Loading...
07-21-2009 PCMMINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 21, 2009 Hutchinson City Council Chambers 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John Lofdahl at 5:28 p.m. with the following members present: Chris Kovacic, Jim Fahey, Chad Czmowski, Farid Currimbhoy, Dave Johnston and Chairman Lofdahl. Absent: Christie Rock Also present: Rebecca Bowers, Planning Director, Kent Exner, City Engineer, Marc Sebora, City Attorney and Deb Crooks, Permit Technician 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.OATH OF OFFICE OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONER DAVE JOHNSTON a) City Attorney Marc Sebora gave the oath of office to Dave Johnston. 4. CONSENT AGENDA a) Consideration of Minutes dated June 16, 2009. Mr. Chad Czmowksi moved to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Jim Fahey. The consent agenda was approved unanimously 5.PUBLIC HEARINGS a) VARIANCE TO ALLOW A CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 12 FEET WHERE 25 FEET IS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN OUTDOOR ICE RINK AT 950 HARRINGTON STREET S.W. Chairman Lofdahl opened the hearing at 5:31 p.m. with the reading of publication #7764 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, July 9, 2009. Ms. Bowers explained the Hutchinson Hockey Association is requesting a variance to construct a 60’ x 150’ outdoor ice rink on the west side of the Civic Ice Arena. A variance is required as the rink would be set back 12 feet from the property line, where 25 feet is required by the Zoning Ordinance. She stated the proposed rink would be 3’ from the sidewalk and 5’ from the building. The sides of the rink would be green treated wood with chain link fence proposed on each end of the rink. The structure would remain in place year round, with a gravel or grass infield.In the future, lights would be added and it may be hard surfaced for year round use. Ms. Bowers reminded the Planning Commissioners that in order to grant a variance, the request must meet the standards for granting a variance, including a finding of undue hardship. Undue hardship is a legal standard set forth in MN Statute that means that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. She stated the desire for outdoor ice in the community is a separate issue from the specific variance request Minutes Planning Commission – July 21, 2009 Page 2 for this site. She explained the applicant states the unique circumstances of the lot to be “The area to the west of the arena complex lends itself to an outdoor ice sheet, but is too narrow to meet setbacks.” They state the undue hardship is that a standard hockey rink is 85’ x 200’ and they would like to use as much of this space along the west side of the rink as possible. th Ms. Bowers reported that staff discussed, at their July 6 meeting, several concerns directly related to the variance standards not being met with this request. The majority of staff felt that a hardship has not been clearly demonstrated. There are alternative locations for the rink that would be able to meet setback requirements or the rink could be made smaller to meet the requirements or minimize the amount of variance requested. Several of the concerns raised by staff were related to public safety, such as pucks hitting people passing by on the sidewalk and flying into traffic. The proposal includes chain link fence along the ends of rink, but not along the west. Staff notes that if the proposal moves forward, the fence should surround the rink and be high enough to prevent pucks from flying into the sidewalk and street. Additionally, the arena building should be protected from puck damage. Also noted was that snow and ice on the roof of the building could cause problems if ice sheets would slide off the roof onto the rink when there are skaters present. There were also concerns noted by staff regarding long-term maintenance of the rink by volunteers, particularly in light of city budget issues. Staff noted a concern with snow storage from the parking lot in the area north of the rink and noted that shoveling the rink would also place additional snow in the snow storage areas and could be an issue for keeping the sidewalks clear. Another issue was the water drainage on the sidewalk when flooding the rink, noting concerns regarding nuisance drainage and keeping ice off the public sidewalk. Staff also discussed that drainage would be a more serious issue if, in the future, the rink is hard surfaced for summer use. Other concerns noted were fire and emergency exit from the building directly into the ice rink. Additional review of the building exiting would be required if the proposal moves forward. Also noted is there is a buried electrical line approximately 1-foot inside the sidewalk that would need to be protected from damage. Ms. Bowers reported staff recommends denying the variance requestwith the following findings: 1. The standards for granting a variance have not been met, based upon the following findings: a. The finding of “undue hardship” has not been met. The property could be put to a reasonable use, as it currently exists, without the variance and outdoor ice rink could be constructed at another location that would meet requirements. The desire to locate the ice rink at this location would not constitute an undue hardship when there are other suitable locations that would meet requirements. b. The plight of the landowner must be due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner.There are some unique characteristics of the property, such as the entire block being used for park Minutes Planning Commission – July 21, 2009 Page 3 uses and the location of the buildings due to the large central parking lot, however the need for the variance is self-created. The applicant could meet the required 25’ setback by constructing a smaller ice rink and placing the rink closer to the building. c. The variance, if granted, would alter the essential character of the locality by negatively impacting the adjacent residential properties and public right of way with a year round outdoor rink. An outdoor rink would have additional noise, parking, lighting, and the danger of flying pucks that would impact the residential character of the neighborhood and safety of the public right of way. The Commission members discussed the need for outdoor ice in the city. Mr. Czmowski asked if Linden Park North of the Recreation Center was considered and whether use of the Zamboni would still be viable. Mr. Marc Telecky, Hutchinson Hockey Association, stated choice of location was due to double doors exiting on the west side of the building, the high use of the facility and movement of hockey participant traffic would be ideal. Flow using the west side would be much better also for Zamboni use to maintain the ice. The west side doors will have to be retrofitted to some degree. He discussed snow storage issue and stated snow is also piled on the north corner of the parking lot. There is the issue of four small trees which are not in good condition, two of which could be relocated. Hutchinson Hockey Association is using donated dollars for this facility and would help the City with maintenance with the understanding a hard surface would also give inline skaters a designated area. Mr. Doren Martin, 944 Sunset, lives across from the proposed rink, spoke in opposition to the variance. He noted several concerns, including extra cars, parking, traffic, safety, flying hockey pucks, concerns with noise and lights, particularly in evening, when his family is trying to sleep. He also noted the area has ducks that nest in the bushes along the building that would be disturbed. He stated he would involve Ducks Unlimited and the DNR if necessary. He stated the proposed rink could be located north of the recreation center or in another location. Mr. Bruce Rosenow, 755 Neil Ave SW., spoke in opposition, noting that many outdoor rinks have been closed by the City and it doesn’t make sense to build a new one. He stated concern with the unsightly appearance of the rink, the grass, and the year round use. Discussion occurred on how many rinks were closed, why they were closed, the problems with on-going maintenance and costs, and budget issues. No Parks Dept. staff was present, however it was noted that a representative from the Parks Dept. should be at the Council meeting to answer questions. Ms. Heather Landreville, 760 Walnut St NE, spoke in favor of the project and has children in hockey. She noted that a chain link fence surrounding the rink would solve the majority of problems. She noted the parking seems adequate and the danger of flying pucks would be addressed by a fence. She compared this to baseball fields that have fencing for protection. She noted that she feels it would be a good use of the space, that outdoor ice is needed in the community, and that this location would be the most convenient for parents. Minutes Planning Commission – July 21, 2009 Page 4 Mr. Martin added comments in response, and asked how others would like to look at a tall chain link fence all year round. Discussion was held on kids playing hockey in the middle of the street. Mr. Gary Schmidt, 1240 Heritage Ave. NW., spoke in favor of the proposed site for the rink, however noted another possibility may be to use the north parking lot instead. Discussion on whether the parking would adequate if parking spaces were used for the outdoor rink. Staff stated that analysis of the parking requirements for the facility would need to be done to answer those questions. Mr. Mark Anderson – 1385 Heritage Ave. NW., spoke in favor of the proposal and stated the costs would be paid upfront by HHA due to the convenience of this location. He discussed the other locations that are not as convenient for parents. He said the overall property issues noted are workable. The drainage issue could be managed with grading the site and fencing or netting would address safety. Year round use would allow it to be used for other sports and would not unsightly. He stated that ice falling off building is not unusual and could be solved by using snow cleats. He also questioned why a variance was needed as there isn’t a specific setback defined for outdoor rink. Staff responded that the rink is considered a structure and required to meet the 25’ setback. Marc Sebora, City Attorney, provided guidance to the Commission on the variance standards and noted that the property is owned by the City, however the applicant is the HHA. The variance would need to be meet variance standards like any other variance. He cautioned that if the proposal moves forward, additional review and approval required by the City Council, and details such as a legal agreement regarding insurance, liability, and maintenance would need to be worked out. A franchise agreement must also be approved by the Council before the rink could be located on public property. The Commission discussed other possible locations on this property and locations in town such as Northwoods Park and the school sites that could be used. Staff stated that there has been much discussion on possible locations, and that the Commission’s recommendation should be specific to the variance request at this location. The fact that there are many other locations would be a factor in deciding whether the variance standards are met, such as other suitable location being available where requirements could be met and there are not so many issues. The Commission discussed some of the impacts of the proposed location, negative impacts to adjacent homes that were stated at the hearing and by staff. Also discussed was the danger of ice sliding off the roof into the rink. Commissioner Fahey noted specific experience with snow cleats not solving the ice problem and damage to equipment from ice sheeting. Councilmember Czmowski stated that he hopes the community can work together to come up with a solution for an alternative location for outdoor ice that wouldn’t have the negative impacts identified with this proposed location. The Commission discussed the negative impacts identified, the lack of a hardship, and noted that other potential locations are available. The Commission Minutes Planning Commission – July 21, 2009 Page 5 stated they hope a compromise can be reached after discussion with Parks Dept staff and the Council. Chairman Lofdahl made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Kovacic the hearing closed at 6:14 p.m. Mr. Fahey made a motion to deny the request. Seconded by Mr. Currimbhoy the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Lofdahl stated this item will be placed on the City Council agenda as a unanimous vote to deny the variance for the outdoor rink at proposed location. Mr. Czmowski stated he would like to find a compromise for outdoor ice. Chairman Lofdahl thanked the public for attending and their comments. b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW CLUB HOUSE AT CROW RIVER GOLF CLUB, 915 COLORADO STREET N.W. (Hearing open from June 16, 2009, meeting) The hearing was opened on June 16, 2009, and is being continued at this meeting. Ms. Bowers outlined the Crow River Golf Club request to remove their existing club house and build a new club house. She stated the application was tabled at the June Planning Commission meeting until the July meeting to allow plans to be revised due to the proposed location of the building was revised to move it further south. A conditional use permit is required in the R-1 zoning district for golf courses and related facilities. The proposed building would have a total square footage of approximately 23,000 sq. ft. with a footprint of approximately 10,080 sq. ft. The building would extend further north than the existing building. The proposed building would be a two story building with both lap and shake siding exterior treatments, stone veneer, and a screened deck. The main level would contain a dining room, a kitchen, pro shop, and bar area. The lower level would contain golf cart storage space, offices, storage areas, and future meeting rooms. There would be very few changes to the site, other than the new building, as the existing parking lots would remain. In reviewing the standards for granting a CUP, staff notes that there would be very little change to the operations than currently exists. The proposal would meet the standards for granting a conditional use permit. Ms. Bowers commented on the site plan review noting the proposed building would meet the structure setback requirements for the R-1 district. She explained the parking requirements would be met with the proposal. The property is located in the shoreland district and must comply with shoreland ordinance requirements. As noted, the proposed building would comply with the 50-foot building setback required to the ordinary high water level of Campbell Lake. The property would not exceed the 25% impervious coverage requirement in the shoreland district due to the large amount of green space on the property. The DNR Area Hydrologist reviewed the request and noted concerns with increasing impervious surface and offered recommendations for limiting stormwater from draining into the lake. Staff notes that a stormwater permit and erosion control are required, however ponding is not required as the disturbed area would not exceed one acre and there is minimal additional impervious surface area added. Minutes Planning Commission – July 21, 2009 Page 6 Ms. Bowers reported staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and site plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. A conditional use permit is approved to allow construction of a new club house, according to the application dated May 19, 2009, revised building plans received on June 29, 2009, and revised site plan and survey received by the City on June 26, 2009 2. The proposal would meet the standards for granting a conditional use permit and the standards in the R-1 zoning district. 3. Construction shall meet the requirements of the shoreland district ordinance. 4. Approval of a stormwater management permit is required along with the building permit prior to any construction on site. There was discussion regarding finishing the lower level of the building. Mr. Currimbhoy made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Czmowski the hearing closed at 6:31 p.m. Mr. Kovacicmade a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations 1-4. 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 July 28, 2009 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. c) AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 154.119, TELEVISION AND RADIO ANTENNAS, TO UPDATE AND REVISE THE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES (Hearing open from June 16, 2009, meeting) The hearing was opened on June 16, 2009, and is being continued at this meeting. Ms. Bowers reminded the Commissioners the proposed telecommunications ordinance th was considered at their June 16 meeting. She explained there was no comment from the public on the item. After discussing the ordinance, the Commission tabled action in order to pursue a “grandfathering” provision to allow existing facilities to be exempted from complying with the proposed new standards in the ordinance. She reported Mr. Andy Terry, with S.E.H., and staff have submitted language to be added to the draft telecommunications ordinance to address the existing facilities. She commented on staff discussion recommending additional language to allow the City to recover technical review costs by requiring an escrow for applications that require review by the City’s communications consultant. This requirement is included on the antenna application forms for City-owned sites, however was not included in the previous draft ordinance. Staff would recommend approval of the ordinance including the recent revisions. Mr. Kovacic made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Czmowski, the hearing closed at 6:39 p.m. Mr. Faheymade a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Kovacic, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Lofdahl stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held July 28, 2009 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. Minutes Planning Commission – July 21, 2009 Page 7 6.NEW BUSINESS The Commission welcomed Mr. Johnston. 7.OLD BUSINESS None 8.COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF 9.ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 6:41 p.m. Motion by Mr. Currimbhoy. Seconded by Mr. Kovacic.