Loading...
07-17-2001 PCM c MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 17, 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, Dean Kirchoff, 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. Haugen moved to approve the minutes for the June 19, 2001 meeting as submitted. Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. Motion carried. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a.) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP PARKLAND (PLAYGROUND, VOLLEYBALL COURT, BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL) IN AN AREA THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED, AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON, PARKS DEPARTMENT, LOCATED IN THE AREA OF ONTARIO ST. AND 2ND AND 3RD AVE. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 5:31p.m. as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday July 5, 2001. Ms. Wischnack presented the request and stated that the Parks Department received a grant to regrade and create additional park amenities for this location. She also stated the once proposed BMX track is no longer moving forward. The reason why the applicant has to go through conditional use process is because of the alteration of the floodplain. Mr. Olsen asked when the grant expires. Ms. Wischnack replied that she was unsure of the exact date but probably in a year or two. Mr. Arndt asked if the bike and pedestrian trail was going to be bituminous. Ms. Wischnack replied that it was going to be. Mr. Arndt also asked if the parking along the fence was going to be eliminated. Ms. Wischnack replied that it was going to be and there is a new proposed parking area. 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. Silt fencing must be installed to properly protect the area from erosion 2. The Parks Department shall provide a time line for construction, when available Ms. Haugen seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. b.) CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 6' TO 3' AND THE REQUIRED DRIVEWAY SETBACK FROM 5' TO 2' AS REQUESTED BY JASON RUPRECHT, 575 HASSAN ST. SE. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 5:35 p.m. as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, July 5th, 2001. Ms. Bieniek presented the request and stated that staff recommended approval of the variance because of the hardship of the unique shape of the lot, location of the home, and the fact that the code requires garage space for residential units. Mr. Arndt asked if the curb was already cut for the driveway. Jason Ruprecht, applicant, stated that it was. Minutes Planning Commission - July 17, 2001 Page 2 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 with the following conditions: 1.) Any relocation of utility lines are at the owners expense. 2.) The plans must follow the submitted site drawings, dated June 20,2001. 3.) Building can not be more than 1,000 square feet. 4.) Building can not be used for commercial purposes. 5.) Building can not be pole constructed. 6.) Building may not exceed 16 feet in height (median). Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. Motion to approve the conditional use permit carried unanimously. c.) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PLACE A 6' PRIVACY FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD 2' FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AS REQUESTED BY MURIEL FELSKA, 103 ELKS. DR. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 5:45 p.m. as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, July 5th, 2001. Ms. Bieniek presented the request and stated that the Planning Commission has seen similar requests like the proposed over the past couple months. The reason why staff recommended approval to have the fence 2 feet from the property line is because the fence would be starting 68 feet from the front property line. Mr. Jones asked about the 25 feet code requirements for front property lines. Muriel Felska, property owner, stated that the fence would only be 24 feet long, along the north property line. The fence will be white vinyl and the reason why he wants the fence is to shield traffic. He said that he tried to grow a hedge but that did not work, they just want to enjoy their backyard without the traffic. Ms. Otteson moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Fraser made the motion to approve the conditional use permit with staff recommendations. Mr. Kirchoff seconded the motion. Travis Nelson, 92 Century Ave., asked when people in the audience got a chance to speak. Mr. Arndt apologized and stated he could come to the microphone. Mr. Nelson stated that his biggest objection to the fence is that it blocks his view to the park from his deck on the second story. The closer it is to the road the less he is able to see. Ms. Otteson asked how far the park is from his deck. Mr. Nelson replied that he was unsure but probably about 200'. Mr. Schieffer explained the conditional use process and the variance process. He also explained the procedure for reconsideration of a motion. Mr. Kirchoff made the motion to reconsider the motion of approving the conditional use permit. Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Nelson how this fence would block his view. Mr. Nelson replied that in his opinion it would block his view. Mr. Fraser made the motion to approve the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1.) The fence has to be setback 68' from the southern property line (Elks Drive) 2.) If for any reason utilities need to be installed or altered on the property and the fence would have to be taken down it would be at the owner's expense. 3.) The fence would be installed no higher than 6 feet. 4.) Finished side of the fence must face the exterior lot lines. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. d.) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO RELOCATE GARY'S GARAGE TO MCCLURES BUILDING WHICH ISZONED 1-1, LOCATED AT 9455TH AVESE, AS REQUESTED BY DICK MCCLURE. Minutes Planning Commission - July 17, 2001 Page 3 Chairman Arndt opened the hearings at 6:13 p.m. as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, July 5th, 2001. Mr. Kirchoff stated he would be abstaining from this request. Ms. Wischnack explained the request and stated that one of the main concerns staff had was the amount of outdoor storage there may be considering the current lot has an excessive amount of outdoor storage. She also stated that one of the conditions she would like added would be to have the fence up at the time Gary's garage would be occupying the building. Mr. Jones asked if anywhere in the code it talks about the differences between auto repair businesses and body shops. Ms. Wischnack replied that it does not but staff has classified it as the same type of business because of the end result is the same. Ms. Otteson asked what "opaque" meant. Ms. Wischnack replied that it was not see through, usually a wood type of fence. Gary Sauber, owner of Gary's Garage, stated that he does do some body work but no painting. He also stated that he is gone for 4 months of the year over winter and he also does not want outdoor storage. Mr. Sauber stated that he has 4 other buildings around the state that he does this type of work in and he personally owns over 90 vehicles. Mr. Arndt asked if he had any other employees? Mr. Sauber replied that he did not. Mr. Olson asked if the reason why he (Mr. Sauber) was moving buildings was because he needed more space. Mr. Sauber replied that yes that was the reason. Dean Kirchoff, 340 Michigan St., stated that Mr. McClure has really cleaned up the lot overtime and he is in favor of the conditional use permit. 