Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/27/86MINUTES OF HASTINGS PLANNING fI)MMISSION Tuesday, May 27, 1986 The regular meeting of the Hastings Planning Cor~nission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Conmissioners Ditty, Stevens, Dredge, Kaiser, Conzemius, Voelker, and Chairman Simacek. Members Absent: Cc~missioners Folch and Anderson. Staff Present: Planning Director Harmening. CuL,l,issioner Kaiser moved, seconded by Cc~missioner Stevens, to approve the May 12, 1986 Planning Conmission minutes. Voice vote carried unanimously. The Planning Director informed the Planning Co~nission that pursuant to Section 10.24 of the Hastings City Code IBI, Inc. was requesting that the city approve a site plan for ~ase 1 of a proposed commercial develolm~nt located directly east of the Westview Mall. R'ne total square footage of the proposed building within t~hase 1 is 29,400 square feet and is made up of a 22,400 square foot Top Do-It center and 7,000 square feet of gross retail space with tenants yet to be announced. The Planning Director reviewed with the Planning Cu~l,ission matters pertaining to the zoning of the property, storm sewers, hydrant locations, landscaping plans, lighting, garbage disposal plans,traffic impacts, etc. Items which the Planning Director provided an indepth discussion on were as follows: Sign Plans-the only sign proposal provided at this time is for the Top Do-It Center. In this case the signs proposed amount to approximately 475 square feet in area. Pursuant to city code, in a shopping center each business is permitted to have an aggregate square footage of sign space not exceeding 240 square feet. The Planning Director informed the Planning C~,ission that it would appear the developer would either have to redesign the sign proposal or request a variance. After considerable discussion the Planning Cu~,ission felt that the sign matter should possibly be reviewed as a separate issue and not be included in the site plan revie~ itself. Parking-the Planning Director informed the Planning Commission that the developer was proposing to provide 112 parking spaces. The Planning Director stated that calculating the required n~nber of parking spaces pursuant to City Ordinance was slightly difficult due to the unique nature of the proposed development. For example, should the inside %arehouse space be assumed to be dead storage or will this space generate a need for parking? Also, the ordinance permits deducts for storage and nonpublic places. In this case, for the 7,000 square foot retail space, it is unknown at this time how much of this space will be made up of nonpublic areas. The Planning Director reviewed with the Planning Cu~,ission various methods, including reccn%mendations contained in parking design manuals,for estimating the parking needs for the phase 1 develolm~nt. After considerable discussion the Planning C~,~,ission and Planning Director determined that the ordinance requirement for a two (gross parking area) to a one MINLrf~S SITE PLAN- PHASE I OF WESTVIEW 2- IBI, INC. (gross building area) ratio was an appropriate method for determining the parking needs for the proposed develo~ent and w-as consister~t with parking designs as noted in parking manuals. By using this method it was determined that the gross perking area was short by approximately 3,085 square feet or approximately 10 speces (330 square feet per spece). The Planning Director also discussed matters pertaining to the width of the entrances to the perking lot as well as the width of the driving lane around the building itself. Cm Sidewalks-the Planning Director stated that a sidewalk currently fronts the property in question along the South Frontage Road. The Planning Director raised a question on whether or not a sidewalk would be necessa[y along the West side of Westview Drive adjacent to the property in question. The Planning Cc~ission felt that although the sidewalk issue was important, it was felt that because it would be an off site improv~ent the matter probably should be discussed serrate from the actual site plan review. Brooks Swanson, representing the developer, provided a general overview of the project and answered questions of the Planning Cc~mission. Glen Krick, 1182 West 14th Street, questioned matters pertaining to the phasing of the development as well as matters pertaining to landscaping. Commissioner Voelker stated that although she was very much in favor of the proposed project she was concerned with traffic impacts in the Westview area and suggested that maybe the proposed development should be located within the Industrial Park. After considerable discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Stevens, seconded by Cum~issioner Conz~mius, to recommend approval of phase 1 of the site plan with the understanding that the issues pertaining to si~s and the sidewalk improvements will be addressed separately. Approval of phase 1 of the site plan was subject to the following conditions: A. That the developer provide 10 more parking spaces, for a total of 122 stalls, for phase 1 of the Westview 2 proposal. B. That the four driveway entrances to the parking lot be widened to 28 or 30 feet. In addition, the proposed driving lanes around the building are to be widened to 28 or 30 feet. Any reduction in p~rking spaces which may result from this alteration must be made up. C. At the time the ~]ase 2 retail spece is proposed the developer should provide for a more detailed plan for the loading and unloading berths on the south side of the building with respect to location, screening, etc. D. The developer is to provide a dust control mechanism for the rock base area directly south of the phase 1 building. E. The developer is to work with the City Engineer regarding the location of storm sewers structures within the proposed perking lot. F. The developer is to provide a fire hydrant as per city specifications directly adjacent to the proposed driveway entrance off of Westview Drive. provide, at a minimums, the placement of trees (ash for example) spaced at a maxim~ of 60 feet on center along the entire perimeter of the subject property (along South Frontage Road, Westview Drive, and 12th Street). Also, at the time the building and parking lot for phase 2 is constructed the developer is to provide a earth berming system along 12th Street for parking lot screening purposes. The developer is to recognize that the city may consider requiring a berming system along Westview Drive as well at the time the phase 2 proposal is initiated. H. That the developer will provide a revised site plan prior to building permit issuance whid~ takes into consideration the afor mentioned changes. Upon acceptance by the city of the revised site plan the developer is to construct phase 1 and all related items as per the approved revised site plan. I. That a brief developers agreement possibly be entered into to take into consideration the items mentioned above are those which maybe recognized at a later date. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 6; Nayes, Commissioner Voelker. C~airman Simacek reopened the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. The Planning Director briefly reviewed the proposal. In this case the applicant is requesting a rezoning from I~-I and A to R-2 and preliminary plat approval of a residential developaent encc~passing approximately 4 acres and generating 10 single f~ily lots. Items which were discussed by the Planning C~nission were as follows: A® Park Land Dedication - the NRRC has reviewed the proposed Platting action and has rec(mm~nded that the developer pay $1,381.20 in cash to met the citys park requirements. Proposed Street Name - the developer is proposing to call the cul-de-sac First Place. The Planning C~m~ission discussed possibly adding the word Court to the proposed street D~me. After discussion it was felt that any additional change to the street name was not necessary. Proposed Island within the cul-de-sac - in attendance to discuss this matter with the Planning Cu~,,,ission were City Engineer, J~mes Kleinschmidt and Street Superintendent, Keith Rosch. The Planning Director briefly reviewed this particular item. In this case the developer is proposing to place a planting island within the cul-de-sac. Upon staff review of this m~tter the Engineering and Street Departments expressed concern with the proposed island based primarily on maintenance concerns of the streets themselves as well as maintenance of the island within the cul-de-sac. The Planning Director informed the Planning Commission that the Fire Department had actually tested its ability to turn a p~per vehicle within a cul-de-sac as proposed. It appeared the turning ability of a pumper would not be unduly restricted by having an island within the cul-de-sac. The Planning Director also informed to the Planning C~mission that staff had been in contact with the City of Burnsville and found that the islands have not presented any major problems. PUBLIC HEAR- ING-PRELIM- INARY PLAT & REZONE- VAI,I,F~ WEST 2ND ADDN.- CONZS~4IUS The Planning Cc~mission discussed with the City Engineer and the Street Superintendent their concerns on the inclusion of an island within the cul-de-sac. The Planning Cc~mission discussed with the Engineer the possibility of removing the island at a later date if it was determined that the island w~s creating a problem for maintenance or public safety. Jerry Conz~ius and John Dwyer, representing the developer, provided general con~nts on the planting islands and stated that they would be willing to place covenants or restrictions against the properties in the cul-de-sac requiring that the property c~ners maintain the island. There being no further comments from the audience the Chairman closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m. After considerable discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Dredge, seconded by Commissioner Voelker, to approve the rezoning and preliminary plat, including the placement of the planting island within the cul-de-sac, because the rezoning and preliminary plat are consistant with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, because t~hey are consistant with the R-2 zoning requirements, and further that they are adequate sanitary sewer, watennains, storm sewer, and transportation facilities available to accomodate the site. It was recammended that the approval be subject to the following conditions and or understandings being implemented: A. That the developer provide the city with $1,381.20 in cash to meet the citys p~rk requirement. B.Tb~t the developer provide the city with $1,350.00 in cash for related intercepter sewer charges. C. Tb~t with respect to the tear drop island within the cul-de-sac, the developer is to work closely with the City Engineering Department regarding the desigq of the cul-de-sac. In addition the developer will be required to place covenants against the properties within the cul-de-sac requiring the property owners to maintain the island. Also, the developer will be required to maintain the island within the cul-de-sac until all the lots are sold and the hemes occupied. D. That the proposed public i~prove~ents be installed pursuant to city rsquirements and specifications. E. That a developers agreament be formulated to implement the conditions and understandings mentioned above or those which may be recognized at a later date. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 6; Nayes, 0; Ccmmissioner Conz~mius abstained. %~]e Planning Director briefly reviewed this matter with the Planning Commission. In this case Mr. Shandley previously requested that the city approve the splitting off of approximately 5 acres from a property located East of the 4th Street bridge adjaoent to the Vermillion River. Mr. Shandley proposed to build a single family home. The Planning Commission tabled action on the subdivision request due to the need for a variance to the citys flood plain ordinance rec~rding the depth of water over access roads. Mr. Shandley made application for a variance and subsequantly received approval of the variance by the City Council at its meeting on May 19, 1986. The Planning Director informed the Planning Cc~mission that SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL- 5 ACRE PARCEL EAST OF 4TH ST. BRIDGE- R. SHANDLEY since the variance question had been resolved it would appear approval of the subdivision could now occur. After discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Ditty, seconded by Commissioner Conzemius, to approve the 5 acre subdivision subject to the following conditions: A. That