Loading...
06-17-2003 PCM c MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 17, 2003 Hutchinson City Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dean Kirchoff at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Brandon Fraser, Jim Haugen, Lynn Otteson, Mike Flaata, Farid Currimbhoy, Robert Hantge and Chairman Kirchoff. Absent: None. Also present: Bonnie Baumetz, Planning Coordinator and Lisa McClure, Interim EDA Director 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Consideration of Minutes dated May 20,2003 Mr. Hantge moved to approve the minutes of May 20, 2003 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Jim Haugen. The minutes were approved unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY BRIAN PONA TH, PROPERTY OWNER, TO CONSTRUCT A 3-PLEX DWELLING LOCATED AT 446 PROSPECT STREET NE Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:35 p.m. with the reading of publication #7046 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on June 5, 2003. Ms. Baumetz explained where the lot is located and the lot size. In 1997, the lot was rezoned to R-3. In the R-3, if there are more than three units on the lot, a Conditional Use Permit is required. Mr. Ponath will not meet the 400 sq. ft. garage space requirement. He does however; meet the requirements for 20% open space and 18 parking spaces. The staff suggests he hard surface the drive. There is currently an area of gravel, which will be grass upon completion of this project. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: hard surface the drive, having a 20-foot minimum for emergency vehicles, and relocate the utilities (at owners expense). Ms. Otteson asked about what electric loads means. Ms. Baumetz explained that electric just wanted to make sure they won't be using more power than utilities can handle from that lot. If so, they would need a transformer, which they will not need. Property Owner Eric Wangen, property owner, 436 Prospect Street, asked if the drive would be relocated. Mr. Ponath stated that it would be Minutes Planning Commission - June 17, 2003 Page 2 moved, but he will not restrict the use of the driveway, since the two share it currently. The easement will remain the same, as well as the grade. Ms. Otteson asked about the number of garages and dwellings. Mr. Ponath stated there would be four garages and three dwellings. Ms. Otteson asked about the size of the units. Mr. Ponath stated that one is 1,600 sq. ft and two are approximately 1,100 sq. ft. They are two- bedroom units. He will also provide 2.5 spaces per unit for parking. The exterior of the building will be brick. Mr. Hantge made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Ms. Otteson, the hearing closed at 5:42 p.m. Mr. Hantge made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations. Seconded by Ms. Otteson, the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Baumetz stated this item would be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held June 24,2003 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. b) CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED BY KERRY KRUEGER, PROPERTY OWNER, TO REDUCE DRIVEWAY SETBACK TO 0 FEET FROM THE LOT LINE LOCATED AT 545 ERIE STREET SE Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:45 p.m. with the reading of publication #7047 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on June 5, 2003. Ms. Baumetz explained where the property is located and that Mr. Krueger would like to replace an existing non-conforming gravel driveway, with a hard surface drive. This would require him to be five feet from the property line. The curb cut was placed directly on the property line. The hardship was stated as: the house is 12 feet from the property line and there was an addition to the house leaving approximately 9 feet from the dwelling to the property line. There are some drainage issues; he will have to make sure that he does not drain onto his neighbor's property. Also, he will have to be careful of where he places the snow in the winter. The drive will be 12 feet by 40 or 44 feet. The staff asks that Mr. Krueger verify where the drainage will go, find the location of the water stand pipe, exactly state the property line (he may get a survey for this requirement), and must not place the snow on the neighboring property. Mr. Kirchoff asked if the driveway would stop at the edge of the house. Ms. Baumetz stated that it would. Mr. Fraser asked if the neighbor's drive was right up to the property line. Mr. Krueger said that it was about 3 feet from the property line. Ms. Baumetz stated that if they were replacing an existing non-conforming driveway, they would be a bit more lenient. Ms. Otteson asked what a water stand pipe is. Ms. Baumetz stated that if the water would need to be shut off, that is where they would do it. Ms. Baumetz asked if Mr. Krueger knows where the standpipe is, he stated he believes it is in the lawn. Minutes Planning Commission - June 17, 2003 Page 3 Mr. Kirchoff asked Mr. Krueger if he has done a survey of his property. Mr. Krueger stated that he had a survey done in 