HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - MinutesHastings Planning Commission
June 9, 2025 - Regular Meeting Agenda
Hastings City Hall – Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
The Planning Commission of the City of Hastings, Minnesota met in a regular meeting
on Monday, June 9, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. at Hastings City Council Chambers.
1. Call Meeting to Order
Planning Commissioners Present: LeBrun, Moes, Peters, and Swedin
Planning Commissioners Absent: Halberg, McGrath, and Messina
Staff Present: Community Development Director John Hinzman
City Planner Justin Fortney
In the absence of the Chair and Vice Chair, Commissioner LeBrun was
selected to serve as Chair Pro Tempore for the meeting by Commissioners in
attendance.
A quorum was established, and the meeting was called to order by
Commissioner LeBrun at 7:03 PM with four members present.
2. Approval of Minutes
Chair Pro-Tempore LeBrun asked if there were any additions or corrections to the
minutes of the regular meeting of April 28, 2025.
Minutes were approved as presented.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. City of Hastings – Preliminary, Final Plat and Site Plan #2025-12 – Central Water
Treatment Facility – 1290 North Frontage Rd.
Hinzman started by summarizing the staff report for the Central Water Treatment
Facility. He noted that the plat being proposed would combine the site for the water
treatment facility along with the existing plant. He explained that the facility will
treat for PFAS and will not require a lot of activity or traffic. Residential properties
surround the site to the North and West. To the East there is commercial property
and to the South there is North Frontage Rd, then Highway 55 and then more
commercial property. He then reviewed the plat and site plan. He explained that
there was a neighborhood meeting earlier in the process and neighbors within 350’
of the site were notified of the neighborhood meeting as well as this public hearing.
He has not received any comments. He recommended approval.
Chair Pro-Tempore LeBrun opened the public hearing.
Jon Christensen of WSB Engineering answered questions relating to the cost of the
plant and the contractor bidding timeline.
Chair Pro-Tempore LeBrun closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Moes asked about the timeline for construction and the following two
plants.
Christensen responded that groundbreaking should take place late Summer or early
Fall, and construction should take about 18 months. The other two plants will also
take approximately 18 months each with some construction timeline overlap between
the three.
Commissioner Peters asked about the potential noise associated with the treatment
plant, due to its proximity to residential areas.
Christensen responded that all alarms would be sent to public works, so the alarms
would not be heard on site or by neighbors. The operation of the facility should be
relatively quiet, with the most impactful disturbance coming from monthly
deliveries.
A member of the public asked about the chemicals that would be present at the
facility.
Christensen responded that relatively small amounts of Fluoride and Chlorine would
be used for water treatment and disinfection.
Commissioner Peters motioned to approve the preliminary, final plat and site plan
#2025-12, subject to the recommendations in the staff report. Commissioner Swedin
seconded the motion. Commissioners voted 4-0 to recommend approval of all requests
as presented. The City Council will consider requests at the June 16, 2025 meeting.
OTHER ACTIONS
4. Michael Fuchs – Variance #2025-18 – City Code Chapter 155.05 – Construction of
a fence exceeding six feet in height– 2570 Cannon St.
Fortney provided a summary of the staff report. City code limits privacy fences to 6’
and fence permits over 6’ require a variance. Applicant Michael Fuchs was issued a
fence permit in 1998, but the permit did not show that the fence would be over 6’.
Fence was constructed to height of 8 feet in some areas, exceeding the 6-foot
maximum height. Staff recommended denial of the variance because there is no
practical difficulty in meeting the code. Staff does not believe the conditions on
which a variance would be based are unique to the property and the conditions of
grade differential between properties does occur regularly in the city.
Commissioner Peters asked for clarification on the reasoning behind the variance.
Fortney clarified that this variance is required because the applicant would like to
replace the fence and to replace the fence, they need a permit which is how it was
discovered that the fence was not in compliance with the city code.
Commissioner Moes asked if the fence was inspected after it was built and if the city
has any other records pertaining to this fence.
Fortney was only able to find this permit in relation to this fence. He clarified that
because this was built in conjunction with the pool it was likely that the fence was
inspected by a building inspector not a zoning specific inspector. There was also no
inspection record from this time which is likely because of the age of the record, not
necessarily an indication that it did not happen.
The applicants, Michael and Barbara Fuchs, , provided more information about the
original permit. They explained that originally, they built the fence to be higher than
6’ because of their pool and their concerns over safety for the neighborhood children.
Commissioner Peters asked about fence requirements for pools.
Fortney responded that pool fences are required to be 4’ tall, non-climbable fence
and with a self-closing and self-latching gate. The current fence material is
considered non-climbable.
Chair Pro-Tempore LeBrun asked about if there is a way to grant this fence permit
without the cascading effect it could have on future fence permits.
Hinzman responded that to grant variances there needs to be consideration for how this will
affect the code going forward and that it has limited effects based on differentiating
circumstances.
Commissioner Peters comments that the differentiating factor is that this fence would
continue to be over 6’ as it has been, not a new fence being built that is over the 6’ limit.
Chair Pro-Tempore LeBrun allows for a member of the public, John Rutledge of 1301
Eagle Bluff Drive, to comment. Mr. Rutledge commented in favor of approving the variance
based on the challenges with elevation, but not because the fence was already there.
Commissioner Swedin voiced concerns over allowing the variance because the fence does
not need to be over 4’ to be safe for pools, so by allowing this one, it opens the possibility for
other over 6’ fences to be built due to pool safety, when that isn’t necessary.
Commissioner Moes asked for clarification about state statute if this fence would be
allowed to be rebuilt as it was, if it is considered a non-conforming structure and
could it become a legal non-conforming use because it is possible that this was an
error made by city staff.
Fortney clarified the difference between legal non-conforming structure and illegal
non-conforming structure. The fence is an illegal non-conforming structure. It would
not become a legal non-conforming structure even if it was approved by city staff. It would
be considered an error, but it does not become legal.
Commissioner Peters asked for clarification on which side of the fence is measured.
Fortney responded that fences are measured from grade, therefore the fence is the
same height from either side that it is measured from.
Chair Pro-Tempore LeBrun and Commissioner Moes asked about the property line
and where the fence is in relation to the property line.
Hinzman clarified that fences can be built up to the property line, but that the property owner
is responsible for the verify where that line is located.
Commissioner Moes motioned to approve variance #2025-18 based on previous
fence permit approval by city staff and the extenuating circumstance of the retaining
wall. Commissioner Peters seconded the motion. Commissioner Swedin motions to
amend that the fence shall not be over 6’ from the neighbor’s perspective.
Commissioner Moes seconds the motion as amended. Commissioners voted 4-0 to
amend the original motion. Commissioners voted 3-1 (Swedin nay) to approve the
amended motion granting approval of the variance based on the grade on the
backside of the property, the original fence permit was approved by staff in the past,
and that the fence can not be above 6’ of the grade on the other side of the retaining
wall.
The City Council will consider requests at the June 16, 2025 meeting.
5. Other Business
Hinzman provided updates about a retail cannabis special use permit that will be brought to
the next planning commission meeting.
6. Adjourn
Commissioner Swedin motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 PM. Seconded
by Commissioner Peters. Vote: Ayes 4; Nays: 0. Motion approved as presented.
Next Meeting: Monday, June 23, 2025
Respectively Submitted: Amelia Thibault