Loading...
01-16-2007 PCM MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 16, 2007 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 and Chairman Kirchoff. Absent: None Also present: Rebecca Bowers, Planning Director, Kent Exner, City Engineer, and Bonnie Baumetz, Planning Coordinator 2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) Consideration of Minutes dated December 19, 2006 Mr. Flaata moved to approve the minutes of December 19, 2006, as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The minutes were approved unanimously. 3.PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMITAND SITE PLAN a) CONSIDERATION OF TO CONSTRUCT A CHURCH IN THE R1 DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1000 NORTH HIGH DRIVE NW SUBMITTED BY JEHOVAH’S WITNESS KINGDOM HALL Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 5:41 p.m. with the reading of publication #7540 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on January 4, 2007. Ms. Bowers commented on the request for a conditional use permit and site plan. She commented on the site plan and the access from School Road. She stated the building will be 4450 sq. ft. and construction will begin in the Spring. The site is 3+ acres with a large pond on the north side. She explained the Commission should consider any potential impacts to adjacent properties, such as the surrounding residential neighborhood. Residential properties should be screened from the parking lot. She reported the City does not have a detailed grading plan or drainage calculations. She explained the private drive will accommodate the ingress and egress for possible future development. She commented on the building details both outside and inside. She commented on the following staff recommendations and approval: 1. The property will be given a School Road N.W. address by the City at the time of building permit application. Minutes Planning Commission – January 16, 2007 Page 2 2. The parking lot shall be screened as shown on the landscape plan. Minor revisions may be approved by the City Forester and Planning Director to substitute species types, provided the adequate screening is established. 3. Approval of the City Engineer of the grading plans and stormwater hydraulic calculations is required prior to any construction on the site. Plans must be signed by a Professional Engineer. 4. The private drive shall be 24’ wide and appropriate private easements arrangements should be agreed upon. 5. Separate permits are required for signage and shall comply with Section 154.137 6. Park land dedication fees in the amount of $2,580 will be due and will collect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. SAC/WAC fees will be calculated after building permit plans and application are submitted. Fees shall be collected at the time of permit issuance. 8. Signed architectural plans must be provided prior to issuance of a building permit 9. The construction of the building must comply with State Fire and Building Codes, including requirements for sprinkling, alarm systems, and fire protection. Discussion followed on the required parking for the church use. Ms. Bowers commented on the number of seats proposed and stated there are ample spaces shown on the site plan. Charles Kirk, on behalf of the congregation, stated, generally speaking, throughout the State and Region, parking is not used to the maximum. Maximum parking make take place maybe one time throughout the year. There was discussion on the drainage in the event of a 100 year rain event. Mr. Exner explained all the drainage would go into the pond area and would only raise the water level approximately ½ foot. He commented on the pond in this area. He explained in 2000 – 2001 the pond was regraded to create a larger pond. Discussion followed on future development. Mr. Exner stated future development would drain toward the Golf Course to the north of Golf Course Road and to the storm sewer. Discussion followed on the access to the lot B triangle. There must be a shared drive on the property line. th Butch Hausladen, 1125-12 Avenue N.W., asked about the percentage of lot coverage allowed for a church in a residential district. Mr. Exner stated we do not have the calculations for the coverage. He explained the pond is in the calculation of the lot size. Mr. Hausladen stated the golf course is wet even in dry conditions. Judy Plowman, 1204 Oakwood Lane, stated the neighborhood has problems and concerns with the drainage. She asked how the parking lot will be constructed to drain to the pond. She also asked if there would be Minutes Planning Commission – January 16, 2007 Page 3 infrastructure for drainage from the church and parking lot. Mr. Exner stated drainage would depend on the grading of the lot. Ms. Plowman asked if the drainage can it be made to flow to the other side of CSAH 12. Mr. Exner stated the culverts are gone. Ms. Plowman asked about the houses to the south. Mr. Exner explained the drainage flows over land by swales and ponds in the golf course. There was discussion on the golf course drainage and future development requiring more ponding. Mike Graham, 1120-13 Ave N.W. expressed his concerns with the drainage flow across School Road. He stated engineered flow is not working. He commented on the water ponding on his property. Mr. Exner explained the drainage on School Road. He stated water does pond along School Road. He explained the construction used to prevent flooding and that there is not as much water there now. He commented on the grades in the area. Mr. Exner explained the west side of School Road is protected by the dip in North High Drive. He reported sump pumps in the area run year round in part because of ground water. Mr. Graham commented on the slow drainage. He stated water doesn’t run away fast enough. Mr. Exner stated he will take a look at the rip rap swale. He explained it may need maintenance. Discussion followed on the church project contributing to the drainage issues on the west side of School Road. Mr. Graham stated there needs to be assurance of the church not causing more problems with drainage. Mr. Kirk, commented on the topographic maps. He explained the church is concerned on how the neighbors view their building. He explained the building is designed to fit in with the residential neighborhood and landscaped to protect the neighbors from negative impact from headlights, etc. Mr. Lofdahl made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Ms. Otteson, the hearing closed at 6:15 p.m. Mr. Lofdahl made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations 1-9. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Bowers stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held January 23, 2007, in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. LOT SPLIT AND VACATION OF EASEMENTS b) CONSIDERATION OF LOCATED IN FRASER’S SUBDIVISION Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 6:18 p.m. with the reading of publication #7541 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on January 4, 2007. Ms. Bowers commented on the request and explained the history of the two lot final plat. She explained the lot division applies to the one lot. Minutes Planning Commission – January 16, 2007 Page 4 She reported there really are two divisions to this lot split. One division is for the separate townhouse units and the second is a 5 foot separate piece. A drainage and utility easement must be vacated and a new easement must be granted on the westerly line. She stated the lots exceed the requirements for the lot area and setbacks. She commented on the following staff recommendations: 1. A six foot drainage and utility easement is required along the new westerly property line of lot 1, block 2. The easement shall be provided prior to any construction on the property. 2. Construction on the lots shall meet the standards of the R-2 zoning district. 3. There must be separate water and sewer services to each lot. 4. The lot splits, vacation of easement, and new easement must be recorded at McLeod County prior to construction on the lots. 5. All required fees will be at the 2007 charges and collected with the issuance of the building permit. 6. All existing conditions of the preliminary and final plat remain in effect. She explained the present requirement for a 6 foot easement. She stated there was not a tree requirement in the past and no subdivision agreement was prepared for this small plat. She reported the City Forester said he could get some trees for the boulevard. Brandon Fraser, 1418 McDonalds Drive, stated there will be a 6 foot easement. He explained that he placed boulevard trees on the other lot and will place them on these lots also. He commented on his concerns with having to split the lot. He stated, because of the change in the requirements, this plat has cost him more. Mr. Lofdahl stated he was abstaining from voting. Mr. Currimbhoy made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Haugen the hearing closed at 6:29 p.m. Ms. Otteson made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Flaata. The motion carried with Mr. Lofdahl abstaining. Ms. Bowers stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held January 23, 2007, in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT c) CONSIDERATION OF TO AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IN SOUTHFORK RIDGE THIRD VACATION OF EASEMENTS ADDITION AND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ATTACHED TOWNHOMES LOCATED IN SOUTHFORK RIDGE THIRD ADDITION Chairman Kirchoff opened the hearing at 6:30 p.m. with the reading of publication #7542 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on January 4, 2007. Minutes Planning Commission – January 16, 2007 Page 5 Ms. Bowers commented on the history of the plats on this property and the reason for the vacation. She explained the Conditional Use Permit is to change the side yard setback from 8 feet to 6 feet. She reported staff has concerns with reducing the setback area and commented on the 5’ drainage and utility easements in this PDD. She explained there are light feeds between lots 3 & 4 and 7 & 8 in Block 3. She commented on the following staff recommendations: 1. Individual lots may not exceed 50% lot coverage requirement. 2. Removal or relocation of any services will be at the owner’s expense. 3. Separate water and sewer services will be required for each lot. 4. Applicant must relocate the light feeds between Lots 3 and 4 and 7 and 8, in Block 3 at their expense. 5. Applicant shall verify that there will be no building over any stormsewer and provide as-built drawings. 6. Temporary street lights must be replaced with permanent lights before future building permits will be issued. Ms. Bowers stated staff is in favor of the vacation of easements however, has concerns with reducing the side yard setback. Discussion followed on the recent change in the ordinance which regulates overhangs in the easement areas. Ms. Bowers explained the present Planned Development Districts were exempted. Discussion followed on not allowing 6 foot setbacks in the future. There was further discussion on the flexibility of PDD developments. Mr. Exner commented on the concerns with maintaining the 6 foot easements. He explained that planned development districts should be developed to address maintenance of the utilities. Kevin Compton, applicant, stated all utilities are in the front and back of the lots and there is nothing in the side yard easements. He commented on the past twin homes he has built with a 6 foot setback. Discussion followed on this development. Mr. Compton explained the concern is that patio homes are too narrow and not selling. He stated water flow should not be an issue with correct grading. Brandon Fraser, 1418 McDonald Drive, commented on the setback issue. He stated he has not seen a large piece of equipment in the side yards yet. He stated reputable builders grade to handle drainage. There was discussion on the planned development districts allowing leeway with lot size and setbacks. The utilities are in place in this plat. Mr. Haugen made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Ms. Otteson, the hearing closed at 6:47 p.m. Mr. Flaata made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow 6 foot setbacks since utilities are presently in place and Planned Development Districts allow variation in the setbacks. Seconded by Mr. Haugen, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Lofdhal stated Planned Development Minutes Planning Commission – January 16, 2007 Page 6 Districts encourage innovations in development. Mr. Lofdahl made a motion to recommend approval of the vacation of easements with staff recommendations. Seconded by Ms. Otteson, the motion carried unanimously. Ms. Bowers stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held January 23, 2007, in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT d) CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFYING ACCESSORY BUILDING REQUIREMENTS TO PROHIBIT DETACHED GARAGES AND SECONDARY ACCESS DRIVES ON DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOTS Chairman Kirchoff reopened the hearing at 6:49 p.m. with the reading of publication #7534 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on December 7, 2006. Ms. Bowers stated this item was tabled at the last meeting. She explained staff was notified of concerns with garages being constructed on double fronted yards. She reported the City may lose control of access if garages are allowed on the double fronted lots. She explained staff was asked to address this issue. She explained the first step is to create a definition to clarify the front yard and double frontage lots. She then explained the changes to the ordinance. Discussion followed on requiring a rear yard setback of 25 feet from the street on double frontage lots instead of 6 feet. Underwood Avenue has been a concern for future development. Mr. Exner commented on the traffic along Underwood Avenue. He explained the new type of developments and the need for collector streets. He stated collector street access must be limited. Ms. Bowers commented on the aesthetics of detached garages in rear yards on a street. She reported staff is mostly concerned with access and setback. Discussion followed on the ordinance making some parcels in the City nonconforming. Ms. Bowers reported the resident at 955 Lakewood Drive S.W., contacted her and does not want garages or sheds in the rear yards of double frontage streets. Discussion followed on regulating development with an ordinance. Mr. Fraser stated it is difficult to write an ordinance to accommodate this type of request. He voiced concern with going overboard on the rules. Jim Lauer, Lynn Township, commented on concerns from Lynn Township. They were concerned with the access unto of Underwood Avenue since no one knows the future of Underwood Avenue. He commented on previous requests for access onto Underwood. He reported Lynn Township would like to see a standardized ordinance. Ms. Bowers stated in some developments there are restrictive covenants not allowing detached garages or sheds. She explained the City can not enforce covenants. There was more discussion on the definition of a Minutes Planning Commission – January 16, 2007 Page 7 double frontage lot and on identifying the types of streets. Ms. Bowers stated staff would like to see the access and setback issues addressed. Mr. Exner explained there are safety concerns on State-Aid and Collector streets. Discussion followed on creating more problems with an ordinance. Mr. Exner stated Underwood Avenue is the biggest problem right now. The Planning Commission directed staff to make changes to the proposed ordinance and they would reopen the hearing next month. Ms. Otteson moved to table to next month. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy, the motion carried unanimously. 4.NEW BUSINESS a) JANUARY 23, 2007, AT 3:30 P.M. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP ON WIND ENERGY, PRESENTED BY “WINDUSTRY” Ms. Bowers commented on the email to prepare for the new ordinance coming in the Spring. b) The Planning Commission would like a summary of the open meeting law by Atty. Sebora next month. 5.OLD BUSINESS 6.COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF Ms. Bowers told the Commission there are two openings for Planning Commission and applications are available. 7.ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m.