Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/11/08 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting March 11, 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. Approval of Minutes a) February 12,2008 b) February 26, 2008 MOTION by Larson, second by Stokes to approve the minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings None 4. Discussion a) Findings of Fact - Denial of Conditional Use Permit to allow a manufacturing use at 109 Spruce Street. The commission denied the conditional use at their last meeting. There were no questions from the Commission regarding the Findings of Fact. MOTION by Barker, second by Stokes to approve the Findings of Fact. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) 2030 Comprehensive Plan - 2008 Update Work Plan Staff is working on a work plan for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. There will be a workshop on March 25th at 5:00 p.m. to begin prioritizing the strategies and policies. The policies are available on the website. They were derived from the public visioning sessions that were held in early 2007. City Staff will work on preparing the work plan and several departments may be involved in the actual implementation. The Commissioners were asked to begin reviewing the examples of work plans that were provided to prepare for the meeting. Commissioner Barker stated that he will not be able to attend the meeting on the 25th. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Barker, second by Stokes to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. . . . Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2007 Page 2 Respectfully submitted, Approved Lisa Dargis Administrative Assistant . . . March 24, 2008 Dear Mr. Rotty, The response to my questions and request for information at the February 26, 2008 Public Hearing by Mr. Herlofsky is unacceptable. Also when did Mr. Her10fsky become the spokesman for the Planning Commission? Why did he copy the City Council but not the Planning Commission members? Wasn't this a Planning Commission Public Hearing? Why are the Planning Commissioners avoiding their responsibilities? If you review the meeting tape you will note that my version of the City Attorney's comments concerning zoning officers rulings appeals are accurate. The statement in Mr. Herlofsky's response are not accurate and makes me wonder if the City Attorney is attempting to chance his statement given at the meeting. Furthermore, the law states that "the property owner or their agent" can request an appeal, we are neither the owner nor agent so the City Attorney is not correct in his statement to the commission, neither we nor the general public are given an avenue in the appeal process. I would like to know exactly how a property owner or the general public would know exactly when a ruling has been made? What is that process? How does the zoning officer document and publicize the rulings? How does the public appeal an "official ruling "? Mr. Herlofsky also refers to Mr. Carroll as the zoning officer. In his role as the Community Development Director he was never legally the City Planner and therefore could not legally act as the zoning officer. As such, nothing he said or did as a City representative had any legal standing. On the following pages you will see my original remarks, the City's response and my response to the City. As you will note, few if any of my questions were answered. I want answers to my questions. The documentation requested was also ignored. I want proof that what the City says is true. Please respond in an accurate and responsible manner. Does the ten day appeal process begin when the city answers all my questions??? Sincerely, Larry Walsh 816 Second Street Farmington, MN 55024 ( Original Statement - February 26,2008 Public Hearin I am Larry Walsh and I live at 816 econd Street. I would like to start with a few questions about the building pennit application. On the January 4, 2008 copy there is no pennit 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 docmnent be changed and still remain legally binding? n the second set of plans it shows lans 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 docmnentation 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 utside the lines given, was this at the direction of staff or was this docmnent altered as well? If so, by whom and City's Response - March 12, 2008 As long as both parties agree, the document may be changed. As long as both parties agree. It was approved previously by the Planning Commission. Variance was signed and sent to Dakota County for recording. Ms. Smick was referring to the three dimensional space of the current building and state law that now allows non-conforming uses and other non- conforming uses to be maintained, improved and replaced but not expanded unless approved by the City. Response to City March 24, 2008 I want answers to all of my questions and proof that both sides agreed. The Planning Commission did not hold the public hearing or consider the variance until February 26,2008. How could they approve it on January 24, 2008 as Mr. Lewis said was required or was Mr. Lewis misrepresenting the steps needed in the approval process? What law, specifically. Is it City Code, State Statue or both? 1 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. Gave verbal approval to proceed until owner of plumbing company had a chance to come in to do so. Tested for items required to be tested. Up to testing agency to determine if necessary . Building was remodeled, not demolished. The City Administrator was reviewing the property, well within his authority. This information is not available. It is generally checked at site of dumping. We are requesting Mr. Lewis's This information is not available. 