Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/22/89 HASTINGS I=LANNING COMMISSION Monday, December 22, 1986 The regular meeting of the Hastings Planning Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Commissioners Stevens, Dredge, Folch, Kaiser, Conzemius, Voelker, and Chairman Simacek. Members Absent: Commissioners Ditty, Anderson. Staff Present: Planning Director Harmening Commissioner Kaiser moved, seconded by Commissioner StevenS, to MINUTES approve the December 8, 1986 Planning Commission minutes. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 7~ Nayes, O. Planning Director Harmening informed the Planning Commission that the Cornerstone Bible Church was requesting an amendment to Section 10.17, Subd. 3 of the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow churches by Special Use Permit in the City's C-3 Community Regional Commerce Zone. Harmening indicated that the C-3 zone regulates land use in downtown Hastings and much of the commercial area along Vermillion Street. Chairman Simacek opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Ccmments received from the audience included: John Grossman - Gross~ indicated that he was not speaking specifically for the ~ but was speaking as a person who had worked in the downtown for the last several years. Grossman discussed the recent downtown revitalization efforts and the eccompl ishments which had been made. Grossman also discussed the recent study which had been conducted on the downtown area. Grossman indicated that in general churches as a land use in the downtown commercial area could have a negative effect on the business vitality of the downtown area. Charles Gegan, representing the Cornerstone Bible Church, reviewed the request which the Cornerstone Bible Church was making. Gegan briefly reviewed the arguments which had been included in the churches application to the city. Gegan also rebutted comments which the City Planner had made in his memo to the Planning Commission. Gegan indicated that no changes in the downtown area would occur because the church had already been in the downtOwn area for the last 2.5 years. Gegan also indicated that downtown Hastings provides the most economical place for a church to be located. Gegan also indicated that in his opinion even if the city allowed churches by Special Use Permit in the downtown area he did not feel that other churCheS would attempt to locate in downtown Hastings. Gegan also stated that in his opinion there was no other suitable use for the theater building. Gegan also stated that it appeared the church would not voluntarily move from its current location. PUBLIC HEARING- REQUEST ZONING AMENDMENT TO C-3 zoNE-OORNERSTONE BIBLE CHURCH James Storkamp - Mr. Storkamp indicated that he represented approximately one half dozen downtown property owners and businessmen who were opposed to the requested amendment. Storkamp briefly reviewed the requested amendment and indicated that in his opinion the proposed amendment would not be In keeping wlth the intent of the C-3 zone and would not retain the integrity of the commercial/business area of the downtown. Harry Schaen - Mr. Schoen introduced himself as a businessman from the downtown and stated that although he was not opposed to the Cornerstone Bible Church per say he was concerned with the amendment whlch was proposed to be made to the C-3 zoning requirements. Schoen indicated that a group of businessman were getting together in an attempt to initiate a revitalization of the theater for art and theater related purposes. Schoen also read a letter to the Plannlng CommissiOn which was to be sent out to the constituents of the City of Hastings requesting support for the revitalization of the theater. Schoen also indicated that he had met with Ebenstelner and apparently could work out an agreement if the church'S proposal failed. Sklp Soleim - Mr. Solelm intrOduced hlmself as a businessman In the downtown area and Indlcated that he felt a vacant building and economics should not dictate a zoning change. Pastor Jim Bzoskie - Pastor Bzoskie indicated that he represented the Cornerstone Bible Church. Mr. Bzoskie indicated that he belleved that on religious and constitutional grounds the church could locate in the downtown area and for that matter anywhere else In the city. Dick Ebensteiner - Ebenstelner Indicatod that he currently owned the theater building and was interested in selling the theater bulldlng to the Cornerstone Bible Church. Ebensteiner indicated that the theater bulldlng may be used for adult entertainment purposes. Mr. Ebenstelner alsO Indicated that although a strict interpretation of the zoning code would not appear to all ow churches In the downtown area, in his opinlon he felt that the spirit of the zoning law, and also constitutional groundS, should allOW churches in the downtown area. Mike Gegan - Mr. Gegan intrOduced himself as a business owner in the downtown area and Indicated his support for the proposed zoning amendment. Mr. Gegan felt that the church would provide a positive influence on the downtown area and would dlscourage vandalism and crime. Charles Gegan -Mr. Gegan rebutted comments whlch had been made by Mr. Schoen and Mr. Storkamp. Mr. Gegan generally Indicated that their arguments against the proposed amendment had no foundation. James Storkamp - Mr. Storkamp addressed the constitutional questions which had been raised. Mr. Storkamp Indicated that some limitationS are imposed even on churches or newspapers. Teresa Zien - Ms. Zien indicated she lived approximately four miles from Hastings and was a member of the church. Ms. Zien felt that a church in the downtown would bring business to the downtown area. Pastor James Bzoskie - Mr. Bzoskie indicated that he felt the City of Hastings was experiencing moral decay. Mr. Bzoskle further indicated he felt it was inappropriate that a bar could locate in the theater building but a church could not. Bzoskle stated that he felt that a church would be an asset to the downtown and the City. Mrs. James Bzoskie - Mrs. Bzoskie indicated that God had indicated to the church that the church was to locate in the theater