Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMinutes-20060410Hastings Planning Commission April 10, 2006 Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. Chairman Twedt called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 1. Roll Call Commissioners Present: Peine, Zeyen, Truax, Twedt, Schmitt, McInnis, Hiedeman Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Planning Director John Hinzman, Administrative Assistant Samantha Schmidtke 2. Approve March 27, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Motion by Commissioner Truax, second by Commissioner McInnis to approve the minutes of the March 27, 2006 Planning Commission meeting as presented. Upon vote taken, Ayes: 7, Nays 0. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. City of Hastings – Ordinance Amendment #2006-18 – Section 10.08 – Public Institution Signs Director Hinzman presented the staff report. Chairman Twedt opened and closed the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. No one spoke during the public hearing. Commissioner Truax stated that if this amendment was approved it would open up a can of worms. He added that he was opposed to the amendment especially after all the work he and the other Commissioners put into the current sign ordinance a few months ago. Commissioner McInnis stated that he feared that if this amendment was approved the current YMCA would be next; wanting to put up multiple signage. The city would become a billboarded city. Signage should only be allowed/permitted where the business front exists. Commissioner Truax added that if this amendment were passed then the LeDuc property could very well put up 4 signs. Planning Commission Action: Commissioner Truax moved and Commissioner McInnis second the motion to recommend denial of the amendment to the PI zoning district sign regulations. Upon vote taken, Ayes: 5 (Truax, McInnis, Peine, Hiedeman, Zeyen), Nays: 1 (Twedt), Abstentions: 1 (Schmitt). Motion passed 4. Todd Siewert – Rezoning/Preliminary Site Plan #2006-01 – Fountain Meadows Director Hinzman presented the staff report. Chairman Twedt opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. Several from the audience came up to the podium to speak. Dan Tilsen, GGG Engineering, Developer’s Engineer, stated a secondary access st connection to 31 Street was drawn as directed by the City. The road is 418 feet in length from the north to the south property line. He offered an alternative sketch showing the original 48 unit plan with two connections to Tiffany\Douglas Drives. He said that they felt the original layout of 48 town homes with a modified double entrance would serve emergency vehicles and entrances from 2 directions. With this layout the amount of green space significantly increases along with a major ponding area. They would be able to remodel the home on st 31 St. E instead of tearing it down. If the road option were chosen units would have to be removed from the plan, as there wouldn’t be room to have them 3- st wide. When the house on 31 St. East came up for sale if presented an st opportunity for drainage for the larger site, as storm sewer was available on 31 that could handle the drainage issues. The current lots already drain towards st that direction on 31. st Steve Richter, 360 31 St. East, lives just west of the proposed development and had also sent Director Hinzman an e-mail letter that was included in the Commissioners packet. Mr. Richter stated that he felt the density of the proposed development was outrageous for this property. He wanted to know if the plans had been looked at by emergency services (fire and police). He was surprised to now see that a 56-unit development was being proposed instead of the original 48. The new plan provides no usable green space for children to play on. He stated that 56 units with 2 cars per home equal a lot of cars in a small place. He said Siewert was stating there are a lot of trees on the property when in reality he is taking credit for quite a few scrub trees. He ended by saying he didn’t want this to turn into low-income transient housing, which he felt it would and that we should not be subject to this. Clayton McDougall, 3442 Cory Lane, stated that people would cut across his property to reach the park or road, that people will get into their town homes associations enclosed garbage area and dump their own garbage, and that children would trespass onto other people’s property and that the town home owners would be held responsible if they got hurt. He requested that if this project was passed that he and the other town home owners in the area would like to see a fence erected to provide protection from too many people and soundproofing. He said that with 56 units and summer coming, windows will be open and music playing there will be a big change in the noise level that currently exists in that neighborhood. He requested that sound levels be examined. He ended by saying that 6 8-unit building was too many. Now7 8- unit building is way too many. Charles