Loading...
07-18-2006 PCM MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 18, 2006 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, Farid Currimbhoy, Robert Hantge and Chairman Kirchoff. Absent: Mike Flaata. Also present: Rebecca Bowers, Planning Director, Kent Exner, City Engineer, Mark Schnobrich, City Forester and Bonnie Baumetz, Planning Coordinator 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Consideration of Minutes dated June 20, 2006 Mr. Hantge moved to approve the minutes of June 20, 2006, as submitted. Seconded by Ms. Otteson. The minutes were approved unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) CONSIDERATION OF REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 255 AND 287 HWY 7 E. FROM IIC TO R2 SUBMITTED BY MARK FRATZKE, PROPERTY OWNER Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:34 p.m. with the reading of publication #7482 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on July 6,2006. Ms. Bowers commented on the request and the past history of rezoning this property. She explained the requested R2 (Medium density residential- 1 and 2 family) zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan. She commented on the zoning of the surrounding properties and the uses. She stated the property owner would like the property to remain residential for marketing. Staff is supportive of the rezoning however, concerned with the lot coverage. She reminded the Planning Commission coverage must not exceed 50%. She reported the large house must not become an apartment. Ms. Bowers explained the recommendation to request the inspector look at the house to comply with housing regulations. She commented on the following staff recommendations: Minutes Planning Commission - July 18, 2006 Page 2 1. The rezoning from IIC to R-2 would be consistent with the residential guiding in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The properties are currently used as residential property and are adjacent to residential uses. Rezoning would allow the existing use to become conforming with the R-2 district regulations. 3. The use of the property shall comply with the standards of the R-2 district. Residential uses are limited to single family dwellings and two-family units or duplexes. 4. The properties may not be covered with more than 50% lot coverage. The owner shall replace pavement in excess of the 50% with sod or other landscaping. 5. The buildings shall be inspected by the City for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and housing standards due to the change to residential use. Discussion followed on the existing setbacks for residential. Mr. Fratzke stated there is less than 50% coverage. There was discussion on the need for the concrete plant to screen if this property is rezoned to residential. Ms. Bowers stated the industrial property is grandfathered in from screening. Discussion followed regarding the use changes of the property in the future. Ms. Bowers stated this corridor would benefit from an in-depth needs study for long term use. Mr. Fratzke stated the small house is presently single family. Discussion followed on the number of unrelated persons that could legally live in a single family house. Mr. Lofdahl made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hantge the hearing closed at 5:47 p.m. Mr. Lofdahl made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Baumetz stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held July 25, 2005 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. 4. NEW BUSINESS a) CONSIDERATION OF LOT SPLITS ON OTTAWA AVENUE S.E. (240,265,275,285 OTTAWA AVE SE) SUBMITTED BY PAUL BETKER, PROPERTY OWNER Ms. Bowers commented on the request and explained the history of the plat. She reported on the number of lots requested in the preliminary plat. She explained the applicant would like to split four of the lots. She commented on the past practice of allowing lots splits after the house is constructed. Ms. Bowers reported staff did discuss the problems that Minutes Planning Commission - July 18, 2006 Page 3 could happen with this process. Staff would recommend there be a change to the process. She reported staff did recommend to approve the lot splits with the following recommendations: 1. The proposed lot splits would meet the standards of the R-2 zoning district, subject to the conditions stated. 2. Moving or removing of services will be at property owner's expense. 3. Separate services are required for each lot. 4. Lots at 50% coverage will not be allowed to add sheds, patios, decks or gazebos. The applicant shall provide written disclosure to the buyers that no additional coverage will be allowed beyond the 50%. 5. At the time of platting, money was escrowed for two trees per lot. However, as money was not provided for the additional twin home lots, the new lot division will require one additional tree per lot at $180.00 per tree, for a total of $ 720. Discussion followed on the fees for parkland. Parkland fees are paid with the building permit. Discussion followed on the process of addressing before the lot has been split. Ms. Bowers stated the subdivision regulation does not allow the present process. She explained the property should be replatted. Mr. Betker, property owner, commented on the past process. He stated he does agree with the change for the future but would like to apply for the lot split at the time he applies for the building permit on the present lots. He stated the next phase he would plat for twin homes. He explained he does not like to have the rules changed in midstream. Mr. Betker stated the tree escrow is an issue. He would suggest the City bill for the trees at the time of permit. He objects to the extra money for trees he won't be needing until after the development phases are platted. He has already put $17,000 in escrow for trees. Ms. Bowers explained the trees stay in the development. City Forester, Mark Schnobrich, explained the reasoning for the tree escrow and the placement of the trees in the subdivision. He explained in the past there was not enough money for the trees so some past developments still do not have trees. The new developments do have trees because of the escrow monies. Discussion followed on the ordinance of two trees per lot. There was more discussion regarding the issue of changing the lots by the developer. Mr. Schnobrich commented the tree escrow for this development was for the entire plat all phases. He stated developments will receive two trees per lot somewhere in the development. Staff is staying to the two trees per lot. Discussion followed on the need to keep the trees on City right of way. Mr. Schnobrich stated the City still has cost in maintenance and Minutes Planning Commission - July 18, 2006 Page 4 replacement of the trees. There was discussion of issuing the trees at permit rather than the money sitting in escrow. Ms. Bowers suggested requiring the escrow at final plat not preliminary plat. She commented on tailoring the subdivision agreements to give flexibility. Discussion followed of revisiting the ordinance. Ms. Bowers reported staff would like to have the lot split before the building permit is issued. Discussion followed on using the lot size to determine the number of trees in the development. Bruce Naustdal, property owner, commented on the document stating two trees per lot. He agrees with Mr. Betker. The developer followed the City requirements of platting in the past. He would like to see this development be grandfathered-in. Mr. Lofdahl made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations deleting #5 requiring tree money for the extra lots. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Baumetz stated these items will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held July 25, 2005 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. b) CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT LOCATED AT 1160 BLUEJAY DRIVE S.W. SUBMITTED BY BRUCE NAUSTDAL, PROPERTY OWNER Ms. Bowers commented on the request and explained the similarity to the previous request. She stated this property does not have a building permit. Mr. Naustdal commented on the need for staff to plat the twin lots for the future. He explained he objects to the implementation of a new regulation this quickly without a notice. He stated this lot was anticipated for twin homes when platted. He does not plan on separating ownership for this twin home. Mr. Betker stated the time of the year can be an issue to wait for a permit. Ms. Bowers agreed this is a timing issue. Mr. Naustdal stated he presently has a rental twin home that is not split on Northwoods Avenue with two separate addresses. Discussion followed on the technicality of the structure. Ms. Bower stated she believes in separate lots for separate owners. She explained the purpose for lot divisions or better yet platting. Discussion followed of issuing the permit at the same time of lot split. Ms. Bowers again commented on staff issues with splitting lots after the house is constructed. She commented on the following staff recommendations: 1, The proposed lot split would meet the standards of the R-2 zoning district, subject to the conditions stated. 2, Moving or removing of services will be at property owner's expense. Minutes Planning Commission - July 18, 2006 Page 5 3. Separate services are required for each lot. 4. Lots at 50% coverage will not be allowed to add sheds, patios, decks or gazebos. 5. At the time of platting, money was escrowed for two trees per lot. The new lot division will require one additional tree per lot at $200.00 per tree. This will be collected with the building permit fees. Mr. Currimbhoy made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations1-4. Seconded by Ms. Otteson. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Baumetz stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held July 25, 2005 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF a) Discussion followed to revisit the lot split and trees per lot ordinances and survey other communities. Ms. Otteson stated there must be consistency with the developers that were present at this meeting. Mr. Lofdahl stated he has concerns with 50% coverage when a development sewer is designed for 50%. Ms. Bowers stated we will aim for platting the lots up front. b) Mr. Haugen reminded staff to research definitions of Historical significance. c) Ms. Bowers commented on the changes she would like to implement with a draft resolution which will include the findings of fact and be included in the Planning Commission packet. d) Ms. Bowers stated the Regional Eye Clinic development should be on the August agenda. e) Ms. Bowers reported a letter will be sent to contractors on the weeds and debris complaints in some of the developments along with the lot split requirements. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7: 18 p.m.