Loading...
11-20-2001 PCM c MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 20, 2001 1. CALL TO ORDER 5:35 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Arndt at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Lynn Otteson, Brandon Fraser, Jason Olsen, Jim Haugen, 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. Olsen moved to approve the minutes for the October 16, 2001 meeting as submitted. Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. Motion carried. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a.) CONSI DERATION OF A CON DITIONAL USE PERM IT TO EXPAN DAN EXISTI NG BU I LDI NG LARGER THAN 1,000 SQUARE FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1150 13TH AVE NW, AS REQUESTED BY SCOTT AN D JUDY PLOWMAN. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing as published in the Hutchinson Leaderon Thursday, November 8TH, 2001. Ms. Bieniek presented the request and stated that staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit. Butch Eck, 1120 13th Ave stated that he was in agreement with the CU P but if the City allowed it would it be acceptable for everyone in that area to have a large shed. Ms. Wischnack replied that every application is different and the board looks at what the use of the building would be, the location of the building, and the reason for the large building. Mr. Haugen moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Kirchoff seconded the motion. Motion to close the hearing approved unanimously. Mr. Haugen moved to approve the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. If any utilities would need to be moved 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. 5. All setback requirements must be maintained. 6. Accessory building may not be used for a home occupation. 7. The primary building must start construction within one year of the application date. Mr. Kirchoff seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. b.) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A POLE FRAME ADDITION TO AN EXISTING POLE STRUCTURE IN AN I/C DISTRICT AS REQUESTED BY BRENT REINER, LOCATED AT 805 HWY 7 WEST. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing as published in the Hutchinson Leaderon Thursday, November 8TH, 2001. Ms. Wischnack presented the request and stated that staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit. Mr. Kirchoff asked where the exact property line was. Ms. Wischnack replied that it is deceiving but if you look in your packet you will see the boundaries. Otto Templin owns property to the north. Ms. Otteson asked if the board should suggest an 8 foot fence. Ms. Wischnack replied that a 6 foot fence would be high enough for the material that is currently out there. Minutes Planning Commission - November 20, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Kirchoff moved to close the hearing. Mr. Olsen seconded the motion. Motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Kirchoff moved to approve the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. Any relocation of utility lines would be at the owner's expense. 2. No outdoor storage is allowed on the property after the addition is built. Furthermore, a 6 foot, 100% opaque fence must be constructed north of the building within the property lines to house the remaining outdoor storage. No occupancy of the addition shall be granted until the fence is complete or the outdoor storage items are removed. 3. The building addition may be located closer than 20 feet from the property line (which is the recommended setback for this district). 4. This CUP is valid for a period of 6 months, unless an extension is granted. If not progress has been made on the construction of this addition, the CUP shall become invalid. Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. c.) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PLACE FILL IN THE FLOODWAY AS REQUESTED BY RHONDA BURGE, 1480 HWY 7 W. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing as published in the Hutchinson Leaderon Thursday, November 8TH, 2001. Ms. Wischnack explained the request and stated that the applicant would be bringing fill into the floodplain to cover her sewer line. Ms. Wischnack stated that staff recommended denial of the request because there is another option the applicant can use for the sewer system and the fill is not necessary. Mr. Arndt asked what the elevation of the Luce Line Trail was. Ms. Wischnack replied that most if it is between 1034-1043. Mr. Fraser asked what the cost of the ejector would be. Ms. Wischnack replied that she was not sure, that suggestion was brought up by the City Engineer. Mr. Arndt asked the applicant if the line was already installed. Rhonda Burge, applicant, stated that it was. She stated that the city would have installed it for her but they would have charged $55,000 so she hired her own contractor. She looked into the option of the ejector but found out if the electricity would go out, her sewer system would not work. Ms. Burge also stated that the wetland area has not been proven and at this moment she has not plans for re-subdividing. Mr. Arndt asked her when she bought the property. Ms. Burge replied that she purchased the lot about a year ago. Mr. Arndt asked how much fill she would be bringing in. Ms. Burge replied that she would be bringing in about 1,000 cubic yards. Mr. Kirchoff asked if the system would freeze without the fill. Ms. Burge relied that the contractor did not think it would but she wants the CUP just in case. Mr. Arndt asked if the fill would be higher than the Luce Line Trail. Ms. Burge replied that is would be about the same. Mr. Haugen