Curtis, 3512 Douglas Drive, stated that this proposed development put too many people into a small area. He continued by saying that they already get people from other areas cutting thru their yard (s). He said this would become another Cari Park and that is something they don’t want. st Les Olson, 460 31 St. E, asked what equation was used to determine how many exits a development had. Director Hinzman responded that the number of frontages was a determining factor as well as others. Mr. Olson mentioned Glendale Heights, how large it was the hundreds of homes it has and the low number of entrance/exit points compared to the Fountain Meadows proposed development. Director Hinzman answered that additional roads will be built in that area in dedicated right-of-way upon future development of the industrial park. The bluff and the wildlife management area are also not usable for entrance/exit roads for Glendale Heights. Mr. Olson state that both he and his neighbor had several grandchildren and with the playground so near and now the proposed ponding basin could the storm water run off be diverted to underground instead of an above ground holding pond? Director Hinzman stated that storm runoff would run directly into the city’s infrastructure. Mr. Olson asked about the pond and how it will be designed, if it will hold water or not, he then voiced several concerns about standing stagnant water and mosquitoes. Director Hinzman responded that the design and the subsoil are factors that determine whether or not a pond is a dry pond or one that holds water. Dan Tilsen came forward and offered further insight on ponding basins. He stated that there are requirements by the MPCA for storm water and ponds. You may not increase the amount of water that flows to your neighbor when developing an area. The water must be slowly released. To accomplish this ponding basins are utilized for several reasons. They act as a filtration system, capturing storm run off, filtering it, and slowly releasing it into the city’s storm sewers before ending up being dumped into the Mississippi River. This pond is being designed as a dry pond- the soils below it are very sandy. He said that it would be a miracle if the pond held water for anytime due to the soil conditions. Mr. Olson asked why there aren’t any ponds in Glendale Heights. Mr. Tilsen replied that there are 7 ponds in that development. He added that Todd Siewert, developer of Fountain Meadows, would like to install a small liner in the bottom of this pond, while it is designed to not hold water, so some water is retained and a fountain could be installed. The fountain would aerate the water and help alleviate stagnant water. st Gary Dunkel, 420 E. 31 St. - raised his concerns about the removal of the clay down to the sand and the grading. He felt that if that were to take place his backyard would be full of water. Mr. Tilsen replied that the current lay of the land directs the water to drain to the north. Any excess water would be diverted to a pond in the northern part of the development. Mr. Dunkel asked where are the kids of the families of this development going to play? There is no greenspace. He asked about who will maintain the pond area. He stated that the development was way too overdone. He asked whether these new homes would be for sale or for rent. Todd Siewert, Developer of Fountain Meadows - replied that the homes would be for sale. They are designed to be 2-story market rate town homes. He stated that if anyone were interested they could go over to the Bailey Ridge development here in town and look at those homes. Fountain Meadows homes will be designed similar to Bailey Ridge. He said he wants Fountain Meadows to be a welcome area with a fountain and nice signage at the entrance and natural fencing surrounding it. He stated that he wants screening around the development as much as others do. He referred back to Bailey Ridge and said that he doesn’t see any problems with crime there. Those residents were a nice diverse group. Mr. Dunkel wanted to know what kind of landscaping would be put in place to prevent a super highway of foot traffic thru his yard as people walked into town. Mr. Siewert responded that he felt Fountain Meadows would be a typical quiet development. Mr. Dunkel asked if the road to the north goes in then he could kiss all those trees along his adjoining property line goodbye. Mr. Siewert responded that he would like to keep the integrity intact . Mr. Dunkel replied that if 40 trees were indeed going to be removed then his property will lose value and it will end up costing him a lot of money. He stated that he can’t afford to lose any more trees. Director Hinzman stated that if a road were to be put in that the critical root zones of affected trees would have to be identified and protected. Mr. Olson added that if the road was put in to the north it would also decrease his property value and the loss of trees would add to that loss. st Jim Biegel, 200 31 St. E.: stated that he sees