Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-19 CITY OF Meeting Location: FARMI NGTON Farmington City Hall VIII IIIIIII-� 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 12, 2019 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (a) Approve Planning Commission Minutes 3. DISCUSSION (a) H PC-Signage Proposal Exchange Bank Building-344 Third Street (b) 2040 Comprehensive Plan work plan and schedule 4. ADJOURN CITY OF 0430 Third St., Farmington, MN 55024 FARM I N GTO N © 651-280-680o -4=-00--"I"---_ _„,,,,..•011" 6O FarmingtonMN.gov TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Approve Planning Commission Minutes DATE: November 12, 2019 INTRODUCTION Attached, are the minutes from the October 8, 2019 regular meeting and the October 22, 2019 special meeting. DISCUSSION NA ACTION REQUESTED Approve the minutes from the October 8, 2019 regular meeting and the October 22, 2019 special meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Backup Material October 8, 2019 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes D Backup Material October 22, 2019 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting October 8,2019 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Franceschelli, Tesky, Windschitl Members Absent: None Also Present: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager; Adam Kienberger, Community Development Specialist; Kalley Swift, Community Development Specialist 2. Approval of Minutes a. MOTON by Franceschelli second by Windschitl to approve the minutes of August 13, 2019. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings—Chair Rotty opened the public hearings a. Variance Request from Section 10-6-4(D) of the City Code Allowing an Access Drive within a Commercial District Wider than 30 feet—321 Elm Street The applicant is EZ Auto, 321 Elm Street. A CUP was granted in June to expand his business with a 2,520 square foot building addition as well as parking on the north end of the building. Mr. Zeimet will demolish the house to the north. He is requesting a variance for an access off of 4th Street that would be 50 ft. 6 inches wide. The criteria for the variance have been met. Members agreed with this request. MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Tesky to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Tesky, second by Windschitl to approve the variance to allow an access drive within a commercial district up to 50 feet 6 inches in width. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b. Variance Request from Section 10-6-6(A) of the City Code to Allow an Accessory Structure(Shed)to be Located Closer than 10 feet to an Existing Structure—520 Main Street Mr. Dale Lomas has requested a variance to allow a shed to be located closer than 10 feet to an existing structure at 520 Main Street. Mr. Lomas would like to construct a 10'x20' shed towards the rear of the property adjacent to an existing detached garage. It will be setback 4 feet from the side lot line and 30 feet from the rear property line adjacent to the alley. City code requires a 10 foot separation between structures. The shed would be 3 feet from the garage. If approved, the shed could not have any openings on the inside wall adjacent to the garage and it would have to have a one-hour fire wall separation placed within the shed. The criteria have been met. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The shed must be constructed with no openings on the interior wall adjacent to the detached garage and all of the inside walls of the proposed shed must be fire rated with a minimum '/2" sheet rock. 2. That the appropriate city staff be notified for inspection of the property upon completion. Members agreed with the request. Mr. Lomas agreed with the conditions. MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Tesky to close the public hearing. APIF,MOTION Planning Commission Minutes October 8,2019 Page 2 CARRIED. MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Tesky to approve the 7 foot variance to allow an accessory structure (shed)to be located closer than 10 feet to an existing structure with the above conditions. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c. Application for an Amendment to a Previously Approved Conditional Use Permit to Expand the Commercial Recreational Use in an Existing Building and to Allow for a 24-hour Access Gym Component—21210 Eaton Avenue The applicant is Crossfit Calypso. Suite B would be converted into a 24-hour access gym. Parking is adequate for this request. The six criteria for a CUP have been met. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. A sign permit be applied for and approved for any exterior signage to be placed on the premises. 2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits from the city's Building Official. Surveillance cameras will be in place with the 24 hour access. Members that have 24 hour access will have a key app on their phone to unlock and lock the door. Emergency procedures will be posted. Any new members will require personal training. MOTION by Tesky, second by Windschitl to close the public hearing. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Tesky, second by Franceschelli to approve the Conditional Use Permit allowing the expansion of a commercial recreation use and the addition of a 24-hour access gym within the IP zoning district at 21210 Eaton Avenue subject to the above conditions. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. d. Second Amendment to a Planned Unit Development Site Plan for the Trinity Campus—905 Elm Street This second amendment to the PUD site plan includes the following revisions: 1. The removal of the north/south access road. It has been determined that this access is not needed for fire protection reasons. 2. Cross access to the Pellicci site (3560 213th Street W) is maintained with the proposed amended PUD site plan with an access drive that will extend from the southern boundary of the Pellicci site southeast to the Trinity entry drive. Additionally, cross access will be provided on the north end of the Trinity site off of 213th Street to the parking lot on the north end of the Pellicci site. The applicant will need to provide the necessary easement from cross access at the two locations identified on the amended PUD site plan and ensure those areas are available for construction of those accesses by the adjacent property owner. Staff recommends approval with the condition that the applicant furnish a signed easement agreement for the two cross accesses shown on the amended site plan. Commission members agreed with the request. MOTION by Windschitl, second by Tesky to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Tesky to recommend approval to the City Council of the second amendment to the Planned Unit Development site plan for Trinity Care Center with the above condition. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Minutes October 8,2019 Page 3 e. Application for an Amendment to a Previously Approved Conditional Use Permit to Extend the Approved Timeframe for Completion of Improvements—21040 Chippendale Avenue The applicant is Big Man Auto, 21040 Chippendale Avenue. As part of the approval of the 2018 CUP, five conditions were established: 1. The applicant securing all necessary building permits. 