Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/13/10 Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting April 13, 2010 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Bonar, Vanderbeck, Kuyper, Franceschelli Members Absent: None Also Present: Tony Wippler - Assistant City Planner . 2. Approval of Minutes a) March 9,2010 Regular Meeting Minutes MOTION by Vanderbeck, second by Kuyper to approve the minutes. CARRIED. APIF, MOTION 3. Public Hearings a) Preliminary and Final Plat & PUD Amendment - East Farmington Tenth Addition Applicant: East Farmington Home Owners Association 3300 Edinborough Way, Suite 202 Edina,:MN 55435 The Tenth Addition consists of the four pocket parks of the East Farmington Fourth Addition. The Fourth Addition is bound by 213th Street to the north, 14th Street on the east, Oak Street to the south and 12th Street on the west. In 2007 the residents of the Fourth Addition seceded from the homeowners association (HOA) for the overall East Farmington Development. When the secession occurred, the HOA then had ownership of the pocket parks areas. The HOA would like to get rid of the added liability that is associated with the pocket parks due to the fact that the adjacent homeowners are no longer in the association and are not paying dues for their upkeep. The HOA would like to somehow remove their interest in those areas. With regard to the plat, the pocket parks are currently outlots that have blanket drainage and utility easements over them. The HOA is proposing for at least three of the blocks; to divide up those outlots into additional outlots. The lots would still be outlots because they do not meet the City's minimum requirement for subdivision lots. The blanket and utility easements would remain in place as they are currently. There is also a PUD amendment being requested because the lots were originally shown as common area open space. The HOA is proposing to potentially sell the outlots to the adjacent property owners if they are interested in purchasing them. The owners who purchased lots would then need to do a lot combination at Dakota County to combine the parcels. The HOA has worked with the City to develop a Declaration of Covenants for the Tenth Addition. Essentially the covenants cover land use, drainage, etc. Since the grading is not going to be changed with the proposed plan, they would prefer there were not structures placed upon the outlot areas. Engineering has reviewed the plat and have approved it. Staffis requesting that these items be recommended for approval with the following condition: 1. The East Farmington Home Owners Association file and record the Declaration of Covenants and deed restrictions for the East Farmington Tenth Addition. Mr. Todd iliff, legal Council for the HOA, stated that the most important thing that he wanted to mention was some additional background. He stated that there were some Planning Commission Minutes Apri113,20l0 Page 2 - significant errors made when this development was put together by the original developer. Certain portions of the properties surrounding these pocket parks were never submitted correctly to the original declaration, which in turn left the opportunity for the homeowners to secede from the association. In 2006 & 2007 there was litigation regarding that issue. The litigation was settled and now the HOA owns the park but does not receive dues from the adjacent properties to pay for the upkeep of the parks. The proposed plan was put together with the cooperation of the HOA and City staff as a means to solve this problem by offering the adjacent property owners the opportunity to purchase the adjacent land. Mr. Robert Hoffman, 13th Street, part of the ex-Fourth Addition, spoke to represent some of the homeowners adjacent to the parks in question. He stated that most of the homeowners are not interested in the properties; at least that is what has been voiced to him. He stated that they would rather see the City of Farmington be involved as far as letting this go back into forfeiture. Probably four or five residents expressed interest in purchasing said properties, however for a very low dollar value. He stated that he believes that the City of Farmington has formerly been offered the property. He is under the understanding that the City does not want anything to do with the land. The property owners would like to see the land better maintained, however, they don't want to take the time to be fully responsible as far as pushing a mower or putting their time into it. Several people have voiced their opinion as they will put their time into it. We've managed to come to a head on some of it. He stated that they are looking for a better way to discuss this, maybe more personally with the HOA or their representatives maybe to work it out in a better fashion a far as who can take the property. What are there repercussions once the property is divided? They heard the covenants that would be implied once the property was divided; as far as buildings being put on the property. A lot of the homeowners have said that they would only purchase the property if they could buy it at a low price and if they could put a shed on the extra piece. Based upon what he has heard, he believes it will be everyone's decision to let the property go back into foreclosure, let