asked who has jurisdiction. Ms. Wischnack replied that with the wetlands the City goes to the County hydrologist and the DN R is also notified. Mr. Schieffer commented that with wetlands it is the applicants responsibility to demonstrate that the land meets the code. He suggested the applicant get a wetland delineation report. Ms. Otteson asked how quickly could that be done. Ms. Wischnack replied that once the ground freezes it is hard to do. Mr. Olsen asked how much it would cost. Ms. Wischnack replied that for a testing range it is an hourly rate of probably around $60-75 a full delineation is a lot more expensive. Mr. Kirchoff commented that if the contractor is not concerned than why bring fill in. Mr. Kirchoff moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Olsen seconded the motion. Motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Kirchoff moved to deny the conditional use permit for the following reasons: 1. There is another option for sanitary sewer service for this property without adding Minutes Planning Commission - November 20, 2001 Page 3 fill to the 100 year flood plain and the Shoreland impact area. 2. The area of fill is possibly in a wetland area. 3. The fill may promote re-subdivision of the property which should not be encouraged in this area. 4. The most recent elevation survey was conducted in 1985, prior to the home construction. More accurate survey data would assist in determining acceptable areas of fill. 5. If there is freezing of the line that occurs, the Planning Commission would reconsider the request without the payment of another conditional use permit fee. Mr. Olsen seconded the motion. Motion to deny carried unanimously. d.) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 24'x12' ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING IN AN I/C DISTRICT, AS REQUESTED BY DOUG AND NANCY DWINNELL, LOCATED AT 755 HWY 7 E. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday November 8th, 2001. Ms. Bieniek presented the request and stated that staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit for the addition. Doug Dwinnell, applicant, asked about the outdoor storage condition. Ms. Wischnack replied that it there is outdoor storage it will have to be enclosed with a fence, if he did not want a fence do not have outdoor storage. Mr. Olsen asked if staff or the applicant have heard any complaints from the neighbors. Mr. Dwinnell and Ms. Bieniek replied that they have not. Mr. Haugen moved to close the public hearing. Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Ms. Otteson moved to approve the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. If any utilities would need to be moved it would be at the owners expense. 2. No outdoor storage is allowed on the property after the addition is built, unless, it is enclosed by a 100% opaque fence. No occupancy of the addition shall be granted until the fence is complete or the outdoor storage items are removed. 3. The building addition may be located closer than 20 feet from the property line (which is the recommended setback for this district). The addition will be 11 feet from the northern property line and 12.5 feet from the west property line. 4. This conditional use permit is valid for a period of 6 months, unless an extension is granted. If no progress has been made on the construction of this addition, the conditional use permit shall become invalid. Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. a.) CONSIDERATION OF A MORATORIUM ON SUBDIVISION AND REZONING REQUESTS WITHIN THE NEWLY ANNEXED AREA ALONG HWY 7 E. Chairman Arndt opened the hearing as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, November 8TH, 2001. CONSIDERATION OF A SKETCH PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 1, BLOCK2AND LOT 2 BLOCK 1 SOUTH OF HWY 7, TO BE KNOWN AS SELTZ SUBDIVISIONS AS REQUESTED BY SELTZ'S. Ms. Otteson stated that she would be abstaining from voting. Ms. Wischnack stated that she would discuss the two requests together since they reflect each other. She stated that staff recommended the moratorium because of the annexation and staff would like to write a new ordinance for the zoning code modeled after the C-5 area. Ms. Wischnack also stated that Minutes Planning Commission - November 20, 2001 Page 4 currently sewer and water are not available in that area. She stated that staff recommended 6 months for the moratorium but they also realize the board may be more comfortable with 3 months. Ms. Wischnack then stated that construction does not start until April or May so the moratorium would not hold up development. Ms. Wischnack commented that a lot of the information needed in the sketch plan was missing. Mr. Haugen asked staff to discuss what happened in the south side of the city when that was annexed. Ms. Wischnack replied that the development paid for the majority of the sewer and the stoplights. The roads were platted, they are not all constructed because they are phasing in development. Mr. Haugen asked if the roads were platted along the Hwy 7 development. Ms. Wischnack replied that they were not platted. Mr. Arndt asked who would draw up the plans. Ms. Wischnack replied that the city does not act as a developer. Mr. Seltz, property owner, stated that the roads have not been platted because there is no sewer. Once the rest of the property is sold they can go from there. If that is the only thing holding up the sketch plan they have a general idea so they could draw them in. Mr. Haugen asked the applicant if the best possible choice for the road is an area where the development wants to go what would you do. Mr. Seltz replied that he