This transcript appears to be a meeting of the **Hastings Planning Commission**. The speakers have been identified based on the provided context, names mentioned in the dialogue, and the specific roles of the officials listed. [0:00] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** i'm gonna call the meeting to order and approval of the minutes for the record there was a typo noted and addressed any other changes or corrections if not other than the typo we'll go ahead and consider those approved and next is a public hearing this will be summergate properties comprehensive plan amendment 2021-36 extension of metropolitan urban service area northeast corner of 316 and michael john hinsman [0:23] **John Hinzman:** okay thank you mr chairman planning commissioners tonight we have a forest comprehensive plan amendment in which we are looking to extend the metropolitan urban service area boundary to incorporate property for new development i'll go through a little bit [0:45] about what that means and what it involves and what's where the set is in the development process so the property before us is located here on the screen it is generally known as the best development property it is 72 acres redwing boulevard highway 316 is located here this is tuttle drive michael avenue hope lutheran church so this is really the south entrance into the city if you're coming up from red wing this is the last vacant land here before you get into the city as we take a look at what this is and how this fits into our plans this is something that was noted in our comprehensive plan as far as land use we looked at extensions beyond our city limits for future development and annexation [1:31] this property here was guided for low residential development that's what's being proposed with the subdivision our subdivision tonight but plan as it comes forward of the future with metropolitan council rules however when we extend the musa boundary we need to amend the comprehensive plan so tonight we're not changing land use what we are doing is implementing that portion of the comprehensive plan that extends our sewer boundary a little bit further south the musa boundary the metropolitan urban service area boundary is where sewer service is provided within the city sewer service equals developability into more urban lots in which you see surrounding this development without those services being present [2:17] you're limited in regulated only large acreage developments so it's an important aspect to development what this development will eventually have is a preliminary plan that would come forward final plot that would come forward that would look specifically at the development details that is something that's forthcoming is not coming forward tonight tonight we're looking at the comprehensive plan amendment concept plan for development the council will do something similar on this the only addition they'll have is the action for annexation which is essentially bringing property in from the adjoining township into the city limits of hastings so this is kind of the first round of that development uh noted in your package here the differences between the comprehensive [3:02] plan and zoning comprehensive plan against our guide plan for development zoning is our rules as we move forward here when you take a look at this land here and its attributes you can see that it is a pretty open farmland for most of the property here being currently under agriculture you can see this tree line area here on the squiggly line which is forested and then there's a slope that goes down into a prairie area which is adjacent to an area to the north which is controlled by the dnr the hastings san cooley scientific and natural area so it's adjacent to that the developable aspect of this property does not include the treed area or the san coulee it's really looking only at the area up here [3:48] the upland agriculture area as noted that the plan concept plan for this would be for about 159 single-family homes that is something that's consistent with our comprehensive plan looking at development around here you've got single-family development to the north and south pines thomas avenue would be an extension coming south michael avenue would be the main entrance into the development at this point and the rest of the area surrounded is uh is is martian township public notification we did notify people out to 350 feet have not heard any comment back at this time looking at the development a little more this is our comprehensive plan map this is officially what's being what's being modified [4:34] the area here in black where you see the hatched area signifies areas which are termed stage two development which means these are areas planned to come into the city limits of hastings and are immediately adjacent there's not a time frame associated for their development they're just situated such that they're they're adjacent to the city and uh would be consistent with the plan to annex those in and so that's what we have before us tonight as we look at this we're certainly supportive of it the property is guided for low residential development the conceptual plans consistent with that and the development stage map identifies the area for future extension so that's this is what the the official aspect we have tonight [5:19] looking at the conceptual plan for development here you can see it's a single family development this is the upland area up here uh lola the slope you can sort of see here from the topography lines heading down is not going to be developed into lots entrances coming in on michael thomas and then internally served throughout the