Loading...
PC Packet 10.20.20 AGENDA HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:30 p.m. Hutchinson City Center 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.OATH OF OFFICE –Dan Janssen 4. CONSENT AGENDA A. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES DATED September 15, 2020 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE A SIDE YARD SETBACK LOCATED AT 1891 WEST SHORE DR SW. B. CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMIARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR HAHN’S ADDITION TO MARYVIEW. 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF A. UPCOMING MEETINGS 9. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:30 p.m. 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:32P.M. The September 15, 2020Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Vice ChairmanLofdahl at 5:30 p.m.Members in bold were present Chairman Wick, Vice Chair Lofdahl, Commissioner Garberg, Commissioner Wirt, Commissioner Sebesta, Commissioner Hantge andCommissioner Forcier. Also present were Dan Jochum (present), City Planner, Kent Exner, City Engineer, John Olson, City Public Works, John Paulson, City Environmental Specialist, Marc Sebora(present), City Attorney and Andrea Schwartz (present), City of Hutchinson Permit Technician 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. CONSENT AGENDA A. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES DATED August 18, 2020. Motion by Commissioner Wirt.Second by Commissioner Sebesta. Motion to Approve – Motion to Reject 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL PLAT FOR WEST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LOCATED AT 805 AND 875 SCHOOL RD SW. Dan Jochum, City Planner addressed the Commission and gave a brief overview of the project. Motion by Commissioner Sebesta, second by Commissioner Garberg to close the hearing at 5:37 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Garberg to approve with 3 recommended conditions. Second by Commissioner Wirt. Motion approved. Items will be on City Council consent agenda on 09/22/2020. Motion to close hearing – Motion to approve with staff recommendations – Motion to reject B. CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A METAL FABRICATION SHOP IN AN I/C ZONING DISTRICT. Minutes Hutchinson Planning Commission September 15, 2020 Page 2 Dan Jochum, City Planner addressed the Commission and gave a brief overview of the project. Motion by Commissioner Wirt, second by Commissioner Garberg to close the hearing at 5:42 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Wirt to approve with 6 recommended conditions. Second by Commissioner Sebesta. Motion approved. Items will be on City Council consent agenda on 09/22/2020. Motion to close hearing – Motion to approve with staff recommendations – Motion to reject 5. NEW BUSINESS A. NONE 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. There was some discussion on the parking area for the West Elementary addition. 7. COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF A. There are openings on City Boards and Commission if you know of any persons interested. B. UPCOMING MEETINGS– We currently have three items for the October meeting. C. November meeting may be rescheduled pending what the items will be. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made by Commissioner Garberg to adjourn the meeting, second by Wirt. Meeting was adjournedat 5:47 p.m. DIRECTORS REPORT –PLANNING DEPARTMENT To:Hutchinson Planning Commission From: Dan Jochum, Planning Director Date: October 14, 2020 for the October 20, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Application: VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 8 FEET TO 6 FEET Applicant: Scott Nokes, 1891 W. Shore Dr. SW VARIANCE – 1891 W. Shore Dr. SW Scott Nokes is requesting a variance to construct a two-foot addition onto the east side of his current attached garage. The garage is currently eight-feet off the property line and is built to the setback line. The need for the variance is so the applicant can park a larger vehicle in the garage. The applicant states the practical difficulty for the variance is that the shape of the driveway and location of the garage creates a practical difficulty to extend the garage to the west by any distance. The applicant also states the unique circumstance of the lot is that the driveway and garage are arranged in an “L” shape, which makes the lot/home unique in th Island View 5 Addition, and one of the very few in the City. 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. GENERAL INFORMATION Existing Zoning: R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Property Location: 1891 W. Shore Drive Lot Size: 80’ x 150’ (12,000 sq. ft.) Existing Land Use: Residential Adjacent Land Use And Zoning: Residential – R-2 Medium Density Residential Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Medium Density Residential Neighborhood Zoning History: The plat for this development was originally completed in 2000. Applicable Regulations: Section 154.172 and 154.057 (F)(2). Variance 1891 W. Shore Dr. Planning Commission – 10-20-20 Page 2 Analysis and Recommendation: In order to grant a variance, the request must meet the standards for granting a variance, including the finding of “practical difficulties.” Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. “Practical difficulties” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the 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 difficulty if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. The conditions cited as reason for granting a variance must be due to physical conditions unique to the land or building involved and must not be applicable to other sites in the same zoning district. Economic considerations may be taken into account but shall not by themselves be the reason for which a variance is granted. There is a basic “test” to determine if a request meets the practical difficulties standard. To constitute practical difficulties all three questions must be answered yes. The following are the factors that must be considered: Practical difficulties “Practical difficulties” is a legal standard set forth in law that cities must apply when considering applications for variances. It is a three-factor test and applies to all requests for variances. To constitute practical difficulties, all three factors of the test must be satisfied. 1. Reasonableness The first factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is for a building too close to a lot line or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable. Staff feels that the property owner does not propose to use the property in a reasonable manner, as placing a portion of the garage in the setback area could be avoided by extending the garage to the west versus east, which would not encroach on the setback. Additionally, there is another detached garage on the property that is approximately 24’x30’ in six. Having a garage is a reasonable request, however, there is room to add onto the garage on the west side without encroaching on the setback area. This question was answered NO. 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 add onto the garage by meeting the current setbacks. Staff believes it may be more convenient or a personal preference for the applicant to build a garage addition to the east with a 6-foot setback versus the required 8 feet but it doesn’t appear that “convenience” is a factor that should be considered from a legal standpoint. There is nothing physically unique about this property. It is a Variance 1891 W. Shore Dr. Planning Commission – 10-20-20 Page 3 rectangular corner lot that is flat and doesn’t have any topographic issues. The buildings have been oriented on this lot to the landowner’s preference. 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 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 is unaware of any other structures that are located within the setback area in this area. Since there are no other structures that are in the setback area the proposed garage addition will be out of place in this neighborhood. This question was answered NO. Another factor to consider for granting a variance is whether the variance request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance? The Zoning Ordinance has 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; (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; Variance 1891 W. Shore Dr. Planning Commission – 10-20-20 Page 4 (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 is whether the 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 questions of the variance “test” were answered no, 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 has different opinions on the “test” answers and all three questions are answered yes, the variance may be granted if the Commission feels it meets the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends denial of the request for the following reasons: 1) The request isn’t reasonable because the garage could be made two feet larger by extending to the west, which wouldn’t encroach on any setback areas and would meet zoning ordinance requirements. 2) The request for the variance isn’t caused by a unique issue such as a physical characteristic. There is nothing physically unique about the lot. 3) The request for the variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. If approved, this structure would be out of character because it doesn’t meet the required setbacks. 4) Staff believes the request is related to preference of the landowner rather than to a physical characteristic with the land. The garage could be extended to the west versus east and accommodate parking of the larger vehicle and still meet required setbacks. 5) Staff believes that the variance is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance as found in section 154.001 of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, 154.001 (C), (F) and (G). DIRECTORS REPORT –PLANNING DEPARTMENT To: Hutchinson Planning Commission From:Dan Jochum, AICP and City of Hutchinson Planning Staff Date: October 15, 2020for October 20, 2020, Planning Commission Meeting Application:Consideration of a one lot preliminary and final plat of Hahn’s Addition to Maryview Applicant:Vernon and Anne Hahn PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF HAHN’S ADDITION TO MARYVIEW The applicant is requesting a preliminary and final plat to reconfigure two lots on Lakewood Drive SW. There is a large easement for a stormwater pipe that necessitates the lot lines being adjusted. Preliminary and Final Plat Hahn’s Addition to Maryview Planning Commission –10/20/20 Page 2 GENERAL INFORMATION Existing Zoning: R-1 Property Location: 880 Lakewood Drive SW Existing Lot Size:1.42 acres Proposed Lot Size:20,700 square feet Existing Land Use: Single Family Homes Adjacent Land Use And Zoning: Residential. R1 Zoning Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Neighborhood Zoning History: This property was originally platted in 1963. Applicable Regulations: Sections 153.36 and 153.50 of the City Code Preliminary and Final Plat: This plat encompasses lot 10 of the previous plat, as well as a five-foot piece of lot 9 that is a remnant parcel between the two lots. The new lot will be 105 feet wide and about 200 feet deep. This lot meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. There is a large easement on the north side of lot 10. The new plat creates drainage and utility easements around lot 10 as required by the current City ordinance. 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. Preliminary and Final Plat Hahn’s Addition to Maryview Planning Commission –10/20/20 Page 3 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request. If Planning Commission feels this Plat is acceptable thefollowing conditions should be applied to the preliminary and final plat and vacation of easements approval: 1. The final plat shall be recorded at the McLeod County Recorder’s Office within 270 days of approval.