The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004 [11] Nov 08November 8, 2004 Page 1 of 3 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, November 8, 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. Administrator Judy Weyrens. Others Present: Building Official Ron Wasmund, Dave Puchalla, Brandon Kappes Approve Agenda: Loso made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. Minutes: Kalinowski made a motion to approve the minutes of October 4, 2004; seconded by Graeve and passed unanimously. Puchalla Development Plan: Weyrens presented the Planning Commission with a development plan from David Puchalla to construct a R3 facility on the property located at 32 - 2"d Avenue NW. She stated that the proposal before the Commission at this time is the third submittal. Puchalla is proposing to construct an apartment building containing two 4-bedroom units on the property abutting the ball field. The building will be two stories with one dwelling on each level and will be used for student rental. Currently, this area is zoned R3. Weyrens stated that if this were to move forward, the Planning Commission would need to grant 10 variances. The property owner is requesting to move forward with the current plan. As numerous variances are needed a public hearing would be required. Below is a summary of the Code compliance review and a detail of the required variances: REQUIREMENT Side Yard setback - 20' Parking - 22 required Parking setback -15' from residential uses Parking Screening -Parking must be screened from residential uses Parking Dimensions - 26' isle required Curb cut -minimum 5' from side property line Sign -must be setback 10' from property line Building Exterior -mixed exterior required Lot Coverage -must be 35% or less Lot Dimensions - 150 feet at building setback line - 80 feet at public right of way VARIANCE NEEDED 9' 11 spaces South - 10'2" North- 11'6" Nothing proposed at this time 2' 3" 10' North and South 12% 84' at building setback line 14' at public right of way Loso made a motion to recommend the Council deny the development plan of David Puchalla as currently submitted and allow the applicant to resubmit a revised plan that incorporates the requirements of the ordinances and eliminate the need for variances. The motion was seconded by Kalinowski. November 8, 2004 Page 2 of 3 DISCUSSION Puchalla approached the Planning Commission on his own behalf and stated that he does not feel that he is in non-compliance with the Ordinances. He further stated that the City has changed the Ordinance a number of times since he has purchased the property. Therefore, it is his opinion that the proposal before the Commission is not compliant only because the City keeps changing the Ordinance. He further stated that he owns a parcel of property that is zoned R3 and he is only asking to develop the lot as such. Puchalla stated that he is only requesting to construct two, four bedroom units with a maximum occupancy of 8. In reviewing the comments of the Building Official he makes reference to 16. Weyrens clarified that the comments of the Building Official relate to the number of required parking spaces. Puchalla stated that in determining the parking spaces the number of tenants was used and he has provided the required number of spaces. As a result, there would only be a need for 11 parking spaces rather than 22. Therefore he does not need a variance for parking. Utsch clarified that the Ordinance states that for determining required parking, bedrooms over 140 square feet are calculated as two bedroom units. In reviewing the plan before the Commission, all the bedrooms are over 140 square feet, therefore for parking purposes only, the proposed facility is 16 bedrooms requiring 22 parking spaces. Puchalla stated that he does not wish to reduce the size of the bedrooms. It is his opinion that students are accustomed to large bedrooms and if he does not construct what they want he will have a vacant building. Deutz disagreed with Puchalla and stated that it has been proven with the recent rental construction that students are willing to rent apartments with smaller bedrooms. They are only in the apartment for nine months of the year and it has been his experience that students prefer new facilities. Graeve questioned the bedroom sizes. He asked why the size of the bedroom affects the parking if the number of residents is controlled. Utsch stated that it is not possible to control the number of people in the units. Puchalla also questioned the lot standard variances that would be required. He stated that is lot is larger than the lot size required by ordinance. Wasmond clarified that while the parcel meets the minimum square footage, it does not meet the required width. Therefore the lot is substandard. Puchalla stated that he questioned if he could construct a single family home to which he was told no. He questioned what he should do with the property if he cannot construct an R3 facility? Loso stated that the lot may be larger than the required lot size, however the lot is not big enough for the size of the building that he is proposing. Wasmund stated that when the ordinances were written, it was not foreseen that an apartment building would be developed on a lot of that size. Due to the lot being substandard in width, the side yard setbacks cannot be met. As a result, Wasmund stated that his lot area does not comply with ordinance. Puchalla discussed the extension of utilities to his property. According to the City Engineer they need a hydrology report. Puchalla stated that he submitted that information and it should be complete. With regard to sanitary sewer, Puchalla stated the only option is to extend sewer from 2"d Avenue NW. In his opinion it is not feasible to construct the facility with a lift station. Wasmund stated that with the current elevation, running the sewer along 2"d Avenue NW would not be a possibility as there would not be enough flow. He also stated that the hydrology and drainage reports that they submitted were incomplete and the Engineer is requesting additional information. After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission agreed that the property owner has the ability to modify the plan so that he can construct a R3 facility without the need of multiple variances. Reducing the size of the bedrooms would also reduce the required parking. This reduction would also reduce the amount of lot coverage. Deutz stated that if the building were moved to the South another variance would be eliminated. Puchalla questioned why there was no work done on the drainage issue. Wasmund stated that the plans that he submitted were incomplete. Weyrens also mentioned that with the number of variances, it would not make any sense to spend money on engineering until the problems are corrected with the building plan. November 8, 2004 Page 3 of 3 Utsch stated that there are too many variances required to approve the plan as submitted. He suggested that Puchalla meet with the Building Official and go over his plan in detail to see what he could do to change his plan to meet current ordinances. The motion passed unanimously. Kappes -Interim Use Permit Extension: Weyrens stated that Brandon Kappes of 32 - 1St Avenue SE has completed the Interim Use process from 2003 and has passed the required rental inspection. Therefore, since the original process has been completed, the Planning Commission can consider extending the Interim use for the 2004-2005 license period. Weyrens clarified that Kappes is limited to one tenant until he resolves the parking issues. Loso questioned if the property has had any Ordinance violations to which Weyrens responded no. Utsch did question Kappes as to whether or not he has been renting without a rental license. Kappes stated that he is not renting at the present time. He does however, have friends over, but he is not renting. Loso made a motion to recommend the Council renew the Interim Use Permit of Brandon Kappes, 32 -18` Avenue SE. The Interim Use Permit allows for one tenant until additional parking is provided. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. Ordinance Amendments: Weyrens stated that the Ordinance Amendments were not ready for discussion purposes. However, they will be ready for the December meeting. They include amendments to: • R4 District • Sign Ordinance • Industrial District OTHER MATTERS Ordinance Clarification. Direction Sian: Wasmond questioned the Planning Commission as to the definition of a directional sign. In reviewing the Puchalla development plan it was questioned if the sign identifying the building was directional. The Planning Commission concurred that a directional sign shows were something is such as entrance, parking, etc. MeetinQS: Weyrens reported on the following upcoming meetings: • November 23, 2004 -Meeting with City, Township, and both Planning Commissions regarding the orderly annexation agreement. • December 20, 2004 - ARCON has submitted their final plans for review. There will be a special meeting to discuss their plans. Rentals in the Business District: Loso questioned the rentals in the business district and asked for clarification as to the intent of the Ordinance. Weyrens stated that in the central business district, the businesses can have a rental above the business. This district is the area East of 2"d Avenue NW to College Avenue from Minnesota to Birch. Weyrens stated that there are, however, no rentals allowed in the 62 Zoning District. Adjourn: Graeve made a motion to adjourn at 7:35 PM; seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimous) JuyWeres A mini rator