Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/28/92HASTINGS PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting of December 28, 1992 The regular meeting of the Hastings Planning Commission was called to order by Commissioner Reinardy at 7:03 p.m. Commissioners Present: Bolesworth, Mesaros, Featherstone and Reinardy Commissioners Absent: Anderson and Bateman Staff Present: City Planner Czech MINUTES Commissioner Reinardy called for additions or corrections to the regular meeting of December 14, 1992. There being no additions or corrections the minutes were approved. PUBLIC HEARING- Czech reviewed staffs December 8, 1992, memorandum to the PRELIMINARY/ Planning Commission concerning a request by Siewert Construction FINAL PLAT- Company for approval of a preliminary/final plat entitled Highland HIGHLAND HILLS Hills 4th Addition. 4TH ADDITION Commissioner Reinardy opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m. Chuck Cragoe owner of Lot 7, Block 4, Highland Hills 2nd Addition was present at the meeting and indicated support for the preliminary/final plat. There being no further comments from the audience, Commissioner Reinardy closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Mesaros moved, Commissioner Bolesworth made a second to approve the preliminary/final plat for Highland Hills 4th Addition subject to the following conditions: 1. That the hardshells conform with the preliminary/final plat. That Outlot A, Highland Hills 4th Addition be combined with Lot 5, Block 4, Highland Hills 2nd Addition under one tax identification number. Outlot B, Highland Hills 4th Addition be combined with Lot 6, Block 4, Highland Hills 2nd Addition under one tax identification number. PUBLIC HEARING- MINOR SUBD. & SETBACK VARIANCE- 2320 CANNON ST. Outlot C, Highland Hills 4th Addition be combined with Lot 7, Block 4, Highland Hills 2nd Addition under one tax identification number. Outlot D, Highland Hills 4th Addition be combined with Lot 8, Block 4, Highland Hills 2nd Addition under one tax identification number. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 4; Nays, O. Czech reviewed staffs December 21, 1992, memorandum to the Planning Commission concerning a request by Robert & Rosanne Grossman and Lorraine Thompson for approval of a minor subdivision and setback variance at 2320 Cannon Street (Lot 12, Block 1, Bohlken Estates 1st Addition). Commissioner Reinardy opened the Public Hearing at 7:09 p.m. Don Keller, 1620 Brittany Road, was present at the meeting and indicated that he was speaking on behalf of the applicants and asked that the Planning Commission approve both the minor subdivision and setback variance. Mr. Keller indicated that he believed the setback variance was justified due to the unique configuration of the subject lot and that the proposed building plan could be redesigned but that it was not in the best interest of the applicants. The Planning Commission interacted with the applicant and staff concerning the minor subdivision and setback variance. There being no further comments from the audience, Commissioner Reinardy closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Commissioner Featherstone moved, Commissioner Mesaros made a second, to approve the minor subdivision subject to the following conditions: That a resolution be recorded against the property restricting development of Lot 12, Block 1, Bohlken Estates First Addition Parcel A and B to a common wall two family dwelling with a zero lot line. 2. That the applicants pay all recording costs associated with filing the resolution with Dakota County. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 4; Nays, 0. UPDATE/OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission further discussed the proposed setback variance with Jean Thompson, the applicants realtor, Don Keller and staff. The Planning Commission discussed, at length, whether proposed setback variance met City Code requirements. Commissioner Mesaros moved, Commissioner Featherstone made a second, to deny the various based on findings that the request does not satisfy the following requirements as established by Section 2.04, Subdivision 6, Paragraph A of the Hastings City Code: That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district; That literal interpretation of the City Code would deprive the applicant to rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance; C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of this applicant; That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the Zoning Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. No non-conforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or non-conforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 4; Nays, 0. Czech reviewed City Council actions pertaining to planning matters which occurred at the December 21, 1992, City Council meeting. There being no further business, Commissioner Featherstone moved, Commissioner Mesaros made a second, to adjourn the meeting at 7:41 p.m.