PC Packet 06.21.16
AGENDA
HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,June 21, 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 May 17, 2016.
4.PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED
GARAGE IN THE FRONT YARD LOCATED AT 1011 LEWIS AVE SW.
B.CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REMODEL AN
EXISTING OFFICE SPACE INTO A SALON IN THE C-5CONDITIONAL
COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 300 HWY 7 W.
C.CONSIDERATION OF A SITEPLAN, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT
FOR AN APARTMENT BUILDINGLOCATED AT 1315 MONTREAL ST SE
D.CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT LOCATED AT
210 HASSAN ST SE.
5.NEW BUSINESS
6.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7.COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF
A.Upcoming Meetings
8.ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,May 17, 2016
5:30 p.m.
1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M.
The May 17, 2016 Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Acting Chair
Nortonat 5:30 p.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, Marc Sebora,City Attorney,and Kyle Dimler,
City Building Official.
2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3.CONSENT AGENDA
A.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES DATED APRIL 19, 2016.
Motion by Commissioner Fahey, Second by Commissioner Wick. Motion
approved.
Motion to Approve–Motion to Reject
4.PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF
SOUTHWIND FIFTH ADDITION, AND REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-2
LOCATED AT 1550 SHERWOOD ST SE
Dan Jochum, City Planner, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Jochum reviewed the lot split application as noted in the Commission’s
packet first. Following Mr. Jochum next provided a review of the preliminary
and final plat and the rezoning as noted in the Commission’s packet.
Mr. Jochum noted that special consideration has been given to ensure drainage
from this site will flow towards Sherwood St. SE and only drainage from west
portion of roof is to flow westward.
Motion by Commissioner Arndt, second by Commissioner Fahey moved to close
public hearing at 5:35 p.m.
Arndt, Kalenberg moved to approve with staff recommended conditions.
Approved unanimously will be on Council consent agenda next Tuesday evening.
Minutes
Hutchinson Planning Commission
May 17, 2016
Page 2
Motion to close hearing –Motion to approve with staff recommendations–Motion to reject
B.CONSIDERATION OF ASITE PLAN, VARIANCE TO BUILDING HEIGHT,
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HIGH SCHOOL RENOVATIONS
IN A R-2 ZONE LOCATED AT 1200 ROBERTS RD SW
Mr. Jochum introduced Kevin Holm representing LHB the designers of the
proposed renovation to the Hutchinson High School.
Mr. Holm addressed the Commission. Mr. Holm reviewed the proposed scope of
the project in general terms. Mr. Holm noted that the need for a variance is driven
by a design that focuses on a smaller building footprint and using a three-story
structure.
Mr. Holm noted that the proposal is for a combination of brick veneer and pre-
cast concrete panels for the portion of the building involved in the variance
request.
Mr. Jochum addressed the Commission and provided the Staff report included in
the Commission’s packet.
Mr. Jochum noted that the R-2 Zoning District has a maximum building height of
35’ permitted. The variance application is requesting 48’ building height.
Mr. Jochum reviewed the 3-part test required for the granting of a variance per
MN State Law. Staff believes that this site and proposal meet the requirements of
the required 3-part test.
Mr. Jochum noted that the site is currently quite constrained which limits that
ability to provide an addition horizontally rather than vertically. Staff
recommends approval of the variance application.
Mr. Jochum noted that the C.U.P. is required for any use other than residential in
the R-2 Zoning District.
Mr. Jochum noted Staff believes the Site Plan improves the site over the current
layout in general and specifically in regards to alignment of drive lane
intersections. Mr. Jochum also noted the care provided in the design to provide
adequate screening from adjacent residential areas.
Mr. Jochum note Staff recommends approval of the Site Plan, the C.U.P., and the
Variance with the conditions noted in the Commission’s packet.
Commissioner Arndt asked if there is a possible redesign for bussing access.
Minutes
Hutchinson Planning Commission
May 17, 2016
Page 3
Mr. Jochum noted it would be a question best directed to the School District
leaders.
Brett Haugen, 160 Orchard Ave. SE representing Crossroad Church addressed the
Commission. Mr. Haugen noted a long-standing agreement for parking with the
high school.
Mr. Holm noted the design intends to maintain this agreement.
Jim Waldron 530 School Rd. SW representing neighbors. Concerned with
parking on street during construction and blocking mailboxes, concern with
possibly adding a drive from the Middle School to the High School to alleviate
traffic on School Rd., concerned there is adequate street lighting at the
intersection of McDonald Dr. and School Rd during activity events.
