Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/12/08 . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting November 12,2008 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Stokes, Larson, Bonar, Barker, Rotty Members Absent: None Also Present: Tony Wippler - Assistant City Planner, Lee Smick - City Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) October 14, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to approve the October 14,2008 minutes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) October 28, 2008 Special Meeting Minutes MOTION by Larson, second by Stokes to approve the October 28, 2008 minutes. VOTED FOR: Rotty, Larson, Bonar, Stokes ABSTAINED: Barker MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings . a) Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of a monopole cell tower in Tamarack Park. Applicant: FMHC Corporation 2901 Metro Drive, Suite 225 Bloomington, MN 55024 The applicant has requested that this public hearing be continued to the December 9, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to continue the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Ordinance Amendment to Title 8 of the City Code to adopt the Dakota County Uniform Street Naming and Addressing System. Applicant: City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 . Last month the Dakota County Board of Commissioners approved the Uniform Street Naming Addressing System Procedural Manual. This manual replaces an ordinance that has been repealed. The purpose of the manual is to establish a uniform system for naming streets and assigning numbers to dwellings, principal buildings and businesses in order to facilitate emergency services, deliveries and provide the general advantages of a uniform system. The uniform addressing system is based on a grid system and is the way that the City of Farmington has been naming streets and addressing already, so this will not change our procedures. Dakota County is asking that the City reference or adopt the procedures in the manual. MOTION by Bonar, second by Stokes to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Larson, second by Barker to recommend approval to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Planning Commission Minutes November 12,2008 Page 2 . c) Ordinances amending the following portions of the City Code: The following ordinance changes are a result of the City of Farmington's local surface water management plan that will be going to the Metropolitan Council in late November and was prepared to be consistent with both the Metropolitan Council's 2030 Water Resources Management Policy and the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization Watershed Plan (JPO). Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes, the City must adopt and implement the plan within 120 days and must amend its official controls accordingly. This means that we would need to amend our City Zoning Code to make it compliant with the JPO's plan. This process began in 2005 and the last remaining items to complete are to approve the official controls and amend the following ordinances. 1) Ordinance Amendment to Title 10, Chapter 5, Section 25 of the City Code regarding Floodplain Overlay District. Applicant: City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 The changes to this ordinance include updating it to require easements over areas below the 100 year critical flood elevation and to allow projects that alter flood plain boundaries as long as no detrimental impacts result or adverse impacts are mitigated. . 2) Ordinance Amendment to Title 10, Chapter 6, Section 17 of the City Code regarding Wetland Standards. Applicant: City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 The wetland standards are to be updated to allow the Board of Water and Soil Resources Boundaries to detail the requirements for allowing stormwater ponds in buffers and require minimum and average widths for managed three wetlands that meet the JPO's rules. 3) Ordinance Amendment to Title 10, Chapter 6, Section 18 of the City Code regarding Shoreland Management Regulations. Applicant: City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 The changes to this ordinance include adding major waterway buffer widths that meet the JPO's requirements. . 4) Ordinance Amendment to Title 10, Chapter 6, Section 27 of the City Code regarding Erosion Control Required. Applicant: City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 Planning Commission Minutes November 12,2008 Page 3 . The changes to the erosion control requirements need to be made so that it is compliant with the NPDES general construction permit requirements as well as to require conveyance channels to withstand velocities from a ten year storm without erosion. 5) Ordinance Amendment to Title 11, Chapter 4, Section 7 of the City Code regarding Storm Drainage. Applicant: City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 The storm drainage ordinance will be modified to require a land alteration permit for most land disturbance activities and will also include the JPO's requirements for temperature control, water quality criteria, rate control and volume control. . Mr. Jerry Zimmer stated that he has lived in Farmington his entire life and he feels that the property owners have been neglected in this process and it takes their real estate away from them without compensation. The streams have always been there and they have not caused any problems for anyone. They cause less damage than sewer projects that dump in excess of 12.5 million gallons of pumped water per day into the Vermillion River Watershed without notification to any property owners. He stated that 35 years ago the DNR was a very small bureaucracy and they came to the property owners in Eureka, Empire and Farmington and stated that they wanted to inventory the water. They stated that they did not have actual knowledge of where and how much there is and the study is for educational purposes only, nothing will change. Thirty five years later they have 300 feet on each side of the river as protected ground that they manage and it is a mess. He stated that the Commission is there to protect the property owners and they do not understand the changes even though they are going to adopt them. He stated that once they adopt the changes they will haunt the property owners forever. He stated that the changes are policy decisions not legislative mandates. . Commissioner Larson asked Mr. Zimmer what the JPO said when he went to their