to the August 3rd Planning Commission. Uh first we'll do a call to order and just uh to begin today we're going to go over a couple of items on our agenda here and we will come up to a time where
staff will give us a presentation and then we up here will ask some questions of the staff. After we're done, we're going to come out to the public and do a public um hearing. So, you can come up and ask questions. We just ask that when
you do come up that you state your name and your address and then you can ask your question or or give your statement. After everybody's had a chance to speak, we will then close the public hearing, come back up here for discussion, and
then we will make a recommendation. And those recommendations will go to the city council. We do not make any decisions here. We just make recommendations to the city council. And with that, uh, approval of agenda.
>> I move to approve the agenda. >> We have it first. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Tina's got the second. All in favor say I. >> I. All oppose. Same sign carries. Approval of the minutes.
>> Move to approve the minutes. >> All right, we have a first. Do we have a second for the approval of the minutes? >> All right, Emily's got the second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. All oppose. Same sign.
And that carries. Public hearing carry. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening, planning commissioners. Okay. So, the first item on our agenda is the Larsson properties uh edition.
It's at 1515 30th Street Northwest. It's a preliminary and final plot and a variance. The owner of the property is Larson Properties LLC. The applicant is John Schulty on behalf of Jones Hall Smith,
on behalf of the property owner. Um the proposal in front of us is a preliminary and final plat. Uh it would be to create uh one buildable lot and then one future developable lot. Um and then the other proposal is for a dead-end street
variance. Here's where the property is located just in relation to different parts of Farbo. Um, and here's the property zoomed in a little bit more with an aerial. So, we are just looking at these two properties uh that are outlined in yellow.
As I've mentioned before, it's to replplat these two parcels into one buildable lot and one outlaw for future development. on that outlaw for future development would actually be some storm water infrastructure that would help serve um the uh one buildable lot and
then it would also serve any future development that would happen on that outlot. The variance is to uh allow an approximate 716 foot long deadend road. The maximum that we can have within our ordinance is 650 ft. So, we're looking
at a uh variance of about 60 ft. Here's the final plot on the left and then a um you know like a very rough diagram of the variance distance. So, it's approximately 716 ft from the intersection of 30th in Industrial Drive
all the way down to what would be the uh middle point of a turnaround on the south side. There's the primary plat and the final plat. They have met a lot of the requirements for uh zoning as well as our subdivision ordinance and have
sort of moved forward the comprehensive plan goals for this particular area. Um in terms of the variance so practical difficulty is established as this road partially exists uh all the way to uh or at least very close to this point. uh it
really has nowhere else to go but to terminate into a culde-sac. So, uh can't go east, can't go west. Uh there's existing development uh on either side or the railroad tracks if we're talking about going east. And then to the south is actually the parkland that was
dedicated in the original northern uh industrial park plat. So, um we do feel like that this is a variance worth granting from SAS point of view. Uh in general, we do feel like these proposals meet our comprehensive plan and zoning
requirements. So the two motions in front of you, the first one would be to approve the resolution for the preliminary and final plat. And then the second resolution in front of you would be to approve the variance or to recommend approval of the variance. Uh
with that, I'm happy to answer questions. >> Thank you, Harry. This is funny. We've had two of these now in the last two meetings. Any questions? Yes. >> Yeah, Michael. >> I'm just curious why there would actually be a dead end distance variance
or have a requirement for that. Is there some limit why they made some reason why a 650 foot limit was put on in the first place? >> Yeah. So, it's very similar to what we were talking about last meeting in terms of 650 ft is, you know, when we start thinking about the number of lots that
could be put on say a dead end road for a residential subdivision. Um, as soon as we get close to 30, that's where we start running into problems. 650 ft is is somewhat close to that. The other side of that is really just making sure that we are not resulting in a situation
where we have lots very far down a deadend road that are uh in some sort of trouble. And so if if fire has to navigate another hazard that's a little bit farther up that road, uh it's a lot
easier to try to navigate around that and to and to get very quickly to a particular issue. Um if that road is a lot shorter. So there are some fire considerations here that are a little bit more beyond me. I'll be honest, but
they are um you know sort of looking at that health, safety, welfare aspect of things. >> Most commercial buildings are sprinkled, so that's probably not big a deal as if if this was for residential, which it sounds like it might have been originally. >> Commercial buildings have sprinklers in
