Loading...
11-18-2003 PCM cRevisions are shown in italics MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 18, 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: Jim Haugen, Lynn Otteson, Mike Flaata; Robert Hantge and Chairman Kirchoff. Absent: Brandon Fraser and Farid Currimbhoy Also present: Julie Wischnack, AICP, Planning Director, Marc Sebora, City Attorney and Bonnie Baumetz, Planning Coordinator 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Consideration of Minutes dated October 21, 2003 Ms. Otteson moved to approve the minutes of October 21, 2003 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The minutes were approved unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) CONSIDERATION OF VACATION OF EASEMENTS IN ISLAND VIEW HEIGHTS 4T" ADDITION AND FINAL PLAT OF ISLAND VIEW HEIGHTS 6T" ADDITION REQUESTED BY BILL GILK, SCENIC HOMES, PROPERTY OWNER Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:35 p.m. with the reading of publication #7117 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on November 6, 2003. Ms. Wischnack commented on the request and explained the replat of Island View Heights 4h Addition to Island View Heights 6"' Addition. She stated the replat creates the need to vacate the previous drainage and utility easements and the replat will show new easements. This plat has been developed in phases. Scott Haag, 1085 West Shore Dr. SW, had questions regarding density. Ms. Wischnack stated the density will be decreased going from two family to single family housing. Ms. Wischnack commented on the following staff recommendations: 1. Securities must be in place prior to construction. 2. Change the setbacks in the PDD to 25' front and rear and 6' on the side (only for this replat area). 3. Services must be abandoned/capped. a'4 Minutes Planning Commission — November 18, 2003 Page 2 4. Subdivider's agreement must be executed prior to construction. (A 7% engineering fee will be required.) 5. No certificates of occupancy for homes will be considered until the utility improvements are complete and a base course of bituminous is constructed. 6. Tree escrow money of $7,360 is required. 7. Parkland contribution of $175.00 per unit will be charged with each building permit. 8. SAC/WAC charges and electric territory charges will be collected with the building permit. Mr. Gilk, property owner, stated he does understand the conditions. Mr. Haugen made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hantge the hearing closed at 5:40 p.m. Mr. Haugen made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Flaata discussion followed on the condition of the park in the development. Ms. Otteson stated she would like to see a ninth condition requiring grading and seeding of the park. Dolf Moon, Director of Parks and Recreation, explained the parkland contribution process. He stated there is an adoptive group waiting to take over the park. The city has not had the man power to work in this area. Ms. Ofteson withdrew her suggestion.. After discussion, the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council agenda at their meeting held November 25, 2003 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. b) CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY CINEMA 1, LLP, PROPERTY OWNER, TO EXPAND THE EXISTING FACILITY BY TWO SCREENS LOCATED IN THE I/C DISTRICT AT 766 CENTURY AVE SW Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:50 p.m. with the reading of publication #7118 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on November 6, 2003. Ms. Wischnack explained the proposed addition and the location. She stated this is the second phase as proposed when the building was constructed. Ms. Wischnack stated the parking requirement would be calculated by the use. In this case, the use most like movie theaters would be places of assembly which is a 1:4 ratio. This ratio would mean the theater would need 342 spaces. The property owner is asking to reduce the number of spaces to 314. There is a 30 year parking agreement with the McLeod County Fairgrounds to use the parking lot to the south of the theater. Ms. Wischnack stated the staff requested a study be conducted to determine the need. A study was provided and it appears the area will not be over parked. Ms. Wischnack commented on the stormwater management in the area and it was determined by staff the drainage plan is appropriate. She then commented on the staff recommendations as follows: Minutes Planning Commission — November 18, 2003 Page 3 1. Boulevard trees were required as a condition of the previous conditional use permit. Consult with the City Forester regarding plans for added boulevard trees. This condition must be completed by May 31, 2004. 2. The issuance of this conditional use permit does not confirm that there may be a need for additional parking at some point in the future. If the City receives complaints and verifies the complaints, the City will hold an additional public hearing to determine the correct remedial action. 