Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-PCMinutes-20111128 Hastings Planning Commission November 28, 2011 Regular Meeting Vice Chair Stevens called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1.Roll Call Commissioners Present: Stevens, Bullington, Estenson, Messina, Rohloff, and Vaughan Commissioners Absent: Peine Staff Present: Community Development Director John Hinzman 2.$SSURYDORI0LQXWHV±1RYHPEHU Motion by Commissioner Rohloff to approve the November 14, 2011 minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Estenson. Upon vote taken, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.&LW\RI+DVWLQJV±5H]RQLQJ±5H]Rne Home from C-3 Community Regional Commerce to R-2 Medium Density 5HVLGHQFH±7\OHU6WUHHW Director Hinzman presented the combined staff report for the Rezoning, Variance, and Original Hastings Design Standards Review. Vice Chair Stevens opened the Public Hearing at 7:04. Hearing no comments from the audience, Vice Chair Stevens closed the Public Hearing at 7:04. Commissioner Vaughan asked if the UBC building next door was zoned industrial. Director Hinzman stated that it was. Would the future use of Red Rock Corridor affect the desire to rezone the property? Director Hinzman stated he believes the visibility of the building limits its use for future commercial businesses. Commissioner Bullington asked if the property needed to be rezoned to consider the garage application. Director Hinzman stated it did not. The rezoning ZDVDW6WDII¶VUHTXHVWWREHWWHU UHIOHFWWKHSURSHUW\¶VFXUUHQWXVH Motion by Estenson to recommend approval of the Rezoning, second by Rohloff. Upon vote taken, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Motion carried. OTHER ACTIONS 4.%UXFH6ZDQOXQG±Variance & Original Hastings Design 6WDQGDUGV5HYLHZ±9DULDQFH to the Minimum Structure Separation RequirementWRFRQVWUXFWDQHZJDUDJH±7\OHU6W Commissioner Bullington asked for verification of the five foot setback from property line. Director Hinzman confirmed the measurement. City of Hastings 3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ0LQXWHV±1RYHPEer 28, 2011 Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Bullington asked for clarification that the building code requires a three foot separation between buildings as opposed to the Zoning Code requirement of six feet; does one supersede the other? Director Hinzman stated the Commissioner was correct and that the Building Code generally supersedes the Zoning Code, however the Zoning Code can be more restrictive as in this case. Commissioner Bullington asked the applicant what the purpose of the garage was for and whether a garage has ever been on the property. Mr. Swanlund responded the garage was for his personal property and he was not aware of a garage on the property in the past. Commissioner Bullington stated he was not comfortable with varying the zoning provisions for a secondary structure, citing aesthetics and character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Estenson stated the placement of the building was not done by the applicant and the variance does appear to be grossly outside of the zoning requirements. Mr. Swanlund asked for clarification the building height limit. Director Hinzman stated the accessory building height was limited to 16 feet. Motion by Messina to recommend approval of the Original Hastings Design Standards review with the following conditions. Second by Estenson. Upon vote taken, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Motion carried. 1)Conformance with the Planning Commission Staff Report and plans dated November th 28 2011. 2)Approval of a building permit. 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. Discussion continued on the Variance request. Commissioner Vaughan asked about any greenspace requirements. Director Hinzman stated that there is a 35 percent greenspace requirement in the rear yard. Commissioner Vaughan asked for clarification on how the rear yard was determined on this structure. Director Hinzman stated the area south of the house was determined to be the rear yard. Discussion continued as to whether the east side should be considered the rear. The east side of the home is opposite of Tyler Street where the home is addressed and a door is located. Director Hinzman stated that doors exist on both the north and west side of the property, making the rear yard determination up for interpretation. Vice Chair Stevens asked for clarification on where the rear yard begins. Director Hinzman stated all property located behind the house; if the east side of the property where the garage is proposed to be located is considered the rear, the garage likely exceeds the 35% green space requirement. The Commission may want to consider that in the variance. City of Hastings 3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ0LQXWHV±1RYHPEer 28, 2011 Page 3 of 4 th Commissioner Vaughan asked if the applicant could change his address to 4 Street to avoid (thus designating the area south of the home as the rear yard) to avoid any conflicts with the 35% rear yard coverage? He asked that staff review the greenspace requirements with the Planning Commission at a future meeting date. Director Hinzman stated the setback requirements have been used to create greenspace and cautioned against using homes that preexisted the zoning code as examples. Commissioner Estenson stated the 35% requirement came after the subject home was moved into place. The applicant could attach the garage to the building and not be subject to accessory structure requirements; the attachment would not be aesthetic given the historic home. Commissioner Bullington questioned whether a garage should be built on this property; it might detract from the historic nature of the area. The location of the garage would violate the letter of the zoning ordinance. He cautioned setting a precedent in this instance. Commissioner Estenson stated that he agreed in being cautious in setting precedent, but believed the reasons for granting a variance in this instance, as presented in the staff report had merit. Vice Chair Stevens asked for clarification of the setback requirements if the garage was attached to the house. Director Hinzman stated it would be subject to the primary structure requirements. Vice Chair Stevens stated he believes the east side of the home (location of the garage) should be determined to be the rear. Commissioner Estenson asked how other cities designate front and side of properties. Director Hinzman stated Hastings City Code appears consistent with other cities. He further stated this was an unusual circumstance where the house was located in the center of the lot. Commissioner Bullington stated he is concerned with setting a precedent. He further stated that in some cities you are not allowed to place a garage on certain lots. Commissioner Messina stated that the neighborhood surrounding the application has two car garages. Placing a similar garage at this location would be consistent with the neighborhood. Motion by Vaughan to recommend approval of the Variance to the Minimum Accessory Structure Setback from Primary Structure, subject to the findings of fact of the staff report. Second by Estenson. Upon vote taken, Ayes 5, Nays 1 (Bullington). Motion carried. Commissioner Vaughan asked that the minutes from the meeting be presented to the City Council and that the Planning Commission review greenspace requirements at a future meeting. 5.Other Business Director Hinzman updated the Planning Commission on upcoming meeting items. City of Hastings 3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ0LQXWHV±1RYHPEer 28, 2011 Page 4 of 4 6. Adjourn Motion by Commissioner Vaughan to adjourn the November 28, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. Second by Commissioner Messina. Upon vote taken, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. 1H[W3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ0HHWLQJ±0RQGD\'HFHPEHU Respectfully submitted, ___________________________ John Hinzman Recording Secretary