development so that's what we have before you tonight this is a public hearing you may open it up at this time or i can stand for any questions i'll also note that we do have representatives here from summergate if you have questions for them as well thank you [5:49] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** okay thanks john and as you noted this is a public hearing go ahead and open the public hearing now if anybody wishes to speak if you please go ahead and step up to the podium and [6:05] then state your first and last name and your address or what company you're with for the record [6:09] **Brian Tucker:** thank you commissioners my name is brian tucker i'm with summergate development we also have jim atkinson from our staff as well and then we have property owners here tonight also just want to thank staff for their guidance and assistance through this process they've been very helpful one other thing to note is we have been having some ongoing dialogue with the dnr about their potential acquisition of that outlaw area to include in their holdings of for the s a area nothing's committed yet but we have been in preliminary discussions and and expect that to continue it's not as you imagine a real quick process but if we were to develop this property and move [6:51] forward that would be our intent is to continue to work with them uh otherwise we're happy to answer questions um and appreciate again john's assistance in this matter thank you [7:00] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** all right thank you anyone else wish go ahead [7:02] **Daniel King:** hello my name is daniel king i'm the homeowner right here on the corner adjacent to steve angstrom's place right here um i guess my biggest concern is going to be once the homes are built and occupied is children and trespassing on my property um i know there's not a lot that can be done about it but i'm asking maybe the developer to consider please consider putting in a privacy fence for us of some kind i don't have the money to surround my acreage with [7:37] that i don't i can't speak for steve but i would like something that would at least tell people please don't come in here and i'm not anti children or anything i just i moved out there to get a little bit away and uh i'm a retired uh firefighter retired police officer i just you know i like my peace and quiet i'm just asking if maybe you would ever consider maybe fencing in our two sides it would probably be these dotted line areas right here if that's that's something that you could do that would really help me if you don't mind i'll get a business card from me before i leave and i know steve has some comments too but my i guess my biggest thing is privacy and and the kids in there because i don't want an accidental fire or you know just on coming out of my land without permission um you know i'm not an ogre but i just i don't [8:23] want my privacy that's all i'm asking for and i i knew this could probably happen one day but uh i've only been there five years steve's been i think over 20. um it happens it's development it's what it is but i'm just asking for some accommodation on that level all right thank you for time thank you [8:48] **Steve Angstrom:** steve angstrom 17162 red wing boulevard in hastings uh marchand township uh property owner uh right here joining the property um my question or my comment or concern along with dan is the uh his uh privacy and uh request defense another concern is the is the traffic that's going to feed this on the 316. [9:14] what are your plans [9:22] how are you going handle traffic coming into this development off of 316 and mike 11 is anyone here to comment um [9:30] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** well as far as commenting on the traffic that would be something that would we'd have to deal with at a different at a later date when the actual concept would come into play with mndot and so forth because it'll mndot will have to i'm assuming weigh in at some point because of the right of ways so nothing can go on 316 with the right-of-way unless mndot approves it so they would be the one to actually do the traffic engineering study and then make that determination [10:04] **Steve Angstrom:** our concern is the the increase of traffic the just several hundred cars a day that would come in and off of there [10:08] we had a similar situation back when when south lines were net 316 is generally really not [Music] can't handle that that that type of traffic uh coming back back from 61 um off at that intersection by the by the by the arena um i was trying to suggest some type of a controlled intersection there whether it be roundabout or some some other method but i'd like to see that that addressed and also if there is some type of a schedule or timing the process for this for the for the further development [10:56] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** well again that would come later this is a very very first step in the whole process this is just us looking at the plan itself the comprehensive plan part of it for the city portion um there's still a lot of steps left i mean there the city council is going to have to look at the annexation and then once the concept comes through the developers would have to come through with the concept plan and that has a whole different uh set of uh procedures that they have to go through so i i wouldn't know a time frame i wouldn't even be able to even guess on what the time frame would be but there's still a lot of steps left after tonight this is just a look at the actual comprehensive plan and how this fits into it for the city as we're