Loading...
07-17-2007 PCMMINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 17, 2007 Hutchinson City Council Chambers 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lynn Otteson at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Chris Kovacic, Christie Rock, John Lofdahl, Jim Haugen, Mike Flaata, Farid Currimbhoy and Chairman Otteson. Absent: None Also present: Rebecca Bowers, Planning Director, Kent Exner, City Engineer, Marc Sebora, City Attorney and Bonnie Baumetz, Planning Coordinator 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. CONSENT AGENDA a) Consideration of Minutes dated July 2, 2007 Mr. Lofdahl moved to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy, the consent agenda was approved unanimously. 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS a) PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT (ONE LOT) JENSEN SECOND ADDITION AND VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT Chairman Otteson opened the hearing at 5:35 p.m. with the reading of publication #7599 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on July 5, 2007. Ms. Bowers commented on the request and explained the history of the properties, lot arrangements and location of the plat. She commented on the shoreland property regulations. She explained a new home has been approved to begin construction on the existing lot which was platted in 2006, subject to not exceed the 25% coverage maximum allowed in the shoreland district. She commented on the 25% lot coverage requirement for both the new and old lots. Staff requested a survey for the existing Jensen home lot, however it has not yet been provided. There are options if the old lot does not meet the requirement, such as reducing the amount of coverage or removing area from the plat to add to the existing home site. The new lot would meet requirements for lot area and width. She commented on the staff conditions as follows: 1. The plat must comply with the requirements of the R-2 zoning district, subdivision requirements, and the shoreland district requirements. Minutes Planning Commission – July 17, 2007 Page 2 2. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall provide a survey to demonstrate that the 25% maximum is not exceeded on the existing Jensen home site. If the property exceeds the 25% impervious coverage, the applicant will need to either remove hardcover or revise the plat to allocate additional property to the westerly site, subject to meeting the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 3. Relocation of utility services is required prior to vacation of easements. The relocation and any fees will be at property owner’s expense. 4. An easement of 20 feet on each side of the sanitary line to the north shall be provided to the City prior to the City signing the final plat for recording. She explained that the vacation of easements is no longer be necessary for construction of the new home and the applicant may withdraw that portion of the application. Services would need to be relocated before the easements could be vacated. Discussion followed on the driveway easements with the property to the west for the drives that cross the subject property. Mr. Jensen explained the lot configuration and what was purchased by the Jensen’s. He commented on the history of the property to the north and the process to the platting. He commented on the options he would have. He stated he does not need to vacate the easement and will withdraw the request for vacation of easements. He stated he will provide an easement to the city for the sanitary line to the north. He explained he will amend the plat to include a 10 foot strip north to the lake which will remain with the original lot. Ms. Bowers explained the complexity of the property history and the changes and commented on the changes which would require the original lot to maintain the 25% coverage requirement. She commented on past correspondence in the file. She stated the new plat should comply with all regulations. Discussion followed on the original plat being a nonconforming lot. Mr. Jensen stated that the plat would conform to the requirements. There was discussion on the coverage of the lots. Jeff Rauch, surveyor, explained the location of the 10 foot strip. Discussion continued on the existing lot coverage and changing the plat. Atty. Sebora stated the percentages must not be exceeded, on both lots, in the end. There was futher discussion on the need for the existing lot to meet the lot coverage standards. Mr. Jensen stated if the 10 foot strip is placed back on the existing lot the lot coverage does not have to be met. Discussion followed. Chairman Otteson stated this is an opportunity to make both lots conforming. Mr. Jensen stated there are many nonconforming lots on the river in the city. Minutes Planning Commission – July 17, 2007 Page 3 Mr. Flaata made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Lofdahl the hearing closed at 6:08 p.m. Mr. Flaata made a motion to recommend approval of the request removing recommendation #3 and adding, “the existing structure pass as a nonconforming lot and the plat should be revised to include the 10 foot strip to the north with the existing lot”. Seconded by Mr. Haugen, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Otteson stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held July 24, 2007, in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. b) AMEND SECTION 154.067 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADDING SCHOOLS TO THE CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES IN THE I-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT Chairman Otteson opened the hearing at 6:09 p.m. with the reading of publication #7599 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on July 5, 2007. Ms. Rock abstained from discussion and voting. Ms. Bowers commented on the request and explained the change in the text proposed by the charter school. She explained the request should include all schools. She reminded the Commissioners to look at the I-1 district as a whole. She noted, if approved, the individual site will be discussed at the conditional use permit public hearing. Chairman Otteson reminded the audience the Commissioners will not be discussing a particular site at this time. Ms. Bowers commented on the existing ordinance and permitted uses and conditionally permitted uses. She explained the difference between a permitted use and conditional use. Planning Commission should consider the consistency with the comprehensive plan. She stated that the applicant considers the charter school learning style to benefit from uses within industrial districts. She pointed out the potential impacts in the packet as follows: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Intent of I-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district