Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 [12] Dec 06December 6, 2004 Page 1 of 6 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, December 6, 2004 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair (Council Liaison) Gary Utsch. Commissioners: Mike Deutz, Sister Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Jim Graeve, Bob Loso, Kurt Schneider, Mike Deutz. City Representatives Present: Building Official Ron Wasmund, City Attorney Tom Jovanovich, City Engineer Tracy Ekola Others Present: Bill Durrwachter, Herman Gangl Approve Agenda: Lesnick made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Minutes: Kalinowski made a motion to approve the minutes of November 8, 2004; seconded by Loso and passed unanimously. Public Hearing -Amendment to Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Utsch called the Public Hearing to order at 7:00 PM stating the purpose is to consider amendment or adoption of the following Zoning Ordinances: 1. Business Sign Regulations -This amendment limits the height of a business sign to 15 feet, limits the maximum size of the base/structure holding the face of the sign and requires landscaping around the base of the sign. This amendment affects the following Ordinances: 52.11 subd. 5; 52.30 subd. 9(a); 52.31 subd. 10 (b); 52.32 subd. 11 (b); 52.33 subd. 11 (c). Industrial Zoning Regulations -This amendment clarifies the Building Exterior requirements of 52.33 subd 9 (c), excluding windows and doors in the calculation of adornment. R-4 Zoning District -Creation of a Townhouse /Patio Home Zoning District, Ordinance 52.36. 4. Surface Water Development Fee: This amendment clarifies the method for calculating the Storm Water Development fee, Ordinance 52.18. 5. Development Design Standards: This amendment clarifies the design standards for holding ponds and clarifies the required right-of-way designations. The amendment affects Ordinance 54.16. No one present wished to speak the hearing was closed at 7:05 PM. Utsch recommended the Planning Commission consider each amendment separately with separate actions. Business Sign Regulations -This amendment limits the height of a business sign to 15 feet and limits the maximum size of the base/structure holding the face of the sign and requires landscaping around the base of the sign. This amendment affects the following Ordinances: 52.11 subd. 5; 52.30 subd. 9(a); 52.31 subd. 10(b); 52.32 subd. 11(b); 52.33 subd. 11(c). Utsch stated that the Planning Commission needs to determine an acceptable percentage for the maximum size of the sign base, and recommended the Planning Commission considering 25%. Utsch also recommended that the Ordinance be amended to include a section entitled Definitions, whereby each type of sign can be described. Loso requested that if the City is intending to limit the maximum size, a minimum should be included as well. December 6, 2004 Page 2 of 6 Building Official Ron Wasmond clarified that the all signs, excluding wall mount, require some type of base to hold the structure and the base must include a frost free foundations. The intent of the Ordinance Amendment is to assure that the base and the sign are proportionate. Further, the face of the sign should be the prominent feature of the sign and the base should be solely for support. When determining the minimum size of the sign base, engineering calculations are preformed to assure the sign can accommodate weather conditions. Loso questioned if a scientific formula is used for such calculations or if it is arbitrary. Wasmond responded that an engineering calculation is utilized. Graeve stated that it is his understanding that all signs must also meet the requirements of the Building Code. Wasmond concurred with Graeve and stated that it is important to establish a maximum sign base to prevent signs from appearing disproportionate. Using a maximum of 25%, the base could be constructed with brick columns with the height be controlled by the maximum size allowed for the base. Planning Commissioners questioned the definition of a sign base. Wasmond defined the base as the support of the sign or the footprint of each column that supports the sign. The Commissioners agreed that the Ordinance must include the definition for a sign base and sign types. Loso made a motion to recommend the Council amend the Sign Ordinances references stated above to limit the maximum size of a sign base to 25% of the face of the sign and to limit the maximum height of a Business Sign 15-feet. The motion was seconded by Kalinowski. Discussion: Currently, the Ordinance does not specify a maximum height. However, it was the original intent of the Ordinance to limit the height at 15-feet for Business Signs. Deutz stated that there are different heights needed in the City. Schneider agreed and stated that in the Industrial, they need to be allowed larger signs due to their buildings being larger. Schneider also stated that it is not possible to landscape around every sign base. Lesnick stated that most signs currently have some sort of landscaping. Deutz questioned what would happen if the required landscaping around the base creates the business to lose required parking space(s). For