3. The conditional use permit is valid for a term of 6 months. The permit shall expire if the project has not commenced. Mr. Bryon Sieve, Cinemagic Theaters, explained the experience the company has had with city ordinances which typically over -park the developments. He explained the staggering of shows to relieve the parking strain. He stated the present parking is reasonable and the agreement does give the right to more parking. Discussion followed on the staggering of shows and the congestion when picking up persons from the shows. Mr. Sieve explained the typical length of a movie and the process they use to handle a longer show. He also stated there were boulevard trees along the property at one time however they were removed with the construction of the path. Ms. Wischnack stated they should work with the City Forester in determining the appropriate species of trees for the area. Mr. Hantge asked to explain stadium seating. Mr. Sieve stated stadium seating provides for better viewing of the movie. He explained there will be less seats but there is a better view of the screen. Mr. Sieve stated the addition will not add much to the seating count. He also stated they will begin the project as soon as possible after receiving the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Haugen made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hantge. The hearing closed at 6:13 p.m. Ms. Otteson made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Haugen, discussion followed regarding recommendation number 2. Mr. Hantge had concerns with item 2 stating it doesn't seem to work to regulate after there is a problem. Ms. Wischnack gave some options of recommendations for the commission to consider. Atty. Sebora stated theaters are not defined for parking requirements and the commission could require the 342 spaces. After discussion, the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council agenda at their meeting held November 25, 2003 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. c) CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY HUTCHINSON COOP, PROPERTY OWNER, TO CONSTRUCT AN aPr Minutes Planning Commission — November 18, 2003 Page 4 OVERHEAD FERTILIZER BIN WITH FLOOD PLAIN ALTERATIONS IN THE I/C DISTRICT LOCATED AT 200 — 3RD AVE NW Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 6:25 p.m. with the reading of publication #7119 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on November 6, 2003. Ms. Wischnack commented on the location of the request. She stated this is a complicated request because of the I/C District and the flood plain issues. She explained the request is for the construction of a 60 ton fertilizer bin. There is no foundation. The structure is on legs. She stated the State Flood Plain person was contacted and the Department of Agriculture requires there be a paved area to provide a clean up area in case of a spill. Staff discussed concerns about placing a structure such as this in the area, staff understands the need for the use. The use was there for many years. Ms. Wischnack commented on the following staff recommendations: 1. The applicant must be aware that there will be pending landscaping and buffering improvements to the south of the property would be constructed by the City and that cost would be assessed back to the benefiting property owners. 2. That there be paved access to the newly constructed building constructed and an apron be reconstructed in and around the bin area. (The pavement would need to be completed by May 31, 2004, because of weather constraints.) 3. Building code compliance must be discussed with the building official. (Issues of fire rating the existing building, office, may be necessary.) 4. The conditional use permit is valid for six months, unless an extension is requested or construction of the bin has commenced. Discussion followed on the stormwater ponding assessment at the time of the Hwy 7 project. Stormwater may need to be treated. Mr. Hanfge asked if all property owners along Hwy 7 will be assessed for stormwater retention ponding. Ms. Wischnack stated property benefiting from the ponding would be assessed. Statute 429 requires you assess at a rate that is going to increase the market value. She stated an assessment is anticipated. It is not accurate to say every property will be assessed. Mr. Hantge asked why Cennex would be assessed since they are located far from the other properties discussed in earlier Conditional Use Permits. Ms. Wischnack stated a need for ponding with the Hwy 7 improvements for runofffrom Hwy 7 will be determined. Mr. Paul Barchenger, Hutch Co-op, stated the product to be stored in the bin is a dry product and spills are cleaned up immediately. He explained the liquid product is stored in a contained area. He commented on the color of the bin which will be forest green and the leg is stainless steel. Mr. Barchenger explained the facility is a holding bin for loading trucks. Minutes Planning Commission — November 18, 2003 Page 5 Ms. Wischnack stated the facility is more efficient. She explained screening will be required and is attached to the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Barchenger asked if screening is required whether the project is completed or not. Ms. Wischnack stated screening is a requirement if the project is completed. Mr. Barchenger questioned if they do not construct the project is screening required. Ms. Wischnack stated the City does want to do a screening project in the area and is not sure of the timing. She explained grants will be written to supplement the funding and that process takes about a year. There is no exact date. Mr. Hantge asked will Cennex pay for it whether the project is constructed or not. Ms. Wischnack stated she is not sure how it will work as far a payment for screening. She stated Dol( Moon and John Rodeberg would like to see some type of volunteering by the property owners to do the screening as it may be hard to show a benefit. Mr. Barchenger asked if she could give him an estimate of the cost. Ms. Wischnack stated the estimatefor