really not touching on the actual development or the traffic or or things like that that's all going to [11:41] be addressed later on in in future meetings as the process goes on from here okay yep [11:59] **Steve Angstrom:** all right so yeah i apologize i don't we don't have any of those answers right now because kind of that's outside of what we're doing tonight tonight is strictly just looking at the plan itself the comprehensive plan and how this how the land use fits into the comp plan okay okay thank you for providing the information absolutely [12:11] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** uh do we have anyone else that wishes to speak oh come on in um [12:14] **Daniel King:** you said mndot will be involved at some point john i'm assuming so okay yes because we've had issues where i think you've been struck maybe twice coming down the hill as it starts to drop down into the coulee maybe a blind driveway sign or something like i know that's their problem but i just want to make sure it's thought about so thank you [12:35] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** yeah i think i think i'm on the right track right generally anytime we're looking at adding right-of-ways or changing right-of-ways onto 316 or 61 i believe mndot has a process that any developer has to go through john if you want to explain right just a little bit [12:54] **John Hinzman:** yeah sure i can comment on that a couple other things too yeah with what we're looking at today we're looking at the conceptual plan of development here and [12:58] when we have the detailed plans for the layout which will come with the plaid application which i would assume would be coming over the winter we would re-notify people we'd have more investigation on that the main entrance coming in here is going to is going to be off michael avenue here so this intersection here is going to be studied to ensure its capability and capacity for for handling the traffic and see if there's any modifications that are necessary to that so that that we know is going to be the main entrance in here we'll have mndot's involvement in there to see what what changes might be necessary for that intersection that'll be coming later with the with the preliminary plan on the application here [13:38] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** okay thanks so yes i encourage uh [13:43] encourage you to watch for the next meetings for city council because there's going to be few you're going to see this come up a few more times as it works itself through the process so yep absolutely thanks anyone else have any questions do we have anyone on zoom uh i think we have one but i don't i think he's here for another reason so i'm gonna check that out i don't see you raised hands no raise hands on zoom and then no other further discussion okay if not i'll close the public hearing and we'll open it up for commissioners comments questions for john mr matzke [14:28] **Commissioner Matzke:** so when we extend the municipal service line do we do a heaven [14:29] and a rough idea what kind of extra affluent is going to be piped through our lines and whether we can handle that are our lines or municipal service lines where are we at with those do we have the capacity for that and who would have to pay for that if it would have to be um made better [15:00] **John Hinzman:** sure a good question there when we do our comprehensive plan there's a source there's a sewer system chapter in there sanitary sewer in which we take a look at existing lines and we take a look at future capacity and this goes out to i think 2050 it goes out probably another mile or so beyond here not that that's going to develop if ever but we take a look at these larger areas and the capacity for the systems to do it this [15:17] area does have that capacity it's been planned to go out much further and that's also dependent upon the desire of property owners and other factors but from a system capacity standpoint the the lines that feed into this development that will eventually take it down to the sewer plant do have the capacity yes [15:42] **Commissioner Matzke:** second question i would have so if 316 does need a study done and road improvements are to be made who would pay for those improvements does the city pay for those improvements or does the developer pay for those improvements [15:58] **John Hinzman:** commissioner the developer would pay for those improvements any improvements necessary to the right-of-way there it's similar to if you look back to this county road improvements but that ver million acres senior housing development at long county road seven and village in which there was turn lanes necessary for that development that was the developers charge to do that [16:19] **Commissioner Matzke:** i have nothing else [16:20] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** hey thank you commissioners any other questions or comments [16:27] commissioner peters um so the area to the east that would never be or sorry to the west that yeah the east that would never be developed why is that included in that in the potential like land use change that's it is it a good question [16:51] **John Hinzman:** uh i think because it's it was the property that came in for annexation itself but yeah it's a good question on our comprehensive plan actually if i go back one more here you could see underneath the arrow that this line here corresponds with a different type of land use so it it shows this as as being either park area and upland conservation i think are the two terms it uses so it doesn't identify the area along the [17:15] slope or in the lowland