Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-12-17 Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting December 12,2017 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty,Franceschelli,Kuyper, Rich Members Absent: Bjorge Also Present: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager 2. Approval of Minutes a. MOTON by Franceschelli second by Kuyper to approve the minutes of November 14, 2017. Voting for: Franceschelli,Kuyper, Rich. Abstain: Rotty. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings—Chair Rotty opened the public hearings a. Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Recreational Vehicle Storage Facility in the B-4 Zone—20522 Akin Road The applicant is Eric Ruud. He is proposing to open a recreational vehicle storage business on this site. It would hold 150 storage spaces. The existing building will be used for a shop/storage area. He will add asphalt to the north and west side of the existing building,remove 4"of topsoil where needed especially along the east side of the property, overlay the entire useable space with 1.5"of lime rock to be used for storage of the vehicles,trim trees as needed, improve the existing berm along Akin Road and add a berm to the south side of the driveway, add a 6 ft. high chain link fence around the entire property for security, add fence screening to the west side of the chain link fence along Akin Road, install automated gate with keypad, add surveillance and lighting as needed. Staff finds the storage of recreational vehicles on 1.5"of lime rock acceptable according to code. There is a plan to pave a bituminous drive aisle through the site, but the applicant is requesting a year to complete this. The installation of lime rock will need to be completed prior to the storage of vehicles. There are two wetlands that impact the site along the north and the east sides. All parking areas must be located outside the wetland areas. There are six criteria for approval of the CUP. 1. The proposed use conforms to the district permitted and conditional use provisions and all general regulations of this title. 2. 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 the performance standards listed below. 3. The proposed use shall be constructed, designed, sited, oriented and landscaped to produce harmonious relationship of buildings and grounds to adjacent buildings and properties. 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 to minimize traffic congestion in the neighborhood. 6. The proposed use shall preserve the objectives of this title and shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Planning Commission Minutes December 12,2017 Page 2 Approval of the CUP is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant obtains all necessary building permits from the city's building official. 2, A sign permit is applied for and approved for any external signage that may be placed on the premises. 3. The 1.5"lime rock parking pads must be installed prior to the storing of any recreational vehicles on the site. 4. The bituminous drive aisle shall be installed no later than December 12,2018. 5. The applicant must provide documentation to the city that the wetlands will not be impacted by the proposed use. Mr. Matt Soucek, 20497 Akin Circle,regarding the transportation he cannot figure out why 100 yards is 50 mph and the rest is 45 mph. He asked if the entire road could be 45 mph because of this business. There are no turn lanes. Chair Rotty stated the commission doesn't have the authority to change speed limits. Mr. Soucek asked with the future use,will a building be built. He would like a place to keep his boat, especially right across the street. His concern is people that bring their junk and store it there. He saw the 6 ft. chain link fence with the mesh so what is the point of that? People will still see it and he would prefer not to see it. Now he sees animals running around in there. He wanted to know what the intentions are, but a building will not be built and he wished it would. He would like to see indoor storage. He didn't have an issue with it,but he does not want to see accidents there. Mr. Brian Murphy, 6730 Lakeville Blvd, stated the water coming out of the church goes along the ditch and it gets trapped where it cannot go to the north. He felt this is something that should be reviewed. Staff will look at drainage issues. Member Franceschelli asked if a berm on the applicant's side would be sufficient to protect the wetlands. Staff will look at it. Member Franceschelli asked what hours the shop will be available for operation. His concern is the shop is running at 10:00 p.m. and the neighbors are trying to sleep. Mr. Ruud stated they will accommodate any reasonable business hours the city wants. Member Franceschelli noted this will be one of the conditions. Regarding security and surveillance,the intent is to put in lighting and cameras. He asked that the lights not spill over into the neighbor's property and stay contained within the storage property and when siting the cameras,take into account the neighbor's privacy. Mr. Ruud stated there are four flood lights on the building now and that will remain. As far as cameras,he will do whatever is required. Regarding the drainage issue,the parking area will be 1.5"lime rock so the water should not change. He will make any concessions needed. He will not be altering the ditch on the south side unless it would benefit surrounding properties. He will take responsibility for anything that needs to be done on the property he is purchasing. Member Kuyper was also wondering about the lighting and operations. There have been a lot of studies about the speed limit. The speed limit of 45 mph was a compromise. This will upgrade the property and the berm will help with the noise. Member Rich asked if Mr. Ruud is representing someone. Mr. Ruud stated he is the buyer. Member Rich asked about the shop space and if it is for the RV owners to use or if there will be some kind of service there. Mr. Ruud stated the hope would be to lease Planning Commission Minutes December 12,2017 Page 3 the shop out to a separate entity. We would still have to comply with the permitted use for that district. The long term goal would be to utilize it for storage. Right now we don't know who would be the end user in that building. Member Rich assumed there would be some kind of office there for business hours that would be staffed. Mr. Ruud stated yes,there will be a small 10 x 10 office