Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/26/08 Special Meeting . . . Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting February 26, 2008 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Stokes, Rotty, Barker, Bonar, Larson Members Absent: None Also Present: Tony Wippler - Assistant City Planner, Lee Smick - City Planner 2. Public Hearings a) Fairhill Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Schematic PUD, and Preliminary Plat - Cont. Applicant: Newland Communities This item has been continued from the February 12,2008 Planning Commission meeting. The Commission had some concerns regarding the number of 45 foot wide lots that were being proposed on the concept site plan for the development. The second issue that the Commissioners were concerned about was how locked in the city would be by the PUD to allow this number of smaller lots. A draft copy of the PUD Agreement has been included. The developer is looking to a 20 year commitment for the PUD Agreement. There could be changes to the future phases with regard to densities so there is some flexibility. This flexibility however, would have to come at the request of the developer. The developer has submitted a revised concept plan which shows a reduction of the number of 45 foot wide lots by about 82 units. The concern of adequate transition has been addressed by these changes as well. Newland Communities has provided some examples of site plans for homes on the 45 foot wide lots. With regard to the actual PUD Agreement itself there are several items that staff would like to point out. . Section 2.3 states that the PUD plans for each phase may reflect different densities provided the overall density for the project remains consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. . Section 1.2 under Article 6, states that the City of Farmington would not be able to modify ordinances regarding among other things, development density, lots size, lot layout and lot coverage for a period of20 years. . Deerbrooke Path would be constructed and paid for by the City of Farmington as part of the 195th Street construction. . The Diamond Path right of way will be preserved and staff is requesting that the portion of right of way that connects from 195th to 189th Street be dedicated as an outlot. . It was contemplated in the draft PUD Agreement that the parkland area in the southwest corner of the development would be dedicated b the developer early on in this process so that the city could program for improvements to that area quickly. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2007 Page 2 Staff is recommending approval of the Fairhill Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Schematic PUD and Preliminary Plat Phase 1 - Site Plan Review with the following contingencies: 1. Provide an outlot for the community park area located in the southwest corner of the Fairhill Development. 2. Provide an outlot for the portion of Diamond Path that extends north from 195th Street, through the community park to the point of intersection with the southerly extension of 189th Street. 3. Provide an outlot of approximately one acre for the City's water tower to be built with this development. . Mr. Peter Coyle stated if there was an updated version of the draft PUD Agreement he would like to obtain a copy. He also stated that the current plan reflects a reduction in low/medium density and an increase in the low density acreage fro the plan. The west side Comp Plan guiding has not been changed. The concept plan has been updated to show a transition buffer. The 20 year contract is the result of the scope of the project and the current market. With respect to the outlots, Newland has expressed their willingness to outlot the portions that are being requested to be outlotted. The timing and the circumstance in which the park outlot will be dedicated to the city is still an element of the negotiations that are occurring. The outlot that is being requested for the water tower has been agreed to in concept but the exact location has not yet been determined. . Jeff Meyer, 3656 194th Street, stated that he was wondering what the changes were with regard to 194th Street. Staff pointed out the changes made in that area and that there could be some flexibility to the layout. The road layout in this area is not in the first phase and it is not known what phase it will fall under. The changes should add less traffic to 194th Street that the previous plan. Discussion would have to take place with MnDOT if there is a potential to closing the roadway off at TH3. Commissioner Larson asked if there was a way for the residents to petition MnDOT to request that 194th not connect. Joel Jamnik stated that the comments would be part of the public hearing record and the topic would have to be discussed when that part of the development is final platted. Mr. Meyers asked if the development would begin this summer. Staff replied that the start date has not been identified. Wanda Meyer, 3656 194th Street, stated that 194th Street is a narrow street and any increased traffic is a concern. She feels that closing 194th at TH3 would help. She has concerns that they will not be notified when the public hearing takes place for that phase of the development. Chair Rotty clarified that the PUD Agreement is a contract and the way it is laid out is how things will be if the contract is agreed upon. Commissioner Barker stated that with the changes that have been made, he is comfortable moving forward on this development. Commissioner Larson stated that he is still concerned about the lot . sizes but he is in favor of approving the plan. Commissioner Bonar stated that he is hopeful that Newland will deliver a quality product with this development and his primary concern is that the we will be as comfortable with the Agreement in its final . Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2007 Page 3 year as we are in it's first. Commissioner Stokes asked how many years the build out for this development is anticipated to take. Staff replied that it is not known at this time how long the build out will take. He stated that he is concerned that 20 years may be too long a time period for the PUD Agreement. Staff stated that due to the size of the development and the current market conditions staff is comfortable with the 20 year time frame. Commissioner Larson stated that when the community park is developed he would like to point out that the community is lacking in softball fields. Wanda Meyer stated that she is with the Farmington Girls Fast Pitch Association stated that she got an email from the Farmington Parks and Recreation Department today regarding that issue. She stated that they have had to cut some of their in-house programs because they do not have the field space. She stated that she would really like to see more softball fields available within the community. Chair Rotty said that he is comfortable with the 20 year agreement. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Stokes to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Schematic PUD and Preliminary Plat for Phase 1 with the 3 contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . b) Variance to expand a legal nonconforming use - 808 2nd Street Applicant: Michael Bischel The applicant has requested a variance at 808 2nd Street. The existing building is a tri-plex in an R-2 zoning district which makes it a legal nonconforming use. There is a garage type facility on the back portion of the lot. The variance requested would expand the envelope of the nonconforming structure with the addition of a deck and stairway as a second safety access on the second floor of the building. There would be a roof over the deck. The deck would be supported by the existing entryway. The reason that there is a need to provide a second access is the distance from the existing access to the furthest living space is over 50 feet. According to the International Building Code (IBC) there must be an access within 50 feet. The deck increases the envelope of the home so it therefore requires a variance. The hardship is a safety hardship. Staff is recommending the following contingencies: 1. A parking lot plan showing a paved, striped parking lot with eight spaces (the gravel driveway will also need to be paved). 2. A grading plan fro the paved parking lot is required. 3. The parking lot needs to be screened by a fence, wall, landscaping or earth berm because the lot consists of more than six spaces. 4. Landscaping (1 tree and 3 shrubs as possible due to existing trees) every 40 feet along the perimeter of the parking lot. 5. Property owner shall complete the required parking lot, screening, and landscaping prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. . Mr. Mike Bischel stated that the certificate of occupancy pushes the construction out further so he would be in favor of a bond for the parking lot so that it can be done when the frost is out of the ground. City Attorney Jamnik stated that the city has done this before and staff may be comfortable with that. Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2007 Page 4 Mr. Larry Walsh, 816 2nd Street, stated that on January 4,2008 he received a copy of the building permit application and he would like to know why some of the information is not filled out and why the estimated value ofthe project has been intentionally blacked out on his copy. He would like to know why this is not public information and who blacked it out. On February 11 th he received another copy of the same permit application along with what was supposed to be the approved plans. He said there was a number of changes on the plan and no indication of who made the changes or why and he would like to know how often you can make changes and still have this be a legally binding document. On the second set of plans it indicated that the plans were reviewed by Ken Lewis on January 24' 2008 but it does not show any documentation of review or approval of the Planning Department or the Zoning Administrator and he would like to know why. He stated that he asked Ms. Smick what this variance was from and she stated that the owner wanted to expand the envelope to install this access. He asked if a variance to expand the envelope an open ended variance and what exactly expand the envelope means. On the variance application he pointed out that the words "legal" and "second" are above and outside the lines given and asked if this was done at the direction of staff, or was this document also doctored. Mr. Walsh stated that there were three plumbers on the site beginning work on February 4,2008. The plumbing permit was not applied for until February 8, 2008. He asked why they were doing this work without a permit. He also said that before the demolition they only did testing for asbestos. He wanted to know why they did not do testing for lead, mercury, formaldehyde or other hazardous material and why did they not sample and test the insulation in the walls. The demolition began on December 12, 2007 and to date he has not been able to find that a demolition permit has been given. He stated that the City Administrator was on the site doing inspections on February 11 th and February 13th. He would like to know what his legal capacity and authority to do those inspections was. Pursuant to City Code 10-3-6 Variances Mr. Walsh is requesting documentation that the required items #1 and #2 under subparagraph "A" were in fact waived by the zoning officer at the time that the application was received. He stated that truckloads of other construction debris have been hauled in and disposed of in the dumpster on site. He asked when and where this debris was tested for hazardous materials. He is requesting Mr. Lewis's calculations for light infiltration done on apartment #2 prior to door and window replacement and the same calculations he did after these changes were made. He would also request the same calculations for apartment # 1. In an email dated August 14,2003, Mr. Kevin Carroll, acting as the zoning officer, stated that if a City staff member has observed more than six cars on the property the owner would be contacted regarding City Code screening requirements and bring this property into compliance with the said code. On September 14,2003, in an email from Mr. Carroll it states that Mr. Lewis observed more than eight cars on this property. Mr. Walsh stated that since 2003 he would like to know when and what City staffhave observed and documented in regard to Mr. Carroll's statement. He stated that upon receiving the public hearing notice he was perplexed at what it was about. He did not understand why a property owner would need a variance to do something that was legally required. He is wondering why this code requirement wasn't complied with at the time of enactment and if it is the only code requirement that is not being met. After researching the code, Mr. Walsh feels that the applicant is . . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2007 Page 5 . asking the City to allow him to violate Section 10-4-2 (B) item #1 which does not allow for the expansion of nonconforming use. He believes that there must be somewhere else to put this access. He asked if the fire code requires a deck with a roof. He feels it does not; it only requires stairs. He also stated that he feels that City staff is ignoring the City Codes and misleading the Commission to help the applicant achieve this illegal nonconforming use ofthis property. It would be completely predictable that the occupants (of the house) will use this deck as an outdoor room by adding a BBQ grill, lounge chairs etc. thus blocking a fire safety exit, thus rendering it useless. He stated that the balcony overlooks the neighbors to the north allowing someone to look down into their living room and bedroom; a violation of the property. He feels that it is injurious to the property which is contrary to what staff says in the staffmemo under point #4. Point #6 of the same memo staff states "the minimum required eliminating the hardship"; for reasons just given this statement is also untrue. Mr. Walsh also questions what will be supporting the expansion for there is nothing holding up either the stairs or the balcony. In the same Section 10-4-2 (B) states that there are five items that a violation of anyone would require the property to be brought into compliance with the updated City Code. State Statute says that a variance can not be given to an illegal nonconforming use. He stated that item #2 requires a zoning certificate to provide evidence of a lawful existence prior to the adoption of this code. He stated that the applicant does not have such certificate so the use is not legal. Item #4 states that should the use in a nonconforming structure cease for more than one year that use cannot be resumed. Apartment #3 was vacant for more than 13 months. Apartment #2 will have been vacant for more than 12 months at the end of this month. Additionally under #1 the Mr. and Mrs. Walsh have contended at the February 19,2008 City Council meeting that Apartment #1 has been converted to 2 units. Under 10-4-2 item #3 it is explained that all ofthese changes exceed over 50% value. The code states that the changes cannot include structural changes. Mr. Walsh referred to several windows that were added, removed or relocated. He stated that there are 9 or 10 changes that have been made that are structural. The approved plan does not show any changes to the back 1/3 of the building but there has been work done in that area including doors, windows and siding. A violation of any of the five items is justification and requirement for the City to rescind the legal nonconforming use ofthis property. He stated that it is time for the City to stop extending special consideration for this property owner and bring the property into compliance will all City Codes. In the February 26, 2008 Planning Commission memo from Lee Smick that neither Exhibit B nor Exhibit C show any evidence that this use was in fact legal. An inspection was done August 19,2003; six months after the requirement for the zoning certificate at which point the Fire Marshal should have stopped the illegal use of one apartment. He stated that everyone at City Hall is acting as the Zoning Officer except the person who is legally designated; the City Planner. He stated that there are any number of other items that need to be completed to make this property code compliant. He asked why the driveway was not required to be paved earlier and how a section of asphalt got into a driveway that was never been paved. He asked why the zoning officer is not addressing their complaints and if this is a case where her supervisor will not allow her to do her job. Mr. Walsh stated that this is a case of an apartment complex being forced into a single family neighborhood with nothing being done to mitigate it's . Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2007 Page 6 impact. Chair Rotty asked Mr. Walsh ifhe could leave a copy of his comments. Mr. Walsh stated that he will get the Commissioners a copy. Mr. Dave Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, stated that as a City Council member he has received several complaints about this property in the past three years regarding code violations. He stated that he is concerned that the deck sitting on the entryway does not seem structurally secure and he hopes that the City Inspector and Engineers are looking at this. He feels that this is expanding the use in that area that does not make the neighborhood aesthetically pleasing. He stated that all that is required is a landing at the house. He stated that if you look around the neighborhood on Third and Maple there is a duplex with a landing and stairs coming down, but that is a duplex. Since this is a triplex it is not warranted to expand the envelope and give them more living space with a deck. Councilmember Pritzlaff indicated that all that is necessary for a second access is a landing with stairs. He referred to the asbestos abatement that was done at the property that refers to 4 units in the structure. He has received complaints regarding the use of a fourth unit in the house and the fact that there are four gas meters outside of the house. He does not think that we should be continuing the nonconforming use for a triplex for this property when it may be a four-pi ex. He also referred to questions that had been raised previously with regard to the discontinuation of use for over twelve months. He stated that the City Code states that if the use is discontinued for whatever reason, for over twelve months, the nonconforming use may not resume. He stated that the fact that the property was in the plat review process for five months does not matter because the code states for "whatever reason". He said that at the last City Council meeting the resident who had made a complaint about the property received a vague response from the City Attorney regarding the discontinued use and other specific concerns. Another issue that has been raised is the work exceeding 50% of the value ofthe property. He stated that the work is over 50% because it is over $90,000 and there has not even been an amount obtained for the electrical work yet. Councilmember Pritzlaff stated that he does not think that this use should be expanded. If the use is expanded, the requirement for the driveway to be paved also requires that the driveway be 5 feet off of the property line. He stated that he would like to see a grading plan for the site and a drawing indicating where the driveway and parking lot will be on the property. He would like to be sure that if the variance is approved that all of the code violations on the property are corrected. He would like to see an additional condition added to the contingencies for approval that would require an inspection if a complaint is received regarding the property being used as a four-plex and if this is found to be true then the certificate of occupancy be pulled for the whole building. Mr. Mike Bischel stated that he has owned this property for 3 years so he is not responsible for what happened in 2003. The property was built in 1880 and it has a lot of deficiencies and he has been trying to improve the property and make it safe and more aesthetically pleasing. He has put new siding on the house and replaced windows and is improving the energy value. He stated that the valuation is arbitrary because the only comparable property for this home is in Hastings. He feels that the proposed access is a reasonable solution. He stated that the deck will be structurally sound and has been approved by the Building Official. He also stated that the testing . . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2007 Page 7 . that was done is what is required by code; no further testing is required for the work being done. Chair Rotty asked Mr. Bischel if the building is a tri-plex or a four-plex. Mr. Bischel replied that it is a three-plex. Commissioner Larson asked what the fourth gas meter is for. Mr. Bischel stated that the meter was for a fireplace back in the garage. The gas line and electrical have been removed from that structure but the meter is still there. The fourth meter has been capped. He stated that there is no one living in a fourth unit without a bathroom. He stated that he does not have the grading plan yet but he will submit one. Commissioner Larson asked the City Attorney what his thoughts were on the 50% valuation rule and the fact that the 3rd unit sat empty for over one year. Mr. Jamnik replied that the zoning officer made a determination that the use was not discontinued because the units were unoccupied. There were no changes made to reduce the number of units; it did in fact remain a tri- plex during that time. The zoning officer also made the determination that the cause of the vacancy exceeding twelve months was because of the plan application that was being reviewed by the City of Farmington and for those two reasons made the determination that the lawful nonconforming use was still validly continuing. That determination has not been appealed to the board of adjustments and is not before the Commission this evening. The determination was made over 30 days ago and can no longer be appealed. The 50% rule is a casualty/loss provision and does not apply to repair and improvement or maintenance issues. Commissioner Bonar asked where the Walsh's live in relation to the building. He asked if Mr. Bischel is aware of any other neighborhood concerns that he is aware of. Mr. Bischel stated that he is only aware of two neighbors who have attended meetings and made complaints. He said that there are other neighbors who are happy about the improvements that he is making. Commissioner Larson asked if there is another entrance that could be added. Mr. Bischel stated that there is no other location that would work. He chose to do larger than the minimum required 3 foot by 3 foot landing because it would look better. Chair Rotty stated that he felt that the size of the deck is fine. Commissioner Larson asked if there should be a parking lot plan and grading plan before approving the variance. Mr. Bischel stated that every month that goes by that he cannot rent the building he is losing money. He stated that he does not care how much the bond is for as long as the project keeps moving forward. He will be using wood fence or shrubs for screening. He said that he will do whatever he needs to do to make the parking lot work. He has a very large lot to work with. Concilmember Pritzlaff stated that the driveway has to be 5 feet off of the property line so he stated that using the existing driveway will not work. The driveway will have to moved over to meet the 5 feet setback. Commissioner Larson stated that this is why he would like to see a plan first. City Planner Smick stated that there has been precedence in prior instances and staff is comfortable with getting a bond and working with the applicant to ensure that the driveway and the parking lot meet code. She stated that the plan can be brought before the Commission for discussion but staff would like the variance acted upon this evening. Chair Rotty asked Mr. Bischel ifhe is comfortable with all of the contingencies. He stated that he is. Mr. Jamnik instructed staffto place everything except condition #5 in the bond. The City Engineer will need to determine how much the bond should be. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Bonar to . Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2007 Page 8 approve the variance with the stated conditions. VOTED FOR: Barker, Bonar, Rotty, Stokes VOTED AGAINST: Larson. MOTION CARRIED. c) Conditional Use Permit to allow a manufacturing use -109 Spruce Street Applicant: Pressline Industries Peter Dantzer who owns Pressline Industries at 525 1 st Street is requesting approval to open a manufacturing facility in the building formerly occupied by Lampert's Lumber at 109 Spruce Street. In the B-3 zoning district a manufacturing facility is a conditional use. Mr. Dantzer would like to put a assembly, stamping, wielding and grinding of raw steel or aluminum type manufacturing facility building located on the southeast portion of the site. The stamping will be performed entirely inside of the building and the presses will be located in the east side of the structure nearest the railroad tracks. The presses will be on isolation mounts to prevent vibration. The welding and grinding of larger fixtures outside of the building may be required at times. There will be 5 employees on site with the potential for as many as ten. The employees will park in the striped areas along Spruce Street. There is an unenclosed building on the west side of the property where they may park employee's vehicles and some construction vehicles. Business hours will be 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays and possibly 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends. Staff is recommending approval of the CUP contingent upon the applicant obtaining all permits from the Building Official and Fire Marshal. Mr. Peter Dantzer stated that he has been working with Lampert's over the last few months and will not purchase the property until he determines if he would be able to get the CUP. Right now he does his welding and fabricating at a facility in Lakeville if the fixtures are large. He stated that his existing tenant also needs additional space. He handles up to 21 foot aluminum extrusion material and manufactures floor matting for entry ways and he had a contractor wholesale business for mailboxes similar to those one would find in front of apartment buildings. The current (Lampert's) facility is basically a pole building. He had the Fire Marshal and Building Official visit the site with him and gave them drawings proposing what he would do with the building. He stated that he would be finishing and insulating the walls, adding a ceiling and new lighting. He would be adding water service to the building and two bathrooms. They would also remodel the office area. He has received bids from local construction companies. The outbuilding on