Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/24/05Hastings Planning Commission January 24, 2005 Regular Meeting 7:00 pm City Clerk Melanie Mesko Lee administered the Oath of Office to Commissioners Hollenbeck, Twedt, and Zeyen. Vice Chair Hollenbeck called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm. 1. Roll Call Commissioners Present: Hollenbeck, McInnis, Schmitt, Truax, Twedt, Zeyen Commissioners Absent: Greil Staff Present: Planning Director John Hinzman, Associate Planner Kris Jenson, HRA Director John Grossman 2. Approve January 10, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Motion by Commissioner Truax, seconded by Twedt to approve the minutes of the January 10, 2005 Planning Commission as presented by Staff. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Tanek Architects – Rezoning/Development Plan Review #2005-04 – Rezone property from C-3, Community Regional Commerce to DC – Downtown Core; Development Plan Review for two mixed use residential/commercial buildings – Block 2 downtown. Director Hinzman presented background information on the item, and asked the Commission to provide direction on several issues as requested in the Staff Report. Vice Chair Hollenbeck opened the public hearing at 7:18 pm. Bill Boler, 402 7 St W, reminded the Commission that the Heart of Hastings plan th warns against spot development, and that parking is a huge issue. He urged the City to look at development downtown as a whole. He does have concerns with the height of the building, and feels that the 47’ limit was chosen for the scale of it, and that the 47’ should be measured from grade. Ron Craft, 216 2 St E, says that as a downtown business owner he has gotten nd questions as to why there are no shopping or eating destinations facing the river, and asked the Developer if this was not feasible. Hearing no other comments, the public hearing was closed at 7:21 pm. 2 Bruce Palmer, with United Properties, (a part owner in the site) responded to some of the questioned posed by the public. The addition of retail/restaurants along the river creates additional parking needs. With the residential they have on the north half of the building, they are parked at one vehicle space per bedroom underground, which in their experience is sufficient in this type of development. Some visitor spaces will be available off the alley. He noted that the building plans were presented to the HPC and the residential portion redesigned per their comments. They did like the Second Street elevation as presented. He also noted that their people have been speaking with representatives of the Sherman group to coordinate activities on the two sites. Nat Shea, Tanek Architects, noted that in their design of the buildings they tried to maintain the 20 foot and 40 foot wide spacings that dominate the historic design of downtown. The main floor residential units on the north side are walk ups that connect to the proposed esplanade. There are no openings to the underground parking area – it is all vented to the exterior. He also added that brick and stone are being used on the exterior of the building. Mr. Palmer added that sinking the parking level deeper was not a possibility due to shallow bedrock in the area. The market study is really dictating what is being done in the area, and removing the top floor of the residential portion makes the investment very risky. Commissioner Truax expressed concern that this project would happen, and that he has an issue with residential on the whole of the first floor on the north half. Director Hinzman stated that his best guess as to the intent of the provision in the ordinance which only allows residential on the first floor when less than 50% of the floor area and at the rear of the building is to preserve commercial spaces along the main commercial corridors, such as 2 Street and Sibley Street. nd Commissioner Truax responded that even if the buildings were connected together, that it still wouldn’t meet the code. He also expressed some surprise that the existing Block 2 requires 130 parking spaces. Director Hinzman stated that based on the uses and their estimated sizes that it does. Obviously the parking ordinance came along after the buildings on Block 2. Commissioner Truax asked if calculations had been done on the Block 1 site. Director Hinzman stated that that site is much closer to breaking even. It is about 10 spaces short, and the site is being credited with parking spaces available on Block 16 (block due south of Block 1). Language was put into place recently that stated that all existing uses are adequately parked, but that any intensification of uses requires addition parking to be provided. Commissioner Truax also expressed concern about the proposed height of the building. He feels it should be 47’ above grade, and not from 2 Street’s grade. He nd likes the building but doesn’t feel it meets the intent of the Heart of Hastings Plan. The codes and ordinances are in place for a reason. 3 Commissioner Twedt suggested that the Commission go point by point to provide feedback, and asked Director Hinzman to recap the parking analysis. Commissioner Schmitt stated that while the need for Block 2 may need 130 spaces per the parking code, it certainly doesn’t generate the need for that many. This is a benefit to other businesses who do use the spaces. This proposed development will generate additional traffic and need for parking. He also added that any cars parking at Block 1 will be displaced. Director Hinzman stated that the same parking standards are used for downtown as for new developments such as Cub and Wal-Mart, and we all know that they are never 100% full either. Commissioner Twedt acknowledged that the parking problem downtown will never be completely solved, but that he would like to hear from anyone that has a creative idea for providing parking. He did note that the 1 phase of this project has st provided it’s parking on site. Mr. Palmer stated that in his experience with this type of development, 1 