Planning Commission by City of Hutchinson Planning & Development

AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 6, 2018 – 5:30 PM City Council Chambers 125 E Avenue B, Hutchinson, Kansas

1. ROLL CALL

Richardson Hamilton Carr (Vice Chair)

Woleslagel Wells Hornbeck (Chair)

Bisbee Roberts-Ropp Peterson

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Meeting of Janaury 16, 2018. 3. CORRESPONDENCE & STAFF REPORTS – Motion to accept correspondence and staff reports into the official record. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS -- None 5. OLD BUSINESS -- None 6. NEW BUSINESS a. 2018 Planning Commissioner Training – Modules 3 & 4 b. Infill Study Implementation Plan c. Planning & Development Department Annual Report 7. UPCOMING CASES a. ZA18-000002/CPA18-000001 – 3005 and 3001 N Halstead, Rezone from R-4 to CR – February 20, 2018 8. ADMINISTRATIVE CASES a. Spring Clean Laundry SIT17-000012 (Lot 1, Block A, Josie Addition) – Site Plan under review b. Hobart Detter Locker Room Replacement SIT17-000017 (0 Emerson Loop) – Approved 9. COUNCIL ACTION ON CASES a. None 10. OPEN COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (Please limit comments to five minutes.) 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS a. None 12. ADJOURNMENT

Staff Contacts:

Jana McCarron Amy Allison Charlene Mosier

620-694-2681 620-694-2638 620-259-4133

Vacant Aaron Barlow Jade Shain

620-694-2667 620-259-4198 620-259-4134

ITEM 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF: TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2018 MEETING LOCATION: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 125 EAST AVENUE B

1. ROLL CALL The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. with the following members present: Jon Richardson (2/2), Janet Hamilton (2/2), Todd Carr (2/2), Mark Woleslagel (2/2), Brock Wells (2/2), Tom Hornbeck (2/2), Valery Roberts-Ropp (1/2) and Darryl Peterson (2/2). Member Terry Bisbee (1/2) was absent. Planning Staff present were: Jana McCarron, Director of Planning & Development; Aaron Barlow, Associate Planner; Amy Allison, Housing Program Coordinator; and Jade D. Shain, Planning Technician. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the January 2, 2018 meeting were approved on a motion by Peterson, seconded by Carr, passed unanimously. 3. CORRESPONDENCE & STAFF REPORTS The documents and staff reports were accepted into the official record on a motion by Hamilton, seconded by Peterson, passed unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. There was no public hearing. 5. OLD BUSINESS a. There was no old business. Chairman Hornbeck requested the agenda order to be changed to do the Commissioner training last. 6. UPCOMING CASES a. ZA18-000002/CPA18-000001 – 3005 and 3011 N. Halstead, Rezone from R-4 to CR – February 20, 2018. 7. ADMINISTRATIVE CASES a. Spring Clean Laundry SIT17-000012 (Lot 1, Block A, Josie Addition) – Site Plan under review b. Hobart Detter Lock Room Replacement SIT17-000017 (0 Emerson Loop) – Waiting for revised site plan to be submitted. 8. CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON CASES a. Sign Code – ZA17-000004 McCarron said that the sign code was approved by City Council 4-0. She thanked the Commissioners for their hard work and participation throughout the sign code amendment process.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING OF: TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2018 9. NEW BUSINESS a. 2018 Planning Commissioner Training â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Modules 1 and 2 McCarron provided the 2018 Planning Commissioner Training. Module 1 was a brief introduction to zoning, its history, purpose, and intent. Module 2 covered Kansas Statutes pertinent to zoning regulations and Planning Commission requirements. 10. OPEN COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE a.

There were no comments from the audience.

11. ANNOUNCEMENTS a. New Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals Roster A new Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals Roster was distributed. 12. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 6:10 PM.

Respectfully Submitted, Jade Shain, Planning Technician Approved this 6th day of February, 2018 Attest:

ITEM 6B

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT DATE:

January 31, 2018

SUBMITTED BY: Amy Allison Housing Program Coordinator THROUGH:

REQUEST:

Jana McCarron, AICP Director of Planning and Development

Infill Study Implementation Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Planning Commission Review

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION REQUIRED: Motion to (accept and recommend / modify and recommend / return to Planning Staff) the recommendations of the Infill Study Implementation Plan. INFILL STUDY STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Infill Study Steering Committee met three times to review barriers and potential regulations for infill development. The recommendation of the steering committee can be found in the Infill Study Implementation Plan (Exhibit 1). BACKGROUND: In 2015, the City of Hutchinson and the Hutchinson Land Bank sponsored an Infill Development Study by graduate students from the University of Kansas College of Architecture. The outcome of the study identified potential uses for vacant land, primarily south of 11th Avenue, as well as some conceptual designs for residential infill projects. During the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan, reducing regulatory barriers to infill development was identified as a strategy for 2017. Based on the information provided by the Infill Development Study and further research by Staff, an implementation plan was created to address regulatory constraints to rehabilitating infill lots. Barriers have been identified and recommendations are provided in the Implementation Plan. In addition, proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Design requirements have been included to show the Commission how some of the recommended regulations would appear. See Exhibit 2. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Should City Council pursue the recommendations of the Infill Study Implementation Plan, there would be notice requirements for all properties proposed to be rezoned. Those financial impacts have been budgeted for the 2018 fiscal year. NEXT STEPS: Should the Planning Commission recommend the Infill Study Implementation Plan, City Council will review the recommendations and decide whether to pursue the suggested amendments. The Implementation Plan would be incorporated into the development and adoption of the Land Use Table. Anticipated completion of the associated zoning amendments would be June 2018.

Infill Study Implementation Plan – Review

February 6, 2018

EXHIBITS: 1 – Infill Study Implementation Plan 2 – Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Requirements

EXHIBIT 1

INTRODUCTION

INFILL STUDY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMY.ALLISON@HUTCHGOV.COM AARON.BARLOW@HUTCHGOV.COM JANAM@HUTCHGOV.COM

OBJECTIVE Develop an Implementation Strategy to facilitate infill development.

RECOMMENDATION Amend the Zoning Regulations to add a R-6, Infill Residential Neighborhood Zoning District, to allow for a wider range of design layouts and housing types, with reduced setbacks and other modified design standards.

COMMISSION REVIEW  Land Bank: January 9, 2018  Housing Commission: ______  Planning Commission: ______

STEERING COMMITTEE Planning Commission Todd Carr Tommy Hornbeck Land Bank Board of Trustees Mark Eaton Dan Garber Housing Commission Ryan Patton Lucas Soltow

The City of Hutchinson’s 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan discusses obstacles to residential development and redevelopment in established infill neighborhoods and calls for creation of a new, residential infill zoning district. “This zone is proposed for the core residential areas of the City which developed with a more compact development pattern. An infill district (R-6) would allow for more flexibility of development in these areas.” This infill zoning district also represents the next step for the Infill Development Study, which was completed in December 2016. The Infill Development Study was prepared by University of Kansas architecture students who examined many of the City’s neighborhoods south of 11th Avenue in the City’s Neighborhood Revitalization Plan area. The Study objectives were to: 1) identify obstacles to development/redevelopment; 2) prepare neighborhoodcompatible prototypes for potential infill builds; and 3) make recommendations for changes to the City’s development code that would facilitate development and redevelopment in older neighborhoods. While objectives 1 and 2 were met, there was insufficient time for the students to complete objective 3. This Infill Study Implementation Plan identifies the key obstacles to development and redevelopment in the City’s older, established neighborhoods and provides recommended development code changes to remove those obstacles. The Implementation Plan recommends establishing a new zoning district with smaller setbacks and more flexible development styles, as provided in Comprehensive Plan Strategy FS.1.7.a.2. “Consider establishing a zoning district that meets the needs of development and redevelopment of smaller residential lots (R-6) located in the City core.” Led by a Steering Committee comprised of representatives from the Land Bank Board of Trustees, the Housing Commission and the Planning Commission, the plan details eight major issue areas and makes recommendations for removing barriers through changes in the City’s Zoning Regulations, as well as in other programs and policies of the City. 1

ISSUE #1: SETBACKS ON INFILL LOTS MAKE REDEVELOPMENT DIFFICULT 5’

165’

DISCUSSION The setback standards for all residential zoning districts in Hutchinson are based on relatively recent suburban standards, which reflect large sweeping front, side and rear yards, with car access to garages located to the side of the house. This design standard varies greatly from early American neighborhood design, where the focus was not based on vehicular access and lot dimensions tended to be narrower. Because development preferences have changed over time, established neighborhoods built more than 70 years ago find challenges rebuilding and even making small additions. See Figure 1.1. Simply put, homeowners in infill neighborhoods frequently cannot make desired improvements to their property without requesting variances from the City’s regulations.

