Loading...
01-15-1985 PCM cMINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1985 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, Elsa Young, Roland Ebent, Shu -Mei Hwang, Thomas Lyke and Chairman Romo. Members absent: Don Erickson. 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, December 18, 1984, were approved as presented on a motion by Mr. Torgerson. Seconded by Mrs. Young, the motion carried unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS (a) CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BY DR. TOM LYKE (Dr. Lyke asked to relinquish his seat on the Planning Commission for the duration of this hearing and recommendation.) Chairman Romo opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. with the reading of publication #3359 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, January 3, 1985. The request is for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 46' by 701 woodframe dental office building (with some rental space), to be located on Echo Drive, in an R-3 zone. Dr. Lyke stated that the request was the same as was presented at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 18, 1984. There being no further discussion, Mr. Torgerson made a motion to close the hearing at 7:34 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Ebent, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Torgerson made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the conditional use permit as requested. Seconded by Mrs. Young, the motion carried unanimously. (b) CONSIDERATION OF PETITION TO VACATE EASEMENT KNOWN AS PARK LANE AS SUBMITTED BY PATRICK SPAUDE AND BRUCE DRAHOS Chairman Romo opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. with the reading of publication 43360 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, January 3 and Tuesday, January 8, 1985.The petition asks that the City vacate the 20.141 by 1301 easement referred to as "Park Lane" located on 7th Ave. N.W. City Administrator Plotz explained that the easement was originally granted to allow a walkway from a proposed development to a park so that residents would not have to cross privately owned property to reach the park. The developer has PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/15/85 since changed his plans for the area so the walkway is no longer necessary. Upon vacation of the easement, the 20.141 would be divided equally and would become part of the lots on either side of the easements. Mr. Spaude and Mr. Drahos were present to state that as neither have built on the property it would give them more building options. Mr. Ebent asked about retaining a utility easement. Director Priebe replied that a utitlity easement (6' on either side of resulting property line) should be retained. After discussion, Mrs. Young made a motion to close the hearing at 7:38 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Hwang, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Torgerson made a motion to recommend to City Council vacation of the easement as requested, with the stipulation that the utility easement be retained as recommended by staff. Seconded by Mr. Ebent, the motion carried unanimously. (c) CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BY FARID AND NAHEED CURRIMBHOY/HUTCH ABC MONTESSORI SCHOOL Chairman Romo opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. with the reading of publication #3362 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, January 3, 1985. The request is for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a two level duplex for the pur- pose of operating the Hutch ABC Montessori School/Day Care Center on the lower level and living facilities on the upper level. City Administrator Plotz explained a similar request (nursery school in an R-2 zone) had been granted to the Learning Hutch; however, their operation was in an existing church as opposed to a new structure. When staff reviewed the plans, it was determined that a total of 7 parking spaces would be required, based on the number of classrooms proposed. It was also determined that a variance would be necessary for the structure as proposed to allow a 25' frontyard setback on the School Road side of the the building. Mr. Currimbhoy was present to explain the request. He stated that the Minnesota Department of Human Services had approved their operation for 32 students. At the present time, they serve 18 students. They would like to have a larger facility to serve more students. The children range in age from 2 1/2 to 6. School hours run from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Day Care Service is then provided to those parents who desire it from 11:30 until 5 p.m. Mr. Currimbhoy stated that there would be a very minimal increase in traffic, and that they have had no problems with traffic congestion at their present site. He also noted that the house would look like a house from the outside, and would look as nice as the houses around it. N PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/15/85 During discussion it was noted that the parking area as shown would have to be moved to be 15' off McDonald's Drive. Mr. Richard Larson, builder, stated there would be enough room to meet the 15' setback required, bu moving the house back. Attorney Barry Anderson was present representing Richard and Linda Martin, neighboring property owners. He presented a petition signed by neighborhood residents stating their objection to the conditional use permit and asking that the request be denied. He further stated that the neighbors objected to the proposal for the following reasons: 1) Traffic - It would increase substantially. 2) Safety - Traffic is fast - many young drivers - not safe for those already living there and those bringing their small children; also may cause visibility problem on the corner of McDonald Drive and School Road. 3) Decreased Property Values - A development like this is essentially a commerical establishment in a residential area - This would generally change the character of the residential neighborhood and depress property values. Mr. Jim Waldron of 530 School Road explained that when he built his house on school he was required to set it back much farther than the request by the Currimbhoys. Mr. Waldron stated that he felt that as proposed, the house would stick out as an eyesore. He was also concerned about the safety issue. He stated he couldn't count on both hands the number of cars that have ended up in that lot. (Chair- man Romo noted that Mr. Waldron was addressing the variance issue which would be addressed in the next hearing.) Mr. Rich Martin of 1235 McDonald Drive expressed his concern about safety. He felt that a driveway would have to be provided that would allow the parents to drive in, drop their children off and then drive out, off the street. Rufus Alexander of 510 School Road spoke to verify the comments of the neighbors in regard to traffic. He also stated that he would have preferred to have a larger backyard, but the large front yards were required to allow for the frontyard setback. Mr. Bruce Bjerklund, 535 Lakeview Lane, commented that he objected to the "concrete front yard" that would be required for the proposal to meet the parking requirements. Mrs. Linda Martin, 1235 McDonald Drive, also stated her concern about the parking area having to expand if the school enrollment were to expand. Administrator Plotz responded that the parking is based on number of classrooms - not number of children and would only have to be increased if the number of classrooms were increased. The parking provided is for the workers, not the children. Discussion followed regarding a required "buffer zone" between parking area and residential area. City Administrator Plotz explained that generally refers to a buffer between commercial and residential and that this request was being handled as a conditional 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/15/85 use in a residential - not a commercial request. Reverend Tim Maland of 855 Spruce St. commented that as a parent with a child in the Montessori School, he felt he would like to see it able to expand in order to serve more people. The neighborhood residents stated that they had no objection to the school itself, just to the location. Dr. Lyke stated that he would like to see a plan that meets the requirements before making a recommendation. Mr. Hwang stated that he was generally in favor of the conditional use permit as he felt property values depended upon the buyer and the seller - and as the area developed, the traffic safety might improve. He noted, however, that he was not in favor from the variance standpoint. He noted that he didn't think you could build on the lot and meet setback requirements. Mr. Ebent felt that the day care operation was prohibited under prohibited home occupations and that as the petition was signed by entire neighbor- hood, he would not be in favor of the conditional use permit. Mr. Torgerson commented that as the request might increase the traffic hazards that already exist, he would not be in favor of the conditional use permit in this location, but recommended that other site alternatives be considered. Mrs. Young also felt that the traffic and safety issues are a real concern, but also felt that as the others on school road had to meet the setback, it would not be fair to them. She also sited the idea of a "parking lot next door" as "not exactly what I would call a picturesque scene." She felt there should be a more appropriate setting for a school of this type. Chairman Romo stated that his major concern was with the parking area and that it does change the area. He stated he would not be in favor of the conditional use permit. Mr. Torgerson made a motion to close the hearing at 8:42 p.m. Seconded by Mrs. Young, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Torgerson made a motion to recommend to City Council that the request be rejected. Seconded by Mr. Ebent, the motion carried, with Mr. Ebent, Mrs. Young, Dr. Lyke, Mr. Torgerson and Chairman Romo voting "aye" and Mr. Hwang voting "nay." (d) CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BY FARID AND NAHEED CURRIMBHOY/HUTCH ABC MONTESSORI SCHOOL Chairman Romo opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. with the reading of publication 43365 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, January 3, 1985. the request is for a variance to allow the reduction of the frontyard setback on property located at the corner of School Road and McDonald Drive, on the School Road side. Note: As this request is related to the former request for a conditional use permit, much of the discussion was done during 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/15/85 the public hearing for the conditional use permit. Mr. Dave Dressel, 540 Lakeview Lane, questioned whether the playground area would meet State requirements if the house were moved back to provide adequate setback from McDonald's Drive. Mr. Martin commented that plans submitted should show where other houses sit. Mrs. Martin restated her concerns about traffic. Mr. Anderson stated that in addition to safety and fairness, he feels this would be an attempt put more on this lot than it will accomodate. Mrs. Young made a motion to close the hearing at 8:53 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Hwang, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Young made a motion to recommend to City Council that the variance be denied. Seconded by Mr. Torgerson, the motion carried unanimously. (e) CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS REQUESTED BY LARRY BETHKE Chairman Romo opened the public hearing at 8:55 pm. with the reading of publication #3363 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, January 3, 1985. The request is for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 70 -unit planned development