Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4 City of Hastings Planning Commission Minutes – November 26, 2007 Page 1 of 6 Hastings Planning Commission November 26, 2007 Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. Chair Truax called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1.Roll Call Commissioners Present: Hiedeman, McInnis, Peine, Schmitt, Stevens, Truax, Zeyen Staff Present: Planning Director John Hinzman Associate Planner Justin Fortney Associate Planner Kari Barker 2.Approval of Minutes – November 13, 2007 Motion by Zeyen to approve the November 13, 2007, meeting minutes. Seconded by Heideman; motion passed unanimously. OTHER ACTIONS th 3.Cornerstone Church – Site Plan #2007-54 – Garage – 735 East 10 Street. Associate Planner Fortney gave a staff report. Action by Planning Commission: th Motion by Schmitt to approve the Site Plan for a garage at 735 East 10 Street. Seconded by Stevens. Upon vote taken, Ayes 7, Nays 0. Motion carried. 4.City of Hastings – City Code Amendment #2007-51 – Signs. Associate Planner Barker gave a staff report. Commissioner McInnis stated that he agreed with the changes, but desired messages to change no more than every twelve seconds, not every six seconds. He stated the reason for this is to be in alignment with other cities that have a twelve second requirement. In addition, McInnis stated that quicker changing signs may be a concern for pedestrians and cars at intersections. Associate Planner Barker gave Commissioners a reference for the frequency signs change messages by stating that Walgreen’s and the School District signs change approximately every ten to twelve seconds. She further stated that the six seconds was provided by City of Hastings Planning Commission Minutes – November 26, 2007 Page 2 of 6 Commissioners at the last meeting as it was previously the state’s guidelines. Commissioner Stevens agreed with Commissioner McInnis’ recommendation for twelve seconds. Chair Truax commented that it was interesting that the City Attorney agreed that Home Occupation Signs could cause clutter. Chair Truax asked if the regulations on Home Occupations permits would allow a Home Occupation sign to be challenged when the permit came up for renewal. Planning Director Hinzman stated that it was unlikely the sign could be challenged unless it was in poor condition. Commissioner Schmitt asked if the City can limit the signage for commercial business, why the City cannot limit signage for Home Occupations. Planning Director Hinzman stated that signs in residential districts are more difficult to regulate, though not impossible. He further stated that the residence is still the primary use and the home occupation is secondary. Commissioner Schmitt asked what would stop all homeowners on Highway 316 from putting up twelve square foot signs advertising off-site commercial businesses. Commissioner Schmitt further stated that he understood that First Amendment rights need to be protected, but a way should be found to differentiate between free speech and commercial signs. Chair Truax stated that the one square foot for Home Occupation Signs was provided as a courtesy. He suggested restricting all commercial signs in neighborhoods. Commissioner Schmitt stated that this restriction would go against what was trying to be accomplished in the amendment. Commissioner Hiedeman stated that in researching case law, she found that courts upheld differentiation between off-site commercial signage in residential areas. Commissioner Schmitt stated that the City can restrict these signs, but that the restriction cannot pass muster if contested. Commissioner Schmitt further stated that if the City cannot restrict commercial signs, he was not sure what could be done. Planning Director Hinzman clarified if the Planning Commission desired to somehow differentiate signs for commercial uses from residential uses. Commissioner Schmitt confirmed this, adding that he did not want to make the allowable size for signs smaller. Planning Director Hinzman stated that this should be possible due to the fact that the commercial use is secondary and not visible.He asked how contractor signs for work being City of Hastings Planning Commission Minutes – November 26, 2007 Page 3 of 6 done at the home should be handled. Commission Zeyen stated that perhaps the amount of square footage in the home dedicated to the home business could be utilized to determine the size of the sign. Planning Director Hinzman stated that he would rather have a set amount of signage. Chair Truax stated another issue was where these signs could be placed in regards to the right-of-way. He asked if there could be set standards such as fifteen feet from the curb. Planning Director Hinzman acknowledge that it would be nice to have standard. He stated that a fifteen foot setback would cover 80-90 percent of City right-of-ways. Chair Truax explained that each street has different setbacks, making it difficult for contractors to know where the right-of-way is. He further stated it was not a good use of Code Enforcement’s time to be removing signs. Planning Director Hinzman stated that he would like to consult with other staff members to see the distance they were comfortable with. Chair Truax stated that this number could go forward to the City Council. Commissioner Schmitt asked if staff was comfortable that there was a way to control commercial signs while allowing contractor signs. He asked that if this was possible, if there was a need to bring it back to the Planning Commission. Planning Director Hinzman stated that it was up to the comfort level of the Planning Commission. Action by Planning Commission: Motion by Truax to approve the City Code Amendment pertaining to signs with the following modifications: 1) The message on an electronic sign can be changed at a rate of no less than 12 seconds. 