Loading...
11-20-1984 PCM cMINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1984 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Hutchinson Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Larry Romo at 7:30 p.m., with the following members present: Marlin Torgerson, Roland Ebent, Thomas Lyke, Shu -Mei Hwang, Don Erickson and Chairman Romo. Members absent: Elsa Young. Also present: City Administrator Gary D. Plotz, Director of Engineering Marlow V. Priebe, and City Attorney James H. Schaefer. 2. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting dated October 16, 1984, were approved as presented on a motion by Mr. Torgerson. Seconded by Mr. Ebent, the motion carried unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS (a) CONTINUATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST AS SUBMITTED BY ROBERT MCGEE Chairman Romo reconvened the continued hearing with the reading of publication #3322 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, October 49 1984. The request is for a 3' variance to allow the construction of a double garage 3' from the sideyard property line. A survey showing the present and proposed buildings on the property was submitted to the Planning Commission as had been requested. The drawings showed that the garage was proposed to be 212" from the west property line which would require a 3110".variance. Mr. Robert McGee was present to state that he intends to build a house onto the basement that is now located on the property and needs an attached double garage. He keeps a motorhome and boat in the garage that is to the rear of the property. Mr. McGee also stated that he has already paid for curb and spillway in the front for the purpose of putting in a driveway. City Administrator Plotz explained that a frontyard variance would not be necessary as the house was inconformance with others in the neighborhood. He also noted that there was 29' from the duplex on the west of the property, providing ample room for the proposed garage. As the whole project (adding the house and garage) would improve the aesthetics of the property, staff recommended the variance be approved. Mr. Torgerson noted that putting a garage on the other side in line with the existing garage would also require a variance. 1 After discussion, Mr. Torgerson made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Erickson, the motion carried unanimously and the hearing was closed at 7:38 p.m. Mr. Torgerson made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the variance as requested. Seconded by Mr. Erickson, the motion carried unanimously. (b) CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR REZONING AS SUBMITTED BY KABLE, BUECHELE AND BACON Chairman Romo opened the hearing at 7:39 p.m. with the reading of publication #3334 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, November 8, 1984. The request is to rezone lots 1 and 2 Block 31, South 112 City from R-2 (Multiple Family Residence District) to C-3 (Central Commercial District). Mr. and Mrs. Tom McClure of 325 Glen Street South were present to state their objection to the request. As neighboring property owners (to the west), they were concerned about the whole block eventually becoming commercial. They felt that since no part of this block was commerical, it should remain residential. They also presented a letter of objection to the rezoning from Mabel Kreft, 345 S. Glen. Ms. Linda Ziemer, 315 Glen Street was also present to state her objection. She was concerned about increase in traffic in the alley. She felt having a residential area near downtown might better serve the needs of the elderly. Director Priebe explained that the comprehentAve plan indicated that commercial zoning would be extended from Main Street to Glen Street and from the river to Fourth Avenue, so the proposal is in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Chairman Romo further explained that the trend in use of that property would be toward commerical. Mr. Roger Kable was present to explain that the property owners intend to tear down the existing houses within the next five years and then restore it. There are no specific plans for development. Director Priebe explained that when something is rezoned, it should be done so with the feeling that anything provided for in that zoning be acceptable to the area. It would not be good practice to zone for a specific project as there would be no guarantee that that project be done. Mr. Ron Horswell, Rt. 3,(owns adjoining property at 326 Franklin) was present to state that if the rezoning was allowed, they should be equally able to rezone the adjoining lots so that the whole east half of the block would be C-3. They have paid for commerical type street and would also like to be rezoned. In regard to property values, it was the consensus of those present that surrounding property values would go up for commercial use, however, values might go down as residential use. Dr. Lyke commented that the property owners might find themselves in a position where they would have to sell and might not have a commercial buyer. He E also expressed concern about what the intended character of that neighborhood is to be. After discussion, Mr. Torgerson made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Ebent, the motion carried unanimously and the hearing was closed at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Ebent made a motion to recommend to City Council the rezoning of the two lots as requested from R-2 to C-3. The motion was seconded by Mr. Torgerson. A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with Mr. Torgerson, Mr. Ebent and Chairman Homo voting "aye", Mr. Hwang and Dr. Lyke voting "nay". Mr. Erickson abstained from voting. (c) CONSIDERATION OF -A REQUEST FOR A SIGN VARIANCE AS SUBMITTED BY MIDCONTINENT THEATRE Chairman Homo opened the hearing at 8:17 p.m. with the reading of publication #3335 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thurs- day, November 8, 1984. The request is for a variance to allow the addition of two 3' by 14' by 12" deep lighted panels to the existing marquee on the State Theatre Building, for the purpose of providing a third reader board for the third theatre. Mr. Russ DeCurtins, representing MidContinent Theatre, was present to explain the request. He submitted an artist's drawing of what the sign will look like when it is complete. Staff recommendation was favorable with the