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. Fraser moved to approve the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. The applicant! owner must install 1 00% opaque fencing around the vehicle storage area at the time Gary's Garage occupies the new building. 2. No vehicles or items in the process of repair shall be located outside the fenced area or outside the building. 3. If violation or complaints arise regarding the use, the City ay require a hearing and consider revocation. 4. A new drawing of the fence must be submitted to the City of Hutchinson, Planning Department, stating how big the fence is going to be, where it is going to be located, and what materials are going to be used before the garage may occupy the building. Mr. Olson seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 5-0-1 with Mr. Kirchoff abstaining. e.) CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO PLACE AN ACCESSORY BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY LINE NEXT TO AN UNIMPROVED ALLEY AS REQUESTED BY PAUL AND NICHOLE DIETEL, 237 COLLEGE AVE NE. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 6:35 p.m. as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, July 5, 2001. Ms. Otteson stated she will be abstaining from this request. Ms. Wischnack presented the request and stated that she has talked with the applicants about the possibility of vacating the alley and there are too many utilities in the alley to vacate it. She stated that the lot is very small only 49 feet in width the average width of older lots are usually around 66 feet. Mr. Jones asked if the proposed garage and the house would be 6' apart. Ms. Wischnack replied that they are not proposed to be 6' apart and will have to fireproof the garage if they do not move the building so they are at least 6' apart. Ms. Otteson stated that one of the staff conditions was to follow the building plans as submitted, she was wondering if they could alter the condition so the garage could be moved to meet the 6' requirement without coming back to the planning commission. Ms. Wischnack replied that as long as they do not change any of the side yard measurements that would be fine. Minutes Planning Commission - July 17, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Kirchoff moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack read the letter that was received in the office via mail, from Sheila Mogard, 209 College Ave., in favor of the request and said that it would be an improvement to the lot. Mr. Kirchoff moved to approve the variance with the following conditions: 1. Any relocation of utility lines are at the owners expense. 2. The plans must follow the submitted site drawings, dated June 20, 2001. 3. Building can not be pole constructed. 4. Building may not exceed 16' in height. 5. Building must meet building code requirements. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried 5-0-1 with Ms. Otteson abstaining. 4. NEW BUSINESS 5. OLD BUSINESS a.) Discussion about an amendment to the gas station sign ordinance (public hearing) and decision about the Murphy Oil sign variance. Ms. Wischnack stated that the planning commission has to make a decision about Murphy Oil at this meeting otherwise the City Council will not have enough time to act on the recommendation. Ms. Wischnack than reviewed the request and went over the information that staff put together about sign ordinances from other communities. She stated that all cites were quite different when it came to their sign ordinance, especially the canopy section. General discussion about the differences in the cities sign ordinance. Mr. Olson asked if Staff has heard any response from other gas stations. Ms. Wischnack replied that Staff has not heard anything. Mr. Jones stated as a suggestion, to allow some provisions in the ordinance. For example, maybe to increase the amount of signage allowed on a canopy sign is the applicant has a small building or no pylon signs. Ms. Wischnack told the Planning Commission that at one point, Murphy Oil proposed a sign request that met our code, so we know they are capable of doing it. Mr. Fraser commented that he thinks a percentage of the size of the lot or canopy would be a good way to figure out how much signage to allow. Ms. Wischnack reminded the Board that the City will only be changing the gas station parts of the sign ordinance. Mr. Jones stated that with his proposal they would be minimizing the amount of freestanding signs. Mr. Schieffer commented that too many signs in an area may cause clutter so the signs would be worthless. Mr. Haugen stated that with a variance request, a hardship is needed. Murphy Oil does not have a hardship therefore we will have to deny the request. Mr. Haugen made the motion to deny the variance because there is no hardship. Mr. Olson seconded the motion. Motion to deny carried unanimously. Mr. Jones stated that he thinks we should not penalize the applicant for having a small building. Ms. Otteson moved to close the public hearing for the sign ordinance. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Kirchoff stated that we are not addressing the pylon signs but the canopy signs. Minutes Planning Commission - July 17, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Kirchoff made the motion to approve the change recommended by staff to increase the price or logo signage on a canopy from a total of 9 square feet per side visible from the public right of way to 20 square feet per side visible from public right of way (Section 14, under general requirements). Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-1 with Mr. Fraser voting against. Ms. Wischnack explained the next recommended change under Signs Permitted in Commercial and Industrial Districts section 3. Mr. Fraser asked if that includes all signage on the building. Ms. Wischnack replied that it did. Mr. Haugen commented that with a pylon sign if the signage is the same on both sides it only counts as one side. Mr. Fraser commented that he has a problem with freestanding signs, a canopy is already there with gas stations why not put the signs on the canopy. Ms. Wischnack commented that she did not think we would be able to get rid of all pylon signs. Mr. Arndt stated that he thought 200 square feet was a lot and thought they should reduce that amount. Ms. Wischnack commented that City Staff just approved a gas station sign application that had a total of 160 square feet and that seemed like a good amount. Mr. Fraser stated that if you regulate the amount of signage by a percentage of the canopy than you are limiting the amount overall signage allowed on the lot. Mr. Fraser made the motion to approve section 3 with the change of total signage not exceeding 150 square feet. Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 6. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF a.) Ms. Wischnack stated that the council approved the annexation with Frank Fay. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mr. Olsen moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. Motion carried.