Loading...
09-20-2005 PCM MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 20, 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: John Lofdahl, Jim Haugen, Lynn Otteson, Mike Flaata, Farid Currimbhoy, Robert Hantge and Chairman Kirchoff. Absent: none 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 August 16, 2005 and Special Meeting, September 8, 2005 Ms. Otteson moved to approve the minutes of August 16, 2005 and September 8, 2005 as submitted. Seconded by Mr.Currimbhoy. The minutes were approved unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MOVE A 30' x 130' SHED ONTO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1130 - 5TH AVE SE Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:33 p.m. with the reading of publication #7378 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on September 8, 2005. Ms. Wischnack commented on the request and explained the history of the property. She stated the building will be placed on the lot which was recently split off the Hutchinson Coop property and has not yet been transferred to Mr. Freedland. Mr. Freedland stated he is waiting for the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. She explained the building will be placed on the southerly property line going east to west. She reported the building is owned by the Rail Authority and the land by the City of Hutchinson. Ms. Wischnack commented on the previous Conditional Use Permit issued to the property which talks about berning and plantings. She commented on the staff recommendations as follows: 1. Verify property line prior to placement of the building. footings/foundation for the new building. 2. Provide footing details to obtain a foundation permit. Minutes Planning Commission - September 20, 2005 Page 2 3. The parcel must be owned by Hutchinson Iron and Metal and the lot split recorded with the County before the building will be allowed to be placed on the property. 4. The route indicated as Route 1 on the applicant's submission is the route staff is recommending. This requires written permission from the property owner. 5. Tax combine the lots at McLeod County. 6. Screening must be provided and will be added to the assessment if the City builds the road to the west. If for some reason, the City does not complete the road improvement, a minimum of 10 trees, 2 inches in diameter for deciduous and 6 feet in height for coniferous shall be planted no later than September 30, 2007. 7. The entire building must be removed and the site cleaned after removal of the structure from the Adams Street area. 8. Any hazardous chemicals, batteries, etc. must be removed from the building and appropriately disposed of prior to the removal of the building. 9. The rails must remain up to 20 feet from the edge of the pavement. 10. The Building department must inspect the site after the removal of the building to ensure compliance. Discussion followed on the removal of the rails and the reason for leaving 20 feet from the road to protect the roadway from being broken up. Ms. Wischnack stated the landscaping requirement is 1 tree per 800 sq. ft. of landscaped area which is difficult to determine in this case. Mr. Jay Freedland, property owner, stated he will own the entire property in the lot split area. He explained the rails will be given to the Rail Authority. He stated the hazardous material is to be removed by the Rail Authority as agreed too. He questioned what is meant by the site being cleaned up. Ms. Wischnack stated not seeding or planting just picked up. Mr. Freedland stated he is ok with the explanation of the site clean up. He asked about the screening requirement. Ms. Wischnack explained it will depend on what he owns if the road goes through the Hutch Coop property. She explained if the road is not constructed in 2 years the trees must be planted on the present property. Mr. Freedland stated he has an issue with the possibility of having to double plant if the road is constructed after the 2 year period. Ms. Wischnack stated if the road does not happen the tree planting must occur on Mr. Freedland's property. Discussion followed on granting an extension for the tree planting in September of 2007. Mr. Freedland again commented on the hazardous materials in the building belonging to the Rail Authority. Ms. Wischnack explained the Minutes Planning Commission - September 20, 2005 Page 3 City cannot condition the Rail Authority. Mr. Freedland stated he would take out the non-hazardous materials. Discussion followed on who should clean up the hazardous materials. Ms. Wischnack suggested not moving this item to the City Council until the Rail Authority agrees to removal of the hazardous materials in writing. The hazardous materials must be removed and an inspection by the inspector prior to removal of the building. Discussion followed on removing any contaminated soil when the footings are removed. Atty. Sebora stated anything below the soil is the City's. The materials are that of the Rail Authority. Mr. Freedland stated he will not move the building until the materials are removed. Mr. Haugen made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hantge the hearing closed at 6:05 p.m. Ms. Otteson made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations 1 - 10 noting the changes in 3- Change to Jay Freedland; 6 - add The City may consider an extension in the future and 8 - add prior to building removal. Seconded by Mr. Haugen, the motion carried unanimously. Atty. Sebora stated he will look at the agreement between the City and Rail Authority. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held September 27, 2005 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. b) CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUESTED BY ROGER KABLE TO REDUCE SETBACK FROM THE LAKE APPROXIMATELY 9 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AND ADDTION TO THE HOUSE LOCATED AT 1212 LEWIS AVE SW Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 6:08 p.m. with the reading of publication #7379 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on September 8, 2005. Ms. Wischnack commented on the need for a variance and the hardship of the unusual shaped lot. She commented on the site plan detail and the proposal stating the new deck area does not meet the requirement. She explained the ordinance regarding the shoreland setback of 50 feet and commented on the staff recommendations as follows: 1. The site plan submitted on 8/4/05 must be followed. Major changes or expansions from what is presented in this drawing would require further review by the commission. 