Characteristics of industrial uses, such as noise, truck traffic, appearance, safety issues, etc. Conflicts between industrial truck traffic with buses and vehicles dropping off/picking up students Noise, smell, and potential environmental impacts of industrial uses on outdoor play areas Expansion of existing industrial uses in the future Future development of vacant industrial property and inability to restrict permitted uses Potential for conflict and complaints from school and parents regarding industrial uses and traffic surrounding the school. Ms. Bowers explained the Commissioners should consider future impacts and complaints. She commented on the other cities surveyed and the Minutes Planning Commission – July 17, 2007 Page 4 many different responses. Discussion followed on the changes in schools. She explained the existing ordinance allows K-12 schools in most residential and commercial districts with a conditional use permit. Trade and Vocational schools are allowed in the industrial district with as permitted use. There was discussion on the trend to allow non-traditional schools in light industrial or business park districts in other cities. Ms. Bowers explained the Commissioners should consider future use and expansions of surrounding properties. Discussion followed on the conditionally allowed uses of adult oriented uses and tattoo parlors in the industrial districts. th Tim Ulrich, 14568 155 St., representing a group of investors, commented on the appropriate area for this type of facility to be constructed. There is a proposed 15 yr. lease of the building to the school. Dave Conrad, 1110 Lewis Ave, representing the New Century School and Montessori New Discoveries School, stated this is an opportunity for a home for the school. He explained New Century has been in an industrial area leased from HTI for 5 years. He stated the charter schools are financially sound and enrollment is strong in Hutchinson. He commented there are indicators of future viability. Discussion followed on the neighboring uses. Mr. Conrad stated the same questions have been asked by the school. He explained the concerns with safety near the elevator would not be not much different than HTI. He stated the school takes safety seriously. There are plans in place to deal with potential hazards. He commented on the potential benefits of expanding for high school students. He stated elementary students will be separated from the high school students. The school focuses on the specific needs of the age groups. Mr. Conrad stated buffering will aid in addressing safety. The type of existing industry in the area does not concern the school. He explained the lease will have options to be re-evaluated. They are looking at the present and future of the school. The current leases are for one year. There was discussion on property availability in the community for the school. Luann Hoffman, parent, New Discoveries, stated this is an opportunity to combine the elementary and high school which is an th attraction for her. Jack Yates, 20404 205 Crt., representing HTI, commented on the lease with the school. He stated it has worked well with the school in HTI. There have been no issues from the industrial standpoint. He explained there are plans that the school must follow in an emergency. Plan, prepare, train and be ready in case of emergency. Another benefit is for the parents that work at the industry with children in the school. Mr. Currimbhoy made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Lofdahl. Discussion followed on the request. Ms. Bowers commented on that schools are currently allowed as conditional uses in most residential Minutes Planning Commission – July 17, 2007 Page 5 and commercial districts. She stated that the Commission should state their findings in their recommendation to Council and a resolution would be drafted accordingly. The hearing closed at 6:45 p.m. Discussion followed on allowing churches and day care facilities in the I-1. Ms. Bowers cautioned on expansion of the request at this time and reiterated that uses should be consistent with the purpose and goals of the industrial district. Mr. Flaata made a motion to recommend approval of the request to add “schools” as a conditional use to the I-1 district with the conditions as follows: 1. The amendment would be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan as allowing schools as a conditional use in the I-1 district would aid in training students and would be complementary to industrial uses. 2. The change in the ordinance to add schools in I-1 is necessary to modernize the ordinance to reflect the changing times and nature of education. Seconded by Mr. Haugen. The motion carried with a roll call vote Mr. Currimbhoy, Chairman Otteson, Mr. Haugen and Mr. Flaata voting aye. Mr. Kovacic and Mr. Lofdahl voting nay. Ms. Rock abstained. Ms. Bowers stated this item will be placed on the City Council regular agenda at their meeting held July 24, 2007, in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. Mr. Ulrich stated he did include the District 423 in the discussions. c) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONTRACTING BUSINESS RD . IN THE C5 DISTRICT LOCATED AT 261 – 3 AVE. N.W Chairman Otteson opened the hearing at 6:53 p.m. with the reading of publication #7599 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on July 5, 2007. Ms. Bowers explained the need for a conditional use permit in the C5 district. She stated any use change requires a conditional use permit. She commented on the location and stated there will be no exterior building changes. They will remodel the interior for a construction business. The site has been cleaned up and is now vacant. She explained the site is within the Hwy 7 corridor study and in the moratorium area. The proposed use meets requirements. Staff would recommend approval with the following recommendations: 1. The proposed use would be in an existing building and would comply with the standards of the C-5 district. 2. Outside storage of materials is not permitted. All materials must be contained within the building. Parking of company vehicles on the site is allowed. 3. The parking area shall be paved within 6 months of approval. Construction of the parking area shall comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, including parking stall and drive aisle dimensions. 4. Sign permits are required prior to installation of any signage. Minutes Planning Commission – July 17, 2007 Page 6 5. No encroachment into the State right-of-way is allowed. Discussion followed allowing licensed company vehicles parked outside including trailers and trucks. Ms. Bowers stated outdoor storage is materials, etc. Mr. Haugen made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Lofdahl, the hearing closed at 6:59 p.m. Mr. Lofdahl made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Otteson stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held July 24, 2007, in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. 5.NEW BUSINESS a) SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR O’REILLY AUTO PARTS STORE TO BE LOCATED AT 1500 HWY 15 SOUTH Ms. Bowers explained the location and the lot of record. She commented on the C4 zoning. She stated they provided a clean site plan that meets the required setback and parking requirements. Revisions recommended by staff include removing the easterly access near Highway 15, which is specified in the City Engineer’s memorandum. Discussion followed on the proposed and future access in and out of the site. Staff recommended approval with following conditions and fees: 1. The proposed building and site improvements would comply with the standards of the C-4 district and the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the conditions stated. 2. Final plans shall be revised according to the City Engineer memo dated July 10, 2007. Plans must be approved by the City Engineer prior to construction. Approval of the City Engineer is required prior to any excavation, grading, or construction on site. 3. Sign permits are required prior to installation of the signage. 4. Park dedication and trail fee in the amount of $6,000 will be due at the time of building permit. The City will construct the trail along the easterly property line 5. SAC/WAC fee in the amount of $7,375 (2.5 units x $2,950) will be due at the time of building permit. 6. The City Forester recommends revising the landscape plan to diversify the tree plantings. Landscape plan must be reviewed and approved by the City Forester. 7. Exterior lighting must be shielded and shall not cause glare for adjacent properties. Discussion followed on the continuation of the trail along the east side of the property as the sites develop in the area. The Commission discussed the loading areas. Staff stated that the loading areas are adequate. Minutes Planning Commission – July 17, 2007 Page 7 Mark Wold, representative for O’Reilly, stated they would agree with removing the easterly access but the westerly access cannot be cut off with a median in the future. He stated this store will work for the area. He commented on the present location being tight for parking. Ms. Rock made a motion to recommend approval of the resolution with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Lofdahl, Mr. Exner commented on the removal of the east access. He stated the City will not place a median at the westerly access to prohibit traffic. There is an easement for accessing the southerly properties in the future. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Bowers stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held July 24, 2007, in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. b) LOT SPLIT SUBMITTED BY KEN COTE TO SPLIT A SHORELAND PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS Ms. Bowers commented on the proposed lot split, which is located within the 100 year floodplain and is subject to the shoreland district requirements and flood plain requirements. She reported the DNR Hydrologist recommendation was to deny the proposed construction in the 100 year flood plain. She commented on the city flood plain buy out project that was funding largely by DNR funds and was used to remove structures from the flood plain. She commented the applicant has discussed alternative building methods to be used to elevate the home above the regulatory flood plain elevation. Staff stated the DNR recommends denial due to the fact that the property is not suitable in it’s natural state for building without extraordinary measures. Staff compiled conditions prepared in the event the commissioners would approve the request. Ms. Bowers explained the road was not platted as right of way. The City has been maintaining the road. The road should be deeded to the City or platted. Discussion followed on the construction proposed for building methods out of the flood plain. Mr. Cote, property owner, explained his intent to retire on this property. He addressed the DNR concerns. He stated he will get engineered designs to minimize the impact of the structure. The existing lot will meet the requirements of the City. Mr. Cote explained the proposed design of the structure will meet all City requirements. He addressed the elevation and with suitable construction, the building would be elevated 3’ above the 100 year flood plain. He stated he will hire an engineer when he receives approval of the lot split. Concerns were raised by some Commissioners allowing a lot split with an existing garage and no principle building. Another concern was with the site line changing with raising the new home. Mr. Cote intends to build a retirement type home on the new lot. He stated the existing home would have to be considerably remodeled to make it livable. There was discussion of the concerns with splitting the lot. Minutes Planning Commission – July 17, 2007 Page 8 Mr. Cote asked if the council would consider remodeling the existing home and remodeling the existing garage to a home. Ms. Bowers would not recommend this due to the proximity to the shoreline and high water level. Discussion followed regarding the recommendation by the DNR. There was further discussion on the existing garage if the lot is split. Mr. Cote addressed the concern by stating he would put money in a fund for removal if allowed. Atty. Sebora commented that the ordinance does not allow an accessory structure without a primary structure. Ms. Bowers stated a recommendation could be to remove the garage before construction of the home. Mr. Cote stated he will employ an architect and engineer to meet requirements. He stated the existing neighbors have been informed. He will provide everything necessary to conform. He would like to begin construction in Spring 2008 and move into the house in the Fall of 2008. Ms. Bowers explained the DNR does understand a structure can be constructed if elevated above the 100 year flood plain, however it is also a policy issue to be decided by the City. Discussion followed on the age and condition of the shed. Mr. Cote stated the shed is approximately 25 years old. There was further discussion regarding the possible conditions if allowing the lot split with an accessory building on the new lot. Mr. Cote explained he would get soil borings and engineered drawings. He was asked by the Commissioners to provide renderings or photos of the type and square footage of the building proposed for staff review. Mr. Lofdahl made a motion to table to next month. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy, the motion carried unanimously. 6.OLD BUSINESS 7.COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF 8.ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.