Hutch Mfg, 800 ft, would be approximately $10,000. This property is 370 feet. Mr. Hantge asked if the trailers were parked on city property. Ms. Wischnack stated the property is rail road property and owned by Hennepin County Parks. It is anticipated it will be owned by the City in the future. Cennex leases from Hennepin County. Discussion followed on the truck traffic in the park area. There was discussion on the placement of a stormwater retention pond. Ms. Wischnack stated MNDOT will provide runoff calculations in the future and at this time the city is not certain of the placement. Mr. Flaata asked if Cennex has permission to park in that area and when sold to the City can they still park there. Ms. Wischnack stated we do not know since we don't have access to lease agreements. Mr. Hantge made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The hearing closed at 6:45 p.m. Mr. Hantge made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations with the addition of a fifth condition regarding stormwater management. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council agenda at their meeting held November 25, 2003 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. d) CONSIDERATION OF LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCE REQUESTED BY ROBERT BEELER, PROPERTY OWNER, OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 903 HWY 15 SOUTH Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 6:48 p.m. with the reading of publication #7120 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on November 6, 2003. Ms. Wischnack explained the encroachment of property from the parking lot to the north. She commented on the setbacks of the primary and accessory buildings and the building code regulations that would become effective should the property lines change. She stated the property owner Minutes Planning Commission — November 18, 2003 Page 6 would be willing to create an easement agreement and not split the lot. The property owner to the north is not in favor of an easement agreement and has been the driving force for the lot split. She explained at some point the lot was paved. Mr. Sjostrand indicated there was a repair done. There is no building permit on file approving the parking lot paving. Ms. Wischnack commented on the following staff analysis and recommendations: Adjusting a property line is never an easy task. The existing building locations and parking areas have complicated the property owner's titles to the property. The original encroachment happened many years ago, but yet continues to exist. The movement of the property line would cause two negative impacts to the 903 Highway 15 South property: 1. The new garage that was constructed in 2002 would become non -conforming with respect to the required 6 foot setback. Any future additions would have to be allowed only by variance. 2. The new lot line near the building would cause a problem with the building code. The building code discusses a lot of complexities with respect to relationships between types of occupancy and proximity to the property line. There would need to be some costly building modifications made to Mr. Beeler's northern wall and/or roof to properly fire rate the building to meet code. The theory is that the closer you allow a building to be placed to a property line, the closer proximity other buildings may be constructed in the future; thus creating more of a fire hazard. Staff recommends denial of the lot split and variance based on the findings set forth above. Mr. Hantge asked to step down and address the Commission as a neighboring property owner. He explained his concern with the apartment building parking issues and the stormwater runoff in the area. He stated the apartment owner paved the lot about a year and a half ago. Mr. Hantge explained they enlarged the size of the parking lot, did not address stormwater runoff and nothing has been done by the City. He would like an answer from the City on how this issue will be addressed. Ms. Wischnack stated unfortunately sometimes people do not apply for permits and we find out after the fact. In this case, we did not witness what happened. 1 t is difficult to violate someone in that capacity. Normally you have to have before and after photos in order to prove there was a violation. The property owner did admit over the phone there was a repair. The City proposal was to double the fee for the violation which is common when people do not get a permit. Secondly, the stormwater management issue, there has not been a requirement for an existing structure such as an apartment complex for storm water retention. Mr. Hantge commented unless they change the parking lot. Ms. Wischnack explained we do not know how much pavement was added. There are no statistics on this. If they don't meet the numbers for impervious surface and the calculations of that as Mr. Hantge did in his case. Mr. Hantge stated the entire parking lot is new not a repair. Chairman Kirchoff commented if we do not know what was repaired or what was existing how would we make a ruling on what was there before. He does not Minutes Planning Commission — November 18, 2003 Page 7 question it probably is a new parking lot but if we don't receive a permit the only thing we can do is address it by doubling the fees. Mr. Hantge asked what to you do when they are closer to the property line than allowed. Are they required to remove it? What is the setback in this district? Ms. Baumetz stated 6 feet. Chairman Kirchoff asked what was existing and what was new. Ms. Wischnack