Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/25/05 1fa~ti1'l!J~ :J5.ranni1'l!J T;ommi~~ion July 25, 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, Planning Intern Cecily Schrader. 2. Approve July 11, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Motion by Commissioner Schmitt, seconded by Commissioner Truax to approve the minutes of the July 11, 2005 Planning Commission meeting as presented by Staff. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Linda Kilbourne - Minor Subdivision #2005-51 - 300 West 6th Street. Planning Intern Schrader presented background information about the request. Vice-chair Hollenbeck opened the public hearing at 7:03pm. Jacqueline Boler, 402 West 7th Street, stated that she is opposed to a twin home because the lot is located in the Conservation District and a twin home does not fit the character of the neighborhood. She commented that a single family home would be more appropriate. She also showed a map demonstrating that no changes had been made to the lot since the 1920s. James Pike, 320 West 6th Street, stated that a twin home would produce too much traffic in the alley, which is not properly maintained. Mr. Pike also stated that the increased traffic on Ashland would be a safety hazard for children playing in the neighborhood. Mr. Pike expressed concern about the possibility of having a rental unit in the neighborhood. He stated that the alley should be paved and upgraded as a condition of approval if the subdivision moves forward. Mark Rego, 314 West 6th Street, stated that he lives in the residence immediately to the west of the proposed twin home. He would like to see a single family home rather than a twin home on the lot. He questioned if there would be governing rules to ensure that the twin home is properly maintained. He stated that the twin home may be hard to sell in a neighborhood that is predominantly Minutes - Hastings Planning Commission July 25,2005 - Page 2 of 10 single family homes. He stated that the applicant has the right to build on the property, but a twin home does not fit the character of the neighborhood and should not be allowed. Bill Boler, 402 West 7th Street, stated that he has no objection to a single family home but is opposed to a twin home on the property. He commented that he is concerned about the scale of the twin home since the existing homes on the street are small. He stated that the lot is located in the Conservation District, and the twin home does not meet the standards for that district that were approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Dick Darsow, 314 West 7th Street, stated that a single family home is appropriate, but a twin home would not fit well on the lot. Bill Sylvander, 200 West 6th Street, commented that he has lived in his home for thirty years and has experienced overcrowding on his street due to several neighboring twin homes. He stated a single family home is more appropriate for the lot. Ed Tarka, 315 West 6th Street, stated that he lives two houses to the west of the proposed twin home. He commented that he loves the open lot and would accept a single family home, but a twin home would be an eyesore. He stated that he takes a great deal of pride in his neighborhood and has worked incredibly hard to improve his home. He stated that a twin home would ruin the character of the neighborhood. Michelle Tarka, 315 West 6th Street, stated that her home was built in 1878 and that she loves living in the neighborhood as it is now. She expressed concern about the potential negative impact of a twin home in the neighborhood. The applicant, Linda Kilbourne, 300 West 6th Street, stated that she understands her neighbors' concerns but has gone to great lengths to make the home appropriate for the neighborhood. She stated that the proposed design uses special-ordered siding that is of a more historic style than typical siding, the garages do not face the street, and the home has been decreased in size from the original concept. She commented that she had originally planned to move a historic home that was larger than the proposed twin home onto the site. She commented that one additional family would not make a big difference in the neighborhood, and that many twin homes are located on neighboring blocks. John Viktora-Croke, 321 West 6th Street, asked about the financial impact of a twin home versus a single family home. He stated that he does not like the look of the twin home and asked what is gained by putting two homes on one lot. Ms. Kilbourne stated that the twin home would bring an additional family to the street. She also stated that the twin home works financially for her while a single family home would not. Pat Powers, 608 Eddy Street, commented that her house was built in 1858, and she does not want to see the neighborhood become a hodge-podge of different Minutes - Hastings Planning Commission July 25,2005 - Page 3 of 10 styles. She is concerned that construction of a twin home would produce overcrowding. She expressed her support for a well-considered single family home. Director Hinzman showed the plans of the twin home that had been submitted to the Building Department. He discussed the overall dimensions of the twin home and its location on the lot in comparison to other homes in the neighborhood. Ms. Kilbourne stated that the homes in the neighborhood are not all historic. She stated that the home across from the proposed twin home was constructed