Loading...
10-17-2000 PCM cMINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 17, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Arndt at 5:32 p.m. with the following members present: Jason Olsen, Dean Kirchoff, Jim Haugen and Brandon Fraser. The following members were absent: Jeff Jones and Dave Westlund. Also present: Julie Wischnack, AICP, Director of Planning/Building/Zoning; Holly Kreft, Planning Coordinator and Richard Schieffer, City Attorney. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Haugen moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Olsen seconded the motion. Motion carried. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN 18' x 40' ADDITION AS REQUESTED BY TRI -COUNTY WATER CONDITIONING INC. (325 3RD AVE NW) Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 5:35 p.m. with the reading of publication #6242 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, October 5, 2000. Ms. Wischnack explained the request including a site plan showing the proposed addition. She added that a previous addition was done in 1997, and that this addition allowed an eight -foot setback from the right-of-way of Highway 7. She also explained that this property was in a C-5 district which had only recommended setbacks. Ms. Wischnack also added that the parking area did appear to be sufficient, but that the parking lot was paved into the right-of-way of 3 d Avenue. Ms. Wischnack stated that staff did recommend denial of the permit because, with the proposed addition, nearly 80% of the lot would have an impervious surface. She added that drainage was a concern because of the property's proximity to the highway and the Crow River and Highway 7. She added that if the Planning Commission wished to approve the permit that staff would like to see conditions attached. Mr. Kirchoff questioned if the impact of the reconstruction of Hwy 7 was discussed during the 1997 conditional use permit hearing. Donald Hantge, property owner, stated that it was, but that a timeframe had not been determined at that time. Mr. Haugen questioned if it had been determined where MNDOT would be purchasing property. Ms. Wischnack replied that it would depend on the design guidelines and the location of the building. Mr. Arndt questioned how the stormwater management would happen since there was not an area for ponding to be constructed. Ms. Wischnack replied that the drainage would need to be controlled on the site, possibly by the construction of a swale on the eastern edge of the property. Mr. Olsen questioned if the drainage had been discussed at the previous public hearing. Mr. Hantge replied that it had not since most of the water is directed to the west side of the building. Mr. Haugen questioned if there was going to be a problem removing the existing driveway from Highway 7. Mr. Hantge replied that there was not a problem, since the traffic often consisted of people using it a through street. Mr. Olsen questioned if Mr. Hantge had met with his neighbors. He replied that he had, and that they were agreeable to the project. Mr. Kirchoff moved to close the hearing at 5:47 p.m. Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Kirchoff moved to approve the conditional use permit with staff options for conditions. Mr. Haugen moved to second the motion. The motion carried unanimously with the following conditions: 1. Removal of access from Hwy 7 West; 2. A stormwater management plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit; and 3. An approval does not deem that there will not be a potential building impact as a result of the highway project. b) CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO GRADE AND FILL IN THE FLOODPLAIN OF THE SOUTH FORK OF THE CROW RIVER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE VETERAN'S Minutes Planning Commission — October 17, 2000 Page 2 MEMORIAL PARK AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON (295 1ST AVE NE) Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 5:49 p.m. with the reading of publication #6243 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, October 5, 2000. Ms. Kreft presented the request and displayed the site plan. She stated that approximately 2,000 cubic yards of fill was needed for the construction of the parking lot and concrete pad for the display tank. She added that the parking appeared to be sufficient. Mr. Arndt questioned if silt fencing was necessary since a berm would be in place. Staff replied that the silt fencing would be needed while the pond was being constructed. Mr. Haugen asked what the time frame for construction was. Staff replied that the timeframe was not yet determined. Mr. Kirchoff questioned from what location the fill was being relocated. Staff replied that there were numerous projects with excess fill available. Mr. Kirchoff moved to close the hearing at 5:53 p.m. Mr. Olsen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Olsen moved to approve the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. The City Engineer must submit a letter documenting there is not a flood storage impact; 2. Silt fencing be present throughout construction and not be removed until vegetation has been restored; and 3. A submission from the DNR must be received. Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. c) CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SETBACK FROM 10' TO 0' FOR THE EXPANSION OF A PARKING LOT AS REQUESTED BY HILLYARD INC. (26 MICHIGAN ST SE) Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 5:54 p.m. with the reading of publication #6244 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, October 5, 2000. Ms. Kreft presented the request and displayed a site plan with a rendition of the driveways and potential future building. She stated that Hillyard Inc. needed to reduce the setback in order to accommodate truck traffic for a turn around area. She added that the building had to be moved south from the original position in order to allow for an electrical easement. Mr. Kirchoff questioned if the two access points were too close together. Staff replied that the southern access would be used mainly for truck traffic. Ms. Kreft added that the southern lot would most likely have a main entrance from 2nd Avenue SE. Mr. Arndt questioned if parking would be needed. Ms. Kreft replied that the existing parking did meet the requirements. Mr. Kirchoff questioned if the cost of the additional access would be paid by the southern lot. Ms. Kreft replied that currently the lot was owned by Hutchinson Community Development Corporation and that the cost would be determined by them. Mr. Haugen moved to close the hearing at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Fraser seconded the motion. The motion to close the hearing carried unanimously. Mr. Fraser moved to approve the variance with the conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Haugen seconded the motion. The motion to approve, with the following