12-17-1996 PCM cMINUTES
HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, December 17, 1996
CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dean Wood at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present:
Bill Arndt, Dave Westlund, Glenn Matejka, Craig Lenz, Paul Ackland and Chairman Wood. Absent: Bill
Craig. Also Present: Jim Marka, Director of Building, Planning and Zoning, Brenda Ewing, Planning
Coordinator and G. Barry Anderson, City Attorney.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
a) CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING DATED NOVEMBER 19, 1996
Mr. Matejka made a motion to approve the minutes dated November 19, 1996, seconded by Mr.
Arndt the motion carried unanimously.
b) OLD BUSINESS
NONE
C) NEW BUSINESS
1) DISCUSSION OF ZONING RECLASSIFICATION TO INCLUDE TATTOO
ESTABLISHMENTS IN C-3 DISTRICT REQUESTED BY SCOTT CLARK
Jim Marka commented on the history of amending the zoning ordinance to conditionally
permit tattoo establishments in the C-4 district. He stated planning staff recommended not
to change the ordinance. Mr. Matejka made a motion not to change the ordinance, seconded
by Mr. Ackland the motion carried unanimously.
2) DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE INTENT REGARDING LOT WIDTH AND LOT
DIMENSIONS IN THE R-2 DISTRICT
Jim Marka commented on the intent of the zoning ordinance regarding lot width and
dimensions in the R-2 District. He explained the handout showing requirements from
the cities of Mankato, St. Cloud and Owatonna. He stated Mr. Bill Weber from BRW
is suggesting the trend is narrower lots for twin home placement in the R-2 district.
Discussion followed on the decision to survey cities and how cities were chosen. Mr.
Marka stated the City of Plymouth was asked and did not respond. Staff was
directed to survey metro cities regarding area coverage, required square footage per
dwelling unit and lot widths. Discussion followed on lot width and concerns of the
planning commission.
3) DISCUSSION OF ANNEXATION PROPOSAL BY FRANK FAY IN HUTCHINSON
TWP. SOUTH OF HWY 7 EAST
Mr. Marka commented on the proposal to annex the Seltz property. He explained the Hwy
22 bypass is scheduled for 1998. Jim explained that staff held the "one-stop" shop meeting
with the owners on December 11th. Mr. Marka asked for direction regarding the possibility
of annexing this property. He commented on the possibilities for properties in this area with
1
HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 1996
the Hwy 22 bypass proposed.
Mr. Fay gave the Planning Commission background information on the Seltz property by
Waconia and also in Hutchinson. Mr. Fay stated he has had conversations with property
owners along Hwy 7 East. He stated the Seltz family is aware of infrastructure costs and not
wishing to alienate owners in the area. The Seltzes know the process is a long one and
would like to have a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
City Attorney G. Barry Anderson explained the process of annexation. He explained
annexation by petition must be contiguous property to city limits. The second possibility
would be to approach the Hutchinson Township for an orderly annexation. This property is
in the Urban Boundary District. In the case of an orderly annexation agreement with the
township the property does not have to abut the city limits. The third possibility would be to
annex all properties between the Seltz property and the city limits.
Mr. Marka stated the township and county conceptually agreed to the annexation at the
December 11th meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Seltz. He explained staff would appreciate some
direction from the Planning Commission and City Council as to whether the owners should
proceed with the annexation. He stated staff would hold informational meetings for the
neighboring property owners in the area.
Discussion followed on the Utilities placement . Jim Marka stated staff would like to
approach the annexation comprehensively. There was discussion on commercial property
within the city limits and opinions of the property owners in the area. Jim commented on the
concerns of property owners in the area as some would agree to annexation and others
oppose annexation. Discussion followed regarding the bypass completion in 1998. There
was discussion of the infrastructure on Hwy 7. Dick Lennes commented on his discussions
with John Rodeberg regarding the infrastructure to the property to come from the south.
There were concerns regarding costs to property owners to run infrastructure to the
businesses.
Jim Marka stated it would be a two year planning process to develop the property as there
are many unanswered questions and the process should begin to get questions asked and
costs determined. Electric is serviceable but outside of the service area. There would be
a cost.
Discussion followed regarding options to provide services to the property. Utilities most likely
would not run down Hwy 7. It was the consensus of the commissioners to direct staff to
provide more information on the costs of infrastructure. Discussion followed regarding the
taxes to property owners annexed into the city limits.
Mr. Marka again explained dialogue should begin as this is a lengthy process. The planning
commission directed staff to begin process and come back to the next meeting with
additional data. Mr. Matejka made a motion to proceed by providing more data and a survey
of neighboring property owners, seconded by Mr. Ackland. Discussion followed as Barry
Anderson suggested the request be withdrawn for annexation by ordinance and proceed
with determining if orderly annexation is feasible. He suggested the Planning Commission
pass on to the city council with no recommendation. The application by ordinance cannot
be approved as the property is not abutting the city limits.
Mr. Matejka withdrew his previous motion and made a motion to send the request to the City
Council without recommendation seconded by Mr. Ackland the motion carried unanimously.
2
HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 1996
Dick Lennes asked if the data could be obtained by the next Planning Commission meeting.
Frank Fay asked if the Hackbarth property could be annexed and remain agriculture property
for tax purposes. Barry Anderson stated it is possible. Mr. Marka commented the property
owners should be informed of the process. Barry Anderson commented on the need for an
organized plan to avoid traffic pattern problems in the future.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
NONE
4. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF
A. Mr. Marka commented on a memo from Brian Solsrud, Augusta Homes, regarding his new
proposal. He explained the density requirements and each phase compliance. Phase I and
II would be one development and under one ownership. Jim explained the request that
Phase IV be a transition to R-4 and not under TIF. Discussion followed regarding the
density in I & II . Jim commented on Phase III and the proposal to take the property out of
the TIF district.
Dick commented on the property and the TIF district and explained the reduction of capture
by selling TIF property.
Jim summarized the request to combine Phase I and II. Phase III remain in compliance with
ordinance and Phase IV to be rezoned to R-4.
It is the consensus of the Planning Commission that Phases I, II, III remain bound by the
ordinance and the request to rezone Phase IV would be considered only by the developer
providing a complete site plan and following the rezoning process.
B. Island View Heights - Mr. Marka commented on the informational meeting to be held on Dec.
19, 1996. He explained the development concept and density compared to the originally
platted area. Jim stated the developer is proceeding in a comprehensive manner which is
the correct approach.
5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:06 p.m.
C