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 email Mr. Carroll states that on August 26, 2003 Mr. Lewis observed eight vehicles parked on this property. Since August 26, 2003 we would like to know when and what city staff has ) What State law gives Mr. Lewis the authority to issue verbal building permits? Required by whom? Why was it determined to be unnecessary? Okay. Why didn't he have a remodeling permit on December 12, 2007? Documented where? Why not? When will it be available. Without this information the variance application is illegal. Why not? When will it be available? Was Mr. Lewis misrepresenting the facts to Mr. Pritzlaffwhen he told him on February 13, 2008 that he did these calculations? Answer questions with documentation. 2 ( observed and documented in regards to Mr. Carroll's statement. pon receiving this notice I was rather erplexed 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 ity staff is ignoring City codes and . sleading 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? Laws change over time. It is corrected at the time of applying for permits. Yes. We disagree with your conclusion That issue will be addressed if it occurs. 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 We disagree with your conclusion. "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 equired to eliminate the hardship for e reasons just given, this statement is also untrue. Also missing from this application is what will be supporting At the public hearing Ms. Smick stated that there was a second access that has existed all along. Why is it required to move it? Why weren't the stairs located at the existing access? Answer the questions. Who is "we"? When was Mr. Herlofsky appointed to the Planning Commission. Who is "we"? When was Mr. Herlosky appointed to the Planning commission? Please explain why there is a need for a roof. Please explain why there is a need for a 7'x 8' deck when the commission stated that a 3'x 3' was ade uate. 3 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. 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 of the use and a violation of the regulation, City Code 10-4-2 (B) #1, is there a variance for The city has not issued any zoning certificates. The item has been responded to previously. We do not agree with your conclusion. This item has been responded to previously. We do not agree with your conclusions. Explain what will hold up the deck and stairs and why it is not on the drawings. Correct. This is a violation of City Code, Chapter 10. Why is it not being enforced? Want to see the zoning officers ruling. Who is "we". When was Mr. Herlofsky appointed to the Planning Commission. Want to see the zoning officers ruling. Who is "we". When was Mr. Herlofsky appointed to the Planning Commission. This item has been responded to previously. We do not agree with your Want to see the zoning officers ruling. conclusions. Want to see the inspection report. 4 this violation, no. Is this legal? No. Is this four unit use consistent with the certificate of occupancy? We think t. 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 ow 9 or 10 doors and window penings 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 of the 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 ltemation, yes. Variance, no. Is this gal, no. This item has been responded to previously. We do not agree with your conclusions. There is no problem with the owner's improvement ofthe property. There is no problem with the owner's improvement of the property. There is no problem with the owner's improvement ofthe property. Essentially the 2nd floor perimeter load There is no problem with the owner's Want to know if none, why the zoning officer never inspected our complaint. Want to see the zoning officers ruling. Who is "we"? When was Mr. Herlofsky appointed to the Planning Commission. Want to see zoning officers ruling. Who is "we"? Three times we have asked for this assessment. Mr. Herlofsky needs to provide it or admit to all parties that he made this up. Want to see the zoning officers ruling. Who is "we"? When was Mr. Herlofsky appointed to the Planning Commission. Want to see the zoning officers ruling on all these structural alterations. 5 bearing walls have been reframed from improvement of the property. 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 pennits? 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 ofthese five items is justification and a requirement for the city to rescind the legal nonconfonning use of this property. We have listed violations of all five items 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 planning commission from Ms. Smick on the last page, under staff recommendation it says that with the addition of the five There is no problem with the owner's improvement of the property. No. There is no problem with the owner's improvement of the property. Where are his building permits? Answer the question. I want an answer to the question. 6 items listed the property would be code complaint. This is not true, there are in fact any number of items that ould still be needed to make this roperty 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! City does not deny it, therefore it must be true. It is time to replace the zoning officer with one who will do the job. Or is this a case where her supervisors ill not allow her to do her job? This s 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 roblem. . 7