Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/12/08 . . . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting August 12, 2008 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Stokes, Larson, Bonar, Barker Members Absent: None Also Present: Tony Wippler - Assistant City Planner, Lee Smick - City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) July 8, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes MOTION by Larson, second by Stokes to approve the minutes. VOTED FOR: Rotty, Larson, Stokes. ABSTAINED: Bonar, Barker b) July 8, 2008 Workshop Minutes MOTION by Stokes, second by Larson to approve the minutes. VOTED FOR: Rotty, Larson, Stokes. ABSTAINED: Bonar, Barker 3. Public Hearings a) Amendment to CUP and site plan for a Bus and Truck Terminal- Lot 3, Block 1, Farmington Industrial Park 208th Street Addition Applicant: Patrick Regan 10110th Street East, Suite 300 Hastings, MN 55033 The applicant is asking to amend his conditional use permit (CUP) that was approved in July of 2007. The amendment that is being proposed tonight deals with the access to the property and the location of that access. The area that was originally proposed to be used as an access is located entirely on the property and is outside of the drainage and utility easement. This site plan was approved and the building permits were issued according to this original site plan. The applicant would like to move the access to an alternate location. To the east of the property there is an outlot that is owned by the City's Economic Development Authority (EDA) that has been reserved as part of the long term trail plan for that area. The newly proposed access would be located upon the EDA owned outlot and would be in the drainage and utility easement. There is also a portion that would be located on a portion of the adjacent property owned by Bernard Murphy and there has been no agreement signed by Mr. Murphy to allow the encroachment. The EDA has reviewed the plan and does not see an issue with the location of the drive on the outlot. Both of the accesses proposed could potentially be temporary accesses if the development of Eastview A venue were to occur in the future. If the Planning Commission were to approve the amendment, there would need to be agreements with both the City of Farmington and Mr. Murphy. Staffwould also like to note the recent approval of the ordinance amendment dealing with drainage and utility easements. The amended ordinance states that nothing can be located in those easements other than turf and fencing. Staff is recommending denial of the CUP and site plan amendment. Mr. Patrick Regan, POR-MKR Real Estate, LLC stated that when the original plan was submitted, they anticipated and discussed their desire to come to some agreement with Mr. Murphy which would allow them to share a driveway. They were anticipating the future construction of Eastview Ave. Mr. Regan asked what the City has now with Mr. Murphy. He Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2008 Page 2 . stated that he is currently using the existing gravel driveway without any type of agreement. Due to the sale of his property to DR Horton, Mr. Murphy was required to deed the outlot over to the City. There was no formal access agreement over the outlot created at that time. Mr. Regan stated that he inherited this unfinished legal business when he obtained his property. He stated that he plans to access from off of Eastview A venue when it is constructed. He stated that he did not create this situation, he inherited it. He said that Mr. Murphy had a broken down, rut filled gravel driveway going across it's outlot; he has improved the driveway at his own expense. He has put a gravel base on Mr. Murphy's property and the City's outlot. He was anticipating that he could get some cooperation and be able to pave it and it could be a shared drive. The City Engineering staff had him install the water and sewer lines in that 16 foot outlot at his expense. He upgraded those utilities so that the City could use them for future development in the area. He did not want to have a nice twenty-four foot wide blacktopped driveway completely on his property and then have this gravel driveway right next to it, across the City's outlot. To date Mr. Murphy has not signed an agreement with Mr. Regan and does not want the driveway on his property. Mr. Regan has agreed to let Mr. Murphy use the blacktopped driveway. He also stated that he is helping the City get a legal temporary agreement him and with Mr. Murphy that will protect his access. He does not plan to do anything more until the City or Mr. Murphy do something permanent with their property. He said that if the trail access is developed he will have to get out of the way. His proposal does not take the EDA's rights away. If the City decides to develop Eastview Avenue there will need to be discussion again and a more permanent solution will need to be found. He stated that the City Attorney has approved the easement agreement. The plan was approved by four members of the City Council acting as the EDA. The EDA had agreed to allow the driveway over the top of their outlot. Mr. Regan stated that he would provide a ten foot drainage and utility easement to the west of the driveway if desired. He doesn't feel the City will need it however. He is just trying to clean up what he inherited when he traded with the City for his property on Highway 3. He was subject to a taking of property by the City, other wise he wouldn't be here in the first place. He has hired one hundred more employees and had put fifty more buses on the street. He stated that because of his development efforts, the Industrial Park has expanded by thirty some acres. There has been an expansion of 208th Street over to Pilot Knob Road mostly at his expense. He stated that he feels he is being piled on. . . Chair Rotty asked Mr. Regan to explain exactly what he means by his statement that he is being "piled on". Mr. Regan stated that the other day he was told that he could not get a temporary Certificate of Occupancy because of this access issue. Today he was told about the drainage and utility easement code requirements for an easement that the City doesn't need anyways because he already installed the utilities in the outlot. Mr. Regan stated that staffhas done absolutely nothing to cooperate and provide options that will