Number Avenue 5’

23’

Existing Building Proposed Addition 5’ Setback Driveway Property Lines

33’

Alley

FIGURE 1.1 A proposed addition to a home that would not be permitted under the current zoning regulations

Maintaining standards, like setbacks, is important, however. Setbacks ensure visibility, afford light and air access and provide fire protection between structures should a neighboring property catch fire. Smaller setbacks in the infill district would still accomplish these goals. The table below provides a comparison of setbacks across various cities in Kansas. COMPARISON City Hutchinson, KS Lawrence, KS Manhattan, KS Overland Park, KS Wichita, KS Salina, KS Kansas City, KS

Front Yard

Side – Street Front Yard

Side Yard

Rear Yard

25 feet 15 feet 14 feet 15 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet

12.5 feet* 15 feet 14 feet 15 feet 15 feet 25 feet -

5 feet 5 feet 8 feet 6 feet 6 feet 7.5 feet 3 feet

15 feet 20 feet 25 feet 20 feet 20 feet 25 feet 25 feet

* As allowed under Sec. 27-309.C. of the City Code.

As the table notes, Hutchinson’s setback standards are similar to other Kansas communities. Some 2

Homes in older neighborhoods were built without regulations, including setbacks. Houses are located on or next to their property lines, creating noncomplaint structures.

RECOMMENDATION Establish the following setbacks for the R-6 Infill Residential Zoning District which is depicted in Figure 1.2.

R-6 Zoning District

Front Yard

Side – Street Front Yard

Side Yard

Rear Yard

15 feet*

7.5 feet**

3 feet***

10 feet

*Or the average Front Yard Setback of block. See Sec. 27-309.E. of City Code. **As allowed under Sec. 27-309.C. of the City Code. **Should the proposed structure be closer than six feet to a neighboring structure, fire protection as required by the Building Code shall be provided.

Number Avenue 3’

165’

communities have smaller front-yard setbacks (Lawrence, Manhattan, Overland Park). The City’s current ordinance has a provision that allows for a reduction of front-yard setbacks, whereby the average setback for the block can be applied. Hutchinson has smaller setbacks on side street front yards, side-yards, and rear-yards, with the exception of Kansas City, KS. Kansas City, KS shares similar design challenges to Hutchinson because many of their residential structures were built prior to modern planning standards.

3’

27’

Existing Building Proposed Addition 3’ Setback Driveway Property Lines

33’

Alley

FIGURE 1.2 The proposed addition would be permitted with 3-foot side-yard setbacks

ISSUE #2: LOT COVERAGE LIMITATIONS MAKE BUILDING DIFFICULT DISCUSSION Like setbacks, lot coverage requirements for residential zoning districts in Hutchinson reflect a suburban standard. Homeowners living in older neighborhoods that were developed with smaller lots have a more challenging time meeting the lot coverage standard, with new construction since today’s housing size demands have increased. The average new construction house size in the United States has increased from 1,660 square feet in 1973 to 2,640 square feet in 2016 (US Census ). The lot coverage allowed for a 30’ x 165’ lot (the standard for the first two additions of the Hutchinson Investment Company plats) is 45 percent or 2,227 square feet. To accommodate today’s typical sized house on an infill lot, developers and homeowners must build up.

1,485 ft2 55%

1,690 ft2 62%

Alley

82.5’

Most homes in the City’s older neighborhoods are smaller than 2,227 square feet. Retrofitting these homes to reflect today’s standards and needs can be accomplished but not with the existing lot coverage requirement. In addition to building more square footage onto a small house, homeowners also must comply with the lot coverage requirement for all accessory structures. Many homes were built prior to the mass production of vehicles, so either they do not have a garage or the structure that was built does not accommodate today’s vehicles.

Number Avenue

Tree Street

Building up or adding a second (or even third) story can get costly. Second story additions may require retrofitting a foundation and always require removal of existing roofs, which increases the project costs. Facing the added costs can deter property owners from these projects and continue the cycle of undesirable and obsolete structures in the redevelopment area. The costs simply cannot be balanced out given the values of housing in the surrounding neighborhoods.

33’

Figure 2.1 The above lots do not conform with current lot coverage regulations in the R-4 District

COMPARISON The table below provides a comparison of lot coverage requirements for select cities in Kansas. City Hutchinson, KS Kansas City, KS Lawrence, KS Manhattan, KS Overland Park, KS Wichita, KS

Maximum Lot Coverage 45% n/a 50% 30% n/a n/a

Hutchinson’s lot coverage requirements are consistent with other Kansas communities. As a community with a considerably older housing stock, having similar standards to more suburban cities may not be the best choice for redevelopment in Hutchinson. Older communities like Lawrence have amended their zoning standard to allow for denser development per lot. This may be attributed to the same issues Hutchinson faces or a reflection of larger city growth. Increasing 4

Due to narrow dimensions, older lots have less buidable area because of lot coverage requirements. Homeowners looking to add on additions to meet current house size trends may already be over the limit.

the lot coverage standard will allow homeowners and developers more flexibility when expanding and redeveloping their infill properties.

Number Avenue 60’ 54.4’

RECOMMENDATION Staff proposes establishing the following lot coverage for the R-6 Infill Residential Zoning District:

R-6 Zoning District

33’

Single-family Home

Maximum Lot Coverage 60% 9,000 ft2

DISCUSSION When Hutchinson was originally subdivided, the first two subdivision’s lot dimensions were 30 feet wide by 165 feet deep, creating lots of approximately 4,950 square feet. At the time, those purchasing these narrow lots were given the opportunity to buy multiple lots, which many did. However, some buyers purchased only one lot. Others eventually sold pieces of their original lot to neighboring properties, creating in even smaller lots than those originally platted. Hutchinson had zoning beginning in the 1920’s – all lots developed prior to that time or in the county were not subject to zoning. Today, these lots have become problematic—often preventing increases in density and new construction on vacant lots.

The City’s minimum lot size requirements vary across residential zoning districts, with the minimum being 9,000 square feet, shown in Figure 3.1. Two family structures have difficulty meeting the standards as well (Figure 3.2). The R-5 High Density Residential District allows for smaller lots with shorter lot widths but is not commonly found across the City due to control over multi-family

Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Frontage

Alley Figure 3.1 The above image shows how lot frontage and lot area requirements in the R-4 District are too strict for many existing resdiential lots.

Number Avenue 80’ 60.6’

33’

Two-family Home

10,000 ft2 165 ’

While it has been the City’s policy to allow construction on non-conforming infill lots, the city has been unable to approve requests to build anything other than single-family structures primarily due to current lot width and lot area standards.

165 ’

ISSUE #3: LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS THAT REFLECT EXISTING LOT SIZES

Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Frontage

Alley Figure 3.2 A 33’ x 165’ lot is too small for a two-family home in the R-4 District under the curent zoning regulations 5

residential development. In addition, multi-family developments face the same issue as singel family developments on infill properties, Figure 3.3. By creating a separate zoning district specifically designed for Infill Development, the City will be able to control multi-family development while providing homeowners more freedom in developing their infill lots.

Number Avenue 100’ 60.6’

33’

Multi-family Home

COMPARISON

City Hutchinson Lawrence, KS Manhattan, KS Overland Park, KS Wichita, KS Kansas City, KS Salina, KS

Minimum Lot Width (feet) 60 25 50 50 50 50 50

Minimum Lot Area (square feet) 9,000 3,000 6,000 4,250 5,000 5,000 6,000

10,000 ft2 165 ’

The table below provides minimum lot criteria for single family lots for select cities in Kansas:

Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Frontage

Alley Figure 3.3 A 33’ x 165’ lot is too small for multi-family homes in the R-4 District under the curent zoning regulations.

