Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/00Hastings Planning Commission December 11th 2000 Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. Chairman Schultz called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 1. Roll Call Commissioners Present: Anderson, Harrington, Hollenbeck, Schultz, Stotko, Strauss. Commissioners Absent: Greil Staff Present: City Planner Matthew Weiland, Associate Planner Kris Jenson 2. Approve November 13, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 3. Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision (13th and Pine Streets) Planner Jenson presented background information on the project. Chairman Schultz opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 pm. Hearing no comment, Chairman Schultz closed the Public Hearing at 7:08 pm. Commissioner Strauss asked for a clarification on the proposed new lot line on the survey included with the memo. Planner Weiland stated that the new lot line is shown as the dashed line down the middle of the existing lot 5. Chairman Schultz asked if the house would be facing 13th Street. Planner Jenson responded that the house would be facing 13th Street. Planning Commission Action: Commissioner Harrington moved and Commissioner Anderson seconded a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the minor subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of a resolution waiving platting requirements. 2. The resolution waiving platting requirements and a certificate of survey shall be recorded with the County. A copy of the certificate of survey shall also be filed with the City. 3. The applicant shall pay $1,700.00 in park dedication fees. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 6, Nays, 0. Motion carried. 4. Public Hearing - Preliminary/Final Plat (Guardian Angels) Planner Weiland presented background information on the item. He explained that the current block was being divided into 3 lots, one for the existing church, one for the rectory, and one for the school and pa]king lot area. He also added that the City is currently reviewing utility options for that area. Chairman Schultz opened the Public Hearing at 7:18 pm Hearing no comments, Chairman Schultz closed the Public Hearing at 7:19 pm. Commissioner Harrington inquired about the drop-off area that was discussed during the Site Plan process. He also inquired about the playground area being located on two lots. Planner Weiland responded that any drop-off area would be located within the ROW and therefore not show on the plat. He added that part of the agreements between property owners would include agreements for the playground area, as well as cross access agreements, which allows a person to cross one lot to gain access to another. Commissioner Stotko asked if Sibley Street would be widened. Planner Weiland stated that the Engineering Department was working on the utility designs for this area now, but no decisions had been made on street reconstructions. Planning Commission Action: Commissioner Strauss moved and Commissioner Stotko seconded a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary/Final Plat for the Guardian Angels Redevelopment Block subject to the following conditions: That the Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City to memorialize conditions of preliminary plat/final and site plan approval and that the executed Agreement shall be recorded against the subject property prior to issuance of a grading permits. 2. That the applicant shall pay a park dedication fee of $850.00 per unit or $25,500.00 for 30 units. These fees shall be agreed to upon in the development agreement. 3. That the applicant shall pay a $305/unit - Interceptor Sewer Fee - which would total $9,150.00 for 30 units. That the developer shall record access and shared parking easements to be recorded with the final plat. A copy of these easements shall be provided to the City, prior to the City releasing the final plat hardshells. 5. That road and utility improvements for 4th St. E, 5th St. E, and Sibley St. must be ordered before the issuance of building permits for this project. 6. That separate utilities shall be installed for each separate lot, subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. 7. That the developer shall pay any increased SAC and WAC unit charges as determined by the Metropolitan Council. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 6, Nays, 0. Motion carried. 