2. A sign permit must be applied for and approved for any external signage that may be placed on site. 3. All off-street parking areas must be surfaced with concrete or bituminous in accordance with Section 10-6-4(B) of the city code. The surfacing must be completed within one year of approval of the CUP or November 13, 2019. 4. The applicant and/or property owner petition and receive the necessary approvals for annexation of the subject property into the city within one year of approval of the CUP or November 13, 2019. 5. Upon annexation,the site must be connected to city water and any wells on site must be abandoned. The applicant has petitioned for annexation and is working with Empire Township on that process. This should be completed before the end of 2019. The applicant is requesting to extend the timeframe for completion of the water connection and pavement of the parking lot to November 2020 as the building required more maintenance and set up than planned and the costs exceeded what was anticipated. A resident asked if abandonment of the wells included sealing the well,which it does. Member Franceschelli suggested extending the timeline to July 31,2020. Members agreed. Chair Rotty noted the business is pushing the boundaries of the property, especially with vehicles parked in the front. He noted the water has to come quite a distance to reach the property and encouraged the business owner to look at that cost. MOTION by Tesky, second by Windschitl to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Windschitl to approve the amendment and extend the timeframe for completion of improvements to July 31, 2020. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. f. ONG Auto, LLC—315 Pine Street Possible CUP Revocation -Continued This public hearing is continued from July 9, 2019. It was continued to allow the applicant time to meet conditions that were approved with the CUP in June 2017. The conditions were: 1. The applicant obtains all necessary building permits from the city's building official. 2. A sign permit is applied for any external signage. 3. The proposed parking area must be surfaced with concrete or bituminous and shall be setback at least ten feet from all property lines. Staff has received numerous complaints of vehicles being parked in the boulevard and the privacy fencing has only been installed on the east side of the property. Mr. Vdovchenko, owner, has a plan in place. Planning Commission Minutes October 8,2019 Page 4 Mr. Vdovchenko stated the plan is on the west side of the building put up a fence that will look nice. He has contacted a fence company and they are booked until next year. Mr. Randy Meade, 315 Pine Street, lives next door. He stated the owner is not dragging his feet. In fact, if he decides to expand,Mr. Meade has agreed to let him purchase his property. That area is zoned light industrial. No one else will want to buy a house that is zoned light industrial. Member Franceschelli liked the effort the owner is trying to move forward and agreed to extend the CUP. Member Tesky noted it should be a privacy fence and asked if the three-rail fence and spruce trees meet the privacy requirement. Staff replied no. Member Tesky suggested giving him more time for something that meets the privacy requirement. Staff stated the screen requirement is full opaque fencing or a combination of fencing, berming and landscaping. Having a split rail fence and then evergreens does not meet that. Chair Rotty stated it should be a total wood fence or full greenage; you do not do half screening for this type of business. Member Tesky agreed. She understood the difficulty with timing, but also had concerns about the actual privacy aspect. The owner stated for snow removal, it would be easier to remove the planks, clean the lot and put them back in. The full fencing will look like a concentration camp. He wants it to look good. Chair Rotty stated he had a fence bid within 30 days of their last meeting, so he had time to get this to city staff before the meeting. The commission and staff just received it tonight. Member Windschitl asked why the owner doesn't want to put up a fence that is more secure. The owner has had a lot of thefts recently because of the fence on the east side. Before he put that up, nothing happened. Chair Rotty stated we want the business to stay in Farmington and are glad it is doing well. It has been a struggle to get things completed as we are going on 28 months now. He has noticed the cars are back on the boulevard and almost out to the curb. He understood employees need a place to park, but you have to police your property. We gave an extension to October and we are struggling to get things completed. Now you are asking for another extension. The owner would like an extension to next year to put up the fence. Member Franceschelli stated if we leave it up to the fence company as to when it can be installed, we are relying on a third party. But if he is under contract with them,then he is committed. Chair Rotty stated tonight is the first time we have seen the fence plan. He was okay with an extension, but he wanted a list of things that need to be done by that date. It will be almost three years to get things done. Staff would like time to review the fence plan. Chair Rotty liked the idea of a visually appealing fence, but you have to remember what you are covering up—car pieces and parts. What else needs to be done for an extension to be granted? Staff replied fencing, general cleanup and make sure the parking is off the boulevard and any adjacent property. Members agreed to extend the CUP to May 31, 2020. Chair Rotty noted this is the third extension and all work needs to be done by May 31, 2020. Mr. Vdovchenko agreed. MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Tesky to continue the public hearing to the June 2020 meeting. This was acceptable to staff and Mr. Vdovchenko. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Minutes October 8,2019 Page 5 4. Discussion a. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update and Implementation Schedule Staff wanted to give an update on the comp plan process. A letter of completeness has been received from the Met Council and they can start their committee review of the plan. Once it is approved by the Met Council it will go to the City Council authorizing us to put the plan into effect. After that we will have nine months to do the real work for zoning and bringing our official controls into compliance with the comp plan. That includes changing zoning districts including the downtown redevelopment plan and the TH3 corridor plan in addition to an overlay district. Staff will put together a plan that outlines the work and will bring that to the Planning Commission next month. b. HPC—Certificate of Appropriateness Request for Exterior Work—345 3rd Street (Fletcher Building) The powers and duties of the Heritage Preservation Commission were recently assigned to the Planning Commission. Ms. Pam Heikkila, of Heikkila Studios, is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to conduct exterior renovations on her building