Mr. Jochum noted that Staff did note a need for as good of lighting as possible in
the proposed plan.
Assistant Principal and Mr. Holm noted due to light trespass regulations the
design of the lighting will need to terminate within the boundaries of the School
property.
Assistant Principal noted that due to budget constraints the previously considered
private road to the Middle School was not included in the final project.
Mr. Jochum noted Staff would need to review and approve a proposed parking
plan for parking increases on the City street.
Motion by Commissioner Fahey, second by Commissioner Wick to closepublic
hearing at 6:04 p.m.
Motion by Commissioner Faheyto approve with 15 Staff recommended
conditions, second by Commissioner Wick.Motion approved unanimously. Item
will be on City Council consent agenda next Tuesday.
Motion to close hearing –Motion to approve with staff recommendations–Motion to reject
C.CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN, VARIANCE TO REDUCE SETBACKS
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DRIVE THROUGH TO BUILD A
NEW CARIBOU COFFE/EINSTEIN BAGEL IN A C-4 ZONE LOCATED AT
1100 HWY 15 S
Mr. Jochum addressed the Commission. Mr. Jochum introduced Dan Wozniak
representing Erickson Family, property owners of the subject site.
Minutes
Hutchinson Planning Commission
May 17, 2016
Page 4
Mr. Wozniak noted the proposed project will be a combination Caribou
Coffee/Einstein Bagels. Mr. Wozniak noted that the project is a nice stone EIFS
faced building with heaviest traffic flow in the morning period of the day.
Mr. Jochum reviewed the applications as noted in the Commission’s packet.
Mr. Jochum noted that the proposed redevelopment of this site is likely the best
that will be able to be achieved.
Commissioner Norton asked if abatement of tanks on this site has been
completed.
Mr. Wozniak and Mr. Jochum both noted that the in-ground fuel tanks have
already been removed from this site.
Mr. Jochum noted that some of the components of the proposed Site Plan, such as
parking layout, are not completely ideal but are likely as good as can be provided
on this site based upon the applicant’s desired use of the space.
Mr. Jochum reviewed the right-of-way encroachment noted in Commission’s
report. Previously, this encroachment was approximately 2,000 square feet. The
proposed site plan encroaches into the right-of-way slightly less than the existing.
Staff does note that it is not in the City’s best interest to permit right-of-way
encroachments on a large scale.
Commissioner Norton stated he believes this proposal is likely the best use of this
property based upon its size and location.
Commissioner Arndt asked if a left turn off of Century would be permitted.
Mr. Jochum noted that would be part of the layout.
Commissioner Fahey commended Staff for working to make this site workable.
Mr. Jochum noted the variance for this application is due to the shape and size of
the existing lot that makes it very difficult to comply with the strict requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Jochum noted the variance is due to the setback encroachments as laid out in
the Commission’s packet.
Mr. Jochum noted the C.U.P. is required for the drive-through proposed.
Mr. Jochum noted Staff recommends approval with Conditions 1 –19 for the
C.U.P., Site Plan
Minutes
Hutchinson Planning Commission
May 17, 2016
Page 5
Motion by Commissioner Arndt, Second by Commissioner Wick to close public
hearing at 6:22 p.m. Motion approved unanimously.
Motion by Commissioner Fahey, Second by Commissioner Wick to approve with
19 staff recommended conditions. Approved unanimously. Item will be on City
Council’s consent agenda next Tuesday.
Motion to close hearing –Motion to approve with staff recommendations–Motion to reject
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.
Mr. Jochum addressed the Commission. Mr. Jochum noted he was presenting
on behalf of Miles Seppelt, EDA Director.
Mr. Jochum noted that the proposal is for the Business Incubator project
proposed by the Hutchinson EDA.
Mr. Jochum noted that the Planning Commission’s approval is not legally
required, but rather Staff is seeking the Commission’s verification that the
proposed project is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff
recommends approval of the proposal.
Mr. Jochum noted the proposal is to include the portion of the Industrial Park
that will be thelocation of the EDA’s proposed business incubator project.
Commissioner Fahey asked City Attorney Sebora what the thought process is
in incorporating these lots in something of a piece meal.
Mr. Jochum noted that the TIF projects are required to pass a “but for” test,
meaning the project would not proceed but for the TIF component.
Commissioner Wick asked if there would be sunset date for this project.
Mr. Jochum noted the proposed last year of the TIF would be 2026.