stated that's the hard part we don't know. Mr. Flaata asked can it be checked out. Mr. Hantge asked if we are setting a precedent. What is a double fee as opposed to having to address the concerns. Ms. Wischnack stated she does understand the concern. Ms. Wischnack stated the other issue is there was no requirement for stormwater management and we don't know if he did a total repave for a fact. Mr. Hantge stated if you would go out and look you would see it is all brand new. Ms. Wischnack stated her opinion about what it looks like today and whether or not it is new may not be valid. You need a before and after picture for proof. If his opinion is it was a repair, it is hard to determine ramifications for requiring a stormwater management plan. If he had come in for a driveway or parking lot repair permit, we would guess the answer is no. There was no building activity and no Conditional Use Permit requirement. There was no indication there was over an acre of improvements in terms of what was occurring on site. That is the ultimate question of stromwater management. Ms. Wischnack stated there is an existing use there. Chairman Kirchoff stated we must stay on task which is the consideration of a lot split and variance. He asked Ms. Wischnack if this could be tabled. She stated it would be beyond the 60 day rule and cannot be tabled. Discussion followed on the possibility of waiving fees if this were denied and the property owner would reapply. Ms. Wischnack stated minus the publication fees. Butch Hausladen commented to the parking lot issue asking if he does apply for a permit now will he have to qualify for approval of the permit? Atty. Sebora explained we work with the City Engineer and Building Official to investigate a violation. Then it is given to the Police Department and possibly prosecuted. Ms Wischnack stated the permit will not automatically be approved. She commented on what would have happened had he come in for a permit. She still does not believe there would have been a requirement for stormwater management. Mr. Hangte stated the entire neighborhood is low. He was required to construct outlets to drain the neighborhood. It was known ahead of time there was a drainage problem in the neighborhood. Ms. Wischnack stated she is not saying that if asked the question would the parking lot cause a stormwater improvement Minutes Planning Commission — November 18, 2003 Page 8 the answer would definitely be no. Mr. Rodeberg obviously makes those decisions. Mr. Haugen made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Ms. Otteson. The hearing closed at 7:04 p.m. Mr. Haugen made a motion to recommend denial of the request and if the applicant would reapply the fee would be waived the advertising cost only would be required. Seconded by Mr. Flaata. The motion carried with Mr. Hantge abstaining. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council agenda at their meeting held November 25, 2003 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 P.M. e) CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS FIRST ADDITION TO THE MEADOWS SUMBITTED BY MCLEOD COUNTY, PROPERTY OWNER Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 7:06 p.m. with the reading of publication #7121 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on November 6, 2003. Ms. Wischnack explained the ownership of the property dating back many years. She stated the deed from the County to the City did not get filed at the time. As a result, the County is platting the property to deed to the City of Hutchinson. Ms. Otteson made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Flaata. The hearing closed at 7:09 p.m. Ms. Otteson made a motion to recommend approval of the request. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council agenda at their meeting held November 25, 2003 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. f) CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING THE HIGHWAY 7 ACCESS MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 7:10 p.m. with the reading of publication #7122 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on November 6, 2003. Ms. Wischnack commented on the previous presentations to the Planning Commission by MNDOT. She explained the modification of access requirements and the process of applying for a variance. Mr. Hantge made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Flaata the hearing closed at 7:15 p.m. Ms. Otteson made a motion to recommend approval of the request. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council agenda at their meeting held November 25, 2003 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. Minutes Planning Commission — November 18, 2003 Page 9 4. NEW BUSINESS a) PRESENTATION BY DOLF MOON, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION, REGARDING PARKLAND DEDICATION VERSUS PARKLAND CONTRIBUTION Mr. Moon gave the Planning Commissioners insight on the issues the City has with parkland dedication in new plats. He commented on the inventory of park history and employee history. He stated there is a growing demand for parks and maintenance with less staff. b) DISCUSSION OF NUISANCE ORDINANCE Item was tabled to the December meeting. 5. OLD BUSINESS None 6. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF a) DISCUSSION OF TOUR AND MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL The Planning Commission will discuss a joint meeting with the City Council to be held in January. This meeting will include a tour of the City. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. C, -ft MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 18, 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: Jim Haugen, Lynn Otteson, Mike Flaata, Robert Hantge and Chairman Kirchoff. Absent: Brandon Fraser and Farid Currimbhoy Also present: Julie Wischnack, AICP, Planning Director, Marc Sebora, City Attorney and Bonnie Baumetz, Planning Coordinator 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Consideration of Minutes dated October 21, 2003 Ms. Otteson moved to approve the minutes of October 21, 2003 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The minutes were approved unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) CONSIDERATION OF VACATION OF EASEMENTS IN ISLAND VIEW HEIGHTS 4T" ADDITION AND FINAL PLAT OF ISLAND VIEW HEIGHTS 6T" ADDITION REQUESTED BY BILL GILK, SCENIC HOMES, PROPERTY OWNER Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:35 p.m. with the reading of publication #7117 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on November 6, 2003. Ms. Wischnack commented on the request and explained the replat of Island View Heights 4th Addition to Island View Heights 6th Addition. She stated the replat creates the need to vacate the previous drainage and utility easements and the replat will show new easements. This plat has been developed in phases. Scott Haag, 1085 West Shore Dr. SW, had questions regarding density. Ms. Wischnack stated the density will be decreased going from two family to single family housing. Ms. Wischnack commented on the following staff recommendations 1. Securities must be in place prior to construction. 2. Change the setbacks in the PDD to 25' front and rear and 6' on the side (only for this replat area). 3. Services must be abandoned/capped. Minutes Planning Commission — November 18, 2003 Page 2 4. Subdivider's agreement must be executed prior to construction. (A 7% engineering fee will be required.) 5. No certificates of occupancy for homes will be considered until the utility improvements are complete and a base course of bituminous is constructed. 6. Tree escrow money of $7,360 is required. 7. Parkland contribution of $175.00 per unit will be charged with each building permit. 8. SAC/WAC charges and electric territory charges will be collected with the building permit. Mr. Gilk, property owner, stated he does understand the conditions. Mr. Haugen made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hantge the hearing closed at 5:40 p.m. Mr. Haugen made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Flaata discussion followed on the condition of the park in the development. Ms. Otteson stated she would like to see a ninth condition requiring grading and seeding of the park. Dolf Moon, Director of Parks and Recreation, explained the parkland contribution process. He stated there is an adoptive group waiting to take over the park. The city has not had the man power to work in this area. Ms. Otteson withdrew her suggestion. After discussion, the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council agenda at their meeting held November 25, 2003 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p. M. b) CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY CINEMA 1, LLP, PROPERTY OWNER, TO EXPAND THE EXISTING FACILITY BY TWO SCREENS LOCATED IN THE I/C DISTRICT AT 766 CENTURY AVE SW Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:50 p.m. with the reading of publication #7118 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on November 6, 2003. Ms. Wischnack explained the proposed addition and the location. She stated this is the second phase as proposed when the building was constructed. Ms. Wischnack stated the parking requirement would be calculated by the use. In this case, the use most like movie theaters would be places of assembly which is a 1:4 ratio. This ratio would mean the theater would need 342 spaces. The property owner is asking to reduce the number of spaces to 314. There is a 30 year parking agreement with the McLeod County Fairgrounds to use the parking lot to the south of the theater. Ms. Wischnack stated the staff requested a study be conducted to determine the need. A study was provided and it appears the area will not be over parked. Ms. Wischnack commented on the stormwater management in the area and it was determined by staff the drainage plan is appropriate. She then commented on the staff recommendations as follows: Minutes Planning Commission — November 18, 2003 Page 3 1. Boulevard trees were required as a condition of the previous conditional use permit. Consult with the City Forester regarding plans for added boulevard trees. This condition must be completed by May 31, 2004. 2. The issuance of this conditional use permit does not confirm that there may be a need for additional parking at some point in the future. If the City receives complaints and verifies the complaints, the City will hold an additional public hearing to determine the correct remedial action. 