at 345 3rd Street. The city code is included in the staff memo. No permit shall be issued by the city for a building with Heritage Landmark status without a Certificate of Appropriateness. The building was built in 1877 and was designated a Heritage Landmark in 2001 by the City Council. The applicant is seeking approval to do improvements to the building which includes replacing missing bricks,tuckpointing, restorative work on the Oak Street and Third Street sides at the base of the building, application of stucco along the north wall and the back wall along with flashing at the roof base. Any work done is required to follow the city code including design review standards and guidelines, following the Secretary of the Interior Standards. If the work does not meet these standards, it is not recommended a Certificate of Appropriateness be granted and therefore, a building permit cannot be issued. The significance of the building is its Chaska brick façade. The application of stucco to the north and east walls of the building does not comply with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Because of this, staff is recommending denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the stucco work. Staff recommends approval of a limited Certificate of Appropriateness for the work to the base of the building. This would be required for a building permit. If the Planning Commission denies the request, the applicant can appeal to the City Council. Ms. Pam Heikkila stated she is a long-time resident and business owner. Three or four years ago the paint started pealing and it wasn't noticed. The bricks are like sugar cubes. To deny this request, you will have buckets of the building falling down. She had no idea when the paint started peeling that this would happen. No one sees the walls to the north and east where she wants to apply stucco. To not act tonight, is to allow the oldest building in Farmington to fall down. She understands stucco doesn't meet a Certificate of Appropriateness, but her building was appraised at$305,000. The city wants her to put$312,000,which is the last bid, into fixing the building. Even if she was a millionaire, you would not have that done. She has tried for over a year to get a contractor and no one will do it this year. The front and Oak Street side are starting to peel. She wants to put some money into it so Farmington looks great. She cares deeply about Farmington and her building. Stucco work can be done this month. She presented a petition signed by other business owners to protect her building. To say no would be senseless and cruel. The city is saying no, but not giving an option. She wants them to act tonight. It is an alleyway. You can't see it. Planning Commission Minutes October 8,2019 Page 6 Member Franceschelli was the former chair of the HPC. Water has been the detriment to the Fletcher building for many years. The freeze/thaw cycles have pushed the mortar from the joints and allowed water to get behind the bricks. The first order of business and most appropriate start would be to get the water issue under control. You would have to have a company grind out the old mortar and put in new materials that resemble the mortar used in the 1870's (basically tuckpointing) and they can do that. That will extend the longevity of the bricks because it will keep the water from getting behind the bricks. That is why we are seeing the bubbling on the front and side of the building also. Because it is not seen in the back and alley it had free reign until it started falling. Controlling the water is an appropriate start. Chaska brick,press molded brick,has a long life. It has been painted. Stucco for this type of structure may not be appropriate because it has a tendency to attract water and migrate it into the brick themselves. In his opinion, stucco is not the answer. There is something else out there to maintain the integrity of the building. A Certificate of Appropriateness for stucco is not appropriate at this time. The tuckpointing will stop the water and is appropriate. Member Tesky agreed. The stucco will not solve the problem. It will look good for a few years, but we will continue to have the water intrusion. Tuckpointing is the better approach and keeping within the historic aspect of the building. Member Franceschelli noted the State Historic Preservation sometimes has grants available and also the Department of the Interior. Ms. Heikkila stated she has looked into that and made numerous phone calls. The stucco company has done a lot of work on historical buildings. They are saying a water repellant is imbedded in the stucco. With the sealing and flashing,the water will run out and over. She does not want it to be a band aid. Member Franceschelli stated for the Italianate look of the building,they didn't use stucco. Ms. Heikkila replied it's the alley and asked if the city is willing to pay for it and get a company out there because it is falling. She asked if the commission was comfortable with bricks falling until she has money to pay for it. If she took out a loan for that much, 100%of what she made until retirement will go directly to a nonprofit to fund Farmington's history. She's not doing it. She does not have the money. Any business person would say that is foolish. Member Franceshelli stated the core problem is water. We go with the tuckpointing. Ms. Heikkila stated with the stucco that is done, it seals it out totally. Member Tesky asked if specifications were provided as to what materials will be used. Ms. Heikkila stated someone at the city talked to the contractor and was told no water will get to the bricks. The last thing she wants to do is invest money into a band aid. It is the alleyway and the top half of the back. Member Franceschelli understood the sense of urgency, but stucco is the secondary issue. It would be appropriate to do a certificate for the tuckpointing of the brick tonight. Ms. Heikkila stated so you are comfortable with massive amounts of Farmington's oldest building falling down. Member Franceschelli stated if he was comfortable with that, he wouldn't give a certificate for any of the work, but he's not. Ms.Heikkila stated the bottom is the street side and is not urgent. The $8,000 is for a tiny patch of tuckpointing on Oak Street. The petition was signed by 30-40 business owners saying let her fix her building. Member Tesky stated the flashing is her biggest concern and it will help with water intrusion. The stucco could be a band aid approach not knowing what is in the specs. Planning Commission Minutes October 8,2019 Page 7 The bricks are so soft already, applying stucco may not fix the problem. Ms. Heikkila noted the roof was done two years ago, but it needs an additional flashing so no water gets in. They do something to the brick so no water gets in,then they apply the stucco and there is a sealant within the top layer of stucco. Staff noted Ms. Heikkila has done an excellent job outlining the issues with the building. Staffs recommendation is based on staffs knowledge, our city code and recommendations from the Secretary of the Interior. We do not have historic architects on staff. One option is the code allows us to seek outside