the city maintain it, assess it on their taxes, see what we can come up with as a head on this thing. As far as maintaining it, a lot of the homeowners have already put their time into it. He asked what is going on with the fourth piece that from what he has heard would be purchased by Mr. Pellicci who owns the hardware store. (The HOA representatives indicated that this is a correct statement.) He stated that many homeowners would like to know since the property is to be split up, how would it be maintained if only one person chose to buy their piece? He stated that many of the property owners would not like to see that happen, they would prefer to see it go back to a common area rock garden. He stated that right now the water has been shut off and although they understand why, they would like to know who they need to go to to work out some sort of deal. They are all willing to pay for water but they are not sure how to get it put in. They would like to answers from the HOA or the Commission as to how they find out. If it does go forward that the areas stay in one piece then how do they make it happen as homeowners to get the water turned on back there. He stated that they have talked about working something out for cutting the grass but it doesn't get watered so it is just weeds. They know there is nothing that they can do with it and they know there is nothing the HOA can do with it. He said that they are hoping that they can all come together and figure out how to get it all done. Chair Rotty stated that there appear to be many questions out there. He clarified that the role of the Planning Commission is not to mediate buying and selling pieces of property. Planning Commission Minutes Apri1l3, 2010 Page 3 They will be looking at the breaking up of the property and does it make sense, and is it consistent with planning within this community. They can't get involved with mediation, property values, and things like that. They do not have the legal authority to do that. He stated that the question regarding the one large parcel seems to have been answered. He asked staff regarding the city taking over. Assistant City Planner Wippler stated that this has been asked numerous times. He state that the pocket parks are self contained within the adjacent properties. He stated that the city typically does not take properties that cannot be used by the community at large. They would not be able to put any sort of facility on these and there is not opportunity for public use. It just does not make sense for the city to take the properties over. Basically it would just be the city maintaining them and the community wide benefit is just not there. Regarding forfeiture, the city won't have a position one way or the other on that topic. Regarding the placement of shed, building of retaining walls; there would have to be a re- plat of each of the lots requiring new grading plans for placement of structures to take place. Once there are structures placed in those areas the drainage will changes. It does not necessarily mean that it could not happen; it would just take extra steps to do this. Chair Rotty asked if during the lot combination this could be addressed at that time. Staff stated that it would be a separate process that includes a new plat being submitted with anew drainage plan and the City Council would need to approve that as well. Ms. Andrea Dabbs, 13th Street, asked how liability would work for the properties. She stated that the Commission should probably consider the issue ofliability. She wants to be sure that it does not open up a can of worms for the homeowners if they are liable for the properties behind their homes. Ms. Judy Nunn, 13th Street, stated that she moved in after all of this took place and no one answered a lot of questions when they purchased their house. She stated that it is a nice area and the children should be out using the space and instead of getting to know each other it is just a really big waste due to the legal issues and people being angry at each other. She said it would be nice to have some sort of play apparatus even though that opens up some liability. She has a five year old and she would like him to get out and get to know the kids in a safe area where she can monitor him and not have to worry about him being in the street and getting hit. Noone brought this to her attention from the HOA. She has not seen any proposals about what they want to do with the land, how much it would cost to buy or where to purchase the property, or how much the property tax would go up. She feels like she is paying taxes and she is not getting what is due for the area she lives in. She would like to see some answers as to what she would be able to do with the property if she bought it. Could she put up a fence, put in a fire pit or a rock garden? She thinks that there should have been some sort of meeting before this. A lot of them had discussed that they would like to take care of it. They would put in some sort of climbing, or picnic tables and pay for it themselves. There are a lot of new residents in that area. Mr. Todd lliffstated that currently all of the liability is on the HOA's shoulders as the owner of the land. As proposed, the association would continue to own the land until someone else purchased it; hopefully the