Loading...
06-19-2001 PCM c MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 19, 2001 1. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Arndt at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Jason Olson, Brandon Fraser, Jim Haugen, Lynn Otteson, and Jeff Jones. Also present: Julie Wischnack, AICP, Director of Planning/Building/Zoning; Heather Bieniek, Planning Coordinator, and Dick Schieffer, City Attorney. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Jones moved to approve the minutes for the May 15, 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 IN THE FRONT YARD, AS REQUESTED BY LEONARD FISCHER, 850 WALNUT ST. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 5:31p.m. as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday June 7,2001. Ms. Bieniek presented the request and stated that staff recommended approval if the applicant chooses one of the City Engineer's recommendations. Ms. Bieniek explained the three recommendations from the City Engineer which were: 1. Move the fence so it would be 5' south of the northern property line 2. Take out the first two poles so the fence would start 16-20 feet to the east 3. Cut the fence down to 30" for the first 16-20 feet. Leonard Fischer, property owner, stated that they are willing to accommodate the City's recommendations. He said they will probably cut down the first two poles so they are 30 inches in height. Mr. Fischer stated that if they took out the first two poles they would only be moving back 15' instead of 16', would that be ok. Ms. Wischnack replied that it would be ok. Mr. Jones moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Fraser seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Jones moved to approve the conditional use permit with staff option number 3 and 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 owner's expense. 2.) The fence would be installed no higher than 6 feet. 3.) The finished side of the fence must face the exterior lot lines. Ms. Haugen seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. b.) CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 6 FEET TO 1 FOOT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE, AS REQUESTED BY MARK REINARTS, 446 GELN ST SW. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 5:37 p.m. as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, June 7th, 2001. Ms. Bieniek presented the request and stated that staff recommended denial of the variance because of the lack of a hardship but did recommend approval of a conditional use permit which would locate the new building three feet from the property line with conditions. Mr. Jones asked where the tree was located on the maps. Mr. Arndt asked what type of condition the tree was in. Ms. Bieniek replied that the tree was healthy and in excellent condition. Mark Reinarts, property owner, stated that he has learned a lot through this process and that he agreed with the conditions presented by staff. Minutes Planning Commission - June 19, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Arndt asked who owned the fence on the property. Mr. Reinarts replied that the rear fence was his and the side fence was the neighbors. Mr. Jones asked if the garage was going to exceed 1,000 square feet. Mr. Reinarts replied that it would not exceed 1,000 square feet. Mr. Haugen moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. Motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Haugen moved to deny the variance because of the lack of a hardship but approve a conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1.) Building is at least 3 feet from the property line with the overhangs no more than 1 foot from the building. 2.) Building can not be more than 1,000 square feet. 3.) Building can not be used for commercial purposes. 4.) Building can not be pole constructed. 5.) Building may not exceed 16 feet in height (median). Mr. Olsen seconded the motion. Motion to approve the conditional use permit carried unanimously. c.) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PLACE AN PRIMARY BUILDING (10' X 12') ON A LOT THAT IS ZONED C-5 (Conditional Commercial), AS REQUESTED BY CROW RIVER VETERINARY CLINIC, 164 4TH AVE NW. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 5:46 p.m. as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, June 7th, 2001. Ms. Wischnack explained the request and stated that one of the main concerns about this permit is the conflict with the transportation plan. She stated in 2006 MnDOT has proposed to do Highway 7 reconstruction and the lot will probably be bought out by the Department of Transportation. One other issue that staff had is that separate sewer and water will have to be installed on the property. Ms. Wischnack stated that staff recommended denial because of the conflict with the transportation plan and the fact that staff does not feel the building is harmonious with other structures in the area. Mr. Jones asked who would pay for the building to be removed during the highway 7 reconstruction. Ms. Wischnack replied that MnDot would be paying for the removal of buildings. Mr. Jones asked what type of building you would allow on this property. Ms Wischnack stated that to the south of the property you run into floodplain issues. You would have to apply for a permit to alter the floodplain and the lot is small, it would be difficult to say what type of building would be allowed, especially from a transportation perspective. Mr. Haugen asked if they as a commission could add a condition if they would approve the permit, that when the reconstruction takes place the owner would be responsible to remove the building. Ms. Wischnack replied that they could. Ms. Otteson stated that 5 years is a long time to try and make some money on a promising lot, might as well use the lot if it is currently vacant. Mr. Voight agreed and stated that he has to pay $1200.00 in taxes a year for the lot and he admits that he uses part of the lot for his parking lot and signage. He also commented that nothing is in stone with MnDOT so he wants to use the lot as long as he can. Mr. Olsen asked if he (Mr. Voight) has heard any concerns from his neighbors. Mr. Voight replied that he has heard nothing from his neighbors and staff did not receive any complaints from neighboring property owners. Mr. Haugen asked if there were any other franchises like the one he was proposing in the area. Mr. Voight replied that there was one in Willmar, but nothing around here. It will be an experiment for himself. Kathy Hanneman, 765 Wagner St., asked if a proposed Highway project was grounds to deny a request. Ms. Wischnack replied that it is in the transportation plan, so that is grounds to deny. Mr. Voight stated that he has no objections to the condition that he would be responsible to move the building when the Highway 7 project begins. Mr. Haugen moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. The motion to close Minutes Planning Commission - June 19, 2001 Page 3 the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Jones made the motion to approve the conditional use permit and the alteration of the floodplain with the following conditions: 1.) The property owner must work with the City to move the building back into the lot in an area where it meets the floodplain requirements and setbacks. 