will talk it over with all the developers and put the roads where everyone agrees. Ms. Wischnack commented that other developers have had to deal with issues with not knowing who the buyers would be. Once the sewer and roads are aligned, they would have large lots that could later be replatted. Frank Fay, applicant, stated that the City Council approved the annexation in July and it was approved by the State of Minnesota in November. There are properties wanting to be developed, he would like the sketch plan approved so they can move on to the preliminary stage. On October 15th, Mr. Fay stated that he submitted the sketch plans and at that time staff told him that was all the information that he needed. To him, (Mr. Fay) the moratorium is another delay. The annexation process has been going on for 5 years, he thinks that is a long enough delay. Mr. Fay stated that he is asking the moratorium to be rejected and the sketch plan approved. He also stated that staff has had enough time to come up with another ordinance. He had given up marketing the land until the annexation was done and now the City is telling him to wait some more. Bob Weir, owner of Yamaha sales, stated that he found out about the moratorium a few days prior and did not know why the City would ask for it because it is an appropriate place for them to open a new business. He also stated that a business takes years to build and eventually some grow out of there existing building, which is what happened to him. He has planned on relocating now for awhile, he orders product a year ahead of time. Mr. Weir than stated that he believes the moratorium does not support the businesses but if the moratorium is approved he would like the board make it short enough not to prolong development. Ms. Wischnack stated that throughout the past few months during the comprehensive plan process the discussion about gateways into the community has been a major discussion. Mr. Weir asked if pole buildings would be acceptable. Ms. Wischnack replied that currently in a C-5 district it requires a conditional use permit and the new ordinance may be modeled after something similar. Mr. Arndt asked if three months would be enough time to write an ordinance. Ms. Wischnack replied that 6 months is normal but 3 months is acceptable. Mr. Schieffer commented that it is important to know the street layouts and land uses. It is important to plan for utilities, once development starts, it starts. Mr. Haugen moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Kirchoff seconded the motion. Motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Fraser moved to approve a three (3) month moratorium with the following condition: 1. No building permits, subdivision requests, or zoning changes are allowed during this time frame. Mr. Kirchoff seconded the motion. Motion to approve a three month moratorium carried 5-0-1 with Ms. Otteson abstaining. Mr. Schieffer stated that the board should table the sketch plan until the moratorium is done. Minutes Planning Commission - November 20, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Olsen moved to table the sketch plan until the moratorium is passed. Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. Mr. Arndt stated that the sketch plan would be tabled until the March meeting. Motion carried 5- 0-1 with Ms. Otteson abstaining. Mr. Fraser commented that when the sketch plan comes back to the board the roads she be submitted as well. Mr. Fay replied that he did not understand. Mr. Schieffer replied that the ordinance requires certain details. General discussion about what was needed for the sketch plan review. Ms. Otteson stated that she had to leave early. 4. NEW BUSINESS 5. OLD BUSINESS a.) CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A PARKING LOT 10' FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY, AS REQUESTED BY MCLEOD COUNTY, 1065 5TH AVE SE. Ms. Wischnack gave an update from what has changed during the past month. Ed Homan, applicant, stated that looking at staff recommendations he knew it was a difficult request to decide on. He would like to improve the character of the property and they also want to control access into the building. Mr. Arndt made the comment that he has seen cars parked on 5th Ave and it is dangerous, especially with young children. Mr. Kirchoff asked about the amount of occupants that are currently in the building and if the county has control over the agencies that use it. Mr. Homan replied that there are currently a number of different users; solid waste office, public health, conference room and others. The number is growing and the county does have control. Mr. Kirchoff moved to approve the variance based on the hardship that the use of the building has changed, safety of occupants, and the location of the building limits expansion elsewhere with the following condition: 1. The applicant must grant the City of Hutchinson a 10' road and utility easement. Mr. Olsen seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. b.) CONSIDERATION OF AN EXTENSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT WAS APPROVED IN JUNE, AS REQUESTED BY NGR, LLC. Ms. Wischnack stated that the applicant would like a 6 month extension. Mr. Kirchoff moved to approve the extension. Mr. Fraser seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. 2. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF 1. Tentative December agenda. 2. This will be Heather's last meeting with the Planning Commission. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mr. Haugen moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Kirchoff seconded the motion. Motion carried.