Loading...
09-17-2013 PCMMINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 17, 2013 Hutchinson City Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Christie Hantge at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Raymond Norton, Jim Fahey, Dave Johnston, Dean Kirchoff, John Lofdahl, Bill Arndt and Chairman Hantge Absent: None Also present: Dan Jochum, 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 August 6, 2013. Mr. Kirchoff moved to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Fahey. The consent agenda was approved unanimously 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL TWO LOT PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS SUMMERSET FIFTH ADDITION AND VACATION OF EASEMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS Chairman Hantge opened the hearing at 5:32 p.m. with the reading of publication #8010 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on September 4, 2013. Mr. Jochum reported that the proposed Summerset Fifth Addition creates two lots from three lots in Summerset Second Addition. The property owners are creating a new property line through the vacant lot to make the existing lots larger. He explained the lots that will be created. The proposed lots will be approximately 18,000 square feet each. Minimum lot area in the R -1 district is required to be at least 10,400 square feet. Staff understands that both homeowners are interested in building garages on their lots at some point after the lots are re- platted. Mr. Jochum explained there are other considerations that staff would like the Planning Commission to discuss /consider. 1) Infrastructure Utilization — When developments are originally built infrastructure is sized to accommodate the amount of lots /homes in the development. When lot land is "re- platted" into larger lots the infrastructure is not fully utilized, and more importantly there are less users of the infrastructure to pay for maintenance and future repairs to the infrastructure. In addition, the City collects sewer and water availability charges, also known as SAC /WAC fees when a lot is developed with a home. In this instance the City will not have the opportunity to collect the $4,050 in SAC /WAC fees that was agreed to within the Summerset Second Addition Subdivision Agreement. 2) Future Assessment Liability — Having larger lots leads to homeowners incurring larger assessments since assessments are typically administered on a property frontage basis meaning the more lineal feet in front of a property the larger the Minutes Planning Commission — September 17, 2013 Page 2 assessment. The purpose of this item is to make the homeowners and Planning Commission aware of the future assessment liability. 3) Neighborhood Character - Having larger lots allows for accessory structures such as garages to be built more easily. The way the original lots were platted made it very difficult if not impossible to build a detached garage on the property. There doesn't appear to be any detached garages in this neighborhood on the other approximately 47 homes. Some of the homes do have utility sheds that typically are 10'x12' or smaller. Homeowners in this neighborhood may have purchased homes in this neighborhood with the expectation that the lot layout and lot size would be as it was when originally platted. Lastly, oftentimes detached garages are able to be "hidden" behind homes to be less intrusive to the neighborhood. If detached garages are indeed constructed on the subject lots there is not much of anything to screen the garages from neighboring properties. 4) Long Term Tax Capacity - The long term tax capacity of the properties will likely be less after the lots are re- platted from three to two. A garage and the additional land would likely add between $40,000 and $50,000 taxable market value to the existing lots, whereas a new home in that neighborhood might add $175,000 to $200,000 taxable market value. The tax capacity also ties to the ability of the City to pay for future infrastructure maintenance and upkeep. Staff is just pointing out the taxable value piece realizing this is just one piece of information that needs to be looked at in the larger scheme of things. Mr. Jochum commented on the criteria for vacating the easements and the final plat. He explained the Comprehensive Plan guidelines as Traditional Residential Neighborhood . He commented on the overall density of 3 - 5 units per acre for platting property. He explained the proposal would create 2.4 units per acre. He commented on the Land Use Goals and the vacation of the easement. Mr. Jochum also commented on the following Final plat criteria: (a) Conforms to the preliminary plat (b) Conforms to the design standards set forth in this chapter (c) Conforms to the adopted Comprehensive Plan (d) Is in accordance with all requirements and laws of this state He reported on the staff recommendations as follows: 1. The applicants shall record the final plat with McLeod County. 2. Any future accessory buildings must be placed in the rear yard and not in any easement areas. 3. If the lots are platted as proposed, future assessments will be larger due to the increased front footage of the properties. 4. Each lot is allowed a 24 foot curb cut for access from the street. Any future accessory buildings that need driveways will have to be accessed from within the parcel rather than a new curb cut onto the street since there are already driveways serving each lot. 5. The fees that were agreed to in the original Summerset Second Addition subdivision agreement will have to be paid before lot 3 can be absorbed into lots 2 and 4. Those fees are $2,300 sewer availability charge, $1,750 water availability charge and $800 electric service territory fee. 6. A subdivision agreement will need to be developed between the City and the property owners prior to the City's execution of the Final Plat document. Discussion followed on the present size of each lot at 10, 400 sq. ft. There was also discussion on the SAC /WAC fees. Mr. Jochum explained they must follow the original subdivision Minutes Planning Commission — September 17, 2013 Page 3 agreement for the fees. There are no covenants or by -laws recorded on the properties. He explained the developer agreement included allowing 10x12 structures on the lots. Valerie Howell, 1251 Denver Ave, commented on the fact no home owners want to build a garage on the extra yard space. She explained they would like to take care of the lots with a sprinkler system to keep the lots looking well kept. Ms. Howell stated she doesn't feel the SAC /WAC fees should be paid by them and the lot may not collect the fees in the future for a long time. She wants to keep the integrity of the neighborhood. Steve Borstad, 1259 Denver Avenue SE, commented on continuing the rock wall and the slope behind the lots. He explained he has a large house on a small lot and would like more yard for resale value. He commented on leveling the yards to both lots. Mr. Borstad explained the 8 foot setbacks bring his house very close to a neighboring house if one were to be constructed 8 feet from the property line. He will possibly be putting in a 10x 12 foot shed and not a garage. Motion by Mr. Arndt to close the hearing, seconded by Mr. Norton, the hearing closed at 5:51 p.m. Chairman Hantge asked about the SAC and WAC if the developer pays up front. City Engineer, Kent Exner explained that since 9 years and before there were subdivision agreements drafted. SAC and WAC was paid at the time of building permit application. He reported this was implemented in 2000. The developer passes on the fee to the builder. Discussion followed on the infrastructure costs by the developer. SAC /WAC is not an access or connection charge it is an availability charge. The fee funds trunk improvements for lift stations for sanitary sewer. It is a reimbursement to the City for the infrastructure. Mr. Lofdahl made a motion to approve the request with staff recommendations 1 -6. Seconded by Mr. Johnston, the motion carried unanimously. This item will be placed on the City Council consent agenda at their meeting September 24, 2013. B. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING THE 2013 CITY OF HUTCHINSON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chairman Hantge opened the hearing at 5:58 p.m. with the reading of publication #8010 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on September 4, 2013. Mr. Jochum gave an overview of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan and explained this process began approximately 2 years ago. He reported there were calls this afternoon with concerns about annexation of their properties. He reported there is no plan for annexation and the Comprehensive Plan focuses on development within the present City limits. The staging plan describes areas that the City can get infrastructure too. He began the slide presentation. He explained there was public input discussion on the plan and chapters of the plan. Public participants were a cross section of public. There was a Housing Study for determining future needs. The Imagine Hutchinson study focuses on Downtown Hutchinson and there us also a Traffic Study. Studies typically are updated every 10 years. He reported the focus area is the Hutchinson boundary. He explained the joint planning area is being monitored by the County Board. He commented on the growth of Hutchinson, McLeod County and the State in the past 10 years. He explained how we plan for future growth of the City. He reported on the development themes and the plan around the themes. Mr. Jochum commented on Smart Growth planning. There are goals and policies from each section of the plan. He explained the definition of policies. He again stated we are looking at growth inward instead of outward. There are approximately 15 years of vacant lots for inside growth. The Plan will minimize conflicts in community development and support the viability of the downtown area. He defined Mixed Use development and location of commercial activities. There was an overview of the Goals which are reaffirming the 2001 plan. Minutes Planning Commission — September 17, 2013 Page 4 Mr. Jochum explained the Land Use map will guide the future development of the community. He explained the City limits line which shows no plans for the City to grow outside the present City limits. The City of Hutchinson annexations has been all property owner driven. Presently we do not have to extend outside the City limits. This Plan does not show need for annexation. The focus in on inward growth. He then explained the zoning categories. Mr. Jochum explained the staging map shows the possibility of expansion of infrastructure which could be 50 years in the future. He commented on implementation of the plan. Public comment: John Grein, 1391 Heritage Ave NW, commented on development in California establishing high rise development and mass transit and commented on his sister's concern in her community. He also commented on the cost to tax payers for global warming and have concerns for cost to the taxpayers. Brandon Fraser, 1418 McDonald Dr., asked about the parcel along McDonald Dr. and changing the density from medium density to low density. He explained his concern for changing the plan to low density from medium density. He believes the aging population in the community will need more medium and high density options. Mr. Jochum stated he will note the request to look at the density in that area. Mr. Fraser would like that area to go back to medium density as the economic trends indicate. Craig Bishop, 221 Freemont Ave., commented on his concern with the limited time to read the plan by the Council and Planning Commissions. Mr. Jochum explained the Imagine Hutchinson document has been approved by the City Council. He stated the Township officials have been involved. He explained the plan doesn't include the townships. Jim Nielson, 18642 -202nd Crt., questioned plans not to annex. He asked if the plan will change the method to annex. Mr. Jochum stated the old plan encouraged annexation the new plan does not. He reported annexation is by State statute. Mr. Nielson asked about the water shed and taxing the county residents. Mr. Jochum stated this plan does not have a water shed. Mr. Neilson asked will the plan change annexation procedures. Mr. Jochum again stated this does not propose annexation. Mr. Lofdahl explained this is a vision to plan growth. Jim Bobier, 20926 Skyview Ave. stated the plan goal should be efficient government. Chairman Hantge explained the Comp Plan is a land use guide. Mr. Bobier asked about tax rates. Mr. Jochum explained this would be for more efficient. Mr. Norton explained the design is to be mindful of infrastructure cost. Growing within will limit the cost. Mr. Jochum stated the plan has been on the City web site since August and has support of the businesses in the community. He reminded those present that the City Council makes the final decision on the plan. Larry Karg, Acoma Twp. Board, explained his constituents called him about future annexation and feel it has been pushed through. Motion by Mr. Fahey to close the hearing, seconded by Mr. Norton, the hearing closed at 6:47 p.m. Mr. Jochum commented on the possibility of waiting a month and advertising again. Mr. Kirchoff made a motion to table the motion and reopen the hearing and extend the approval until October 15. Mr. Fahey explained that the Planning Commission has had input for a couple of years. He stated the growth of a community is market driven these plans are guidelines for staff and for developers. He explained the need for a plan to be reactive for the Minutes Planning Commission — September 17, 2013 Page 5 marketplace. Mr. Lofdahl stated annexation is driven by the developer. Mr. Jochum explained past annexation in Hutchinson has been driven by developers. Chairman Hantge explained this plan is for more conservative growth. Mr. Norton moved to table the motion and advertise for another public hearing October 15. Seconded by Mr. Kirchoff, the motion carried unanimously. 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF Mr. Jochum stated the Maurice's development may wait until Spring. 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m.