HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMinutes-20100111
City of Hastings
Planning Commission Minutes ? January 11, 2010 Page 1 of 4
Hastings Planning Commission
January 11, 2010
Regular Meeting
7:00 p.m.
Chair McInnis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
1. Swearing in of Planning Commissioners (McInnis, Peine, Vaughan, and Bullington)
Roll Call
2.
Commissioners Present: Peine, McInnis, Stevens, Vaughan, Zeyen, Bullington
Commissioners Absent: Slaten
Staff Present: Planning Director John Hinzman, Associate Planner Justin Fortney
Elect Chair and Vice Chair
3.
Motion by Commissioner Stevens to appoint McInnis as the Chair of the Planning
Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Vaughan
Upon vote taken, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Motion carried.
Motion by Commissioner Vaughan to appoint Zeyen as the Vice Chair of the Planning
Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Bullington
Upon vote taken, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Motion carried.
Approval of Minutes
4. ?November 23, 2009
Motion by Commissioner Stevens to approve the November 23, 2009, meeting minutes as
presented. Seconded by Commissioner Vaughan.
Upon vote taken, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Motion carried.
OTHER ACTIONS
Bond, Richard
5. ?Variance #2010-02 ? Fence Height ? 2025 Forest Street.
Associate Planner Fortney provided the staff report. The home was constructed in 1958. The
applicant states that since he purchased the property in 1970, County Road 47 has become very busy
and noisy. He would like to build a 10-foot tall cedar fence to reduce the noise and the sight of
passing vehicles and he believes that a 6-foot tall fence as allowed would not be tall enough. The
roadbed of 47 is higher than the applicant?s property, particularly in the rear where he plans on
locating his fence. Staff recommends approval of a 2.5-foot variance based on the following findings
of fact and hardships. First, the lot is peculiar in that it backs directly up to a busy county road with a
City of Hastings
Planning Commission Minutes ? January 11, 2010 Page 2 of 4
raised roadbed. Second, the applicant could incur a hardship if not granted a 2.5-foot variance to
make up for the roadbed being 2.5 feet higher than the property.
Daniel Lindner, neighbor (2021 Forest St) Said that a 10-foot tall fence would be too tall and would
block his view. He added that the traffic and the noise is not too obtrusive. Lindner said a fence 8.5
feet tall would be fine with him. He presented the commission with pictures of how his view would
be adversely affected.
Bruce Larsen, neighbor (2017 Forest St) said that a 10-foot tall fence is way too obtrusive, but an 8.5-
foot tall fence would be fine.
Richard Bond, applicant said he has lived in the home since 1970 and at that time Highway 47 was a
low volume road that had maybe 1,000 cars per day. He said the county told him 47 would be a road
that would connect Hastings with Northfield, but since then it has connected too many other places
and now carries 9,100 vehicles per day. He said the proposed fence would be 10-feet high and 40 feet
long. He added that it would not be straight across but rather arced in the same shape as his bushes.
He stated that an 8.5-foot fence would not be sufficient because he could still see the tops of the cars
going by. He added that the fence is premade in 6, 8, or 10-foot tall section and cutting a 10-foot tall
section down to 8.5 feet would create a lot of waste.
Chair McInnis said he wasn?t convinced that even a 10-foot tall fence would solve all of his issues.
He suggested that planting of tall trees like Blue Spruce would do more to solve the issues. He added
that his home backs-up to County Road 42 and trees help greatly to block sound and the sight of
passing vehicles.
Bond said he thinks a 10-foot tall fence would meet the same criterion that an 8.5-foot tall fence
would. Bond stated that he had trees in the past, but they where not the type to block traffic or noise.
Commissioner Vaughan asked if the applicant could build a 4-foot tall berm and place a 6-foot fence
on top of it to accomplish what the variance is intended to do. Hinzman said he could, but the slope of
the berm may dictate how close it could be to the rear of the property.
Bond asked if he was granted a variance for 8.5 feet and he later re-measured the distance between the
street and property to find that there is a difference of 3-feet, then could he build a 9-foot fence.
Fortney responded no because the Council will be granting a specific amount of variance from the
ordinance requirement and it is not subject to variables.
McInnis asked if the applicant would build the fence if it were limited to 8.5 feet tall. Bond said no
because it wouldn?t work.
Motion by Commissioner Stevens to recommend approval a variance up to 8 feet higher than
the road, Seconded by Commissioner Zeyen.
McInnis said that would allow a fence that is 11 feet tall and he would not support that.
City of Hastings
Planning Commission Minutes ? January 11, 2010 Page 3 of 4
Fortney said that the findings staff had included in the staff report only suggested that a variance of
2.5 feet could be justified. Zeyen stated that he withdraws his motion. No other seconds were made
so the motion failed.
Vaughan said the allowable 6-foot high fence requirement was well thought out and the applicant has
various other options besides a variance.
Motion by Commissioner Vaughan to recommend denial of the variance based on the
following findings, Seconded by Commissioner Bullington.
Findings: The applicant lacks a hardship because screening of County Road 47 could be
accomplished by other means including berming with a 6-foot fence and large plantings.
Upon vote taken, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Motion carried.
Review Accessory Structure Ordinance
6.
Hinzman provided a staff report.
Commissioner Bullington said he liked the changes that staff had implemented in the permitting of
accessory structures to help preserve trees. He added that he supports property rights and the
neighbors? rights. He directed staff to bring forth an ordinance amendment that would require a
Special Use Permit for the erection of larger accessory structures. He added that having neighbors?
opinions is good and people should be notified when their neighbors are proposing to make a change
to their property.
Hinzman explained how a Special Use Permit could be used to regulate large accessory structures and
asked the Commission if the consensus is that an ordinance amendment should be brought forward for
consideration. There were no objections.
Stevens ask what kinds of conditions could be placed on a large accessory structure under a Special
Use Permit. Hinzman said possibly screening and location.
Other Business
7.
Hinzman updated the Commission on upcoming items.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion byStevens to adjourn the January 11, 2010, Planning Commission meeting.
Seconded by Vaughan.
Upon vote taken, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Motion carried.
City of Hastings
Planning Commission Minutes ? January 11, 2010 Page 4 of 4
The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Next Planning Commission Meeting ? Monday, January 25, 2010
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Justin Fortney
Recording Secretary