The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/23/85II ~e ~ ~. Co~%~~_ woelKe~ _ ~is 1 '-nC°~fs- -s~le ~ _ ,~ ~u . _ ac~eS ~ = th~ ~de ~ s ~ec~nUal and at,on_Wa= elOPe. ~,.~l geS°u~c~nt P A p~eSen~ the der -- the llau~ deve~°k*'~o~ti°~ ~ot~ ct~ . c%oSe[ z~ ~sign o~ ~ ~k -wS %h~" ~ taken ~ · ~ ~d ~ ~ that ~'~ fo[ the =~ that tn~a the ~v it i~ ~ ~e s~tn~e~ unit~ - ;~e. ~- ~ ~ he ~ -;ts ~t =~.~ tit ~ S~te ~ ~ O[ Ou~%e ~ a t~[ fi~ilY u~ du?le~ ~Z~'ou~ose~' -. units " ~ ~UL~' ingZ= ite ~ the ~ ~ mu~ti-t~'~~. ~embers of the audience made the following general coim~nts. Keith Law - questioned Why the developer hsd indicated that they had sold the land for the senior citizens property and had not yet had approval from th~ city for the proposed develo~nent. ~4ike williams indicated that the Qroperty for the proposed. senior citizens site is sold subject to certain contingencies one of %~nich is that the property would be properly zoned. He further indicated that it is their preference to dedicate the 2 acres of park land and have it developed in the area proposed on their site plan and that they did not desire to have 1~0 muir- family units as has been suggested by the City Planner. Councilman Nesbitt indicated a concert% but not a criticism of the notification process. To wit he indicated that often tim~s it is difficult for residents to respond to a proposal at a public hearing when they have not h~ an ot~3ortunity to thouroughly review it. In addition he indicated that he w~s troubled that the developer is pro~sing this PJ p~D and in his view has not totally completed the projects located on ~nis~ering Court and ~nisperin. g ~leado~s. He wantc~t to bring that to the attention of the Planning c~ission as they consider the matter before them tonight. Commissioner Ditty questioned councilman Nesbitt regarding the notification process and wanted it to be clarified that the Councilman was not criticizing the c~ission or suggesting that there was improper notification. Wint ~artman questioned the development pro_Dosal and indicated a concern that two previous proposals submitted by this applicant been co~pleted and was wondering why the commission s~ould had not a third. Following a brief discussion an~ungst P~lannln~ approve ..... ~oner Folch ~u~d secon~e~ Co~m]issioners a motion was ma~e Dy · sioner Kaiser to table the matter to give the developer by C~lS . to their plan based upon the an opportunity to make adjustments recommendations of the City Planner and Natural Resources Cc~mission. Ayes; Co~nissioner Folch, Kaiser, Conzemius, and voelker; ~ayes, Co~nissioners ~itty, Stevens, Reuter ~%d Chairman Simacek. ~.~otion failed for lack of majority. Following a brief discussion with the applicant in which he indicated he did not care to change his development ~roposal at this time a motion was n~de by Co~missioner Ditty and ~econded by Con%missioner Folch to recommend denial of the application because it ~as not consistent with the reco~endations of the ~atural Resources Commission and that it was felt that certain redesi~ of the propesal was required to make it an acceptable pRD submittal. ~¥es, co~issioners Ditty, Stevens, Reuter, Folch, Kaiser, Conzemius,Voelker and Chais'm~n Si~acek; ~]ayes, ~one. Planner Loucks noted that the applicant is rt~uesting rezoning of industrial property to P3 use in order to accon~date a church to be located on a 4 acre tract of land located in the vicinity of 800 East 10th Street. ~]is ite~a was previously reviewed oy the Planning Commission and City Council in June of 1954. It was noted at that time that the items addressed by the co~mission and council before recc~nending denial was consistency with the comprehensive plan, do%~n zoning, s~ot zoning, ~ld additional requirements related to industrial land. It was noted by~4r. Loucks that the city's c~nprehensive plan designates this site as exclusively zoned for industrial use. plan further states that industrial sites should not encroach upon areas that are either residential in nature or planned for future recreation. 2. It was noted ~hat d~ zoning is typically used to protect neighborhoods from being dism~nteled into more cc~rcial or industrial t~vpe uses. This application would not be using d~n zoning to protect the neighborhood, while at the sa~ time it might actually be hindering future industrial develo~nent. 3. Spot zoning is a term used to describe the change of a parcel or parcels when the area surrounding the parcel is different and non compatible zoning. It was noted that this request appears to De a definite spot zone. REZO?I[NG R?.~QUES~ I1 to P3- COt~P~qTO!~ BIBLE 800 B~K E. 10~ 4. In addition it was noted that there should be a concern that the existing residential or land zoned for industrial purposes would be required to adhere to more stringent buffering and setback requirements because of the introduction of a residential use in the industrial zone. Presentation was th~% made by ~4r. Thorfens~] in which he indicated the application which he filed with the city was ~ application in the alternative either for rezoning or for variance or special use permit for the construction of a church on the property in q~estion. He indicated that the city clearly has the p~er to issue a variance or special use permit for the construction of the church ~ the existing industrial zone if the City Council and Planning Co~nission feel that the petition is justified. He noted that it would appear the City of Hastings does not have the planned unit development concept existing in its' zoning ordinance but what they are rc~uesting is in effect a special use permit issued pursuant to a contract with the city in the character of the planned unit develo~nents that are being used in most of the suburban cc~munities in the metropolitan area. ~e noted the existenc~ of a church in ~on industrial area is not unusal at ~ll at the present ti~, in fact, in ~y cities throughout the country office warehouse facilities in industrial zoning are being used for churches either on a shared basis or exclusive basis. The use has not proved to be inconsistent with the industrial use of the adjacent property and provides a much greater and more flexible land use within the industrial zoning. He further indicated that the proposal they submitted includes extensive burming line the eastern boundry of the property in the area that is adjacent to the industrial zone property belonging to Profile Extrusions Company. Franz Altpeter representing Profile Extrusions indicated that his organization is opposed to the rezoning as it feels it is a spot zone and could in the future place unreasonable burdens upon existing and future industrial property in that area and therefore urged the commission to rectum]end denial of the rezoning n~tter. Following a brief discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Stevens, seconded by Cc~nissioner Folch to recc~mend denial of the rezoning request because it is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan to provide transition zoning between industrial developments and residential uses, and further the ~roposat does not meet the h%tent of the require- ments of the zon'~ng ordinance. Ayes, C~issioner Ditty, Stevens, Reuter, Folch, Kaiser, Conzemius, Voelker mid Chairman Simacek; ~ayes, None. Planner Loucks noted the applicant is requesting a six car parking variance in order to acc~odate the construction of a 9,600 sq. ft. (5,760 sq. ft net usable) con~aercial office space. The zoning ordinm%ce requires one space for each 150 sq.ft.of floor area, thus 38 parking stalls are required. The applicant is requesting a variance of six spaces in order to provide 32 spaces on the site. Following a discussion regarding parking ratios and the rec~irements in the ~Iastings City Zoning Ordinance a motion was made by Commissioner Stevens and seconded by Cc[~issioner Conzemius to recc~nend approval of the parking variance providing no more than 5,760 sq. ft. of net usable space is utilized on the site. It was further noted that an affirmative recon~]~ndation is made because of adherence to the following provisions: 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structures or buildings involved and ~hich are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the s~e district. ~. That literal interpretation of the city cede would deprive the applicant of rights can~Dnly enjoyed by other properties in the same district u~er the terms of Chapter 10 3. That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; and FAIR STATIONA~RY- V~RI~EE 1317 VE~IILLIO~ STRE~ 4. Granting the variance rec/uested will not confur upon the applicant any special privileges that is denied by Chapter 10 to other lands, structures or building in the s~ district. Ayes, Co~nissioners Ditty, Stevens, Kaiser, Conzemius ~d Chairman Simacek. ~ayes, Commissioner Reuter and Voelker. Abstension Co~missioner Folch. Planner Loucks noted that the HRA is requesting permission to provide a parking lot in order to take some of the pressure off on-street parking in the downtown area. The ~RA hopes to acquire the adjacent lot when it is available and then provide both lots for parking develo_v~ent. The specific proposal is to provide a lot that would be surfaced with gravel but only have a 18 foot driving isle with a space depth of 18 feet which is 2 feet short in each instance of ordinance requiraments. Following a brief discussion a motion was made by Cc~issioner Ditty, seconded by Co]~nissioner Kaiser to rec~end approval of the variance for a temporary parking facility subject to the condition that the HRA uses calcium chloride or black magic to provide dust control in the parking lot area. Ayes, Co~]~issioners Ditty, Stevens, Reuter, Folch, Kaiser, Conzemius, Voelker and Chain~ Simacek. Nayes, ~ne. Hotion was made by Co]~nissioner Folch, seconded by Co~issioner Folch, seconded by Cc~missioner Kaiser to adjourn. The Planning Com~]ission adjourned at 10:05 p.m. ~TI~,~S P~EDE%~LOP- ~.~ENT AUTHOR- ITY-PARK I~ g,BLOCK 15, ORIGI~I~L ~{kSTI~S (3rd &TYLER)