08-20-2002 PCM c
MINUTES
HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2002
5:30 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Arndt at 5:25 p.m. with the following
members present: Lynn Otteson, Brandon Fraser, Robert Hantge, and Jim Haugen. Also
present: Julie Wi schnack, AICP, Director of Planning/Zoning /Building; Lisa McClure,
EDA Intern; and Marc Sebora, City Attorney.
Members Absent: Dean Kirchoff and Kathy Hanneman
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Robert Hantge moved to approve the minutes for the July 16,2001, meeting as
submitted. Lynn Otteson seconded the motion. Motion carried.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a) CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT SUBMITTED BY
FRANK FAY FOR FREDRICK SELTZ AND HENNEN'S PROPERTIES TO BE
KNOWN AS SELTZ SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON HWY 7 EAST AND HWY 22.
Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 5:30 p.m. with the reading of the publication
#6762 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on August 8, 2002.
Ms. Wi schnack commented on the nature of the plat application. The process has been
long and had some changes made. Mr. Heikes' property has been removed from the plat
therefore it will only have the Seltz and Hennen's properties.
Issues that have been resolved are road right of way, and there will be room for future
development and access to the Heikes property.
There will not be utilities run to the property, which is stated in the Subdivision
Agreement. Ms. Wi schnack read Page 1 on the Subdivision Agreement regarding the
access road.
Mr. Hantge moved to close the hearing, seconded by Mr. Haugen the hearing closed at
5:32 p.m. Mr. Fraser made a motion to approve the request for preliminary and final
platting with staff recommendations. Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. The motion
carried unanimously. Ms. Wi schnack stated this item would be placed on the August 27,
2002, City Council consent agenda.
Planning Commission Minutes - August 20, 2002
Page 2
b) CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY
MICHAEL DEMMER, PRAIRIE SENIOR COTTAGES, TO CONSTRUCT AN
ASSISTED LIVING PROJECT FOR 16 PERSONS WITH MEMORY LOSS
LOCATED AT 850 CLEVELAND AVE. S.W.
Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 5:33 p.m. with the reading of publication #6763 as
published in the Hutchinson Leader on August 8, 2002.
Ms. Wi schnack explained the location of the proposed project to be the NE corner of
Sunset and Cleveland. The layout of the facility will be the same as the existing Prairie
Senior Cottages of Bradford Street. It will be a one level, duplex type facility with 8
persons living on each side. They will have covered entrances and a fenced in courtyard
area in the back. Ms. Wi schnack showed pictures of the facility on Bradford and of the
property, as it now stands, vacant.
Chairman Arndt asked where the courtyard would be located. Ms. Wi schnack showed a
picture and explained it would be located on the West side of the facility.
Ms. Wi schnack went on to explain that it will be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week care
facility for people with memory loss. Prairie Senior Cottages have a State License as an
assisted living facility. The property is 42,000 square feet. .35 parking spaces per unit is
the minimum requirement for this facility and they do meet this requirement.
Ms. Wi schnack discussed the staff recommendations, number one: was there enough
turnaround space for fire and emergency vehicles? The building will be fully sprinkled,
alleviating that issue. The remaining issues have been taken care of.
Michael Demmer, applicant, Prairie Senior Cottages, said he would answer any
questions. Ms. Otteson asked why on the proposed courtyard drawing was there a
circular sidewalk. Mr. Demmer explained that it would be a circular sidewalk with grass
and a flower garden. The reasoning for this is that people with dementia often walk in
circles; this will help them to find their own way around the courtyard. Mr. Demmer also
commented on being in Hutchinson, it is a good location and he appreciates being here to
provide this type of service.
Bev Alsleben, 835 Cleveland, a neighbor, toured the existing cottages and said they look
nice and are well kept. She came to the meeting to lend her support to the project.
Ms. Wi schnack stated she had a call from a man who asked about the fencing. She
explained it would be a 6-foot, green, plastic coated, chain-link fence, just like the
existing fence.
Mr. Haugen moved to close the hearing, seconded by Mr. Hantge the hearing closed at
5:45 p.m. Ms. Otteson made a motion to approve the request with staff
recommendations. Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. Ms. Wi schnack explained that due
to the time it would take to start this project, this fall, and to complete it this spring, a
Planning Commission Minutes - August 20, 2002
Page 3
timeframe of one year be a condition, instead of the usual six months. Chairman Arndt
asked if the motion could include that timeframe. The motion carried.
4. NEW BUSINESS
a) CONSIDERATION OF FINAL PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS COLORADO RIDGE
SUBMITTED BY KEVIN COMPTON LOCATED IN HELLAND'S SEVENTH
ADDITION
Ms. Wi schnack stated that drainage and driveway issues have been resolved. This
project is three sets of twin homes, equaling six units. The preliminary plat was brought
before the Planning Commission in May.
Ms. Wi schnack went through the staff recommendations. Most have been completed, a
couple are ongoing issues.
Mr. Hantge made a motion to approve the request with staff recommendations. Mr.
Haugen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
b) DISCUSSION OF WEED ORDINANCE AND PROVESS USED (PRESENTED BY
CITY FORESTER MARK SCHNOBRICH)
Mr. Schnobrich was not at the meeting at this time. This item was moved later in the
meeting.
c) DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH ON FENCE ORDINANCE
Ms. Wi schnack explained that Ms. McClure had done research on other city ordinances
to find out how they handle fence issues. Ms. Wi schnack asked about this research
because people have to come in for a Conditional Use Permit every time they do not meet
front yard setbacks, which is very often. She would like to make it easier for the public
and for city staff.
