Loading...
01-20-2004 PCM MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 20,2004 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 (5:35), Jim Haugen, Lynn Otteson, Mike Flaata, Robert Hantge and Chairman Kirchoff. Absent: 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 Revised Minutes dated November 18, 2003 and Minutes dated December 16, 2003. Mr. Haugen moved to approve the minutes of November 18, 2003 and December 16, 2003 as submitted. Seconded by Ms. Otteson, the minutes were approved unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) CONSIDERATION OF REZONING PROPERTY FROM R1 TO R2 LOCATED AT 1245 ROBERTS ROAD REQUESTED BY RAYMOND NORTON Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:48 p.m. with the reading of publication #7139 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on January 8, 2004. Ms. Wischnack explained the request and the history of the dwelling and zoning of the lot. She stated no separate water and sewer services were obtained but there are separate gas and electric services to the building. She stated the lot does meet the area requirement for a two family lot. There are no permits on file regarding the remodeling of the house into a duplex. Ms. Wischnack explained the spot zoning regulations and stated staff believes this would be spot zoning and therefore would deny the request. Discussion followed regarding the communication between the Utilities and the City when services are being put in. Ms. Wischnack stated the communication is getting better between the two entities. Raymond Norton, property owner of 1245 Roberts Rd SW, commented on the structure being constructed as a duplex apparently in 1976. He Minutes Planning Commission - January 20, 2003 Page 2 explained the access to the downstairs which is from the outside or through the garage. He stated there is not a stairway to the downstairs in the house. Ms. Wischnack stated the Certificate of Occupancy indicates a single family occupancy. Mr. Norton commented on the parking access on Lakewood LN. John Rodeberg stated the parking is entirely on public property and was one time used for the daycare facility. Mr. Norton again stated there does not appear to be evidence of a stairway to the downstairs anywhere in the house. He would like to sell the house and it is not as appealing to sell as single family. Discussion followed on adding an inside stairway. Mr. Norton stated there would be an area in the dining room that could be taken out for a stairway. Robert Vance, 1395 Roberts Rd, stated his concerns with the property being rental and the present buffer of Roberts Rd to the R2 zone. He has concerns with the precedent rezoning the lot would set. He also has parking concerns. Mr. Norton stated Lakeview LN is also a buffer from Mr. Vance's property. Mr. Fraser commented on the construction of the house without a stairway inside and the fact it has been a rental for many years. It appears to have been built as a duplex. Mr. Hantge made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The hearing closed at 6:10 p.m. Mr. Fraser made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoing request to R2 with following recommendations: 1. the house must be brought up to Building Code for a duplex and 2. there must be separate addresses given to each unit. Seconded by Mr. Hantge. The motion carried 4 ayes to 2 nays. There was a roll call vote. Ayes were: Mr. Hantge, Ms. Otteson, Mr. Fraser and Mr. Flaata. Nays were: Mr. Haugen and Chairman Kirchoff. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council regular agenda at their meeting held January 27, 2004 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. b) CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED BY FLOYD SJOSTRAND TO REDUCE PARKING LOT SETBACK LOCATED AT 901 HWY 15 SOUTH Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 6:13 p.m. with the reading of publication #7140 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on January 8, 2004. Mr. Hantge asked to step down as he is a neighboring property owner. Minutes Planning Commission - January 20, 2003 Page 3 Ms. Wischnack explained this is a follow-up to a lot split request in November by Dr. Beeler, property owner to the south, to deal with an encroachment issue regarding parking. She commented on the encroachment and the previous denial of the lot split request and building code issues for Dr. Beeler should the lot be split. Ms. Wischnack commented on the work done to the parking lot and whether or not it was enlarged. The property owner has indicated it was a repair. She explained the issue of encroachment was before the repair of the parking lot. She commented on the staff recommendations as follows and the struggle staff had in making the recommendations: 1. The parking lot must be no closer than 3' from the property line at any point, excluding the easement area. (3 foot variance, not 6 feet, as requested) 2. An easement agreement between the property owners must be submitted to the city for the encroachment of 3 parking spaces over the south lot line. (If no easement agreement is received, the parking area must be removed in that location by June 1, 2004.) 