2) Possible modification or differentiation for off-site commercial signage in residential districts. 3) Signs cannot be placed in the right-of-way or fifteen feet from the curb. 4) Signs six square feet or smaller shall be allowed without a permit. Seconded by Schmitt. Upon vote taken, Ayes 7, Nays 0. Motion carried. City of Hastings Planning Commission Minutes – November 26, 2007 Page 4 of 6 5.City of Hastings – City Code Amendment #2007-52 – Adult Uses. Associate PlannerFortney gave a staff report. Chair Truax opened the public hearing at 7:34. No members of the public spoke. Chair Truax closed the public hearing at 7:34. Planning Director Hinzman stated that the process will start by notifying property owners. Following this notification, an ordinance will be drafted, notification sent out, and then brought back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Schmitt inquired if less than six percent of City land zoned to allow for adult uses would be needed if only considering adult uses as a primary use. He stated that he does not see a need to move existing accessory uses out of commercial districts. He asked if current adult use accessory uses would be allowed if the ordinance changed Associate Planner Fortney stated that they would be allowed as a legal non-conforming use. Commissioner Schmitt asked if there was a minimum amount that has to be adult use to be considered an accessory use. Chair Truax stated that Spencer Gifts recently went through this and won its case. Commissioner Schmitt asked if the percentage should be lowered below 20%. Planning Director Hinzman stated that this could be looked into further. Commissioner Schmitt stated he would like this. Commissioner Schmitt asked if the size of the district would have to be increased with new plats. Associate Planner Fortney stated that the six percent of land use was not a law, but a guideline. Thus, he stated that the district may need to be reviewed periodically, but not with every plat. Commissioner Zeyen inquired about the required separation distance as the trailer park is close to the proposed district. Associate Planner Fortney stated that the distance was two hundred feet from a residentially zoned property. He explained that the trailer court is zoned commercial. Chair Truax stated that he thought the state law would differentiate use rather than zoning. Commissioner Stevens asked what the difference was between I-1 and I-2. Planning Director Hinzman stated the main difference was outside storage. In addition, he stated that Commerce Court does not have sewer service and would be ideal for businesses that would not need sewer. City of Hastings Planning Commission Minutes – November 26, 2007 Page 5 of 6 Commissioner Zeyen asked if it was contradictory to zone unsewered areas for adult uses. Planning Director Hinzman stated that was the original intent of the I-2 district. Chair Truax inquired if the land was unusable how it could be included in the district. Associate Planner Fortney stated that the site could get sewer with a lift station. Chair Truax asked if these issues should be addressed. Planning Director Hinzman stated that staff’s intent was to find an area that would meet the area requirements. He further stated the proposed area is developable and if another business wanted to develop along Commerce Court, they could. Planning Director Hinzman stated that the City needs to provide equal opportunities adult uses. Commissioner Schmitt asked if the Planning Commission had provided enough feedback. Planning Director Hinzman stated they had and that he was not sure if the ordinance would come back for the next meeting as notification may be tight. Commissioner Zeyen voiced concern over allowing adult uses in the proposed area, st particularly 21 Street, due to visibility in relation to the athletic fields. Planning Director Hinzman stated that limiting frontages in that area is important. Commissioner Zeyen stated that Commerce is also visible. Associate Planner Fortney asked the Planning Commission for suggestions on other possible locations for adult uses. Commissioner Zeyen recommended further out in the industrial park. He also suggested the lower left of the map near the R-6 district. Planning Director stated that this was close to residential and that the City owned the majority of it. Chair Truax stated that the sign ordinance may restrict some of the visibility. Planning Director Hinzman stated that case law has shown that there must be reasonable opportunity, which City owned law may not provide. He stated an example of unreasonable opportunity would be swamp land. Commissioner Stevens inquired if the land could currently be 100% occupied, to which Planning Director Hinzman confirmed it could be. Staff will continue to work on the amendments, including notification of affected property owners. The amendment will be brought forth again to the Planning Commission in January 2008. 6. Planning Director Hinzman updated the Commission on Council activities and upcoming items. Motion by Schmitt to cancel the December 24, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Seconded by Zeyen; motion passed unanimously. City of Hastings Planning Commission Minutes – November 26, 2007 Page 6 of 6 7. Adjournment Hiedeman motioned, seconded by Zeyen. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________ Kari Barker Associate Planner