people driving past his driveway all day long at 80 miles per hour. He doesn’t want any more traffic and he doesn’t want anymore housing. He felt the development would dump his property values. He said there are already approximately 100 town homes for sale in Hastings already- how is the developer going to sell 48 more? st Steve Richter, 360 31 St. E.: told everyone to look at a photo of the lots in question now and another photo after the development is built and see what they think then. No other comments were received from the public and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Truax stated that there were really 3 plans being presented to the Planning Commission tonight. Director Hinzman replied that there are 3 different options: 1. 46 unit development with 2 entrances 2.46 unit development with 1 entrance 3.56 unit development with 2 entrances Commissioner McInnis stated that the previous plan was not favored because of the traffic concerns on Tiffany and Douglas Drives. What is evident is that there is a 4-fold problem. Density would have to decrease. The dual entrance doesn’t alleviate the traffic concerns on Tiffany and Douglas. He felt that most drivers would not use Douglas- 316 would be used to access Tiffany. A sidewalk or trail along a public street would help with foot traffic. Mr. Tilsen stated that the north ponding basin is a requirement for storm water management. It will have to be there in some fashion. The real problem is fitting in the right-of-way between the north and south ends. He further stated that fitting a road and pond in the north end of the development would jepordize the right-of-way of more than 100 trees located west of the area in question. The number of units would have to be reduced which would then cause the development to become uneconomical to be built in the city. He continued by stating that there are different ways to view the issues at hand. There is currently a program in place called Crime Free Multi-Housing. It states that a single entrance into a housing development is more easily controlled by neighborhood group and police. He added that 48 homes is a low number for a single entrance. Many different agenda’s are at play here. Commissioner Schmitt asked if the width of Tiffany Drive was substantial enough to handle this increase in traffic. Director Hinzman replied that yes he felt it could handle an increase in traffic. Commissioner Schmitt asked if Tiffany can handle it what about a private road to st 31 St. E.? Director Hinzman stated that the connection between the 2 public roads would be optimal. st Commissioner Schmitt questioned the necessity of putting a road thru to 31 St. E if Tiffany can handle this increase in traffic. Commissioner Hiedeman asked what the density is for the 48-unit plan. Director Hinzman answered that it is 8.7 homes/acre. Commissioner Twedt stated that the Planning Commission has now entertained 2 or 3 different plans for Fountain Meadows. The time has come to wade through and pick one. He believes that the developer and the city should come to the Planning Commission and to the City Council with a plan that can be reacted to. Planning Commission Action: Commissioner Schmitt moved and Commissioner Hiedeman second the motion to recommend approval of the 48-unit plan with 2 entrances st onto Tiffany Drive with a walking path to 31 St. including conditions listed in the staff report. Upon vote taken, Ayes: 6 (Schmitt, Hiedeman, Peine, Zeyen, Truax, Twedt), Nays: 1 (McInnis). Motion passed 5. Jeff Thompson - #2006-19 – Featherstone Oaks Final Plat Director Hinzman presented the staff report. Commissioner Schmitt asked if the proposed development would provide an emergency exit onto Featherstone Road. Director Hinzman replied that there would be. He also stated that the road width was adjusted to 28 feet, only one side parking would be allowed and a homeowners association would maintain the development. Planning Commission Action: Commissioner Schmitt moved and Commissioner Zeyen second the motion to recommend approval of the final plat with the 12 recommended conditions. Upon vote taken, Ayes: 7, Nays 0. Motion passed 6. Lawrence Builders – Site Plan - #2006-15 – Bahls Drive Director Hinzman presented the staff report. Commissioner Twedt asked what is a usual and customary separation between commercial and residential areas. Director Hinzman replied that a street is the usual and customary separator between the two developments. Dan Tilsen, GGG Engineering and engineer for the developer Lawrence Builders, referred to the Lawrence Builders letter that was included in the packet. He outlined the letter and emphasized the building’s handsome buffer between the adjacent town homes and businesses. He further stated that the building was designed so that it is tucked into the hill with the smallest/least exposed part of the building facing the south; the location of the town homes. The building is only one story in height in the front and a story exposed in the back. The