HomeMy WebLinkAbout#2 Minutes
City of Hastings
Planning Commission Minutes – April 12, 2010 Page 1 of 3
Hastings Planning Commission
April 12, 2010
Regular Meeting
Chair Zeyen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
1.
Commissioners Present: Bullington, Peine, Rohloff, Slaten, Stevens, Vaughan, Zeyen
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present: Associate Planner Kari Barker, Associate Planner Justin Fortney
Approval of Minutes
2. – March 22, 2010
Motion by Commissioner Vaughan to approve the March 22, 2010, meeting minutes as presented.
Seconded by Commissioner Rohloff.
Upon vote taken, Ayes 7, Nays 0. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
City of Hastings
3. – City Code Amendment #2010-12 – Transient Merchant Regulations.
Associate Planner Barker presented a staff report.
Chair Zeyen opened the Public Hearing at 7:02. No members of the audience spoke for or against
the issue. Chair Zeyen closed the Public Hearing at 7:02.
Motion by Slaten to approve City Code Amendment relating to Chapter 115 Peddlers and Solicitors
and Chapter 155 Zoning Code Relating to Transient Merchant Regulations. Seconded by Peine.
Upon vote taken, Ayes 7, Nays 0. Motion carried.
OTHER ACTIONS
Klotz, Andrew –
4.Variance #2010-14 – Sideyard Setback Variance to Expand Existing Garage –
th
514 West 5 Street.
Associate Planner Barker presented a staff report.
Commissioner Slaten inquired when the neighboring garage was built and how far from the property
line it is. Associate Planner Barker stated that it was most likely built prior to 1985 as there are no
records in the file and building records go back to 1985. She further stated that from aerial
City of Hastings
Planning Commission Minutes – April 12, 2010 Page 2 of 3
photography, it appears the garage is four feet from the property line, though that is an educated
guess.
Commissioner Slaten asked how the applicant’s property line are known if the setback of the
neighboring garage is unknown. Associate Barker stated that a survey is not required and that staff
uses the information provided by the applicant.
Commissioner Bullington inquired if the applicant spoke to his neighbors. Associate Barker stated
that neighboring properties were sent a letter. Andrew Klotz, applicant, stated he had spoken to his
neighbors regarding the project.
Commissioner Bullington asked the applicant why he was doing the expansion. Klotz stated that he
and his wife want to invest in the property. He further stated he wanted the project to fit in with the
neighborhood, which is why he hired an architect. Klotz further stated there was six feet between
his garage and the neighboring garage, which provides for fire separation.
Commissioner Stevens asked the applicant to describe the roof. Klotz explained it is an even
matched pitch, front and rear. He stated it will look like the original roof.
Commissioner Stevens inquired as to what the upstairs will look like. Klotz stated it will have two
to three bedrooms and a bathroom. He further stated the garage expansion would bring the stairs and
headroom up to code.
Chair Zeyen asked if the mudroom would be eliminated if a smaller garage was approved. Klotz
confirmed it would.
Chair Zeyen asked staff what they would be comfortable approving. Associate Planner Barker
stated 13.5 feet, which would give the applicant a usable one-car garage.
Chair Zeyen asked the applicant if he would still build the garage if only allowed 13.5 feet. Klotz
stated, at this time, no because it would be less benefit for essentially the same cost.
Klotz apologized for providing unclear information regarding the property line setback. He stated he
might be able to find the front property pins and provide a more accurate setback.
Commissioner Slaten inquired into the sixty day rule. Associate Barker stated the Planning
Commission had until May 9, 2010.
Motion by Vaughan to table the sideyard setback variance to expand an existing garage at 514 West
th
5 Street. Seconded by Slaten.
Upon vote taken, Ayes 7, Nays 0. Motion carried.
Discuss Fence Ordinance Regulations
5.
Associate Planner Fortney presented the staff report.
City of Hastings
Planning Commission Minutes – April 12, 2010 Page 3 of 3
Commissioner Vaughan inquired as to whom owns the retention ponds. Associate Planner Fortney
stated that it is either owned by the homeowners association or the city.
Commissioner Peine inquired if there were any other areas of concern regarding the City and Met
Council having different definitions. Associate Planner Fortney stated that we could use the Met
Council’s and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance definitions of arterial and go by the stricter of the
two definitions.
Chair Zeyen inquired if Tuttle Drive to the east and west should be included. Association Planner
Fortney stated that he was not sure if Tuttle Drive would meet the definition of an arterial street, but
if it does, it would apply.
Commissioner Slaten stated the original issue still stands with the variance request from the home
adjacent to County Road 46. He stated that other homeowners in the area may come back for an 8.5-
foot fence. Chair Zeyen stated that the variance request was due to the topography of the land.
Associate Planner Fortney stated that if there are many requests for similar variance that are granted
it may be a sign that an ordinance amendment should be looked into. Fortney added that he was not
sure if this has been determined yet. Commissioner Peine commented that the Planning Commission
could wait and see how many requests come forward.
Motion by Slaten to approve adding the arterial fence regulations to the Public Works Design
Manual. Seconded by Peine.
Upon vote taken, Ayes 7, Nays 0. Motion carried.
Other Business
6.
Associate Planner Barker updated the Commission on upcoming items.
Adjourn
7.
Motion by Vaughan to adjourn the April 12, 2010, Planning Commission meeting. Seconded
by Bullington.
Upon vote taken, Ayes 7, Nays 0. Motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m.
Next Planning Commission Meeting – Monday, April 26, 2010
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Kari Barker, AICP
Recording Secretary