Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[03] Minutescrry ox hT ()%KPH MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Agenda Item 3► November 1, 2010 Minutes — September 13, 2010 Administration Approve Minutes of September 13, 2010 Request for Planning Commission Action ........ 3:1 -2 Draft Minutes ......................... ............................... 3:3 -9 REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Approve minutes of September 13, 2010 3:1 September 13, 2010 Page 1 of 7 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, September 13, 2010 at 7:OOPM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Commissioners Ross Rieke, Rick Schultz, Mike Deutz, Brian Orcutt, John Meyer, Dale Wick and City Administrator Judy Weyrens City Representatives Present: City Engineer Randy Sabart, City Attorney Tom Jovanovich Others Present: Brad Cobb, Brian Traut, Dean Virnig, Bryan Virnig, Joe Bechtold, Cory Ehlert, Brad Neugart Approval of the Agenda: Deutz made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Schultz and passed unanimously. Approval of the Minutes: Wick made a motion to approve the minutes of August 2, 2010; seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Public Hearing, Interim Use Permit, 329 4th Avenue SE: Kalinowski opened the Public Hearing. Weyrens stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider an Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental unit at 329 4th Avenue SE. The property is legally described as Lot 4, Block 2, Graceview Estates. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27 subd. 5 allows for an Interim Use Permit as follows: Residential rental provided the unit is owner occupied and provided the room(s) rented does not contain separate kitchen facilities and is not intended for use as an independent residence. For purposes of establishing if the property is owner occupied, the owner must be a natural person, and all owners must occupy the property as their principal residence. The owners may not exceed two in number. For purposes of determining ownership, the owner /owners must provide a copy of a recoded deed or recorded contract for deed. A purchase agreement will not be accepted as evidence of ownership. Brian Traut, 329 4th Avenue SE has submitted the request for Interim Use. Brad Cobb, 333 4th Avenue SE, approached the Commissioners to state his recommendation for approval of the Interim Use Permit. He stated that he lives 2 houses away from Traut and has known him for about five years. He is known as the "neighborhood handyman" and is a "good kid ". He feels that the Planning Commission should accept his request for Interim Use. He added that there are several people in Graceview Estates who may look into this option to rent their home due to the fact that they are unable to sell their homes. With the recent construction of the apartments in Graceview, Cobb stated that they are having a hard time finding a realtor who will give them a favorable response to selling their home. Brian Traut, 329 4th Avenue SE, was present, but stated he had no comment. Kalinowski closed the Public Hearing at 7:07PM. Deutz made a motion to authorize the Planning Commission Chair and Administrator to execute the Findings of Fact recommending the Council issue an Interim Use Permit to Brian Traut to operate an owner- occupied rental unit at 329 4th Avenue SE. The motion was seconded by Orcutt and passed unanimously. Interim Use Permit Renewal, Luke Birr — 212 Ash Street W: Weyrens stated that, at the previous meeting, the Commissioners reviewed the Interim Use Permits and there was one that had not completed the process. Since that time, Birr has completed the process for both 2009 and 2010 and will receive a certificate of occupancy once it has been approved by the Commission. Meyer made a motion to approve the renewal of the Interim Use Permit for Luke Birr, 212 Ash Street W. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. 3:3 September 13, 2010 Page 2 of 7 Public Hearing, Rivers Bend Plat 2: Kalinowski opened the Public Hearing. Weyrens stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the Planned Unit Development entitled Rivers Bend Plat 2 (Preliminary Plat) and rezoning the property from Agriculture to R4, Townhouse Patio Home. The proposed PUD will allow for the construction of twelve (12) single family homes. The request for Planned Unit Development has been submitted by Dean & Bryan Virnig, 17717 275th Avenue, Pierz, MN 56364. Weyrens stated that, originally, the Rivers Bend Plat was intended for 300+ homes. Shortly after the preliminary plat was approved, a portion of the property was sold to IDS 742 and a revised preliminary plat was approved. The development before the Commission at this time is consistent with the amended preliminary plat. At the time of preliminary plat, the property being discussed was guided for R4; however, the City did not have an ordinance at that time. With no one present wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Meyer commented on the City Engineer's comments which stated that there were a number of items missing. Sabart approached the Commissioners to address those comments. He stated that most of comments were fairly benign issues and he would anticipate that they would be resolved with the final plan submittal. One item that was addressed was the dedication of the Storm Water Pond, located between the subdivision and County Road 121, to the City. He questioned whether this will be