PC Packet 11.20.18
AGENDA
HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
5:30 p.m.
1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3.CONSENT AGENDA
A. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES DATED OCTOBER 16, 2018
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
NONE
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Sketch Plan Review 1025 Dale Street SW.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF
A. Upcoming Meetings
8. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
5:30 p.m.
1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30P.M.
The October 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Fahey
at 5:30 p.m. Members in bold were present Chair Fahey, Vice Chair Wick,
Commissioner Garberg, Commissioner Wirt, Commissioner Lofdahl, Commissioner
Hantge and Commissioner Forcier. Also present were Dan Jochum, City Planner, Kent
Exner, City Engineer, John Olson, City Public Works,John Paulson, City Environmental
Specialist, Marc Sebora, City Attorney and Andrea Schwartz, City of Hutchinson
Permit Technician
2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3.CONSENT AGENDA
A. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 2018.
Motion by Commissioner Wirt, Second by Commissioner Forcier. Motion
approved.
Motion to Approve – Motion to Reject
4.PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMITFOR A DOG
DAYCARE BOARDING FACILITY LOCATED AT 518 HWY 7 E.
Dan Jochum, City Planner addressed the Commission.
Commissioner Garberg asked what type of material the fence in the exercise would
be. Sounds like a chain link fence, and City staff will review this with the building
application.
Motion by Commissioner Lofdahl, second by Commissioner Wirt to close hearing
at 5:35p.m.
Motion by Commissioner Garbergto approvewith fivestaff recommendations.
Second by Commissioner Forcier. Motion approved. Item will be on City Council
agenda on 10/23/2018.
Motion to close hearing – Motion to approve with staff recommendations – Motion to reject
Minutes
Hutchinson Planning Commission
October 16, 2018
Page 2
B. CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CELLULAR
TOWER LOCATED AT 1470 SOUTH GRADE RD SW.
Dan Jochum, City Planner addressed the Commission regarding the application
and explained the request.
Motion by Commissioner Lofdahl, second by Commissioner Forcier to close
hearing at 5:40 p.m.
Motion by Commissioner Lofdahl to approve with seven staff recommendations.
Second by Commissioner Wirt. Motion approved. Item will be on City Council
consent agenda on 10/23/2018.
Motion to close hearing – Motion to approve with staff recommendations – Motion to reject
5. NEW BUSINESS
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF
A. There may be a submittal for the November meetingfor a senior living facility.
B. Dan gave an update on building projects in town.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Wirt, Second by Commissioner Garberg to adjourn at
5:47p.m.
DIRECTORS REPORT –PLANNING DEPARTMENT
To: Hutchinson Planning Commission
From: Dan Jochum, AICP and City of Hutchinson Planning Staff
Date: November 15, 2018, forNovember 20, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting
Application:Sketch Plan Review – 1025 Dale St SW – Senior Housing Addition
Applicant: Roman Bloemke, Bear Paw Properties, LLC
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW – 1025 DALE ST SW– SENIOR HOUSINGCONCEPT
The purpose of this application is to determine, generally speaking, if the City would be receptive to this
project. The applicant is seeking some assurance that the City is generally on board with the concept before
more detailed professional design services are contracted for. The lot is already zoned appropriately for the
proposed use. If the sketch plan is found to be generally acceptable, the developer could chose to move forward
with submitting detailed site plans for review, preliminary/final plat applications and conditional use permit
applications, etc. and start the formal development review process.
Sketch Plan Review
1025 Dale St SW – Senior Housing Concept
Planning Commission – 11-20-18
Page 2
GENERAL INFORMATION
Existing Zoning: R-4 High Density Residential
Property Location: 1025 Dale St SW
Lot Size: 6.5 Acres
Existing Land Use: Woodstone Senior Living and Vacant
Adjacent Land Use:Single-family residential, Multi-unit senior housing, church.
Adjacent Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential and R-2 Medium Density Residential
Comprehensive
Land Use Plan: Medium Density Residential
Zoning History: Rezoned and Developed as Woodstone Senior Living in 2014
Applicable
Regulations: Section 153.020
Sketch Plan Review
Roman Bloemke, Bear Paw Properties, LLC has submitted the attached sketch plan for review. The location of
the site is east of the existing Woodstone Senior Living off Dale Street SW. The existing Woodstone building
has been on the site since around 2014.
The proposal includes a two-story senior apartment building with 38 units included. The new addition would be
attached to the existing building by a walkway in order to utilize the commercial kitchen in the original building
to serve meals in the new building. Approximately 50 parking stalls are being proposed for the developed and
include 36 outside stall and 14 garage spaces. Access to the new addition is proposed to be off Cleveland
Avenue SW.
The developer is also proposing replatting the property to include the property at 1015 Dale St SW, which is
currently an undeveloped landlocked parcel. This parcel would be used as a stormwater pond if the sketch plan
moved forward.
As noted above, access is proposed to be off Cleveland Avenue SW. Currently, there is a “temporary” cul-de-
sac in place to meet emergency vehicle turnaround standards for Cleveland Avenue SW. If this concept is to
move forward, the access drive to the new facility will have to accommodate emergency vehicle turnaround
requirements for Cleveland Avenue SW.
