Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/88HASTINGS PLANNING C~)MMISSION February 22, 1988 The regular meeting of the Hastings Planning Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Commissioners Ditty, Krook, Dredge, Featherstone, Anderson, Zender, Voelker, Kaiser, and Chairman Folch. Members Absent~ None Staff Present: Planning Director Harmening and Planning Intern Wensing. A motion was made by Commissioner Krook, seconded by Commissioner Kaiser to approve the February 8, 1988 Planning Commission minutes subject to change being made to page 2 by reversing the names of Commissioners Krook and Kaiser. It should read "motion made by Commissioner Kaiser, seconded by Commissioner Krook" on paragraph 1, sixth sentence. Also, Commissioner Featherstone wanted the minutes to reflect his request for Planning Director Harmening to research the possibility of providing the Planning Commission with their agenda Upon vote taken, Ayes, 9; Nayes, O. MINUTES packets a week earlier. Planning Director Harmening started out the meeting by indicating that Dennis r). l~ollefer, 1410 Rldge'~ood Ct. is requesting that the city amend the Zoning Code to allow carwashes preferably as a permitted use or, if necessary, as a special use in the C-5 General Commerce Zone. The primary reason for this request is to accomodate an Interest which Mr. Bollefer has in converting an existing building located on the North Frontage Road, between the Super Store and the Gift Tree, into a full service carwash. PUBLIC HEARING- ZONING AMENDMENT TO C-5 ZONING REQUIREMENTS-CAR dASHES-DENNIS BOLLEFER Chairman Folch opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Comments received from the audience included: Terri Hockbein, a business associate of Mr. Bollefer, explained the proposal to the Commission. He also stated that a quick lube oil change is also being considered es part of the carwash. Harry Schoen, representing the owners of the Gift Tree, stated that the parcel of land was zoned R-3 15 years ago and approximately 8 years ago it was changed to a C-5 Zone. He suggested that the Planning Commission consider handling car washes as a Special Use Permit. Schoen raised the concerns of Mr. & ;~rs. ~attila, who live at the Gift Tree, about hours of operation and appearance. LuAnn Stoffel, told tbs Planning Commission that she felt that some of the public comments provided were not entirely correct. She stated that the building in question was formerly a beer distributing warehouse. Also attention was called to the fact that Super Store's gasoline pumps are a permitted use and the carwash should be considered the same. Attention was also directed to a petition signed by nearby business owners supporting the carwash proposal. She also brought up the point of how the residential portion of the Gift Tree is a non conforming use, and that a variance was granted to allow an expansion to the Gift Tree and parking congestion is a on-going problem there. Terri Hockbein indicated that a full-time adult manager would be hired to run the operation. Operation hours would be reasonable and he and Mr. Bollefer are plannlng on running the business in a professional and straight forward way. There would be no loud music permitted by young employee's. Mr. Hacklsein also stated that the special use permit process was acceptable if the eventual conditions were reasonable. Harmening pointed out that the application was only for a car wash and did not deal situation. made by the applicant with a quick lube There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Folch closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. After discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Dredge, seconded by Commissioner Kaiser to allow carwashes in the C-5 Zone as a permitted use. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 4; Nayes,Ditty, Folch, Featherstone, Zender and Voelker. A motion was then made by Commissioner Voelker, seconded Commissioner Featherstone to allow carwashes in the C-5 Zone by Special use. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 6; Nayes, Krook, Dredge, Kaiser. by Planning 13irector Harmening indicated that Bernard Klein 1115 Lyn '~ay is requesting a three foot interior side yard setback variance to Section 10.23 of the Zoning Ordinance so that he may enlarge an existing one car garage into a larger two car garage. VARIANCE REQUEST BERNARD KLEIN, 1118 LYN I~AY LOT 4,BLOCK 5, OAK PARK ADDITION Bernard Klein owner of the property in question was In attendance and offered some more information on the proposed project and reiterated the letter he wrote to the Planning Commission. He also corrected some figures that he submitted earlier. His house is 12 feet rather than 14 feet from the side lot line. After discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Zender, seconded by Anderson to recommend denial of the variance due to findings lised in memo. These are: That strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would not cause an undue hardship for the applicant. The property has been and can cointinue to be put to a reasonable use without the granting of the variance. e That special conditions and circumstances do not exist in this situation 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 not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. Without sufflcient justification the granting of the variance will confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by the Zoning Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 9; Nayes, O. Planning Director Harmening indicated