Loading...
08-21-2001 PCM c MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, AUQust21, 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 Dean Kirchoff. Also present: Julie Wischnack, AICP, Director of Planning/Building/Zoning; Heather Bieniek, Planning Coordinator, and Dick Schieffer, City Attorney. Absent: Jeff Jones 2. CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Haugen moved to approve the minutes for the July 17, 2001 meeting as submitted. Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. Motion carried. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a.) CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 25' TO A ZERO FOOT SETBACK AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE LARGER THAN 1,000 SQUARE FEET AS REQUESTED BY MICHAEL SCHLUETER, 405 MONROE ST. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 5:31p.m. as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday August 9, 2001. Ms. Bieniek presented the request and stated that staff recommends denial based on the fact that staff does not believe the request meets the hardship criteria. She also stated that staff is concerned that the new addition would contribute to the existing home occupation. Michael Schlueter, applicant, stated that he does not operate his home occupation out of the garage. His business is working at the residence of others. Mr. Schlueter also stated that the new addition would clean up his yard, there would be no interference with the neighbor's properties and it would improve the entire area. Mr. Arndt stated the sign on the garage indicates a home occupation. The code allows a sign up to four square feet per side and it looks like this one exceeds that amount. Ms. Wischnack replied that what Mr. Arndt said was correct and there were no permits that were applied for the existing sign. Ms. Otteson stated that if the foundation is already bad and you have to repair it, wouldn't it make more sense to rebuild the garage in a new, conforming location. Mr. Schlueter replied that the foundation was bad on one side of the building and it would cost more to tear it all down instead of adding on. Mr. Arndt asked staff how there was a zero foot setback. Ms. Wischnack replied that no survey has been done on the property so we took the dimensions from an aerial shot. The drawing that the applicant submitted was the distance from the building to the street, not including the boulevard area. Mr. Haugen asked if there was a hardship. Ms. Wischnack replied that staff does not feel there is a hardship. There is room on the property to build a new garage. She also stated that another concern staff had was the height of the structure. The applicant stated that he wanted to use the new addition to clean up his yard, if you look at the picture, the height of the camper exceeds the height of the garage so it would not fit in the new or old building. Mr. Schlueter stated that he would make the door size larger and take down the existing home occupation sign. Mr. Fraser moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Kirchoff seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Kirchoff moved to deny the request for the variance and the conditional use permit based on the fact that there is no hardship. Mr. Olsen seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. b.) CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED BOUNDARY SETBACK FOR THE Minutes Planning Commission - August 21 , 2001 Page 2 PLACEMENT OF MANUFACTURED HOMES AS REQUESTED BY JEFF MUNSELL, APPLICANT AND WILLIAM BLOCK, OWNER AT 448 CALIFORNIA ST NW. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 5:46 p.m. as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, August 9th, 2001. Ms. Wischnack explained the request and stated that the applicant is asking for a "blanket variance". She also stated that the current required setbacks are not working for the size of manufactured homes. The proposed variance would not affect the current homes or accessory building but only for new units and replacements. Staff is recommending a 5' setback from the perimeter lines. Mr. Haugen asked if the setbacks have always been there. Mr. Schieffer replied that most mobile home parks have boundary setbacks, the City does not have any information if it the code has ever been enforced. Mr. Haugen asked if the configuration of the park would allow for a greater setback than 5 feet. Mr. Schieffer replied that if we would try and enforce the current setback or even something with a 20 foot setback the park would have to go through major renovations and reconfigure the lots. With staff's recommendation over time you will have conformity without reducing the number of units allowed on the lot. Jeff Munsell, applicant, stated that the park has never been in compliance. The City Engineer, at the time of development, designed the layout of the lots. Mr. Olsen asked if the applicant and owner were in agreement with a 5 foot setback. Mr. Munsell replied that they are pleased with all the work the City has done and happy with the outcome. Don Holmquist, 482 California St., stated that as a neighboring property owner he is in acceptance with the recommendation of 5 feet but would also like to see a physical boundary or fence installed. Ms. Otteson asked if a fence or a buffer would be out of line to ask of the property owner of the park. Ms. Wischnack replied that there are currently some trees as a buffer. She also stated that over time large boundary fences usually deteriorate and the maintenance is not kept up, it also a prime place for storage. Ms. Wischnack stated that plantings would be a better idea. Mr. Kirchoff moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. Motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Kirchoff moved to approve the variance with the following conditions: 1.) Any new home or accessory building may not be located closer than 5 feet from the outer perimeter property lines. 