existing town home development has a berm placed in their backyards that would prohibit the town homeowners from seeing anything but the top of the proposed office building. He continued by stating that Lawrence is providing a buffer between the residential and commercial areas. He went on to state that the current set back rules are arbitrary and there is some wiggle room so-to- speak in the current ordinance. He commented that you (the city) could see another commercial building on this site with a much more industrial look instead of what is being offered now. This building will have a residential appearance with roof slope and stucco siding, brick and shingles. He stated that if the city increases the setback requirements to 30 feet this would impact the width of the building resulting in a less attractive building. Commissioner Schmitt responded that they would not build an ugly building, as they couldn’t charge as much rent for an ugly building. Director Hinzman commented that the existing parking lot exceeds the city’s requirement. If they were to make the building L-shaped some of the parking lot could be removed to compensate for the increased building size. Dan Tilsen responded that the city’s requirements are a moving target Commissioner Schmitt stated that that is why there is wiggle room in the ordinance. There should be a responsibility to keep separation between a commercial building that is situated so close to a residential area. Commissioner McInnis stated that he agreed with Commissioner Schmitt. While it’s true we don’t have set setbacks for commercial zones, we do have streets as separators in the residential areas. In this situation, with a commercial and residential zone abutting one another, setbacks become difficult. Director Hinzman stated that other cities require even more of a setback- more than 30 feet. We are requesting a minimum of 30 feet even though we would like to see more. Someone stated that there was a neighborhood meeting held and only one person showed up. It (development) doesn’t seem to be a big concern with the residents. Planning Commission Action: Commissioner Truax moved and Commissioner McInnis second the motion to table the site plan approval and to provide the changes outlined in the packet. Upon vote taken, Ayes: 4 (Truax, McInnis, Peine, Zeyen), Nays 3: (Twedt, Schmitt, Hiedeman). Motion passed 7. City of Hastings – Ordinance Amendment #2006-10 – Landscaping Director Hinzman presented the staff report. This item was presented at the last planning commission meeting on March 27, 2006. The commissioners voted to table the proposed ordinance amendment, make the recommended changes and bring the item back to this meeting. Commissioner Hiedeman asked about the 20 foot sodding requirement and if it took precedent over a resident putting in rock around their home instead. Director Hinzman replied that the intent was to include rock but yet remain careful so as to avoid another situation like one the city is dealing with now. He elaborated and said that currently there is a home in Hastings that has completely covered their front yard in rock with no grass whatsoever in the yard. Commissioner McInnis asked if that meant the use of rock would be included but limit the use of it and state that the rock is not to exceed X feet beyond the drip line of the house. He continued by saying that some homeowners use rock around their foundation in lieu of having gutters installed. He ended by saying that the changes made to the ordinance amendment looked good. th Tim Likes, 2950 E. 4 St, asked the Commissioners if he could speak. He stated that he was a local landscaper. He asked if these new changes would be added into the Builders Handbook that is put out by the City. Director Hinzman responded that yes they would be included. Mr. Likes continued by saying that the proposed new standard size 1 ½“ tree was flimsy in a windy area and hard to find. A 2” tree was more of a standard size and easier to find at local nurseries. The cost was more than a 1 ½” but it held up better in windy conditions. He added that the proposed shrub size of 18” was also problematic as there are varieties of shrubs that don’t even grow to reach 18”. He stated that in other cities where he has worked their requirements don’t state a size rather a set number of shrubs to be planted around a house. Director Hinzman replied that he would make the changes so it would make note of the different required tree size and that rock could be used around a house but could not exceed 8 feet beyond the drip line. Commissioner Schmitt moved and Commissioner Truax second the motion to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment w/ the list of recommended changes included. Chairman Twedt called for a show of hands as a vote instead of taking roll. Upon vote taken: 7 Ayes, 0 Nays. The motion passed. 8. Other Business – Presentation – DROPPED FROM AGENDA 9. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Samantha Schmidtke Recording Secretary