assistance with review. Staff will reach out to Mr. Robert Vogel,the former HPC consultant. Staff noted the stucco contractor spoke with our building official, but he could not speak to the historic side. Our building official is comfortable with the installation, but he cannot guarantee results based on the condition of the structure. Ms. Heikkila noted if you wait until spring,more bricks will fall. Chair Rotty noted this is a different process with a designation. This commission was just assigned the duties of the HPC and this is new to us. Member Franceschelli stated even with the HPC we would seek technical advice before making a decision. We want to do it right the first time. We should contact an outside expert to do a quick evaluation and give us the feedback we need or even staff and we can work from there. All members agreed to seek outside advice and understood the urgency. Chair Rotty stated an outside expert can give us the answer we need. We can call a special meeting and meet the timeline of two weeks. Chair Rotty noted staff mentioned a limited certificate which can be done tonight. Ms. Heikkila stated if there is grant money available, she would do the sheet metal flashing,the back and the alley side and the Oak Street side. If there is grant money, yes she would go through with the tuckpointing in the crisis area as well. Chair Rotty noted the Planning Commission does not have any money. Staff stated there is no grant money available for these projects. The EDA which has a façade improvement grant program is out of money for the remainder of 2019. Ms. Heikkila stated then the tuckpointing is out of her budget. Chair Rotty asked staff to reach out to an expert and see if the materials and process would be appropriate that would meet the needs of the building and not change the aesthetic value of the building and get it done quickly. Depending on the information received,the commission could have a special meeting to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness. MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Tesky to table this item to the next meeting or a special meeting as called by the Planning Commission. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Franceschelli second by Tesky to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Go wt14R Muller Cynthia Muller Administrative Assistant Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting October 22,2019 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Franceschelli, Lehto, Tesky, Windschitl Members Absent: None Also Present: Adam Kienberger, Community Development Director; Tony Wippler, Planning Manager 2. Discussion a. Certificate of Appropriateness Request for Exterior Work—345 3rd Street (Fletcher Building)—continued from October 8,2019 At the October 8, 2019, meeting,Pam Heikkila, owner of 345 3rd Street requested a Certificate of Appropriateness to perform exterior work on the building. As directed at the last meeting, staff has requested outside technical assistance. Staff contacted Mr. Robert Vogel with Pathfinder CRM,regarding the proposed work. His response was provided to the Planning Commission and the applicant. He is familiar with the building, as he was the previous historic preservation consultant for the city. He acknowledged the Secretary of the Interior Standards as the guide for preservation work on historic buildings. Staffs recommendations aligned with those standards. It is not advised to remove any notable features that make the building worth preserving,to repair rather than replace materials where possible. If replacement is necessary,the new material should match the old. To repair the exterior walls with stucco would compromise the Fletcher building's historic integrity by significantly altering one of its critical architectural characteristics and defining features. His memo talked about recommended treatment strategies and action that could provide further analysis based on the commission's decision. Staff recommended denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. The applicant does have a right to appeal the decision to the City Council. If directed by the Planning Commission and requested by the applicant, staff supports engaging Mr. Vogel to conduct further analysis of the building and recommend appropriate preservation treatment options. Ms. Pam Heikkila stated she has talked with the stucco contractor. The area is 90%non- visible to the public along with the area in the back that faces a parking lot. The contractor has told her he has worked on several historic buildings and sees no problem with stucco and that it would be a great option for structural integrity. Her concern is when you say historical integrity is more important than structural integrity, she questions the wisdom in that. There are full size bricks falling. It is the city's job to protect it and be proactive and not reactive. The stucco company has said they would not risk their reputation on something that would not be a viable option 20—30 years from now. If we are so concerned about history,where does that leave our future? Right now, the present is a lot of vacant Farmington buildings. A lot of it is due to the issue that it is very difficult to work through some common sense issues. Planning Commission Minutes October 22,2019 Page 2 Mr. Isaac Heikkila, Farmington resident for 21 years, is a finance major and a marketing major and has done masonry work over the summer. There are only a few options available with this. If you prioritize as some have,the historical approach, Mr. Vogel has stated doing stucco would compromise some of the defining features of the building and its historical significance. Doing it perhaps in a more historically accurate approach would be significantly costly to the point of being unreasonable. That with the other option being stucco,which is less historically significant, it is much more affordable and attainable and would provide the needed structural fix before the winter and is a much more common sense solution. He urged commission members to consider this as a more common sense issue. He understood you want to have a beautiful building in the front to look its best. But as stated earlier,the only work is to the back and alley side walls. Much is completely unnoticed. If business owners are forced to do everything 100% historically accurate and correct,that might end up forcing business owners to move out of historical buildings. You will end up with a historically accurate building, but an empty one because of the unreasonable cost of trying to do it with brick replacement or repair. It is something we have to weigh the cost and the benefits. He is looking to go into business himself one day and is looking at cities to one day start an entrepreneurial venture. If he sees Farmington has a city putting excessive controls on owners as to what they can do with their buildings, it makes me hesitate starting a business here. Commission members have the ability to write a lot of wrongs here and if you generously use some leniency it would be very appreciative to the owner and other businesses as a whole. Member Franceschelli asked Ms. Heikkila how does the stucco contractor plan to mitigate the existing water seepage that is in the system? Stucco has a tendency to trap water. Ms. Heikkila stated there is a particular sealant on it and they have also worked with a roofing company that is developing a flashing system where no water will get down behind the bricks. If they are allowed to do it this year,which would start mid- November, not only did she not get grant money, but the heating costs to do a six-week project that starts mid-November—it has already been excessively delayed. The contractor has spoken with the city explaining the details. This is the only company willing to do it. They are part of the BBB and would not risk that. Member Franceschelli stated the application of stucco destroys the façade we are looking at now. Ms. Heikkila stated you are not looking at it because it is in the alleyway, except for the backside of the building. By next spring,the back side will be 20%gone. There are huge holes in the backside. A bank will not give a loan to someone for more than what the building is appraised at. It is not a viable option. If you look at the petition of the downtown business owners, all of them are hesitant that they could be next. We want to protect the structural integrity of the buildings. If you don't protect the structure, you have no historical future. The structural integrity is in a dire avalanche state right now. To be proactive rather than reactive is of utmost importance in this situation. Chair Rotty asked if Member Franceschelli was eluding there is moisture in the existing brick that will be trapped by stucco, not from future moisture. Member Franceschelli stated that is what is causing the popping and the spawling. Member Tesky stated the existing paint on the building is causing the trapping of the moisture. Member Franceschelli agreed and to add another layer on top of it without at least alleviating that barrier may further compromise the work they plan on doing. He is not a structural engineer and suggested getting professional help. Planning Commission Minutes October 22,2019 Page 3 Member Tesky stated knowing this is an issue on the back and alley side, if you are to stucco that, what is your proposal for the other sides because this will happen on the other sides as well. Ms. Heikkiela stated even stucco is a huge investment of money and she just put in massive amounts of money and had to take out a loan for the roof. The upkeep on older buildings is huge. She has bids for the painting of the front and sides along with some masonry work on the side. If stucco was allowed and grant money was given,the painters are ready to go next spring. If there is no painting done on the front and side, within three years it will look like the back of the building. There are holes in the back of the building. She has bids for the painting on the front and side. If the city is going to dictate I have to do a certain thing in order to make it look historical,then the city needs to pay for that. She has owned the building since 2004. Member Tesky stated knowing this is an older building and that it will require maintenance and upkeep over the years, did you ever intend to keep the historical aspect as you make those repairs? Ms. Heikkila stated they bought the building when it looked very similar to the front and side. The inside wall and back is all of a sudden crumbling. Upkeep goes with any building. She didn't expect it to be a money pit and for the costs to be what they are. Member Tesky stated if and when the front and street side need repair, are you interested in doing the tuckpointing that has been recommended or will you continue with the stucco recommendation that you are proposing? Ms. Heikkila stated if at all possible, she would like to keep it brick. It needs to be painted in order to protect that. It has been painted as long as she can remember. Member Tesky felt the wrong type of paint has been used on the building and that is why it is starting to deteriorate. Ms. Heikkila stated the only areas she has seen it deteriorate is when the paint peels away and then water gets into those areas. Any place where there is paint,there is zero deterioration. Once the paint peels, within one year you lose a third of the brick. A permit is not required for painting. Ms. Heikkila has bids for painting. Member Tesky stated if we continue with the stucco we will have the same issue. Ms. Heikkila asked the commissioners to take five minutes to call the stucco company and work it out, because they work on the U of M buildings all the time. This company is extremely qualified. Member Tesky stated it is not just that, it is the historical integrity of the building that we are trying to maintain. Ms. Heikkila asked what is their plan? Brick is 100% off the table. She cannot afford it. No bank will allow her to take out a loan to fix bricks that cost more than the value of the building. She asked again, what is the commission's plan? Member Franceschelli asked if when the building was reviewed for historical significance was it 100%of the building or just the front facades. The original designation was for the entire building. Member Franceschelli stated we have an emergency situation and an incremental approach might be warranted, but not for the whole thing. Member Windschitl stated Mr. Vogel's memo is one point with what we have been saying. We can all agree,water is the issue; water behind the bricks,water in the mortar. That is the part that needs to be fixed first and that is one of Mr. Vogel's recommendations. You are using this company and asked if a representative has offered to come to the meeting to explain to us who they are and what they do. Ms. Heikkila stated they have spoken with the building official and they would be happy to answer your questions if you call them. They have been extremely responsive. Planning Commission Minutes October 22,2019 Page 4 Member Lehto asked if she has bids to tuckpoint the entire building or tuckpointing bids for just the immediate need. Ms. Heikkila stated she has one for that particular area. No one would do it this year and the building is falling down so that is why she moved on to stucco as tuckpointing is cost prohibitive. Even to fix just the areas that really need it, it is cost prohibitive. Member Lehto asked for a copy of those bids to clarify the total amount. She appreciated Ms. Heikkila being a business owner. Member Lehto has a real estate background and has a lot of colleagues who are commercial real estate agents. Ms. Heikkila has expressed concern about selling the building and wanted her to know, Ms. Lehto's employer had the Exchange Bank building for sale in 2013 and sometimes those things do take awhile. If she should decide to sell the building,there are plenty of people who would help her with that. Ms. Heikkila stated she had it appraised just to know the value, she loves Farmington and believes in its economic possibilities. She would like to work in that building until she retires and would like to hand the building down to her children. She loves the historic character of the building and that is why she made the investment in the first place. Member Lehto stated an appraisal only lasts for