Loading...
02-17-2004 PCM MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 17, 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, Jim Haugen, Lynn Otteson, Mike Flaata, Robert Hantge and Chairman Kirchoff. Absent: Farid Currimbhoy Also present: Julie Wischnack, AICP, Planning Director, and Bonnie Baumetz, Planning Coordinator 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chairman Kirchoff called for nominations for Vice Chairman. Mr. Hantge moved to nominate Mr. Fraser. The motion was seconded by Mr. Haugen. Mr. Haugen moved nominations cease, seconded by Mr. Hantge, nominations ceased. Chairman Kirchoff called for the vote. The vote carried unanimously. Vice Chairman Fraser called for nominations for Chairman. Mr. Haugen moved to nominate Mr. Kirchoff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hantge. Mr. Flaata moved nominations cease. The motion was seconded by Mr. Haugen. The vote carried unanimously for nominations to cease. Nominations for Mr. Kirchoff for Chairman carried unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Consideration of Minutes dated January 20, 2004 Ms. Otteson moved to approve the minutes of January 20, 2004 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Flaata. The minutes were approved unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF TWIN HOMES WITHOUT GARAGES LOCATED AT 560 AND 570 HILLTOP DRIVE Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:42 p.m. with the reading of publication #7145 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on February 5, 2004. Ms. Wischnack commented on the request and location of the lots which are zoned R3 PDD. She gave the history of the plat and explained the Minutes Planning Commission - February 17,2004 Page 2 proposal included not to hardsurface the driveway. She stated the zoning ordinance requires hardsurfaced driveways in the R3 district. Ms. Wischnack commented on points to consider when allowing a Conditional Use Permit as follows: (a) That the proposed building or use at the particular location requested is necessary or desirable to provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of the public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare of the neighborhood or community; (b) That the proposed building or use will not have a substantial or undue adverse effect upon adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, utility facilities and other matters affecting the public health, safety and general welfare; and (c) That the proposed building or use will be designed, arranged, and operated so as to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable district regulations. She stated Staff does recommend to deny based on the character of the neighborhood and long term policy affect on the City. Ms. Wischnack commented on the information handed out at the meeting which included a number of house plan options that Habitat for Humanity would consider for the twin homes and a letter from Chuck Schmidt, President of the townhouse association across the street, in opposition to the project without garages. Chairman Kirchoff asked if the drawing were requested by staff. Ms. Baumetz explained the discussion with Habitat after the staff recommendation of denial which concluded with Habitat sharing the drawings for more information to the Planning Commission. Tom Carrigan, 105 Pauls Rd, stated he was speaking for himself and Dick Roskammer, 104 and 106 Pauls Rd., who was not able to attend this meeting. Mr. Carrigan stated they were against building a twin home with no garages. He explained that it would not be aesthetically good for the neighborhood. The fear would be too much "junk" in the yards. They are afraid it will decline their property values. Mr. Carrigan is afraid it would open the City up to a blight problem. Jim Endres, 660 Hilltop Dr., stated he thinks Habitat homes are a a good idea and does not oppose the twin homes just the type of construction which is without garages. He is concerned with the future character of the neighborhood and the proposal not to construct garages. He stated what possibly could be constructed raises a red flag and the neighborhood has concerns. Minutes Planning Commission - February 17,2004 Page 3 Ken Schuman, 129 Morningside Dr. NE, stated there are by-laws and declaration of condominiums in the neighborhood and this does not conform to the by-laws. He commented they are starting with two lots, will this request be for more lots in the future. Mr. Schuman would ask the Planning Commission to deny the request. Dave Wilson, project coordinator for Habitat, explained how the property looked when purchased. He stated it had grass and weeds almost waist high and they hauled out many loads of "junk". He explained they are providing safe homes for families. Mr. Hantge asked if they own the lots. Mr. Wilson stated they own 15 lots in this development. He explained Habitat presently has four homes in Hutchinson all with garages. There are three homes without garages in other communities. Mr. Wilson stated the Habitat guidelines are not to build garages or carports. He explained the only time they build garages is if required by the municipality. Judy Dinger, Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity, commented on this process to openly share ideas. She explained they sent the Habitat for Humanity mission statements to the surrounding homes. Ms. Dinger explained the type of persons placed in the Habitat homes. They are entry level homeowners now living in apartments. She stated Habitat gives them the help they need to purchase a home. She explained these are vacant lots which will be turned into tax paying units. Ms. Dinger commented on the U.S. Habitat Standards for decent affordable homes. She commented on the cost of the homes and the importance of the homeowners success. She explained everyone wants a good character of their neighborhood and one would assume with a garage everything will go into the garage but Habitat can't promise