Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/28/04 Hastings Planning Commission June 28, 2004 Regular Meeting 7:00 pm Chairperson Greil called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. 1.Roll Call Commissioners Present: Alongi, Twedt, Greil, Hollenbeck, Schmitt, McInnis Commissioner Absent: Truax Staff Present: Planning Director John Hinzman, Associate Planner Kris Jenson, Planning Intern Courtney Wiekert 2.Approve June 14, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting Motion by Commissioner Alongi, seconded by Hollenbeck to approve the minutes of the June 14, 2004 Planning Commission as presented by staff. Motion passed unanimously. OTHER ACTIONS 3.Eischen Cabinet Company – Site Plan #2004-32 – Construction of a Manufacturing\Warehouse Building – 625 Commerce Drive. Planner Jenson presented a brief summary on the Site Plan review for the construction of Eischen Cabinet building. She stated that the City Council has approved the subsidy agreement for the industrial park location. She commented they do have an existing building next to the proposed building. She included that the applicants have discussed putting a covered walkway between the buildings in the future and requested the Planning Commission to allow the Planning Director to review and approve the proposal for architectural compatibility prior to the issuance of a building permit Commissioner Twedt asked if the grading, drainage and erosion control have to approve by the public works before Planning Commission can approve this plan. Director Hinzman clarified that the engineers can approve that after if the Planning Commission approves this site plan. He stated that it would be included as one of the conditions to the approval and the applicants would not 2 be able to build on the site until the City Engineers approve the grading, drainage and erosion control. Commissioner Alongi asked if the Commissioners need to know where the waste disposals will be located before they make any recommendations. Paul Eischen from Eischen Cabinets clarified the waste disposals will be located on the inside of the buildings, similar to the disposals on the existing buildings. Planning Commission Action: Commissioner Schmitt moved and Commissioner McInnis seconded the motion to recommend approval of the Site Plan for Eischen Cabinet Company, with the following conditions, to the City Council. 1)Adherence to the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Architectural Elevations as presented to the City Council. 2)All disturbed areas on this property shall be stabilized with rooting vegetative cover to eliminate erosion problems. 3)The disturbed areas of the site shall be maintained to the requirements of the City’s property maintenance ordinance. 4)Final approval of the development grading and utility plans by the City of Hastings. The applicant shall be liable for any costs involved in consultant review of the plans. 5) All rooftop equipment shall be screened by a parapet wall from areas facing a public right-of-way, and painted to match the building elsewhere. 6) All waste enclosures shall be enclosed on all four sides to fully screen the contents, and constructed with exterior materials to match the primary building. 7)All parking and drive aisle areas shall be constructed to city standards including concrete curb and bituminous surfacing. 8)The sizes, species, and method of installation for all landscaping must be identified. 9)All landscaped areas must be irrigated. 10)A photometric plan for any parking lot lighting must be submitted for approval by the Planning Director prior to installation. 11)Any uncompleted site work (including landscaping) must be escrowed at 125 percent of the estimated value prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3 12)Submission of an electronic copy of all plan sets (TIF, PDF, or similar format) prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 13) Any future construction of a covered walkway between the buildings must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director for architectural compatibility prior to the issuance of a building permit. 14) Any signage on the site is required to obtain a sign permit from the Planning Department prior to being erected on site. 15) Approval is subject to a one year Sunset Clause; if significant progress is not made towards construction of the proposal within one year of City Council approval, the approval is null and void. Upon vote taken: Ayes: 6, Nays: 0. Motion passed. 4. Hastings Inn – Building Setback Determination #2004-33 – Reconstruction of Destroyed Building on Former Site – 1520 Vermillion Street. Director Hinzman presented a brief summary and background on the Hastings Inn. He identified the property lines and the locations of the existing buildings and the destroyed building. He clarified that according to the Building Official, construction of the destroyed buildings at the same location with the same materials would not be allowed under the current building code. Chairman Greil asked what would be the adequate setbacks for the building inspector to approve the reconstruction of Hastings Inn. He clarified by asking if the staff could give a basic setback requirement. Director Hinzman stated that it would depend on the building size and materials used on the building. He stated the setback requirements in the city code for residential use are set at 20 feet in the front, 10 feet on the side, and 20 feet in the rear. Commissioner Alongi asked Fred Tomas, from Claim Adjustment Services Inc., what would be the affects if the Commissioners approved the denial on the setbacks. Fred Tomas, from Claim Adjustment Services, Inc., stated the owners would like to rebuild the site; however denial would be preferred and needed for the Insurance Company. Planning Commission Action Commissioner Alongi moved and Commissioner Hollenbeck seconded the motion to recommend denial of the building setbacks to reconstruct the destroyed building to the City Council. 4 Upon vote taken: Ayes: 6, Nays: 0. Motion passed. 