Loading...
03-21-2000 PCM c MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 21, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Arndt at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Dean Kirchoff, Bill Arndt, Jim Haugen, Brandon Fraser, and Jason Olsen. Absent: Jeff Jones. Also present: Julie Wischnack, AICP, Director of Planning, Zoning, and Building; Holly Kreft, Planning Coordinator and Richard Schieffer, City Legal Counsel. 2. PRESENTATION OF TOWER ORDINANCE INFORMATION Ms. Wischnack presented a slide show demonstrating the different types of towers in the area. The heights of the towers range from less than 100 feet to greater than 600 feet. She also provided examples of co-location including utilizing existing structures such as grain elevators. Chairman Arndt introduced James Strommen from the law offices of Kennedy and Graven. Mr. Strommen gave his background in the telecommunications industry. He stated that the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 had caused cities to reevaluate their tower ordinances. He added that the Act governs commercial services including PCS, paging, and cellular as well as SMR and unlicensed wireless services. Mr. Strommen explained that the federal standards are imposed over local regulations including: 1. No unreasonable discrimination. 2. No regulation prohibiting all towers. 3. Local governments must act within a reasonable time period. 4. Local governments can not use environmental effects to limit or prohibit towers. 5. Any denial must be in writing and include substantial evidence. Mr. Strommen explained a suggested process for updating the existing ordinance. He said that first current regulations should be reviewed to decide what can remain and what should be updated. He added that a mix of zoned areas provides the most freedom to choose where towers are placed. The existing ordinance should also be reviewed to evaluate how effectively it addresses new technologies such as wireless and PCS. Mr. Strommen listed considerations the Commission should take into effect including: 1. A moratorium may be placed on all towers, but the time limit should not exceed four months. 2. Technical consultants should be hired for the public hearing process and retained for future technical questions. 3. Hearings should be held for the providers and the residents. 4. The Commission should establish strict but clear standards because they are working in a legislative capacity. 5. The Commission should ensure that the standards are not an effective prohibition on services or providers and should include a variance procedure. Mr. Strommen added thatthe community should develop priorities as to what it wants for tower standards. He included the following list of points: 1. Aesthetics. 2. What demand for services is there for current and future uses? 3. If public land will be favored or discouraged as locations. 4. If the community would like to have more shorter towers or fewer taller towers. 5. How the existing towers or other antenna support structures will be utilized. Mr. Strommen then presented a possible outline for a tower ordinance including the following headings: 1. Statement of policies and purposes. 2. Definitions 3. Land use preferences and prohibited areas. 4. Dimensional requirements. 5. Co-locations. 6. Showing coverage need and least intrusive location policy. 7. Conditional use versus administrative permits 8. Aesthetic standards. 9. Compliance with FCC and FAA. 10. Engineering. 11. Site plan (detailed). 12. Equipment change reporting. 13. Projected plans. 14. Maintenance provisions. 15. Tower types. 16. Landscaping, 17. Right-of-Way policy. 18. Permit fee schedule. 19. Applicant payment and legal fees. 20. Monitoring of compliance at permitee's expense. 21. Performance bonding and show of insurance. 22. Abandonment and removal. 23. Variance procedures. 24. Retention of police powers. 25. Enforcement of violations. Mr. Arndt asked if the Commission could request notification upon change of ownership. Mr. Strommen stated that such a requirement could be mandated by the Commission. Mr. Kirchoff asked if, during the application process, the Commission could request what type of service, including proposed and future uses, the tower will be providing. Mr. Strommen stated that the Commission should request such information so that it may aware of potential interference issues. He added that many communities prohibit advertising to be placed on these towers. Mr. Fraser asked if the providers would be responsible for the fee to assess other locations. Mr. Strommen stated that any of these fees would be the responsibility of the applicant. Mr. Haugen questioned if the Commission had set precedent by granting a conditional use permit to place a 300' tower in the industrial district. Mr. Strommen replied that Minutes Planning Commission-March 21, 2000 Page 2 since a new ordinance would be in effect that precedent should not be set. Mr. Strommen also stated that 185' was a common height for tower limits. Ms. Wischnack questioned if Mr. Strommen knew if the free fall zone on a monopole tower was similar to a guy-wired tower. Mr. Strommen said that he was not knowledgeable in this area, but that many cities had adopted a tower ordinance using the setback length of the tower height plus ten feet. Mr. Olsen asked what the average life expectancy of the towers was. Mr. Strommen stated that this would be a good question for the technical expert. Mr. Schieffer asked if there were any agencies that needed to review the proposed changes to the ordinance prior to adoption. Mr. Strommen stated that there were not. Mr. Gary ??? questioned how amateur radio towers would be addressed. Ms. Wischnack stated that the existing ordinance allows them simply as structures that need a building permit. There was discussion as to the need of the height of the towers, and it was agreed that if the tower heights requiring a conditional use permit were less than 75' than almost all amateur radio towers would be allowed uses. Mr. Haugen did comment that the Commission may wish to still imposing some setbacks or prohibit them in front yards. Mr. John Mlinar, City Council member, 704 Hilltop Drive, stated that he would like to see that the city attempt to stay consistent with the County's towers ordinance. Ms. Wischnack also stated the Joint Planning Area, which encompasses all four townships, is also going to be reviewing their tower ordinance to better fit both the City's and the County's. Mr. Mlinar thanked Mr. Strommen for his expertise and presentation. 3. CONSENT AGENDA a) CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2000 Mr. Haugen made a motion to approve the minutes. Seconded by Mr. Kirchoff. The motion carried unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) CONSIDERATION OF REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT FOR ISLAND VIEW HEIGHTS 5TH ADDITION AS REQUESTED BY SCENIC HEIGHTS INVESTMENT INC. (SOUTH OF WEST SHORE DRIVE AND EAST OF UNDERWOOD AVENUE - OUTLOT A OF ISLAND VIEW HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION) Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 6:48 p.m. with the reading of publication #6129 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, March 9, 2000. Ms. Wischnack displayed the location map and gave a brief history of the Island View Heights project. She stated that the applicant had originally planned multiple family housing in this addition, but had changed it to single family housing. Because of this change, a public hearing was required for the revised preliminary plat. Ms. Wischnack added that the entire 5th Addition was approximately 5 acres in size and would accommodate 19 lots. She also added that the cul-de-sac would be an extension of the existing Prairie View Drive SW. Because this development in within a Planned Development District, some the widths and lot area standards are not met. Ms. Wischnack went on to explain the charges associated with sewer, water, park dedication, and construction costs. She added that a subdivider's agreement would need to be signed and that staff hoped to have this agreement ready by Thursday, March 23. Ms. Wischnack stated that staff recommended approval with the four conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Haugen asked whattype of housing was originally planned for this area. Mr. Bill Gilk, developer, stated that originally the plan was to build approximately 24 units of three-plexes. There being no further discussion, Mr. Westlund moved to close the hearing at 6:53 p.m. Mr. Kirchoff seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing passed unanimously. Mr. Westlund moved to approve the revised preliminary plat and final plat with the conditions recommended by staff including: 1. Must obtain final approval from the City Engineer regarding construction plans. 2. Must execute subdivider's agreement prior to consideration of the final plat by the City Council. 3. Erosion control must be present throughout construction, until stabilization of the soil occurs. 4. Adequate access must be maintained during construction for the purposes of entering the property for emergency services. Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. The motion to approve with said condition passed unanimously. b) CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PLACE A TEMPORARY MOBILE HOME Minutes Planning Commission-March 21, 2000 Page 3 ON PROPERTY LOCATED BEHIND THE NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY FOR FIREFIGHTER TRAINING AS REQUESTED BY CITY OF HUTCHINSON Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 6:55 p.m. with the reading of publication #6130 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, March 9, 2000. Ms. Kreft presented the request by the City of Hutchinson Fire Department. She displayed an area map showing the approximate location of the mobile home. She stated that the Fire and Police Departments had hoped to create a permanent training facility in this area. She added that staff recommended approval with the condition that the mobile home be removed within 18 months or an extension be requested if it should need to be placed there longer. Mr. Brad Emans, Fire Chief, reiterated that the long-range plan was to construct a permanent training facility and that the Departments hoped to have a permanent structure in place for various types of training. Mr. Kirchoff questioned the time period relative to previous requests that were granted for shorter time periods. Ms. Kreft explained that since this would not be a commercial or industrial use, staff felt that the time period could be greater. Mr. Haugen moved to close the hearing at 6:59 p.m. Mr. Westlund seconded the motion to close the hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Haugen moved to approve the conditional use permit with the condition that the mobile home be removed within 18 months and if removal is not possible at that time, an extension must be requested. Mr. Kirchoff seconded the motion. Motion to approve with said condition carried unanimously. c) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REPLACE AN EXISTING NON- CONFORMING GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY (4' INSTEAD OF REQUIRED 6') AS REQUESTED BY JUSTIN RANNOW (701 4TH AVENUE SW) Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 7:00 p.m. with the reading of publication #6131 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, March 9, 2000. Ms. Kreft presented the request and displayed photographs showing the existing garage. She explained that the original dimensions for the proposed garage were reduced from 24' x 30' to 22' x 28'. She also added that the request included a reduction in the requirement for both the garage and the proposed driveway. Ms. Kreft stated that staff recommended approval and read the list of recommended conditions. Mr. Haugen moved to close the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. Mr. Westlund seconded the motion. Motion to close the hearing passed unanimously. Mr. Westlund moved to approve the conditional use permit request with the following conditions: 1. Garage may not be of "pole-type" construction. 2. The existing garage must be removed. 3. The garage may not exceed 16 feet in height. 4. The overhang on the east side of the proposed garage may not extend more than one foot. 5. The conditional use permit shall expire after 6 months, unless an extension request is received, prior to expiration. Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. The motion to approve the permit with the listed conditions carried unanimously. 4. NEW BUSINESS a) CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL PLAT OF FIRST ADDITION TO ROLLING MEADOWS FOR 23 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AS REQUESTED BY SORENSON AND NAUSTDAL PROPERTIES LLC (CAROLINA PARKWAY, 8TH AND 7TH AVENUES) Ms. Wischnack explained the request and displayed overheads showing the area of the first addition. She went on to explain the park fees and utility charges. Discussion was held relative to street construction and storm water ponding. Mr. Westlund moved to approve the final plat of the 1 sl Addition to Rolling Meadows with the following conditions: 1. Must obtain approval from the City Engineer regarding construction plans. 2. Must execute subdivider's agreement prior to consideration of the final plat by the City Council. 3. Erosion control must be presentthroughout construction, until stabilization of the soil occurs. 4. Adequate access must be maintained during construction for the purposes of entering the property for emergency services. b) CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL PLAT OF BRIDGEWATER 2ND ADDITION FOR 26 LOTS AS Minutes Planning Commission-March 21, 2000 Page 4 REQUESTED BY GREAT PLAINS DEVELOPMENT (NORTH OF SOUTH GRADE ROAD AND EAST OF LAKEWOOD DRIVE) Ms. Wischnack presented the final plat request for Bridgewater 2nd Addition. She discussed the fact that some of the lots did not meet the lot width requirement and therefore the plat would need to be changed to show "eyebrows" accommodating these lots. She added that the streets would not be actually constructed with these features as requested by Public Works. Ms. Wischnack also informed the Commission that an easement would need to be shown allowing access to Outlot A. Mr. Steve Harvey, Project Engineer for RLK-Kuusisto, explained that Outlot B would need easements shown and would be part of Lot 11. He also added that most of the drainage issues should be resolved once the grading is completed. Discussion ensued relative to drainage. The Commission questioned Mr. Harvey as to how the drainage would be handled with ponding and culverts. Ms. Wischnack explained the difference between regional and private storm water ponds and why this development will need only a private pond. Mr. Haugen moved to approve the request for the final plat with the following conditions: 1. The storm water ponding area access must have a drainage and utility easement. 2. Grading plans and construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, prior to the City Council's review of the final plat. 3. A subdivider's agreement must be executed prior to the City Council's review of the final plat. 4. The final plat must be revised to reflect the addition of "eyebrows" to the right of way to meet the lot width requirement of 80 feet. 5. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF Staff presented the tentative agenda for April's meeting. 6. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m.