Research was presented in the packet. Ms. Wi schnack commented looking through the
research that Hutchinson was in the middle as to setbacks. She explained the Site Line
Triangle used by many cities. Mankato and Maple Grove were two cities that used this
triangle. Ms. Wi schnack asked for feedback from the commissioners.
Mr. Haugen commented on the language used by some cities, including hedges and walls
with their fence ordinances. He liked that language.
Mr. Hantge and Ms. Otteson liked the site line triangle concept.
Ms. Wi schnack said she would bring back language for the Planning Commission to
review including language on the site line triangle. She also mentioned that allowing a
Planning Commission Minutes - August 20, 2002
Page 4
Conditional Use Permit should still be allowed, if the proposed fence is not incompliance
with the new language.
d) DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH ON ROOF ORDINANCE
Ms. Wi schnack discussed the research done by Ms. McClure on roof requirements. She
commented that most cities do not have requirements about prohibiting flat roofs.
Ms. Wi schnack also brought up language used by other cities as to the size requirement
of an accessory building. Brainerd uses language to regulate the size (square footage)
and height of the accessory building.
Mr. Fraser commented that he did not see a problem with a flat roof and does not think
the city should regulate against them.
Ms. Otteson commented she liked the language used that would require an accessory
building to be smaller than the principal building.
Ms. Wi schnack explained that some cities even have requirements on the size of the
doors of the accessory building, this would discourage some people wanting a business or
to storage large objects in their accessory building.
Mr. Haugen stated he received a call from a woman whose neighbor came in for a
conditional use permit regarding a garage and she and her husband did not come to the
meeting. Now that the garage is built, she is very unhappy with it and does not like that
her neighbor has built a garage so large.
Ms. Wi schnack commented that in the year-end report they could include pictures of
accessory buildings that are of varying sizes, to get an idea of what the building would
look like before it is built. Chairman Arndt suggested the Planning Commissioners going
on a tour to look at sites to see the size of them now that they have been constructed.
5. OLD BUSINESS
UPDATE ON AUAR
Ms. Wi schnack updated the Planning Commission on the progress of the AUAR. She
told the commission that the County Board had approved it. Now that the County Board,
City Council, Planning Commission, and Joint Planning Board had approved it, the
AUAR will be published soon.
6. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF
a) UPDATE ON ANNEXATION BY JOINT RESOLUTION OF VINCENT DOOLEY
PROPERTY (1 ACRE)
Planning Commission Minutes - August 20, 2002
Page 5
Ms. Wi schnack explained that the city is now going to go through the process of orderly
annexation for the Vincent Dooley property. Ms. Baumetz will go to the township
meeting next week to get more information. Mr. Dooley would like to be annexed
because of sewer and water issues.
c) JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT
Ms. Wi schnack updated the Planning Commission on the progress of the Jefferson Street
project. The project cost has come in lower than original anticipated. There will be a
meeting with the neighbors to discussion the construction and the costs of the project.
Dunnick Brothers has gotten the bid for the project.
Chairman Arndt commented that two school buses would need to get in that area during
the school year. Ms. Wi schnack said the school buses, garbage, and day care are three
issues they are currently working to fix. The city has set aside money for gravel trails for
people to walk on to be constructed during the project.
The timeline for the project is to put in sewer and water this fall and to connect the homes
to those services. Put a gravel base on the road and leave it for the winter. Then in the
spring finish the road and pave it.
d) HOPSICE HOUSE
The Hospice House project is still coming on the agenda. Ms. Wi schnack anticipates it
will be on the October meeting. They will have a neighborhood meeting coming soon.
Some of the opposition to the project has come from rezoning and granting a Conditional
Use Permit, what type of state licensing the facility will have and parking and traffic
Issues.
DISCUSSION OF WEED ORDINANCE (FROM NEW BUSINESS ABOVE)
Mark Schnobrich came to the meeting to discuss the issue of the weed ordinance. He stated
that thistle is the biggest problem. In the year 2002, 108 notices have been sent out and about
1/3 of them are to absentee or forfeited landowners.
Chairman Arndt asked Mr. Schnobrich if they could send notices earlier in the year? He said
yes they could and they will do so next year. Chairman Arndt asked if they could change the
process. Mr. Schnobrich said they were going to for next year.
Mr. Schnobrich explained that it is hard to get contractors out to clean up the lot once the city
has sent a notice to the property owner. Some notices sent to businesses get sent to
Corporate Headquarters. This never gets a response.
Mr. Schnobrich explained the regulations; piles cannot be left for a certain number of days.
The weeds once they are 8 inches tall can be tagged.
Planning Commission Minutes - August 20, 2002
Page 6
There was been a good response from people who were fined. People are fined the cost of
mowing/removal and administrative costs, which are $50.
Mr. Haugen asked why they could not tag properties and then keep adding to the amount of
the fine year after year.
Mr. Hantge asked if the city ever gets their money from fines? Ms. Wi schnack said no.
Spraying is one solution, it is acceptable and does work, but sometimes it leaves brownfields,
creating another problem.
Mr. Schnobrich said they are going to send notices right away in April in 2003. He also said
that he needs support from the Planning Commission and the City Council to do this
enforcement. It makes it easier to handle.
Suggestions given to Mr. Schnobrich: earlier notices, getting rid of piles faster, try to get a
phone number of someone who will be responsible for handling this problem, who owns the
property that Mr. Schnobrich can work with if weed become a problem.
Mr. Hantge suggested having a deposit when developers come in to do a subdivision, like a
park dedication fee. If they meet the agreement, they can have their deposit back, if not, the
city uses the money to clean up the property. Ms. Wi schnack did not think this would work.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The next Planning Commission meeting is September 17, 2002 at 5:30 p.m.
With no further business to discuss, the Planning Commission adjourned at 6:35 p.m.