that would be for the storage and the shop is much larger. Hopefully there would be one user that would utilize the remainder of the shop because of how it is constructed. It could be divided for two separate users. Member Rich asked if there is staff there, if water and sewer are available. Mr. Ruud stated there are holding tanks on site. Tying into the sewer line would have to be discussed. Member Rich asked about what kind of documentation will be needed to satisfy that the wetlands will not be impacted. Staff stated we need to have an understanding of where the wetlands are on site and that will be part of the documentation to make sure they are not impacted. Likely, a professional report will be needed, Chair Rotty stated the commission has dealt with this property for a period of time and most recently when we rezoned it to B-4 to allow a wider type of use. The residents mostly to the west were here in force and wanted to have a voice in it. Mr. Ruud is concerned for the neighbors and doesn't want this to be an eyesore. That was Chair Rotty's biggest concern, that the neighbors not be negatively impacted. The applicant has that in mind. Chair Rotty asked about the amount of asphalt. Mr. Ruud stated it will be the entire front end of the property from the west to the road. Chair Rotty noted the entire space will be covered with 1.5" of lime rock. He asked if the engineer determined that amount. Mr. Ruud stated the concern is more to minimize the amount of asphalt because the soils are not conducive to support that entire property with asphalt with regards to water runoff. Chair Rotty asked about the fence on the west and south sides and if it will go behind or on top of the berm. Mr. Ruud stated the fence will be on top of the berm and it will slope down to meet the area that will tie into the shop. The berm on the north side is 4 ft.high. To the west everything will be screened to where you would not know what is behind there from the road. They would not be opposed to going higher than 6 ft. with the fence on the front side. Around the rest of the perimeter it would be cost prohibitive to go higher. Mr. Ruud stated there are some trees that are hanging over the property boundaries so those will be trimmed aggressively in some areas. It will be year around storage. Chair Rotty noted the residents had a concern about semi's. Mr. Ruud stated there would be no intention of having semi's running on the property. Staff stated the CUP being approved tonight is for recreational vehicle storage. Mr. Ruud stated they are limited with the B-4 zoning and have no intention of running something that is not permitted. Chair Rotty asked as part of the visibility,there are campers almost to the property line on the north and south borders. He asked if pushing them back would help with visibility. Mr. Ruud stated they will be visible from certain sides of the property no matter what. In the summer there will be foliage to cover, but in the winter, the depth wouldn't matter. They haven't proposed to do any screening on the sides or back with the 6 ft. fence, Chair Rotty asked about the operation. Mr. Ruud stated there will be hours of operation for picking up and dropping off. He needs to determine if the software allows the keypad to operate during certain hours. Chair Rotty clarified there will be 150 people that will know the code to the keypad. Chair Rotty stated he will support this because he believes Mr. Ruud will be a good neighbor and do this right. Planning Commission Minutes December 12,2017 Page 4 Staff's recommendation for lighting is there is a code that allows a certain amount to spill over. Regarding hours of operation,that is subjective. Mr. Ruud is receptive to having hours placed on this use. Staff does not have any history for this type of use. Chair Rotty stated if the commission were to set hours and it does not work,then they could be adjusted by staff. Staff agreed. Member Franceschelli noted the software for keypads can support 300 to 400 unique ID codes for individual slots. Then we would not need hours of operation. Hours could be for the use of the shop, but that is up to Mr. Ruud. Member Franceschelli felt the hours should not be restricted at this time. MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Rich to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Regarding hours of operation for the shop, Chair Rotty recommended 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. This will be condition number six. Any changes to hours would be done administratively through staff. MOTION by Kuyper, second by Rich to approve the conditional use permit allowing a recreational vehicle storage facility to take place at 20522 Akin Road, subject to the six conditions. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a. Draft Ordinance Regarding Fencing Staff presented a draft ordinance with changes to the code regarding fencing. In September the commission discussed amending this code. The current draft strikes the materials portion. Adjacent cities do not address the type of materials used. The other change deals with the construction and maintenance of fencing. Language was added to strengthen the code stating, "Every fence shall be constructed in a substantial workmanlike manner and of substantial material reasonably suited for which the fence is proposed to be used. Every fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair,free from deterioration, lose or rotting pieces,holes,breaks or gaps,not otherwise intended in the original design of the fence, and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger or constitute a nuisance,public or private. Any such fence which is or has become dangerous to the public safety,health or welfare is a public nuisance and abatement would be required. All exterior surfaces of any fence shall be protected from the elements by paint or other protective surface coating or treatment which shall be maintained in good repair to provide the intended protection from the elements." Ms. Kim Walton, 19933 Dover Drive,previously the commission talked about not having eyesores in Farmington. She felt if the code changes, it is open to interpretation and you can put up any kind of fence you want. Since there were already rules in place,these owners decided to ask for forgiveness not permission. They put up what they felt like. She looks at the fence every day. Not only is it sheet metal which was specifically on the list before of not being allowed,it