[0:24] Chair: All right, we'll call the meeting to order. On behalf of the planning commission, like to welcome our residents and viewers to this regular meeting of October 14th, 2025. On tonight's agenda, we have one public hearing. Uh before we open that public hearing, we have uh couple of housekeeping items to take care of. We have minutes from our August 12th regular meeting and we have minutes from our September 9th joint uh meeting with our city council. Are there any additions or questions to those minutes? If not, is there a motion? [1:21] Commissioner: Motion to approve. [1:24] Chair: We have a motion to approve both minutes. Is there a second? [1:27] Commissioner: I'll second. [1:28] Chair: Motion and second. All in favor say I. [1:29] Commissioners: I. [1:30] Chair: Minutes are approved. Thank you. We'll open up our public hearing at this time. Uh this is a variance request from the required front yard setback and a variance request uh from the maximum building uh coverage in the I1 industrial zoning district. The applicant is Kemp's Farmington Cultured Business. The location is 15th Fourth Street. Tony, you're gonna take this? [1:49] Tony (Staff): I am. Thank you, Mr. Chair, commission members. Yes. Before you this evening is a application for a couple variances uh for the Kemp's facility located at 15 4th Street. Uh they're uh seeking variances from the required front yard setback and the maximum building coverage requirements of the I or industrial zoning district. Uh this is an order to construct a 3,900 ft² building addition onto their existing facility which again is located at 154th Street. Uh the applicant is proposing as I mentioned construction of a 3,900 ft addition. Uh this addition would be on the west side of the existing facility adjacent to 4th Street. uh in your memo um or attached to your memo there is a memorandum from the applicant kind of outlining uh why they are requesting this and I'll just read an excerpt from that. It says this expansion aims to replace outdated cottage cheese equipment which has surpassed its practical use useful life. Modern cottage cheese equipment is larger in scale than our existing equipment and will not fit into the current production area. Additionally, because of the way cheese is produced, it will need to be contiguous to the packaging filling area, which is on the west side of the facility. These difficulties stem from the unique circumstances of the building's age and design. The property was constructed before contemporary cottage cheese standards were developed, placing the building at a disadvantage compared to newer construction. Additionally, Kemps did not construct the original structure of the plant. Therefore, the location of the current equipment was inherited with the purchase and Kemps did not have the opportunity to complete adequate space planning that would have considered future replacement options. This outdated infrastructure restricts the ability to upgrade without a variance. Uh the proposed building setback would be set back 0 feet uh from the western property line adjacent to Forest Street. Now, that would go up to the property line. It does not go up to the curb line of the street. There would be roughly about 17 to 18 feet from the curb to the to the actual property line. Um the minimum required front yard setback in the uh I or industrial zoning district is 50 ft. Uh therefore they are requesting a 50ft variance. Um do want to note that uh the building itself um in a number of locations uh currently does not meet the uh required 50oot setback um even with the original structure. So just wanted to uh make you aware of that. Uh with the proposed addition the billing coverage for the site would be at 51.35%. The maximum billing coverage allowed in the uh I zone is 35%. uh with the existing billing coverage as of right now sitting at about 48.41%. Uh similar variances were granted back about 5 years ago. Uh this was to accommodate a new boiler room addition on the north uh east side of the site. Uh these variances included of a setback variance of about 19 uh ft uh from the property line um adjacent to Fifth Street. So again on the other side of the site and a variance to increase that building coverage up to 48 to what it is now 48.41%. Do want to mention that the expansion will require the removal of the existing pylon sign on site. Uh a new or future exterior signage will have to have a sign permit uh applied for and approved. Uh what we have here on the left is the uh certificate of survey specifically for the western property line uh adjacent to where the or where the adj uh building addition would be located. Um again wanted to reiterate that uh the there's certain portions of the existing building that are already within that uh setback. And then the picture on the right is the concept site plan that shows the proposed addition and the general location that uh they are proposing for that addition. Variance criteria. As the commission is aware, there are nine criteria uh that must be met um for the planning commission to approve a variance. Um, I've outlined in the memo uh that it staff's recommendation that the above criteria have been met. Uh, and the plan commission should approve the requested variances. Therefore, the action that's requested this evening, staff recommends approval of the requested variances to exceed the front yard setback and to