construction of the single family h~e on the 5 acre parcel be in conformance with the citys flood plain ordinance regarding, for example, the elevation of the structure, etc. B. That the private sanitary sewer and water systems conform to the applicable local and state statutes regarding said systems. C. That a flood warning and evacuation plan be prepared for the subject property and adopted by the city. D. TD~t the applicant improve and maintain the easement access, at or before the time of occupancy of the single family h~ne, in a condition that is accessable to conventional automibiles. E. ~nat the applicant enter into an agreemen~ with the City of Hastings pursuant to the requirements ordered by the City Council on May 19, 1986. Upon vote taken Ayes, 7; Nayes, 0. The Planning Director informed the Planning Commission that the Johnson's are requesting a 1.5 foot side setback varianc~ to Section 10.23 of the Zoning Ordinance such that an 11' x 14' kitchen addition may be added to an existing 25' x 36' single family home located at 126 W. 18th Street. The current zoning of the property is R-2. The Planning Director stated that the applicants were given a copy of the criteria which are to be met to allow the granting of a variance. The applicants indicated on their application form, among other things, that by being required to meet the 7 foot setback the addition to the home would be pointless as it would not match up with the existing kitchen in a fashion which would make it usable. The applicant also indicated that t~ey had oonferred with their next door neighbor on this m~tter and apparently found that the neighbor was not in opposition to the addition as proposed. The Planning Director also informed the Planning Cc~mission that just prior to the Planning C(z~nission meeting the applicants had indicated that the location of the side lot line in question was based on an existing fence or hedge and utility pole. This information presented concerns to the Planning CuLm,ission as they felt unsure of the exact status or extent of the variance request. The applicant strongly maintained that his interpretation of the lot line was accurate and correct. The Planning Cc~mission also discussed matters pertaining to nonconforming structures as related to the existing home. The Planning CuL,~,ission requested that the Planning Director receive a legal interpretation of the nonconforming ordinance requirements. After considerable discussion a motion was made by Cu~,~issioner Ditty, seconded by Co~nissioner Conzemius, to approve the variance request made by the Johnson's. Upon vote taken Ayes, Co~x~issioner Ditty, Conzemius, and Simacek; Nayes, Cum, issioner Stevens, Dredge, Kaiser, Voelker. The motion was declared not approved. No further action was taken. VARIANCE REQUEST 126 W. 18TH K. JOHNSON Chairman Simacek reouened the Public Hearing at 8:50 p.m. the Planning Director briefly reviewed the proposal being made. In this case the developers requested preliminary plat approval of a residental developoent encompassing approximately 11 acres and generating 34 single family lots. The plat is proposed to be called the Highland Hills Third Addition. The applicants are proposing to install the i~provenents themselves. The Planning Director reviewed with the Planning C~mission matters pertaining to park land dedication, street names, sanitary s~er system, easements. There being no comments from the audience the Public Hearing was closed at 8:53 P.M. After discussion a motion w~s made by Co~issioner Kaiser, seconded by Cu~,~,ission Ditty, to recommend approval of the requested preliminary plat because it is consistant with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, because it is consistant with the R-1 zoning requirements, and further that they are adequate sanitary sewer, watermains, storm se~er, and transportation facilities available to accomodate the site. It was recoa~aended that approval be subject to the following conditions and or understandings being implemented: A. That questions pertaining to park land dedication requirements be resolved prior to final plat approval. B.Tb~t the street name for Brittany Trail be changed. C. That the utility and drainage easements be provided along all lot lines pursuant to city requirements. D. That any required intercepter sewer charges or buy in charges be paid prior to the recording of the the final plat. E. That the proposed improvements (Street, sewer, water, storm sewer) be installed pursuant to city requirements and specifications. F. That occupancy of residental units can not take place until all municipal improven~.~nts are installed to the citys satisfaction. G. All lots are to meet city requirements pertaining to lot width ar~ area. H. That the outlots indicated on the preliminary plat be dedicated to the city as utility and drainage easements or walkways if that is the purpose for which they are provided. I. That the developer insure that the h~mes to be built are constructed at an elevation such that they can be served by the proposed sanitary sewer system. Also, the proposed storm sewer mains are to be installed deeper to allow more cover over the storm sewer mains. J. That a developers agreement be entered into to take into consideration the conditions and understandings just m~ntioned are those which maybe recognized at a later date. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 7; Nayes, 0. PUBLIC HEAR- ING-PRELIM. PLAT-HIGH- LAND HILLS 3RD ADDN. S IE~ERT CON. The Planning Director informed the Planning Commission that the recently annexed Malcolm Avenue properties should be given a zoning designation by the city. The Planning Coamission discussed the potential R-1 or R-2 zoning designation for those properties. It was felt that an R-2 zoning designation maybe most appropriate. Motion was made by Commissioner Kaiser, seconded by Commissioner Dredge, to order that a Public Hearing be held on the ~lcolm Avenue zoning at 7:30 p.m. on June 23, 1986. ORDER PUBLIC HEAR- ING-MALCOLM AVE. ZONING Upon vote taken, Ayes, 7; Nayes, 0. The Planning Director updated the Planning Cum, ission on recent City Council actions. OTHER BUSINESS Cc~missioner Dredge moved, seconded by Commissioner Voelker, to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Upon vote taken, Ayes, 7; Nayes, 0.