Loading...
05-21-1985 PCM cMINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1985 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Hutchinson Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Roland Ebent at 7:30 p.m., with the following members present: Marlin Torgerson, Elsa Young (8:00 p.m.), Don Erickson, Larry Romo, Tom Lyke and Chairman Ebent. Members absent: Shu -Mei Hwang. 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 Tuesday, April 16, 1985, were approved as presented upon a motion by Mr. Torgerson. Seconded by Mr. Romo, the motion carried unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS (a) CONTINUATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY LEONARD RIEMANN Chairman Ebent explained that this variance is no longer necessary as Mr. Reimann has decided to pursue changing the west property line to obtain the necessary footage for the sideyard setback. Mr. Torgerson made a motion to close the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Romo, the motion carried unanimously. (b) CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS SUBMITTED BY KEN NORTON Chairman Ebent opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. with the reading of publication #3411 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, May 9, 1985. The request is for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 221 by 241 woodframe garage on property located at 216 Huron Street. The conditional use permit is necessary because the property is located in an IC -1 zone where there are no predetermined setbacks. Director Priebe explained that there are special building code requirements when a building is this close to a property line. Staff noted this in their recommendation so that Mr. Norton would be aware of it. Mr. Ken Norton of 216 Huron Street was present to explain the request. He stated that he would like to set the garage back 81 farther to the west than is shown on the drawing to make the garage in line with the entry. It was the eonsenus of the Planning Commission that that would be preferable. He further stated that the house is already in place. Mr. Dwain Lutzke, representing owner of the lot next door stated that they had no objection to the proposal. Planning Commission Minutes -/21/85 Mr. Erickson made a motion to close the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Torgerson, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Torgerson made a motion to recommend approval to City Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Erickson. In discussion, City Administrator Plotz stated that the City had received a letter from the DNR stating that as the property is located in the flood fringe area, the structure must be elevated with fill to flood protection level and the fill must meet Zoning Ordinance requirements (as detailed in Section 8.11). Mr. Torgerson amended his motion to be contingent upon building meeting DNR requirements. The amendment was seconded by Mr. Erickson. The motion carried unanimously. 4. OLD BUSINESS (a) CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTED TO COUNTY BY HERB FILK (HASSAN HEIGHTS) Chairman Ebent explained that even though the County had already approved this plat, the Planning Commission should go on record regarding the plat. It had previously been reviewed by the Plan- ning Commission as the Herb Filk Sketch Plan. Mr. Romo made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the preliminary plat as presented. Seconded by Dr. Lyke, the motion carried unani- mously. (b) REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP After discussion, Mr. Torgerson made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map with the following changes: Industrial should be extended on the southeastern portion of the map from and including the armory site to the Saterlee pit area. Industrial should be extended on the northeastern portion of the map to include the property owned by Hutchinson Technology north of their present building site up to the existing farm site. Commerical should replace a portion of the industrial to the east of the Hutchinson Technology site, and north of Hwy 7. Seconded by Mr. Erickson, the motion carried unanimously. (c) DISCUSSION OF EXISTING NONCONFORMING SIGNS City Administrator Plotz stated that he had asked City Attorney Schaefer for an opinion regarding the existing, non -conforming roof sign at Century 21. Attorney Schaefer had responded with a memo that was included in the packet. Restating his memo, Attorney Schaefer explained that the City Ordinance prohibits roof signs and it was his opinion that the Century 21 sign was a roof sign. He further explained that in the similar situation of Cameo Cleaners, they had been advised that their sign was not in compliance and that if there was no response from Cameo Cleaners, action would be taken to site them for a violation of the Zoning Ordinance, which is a misdemeanor. He has taken no action regarding a sign at Hennen Planning Commission Minutes -/21/85 Furniture. Mr. Erickson asked that it be checked to see if there had been a variance granted to Brock's Home Furnishings for that sign. Mr. Larry Fraser of Century 21 was present to state that he felt the existing sign was better than some other options that were in compliance with the ordinance. It was recommended that Century 21 apply for a sign permit and receive approval before they purchase anything to avoid problems in the future. The possibility of making changes in the sign ordinance was discussed. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the ordinance is acceptable as is. After discussion, Mrs. Young made a motion to recommend to City Council that the sign ordinance be allowed to stand as it is. Seconded by Mr. Erickson, the motion carried unanimously. (d) CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN REQUIRMENT FOR REZONING Chairman Ebent began the discussion by restating the amendments to the ordinance as recommended by City Attorney Schaefer in a memo to the City Administrator dated May 7, 1985. Attorney Schaefer had also submitted several examples of amendment procedures and requirements from other city ordinances. After reviewing them, Attorney Schaefer recommended the following changes: Section 6.06 B be changed to allow initiation of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance by one or more of the owners of property in the area to be rezoned or by an individual who owns an enforceable option on property located within the area to be rezoned. Section 6.06 C2 (c) C changed to provide at a minimum, the following: 5) A map, drawn to scale, clearly showing the property proposed to be reclassified and a preliminary building and site development plan. Discussion followed. It was the consenus of the Commission that the initial use planned for the development also be required. It was recommended that "it's initial proposed use" be inserted after "reclassified". Director Priebe suggested the proposed use be required to remain the same until after the occupancy permit is issued. Mr. Torgerson noted that occupancy could be contingent upon initial rezoning change. After discussion, Mr. Torgerson made a motion to set a public hearing on the recommended zoning changes for June 18, 1985. Seconded by Mrs. Young, the motion carried unanimously. 5. NEW BUSINESS (a) SIGN REQUEST SUBMITTED BY JERRY BROWN City Administrator Plotz explained that the request is for a permit to allow a temporary sign during the month of May. Mr. Brown makes a similar request every year. It has not been reviewed by the Planning Commission before. Mr. Torgerson made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the sign permit as requested. Seconded by Mrs. Young, the Planning Commission Minutes -/21/85 motion carried unanimously. (b) BEGIN REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE The Planning Commission began the process of reviewing the subdivision ordinance, line by line. Recommended changes for Section 1 are as follows: Delete Section 1.30. Delete the word "SHORT" from Section 1.40. City Attorney Schaefer was asked to research section 1.50 and add parts 1.51 pertaining to incorporated area and 1.52 pertainng to unincorporated area within two mile radius of the City. Add "recommendation by Planning Commission and" after "platting regulations without" line 3 of Section 1.70. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to review Sections 2 and 3 at the June 18 meeting. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mr. Torgerson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mrs. Young, the motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.