Loading...
10-17-2006 PCM MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 17,2006 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, Mike Flaata, Robert Hantge and Chairman Kirchoff. Absent: Farid Currimbhoy Also present: Rebecca Bowers, Planning Director, Kent Exner, City Engineer, Marc Sebora, City Attorney and Bonnie Baumetz, Planning Coordinator 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Consideration of Minutes dated September 19, 2006 Ms. Otteson moved to approve the minutes of September 19, 2006 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Flaata. The minutes were approved unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) CONSIDERATION OF VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 14, RICE ADDITION, 630 DALE ST S.W. Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:35 p.m. with the reading of publication #7512 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on October 5, 2006. Ms. Bowers commented on the request to vacate 4 feet of the south 10 foot easement for the construction of a two story addition to the attached garage. She explained the property owner asked to allow a 1.8 foot cantilever over the easement area. She reported that staff is not in favor of decreasing the easement and then allowing encroachment over the easement. They would want to protect the easement area. Ms. Bowers stated the Ordinance is not clear regarding allowing cantilevers or overhangs. She commented on the following staff recommendations with staff approval: 1. Overhangs may not encroach into the existing 6 foot easement. Discussion followed on revIsing the ordinance for clarification. Ms. Bowers stated there are other areas to revise in the ordinance as well. Minutes Planning Commission - October 17, 2006 Page 2 Mr. Patrick, property owner, stated he could answer questions. There were no further questions from the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Lofdal will abstain from voting. Ms. Otteson made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hantge the hearing closed at 5:41 p.m. Mr. Flaata 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 to be held October 24, 2006 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. b) CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO SECTION 154.062 OF THE CITY CODE ADDING LANGUAGE TO ALLOW TOWING COMPANY OFFICE WITH IMPOUND LOT Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:43 p.m. with the reading of publication #7513 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on October 5, 2006. Ms. Bowers commented on the request and the proposed language to be added. She explained the purpose of the C2 district is for automotive uses. She commented on the staff discussion to add screened fencing. She clarified the items in the C2 district are in the C4 district as Conditional uses. She explained the site the applicant will be moving the towing company to is C4. She showed a map with C2 and C4 districts. Ms. Bowers explained staff discussion was to add the towing company to the C4 district as a conditional use permit. She explained that C2 was more appropriate to the automotive district. The applicant must come in for a conditional use permit in the C4 district. Discussion followed on the verbage of wood fencing changing the language to 100% opacity. The language should read completely fenced to 100% opacity or screened enclosure to 100% opacity. There was discussion on the proposed site and the opportunity for cleaning it up. Discussion followed with consensus that towing companies fit the C2 automotive district. Ms. Bowers stated there are few areas of C2 where a towing business would be permitted. Ms. Bowers commented on the changing business of towing. She explained the C2 stretch along Hwy 7 West will possibly be changing in zoning in the future. Mr. Hantge made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Lofdahl the hearing closed at 5:59 p.m. Mr. Haugen made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Lofdahl to include the language change in the 100% opacity fencing requirement. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Minutes Planning Commission - October 17, 2006 Page 3 Baumetz stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held October 24, 2006 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. c) CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY NEW DISCOVERIES MONTESSORI ACADEMY TO TEMPORARILY OPERATE A SCHOOL IN THE C4 (FRINGE COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1354 HWY 15 SOUTH (OFFICE MAX BUILDING) Ms. Bowers stated this item was withdrawn by the applicant. d) CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY JANET VALEN, REMAX, TO REMODEL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING FOR REAL ESTATE OFFICE LOCATED IN THE IIC (INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT AT 255 HWY 7 EAST Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 6:00 p.m. with the reading of publication #7516 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on October 5, 2006. Ms. Otteson and Mr. Haugen abstained from the discussion and vote. Ms. Bowers explained the request and the history of the property. The property is zoned IIC and any use requires a conditional use permit. She explained the proposal to construct an addition to the present residential building for a real estate office of 7300 sq. ft. The southerly secondary entrance will be moved to the east. The revised site plan does show the removal of the garage and the drainage from the parking lot. Ms. Bowers stated the removal of the garage would create room for more parking. The main entrance will be to the east side of the building. She commented on the site plan and parking requirements. She reported the parking requirements provided would be adequate for the use. There is a danger of over parking a site. She stated the City would require additional details on grading and drainage. She explained the recommended setbacks in the IC district. Staff reviewed the plan with the owners and a one stop shop was held on Oct. 10th. She commented on the following staff recommendations: 1. The proposed use would meet the standards for granting a CUP. 2. The proposed addition and site improvements would comply with the standards of the IIC district. 3. The applicant shall provide detailed plans on the proposed grading and drainage for the site to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to construction on the site. 4. The applicant will work with utilities regarding proper disconnection andlor relocation of services. Minutes Planning Commission - October 17, 2006 Page 4 Ms. Bowers reported staff would recommend approval. Discussion followed regarding fire and emergency service access. It was noted the Fire Inspector commented in the one stop shop minutes there was not an issue for fire service. The fire hydrant is to the west of the Marshall Concrete entrance. Mr. Lofdahl made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Flaata the hearing closed at 6:09 p.m. Mr. Flaata made a motion to recommend approval of the resolution as recommended by staff adding language to number 4 that the property owner would pay for any relocation of utility services. Seconded by Mr. Lofdahl. The motion carried with Ms. Otteson and Mr. Haugen abstaining. Ms. Baumetz stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held October 24, 2006 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. 4. NEW BUSINESS a) DISCUSSION OF SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTED BY STEVE KNISLEY, FOR REPLA T IN GOEBEL'S ADDITION Ms. Bowers explained the need for feedback from the Planning Commission on this item. She commented on the request and the unique idea. She reported the request does not fit into the zoning ordinance allowance for the 1-1 district. She stated it would be a stretch to do a Planned Development District. She commented on the following concerns by staff: lot coverage, the development meeting the ordinance requirements, using a PDD, fire service access, highly traveled 5th Ave. and look of the industrial park in the future. Mr. Knisely, commented on the concept and the information regarding the Litchfield development. He stated this idea has gone over well in Litchfield. He commented on the lots in Litchfield. He explained there is crushed rock landscaping with a 5 foot side set back and the front setback is 10 feet. All of the buildings are at the same front setback. He explained the run off will be to the street or to the west. He stated the radius on the turn is designed for the fire equipment. He commented on the cost effectiveness of developing this property and explained the demographics of the property. Discussion followed on locating in the industrial park. Mr. Knisley stated the road will be maintained by an association. He explained 20% of the property will be green space in the Hutchinson development. There will be covenants and restrictions similar to the development in Litchfield. He noted the development will need city sewer, water, electric, gas, telephone and internet. Mr. Exner commented on the run off and the determination of lot coverage ratio for the size of the present pond. A stormwater analysis may be required to determine ponding size. He stated they may need to provide ponding on site. He explained the rear of the site is the obvious area. Ponding would be in combination with storm sewer. Mr. Knisley stated possible coverage will be approximately 50%. Minutes Planning Commission - October 17, 2006 Page 5 Discussion followed on maintenance of the property mowing and snow removal. Mr. Knisley stated each lot will be owned by individuals to maintain. He stated there will be covenants to address things like maintenance. Ms. Bowers commented on her concerns in using a POD to circumvent the ordinance. She explained there are questions to be worked out if this moves forward. There was discussion on the ability to assess individual owners. Ms. Bowers explained POD's have been used in residential developments. Discussion followed on concerns with associations. Mr. Knisely stated the development in Litchfield is a PUD. Each unit has sewer and water and drains in each building. Mr. Exner commented on his concerns with what people be using these lots for. Ms. Bowers stated there will need to be conditions in the POD. She explained pole type buildings presently require conditional use permits. Mr. Knisley stated the covenants would state what uses would be allowed in the development. There was discussion on the need for this type of concept. Mr. Knisley stated no outside storage is allowed and the lots are to be kept clean. Ms. Bowers stated density and ponding is a concern. Mr. Knisley explained the people that want these do not want large lots. He noted this development would be 26 taxable properties for the City. Discussion followed on the intent of the Industrial districts to create jobs. This type of development does not fit into the zoning ordinance requirements. Ms. Bowers commented on her concern regarding the long term issues with this type of development. Discussion followed on how to make this work in changing times. Atty. Sebora explained the process and that the developer would move forward with the application. He stated the staff and Planning Commission would make recommendations to the City Council. He suggested the developer move forward with his idea and see what will be allowed. He stated he has reservations in allowing the use for storage of vehicles. Ms. Bowers stated clear direction should be given to Mr. Knisley. Discussion followed on the possibility of having a multi tenant building or a POD. Orville Mackenthun, realtor, explained the history of the Goebel lots. He stated this development would put the property to good use. Ms. Bowers stated the development would take a Plat, POD plan and drainage and utility plans. The Planning Commission would like to see the project work and directed the sketch go to the City Council for their feedback knowing it will take engineered drainage for stormwater management. b) DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL FOR SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTED BY EXCELSIOR HOMES Minutes Planning Commission - October 17, 2006 Page 6 Ms. Bowers commented on the sketch plan and feedback on the lot depth difference. She explained the history of the property and the request for 5 new lots. She stated the lot depth requirement is 120' and two lot depths would be 90 feet requiring variances. She explained the house would be modular homes with attached garages and full basements. The cul-de-sac would be public and meets the city standards. Jeff Munsell, owner, commented on the costs. He stated this development will be affordable housing. Discussion followed on the need for affordable housing and this was a good fit. Ms. Bowers stated the next step is to apply for a preliminary plat and variance. Mr. Exner stated the platting alternatives are limited. He reported these lots have more frontage than in Fairway Estates and the sketch looks good. It is the consensus of the Planning Commission to go ahead with the preliminary plat and variance applications. 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF Ms. Bowers suggested some new business items such as lot splits be placed on the consent agenda to save time. She stated the Planning Commission could pull items off the consent agenda to be placed at the end for discussion if needed. The consensus of the Planning Commission is to use the consent agenda for the items that would not need extra discussion. Mr. Hantge suggested staff develop a cause and effect list to help the Commissioners understand legal issues to be resolved on requests. Ms. Otteson commented on the APA conference and the seminars on environmental impacts. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.