Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/09/89Hastings Planning Commission .October 9, 198~ The regular meeting of the Hastings Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Kaiser at 7:30 p.m. ~embers ~resent: Oommlss~oner ~reSge, ~olch, AnSerson, Voelker and Ealser. ~4embers Absent: Oommissioners Ditty and Featherstone. Staff Present: Planning Director Harmening. Commissioner Kaiser called for additions or corrections to the minutes of September 25, 1989. There being no additions or corrections the minutes were approved as presented. MINUTES Harmening indicated that ~4.A. Fearing & Company has requested approval of a preliminary plat called Twin Gables Addition. Fearing has also requested approval of a development plan amendment for certain existing lots. The property in question is approximately 16 acres in size and located in the Sieben Addition area. Harmening indicated that on 9/11/89 and 9/25/89 the Planning Commission discussed matters pertaining to the preliminary plat. As all of the necessary information had not been submitted to allow full review, the Planning Commission tabled the matter and continued the public hearing until this meeting. Harmening indicated that staff has now received the remaining required information. Harmening discussed with the Planning Commission a variety of issues pertaining to the project including the phasing plan, park issues, grading and utilities, adjacent development issues, zoning, Comprehensive Plan issues, park issues, parking issues, screening and buffering, easements and covenents, etc. OONTINUE PJBLI C HEAR I NG-PREL I ~ INARY PLAT/DEVELOP~4ENT AMEND!4ENT-~'I I N GABLES AODIT ION-M.A. FEARIHG Chairman Kaiser reopened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Comments from the audience were as follows: 1. Rose Cooper - indicated opposition to the preliminary plat and proposed rezonlng for the project. Also indicated that if the project failed they did not want to see the plat or rezoning approved. Cooper also suggested that the Planning Commlssion review similar projects in Stillwater. 2. Joe Niebur, 3225 Leroy Avenue -14as in opposition to the project. He indicated that the existing apartments in the area have not turned out well. Also felt that the location of the project was inappropriate for senior housing. Felt that there had to be a better location within the City of Hastings. 3. Carol Mueller, 540 ~. 31st St. - Indicated opposition to the project. Agreed with Mr. Nieburs comments. Indicated concern as to how the project would turn out in the end. Felt that the project was always changing. 4. ~tarlene Fearing, Developer - ~ts. Fearing responded to comments made by ~ueller, Niebur and Cooper. Indicated that the quality of the housing may have to change if the Council stipulates that the housing project can only be for senior citizens which will require a different kind of financing. Indicated that this stipulation may jeopardize the cedar and brick on the units. Commissioner Featherstone arrived at 7:45 p.m. 5. Joe Niebur - Discussed issues pertaining to federal and state rules as to senior housing. There being no further comments from the audience the public hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. After considerable discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Dredge, seconded by Commissioner Folch to recommend approval of the preliminary plat and development plan amendment subject to the following conditions: That park dedication issues be resolved regarding the amount of credit which should be given to the required cash dedication amount due to the fact that the developer is proposing to provide a private park. Also, the NRRC should be requested to comment as to whether the private park should be provided as a part of Phase One. 2. Grading and utilities: A. That erosion control measures be implemented by the developer on the entire site. That if fill material is to be taken from adjacent property to fill the subject property, the city should be provided with a grading plan for the adjacent site. C. That storm sewer outlet issues to the west of 31st Street be addressed as appropriate. The developer shall provide to the City of Hastings for review, copies of proposed covenants and association documents for the proposed development. These doc~ents should address matters pertaining to parking, utilities and access to each individual unit. That at the time the final plat is submitted for the project that a fully completed site plan be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council· As a part of the site plan submittal, it is recommended that the screening and buffering recommendations provided in Paragraph 7 of the City Planners memo dated 9/7/89 be taken into consideration. Also, the developer should take into consideration the comments made by the City Planner regarding parking issues which were outlined in Paragraph 6 of this same memo. That the property owner to the west of the proposed project be advised that when the property to the west is to be developed, the development of that land should be proposed in a manner which provides for a phasing down from the four plexes to single family homes. That the proposed trail/sidewalk extending from 35th St. to Highview Drive be at least 9 feet wide to facilitate emergency vehicle access. That the City Council is requested to study problems pertalning to vehicular access to T.H. 61 from Cannon St. and 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 25th Street and develop possible solutions for these problems. That a development agreement be entered into between the developer and the City of Hastings take into consideration the conditions and understandings mentioned above are those that may be recognized at a later date. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 4; Nayes, Voelker; Featherstone abstained. Harmening indicated that Bullis was requesting a home occupation permit to allow her to allow a typing~secretarial business in her home at 1381 Hillside Street. Bu/lis' application indicated that she would start out the business on a part time basis and hopefully progress to a full time business within one to two years. The business activity would generally relate to providing typing services to various clients. HO.*~E OCCUPAT I ON - TYPING/SECRETAR I SERVI CE-EL I ZA~TH BULLIS, 1381 HILLSIDE STREET After discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Folch, seconded by Commissioner Dredge to recommend approval of the home occupation permit subject to the applicant complying with all home occupation requirements. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 6; Nayes, O. Harmening indicated that Mr. Kleffer was requesting a five foot interior side yard setback variance to Section 10.23 of the zoning ordinance so that he may construct an addition to the rear of his home. The addition is proposed to be located within five feet of Mr. Kieffers north property line. City code requires a 10 foot setback. VARIaNCE-SIDE YARD SETBACK-ALLEN KIEFFER 2420 SOUTHVI~V COURT Harmening discussed a variety of issues pertaining to this matter including the past history of the property. In this case, Harmening noted that on 7/5/77 the City Council approved a variance to allow ~4r. Kieffer to construct his home within two feet of the north property line. Harmening indicated that Mr. Xieffer took advantage of the approval of this variance and constructed the home five feet from the north property line rather than two feet. Harmening further indicated that the minutes of the City Council meeting in 1977 do not articulate reasons why Mr. Kieffers variance was approved. A{ter dlscussion, a motion was made by Commissioner 9redge, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to recom~nd approval of the variance as it is felt that the conditions and circumstances of the situation have not changed since the original variance was approved. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 5; Nayes, Voelker. Harmentng indicated that Mr. & Mrs. Wagner were requesting a rear yard setback variance so that they may convert an existing garage into a living roc~ and add a 24' x 25~ attached garage onto the north side of their home. The proposed garage would have a rear setback of 25 feet, rather than 35 feet as required by City Code, and a side yard setback of 8 feet, which would meet city code. VARIANCE - REAR YARD SETBACK-WAGNER 1317 PARK LANE Harmening discussed a variety of issues pertaining to the proposa I . Two property owners were in attendance and expressed reservations regarding the granting of the variance. These property owners were as follows: Charles Bergevin, 1010 14th St. - Mr. Bergevin expressed concerns about the height of the garage. He indicated that he had lived on the site for 23 years. Bergevin also expressed concerns regarding fire protection. Dick Lindeke, Mr. Lindeke indicated that he lived north of the subject property. Mr. Lindeke expressed concerns regarding fire access. Judy Bergevin - indicated that the site plan provided by ~lr. '.'lagner doesn't illustrate the fences and patios located on the property. Gary Wagner - indicated that he did not feel that the patio location was a problem. Also indicated that he was surprised to see the neighbors concern. This is based on the fact that he had spoke with the neighbors in advance of making his request and both had indicated approval of his proposal. After discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Dredge, seconded by Commissioner Featherstone to recommend approval of the variance based on the following: A. The applicants proposal generally meets the variance criteria. The proposed addition will not ex, end closer to the rear lot line than what currently exists. As a result, the non-conformity of the situation will not increase. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 4; Nayes, Folch and Voelker. Director Harmening indicated that Mr. Meissnar was requesting two variances in order to allow him to construct an B1X 20~ addition to an existing detached garage. The variances were as follows: A variance is requested to Section 10.06, Subdivision 2 regarding non-conforming lots. In this case, code states that structures should not be placed on lots if the area of the lot is less than 7,000 sq. ft. Mr. ~.