adjacent landowners. Once they purchased it, they would be landowners and take on the potential liability just as they have on their existing property. Under the new Declaration of Covenants fences are allowed as long as they do Planning Commission Minutes Apri113, 2010 Page 4 not impair or impede drainage. This is a significant dynamic as far as the HOA is concerned because they currently have all of the liability. He clarified that fences would be permitted. Chair Rotty asked if any of the residents have seen the Covenants. Mr. Iliff stated that he is not aware that they have. Chair Rotty explained that the Commissioners have a copy to review. He stated that the litigation for this is not something that the Planning Commission was involved in, and that has been addressed through the courts. Right now they are only looking at the subdivision of the property. Mr. Jeff Dabbs, 312 13th Street, stated that as far as letting a few homeowners buy the property and they would be allowed to put a fence up, it would look ridiculous if some of them did that. The property owners on the corners would not be able to extend their properties at all so it would do them no good to buy it. He stated that they had not received any communication from the HOA until they got the letter about the Public Hearing. If they wanted them to buy it maybe they could have gotten together with them. They had a picnic on each block when they wanted them to re-sign and stay in the association and now that they want them to buy they don't have enough on the ball to have a meeting and see if people are interested. He would prefer that if any of them owned it, it would be a group thing so that they could actually do something with it. Because for one person to actually buy that for the liability and the fencing and how it would look he is concerned. He stated that is was made for a park. He thinks it sounds like it would be a very expensive process. He wants to know ifbreaking it up in this way is a good land use design. He stated that if you go out there and actually see it, there is no way it would work. There would be about four houses that could actually benefit if you put fences out, but to him it would look odd. He thinks it would be a waste. Chair Rotty stated that regarding his question about having more meetings, at some point this evening he will ask the applicant if they would like the Planning Commission to delay their decision, but that is up to them. The Planning Commission's decision is a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council will make the final decision. Ms. Holly Pederson, 1305 Oak Street, stated that she moved in right as the litigation was going on and they are actually interested in buying part of the land. She stated that it has to be hard figuring out the liability issues, she doesn't know looking at it if everyone wants to take care of the land that's great but she doesn't know how you figure out the liability. Also if someone new moves in, they may not want the responsibility or the liability, so she feels that it is okay to spread out the land, she feels it is an okay idea. She also asked if they are allowed to plant trees. Staff stated that we would have to look at it on a case by case basis. Mr. Kenneth Hunter, 12th Street, stated that he moved in just as this was happening and his welcome to the community was being named in a law suit. He has not had a great track record with this. He looks out his house and he sees a mess on a daily basis. In the next few weeks there will be dandelions everywhere. From a land use perspective he would like to know where else in the city there is land like this that is not a park, which is maintained by the city, that is not open to the public as a park, where there is very little access. From a land use perspective, if this is not a park can it be maintained by the city? Staff stated that there is obviously city property that is not a park; the maintenance facility, city facilities, but this is an unusual situation that hopefully will not be repeated. Chair Rotty stated that he could not think of a parallel situation either. Chair Rotty stated that he does not recall in his 30 years on the Commission a situation like this. He stated that especially to the newer Planning Commission Minutes Apri113,201O Page 5 residents he feels bad that their welcome to the community was like this and he empathizes, but that is not the role of the Planning Commission. Mr. Hunter asked the HOA representative if this is approved by Planning Commission if the land would only be for sale to the home owners, or if anyone could come in and purchase the land. Mr. Iliff stated that due to the requirements of the lot combination, there would not be opportunity for anyone else to purchase the property other than adjoining property owners, however, it is not written into the Covenants. Ms. Nunn asked if this is contingent upon all of the landowners buying the property, or if only some of the property owners purchase, what happens to the rest of the property. Would the city go in and mow the un-purchased portions? Mr. Iliff stated that the HOA would be the owner of the un-purchased parcels and would continue to have the same responsibilities that they have now for the lots. He stated that the HOA would like to rid themselves of the