1992. Ms. Otteson asked if there is an existing shared driveway agreement. Mr. Krueger stated that he has no knowledge of one. Mr. Krueger also stated that the drainage would be split. One half will drain to the street and the other half to the backyard. Mr. Haugen suggested that Mr. Krueger and his neighbor help to drain the driveways correctly by putting some sort of aggregate in between the driveways. Mr. Krueger stated his intention is to use cement for the driveway and leave 6 inches between the driveway and the property line. Mr. Haugen made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy, the hearing closed at 5:55 p.m. Mr. Flaata made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations and that the hardship was noted. Seconded by Mr. Haugen, the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Baumetz stated this item would be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held June 24, 2003 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. c) CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED BY lARSON BUilDERS, APPLICANT, TO REDUCE SHORELAND SETBACK FROM 50 FEET TO 40 FEET TO REMOVE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING DECK AND REPLACE WITH A 3 SEASON PORCH lOCATED AT 326 SCHOOL RD SW Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:57 p.m. with the reading of publication #7048 as published in the Hutchinson leader on June 5, 2003. Ms. Baumetz stated that she had given the commissioners a letter from the DNR regarding this issue. The letter stated that the variance should not be granted because no hardship exists. She stated that there are three additional of the homes along the lake that will need a variance just to make repairs to their existing decks and porches. The existing deck is 40 feet from the high water mark. The applicant would like to enclose the existing deck, making it into a three-season porch. The shoreland district was established in 1992, which this home was built in 1977. All of the homes along shoreland in this area were built in the 1970's. The staff recommended approval with a suggestion that the association should move the vegetation 10 feet. The letter from the ON R made this suggestion as well. They also stated that the porch must be completed exactly as stated, no vegetation can be removed, and they must plant an extra 10 feet of vegetation. Mr. Kephart, larson Builders, mentioned that this issue might come up three more times, with other homes along this area. He stated that the staff recommendation of having the association move the vegetation might not work. They probably would not like the idea of giving up the 10 feet. He stated that he has talked to some of the residents and the Minutes Planning Commission - June 17, 2003 Page 4 property owners who will not need variances are not interested in having 10 feet of their property taken away. Mr. Haugen asked if there is erosion occurring. Mr. Kephart said no and that the porch will not impede into the yard any further. Currently the deck is not up to code, so they will bring it up to code by redoing the stairs. Mr. Currimbhoy asked if the porch would remain the same size as it currently is. Mr. Kephart stated that it would. Mr. Kirchoff asked if the right side of the deck is the end of the unit. Mr. Kephart stated that it is the end of the unit. Mr. Hantge stated that he thought there was about 25 feet of reeds between the grass and the open water. Mr. Hantge made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Ms. Otteson the hearing closed at 6:05 p.m. Mr. Hantge made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Flaata. Mr. Hantge amended the motion to exclude the additional 10 feet in staff recommendation number two. Mr. Flaata seconded the amendment, the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Baumetz stated this item would be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held June 24,2003 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. d) CONSIDERATION OF VACATION OF EASEMENTS REQEUSTED BY BRUCE NAUSTDAL, APPLICANT, TO VACATE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 10, BLOCK 2, FIRST ADDITION TO RA VENWOOD Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 6:10 p.m. with the reading of publication #7049 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on June 5, 2003 and June 10, 2003. Ms. Baumetz stated that the address for the property is 1187 Blackhawk Drive. She stated that there is a 6-foot easement on each side of the property. The property owner would like to construct a window in the basement, which would cause the window well to go 3 feet into the easement. Ms. Baumetz stated that the staff was divided on this issue, but they did recommend approval of the vacation of easement on the south side of the property. Mr. Flaata asked if the neighbor would be able to put a window into their easement three feet as well. Mr. Naustdal stated that the neighbor already has egress windows, so this will not be an issue. Ms. Otteson asked if the property next door is currently occupied. It is not. Mr. Kirchoff asked if the window well is already