place for after a home is built to regulate landscaping projects, additions to existing houses where sediment is carried into public streets and other properties. Commissioner Larson questioned number one and requested changing wood fiber blanket to erosion control blanket and add hydro-mulch under number three. Commissioner Barker asked if this would regulate new construction when there is no sod and doing grading prior to the C.O. being issued, or if this is for tearing up a lawn and putting down rock. Staff replied it would be the latter. There are currently erosion control measures in place prior to the C.O. being issued. Chair Rotty noted it states a property owner removing substantial growth. If he takes out a couple bushes and has some dirt there, is that substantial. If someone does digging in the backyard are they all affected by this. Staff replied it is a judgment call. Chair Rotty felt it was not a well-defined judgment call. These are everyday type of instances in the City. He had difficulty creating an ordinance if it cannot be defined well enough. He felt the inspectors had other things to do than to see who is removing bushes. He sees slopes where dirt is running down City paths, so he is not against it. If other Commission members support this, he will not hold it back from going to Council. Ifhe was a Councilmember he would be a little concerned with asking staff to do something that is more difficult than they need to do. Staffwill ask for recommendations from Engineering as to a definition. Commissioner Johnson was concerned with what determines the violation of the ordinance. Some type ofa definition or size of project needs to be stated. Commission Larson felt the inspectors should be given the power to say this could be a problem before it is problem. Staff stated this gives engineers a tool to prevent or correct a problem. Inspectors will not be looking for minor projects, but bigger projects such as if an easement is going to be dammed up creating drainage problems or if sediment will be going onto the street or other properties. Right now, they do not have that authority. Chair Rotty agreed. Mr. Mike Heinzerling, stated with this code, as a builder rep they have to have the silt fence all the way around before getting the C.O. If the owners take a little time to install the sod, does this code come into effect once the C.O. is issued, and once it's issued the owner will come back to the builder to put the silt fence back up. He asked who would be responsible. Staff stated there are ways to deal with that currently. This affects more established properties. MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to approve with the two changes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2004 Page 6 4. Discussion . a) Farmington/Castle Rock Joint Planning Board . The City and Empire Township currently have a planning advisory committee. Council has directed staffto establish the same type of board with Castle Rock Township. Staff asked for a Planning Commission representative on the board. The position would go through the end ofthe year. It would receive a new appointment at the beginning of each year. Commissioner Richter volunteered. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to recommend Commissioner Richter. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson. Abstain: Richter. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Larson volunteered to go to the first couple meetings to get it established. b) Next Planning Commission Meeting - Tuesday, October 12, 2004 4. Adjourn MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, (~~VC,{~~ /?'7c<:-c{/d:: CYnthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved 1{r;t~ ~I?I~ . . I . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting October 12, 2004 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Johnson, Larson, Richter Members Absent: Barker Also Present: Lee Smick, City Planner; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) September 28, 2004 MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to approve the September 28, 2004 Minutes. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings e) Parkview Ponds Preliminary Plat (continued) Applicant: Manley Land Development (This item was moved forward to accommodate the audience). Manley Land Development is being required to continue the preliminary plat due to grading and drainage issues that are unresolved. They need to meet NPDES requirements. A meeting is scheduled for tomorrow. Staff requested this be continued to the November 9, 2004 meeting. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to continue the Parkview Ponds Preliminary Plat to November 9, 2004. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. a) Kwik Trip - Amendment to the Dakota County Estates 3rd Addition PUD Agreement Applicant: Convenience Store Investments The original PUD af:eement for the 3rd Addition was done in 1985. The site is north of Upper 183T Street, English Avenue to the east and Pilot Knob to the west. The current building houses bp Gas Station, Cahill Salon, Dominos Pizza, a tanning salon, and the liquor store. The PUD amendment is being requested because Kwik Trip would like to demolish the existing building and construct their own building. The building would be located on the south portion of the property. The building will contain a total of 4824.5 sq. ft. of convenience store. There will not be a car wash. The agreement states a convenience store/gas station is a permitted use. There will be a 50 ft. setback along Pilot Knob, a 30 ft. setback from English A venue and Upper 183rd Street. It will be a brick exterior with glass store front. They are required to have 32 parking spaces and their plan shows 34 parking spaces. Staffalso reviewed the landscape plan. Staffwill work with Kwik Trip on the berming. Staffhas asked them to place brick around the trash enclosure. They propose upgrading the pylon sign to brick. Kwik Trip is asking for a deviation of 30 ft. for their sign so they can put it out 20 ft. from the \ \ Planning Commission Minutes October 12, 2004 Page 2 right-of-way easement. They will have to apply for