Loading...
04-21-2009 PCMMINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 21, 2009 Hutchinson City Council Chambers 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lofdahl at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Chris Kovacic, Christie Rock, Lynn Otteson, Chad Czmowski, Farid Currimbhoy and Chairman Lofdahl. Absent: None Also present: Rebecca Bowers, Planning Director, Marc Sebora, City Attorney and Bonnie Baumetz, Planning Coordinator 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. CONSENT AGENDA a) Consideration of Minutes dated March 17, 2009. Mr. Currimbhoy moved to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Seconded by Ms. Rock. The consent agenda was approved unanimously 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE TO BE LOCATED WITH ZERO SETBACK TO THE FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES AT 1175 OAKWOOD COURT N.W., REQUESTED BY RICHARD LENNES, PROPERTY OWNER Chairman Lofdahl opened the hearing at 5:34 p.m. with the reading of publication #7748 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on April 9, 2009. Ms. Bowers commented on the request to amend the planned development district to construct a new home in Fairway Estates Second Addition. The PDD was approved in 1999 based on the approved development plans. The amendment is to allow zero-foot front and rear yard setbacks, where a 5-foot setback was specified on the approved development plans. Side setbacks would meet the required 5-foot setback. She explained that the applicant is requesting the amendment to allow an attached three stall garage to be constructed with the house. The lots in this development were approved as unit lots that are not much larger than the footprint of the structure and are surrounded by commonly-owned open space. There have been similar amendments approved to allow reduced setbacks in this development. She sited the conditional use permit standards as follows: (a) The proposed building or use at the particular location requested is necessary or desirable to provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of the public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare of the neighborhood or community; (b) The proposed building or use will not have a substantial or undue adverse effect upon adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, utility facilities and other matters affecting the public health, safety and general welfare; and (c) The proposed building or use will be designed, arranged and operated so as to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable district regulations. Minutes Planning Commission – April 21, 2009 Page 2 In reviewing the request, staff considered the potential impacts to adjacent properties. There is a vacant platted lot east of this property that shares a lot line with the subject property. A key area to review is the change to the grades that results from the reduced setback and larger building footprint. Potential impacts of a smaller setback could be changes in drainage and grading from the approved grading plan and a steeper driveway. As the survey provided by the applicant does not provide enough detail to review the proposed drainage and grading, a revised survey showing the proposed grades will be required before a building permit can be issued. Because of the potential impact to the grades of the adjacent property, any changes from the approved grading plan will require neighboring property owner’s approval in writing. Homes in the development drain to the common area. As-built elevations for the new home must be verified. Gutters may be necessary to promote positive drainage for the property and avoid impacts to the adjacent property. The grades of the driveway will also need to be reviewed due to the proposed basement and smaller setback which will increase the steepness of the driveway. Due to the proposed zero setback to the lot line, two other considerations are the roof overhang over the lot line into the common area and compliance with the Building Code for fire walls built up to the lot line. Staff had some concerns regarding allowing roof overhangs over property lines and would recommend that the garage or house plan be reduced in depth so there is no overhang over the lot line. Ms. Bowers explained there may be compromise to do a smaller overhang. There was a similar request which did allow the over hang into the common space. Ms. Bowers stated the over hang would not be out of character. The pitch of the roof is less of a concern. The applicant is considering installing geothermal wells for heating and cooling. Staff recommends that this system be installed within the unit property lines, and not encroach into common areas. Approval of the Homeowners Association would likely be required for installation in the common areas. Ms. Bowers stated staff would recommend approval of the request with the following conditions to address concerns raised by staff: 1. The applicant shall provide a detailed survey with the proposed grading and elevations at the time of building permit application. 2. Proposed changes to the approved grading plan will require neighboring property owner approval in writing. Drainage from the subject lot must not affect adjacent properties. 3. The building plans shall be revised so that the overhang does not encroach over the lot line. 4. Building Code compliance for fire walls will need to be addressed by the applicant for the building permit. 5. Geothermal wells must be located within the unit lot. There was one other home granted a conditional use permit at 1187 Oakwood Court N.W. Discussion followed on the need to individually look at conditional use permits to amend setbacks. Ms. Bowers explained each site is different and should be considered separately. th Mr. Richard Lennes, 65506 – 210 St. Litchfield, MN, presented information that the zero setback is needed to accommodate a 3-stall garage, add value to the home, and allow a modest deck. They are requesting a 16” roof overhang to be consistent with the design of the homes in the development, which with a zero front setback, would overhang into the common space. He stated his plans have been approved by the Homeowners’ Association and would be consistent with their design standards. He said the gable end overhang would not affect drainage or affect Minutes Planning Commission – April 21, 2009 Page 3 adjacent properties. Mr. Lennes noted he met with staff to discuss design alternatives to reduce the proposed overhang of the front roof line, however he decided to request the 16” overhang in order to match the other homes. Mr. Lennes went through the conditions recommended by staff and noted concerns with two of the conditions, #2, regarding requiring adjacent property approval of the grading and elevations, and #3, requiring revisions so there would be no overhang into the common space. He suggested changing adjacent property approval to “review and comment”. Ms. Bowers stated the proposed language would be acceptable as staff does the final review on the proposed survey and grading plan prior to issuing a building permit. The concern is primarily to make sure the vacant property to east is not negatively impacted due to changes in the grade and potential steepness of the driveway due to the zero setback. Regarding the overhang, the Commission discussed the reasons for discouraging overhangs beyond the lot line is also for utility access, in addition to drainage. Mr. Lennes noted the condition regarding keeping geothermal wells on his own lot is not an issue. There was one neighbor who spoke on the request, Jon Beach, 1177 Oakwood Crt. NW. His property is the adjacent home to the northwest. He stated concerns with the view from the rear of his home, which is mostly windows, and shading of his home. He said he bought the property knowing there was a 5-foot setback and that he would be adversely affected with close proximity of the Lennes home. Mr. Beach stated he did not have a problem with the front setback, but opposes the rear setback reduction. The Commission discussed the distance between the homes, the decks, and whether the proposed home would block sunlight. The Commission noted the proposed house would be 2.5’ from the rear property line, but the deck would be up to the lot line. It was noted the deck would be open with no roof and would be about the same level as the adjacent home. There was discussion on the request to change recommendation #2 to “review and comment”. Ms. Bowers agreed to the wording change in #2 to “review and comment”. Ms. Otteson made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy, the hearing closed at 6:15 p.m. Mr. Kovacic made a motion to recommend denial of the request because of the undue adverse affect to the neighboring property. Ms. Bowers clarified the need to change the conditions rather than deny the request. The applicant has worked with staff to modify the home. Mr. Kovacic moved to withdraw the motion. Ms. Rock made a motion to approve the request to allow construction of the home with staff recommendations changing recommendation #2 to “review and comment” by the neighboring property owner and strike # 3 regarding the over hang. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy. Discussion followed on the expectation of Mr. Beach. There was a role call vote with Currimbhoy and Rock voting aye. Kovacic, Lofdahl, Otteson and Czmowski voting nay. The motion failed (2 ayes to 4 nays). Ms. Otteson moved to approve the request with staff recommendation however, not allowing a rear setback of zero and maintaining the setback to 5 feet. Seconded by Mr. Kovacic there was another role call vote with Currimbhoy and Rock voting nay and Kovacic, Lofdahl, Otteson and Czmowski voting aye. This motion passed on a 4 ayes to 2 nays vote. Ms. Bowers stated this item will be placed on the City Council regular agenda at their meeting held April 28, 2009 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 51,000 SQ. FT. MANUFACTURING FACILITY OVER 40 FEET IN HEIGHT WITH OUTDOOR STORAGE OF FINISHED PRODUCT AT 900 HWY 7 WEST, REQUESTED BY DAGGETT VENTURES Minutes Planning Commission – April 21, 2009 Page 4 Chairman Lofdahl opened the hearing at 6:25 p.m. with the reading of publication #7748 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on April 9, 2009. Ms. Bowers explained the applicant proposes to build a 51,000 sq. ft. building with outdoor storage on a vacant lot west of Hutchinson Manufacturing. The new building would be developed and operated through a partnership between Hutchinson Manufacturing and a new company, Atomic Crane Corporation. The cranes and related equipment would be assembled in the new building and then moved into the Hutchinson Manufacturing facility for finishing and painting, and returned to the outdoor storage yard as finished product. A conditional use permit is required for outdoor storage of the finished product, which is overhead traveling cranes. A variance is requested to allow the proposed 56 foot building height to allow assembly of large overhead cranes. The maximum height allowed in the I-1 district is 40 feet. The property was rezoned recently to I-1. Ms. Bowers noted that there have been several plan revisions to address issues raised during staff review, including providing additional capacity for stormwater by expanding the stormwater pond to the east. The remaining items requiring revision and staff review are addressed in the conditions as follows: 1. The proposal would meet the standards in the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of the building height, for which a variance is granted. 2. A variance to exceed the 40’ maximum building height allowed in the I-1 district is approved to allow a 53’ building height. The standards for granting a variance have been met, including the finding of undue hardship and uniqueness due to the definition of the height of the building, which uses the highest point of the roof for flat roofs, and specific building needs of the crane assembly and trial fit requirements. The building is unique in that a portion of the building would be only 34’ high, however the crane assembly area would be 53’ high. The request would not alter the character of the locality. 3. The standards for granting a conditional use permit will be met, subject to meeting the screening requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Final utility, grading, and stormwater management plans must be approval by the City Engineer prior to grading or any construction on site. 5. The applicant should confirm that the 34’ drive aisle will be adequate for truck maneuvers into the building. 6. A 20 foot access drive must be maintained around the building for emergency vehicles. The south drive shall be revised to provide a turnaround or drive connection for emergency services. 7. The outdoor storage area shall be screened in compliance with Section 154.115 of the Zoning Ordinance. The final landscaping plan shall identify species and sizes of plantings and shall be approved by the City Forester and Planning Director. No berming is permitted in the drainage and utility easement areas. 8. The fence may not block emergency access to the building. Approval of a fence permit is required prior to installation. 9. Signage shall comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of a sign permit for all signage is required. The Commissioners discussed screening of the outdoor storage area and the future landscaping on the southern property line. Staff noted past discussion that landscaping plans along the south property line should be incorporated into the overall Les Kouba landscaping plans. Mr. Daggett updated the Commissioners on the proposed fence. He stated the intention is to install a perimeter fence along with the landscaping to provide security, which would not Minutes Planning Commission – April 21, 2009 Page 5 impede the drive aisle and turnaround. Regarding the variance for height, staff clarified that the proposed height would be 56 feet for highest roof. Mr. Kovacic made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Ms. Rock, the hearing closed at 6:41 p.m. Mr. Currimbhoy made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations noting the hardship of the unique circumstance due to the definition of the height of the building, which uses the highest point of the roof for flat roofs and specific building needs of the crane assembly and trial fit requirements. Seconded by Ms. Rock, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Lofdahl stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held April 28, 2009, in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. c) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TENT SALES OF FIREWORKS LOCATED AT WALMART, 1300 HWY 15 SOUTH, REQUESTED BY TNT FIREWORKS Chairman Lofdahl opened the hearing at 6:43 p.m. with the reading of publication #7748 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on April 9, 2009. Ms. Bowers commented on the request for a conditional use permit to allow fireworks to be sold in a tent located in the Walmart parking lot. Approvals have been granted annually since 2005 for the same request. The request is to set up the tent June 18, 2009 with take down July 5 - 9, 2009. Section130.08 C (6) of the Hutchinson Municipal Code requires a conditional use permit for outside sale of fireworks. The prior permits were granted for 15 days expiring at midnight on th July 4. She explained that conditional use permits run with the property and there is no need to come before the Planning Commission each year for a conditional use permit unless the use or location changes or is intensified. They will still need a fireworks permit from the fire department and transient merchant license from the City Council each year. The resolution has been prepared to remove the specific time period of operation, which will be specified in the annual fireworks and transient merchant permits. Staff would recommend approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. A conditional use permit is approved to allow sales of fireworks in a tent at 1300 Hwy 15 S., according to the application details and site plan received by the City on March 18, 2009. Fireworks sales may be allowed for the dates and conditions specified on the fireworks sales permit and transient merchant license issued annually. 2. Annual application and approval of a fireworks permit and transient merchant license are required for future renewals. Any changes to the operations or conditions would require approval of a new or amended conditional use permit. 3. All display and sales areas must be kept secured. 4. Signage requires a separate sign permit prior to installation of signage. 5. All access to the site must be from the internal parking lot. Mr. Kovacic made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Ms. Otteson, the hearing closed at 6:48 p.m. Ms. Rock made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Czmowski, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Lofdahl stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held April 28, 2009 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. 5.NEW BUSINESS 6.OLD BUSINESS Minutes Planning Commission – April 21, 2009 Page 6 7.COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF a) Ms. Bowers informed the commissioners there may be a new commissioner appointed by the May meeting. 8.ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.