Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/13/86HASTINGS F~_ANNING [~)MMISSION Monday, October 13, 1986 The regular meeting of the Hastings Planning Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Commissioners Dredge, Folch, Kaiser, Conzemius, Simacek. Members Absent: Commissioners Ditty, Stevens, Anderson, Voelker. Staff Present: Planning Director Harmening. Commissioner Kaiser moved, seconded by Commissioner Folch, to approve the September 22, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes. Voice vote carried unanimously. MINUTES The Planning Director informed the Planning Commission that Vermillion State Bank was requesting site plan approval of a proposed addition to be made to the south side of the existing Vermillion State Bank Building located at 975 Lyn Way. The size of the addition is proposed to be approximately 18 feet by 40 feet or 720 square feet. The Planning Director also noted that the applicant proposes to relocate the south access drive and provide various plantings some of which apparently were to be completed as a part of the original construction. The Planning Director also discussed with the Planning Commission matters pertaining to setbacks, parking requirements, etc. The Planning Director did note that the applicant proposes to relocate the existing south access drive towards the south property line into a location which is eight feet from the property line and approximately in the same location as originally approved by the City. Harmoning noted that an adjacent parking lot and fence were located approximately in the same location as the south property line. Harmening further noted that although staff did not necessarily have a problem with the proposed relocation it was suggested that the applicant recheck the location of the driveway to insure a conflict with the fence and parking lot did not occur. SITE PLAN-EXPANSION TO VErmILLION ST. BANK,975 LYN WAY After discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Conzemius, seconded by Commissioner Folch, to recommend approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: A. That the building addition, drive relocation, and landscaping be completed pursuant to the site plan dated October 13, 1986. Upon request for occupancy of the addition all uncompleted items contained within the site plan shall be addressed pursuant to the escrow requirement contained within the site plan review provisions of the City Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.24). B. That the applicant check the location of the proposed access drive as it relates to the existing fence and parking lot on the south side of the property. C. That the applicant stripe the parking lot and access drives as per the layout indicated on the site plan. D. That the applicant install bumper curbs for the east parking lot spaces. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 5~ Nayes, O. Planning Director Harmening noted that Terri Whipple was requesting a home occupation permit to allow her to operate a dog grooming business in the basement of her home at 314 E. 5th Street. Harmening noted that the request made by Whipple for a home occupation permit was initiated by the City. Harmening further stated that Whipple has been operating a dog grooming business out of her home for about eleven years. It appeared the primary reason why she was not required to have a home occupation permit before was because up until December of 1983 the property in question was zoned C-3 Commercial. Due to a zoning ordinance amendment in 1983 the property is now zoned R-2. Harmening reviewed Whipples application with the Planning Commission. Terri Whipple was in attendance to answer questions of the Planning Commission. After discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Conzemius, seconded by Commissioner Dredge, to recommend approval of the home occupation permit for a dog grooming business subject to Whipple complying with all standards pertaining to home occupations. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 5; Nayes, O. Planning Director Harmening informed the Planning Commission that a question had recently been raised regarding the street name which was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council as a part of the platting process of the Highland Hills Second Addition Development. Harmening noted that in May of 1985 Siewert Construction requested that the City approve a plat called Highland Hills 2nd Addition. This plat contained a cul-de-sac which received access off of Pleasant Drive. The proposed cul-de-sac was and currently is in alignment with the existing 22nd Street. Harmening noted that it appeared that at the time the plat was presented to the Planning Commission and Council for its approval the cul-de-sac was proposed to be called West 22nd Court. Documentation which appeared to substantiate this finding is based on a memo written by Tom Loucks, minutes of the Planning Commission, as well as a drawing of the plat all of which refer to the cul-de-sac as West 22nd Court. Harmening noted that although the City may have approved the plat with the cul-de-sac named West 22nd Court the "Hard Shells" of the plat which was formally recorded at the County contained the the name "Ridgewood Court". The apparent discrepancy in the street naming went undiscovered until building permits were applied for by the Developer whereupon the name Ridgewood Court was proposed. Harmening noted that City Staff disagreed with the street name and issued the building permits using the West 22nd Court name. In the meantime, prospective homeowners along