As can be seen, Hutchinson has the largest lot width and lot area requirement of the comparison cities. These requirements are suburban in nature and do not match the development pattern of many of the city’s older neighborhoods. If the City wants to accommodate redevelopment, expansion of existing development and infill development, modifying the lot width and lot area requirements will likely bring nonconforming lots into conformance. This will prevent the need for costly and time-consuming variance requests. RECOMMENDATION Establish the following lot width and lot area for the R-6 Infill Residential Zoning District: R-6 Zoning District Single-Family Two-Family Townhomes Multiple Family 6

Minimum Lot Width (feet) 30 40 50 60

Minimum Lot Area (square feet) 3,500 4,000 5,000 8,000

Traditional development is compact and fits well on narrow lots

ISSUE #4: DENSITY THAT PROVIDES MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR REDEVELOPMENT Should the previous recommendations be approved, property owners wishing to increase density on their lots will face fewer challenges. The reasons to consider these changes should be considered are addressed in this section.

Another issue that property owners in infill areas face is the difficulty associated with converting existing structures to a higher density. Most conversions that have been performed to date are nonconforming, shown in Figure 4.1. Proposals to convert existing housing would not be approvable because the City’s residential zoning districts do not allow for duplexes or multiple family development, in existing residential districts. Duplexes, triplexes and townhomes are either not permitted or require a conditional use permit in all residential zones other than R-4 and R-5. Multiple family developments (those with more than two units) are permitted by right only in

Acessory dwelling units (or Mother-in-law flats) are density hiding in plain sight.

Number Avenue 2 units on a 50’ wide lot

Primary unit 2,450 ft2

165 ’

Density is typically expressed as the number of dwelling units in a given area, normally per acre. Reasons for increasing housing density include: 1) reducing the amount of needed infrastructure, 2) providing alternative living options, and 3) making housing more affordable to construct and inhabit. Hutchinson’s primary motivation for considering increasing housing density relates to affordability. Based upon feedback from local developers, much of Hutchinson’s neighborhoods suffer from a building cost gap. The building cost gap is the difference between how much it costs to build a new house versus how much it will appraise/sell for. Developers have found that building a single family home in the redevelopment area costs approximately $20,000+ than what they can sell it for. Developers cannot make a profit in these conditions, therefore housing is not being built or rehabbed in the most impacted neighborhoods. If densities are allowed to increase, there is more revenue potential in the same buildable area, therefore increasing the potential for development/redevelopment.

2 units on a 8,250 ft2 lot

Accesory unit 900 ft2

Alley Figure 4.1 165’ x 50‘ (8,250 sf.) lot with an accessory dwelling unit in the rear yard 7

the R-5 zoning district. A conditional use permit is required to build/convert multiple family dwellings in the R-4 zone. While the proposed new zoning district will not allow for a large density increase (for example converting a single-family lot into a high-rise apartment building), it will allow for some conversions, where the community character is not compromised. A third discussion point for this section is the introduction of accessory dwelling units (ADU). An ADU is a secondary housing unit built on the same lot, commonly used for extended family or as an extra source of income. These units are subordinate in size to the primary dwelling, and are placed in an inconspicuous location on the property, typically to the rear. This option provides homeowners with flexibility in relocating an elderly loved one close by and can also provide an additional source of affordable housing. While ADUs increase density, they also maintain the original single-family character of the neighborhood. The Hutchinson Comprehensive Plan Survey asked residents whether they were interested in allowing ADUs . Respondents had an unfavorable opinion of ADUs with the overall rating being 2.91 out of 5. While ADUs may not reflect the character of development in some of our more suburban neighborhoods, they could be allowed in more established neighborhoods without major impacts and should be discussed and considered. COMPARISON Figure 4.2 and 4.3 show the difference between redevelopment of a 50 foot by 165 foot lot under the current regulations opposed to the redevelopment of the same lot if modified regulations were adopted. As you can see, developers are given more opportunity to develop a project with a higher potential to recoup the value of the project cost, either through resale or anticipated rent. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a residential zoning district that allows higher density development by right, including ADUs, which would increase densities from an 8

Number Avenue Only 1 unit on a 50’ wide lot 25’ front-yard 15’ setback

1 unit - 3,650 ft2 44% lot coverage

Alley Figure 4.2 Only one dwelling unit is currently permitted on a 165’ x 50‘ (8,250 s.f.) lot in the R-4 District

Number Avenue 15’ front-yard setback

2 units - 3,800 ft2 45% lot coverage

10’ rear-yard setback

Alley Figure 4.3 A potential two-family design for narrow lots that could be permitted in a new zoning district.

average of seven to eight housing units per acre to twelve per acre.

ISSUE #5: “Adequate space provided for access and utilties to each property.” DISCUSSION While it’s likely the proposed new district would support rehabilitation projects, the zoning district will also open the door to innovative design options for narrow lots and new construction. A goal of the new zoning district would be that it could allow for more unique site development, like the one shown in Figure 5.1. However, unique design options like the one shown can create issues with access and utilities. Currently, the subdivision regulations require all residential lots to have a public street and utility access. The R-6 Infill Zoning District might allow for lots to be created without direct public street frontage, as long as adequate utility and access easements are provided. These options would only be possible on a wider infill lot with an established alley. COMPARISON This development is a non-traditional form not found in Hutchinson nor in much of Kansas. Larger cities, like Portland and Nashville, have allowed similar layouts for infill development. The Portland Infill Design Toolkit, as well as the Hutchinson Infill Housing Study conducted by graduate students from the University of Kansas, provide multiple design options that would stretch the flexibility of our current zoning and subdivision regulations. With these designs in mind, it is important to assure access and utilities are properly provided for. RECOMMENDATION The district will need to include access and utility provisions. The subdivision regulations will also require revisions to accommodate the

Easements protect utilities and stormwater drainage from being harmed or tampered with.

10’

Required access easement Required utility easement

Figure 5.1 Required easements for a two-family design layout. All housing units will be required to have access to utilties and public right-of-ways. 9

recommendations. The required easements are recommended to occur on an as-needed basis and will not require replatting the subdivision.

ISSUE #6: “Parking standards that fit the needs and space provided in established neighborhoods.” DISCUSSION Current parking standards developments are as follows: Single-family detached Single-family attached Two-family- townhomes Multi-family

for

residential

2 spaces per dwelling unit 2 spaces per dwelling unit 2 spaces per dwelling unit 1 space per dwelling unit

Strategy S.1.7.a.5. of the 2017-2037 Hutchinson Comprehensive Plan supports revising existing parking standards that meet the needs of both vehicles and pedestrians. Reducing the parking standard for residential uses may not directly benefit pedestrians but may promote residential development on properties that are smaller in size and lacking in space. In addition to making more “room” on tight lots, reducing the standard can make these projects more cost-effective.

Utilities to houses are placed within easements. Knowing where to locate utilities is important for infill development. As the image shows, each house has and needs its own access.

The City’s maximum front yard paving requirement also creates many nonconforming lots. The current standard, 40%, is fine for most suburban, residential lots. However, when the total front yard area is only 300 square feet, the 40% rule would allow 120 square feet of the front yard to be paved. Since the minimum parking stall requirement (9 ft. by 18 ft.) requires 162 square feet of paving, this leaves homeowners having to utilize their side yard or rear yard for parking. However, as previously discussed many infill lots are too narrow to allow for access by vehicles along the sides. If the standard was increased to 60% for this zoning district, the allowed paving for the front yard in the example would be 180 square feet, which is ample room for one parking space. While reducing parking standards will help alleviate building costs, parking on residential 10

Front yard parking for a townhouse development.

properties can be dangerous when accessed from the alley. Except for the five-foot rear-yard setback required for all accessory structures, there are no setback requirements for residential driveways accessing the City’s alleys. This creates a safety issue when vehicles are backing out of a garage with only a five-foot clearance before entering the alley right-of-way. To avoid potential accidents due to poor visibility, the City should explore alternative driveway access styles. A possible solution would be to require all new driveways leading from alleyways to garages or carports to have a minimum driveway length of 10 feet (Figure 6.1). A second option for properties with limited rear yards would be to rotate the garage door or carport 90 degrees so they face the side of the property, as shown to the right. This allows cars a turning radius that is located on their property and out of the right-of-way. COMPARISON The standard for most communities is 2 spaces per dwelling unit for single-family development. In cities with older housing stock, such as Lawrence, Kansas City and Wichita, the standard is less. Most cities have more flexibility for developments with more than one unit.

Number Avenue

 10’

x

3’

Alley

3’

Figure 6.1 Potential garage layouts that meet the proposed driveway access requirements off of alleyways.

The table lists the parking standards for comparative communities in Kansas: City Hutchinson, KS Lawrence, KS Manhattan, KS Overland Park, KS Wichita, KS Salina, KS Kansas City, KS

Single-Family, Detached 2 1.5 2 2 1 2 1

Minimum Parking Standard Per Dwelling Unit Single-Family, Two-Family / Multi-Family Attached Townhomes 2 2 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 2 1 per bedroom 2 2 Formula based on # of bedrooms 1 1 Formula based on # of bedrooms 2 2 2 1 1 1

RECOMMENDATION Revise the minimum parking standards for the R-6 Infill Residential Zoning District as follows: Single-family detached Single-family attached Two-family/townhomes Multi-family ADUs

1 space per dwelling unit 1 space per dwelling unit 1 space per dwelling unit 1 space per dwelling unit 1 additional space per unit

The maximum front yard paving standard should be increased from 40% to 60% in the R-6 Infill Residential Zoning District. For head-in driveways accessing a garage or carport from an alley, a minimum of 10 feet will be required unless a turnaround is installed. No changes are recommended to the current paving requirements for residential properties.

Number Avenue 3’ side-yard setback

5 spaces at 1 per unit

18’ 24’

24’

15’ front-yard setback

9’

Alley

Figure 6.2 Potential parking layout for a townhouse development in the R-6 Infill District.

ISSUE #7: “Accessory structure regulations that meet the proposed changes in the R-6 District.” DISCUSSION All residential properties within Hutchinson are permitted to have accessory structures. However, most homeowners on smaller lots face challenges building new accessory structures. If homeowners have an existing accessory structure, it is likely that the structure is nonconforming. To allow property owners to continue using their nonconforming accessory structure, the City revised the accessory structure regulations in 2016. The revised regulations allow a homeowner to update or replace their existing accessory structure without having to seek a zoning variance as long as the structure remains in the original footprint. While this has addressed the issue of maintaining existing accessory structures, it does not address building new ones or expanding an existing structure. If side-yard setbacks for accessory structures were reduced to 3 feet, like the principal structure, then many of the nonconforming garages and sheds 12

Building new or adding on to accessory structures can be difficult in the revitalization area.

RECOMMENDATION Revise side and rear yard accessory structure accessory structure setbacks for the proposed R-6 Zoning District:

R-6 Zoning District

Side Street Front 7.5 feet

Number Avenue No accessory buidlings in front

3’

Proposed Addition

Rear

3’ Setback

3 feet

Property Lines

ISSUE #8: “Promote inclusion and affordability as well as designing cohesive neighborhood design.”

50’

Existing Building

Side

While the proposed rear-yard setback is 3 feet, the driveway requirements referenced in Issue 6 still apply.

3’

165 ’

could be brought into conformance or create more room for building a new structure. See Figure 7.1. Accessory structures would still have to meet the five-foot separation requirement from any other structure, a regulation already in place. Should the proposed structure be closer than six feet to a neighboring structure, fire protection as required by the Building Code shall be provided.

Driveway

Alley

3’

Figure 7.1 The detached garage is a nonconforming single car garage that does not provide adequate room for today’s cars/needs. The exemption allows for the homeonwer to rebuild but not expand. By amending the regulations the homeowner can rebuild and expand their garage to provide adequate space.

INCLUSION

Zoning regulations are designed to keep incompatible uses separate from one another. For example, zoning districts designed for single-family housing will typically not allow heavier uses like strip malls, apartment complexes or oil refineries because most homeowners buy a house with the expectation of lower traffic and less noise. Pairing a low-impact land use with another that has a relatively higher impact could be detrimental to the property values and quality of life. In most cases, single-family and multi-family uses are separated either by keeping them in separate zoning districts or by requiring a higher level of review before approving multi-family developments. Some of Hutchinson’s older neighborhoods were developed prior to the establishment of usebased zoning, and they often contain a wider

Prototype for a small infill multi-family development designed by Architecture students at the University of Kansas. 13

mix of uses. Zoning regulations have created many nonconforming properties and limits the potential to expand. Because of relatively lower property values in these neighborhoods, singlefamily infill development is often not a financially viable option for developers. Supporting smaller multi-family projects in these neighborhoods with design requirements will simplify the development review process and allow infill projects to pencil out. RECOMMENDATION # 1 & 2 Make smaller multi-family developments permitted by right in the Infill Zoning District.

Promoting smaller, multi-family developments that are designed to blend into surrounding neighborhoods can be a viable option for infill development.

Place design requirements on multi-family projects (parking, screening, etc.) that would mitigate impacts on surrounding properties.

DEFINITIONS

Another issue with the City’s current zoning regulations relates to the definition of household. Households have changed in modern times and no longer look like a “traditional” mother, father and child family unit. In fact, Hutchinson’s definition of families and households is “an individual or two or more persons related by blood, adoption or marriage, or a group of not more than four persons (including servants) not related by blood or marriage, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit.” This definition would not meet the reality of families or households today. Most zoning ordinances distinguish between single-family and multifamily based on the more traditional definition of “household.” Instead of trying to regulate household size in the zoning regulations, the City can prevent overcrowding of housing units by applying the building and fire code occupancy requirements. Under federal law, cities cannot discriminate against protected classes because they don’t meet the traditional definition of household. By simply changing the definition of household and families to match the HUD recommended definition, the City will ensure the inclusion of 14

Household definitions should not exclude people, rather including as many different families.

all household types and conform with federal regulations. Additionally, certain residential uses are the primary housing for individuals who are protected by Fair Housing Law. The City cannot treat these uses differently than single-family residences. RECOMMENDATION # 3 & 4 Amend the household definition to “one or more individuals who live together in a single housekeeping unit” and have the family definition reference household. Allow zoning by right of uses that house persons classified as a “protected class” according to federal regulations.

NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN: MATERIALS

When the City Council adopted the current Zoning Regulations in 2011, more emphasis was placed on aesthetics. They included regulations that required residential developments to meet certain “neighborhood character” standards. While this move was well-intended, the new “neighborhood character” requirements have placed barriers on property owners in older neighborhoods looking to invest in their property. The neighborhood character requirement makes homeowners match building materials for accessory structures with the materials that are on the house. However, since the requirement is relatively new, metal structures are already prevalent in existing neighborhoods, often confusing property owners hoping to build a new accessory structure. Another issue that Planning Staff commonly hears when they are working with the public is that prefabricated metal accessory structures are more affordable to build than wood-framed buildings. The average cost per square foot to construct a metal shed is approximately $14. A wood structure can range from $18 to $23 per square foot. While those numbers may vary by season or region, metal structures are consistently more affordable. Overland Park and Olathe have a neighborhood character requirement similar to Hutchinson’s. Most comparison communities are silent on what materials are required for accessory structures.

Requiring new structures and additions to match existing, elaborate designs can be difficult and costly.

New metal sheds provide an affordable option to homeowners with limited resources. Regulating the condition of the material can mitigate the fear of insuperior materials being placed in neighborhoods. 15

RECOMMENDATION # 5 Remove Neighborhood Character requirement for the R-6 Infill Zoning District for accessory structures, allowing new metal as a suitable building material for accessory structures.

NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN: REQUIREMENTS

For new residential structures in the R-6 Infill District, the neighborhood character requirement can be expanded to make sure new development matches the existing aesthetics of the neighborhood. Components, such as street trees and sidewalks, are very common in neighborhoods affected by the proposed change. Currently, the Zoning Regulations do not require street trees or sidewalks with infill development where those components already exist. While these two components can add cost to the development, the City has historically made an effort to help fund both. The Hutchinson Tree Board has an annual allocation to fund street tree installation in the City. In addition, the City has consistently found ways to assist in funding sidewalk repair and installation projects for lower income neighborhoods. To facilitate a wider array of housing types, the City is working on a concurrent project to amend the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s use table. Tiny houses, ADUs and manufactured homes are all affordable alternatives to typical housing options, and are proposed for inclusion. However, without some design criteria placed on these alternative housing styles, they will likely be incompatible with the housing styles in older neighborhoods. The Use Table Revisions include design criteria for all new proposed housing types to ensure they match the surrounding housing architectural styles and maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.

Sidewalks and street trees are common in older neighborhoods. Promoting the inclusion of these features can help blend new construction into older surroundings.

Affordable housing types, like manufactured units or tiny houses, donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have to stand out. Design elements can be added to blend into surroundings.

RECOMMENDATION # 6, 7 & 8 Promote the replacement or installation of sidewalks and street trees with infill development where appropriate. Amend programs for street trees and sidewalks to place priority on infill projects.

Unique development layouts can provide an interesting living experience, but regulations should be included to ensure the inhabitants of these unique units still have access to roads and utilties.

Create design criteria for new housing types proposed in the Use Table Revision.

AFFORDABILITY

The City has studied the actual cost of housing development, specifically infill construction, for some time. Based on comments from housing developers and the Infill Study conducted by students at the University of Kansas, the approximate minimum price per square foot is $120 for new construction. To build a modest 1,000 square foot home, the cost would be $120,000 regardless of location. The issue for infill housing is the appraisal capacity. The building cost gap is discussed in Issue #4. However, density alone may not always resolve the financial barriers to infill development, especially in neighborhoods with very low property values. To assist with the cost of development in these neighborhoods, the City offers a few incentives. The Neighborhood Revitalization Plan offers a rebate in taxes for the increase in property value that may be incurred from a project, located south of 11th Avenue. The Residential Infill Incentive Program reduces the building permit fee and eliminates sewer and water tap fees for these projects. However, the Residential Infill Incentive Program is not well utilized. A few modifications may make this program more enticing to developers. RECOMMENDATION # 9 Amend the Residential Infill Incentive to include the following changes: 1. Open the incentive to all residential developments (not just single-family). 2. Allow for administrative approval of the applications as opposed to City Council approval. 3. Place a cap of $5,000 on Building Permit fees.

CONCLUSION & FINAL RECOMMENDATION

Most of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s older neighborhoods were developed with narrow, rectangular lots that were 50 feet or less in width. This platting style reflects traditional development patterns where houses were narrower, set relatively close to the property line and oftentimes twostory. Garages were typically an afterthought or converted carriage houses. In either case, garage access was normally from the rear of the property via an alley, if a garage was part of the equation at all. This development pattern went on for decades until the 1960s and 1970s, when most cities in the United States did complete overhauls of their zoning regulations and adopted more suburban development standards. These suburban standards included lots that were wider and had larger setbacks. Room was included for attached garages, which had become a norm of residential development by that time. Unfortunately, adoption of these suburban codes threw many existing neighborhoods, which largely predated the regulations by close to 100 years, into nonconformance. Since nonconforming uses cannot be expanded, there was little opportunity for residents of older neighborhoods to make improvements (adding on a room or garage, for instance), as the code precluded such improvements. Hutchinsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s zoning regulations are no exception to what has occured throughout the United States, with largely suburban residential stardards. This is evidenced by Map 1 which illustrates the areas of the City that were platted with 50 foot or narrower lots. Most of this development is located south of 11th Avenue, although there are a few residential areas on the north side of 11th that have narrower lots. RECOMMENDATION The R-6 Infill Residential area be established for all residentially zoned property located south of 11th Avenue , east of the Cow Creek Canal and west of Superior Street. The proposed zoning district boundaries are included in Map 2.

APPLE LN

FAUBION ST

CESSNA RD

KIRBY ST

TAYLOR ST

SCOTT ST

SHERMAN AVE

LEONARD AVE

AVE B

CAREY BLVD

WILLIAM ST

COMMERCE ST

AVE G

Legend Highways

GREATHOUSE ST

RIV ER BIR CH

LUCILLE DR

MARGE ST

H A LSTEAD ST

CHERRY LN

7TH AVE

CHARLES ST

HOWARD ST

JUSTICE ST

LIBERTY ST

8TH AVE

4TH AV E

HARVEY ST ACRES ST

9TH AVE

1ST AVE

CAREY BLVD

CENTER ST

MEADOW L A KE D R

KING ST

TOWN ST

SHERMAN AVE

1ST AVE

HALSTEAD ST

STAR ST

SUPERIOR ST

STAR ST CHEMICAL ST

GRANDVIEW ST

WALDRON ST FONTRON ST

BALDY GEORGE ST

PORTER ST

3RD AVE

EASLEY AVE B

R REY CO

DUFFY RD

CAREY ST

KEAST ST

PORTER ST

HOA GLAND ST

SPENCER ST

TR MALLOY ST

GRAND ST

HUXMAN ST

PLEASANT ST

HALSTEAD ST

SUPER PLZ

LORRAINE ST

RON ST

LANDON ST

PLEASANT ST

COCHRAN ST

TYNDALL ST

GREGORY ST

BONEBRAKE ST

2ND AVE

10TH AVE

8TH AVE

3RD AVE

11TH AVE

EASTGATE PLZ

FOUNTAINWOOD

GLAZIER ST

RAMBLER RD

BLER RD

MARLAND ST

O DANIEL ST

GREGORY ST

BAKER ST

NELSON ST

CLE VELAND ST

REFORMATORY ST

CHESTNUT ST

CLAY ST

PERSHING ST AVE F COLE AVE

6TH AVE

WILLIAM ST

POPLAR ST

WALL ST

SEVERANCE ST

FORD ST FORD ST

HIGH ST

RAFFINGTON ST

WALKER ST

NEVADA ST

ARIZONA ST

RA M

SEVERANCE ST

MEADOWLARK LN

DIXIE ST

CLEVELAND ST

FORD ST

LOGAN ST

WOODARD ST VINCENT ST

WALNUT ST

WALNUT ST IN G FR AN KH AR TX

MAPLE ST MAPLE ST

SEV ERA NCE ST

SESHER ST ELM ST

POPLAR ST

WASHINGTON ST

JEFFERSON ST POPLAR ST

WALNUT ST

ELM ST

MADISON ST

DIE S EAT FWY

MAIN ST

ACRES RD

CLEVELAND ST

FORD ST FORD ST

ELM ST

CLEVELAND ST

FORT SCOTT BLVD

FORT RILEY BLVD BISON BLVD BISON BLVD

MAPLE ST

ASH ST

WALNUT ST

WA LNUT ST MAIN ST

ADAMS ST

HARRISON ST

OLD MAIN ST

AVE C

AVE B

7TH AVE

5TH AVE

A CO AL

SWAIN DR

1ST AVE

W 1H KK6 61 H

14TH AVE

Hutchinson City Limits

Other Roads

South Hutchinson

DR ENTERPRISE Railroads

Narrow Lot Subdivisions

PLU M ST

WASHINGTON ST

OSBORNE ST

VD BL

3RD AVE

4TH AVE

5TH AVE

ELM

ADA MS ST

JEFFERSON ST

7TH AVE

CARPENTER ST

PARK ST

R PA EY

WHITESIDE ST

AVE G

BIGGER ST

AVE E

RAFFINGTON ST

8TH AVE

AVE E

CAMPBELL ST

AVE B

AVE D

AVE F

PO PLA R

VALLEY PRIDE RD

BENNETT ST

AVE E

W OO

AVE E

1 0T HA VE

L APO

L CIR

LEW IS LN

U NN Y

MORNINGSIDE RD

PLUM ST

JEFFERSON ST

MADISON ST

MONROE ST

JACKSON ST

PRAIRIE AVE

FORREST ST

WHITESIDE ST

MADISON ST MADISON ST

AVE D

AVE C

15TH AVE

A IRP OR T

AIRPORT RD

AVE C

1ST AVE

AVE B

2ND AVE

TLAND DR EA S

E ST LO R RA IN

MONROE

ED AV MORTON RD

C ENTRE CT

EAS

WASHINGTON ST

TA V

21S

HARRISON ST

TYLER ST

CONE ST MILCON ST

PIERCE ST

LEE ST LEE ST

LEE ST

URBAN DR HAYES ST

HARRISON ST

TYLER

JOHN ST

CONE ST

SW AR EN 19 SS TH T T TE R SUNS E TD R HALSEY DR ES S

JA M

HAYES ST GRANT ST

HAYES ST

HE NDRICK S ST

GARFIELD ST

ARTHUR ST CLOVERDALE DR

ORCHARD AVE

Y DR UR

WESFIELD DR

HARDING ST

O OSEVELT S T

WESTLAND DR

VAN BUREN ST JACKSON ST

AVE B AVE B

AVE B

5TH AVE

K6 1 H W Y W

AVE A

6TH AVE

SHERMAN AVE

6TH AVE

Y CT

SHERMAN AVE

7TH AVE

3RD AVE

WALD

MUSTANG PASS AN QUAIL RDG LY M

9TH AVE 9TH AVE

HAW T H

1ST AVE

E AV

4TH AVE

SANTA FE PL

2ND AVE

10TH AVE

21ST AVE

20TH AVE

KATIE DR

OWELL DR

3RD AVE

11TH AVE

8TH AVE

5TH AVE

13TH AVE

23RD AVE

OR NE LN

5TH AVE

23RD AVE

12TH AVE

9TH AVE

6TH AVE

13TH TER

GRA ND ST

6TH AVE

14TH AVE COLLEGE LN

13TH AVE

9TH AVE 8TH AVE

7TH AVE

A WAY AZ

20TH AVE

TH AVE

26TH AVE

25TH AVE

8TH AVE

K SI DE

AVE B

9TH AVE

17TH CRESTVIEW

13TH AVE

10TH AVE

21ST AVE

20TH AVE

16TH AVE

23RD AVE

WALDR O N

13TH AVE

22ND AVE

14TH AVE

M APLE ST

SUNFLOWER AVE

11TH AVE

8TH AVE

BRO O

HARVEST LN

O VE N 24TH AVE

BALDWIN ST

LAWN W HEA TLA ND DR

15TH AVE

10TH AVE

SHERMA

DEL

CRESCENT BLVD

16TH AVE

FAIRCREST DR

NORMA

N RD

18TH AVE

23RD AVE

25TH AVE

DALE PARK

19TH AVE

23RD AVE

24T H AVE

26TH AVE

D ST BRENTW OO

AR K

24TH AVE

SEVER A N

20TH AVE

12TH AVE

GREEN GARDEN DR

3 RD AVE

PA RK DR

15TH AVE

9TH AVE

21ST AVE 21ST AVE

2 3RD AVE

2 2ND AVE 21ST AVE E

GREEN ST

HY DE

STATE FAIR RD

17TH AVE

T ESIDE S

RICKS ST HEND

CEDAR ST

23RD AVE

W HIT

11TH AVE NB LVD

23RD AVE

14TH AVE

12TH AVE

24TH AVE

22ND AVE

WO ODLAW N S T

RS O

R AD OR

NI CK E

SU NS ET

ER RD GRAB

A UR

16TH AVE

14TH AVE

25TH AVE

OOD DR TW 25TH AVE

PO NY EXPRESS RT

ST IDA

R 18TH AVE SEDONA CT

15TH AVE 15TH AVE

CELAND

26TH AVE

FORT LEAVENW O RTH BL V

24TH AVE

R USTIC RD

27TH AVE

HY D

WILLOW RD

ROOK DR

B ARBERRY DR

DOV E R

LINWOOD DR

17TH AVE

BRAMBLE BUSH DR

E BRIDGE DR ST O N

22 ND AVE

BROOKWOOD DR W SEVILLE ESB LINDA L N D

TR AC Y

OLD FARM ESTATES RD

UREN ST

CANTERB

LOCH LOMMOND DR

VA N

STMINSTER DR

BRIST O

COLORADO ST

Neighborhoods With Original Lots 50' or Less

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

MAPLE ST

CESSNA RD

DUFFY RD KIRBY ST

SCOTT ST

LEONARD AVE SHERMAN AVE

AVE B

AVE B CAREY BLVD

WILLIAM ST

CENTER ST

CHARLES ST

CAREY BLVD

COMMERCE ST

WILLIAM ST

AVE G

WALKER ST HARVEY ST

Legend ENTERPRISE DR

GREATHOUSE ST

ACRES ST

TA TE ST S

8TH AVE

2ND AVE

1ST AVE

HALSTEAD ST

SHERMAN AVE

P LUM

2ND AVE

1ST AVE

TAYLOR ST

B ELL ST

TOWN ST SUPERIOR ST

BALDY GEORGE ST

STARK ST GRAN DVIEW ST

FONTRON ST WALDRON ST

CHEMICAL ST

STAR ST

PORTER ST

EASLEY

LIBERTY ST

JU STICE ST

BONEBRAK E ST

K61 HW

3RD AVE

4TH AVE 3RD AVE

FAU BION ST

GRAN D ST E

CAREY ST

HO AGLAND ST

SPENCER ST

TYNDALL ST

BONEBRA KE ST

KEAST ST

HERALD ST

PLEASANT ST

COCHRAN ST

GREGORY ST NELSON ST AVE B

H 61

HOWARD ST

RAFFINGTON ST

COLE AVE

REFORMATORY ST REFORMATORY ST

CHESTN UT ST

WALL ST

SEVERANCE ST

CLEVE LAND ST

FORD ST FORD ST

HIGH ST

VINCEN T ST

APPLE LN

SUPER PLZ

HUXMAN ST

LORRAINE ST

PLEASANT ST

O DANIE L ST

MARLAND ST

RAMBLER RD

BAKE R ST CLAY ST

PE RSHING ST

PORTER ST

LOGAN ST

GREGORY ST

OBEE PLZ

BAKE R ST

DIXIE ST

SESHER ST FORD ST

ELM ST

POPLAR ST

IN G FR AN KH AR TX

AV E

MAPLE ST

WALNUT ST

WASHINGTON ST

AD A MS ST

FAIRCREST DR

NORMA N RD FORD ST FORD ST

ELM ST

MAPLE ST

PLUM ST

WALNUT ST

WO O MAIN ST

OLD MA IN ST

WHITESIDE ST

A P JE FFERSON ST OL L

VD BL

AG E

FINGTON ST RA F

5TH AVE

OSBORNE ST

R PA EY

A NS

PARK ST

3RD AVE

9TH AVE

7TH AVE

ENSIGN DR

BIGGER ST

CARPENTER ST

AVE E

AVE F AVE G

CAMPBELL ST

AVE B

10TH AVE

8TH AVE

6TH AVE

2ND AVE

ST INE

AVE F

POPLAR ST

TRUMAN DR

AVE E

ELM

VALLEY PRIDE RD

POPLAR ST

AVE D

R REY CO

1ST AVE

AVE C

BENNETT ST

7TH AVE

1ST AVE

AVE B

AVE D

8TH AVE

3RD AVE

LO RRA

MONROE S T

MADISON ST WOOD SON P DIE SE LZ AT FWY

ED AV

FRIEN DS

CRYSTAL DR

2ND AVE

AVE C

5TH AVE

4TH AVE

3RD AVE

AVE B AVE B

AVE B

AVE E

6TH AVE

5TH AVE

AVE A

1 0T H AV E

SHERMAN AVE

DIE WO O

V KATIE DR NA MA QUAIL RDG LY SWAIN DR 9TH AVE E N GE 8TH AVE EASTLA ND D 7TH AVE

1ST AVE

WALNUT ST

SHERMAN AVE

7TH AVE

5TH AVE

JE FFERSON ST E AT FW Y

E AV

1ST AVE

8TH AVE

K 61 H W Y

JACKSON ST JACKSON ST

2ND AVE

MORTON RD

MORNINGSIDE RD

6TH AVE

WOODARD ST

WASHINGTON ST

3RD AVE

MAIN ST

5TH AVE

ADAMS ST

MADISON ST MADISON ST

6TH AVE

AVE C

CT LN L CENTR E MEADO W VIL LEW IS LN CT RE NT E C

LOCUST ST

ASH ST

WALNUT ST

JE FFERSON ST

MADISON ST

MONROE ST

JACKSON ST

VAN BUREN ST

WHITESIDE ST

7TH AVE

9TH AVE

SANTA FE PL

AVE B

HIP R D

10TH AVE

8TH AVE

OA LC

11TH AVE

9TH AVE

8TH AVE

13TH AVE

12TH AVE

10TH AVE 9TH AVE

ST 13TH TER

COLLEGE LN

13TH AVE

14TH AVE

STA R ST

N SHERMA

6TH AVE

WALNUT ST

HARRISON ST

PIERCE ST

LEE ST

BUCHANAN ST

LEE ST

URBAN DR

PRAIRIE AVE

MILCON ST

LINCOLN ST

HAYES ST HAYES ST

GARFIELD ST

GRANT ST

H E NDRICKS ST

ARTHUR ST

HAYES ST

14TH AVE

15TH AVE

AIRP OR T

GRAND ST

KS ID

12TH AVE

