Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/11/86Monday, August ~1, 1986 The regular meeting of the Hastings Planning Conmission was called to order at 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Ccm~nissioners Stevens, Dredge, Folch, Kaiser, Conzemius, Anderson, Voelker, and Chairman Simacek. Members Absent: Con~nissioner Ditty. Staff Present: Planning Director Harmening Cor~issioner Kaiser moved, seconded by Commissioner Conzemius, to approve the July 28, 1986 Planning Cor~aissionminutes. Voice vote carried unanimously. The Chairman reopened the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m. There being no comments from the audience Chairman Simacek closed the Public Hearing at 7:36 p.m. Planning Director Harmening reviewed with the Planning Commission the information they had requested pertaining to the anticipated future land use for the subject property as outlined in the draft of the Master Plan which was being prepared by the HRAs consultant as well as a memorandum from the HRA regarding their current interest in the property. Planning Director also reviewed certain conditions the applicant should be required to meet to allow the minor subdivision to be approved. These items included a parking agreement between the two eventual property owners, a realignment of the proposed new lot line to meet setback requirements, the removal of concrete foundations which overlap the proposed lot line, and the implementation of a Declaration of Minor Subdivision, and a possible storm sewer easement . After considerable discussion a motion was made by Cor~missioner Stevens, seconded by Cormlissioner Conzemius, to recormend approval of the minor subdivision subject to the following conditions: That some type of parking agreement be implemented for the two proposed parcels to insure adequate off street parking arrangements were still available. B. That the proposed lot line be adjusted to meet required setback requirements from the buildings and metal bins. C. That the concrete foundations be removed which overlap the proposed lot line. D. That a Declaration of Minor Subdivision be implemented. E. That a possible storm sewer easement be obtained by the city. Upon vote taken, Ayes, Conmissioner Stevens, Conzemius, and Simacek; Nayes, Cou~issioner Dredge, Folch, Kaiser, Anderson, Voelker. The motion was not approved. MINUTES CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING-MINOR SUBDIVISION OF GRAIN ELEVATOR & FEED MILL SITE- 2ND & TYLER STREET ST.PAUL BANK FOR COOPERATIVES. The Chairman opened the P~blic Hearing at 8:00 P.M. Barbara Jensen, 1181W. 4th St., indicated that she was not in favor of the minor subdivision as the proposed purchaser of the one half of the property in question wanted to park a truck on the site. Mrs. Jensen indicated that she felt the parking of a truck in the residential area was a danger to the neighborhood. PUBLIC MRARING- MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LOT 16, BLOCK 21, ADDN 013- NETTIE BAKKEN, 1402 W. 4TH ST. There being no further co~nents frc~the audience the Chairman closed the Public Hearing at 8:05 p.m. Planning Director indicated to the Planning Commission that Nettie Bakken owns three lots at the northwest corner of 4th & Ash Street. It appears that the Bakken home is situated on two of the lots, or lots 17 & 18. Bakken desires to sell one half of lot 16 to her next door neighbor named Gerald Kramer, who owns lot 15, in order for them to have more space in between their properties (as per the letter from Bakkens attorney). To accomplish this task Bakken requests approval of a minor subdivision. The Planning Director reviewed with the Planning Conntission various items pertaining to the property including zoning, etc. After discussion a motion was made by Con, missioner Conzemius, seconded by Conmissioner Dredge, to recc~nend approval of the minor subdivision subject to, if necessary, the completion of a Declaration of M/nor Subdivision. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 6; Nayes, Commissioner Folch and Commissioner Voelker. The motion was declared approved. Planning Director informed the Planning Con~ission that IBI, Inc. has requested that the City approve a revised site plan for the Phase I development of the Westview 2 project located west of the intersection of So. Frontage Road and Westview Drive. Changes in the originally approved Phase I site plan include the addition of a 15,600 gross square foot office building, the addition of related parking, and other minor parking lot modifications. The Planning Director indicated that the city had originally approved the Phase I site plan in June of 1986 for the 29,400 Sq.ft. Tops Do It Center building and retail space. REVIEW OF REVISED SITE PLAN-PHASE I OF WES%VIEW 2 C0~K~CIAL DEVELOP MENT-IBI, INC. The Planning Director reviewed with the Planning Commission the proposed building addition, parking arrangements, storm sewer, landscaping, etc. The Planning Director discussed in length with the Planning Commission