Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/13/87July 13, 19!37 Tile ,Regular :ueeth}, oF tl:e 2l~stin:ss Planning Ca:~mission ~,es called to order ~t 7:~0 p.~. }I~nbers present: Co~nissioner Stevens~ Dredge, ~,~lo~r~ Anderson, Voe!ker and ~ctinl~ Chairnail ?olch. Absent: Co!~missioners Ditty,s~nacek~" and Conzemius Staff Present: Pla~nin,% Director Thomas Han~mnin% nnd Planning intern Steve Bjork. A ~tion was made by Cmmnissioner {(aiser, seconded by Commissioner Stevens to approve the June 22, 1937 Planninz Ccamission minutes. Upon voteta~.en,' '- Ayes, 6; Nayes, O. Acting Chain~mn Folch opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m. Planning Director Uar~nins indicated that Davies Excavating was requestinE a ne~ special use pernit to allow an expansion to be made to the east side of their existing gravel pit alon% East loth Street. The size of the expansion area is approximately 7.5 acres. Harmening explained to the Planning Co.~nission and the audience matters pertaining to recent city action regardinS work which Davies had started in tlne expansion area without the proper per.,~its. Harmening further indicated that a prinary issue with respect to the Davies operation pertained to concerns the County and State had re~arding the impact the existing and proposed pit may have on ground water conditions in the area. Area residents have also expressed concerns regarding ground water impacts. Harmening indicated that Davies had employed a hydrologist and geologist to work with the city, County and State to address t~e hydrology issues. Hani~ening further indicated that a~o this point in time no information or data had been developed for review by the City, County or State. PUBLIC !IEAR!UG-SPECI~L USE PE ~IIT-GRAV~ HIN!UG OPERATIO!I-CS~%H 54-DAVIES EXCAVATIUG Comments which were received ~ ,~ · ro~l the audience included: Sue Sandkamp - Hs. Sandkamp asked various questions regarding the process for reviewing the special use permit as related to ~n~ study being done by the i~ydrole~is~. Planning Director Harmening answered her question. The ~ being no further comments from tine audience Actin!z CnaL nan Folch closed the public hearinz at 7:3~ p.m. After discussion a motion was ~lade by Cmm,~issioner Stevens, seconded by Ccm~issioner Kaiser, to table this .rotter and continue the public hearing until all necessary hydrologic infor,mtion had been developed and provided for review. Upon vote taken, Ayes, ~; !.Iayes, O. Acting Chairman Folch opened ti~e public hearing at 7:50 p. ~. Planning Director !tarmenin~ indicated that on Lot 9, Bloc: 2 constructed. At the ti:ne the building permit application had been made ~ site plan was provided which il~ustragad the ho3~ meeting the proper setbacks. Also, during the tim that footing inspections were .~ade the buildin{ departaent {as shown st,:es Jhich ~{ere supposed go represent the pro?try corners. Based on these stakes the building department interpreted that the ho.lie ;let the DropeF setbacks. Recently, ~ n~ survey was made of the area and it was found that the home was constructed over the c~m~mn lot line of Lots ~ ~ 9 ~ich also ~eant fi~at the hose was constructed over a 10 foot drainage and utility easement lo,ted on the cm~nmon lot line. Mike Williams, Fee Owner of Lot 9, and Art Kruger, Fee %{ncr of Lot S were r~uesting that the city approve a minor subdivision as per a survey which had been made. Harmening indicated that the survey illustrated a ne,{ lot line wl~ich was proposed to only be realigned around the house itself. The 7 foot side setback would appear to be nat by the new b~n~ry line but the required 33 foot rear setback would not be met. Hmtnening further indicat~ that in staffs opinion ~e proposed minor subdivision was not acceptable fr~n the perspective that it did not meet the rear yard setback nor did it provide for a clean and easily discernable boundary between the two lots as well as clearly and easily described legal descriptions. Harmening also indicted that the proposed minor subdivision did not exemplify good planning and subdivision techniques particularly in light of ~e fact that Lot ~ as well as most of the rmnaininZ area had not yet ~en developed. Harmening also noted that prior to the submission of the proposed minor subdivision he had informed ~ue applicant that the proposal ~ffnich was now before the city would not be acceptable. Hannening also provided a drawing of a minor subdivision ~ich had ~en proposed by staff. !n ~dnis case the staff proposal shifted the lot line 14 feet into Lot 8 and ran par~lel with the existing lot line for the entire length of the lot. The 14 foot adjustment assayed that the h~se encroad~ed by 7 feet on Lot 8 and provided for the r~uir~ minim~n setback of 7 feet. Harmening also noted that the City Council would be conducting the r~uired public hearing on the utility and drainage easement question during the Councils July 20th '.