the Oak Street side would remain the same. The building on the west side would be used for storage of materials. The truck traffic would be roughly 10-12 semis per month. The metal stamping presses are used to stamp slots in the grading material so that they can be assembled. There are two presses, and the isolation foundation material removes low frequency vibrations to prevent it from being transmitted into the floor. The presses are not used every day. He does metal fabricating that includes cutting and grinding which will be done inside the building unless there is a piece that is too large to be handled indoors. He stated that the noise will be inside the building unless there is a fixture that has to be handled outdoors. He has only had one such project in the last 15 years which he took to Lakeville to fabricate. Chair Rotty clarified that the residents who live near the facility should not feel vibration or hear noise. Mr. Dantzer stated that he has not had any complaints regarding his current location and there are homes nearby. He orders steel about once a month. Commissioner Larson asked if the start time could be later than 6:00 a.m. . . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2007 Page 9 Mr. Dantzer stated that the manufacturing doesn't start until 8:00 a.m. Commissioner Larson stated that he would like to see a condition added that manufacturing cannot start until 8:00 a.m. but the facility can be open at 6:00 a.m. Ms. Blanche Reichert, 113 Oak Street, stated that she has concerns regarding this facility. She is concerned with noise, smell, vibration of the presses, truck traffic, lights, potential expansion and she is concerned about the change to manufacturing this close to the downtown. She stated that she wonders why we would want to encourage manufacturing this close to the downtown when there is an industrial park in the city. She stated that she feels that this location would be better to continue as commercial or even residential. She bought her home identifying that it was not in a manufacturing area. She said that she does not get any vibration from the train. She would like the Planning Commission to consider requiring that this business go to the industrial park area. Chair Rotty asked about her concerns with lights. She stated that they may add outdoor spotlights to work outside in the evening. Mr. Wynn Ostlie, 101 Oak Street, stated that he has many of the same concerns raised by Ms. Reichert. He lives across the street and he feels that anything that they do outside will be very noisy and there could be a lot of vibration. He said that they plan to work in the evenings and Saturdays. He would like them to locate in another part oftown. . Ms. Cathy Truesdale, 101 Spruce Street, stated that she agrees with the previous residents who spoke. She is concerned about the noise and the welding and the fumes. When she bought her home it was a quiet area and not industrial. She is not against business; she just doesn't think that this is the best spot for it in Farmington. . Mr. Gale Sprute, 11 Oak Street, stated that he read in the paper that the Farmington City Council and other boards met to define the downtown business area. He stated that if this is a commercial district then he does not feel that manufacturing would be part ofthat district. He feels that the Lampert's property would be a better fit for retail. He stated that this spot seems inappropriate for a manufacturing area. He stated that many of his concerns have already been mentioned. He asked if there are any other manufacturing uses in the B-3 zoning district that are under a CUP at this time. Staff identified that there are some businesses along 1 st Street where Mr. Dantzer's business is currently located that are examples ofthis. Mr. Sprute stated that that area has been manufacturing for over 50 years. He identified that he lives about a block away but is concerned about the noise. He thinks that there will be much more noise than Lampert's Lumber made. He is also concerned about odor for the rest of the neighborhood. The potential for lighting to be added later for manufacturing or for security concerns him as well. The work hours stated include weekends and that is a problem. Mr. Dantzer stated that on the weekends it is about 50% paperwork and 50% manufacturing and this does include Sundays. Screening is another concern that Mr. Sprute identified. He would like to know what will happen if the unused building is torn down. Right now that building provides a good deal of screening. He is concerned that a fence would not provide the same level of screening for the site. Mr. Sprute stated that he drove by the existing Pressline Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2007 Page 10 building and is concerned about the outside storage that he saw. He would like to know where the storage would be on this site. Commissioner Larson stated that the applicant identified that he will be putting the storage in the shed. Mr. Sprute felt that this move would allow their business to grow and then they may have to build new buildings on the site and this might affect the neighborhood in the future. With regard to traffic he realizes that the traffic will be more than it was for Lampert's. He stated that as the years go by, the traffic may increase even more with more semis coming down Spruce Street or 1 st Street. He asked if the trucks would be unloading on site or on Spruce Street. Mr. Dantzer stated that have no need to unload on Spruce Street. Mr. Sprute stated that he hopes that the Commission would deny the Conditional Use Permit. He said that they should also consider the entrance and exit to the site and the potential need for an expanded entrance on Oak Street. Mr. Dantzer stated that the manufacturing that he does will not create fumes that will affect the neighbors. He does not use anything for cleaning other than brake cleaner and it is in a self contained unit. On the one occasion that they had to take their work to Lakeville is the only time that he has had to manufacture outside. He has been in his current location for 10 years and has never had a complaint. He wishes to be a neighborhood friendly manufacturing facility. He has no plans to remove the unused building. The truck traffic can enter the site the same way they did with Lampert's. He stated that any outdoor lighting it would meet the City Code. He has no plans to do outdoor manufacturing in the dark. If he needed more room he would construct another enclosed building. As far as vibration goes, he has been doing this for 28 years and he does not see the vibration bothering anyone. He would welcome anyone to come and speak with him if they had any concerns. Ms. Cathy Truesdale asked ifthe doors will be open in the summer. Mr. Dantzer replied