matters pertaining to the traffic system impact of the proposed development as related to the WestviewDrive/So. Frontage Road intersection. The Planning Director noted that the office buildings first floor elevation is proposed to be at elevation 859 which is several feet higher than the existing grades around the building. To adjust for the sharp grade change the Planning Director noted that retaining walls were proposed to be added on the northeast side of the building. It was further noted that although the proposed elevation of the office building and retaining walls would not improve the site lines at the intersection the developer does propose to cut the grade between the retaining walls and the intersection which should improve the sight line. The Planning Director also stated that, upon checking with the Police Department, only one car accident had been reported in the last three years for the So. Frontage Road/Westview Drive intersection. Co~nissioner Kaiser expressed concern with the intersection and suggested that the two proposed trees at the intersection be removed ~o improve sight lines. Conments were also made regarding a possible berm along Westview Drive. Brooks Swanson, representative for IBI, presented elevation drawings of the proposed building and answered questions of the Planning Co~nission. After considerable discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Dredge, seconded by Comnissioner Anderson, to recc~mend that the revised site plan for the expansion of Phase I of the Westview 2 conmercial development be approved subject to the following conditions: At Additional lighting being provided for the parking lot to the south of the Top Do It Center Store with said lighting to be installed so as not to be disruptive to adjacent residential areas. Bo The developer is to reduce the grade of the area directly adjacent to the intersection of So. Frontage Road and Westview Drive so as to improve sight lines at this intersection. In addition the two trees proposed to be located at this intersection are not to be installed. C. The calculation of the additional parking spaces for the office building to be verified at the time of final building plan submittal. The developer is to provide additional plantings in front of the six parking spaces directly adjacent to the office building which face Westview Driveand a residential area. That the Developers Agreement currently in place between the Developer and the City regarding the original Phase I proposal be amended to take into consideration the revised site plan and the conditions for approval. F. That the City Engineer study the need to make the South Frontage Road/ Westview Drive intersection a 3 or 4 way stop and to also study the need to make the west side of Westview Drive a "No Parking Zone". Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; Nayes, 0. The Planning Director informed the Planning Con,mission that Dakota County is requesting approval of the site plan for Phase I and Concept approval for Phase II of the proposed Dakota County Government Center Expansion Project. It was noted that the zoning for the property is P-I Public Institution. REVIEW OF SITE PLANS FOR PHASE I AND II OF DAKOTA COUNTY ~ CEN~ER EXPANSION PROJDST-DAKOTA CO. The Planning Director outlined for the Planning Commission the Phase I proposal which includes the construction of the Law Enforcement Center, expansion of the public parking area to the southwest, connection of the loading area drive to 4th St., and raising the existing Ponding area berm. Other matters discussed with the Planning Cc~ission regarding Phase I included parking, storm sewer, erosion control, etc. The Planning Director also discussed the Phase II proposal which includes the addition of 6 court rooms, construction of shell space for 6 future court rooms, expansion of the staff parking area to the north, expansion of the handicapped and short term parking area, and connection of the parking lot to a proposed new public street at the west property line. It was noted that Dakota County intends to petition for the proposed street to be constructed in the sumner of 1987. Planning Director informed the Planning Con~ission that matters pertaining to the Countys dedication of the street right of way to the City will be reviewed at a later date by the Planninq Cor~ission. It was further noted that Phase II is in the early progra~ning and design stage and is tentatively scheduled to begin construction in the Spring of 1987. The Planning Director further discussed matters pertaining to parking, storm sewer, erosion control, and other matters related to the Phase II proposal. The Planning Director informed the Planning Cor~nission that two primary concerns relating to the Government Center expansion project pertain to parking and storm sewer needs. In attendance to answer questions of the Planning Gon~ission were Clifford Buikema, Architect, and Robert Frigaard, Consulting Engineer for the County. The Planning Cor~mission questioned Mr. Frigaard