Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/86 INUTES OF { STI SS OI KSSt0N Monday, April 28, 1986 The regular im~eting of the Hastings Planning Cor~nission was called to order at 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Commissioner Ditty, Dredge, Folch, Kaiser, Conzemius, Anderson, Voelker, and Chairman Simacek M~mbers Absent: Co~.issioner Stevens. Staff Present: Planning Director Harmening Commissioner Kaiser moved, seconded by Cor~nissioner Anderson, to approve the April 14, 1986 minutes. Voice vote carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Simacek opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Director briefly reviewed the proposal being made. In ~nis case, the applicant is r~uesting preliminary plat approval of a residential development encompassing approximately 11.2 acres and generating 34 single family lots. The plat is proposed to be called Highland Hills 3rd Addition. The current zoning of the property is R-1 single family residential. The proposed devetol~ent density is 3.03 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan has identified the area in question for single family residential develol~nents. The Planning Director further discussed matters and questions pertaining to park land dedication r~quirements. The Planning Director also pointed out that the City had not yet received proposed preliminary plans for the sewer, water, storm sewer, or street layouts. The following cc~m~nts were received fr~n ~]e audience: PUBLIC HEARING-PRE- LIMINARY PLAT-HIGH- LAND HILLS 3RD ADDN. SIEWERT CONSTRUCTION Kevin 55;anson, 1755 Brittany Road- discussed water problems he is experiencing in his basement. Presented questions regarding grading. Charles Rizzo, 1750 Brittany Road - discussed water problems he is experiencing in his basement. Presented questions regarding grading of plats. T~ere being no furti%er co~nents from the audience the Chai~nan closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. After further discussion a motion was made by Co~missioner Folch, seconded by Ca~nissioner Kaiser, to table action on ~is matter and continue the public hearing suc~h that questions pertaining to p~rk requirements can be resolved. Also, the developer must provide the city for staff review, preliminary layouts on the sanitary s~.~r and related elevations, storm sewers, watermains and hydrants, and street profiles. The applicant is also requested to determine an alternate name for Brittany Trail. Upon vote taken Ayes, 8; Nayes, 0. ~e Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. ~e Planning Director briefly reviewed the proposal being made. In ~is case Mr. Sieben is requesting that the City approve a minor subdivision to permit a jog in ~e ccnraon lot line of lots 3 & 4 to take into consideration an existing garage which straddles the existing common PUBLIC HEARING-MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 120, ORIGINAL PLAT- AL SIEBEN lot line. The property in question is located at the south east corner of east Second Street and Bass Street. Comments which were received from the audience included questions pertaining to the proposed use of the property and the garage which is currently situated on the property. Mr. Sieben responded that he proposes to construct a single family home on each lot in question. ~%e garage will most likely be used by the homeowner who owns it. There being no further cc~mants the Chairman closed t/~e public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Cor~nissioner Stevens joined ~]e meeting at this time. After fur~%er discussion Coamissioner Folch moved, seconded by Co~anissioner Ditty, to approve the minor subdivision as each parcel will continue to comply with zoning requirements. This approval is subject to, if necessary, the completion of a declaration of minor subdivision. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 7; Nayes, Co~nissioner Voelker; Commissioner Stevens abstained. The motion was approved. The Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. The Planning Director discussed matters pertaining to this application. In this case Mr. Shandley is r~uesting that the city approve splitting off of approximately 5 acres of land whidn is located on the north side of the Vermillion River south of east 4th St. The property in question is zoned agriculture which permits single family homes at a density of one unit per five acres of land. At ~%is time there are three or four homes which exist to the east of ~e Fourth Street bridge. The 4th Street bridge provides ~]e only access to ~%e subject area. Generally speaking the Planning Director pointed out ~at the request for the subdivision in itself seems acceptable with ~he exception of provisions contained within the citys flood plain ordinance. In this case ~he proposed parcel is surrounded on all sides by flood plain. That in itself did not present a major problem except in the case of providing accessibility to the site. The citys flood plain ordinance states in Section 6.1 that "all subdivisions shall have %~ter and sewage disposal facilities that comply with the provisions of ~]is ordinance and have road access to bo~% the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than ~o feet below ~%e regulatory flood protection elevation". The Planning Director noted that the primary purpose for ~is flood plain ordinance requiranent is to insure that proper accessibility is available to the property owners themselves as well as ~ergency vehicles and other public services. In this particular situation ~]e RFPE is at an elevation of 694. ~e elevation of ~%e 4th St. bridge