2.) When the reconstruction begins on Highway 7 the property owner is responsible for removing the building. 3.) The new building will have its own sewer and water lines. Mr. Fraser seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. d.) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BUILD A CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE ON A LOT THAT IS ZONED C-5, AS REQUESTED BY GUY CASPERS, 103 3RD AVE NW -and- e.) CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT 5 LOTS INTO 2 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE IN A C-5 DISTRICT, AS REQUESTED BY GUY CASPERS. Chairman Arndt opened the hearings at 6: 11 p.m. as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, June 7,2001. Ms. Wischnack explained the request and stated that the original proposal ran into problems with water and sewer service lines running through the middle of the lots. She stated that Mr. Caspers will be purchasing all 5 lots and will plat them into 2. Ms. Wischnack also stated that the applicants have proposed more parking than required, so not to over-pave, they can either reduce the proposed amount or, in the future, have joint parking with the neighboring business. Mr. Arndt asked if the chiropractic lot was raised would it effect the drainage into the car wash lot. Ms. Wischnack replied that it would not because the car wash has a higher elevation and there will be a basin to help capture the runoff. Mr. Haugen asked staff about reducing the recommended front lot setback from 30' to 20', the building would be in line with the car wash. Julie replied that the reduction would be fine Mr. Caspers, property owner, stated that he had a couple questions for staff. He wanted clarification about the easement, if the service lines were to be moved, where would they go to and clarification about the parking reduction. Ms. Wischnack replied that staff suggested the easement so we can take care of issues before there is a problem, in case something would have to be repaired with the service lines there would be no conflicts of who is responsible for costs and damages. Mr. Haugen asked if the City was involved besides the documentation of the easement. Ms. Wischnack replied that the City did not have strong feelings either way. Mr. Haugen stated that the applicant (his client) was concerned about his concrete, parking lot, and who would be responsible if it would have to be tore up. Mr. Schieffer replied that the City can not stipulate the outcome it would have to be an agreement between the owners of the two properties. Mr. Caspers stated that, currently, the property is owned by Neil Jensen but it is soon to be his. At one time the owners of the car wash owned lots 9-10 and that is why he thinks the service lines run right through the lots. Mr. Caspers commented that he is concerned about the fact that if there would be problems with the service lines in the future they would have to tear up his parking lot and possibly his front entrance, would it be possible to move the service lines. Mr. Schieffer replied that the best solution in his mind would be to move the service lines. The agreements would be decided between the property owners but Mr. Caspers has more leverage because it is his land. Ms. Wischnack commented that the reason why they probably ran the lines behind the car wash was because the lot was lower. Mr. Arndt asked where the lines for Hardees go to. Ms. Wischnack replied that she was not sure, but Hardees is at a higher elevation. Mr. Caspers asked what was meant by "do not over-pave" and stated that some of the parking on the plans are for future parking areas. Ms. Wischnack replied that she did not realize that some of it was for future proposals and said that the City does require a certain amount of open space in the C-5 district and did not want to see the lot covered in pavement. Minutes Planning Commission - June 19, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Haugen asked if the storm sewer was privately owned. Ms. Wischnack replied that she was not sure but will check into it. Mr. Olson asked if Mr. Caspers had any plans for the lot that he was going to replat. Mr. Caspers replied that he did not at this time but promised it will be something that will benefit the City. Ms. Otteson moved to close the public hearing for the conditional use permit. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Olson moved to close the public hearing for the preliminary plat. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Olson moved to approve the preliminary plat with the following conditions: 1.) The applicant must submit and gain approval for the final plat before a certificate of occupancy will be issued for the building. 2.) Applicant must address service line issues with the neighboring property owner. Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 5-0 with Mr. Haugen abstaining. Mr. Olson moved to approve the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. Reduce the parking so they do not "over pave" the property, or consider a shared parking agreement with the lot to the west when it is sold. 2. Plant the required trees within 6 months of the certificate of occupancy. 3. Provide for lighting that matches the downtown lighting standards. 4. All parking must be paved at the time of the certificate of occupancy. 5. Sewer and Water (SAC/WAC) charges will be due at the time of building permit ($1,750). 6. Submit drainage plans at the time of building permit. The plans must be approved by the City Engineer. 7. Special attention must be given to the electrical lines in the area, because they contain very high voltage. 8. Water services are available for each lot, although they are small lines and may not accommodate uses such as lawn irrigation. 9. If any service lines are to be moved, this would be at the owner's expense. Flood Plain Alteration: 1. The alteration can not negatively impact drainage to other properties or to the public right of way. 2. The building elevation must be at a minimum of 1046.2. This elevation must be certified after the building is constructed. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 5-0 with Mr. Haugen abstaining. f.) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MOVE THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BUILDING FROM THE PRESENT LOCATION TO 145 GLEN ST SW, AS REQUESTED BY RICH WESTLUND. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 6:40 p.m. as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, June 7,2001. Ms. Wischnack explained the request and stated that the City code requires a conditional use permit when moving a building. Ms. Wischnack also stated that the new home for the Chamber is on Main Street and the old building will probably be used for office space. Ms. Wischnack commented that there is no sewer on 2nd Ave or Glen St. so they will have to hook up through the alley and the property owner will also have to pay SAC and WAC fees. Ms. Otteson asked when the building is proposed to move. Mr. Westlund replied they are trying to get a hold of the mover, but hope to have it completed by mid August. Mr. Westlund also commented that they plan on having a lower unit (basement) connected to the building and will probably move the building closer to the street than what was proposed. Ms. Wischnack commented that her and the property owner have discussed moving the building closer to the road so it will match the other buildings in the area and they can put their garbage receptacles and employee parking behind the building. Minutes Planning Commission - June 19, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Haugen asked what the setback is for parking lots in this area. Ms. Wischnack replied that there is none but they recommended 5'. Mr. Haugen asked if the neighboring lot is zoned residential. Ms. Wischnack replied that it is not, it is zoned commercial with a non-conforming use. Mr. Haugen moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Fraser moved to approve the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. Must follow submitted plans that stipulates the route the building will be moved. 2. There must be sidewalk connections made to the street sidewalks. 3. The sidewalk must repaired after construction. 4. The parking area should be constructed further away from the northern property line to accommodate snow storage. 5. A drainage plan must be submitted with the building permit. 6. All parking areas must be paved at the time of the Certificate of Occupancy. 7. Footing and foundation plans must be submitted and approved prior to moving the building. Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. g.) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A POLE CONSTRUCTED BUILDING IN AN 1-2 DISTRICT, AS REQUESTED BY NGR, LLC, 1025 5TH AVE SE. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 6:50 p.m. as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, June 7,2001. Ms. Wischnack presented the request and stated that staff recommends approval of phase I but not phase II because of the uncertainty of the future use. She stated that the owners will have to pay SAC and WAC fees at the time of the building permit. Sharon Daniels, 1165 13th Ave NW, asked how big the building is proposed to be. Laurie Gelschus replied that phase I would be 60'x84' and phase II is proposed to be 60'x120'. Ms. Gelschus stated that that they are anticipating phase II to be warehouse space. Ms. Wischnack stated that the City is concerned about what will be inside the building and that a conditional use permit expires 6 months after approval if no construction has been started. Ms. Gelschus commented that they are anticipating to start construction within 6 months. She stated they have people interested in renting the space. Mr. Jones asked if the phases have to be approved separately. Ms. Wischnack replied that they do not have to be approved separately but then you lose the process of adding conditions and controlling what is in it. She also stated that it is a narrow lot so they will have a hard time figuring out where the trucks will be able to maneuver the easiest. Mr. Jones asked who they are planning on renting to. Ms. Gelschus replied that they are hoping to have Mediacom use the phase I development and phase II a tool and die place expressed interest. Mr. Jones moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Fraser seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Jones moved to approve Phase I with staff recommendations. There was no second to the motion, motion died. Mr. Fraser moved to approve the conditional use permit and the variance with the following conditions: 1. Tree planting must be accomplished at a rate of 1 tree per 800 square feet of landscaped area. 2. Hydrants must be installed along the western property line, in the location identified on the site plan. 3. Future expansion requires an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. 4. All driving lanes and parking areas must be paved prior to certificate of occupancy. Minutes Planning Commission - June 19, 2001 Page 6 5. Drainage must not be increased by the development. The ponding area has been identified on the site plan. Approval of the side yard variance for a circulation drive based on the hardship that the lot width is narrow and does not meet the present subdivision standards for this district. The motion carried 5-0 with Mr. Haugen abstaining. 4. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Wischnack stated that she had to leave. The sign ordinance request for Murphy Oil has to be decided by August 24th. a.) CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT lOCATED AT 1150 13TH AVE NW AS REQUESTED BY HAZEL DANIELS. Ms. Bieniek presented the request for the lot split and stated that there was an accessory building on the split lot which is only allowed with a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission would have to decide if the applicant would have to go through a separate conditional use process or if they will approve it with the lot split request. Ms. Otteson asked if there was only sewer and water hook-up to parcel A. Sharon Daniels replied that there was another hook-up at 13th St. Ms. Otteson moved to approve the lot split and the conditional use permit at this time with the following conditions: 1.) The property owner is responsible for changing the appropriate deeds and the transfer of the title. 2.) The accessory building on the split lot can not be used for commercial purposes. 3.) The lot line must be at least 6 feet from the accessory building. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. 5. OLD BUSINESS a.) Discussion about gas station sign ordinance Mr. Jones stated that he likes Bloomington's gas station sign ordinance the best and he thought Mankato's was not descriptive enough. General discussion that we have to make it clear if the color is part of the sign or if it is just the logo. Ms. Otteson stated that any info we can get together before the next meeting would be extremely helpful. 6. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mr. Jones moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. Motion carried.