parking space per bedroom, up to two per unit, is sufficient. Under that premise, all parking is met on site. Commissioner McInnis expressed concern about a note in the Staff Report regarding the possibility of reduced spaces underground and a loading area. Mr. Shea commented that the parking layout would be tweaked to provide better maneuverability and still maintain the same number of spaces below ground. Commissioner Hollenbeck noted that currently downtown Hastings doesn’t meet the parking code and that she doesn’t want to stifle new development because of parking. In her experience as a business owner, most people park and walk the area. The Post Office is by far the busiest location. She also commented that she likes shared parking. Director Hinzman questioned the Planning Commission as to how they want to leave this item. Commissioner Truax agreed that shared parking is good, but residential uses may have a greater demand. He added that he isn’t opposed to looking at or using other formulas to calculate appropriate parking requirements. Mr. Shea added that Graphic Design has a large number of employees that park near their building all day whereas the typical retail space has flow. He reminded the Commission that the residential area parks itself. The added retail/office areas would be typical of the existing downtown demands. Commissioner Twedt asked Staff to explore shared parking. He also questioned how a parking problem is defined. Is it when someone has to park a half block away? A full block? More? Even at busy retail sites such as Target and Cub, which meet the current parking standards, those lots are never full. Mr. Palmer added that the spaces along the alley are shared spaces between the retail/office uses and the condos for visitor parking. 4 Commissioner Zeyen noted that the retail space proposed will require 79 parking spaces, while there are 39 on site. Will the retail/office space use all 79 spaces at one time? Not likely. With the additional 21 alley spaces, the deficit is reduced. He wondered if the 9 spaces along Tyler weren’t a waste of space. Commissioner Schmitt questioned whether shared parking is shared within this block or within the downtown as a whole. Director Hinzman stated that both scenarios can be looked at. Commissioner Schmitt stated he didn’t feel that we should be counting excess spaces on sites that may not always be there. Director Hinzman asked HRA Director Grossman if he was aware of the proposed height of the Sherman proposal for Block 1. Director Grossman stated that he was unsure of the exact height but felt it was comparable to this proposal – a 4 story building. Commissioner Twedt questioned how the ordinance regarding height was interpreted, as he could see arguments for both ways, since the ordinance specifically mentions the Finch Building, and then it’s height (47’) afterwards. Director Hinzman explained how residential structures are measured when on a sloping grade, and stated it may be possible to measure these building similarly. Mr. Palmer added that while they would have preferred for the building to sit lower into the ground, it ended up being pushed up a ½ story due to the bedrock in the area. If not for the bedrock, the building would have been 47’ tall. Commissioner Schmitt questioned how tall the south building is proposed to be at the alley. Mr. Shea stated it would be less than 47’. Director Hinzman showed a rendering with the existing downtown building on the north side of 2 Street with the proposed building for Block 2, just to give a nd perspective of the proposed building compared with what already exists. Commissioner Schmitt agreed that the intent of the ordinance was to be no higher than 47’ at 2 Street. nd Commissioner Hollenbeck questioned what the Shoreland Ordinance had to do with the height of a building. Director Hinzman stated that the old Shoreland Ordinance had a height limit of 25’, which is not practical for a downtown-type setting. The height limit has been changed in the new Shoreland Ordinance. Commissioner McInnis stated that because Hastings is a rivertown, we should be trying to draw people downtown to retail and restaurants so that others may have a river experience. Director Hinzman stated he was looking for direction on the issue of residential on the first floor within the DC district. 5 Commissioner Schmitt stated that the ordinance has been in place for less than 2 years. He expressed concern that the 1 project to fall under the new district doesn’t st even fit the ordinance. He also felt that this was a missed opportunity to have a restaurant, office, or retail uses take advantage of the river setting. Commissioner Hollenbeck asked how this ordinance related to 2 Street. nd Director Hinzman stated that the language is included within the C-3 District, which is currently what downtown is zoned. Staff speculates that it was to protect prime commercial space along 2 Street. nd Commissioner Hollenbeck stated that as a downtown business owner, the riverfront is not an attractive location because of the walk to get there for customers. Commissioner Zeyen added that as far as retail on the 1 floor, it will require a walk st up at least a half flight of stairs, which wouldn’t meet ADA requirements. There’s a possibility of access from the alley, but that’s not attractive either. He feels that perhaps space along Ramsey or Tyler could be used as office/retail space with street access. Mr. Palmer stated that the original plan did include restaurant and retail spaces until the bedrock issue came up. Phase I will be more traditional style housing whereas Phase II overlooking 2 Street will be more of an urban loft style. They would love nd to find a restaurant for Phase II, but at this point they haven’t found anyone who is willing to move into the space. Commissioner Hollenbeck asked what actions needed to be taken. Planning Commission Action: Commissioner Twedt moved and Commissioner Schmitt seconded the motion to recommend rezoning of Block 2 Original Town of Hastings from C-3 Community Regional Commerce to DC Downtown Core to the City Council. Upon vote taken: Ayes: 6, Nays: 0. Motion passed. Commissioner McInnis moved and Commissioner Truax seconded a motion to table the Development Plan for Block 2 to the February 14 meeting. th Upon vote taken: Ayes: 6, Nays: 0. Motion passed. OTHER ACTIONS 4. DR Horton – Site Plan Review #2005-02 Glendale Heights 3 Addition rd townhomes. Planner Jenson presented background information on the request. Commissioner Truax stated that he recalled the discussion on this item for Glendale Heights 2 Addition and concluded that the Commission’s approvals weren’t nd specific enough about variations in the units. Commissioner Twedt inquired as to an estimate of the cost increase to add brick to the units. 