Loading...
02-15-2005 PCM MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 15, 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, Farid Currimbhoy, Robert Hantge and Chairman Kirchoff. Absent: Mike Flaata Also present: Julie Wischnack, AICP, Planning Director, Kent Exner, City Engineer, Marc Sebora, City Attorney and Bonnie Baumetz, Planning Coordinator 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Consideration of Minutes dated January 18, 2005 Ms Otteson moved to approve the minutes of January 18, 2005 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The minutes were approved unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Kirchoff made a change to the order of the agenda calling for item (b) to be heard first. a) CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND THE AREA AT THE HUTCHINSON AIRPORT DESIGNATED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PRIVATE STORAGE HANGARS AND ALSO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONSIDERATION TO ALLOW POLE TYPE CONSTRUCTION OF HANGARS. CONSIDERATION IS ALSO BEING REQUESTED FOR A PRIVATE AIRPORT RELATED COMPANY TO PLACE A TEMPORARY TRAILER ON AIRPORT PROPERTY. Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 7:05 p.m. with the reading of publication #7296 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on February 3, 2005. Ms. Wischnack explained the request to allow an area of the airport for general private hangars. She reported there is a Conditional Use Permit in place for another area at the airport which would allow private commercial hangars. The second request of the Conditional Use Permit is to allow a temporary office trailer structure for air ambulance service at the airport There was discussion regarding the placement of a permanent building on the site in the future. Minutes Planning Commission - February 15, 2005 Page 2 Ms. Wischnack commented on the staff recommendations as follows: 1. The Airport Commission has control over the appearance of hangars to be constructed and appearance of any sign age. (Separate permits are required for signage) 2. Hangars must meet building codes. 3. Three year limit on the property for the hangars to be constructed. 4. There is no water and sewer service to the property; thus connections into the existing on-site systems is required. 5. The hangars are not for repair of planes. 6. The office trailer is to be temporary for a period of 18 months from the date of approving resolution. 7. There must be emergency service accessibility to the hangars. 8. There should be additional screening done on the property. Location and number should be discussed with the Planning Commission . Ms. Otteson asked how the City could prevent repair of airplanes in the general private hangars. John Olson, Public Works Superintendent, stated the lease agreement will address the use of the hangars. Ms. Wischnack stated the Conditional Use Permit is to allow the general private hangar location and allow the temporary office trailer on the property. Mr. Olson explained there are 3 parts to the Conditional Use Permit. He commented on the commercial hangar area for air businesses and repair. He stated the new area would not allow businesses and would have the same regulations as the City owned existing hangars that are leased. The second part to the Conditional Use Permit is to allow pole type and steel frame structures. The third part is to allow placement of a temporary office trailer for an air ambulance service on airport property. Mr. Olson stated utility and telephone service is available if the trailer is placed at the proposed location. He commented on the screen to the northeast of the property and explained the wetland was created by a broken tile. He stated when the tile is repaired and the wetland is drier he will be able to determine the size of the wetland and the area available to plant. He stated his intention is to place plantings along the northeast corner. Mr. Olson stated the screening is the airport responsibility not the hangar owners. Ms. Otteson stated the City owned property must be held to the same standard as other businesses. Mr. Olson explained there must be flexibility with the screening process until the wetland is determined. Mr. Haugen asked how long is temporary? Mr. Olson stated 18 months should be adequate for the temporary building. He introduced Mr. Andrew Kirchoff from Life Link III. Mr. Haugen left the meeting at this time. (7:30 p.m.) Minutes Planning Commission - February 15, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Kirchoff explained that Life Link III is an air ambulance company headquartered in Minneapolis. He stated they are looking for the opportunity to place a helicopter in Hutchinson to save time when transporting patients from this area to the Twin Cities. He stated they must be out here to save time to save lives. He stated 18 months would be sufficient to get everything together for a permanent building. He reported the trailer will be used as office and rest area for the 24 hour staff. Mr. Kirchoff explained Life Link III is a not -for-profit company owned by health care facilities. He commented on the company and their mission. He explained they would be good stewards of the airport. Security would be raised with the 24 hour staff in the area. He explained they would still fly to the hospital to transport patients. He reported they would be able to service hospitals 60 - 90 miles west of Hutchinson with a facility in Hutchinson. They propose a possibility of 27-29 transports per month. Mr. Olson stated the airport commission met last night and supports the request for all three Conditional Use Permits. Ms. Wischnack asked if the Commissioners would be approving the general area and not each hangar separately. Mr. Olson stated 5 hangars would fit on one lot. Discussion followed and the consensus was to approve the first row and they must come back to the Planning Commission for each subsequent row. Mr. Jim Lauer commented on his aviation experience and cautioned the Planning Commission when adding the private uses in defining commercial and private hangars. He commented on the assets of the airport and explained they should be deliberate in how they layout the airport. He commented on the air ambulance business and questioned where they would maintain the helicopters. He agrees with the expansion capability of the airport. Mr. Hantge stated the Airport Commission will process each lease agreement individually. Mr. Lauer stated they may not know the use. Mr. Hantge made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy the hearing closed at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Hantge made a motion to recommend approval of the requests to extend the private hangar area with no commercial use, include pole type hangars or steel structures and allow the temporary office trailer use for 18 months with staff recommendations changing number 8 to state screening will be determined by John Olson and the Airport Commission and adding number 9 to include the first row only. 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 22, 2005 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. Minutes Planning Commission - February 15, 2005 Page 4 b) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICE BUILDING IN THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, C5 (CONDITIONAL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE FORMER DALE'S AUTO SITE (14_4TH AVE. N.W.) ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HWY 7 AND HWY 15. Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:35 p.m. with the reading of publication #7297 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on February 3, 2005. Ms. Wischnack commented on the request to alter the flood plain and allow an office building in the C5 (Conditional Commercial) District which requires a Conditional Use Permit for all uses. She stated the Southwest MN Foundation has prepared a formal presentation for this meeting. She commented on the location as the former Dale's Auto site at the corner of Highways 7 and 15 and updated the commission on a previous request by Walgreens. She commented on the access concerns to Hwy 7 with the reconstruction. Ms. Wischnack stated there are some setback issues with the proposed plan. The Commissioner should consider the 20 foot setback of the building on the north and the setback to the south from the railroad property which is owned by the City. Ms. Wischnack explained the platting process and the fact these properties are abstract and torrens which complicates the project. She commented on the parking to the west. They provided a view shed for the river site. She reported the houses on the west side of Hwy 15 North will be removed. She commented on the access and final grades from MnDOT. Ms. Wischnack reported on the staff review and concerns with the building design and roof line. She stated the landscaping does meet the requirement for number of trees. She explained the flood plain encroachment and construction must be one foot above the 100 year flood elevation of 1045.2 feet. There must be a stormwater quality review. She commented on other issues. There are construction nuisances as old services may be found from the many homes that were on the lot at one time. The electrical lines need to stay in the area and there would be an opportunity to remove the guyed poles if the property owner purchased new poles for the non-guy wire supported structures. This is a costly factor. Contamination of soil should be studied. The storm sewer line in the northeastern portion of the property mayor may not be relocated depending on MNDOT construction. Intersection grades and 3rd Ave. grades need to be provided to expedite the final site plan grading information. Ms. Wischnack commented on the platting problems since the properties are abstract and torrens. She stated the staff would recommend tabling the request for a Conditional Use Permit for the following items: 1. Civil engineering drawings/calculations. 2. Verify proposed location of water and sewer lines. 3. Verify what will be done with the storm sewer line on the property. Minutes Planning Commission - February 15, 2005 Page 5 4. Landscaping is a high priority. A landscaping plan must be provided. 5. The platting of the property must be completed. 6. Revise the building elevation drawings. 