ford development it protects that area [17:24] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** just a follow-up to that so if if the intention is to protect that area why is it you know should it be included in this land use change or should it not be included [17:35] **John Hinzman:** good question it could go either or i since it's not going to be developed it doesn't have much function however the the land use within the within the map here is going to override any ability to develop this property so even though it's included in there's prohibitions against development based upon this guidance [17:59] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** okay thank you [18:03] **John Hinzman:** real quick can i backtrack um i got one address one seven one six two what was the other address that's okay [18:12] thank you perfect thank you [18:15] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** commissioners mr romans [18:20] **Commissioner Romans:** uh john just quick so on that comprehensive map we're not changing any of the actual usage there we're basically just drawing that red line down around there so the what usage is here is gonna be consistent it just goes from the hatch line to or to the stage one correct [18:38] **John Hinzman:** yeah that's correct so that yeah nothing within the land uses the colors on the map here would remain the same uh this hatched would go away and it'd be the same as this it should have explained when you take a look at this map here it's a bit confusing because it doesn't have any denotations on it but [18:57] this red line here is the city limit line as it sits right now the area that's enhanced is are areas that are open for future annexation doesn't mean that they're eminent for annexation it means that if a property owner came forward and it's adjacent to the city limits we'd entertain that and then we have other areas here that are in this kind of diagonal line these are areas that are within the city limits but have not developed yet so that that's kind of the difference between these [19:33] **Commissioner Romans:** thanks todd [19:35] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** all right thank you commissioners mr tykan [19:43] **Commissioner Tykan:** thank you mr um i think this is great um and i understand that was it john james steve i'm sorry guys steven okay um i understand but i hope you guys understand that we're really not looking at that other stuff tonight but we will down the road yeah and i understand that before i joined the planning commission i didn't know the process either um and just looking at this map is a great way for people to look at the future of the city so when you buy land if you're adjacent to the city you can see actually how the city kind of envisions that developing down the road so you can see that we kind of had that area in mind for future development and tonight we'not changing the red line we're just changing the musa line which isn't on this right right correct so it's not being annexed in the city today we're just saying [20:29] we're going to move the line for the sewer out to this property but we still have to go by the comprehensive plan which is the yellow the green dark green correct correct yeah so i i mean if i just look at the the musa and expanding it it seems like a no-brainer to me thank you mr chair [20:50] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** all right thank you commissioner tyken commissioners [20:54] oh sorry commissioner alberg go ahead [20:57] **Commissioner Hallberg:** uh mr chair i'll make the motion to approve the comprehensive plan amendment uh 2021-36 extension of the musa boundary northeast corner of 360 and michael avenue [21:18] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** okay we have a motion on tables approved by commissioner hallberg in a second [21:23] **Commissioner Matzke:** i'll second [21:24] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** okay commissioner maskey second any further discussion if not all in favor say aye [21:32] **Commissioners:** aye aye aye aye [21:34] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** opposed question carries okay thank you and thank you yeah the recommendation mr chair will go forward to the city council on the december 6th meeting thank you you're welcome thank you thanks for coming tonight thank you [21:40] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** okay under other actions we have joe schnell site plan 2021-49 jersey mike's 1217 vermillion street and justin has this one [21:54] **Justin (City Planner):** yeah thank you very much um the proposal for reconstruction of the property is gonna pretty much end up with kind of what you see there today as far as the layout and design of the site although it would it's mostly all gonna be new they're proposing to reconstruct the property that was most recently used by enterprise rent-a-car the site was originally constructed as a restaurant and [22:26] will be reconstructed with a similar layout this is a site plan showing how the site will be redesigned and the use of the property as a restaurant is in line with the comprehensive plan as commercial in this corridor along with the present zoning which is c3 commercial um the building originally did have a drive-through in the proposal is also including a drive-through on the north west side of the site where the building bumps out [23:12] closer to the drive aisle which makes a fairly long queue area for cars which is important so they don't back up onto vermillion street this is kind of a general picture of kind of how the site looks now and i'd say the only the only