Loading...
PC Packet 05.17.16 AGENDA HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,May 17, 2016 5:30 p.m. 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.CONSENT AGENDA A.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES DATED APRIL 19, 2016. 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.CONSIDERATIONOFA LOT SPLIT,PRELIMINARYAND FINALPLAT OF SOUTHWIND FIFTH ADDITION, AND REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-2 LOCATED AT 1550 SHERWOOD ST SE B.CONSIDERATION OF ASITE PLAN,VARIANCE TO BUILDING HEIGHT, ANDCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORHIGH SCHOOL RENOVATIONS IN A R-2 ZONELOCATED AT 1200 ROBERTS RD SW C.CONSIDERATION OF ASITE PLAN, VARIANCE TO REDUCE SETBACKS ANDCONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DRIVE THROUGH TO BUILD A NEW CARIBOU COFFE/EINSTEIN BAGEL IN A C-4 ZONE LOCATED AT 1100 HWY 15 S 5.NEW BUSINESS A.AMODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 4 AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4-17 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. 6.UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7.COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF A.Upcoming Meetings 8.ADJOURNMENT MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,April 19, 2016 5:30 p.m. 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. The April 19, 2016 Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Acting Chair Nortonat 5:30p.m. Members in bold were present Chair Hantge,Commissioner Kirchoff,Commissioner Kalenberg,Commissioner Norton,Commissioner Arndt, Commissioner Wick, and Commissioner Fahey. Also present were Dan Jochum, City Planner, Kent Exner, City Engineer, and Kyle Dimler, City Building Official. 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.CONSENT AGENDA A.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES DATED MARCH 15, 2016. Motion by Commissioner Wick, Second by Commissioner Kalenberg to approve. Unanimous approval. Motion to Approve –Motion to Reject 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 5.NEW BUSINESS A.CONSIDERATIONOF A SKETCH PLAN FOR 3, 29 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 1315 MONTEAL ST SE. Dan Jochum, City Planner, addressed the Commission. Mr. Jochum noted this item is a sketch plan review which is being brought to the Commission as a sort of litmus test to determine if the proposed project has validity and itis viable for the applicant to proceed further. Mr. Jochum reviewed the proposed project as provided in the Commission’s packets. The project is a proposal of 3 29-unit apartment buildings. Mr. Jochum noted completion of the construction of Denver Ave. SE would be required as part of this project. Mr. Jochum shared that the proposed plan indicates both enclosed garage space and outdoor parking spaces. Staff noted on street parking would not be permitted Agenda Hutchinson Planning Commission April 19,2014 Page 2 on either side of Denver Ave. SE as a requirement of this project. However, complete engineeredplans for the project have not been developed at this time. Mr. Jochum noted access to the site would be off of Denver Ave. SE. Mr. Jochum stated that based upon the submitted site sketch plans, the apartments would be a nice addition to the community. Commissioner Arndt asked if there is enough sewer and water capacity in Denver Ave. City Engineer Kent Exner confirmed there is adequate service available. Mr. Jochum noted the applicant plans to seek Tax Increment Financing for the project if the site sketch plan is approved by the Commission and the City Council. Mr. Jochum noted Staff feedback was overall very positive. Obviously the parcel would need to be rezoned and there may be some requirements imposed on the project. Mr. Jochum stated that Staff recommends approval with Conditions 1 through 3. Chair Norton asked if this was an actionable item. Mr. Jochum stated he would recommend a vote by the Commission so they would be able to provide a recommendation, either positive or negative to the City Council. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if applying for T.I.F. is a lengthy process. Mr. Jochum noted the process is not typically lengthy and handled well with the City’s financial advisor who works with these processes. Commissioner Kirchoff asked thedeveloperto address the Commission and provide an overview of the proposed project. SteveKeupers, representing the developer, from Brainerd, MN addressedthe anticipatedphasingof the project. The applicant would be seeking a rezoning for the first three building lots. Phasing of building 2 is estimated to start in approximately 3 to 6 months after the completion of the first building. Applicant’s research indicates there is a need in Hutchinson for occupancy of all three buildings. The layout of each building is planned to include 2-3 bedroom units, 17-2 bedroomunits,and 10-1bedroom units in each building. The developer anticipatesapplying for T.I.F. for all three buildings and they would be applying for T.I.F. due to the required expense of building out Denver Ave. SE. Motion by Commissioner Kirchoff, Second by Commissioner Arndt to approve. Motion passed unanimously. Agenda Hutchinson Planning Commission April 19,2014 Page 3 Motion to Approve –Motion to Reject 6.