Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/12/04 Hastings Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Regular Meeting 7:00 pm Chairperson Greil called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 1.Roll Call Commissioners Present: Alongi, Truax, Twedt, Greil, Hollenbeck, Schmitt, McInnis Staff Present: Planning Director John Hinzman, Associate Planner Kris Jenson, Planning Intern Courtney Wiekert 2.Approve June 28, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting Motion by Commissioner Hollenbeck, seconded by Schmitt to approve the minutes of the June 28, 2004 Planning Commission as presented by staff. Motion passed unanimously. OTHER ACTIONS 3.LeRoy Finke – Variance #2004-35 – Side yard Setback\Intensification of a Non-Conforming Structure – Garage Addition – 1947 Ridge Lane. Intern Wiekert presented a brief summary on the request for a garage addition to a non-conforming garage structure. Commissioner Twedt asked if the tree is shared with the neighbor to the north. He also asked if he has spoken with the neighbor about his sprinkler if damages were to occur. LeRoy Finke, 1947 Ridge Lane, stated that the tree is completely on his property. He stated that he did talk to the neighbor and they had no issues about the addition of the garage. He clarified that if damages were made to his neighbor’s sprinkler during construction that he would pay for the damages. Planning Commission Action: Commissioner Alongi moved and Commissioner Schmitt seconded the motion to recommend approval of the variances, with the following conditions, to the City Council. 1)A building permit is required prior to construction of the addition. 2)The soffit on the north side of the garage must meet building code setback requirements and may need to be fire rated.The addition and existing portion may need to be fire rated to building code requirements. A determination of this will be done during the building permit review process. 3)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: 7, Nays: 0. Motion passed. 4. Camegaran – Variance Signs #2004-38 – Sign Variance to allow projecting blade signs and to exceed maximum signage – Schoolhouse Square. Planner Jenson summarized the variance requests for the signs to be in place for Schoolhouse Square site. She clarified that these signs are to be more like a downtown look. Commissioner Truax asked for clarification on what a projecting sign was. He wanted to know how far out these signs would go. Planner Jenson clarified that they are perpendicular to the building. Pat Regan, with Schoolhouse Square Partners, stated that he does not believe the sign will project more than four feet out. Director Hinzman clarified to the Commissioners that the variance the applicant is seeking is to allow projecting signs in a C-3 District and to exceed the 5% allowed in the C-3 District. Commissioner Alongi asked what the percentage they are asking to exceed. Mr. Regan stated that the sign proposal is no larger than 6%. He clarified that the request would be an increase of an additional 1%. He asked the Commissioners to look through his binder, which he passed around, to view what the building would look like. He clarified that they are hoping to stay within the dark green colors and he identified a gold lettering on one of the signs and stated that these types of signs would be the colors. He stated that he does not want colors like pink to be part of the signs. Commissioner Schmitt asked if the new tenants would receive a choice of colors for the sign to stay within the colors he is hoping for with the building. Mr. Regan stated that he does not have a color scheme for the tenants to select from. However, he would like to stay within the color scheme of dark-greens. Commissioner Greil asked if the lettering would be restricted for new tenants. Mr. Regan responded that yes they would restrict the font type and size for the signs. He continued by stating the reasons why they should approve the variances. He included 4 criteria he feels Schoolhouse Square has achieved. They included: 1) the building is 100% brick and that they did not include any lap siding or wood on the structure. 2) All the sides of the building are complete. 3) The building is different and of high quality and there is no building like it in Hastings, and 4) the site met the parking requirements within the property and they did not need to use other properties for parking. Mr. Regan clarified that these criteria is a good reason for the Commissioners to move forward in passing the variance. He feels the projecting signs and exceeding the wall sign allowance would complete the building façade. He also clarified that he would prefer neon signs instead of the back lit plastic signs. Commissioner Truax asked if the neon sign on the north side of the property would affect the homeowner adjacent to the property. He asked what the distance was between Schoolhouse and the house north to them. Director Hinzman stated that he heard the homeowner was talking about changing this property from residential to commercial. He clarified that he is not certain what the range of the distance was between the two properties. Mr. Regan stated that it is about 70-80 feet. He stated that they may change the projecting sign on the north side. He clarified that he talked with Green Mill and they would have one or the other sign. Commissioner Schmitt asked where the projecting signs are located on the west side. Mr. Regan acknowledged that they are the yellow strips on the building. Commissioner Truax stated that if these are the lit signs he was concerned that they would shine at the house. Commissioner Schmitt asked if there was anything in the ordinance about lit signs. Director Hinzman asked if Mr. Regan was