Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/12/86MINUTES OF HASTINGS PLANNING COFFkISSION Monday, May 12, 1986 The regular meeting of the Bastings Planning Conmission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Conmissioners Ditty, Dredge, Folch, Kaiser, Conzemius, Anderson, Voelker, Stevens, and Chairman Simacek. Members Absent: None Staff Present: Planning Director Harmening Upon review of the April 28, 1986 Planning Co~nissionminutes it was noted that on page 3, the 5th paragraph, that Louise Featherstone was not represented at the meeting but was instead represented by the son of Louise Featherstone. After discussion a motion was made by Co~nissioner Folch, seconded by Ccemissioner Voelker, to approve the April 28, 1986 minutes as corrected. Voice vote carried unanir~usly. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Simacek opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. The Planning Director briefly reviewed the proposal beingmade and history related to the proposal. In this case the Planning Co~mission previously reviewed a request by Mr. Shandley for approval of a five acre conveyance of property which is located on the north side of the Vermillion River located east of the 4th St. bridge. A concern which was raised regarding this proposal related to access problems to the proposed parcel of property and building site. In this ease the east 4th Street bridge and part of 4th St. further to the east experiences flooding during high water levels in the spring and, during the spring of 1986 for example, was essentially impassable with normal vehicles and cut off from the rest of the city. Currently, several fam/lies live east of the 4th St. bridge. The Citys flood plain ordinance states that "all subdivisions shall have water and sewage disposal facilities that comply with the provisions of this ordinance and shall have road access to both the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two feet belo~the regulatory flood protection elevation"(this is the one hundred year flood elevation). An obvious reason for this re~uirament is to ensure that proper accessibility is available to the property owners themselves as well as accessibility for emergency vehicles and other services. The Planning Director pointed out that in this situation the RFPE (100 year flood) is at elevation 694. The elevation of the 4th St. bridge after the proposed reconstruction will be at elevation 687.5 which is an elevation related to a 10 year flood frequency. The Planning Director noted that even with the proposed replacement of the East 4th St. bridge road access elevations on the bridge would still appear to be approximately 4.5 feet below that permitted. by the flood plain ordinance. Based on the flood plain regulations pertaining to accessibility the Planning Director noted that the Planning Cor~nission did not approve the requested 5 acre split but tabled action on the matter. The Planning Director informed the Planning Conmission that Mr. Shandley is now requesting a variance PUBLIC HEARING- VARIANCE TO HASTINGS FLOOD PLAIN CODE- RON SHANDLEY to Eection 6. ? o£ the Citys F~oo~ P~ain Regulations pertaining to the two foot limit on water depth over access roads during a 100 year flooding event. Pursuant to Section 8.41 of the Citys Flood Plain regulations the Planning Director informed the Planning Co~ssion that the Department of Natural Resources was sent a copy of Mr. Shandleys application for the proposed variance. The Planninq Director noted that the DNR had responded] hy letter to the variance proposal. In this case the DN~ recom~ende~ denial oI the proposed variance for several reasons which were outlined in the letter which was available for the Public Hearing and reviewed by the Planning Cc~nission. The Planning Director briefly reviewed with the Planning Con~ission the requirements for the granting of variances to the Citys flood plain regulations. The Planning Director reviewed with the Planning ~ssion the memo which the Planning Director had prepared regarding the proposed variance request. The Planning Director informed the Planning Commission that a recc~nendation had beenmade for denial of the variance request based on a number of reasons which were outlined in the afore~entionedmemo dated May 9, 1986 . Con~nts which were received frc~ the audience included: Ron Shandley -Mr. Shandley provided a general review of the proposal being made and the request for the variance. Mr. Shandley also noted that approving the variance and subsequently allowing him to build his proposed home would not in his opinion create any additional problems or expense for the city. Mr. Shandley also noted that it was felt that the city had not experienced any problems or additional expense for the hc~es which already exist east of the 4th St. bridge. Peter Likes, 3000 East 4th St. - Mr. Likes provided general information on the Shandley proposal. Mr. Likes noted that he felt maybe five more homes could be built east of the 4th Street bridge. Councilmember Plan - Pointed out two possible