conditions: 1. A joint ownership document for the stormwater pond must be executed prior to approval by the City Council, and 2. The permanent easement must include a shared driveway to act as access from Michigan Avenue for both the property in question and the property to the south, carried unanimously. d) CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A MANUFACTURED HOME AS REQUESTED BY JEFF MUNSELL (COUNTRY CLUB TERRACE — 448 CALIFORNIA ST NW— LOT 100) Chairman Arndt opened the hearing at 6:01 p.m. with the reading of publication #6245 as published in the Hutchinson Leader on Thursday, October 5, 2000. Ms. Wischnack gave the history of request. She stated that the City did not required site plans as part of the manufactured home permit. She added that the neighbors had complained of the proximity of the manufactured homes to the boundary of the mobile home park. Ms. Wischnack explained that legal staff advised the City to allow the manufactured home to be placed, but that the property owner apply for a variance. She added that the property owner's attorney had sent correspondence to the City regarding Statute 462.357 which states that mobile home parks created prior to 1995 must only meet the setbacks Minutes Planning Commission — October 17, 2000 Page 3 at that time and are not subject to more stringent ordinances in effect after their creation. Staff then researched previous ordinances and determined that the 1968 ordinance did address setbacks for mobile home parks. It was also determined that the mobile home park was created after 1968. Ms. Wischnack explained that the mobile home park was surrounded by R-2 and R-3 zoning districts. She also explained that the lots were not platted lots and that the property actually consisted of 3 separate parcels. She added that staff had originally thought of changing the ordinance to exempt existing mobile home parks, but that it could not be done because of the state statute. She added that staff would like direction from the Planning Commission as how to handle future requests. Mr. Arndt question if this "lot" was the standard size. Ms. Wischnack replied that it was. Mr. Fraser questioned if there was any jurisdiction since the lots are not platted, and if the building code setbacks and the boundary setbacks are the only ones that should be enforced. Mr. Schieffer stated that he would prefer to see the applicant apply for "blanket" variances, which would encompass all three parcels, rather that dealing with them on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Arndt questioned if the new manufactured home was larger than the previous one. Mr. Jeff Munsell, property owner, stated that it was not larger, but that it had been placed closer to the street. Mr. Kirchoff questioned if the Planning Commission should be concerned about the setbacks regulations health and safety. Ms. Wischnack replied that those were usually not a concern because they were met. Mr. Olsen questioned what other cities had for regulations. Ms. Wischnack replied that she had contacted other cities, but that they rarely had replacements of the manufactured homes. Don Holmquist, 428 California St. NW, stated that he would voice his concerns at the next public hearing. He did stated that his main concerns were refuse, pedestrian traffic and noise. He added that he would like to see a more permanent barrier such as a fence placed around the boundary of the mobile home park. Mr. Arndt questioned what the options were for the Planning Commission. Mr. Schieffer replied that since an application had not been submitted, the applicant would need to submit an application either for this structure or for the "blanket" variances. Ms. Wischnack stated that staff would like to see either application as soon as possible since this was an enforcement action. Mr. Munsell stated that he would like to discuss the issues with his partners prior to making the application. Ms. Wischnack reminded him that the deadline is always the third Wednesday of the month. She also added that staff would like to have a boundary survey showing the end placement of the units as part of the application. Mr. Kirchoff questioned what, if anything, could be done about the screening. Ms. Wischnack stated that she was unsure as to the original intent of the Russian olive trees currently in place. Mr. Haugen moved to close the hearing at 6:40 p.m. Mr. Kirchoff seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission reminded Mr. Munsell that he would need to provide a boundary survey as part of his application. 4. NEW BUSINESS 5. OLD BUSINESS a) CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS REGARDING TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER AND ANTENNA (SECTIONS 3 AND 10 OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON ZONING ORDINANCE) Mr. Jason Hall, zoning representative from American Tower, was present to answer questions and provide comments on the tower ordinance. He stated that he felt the ordinance was well-written and thorough. He added that he did have some suggestions for changes. These included changing Subdivision 11, subparts 1) A and B because the detailed plans are usually not available at the time of application, but usually later in the process. He also added that subpart D was covered by FCC regulations, and would not necessarily be included. Mr. Schieffer questioned if the expense was too high to provide those documents at that time. Mr. Hall replied that usually the company would like to have an indication as to whether or not the conditional use permit was going to be approved before supplying the detailed plans. He added that the general plans would be available at the time of application. Minutes Planning Commission — October 17, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Haugen questioned if the Planning Commission should address any concerns regarding migratory birds. Mr. Hall replied that the FCC did govern tower placement as to migratory bird flight patterns. Mr. Fraser questioned what is future of the telecommunications field. Mr. Hall replied that the estimates ranged from 25 years to 500 years before satellites will replace land-based towers. He added that at this time satellite coverage was not cost effective. Mr. Haugen moved to recommend approval of the amendments to the ordinance with minor changes as provided by legal staff and suggestions by Mr. Hall. Mr. Kirchoff seconded the motion. Motion to approve carried unanimously. 6. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF Ms. Wschnack updated the Commission as to the status of Frank Fay annexation request. She stated that the City Council made no decision; and therefore, the petition would be sent back to the Office of Boundary Adjustments for arbitration. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mr. Kirchoff moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:33 p.m. Mr. Olsen seconded the motion. Motion carried.