requesting to have the signs pulse or flash. Mr. Regan stated that the signs would not be rotating or flashing. Commissioner Schmitt stated he was concerned that there were no restrictions on the color scheme for future tenants. He understands that new retailers sometimes like their own colors and that problem may rise in the future about the color of the signs if there are no restrictions. Commissioner McInnis stated that he is unclear on the rational about allowing the size to exceed the maximum signage. He stated that he does not feel there is a need to exceed the allowable limit. He asked for a better reason. Mr. Regan responded that the projecting signs give the finish to the “historical” look to the building. He stated with traffic on Vermillion, the projecting signs would help benefit the tenants. He hoped that Schoolhouse would be a trend setter to other developers to build quality buildings and in the area. Commissioner McInnis felt there is not a need to exceed the maximum signage allowed. Mr. Regan felt the signs would fit the building and what he is trying to accomplish with the building. Commissioner Twedt asked what the percentage was for each side. Mr. Regan stated that it was less than 5% on the other sides. Commissioner Twedt asked what the total percentage is, with the projecting signs, on the Dunn Brothers building. Mr. Regan clarified that the percentage is based on the total size of the front façade. He clarified that some of the tenants would not receive the option of the projecting signs. Commissioner Alongi asked if there were restrictions on window signs. Mr. Regan stated that some windows are only display windows, but he doesn’t have any other restrictions for window signs. He clarified that he would like approval for the variance, but would like them to restrict it to a maximum of 6%. Director Hinzman stated that the city does not have any restrictions for window signs. Commissioner Greil stated that he would like the neon sign opposed to the backlit signs. He asked if the percentages account for both sides of the blade signs. Planner Jenson responded that the city does not count both sides. The blade signs were measured similar to free standing signs. Commissioner Schmitt asked if the height of the wall signs were fixed. Mr. Regan clarified that the signs do have a set height requirement. Commissioner Truax asked if Mr. Regan would come back to put a blade sign on the empty pillar where Green Mill is located. Mr. Regan stated that the building belongs to Green Mill and they are requesting these signs only. Commissioner Twedt stated he didn’t feel the neon fits with the building. Mr. Regan asked the Commissioners to look through his binder. The hand out had pictures with signs from Grand Avenue in St. Paul. He asked the commissioners not to make the signs too restrictive to prevent a sign maker from making a sign. He stated that the Green Mill sign on Grand Ave. in St. Paul has neon and light bulbs. He also asked if two neon strips on a building, would be considered a sign. Director Hinzman stated that those would not be a sign, but may be included in the Site Plan. Commissioner Twedt stated that restrictions could be included in a contract between landlord and tenant. Commissioner Greil asked if all blade signs would be lit. Mr. Regan stated that not all blade signs would be lit. Planning Commission Action: Commissioner Truax moved and Commissioner Hollenbeck seconded the motion to recommend approval, to the City Council, of the blade signs in a C-3 District with the condition that the blade signs are not backlit. Upon vote taken: Ayes: 6, Nays: 1. McInnis dissenting. Motion passed. Commissioner Greil stated to the Commissioners that the next vote would be on the variance to exceed the maximum sign requirement. Commissioner Schmitt felt there was no hardship to limit the maximum signage to 5%. Commissioner Alongi asked Mr. Regan what the difference was with 1% more for the signs. Mr. Regan stated that Green Mill has decreased there sign since their proposal. He clarified that the other three sides of the building are way under the maximum allowable. He stated that the projecting signs are increasing the percentage. Commissioner Alongi asked if the variance was more for Green Mill building. Planner Jenson stated that is was mainly for the Green Mill building. Commissioner Alongi stated that he felt the applicant has done a lot to put a quality building in the area. Commissioner McInnis stated that if they allow them to go over the maximum signage when would they not allow developers to go over. Commissioner Alongi felt the city should encourage this type of quality development. Commissioner Greil asked if there were other street signs for the building. Mr. Regan stated that there are other monument signs and they have been approved with site plan. Planning Commission Action Commissioner Alongi moved and Commissioner Hollenbeck seconded the motion to recommend approval, to the City Council, of the variance to exceed the maximum signage allowed with the condition that the signs do not exceed 6% on the West elevation. Upon vote taken: Ayes: 5, Nays: 2. McInnis and Twedt dissenting. Motion passed. Adjournment to Workshop in Spiral Room Commissioner Hollenbeck moved and Commissioner Truax seconded motion to adjourn the meeting to workshop at 8:20 pm. Motion passed unanimously. 