changes to the site layout are going to be mostly the the exit is gonna taper kind of to more more like one lane which was a comment from the [24:00] minnesota department of transportation they wanted to make sure that two cars weren't going to try to exit the site side by side at the same time the landscaping currently there's landscaping on the site which will be saved with the addition of new landscaping being added around the building and some couple new trees on the front side of the site there's a currently a privacy fence along the back property line between the site and residential properties to the east which will remain and i think there's some repairs that will be [24:46] done to that existing fence and these are the elevation drawings of the front of the building on the west elevation and the rear the building materials are going to be mostly stucco there'll also be some commercial paneling and metal panels along the top and here's the north elevation where it shows the the drive through on the west towards the west end of the building and then on the bottom of this screen is the south elevation [25:28] and staff recommends approval of the of the site plan um with the recommendation for the conditions that are included in the staff report and so um i believe the applicants are here can answer any questions otherwise i can stand for any questions thank you [25:54] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** justin i do have one quick question this is a complete teardown and rebuild of the structure itself correct [26:07] **Justin (City Planner):** that's correct [26:08] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** okay that's what i thought because right now there's currently not enough room back there for two cars to squeeze by each other so i'm assuming the new building is going to be shortened up a little bit [26:14] **Justin (City Planner):** yeah i believe there's an addition on that back of that current building um was kind of like for car washing and maintenance yeah i don't believe that's going to be included i think the [26:22] building is a little bit you know they're pretty close in size but yeah it's not going to be as deep [26:26] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** okay thanks commissioner you see any questions comments for justin [26:31] **Commissioner Hallberg:** commissioner harper justin looking at the required parking uh says the requirements one per three seats and they're proposing 12. where is the staff going to park because if you have four cars for staff members that brings you down to eight spots which would fall below the requirement [27:01] **Justin (City Planner):** well the requirement would take that into consideration um that's just how the parking is figured for uh for restaurant use one of the requirements one of the ways of figuring parking right my concern is if there's you know four or five cars that belong just to employees there's it's only going to leave a couple spots for well right and i'm saying that was considered when that ordinance was [27:16] adopted otherwise they would have said you know they need one space you know per um per seat plus so many for for customers that was taken into the equation when they had that requirement um you know i think that's it's worked well in other areas um i believe it's it's probably worked here this might be i don't recall i wasn't here when this was a taco john's but i don't believe that there was any parking issues back then okay thank you [27:56] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** all right thank you commissioner albert there's that's parking back in the back side right open the upper left [28:04] upper left corner excuse me upper right corner of the picture that's one two three five spaces proposed up there is that right [28:13] **Justin (City Planner):** it's probably where the employees will park i'm assuming so [28:22] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** okay do you have five people working at once even [28:30] oh you're just building the shell okay got it okay thank you that's okay thank you all right commissioners any other questions commissioner dyken [28:47] **Commissioner Tykan:** thank you mr do we have uh ordinances about stacking how many cars we can oh [28:54] **Justin (City Planner):** stacking i i don't believe so but do you know how many this one can accommodate five uh quite a few this is this is pretty large um it's gonna it would you know they'd be able to stack back to here i don't i didn't scale it out for the number but that's as good a cueing stacking area as we have for uses with uh with the drive through [29:16] **Commissioner Tykan:** okay um and i guess jersey mike's isn't here so i don't know where they would park their semis to restock the store it seems kind of tight in there but otherwise i think it's a great use of that building 61. thank you mr chair [29:32] **John Hinzman:** mr chair i'll note here too that we we do have a representative online joe schnell the owner of the building uh he did raise his hand up i could bring him into the meeting if you'd like as well [29:45] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** sure do we have any questions for mr schnell direct is he with jersey mike's [29:53] **John Hinzman:** he's uh he's the one of the owners [29:55] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** oh okay okay but he might be able to answer questions on that sure yeah we can bring them in okay commissioners have any questions specifically for him [30:05] **Commissioner:** so is the entire drive-through going to be on the on the north side then where you pay