~eting. Har~ning indicted tlnat it did not spear that the easement was needed nor would it appear that a n~ ease:~nt would be r~uired to be dedi~ted. Cmnments receiv~ from the audience included: Art Kruger - ~lr. Kruger felt ti~at the city was i~olding up the process and that the proposed minor subdivision was not a bi% problan and should approved by the city as proposed by the applicants. Hike [illiams - !Ir. Uilliams explained the process of ti~e nista{e regarding the building placement and ra~uested approval of the minor subdivision. Hr. Uilliams also offered an alternate suggestion which he r~uested the Planning Cmm~ission consider, in this case ~r. Williams indicated that it was critical that as much of the original frontage of Lot ~ (which was owned by ~rt [(ru2er) be maintained due to the fact that it would be very difficult to fit a home which was proposed to be built by Mr. Kruger on Lot ~ if Lot 3 was shortened by 14 feet for the entire length of the lot. PUBLTC ADDTTTUU - ~I~(E ~Ir. !lilliai~s offered an alternate proposal which in this case would ~naintain the same proposed lot linc fro,'a the ri1~ht of way bhat it r~n parallel wit~u the e×isting lot line 14 feet from the existing lot line to the rear of ti~e lot. The Plannin5 Com:~ission found this to be generally acceptable. As there was no further co;~nents Actin] Ch~ir~nan Foich closed ~he public hearing a~ ~:00 p.~. After discussion a motion was made by Canmissioner Stevens, seconded by Ccr0~missioner Anderson, to not approve the minor subdivision ss originally proposed but to table the matter until a n~ proposal was presented ~ich met city requirements and was in line with the alternate proposal made by Mr. Wii!i~s. Upon vote tn!mn, Ayes, 6; Nayes, 0. Planning Director !lannenin~z indicated that during the ~on~h of June the Planning Department had conducted inspections of 20 boise occupations. Of the 20 i~spected 4 were found to be in violation of the hm~e occupation standards or previous stipulations for approval. During the Councils July 6 meeting the Council chose not to rene~ these four permits. City Council had requested that the Planning C~nission review the four permits and make a recanmendation re!~arding action to be taken. The four home occupations reviewed by the Plannin~ Camnission were as follows: R~/I~'I OF HOME OCCUPATIOU V IOLAT IOL'S 1. Rachel Foster, ~0~ W. 5th St. - Beauty Shon - Harmening indicated ti]at as a condition for approval the City Council required that Foster provide one additional off street parkin~ space. Ha~neninc noted tha~ the additional parking had not yet been cc~mpleted. Harmening also noted t/nat no parking complaints inad been registered with the city. Rachel Foster was in attendance and provided the Planning Cmi~mission with a sketch outlining her intentions to expand the parking. Foster indicated that she could have the parking expansion completed within three wee',:s. After discussion a ~notion was nade by Co~mnissioner Anderson, seconded by C~.mnissio.~er Dredge to recmmmnd that Fosters hame occupation be approved subject to Foster i~aving the required off street psrking installed within four weeks. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; .~ayes, 0. 2. Sheila Hublev, 1104 V, 3rd St. - Beauty Shop- Har. neninz noted that as a condition for approval the City Council r~uired that Hubley widen the driveway to provide additional off street parking. The driveway had not yet been uidened. Ha~;]ening noted that parking complaints had not been registered with the city. Hubleys were in attendance and provided the Pisnnin~ Com,]ission with an alternate sketch for widening the driveway from ~4nat had originally been proposed. Hubley indicated that the driveway could be widened within about three to four weeks. After discussion a motion was nade by Co~%nissioner ~(aiser, seconded by Cammissioner Anderson to rec~nmend that the Hubley ho. ne occupation be approved subject to !tubley installing the required off street parking within four weeks. 3. Andy [<limek. 924 ?i. 14th Street - wood c~rvin~ - ~r. [Ian. nenins indicated that Up. ~limek had called hi~,~ and indicated th~% he taken by the Plannin~ C~nission on this ~na'ote~. 4. [Iirella U, aurus, 92'] U, 14th St, - Upho!ster¥ b~siness - Harmenin% indicated that ?,aurus was conducting this business in an attaci~ed ~arage. This action was in violation of the home occupation standards. Haurus was not in atte~ance to discuss this with the Planning Co~nission. After discussion a motion was made by Cmmnissioner Kaiser, seconded by Caamissioner Voelker to table this ~mtter and request that Maurus be in attendance at the next meeting such that the Planning C~i~nission could fully understand the Haur~s situation. Planning Director Harmening indicated ti~at Jerome Murtaugh was requesting that the City of Hastings grant him a variance from the side yard corner lot setback r~uiranents. Tne Murtaughs live at the corner of 14th St. and the unimproved Prairie Street right of way. Har~,mning noted that in Hay, 19~7 tine Murtaughs and Mrs. Philip Jesme requested that the City Council vacate all of the Prairie Street right of way located between 14th St. and the Hastings Senior High property. The Council felt it would be appropriate to vacate the entire street since a storm sewer line and walkway was in place on the property. The Council chose to vacate only the 11 feet on the east and west sides of the property with the understanding that the Murtaughs would need a future setback variance. As a result of this vacation, the Hurtaughs now own the eleven feet on tine east side of Prairie Street. Prior to this action