3. The conditional use permit is valid for a term of 6 months. The permit shall expire if the project has not commenced. Mr. Bryon Sieve, Cinemagic Theaters, explained the experience the company has had with city ordinances which typically over -park the developments. He explained the staggering of shows to relieve the parking strain. He stated the present parking is reasonable and the agreement does give the right to more parking. Discussion followed on the staggering of shows and the congestion when picking up persons from the shows. Mr. Sieve explained the typical length of a movie and the process they use to handle a longer show. He also stated there were boulevard trees along the property at one time however they were removed with the construction of the path. Ms. Wischnack stated they should work with the City Forester in determining the appropriate species of trees for the area. Mr. Hantge asked to explain stadium seating. Mr. Sieve stated stadium seating provides for better viewing of the movie. He explained there will be less seats but there is a better view of the screen. Mr. Sieve stated the addition will not add much to the seating count. He also stated they will begin the project as soon as possible after receiving the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Haugen made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hantge. The hearing closed at 6:13 p.m. Ms. Otteson made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Haugen, discussion followed regarding recommendation number 2. Mr. Hantge had concerns with item 2 stating it doesn't seem to work to regulate after there is a problem. Ms. Wischnack gave some options of recommendations for the commission to consider. Atty. Sebora stated theaters are not defined for parking requirements and the commission could require the 342 spaces. After discussion, the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council agenda at their meeting held November 25, 2003 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. c) CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY HUTCHINSON COOP, PROPERTY OWNER, TO CONSTRUCT AN Minutes Planning Commission — November 18, 2003 Page 4 OVERHEAD FERTILIZER BIN WITH FLOOD PLAIN ALTERATIONS IN THE I/C DISTRICT LOCATED AT 200 — 3RD AVE NW Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 6:25 p.m. with the reading of publication #7119 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on November 6, 2003. Ms. Wischnack commented on the location of the request. She stated this is a complicated request because of the I/C District and the flood plain issues. She explained the request is for the construction of a 60 ton fertilizer bin. There is no foundation. The structure is on legs. She stated the State Flood Plain person was contacted and the Department of Agriculture requires there be a paved area to provide a clean up area in case of a spill. Staff discussed concerns about placing a structure such as this in the area, staff understands the need for the use. The use was there for many years. Ms. Wischnack commented on the following staff recommendations: 1. The applicant must be aware that there will be pending landscaping and buffering improvements to the south of the property would be constructed by the City and that cost would be assessed back to the benefiting property owners. 2. That there be paved access to the newly constructed building constructed and an apron be reconstructed in and around the bin area. (The pavement would need to be completed by May 31, 2004, because of weather constraints.) 3. Building code compliance must be discussed with the building official. (Issues of fire rating the existing building, office, may be necessary.) 4. The conditional use permit is valid for six months, unless an extension is requested or construction of the bin has commenced. Discussion followed on the stormwater ponding assessment at the time of the Hwy 7 project. Stormwater may need to be treated. Mr. Hantge asked if all property owners along Hwy 7 will be assessed for stormwater retention ponding. Ms. Wischnack stated property benefiting from the ponding would be assessed. Statute 429 requires you assess at a rate that is going to increase the market value. She stated an assessment is anticipated. It is not accurate to say every property will be assessed. Mr. Hantge asked why Cennex would be assessed since they are located far from the other properties discussed in earlier Conditional Use Permits. Ms. Wischnack stated a need for ponding with the Hwy 7 improvements for runoff from Hwy 7 will be determined. Mr. Paul Barchenger, Hutch Co-op, stated the product to be stored in the bin is a dry product and spills are cleaned up immediately. He explained the liquid product is stored in a contained area. He commented on the color of the bin which will be forest green and the leg is stainless steel. Mr. Barchenger explained the facility is a holding bin for loading trucks. Minutes Planning Commission — November 18, 2003 Page 5 Ms. Wischnack stated the facility is more efficient. She explained screening will be required and is attached to the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Barchenger asked if screening is required whether the project is completed or not. Ms. Wischnack stated screening is a requirement if the project is completed. Mr. Barchenger questioned if they do not construct the project is screening required. Ms. Wischnack stated the City does want to do a screening project in the area and is not sure of the timing. She explained grants will be written to supplement the funding and that process takes about a year. There is no exact date. Mr. Hantge asked will Cennex pay for it whether the project is constructed or not. Ms. Wischnack stated she is not sure how it will work as far a payment for screening. She stated Dolf Moon and John Rodeberg would like to see some type of volunteering by the property owners to do the screening as it may be hard to show a benefit. Mr. Barchenger asked if she could give him an estimate of the cost. Ms. Wischnack stated the estimate for Hutch Mfg, 800 ft, would be