Sketch Plan Review
1025 Dale St SW – Senior Housing Concept
Planning Commission – 11-20-18
Page 3
Utilities on site are also another item that needs further study. Currently, utilities enter the site from Cleveland
Avenue side and service theexisting building. The applicant is proposing a “bridge”over the utilities for the
walkway portion of the building. This situation is less than ideal and will be touched upon in further detail
below.
Additional ponding will also be required on-site and the existing pond is proposed to be expanded and a new
pond is proposed for the lot that currently is 1015 Dale St SW.
The developer also provided a sketch of what the buildings could look like. Staff generally feels the buildings
are aesthetically pleasing and would fit in.
Recommendation:
Staff thinks the idea of an addition to the existing Woodstone Senior Living Facility could work but the
proposal needs to be further refined through a formal site plan review process. Items that staff feels need more
discussion are as follows:
1. Utility Bridge – If this approach is to move forward, due to the uniqueness of this design, staff
recommends a City determined third-party structural engineer review (developer’s expense) the bridge
concept to ensure it is feasible. If the land bridge concept is deemed unacceptable from a water main
facility and/or new structure integrity standpoint, the developer will be responsible for the relocation of
the water main and associated costs. Additionally, the City may impose the following requirements:
a. That utilities are run through casings under the structure
b. No connections be allowed under the bridging
c. That accessible valves/manholes be provided for on both sides of the bridge.
2. Ponding – Is it possible to have one large pond instead of two smaller ponds?
3. Circulation – Staff wants to ensure traffic circulation will meet all fire codes andwork well for residents
and visitors. The emergency vehicle access for Cleveland Avenue needs to be integrated into this design
and meet code.
4. Parking – Staff understand that the existing facility can be busy. Staff wants to ensure that there is
enough parking on-site.
5. One Stop Shop Meeting – Staff highly recommends a One Stop Shop meeting prior to formal site plan
submittal so that any issues can be discussed and staff can get a better understanding of the project.
Many of these issues may be able to be worked out with everyone in the same room.
Staff wants to remind the Planning Commission and applicant that the purpose of the sketch plan review is to
provide general comments to the developer regarding the concept plan. Staff does not have enough detailed
information to provide highly detailed comments at this point. That will come during a future step, which is
formal site plan approval after detailed engineering plans are submitted for review.
It should also be noted that there is not a public hearing at this point and input from neighbors has not been
considered. That important step will come later during the Conditional Use Permit process. The sketch plan
will not be forwarded on to the City Council for review at this point either, rather the Planning Commission and
Staff will provide feedback to be considered by the developer for the formal site plan approval. The formal site
plan will go in front of the City Council for their consideration.
1
1
22
U
O
F
8
N
4
F
/
T
7 B
F
!
7
ZU
O
U
2 F
J
N
!
M
F
J
!T
UB
F
!
F V
!Z
U
J
#
'
M
!J
U
8 F
V
!
'
H!
5 F
(B
H
B
O
JO
J
3
B
B
S
6 E
S
±E
:
9
T
1
2
1
2
1
/
1
1
2
7
8
9
/
2
4
7
!
!
F
#
3
6
(
5
1
±
1
1
T
6
:
/
U3
O
F8
N
1
F
T
2
B
!
F
!;
Z
5 U
J
I
M
7 J
/
U
O
V
:!
'
!U
7
F
3
H
!
B
!
O
J
F B
#S
E
:
3
(
8
1
±
1
1
O
U
O
F
N
F
1
T
2B
F
!
Z
U
J
M
J
U
V
!
'
!
1F
2
H
B
O
J
B
S
E
1
2
6
U
O
F
N
F
5
T
B 2
F/
!
Z
:
U
J
:
M
J
U 3
!
V
!
!
'U
!
O
F F
F#
H
BN
3
OF
J
4
T
3
B
(
B
3
S
F
/
!9
E
Z
5
1
U
J
2±
M
J
U:
5
!
V
!
!9
'
!
F
F O
#
H
B
8
O
J
5
B
(
S
3
E
6
±
:
9
T
JJJ
======
6
6
/
G
F
S
1
2
1
2
U
O
F
N
F
T
B
F
!
Z
U
J
M
J
U
7
8V
!
/
6 U
'
O!
3 8
F
/
F
N
8
5 F
H
T
1
7
BB
F
2 2
!O:
!!
ZJ
!;
U
J
B
8
F M
J
I/
#US
V
2!E
O
'7
!
6
(F
U
H 9
3
B
O
5 J
3
±B/
!
S
:!
E
G
6
T F F
#
S
7
U
6
O
(
F
N1
8
F
21
T
1B2
3
F
!
2
Z±
U
J
M
J
4
U
V
!
9
'
!
F
HU T
1B
O
2
O
JF
B
N
SF
ET
B
F
!
Z
U
J
M
J
U
3
V
!
9
F
'/
!
1
#F
3
H/
1 B 2
G
2 O
/J 2
F
B!
!
4 S S
1 1
(E
2
X
#
67
2
1
2
2 6
(
±
3
5
1
±
:
4
6
O
O
U
O
F
N
F6
T
B
F
!
Z
U
U
J
MO
J
U
F
V
!
'6
!N
2
F
F
6 H
/B
T
O
1 J
B
B
2
S
F
E!
4
!
Z
!
U
F J
#
M
J
:
U
3
(
V
!
8
1'
!
±
F
1
H
1
B F
O
6
O#
J
4
B
3
/
S
3
E 4
(
8
9
1
±
6
:
9
1
2
O