in the 1950s. Ms. Tarka commented that the 1950s house cited by Ms. Kilbourne is an eyesore and is in disrepair. Ms. Boler expressed concern about the environmental heat gain that would result from construction of a twin home. She stated that the ratio of building to yard space is out of proportion Mr. Rego stated that the construction of a twin home rather than a single family home is the real problem in this situation. Mr. Sylvander stated that a property near his home was a rental property at one point, and he was never sure how many people lived there. He stated that rental properties create overcrowding. He also commented that construction of the twin home would eliminate any kind of backyard on the property. Ms. Kilbourne stated that the people who buy the twin home units will be aware of the backyard size when they purchase the property. She added that she is applying for the subdivision so that the property will not be a rental property since the subdivision will allow for individual ownership of the twin home units. Mr. Pike commented that the lot is not the right place for a twin home since the area is primarily single family homes. Hearing no more comments, Vice-chair Hollenbeck closed the public hearing at 7:37pm. Commissioner Zeyen clarified that the issue at hand was the approval of the subdivision, not the design and construction of the twin home. Director Hinzman stated that twin homes are allowed in the R-2 district and that the proposed structure meets all zoning requirements. He added that the application for the building permit had been submitted and was recently approved. Commissioner Truax asked when the boundary line for Parcel A was changed. Director Hinzman replied that the property line between the existing Parcels A and B on the property was recently changed administratively. This action could be approved administratively since it was only a rearrangement of the property Minutes - Hastings Planning Commission July 25,2005 - Page 4 of 10 line and not a subdivision. Commissioner Schmitt asked if the City had any responsibility to maintain the alley. Director Hinzman replied that he would check to see if and how the alley is maintained by the City. Commissioner Schmitt asked if there were any other City requirements pertaining to the development of the property such as an escrow or a development covenant. He also asked what effect the Conservation District has on the property. Director Hinzman replied that there were no other City requirements associated with the subdivision. He commented that the proposed twin home meets the standards for construction in the Conservation District. Commissioner Schmitt commented that the twin home is a lawful building that meets all of the zoning requirements. He added that if the property was not subdivided there would be a greater chance that the building would be a rental property. He concluded that the City has no authority over the design of the proposed twin home. Planning Commission Action: Commissioner Zeyen moved and Commissioner Schmitt seconded the motion to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision of Lots 7 and 8, Block 39, TOWN OF HASTINGS BLOCKS 1 THROUGH 99 subject to the following conditions: 1) 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. 2) Payment of park dedication fees for one unit in the amount of $1800. 3) Payment of sewer interceptor fees for one unit in the amount of $365. 4) Planting of one boulevard tree and one front yard tree per unit, consistent with the City Code. 5) Recording of development covenants to ensure complementary and consistent maintenance of the entire twin home building. 6) The City must address neighboring property owners' concerns about alley maintenance Upon vote taken: Ayes: 6, Nays: O. Motion passed. 4. MFRA (Wal-Mart) - Site Plan #2005-50 - Supercenter expansion to existing Wal-Mart -1752 North Frontage Road. Director Hinzman provided background information about the request. Minutes - Hastings Planning Commission July 25,2005 - Page 5 of 10 Vice-chair Hollenbeck opened the public hearing at 7:56pm. Tara Weiss, 14923 Jacob Avenue, Nininger Township, stated that she is concerned about the increased lighting that would result from the Wal-Mart addition. She commented that the Wal-Mart lights currently illuminate her home at night and that she does not want to experience more light pollution on her property. Director Hinzman replied that the photometric plan submitted by Wal-Mart meets the City's requirements. Merle Miller, the attorney representing Wal-Mart, stated that he would like the project to move forward as proposed because the Supercenter was master- planned in 2001 when the existing W ai-Mart was approved and constructed. He objected to conditions two and three listed in the Staff Report. Condition two states that the direct customer entrance on 4th Street west of the building must either be preserved or relocated, and condition three states that the parking on Lot 1, Block 2, Dakota Summit shall be "proof of parking" only. With regard to condition two, Mr. Miller stated that the original development agreement calls for the property owner to the west of the Wal-Mart property, not Wal-Mart itself, to develop a street to the west of Wal-Mart when the land is annexed by the City. He also stated that the traffic analysis performed when the existing Wal-Mart was constructed indicated that the traffic flow at the intersection of the main Wal-Mart