approximately $10,000. This property is 370 feet. Mr. Hantge asked if the trailers were parked on city property. Ms. Wischnack stated the property is rail road property and owned by Hennepin County Parks. It is anticipated it will be owned by the City in the future. Cennex leases from Hennepin County. Discussion followed on the truck traffic in the park area. There was discussion on the placement of a stormwater retention pond. Ms. Wischnack stated MNDOT will provide runoff calculations in the future and at this time the city is not certain of the placement. Mr. Flaata asked if Cennex has permission to park in that area and when sold to the City can they still park there. Ms. Wischnack stated we do not know since we don't have access to lease agreements. Mr. Hantge made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The hearing closed at 6:45 p.m. Mr. Hantge made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations with the addition of a fifth condition regarding stormwater management. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council agenda at their meeting held November 25, 2003 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p. M. d) CONSIDERATION OF LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCE REQUESTED BY ROBERT BEELER, PROPERTY OWNER, OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 903 HWY 15 SOUTH Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 6:48 p.m. with the reading of publication #7120 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on November 6, 2003. Ms. Wischnack explained the encroachment of property from the parking lot to the north. She commented on the setbacks of the primary and accessory buildings and the building code regulations that would become Minutes Planning Commission — November 18, 2003 Page 6 effective should the property lines change. She stated the property owner would be willing to create an easement agreement and not split the lot. The property owner to the north is not in favor of an easement agreement and has been the driving force for the lot split. She explained at some point the lot was paved. Mr. Sjostrand indicated there was a repair done. There is no building permit on file approving the parking lot paving. Ms. Wischnack commented on the following staff analysis and recommendations: Adjusting a property line is never an easy task. The existing building locations and parking areas have complicated the property owner's titles to the property. The original encroachment happened many years ago, but yet continues to exist. The movement of the property line would cause two negative impacts to the 903 Highway 15 South property: 1. The new garage that was constructed in 2002 would become non -conforming with respect to the required 6 foot setback. Any future additions would have to be allowed only by variance. 2. The new lot line near the building would cause a problem with the building code. The building code discusses a lot of complexities with respect to relationships between types of occupancy and proximity to the property line. There would need to be some costly building modifications made to Mr. Beeler's northern wall and/or roof to properly fire rate the building to meet code. The theory is that the closer you allow a building to be placed to a property line, the closer proximity other buildings may be constructed in the future; thus creating more of a fire hazard. Staff recommends denial of the lot split and variance based on the findings set forth above. Mr. Hantge asked to step down and address the Commission as a neighboring property owner. He explained his concern with the apartment building parking issues and the stormwater runoff in the area. He stated the apartment owner paved the lot about a year and a half ago. Mr. Hantge explained they enlarged the size of the parking lot, did not address stormwater runoff and nothing has been done by the City. He would like an answer from the City on how this issue will be addressed. Ms. Wischnack stated unfortunately sometimes people do not apply for permits and we find out after the fact. In this case, we did not witness what happened. I t is difficult to violate someone in that capacity. Normally you have to have before and after photos in order to prove there was a violation. The property owner did admit over the phone there was a repair. The City proposal was to double the fee for the violation which is common when people do not get a permit. Secondly, the stormwater management issue, there has not been a requirement for an existing structure such as an apartment complex for storm water retention. Mr. Hantge commented unless they change the parking lot. Ms. Wischnack explained we do not know how much pavement was added. There are no statistics on this. If they don't meet the numbers for impervious surface and the calculations of that as Mr. Hantge did in his case. Mr. Hantge stated the entire parking lot is new not a repair. Minutes Planning Commission — November 18, 2003 Page 7 Chairman Kirchoff commented if we do not know what was repaired or what was existing how would we make a ruling on what was there before. He does not question it probably is a new parking lot but if we don't receive a permit the only thing we can do is address it by doubling the fees. Mr. Hantge asked what to you do when they are closer to the property line than allowed. Are they required to remove it? What is the setback in this district? Ms. Baumetz stated 6 feet. Chairman Kirchoff asked what was existing and what was new. Ms. Wischnack stated that's