a certain length of time and if you were to make changes that helped the historical integrity, she assumed her appraisal would also change. Ms. Lehto felt the tuckpointing would be a really good option because it will help the historical and structural integrity because you are continuing with the original use of the building and especially since those are the original bricks and you are not changing the structure. You are not stabbing metal into brick which would pull the building down and not keep the water out. Mr. Isaac Heikkila,begged to differ. He understood the commission wants to use tuckpointing because it is the best solution in an ideal world. We agree, except it is astronomically expensive and because of that absurd cost it will not happen. When you look at the more attainable solutions,what is most immediate? Perhaps the stucco on the two walls that are hidden would be the best solution for cost and moving forward in the future on the other walls, doing more preventative work with painting once the major crisis is solved, more painting and minor tuckpointing might be the thing to do moving forward,but beyond that, we have an immediate crisis that needs to be addressed. He agreed tuckpointing would be the solution, but it is just not feasible because of cost. Member Lehto stated that is why she requested to see the bids so she can make a determination and she would also recommend contacting Mr. Vogel as he is very open to helping. Getting his opinion would be very beneficial. Member Franceschelli asked Mr. Heikkila if he is proposing breaking the proposal into three workable parts? The original proposal was for the whole building or just the two walls? Ms. Heikkila stated the original proposal was for stucco on the inside wall where 90%of the wall is not visible and the back wall. Once those areas are done, she will regroup and try to find the money to paint the side and the front. Estimates are $20,000 for the painting and some tuckpointing on the street side would be $8,000. The flashing system would go over the areas to be stucco so zero water would get in. Yesterday she asked the contractor if the area is stucco could they come out in the spring to make sure there is nothing behind the walls. They would bring in heaters and drying everything out before they start. There is a lot that needs to be done to the building, including the windows. Mr. Scott Johnson, 20969 Clayton Avenue,has 40 years of construction experience, asked Ms. Heikkila if they are talking about putting the stucco over the existing bricks? Planning Commission Minutes October 22,2019 Page 5 Ms. Heikkila stated they would work on the bricks that have gaps and fill in those areas, and put lathe up. Mr. Johnson stated if they are falling apart that bad,he would doubt they would want to do that. Structurally that would be a bad idea to fasten something else on top of bricks that are already crumbling and falling apart. He believed the contractor has a good reputation, but he felt they are going to do something different to make that stable. If you put stucco over crumbling bricks and some of the bricks fall off, the whole thing will come down. Ms. Heikkila felt it would be best if the commission talked with the stucco company. The city has and they go in with deep fasteners to fasten it. Mr. Johnson understood that,but to leave falling apart brick, if there is a hole 10 feet up and there is more brick above that—Ms. Heikkila felt they would patch the brick thoroughly with the mortar being the same consistency. Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Mike Kraft does historical brickwork. Mr. Johnson stated regarding the grant, right now material and labor is the highest it has been in history. There are not enough workers to do the work. If she says she needs it done right now, it will cost more. From our conversations she would love to have the bricks, but it is crazy amounts of money. If it costs $300,000, a$15,000 or$20,000 grant doesn't do much to help. Right now to get something done, especially in the winter, it would be $20,000 - $50,000 just for winter charges. He felt the commission should get together with the stucco people and discuss this if you are going to consider that option. Personally, he has a hard time understanding how she is forced to do the brick work, even if she wants to, how does that work out economically. Say a bank would give her$300,000 and then she wanted to sell the building, it should increase the value, but that is a very specific market to buy that building. She doesn't want to sell,the bank won't give her the money,maybe talk to the stucco contractor and that would alleviate some concerns. Mr. Johnson could contact Mr. Kraft to tell you what would work. Chair Rotty stated we still have a lot of questions and unknowns. The commission didn't set this timeframe. We got this 1.5 weeks ago. We listened and said we don't know enough about this. Tonight we know more, but still not enough to make the best decision. Ms. Heikkila wants to maintain her building and that is great. It is a tough situation because you were designated a Heritage Landmark and now you have a different set of rules. We have to follow those rules. We contacted an expert to make sure these rules are accurate along with the Secretary of Interior Standards. They both agree that this is not the best solution. We cannot disagree with these experts. He would hate to say go ahead and you stick a lot of money into it and five years later we are in a worse situation. Chair Rotty suggested we may have some deterioration between now and next spring, but we didn't create this timeline. Next spring he encouraged Ms. Heikkila and the city to work with experts, but right now he cannot say that is the right way to go. Ms. Heikkila stated you realize my costs are going to go up substantially every year and not only is the building falling down,the costs are going up. Chair Rotty stated this may not be the best solution for your building structurally. You said you want to resolve both structurally and historically. Ms. Heikkila stated if you don't have the structural you won't have the historical. It is falling by the buckets. Chair Rotty stated the best solution is if we can accommodate the structural so you have it for years and years to come. We are trying to follow the rules. Ms. Heikkila recently met with the EDA regarding a grant. Next spring there could be a different outcome. Ms. Heikkila stated if not,where am I? I have a building with huge holes in it. Chair Rotty stated we are in an awkward position. We want to see you maintain your building, but this may not be the best way to do it. There are people a lot smarter than us that can keep the Planning Commission Minutes October 22,2019 Page 6 historical integrity and address the structural integrity. Ms. Heikkila asked what about the financial integrity? Chair Rotty stated we may be so focused on one solution because of the timing and the cost that we may not have the best solution. He understood there could be some deterioration, but for the betterment of the whole building, let's take some time, regroup and get some experts to advise the group, including Ms. Heikkila, city staff