5.MW Johnson construction – Site Plan #2004-32 – Construction of Attached Townhomes – Lots 1-15, Block 4, Riverwood 7 Addition – 36 Street. thth Planner Jenson summarized the Site Plan for the construction of attached townhomes for both Riverwood 7 and South Oaks 2 Addition. She reviewed thnd the issues that were stated by the Commissioners and residence from the May 10, 2004 meeting. She also showed colored photos of the proposed townhomes th the staff received today. Chairman Greil stated that this item is not a public hearing. He announced that the Commissioners have received new more information tonight. He asked the audience if there was anyone who was not opposed to the project and would like them to speak first. Mark Gergen, with MW Johnson, stated that they had a few neighborhood meetings and the last one was held last night, Sunday. He said that they will try and make a better presentation and added a few changes to the architecture. He showed the materials they will be using with the color differentiation. He clarified that the buildings can only change to a certain point because the curb cuts are already located for Riverwood 7 Addition. He stated that Building #1, th from his new handouts, would be the first buildings for South Oaks 2 nd Addition. Commissioner Twedt asked if MW Johnson has met with staff to clarify the changes needed from the last Planning Commission meeting. Director Hinzman stated that MW Johnson has met with staff and talked about them needing to add and change the building materials, add different colors, and add more breaks in the roof lines. He stated that the staff still does not feel the developers have met these changes. Commissioner Twedt asked Mr. Gergen how much the cost is for these changes to this development. Mr. Gergen stated that with the changes he has added, it has been about $5000 per unit in Riverwood 7 and about $3000-$4000 per unit in the South Oaks 2 thnd Addition. However, they would try not to add the cost to the new homeowners. He commented that he felt there was misinformation to the residents. He stated that he believes the residents thought these lots would always be empty. Commissioner Alongi asked staff when in the process does the developer put in curb cuts. Director Hinzman responded the curb cuts are placed when the subdivision was platted. Curb cuts are placed on the engineering plans. He clarified for this area it would have been in 1997 – 2002. 5 Chairman Greil asked staff what happens next if the Commissioners approved or denied these proposals. Director Hinzman stated that these items would be brought to the City Council. He clarified that if these items are denied, the Commissions will need to provide a reason for the denials. Commissioner Alongi stated he would like to hear from a couple of neighbors. Joe Boche, 3558 Greten Lane, stated that he did attend one of the neighborhood meetings, but he was not there at last nights meeting. He stated he did not feel the developers have met the expectations on changing the architect. He believes the developers are doing minimal changes since they already sold the properties. Dan Dancer, 3466 Olson Drive, stated that he was at the neighborhood meeting last night. He commented that there was considerable change to the design of the townhomes and he understands the developer’s point of view. Todd Syverson, 1156 Sherman Way, stated that he does have interest in these townhomes since he may purchase one in the future. He understands people want $300,000 -$400,000 next to $300,000 homes, but it is not required by the city. He feels that developers have come a long way in changing the architect of the townhomes. Dave Bacca 3582 Gretten Lane, felt the developers did dress up the units. He feels that there will be $300,000 homes next to units that will be under $200,000. He asked Commissioners to reconsider the area to fit the neighborhood better. He understands the curb cuts are there, but would like Commissioners to make sure plans are not over looked for future development. Andy Benish, 3536 Greten LN, stated that Mr. Bacca provided the developers with pictures. He stated that he told the developers he would be happy to be involved with the process. He claimed that the developers promised more neighborhood meetings and pictures would be updated. He claimed that these things did not happen. The developers set up a neighborhood meeting, but only gave the residents about 2-days of notice. He does not feel the developers met the criteria and is not happy with the developers. Mr. Gergen commented that these townhomes range for a limited population and the floor plans of these designs are very desired by the public. He apologized about the pictures stating that it took longer for them to make the changes and print them out in color for the residents. Mr. Boche asked to add trees backing up to the park. He noted that plans were for ideas of rooflines and front elevation treatment. Commissioner Alongi asked if there was anything else put in at the site besides the curb cuts. 6 Director Hinzman stated that the only thing that is set on the site is the curb cuts, utilities and property line locations. Commissioner Alongi asked why they only these plans are being used for these sites and why they can’t bring a totally different plan or other alternative plans. Mr. Gergen replied that they want these price ranges for these locations and they don’t want to change the price range. He stated that 35 Street didn’t accomplish th breaking up patterns of the townhomes and thought about adding trees. He offered to plant trees for the city along the property line. Commissioner Alongi stated that there are no breaks on the roof and asked if it would be significantly costly to put breaks on the roof lines. Mr. Gergen stated that there are breaks on the roof lines, but they are difficult to see them in the photographs. He stated the photos didn’t accomplish the change in the view of the buildings. Chairman Greil asked what buildings are east of the yellow lots. Director Hinzman stated there were plans for single-family development. However, the developers have not brought any plans to the department and with