a sign permit. The following modifications are: - Revise the Pin Oaks to show allowable street trees. - Put in a sidewalk along the west side of English Avenue and tie up with the sidewalks along Farmington Gateway. - Provide similar material on three sides of the trash enclosure. . Mr. Hans Zietlow, Kwik Trip, stated it will be operated as a 24-hour store. He also showed the commission the lighting plan. They would like to take care of demolition as early as possible. They will take the underground storage tanks out of the ground this winter. Demolition would start as soon as possible, with construction late spring/early summer. Construction should take 8-10 weeks. Commissioner Larson asked if the sign setback should be in the modifications. Staffwill add this. Chair Rotty asked if any soil testing needed to be done. Mr. Zietlow replied that is one reason they take the old tanks out and put their new tanks in. The environmental testing shows it is a clean site. Commissioner Johnson asked ifthere has to be a 6 ft. fence around the area during demolition. Staffwill provide the demolition requirements to Mr. Zietlow. Chair Rotty mentioned the displacement of some of the tenants. He hoped the City could retain them. MOTION by Richter, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to send a favorable recommendation to the Council for the PUD Agreement with the four . conditions. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Farmington Business Park Applicant: Colin Garvey Farmington Business Park Preliminary Plat Applicant: Colin Garvey Mr. Garvey has applied for a rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment in conjunction with the preliminary plat. There are still some outstanding issues with the plat concerning wetlands, grading, and storm water management. There is also a platting issue with three existing lots on Canton Court. The boundaries on the plat are not consistent with the rezoning in the comprehensive plan amendment because there is an annexation issue. There are some lots in the plat that are not included in the annexation area. Staff is requesting the rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment and the preliminary plat be continued until they can work on the annexation of three additional parcels to be included in the plat and the rezoning. The three property owners are interested in annexing to the City and will be applying for annexation soon. MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to continue the zoning and comprehensive plan amendment to the Farmington Business Park to the November 9, 2004 meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to continue the Farmington Business Park preliminary plat to November 9,2004. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . c) . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 12,2004 Page 3 d) Ordinance Amending Title 10 Chapter 6 by Adding Section 1 0-6-3(B)(1) subd. (t) Logo Signs for Civic and Fraternal Organizations Staff is proposing to amend the code to allow logo signs within public rights-of- way. A request was received from the Lions Club who wanted to put up a sign near the City's entrance signs. The signs are limited to non-commercial organizations. Signs would have to be approved by the Director of Public Works. Chair Rotty noted the organization has to maintain the sign for the duration it is up. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to send a favorable recommendation to the Council to adopt the ordinance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Bridge Project Staff presented a conceptual drawing ofthe Spruce Street Master Plan area. The area is located south ofHwy 50 and west of Denmark Avenue. It is proposed to extend Spruce Street from the downtown area, across the Vermillion River and into this development. A bridge is needed to cross the river. Engineering sponsored a public meeting to obtain comments on the design of the bridge. Staff showed different designs of the bridge and material types. Staff requested comments from the Planning Commission, the audience, and any interested residents within one week. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, d~ ~ ~-;1 / ~ ....,,-~". ~/::.,.-/ -Gc::.-.-<---7;t!;:CL ?-F?t:. -: ':'{J /^-:;-;r 'Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved 4t/ ~ ad( . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting November 9, 2004 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Larson, Richter Members Absent: Johnson Also Present: Lee Smick, City Planner; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director 2. Approval of Minutes a) October 12, 2004 MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to approve the October 12, 2004 Minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Larson, Richter. Abstain: Barker. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Variance to Expand a Nonconforming Use - 421 Elm Street Applicant: Lori Ecklund Ms. Lori Ecklund is applying for a variance to expand a non-conforming use. The property is currently zoned B-2, downtown business and is used for residential purposes. The code states you cannot expand a non-conforming use. The addition is 16 ft x 24 ft and will be in the back. Staff recommended approval. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the variance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Amendment to the Charleswood PUD/Schematic Plan - Charleswood Northeast Applicant: Centex Homes 195th Street is to the north and Pilot Knob Road is to the east of this area. In November 1997, Council approved the plan for the Charleswood development. The single family home section is completed and some multi-family homes. In 1997 a PUD was approved showing medium and high density residential in the subject area. Centex Homes would like to construct 44 single family lots on 56 ft. wide lots with 7,000 sq ft. minimum in this area. An amendment to the PUD is required to do this. The setbacks will be 25 ft. from the front and 5 ft. and 10ft. on each side. The rear of the property would have a 20 ft. setback. Comer lots will have 25 ft. on both street sides. Centex is also proposing 108 townhomes in the area. The developer has requested approval of the PUD amendment to allow for the low/medium density residential with the 56 ft. wide lots contingent on preliminary plat approval on December 14, 2004. The Commission could also deny the low/medium density or continue the public hearing to December 14, 2004. Planning Commission Minutes November 9,2004 Page 2 Mr. Matt Anfang, Centex Homes, showed the proposed plan to the Commission. . He thanked staff for their help throughout the process and in setting up the neighborhood meeting. There will be 10 single family homes in the cul-de-sac and 34 in the western portion of the site. There will be 42 ofthe 3-unit buildings in the south portion and 15 in the cul-de-sac area. The coach homes would front Pilot Knob Road and the carriage homes would be behind them. Mr. Greg Opsal, 19791 Evensong Avenue, they were aware of the medium to high density area when they built their home. They attended the neighborhood meeting and also looked at these same homes in Apple Valley. They were very pleased with how the neighborhood looked. Commissioner Richter was concerned with the small size of the lots. Commissioner Larson asked about the square footage of the house and if there would be single or double garages. Mr. Anfang replied they are double garages and the homes are 1800 sq. ft. A basement would be additional. Commissioner Barker was also concerned with the lot size and wanted the opportunity to view the homes. Chair Rotty has seen the area with these homes and did not realize how small the lots were. He was glad to see the residents in the area supporting the change. He felt this might be a good location to try something unique. Commissioner Richter asked if the medium density could be continued all the way to the south. Staffwill be discussing this with the Dakota County Plat Commission. They have recommended that the cul-de-sac location be denied. . They do not want a cul-de-sac directly onto Pilot Knob Road. A median would be required and it is possible traffic will make a u-turn around the median and head north. There are some steep slopes in the area. In the original PUD it states no construction will be done on 20% slopes or higher which is in this area. There is no opportunity to connect the areas. Commissioner Richter felt it would be more unique if the neighborhood stayed in one area rather than two. Mr. Anfang felt the cul-de-sac is a good spot for additional single-family homes because of the view and the character of the wetland behind them. They would like to work with Dakota County to alleviate the problem with the median. With the steep slope, single family is the only thing that can be developed in the area. Chair Rotty stated he would like to send this to the Council to give them some time to think about it before preliminary plat. If Dakota County does not allow the cul-de-sac the area would become an outlot. Staff feels the reasoning is there for a cul-de-sac. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to recommend approval ofthe amendment ofthe Charleswood PUD schematic plan contingent on the preliminary plat approval of Charleswood northeast on December 14, 2004. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Charleswood Northeast Preliminary Plat Applicant: Centex Homes MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to continue the public hearing to December 14,2004. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. a Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 3 . . . d) Parkview Ponds Preliminary Plat (continued) Applicant: Manley Land Development The developer is proposing 147 single family lots on 88 acres. 195th Street is to the north, to the west is City property and Akin Road, and to the east is the Giles/Murphy property. Contingencies are: 1. Provide a turnaround at Embers Avenue at the eastern border of the property. 2. Provide a 60 ft. right-of-way and 32 ft-wide street from Embers Avenue. 3. Provide a temporary alternative access from the cul-de-sac. 4. TIlustrate and construct a stub street for 198th Street through lot 8, block 9 on the west of the lot. 5. Provide emergency access on the south side of the plat along the existing farm road including the upgrade of the road and clearing branches. 6. Redesign street 3 and reconfigure the lots in block 6 and 7. 7. Show the trails on the plat. 8. Meet NPDES permits. The developer will attempt to provide hydrology to the existing wetland. 9. Approval of a wetland mitigation plan. lO. Approval of construction plans. Mr. Frank Blundetto, Manley Land Development, stated they will meet these contingencies. MOTION by Richter, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to recommend approval the preliminary plat with the 10 contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Farmington Business Park (continued) Applicant: Colin Garvey Farmington Business Park Preliminary Plat (continued) Applicant: Colin Garvey Staff recommended continuing the plat until December 14, 2004. This is a commercial area south ofHwy 50. There are three existing businesses. Mr. Garvey proposes to create 7 additional lots. The plat is being held up due to annexation issues. Annexation petitions have not been received for the three properties in Canton Court. Staff expects this to happen before the December meeting. 1) Mr. Garvey asked what the City's policy is if the three properties in Canton Court do not come into the City. He would like this moved forward. Chair Rotty stated in a previous meeting he strongly recommended those three lots be annexed into the City. The Commission does not have the authority to comment on this. It needs to be addressed by the Council. Staff feels there is no reason why Canton Court should remain in the township. There will be a meeting on Friday with the township. MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to continue the Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 4 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the preliminary plat hearings to December 14,2004. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . g) Amend Section 10-6-4 (D) of the Zoning Code to Change Driveway Width Requirements In the past the driveway width requirement was 26 ft. at the curb and widening to 30 ft. at the property line. It has been changed to 30 ft. at the curb and the property line. This is to make the code consistent with the engineering plates. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Richter, second by Larson to send a favorable recommendation to the Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. h) Zoning Code Text Amendments Regarding Accessory Structures Currently the code allows a property to have one shed up to 120 sq. ft. and one detached garage typically up to 1000 sq. ft. depending on lot size. There have been several requests from residents wanting to build a larger shed, but not the size of a garage. Staff proposed a maximum of 1000 sq. ft., such as a 400 sq. ft shed and 600 sq. ft detached garage. Staff suggested capping the size ofthe shed to 250 sq. ft. Staff recommended having Council review this at a workshop after the first of the year. Commissioner Larson suggested leaving the garage size at 1000 sq. ft. maximum rather than combining the shed and the garage. The Commission agreed with having a workshop with the new Council in January or February. . Mr. Colin Garvey asked about height requirements. Staff replied for garages it is 20 ft, for sheds it is 12 ft. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to continue the public hearing until March 2005. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) "Murphy 350 Acres" Sketch Plan - Giles Properties A sketch plan allows the developer to receive feedback from the Commission regarding land uses. Mr. John Anderson, Giles Properties, reviewed the plan. They propose a mixture of single family and townhomes. Commissioner Larson wanted to discuss the restricted development area meaning it is zoned R -1. Chair Rotty understood the developer has a lot of infrastructure to install and needs a higher density to pay for it. Mr. Anderson stated he has not seen in the comprehensive plan that restricted development means large lots. He understood this area was to be a connection between the north and the south portions of the City. Other than the wetland the rest of the area is a bean field. He did not see how the bean field would be a natural amenity. There are basically no trees in the area and feels they would add the amenities. Chair Rotty stated . they wanted a development that would preserve the amenities in the development such as along the river. Not that it is wrong, but he did not envision high density Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2004 Page 5 . . housing. He envisioned some parks which they have in the center and some smaller lots. He wondered ifthe high density along the river was a good location. Mr. Anderson stated there are developments further to the west with townhomes along the river in Vermillion Grove, and the D.R. Horton development. Staff noted there was never any mention of larger lots, but well-designed high-amenity housing that was cohesive with the natural environment. It needs to be recognized that this area is in the special waters district which flows to a trout stream. This plan will have to be brought to the DNR, MPCA, etc. Commissioner Barker was also concerned with the 60 ft. lots and the multi- family. He wondered ifthey wanted this continued through other areas to Hwy 3. Commissioner Richter stated on the southern portion she would like to see larger lots rather than 60 ft. lots. Chair Rotty did not have any major issues with the plan as long as the transition between housing densities is not abrupt. b) MUSA Review Committee Recommendation The Committee proposed in the western portion of the City there will be no MUSA granted. The only exception would be the Christensen property if the high school is built there. As far as the southern portion ofthe City properties B and C are proposed for 2006. In the central portion the Giles property and the Manley property have received MUSA. Property Q2, the southern portion of the Giles property is scheduled for 2006, and property 8, Giles property is approved contingent upon annexation. The southern portion of the SeedlGenstar property is proposed to receive MUSA in 2006, the central portion in 2009, and the northern portion in 2012. The Harris property is not recommended for MUSA. On the eastern portion of the City, properties 1 and 2 will receive MUSA upon annexation. Upon the Commissions recommendation for approval, these recommendations will be brought to the Council. Commissioner Larson would like to see growth in the southeast portion of the City to keep residents supporting the downtown. Chair Rotty noted that would have to be a Council decision. MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Approved O6Lll, za1 Respectfully submitted, ~~v,~d~ /?7J~ ~thia Muller Executive Assistant . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting December 14, 2004 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson Members Absent: Richter Also Present: Lee Smick, City Planner; Jim Atkinson, Assistant City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) November 9, 2004 MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the December 14,2004 Minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Larson. Abstain: Johnson. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Home Occupation for a Hair Salon Applicant: 5157 203rd Court West Ms. Jill Miller has submitted a home occupation permit for a hair salon in her home. The applicant does comply with the home occupation requirements. The hours would be 10 a.m. - 6 p.m., two days a week, 10 hours per week. She will take clients by appointment only, there would be no signage and a parking space would be provided in the driveway. Staff received some concerns from residents in the area regarding traffic flow, safety of children in the area, and the difficulty of trying to sell a home ifthere is a home occupation in the area. Staff recommends approval of the permit. Ms. Jill Miller stated there would be 4-6 customers per week. After working 13 years she would like to keep up her license. She is expecting their fourth child and wanted the business in her home so she would not have to get daycare. Most of her clients are professional people. Chair Rotty received a letter signed by six residents. Mr. Michael Hitt, 5162 203rd Court West, stated this is in no way an attack on Ms. Miller, they just want to present their concerns. Their first concern is the traffic flow. Even though the clientele is limited, they do not want to introduce extra traffic into the neighborhood. There are 24 children living on the court. Kids will be kids and play in the street. They are worried that this could be an issue with people driving into the neighborhood looking for the house and not paying full attention. The second concern is home value. If they have an issue with a business being in the neighborhood and they would want to sell their house, will that have a negative impact on what they can sell their homes for. It is about making sure their children are safe and to prevent any type of freak accident. Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2004 Page 2 . Ms. Christy Wainwright, 5120 203rd Court West, stated she is interested in more information regarding if Ms. Miller should decide to expand her business and what is done at that point. What can they do to ensure it is one chair, 3-4 cars per week. Intern Schwanz stated under the city code a home occupation may be conducted solely and entirely by persons who reside fulltime in the home. The occupation shall be conducted wholly within the principal or accessory structures. No structure alterations or enlargements may be made for the sole purpose of conducting a home occupation. City Planner Smick stated as far as the approval of a conditional use, this is to approve the conditions of a use concerning a home occupation. What we are discussing is to operate a one-chair salon at this time, the hours be set from 10 a.m. - 6 p.m., two days a week with intentions of working 10 hours per week. This is the limit of this conditional use permit request. If Ms. Miller wants to expand her operation, she will have to come back to the Planning Commission for another public hearing. . Ms. Miller stated she is aware ofthe state laws she is required to follow. She is permitted to put down hours in order for the state to check out the salon. She has never worked from 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. in one day. She chose those hours as an example. As far as her clients getting lost, she sends out a confirmation letter to her clients, stating when their appointment is, directions to her house, there is no parking on the street, and there will be a picture of the house for the first year so they do not go to any other house other than hers. In salons where she has worked, she has been considered the most professional person in her industry because she is very detailed in what she does and how she approaches herself in her business. She guaranteed she will never increase her clientele. She has been in Lakeville for 3 ~ years and for 3 of those years she has not accepted new clients. Where she lives now, the neighbors cannot tell she even lives there. There are probably more cars in other people's driveways than in hers. Chair Rotty noted the local ordinance has the ability to set conditions on these uses. We need to lock in some hours. City Planner Smick stated if she cannot give specific hours we can take the number of hours per week. Commissioner Larson agreed the number of hours per week would be fine. Mr. Rick Jarema, 5194 203rd Court, stated it is critical to set hours, not just weekly hours. If it is homecoming and there is a big rush and cars arriving at all hours, there are times there are problems with traffic in general. He would be more comfortable with specific hours. . Ms. Miller asked if she can guarantee there will be never more than one car in her driveway at all times, if that would be acceptable. Chair Rotty stated he thinks of a home occupation being brought into his neighborhood, he would want defined hours. Most home occupations are done during the day when most other people are gone to work. At night when people are home trying to enjoy their neighborhood, it begins to impede on their rights. He would like to see some defined hours during the day. Ms. Miller stated all her clients only come during the day. Chair Rotty recommended this be limited to 6 p.m. Ms. Ann Jarema, 5194 203rd Court West, wanted to reiterate they are here to talk Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2004 Page 3 . about their children. She is a working parent and when she comes home they are outside playing and learning to ride their bikes. Parents are outside with them, but there have been several times cars come into the cul-de-sac looking at the homes and not watching the children in the road. She respected the fact people will park in the driveway, but how do we know that. This is a cul-de-sac and people turn around in a cul-de-sac. To add any more traffic concerns her. There are 15 children under the age of four. Their major concern is the children. . Commissioner Larson understood the concern for the children, but with the limited amount of business, he does not see how the traffic will be a problem. This does meet the requirements of a home occupation. Ms. Miller did state if the neighbors were all against it, she would not do it. She wants a happy neighborhood. Commissioner Barker stated she does comply with the home occupation requirements and did not see a problem. If she wants to work it out with her neighbors, it is her choice if she wants to operate a business. Commissioner Johnson agreed. He was also in favor of it just for the fact they have approved numerous conditional uses for home based businesses throughout the city. The number of hours Ms. Miller plans on working is minimal. He can understand the concerns with the traffic and children, but did not think it was reasonable for the amount of traffic. If there were five teenagers living at the end ofthe street, you could not say anything about it. If she did not want to follow the state guidelines and just did it on her own, we would not know about. He does not like shooting people down who are trying to make do with what they have when they go through the process and obtain the permits. . Chair Rotty stated he has been doing this for 20 years and they have had a number of occupations come in and he cannot think of one they did not approve. Never have they had a neighborhood come out with 8-10 of the neighbors concerned about the safety of the children. Ms. Miller mentioned she had a concern with neighborhood relationships. He did not hear any negativity from the neighbors but they are concerned about safety. This does fall in line with home occupation. Ms. Miller has been fair with her hours and the amount of time she will work. He asked if Ms. Miller wanted to continue with the public hearing and the home occupation permit. Ms. Miller replied yes and even when she worked in Edina, she was one ofthe top people there. Because she knew she would be a mom, she worked as a nanny on the side just for the experience of doing the mom thing. At that time she charged $45 for a haircut, now she charges $60, if she was in Edina it would be $80 or $100. She would take care of people's kids when she wasn't working. She does not let her kids out of her sight. Some of the people who are on the list she has cut their hair and she has asked them ifthey have ever had an issue with her doing this and they have said no. The house is so far along and they have upgraded everything. Their house is almost $600,000 and it is on one ofthe smallest lots. They would lose $100,000 - $150,000 by having to pull out of this house. She does not want to lose her license and leave when she has four little children. Her children are her priority and her passion is fixing hair. It hurt her when she found out so many people in her neighborhood were against her. She thought everyone was okay because she talked about it. She would have pulled out early if she knew there were any concerns. She picked this Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2004 Page 4 . neighborhood because of the people. Chair Rotty agreed it is a very peaceful and nice neighborhood. Working a few hours a week will add some traffic and safety is always a concern. Property valuation usually comes up in these situations. He agreed with the Commission that as long as reasonable conditions were set that meet the intentions of the code, he would support it. Ms. Miller stated there are people in the neighborhood that do scrapbook sales, Tupperware parties, and there are five daycares on the way to her house that have signs in their yard and that would have more traffic than her business would generate. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to approve the conditional use permit with the condition the hours are IO a.m. - 6 p.m., two days a week, ten hours per week, one chair. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Variance from the Minimum Lot Size Requirement in the A-I Zoning District Applicant: Doug Malszycki, 19585 Flagstaff Avenue The property consists of 10 acres on Flagstaff Avenue at the intersection of 195th Street. In the A-I district the minimum lot size is 40 acres. The comprehensive plan designates the area as urban reserve. This request is to allow a subdivision ofthe property to add two lots just over one acre for the purpose of constructing two single family homes. The property would stay in the family. Variances have to comply with six criteria. One of the criteria is that there be a hardship. Staff does not feel there is a hardship and this parcel is not unique to the area. There are several non-conforming parcels in the area. Staff recommended denial of the variance because it does not meet the six criteria. . Mr. Doug Malszycki, 19585 Flagstaff Avenue, stated he believed there will be a high school built to the south of them and city sewer and water will be run through there. They felt this was a good time to get the land platted so they are able to stub into it. The lots are for his sons. Commissioner Barker asked if even one criteria is not met, do they have to deny it. Staff replied yes, all of the criteria need to be met. Some are met, but the main one is that there is not a hardship. Commissioner Johnson stated he was not for this and he did not see the hardship. Commissioner Larson agreed and he could not come up with a hardship. Chair Rotty stated this is a matter of timing. Four years ago when the comprehensive plan was developed there was a strong desire to keep this area rural. If the high school is built there, there would be a stronger push for other things to happen. Until that is certain, the Commission could not allow lot splits that would go against the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance. A year from now, things may be different. He agreed with the rest of the Commission. . MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to deny the variance request. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Chair Rotty directed staffto Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2004 Page 5 . . . provide findings of fact for approval at the next meeting. c) Variance to the Protected Areas Ordinance in Section 11-4-8 Concerning Steep Slopes - Charleswood Northeast Applicant: Centex Homes Charleswood Northeast Preliminary Plat Applicant: Centex Homes 195th Street is to the north and Pilot Knob Road is to the east ofthis development. Centex Homes is proposing 43 single-family homes just to the east of the existing single family. They will be 56 ft. wide lots as was approved under a PUD. There will be a cul-de-sac on the southern end of the property. The remainder of the property will be multi-family, 108 units. There will be an access from 195th Street. There will also be a full intersection at 197th Street and Pilot Knob Road. The roads in the multi-family area will be 22 ft. wide. Homes beyond the 150 ft. access will have a sprinkler system. The code does not allow development of wetlands or ponds with more than a 20% slope. The developer is requesting a variance to provide a roadway. Instead of the cul-de-sac coming off of Pilot Knob Road, it will now be connected internally. There is a large stand of trees that will remain. The developer will install trails that will connect with existing trails. A trail will be installed behind the cul-de-sac to provide a distinction between the back of the lot and the wetland buffer. There are also some engineering details that need to be resolved. A 10ft. easement is required for a sanitary sewer. Conditions to the variance include: d) The plat needs to include turnarounds, which has been resolved. 22 ft. wide roadways need to be signed no parking. The trail in Outlot H needs to be up against the cul-de-sac. Outlot H should not encroach into lot 11. The preliminary plat needs to meet the requirement in the December 9, 2004 letter from the Park and Recreation Director. The plat is contingent on the approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities. Mr. Matt Anfang, Centex Homes, thanked the Planning Commission for moving the PUD forward. They met with the Dakota County Plat Commission trying to make the right-in, right-out on Pilot Knob work and how they can go through the steep slope area. They offered to take out one of the lots and place the parking lot in an area that would not impact the steep slope. They will try to save as many trees as possible. They agreed with the sprinkling of the buildings. Mr. Anfang stated Fire Marshal Powers returned phone calls quickly and they have everything resolved. Mr. Anfang stated some residents requested the outlot area be seeded to create a buffer. He stated the City will handle seeding the outlot. Regarding the depths ofthe lots along Pilot Knob Road, the lots would have a 25 ft. setback to the house, a 60 ft. building pad, so the depths of the lots along Pilot Knob would be 149 ft, 169 ft, 171 ft. and 136 ft. They will try to move the cul-de-sac more towards Pilot Knob. Commissioner Larson asked what kind of trees will be taken out of the steep slope area and how many. City Planner Smick replied there has not been a tree survey Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2004 Page 6 . done. Mr. Jason McCarty, Engineer, stated it is a limited amount. City Planner Smick stated they have revised the plan to save more trees. Mr. McCarty stated they would remove trees to install sanitary and storm sewer. Commissioner Larson asked if the City passed a tree preservation ordinance. Staff replied yes, but it says to try to save as many trees as possible. Staff has discussed revising it and presenting it to the new Council. The developer can shift the cul-de-sac further to the north without adding additional lots to save some trees. Commissioner Larson asked what the slope on the road will be. Mr. McCarty replied it will be 6% - 7%. As far as the impact to the area, the slope will be changed in the immediate area ofthe roadway and a little sloping on either side will be affected. Commissioner Larson asked what the width will be they will be impacting and the percent of slope to the original grade. He stated it is okay to not develop every square inch of the City if there will be negative impact on the surrounding area. Maybe those 10 lots are not needed. . Commissioner Johnson asked ifthere would be any custom grading done in the cul-de-sac area to preserve more of the trees. Mr. Anfang replied if there is a specific tree worth saving, they would try to do that. The rest ofthe site does not contain that many trees. Their landscape plan identifies 400 additional trees that will be planted. Commissioner Johnson asked if a rail was needed along the slope. Mr. McCarty stated the highest slope is at 8 ft. which matches in with the rest of the grading. The maximum steep grade for the City is 8% and they are at 6% - 7%. No rail would be required. The width of the disturbance is 100 ft. There will be a few trees impacted. They looked at custom grading, but the problem is coming down the hill. The trees will be at the back of the lots on the cul-de-sac and everything else will be clear cut. Chair Rotty stated he would have been concerned with the right-in, right-out on Pilot Knob. He would support the variance. He would like to see what can be done to swing the cul-de-sac further north to save more trees. Mr. Jon Lindrud, 19717 Evensong Avenue, asked how close the homes will come to the path and if they will encroach into the field in the grassy area. The developer replied the pad towards the trail at a minimum is 7 ft. Commissioner Larson stated fire trucks have been discussed with regard to the narrower streets. He asked staff to check with solid waste to make sure the garbage trucks can make it in and out safely. Mr. Greg Opsal, 19791 Evensong Avenue, felt this is a great change, but had the same concern with the Pilot Knob access. He would also like to see something done with the cul-de-sac to save more trees. . MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to close both public hearings. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to approve the variance in the protected area. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to approve the preliminary plat with five contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2004 Page 7 . . . e) Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Farmington Business Park Farmington Business Park Preliminary Plat Applicant: Colin Garvey There will be a zoning designation ofPUD. There have been a few changes from the B-3 zoning district. The developer is adding a permitted use which is fast food restaurants. The minimum lot size in the B-3 district is 5,000 sq. ft. For this PUD staffis looking at I acre. The setback for a B-3 is 0 ft., for this PUD staffis looking at 20 ft. Along with the PUD would come design standards. One is exterior building materials. If the industrial park design standards are adopted, it should be assumed hardi-plank would be allowed. Another issue is there is one business which is a mini-storage. They propose a concrete or brick front with metal siding in the middle, similar to what is out there now. Staff is asking, now that these buildings are in the City, does the Commission want to raise the bar with regard to design standards. The other thought is there are some existing conditions there so should we match them. The proposed design standards would raise the bar. Another issue is the lot coverage. In the industrial park lot coverage is 35% maximum, which does not include parking lots or driveways. A mini- storage would take up more land than 35%, possibly 40%-45% as far as just buildings. The PUD does allow mini-storage as a conditional use. There is a design standard that talks about 65% for all coverage, which includes buildings and parking lots. For a mini-storage this may be low. Right now the property is not designated. They propose a business classification for the comprehensive plan. 1) Mr. Colin Garvey, felt the commission should look at what is there and perhaps upgrade a little. To be too restrictive would not be beneficial. Today's metals have a lifetime warranty. He suggested allowing 50% masonry and 50% metal. Mr. Garvey stated his building is metal and rock-face block. Another building is metal all the way to the ground and the other building is 25% masonry and 75% metal. Another will be masonry along the east side and metal. Mr. John Tongsacher, who is proposing the mini-storage, stated he would like to define the standards before they are set. He would like to see the standards match the buildings that are already out there. He suggested not to exceed 50% metal on the walls. A mini-storage would not be able to effectively utilize the space at a 35% coverage area. Based on their design, 45% coverage for structures would be appropriate. There will be access between each building and around the perimeter. Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to eliminate the sexually oriented businesses. Chair Rotty stated there are certain areas of the City it is required to be offered. Staff stated this would be an accessory to a business, not to exceed 25%. Those locations are in the existing industrial park. They would not be allowed in this area. Commissioner Larson stated as far as the metal and masonry coverage they should stay with the existing standards, 50-50. With regard to the lot coverage, he Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2004 Page 8 . asked if that should be set for everyone or ifit would be a variance for the mini- storage. Staff suggested specifically stating a lot coverage for mini-storage. Commissioner Barker agreed with Commissioner Larson. Chair Rotty agreed they should not drop below 50-50 for the design standards. Staffnoted there are requirements for signing and Mr. Garvey will have to look at his signage. His current sign will have to be removed. The PUD could be sent through without the design standards and bring them back to the next meeting. The plat is contingent on setting the zoning and comprehensive plan. The preliminary plat would also be contingent on the design standards. The Commission agreed with this. The design standards would include exterior building materials and lot coverage. The Commission could revise the lot coverage to 45%. Staffwill add mini-storage maximum lot coverage for structures at 45%. The lot coverage for buildings and pavements will be held until staff brings back design standards. Staffwill also remove the sexually oriented businesses. . Staff then presented the preliminary plat. The three lots on the east side of Canton Court have been excluded from the plat including Canton Court. The developer proposes seven new lots. There are two issues that are outstanding. An easement is required over a piece of land that contains a proposed storm water facility on the north side of Canton Circle. The second issue is the right-of-way. Canton Circle is shown as 66 ft. wide. Engineering wants it shown as a 70 ft. right-of- way. Another requirement is a right-of-way on Canton Court. If in the future a wider road is needed for Canton Court, staff is asking for an additional 5 ft. on the west side of Canton Court. This condition has been satisfied. Staff asked if the plat should be contingent on the design standards. Parks and Recreation Director Distad provided a memo designating the trails he would like to see. One would be a trail around the pond that is being constructed. Another trail would extend from the south end of Canton Court down to the future residential area. There should also be a trail along the west side. Staff is consulting with the traffic engineer to see if this would be the best place to have a crossing. Staff suggested holding off on this trail and perhaps have a crossing on the golf course property in the future. Mr. Garvey asked if the trail around the pond would be a City trail. Staffis asking Mr. Garvey to pave a portion of the trail as part of his park improvement requirement. . MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to close both public hearings. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to modify the PUD standards adding for minimum lot coverage for mini-storage, deleting the design standards until the next meeting, and deleting the sexually oriented businesses and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the preliminary and final plat including contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . . . Planning Commission Minutes December 14,2004 Page 9 4. Discussion a) Round Bank Concept Plan (Tamarack Ridge) The Round Bank is proposing to construct a bank facility on the southeast corner ofHwy 66 and TH3. The remaining portion of the outlot would be additional building sites. The main access would be along Cascade Drive off ofHwy 66. The plan shows a right-in only from TH3. Mr. Michael Campmeyer, representing Round Bank, stated it will be a 6,000 sq. ft. building made of concrete and brick. They tried to get a right-in and right-out on Hwy 66, but the County would not allow it. It will be a single-story building with a basement. There will be an area for future expansion and four drive-up lanes. There will be 40 parking spaces including handicap parking. They hope to start construction in the spring. Commission Johnson liked the plan. Commission Larson stated his only concern was traffic and that is being addressed. The Commission looked forward to receiving the preliminary and final plat. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Approved rj,w,4lit/f !!, za;6 ~~?v7~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant