Loading...
10-19-2004 PCM MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 19, 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, Farid Currimbhoy, Robert Hantge and Chairman Kirchoff. Absent: None Also present: Julie Wischnack, AICP, Planning Director, Marc Sebora, City Attorney, Kent Exner, City Engineer and Bonnie Baumetz, Planning Coordinator 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Consideration of Minutes of regular meeting dated September 21, 2004 and Special meeting dated September 27,2004 Mr. Hantge moved to approve the minutes of September 21, 2004. The motion was seconded by Mr. Haugen. Mr. Hantge moved to amend the minutes of September 27, 2004, to show the hardship of the Schierman/Girard variance as driveway access safety to Golf Course Road. The hardship is to be stated on the findings of fact. Seconded by Mr. Flaata. The minutes were approved unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS HUTCHINSON SENIOR CAMPUS, REZONING FROM R1 TO R4 AND C4 AND A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT LOCATED ON HWY 15 SOUTH Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:36 p.m. with the reading of publication # 7259 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on October 7, 2004. Ms. Wischnack stated the applicants will present the plan in detail. She explained the recommendation to table the request since this is the largest plat reviewed by the Planning Commission and the largest plat the City has reviewed in a long time. Ben Schmidt, Farr Development, presented a power point presentation which gave the history of the company, gave the basis for the company to do the development in Hutchinson which included demographics, site selection and campus concept, introduced other Farr Development projects such as in Maple Grove, Austin and Robbinsdale. He explained Minutes Planning Commission - October 19 , 2004 Page 2 the site in Hutchinson would also include a student housing component for the non-traditional college student. Mr. Schmidt commented on the entrance to the east as the focal point to the residential development and he explained the housing types within the project. He stated there will be a central town square with a possible 80 bed skilled nursing portion along with assisted and independent senior living. He explained there will be townhouses on the east side of the development. The stormwater pond will be a water focal point. He commented on the commercial portion of the development which could include a restaurant and convenience store. He stated they will not begin work until Spring but must have the financing piece in place prior to the start date. Ms. Wischnack commented on the planned development district approach to modify roadway widths, setbacks and lot size. She stated the open space requirement has been met there is a total of 34% open space. The commercial portion has 26% and the residential 43%. Ms. Wischnack explained the density of 21 units per acre and stated a planned development district allows 100% increase. She commented on the major components of the street configuration. Denver Avenue impacts Applebee's and Ridgewater College. Staff will meet with both entities regarding the street. Montreal Street will be privately constructed. She commented on the review received from MnDOT regarding Hwy 15 which included recommendations to close existing field and farm entrances on Hwy 15; the request for controlled access of the 45'X250' section and require a right-turn lane be built on Hwy 15 northbound lane at Denver Avenue at the developer's expense; The main entrance to Applebee's should be relocated to the east and the applicant must obtain a permit application before any work is performed along the state highway. She also explained the city is requesting a right-in/right-out access from/ to the gas station off Denver Avenue. Ms. Wischnack stated parking is adequate. The stormwater management has been addressed. Landscaping and number of trees are adequate. The city would escrow for the trees up front and refund the remainder to the developer. She commented on the parkland dedication fees $4,515.00 for the commercial area and $135.00 per dwelling unit for the residential portion. This fee is collected with the building permit. Ms. Wischnack explained a planned development district allows the Planning Commission to review the architecture of the development buildings. She stated we have not received the draft homeowners documents. She commented on the general fees for all developments. She reviewed the staff recommendations as follows: 1. Development phasing. How is the development going to phased; in terms of construction, utilities, and roadways. 2. Identify the City's plan on how Denver Avenue will be constructed. Minutes Planning Commission - October 19 , 2004 Page 3 3. Obtain Applebee's perspective on the Denver Avenue design and reconfiguration of their entrance. 4. Have closure on tree planting responsibilities. 5. Obtain draft copies or outlines of how the homeowners' associations will operate. 