the Sunset Clause in place, it will expire soon. Planning Commission Action Commissioner Twedt moved and Commissioner Greil seconded the motion to recommend approval, with the 6 conditions, to the City Council. Discussion Commissioner Alongi requested for a no vote or denial of the proposal. He does not feel they have done enough to change the architect and feels they can do more. Commissioner Greil stated that developers need to listen to the residence more and that they need more creativity in their designs. Commissioner McInnis feels there have been changes; however the roof lines are the same and have not been changed since the May 10 meeting. He doesn’t feel th there is a lot of differences in the color and the developers should work with the community more. Commissioner Schmitt asked how long they have before their site plans are expired. Director Hinzman replied that the State Statute allows 60-days with a 60-day extension. He clarified that the city has sent MW Johnson a letter regarding the 7 expiration date arriving and they have about 60-days left before the expiration date arrives. Commissioner Alongi asked what will happen when the 60 days are up. Director Hinzman stated that the city must make a decision or it is approved as is. Upon vote taken: Ayes: 2, Nays: 4, Alongi, Hollenbeck, McInnis, and Schmitt dissenting. Motion denied. Planning Commission Action Commissioner McInnis moved and Commissioner Greil seconded the motion to recommend denial, based on the architectural changes are not adequate, to the City Council. Upon vote taken: Ayes: 5, Nays: 1, Twedt dissenting. Motion passed. 6.MW Johnson Construction – Site Plan #2004-24 – Construction of Attached Townhomes – Lots 1-14, Block 6, South Oaks 2 Addition – Century Drive. nd PLEASE VIEW COMMENTS FROM ITEM #5, MW JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN #2004-23. Planning Commission Action Commissioner McInnis moved and Commissioner Greil seconded the motion to recommend denial of the construction of the attached townhomes based on the inadequate amount of changes to the architectural standard to the City Council. Upon vote taken: Ayes: 5, Nays: 1, Twedt dissenting. Motion passed. 7.Lawrence Builders – Site Plan #2004-21 – Construction of two 36 unit condominium buildings – Whispering Lane at Crestview Drive. Director Hinzman summarized and provided background information on the 36- unit condominium. He provided comments from the June 14, 2004 meeting from the residents and talked about outstanding issues the Planning Commission asked from the June 14 meeting. Chairman Greil asked Director Hinzman if he received and read the letters that the Commissioners just received from Foster & Brever Attorney office and a letter regarding the comparison of property values. 8 Director Hinzman stated that he has received these letters; however, he has only been able to briefly skim through the letters. He has not been able to read the letters completely. Chairman Greil asked who in the audience wrote up the property value comparison and asked them to come up talk about it. Larry Christianson at 275 Whispering LN., stated he was the person who gave the Commissioners the letter regarding the property value comparisons. He stated that there was no place in the city that was a good comparison, but thought that Bahl’s Drive was the closest area. He stated that he used property values based on Dakota County’s information. With his research he concluded that homes in the area with multi-family development in the area resulted in a 69% loss in property value. He asked the Commissioners if they were to approve the building of multi-family homes that they would improve the architectural elevation. Attorney Robert Foster from Foster & Brever stated that he has received a number of complaints from residents regarding the development of this site. Normally he helps developers’ cases, not the residents. He talked about how past residential projects used buffering methods by developing single-family next to twin homes and multi-family development next to these homes. He feels that it would not be right to put multi-family next to higher end single-family homes such as these on Whispering Lane. He feels there is no attempt on the developers to place a buffering such as berms or trees to the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that the Commissioners do have the right to deny this plan and it is outlined in his letter. Commissioner Alongi asked about the analysis for placing a no vote on this development. He clarified that Mr. Foster has outlined the legal rights to be able to vote against this type of development. He asked what would be the nuisance argument for this type of development in this area. Mr. Foster stated that he feels there is not enough buffering for this development and that would be the argument since it is a large development next to the single-family homes. Commissioner Greil asked Mr. Foster for his legal knowledge on what the responsibility of the homeowners are on learning about the surrounding properties when there are empty lots. He asked if it is the City’s responsibility if the homeowners do not research on potential new development and then later try to stop these new developments. Mr. Foster stated that initially the single-family homes were platted as twin homes; however, the developer felt it was more appealing to develop single- family homes. He stated homeowners are placing their responsibility back to the 9 Commission to make the right choices for their city and ensure the quality of their neighborhoods. Commissioner Schmitt stated that he feels the developers have not addressed some of the concerns the residence had regarding the development. He feels the parking situation is still outstanding and the developer should incorporate sidewalks or trails for the residence. He also does not feel the architectural standards have not been addressed from the applicant. Director Hinzman stated that Featherstone Road is 4 feet wider than the standard requirement to accommodate additional traffic flow. He clarified that sidewalks and trails are