16TH AVE

3RD AVE

BRO O

A WAY AZ

WALDRON ST 17TH CRESTVIEW

S NE GE

NB LVD

13TH AVE

11TH AVE

9TH AVE

8TH AVE

15TH CIR

CLEVELAND ST

ERS O

10TH AVE

16TH AVE

14TH AVE 14TH TER

14TH AVE

PLE ST MA

NIC K

ST ESIDE

9TH AVE

GREEN GARDEN DR

CLOV ERDALE DR

W HIT

RICKS ST HEND

CEDAR ST

W O ODLAW N S T

11TH AVE

12TH AVE

16TH TER

15TH AVE

FORREST ST

AVE

14TH AVE

12TH AVE

CONE ST

JAMES ST

14TH AVE

13TH AVE

ORCHARD AV E

14TH AVE

15TH AVE

SUNFLOWER AVE

LANDO N

15TH AVE

15T H

15TH AVE

D RA RO AU

15TH AVE

16TH AVE

18TH AVE

16TH AVE

17TH AVE

CRESC ENT BLVD

ER RD GRAB

HARDING ST

ILLE

18TH AVE

WALDR O N

SEV

HALSEY DR

LINDA LN

K DR BRO O

WES

TYLE R ST

Map 2: Proposed R-6 Zoning District

Hutchinson City Limits

Other Roads

South Hutchinson

Railroads

ON EM ERS

Highways

Proposed R-6 Zoning District LO OP

Hutchinson Parcels

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

EXHIBIT 2

27-406.A.1. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Design Standards & Use Restrictions One accessory dwelling unit per residential zoning lot is permitted where the following design standards and use restrictions are met. Accessory dwelling units shall: a. be limited to a maximum size of 960 principal gross square feet or 33 percent of the accessory dwelling principal dwelling unit footprint, dwelling whichever is less. ADUs shall be a minimum of 400 square feet. b. be permitted only in the side or rear yards. An ADU shall not project into the paved parking front yard or into the required side (3 spaces rear yard street front yard. minimum, privacy fence c. be separated from adjacent residential unless R-6) (6 foot tall) properties by a minimum 6-foot privacy Accessory Dwelling Unit. Diagram is for illustrative fence that meets the requirements of purposes only. this Article. d. have a minimum of one, paved off-street parking space dedicated for the use of residents of the ADU. This parking space shall be in addition to required parking for the principal dwelling. Those parking spaces with access only from an unpaved alley shall be allowed to be gravel, in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 27-701.C. In the R-6 Zoning District, the parking requirement may be reduced to one per dwelling unit. e. be permitted only on zoning lots where the property owner resides in either the principal dwelling or ADU. f. be constructed of materials typically found in residential construction and compatible with the principal structure. g. have separate kitchen, sleeping, restroom and bathing facilities located within the ADU and not shared with the primary dwelling. h. meet the requirements of the adopted Hutchinson Residential Building Code.

ITEM 6C

January 2018

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 2017 ANNUAL REPORT

Adopted in March 2017, the Comprehensive Plan provides a roadmap for the future of the City.

Hutchinson is an appealing and unique community with a robust economy; attractive housing; safe and beautiful neighborhoods; and active, healthy and educated residents working toward the common goal of Hutchinson as “The Jewel of the Plains”.

Planning & Zoning Key accomplishments for 2017 include:

Housing & Neighborhoods Top accomplishments in 2017 were:

Historic Preservation Primary accomplishments historic preservation were:

Completion of the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan Adoption of an A-I Zoning District to support development of the Airport

• Installed sign toppers in the SW Bricktown Neighborhood • Launched two Housing Programs for Feature Neighborhoods

• Completion of the 2016 Historic Preservation Action Plan • Installed the Historic Preservation Cost Calculator tool

• •

See the full report on pages 3-5.

2017 Annual Report

See pages 6-7 and 10 of this report.

for

Refer to pages 8-9 of this report.

City of Hutchinson

January 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During 2017, the Planning & Development Department continued to make progress on City Council priorities, as well as on several strategies identified in the Comprehensive Plan, including:  Fully implemented CitizenServe software allowing for citizens to apply for Planning & Development permits online and pay with their credit card  Completed the 2017-2037 Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted by City Council in March 2017  Launched the Historic Preservation Cost Comparison tool  Launched two pilot Housing Programs for the City’s feature neighborhoods and the Houston Whiteside Historic District  Completed implementation of the 2016 Historic Preservation Action Plan  Began an Infill Implementation Plan to incorporate the recommendations of the Infill Study into the City’s regulations (June 2018 anticipated completion)  Amended the City’s Zoning Regulations to include an A-I (Airport Industrial Mixed Use) Zoning District to allow for development of the Airport  Installed Sign Toppers in the SW Bricktown Neighborhood

2018 WORK PLAN  Adopt new sign regulations for compliance with federal rulings and beautification of the Community (adopted January 16, 2018)  Adopt an Infill Residential Zoning District (R-6) (FS.1.7.a.2.) and associated infill regulations (S.2.1.b.1.)  Prepare a new Housing Assessment Tool, in anticipation of a 2019 CDBG application  Revise the City’s Zoning Regulations to reduce the number or uses and streamline the development process (S.1.7.a.1 & S.1.7.a.2)  Prepare a new Historic Preservation Action Plan (S.1.1.a.1)  Work with Reno County to establish extraterritorial or shared jurisdiction (S.1.7.b.1.)  First Impression Survey (S.2.3.a.1.)  Conduct educational seminars for Downtown historic property owners (S.1.2.a.3.)  Modify landscaping regulations (S.1.4.c.4. & S.1.7.a.4.)  Map City Neighborhood boundaries (S.2.1.c.1.)

Planning & Development Annual Report

City of Hutchinson

January 2018

Planning and Zoning Development activity has slowed over the course of the past two years. A summary of the number of applications processed and other projects related to Planning and Zoning is included below.

Project Name and Report CitizenServe Implementation

In November 2017, the Planning & Development Department went live with all CitizenServe modules. Now, residents can apply for planning permits (including fence and sign permits) from the comfort of their homes using a credit or debit card. Beginning January 1, 2018, all planning case and permit files are digital.

Miscellaneous Reviews

The graph at right provides a summary of miscellaneous planning & development activity for 2017.

The following Planning applications were processed during 2017: Conditional Use Permits

Planning Cases

1. Car Wash, 2601 N Main St 2. Miniature Golf Off-Site Parking, 0 N Lorraine 3. Mall Billboard Sign, 0 E 17th Ave 4. Ideatek Billboard Sign, 1330 E 17th Ave 5. Salthawk Athletic Field Lighting, 712 E 23rd Ave 6. Don Michael Field Lighting, 810 E 13th Ave

Planning & Development Annual Report

City of Hutchinson

January 2018

Project Name and Report Site Plans 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Paved Parking Lot, 2808 N Main St Hutch Rentals, 1509 N Lorraine St 4 Seasons Truck Wash Parking Area, 1701 E Blanchard Ave Superior Boiler Works Paved Parking Lot, 3524 E 4th Ave Disability Supports Clayworks, 2319 N Waldron St Dairie King, 1524 E 4th Ave Red Barn Reflections, 2801 Dillon Ave Laundromat, 1320 N Lorraine St Paved Parking Lot, 2020 N Waldron St Hobart-Detter Maintenance Bldg & Locker Rooms, 0 Emerson Loop 11. Hutchinson Strip Center, PH 2, 1441 E 30th Ave 12. The Links, 0 W Sherman Ave

Special Use Permits 1.

Replace Electronic Message Center Sign, 1300 N Plum St

Planning Cases (continued) Subdivisions 1. 2. 3.

Commerce Gardens Addition Mattison Addition Prairie Dunes II

Variances 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Planning & Development Annual Report

Queen Parking Variance, 1723 E 4th Ave Davis Parking Variance, 2808 N Main St Davis Setback Variance, 2808 N Main St Beals Setback Variance, 2600 Nevada St Richman Driveway & Parking Surfacing Variance, 2801 Dillon Ave Engelland Setback Variance, 0 Pama Lou Ave Manske Landscape Variance, 0 W Sherman Ave USD #308 Illumination Variance, 712 E 23rd Ave

City of Hutchinson

January 2018

Rezones

Zoning Amendments (Rezones)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

1328 W 12th St 1100 N Airport Rd 1701 E Blanchard Ave 910 Coronado Dr 1125 N Main St 0 W Sherman Ave

8 6 4 2 0

3 2014

2015

2016

2017

Zoning Amendments Language Amendments

Zoning Amendments (Language)

1. Airport Zoning District 2. Hospital Parking Standards 3. Sign Regulations (completed 2018)

4 3 2

1 0

Planning & Development Annual Report

1 2014

2015

2016

2017

City of Hutchinson

January 2018

Housing The Housing Commission had multiple in-depth discussions in preparation for a 2018 work plan. Two pilot projects, as well as ongoing program implementation, rounded out the work of this Division for 2017.

Program Name and Report Infill Development Implementation Plan

Staff began work on the Infill Development Implementation Plan following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. This is anticipated for completion in June of 2018.

Land Bank

The Hutchinson Land Bank acquired 2 new lots in 2017 and sold 3 lots. A new home is under construction at 00000 E 8th Ave, which represents the first privatelyfunded project on a former Land Bank property.

Phase 2 of the Townhomes at Santa Fe Place is complete. The Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s match for this project was $54,500.

Moderate Income Housing Grant

Residential Infill Program

Brush Up Hutch! Paint Program

Zero applications were received in 2017, resulting in a fee waiver of $0.

Brush Up Hutch! Paint program applications for 2017 were lower than the previous year. As we move into a new feature neighborhood, we expect this number to increase.

Planning & Development Annual Report

Completed Brush Up Hutch! Cases 20 10 0

2014

2015

9 2016

2017

City of Hutchinson

January 2018

The Down Payment Match Incentive program had some strong numbers for its initial year, with four property owners purchasing homes in the College Grove Neighborhood, resulting in $7,965.96 in expenditures.

Down Payment Match Incentive

Neighborhood Revitalization Plan

Changes were made to the program requirements in 2016. For 2017, four residential permits and nine commercial permits were approved.

Rental Registration and Inspection Program

In 2017, 5,583 rental units were registered as part of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Rental Registration and Inspection Program, which resulted in collection of $112,006 in fees to fund the program.

Repair Grant (Stallman)

The Repair Grant is awarded to the City by the Stallman Foundation to assist in making repairs to houses that are eligible for Brush Up Hutch! Paint Program funds. For 2017, $1100 in Repair funds were spent by Interfaith Housing Services, who assists the City with grant implementation.

The Zero Interest Rehabilitation Loan program had a healthy first year, with nine property owners using the funds for a variety of projects. The program will continue into 2018, with a balance of $17,467.36 remaining.

Zero Interest Rehabilitation Loan

Emergency Solutions

The Emergency Solutions Grant is a pass-through grant program where the City serves as the grant administrator on behalf of the State. The Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Center (SADVC) is the sole local recipient of grant funds. The 2016 grant period concluded in July 2017. Of the awarded $40,568, $40,176.55 was expended, resulting in $943.33 in administration fees for the City.

Housing Education

In 2017, the City received a Hutchinson Community Foundation (HCF) grant for housing education seminars. Four seminars were held throughout the year, with attendance ranging from 3 to 38 residents.

Planning & Development Annual Report

City of Hutchinson

January 2018

Historic Preservation In 2017, the Department completed the 2016 Historic Preservation Action Plan. In addition, historic preservation consulting services were provided to residents wishing to renovate their historic homes. A cost-comparison calculator was developed and implemented and has assisted with preservation planning.

Program Name and Report

Education

Two historic preservation educational efforts were made in 2017. The first was a seminar on selecting an historic preservation contractor. This was not well-attended. The second occurred on Halloween, where the Department distributed promotional materials to trickor-treaters.

Historic Preservation Fund Grant (Cost Calculator)

The Cost Calculator was completed in Spring 2017 and is on the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website as a downloadable Excel file. The tool has been used by staff and residents to assist with preservation cost estimates.

Historic Preservation Fund Grant (Consulting Services)

The Department contracted with Mr. William Morris (Morris Associates) to perform consultation services. During 2017, a total of seven consultations were performed. The Department has included consultation services in its 2018 budget request and intends to do so in the future.

2016 Historic Preservation Action Plan

The 2016 Action Plan implementation was completed in 2017. Work has begun on a new plan, which is expected to be completed this Spring.

Planning & Development Annual Report

City of Hutchinson

January 2018

Twenty-eight historic reviews were conducted during 2017, which is double the number performed in 2016. Fifteen of the historic reviews performed involved properties located in the Houston Whiteside District, which represents 54% of the total reviews. A majority of the reviews (25) were performed by Staff, with 3 reviews triggering Landmarks Commission approval. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) did not conduct any reviews in 2017. There were no appealed cases during 2017. A full listing follows:

Historic Reviews

Property 546 E 1st Ave 546 E 1st Ave

District Houston Whiteside Houston Whiteside

546 E 1st Ave

Houston Whiteside

635 E 1st Ave

Houston Whiteside

207 S Main St 501 E Sherman Ave 501 E Sherman Ave 706 E Avenue A 510 E 1st Ave 15 S Cleveland St 717 E 1st Ave 119 N Main St 544 E Sherman Ave 535 E Avenue A 218 E 12th Ave 100 W 20th Ave 502 E 1st Ave 122 N Main St 117 N Main St 100 W 20th Ave 206 W 1st Ave 12 Hyde Park Dr 545 E Avenue A 607 E Avenue A 527 E 1st Ave 201 S Main St 723 E 1st Ave

Downtown Core South Houston Whiteside Houston Whiteside Houston Whiteside Houston Whiteside Houston Whiteside Houston Whiteside Downtown Core North Houston Whiteside Houston Whiteside Individually Listed Individually Listed Houston Whiteside Downtown Core South Downtown Core North Individually Listed Individually Listed Individually Listed Houston Whiteside Houston Whiteside Houston Whiteside Downtown Core South Houston Whiteside

619 E Sherman St

Houston Whiteside

Planning & Development Annual Report

Reviewing Entity Staff Staff Landmarks Commission Landmarks Commission Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Landmarks Commission

Project Reroof House HVAC Siding and Window Replacement, Interior Remodel New Addition Fire Escape Addition Fence Deck Wood Siding Replacement Kitchen and Bathroom Remodel Bathroom Remodel Porch Floor Replacement Reroof Building Porch Repair New Small Shed Wood Siding Replacement New Swimming Pool New Front Porch ADA Ramp New Wall Sign New Wall Sign New Pool Fence County Courthouse Reroof Reroof House Reroof House New Small Shed Porch Fascia and Soffit Repair Interior Remodel Garage Siding Replacement Window Replacement

City of Hutchinson

January 2018

Neighborhoods Work on the Healthy Neighborhoods Initiative continued in 2017, with active work done in the College Grove and SW Bricktown neighborhoods. For 2018, the initiative will move to two new areas: Farmington (where interviews have already commenced) and another neighborhood which has not yet been selected.

Program Name and Report

Sign Toppers

Sign toppers were installed in the SW Bricktown neighborhood in February of 2017.

In August 2017, artist Jocelyn Woodson began work on a mural that will help to identify the SW Bricktown neighborhood. The mural, which is located on the Avenue A underpass of the Woody Seat Freeway, will be completed this spring.

Mural (SW Bricktown)

Crosswalk & Sidewalk Painting (College Grove)

In partnership with Hutch Rec, the Department sponsored crosswalk and sidewalk painting in the College Grove neighborhood. The crosswalks were painted by neighborhood residents, while the sidewalks were painted by local students.

Planning & Development Annual Report