6. Gain any additional comments on the architectural components from the Planning Commission. Discussion followed on the architecture and the turret proposed. Ms. Wischnack stated the turret looks more Victorian than prairie. There was discussion of each building having its unique character. Ms. Wischnack stated the Denver Avenue issues need to be worked out. Mr. Schmidt commented on the recommendations explaining the phasing of the development beginning with the commercial portion. He stated the market will dictate the phasing somewhat but the plan is to begin construction of the residential portion from the center and build out in order to market the entire area. He addressed Denver Avenue and stated they agree to the right-in/right-out access to line up with Applebee's. He stated they are working with the City Forester and will continue to work with him. He stated he will give the city a draft homeowner's document used in other developments. Mr. Schmidt stated the turret is Victorian. He stated he is open to input on the architecture. Discussion followed on each issue and consideration. There was also discussion on the timelines for the college to deal with Denver Avenue which could be lengthy. Mr. Flaata questioned .5 parking space requirement being enough. Ms. Wischnack stated they have shown additional parking. Mr. Schmidt stated parking is important and they have calculated one per unit underground parking and outside guest parking. The assisted living would be 1/3 space per unit underground. He stated the townhouses would require the same number of spaces regardless of age. He explained the 455 spaces does not include the underground garages. Mr. Fraser asked if Denver Avenue construction would hold up the first retail phase. Ms. Wischnack explained one option is to complete Denver Ave. to Montreal St. the first year. Mr. Hantge asked who is notified in a development this size? Ms. Wischnack explained property owners in a 350' radius from the property would be notified. Discussion followed on the Montreal and Denver road extensions. The developers were given MnDot's response previously. Mr. Schmidt stated the company is continuing talks with the hospital. Minutes Planning Commission - October 19 , 2004 Page 4 Discussion followed on the phasing of the project. Mr. Schmidt stated they anticipate a 4-5 year completion. Chairman Kirchoff asked about requirements to gain occupancy. Ms. Wischnack explained the requirements of water and sewer testing, accessibility, etc. Mr. Schmidt stated they will work with the city on the Denver Avenue issues. Mr. Fraser stated he does not see high-risk items to table the preliminary plat. Mr. Hantge made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Ms. Otteson the hearing closed at 6:40 p.m. Mr. Fraser made a motion to recommend approval of the request with the developer continuing to work out staff recommendations with the city and the items must be resolved before action of the final plat will be taken. Seconded by Mr. Hantge. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Haugen made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning and planned development district. Seconded by Ms. Otteson. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council regular agenda at their meeting held October 26,2004 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. b) CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED BY LEE STRITESKY TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 36'X24' GARAGE IN THE FRONT YARD LOCATED AT 1005 LEWIS AVE. Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 6:43 p.m. with the reading of publication # 7260 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on October 7, 2004. Ms. Baumetz explained the request noting detached garages are not allowed in the front yards and require a variance. She explained the topography of the side and rear yard as the hardship. She commented on the following staff recommendations: 1. Moving of utilities will be at owner's expense. 2. Any water or sewer service line relocation, if necessary, will be at the owners expense. 3. City Forester will verify the tree is located as not to be damaged by the construction of the garage. 4. The drainage to the neighboring property may not be altered. 5. Garages must not be taller than 16 feet. 6. Detached garages may not be used entirely for home occupations. Sarah Stritesky, property owner's daughter, commented on the recommendations and stated they would replace the tree that must be removed by the construction. She stated the garage would look similar to the existing house. Minutes Planning Commission - October 19 , 2004 Page 5 Discussion followed on previous similar requests. George Dostal, 1014 Lewis Ave. S.W., voiced his concerns with the garage being placed in the front yard. Mr. Currimbhoy explained it would depend on the design. Discussion followed on the type of structure. Ms. Wischnack explained it will be constructed into the hill as it was explained by Mr. Stritesky. She stated the Commissioners could require plantings. Ms. Otteson stated there could be drainage issues and she would like to see plans and elevation drawings of the garage. Paul Betker, contractor, stated the ground slopes in the area for drainage. Mr. Hantge made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy the hearing closed at 7:00 p.m. Ms. Otteson made a motion to table the request until more drawings are provided. The motion failed for a lack of a second. Mr. Haugen moved to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations noting the tree to be removed will be replace on the lot and with the additional recommendation to provide elevation drawings and the property owner must explain the appearance and design of the garage prior to the City Council meeting and provide additional screening on the south side. Also, noting the hardship as the topography of the lot. Seconded by Mr. Hantge. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council regular agenda at their meeting held October 26 , 2004 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. c) CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED BY PAUL BETKER TO INCREASE TWIN HOME LOT COVERAGE ON TWO LOTS IN THE SOUTHWIND PLAT LOCATED AT 230/234 AND 245/249 OTTAWA AVE SE Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 7:05 p.m. with the reading of publication # 7261 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on October 7, 2004. Ms. Wischnack commented on the request and explained the lot coverage and calculations. She stated there was much staff discussion on this item. She commented on the hardship of the lot sizes and the staff recommendations as follows: 1. Drainage around the units shall not be problematic in that swales, defined drainage areas or grading shall be used to assist in promoting positive drainage. 2. No additional structures shall be added to the property. 3. The site plans dated 9/16/04 and 9/22/04 shall be followed. Any alterations will need further review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Minutes Planning Commission - October 19 , 2004 Page 6 Discussion followed on the regulation for twinhomes only. Mr. Betker, applicant, stated the calculations now include the covered porches which was not the case in the past. He commented on the percent of coverage for the entire site which would be 30%. He stated he would like to see the ordinance changed. Mr. Haugen made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hantge the hearing closed at 7:15 p.m. Mr. Currimbhoy made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations noting the hardship of the lot sizes. Seconded by Mr. Fraser. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held October 26, 2004 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. d) CONSIDERATION OF A 27 LOT PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS BRIDGEWATER ESTATES THIRD ADDITION SUBMITTED BY GPS DICKINSON PROPERTIE Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 7:16 p.m. with the reading of publication # 7262 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on October 7, 2004. Ms. Wischnack explained this was originally platted in 2000. She stated the surveyor has been in contact with staff. This is development of a portion of phase II and because of previous recommendations to disban Honey Tree Road and the fact the county will not allow three accesses onto South Grade Road the staff would ask to table the request. She did comment on the following recommendations: 1. The access of Willow Drive SW onto South Grade Rd must include a turn lane (same design as Roberts Street), and also is dependant on closing the Honey Tree Road access (Access Management and safety issues). There are possibilities of make a temporary road along 9th Avenue SW to Honey Tree Road, or have a temporary turn around for the street. In no case can South Grade have Roberts, Willow, and Honey Tree open at one time. 2. A temporary turnaround is required on the north end of Willow Drive SW. Easements should be indicated to accommodate the turn around. 3. There are continuing safety issues for people walking in the area. The City should consider a trail along the north side of South Grade Road up to the end of the plat in the next phase of construction. 4. Revised plat indicating: 6 foot easements, which are required along interior lot lines. 5. Reconfirmation of that the original grading plan has been met. (The entire site was graded with the Bridgewater Estates 2 utility construction. ) Minutes Planning Commission - October 19 , 2004 Page 7 6. A subdivider's agreement must be executed and fees paid prior to construction. 7. Revise phasing plan to reflect new development plan. 8. Provide revised pad elevation and house types signed by new engineer (previously submitted by RLK Kuusisto). Mr. Fraser made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Haugen the hearing closed at 7:20 p.m. Ms. Otteson made a motion to table the request until staff recommendations items 1-8 are clarified. Seconded by Mr. Flaata. The motion carried unanimously. 4. NEW BUSINESS a) DISCUSSION OF AMENDING ORDINANCE SECTION 8.04 REGARDING LOT COVERAGE ON TWO FAMILY LOTS Ms. Wischnack explained the history of the ordinance and the use of Floor Area Ratio in 1962. She stated up to 1987 there was regulation in all residential districts. She explained the residential districts were not all the same then as today. Ms. Wischnack commented on the aspects to consider when changing the ordinance such as including all impervious surface or not, drainage impacts, etc. She commented on research from other cities. Discussion followed on consideration for all types of lot coverage and alternatives for the developers. There was much discussion on drainage and density. Mr. Exner stated problems come into play during construction because of the density of the lots including plantings, fences and walls, accessory buildings, etc. Consensus of the Planning Commission is to leave the ordinance as it is and not change the lot coverage requirement. 5. OLD BUSINESS None 6. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF Ms. Wischnack explained we have applied for a 1000 Friends of MN Grant to provide for long range planning of the city and surrounding the city. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.