Loading...
PC Packet 07.21.15 AGENDA HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,July 21, 2015 5:30 p.m. 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.CONSENT AGENDA A.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES DATEDJUNE 16, 2015 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.CONSIDERATION OF AVARIANCETO REDUCE THE NORTHERN SIDE- YARD SETBACKFOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BY 38 INCHES ON THE PROPERTYLOCATED AT 107 MARK DR. NE,RONALD & JEANIE KALENBERG, APPLICANTS Motion to close hearing –Motion to approve with staff recommendations –Motion to reject 5.UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6.NEWBUSINESS 7.COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF A.Upcoming Meetings 8.ADJOURNMENT MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,June 16, 2015 5:30 p.m. 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. The June 16, 2015 Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Hantge at 5:30 p.m. Members in bold were present Chair Hantge,Commissioner Kirchoff, Commissioner Johnston, Commissioner Norton,Commissioner Arndt,Commissioner Wick, and Commissioner Fahey. Also present were Dan Jochum, City Planner, Kyle Dimler, Planning and Building Specialist, Kent Exner, City Engineer, and Marc Sebora, City Attorney. 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.CONSENT AGENDA A.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES DATEDMAY 19, 2015 Motion by CommissionerKirchoff,Second by CommissionerNorton to approve. Approved unanimously. 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION AND SCREENING OF A RECYCLABLE MATERIALS COLLECTION CENTER WITHIN I-1 AND I-2 ZONING DISTRICTS LOCATED AT 1065 5 TH AVE. SE, MCLEOD COUNTY, APPLICANT Chair Hantge introduced the agenda item. Commissioner Kirchoff read aloud the guidelines for the public hearing portion of the evening’s meeting. Dan Jochum, City Director of Planning/Zoning/Building Dept., presented to the Commission. Mr. Jochum reviewed briefly the nature of the applicant’s industry and the C.U.P. granted to the applicant’s property in 1999, a condition of which was that no outdoor storage was allowed. Mr. Jochum stated as the operation has evolved and grown, some outdoor storage has taken place and the applicant is now requesting the C.U.P. so they may maintain compliance with the requirements of the C.U.P. and be permitted to have screened outdoor storage. Mr. Jochum shared photographs of the current conditions of the applicant’s site taken from adjacent properties. Minutes Hutchinson Planning Commission June 16, 2014 Page 2 Mr. Jochum presented marketing illustrations of the types of fencing the applicant is considering as options for screening. Mr. Jochum statedthat he met last week with County Commissioner Paul Wright who asked the Commission to consider an 8’ tall fence rather than the 10’ fence recommended by City Staff. Mr. Jochum presented an aerial map illustrating where Staff recommends limiting outdoor storage to on the applicant’s site, as well as the location of the recommended vegetative screening outside the fenced area. Mr. Jochum reviewed the remainder of the Staff recommended conditions included in the Commission’s packet. Commissioner Norton asked why Staff recommended a10’ fence rather than the requested 8’ fence. Mr. Jochum noted current storage on the applicant’s site is already at approximately the top of a proposed 8’ fence. Commissioner Norton asked how similar industries are handled within the City. Mr. Jochum stated this is not a situation the City encounters often. Mr. Jochum noted McLeod County staff believes an 8’ fence would be sufficient to retainand screenthe materials they have on site. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if Staff has concerns with the possibility of site run-off towards the adjacent drainage pond. Mr. Jochum stated theapplicant is working with the State and Federal regulatory agencies to ensure they are in compliance with the pertinent regulations. Commissioner Arndt recommended requiring a fence without tree screening due to maintenance requirements of weed growth and trash gathering in the vegetation over time. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the storm water retentionpondadjacent to the proposed outdoor storage area would need to be enlarged if additional impervious surface is created on site. City Engineer, Kent Exner stated that the pond on site is designed for approximately 98% site coverage. McLeod County Commissioner Neis addressed the Commission regarding the proposed fence recommendation. Minutes Hutchinson Planning Commission June 16, 2014 Page 3 Mr. Neis stated thecostdifference between an 8’ fence and a 10’ fence would be approximately $100,000. Mr. Neis stated the applicant would much rather provide trees outside the fenced area rather than a 10’ fence. Mr. Neis stated with the addition recently made to the applicant’s facility, there will be no “one sort” material stored outside. Chair Hantge asked Mr. Neis ifthe condition of completion of the recommended fencing within 10 weekswas feasible for the applicant.. Mr. Neis stated it would be a challenging timeline but would be accomplished with the provision of an 8’ fence. Miles Seppelt, Hutchinson EDA Director, addressed the Commission. Mr. Seppelt stated the EDA is the neighboring property owner to the north and stated the EDA would be satisfied with an 8’ fence with the provisionof the requirement of no wind-blown materials being stored outside. Mr. Jochum reviewed Staff recommended conditions for the granting