lots as soon as possible and move forward. He stated that he feels the best option to put the land into productive use is this concept. Mr. Jim Farm, 213 12th street, asked if the zoning would be the same as a house lot and how the property taxes would be determined. Chair Rotty stated that the property value and taxes are determined by the county. Staff stated that the lots would be zoned residential just as the lot they would be combined with. The lots would not meet the size requirements to be zoned agricultural. Ms. Dabbs asked if they would have to have insurance on the land as they do with their houses. She is trying to consider all of the costs if they purchased the lots. Chair Rotty stated that she would have to ask her insurance agent that question. She asked what the commission would be recommending. Chair Rotty stated that the action that the Planning Commission will consider are, can it be subdivided the way you see it, and can that land change from open space to PUD. Ms. Tracy Gustano, 316 13th Street, stated that she feels that it would be an eyesore to have some of the pieces sold and then have to look at the dandelions and the rest of the property. It would not increase the property values. Ms. Jody Wipple, 204 13th Street, asked what happens to the land ifnone of the home owners are interested in buying it and HOA is till sitting there with the land. She also asked if anyone who is interested in purchasing the land, when they are going to get any notification as to the sale or price of the property. She stated for her to buy a parcel would not make sense due to her lot location. Mr. Iliff stated that if the property is not purchased the HOA will still be the owners and will be maintaining it to the required standards to which they are maintaining it now. They will provide information about the purchase after this process had been completed because they would need approval first. Mr. Hoffman asked if the Planning Commission's job is to sit there and entirely approve or disapprove if this will be allowed to happen. He would like to know if the City Council makes the final decision if they are in front of the right people. Chair Rotty stated that the Planning Commission holds the public hearing and then makes a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission looks at many of these plats and they hold the Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 Page 6 public hearing and hear the public opinions and the City Council will make a decision at a later date based upon the Commissions recommendation. Mr. Hoffman asked that since the Planning Commission does not want to make decisions about taxes and insurance and things, if they could ask the City Council to arrange some sort of better communication between the home owners and the HOA and maybe exclude the Planning Commission in a couple of meetings and get the ball rolling. He would like to know if the Planning Commission could make a recommendation that there be a meeting for more discussion. Chair Rotty clarified that the Commission does not have the authority to address many of the issues that have been discussed. He stated that he will ask the applicant if they would like to have the decision delayed for more communication between the parties. It is not the charge of the Planning Commission to mediate those types of items; that is for the courts. He stated that the applicants have heard the same information that the Commissioners have heard this evening. Mr. Dabbs stated that the HOA's plan had been created without talking to any of the home owners. He asked if the Planning Commission would be making a decision on this tonight even though it was not discussed with the home owners. Chair Rotty stated that the property in question is owned by the HOA and they have the legal right to submit their plan. The Commission will review it and make a recommendation to the City Council for the final approval at a later meeting. Ms. Jody Wipple stated that she does not have enough information about their covenants and does not feel that she has been provided enough information. She is wondering where she can go to get a copy of these documents and are they publicly available. Assistant City Planner Wippler stated that residents can come and see him and he will make them available to them. Mr. Illiff stated that the HOA would like to proceed. They are open to discussions with the home owners but they will see to that after the meeting. At this time they would like to proceed forward with their proposal. Commissioner Bonar asked what is usual and customary in other pocket parks in East Farmington as far as their standard of care. Staff stated that these parks are no different than any other and are subject to the City's weed ordinance. If grass is a foot tall they are notified that it must be cut, if that doe not happen the city will cut it and bill them. Commissioner Bonar asked for clarification about the water being shut off. Staff stated that the intent was to keep the area green. Once the residents seceded, they were trying to keep their costs down and they removed the sprinkler systems from the property. Regarding the Covenants, staff stated that the HOA come up with the original covenants and then staff reviewed it as they do with plats and there were several revisions