2.) No home or other structures may be placed over the gas distribution line or service lines. Any movement of these lines would require the moving expense to be paid for by the owners of the park Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. Motion to approve the variance carried unanimously. c.) CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR PLAZA 15 AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 6:12 p.m. as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, August 9th, 2001. Ms. Wischnack explained the request and stated that staff recommends approval of the variance. Mr. Haugen moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Olsen seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Haugen made the motion to approve the variance. The variance will not impact the surrounding buildings or the parking and the City will continue to own both parcels. Mr. Olsen seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. d.) CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF REAR YARD, SECTION 3. Minutes Planning Commission - August 21 , 2001 Page 3 Chairman Arndt opened the hearings at 6:15 p.m. as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, August 9, 2001. Ms. Bieniek explained the request and stated that staff was looking for a clarification for the definitions of yard, rear and lot rear, the current definition may be interpreted different ways. Mr. Schieffer commented that there are no substantial changes just clarification of the language. Mr. Haugen moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Haugen moved to approve the amendment. Mr. Olsen seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. e.) CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING DRIVEWAY SETBACKS FOR OLDER HOMES IN RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SECTION 8. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 6:25 p.m. as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, August 9, 2001. Ms. Wischnack presented the request and stated that staff receives numerous people wanting to replace their driveway. Once they find out they have to go through the variance process if they are not 5 feet away from their property line they say they do not want to pay the money or wait the month and a half and they usually construct the driveway without the permit. So staff is recommending a 3 foot allowance for replacements and the 5 feet will be for new construction. Mr. Olsen asked how staff came up with 3 feet. Ms. Wischnack replied that it is the most common and the building code requires buildings to be at least 3 feet from the property lines, so it would coordinate Mr. Fraser moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Kirchoff moved to approve the amendment as staff presented. Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. 4. NEW BUSINESS 5. OLD BUSINESS a.) Discussion about a soil amendment, Mark Schnobrich Mr. Schnobrich presented his proposal about a future soil amendment for all new subdivisions. They are currently testing 3 lots in the Rolling Meadows Subdivision to see how this compost! soil mixture works. The cost of this project on each lot would be split 1/3 to 2/3's. The City of Hutchinson would contribute 1/3 of the cost. Thus far the total cost is about $1.50 per square foot. Mr. Arndt appointed Mr. Haugen to be chair at 6:45 Ms. Wischnack stated that right now staff is looking for feedback from the commission. Ms. Otteson asked who predetermines where the trees will go. Mr. Schnobrich said either him or his staff would look for the most strategic places on the property. Mr. Fraser stated that there is no doubt in his mind that this process works and he is in approval for it. Mr. Olsen also said it was a good idea. General discussion about the project, the process, and the enforcement. Everyone was in favor of the proposed project at this stage. Ms. Wischnack stated that from here we need more information. Maybe provide information with the building permits to get a response from the contractors and new homeowners. Find out some cost from excavators and formalize the enforcement and where in the ordinance it will be. Minutes Planning Commission - August 21 , 2001 Page 4 b.) Update on the Murphy Oil sign variance Ms. Wischnack updated the board on the results of the sign ordinance and stated the City Council did change the recommendation from the planning commission. 6. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF a.) Ms. Wischnack stated the Jeff Jones will be taking a leave of absence from the Commission for about 6 months. Would it be acceptable for him to come back or should we post for an open position? General consensus was that it was acceptable for him to come back, but to put a time limit on it, no longer than 6 months. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Ms. Otteson moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Olsen seconded the motion. Motion carried.