Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/12/85MINUTES OF THE HASTINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY AUGUST 12, 1985 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Simacek at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Commissioners Ditty, Stevens, Reuter, Folch, Kaiser, Conzemius, Anderson and Chairman Simacek. Members Absent: Con~nissioner Voelker Moved by Connnissioner Stevens, seconded by Commissioner Reuter to approve the minutes of July 29, 1985. Ayes, 8; Nayes, 0o Commissioner Voelker arrived at 7:35 p.m. Planner Loucks noted that the applicant is requesting a 3 foot sideyard variance to accomodate an addition to an existing garage and another addition that would accomodate a three season porch. It was indicated that the commission had tabled this matter at their meeting on July 29, in order to allow the opportunity to consider changes in sideyard setback requirements and review previous presidences that may have been set in regard to sideyard variances. It was noted by Chairman Simacek that he had been in contact with the Squires and he was of the opinion that they were attempting to work out a solution that would not require any variances to accomodate their development proposal. Following a brief discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Kaiser and seconded by Commissioner Reuter to table the matter until such time as the Squires are available to discuss the matter with the Planning Commission. ** The Squires addressed the Commission at 9:50 p.m. and indicated that they are able to work out a site development plan that does not require a sideyard setback variance and would therefore like to with draw their application for a variance request, Planner Loucks noted that the commission tabled this application on July 29 requesting that further information be provided by Mr. Byron. It was indicated that Mr. Byron had found property corners on the property and marked them and therefore the staff was able to determine that the deck was actually located approximately 5-6 feet from the adjacent property line. Commissioner Reuter noted that a variance should not be granted if it is caused by the applicant and in this case Mr. Byron proceeded without a permit to build the deck, then determined that it did not meet the setback requirements and therefore requested a variance. In his opinion there can be no hardships shown in this case. Following a brief discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Stevens seconded by Commissioner Anderson to recommend approval of a 2 foot sideyard setback variance subject to the condition that the deck not be enclosed and therefore not be considered habitable space. Ayes, 7; Nayes, Commissioner Reuter and Commissioner Voetkero APPROVAL OF MINUTES WILLIAM Bo SQUIRE- 3 FOOT SIDEYAP~ VARIANCE-lO29 W. 14th DENNIS BYRON-SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE- 913 W. 7TH STREET Planner Loucks noted that the rezoning matter is necessary to clarify actions that occurred during 1973 and prior to 1973. He indicated that upon a research of the records it is clear that the intent of the planning commission and council was to rezone the Valley Manor Plat to R4. However because a meets and bounds description was utilized in describing the property it appears that only a portion of the parcel was actually rezoned. Therefore in order to clarify the record it is recommended the commission rezone Valley Manor and Valley Manor Second Subdivision in order to administratively clarify this matter. HASTINGS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY-REZONING R4 TO R2-SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 24 UNIT MULTI- FAMILY BUILDING- PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL-BAHLS DRIVE & SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD Following a brief discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Kaiser seconded by Commissioner Conzemius to recommend zoning of Valley Manor and Valley Manor Second Subdivision to R4. Ayes, 9; Nayes,0. Planner Loucks than noted that the applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval to divide a ± 11 acre parcel (to be known as Valley Manor Second Subdivision) into 6 tracts which will accomodate multi- family residential units. It was indicated that lots 1 & 2 will have 42 units each and lots 3 & 4 30 units each, and lots 5 & 6 24 units each. It was noted that the proposal is consistent with the approval secured in 1973 in which the conditions for rezoning were that the property not have more than 252 units upon completion. In addition it was noted that the applicant is requesting site plan approval for lot 5 and that the submittal is consistent with all site plan submittal requirements. Following a presentation by Brooks Swanson and questions from the commission a motion was made by Commissioner Ditty and seconded by Commissioner Conzemius to recommend approval of the preliminary plat and site plan for lot 5 as submitted. Ayes, 9; Nayes, 0. Planner Loucks noted that the applicant is requesting a special use permit approval for a site which is presentally occupied by a Phillip 66 G~s Station. It is the intention of the applicant to construct a convenience store, gas station, and service center on the site which is located in the C3 district. The C3 district requires a special use permit for automobile service stations, motor vehicle repair, and wash facilities. It was noted that an automobile service station has existed on the site for 40 or more years and it appears consistent to approve upgrading of the site and allow a convenience store, service station and service center. LOCAL OIL COMPA~- SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL- HIGHWAY 55 & SPRING ST. Following a lengthy discussion and input from neighborhood residents a motion was made by Commissio~r Folch and seconded by Commissioner Anderson to recommend approval of the special use permit and site plan subject to the condition that the applicant secure an access permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation to Highway 55 and that a six foot high fence be utilized to screen the northside of the property. Ayes, 9; Nayes, 0. Planner Loucks noted that the applicant is requesting site plan approval for a site that is approximately 6/lOth of an acre in size in order to accomodate a 5,600 square foot office building. The applicant has submitted two site plans for review. The first is noted as alternative I~ and was submitted in anticipation of the zoning ordinance being amended to allow 1 space for each 150 square feet of floor area. Thus what is being proposed is a 37 car parking facility with 5,600 square foot building. Alternative Number 2 is a site plan which consists of 56 parking spaces and meets the 1 space per 100 foot ratio requirements as set forth in our present zoning ordinance. CWL CONSTRUCTION-SITE PIAN APPROVAL-1112 HIGHWAY 55 Following lengthy discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Conzemius and seconded by Commissioner Ditty to recommend approval of the alternative I site plan and to further recommend that a variance be granted to allow 37 parking spaces subject to the condition the certificate of occupancy be withheld until all building and site plan improvements are completed. In addition it was noted that if site improvements can not be reasonably completed because of a winter construction schedule the applicant must provide a performance bond or cash escrow to guarantee that the site improvements will be completed in the spring of 1986. Ayes, 5; Nayes, Commissioner Reuter, Folch, Voelker and Chairman Simacek. Planner Loucks noted that adjacent property owners had been notified regarding the site plan approval request by CkrL Construction, however, that there was no notice sent regarding the potential need for a parking variance. He indicated that he would check with the City Attorney to find out if this matter can be forwarded to the council without re-notifying adjacent property owners. Planner Loucks noted that the applicant is requesting 9.5 foot variance from the existing 25 foot setback requirement to ~ setback of 15.5 feet in order to allow extending a garage out from the front of the house toward the street line. BEN STEVENS-9.5 FOOT FRONTYARD SETBACK VARIA}~CE-2112 W-ESTVIEW DRIVE Mr. Stevens then described his proposal to the commission and indicated that it would be inconvenient to place the proposed addition on the rear of the property where no variances are required. Following a brief discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Folch and seconded by Commissioner Reuter to recommend denial of the variance request because there are no special conditions that exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or buildings involved which are not applicable to other lands in the same area; 2) that literal interpretation of the code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the area and; 3) that the conditions and circumstances that result from this action are those that were created by the applicant and 4) that granting the variance request would confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied to other lands, structures or buildings in the same area. Ayes, 9; Nayes, O. Commissioner ~olch outlined the study committees recommendations regarding changing the square footage requirement for parking from 100 to 150 square feet in the office building districts and indicated that the cormmittee consisting of himself, Coramissioner Voelker and Commissioner Kaiser concluded that the zoning regulation ought not be changed at this time. Following considerable discussion regarding the matter a motion was made by Commissioner Voelker, seconded by Commissioner Kaiser to recommend that the parking standard in the ordinance not be amended. Ayes, 6; Nayes, Commissioner Ditty, Stevens, and Conzemius. A motion was made by Commissioner Conzemius and seconded by Commissioner Folch to adjourn. Ayes, 8: Nayes, 0. Planning Commission adjourned at 10:10 p.m. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN OFFICE BUILDING ZONING ADJOURNMENT