and the commission, on what is best. Both experts are recommending the same thing and it is totally different than what the contractor is recommending. He cannot go against the experts. Mr. Heikkila asked if the contractor could speak with Mr. Vogel about the viability of stucco and if he consented to that, would that change the decision? Chair Rotty stated there are future communications and steps, but for right now we all say we don't know enough about stucco. It could be at the cost of losing more bricks,hopefully not significant. Ms. Heikkila stated it comes down to cost; it's not doable. Chair Rotty stated there could be something else that the experts can agree on to maintain both structural and historical stability. From what he has read, if you trap the moisture in and the bricks are soft, it could harm the building in the long run. Ms. Heikkila asked the commission to call the contractor and talk to him. Member Franceschelli suggested staff reach out to the stucco contractor and put him in touch with Mr. Vogel and the building official and maybe we table it until next month. Maybe we will have some viable option that will not break the bank and still meet the needs. Chair Rotty stated the next meeting is the second week in November. If it is too late in mid-October, it won't be better in November. He is not comfortable tonight on approval. Member Lehto asked staff if there is grant money available at the state level. Staff noted historically,there have not been a lot of grants. There is some tax credits, but those are for large projects. Ms. Heikkila stated there are tax credits available if you sign up for a national registry which she will not do. As far as grant money, she has talked to the state legislature and they are working on it. She also spoke with the State Historical Society. The grant money is going to non-profits. She won't go on the national registry because the local designation is already causing a great amount of stress. Chair Rotty stated they want to help, but they are bound and cannot help tonight. An option is to extend this and work on it diligently and we can engage Mr. Vogel and others and have them work with staff. But that will take some time. The window is closing quickly on time to do this work. Getting the right people together and going into spring,the timing might be better. Chair Rotty asked if Ms. Heikkila would agree to getting the contractor, experts and staff and herself together to work out a solution. Ms. Heikkila agreed. Staff agreed. Staff stated one option is to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness. Another option is to continue it to a specific date and to work with Mr. Vogel's engineers and architects with the stucco contractor on a solution. Ms.Heikkila stated when she was looking for a contractor, it was in the winter and everyone said no until March. You have to be on their schedule early. Chair Rotty wants to go into the next meeting knowing what is best for the building and everyone is 100%behind it. Planning Commission Minutes October 22,2019 Page 7 MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Tesky to continue this request until the regular meeting in January 2020 to give all parties a better product to work with. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Adjourn MOTION by Windschitl, second by Tesky to adjourn at 7:02 p.m. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, CuwtlhIR Muller Cynthia Muller Administrative Assistant CITY OF O430 Third St., Farmington, MN 55024 FARM I N GTO N © 651-280-6800 A-44=-0•••', .„,„,...0016 © FarmingtonMN.gov TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager SUBJECT: HPC-Signage Proposal Exchange Bank Building-344 Third Street DATE: November 12, 2019 INTRODUCTION Homestead Community Church has submitted a sign permit application for a projecting"blade" sign for the property commonly known as the Exchange Bank building located at 344 Third Street. Projecting signs within the Downtown Commercial Overlay District must comply with subsection 10-6-3(B)5(e) of the zoning code(Spruce Street signs) DISCUSSION For your reference I have attached the sign plans as submitted by Archetype signs on behalf of Homestead Community Church. Subsection 10-6-3(B)5(e) of the zoning code is as follows: (e) Projecting Signs: (1)Type Of Signage: No advertising signage is allowed; only business identification signs are permitted. The proposed signage would be for identification purposes only. (2) Projecting:The sign shall be perpendicular to the surface of the building and the sign may be no more than one foot(1')thick. The proposed sign would be perpendicular to the surface of the building. It is proposed to be located above the main entrance to the building near the corner of Third Street and Oak Street. The proposed sign would be approximately 6 inches thick. (3) Size: Projecting signs may project no more than four feet(4')from the front edge of the building and be no more than twelve(12)square feet in area. The proposed sign would project 52 inches(4.33 feet)from the front face of the building and would be approximately 10.4 square feet in area. The proposed sign would have to be revised to not extend out from the face of the building more than the required 4 feet in the absence of a variance being approved by the Planning Commission. Practical difficulties would be difficult to determine in this instance. (4) Height:The bottom of the projecting sign must be at least eight feet(8')above sidewalk grade. The bottom of the proposed projecting sign would be 11 feet above the sidewalk. (5) Materials: Projecting signs must be approved by the planning commission during the sign permit application process. The Planning Commission is now reviewing the projecting sign as part of the sign permit application process. (6) Illumination: Projecting signs may be lit with external lighting only and shall comply with section 10-6- 8 of this chapter. The sign is proposed as a cabinet sign that would be internally lit. The applicant is aware of this requirement. The applicant would like the Planning Commission/HPC to consider allowing the the cabinet signage with internal lighting. This would require that a variance be approved from the Planning Commission. Determining practical difficulties in this instance would be difficult. (7) Public Right Of Way: Projecting signs may not extend over a public right of way or public property (except a sidewalk or trail portion thereof) except by conditional use permit. The proposed sign extends over a public sidewalk and therefore does not require approval of a conditional use permit. (8) Parking Space Or Loading Dock: Projecting signs may not extend over a designated parking space or loading area. The proposed sign does not extend over a designated parking space or loading area. (9) Box Signs: Projecting box signs or cabinet signs are prohibited. (Ord. 004-508, 3-1-2004) The proposed sign is a cabinet sign. A variance would have to be approved by the Planning Commission as this would be a deviation from the code. Practical difficulties would be difficult to determine in this instance. As the H PC/Planning Commission is aware the Exchange Bank building is a designated Farmington