exceed the maximum building coverage requirements in the Izzoning district subject to the following. one, obtaining all necessary building permits and two, sign permits shall be applied for and approved for any future exterior signage. [7:05] Chair: All right, thank you Tony. With us tonight is a representative from Kemps and also a representative from their consultant, Kimley her. Did you want to add anything to the staff report? [7:11] Grace Rasteder (Kimley-Horn): Yes, I can. All right. Thank you. Just in case you need that. Hello everyone. My name is Grace Rasteder with Kimley Horn representing Kemps. Um, thank you all for taking the time to listen to our variance requests this evening. Um, and thank you Tony for doing um, a great job with the summary of our requests. Um, just want to uh, reiterate um, we're looking to replace our existing outdated equipment. Um, and that equipment the modern equipment for it is larger than the existing um, or you know what's currently there. Um, and that is why we need this um, expansion in order to replace that equipment that's passed its useful life and continue our operations. Um, don't have much to add uh, other than what Tony already explained, so I won't go through it all again. Um, but happy to answer any questions that uh, there may be. [8:06] Chair: All right. Thank you. If you'd stay available, u, we'd appreciate it. Uh, we'll start with Commissioner Tesy. [8:14] Commissioner Tesy: Yeah. Um I mean I don't see anything glaring other than the fact that I mean the majority or the entirety of the building is within that setback. So um it's just a really tight site and I'm just wondering um does Kemp's plan to have any I mean not that we're going to know but future expansion I mean we're just running out of room on this site. [8:32] Grace Rasteder (Kimley-Horn): Yeah. No, I completely hear you. Um I do not know of any future expansions planned. I know there were other parts of the site that were analyzed. Um, and those were considered not viable options. Um, partly just because like to the south there's not much room and then they have their docks. Um, and then in addition based on how cottage cheese equipment works, it needs to be contiguous to that western side of the building. Um, so I I guess I do not know of any future expansions. However, I do know that other locations were considered for this equipment that were not viable. So, [8:58] Commissioner Tesy: And then everything is contained within this building that's being proposed and there's no no loading or or deliveries that would have to happen. [9:05] Grace Rasteder (Kimley-Horn): Correct. [9:06] Commissioner Tesy: Okay, that's it. That's all I have. [9:08] Chair: Commissioner Winshadow. [9:10] Commissioner Winshadow: just a couple questions. The building, is it going to be the same height as the existing structure that's there? [9:17] Grace Rasteder (Kimley-Horn): Yes. So, we're still working through um I guess the the the details of the design. Um, however, it is not anticipated that the building would be taller than the existing building that is already out there. [9:38] Commissioner Winshadow: Okay. And Tony, just so I have it straight to residents that might watch this, um, it goes up to basically the black box around is that where the building would go up to or because it doesn't go up to the street. [10:04] Tony (Staff): Correct. No, it does not go up to the street. So, if you Yeah. Yeah. where there's like those um it the gray area is the proposed building. The property line is the dashed on the specifically on the one on the right. Um the property line will be kind of that dashed black line. Um the curb like I had mentioned is roughly about 17 to 18 ft from that property line. So there'll be some grass in between the the roadway and the actual building, but the building itself will go right up to the property line. Y [10:32] Commissioner Winshadow: Okay. Thank you. Looks good. [10:37] Chair: Commissioner Snow. [10:38] Commissioner Snow: Yeah. When I was there, I was just checking it out. Is there any talk about having a sidewalk in front of that just to to give people a flow because there's, you know, going to be busy sides on both sides of the street? Has there been talk about that? [10:55] Tony (Staff): That's not something that we've discussed at this point. Um, however, it's a good suggestion. I guess I would need to look and see. It's hard to tell from the aerial what the what the sidewalk is in that location. Now, I don't believe there is one, unless I'm there. There's sidewalk on the west side. Um, I do know that Willow Street will be part of a reconstruction uh project in the upcoming uh year. Uh, we can certainly have that discussion with our public works director. Typically, you only have sidewalk on one side of the road. [11:15] Commissioner Tesy: Yeah. So, so can I interject or something? Somebody just commented something. Um, Willow Street's going to be reconstructed. Yes. Wasn't it reconstructed a while back? [11:31] Tony (Staff): Not so long ago. I mean, the stuff in front of the greenhouse is is pretty banged up, but I thought the stuff from I don't know what road it is that goes back by Tffy Westonberg back there. Anyway, that road uh to the to the west Lynen Street. I think Lynen Street may have had some work done, but Willow Street I do not believe has been. [11:51] Commissioner Tesy: All right. So, I was on Willow