Motion by Commissioner Fahey, second by Commissioner Kalenbergto
recommend approval and concur that the proposal is in agreement with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. Motion approved unanimously.
Motion to close hearing –Motion to approve with staff recommendations–Motion to reject
Minutes
Hutchinson Planning Commission
May 17, 2016
Page 6
6.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
7.COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF
A.Upcoming Meetings
Mr. Jochum noted that the month of June is anticipated to be a busy month as
well. Included projects are a hotel, Mid-Country Bank project, and a C.U.P. for a
beauty salon in the C-5 zoning district.
Mr. Jochum noted he anticipates a possible redevelopment project on South Hwy
16
8.ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Wick, Second by Commissioner Arndtto adjourn at
6:38 p.m.
DIRECTORS REPORT –PLANNING DEPARTMENT
To:Hutchinson Planning Commission
From:Dan Jochum, Planning Directorand Hutchinson Planning Staff
Date:July 13, 2015 for the July 21,2015Planning Commission Meeting
Application:CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE IN THE
FRONT YARD LOCATED AT 1011 LEWIS AVE. SW.
Applicant:James and Carol Christopherson
VARIANCE –1011 LEWIS AVE SW
James andCarol Christophersonarerequesting a variance to allow for the construction of a detached garage in the front
yard area.The garage is proposed tobe a 26’x36’3 stall garage that will meet all applicable setbacks and lot coverage
requirements.This property is located on the river and there are several properties in this area with garages in the front
yard, including the property right next door at 1005 Lewis Avenue.The applicant states the unique circumstancefor the
varianceis that the property is a river lot so there is no access to the back of the lot from the rear of the property. In
addition, there is no access to the back of the lot from the front of the lot without driving on the neighbor’s property.
Lastly, the current garage is from the 1960’s, so it is very tight fit for cars without the doors banging together to exit.The
applicant alsostatesthe practical difficultyof the lot is requested location does not interfere with front yard, ties in with
existing driveway, leaves ample room to street, looks good with same siding as house, roof line is the same also, will add
to property as biggest complaint is too small garage on these era properties. Little effect on neighbor sight lines.
nd
A variance was granted in 2004, for a front yard garage on Lewis Avenueand in 2000, for a front yard garage at 841 -2
nd
Avenue and in 2006 for a 2Avenue Property.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
1011 Lewis Avenue SW
Planning Commission –6-21-16
Page 2
GENERAL INFORMATION
Existing Zoning:R-1(Single Family Residential)
Property Location:1011 Lewis Avenue SW
Lot Size: Approximately 100’ x 335’ (32,133sq. ft.)
Existing Land Use:Residential
Adjacent Land Use
And Zoning:Residential –R-1Single Family 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
1011 Lewis Avenue SW
Planning Commission –6-21-16
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 it is not possible to build a garage to the rear of the
home because of the riverand the placement of the home blocking access to therear of the home. Other lots in this area
that aren’t on the river have alleys that allow access to the rear of the property. This property does not have an alley for
access to the rear of the lot.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 essentialcharacter of the
locality would not be altered because there is a garage in the front yard right next door to this property at 1005 Lewis
Avenue.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
1011 Lewis Avenue SW
Planning Commission –6-21-16
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 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
requestalso appears tomeetthe 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)Therequest meets the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance.
3)Therequest is consistentwith the Comprehensive Plan.
DIRECTORS REPORT –PLANNING DEPARTMENT
To:Hutchinson Planning Commission
From:Dan Jochum, AICP and City of Hutchinson Planning Staff
Date:June 16,2016, forJune 21,2016, Planning Commission Meeting
Application:CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REMODEL AN EXISTING
OFFICE SPACE INTO A SALON IN THE C-5 CONDITIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONING
DISTRICT LOCATED AT 300 HWY 7W.
Applicant:Jon Hantge,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITFOR A SALON IN THE C-5 ZONING DISTRICT
This request is verystraightforward. All uses in the C-5 Zoning District require a Conditional Use Permit.
Since this is a change of use for this building the applicant is required to apply for a CUP. The present use of
the space is office and the applicant is requesting to remodel the office space into a salon. Parking and access
appear to be adequate and won’t be a problem. Staff recommends approval of the request.
Conditional Use Permit
300 HWY 7 W–Salon
Planning Commission –6-21-16
Page 2
GENERAL INFORMATION
Existing Zoning:C-5(ConditionalCommercial District)
Property Location:300HWY 7 W
Lot Size: .46Acres
Existing Land Use:Office Space/warehouse
Adjacent Land Use
And Zoning:C-5(ConditionalCommercial District)
Comprehensive
Land Use Plan:Commercial
Applicable
Regulations:Sections154.065
Conditional Use Permit:
The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for the change in use to a salon.As noted above, this is a very
straightforward request and staff recommends approval.