Heritage Landmark as well as being listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Section 10-6-28(J)2 of the city codes states: "Signs on historic landmark buildings must: a) not cause damage to historic architectural features or building materials as a result of installation; and b) should be designed and installed in such a manner that when they are removed or replaced there is no physical evidence of their former presence. In other words, holes may not be drilled in historic masonry, alterations may not be made of historic character defining windows or doors, and no fasteners may be attached to any historic trim." The applicant is proposing to fasten the proposed sign into the mortar only in an attempt not to damage the brick on the building. If the sign company can ensure the mortar is strong enough to hold the sign, this would be an acceptable method of anchoring the sign. ACTION REQUESTED Review the proposed sign plan for the Exchange Bank building located at 344 Third Street and provide feedback to staff and the applicant regarding the following items: 1. The distance that the proposed sign projects out from the building. 2. Having the proposed sign be internally lit. 3. Having the proposed sign be a cabinet or box sign. ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Backup Material Sign Plan Z £O N V/ Nfiafg4€ s U A FO a) ,,, V 3bht€ °¢ a' a LL a aE�gExe a g. tin Ilt!illi t. y. x_yL.azp n n N 4 2 U A n �tt�c 1 t y m i m n ,S.,n rn C 513 9 e z i li l i Q I.O 6 Q O io U awt÷1 !LHI = 3 0 cx I~W S w LL 5 s ��3 d�dH 1*11,10110 z-nc�i�aa3u3\i c.g1'1 "I Isommuummk_ Iolr. E, g W¢LL.?3UZp j Q i 1 JEgo:i <,- 0� - i 1171. IQo¢iOMz F-¢ WU r.;.. I ii Ie� ci v >« II o © o _r � I I ': __ 1 i, �; r - , t m. t=i a • fit 0. a ♦ . �I. ` �h ... 7. II i7 1. � I I :: +I ��1�11 17 FI ER ir_n � I1 t lI— rill! rl i ;i:irli;I!I!.I Istria I��L I +•/moi-_ I wCM(�� z a I ' b I 1I 4 I II I11—■ it I 31" NIff �I ` �I• '��I 1 I 41111 I JI _ 111:Li . 111•111111111viiiii c /r (4:Pb‘ • 11 1MIN 1 � I MI'• IS � E ■Io , �1 I, I O ® ,._.1/4 \ • :, Le 44. II J 3i • !'L I )2ip ' z3 zg. o a I I _.- Sy o Z swy I a WB, 101 o zw _ � i 11111 _ II1WJ II1 1- 4 1 V ' r o 0 0 ® Z Olt!" 3y .. ., E Af$.; 45s o v =s`Sta€F'ss V `g' rn s� �vat 11 a-I U E Q ti Aw'� o33Yy3Y rn Ii u. OO W o f . rv< i 0 i i 1 1, a �m .'Nt.ksy2z1 O E o V E a a s 13 i a nq'Oz E33sg- to v ._ m 'g,„-EJ ^�S t "I o 0 a ,ti 811'611a iiitlilitgl a II°I Ts, in 4 4 it (V g.N N W N .� N V N—_ � —_ 11 '1 0 O _ [_ Imo, 1 © O J -@ @ ___ F W N w el I I I I I W a I.,Z „b b I �s OI 0 Lim 31" 6„ I I I C3 -' z 0 c� & .0 4 z n W 0 Q 0 U =N • Z J ' 1 N = m ¢ - z Z J 2r U Z Q O Q u i A Q H. + 2 oyez* ___r= --_•DDI1 ,Y)z ., — O U i M 0_0 0 .Z.I. +Z.Z 4 a a N N •r•L• *TM* N i• I ti H X w 1 N Q X 4 5 a d N N /\I'll INI\-: - a -:-.2..a ^rt. „OI I ,AZ Z � _ E.g Fb p F . O1 _ cza€s, g N CNJ `PO Pligyli 13 u W,qt440'0 6, a F o m T btu yapE @ .. u i L Ol 4 u 3 ._ 0, i.k10a`E1 o n d DoE 'a to w v V11 $ =e`er"' ` oE 3fic o •- £2U -°� ¢s¢¢tc �wV! X� �, A u`Vim„ fstilaiE:{ a o r K- 8 0 U Q U Q 0 E- 5h ~ ¢,1-3 LAg a rJ 1.1.1013_ JG] V.2 2 _lo,:c y 7,..n m_I- 4]00 O 0 Jza osm- Ja •GT. . Y 1 o¢ I--I-- 1 W U d M K N m Qpm V .c� z= W I I © 0 O N N 2 d m N 0 46 >" 0 _ Jp • c m C INIIM Q _ & W Oki& III Cr ir NI F w WN „£ I I„8/5I I„8/5I „V/I ,.6 I I 0 0 0 1y N ).- 1- F 41 a - N Cr mom rn FIC:5 U C/3 CC / F- en N N II N N Ib I I„8/5I „v I „6 Z d A f ///Q'')) E 111 x 8 I"`a O n!liVEil Ni yo. g�ti ma85It DN O~ E N I— ti F "O y o W a DrIlfikW En NN L Ee a a` V p ; O ‘ ¢Eic[c ce g m A VnmH t 11thPFM; Qn a1 Y 0 U W 6 o 3 a �w o 3 a- o C W woo_ Jam U GQ g m e - m=. �6 . -Y ›-No a <<azao¢ amg Q.�. V.,cnm Zj gN d © O O O N V a' 0 N OI 0 2 = 7 w a vcc U (V) (4 _1 - 0 0 r w '� rULL - 2 Mi u, 4- ,:, 1,..,,E I 2/I-T I L8/9 I ..JI © Q N N V 14 V O O t' OI 0 U 0 Z Z a p,. Env >' 0 v = 0 O m -0 G T CC - 0 0 O o - O O 0 X I o ..i .,;.F 0 I ,.2/I-I I I..8/5I �,blI I„Z/T 1 .1I ..Z/II I I��8/9I ,.6/S 9 9 I CITY OF O430 Third St., Farmington, MN 55024 FARM I NGTON © 651-280-68o0 OFarmingtonMN.gov _ _______ TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager SUBJECT: 2040 Comprehensive Plan work plan and schedule DATE: November 12, 2019 INTRODUCTION Attached, please find a work plan and schedule for completion of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the required amendments to the official controls. DISCUSSION The work plan outlines the steps and meetings that are required to complete the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update cycle. The dates shown on the work plan are tentative and could potentially change depending on various circumstances. It is anticipated that the Met Council will take action on the city's 2040 Comprehensive Plan on December 11, 2019. Once the Met Council approves the plan the city has 9 months to amend its official controls to be in compliance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. If the Met Council takes favorable action on the plan on December 11th the final plan and all supporting documents (including zoning changes) must be submitted to the Met Council by September 16, 2020. ACTION REQUESTED For your information or comment. ATTACHMENTS: Type Description o Backup Material Workplan and Schedule a QJv o v O1 61 01 O1 O1 Oo p O o O C) •--i .-i .--i .-1 .--( N N N N N N N a) c) c) c) O c) O c) p co O O ON VI .4 N N N N N N N N N N N Q(0 N co" .--i kO 1O o0 N o03. O n k O Q .--i .--i .--( .-i .-( N .--i .--( N N W , > > U U U C T a) T T T E n Z Z Z 0 C Cl x- -( Z 0-1 r0 -,0-) U, N cn W C Z- C' �) C �_ - - - ),-,5 .0 c .0 c O CO C U fo N c •c •c - CO f •o U E a N - u"i F. .5.1-.) o 0 omc a - a � Uo ��' _ � Z h U U U O E e E U E Ol0 . o ami aa'i a) (no,U ,f°, E a E c U c 5 , E a a . v'U mU ra c U •0 ar ' c E ro cY CL rC0 0 CJ ( a E U Cl' T. cc 0 a) c C1 a) M aJ a) C a) -0m =�� >> • (U (U@ _a'C .0 1 3 > N E'C L n O M 1 O 126- 4-, 0•(.7) _C W=m `� = a) U 'm0`� W aL+� Oy .0 Q~ c E. Q a� a' 5-‹ n2 i mcuu- o .2.- � CI w m 0 O o fo Q1 N m C N m ai A. LU of O) mL 0 c C ii U c C OU c ++ Q D O aL.+ "O 00 in.4_, ,,,::;›._,:s r 0 Z N N i L VI o > +U+ U C CO Nii, y_, N Vl O O N C Ni L. O /� w CO a0+ U Ol ` d Q Ii LI N O u m v...( () O a) 0 CLOECCO C E Mi a) LJJ 'ES .t .c0' mIn -0fo 3 'E° rn~ ac) nv_ t (U a) a) n c fc L a1 a)'0'- O a) a) y c ' 'C C E cn L > cb3 -0Ec o � cn 3:141:5A2 .D v �oCO—0)0D o a�D N 6aa)i rign 6-0 (n0.> .> N i N > c (CO ((0-0 UJ F s'D E v ,'OI- n- - > if) u faI W Ce a N c ( To c, E Z z o � a0 E C o O E — O O C - Cr) 0 Ea 1E U C 0 U 0 .) o Q) C ,� o C C C c a2 0 Q aoi ra) co ° (�o E 0. • U y o Y3 c o Ct a O�- n .o N C 0 "0 (n P Clr Q ).- E 2.02 n U p 0 CO U C O V a) C (CO N E E oU o� 3-8 -o n -000 au ai o o v ) o co m o It O U O +0+ ` � p1 (U N C'O C C U ++ N (Nii L O i C c ..„- 04, C a) aJ a) `(p U +' C c r0 0-- 01 N IC'"..1 cp E K c O i C CO •o Q CD-EC Ol N Q '> on •u o n 3 0 '(n QJ vmi a3i JD c47 oo 7.h, E E L �o��� o o 0 '0 O c= c E 3.. O (o C C-0 a m C a) ac) z.' + 'u E 0 U U c U o 2 0 c co r° m ,'3 OS) c C Q) .V) N 7 N C (n E C m m E 01 co (cif O (—\I) m U a1 a)— a) C— 0— n O 4.- c c'o c a.) U U O n. C 0 C E C O U �'' C 'C C c C•Q ._ ++ C j C cn '> m E m ++ c c a) C i L C c m C m u m c o 0 o a) m a) m m E me co Z o c o 0 0 0 wUUUaU i