today and it definitely was not done. You know, the part around the curb by the park. [11:56] Tony (Staff): Is that I don't think so. Well, and I don't know how far south um from the curve at Willow it will go um on on Fourth Street. Okay. Um All right. But that is still something we can certainly discuss. [12:10] Commissioner Snow: No, and that was my followup question was like there's not an existing sidewalk that goes down the rest of the street. So, I don't know how common that would be to do it, but it just seems like a natural thing to have there since it is going to be so close to the road. I just was brainstorming on what would be look nice and be good for people that are walking in that area cuz your parks right across the road, right? And then when I was looking down the road, I'm like, well, would it be nice if they could cross the road and be in that? If you're not going to extend it, I don't know how common that is to have a sidewalk that doesn't connect on the other side. [12:35] Tony (Staff): You typically don't want that to happen. Yeah. Yeah. Just a thought. [12:43] Commissioner Snow: Right. Thank you. That's all I got. [12:46] Chair: Thank you, Commissioner Bird. [12:48] Commissioner Bird: Um, good questions. I think the only question I have, and Tony, this might be more for you. It looks like on the north side there, there's a parking area right there. Correct. any concern with building that out more towards the west side that there would be problems with traffic or seeing around that corner as folks are pulling in and out of that parking lot. [13:06] Tony (Staff): Uh I don't believe so. Okay. I don't believe so. It's not a truck delivery spot or anything like that. It's more just their loading docks are on the back side. Now they do have their I think their weight station on that northern end. They do um tankers would come in the proposed building right there. [13:30] Commissioner Bird: Okay. So, okay. No coming out. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. Yeah. And I guess I was more concerned about trucks, like you said, the tankers coming in and out, but Okay, that makes sense. No, as a as a guy who grew up on a dairy farm, I'm all for more cottage cheese. No, that's great. Thank you. [13:58] Chair: Well, thank you everybody. Um, as usual, good questions from the commission. I think took most if not all of mine, which is a good thing. Um, one thing that that was in the staff reporter and one of the reports was that this property was constructed before our ordinance were drafted. So, a lot of these issues are inherent of property that was done at that time. And so I I agree that um you know this is a it's a very good business here. We want to keep it here. Um questions on sight lines are important. It is it is kind of a dangerous curve. Um anything that chems can do to help with traffic flow around that curve. Um, again, because it's so close to a park and access to trails that there are a lot of our youth that tend to walk and bike in that area and whatever else they're doing now with with scooters and whatever. But, um, it it is it can be a troublesome corner, I think. But, I actually I support the variances for this. Um, great questions on future growth. Um, because you're getting pretty full. I mean, I'm pretty full there. Very full. But, uh, but again, it's such a good business that we certainly want to support it and keep it in our community. So, I would support that. Um, just want to make a note for any viewers here that we have nobody in the audience to ask questions. So, that's why we didn't take any questions from the audience. If there were, we would certainly ask. And with that, I'd look for a motion to close the public hearing. [15:28] Commissioner: Motion to close. [15:30] Chair: Have a motion. Is there a second? [15:31] Commissioner: Second. [15:32] Chair: Motion and second. Call the role, please. Uh, Win, yes. Tesy, yes. Rody, yes. Snowback. Yes. Bird. Yes. In front of the commission then is uh two variance requests. One to exceed the front yard setback as Tony explained to the amount and the maximum building coverage as outlined in the staff report. We have two contingencies. Um obtaining all necessary building permits and assigned permit shall be applied for and approved for any future exterior signage to camps or the consultant agree to those contingencies. [16:03] Grace Rasteder (Kimley-Horn): Yes. [16:04] Chair: Okay. With that then I'd look for a motion. [16:05] Commissioner: I'll make a motion. [16:06] Chair: We have a motion for approval. Is there a second? [16:08] Commissioner: Second. [16:09] Chair: Motion and second. Any more discussion? If not, call the role, please. Tesy, yes. Rody, yes. Snowback, yes. Bird, yes. Windshadow, yes. Well, thank you. Thank you for coming to our meeting. Um Tony, was there anything else from staff? [16:21] Tony (Staff): I have nothing, sir. [16:22] Chair: Anything else from the commission? Nothing. If not, I'll remind the commission because this is a bit of a change. Our next regular meeting will be on a Wednesday. It'll be uh November 12th, correct? due to Veterans Day. So with that, I'd look for a motion to adjurnn. [16:35] Commissioner: Motion to adjurnn. [16:36] Chair: We have a motion. Is there a second? [16:37] Commissioner: I'll second. [16:38] Chair: Motion second. All in favor say I. This commission is officially adjourned. Thank you everybody.