the cul-de-sac have been using the Ridgewood Court street name for mortgage closing purposes, changing their drivers license and check blanks, etc. Harmening stated that Neal Siewert, developer of the project, had written the City requesting that the HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT-DOG GROOMING TERRI WHIPPLE, 314 E. 5th STREET HIGHLAND HILLS 2ND ADDITION-STREET NAME-22ND COURT VS. RIDGEWOOD COURT name Ridgewood Court be used as recorded° Harmening reviewed with the Planning Commission the section of the Subdivision ordinance which pertained to street naming. In this case the subdivision ordinance requires that streets obviously in alignment with existing and named streets bear the name of the existing streets. Furthermore the subdivision ordinance indicates that where a plat extends beyond existing streets, that continuity of the present street naming scheme should be maintained. Harmening indicated that from a staff position it was felt that based on the background history of the platting process the street was approved as West 22nd Court, the name was consistent with the zoning ordinance, and the street should be named as originally approved. Harmening further noted that concerns from staff regarding the Ridgewood Court name relate to potential difficulties in finding a home on a street named Ridgewood Court versus West 22nd Court. Harmening reviewed with the Planning Commission the possible action which could be taken on this matter. Residents or prospective residents along the cul-de-sac were in attendance and expressed concerns regarding the potential for changing the name from Rldgewood Court to West 22nd Court. Their concerns pertained to the fact that they had closed their mortgages using the Ridgewood Court and had changed their drivers license, check blanks, and other personal items using the Ridgewood Court street name. Mike Werner, Councilman, also was in attendance and discussed the situation and expressed support for allowing the Ridgewood Court street name to continue. Commissioner Ditty was in attendance at the meeting at this time. The Planning Commission discussed this matter and in their opinion the City had indeed approved the West 22nd Court street name. determined that plat using the After discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Kaiser, seconded by Commissioner Dredge, to recommend that the City Council allow the Ridgewood Court street name to continue based on the fact that changing the street name at this time would create difficulties for persons who own or are currently in the process of buying lots on the cul de sac. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 43 Nayes, Ccmmissioner Folch; Commissioner Ditty abstained. Whereupon the motion was declared approved. Planning Director Harmening noted that IBI, Inc. is requesting a variance to Section 10.07, Subdivision 4T3 of the zoning ordinance to allow the Top Do It Center Store to have aggregate signage in excess of the 240 sq. ft. maximum permitted by code. The Top Do It Center Store proposes to have 545 sq.ft. of total sign space which does not include the sign space for the three other small commercial establishments to be located on the east side of the building. The 545 sq.ft, of sign space did not include the stripping proposed to be placed on the four corners of the Top Do It Center Store. Harmening noted that pursuant to City code each business within the building VARIANCE REQUEST- SIGN REQUIREMENTS "TOPS DO IT CENTER" STORE, 1325 SO. FRONTAGE ROAD, IBI, INC. was permitted to have 240 sq. ft. of sign space. Therefore, by using this method the total amount of sign space permitted on the building would appear to be 960 sq. ft. Harmening noted that as an incentive for the City to approve the variance request the applicant proposed to limit the total amount of sign space on the entire building to the 960 sq. ft. maximum. By using this formula IBI then proposed that the Tops store have 545 sq. ft. of sign space with the other three businesses in the building to split the remaining 450 sq. ft. of sign space. Harmening noted that in presenting its case the argument which the applicant appeared to be making was that the amount of sign space permitted by City Code per business appeared inequitable based on the fact that whether a business had 22,400 sq. ft. of floor area (Top Do It Center) or 4,000 sq. ft. of floor area (a separate business in the building) each business was allowed the same amount of sign space. Harmening also discussed with the Planning C~mmission the sign design and color schemes proposed for the lettering in the signage and the proposed red stripping along the four corners of the building. Harmening expressed a concern that the color scheme proposed may be somewhat "loud". The Planning Cemmission also expressed concern for the color scheme. Furthermore, members of the Planning Commission felt that the red stripping proposed to be placed on the building constituted sign space which would then inflate the total amount of sign space in excess of the 545 sqoft. of wording. Brooks Swanson, representative of IBI, discussed with the Planning Cemmission the color scheme proposed by the applicant. In this case Mr. Swanson felt that the building was of a physical nature and size that the contrasting colors were needed on the building to "break it up". After considerable discussion by the Planning Commission during which strong concerns were expressed for the color scheme as proposed by the applicant a motion was made by Commissioner Kaiser, seconded by Cemmissioner Folch, to recommend denial of