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMT FOR MIDCOUNTRY BANK. Dan Jochum, City Planner, addressed the Commission. Mr. Jochum noted at last month’s Planning Commission this item received a 3-3 vote. The City Council tabled the item for further study and then sent the proposal back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation on Mr. Jochum noted the newly proposed alley traffic is south-bound only and there is a proposal to close traffic flow at the NW corner of Landy’s Lodge to allow recovery of some parking spaces that will be lost as part of this proposed project and relocate the Postal Office’s drop box as well as the H.U.C. electrical transformer currently in this parking area. Mr. Jochum noted the new proposal has the same number of total parking spaces available as the previous plan did. Mr. Jochum noted the largest drawback to the proposed plan is delivery truck traffic serving the Postal Office would need to travel north up the alley so they may back into the Postal Office area. However, it is notuncommon in an urban alley setting to have delivery vehicles needing to travel against normal traffic flow due to building arrangements and the Postal Office only has 2 delivery trucks per day using the alley. Mr. Jochum noted the actual drive-through design is relatively unchanged. Commissioner Arndt asked if the alley is wide enough for a passenger vehicle to move past a delivery vehicle parked in the alley. Members of the public audience who did not approach the podium, stated this would not be possible. Commissioner Norton noted that this periodic traffic condition is an existing condition as well. Commissioner Wick noted he is still concerned with exit of the drive through exiting onto Hassan with a significant increase in traffic due to the drive through. Commissioner Norton noted that at the previous Commission meeting, traffic volume was discussed but the larger issue was parking space reduction. Agenda Hutchinson Planning Commission April 19,2014 Page 4 Commissioner Wick noted he brought the issued up at the last meeting. City Engineer, Kent Exner, noted that from the beginningof the this project’s nd proposal, Staff did not want to direct traffic onto 2 Ave. due to stacking issues. nd Mr. Exner also noted due to the proximity of the egress to the intersection of 2 Ave. SE and Hassan St. SE there isn’t a probability to have a stacking issue with the proposed egress. Due to all of the site considerations, this proposal is the best option available in Staff’s opinion. Mr. Exner noted that if any traffic issues due arise, Staff will review the issuesas they arise. Commissioner Wick noted his concern with losing downtown public parking and is having a difficult time accepting the loss of the spaces knowing the need for them. Mr. Exner noted that this plan maintains the current number of public parking spaces. Mr. Jochum noted that the affected area is all zoned commercially so the traffic flow is expected in this area, even though there are residential uses in the commercial district currently. Trevor Johnson of Victoria, MN representing MidCountryBank, noted that in recent history the bank’s traffic flow has been decreasing and they anticipate that trend to continue as fewer and fewer customers come to the physical bank. Mr. Jochum noted 144 per day to 278 per day visitors to the south MidCountry Bank in March and April of 2014 were documented in a traffic study the City performed. Commissioner Kirchoff asked for clarification on an agreement with the Post Office to relocate their drop box. Mr. Jochum shared that he had conversations with the Postal Office staff and they were generally accepting of the change and he had asked them to provide a response to the proposal by Tuesday, April 26, 2016. Further, if the Postal Office is opposed to the proposal the City may proceed with requiring a reviewof the drive through area which requires a Conditional Use Permit by ordinance and there are already stacking conditions with the drop off where it is. Commissioner Arndt asked if the curb line of the proposed parking lot could be moved to the east to increase traffic passing ability in the alley. Mr. Exner noted the proposed plan is designed due to alignment of the existing buildings and needed traffic flow for snow removal. Agenda Hutchinson Planning Commission April 19,2014 Page 5 DavidLarson, 227 Main St. Hutchinson, addressed the Commission andasked where the stacking occurs now. Mr. Larson also noted that stacking from the placement of the Post Office drop box could impact traffic flow in the alley. Mr. Jochum noted the City requires 80 feet of stacking area. The current location rd of the drop box causes stacking that impedes 3Ave. SE. Commissioner Kirchoff asked for a review of the proposed Staff Conditions. Mr. Jochum reviewed the proposed conditions included in the Commission’s packets. Ben Schwarzrock,221 Main St. Hutchinson, asked if there would be a possibility of getting 15-minute parking signs on parking spaces behind Benny’s Meat Market. Mr. Exner stated from a Staff recommendation standpoint, based on public safety and enforcement concerns,the Citywould not recommend any time limited parking spaces. Motion by Commissioner Krichoff, Second by Commissioner Arndt to approve with Staff recommendations 1 through 7. Commissioner Kirchoff Aye, Commissioner Norton Aye, Commissioner Arndt Aye, Commissioner Wick Nay, and Commissioner Kalenberg Nay. Motion approved, item will not be on City Council’s consent agenda April 26, 2016. Motion to Approve –Motion to Reject 7.COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF A.Upcoming Meetings Mr. Jochum noted there are several applications that are expected to be submitted for the May Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Norton asked if there had been any progress on the apartment development in the Century Court area. Mr. Jochum that Staff has not received any communication from the developer in over 6 months. 8.ADJOURNMENT Agenda Hutchinson Planning Commission April 19,2014 Page 6 Motion by Commissioner Arndt,Second by Commissioner Kirchoffto adjourn at 6:28 p.m. Motion approved unanimously. DIRECTORS REPORT –PLANNING DEPARTMENT To:Hutchinson Planning Commission From:Dan Jochum, AICP and City of Hutchinson Planning Staff Date:May 11,2016forMay 17,2016, Planning Commission Meeting Application:CONSIDERATION OFREQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL th PLAT OF SOUTHWIND 5ADDITION, AND REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-2 AT 1550 SHERWOOD ST SE. Applicant:HUTCHINSON LAND HOLDINGS, LLC. LOT SPLIT, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT, AND REZONING Brief Description The applicant has submitted applications for a lot split, preliminary and final plats, as well as a land rezoning th for property located at 1550 Sherwood St. SE. There was previously an outlot created with the Southwind 4 Addition Plat that was completed back in 2010. The outlot needs to be made bigger in order to be subdivided into developable lots. Lot Split, Preliminary and Final Plat, and Rezone th Southwind 5Addition Planning Commission –5-17-16 Page 2 GENERAL INFORMATION Existing Zoning:R-1 Single-Family Residential District Property Location:1550 Sherwood St SE, Hutchinson Lot Size:.927 Acres Existing Land Use:Farmland Adjacent Land Use:Vacant platted land to north, twin homes to east, farmland west and south. Adjacent Zoning:R-1 (Single Family Residential District) to west, R-2 (MediumDensity Residential District)to east,R-3 (Medium -High Density Residential District) to north, R-4 (High Density Residential District) to southeast. Comprehensive Plan:Low Density Residential Neighborhood Zoning History:Was zoned R-1 when the property was annexed into the City. Applicable Regulations:City Code of Ordinances Sections153.05, 153.35 –153.51, 154.173 Transportation:The properties being developed will have direct access off of Sherwood St SE. Physical Characteristics:Flat Analysis: Lot Split Splitting the lot is the first step to making the land developable. Rather than plat the entire property, it makes more sense to split a small piece off (Parcel A which is 0.927 acres) that can be platted together with the existing outlot to make 8 developable lots. The land remaining in Parcel B is 35.07 acres and at this time is expected to remain farmland. Preliminary and Final Plat The preliminary and final plats as presented appear to meet the requirements of the subdivision and zoning ordinances. Lot Arrangement: th The proposed Southwind 5Addition preliminary plat contains 1 block and 8 lots. The lots range in size from 6,682 square feet to 10, 137 square feet.These lot sizes and widths appear to meet the minimum standards of the City of Hutchinson Zoning Ordinance. Streets and Access: The proposed development will have direct access off of Sherwood St SE. Lot Split, Preliminary and Final Plat, and Rezone th Southwind 5Addition Planning Commission –5-17-16 Page 3 Stormwater Management, Utilities, and Easements: Please make note of the special considerations on the grading plan relative to drainage. The adjacent property owner, Hazel Sitz has signed an agreement related to drainage that basically states only the runoff/drainage from the rear roof and back yard area shall be directed to west and the rest of the drainage shall be directed to Sherwood St. SE. Utilities for the lots are stubbed in off of Sherwood Street.Electrical and gas service is in the area but will need to be brought to each lot. The preliminary plat has the required drainage and utility easements noted as required. Final Plat Review Criteria After the submittal of the final plat, the Planning Commission shall recommend approval or disapproval of the plat. Failure of the Planning Commission to act upon the final plat shall be deemed a recommendation of approval of the plat. If plat disapproval is recommended, the grounds for disapproval shall be stated in the records of the Planning Commission. A plat shall not be recommended for approval unless it: (a)Conforms to the preliminary plat; (b)Conforms to the design standards set forth in this chapter; (c)Conforms to the adopted Comprehensive Plan; and (d)Is in accordance with all requirements and laws of this state. Rezone The density of the development as proposed is consistent with the comprehensive plan. There are similar twin- home developments to the east of the subject property that have worked very well. Staff recommends rezoning the property to R-2 Medium Density Residential to accommodate this proposed development. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the lot split, preliminary and final platsand rezoningsubject to the following conditions. 1.The lot split shall be completed and recorded prior to the plat being recorded. 2.The final plat shall be recorded at the McLeod County Recorder’s Office within 270 days of approval. 3.Building permits will not be issued until the plat is recorded. 4.The agreement between Hutchinson Land Holdings LLC and Hazel Sitz, dated April 21, 2016 shall be followed be the developer, builder, and subsequent owners of said lots under jurisdiction of the agreement. DIRECTORS REPORT –PLANNING DEPARTMENT To:Hutchinson Planning Commission From:Dan Jochum, AICP and City of Hutchinson Planning Staff Date:May 12,2016forMay 17,2016, Planning Commission Meeting Application:CONSIDERATION OFREQUEST FOR ASITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO HUTCHINSON HIGH SCHOOL LOCATED AT 1200ROBERTS ROAD, HUTCHINSON. Applicant:Independent School District #423 –Daron VanderHeiden, Superintendent SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT AND VARIANCE Brief Description The applicant has submitted applications for a site plan review, conditional use permit and variance for the addition to the Hutchinson High School,1200 Roberts Road, Hutchinson.The conditional use permit is needed for a school in an R-2 zoning district and the variance is needed for the height of the new addition. Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance Hutchinson High School–1200 Roberts Rd.,Hutchinson. Planning Commission –5-17-16 Page 2 GENERAL INFORMATION Existing Zoning:R-2 Medium Density Residential District Property Location:1200 Roberts Road, Hutchinson. Lot Size:37.3Acres Existing Land Use:High School Adjacent Land Use:Primarily residential to north, east, and west. School facilities to south. Church to northwest. Adjacent Zoning:R-1 Single Family Residential District and R-2 Medium Density Residential District. Comprehensive Plan:Public/Institutional Zoning History:Zoned R-2 since school was built Applicable Regulations:City Code of Ordinances Sections:154.172, 154.174, and 154.175 Transportation:Access is off of School Road SW and Roberts Road SW. Physical Characteristics:Relatively flat, developed as a school campus. Analysis: See the following for analysis on the site plan review, conditional use permit and variance. SitePlan: The City Council deems it is necessary and appropriate to require site plan approval of developments in certain zoning districts to preserve and promote attractive, well-planned, stable urban conditions. The following is an overview of site plan considerations. Building: The proposed total square footage of the addition and the existing building that will remain is 218,000 square feet. Currently there is approximately 195,000 square feet of building space at the high school. 109,000 square feet of that is proposed to be demolished and approximately 132,000 square feet will be added on. The walls are expected to be a form of tip-up concrete that will likely have some type of brick veneer in the more prominent areas. The height would be approximately 48feet high at the highest point.Refer to the attached graphic for a depiction of the building and the height.A variance is required for the height of the structure which will be 48 feet at its highest point. The maximum building height allowed by ordinance is 35 feet. Setbacks: The proposed buildingsetbacks and requirements for the R-2 (Medium Density Residential) district are identified below. The setbacks being proposed are also noted: Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance Hutchinson High School–1200 Roberts Rd.,Hutchinson. Planning Commission –5-17-16 Page 3 Principal Parking LotProposedProposed Structure or Circulation Structure Parking/Cir. SetbackDr. Setback Setback Drive Front25 feet5feet100 feet–N.8feet Interior Lot Line6 feet5feet115feet 280feet–E. Corner Side Yard25 feet5 feet280 feet –10 feet W. RearYard25 feet5 feet800 feet –S.n/a As seen in the chart above, all required setbacks appear to be met. Parking/Access/Circulation 492parking spaces are shown on the site plan. The zoning ordinance requires 4.5parking spaces per classroom.492 parking spaces more than coverthe parking needs for the school for school days. Generally speaking, schools have the greatest parking needs when there are special events or activities at the school on nights or weekends. It appears that parking has been maximized on the site in order to accommodate as much parking needs as possible. Staff believes parking will be adequate on site. There are threeingress/egress points to the site. There is one point near the intersection of School Road and McDonald Drive. Additionally, there is one point near the intersection of Roberts Road and Boulder Street and another point at the intersection of Roberts Road and Stony Point Road. The ingress/egress points appear to meet the needs of the site and are generally acceptable to City staff. It should be noted that bus loading and unloading is proposed to be done in the east parking lot that is off of Roberts Road and Stony Point Road. Staff/visitor parking is proposed to be in the parking lot off of Roberts Road and Boulder Street. Student parking will be in the parking lot on the west side of the building. Site circulation appears to be generally acceptable. Staff understands there will be a gate between student parking lot on the west side and the staffvisitor parking lot off of Roberts Road. This gate will likely be closed during normal school hours and could be open up for special events and activities as needed. It appears the drive aisles are wide enough to meet city standards. Staff would liketo note that these parking lots can become very busy before and after special events and activities and that proper parking lot lighting is important for the safety of everyone involved. Also, traffic control, such as someone directing traffic shouldbe strongly considered at the ingress/egress point of the west parking lot. This area becomes particularly busy after football games with vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic trying to cross the street. City staff wants to ensure this area is safe. Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance Hutchinson High School–1200 Roberts Rd.,Hutchinson. Planning Commission –5-17-16 Page 4 Landscaping and Lighting: The Zoning Ordinance requires tree planting at a rate of 1 tree per 800 sq. ft. of landscaped area. Staff will be doing a complete landscape plan review at the time of building permit plan review. In reviewing previous projects completed by this developer it appears that they are very aesthetically pleasing. Staff has reviewed thedetailed photometric lighting plan. It appears to meet the City of Hutchinson standards. Per the Zoning Ordinance, lighting installed must be indirect and shall not produce glare on adjacent properties or public right of ways. Stormwater Management/Erosion Control: Following the final construction plan submittal and City reviewthe City Environmental Specialist will provide comments that need to be addressed prior to building permits being issued. Conditional