Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting January 11, 2005 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 2. Approval of Minutes a) December 14, 2004 MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to approve the December 14,2004 Minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Johnson, Larson. Abstain: Richter. MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Mattson Farm Final Plat & Wetland Conservation Act Permit Applicant: M.P. Investments MP Investments requested the Planning Commission review the Mattson Farm final plat and wetland conservation act permit. The plat consists of 5 lots. Akin Road is to the west of this area. MUSA may be granted to parcels less than 5 acres, therefore, MUSA would be allowed administratively. There has been one change to the plat which is an outlot in the northern portion of the plat. By moving the 203rd Street extension in a southerly direction and then east would be better as two homes would not be lost and there is also a wetland complex in the back. Outlot C would be needed for the 203rd Street alignment and Outlot A would be dedicated to the City. This would provide for the right-of-way for 203rd Street. The lots are over 10,000 sq. ft. Outlot B would be a storm water pond. There is an outstanding issue from the preliminary plat. There is a shed, owned by Mr. Ken Gerdts, encroaching onto the Mattson property by 2-4 ft. There is also the possibility of a drain field in the area. Both the shed and the drainfield will be close to Outlot B. Staff will not sign off on the final plat until these items are moved. The shed would have to be moved to the 6 ft. setback from the property line. The state requires drain fields be located at least lOft. from the property line. There is no variance opportunity for the drain field. The City Attorney has advised the final plat approval should be contingent upon the removal or relocation of the shed and drain field and the City should not sign the final plat until the issues are resolved. Mr. John Smyth, of Bon est roo, has requested approval of the Wetland Permit application. MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter approving the Mattson Farm Final Plat and the Wetland Conservation Act Permit with the three contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 Page 2 3. Public Hearings a) Farmington Business Park Design Standards The Farmington Business Park is located south ofHwy 50 and east ofHwy 3. At the previous meeting, it was decided to follow the industrial park design standards with a few modifications. Regarding exterior building materials, it was discussed having 50% of the building being brick or stone and the other 50% being a material such as metal. A future landowner had said the entire front of his building would be brick or stone. At that point the Commission went in that direction and said everything facing the street should be 100% brick or stone and the rest perhaps 80% alternate material such as metal with a 20% band of brick or stone around the sides and the back. The next issue was setbacks. The industrial park design standards are 50 ft for the front yard, and side and rear yard setbacks are 25 ft. For the business park, staff is looking at 20 ft for the front yard and 10 ft for the side and rear yards. The third modification is lot coverage. In the PUD standards there is a provision for building coverage. Any structure cannot cover more than 35% of the lot. A modification was made that mini-storage facilities only could cover 45%. In the industrial park, the City looks at total lot coverage meaning buildings and parking areas. That standard is 65%. The owner of the mini-storage would need to cover more than 65%. The Commission should discuss whether to leave it at 65% for everything, increase it for mini-storage to 75%, or increase for all uses. On the lot for the mini-storage the easements comprise over 18% of the lot. So the most coverage could be 82%. Mr. Colin Garvey would like the Commission to look at 50% for exterior building materials. His building is masonry and metal. Commissioner Richter asked how many more buildings would be built there. Staff replied seven new lots are being created. Once the buildings along Hwy 50 are annexed, the Commission would have to decide ifthose should follow the design standards. Mr. Colin Garvey stated on his new building along Hwy 50 he will have masonry all the way up. He suggested everything along Hwy 50 to have all masonry would not be so bad, but in the cul-de-sac not many people would go back there. Chair Rotty would like the Commission to consider setting the fronts and the sides as high as possible. They also do not want to deter any development. He would like nice looking industrial sites whether coming in from the west or the east. He does not want all metal sheds. Perhaps the appearance from Hwy 50 should be more than 50%. As far as the setbacks, he did not see a problem changing it to a 20 ft front and a 10ft side. As far as the coverage, the change was made for the mini-storage and there is 18% for easements. Staff felt perhaps 75% coverage for mini-storage would be appropriate. . . Commissioner Larson stated the original industrial park allowed certain lots for . the 50%. Perhaps the Commission could do the same in the business park as Mr. Garvey suggested. Along Hwy 50 have 100% and as you go further into the Planning Commission Minutes January 11,2005 Page 3 . business park have 50-50. Community Development Director Carroll stated staff has looked at how the design standards and covenants were developed. When the HRA first bought the property there were no design standards in place. The first couple buildings had a higher percentage of metal than some people liked. This is what lead to the adoption ofthe design standards that limited the exterior metal to 7%. He had not heard that some lots could have a 50-50 split and others not. Commissioner Larson stated when he worked for a company that was considering building in the industrial park, the City showed them some lots that were available for 50-50 exterior building materials. In the industrial park, the HRA owned the lots and wanted to make sure the buildings had high design standards. The industrial park will have through traffic and the business park will not. Therefore, there is some merit at looking at some sort of reduced standard. Some people like what is out there, some would prefer the buildings be more attractive. Residents have asked what the quality of the structures will be. Staff felt the philosophy of the Planning Commission and Council would be to upgrade the area by having standards higher than what is out there. Staff does not feel it is inappropriate to have 100% brick or masonry on the fronts and a lower percentage on the sides. Even that is a substantial departure from what is required in the industrial park. This enhances the market value of the building, helps the tax base, and makes for a more attractive park. Commissioner Larson felt if the Commission goes with 100% brick or masonry on the front, then reduce it on the sides and the back. Commissioner Richter added except for the buildings along Hwy 50. Community Development Director Carroll stated if the issue is visibility, when you are driving away from it or to it, it is not that much less visible. If you go to 100% on the front and drop to 10% or 25% on the sides, it is a step forward and two steps back, but that is up to the Commission and the Council. Commissioner Larson did not see that. He did not want to see an empty business park because people think the standards are out of line. Staff replied there has not been a problem in the industrial park, as they are down to one available lot. . Commissioner Larson felt the buildings should be 50-50 for both front and sides. Commissioner Richter would like to see 100% on the front and no less than 50-50 on the sides. Commissioner Johnson felt there should be a standard number for the overall building. It depends on what angle you look at the building. He would like to see an overall percentage whether it is 50-50 or 70%, he does not have the magic percentage. He would like something reasonable, with a standard percentage all the way around. Chair Rotty asked ifhe was recommending something higher than 50-50. Commissioner Johnson replied if you are going to do it, do it all the way around. It would look more like a standard building with some flow and lineage to it. . Mr. Colin Garvey stated in the industrial park there were certain lots set aside for metal buildings. When the industrial park opened up there was no outside storage allowed or loading docks toward the street. Things have changed. Now we have hardi-plank and a stick-frame building out there. It used to be masonry and steel structure. He does not want this business park to sit because we turn away too many people. He felt 50% brick or masonry on the building is plenty. He did not Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 Page 4 know why Farmington is being so restrictive when other communities are allowing it. . Chair Rotty stated all the arguments sound very reasonable. He wanted the highest standards possible. His original thought was to make it look nice in the front, but some buildings will have the sides showing. Commissioner Richter asked ifthese standards would apply to the buildings along Hwy 50. Commissioner Johnson stated you alleviate the problem if you have one standard percentage. Staff stated there is one lot along Hwy 50 where Mr. Garvey is building. In the future the standards could be extended to the buildings to the west and the east. Chair Rotty stated it could be an issue for those that face Hwy 50 and those inside. Staff felt as long as it can be explained the Commission could defend it. Chair Rotty would like to see 50-50 metal and concrete on the buildings and require those that face Hwy 50 whether the current lot or any redevelopment in the future be 100%. Commissioner Johnson stated then there will be 100% on the front lot on the side that faces Hwy 50 and the rest be 50%. Commissioner Johnson stated ifthis is required on the front lot, he did not see a problem with 50-50 in the rest of the park. Commission Richter agreed it would be okay with 50-50 on the rest as long as the front lot is 100%. Commissioners Johnson and Larson agreed. Staff noted in the design standards number 6 should be changed to eliminate County Hwy 31 and change it to read Trunk Highway 50 no loading docks. MOTION by Johnson second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, . MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to approve the 50-50 exterior building materials, with 100% on the front lot, 75% lot coverage for the mini-storage, the setbacks, and no loading docks along TH 50. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Hometown Inc. Concept Plan Applicants: Hometown Inc., Kim Friedrich and Terry Mahoney The total amount of acreage is 7.64 acres. 209th Street is along the north, Corinthian Lodge Cemetery is to the east, and there is an existing pole barn on the property. There are two accesses to 209th Street, one in the middle and one to the east on the curve. Staff is suggesting no roadway access on the curve. There is sewer and water along the easterly boundary. There is a 42-ft. wide easement that needs to be clarified down to the Frandrup property. Hometown is proposing 6,000 sq. ft lots with a 60 ft. width. The properties are currently not in the city. Mr. Frandrup needs to apply for annexation, which could put any action out 30 days. Hometown is proposing 28 lots with a cul-de-sac that is 1100 ft. that would need a variance. Staff is concerned with the building pad of some lots. There will be 28-ft. wide roads with a 60-ft right-of-way that requires a sidewalk on one side and the other side for parking. Parks and Recreation is proposing a future trail connection to the Prairie Waterway. The developer has made some changes just prior to the meeting. They have put in . a pond and proposed a shorter cul-de-sac. Another plan shows more buffer towards the volley ball courts. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 Page 5 . Chair Rotty stated regarding the substandard lot number 28, the Commission has not allowed any substandard lots. With new developments something should be able to be worked out. There are two lots where it may be difficult to fit the building pad. He liked the plan where they take the end of the cul-de-sac and make it a triangular pond. Staff stated the Fire Marshal did not have a problem with the second access or the length of the cul-de-sac unless there are over 30 lots. The area is zoned R-2 which does allow 6,000 sq. ft. lots. . Commissioner Johnson stated less is more. He was shocked with the first drawing, and was not very enthused about it. We have multiple cul-de-sacs. If there were not existing homes along the north of the property, it would not concern him as much. He would like to see lot lines somewhat line up. He was concerned with the industrial uses and the American Legion and there not being much room for a buffer. Staff stated there is a code provision for landscaping where it is non-residential that you have to have 10ft. of buffer. The developer is proposing once they come into the City, they are residential and are going next to a business so they would not be required to put in a buffer. He was concerned with possible complaints down the road. He would rather see fewer homes in that area, such as R-l zoning. There is the cemetery on the east side and buildings to the south. Staffhas spoken with Mr. Patrick Reagan owner of the bus garage, and told him it would be nice to see an overall redevelopment scheme for that entire property such as commercial use or higher density residential use such as an apartment building. Mr. Reagan is inclined to move the buses out and do what he can to use the existing buildings. He does not want to tear down buildings that could be functional. Right now the property is not in the City. Commissioner Larson wondered if this was the wrong time to develop this property until it can be blended in with something else. Commissioner Johnson noted there was a bunch of evergreens on the property, such as 4, 5 or 10 rows. Staff agreed it would be ideal to develop this with some other property, but there was a time when the City had two different development proposals for the Legion and the Frandrup property. We have made some progress by combining those into one. If Mr. Reagan decides to put something in that is incompatible transportation wise, what do you do with it? Commissioner Larson noted the Manley property had to have a temporary access until more development came around them. That was a large project, but he does not see a second access here. Commissioner Larson would like to see it zoned R-l with two accesses. He does not like how it fits with the buildings around it. Staff stated MUSA has been approved for this property upon annexation. . Commissioner Richter stated ifit stays R-2 she liked the plan where the pond is along the bottom as it creates a buffer along the bus garage. She did not like the three cul-de-sacs. She agreed R-l would make more sense because of the surrounding buildings and would like to see two accesses, but if the Fire Marshal Planning Commission Minutes January 11,2005 Page 6 is okay with one access then she would agree. She would like to see more of a buffer between the businesses and the single-family homes. . Ms. Kim Friedrich, Hometown Inc., stated they would love to have this property as R-1, but because ofthe cost and the same problems discussed, she did not think that R-1 homes would sell. Cheaper lots with smaller homes might sell well. The Commission will continue to think about this and pass on any further comments to staff. Community Development Director Carroll stated as far as the annexation is concerned, there are two types of annexation. There is an orderly annexation where the township and the City agree to it, and there is annexation by ordinance, where cities sometimes annex property even though the township is opposed to it. If annexation by ordinance is used, a 30-day notice would have to be sent out. In this case since the township will not oppose the annexation, staff would draft an orderly annexation agreement for them to review. This would eliminate the need for the notice. When both property owners apply for annexation, staff would draft the document and get it to the township for review. If they approve it, it goes to the Council for review. One annexation petition has been received, but as discussed at the MUSA Review Committee there were some reservations about some ofthe earlier concept plans. When staff spoke with the City Attorney, he stated a formal plat application should not be accepted until the Council and the township have approved the annexation. Staff can start doing informal review of the plat application. Staff suggested the . developers narrow the four concept plans to one and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Staff suggested they make the lots bigger, perhaps not to the R-1 size, and allow more buffering. Commissioner Richter would like to see more buffering, such as the pond along the bus garage. Commissioner Johnson would like to see a few lots a little larger. Chair Rotty felt an R-2 zoning would still work. There were some lots along the Legion and the Legion is used seven days a week. He would also like to see more buffering in this area. One plan had a road along the bottom and he would consider that a buffer. There was also a buffer along the east side of the Legion and along the bus garage which would work. There would be a struggle to get a building pad on lot 12. He was not sure how marketable 10,000 or 12,000 sq. ft. lots would be. c) Findings of Fact for Variance Denial- Doug Malszycki The owner of 19585 Flagstaff Avenue applied for a variance from the minimum lot size requirement to create two new lots approximately one acre each. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial and directed staff to prepare findings of fact that outline the basis for the denial. MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to accept the findings of fact. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Discussion of Possible Rezoning of Certain Property Located Near Farmington Industrial Park There is one HRA-owned lot for sale in the first two phases of the industrial park. The two parcels to the west ofthe industrial park are owned by the Devney's and . Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2005 Page 7 . Mr. Berglund. Neither owner is interested in opening their property for industrial development. Farmington does not have a lot of other property open for industrial development. One parcel owned by the Devney's is in the ag preserve program. Once it comes out of that program, development cannot occur for eight years. Another parcel is along the Northern Natural Gas facility. Another parcel is owned by Mr. Murphy, however Great River Energy plans to construct a substation in the comer which will take up nine acres and much of the rest of the area will be taken up with right-of-way for the 208th Street extension. There are also a lot of wetlands in the area. There is not much of an inventory for people looking for industrial development. . Staff presented a concept plan for commercial development along the east side of Pilot Knob north ofHwy 50. The 208th Street extension would still exist. There is also an interior road that could possibly extend to Pilot Knob. Staff also discussed a backage road between the commercial and industrial lots. This would provide good traffic circulation inside the industrial park, give two opportunities to get in and out ofthe commercial area, ifthey wanted to go from the commercial area into the industrial area they could, and the road would serve as a boundary between the commercial uses along Pilot Knob and the industrial uses. It would give the property owners the opportunity to see the commercial property at a higher price and thereby subsidize the rest of the property being developed for industrial purposes. The types of businesses envisioned are service businesses. The City would be getting industrial property available for development. Staff also proposed a mirror strip along the west side of Pilot Knob. Nothing can be done with this because of the ag preserve issue, but it gives a long term perspective. Staff asked for the Planning Commission's comments. Commissioner Richter asked how many acres this would give up. Staff replied approximately 7.5 acres and perhaps a little more at the comer. Pilot Knob and Hwy 50 is a highly visible comer. Commissioner Larson felt it would work, but it is not ideal. Commissioner Johnson liked the idea. It gives a little transition into the industrial park. The backage road gives people working in the area access to the businesses. Chair Rotty stated this might become one ofthe most visible intersections in the City. Having service type businesses could be a nice addition. This may also entice property owners to turn over some of their property for industrial development. It may be advantageous for the community in the future. Commissioner Johnson asked if the Traffic Engineer has reviewed this. Commissioner Larson asked if the one lot left could not be built on until20gth Street goes through or is that why we left the knob on the end. Commissioner Johnson replied that was the temporary access for that lot. Staff stated the area had to be replatted because ofthe pipeline running through it. At some point the road along the side of the lot will be extended from 208th Street. Commissioner Larson would not like to see commercial on the other side of the backage road toward the industrial park. Staffwill bring this to the Council at some point and talk with the property owners. . Planning Commission Minutes January 11,2005 Page 8 e) Discussion of Possible Code Amendment Regarding Signs for Non-residential Uses in Residential Zoning Districts Staffwas approached by Farmington Lutheran Church as they are preparing to install a sign for their new church along Akin Road. They have two street frontages, one on Akin Road and one on Devonport Drive. The sign code allows one sign per lot for non-residential uses in a residential zoning district. So they would have to choose an entrance to place the sign. Staff is proposing to change the code to allow one sign per street frontage. . Chair Rotty would support this in this situation. Commissioner Richter suggested saying they can have a sign on each frontage only if they have an entrance on each side. Staffwill change the language to specify only if an access is approved. This change would only be for the permitted non-residential uses in a residential district. Staff will bring this back to the Planning Commission next month for a public hearing. Community Development Director Carroll stated this is the last meeting for Assistant City Planner Jim Atkinson. He will be the Planning Director in Lakeland, TN. His last day will be February 4,2005. Community Development Director Carroll wanted to recognize the high quality of work he has done. He has been a good employee, a good writer, has a good understanding of planning policies, procedures and principles. He has been a real asset. Chair Rotty stated it will be our loss and their gain. Mr. Atkinson has done an excellent job. He has kept the Commission informed, and has simplified things where they needed them . simplified. He has done a great job on his presentations and his reports are very detailed and very clear. He appreciated working with him. It has been an honor. Commissioner Larson agreed this will be a great loss for the City. City Planner Smick also thanked Mr. Atkinson and appreciated his help. He will be missed. 4. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~cL- ?n~ ~thia Muller Executive Assistant Approved . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting February 8, 2005 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: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Smick, City Planner 2. Election of Officers MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to nominate Dirk Rotty as Chair. Voting for: Barker, Johnson, Richter. Abstain: Rotty. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to nominate Sherry Richter as Vice-Chair. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Johnson. Abstain: Richter. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Approval of Minutes a) January 11, 2005 MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to approve the January 11, 2005 Minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Johnson, Richter. Abstain: Barker. MOTION CARRIED. . 4. Public Hearings a) Signs for Non-Residential Uses in Residential Zoning Districts The code states one monument sign is allowed for non-residential uses in residential districts. Farmington Lutheran Church has requested permission to allow a second sign because of a second entrance. At the last meeting, the Commission discussed language stating "one free-standing monument sign is allowed per street frontage if an access drive is present." Each sign shall not exceed 50 sq. ft. in sign area and 10 ft. in height. The wall sign shall not exceed 12% of the building faQade or 300 sq. ft. 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 City Council regarding signs in non-residential uses in residential zoning districts. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. Discussion a) Hometown Inc. Concept Plan - Additional Concepts Applicants: Hometown Inc., Kim Friedrich and Terry Mahoney Staff presented a revision to the concept plan for Hometown Inc. 209th Street is along the north side of the property, the Corinthian Cemetery is to the east, TH3 to the west, and Marshall Lines Bus garage to the south. Hometown proposed two concepts. Staff recommended the R-2 zoning with 6,000 sq. ft. lots. Hometown proposed to show a 30 ft. buffer along the west side and a 30 ft. buffer . Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2005 Page 2 . along the south side near the American Legion volleyball courts. There is ponding to buffer the area next to the volleyball courts to the west. They are proposing 27 lots. The plan shows 28 lots, but one would have to be removed. The second concept shows an access road from 209th Street, however the cul-de- sac is on the east side and there is another cul-de-sac in the southeast comer. They are proposing a pond to separate the volleyball court area from the homes and a 50 ft. buffer along the west side to separate the commercial uses. The plan proposes 25 lots. There are 26 lots shown, but one would have to be removed. The original concept plan showed the cul-de-sac area with no buffer and smaller lot lengths. The lot lengths are from 110ft. to 200 ft. in this location. Hometown preferred the second concept. If there is a roadway to the south to hook up with 210th Street, the Development Committee understands that could happen and it would work fine. The Development Committee was more in favor of concept one because ofthe north-south roadway access, but felt concept two was also okay. Commissioner Johnson liked concept two. Both have one lot that he is unsure of; it is lot 25 in concept two and lot 19 in concept one. To remove either one would make more sense. He did not like the idea of having one house with one driveway on that street. All the other lots match. Regarding lot 11 in the original concept plan, he asked how a house can be placed on that lot with a 30 ft. buffer. Chair Rotty agreed it is an awkward shaped lot. Staffwill bring this back to the developer. He felt concept two was fine with lot 25 removed. . Commissioner Richter preferred concept two. She also agreed it would be better without lot 25 and without lot 26. She liked the 50 ft. buffer. Commissioner Barker agreed with removing lots 19 and 25. He preferred concept one. For future development he would prefer traffic going south on the straight road versus going into a cul-de-sac and then going south. He would prefer to not have an extension of a road going off a cul-de-sac. Chair Rotty asked about the drainage. It is to the southeast toward the Prairie Waterway. Engineering agreed with the placement of the ponds. At the last meeting the Commission was split on the density. The Commission agreed with the R-2 zoning. Chair Rotty preferred concept two and agreed with removing lot 25. He asked if the properties to the south could access the main road by extending the road to the south. This would make a T intersection going off the cul-de-sac. . Community Development Director Carroll suggested with a road going south off the cul-de-sac for an additional access, the cul-de-sac is not needed for turning around. If the north curb line on the east-west road is extended straight across to the property line, you could take up the bituminous and give the lots a bigger front yard. Chair Rotty stated people who live on a cul-de-sac enjoy the privacy and if it is made into a through road, even with a larger front yard, they no longer have as much privacy. Community Development Director Carroll suggested placing a Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2005 Page 3 . . . sign stating future through street on the south side of the cul-de-sac. Staff felt it would be appropriate to let people know this could occur. Commissioner Johnson agreed this would eliminate future problems with people not being notified. Commissioner Barker discussed having the road to the west eventually going south to a T intersection into the cul-de-sac. How does that work if a developer acquires the property to the south? How much control does the City have with regard to where the road can connect? Community Development Director Carroll replied right now the major control is the property to the south lies in the township. The annexation would be contingent on them accepting whatever roadway configuration the City desires. If someone buys it for commercial or industrial purpose like mini-storage that would be a significant disadvantage to bi- sect the lot with a road like that. If a higher density residential use was developed, that could be a benefit as a way to get to Willow Street or go to the north. It is important to discuss this extension so when the Planning Division looks at concept plans when they come in for the area to the south this can be discussed as an option. Commissioner Barker felt any future problems could be alleviated by choosing concept one now. The road access is already there. When it is extended south, there is no one living on that road iflot 19 is removed. People that live in the cul-de-sac will continue to live in the cul-de-sac. Traffic would go down the east road. Chair Rotty stated either plan could work. He was comfortable with concept two because of the buffers. Concept one does it a little but not as nice. He could live with concept one, but was concerned lot 11 may not be a buildable lot. The Commission has agreed with the R-2 zoning and the developer has made great attempts in buffering the lots to the north and the east. Staffwill meet with the developer and their engineer to determine if they are buildable lots, lot widths, and the number of housing pads that will fit. The Commission would see the preliminary plat next. The biggest issue is the access to the property to the south. b) Roundbank Concept Plan - Variance to Side Yard Setback Question Applicant: Roundbank They have eliminated the access along TH3 and they are looking at the possibility of a variance. TH3 runs north and south along the west side of the proposed building. CSAH66 runs along the north side. MNDot did not approve the right- in, right-out access on TH3 so they are now looking at an interior circulation pattern which brings them around to Cascade Drive. The area is zoned B-1 and is allowed for a bank. A site plan review will be done approximately the same time as the preliminary plat. One concern of the bank is a variance. The City requires a 50 ft. setback for buildings along minor arterial roadways. TH3 and CSAH66 are minor arterial roadways. They meet this requirement along TH3, however they do not meet it along CSAH66 where it is 30 ft. from the property line rather than 50 ft. The bank wanted to know if the Planning Commission would be willing to look at a variance at a future meeting. Cascade Drive is a public Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2005 Page 4 . roadway and the bank would like to have an access to 209th Street. The code requires a circulation pattern be determined before a preliminary plat can be submitted. Chair Rotty reiterated that the circulation pattern will need to be determined before the preliminary plat. He felt the plat is a very nice addition to that area. As far as the variance, he does not see it as a sight issue. He would support the setback variance for 30 ft. Commissioner Richter would not have a problem with the variance and agreed it is a good location. Commissioner Barker also liked the location and had no concerns with the variance. He asked if it would meet the criteria and staff assured him it would. Commissioner Johnson also liked the location. He asked about the hardship if it is an empty lot. He would rather give a variance on parking spaces. Staffhas not been able to meet with the bank to determine the hardship. . The preliminary plat will need to be submitted by February 14, 2005 to meet the five week review time period. Community Development Director Carroll stated there is an issue related to the variance that came up today. There is a pending powerline route from an existing substation in Empire running west through this general area to a new substation behind the Northern Natural Gas facility. The EQB is involved in a routing decision. Residents in Empire Township are arguing the powerline should come down CSAH66. One issue raised was the issue of expanding CSAH66 in the future. If the County is considering expanding the road, they would have to expand to the south, as the river is close to the road on the north side. He suggested the bank call the County Engineer to see what plans they have for the expansion of CSAH66. There are some problems with expanding the road as what is now a T intersection will be a through intersection. The City's transportation plan envisions CSAH66 at the intersection ofTH3 would be expanded to the west (the 20Sth Street extension). It would eventually hook up with a road that dead ends by the Middle School. That will continue further to the west. 20Sth Street now goes to Akin Road and dead ends again. There is a stretch that will be built behind Northern Natural Gas that will hook up with 20Sth Street in the industrial park. The Dakota County East-West Corridor Study identified this as one of four major east-west corridors. Eventually there will be a road from Hwy 52 to CSAH66, down 20Sth Street and to Cedar Avenue in Lakeville. The possibility of the road being expanded plays into the issue of granting the variance. He suggested the bank obtain a letter from the County stating they would not have a problem with it. The plat would also go to the County Plat Commission because it is next to a County roadway. . Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2005 Page 5 . . . c) Farmington Center Retail/Office Site Plan Review Applicant: Tom Wartman Mr. Tom Wartman, owner of City Center, is interested in expanding the City Center. He is proposing on the east side ofPellicci Hardware a one-story and a two-story building. The one-story building is 6400 sq. ft. with retail space and the two-story building is 4800 sq. ft. The property is zoned B-2 where office and retail is allowed. There is plenty of parking in the area. It needs to be determined how the trash enclosure will look. The downtown liquor store is proposing to move into this location. The Council gave a favorable recommendation to leasing this space. There will be an opening at the southeast corner of the building. Retail space is going east and west. The two-story building will have an elevator. There is a blank wall where Mr. Wartman is interested in putting in more glass. Staffwill need to see a landscape plan. They also need to apply for a sign permit. Staff is interested in placing the sign on the existing sign on Elm Street, however that sign is at its largest capacity for a 30 mph roadway. There could be a variance for a sign along Elm Street with a hardship that the liquor store would be difficult to see. At one time Mr. Wartman proposed the entire one-story portion be the liquor store, using the entire 6400 sq. ft. This would be larger than the new liquor store on Pilot Knob. Staff had some reservations that this could be too much space. The liquor store would have 4400 - 5200 sq. ft. The developer proposed a wall to create another office space. A door is shown on this wall that would have to be removed. Chair Rotty noted it looked like there were parking stalls on the south. There is no room for parking on the south. Chair Rotty asked if the building should be pushed back to be in line with Pellicci Hardware to allow for a row of parking. Commissioner Richter noted it would be more convenient if there were parking in front. Staff thought they might have moved the building forward to the front parking line to create the parking they thought they would need. Having plenty of parking opens the possibility of pushing the building back. Staffwill raise this issue with Mr. Wartman. There is a drive for loading and unloading for the liquor store. When the City was looking at the entire building being the liquor store, the wall with no windows was going to be storage for the liquor store. Now that it will be retail on that side, the occupant would probably like to have windows. Mr. Wartman stated they would have a bank of windows toward the front comer at a minimum. Staff felt this is the most important part of the building, as someone driving east would see that part of the building. Mr. Wartman changed the proposal to having a two-story building, as staff receives calls from people wanting office space downtown and there is not much available. The greater scale of the building will make it more noticeable. Mr. Wartman would like to start building in the spring with occupancy in August 2005. No portion of the lot is in the floodplain. Chair Rotty noted you can access this area off of First Street. He asked about the condition of the access. Staff stated it is paved and curbed. This would relieve some ofthe congestion on Elm Street. Chair Rotty felt this is a good plan, would . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2005 Page 6 create more traffic in the area and help the other businesses in the City Center. Chair Rotty was not sure putting the pylon sign in the location shown would be effective for that area. He suggested something on Hwy 50 that did not cause any traffic issues. Commissioner Johnson liked the plan, but was concerned how it would look with the building in front of it and how it blends. He would like to see the building pushed back. They could then change the floor plan ofthe liquor store and make the southwest comer the front. Commissioner Richter like the plan, but would like to see the building pushed back so it lines up better. Commissioner Barker agreed with these comments. The three conditions are sign permit, trash enclosure and the landscape plan. MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to send a favorable recommendation with the three contingencies and request a fact finding on the position of the building. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 6. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, /' L p<'__ k~7 (~~ fr7u.O:XA../ ~thia Muller Executive Assistant Approved . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting March 8, 2005 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) February 8, 2005 MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to approve the February 8, 2005 Minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Richter. Abstain: Larson. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Amend 2020 Comprehensive Plan from Restricted Development and Nondesignated to Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential (Murphy 350) Applicant: Giles Properties, Inc. This includes properties Ql and 8 on the MUSA map. Autumn Glen is to the north, and Parkview Ponds is to the west. When the Comp Plan was approved in 1998 and 2000, a portion of Ql and 8 were not in the City. In 2001 Ql was approved for annexation and 8 was recently annexed into the City. Staff is proposing to amend Q 1 from restricted development and nondesignated to low density residential. 8 is proposed to go from nondesignated to low density and medium density in the northeast corner. Ql is 91.7 acres and 8 is 93.3 acres totaling 152.7 acres. These properties have received MUSA and will be developed first. The developer would like to begin development soon. The City Engineer would like to see a sanitary sewer line going from the metropolitan interceptor in Empire Township to Parkview Ponds to service Parkview Ponds and the Giles/Murphy property. Parkview Ponds is proposing a lift station. Commissioner Larson asked if the medium density was a little close to the flood plain. Mr. John Anderson, Giles Properties, stated they have submitted a preliminary plat and rezoning. The plan is out of the flood plain with all buildable units. He noted the total area covers 185 acres which is what MUSA was approved for, but phase one is 152 acres. Commissioner Barker asked about the medium density. The reason for the medium density was because of Seed-Gens tar to the north. Now 195th Street will be a major collector to the north and would act as a buffer from the Seed-Genstar property. There will be a lot oftownhomes and 60 ft. lots on the south side. He asked if they wanted that one corner to be medium density instead oflow density. Planning Commission Minutes March 8,2005 Page 2 Low density would be consistent along 195th Street. Mr. Anderson replied there have been numerous changes from the concept plan. Because of the groundwater . issues, they are struggling with densities. They are not sure where the densities in the southern portion stand. They are just looking at phase one. Chair Rotty felt it would fit in and did not see a negative transition between the low and medium density. Staffnoted most of 195 Street will front along the Seed-Genstar property. Commissioners Johnson, Larson and Richter had no problems with the amendment. Chair Rotty felt it was appropriate to make the comp plan amendment at this time and it would help facilitate getting the sanitary sewer across. MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to recommend approval of the comp plan amendment. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Public Facility in the R-l (Low Density Residential) Zoning District - (Fire Station 2 - North Satellite) Applicant: City of Farmington 1 97th Street is along the south side of the North Municipal Campus, Pilot Knob Road is to the west, the Police Station is to the north, and the Maintenance Facility is to the east. Staff was requesting a conditional use permit to allow a public facility in an R-l zoning district. The front yard setback along 197th Street meets the requirement of 20 ft. The front yard setback along Pilot Knob is supposed to be 50 ft. because it is a minor arterial. Currently it is 35 ft. and will require a 15 ft. variance. There are 11.45 parking spaces required and the plan shows 18 parking spaces. There needs to be four more boulevard trees. The flow of the fire trucks will be to come in and park inside facing south. They will come out ofthe bays and go south onto 197th Street. Staff is proposing to reduce the trees and use shrubs at a maximum height of 3 ft. for better sight distance. The Development Committee has discussed the need for warning lights south of 197th at the crest heading north on Pilot Knob Road. There is the need for a trail on the east side of Pilot Knob Road. . Commissioner Johnson asked if notices were sent to homes within 350 ft. Staff replied notices were sent. He thought the area seemed low and was concerned about the drainage and if the elevation would be the same as the Maintenance Facility. Mr. John McNamara, Wold Architects, replied their intent is to fill in the area and flatten the grade. The plan is to bring in 13,000 yards offill. The trees will be relocated to another location on the property. Commissioner Larson liked the idea of the shrubs rather than trees. He did not feel warning lights are needed. Commissioner Richter did not feel warning lights are needed and Commissioner Barker had no comments. Chair Rotty felt this was a reasonable addition to the area. He agreed with the landscaping recommendations and left the decision regarding warning lights to the public safety officials. He agreed with extending the trail. MOTION by Johnson, . Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 3 . . 4. . second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by.Richter to approve the conditional use permit. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Variance to the 50-Foot Setback Along an Arterial Roadway - (Fire Station 2 - North Satellite) Applicant: City of Farmington Chair Rotty noted the setback along Pilot Knob Road is closer than the requirements so staff is looking for a variance. The proposed fire station will be located 35 ft. from the property line. Between the right-of-way and the edge of pavement along Pilot Knob Road is another 40 ft. for 75 ft of clear zone. Dakota County has reviewed this and they have no problem with this. Staff is requiring all six variance requirements be met. They are requesting a variance due to the pipeline easement running through the property. This is the reason for the hardship. The variance will not cause any adverse affects. Staff requested approving a variance of 15 ft. from the required 50 ft. setback along a minor arterial to allow the construction of a fire station. Chair Rotty asked if Pilot Knob was two or four lanes in that area. Staff replied it is proposed to be four lanes and that has been taken into consideration. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to approve the variance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Discussion (These items were moved forward to accommodate the audience). a) Charleswood Crossing Final Plat Applicant: Chad Onsgard, Centex Homes The tat consists of 43 single family lots and 108 multi-family units on 62.9 acres. 195t Street is to the north, and Pilot Knob Road to the east. Council approved the preliminary plat on December 20, 2004. The single family lot sizes range from 6700 to 13,700 sq. ft. The front yard setbacks will be 25 ft. and side yard setbacks of 7.5 ft. The Planning Commission had requested the developer look at shifting the cul-de-sac over to try to save more trees. Because if the closeness to Pilot Knob Road, they could not make that work. There will be 29 additional parking spaces throughout the multi-family area. Staff typically requests turnarounds at the ends of the cul-de-sac because they are over 150 ft. in length. Centex decided to sprinkle the buildings and therefore did not require turnarounds. The solid waste division has required the developer to create concrete pads at the entrance to the 20 ft. wide townhome driveways. They can no longer pick up garbage cans in front oftownhomes on driveways that do not have turnaround access. Because of the danger of backing the trucks up 150 ft. staff has proposed residents will need to bring the garbage up to the pad locations. The developer has proposed along 195th Street a porkchop at the intersection requiring a right-in, right-out. Dakota County has also requested this. The Parks Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 4 and Recreation Director requires a trail from the cul-de-sac to the wetland area along with additional trails throughout the development. The plat needs to show . an additional 15 ft. of right-of-way for the expansion of 1 95th Street. Contingencies include approval ofthe engineering comments, construction plans, grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering division. Also meeting requirements of the Parks and Rec division, Solid Waste division and Dakota County Plat Commission. Commissioner Larson asked how many units will share one pad. Staff stated they have not obtained this information yet. Solid Waste came up with the idea. He noted that things need to stay 5 ft. away from the garbage cans and wanted to make sure there was enough room. The garbage cans would only be there on garbage day. Mr. Onsgardstated they have never had to build pads for garbage. He asked if other developments had to do this. Staff replied no because most have looped roads. Staff offered this and the Fire Marshal also stated there should be hammerheads for turnarounds. Mr. Onsgard stated it would have to be a 20 ft. concrete slab,S ft. deep. It would be very unsightly. The worst case would be to build the pads and put in landscaping. Chair Rotty felt this was something significant to overcome. He agreed that it might become more of a nuisance to other property owners by leaving the garbage cans out there. He felt this needed to be resolved before sending this to Council. . The developer would like to look at some alternatives. The commission agreed to table the plat until this issue is resolved. Commissioner Larson asked how many trees would be lost and what type of trees. Mr. Onsgard replied they did move the cul-de-sac over to save some trees. They also revised some grades so they would not take out so many trees. They saved approximately 10-20 trees. Commissioner Larson was not in favor of the clear cut in the area. He felt staff should look at a tree ordinance to take care of this Issue. Chair Rotty noted surrounding residents were in favor of the single family homes. The tree issue was discussed during the preliminary plat and hopefully the developer will work with the City. He asked if the solid waste pads were a last minute option. Staff noted the Solid Waste division suggested the pads because of the proximity of the pipeline and trying to construct a hammerhead. That is why they decided to sprinkle the buildings. Commissioner Larson noted they can put in a hammerhead, they just will not have as many units. Staff noted they are working with the problem of the pipeline. The City did grant a variance to cross the street because of the gasline. Chair Rotty stated the pads may be unsightly and could pose a problem for the residents. Mr. Onsgard asked if Solid Waste has guidelines or fines they impose for leaving the garbage can out. Commissioner Richter stated someone would have to enforce it. She can see it being an ongoing . Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 6 . . . bridge similar to Meadow Creek. Staff replied it is not necessarily a bridge, it is an upgrade of the roadway. Commissioner Barker was referring to a box culvert. Mr. Frank Blundetto stated there have been questions about moving the water from one pond to another. The City has suggested some unique engineering structures and they will comply with what the City requires. Mr. Blundetto stated he does not want to build a lift station ifhe does not have to. There are many factors outside of their control. They are receiving pressure from the City to build a certain number of homes by a certain period of time and that is good. In order to make good on their expectations he needs to make sure he is servicing this property. If there is anything that does not allow for a gravity system to the east, he needs to make sure they are holding true to the expectations set. They are enjoying a good working relationship with Giles Properties. Commission Johnson asked about outlots H and G. They will be signed as a future roadway. Chair Rotty complimented staff and the developer on working well together. This will be a nice addition to the community and they have worked within the environmental constraints. He felt leaving outlot H open was reasonable planning. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to recommend approval of the Parkview Ponds final plat with contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings d) Review Ordinance - A-Frame Signs Business owners have requested allowing the use of A-frame signs. This ordinance is to allow that use in front of their business during business hours. The City Attorney made some minor modifications. The City needs to approve the permit with additional terms including location, duration and design. The Zoning Officer will make sure the business has the proper insurance coverage. The appeals will be heard by the Planning Commission, not the City Council. These signs are proposed for the B districts, the Spruce Street Commercial and Business Commercial Flex zoning districts. The only concern Chair Rotty had was if they block the sidewalk, but with a little monitoring that should not be a problem. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to recommend approval. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion d) Eggum Concept Plan Mr. Blaine Eggum of Valley Mining is proposing a retail development. CSAH 66 is to the north, and TH 3 is to the west. The retail development would include a bank, another retail pad and some outlots. A storm water pond will take care of any water runoff. Outlot C is Cascade Drive which is a public roadway. To the east is Catalina Way which is a private road. The property is zoned B-1. Staff is concerned with a one-way access road in the back of the building. This is Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 5 problem. Commissioner Johnson stated it seems common sense to rotate the buildings counter-clockwise and have two buildings instead of three. You eliminate the sprinkler system and the garbage issue and possibly have a roadway along the back side. He cannot image they would want those pads in front of the townhomes. Mr. Onsgard stated rotating the buildings would increase costs because of sewer and water and the streets. If they have to look at hammerheads they will see if there is a solution. If they build the pads they could landscape them or fence them and include in the association documents rules on garbage cans. Chair Rotty recommended not sending this on to the Council until the commission is comfortable with it. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to table the final plat until the next regular meeting. If something is ready prior to that, a special meeting can be called. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Parkview Ponds Final Plat Applicant: Frank Blundetto, Manley Land Development The Parkview Ponds final plat consists of 147 single family lots on 88 acres. This development is located southeast of Autumn Glen. Lot sizes range from 10,000- 17,006 sq. ft. The developer is proposing a number of storm water ponds in order to use material from the ponds to raise the housing pads. There is a north-south road proposed, Diamond. Path, and this development will have some connections to this road. Embers Avenue going through the development was reduced to 32 ft. wide for traffic calming. 198th Street will terminate at Embers Avenue. It will be determined in the future if 198th Street needs to connect to Akin Road. For now, the plat shows two outlots in that area. The Fire Marshal was concerned about emergency access. The developer is required to upgrade the farm road to the south for emergency vehicle access only. Dakota County was concerned about the temporary access to 195th Street. The City decided because of the platting for the Giles/Murphy property, the north-south road will be constructed before any development occurs in this area. If a temporary access is needed, the developer would have to obtain a permit from Dakota County. The City and the County will require Manley Land Development to construct the northerly portion of 195th Street. When it becomes four lanes, Dakota County will assist. A 4.3 acre park is included in the development. Parks and Rec would like to see a parking lot for the park area. A number of trails are proposed throughout the development. The City is pursuing the l2-inch sanitary sewer line to connect with the Met Council interceptor so they will not need a temporary lift station. However, Mr. Blundetto has stated he will construct a temporary lift station to make sure his houses will be serviced by sanitary sewer. He is trying to work out the timing for the connection with the sanitary sewer line. Contingencies include approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering division and also Park and Rec requirements. Commissioner Barker asked about the outlots for the ponding. Where the roads are open and the pond comes up to the road, is the developer required to build a . . . Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 5 . . . problem. Commissioner Johnson stated it seems common sense to rotate the buildings counter-clockwise and have two buildings instead of three. You eliminate the sprinkler system and the garbage issue and possibly have a roadway along the back side. He cannot image they would want those pads in front of the townhomes. Mr. Onsgard stated rotating the buildings would increase costs because of sewer and water and the streets. If they have to look at hammerheads they will see if there is a solution. If they build the pads they could landscape them or fence them and include in the association documents rules on garbage cans. Chair Rotty recommended not sending this on to the Council until the commission is comfortable with it. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to table the final plat until the next regular meeting. If something is ready prior to that, a special meeting can be called. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Parkview Ponds Final Plat Applicant: Frank Blundetto, Manley Land Development The Parkview Ponds final plat consists of 147 single family lots on 88 acres. This development is located southeast of Autumn Glen. Lot sizes range from 10,000- 17,006 sq. ft. The developer is proposing a number of storm water ponds in order to use material from the ponds to raise the housing pads. There is a north-south road proposed, Diamond Path, and this development will have some connections to this road. Embers Avenue going through the development was reduced to 32 ft. wide for traffic calming. 198th Street will terminate at Embers Avenue. It will be determined in the future if 198th Street needs to connect to Akin Road. For now, the plat shows two outlots in that area. The Fire Marshal was concerned about emergency access. The developer is required to upgrade the farm road to the south for emergency vehicle access only. Dakota County was concerned about the temporary access to 195th Street. The City decided because of the platting for the Giles/Murphy property, the north-south road will be constructed before any development occurs in this area. If a temporary access is needed, the developer would have to obtain a permit from Dakota County. The City and the County will require Manley Land Development to construct the northerly portion of 195th Street. When it becomes four lanes, Dakota County will assist. A 4.3 acre park is included in the development. Parks and Rec would like to see a parking lot for the park area. A number of trails are proposed throughout the development. The City is pursuing the l2-inch sanitary sewer line to connect with the Met Council interceptor so they will not need a temporary lift station. However, Mr. Blundetto has stated he will construct a temporary lift station to make sure his houses will be serviced by sanitary sewer. He is trying to work out the timing for the connection with the sanitary sewer line. Contingencies include approval of the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities by the Engineering division and also Park and Rec requirements. Commissioner Barker asked about the outlots for the ponding. Where the roads are open and the pond comes up to the road, is the developer required to build a Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 6 bridge similar to Meadow Creek. Staff replied it is not necessarily a bridge, it is . an upgrade of the roadway. Commissioner Barker was referring to a box culvert. Mr. Frank Blundetto stated there have been questions about moving the water from one pond to another. The City has suggested some unique engineering structures and they will comply with what the City requires. Mr. Blundetto stated he does not want to build a lift station if he does not have to. There are many factors outside of their control. They are receiving pressure from the City to build a certain number of homes by a certain period of time and that is good. In order to make good on their expectations he needs to make sure he is servicing this property. If there is anything that does not allow for a gravity system to the east, he needs to make sure they are holding true to the expectations set. They are enjoying a good working relationship with Giles Properties. Commission Johnson asked about outlots Hand G. They will be signed as a future roadway. Chair Rotty complimented staff and the developer on working well together. This will be a nice addition to the community and they have worked within the environmental constraints. He felt leaving outlot H open was reasonable planning. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to recommend approval of the Parkview Ponds final plat with contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings d) Review Ordinance - A-Frame Signs Business owners have requested allowing the use of A-frame signs. This ordinance is to allow that use in front of their business during business hours. The City Attorney made some minor modifications. The City needs to approve the permit with additional terms including location, duration and design. The Zoning Officer will make sure the business has the proper insurance coverage. The appeals will be heard by the Planning Commission, not the City Council. These signs are proposed for the B districts, the Spruce Street Commercial and Business Commercial Flex zoning districts. . The only concern Chair Rotty had was if they block the sidewalk, but with a little monitoring that should not be a problem. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to recommend approval. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion d) Eggum Concept Plan Mr. Blaine Eggum of Valley Mining is proposing a retail development. CSAH 66 is to the north, and TH 3 is to the west. The retail development would include a bank, another retail pad and some outlots. A storm water pond will take care of any water runoff. Outlot C is Cascade Drive which is a public roadway. To the east is Catalina Way which is a private road. The property is zoned B-1. Staff is concerned with a one-way access road in the back of the building. This is . Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 7 proposed for loading and unloading of trucks. This should be signed trucks only. Catalina Way is in close proximity to this entrance. The Development Committee would like to see: 1. Transportation. They are not in favor of Concept A. A north-south road should be provided behind the retail building at a minimum width of 22 ft. The loading areas behind the retail building should be in addition to the 22 ft. 2. 100% screening is required along the east property line of outlot A to screen the commercial versus residential. The townhome association has possibly consented to a fence and screening on their property. 3. Catalina Way needs to intersect at a 90 degree angle with the proposed north-south road. 4. Identify the location of an enclosed refuse area. 5. Vacate the easement of Cascade Drive west of the north-south roadway. 6. The proposed building needs to comply with setbacks from the north property line in Outlot A. . . The Development Committee is not in favor of the concept plan. Mr. Jim Ostenson, James Development Company and owner of Outlot A, stated they wanted a reaction from the Planning Commission so they can proceed. Round Bank has already been discussed and the developer was glad to plan a shopping center at the same time. As far as the north-south road, they do not have a problem with it being a private or a two-way road. They do have a concern with the spacing in the loading area. A couple things are in jeopardy. If the building is moved to the west it may decrease some parking and jeopardize being able to put an L on the building and have to go back to a straight building. They can work with staff on this. The rest of the traffic flow works great. They met with the townhome association regarding the screening. The 22 ft. road can be pushed to the property line and have the screening on the townhome property. They would like to keep the L in the building. The other items on Catalina Way become problematic. The developer does not own that road. The developer would have to ask them to take out part of their road. They could say no. The problem is at the north end. The refuse area is not a problem. The storm sewer area of Cascade Drive would have to remain an easement. Round Bank will be platting to the middle of the easement. The plat will show three lots. The developer will comply with the setbacks. As far as pushing the 22 ft. road to the property line, staff noted there is a requirement where lots in any non-residential zoning district are within 100 ft. of a residential zoning district a 10ft. landscaped yard in width shall be installed. If the developer can work with the townhomes, that may not be required. . Commissioner Johnson was concerned with Catalina Way and what the Fire Marshal's response would be to a T intersection. He would be willing to look at the number of parking spaces. Commissioner Larson suggested flipping the building and have the back facing TH3 and the front facing east. It would open the area and the road could be a T intersection easily. The fire lane could be Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 8 between the building and TH3 for a loading area. It would provide more room to buffer. Mr. Ostenson stated typically you would have to have glass on that side . and there would be a double front. Tenants like to have a loading area. You would be loading on the side that should be the most attractive. Commissioner Larson stated he did not like the current plan. He felt traffic would not flow. The developer stated he met with the Traffic Engineer and this was his idea. He suggested making an L-shaped building and pull it to the front. Commissioner Larson did not agree with it. Chair Rotty was concerned that if cars take a left they would be using the parking lot as a roadway. He liked the original plan better. Commissioner Richter did not like the traffic flow, but liked the front of the building facing TH3. Along the back, if the road will be narrower, she wanted to make sure it was wide enough for loading and unloading. Commissioner Barker also liked to have the building facing TH3. He was concerned with the flow of the traffic. He would rather have the road behind the building be two-lane and work on something with Catalina Way. Chair Rotty agreed with having the road as a two-lane. He would like to see the building stay as an L-shaped building. He would prefer natural screening rather than a fence. Catalina Way may be an obstacle but encouraged the developer to work with the townhome association. Commissioner Larson stated if they do have a two-lane road, make sure it is wide enough. 3. Public Hearings d) Review Ordinance - Delete BP (Business Park) Zoning District Staff is proposing to delete the business park zoning district from the City code. This is no longer shown on the zoning map. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to delete the text amendment from the City Code. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . e) Review Ordinance - Screening of Public Utility Facilities Staff recommended continuation. MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to continue the hearing to April 12, 2005. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion c) Discussion of Gravel Parking Lots in Downtown Residential Districts All residential areas have to have vehicles parked on hard surfaces with a 5 ft. setback from side and rear lot lines. The Mayor requested the Planning Commission look at allowing gravel parking areas adjacent to gravel alleys in only the downtown district. All alleys are gravel. The Mayor suggested not requiring a hard surface parking area next to gravel. This was originally a request from a resident. The Commission should discuss whether to limit gravel parking areas to the downtown district, the aesthetics, how they will be maintained, the size of the lots, the number of cars allowed, the setback from the alley, should we look at a gravel driveway in front of a home, the upkeep of a gravel surface, or should the City pave all of the gravel alleys and continue to keep the hard surface parking lot. . . . . Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Larson stated the only benefit he sees is that there will be less runoff with gravel. In the back of a house he did not have a problem. He felt setbacks should be maintained. Commissioner Richter did not have a problem with allowing this. Commissioner Barker asked how many people this affects. Staff replied there are a lot of gravel driveways in the downtown area. He did not have a problem with this. Commissioner Johnson agreed to stay with the gravel. Chair Rotty would have preferred to stay with a hard surface. Commissioner Richter felt ifthere is a new parking area, it should be paved. Staffnoted this is a brand new home in the downtown area and they have put in a gravel parking lot behind their home off of a gravel alley. Chair Rotty asked if a driveway off of an alley would be any different than the width of a driveway off a public road. He felt some of the requirements would hold true whether it is off the front or the back of a home. Staff noted it has to be 30 ft. wide. The majority of the commission seemed to be comfortable with gravel off of gravel. 4. Adjourn MOTION by Richter, second by Johnson to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~ -7-4~ /Y?t-~ ~~~ L- ynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting April 12, 200~ 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: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Smick, City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) March 8,2005 MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to approve the March 8, 2005 minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Charleswood Crossing Final Plat (cont'd) Applicant: Centex Homes This item was tabled at the March 8, 2005 meeting due to a solid waste issue with the garbage trucks having to back in and out of the private streets in the townhomes. Staff reviewed several options: 1. The developer asked if he could utilize a private company with a smaller truck. However, the City code requires refuse pick-up be done by the City. 2. A pad to place garbage containers was proposed 6 ft. long and 20 ft. wide, however this would encroach into the pipeline easement. 3. Residents could bring their trash to a specific location, however it would be too far away. 4. The garbage trucks pick up the containers on the right side of the truck. The truck will make one back-up movement. Some residents will have to bring their garbage to the other side of the street. This is not an ideal situation, but it was approved by the Solid Waste division. Centex will provide signs stating no parking on garbage days for that side of the street. The plat contains the usual contingencies. Commission Larson was not happy with the idea. This causes an extra liability for the City. It is not a City problem, it is the developer's problem. The developer should take some units out to make it work. He feels the City is giving into the developer. Because the developer cannot get in the maximum number of units, it becomes a City problem. He felt the developer should reduce the number of units or shift the project. The commission already allowed 56 ft. lots. Now the developer is clear cutting trees and the City is getting pushed by the developer and he does not like it. Planning Commission Minutes Aprill2, 2005 Page 2 Commissioner Richter did not like the fact they are changing the requirements but is ok with it. . Commissioner Barker felt this was the best option. He does not like the trucks backing up. There are other options to change the plat for the safety of the trucks. As far as the no parking signs - what if a car is parked there. Enforcement is put on the City. Chair Rotty stated it was not the ideal situation. Solid Waste employees are talented people and they know what they are doing. The residents will have to be educated as to what to do. He suggested the developer put a notice in the model home. The Solid Waste division has said it is doable. MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to send a favorable recommendation to the Council with contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Special Exception Permit to Move House from 4660 212th Street to Outside the Farmington City Limits Applicant: Bill Otting Otting House Movers is interested in moving a house at 4660 212th Street to outside the City limits. Their route would be along Hwy 50 and out ofthe City. Requirements include making sure the building structure is safe to move, they need to receive County approval to use Hwy 50, they need to remove and backfill the house foundation within 7 days, and they need to grade and establish the area with grass within 9 months. . Mr. Otting stated this would be a night move. He will obtain County approval once this is approved by the Planning Commission. He agrees with all the conditions. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to approve the Special Exception Permit with contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Rezone Murphy 350 (QI & 8) Property from A-I to R-I and R-3, Review Mystic Meadows I st Addition Preliminary Plat, Request Variance from 600- foot Cul-de-sac Requirement (Section 11-4-3(B)) Applicant: Giles Properties, Inc. The draft AUAR is being reviewed during the 30-day review period. This will be approved by the Council in June. Comments should be received by the end of April, in March the Planning Commission approved the comp plan amendment to allow low-medium density and it was also approved by the Council. Giles Properties is proposing 244 single family lots and 40 mixed family units on 152.7 . Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2005 Page 3 . acres. Mystic Meadows is the first phase. The net density is 2.34 units/acre and does not include storm water ponds and wetlands. Chair Rotty liked the road and green space as a buffer between the different housing types. Diamond Path is the north-south route which runs along the west side ofthe plat. This road will be 52-64 ft. in width with a 120 ft. right-of-way. The County is not sure if this will be a County road. Giles will construct the two easterly lanes of Diamond Path. Eventually Diamond Path will be four lanes. The developer is required to connect the road to Parkview Ponds. In the future, staff hopes Diamond Path will connect with l60th Street in Rosemount. Street A is also a north-south minor collector on the east side ofthe development. The variance request is for a cul-de-sac that is 148 ft. over the 600 ft. cul-de-sac length requirement. The reason the developer is asking for a variance is the City requires 1,000 ft. of separation on collector streets for intersections. The Commission had no problems with the cul-de-sac. . The Parks and Recreation Commission discussed sidewalks and trails. They would like a trail around the entire storm water facility. This is seen as a public use. The developer is concerned with pedestrian use ofthe trail behind the homes. There will be a special Park and Recreation Commission meeting to discuss this issue with the developer. The Park and Recreation Commission also requested a trail around the pond to the south and along the wetland. The storm water facility will be easy for the City to maintain because of easy access and the opportunity to separate the water from the back of the lots. Access to the trail will be in between lots. The developer is not proposing any park dedication, so the Park and Recreation Commission assumed the storm water facility to be park dedication. Chair Rotty wanted to make sure there was adequate access and would like a recommendation from Park and Rec and Engineering on the bike trails. There will also be trails along both sides of Diamond Path. It should be discussed whether the developer will install a trail along the west side now. Commissioner Larson was concerned with the narrow lot on the west side. Staffwill be meeting with the Dakota County Plat Commission on May 2,2005 to discuss Diamond Path. Mr. John Anderson, Giles Properties, stated the narrow lots were to be an access to the ponds. These lots have been adjusted. They lost a couple of lots for the wetland buffer. After adjustments were made they now have 245 lots. Regarding parking for the townhomes, owners have an option for a 3-car side garage rather than a 2-car garage. There will be a parking lot at the north and south ends of the townhomes. There is a trail connecting with the north lot. The developer will install a trail on the east side of Diamond Path and connect with Parkview Ponds . Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2005 Page 4 and 195th Street. 195th Street would be built when it connects to Hwy 3 to the east. . Chair Rotty requested the developer inform the residents that Diamond Path will be 4 lanes. The developer had no problem with this. Mr. Anderson stated the park area to the south is approximately 30 acres and will be dedicated to the City. In phase 1 there is no park dedication. This comes in future phases. The developer is proposing 8,303 lineal ft. of trail and 11,698 ft. of sidewalk. With the additional trails required it adds almost an extra 3 miles of trail, which is almost double. There would be over 7 ft. of trails and sidewalks. Mr. Anderson felt this was redundant. He understands the developer is responsible to install the trails, but the City has to maintain them. Having a trail behind the homes around the storm water facility devalues the price of the home and reduces privacy. The AUAR comments may be specific to future phases. He does not want to delay phase 1. They are lining the backs of the lots with trees to provide shade to reduce the trout stream temperature. Chair Rotty noted this is a nice looking subdivision and he liked the ponds. To rezone the area to R-l and R-3 is consistent with the Comp Plan. At the last meeting there were questions regarding the townhomes. When the area to the north develops, they will blend in. He will defer comments on trails until they receive the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation. This plat makes good use of the future Diamond Path road. He sees no major issues. . Commissioner Barker had no problem with the rezone. As far as the townhomes, Seed-Genstar to the north will be medium density. He wondered ifthere should be a road from the townhomes going north to connect with the medium density. He asked if there will be any berms in the backyards of the townhomes. Mr. Anderson replied there will be screening along the collector roads in the back. There is also a sidewalk and then boulevard trees. The site is very flat with a high water table. They used fill from the ponds to raise the housing pads. Commissioner Larson liked the project. He agreed Park and Rec should make a decision regarding the trails. He thought there should be one or two docks for fishing. Commissioner Richter agreed Park and Rec should decide on the trails. She liked the project. Mr. Anderson stated they will look at the dock issue. The depth ofthe pond should maintain fish. If it is classified as a storm water facility, docks would not be allowed. Chair Rotty would like a recommendation from Engineering and Park and Rec. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to continue this item to the May 10, 2005 meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2005 Page 5 . . . d) Amend Comprehensive Plan from Low/Medium Density Residential to Business and Rezone Property from R-2 to B-1 for the Northerly Portion of 1024 8th Street or Amend Section 10-5-7 of the Zoning Code to Allow Auto Sales in the R-2 Zoning District as an Interim Use Applicant: Ivan Janssen The Ash Street project will be starting to the south ofthe lot owned by K&K Auto Ranch. K&K is located on the corner of Ash Street and 8th Street. Mr. Janssen combined three lots into one parcel. With the lot combination the southerly two lots are zoned B-1 and have a comp plan designation of business. The north lot is zoned R-2 and has a low-medium density comp plan designation. Due to the Ash Street project, the access to the business will be cut off. Cars in the lot will also have to be moved away from 8th Street and times close that access. K&K proposed to pay for the storm water pipe in 8th Street in front of their business to alleviate the drainage problem along the back of the homes behind his business. The car lot business would be located on the north lot. As the north lot is zoned R-2, which does not allow business, the lot needs to be rezoned to B-1 and amend the comp plan to business. The second option is the lot remains in R-2 and a text amendment is prepared for an interim use permit. The interim use would end November 4, 2005 when cars would have to be moved from the north lot. The interim use could allow car sales all over because of the text amendment. Interim use is a short term solution. Re-zoning the lot and amending the comp plan is a permanent solution. Commissioner Larson asked how deep the boulevards are and if he is parking cars on the boulevard. Staff was not certain if surveys were done for that. They will check with Engineering. The comp plan would go to Council on April 18. The Planning Commission would call a special meeting for April 26 for the public hearing for this issue. Commissioner Larson asked ifthe east access problem is due to installing the storm water pipe, and not because of the city project. Staff replied Mr. Janssen is also alleviating a drainage problem in the area. Mr. Orville Swenson, 1007 7th Street, showed pictures of the area showing the drainage problem. He was concerned if the lot is changed to business, is Mr. Janssen bonded and forced to complete the drainage project or if it is too expensive, can he sell the lot for another use. There has been a problem with snow piles. There is a regulation to not move snow from commercial property to residential property. This would make it legal for him to do this. Mr. Swenson asked if the car lot will have to be paved. He wanted the decision postponed until the City is sure the work will be completed. Mr. Cy Hennek, 1011 7th Street, stated he lives behind the lot. No one enters the business from Ash Street, they all come in from 8th Street. If an interim use permit is granted will he still install the storm water pipe? Staff replied with an Planning Commission Minutes Aprill2,2005 Page 6 interim use, there will have to be a Development Contract, Mr. Janssen will have to show his plans, how the storm water system will be installed and he will need . grading plans. With a conditional use he will have to do the same thing and any conditions required by the Planning Commission regarding lighting and screenmg. When asked by Chair Rotty, Mr. Janssen stated he will still put in the storm water pipe if it is an interim use. His goal is to develop the lot. Commissioner Larson stated he really want to put a car lot there. Mr. Hennek asked ifthere will be any privacy walls at the end ofthe lot. Mr. Janssen is proposing a block wall with a wood fence above it. Engineering will make certain the drainage works. Mr. Hennek was concerned if he raises the back of the north lot, it will not drain and will create a valley on the other side. Mr. Janssen is proposing a catch basin. Chair Rotty stated the issue for residents is Mr. Janssen will be able to operate a car lot there. Commissioner Larson stated the lot would have to be paved. Staff noted there might not be enough time to pave the lot before the Ash Street project begins. Staff does not have a problem with cars parked on the grass as long as they know when that will end. The city does their best to not close off all accesses at the same time. Commissioner Larson supported the rezone as long as the drainage is part of it. Commissioner Richter supported the rezone as long as the buffer, fence and drainage are handled. Commissioner Barker agreed. Chair Rotty stated the time has come to do this. He supported the project. As far as paving the lot, it could . be done incrementally. He hoped the residents would be understanding. Regarding screening and lighting, the Planning Commission has the authority to require this. It will be discussed at the April 26 meeting. He encouraged the residents to attend. MOTION by Richter, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to amend the comp plan from low-medium density to business and rezone the lot from R-2 to B-1 for the northerly portion of 1024 8th Street. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Hometown Addition Preliminary Plat Applicant: Kim Friedrich Residents Nordine and Schmidtke informed the city they were not notified ofthe public hearing. Staff explained they request the developer to obtain an abstractor's list of properties within 350 ft. ofthe property. Notices were sent 10 days in advance. Not receiving a notice does not void the process. Residents were concerned that the process is well along before the adjoining landowners are notified. The City allows a sketch plan and holds the public hearing for the preliminary plat to provide something for residents to see, showing the lots. The residents also did not know what was happening across the street on 209th Street along Hwy 3. Staff will check the list of notices. MOTION by Larson, . Planning Commission Minutes Aprill2, 2005 Page 7 . 4. . . second by Barker to continue the public hearing to the May 10, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Discussion b) Discussion of Signs within the A-I District for Non-Agricultural Uses and the CSAH 50 Corridor Staff received a sign application from Christian Life Church. There is no sign allowance in the code for A-I properties. The church proposed a pylon sign, 15.5 ft. high in the same location as the existing sign. The sign will also include an LED with the time and temperature and information on the church. The church will be expanding in the future. Staff asked the Planning Commission: - What sign height should be allowed for non-agriculture uses in an A-I district? - Should all church facilities have a maximum sign height of 10ft.? - What sign height should be allowed along CSAH 50 in the future? Should they be limited to monument signs? The Spruce Street commercial area and the flex area allow 15 ft. for monument signs showing multiple businesses. Each building can have a 10ft. high monument sign. - It has been discussed to expand the industrial park along CSAH 50. Does the Commission want pylon or monument signs? - Should LED be allowed only for certain uses? Pastor Kent Boyum, Christian Life Church, stated the church has been in the community for 70 years and the school for 21 years. The current sign is ineffective to communicate with the city. They re-designed the pylon sign to a monument sign. It is still 15 ft. high and 10-12 ft. wide. The front of the property is low along CSAH 50. There is no policy regarding sign height so the City hoped to develop a policy. There are signs currently in the A-I district. The church wants to request a sign that is professional, upgraded with the latest technology and gives good exposure to the community. They don't want to be restricted now, waiting 15 years for the comp plan. They feel the height should be concerned with the zoning rather than the fact it is a church. They are a multiple business location - a church and a school. CSAH 50 is 55 mph, 4 lanes, which allows a 175 sq. ft. sign up to 28 ft. high. The church is requesting a sign 15 ft. high. Staff noted the height of the sign is measured from the street. Pastor Boyum noted if the sign location is brought up to street grade, they would be happy with 10ft. As far as LED lighting, if it is only allowed by the school and the City, what does that do to other businesses? The technology of signs is changing. The church is working with a company called God's Way on the design of the new building. They commented Farmington was the easiest and most cooperative city to work with. The church feels the sign will be a benefit to the City. There will be a meeting of the church on April 17 regarding whether to spend money on the sign pending approval ofthe City. Chair Rotty appreciated the church going to a monument sign. He prefers monument signs over pylon signs. A 10ft. sign would work with bringing the Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2005 Page 8 area up to grade level. He also agreed with the LED. Staff noted this could come to the May Planning Commission meeting and the second Council meeting in . May. Commissioner Richter was in favor of the monument sign rather than the pylon sign. She does not want LED. She felt it should not depend on whether it is a church for the 10ft. height requirement. Commissioner Barker was in favor ofthe LED. Commissioner Larson was in favor ofthe monument sign and the LED. a) Discussion of Gravel Parking Lots in Downtown Residential Districts Staff would rather see only residential uses have gravel parking off gravel allies. Commissioner Barker had no problem with that. Commissioner Larson felt the parking area should be a hard surface. There are too many people making driveways that should not be. Staff agreed gravel parking would allow gravel on the entire backyard unless a size limit was set. Commissioner Richter agreed to have a gravel driveway off a gravel alley, but not have a large area. Commissioner Barker did not envision large areas of gravel. After further discussion, Commission Richter felt the requirements should be left as is with having parking areas paved. Chair Rotty felt asphalt looks nice and supported leaving as is. Commissioner Barker then agreed to leave the code as is. Staffwill also take this to Council with a recommendation to leave as is. There will be a special meeting on April 26, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the conditional use for K&K Auto Ranch and for the wall sign request on 311 Oak Street. There will be a Farmington/Castle Rock Discussion Group on April 18 for Commissioner . Richter to attend. There will be an EFPAC meeting on April 28 at 7:00 p.m. for Commissioner Larson to attend. There will be a MUSA Review Committee meeting on April 20 at 7:00 p.m. for Chair Rotty and Commissioner Larson to attend. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~/Y7~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting April 26, 2005 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Larson, Richter Members Absent: Barker, Johnson Also Present: Lee Smick, City Planner 2. Public Hearings b) Conditional Use Permit - Painted Wall Sign - 311 Oak Street Applicant: Paul Otten Mr. Otten has commissioned an artist, Mr. Guy Smith, to paint a mural on the east wall of his building at 311 Oak Street. The mural would be painted on a canvas and placed on the wall with adhesive. The mural would be a painting of a tiger. Two business owners provided comments. Heikkela Studios would like a mural showing a history of downtown Farmington. Ms. Kris Akin of Welcome Friends wanted more of a Minnesota landscape behind the tiger. The tiger represents the Farmington Tigers. There are requirements for granting the CUP: 1. The proposed use conforms to the district. 2. The proposed use shall not involve any element or cause any conditions that may be dangerous, injurious or noxious to any other property. 3. The proposed use shall be constructed, designed, sited, oriented and landscaped to produce harmonious relationship of buildings. 4. The proposed use shall produce a total visual impression and environment which is consistent with the environment of the neighborhood. 5. The proposed use shall organize vehicular access and parking. 6. The proposed use shall preserve the objectives of this title and be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff has determined the request meets the requirements. Mr. Paul Otten stated the choice of the tiger was to be supportive ofthe Farmington Tigers. He has a problem with peeling paint on the building. He has repainted the building and months later the paint peels off. This would solve his problem. He spoke with Ms. Pam Heikkela and he understood what she was looking for. He just purchased the building on the corner of Oak and Third Street which houses Duebers and Oak Street Gallery. He would be willing to do a mural there also if the mural concept in the downtown buildings would be appropriate. A historical mural could be done there. The artist has indicated a Minnesota background is workable. Commissioner Richter would like to see it blend in with the historical downtown. Commissioner Larson asked the artist ifhe had any other concepts. Mr. Smith Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2005 Page 2 . stated he is the Vice-President of the Dakota Valley Arts Council and they are always trying to encourage the youth to get involved with the arts. He suggested going with the tiger because every high school student considers themselves one. When he took requests for what people would like to see along a historic vein, everything people mentioned is already on the mural on the steakhouse. He thought he could solicit some help from high school students. He was willing to draft something else that would be favorable to everyone. The tiger could take up a fourth of the wall and also do a farming scene or something for the veterans. The canvas makes a durable surface to paint on and holds the paint well. Using an adhesive was so he would not have to size the canvas and he could eliminate stretching. The canvas has a better bonding with the primer and the paint. The canvas will cover any imperfections in the wall and prevent loss ofthe grout. The canvas is permanent until you want to remove it or paint over it. Commissioner Richter asked ifthere would be any words on it. Mr. Smith thought that might have caused the sign idea. He does not think of this as a sign, it is a mural. There are no regulations for words on murals. He would like to see some time spent designating what words can be used on murals. History is not a problem, other than deciding what history to reflect. He would like some input on that. Commissioner Larson would like to see more ofthe tiger's face other than a side view. Mr. Smith wanted to show the kids how to do something right and get away from the graffiti. He wanted to do something the kids would not want to see defaced. . Chair Rotty stated they support the schools, but would like to see it toned down a little, with more of a native background. Staff noted the HPC is not concerned with the heritage aspect. It is really not an HPC issue as it is not on a landmark building. Chair Rotty was sure whatever painting Mr. Smith did would look nice. Commissioner Richter suggested more muted colors. MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Richter asked if there would be words on it. The Conditional Use would not contain any words. MOTION by Richter, second by Larson to approve the Conditional Use Permit for 311 Oak Street. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. a) Conditional Use Permit - Auto Sales in a B-1 Zone Applicant: Ivan & Janet Janssen It was approved at the April 12, 2005 meeting to have a comp plan amendment from low/medium density to business and a rezoning from R-2 to B-1. This was approved by the Council on April 18, 2005. With the approval by the Council the entire lot is B-1 and a comp plan designation of business. Because of the Ash Street Project, the cars will have to be moved to the northern portion of the lot. Because of the project beginning and the need to move the cars, Mr. Janssen did not have time to obtain an engineering plan. Mr. Delmar Schwanz is working on this now. There is precedence where hand-drawn renderings have been reviewed with the contingency of receiving engineering plans in the future. . Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2005 Page 3 . They propose a tiered block wall between the existing lot and the northerly lot with steps down to the new lot. They are proposing to keep the existing garage and asphalt the entire piece. A 6-8 ft. opaque fence will be installed along the west and north border of the new car lot. There is the possibility of a 6-8 ft fence or pine trees along the north. There is a screening requirement between residential and business. There is an existing tree so if the commission wants that tree saved, it should be placed in the contingencies. The storm sewer line will be constructed to the west with a catch basin for storm water runoff. This will be done during the Ash Street construction. The City will make sure this handles the water problem in the area. The garage will be re-roofed and painted within two years of approval of the Conditional Use Permit. If lights are proposed in the future, the applicant will be required to amend this CUP. Staffhas determined the request meets all requirements. Engineering and Planning need to review and approve the engineered site plan concerning utilities, screening and site layout. The engineered plan needs to be submitted on or before May 6,2005. The City has required the applicant waive their rights to object to any assessments on the property for improvements. Staff recommended approving the conditional use permit to allow auto sales on the nort~erly portion of 1024 8th Street. There will be the need for staging of the cars. They are proposing all of the work be done by November 15, 2005. As Ash Street and 8th Street are being constructed, they will also be trying to pave the lot. They will have to determine how to stage the cars. . Mr. Cy Hennek, a neighbor, asked what type of fence it will be. Staff replied it will be 100% screened, wood fence or it could be plastic. It has to be so you cannot see through it. He would prefer an 8 ft. fence. Commissioner Larson would like to have the fence look as nice on the back side as the front side. Ms. Janet Janssen asked ifthe speed limit would change on Ash Street and 8th Street as the entrance to their business would be changed. The commission has no control over that. Chair Rotty asked if she was familiar with the five requirements. Ms. Janssen agreed with the requirements. Commissioner Larson asked about the step down from one parking lot to the next. He asked if there would be a curb stop. Staffhas discussed this with the applicant and that will be discussed further into the plan detail. Commissioner Richter asked if the large tree would remain. Staffwas not sure if the tree was on the lot, Ms. Janssen would like to keep the tree. Staff suggested the fence go to the front of the house and then plant trees beyond that. The trees would have to be a minimum of 6 ft. . Chair Rotty supported the CUP. He agreed an engineering drawing should be obtained to formalize everything, to know where the catch basin goes and make sure the water is dealt with. He would agree with having an 8 ft. fence for a higher buffer for the neighbors and it has to be opaque. He liked the suggestion along the north line for 6 ft. trees and then a fence. . . . Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Cy Hennek asked ifthe fence is brought down to the ground level. Chair Rotty noted the lot is flat and felt the fence could be to the ground. MOTION by Richter, second by Larson to close the public hearing. MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow auto sales on the northerly portion of 1024 8th Street with the five conditions. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Adjourn MOTION by Richter, second by Larson to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Lt-~ ~~ ~thia Muller Executive Assistant Approved . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting May 10,2005 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; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Smick, City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) April 12, 2005 MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the April 12, 2005 Minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Larson. Abstain: Johnson. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Bristol Square 5th Addition Preliminary & Final Plat Applicant: SAS Development, LLC Mr. Jim Allen froposes to plat 53 townhome units in the Bristol Square 5th Addition. 213t Street is along the south side and the east side of the area. This was previously approved in 1998, however the lot lines have changed and also the number of units. Therefore, the preliminary plat needs to be approved again. MW Johnson has purchased the 4th and 5th Additions and his units are different from Mr. Allen's 1998 concepts. Access will be from the trail in the 5th Addition and also from Arbor Lane and Willow Trail. This is the final phase for the Bristol Square 5th Addition. As far as park requirements, there are some trails Mr. Allen needs to complete in the 2nd Addition to fulfill those requirements. Mr. Allen will be planting trees in the open space. Staff showed the variations on the building elevations proposed by Mr. Allen in 1998. Ms. Jill Thompson, 1209 Willow Trail, stated she is part ofthe 1 st Addition and noted they have not received the trees promised between the homes, the trail and the pond. She wanted to know when this would be done. The walking trail was installed last fall: She understood it was to have been done by Mr. Allen, but now that it has been turned over to MW Johnson, she wanted to know if she should talk with Mr. Bill Johnson. Staff stated Mr. Allen does have letters of credit for both the 1 st and 2nd Additions and he does need to plant trees in the 2nd Addition in the ponding area. The letters of credit are being held because ofthe trees and the trail. Staff did not know the timeframe. Commissioner Larson stated the trees are not planted in the 1 st Addition and the trails are not completed in the 2nd Addition, he asked what else is missing. Staffwould have to obtain a punchlist from Engineering. Chair Rotty informed Ms. Thompson all the items would have letters of credit. If the developer does not do the work, the City will have it done and the developer will pay for it through the letter of credit. Hopefully this will Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2005 Page 2 . . . be done soon. Ms. Thompson asked if the evergreen trees that are to be planted by the pond, if they could be placed in the backyards of the homes rather than across the walking trail. There is a lot of marsh and weeds between the walking path and the pond and she felt the trees would be drowned out. Staff will review the situation when they discuss the trees with Mr. Allen. Commissioner Larson would like to know what else is not completed in the 1 st and 2nd Addition. He asked if they could deny the final plat until those items are completed. Staff replied no, those issues are with the Development Contract which is approved by the City Council. The letters of credit are being held. He asked staff to find out what is taking so long and move it along a little faster. Chair Rotty supported sending this to the City Council. Commissioner Larson asked how MW Johnson's building elevations compare to Mr. Allen's buildings. Staff replied Mr. Allen had triangle windows in the back for more of a design and had stone along the garages rather than all vinyl. Commissioner Larson would like to see MW Johnson stick more with the original design. Staffwill pass these comments on to the developer. Commissioner Johnson noted there are requirements that the sod has to be in within a certain amount of time. He asked why there is nothing specifying a timeline for planting trees. Staffwill make an effort to get all this information to the Council, and perhaps they will asked staff to require timelines for these items. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to recommend approval to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Middle Creek East 3rd Addition Amendment to the Planned Unit Development, Rezone, and Preliminary & Final Plat Review Applicant: D R Horton In 2000 Middle Creek had a PUD for multi-family in this area. The zoning showed 60 units, 15 4-unit buildings. D R Horton is now proposing to have single family in this area rather than multi-family. The PUD would go from medium density to low density. In 2002 the Middle Creek East preliminary plat showed medium density which allowed for R-3 zoning. DR Horton is proposing R -1 to comply with the PUD amendment and to allow for the 26 single-family homes. Setbacks are 20 ft in the front and 6 ft. on the side and rear. Minimum lot width is 80 ft. and the minimum building pad is 60 ft x 60 ft. The lots range from 10,388 sq. ft to 31,960 sq. ft. The developer proposes a 28 ft. wide roadway that would loop around and connect to Eastview Avenue. A sidewalk will be on one side of the street. There will be a future thru street sign at the southern end of Eastview Avenue. This will eventually connect with 208th Street in the industrial park. As far as trails, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended moving the trail to the other side rather than next to Middle Creek Estates. There is a grove of trees that will remain. Engineering is requesting the trail go next to the back ofthe lots and follow the lot line. This forms a barrier between the back ofthe lot and the wetland buffer. Parks and Recreation is proposing a boardwalk Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2005 Page 3 . . . through the area that will connect with Eaves Way. Engineering would like to eliminate the lift station on Eaves Way. They propose to install a sanitary sewer pipe through the area to the lift station. There is a 75 ft. wide buffer along the wetland. A sign will be placed every 300 ft. along the trail. Staff recommended approval of the PUD Schematic Plan from medium density to low density residential and forward the recommendation to the Council. Staff recommended approval ofthe rezoning from R-3 to R-l and forward the recommendation to the Council. Staff also recommended approval of the preliminary and final plat contingent on any Engineering comments and forward the recommendation to Council. Commissioner Larson liked to see the lot sizes over 10,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Johnson also liked the larger lot sizes. He asked who is picking up the boardwalk, the developer or the City. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied the boardwalk is a City contribution. In the future it will connect with Eaves Way. Commissioner Barker agreed this is a good addition to the City. Chair Rotty supported the lower density and noted it has a good buffer between higher and lower densities. The parks and eliminating the lift stations is a great benefit to the City. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to approve the PUD Schematic Amendment from medium density to low density, approve the rezoning from R-3 to R-l and approve the Middle Creek East 3rd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Executive Estates Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Preliminary Plat Review Applicant: Colin Garvey TH3 runs along the west, 225th Street runs along the south, and the Farmington Business Park is to the north. The annexation for the property was approved by the Council on September 7, 2004. The Municipal Boundary Adjustment office approved the boundary change on November 10, 2004. The developer proposes 98 single family lots over 10,000 sq. ft. MUSA was approved on August 16, 2004. The Comp Plan amendment would be from non-designated to low density residential. When property is annexed into the City it automatically receives an A-I zoning. Mr. Garvey would like the property rezoned to R-1. Staff requested a continuance for the preliminary plat as some items still need to be reviewed. They are proposing two accesses onto 225th Street. A berm will be installed between the B-3 and R-l zones. Staff is requiring Mr. Garvey to pave the road from TH3 to the second access to 225th Street. Castle Rock Township provided a letter to the Commission with some concerns. They would like Mr. Garvey to pave the road from TH3 to the end. This is a developer/townshi~ issue. The township would also like to have their own engineer design 225t Street. Staff recently received Tollefson's proposed plan. They are proposing an easterly connection with Mr. Garvey's property. Staff would like to see this access. Mr. Garvey proposes fewer trails. Parks and Recreation would like more trails and Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2005 Page 4 . looped trails around the wetland. The sidewalk can be on either side of the street. The Parks and Recreation Commission is requesting a park in the area and Mr. Garvey was under the assumption it would be cash in lieu. Staff recommended approval of the Comp Plan designating the property from non-designated to low density residential, recommend rezoning the property from A-I to R-l, and continue the preliminary plat for Executive Estates to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Joel West, Tollefson Development, wanted to reiterate the request for the connection to the east. They are trying to incorporate a storm water pond on the site approximately 3 acres in size. Chair Rotty spoke regarding the Comp Plan and the rezoning. He stated the City has a long-range planning document that overlays the type of use for everything. This parcel came into the City without any designation. It comes in as agricultural. A developer wants to develop the property and wants a designation ofR-1. He also recommended continuing the preliminary plat. He asked the commission to comment regarding the trails and the park issue. . Commissioner Larson noted it has to be a shock to the developer to lose the cul- de-sac. He wanted to hear more about the cash in lieu. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated the Parks and Recreation Commission met on April 27, 2005. They used the Comp Plan map that identifies future parks and trails. The map shows a 4-acre park in that development and quite a few trails. The Parks and Recreation Commission wanted to follow the Comp Plan. There are a lot of small neighborhood parks, so when there is an opportunity to obtain a piece of parkland adjacent to a parcel that is not developed where they can obtain an additional piece of land to provide a bigger park, it is a goal of the Parks and Recreation Commission to do that. Commissioner Larson stated he sees all the trails proposed around the wetlands and ponds, and wonders if the City will be able to afford to maintain them. There are a lot more trails than we used to have. It concerns him to put in 15-30 miles worth of trails this year and in 10-15 years have to overlay those trails. He sees that as a large expense. Parks and Recreation Distad replied one of the goals in 2005 for the Parks and Recreation Commission is to bring back to the Council some recommendations on other funding mechanisms for park development and trails. Currently the City relies on development fees for parks and trails. At some point development will slow down and that funding mechanism will be lost. The City needs long-range planning to not only overlay the trails, but to also redevelop the parks as they age. The second item is you do want to create a variety of trails with different lengths as there are people with different abilities. Commissioner Larson stated we are taking a cul-de-sac and turning it into a park. At one point it was discussed having a large park on the golf course property and creating a ball field complex. He felt that park would be sufficient for this neighborhood. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated we have the opportunity to create a larger park between . Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2005 Page 5 . two parcels and the Parks and Recreation Commission is trying to take advantage of that. Commissioner Larson asked if we could land bank the amount of acres or the cash as the same person owns both parcels and put a larger park in the central area ofthe golf course. He stated it is a nice cul-de-sac with larger lot sizes which he likes to see. For other developers we let them build a road in an area we were not going to let anyone build on and let people clear cut an area of trees. He felt it was straightforward this land could be shifted to a larger park and keep the nice cul-de-sac. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated the Parks and Recreation Commission felt they could control this development, they cannot control future development. They saw this as an opportunity to develop parkland in this area in the event the property to the east does not come into the City. Commissioner Larson agreed with the Comp Plan amendment and rezone. Commissioner Barker agreed with the Comp Plan amendment and rezone. Regarding the park, he understood Commissioner Larson's concern, but also understood the concern ofthe Parks and Recreation Commission. He wondered if there could be a compromise to shorten the cul-de-sac and downsize the park size. The properties to the west would still have a park to use. . Commissioner Johnson agreed with Commission Larson and was curious to see what Mr. Garvey would propose ifhe had a totally different drawing. Parks and Recreation is eliminating a whole cul-de-sac and thought that was a shock. If Mr. Garvey knows that is what they want, he felt Mr. Garvey would come up with a different design. He wanted to see what else Mr. Garvey would have to offer if the park remains. He agreed with the Comp Plan amendment and rezone. Chair Rotty also agreed with the Comp Plan amendment and the rezone. He agreed with the accesses to the property. He would like staff to work with Mr. Garvey and Mr. Tollefson to obtain the east-west connection. He also liked the buffer and suggested some trees on the berm would help. As far as trails, he did not want to start duplicating trails. If there will be sidewalks in the front, that is fine, or if there are trails in the back that is fine, but he did not want to duplicate things. Regarding the park, he supported the long-range plan for developing parks. As they are not taking action on the plat tonight, perhaps something can be worked out with the park. Not knowing the timing of the parcel to the east, he would support the Parks and Recreation Commission and say a park is needed in the development. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to close the public hearing for the Comp Plan amendment and rezone. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . Mr. Colin Garvey stated as far as the park, the plans have been in for almost a year. There were numerous meetings before he designed the development and that is why they went with the bigger lots. They are almost 17,000 sq. ft. lots. After numerous staff meetings it was always going to be payment in lieu of a park. The park idea came up about 3 months ago. At the September 15, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2005 Page 6 . . . meeting it was payment in lieu of a park. It devastates the project to lose the cul- de-sac. To go this far in the process and to now say let's put in a park is unacceptable. As far as the trail around the wetland, he would rather see the sidewalk in front come around the cul-de-sac for the future development to the east. The trail around the wetland will come out into a cul-de-sac. To dump the trail onto a street is a liability. There is a lot of truck traffic in that area. He felt they should think about safety. As far as the access to the east, this is the first he has heard about it and will work on it. Staffhas been working with the township on their issues. Staff is proposing a Special Planning Commission meeting for May 24,2005. They are not sure if the preliminary plat can be ready by then. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to continue the Executive Estates Preliminary Plat public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Community Development Director Carroll stated the park issue is challenging. There may be a middle ground whereby the developer would agree to provide parkland with the understanding it would not be immediately developed and with the further understanding that if development occurs to the east on the golf course property, that he would have the opportunity to trade this parkland for additional parkland over there and then develop this parkland the way it is envisioned on the plat. The disadvantage to the developer is that he would not be able to put in the lots and the road at the same time. The possibility he would be able to develop in the future if things go the way he anticipates would cover all the bases. The City would have the parkland in this development if things do not progress as anticipated to the east, but if they do, then the developer would have the opportunity to build the houses and put in the street. This will be discussed further. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to recommend approval of the 2020 Comp Plan amendment from non-designated to low density and rezone the property from A-I to R-l. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Mystic Meadows Preliminary Plat (cont'd) Applicant: Giles Properties, Inc. The developer has requested additional time to address the flood plan issues and to discuss right-of-way issues with Dakota County. They would like to continue the plat to May 24,2005. Staff received revised plans today. The developer would like to discuss sidewalk and trail recommendations by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed this item on April 27, 2005. The developer will not be dedicating any parkland for this phase of the development. As they developer further to the south and the west a future park is shown. The driving force on the trail location is the large pond being dug by the developer. This is the developer's choice because of the need to raise the building pads up because of the high water table. The pond causes some problems with trail locations. The plan map shows three trails going east and west and three trails going north and Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2005 Page 7 . south. There are trails shown along the future Diamond Path on both sides. The Parks and Recreation Commission felt strongly about putting the trail around the entire pond. Staff recently found out there are issues with the flood plain and the fact it comes out into the development. That creates an issue with the future greenway trail along North Creek. Staff felt the Parks and Recreation Commission and the developer are close to agreeing on sidewalks. It is envisioned that the park area to the south will become the adult softball complex. Staff has talked with the developer and some early plans show a four-field complex with an opportunity to expand in the future if the adjacent property comes into the City. Another four-field complex could be built on that property. Mr. John Anderson, Giles Properties, stated the new plans do address the 195th Street right-of-way, they have reviewed the flood plain information and it did extend into the development. There is a question with two lots and they might go away and become an outlot. The plans were submitted today. Originally the park plan showed three trails going across the property. It showed this site only and does not work into the township for the future. The north route is proposed along 195th and will connect to the future road providing trail access to the greenway. The trail to the south will also connect to the greenway, and there will be a trail proposed along the base ofthe creek. There are sidewalks matching up to the development to the west, Parkview Ponds. Any additional trails being required by the City over and above the Park Trail Plan would be a cost to the City. Mr. Anderson proposed a trail of 2.07 miles and sidewalks of 1.9 miles. The City proposed 3.73 miles of trails and 1.6 miles of sidewalk. Looking at the cost to the City for the trails required over and above the plan, just the dirt alone is 40,000 cubic yards for the area just around the pond. With import numbers that will be $275,000. The lineal feet of trail required over and above the comp plan is approximately 6,500 sq. ft. The cost of blacktopping an 8 ft bituminous trail is $75,000 - $80,000. The total would be a cost to the City of$350,000. This does not include maintenance. They will be very nice homes and having a trail behind the homes takes away the privacy and affects the values. The builders do not want to see trails behind the homes. . Chair Rotty asked staff if putting a trail around the pond behind the homes causes any issues. Staff replied there could be some engineering issues, but staff would have to obtain more information. City Planner Smick stated there are a number of trees proposed around the pond to reduce the water temperature. If the trails are installed, the trees will have to be placed on the private lots or leave the trees out. The DNR would also have to comment on their requirements for landscaping around ponds. . Mr. Anderson stated as far as the two large ponds and maintenance, they are creating sedimentation cells for the storm water coming offthe streets. The ponds will not have storm water running into them, they are maintained by ground water, so there should not be much maintenance. The developer is proposing numerous trees along all the ponds which is over and above the requirements. Planning Commission Minutes May lO, 2005 Page 8 . The DNR wanted to keep impervious surfaces down. By putting the trails around the ponds it goes against what they are asking for. The landscaping would have to be adjusted and some of the numerous trees would not be planted. Chair Rotty understood the privacy issue. With a trail in the backyard, residents will be walking on them day and night. The trails will not be lit and he asked if that posed a safety issue. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied there are numerous trails along ponds. Along TH3 next to the Farmington Business Park there will be a trail going along the north and east side of the pond. There is a trail around 2-3 sides ofthe ponds in Autumn Glen. It is not the intent ofthe City to light the trails at this time. . Commissioner Larson was concerned with maintenance and asked if some ofthe trails were reduced, perhaps the developer could put some of that money to developing the park to the south with putting in the ball fields. Staff replied the park dedication ordinance does require the developer to give park dedication fees whether land is given or not. The trails are being credited against the park development fee. Commissioner Barker wanted to see what the DNR had to say regarding the trails and the impact on the pond. Commissioner Johnson wanted to hear some different input and wanted to see the developer's proposal for the sidewalks. There are trails around everyone's backyard and he was not sure that was necessary. There are sidewalks on major thoroughfares. He did not feel the looped trail was necessary. He wanted to see something less intrusive to the residents living there. Commissioner Larson stated ifthe trails were not in the backyards, people would be more likely to walk on the sidewalks where it is lit at night. He asked if there have been any problems with the dark trails in backyards. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied no. The only place that has a lit trail is a small section in Middle Creek Park. The majority of trails are not lit. Most people do not want to be out on the trails in the dark. They have tried to avoid the double frontage with sidewalks and trails. He did not think there were that many lots that double front with a trail and a sidewalk or a trail that cuts through the yards. Commissioner Larson noted some sidewalks were removed from the first concept. Staff replied the trail was taken offthe back ofthe cul-de-sac. Chair Rotty stated ifhe were going to buy a lot he views the front of his house with a road and walkers and bikes going by. When in the backyard he looks for more privacy. Ifthere are people going through the backyard, you lose some of that privacy. He was not a strong supporter of putting trails in backyards. He agreed the trails did not need to be lit. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to continue the public hearing to May 24,2005. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2005 Page 9 . . . e) Tamarack Ridge 4th Addition Final Plat (Site Plan Reviews - Roundbank, Variance to the 50-foot Front Yard Setback Along a Minor Collector, Tamarack Ridge Retail Center) Applicant: Jim Ostenson, Farmington Severson, L.P. The property is bounded by TH3, 209th Street, and CSAH 66. This area was intended to be a B-1 zoning district. The developer is proposing to plat two lots and an outlot. To the north is an outlot that will take care ofthe storm water and surface water for the site. Lot 1 is 1.57 acres and lot 2 is 2.6 acres and the outlot is .9 acres. Cascade Drive is a public road and a private road is proposed for the retail development and the bank. A 6,800 sq. ft building is proposed on lot 1 at the southeast intersection of CSAH 66 and TH3. The access for the area will be from Cascade Drive and from the private road into the bank area. An expansion of the building is proposed for the future. There will be four drive-through lanes. They meet the parking space requirement. They need to move the solid waste container and they are working on this as they have extra parking spaces. As far as the building design, there will be a peaked roof with beige and brown earth tones on the building. There will be eight office spaces in a round configuration. They are requesting a variance to allow a 20-foot variance to the 50-foot front yard setback. The reason is because ofthe need to provide adequate parking in front of the building, the property is located on two minor arterial roadways requiring a 50-foot setback. There is no hardship. The granting of the variance will not alter the character of the locality. Dakota County has stated there is no interference with the right-of-way for CSAH 66. Chair Rotty asked ifthat is current or do they look at future plans for widening the road. City Planner Smick replied at the May 5, 2005 Plat Commission meeting it was stated in a letter from the county that currently restricted access is shown all along CSAH 66 and no further right-of-way is needed. The Tamarack Ridge Retail Center is being proposed by Mr. Blaine Eggum of Valley Mining. This would be facing TH3 next to Roundbank. This would be a 25,750 sq. ft. retail shopping center with 12 retail spaces. It is zoned B-1. The building will be 350 ft long by 135 ft wide. They do meet the parking space requirements. The building heights range from 16 ft. to 24 ft. The loading areas will be located behind the building with a private roadway. The loading area will be 13 ft. wide and the private road will be 22 ft. wide. The private road will extend from 209th Street to Cascade Drive. Chair Rotty asked about the road to the north. Staff stated the developer is proposing Catalina Way intersect with the private roadway. The easement will remain. The developer will utilize the adjacent property to create a berm along the 22 ft. wide private road and a 6 ft. fence along with landscaping. The spruce trees need to be replaced with deciduous trees. As far as sidewalks and trails, a sidewalk will be located on the south side of Cascade Drive and intersect with the private drive. There will also be a path from Catalina Way to the westerly property line. The Solid Waste Supervisor has approved the location of the trash containers. Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2005 Page lO . Commissioner Larson asked if there would be a curb for separation in the 13 ft. loading area. Staff replied yes. He asked if when the trash is pulled out ofthe container, if there would be enough room for the container and the solid waste truck. Staffwill confirm this. Staff requested the Commission approve the 20-foot variance for a 30-foot setback and approve the final plat for Tamarack Ridge 4th Addition and the site plan for the Tamarack Retail Center and Roundbank. . Chair Rotty asked for comments from the Commission regarding the preliminary plat first and then the site plan for Roundbank and the variance, and the retail center site plan. Commissioner Johnson agreed with the plat and the variance. On the north end of the retail center, he asked if that was a delivery entrance. Staff replied a drive-through is proposed in that area. The drive-through is 12 ft. wide and it does have 150 ft for stacking. Commission Johnson was concerned this could be a potential problem in the future. Staff noted a drive-through would require a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Barker had no problem with the plat or the variance. He liked the site plan layout. As long as the drive-through needs a CUP, he was fine with it. He liked how they worked with the developer to the east regarding the private road. Commissioner Larson also felt everything looked good. He wanted staff to check with Solid Waste regarding whether there is enough room by the dumpster. Chair Rottynoted they have worked to improve the transportation issues. He would support the plat and the variance. . Mr. Ralph Nordene, stated depending on a pending lawsuit, Great River Energy had proposed putting a 115 kilovolt powerline along the front of the property. He asked ifthat has been considered. Community Development Director Carroll stated the lawsuit is in reference to the fact the City has appealed a route permit that the EQB issued for the powerline. If the court rules in favor of the City and if that decision is not appealed, it would be up to the EQB to reconsider the route permit. They would look at original options and whether new options exist. GRE proposed a route on the east side ofTH3 which the City supported. It would be up to GRE and the utility companies to acquire an easement along the east side of TH3. There are other properties along TH3 that would be affected, including Mr. Nordene's. He felt there is enough room for the powerline. The poles would be placed further apart than people think. The developer is aware of the history of the powerline issue. Mr. Nordene asked if staff has seen the DOT access maps for TH3. The private road that intersects with TH3 at 209th Street is shown on the TH3 access maps to be continued through his property onto a frontage road that continues along the east side of TH3 to connect with the existing frontage roads to the south. He asked if staff knew of any plans to do that and if this development would speed up that process or if this is adequate access to the point where this project will not force the development of that frontage road. Community Development Director Carroll guessed this development would not expedite that. He recalled it was a very preliminary concept with a goal to minimize the number of accesses onto TH3. He did not feel that will happen in the near future. The Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2005 Page II . . . frontage road in this development should not have a significant impact on the development of future frontage roads. Mr. Nordene stated it affects him because even with the existence of that access study, ifhe should want to sell the property it means he would be legally obligated to inform a potential buyer that that plan exists. If this development were to hasten the development of that road this will affect him. Staff stated the access management study is as hypothetical as you can get. Staff can provide Mr. Nordene with names and phone numbers of people at MnDOT. This would be ajoint issue between MnDOT and the City. Community Development Director Carroll did not think MnDOT has the right to impose on the City the need to construct frontage roads and to acquire private properties to do that. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing for the variance for the front-yard setback for Roundbank. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to recommend approval to the Council for the Tamarack Ridge 4th Addition Final Plat. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to approve the variance and the Roundbank site plan contingent on engineering requirements and any Solid Waste division requirements. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to approve the site plan for the Tamarack Ridge Retail Center. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Community Development Director Carroll asked the developer if there was an educational institution looking for space to offer classes during the day and the zoning were changed to accommodate that would the developer consider that type of tenant. The developer replied probably not. It would depend on the circumstances. They are in the retail business. The developer thanked staff for the way the project has been handled and the timely responses received. 1) Hometown Addition Preliminary Plat, Variance to the Maximum Cul-de-sac Length of 600 Feet (cont'd) Applicant: Kim Friedrich The location ofthe property is surrounded by 209th Street, the American Legion, Zarbach Construction, Farmington Plumbing and Heating, and the Corinthian Lodge Cemetery. A piece of the property is currently owned by the American Legion and another piece is owned by Mr. Frandrup. Empire Township is in the process of approving the annexation of this property. A Comp Plan amendment and a rezone will be required for this property. This will be brought to the Commission on May 24, 2005. The applicants propose 28 single family lots. One access is proposed with two cul-de-sacs. They are also requesting a variance to the maximum cul-de-sac length of 600 ft. There will be two outlots. The lots will be 6,000 - 7,650 sq. ft. with minimum lot widths of 60 ft. The Comp Plan amendment will be for low-medium density and rezoning to R-2. The Commission has indicated they are in support of the R-2 zoning. Outlot A will be a storm water pond and Outlot B is a remnant piece of property. There is a 42 ft. wide utility easement on the east side ofthe property. The storm water pond will Planning Commission Minutes May lO, 2005 Page l2 . buffer between the existing businesses and the homes. The applicant has agreed to a path along the east side of the roadway down to the cul-de-sac and eventually to the Prairie Waterway. A sidewalk is proposed along the northerly cul-de-sac. The interior roadway will be 28 ft. wide with 60 ft. right-of-ways. As far as the variance, because of the physical surroundings of the parcel there is a hardship and a second access onto the curve of 209th Street is not permitted due to sight issues. Only one access is proposed thereby creating the need to provide two cul- de-sacs to access the lots. Staff recommended approval of the plat contingent on: - The property is approved for annexation into the City. - MUSA is granted by the City upon annexation. - A Comp Plan amendment is requested and approved by the City. - A petition to rezone is requested and approved by the City. Staff also requested approval of the variance request of 60 ft. from the required maximum cul-de-sac length of 600 ft. Ms. Stacy Thompson, stated there is a wildlife sanctuary in the area and thought the development was a bad idea. It is very peaceful in the area and a lot of animals come through there. . Mr. Steve Thompson, asked if there were any traffic control plans. There is this development and the Tamarack Development and that section of TH3 is very busy already. Now there will be truck traffic coming in and 60 more homes with one exit. Staff stated they have not looked at traffic volumes, but when traffic increases they look at warrants for traffic control. Chair Rotty agreed these developments will add traffic to 209th Street. Community Development Director Carroll stated tonight Empire Township is considering the annexation ofthe Frandrup and American Legion properties and also the bus garage property. Staff was hoping for a roadway alignment that would provide for a connection to the south. There is an opportunity to make a connection from the north-south road straight south through the Regan property. Going further east, there is another opportunity to make that into an intersection. There are plans to put in an east- west road on the south side ofthe bus garage property that would go to the east and connect with roads there. As the Regan property is developed, the City will discuss connecting one ofthose roads to provide another access. Another resident noted there is an undesignated strip ofland and asked if there could be trees or a berm to improve the privacy for the residents to the north and could that be a condition ofthe plat. Staff noted they are providing boulevard trees. Previously they were trying to provide a buffer next to the commercial and single-family. The Commission hoped the pond could be used for that. Community Development Director Carroll thought that area was to provide access to the pond for maintenance. . Planning Commission Minutes May lO, 2005 Page 13 . City Planner Smick noted an e-mail is included in the packet from Mr. Doug Bonar, ISD 192, and a response from Assistant City Engineer Gross. Right now Marshall Bus Lines does not go into cul-de-sacs as they do not want to backup. All the kids in this area would have to meet at the bus stop. The school was concerned with the collection of that number of children in one location. There is the possibility of collecting children at another location at a path along the sanitary sewer and water line to provide two bus stops. Commissioner Barker felt the radius does need to be increased to 60 ft. in the cul- de-sacs because of making elementary kids walk to a bus stop. Community Development Director Carroll noted regardless of the size of the cul-de-sac, the buses do not want to enter because if a car is parked along the curb, they will not be able to turn around. There is no guarantee that increasing the size will improve the busing situation. Commissioner Barker asked about the cul-de-sac to the south, if it was permanent or temporary. He wanted some kind of documentation. If it is temporary he wanted some type of notification on the site. He had no problem with the variance. . Commissioner Johnson agreed with Commission Barker regarding the access points to the south. This was a major concern for him. He liked the changes from the original plan. He noticed there was an overabundance of existing pine trees on the site now. He suggested placing them along the houses on the north side. His major concern was the access points and making sure the people were notified. Commissioner Larson liked the plan better now than the first few. He suggested checking with the DNR regarding the impact on the wildlife. A resident asked if it was possible to get a stop light on TH3 and 209th Street. Staff noted the City Engineer would have to answer that question. Chair Rotty agreed the plat has changed quite a bit. The Commission does anticipate something developing to the south which will offer more transportation routes. As far as the cul-de-sac on the south side, he agreed signage may be the only thing to do. He would support the plat. He realized this will mean some changes for the residents out there as far as more traffic and what is in their backyards, but there is a developer who wants to develop his property. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to send a favorable recommendation to the Council for the Hometown Addition Preliminary Plat and approving the variance to the maximum cul-de-sac length of 600 ft. with the four contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . . Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2005 Page l4 g) Amend Section 10-2-1 of the Zoning Code to Include a Definition for Bus and Truck Terminal and Amend Section 10-5-21 (c) Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Code to Include Bus and Truck Terminal as a Conditional Use in the IP (Industrial Park) Zoning District Staff is working on finalizing plans with potential buyers of a couple sites in the industrial park. Staff is requesting bus and truck terminals as a conditional use in the IP zoning district and to prepare zoning definitions. A bus terminal is defined as any structure or land devoted principally to the servicing, fueling, repair, storage or leasing of passenger buses. A truck terminal is defined as any structure or land devoted principally to the receipt, transfer, short term storage and dispatching of goods transported by truck. Staff recommended approval and to forward the definitions to the Council. . Chair Rotty asked if this would make transportation difficult in the industrial park. Community Development Director Carroll replied the trucking company that is being considered provided staffwith the number of truck trips anticipated. It was much less than staff thought it would be. The truck terminal will have 60- 80 bays. The facility is more of a warehouse and every dock would not be used every day. Preliminarily it looks as ifthere would be 2-3 ways to get in and out ofthe truck terminal. This is the area to the north of Duo Plastics, the former Berglund property. The potential access would be on the south side. There would be an access coming down along the east side that would connect with the frontage road along the north side ofHwy 50. There would be an access on the east side that would connect with a stub road that is in the industrial park. They would exit from Eaton Avenue. The other access would be on the west side of the Berglund property along Pilot Knob. There might be a right-in, right-out permitted by the county. Chair Rotty had no problem with these amendments. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson for a favorable recommendation on the proposed text amendments. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. h) Text Amendment Regarding Signs for Non-residential Uses in the A-I District Currently signage is not allowed in the A-I zoning district except for real estate signs, off-premise directional signs, election signs, banners, etc. Non-residential uses such as greenhouses, recreational vehicle storage, golf courses, kennels, cemeteries, churches, public utility buildings, etc. do not have sign allowances. Staff is creating a new portion to the ordinance that has A-I zoning. Christian Life Church spoke at the last Commission meeting regarding their sign. They have changed their request to a monument sign. Staff proposed a 10ft. high monument sign for non-residential signs in the A-I district. This is typical in the R-l district now. Each sign shall not exceed 100 sq. ft. in sign area and 10 ft. in height. Staff is not dealing with the LED issue at this time. Staff requested . . . . Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2005 Page l5 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the Council to allow non-residential signage within the A-I zoning district. Chair Rotty asked what square footage the church requested. Staff replied they were a little over the 100 sq. ft. so they will have to reduce the size of the sign. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to send a favorable recommendation allowing non-residential signs in the A-I district. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Site Plan Review - LSI Holdings - Industrial Park LSI Holdings is proposing to construct a 20,000 sq. ft. building on a 3.3 acre site for an aerospace fabrication and materials company. They are proposing an access on the east side. There will be a loading dock and they do meet the parking requirements. The company has outgrown their facility in the Airlake Industrial Park. The building will have concrete walls, with blue and dark green lines along the top. The loading dock faces Karmann Daycare so staff is requesting additional landscaping on that side. There is also a proposed pond on the site. The company is proposing another 20,000 sq. ft. building as an addition as they continue to grow. A trash enclosure will be located next to the loading dock. The company designs, fabricates and installs multi-layer insulation for aerospace. They will employee 40 people and 60 people as they expand. Staff recommends approval contingent on landscaping and any engineering comments. Commissioner Larson asked what materials they will be using and do they propose a safety hazard to the daycare next door. Community Development Director Carroll replied as far as he knows they use no hazardous materials. They make multi-layer fabrics that are bound together, debris shields that go on space shuttles and insulation blankets that go on satellites. They also make covers that go on control panels on the outside of a Navy ship, or covers for the guns on a ship. The building official has determined the materials are not hazardous. Staff is considering allowing them to run the storm water off their site to an existing pond to the north. The advantage is they would be able to use the pond space for future expansion. Commissioner Larson asked if this would be setting a precedent. Staff replied Bernard Dalsin already does this and also the daycare. Chair Rotty agreed this will be a great addition to the industrial park. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to approve the LSI Holdings site plan contingent on landscaping issues and engineering comments. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) MUSA Review Committee Recommendation Staff presented the MUSA phasing plan Council adopted last year. This was the result of the MUSA review process. Properties F, G, 3, 4,5, 12 were not Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2005 Page l6 . . . recommended for MUSA because there were some questions about whether the City had sufficient sewer capacity to serve all those properties. Engineering determined the sewer capacity, the MUSA Review Committee met again and recommended F, 3, G, and 4 be awarded MUSA because they met the criteria. Properties F and G are within the City and 3 and 4 are in Empire Township. The land is adjacent to residential development and the City does have the ability to serve the properties with sewer and water. There are some transportation issues that will have to be addressed, but are not insurmountable. The developer has requested to move forward with providing more housing on the east side of town. , Chair Rotty noted it was a unanimous decision by the MUSA Committee. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to send a favorable recommendation to grant MUSA to these properties. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Miscellaneous Signs The Rambling River Days committee is looking at a variety of new events. A couple representatives of the committee met with staff and mentioned they would be using lots of banners and yard signs. Staff felt it was best to address the sign issue up front and perhaps amend the sign code to address this issue. There is not enough time to hold a public hearing before the celebration to actually change the code. Staff asked if the Commission wanted to grant the committee a blanket variance for certain types of signs for a certain period oftime, under conditions the Commission specifies. Another option is to give them a copy of the sign ordinance and tell them they cannot use any signs that are not in compliance with the ordinance. This would limit their ability to promote the celebration. It is not a commercial endeavor, but a community festival. Staffwill also work with the City Attorney to see what types of criteria should be met. This can be brought back to the May 24 Special meeting. Commissioner Larson felt it was important to find a way to make the signs work to promote Rambling River Days. Chair Rotty liked the idea of a blanket variance exception for now as long as they are done safely. The hard part will be trying to envision what the conditions may be. This could fall back to common sense between the committee and staff. Commissioners Barker and Johnson agreed. Another sign issue is the A-frame signs. The Commission and Council agreed to allow A-frame signs on sidewalks in front of existing businesses. Because of the publicity, a number of questions arose regarding other A-frame signs off a business location, especially along public roads. Staff continues to see these signs in the right-of-way and technically they are in violation because they are off the premises. The question for the Commission is, are they interested in having staff do further research to figure out whether there are circumstances under which people and businesses can put A-frame signs offtheir premises. Chair Rotty stated he would support this. It appears there is a need to have this in the City. Commissioner Larson agreed to allow the signs to promote businesses and get the Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2005 Page l7 . people into downtown. Commissioner Barker also agreed. Commissioner Johnson asked for some examples of where signs are being placed now. The third issue is garage sale signs. They are allowed by code, but cannot be placed in the right-of-way and there are size limitations. Staff wanted to know if the Commission was satisfied with the current size of2 sq. ft. Commissioner Larson asked what the ordinance is for a home business. Staff replied the same size. Commissioners suggested the same size as a small election sign, which they thought was 18" x 24". Chair Rotty agreed 2 sq. ft. is small. This could be placed on the May 24 agenda. Chair Rotty asked how it is being enforced now. Community Development Director Carroll replied when people come to a Council meeting and ask for permission to put up a sign three times the size authorized by the code, ifthe Council does not change the code or authorize the use of the signs, and ifthey are displayed, staffhas an obligation to pick them up. When it is such a departure from the code, that is when staff enforces it. Staff does not have the time to enforce each size. Commissioner Larson suggested placing a notice in the next newsletter. Commissioner Johnson stated the size is an issue, but we also do not want them in the right-of-way. Chair Rotty noted garage sale signs are placed where traffic will see them. . The last sign issue, staff has had instances of commercial businesses creating signs the size of campaign signs and putting them in the right-of-way or along public roads. They are just pure commercial advertising. Currently this is prohibited by the code. One business owner said this is good visibility and needs to let people know where the business is. If staff allows this for one, it has to be allowed for all. There is no category to allow this. Staff asked if the Commission wanted to consider creating a category for signage along public roads for commercial businesses or should they be prohibited. Commissioner Larson suggested making them have A-frame signs. Commissioner Barker felt they were opening a can of worms and there would be one business after another. Commissioner Larson does not want to tell a business in town that is trying to prosper that they cannot promote themselves. The original concept for the A- frame sign was that it would be placed on the sidewalk in front of the business. Now that we are discussing A-frame signs offpremises it would be directional with an arrow pointing to the business. The commercial signs are less directional and more promotional. There are businesses on Hwy 50 in Castle Rock that place signs on Pilot Knob Road and Hwy 3. That is the distinction. It is purely promotional, not directional. Chair Rotty would not agree with promotional signs. Staff could place this on an agenda for a future Council workshop. d) Text Amendment - Classrooms in the Industrial Park Within the last couple days staff has received two requests from businesses that wanted to go into the Industrial Park that are non-industrial in nature. Vinge Tile and Stone has a building under construction in the Industrial Park. A leasing sign has been placed on the building. He received one call from someone that wanted 6,000 sq. ft. for an exercise facility. He also received a call from a martial arts . Planning Commission Minutes May lO, 2005 Page 18 . academy. Neither of those are uses authorized under the IP zoning district. At a prior meeting there was another building in the Industrial Park that was a potential site for a church. The consensus was that since this is not a permitted or conditional use, it should not be allowed as a rental in the building. Yesterday staff learned that ISD 192 was looking at the possibility of putting classrooms into a building in the industrial park. The building suggested was the new one to the north ofthe Controlled Air building, owned by the Pettis family. Staffhas indicated to the school that it is not a permitted or conditional use in the Industrial Park. It is not just a zoning matter. During the discussions regarding the daycare, it was brought out that when the park was created in 1996 there was a set of restrictive covenants. This was before there were provisions in the code. The covenants specified what types of businesses can and cannot be in the industrial park. That list does not include educational facilities. To put classrooms in there would be in violation of the covenants and in violation of the zoning code. Even if the code were changed, changing the covenants would require the approval of the other business owners. They built their businesses based on the covenants. Staff asked the HRA for their thoughts at the meeting last night. They indicated they did not see this use as being appropriate. They were not interested in the exercise business or the classrooms in the industrial park. The HRA directed staff to talk with Vinge Tile and Stone and if they want to keep the leasing sign out, they should wait to see if someone with an industrial use comes forward. As far as the school, they would be transported by bus and there would be no recreation outside. The HRA was concerned about the code and the covenants and opening the door wide to non-industrial uses when there will be other opportunities for rental space in town in the near future. . The Special Education Director for ISD 192, stated when they spoke with Cerron Industries and asked if the property could be zoned for the school, they indicated it probably could be. They have been looking for an appropriate space. They need an off-site location for students with emotional behavioral disabilities that do not function well in a typical school building. They are currently renting a space through the New Heights Christian Church, but the space is not adequate. There would not be more than 20 students in the first year. They need a space by September 1, 2005. Commissioner Larson asked if the school had talked with New Heights about remodeling their classrooms. The Special Education Director replied it is their classrooms for their Sunday school, so they do not need to match the layout the school needs. Commissioner Johnson stated he will not vote to put any classrooms in the Industrial Park. He allowed the daycare because there were businesses there that would utilize that. He would not vote in favor of any type of school in the Industrial Park. Commissioner Barker agreed. He understood the need, but the Industrial Park is the wrong location. Commissioner Larson also agreed. . Community Development Director Carroll suggested there are three locations in commercial zones. If they look at a B-1 or B-2 zone, currently this type of Planning Commission Minutes May lO, 2005 Page 19 . educational use is not allowed. Mr. Wartman has a building under construction in City Center, just to the right ofPellicci Hardware. The City will be leasing half of the main floor for a liquor store. There will be rental space to the north of the building and also the upper level. Staffhas heard the owner of the building at the corner of Third and Elm Street, intends to rehabilitate the back ofthe building for retail uses facing Third Street. Staff was not aware ofthe timetable or the size of the area. The zoning would need to be changed. The third option is a building in Tamarack. Some communities try to incorporate educational opportunities into a business environment. Staff will look at that if the Commission feels it is better than an industrial park setting. The school needs about 3,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Johnson stated his concern would be for the business owners. He did not know what affect this would have on the businesses. The school replied the Idea School is just behind the library and this is the same type of school. They have been there for 10 years and there is not a big issue. These are middle to high school age kids. They do have some issues, but it is not taken out on the buildings around them. The building in City Center would be an ideal location because it is centered downtown so they can access the library and they can walk to things they need to do. . Commissioner Larson asked about the condition of the upstairs of the Exchange Bank Building. Staff replied it is unfinished. The school was looking for a space where they could get in by September 1, 2005 and have 3,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Larson asked if the liquor store close by would bother them. The school replied no, it is a business just like anything else. Chair Rotty stated the timing is unfortunate. There are a lot of obstacles with the Industrial Park. Past experience says businesses in the Industrial Park do not like non-industrial businesses out there. Chair Rotty felt they were at the point to asking is there another location and would it work. He suggested the school work with staffto obtain an appropriate location. There are too many hurdles to recommend this to the Council. Staff will provide the school with names and phone numbers of options. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~~/Y7~ ~thia Muller Executive Assistant Approved . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting May 24, 2005 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; Tony Whippier, Assistant City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) April 26, 2005 MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to approve the minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Larson, Richter. Abstain: Barker, Johnson. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Mystic Meadows Rezone Giles Properties (QI and 8) from A-I to R-3, Review Mystic Meadows 1st Addition Preliminary and Final Plat, and Review Requested Variance from 600-foot Cul-de-sac Requirement (Section 11-4-3 (B)) Applicant: Giles Properties, Inc. 195th Street is to the north and will touch a small portion of this development before swinging north, Akin Road is to the west, TH3 is to the east. The property is a total of 185 acres. The portions being considered are Ql and 8 on the MUSA map. Staff is requesting the property be rezoned from A-I to R-l in the low density area and to R-3 in the medium density area. The final AUAR was recently approved for distribution. The agencies have ten days for review. If there are no changes it will go back to the City Council on June 6, 2005 for a final plan review. The AUAR needs to be approved before rezoning, variances and plat approvals are done. Therefore, staff is requesting the Commission make their recommended approvals contingent on the AUAR being approved on June 6, 2005 with no changes. There have been no substantial changes from the agencies. Regarding the preliminary plat there are 243 single family lots and 40 multi- family units on 152.7 acres. The single family will be located on the westerly portion and the townhomes will be located in the northeast corner. Staffhas determined the preliminary and final plats are ready. There have been some minor changes to the plat. The first is the flood plain. The flood plain line runs along the east side. For flood plains, the City allows for flood plain mitigation if it is 1 ft or less. If it is over 1 ft, it has to stay a flood plain. There are some areas on the plat that can be mitigated. Two lots have been changed to outlots because they were over the 1 ft. depth. Other changes are minor revisions to the transportation. There is a need for a looped area in the townhome area. The future Diamond Path is located on the west side ofthe property. There is a 50 ft. easement adjacent to Parkview Ponds for the powerline and another 120 ft. of Planning Commission Minutes (Special) May 24, 2005 Page 2 right-of-way. The AUAR anticipates the need for a 4-lane roadway in this area by 2015. Right now it is only recommending a 2-lane road. The developer is proposing to construct the 2-lane road on it's westerly boundary. As far as townhome guest parking, 20 parking stalls are required. They have met this requirement but the location is a concern to staff. The parking is along the north and the south, with nothing in between. No parking will be allowed on the street. One parking area also contains a trailhead. The parking area will be used by the townhome residents and by people using the trail. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated that will work well, especially since the trail along North Creek is a greenway corridor and will become more of a regional trail as it goes into Lakeville and connects to the Vermillion River trail that goes into the future county park in Empire. Staff has not had a chance to talk with the developer about who would maintain the parking area. . Staff has reviewed the landscape plan. There will be screening of double frontage lots adjacent to collector and minor arterial streets. The future Diamond Path will be an arterial collector. Staffwill be requesting a detailed planting plan from the developer. They are proposing evergreens and boulevard trees, but staffwants to see a more detailed plan to make certain there will be the required screening. The developer is requesting a variance of 125 ft. from the maximum 600-ft. cul- de-sac length provision. There are two possibilities for areas that might see problems as far as distance. Staff is requesting the variance be allowed because Diamond Path requires a 1,000 ft. intersection along that street. The plat meets . only 300 ft. Secondly, the conditions are unique as Diamond Path is shown as 2600 ft and only two accesses would be allowed. Those are 198th Street and 199th Street. They connect with Parkview Ponds to the west. The variance will provide safety. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated at the last meeting there was some discussion about the amount and location of the trails. He took those comments to the Park and Rec Commission. They reviewed the plan and made some changes. Initially the Park and Rec Commission proposed a trail to run behind the lots and now the trail is shown along the boulevard. On the south side, they have removed the trail behind the lots and brought it out to the front along the boulevard. The trail would continue along the path previously identified. The developer shows trails along the greenway, however on the developer's plan there is some disconnect on the trail system. There is a trail on the south that dead ends at the wetland area. The trails in the northeast corner are not needed as they do not tie in with the system. With 195th Street, the trail will not be constructed until the county constructs the southerly lanes of 195th Street. There will be a trail continued on the north side of 195th Street as part of the Seed-Genstar development. Currently, Parkview Ponds is constructing a trail on the north side and will be extended to the edge ofthe City property. The trail on the west side of Diamond Path will not be built until the other two lanes are built. The trail on the east side will be built. Staffwould like to get this trail to connect to the north. . Planning Commission Minutes (Special) May 24, 2005 Page 3 . In the AUAR there was a comment made about having access to the sediment ponds. On the Park and Rec Commission's proposed trail alignment in some locations where there are sedimentation ponds, paving the trail makes sense to provide paved access for maintenance. The Park and Rec Commission was looking for the Planning Commission to either recommend the trail plan from the Park and Rec Commission, or the developer's trail plan, or come up with a compromIse. The actions are contingent upon the Council approving the Giles/Murphy Final AUAR, responses to comments, and final mitigation plan on June 6, 2005 as the document was presented at the May 16, 2005 Council meeting. The actions are: 1. Recommend approval of the rezoning of the property from A-I to R-1 and also R-3 and forward the recommendation to the City Council. 2. Recommend approval of the Mystic Meadows Preliminary and Final Plat contingent upon the satisfaction of any engineering and planning requirements including the submission of landscape and trail plans and forward the recommendation to the City Council. 3. Approve the 125 ft. variance from the maximum length of600 ft. for a cul-de-sac. . Mr. John Anderson stated the AUAR has been approved at this point. The final approval will come at the June 6, 2005 Council meeting. Regarding the parking lot for the townhouses, they will agree with the dual use of the parking lot. He wanted to note that Deerbrooke Path is a public street and believed there can be parking along the side of the street. Regarding the landscaping detail for Diamond Path, there is a detail included in the landscaping plan for 100% screening along Diamond Path. They would not like to construct a trail along the west side of Diamond Path. He could not get a response from Xcel Energy regarding putting a trail in their easement. There is also the issue of the towers of the powerline. The spacing may not be enough to get the trail through as they are the bigger towers, not just a single pole. He wanted to make the point that when Parkview Ponds was approved, they were not required to put the trail in along the south side of 195th Street. If they were not required, Mr. Anderson asked that they also not be required to install the trail. He felt they could work with the connection of the trail going north to Parkview Ponds, but wanted to keep it in the position they would like it to go in case it gets ripped up in the construction of the last two lanes. As far as the trail system throughout the development, Mr. Anderson disagreed with the location and the request of the Park and Rec Commission as to where the trails need to be located. The system is being looked at as just this development and not the City as a whole. They would have to do some re-grading and reconfigure the parking area. In one area there is sidewalk on the north side and the south side. Now through the majority there is trail on the other side. He felt a trail is for bicycling. He did not see the need for sidewalks and trails in some locations. They would not like to see the location of trails in front of houses. It hampers the sale of the lots and is not as nice looking as a sidewalk. Their original plan has a sidewalk on all the through streets. The . Planning Commission Minutes (Special) May 24, 2005 Page 4 only streets that do not have sidewalks are the four in the cul-de-sacs. There is . trail along Diamond Path, there would be a future trail along 195th Street and another trail that would loop to the greenway. Having a trail in the back takes away from the privacy of the lots. With the trail plan and additional cost, if the trail plan is approved this way, the developer will be requesting that an additional trail requested over and above the trail plan be paid for by the City like it was in previous plat approvals throughout the City. They estimate the cost to be $350,000 which the City would have to pay for from fees from the developer for parks which could go towards developing a park. Also, with the trails is a maintenance issue for the City and longevity. Ultimately, the trails will have to be replaced and that will be paid for by the City and the taxpayers, not a developer. When doing loops through areas, it gets back to it is more of a walking issue or a trail issue. Mr. Anderson felt trails are more regional and should connect destinations not houses within neighborhoods. That is what a sidewalk is used for. The issue with the sedimentation ponds, there are four of these ponds and they do have paved access without having a trail. There is a street in front. The larger ponds will be filled with ground water and there will not be sedimentation running into those so they should not need the maintenance as the other ponds. City Planner Smick addressed the townhome parking. Mr. Anderson mentioned it will be a private street. However, it does show a 28 ft.