Loading...
PC Packet 06.17.14 AGENDA HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,June 17,2014 5:30 p.m. 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.CONSENT AGENDA A.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES DATEDMay 20, 2014 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.CONSIDERATION OFVARIANCE TO ALLOW 50% LOT COVERAGE ON TH A SHORELAND PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1260 7AVE NW Motion to close hearing –Motion to approve with staff recommendations –Motion to reject 5.UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6.NEWBUSINESS 7.COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF A.Upcoming Meetings 8.ADJOURNMENT MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,May 20,2014 5:30 p.m. 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. Chair Christie Hantgecalled the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Members present: Jim Fahey, John Lofdahl, Bill Arndt, Dean Kirchoff, Raymond Norton and Dave Johnston.Also present wasDan Jochum, Planning Director, Marc Sebora, Interim City Administrator, Kyle Dimler, Planning and Building Specialist. 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.CONSENTAGENDA A.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES DATEDApril 15, 2014 Motion byDean Kirchoff, second byJohn L, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REDUCE THE SETBACKS FROM 30’ TO 20’ ON LOTS 1 & 8, BLOCK 1, FAIRWAY RD ESTATES 3ADDITION Chair Hantge opened the public hearing at 5:33. Dan Jochum presented to the Commission. Mr. Jochum noted setbacks in PDD districts are somewhat flexible in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Jochumnoted originally the request was to reduce the front and side setbacks, however after review, only reduction of the front setback is needed. Staff recommends approval of request. Commissioner Fahey asked if the requested Conditional Use Permit would eliminate the need for future lot purchasers in this development to apply for Conditional Use Permits for similar circumstances. Mr. Jochum responded that he believed so, but believed the question would be more appropriate for the developer based on future development plans in specific lots. Commissioner Arndt asked if there is currently any construction in Lot 1. Mr. Jochum responded that there is none at this time, but it a permit application is anticipated if the requested Conditional Use Permit is approved. Motion by Arndt, second by Fahey to close public hearingof this item. Motion carried unanimously. Minutes Hutchinson Planning Commission May 20, 2014 Page 2 Motion by Norton, second by Fahey to approve Resolution No. 14283 with the addition of staff recommendations outlined in conditions 1-3 included on the Resolution. Motion carried unanimously. B.CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT THE REVISED FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE Mr. Jochum presented to the Commission. Mr. Jochum stated FEMA updated its Flood Plain mapping on July 7, 2014. As a result of the new mapping, the MN DNR is requiring the City’s adoption of the proposed Flood Plain Ordinance. Staff has reviewed the Ordinance and finds no noticeable dramatic changes from the previous Flood Plain Ordinance. Mr. Jochum shared that adoption of the Flood Plain Ordinance is required in order for the citizens of the City to be able to have the availability of FEMA flood insurance. Mr. Jochum noted staff recommends approval of the Ordinance. Commissioner Norton commented on language referring to the Ordinance that is most stringent would be the one required to be enforced. Mr. Jochum noted the existing ordinance is also simply an adoption of the MN DNR’s previously recommended ordinance. Commissioner Johnston asked about the effects of the recently constructed rock dam onthe flood plain calculations. Mr. Jochum answeredthat a group of engineers from FEMA had completed extensive surveying and electronic mapping of the City, including the rock dam area. Motion by Fahey, second by Kirchoff to close public hearing of this item. Motion approved unanimously. Motion by Lofdahl, second by Arndt to approve Ordinance No. 14-0729. Motion approved unanimously. 5.NEW BUSINESS 6.OLD BUSINESS A.CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING FOR DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS OPERATIONS AT RD 167 AND 177 3AVE NW Chair Hantge thanked Dan Jochum for the extensive staff report prepared for this item. Dan Jochum presented to the Commission. Mr. Jochum shared the proposed rd Disabled American Veterans (D.A.V.) building is planned to be located at the 177 3 Ave. NW address. The intended use of the facility is an office space in the front of the building and a warehouse space in the rear to store D.A.V. vehicles. Mr. Jochum presented two options of buildingexterior plans provided by the D.A.V. Option 1 is preferred by the applicant. Minutes Hutchinson Planning Commission May 20, 2014 Page 3 Mr. Jochum noted the property is in the C-5 Zoning District. Mr. Jochum also noted the property is in the River Overlay District but there has been little development in this district, in part due to the developmental constraints of the district. Chair Hantge noted the Right Way Builders site was still a functioning business at this location at the time of origination of the River Overlay District. Mr. Jochum shared that the language pertaining to building facades in the River Overlay District is somewhat ambiguous. The language notes building exteriors are to be of quality and durable material that is attractive. Mr. Jochum shared timeline of Hwy 7 Corridor Study, River Overlay District creation, and the significant reduction in land development and construction during this same time period. Mr. Jochum also noted the Imagine Hutchinson Study projects approximately a 15 year span for redevelopment in an area such as the River Overlay District given the economic recessions effects on the community. Mr. Jochum shared that staff recommends re- evaluating the River Overlay District and its requirements. Staff also recommends approval of one the D.A.V.’s proposed building options. Van Karg, Adjutant Treasurer of the D.A.V. from Dassel, MN addressed the rd Commission. Mr. Karg shared the D.A.V.’s plan to have lot at 167 3Ave. NW be a parking area and green space. The neighbor’s to these two lots are in support of cleaning up the site and beautifying the area. Motion by Arndt, second by Norton to approve Resolution 14281 of the proposed Option1 building, with the addition of staff recommendations 1-9 included in the Resolution. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Jochum thanked the Commission for asking for further clarification of the District and the proposed project. Commissioner Kirchoff thanked the D.A.V. for its patience and work on this project. 7.COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF A.Upcoming Meetings Dan Jochum noted there will be a Planning Commission meeting in June as the City has already received one application and there are 2-3 more anticipated. Commissioner Lofdahl asked about any upcoming sub-committee meetings. Mr.Jochum provided a short update on subcommittees but did not anticipate any meetings in the near futuredue to the vacancy in the City Administrator position. 8.ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Arndt,second byCommissioner Fahey, to adjourn at 6:43 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. DIRECTORS REPORT –PLANNING DEPARTMENT To:Hutchinson Planning Commission From:Mike Schumann,Dolf Moon, Dave Hunstad,Lee Miller,Jeff Page, Jean Ward, Judy Flemming, John Webster,John Olson, Lenny Rutledge, Kent Exner, John Paulson, Marc Sebora,Dan Hatten, Brian Mehr,Dan Jochum and Kyle Dimler(Persons in attendance at Planning Staff Meeting (in bold) Date:June 10,2014, forJune 17,2014, Planning Commission Meeting Application:VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE FROM 25% TO 50%. Applicant:PARTNERS 3OF HUTCHINSON, LLC, APPLICANT PARTNERS 3 OF HUTCHINSON, PROPERTY OWNER VARIANCE – Partners 3 of Hutchinson, LLC, is requesting a variance to allow the development with a new house on Lot 3 Block 3 Hellands Third Addition owned by Partners Three of Hutchinson, LLC. The variance request is to increase the allowed impervious lot coverage to 50%, however the plans as submitted indicate the lot coverage would be 43%. The ordinance limits lotcoverage in the Shorelanddistrict.Partners 3 of Hutchinson, LLCstates the practical difficultyfor the variance is that if a home/garage were to be built to totally comply with requirements, the final project (home) would not fit into established neighborhood concept and would look out of character for the location. He states the unique circumstance of the lot is that other properties in the same plat area do not meet the 25% lot coverage. 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 th 1260 7Ave. NW –Increase Lot Coverage Planning Commission –6-17-12 Page 2 GENERAL INFORMATION Existing Zoning:R-1(Single FamilyResidential), Shoreland District th Property Location:1260 7Ave. NW Lot Size: 95’ x 112’ (11,400sq. ft.) Existing Land Use:Residential Adjacent Land Use And Zoning:R-1 (Single Family Residential), Shoreland District Comprehensive Land Use Plan:Low DensityResidential Neighborhood Zoning History: Theplat for this development was originally completed in 1979. The Shoreland District was originated in 1989. Applicable Regulations:Section 152.041 (B) (1), 152.108 (D) and (E), and 154.167 Analysis and Recommendation: In order to grant a variance, the request must meet the standards for granting a variance, including thefinding 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 difficultyif 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 th 1260 7Ave. NW –Increase Lot Coverage Planning Commission –6-17-12 Page 3 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. Staff feels that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner as a single-family home. This question was answered YES. 2. Uniqueness The second factor is that the landowner’sproblem 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 was unique to the property in that the property was platted in 1979 and the Shoreland Ordinance rules did not come into existence until 1989. The lot likely would have been platted larger if lot coverage restrictions were in place in 1979. In addition, this situation is unique in that this property is the last undeveloped lot on the block. 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 could be altered if the structure was built to the 25% lot coverage, as the homewould be smaller than neighboring homes, therefore granting the variance will keep the home more consistent with the surrounding area.In th addition, lot coverage calculations were completed via aerial photos for 10 lots near the subject property on 7Ave. NW and found the lot coverage of those properties ranged from 24% to 46%. Only one of the 10 homes reviewed is under the 25% shoreland lot coverage limit. This question was answered YES. Other factors to consider for granting a variance are is the variance request in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? Also, is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The policy of the shoreland ordinance states the following: “The uncontrolled use of shorelands of the city affects the public health, safety and general welfare not only by contributing to pollution of public waters, but also by impairing the local tax base. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare to provide for the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters. The state legislature has delegated responsibility to local governments of the state to regulate the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands and provide for the wise use of waters and related land resources. This responsibility is hereby recognized by the city.” Staff feels that since the property in question was platted in 1979 it is difficult to judge it against newer shoreland zoning standards, however the request also appears to be consistent with the policy found in section 152.002 of the Shoreland Ordinance because this request wouldn’t be characterized as “uncontrolled use of shorelands…”. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan “guides” this area of the City for low density residential development, which is consistent with this variance request. Variance th 1260 7Ave. NW –Increase Lot Coverage Planning Commission –6-17-12 Page 4 Based on the fact that all three questions above were answered yes, staff recommends the variance be granted.It should also be noted that if the Planning Commission isn’t comfortable granting the variance for 50% lot coverage,the variance could be grantedfor 43% lot coverage, which is what is actually proposed to be covered based on the calculations from the applicant.Staff recommends approvalof the request for the following reasons: 1)The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner as a single family home. The entire neighborhood is also comprised of single family homes. 2)The landowner’s problem is unique to the property. The property was platted in 1979 and the shoreland ordinance did not come in place until 1989. Staff feels this in itself is unique to the property.In addition, the th other unique factor is that this lot is undeveloped, whereas the other homes along this stretch of 7Ave. NW are developed and cover between 24% and 46% of their lot. Only one lot of the 10 reviewed on the block is below the 25% shoreland lot coverage threshold. 3)The request will not alter the essential character of the locality. This home will be of the same character as 9 of the 10 existing homes in terms of not meeting the 25% lot coverage requirement set forth in the shoreland ordinance. Requiring the property owner to meet the 25% lot coverage may alter the essential character of the locality more than if a variance was granted. 4)The variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. 5)The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. CITY OF HUTCHINSON MCLEOD COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 14294 RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE APPLICATION TO INCREASE LOT COVERAGE TO ALLOW TH CONSTRUCTION OF ADWELLING AT 1260 7AVE. NW. REQUESTED BY PARTNERS 3 OF HUTCHINSON, LLC, APPLICANT FACTS 1.Partners 3 Of Hutchinson is the applicant andowner of a parcel of land located at 1260 th 7Ave. NW, Hutchinson Minnesota; and, 2.Thesubject property is legally described as: Lot 3, Block 3,Hellands Third Addition 3.Partners 3 Of Hutchinsonapplicantandproperty owner, hasapplied to the City for a th variance to allow construction of a single family dwellingat 1260 7Ave. NW. 4.The property is located in the R-1(Single FamilyResidential) Zoning District. 5.The proposal would vary from Section 152.041 (B) (1)in that it would increase the allowed lot coverage from 25% to 50%.The variance application stated if a home/garage were to be built to totally comply with requirements, the final project would not fit into established neighborhood concept and would look out of character for the location. 6.Following a public hearing on the application, the City of Hutchinson Planning Commission has recommended approvalof the variance on June 17, 2014with the following findings: a.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner as a single family home. The entire neighborhood is also comprised of single family homes. b.The landowner’s problem is unique to the property. The property was platted in 1979 and the shoreland ordinance did not come in place until 1989. Staff feels this in itself is unique to the property. In addition, the other unique factor is that this lot is th undeveloped, whereas the other homes along this stretch of 7Ave. NW are developed and cover between 24% and 46% of their lot. Only one lot of the 10 reviewed on the block is below the 25% shoreland lot coverage threshold. c.The request will not alter the essential character of the locality. This home will be of the same character as 9 of the 10 existing homes in terms of not meeting the 25% lot coverage requirement set forth in the shoreland ordinance. Requiring the property owner to meet the 25% lot coverage may alter the essential character of the locality more than if a variance was granted. d.The variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. e.The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Findings of Fact–Resolution 14294 Variance th 1260 7Ave. NW 6/24/2014 Page 2 7.The City Council of the City of Hutchinson reviewed the requested varianceat its meeting on June 24, 2014and has considered the recommendation and findings of the Planning Commission and hereby does recommend approval of thevariance request with the following findings: a.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner as a single family home. The entire neighborhood is also comprised of single family homes. b.The landowner’s problem is unique to the property. The property was platted in 1979 and the shoreland ordinance did not come in place until 1989. Staff feels this in itself is unique to the property. In addition, the other unique factor is that this lot is th undeveloped, whereas the other homes along this stretch of 7Ave. NW are developed and cover between 24% and 46% of their lot. Only one lot of the 10 reviewed on the block is below the 25% shoreland lot coverage threshold. c.The request will not alter the essential character of the locality. This home will be of the same character as 9 of the 10 existing homes in terms of not meeting the 25% lot coverage requirement set forth in the shoreland ordinance. Requiring the property owner to meet the 25% lot coverage may alter the essential character of the locality more than if a variance was granted. d.The variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. e.The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. APPLICABLE LAW 8.Minnesota Statue Section 462.357, subd. 6 provides: (a)Variances shall only be permitted (a) when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and (b) when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. (b)Variances may be granted when the applicant for thevariance establishes that there are practicaldifficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. “Practical difficulties,”as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that (a) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; (b) the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and (c) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 9.City ordinance allows variances if the strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 10.City ordinance Section 152.041 (B) (1) state that the request would create anon- conforming lot coverage and Section 152.108 (D)and (E) states a variance is required to create this non-conforming lot coverage. CONCLUSIONS OF THE LAW 11.There areunique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner because the lot is the last remaining undeveloped lot in this locality. The applicant indicates the Findings of Fact–Resolution 14294 Variance th 1260 7Ave. NW 6/24/2014 Page 3 unique circumstance is the other dwellings in the neighborhood all exceed the maximum of 25% lot coverageand to develop this lot in compliance would cause it to be out of character with the locality. In addition, the lot was platted ten years prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. 12.The variance will maintain the essential character of the locality becausethe majority of the other properties on this block also have greater than 25% lot coverage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hutchinson, Minnesota, that the application to issue a variance to allow Partners 3 of Hutchinson, applicantandproperty owner,to develop and build a single-family dwellingso as to deviate from Section 152.041(B) (1)is hereby approved. th Adopted by the City Council this 24day ofJune, 2014. ATTEST: Marc SeboraSteven W. Cook Interim City AdministratorMayor