example, Taco Johns and Subway do not have landscaping around their signs and there is not enough room for landscaping. Wasmund agreed and stated that it would be better to first define each type of sign and then relate that to each business district as not all of them are being discussed at this time. Ayes: Loso, Deutz Nayes: Schneider, Kalinowski, Graeve, Lesnick Motion Failed 2:4 Graeve made a motion to table this until a later time when definitions will be available for discussion purposes. This motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. Industrial Zoning Regulations -This amendment clarifies the Building Exterior requirements of 52.33 subd. 9 (c), excluding windows and doors in the calculation of adornment. Utsch stated that the Ordinance Amendment mirrors the language in the B2 and 63 Zoning District and requested that the Planning Commission accept the amendment. Kalinowski spoke in support of the amendment and agreed that windows and doors should be excluded. Schnieder stated that allowing windows and doors to be included in the exterior requirement could result in the same being the only exterior adornment. Wasmund stated that there needs to be some clarification for the current Ordinance. Currently, the Ordinance makes reference to glass as a decorative finish. Therefore, he stated that he can see the architectural point of view of using all glass. The question is whether windows are considered to be the same as glass. Utsch clarified that the amendment only relates to Industrial Zoned property as the provision is already included in the Commercial Zoning Districts. December 6, 2004 Page 3 of 6 Deutz questioned how the City is going to compromise with buildings such as the one submitted for Lemmer Trucking. The building is long and narrow with most of the building having overhead doors. Utsch stated that there are always going to be unique cases and those will have to be dealt with at that time. Deutz made a motion recommending the Council adopt the Ordinance amendment to exclude windows and doors from the exterior requirement, and excluding the sentence stating "Pre-cast or cast in place concrete buildings shall provide as much adornment as is possible considering their exterior finish limitations". The motion was seconded by Graeve and passed unanimously. R-4 Zoning District - Utsch stated the Planning Commission has requested staff to draft a proposed R4 Zoning District to allow for Townhome/Patio Home development. While he supports the concept of the Amendment, he expressed concern allowing single family homes as a permitted use with only a 50" setback. Currently the City Ordinance requires all single family homes to have a lot frontage of 75' and it is his opinion that if we allow for detached single family homes, developers will try and develop residential neighborhoods and the R4 Zoning District. Deutz was of the understanding that the R4 Zoning district would be only include attached single-family homes. Utsch questioned if there is a requirement that the R4 District must include both detached and attached or if they could remove the detached single-family provision. Wasmond stated that he is not aware of any requirement to include both detached and attached and concurred with the comments of Utsch and Deutz. Loso questioned the reason for the Ordinance, as it is similar to the R2 Zoning District. Wasmund stated that this Ordinance is very similar to R2 and R3; however, this Ordinance allows a maximum of 8 units in one building creating a higher density. Jovanovich stated that the Planning Commission might wish to consider requiring R4 to have mixed density so that pockets of high density are not created. Graeve also had some problems with the way this Ordinance was written. He stated that many parts are contradictory. For example: Subd. 5 (g) The minimum lot area per townhouse, group, or row house unit shall be four thousand square feet (4,000 sq. ft) Graeve questioned if an structure could be constructed in such an area. He also questioned the following subdivisions: Subd. 5 (h) The net housing density within the district is six (6) units per acre of net buildable area of the subdivision. Net buildable area shall be the total area less public street right-of-way, wetlands, drainage ways, water bodies and slopes greater than twelve (12) percent. Subd. 9 Site Coverage. No structure or combination of structures shall occupy more than 50% of the lot area. Deutz made a motion to table Ordinance 52.30 until this has been reviewed and back with better definitions and the intent is stated more clearly. This motion was seconded by Kalinowski and passed unanimously. Development Design Standards -City Engineer Tracy Ekola stated that she and Joe Bettendorf have reviewed the design standards in Ordinance 54.16 and are requesting that the Planning Commission update the standards based on Mndot Statistics and APO requirements. Ekola presented the following changes: 54.16 subd 3 (j) Right-of-Way Urban Design. The following minimum right of way, curb-to- curb paved width, horizontal radii and design strength shall be observed for streets accommodating two- way traffic. The following sentence should