the Murtaugh home was $.79 feet from the lot line. With the acquisition of the 11 feet tine home is now at 19.79 feet frmn the lot line. The Murtaugi~s are now proposing to build a 10 foot addition on the west side of their home. This would result in the home being 9.79 feet fro~ ti~e lot line. The zoning ordinance requires a 15 foot setback on corner lots. Therefore, the ~.Iurtaughs were requesting a variance of 3.21 feet from the required 15 feet. After discussion a motion was made by Co~nissioner Stevens, seconded by Cc~nissioner Kaiser to recanmend approval of the variance due to the special conditions and circ~nstances associated with this case based in part on the fact that Prairie Street would not be improved for street purposes. Plannin~ Director Har:nening india~ted that Hastings Construction was requestin] that the Planning Comnission order a public hearing to consider the replat of a portion of the Dakota View 1st Addition Plat which was approved in the Winter/Spring of 1957. The portion tTnich was proposed for replatting was the Pringle Court Cul de sac. In this case the Developer w~s proposing to replat the ct~l-de-sac to provide for 24 twin home units rather than the 16 units which were previously approved. VARI~aDICE R~UEST-StDE YARD COR[,IER LOT SETBACK - JERRY ~JRTAUGH, 948 W. 14%~ ST. ORDER PUBLIC HEARIUG DAKOTA VIE/ 2[~D ADDITiOU !IA'~T I?~GS ~STRUCTiO'.'I The Planning Director and the Piano,ins Commission di.scwssed in iength ~natters pertaining to ~he proposed devel0~nent as related to the R-1 standards, the Cmnprehe:~sive Pla.~, and the planned residential develo[~nent process. !tar.lening noted that the Developer was proposin~ lots which would only encompass the actual location of the immea. ~armenin2 i~dicated that this was a very common practice in t~in ho~ne and t~,~nhome develo_n,~enta. Due to the proposed platting arrangemet~t Harnening noted that it was difficult to project whether the deveio.unent net the minimm~ requir~ents for the R-1 Zone. Harmening indicated that the Comprei~ensive Plan requires that single family areas not be developed at a density greater than 3 to 4 units per acre. Based on this density requir~nent, which was consistent with the R-1 zonin~ standards, Harmening noted that only 22 units would appear to be eligible for this cul de sac under a PRD basis. ~erefore two units would have to be dropped from the original proposal. After discussion a motion was ~ade by Cmnmissioner Dredge, seconded by C~mnissioner Kaiser to order that the required public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat be held at 7:30 p.n. on July 27, 1987 subject to ~he Developer revising the preli:.ninary plat to illustrate o~y 22 units. The Developer was to have the revised preliminary plat to the Piannin~ Director by noon of July 20. Upon vote taken, ~Jes, 5; ~layes, 0. ~e Planning Director indicated Phat !(eh Grund, ~nree Rivers Mobile H~ne Park, was requesting tha~ thc Planning Commission order a p~blic hearing on the proposed rezoning from Ag to R-5 of 11.26 acres of land located directly west of the existing ~ree Rivers ~.]obile 'dome Park. The Planning Director discussed matters pertaininS to the previous history of the Three Rivers Mobile Home Park and the originally proposed Sonden !~obile Ho. ne Park. Planning Director also discussed mat~ers pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, screening and buffering, and the proposed fire lane. After discussion a motion was made by Canmissioner Anderson, seconded by Cmm~issioner Stevens, to order a public hearing on this matter for 7:30 p.m. on July 27, 19~7. Upon vote taken, Ayes, ~; Nayes, 0. OR~ER PUBLIC HEARI~.IG- R~ONZ.UG-~O TO R-5 - PROPERTY ~DJACE?~T TO THE ~REE RIVERS MOBILE !t9~E PAR!(-!~I GRUi~D, RIVERS MOBILE HOHE Planning Director Harmening and Planning Intern Bjork provided the Plannin~ Ccnzmissio~ with information pertaining to the city's planning and zoning fees as relata~d to fees charged in o~her cm'nn~nities. Harnening also discussed ~tters pertaining to the expenses the city incurred with respect to processing various types of planning and zoning applications. Har~ning suggested that the Planning Co~znission consider having a public hearing on the potential for raising plam~ing and zoning fees such t~at local developers and interested persons could provide cmn.,~ent. After discussion, a motion was nade by Cmm~issioner Anderson, seconded by Cm~znissioner Kaiser to order a public hearin~ be held on this ~mtter for the Ptannia~ Cm-.~nissions August 10, 19~7 meeting. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 6; i~ayes, 0. DISCUSBIOU 0~ PLA~tII~'IG ~2!D ZO~II~!G ~ES oeeu~tio'ns i~dthin the City of [{astinjs. C~missioner REPORT Xaiser also provided a preliminary statanent re%ardinz i~o:ne occupations as prepared by the C~'nmittee studying home occupations. NO further action was taken by the Planning Coh~:nission. Plannin,~ Director Har, aenins u!}dahed the Planning n '~': ~ ~' on recent actions t~keu by the City Council and on the proposed Hastings ~totel. O~:,~R BUSI l:.~o/U DAT:~ There being no further business a :notion was m~de by Canmissioner Kaiser, seconded by Cmm~issioner Dredge to adjourn the neetin's 2~ ' , Jayeo, O. at 9:-~ p.m..Jpon vote taken, Ayes, 5 .... ADJOUR.I: