HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/22/05
Hastings Planning Commission
August 22,2005
Regular Meeting
7:00 pm
Vice-chair Hollenbeck called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
1. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Schmitt, Hollenbeck, McInnis, Truax, Twedt, Zeyen.
Commissioners Absent: Greil.
Staff Present: Planning Director John Hinzman, Associate Planner
Kris Jenson, Planning Intern Cecily Schrader.
2. Approve August 8, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Motion by Commissioner Truax, seconded by Commissioner Twedt to
approve the minutes of the August 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting as
presented by Staff. Motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. City of Hastings - Ordinance Amendment #2005-44 - Chapter 10.08 - Signs.
Planner Jenson presented background information about the proposed ordinance
amendment. She informed the Commissioners that the Hastings Chamber of
Commerce had officially requested that the item be tabled until the September
12th meeting to allow Chamber members to review the proposed changes and
provide feedback. Planner Jenson suggested that the Commissioners hold the
public hearing but table a formal recommendation until September 12th.
Commissioner Twedt asked what the consequences would be of tabling both the
public hearing and a formal recommendation.
Director Hinzman replied that it would be fine to wait until September 12th to
have the public hearing. He added that the Planning Department had advertised
for the public hearing, which was why Staff recommended holding the public
hearing at this time.
Commissioner Twedt stated that it would be advisable to wait for feedback from
the Chamber of Commerce before holding the public hearing.
Commissioner Truax asked whether the 30 inch height restriction in Subdivision
1.C.5. was accurate.
Planner Jenson replied that 30 inches was accurate, and that the provision was
made for visibility purposes in the vision triangle.
Minutes - Hastings Planning Commission
August 22, 2005 - Page 2 of 6
Commissioner Truax asked why language had been eliminated from Subdivision
4.A.2.
Planner Jenson replied that this information had not been eliminated from the
ordinance but had been moved to the table in the same subdivision of the
ordinance.
Vice-chair Hollenbeck asked whether anyone in the audience was at the meeting
to speak about the sign ordinance. No one indicated they were attending the
meeting for that purpose.
Planning Commission Action:
Commissioner Twedt moved and Commissioner Truax seconded the motion to
table the public hearing and a formal recommendation regarding the City of
Hastings Ordinance Amendment #2005-44, Section 10.08, Sign Ordinance.
Upon vote taken, Ayes: 6, Nays: O. Motion passed.
4. City of Hastings - Ordinance Amendment #2005-54 - Chapter 10.29 -
Landscaping
Planning Intern Schrader presented background information about the proposed
ordinance. She highlighted the changes made to the ordinance that were based
on feedback from Commissioners at the workshop meeting on August 8th.
Vice-chair Hollenbeck opened the public hearing at 7:10pm. Hearing no relevant
comments, the public hearing was closed at 7:12pm.
Commissioner Schmitt suggested that subdivision 4.C.1. should state that not
more than 50 percent of trees are allowed to be of the same species, rather than
30 percent. He also asked if the City has a list of recommended species that
could be added to the ordinance.
Director Hinzman replied that the City already has a list of recommended trees
that it distributes to developers.
Planning Commission Action:
Commissioner Truax moved and Commissioner Schmitt seconded the motion
to order the first reading of the landscape ordinance and a public hearing in
front of the City Council.
Upon vote taken, Ayes: 6, Nays: O. Motion passed.
OTHER ACTIONS
5. Bruce and Lisa Schlosser - Variance #2005-56 - Sideyard Setback / Structure
over 1,000 s.f. (1302 Maple Street)
Planner Jenson presented background information about the request.
Minutes - Hastings Planning Commission
August 22, 2005 - Page 3 of 6
Commissioner Truax asked whether the attached garage on the property counts
towards the 1,000 s.f. maximum.
Commissioner Schmitt replied that the 1,000 s.f. maximum was intended to limit
sheds and other structures on the property, not to limit attached garage space.
Commissioner Zeyen asked if the shed on the property was included in the 1,000
s.f. maximum.
Planner Jenson replied that the ordinance allowed both the detached garage and
the shed on the property. She added that the ordinance limits detached garages
to 1,000 s.f. because the building code defines a garage as a structure less than
1,000 s.f. Any structure greater than 1,000 s.f. is defined as a storage building.
Commissioner Schmitt asked the applicants why they needed the garage
addition to be 28 feet deep if the intent was only for extra parking.
The applicant, Bruce Schlosser, stated that he wanted the new addition to be as
deep as the existing garage for aesthetic purposes. He added that it would be
cost prohibitive to alter the design of the proposed garage addition.
Commissioner Truax asked if it would be possible to enclose the carport in order
to create the extra space needed.
Lisa Schlosser replied that they already intend to do this to create a bedroom for
the applicant's brother. She added that they plan to make it wheelchair
accessible.