the variance request for the following reasons: A. In addition to the 545 sq. ft. of worded sign space the approximate 495 of proposed red stripping on the building is considered to be sign space pursuant to Section 10.07, Subdivision 4.0 of the City Code which states that "symbols, flags, pictures, wording figures, or other forms of graphic painted on or attached to windows, walls, awnings, free standing structures suspended by balloons or kites or on persons, animals, or vehicles shall be considered as a sign to be included in calculating over all square footage". B. The 545 sq. ft. of worded sign space plus the approximate 495 sq.ft. of sign space in the form of red stripping is greater than the 240 sq. ft. permitted by code and far in excess of that which could be permitted by variance. Furthermore the applicant has not demonstrated that the criteria for the granting of variances, as established by City Code, has been met for the 1,040 sq. ft. of total sign space. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 4; Nayes, Commissioner Ditty & Conzemius. After further discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Dredge, seconded by Commissioner Kaiser, to recommend approval of a variance to allow the "Top Do It Center" store to have the 545 sq. ft. of worded sign space as per the plan provided by the applicant based on the fact that special conditions and circumstances present themselves due to the fact that the ordinance, in this case, presents a hardship as it does not address the unique circumstances of the building and the large disparity of size, in terms of floor area, of the businesses in the structure. This recommendation is subject to the condition that the total signage on the structure shall not consist of more than 960 sq. ft. with the 545 sq. ft. to be al located to the Top Do It Center store and 450 sq. ft. of sign space for the remaining three businesses with no other businesses with the exception of "Tops" to have more than 240 sq. ft. of sign space. It was further recommended that the limitations imposed to be recorded against the property to insure enforcement. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 5; Nayes, Commissioner Ditty. Planning Director Harmening noted that a petition had been received from seven of eight property owners requesting the vacation of the unimproved alley right of way on Block 91 of the Original Town of Hastings. Harmening noted that the City Council had scheduled the required public hearing for the Councils October 20, 1986 meeting. Harmening noted that according to the City Utility and Engineering Departments the City had no utilities located within the right of way and that the various other utility companies had been notified of the alley vacation request. It was noted that NSP did have power poles located in or adjacent to the alley. It did not appear any City utilities were planned to be located In the subject right of way in the future. REQUEST FOR ALLEY VACATION,BLOCK 91, ORIGINAL TOWN OF HASTINGS Harmening further noted that Eileen Hymes, had called and requested that her name be deleted from the petition. Comments from the audience pertaining to this matter were as follows - Carol McNamara, 310 W. 14th St. - Ms. McNamara indicated that she did not sign the petition. McNamara further indicated that she did not feel that Doug Place, the original proponent of the alley vacation, had explained to the property owners the real purpose of the alley vacation. Ms. McNamara further indicated that she preferred that the alley not be vacated. Eileen Hymes, 1306 Spring St. - Ms. Hymes agaln stated that she desired her name to be withdrawn from the petition as she did not desire for the alley to be vacated. Ms. Hymes also indicated that other persons along the alley who had signed the petition may consider withdrawing their name from the petition. After discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Dredge, seconded by Commissioner Kaiser, to table action on this matter as there was some question as to the actual amount of interest in vacating this alley. It was felt that this matter would be best addressed through the public hearing process which was scheduled to be held by the Council on October 20, 1986. It was further noted that the City Council should take a close look at the proposed alley vacation in terms of the actual interest of the property owners along the alley. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 4; Nayes, Commissioner Ditty and Commissioner Conzemius. Motion was made by Commissioner Folch, seconded by Commissioner Kaiser, to table action on this matter as three members of the Planning Commission were not in attendance. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 6; Nayes, O. A motion was made by Commissioner Folch, seconded by Commissioner Ditty, to order that a Public Hearing be held on October 27, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of rezoning the City owned property along the No. Frontage Road from I-2 to C-5 General Commerce. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 6; Nayes, O. Planning Director Harmening updated the Planning Commission on recent actions taken by the City Council. There being no further business a motion was made by Commissioner Dredge, seconded by Commissioner Conzemius, to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 P.M. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 6; Nayes, O. MOBILEHOME PARK ORDINANCE ORDER PUBLIC HEAR- ING-REZONING OF Cll~ OWNED PROPERTY WATER TANK ALONG NO. FRONTAGE ROAD OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT