Loading...
PC Packet 07.18.17 AGENDA HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,July 18, 2017 5:30 p.m. 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.CONSENT AGENDA A.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES DATED May 16, 2017. 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCESIDE AND REAR SETBACK FROM 6 FEET TO 3 FEET TO CONSTRUCT NEW DETACHED GARAGEON EXISTING SITE LOCATED AT 436 HASSAN ST SE. B.CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE CORNER SIDE SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO 11.4 FEET TO REBUILD A DETACHED GARAGELOCATED AT 605 LYNN RD SW. C.CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW BUILDING AND AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 579 ND 2AVE SE. 5.NEW BUSINESS 6.UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7.COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF A.Upcoming Meetings 8.ADJOURNMENT MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,May 16, 2017 5:30 p.m. 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30P.M. The May 16, 2017Planning Commission meeting was called to order by ChairFaheyat 5:30p.m. Members in bold were present Chair Fahey,Vice Chair Wick, Commissioner Garberg,Commissioner Wirt, Commissioner Lofdahl,and Commissioner Forcier. Also present were Dan Jochum,City Planner,John Olson, City Public Works,Marc Sebora,City Attorney,John Paulson, City Environmental Specialist and Andrea Schwartz, City of Hutchinson Permit Technician 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.CONSENT AGENDA A.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES DATED April 18, 2017. Motion by Commissioner Forcier, Second by Commissioner Wirt.Motion approved. Motion to Approve–Motion to Reject 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN FOR A MULTI UNIT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT IN AN R-4 ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 875 CENTURY AVE SW. Dan Jochum, City Planner addressed the Commission. Mr. Jochum reviewed the application as outlined in the Commission’s packets. Access roads are too narrow. Fire code is 26 ft width. Developer is working on this. This can be a condition to the approval. Some of the parking lots need to have handicap parking added. Curbing will be looked at with the City. Sidewalks have been added to connect to city walk paths. Garbage enclosure near the residential homes on the NW corner should be moved. Pond takes care of stormwater management. Landscaping, good screening tothe NW corner, would like to see some more screening on the N line. Lofdahl –garbage relocation? City staff will work with developer. Garberg –size requirement on trees? 8ft Minutes Hutchinson Planning Commission May 16, 2017 Page 2 Lofdahl –time frame? July/August Forcier –phase 2? Dirt work will happen right away. Roads and parking will be completed as needed. Motion by Commissioner Wick,second by Commissioner Wirtto close hearing at 5:46p.m. Motion by Commissioner Garbergto approve with staff recommendations. Adding item 16 of 26 ft street openings. Second by Commissioner Lofdahl. Motion approved. Item will be on City Council consent agenda on 5/23/2017. B.CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR SHIMPA ADDITION LOCATED AT 937 LEWIS AVE SW AND 235 LAKE ST SW. Dan Jochum, City Planner addressed the Commission. Mr. Jochum reviewed the application as outlined in the Commission’s packets. Wirt –set back? 6 ft on side. This will now give them about 24 ft side lot. Motion by Commissioner Wick,second by Commissioner Lofdahlto close hearing at 5:50p.m. Motion by Commissioner Forcierto approve with staff recommendations. Second by Commissioner Garberg. Motion approved. Item will be on City Council consent agenda on 5/23/2017. Commissioner Wick will now be running the meeting as Commissioner Fahey has a part in in the request. C.CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SCHOOL IN AN R-2 ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 950 SCHOOL RD SW. Dan Jochum, City Planner addressed the Commission. Mr. Jochum reviewed the application as outlined in the Commission’s packets. This building was originally set us as a school. All requirements are met Motion by Commissioner Lofdahl,second by Commissioner Wirtto close hearing at 5:53p.m. Motion by Commissioner Wirtto approve with staff recommendations. Second by Commissioner Lofdahl. Motion approved. Item will be on City Council consent agenda on 5/23/2017. Minutes Hutchinson Planning Commission May 16, 2017 Page 3 Motion to close hearing –Motion to approve with staff recommendations–Motion to reject 5.NEW BUSINESS 6.UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7.COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF A.Dan recently attended the National Planning Commission in NY –feels that we should update the zoning code. Make it simpler, easier to follow. Maybe look more at the format (use charts and tables). Sign ordinance. Planning and Building Department is very busy right now. There is a 3 week delay in plan review. B.Upcoming Meetings Dan Jochum noted that we have twopossible applicationsfor theJunePlanning Commission meetingat this time. 8.ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Wick, Second by Commissioner Wirtto adjourn at 6:00 p.m. DIRECTORS REPORT –PLANNING DEPARTMENT To:Hutchinson Planning Commission From:Dan Jochum, AICP and Hutchinson Planning Staff Date:July 13, 2017for the July 18,2017Planning Commission Meeting Application:CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED AT 436 Hassan St. SE. Applicant:Victoria Langen VARIANCE –436 HASSAN ST SE. Victoria Langenisrequesting a variance to allow for the construction of a detached garage in therear yard of her home that wouldn’t meet the 6-footside and rear yard setbacks.It should be noted that there is currently an approximately 19’x19’garage that isn’t structurally soundlocated in the same vicinitythat the proposed garage will be located.The new garage is proposed tobe an approximately26’x 32’garageor 832 sq. ft.The zoning ordinance requirement for the rear and side yard setback is 6 feetapplicant is proposing locatingthesouth and west side of the new garage in the same location that the previous garage was located, which is 3.8 feet off of the west property line and 3 feet off of the south property line.This property is located in one of the older areas of Hutchinson and there are several properties in this area with detached garages that do not meet current setback standards and are considered non-conforming.The applicant has provided a narrative and photos that are attached to explain their practical difficulty. It should be noted that staff has concerns related to snow removal and drainage with buildings that are located closer than 6 feet to the alley/property line. There are many old garages that are located closer than 6 feet to thealley but there is less room to put alley snow in these areas and it is harder to ensure good alley drainage if there is less room to “match”the private property grade with the alley grade elevations.One of the items the zoning ordinance addresses is non- conformities and one of the goals of any zoning ordinance is to bring non-conformities into compliance as property redevelops or uses change. Variance 436 Hassan St SE Planning Commission –7-18-17 Page 2 GENERAL INFORMATION Existing Zoning:R-2(Medium DensityResidential) Property Location:436 Hassan St SE Lot Size: Approximately 66’x132’(8,712sq. ft.) Existing Land Use:Residential Adjacent Land Use And Zoning:Residential –R-2Medium Density Residential Comprehensive Land Use Plan:LowDensityResidential 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 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 constitutea 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 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 436 Hassan St SE Planning Commission –7-18-17 Page 3 Staff feels that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner by having a detached garage. Having a detached garage is a reasonable request.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 isnotunique to the property because the garage could either be made smaller and wouldmeet the setbacks without impacting the usable space in thebackyard or the garage could be built thesame size as proposed and meet the setbacks by utilizing some of the available space in thebackyard. Meeting the setbacks with the proposed garage would make the usable yard shrink by 153.2 square feet.For context,theentire back yard is approximately 4,000 sq. ft.It appears to staff that it is thepreference of the applicant to locate the garage in the proposed area rather than a physical characteristic or uniquenessto the lot.This question was answered NO. 3. Essential character The third factor isthat 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 garages within a block of this garage that don’t meet current setbacks. This question was answered YES. Another factorto consider for granting a varianceis whether the variance request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance?The ZoningOrdinancehas 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; Variance 436 Hassan St SE Planning Commission –7-18-17 Page 4 (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; (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 iswhetherthe 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 only 2 of the 3questions abovefor the variance testwere answered yes, staff recommends the variance be denieddue to itnotmeeting the legal standard outlined in the zoning ordinance.It should also be noted that if the Planning Commission feels that answer toany ofthe above questions should be answered differently than staff answered, the variance can be approved with the appropriate findings.Staff recommends denialof the request for the following reasons: 1)Only 2 of the 3questions of the “variance test” are answered yes. 2)The need for a variance appears to be a personal preference rather than a unique characteristic regarding the lot. 3)Having thegarage less than 6-feet away from the DIRECTORS REPORT –PLANNING DEPARTMENT To:Hutchinson Planning Commission From:Dan Jochum, AICP and Hutchinson Planning Staff Date:July 13, 2017 for the July 18,2017Planning Commission Meeting Application:CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED AT 605LYNN RD. SW. Applicant:Christopher Miller VARIANCE –605 LYNN RD.SW. Christopher Miller isrequesting a variance to allow for the construction of a detached garage in corner side yard setback area. It should be noted that there is currently a dilapidated garage in the exact location of the new proposed garage. The garage is proposed tobe an approximately22’ x 22’ garage that will meet all setback besides the corner side yard setback. The zoning ordinance requirement for the corner side yard setback is 25 feet and the applicant is proposing locating the garage in the same exact location as the old garage, which is 11.4’ off of the property.This property is located in one of the older areas of Hutchinson and there are several properties in this area with detached garages that do not meet current setback standards and are considered non-conforming.The applicant states the unique circumstances of the lot are the large mature trees on siteand moving the garage may impact the root systems of these trees causing these trees to die. The applicant alsostates the practical difficultyof the lot is that half of the backyard will be consumed by garage and driveway which will increase runoff due almost twice the driveway length. The applicant also states a practical difficulty is that moving the garage to meet the setbacks will impact mature trees on the lot. 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 605 Lynn RdSW Planning Commission –7-18-17 Page 2 GENERAL INFORMATION Existing Zoning:R-2(Medium DensityResidential) Property Location:605 Lynn RdSW Lot Size: Approximately 90’x90’(8,100sq. ft.) Existing Land Use:Residential Adjacent Land Use And Zoning:Residential –R-2 Medium Density Residential Comprehensive Land Use Plan:LowDensityResidential 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 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 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 605 Lynn RdSW Planning Commission –7-18-17 Page 3 Staff feels that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner by having a detached garage. Having a detached garage is a reasonable request.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 the property because building the garage in a manner that would meet the setbacks mayimpactthe root systems of thelarge mature trees on siteand cause the trees to die.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 garages within a block of this garage that don’t meet current setbacks.It is alsoimportant that the proposed garage is the same size as the existing garage so the character of the size of the garage isn’t changing.This question was answered YES. Another factorto consider for granting a varianceis whether the variance request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance?The ZoningOrdinancehas 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; Variance 605 Lynn RdSW Planning Commission –7-18-17 Page 4 (G)To prohibit uses, buildings or structures incompatible with the character of established districts; (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-existinglots, structures and uses which do not conform to the regulations, standards, restrictions and limitations established by this chapter. Another factor to consider iswhetherthe 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 threequestions abovefor the variance testwere answered yes, staff recommends the variance be granted due to itmeeting the legal standard outlined in the zoning ordinance.It should also be noted that if the Planning Commission feels that answer toany ofthe above questions are no, the variance can be denied. The variance request also appears tomeet the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.Staff recommends approvalof 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. Variance 605 Lynn RdSW Planning Commission –7-18-17 Page 5 Variance 605 Lynn RdSW Planning Commission –7-18-17 Page 6 Variance 605 Lynn RdSW Planning Commission –7-18-17 Page 7 DIRECTORS REPORT –PLANNING DEPARTMENT To:Hutchinson Planning Commission From:Dan Jochum, AICP and City of Hutchinson Planning Staff Date:July 12, 2017, forJuly18, 2017, Planning Commission Meeting Application:Consideration of a preliminary and final plat of LJM Addition and conditional use permitfor building addition and new building for equipment storage. Applicant:Larry Murphy PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF LJMADDITIONAND CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT Larry Murphyhas submitted a preliminary and final plat to create a onelot plat for the property nd located at 579 2Avenue SE.All uses within this zoning district require a conditional use permit. Since the use is proposed to be intensified on the site with a new building and an addition to an existing building, a CUP is required.Mr. Murphy proposes to utilize this location for equipment storage for his construction related/snow removal businesses. Preliminary and Final platand Conditional Use Permit