on the adequacy of the storm sewer system as it relates to the proposed expansion project. Mr. Frigaard indicated that the proposed modification to the Pond berm will adequately handle storm sewer needs for the area which it serves. It was further indicated by Mr. Frigaard that the 4th Street storm sewer system was also adequate to handle the run off generated by the expansion project. Architect Buikema also provided the Planning Co~ission with elevation drawings of the law enforcement structure. After discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Folch, seconded by Gom~issioner Gonz~ius, to recomnend approval of the site plan for Phase I and Concept approval for Phase II of the proposed Dakota County Government Center expansion project subject to the following conditions: A. That the County provide the city with final plans for the proposed adjustment to the Ponding berm. That the County should take steps to insure that adequate erosion control measures are implemented during building and parking lot construction. C. That the County should implement som~ type of landscaping for screening purposes around the perimeter of the proposed parking lots. D. That the County should consider providing rip rap, if needed, around the outlet of the retaining pond. E. Parking lot lighting should be designed in a manner which is not obtrusive to the neighboring properties. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; Nayes, 0. The Planning Director informed the Planning Cc~ntission that at its last meeting the Conmission tabled action on the request by Burmeister for a zoning ordinance amendment/cc~p plan amendment to permit an Ag preserves designation so that Burmeister and the city staff could further study and provide information to the Planning Conmission on the viability of Burmeister using the Green Acres law versus the ag preserves law to protect her property from develo~nent intrusions. The Planning Director briefly sunmarized for the Planning Commission the Metropolitan Ag Preserves Act and the Minnesota Agricultural Property Tax Law (Green Acres). Mrs. Burmeister indicated that upon researching the two laws in her opinion the Green Acres law would not adequately protect her from special assessments as would the ag preserves statute. The Planning Director reviewed with the Planning Commission the previous memo sent to them on this matter which contained comments pertaining to the citys Comp Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements pertaining to the property in question. Harmening further noted that it appeared the Citys current land use controls and policies, which relate to the Burmeister property as well as other properties in the area should protect the area from urban development intrusions such as the extension of sewer and water. Harmening further indicated that if the majority of the Planning Con~nission feels that implementing an Ag preserves tool in Hastings is unwarranted that the Planning Conmission should indicate these feelings to Burmeister and inquire whether or not she would consider withdrawing her application such that her $150.00 fee may be returned and considerable time not wasted. The Planning Commission did question Burmeister on this matter and Burmeister indicated that after considerable thought she had decided to withdraw her application at this time. She further indicated that she in no way desires to develop her property and hopes that the Comp Plan language and zoning language in place protects her adequately from development intrusions. Based on this withdrawal of her application the Planning Con~ission directed Planning Director Harmening to return Burmeisters $150.00 application fee. The Planning Con~nission thanked Mrs. Burmeister for her patience with the citys review of this matter. No further action was taken. Planning Director Harmening indicated that the City of Hastings is in the process of selling city owned property located directly west of the water tower situated along the No. Frontage Road. At this point a survey is being done by Dwyer Surveying so as to delineate the proposed property to be sold. Amotion was made by Cc~nissioner Kaiser, seconded by Co~nissioner Anderson, to order that a Public Hearing be held on the proposed minor subdivision. The Public Hearing is to be held on August 25, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; Nayes, 0. The Planning Con~nission tabled discussion regarding the review of the McGoon Home Occupation Permit. The Planning Director updated the Planning Commission on recent City Council Action. A motion was made by Conmissioner Conzemius, seconded by Conmissioner Dredge, to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; Nayes, 0. ZONING AMENI1MES~/ COMP PLAN AMEND- MENT-AG PRESERVES DESIGNATION - IREIfE BURMEISTER, 2200 RAVENNA TRAIL ORDER PUBLIC HEARING-MINOR SUBDIVISION OF CITY OWNED PROP- ERTY ADJACENT TO WATER TOWER ALONG SO. FRONTAGE ROAD. MCGOON HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT OTHER BUSINESS ADJOUPA~ENT