Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/14/86MINUTES OF HASTINGS PLANNING C0~ISSION Monday, April 14, ~986 The Regular Meeting of the Hastings Planning Con~ission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Co~ssioner Stevens, Dredge, Folch, Kaiser, Conzemius, Anderson, Voelker, and Chairman Simacek. Members Absent: Concessioner Ditty. Staff Present: Planning Director Harmening Cormlissioner Kaiser moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the March 24, 1986 minutes. Voice vote carried unanimously. Chairman Simacek reopened the Public Hearing at 7:32 p.m. The Planning Director briefly reviewed the proposal being ~ade and refreshed the Planning ~ssions memory on this matter which was discussed at its last meeting. The Planning Director indicated that the information requested by the Planning Co~mission on the proposed development had been received. These items included the following: A. Park land dedication - The NRRC reco~ended that the developer be required to submit $5,~00 cash in lieu of park land dedication. Intentions for development of vacant property to the north of the proposed plat - The developer owns this prope~y and indicated that it would most likely be developed in the fom of a detached single family concept but, depended upon market conditions, the townhouse type development was not to be ruled out entirely. Redesign of Southview Drive- The developer provided two alternate layouts for the Southview Drive extension with both alternates illustrating the Southview Drive/Westview Drive intersection as having Southview Drive as a continuous street with Westview Drive intersecting at a right angle. The Planning Director noted that it appeared the design of the SouthviewDrive layout was the mest controversial issue to arise as a result of the platting proposal. The developer had provided two alternate layouts, The first, alternate A, illustrated a gentle reverse curve proposal. The second, alternate B, illustrated a sharp curve in Southview Drive which was similar to the original proposal but, in this case, provided for a slightly more gentle curve. The Planning Director indicated that although both alternates were acceptable to staff, staff still preferred alternate A primarily from a safety perspective. The following comnents were received from the audience. John Dwyer, Land Surveyor for the developer - Mr. Dwyer indicated that the developer preferred the alternate A street design but would consider a modified alternate B proposal. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING- REZONING FROM R-3 TO R-1 AND PRELIMINARY PLAT BAUER VIEW 2NU ADDITION-WILLARD BAUER Larry McNamara, 1281Southview Drive - Mr. McNamara stated that he, as well as other property owners along Southview Drive preferred alternate B or possibly a modified alternate B street layout. Mr. McNamara requested that the Planning Conmission strongly consider the alternate B street proposal. The Planning Conmtission discussed in length matters pertaining to the park land dedication requirements for this plat. There being no further con~nts from the audience the Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. After further discussion a motion was made by COmmissioner Folch, seconded by Con~issioner Conzemius, to approve the rezoning frc~R-3 to R-1 for the Bauer View 2ndAddition Plat. This motion for approval based on the reasons and conditions outlined below. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; Nayes,0. After continued discussion a motion was made by Cor~nissioner Folch, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approved the preliminary plat for the Bauer View 2nd ~Jdition proposal. This motion for approval is based on the reasons and conditions which are outlined below. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 7; Nayes, Conmissioner Dredge. The motion was approved. The recon~endations for approval of the re~uested rezoning and preliminary plat weremade because they were consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, because they were consistent with the R-1 zoning requirements, and further that there are adequate sanitary sewer, watermains, storm sewer, and transportation facilities available to accomodate the site. In addition, spot zoning was not a consideration in this case due to the compatibility of the proposed zoning with the zoning adjacent to the property in question and due to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. It was recommended that approval be subject to the following conditions and or understandings being i~lemented: That the Alternate B or a modified alternate B street design be implemented with a radius not to exceed 50 feet for the proposed Southview Drive/ Southview Circle intersection. The developer will provide approximately 1 acre of land to meet park land dedication requirements. The developer should note that the NRRC strongely reco~nends to the developer that when, or if, the property is developed on the south side of the Vermillion River that the NRRC will want land for a trail or park purpose. C. The developer is to pay, if applicable, required interceptor sewer charges. Development and construction within the plat shall conform to flood plain regulations. Fill is not to be placed in the flood plain of the Vermillion River. page -2- E. Developer shall plan for and install streets/curb and gutter, sewer and water, storm sewer, etc. in accordance with City requirements. F. An alternate street name to be considered for Southview Circle. G. No homes are to have driveways fronting off of Pleasant Drive. The driveway for lot 2, block ], should front off of Southview Drive. Ho Developer should note that the city strongly suggest that the vacant property to the north of the proposed plat be developed under a detached single family concept, which is consistent with the Hastings Comprehensive Plan. I. Location of watermain looping and necessary easement sizes to be resolved with city engineering and water departments. That a developers agreement be formulated to implement the conditions and understandings mentioned above or those that may be recognized at a later date. The Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. As no comments were received from the audience the Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. In this case Mr. Hernlem is requesting that the City approve a Minor Subdivision of Lot 11, Block 1, Bohlkens First Addition to accomodate the construction of a twin home (duplex) which will permit the individual sale of each unit and related land. The Planning Director noted that the property in question was zoned R-2 which permits two family dwellings. The Planning Director also stated that when the plat for Rohlkens Addition was approved it was noted that the lot in question was to be used specifically for two family dwellings. It was further noted that two seperate sewer/water extensions were made to the property to accomodate each unit in an eventual two family structure. The Planning Director also pointed out that the original property owners had placed restrictive covenants on the property in questions as well as the entire Bohlkens Addition Plat. The Planning Director suggested that the applicant review those covenants. After discussion a motion was made by Comuissioner Conzemius, seconded by Kaiser, to reco~nend approval of the minor subdivision as it appears to meet the original intent of the Bohlkens Addition Plat subject to a zero lot line being established between the two units. Approval is further subject to final review and approval by staff of the proposed legal description and a completion, if necessary, of a Declaration of Minor Subdivision. It is recor~nended that the applicant review the restrictive covenents which have been applied against the property in questions. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; Nayes, 0. PUBLIC HEARING- MINOR SUBDIVISION LOT LOT 11, BLOCK 1, BOHI/KENS FIRST ADDITION-JOHN HERNLEM. page -3- The Chairman opened the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m. There being no continents from the audience the Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Mr. Walker is requesting that the city approve the splitting off of Lot 9 from Lot 10, Block 4, of the H.G. Bailly Addition. PUBLIC HEARING- MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LOT 9 & 10, BLOCK 4 ,BAILLYS ADDITION-WILLIAM WALKER After discussion a motion was made by Con~nissioner Conzemius, seconded by Commissionser Voelker, to approve the splitting off of lot 9 from lot 10, block 4 of the H.G. BaillyAddition. The applicant is to be informed that lots 9 & 10 can only be used for single family purposes. Also lot 9 would require utility service extensions and fill if a hc~e were proposed to be built. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; Nayes,0. Mr. Brownson is requesting a Home Occupation Permit for his hc~e at 302 W. 17th Street to allow him to conduct a locksmith and alarm installation business out of his hc~e. It should be noted that the property in question is owned by the applicants father. The applicant does live on the property in question . According to Mr. Brownson the home occupation involves the making of keys, installing locks, changing locks, installing alarm systems and repairing locks. Mr. Brownson further indicated that most of the activities involved with the home occupation take place in the field away from the home. The applicant proposes to use approximately 100 square feet out of a total of 1600 sq. ft. in the home, for the home occupation activity. The Planning Cc~mission questioned Mr. Brownson on parking needs for the home occupation. HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT-LOCKSMITH AND ALARMBUSINESS DAVID BROWNSON, 302 W. 17TH STREET Residents in the area, namely Ken Judge, Katherine Weiler and Denise Kendall expressed concerns with traffic i~0acts of the hc~e occupation. After discussion a motionwas made by Cc~issioner Dredge, seconded by Co~missioner Anderson, to approve the home occupation permit subject to Mr. Brownson understanding that he must live on the premises in order to be eligible for the home occupation permit. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; Nayes, 0. Con,missioner Kaiser moved, seconded by Conm]issioner Anderson to call a public hearing for April 28, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. regarding a request for a minor subdivision for lots 3 & 4, block 120, Original Plat. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; Nayes, 0. ORDER PUBLIC HEARING-MINOR SUBDIVISION- LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 120, ORIGINAL PLAT AL SIEBEN Cor~nissioner Kaiser moved, seconded by Cc~amissioner Folch to call a public hearing for April 28, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. regarding the request for preliminary plat approval of Highland Hills 3rd Addition. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; Nayes, 0. ORDER PUBLIC HEARING-PRELIMIN- ARY PLAT - HIGHLAND HILLS 3RD ADDITION- S IEWERT CONST. Co~missioner Kaiser moved, seconded by Co~missioner Voelker, to call a public hearing for April 28, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. regarding the request for plat approval of approximately five acres of property located along the Vermillion River south of E. 4th St. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; Nayes, 0. Page -4- ORDER PUBLIC HEARING-PRELIMIN- ARY PLAT-FIVE ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ALONG VERMILLION RIVE~ SOUTH OF E 4TH ST RON SHANDLEY ?laming Director discussed with the Planning Com~isslon a request made by Mrs. Burmeister for an amendment to the citys cc~aprehensive plan and zoning ordinance which would permit her property to be eligible for a possible agricultural preserves designation. The Planning Conlnission noted that this item should be looked into as soon as possible and directed the Planner to investigate the matter. Members of the Planning Committee which studied thismatter noted that they were unable to determine other potential uses for large historic structures in R-2 zones which would not conflict with the residential integrity of that zone. The members of the Planning C°~nmssion further noted that if a use were eventually approved it should be treated as a special use and should be applied for based on the following criteria: A. The home n~st be on the local, state, or national historic register. B. Area traffic cannot be appreciably increased due to the operation of the business. C. No auxiliary buildings should be used as a part of the business. D. Adequate off street parking must be available. E. The proposed use cannot appreciably change the character of the neighborhood. A motion was made by ~ssioner Kaiser, seconded by Conmissioner Dredge to submit the findings of the Planning Commission to the City Council. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; Nayes, 0. The Planning Director discussed with the Planning Conlnission concerns which were recently expressed by the various public safety departments regarding potential conflicts with the County street numbering system in south Hastings. It was determined that a conflict may be possible between the County street numbering system in south Hastings as con~ared to the County street numbering syste~ in Rosemount. After discussion the Planning Cc~nission reco~nended that this matter be referred back to staff for further study. The Planning Director updated the Planning Comnission on recent City Council actions. Co~ssioner Stevens moved, seconded by Commissioner Folch, to adjourn the Planning Comnission meeting at 9:20 p.m. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; Nayes, 0. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE- AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES-IRENE BURMEISTER POSSIBLE USES FOR LARGE HISTORIC STRUCTURES IN R-2 ZONES STREET NUMBERING SYST~4 IN SOUTH HASTINGS. OTHER BUSINESS ADJO~ page -5-