Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/11/85MINUTES OF THE HASTINGS PLANNING CO~MISSION Monday, November 11, 1985 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Simacek at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Con~nissioners Ditty, Stevens, Reuter, Kaiser, Conzemius Anderson, Voelker and Chairman Simacek Members Absent: Coa~issioner Folch Planner Loucks noted that the applicant is requesting a special use permit and height variance to accomodate a 102 unit alternative housing project for senior citizens. It was noted that the zoning ordinance permits fire stations, hospitals, day care centers, old age homes, rest homes, and cemetaries by special use permit. SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND HEIGHT VARIANCE HAVEN HOMES NURSING HOME-930 W ~6th St. It was indicated that alternative housing falls within the framework of an old age home or rest home because by definition this housing for the senior people of the cc~mmnity provides an alternative to having to enter a nursing home. Alternative housing is comprised of one and two bedroom apartments that seniors can rent. Services available to the residents because the facility will be connected to the Nursing Home are nursing, housekeeping, social services, hc~e health care, counseling, congregate dining and many social activities. Chairman Simacek than recognized Pastor Fair who described the proposed alternative housing facility. He indicated that the proposed use is an alternative to serve senior cit~n~ in the community who are not in need of prolonged nursing care but who will from time to time require the services that can be offered at the Nursing Home facility. He indicated the difference in cost between nursing care and rentals at an alternative care facility is approximately $1,000 per month. He then described the proposal to members of the audience and the Planning Commission. James Storkamp representing numerous residents who live in the area outlined why they felt that the alternative care housing facility should not be allowed by special use permit. Ne indicated that alternative housing should not be permitted by special use permit because by definition it is not an old age home or rest home and therefore should be viewed as a multi family residential proposal. He further pointed out that the nature and the character of the area is single family residential, zoned R1, and that the proposal would diminish the view of the ponding basins for some residents in the area. He also had questions in regard to the ability of Haven Homes Nursing Homes to regulate the facility in such a manner that only senior citizens would be served by it, that the density being proposed is to high, that there are questions in regard to traffic, and the setback of the proposed facility. Following comnents were made by members of the audience. Norm Siedel- Indicated that he was opposed to the proposal. Mike Werner - provided the planning con~ission with the definition for an old age homo. Robert Williams- questioned whether or not Pastor Fair intended to maintain the facility for seniors 62 years or older. Reverend Fair-indicated that that is their intent and that they could live by a restriction that limited the use of the facility to seniors 62 or older. Mel Agen - indicated that he hadmoved into the area because he thought it was going to be single family residential in character and that the ponding basin was always going to be maintained by the city. Tricia Agen - indicated that the issue is not necessarily the use that is being asked for but rather that the building size and the ]02 units is to dense for the neighborhood. Marylou Husman - indicated a concern about traffic that might be generated by the proposal. Dick Bond - indicated that the neighborhood agreed with the original proposal of 84 residential units but are now basically opposed to the proposal because Pastor Fair has increased the units to 102. Jerry Olson - questioned the selling price of the property to Haven Homes Nursing Hc~e, Mike Werner - indicated that the sale price was $1.00 per square foot per develol/nental acre and 55¢ per square foot per non developable acre. Following a discussion amoungst members of the Planning Commission in regard to the proposal and questions relative to what previous restrictions may have been placed on the property a motion was made by Commissioner Voelker and seconded by Conmlissioner Kaiser to table the matter in order to give the staff an opportunity to review previous actions by the Planning Commission and Council to determine if the property has been restricted in terms of the number of units that would be allowed upon it. Ayes, 6; Nayes, Commissioner Ditty and Stevens. Motion was made by Co~missioner Kaiser, seconded by Conmissioner Anderson to adjourn. Ayes, 8, Nayes, 0. ADJO~ The Planning Conmission adjourned at 9:35 P.M.