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 proposal with the following conditions.
If the Planning Commission recommends approvalofthe applicant’s request, staff suggests the following
conditions be part of the approval:
1.The standards for granting a conditional use permit would be met, subject to the conditions stated.
2.The proposed buildingimprovements shall comply with the standards of the C-5district and the
Zoning Ordinance.
3.The Applicant must obtain all necessary permits for any construction that would be needed.
4.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 use requires
approval of a new conditional use permit.
DIRECTORS REPORT –PLANNING DEPARTMENT
To:Hutchinson Planning Commission
From:Dan Jochum, AICP and City of Hutchinson Planning Staff
Date:June 15,2016forJune 21,2016, Planning Commission Meeting
Application:CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR AN
APARTMENT BUILDING LOCATED AT 1315 MONTREAL ST SE.
Applicant:Chris Raimann, Kuepers Inc.
SITE PLAN REVIEW, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT
Brief Description
The applicant has submitted applications for a site plan review, preliminary plat and final plat for an 87 unit
apartment complex located at 1315 Montreal St SE.
Site Plan Review, Preliminary Plat & Final Plat
Highfield Apartments–1315 Montreal St SE., Hutchinson.
Planning Commission –6-21-16
Page 2
GENERAL INFORMATION
Existing Zoning:MXD–Mixed Use District
Property Location:1315 Montreal St. SE, Hutchinson
Lot Size:7.33 acres
Existing Land Use:Vacant –Agricultural field
Adjacent Land Use:Institutional –North,Commercial –West,Residential –East, Vacant –South.
Adjacent Zoning:C-2–West,C-4–North/South, R-3–East.
Comprehensive Plan:Commercial
Zoning History:Rezoned MXD approximately 10 years ago.
Applicable
Regulations:City Code of Ordinances Sections154.174,153.036 and 153.050
Transportation:Access will be off of the yet to be built Denver Ave.SE.
Physical Characteristics:Relatively flat, property drops off near pond and to SE corner of lot.
Analysis:
See the following for analysis on the site plan review, preliminary plat and final plat.
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:
There are three buildings initially proposed on the site. Each building is a 29-unit apartment building that is
two-stories high.Each building will have 10 –1bedroom units, 16–2bedroom units, 2 –3bedroom units, and
1–2bedroom type A unit (accessible).Please see attached perspective drawing. The buildings will have vinyl
sidingand vinyl shakes, a simulated stone veneerand asphalt shingles. The finish will be similarto what is
seen on a typical single-family home in Hutchinson. Thebuilding will be just over 31 feet high to the peak of
the roof. The apartments will be accessed through internal hallways.
In addition to the apartment buildings there are six garages proposed (2 per building)with 10 stalls each. There
would be a total of 60 garage spaces proposed. 27 of theunits would not have a garage.
It appears theappropriate amount of firehydrants are located on-site, presuming the building is fully sprinkled.
Site Plan Review, Preliminary Plat & Final Plat
Highfield Apartments–1315 Montreal St SE., Hutchinson.
Planning Commission –6-21-16
Page 3
Staff understands one building will be constructed first and the other two buildings will be built as market
demand allows.It is also worthnoting that thedeveloper is seeking Tax Increment Financing from the City for
this project.
Setbacks:
All of the required setbacks appeartobemet in the plan.
Parking/Access/Circulation
229parking spaces are shown on the site plan(160 standard, 60 garage spaces, and 9 handicap spaces). The
zoning ordinance requires 1.0 parking spaces per bedroom and .5 spaces per bedroom for visitors.Based on
staff calculations,75 parking spaces will be required per building, for a total of 225 parkingspaces required for
the site.Staff believes parking will be adequate on site;however it should be noted that Staff recommends
making Denver Avenue no parking on both sides in the vicinity of the apartment complex.The applicant should
keepthis in mind in relation to snow removal and develop a staged snow removal plan.
There are threeingress/egress points proposed to thesite off of Denver Avenue.There will be no access from
the apartment complex to Montreal St SE, however a construction access will be allowed from Montreal St. to
the site. The internal circulationtothe site appears acceptable and appears to meet fire code.
Landscaping and Lighting:
Staff recommends installing a fence along the south edge of the property to provide a barrier to thestormwater
pond.