LJM Addition Planning Commission –7/18//17 Page 2 GENERAL INFORMATION Existing Zoning:I/C Industrial/Commercial District nd Property Location:579 2Ave SE Lot Size: 22,869 square feet (.525 Acres) Existing Land Use:Storage/industrial use Adjacent Land Use:Industrial and park/open space land uses AdjacentZoning:I/C and R-3Residential Comprehensive Land Use Plan:Medium Density Residential Zoning History:This property has been used for storage/industrial purposes for the past several decades. Applicable Regulations:Sections153.36, 153.50 and 154.066of the City Code Preliminary and Final Plat: The proposed LJMAddition combines two old 66’ x 132’ lots with a portion of vacated right-of- way from Huron St SE to create one larger lot. There is one existing building on site that is approximately 60’x 65’ in size.There is an easement for utilities on the east side of the lot that is 20 feet wide. No permanent structures will be allowed over this easement.The preliminary and final plat as shown, appear to meet all of the City of Hutchinson Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance Requirements. Site Layout: Building: There is one building on site that is approximately 60’ x 65’. The applicant is proposing an addition of 40’ x 60’ onto the existing building. The addition is proposed to be post frame construction. The applicant is proposing to build another building near the eastern building limits of the lot that would be 40’ x 72’. This building would also have post frame construction. The proposed buildingswould meet all applicable setbacks, as well as all other Zoning Ordinance requirements. Parking/Access/Circulation The applicant will need to provide four parking stalls to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. One of these spaces needs to be handicap and the others need to be regular parking stalls. These spaces need to be on either concrete or bituminous and be appropriately striped and signed. In addition to the paved parking area, the access drive from the street to the front of both Preliminary and Final platand Conditional Use Permit LJM Addition Planning Commission –7/18//17 Page 3 buildings needs to be paved to be in conformance with the zoning ordinance. The driveway from the street to the parking area/apron at the front of the buildingsneedsto be a minimum of 24’ wide. Stormwater Management: It should be noted that this site is within the Shoreland Zoning District. The shoreland district regulates the amount of impervious surface on lots. Typically,lots are allowed to go to 25% impervious surface without additional stormwater mitigation to go to a higher amount. Since this lot is basically all gravel right now and gravel is considered an impervious surface the addition of the buildings to the site will not increase the impervious surface on site. The lot is in essence “grandfathered”regarding the fact that the impervious surface coverage is close to 100%. The lot is within the 0.2 percent annual chance for flooding, or zone Xflood zoneper FEMA. The 0.2 percent annual chance used to be called the 500-year floodplain. It does not appear any special requirements need to be followed within this area. Conditional Use Permit: The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required due to intensification to the current use on the site. All uses in the I/C zoning district require a conditional use permit. 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 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. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and preliminary and final platswith the following recommendations: 1.Four paved parking spaces are required on site,of whichone must be a handicap space. 2.The zoning ordinance requires the parking area and access drives be paved with an all-weathersurface such as,concrete or bituminous. The access drives from the street to thefront of each building must be a minimum of 24 feet wideand be paved with an all-weathersurface. The parkingarea will also require an adequate drive aisle/turnaround that are paved. Preliminary and Final platand Conditional Use Permit LJM Addition Planning Commission –7/18//17 Page 4 3.The City shall approve afinal site layout planthat clearly shows the parking areas andaccess drives that will be improved with an all-weathersurface. nd 4.The area located between the two existing curb cutswithin the right-of-wayalong 2 Ave. SE shall be planted with grass. 5.Any outdoor storage on thesite will be required to be screened witha fence. 6.If the appearance of the lot is not neat and tidy or is unsightly, as determined by the City, the conditional use permit may be revised and may be amended accordingly to address these issues. 7.The standards for granting a conditional use permit would be met, subject to the conditions stated. 8.The proposed building and site improvements shall comply with the standards of the I/Cdistrict and the Zoning Ordinance, as well as all other City regulations. 9.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. 10.If the proposed use fails to start operationwithin 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.