Loading...
05-15-2001 PCM c MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 15, 2001 1. CALL TO ORDER 5:31 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Arndt at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Jason Olson, Jim Haugen, Dean Kirchoff, Lynn Otteson, and Jeff Jones. Also present: Julie Wischnack, AICP, Director of Planning/Building/Zoning; Heather Bieniek, Planning Coordinator, and Dick Schieffer, City Attorney. Member absent: Brandon Fraser 2. CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Jones moved to approve the minutes for the April 17, 2001 meeting as submitted. Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. Motion carried. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a.) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PUT UP A 6' PRIVACY FENCE AS REQUESTED BY EDOUARD VERDON AND MARTINE FORTIN IN THE FRONT YARD, LOCATED AT 715 SHILOH ST. NW. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Tuesday, May 3, 2001. Ms. Bieniek presented the request and stated that the applicants changed their request from the original plans. She stated that staff recommended approval with the condition the owners would have to set the fence back at least 5 feet from the property line. Mr. Kirchoff moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Olsen seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Kirchoff moved to approve the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1.) If for any reason utilities need to be installed on the property and the fence would have to be taken down, replacement would be at the owners expense. 2.) The fence would be installed at least 5 feet from the property line and no higher than 6 feet. 3.) The finished side of the fence must face the exterior lot lines. Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. b.) CONSI DERATION OF A VARIANCE TO HAVE MORE THAN ON E ACCESSORY BU I LI 01 NG I N A R-1 DISTRICT AS REQUESTED BY DWAYNE ANDERSEN, LOCATED AT 1455 SOUTH GRADE RD. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Tuesday, May 3, 2001. Ms. Bieniek presented the request and stated that staff recommended approval with conditions because of the unique history of the lot. Mr. Haugen moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. Motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Haugen moved to approve the variance because of the unique characteristic of the land, with the following conditions: 1.) The owner would use new materials to make the building look more aesthetically pleasing 2.) The building may not be pole constructed. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. c.) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 50'X80' POLE BUILDING AS REQUESTED BY CARLlE KARG, LOCATED AT 546 2ND AVE SE. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Tuesday, May 3, 2001. Minutes Planning Commission - May 15, 2001 Page 2 Ms. Wischnack explained the request and stated that at the previous public hearing held for this permit the commission stated that a fence should be installed to have a barrier between the residential and the commercial properties. She stated that staff recommended approval with conditions. Kathy Rutski, 216 Huron St., stated that she was concerned about the fence and she wanted to make sure that it was one of the conditions on the permit. Mr. Kirchoff moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Kirchoff made the motion to approve the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1.) The permit is valid for 6 months. If a building permit has not been requested within that period, the applicant must request an extension prior to expiration. 2.) The building must be constructed as proposed on the site plan. Additionally, grading must also be constructed as proposed 3.) The parking areas for the buildings must be paved prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy for the buildings. 4.) No outside storage is allowed. 5.) Building plans must be signed by a structural engineer. 6.) A fence must be constructed on the south side of property as decided by the applicant and the adjacent property owner and constructed prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy. 7.) A locked dumpster must be provided prior to occupancy of the building. Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. d.) CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 6' TO 2' FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AS REQUESTED BY BRUCE SCHULTZ, LOCATED AT 545 MAl N ST S. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Tuesday, May 3, 2001. Ms. Otteson stated that she was going to abstain from discussion and voting. Ms. Wischnack described the request and stated that it was a difficult decision for staff to make, but did recommend denial because of the lack of hardship. Mr. Arndt asked why the utilities were set out so far. Ms. Wischnack replied that they couldn't obtain easements. This property is in an older part of town and easements were never taken into consideration at that time. Mr. Jones asked if the garage was currently located three feet from the property line instead of two would the addition be acceptable. Ms. Wischnack relied that it would not unless he would go through a conditional use process instead of a variance and the garage was replaced. Mr. Schultz, property owner, stated there are no other areas he could build a garage this size on his property without taking out some trees. He also stated that he wanted to keep the same look as the house and the current garage. Mr. Arndt asked how close he would be to the oak tree next to his garage. Mr. Schultz replied there was a retaining wall and he would not damage the tree. June Wick, 535 Main St. S., stated that she has a small lot and that the garage addition would limit what she could do with her property. Mr. Haugen stated that an 8' x 12' addition is a decent size. He asked if Mr. Schultz would be able to cut back a couple feet and make it a standard size. Mr. Schultz replied that he is a handyman, he has a table saw, a boat, vehicles, gardening supplies and misc. items, he would like the 8' x 12'. Mr. Haugen moved to close the hearing. Mr. Olsen seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Kirchoff moved to deny the variance based on the lack of hardship. Mr. Olsen seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-2 (Mr. Arndt and Mr. Haugen) and 1 (Ms. Otteson) abstaining. Minutes Planning Commission - May 15, 2001 Page 3 e.) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REPLACE AN EXISTING GARAGE WITH A GARAGE EXCEEDING 1000 SQ FT., AS REQUESTED BY CRAIG Gill, lOCATED AT 40S HURON ST. SE. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing as published in the Hutchinson leader on Tuesday, May 3, 2001. Ms. Bieniek explained the request and stated that staff recommended approval with conditions. Craig Gill, property owner, stated that he agrees with the conditions recommended by staff. He had one question about the definition of outside storage, he has 6 vehicles and there will probably be vehicles outside on his driveway. Mr. Jones asked how big his existing garage was. Mr. Gill replied that it was a stall and a half. There was general discussion about the definition of outdoor storage. General agreement that if the vehicles were operable and in use, it was not storage, that would be parking instead. Mr. Haugen moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Kirchoff seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Haugen moved to approve the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1.) If any utilities would need to be removed it would be at the owners expense. 2.) No outdoor storage is allowed on the property after the garage is built. 3.) The height of the detached garage may not exceed 16 feet. 4.) Neighboring properties may not be impacted by run-off from this structure. S.) All setback requirements must be maintained. Mr. Kirchoff seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. f.) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMITTOAPPROVEA PROPOSED SITE ENTRANCE AND SECURITY BUilDING CONSTRUCTION (which involves grading in the 100 year flood plain) AS REQUESTED BY 3M COMPANY, 90S ADAMS ST. SE. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing as published in the Hutchinson leader on Tuesday, May 3, 2001. Ms. Wischnack explained the request and stated there would be a major site entrance renovation and the reason for the permit is because the construction would be impacting the flood zone. She also stated that 3M would need a permit from the DNR for impacting waters. Deanna Necas, S42 Monroe St., expressed her concerns via phone on May 1S, 2001. Ms. Necas is concerned about her property value dropping, the safety of children, and all the extra traffic on Sth Ave NW. Ms. Otteson asked Mr. Arndt what they do with the children when they drop them off of the bus. Mr. Arndt replied they watch the traffic, when the traffic is all stopped they will let the kids out. By law traffic has to stop for the bus. Joy Schmidt, 321 Eerie St., stated that she agrees with the lady that called in. Ms. Schmidt commented that it is difficult for pedestrians in general to cross Sth Ave, she would like to see crosswalks, a stop light or a stop sign put in. Craig Gill, 40S Huron, commented that there are always kids biking in the middle of the road. He stated that there should be something we can do to inform the kids and drivers about safety issues. Ms. Wischnack commented that a neighborhood meeting could be held to discuss safety issues and who has the right of way on the streets. Darren Schwankl, TKDA, stated that they are anticipating the bypass will help eliminate some of the traffic. AI Brown, 447 Huron, stated that the traffic is uncontrollable, people drive by going at least SO miles an hour along Sth Ave. Ms. Otteson was familiar with property values decreasing and stated that with all the other improvements Minutes Planning Commission - May 15, 2001 Page 4 (park, bridge) the new entrance should not effect the property values around the area. Mr. Jones asked if it was possible to add additional stop signs to the conditional use permit. Ms. Wischnack stated that she would check into it. Mr. Kirchoff moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Haugen seconded it. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Kirchoff moved to approve the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1.) Major silt control and other approved protected waters silt prevention methods must be used throughout the construction process. Removal may only be conducted when the site and its vegetation have been restored. 2.) A protected waters permit must be acquired. 3.) The applicants must provide landscaping as provided in the plans dated 4-10-01, to meet the screening requirements set forth in Section 10.01. 4.) After construction has been completed, the applicants must supply an as-built certification of the building's lowest level. (Section 8.18.5, subd 4) 5.) Approval of this permit to alter the 100 year flood plain does not guarantee that the new building will never flood. The permit merely allows alteration and movement of materials within the 100 year flood plain. 6.) Any movement of utilities are at the property owner's expense. Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated that she would check with the City Engineer about the stop signs and lights and other safety issues. g.) CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM CANOPY SIZE ALLOWANCE AND A 48 SQ. FT. VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM TOTAL SQ. FT ALLOWED IN A C-4 DISTRICT AS REQUESTED BY MURPHY OIL (Wal-mart). Chairman Arndt opened the hearing as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Tuesday, May 3, 2001. Ms. Wischnack described the request and stated that staff recommended denial because the applicant does not meet the hardship criteria. They have an alternative to place some signage on Walmart's freestanding sign and the fact that the applicants have a smaller than average building does not constitute a reason to grant a variance. Dan Weese, CEI Engineering, stated that they were not having a convenience store but only a small kiosk. This type of building is unique to the community, his opinion is that the proposed signage is attractive and blends in with the building. Mr. Jones commented that the kiosk's are new and this is the way businesses are going. Mr. Weese commented that some places do not even have a kiosk. Glenn Wright, Murphy USA, commented that they are not interested in the pylon signs, their focus is on the gas and the kiosk. General discussion about canopy signage and building signage. Mr. Schieffer stated that with a variance, you need a hardship based on the unusual size, shape, or topography of the land not the size of structure, which could be changed at the owner's discretion. The planning board can amend the sign ordinance but not issue the variance. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Wright what their time frame was on building. Mr. Wright replied that they are close to pulling the building permit and after that probably about 50 days start to finish. Mr. Schieffer stated that Murphy USA could put up the allowed signage so they can open their store and than later if the code is changed they can change their signs. Mr. Jones asked the applicant if that would be ok if they did not grant the variance and the City went through and reviewed the sign ordinance. Mr. Wright replied they would like to have everything done right of way, if they have to make specialty signs it is an additional cost on their part and he was unsure of how much. Minutes Planning Commission - May 15, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Jones moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Jones moved to approve the variance with the proposal that Murphy USA presented and with the condition the code be reviewed. He also stated that the hardship would be, Murphy USA has a small building and because of that the code treats them unfair. There was no second to the motion, motion died. Mr. Olsen moved to deny the variance because of staff recommendations and Mr. Schieffer's comments. Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1 with Mr. Jones voting against the motion. Mr. Haugen asked staff if they would look at the sign ordinance. Ms. Wischnack replied that staff would look at the gas station part of it and report back to the board. 4. NEW BUSINESS a.) CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT LOCATED AT HWY 15 AND FREEMONT AVE (PLAZA 15) AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON. Ms. Wischnack described the request of the lot split for the proposed Events Center. Ms. Otteson asked what the purpose of the split was for. Mr. Schieffer replied that it is for the City's protection. The City of Hutchinson received a grant from the state, which is financed with a 30 year bond. If the City happens to violate any of the terms the state would want their money back. With the lot split the whole shopping center is not covered, just the portion where the Events Center would be. Mr. Kirchoff moved to approve the lot split. Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. b.) CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT LOCATED AT 1125 CHEYENNE ST. SW, AS REQUESTED BY EARL OLSON. Ms. Bieniek presented the information for the proposed lot split. Mr. Jones made the motion to approve. Mr. Kirchoff seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. 5. OLD BUISINESS a.) Discussion about Country Club Terrace Ms. Wischnack stated that Jeff Munsell and Bill Block were here to discuss the property known as Country Club Terrace. Mr. Block stated that in 1987 he purchased the property. Now 14 years later we are telling him he needs to meet the 30' setback. He stated that he wants to work with the City. There are currently 73 lots around the perimeter. Mr. Munsell stated that he appreciated the work that Ms. Wischnack has done and he hopes to work something out. Ms. Wischnack stated that a complaint came in so she researched and discovered that they (mobile homes) were not meeting the setback requirements and now the City is acting on it. General discussion about previous issues regarding Country Club Terrace. Ms. Wischnack stated that the property owner needs to apply for a variance and a public hearing will be held. She stated the lot is not platted, the location of the driveways and the size of the lots are up to the owner. The commission can not act on anything until this process is in place and a boundary survey is Minutes Planning Commission - May 15, 2001 Page 6 done. 6. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF a.) DISCUSSION ABOUT URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES Ms. Wischnack stated that we do not have any design guidelines right now. The more big projects come into town the more of a concern it becomes. She also stated there are lots of affordable things we can do to make a look more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Kirchoff said he thought it was a good idea. Mr. Haugen commented on our industrial park and said he is for it and Ms. Otteson agreed. General agreement for staff to look into Urban Design Guidelines. Mr. Schieffer stated that all commission members need to be sworn into office. Ms. Otteson was sworn in. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mr. Kirchoff moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. Motion carried.