Loading...
11-17-2009 PCMMINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 17, 2009 Hutchinson City Council Chambers 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John Lofdahl at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Chris Kovacic, Christie Rock, Jim Fahey, Chad Czmowski, Dean Kirchoff , Dave Johnston and Chairman Lofdahl. Absent: None Also present: Gary Plotz, City Administrator, Kent Exner, City Engineer, Marc Sebora, City Attorney and Bonnie Baumetz, Planning Coordinator 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.OATH OF OFFICE FOR DEAN KIRCHOFF 4. CONSENT AGENDA a) Consideration of Minutes dated October 6, 2009. Ms. Rock moved to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Johnston. The consent agenda was approved unanimously 5.PUBLIC HEARINGS a) VARIANCE TO INCREASE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 25% IN THE SHORELAND AREA FROM THE EXISTING 32% TO 33% AT 915 LAKEWOOD DRIVE S.W. REQUESTED BY JOEL AND JACKIE PENKE, PROPERTY OWNERS Chairman Lofdahl opened the hearing at 5:34 p.m. with the reading of publication #7779 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on November 5, 2009. Mr. Plotz commented on the request to construct a 16’ x16’ addition (256 sq.ft.) to their home at 915 Lakewood Dr. S.W. He explained the property is located in the shoreland district. The addition would increase the coverage from approximately 32% to 33%. He explained they stated the hardship and unique circumstance as;”the split level home was built with sliding glass doors from the top level of the house”. He noted the property owners are willing to remove the 7.5’ x 10’ utility shed. Ms. Baumetz explained the calculations of the coverage. Mr. Plotz explained in order to grant a variance, the request must meet the standards for granting a variance, including a finding of undue hardship. He reported staff reviewed the th proposed variance at the November 4 staff review meeting. Staff recommended to deny the variance request with 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. b. The plight of the landowner must be due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. Minutes Planning Commission – November 17, 2009 Page 2 Mr. Plotz commented on the possibility of a moratorium to further discuss action to take on the properties in the shoreland district. He reported the DNR will be approving a new ordinance in 2010. Staff would like to wait until a moratorium is in process. Discussion followed on the coverage and options to reduce other impervious surface on the property by possibly removing some of the driveway and patio. There was also discussion on leaving the percentage at 32%. Joel and Jackie Penke, 915 Lakewood Dr. S.W. stated the home was a spec home and already there when they purchased the property. They stated they would not have added the patio and shed if they would have known the shoreland regulation. Mr. Penke stated they did not want a deck and were anticipating an enclosed area in the future. He explained the patio doors are the second exit from the home. They also noted the ability to sell the home as a concern. They stated they will work with the environmentalist regarding the rain garden design. Mr. Penke noted they would like to purchase the lumber now. The new ordinance is a concern for them. Many houses in the area have no deck from the patio doors and are in the same situation as the Penke’s. Ms. Penke noted the need for a second exit, resale of the home and safety. Discussion followed on the possibility of moving a portion of the driveway to bring into compliance. Ms. Penke stated they would look at that. Discussion followed on the standards of meeting the hardship. Ms. Penke asked if making the addition smaller would help them. She asked if there is a percentage credit with a rain garden. The non-conforming structure can remain. Discussion followed on past requests which were closer to the ordinance in percentage and the lots were odd shaped. There was discussion on property modifications to meet the requirements. Discussion followed on waiting for the new shoreland ordinance to be in place before acting on variances. Atty. Sebora explained the DNR final touches to the ordinance are slated for approval in January. He reported a 15% lot coverage may be in the new ordinance. The City must act on the ordinance within 3 years. Cities can not make the ordinance more lenient than the legislature. There are some rain garden requirements in the new ordinance. Discussion followed on decks being pervious or impervious. Ms. Penke would like comments on the patio as an existing structure. Mr. Penke commented on the 1% increase. There was discussion on proving hardships. The question raised was when do we start enforcing the regulation? Discussion followed on the last variance passed which was partly out of the shoreland area. Concerns were raised on houses with a patio door and assuming they can build an addition later. Discussion followed regarding the home owners responsibility of disclosing that the home is over the percentage. Mr. Fahey made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Kovacic, the hearing closed at 6:14 p.m. Mr. Johnston made a motion to recommend to deny the request due to lack of hardship. Seconded by Mr. Kovacic. Discussion followed on the need for a moratorium. It was noted the Planning Commissioners must interpret the zoning ordinance and the fact there is a way to do the addition with sacrifice. Mr. Fahey commented on approval if they didn’t exceed the 32%. The motion to deny carried with Mr. Fahey voting nay. The vote was split 6 to 1. Roll call: Kirchoff, Rock, Kovacic, Lofdahl, Johnston and Czmowski voting aye. Fahey voting nay. Chairman Lofdahl stated this item will be placed on the City Council regular agenda at their meeting held November 24, 2009 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. Minutes Planning Commission – November 17, 2009 Page 3 b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW DRIVE UP WINDOW LOCATED AT 1380 HWY 15 SOUTH (FORMER CHECKERS BUILDING) REQUESTED BY PAPA MURPHY’S PIZZA Chairman Lofdahl opened the hearing at 6:20 p.m. with the reading of publication #7779 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on November 5, 2009. Mr. Plotz explained the property owner is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a drive-up window for Papa Murphy’s Take and Bake Pizza to be located at 1380 Hwy 15 South. This is the former Checkers building. The site plan provided allows for the 80 foot stacking requirement. He reported staff discussed the possibility of traffic congestion and traffic flow and would recommend striping be provided to define the limits of the drive-thru lane. The following are standards for granting a conditional use permit: (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. Mr. Plotz explained staff would recommend approval of the conditional use permit with the following recommendations: 1. The standards for granting a conditional use permit would be met, subject to the conditions stated. 2. Provide striping to define limits of the drive-thru lane. 3. Traffic must not encroach onto the property to the north. 4. A SAC/WAC fee may be collected with the issuance of the building permit. This amount will be determined by the City Engineer. 5. Location of curbing, striping, signage, etc. need to be determined prior to building permit application. 6. Building code standards must be met by the proposal. Discussion followed on parking requirements if a restaurant were also in the building. Steven Adams, property owner, stated they have a lease with Ryan Companies and Target and are not allowed to have a restaurant in this location. He explained Fantastic Sams will also have a space in the building and the remaining half of the building will be open for now. He stated he anticipates a low retail use in the building. Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Johnston, the hearing closed at 6:31 p.m. Mr. Kovacic made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations 1 – 6. 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 November 24, 2009 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. Minutes Planning Commission – November 17, 2009 Page 4 6.NEW BUSINESS a) FINAL PLAT OF LES KOUBA RIVERVIEW ADDITION SUBMITTED BY HUTCHINSON EDA Mr. Plotz commented on the request and explained the preliminary plat of Les Kouba Riverview Addition was approved September 22, 2009. The final plat is consistent with the approved preliminary plat and contains one lot. The plat will combine several lots owned by EDA for future development. He reported staff would recommend approval of the final plat noting the plat must be recorded within 270 days. Mr. Czmowski made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Fahey the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Lofdahl stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held November 24, 2009 in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. b) Mr. Plotz asked if the Commissioners would be willing to ask for a moratorium in the shoreland area for 6 months. He would need a motion to recommend a moratorium. Atty. Sebora commented on staff frustration. He explained the situation is uncomfortable because of past practice and fairness. There are concerns about present ordinance and mitigation. A moratorium would give appropriate time to study the shoreland ordinance to decide what to do with the nonconforming lots. Staff could have time to study the proposed ordinance and come back with input to the Planning Commission and City Council. Enforcement of the ordinance is difficult. Atty. Sebora stated there must be a motion to consider a moratorium for variances in the shoreland ordinance for 6 months. The consensus of the Planning Commission is not to proceed with a moratorium and work with the existing shoreland ordinance. 7.OLD BUSINESS 8.COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF a) REVIEW EAW DOCUMENT FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY THE HOSPITAL AT THE CORNER OF AIRPORT ROAD AND JEFFERSON STREET Mr. Plotz explained SEH has been hired to contract planning for the hospital project to build a new nursing home north of Airport Road and east of Jefferson Street. He reported the final EAW was included in the packet for Planning Commission information. The City Council will act on the EAW at their next meeting. The planning items will be in front of the Planning th Commission at the December 15 meeting. b) DISCUSSION OF ORDERLY ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS WITH ABUTTING TOWNSHIPS Atty. Sebora presented information on the orderly annexation agreements proposed and the Lynn Township agreement. He commented on his memo regarding annexations and the orderly annexation agreement timeline. He explained the orderly annexation process was meant to help townships in annexation proceeding. Atty. Sebora explained the Lynn Township agreement. He explained the agreement proposed by the other townships would be a burden to the City. Minutes Planning Commission – November 17, 2009 Page 5 c) Mr. Plotz commented on Planning Commissioner and City Council members training on granting variances. Atty. Sebora is willing to do the training. The Planning Commission will set a date at the December meeting for a January training and invite the Council members. 9.ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.