instances where homes may have been built after 1980 along east 1st Street which may not have road access in accordance with the citys flood plain regulations. Councilmember Plan felt that an occurence such as this may set a precedence in support of the Shandley proposal. There being no further ccr~nents from the audience the Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Considerable discussion took place by the Planning Coumission on this matter. Commissioner Ditty presented several points in support of the proposed variance. After discussion, a motion was made by Corm~ssioner Anderson, seconded by Comnissioner Folch, to reconmend to the City Council, acting as the Board of Adjustr~nt and Appeals, the denial of the variance for the following reasons: -2- The applicator not d 0nstmt that special conditions exist where a literal enforcement of the provisions of the flood plain ordinance would result in an u/mecessary hardship. That granting a variance will permit a significantly lower degree of flood protection. Vehicular ingress and egress would not be available during a 100 year flooding event and for that matter a flood in excess of a ten year flooding event. (assuming the proposed bridge is constructed). That granting of the variance will not be consistent with Minnesota State Law (shoreland and flood plain management rules) pertaining, for example, to the subdivision of property, the granting of variances, etc. That the granting of the variance will be contrary to the public interest. Essential services (police, fire, ambulance, public works) of the city will not be able to serve the subject property during a 100 year flooding event or, for that matter, a flooding event in excess of a 10 year flood (assuming the proposed bridge is constructed) nor will the property owner have conventional ingress and egress to the subject property. Granting of the variance would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Hastings. As an example, the cc~prehensive plan states that residential areas should be "safe from hazards- including excessive traffic, flooding, and contamination". Granting of the variance would be inconsistent with the purpose of the City of Hastings Flood Plain Ordinance. Purpose of the flood plain ordinance is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and to minimize losses. Pursuant to a letter dated May 7, 1986, granting of the variance would be inconsistent with the recc~nendation made on this matter by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Upon vote taken, Ayes, Conmissioner Stevens, Dredge, Folch, Kaiser, Anderson; Nayes, Cc~nissioner Ditty, Simacek, Conzemius, and Voelker. The motion for denial of the variance was declared approved. Chairman Simacek opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. The Planning Director briefly reviewed the proposal being made. In this case the applicant is requesting a rezoning from P-I and Ag to R-2 and preliminary plat approval for a residential development encompassing approximately 4 acres and generating 10 single family lots. The Planning Director noted that the platting action proposed partially constitutes a replat of a large lot in an existing plat known as lot l, block 1, Valley West 1st Addition. It was further noted that lot 1, block 1, Valley West 1st Addition is that part of the proposed plat which is zoned P-I. The Planning Director further reviewed with the Planning Conmission matters pertaining to the proposed development density, comprehensive plan criteria, park land dedication requirements, interceptor sewer charges, etc. It was noted that the developer proposes to install the sewer/water/street improvements privately. PUBLIC HEARING- REZONING FROM AG & P-I TO R-2 AND PRELIMINARY PLAT- VALLEY WEST 2ND ADDITION-CONZ~4IUS BROTHERS -3- The Planning Director informd tho Pla~inq Cmmi~ion that tho major item of contention regarding the proposed plat relates to the design of the cul de sac. In this case t/ae developers are proposing to place an island in the center of the cul de sac. T~ae Planning Director informed the Planning Comnission that the citys engineering department and streets department reconmended the elimination of the island in the cul de sac due to potential problems for maintenance. The Planning Cclwnission was also inforr~d that the Fire Department desired further study of the proposed island in relation to accessibility for emergency vehicles. The following comments were received from the audience: Bob Conzemius - Mr. Conzemius generally reviewed with the Planning Commission the proposed development. Mr. Conzemius indicated that they were interested in providing a quality development. Mr. Conzemius further noted that the proposed tear drop island in the cul de sac had many positive attributes and was used in other cities. To substantiate his con~ents Mr. Conzemius provided for the Planning Commission photos of islands within cul de sacs in Burnsville and also provided a comparative photo of cul de sacs within the City of Hastings. John Dwl/er, Surveyor for the developer - Mr. Dwyer presented to the Planning Cc~nission for its review a letter frc~ an engineer which discussed matters pertaining to cul de sacs, the maintenance of cul de sacs, and accessibility for emergency vehicles. Mr. Dwyer requested that the Planning Director provide the Planning Co~ission with copies of the letter from the engineer. It was further requested that the Planning Con~ission consider tabling action on this matter such that they may have additional time to consider the proposal being made. The Planning Commission discussed matters pertaining to the proposed island in the cul de sac. The Planning Commission asked that the Planning Director request the City Engineer attend the next Planning ~ssion meeting such that matters may be discussed pertaining to the island within the cul de sac. After further discussion a motion %~s made by Cor~missioner Stevens, seconded by Co~raissioner Voelker, to table action on this matter and continue the public hearing until the next meeting of the Planning Commission such that the NRRC can meet to discuss the related park land matters. Also, it was requested that the developer provide a preliminary street profile for the development. It was also felt that tabling action on this matter would allow further study of the proposed island within the cul de sac. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; Nayes, 0; Cor~nissioner Conzemius abstained. The Planning Director informed the Planning Commission that pursuant to the development agreement associated with the Riverwood development and also pursuant to Section 10.24 of the Hastings City Code Mr. Freir~ath is requesting site plan approval for the construction of a 4 plex on lot 1, block 3 Riverwood Addition (3085 Riverwood Drive). The present zoning SITE PLAN REVIEW- 4 PLEX AT LOT 1, BLOCK 3 RIVERWOOD ADDITION~COLUMBUS for this site is R-3 under a PRD concept. At the time the PRD and Plat was approved a 4 plex was proposed for the lot in question. -4- The Planning Director discussed with the Planning ~ssionmatters pertaining to the grading plan, flood plain elevations, landscaping plan, etc. The Planning Director also informed the Planning ~ssion that the original site plan for the 4 plex illustrated that the drainage and utility easement on the north side lot line of the property was infringed upon by a garage structure and that a rear drainage and utility easement was infringed upon by a detached garage structure. The Planning Director stated that this infringement was not permitted. The Planning Director also informed the Planning Conm~ssion that Mr. Freiermuth had provided a revised site plan which removed the structures from the easement areas. The Planning Co~nission reviewed the site and building plans for the proposed 4 plex. After discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Stevens, seconded by Commissioner Ditty, to recommend approval of the proposed site plan subject to the following conditions: A. That the applicant submit a landscaping plan to the City of Hastings prior to occupancy of the units. B. That the property drain pursuant to the original grading plan for the lot. In this case the front of the lot should drain towards the street. The rear of the lot should drain northeasterly towards the adjacent drainage ditch. The applicant should insure that the driveway area on the south side of the lot does not drain onto the adjacent lot (lot 2, block 3). C. That the applicant comply with flood plain regulations, as applicable, for the area in question regarding the elevation of the structure. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 9: Nayes, 0. A motion was made by Con~aissioner Kaiser, seconded by Conmissioner Folch, to table action on the Highland Hills 3rd Addition Plat and continue the public hearing until the next meeting of the Planning Co~r~ssion. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 9; Nayes, 0. Planning Director discussed with the Planning Con~ission the potential zoning designation for the recently annexed Malcolm Avenue properties. It was noted that an R-2 zone may be appropriate. The Chairman requested that the Planning Cc~mission consider a potential zoning designation for the Malcolm Avenue properties. No further action was taken on this matter. Am orion was made by Con~issioner Voelker, seconded by Co~missioner Kaiser, to set the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission for May 27, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. due to Memorial Day falling on the regular meeting date of the Planning Cc~ission. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 9; Nayes, 0. PUBLIC HEARING- HIGHLAND HILLS 3RD ADDITION-TABLE UNTIL NEXT PLANNING CON~iISS ION MEETING PROPOSED ZONING- MALCOI~4 AVENK~ SET MEETINGDATEFOR NEXT PLANNING C06~ISSIONMEETING -5- The Planning Director updated the Planning Co~nission on recent actions of the City Council. Am otion was made by ~ssioner Kaiser, seconded by Commissioner Voelker to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 9; Nayes, 0. OTHER BUSINESS ADJ0~ -6-