of the C.U.P. Mr. Jochum stated an additional recommendation would be that the fence must not encroach in the easement area adjacent to the storm water retention pond on site. Commissioner Kirchoff asked to clarify recommendation #10. Mr. Jochum noted Staff’s concern was with compliance of the industrial stormwater permittingrequired of the applicant. Chair Hantge asked if the Commission was comfortable with an 8’ fence rather than a 10’ fence. The Commission unanimously was in favor ofan 8’ fence. Chair Hantge asked if the Commission was comfortable with removing the recommendation of trees outside the fence. Discussion followed. Kirchoff moved, second by Fahey to close public hearing at 6:03 p.m. Fahey moved to recommend approval with the change of Condition #3 from a 10’ fence to an 8’ fence, removing the recommendation oftreesbeing planted outside the fence, and including a condition requiring the outdoor storage and associated fencing to not encroach on the easement area adjacent to the storm water retentionpondon the site. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirchoff. The motion was approved unanimously. This item will be on City Council’sconsent agenda for the next meeting scheduled for 6/23/15. Motion to close hearing –Motion to approve with staff recommendations –Motion to reject Minutes Hutchinson Planning Commission June 16, 2014 Page 4 5.UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 6.NEWBUSINESS 7.COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF A.Airport Master Plan / Zoning Update Dan Jochum introduced Melissa Underwood ofBolton & Menk, the airport consultant to the City,to the Planning Commission. Ms. Underwood presented a report to the Commission updating the Airport Master Plan. Mr. Jochum noted the Commission is not tasked with approving this report but rather providing feedback. B.Discussion of electronic signs for churches, schools, etc. Mr. Jochum stated he would like to get feedback from the Commission regarding the possibility of revising the City Sign Ordinance as it pertains to dynamic signs often requested by religious organizations typically in residential zoning districts. Commission was in favor of researching what other comparably sized and located communities are doing with this typeof ordinance and moving the ordinance forward to be relative tochanging technologies. C.Upcoming Meetings 8.ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Arndt, Second by Wick to adjourn the meeting at 6:29 p.m. Variance 107 Mark Dr. NE Planning Commission –7-21-15 Page 2 GENERAL INFORMATION Existing Zoning:R-2(Medium DensityResidential) Property Location:107 Mark Dr. NE Lot Size: 85’ x 145’ (12,325sq. ft.) Existing Land Use:Residential Adjacent Land Use And Zoning:Residential –R-2 Medium Density Residential Comprehensive Land Use Plan:MediumDensityResidential Neighborhood Zoning History: The plat for this development was originally completed in 1957. Applicable Regulations:Section 154.167and 154.057 (F)(2). 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 107 Mark Dr. NE Planning Commission –7-21-15 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 not unique to the property because there is room to build the garage by meetingthe current setbacks. Staff believes it may be more convenient or a personal preference for the applicant to build a new garage with a 38” setback versus 6 feet but it doesn’t appear that “convenience” is a factor that should be considered from a legal standpoint. This question was answered NO. 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 essentialcharacter of the locality would not be altered because the existing garage is only 38” off the property line right now and it doesn’t appear to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 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 bulkof 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 107 Mark Dr. NE Planning Commission –7-21-15 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-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 withthe 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 above were answered yes, staff recommends the variance be denied due to not meeting the legal standard outlined in the zoning ordinance.It should also be noted that if the Planning Commission feels that answer to the uniqueness question above is “yes”, the variance maybe grantedif the Planning Commission feels it meets the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.Staff recommends denialof the request for the following reasons: 1)Staff believes the landowner’svariance request is not due to uniqueness of physical characteristics of the property, as there appears to be enough room to build a garage that would meet zoning ordinance requirements. Because staff couldn’t answer “yes” to question 2 above regarding uniqueness we are recommending the variance be denied. 2)Staff believes the request is related to preference of the landownerrather than to a physical characteristic with the land. 3)Staff believes that the variance is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinanceas found in section 154.001 of the Zoning Ordinance.Specifically 154.001 (C) and (F). CITY OF HUTCHINSON MCLEOD COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 14442 RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS FOR DENIAL OF VARIANCE APPLICATION TO REDUCE THE NORTHERN SIDE-YARD SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BY 38 INCHES ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 107 MARK DR. NE, RONALD & JEANIE KALENBERG, APPLICANTS FACTS 1.Ronal & Jeanie Kalenberg arethe applicantsandownersof a parcel of land located at 107 Mark Dr. NE,Hutchinson Minnesota; and, 2.The subject property is legally described as: Lot 4, Block 3, Clifton Heights Addition 3.Ronald & Jeanie Kalenberg,applicantsandproperty owners,haveapplied to the City for a variance to reduce the northern side-yard setback for an accessory structure by 38 inches on the property located at 107 Mark Dr. NE. 4.The property is located in the R-2(Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. 5.The proposal would vary from Section 154.057 (F) (2)in that it would decrease the minimum required 6’ side yard setback by 38 inches. 6.Following a public hearing on the application, the City of Hutchinson Planning Commission has recommended denialof the variance on July 21, 2015with the following findings: a.The propertyowner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner as having a detached garage in this zoning district. b.The landowner’s problem isnotunique to the property. The property contains sufficient room to build the garage by meeting the current setbacks. While it may be more convenient or personally preferred to build a new garage with a 38” setback versus a 6’ setback, it doesn’t appear that “convenience” is a factor that should be considered from a legal standpoint. c.The request will not alter the essential character of the locality. Under the context of this request, the “locality” is the general neighborhood area around this property. The Essential character of the locality would not be altered because the existing garage is only 38” from the property line and it doesn’t appear to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. d.The variance is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, specifically sections 154.001 (C) and (F). e.The variance’s consistency with the ComprehensivePlan is somewhat neutral as the Comprehensive Plan doesn’t specifically address issues related to variances. Findings of Fact–Resolution 14442 Variance 107 Mark Dr. NE 7/21/2015 Page 2 7.The City Council of the City of Hutchinson reviewed the requested varianceat its meeting on July 28, 2015and has considered the recommendation and findings of the Planning Commission and hereby does recommend denial of thevariance request with the following findings: a.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner as having a detached garage in this zoning district. b.The landowner’s problem is not unique to the property. The property contains sufficient room to build the garage by meeting the current setbacks. While it may be more convenient or personally preferred to build a new garage with a 38” setback versus a 6’setback, it doesn’t appear that “convenience” is a factor that should be considered from a legal standpoint. c.The request will not alter the essential character of the locality. Under the context of this request, the “locality” is the general neighborhoodarea around this property. The Essential character of the locality would not be altered because the existing garage is only 38” from the property line and it doesn’t appear to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. d.The variance is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, specifically sections 154.001 (C) and (F). e.The variance’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is somewhat neutral as the Comprehensive Plan doesn’t specifically address issues related to variances. APPLICABLE LAW 8.Minnesota Statue Section 462.357, subd. 6 provides: (a)Variances shall only be permitted (a) when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and (b) when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. (b)Variances may be granted when the applicant for thevariance establishes that there are practicaldifficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. “Practical difficulties,”as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that (a) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; (b) the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and (c) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 9.City ordinance allows variances if the strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with thespirit and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 10.City ordinance Section 154.150 (A)(2) states that the request would expand an existing non-conforming setback and reduce theside yard setback. Section 154.057 (F)(2) states theside yard setback is 6’ in the R-2 zoning district. Findings of Fact–Resolution 14442 Variance 107 Mark Dr. NE 7/21/2015 Page 3 CONCLUSIONS OF THE LAW 11.There arenot unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner. The applicant indicates the unique circumstance isthat the layout of the subject lot is shifted to the south. 12.The variance will maintain the essential character of the locality becausethe majority of the other properties on this block also havedetached or attached garages. 13.The variance is not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance is in place to regulate and limit the intensity of use of lot areas and to regulateand determine the area of open spaces within and surrounding buildings hereafter to be erected. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hutchinson, Minnesota, that the application to issue a variance to allow Ronald and Jeanie Kalenberg, applicantsandproperty owners,tobuild a garageso as to deviate from Section 154.057 (F)(2)is hereby denied. th Adopted by the City Council this 28day ofJuly, 2015. ATTEST: Matt JaunichGary T. Forcier Interim City AdministratorMayor