3. A double fee for the parking lot permit will applied, since the property owner did not acquire a permit for this construction. Ms. Wischnack stated the number of parking spaces does not meet today's parking requirement. It was discussed that there are utilities on the East side of the lot. Ms. Wischnack stated Mr. Sjostrand's attorney has contacted her and indicated an easement agreement for the parking encroachment is in the works. Mr. Flaata commented on the requirement if future utilities would be necessary in the encroachment it would be at the owners expense. Mr. Rodeberg commented on the fact there has been no drainage review on the property. He stated, from what staff can tell, there is no additional impervious surface added which would not begin a drainage review. Ms. Wischnack read a letter from Dr. Randy Anderson, neighboring property owner, regarding snow removal onto his lot and damage to his fence. Mrs. Arlene Sjostrand, property owner, explained they purchased the lot in 1981. She commented on the sale of the lot and the fact they were not made aware of the property line encroachment. Mr. Floyd Sjostrand stated they have owned the building for over 20 years and have made every attempt to be good neighbors and keep the property maintained. He commented on the snow removal process and stated Mr. Wayne Kenning is his manager and takes care of maintenance. He explained the parking lot encroachment and the problems when Dr. Beeler purchased the property to the South. Mr. Sjostrand stated he regrets the permits were not obtained for the parking lot repair and explained the miscommunication with the contractor and Minutes Planning Commission - January 20, 2003 Page 4 who was to get the permits. He stated he would like to resolve the problems in the best interest of Dr. Beeler, the City and themselves. Chairman Kirchoff asked if the parking lot was enlarged. Mr. Sjostrand stated it was an overlay of the footprint. He stated parking was there since he owned the property and doesn't know how it happened to encroach into the easement and over the property line. Discussion followed on the snow removal process. Mr. Kenning stated the snow was not put on neighboring property and he is not sure if the fence was damaged by snow removal. Mr. Kenning stated he would like to construct a fence between this lot and the lot to the south as kids jump the retaining wall with their bikes. He stated he has been involved with the property since 1978 and explained the previous ownership and configuration of the lots. Ms. Otteson made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Flaata. The hearing closed at 6:44 p.m. Mr. Flaata made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations adding a fourth recommendation that any utilities needing to be placed in the easement will be at the property owner's expense. Seconded by Mr. Fraser. Discussion followed by Ms. Otteson asking if they could add a fifth recommendation regarding the containment of snow on the property and drainage could not go onto other properties. Mr. Rodeberg stated it is alright to have the snow removal as a condition and that drainage cannot be increased to the neighboring properties. Chairman Kirchoff commented on item #2 and discussion followed regarding the timing of the easement document. It is the consensus of the Commission that the document must be provided to the City before this variance request is placed on the City Council agenda. Ms. Wischnack commented on item #1 and setting a time limit of June 1, 2004 for the removal of the 3 feet of asphalt along the south property line except in the encroachment area. Mr. Flaata amended his motion to include conditions 4 and 5. Seconded by Mr. Fraser. The motion carried with Mr. Hantge abstaining. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will not be placed on the City Council agenda until the easement encroachment documentation is received by the City. c) CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10.07 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING TEMPORARY FENCES Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 6:53 p.m. with the reading of publication #7141 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on January 8, 2004. Ms. Wischnack commented on the fence ordinance and the adding of temporary fencing to the ordinance in place. This would mean temporary or snow fences would require a permit. She explained the staff had minor revisions to the ordinance. Minutes Planning Commission - January 20, 2003 Page 5 Discussion followed on the definition of temporary fence and what would determine limited period of time. Ms. Wischnack stated public works assisted in locating the snow fence at 400 School Rd. SW to place it off the public right of way. Mr. Rodeberg commented on the issues created by permanent and temporary fences. We do not want to over regulate. He explained even temporary fences would require a call to Gopher State One Call. Orlin Henke, 410 School Rd., stated a number should be put to the limited period of time. Atty. Sebora stated the ordinance as designed will deter the people for taking it down. Mr. Henke stated this ordinance doesn't solve anything. He commented on the fact people putting up fences could be liable. Mr. Fraser stated adding language will not solve this problem and he commented that change is appropriate. He stated this ordinance change is a step forward. Discussion followed on the length of time a temporary fence could be up. Ms. Wischnack stated the staff struggled with the period of time and decided not to address it. Mr. Henke stated as he traveled to the Twin Cities he did not see one snow fence in a city along the way. Jeff Juncewski, grandson of property owners at 400 School Rd, St. Cloud real estate agent, stated there are many snow fences in St. Cloud and there is no ordinance regulating the fences. Chairman Kirchoff stated maybe we need to take another stab at it and table to check with other cities. Mr. Fraser stated it is good to include temporary fence requirements. Mr. Hantge stated we should reject the ordinance as it doesn't solve anything. Mr. Hantge made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The hearing closed at 7:15 p.m. Mr. Haugen made a motion to table and directed staff to research other cities. Seconded by Ms. Otteson. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated staff will do further research and come back to the Planning Commission. 4. NEW BUSINESS a) CONSIDERATION OF LOT SPLIT SUBMITTED BY MARK SCHIERMAN TO SPLIT A LOT LOCATED AT 1020 GOLF COU RSE ROAD NW Ms. Wischnack commented on the request and location of the property. She stated there were a number of issues discussed by staff and Minutes Planning Commission - January 20, 2003 Page 6 explained the development considerations as follows because of the length and width of the lots created: 1. The applicant must apply for a variance from the driveway setback requirement of 5 feet, when the owners are ready to proceed. The application must also include a driveway maintenance document and easement. The driveway must allow for fire access turn around space. 2. The water and sewer connections must be designed by an engineer. The lines will be required to be 6 inches for water and 8 inches for sewer. The engineer will review the proper location and ensure elevations will service the new homes. The sewer and water lines must also be located within an easement between the two homes. The documents must address maintenance issues. 3. The forester has reviewed the site and believes the driveway location, if placed in the center of the lot, will maintain substantial trees on the site. 4. Fire protection for the homes is a concern. Hydrants are located too far from the new home locations. Sprinkling in the homes or an additional fire hydrant would be possible requirements. Ms. Wischnack then commented on the staff recommendations as follows: 1. The applicant would be required to pay sewer and water access fees and park dedication fees at the time of building. 2. A new home must be built on the northern lot within one year of this approval, or the detached accessory building must be removed. 3. The applicant is required to file all appropriate deeds to reflect the lot division. Mr. Schierman stated two sheds have been removed and the third is on skids and will be removed shortly. Discussion followed on emergency service to the property. Mr. Schierman stated he is not opposed to sprinkling the homes or putting in a fire hydrant. Ms. Wischnack explained the possibility of re-subdividing and the need for enough service. Mr. Hantge moved to approve the request for a lot split with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Flaata. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda for the meeting held on January 27, 2004. 5. OLD BUSINESS Minutes Planning Commission - January 20, 2003 Page 7 a) DISCUSSION OF CHANGES TO THE NUISANCE ORDINANCE Ms. Wischnack commented on the recodification of the Ctiy Code. She stated the nuisance ordinance needed some changes in the hearing process and procedure. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept the changes for the City Code. b) AGENDA FOR JOINT TOUR ON JANUARY 28,2004 Ms. Wischnack asked if there should be any changes to the agenda for the tour on January 28th. Ms. Otteson stated add the snow fences on School Rd. 6. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF - Ms. Saumetz stated election of officers will be held next meeting. -Ms. Saumetz reported she was invited to the Dassel Planning Commission meeting to present a workshop on Varinaces and Platting procedures. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further the meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.