in. Mr. Naustdal stated that it is. This is a PUD and the utilities are already into the homes. He stated that if the vacation of easement is not granted, the window well would need to come out. Ms. Otteson stated that she has been out to the property. There is not much room between the houses and that she understands the staff's Minutes Planning Commission - June 17, 2003 Page 5 concerns. She stated that she would not like to see this come up again in this subdivision. Mr. Haugen made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy, the hearing closed at 6:15 p.m. Mr. Haugen made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Fraser, the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Baumetz stated this item would be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held June 24,2003 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. e) CONSIDERATION OF VACATION OF EASEMENTS REQUESTED BY JEFF BULAU, PROPERTY OWNER, TO REDUCE A 10 FOOT EASEMENT TO 6 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, FORTH ADDITION TO LAKEWOOD TERRACE Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 6:17 p.m. with the reading of publication #7051 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on June 5, 2003 and June 10, 2003. Ms. Baumetz stated that the staff researched the issue of the 10-foot side lot easement. They could find no reason for this. Usually the side lot easements are 6 feet. The reason for the vacation of easement is, Mr. Bulau wants to construct a detached garage. The staff recommended reducing the easement to 6 feet. Mr. Haugen asked if there is an easement on the other side. Ms. Baumetz states that there is, but she isn't sure whether or not it is 10 feet or 6 feet. She also stated that Utilities said they do not need that easement. Mr. Haugen asked if there is an existing garage on the property. Ms. Baumetz stated there is an attached garage and also a shed. Mr. Hantge made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Haugen the hearing closed at 6:20 p.m. Mr. Currimbhoy made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Haugen, the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Baumetz stated this item would be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held June 24,2003 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. 4. NEW BUSINESS a) CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REQUESTED BY THE EDA REGARDING A MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.4 AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4-13 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY Mr. Miles Seppelt, Hutchinson EDA Director, began by giving an explanation of a redevelopment TI F district. He stated that going before Minutes Planning Commission - June 17, 2003 Page 6 the Planning Commission is a required step in the establishment of a TIF district. The reasoning is that the Planning Commission should make sure that the project is in line with the Comprehensive Plan. The owner's plans are to renovate the State Theater back to its 1937 state. It will be a second run theater that will sell tickets for half price. The apartments above the Theater will be demolished and renovated; the owner will live in one of the apartments. The retail spaces on either side of the theater will also be renovated. The entire project will cost approximately 1.3 million dollars. For the project to work, he needs a TIF district. The way the district works is: a property generates property taxes as is, when it is renovated it will likely pay higher property taxes. It is the difference between these two-dollar amounts that will go back to the property owner and back into the project. Mr. Fraser asked how long the district can and will run. Mr. Seppelt stated the district could run up to 25 years. He also stated that in any given year, the taxes do not generate a large dollar amount. Other taxes will remain the same. The city will see other benefits, although they will not see an increase in money collected. Mr. Currimbhoy asked about parking for residents of the apartments. Mr. Seppelt did not know how the parking worked before, but it should be handled the same. Mr. Haugen stated that the city is lucky to find someone who will redevelop the theater. If the dollar amount is reached before the 25-year maximum is reached, the district will close prior to that 25-year mark. Mr. Seppelt stated that he does not think there is a limit on the number of districts one city can have. This TI F district will have no effect on the ShopKo/Econo Foods district. Ms. Baumetz stated that there would need to be a motion to adopt the resolution. Mr. Steve Tripp, Owner/Operator of Century 7, asked if he could speak. He stated that he owns 13 theaters total and is thinking about a 2.5 million dollar expansion to the Century 7. In using TIF, he feels penalized by this district. He also stated that the notion of a second run theater probably would not work in a city this size. It may be better suited as a playhouse or live stage. He mentioned that a second run theater would not get the movies in two weeks. There is