building. Richard Tall - Mr. Tall identified himself as a realtor who lived in the downtown area. Mr. Tall felt that the downtown was currently suffering and having problems and that a church would help the situation. Mr. Tall indicated that he was impressed with the recent redevelopment efforts which have been undertaken. Ken Judge - Mr. Judge identified himself as a property owner in the downtown area. Mr. Judge expressed a concern that the proposed amendment would open the downtown area up to churches other than the Cornerstone Bible Church. There being no further comments from the audience the Chairman closed the publiC hearing at 8:30 p.m. Members of the Planning Commission discussed in length the requested amendment. After considerable discussion a m~tion was made by Commissioner Dredge, seconded by Commissioner Kaiser, to recommend that the City Council deny the application made by the Cornerstone Bible Church based on the following findings: 1. The intent of the C-3 zone "in establishing a community-regional commerce district is in recognition of the existing downtown commercial development and of the need for Its future expansions, rehabilitation and redevelopment" (Section 10.17, Subd 1). Typically, churches would not generate business activity and employment which Is vital to the intent of the C-3 zone. Therefore, the proposed amendment would not be conslstent with the intent of the C-3 zone. 2. The proposed amendment is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the HRAs redevelopment plans of lg74, 1977 and 1985 which have been adopted by the City of Hastings. Specific goals and objectives include: A. Provide redevelopment sites of such size and character to assure development of the area, strengthen the downtown economy and improve sources of public revenue. B. Provide a maximum opportunity, consistent with sound needs of the city as a whole, for redevelopment by private enterprise. C. Increase the quantity and quality of commercial spaCe through new construction and the rehabilitation of existing buildings. 3. The proposed amendment would not appear consistent with the goals and policies of the Hastings Comprehensive Plan. Examples include: A. The downtown commercial redevelopment district shall be a tax increment priority so as to retain the ongoing diversity of business and commerce which the downtown has historically provided. B. Guide development of urban land uses according to functions, to minimize land use conflicts and inefficiences of duplication. Land use groupings by general location minimize utility and facility conflicts, are cost effective in provision of services, and minimize the potential for incompatible adjacent land uses. 4. The standards for the C-3 zone which regulate density, setbacks, etc. promote a highly intensive commercial development pattern. Based on these standards churches would not constitute the highest and best use of land which is zoned C-3 Community Regional Commerce. 5. There is not an overall public need for additional land to be zoned to accomodate churches. This finding is made based on the following: A. All residential zoning districts within the City of Hastings, with the exception of the R-6 Mobile home Park District, allOW churches as a permitted use. In addition, when churches are designed properly and meet all zoning criteria pertaining to parking, street access, etc., churches can be very functional, unobtrusive, and harmonious with the residential environment and are more centrally located to the members which utilize them. B. Residential land within the City of Hastings is the largest single category of land use representing 45% of the total existing land use (source: Hastings Comp Plan). 6. The nature and timing of general church activities is in contrast to the business environment and to the business hours of the downtown. Therefore, no buslness or retail contribution or activity is generated which is contrary to the intent of the C-3 zone and the goals and objectives of the downtown redevelopment plan and the Hastings Comprehensive Plan. 7. The basic purpose of the zoning ordinance is to insure the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with the official Comprehensive Plan of the City of Hastings, and with adopted development goals, policies and proposals contained therein. Towards this end, the ordinance has divided the City of Hastings into zoning districts. These districts contain standards which are intended to retain the integrity of residential, commercial and Industrial areas. The proposed amendment does not uphold the integrity of the C-3 Community Regional Commerce Zone and therefore is inconsistent with the purpose of the Hastings Zoning Ordinance. 8. The recently prepared Downtown Hastings Master Plan emphasizes the importance of maintaining and increasing the number and variety of retail services and office opportunities. The plan recommends deleting several uses which are currently permitted in the downtown which detract from a dense commercial area. Such uses include gas stations, car dealerships, and industry. Consequently, the Plan is not supportive of allowing churches in the downtown. It is further recommended that the City Council be informed that the Planning Commissions role in reviewing requests for zoning amendments is to provide the Council with a recommendat1°n based on sound planning and zoning principles wlth the Council responsible for consldering any indepth legal principles of the request. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 7~ Nayes, O. Plannlng Director Harmening refreshed the Planning Commissions memory regarding the proposed request. In this case, the Planning Commission, during its last meeting, tabled action on the matter and continued the public hearing due to the fact that the applicant had not provided the city with a preliminary site plan for the proposed commercial development. Since the last meeting staff had received a site plan but was not given much tlme to revieW it as the plan was not submitted until Thursday, December 18, 1986. Harmening further noted that comments received from the audience at the previOuS public hearing pertained to the current appearance of the Judge property and concerns with respect to parking. Harmening also reviewed the site plan whlch had been submitted by Judge. In this case Harmening expressed concerns with the parking arrangements relating to traffic maneuverabillty, setbacks, etc. Harmenlng also discussed matters pertalning to screening, drainage, Comprehensive Plan issues, etc. Harmening also outlined for the Planning Commission two courses of action which could be taken on this matter. In this case the application could be approved subject to an understanding which indicates that the applicant still would be required to obtain final site plan approval or _. the Planning Commission could table the matter and request that 1 the appliant revise the preliminary site plan to address concerns pertalning to parking, traffic movement, etc. PUBLIC HEARING- REQUEST FOR REZONING- R-3 TO C-3-LOT 17, BLOCK 4, VEI~ILLION ADDITION-JIM/TOM JUDGE The Chairman reopened the public hearing at 8:43 p.m. Tom Judge was in attendance and indicated that if the property were rezoned he would buy the property from his brother. There being no further comments from the audience the public hearing was closed at 8:~5 p.m. After discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Conzemius, seconded by Commissioner Stevens, to recommend that the City Council rezone the property from R-3 to C-3 based on the fact that the property in its present condition is generally commercial in nature, provides off street parking for the existing Judge Appliance Store which would otherwise be required to locate on the street if the property were developed residentially, and based on the finding that the proposed rezonlng does not appear in major conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. This recommendation was subject to the following understanding: A. Approval of the rezoning in no way constitutes approval of the preliminary site plan. Furthermore, the City is in no way obligated to approve, at a later date, the preliminary site plan as presentally proposed or any other site plan which does not conform with the City codes. The applicant will be required to formally make application for site plan approval as per the requirement of City Code. The final site plan should take into consideration all requirements of city code. In addition, the final site plan should take into consideration potential building size reductions, parking revisions, tree and shrub plantings, lighting, loading and unloading facilities, etc. B. The applicant should be aware that a formal parking agreement will probably be required to be entered into between the two property owners which in this case are Tom Judge and Jim Judge. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 6; Nayes, Commissioner Folch. The motion was declared approved. The Planning Director refreshed the Planning Commissions memory on this matter. In this case the Planning Director had prepared a revised draft of the home occupation ordinance to take into consideration those home occupations which may not comply with the new ordinance. The Planning Director also discussed with the Planning Commission the possibility of allowing up to two home occupations within a dwelling unit. The Planning Commission appeared receptive to this idea. The Chairman reopened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. There being no comments from the audience the Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:51 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - HOME OCCUPATION ORDINANCE After discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Folch, seconded by Commissioner Kaiser, to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed home occupation ordinance subject to the proposed ordinance being changed to allow up to two home occupations within a dwelling unit provided that the combined affect of the home occupations would not exceed the standards contained within the home occupation ordinance. It was further recommended that the home occupation standards contained within the Ag and R-1 zones be deleted. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 7~ Nayes, O. The Planning Director indicated that Hastings Construction was requesting approval of a preliminary plat and rezoning from Ag to R-1 for a 62 lot development on approximately 20 acres of land located just south of the 14th Street Ponding Basin. The proposed density for the development is approximately 3 units per acre. The Planning Director discussed with the Planning Commission matters pertaining to the layout of the development, Comprehensive Plan issues, proposed cul-de-sac le~th$3~.ark land dedication, sidewalks and walkways, double fronted lots, etc. Cory Gustafson and Brooks Swanson, both representing the developer, were in attendance and answered questions of the Planning Ccmmission. After discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Kaiser, seconded by Ccmmissioner Folch, to order that the required public hearing for this matter be held on January 12, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. provided that the applicant have all of the necessary information into the Planners office by December 29, 1986. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 7; Nayes, O. The Planning Commission tabled this matter and continued the public hearing until the nex~t meeting of the Hastings Planning Commission. The Planning Director requested that the Planning Commission begin thinking about the proper zoning and land use designation for the proposed annexation area between Highway 316 and 61 in southeast Hastings. The Planning Director updated the Planning Commission on recent actions taken by the City Council. There being no further business a motion was made by Commissioner Folch, seconded by Ccmmissioner Kaiser, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 9:30 p.m. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 7~ Nayes, O. PRELIMINARY PLAT/ REZONING-DAKOTA VI E-~/ VIEW 1ST ADDN.- HAST INGS CONSTR.- ORDER PUBLIC HEARING MANUFACTURED HOME PARK ORDINANC~ Oq~IER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT