Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/14/73MINUTES OF MEETING OF HASTINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MONDAY, MAY 14, 1973 Members Present: Junior Member: Also Present: Jensen, Trautmann, Kramer, Linde, Tanner and Hirchert Schumacher City Engineer Davidson Soleim, Stoffel, Minutes of Special Meeting of May 3, 1973 approved. St. John's Lutheran Church request for variance: Soleim committee reported that it had contacted the adjacent land owner, Mss. Gere, and after conversations with her and based on their earlier studies, the committee recommends allowance of the West side set back variance. The ordinance requires twelve feet and the construction would be seven feet six inches from the property line. Motion Soleim, seconded Kramer that the variance be granted. All ayes. John Delburn request for special use permit to build a swimming pool at Lot Four, Block Four, Fasbender's Addition: Report by Hallberg committee, copy attached, recommends that no special use permit is required and that a home occupation permit be issued. Motion Tanner, seconded Linde to adopt Hallberg committee report and refer the matter to City Council. All ayes. H. D. Hudson Manufacturing Company application for variance to allow thirteen fewer parking spaces than required by ordinance in conjunction with their proposed new construction: Trautmann committee recommends allowance of variance with stipulations as in attached subcommittee report, as amended thereon. Motion Trautmann, second Stoffel to adopt committee report and allow variance. Motion carried 5 to 3. Yes: Kramer, Trautmann, Hirchert, Stoffel, Linde No: Soleim, Jensen, Tanner. David E. Tanner, Secretary Hastings Planning Commission SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT RE: H. D. HUDSON VARIANCE FOR PARKING The subcommittee recommends granting a Variance based upon the following findings and recommends also the following restrictions be adhered to: Section 1Z. 3. 1. 1 of the City Zoning. Ordinance allows for variance and it is the subcomrnittee~s feeling that it should be allowed under this section of the Ordinance. The present parking elevation is below grade level and would not interfere with any of the surrounding property owners. There is no way to expand parking facilities to the North because of the railroad tracks and the river. Parking could be expanded to the East, however, then it would destroy the little green area that is presently in the entire area. The overall plan for improvement in this entire area should tend to encourage more green area, not less. The following restrictions should be complied with by the applicant: All snow removal and maintenance of the entire parking area is to be at the property owners expense. g. All loading facilities shall conform with Section 8.5.4 of the City Zoning Ordinance. 3. All of Section 8 of the City Zoning Ordinance which pertains to this type of zone {I-Z) shall be complied with. (a) Owner shall submit to the City Engineer within 60 days after approval'of this variance, a landscape plan acceptable to the City and completion of land- scaping within one {1) year. 4. Applicant shall comply with Section 15.3 of the City Zon'ing Ordinance. If present structures are improved in appearance then they should be improved by removing signs presently painted on building, point up brick and paint existing structures or other improvements of aesthetic value. If any portion of the existing structures which extend to the south is to be removed at any future date, at that time tlte land is recommended to be incorporated into the owners overall parking lot plans. Re: H, D. Hudson Variance for Parking 14 car parking between existing buildings to be excluded a~ this time. However, if City feels this area is needed at some future date, then this lot will be expanded. This area to be included in the landscape plan. Fred Trautmann, Chairman Richard O. Jensen Lu Stoffel May 14, 1973 COMMITTEE REPORT Subject: Petition for Special Use Permit, Lot Fou~, Block Four, FasbenderTs Addition, by John Delburn. Petitioner, John Delburn, has asked for a Special Use Permit for the ,purpose of installation of a back yard swimming pool, 16 feet x 3~feet in which the owner would intend to give swimming lessons to groups or individuals. The Committee finds: 1. The property in question is located in an R-2 zone on a lot 65 feet x 132 feet and that a back yard swimming pool 16 feet x 32 feet is proposed for installation 8 feet from the rear yard bound- ary and 8 feet from the side yard boundary, and that there is a pav- ed driveway in place, which could accoamodate approximately six cars. 2. That an R-2 zone (Section 9.4) allows customary accessory uses to a one family detached dwelling including such things as play equipment. An R-2 zone also allows customary home occupations pro- vided that safe off street parking facilities are provided. (Section 9.3.2.4) 3. The Committee finds that Section 9.15 district 1,or regulations require a rear set-back of 15 feet and a side set-back of 12 feet for "other uses" allowed in an R-2 zone. 4. The Committee finds that the home occupations requirements of the Zoning ODdinance for the most part apply to occupations conducted in a dwelling unit, but that in addition no traffic shall be gen- ~-~ated by such home occupation in great'volumes than would normally be expected in residential neighborhoods, and any need for parking generated by the conduct of such home occupation shall be met off · the street and other than in a required front yard. Therefore, 1. A swimming pool installed in the back yard of this property would be a customary accessory use and therefore no Special Use Permit is required herein. 2. The rear and side yard set-backs of 8 feet each in the proposal would violate the Zoning Ordinance and therefore a variance would be required. If the pool location were moved so as to provide 15 and ~12. foot set-backs respectively, then no variance would be required. 3. A home occupation permit would be required and upon proper ap- plication, such permit should not be denied inasmuch as it is not anticipated that excessive traffic would be generated, nor that there would be a requirement for off street parking in excess of that pre- sently available. The Committee makes no findings or recommendations concerning any state or other health requirements which may be applicable. CITY OF HASTINGS 100 SIBLEY STREET, HASTINGS, MINNESOTA 55033 Phone 437-6921 Hasl:ings on the Mississippi OFFICE OF City ENGINEER REPORT OF SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MONDAY, MAY 14, 1973 The meeting was held at 7:30 P.M. in the Hastings Public Library. Those present: Also present: Members of the Planning Commission, representatives of H. D. Hudson, and interested citizens. Representatives from St. John's Lutheran Church and Mr. John Delbourn. The first item of business was a review of the Planning Commission minutes of May 3rd, 1973. A correction was made to those minutes, the last paragraph, second page, delete: "Trautmann~s" from the motion to refer to committee.' It should read committee, not Trau~mann's committee. There was a review of St. John's Lutheran Church request for side yard and rear yard variance, rear yard variance had previously been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Mr. Soleim and Mr. Kramer represent- ed the subcommittee which studied the proposed side yard variance. They had met with Mr. Groth from St. John's Lutheran Church and also Mrs. Gere, owner of the private residential property immediately west of the proposed church site. The proposed building would be 7' 6" from the side lot line. Under the Zoning Ordinance requirements, side yard setbacks other than residential in an R-Z zone requirement is 1g' side yard setback. The subcommittee recommend- ed that the variance be allowed, that the difference between 7' 6" and 12' side- yard setback because of the design would have little affect on the view that would be seen from the Gere home. There would still be g8' of separation between structures and the thought of the subcommittee was that the difference between 7' 6" and 12' was not major when related to the overriding common public good involved in the variance allowance. Mr. Groth presented a model of the site. A Mr. Flynn representing the architect reviewed the architecture and structure indicating the 3' 6" stairwell had been removed from the west side to the north side of the building. The Engineer indicated that Beltz Realty handling the sale of the Gere property had been furnished a copy of plans of the proposed construction. It was moved by Mr. Soleim, seconded by Mr. Kramer that the variance be recommended to be allowed to the City Council. It was indicated that there would be a variance hearing required and the Council would set the date, however, it was not a change to the ordinance, therefore the Council following the hearing could make a decision at one meeting rather Report of Special l~lanning Commission Meeting held Monday, May 14, 1973 Page Z. than three meetings. Also owners within 200 feet of the property in question would be notified of the public hearing. The date of the hearing was set for June 18th as it was recon~mended for that date. Mr. John Delbourn was present. He had requested a special use permit for construction of a pool as a home occupation for swimming lessons for infants. The 16' x 36' pool would fall within the requirements submitted by the sub- committee, chaired by Mr. Hallberg, indicating 1Z' and 15' side yard and rear yard setbacks respectfully would be required, that no electric lines would fall within 10' of the pool, that the driveway would have to hold six cars for offstreet parking and that the classes would be no larger than 8 at one time. It was moved by Mr. Tanner, seconded by Mrs. Linde to recommend to the City Council that the special use permit would not be required if construction were within the perimeters suggested by the subcommittee, that a home occupation be allowed to Mr. Delbourn for construction and operation of such an enterprise. The next item discussed was the H. D. Hudson request for variance to Section 8 - parking, under the Zoning Ordinance. The subcommittee report was furnished indicating 7 areas of recommendation for allowance of the variance, in addition to the 13 car area requested for variance, that an additional 14 car area be set aside as green space between the wings of the present structure and be used for parking only after the new construction of the building were complete and the new parking lot was constructed and total number of actual parking spaces would be known. It was moved by Mr. Trautmann, seconded by Mrs. Stoffel that the variance be granted in accordance with the recommendation of the subcommittee, with particular emphasis on softening paragraphs 5 and 6 to read "recommendations" rather than requirements. A rewrite of the position of the subcommittee was included for submission to the City Council with their minutes attached. Mr. Jim Kayfes representing Riverbend Association made a statement relative to the alternate plan for construction of Hudson on their present site. He stated that at no time did the Riverbend Association ever intend to dictate to Mr. Hudson as to how his property would be used, their suggestions to date were merely suggestions and that they would be still willing to work with Pt. D. Hudson for the improvement of the downtown commercial area. There were then several questions asked relative to the use of the present structures, whether the present building would be vacated or used for other purposes. It was indicated that part of the buildings would be in fact vacated, but some of the buildings would be used for warehousing. There was concern that there would be no loading or unloading along the Second Street side of the structure. Mr. Thiel indicated that there would be no loading zones established along gnd Street. All loading would be on the north side of the building to rail or truck at present loading platforms. Report of Special Planning Commission Meeting held Monday, May 14, 1973 Page 3. There was a question raised by Mr. Tanner relative to the reason for building on their present site instead of relocating to the Industrial Park. Mr. Tanner was ruled to be out of order with his line of questioning since the Planning Commission was addressing itself merely to variances at the present location. Mr. Thiel indicated the reasoning behind the upgrading of the present plant in place had been discussed on several other occasions and did not want to bring it up as an issue at this meeting. There was a roi1 call vote on the original motion made by Mr. Trautmann, seconded by Mrs. Stoffel. There was 5 yes and 3 no votes. The yes were Kramer, Trautmann, Hirchert, Stoffel and Linde. Voting no were Mr. Sole[m, Mr. Jensen, and Mr. Tanner. Following the vote the representatives from H. D. Hudson left the meeting. A comment was made by the Manager of H. D. Hudson that those labor members present should take note as to who voted against the proposed variance. The Planning Con,mission chairman indicated there would be a workshop at St. John's University on May Z2, 1973 through May 24, 1973 for anyone interested. They could contact him for the subject matter of the seminar. I had a request to check out a refrigerator on the front porch of a home at 5th and Pine Street. The building officials were notified to look into the matter. We completed our meeting at approximately 10:00 P. M. John Davidson, City Engineer