a minimum of 4 weeks on most movies and on blockbuster films; it is a 6-week minimum. He questions whether this will be able to remain viable. Mr. Tripp stated that he did not realize that TI F money could be used for a specific project, he thought it was for an area. Mr. Seppelt responded to questions. He stated that no other person's money would go into this project. Money goes from the property owner, in the form of tax money; to the county then to the city then eventually back to the owner to pay for the project. Money has to be used to fix up Minutes Planning Commission - June 17, 2003 Page 7 the building. The owner will install an elevator, remove lead and asbestos, and to bring it into ADA compliance. Ms. Baumetz asked if they get the TI F money and the use changes, are they still eligible for the money. Mr. Seppelt stated that they could still get the money and use it for other uses. TI F money is not driven by use. Mr. Currimbhoy asked what would happen if the theater does not make it and shuts down completely. Mr. Seppelt stated that the money would run for the life of the district. Mr. Fraser wanted to be sure that government is not subsidizing development. Also there is the possibility that the theater will not make it. If they do not, it will not cost the city. He does not believe this will take away from Century 7. Mr. Kirchoff asked Mr. Seppelt if they are acting on a procedure or if they are acting to approve the district. Mr. Seppelt stated that they are simply stating that they believe this project fits with the City's plans, should they adopt the resolution. The specific designs of the building will come to the Planning Commission at a later date. Ms. Otteson made a motion to approve the resolution for the Redevelopment TIF District. Seconded by Mr. Fraser, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Seppelt stated this item would be placed on the City Council agenda at their meeting held July 8, 2003 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. b) MS. OTTESON BROUGHT UP THE SUBJECT OF INSURANCE ISSUES AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS. Ms. Otteson stated that there are insurance non-conforming residential use in commercial districts. The zoning ordinance presently allows no renovation over 50% of the value on a non-conforming structure. Recently insurance companies are not graning insurance to these properties. Ms. Otteson stated our ordinance should be changed to allow the residential to exist in the commercial and industrial districts. Ms. Baumetz stated she and Ms. Wischnack have been researching this topic. They will discuss the proposed changes with City Attorney Marc Sebora. 5. OLD BUSINESS a) DISCUSSION OF DRAFT ORDINANCE REGULATING RESIDENTIAL DOG KENNELS Ms. Baumetz presented two options for the Planning Commissioners to review regarding regulation of dog kennels. The city presently does regulate the number of dogs, the noise, and cleaning of the kennels. Ms. Minutes Planning Commission - June 17, 2003 Page 8 Baumetz stated that kennels, in reference to boarding dogs, are regulated, but residential kennels are not regulated. Staff is not in favor of regulating kennels. This would be difficult to enforce and the City Code does deal with the above stated issues. Ms. Baumetz stated that the city is able to amend the City Code, and discussed that as a possibility. Ms. Baumetz created a definition of residential kennels and created two options for ordinances. Mr. Fraser stated that the definition is good. He also believes that the city should have an ordinance regulating the construction and placement of kennels. He asked how to initiate the process of amending the city code. Ms. Baumetz stated that the City Council would have to pass an ordinance amending the city code. It was stated that Option 1 is a far cry from what the city currently has. Option 2 is also feasible. The kennels that already exist will be "grandfathered in". Mr. Fraser is opposed to Option 2. He asked if staff could merge Option 1 & 2. The options of writing an ordinance, amending the city code or doing nothing were presented. Most of the Planning Commissioners agreed that an ordinance should be written and some thought that the city code should be amended as well. Ms. Baumetz will go with Option 1 and discuss specific wording with Marc Sebora. There will be a public hearing on this ordinance addition in July. 6. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF a) DISCUSSION OF REQUEST BY DAVID BROLL TO ELIMINATE ONE OF THE TREES REQUIRED ON NORTH PROPERTY LINE LOCATED AT 902 HWY 15 SOUTH Ms. Baumetz stated that Mr. Broil is currently working with the forester to plant trees and the city told him that he must plant no less than six trees. He currently has plans to plant five trees noting in a letter to planning staff the sixth tree would be too near the utility shed to plant. He was supposed to plant six trees by June 1, 2003. It is the consensus of the Planning Commission that six trees must be planted on the north side of the property as required. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.