-wide street. A street of this width allows parking on one side and a sidewalk on the other. There is no . requirement it be 28 ft. wide. They could go down to 22 ft. wide and still meet the requirements. It is up to the developer to approve of sidewalk on one side and have parking on the other side. There will be a number of driveways, so most of the sidewalk will be driveway. There is an opportunity to get more parking closer to the units if they stay at 28 ft. wide. Mr. Anderson stated this is a private street because the right-of-way would make it wider. He liked the idea of parking on one side, but with sidewalk on the other side there would be 3-5 ft. sections of sidewalk and he did not feel that was a sidewalk. He does not want to see a sidewalk. Chair Rotty clarified the road would be 28 ft. wide. Mr. Anderson replied it would. Mr. Randy Oswald, Chair of the Park and Rec Commission, stated one issue was privacy. People get upset over privacy when there is a plan to install trails and they are not installed until after the homeowner has moved in and they did not know about the trail. They are trying to eliminate this and be more proactive. Some people would like to have trails in the backyard and some have this with water on the other side. There are two viewpoints. The pond that is proposed as Outlot D is 24.5 acres. This pond is a great amenity to add to the City. But it is a public amenity. As such, for those people who would like to access it for recreational purposes that is something that needs to be looked at. The way it is set up, it gives people access to this amenity. The Commission made several changes to it. They received comments from the community that people want . trails of various lengths. They do not want to have to just turn around and go Planning Commission Minutes (Special) May 24, 2005 Page 5 . back. As far as maintenance, that is a goal of the Park and Rec Commission to look at alternative financing methods. Farmington will grow out and the revenue brought in from that will disappear. The amount of money brought in from the liquor stores goes for certain things, but how can they request more. From a Park and Rec standpoint, yes it looks like a lot of trails on this plan, but with each development that comes in it brings its unique flair and character to the community. So the question has to be asked, do we want to be a community that is developer driven in what we choose for our amenities, or are we going to be citizen driven in what we do. Sidewalks and trails can be an alternate method of transportation. They want people to be able to get from point A to point B through an alternate method of transportation. The Master Park and Trail Plan is up for huge interpretation. The trail on the plan for this development cuts through the middle going east and west and north and south. The trails represent the idea of what we would like to see, but not the specific details. Those are reviewed when the developer brings in their plan. . Commissioner Johnson stated he did not have a problem with the rezone or the preliminary and final plat or the variance. Looking at the Park and Rec Commission, he does not often go against recommendations, but this time he will. There is an over-abundance of trails and sidewalks in this development. He preferred the developer's plan. It is far more practical and reasonable and gives access to everything except for the large pond. The people that live there would like to have privacy in their backyards. As more developments come, he felt there would be opportunities to access waterways along the Vermillion River, etc. He would be in favor of all three contingencies and would be in favor of Exhibit B for parks and trails. . Commissioner Larson asked the developer, what is the normal water level on the large pond. The developer replied there is a 10-1 safety bench before a 4-1 slope starts. Commissioner Larson asked Parks and Recreation Director Distad about the extra fees the developer mentioned beyond the City's park plan and asked for his views on the developer's comment that the trails will disrupt the parking on the south side. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied any trail in the boulevard has been the developer's responsibility to pay as part of the street construction. Any trail not in the boulevard, if it is on the trail plan, the developer is responsible for installing it at their cost. Any trail above and beyond that is the City's cost. He showed which sections would be installed and which would not be. The trails that go in later would be a county/City split cost. Commissioner Larson asked if the trail along the west side of Diamond Path would be the responsibility of the developer. Staff could not answer that. The east side would be. If the county takes over Diamond Path there would be a 55% county and 45% City split to pay for the trail. Commissioner Larson asked about the trail on the southeast side of the townhouse project where it will interfere with the slopes and the parking lot could not be installed. He felt it should be addressed now. Staff stated the developer has talked about extending the trail, but that is outside the City right now. There is an opportunity to control the connection with this Planning Commission Minutes (Special) May 24, 2005 Page 6 development at this point. He realized it causes ' problems with the parking lot, however if we wait, the adjacent area may not ever come into the city. Mr. Anderson stated the slopes coming off the parking lot meet City standards. Ifthe trail goes in that slope cannot be there as the slopes would be too steep. The parking lot would have to be pushed back to make the slopes meet which means less parking stalls. The other option would be a retaining wall along the trail. The elevation between the top ofthe trail and the pads is 16 ft. The whole side is getting raised 10 - 16 ft. He was not against putting in trails, he did not want to put them in when such as along Diamond Path, in 10 years it would have to be redone. Commissioner Larson asked Mr. Anderson ifthey own the property to the south where the park will go or do they have an agreement. Mr. Anderson stated they have an agreement to purchase it and will be closing in April 2006. They have another 200 acres to the south and plan for a large park in the area that would be a park for the whole area. Mr. Anderson stated the DNR does like the trees around the ponds. Putting the trails in affects the location of the trees, and if they get moved, the DNR is not in favor of trails next to ponds because of the Vermillion River, and temperature, etc. Commissioner Larson stated he also knows the DNR does not like people mowing to the water line and the trail would prevent that from happening. Commissioner Larson agreed with the rezoning, variance and the plat. Commissioner Richter agreed with the rezoning, the variance and the plat. She liked the idea of combining Exhibits A and B and do a little less behind the houses but cut in so the ponds can be utilized. She would like to see the small section of Diamond Path completed. Regarding the sloping problem by the townhouses, she does not see why that has to be there. As far as trails in the front yard, she agrees it is not very sightly and would not want a trail in her front yard. Commissioner Barker also agreed with the three actions. Regarding the trails, he was more in favor of Exhibit B because of the sidewalks. He has talked with residents who have a trail in their backyard and they have concerns with privacy Issues. . . Chair Rotty agreed with the rezoning, and the variance. He had some questions on the plat. Regarding the wetland mitigation where we will lose two lots, Chair Rotty asked how will the lots to the north, south and west be affected. Mr. Anderson replied there is a line showing the end line. The City allows them to fill into that area up to 1 ft. Because that is a fill area, the pads are coming 7-8 ft. above the actual line. The houses will be out ofthe flood plain. They are not allowed to fill in areas 1 ft. or above in the flood plain. They lost two lots because of this. The railroad to the east has a very small bridge and the water would backup because it cannot flow through. If the bridge was bigger or not there the flood plain line would change. This came up within the last three weeks. Regarding the parking area, Mr. Anderson stated the reason they have parking lots on the north and south ends and not in between is because the end units have the ability to be a three car garage to be side loaded. By doing that, the garages move . Planning Commission Minutes (Special) May 24, 2005 Page 7 . back rather than coming straight out to the street. This adds value to the units, character to the neighborhood, and breaks up the continuity. The units will be $300,000-$400,000. Chair Rotty stated there will be 28-ft wide roads, so there will be parking on one side. He does not believe the City would be penalizing the developer to put a sidewalk in on one side. With the narrower street and parking it would be safer. This is following the City ordinance. There would not be convenient parking for guests if there was no parking on the street. . Commissioner Larson asked if there was parking on one side of the street, would the parking lot to the south be needed. Mr. Anderson stated that may become a non-issue. Chair Rotty stated if they had parking on the street, they could eliminate that parking lot and do the trail. Mr. Anderson stated when you have parking on the street, you cannot park in front of the driveways, so you still have limited parking. Chair Rotty asked if the distance between driveways is long enough for a car. Mr. Anderson replied not between driveways, it would have to be between buildings. Chair Rotty stated the parking lots may have to stay. Usually the parking lots are more conveniently located. Mr. Anderson stated they may be able to pick up a couple stalls and one ofthe units may not have a side- load garage. There is less than 20 ft between driveways if they are not a three- stall garage. Between every unit there is 150 ft spacing for hydrants in multi- family. There would be hydrants between each building on the east side of the street and the ordinance calls for no parking 20 ft from a hydrant. Chair Rotty stated the parking lots will have to remain. Chair Rotty stated they needed to decide on the trail issue. He had the privacy issues. The Park and Rec Commission does not believe there would be. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated there are trails all over the City that go right up to the property line. Meadow Creek 3rd is one place. Trails in the front yards are located in Eastview, 200th Street W, English Avenue, Dunbury, 210th Street. There are trails in the front and back. Chair Rotty asked for his thoughts on having a sidewalk in front and a trail in back. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied in Parkview Ponds they looked at having sidewalks on both sides of the street and decided not to do that. In this situation you could do trails on one side and a sidewalk on the other or you could just do away with the sidewalk and do a trail on one side in the boulevard. Chair Rotty agreed one is needed. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated what happens if you live at one end and want to get down to the park, how do you get there? You would have to ride in the street. You cannot ride on the sidewalks and there are no trails to get there. He felt the issue will be having trails for kids to get safely to the parks. Chair Rotty stated the Council appoints Park and Rec Commission members to help advise and hire the Park and Rec Director to help guide us. They have convinced him. He will support the Park and Rec plan and go with Exhibit A. . Commissioner Barker asked what the developer thinks of instead of doing the sidewalks, having the trails in front. You would not have the privacy issue in the back. They do have this in Meadow Creek 3rd and 4th Additions. It is just a wider Planning Commission Minutes (Special) May 24, 2005 Page 8 sidewalk. Mr. Anderson stated he still disagrees with having it on both sides. He would be more in favor of having a trail than having it on both sides. He would rather have a trail on one side and no sidewalk. It is not feasible to have every house have a sidewalk or a trail to get to a park. It has not been a requirement to put trails in cul-de-sacs. He did not know there was a size requirement that when ponds reach a certain size, they have to have a trail around them. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated if they can have a trail versus not having any sidewalks that would be preferable. Exhibit A is the Park and Rec Commission's optimal choice, but they are willing to compromise. Trails serve a number of purposes. Chair Rotty asked where on Exhibit A modifications could be made. Staff replied the pond is a natural area and you try to get trails by natural areas whenever possible. A compromise would be having boulevard trails and some of the trails on the pond. The direction the Park and Rec Commission was going was to not have the trail entirely around the pond, but to have some of the trails on the pond to provide that opportunity for those that don't want a trail in the backyard they can buy a lot that way and those that do, it provides an opportunity for them as well. Chair Rotty stated that is one compromise already. He asked the Commission members for their thoughts. Commissioner Johnson asked what the effect would be of putting trails on Exhibit B instead of having sidewalk locations. A sidewalk is 5 ft and the trail would be 8 ft. He felt there will be ample opportunity in the future to access waterways as other developments come in. He would entertain anything, but felt they should start from Exhibit B rather than Exhibit A. That we have to have access to every puddle in town is astounding. He felt this is wrong and there should be some areas where people can enjoy themselves. Commissioner Larson stated he is not an expert and has no idea. The Park and Rec Commission wants Exhibit A and the developer wants Exhibit B and did not see any reason why they cannot compromise. He did not know if there should be trails or sidewalks. He did think the project is so far along, that they should be able to compromise. Commissioner Richter would like to see Exhibits A and B combined. Commissioner Barker stated instead of doing the sidewalks he would suggest doing trails. Taking Exhibit B and instead of sidewalks, make them trails. . . MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to rezone the property from A-I to R-l and R-3. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to approve the variance request of 125 ft to the 600 ft. cul-de-sac requirement. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat contingent on the developer and the Park and Rec staff compromising between the . two exhibits. Chair Rotty asked ifthat was a reasonable request. Parks and Planning Commission Minutes (Special) May 24, 2005 Page 9 . . . Recreation Director Distad replied he is willing to meet with the developer. He asked City Planner Smick what action would happen if there is no compromise between the developer and Park and Rec. City Planner Smick stated it would have to come back to the Planning Commission. This will go to Council on June 6, 2005 so there needs to be a meeting shortly. It is also contingent on submitting a landscape plan. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning - Hometown Addition Applicant: Kim Friedrich The property is located south of 209th Street, and TH3 is along the west side. A joint resolution for annexation was approved by the Empire Town Board on May 10, 2005 and approved by the Council on May 16, 2005. It still needs to go through the Municipal Boundary Adjustment which will happen in June. There is a contingency that the Municipal Board agrees to this annexation. On May 10, 2005 the Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plat for 28 single family lots on 7.64 acres. The lots would be 6,000 sq. ft. The Comp Plan amendment is from non-designated to low/medium density residential. The rezone is from A-I to R-2. Approval is contingent on: - The property is approved for annexation into the City by the Municipal Boundary Adjustment Office. - MUSA is granted by the City and Met Council upon annexation - Subject to Met Council approval of the 2020 Comp Plan MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to recommend approval of the Comp Plan amendment from non-designated to low/medium density and a rezone from A-I to R-2 with three contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Executive Estates Preliminary Plat At the May 10, 2005 meeting the Commission gave staff direction on if the preliminary plat was ready, it would be brought to this meeting. The developer's engineer did not meet the requirements they were looking for on the east-west roadway connection with Tollefson property and also the park. The Planning Commission Chair and staff felt this was not ready to go for a Preliminary Plat review. Mr. Garvey is the developer and he has requested the opportunity to meet with the Planning Commission to discuss the need to provide a connection to the Tollefson property and a need to provide a park for the development. Executive Estates is located north of 225th Street in Castle Rock and east ofTH3. Canton Court is to the north. Staff provided an e-mail from Mr. Joe Tollefson requesting the connection on the east end of his sight and the west end of the Executive Estates be a critical path because of the long cul-de-sac that would be required. From the center line ofTH3 to the westerly side of Executive Estates is approximately 1,126 linear ft. Planning Commission Minutes (Special) May 24, 2005 Page 10 Parks and Recreation Director Distad wrote to Mr. Garvey and to the Planning . Commission regarding the requirement for both trails and a park. There will be a sidewalk through the east-west corridor. There are trails in the Tollefson development that will hook up with trails in Mr. Garvey's development. Parks and Recreation is proposing to have Mr. Garvey outlot an area for two years. If Mr. Garvey does acquire the golf course property on the east side and it is developed, within that two years he can locate a park on the golf course and would then be allowed to construct on those lots. Ifhe goes beyond the two years, then it would become a park. Staff recommended this be continued as there are a number of engineering issues that still need to be resolved. Mr. Colin Garvey stated he met with staff last year and they needed one entrance to the project. As staff recommended at the September 15, 2004 meeting, staff recommended another connection be made to the Tollefson property. There should be a main east-west road for Mr. Garvey. That is shown on the plat. Tollefson has four different options on their development. He tried to contact them and after eight months they came in on the day ofthe meeting and they have the capability of putting in another entrance. City Planner Smick noted that is only 30 ft. in width. Mr. Garvey stated there are five entrances to this little development and it cuts it up. He has developments with 300 houses and they have two-three entrances. Staff wanted bigger lots for more executive style homes and that is what he did. The lots are 10,000 - 17,000 sq. ft. Now to come back after eight months and say he has to put in another entrance after Tollefson waited so long, he does not understand that. If there is any reconfiguration, it . should be on the Tollefson project. City Planner Smick stated Tollefson had come in with single family homes and found out that the pond would not be sized for the water that would flow. They are required to have a 3.4 acre pond. The pond would eliminate an access. Police Chief Siebenaler is concerned about having one way out and one way in and the length ofthe cul-de-sac. This is only a conceptual plan. Mr. Garvey stated as far as the trail system, there is a business park to the north. As part of his trail dedication he had to put in a trail on Outlot A and another trail. He received this document on March 6, 2005. The trail had to be in for the Final Plat and the Final Plat was due March 10, 2005. All the other trails were added afterwards. If they had to put in a park, they would not have put in the big berm that divides the two properties. At the September 15,2004 Planning Commission it was discussed to have payment in lieu instead of park dedication. On September 20, 2004 they received a grading permit, but did not start because there was a problem with the utilities. To come back now and say give this up for parks and give another access puts a strain on the project. They have berming already planned for the industrial park. The Parks and Recreation Director talked about putting a trail onto a street in the last topic. There are 100 trucks a day coming out of the business park. You will dump all these people onto the cul-de-sac. . Planning Commission Minutes (Special) May 24, 2005 Page II . This is a safety hazard. He would prefer to see the sidewalks, rather than the trails dump off into a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Larson asked about the payment in lieu instead of a park and if that came from Park and Rec. Mr. Garvey stated no, it was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and there was no objection. City Planner Smick stated the September 15, 2004 minutes state that staff and the Planning Commission were going to talk about the possibility of park vs. payment in lieu. Parks and Recreation Director Distad had a memo from Assistant City Planner Atkinson to the Planning Commission on September 15,2004 noting there are no parks or trails currently shown on the concept plan. Mr. Garvey has met with staff to discuss options regarding parks and trails. The area adjacent to the wetland located on the Empey property may be an appropriate location for a park. Another option discussed was to accept payment in lieu of park dedication and create a larger park to the east of the Empey property when it develops. Staff will continue to work with Mr. Garvey on this issue as the preliminary plat is prepared. Mr. Garvey stated the trail was an afterthought. He could have put in a park instead of the big berm and designed the whole project differently. Chair Rotty stated the preliminary plat will come to the June 14,2005 meeting. He asked for comments on the connection to the west and the proposal on the park. . Commissioner Barker stated the connection to the west is necessary as there are issues with safety. In other developments they have looked at dead end accesses where there is a sign stating future road. He felt this is a good place for that. As far as the park, he is not sold as to whether you really need a park. He liked it that Park and Rec is willing to hold off for two years. Commissioner Johnson was concerned that one development is already having to make adjustments to something he has not seen. He understood the safety issue, but there is nothing to base it on. Weare making someone adjust to something that may not happen or happen totally different. He had a concern with the park, but if there is a way to work it out so it is advantageous and the developer can put in the cul-de-sac at the earliest convenience when they secure the land to the east. He felt the pond and trails was a lot to take out of the development. He would like to see more work done to get the cul-de-sac in and the houses back the way the developer requested. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated the development requires 3.6 acres be dedicated for parks. Right now there are 3.4 acres in the cul-de-sac. The pond does not count for park dedication. . Commissioner Larson stated he agreed they are changing one development and they do not have a plan for the development to the west. He does see a way in and out on TH 3 and on 225th Street with the street to the south of the project. City Planner Smick stated they would measure the cul-de-sac from a certain location and then back. A cul-de-sac is the only way this will work. Planning Commission Minutes (Special) May 24, 2005 Page 12 Commissioner Barker asked if there were some restrictions on the Tollefson property such as the easements and the pond. City Planner Smick replied the pond does not have to be in this location. Commissioner Larson suggested they put the pond on the east property line and that would change everything. . Mr. Garvey stated he was told the pond would be on the east side. That is why they were surprised it came in differently. Commissioner Larson felt the streets as shown were ok as they have not seen a plan for the Tollefson property. City Planner Smick asked what if Tollefson comes in with a concept plan on June 14,2005. Commissioner Larson replied maybe we tell them the cul-de-sac is too long and they have to move the pond to the east. Commissioner Johnson stated we see the concept plan and tell them what works and what does not. He would tell the developer this does not work. He has a problem with adjusting a plan that is in the works on something that is imaginary. Commissioner Larson stated he did not have a problem with cash in lieu instead of the park. What the Commission is requiring him to do is totally opposite from what happened on the Mystic Meadows project. They did not require a park on that land or outlot an area in case something should happen. He felt they need to be more consistent. To outlot this and not have Mystic Meadows do anything, he felt was wrong. He liked the big lots. He would agree with the cash in lieu for the park hoping the land to the east will be developed and that is where the big park can be. Commissioner Richter felt the east-west connection is important as they do have to look into the future. She felt cash in lieu would be fine so this can be developed as soon as possible. . Chair Rotty stated they try to do planning for the community. And when they see it in small chunks it is difficult. There is a concept to the west. He felt it will be here sooner than they realize. He realized the developer has put in a number of accesses in this development. Maybe there is another modification that he would need to do. When he received the letter from Park and Rec he felt two years was reasonable. The Park and Rec issue is they want a big park, but don't want to miss the opportunity to get a small park. He is tom whether to take a gamble. It is not their decision whether to take cash in lieu but from a planning standpoint he might agree. He would probably go along with the majority. Mr. Garvey has a preliminary plat that needs some engineering modification before it comes back to the Commission. Mr. Randy Becker, Castle Rock Township Chair, stated they had their regular meeting and have not had formal discussions with the City. They do have an informal group with some Commission members and staff. They sent the Planning Commission a letter on some of their concerns. In discussions with the access on 225th Street with their attorney after it was annexed it is no longer consistent with their zoning, and they do not have to provide access to 225th Street . Planning Commission Minutes (Special) May 24, 2005 Page 13 . for this project. Out of the five stub streets, he suggested they eliminate two of them and not have access on 225th Street at this time. They are open to discussions with the City on access to 225th Street, but at this time they have been advised they do not have to provide access. Staffwill discuss this issue. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to continue the public hearing to June 14,2005. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion . . b) Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone of Industrial Park Property Staff wanted the Commission's input on a modification of the rezoning concept that was shown to them on January 11, 2005. Pilot Knob is to the west and CSAH 50 is to the south. The area is zoned IP. The request was to allow commercial on both sides of Pilot Knob and the Commission was in favor of that. Mr. Regan has purchased the Berglund property. An extension of208th Street is proposed. Mr. Regan is talking with a trucking company to locate in the industrial park. Originally there was a 200 ft width along Pilot Knob. What Mr. Regan is requesting is 550 ft that he would like to have for commercial. Mr. Devney would like this as well. So the whole east side of Pilot Knob would be commercial. Mr. Regan would have better possibilities of retail and commercial with the wider width. It is proposed to have an access to the cul-de-sac and roadway connecting to another cul-de-sac and a right-in, right-out. Staff would also like to see a back road. Mr. Pat Regan stated he is representing Airlake Development Inc. He also operates the Marshall Bus Lines. He purchased the Duo Plastics property and plans to move the Marshall Bus Line terminal from TH3 to the east half of the Duo Plastics property this summer. They became aware Mr. Berglund's 28 acres to the north were for sale and he has purchased that also. R&L Carriers wanted a place to build their 97th terminal. They needed 18 acres ofland. He does have a purchase agreement with R&L Carriers for 18 acres in the industrial park. There are two pipelines running through the property. He has reached an agreement with the pipeline company on how to develop on top of the pipeline for a trucking facility. They have 3.5 acres ofland that falls within the pipeline easement. They have widened the easement to 135 ft wide that goes all the way across their property and the MW Johnson property to Pilot Knob. A big incentive they have is to see if they can get 208th Street through. He has had discussions with the Devney's and they have a signed agreement that would include a sale to Mr. Regan of all of the land south of the future 208th Street. Part of the discussions are that ifthey can come to an agreement with the City as to what the conditions would be when 208th Street goes through from the industrial park to Pilot Knob and if they could extend the commercial zoning to Pilot Knob to a wider, more useable commercial space. The 240 ft of width is based on the border of the Berglund property and the MW Johnson property. He requested to add the 310ft he bought from Mr. Berglund and extend that to where 20gth Street would come Planning Commission Minutes (Special) May 24, 2005 Page 14 through in the future. He needed to know if they can do that for them to go ahead . with their agreement with the Devney's and the 208th Street idea. The 240 ft width looks like what is on Pilot Knob. They can do something bigger and have more value if they can get the 550 ft. width. This is a contingency to move ahead with the Devney's. R&L Carriers would prefer to have an access from 208th Street. Regarding the connection from 2l0th Street down to the cul-de-sac by the Duo Plastics and Berglund property, Mr. Regan wants the access for the buses. The other users would be the property to the east and the R&L trucking facility and another user on the south side of 21 Oth Street. He would not intend it to be a public road. Mr. Regan showed where the ponding areas would be located and explained the layout of the commercial area. Chair Rotty stated this would create more commercial than anticipated and reduce the amount of industrial. He believes that commercial along major roads is good. It is easy access for residents. He would agree rezoning this strip from industrial to commercial. Other Commission members agreed. Staffwill prepare a rezoning item for the June 14,2005 meeting. Commissioner Larson asked ifby allowing commercial would that conflict with the Spruce Street area. Chair Rotty replied competition can be good or bad. . c) Discussion of Text Amendment to Allow Public and Parochial Schools in the B-2 District On May 10, 2005 it was discussed that the school district was looking at classrooms in the Pettis building in the industrial park. The Commission did not want to see that. One suggestion from staff was to look at the former location of Wide Open Throttle. They will not have to do a lot of architectural changes. There does need to be a text amendment to allow public and parochial schools in the B-2 district. There has been a legal non-conforming use by district 917 behind the library. The school district was looking for something in the downtown area. The school district was looking for a site off the school campus for students who need a different location. They toured the former location of Wide Open Throttle and it fits within their design. Students can walk to the library and work in the community. Staff noted this will be a conditional use. Chair Rotty stated there has been a school behind the library for years. As long as it will be conditional, he was comfortable allowing these types of schools in the B-2 district. He would support staff preparing a text amendment. Commission members agreed. This will be brought to the Commission on June 14,2005. . . Planning Commission Minutes (Special) May 24, 2005 Page 15 a) Discussion of Special Event, A-Frame and Garage Sale Signs Special events are temporary in nature, signs are not permanently attached to the ground, just announcing a special community wide event or activity sponsored on behalf of the City of Farmington, another governmental entity, or a charitable or non-profit organization such as Rambling River Days, etc. Staff is proposing special event banners comply with the requirements of three per year or three on a property. As far as the special event signs, they should not exceed 4 sq. ft. These would be permitted within all zoning districts within 30 days prior to the event and shall not be located within the 30 ft. triangle of visibility at public or private intersections. The triangle is from the intersection of the curb and goes back 30 ft. . There have been discussions with commercial property owners that would like to have the A-frame signs elsewhere, off-premise of their property. Staffis proposing adding not only the A-frame signs displayed on the sidewalk, including a church, but also on other private property with the owner's permission. Churches shall be allowed to display such signs on days during which services are conducted. These would not be allowed on a public right-of-way. There is a section in the sign code that talks about off-premise directional signs. This is only for churches, and not for non-profit organizations. Nothing about commercial. You can set up a pole and allow commercial signs with the City regulating the size of signs, etc. This could be reviewed instead of the off-premise A-frame signs. The City could install a pole and charge for advertisement. The size for garage sale signs has been changed to 4 sq. ft. As far as special event signs, Chair Rotty was fine with the size. He believed the Council discussed the ability for event organizers, residents, and businesses to be able to put up signs effectively and safely. He felt this would liberalize a lot of this and did not think it was going too far. Commission members agreed with the language changes. Staff will bring this back on June 14,2005. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, c.Jr>Z/~ /Ylc-~"u -,,/ L.,/ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting June 14, 2005 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: Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) May 10, 2005 b) May 24, 2005 MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to approve the May 10 and May 24, 2005 Minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Request to Rezone Property East of CSAH 31 and South of Middle Creek from IP to B-1 Applicant: John Devney Request to Rezone Property Located at the Northeast Intersection of CSAH 31 and CSAH 50 and Northeast of Duo Plastics from IP to B-1 Applicant: Airlake Development, Inc. Staffhas been discussing rezoning a portion of the industrial park on the west side of the park and the east side of Pilot Knob Road. This would be good exposure for commercial businesses. Mr. Pat Regan purchased the Berglund property and has been working with a trucking company that would like to relocate in Farmington. This would take up a majority of the 3rd addition and a portion of the 4th addition if some property can be acquired by the Devney family. The Devney's would like a wider area along Pilot Knob Road for the commercial area. This area is 500-550 ft. wide from the Pilot Knob Road right-of-way to the east. As part ofthis project, 208th Street could be extended to Pilot Knob Road to provide access to the Devney property for development. There are some private roads envisioned as part of the development of the former Berglund property. One would be a north-south road that would be the border between the commercial and industrial property. This would be a private road built by the property owners or developers. It would connect with Pilot Knob Road and would be a right-in, right-out. There may also be a private road on the east side of the Duo Plastics property that would connect with the stub road. The disadvantage is we are giving up some industrial property. The advantage is we are creating commercial space in what will be a good location. The zoning would be changed from industrial park to highway commercial. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 2 MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to recommend approval to rezone these two properties from IF to B-1. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . b) Request for Text Amendment to Section 10-5-14 of the City Code to Allow Public and Parochial Schools in the B-1 Zoning District as a Conditional Use Most of the downtown is zoned B-2. Currently school uses are not allowed in the B-2 district. The school district is looking for space for some oftheir special education classes. Staff has been in contact with the owner of the former Wide Open Throttle building at the comer of 3rd Street and Elm Street. The owner is Mr. Joe Heinen. He also owns most of the remaining property on that block. He plans to remodel the Wide Open Throttle space for commercial use. Mr. Heinen and the school have been discussing lease terms. Staff asked the Commission to allow schools as a conditional use in the B-2 district. A representative from the school district stated they have moved forward with plans and have talked extensively with Mr. Heinen. They have a plan that will work well. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to approve the text amendment allowing public and parochial schools in the B-2 business district. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Request to Amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan from Urban Reserve to Public/Semi-Public for the Property Located West of Flagstaff Avenue and South ofCR64, Amend the Text of the Comprehensive Plan in Various Respects to Allow the Placement of a High School on the Property in Question, and Rezone the Property in Question from A-I to R-l Applicant: Independent School District #192 City Attorney J amnik stated the hearing is dealing with the comprehensive plan. This plan is a set of policies and provides a framework for guiding the development and use of land within the City. It forms the foundation for the City to adopt official controls and the building blocks for designation of particular uses in particular areas. As such, the comprehensive plan addresses certain elements such as the land use map, infrastructure including sewer, water, roads, parks and related public uses. The Commission's role is to make a recommendation to the Council on that part of it as far as a change in the comprehensive plan to facilitate the use ofa school in an area that has been previously designated as part of the City's urban reserve for long term agricultural uses. As such, the role of the Planning Commission is to evaluate that proposed change in light of the impact it would have on the elements in the comprehensive plan, such as transportation, sewer, water and related elements in the plan. There will be other aspects that are germane to the school district's decision on siting that will not be applicable to the Planning Commission's review. The school's motivations for that particular site are not the central focus of the Planning Commission's discussions or recommendations, but rather how that request from the school district impacts the . . Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2005 Page 3 . elements identified by the City in the comprehensive plan. That will provide some parameters for the Commission's discussion, debate and recommendations. What are the impacts on the elements in the comprehensive plan and what changes need to be made in order to either allow or if you decide to recommend against it the basis why you are making that recommendation. . Community Development Director Carroll stated the issues are a request by the school district to amend the comprehensive plan for the proposed high school site. The issue is whether it should be amended from urban reserve to low density residential. There is a related request that the property be rezoned from agricultural to R-l, low density residential zoning. The Comprehensive Plan is 150 pages of text containing a number of maps, charts, tables and illustrations. One of the maps is the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The Christiansen property is on the western boundary of Farmington. The light green on the map is urban reserve. The blue is public/semi-public. If the Commission recommends to the Council that they amend the Comp Plan for the former Christiansen property, the map would change. The reason we have a Comprehensive Plan is that it is required by state law. Every City in the 7 -county metro area has to have a Comprehensive Plan. Not only do you have to have a Comprehensive Plan which sets out very generally what the uses will be in town, you have to have a zoning map which is more specific and consistent with the Comp Plan. The state statute explains why Comp Plans are needed, stating "Since problems of urbanization and development transcend local governmental boundaries there is a need for the adoption of coordinated plans, programs, and controls by all local governmental units and school districts in order to ensure coordinated, orderly, and economic development. Therefore, it is the purpose of these laws to establish requirements and procedures to accomplish comprehensive local planning with land use controls that are consistent with planned, orderly and staged development." The plan itself is a written expression of what this community wants to see happen. It states goals, lists objectives, and it reflects a vision of what the community will become. More importantly, it is a guide to decision making. It is a living document. Staff uses it on a daily basis. It is the primary document staff uses for guiding and influencing the decisions that create the future ofthe community. It is a guide to the physical development of the community. It is updated in 8-10 year increments. It was last reviewed a couple years ago and has to be updated in 2008. It is intended to be all encompassing and deals with the things that make a community work. It addresses transportation, land use, utilities, parks and recreation, housing, etc. It is a statement of policy. It deals with intangible things like character, location, rate of growth and how to get from point A to point B. It is important to understand who has the final say on a Comprehensive Plan. It may seem to be purely a City document, but it is more than that. Typically, if anyone wants to amend the Comprehensive Plan it starts with the Planning Commission at a public hearing. The Commission offers it's thoughts and recommendations as to the proposed amendment. It then goes to the City Council and they can either approve or deny the proposed amendment. The best indication of the importance of the . Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2005 Page 4 Comprehensive Plan is the fact that although most Council decisions can be made with a simple majority or a 3-2 vote, any Comp Plan amendment needs a super majority. You have to have 4 out of 5 or 5 out of 5 Councilmembers to amend the Comp Plan. If the Council approves it, is that the end of the story? No. The Comp Plan is something that has to be approved by the Met Council. Even if the Council approves it, it does not take effect until the Met Council has approved it. The Met Council starts with staffmembers reviewing it and makes a determination as to whether it is an extensive change or not, and then they look at what the change would do to regional plans. The Met Council has the responsibility of adopting plans for the entire 7-county metro area and it deals with things like wastewater treatment, transportation and economic development. The Met Council staff members make recommendations to a Community Development Committee ofthe Met Council and then it goes on to the Met Council as a whole. . A number of versions of Farmington's Comprehensive Plan have existed over the years. It was first required in 1976. The current version is the result ofa process that started in early 1998 and continued through May 15, 2000. The process ended for the City when the Council adopted it and sent it on to the Met Council. There was quite a bit of work involved in creating this plan and it was a high input project. There was a consultant hired by the City, face-to-face interviews were conducted with a number oflocal residents, there were visioning workshops, neighborhood meetings, open houses, public hearings, Planning Commission and City Council meetings, there were meetings with nearby jurisdictions and a lot of contact with the Met Council to make certain the changes would be consistent with their expectations. . These are the main points that came out of the Comp Plan process. These are some guiding principals that maintain validity today. - Maintain a vibrant and viable downtown. - Maintain small town character. - Connect north and south portions of City - More east-west connector streets. - Annexation issues. - Increase size of industrial park. - Provide for additional public and semi-public land. - Address environmental issues. Entities that rely on the comp plan include: - City Council - Planning Commission - City advisory bodies - Residents, businesses, organizations and property owners - City of Lakeville - Three adjoining townships - A wide variety of county and regional and state-wide organizations . Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2005 Page 5 . Urban reserve is a land use designation in the Comp Plan. The Met Council has guidelines and lots of cities have urban reserve. The cities have the right to pick a portion of the community and designate it as urban reserve. This means that area regardless of how big or small is being set aside for later urban development. The theory is you protect it against development until a specified future time. Since this is the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, these land use designations will continue in effect until 2020 unless someone changes them. The way we protect against development is by insisting or requiring that there be no development of any kind other than one residential dwelling unit per 40 acres. There are some properties on the west side of town that are smaller than that. Those are legal non- conforming uses. They existed before the changes were put in the code. For anyone else that comes forward, if they have a 40-acre parcel with no structures on it, the most they can do without a comp plan amendment is build one house on that 40-acre parcel. They cannot create commercial, industrial or institutional uses because the only thing allowed is residential at that density. Farmington's urban reserve area is 2,000 acres in western Farmington. It includes a number of farm properties that are enrolled in the ag preserve program. The ag preserve program is a program that an agricultural property owner can choose to get involved in. They can enroll their property because of the benefits or protections they get from it. The City is not directly involved. A property owner does not -need the City's permission to get out of the program. Urban reserve is different. Individual property owners cannot get in or out of the urban reserve. That is an area the Council designates. In the Comp Plan the urban reserve area is on the west side of town. . There are a number of references that specifically talk about urban reserve. One of the main things the comp plan does is identify 18 policies of the City with regard to growth and development. There are at least four that deal with urban reserve. The first policy listed is that the City of Farmington will provide quality controlled growth in stages. The comp plan lists strategies for that and the main one IS: - Concentrating agricultural uses in the southwestern and western sections of the City. - Preserving those uses as a natural edge between Farmington and Lakeville. - Prioritize growth according to the staged growth plan. In other words, let growth and development occur where the comp plan says it is going to. The next policy is: - It is the policy ofthe City of Farmington to maintain it's working farms. This policy was more important to many others than the Planning Commission and Council. For those that want to continue their farming operation there was support then and there is now. The strategies for continuing that would be: . Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2005 Page 6 - Designate the western area as an urban reserve area which will protect the working farms and allow them to continue until at least 2020 and don't provide additional infrastructure in the urban reserve area. Do not pave roads, extending sewer and water, etc. Maintain the development needs as they currently exist. Do not have any more infrastructure than what is needed to support the rural residential uses that are out there now and the farming operations. The third policy talks about maintaining those agricultural preserve properties within a larger urban reserve and expanding this area. The strategy to accomplish this policy is: - Concentrating agricultural uses in one large area sweeping through the western and southwestern sections of the City. The final policy is to provide developable areas with major infrastructure improvements. The urban reserve area should not receive these improvements. The strategy very clearly was, do not allow additional infrastructure improvements into the urban reserve area. It is important to discuss the consequences of allowing premature development within the urban reserve area. One ofthe main consequences is that it would create an inconsistency with past decisions that denied development within the urban reserve area. People have come forward wanting to develop in urban reserve areas and the Planning Commission and Council have said that is inconsistent with the comp plan and would not allow it. In some cases it has been commercial development. In another case a property owner wanted to divide a 20-acre parcel into four or five segments. If you break up the area into large lot development, it is inconsistent with the higher densities the Met Council and the City Council will want to see eventually. So there is a fairness issue. How do you do for someone what you have denied for others? The second consequence is that premature development would be contrary to public expectations regarding when development would occur. This would affect nearby residents to the school site and property owners who have relied on the plan. Some people have indicated they have made significant investments in the farming operation in reliance upon the City having a comp plan that said they would maintain their agricultural operations for at least the next 15 years. The third consequence is if you allow premature development out there it diverts City resources from an area where development has been desired, expected and planned. The City does not have the money or staff time to shepherd development everywhere in town at the same time. There is no question that any large scale development where a high school, commercial or industrial in that area would change the nature of the urban reserve. There would be additional traffic, construction activity, conflicts with . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 7 . land uses. Another issue is that there would be increased pressure for additional development in the area. When you pave roads, extend sewer and water and when it goes in front of someone's property they will want to use that. They will want to hook up to it, split up their property into smaller lots and profit from the availability of City services. It is inevitable that will occur. You end up with the original plan which was to have gradual, orderly, sort of staged growth that everyone anticipates and that gives way to disorganized or patchwork growth where you allow some people to connect to City services and you have little patches of subdivisions growing up here and there. Staff does the best they can to keep the development as organized as possible, but it would make that much harder. Allowing development out there before 2020 would represent the abandonment of the deliberative, collaborative, high-input process that has been used in the past for comp plan updates and amendments. Instead of taking a year or two to take public input to make major decisions, you make them at the drop of a hat without as much input as you would like. . Staff spoke about the type of high school processes that could result in outcomes that are consistent with the comp plan. The two main components would be place schools near existing and planned residential neighborhoods. If Lakeville and Farmington follow their comp plans, there would be no growth in the urban reserve areas until 2020. Staff displayed a map showing current residential construction. Charleswood Crossing across from the police station will contain 151 units. Town and Country Homes, located south ofhwy 50 and the future Spruce Street commercial area will have 900 units. Adjacent to that is property owned by Tollefson Development which will contain 200 units. Across hwy 3 is property purchased by Mr. Colin Garvey where he has plans for 90 units. Next to that is 66 units of multi- family. There is also the golf course which Mr. Garvey is in the process of purchasing. Further north is the Rother property and the Devney property. The north side contains Riverbend which will have 140 units. Parkview Ponds has construction for 147 units. Next to that is Mystic Meadows which is projecting 850 units. Outside of the City along hwy 3 is a development called Providence where they are planning 345 units. North of that is a golf course which is called Heritage Development. Next is the Seed-Genstar property which will contain 2400 units. This indicates where houses will be built in the near future and where students will be living. Staff feels that is a valid consideration when school sites are being considered. The 195th Street alignment is in the City's thoroughfare plan. This would provide an east-west connection between hwy 3 and the rest of town. There would be a bridge that would cross the railroad tracks and would be the only grade separated crossing nearby. The City is planning to see if that road can be constructed next year. A feasibility study is underway to finalize the roadway alignment and costs. . It is a good idea to place schools near existing and planned residential neighborhoods. The advantage of doing that is you place schools in locations where taxpayers do not have to pay most or all of the cost of the required Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 8 infrastructure. Infrastructure includes roads, storm water handling techniques, sanitary sewer and water. This is important because if you build a school where. other development is occurring you have an opportunity to share those infrastructure costs with many different parties instead of having the school district pay for it by itself. The size ofthe developing area and the school district's share of the cost are inversely proportional which means if you have a large developing area you have one large developer or a lot of small developers. The more developers you have the more of the cost they pay and the less the school district has to pay. There will be no other development seen around the proposed high school site until 2020 unless there are other sweeping changes to the comp plan. The City's philosophy is that infrastructure will not be extended into the urban reserve area. There is a feasibility study in process now that will try to pinpoint the cost of doing the infrastructure for the proposed high school site. The last figure that staffhas is $10.6 million. This is a staff projection which includes the cost of paving Flagstaff from hwy 50 to 195th Street, the sewer and water extensions needed to reach the school site. From 195th Street north to the Lakeville border it would cover only the cost of paving the road. It would not include sewer or water. If development was occurring out there, you would pass those costs along to people that were benefiting from it. You cannot do that because so much of the property along Flagstaff cannot be assessed. The reason farmers put their property into the ag preserve program is it protects them from being forced out of farming by large assessments related to infrastructure projects. . As long as your property is in the program, no matter what is built near you, you cannot be assessed for it. Regarding the properties along Flagstaff that are not in the ag preserve program, you might be able to assess them for some of the Flagstaff costs. The non-ag preserve properties probably cannot be assessed because the basis for assessing property is establishing they are getting some benefit from the project. If the property is in urban reserve and they cannot develop, there is no benefit to them of having a sanitary sewer line nearby or having City water. This leads to a situation where you have to look at non-school district funding sources for Flagstaff. Staffhas been told there was a presentation at the school board meeting which discussed the possibility that the City could use MSA funds to assist with Flagstaff. This is money the City receives from the state to assist with roadway costs if they meet the state's requirements. The amount currently available is $1.2 million. Every year the City adopts a capital improvement plan that indicates what projects will be done and what resources will be used to pay for them. One of the highest priorities is to build 208th Street in the industrial park. Another project is the extension of208th Street from the Middle Schools to hwy 3. The third is 208th Street from the industrial park to Akin Road. The City has a long term plan to use this money for other roads that are consistent with the comp plan. Every dollar you take away from these proj ects reduces the likelihood they will be done any time soon. . Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 9 . The Met Council is the agency that makes the fmal say on any comp plan amendments. A letter was generated in March regarding taking the Christiansen property out of the ag preserve program. The Environmental Quality Board wanted the Met Council's comments on what they thought about that idea. A letter from the Met Council to the EQB stated, "The proposed project is inconsistent with the City of Farmington's Comprehensive Plan, land use and growth policies, undesignated MUSA, and capital improvement program." "The Met Council staff encourages the Farmington Independent School District to work with the cities of Farmington and Lakeville to consider alternatives to providing the urban infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed school site." Whatever the Planning Commission or Council does, it has to go to the Met Council. It is important we look at warning signs from other agencies as to what they will approve and not approve. The Met Council will have to address not only the change in land use they will also have to give final confirmation to extending MUSA to include the Christiansen property. Until they do that, you cannot extend sewer services. Staff has to highlight potential problems with developers and give them an opportunity to deal with them in advance instead of getting to the point where so much time and money has been invested in an outcome, and if it is not achieved, there are huge problems. There are potential problems with this Comp Plan amendment. . The recommendation from staff to the Planning Commission is that they recommend to the City Council that the Comp Plan amendment and requested rezoning be denied. Staff would not recommend the Comp Plan amendment be denied unless there were viable alternatives to this site. Staffhas indicated they are available to the school district to assist with identifying sites that have potential, interacting with developers to determine terms and conditions, interacting with the Met Council to determine what type of site has the greatest likelihood of approval, and using whatever resources the City has to bring about a worthwhile outcome. The City has a lot of options available in dealing with land owners and developers that the school district does not. The City has things it is required to do and things it is prohibited from doing. There is a big area in between whether the City can or cannot do something depending on whether they want to see it happen. There are a variety of approvals for preliminary and final plat, conditional use permits, feasibility studies, etc. These are things the City can or cannot do. The City can offer incentives to developers to make it more feasible for them to make land available to the school district such as adjusting densities in residential neighborhoods. We need to get to a point where we have a site that is acceptable to everyone. We are not at that stage now. . Dr. Brad Meeks, Superintendent ISD 192, stated they have several district representatives and consultants in attendance. Mr. Griff Davenport, DLR, is the principal architect. Ms. Monica Kittock-Sargeant, High School Principal, Mr. Doug Bonar, Director of Buildings and Grounds, Mr. John Kampf, former Board President and a member of the school's Property Acquisition Committee, Mr. Mark Storm, Evergreen Land Consultants, Mr. Mark Osborn, Civil Engineer, Mr. Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 10 Jerry Ristow, former Mayor, Mr. Bill Fitch, former City Councilmember and a member of the MUSA Committee, Mr. Tom Kaldunski, former City Engineer, and Mr. Jeff Carpenter, legal counsel for the school. . Mr. Griff Davenport, DLR, stated he has been working with the school district for two years. He showed a schematic plan of the high school. As they started the design of the campus one of the first things they had to deal with was to manage the rural characteristics of the site. Developing 110 acres in a rural environment warranted some special circumstances and some special considerations in design. The north and south tree rows have been developed for a specific purpose to emulate the rural environment. They wanted to make sure the farm roads were maintained with the internal circulation system of the site. They developed a strong rural grid to organize the campus. They were also faced with the challenge of managing the 208th Street extension. He showed the right-of-way that has been informally established to accommodate the 208th Street extension as it goes north to connect with 202nd Street. They have also made sure the site will accommodate a number of unique programs for Farmington. The tree rows on the corner have been developed for a program along with the ponding on the east and south. The school district is well down the path of design for a building that is site specific. The project is approximately 400,000 sq. ft., 260,000 sq. ft. on the floor plate. The site drops 80 ft. from north to south. One of the more exciting components is Tiger Stadium and Tiger Plaza. The stadium will be built immediately adjacent to the building. Tiger Plaza will be a collegial type facility. From a schedule standpoint, they are nearing the end of the schematic design phase. The building will provide ample space through 2013. With a fall 2008 occupancy it is necessary that the school have access to this building in the June/July 2008 timeframe, which means construction neeqs to start in the spring of 2006. The building design and site design have taken parallel but different development paths. It is their intent to work with the City and school to enable potential construction start as early as this fall. . Ms. Monica Kittock-Sargeant, High School Principal, stated the current building has undergone three changes to accommodate the growth. This fall there will be 1100 high school students. In one year they will be at capacity at the high school. The timeliness of this new high school is paramount for the growth of new programs and the maintenance ofthe quality programs. The new facility will have grades 9-12. The direction for a quality high school is best summarized in three words - rigor, relevance and relationships. Success in all three of these comments is dependent on adequate space needs. Rigor - we need reasonable class sizes and adequate classroom space in order to ensure all students have the opportunity for a rigorous program. Relevance - we need space to implement programs that relate to current workplace trends, college prep, and business partnerships. An example is the urban ag program. The current program is very limited because of the site it is on. This would be an example of a program that is site dependent. The site selected for the new high school includes the necessary space and topography for the urban ag program as well as space for the . Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2005 Page 11 . environmental science program. The third component is relationships in helping students be successful. The research on the power of small learning communities and achievement is significant. Students learn better in an environment that fosters strong relationships among faculty and students. The design ofthe new building incorporates the small learning community concept and affords students the opportunity to feel connected to the adults in the building. Having already experienced crowded conditions in the high school in the past, they know the detriment to learning in crowded conditions. Class sizes go up, relationships deteriorate and opportunities are lost. We have an opportunity to build a school that will focus on the three R's. We are designing a building that will reach far into the future. Weare looking at the next 50 years plus. Any delays now will impact not only our students, but the whole community. Academics, the arts, athletics and the community partnerships these areas support will be impacted. A new high school for 2400 students will have a significant positive impact on the business community. Any delay in this project will cost significant dollars and these dollars will come out of the project and out of the building. She asked the community what part of this building do we cut? 2008 is a date we cannot afford to miss for the young men and women in our community. . Mr. Doug Bonar, Director of Buildings and Grounds, stated he has served on the Spruce Street Corridor Committee, the MUSA Committee, and currently the Community Center Committee. He takes the community seriously and tries to remain engaged in all the committee processes. He wanted to talk about the land search process. Many have inquired, many have commented about the processes the school went through. The school looked at 35 locations. In a growing community with the market forces associated with MUSA allocation, designations of ag preserve, the natural state of the land, the challenges of trying to locate a facility of this scale on a 100-acre campus, 400,000 sq. ft., it is a representation of growth. The information from City staff is a clear indication of the homes that are coming to our community. The result of those homes will increase the size of institutions. The planning processes associated with the Comp Plan, the school is on a two-year cycle to go through a growth facilities task force. Planning processes are guidelines. Life is what happens. Unique circumstances arise. A high school that we are going to experience will be one of those unique circumstances. It will come once. There are some inherent exceptions. While the Met Council and many other planning organizations do their best to try to create orderly growth within a seven-county metro area, where they expect a community the size of Denver to appear between here and 2030, things that are unanticipated will occur. In 1996 he doubted many people were talking about a 2000-student high school. . Mr. Mark Storm, Evergreen Land Services, stated some of the criteria is where will it be located, what are the roads, what is the topography, willing seller, and what does the land support engineering wise. As they looked at the 35 locations and considered assembling small parcels to get to the 100 acres it is difficult to do if dealing with several land owners. Most land owners were unwilling sellers. Planning Commission Minutes June l4,2005 Page 12 Five or six land owners had appraisals done. Gas lines were a problem on some of the parcels. Some owners withdrew as price was an issue. A lot were locked up by developers already. Over 35 parcels were explored. They talked to the townships and the City and explored some oftheir recommendations, but they did not meet the criteria. . Mr. Mark Osborn, McGee and Betts, spoke regarding the soils on the Christiansen site. They drilled ten 20-foot borings along with two 40-foot borings. The soil profiles were mostly silts and clays at the surface and some deeper clay deposits. These soils are suitable for support of a 3,000 lb. foundation load. Considerable grading would not be required. The site is quite hilly and drains very well. Site number 2 is much closer to the City, but with the high water table and the very low bearing capacity, it was discarded. The soils at the proposed site were fairly decent and suitable for construction of a school site and recommended the school could proceed. Mr. John Kampf, 19339 Eureka Court, stated he has been following with varying degrees of dismay the continuing saga of the high school site. One of the many reasons for his dismay has been the suggestions of lack of due diligence on the part of ISD 192. He has both heard these suggestions spoken and has seen them written as Letters to the Editor in the Independent and This Week newspapers. He was Chair of the School Board when the decision to proceed with the new high school was made and the site search was begun. It is from this historical perspective I will offer a view based on fact, not misinformation. Suggestions were made and in fact are still being made, that the ISD 192 site search was less than adequate. To phrase it gently, that is pure bunk. The search was exhaustive. ISD 192 looked at 35 sites within the geographical confines of the district. Many of those sites were eliminated immediately as unsuitable, some held more promise, but all were examined. The search was exhaustive, complete, and the citizens of the district were well served. Statements have also been made in various forms that the district did not seek the assistance of the City in the search. He had the minutes ofthe Council Workshop from March 24. He offered this quote from a staffmember, "The school has never asked stafftheir opinions of the sites or asked for site recommendations." Again, gently bunk. Way back when the search for possible sites was initiated ISD 192 asked City staff for potential sites. We received a number of them from City staff. They included a site located directly on top of a large natural gas line. It is impossible to locate a school on top of that potential hazard. They also reviewed other sites from the City, one with multiple lots with different ownership. It is very difficult to put that type ofland package together. Another site where the land owner did not want to deal with the district, but instead dealt with developers. Another where the soil conditions would not support a building the size of the school. So ISD 192 did ask the City for assistance, but received very little. Further suggestions have been made that the district was derelict by being surprised at the City's insistence that Flagstaff Avenue be paved to the Lakeville border at district expense. The facts are this. The City and the district negotiated an agreement . . Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2005 Page 13 . where the district would pave Flagstaff to 195th Street. All parties agreed, in fact City staff prepared maps showing this paving for submission to the MN Department of Education for approval. The current Council comes back to the district after the fact, after the negotiations, after the agreement, after the referendum, after the voters have said yes, yes, yes and says more paving. He has also heard suggestions that the district did not perform due diligence regarding the road, 208th Street. Again that is bunk. Discussions with City staff prior to the referendum show the road would not be built for at least 20 years if ever. Now again, after the fact the City says within three. At the very least ISD 192 should be able to have confidence in information received from the City, confident that negotiations and agreements with the City would be honored. In summary, ISD 192 did perform due diligence as needed and required, negotiated and reached agreements in a timely and productive manner. Any suggestion otherwise is bunk. . Mr. Tom Kaldunski, 2220 Chesterfield Way, stated he was here to talk about some of the potential things that could be done between the City and the school district that follow a lot of things done in the past. He is also the former City Engineer for the City. He is a Civil Engineer by trade for 28 years. He had reports from Minnesota State Aid from January and June 2005. He also has been watching the meetings and reading the newspapers and became concerned when he heard there was no funding available to do studies on Flagstaff Avenue. He wanted to inform everyone what may be available to the City and the school district. He left a copy of his powerpoint presentation to the school district. He reviewed the potential for using state aid street systems and the funding that goes with that on Flagstaff Avenue. He supports the roads the City wants to build because a lot of it is based on the transportation plan he helped the City develop. He was the Director of Public Works from 1985 - 1997. We have good voter support for the referendum. The City and school district have been talking about how to do improvements and how to fund things specifically a feasibility study people have said there is no money to pay for it. He was surprised because he knows Flagstaffhas been a MN State Aid street since 1987. MSA is the gas tax people pay at the pump. He presented a map showing the state aid roads. The City gets over a half million dollars every year in gas tax dollars. The City has done a lot of good improvements from it. Flagstaff, 190th Street, 195th Street, Akin Road, 208th Street from Flagstaffto 1st Street are state aid streets. The money the City gets for state aid from the gas tax can only be spent on roads designated as state aid streets. While he supports some of the roads mentioned earlier, building a road from 1 95th to hwy 3 is not on the state aid system. Extending Pilot Knob to Ash Street could use those funds. It is at the City's discretion where and when you will have designated state aid street routes and where and when you will spend those funds. There are a number of eligible costs in the state aid system. Preliminary reports, design of the project, construction administration, construction activities, and the acquisition of right-of-way. One reason Flagstaff was designated as a state aid street is you have an existing right- of-way. Farmington has been in the state aid system since 1987. The needs are . Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 14 based on population. As construction needs increase you get more money. Construction needs are based on the fact that if you have a road like Flagstaff it needs to be reconstructed. MnDOT estimates the total needs in the City of over $16 million and they are working towards giving you those funds. As he reviewed this for the school district, what he was able to determine is that the City has an unencumbered fund balance as of last week of $1.2 million. This could be funded to do things such as a feasibility study. There have also been many projects the City has done in the last 20 years using state aid dollars. He next displayed a map showing all the state aid projects done in the City since 1985 to today. Most of the school district properties are adjacent to state aid roads. The school district has paid any assessment they have been asked to in the past. There was an agreement between the school district and City to pay some significant funds towards Flagstaff Avenue and they built that into their referendum. Next he showed a table listing a summary of the state aid projects that were done in the City working with the school district. The estimate from the City for Flagstaff is $6.2 million for the school district to pay for a 3.2 mile project and they only have 400 ft. of frontage. The number is much larger than in the past and the school district has agreed to pay those costs. His review showed that most of the state aid streets in the City are paved. Flagstaffrepresents 23% of the state aid system so it is a major component of the dollars the City has been receiving in construction needs. There are a number of ways these projects have been funded in the past. You look at things such as state aid which has the ability to pay 100% of the eligible cost. You have the voluntary contribution from ISD 192 which is to pay 100% of the cost of Flagstaff from hwy 50 to 195th Street. There is also the potential for assessments to properties. This would have to be done through a bonding process and the City would have to assess at least 20% of those costs. There are a combination of funding sources that could be considered to help put together a financial package to improve Flagstaff. One other potential source is looking at other stake holders in the community, such as Dakota County. Looking at Flagstaff Avenue there is a half mile stretch from 195th south to 200th Street which is a county road. The county has participated in improvements of CR 64 in the past and that helps keep the costs for the school and the City lower. Mr. Kaldunski believed the City was doing a great job with their MSA system. They do have the ability to use MSA funds to improve Flagstaff Avenue or to fund the feasibility study. He would conclude that a combination of the various fund sources could be used to provide adequate funds to do the improvements the City desires. The school district and the City have worked successfully in the past to solve these types of problems. He encouraged them to continue doing so. Mr. Jerry Ristow, former Mayor, stated Mr. Kampf summed it up. He watched the presentation by Community Development Director Carroll and he is dumbfounded. He started on the Council in 1992 and was Mayor until 2004. We never talked about urban reserve, the Comp Plan did show it, but we always left an open area for a school district to come in and to make exceptions for it. Ifwe designate land of any type the price skyrockets. They need over 100 acres and it is very hard to find that. He is very grateful for the Christiansen's and the . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2005 Page 15 . Nordseth's that helped us out the last two times with the schools and at a great price. The land was around $34,000/acre. The School Board approached the City earlier, but in March 2004 the school reached some sites that would be feasible for a school. The Christiansen property was one of them and the Angus site was the other one. We have worked since March 2004 with the School Board laying out the processes. Now it seems we have the school in the middle of the lake and are taking the oars away from them. That is not a proper thing to do. To attest to what Mr. Kampfhad talked about, he had the cost figures that came from our Engineering Department for the construction of Flagstaff Avenue of $3,312,400, which rounded offto 27% came to $4,200,000. For the water main with 20% contingency of$1,440,980 it came to $1,800,000. For the sewer with 20% contingency of $768,240 it came to $980,000 for a total of $6,980,000. This was presented to the school on October 22, 2004 from the City Engineering Department and City Administrator Urbia. He showed a map stating hwy 50 is a four-lane road and what better site would you want for a school without a great deal of cost. We have transportation in place, and a four-lane highway that could handle the traffic. South ofhwy 50 is the river where the main interceptor for the metropolitan urban service area is located. What was proposed to the school was to hook into that main interceptor and run it up to the Christiansen property. There is a water main that runs from Meadowview down 195th Street to the school site. It was never mentioned to the school that they would have to participate in doing any part of this road. In November there were two representatives from the Council, Mr. Bill Fitch and Councilmember Fogarty and Chair Rotty and Member Larson from the Planning Commission and Mr. Doug Bonar from the school district were on the MUSA Committee. There was a strong recommendation from that committee to grant MUSA to this site. It was unanimously approved by the Council in November. In February the current Council approved to take the land out of ag preserve. Now they say it doesn't fit in the comp plan, it is urban reserve, he is dumbfounded. The school board has been there playing ball and the Commission needs to let them continue to play ball and move the site forward so we can have the opening of the new high school. Previous Councilmembers were always worried about the identity coming from Lakeville to Farmington. What better sign could there be than to have a billboard saying Farmington Tigers. You would know you are not in Lakeville because it is not Lakeville Panthers, it is Farmington Tigers. . . Mr. Jeff Carpenter, Rider Bennett Law Firm, legal counsel for the school district, stated with respect to the ag preserve properties and staff s presentation, staff expressed some concern with respect to development pressure that will stem from construction of the high school in the Flagstaff area. About half of the property in the urban reserve is ag preserve property subject to the restrictive covenants for development. For the most part people have filed to terminate them by 2011 and there are properties that have not filed at all. Ifwe assume you will get some development pressure, and there is some speculation about whether that will exist, he agreed there is some potential for it but the reality is at least half the property will have no capacity to do anything from a development standpoint for at least 6- Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2005 Page 16 8 years. If they filed today to terminate their ag preserve you still have that window with the reality being you will have potentially some ofthe properties coming out of ag preserve in 2011 or 2012. Some of those may start to move towards development and come to the City for comp plan amendments. None of this will be imminent. By the time a lot ofthis plays out in a worse case scenario you will be butting heads with the 2020 timetable you already have in the comp plan. That will not be true with respect to all of the property, but at least half of it falls into that category. If you consider that in the context ofthe presentations made so far, the development pressure will be dramatically different from what you might be concerned about. Staff also talked about the financial burden of the infrastructure. He expressed concerns with respect to the impact on the taxpayers of the school district and the taxpayers of the City. It is a legitimate concern. Mr. Carpenter pointed out the reality is those infrastructure costs were built into the referendum. They were part of what the school district taxpayers voted for overwhelmingly. He felt you could conclude there is some endorsement to funding those improvements as part of this project. It was that important to the taxpayers to support it. They were clearly aware of the Christiansen site at that point. He felt this issue should be considered. We should still be concerned about the taxpayers. The City and the school district share a lot ofthe same taxpayers and we all have a collective vested interest to do as much as we can for their benefit. As Mr. Kaldunski spoke about with respect to the options for MSA funding and deferred assessments, there may be some avenues to recapture some ofthis money and avoid the impact on the taxpayers to the extent they have already agreed to pay. Staff spoke regarding the scope of text amendments that are envisioned to require an amendment as part of this process. To a large extent, he would characterize that as an overstatement. With all due respect, he understood where staff is coming from. He went through all his materials step by step providing his own interpretation of those provisions. If there is a concern with respect to the possible need to do additional text revisions to the comp plan, he would suggest they are fairly nominal and could be encompassed in the normal plan review. There has been a lot of talk about the apparent omission of schools from the comp plan process. He wanted to clear up some ofthe confusion and put it to rest. It is true the comp plan does not talk about designated areas for new schools. Mr. Carpenter does not think it should. The school is not arguing the City should have done that. The reality is that because of the way the comp plan is drafted, which is not bad, but the net affect is we need to figure out where we are going to put a school. We do not have a designated place to put it and do not want one, because as any developer with a single purpose, they do not want facilities imploding on water, or on soil that does not drain, or sites that are too small. These things need to evolve over time and hopefully that is what we have done through a fairly lengthy process. With that in mind, there has been a lot of discussion about the diligence the school district has done with respect to that process. He wanted to emphasize two that have not been talked about yet. One was the Town and Country proposal and the Seed-Genstar proposal. Mr. Carpenter got involved after much of the evolution of the district site search had gone through the process. As they looked at the Christiansen property again and . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2005 Page 17 . became involved in a recommendation by City staff to work with Town and Country with respect to a land proposal for their project, a co-development of the site. This is also the Peterson-Empey site. Town & Country's conditions for the school's involvement were that the school needed to facilitate an elimination of the ag preserve on a significant portion of their property. It was a walk away condition. The school had to either condemn all ofthe ag preserve site for their benefit, a portion of which would have benefited us, or we were asked to go to the Governor and seek a special exception under the ag preserve statutes by asking the Governor to declare a state of public emergency. If the Governor were willing to grant that, that could terminate the ag preserve. The school was unwilling to do both of those. The condemnation of more ag preserve site than would have been suitable and useable for the school's development would have been a violation of our public purpose under condemnation statutes. With respect to the public emergency, the school was unwilling to act in an irresponsible fashion in taking that kind of conduct in hopes it might resolve a problem. The school was also under very tight timelines and to even attempt such a thing would have been imprudent. The Seed-Genstar site is another example of a project the school was invited by the City to look at more closely for the high school. The school is currently in discussions for placement of an elementary school on this site. The school did meet with Seed-Genstar on the possibility of swapping out the elementary school, which would have required a smaller footprint, and exchanging it for a much larger site for the high school. They were concerned about that kind of a change in their site and uncomfortable about doing it. Mr. Carpenter would not characterize them as being completely unwilling, but the school did learn the cost would be in excess of $1 OO,OOO/acre. That reflects the financial impact to them of what Seed-Genstar would have lost to bring a high school on board. This is in excess ofthree times what the school paid for the Christiansen property. There have been a couple presentations at school board meetings regarding an opinion that has been issued by the school district's bond counsel. The reason this came about is the school became increasingly concerned as they were looking at new site locations at the 11 th hour as they were trying to move forward with the Christiansen property. The school wanted to make sure they had the legal authority to do so. The school district contacted Knutsen, Flynn and Deans Law Firm, the school's bond counsel, and Mr. Tom Deans issued his opinion regarding the ability of the school district to engage in this new activity of relocating the site. The basic outcome of his opinion is that the school district no longer has the legal authority to switch sites for the school. The Christiansen property was, as would be the case in any referendum of this nature, intertwined with the referendum to such a point that the perception is that the voters in voting for the referendum were voting for a high school on the Christiansen site and there is a strong opinion by Mr. Deans that the school would need to go back to referendum and start all over again, if they were to go to a different site. In addition, under the Christiansen purchase agreement and the closing the Christiansen's have retained a five-year window to repurchase the property. The school is obligated ifthey are going to use this property to use it only for development of a school. The school has no other right from the . . Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2005 Page 18 Christiansen's to use the property for any other purpose. The school has received invitations that perhaps they can swap the property for another location. That is not true. The school does not have the power or the right to do that. It has been important to the Christiansen's in making this property available that it be used for school purposes. If a school is not built there in five years, the Christiansen's can buy it back. The repurchase price will be substantially below market rate. If the property is repurchased Mr. Deans has also opined as to the impact of that money. The reality is the school district cannot take that money and reapply it to the purchase of another property. The school will need to take that money which came from a 2002 bond issuance and will have to go back to that bond and service the debt. Where do we go from here? On November 15, 2004 the City Council granted MUSA to the property on a contingent basis. The contingency being that the school had to get through the EQB process and proceed to acquire the property, both of which the school did. On that basis MUSA has been grante~ to the property. On February 28, 2005 the Council voted to support removal of the Christiansen property from the ag preserve. This was a Joint CouncillPlanning Commission meeting. That preceded a public meeting at the EQB and on March 21, 2005 that property came out of ag preserve and they closed on it on March 30, 2005. Every step ofthe way up until then with the understanding of written, oral, Council action supporting it, the school had support from the City to move forward with the property. The school is asking the Planning Commission to unanimously approve the pending application to amend the comp plan and to rezone the property for the district's new high school site. Dr. Brad Meeks talked about the people this building will mostly impact and that is the students. He showed the enrollment projections for this year, fall of 2008 and 2010. The school district is growing. Dr. Meeks spoke about the time lines and why they are critical. The enrollment in the school district this year was 5500 students. By 2008 there will be 6800 students and by 2009-2010, we will exceed 7000 students. Going into the fall of2008 if they miss the timeline and the window to keep the projects moving ahead, not just the high school as this project is a comprehensive facilities plan because each school is linked to the other, if one building is not ready they cannot start moving students around and changing boundaries, it will affect all 7000 students. This means by 2008 if they miss the window, the school will need between 16-20 new elementary classrooms to fit the growth and they do not have that many. There will have to be portable classrooms or increase class size and that would mean an increase of3-4 students per classroom for the fall of2008 at the elementary level. Kindergarten classes would average 24-26 students a class, upper elementary would exceed 30 students a class. At the high school the building capacity is 1200 in the fall of2008 they will be past 1300 students. In Middle School East there will be 1100 students in grades 6-7 and the capacity of that building is between 900-950 students. The West building will be in excess of 1000 in grades 8-9 and the capacity is 900-950. Class sizes will increase at the secondary level as well until we can make up for that lost window. The school district is also concerned with the cost of construction rising. Mortensen Construction is indicating anywhere from a 5%- . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2005 Page 19 . 7% inflation increase. There is $100 million worth of work so that comes to $5-7 million. This amount would have to be taken out ofthe project to make up for the loss. From the district's perspective they feel very strongly that they shared full information with previous and present City Council, the Mayor, Administrative staff and community about its plans to develop the Flagstaff site as a home for the new Farmington High School. The Councilmembers have attended public planning and information sessions and had the opportunity to review the master plan which is referred to as the Review and Comment document which was approved last fall when it was submitted to the state. He asked for the Planning Commission's support on the comp plan and zoning amendments. Chair Rotty noted the Commission received written correspondence from Mark Grubb, Daniel and Dawn Austin, Mary Kapustka, John Sayers, Leon Orr and Dr. Brad Meeks. . Ms. Kris Akin, 22390 Beaumont Avenue, spoke as a business owner of Welcome Friends Floral for 18 years, she is a Farmington native and resides in Castle Rock township. The Farmington High School will be one ofthe biggest venues in Farmington that has hit the area in years. It will be one of the largest draws to the community with year round events. There will be a lot of people coming for tournaments and will bring a lot of people into town. With that they will need gas, restaurants, hotels, places to shop. With the school being located west of town it will support the Vermillion River Crossing area plus the downtown area. If the school were to be located north, she feels it would be a bummer for the business community and the Vermillion River Crossing area. If it was located too far north of Farmington the visitors would probably head up to CR 42 in Rosemount and Apple Valley. As a parent and a parent volunteer for the Citizens for Kids Committee for this last referendum they heard are the City and school district working together and the second question was can't the City slow down growth so we do not have all this pressure on the schools. She was raised on a farm and values the life that the farmers have and that the ag people have. She lives in the country now. But it is ironic to her that some farmers on one end of town are selling their land to developers and that the City is annexing land into the City and putting all this pressure on our schools and at the other end of town there are farmers who want to keep their land and do not want it to grow. What happened to the olden days when we all worked together, built the schools, brought in the water and kept the fire going in the school building? We even provided a room for the teacher to stay in. As a parent she is disappointed in the path this is taking. She would prefer the location west oftown for traffic. There are two four-lane highways down that way. She went to Farmington High School. It has been there for 30 years and it is still not developed on the other side of the road to the west. Put the school out there and the kids will be safer driving and riding the bus out there for a lot more years to come than if it were up to the north where the roads are bad. We have all seen the traffic coming out of the Middle Schools. The City has tried to address some ofthose issues. She does not want Farmington children having to ride buses or drive north of town up hwy . Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2005 Page 20 3, Pilot Knob or Akin Road to try to get to school. She challenged the Planning Commission to look at the challenges as stepping stones not stumbling blocks. Our whole country was built on determination and courage and she wants this worked out together so the school can be built on Flagstaff Avenue. Think of the kids. Mr. Steve Corraro, 18775 Essence Trail, stated he holds many hats within the Farmington Youth Athletic programs. He came as a parent and a taxpayer. They moved to Farmington five years ago from Las Vegas to raise their kids in Farmington because of the education system they have to offer. Now that is at risk. He then gave his understanding of what is going on. The City has dictated and ultimately determines the population of Farmington by allowing building permits. Within this rapid growth comes responsibility of educating our kids. The school district analyzed the growth of Farmington and realizes that there is an extremely tighttimeline to build a facility needed to continue to educate our kids in the manner we use to avoid extremely overcrowded classrooms that will take tolls on the education of our kids. The school district did not create the problem, but they look at part of the solution. They included the community in the process by creating a 40-man task force with cross force community leaders in the community. It is his understanding by the facts that have been presented and from meetings he has had with the school district and Councilmembers that there is no valid logic for the project to be delayed any longer. The taxpayers have spoken and with an overwhelming majority by passing the bond for $112,000,000 with $6 million already designated to improve Flagstaff. Our children need and the community expects this project to be done on or under budget in a timely fashion to avert any interruption with the education of our children. The facts are as follows: The former Mayor and former School Board Chair stated this evening that the school district did due diligence in the process of the site selection. The amount of infrastructure and roads to be built were agreed upon and included in the bond for $6 million. MUSA was granted as per the former Mayor, once again the process and guidelines were followed. The public passed the bond for the new high school to be built on the Christiansen property. The review and comment was presented to the state and accepted without alterations. The Council voted 4-1 in favor of allowing the Christiansen property to be removed from the ag preserve program. To delay this process would cost the taxpayers $400,000-$500,000 a month in escalating building costs. To delay this process would put anywhere from 32+ kids per classroom as the norm. Anyone would know this would be a tremendous impact on the education of our children. The facts have been stated and he hoped it was obvious to the Commission and to the City as it is to the community that we need to move forward with this project for our kids. Let it not be said that the Planning Commission and the City's founding fathers were part ofthe problem and not part of the solution. Mr. Bill Fischer, 18858 Easton Avenue, stated he came to have some blanks filled in and that was done by Mr. Kampf and Mr. Ristow. He had some concerns that the school district fulfilled its responsibility in seeking out counsel from the City . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2005 Page 21 . Council and staff. Initially in staffs presentation he was concerned that the school board did not do that. After listening to Mr. Kampf and Mr. Ristow they filled in some blanks. You heard the word "bunk." You heard the word "dumbfounded". If this Commission and Council do not continue to support this program he would be sorely disappointed in the current Council. Had the prior Council supported it, it is the responsibility of the current Council and staff to continue in that vein. . Mr. John Kapustka, 19482 Evening Star Way, stated he does not have anything different to add to Community Development Director Carroll's presentation, his common sense decision to deny the district's request because it promotes sprawl rather than planned development. As a taxpayer and a nine-year resident with three kids in the system he is not just passing through, this is his adopted home. The Commission has heard the reasoned recommendation of the full time staff whose only angle on this is what is best for the City as a whole. No spin, just common sense and facts. As the Planning Commission will recommend to the Council what to do, he left with a quote from President Teddy Roosevelt. President Roosevelt was talking about conservation and in a way so is Mr. Kapustka. Since the agricultural corridor between Farmington and Lakeville represent most of the remaining farms in Farmington. Roosevelt said, "Defenders of the short-sided men who in their greed and selfishness will have permitted rob our City of half of its charm by their reckless extermination of its farmland sometimes seek to champion them by saying the land belongs to the people. So it does and not merely the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The greatest good for the greatest number applies to the number within the womb of time compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole including the unborn generations bids us restrain on unprincipled present day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations." If Teddy Roosevelt were here tonight, he would be on Mr. Kapustka's side too. Deny this request and let's build our high school where it fits into our comprehensive plan. . Mr. Leon Orr, 19161 Echo Lane, stated he was on the Council in the late 70's through 1986. He was on the Council when they created the urban reserve area. The purposes which still exist, which staff stated, the Council had to pass a special resolution to enable the farmers within that area to apply for ag preserve because there was a recognition that in doing so it would deny the City certain assessment possibilities and preclude development in that area. He gave a couple examples from back then when they protected the corridor on the Lakeville border. One was Farmington Ford which was on the comer of3rd and Elm wanted to move the dealership outside so they had more space. They selected a site on hwy 50 in the vicinity of Flagstaff Avenue. Before they went through the formal process, they brought it to the Council informally to ask the questions, would the Council change the plan to allow a dealership in that agricultural corridor. It was unanimous at that time by the Council that they would not change that. As much as they wanted to keep that dealership within Farmington, the Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2005 Page 22 Council was unanimous to not violate the plan that had been created. The end result was that the dealership moved to Cedar and hwy 50. There was another proposal by a land owner to develop his property and subdivide his property into two-acre residential low density lots. That again was denied for the same reasons so as to protect that agricultural corridor. He heard the speakers, including the architect, describe how this building is designed to keep the rural character of that area in place. But Mr. Orr does not think he or anyone could tell any of us you could put a 2400-student, 450,000 sq. ft. facility, and pave the roads, and of those 2400 students half will have their own cars driving that new paved road and say it will maintain it's rural character. Mr. Orr does not think it is possible. With respect to due diligence, he described his disappointment with an example he went through a few years ago. He was on the building committee for a new church. The church had a site selection committee. They had a number of sites and selected one they wanted, talked to a land owner, made a verbal agreement that he would sell it and for how much. The next step the church took was to request a meeting with the City which they granted with the Engineering Department, the Community Development Director and the City Planner. The church asked the questions about the availability of infrastructure, sewer, and water and what the problems are with developing. The property would have to be rezoned, what assessments were there, what fees the City would charge. This was put in writing and all the issues that had to be resolved. The church entered into a purchase agreement with the land owner and the purchase agreement was contingent upon the church solving all the problems identified in writing with the City. Mr. Orr does not understand why the school district did not do the same thing before they closed on the property. Mr. Orr supports construction of a new high school. He would go door to door supporting a bond issue for one that was in a better location. With that in mind and the original intent of that agricultural corridor, and previous attempts to get something out there have been denied, he thinks it should continue to be protected as the last area to be developed in the City. Ms. Cheryl Retterath, 19232 Evenston Drive, came as a mom of three boys, a local business person and an active community member. She and her husband built their home here 15 years ago when the population was 5,000. Now we have a population of 19,000. We have always believed that when it comes to your community you can run but you can't hide. This means even though your community might have issues you can be assured the next community has some also. So find a place you love to live and do what you can to contribute and make it great. In 1990 Dakota County announced their plans to build a garbage incinerator down the road. She and her neighbors spent a year dragging their babies to hearings, meetings, MPCA meetings, environmental meetings in St. Paul and Rosemount, etc. They determined that the Hennepin County incinerator was plenty short on garbage. That was before we officially recycled. We said to the County Commissioners if you have the County implement a recycling program, our garbage production will go down so far we are going to have a tough time paying for this monster. The Dakota County Board of Commissioners . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 23 . was very sold on this incinerator and how they thought things should be. It took months of us, their community, begging them to reconsider. She will never forget when they actually voted the way they wanted them to vote. The Commissioners showed them that the system really works. Over the years she has been involved in the Chamber of Commerce, youth sports programs, church and other community organizations. Through her work she has been on the Governmental Affairs Committee for the South ofthe River Neighborhoods for several years. The point is that she comes into contact with a lot of people every day. Most people around here are not from here. They bring with them much knowledge and experience from their previous community. We have a very smart audience here. People ask her what is going on with the City and the school district. They have never seen things get out of hand like this in their previous communities. Most people are expecting their leaders to resolve issues at some point and don't feel the need to get involved. That is why we have leaders so we can trust them to do what the majority wants them to do while we get on with our busy lives. When it comes down to it, they do not want to understand the intricate details of City financing and we don't want to understand the strange way the government funds our schools. When it comes down to it, we as a community really do not care who said what and how someone perceives someone else's comments or how we got to this point. Weare at this point. The only thing that matters now is who is it that wants to stand in the way of what the community has requested. Who wants to be a part of the problem and who wants to be a part of the solution? We are counting on you to make this happen. Your community is watching you. She truly believes there are avenues of creativity in this process that have not been explored. MSA is a fabulous example. The high school will not be up and running for three years and look how far Farmington has come in the last three years and the three years before that. Much is going to happen in the next three years. She believes there is an opportunity to resolve financials regarding the rest of Flagstaff and other policy issues that the Council seems to be stumbling over. She has seen this staff and Council use their knowledge and creativity in the past and is confident that they can do it again today. Any concern regarding future development near the new school, well this is the United States of America based on democracy and the free enterprise system. Weare a consumer driven society and we are very successful at that. Your community is your consumer and we want you to make this happen. If the community has changed that much since the comprehensive plan or what our fore fathers thought might happen before this, maybe it is time to review that. That is not all bad. Please do not be the few folks deciding against what the community is asking. We want to say once again that our system really does work. . . Mr. Jerry Sayers, 6886 Lakeville Blvd, stated he has heard people talk about the history. Sayers came in the latel840's along with the Akins, Curry's, and a dozen other families. They have the affidavit from Abe Lincoln and President Buchanan for land here. They do not consider people have really moved in until you have been here 75 years. They recognize changes are happening. If any of the Commission has made up their minds before they came here tonight, they should Planning Commission Minutes June l4, 2005 Page 24 not vote. They should listen to the citizens and listen to the argument and not make up your mind. This is also true of Farmington staff and school staff. He went to an election in February 2005 and for every 23 votes for the school there were 13 votes against it. That is a pretty clear voter reaction on a non-voting day. If the Planning Commission has not planned for schools you do not have a comprehensive plan. His great-grandfather would say if the Planning Commission did not plan for schools, you do not have a comprehensive plan. The school in Dakota Village at the Fairgrounds, his mother taught in it. The church out there was formed in his great-great-great-great grandfather's log cabin with his wife. They planned, of course they had more free land and things were different, but we really have to consider things that are realities now. It is impossible in his mind to have a 20 year plan without major revisions. That is not how the edges of the Cities are growing. It has to be comprehensive. In 1991 it left out a few things like schools. If you look at Akin Road, the Council has pushed and pushed and pushed houses into that area. The Sayers didn't. Right now there are earth movers putting in more houses. Where are you going to bus those students, through Farmington or to Flagstaff? If you bus them to the Christiansen property, that makes sense. The Commission has a letter from his brother. One of the things that they who live out there have been irritated about for many years is exactly that they are called an agricultural corridor. We do not want to be your green space. Green space on equity turns less than 1 %. We want to take your money, your house, your savings, we want you to get the 1 % on your equity and we who came here in the 1850's do not want you to be bringing people in from the outside to develop Farmington and pay them millions upon millions of dollars and then tell us you get 1 % or less on your equity. Mr. Christiansen doesn't. He's his neighbor. He knows these people. We do not want to be your green space. We do not want to be your agricultural corridor. We really don't. You are up against some very fast growing conditions. You have to adjust. We have to adjust. They have never seen traffic like there is now on hwy 50. You put it on the Christiansen property because that is where the students are. That is where police and government services and fire protection is. There is a sewer interceptor on the south side ofhwy 50. What is nice about that is what his dad would say is gr:avity flow. This development along Akin Road puts the school out here or are you going to bus them through Farmington or some new road. We have heard about the timelines. You have a problem. We as taxpayers expect you to support the school and the Council to support the school and the school to support the Council. When he first came here tonight, there were too many people and it was too crowded. He suggested you get the citizens on for the first half hour. We do not want to be your green space. We do not want to be your agricultural corridor. The gentleman who spoke about the planning of Farmington Ford on hwy 50 and Flagstaffwas talking about his father, Robert Sayers. That is where they wanted Farmington Ford and where did it go - Lakeville. We want to talk for ourselves and that is put the schools where the kids are, don't bus them around, get along, do what the school wants to do because the voters voted in February. We need to get going. . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2005 Page 25 . Mr. Jim Wolfe, 5913 l88th Street W, stated he stood here as one of many who are asking the Commission to support the amendment of the comp plan and forward that to the Council. If that is not supported, his request would be what is the answer and what is the plan going to be if it does not pass? What are we going to tell 62% of the voters that did vote for this? Mr. Jim Bell, 201 Maple Street, stated he was on the City staff for 27 years and had a lot to do with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Orr talked about the green space and Mr. Bell was part of that issue and supported that. He was also here to say, whoever has made the mistakes in this whole thing, we should not point fingers any more but let's get this thing straightened out. Let's get it done. The school district has the land, they cannot get rid of it, let's make it work. We can still keep a green space out there. We can find ways to not develop around the school for the next 10-15 years. 2020 you will have everything built up anyway and we will be looking at that space at that time, so why not get this done, be done with it, and move on and work as a community again. . Mr. Bob Donnelly, Flagstaff Avenue, stated whatever the Commission decides it has to be. When it is decided it is over. You get dirty looks if you are for it or against it and that is just foolishness. Whatever happens, happens. As far as the people out there wanting return on their equity and not wanting to be the green space, there are some families out there that do want to be your green space. We are not rushing towards development, but it will happen. The City promised us we would be agriculture out there. You bringin all those kids, 90% ofthem do not ride the bus, they will come down Flagstaff from the north. If that is the way it is, they will accept it, but the City did promise them it would be zoned agriculture and that is what they placed their investment on and all their plans and their future on that. If it changes they will deal with it. Not everyone is for development out there. It will change it all. If there is a better spot, let's go there. If not, you have to do what you have to do, but not everyone is for it out there. Chair Rotty stated the Commissioners decided to address this individually in alphabetical order. Commissioner Barker appreciated everyone voicing their opinions. This is not a new issue for us. We have known about this for ~while since late summer when they found out the school was looking at this site along with a couple others. As the process continued they talked with staff and the MUSA Committee recommendations. When MUSA was granted there will have to be upgrades on Flagstaff. There will also have to be comp plan amendments and rezoning. He has known for awhile this would be the process and did not have a problem at the time when they approved the MUSA and when he made a favorable recommendation to the EQB for the property to come out of ag preserve. He still knew there would have to be a comp plan amendment and rezoning. He gave a favorable recommendation for the comp plan amendment and the rezoning. . Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2005 Page 26 Commissioner Johnson stated this has been a challenge for him. Community Development Director Carroll gave a lot of valid reasons why we should deny this, but there is a small problem. Every time the MUSA Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council saw this we continued to approve this. That strikes him as absolutely odd, that we would continue to approve this if we have all these concerns. Either we are incompetent or we were on board with that process of the school being at this site with all of the challenge that will be there, foreseen and unforeseen. It is unfortunate it has come to this and as contentious as it has gotten. He will support the school site. Commissioner Larson stated since day one sitting on the MUSA Committee when the school came in and told them about the Christiansen site instead of the Angus site, he had issues with the Christiansen site. At almost every meeting he has spoken up and came up with the same issues as today, the comp plan, the vote, the development out there. He has been here for 10 years and served on the Comp Plan Committee and the Planning Commission and the MUSA Committee. Once the Christiansen property came up he could not support it and he can't support it. The comp plan is there for a reason. Ifhe was a retail or commercial developer and looking to relocate in Farmington, he would study the comp plan and figure out where the growth will be and where is the best spot for me. If we change the comp plan so dramatically right now, how much faith would I as a developer have in the City? It would not be very much. He has listened and heard what everyone is saying. He has sat through all these meetings and went to the school board meeting before the referendum and told them about all these issues that will happen. One person on the school board actually listened. Two people struck up a conversation among themselves while I was speaking. They were not even giving me the courtesy to listen to me. He cannot support this. It is the wrong thing to do for Farmington. Ms. Akin mentioned she thinks it will bring traffic into Farmington, but Commissioner Larson believes that people that live on the north side of Farmington will come to the high school for events. There will be a lot of events and a lot of traffic and when they are done, they will go up the road to Crossroads in Lakeville to buy their groceries or go to a restaurant. He supported the Angus property and would like to see the traffic come through downtown closer to the investment the City will put into the Spruce Street corridor and all the commercial down there. These are points he has been saying since October to anyone that would listen. He cannot support this and won't support it. Commissioner Richter stated she is not opposed to a new school and does believe Farmington needs a new school. However, she believes strongly in the comp plan. It is supposed to be our guideline and we are supposed to follow it. It has been there we all know it existed and we all knew what portion was urban reserve. Because she believes we need to follow the 2020 comp plan, she is not in support of the site. . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2005 Page 27 . . . Chair Rotty stated he has been involved in several major comp plan revisions with the whole book. He has been on the Commission for 20 years and has been involved with a lot of comp plan updates. Updates are things were you are not rewriting the whole book, but you are looking at a piece of it. As a growing community we need to realize that our comp plan needs to be fluid and needs to change with it. It is a very fast-growing suburb. When we created the 2020 comp plan in the late 90's he felt we had a good plan. He was part of putting it together. He also realized it wasn't a perfect plan and supported the updates when they have been brought to the Commission. It is not saying we did a poor job of planning, but as our community grows we need to change our plan. Last fall he had the privilege as others did of serving on the MUSA Committee that evaluated parcels of land for expansion of the sanitary sewer. In essence that committee was recommending where this community was going to grow next. The Christiansen site was included in the recommendation to the Planning Commission and to the City Council as long as the site was used for a school. The site was approved for MUSA by the Commission and Council in November 2004. He feels there was a commitment made to the school, the residents and the public that if the school was proposed on this site, that MUSA would be extended to this site and in doing so this would constitute amending the comprehensive plan accordingly. Having said that, he would support the amendment. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. Voting for Rotty, Barker, Johnson. Voting against: Larson, Richter. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to make a favorable recommendation to the City Council for an amendment to the 2020 Comp Plan from urban reserve to public/semi-public for the land as described and amend the text of the 2020 Comp Plan and rezone the Christiansen site property from A-I to R-l. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Johnson. Voting against: Larson, Richter. MOTION CARRIED. d) Request for Text Amendment to Section 10-2-1 Defining Special Event Signs and Section 10-6-3 (B)(I) of the City Code to Allow Special Event Signs Request for Text Amendment to Section 10-6-3 (B)(1)(P) of the City Code to Increase the Size of Garage Sale Signs Request for Text Amendment to Section 10-6-3 (B)(l)(u) of the City Code to Allow A-Frame Signs on Private Property At the May 24, 2005 Planning Commission meeting there was a discussion regarding amending the sign code for special event signs, A-frame signs and garage sale signs. Staff requested to continue the public hearing for these items in order to facilitate additional research on these issues. e) t) Ms. Kim Soderberg, 1312 Fairview Lane, member of the Farmington Rotary. The Rotary has been working with the City and the school about putting electronic wording on the sign by Depot Park. The Rotary has been in existence for 100 years and this is their Centennial project. They work to do community projects and feel this is a way they could get events that are going on out to the public. A Planning Commission Minutes June l4, 2005 Page 28 lot of people do not read the newspaper. Ifthey drive by and see a sign, they will read it. They are working with the school and the City on selecting three sites . total with the one already selected and would like the Commission to change the code so they would be allowed to do this so they would have a bigger impact in the City. Staffwill review this and update the Commission at the next meeting. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to continue these public hearings until the July 12, 2005 meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. g) Request for Variance to Sign Height and Size for Proposed Sign on North Side of Elm Street at City Center Applicant: Tom Wartman Mr. Wartman owns the City Center complex. As far as existing signs that are in the B-2 district, Kwik Trip has an l8-ft. high sign and 50 sq. ft. They do meet the requirement along Elm Street. Subway is also along Elm Street. Their sign height is 15 ft. with 48 sq. ft. Burger King has a sign 22 ft. in height. That was installed when Hardee's was here. Mr. Wartman would like a 24' 8" tall sign with 150 sq. ft. Staff recommends the sign stay at 18 ft. Staffwould like the Commission's recommendation as far as sign area and whether it should be 50 sq. ft., 100 sq. ft. or 150 sq. ft. The sign at Farmington Marketplace is 150 sq. ft. and 26-28 ft. in height. The existing Econo Foods sign is at 15 ft. The first proposal is for 100 sq. ft. sign area and 19' 6" in height. The second proposal is 19' 6" in height but 150 sq. ft. for area. Staff does not feel there will be any sight problems but will be requesting when they submit their sign application to show sight distances making certain there are no visual problems. Staff is asking for 18 ft. to make it as compatible as possible in the B-2 zoning district. Staff feels 100 sq. ft. is enough for sign area. This will allow for more businesses to go on one sign. This should be prefaced as five businesses and up go at 100 sq. ft. The hardship is this is one property owner with a number of businesses and they are trying to advertise. Mr. White would like the sign at 22 ft. to match the Burger King sign. . Mr. Larry White, Grand Projects, stated while it may not meet the definition of a hardship, he feels this is such a unique property and it is a large parcel with multiple buildings and multiple tenants. It is more what you would see on the edge of a City in a suburban location where you would have a 40-50 mph speed limit. They would like some consideration that would be comparable to that. The property would lend itselfto being two parcels, the Econo Foods property and the one with Edina Realty and the coffee shop. Then there would be two signs allowed and that would be cluttered. Combining this into one sign since it is one parcel and trying to maximize the square footage as shown with 150 sq. ft, not all the tenants will have representation on the size. They are giving priority to some of the larger tenants, the newest of which will be the Farmington Liquor Store and they are further off the street along with Ace Hardware and could benefit from some attention at the street level to bring those people back. They would like to get as much square footage as they can. In light of the Burger King sign across . Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2005 Page 29 . the street, they would like to match that height. He looked at sight lines and with the parking behind this sign if you were to look at the cars parked behind and with the boulevard trees there is not a sight line today. In order to safely pull out you have to pull up into the boulevard area. City Attorney Jamnik asked ifthis was not a PUD. Staff could not recall. Attorney J amnik stated his concern is if this is a PUD and there is a PUD Agreement with the site plan and all those things we would be coming in for a Pun amendment rather than a variance which would be on a stand alone lot. His questions were triggered by Mr. White's statement of why it is a multiple parcel and a single sign. He felt it might have been processed as a PUD. He recommended researching this and continuing this to the June 28, 2005 meeting. Mr. White agreed with this. Attorney Jamnik stated there might have been provisions in the PUD dealing with the signage and the agreement with the owner at the time. We should remain consistent with the previous approvals. . Community Development Director Carroll stated this property has been replatted since he has been here. Ifit was originally a PUD, when it got replatted would a new PUD have been required? Attorney Jamnik replied no, because the Pun might have been amended or it might have been an additional plat or re-plat which mayor may not have required an amendment to the pun. The PUD can be a single parcel, common interest community or it can be multiple parcels with individual lots being sold out, but the PUD would be the umbrella overlay on that entire area. Chair Rotty did not think because of traffic, if the sign gets too big it could cause some sight issues. He would stay with 18 ft. in height and if there were multiple tenants, limit it to 100 sq. ft. Commissioner Larson agreed mainly because of where it is at. Commissioners Richter, Barker and Johnson agreed. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to continue the public hearing to June 28,2005. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. h) Request for Consideration of Executive Estates Preliminary Plat Applicant: Colin Garvey Chair Rotty and staff discussed with Mr. Garvey continuing this public hearing to the June 28, 2005 Planning Commission meeting because he does not show any connection that staff is requiring. Staff also needs to see park and trail locations and staffneeds additional engineering information. Staffhas a meeting set with Mr. Garvey for 10 a.m. on Monday. Staff will let Mr. Garvey know exactly what he needs to submit. He has requested to get preliminary and final plat on June 28. It is up to him to get all of the information in and it is up to engineering staff as far as review time. There are a number of projects going on. On June 28 the preliminary plat will definitely be presented. . Commissioner Johnson asked ifthe park issue has been resolved. City Planner Smick talked with Parks and Recreation Director Distad today and he is Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 Page 30 continuing to request a park in that location. It is up to the Planning Commission to review that and determine whether to go with the Parks and Recreation . Commission's advice. Chair Rotty suspected the applicant would bring in both versions. Commissioner Barker asked about the status with the township and the road going to the south. Staff replied that is also information Mr. Garvey has to supply. The City Attorney has seen information from the last meeting that Castle Rock has stated Mr. Garvey could not get access onto 225th Street. The City Attorney will respond to that at the next meeting. Mr. Garvey also needs to talk with Castle Rock concerning engineering requirements Castle Rock has for upgrading 225th Street. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to continue the public hearing to June 28, 2005. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion 5. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, /) -'/? - //~ {::~ ~ ft'?~ ~ Muller Executive Assistant Approved rJ ~ It/ldJ5 . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting June 28, 2005 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Larson Members Absent: Johnson, Richter Also Present: Lee Smick, City Planner; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Public Hearings a) Variance to Sign Height and Size for Proposed Sign on North Side of Elm Street at City Center Applicant: Tom Wartman Mr. Tom Wartman, owner of the City Center property is seeking a variance from the sign height and sign area requirements. The applicant proposes to remove the existing sign on the north side of Elm Street and install a taller and larger sign in its place. The Econo Foods sign was put up in 1997. It is 17 ft. 11 inches in height. They are proposing to locate a sign in the same location as the current sign. At the June 14 meeting the City Attorney questioned whether this was a PUD. Staff researched the records and determined this was not a PUD so a variance request is needed. They are requesting a sign height of 19 ft. 6 inches with a sign face area of either 100 or 150 sq. ft. Per the sign code in a 30 mph zone a maximum 18 ft. high sign is allowed and 50 sq ft sign area. At the June 14 meeting the Commission stated they would like to see the 18 ft. requirement remain because Subway, Kwik Trip and Premier Bank all have an 18 ft. or less sign height. The only sign that is different is Burger King which is across the street which is 22 ft. The developer wants the 19 ft. 6 inch sign because of the Burger King sign. However all other pylon signs in the B-2 district are 18 ft. and below. Staff recommends the 18 ft. maximum in a 30 mph zone. The Commission was interested in allowing a 150 sq. ft. area. Staff recommends approving the 150 sq. ft. sign area. The sign needs additional advertising space and this property has five or more businesses. Mr. Larry White stated it is a unique situation on the property. It was acquired by Mr. Wartman with multiple buildings on it. Since Mr. Wartman has owned the property he has added the Edina Realty portion and the Ace Hardware building and now the multi-tenant building housing the liquor store. He is asking for as much consideration as possible due to the uniqueness of it and the fact he is investing several million dollars in this property over the past few years and today. The extra sight would give more visibility and still be under the Burger King sign height. They would like something in excess of 100 sq. ft. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2005 Page 2 Commissioner Larson and Barker agreed with staff s recommendations. Chair Rotty stated they want to make sure Mr. Wartman can advertise the different businesses in the development. By agreeing to more square footage, hopefully that can be done without going too high. The ordinance is 18 ft. in height. He does not like creating misfits. He agreed with staff and would support the 150 sq. ft. area with 18 ft. in height. . MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to deny the variance of 1 ft. 6 inches for the height. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Chair Rotty asked staff to prepare findings of fact for the denial. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to approve the variance of up to 50 sq. ft. for sign area. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Text Amendment to Section 10-2-1 Defining Special Event Signs and Section 10-6-3 (B)(1) of the City Code to Allow Special Event Signs Staff has discussed amending the sign code for special events such as Rambling River Days. Staff is proposing the following definition for special event signs: A sign temporary in nature not permanently attached to the ground announcing a special community wide event or activity conducted by, sponsored by, or on behalf of the City of Farmington or another governmental entity or a charitable or not for profit organization. . The requirements for a special event sign would be as follows: - Not to exceed 4 sq. ft. in area and be permitted in all zoning districts. - Post the sign 30 days prior to the event. Said sign shall not be located within the 30 ft. triangle of visibility at public or private street intersections or driveway intersections. - Special event banners will have to comply with the banner section of the sign code that already exists. Staff recommends approval of the code amendment and forward to the Council. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the text amendment for special event signs. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Text Amendment to Section 10-6-3 (B)(1)(p) of the City Code to Increase the Size of Garage Sale Signs Garage sale signs are permitted provided they are on private property. Currently the maximum height for a garage sale sign is 2 ft. Staff is requesting that be increased to 4 sq. ft. in size. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the increase in size for garage sale signs. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2005 Page 3 d) Text Amendment to Section 10-6-3 (B)(1)(u) of the City Code to Allow A- frame Signs on Private Property A few months ago the Commission recommended approval of the A-frame sign ordinance. Staffis recommending a minor revision to allow A-frame signs on private property with the owner's permission within the designated areas being business, Spruce Street Commercial, mixed-use, business commercial flex zoning district. Staff would also like to include churches provided that they place the signs only out on private property on days on which they have services. The height and width restrictions will remain the same. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson for a favorable recommendation to allow A-frame signs on private property. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Vermillion River Crossing Preliminary and Final Plat Applicant: Pederson Ventures The property is zoned Spruce Street Commercial and Park/Open Space. It has 61.86 acres, 40 acres are developable. On September 28, 2004 the Planning Commission approved the plat and the Council approved the plat on November 1, 2004. There is a revision that the developer has requested. The reason is there is some area they discovered when going through some ponding calculations and storm water design that there is additional acreage for developable land along the southern side ofhwy 50 and west of Denmark Avenue. The developer proposes to include lot 7 on block 2 at 1.19 acres. The revised preliminary plat also has a reduction of outlot A which is the ponding area going from 21.48 acres to 20.85 acres. They also have a final plat. There has been some movement and changes in lines. A number of lots changed and shifted. Staff did not see any problems with this. Parks and Recreation Director Distad requested a 10-ft. wide bituminous trail rather than an 8 ft. trail along hwy 50. There will also be a north- south trail. Staff does need a landscape plan showing the extra lot and see where they will locate their four amenity sites. The City Planner is required to approve the landscape plan before any permits are issued. This will be a contingency in the recommended approval of the revised preliminary plat and the final plat. The Planning Commission will be looking at the site plan for each lot to review parking space needs, handicap parking, landscaping, grading, site amenities, signage plans, etc. They will also need to satisfy any engineering requirements and any Park and Rec Commission comments. Mr. Dick Allendorf, 14831 Energy Way, Apple Valley, is the Project Manager and Leasing Manager. The land owners are Bob and Stan Knutson. If this is approved and the Council approved the plat on July 5, 2005 they intend to mobilize to the site the second week in July and start construction the week of July 18, 2005. They have one tenant who wants to put their building up yet this year and possibly another one. He stated it has been a pleasure to work with City Planner Smick and the rest of staff. They articulate the Commission's vision for Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2005 Page 4 this area very well. City Planner Smick has worked with them to make sure they keep that vision in mind as they move forward. . Mr. Bob Weigert, Paramount Engineering, talked about drainage. The Vermillion River is a state designated trout stream which drove much of their storm sewer and drainage design. They have designed a water quality pond to help treat storm water runoff before it discharges from the site. Criteria from the state requires them to do certain things to protect the Vermillion River. It is important temperature be controlled for the river. The criteria from the state is that 1 inch of rainfall over the site does not leave the site. It is treated and infiltrates into the ground. Along hwy 50 they have a swale that runs west to east. The swale will be excavated and the best sand will be placed in that swale and in the infiltration basin. It will have topsoil installed and plantings. The fourth component to the drainage system is the buildings will have an underground infiltration system which is a perforated pipe installed in the ground so the roof water is discharged into that pipe system and infiltrated into the ground. Staff noted the DNR has stated this is well beyond what they were expecting. Mr. Nathaniel Shea, Architect, talked about the theme of the project. The project's significant design consideration became the way Spruce Street and the town square has been aligned. They have done a lot of historical study. They have designed a pedestrian friendly streetscape. The store fronts have a strong, open presence. They have used a lot of stone and stucco and canopies. There are two amenity areas in the fIrst phase. The corner elements will be plazas and they are considering the long center street element which is 11 ft wide as another element. They will be working with the arts group to put in art features in this center area. The last amenity is in the outlot area where they would have a larger big box user to put in a trellis for a lunch area. The buildings are actually one story with a fake upper floor front. . Mr. Dick Allendorf stated they agree with the contingencies and would like approval to recommend to the Council the revised preliminary plat and final plat. Commissioner Barker stated staff did a good job working with the developer and was looking forward to the project. Commissioner Larson was glad everything worked out with the DNR and the trout stream and was excited to get the project started. Chair Rotty stated he was excited and impressed. He appreciated them bringing a quality development here. The community envisions a very high quality commercial development, one that will be very user friendly to the residents and visitors. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to send a favorable recommendation to the Council for the revised preliminary plat and final plat for Vermillion River Crossings including the three contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . . . . Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2005 Page 5 5. Adjourn MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~7 , L?/:? ," ~ ~ /1/?~ ynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved Jf!.4 jZz 2aJ5 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting July 12, 2005 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Larson Members Absent: Johnson, Richter Also Present: Lee Smick, City Planner; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director 2. Approval of Minutes a) June 14, 2005 MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the June 14, 2005 minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) June 28, 2005 MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to approve the June 28, 2005 minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Executive Estates Preliminary and Final Plat Applicant: Colin Garvey Executive Estates is surrounded by TH3 on the west, 225th Street is on the south side, TH50 is on the north. This area is just south ofthe Farmington Business Park. Mr. Garvey is proposing 99 single family lots on 47.8 acres. This area was approved for annexation on September 7, 2004 and the municipal board approved it on November lO, 2004. The MUSA committee agreed to grant MUSA to this site on August 16, 2004 contingent on it being annexed. The comp plan and zoning was approved by the Council on May 16, 2005. The comp plan is low density residential and the zoning is R-l which requires 10,000 sq. ft. lots for size or larger with 75 ft. lot frontages. All ofthe lots do meet that requirement. The gross density is 2.07 units per acre. The developer has two access points on 225th Street. The City is requiring the developer to pave 225th Street from TH3 all the way to the second entrance and not request it go to the end. Staff has had communications from Castle Rock asking that Mr. Garvey pave all the way to the end. The City will not require that. The City wants Mr. Garvey to talk with Castle Rock Township before he meets with the Council for the final plat to make sure everyone is in agreement. There is also a transportation route that goes to the north to connect with the Tollefson development. There is also an east-west connection. A wetland TEP panel was convened on Thursday. The agencies viewed the site as there was some construction activity within the wetland on the Farmington Business Park. Engineering will be reviewing the wetland for mitigation. Mr. Garvey needs to apply for a W ACA permit. The approval of the plat will be contingent on a favorable recommendation from the TEP panel. The Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 2 . Engineering division has reviewed the preliminary and final plat and has recommended approval of the plat contingent on engineering requirements. Mr. Garvey is requesting preliminary and final plat approval to the Planning Commission, however City Engineer Mann and the City Attorney has directed staffthat the preliminary plat will go to Council on July 18, 2005, however, the final plat will not. It is not ready for approval by Engineering. . Parks and Recreation Director Distad spoke about the trail and sidewalk plan as well as the park dedication. It is still yet to be resolved whether the City takes cash in lieu or outlots part of the development for a potential land swap in the future depending on the status of the golf course and whether or not that comes into the City. That is a recommendation made by the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Commission has also identified a trail and sidewalk plan they would like to see implemented in this development. Staff presented the trail and sidewalk plan recommended by the Commission and the developer's plan. The Park and Rec Commission has identified a trail along 225th Street, a connection from the cul-de-sacs down to the trail on 225th Street, a trail connection north on the entryway into the development that would continue across the major east-west road into the future Tollefson development. They also recommended a trail going north and south in the middle ofthe development and then looping around on the north side and back to the trails that are planned to come out ofthe business park as well as trails planned around the regional storm pond along with connecting to a trail proposed in the Tollefson development. Another trail recommended is a trail around the wetland area with a boardwalk through the north end of the wetland. The Park and Rec Commission is also recommending that a sidewalk be constructed on the south side and the west side ofthe major east-west street and tying into the Tollefson development. The Commission recommended the area to the east be outlotted with the idea that if the golf course does come into the City for development that this land could be swapped out for land in the golf course to enlarge the park in the golf course. . The developer's proposed trail and sidewalk plan shows quite a bit more sidewalks within the development. There is a sidewalk coming out of the Tollefson development and then travels on the south side partially through the east-west street and then cross over to the north side. The developer is also proposing a sidewalk in the cul-de-sac, which we normally do not do. A sidewalk is also proposed on the north-south street that wraps around the development up to the north end of the development. The developer has shown a trail along 225th Street on the north side which matches what the Park and Rec Commission is recommending along with two connections out of the cul-de-sac. The developer is also showing a small trail connection on the north central part of the development that will connect with other trails coming out of other developments. The developer's proposed plan is more heavily on the sidewalk side than the trail side when compared with the Park and Rec Commission. The developer proposes the outlotted area would be platted with lots. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 3 . The action requested is to recommend approval ofthe Executive Estates preliminary and final plat and forward the recommendation to the Council contingent on the following: - The satisfaction of any engineering requirements including the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities. - The satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Commission comments. - A favorable recommendation by the TEP panel. Chair Rotty clarified the TEP panel has met but they have not made a recommendation yet. City Planner Smick replied they have discussed onsite what needs to be done and feel good about what needs to be approved for the W ACA permit. Mr. Garvey needs to submit the wetland permit. . Chair Rotty asked for Mr. Garvey's comments on the trail plans. Mr. Garvey stated he would like to have the outlotted area platted with lots. It is a burden on the project to outlot the area and this has been going on for almost a year. They would have done the development different by putting the park to the north and then they would not have had to put in the berm that separates the residential from the commercial. These are smaller lots. It is hard to change now. He would prefer to have that area platted with the project. As far as the trails, he prefers the sidewalks. The trail they are proposing comes out to a business park on a dead end street. There is a lot of truck traffic there. He does not believe in putting people on a dead end street with no sidewalks in the business park. Chair Rotty asked for his rationale for sidewalks versus trails. Mr. Garvey stated he has all the same as the Park and Rec except for one trail. Chair Rotty stated you would go with the Park and Rec recommendation other than not around the wetlands. Mr. Garvey replied correct. He has no problem with any of the other trails except for the one that dumps out onto a dead end street. Chair Rotty repeated the only difference you would have from the Park and Rec Commission's plan is not along the wetlands. Mr. Garvey replied correct. Commissioner Larson stated the Park and Rec Commission is suggesting trails along some ofthe streets and you are suggesting sidewalks. Mr. Garvey stated a trail or sidewalk is the same. Chair Rotty repeated again the only difference you would have is the one along the wetland. Mr. Garvey replied correct. He will work with engineering to resolve the other requirements. . Commissioner Larson stated he is more in favor of the cash in lieu instead of outlotting the cul-de-sac for a park. His reason is they have been looking for larger lots and here we have them. He justifies it because the same developer has a purchase agreement on the golf course next door to develop. Whether that will develop or not has been the question. He feels it will develop in Farmington mainly because the school owns the property across the street. Ifthe school did not own that property, it might be another story. It is obvious once a school goes in there, if not before, the golf course will develop. He felt it would be better to take the cash in lieu and develop a bigger and better park in the golf course and Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 4 . give residents larger lots like they have been asking for. He did not have a problem with the plat. The issue with the road going into the Tollefson development has been solved. He assumed the developer agrees with paving the road to TH3. As far as the trails, he did not think the trail and boardwalk were necessary around the outlot. Commission Barker did not have a problem with the plat. He was comfortable with leaving the lots around the cul-de-sac as they have been looking for larger lots. We will have to look forward to seeing a park in the golf course. Regarding the trails, he agreed with the recommendation of the Park and Rec Commission except for the trail around the wetland. He agreed it did not make sense to put people into the business park with high traffic. . Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated he came up with another option for the trail plan. The developer has not seen this, and invited the developer to the Park and Rec Commission meeting tomorrow night. In this option, he overlayed the Tollefson development to show how the trails could connect between the two developments. There is still the sidewalk on the south side going east and west except for a portion where they bring the trail north so it would be more on the outside of the development and bring it up into the Tollefson development so it is not cutting through the middle of lots. On the east-west connection between the two developments he showed a trail going along the north side that would connect with the trail by the wetland. Whether the trail loops or it is a trail along the south side that connects through, you have the east-west trail that takes people through the development especially if there will be a park to the east. He took out a trail in the northern part of the development and took it straight south. There is also a trail that ties in with the Tollefson development and they are in favor of that. The trail along the west side ofthe business park will be going in to provide a connection. Eventually the trail would go around the regional storm pond so there is a larger loop around the pond. The Park and Rec Commission felt strongly about having trails along natural areas. Even if we had a portion of the trail along the wetland it would be beneficial to provide great scenery. There is a trail going to the north off of 22Sth and stopping and intersecting with the east-west trail. If the developer will come to the Park and Rec Commission meeting tomorrow night they can discuss the trail around the wetland. . Chair Rotty stated he liked the plat and appreciated the developer working with staff and the adjacent developer to get the access road. This will benefit the flow of traffic and will increase the number oflots. Initially he supported keeping the outlot area for the park. However, he would go along with the majority of the Commission in not platting the park. We have an opportunity to create a fairly large park. Park and Rec can use the money to develop the larger park in the golf course. As far as the trails, he would agree with the other Commissioners but he would like the developer to meet with the Park and Rec Commission. He liked the path going through the development that could tie in with the property to the east when it develops. He asked ifthe trails could be deferred. City Planner Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 5 . Smick stated she would like to provide comments to the Council on July IS, 2005 with the preliminary plat with a finalized design on parks and trails. One contingency is satisfaction of the Park and Rec Commission's comments. Chair Rotty stated he would support recommending sending preliminary and final plat to the Council. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson for a favorable recommendation with the three contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Farmington Industrial Park 3rd Addition Applicant: Patrick Regan . 1. Preliminary and Final Plat Airlake Development has submitted a preliminary and final plat that will create three new industrial lots and two commercial outlots within the industrial park 3rd addition. CSAH 31 is on the west side, CSAH 50 is on the south side, and the proposed alignment of20Sth Street is to the north. The MW Johnson building is not part of the plat. Outlots A and B are the two commercial lots. There is a lot at 2.15 acres located south of the 20Sth Street alignment and another 18.01 acre lot proposed for the R&L Carrier site and an existing building, Duo Plastics, however it will be platted into a 9.72 acre site for Marschall Bus Lines. As far as existing roadways adjacent to the plat, 20Sth Street is to the north, CSAH 31 to the west, and CSAH 50 to the south. The developer is proposing a right-in, right-out north of the MW Johnson building and going east. On the east side ofthe commercial area will be a north-south road that will connect to the 20Sth Street alignment. There is an opening along 20Sth Street for one ofthe lots and another access for R&L Carriers. 210th Street is on the east side of the existing PIC property and there is an access for R&L and there will be a private road to Marschall Bus Lines. There is an existing driveway east of Marschall Bus Lines. CSAH 31 will have right-in, right-out and the full intersection will be at CSAH 31 and 20Sth Street. Park and Rec is requiring a trail along the east side of CSAH 31 that will go up to 20Sth Street. The developer will also be required to do cash in lieu. Engineering has reviewed the storm water and ponding facilities and sewer and water locations. There are some issues to be worked out. City Engineer Mann and the City Attorney have advised staffthe plat will go to the Council on July IS, 2005, however the final plat will not because some ofthe easements might not be large enough in certain areas. The developer will be meeting with staff tomorrow. . 2. Amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan from Industrial to Commercial for property generally located at the northeast intersection of CSAH 31 and CSAH 50 and northeast of Duo Plastics Applicant: John Devney and Airlake Development, Inc. Regarding the commercial lots, CSAH 31 is to the west, CSAH 50 to the south, the 20Sth Street alignment is to the north. Staff is asking the Commission to Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 6 . approve the comp plan amendment to match the rezone and go from industrial to commercial. 3. Conditional Use Permit - Allowing a bus garage in the IP zone Applicant: Marschall Bus Lines The bus and truck terminal uses have been approved as conditional uses in the IP zoning district. Marschall Bus Lines is proposing to go into the Duo Plastics building. The building will remain the same. The west building will be 38,000 sq. ft. and the east building will be 40,000 sq. ft. The company is moving from Chippendale Avenue to the industrial park. All the buildings meet the setbacks of the IP zoning district. The only outside addition will be a fuel island. Staffhas required screening around it. There will be additional parking lots and landscaping. They are proposing removing the existing pond and moving it north. . 4. Conditional Use PermitlVariance Request - Allowing a truck terminal in the IP zone and a variance to the 65% lot coverage requirement in the IP zoning district. Applicant: R&L Carriers Duo Plastics is to the south, PIC is to the east, and 20Sth Street is to the north. There will be two accesses, one from 21 Oth Street. The area will be fenced and there will be a gate house. There will be 159 bays. They do meet the minimum lot size. There are 34 employee parking spaces with separate truck parking. The gas line easement runs across the southerly portion ofthe lot. The developer is proposing every 90 ft. along the top a 24 inch and a 16 inch pipeline. They will have 6x6 gravel cut outs to maintain the pipeline. Truck parking is on top of the easement. There is also a water line encroaching into the easement and truck circulation on top of the easement. Staff is asking the developer to provide an encroachment agreement with Northern Natural Gas to make certain the activities are approved by them. This is a contingency ofthe plat. There is a large amount oflandscaping along 208th Street. There are also two storm water ponds that will be platted into easements. Engineering will be discussing the ponds with the developer. There is also a fuel pump station. Staffwill ensure the materials of the buildings meet the requirements of the industrial park. The building is 990 ft. in length and 100 ft. in width. As far as the variance, the design standards require not to exceed 65% lot coverage. They are proposing a 69.7% lot coverage, so they are requesting a 4.7% variance to the lot coverage. The need for the storm water facilities by the City and the truck circulation throughout the operation will require they have to expand to the limits. They have kept this to the minimum. They have not created any adverse affects. Staff is recommending approval of the vanance. . Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 7 . Actions requested are: 1. Recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat and forward recommendations to the Council contingent upon the following: - Northern Natural Gas approves an encroachment agreement to allow the developer access into the gas line easement for paving, parking of trucks, and the encroachment of a water line into the easement. - Satisfaction of any engineering requirements including the construction plans for grading, storm water and utilities. - Satisfaction of any Park and Recreation Commission requirements concerning fees and trails. 2. Recommend approval of the comp plan amendment for the John Devney property and the Airlake Development, Inc. property from industrial to commercial and forward the recommendation to the Council. 3. Approve a conditional use permit for the Marschall Lines Bus terminal within the IP zoning district. 4. Approve a conditional use permit for the R&L Carriers truck terminal within the IP zoning district. . 5. Approve a 4.7% variance to the maximum lot coverage of65% within the IP zoning district. Mr. Shawn Regan, thanked staff for their efforts. They are dealing with a user that is bringing a lot of jobs and a nice facility. Their goal is to get to the July IS, 2005 Council Meeting with the final plat. He thanked the Commission for their consideration. Chair Rotty stated the Commission will do what they can to accommodate the development, but they are limited. Part of what needs to be done in preparation of the Council meeting is also contingent upon some of the developer's experts to help facilitate some of these situations so staffwill be comfortable taking it to the Council. Chair Rotty asked about the flow of traffic in and out for the buses and the trucks for R&L. He expected there would be a consistent flow. . A representative of Appro Development stated as far as Marschall Lines, eastbound traffic will be directed north and will continue on 20Sth Street. He showed on a map how westbound/northbound traffic to Pilot Knob would flow. They will try to avoid turning east onto CR50 as much as possible. The buses going into the southern part ofthe City will go east on CR50. The trucks from R&L will primarily go to 20Sth Street and then to CR50. Some will go east to hwy 52, but that will be minor. Chair Rotty asked what the traffic counts will be for trucks and buses coming out of20Sth Street onto Pilot Knob. Mr. Bruce Rydeen replied in the morning there would be 40 trucks leaving and they come back in the evening. At night there is 10 leaving and they come back early Planning Commission Minutes July 12,2005 Page 8 . morning. They will be using 20Sth Street. Chair Rotty stated in the future we may have to look at that intersection. Mr. Rydeen stated as far as buses there are typically 50 morning and afternoon routes. Chair Rotty asked which way the doors and loading docks will face. Staff replied they will be on both sides. There will be a gate to the entrance of R&L Carriers. As far as building materials, they will comply with the local requirements. Chair Rotty asked if an encroachment agreement had been reached. Mr. Rich Hocking, attorney for Airlake, replied the status with Northern Natural Gas is that the easement is a blanket easement. They have agreed on a modification and an amendment to the easement grant which will provide a 135 ft. corridor that the easement will be confined to. That is wider than what exists to the northeast and the southwest because they have become more conservative about the widths of their easements and safety purposes. The next step was to discuss with them the encroachment agreement. It is this agreement that will allow the parking and the movement of the trucks across the easement. All of the calculations have been done for the weight components. They have an encroachment agreement that the gas company drafted and Mr. Hocking modified and it has been submitted to R&L for review. . Commissioner Larson asked about a phasing plan as far as development of the property or will everything be graded and developed at once. Mr. Regan replied it is obvious R&L is the primary driver. The ponding will be constructed simultaneously along with the excavating. As far as location of trails, etc. they will defer the specific location until they have a plan to present for those areas. They do not have a specific timeline. Commissioner Larson stated with the proposed development and redevelopment he needed to know the timeline of the extension of20Sth Street to the west to Pilot Knob. He wanted to make sure that is part of this project so the traffic flows will work. Mr. Regan expected that to happen yet this fall. There have been discussions with City Engineer Mann relative to their engineer doing the design work for the 20Sth Street extension, but it will be a City public improvement project. Hopefully it will be done this fall. If that does not happen they have discussed a temporary drive. Commissioner Larson asked what type of materials will be hauled by R&L Carriers. Will there be any hazardous materials? They will comply with the DOT as far as materials. . Commissioner Barker did not have any concerns. Commissioner Larson stated the only issue he had is the traffic flow and the limited options until 20Sth is developed to the west, but felt it would be solved by the City. Chair Rotty agreed that it would be addressed by staff. He did not have any concerns with the other items. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson for a favorable recommendation with the contingencies on the preliminary and final plat, the comp plan amendment, and approval for the conditional use permit for Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 9 . Marschall Bus and the conditional use permit for R&L trucking and the variance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan from Un designated to Low and Medium Density as well as Rezone Property from A-I to R-l and R-3- Winkler Property - Winkler Concept Plan Applicant: Bart Winkler MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to continue to the next meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Text Amendment to Section 10-2-1 Defining LED Message Signs and Sections 10-6-3(B)(1) and 10-6-3(C)(I) ofthe City Code to Allow LED Message Signs . Staff has received some sign permit applications with an LED element included. The applications are from Christian Life Church and Kwik Trip. The sign for Kwik Trip includes LED for the gas numbers and the message center. Currently the code does not address LED signs. Staff requested the Commission determine if we want to allow LED signs and the requirements. There are three issues to be discussed. The first is who should be allowed to install the signs such as civic, educational, non-profit, charitable, religious, non-commercial, commercial, etc. Or should we allow everyone. The second issue is size limitations for the sign and for the letters in the sign. Do we stay with the existing code provision for the sign size based on speed limit? The third issue is the design features such as allowing all colors, or red coloring, limits on vertical or horizontal scrolling, flashing, rotating, or other types of potentially distracting messages. Do we place regulations on timing of messages? Staffhas not prepared a draft ordinance as these issues need to be resolved. Staff is requesting this public hearing be continued to the next meeting as well as discuss these issues. A representative of Christian Life Church stated they requested a permit to replace the current sign. They applied at the end of April. They are requesting a monochrome red color. The sign size will be within the zoning code. As far as lettering size, they will stay within the size on the permit. Commissioner Larson wondered ifthey should limit how small the lettering is. The church replied the issue is to pursue an LED sign. The company has the engineering based on speed limits. Commissioner Larson was concerned with someone cramming too much into a small area. The church noted that would have to be appropriate messaging for what you are trying to communicate. CR50 has a lot of clearance. The company would like 600-700 ft clearance so the church does not have that problem. As far as scrolling, etc. the technology gives options for these items. Commissioner Larson asked ifthe colors are also built in. The church replied you can either buy red, or they have 256 shades of red, or you can have a multi- colored sign. The church will be using the red monochrome. . . . . Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 10 Chair Rotty stated as far as who should be allowed to install it, he is in the middle. He would like to offer it to civic, educational and commercial. Commissioners Barker and Larson agreed. Regarding size limitations, Chair Rotty suggested using the existing code provisions based on speed limits. Staffhas tried to research other communities and this is new territory. The Commission agreed. Chair Rotty stated the harder one is the display features. It would not bother him seeing other colors. City Planner Smick stated she could see a sign have each letter a different color. She liked the monochrome idea better. It is more uniform. Each sign does not have to be red, but if you have a sign make the lettering one color. Chair Rotty asked if on the Kwik Trip sign, if the gas numbers would be the same color as the message board. Staff replied yes, they are red. The church suggested there are a handful of strong companies that produce LED technology and they have done all the research on highway, street and parking usage. He suggested contacting those companies. Chair Rotty stated as far as scrolling, it has not bothered him. Staff has seen a sign with a flag that jumps around to various spots on the sign and that was very distracting. She suggested limiting that by the timing. Staffwill contact the sign companies. Chair Rotty stated he sees these LED signs as the signs of the future and they will not go away. Commissioner Barker was open to the different aspects and trusted the businesses to make wise decisions. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to continue the public hearing to August 9,2005. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Christian Life Church Sketch Plan The church has submitted a sketch plan showing the existing building along CSAH 50. The proposed new building is located to the northwest with a possible expansion. This is in order to facilitate a sanctuary and family ministry center on the site. The property is currently zoned agriculture on which a church is a conditional use. They will have to come in for a conditional use permit as well as a site plan. They are showing 210 parking stalls including 9 handicapped stalls. The code requires one parking space per four seats in the principal assembly room. This will have to be reviewed when the site plan is brought in. They will continue to use the access off of CSAH 50. The parking lot will be expanded further to the west and south. There are three storm ponds. There is some concern with the storm water as the property is within the special waters district so further review by the engineers will be needed for the ponding. The church stated if the current location ofthe sign will become a ponding area, they will need to relocate their sign. He asked for suggestions if they could put it closer to the entrance. Commissioner Larson felt closer to the driveway would be fine as long as it meets the setback and height requirements. Commissioner Larson was concerned with the setbacks on the west property line and making sure they are met and make sure there are no utility easements in the . . . , Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 2005 Page 11 area. City Planner Smick stated we might want to rezone the property for possibly business or residential that is closer to what will happen out there someday, which will probably be a business corridor. If it was a B-1 the setbacks could be closer. Staff could review this. The sign requirements would not change. Chair Rotty felt it was a nice addition to the church and asked ifthey had a timeline. The church stated they would like to work on the roads and ponding before frost. Staff stated the church can request a CUP for just grading ifthey want to get started. The engineers would have to calculate the ponds. b) Findings of Fact - Variance Request to Sign Height - Tom Wartman Staff asked for approval of the findings of fact denying the 19 ft 6 inch tall sign and going back to the IS ft sign. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to approve the findings of fact. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~. Jr?~ CO/Cf /05 I I Approved ynthia Muller Executive Assistant . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting August 9, 2005 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: LeeSmick, City Planner; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) July 12, 2005 MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to approve the July 12, 2005 minutes. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Larson. Abstain: Johnson, Richter. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Variance to the Fence Height in the R-l Zone to Allow an 8-foot Tall Fence on the Property Addressed as 18061 Pilot Knob Road Applicant: Mardell Hallstead Due to a notification issue, staff requested this public hearing be continued to the September 13, 2005 meeting. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to continue the public hearing to September 13,2005. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan from Undesignated to Low and Medium Density as well as Rezone Property from A-I to R-l and R-3- Winkler Property - Winkler Concept Plan Amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan from Undesignated to Low Medium and Medium Density as well as Rezone Property from A-I to R-2 and R-3- Devney/Manley Property - Manley Concept Plan Applicant: Michael and Eileen Devney Staff requested these items be continued to the September 13,2005 meeting, however staff presented the concept plans to obtain comments from the Commission. There were three outstanding issues that need to be addressed. The first issue is the City's system plan needs to be updated. When it was originally done, staff did not incorporate the eastern portion of the City containing the Devney and Winkler properties. At that time these plans were not in the City. Comp Plan amendments and MUSA amendments need to be sent to the Met Council and without the updates, they will not be approved. In addition, there is a FEMA floodplain that affects the eastern portion ofthe properties. Until that line can be determined, the concept plans could change. c) The first concept plan is the Manley concept plan. There will be 104 row units, 184 back -to-back units and 48 single-family lots with a minimum lot size of 6,000 sq. ft. Most of the single-family lots are on the eastern portion of the property. Planning Commission Minutes August 9,2005 Page 2 . The Winkler concept plan contains a majority of single-family lots. The townhome area is in the southeast portion ofthe property. Most of the area appears to be within the FEMA floodplain and the exact location of the line will need to be determined. The minimum lot size will be 10,000 sq. ft. Mr. Frank Blundetto, Manley Development, stated they understand the issues for the continuance and the concept plans will probably change. There are issues with the Prairie Waterway to the west and the FEMA floodplain to the east as well as determining what is needed for storm water management. . Commissioner Larson stated he would like to see more R-l and 10,000 sq. ft. lots. Mr. Blundetto asked what his thoughts are on the higher density. He could see a need for a PUD request. Commissioner Larson stated he would like to see it more like the Winkler property, to have more single-family and less higher density. He noted the parks are to the east. If they were to the west, it would buffer part of the wetland to the Prairie Waterway. Mr. Blundetto stated they have some ofthe same issues to the east and the west from an amenity and wetland issue. He has met with the Parks Commission. The first question they had was to put the park to the west. Mr. Blundetto preferred to go to the east. The Commission did not have a problem with the park to the east, the question is whether the developer would receive credit for it as a park. Mr. Blundetto felt if they are putting in ball fields and playgrounds he should get credit for a park. If it will be wetlands and reeds, then he understood. Commissioner Larson stated there would be a definite line for wetlands and floodplain. Mr. Blundetto replied not necessarily because in the floodplain they would be allowed to build ballfields, but the question would be whether he would receive the park dedication credit. The Parks Commission has indicated they will work with the developer on this issue. Commissioner Richter stated she agreed with Commissioner Larson. She asked if there was any way to make the access other than using Spruce Street as it goes through the trail area. The trail area would be split in the middle. City Planner Smick noted the Winkler site has Spruce Street on the south. This development deals with 210th Street or CR72. Commissioner Larson asked if 210th Street is the dead end road with the sign stating future street. City Planner Smick replied yes, and they need to look at that and how these people will get to the west. The property to the west is the Perkins property and they have filed an annexation petition. Therefore, 210th Street could go west along the railroad right-of-way to TH3. Commissioner Richter asked if Spruce Street had a future street sign. City Planner Smick replied that was discussed in 2001 when the Devney's came in with a request to rezone and Spruce Street was a transportation avenue the City was looking at, but was unsure ifthere was a sign. . Commissioner Barker asked if CR 72 is gravel. Staff replied on the west side along the Devney parcel is pavement to the corner. He would also like to see more single-family. He liked the layout of the ponds. On the Winkler Concept Plan, regarding 213th Street he asked what classification of road that will be with all the driveway accesses. City Planner Smick stated the Traffic Engineer is reviewing that. If you go to 213th Street on TH3 and go south to Elm Street, there Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2005 Page 3 is not much room in between. A signal may not be allowed at 213th Street because ofthe closeness to Elm Street. There might be a signal at 2l Oth Street. Right now 213th Street is a local collector. If things develop to the east, that will be reviewed. Commissioner Barker would like to see the back of the houses along 213th Street. Chair Rotty agreed with those comments. He noted Biscayne would be to the east and there could be significant growth when the road comes through. . Commissioner Johnson agreed that less is more. He recalled with Parkview Ponds there was an issue with the trails. Mr. Blundetto replied they worked closely with Parks and Rec Director Distad and are doing the same now. Commissioner Johnson agreed with Commissioner Barker on the homes along 213 th Street. . Chair Rotty stated regarding the Devney/Manley concept plan he is not as concerned about single-family, but the density seems a bit high. He liked the mixture oftownhomes and single-family. He liked the layout of the ponds. Transportation will be an issue. Biscayne should provide an access to the south and the north that would help. For now, they will be coming out onto 210th Street and probably using Spruce Street through an existing subdivision. He asked the developer to look at the density. Regarding the Winkler property, the driveways along 213th Street is something that should be adjusted. He liked the mixture of larger lots and townhomes. He understood the park issue. It looks like the Parks Commission is looking to make one bigger park on the east side of the two properties. City Planner Smick stated when going across the Prairie Waterway on 213th Street and also Spruce Street both developers will have to go through the DNR and MPCA. Staff feels they can get approval for 213 th Street, but are not certain about Spruce Street. Staff is interested in seeing Spruce Street because of the amount of development. There could be some opposition from neighbors along Spruce Street. Commissioner Richter wanted to clarify she is not against the roadway coming through the development the issue is more of the road going through the trail area. . Mr. George Betzold, stated they own the property immediately east of the Devney property. His concern is with the Winkler property with all the development. He wanted to remind the Commission that the ditch is a private agricultural ditch if there is any intent of moving water to the east. He felt that could be a problem. He was referring to the ditch which angles across the Winkler property, through his property, through the Brand property, Sayers, etc. That is a private ditch. Chair Rotty stated staff will note that and the engineers can look at the impact on that ditch. Mr. Betzold expressed his concern with taking street and lawn surface runoff and injecting it directly into the groundwater table. This is a terrible mistake to make. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to continue both public hearings to the September 13, 2005 meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2005 Page 4 . . . d) Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Parochial School in the B-2 Zone Applicant: Joseph Heinen Mr. Heinen and ISD 192 are requesting a conditional use permit to operate a school in the former Wide Open Throttle location at 305 Elm Street. Elm Street runs along the south and Third Street along the west side. They are proposing to utilize the building for the New Heights Program, which is a special education program. They will utilize 3500 sq. ft. of the building. Mr. Heinen will be renovating the rest of the building and preparing it for additional retail space. The New Heights Program is similar to ISD 197 behind the library. There will be 15- 20 students enrolled in the program in grades 6-9. There will be two licensed teachers and teaching assistants. There are 3-4 parking spaces required to the north. There will be bus transportation in the morning and afternoon. Staff is recommending a bus loading zone. Commissioner Larson asked about the parking as eventually there will be more retail. City Planner Smick replied in the B-2 zoning district we do not require off- street parking, but we do like to see it. They need to make sure the length of the parking spaces will work and that they are not encroaching into Third Street. Staffwill consider the parking as the building is renovated. MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to approve the conditional use permit. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Text Amendment to Section 10-2-1 Defining LED Message Signs and Sections 10-6-3 (B)(l) and 10-6-3 (C)(1) of the City Code to Allow LED Message Signs Currently LED signs are not addressed in the sign code, therefore it needs to be amended. Staff prepared a draft amendment to allow one LED message sign in the form of a pylon, monument style sign, wall sign to be installed on any property continually utilized for a civic, educational, non-profit, charitable, religious, commercial or industrial use provided that they meet the sign area and height requirements of the underlying zoning districts for each type of sign. The coloring of the LED message sign will be limited to a monochrome red and subject to the state's electrical code. The electric service shall be underground. Staffprepared another amendment to Section lO-6-3 (C)(l) stating any sign that is rotating, moving, animated or flashing is prohibited except as allowed in Section 10-6-3 (B)(l). Commissioner Barker asked why staff chose the monochrome red. Staff sees mostly red, but it is up to the Commission to recommend something different. Commissioner Richter liked the red, otherwise you have too many different colors and it becomes too busy. Chair Rotty stated we have one and possibly two businesses that want to install these. Red may be a safe start. As the need grows, staff can bring the code back to allow multiple colors. We want to keep the safety ofthose driving by in mind. Commissioners discussed allowing only red now and then changing it to allow multi-colors could cause problems in the future. Chair . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 9,2005 Page 5 Rotty asked how signs would be addressed in the future, whether it would come to the Commission. Staff replied ifit meets the code, it would be approved by staff. Commissioner Richter suggested having LED signs come to the Commission for awhile for approval. Chair Rotty saw these as another sign. Where an LED sign would not be appropriate is if it is close to a residential area and at night if the light of the sign would impact the residential division buffering it. He asked for the Commission's comments on the color. Commissioner Barker would like to see any color. Commissioner Johnson stated they could come to the Commission if they wanted to have a multi-colored sign. Staff stated someone could appeal the zoning officer's review to the Commission. Commissioner Johnson was not against using multi-color and would leave it up to staffto determine what is appropriate. City Planner Smick wanted everyone to understand there may be waving flags on LED signs. Commissioner Larson stated if we make it red, are we making an ordinance one-step behind technology. He preferred allowing multi-colored. Chair Rotty stated the majority ofthe Commission supports multi-colored. Staffwill strike the sentence regarding the lighting being red. Commissioner Larson asked ifthere needed to be something regarding the size of the letters. Commissioner Johnson stated you would go by the size of the sign and the owner would want the message to be seen. Commissioner Richter asked if we were allowing pictures or only text. Staff replied we are allowing everything. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson. Voting against: Richter. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council regarding LED message signs with the one modification. Voting for: Rotty, Barker, Johnson, Larson. Voting against: Richter. MOTION CARRIED. 4. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~~d~ ~ynthia Muller Executive Assistant Approved ;5qrf /3, 2005 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting September 13, 2005 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; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director 2. Approval of Minutes a) August 9, 2005 MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to approve the August 9, 2005 Minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings The following public hearings were withdrawn: Variance request to allow proposed garage stall to encroach into front yard setback 10 feet on the property addressed as 19401 Evening Star Way Applicant: Julie Szambelan Amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan from undesignated to low and medium density as well as rezone property from A-I to R-l and R-3 - Winkler property- Winkler concept plan Applicant: Bart Winkler Amend the 2020 Comprehensive Plan from undesignated to low/medium and medium density as well as rezone property from A-I to R-2 and R-3 - Devney/Manley property- Manley concept plan Applicant: Michael and Eileen Devney a) Variance to the fence height in the R-1 zone to allow an 8-foot tall fence on the property addressed as 18061 and 18131 Pilot Knob Road Applicant: MardeU & Marlene Hallstead Mr. Mardell Hallstead lives at 18061 and his mother, Marlene Hallstead lives at 18131 Pilot Knob Road. The applicant is requesting to increase the height of the fence from 6 ft. to 8 ft. on three sides. On the north side there is a wood fence that is 6 ft. tall and then it turns into a chain link fence with slats in it for screening. On the west side, it is all wood and on the south side it is all chain link with slats for screening. After a storm the wood fence is starting to fall down. He would like to replace the westerly side of the fence and make it 8 ft. tall. In 1977 Mardell's father, Mr. Elliott Hallstead requested a CUP and received approval for equipment maintenance and storage use. CUP's run with the property forever. Planning Commission Minutes September 13,2005 Page 2 He is not proposing to change the chain link fence along Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Hallstead will repair the westerly side of the fence immediately. He will continue to put in a new wood fence along the south and the north within two years. Staff will make sure that Mr. Hallstead finds his property lines. There are six requirements for approval of a variance. Staff is recommending approval because of the CUP approval in 1977. The hardship is that the owner needs to screen the use approved in the CUP. The conditions are unique as this is an R-1 zone and has a CUP for equipment maintenance and storage. Staff feels granting the variance would further assist the screening of the conforming use. The 8- ft fence is the minimum action to eliminate the hardship. . Contingencies include: - Ensuring the new fence is located within Mr. Hallstead's property when each section is constructed and that the material for the replaced fence is wood. - The construction ofthe north and south fence happens within two years ofthe approval date of this variance. Mr. Mike Hartzell, 5545 Lower 182nd Street, stated when they moved into their home in 1999 there was a wood fence similar to the one on the north side of the property, but it was set back from the property line about 3 ft. They replaced it with the chain link fence and they supposedly put that right on the property line. His question was do they plan on removing the chain link fence when they put up the new wood fence. Chair Rotty suspected they would. Mr. Hartzell stated his other concern was the survey. Chair Rotty stated if this is approved the . Commission would require a survey be done to find the property corners. Mr. Brad Kruger, 5575 Lower 182nd Street, stated his problem is with the wooden fence on the south side. He has people come over to visit and they ask ifhe lives next to the trailer park. He has to look at all that in his backyard and feels there should be a higher fence on the south side. He would like it taller than 8 ft. Chair Rotty stated 8 ft. with the variance is the highest it can go. He explained this fence should be more solid so they cannot see through it. Mr. Kruger stated his house sits above the fence. He would like Mr. Hallstead to put in more trees so it hides it more. Mr. Kruger put in 16 cedar trees to try to hide it, but that will not be enough. He has asked Mr. Hallstead to put in more pine trees or other trees. Commissioner Larson asked Mr. Hallstead ifhe had thought about putting up more trees. Mr. Hallstead replied he did as the City requested it 2-3 years ago. He put in four 6-ft. evergreens and 8 pine trees and several other trees. Commissioner Larson asked if there were property pins. Mr. Hallstead replied there are pins and he has a surveyor lined up. The fence will go on the property line or behind it. Other Commissioners had no problems with the request. Chair Rotty stated we are dealing with decisions made by previous Planning Commissions to allow storage and we do not have the ability to change that. We are looking to see if we can improve it with a buffer. It is not often we approve .. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 3 . . . going over 6 ft. for a fence. But in this case, it may be less apparent that there is storage there. Staff noted Mr. Hallstead will also have to apply for a building permit because of it being over 6 ft. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to approve the variance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Text Amendment to Section 11-4-9 of the City Code amending the Park and Trail Dedication Requirements The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the park dedication ordinance and would like to have three text amendments made. The issue with gas pipeline easements should be addressed as gas pipeline easements would not get credit for park dedication. The second is the way net developable acreage is determined. The current ordinance provides for net developable acreage where you subtract flood plain, wetland, storm ponds and right-of-ways. The Park and Rec Commission recommended the ordinance be revised to allow only wetland and flood plain be deducted first. The third amendment is amending the way park dedication is determined for commercial and industrial development and bring it in line with the way residential park dedication is determined where only wetland and flood plain would be deducted. Park and Recreation Director Distad prepared a table showing how park dedication works with the current ordinance and the new ordinance for certain developments. Commissioner Johnson noted they took the storm water ponds out from the net developable acres and he asked what stipulates a storm water pond. Staff replied a storm water pond is manmade and is made to handle storm water runoff created by the development. A wetland is designated as a wetland. Commissioner Larson asked if it will affect developers with plans at the City right now. City Planner Smick replied no. The ordinance will be effective when it is published. She will talk with the City Attorney as far as concept plans, but only new plats coming in after it is effective will be affected. Parks and Recreation Director Distad noted the ordinance states it is effective with the final plat. Council can determine a specific effective date. Chair Rotty asked if this was consistent with surrounding cities. Parks and Recreation Director Distad replied it is consistent with what the City does as far as determining engineering fees. This is also exactly what other cities are doing. Commissioner Johnson noted in previous developments Park and Rec has required trails around storm water ponds but yet we are not giving them credit for the pond acreage. Park and Rec Director Distad stated under the current ordinance it does not give credit for ponding. The problem is if you give them credit for park dedication and storm water ponding they are getting double credit. Right now, the developer does not get credit for the storm water pond itself, but it Planning Commission Minutes September 13,2005 Page 4 is subtracted to determine the net developable acreage. Commissioner Johnson . was more concerned with putting trails around ponds than park dedication. Staff stated the City could require a trail corridor where they would give credit to the developer for a 12-ft. wide corridor where the trail would be constructed. This would be between the pond and the residential lot. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. f) Text Amendment to Title 11 Chapter 6 for the Screening of Roof Mounted Equipment in the R, B, and I Zoning Districts Just prior to the meeting, staff received changes to the amendment from the City Attorney so this item will be continued to the next meeting. Currently the City requires screening of roof mounted equipment and it should be centrally located. The school district pointed out it could be difficult to centrally locate equipment on large buildings. Screening shall consist of a parapet wall along the roof edge or an opaque screen constructed of the same material as the buildings primary vertical exposed finish. The Commission agreed this should be required of the developers. MOTION by Larson, second by Johnson to continue this public hearing until October 11, 2005. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Hometown Final Plat Applicant: Kim Friedrich At the May 10, 2005 meeting the Commission approved two cul-de-sacs in this development. At the June 6, 2005 Council Meeting, Council requested a loop street be shown connecting the two cul-de-sacs. This change has been made on the final plat. The storm water will run to the Prairie Waterway on the east side. An easement needs to be obtained on the Corinthian Lodge Cemetery property to run a pipe to the Prairie Waterway. She is currently working on this and this will be a contingency to the final plat. There will be no park in this area as Tamarack Park is to the north. MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council with contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Site Plan - Farmington Mini-Storage Applicant: John Tonsager Mr. Tonsager is proposing to construct three storage buildings each consisting of 8,000 sq. ft. ill addition, there will be a 900 sq. ft. office building. This is located off of Canton Court in the Farmington Business Park. The property was to be annexed in 2003 as part of the orderly annexation agreement. Due to a legal description error this property as well as the adjoining property were excluded. Council has approved ajoint resolution annexing both of these properties. Mr. Tonsager is proposing seven off-street parking spaces with an additional 15 . . Planning Commission Minutes September 13,2005 Page 5 . spaces provided at complete build-out. A Conditional Use Permit is required. Engineering has submitted their comments. Mr. Tonsager stated they currently allow for seven spaces. The entire area is paved between buildings. There will be a maximum of2-3 cars on the facility at a time. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was supposed to be a trail coming from the south ofthe property. Staffreplied no, because of the berm a trail would not fit. Chair Rotty asked about screening. Staff noted there would be no screening around the property. Mr. Tonsager stated there will be a chain link fence with a secured entrance. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to approve the site plan. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Concept Plan - Sunrise Ponds - Perkins Property Applicant: Neal Krzyzaniak, Bridgeland Development . This is located north of Bristol Square and west of Cambodia Avenue. This consists of 163 multi-family townhome units to be located on 17 acres. This requires a Comp Plan amendment and a rezoning. The request for zoning would be for an R-4 and the Comp Plan amendment would be to allow medium density on this property. The buildings are set back 10ft which meets the minimum setback requirements, however the patios are located within the easement area that would have to be dedicated with the plat. Patios or decks are not allowed in easements. The plan will have to be modified to allow the patios. Staff would like to see as many trees in the area as possible. There has been some discussion as to whether 21 oth Street needs to be extended to hwy 3 in order for this development to happen. The Traffic Engineer has stated both 21 Oth Street and Cambodia Avenue need to be constructed to a collector street standard. This would require a 70 ft. right-of-way. If the development is built without 210th Street, all of the traffic would come out on 21 Oth Street to Cambodia, go south and then to 213th Street to hwy 3. Sanitary sewer and water service will have to be coordinated with adjacent properties. The concept plan does not show any onsite ponding for storm water management. Engineering has indicated no onsite ponding is required, however there is an existing swale or pond located to the south. This will have to be expanded to the north to meet the requirements for ponding. There is some concern with the expansion that some of the units as well as Street C will have to be moved to the north. The concept plan will be going to the Park and Rec Commission for review. Parks and Recreation Director Distad is proposing trails and sidewalks in certain locations. He will recommend the City take cash in lieu of park property based on the size of the property. . The Development Committee had a number of suggestions pertaining to the amount of guest parking and felt more was needed. There were concerns with the Planning Commission Minutes September 13,2005 Page 6 rear building elevations and that there was nothing to break up the expanses of the units. . Staff received a new concept plan showing a through street where there used to be a cul-de-sac. The new plan is 174 units versus 163 units. Cambodia Avenue is still extended to the north and 21 oth Street is extended to the west. Mr. Peter Knaeble, representing the developer, stated the updated concept plan has the same street and transportation plan. They changed the cul-de-sac to extend the street to Cambodia Avenue, added the hammerheads, and did a different product mix. The new plan shows 174 units. The area is 17.1 acres with 10.2 units per acre. They are requesting R-4 zoning which allows up to 12 units per acre. The parking requirements require two parking spaces per unit plus the .25 spaces per unit which is four units for one common space. Their site plan does meet this requirement. They have all double garages. There are three different unit types with three different front elevations for each unit. Two of the unit types will be two-bedroom units and the third type will be a three-bedroom unit. The R-4 zoning shows a maximum structure density of 30%, their plan shows 23.5%. They can make the modification for the 70-ft. wide collector road. They have reviewed the trail connections and will discuss this with the Park and Rec Commission. He stated it was unclear as to the exact placement of the trails and which were trails and which were sidewalks. If trails will be required on the perimeter of the site, they would like the option of building the trails within the . park property as opposed to the backyards of the units. There are a number of existing pine trees and they plan to do a tree survey. They will propose to transplant the trees they can and replace the trees one-to-one that they remove as part of the development. They have been working with staff on the location of the future powerlines along 21 Oth Street. The powerline would run along the north side of210th Street and the poles are shown on their plan. The storm water will be discharged to the pond located on the southwest portion ofthe property. Regarding the proposed rear drainage and utility easements and the patios, the buildings are at the lOft. rear setback which is the minimum requirement. Because they have a unique site that backs up to public property where the ponds are, they would look at the potential for not platting the lOft. drainage and utility strip around the outside perimeter because ofthe public property around the outside. This would allow them to provide the patios within that lOft. area. Assistant City Planner Wippler stated the property currently is not in the City. The petition has been received from Mr. & Mrs. Perkins for annexation. At this point it is just a concept. The preliminary plat will not be accepted until the property is in the City. Commissioner Larson asked if the storm water being directed to the existing ponds is off their property. Staff replied the developer needs to talk with Mr. Eric Peters, the Engineer, because the engineer said the southerly ditch will have to be . enlarged and encroach into the Perkins property. A lot of it will drain into the Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2005 Page 7 . westerly pond. Commissioner Larson did not like the density. He would like to see an R-l or a mixed. He was not interested in this many units at all. Commissioner Richter stated she would also like to see something more mixed and felt it was too many units in that area. Commissioner Johnson agreed the density was too high. The trails and patio issues do not set well with him. A mixed-use would be more acceptable. That is a lot oftownhomes with Bristol Square just to the south. . Chair Rotty asked where R-4 came from. Staff replied it was proposed by the developer. Chair Rotty agreed with the rest of the commission on the townhomes. He was getting concerned with the eastern side of the community and we keep getting piece-meal parcels annexed into the City with very little thought. He felt we need to take a step back and look at the east side of the community and do some planning. With 160 acres and 120 acres buildable there is one outlot. Until transportation issues are resolved and start planning densities and zoning, by piece-mealing these together we will say we did not do a good job. R-4 is not something this commission supports nor has supported in the past. Chair Rotty asked staff and the Commission and with the support of Council to take a step back and look at the east side of the community and figure out what we are doing and where we are going. Staff replied they have started that. There are system update plans that will be needed for the Winkler/Devney properties and any other proposals for the east side will also need system update plans. Staff is working with the Traffic Engineer on transportation issues and determining how they will get the densities onto hwy 3. Staffwill bring this to the commission at the October 11, 2005 meeting. Chair Rotty felt they need to determine what their vision is for that area. He is very uncomfortable with the development on the east side ofthe community. Commissioner Larson stated when we do take a step back, let's look at properties that are not in the City. There are properties that either the township cannot or are not willing to service. Chair Rotty stated this has not even been reviewed by a MUSA Committee and this is pre-mature. He will not support R-4. . Mr. Richard Hocking, attorney for the developer, asked what the Commission envisions this step back and timing will be. He has four or five developers and all the parcels are on the east side of town and into the township. This is where the growth is proposed. Chair Rotty stated to have an R-4 without MUSA and without a good transportation plan is too rushed. The Commission would consider looking at other plans. City Planner Smick stated staffhas requested to the Council to start determining a schedule for the system update plans. Staff is working with Bonestroo on this. Staff understood they need to look at this area and determine what services are available. The Met Council will not approve anything until the system plans are updated. Planning Commission Minutes September 13,2005 Page 8 5. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . Respectfully submitted, ~'L~}?'?~ thia Muller Executive Assistant Approved . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting October 11, 2005 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; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) September 13, 2005 MOTION by Johnson, second by Richter to approve the September 13, 2005 Minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Variance to Allow the Addition to a Residential Home within the B-2 Zoning District Applicant: David Marsh, 204 1 st Street Mr. David Marsh is seeking a variance to construct an addition to his home at 204 1 st Street. Elm Street is to the south and 1 st Street is to the east. The Comp Plan amendment in 2002 changed from R-2 to B-2 as well as the zoning map. The home is currently 1100 sq. ft. and Mr. Marsh would like to expand the home to 3400 sq. ft. The lot does exist in the flood fringe which is between the 100 year and 500 year flood. If the variance is approved staffwill need to look at the flood plain location on the ground, which means surveyors making points on the ground to make certain where the flood plain is to determine where the expansion could be. There is a flood plain requirement which involves the DNR, 10-day notice of a public hearing, and approval of the building permit by the City Engineer to make certain it is out ofthe flood plain. The fIrst step is for the Planning Commission to approve the expansion. There are six requirements for a variance: 1. Because of the physical surroundings, shape, configuration, topography or other conditions of the parcel, strict adherence to the regulations would cause undue hardship. Staff felt the property has been used for residential purposes since the home was constructed in 1905, the current owner intends to continue residing on the property but wishes to make improvements to meet his family's needs, rezoning this property to commercial has limited the owners ability to expand its residential use. 2. The conditions upon which a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought. This parcel is the largest of all the B-2 Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 Page 2 parcels at 21,600 sq. ft. Its size makes it more suitable for the type of expansion proposed. . 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this title and has not been created by anyone having interest in. the property. It was created by the approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezoning of the property. 4. The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to other properties. 5. The proposed variance will not substantially increase the congestion ofthe public streets or increase the danger of fire, or be detrimental to public welfare. 6. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. The applicant has designed the addition to meet the needs of his family. Staff asked the Planning Commission to review the request and if it satisfies the criteria the public hearing should be continued to the November 8,2005 Planning Commission meeting so staff can get information to the DNR and the City Engineer, Mr. Marsh can have the property surveyed to determine the flood plain lines, and determine how the expansion will sit in conjunction with the flood plain line. Commissioners Richter and Barker were in favor of the variance. Commissioner . Johnson stated with the expansion Mr. Marsh will be within the 100-500 year flood plain. He asked if the City would be culpable because they are allowing the expansion and who is responsible for it if we have a lOO or 500 year flood. City Planner Smick stated once the City Engineer signs off on the permit, the City is no longer liable. The survey is the most important piece. We need to determine exactly where the 100 year and 500 year flood plain is and how the expansion will sit on the property. Ifit goes into the 100 year flood plain, the City Engineer will not sign off on it. Staffwill also check with the City Attorney and the DNR. Mr. David Marsh, stated the current basement is the only underground structure that would remain. Everything else will be a crawl space. He is very aware of what the 100 year flood plain means and the mitigation. He will design what they can to fit what they are allowed to do. Commissioner Larson asked what the floor elevation is above the center line of the street. Mr. Marsh replied 2.5 - 3 ft. above the street. Commissioner Larson was in favor of the variance. Chair Rotty stated when the Comp Plan was amended it was not the intent to disallow current property owners from doing any expansion. He supported the vanance. . Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 Page 3 . City Planner Smick advised Mr. Marsh to have a survey done as soon as possible. There is the possibility he might have to rearrange some of the house. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to continue the public hearing to November 8, 2005. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Time Extension for a Conditional Use Permit at K&K Auto Ranch Applicant: Ivan Janssen, K&K Auto Ranch, 1024 8th Street In April the Commission approved a conditional use permit to allow Mr. Janssen to sell vehicles from the northern portion of his lot. A portion ofthe project was to be incorporated with the Ash Street reconstruction project which included the storm sewer. There was to be one catch basin located on the property. Two were installed to handle the drainage on the western side of the property. Mr. Janssen is requesting the extension because the improvement was just completed last week so he was not able to do the paving and other improvements he was to have done by November 15,2005. Mr. Janssen is requesting a one year extension to the CUP in order to do the bituminous parking. He has done the retaining wall, but still needs to provide steps from the southern portion to the northern portion. Landscaping requirements also need to be fulfilled as well as installation of a fence. . Commissioner Barker asked what he can get done in the next month. Staff stated there is a chance he may be able to get the fence in, and he may be able to do the parking. The request was made three weeks ago, and at that time Mr. Janssen was not sure when the catch basins and the pipe would go in. Commissioner Barker felt one year was a little extreme. He would be more in favor oflate spring. Commissioner Johnson agreed that a year is a little long. He asked if the Ash Street project was the only thing holding up his work. Staff stated that is correct. Commissioner Larson agreed and realized scheduling a small job like this now is impossible. He was willing to give Mr. Janssen more time, but not one year. Commissioner Richter agreed with less than one year. Chair Rotty asked for a recommendation of a date. Commissioner Richter suggested July 1, 2006. The Commission agreed with this recommendation. Commissioner Larson asked if the storm sewer drains were working. Staffwas not certain if they have been tested. Commissioner Larson wanted to see these storm drains working before the snow melts so anything that runs across the lot goes into the storm drains. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Richter to approve the time extension to July 1, 2006. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . Planning Commission Minutes October 11,2005 Page 4 c) Conditional Use PermitNariance Request - Allowing for a Mini-Storage Use in the Farmington Business Park, PUD and a Variance to the Parking Requirements for a Mini-Storage Use Applicant: Farmington Mini-Storage, LLC, 1457 Homestead Street, Shakopee . Last month the Commission approved the site plan for this project. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit as the property is zoned B-3 in which a CUP for mini-storage is required. The applicant proposes nine mini-storage buildings over two phases. The first phase consists of three storage buildings of 8,000 sq. ft. each as well as an office building of900 sq. ft. The buildings will be made of split-faced block, sandstone in color with metal doors. The facility will be secured with a 6 ft. high chain link fence. The Fire Marshal has indicated a Knox box will be required at the front gate for emergency access. Parking will be provided at the entrance. There will be seven parking stalls with the first phase and an additional 15 parking stalls with the second phase. The code and the Farmington Business Park design standards indicate the perimeter of parking lots be landscaped with one tree and three shrubs per 40 ft. of parking lot perimeter frontage. Staff has not received a landscaping plan. There are various criteria that must be met some of which are: - The proposed use conforms to the district's permitted and conditional use provisions and all general regulations of this title. - The proposed use shall not involve any element or cause any conditions that . may be dangerous, injurious, or noxious to any other property or persons and shall comply with applicable conformance standards. Staffhas determined that the CUP application meets all the standards. The variance requested concerns the parking spaces. Currently the code does not address off-street parking for mini-storage facilities. There is a larger umbrella parking requirement for storage areas which is one space for each 2,000 sq. ft. of storage area. Staff feels there may be a need to amend the code for mini-storage facilities for parking to reduce the amount of off-street parking. Under the current code the applicant would be required to have 12 parking spaces in the first phase and a total of33 parking spaces at full build out. There are six criteria for a VarIance: l. Because of the particular surroundings, shape, configuration, topography or other conditions of the parcel strict adherence to the regulations would cause undue hardship. The code does not address mini-storage facilities and the use does not warrant the amount of off-street parking that the current code would reqUIre. 2. The hardship is caused by this title and has not been created by any persons having interest in the parcel. . Planning Commission Minutes October 11,2005 Page 5 . 3. The granting of the variance will not alter the central character, locality or be injurious to other property or diminish property values. 4. The proposed variance will not substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or be detrimental to the public welfare or safety. 5. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. Staff determined a second variance would be needed regarding the fencing. Under the Farmington Business Park PUD standards all off-street parking and storage areas must be screened with a wooden fence, therefore be 100% opaque. The applicant is proposing a chain link fence. Staff is requesting a variance be allowed for the fence. The recommendation is the approval of the CUP and variance allowing a mini- storage use as well as reducing the required off-street parking requirements and modifying the screening requirements subject to the following conditions: . 1. Subject to the satisfaction of engineering and planning requirements including the submission and approval of a landscape plan. 2. The installation of a Knox box on the front gate. Commissioner Johnson was in favor of both variances. Commissioner Larson asked ifthe applicant planned on submitting a landscape plan. The applicant replied it will be fairly elementary. Chair Rotty suggested the applicant meet with staff to develop the landscape plan. Commissioner Richter was in favor of the variances as long as the landscape plan is acceptable. Commissioner Barker asked if there has been any discussion of screening between the facility and the homes to the south. The Commission noted there is a berm in that area. Chair Rotty asked about the height of the berm and if there would be any trees on the top. Chair Rotty was in favor ofthe variances and felt it would be a good addition to the community. He agreed with reviewing the design standards for parking and fencing in the future. MOTION by Barker, second by Richter to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker for a favorable recommendation with the two contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Text Amendment to Title 11 Chapter 6 for the Screening of Roof Mounted Equipment in the R, B, and I Zoning Districts (cont'd) . Staffis suggesting adding a section to the code for screening of roof mounted equipment. The code currently requires screening for the industrial park, Spruce Street Commercial, business commercial flex and mixed-use zoning districts. The R-l, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5 and I-I and all of the B zoning districts do not have Planning Commission Minutes October 11,2005 Page 6 requirements for screening of roof mounted equipment. Regarding the residential . districts this will be for non-residential uses. The R-4 and R-5 will be required to screen roof equipment. Any building that has a larger footprint will not be required to centrally locate their equipment. The building owner will have to show staff that this is not feasible. Screen shall consist ofa parapet wall or opaque screen constructed ofthe same material as the building's primary vertical exposed exterior finish. The equipment shall be painted a neutral color. The site plan shall indicate all mechanical rooftop equipment and shall include elevations. Commission members were in favor of the amendment. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker for a favorable recommendation. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion Community Development Director Carroll discussed the CouncillPlanning Commission Workshop scheduled for October 19, 2005. Chair Rotty felt having this workshop to discuss growth on the east side of the community was the right thing to do. As plats are approved they want to make sure the infrastructure will be there. In the near future there will be a review of the Comp Plan and felt this would be a mini-start on this geographic area. The topics include the issue of single-family residences versus multi-family and what is the appropriate mix. There is the question of density. There is a distinction between owner-occupied residences and rental properties. These are related to some . goals that were set a number of years ago that were set by the Met Council which are Livable Communities goals. This would be a good opportunity to review these. The meeting will also discuss how the Met Council is handling Comp Plan amendments on a day-to-day basis. The last couple amendments have received a higher level of scrutiny. There is also the issue of sequencing developments. Some concept plans have been received for properties that are not currently in the City or that were very recently annexed. There is also the question of system plan updates. There is the surface water management plan, the sanitary sewer plan and water distribution plan. These plans were adopted 8-10 years ago and staff is requesting authorization from Council to update these plans. Chair Rotty suggested discussing future MUSA allocation such as how much is left, and what is the plan for the future. At the workshop, staffwill also discuss the developments that have multi-family components. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ,?~/Y?~ thia Muller Executive Assistant Approved . . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting November 8, 2005 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; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) October 11, 2005 MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to approve the October 11,2005 minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Variance to Allow the Addition to a Residential Home within the B-2 Zoning District (cont'd) Variance to the Floodplain Overlay District Requirements to Allow the Addition to a Residential Home within a Flood Zone Applicant: David Marsh, 204 1 st Street b) Mr. Marsh has had a survey done of his property. Staff is still waiting for comments from the DNR on whether the property is in the flood plain or near the fringe. Staff suggested continuing these public hearings to December 13, 2005. MOTION by Barker, second by Johnson to continue the public hearing to December 13, 2005. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Variance to the Off-Street Parking Requirements in the Vermillion River Crossings Phase I Project Applicant: Pedersen Ventures, 14831 Energy Way, Apple Valley, MN 55124 Pedersen Ventures is seeking a variance for the off-street parking requirements to allow for a shortage of 36 parking spaces. The location is all of block 3 which includes the proposed retail center and the hotel. CSAH 50 runs along the north side of the property. There is a median cut in two locations directly across from the access to Northern Natural Gas. Dakota County will not allow any other location for a full intersection. There is a right-in, right-out in two other locations. The applicant is proposing 164 parking spaces in block 3. This also includes the parking on the north-south street. The code for off-street parking states 1 space for 20 ft. of retail space, therefore, they need 129 spaces. They have a 25,750 sq. ft. building. Employee parking requires 13 spaces. As far as the hotel, 55 rooms are proposed. The requirement is 1 parking space per room Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2005 Page 2 plus three employees. The total number of spaces is 200, which means they are short 36 parking spaces. The applicant is requesting the variance because ofthe restricted surroundings which include the following: . - The Vermillion River Crossings roadway which is the fixed location of the median cut on CSAH 50. - The storm water pond has to be located on the west side of the pipeline easement. - They also wanted a certain size hotel and a certain size multi-tenant retail building. The variance requirements include: Undue hardship - staff has stated the north-south roadway needs to be located at the CSAH 50 median cut and the storm water pond needs to be located west of the pipeline easement creating a confined area to construct both buildings and a parking lot. The conditions are unique to a parcel of land for which the variance is sought - the median cut and the storm water pond location, the various agencies have required a certain amount of storm water drainage. The hardship is caused by this title and has not been created by any person having an interest in the parcel- the hardship was not created by the applicant. It was created by the location of the median cut and the location ofthe pipeline to the . east of the development. The granting ofthe parcel will not alter the character of the locality or be injurious to other property - the variance will not alter the character or be injurious to other property. The variance will not increase the congestion of the public streets - the variance would not create any adverse effects. Traffic congestion will be alleviated through the numerous accesses to the site. The requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. The applicant has designed the development to meet the various requirements. The Planning Commission can: - Deny the variance. The applicant would have to reduce the square footage of the hotel and/or retail building until the number of parking spaces matches the code. - Approve the variance without any conditions in which case there would be no effective means of addressing future parking problems. . Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2005 Page 3 . - Approve the variance with conditions. One condition could be a requirement that the shortage of 36 spaces be rectified in other locations such as outlots D and F. Staff recommends option 3, to approve the variance with conditions. The contingency would be: - The shortage would be addressed later through a surplus of at least 36 parking spaces within outlot D and/or F when site plans for these areas are prepared and submitted. . Mr. Bob Weigert, Paramount Engineering, offered a fourth option. They would like to offer a proof of parking that they would build the development and after full occupancy of the leased building and the hotel is up and running they would rely on staff to say it is under parked. They would offer a proof of parking in outlot C to satisfy any under parking. The sub-part is that if it is under parked, the developer will provide off-site employee parking in outlot C to make sure none of the tenants feel adverse impacts for not enough parking stalls for their customers. The Planning Commission discussed the distance from the various outlots. Community Development Director Carroll stated the developer provided staff with the Apple Valley city code, which shows this is how it is handled there. The key is in the phrase "proof of parking." If the developer can prove that the code requires more parking than they were likely to use, the Council has the right to allow them to build 75% ofthe parking required by the code as long as they can provide the additional parking spaces on site at some future time if the Council determines it is necessary. The distinction here is that staffhas not heard anyone proposing that this extra parking could be provided anywhere in close proximity to these two buildings. The threshold question in Apple Valley is whether there is convincing evidence that the City code's parking requirements are excessive. Staff has some reservations about this option. At a meeting with staff, Mr. Allendorf suggested the City take a more comprehensive look at its zoning code provisions related to parking. If staff does this and determines the parking requirements are higher and if the Planning Commission and Council are in favor of modifying the code to reduce the parking requirements, if that wipes out the shortage of parking, then this contingency would go away. Mr. Weigert stated the employees would not be parking in the main parking area. They would be parking to the west. Staff noted even moving all the employees to the west, that does not wipe out the parking shortage. Mr. Weigert agreed they would be out 20 stalls. . Commissioner Larson asked how many of the 36 parking stalls could be made up closer than outlot C. Mr. Weigert did not believe they could go in outlot D and outlot F would be the same distance. He encouraged the Planning Commission to revisit the parking requirements. In other cities, he has not seen the aspect of employee parking. Apple Valley has gone to a net flooring requirement. Mr. Weigert stated they used this tact when they were laying out the parking. They assumed the City would be revisiting the parking requirements and move more Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2005 Page 4 into the 21 st century with regard to parking needs. Staff felt the soonest they could do this research would be January. Staff felt outlot F would be an appropriate location for a mixed-use building. This may provide for some underground parking. There is also the option of building a parking ramp. Commissioner Larson asked if it would be better to go with a contingency or tabling this item until a study was done. Mr. Weigert agreed to go with option 3 so they could move ahead. . Commissioner Barker agreed with option 3. Commissioner Johnson stated his first question was is the hotel going to have a banquet room, pool, bar, catering to weddings, etc. If it was just the hotel with rooms, he would be more inclined to give them the variance. He was surprised that they are considering only three employees for the hotel. He would support option 3. Mr. Weigert stated he did not understand they were suggesting outlots D and F. He recommended outlot C. There would also be parking constraints in D and F. Outlot C has some flexibility. Chair Rotty felt it was reasonable to review the parking requirements either through staff or consultants. He felt they could not abandon what they currently have. He agreed with the option 3 contingency for outlots D and F. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. If the Commission was going to go with outlots D and F, . then Mr. Weigert agreed to postpone the variance for one month. MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to table any action. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission requested staff to review the parking requirements for retail/commercial sites. d) Amend the Comprehensive Plan for the Existing and Proposed Park, Trails and Open Space Plan Map Applicant: City of Farmington - Parks and Recreation Department - Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director Staff requested this be continued to the December 13, 2005 meeting. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to continue the public hearing to December 13, 2005. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Variance Request - Setback Requirement for a Building from a Minor Arterial Roadway Applicant: City of Farmington Water Board The Water Board is requesting a 20 ft. variance from the minimum setback for an arterial road right-of-way. This is along Pilot Knob Road to construct a 15x30 ft. well house on an easement that was dedicated with the Charleswood development. The well house would be located at the northwest intersection of . Pilot Knob and 200th Street. The well house is proposed to be set back 30 ft. from Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2005 Page 5 . the right-of-way. The Engineering division will be holding a public forum for the townhome owners located to the west to discuss the construction plans. Staff reviewed the six criteria for a variance to be approved. All the criteria have been met. Chair Rotty asked what the building will be made of. City Engineer Mann replied the easement obtained is fairly specific in its requirements. The document suggests the building needs to be completely brick. Staffwill be discussing with the homeowner's association about making it match some ofthe architecture in the area. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Johnson, second by Barker to approve the variance request. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Concept Plan Review - U.S. Federal Credit Union - Vermillion River Crossings . The Credit Union is proposing to construct a 4500 sq. ft. building on 1.03 acres on Lot 1, Block 1. This is on the west side of the north-south road. Staff asked for comments on the sketch plan. The proposed location of the building meets the lot width, lot area requirements, and all setbacks. The proposed use is a permitted use. There is a drainage ditch on the north side that has to remain for mitigation to the trout stream. The concept plan shows four bays for a drive-thru. They are proposing a monument sign which will require a permit. The applicant proposes 25 parking spaces which is over the requirement. Staffhas approved the location of the trash receptacle. The developer is waiting for approval of the unifying design themes being prepared by Pedersen Ventures. Staff will be bringing these to the Planning Commission for approval. They will also be submitting a landscape plan and a utility plan. Commissioner Johnson liked the plan. Commissioner Larson asked if there will be a fire lane. The developer and staff will check on this. Commissioner Larson asked if there will be a sign along hwy 50. The developer replied the only signage will be on the building. Chair Rotty asked what is allowed for signage along hwy 50. City Planner Smick stated there will be a sign into the development for Vermillion River Crossings. The location of the monument signs will have to be reviewed and also whether they will be along hwy 50 or whether they will be interior signs. Commissioner Barker liked the plan. Chair Rotty liked the recommendation of access off of service road B versus the north- south road. He hoped there would be plenty of room in the drive-thru lanes. b) Joint Planning Commission/City Council Workshop Meeting - Follow-up . At the recent workshop there was uncertainty as to what the preferred processing order is when development concepts are received for areas not in the City or were Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2005 Page 6 recently annexed. Staff prepared a map showing which areas were handled in certain ways. It showed the parcels on the east side ofParmington and which were in Empire Township or Castle Rock Township. Staffhas looked at small parcels in Zone A that could be processed at a stafflevel with the Commission's support and Council's without engaging in a large-scale review of the Comp Plan. The reasons are these are small parcels and the updating of the system plans. The parcels do not present any service problems. For the Hometown development staff reviewed the concept plans, worked out an annexation agreement, processed the comp plan amendment and the zoning, and handled the MUSA issue together without re-examining the City's comp plan. Staff reviewed similar parcels in the area. Staff feels all the properties within Zone A could be handled one way and properties outside of the zone need to be handled another way. Staff recommends an order in which to deal with the issues. . - For both zones it has to start with a concept plan. - For Zone B if anyone comes in with a concept plan before the system updates are done, the concept plan will not go very far. The system plans need to be updated first. Once that is done, they can bring in a concept plan. Commissioner Larson liked the idea. Commissioner Barker felt it was a step in the right direction. Commissioner Johnson stated this puts a boundary on some of the eastern properties. Chair Rotty stated sub-dividing the parcels into Zone A and B is good. The Commission can feel more comfortable on how the in-filling . will work. Another issue discussed at the joint workshop was the line between single family detached residences and other types of housing. During the MUSA process criteria were adopted. There were benchmarks as to whether to grant MUSA to a property. Right now we do not have similar benchmarks for everyone to determine which areas are appropriate for certain types of housing. Staff developed eight criteria that could apply to multi-family or higher density housing. There are three types of circumstances these criteria would apply to: 1. Areas within the City that are currently zoned for higher density development. 2. Areas currently within the City as the result of recent annexations but do not have zoning or comp plan designations. 3. Areas outside the City that are being considered for annexation. The criteria are as follows: 1. Is the proposed development located near existing or proposed major transportation corridors? 2. Will the approval of the proposed development complete or contribute to the completion of a necessary or desired roadway connection? 3. Is the proposed development located near commercial or industrial uses or . existing multi-family or medium to high density housing? Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2005 Page 7 . 4. Are there unusual or extraordinary infrastructure costs associated with the project? 5. Are there physical features present that render the property in question less suitable for low density residential development? 6. Does the size of the proposed development make the inclusion of a higher density component desirable? 7. Does the project assist the City in achieving its general goal of providing a variety of housing types for people in all stages oflife? 8. Does the proposed project assist the City in achieving its livable communities housing goals regarding affordability and density? Commissioner Barker asked where the cut offis as to how many of the criteria a project meets. He asked if we are locking ourselves in. Community Development Director Carroll stated staff does not see this as a score sheet. This is not intended to be a threshold checklist. If a property meets all eight criteria and the Commission is still opposed to having higher density housing in that area, the Commission can still deny it. If this situation occurs, it may mean we need to revise the criteria. Staff sees the criteria as a guide. Commissioner Barker liked the idea of having some parameters, but he had ideas of where he wanted to see things regardless of whether we have criteria. City Planner Smick noted they will be starting the comp plan process soon. The start of these criteria will also help with single family and commercial. It will be a good base to start with. . Commissioner Johnson stated as long as the developers do not think that because they meet these criteria they can go ahead, but he felt it was a good start. This helps staff give a better indication to developers. Commissioner Larson felt it was a good tool. It is probably not 100% accurate. We have to utilize other tools as well. Chair Rotty was uncertain as to when the criteria would be used. He asked when it would be used away from where the land use designation already exists. A lot of the designation should be done in the comp plan. Community Development Director Carroll stated it would be used in the three circumstances discussed earlier. Chair Rotty stated if we are preparing to do a new land use map, this would not be used for every piece of land. Staff noted it is a tool and you can decide where and when you want to use it. An example is the criteria could be used for the Devney and Winkler properties. Chair Rotty was fine using it in that fashion. He still liked the broader sit-down CommissionlCounciVresident land use map when we do the comp plan. The plan is to have this on the next Council agenda so the Commission and Council will be prepared to discuss this at the next workshop. . Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2005 Page 8 c) Concept Plan Review - Sunrise Ponds - Perkins Property . The Commission reviewed a concept plan at the September 13, 2005 meeting which showed 174 multi-family townhomes with a density of 10.2 units/acre. Staff has a revised concept that proposes 110 single-family detached townhomes. The property consists of two separate parcels ofland owned by Neil and Linda Perkins. Both parcels are currently outside the City. Staffhas received a petition of annexation, however in keeping with past practice, the annexation will be discussed with Empire Township as soon as a concept plan exists that is acceptable to the City. This plan will not proceed beyond the concept review stage until that annexation issue has been fully resolved. The concept consists of 110 detached townhomes on 17.09 acres with a density of 6.44 units/acre. The widths ofthe lots range from 36 ft. to 46 ft. The developer is proposing setbacks in the front of 20 ft., 6 ft. on the side and 10ft. in the rear. If the concept plan is approved, the developer would be requesting a comp plan amendment designating the property as low-medium density and rezone the property to R-2. The proposed lot widths do not meet the minimum of an R-2 district so this would be platted as a PUD. The development is located adjacent to one roadway - Cambodia Avenue. The plan proposes a westerly extension of 210th Street through the northern portion of the site. The traffic generated by the site will temporarily utilize Cambodia Avenue and 213th Street for access to and from hwy 3. There is a need to connect 210th Street to hwy 3. This will be vital in alleviating traffic concerns. 213th Street would not be a full intersection, . possibly a right-in, right-out. There is a concern with the extension having to cross the Prairie Waterway. It has not been determined if the Spruce Street intersection would be allowed for through traffic. This leaves 21 oth Street as a full intersection. There may be some redevelopment of the Chippendale Court area. The City would need to obtain the right-of-way through the bus garage property. The traffic engineer has indicated that 21 Oth Street as well as Cambodia need to be classified as collector streets and need to be constructed to those standards. The current concept plan shows 21 Oth being 70 ft. in width, which meets the standard, however Cambodia is shown as 66 ft. wide. This would need to be modified to 70 ft. Internal roadways will be 24 ft. wide and will be private streets. There is a 16 ft. wide alley to serve garages placed in the rear of the units. This type of development is unique to the City. The property is not identified on the MUSA plan. The MUSA Review Committee would have to reconvene to grant MUSA to this property. The number one criteria for granting MUSA is close proximity to transportation corridors. The 21 Oth Street connection is a vital corridor that is needed. Sanitary sewer is located to the west of the property. Water service is located to the west and southeast of the property. There will have to be coordination with adjacent property owners. The concept plan does not provide for any onsite planning for storm water management. Staffhas determined there is no need for onsite treatment because of the Wausau pond. The existing ditch will have to be . Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2005 Page 9 . expanded to handle some of the storm water runoff. The Park and Rec Director has determined that due to the size of the development the City will take cash in lieu for park property. Trails and sidewalks will be required. The developer has proposed placing the trails off the Perkins property and onto City property adjacent to the storm water pond. Staff has agreed with this proposal provided the developer pay for the construction of the trails. There is also a 5 ft. wide sidewalk on the south side of210th Street. The homeowners association would have to oversee the snow plowing of the internal streets. . Mr. Richard Hocking, attorney for Bridgeland Development, stated currently the property contains a commercial/industrial use. There is residential housing to the south and to the northwest is a townhome addition. Mr. Perkins would be moving his commercial/industrial business to a more suitable location. The property is somewhat divided by 210th Street. It is expected that the Great River Energy transmission line may traverse along 21 Oth Street. They have met with GRE and if that will be the location of the powerline, the developer has a corridor and dedication plan that will account for the transmission line. He felt their plan is fitting with some ofthe characteristics of the neighborhood. The villas are all single family homes, some with garages in front and some in the rear. The styles of the homes vary. These homes fall in the affordable housing category. The developer recognizes staff is looking for collector streets on 21 Oth and Cambodia. This will cost $600,000 plus to build those to roadways, but they understand the need for the project and for the City's transportation plan. There will be a homeowner's association. Mr. Peter Knable, Civil Engineer, spoke regarding parking, trails, landscaping and storm water. Given the component ofthe rear garages, this frees up one side of the street. There will be two-car garages and the on-street parking would accommodate 80 to 90 cars. The developer and staff have agreed on the trail plan. The City requires buffer trees along the collector roads and they also show one tree per unit. The project will be done in one phase which will allow the construction of 21 Oth Street and Cambodia immediately. They understand the storm water requirements. . Mr. Neil Krzyniak, Bridgeland Development, commended the Planning Commission for wanting to plan for the future. The house styles they are proposing are currently being built throughout the Twin Cities. The $650,000 the developer is swallowing to construct 21 Oth Street and Cambodia is a big number. The 174 units is a number they needed to make this work. He is trying to give the City some additional help with the transportation issue and in return they are asking for some consideration on the density. They have gone from 174 units to 110 units. They feel they have made a tremendous reduction in densities. If Bridgeland does not purchase the Perkins property, the Perkins property will remain a business there. The Planning Commission needs to ask themselves, do you want that business there to run through residential in the future. The Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2005 Page 10 developer has a solution and would like to work with the Commission and the Council. Mr. Neil Perkins, stated he has total respect for the process to get this done, but has very little time for it. He noted Commissioner Barker stated it would be nice if they had a checklist to follow for developments. Mr. Perkins stated sooner or later things come down to how it feels. This feels right. He has to make a decision very soon. Commissioner Larson stated the concept itself is a neat concept. The density for the area he felt is still a little too high because of adding more traffic to hwy 3. He would be more comfortable with a 60 ft. lot width in an R-2 zone. He was not comfortable with the 36 ft. and 46 ft. lot widths. He understood having to pay for the road is something they do not want to do, but no developer wants to do that. Commissioner Barker agreed with Commissioner Larson. He feels the area should be residential, but has some reservations with the density. He would be more comfortable with the 60 ft. wide lots. Commissioner Johnson was concerned with the 36 ft. wide lots. He liked the overall concept. He would accept the 46 ft. width. He understood the $650,000 for the road and the transportation issues. He liked the idea of the alley and felt it was a great amenity for the development. Chair Rotty liked the detached part of the concept. The house styles look fine. He felt the Commission may need to look at concepts like this if they are asking a developer to get in some of these roads. Cambodia and 21 oth would be a nice addition. This community needs to look at hwy 3. He asked staff about the timing of this development and asked if this could be discussed at the joint CouncillPlanning Commission workshop on November 30,2005. Staff stated the distinction between talking with the Council at the November 21,2005 meeting and waiting until the workshop is we lose 10 days. There is also an Empire Farmington Planning Committee on Thursday. If there was a strong show of support from the Planning Commission, staff was going to discuss this at that meeting. This could be discussed at their December meeting. Chair Rotty felt the Commission is split and would like to discuss this with the Council. Community Development Director Carroll commented on the 36 ft. wide lots and agreed they are narrow. But given the fact there is market demand for it, he wanted to get a better understanding of the objection to these units. Commissioner Larson stated he based his comments on density and transportation and trips to hwy 3, which is already a problem. Staff understood, but tries to keep this in perspective. The Seed-Genstar property is looking at 2-3,000 housing units and the amount of traffic this would contribute compared to that is negligible. Factoring in the development by Empire Township on the east side ofhwy 3, this is a small portion ofthe traffic. Chair Rotty felt it was different and unique to the . . . . . . Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2005 Page 11 community. Before saying yes to large developments of this type, he would like to talk with Council first. Commissioner Johnson stated at the joint meeting we discussed how do we want this to tie together. His concern was the lot widths and the aesthetics. Commissioner Larson stated they are so far off the 60 ft. Chair Rotty stated it would be great to get the extension of 21 Oth and Cambodia, but now what are we looking at to get the next section to hwy 3 so these residents have another access out to hwy 3. Staff felt it may happen sooner rather than later. Staff spoke with Mr. Regan yesterday. He has a tenant and is trying to work out a lease for his property. He needs to determine fairly soon whether he will have the entire lot width from north to south available to lease. Staff always believed that road connection would go through. Staff needs to get this to Council very soon to obtain some guidance as to how affirmative they want to be in making it clear that road connection needs to be made. Staff discussed arranging a tour for the Planning Commission of another development like this. The Commission supported discussing this with Council at the workshop on November 30, 2005. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Johnson, second by Larson to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, " CY'2';~~ /7?~d~ (e~thia Muller Executive Assistant Approved Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting December 13, 2005 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Barker, Larson Members Absent: Johnson, Richter Also Present: Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Lee Smick, City Planner; Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director 2. Approval of Minutes a) November 8, 2005 MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the November 8, 2005 Minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings a) Variance to the Floodplain Overlay District Requirements to Allow the Addition to a Residential Home within a Flood Zone (cont'd) b) Variance to Allow the Addition to a Residential Home within the B-2 Zoning District (cont'd) Applicant: David Marsh 204 1st Street Farmington, MN 55024 This issue was brought to the Planning Commission in October regarding the use variance. Since then, new information has been received regarding the 100 year flood plain. Mr. Marsh did a survey of his property and found all of the buildings are below the 902.5 100-year flood plain elevation. Right now his home is non- conforming because of it's location in the flood plain. Per the flood plain ordinance, the City does not allow for an expansion of a non-conforming use. Each of the six criteria for a variance cannot be met. The DNR and Mr. Eric Peters, Storm Water Management Consultant, have requested staff recommend denial of the flood plain variance because of the location of the building. Mr. David Marsh, 204 1 st Street, noted the Planning Commission stated it did not matter if it was R-l or B-2. The City, Planning Commission and 2020 Comp Plan changed the zoning without notifying him or 18 other residents. He asked if the Planning Commission did due diligence and published this in the newspaper. This was not a factor three years ago when he added a porch and applied for the permit. Mr. Marsh stated it looks like Econo Foods and Pellicci Hardware also sit within the 100 year flood plain. He does not see what the big deal is. His house has been there since 1903. He did a record search through the county and the house and garage have never flooded even in 1992 when the big flood came. Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 2 Four of his neighbors and two businesses across the street also fall within the flood plain. They were allowed to continue to build and move forward with City Center. He is a general contractor and carries flood insurance. He was not going to have a basement under this section of the house, it will be foundation and crawl space. He asked that his addition be approved. They like the town and want to stay here. They want the house to match the older decor when it is done. He will not be coming back to the Commission saying they allowed him to build in a flood plain. That would not be very responsible. Commissioner Larson felt no improvements should be made to the property since it is in the flood plain. He would not approve the variance. Chair Rotty asked if the two properties to the east are in the flood plain. City Planner Smick explained in 2002 when Econo Foods was expanding they looked at the flood plain and a comer of it was allowed by variance to encroach into the flood plain because they were compensating for flood storage elsewhere. That is the key. You have to find some other location for compensating for the fill that is brought in. Commissioner Barker understood as a homeowner that Mr. Marsh wanted to add on and meet the needs of his family. But we do have the ordinances and there is a reason why they are there. He would deny the variance. Chair Rotty stated the paramount issue is not so much if it is a non-conforming residential in a B-2. The issue brought up about being not informed that it had been rezoned has happened in a number of areas. There were public hearings. The paramount issue is where the house lies. It is very close to the river. He has seen the river come up and almost wash out the bridge to the west. There is the potential there. If the Commission allowed building in something they have seen in the past to be a problem, they would be delinquent. Mr. Marsh stated in the history documentation he has found, the back comer of the lot has flooded, but the house has not flooded since 1903. There is a pole barn behind him that someone was allowed to build and that sits right on the bank. This is his home and community. He is taking the responsibility for adding onto this house and making sure it is watertight and will not be flooded. He carries flood insurance for that fact. If the variance is denied, they have property that is not valuable to anyone unless they can find a commercial buyer along with all of his neighbors and his value is nothing. The Commission is saying his home will wash away and he has historical documents showing the house has never been under water. Chair Rotty stated he did not say the house would wash away. He has been around here enough to see where there has been significant flooding in that area. Mr. Marsh stated as far as creating a different spill way as Econo Foods did a couple years ago, let's look at the park. Every time it floods the park is under water and it will progress to the west as we keep going and things change and do you not think the new development on hwy 50 will not have a direct effect on the river level at some point downstream or through town. Commissioner Larson believed the park was designed to take the water. Mr. Marsh added ifhe brought fill in, he will not raise it up so the water cannot come up in the yard, he just wants to make sure that the house foundation and structure integrity is there. Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 3 MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to deny the variance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Chair Rotty asked staff to provide Findings of Fact for the next meeting. c) Variance to the Off-Street Parking Requirements in the Vermillion River Crossings Phase I Project Applicant: Pedersen Ventures 14831 Energy Way Apple Valley, MN 55124 MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Conditional Use Permit - Special Exception to Allow the Moving of a House from 315 Elm Street to the Lot at 4tb and Main Streets Applicant: Joe Heinen Goldner, Hawn, Johnson, Morrison Incorporated 3700 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Mr. Joe Heinen is seeking approval to allow a house to be moved throughout the City on City streets. The house to be moved is located at 315 Elm Street. They are proposing to come out onto Elm Street, go east and straight up 4th Street to the lot at 201 4th Street. Dakota County has transferred the property that was forfeited to the HRA pending approval of the City Council. Mr. Heinen has spent quite a bit of money cleaning up the lot. There was a laundromat in the downtown area and there was a plume which ran to the northeast that contained laundry detergent and toxins. The house has been completely renovated inside and the building inspector has approved it as being a sound structure. The surrounding houses are a wood structure and this would be a brick structure, however all were built around the same time. The contingencies include: 1. The cleanup of the property at 201 4th Street meets all the requirements set forth by the PCA. 2. The City Council approves the HRA proposed acquisition of the lot at 201 4th Street. 3. Mr. Heinen purchases the lot from the HRA and enters into a contractual agreement with the HRA regarding the right and duties of the parties. 4. The applicant brings the structure up to the standards of the MN building code upon relocation of the house. 5. The applicant meets all setback requirements at 201 4th Street. 6. The applicant must replace any removed or damaged boulevard trees at both sites within 9 months of the structure being moved. 7. The applicant's mover must receive Dakota County approval of the moving of an oversized load on the county's highway system. Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 4 . . 8. The applicant must remove and backfill the former house foundation within 7 days of the house moving. The former site must also be graded and established with grass within 9 months ofthe moving of the house. Mr. Heinen is interested in opening up this area, is it is zoned B-2 and allows for the possibility of expanding off ofLynn's Carpeting. Commissioner Larson mentioned as a contingency staff should make sure the surety process is done. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to approve the conditional use permit with the contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Amend the Comprehensive Plan for the Existing and Proposed Park, Trails and Open Space Plan Map Applicant: City of Farmington - Parks & Recreation Department Randy Distad, Parks & Recreation Director With the development of the Perkins property, once it is annexed into the City, staff wanted to show where the trails will be aligned. There will be a trail on the west side and the north side of the property to pick up the trail along the Prairie Waterway. The Park and Rec Commission has recommended approval of the amendment to the Comp Plan. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to recommend approval to the Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan Park, Trail and Open Space Plan Map. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Chair Rotty left the meeting at this point and left Commissioner Larson in charge of the meeting. 4. Discussion . a) Mystic Meadows 2nd Addition Concept Plan Giles Properties has submitted a concept plan for Mystic Meadows 2nd Addition which is located just to the south ofParkview Ponds and Mystic Meadows 1st Addition. Akin Road is to the west and 195th Street is to the north. They are proposing 386 residential units on 198 acres. There will be 73 single-family lots at 75 ft. wide and located north of the proposed 203rd Street. They are also proposing 31 lots at 65 ft. wide south of203rd Street. There will be 282 multi- family lots which take up the majority of the property to the south of 203rd Street. They are also showing a ghost platting of a portion ofthe Harris property which is currently not in the City. At this point they are looking at a total of 176 units. The property is currently zoned agricultural and has a comp plan designation of restricted development. There are two gas easements running through the southern portion of the property. The property will need to be rezoned. As there are two different size lots there will need to be an R-l, R-2 and R-3 designation for the multi-family. Restricted development is considered higher amenities with larger lots and more open space. Given the amount of multi-family proposed it does not appear this would be consistent with restricted development so a comp Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 5 . plan amendment would be needed. Both the re-zoning and the comp plan amendment can happen prior to the preliminary plat submittal or along the same track as the platting process. They are showing a 27.1 acre park in the northeast corner of the development. There is an 18.8 acre piece of the Harris property that could be dedicated as future park when that becomes developable. The Park & Rec Commission has determined that this location for a park is acceptable. No trails or sidewalks have been identified. The developer will need to work with staff and the Park & Rec Commission to come up with a trail system for this development. All the streets with the exception of Diamond Path, 203rd Street, and the private streets in the multi-family portion are proposed to be constructed at 32 ft in width with a 60 ft right-of-way. Diamond Path is proposed at a 52 ft width with a 120 ft right-of-way. There is an existing 50 ft powerline easement that lies directly west of Diamond Path. 203rd Street is proposed as a 38 ft wide street with a 70 ft wide right-of-way and has been identified as a minor collector. All private streets are proposed at 28 ft in width. Diamond Path will extend south to Akin Road, just north of 208th Street. Access from the development to Akin Road will occur in two locations, the extension of203rd Street as well as Devonport Drive. The site is severely impacted by the flood plain for Middle Creek. The whole southeastern portion of the property is in the flood plain. . Mr. John Anderson, Giles Properties, stated they are proposing a concept. The numbers are not exact numbers as far as what the final plans will be. It is a 200 acre site and there are a number of things they need to look at. They built Diamond Path in the first phase which stubs into the north of this property line. It was determined this would be a major north-south collector and is set up to be a future four-lane road. They are looking at putting some of the density along Akin Road over to Diamond Path. The multi-family could be a different product than what is shown. A constraint affecting this property is the high water table. They looked at putting in a small pond between the park and single-family homes. The developer realizes there will be trail connections with other developments. The connection at 203rd Street goes over property they do not control. The developer proposes that Diamond Path connects with 195th which connects with Akin Road and then goes down to Devonport. If you can make the north-south trip from CR 50 to 19Sth Street, does that make the 203rd Street connection necessary at this time. If the same zoning is applied to the entire area, all developments begin to look the same. They are proposing a variety of housing types. . Commissioner Barker asked with the park if there will be a parking lot. Mr. Anderson replied they are too early in the process for that type of detail. Commissioner Larson felt there should be a parking lot in the concept plan just to show they are thinking about it. Parks and Recreation Director Distad suggested making a second entrance to the park. He suggested having the second cul-de-sac to the east come up into the park area to create another exit. Commissioner Barker felt 282 units seemed a little high. He would rather see more single-family units. Mr. Anderson noted there is a piece ofland on the west side of Diamond Path and just south of the church that has a lot of options such as a neighborhood Planning Connmssion Minutes December 13,2005 Page 6 . commercial with a strip malll gas station, maybe senior housing or apartment buildings or more multi-family. The area is 4 acres. As far as the 282 units, they are dealing with 200 acres which is a large amount of land. . Councilmember Pritzlaffwas in attendance and asked Mr. Anderson if the section of203rd Street between Akin Road and to the east will not be part ofthe project. Mr. Anderson replied they do not control that property. The ultimate access through this area will not be the east-west connection, it will be Diamond Path, 19Sth Street, and eventually 208th Street. He did not feel there was a need at this point to make this property developable. If there is the connection at 195th and to the south it allows the traffic to flow. A requirement to say that has to be in on property they do not control is a major issue. Councilmember Pritzlaff felt that section would only be put in because of this development. He cannot see stringing the residents along. Mr. Anderson stated these properties have the ability to build 203rd Street on their own. They are 5-10 acre lots. If Giles Properties is forced to build that they would be paying for something someone else will benefit from. When doing development you pay for what you are doing and do what you can to help out the neighborhood, but to build a road through someone else's property when it is not currently needed, is an issue. Mr. Anderson stated it is not stringing them along. It is giving them access to sewer and water. Councilmember Pritzlaff noted there are a couple properties where the road will go right over their property or right next to their house. It will affect their property in more of a bad way than a good way. Mr. Wade Wiebold, 20226 Akin Road, would be directly affected. He operates a business out of his home. He does not like to be in limbo and would like to have a decision made on the road so they know where they stand. Mr. Brian Hertzfeld, 20218 Akin Road, stated he is 100 yards north of 203rd Street. Next to it he has 10 acres for sale for development. This property would compliment development of his land and the neighborhood. He sees this as favorable but it would also have to be worked out with the adjacent property owners. . Commissioner Larson commented on the densities along Akin Road and Pilot Knob Road and he felt it did not apply to Diamond Path. The restricted development calls for larger lots and more amenities and that is what he would like to see. The R-3 multi-family would work well as a buffer coming into the proj ect. He would like to see more R -1. The developer will have to work with Park & Rec to determine the location of the trails. He liked the parking lot for the park. As far as the 203rd Street connection, he asked ifthe developer was only required to develop up to his property line. Community Development Director Carroll stated there has been discussion and the traffic engineer has reviewed this. He has determined there is a need for three east-west connections in addition to any north-south connections. The traffic engineer allowed the removal of the 197th and 198th Street connection with the understanding that 203rd Street would Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 7 . be a more prominent connection because of its central location. There are some challenges in how that will be planned and financed. If it was a City road project, we would have to look at what other properties benefited from the roadway. There might not be an expectation that Mystic Meadows would be required to pay for all of it. There could be an assessment to the benefiting properties. It could be argued that the road would not need to be constructed if it were not for the development to the east. City policies will need to be reviewed. Commissioner Larson stated he would like to see that street constructed. . Community Development Director Carroll noted there have been workshop discussions on housing related issues. One of them was the possible adoption of criteria to help the Planning Commission and Council decide where appropriate locations are for multi-family housing. Staff does not have a problem with the multi-family housing proposed for this development. This project meets 7 or 8 of the 9 criteria identified. A lot of the criteria had to do with transportation and this area is adjacent to what will become a major north-south route. This phase of Mystic Meadows will help make the connection to the south. There are also some special circumstances with the high water table, wetland, and flood plain which are challenges other properties do not have and result in additional costs. The property is close to the downtown and the new commercial area proposed along hwy 50. Proposed commercial tenants ask where the housing is and they would see this as a plus. The Met Council asked for projections where higher density housing would occur. They were concerned with the City moving towards lower densities. If you remove a significant portion of the multi-family and convert it to low density you are dropping the density well below three. At that point, there are questions as to whether the Met Council would approve this development or future developments where larger lots would be appropriate. We need to be cautious with removing too much multi-family. Commissioner Larson stated he can live with that especially if it helps bring commercial into the City. He liked the beach idea around the pond. The southwest four acres he could see as a neighborhood business. Mr. Anderson stated he added the numbers for phase one and phase two and for single family there would be 350 units and multi-family would be 320 units for 350 acres. b) Concept Plan Review - Sunrise Ponds - Perkins Property Staff presented a second revised concept plan for the Perkins property. It still contains 110 single-family vista units on 36 and 46 ft. wide lots. The difference from the last concept plan is there is now an open space/park area where there used to be a buildable lot. The second difference is they added another lot so the amount of the lots has not changed. At the Joint CouncillPlanning Commission meeting there was a discussion of the need for additional parkland. The concept plan now shows the amount of green space within the development and around it. The plan also shows the location of trails which are proposed on the outside of the property. Staff agrees with this provided the developer pays for the installation of . Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 8 . the trails. This is on the Park & Rec Commission agenda for tomorrow to make a determination. Commissioner Barker noted the park is shown as a gazebo and he would like to see a tot lot added to it. Mr. Pete Knable, Terra Engineering, spoke about the open space at the trail head and they had discussed the idea of a gazebo and benches and landscaping the area to serve as an access to the trail. The trail connects to the private drive which allows that corner to get more direct access to the surrounding trail system. The developer feels the lots have excellent access to the trail system as opposed to providing additional interior sidewalks. They might look at another trail connection in the northeast corner. The homes will have three or four different front elevations and would like the flexibility to provide ten different elevations. They would like a lot of variety in the product. Commissioner Larson stated his biggest concern is the lack of sidewalks especially with the 36 ft wide lots so people do not have to use the street. He liked having more unit options. He does not like the 36 ft wide lots, however some Commissioners and Councilmembers do. He does not want this to be a place for crime. He wants it to be upscale. He would like to see some brick or stone in front of the units. . Mr. Trent Johnson, MW Johnson Construction, stated they will bring as many different styles as needed to the development. They propose 8-12 standard plans with 3-4 elevations on each plan. You can put brick and stone on the front, but they want to keep the cost down. Commissioner Larson wanted to make sure they did not all look the same. Staff noted with the PUD they will be looking for a design palette including brick, stone, color, shape, etc. Staffwill need to see this as they go through the project as this will be part of the PUD Agreement. Staff wants to see how different they can make the fronts. . Parks and Recreation Director Distad noted the developer is proposing the internal streets will be private streets. Past practice for the City has been not to put sidewalks on private streets. Commissioner Larson would still like to see sidewalks. As far as the park and open space, the Park & Rec Commission has looked at this and based on the size of the parcel being 17 acres, they were recommending taking cash in lieu. In this situation Tamarack Park exists within a half mile radius with many amenities. Commissioner Larson stated they were more concerned with the trail to get from the interior to the exterior. Commissioner Barker noted at the workshop because ofthe 36 and 46 ft wide lots, they wanted a park so the families would not have to walk a half mile to get to a park. He liked the gazebo with the trails, but would like a small park. Staff noted the other issue is whether it is a private or a public park. The Park & Rec Commission is looking at larger parks. Tot lots have a high cost maintenance. Staff recommended a tot lot be a private park maintained by the association. Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2005 Page 9 . Community Development Director Carroll felt the developer made significant strides going from townhomes to single-family homes. This was a novel approach to some ofthe concerns expressed about this property. Although there are a lot of units, the overall density is 50% less than Bristol Square. This has the potential to be one ofthe more attractive developments in the community in terms of the trails, ponds, open space and the novelty of the housing units. Parking will be allowed on one side of the street and there will also be parking in the driveways behind the homes. Staff felt it is important to cover the entire range of the housing spectrum. When you have one builder, one piece of property and one development you have a better opportunity to have a cohesive, well-planned, well-built out development. The interior road width will be 24 ft. with parking on one side. Staffwill need to review this. The range for the housing market will be the empty-nester and the first-time buyer. This lead them to not look at the tot lot amenity, but they will review it. They will also look at the sidewalk issue. The developer will take the Commission's comments into consideration and proceed with a preliminary plat. This will be brought back to the Commission in February. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . Respectfully submitted, Approved ~., .4# ,. /~ .?-Y?~ / c/ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant . . . . City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission \(~Ci FROM: Lee Smick, AICP City Planner SUBJECT: Variance to the Off-Street Parking Requirements m the Vermillion River Crossings Phase I Project - Block 3 Applicant: Pedersen Ventures 14831 Energy Way Apple Valley, MN 55124 DATE: January 10, 2006 INTRODUCTION The applicant, Pederson Ventures, is seeking a variance from Section 10-6-4 of the City Code (Exhibit A) to allow for a shortage of 36 parking spaces in Phase I (Block 3) of the Vermillion River Crossings project (Exhibit B1 to B3). At the November 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners directed staff to review parking standards for surrounding communities to determine if revisions to the current code are warranted (Exhibit C1, C2). DISCUSSION The Planning Commission continued the public hearing on December 13, 2005 because the applicant agreed to a 60-day extension to allow staff to research parking standards. The expiration date of the additional 60 days is February 21, 2006. Staff will discuss recommendations for parking revisions to the City Code at the January 10, 2006 Planning Commission meeting and make a final recommendation regarding the variance request at the February 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Developer's Proposal The applicant currently proposes 164 parking spaces in Block 3 to provide parking for retail, hotel, and employee parking (Exhibit B 1 to B3). The required number of spaces per the City Code is as follows: Retail 25,750 sf: 1 space per 200 sf of retail =129 spaces 25,750 sf: 1 employee per 2000 sf (industry standard for retail) = 13 spaces . . . Hotel 55 Rooms: 1 space per room = 55 spaces 3 employees (employees/shift information from franchiser): 1 space per employee = 3 Total Number of Spaces Required per Section 10-6-4 of the City Code 200 Parking Spaces The 164 parking spaces proposed by the applicant is therefore 36 spaces less than the minimum required by the City Code. Analysis of Parking Standards in Other Cities Attached is an Excel spreadsheet prepared by staff that provides an overview of the parking requirements of nine metro-area cities (including Farmington) (Exhibit D). It is important to note that the allowable uses specified within the attached spreadsheet represent the permitted and conditional uses identified in the Spruce Street Commercial District (Exhibit E). After reviewing the parking requirements of other cities, staff is suggesting a possible amendment to Section 10- 6-4 (Off-Street Parking). The suggested amendment is in reference to modifying the existing parking standard for Retail Sales and Services. The City Code currently requires that one (1) parking space be provided for each 200 square feet of retail area, plus one (1) space for each employee. Staff is suggesting the following code amendment: Retail sales and services: At least one off-street parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area up to a total floor area of 10,000 square feet. At least one off-street parking space for each 250 square feet of floor area in a building that has between 10,001 and 30,000 square feet. At least one off-street parking space for each 300 square feet of floor area in a building that has more than 30,000 square feet. (this is proposed to replace existing code provision mentioned above) As mentioned earlier in this memo, the Developer of Vermillion River Crossings is proposing 164 parking stalls within Phase I, which under the current code is short 36 parking spaces, thereby necessitating a variance. However, if the parking standards were to be amended as shown above, the required number of parking spaces for Phase I would be calculated as follows: Retail 25,750 sq.ft.: 1 space per 250 sq.ft. of retail = 103 spaces Hotel 55 rooms: 1 space per room = 55 spaces 3 employees: 1 space per employee: 3 spaces 2 . . . Total Number of Spaces Required per "Suggested" Code 161 parking spaces If the parking standards were to be amended as suggested, the developer would be providing an excess of 3 parking spaces. However, the Planning Commission must determine whether or not the current parking requirements are adequate. Staff is looking for direction from the Commission on this item. Proof of Parking The Developer has proposed to staff the idea of implementing a "proof of parking" for Phase I (Block 3) of the Vermillion River Crossings project. The Developer has indicated that they are willing to "set aside" or allocate the 36 parking spaces that Phase I is short within Outlot C when it becomes developed. Five out of the eight communities that staff researched have a provision within their parking standards that allows for a reduction in the required number of parking spaces, provided certain criteria are met. Essentially, ifit is determined that the proposed use will not require (utilize) the minimum number of parking spaces determined necessary by City Code, a request may be made to reduce the number of on-site parking stalls that would normally be required for a given use. This is allowed when it has been proven that there is enough on-site room to accommodate the expansion of the parking facility to meet the minimum requirements of the City's parking standards should the parking demand exceed the on-site supply. Therefore, the proof of parking would require a location on-site for "ghost" parking. Staff does not believe that proof of parking, as the developer is proposing in this instance, would meet the aforementioned criteria. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission should discuss staff recommendations and direct staff to prepare revisions to Section 10-6-4 (Off Street Parking) if warranted. Respectfully submitted, 4~~) Lee Smick, AICP City Planner cc: Pedersen Ventures, Inc. Bob Weigert, Paramount Engineering 3