Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/15/85Minutes of the Hastings Planning Commission Tuesday, October 15, 1985 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Simacek at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Commissioners Ditty, Stevens, Kaiser,Anderson, Voelker and Chairman Simacek. Members Absent: Commissioners Reuter, Motion was made by Commissioner Stevens, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to approve the minutes of September 23,1985. (Note: Commissioner Kaiser indicated that the spelling of Mrs. Kehn name was incorrect on page 3 of the minutes).Ayes, 6;Nayes,0. Commissioner Folch arrived at 7:35. Folch, and Conzemius. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 2~ 1985 MINUTES is requesting the expansion include a new remodeling of a service bay. the staff had Planner Loucks noted that the applicant site plan approval to allow of the service station to drive through car wash and the existing car wash into He further indicated that reviewed the site plan and found it to be in order relevent to all zoning ordinance and requirements and would therefore recommend approval. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL- AMOCO OIL CO.- VERMILLION & 15th STREET Following a brief presentation and discussion by members of the planning commission a motion was made by Commissioner Stevens and seconded by Commissioner Kaiser to recommend approval of the site plan as submitted subject to the condition that a 6 foot high fence will be placed between the automobile service station and abutting residential properties. Ayes, 7; Nayes, 0. Planner Loucks noted that the applicant is requesting site and building plan approval and a 17 car parking variance for a 3000 square foot office building to be located at the intersection of 14th & Vermillion Street. Dick Fuchs representing the applicant made a presentation regarding the proposal and provided the commission with a study that indicated that the parking requirements for the proposed Doctors office building is less then is required by the zoning ordinance. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL- PARKING VARIANCE-DRS. NELSON & SLAPNICHER- 14th & VERMILLION ST. Mr.Fuchs indicated that a variance was warranted because the property is very difficult to develop insofar as it is only 10,000 square feet in area and the square footage required for parking would take up approximately 90% of the site if thy had to comply with the zoning ordinance. A neighbor, Mr. Peterson was concerned about screening between his property and that of the proposed Drs. office building. Chairman Simacek commented that he thought the variance request was somewhat excessive insofar as it is greater than 50% of the ordinance requirements. Following further discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Stevens and seconded by Commissioner Ditty to recommend denial of the variance request since the applicant is unable to demonstrate a finding of fact relative to the following ordinance requirement: 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. That literal interpretation of the city code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms in Chapter 10 Ayes, That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; and Granting a variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privileges that is denied by Chapter 10 to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. No nonconforming use of neighborhood lands, structures or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or non-conforming uses of lands, structures or buildings in the other districts shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. 7; Nayes, 0. Planner Loucks noted that the applicant is requesting rezoning from R2 to R3 in order to accomodate a barbershop/ tanning salon which is not permitted in the R2 zoning district. JAMES BENNIS LET THERE BE HAIR-717 EDDY STREET- REZONING FROM R2 RESIDENTIAL TO R3 RESIDENTIAL Planner Loucks noted that the R3 zoning district allows the following: nursing homes, retirement homes, dormitories, public and parochial schools, churches, fire stations, professional offices,daycare centers, old age homes, library, gift or craft shop and similar uses of a public service nature. He indicated that the applicant feels that the barber beauty shop/tanning salon would fall under the category of professional offices or uses of a public service nature. Mr. Loucks than briefly summarized the history of the property and indicated when the original building permit for the building was issued in 1980 it was anticipated by the inspections department that a garage with a storage loft was going to be built on the premises. When the building was partially constructed it came to the attention of the inspections department that the owners intended to put in an antique shop on the premises that was under construction. As a result the planning director advised the planning commission of the matter and it was determined that an antique shop would be permitted under the ordinance provisions that existed at that time. Sometime in 1985 after the antique shop had ceased operation, the Bennis' proceeded to remodel the building without acquiring a building permit. This matter was brought to the attention of the planning department and as a result the Bennis' were notified that they were in violation of the zoning ordinance and directed them to cease and desist operations. The Bennis' than appealed to the city council at which time the council determined that they were in violation of the ordinance and directed them to cease their operation by January 1, 1986. James Storkamp, representing the Bennis', than made a presentation to the commission in which he outlined reasons why the property ought to be zoned from R2 to R3. A copy of Mr. Storkamps correspondence dated September 16, 1985 is attached hereto to the minutes. The following comments were received by the commission: Harold Siebenhaem indicated that he was opposed to the proposed rezoning because of the traffic problems that are presen~y being created by the barbershop. Mrs. Nesbitt indicated that she felt that the proposal constituted a spot zone. Chuck Caturia indicated that he was against the proposal and specifically against the commercial zone that would be created in their neighborhood because he thought it would have a negative impact. Wally Glashan indicated that he thought a spot zone would be created and that the planning commission and city council have an obligation to protect the single family residential neighborhood. Mrs. Hildebright indicated that she was opposed to a business being located in their neighborhood and furthermore that the barbershop beautyshop is probably a more intense use than the antique shop that was previously operated on the site. & Mike Warner indicated that the commission should make some interpretation as to whether or not a barbershop beautyshop is actually allowed in the R3 zoning district. Gayle Glashan indicated that she was opposed and wanted keep and maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. to Terri Bennis indicated that she doesn't believe that they are hurting the neighborhood by locating their barber beauty shop because it is a very low key operation operated by appointment only. Following the close of the public hearing by Chairman Simacek a motion was made by Commissioner Folch and seconded by Commissioner Voelker to recommend the rezoning be denied because a commercial venture located in this neighborhood would constitute a spot zone that serves of no benefit to the existing residential neighborhood and it appears to simply provide for preferential treatment to the applicants. (emphasis added: for the purpose of definition a spot zone is the reclassification of a small area of land in a manner that is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood for the benefit of the property owner and to the detriment of others. A spot zone is deemed as preferential treatment, piece meal zoning, tnat is the antithesis of planned zoning). Motion was made by Commissioner Folch, seconded by Commissioner Voelker to adjourn at 9:05 p.m. Ayes, 7; Nayes, 0. ADJOURNMENT