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.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:
Stormwater is proposed to go to theexisting stormwaterpond on thesouth side of the site. The pond will be
made largerto accommodate the additional run-off generated by this project.The existing drainage and utility
easements to the pond must remain to provide the City accessto thepond.
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.
Preliminary and Final Plat
The preliminary and final plats as presented appear to meet the requirements of the subdivision and zoning
ordinances.
Lot Arrangement:
The proposed HighfieldAddition preliminary plat contains 1 block and 3lotsand 3 outlots. The three lots that
are proposed to be built on at this time range from 2.34 acres to 2.50 acres.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 Denver Ave. SE when it is completed.
Site Plan Review, Preliminary Plat & Final Plat
Highfield Apartments–1315 Montreal St SE., Hutchinson.
Planning Commission –6-21-16
Page 4
Utilitiesand Easements:
Utilities for the proposed apartment lots will come off of Denver Avenue SE. 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;however the private easements that are shown on the preliminary and final plats
should be removed and not shown on the plat. They can remain in place as private easements but don’t need to
be shown on the plat.
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.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the site plan review, conditional use permit and variance with the following
findings and conditions:
1.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.
2.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.
3.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.
4.Exterior refuse collection area must be fully screened.
5.Moving or relocating utility services will be at the property owner’s expense.
6.SAC/WAC charges will be due at the timebuilding permits are issued.
7.A parkland contribution fee will be collected with the building permit.
8.The City of Hutchinson must approve a traffic control plan prior to any construction activity
impactingMontreal St. SE or Denver Avenue SE.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.
9.Any reconstruction of existing infrastructure within City of Hutchinson easement areasor right-of-
way 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 theCity.
10.Theplay areamust be constructed and maintained as noted on the site plan.
11.Any exterior refuse collection area(s)must be fully screened.
Site Plan Review, Preliminary Plat & Final Plat
Highfield Apartments–1315 Montreal St SE., Hutchinson.
Planning Commission –6-21-16
Page 5
12.Requirethe planting of 6’ evergreen screening trees alongthe east side of the property to screen the
parking lot from the residential neighborhood. This screening must be approved by City Staff prior
to a building permit being issued for the projectand require the installation of these trees before
issuinga Certificate of Occupancy of the first building.
13.The grading andlandscaping on the east and south propertylines must be graded and landscaped in a
manner that allows this area to be maintained due to the topography of the area.
14.A subdivision agreement must be agreed to and in place prior to any building permits being issued
on the project.
15.The final plat shall be recorded at the McLeod County Recorder’s Office within 270 days of
approval.
16.The Applicant must obtain all necessary permits for the construction ofthe proposed project.
6
1
0
2
/
9
1
/
5
16-016
0
N
PROJECT DIRECTORY
1 10
COVER & INDEX SHEET
GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS:
C
L
L
,
N
O
S
N
I
H
N
C
O
T
I
U
T
I
H
D
F
D
O
A
S
T
D
L N
E
E
I
M
F
HUTCHINSON, MN
T
H
R
A
G
I
P
H
A
D
L
E
I
F
H
G
I
H
Civil Engineering Land Planning
CAMPIONENGINEERINGSERVICES, INC.
N
6
1
0
2
/
9
1
/
5
16-016
0
N
2 10
EXISTING CONDITIONS
LEGEND
C
L
L
,
N
O
S
N
I
H
N
C
O
T
I
U
T
I
H
D
F
D
O
A
S
T
D
L N
E
E
I
M
F
HUTCHINSON, MN
T
H
R
A
G
I
P
H
A
D
L
E
I
F
H
G
I
H
Civil Engineering Land Planning
CAMPIONENGINEERINGSERVICES, INC.
N
6
1
0
2
/
9
1
/
5
16-016
0
N
4 10
CIVIL SITE PLAN
LEGEND
C
L
L
,
N
O
S
N
I
H
N
C
O
T
I
U
T
I
H
D
F
D
O
A
S
T
D
L N
E
E
I
M
F
HUTCHINSON, MN
T
H
R
A
G
I
P
H
A
D
L
E
I
F
H
G
I
H
Civil Engineering Land Planning
CAMPIONENGINEERINGSERVICES, INC.
N
6
1
0
2
/
9
1
/
5
16-016
0
N
PLAN
5 10
SANITARY SEWER & WATERMAIN
C
L
L
,
N
O
S
N
I
H
N
C
O
T
I
U
T
I
H
D
F
D
O
A
S
T
D
L N
E
E
I
M
F
HUTCHINSON, MN
T
H
R
A
G
I
P
H
A
D
L
E
I
F
H
G
I
H
Civil Engineering Land Planning
CAMPIONENGINEERINGSERVICES, INC.
N
6
1
0
2
/
9
1
/
5
16-016
0
N
6 10
STORM SEWER PLAN
C
L
L
,
N
O
S
N
I
H
N
C
O
T
I
U
T
I
H
D
F
D
O
A
S
T
D
L N
E
E
I
M
F
HUTCHINSON, MN
T
H
R
A
G
I
P
H
A
D
L
E
I
F
H
G
I
H
Civil Engineering Land Planning
CAMPIONENGINEERINGSERVICES, INC.
N
6
1
0
2
/
9
1
/
5
16-016
0
N
7 10
GRADING PLAN
C
L
L
,
N
O
S
N
I
H
N
C
O
T
I
U
T
I
H
D
F
D
O
A
S
T
D
L N
E
E
I
M
F
HUTCHINSON, MN
T
H
R
A
G
I
P
H
A
D
L
E
I
F
H
G
I
H
Civil Engineering Land Planning
CAMPIONENGINEERINGSERVICES, INC.
N
602:03127!:;44;49!BN
```
tuofnusbqB!emfjgihjI
3.34.27
ibu!J!bn!b
!pg!Njooftpub/
Bt!joejdbufe
sfqpsu!xbt
;!5742:
EbufDifdlfe!cz
DKSDifdlfs
B4/2
12.27.yyyy
Lvfqfst!Jod/
Cvjmejoh!Fmfwbujpot
Ijhigjfme!Bqbsunfout
Op/EftdsjqujpoEbuf
J!ifsfcz!dfsujgz!uibu!uijt!qmbo-!tqfdjgjdbujpo-!ps!qsfqbsfe!cz!nf!ps!voefs!nz!ejsfdu!tvqfswjtjpo!boe!uevmz!Mjdfotfe!Bsdijufdu!voefs!uif!mbxt!pg!uif!TubufObnf;!Disjtupqifs!K/!Sbjnboo-!BJBTjhofe;!`````
``````````````````````````````````````Ebuf;!3.34.3127!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Mjdfotf!$Qspkfdu!ovncfsEsbxo!czTdbmf
::(!.!5#:6(!.!5#
Mfwfm!3Mfwfm!2
Cfbsjoh
211(!.!1#
Gppujoht
::(!.!5#:6(!.!5#
Mfwfm!3Mfwfm!2
Cfbsjoh
211(!.!1#
Gppujoht21:(!.!9!609#219(!.!2!209#
U/P/!Gppujoh
228(!.!21!203#
Mfwfm!3!Usvtt
Hsbef0Joufsjps
21:(!.!9!609#219(!.!2!209#
U/P/!Gppujoh
228(!.!21!203#
Mfwfm!3!Usvtt
Hsbef0Joufsjps
Sppg!Usvtt!Cfbsjoh
Sppg!Usvtt!Cfbsjoh
23(!.!1#
21(!.!1#
BB
#
1
21(!.!1#
.
(
2
!
0
!
#
7
315215
27(!.!:!205#
22:B
BB
HFOFSBM!OPUFT;2/!BMM!QMVNCJOH!QFOFUSBUJPOT!NVTU!UFSNJOBUFBU!B!NJO/!PG!23#!BCPWF!UIF!SPPG!TVSGBDF!MJOF/3/!BEESFTT!OVNCFST!TIBMM!CF!JOTUBMMFE!JO!BWJTJCMF!MPDBUJPO!QFS!JCD!612/3/4/!GED!)DPOOFDUJPO*!NVTU
!CF!MPDBUFE!BU!UIFBEESFTT!TJEF!PG!UIF!CMEH/!PS!BU!BO!BQQSPWFEMPDBUJPO/5/!XBUFS!GMPX!BMBSNT!NVTU!CF!JOTUBMMFE!POUIF!FYUFSJPS!QFS!JCD!:14/5/3/6/!BMM!FYJU!EJTDIBSHF!TIBMM!CF!JMMVNJOBUFE!QFSJCD!2117/27/!
BMM!HMB\[JOH!XJUIJO!35#!PG!UIF!BSD!PG!B!EPPSTIBMM!CF!TBGFUZ!HMB\[JOH!QFS!JCD!3517/4/
316216
TJN/!TUPOF!WFOFFS<!UZQ/
37(!.!:!205#
#
1
.
