Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/25/85MINUTES OF THE HASTINGS PLAR~ING CO~4ISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1985 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Simacek at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Con~issioners Stevens, Folch, Kaiser, Conzemius, Anderson, Voelker, and Chairman Simacek. Members Absent: Cc~nissioners Ditty, and Reuter Planner Loucks noted that the Planning CC~nlssion Tabled this matter on November 11, 1985 in order to give the staff an opportunity to review previous actions by the planning commission and city Council to determine if the property has been restricted in terms of the number of units that would be allowed upon it. SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND HEIGHT VARIANCE- HAVEN HOMES NURSING HOME-930 W. 16TH ST. He indicated the research of the records have been made and that the Planning Co~n~ission staff report contained copies of minutes dated June 7, %965, August 28, 1972, September 11, ~972, August 1972, and August 21, ~978. He further indicated that it has come to his attention that the minutes of August 7, 1965 indicated that the Hastings City Council approved a zone change from residential one to con~nercial one subject to the following condition: 1). Present fee owners of the property, to wit: Calvary Baptist Church of Hastings, Minnesota shall execute and deliver to the City of Bastings an agreement providing that in no event shall the property be transferred or conveyed to Baven Homes Inc. and that the deed of conveyance shall contain a provision that the property shall be used as a Nursing Home for the aged only. The original of said deed shall be submitted to the City Attorney of Hastings, Minnesota for his approval. The deed shall fumrther contain the restriction and provision that in the event that the property is not used for nursing purposes only it shall revert to the Calvary Baptist Church of Hastings, Minnesota, to be used for Church purposes only. 2) The grantee on said deed shall, before accepting said deed, execute and deliver to the City of Hastings an agreement embodying the above provisions. 3) The restrictions above described shall be in force for a period of 40 years from and after the date of the deed, or the maximum period as may be allowed by law, whichever shall be the shorter; 4) The tems and conditions above described, and as the same shall be embodied in the agreements referred to herein, shall be enforceable by the City Council of the City of Hastings, Minnesota, by any resident tax payer, and/or by the Calvary Baptist Church of Hastings, Minnesota. Mr. Loucks noted that the aforementioned minutes were not part of the original staff report submitted to the planning cc~nission because the information just became recently available. It was further noted that the planning staff reports provides a description of a home for the aged or a heme for the retired that was utilized to evaluate the proposed 102 unit elderly alternative housing project that a report from the City Attorneys office dated November 21, 1985 is enclosed which deals with the issue as to whether or not the City required to enforce private restrictive covenents. Chairmz~ simacek t~en recognized Pastor Fair who described the proposed Alternative Housing facility and further indicated that the covenent referred to in 1965 was released in 1980 and therefore should not have any impact on the proceeding being considered by the Planning Con~ission. James Storkamp representing numerous residents who live in the area re-emphasize why he felt that an alternative housing care facility should not be allowed by special use permit. He indicated that the alternative housing should not be permitted by special use because by definition it is not an old age home or rest home and that there- fore should be reviewed as a multi-family residential proposal. He further quoted various sections of Chapter ]0 (the city zoning ordinance) stating that the special use permit being requested is in clear violation of the standards and policies as set forth in the zoning ordinance. He further indicated that protective covenent of ]965 prohibits the use of the Haven Homes Property for anything other than nursing home purposes. (a petition containing ~9] names was then suhndtted to the Chairman for inclusion into the official record). Mel Agen a resident m~de a presentation in which he indicated ~) that the proposed building is according to his calculations is not located on the property to be acquired from the City; 2) that the proposed location of the building violates the 150 foot buffer zone that Haven Homes assured the residents that they would have; 3) that the runoff from the building and parking lot could present drainage problems in the ponding basin; 4) the proposed facility would block the view of adjacent residents; 5) that the appearance of a large building in the middle of a residential neighborhood does not protect the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood; 6) that the existence of such a large building could diminish property values and 7) that the proposal is inconsistent with the standards and requirements of the zoning ordinance. Robert Williams, questioned the planninq cor~nission in regard to the nun6Der of variances that would be r~quired to implement this proposal. Following a review of all the information sui~itted a motion was made by Cc~issioner Stevens and seconded by Con~nissioner Folch to recor~end denial of the special use permit as it does not meet the standards of the zoning ordinance for issuance of such permit. Ayes, 5; Nayes, Co~ssioner Conzemius and Chairman Simacek. Motion was made by Cor~ssioner Stevens , and seconded by Con~ssioner Folch to table the variance matter until such time as the City Council makes final disposition of the special use permit request. Ayes, 7: Nayes, 0. Planner Loucks noted that the applicant had previously appeared before the Planning Conmission requesting a 17 car parking variance for the proposed office building to be located at 14th & Vermillion Street. This matter had not gone to the City Council, and the applicant has since revised their plan and are requesting a six car parking variance for a 3,000 square foot building (2400 square feet usable). The zoning ordinance requires one space for each ~00 feet of usable floor area thus 24 spaces would be required and 18 are being proposed on the revised site plan. Following a brief discussion a motion was made by Con,missioner Folch and seconded by Co~nissioner Kaiser to reco~end a six car parking variance because the applicant has demonstrated the following findings: 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structures, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; 2. That literal interpretation of the zoning code would deprive the applicant of rights cc~nonly enjoyed by other properties in the same districts under the terms of Chapter 10. 3. That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; 4. That granting the requested variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privileges that is denied by Chapter 10 to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Ayes, 7; Nayes, 0 Planner Loucks noted that the applicant is requesing site and building plan approval and a 26 car parking variance for an 11,500 square foot office building (existing building 7,170 sq. ft. - addition 5,230 sq. ft. usable). The site plan is in order because it meets all the ordinance requirements, however, the con~nissionmust deal with the matter of the variance request. It was pointed out that the existing office building was approved at a ratio of 1 space for each 130 sq. ft. of usable floor space. The applicant is requesting that the additional space be approved at the ratio of 1 to 130. Brooks Swanson, representing the applicant, then made a brief presentation regarding the proposed expansion of the office building facility. DRS. NELSON AND SLAPNICHER - 14TH & VERMILLION STRm~±'- PARKING VARIANCE SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND PARKING VARIANCE-HERTO( FLUDSEL, SIEBEN, POLK JONES & LAVERDIERE- 999 WESTVIEW DRIVE Following a brief discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Stevens and seconded by Cor~nissioner Anderson to recommend approval of the variance because 1) that special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structures or buildings involved and are not applicable to other structures,or buildings in the same district. 2) that literal interpretation of the zoning cede would deprive the applicant of rights coumonly enjoyed by other properties in the same districts under the terms of Chapter 10; 3) that special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant and 4) granting the variance requested will not confer upon the applicant any special privileges that is denied by Chapter 10 to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Ayes, 5; abstaintion Cou~issioner Folch, not voting C°~mssioner Anderson. Chairman Simacek noted that the City Council had directed the Commission to review the zoning ordinance related to the potential of adding special and conditional use permits to various chapters of the code. Chairman Simacek appointed Comnissioners Stevens, Conzemius and Kaiser to review the matter and report back to the commission in two to three months. OTHER BUSINESS Planner Loucks noted that there is a vacancy on the planning Coumission as of December 31 and was seeking direction as to how the coumisison wanted to advertise. It was the consensus of the commission that the vacancy should be advertised on cable t.v. and we should request the Hastings Star and Gazette to write an article seeking qualified applicants for the position. A motion was made by Commissioner Stevens, seconded by Commissioner Folch to adjourn the Planning ~Dm~ission. Adjourned at 10:40 p.m. ADJO~T O~be~ _8~ 1~85 NEIGHBORHOOD F'ETITION We. the Lmdersi~ned, are NOT in favor of the proposed senior h~ueing bu~ild:ng project in the Southwest ~'Ondlng ~asin by Haven Homes Health Center: NAME ADDRESS ~~~:~ .......... ~_~_~:~_ .......... ', ~,x:.:_.~~ ................ :::__:z:: ......... ~'.~: .:~~M .......... :~_s___~::_:_ ....... ........ ,__ ~ > ' -::: ............... : . __'~,_~_~~ ..................... ~~__~ ........ --~: ~--r~:~:~:~ ..................... ~ :--- : - .................. ::>::: ....... OctoOer ~8, 1~85 NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION hous~n~ bu~!d=ng pro~ect in the Southwest Pond~ng ~asin by Ha'~en Hom~s Health C~ter: NAME ~ /~ ~ __ ADDRESS _ - ~ - ~- ~ ..... ~ ~ .............................. ~ 5Y ~ ....... ~- 7 .... ~ ~¢Z.~-~E.~-~ ~:_:- '~.~:.._-__ ~_._~z ................ ~__. ............... NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We. the undersigned, are NOT in ~avor of the proposed senior housing bzdld~ng p*o]ect in the Southwest Ponding Basin by Haven Homes Heal th Center: NAME, . ADDRESS / ~~ ~~ ................................................... ~~-~ ..................... ,~ ........... ~~_~ .................. ~~ ......... ~~__~___~, ........ ~~ .......... ___~~__~ ............... ~~ ...... October 2G. 1~85 NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We~ the unOersigned, are NOT ir, favor of the propo~-ej senior housing bui!d~ng pro_~ect in the Southwest Pondino~ Basin by Haven Homes Health Center: NAME ADDRESS ~2W~--~--~ ~,- ............................ .......... T ~ 1985 October ~8, NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We, the undersigned, are NOT ir, 4avor of the proposed sen~or hous:ng building prc~ect ~n the Southwest F'onding Basin by Hasen Homes Heal th Center: NAME ADDRESS _ _} ~::~- -~ -' ~ ~ '-~ ...................... ..~ / 5 .. ~,~-~?:~tY~Lll~ ....................... ~'- ....... ~ ..................... ~,~ ~ ~ ~;. ,~ ~ ~ ~ ;_.: ~ ...................... ~ L .... ~. ..... :::x~: ..... ~ ....... ~7- 7-~:J'r~:~ ...... ~-"' ............................ . D ' I ~ ~ .... .......................... ~.- ~ ,~ (~ cc -~ . ~ ~ ____~-~-~ ........ _~ ~_~-- ~ ~ ..............~--- ~ ~ % ....... _~ ~ ~ :2] .... L~ ~ ~'{~] ............................................ : ..~ ~--= ................................................... Octobmr 2B, 1985 NE I GHBORHOOP F'ET IT I ON the undersigned, mre ND"[ ir, favor of the proposed sen~or hou~s~ng b~lding project in the Soothwemt Ponding Bmsin by Hmven Homes Hmalth Center: NAME ADDRESS ................. ................. October ~8, 1985 NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We, the undersigned, are NOT in favor of the proposed senior housing building project in the Southwest Ponding Basin by Haven Homes Health Center: NAME ADDRESS · ~. --~ , ' 'C" (_' C-'~.) ~ , , ~ z,~ ~2~-~ ':" '" ' ~ : ~' '~~ -'~ .... ~' - ' ~' ~'"'' ' ' - - - Z ~2~ ~ _ ~~ ...................... '~a ~._ ,_ Z~ ................... _;::,~:: ....... ,,,,~ _: i_. : ................................................ . .' ..::'~ j , .,,., ~J- / . . - ,:,: ::. . .~ .. , . ~ ,~' ............ ............. _~_~ ~ ......... :~ ~_~:_~ :--_~ ~ :::_~ ..... NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We. the undersi0ned, are NOT in fevor of the proposed senior housing build;rig pro_~ect in the Sou~thwest Ponding Basin by Ha',en Homes Health Center: N~ME ADDRESS October 28, 1985 NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We. the undersigned, are NOT in favor of the proposed senior hoL~sing buiid:ng prc.~ect in t~e South~¢est Ponding ~msin by Haven Homes Health Center: NAME ADDR;ESS ~: .: ..... ~ ....~ ............................................. _~ ~ ~~ ............. ~_ ~ _ _ ~ ..... ~~.._~~& ................. &:__~~ ........ October ~8, 1985 NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION We. the undersigned, are NOT ir, fevor of the proposed senior ho~sing building pro~ect in the So~thwest Ponding Basin by Haven Homes Health Center: NAME _~~.~_~ ................ ~ ........... ~ ..... ~ -- __~_ ~ ......... ~_~ ~ ......................................... _ .. ~ .. _ ~ ......... ._ _.. - _~.~ /~ ~ _y::~ ¢_s_~_~._ ................. ~=-= ........ ~---~:~--- _~ ~_ /.~_.?. ......... ~' ............... ~ Z ~_ - ~- ~ ] ........ ~/L_ _ - ............................ ~,,~_ ~. ~ ..................... ~_~__~_~-~-~ ...... NEIGH~ORHO0~ PETITION We. the undersiqned, are NOT in ~a',,or o4 the prc~o~ed ~enior h~u~lng bt~i!d~ng pr~ec{ in the Sou{hwes~ Ponding Basin by Ha~,en Home~ Health Center: ,~AME ADDRESS