Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/11/07 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting September 11, 2007 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Oswald, Larson, Barker, Burke Members Absent: None Also Present: Tony Wippler - Assistant City Planner, Lee Smick - City Planner Stephen Pierskalla and Karen Davis, Michael Bischel, Kimberly Sperling 2. Approval of Minutes a) August 14, 2007, Regular Meeting Commissioner Oswald stated that there is a typo on page 3 under section C. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Barker, not Commissioner Oswald. MOTION by Oswald, second by Larson to approve the August 14,2007 minutes with the noted correction. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Barker was not present for this vote. 3. Continued Business a) Amend Ordinance - Detached Garages, Storage Sheds and Accessory Structures Applicant: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 The Farmington City Council discussed this item at their August 20, 2007 meeting. The Council expressed concern regarding sheds that are between 200-240 square feet in size. The proposed ordinance change does not address these structures. The City Council would like the ordinance modified to reflect that sheds under 240 square feet maximum are allowed. There would be a requirement for a building permit for any accessory structure over 120 square feet in size. The City Council would also like to keep the requirement for a paved driveway to a detached garage. Commissioner Larson stated that the requirement for paved driveways will preclude many homeowners from having detached garages because they can not pave over drainage and utility easements. There has been discussion regarding scheduling a joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting to discuss this item and several other issues. Commissioner Burke felt that the height requirement might be low for the larger shed sizes. Commissioner Oswald stated that he would also like have a joint meeting to discuss this item. Chair Rotty stated that he would like to have this item discussed at the workshop that has been scheduled for October 17, 2007. MOTION by Burke, second by Oswald to continue this item until the November Planning Commission meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2007 Page 2 . b) Amend Ordinance - Sections 11-4-4 (A) & (D) concerning Drainage and Utility Easements, Sections 10-6-4 (L) & (M) concerning Recreational Vehicle Parking and Parking in Residential Areas, and Section 10-2-1 concerning Definitions. Applicant: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 This item was discussed at the August 14, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. The proposed ordinance change would require that easements be a minimum of 5 feet on side lot lines and 10 feet from the rear property line. The changes would state that no structures, landscape material or impervious surfaces would be allowed in easement areas other than fences and turf grasses. Any non conforming improvements placed in the easement are placed at the owner's own risk. These changes are being proposed to help eliminate drainage issues. The existing items in easement areas would only be considered on a complaint basis. . The changes to the ordinance regarding easements would also impact the recreational vehicle storage ordinance. Homeowners would no longer be able to park these types of vehicles in the easement areas. Recreational vehicles can only be parked on the street for 72 hours with a permit and only 3 permits are allowed per year. Commissioner Barker stated that he is hesitant to approve the proposed easement changes. Chair Rotty stated that he is not ready to make these changes and not allow anything in the easements. This item has not gone to the City Council as of yet. This item will be discussed at the October 17,2007 workshop. Staffwould like to obtain feedback from residents on this item as well. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to continue this item until the November Planning Commission meeting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Amend Ordinance - Sections 10-6-10 (F), 10-6-10 (G), and 8-1-5 (A) of the City Code concerning Lot Frontage Trees, Boulevard Trees, Replacement Trees Applicant: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 . The proposed ordinance changes would pertain to the placement oftrees in new developments. The trees would no longer be placed in boulevards, but would be placed inside of the property line. There will be special boulevard tree routes throughout the City where boulevard trees will still be placed. The trees that are placed in the front yard rather than the boulevard area would be referred to as lot frontage trees. When existing boulevard trees die or need to be removed, replacement trees would be placed as lot frontage trees. These trees would have to be placed on the property outside of the front easement which is typically at least 10 feet. The utility companies have been contacted regarding the changes for new developments and they do not have a problem with the proposed changes. This proposed change was initiated by the City Council. Commissioner Larson would like to see the 10 foot easement area requirement removed if the utilities are going to be placed further back on the Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2007 Page 3 . property. The changes have been proposed in order to reduce the City's cost to maintain boulevard trees and to reduce the damage to City vehicles and equipment. Commissioner Oswald stated that he does not like the proposed changes regarding existing homes. Commissioner Barker agreed with Commissioner Oswald's concerns regarding existing trees. MOTION by Barker, second by Oswald to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Burke to recommend the proposed amendments to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Amend Ordinance - Revisions to Section 10-2-1 Definitions Applicant: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Some of the definitions regarding detached garages, storage sheds and accessory structures will be removed. The items that pertain to boulevard trees and other topics will remain. MOTION by Barker, second by Burke to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Oswald, second by Burke to recommend the amended definitions to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . 4. Public Hearings a) Variance to Encroach into Drainage & Utility Easement -19874 Dover Dr. Applicant: Stephen Pierskalla and Karen Davis 19875 Dover Drive Farmington, MN 55024 . The applicants are requesting a variance to encroach into a drainage and utility easement by 6.5 feet with a rock wall and walkway that have already been installed. The infiltration sediment pond that is adjacent to the property is accessed through the side easement ofthe applicant's property where the encroaching items are currently placed. Staff does not feel that there is an undue hardship in this case. Staff does not feel that the requirements for a variance have been met and recommends denial. Mr. Stephen Pierskalla stated that the items on the east side of the house have already been moved. He stated that they were unable to locate their property pins. He felt that the grade on the side of the house made getting from the front to the rear yard difficult. He stated that they made the walkway wide for safety purposes. He feels that it will take them a long time to remove the rock from the area and the drainage should not be negatively affected. Karen Davis stated that the structures are made of all natural stones. Mr. Pierskalla stated that the difference between the elevation at the house and the elevation of the property line could create a hardship because of the grade difference. Staff stated that they could have someone from the Engineering Department go out and look at the grade. There is a deck permit pending that can not be approved until this issue is resolved. Ms. Davis stated that she would like to have a safe passage on the side of the house and the landscaping prevents sediment from going into the pond. Commissioner Oswald stated that he would like to have Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2007 Page 4 . someone look at the grade. Commissioner Baker stated that he would agree with having the engineers look at the grade to determine if there is a hardship or not because he does not currently see any hardship. Commissioner Larson stated that he is concerned about frost damage if the wall is closer to the house. Chair Rotty stated that he would like to know ifthere could be some sort oflegal agreement that allows the City to remove the structures in the easement for access purposes if needed. Ms. Davis asked how the engineers will know how the property looked before they started. Staff replied that the engineers would look at the as-built survey for comparison. This item will be continued to the October Planning Commission meeting so that an engineer can look at the site. MOTION by Burke, second by Barker to continue this item. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Conditional Use PermitIHome Occupation Permit - Therapeutic Massage Therapy Applicant: Susan Hotchkiss 19975 Export Trail Farmington, MN 55024 . The applicant has requested a CUP/Home Occupation Permit for a therapeutic massage business. The property is zoned R -1. The requirements for parking are being met. The hours of operation would be Tuesday through Friday from 2:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. and Saturday from 12:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. and she anticipates the maximum number of massages in a day would be 4 with an average of 2 or 3. The home occupation will only be conducted by Ms. Hotchkiss. The applicant is proposing a small sign on the front of the home. The therapeutic massage business will require City Council approval for licensure so the public hearing will continue to the next City Council meeting. Ms. Hotchkiss stated that this will be a part time business. MOTION by Burke, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Oswald, second by Barker to recommend approval to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Conditional Use Permit to Expand an Existing Car Wash . Applicant: Erick Barke 19761 Oak Grove Avenue Farmington, MN 55024 The applicant would like to expand the existing car wash at 8 - 8th Street. There would be an extension to the northernmost bay to accommodate an automated wash and the addition of a pet wash. The lot requirements have been met. There is an existing conditional use permit from 1965. This request would amend the existing conditional use permit. Mr. Barke stated that there would not be any additional lighting in the back area. Any additional signage would have to be approved by Planning. Mr. Joel Woe from Auto Wash Systems stated that the noise from the wash will be directed out the front of the bay toward Highway 3. When the blowers are on the entrance door will be closed. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Oswald, second by Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2007 Page 5 . Larson to approve the expansion with the contingency that lighting will be directed away from the adjacent residential properties. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Bischel-Sperling Preliminary and Final Plat . Applicant: Michael Bischel and Kimberly Sperling P.O Box 194 Farmington, MN 55024 The applicants have submitted a preliminary and final plat for 808 2nd Street. They are proposing one single family and two-two family lots in the R-2 zoning district. The area is primarily single family homes and there are two duplexes located to the north of this property. Information has been received from the property owner to the south expressing their concerns with the proposed redevelopment (see attached). The plat is from August 31, 2007. That is the point at which the 120 day review period began. The property is meets and bounds and the parcel extends to the middle of 2nd Street to the south quarter section line. The property is .86 acres. Dakota County does not recognize the portion of the lot which extends into the roadway and shows the property as being .76 acres. The density allowed for this property would be 5 units. One of the duplex buildings will need to be reduced in size to meet the lot coverage requirements. There would be a private drive included in the plan and there will need to be a turn around for fire department access. Drainage for the property will be addressed by a catch basin that drains to piping that will connect with an existing catch basin on Maple Street. There will be minimal drainage to a swale located by the railroad tracks. The water and sewer lines will run beneath the private drive. There may be a requirement to put up privacy fencing. The lot size requirements are being met except for the lot coverage requirement for Lot 3. Staff would prefer an alternate configuration for Lot 3. . Ms. Shannon Walsh, 816 2nd St., stated that at the July 12th Planning Commission meeting during the sketch plan review there was an extended discussion of outlot vs. easement. At that time the City was recommending, under advisement from the City Attorney, that an outlot be required. The developer's engineer Mr. Brandt asked if the City was making up this requirement. Four days later after a private meeting, the City withdrew the outlot requirement, ignored recent City precedent and granted an easement for this project. At the July meeting the developer was charged with bringing back a plan that met all City Codes, standards and requirements. The Planning Commission Chair stated that they were not looking to circumvent their codes. Yet the project is now at this meeting being considered for final plat although it does not meet City Codes. At the July meeting the City indicated that the emergency turnaround was in the drainage and utility easement. From the information she received she was unable to identify if this was still the case because it did not identify all of the easement locations and dimensions and purpose, in violation of Code 11-3-2 C 4. Under Code 11-4-4 A a utility easement of at least 10 feet wide shall be along all lot lines. What she has seen does not show those easements including the easement for the private drive. Code 4-4- C states that no structures, elevated landscapes or impervious surfaces are to be allowed within a property line. It looks like the turnaround is right up against the property line. There was a discussion about the lot size. She stated that they pay taxes based upon what Dakota County feels their lot size is. Dakota County is taxing this property for .76. If they are Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2007 Page 6 . . not paying for it, they shouldn't build on it and making decisions from a .86 lot does not make sense. She stated that this is also against City Code. City Code 10-2-1 which defines lot area as the horizontal plane bound by lot lines but not including any area which has been dedicated or intended as easement for public thoroughfare or road. The City is using the net density to calculate the lot area instead of using the definition oflot area to calculate lot area. There is an inherent conflict in the Code from what she can tell and she doesn't understand why what makes the most sense for what they are dealing with isn't what they are using. The plat that has been submitted is based on .86 acres incorporating 2nd Street which in violation in 10-2-1. Net density is defined in 10-2-1 as dwellings per acre. R-2 allows 5.5 for single family and 6.5 for two-family. When we combine the three lots to get the net calculation of 5.81, using the .86 lot it comes up to 5.81 when 5.5 is allowed for single family. If you calculate the net density on the .76 the lot area that is defined by Dakota County, the 5 units divided by .76 results in a net density of 6.57 which is over the maximum. The structure coverage for R-2 is 30% and if you calculate that out it is not 35%. The plan comes in at 32.5%, but if you use what Dakota County is counting you come up with 36% lot density. City Code 10-2-1 defines a parcel of land as having principal frontage on a public street and lots 2 and 3 do not have that. City Code 11-4-2 states that all side lines of yards shall be at approximately right angles to the street and Lots 2 and 3 do not have that. City Code 11-4-2 J with building lots states that driveways access buildings on lots from approved streets. The single family house does not have a way to the street on this plat. The two family units are going to a private drive and then to a driveway. She had not heard about the drainage issues but as it stands now all of what she received showed all of the drainage draining onto her yard. With snow there will be the huge driveway and she is wondering where the snow will be going when it is plowed. City Code 10-6-4 and 10-4-1 require off street parking and Lot 1 does not show the required garage and driveway. Lots 2 and 3 need the 440 if they are slab on grade and they need .25 per unit in common parking. The garage size isn't indicated but she is assuming it is the 440. According to Code 10-6-4 common parking space needs to be placed on concrete or asphalt, 9 x 18 spot, 5 foot setback from side and rear lot lines and omitting this is a violation of City Code. She has a concern for 2nd Street. Ms. Walsh had asked Staff for an example of a property similar to what is being