Use Permit: The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for a school in an R-2 District.Since the use is already a school staff doesn’t anticipate any issues regarding the conditional use permit as long as the below standards are met. The following are standards for granting a conditional use permit: (a)The proposed building or use at the particular location requested is necessary or desirable to provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of the public convenience and willcontribute to the general welfare of the neighborhood or community; (b)The proposed building or use will not have a substantial or undue adverse effect upon adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, utility facilities and other matters affecting the public health, safety and general welfare; and (c)The proposed building or use will be designed, arranged and operated so as to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable district regulations. Variance: 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 propertyowner 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. Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance Hutchinson High School–1200 Roberts Rd.,Hutchinson. Planning Commission –5-17-16 Page 5 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. Staff feels that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner as a school, especially since the site is being used as a school at present.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 this lot.The lot in question does not have extra space to accommodate the additional square footage needed by the School District. The overall site is heavily utilized for other school activities, such as athletics. Because of the intensity of use on the site it is reasonable to have a taller building to accommodate the needed square footage of the school district.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 ifthat 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 area around this property. This area is zonedR-2 Medium Density Residentialand the site has already existed as a school, in addition, Shalom Baptist Church is a similar public/institutional use that exists in this area, in addition, the size of the building and layout of the site is very typical for a high school campus.This question was answered YES. Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance Hutchinson High School–1200 Roberts Rd.,Hutchinson. Planning Commission –5-17-16 Page 6 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? Staff feels that the request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and meets the criteria set forth above to grant a variance. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan “guides” this area of the City for public/institutional use, which is consistent with this variance request. Based on the fact that all three questions above were answered yes, staff recommends the variance be granted. Staff recommends approval of the request for the following reasons: 1)The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner as a high-school. 2)The landowner’s problem is unique to the property. Due to site constraints it is feasible gain needed square footage by building a taller building. 3)The request will not alter the essential character of the locality. There are other public/institutional uses in this area and the scale of the proposed building is similar to typical high schools. 4)The variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. 5)The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan review, conditional use permit and variance with the following findings and conditions: 1.The site plan is acceptable contingent on the conditional use permit and variances being approved. 2.The standards for granting a conditional use permit would be met, subject to the conditions stated. 3.The proposed building and site improvements shall complywith the standards of the R-2district, notwithstanding variancesand the Zoning Ordinance, as well as all other City regulations. 4.Any reconstruction of existing infrastructure within City of Hutchinson easement areas shall be the owner’sresponsibility, including improvements and associated costs. This work shall meet all of the City’s engineering standards and be approved by the City. 5.There must be emergency service access around the buildingthat meets the fire code. 6.Fire Chief needs to ensure firehydrants are in appropriate location and all other fire code items are met. 7.Moving or relocating utility services will be at the property owner’s expense. 8.The City of Hutchinson must approve a traffic control plan prior to any construction activity impactingeither Roberts Road or School Road. 9.The City of Hutchinson must be notified 7 days prior to any roadway or utility work that is going to be done within the City right of way. All roadway work must be fully completed to City standards within 10 calendar days of the original disturbance. If the work isn’t fully completed within 10 calendar days, the City reserves the right to have the work completed and invoice/assess the property owner for all associated costs. 10.The conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions required by the permit are observed. Any expansion or intensification of a conditional use or change to another conditional use requires approval of a new conditional use permit. 11.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner as a high-school. Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance Hutchinson High School–1200 Roberts Rd.,Hutchinson. Planning Commission –5-17-16 Page 7 12.The landowner’s problem is unique to the property. Due to site constraints it is feasible gain needed square footage by building a taller building. 