work. Commissioner Larson asked why Mr. Regan didn't just put the access in per the original plan. Mr. Regan stated that if Eastview A venue is put in he will have put in a hundred foot driveway that is no good any more. He stated that not everything is temporary because he will have the base brought in which he has done already. He graded down the existing driveway and had gravel brought in. If he has to move the driveway entirely onto his property then he will have to take the base he put down away and leave Mr. Murphy with he doesn't know what. He understands that he did the work at his own risk. Commissioner Larson stated that he is unsure why Mr. Regan would do the work without getting the approval first. He doesn't understand why Mr. Regan would put the driveway on someone else's property and then be mad about it. Mr. Regan stated that there have been changes throughout the process by all parties. He considers the proposed plan Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2008 Page 3 . to be the best solution so that he can maximize the use of his property. He knows that Eastview will potentially come through eventually. The utilities that were put in are upsized so that they can be used in the future. . City Planner Smick stated that the 16.5 foot outlot was platted in the Industrial Park 2nd Addition in the 1990's, prior to the development of Middle Creek. She spoke with Jim Bell, the City's former Park and Recreation Director, and he stated that they allowed Mr. Murphy to continue to drive on the property until there was some sort of development someday. Commissioner Larson asked if there could be a land swap to move the easement over to the west. Mr. Regan stated that he would grant a drainage and utility easement on the west side of the driveway. Chair Rotty stated that he would like the Engineering and Planning staff to determine if that would be a reasonable solution. Mr. Regan stated that the utility easement is not really needed at this time. Commissioner Larson stated that the driveway over the outlot is not good land use. This would set a precedent with regard to outlots all over the City. Mr. Regan stated that he is improving a condition that has already been allowed by letting the outlot be used in a less than City standard fashion. He doesn't want to rip out everything that he put down to improve it. Commissioner Larson stated that the driveway was there prior to the outlot. Chair Rotty stated that this could have been addressed earlier when there would have been more time to negotiate a solution. He stated that Mr. Regan could have built the driveway that was already approved. Commissioner Barker asked why Mr. Regan feels that he inherited this problem when the driveway is not on his property to begin with. Mr. Regan stated that everything that he has done to date he was not told not to do by City staff. He was told to put the utilities in the outlot. He stated that Engineering approved the drainage and the elevation of the driveway that he put the base on. He stated that a construction driveway was approved at that location. Staff stated that they did not know if Engineering had inspected the driveway or not. Staff stated that the access was allowed so that he could move buses onto the site until the approved access could be put in. Commissioner Larson stated that he would like to hear from Engineering to know what their thoughts are. Currently he feels that he would only approve the original plan because the driveway was put in on someone else's property. He stated that ifthere were more time this issue may have been worked out but there is not enough time to do that now. Commissioner Bonar said that there are several departments that have concerns about his plan. He is concerned that there is still a portion on Mr. Murphy's property. He is concerned that there could be a potential adverse possession claim for the continued use of the driveway. He asked for clarification regarding the denial of the certificate of occupancy. Staff stated that because the approved access has not been constructed, and the proposed access has not been approved; technically there is no approved access to the site. . Commissioner Stokes stated that he would like to know if anyone from Engineering has been to the site to approve anything. He asked if Mr. Murphy could potentially sell his property for development that would result in Eastview Avenue not being constructed, thereby making this driveway permanent. Staff stated that this would be possible. Commissioner Barker stated that he agrees with the rest of the commissioners and he is also concerned about the utility easement. He does not want to go back on the recent changes to the Code. . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2008 Page 4 Chair Rotty stated that he has never seen the Planning Commission allow a property owner to build a driveway on someone else's property. He stated that negotiating over moving utilities is not the commission's job. He would suggest to the EDA that the two boards have a workshop to discuss these types of issues before they come to the Planning Commission or the City Council. He said that utility easements are platted and used for specific reasons. He stated that he would not approve the proposed plan. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to deny the request for the CUP and site plan amendment. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) Terry Ellison variance request (detached garage) - 5620 Lower 182nd Street Mr. Ellison would like to discuss the opportunity for a variance. His property consists of25,000 square feet. He has an existing shed on his property that is 616 square feet per the aerial view. Mr. Ellison believes the shed to be 432 square feet. He would like to construct a 960 square foot shed on the property while maintaining the shed that exists. Per the City Code, he would only be allowed one 1,000 square foot garage, and a 120 square foot shed. He would be using the shed for storage of vehicles and to repair vehicles. He does not paint or use hazardous materials. He explained that the shed is adjacent to an E-Z Up; that is why it looks larger on the aerial view. The existing shed is built on the electric easement so he can not add on to it. There is significant water pooling on this area of the property in the spring. The shed was preexisting when he