Loading...
11-15-2005 PCM MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 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: John Lofdahl, Jim Haugen, Lynn Otteson, Mike Flaata (5:36 p.m.), Farid Currimbhoy and Chairman Kirchoff. Absent: Robert Hantge 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 October 18, 2005 Ms. Otteson moved to approve the minutes of October 18, 2005 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy. The minutes were approved unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE AND LOT SPLIT LOCATED AT 955 HWY 7 w Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:35 p.m. with the reading of publication #7402 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on November 3, 2005. Ms. Wischnack explained the request and the size of the lots. She commented on the past practice of using the width of a lot at the setback. She commented on the staff recommendations as follows: 1. A 12 foot utility and drainage easement is required on the new property line (6 feet on each side; 10 feet on the front). 2. Moving of any utility services will be at the property owner's expense. 3. Separate services, sewer/water access fees would be required for the new lot. 4. The easement agreement for the access drive must be amended to reflect the new lot description (this must be completed prior to sale of the property). Minutes Planning Commission - November 15, 2005 Page 2 Discussion followed on platting and past lot splits. Ms. Wischnack stated this property has not been a part of a plat. She explained further splits would require a plat. She commented on the letter from MnDOT regarding controlled access to this property. Mr. Haugen made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Ms. Otteson the hearing closed at 5:43 p.m. Mr. Haugen made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations noting the hardship of the angled lot line on the western portion of the property. Seconded by Mr. Flaata. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held November 22, 2005 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. b) CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM R1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R2 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) LOCATED AT 1325 JEFFERSON STREET SE Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:45 p.m. with the reading of publication #7403 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on November 3, 2005. Ms. Baumetz commented on the request noting the lot split in April, 2005 with the possibility of rezoning at that time. She stated the rezoning would allow for the construction of a twin home on the lot and further lot splits would require platting. She explained there is R2 nearby but not directly abutting this property. Access to the twin home is proposed from Jefferson Street. Ms. Baumetz commented on the following staff recommendations: 1. Relocation of services would be at the present owner's expense. 2. Trees removed in the right of way must be replaced. 3. The water shut off must not be placed in the driveway. 4. Any disruption or impacts to the trail area shall be repaired to the City's standard prior to occupancy being issued. 5. No Variance will be allowed for lot coverage. 6. Platting will be required for a second lot split. 7. Two units require two water services. 8. Maximum driveway opening off Jefferson St. is 24 feet for both units. 9. Lot coverage can be no more than 35% under the current ordinance. Ms. Baumetz stated the driveway must not be wider than 24 feet at Jefferson Street. Mr. Exner explained Jefferson Street is a state-aid road and driveway accesses must be no greater than 24 feet on state-aid roads. Discussion followed on the width and the possibility for turnarounds on the property for forward access onto Jefferson Street. Minutes Planning Commission - November 15, 2005 Page 3 Addressing of the twin home must be addressed by staff. Ms. Wischnack stated the Fire chief and Police chief will discuss the addressing. Paul Betker, developer, stated it is possible to have one driveway access. Mr. Exner commented on the driveway being 24 feet past the bituminous trail. Discussion followed on the safety of not backing onto Jefferson Street. Terry Davis, 1380 Jefferson St., stated his concern with parking across the trail. He stated the home would be close to the trail and it is a possibility cars would be parked over the trail which would be inconvenient for the public who use the trail. Ms. Wischnack noted vehicles are not allowed to park on the trail or any public right-of-way. Mr. Davis stated there are no houses on that side of the street that close to the road. The question was raised if this was spot zoning. Ms. Wischnack explained this is a residential area and the request is residential. Spot zoning would be if there was a diverse zoning request such as industrial in a residential area. She stated this is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and we must be flexible in this area. Atty. Sebora stated this is not contiguous to R2. Ms. Otteson made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Haugen the hearing closed at 6:03 p.m. Mr. Lofdahl made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations adding setbacks to #5 along with lot coverage. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held November 22, 2005 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. c) CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED AT 1025 JEFFERSON STREET SE Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 6:05 p.m. with the reading of publication #7404 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on November 3, 2005. Ms. Wischnack explained the history of the property and the building permit. She stated there is a 20 foot rear yard easement for a 24 inch storm sewer 8 feet deep in the center. She commented on the need for a stop work order on the garage after staff was informed of the easement by a neighboring property owner. Mr. Exner commented on his cross section drawing indicating the storm sewer location and the excavation process if the trunk main would require repair in the future. He stated OSHA would require 1:1 slope. Minutes Planning Commission - November 15, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Wischnack explained neighboring encroachments and stated the staff would recommend not to allow further encroachments. She commented on other possibilities for garage placement on the property by reorienting the building. She stated there is a tree in the rear yard that would be damaged, according to the City Forester, if the building were to be moved to the west. Discussion followed on the encroachment of a garage on the lot to the south if the storm sewer would need to be repaired. There was also discussion regarding the 20 year franchise granted to the property owners of Lot 6. Bob Link, 1025 Jefferson St. S.E., property owner, presented information from a concrete manufacturer on the life of this type of storm sewer and information from OSHA regarding a simple slope being sufficient for repair of the line. He stated he is asking only 10% of the 1500 sq. ft. easement be vacated. He explained the excavation process would vary with clay or sandy soil. Mr. Exner stated sandy soil would be worse to excavate. Mr. Lofdahl commented on changing the size of the garage. Mr. Link stated there would be a restocking fee to return some materials. Shirley Viesselman, 1015 Jefferson St. S.E., commented on her concern with the possibility of replacing the storm sewer in the future. She stated Mr. Link did know there was an easement in the rear yard. She suggested he construct a smaller garage. Jeanette Larson, 1045 Jefferson St. S.E., asked the Commissioners to consider what an easement if for. Atty. Sebora stated an easement is an interest in land, in this case, so the City can access the storm sewer pipe for maintenance. Ms. Larson stated the easement is for a purpose and encroachment should not be allowed. Chairman Kirchoff asked Mr. Exner to explain if a 1:1 slope is required. Mr. Exner explained slope is based on the type of soil. He stated any contractor would dig for safety and could use a trench box. Mr. Link stated he did discuss with contractors the use of boxes. He stated they had no problem with the box. He explained a lot of dirt would need to be removed. Discussion followed on the closeness the trench would be to the garage slab and the costs involved. Minutes Planning Commission - November 15, 2005 Page 5 Paul Betker, contractor, stated there could be a compromise with the property owner that the City would not be responsible for damage to the garage. Dennis Larson, 1045 Jefferson St. S.E., stated the soil is sandy 2 feet deep. He explained all water from the north and northwest comes through this tile and the surface water will affect the neighboring landowners. He stated he is not in favor of the encroachment. Dave Vandenberg, 1035 Jefferson St. S.E., asked what is takes to get an easement. Atty. Sebora stated the City must purchase or condemn the land. Mr. Vandenberg explained there is commercial property to the east with a 50 foot setback. He questioned if the City could purchase property to the east in the event the line would need to be repaired. 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 to deny the request for a vacation of easements. Seconded by Mr.Lofdahl. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held November 22, 2005 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. d) CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE SECTIONS 154.057 AND 154.058 TO INCREASE LOT COVERAGE ON TWIN HOMES FROM 35% TO 40% Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 6:43 p.m. with the reading of publication #7405 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on November 3, 2005. Ms. Wischnack commented on the need to again discuss lot coverage. Mr. Exner explained the runoff and the 100 year event drainage plan. Ms. Wischnack explained the staff report and research from other cities in the U.S. dealing with lot coverage. She stated the City must stick to the ordinance and not allow variances. Mr. Lofdahl commented on a workshop he had attended which directed if too many variances are requested there is a need to look at the ordinance. Mr. Exner explained the 35 - 45% range has not set the parameter for contractors and the issue is more of a green space issue than runoff issue. Brandon Fraser, 510 Jackson St., stated he does not agree with the green space scenario. He stated lot sizes are larger and are being developed larger than the minimum size of 10,000 sq. ft. He stated there is green space with larger buildings. Minutes Planning Commission - November 15, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Exner stated it is all relative to lot size. Discussion followed on lot shapes and drainage issues. Ms. Wischnack commented on coverage when driveways were included. She explained there is an impact on stormwater control over 45% coverage in total. She stated development undermines the control. Discussion followed on applying the percentage of coverage to single family homes as well as twin homes. There was further discussion regarding the calculation in the older areas of the City and will a survey be necessary for all building proposals on a lot. Paul Betker, contractor, stated requiring surveys is a good idea. The consensus was to limit coverage to 40% for twin and single family and not include driveways, patios, decks, sidewalks, etc. Mr. Haugen made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy the hearing closed at 7:18 p.m. Mr. Lofdahl made a motion to change the ordinance to 40% for twin homes in the R2 and R3 districts and 40% for single family in the R1, R2 and R3 districts. This would include the footprints of all buildings on the lot and not to include driveways. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be advertised again for a public hearing next month with the language proposed. 4. NEW BUSINESS a) CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER LOCATED IN RIVERVIEW HILL ADDITION AT 375 - 1ST AVE NW Ms. Wischnack explained this is a minor lot split and will need to be platted into one lot by Mr. Jensen, the prospective property owner. She stated Mr. Jensen has agreed to plat. She commented on the following staff recommendations: 1. Mr. Jensen (buyer of the parcel) must plat this parcel with his property within 3 months of this approval. 2. The property owners are responsible for recording of all documents regarding the transfer. Mr. Flaata made a motion to recommend approval of the lot split with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wischnack stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda for November 22, 2005, 5:30 p.m. 5. OLD BUSINESS None 6. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF Minutes Planning Commission - November 15, 2005 Page 7 Ms. Wischnack informed the Commissioners of the need for Conditional Use Permits when houses are moved from one lot to another within City limits. She explained there will be the possibility of a number of homes along Hwy 7 to be moved during the reconstruction of Hwy 7. She asked if staff may proceed with the process of exempting the Hwy 7 area from the Conditional Use Permit process and grant administrative approval with updates to the Planning Commission of the progress. Atty. Sebora will prepare an exemption for next month. It is the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve an exemption for Conditional Use Permits when moving homes from the Hwy 7 construction area. Ms. Wischnack also reported on the moving of the railroad building by Mr. Freedland. She stated he cannot combine the lots as required. Atty. Sebora will contact Mr. Freedland. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.