Loading...
01-18-2005 PCM MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 18, 2005 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, Kent Exner, Assistant Director of Engineering, Marc Sebora, City Attorney and Bonnie Baumetz, Planning Coordinator 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Consideration of Minutes dated December 21,2004 Mr. Hantge moved to approve the minutes of December 21, 2004 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy. The minutes were approved unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) CONSIDERATION OF REZONING FROM R2 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO C1 (NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL) SUBMITTED BY CHRIST THE KING CHURCH LOCATED AT 1040 SOUTH GRADE RD SW Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:33 p.m. with the reading of publication #7280 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on January 6, 2005. Ms. Wischnack commented on the permitted use in the C1 zoning district in the event the church would sell a portion of the property. She stated the Planning Commission must consider the long term effects of rezoning and explained this is not considered spot zoning because of the 5 acre size of the property. She commented on the following five factors discussed by staff: 1. Neighborhood Commercial Zoning is the least intensive land use. 2. There are many neighboring properties, which have a partial home occupation or non-conforming commercial use. 3. The City has previously considered this entire area for some type of multi-use district. 4. A church is the existing and anticipated future use of the property. Minutes Planning Commission - January 18, 2005 Page 2 5. The area is sizable, greater than 5 acres, which would remove consideration that it would be viewed as "spot zoning". Discussion followed on the possibility of future lot splits as was proposed last month by Mr. Bloemke for an office building use. Mr. Hantge questioned the parking lot on the southern portion of the church property which extends over the property line. John Rodeberg stated he was the building committee chairman at the time the parking lot was constructed and explained a Conditional Use Permit was granted at the time and there was a verbal agreement with the property owner to the south. He stated property was to be transferred to the church. Mr. Rodeberg explained the reason for rezoning the church property was to make the church a permitted use and future additions would not require a Conditional Use Permit. He stated the church does not intend to split the lot or sell the land for additional uses. He commented on the access off the potential Cleveland Avenue and the possibility for the church to access the property with a drive in and another drive out. Ms. Wischnack stated the house discussed at a previous meeting for use as an office building has been sold and will be moved to the Ravenwood West property for residential use. Mr. Exner stated a new access on to South Grade Road would be questionable. Mr. Flaata asked how this would affect abutting properties which could ask to be rezoned. Mr. Currimbhoy questioned why the church would want to rezone when there is no plan for the property. Mr. Rodeberg stated the church does have future plans to expand the parking lot. Mr. Fraser stated it does not seem necessary to rezone now that Mr. Bloemke is not asking to move the house for an office. Mr. Rodeberg stated it would be a permitted use if rezoned and the church would not have to go through the Conditional Use Permit process. Mr. Fraser stated it is hard to buy into rezoning for flexibility. Mr. Rodeberg stated there are already mixed uses on Dale Street and he doesn't foresee a more intense use for the church property. Mr. Fraser stated this does set a precedence for other properties to be rezoned in the area. Mr. Rodeberg stated the zoning does fit with the area. Minutes Planning Commission - January 18, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Hantge made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Haugen the hearing closed at 5:50 p.m. Mr. Hantge made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff findings. Seconded by Ms. Ottenson. The motion failed 3 ayes to 4 nays (Ayes: Mr. Hantge, Ms. Otteson and Mr. Haugen Nayes: Mr. Currimbhoy, Chairman Kirchoff, Mr. Fraser and Mr. Flaata). Mr. Fraser made a motion to deny the rezoning due to no substance to the changes. Seconded by Mr. Flaata. During further discussion Mr. Currimbhoy stated we do not know the future for the property. The motion to deny was approved 4 ayes to 3 nays. (Roll Call Vote - ayes: Mr. Currimbhoy, Chairman Kirchoff, Mr. Flaata and Mr. Fraser; nays: Mr. Hantge, Mr. Haugen and Ms. Otteson) Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council regular agenda at their meeting held January 25, 2005 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. b) CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCE REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A WATER TREATMENT PLANT LOCATED