be added: Additional right-of-way maybe required and functional classification shall be determined by City Engineer or other road authority. Street R/W Paved Width December 6, 2004 Page 4 of 6 Minor Arterial Replace 80' with 120 ft. Replace 44' with Design Major Collector Replace 80' with 100 ft. Replace 44' with Design There is no minimum width set because the City may deviate from that depending on the design of the road and whether the road is considered a neighborhood residential street or local residential street. Rural Design Standards. Rural design streets shall meet the minimum standards for urban design. These standards may be increased as necessary to accommodate a higher design speed, ditch sections, and drainage facilities. The following sentence should be added: Additional right-of-way maybe required and functional classification shall be determined by City Engineer or other road authority. Street R/W Paved Width Principal Arterial Design (Removed "Special) Design Minor Arterial Replace 100' with 150 ft. Replace 44' with Design Major Collector (New) 120 ft. 44 ft. Ekola stated that if a developer plats a subdivision, they would be required to construct curb and gutter; therefore the paved with could be deleted and be based upon design. Deutz requested that the paved with remain in the Ordinance as future annexations could create the need for the provision. Schneider questioned Ekola as to why there are no longer ditches. Ekola stated that ditch construction requires more right-of-way and drainage issues are typically not resolved. Ordinance 54.16 Subd. 3(q) should be replaced with the following: Drainage Facilities. Storm sewers, culverts and ditches shall be designed to accommodate aten-year storm. The previous Ordinance required drainage facilities to accommodate of five year storm. Ordinance 54.16 Subd. 3 (r) should be replaced with the following: Surtace (Storm) Water Management Facilities. Surface water management facilities constructed in the City of St. Joseph shall be designed according to standards approved by the City Engineer and provided in the City's Stormwater Management Plan. Deutz questioned holding ponds in the City. He stated it is his understanding that the City has allowed holding ponds to be constructed on individual properties, not owned by the City and the City is now considering regional ponding. Deutz questioned Ekola if his understanding is correct. Ekola stated that the City currently has a mix of private and City holding ponds. The City prefers holding ponds to be located on separate platted outlots. The City has also completed a Storm Water Management Plan which utilizes regional holding ponds. Ordinance 54.16 Subd. 3 (u) should be replaced with the following: Restriction of Access. Access onto arterial or collector streets shall be approved by the City Engineer. Ordinance 54.16 Subd. 3(w) should be replaced with the following: Street Name Designation. Streets shall be designated pursuant to established City standards in compliance with these standards and as approved by the City Council. (See Ordinance 31) Ordinance 54.16 subd 5 should be replaced with the following: Drainage & Utility Easements. Drainage and utility easements for telephone, gas, electric power, cable television, and related utilities shall be provided at al! times. Easements along side and rear lot lines shall be at least twenty (20) feet wide and shall be centered on the lot lines; where the side or rear lot lines abut the edge of the plat, half of the easement, or ten (10)feet shall be provided, with the additional ten (10) feet projected to come from future development of the adjacent land, unless the City determines that the entire twenty (20) foot easement must be provided on the current plat. Additional utility easements ten (10) feet wide shall be provided adjacent to street right-of-way. December 6, 2004 Page 5 of 6 Ordinance 54.17 Subd. 7 should be amended to establish a street lighting standard as currently their is not a minimum required. Ekola recommended to replace Ordinance 54.17 Subd. 7 with the following: Street Lighting Standard: The developer is required to provide street lighting to the boundaries of the subdivision. This would provide some consistency throughout the subdivisions. Ordinance 54.16 Subd 3 should be amended to include the following language: Sidewalks shall be required on collector and minor arterial streets. Sidewalk may also be required on neighborhood residential streets as directed by the City. Deutz made a motion to accept the changes as presented by Ekola and recommend the Council amend Ordinance 54 as presented. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. Surface Water Development Fee - Utsch stated that the Planning Commission is being requested to clarify the term "net developable property" in Ordinance 52.18, Storm Water Development Fee. Wasmund stated that this type of fee was adopted over a year ago and that the purpose of this amendment is to clarify how the fee is determined and to define Net Developable Property. Deutz questioned whether this fee is part of the NPDES Permit fee to which Ekola stated it is not. The fee is to maintain and enhance the existing storm water infrastructure. Wasmund added that this is not a new fee and it has been implemented for over one year. The Ordinance does allow a developer credit for improvements to the existing system and allows for cost sharing if a pond serves joint developments. Ekola clarified that the City is not requesting to implement a new fee, rather clarify the language of an existing fee. For clarification, the Planning Commission requested the last sentence read as follows: The City, in its sole discretion, may allow the applicant to offset the storm water fee the cost of construction or maintenance of community surface (storm) water management facilities designed to serve the multiple land disturbing and development activities that the developer paid for. Kalinowski made a motion to recommend the Council adopt the Amendment to Ordinance 52.18 Subd. 18 as corrected; seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Since the Commission considered numerous amendments at this meeting, Utsch summarized the actions as follows: Business Sign Amendment -Tabled for clarification on the following: definition of the base of a sign; definitions for types of signs; and further discussion as to whether or not landscaping should be required around the base of a sign. Industrial Zoning District -Ordinance 52.33 Subd. 9 (c) -Amendment approved excluding glass and doors from the exterior requirement. It was further clarified that pre case concrete buildings must adhere to the same exterior requirements. R-4 Zoning District -Tabled for revision. Revisions include: review of density, definitions, removal of single family homes as a permitted use, and lot coverage requirements. Ordinance 54.16 -Subdivision Standards -Approved all recommendations of the City Engineer Surface Water Development Fee -Approved with clarification OTHER MATTERS December 6, 2004 Page 6 of 6 Pond Liability: Herman Gangl, a resident on 7t" Avenue SE approached the Commissioners and questioned who is liable for any accidents that may happen in one of the City holding ponds. For example, there is a pond across the street from his residence. If a child were to be playing in the pond and he/she would drown, who would be responsible and liable? Jovanovich stated that he is unsure as to the answer to the question. However, if the City were to be sued for this type of accident he stated that they would be protected by sovereign immunity.. To answer the question fully additional research would be required. Gangl stated he is questioning liability as he was considering installing a pool in his backyard and he was informed of the liability he would assume with such. If liability is attached to the homeowner, they should be made aware of such before purchasing property. Ekola stated that based on the design requirements for ponds, most ponds are dry with little water at the basin. The ponds are formed with very gradual slopes and it is her opinion that a child would need to purposefully be swimming in the pond to have an accident occur. Overall, the ponds are 8' deep with very gradual slopes. Graceview-Street Layout: Pat Gangl approached the Commissioners requesting reconsideration of a future street in the Graceview Subdivision. Gangl stated that the next phase of development will include a road that will result in headlights shining in her house. It is her opinion that the developer can move the road to align with the either pale or Callaway Street, avoiding light pollution in her house. Gangl stated that she made a similar request in January of 2004 and she has not seen resolution. Utsch stated that the City has previously approved the plat entitled Graceview Estates and does not have any authority to require a change in the plat. However, Utsch stated that the Developer is considering replatting the section referred to by Gangl and if that does happen the City will have an opportunity to make changes. Part of the process for platting requires notification to the adjoining property owners within 350' of the area being platted. A public hearing will be conducted and residents will have an opportunity to be heard. Again, the City cannot force the developer to make changes on an approved plat. Gangl questioned why if nothing has been constructed, could the City not require the developer to change the location of the road. Jovanovich responded that while not all the improvements are constructed the City has approved the preliminary plat. Once a preliminary plat is approved, the developer is grnated rights to develop that plan. The City cannot arbitrarily make changes to a plat without approval from the developer and input of the property owners within 350' of the plat. Cloverdale Improvements: Gangl also stated some concerns she had regarding the proposed 2005 Street Improvement. Recently they met with the Engineer to discuss the improvements, and no one has responded to her concerns. Utsch stated that the Council approved the advertising of bids on Thursday, December 2, 2004. Ekola stated that she would meet with the Gangl's to discuss their questions again. Ad~iourn: Graeve made a motion to adjourn; seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. dy eyr ns Admi istrator