Loading...
06-15-2010 PCMMINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 15, 2010 Hutchinson City Council Chambers 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Kovacic at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Christie Rock, Chad Czmowski, Dean Kirchoff, Dave Johnston and Vice Chairman Kovacic Absent: Jim Fahey and Chairman Lofdahl Also present: Dan Jochum, Planning Director, Marc Sebora, City Attorney and Bonnie Baumetz, Planning Coordinator 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. CONSENT AGENDA a) Consideration of Minutes dated May 18, 2010 Ms. Rock moved to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Kirchoff. The consent agenda was approved unanimously 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR a) SALES DISPLAY LOCATED IN THE C-4 DISTRICT AT ANTIQUES TO GO, 934 HWY 15 S Vice Chairman Kovacic opened the hearing at 5:33 p.m. with the reading of publication # 7816 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on June 3, 2010. Mr. Jochum commented on the request by the property owner for a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor sales display in a fenced area, consisting of chain link or wrought iron fence on the north side of his business, Antiques to Go, at 934 Hwy 15 South, between Pizza Hut and Edina Realty. The property owner proposes to construct an approximately 30’ x 140’ fenced outdoor sales area to provide a secured area for larger items to be sold. The site plan on record indicates he will lose 7 parking spaces with the addition of a fenced sales display area; however, the applicant still meets the parking requirement of 14 spaces. The site plan indicates the 14 parking spaces will be located in front of the building (east side). Parking requirements are: Furniture/Warehouse - 1 space per 1000 sq. ft. The building is approximately 14,000 sq. ft. A conditional use permit is required for any outdoor storage or display, including items for sale in the display area according to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.115. Mr. Jochum explained the west side of the fence must be opaque to screen from the residential zone. He also stated no public is allowed to drive around the building. Mr. Jochum noted staff reviewed the application and discussed the parking requirement of 14 spaces. The property owner indicated in his letter of May 19, 2010, that he has no plans to blacktop the rear area of the property and will leave it as green space, since this area won’t be used for parking or circulation. The applicant has indicated on his site plan that there will be 14 parking spaces in the front of his building (east side). The 14 spaces shown on the site plan satisfy the parking requirement for this use. Staff recommends that the applicant stripe the 14 parking spaces prior to the fence being constructed. There are utilities along the north property Minutes Planning Commission – June 15, 2010 Page 2 line. The property owner must locate these utilities prior to installing the fence and also ensure the fence doesn’t interfere with the meters located on the building. Mr. Jochum mentioned an agreement between the property owner and the property owner to the north. He reported access to the Fahey building is limited. He stated Mr. Fahey contacted him and is ok with the proposal. Staff recommends approval with the following recommendations: 1. The proposal would meet the standards for granting a conditional use permit, subject to the conditions stated. 2. Screening or fencing with 100% opacity from residential districts is required to meet the requirements of Section 154.115. The screening is only needed on the western portion of the fence, as that is the only area that abuts a residential district. 3. The grass area or green space located to the south and west of the building is not to be used for circulation or parking purposes. 4. Approval of a fence permit is required before the fence is constructed. 5. Property owner must locate utilities prior to installing the fence. 6. The fence should not interfere with the meters located on the building. 7. Parking spaces shall be striped and meet the requirements of Section 154.116 of the Zoning Ordinance prior to the fence being constructed. Discussion followed on the fence placement regarding maintenance of the fence on the north side. There was also discussion on the equipment stored on the west side of the building. Mr. Corcoran explained the equipment belongs to the person helping with lawn mowing and parks the equipment in the rear of the building when not in use. Mr. Jochum explained that staff would recommend no outdoor storage in the rear and side of the property where there is no fence. Mr. Corcoran asked if he can park a trailer on the parking area. He explained that he will be putting up a fence on the west property line to prevent traffic from driving through the property. Mr. Corcoran then explained what he will be placing in the fenced area. He asked about a vehicle that is to be for sale. Mr. Jochum stated it must be in the fence. Mr. Johnston made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Czmowski the hearing closed at 5:48 p.m. Mr. Johnston made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations and add a recommendation number 8 to add a 2 foot buffer from the fence to the north property line. Seconded by Mr. Kirchoff, the motion carried unanimously. Vice Chairman Kovacic stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held June 22, 2010, in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TENT SALES OF b) FIREWORKS LOCATED IN THE C-4 DISTRICT AT HUTCHINSON MALL, 1060 HWY 15 SOUTH, REQUESTED BY GERALD BRYER, APPLICANT Vice Chairman Kovacic opened the hearing at 5:52 p.m. with the reading of publication # 7816 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on June 3, 2010. Mr. Jochum explained the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow fireworks to be sold in a tent located in the Hutchinson Mall parking lot. Approval of a similar request was granted in the WalMart parking lot in April 2009. The request is to set up the tent June 25, 2010 and take it down by July 5, 2010. Section 130.08 C (6) of the Hutchinson Municipal Code requires a conditional use permit for outside sale of fireworks. He reported in addition to the CUP, the City requires approval of a fireworks permit from the Fire Department and a transient merchant license through the City Council. A new conditional use permit will be required if the Minutes Planning Commission – June 15, 2010 Page 3 fireworks permit request is for a new location or if there are other changes to the request. State Statutes allow a conditional use permit issued for a specific property to remain in effect as long as the use does not cease operation for one year on the same property, provided that conditions remain the same. Mr. Jochum explained he and Kent Exner discussed the placement of the tent and suggest it be moved to the north, west of the curb and buffer area. In that location, the tent would not impact the drive isles and would allow for better circulation. This should be added as an additional recommnendation. Staff would recommend approval of the request with the following findings and recommendations: 1. The request meets the standards for granting a conditional use permit. 2. A conditional use permit is approved to allow sales of fireworks in a tent at 1060 Hwy 15 S., according to the application details and site plan received by the City on May 18, 2010. Fireworks sales may be allowed for the dates and conditions specified on the fireworks sales permit and transient merchant license issued annually. 3. 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. 4. All display and sales areas must be kept secured. 5. Signage requires a separate sign permit prior to installation of signage. Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Ms. Rock, the hearing closed at 5:56 p.m. Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations and add number 6 to move the tent to the north to align with the parking berm. Seconded by Mr. Johnston, the motion carried unanimously. Vice Chairman Kovacic stated this item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held June 22, 2010, in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF “STREET RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 12” REQUESTED BY c) THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON TO MODIFY THE MONTANA STREET NORTHWEST RIGHT OF WAY Vice Chairman Kovacic opened the hearing at 5:57 p.m. with the reading of publication # 7816 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on June 3, 2010. Mr. Jochum explained the purpose of the plat. He stated the City is negotiating with the adjacent property owner on the outlot. The City will maintain the right of way. No additional accesses will be allowed to the street. Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Johnston, the hearing closed at 5:59 p.m. Mr. Johnston made a motion to recommend approval of the request with staff recommendations. Seconded by Ms. Rock, the motion carried unanimously. This item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting held June 22, 2010, in the Council Chambers at 5:30 p.m. 5.NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION OF AMENDING CHAPTERS 54 AND 152 OF THE HUTCHINSON CITY a) CODE PERTAINING TO SHORELAND MANAGEMENT Minutes Planning Commission – June 15, 2010 Page 4 Mr. Jochum commented on past discussions on this item over the last several months. He explained he is aware of the affects of the ordinance on planning. Atty. Sebora commented on the ordinance changes including lot coverage, impervious surface, Storm water management, variances and building height. He explained feedback from public is helpful in regard to measuring the height of buildings. Mr. Jochum explained he would like to explore possibilities of height regulations. He commented how the City would move forward. Ms. Rock would recommend the planner do more research and not take action tonight. This is an overview thus far and not in-depth at this stage of the review. The ordinance regulates the coverage at 25% impervious surface coverage. Mr. Jochum explained the City is trying to describe what constitutes impervious surface. Mr. Jochum has been researching other communities regarding decks. Several communities do not count decks without roofs or with ¼ inch deck spacing and no impervious surface underneath. We would not include decks under this ruling. Discussion followed on the possibility of paving under the deck later. Mr. Jochum stated that would be an enforcement issue if they do pave. There was discussion on treating the first inch of runoff to meet the requirements. Properties over the 25% the impervious surface could be increased if treating the run off on-site. Impervious surface worksheets could be used and there is an example from the City of Burnsville. Property owners would choose the best treatment for their property. Discussion followed on providing a list of what is accepted. Some cities use a larger percentage but have proof of runoff treatment such as stormwater ponds, etc. Discussion followed to amend the ordinance to not need a variance in all cases. There was consensus of the planning commissioners to pursue the deck definition and also to give property owners options for runoff storage. Discussion followed on meeting the intent of the regulation. Mr. Jochum reported that the DNR does not define want is impervious. Mr. Jochum commented on the variance from impervious surface requirements not to increase the percentage of existing coverage. There was discussion on the “no net gain” of impervious coverage. Discussion followed on the rain barrel concept. There will be more research on rain barrels. The property owner would design and the city would approve or not. The consensus was to wait to take action on the amendment. The new policy is to be consistent. Building height in the Shoreland area is defined by the DNR. Mr. Jochum explained the property owner cannot add fill to circumvent the ordinance. He suggested the more sophisticated definitions possibly would require a survey with the building permit and at the certificate of occupancy. There will be more research on this item. Draft text will be presented next month. 6.OLD BUSINESS 7.COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF Mr. Jochum commented on the letter from Mr. Plotz regarding 1209 Lewis Ave. He explained the realtor has forwarded the letter to the management company. The height violation must be addressed before a building permit may be issued to complete the project. 8.ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 6:31 p.m.