that they would be adding air conditioning to prevent the need for opening the doors. Ms. Blanche Reichert stated that she really doesn't think that manufacturing is a good idea in this location. . . Commissioner Barker stated that he doesn't have a problem with the CUP as long as the hours of operation are addressed. Commissioner Larson stated that he originally didn't have any problem with this item but after listening to the residents' concerns he does not feel he can support this. Commissioner Bonar asked if the current screening that is in place meets the code requirements. Staff stated that the opaqueness may not be the 100% that is required. Mr. Dantzer stated that he would have no problem with increasing the opacity if needed. Commissioner Bonar asked the applicant if he would give consideration to putting some sort of vibration analysis devices in place to test for vibration so that he could scientifically demonstrate that the vibration will not affect the neighbors. Mr. Dantzer stated that he would be willing to do a one time test. Commissioner Bonar stated that the Police Department may also have a decibel . meter to test the noise levels. He also said that he is hopeful that Pressline would continue to be a good neighbor in this new location. Commissioner Stokes stated that he feels that use of the building is fine and recommended that the neighbors that have . Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2007 Page 11 concerns may want to go down to the current location for a tour. He states that his concern would be for any building code restrictions may come in the future that might affect the applicant later. Staff replied that he would not be able to put up anther pole building. Chair Rotty stated that he has been convinced by the residents that this is not appropriate for this property. He questions if moving manufacturing into the downtown commercial district would be a good choice. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Rotty to deny the conditional use permit. VOTED FOR: Bonar, Larson, Rotty. VOTED AGAINST: Stokes, Barker . d) Text Amendment to Sections 10-2-1 and 10-5-15 (C) Sudb. 1 of Zoning Code to include a definition for Impound Lot, as well as to include Impound Lots as a permitted use in the B-3 (Heavy Business) Zoning District. Applicant: City of Farmington Staff is proposing to add the definition for "Impound Lot" to the B-3 zoning district as a permitted use. Staff feels that this is a similar type use to auto sales, truck terminals and parking lots that are also permitted uses in the B-3 zone. There has been interest in opening an impound lot in the Farmington Business Park which is zoned B-3. Commissioner Bonar stated that he was under the understanding teat the 15t Street Garage that is now under construction would have an impound lot on part of that property. Assistant City Planner Wippler stated that that area would be a police impound lot and all of the vehicles there would have title in the name of the City of Farmington. The City facility would remain but there is the need for additional space. Commissioner Larson asked if the City lot would only be City vehicles then. The owner of the Farmington Business Park, Colin Garvey has requested that the 100% screening and all storage to be in the rear of the building be added as requirements. Commissioner Barker asked if this use should be a conditional use rather than a permitted use so that the requirements could be looked at. Staff will take this item to the City Council as a conditional use rather than permitted. MOTION by Stokes, second by Bonar to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Stokes to recommend approval to the City Council to amend the zoning code as discussed. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . e) Conditional Use Permit to allow a Class III Restaurant, with liquor service in the Tamarack Ridge Retail center located at 20700 Chippendale Avenue. Applicant: T &T Food Concepts, LLC The applicant would like to operate a bar/restaurant in a portion of the Tamarack Ridge Retail Center. They would be using the southern three units of that facility which is located in the B-1 zoning district. The parking would be accommodated by the lot that is already there. They will need to get the necessary building permits to finish off the interior and will need a sign permit as well. A rough draft of the layout was presented; there may be some modification to the plan however. The applicant is meeting all six of the CUP requirements. Staff is recommending the following contingencies: 1. Approval of a liquor license by the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes February 26,2007 Page 12 2. Obtaining all building permits pertaining to the improvements to the interior of the building as determined necessary by the City's Building Official. 3. Approval of a sign permit from the Planning Division. . Commissioner Larson stated that he has many residents asking about the proposed restaurant. Jeff Troutwine stated that he does not have a date when the restaurant would be open. They would potentially consider outside seating in the summer months. MOTION by Barker, second by Bonar to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Stokes, second by Larson to approve the conditional use permit with the stated contingencies. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. f) Conditional Use Permit to allow a massage therapy business as a home occupation - 1212 Oak Street Applicant: Dennison Malone The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to run a therapeutic massage out of his home at 1212 Oak Street. The property is located in East Farmington and Mr. Mason may need to check with the Homeowner's Association to verify that a home occupation is allowed. The hours of operation are Monday through Sunday 8:00 a.m. through 8:00 p.m. He would have to meet the home occupation requirements. Mr. Mason will be the sole person performing the massages. There will not be any structural changes or enlargements made to the residence for the home occupation. There are no other home occupations at this property. The applicant has not indicated . a desire for a sign but if he desires a sign in the future he will need a sign permit to add one. All massages will be on an appointment basis. In September of 2007 a similar home occupation permit was reviewed and approved thereby setting precedence. In addition the City Council will need to hold a public hearing for the license for the therapeutic massage and this will take place at the March 3, 2008 City Council meeting. Commissioner Barker asked how many clients the applicant was expecting to have. The applicant stated that he would expect 6 or 7 clients a day. MOTION by Larson, second by Stokes to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Stokes to recommend approval to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. g) Text Amendment to Section 10-2-1 Definitions, Section 11-4-4 (A) Width and Location and Section 11-4-4 (D) Drainage and Utility Easement Applicant: City of Farmington Staffhas not had an opportunity to discuss the change with the utility companies and would like to continue this item to the April Planning Commission meeting. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to continue the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Discussion Staff asked the Commissioners their thoughts on replacing an existing mobile home with a newer mobile home of the Donnelly property. There are only three mobile homes within the City of Farmington. Mobile homes are not allowed other than in the R-2 zoning district as manufactured homes. Chair Rotty stated that he would be comfortable . . . . Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2007 Page 13 with the replacement of the home. Commissioners Larson, Barker and Stokes stated that they would not be comfortable with the replacement. 4. Adjourn MOTION by Barker, second by Bonar to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Approved Lisa Dargis Administrative Assistant . . . February 29,2008 Dear Mr. Rotty, Attached please find my comments from the Planning Commission on February 26, 2009 and an additional questions which is as follows. At the Planning Commission meeting on the 26th, the City Attorney made a comment concerning the twelve months of discontinued use of one apartment at 808 Second Street. He said that since we did not appeal the ruling of the zoning officer within the allotted 30 days, her ruling cannot be overturned or overruled. He did not specify a particular code. My research shows the most likely code relating to his statement is city code 10-3-4 Appeals: "An appeal from a ruling of the zoning officer may be taken by the property owner or agent within thirty (30) days after the order utilizing the following procedure" and the code lists (A), (B) and (C) procedures to appeal, etc. Would you please ask the City Attorney of this is the code!1aw he was referring to in his state? If it is not, would you please ask him to state the specific code he was referring to? Thank you. Sincerely, Larry Walsh ( 5 . I am Larry Walsh and I live at 816 Second Street. I would like to start with a few questions about the building permit application. On the January 4,2008 copy there is no permit number, no legal description, no list of contractor(s), why? Ownership? Estimated value intentionally blacked out. Who, when, why, is this not public information? We received another copy the same application on February 11, 2008 with "approved plans", between January 4,2008 and February 11,2008 someone made numerous changes to the original application. Who, when, why? Is it common practice for signed original documents to be doctored and or altered without notations of the revision? How often can an original, legal document be changed and still remain legally binding? . . On the second set of plans it shows plans reviewed by Ken Lewis on January 24, 2008 but does not show any documentation of review or approval by the planning department or the zoning department, why? We are requesting documentation that these "approved" plans were in fact "approved" by officials in both building and planning departments as Mr. Lewis stated would be required. Twice I asked Ms. Smick, "Exactly what is this a variance from" thinking that she could reference a section of code that would explain it. She either could not or would not. She only said that owner wanted to "expand the envelope to install this access". Is a variance to "expand the envelope" an open ended variance? What exactly does "expand the envelope" mean? -On the variance application the word "legal" and "2nd" are above and outside the lines given, was this at the direction of staff or was this document altered as well? If so, by whom and why? -Three plumbers on site beginning February 4, 2008. Plumbing permit not applied for until February 8, 2008, why didn't they have the permit before starting? -Before demo only did testing for asbestos, not lead, mercury, formaldehyde or other hazardous material? Why? -Did not sample or test insulation in walls, why? -Demolition started on December 12,2007, never received a demolition permit, why? -City Administrator was doing on site inspections February 7 and February 13, 2008? What was his legal capacity and or authority to do such inspections. -Pursuant to City Code 10-3-6 Variances, we would request documentation that the required items #1 and #2 under subparagraph (A) were in fact waived by the zoning officer at the time the application was received. -Truck loads of other construction debris is hauled in and disposed of in the dumpster onsite. When and where is this debris being tested for hazardous materials. We are requesting Mr. Lewis's calculations concerning light infiltration done on apartment #2 prior to windows and door replacement and the same calculations done after these changes. We also request the same calculations done for apartment #1. In an email dated August 14,2003 from Mr. Kevin Carroll, acting as zoning officer, stated that if City staff members observed more than six cars on the property the owner will contacted regarding city code screening requirements and bring this property into compliance with said code. In a September 14, 2003 emai1 Mr. Carroll states that on August 26,2003 Mr. Lewis 1 . observed eight vehicles parked on this property. Since August 26, 2003 we would like to know when and what city staff has observed and documented in regards to Mr. Carroll's statement. Upon receiving this notice I was rather perplexed by what it was about. It didn't make sense that the property owner needed to get a variance to do something that was legally required. Why hasn't this code requirement complied with at the time of enactment? Is this the only code requirement that is not being met? After researching the code I am surmising that he has asked the city to allow him to violate City Code Section 10-4-2 (B) Item #1 which does not allow for the expansion of a non-conforming use. Is there absolutely no where else to put this new access? If you look at the drawing submitted with the variance application does the fire code require a deck with a roof? No, only stairs. The property owner is in fact trying to expand his structure and build a covered balcony disguised as a code required safety access and City staff is ignoring City codes and misleading this commission to help him achieve this illegal non-conforming use of this property. It would also be completely predictable that the occupants are going to use this deck as an outdoor room adding barbeque