them, so they're probably not as danger in danger as a residential. You know, I I would say a good chunk of buildings that are commercial or maybe even industrial are going to be sprinkled, but not all of them. Not all of them are going to be required to do that, particularly if we're looking at
something like a storage use. I think either way, I think that this is that this is a requirement that is good that we have in order to make sure that we don't have really long deadend streets, whether they are a residential or commercial or even an industrial
subdivision like what we have here. Um it's making sure that we're requiring some sort of blocks so that we can have connectivity to to adjacent parcels. Um you know there are health, safety, welfare considerations with this but also at the same time you know
connectivity also plays into why we don't have deadend streets >> um I mean it has the ability for the road to go all the way through. Is there a reason why they didn't take it all the way down? Um
is the map is a little bit different. So there's I just want to make sure that there isn't any when they come in to develop the outlot A are they then going to say we're going to continue the road all the way through the property? I just wanted no
>> to take a look at the maps a little. >> Yeah. So, the property that's to the south of these two properties, that's dedicated as part of the parkland for the original subdivision. >> And that's to make sure that there is a very um clear and wide buffer in between
the industrial properties and the residential properties to the south. >> So, that would that would remain there would be no impact to that. questions. All right, we're going to open up public hearing. And with public hearing, again,
when you come up, please state your name and your address and ask your question or give your Don Schulty with Jones Halen Smith. I just don't know if I introduced myself at the last meeting I was at, but I'm here now. So, it's a lot fewer folks in
the audience. Um, if you have any questions, I'm here for them. This is a very straightforward request. um outside of the variance and really being requested to solve the problem that the culde-sac was not that turnaround for the
semi-truckss and trailers that are going to um know the only reason for the plot was the existing Peterbuilt parcel is in one subdivision and the one that they bought is in a different subdivision. um can't have a they intend to use the the
property that they acquired for gravel parking. Um that's not a primary use in in zone. So they had to combine the two parcels. Very straightforward. Minor amount of sanitary sewer and water extension. Um a little bit of storm
water, but um you have any questions? I'm here. Thank you. And anyone else that would like to come up forward? All right. Well, we're officially closing public hearing and we're coming back up for discussion and
any discussion questions. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve the preliminary and final plats for the Larsson province. >> Thank you, Sam. Do we have a second? >> A second. Thank you, Michael. Any discussion? All in favor say I.
>> I. >> All oppose. Same sign. All right. Resolution A1 passes. >> Make a motion to approve the resolution regarding the variance for the Larsson properties edition. >> Right. We have a first and a second.
>> Second. >> Ed has a second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose. Same sign. Motion A2 carries. And Harry. Resolution
E. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair things to show up on your screen really quick. Okay. So, this is the second item uh for tonight. It's a conditional use permit for a craftsman studio. It's at 1033
Fairville Road. The owner, the owner of the property is LMSG Properties LLC. The applicant is actually Curtis Johnson, who is the owner of Shookup Woodworking. The proposal in front of you is to bring a craftsman studio that would be over
2,500 square feet to a property uh that is zone C2. So, you know, just to kind of clarify some things, um C2 has a limitation on Craftsman Studios up to 2,500 ft. Um after that would require a
conditional use permit within C2, our highway commercial district. Um, this property is located on the south side of of of Lindale Avenue. Here's the property in relation to different parts of Farbo. And then if we zoom in on the
property, um, it's a existing metal building. They'll be taking up about 8,000 square feet of area within that building. Um, so 8,000 ft being a lot more than 2,500 ft. That's really the reasoning as to why this is a
conditional use permit and why it's being reviewed today. The property does have uh quite a bit of parking. It's also got quite a bit of uh area within the building. Um there are at the end going to be a few different
tenant uh uh tenant spaces within this building. Um there is a existing electric company that is within uh one part of this as well as a uh storage area for a different company in a different part. Um this would take up as
I said before 8,000 square ft of this uh you know kind of approximately 30,000 square foot existing building. Um, here's what would be kind of like an aerial of of the building as well as uh some photos that I took of the property
just to kind of give you an idea about what's existing there. Um, the conditional use permit uh it, you know, it it's utilizing an existing structure. Uh, there's a lot of parking there that can adequately uh accommodate the existing uses as well as the proposed
use. Um staff does not have any major issues with this conditional use permit. We do um we do think that it would be just good just because we have received some some some comments uh just to make sure that some of the overhead doors are closed during operation so that that