and where you pick up so they'll be able to queue all the way back around and then all the way back because it's going to be busy when it opens and i'm that's i already know that just from experience with other ones so and that's not a lot of room on that property so it's just one of those things that we think about because it's it's going to be busy so [30:35] **John Hinzman:** mr chair i'm trying to promote uh mr schnell here for some reason it does not want me to do so i'll keep okay well we'll make another question is he in yeah as soon as i said that he he is in joe if you want to uh unmute uh you are on [30:46] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** joe are you there [30:48] **Joe Schnell:** hi we can hear you all right no i was just gonna hit on that stack and that's when i raised my hand there okay um the franchisee owner was actually saying that the drive-through isn't their main source of sandwiches going out the door so he was happy with anything over four or five stacked up there and that's more like a seven or eight so okay thanks [31:18] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** commissioners do you have questions for him direct mission romans [31:24] **Commissioner Romans:** quick question that if the franchisee was saying that most of their business will not be coming through drive-through is that enough parking then to accom how many how many employees do they typically have in a facility like that and how many you know people are they running through an hour there because if you you know you have a handicap spot [31:34] here so that one's not always usable you have five spots in the back so you're left with about six options there um so that is a bit tight [31:59] okay all right i think that's all i have for questions right now thank you [32:20] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** okay thank you commissioner romance commissioners any other questions for either our guests here or mr schnell let's zoom if done i'll entertain a motion [32:32] **Commissioner Tykan:** mr chair commissioner dagon i'll make the motion to uh recommend approval of the site plan for jersey mike's restaurant 2021-49 at 1217 vermillion street [32:47] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** okay motion to approve commissioner tykan all second [32:52] **Commissioner King:** second commissioner king [32:55] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** any further discussion if none all in favor say aye [33:04] **Commissioners:** aye aye [33:05] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** opposed okay motion carries thank you thank you mr chair this item will be brought forward with the recommendation of approval to city council on december 6th for final action thank you and thanks mr chanel for coming via zoom and thank you to our guests for coming tonight thank you appreciate it all right other business [33:13] **John Hinzman:** other business well uh taking a look at uh council meeting we had on november 15th a couple of items went forward there from planning commission one of them was the the definition of family discussion actually that was to order a public hearing for the december 6th meeting so that discussion will take place at that time and potential action they did approve the comprehensive plan amendment for the mixed use high residential district so that is in place and they are ordering a public they're having a public hearing and they took action on the downtown core zoning district as well to make those changes on the height so those items were brought forward and action was taken on that also the variance that moved forward with the recommendation of denial by planning commission council also felt [34:01] that denial was an order and that was a unanimous vote as well so that variance for mr hyman on 5th street was denied and he's been made aware of that so that's what we had for november 15th as we move forward here in our planning our next meeting will be december 13th i do have one item on there already a number of items related to the flats on third street which is that 85 unit apartment building on the old ubc site so we'll be taking a look at the rezoning plat site plan for that project so those will all be coming forward there's also going to be a open a neighborhood meeting happening on december 7th notification should be going on any day when i get that i'll [34:47] get that over to you folks as well so you're aware of that so there'll be an opportunity for the neighboring residents to to come forward and look at the project prior to the planning commission review on the 13th so that's what i know at this point we're also taking applications for various commissions including this one here i've had a had a few applications that come in but still looking for more people so if you're interested in serving on this commission hedra heritage preservation parks a number of commission openings out there contact city hall there's a quick information application that can be uh filled out and then you could be considered to sit up here like these lovely folks so that's all i have [35:28] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** okay thanks john commissioners any other business [35:32] other than have a happy thanksgiving and if not i'll take a motion to adjourn [35:36] **Commissioner King:** i'll make the motion to adjourn for sure king second [35:39] **Commissioner Romans:** all seconds commissioner romans [35:43] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** any further discussion all right all in favor say aye aye aye aye aye opposed motion carries we are adjourned happy thanksgiving