5. Public Hearing - Riverdale Preliminary Plat Planner Weiland presented background information on the subject, and distributed amended recommended conditions for approval of the preliminary plat. This item was tabled on September 11, 2000. Planner Weiland explained that Minnesota State Statute requires action to be taken on plats within 120 days, which is why this item must be acted upon during this meeting. Terry Matula, of D.R. Horton, stated that he has been working with Xcel Energy to find street lights which would cut off the light minimize the light pollution. He distributed some information regarding possible streets lights for the Riverdale development. Mr. Matula stated that the two proposed cul-de-sacs may become public roads, due to the sizing of the cul-de- sacs. He also clarified what was meant by the 40' of protection along bluffs. No grading work may be done within 40' of the top of the bluff, however, grading may be done at the base of a bluff, where the slopes no longer exceed 18%. He also clarified what type of vegetation could be removed from bluff areas. Chairman Schultz opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 pm. Bonnie Denn, 2036 Nininger Road, expressed concern with the potential west access points and how it would impact their lot, which is the furthest west in that area, as well as being concerned with how the grading for the potential access road would impact their lot. Mrs. Denn also stated that she is concerned for the speed along County Road 42 (Nininger Road) and feels that traffic has not been adequately addressed. She also strongly feels that there should be two access points for this property. She is also concerned with the bike path along County Road 42 (Nininger Road) and the potential for trail users having to cross County Road 42 (Nininger Road) a second time, should the trail continue north through Nininger Township. Mrs. Denn expressed concern that the wildlife, which currently reside and traverse along the bluff line, will no longer do so, due to the development. She also expressed concern about the presence of noxious weeds along the bluff. Lastly, Mrs. Denn asked how preliminary approval could be given when so many things weren=t done. She felt that the deadlines were meaningless, and that all questions should be decided before any approvals are given. Mary Malban, 1988 Nininger Road, thanked Mr. Matula and the City for working on appropriate street lighting to minimize light pollution to the neighbors along County Road 42 (Nininger Road). Don Denn, 2036 Nininger Road, expressed concerns about the bike path along County Road 42 (Nininger Road) crossing the road a second time, and had concerns with traffic and access to the Riverdale Development. Marcella Evans, 2008 Nininger Road, expressed concern regarding the height of the potential homes below the hill, and with what Mr. Matula stated at the most recent neighborhood meeting. She would like the information regarding building heights to be more clear. Chairman Schultz closed the public hearing at 8:06 pm. Mr. Matula addressed some of the neighbors concerns. He stated that the cross-section drawing he had available at the most recent neighborhood meeting showed total roof heights at 35', and used the state adopted Universal Building Code to determine the height of the home. This is the Building Code that the City of Hastings has adopted and uses, and the maximum height indicated in the Zoning Code is determined through that code. With regards to the drainage issue at the Denn=s home, the proposed road is designed to accommodate drainage and storm control, and the road cannot be designed to drain water across the Denn=s property. In relation to noxious weeds, they are legally defined by the DNR and may be removed. Other invasive species defined and may be removed per the guidelines. Mr. Matula added that the closest any of the homes can be to the bluff line is 65', and it is likely that they will be even further from the bluff than that. Chairman Schultz stated that the issue with speed along County Road 42 (Nininger Road) should be raised with the County. Planner Weiland addressed concerns expressed during the public hearing. He stated that the City prefers two access points for this development. Before any actions are taken, neighborhood meetings will be held for input and ideas. As for traffic on County Road 42 (Nininger Road), it is designed as a county road, to handle that level of traffic. The County designed that road with future developments in mind, such as the Riverdale Development. Commissioner Stotko asked for clarification as to the location of the platted right-of-way. Planner Weiland indicated this on the plat. He added that the trail location is based upon the current County trail plan, and lines up with the trail along Pleasant Drive. Commissioner Strauss expressed her concerns with Shoreland and MNRRA issues. She feels the MNRRA regulations can be met, but is not convinced that the Shoreland issues will be met. A Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Planned Urban Development (PUD) could be done, which is different from the City=s Plmmed Residential Development (PRD). A Shoreland PUD requires 50% open space and encourages clustering. She feels that if the bluff areas are set aside, the Shoreland PUD may work. Planner Weiland added that Staff has been working with the DNR on Shoreland and MNRRA issues. The conditions for approval of the preliminary plat are what must be accomplished prior to the final plat. Commissioner Strauss clarified that MNRRA/Critical Areas allows some removal of vegetation, and that Shoreland regulations don=t allow intensive cutting. Mr. Matula acknowledged that there are different regulations regarding the clearing of vegetation through Shoreland and MNRRA/Critical Areas, and stated that the most restrictive is what needs to be followed. The major problems with Shoreland regulations on this property