Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-08-19 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 3r1 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. Staff's recommendation is based on staff's 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, Covvth4R Mutter Cynthia Muller Administrative Assistant