public hearing. Mr. Zimmer stated that all of the policy decisions are made at the local level and the final decision is up to the local elected officials. Commissioner Larson asked staff what drove the increase of the buffer zones. Mr. Zimmer stated that he has not been able to find anyone who can give him the answer to that question. City Planner, Lee Smick stated that under the storm drainage requirement that we have to follow the requirements have to do with what type of stream it is. It is a scientist reviewing this information and the DNR fisheries stating that this is what needs to be done for temperature control, water quality criteria, rate control and volume control. Commissioner Larson asked if there has been a negative impact on the stream that we know of. Staff stated that they are not aware of one. The area near Kemps was degraded at one time but that was stopped years ago. Mr. Zimmer stated that there are areas of the stream that are bone dry to the west of Farmington. He stated that there is debris and garbage and it is not well managed. He stated that the area in Farmington is fed by runoff not spring fed. Chair Rotty stated that this is one of the final steps of this process and asked Mr. Zimmer what steps of this process he has participated in prior to this one. Mr. Zimmer Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2008 Page 4 . stated that he has been involved since 1979 because he owns property that the river goes through. He was not part of the public hearings for the last three years. Chair Rotty stated that he is curious why the other agencies involved have not changed their recommendations based upon Mr. Zimmerman's concerns. Mr. Zimmerman stated that it is a bureaucracy that has been growing and the officials have not returned his calls. Commissioner Bonar stated that he appreciates Mr. Zimmer's time in the community and his understanding of the river. He stated that the urbanization of this area is perhaps the reason that we would want to protect the river and preserve that area. Mr. Zimmerman stated that he understands that there has been growth. Commissioner Bonar stated that he has attended a dozen or so of the JPO meetings over the years and he has taken the time to educate himself because he had concerns as well. . Mr. Jerry Sayers stated that he would like to support Mr. Jerry Zimmer's statements. He stated that the farmer's take care of the river. They do not want to turn that over to a bureaucrat who sits behind a desk. He asked if the buffer means that you can not plant crops in the buffer area. Staff stated that farmers would be able to continue the agricultural use of the property, the buffer pertains more to development of the property. Mr. Sayers stated that there is already a lot of buffering near the river. He stated that there is a lot of garbage along the river and there used to be sewage from the township of Lakeville running into the river an that was due to the management [by others] of the area. He said that the landowners take care of the river quite well. He stated that these changes are just the encroachment of bureaucracy upon the farmers. City Planner Lee Smick stated that a lot of the reason that the JPO is making these changes is due to the vote for the Clean Water Act. Mr. Sayers stated that the flood plain information being used is antiquated data. Mr. Zimmerman stated that the flood plain data comes from one man working at a computer in Columbus, Oh. He stated that the information is not even close to right. He also stated that the Met Council dewatered for the interceptor that will be put in without a permit. . Commissioner Bonar stated that he feels that shore land management and the preservation of this particular river and its tributaries is its primary focus. Commissioner Stokes stated that he is a little perplexed by why Mr. Zimmerman is concerned about the buffers ifhe can still farm the property. Staff stated that Mr. Zimmerman is concerned about when his property is sold for development. There will be less land available for development. Commissioner Larson asked if a field survey could be done when it is time for him to sell his property to determine if the flood plain elevations are correct. Staff stated that Mr. Zimmerman could do a letter of map revision but it is not a fast process. Commissioner Larson stated that he would like to have more information about why the buffers are being increased if there has been no negative impact on the river. Commission Barker stated that if there were concerns they should have been addressed with the JPO back in 2005. State law requires the Planning Commission to basically accept what the JPO has done. Staff stated that the DNR has not given them an answer to some of their questions about the surface water management. Chair Rotty stated that this is the end of the process and the discussions between the property owners and the experts that have designed this information should have ironed out some of these issues. . . . Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2008 Page 5 MOTION by Barker, second by Larson to close all 5 public hearings. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Barker, second by Bonar to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance changes to the City Council. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 4. Discussion a) 18533 Explorer Way - Possible variance for accessory structure. The City of Farmington received a complaint about his property. The complaint was regarding a large accessory structure on the property. There are actually several violations on the property. There are actually two accessory structures on the property. There is a 120 square foot storage shed on the property and a larger structure that is about 360 square feet in size. Per the City Code the structures must be located behind the principal structure and there needs to be a ten foot separation between the buildings. Neither of the structures on site meets that requirement. Staff visited the site and discussed the issues with the property owner. The owner of the property was made aware that he would need a variance to have more than one accessory structure. The larger 360 square foot structure was constructed without a permit. The larger structure would need to meet the requirements for a garage. The property is a corner lot, and although there are two front yard setbacks these do not create a hardship. There is an issue with the elevation of the property and there are drainage issues on