the homeowners will keep everything in their garages which would be no different in any other neighborhood. There is freedom of choice. Ms. Dinger explained there will not be the same covenants on these properties as the townhomes. She stated they do not intend to build on all 15 lots and would like these homes to blend in with the other properties. Mr. Hantge asked which lots they own. Ms. Dinger stated Lots 1-11 in Block 1, Lots 1 and 2 in Block 2 and Lots 11 and 12 in the cul-de-sac. She stated 5 lots are for sale right now. She explained habitat can not control what type of homes will be constructed on the lot s they sell. The long range goal is to sell to developers or homeowners. Habitat may develop 6 of the lots. There could be more or there could be less. Mr. Fraser asked about the common wall agreements and how issue are dealt with if one wants an attached garage and one a detached. He stated there should be symmetry of the homes. Ms. Dinger explained the Board is discussing that issue and will write an agreement with the homeowners on placement of garages. She also explained the Habitat rules regarding specific square footage requirements of the homes. She stated typically homes are three bedroom. Minutes Planning Commission - February 17,2004 Page 4 Mr. Fraser stated the Planning Commission may need detailed drawings to approve. He questioned the economics of building attached or detached garages "after-the-fact". He asked if they knew the cost of building the house with garages versus adding garages later. John Lofdahl, Head of the Building Committee, explained attached 400 sq. ft. garages raise the cost of the house $12,000 - $15,000 if a builder would construct the home. It would cost Habitat $5,000 - $6,000 more. He addressed the Conditional Use Permit issues Ms. Wischnack commented on earlier and stated they could build the home for less without garages and then serve more people. He commented on the savings to the families and explained the logic behind not building garages. He explained storage sheds will be included with the homes. Mr. Lofdahl stated he feels the requirement by the City is not reasonable and prices some families out of homeownership. Ms. Otteson asked if the other lots would be marketable if homes are allowed in the area that don't meet the City criteria. Mr. Lofdahl stated he thinks they would be marketable since they are asking $25,000-$35,000 for the lots. As long as a decent house ifsconstructed the lots should sell. He asked this not affect the consideration. Ms. Otteson stated realtors pushed for double car garages because of resale. Mr. Lofdal stated the City should not price people out of the housing market by this ordinance. John Mlinar, 704 Hilltop Dr., commented on the issues if allowed no garages, would other areas of Hutchinson want the same thing. He stated the Planning Commission should look at why the City opted to regulate garages to 400 sq. ft. He pointed out now people are building 3 car garages. He commented on the request to construct Morningside Estates and he is pleased with that development. Mr. Mlinar explained Hilltop Dr. is the main street to the area. He stated the character of the neighborhood is important. He explained the test of the ordinance is to be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council what they want to do. Precendent setting is important. He stated building something less does typically affect property values. He asked what happens to the homes when the owner leaves. Mr. Wilson stated Habitat has the first option to buy back. Mr. Mliner asked if the owner sells could they sell to someone else. Mr. Wilson stated these are entry level homes. They do not pay interest so hopefully they will save enough for garages for improvement to the property. There are basements for storage. Minutes Planning Commission - February 17,2004 Page 5 Mr. Lofdahl explained that Habitat holds three mortgages on the home. One is the cost for Habitat to build the home, one is a first time homebuyer grant and one is the difference between these and the assessed value. He explained the process and stated Habitat maintains the first right of refusal. Mr. Mlinar asked in the event of future change of ownership would garages be built later. He stated they should keep to the ordinance to make sure garages are built. Mr. Schuman commented on the condition of the property. Mr. Endres asked the concerns of the public be considered. Ms. Dinger stated she is not sure that having a garage would necessarily improve the neighborhood. She explained people have different values and opinions on appeal. There is a value of a garage if one uses it for storage. She explained the Board of Directors does not want to be adversarial and wants to work with the community. She would like to amend the request and ask for single car garages. She explained maybe that would be more favorable in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Chairman Kirchoff explained we don't know when garages would be constructed if we allow no garages. Mr. Fraser asked if we should postpone to the next month and have Habitat bring back a proposal with single car garages. He has no issue with attached or detached however the symmetry issue must be addressed. Mr. Lofdahl asked how many garages are allowed on a lot. Ms. Wischnack explained that the ordinance states one detached and one shed are allowed per lot. Mr. Hantge made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Ms.Otteson the hearing closed at 6:45 p.m. Mr.Flaata made a motion to recommend denial of the request. Seconded by Mr.Haugen. Discussion followed on the good Habitat is doing for the community and the response to neighbors on building good neighborhoods. The motion carried on a 5 - 1 vote with Mr. Fraser voting nay. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council regular agenda at their meeting held February 24, 2004 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. b) CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY THE HUTCHINSON POLICE DEPT. TO CONSTRUCT A STORAGE FACILITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 127 _1ST AVE SW Minutes Planning Commission - February 17,2004 Page 6 Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 6:48 p.m. with the reading of publication #7148 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on February 5, 2004. Ms. Wischnack explained the request to build a storage facility and the history of the lot. She stated this is a transitional area which contains commercial, residential and school. She explained the two options for placement of the building on the lot. In the first option, the building would be placed 25 feet from the south lot line or the street. The second option would bring the building closer to the street which would require removing the two maple trees in the front. The first option would require removal of the large elm tree in the rear. She explained both options would require tree removal. She commented on the staff recommendations as follows: 1. A flammable waste trap must be installed. 2. The building must have a separate water meter. 3. Drawing #2 site plan should be followed and leave the elm on the property (with some trimming to occur prior to construction). 4. The building shall have gutters installed on the west side of the building to better facilitate drainage. 5. The parking lot must be paved by the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for the building. 6. If future additions to the building are made, a conditional use process would again be required. Mr. Hantge asked what the long term plan is for the police department in this area. Sgt. Tom Gifferson explained the uses of the present police department buildings. He stated the EOC building was previously used for storage but it is not large enough for today's needs. Mr. Hantge asked if the long range plans would be to move the police department from the area. Sgt. Gifferson stated they are constructing this building to be marketable. Mr. Haugen stated this building would buy the police department 7-10 years longer on this site. Discussion followed on the preference of options 1 or 2. Sgt. Gifferson commented on the loss of trees. He explained that he has talked to the neighbors and they have differing opinions regarding removal of the large elm tree. He stated the neighbor directly to the west would like the tree removed. Discussion followed on drawing 1 and the use of the new facility. Sgt. Gifferson stated this building would free up space in the existing police station. Minutes Planning Commission - February 17,2004 Page 7 Ms. Otteson commented on the large building and the need for screening to the west. Sgt. Gifferson stated he also discussed that with the property owner and the owner doesn't necessarily want plantings. Discussion followed on the need for landscaping the lot. Mr. Haugen asked about the 14 foot sidewall height. Sgt. Gifferson explained the height is to accommodate the tactical vehicle (old Hutchmobile) which is presently stored at the street department facility. Discussion followed on recommendation number 5 regarding paved parking. Ms. Wischnack explained the need for paved parking and future use. Sgt. Gifferson stated the construction will be subcontracted. He also stated the building will be heated. Mr. Hantge made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Haugen the hearing closed at 7:08 p.m. Mr. Fraser made a motion to recommend approval of the request changing staff recommendation # 3 to drawing #1. Seconded by Ms. Otteson. Discussion followed regarding adding a seventh recommendation that the police department work with the homeowner if they wish screening as some time. Mr. Fraser moved to add the seventh recommendation. Seconded by Ms. Otteson. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held February 24,2004 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. 5. NEW BUSINESS None 6. OLD BUSINESS a) CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10.07 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING TEMPORARY FENCES Ms. Wischnack commented on research of other communities regarding temporary fences. She explained that basically temporary fences are regulated through the regular fence requirements. She commented on staff options as follows: 1. Do not allow temporary fences at all and provide language in the City Code (i.e. "temporary fences (without footings and/or posts placed in the ground) are not allowed). 2. Add the language change as proposed by staff and further define temporary as "a period not to exceed 5 months". Additional language could also state that the temporary fence may not "consist of ropes or other features which may be injurious to the public". 3. Do nothing and add no language changes to the City Code. Minutes Planning Commission - February 17,2004 Page 8 Mr. Hantge asked why staff is asking to regulate temporary fences when they didn't want to regulate dog kennels. Discussion followed on the staff suggestions and the directive from City Council. Mr. Fraser stated we can't exactly eliminate the ordinance. He agrees with including temporary fencing to the fencing guidelines. Mr. Fraser made a motion to include the words "including temporary" to the fence ordinance. Seconded by Mr. Hantge. Discussion followed on the use of orange snow fencing as temporary fences which would be allowed. The motion carried unanimously and will be placed on the City Council consent agenda on February 24,2004, at 5:30 p.m. 7. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF a) Duplex units in R1 Zones - Ms. Wischnack commented on the history of R1 and R2 zoning within the City. She asked if the Planning Commission is interested in regulating existing twinhomes in the R1 District. Discussion followed on the Norton duplex last month. Ms. Wischnack explained the Planning Department is asked for letters of compliance when properties are being sold. Ms. Otteson stated compliance would be for insurance purposes. Ms. Wischnack stated it is easier for property owners to receive approval on Conditional Use Permits rather than rezoning for existing two family dwellings. She will prepare a report on the number of available R 1 lots before 1991 which could be affected by the present ordinance. b) Survey Directive - Ms. Wischnack explained the request by City Council to have three Planning Commissioners involved in compiling a survey on the Planning/Zoning and Building Departments. Chairman Kirchoff stated a survey is a good idea, if needed, and read a statement written by himself as chairman of the Planning Commission not to involve the Planning Commission in the process. This is a volunteer advisory committee and should not be involved. He commented on the red flags of surveys and results. Chairman Kirchoff did not call the members before he wrote the letter. Chairman Kirchoff moved the Planning Commission not be involved in compiling the survey. Seconded by Ms. Otteson. Mr. Hantge questioned if the chair could make a motion. It was determined the chair can make motions. Councilman Stotts stated his concern with staff being involved and the perception by the public that the survey would be tainted. He explained there should be an impartial party compiling the survey. Mr. Fraser commented on the survey presented and asked if there could be a more quantitative type survey by the numbers distributed to the public. Ms. Otteson stated it is difficult to get something out of a paragraph form survey. Mr. Stotts stated the Planning Commission would act as a depository to take the information to an informative City Council meeting. Minutes Planning Commission - February 17,2004 Page 9 Mr. Hantge stated he called Chairman Kirchoff to be on the committee. He explained it is difficult to have public complaining to him about decisions made by the City. He stated he respects what Chairman Kirchoff is saying. Mr. Stotts explained he did have the City Administrator review the survey and the City Administrator told him it should be kept simple. Mr. Stotts also explained both the City Administrator and Ms. Wischnack reviewed and approved the survey. Ms. Wischnack stated if a survey is requested we will accommodate the decision. She reported the wording was changed to reflect Mr. Haugen's suggestion to read "provide additional comments". Mr. Fraser stated this is more feedback and discussion on feedback. Mr. Haugen commented on not compiling information and accept as feedback to share with City Council and Staff. Ms. Otteson explained she believes in surveys and uses them to improve service. She doesn't feel the survey should go the Planning Commissioners but to the elected officials, the City Council. Mr. Fraser stated the Planning Commission should not be involved. Chairman Kirchoff again stated he is not in favor of the Planning Commission receiving the survey. Mr. Fraser asked if the survey could go to a P.O. Box. He commented the issue seems to be between staff and council. He asked why would the Planning Commission be involved. Mr. Hantge asked to define the capacity of the Planning Commission. He asked if they were only advisory to the City Councilor are Staff equal advisors to the City Council. Discussion followed on the Planning Commission not being mediators between staff and City Council. Mr. Hantge voiced his concern with Staff having the "last say" with the City Council and the Council doesn't consider the Planning Commission recommendations. He stated some property owners feel they are not getting fair treatment. Mr. Fraser stated the Planning commission advisement is not taken every time. Mr. Hantge would like to know the procedure. Discussion followed on what is put on the consent or regular agenda. Ms. Wischnack stated there are no set rules of order to follow and she is open to solutions. Ms. Baumetz explained what is given to the City Council after the Planning Commission decisions are made. Mr. Haugen commented on the City Council visioning workshop which did include an objective of surveying the community and focusing on different departments in the City. Ms. Wischnack commented on Atty. Sebora's memo regarding the City Council decision. Minutes Planning Commission - February 17,2004 Page 10 Chairman Kircoff called for the motion on the floor. After further discussion he called for a roll call vote. Discussion followed again. Mr. Fraser inquired about the use of a P.O. Box at the Hutchinson Post Office for the surveys to be mailed to and picked up by the Mayor. Mr. Stotts stated he wants an impartial person to bring the feedback to the City Council. He explained this will be an anonymous survey. Discussion followed if the surveys could be sent to the Hutchinson Leader. Chairman Kirchoff moved to amend the previous motion adding the City rent a P.O. Box from the Post Office and the Mayor will pick up the surveys and deliver to who? Mr. Haugen commented on the possibility of opening the surveys at a City Council Workshop. Chairman Kirchoff moved to amend the previous motion that the Planning Commission not be involved in compiling the survey and adding the City rent a P.O. Box at the Hutchinson Post Office and Mr. Stotts would pick up the surveys which would be opened at a City Council Workshop. Seconded by Ms. Otteson. The motion carried unanimously. c) Plan for the C5 Area - Ms. Wischnack commented on the HRA requesting a more definitive land use plan for the C5 area for a more focused planning effort along Hwy 7. d) NAPA Conditional Use Permit - Ms. Wischnack explained the remodeling effort by Mr. Powell on the NAPA store and his request for a Conditional Use Permit to deviate from the recommended guidelines in the I/C District to remodel the interior of his non-conforming building. e) Farr Development - Ms. Wischnack explained Farr Development will be in next month with a preliminary plat for the Reiwer property on Jefferson Street. 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further the meeting adjourned at 8:10- p.m.