5.Multiple Family Site Plan Requirements per Moratorium Planning Director Hinzman updated the Commissioners on the Moratorium. He clarified that this began when Todd Siewert changed his condo unit to apartments for the 36-unit building in Riverwood 7. He stated the changes to th the ordinance is adding the requirement to incorporate identity in ownership status during the Preliminary and Platting procedure. He asked the Commissioners if they feel there needs to be any other additions to the ordinance. Commissioners did not feel the city could enforce renter or ownership status. They felt the only leverage the city could identify was the density. Commissioners asked if there was a way to track either by license, county or code enforcer. They asked if each condo unit has an association when they go through development process and clarified that if there is problems in rental/owner multi-family units, the association usually makes changes to prevent these problems. They clarified that even apartment owners do not like problems in their units. They felt that it would be up to the association to legally establish rental/owner occupancy. Director Hinzman clarified that the city does have a code enforcer and that we do license renters; however, not every rental unit goes through the city for a license. Staff felt it would be legally easier for the association to enforce rental, not the city. Commissioners also were concerned about the Fair Housing Act if the city enforced owner versus rental occupancy. 6.Shoreland Ordinance Changes Director Hinzman updated the Commissioners on the proposed changes to the Shoreland Ordinance. He stated that changes were sent to DNR in January. He clarified that DNR is reluctant to approve smaller lot sizes for developed areas. Most of the major change DNR is willing to work with the City; however, they are requesting more details before they make a final decision. 7.Downtown Master Plan Rezoning Director Hinzman briefly summarized the new downtown rezoning plan. He clarified that the new changes would maintain the frontage of properties to be similar to its characters. He stated the next step he would like to take is to have neighborhood meetings for each district who will be impacted to go over what would change for them. He stated that by September he would like to begin to go forward with rezoning the districts. 8.Zoning District Discussion Commissioners asked why there is more R-1 and R-3 zones in the city and they do not see R-2 zones. They wanted clarification on what R-2 districts allow for development. Director Hinzman identified where the R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts were in the city. He clarified that the R-2 district allows single-family and twin homes. The R-4 district allowed apartment and condo units and the city has a small amount on the west side of the city. He stated that most R-2 district has already been developed and that is why the Commissioners do not see these in the development process. He stated the city is seeing a lot of elderly and young families wanting starter townhomes and that is why the commissioners see more of these developments. Commissioners asked if there is a way to provide for more transition of separation since they have seen R-1 next to R-3. Commissioners felt there was lack of Sunset Clause used with developers. Director Hinzman stated that Glendale has twin homes, 8-plexes and condominium. He clarified that Whispering Lane has a different issue because the R-3 was established, but the developers put in single-family and zoning was not changed adjacent to it. Commissioners discussed about the issue with residence commenting on whom will refund their property value if the city allows multi-family units to be built in their neighborhood. They were concerned what would happen if developers made the same comment about who would refund them if the city does not allow them to develop what they were told they could develop. Commissioners asked if the developers negotiated with the city on the density of the property. They understood that some developers will negotiate with the city on changing zoning in order to develop. Commissioners asked about the responsibility of new home owners if they are not aware of new neighboring development. They asked if there was a way to ensure property owners what an area could be if it’s developed in the future. Commissioners asked if there’s a way to get a similar development for an example when plans are being reviewed to help the Planning Commissioners. Commissioners asked if the city could place a requirement to have alternative development plans. They asked if they could require developers to provide up to 3 different plans for review. 9.Downtown Riverfront Project Update Commissioners commented on the Prescott development and didn’t want to see that in Hastings. They did not want the green unattractive building and stated that the train blew out the windows on the condo units. They were concerned on who would pay for the amenities on the Riverfront. Director Hinzman updated the Commissioners on the comments the city has received regarding the development. He included the residents didn’t want to create a wall with high condo units and having all the buildings to be extremely tall. They didn’t want to see the green space on the Riverfront to be removed. Other concerns were with the parking and the need to preserve the parking and adding underground parking. He continued by informing the Commissioners that they will be reviewing the site plans which will be coming up soon. He included they will be the review board for the downtown plan. Commissioners asked if the new zoning districts are adopted. They inquired if they should begin doing some research on the downtown project before plans are submitted to them. Director Hinzman stated that they were not adopted. He asked if the Commissioners had the Heart of Hastings report. He commented that a little research may help the Commissioners and that he can give them a copy of the report. Workshop adjourned at 9:45 pm Respectfully submitted, _________________________________ Courtney Wiekert Recording Secretary