Loading...
PC Packet 08.20.19 AGENDA HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 20, 2019 5:30 p.m. 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.CONSENT AGENDA A. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES DATED JULY 16, 2019 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE A FRONT YARD SETBACK LOCATED AT 700 SHADY RIDGE RD NW. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. NONE 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF A. UPCOMING MEETINGS 8. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,July 16, 2019 5:30 p.m. 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30P.M. The July16, 2019 Planning Commission meeting was called to order by ChairmanWick at 5:30 p.m. Members in bold were present ChairmanWick, Vice Chair Lofdahl, Commissioner Garberg, Commissioner Wirt, Commissioner Sebesta, Commissioner Hantge and Commissioner Forcier. Also present were Dan Jochum, City Planner, Kent Exner, City Engineer, John Olson, City Public Works, John Paulson, City Environmental Specialist, Marc Sebora, City Attorney and Andrea Schwartz, City of Hutchinson Permit Technician 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES DATED JUNE 18, 2019. Motion by Commissioner Sebesta. Second by Commissioner Garberg.Motion approved. Motion to Approve – Motion to Reject 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR WHITE HAWK VILLAGE SECOND ADDITION. Dan Jochum, City Planner notified the commission that this item has been withdrawn. B. CONSIDERATION OF A REZONE OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 477 AND 479 HWY 7 E AND A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR COOP SUBDIVISION. Dan Jochum, City Planner addressed the Commission and gave a brief overview of the project. Mr. Jochum then covered the staff report. Commissioner Wirt asked if the road through to “HTI” can still be used. Should the discontinuance of the drive through be a condition with the plat? Mr. Jochum answered no. This is a private entrance and will be the responsibility of the property owner. Minutes Hutchinson Planning Commission July 16, 2019 Page 2 Dale Wendorf – DaLado LLC –noted that there is a gate at the HTI property line. Also noted that a new service entrance to the property is currently being worked on by SEH. Motion by Commissioner Wirt, second by Commissioner Forcierto close hearing at 5:47 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Garberg to approve with 6 staff recommendations. Second by Commissioner Forcier. Motion approved. Items will be on City Council consent agenda on 07/23/2019. Second reading of the Rezone will be 8/13/2019. Motion to close hearing – Motion to approve with staff recommendations – Motion to reject 5. NEW BUSINESS A. NONE 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF A. UPCOMING MEETINGS – we may have one or more items for the August meeting. Planning Staff will keep all posted. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Wirt,Second by Commissioner Garberg to adjourn at 5:52p.m. DIRECTORS REPORT –PLANNING DEPARTMENT To: Hutchinson Planning Commission From: Dan Jochum, Planning Director Date: August 14, 2019 for the August 20, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Application: CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE A FRONT YARD SETBACK LOCATED AT 700 SHADY RIDGE ROAD NW. Applicant: Kim and Josh Wittman VARIANCE – 700 SHADY RIDGE ROAD NW Kim and Josh Wittman are requesting a variance to allow for the construction of a third stall on the garage. The addition to the garage is proposed to be 12.15’ x 22.75’. The variance request is to reduce the required front yard setback from 30’ to 17’. It should be noted that the current garage is only 23 feet from the front property line and does not meet the required 30’ setback. The property is uniquely shaped as a trapezoid. Technically, the front yard of the property is the north side of the property, which is the shortest side of the property. The zoning ordinance defines the front yard as the narrowest side of the lot adjacent to a public street. Even though the front yard of the property is the north side, the home sits at an angle on the lot and it actually fronts the northeast property line, which is technically the side yard. Variances may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control as noted in Section 154.167 of the Zoning Ordinance. Variance 700 Shady Ridge Road Planning Commission – 8-20-19 Page 2 GENERAL INFORMATION Existing Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Property Location: 700 Shady Ridge Road Lot Size: Approximately 21,026 square feet Existing Land Use: Residential Adjacent Land Use And Zoning: Residential – R-1 Single Family Residential Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Neighborhood Applicable Regulations: Section 154.172 Analysis and Recommendation: In order to grant a variance, the request must meet the standards for granting a variance, including the finding of “practical difficulties.” Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. “Practical difficulties” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. The conditions cited as reason for granting a variance must be due to physical conditions unique to the land or building involved and must not be applicable to other sites in the same zoning district. Economic considerations may be taken into account but shall not by themselves be the reason for which a variance is granted. There is a basic “test” to determine if a request meets the practical difficulties standard. To constitute practical difficulties all three questions must be answered yes. The following are the factors that must be considered: Practical difficulties “Practical difficulties” is a legal standard set forth in law that cities must apply when considering applications for variances. It is a three-factor test and applies to all requests for variances. To constitute practical difficulties, all three factors of the test must be satisfied. 1. Reasonableness The first factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is for a building too close to a lot line or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable. Variance 700 Shady Ridge Road Planning Commission – 8-20-19 Page 3 Staff feels that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner by adding a third stall to the garage. Having a three-stallgarage is areasonable request.This question was answered YES. 2. Uniqueness The second factor is that the landowner’s problem is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property, that is, to the land and not personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner. When considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular piece of property, such as sloping topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees. Staff feels the landowner’s problem is unique to the property because of the unique trapezoidal shape of the lot and the orientation of the home, which actually fronts on the side yard versus the front yard. This question was answered YES. 3. Essential character The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Under this factor, consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. For example, when thinking about the variance for an encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will look closer to a lot line and if that fits in with the character of the area. Staff feels this request will not alter the essential character of the locality. Under the context of this request, staff believes the “locality” is the general neighborhood area around this property. Staff also feels that the essential character of the locality would not be altered because there are several other properties along Shady Ridge Road NW that do not meet the required 30 foot front yard setback. This question was answered YES. Another factor to consider for granting a variance is whether the variance request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? The Zoning Ordinance has an introductory section (154.001) that says the intent and purpose of this chapter shall be: Please note: Underlined Items are relevant to this request. (A) To regulate and limit the height and bulk of buildings hereafter to be erected; (B) To establish, regulate and limit the building or setback lines on or along any street, traffic way, drive or parkway; (C) To regulate and limit the intensity of use of lot areas and to regulate and determine the area of open spaces within and surrounding buildings hereafter to be erected; (D) To classify, regulate and restrict the location of trades and industries and the location of buildings designed for specified industrial, business, residential and other uses; (E) To divide the entire municipality into districts of such number, shape and area, and of such different classes according to use of land and buildings, height and bulk of buildings, intensity of use of lot areas, area of open spaces and other classifications, as may be deemed best suited to regulate development; (F) To fix standards to which buildings or structures therein shall conform; (G) To prohibit uses, buildings or structures incompatible with the character of established districts; Variance 700 Shady Ridge Road Planning Commission – 8-20-19 Page 4 (H) To prevent additions to and alteration or remodeling of existing buildings or structures in such a way as to avoid the restrictions and limitations lawfully imposed; (I)To classify, regulate and restrict the use of property on the basis of land use relationship; (J) To provide for variations from these regulations, standards, restrictions and limitations; (K) To provide for conditional uses, including planned development, within the established districts; (L) To provide administrative bodies and procedures as shall be necessary to the implementation and enforcement of the various provisions of this chapter; (M) To provide for the orderly amendment of this chapter; and (N) To provide regulations pertaining to pre-existing lots, structures and uses which do not conform to the regulations, standards, restrictions and limitations established by this chapter. Another factor to consider is whether the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The Hutchinson Comprehensive Plan doesn’t specifically get into issues related to variances. The comprehensive plan is used to plan for future uses versus specific dimensional standards that are found in the Zoning Ordinance which is discussed in great detail above. Based on the fact that all of the three questions above for the variance test were answered yes, staff recommends the variance be granted due to it meeting the legal standard outlined in the zoning ordinance. It should also be noted that if the Planning Commission feels that answer to any of the above questions are no, the variance can be denied. The variance request also appears to meet the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the request for the following reasons: 1) All three questions of the “variance test” are answered yes. 2) The request meets the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. 3) The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.