of townhouses and appurtenances on property located on 8th Ave. N.W. and School Road. City Administrator Plotz explained that the proposal was detailed in the plans submitted by Mr. Bethke. Director Priebe had prepared a memo outlining the improvements that would be required in 1985 to serve the 1985 phase of the project. The Fire Marshal's recommendation for a hydrant system and a maintenance agreement for hydrants was also noted. Mr. Ebent made a motion to close the hearing at 9:00 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Torgerson, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Torgerson made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the conditional use permit as requested. Seconded by Mrs. Young, the motion carried unanimously. (f) CONSIDERATION OF REZONING AS REQUESTED BY ROBERT HORNICK (C-2) Chairman Romo opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. with the reading of publication #3361 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, January 3, 1985. The request is to rezone a portion of the lot located at 402 Main Street and the lot located at 29 4th Ave. N. W. from R-2 to C-2 for the purpose of providing a parking lot to the adjacent Gas Hutch, which is zoned C-2. Chairman Romo noted that correspondence had been received from the D.O.T., Mr. Daniel Wink and Mr. Wayne Kasich 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/15/85 and summarized the contents of that correspondence. The D.O.T. stated they had no objection, but wanted to make it clear that any changes of access from the highways would be at the expense of the owner. Mr. Wink and Mr. Kasieh stated their objection to the C-2 zoning. Mr. Roger Gilmer was present representing Mr. Hornick. He stated that he would like to table the hearing on the west property (35 4th Ave. N.W. to IC -1). He further stated that Mr. Hornick's purchase agreement on 29 4th Ave. N.W. expired at midnight and wasn't prepared to pursue that request at this time. He did however, want to address the rezoning of the southerly 1/2 of the George Zeleny property (402 South Main Street) to C-2. An attorney representing Mrs. Helen Zeleny, owner of the property adjoining Mr. George Zeleny's stated that Mrs. Zeleny objected to the rezoning. Mr. Elton Leek restated his objection (had appeared at former hearing). Mr. Torgerson stated that it was his understanding that at the former hearing it had been the consensus of the Planning Commission that the whole property (that formerly requested plus the property on which the Gas Hutch is now located) should be rezoned to IC -1. Mr. Gilmer stated that Mr. Hornick was willing to correct the problems about which the neighbors had complained. He also noted that the City has other ways to enforce, for example, a weed problem. His stated that Mr. Hornick's objection to zoning IC - 1 was the control that the neighbors or City might impose upon him. After discussion, Mr. Torgerson made a motion to continue this hearing until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 19, 1985. Seconded by Dr. Lyke, the motion carried unanimously. (g) CONSIDERATION OF REZONING AS REQUESTED BY ROBER HORNICK (IC -1) Chairman Romo opened the public hearing at 9:30 p.m. with the reading of publication #3364 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, January 3, 1985. The request is to rezone property located at 35 4th Ave. N.W. from R-2 to IC -1. As it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would prefer to consider both requests at the same time, Mr. Torgerson made a motion to continue the hearing until the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 19, 1985. Seconded by Mr. Hwang, the motion carried unanimously. 4. OLD BUSINESS (a) DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE 466 SECTION 4.25 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1/15/85 City Attorney Schaefer explained that the City's subdivision Ordinance requires a plat to be filed with the County Recorder within 90 days of City Council approval. If the 90 day deadline is not met, the County Recorder returns the plat which has to be reconsidered by the Planning Commission and the City Council. In several cases, developers were having trouble paying current taxes on the property within the 90 days - another requirement that must be met before the plat can be recorded. City Attorney Schaefer recommended a one year period, noting that the other language would remain the same. During discussion it was brought out that perhaps the developers should have some input as to the time frame before a specific deadline was considered. Mr. Torgerson made a motion to set the public hearing on the amendment to the subdivision ordinance for the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 19, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Hwang, the motion carried unanimously. (b) DISCUSSION OF SITE PLAN REQUIREMENT FOR REZONING City Administrator Plotz asked if the Planning Commission would be interested in bringing in someone with experience on this subject to speak to the Planning Commission. He noted that Ann Perry or Gunnar Isberg might be available to speak and that either has experience with the topic. After discussion, it was the consenus of the Planning Commission that this might be helpful for making a decision regarding site plans and zoning. 5. NEW BUSINESS It was noted that the Government Training Service is planning a workshop to be held in Hutchinson on Tuesday, February 19, the date of the next Planning Commission meeting, from 2:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission, that if the workshop were offered, that the Planning Commission date be changed to Monday, February 18, at 7:30 p.m., in order to allow those who wish to attend to do so. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mr. Torgerson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ebent, the motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. 7