2. Any utility lines would be relocated at the property owner's expense. 3. The addition must be at least 8 feet from the side property line. Discussion followed regarding review by the DNR. Ms. Wischnack stated they were notified and did not respond. Mr. Hantge stated he would be stepping down as a neighboring property owner. Minutes Planning Commission - September 20, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Lofdahl asked about the traverse line on the survey. Ms. Wischnack explained a traverse line is a reference point. Mr. Flaata made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy, the hearing closed at 6:13 p.m. Mr. Haugen made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations noting the hardship of the irregular shaped lakeshore lot. 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 September 27,2005 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. c) CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO REZONE A LOT FROM 1-1 TO R2 FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN ADDITION ONTO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WHICH IS A NON-CONFORMING USE LOCATED AT 997 ROBERTS RD SW Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 6:14 p.m. with the reading of publication #7380 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on September 8, 2005. Ms. Wischnack commented on the parcel location. She reported the applicant had initially turned in a building permit to enclose the deck. She stated there was a previous rezoning on the opposite corner for an addition. She explained the "care taker" stipulation in the 60's and explained that in 1997 the section was removed from the zoning ordiannce. A non-conforming use can only be maintained. She reported staff concerns with limiting the business in the future. Staff also commented on the possibility of new owners in the future not being able to understand the noise, traffic, etc. of the business. A precedent has been set with the previous rezoning. She stated consensus of staff was to approve the rezoning with no industrial expansion. She suggested a possible lot split of the property and rezoning only the portion of the property with the house. Mr. Richard Goebel, property owner, stated there was an addition in 1986. Ms. Wischnack explained that was allowed under the "caretaker" ordinance. Mr. Goebel commented on his long term concerns with movement of vehicles on the industrial lot. He stated he just needs a turn around for the trucks. He explained it is a large lot and he would like to keep his options open. Discussion followed on the future business possibilities. Ms. Wischnack stated there is no allowance for a variance to a use. There was discussion regarding rezoning back to 1-1 in the future and the previous rezoning. Minutes Planning Commission - September 20, 2005 Page 5 Ms. Wischnack gave some options for Mr. Goebel in pursuing the rezoning. Mr. Goebel stated he would make the enclosed porch larger than the existing deck. Ms. Wischnack stated the planning commission must put closure to the rezoning. Discussion followed on the possibility of rezoning and then providing an easement for the turn around. Ms. Wischnack stated that could not be done between industrial use and residential property. There was also discussion on the idea of a lot split. Ms. Otteson voiced her concern with a lot split. Mr. Goebel commented on the limitation for truck traffic in the area with the new 2nd Ave. project. This limitation creates a problem for the business. Discussion followed on the maneuvering of trucks on the property. Chairman Kirchoff commented on the consensus of the Planning Commission to go forward with a lot split. Ms. Wischnack stated Mr. Goebel can come back with a lot split application and allow the rezoning of a portion of the property not less than 70' in width. The lots must meet the minimum zoning requirements of the district. Ms. Otteson made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy, the hearing closed at 6:40 p.m. Mr. Flaata made a motion to recommend approval of a partial rezoning. This request can not go to the City Council until the lot split application is received by the City. The lots must meet the minimum zoning requirements of the district. Seconded by Mr. Hantge, the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be not be placed on the City Council agenda until a lot split application has been received. She reminded Mr. Goebel the survey and lot split application must be in the office at least one week prior to the City Council meeting. 4. NEW BUSINESS 5. OLD BUSINESS a) DISCUSSION OF LANGUAGE TO REGULATE TUBE TRUSS TYPE GARAGES/SHEDS IN THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON Ms. Wischnack explained the revisions and the "what ifs". She stated decisions regarding foundations would be on a case by case basis. We will publish the ordinance in October. Minutes Planning Commission - September 20, 2005 Page 6 6. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF Ms. Wischnack commented on the cities researched regarding payment to the Planning Commissioners. Discussion followed on the possibility of charging a fee for special meetings and the Planning Commissioners being paid for special meetings. Ms. Otteson asked if MnDOT could be contacted to put up signs indicating the future road construction on Hwy 7. She stated some of the properties through that corridor look bad and signs would inform persons passing through the community why the properties look that way. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.