7. A definitive plan on power poles must be received. Chairman Kirchoff asked if the additional information has been submitted since the staff report. Ms. Wischnack stated there is now a civil engineer on the project. Mr. Hantge asked about the railroad property. Ms. Wischnack stated the owner must come to an agreement with the City. She explained the City can sell the property, grant a temporary easement or grant a permanent easement. Discussion followed on the placement of the building. Ms. Wischnack stated that MNDOT did not indicated the 20 foot setback was a concern. Chairman Kirchoff commented that City staff believes the Conditional Use Permit application is incomplete. Ms. Sherry Ristau, President of Southwest MN Foundation, stated they are excited about the project. She explained the property is the Gateway to Southwest Minnesota. She stated this is a good plan and benefits downtown Hutchinson. Mr. Lee Tollefson, Rafferty, Rafferty, Tollefson Architects, presented the project beginning with the site line concept. He showed the view shed and positioning of the building and trees. He explained the 20 foot setback and the building placement quickly falling away from the right of way. He stated the building must stay to the north because of the flood plain. He commented on the terraced walls at the entrance of the building. He mentioned the closeness of the building to the south lot line which is the City owned property and he stated there is enough setback from the street right of way. Mr. Tollefson stated a surveyor is working on the platting issues. He commented on the open area on the west side of the property being lawn and trees and will work with the City Forester on the plantings. There will be parking for 32 cars which is sufficient for this business. He stated Otto Engineering from Buffalo MN is working on engineering plans. The building is a one story masonry building intentionally curve shaped. Mr. Tollefson stated the building is designed with the downtown buildings in mind. Mr. Currimbhoy asked what the plans were for the westerly portion of the property. Mr. Tollefson stated that portion of the property would be for future expansion or for sale. Minutes Planning Commission - February 15, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Fraser asked to explain where they were on resolving the staff item list. Mr. Tollefson stated items 1 - 3 were completed. The landscaping plan would be complete in about a week. He stated they will work with the City Forester to finalize the plan. Ms. Wischnack commented they may want to consider not planting so many trees along the west parking lot in the event there needs to be more parking or shared parking. Architect Steve Jensen explained depending on the MNDOT they may have to alter the grade. Mr. Tollefson stated they are waiting for MNDOT grading plans and then revisit the building elevation drawing. Ms. Wischnack stated the parking issue must be considered. The ordinance requires 5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of building. Ms. Ristau stated there are 25 employees and little need for more that 32 spaces. Parking could be expanded to the west. Mr. Tollefson stated platting is complicated and the surveyor is working on the plat. Atty. Sebora stated the hang up is the abstract and torrens properties. He explained our zoning ordinances require plats in recordable form and the McLeod County Recorder's office is hesitant to have abstract and torrens recorded. They are in the process of turning the entire parcel into torrens and are working with the County Recorder's office. He explained Carver County has been successful at turning parcels into torrens properties. Mr. Tollefson stated City staff have been helpful. Mr. Fraser asked if a plat is needed. Atty. Sebora stated there must be a plat in recordable form. The County is working with the City on this. Ms. Wischnack stated you can not build over property lines. Ms. Otteson asked the height of the building. Mr. Tollefson stated the main wall is 16' 8". Ms. Otteson stated the ground will not be flat. Mr. Tollefson explained they would add 4 feet to make the wall 20 feet in height. Ms. Otteson asked why the building could not be placed farther west on the property to protect the site of the river as you come down Highway 15 from the north. She stated she is concerned with the placement and architectural style of the building. Mr. Tollefson stated this building is more conservative than a two story building and the architecture is compatible with Main Street buildings. It is modern not outlandish. The brick is conservative. He stated the building is over 100 feet west of the right of way and does allow site to the river. Mr. Fraser commented on number 7 regarding the power poles. Mr. Tollefson stated there would be two options. One to leave the guy wires which would put them right at the entrance of the building or full Minutes Planning Commission - February 15, 2005 Page 7 replacement. Mr. Fraser asked where postponing the request would put them. Mr. Tollefson stated construction in April is desirable. They are trying to get in before the highway work in 2006. Mr. Exner stated he has talked to Bolton and Menk regarding the grade of the bridge and highway. They have indicated they are waiting to hear from the MNDOT hydrologist. The bridge will be raised 5 feet raising Hwy 15 and 3rd Ave. 5 feet which will transition to the north and place the intersection 3' to 4' higher. Mr. Fraser stated it could take months before MNDOT responds. Mr. John Muske, 71- 4th Ave NW, commented on previous information from MNDOT which indicated 3rd Ave. would not go through to Hwy 15. He stated he understood this use is better than what could be there but it doesn't make sense to allow a building in the flood plain. Ms. Wischnack stated originally 3rd Ave. was proposed to be closed to Hwy 15. Since then the connection is integral to the businesses on 3rd Ave. She explained construction now is smarter. Chairman Kirchoff stated the encroachment must be looked at and there are a number if items to be resolved. Pertinent information must be received. Mr. Tollefson stated they have responded to the setback issues. He commented on the project being constructed in a significant park like setting. He explained if the building were placed farther south it would be more in the flood plain. He commented on the continuity in urban design and this building is part of a community of buildings. Mr. Jensen commented on the heavy traffic and the building would be a buffer to the parkland. Mr. Hantge commented on the balance of setting a precedence allowing the 20 foot setback of the building. Mr. Haugen stated the C5 District has recommended setbacks not required. Mr. Wischnack explained the setback would not technically be a variance but must be noted in the Conditional Use Permit recommendations. The C5 requirements are reviewed on an individual basis. Mr. Muske asked why the building could not be placed to the west side of the property to allow greater site to the river from the intersection. Mr. Tollefson commented on the view shed. Ms. Ristau stated the insight of the Southwest MN Board was to find a visible lot for an office building in Hutchinson. The Foundation serves 18 counties and this location is the gateway to the Southwest. She stated the Board gave specific directions to leave the westerly property open for sale to other potential professional businesses. Minutes Planning Commission - February 15, 2005 Page 8 Mr. Tim Ulrich, Trustee of Southwest MN Foundation, stated the Foundation is investing in downtown Hutchinson. Mr. Fraser stated the design looks good to him. Mr. Hantge made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Ms. Otteson the hearing closed at 6:45 p.m. Ms. Wischnack reminded the Commissioners to address the reduction in parking request. Mr. Fraser stated they know what they need which should be sufficient. Ms. Wischnack stated new building plans must be submitted including the architectural drawings. She stated the staff is concerned with the design. Recommendation number 6 is the design of the building. Ms. Otteson made a motion to recommend tabling the request until all staff recommendations are clarified and include revisiting the design, revise the elevation drawings and also add an explanation of reducing the parking requirements. The motion failed for no second. Chairman Kirchoff asked about the 60 day waiver. He stated there are 2 options table the request or have the applicant sign a 60 day waiver. Discussion followed on the fact the applicant is waiting for information from MNDOT. Ms. Wischnack stated the Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat can be handled together. She explained they need the civil engineer to set the elevations. Mr. Hantge stated Ms. Otteson had the right motion to table the request until there is more information. He made the motion again. Ms. Otteson seconded the motion adding recommendation #8 to clarify parking. Ms. Otteson asked about the 60 day waiver. Atty. Sebora stated the applicant was notified of an incomplete application in writing. Under the law, the letter stops the 60 days until a complete application is filed with the City. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated the next Planning Commission meeting will be held on March 15th. The Plat and all supporting information must be to City staff by February 25th. c) CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUESTED BY MARVIN WILLHITE, 465 HIGH ST. N.E. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND DETACHED GARAGE OVER 1000 SQ. FT. Ms. Wischnack explained the applicant was not able to attend the meeting and would like his request tabled. Mr. Hantge moved to table the request. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy. The motion carried unanimously. 4. NEW BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF LOT SPLIT LOCATED AT 77 MCLEOD AVE. NE SUBMITTED BY ART HAGEN, HAGEN BUILDERS Minutes Planning Commission - February 15, 2005 Page 9 Ms. Wischnack explained the properties are owned by two parties. They are proposing to make 3 lots into 2 lots with a lot line rearrangement. She commented on the site inspection and the construction materials left on the lot. She stated this will be addressed with the building permit. She commented on the following staff recommendations: 1. Any relocation of services will be at the owner's expense. Staff would further recommend that the water service be relocated to the Ash Street portion of the property. 2. There should be an effort made to save the tree near the driveway. 3. Deeds documenting the change in property line need to be filed by the property owners. 4. The proposed addition on the southern lot requires further building permit approval. Mr. Currimbhoy made a motion to recommend approval of the lot split with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Fraser the motion carried unanimously. 5. OLD BUSINESS a) RECONSIDERA~~~(dIi.IIIlIIlNG REQUEST BY CHRIST THE KING CHURCH AND IIIJlIIII'foF C1 ZONING b) UPDATE ON JOINT MEETING AND TOUR WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Ms. Wischnack stated there will be two changes as a result of the meeting. The draft City Council minutes will be e-mailed to Planning Commissioners following their meeting and enforcement issues will be directed to the City Council. She reported the City Council members are interested in continuing joint meetings when needed. c) DISCUSSION OF CHANGE OF DAY FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS Chairman Kirchoff stated the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for March 15th. The new proposal would put the meeting on March 10th. Mayor Cook stated he wants the date to work for everyone. Mr. Hantge stated he has a conflict on the 2nd Thursday of the month. Ms. Otteson made a motion to leave the date as it is. Seconded by Mr. Fraser. The motion carried unanimously. 6. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF a) Ms. Wischnack commented on a request from Mr. Marv Haugen regarding a lot split to get feed back from the Planning Commission for Mr. Haugen. She explained the lot is presently a flag lot on septic and private well. Service would have to come Minutes Planning Commission - February 15, 2005 Page 10 from Maple Street on the west. She commented on the concerns of staff regarding a cross private sewerline and driveway easement. This would require a lot split and variance. Discussion followed on the access for emergency vehicles and fire hydrant placement like on the Schierman property. There was also discussion regarding the ability to get sewer and water service to the property at this time. Mr. Marv Haugen, property owner, stated the property slopes to the east. He stated one idea for the split was to share the cost of the services. He commented on the possibility of the area south of his property may develop. The east is outside City limits. Discussion followed on afford ability of getting the services to the property. The property was rural now in the City. The discussion was that lots in the City need city services. The consensus was to go ahead with the request. b) Mr. Hantge commented on a concern he has regarding hearing partial projects. He stated they listened for over an hour to the Southwest MN Foundation presentation and still did not know enough to make a decision. Chairman Kirchoff explained he said the application was incomplete. He stated he didn't want to crush their presentation by saying we don't need to look at your presentation until you get your application in order. Ms. Otteson stated quick presentations are fine. It gives the Planning Commission information but for them to try to act on something was out of line. Chairman Kirchoff stated keep in mind when you come down College hill and look at that building all you will see is the roof top units on top of the building. He explained addressing the screening would help. Ms. Wischnack stated she agrees with them. The idea is to have a complete application wrapped up and ready for the Planning Commission to deal with. This project got to be larger than what staff was comfortable with telling the applicant what they need to do especially with the architecture which is a very subjective matter. Staff was looking for Planning Commission advise in that respect and hoping to guide the applicant over the next month for their final drawings. Ms. Otteson stated they did not like to hear what her opinion of the building. Mr. Fraser stated he liked it. Minutes Planning Commission - February 15, 2005 Page 11 Mr. Hantge stated that is fine to ask for opinions but when they want something acted on the Planning Commission is put in a tough spot. It is like they want us to do their homework for them. He stated he didn't think it was appropriate to bump them to the head of the agenda when everyone else had their ducks in order. Chairman Kirchoff stated we did ask the other applicant if it was ok to move them up. Mr. Fraser stated the biggest gap was not that staff let them come forward but staff provided what was missing and expected that the list would be addressed. In this case, the missing things were not completed. Chairman Kirchoff stated that is why he asked if any other information had been submitted. Mr. Currimbhoy questioned the building being placed in the 100 year flood plain when a few years ago buildings were being removed from the flood plain. Mr. Fraser stated this building would be adjusted to accommodate for the 100 year flood elevation like Shopko or the bank. Mr. Hantge explained what could happen now would be politicking the City Council to get this through and the homework is not done. Ms. Otteson stated in her opinion, this is a terrible plan. Mr. Currimbhoy stated 6 months or so there was a different plan before them. Ms. Otteson stated and that was beautiful. Ms. Wischnack stated she was trying to get the Planning Commission reaction. Mr. Hantge stated they were put into a corner with the 60 day rule whether it applies or not. He explained do they table or what. He suggested if the information is not complete the Planning Commission will not review the request. You want to help them but you can not do their homework for them. Ms. Wischnack stated we will not do this in the future. She explained it was such a big project she thought it needed to get in front of the Planning Commission before they got too far down the path. Mr. Currimbhoy asked if this could have been discussed separately. Mr. Hantge stated it is different to just review something as opposed to acting on it. Ms. Otteson stated they were not ready. If someone wants to make a presentation that is acceptable to show the Planning Commission what the applicant is proposing but without enough information the Planning Commission can not act on the request. Chairman Kirchoff stated we have to recognize when the application is incomplete it is not to be acted on. Minutes Planning Commission - February 15, 2005 Page 12 Discussion followed on the sketch plan review process. Mr. Hantge stated he did not care for the plan. Mr. Currimbhoy agreed. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.