the rear of the lot where the structures would need to be placed. There are also four mature trees on the property line that may need to be removed to allow for the required driveway to the garage structure. The trees were there prior to the current owner purchasing the property. The trees and the drainage issues may be considered a hardship. The owner would need to apply for a variance and if it were approved, a building permit would need to be obtained for the garage and any modifications required by the building code would need to be made. The current garage is a pole building and this is not allowed anywhere but in the A-I district. This would also have to be considered as part of the variance request. That would be a Planning Commission issue rather than a building code issue. There are not building material requirements in the accessory structure portion of the code, it merely states that the accessory building needs to look similar to the principal structure. The homeowner asked staff to ask the Planning Commission if they would consider a variance. Mr. Mengel stated that he called and talked to someone at the City of Farmington before he purchased the shed from Menards. He stated that he was told that he would need to stay at least a couple of feet from the garage and the shed has been there for 6 or 7 years now. Commissioner Stokes stated that he is inclined to consider the variance due to the fact that it has been there for 6 or 7 years. Commissioner Barker stated that he does not consider the corner lot or the mature trees a hardship. He stated that they have denied similar variances in the past. He said that he would take a look at it but he does not see all ofthe criteria of a hardship. Commissioner Larson stated that he agrees with Commissioner Barker and he feels that the ten foot setback is there for a reason. Chair Rotty stated that if there is a firewall between the two that may reduce the setback required. Staff stated that the Commissioners must consider that Planning Commission Minutes November 12,2008 Page 6 . the current building may not meet the building code and the existing structure may need to be removed and replaced with a code compliant structure. Staff will have the Building Official go to the site and inspect the existing structure prior to any application for a variance to determine if the existing structure would meet the building code. Commissioner Bonar stated that he is primarily considered with the larger structure and its location as well as what it is constructed of. The homeowner stated that the building is constructed of galvanized steel. There is a cement slab under the garage and it is anchored to it. Commissioner Bonar states that the building does not look similar to the principal structure. He stated that he would also want the Building Official to inspect the structure. The homeowner stated that he can move the structure but it will cause drainage issues. Chair Rotty clarified that the structure itself would require a variance, not just the placement of it. He recommended that the homeowner have the building inspected prior to deciding if he would like to move forward with a variance application. It does not appear that the majority of the Planning Commissioners would be in favor of approving the variance. . b) Jerry Sayers request for discussion Mr. Jerry Sayers stated that he wanted to discuss the junkyard at 6886 Lakeville Blvd. In 2001 there was a complaint about this property. In 2003 another complaint was made on the junkyard and in August of 2008 a complaint was made and letters were issued stating that it was in violation of City ordinances. He stated that on September 23,2008 he wrote a letter to Peter Herlofsky, the City Administrator. He stated that the issues are the following: I. Should a variance applicant provide proof of ownership to receive a variance? 2. Should a variance be issued to a non-complying 2008 and 2004,2001 non-taxed, non-insured, non-licensedjunkyard in the City of Farmington? 3. Should the property owner be notified of a variance application on his or her property and have the right to object or appeal in a timely manner? 4. Should Lee Smick be allowed to mislead a property owner on the right to appeal? . He stated that the decision for this variance was made on October 14,2008, he came into City Hall on October 16th by coincidence and he spoke with Tony who then referred him to Lee. The three of them talked on the phone on the 17th and on the 16th he stated that he wanted to appeal this and he had an objection already filed. He stated that he wanted to know how to appeal it. He stated that he was denied an appeal because he hadn't gotten it in within ten days. He stated that he asked and he talked to staff and he said that he wanted to appeal. He is one of the owners of this property and he should have had the right to object or appeal. He asked the Commissioners review a complete submittal and proof of ownership. He stated that this appeal and objection shouldn't be happening. He stated that there is ajunkyard on the property and he doesn't feel that there should be a variance for ajunkyard. He stated that the Planning Commissioners role is the citizen review of government. He would like the Commissioners to allow his appeal and review this variance. He feels that the ten day limitation for the appeal is not long enough. He stated that he was told that there was no appeal process. Mr. Sayers stated that this property is an . Planning Commission Minutes November 12,2008 Page 7 estate and trust and the estate is in the name of his mother. Christopher Lehman who puts himself down as the property owner is not the property owner; he is an attorney who is the personal representative. The estate is in his mothers name and the trust is in his fathers name but the trust is now closed and it was deeded out and he has one of those deeds. He would like the applicant to prove ownership. Chair Rotty stated that he would like the Commissioners and staff to have an opportunity to review the documents that he submitted this evening. He requested that this issue be further investigated and that the Commissioners be copied on all responses to Mr. Sayers. Staff will also research whether or not the ten day appeal process is a standard length and consistent with surrounding communities. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Barker, second by Stokes to adjourn. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Approved . Lisa Dargis Administrative Assistant .