entrance and General Sieben Drive would receive an E or F rating upon expansion of the store. According to Mr. Miller, it would be the City's responsibility to install a traffic light at the intersection as a result of this poor rating. Mr. Miller also cited a traffic analysis that indicated that only 4 percent of all Wal-Mart traffic uses the existing 4th Street entrance. Mr. Miller stated that the majority of motorists using the entrance are high school students cutting through the parking lot. Mr. Miller stated that the 4th Street entrance is a public safety hazard, negatively affects truck traffic and that keeping it open or moving it would only provide a temporary solution to traffic flow problems. With regard to condition three, Mr. Miller stated that Wal-Mart would like the parking lot on Lot 1, Block 2, Dakota Summit to be constructed at this time to accommodate the increase in employees that will result from the expansion. Mr. Miller stated that the Wal-Mart Supercenter will have 475 employees, and that 220 employee parking spots are needed for these employees. Mr. Miller commented that the parking lot on Lot 1, Block 2 will be devoted exclusively to employee parking and will allow customers to use the other parking areas. He added that the employees will be instructed to cross the main driveway in an appropriate location that will minimize any safety concerns. Rhonda Dehler, the MFRA engineer representing Wal-Mart, stated that the lighting plan meets the City's requirements. She added that she had spoken with Director Hinzman about modifying the lighting plan to cut down on the number Minutes - Hastings Planning Commission July 25,2005 - Page 6 of 10 of lighting poles. Ms. Dehler added that the site plan as proposed adheres closely to the plan discussed when the existing Wal-Mart was approved in 2001. She stated that the expansion has increased in size to 72,000 square feet due to the addition of back storage space, a general merchandise area in the front of the store, and the addition of a liquor box. Ms. Dehler reiterated Mr. Miller's comments about the 4th Street entrance. Hearing no further comments, Vice-chair Hollenbeck closed the public hearing at 8:28pm. Commissioner Twedt asked whether the signage on the plans is close to what the signs will actually look like. He also asked if there would be any signage on the back elevation of the store. The architect for the project replied that the signage would be the same as the signage on the plans. Commissioner Twedt expressed concern about the increased water runoff that would result from a greater amount of impervious surface. He stated that the homes on 4th Street might be affected by increased water flow. Director Hinzman replied that the City Engineer has looked at the plans and that the existing ponding area to the rear of the store will accommodate the increased runoff. Commissioner Truax asked if the percent of impervious surface is limited by City ordinance. Director Hinzman replied that impervious surface is only limited in the downtown area. Ms. Dehler stated that about 18 percent of the Wal-Mart property will not be impervious surface. She stated that this is pretty typical for most large retail stores and is in keeping with the plans made in 2001. Director Hinzman addressed Mr. Miller's concerns about conditions two and three in the staff report. With regard to condition two, he stated that he has observed that more than 4 percent of motorists use the 4th Street entrance. He expressed concern about restricting access to the store while expanding the building. He added that the City had anticipated that the street to the west of the Wal-Mart would have been developed by the time the store expansion occurred. With regard to condition three, he has observed that Wal-Mart has more parking than it needs and that the additional parking in Lot 1, Block 2 is not necessary at this time. Director Hinzman stated that if additional parking proves to be necessary, Wal-Mart can construct it at that time. Commissioner Schmitt stated that he also believes more than 4 percent of motorists use the 4th Street entrance. He asked if truck deliveries are restricted to off-peak hours. The Wal-Mart store manager replied that most deliveries occur in the evening Minutes - Hastings Planning Commission July 25,2005 - Page 7 of 10 during off-peak hours. Commissioner Schmitt commented that he does not believe the 4th Street entrance needs to be moved since there will not be truck traffic during peak times. He added that the traffic flow should be fine during most times of the day. Commissioner Zeyen asked if the screen wall would restrict access to the 4th Street entrance. Mr. Miller replied that the screen wall will not entirely restrict access to the entrance. Vehicles would have a full drive aisle to cut through if the plans as designed are approved. Mr. Miller stated he is simply requesting to keep the loading dock as designed and not create a thoroughfare for vehicles. Commissioner Zeyen asked if it was possible to move the loading dock to the east side of the building. He added that the "proof of parking" area to the rear of the store could be shifted, and the loading dock area could be designed like the docks at Cub Foods across Hwy 55. He questioned why Wal-Mart needs two loading docks facing opposite directions. Ms. Dehler stated that the loading dock works well in its current planned location due to a variety of factors including the