Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 [07] Jul 05July 5, 2005 Page 1 of 5 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, July 5, 2005 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Gary Utsch. Commissioners: Sister Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Jim Graeve, Bob Loso, Mike Deutz, AI Rassier. City Administrator Judy Weyrens. Others Present: City Engineer Tracy Ekola, Peter Lyle, Tony Rassier Approve Agenda: Loso made a motion to approve the agenda with the deletion of the minutes; seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. Public Hearing -Signature Homes Amendment to PUD - Libertv Point: Chair Utsch called the hearing to order and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider an amendment to the Planned Unit Development entitled Liberty Pointe. The property is legally described: Lots 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29, Block 1; Lots 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, Block 3; Lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 Block 4 Liberty Pointe. Rick Poplinski, Signature Homes, 102 2"d Street South, Suite 302, Waite Park MN 56387, has submitted the request for PUD Amendment. Weyrens stated that previously, the Planning Commission and City Council approved a PUD for Liberty Pointe, which allowed for a mixed housing development consisting of traditional homes, patio homes (attached and detached) and a future R3. The developer is having trouble marketing and selling the attached townhomes and is requesting to revise the PUD and create detached housing. They are not proposing to change the density. Peter Lyle, Senior VP of sales, spoke on behalf of Signature Homes. Lyle stated that Signature Homes has been unable to sell the attached Townhomes and is requesting the amendment to create individual housing units. Their being no one present wishing to speak the public hearing was closed at 7:05PM. Loso questioned the distance between several of the lots. Lyle stated that the setbacks will be further back than they were with the attached homes. Weyrens clarified that all lots will be required to be ten (10) feet apart. Lyle stated that the plans can be modified to accommodate the required setback. Rassier questioned whether or not the detached homes would affect the affordable housing that they were going to have with the attached housing styles. Lyle stated that these will be affordable homes. They plan to build slab on grade (patio homes) with a double garage on these lots. Aware of the fact that the developer had some outstanding financial obligations, Graeve questioned whether or not those have been taken care of. Weyrens stated that they will be taken care of before the amendment to the PUD is approved. Loso made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the PUD Amendment contingent upon the setbacks being changed and the satisfaction of the outstanding financial obligations. The motion was seconded by Kalinowski and passed unanimously. Special Meeting: Weyrens stated that she would like to schedule a joint Planning Commission/ City Council meeting to discuss the proposed River Bats stadium. The developer is ready to present a concept plan for review and consideration. The Developer has indicated that a project deadline of December 1, 2005 has been established. Weyrens stated that based on the submittals, it is possible to met their deadline. College of St. Benedict. Variance Reauest, Six-foot variance reauest on maximum curb cut: On June 2, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing for the consideration of a six foot variance on the maximum size of a curb cut in a R1 Single Family zoning district. While the hearing was closed, July 5, 2005 Page 2 of 5 the Planning Commission requested additional information on the rationale behind the limitation and if 24 feet was the right distance. Graeve questioned if the College of St. Benedict has shared the future plans for the remaining 60 acres of land adjacent to the Presidents Residence. Weyrens stated that the College has not shared future plans with the City but has indicated that the remaining 60 acres is their only land bank for future College expansion. Utsch stated that he does not see any reasons to allow the larger curb cut. Deutz questioned that since the driveway is only temporary do they really need a variance? Weyrens clarified that at this time there are no plans to construct Field Street and even a temporary use would require a variance. Utsch stated in his opinion the College has not provided a hardship and that is one of the requirements. Loso stated it is his understanding that many Cities do not limit the curb cut to 24'. Graeve stated it is his opinion that by zoning the property for the residence R1, the College was forced into this situation. Graeve further stated that it is his understanding that the residence is more than a single family residence. Graeve made a motion to recommend that the Council approve the Six Foot Variance request on the maximum curb cut in a R1 Zoning District and adopt the Findings attached as exhibit "A". The motion was seconded by Loso. Deutz stated that the College created this problem themselves. They should have planned to have a g- land road into the residence, rather than a driveway. Loso responded that they were forced into the R1 zoning and that they didn't have time to look at this ahead of time. Ayes: Graeve, Loso, Lesnick, Kalinowski Nays: Deutz, Utsch Abstain: Rassier Motion Passed 4:2:1 Discussion: Reaulation governing maximum curb cut it R1 Zoning District: Weyrens stated that In 2000, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance limiting all residential property to one curb cut that cannot exceed 24-feet in width, including the wings. Originally, the Ordinance was not clear so it was amended a year later to include the wings in the calculation of the maximum curb cut. Weyrens stated that in previous discussions the curb cut was limited to identify were cars would be turning. This is important in neighborhoods with children and adults bicycling or walking. It becomes a quality of life issue. In addition, if curb cuts are not limited it would have the potential of reducing off street parking and in areas with narrow lots this could become problematic. Weyrens questioned the commissioners as to whether or not they want to pursue an amendment to this part of the Ordinance. Deutz stated that there is no need to amend the Ordinance as he feels that 24' is big enough. Loso, on the other hand believes that the curb cut should be based on the size of the garage. He suggested that they keep the curb cut at 24' without wings. Deutz made a motion requesting the City Staff research curb cut regulations and present the information back to the Planning Commission for review and consideration. The motion was seconded by Loso. Ayes; Graeve, Loso, Lesnick, Deutz, Kalinowski Nays: Utsch, Rassier Motion Carried 5;2:0 River Bats: Rassier stated that at the last Chamber meeting they announced that August 1~" is St. Joe Night. Gateway Commons: Loso questioned the status of Gateway Commons. Utsch stated that he hasn't heard anything concrete as of yet. July 5, 2005 Page 3 of 5 295th Street: Rassier questioned the status of the construction on 295th Street. Ekola stated that they have roughly two weeks of subgrade corrections to do. Then they will be able to put down class 5. She stated that 7th Avenue is ready for tar. Discussion: Zoning Regulations in the Original Townsite of St. Joseph: Weyrens presented the Commission with a map illustrating the different lots sizes between 15 Avenue and 3`~ Avenue. Contrary to popular belief, the lots in the Original Townsite are not all small. In averaging the block sizes in the Original Townsite of St. Joseph the average square footage ranges from 9,000 square feet to over 12,000 square feet. Rassier however stated that he knew there were small lots in that area and he feels that there are some lots that can be split. Utsch stated that in regards to the Gohman lot split or subdivision request it cannot be granted without a hearing process and even if a hearing is conducted too many variances would be needed for all three structures he is considering. Utsch suggested that they tear down the existing building and build a new house. According to Rassier, the area should have smaller lots. Deutr stated that there are only 4 lots that can still be split and he doesn't feel that we should make changes for only 4 people. Loso stated that 7-8,000 sq. ft lots are too small. Rassier then stated that the lots that are smaller were most likely larger lots that were split. The commissioners came to a consensus not to move forward with an amendment for the zoning regulations in the Original Townsite of St. Joseph. Downtown Business District: Utsch brought this topic up for discussion. He stated that 20+ years ago, the area in the Downtown area was rezoned as business. According to Utsch, very few businesses actually moved in and the lots are too small for most businesses. He stated that he would like to get the input of the Downtown Committee as well as recommendations from both City Staff as well as the EDA. According to Utsch, the residents would like to see this as residential again. Utsch stated in his opinion over the past twenty years, the area identified as General Business has not converted to such and there are many residential homes in the 61 District. Loso disagreed with Utsch and stated that quite a few businesses have been established in this area. Deutr agreed with Loso. Utsch stated that it would be helpful to the residents in that area if the rebuild clause were removed from the Ordinance. Currently, if a house is destroyed by more than 50%, they cannot rebuild as a residence. Utsch also questioned whether or not this area is being looked at by the EDA. Rassier added that he feels that the area has improved vastly over the past 5 years and that it is headed in the right direction. Loso stated that there are many businesses that would like to move to that area, however they are unable to do so financially. Utsch stated that if a business were to move into that area, they would need to purchase 2-3 homes to have enough room for parking. Weyrens stated that the Downtown Committee will be looking at the entire downtown area. Graeve questioned the limits of the EDA and whether or not they only handle Industrial projects. Adiourn: Deutz made a motion to adjourn; seconded by Loso and passed unanimously. ~~L Ju We ens Ad inistrator ~~~~ "EXHIBIT A" July 5, 2005 Page 4 of 5 RESOLUTION OF FINDING The request of the College of St. Benedict for a six (6) foot variance on the maximum size of curb cut in an R1 Zoning District came before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing held on June 2, 2005. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a variance to allow a larger curb cut opening. The property is legally described as follows: Lot 1 Block 1 College Addition St. Joseph Ordinance 52.12 Subd. 4 i) states: Residential lots shall have no more than a single curb cut providing access to the lot. The curb cut shall not be more than 24 feet in width. In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 Subd 2 (a) f11 states: "That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. The exceptional or extraordinary circumstances must not be the result of actions taken by the petitioner. FINDING: The College of St. Benedict completed an application for a special use permit to construct an expanded Single Family dwelling unit. The request was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Therefore, since an expanded Single Family use was approved, it was acknowledged that the house would be more than a typical residence. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a) f21: "states that the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance". FINDING: The Special Use Permit secured by the College of St. Benedict is the only expanded Single Familv use in a R1 Zoning District. Therefore rights of other property owners are not being deprived. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd 2.(a) f31: "states that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands in the same district". FINDING: This property is operating under a special use, expanding the typical rights. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a) [4]: "states that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area, or in any other respect impair the public health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City". FINDING: To the contrary, not providing adequate ingress/egress to the property would be creating a hazard. July 5, 2005 Page 5 of 5 St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a) [5]: "states that the condition or situation of a specific piece of property, or the intended use of said property, for which the variance was sought, is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or a situation". FINDING: If another propertv owner reauested an expanded single family use it is likely the same provision would be needed. It is unlikely that a similar use will be reauested. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd 2 (a) I'61: "states that the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship on the particular FINDING: The~etitioner is only reauestinq the footage needed to provide fortwo- way traffic into the propertv. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a) I'71: "states that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the zoning ordinances or property within the same zoning classification. FINDING: Again, the Council already approved an expanded Single Family Use Therefore if the variance is detrimental to the zoning classification the use should not have been approved.