BETWEEN HIGHWAY 7 AND 5TH STREET NE AND BETWEEN PROSPECT AVENUE AND BLUFF STREET AND TREATMENT WETLAND LOCATED AT 30 AND 40 ARCH STREET NE AND 300 4TH STREET NE Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:55 p.m. with the reading of publication #7281 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on January 6, 2005. Ms. Wischnack explained the three requests individually. The first Conditional Use Permit is necessary for the use of the proposed building in a residential area. She stated there was a previous neighborhood meeting which was attended by 3 neighboring property owners. She stated there were approximately 70 notices mailed. She commented there have been no discussions of concern by neighbors with the present facility and she explained the site plan. The second Conditional Use Permit is for placing a wetland in the flood plain to deal with water effluent discharge. This pond creation would restore the wetland area, which is locally known as the "old bass pond". She explained the effluent is created by a reverse osmosis procedure and needs to be treated prior to entering any public waterway. She stated the County Environmentalist has approved the design for the wetland portion of the project. Ms. Wischnack commented on the third request being a variance for the setback of the reservoir structure. The setback to the Highway right-of- way will be reduced from 30' to 0'. She explained, after the highway construction, the sidewalk would be 60 feet from the reservoir structure. She explained the reservoir tank will hold 1.5 million gallons of water and will be partially exposed 5 feet to 8 feet. Mr. Rodeberg stated the top of the reservoir will be at the same elevation as Prospect Street. He explained the tank will be constructed into the hill. Mr. Wischnack commented on the staff recommendations as follows: Minutes Planning Commission - January 18, 2005 Page 4 1. The parking lot areas for the new plant area must be paved prior to final occupancy treatment plant. 2. The plans do not indicate any significant removal of trees during construction. The site is heavily vegetated and screened from the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Noise from the construction of the wells, plant and reservoir shall meet the ordinance requirement for work hours. 4. The setback variance would be approved based on the hardship of other alternatives would have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. 5. The floodway and wetland impact areas must be properly controlled for erosion, during and after construction to ensure no siltation occurs toward the river area. 6. Establishment of permanent vegetation must be complete; prior to removal of silt control. 7. The conditional use permit shall be valid through 2006. Ms. Wischnack explained the new well will run 24 hours per day. She stated the location of the reservoir is the least invasive to the site and will be placed in the "hole in the hill". Chairman Kirchoff asked if the project could be built without the reservoir. Mr. Rodeberg stated the reservoir is part of the operation of the plant. Discussion followed on the process used to treat the capacity and quality of the water. Mr. Flaata asked if this project will be screened the same as we direct other projects in the City. Mr. Rodeberg stated the building will look more architecturally like the electric plant and stated there will be screening from the homes. Ms. Wischnack explained the landscaping plan is not complete and commented on the existing trees on the property. She stated the process for the construction of the well and reservoir must begin. Scott Young, Earth Tech, stated the reservoir is placed in the hole rather than taking out trees. Discussion followed on the appearance of the reservoir. Ms. Wischnack commented on the possibility of the top being seeded with grass to serve as a look-out area. The reservoir will be architecturally designed. Mr. Rodeberg commented on the new wetland. Mr. Young showed the Commissioners drawings of the proposed look of the building and the reservoir and explained there will be fagade on the tank with a terraced landscaping. Mr. Hantge asked why the reservoir could not be placed on the north side of the property. Mr. Young explained placing the tank on the north side would endanger wells 4 and 5. Minutes Planning Commission - January 18, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Young commented on the consideration of security for the facility which would account for visibility of the building. He explained the finished face of the reservoir which will be terraced and landscaped. Mr. Young commented on the parking and explained there will be limited parking. The building is not staffed 24 hours and the employees will enter from the rear or north side. The front will be off Prospect Street. Discussion followed on the use of the generator only in emergency situations. Mr. Young explained a water plant is not noisy or odorous. He stated they will screen the trash container, transformer, outdoor storage, etc. He explained they will