even after the proposed reconstruction will be at an elevation of 687.5 which is an elevation related to a ten year flood. (presentally the bridge deck is at elevation 685). Therefore, even with ~]e two feet of water dep~ allowed by the flood plain ordinance the bridge deck would still appear to be at an elevation 4.5 feet lower than allowed by ~]e citys flood plain ordinance. The Planning Director pointed out that the primary reason why the bridge PUBLIC HEARING- 5 ACRE SUBDIVISION NORTH SIDE OF THE VERMILLION RIVER LOCATED TO ~ SOUTH OF EAST 4TH STREET- RON SHANDLEY deck is only being constructed to elevation 687.5 is because its economically unfeasible to build a bridge to an elevation to accoInodate ti%e 100 year flood. Tile Planning Director furt~her pointed out ti]at the subdivision r~quest would not appear acceptable for approval as it now stands. The Planning Director stated that the citys flood plain ordinance did have a variance procedure wl]ich Mr. Shandley was interested in pursuing. Co~]~nts which were received from the audience were as follows: Ron Shandtey - Mr. Shandl~f e~q~lained his proposal and a variety of matters associated with it. Peter Likes, 3000 E. 4th Street - Mr. Likes explained that he lives adjacent to tihe property w~ich Mr. Shandley is interested in. Mr. Likes presented various points of information pertaining to access to Mr. Shandleys proposed h~ne and the area in general. Co~nissioner Folch - empressed concerns with access to the property in question and ~Jle area in general as related to ~ergency vehicles and other public services. ~]e Public Hearing was closed at 8:15 p.m. After furtJner discussion Con~nissioner Folch moved, seconded by Cc~missioner Anderson, that the subdivision request be tabled suc21 that matters may be addressed regarding Mr. Shandieys variance r~uest. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 9; Nayes, 0. After further discussion a motion was made by Con~nissioner Conze~ius, seconded by Co~nissioner Folch, to order tJlat a public hearing be scheduled on Mr. Shandleys r~quest for a variance to the citys flood plain ordinance to be held May 12, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 9; Nayes, 0. The Planning Director presented to the Planning Con~ission t2]e proposed final plat for tine Williams First Addition. ~ne Planning Director noted that it appeared the final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat which was approved by the City in February of 1986. Rl3e final plat appears to take into consideration conditions which were required by t_he city as a part of hhe preliminary plat approval. Other it~ns of interest which the Planning Director discussed included: ae Property line dispute - The Planning Director noted that ~e owner of the property located at the sout~heast corner of the ~¢nispering Lane/140th St. intersection is claiming that the property corners as set by Williams surveyor are not correct at that particular location and that a discr _epancy of 11 feet exists. ~ne Planning Director noted that generally the city should not become involved in a property line dispute but rat~her allow the pro_perty ~ners to resolve the matter themselves. Environmental Assessnent Worksheet - The Planning Director informed tine Planning Cc~anission that at the last City Council meeting the Council determined that an Environmental Impact Stat~nent is not required to be prepared for this project if certain actions are implsaented during project consnruction. ~]ese actions include the FINAL PLAT-WILLIAMS FIRST ADDITION- MIKE WILLIAMS capping of an abandoned well on t~%e project site and t/~e prepara' i0n and impla entati0n by t le developer of an Erosion and sedimentation control plan. The Planning Director pointed out t_hat the ~ner of t~%e property located at the soutlneast corner of t~he ~]ispering Lane/140th Street intersection is concerned with potential dust problems associated with the proposed gravel portion of Whispering Lane. Con~ents which were received from t~he audience included: Ray Sotac, 1403 Featherstone Road - Mr. Solac presented concerns regarding potential dust problems associated with the gravel portion of Whispering Lane. Mr. Sotac also presented concerns regarding the survey for the Williams Plat. Louise Featherstone, 1803 Featherstone Road - Expressed concerns with the survey for the Williams 1st Addition Plat. After discussion a motion was made by Cc~missioner Ditty, seconded by Co~nissioner Kaiser, to reco~nend approval of the Williams First Addition Plat subject to a developers agreement being entered into to take into consideration, but not limited to, those items of concern which were brought fox, rd during the rezoning and preliminary plat review including matters pertaining to the planned residential develot~ment proposal. A developers agreamsnt should also include conditions pertaining to the following: A. ti]at the abandoned well on the project site be properly capped and/or filled pursuant to local and state laws. B. ~]at the developer subnit to the city for approval and implement an erosion and sedimentation control plan for t~he proposed project. C. That a barricade or barricades be placed on the gravel portion of ~%ispering Lane to discourage everyday traffic and associated potential dust problems. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; Nayes, Co~issioner Voelker. ~e motion was approved. The Planning Director presented to the Pl~mning Con~ission a proposed site plan for the Shepherd of the Valley; Lutheran Church w~ich is intended to be constructed at the northwest corner of west 4th St. and Whispering Lane. The present zoning for the property is R-1 which permits d%urches. The Planning Director reviewed with the Planning Cc~mission various items of interest pertaining to the proposed site plan including parking requiraments, landscaping, fire safety concerns, grading, matters pertaining to the height of ti%e building, access to the site, etc. After discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Kaiser, seconded by C(m~issioner Anderson to approve the site plan for the Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church subject to the following conditions: SITE PLAN REVIEW- SHEPHERD OF THE VALLEY LITI~HERAN CHURCH-W. 4TH STREET & WHISPERING LANE That tl~e development of the property in question is to be coi[~pleted as illustrated on the site and grading plan/ landscaping plan dated .April 21, 1986. That more extensive screening be provided along the parking spaces facing 4th St. which are located on the south side of the church. Assuming the estinnted location of the hydrant along 4th St. is correct it is recomnended that the applicant consider extending a water main northerly into the property and placing a fire hydrant adjacent to the church. De The applicant is to provide erosion and sedilrentation control measures (straw or hay bale d]ecks and dams) during the period of construction and grading on the property. That the access drive off of 4th Street be widened to 28 feet or 30 feet. Access drives may require extra care during winter months. Additional off street parking facilities to be provided, as applicable, if seating is e~xpanded in excess of 240 seats within the worship area or if the building is expanded. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 9; Nayes, 0. The applicant is requesting a vacation of the existing ten foot wide utility and drainage easement located on the cc~mon lot line of lot 7 & 8, Block 1, Olson's Addition such that title problems may be cleared up pertaining to a recently constructed home %~lich straddles the comnon lot line. After discussion a motion was made by Co~missioner Conzemius, seconded by Cc~missioner Ditty, to rec~aend that the easement be considered for vacation. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 9; Nayes, 0. Hastings Construction, the builder and current owner of U~e property in question, and Jon Speakes, the prospective home owner, are requesting a two foot corner side yard setback variance to Section 10.23 of the zoning ordinance such that a single family home may be constructed at 1616 Todd Court (lot 1, block 3, Sontags 2nd Addition). ~ne current zoning of U]e property is R-1. The applicants are claiming a hardship based on the fact tiaat ~]e proposed homeowner is a handicapped person and at various times is confined to a wheeld~air. Because of the handicapped status of the homeowner it is claimed that the type of house proposed to be built will be constructed in a fashion whic2] would accomodate a person in a wheelchair (one level with bas~n]ent, wider g~rage, etc.). Because of these unique circumstances t~he home is generally larger in size which subsequently causes problems in trying to fit the home onto the lot. VACATION OF UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASE- MENTS LOTS 7 & 8, BLOCK 1, OLSONS ADDITION,F. LIEBEG VARIANCE REQUEST- CORNER SIDE SETBACK 1616 TODD COURT- HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION JON SPEAKES General co~e~s Which the Planning Director brought f0~ard included: A. The proposed homeowner does not yet own the lot in question. B. It would appear the proposed home could fit on an interior lot 82 feet by 120 feet in size and still meet all applicable setback rsguir~ments. It was fur~%er noted that 10ts of this size are available in the City of Hastings. Cory Gustafson, representing the applicants, provided ~]e Planning Commission with a general outline of ~Te variance r~quest. After discussion and revi~.~ of the criteria whid] should be met for the granting of variances, a motion was made by Commissioner Folch, seconded by Cc~nissioner Stevens, to recommend that the variance request be denied due to the following reasons: A® That special conditions and circumstances donor exist ~ich are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. ~nat literal interpretation of the City Code would not deprive ~e applicant of rights cGnmonly enjoyed by other properties in the sanm district under the terms of the zoning ordiance. C. That the special conditions and circumstances result fr~n the actions of the applicant. ~]at granting of ~he variance will confer on the applicant special priveleges that are denied by ~he zoning ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in ~Te same district. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 6; Nayes, Cu~,issioner Conzemius, & Anderson; Commissioner Ditty abstained. The motion was approved. C~issioner Voelker moved, seconded by Cc~nissioner Kaiser, to call a public hearing for May 12, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. regarding the request for preliminary plat and rezoning approval from Ag and P-I to R-2 for ~e proposed Valley West 2nd Addition. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; Nayes, 0; Commissioner Conz~nius abstained. ~%e motion was declared approved. ~]e Planning Director informed ~%e Planning Co~nission of recent City Council actions. ORDER PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING-VAIJ.F~ WEST 2ND ADDITION- CONZIMIUS OTHER BUSINESS Cor~issioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Dredge, to ADJO~ adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 9; Nayes,0.