and the overarching theme of the covenant is the control of drainage. The covenant restrictions are consistent with th~ city ordinances regarding drainage and utility easements. The planting of trees would need to be looked at on a case by case basis; generally speaking the city does not allow landscaping in the easements. That does not mean that there cannot be exceptions to that rule. Commissioner Bonar asked if these areas were to return to a natural state what he differences in the ordinances would be for a natural area versus a pocket park. Staff stated that they do not believe that he HOA has any interest in the areas returning to a natural state or doing anything differently than they are now. Commissioner Bonar asked if there Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 Page 7 would be any benefit if it did go back to a natural state regardless of who owned it. Staff stated this would again go into who maintains it and who is paying for it. He did not see any larger benefit for the community as open space. Commissioner Bonar stated that he sees it differently because forest areas don't require the same form of maintenance. Staff stated that if they were planting a lot of trees they would be affecting the drainage. He could not foresee the city letting a forest area going in there. Commissioner Vanderbeck asked staff to clarify if a home owner was to purchase the property and they wanted to put a shed on it they would need to come back through and get a permit and then go back through the Planning Commission before they could go on. Staff stated that this is correct. Commissioner Franceschelli stated that he is comfortable with the information provided and did not have any questions. Commission Kuyper clarified that the HOA would maintain control of any un-sold lots and this plan is not contingent upon all of the lots selling. Chair Rotty stated that he appreciated the home owners concern about not having a previous meeting with the HOA. Hopefully there will be discussion after this. He stated that it is unfortunate that things have happened as they have. This was not an issue that was created by the city; they are merely reacting to what has happened between the HOA and the home owners. He stated that he can understand why the HOA feels this is their best choice. He agrees that some of the lot configurations aren't the best. He feels this is a solution to a bad problem that had to be dealt with. From a land use perspective he feels that it is a solution. He stated that he would be comfortable forwarding this plan on and hope that it will spur some discussion between home owners and the HOA. MOTION by Bonar, second by Vanderbeck to close the public hearing. VOTED FOR: Rotty, Vanderbeck, Kuyper, Franceschelli VOTED AGAINST: Bonar, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Kuyper to recommend approval to the City Council. VOTED FOR: Rotty, Vanderbeck, Kuyper, Franceschelli VOTED AGAINST: Bonar, MOTION CARRIED. Staff stated that this item will be reviewed by the City Council on Monday, April 19, 2010. b) Variance Request to Expand a Legal Non-Conforming Structure on a Legal N on- Conforming Lot - 916 8th Street Applicant: RCP Enterprise (River Valley Home Care, Inc.) 916 8th Street Farmington, :MN 55024 The applicant would like to add a second story to the existing building. They would not be expanding the building envelop out. The property is zoned B-1 Highway Commercial which requires a 10,000 square foot lot. The current lot is just over 9,000 square feet, and the setbacks, which won't be changing with the expansion, are not currently per the requirement. Two of the setbacks are below the minimum for the B-1 district; this is a comer lot so it has two front setbacks. The front setback off of Hickory Street is 8 feet and it should be 30 feet. The north property line is 4 feet and should be 10 feet. Lot coverage is not an issue. They are required to have one parking stall per 250 square feet of office space. Planning Commission Minutes April!3,201O Page 8 One condition that would be placed upon this approval would be that they provide us with a parking plan showing that they have adequate room for 13 parking stalls. !fit is determined once the parking plan is submitted that there is not adequate room for the parking stalls there would need to be an additional variance requested. Staffhas determined that the six required items to qualify for a variance have been met. This property was originally zoned as residential and was later zoned commercial in 2000; making it legal non-conforming. The following conditions would be placed on an approval of the variance: 1. Submission of a building permit acceptable to the City's Building Official. 2. Submission of a parking plan to the Planning Department showing the location of the required 13 off street parking stalls. 