13.The request will not alter the essential character of the locality. There are other public/institutional uses in this area and the scale of the proposed building is similar to typical high schools. 14.The variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. 15.The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. R-2 ZONING HEIGHT RESTRICTION = 35’-0” VARIANCE REQUEST MAXIMUM HEIGHT = 48’-0” 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > ST >> > 00 > > > > > > > > > S > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > S > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > >> > > 0 0 >>>>>> >>>>>> ST > ST > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ST >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > |||| ||||||| |||||| |||||| | > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> >> >> 0 0 0 >> 0 0 0 0 >>0 0 0 0 >>>>>> >> ST 0 0 >> | >ST >> | > > > > > > > > > S > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > S > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >> > > 0 0 >>>> >>>>>> >> ST > ST > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | >ST >> | > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > |||| ||||||| |||||| |||||| | > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >>>> >> >> 0 0 0 >> 0 0 0 0 >>0 0 0 0 >>>>>> >> ST 0 0 >> DIRECTORS REPORT –PLANNING DEPARTMENT To:Hutchinson Planning Commission From:Dan Jochum, AICP and City of Hutchinson Planning Staff Date:May 12,2016forMay 17,2016, Planning Commission Meeting Application:CONSIDERATION OFREQUEST FOR ASITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR A CARIBOU COFFEE/EINSTEIN BAGELS LOCATED AT 1100 HIGHWAY 15 SOUTH, HUTCHINSON. Applicant:DANIEL WOZNIAK, JR. –MW DEVELOPMENT. SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE Brief Description The applicant has submitted applications for a site plan review, conditional use permit and variance for the development of new Caribou Coffee/Einstein Brothers Bagels located at 1100 Highway 15 South, Hutchinson. The conditional use permit is needed for the drive-through and the variance is needed for the parking lot setbacks. Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance Caribou Coffee/Einstein Brothers Bagels –1100 Highway 15 So., Hutchinson. Planning Commission –5-17-16 Page 2 GENERAL INFORMATION Existing Zoning:C-4 Fringe Commercial District Property Location:1100 Highway 15 South, Hutchinson. Lot Size:.525 Acres Existing Land Use:Vacant Commercial Property –former Freedom Gas Station. Adjacent Land Use:Commercial Properties Adjacent Zoning:C-4 Fringe Commercial District Comprehensive Plan:Commercial Zoning History:Zoned C-4 since the property was originally developed in the 1970s. Applicable Regulations:City Code of Ordinances Sections154.172, 154.174, and 154.175 Transportation:Access is off of Highway 15 and Century Avenue. Physical Characteristics:Irregular shaped lot Analysis: See the following for analysis on the site plan review, conditional use permit and variance. Site Plan: The City Council deems it is necessary and appropriate to require site plan approval of developments in certain zoning districts to preserve and promote attractive, well-planned, stable urban conditions. The following is an overview of site plan considerations. Building: The proposed building would be a 2,556square foot one-story flat roof structurethat would be constructed primarily withbrick/eifs finish. The height would be approximately 21 feet high at the highest point.Refer to attached building elevations for the draft building elevation.It should also be noted that the building features a drive through on the south side. The proposed building would meet all applicable setbacks, besides the required building setback of 20’ at the northwest corner of the building, in addition the parking lot does not meet the required setbacks. Variances are being sought for the areas that don’t meet the required setbacks. Setbacks: The proposed buildingsetbacks and requirements for the C-4 (Fringe Commercial) district are identified below. The setbacks being proposed are also noted: Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance Caribou Coffee/Einstein Brothers Bagels –1100 Highway 15 So., Hutchinson. Planning Commission –5-17-16 Page 3 Principal Parking LotProposedProposed Structure or Circulation Structure Parking/Cir. Setback DriveSetbackDr. Setback Street Right of 25 feet10 feet68feetto E.0feet Way13 feet to N. Interior Lot Line20 feet6 feet34feet–S.0 feet 27feet–N. As seen in the table above the structure setback of 13’ on the north side of the building requires a variance because the required setback is 25’. In addition, none of the parking lot setbacks are proposed to met due to the small lot size and irregular shape of the lot. It should be noted that the existing parking lot did not meet the required setbacks. There will be more information regarding the need for variances below. Signage: Building signage is proposedas shown on the attached building elevation. In addition, a 27’ pylon sign is proposed that would feature arotating center logo between Caribou and Einstein Bagels. The proposed signage appears to meet ordinance requirements; however each sign will be reviewed in detail when sign permits are applied for. Parking/Access/Circulation 26parking spaces are shown on the site plan. The zoning ordinance requires 1.0 parking spaces per table and 1.0 spaces per 2 stools. Based on staff calculations, 17 parking spaces would be required to accommodate customers. With this calculation, there would be an additional 9 parking spaces for employees/additional customer parking.Staff believes parking will be adequate on site. There are two ingress/egress points to the site. There will be aright in/right out on the southeast portion of the site onto Highway 15. The other is at the northwest portion of the site off of Century Avenue SW. Both of these access points are 24’ wide and appear acceptable to staff. The circulation of the site is somewhat tight due to the relatively small size of the lot and the irregular shape of the site. Staff has worked very closely with the developer to make sure circulation will be the best it can be on a redevelopment site like this one. The circulationon the west, south and east side of the building is relatively straightforward. The drive aisles are typically 24’ wide on three sides of the building. The north side of the building is very tight due to the irregular shape of the lot due to the curvature of Century Avenue. Because of this, the developer is proposing to use a portion of City right-of-way (1,959 sq. ft.) in order to make an acceptable drive-aisle around the north side of the building.This will require a franchise agreement that would need to be granted by the City Council.There would essentially be two lanes around the north side of the building, one for the drive-through lane and one lane to bypass the drive-through lane.The former Freedom gas station also had a large encroachmentinto the City right-of-way (2,299 sq. ft.), so the proposed encroachment from Caribou is actually less than the existing encroachment. Staff would like to make it clear that the proposed circulation plan is less than ideal and that Staff wants to avoid right-of-way encroachments if at all possible, however, due to this project being a redevelopment project it is difficult to make everything perfect. That being said, staff believes the circulation plan as proposed will work, especially as it relates to access point to public roadways. The internal circulation of a site occurs on Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance Caribou Coffee/Einstein Brothers Bagels –1100 Highway 15 So., Hutchinson. Planning Commission –5-17-16 Page 4 private property and unless it is creating a public safety issue, this circulation is really up to what works best for the property owner. Landscaping and Lighting: The Zoning Ordinance requires tree planting at a rate of 1 tree per 800 sq. ft. of landscaped area. Staff will be doing a complete landscape plan review at the time of building permit plan review. In reviewing previous projects completed by this developer it appears that they are very aesthetically pleasing. Staff has not reviewed a detailed photometric lighting plan. This will be required prior to building permits being issues. Per the Zoning Ordinance, lighting installed must be indirect and shall not produce glare on adjacent properties or public right of ways. Stormwater Management/Erosion Control: Following the final construction plan submittal and City reviewthe City Environmental Specialist will provide comments that need to be addressed prior to building permits being issued. Conditional Use Permit: The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for the drive through. The drive through order point is on the west side of the building and the pick-up point is on the south side of the building. Eighty (80) feet of stacking is required and the site plan appears to accommodate stacking space. In addition, access to the drive through and egress leaving the drive through is sufficient from a site circulation standpoint. The following are standards for granting a conditional use permit: (a)The proposed building or use at the particular location requested is necessary or desirable to provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of the publicconvenience and will contribute to the general welfare of the neighborhood or community; (b)The proposed building or use will not have a substantial or undue adverse effect upon adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, utility facilities and other matters affecting the public health, safety and general welfare; and (c)The proposed building or use will be designed, arranged and operated so as to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable district regulations. Variance: 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 propertyowner 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 Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance Caribou Coffee/Einstein Brothers Bagels –1100 Highway 15 So., Hutchinson. Planning Commission –5-17-16 Page 5 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. Staff feels that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner as a commercial business with a drive-through. This question was answeredYES. 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 this lot.The lot in question has a very unique shape (triangular for this zoning district and the general vicinity. In addition, the size of this lot being .525 acres is small in relation to the typical lots in the zoning district and vicinity. 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 thisrequest, staff believes the “locality” is the general area around this property. This area is a commercially zoned area and coffee shops are very common in commercial areas, in addition, the size of the building and layout of the site is very typical fora commercially zoned area. This question was answered YES. Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance Caribou Coffee/Einstein Brothers Bagels –1100 Highway 15 So., Hutchinson. Planning Commission –5-17-16 Page 6 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? Staff feels that the request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and meets the criteria set forth above to grant a variance. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan “guides” this area of the City for commercial development, which is consistent with this variance request. Based on the fact that all three questions above were answered yes, staff recommends the variance be granted. Staff recommends approval of the request for the following reasons: 1)The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner as a commercial property with a drive-through. 2)The landowner’s problem is unique to the property. The property is uniquely shaped (triangular) as compared to other commercial properties in the area, in addition the lot size is also smaller (.525 acres) than properties in the area. 3)The request will not alter the essential character of the locality. There are many commercial properties in this area with drive-through’s and the scale of the proposed building is similar to other buildings in the area. In addition, there are other properties in the area that are not meeting the parking lot/circulation drive setback requirements. 4)The variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent ofthe ordinance. 5)The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the site plan review, conditional use permit and variance with the following findings and conditions: 1.The site plan is acceptable contingent on the conditional use permit and variances being approved. 2.The standards for granting a conditional use permit would be met, subject to the conditions stated. 3.The proposed building and site improvements shall complywith the standards of the C-4 district and the Zoning Ordinance, as well as all other City regulations. 4.Any reconstruction of existing infrastructure within City of Hutchinson easement areas shall be the developer’s responsibility, including improvements and associated costs. This work shall meet all of the City’s engineering standards and be approved by the City. 5.There must be emergency service access around the buildingthat meets the fire code. Fire hydrants must be located no farther than 400 feet from the building. 6.Exterior refuse collection area must be fully screened. 7.Moving or relocating utility services will be at the property owner’s expense. 8.Because the easement areas are being proposed to be covered with hard-surfacing, if at any point in the future the parking lot needs to be opened up to repair buried utilities, the cost to repair the parkinglot will be the responsibility of the building owner and not the City of Hutchinson or Hutchinson Utilities. 9.SAC/WAC charges will be due at the time building permits are issued. 10.A parkland contribution fee will be collected with the building permit. Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance Caribou Coffee/Einstein Brothers Bagels –1100 Highway 15 So., Hutchinson. Planning Commission –5-17-16 Page 7 11.The City of Hutchinson must approve a traffic control plan prior to any construction activity impactingCentury Ave. MnDOT must approve any work done in the Highway 15 right-of way. 12.The City of Hutchinson must be notified 7 days prior to any roadway or utility work that is going to be done within the City right of way. All roadway work must be fully completed to City standards within 10 calendar days of the original disturbance. If the work isn’t fully completed within 10 calendar days, the City reserves the right to have the work completed and invoice/assess the property owner for all associated costs. 13.The conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions required by the permit are observed. Any expansion or intensification of a conditional use or change to another conditional use requires approval of a new conditional use permit. 14.If the proposed use fails to start operation within one year of the conditional use permit being granted, the conditional use permit shall be deemed null and void and a new conditional use permit must be applied for. 15.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner as a commercial property with a drive-through. 16.The landowner’s problem is unique to the property. The property is uniquely shaped (triangular) as compared to other commercial properties in the area;in addition the lot size is also smaller (.525 acres) than properties in the area. 17.The request will not alter the essential character of the locality. There are many commercial properties in this area with drive-through’s and the scale of the proposed building is similar to other buildings in the area. In addition, there are other properties in the area that are not meeting the parking lot/circulation drive setback requirements. 18.The variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. 19.The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4 1 0 - 6 1 04/22/2016 1 ENCROACHMENT EXHIBIT C L L , S G N I D L O H S E I T R E P CARIBOU O HUTCHINSON, MN R P L A E R G B A Civil Engineering Land Planning CAMPIONENGINEERINGSERVICES, INC. N PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. ____________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.4 AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4-17 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City of Hutchinson (the "City") has proposed to adopt a Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 4 (the "Development Program Modification") and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 4-17 (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Development Program Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Program and Plan") and has submitted the Program and Plan to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Program and Plan to determine their conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Program and Plan conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Dated: May 17, 2016 _______________________________________ Chair ATTEST: ___________________________________ Secretary