is rusted sheet metal. In our community there needs to be rules and we should try our best to follow the rules. If we change it where there is no language where before it said no plastic sheeting, no sheet metal,we will have everything. That is not what she sees as a vision for Farmington. What would keep Planning Commission Minutes December 12,2017 Page 5 someone from putting up chicken wire or barbed wire? If there are no rules, she doesn't understand why there wouldn't be rules. She does not have a fence,but if she did, it would be a wood fence. She wants the community to be pretty and not look like a hodge podge of whatever material. She asked who enforces these rules. Is there someone that drives around and looks for issues like this? She has wondered who is in charge of when there is grass behind a fence and then there is a path, who mows that? Is it the city or the property owner? She drives around and there are tall weeds behind fences. She believes in rules and following them. Chair Rotty stated one of Ms. Walton's biggest concerns is the materials used in making a fence and that they should be appropriate and not an eyesore to the neighbors. The other one is who enforces the city code and who enforces the maintenance side of the code. Planning Manager Wippler, stated he is the zoning administrator and enforces the zoning code. He does not drive around looking for violations. We do not have a dedicated code enforcement officer or community service officer. So we do not have a dedicated person driving around looking for things. In the past it has been on a complaint basis. This past summer we did have a part time water patrol employee who also did proactive code enforcement. As of right now we do not have a full time code enforcement officer. Chair Rotty explained the commission will be discussing fencing material and the commission makes a recommendation to the City Council, who approves the ordinances. Member Kuyper stated we used to have a community service officer who would look for violations. It would be nice if that was included in the budget again. There are many new products coming out for fencing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The maintenance is his biggest concern and that is covered in this draft ordinance. He asked if other city's process is different when it comes to fencing. Staff stated most of the communities are similar to Farmington in how we approve fencing. A building permit is required only for fences over 6 ft. in height. A variance is also required for this height which is approved by the Planning Commission. Most have a$75 fee. Member Kuyper stated currently if a fence does not meet that criteria we don't know what material will be used. Staff stated we do ask that a site plan or survey be provided showing where the fence will be located. As we don't require a permit,many times the city does not receive that information. Member Kuyper asked if there was a way to charge a fee to get more information upfront. So we know where the fence will be and the material. Staff stated if we do require a permit,then there would have to be an inspection. It would need to be determined as to who would do the inspection. Member Rich stated if we have various standards and we don't have a means of communicating those standards and approving fences then we shouldn't have the standards. This draft correctly moves in that direction. He was not sure he is comfortable with that direction. There are two intentions;one, is there some kind of fence permit or not, and the other is the aesthetics. We either give up entirely on that or we figure out whose eyes are dominant. There is never a good way to work that out. Regarding the last paragraph about the exterior surfaces being protected from the elements, does that rule out barn wood? That is a very popular item. The more rustic, the more desirable it is. How about untreated lumber? That would not have protection on it. If we are not having standards,how do we even enforce that? The specific fence that came to attention is another example of material that to some people is quaint and Planning Commission Minutes December 12,2017 Page 6 nostalgic and to others is an eyesore. He would prefer that we have some expedited permitting process and have some standards. We either give up entirely and not have any permitting, or that goes together with having certain standards. Member Franceschelli read item F of the ordinance regarding a site plan and building permit. The two sentences are contradictory; either a permit is required at 4 ft. or 6 ft., you cannot split it. You can't enforce this. You don't have a permit system. You don't have anything that tells people what the restrictions are. You do address corners and being a good neighbor with various setbacks, but this is not enforceable without a permit. We should seriously look at building permits. Then we can have an opportunity to review the construction of the project before it is an expenditure on the home owner. Distressed wood is very vogue right now. Untreated lumber has a tendency to change from a nice fresh look to a grayish tone. When we had the Heritage Preservation Commission and you lived in the historic overlay district,the restriction was the fence would complement the era the house was constructed. You couldn't have a fence that was attached to a structure; it had to be free standing at the corners. That needs to be incorporated into this so we can propose to our residents something that is aesthetically pleasing, something that is of durable material,something that is enforceable. This is a good first step,but we need to be more involved in it. Staff would like to have this done during the first quarter of 2018. Chair Rotty stated what stood out to him was "substantial workmanlike manner"and"substantial material." That could be different to different people. As far as protected elements,the question is who determines that and how old if paint is 10 or 20 years old. Is everyone grandfathered in who has a fence? Staff noted they would have to be. Chair Rotty wondered if we should look at the permitting side and what would that look like, do we have the resources,what would the cost be, what hindrance would this be to the residents, etc. Staff will look into a permitting process. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Kuyper second by Franceschelli to adjourn at 8:05 p.m. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Muller Administrative Assistant