3. The height of the proposed building cannot exceed 35 feet. Commissioner Vanderbeck asked if there had been any issues with the neighbors. Staff stated that they have not been contacted by any of the neighbors regarding the expansion plans. Just to the north of the property is a two story apartment building. Commissioner Franceschelli asked if there were any issues with sight lines with access to Highway 3. Staff stated that they are not aware of any. Chair Rotty asked how many employees they employ and if they are looking to expand. Ms. Rachelle Pariseau, owner, stated that they currently have 197nemployees but since they do home care, they do not typically have a lot of office staff. There are about 7 employees who come in every day and about 6 that come in once a week. MOTION by Vanderbeck, second by Kuyper to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Vanderbeck, second by Franceschelli to approve the variance with the stated conditions. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Variance Request to Exceed the Maximum Lot Coverage Requirement in a B-3 Zoning District Applicant: Installed Building Solutions 517 1st Street Farmington, MN 55024 The applicant has applied for a variance to exceed the maximum lot coverage in the B-3 zoning district by 5.83%. They would like to add a 10' x 100' racking system which is basically storage enclosed on 3 sides and on the top. They would utilize that area to store a lot of material that is currently being stored out in the open on this property. The lot coverage on the property already exceeds the minimum. Three years ago the applicant was granted a variance for an office expansion that did not take place and therefore the variance was rescinded. Staff has provided a breakdown of the adjacent commercial properties indicating the lot coverage that currently exist in the area. Most of the properties are over the lot coverage maximum. Staff has determined that the variance request meets the criteria for a hardship. Staffis recommending approval of the variance with the following contingency: 1. The applicant submits a building plan acceptable to the City's Building Official. Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 Page 9 Mr. Jeremy Labeau, owner, stated that he is looking to put in a racking system that would be set on a concrete pad on the back side of the building. He feels that it will make the property more aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors. It will protect the material and allow for more storage space for their materials as they expand. Commissioner Franceschelli asked how long the variance remains in place if the project is not completed right away. Staff stated that if substantial progress has not been made within I year, the variance can be voided. Mr. Ellsworth Hoeppner, 27 Walnut Street, stated that the back of the building was really bad over the winter with pieces of plastic and insulation blowing into their yard. He stated that the building is maxed out right now, there are trucks stored inside, and they don't have room for the insulation inside so they store it outside. He thinks that they should store the trucks outside and the materials inside. He stated that they keep adding variances on this property and this is the second variance on this property. He stated that there is already a variance for the parking area. Along the railroad tracks along Spruce Street and you come across and you look to the south all you see is insulations trucks in big pile back there. When you go along 2nd Street and make a left turn all you see is a mess back there. He feels that there should be a screen around it so you can't see it. He stated that 3 weeks ago he was outside and a man stopped and said that the west side of Farmington was really junky. He said he was looking for a house to buy but he had changed his mind. He would like to see the property improved and cleaned up. He stated that the residents in his area all keep their properties real nice and he doesn't understand what he is trying to put in back. Mr. Hoeppner stated that it would not improve the way things look now. Chair Rotty asked Mr. Hoeppner if when he was referring to screening ifhe was referring to slats in the fence. Mr. Hoeppner stated that that would help. Commissioner Kuyper asked exactly why types of products would be stored back there. Mr. Labeau stated that it would be similar to what is stored back there now. It would be sheets of extruded foam insulation on pallets, and there would be drain tile, sump baskets. Commissioner Kuyper asked if this racking would help with some of the issues that Mr. Hoeppner brought up with blowing. Mr. Labeau stated that it would do exactly that. Mr. Labeau stated that he would consider putting slats in the fence to screen the site from the neighbors. Chair Rotty strongly encourage Mr. Labeau to put the screening in. Mr. Hoeppner also suggested that Mr. Labeau put something over the containers to prevent stuff from blowing around when it's windy at night and on the weekends. Mr. Labeau will look into that as well. MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Kuyper to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Kuyper to approve the variance. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Conditional Use Permit to Allow an Auto Repair, Major Use in the B-3 Zoning District (301 Pine Street) Applicant: Oleg V dovchenko 17477 Gettysburg Way Lakeville, MN 55044 The applicant has request a CUP to open a auto repair major out of the property at 301 Pine Street. His overall plan is to sell used autos out of that property, the auto repair portion of Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2010 Page 10 that would be a secondary use of that business. He would have two bays in the existing building. The property is zoned B-3 and auto sales is a permitted use. Historically the site has been used as auto sales at times. The applicant has indicated that at times he would like to have as many as 75 cars on site; obviously that is space permitting. He would be using the parking that is located on the west, adjacent to the railroad with the potential of going toward the rear as well and he would obviously have some within the building itself. For auto repair major there is a requirement for three off street parking stalls per bay, so he will need six designated stalls for customers. If the CUP is approved the applicant would need to contact the Building Official to see what kind of requirements mayor may not be required for the building. The approval would carry the following conditions: 1. The applicant obtains all necessary building permits from the City Building Official. 2. A sign permit is applied for and approved for any external signage that may be placed on the premises. 3. Other conditions as may be required by the Planning commission. Mr. V dovchenko stated that he will put two stalls in right away and a frame rack. He would buy salvaged auto cars to repair and sell. He stated that there is plenty of room for parking. Mr. Bill Hanson whose family limited partnership owns the building, stated that they purchased the building in 2003 and at that time it was a used car. He stated that the applicant will be renting the narrowest part of the building for his operations and he is currently in business in Savage. Additionally, he feels that the use will be appropriate and beneficial to the City. He stated that he will be constructing the lease carefully to require that the aesthetics of the site be maintained. He has also determined that it will not be in direct competition with Mr. Pederson's business which is located across the street. Chair Rotty stated that he got a call from a resident earlier today regarding off street parking. He asked Mr. V dovchenko if there would be a lot of off street parking needed. Mr. V dovchenko stated that he feels the six spaces will be adequate and he would prefer to have the parking on site rather than on street. He stated that he will most likely be bringing business to Mr. Pederson rather than taking it away. Mr. Hanson stated that on the south side of the building there are plenty of spaces there and he has given the adjacent apartment building occupants permission to park along the building and he doesn't see any reason that it would be a problem going forward. Commissioner Bonar asked if the property is fenced or if it is screened. Staff stated that the entire property is screened and fenced. Chair Rotty asked the applicant how many cars he anticipates having on his lot at one time. The applicant stated that the maximum would probably be 75. The hours of operation would be six days a week from 8:00 am to 7:00 pm. He is not going to do any additional lighting on site. He stated that he understands that he needs a sign permit for any additional signage. MOTION by Kuyper, second by Vanderbeck to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTON CARRIED. MOTION by Kuyper, second by Bonar to approve the conditional use permit with the stated contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. e) Text Amendment to Section 10-2-1 Concerning Zoning Definitions, Section 10-5-1 Concerning the Zoning Map, and Section 10-5-25 Concerning the Floodplain Overlay District Planning Commission Minutes Apri113,201O Page 11 Applicant: City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 There are three different zoning amendments being requested at this time. The changes are due to FEMA re-flying Dakota County for flood insurance. The three areas to be amended are the zoning definitions, the zoning map and the floodplain overlay district. The basis of these amendments is to adopt the panel numbers of the rate maps that become effective June 18,2010. Per FEMA we must have our code updated to meet their standards and to have those map numbers incorporated in the code prior to the June 18, 2010 date. Assistant City Planner Wippler stated that the summary ordinance would be what is published rather than all of the extensive changes. Commissioner Bonar asked if there would be maps available to look at on a later date. Staff stated that they have preliminary maps now but they tend not to distribute those to the public until they are finalized. Commissioner Franceschelli asked why FEMA is requiring this. Staff stated that it is due to the City's active participation in the National Flood Insurance Protection Program (NFIPP). If these changes are not made prior to the deadline, FEMA could suspend the City of Farmington from the program and the property owners in question would be subject to not having insurance. There were no residents in attendance to comment. MOTION by Vanderbeck, second by Kuyper to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Kuyper, second by Vanderbeck to recommend approval of the amendments. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion None 5. Adjourn MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Kuyper to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. /:~~:x SUbmitted" J ~---\.Zz . ....." iiS~;gi~ ... --'~~- Administrative Assistani Approved