stipulation that the three reader boards be uniform in appearance. Mr. DeCurtins stated that his company would be willing to comply with the wishes of the City in that regard, ie, taking out the light bulbs, repainting around the middle sign, etc. Mr. Hwang asked if they had considered replacing the signs altogether with signs that are against the building, and if Mr. DeCurt-'.'ins knew if the existing marquee would support the weight of the two additional panels. Mr. DeCurtains responded that the construction of the marquee is steel with wood skins and felt that it would be able to support it. After discussion, Mr. Torgerson made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hwang, the motion carried unanimously and the hearing was closed at 8:40 p.m. Mr. Torgerson made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the variance as requested contingent upon 8' clearance being met and that all three signs on both sides be uniform in appearance -- uniformity to be determined by City staff. Seconded by Mr. Erickson, the motion carried unanimously. (d) CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS SUBMITTED BY HUTCHINSON MANUFACTURING Chairman Homo opened the hearing at 8:40 P.M. with the reading of publication #3336 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, November 8, 1984. The request is for a conditional use rE permit to allow the construction of a 26' by 60' addition (metal storage building) on the southwest corner of the main building of Hutchinson Manufacturing located on Hwy. 7 West in an IC -1 zone. City Administrator Plotz explained that there had been no objection to the request. Staff had recommended that a 40' easement be obtained for a planned service road parallel to Hwy. 7 for sometime in the future. Mr. Tom Daggett of Hutchinson Manufacturing had expressed to Mr. Plotz that he was opposed to the request for an easement. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that as the request was a reasonable one for that zone the conditional use permit should be granted without being contingent upon the easement. It was noted by Director Priebe, however, that the intent of the City to acquire such an easement should be recorded with the conditional use so that it is a matter of record. Mr. Torgerson made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Hwang, the motion carried unanimously and the hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Torgerson made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the conditional use permit as requested without the easement contingency, but that the intent of the City to obtain the 40' easement for service road purposes be recorded. Seconded by Mr. Erickson, the motion carried unanimously. (e) CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS SUBMITTED BY WILBERT SCHLUETER (SCHLUETER REFRIGERATION) Chairman Homo opened the public hearing at 8:46 p.m. with the reading of publication #3337 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, November 8, 1984. The request is for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 12' by 40' leanto on the northside of their building located on Hwy 7 west in an IC -1 zone. There was no one present who objected to the request. Staff had recommended that the City obtain a 40' easement parallel to Hwy 7 for a planned service road. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the request was a reasonable one and should not be contingent upon acquiring the easement. It was recommended, however, that the City's intent to acquire the 40' easement for service road purposes be recorded. A concern about a leanto becoming an eyesore was brought up. It was determined that the leanto would have to meet building code specifications. Mr. Erickson made a motion to close the hearing at 8:50 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Torgerson, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Erickson made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the conditional use permit as requested without the easement contingency, but that the intent of the City to acquire the 40' easement for a planned service road be recorded. Seconded by Mr. Torgerson, the motion carried unanimously. 4 W CONSIDERATION OF REZONING AS REQUESTED BY ROBERT HORNICK Chairman Romo opened the hearing at 8:53 p.m. with the reading of publication #3338 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, November 8, 1984. The request is for the rezoning of the properties located at 29 4th Ave. N.W., 35 4th Ave. N.W., and 402 North Main Street from R-2 (Multiple Family Residence District) to C-2 (Automotive Services District). Director Priebe was present to state that the Comprehensive Plan does show extension of the commerical zone at least as far west as the lots requested, but not necessarily as far north. Mr. Robert Horniek, 6020 Stoneybrook Court, Minnetonka, was present to explain the request. He stated that he intends to expand and remodel the present gas and grocery store that is located on the corner of Hwy. 7 West and 15 North. Due to the expansion, he would need more property for parking purposes. Contingent upon the rezoning, he will purchase the Hoeft property (29 Fourth Ave. West). They then intend to move their house to another property (for which they have already received a conditional use permit.) Mr. Wayne Kasich, 45 4th Ave. N.W., neighboring property owner was present to state his objection to the request. He stated that "Bob has not been a good neighbor," as the basis for his objection. He went on to site incidences of violation of the weed ordinance (not keeping the property mowed), location of and use of the dumpster for dead minnows (odor and litter), privacy fence was not painted until it was finally painted by neighboring property owner (Hoeft), sidewalk not being shoveled and an old bulk truck sitting behind the gas Hutch attracting neighborhood children (safety). Mr. Kasich also stated that he thought IC -1 would be better zoning for the area. He then submitted documentation of his complaints to the Planning Commission. Mr. Daniel Wink of 35 4th Ave. N.W., owner of property included in the request presented a petition signed by notified property owners stating their objection to the rezoning. Mr. WinkMted that he had no objection to the rezoning if the property more taken care of. He agreed with Mr. Kasich's explanation of maintenance of the area. Mr. Ron McGraw, representing property owner Helen Zeleny, stated Mrs. Zeleny's objection to the request, noting that it would change the character of their residential neighborhood. He also pointed out that the Comprehensive plan does not include the north half of the Zeleny property as commercial. Ms. Diane Ekstrom, 480 Main Street North, stated she would like the area to remain residential. Mr. Elton Lueck, 94 5th Ave. N. W., stated he would like to keep the area residential. Mr. Horniek responded to Mr. Kasich's complaints, stating 'i h&4 -how he was working to remedy each of the problems sited. He presented pictures to the Planning Commission showing how he might use obese.