purchased the property. He would not be heating the new shed. Commissioner Bonar asked about the encroachment on the electric easement. Mr. Ellison stated that the encroachment has never been an issue, although he was made aware of it when he bought the property. He also stated that he would construct the new shed to match the home. Commissioner Bonar asked ifhe had considered adding on to the home rather than building a separate structure. Staff stated that this would be setting a precedent. Commissioner Bonar stated that he would be disinclined to approve this request. Chair Rotty stated that several years ago accessory structures were a heavily debated topic. The misuse and size of the buildings were the primary issues. He stated that at that time there was a maximum created and they have been fairly consistent in enforcing that requirement. Commissioner Stokes stated asked if Mr. Ellison needed the existing shed. He asked is the lot and one half that Mr. Ellison owns changes the requirements at all. Staff stated that the requirement does not change until you have one acre. Commissioner Barker stated that he would not be inclined to approve this item. He stated that he does not see a hardship. Commissioner Larson stated that he does not see a hardship either. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2008 Page 5 . Chair Rotty stated that the commission will not be taking a vote on a discussion item, but Mr. Ellison will be able to file for a variance ifhe so desires. The commissioners did not indicate that they would be in favor of approval. Mr. Ellison asked if the water pooling would be a hardship. Chair Rotty stated that the issue is having over 1,000 square feet. He could build a smaller secondary garage ifhe desires to keep the existing shed. b) Draft cell tower code amendment City Planner asked the Commission to strike out number three on the list of proposed ordinance revisions. Regarding the Park and Open Space zone, the monopole structure maximum height is proposed to be seventy five feet and would only be allowed in parks with facilities. This type of structure would not be allowed in the open space areas. Poles in parks with facilities will be set back seventy five feet except when a qualified engineer's report specifies that any pole collapse will occur within a lesser distance. Some poles are constructed to collapse upon themselves rather than fall. One additional user will be allowed on the monopole. No crow's nest, platforms or guy wires are allowed on the pole. The antenna arms are to be separated by ten feet. The development committee met and discussed the initial work to be focused on the Park and Open Space zones. . Pat Conlin ofFMHC Corporation, representing T-Mobile, stated that they would like to locate at Tamarack Park. She stated that the ten foot separation is required because each carrier runs on a different wave length. There are interference issues if the antennae are closer. She stated that there are typically only two carriers per pole because of visibility issues at the lower heights. The next antenna is located on the water tower in Empire. Right now this is the only tower they are looking at in Farmington but they are looking at their 2010 plan right now. Commissioner Stokes asked if staff has heard from any other companies at this time. Staff stated that they have not. Commissioner Barker asked if there would be consideration of other locations in the future. Staff stated that they would look for the Planning Commission's direction with regard to other zones. Commissioner Bonar stated that he is concerned that this amendment only addresses Park and Open Space, but does not address the needs in other zones. Staff stated that the IP zone is another potential area that could work for these placements, as well as school and church sites. Chair Rotty stated that this item should be brought back to the Commission as Planning Staff looks at other zoning districts. The Park and Open Space proposal should be brought back in September. . c) Draft text amendment for commerciaVrecreational use in IP district Staff is proposing a text amendment to allow commercial/recreational uses in the IP district. Currently this use is allowed as a conditional use in the I-I district. Commercial recreational uses are defined as the provision of entertainment, games of skill or lessons to the general public for a fee, including but not limited to: dance, karate, golf, archery and miniature golf. This type of use requires a taller inside wall height than is allowed in some other districts. . . . Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2008 Page 6 Steve Block stated that he is interested in the recreational park that is being proposed for the vacant portion of the Vinge building. He stated that the facility would be for family recreation and exercise. Commissioner Barker stated that he would be in favor of this change. Commissioners Larson, Bonar and Stokes were also in favor of this change. Chair Rotty stated that he would be in favor as well, but would like to keep this as a conditional use. This item will be brought back as a text amendment in September. d) Draft amendment to Section lO-6-4(M) regarding parking in residential areas There has been discussion regarding allowing driveways in residential areas to be placed up to the property line. This change would not require the typical five foot setback. There are typically not drainage or utility easements in these areas in the older portion of town. There were two proposed amendments provided by staff. One proposal allows for this change only in the downtown area. The second proposal allows for the change citywide. The newer sections of town have drainage and utility easements that would prohibit the placement of driveways up to the property line in new developments. Commissioners Bonar, Stokes, Larson and Barker all preferred the option that allows for the change citywide. Chair Rotty stated that he would agree with that option as well. e) Comprehensive Plan Update City Planner Smick stated that staff is planning to submit the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan in October. There has been a change made to the submittal deadlines set by the Metropolitan Council. The new deadline is in December of this year. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Approved Lisa Dargis Administrative Assistant