6 Dan Tilsen, project engineer for Glendale Heights, stated that he didn’t have a specific amount, but it was a significant increase. He added that he has been in discussions with Director Hinzman regarding the changes. He also noted that there was a misunderstanding previously as it was DR Horton’s assumption that the previous site plan review was for the entire site and not just the part platted with the 2 Addition. The landscaping was expanded at that time to help break up the units. nd Commissioner Truax indicated that he had no issues with the landscaping, but that the color variations on the units themselves were lacking. He added that he is not trying to pick on the applicant, but that he does want to see more detailed plans. Mr. Tilsen stated that he and the applicant will continue to work with Director Hinzman to meet the Planning Commission’s request. Commissioner Truax asked if they could table the item. Mr. Tilsen expressed a desire to move forward with the action, as they are behind schedule due to the moratorium having been only recently lifted. Commissioner Schmitt stated that he expects to see more colors and not just different shades of taupe. Commissioner Twedt stated that he liked adding brick to some of the units. Richard Palmateri, a Vice-President with DR Horton, stated that they will work with City Staff to prepare and present color palates that meet the Commission’s expectations. Planning Commission Action: Commissioner Twedt moved and Commissioner Zeyen seconded the motion to recommend approval of the site plan for Glendale Heights 3 Addition to the City rd Council, with the following conditions: 1) All disturbed areas on this property shall be stabilized with rooting vegetative cover to eliminate erosion problems. 2) Applicant agrees to reimburse the City for any fees incurred in review of the development. 3) An escrow account must be established for all uncompleted site items (including landscaping) prior to certificate of occupancy. 4) All landscaped areas must be irrigated. 5) Incorporation of differing materials, colors or textures and\or increased landscaping are needed to distinguish the buildings. Revised Plans must be included in the report to the City Council. 6) Submission of an electronic copy of all plan sets (TIF, PDF, or similar format) prior to recording of the Final Plat mylars. 7) Homeowners Association documents must be recorded prior to the release of building permits for GLENDALE HEIGHTS 3 ADDITION. RD 7 8) 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. 5. Tony Brown – Site Plan Review #2005-05 – construction of two, four unit townhomes – 630-644 Pleasant Drive. Planner Jenson provided background information on the item. Commissioner Truax asked if there was any treatment planned for the rear of the buildings. Tony Brown, Applicant, stated that the units were planned as presented. He added that he does a number of interior updates to attract high quality tenants. Commissioner Truax reiterated that he felt something needed to be done to break up the rear façade of the building. Commissioner Zeyen asked about using trim boards on the rear of the building as well. Mr. Brown stated that hadn’t intended to. Mr. Brown did present a color picture which illustrated the two color schemes he was intending to use on site. Commissioner Zeyen asked if the turnaround for the driveways would be located between the driveways, or on the outside of each. Director Hinzman stated that it while the applicant hadn’t yet submitted a proposal on that portion, he anticipated that it would make most sense for the turnaround to located between the two driveways. This way it would also interfere less with the front yard trees as proposed. Planning Commission Action: Commissioner McInnis moved and Commissioner Truax seconded the motion to recommend approval of the site plans for Lots 4 & 5, Block 1 WHISPERING MEADOWS to the City Council, with the following conditions: 1) All disturbed areas on this property shall be stabilized with rooting vegetative cover to eliminate erosion problems. 2) An escrow account must be established for all uncompleted site items (including landscaping) prior to certificate of occupancy. 3) Specific species information regarding trees to be provided. 4) All landscaped areas must be irrigated. 5) The site plan must be modified to include a turnaround for each driveway. 6) Incorporation of differing colors and trim boards to distinguish the buildings, as well as additional foundation landscaping around the site. 8 7) Final approval of the grading, drainage and utility plans by the Public Works Director, and reimbursement for any fees incurred in review of the sites. The owner assumes all risks associated with the grading and utility placement prior to formal approvals. 8) Submission of an electronic copy of all plan sets (TIF, PDF, or similar format) prior to issuance of a building permit. 9) 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. 6. Other Business Director Hinzman updated the Commission on recent Council actions, as well as future projects for the February 14 Commission meeting. th 7. Adjourn Meeting adjourned at 9:05 pm Respectfully submitted, _________________________________ Kristine Jenson Recording Secretary