sound doesn't carry out and around to the residential areas nearby. Um so we have made that a condition. the comprehensive plan and zoning uh requirements for this conditional use permit and staff's point of view are met. And so we are recommending that
plan commission forward recommending approval of this resolution for the conditional use permit. With that, I'm happy to take questions. >> Thank you, Harry. And do we have any questions for staff? >> I just have one. >> I don't want to just make an assumption, but I'm assuming the center bay is 8,000
square feet. That's what they're looking to go into. Is that what the address equates to? >> I believe so. Yes. Yeah. Additional questions. All right. We'll open up public hearing. Again, if you are coming here to talk about the Craftsman Studio, please feel
for uh come up forward. State your name and address, please. Uh, my name is Joel Hansen. I live at 8 St. James Bay. So, just up the hill from the business that's already there. So, just had a question. Under the
conditional use permit, can the hours change at a later date? So, they're scheduled to be 7 to 5 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. No Friday or weekend work. Uh so just concern um for noise in the evenings if they change
after 5 they go to a second shift or or possibly on the weekends. So >> good question >> and I and I don't know I don't guess understand all the rules for a cup so I don't know if it can change later on or if they have to follow those specific
what they applied for. >> We'll have we'll address that when we come back. >> Okay. Thank you. and anyone else that would like to come forward. >> Thank you. And please state your name and address.
>> Crosby, 10 St. James Bay to Joel. >> Ours our questions were the same. What happens with noise limits on saws or power or that sort of thing? I know it used to be a woodworking shop.
>> Well, thank you very much. and anyone else from the audience that wanted to come forward. All right, we're officially closing the public hearing and we're coming back here for discussion. >> Pam,
>> I would um is there any insight to >> Yeah. So the hours of operation uh are a condition of of this conditional use permit. So they're not allowed to to change the hours without going back through and requesting an amendment to
the conditional use. Um you know in terms of sound, you know, we do have sound regulations. Um they're, you know, standardized in terms of you know any other commercial properties that are near residential properties. um you know that that measurement would
be at property lines. Uh there is a limitation on that. I don't recall the decibb off the top of my head. Um but like I mentioned previously, there was uh some concern from one of the neighbors about uh some of the existing
tenants leaving their uh overhead doors open while they're operating and that sound traveling. Um, so we do feel like making sure that there's an enclosed building around operations would uh deaden the sound pretty pretty quickly.
Um, if that sound is still loud enough that it is extending well past the building and and past property lines, then we'll have to reevaluate at that time. Uh, at that point we might be issuing, you know, code violations for for for sound.
And just as a reiteration, they can't change their hours without coming back to us. Correct. >> That's correct. Yeah. It has to go back through the entire conditional use permit process. >> Any additional questions or discussion?
>> Right. Do we have a motion? I move that we approve the conditional use permit for a Craftsman studio at 1,033 Farbo Road. All >> right, Tina. Thank you. And do we have a second? >> A second. >> Michael has the second. Any further
discussion? >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose. Same sign. Measure uh passes. All right. Request be heard. We have none. Items for discussion are none.
routine business and none. Harry disc um board commission updates and reports. >> Yeah. So, the uh the recent items that went through city council and I'm going to try to remember them off the top of my head. So, uh maybe you guys could help me, but the first one was uh
Calvary Hill Commons. So, that did uh go through for all of its resolutions and the first reading of the ordinance to vacate uh part of Calvary Hill Drive. Um so that will be coming back alongside the uh resolutions that were forwarded
here today. Um well that will be at the next city council meeting. Um the other item and I'm trying to remember uh one of them is Midwest uh recovery that did pass through city council. Uh not a whole lot
of questions there. And then the very last one which is the variance for Geno uh the the fence around their property. Um they did appreciate the discussion that planning commission had regarding uh the fence. Uh ultimately they did
decide hey you know it's probably fine as is to have that fence to have the slats. uh there was a added condition by one of the council members just to make sure that the slats and the fence are wellmaintained going forward. So hopefully that in addition to some of
the requirements that we have within our ordinance regarding property maintenance um the combination of those two is going to ensure that hopefully that that fence stays in good shape and it's at least looking good. um you know just to kind
of help address some of the concerns that planning commission had about that fence going forward. Um beyond that I don't have anything else. >> Well, thank you Harry. And do we have a motion
for adjournment? I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. >> Michael's got the first has the second. All in favor say