grill, lounge chairs, etc. thus blocking a fire safety exit rendering it useless. Is the fire marshal going to be constantly out there clearing this deck? . Furthermore, this balcony is overlooking the neighbors to the north allowing someone to look down and into their living room and bedrooms a violation of their privacy and "injurious to other property" which is contrary to what staff says, Point #4 of the staff memo dated February 12, 2008. Point #6 of the same memo staff states that this is the minimum required to eliminate the hardship for the reasons just given, this statement is also untrue. Also missing from this application is what will be supporting this expansion, there is nothing holding up either the balcony or stairs. If you continue to read that same section 10-4-2 (B) you will note that there are five items that a violation of anyone would require the property to be brought into compliance with the updated city codes. For example, this expansion, or any other expansion without the variance would mean the loss of legal non-conforming status to this property. Furthermore the state status says that a variance cannot be given to an illegal non-conforming use. But if you look closely at this property and code you will see that Item #2, requires a zoning certification to provide evidence of lawful existence prior to the adoption of this code. Does this owner have said certificate? No. Is he asking for a variance from this regulations, no. Is this legal? No. Item #4 states that should a use in a nonconforming structure cease for one year for whatever reason that use may not be resumed. Apartment #3 has not been used for more than thirteen months. Building Inspector Lewis says that the owner intents to resume renting this unit. Doe he have or is he requesting a variance for this regulation, no. Is this legal? No. . Apartment #2 will have been vacant for twelve months in three days. Again, Mr. Lewis says the owners intent is to re-rent this unit. Does he have a variance for this, no. Is this legal? No. 2 . Additionally under Item #1, we have contended at the February 19 Council Meeting and still do that apartment #1 which is supposed to be a one unit two bedroom apartment has been converted into two units with one bedroom each. This is an expansion ofthe use and a violation of the regulation, City Code 10-4-2 (B) #1, is there a variance for this violation, no. Is this legal? No. Is this four unit use consistent with the certificate of occupancy? We think not. Is this expansion included in the "envelope of expansion"? Furthermore, under Code 10-4-2 (B) also explained at the February 4 City Council meeting these changes exceed the 50% value. Additionally, the City Administrator has publicly claimed that someone at City Hall did an assessment of these costs but then was unable to provide it or the identify of this individual, why? Item #5 states that normal and incidental maintenance is allowed but it can not be a structural repair. If you look at the plan submitted with his permit application, what Mr. Lewis refers to as the "approved plan" you'll notice the elimination of a door on the west side of the 2nd but no other changes. During the month of February, we can show 9 or 10 doors and window openings reframed and altered for example. . The 2nd floor east (front of the building). Does the plan show that the two existing windows will be moved further apart and lowered, no. Have they lowered and moved apart, yes. Normal or incidental maintenance, no, non-structural, no. Variance, no. Is this legal? No. New window added in the 2nd floor in the front ofthe building. On the proposed building plan, no. Does it now exist, yes. Structural alteration, yes. Normal or incidental repairs, no, variance, no. Is this legal? No. South side 2nd floor window at the top of landing. The new window has been lowered. Normal or incidental maintenance, no. Structural alternation, yes. Variance, no. Is this legal, no. Essentially the 2nd floor perimeter load bearing walls have been reframed from the inside. Normal or incidental maintenance, no. Structural alteration, yes. Is this legal, no. The "approved plan" also does not show any changes to the back 1/3 of the building but in fact it has had doors and windows changed, new siding added and framing alterations, why is he allowed to work without building permits? Are these changes non-structural alternations, no, legal no. Are all of these changes a part of the envelope expansion that Ms. Smick is referring to? . A single violation of any of these five items is justification and a requirement for the city to rescind the legal nonconforming use of this property. We have listed violations of all five items 3 . . . including 9-10 individual violations of Item #5 alone. It is well past time for the City to stop extending special consideration to this property owner and bring the entire property into full compliance with all the city's laws and codes. As referenced in the February 26, 2008 planning commission memo from Lee Smick, Neither Exhibit B or C show any evidence that this use was in fact legal, nor is the Fire Marshal the zoning officer. Exhibit C references to an inspection done August 19,2003, six months after the requirement of zoning certification. Without which the Fire Marshall should have stopped the illegal use of one apartment, why didn't he? The only thing these letters show is further documentation that everyone in City Hall is acting as the zoning officer except the person who is legally designated, the City Planner. Also pertaining to the February 12,2008 memo to the p1a!U1ing commission from Ms. Smick on the last page, under staff recommendation it says that with the addition of the five items listed the property would be code complaint. This is not true, there are in fact any number of items that would still be needed to make this property code complaint. Why weren't these five parking and driveway issues addressed five years ago as per Mr. Carroll's August 14,2003 email? And when is the city going to explain how a section of asphalt got into the middle of a driveway that was never paved? Why are our complaints about this property not addressed by the zoning officer? Why does she always hide behind the City Administrator, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Assistant City Planner, Acting City Administrator, Fire Marshal, Building Inspector, Community Development Committee, anyone and everyone but the individual who is legally charged and responsible to enforce this code! Or is this a case where her supervisors will not allow her to do her job? This is a case of an apartment complex being forced into a single family neighborhood with nothing being done to mitigate its impact until something is done it will continue being a problem. Thank you. 4