that a Mr. Paul Tatge HOf~E OCCUPATION 545 W. 2nd St. is requesting a home occupation permit to PER~IlT-VII~EO allow him to operate a video production business in his homePRODUCTION BUS- at 545 W. 2nd St. According to ~r. Tatge's application the INESS, PAUL TATGE home occupation would apparently involve ~r. Tatge going off545 W. 2ND STREET site to film various events with the editing and preparation of the final product to take place in his home. The application also indicates that 144 sq. ft., out of a total of 1,000 sq.ft. in the home, will be used for the home occupation. Based upon a visual inspection of the applicants property it does appear his driveway ls not suited to serve a large parking need. I~ased on Mr. Tatges application, customer parking does not appear necessary therefore a problem would not appear applicable In this case. ~r. Tatge did indicate that Initially he anticipated he would be making two or three trips a week with his own vehicle as a part of his home occupation business possibly escalating to one or two trips per day. Mro Tatge does indicate a desire in his application to move his business to a commercial location in the future. Mr. Paul Tatge the owner of the home in question was in the audience and stated that there would be no customer parking at his home and he had no deslre for customers to come to his home. All communications with customers would be at their home or over the telephone. After discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Kaiser, seconded by Commissioner Krook to approYe the Home Occupation Permit with this provision: The Home Occupation Permit be approved based on the understanding that the home occupation as proposed will not generate customer traffic. If the characteristics of the home occupation would change, and customer traffic becomes a reality the City of Hastings reserves the right to review the home occupation permit. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 9; Nayes, O. Planning Director Harmening indicated that the Radkes own home near the intersection of East 2nd and Franklin Street. CONFORMING The existing home encroaches on the Franklin Street right of STRUCTURE- way by approximately 8 feet. In 1985 the city vacated 8 feet115 FRANKLIN of this right of way to clear up the encroachment. RADt(E. Nevertheless, the home in question is a non-conforming structure as it has a 0 foot front yard setback, rather than the required 25 foot, and a .4 foot side yard setback rather than the required 7 foot. !~r. Don Radke approached Director Harmening regarding the construction of a two story addition to the home. Essentially, Mr. Radke wanted to know whether or not an addition which met all required setbacks could be made to a non conforming structure. The new structure would contain a kitchen facllity, bathrooms, as ';;ell as bedrooms. a EXPANSION OF NON- ST. The Radke~s were in the audlence and were able to clear up some questions that the Planning Commission had. Planning Director Harmening also pointed out to the Planning Commission that upon examining City Code It appears two provisions pertaining to this matter are contridictory. The language in question is as follows: Section 10.06, Subdivision 1, Intent "It is the Intent of this Chapter to permit these non conformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival. It is further the intent of this Chapter that non conformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended, not to be used as grounds for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere with permitted uses in the districts involved". B. Section 10.06, Subdivision 4A, Non-Conforming Structures - "No such non-conforming structure may be enlarged or altered in any way which increases its non-conformity, but any structure or portion thereof may be altered to decrease Its nonconformity,. Essentially, Section lO.06,Subdivision 1 appears to be saying that the proposed construction should not be allowed. Section 10.06, Subdivision 4 appears to indicate that non-conforming structures may be enlarged or altered as long as it does not increase its non conformity which would appear to allow for the proposed expansion as long as the expanslon met all setback requirements. Planning Director Harmening pointed out that staff Is in somewhat of a quandary on what to do with this matter. It staffs hope that the Planning Commission would provide some direction with thls matter. After discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Oitty, seconded by Commissioner Featherstone to recommend that the City Council consider allowing the Radkes to make the addition due to the fact that allowing the new addition may result in having the non-conforming house eventually torn down. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 7; Nayes,O. Commissioner Krook, and Chairman Folch abstained. Planning Director Harmening informed the Planning Commission that the City Council followed through with all their recommendations at the last Council meeting. Also he told the Planning Commission that a rough draft of a Comprehensive Plan has been completed and will be reviewed by City Staff. A motion was made by Commissioner Kaiser, seconded by Commissioner Zender for staff to review the non-conformity language in the zoning ordinance and report back to the Planning Commission. There being no further business a motion was made by Commissioner Kaiser, seconded by Commissioner Ditty, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 9:10 p.m. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 9; Nayes, O. ADJOURNMENT