• ideas from other stations to solve the problems, as well as a 5 possible site plan for the proposed expansion and remodeling. Mr. Erickson stated that the City would have much more control (ability to provide assurances for compliance with wishes of the neighborhood) with IC -1 zoning. Mr. Hornick responded that he preferred to Zone C-2 and comply with requirements of that zone. Director Priebe pointed out that there are specific requirements for service stations in C-2 zoning. Mr. McGraw asked if the granting the request might be spot zoning as the character of the area is residential. Chairman Romo stated that it was not spot zoning as it adjoined C-2 and he noted that he thought the trend for use of that property would definitely be commerical (ie, After Hoeft's move their house, the property would no longer be rebuilt upon as residential). After further discussion, Mr. Torgerson made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Erickson, the motion carried unanimously and the hearing was closed at 9:40 pan. Mr. Erickson made a motion to deny the request. Seconded by Mr. Torgerson, the motion carried unanimously. (g) CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE 464, SECTION 9 Chairman Romo opened the hearing at 9:52 pan. with the reading of publication #3340 as published in the Hutchinson 'Leader on Thursday, November 8, 1984. The request is for an amendment to include the following in Zoning Ordinance #464, Section Nine (9), TABULATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ZONING DISTRICTS, to read as follows: 4. No accessory building shall be erected or located within any yard other than the rear or side yard; nor shall it occupy more than 25% of a required rear yard and in no case within a "R-1" district shall it exceed 1,000 square feet in area. Accessory buidings shall not exceed fifteen feet in height, shall be six feet or more from all lot lines of adjoining lots and shall be six feet or more from any other building or structure on the same lot. During discussion it was determined that any R-1 requirements for accessory buildings also applied to R-2. Mr. Torgerson made a motion to close the hearing. Seconded by Mr. Erickson, the motion carried unanimously and the hearing was closed at 10:00 pan. Mr. Torgerson made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the amendment as requested. Seconded by Dr. Lyke, the motion carried unanimously. (h) CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE #464, SECTION 8.01.1 Chairman Romo opened the hearing at 10:00 pan. with the reading of publication #3341 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, November 8, 1984. The request is for an amendment to Zoning Ordinance 464, Section 8.01.1 entitled RULES FOR STRUCTURES IN DISTRICTS, to read as follows: All etpuatuves pematted In the 9-4 1-47 and IC -4 and RuD distptets I 0 shah be ooaatpusted In aoaopdanee with the valtops Sodding Code as adopted by the State of M#nne804a and the 91ty of i�utoh�naon� No residential structure in any district shall have a width of less than twenty-four (24) feet at its narrowest point. Width measurement shall not take into account overhang or other projections. Such width measurement shall be in addition to the minimum area per dwelling requirements of this ordinance. During discussion, it was determined that the amendment should also include a stipulation stating structures be placed on a foundation. As this would require that the amendment be republished, Mr. Erickson made a motion that the hearing be continued until the next regular meeting. Seconded by Mr. Hwang, the motion carried unanimously. 4. OLD BUSINESS None. 5. NEW BUSINESS (a) CONSIDERATION OF SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTED TO COUNTY BY HERB FILK (within two mile radius) The County referred the sketch plan submitted to them by Herb Filk to the City of Hutchinson for a recommendation as the property lies within the two mile radius of the City. It was the recommendation of staff that the sketch plan be approved subject to a subdivision agreement between the City and the subdivider to provide for an understanding of how assessments would be paid for if and when the subdivision were ever annexed into the City of Hutchinson. Mr. Frank Fay was present to answer any questions about the request. He read a letter from the Hassan Valley Town Board to the Hutchinson Planning Commission stating their consideration and approval of the request. Mr. Fay also stated it would be difficult to negotiate such an agreement so far in the future. After discussion, Mr. Erickson made a motion to recommend approval of the sketch plan as submitted subject to the subdivikn agreement being negotiated by the City staff to protect the interests of the City in the event the subdivision was ever annexed. Seconded by Mr. Torgerson, the motion carried unanimously. (b) CONSIDERATION OF SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY BY GEORGE HERBERT The County referred the sketch plan submitted to them by George Herbert to the City of Hutchinson for a recommendation as the property lies within the two mile radius of the City. It was the recommendation of staff that the sketch plan be approved subject to a subdivision agreement between the City and the subdivider to provide for an understanding of how assessments would be paid for if and when the subdivision were ever annexed into the City of Hutchinson. 7 As there had been nothing received from the Township regarding this request, Mr. Hwang made a motion to table this item until we hear from the township. Seconded by Mr. Torgerson, the motion carried unanimously. 6, ADJOURNMENT Mr. Torgerson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ebent, the motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M. 1.1