Commissioner McInnis asked if it would be possible to reconfigure the design of
the garage to stay under 1,000 s.f. He suggested that the applicants could extend
the garage 8 feet rather than 16 feet. This design would keep the garage under
1,000 s.f. and preserve a distance of 29 feet from the garage to the house rather
than 21 feet.
Ms. Schlosser asked whether a garage reconfigured in that manner would still be
wheelchair accessible. She added that the change in design would also require
the applicants to reconfigure the garage entrances.
Commissioner McInnis stated that the entrances may have to move, but that the
modifications would be reasonable and not cost-prohibitive.
Commissioner Zeyen stated that he agreed with Commissioner McInnis's
suggestion. He added that the applicant could reconfigure the doors to create
one double door and one single door rather than three single doors. He stated
that there are several ways that the applicant could design the garage without
exceeding the 1,000 s.f. maximum.
Commissioner Schmitt suggested that the Commission table the request for the
variance to exceed 1,000 s.f. to allow the applicants to modify their design.
The applicants replied that they are working under a time constraint and do not
wish to table the request.
Minutes - Hastings Planning Commission
August 22, 2005 - Page 4 of 6
Planning Commission Action:
Commissioner Schmitt moved and Commissioner McInnis seconded the
motion to recommend approval of the 10' variance to the required 20' setbacks.
Upon vote taken, Ayes: 6, Nays: O. Motion passed.
Commissioner Schmitt moved and Commissioner Zeyen seconded the motion
to recommend denial of the variance to exceed the 1,000 s.f. limit on detached
garages.
Upon vote taken, Ayes: 6, Nays: O. Motion passed.
6. Duane Markuson - Final Plat #2005-57 - Williams Third Addition -
Whispering Lane.
Planning Intern Schrader presented background information about the request.
Commissioner Twedt stated that he would abstain from the vote because of his
association with Midwest Realty Network, which has been involved in the sale of
the property.
Commissioner Zeyen asked whether the Pinal Plat met the setback requirements
that had been discussed when the Preliminary Plat came before the Commission.
Director Hinzman replied that the setback requirements had been met. He
added that the Pinal Plat establishes the property lines and easement areas but
does not include building footprints.
Planning Commission Action:
Commissioner Schmitt moved and Commissioner Zeyen seconded the motion
to recommend approval of the Final Plat of Williams Third Addition with the
following conditions:
1) Adherence to the approved Preliminary Plat and conditions of approval.
2) 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.
3) The proposed street shall be privately owned and maintained through a
homeowners association. The City of Hastings shall not be responsible
for the maintenance of the roadway.
4) Execution of a development agreement to memorialize the conditions of
the plat and to establish any applicable escrow amounts to guarantee
the completion of platting activities.
5) Any uncompleted site work (including landscaping) must be escrowed
at 125 percent of the estimated value prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
Minutes - Hastings Planning Commission
August 22, 2005 - Page 5 of 6
6) Submission of an electronic copy of all plan sets (TIF, PDF, or similar
format) prior to release of the Final Plat mylars for recording.
7) The Final Plat shall be recorded with Dakota County within 90 days of
approval by the City Council, or the approval is null and void.
8) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions or the equivalent
document shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
before release of the final plat mylars for recording to ensure
maintenance of open space, median plantings, cul-de-sac plantings,
common drives, and common utilities. The declaration shall include,
but is not limited to the following:
a) A statement requiring the deeds, leases or documents of
conveyance affecting buildings, units, parcels, tracts,
townhouses, or apartments be subject to the terms of the
declaration.
b) A provision for the formation of a property owners association or
corporation and that all owners must be members of said
association or corporation which may maintain all properties and
common areas in good repair and which may assess individual
property owners proportionate shares of joint or common costs.
The association or corporation must remain in effect and may not
be terminated or disbanded.
c) Membership in the association shall be mandatory for each
owner and any successive buyer.
d) Any open space restrictions must be permanent and may not be
changed or modified without city approval.
e) The association is responsible for liability insurance, local taxes
and the maintenance of the open space facilities deeded to it.
f) Property owners are responsible for their pro-rata share of the
cost of the association by means of an assessment to be levied by
the association which meet the requirements for becoming a lien
on the property in accordance with Minnesota Statutes.
g) The association may adjust the assessment to meet changing
needs.
Upon vote taken, Ayes: 5, Nays: 0, Commissioner Twedt abstaining. Motion
passed.
7. Other Business
Director Hinzman updated the Commission on recent Council actions and
upcoming Commission items.
Minutes - Hastings Planning Commission
August 22, 2005 - Page 6 of 6
8. Adjourn
Commissioner Truax moved and Vice-chair Hollenbeck seconded the motion to
adjourn. Meeting was adjourned at 7:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
{hid g'YJ~
Cecily SChr (fer
Recording Secretary