~eissners lot is 43' x 140' in size or 6,020 sq. ft. Attached is an exerpt from city code which deals with this issue. A variance is requested to allow the proposed garage addition to extend to within approximately 11 inches of the interior side lot line rather than 3 feet as required by city code. Harmening also discussed matters pertaining to zoning, setback requirements, existing conditions/history of the property, proposed conditions, etc. After discussion a motion was made by Co~missioner Featherstone, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to recommend approval of both variances as it was felt that special conditions and circumstances were related to this situation, due to the location of the subject property in the very old part of t~n. It was felt that special consideration had to be given to the request as the city's ordinances do not take into consideration the unique circumstances related to property in the older part of the community. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 3; Nayes, 3. Tie vote. Harmening indicated that Gregory Kimmen and his partner were requesting approval of a special use permit to allow them to undertake an auto body repair business at 1630 Vermillion Street. The property In question is located in the C-3 zone. The City's C-3 zone indicates that automobile service stations and motor vehicle repair and wash facilities are permitted by special use permit. Harmenlng indicated a question than arose as to whether auto body repair is considered to be motor vehicle repair. Harmening indicated that this question seemed to be somewhat addressed based upon a previous special use permit issued for this property. In this case, in September of 1980 the City Council approved a special use permit for Hastings Welding to undertake auto repair and small scale welding on the subject property. Looking back on the file relating to the Hastings Welding business, it does not appear that auto body repair comprised a majority of the business. The majority of the proposed business related more to retail sales of rod iron furniture, welding repair and possibly marine propellor repair. VARIANCE-SIDE YARD SETBACI(-NOH-OV~NFO~ING LOT-BRIAN I~IEISSNER, 316 E. 4TH STREET ORDER DJBLIC HEARING- SPECIAL USE PEF~IIT - AUTO BODY REPAIR - 1630 VER~.IILLION ST. Harmening indicated that he would like the Planning Commission to discuss matters pertaining to the interpretation of motor vehicle repairs related to auto body repair. The Planning Commission discussed this matter and indicated they would like to discuss the interpretation matters as a part of the public hearing process at which time they would have more information on the proposal. The Planning Commission also requested that Harmening provide the Planning Commission with building and fire code requirements for auto body repair establishments. A motion was made by Commissioner Folch, seconded by Commissioner Oredge to order a public hearing on this matter for the Ccmmlssion$ October 23, 1989 meeting at 7:30 p.m. Upon vote taken, Ayes, Nayes, O. A motion was made by Commissioner Veelker, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to order a public hearing on this matter for the Commissions October 23, 1989 meeting at 7:30 p.m. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 6; Nayes, O. A motion was made by Commissioner Voelker, seconded by Commissioner Dredge to order a public hearing on the preliminary/final plat for the Westview Shopping Center 3rd Addition to be held at 7:30 p.m. on Dctober 23, 1989. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 6; Nayes, 0. Harmening updated the Planning Commission on recent City Council actions as well as matters pertaining to the Comp Plan update. Chairman Kaiser provided to the Planning Ccmmission the plaque given to the city commissions which praises and acknowledges the service that the persons on the city commissions have provided. A motion was made by Commissioner Dredge, seconded by Commissioner Voelker to recommend to the City Council that former Commissioner Zender be reappointed for the remaining portion of his first term, which expires on December 31, 1989 and further recommended that Commissioner Zender be reappointed for an additional two year term to expire on December 31, 1991. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 6; Nayes, O. There being no further business a motion was made by Commissioner Voelker, seconded by Commissioner Dredge to adjourn the meeting at 9:23 p.m. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 6; Nayes, O. ORDER PUBLI C HEARING- RENEI,~AL OF SPECI AL USE PER~ IT-ASPHALT PLANT IN AG ZONE-C(~qMERCIAL ASPHALT ORDER PUBLIC HEARING- PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT PLAT-~ESTVIEW SHOPPING CENTER 3RD ADDITION - I.B.I., INC. UPDATES/OTHER BUSINESS PLANNING COMMISSION APPOI NTMENT ADJOURNMENT