Loading...
11-15-1983 PCM cMINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 15, 1983 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: Ted Beatty, Elsa Young, Roland Ebent, Thomas Lyke, Don Erickson, Shu -Mei Hwang and Chairman Romo. Also present: City Administrator Gary D. Plotz, Director of Engineering Marlow V. Priebe, Building Official Homer Pittman and City Attorney James H. Schaefer. 2. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting dated -October 18,•1983, were approved as presented upon motion by Mr. Beatty. Seconded by Mr. Erickson, the motion carried unanimously. - 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS - (a) CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBMITTED BY DICK AND JIM MCCLURE Chairman Romo opened the hearing at -7:32 P.M -,.with the r@ading of Publication #3171 as published in the Hutchinson -Leader on Thursday, November 3, 1983. The request is for a conditional use permit to allow the con- struction of a 41 -unit condominium (retirement -center) on the property located at South Grade Road and Sunset Street (the southwest corner), as per Planned Unit Development. City Attorney Schaefer noted that there were restrictive cove- nants on the property where the proposal is planned: The only two' -requirements of--the-restrictive covenants are 1) Any con- struction done on that property area be residential; 2) The construction must be permissable under R-2 zoning.- It was -..- Attorney Schaefer's opinion that a Planned Unit Development of the type Mr. McClure -is proposing is permissable under R-2 zoning and meets the requirements of the restrictive covenants on the property.. Mr. Jim McClure was present to explain the proposal. He explained that the plan has 41 units on one level surrounding a center court- yard. There are 30 garages on the South side of the building. The exterior finish has not been determined but brick or wood siding has been considered. Hutchinson Planning Commission Minutes - Page 2 November 15, 1983 The structure has been designed as a retirement center for citizens 55 and older. Each unit will be privately owned. Association dues will cover various amenities; such as, a van that will be provided for the center, commons area, din- ing area, recreation area, etc. The site under consideration was chosen because it is within walking distance of a major shopping center, close to medical facilities, financial institutions and the various branch offices, near a supermarket as well as a nearby motel to accomo- date overnight guests. Mr. Ancher-Nelsen and Ms. Carol Haukos were present to comment on how the proposal meets one of the needs identified by the Hutchinson Elderly Services Task Force. A member of the task force, Mr. Nelsen explained that they had found a serious need for housing for the retired, middle-income citizen of Hutchinson— There are over 500 units of subsidized housing in Hutchinson. The task force is looking for an operation where you disassociate witty the government entirely and encourage private investment for those who were willing and able to do so. There is a similar project that has been completed in Northfield, Minnesota. Mr. Nelson, Ms. Haukos and Mr. McClure had visited the the center and were very impressed with all aspects of it. The project Mr. McClure has proposed was designed by the same archi- tect. Mr. Nelson also commented that he didn't care where the project was built, but that there is a definite need for this type of housing in Hutchinson and that Mr. McClure's plan has a good deal of merit. Ms. Haukos supported Mr,_ Nelsen's statements and presented a hand- out on the "Goals, Objectives and Strategies Related to Elderly Services in the Hutchinson Community." Discussion followed. The following questions, responses and comments were part of the discussion. Chairman Romo: Is there direct access to the development from South Grade Road? Mr. McClure: .The only. -.access to the development is from Sunset Street. Mr. Ebent: The view from South Grade Road would be a row of 30 garage doors. Mr. McClure: We put the garage doors in the best view for the people living within the units. It is designed Hutchinson Planning Commission Minutes - Page 3 November 15, 1983 for the privacy,of the people within the units. Mr. Erickson: My biggest concern is consistency with the compre- hensive plan and harmony in the area. Mr. McClure: Each unit will be privately owned. These people have pride in ownership and will keep the project well- maintained. I think it will fit in well with the area. Mr. Erickson: When I think of harmonizing with single family units, I don't think of looking across to garage doors. Are there easements for the extension of Keith Street? Mr. Priebe: - Keith Street is a platted street only to be extended if someone comes up with a plat for it. There are no easements -set up. - Linda Willmsen: We feel Jim has a good plan. I don't know if we want 935 Steven St. it in our neighborhood. At the time when the bank' property was rezoned, Pat Flynn assured us that the only thing that could be built would house no more than 2 units. Among our concerns are multi -family dwellings. We would not like apartments. He said townhouses would be built there. We don't want that many people in there. There is not much grassy area. The building will overwhelm the area. (Mrs. Willmsen presented a petition signed by neighborhood residents asking the commission to deny the permit in this area.) Barbara Ringstrom: I object to the plan.- My feeling is that I already 934 Keith St. live there. I don't want to see that complex in my neighborhood. Joan Padrnos: We are new residents. My biggest concern when pur- 955 Keith St. chasing was what was going in across from us. We were assured it would be single family dwellings. We have a lot of traffic on that road already. It will increase traffic and we all have small children. It would be a better view for us if the project would be moved back 660'. What happens when "Mom and Dad" are gone? Will the kids start moving in? I am very con- cerned about what you're trying to do now. B. Ringstrom: Are there plans to put sidewalks in that area? Mr. Priebe: Our present sidewalk plan makes that street (South Grade Road) eligible for sidewalk in the future. In the phase we are in now, we are trying to correct poor existing sidewalk throughout the city. Hutchinson Planning Commission Minutes - Page 4 November 15, 1983 Valerie Doering: I remember when we bought our home in 1979. 954 Steven St. First the area across the street was rezoned. We compromised. The first 660' south would be one and two family residences. Now it looks like we are arguing for the same thing again. City Administrator Plotz: I think that you're wondering why the request got this far. Everyone has the oppor- tunity to apply for a permit, as Jim has. A PUD permit allows a greater density than what is allowed without a permit in that zoning. There is a provision in every zoning classifi- cation for that. The restrictive covenants stipulate that it would allow R-2 zoning for residential uses --that it be limited to single family. We cannot turn down the right of the person to apply for a public hearing. r s B. Ringstrom: Theoretically; -we could be here every year. Attorney Schaefer: Without the restrictive covenants, much more would have been possible. The restrictive covenants have eliminated many possibilities (read list from ordinance), but do allow res- idential. The only question now is if this PUD meets neighborhood standards. Leonard Larson: I think it is planned for the wrong place. This area is zoned for duplexes. Mr. McClure: This proposal has 62% green area ... more than you would have for single family dwellings or duplexes. This structure will probably house no more than 82 people. Density is not much more than if a series of small duplexes was built where you could have several more people per unit. There is no --guarantee that the structure will remain a retirement center. Once the unit is purchased, it may be sold to someone else; however, it would take action of the whole cluster to change it - (the minimum age of the residents). Mr. Priebe: According to the comprehensive plan, the area allows for medium to high density or 8 or more per acre. The proposal meets the comprehensive plan. The request is in accordance with R-2 requirements. Based on information that I have received at state conferences, it's my understan .g that you cannot deny a conditional use permit that meets the requirements. You can put conditions on it. The conditions can't be arbitrary and must be within reason. Hutchinson Planning Commission Minutes - Page 5 November 15, 1983 Mr. Nelsen: Can you turn the plan around so the view is better for the residents there now? Mr. McClure: It has been designed with the residents(of the PUD) in mind. We also want to work with the neighbor- hood. Certain items we can change. Ron Prybil: Set the whole thing back farther. Mr. Priebe: We don't have an actual drawing of•how it will fit on the existing contours. There is about a 19' difference in elevation from the east to the west. We need more drawings to fit the site. Mr. Prybil: Personally, I wouldn't have any objections if you set it back. Let's worry about the people who are already living there. My biggest concern is the 30 garages. I don't want to look at them. Mr. McClure: The property south of our proposal is owned by_ another property. The purchase price of each unit will range from $45,000 upwards to about $65,000/70,000. Mr. Beatty: Rather than close this hearing, I think we should continue it. I think of the intent of the restrictive covenants made in the past and the fact that if this request meets all the requirements, we can't deny it. I move to continue this hearing until the next meeting, before we make a decision on the request, Mrs. Young: I recall another situation that aroused concern; that was Town and Country Estates. Neighbors were very upset. It is now a very nice looking development -- tidy. People that have retired are living there. I agree that we need to do more thinking about this request. Maybe by making a few changes the proposal will be acceptable. Mr. Ebent: I think this concept is needed in Hutchinson. If this is the place for it is the question. Is it feasibletobuild 41 units at one time? Dr. Lyke: My feelings are as Ted has explained. I think I hear from the citizens that intent was an important factor. Yet, if the proposal meets the requirements, we can't deny it. Hutchinson Planning Commission Minutes - Page 6 November 15, 1983 Mr. Erickson: Intent did have a lot to do with the covenant part of it. Shu Mei Hwang: I think the proposal can really be an enhance- ment to the area. It would be good to see an artist's conception of what it's going to look like. Can it be more spread out on more land? Mr. Erickson: If we continue the hearing, I think we should ask for easements for the extension of Keith Street. Mr. Beatty: Keith Street was not planned to be extended. W. McClure: We have looked at other sites. The residents of this project will want the same things you want --quiet, low traffic, etc. Moving the garages to another location is possible. We 0 plan to build the entire structure as one unit. Construction would not begin until 75% of the units are sold. Chairman Romo: It was felt that this was not the type of project going in. I feel there is some area where this can be worked out. I suggest that the neighbors get-together with Mr. McClure prior to the next meeting. Mr. McClure commented that they weren't against making changes. He -- would like some direction as to what kind of changes would make the proposal more acceptable to the neighborhood. It was the consensus of the commission that Mr. McClure should meet with representatives of the neighborhood to discuss possible changes. Mr. Nelsen suggested that anyone who -could-should make a trip to North- field to see the project there. Mr. Prybil stated that the exterior should be somewhat like the bank. Make it look like you would want it around your own home. The motion to continue the hearing to the next meeting was seconded by Mr._ Erickson.-- The_ motion carried_ unanimously., 13utchinson Planning Commission Minutes - Page 7 November 15, 1983 4. Old Business None. 5. New Business None. 6. Adjourment There being no further business, Mr. Beatty made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mrs. Young, the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M.