is that area that falls within the Lake Rebecca shoreland area. Commissioner Harrington asked how the conservation easements would be enforced, and whether the lots along the north side of the property went down to the river. Planner Weiland stated that a violation of City Codes is a misdemeanor and the offender can be taken to court. He added that the north lots will have lot lines down to the river. Mr. Matula added that the restrictive covenants would include language from the DNR as to what is permitted and prohibited within the covenant area. Mrs. Denn asked what would stop a future landowner/homeowner from simply cutting the trees and paying the fine. Commissioner Strauss stated that that was a common attitude she saw in her work as a hydrologist with the DNR. Commissioner Harrington inquired as to why the lots were planned to go down to the river. Planner Weiland stated that the City had no legal means to compel the Developer not to have the lots go all the way to the river. Commissioner Anderson stated that he felt the lots in the subdivision would be better served if the the bluff areas were dedicated as open space. He also feels that having two access points is important. He suggested that is Madison were not closed, that the City should at least allow the west access point to be a right-in only, to allow emergency vehicles a second access into the subdivision. Planner Weiland stated that that would be a possibility and it would be discussed with the Public Works Department. Mr. Matula stated that he was leaning against putting the bluff areas into conservation easements because in the future, homeowners may not have a say in the maintenance of the area due to possible regulatory changes down the road. Commissioner Strauss asked why the bluff area could not be owned by the Homeowners Association. Mr. Matula stated that the areas would the responsibility of the Association for maintenance. Commissioner Anderson asked the developer if it was his intention to have the Homeowners Association maintain the conservation areas, and would like to see the constraints of those areas included in the preliminary plat conditions, to ensure that it becomes a part of the Development Agreement. Mr. Matula responded that it is his intent to have the Homeowners Association maintain the conservation areas, and to include that requirement in the Development Agreement. Commissioner Strauss asked that a condition be added for the Developer to place some type of markers along the top of the north bluff line and the base of the south bluff line so that future residents know exactly where the protected areas begin and end. Planning Commission Action: Commissioner Anderson moved and Commissioner Stotko seconded a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Riverdale Development, subject to the following conditions: 1. Access to the subject property shall be finalized before a Final Plat can be approved and is subject to the approval of the Dakota County Plats Commission. Access shall be provided through on of the following alternatives: A. One full access at the legally platted access at the western end of the property and one full access at the eastern end of the property. The full eastern access would only be permitted if the Madison Street access to County Road 42 were closed. This would require City Council direction to meet with the neighbors and do a feasibility study. The Developer will also have to provide evidence that he has worked with the neighbors on the western access. B. One full access at the legally platted access at the western end of the property and one emergency access only at the eastern end on the property. This option would have all of the traffic for the development using the western access. The Developer will also have to provide evidence that he has worked with the neighbors on the western access. C. One full western access outside the City Limits and one full access at the eastern end of the property. The full eastern access would only be permitted if the Madison St access to County Rd 42 were closed. This would require City Council direction to meet with the neighbors and do a feasibility study. The City has asked Dakota County to work with the property owner west of this property in order to provide a safer access that meets Dakota County=s access spacing guidelines. 2. That the preliminary plat shall be modified to illustrate the private drives leading to the cul-de-sacs shall be increased to 30 ft with a 28ft road. 3. That all private drives and related utilities be designed and constructed according to City policies as determined by the Public Works Director. 4. That the developer shall provide evidence that all private drives and utilities will be maintained by a homeowner=s association not by the City. 5. That the grading plan shall be modified to stay at least 40 ft away from the Mississippi River bluff line as required by Executive Order 79-19. 6. That the developer shall modify the grading and stormwater plan according to the following items, subject to the approval of the Public Works Director: A. The Developer shall be responsible for the costs of the BARR Engineering stormwater plan review. B. The developer shall provide documentation that common open space and ponding basins shall be privately maintained by a development association and not the city. 7. That Outlot A shall either be dedicated to the City for park land, subject to the approval of the NRRC and City Council, or the developer shall provide evidence that Outlot A park will maintained by a homeowner=s association and not by the City 8. That the proposed realigmnent of the bike trail shall be constructed to MNDOT bike trail standaa:ds, subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. This trail realigmnent shall be constructed first to minimize the impact to the bike trail and allow for use during construction on the property. 9. A sidewalk should be located on the north side of the road connecting the City Bike trail to the paa:k. The plat shall be modified to illustrate this. 10. That the applicant shall pay a $305/lot Interceptor Sewer Fee, which would total $20,435.00 for 67 units, prior to the City=s release of the plat hardshells. 11. That the developer shall modify the utility plan according to the following items, subject to the approval of the Public Works Director: A. The developer shall have a separate water meter and water line installed for all irrigation systems. B. The developer may be required to install two pressure reducing valve stations (PRV >s) on the water mains into the site due to the high water pressure in this area. This requirement is subject to further review and approval by the Public Works Director. C. All homes shall have individual prv=s installed due to the high water pressure in this area. D. The sanitary invert into the site shall be lowered to accommodate sanitary flows from future growth outside the City. The sanitary sewer mains may also have to be increased in size to accommodate future sanitary flows. This requirement is subject to further review and approval of the Public Works Director. 12. That the preliminary plat be modified to plat Part of Outlot B, below the proposed lift station, as Right of Way (ROW), subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. 13. The following MNRRA Corridor Executive Order 79-19 and the City=s Shoreland and conditions shall be enforced on the property. A. No native vegetation or trees shall be cut on the slope of the Mississippi bluff line or on any land 40 ft from the top of the bluff line. B. Silt fence shall be placed to protect the toe of bluffs greater with greater than 18% slopes. C. Silt fence shall be added to protect the bluff line on the eastern part of the property. D. The cul de sacs shall be modified to so they do not encroach into the 18% bluff area. E. All buildings shall be located 40 ft back from the bluff line. F. No grading shall occur within 40 ft of the bluff line. G. The final plat shall be review by the Metropolitan Council for MNRRA conformity, prior to final approval for the project. 14. That Preliminary plat approval is contingent upon the review of the zoning amendment by the Metropolitan Council and Minnesota DNR for MNRRA Plan conformity. 15. That the developer shall plant Aboulevard@ trees according to the submitted tree plan and one front yard tree per lot. These trees shall be at least two inches in diameter at the base and the species of the tree should be on the list of approved trees created by the City Forester. An escrow is required for any unplanted trees before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any unit without trees is allowed. 16. That the Developer shall deed Outlot B to the City. 17. That preliminary plat approval is contingent upon the developer getting agreements from the property owners affected by the two proposed accesses. 18. That the City and Developer continue to work with the Minnesota DNR to make the plat consistent with the City=s Shoreland Ordinance and MNRRA requirements, prior to the final plat being submitted and approved. 19. That the Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City to memorialize conditions of preliminary plat and site plan approval and that the executed Agreement shall be recorded against the subject property prior to issuance of a grading permits. 20. That the restricted areas identified as bluffs and open space are protected through legal means, such as conservation easement or homeowners association, subject to the approval of the City Council. These legal means shall be recorded with the property. 21. That permanent monument are placed on the property identifying the restricted and protected areas. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 5, Nays, 1. Motion carried. 6. Updates and Other Business Planner Weiland thanked Chairman Schultz for her service to the Planning Commission, as this was her last meeting. He stated that he had received several applications for the Planning Commission, and that Staff hoped to set up interviews soon. Staff will be interviewing for several positions, since Commissioner Hamngton=s term will end in late January. Chairman Schultz thanked the other Planning Commission members for their work and effort with the Planning Commission. 7. Adjournment There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 pm.