operation inside the store, the location of the pond, the slope ratio, and the location of storage areas. Commissioner Zeyen asked how many employees would be working per shift. The Wal-Mart store manager replied that 75-80 people work in the existing store per shift. There will be an additional 40 employees per shift working in the grocery area. The manager added that the maximum number of employees would be 175-200 during the Ipm-4pm shift. Mr. Miller stated that the addition of seasonal employees could increase this number. Commissioner Truax asked whether there would be two or three trash compactors. He stated that the plans were unclear. The architect for the project replied that there would be two trash compactors. Commissioner Truax asked about the City requirements for lighting. Director Hinzman replied that the existing Wal-Mart meets the City's lighting requirements, and the plans for the expansion also meet the requirements. He added that it is a difficult situation because the store is on the edge of town and is elevated, so the light carries further than it otherwise would. Ms. Dehler commented that the existing lights on the perimeter of the site have shields, and the interior lights do not. Ms. Weiss asked whether it is necessary to have that much light on the property. Ms. Dehler replied that the lighting must meet certain requirements for safety Minutes - Hastings Planning Commission July 25,2005 - Page 8 of 10 and other considerations. Commissioner Twedt expressed his concern about paving Lot 1, Block 2 and increasing the amount of impervious surface on the site. He asked why the lot needs to be paved if the lot will not be used. Commissioner Schmitt requested that condition six in the staff report be changed to require screening of rooftop equipment along the north, south and west elevations. Planning Commission Action: Commissioner Twedt moved and Commissioner Schmitt seconded the motion to recommend approval of the Site Plan for MFRA to construct a +/- 72,000 square foot Wal-Mart Supercenter addition, subject to the following conditions: 1) Adherence to the original conditions of site plan approval for the original Wal-Mart building. 2) A direct 4th Street customer entrance located west of the building must be preserved, or a new customer entrance constructed in the vicinity to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 3) Parking on Lot 1, Block 2, Dakota Summit shall be for "proof of parking" only and shall only be constructed if a practical need can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 4) The parking/loading area abutting 4th Street shall maintain a minimum 10 foot landscaped parking area consistent with the city code. 5) A wall shall be constructed to screen truck loading activities from 4th Street. Wall materials and colors shall be consistent with the main Wal- Mart building. 6) Any rooftop equipment must be completely screened from the north, south and west elevation, any part of the rooftop equipment that is visible from any other elevation must be painted to match the building on which the equipment sits. 7) Wall materials and colors shall be consistent with the main Wal-Mart building. 8) Outdoor storage shall be prohibited unless it is screened from public view with a screen wall incorporating materials and colors consistent with the main W ai-Mart building. 9) Understory shrubs or perennials must be added to the area between the new western parking lot and western property boundaries. The new plantings should be interspersed between the proposed deciduous shade trees. 10) Understory shrubs or perennials as well as boulevard shade trees must be Minutes - Hastings Planning Commission July 25,2005 - Page 9 of 10 added north of the western parking lot (along 4th Street). The intensity and variety of plantings shall be similar to the required plantings west of the western parking lot. 11) All landscaping and plantings shall be irrigated. 12) A landscape surety shall be established in the amount of 125 percent of the value of the plantings prior to certificate of occupancy and held for one year to ensure landscape viability. 13) All lighting shall incorporate shields and cut-offs to direct light on site. 14) The fire sprinkler system for the Wal-Mart addition must tie into the existing Wal-Mart's fire sprinkler system. Having two separate fire sprinkler systems will not be acceptable. 15) All parking and drive aisle areas shall be constructed to City standards including bituminous surfacing and concrete curb and gutter. 16) All disturbed areas on this property shall be stabilized with rooting vegetative cover to eliminate erosion problems. 17) The disturbed areas of the site shall be maintained to the requirements of the City's property maintenance ordinance. 18) 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. 19) Submission of an electronic copy of all plan sets (TIF, PDF, or similar format) prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 20) 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: 5, Nays: 1, Commissioner Schmitt dissenting. Motion Passed. 5. Other Business Director Hinzman updated the Commission on recent Council actions and upcoming Commission items. 6. Adjourn Commissioner Truax moved and Commissioner Zeyen seconded the motion to adjourn. Meeting was adjourned at 9:03 pm. Minutes - Hastings Planning Commission July 25,2005 - Page 10 of 10 Respectfully submitted, Cecily Schrader Recording Secretary