proposed by this plan but was informed that this was one ofthe first proposed in the R-2 District most likely because of it's existing lot size. Using that standard, and the fact that the easement vs. outlot discussion if off of the table, there is really nothing to stop the forward progression. If she splits her lot it comes out to 6,000 square feet minimum for another house. The lots get bigger as you go and the end house is .73 acres. They would have room for four houses on that lot and they have a nice spot where they can come out. She stated that this is not what she wants for 2nd Street. She does not think this is a good idea for the City and then once 2nd Street is done, they could move over to 7th Street where there are 8 houses in a row ranging from .39 to .77 acres. She stated that this was not a good idea and they are trying to raise families here. The red house in all of the pictures is her house. She would like to remind everyone that City Code 11-2-C states that the Planning Commission shall not act on preliminary plat until all information is submitted and issues are addressed and resolved. . Chair Rotty stated that the Commissioners have not had ample time to be able to address all ofthe questions Ms. Walsh has submitted with City staff. At a minimum he will be recommending that the public hearing be continued. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2007 Page 7 . Mr. Mike Kaiser, 811 2nd Street, stated that he doesn't like the plan at all. He doesn't agree with doing a single family and two duplexes in this residential area and he feels that pretty much everyone around him disagrees as well. He thought that this was a dead issue last year. Until he received the public hearing notice he thought it was a dead issue and he was surprised that it was even being discussed. . Ms. Kimberly Sperling stated that she appreciates the neighbor's concerns and she feels that there have been concerns with the property in its current state as a rental property also with complaints from the same neighbors. She stated that sometimes there is just not a 100% happy compromise for everyone. She stated that when they purchased the property the legal description gave them .86 acres. She stated that it is unfortunate that they did not have the final plat that was submitted but there has been a lot of going back and forth and they had to meet with the City Attorney and pay him for his time. When they spoke with him they made notes and he recommended that there be an easement and that is why it was designed the way it is and he stated that it was Code compliant. She stated that they have done everything that they can do and they are trying to increase everyone's property value by building new, beautiful buildings versus the old ugly home that is there now that was built in about 1890. They are trying to make the neighborhood more cohesive by building rambler style homes like the rambler duplexes to the north. The Walsh's to the south also have a rambler style home. She feels that this will look better. She stated that they are putting in all of the drainage that is needed and they are fine with adding the privacy fence. These are going to be owner occupied residences that are going to be for sale, they will not be rental properties. She stated that they removed the turnaround out of the easement. There have been some changes since the plat that the neighbors received. She stated that she did not feel that all of the properties mentioned would be able to split their lots. There is a lot of rehabilitation taking place along 2nd Street and it is good for the neighborhood. The units will be wheel chair accessible and will hopefully be affordable one level living for seniors. They would like to invest in the area and would like to work with the neighbors and have changed the plan many times. Mr. Michael Bischel stated that he has talked to people around town and he stated that many people are looking for this type of housing. It is a convenient location near City Hall and the Library. City Planner Lee Smick stated that the concern for the splitting of additional lots raises the question of how the Planning Commission feels about this issue and ifthey would like to see this happen in the R-2 district. . Commissioner Larson stated that he is not comfortable with splitting City lots. Commissioner Burke stated that he does not have an opinion on that but we have a City Code that sets out specifications and he is not inclined to deprive the property owners of their rights. His inclination at this point is that if the requirements can be met he would probably vote in favor of it. He asked if the lot lines could be adjusted without starting the process over. Staff replied that they would not have to start over. Commissioner Oswald agreed with Commissioner Burke regarding meeting the requirements. Commissioner Barker stated that he has a concern regarding Lot 3 but he would like to review the information further. Chair Rotty stated that he would like to see the issue of splitting lots added to the upcoming workshop for discussion. The other Commissioners . Planning Commission Minutes September 11,2007 Page 8 agreed. This item will be added to the workshop agenda. Commissioner Burke stated that he does not feel that this particular project should be delayed by the workshop discussion. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to continue the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. Discussion a) Joint Planning Commission/City Council Workshop The joint Planning Commission workshop will be held on October 17th at 6:00 p.m. 6. Adjourn MOTION by Burke, second by Oswald to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfull~~bmitted, "-/ . . .1.\ ------..,~".", // ~'.;. .r' \....'_" _ ""< / . ^'-.... <--- j \ L/ Lisa Dargis . , \ . Administrative AssistantJ . Approved