constructed along collector roads and parks as stated in the policy. He stated that there are sidewalks along Featherstone Road and 4 Street. He th also clarified that the developers have met the parking requirements for their development. Dave Harris, Lawrence Builders architect identified the homes that are within impact of the condominium development. He clarified that these all the homes in the area were built after 1986 when the original plan for multi-family building was approved. He showed a colored picture of what the condominium building would look like and established that the applicant has met all the city’s requirements and exceeded the City’s standards for buffering the condominium development. He verified the architectural elevations have exceeded above the City’s architectural standards by 385% and feels they did exceed all they needed to fit the neighborhood. Commissioner Alongi asked about the 90 unit building and if they had garages or if they were all surface parking on the picture. Mr. Harris stated the site plan showed only surface parking for the development. Commissioner Alongi asked about the separation on the garage stall and why the separation was needed. Mr. Harris stated that there are obstacles with placing the garage stalls together. He clarified there would be drainage issues, development, access and circulation issues and if the garages were placed together the roof peaks would be higher and more visible. Commissioner Alongi asked if Mr. Harris has ever placed 3-story buildings, such as this one, next to single-family homes. Mr. Harris stated that with all the projects he has completed he does not know if he has developed a 3-story building next to single-family homes. Commissioner Alongi asked what legal grounds the Commissioners have if they wish to deny this proposal. Chairman Greil clarified that if the Commissioners denied this development it would not be based on the density, but would be the architectural standard next 10 to this type of single-family development. He stated the architectural elevations need to be changed and improved to be sufficient with the neighborhood. He asked the Commissioner to take action to forward this the City Council and clarified to the audience and Commissioners that the Planning Commissioners’ decisions are only a recommendation to the Council. Mr. Christianson stated that he does not believe in the traffic study. He stated that the study showed only 44 cars traveling in the morning is not adequate. He felt that more than 44 cars traveled in the morning. He also feels that travelers drive quickly down Whispering Lane. He feels there needs to be limitations for parking on the streets. He showed a development plan with underground parking, appealing architectural elevations, and more trees. He stated that this development was more appealing to the neighborhood than what was proposed by Lawrence Builders. He stated that the Planning Commission and City Council asked these developers to enhance the brick to 50%. He stated that veneer brick was not suitable for the neighborhood. He stated the neighborhood would rather see a 2-story building instead of a 3-story building. He made a request to change the location of the entrances and asked the developers to install sidewalks at their expense. He asked the staff if a study has been done the drainage and recommended the city to install stop signs on Whispering Lane and Featherstone Road. Director Hinzman stated that Mr. Christianson has put a lot of effort in researching this development. He commented that underground parking is not required for applicants and is their discretion to place underground parking on their site. He clarified that Lawrence Builders are installing 3” diameter trees instead of only 2” trees as required by the city code. He also clarified the architectural standards based on the city code. Hinzman clarified that the city conducts the traffic study and it is not done or hired by the developers. Developers may pay for the traffic study, but the city contracts for it. Commissioner Schmitt stated he does not care for this development in this neighborhood. He stated the city has architectural standards; however he feels the standards are set too low. He feels the city needs to revise the architectural standards in order to fit the city’s expectations. Commissioner Alongi feels the Planning Commissioners has the right to deny this site plan. He feels there is a way for the developers, Commissioners and residents can work together to improve the development. Planning Commission Action Commissioner Alongi moved and Commissioner McInnis seconded the motion to recommend denial of the construction of the 36-unit condominiums based on the following conditions to the City Council. 11 1)The site plan does not meet the landscaping and berming conditions placed upon the 1986 Preliminary Plat approval. 2)Increase in traffic from the development would cause a negative effect on the neighborhood. Upon vote taken: Ayes: 4, Nays: 1, Abstain: 1, Hollenbeck dissenting and Twedt abstaing. Motion passed. 8.Review Planning commission Workshop Agenda – July 12, 2004. Planning Director Hinzman outlined the agenda items for the July 12 planning workshop. He asked the Commissioners if they would like any other items they wish to discuss for the workshop. Chairman Greil asked if we would meet in the Chambers or if it would be in another room. Director Hinzman stated that the Commissioners and Staff can meet in the Spiral Bridge Room. 9.Other Business Director Hinzman updated the Commissioners the City Council has adopted the changes from the moratorium. The Council also approved the park dedication rates, American Legion deck and the annexation for the Vitt Property. He also mentioned the meeting that was happening upstairs with Sherman Associates and the downtown redevelopment project. He stated that he will update the Planning Commission on the comments at a later date. Adjournment With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:49 pm. Respectfully submitted, _________________________________ Courtney Wiekert Recording Secretary