the hard part we don't know. Mr. Flaata asked can it be checked out. Mr. Hantge asked if we are setting a precedent. What is a double fee as opposed to having to address the concerns. Ms. Wischnack stated she does understand the concern. Ms. Wischnack stated the other issue is there was no requirement for stormwater management and we don't know if he did a total repave for a fact. Mr. Hantge stated if you would go out and look you would see it is all brand new. Ms. Wischnack stated her opinion about what it looks like today and whether or not it is new may not be valid. You need a before and after picture for proof. If his opinion is it was a repair, it is hard to determine ramifications for requiring a stormwater management plan. If he had come in for a driveway or parking lot repair permit, we would guess the answer is no. There was no building activity and no Conditional Use Permit requirement. There was no indication there was over an acre of improvements in terms of what was occurring on site. That is the ultimate question of stromwater management. Ms. Wischnack stated there is an existing use there. Chairman Kirchoff stated we must stay on task which is the consideration of a lot split and variance. He asked Ms. Wischnack if this could be tabled. She stated it would be beyond the 60 day rule and cannot be tabled. Discussion followed on the possibility of waiving fees if this were denied and the property owner would reapply. Ms. Wischnack stated minus the publication fees. Butch Hausladen commented to the parking lot issue asking if he does apply for a permit now will he have to qualify for approval of the permit? Atty. Sebora explained we work with the City Engineer and Building Official to investigate a violation. Then it is given to the Police Department and possibly prosecuted. Ms Wischnack stated the permit will not automatically be approved. She commented on what would have happened had he come in for a permit. She still does not believe there would have been a requirement for stormwater management. Mr. Hangte stated the entire neighborhood is low. He was required to construct outlets to drain the neighborhood. It was known ahead of time there was a Minutes Planning Commission — November 18, 2003 Page 8 drainage problem in the neighborhood. Ms. Wischnack stated she is not saying that if asked the question would the parking lot cause a stormwater improvement the answer would definitely be no. Mr. Rodeberg obviously makes those decisions. Mr. Haugen made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Ms. Otteson. The hearing closed at 7:04 p.m. Mr. Haugen made a motion to recommend denial of the request and if the applicant would reapply the fee would be waived the advertising cost only would be required. Seconded by Mr. Flaata. The motion carried with Mr. Hantge abstaining. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council agenda at their meeting held November 25, 2003 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p. M. e) CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS FIRST ADDITION TO THE MEADOWS SUMBITTED BY MCLEOD COUNTY, PROPERTY OWNER Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 7:06 p.m. with the reading of publication #7121 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on November 6, 2003. Ms. Wischnack explained the ownership of the property dating back many years. She stated the deed from the County to the City did not get filed at the time. As a result, the County is platting the property to deed to the City of Hutchinson. Ms. Otteson made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Flaata. The hearing closed at 7:09 p.m. Ms. Otteson made a motion to recommend approval of the request. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council agenda at their meeting held November 25, 2003 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. f) CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING THE HIGHWAY 7 ACCESS MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 7:10 p.m. with the reading of publication #7122 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on November 6, 2003. Ms. Wischnack commented on the previous presentations to the Planning Commission by MNDOT. She explained the modification of access requirements and the process of applying for a variance. Mr. Hantge made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Flaata the hearing closed at 7:15 p.m. Ms. Otteson made a motion to recommend approval of the request. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council agenda at their meeting held November 25, 2003 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. Minutes Planning Commission — November 18, 2003 Page 9 4. NEW BUSINESS a) PRESENTATION BY DOLF MOON, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION, REGARDING PARKLAND DEDICATION VERSUS PARKLAND CONTRIBUTION Mr. Moon gave the Planning Commissioners insight on the issues the City has with parkland dedication in new plats. He commented on the inventory of park history and employee history. He stated there is a growing demand for parks and maintenance with less staff. b) DISCUSSION OF NUISANCE ORDINANCE Item was tabled to the December meeting. 5. OLD BUSINESS None 6. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF a) DISCUSSION OF TOUR AND MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL The Planning Commission will discuss a joint meeting with the City Council to be held in January. This meeting will include a tour of the City. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.