(
2
!
0
!
#
323223
7
BB
5:(!.!2#
::(!.!5#:6(!.!5#
Mfwfm!3Mfwfm!2
324224
Cfbsjoh
211(!.!1#
Gppujoht
SJEHF!WFOU
BB 21:(!.!9!609#219(!.!2!209#
U/P/!Gppujoh
228(!.!21!203#
Mfwfm!3!Usvtt
Hsbef0Joufsjps
Sppg!Usvtt!Cfbsjoh
BB
44(!.!1#
#
1
.
(
2
!
0
!
#
SJEHF!WFOU
7317217
#
1
.
(
2
!
0
!
#
7
BB
318218
C
BB
QWD!TLJSU!CE/!UZQ/
#
1
.
(
2
!
0
!
#
3:(!.!2!405#
BB6
BB
44(!.!1#
#
B
1
.
(
2
!
0
!
#
325225
7
27(!.!1#
SJEHF!WFOU
326226
BB
BB
CVJMEJOH!BEESFTT!OVNCFSTNVTU!CF!WJTJCMF!GSPN!UIF!TUSFFU
BB
46(!.!3!405#
42(!.!3!26043#
BB
BB
46(!.!3!405#
#
1
.
(
2
!
0
!
#
7
319219
D
211
Opsui!Fmfwbujpo
!4043#!>!2(.1#
5
27(!.!1#
C
D
SJEHF!WFOU
31:21:
BB
BB
44(!.!1#
::(!.!5#:6(!.!5#
Mfwfm!3Mfwfm!2
Cfbsjoh
211(!.!1#
Gppujoht
21:(!.!9!609#219(!.!2!209#
U/P/!Gppujoh
#228(!.!21!203#
Mfwfm!3!Usvtt
Hsbef0Joufsjps
1
.
(
2
!
BB
0
!
#
7
X0!GJSF!NBSTIBM
BB
Sppg!Usvtt!Cfbsjoh
46(!.!3!209#
GED!)DPOOFDUJPO*
#
1
.
(
2
!
0
!
#
312212
7
BB
DPPSEJOBUF!FYBDU!QMBDFNFOU BB
SJEHF!WFOU
BB
#
313213
44(!.!1#
1
.
(
2
!
0
!
#
6
#
1
.
(
2
!
0
!
#
321221
7
BB
SJEHF!WFOU
56(!.!:!809#
BB
322222
#
1
.
(
2
!
0
C
37(!.!:!205#
!
#
BB
7
BB
QWD!USJN!PWFS!DPM/!UZQ/
BB
314214
25(!.!1#
21(!.!1#
229B
BB
21(!.!1#
23(!.!1#
WJOZM!TIBLFTWJOZM!TIBLFT
42(!.!3!26043#
42(!.!3!26043#
GBTDJB!'!TPGGJU
JDG!GPVOEBUJPO
Xftu!FmfwbujpoFbtu!FmfwbujpoTpvui!Fmfwbujpo
!4043#!>!2(.1#!4043#!>!2(.1#WJOZM!MBQ!TJEJOH!4043#!>!2(.1#
QSFGJOJTIFE!NUM/
BU!DPM/!CBTF<!UZQ/
WJOZM!TJEJOH!CBOE
WJOZM!TJEJOH!CBOE
BTQIBMU!TIJOHMFTTJN/!TUPOF!WFOFFS
234
602:03127!:;45;4:!BN
```
tuofnusbqB!emfjgihjI
3.34.27
ibu!J!bn!b
!pg!Njooftpub/
Bt!joejdbufe
sfqpsu!xbt
;!5742:
EbufDifdlfe!cz
DKSDifdlfs
B4/3
12.27.yyyy
Lvfqfst!Jod/
Hbsbhf!Fmfwbujpot
Ijhigjfme!Bqbsunfout
Op/EftdsjqujpoEbuf
J!ifsfcz!dfsujgz!uibu!uijt!qmbo-!tqfdjgjdbujpo-!ps!qsfqbsfe!cz!nf!ps!voefs!nz!ejsfdu!tvqfswjtjpo!boe!uevmz!Mjdfotfe!Bsdijufdu!voefs!uif!mbxt!pg!uif!TubufObnf;!Disjtupqifs!K/!Sbjnboo-!BJBTjhofe;!`````
``````````````````````````````````````Ebuf;!3.34.3127!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Mjdfotf!$Qspkfdu!ovncfsEsbxo!czTdbmf
27(!.!8!205#
411
2
B5/5
43(!.!1#
411
52(!.!1#
3
B5/5
411
#
1
.