begin construction next Fall. He explained the process of the water movement and why the water does not freeze. He stated the reservoir will be secure. Mr. Hantge made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Flaata the hearing closed at 6:25 p.m. Mr. Fraser made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permits with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Hantge made a motion to recommend approval of the Variance with staff recommendations adding number 8 to include: Special landscaping of the reservoir tank with terracing is required for aesthetics. Also, fagade treatment of the tank is required. Seconded by Mr. Flaata. Discussion followed. Ms. Wischnack stated staff will present drawings of the buildings and landscaping as they are completed. Chairman Kirchoff stated another presentation at a later date would be helpful. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council regular agenda at their meeting held January 25, 2005 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. 4. NEW BUSINESS a) UPDATE ON POWER LINE ALONG LUCE LINE TRAIL Ms. Wischnack commented on the previous Conditional Use Permit for the powerline and stated the line must be relocated to the north. Dave Hunstad, Hutchinson Utilities, explained the placement of the line too close to the Luce Line trail. He stated they will move the line 60 feet to the north. Mr. Wischnack stated the approved Conditional Use Permit was for the use. This is an update because of the line movement. Discussion followed on the DNR permits and the private easements. Mr. Fraser stated previously there was discussion regarding the safety of the line near the Luce Line Trail. Minutes Planning Commission - January 18, 2005 Page 6 Ms. Wischnack stated the line must be moved to make the placement permissible by the DNR. 5. OLD BUSINESS a) DISCUSSION OF ENFORCEMENT OF GRAVEL PARKING LOT ORDINANCE Ms. Wischnack commented on the number of commercial, industrial and high density residential properties with parking lots or portions of the access. She stated there are approximately 50 parcels with this situation. She commented on the 3 following solutions: 1. At the next realtor's information meeting; staff would provide the ordinance data and indicate there are approximately 50 properties in this situation. 2. Indicate the information on an assessment search as a note or an attachment. 3. Send a specific notice to each individual property owner explaining the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Fraser asked is some of the parking lots would be exceptions to the dust and runoff issues. Chairman Kirchoff stated we did make allowances for some parcels according to the map. Discussion followed on the property owners dilemma with large parcels. Ms. Wischnack stated staff is trying to get compliance of the ordinance. Chairman Kirchoff stated there is some leeway to the ordinance. b) Mr. Flaata questioned if the City has the same requirements for screening and landscaping as other businesses. He stated he was talking about the Creekside facility. Ms. Wischnack explained the difference between the I/C district and the 1-2 district. She stated 1-2 is the least restrictive. She explained outdoor storage and outdoor display. Gary Plotz, City Administrator, explained 25 acres or the main portion of the facility is zoned properly. He commented on the blending line building and the proposal to enclose the building. He stated most of the site is a permitted use. The southerly portion has more restrictions. Ms. Wischnack stated some plantings have been added. Mr. Plotz explained the plan is to further improve the property. 6. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF a) DISCUSSION WITH MAYOR COOK REGARDING CHANGING MEETING DAY FOR PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes Planning Commission - January 18, 2005 Page 7 Mayor Cook explained the need to get more City Council meeting information to the public ahead of the meeting day. Discussion followed on possible meeting days. Mr. Plotz commented on the importance of the Planning Commission and the coverage by the newspaper. Ms. Wischnack stated the Planning Commissioners could decide next month and staff will check deadline dates for both the 3rd Monday of the month or the 2nd Thursday. Mr. Hantge stated he would prefer Tuesday. b) Discussion of joint meeting with the City Council Ms. Wischnack will discuss February 10th for a meeting and tour with the City Council. c) DISCUSSION OF ANNUAL ELECTION OF OFFICERS USUALLY HELD IN FEBRUARY Ms. Wischnack commented on the election of officers in February and stated with new commissioners coming on the Commission in March it would make more sense to move elections to March. Mr. Hantge asked staff to research enforcement issues for Conditional Use Permits of other communities. He also asked if the Building Inspector checks building setbacks and parking lot setback at the time of construction. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further the meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.