(
2
!
0
!
#
7
27(!.!1#
411
Hbsbhf!2!.!Opsui!Fmfwbujpo
!4027#!>!2(.1#
6
411
51(!.!1#35(!.!1#
SJEHF!WFOU
411
SJEHF!WFOU
HFOFSBM!OPUFT;2/!!HBSBHF!PDDVQBODZ!HSPVQ;!V!PDDVQBODZ3/!HBSBHF!DPOTUSVDUJPO!UZQF;!WC
#
1
.
(
2
!
0
!
#
7
411
27(!.!1#
FMFD/!QBOFM!X0MPDLBCMF!DPWFS
#
411
1
.
(
2
!
0
!
#
7
3
B5/5
TJN/!TUPOF!WFOFFS
411
52(!.!1#
43(!.!1#
2
B5/5
411
Hbsbhf!2!.!Tpvui!Fmfwbujpo
!4027#!>!2(.1#
5
TQBDF
2!DPVSTF!DNV
WJOZM!MBQ!TJEJOHWJOZM!TJEJOHCBOE
QSFGJOJTIFE!NUM/GBTDJB!'!TPGGJU
DPOD/!NPOP.TMBC
BTQIBMU!TIJOHMFT
WJOZM!DPSOFS!USJN
OPUF;!OP!JDF!'!XBUFS
TIJFME!.!VODPOEJUJPOFE
Hbsbhf!2!.!Fbtu!FmfwbujpoHbsbhf!2!.!Xftu!Fmfwbujpo
!4027#!>!2(.1#!4027#!>!2(.1#
24
DIRECTORS REPORT –PLANNING DEPARTMENT
To:Hutchinson Planning Commission
From:Dan Jochum, AICP and City of Hutchinson Planning Staff
Date:June 15,2016forJune 21,2016, Planning Commission Meeting
Application:CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMNARY AND FINAL PLAT OF HUTCHINSON DOWNTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT PLAT NO. 3
Applicant:CITY OF HUTCHINSON
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF HUTCHINSON DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAT
NO. 3.
Brief Description
The applicant has submitted apreliminary and final plat for the Hutchinson Downtown Redevelopment Plat No. 3.The
preliminary and final plat consistsof three lots.
Preliminary and Final Plat
Hutchinson Downtown Redevelopment Plat No. 3
Planning Commission –6-21-16
Page 2
GENERAL INFORMATION
Existing Zoning:C-3
nd
Property Location:2Ave.SE and Hassan St. SE
Lot Size:26,136 square feet
Existing Land Use:Parking Lot
Adjacent Land Use:Commercial Development
Adjacent Zoning:C-3 Downtown Commercial
Comprehensive Plan:Mixed Use
Master Plan:Mixed Use
Zoning History:C-3for several decades. Has been municipal and private parking lot.
Applicable
Regulations:City Code of Ordinances Sections153.35–153.51
nd
Transportation:The property will be accessed off of 2Avenue SE and Hassan St. SE.
Physical Characteristics:Paved parking lot. Flat.
Analysis:
The preliminary and final plats as presented appear to meet the requirements of the subdivision and zoning ordinances.
Platting the property to delineatenew lot lines will allow the City to potentially sell Block 1 Lot 1.
Lot Arrangement:
The proposed Hutchinson Downtown Redevelopment Plat No. 3preliminary plat contains 1 block and 3lots.
The land area is 26,136 square feet.A site plan review for a potential bank drive-through was completed in
spring of 2016 and was approved by the Hutchinson CityCouncil. If that project is to move forward the City
will have to sell lot 1 to Mid-Country Bank.
Streets and Access:
nd
The proposed development will have access off of2Avenue SE and Hassan St. SE, as well as the alley on the
block. Per the site plan approval, the alley is proposed to be rerouted to southbound 1-way traffic.
Stormwater Management, Utilities, and Easements
Easements have been put in place for drainage and utilities on the plat. A thorough review of stormwater management
and utilities will be completed when Mid-Country Bank applies for a building permit for the proposed drive-through.
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.
Preliminary and Final Plat
Hutchinson Downtown Redevelopment Plat No. 3
Planning Commission –6-21-16
Page 3
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.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary and final plats subject to the following conditions.
1.The final plat shall be recordedat the McLeod CountyRecorder’s Office within 270 days of approval.
2.Building permits will not be issued until the plat is recorded.