platted as an outlot and maintained as a public pond or whether or not it will be maintained in a drainage and utility easement. He also addressed the plans for a sidewalk or trail to connect to the trail system. Weyrens advised the Commissioners that the City has not yet received the official written comments from Stearns County, but after speaking with Jeff Miller, there would be a requirement for some type of turn lane at County Road 121. She added that that would be an additional agreement with the County, above and beyond the City requirements. According to Sabart, some of the issues are long term planning issues and they are willing to work those out. There was some question about the location of Sewer and Water along County Road 121. He stated that the preliminary plans for the development consisted of some high density apartments and thus the developer must find the most economical way to provide service to those sites. Sabart concluded by stating that those issues are pending discussion with the developer. Meyer made a motion to recommend the Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Rivers Bend Plat 2, pending engineering concerns and contingent upon the Final Plat not being approved without a Developer Agreement on file. The motion was seconded by Deutz. Discussion: Cory Ehlert approached the Commission on behalf of the developer. Weyrens questioned whether or not they plan to construct a sidewalk or trail to which Ehlert said the original plan did not show a plan for sidewalks. He suggested that a trail be constructed at grade and maintained by the City. Due to the wetland setbacks, Ehlert added that all of the lots will be a minimum of 80' wide. As a result, they do not see a need for sidewalks. They feel that a walking path or bike path would be acceptable. Wick added that the original plan did not include a trail in that area. Deutz commented that he thinks some effort should be put into constructing either a sidewalk or walking path. Meyer agreed and stated that a minimum 4' delineated space should be constructed as a walking path. Ehlert responded that they have no problem providing access to the trail along County Road 121. According to Sabart, generally when trails are constructed at grade, they are striped as a shoulder. Deutz questioned whether or not they plan to allow for parking on both sides. Sabart responded that they require a minimum 6' shoulder for parking. He advised the Commissioners and the Developer that one option would be to stripe the road and put up no parking signs. Rieke questioned the possibility of laying stamped concrete for the trail area. Sabart replied that stamped concrete tends to wear during maintenance and is generally not worth the cost. Striping would be the most economical choice. Schultz questioned what is required by Ordinance. Weyrens replied that he developer must provide a link to link to the trail. Schultz questioned the requirements of the Master Park Plan. On behalf of the developer, Ehlert stated that they want to provide a safe access to the trail system. Schultz stated that in his opinion, parks and trails are a good selling point. Ehlert suggested that they allow no parking on the south side of the street as there are only 4 homes to be impacted with no off - street parking. The motion passed unanimously 3:4 September 13, 2010 Page 3 of 7 Deutz made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning from AG to R4 Rezoning. The motion was seconded by Orcutt and passed unanimously. Public Hearin-g, Ordinance Amendments: Kalinowski opened the Public Hearing. Weyrens stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider amendments to the City of St. Joseph Zoning Ordinance: • Ordinance 52.06 Building Permits Required • Ordinance 52.10 Parking • Ordinance 52.12 General Performance Standards • Ordinance 52.21 Transportation Corridor Overlay • Ordinance 52.22 Outdoor Dining • Ordinance 52.31 61 - Central Business District • Ordinance 52.32 B2 - Highway Business • Ordinance 52.33 B3 - General Business • Ordinance 52.34 LI - Light Industrial • Ordinance 52.35 Educational and Ecclesiastical • Ordinance 58 Telecommunications Weyrens stated that, since the last meeting, all of the business districts were amended to include the provision to relieve the requirement for site plan approval by the Planning Commission if plans are consistent with Zoning District. Ordinance 52.06 - Building Permits Required: This amendment clarifies that building permits are required for all work in the City to include shingling, siding and window replacement. Meyer made a motion to approve the amendment to Ordinance 52.06. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Ordinance 52.10 — Parking: This amendment includes provisions for shared parking spaces, delineating parking and requirements; provide relief from curbing in 131 Zoning Districts. Meyer suggested the following changes /corrections: 52.10 -6 (g) ... as may be amended, may be exempted from perimeter..." 52.10 -8 (f) Meyer stated that the following "... Parking pads shall not occupy a viewing triangle measuring twenty -five (25) feet from the curb intersect at intersections of two or more public streets." conflicts with Ordinance 52.12 Subd. 10 (a)(1)(B)(iv) which states "...If stored on a corner lot they are not closer than twenty feet from the property line abutting side street. ". The Commissioners asked Sabart for clarification on this provision. Sabart replied that there is no standard, but he would prefer that the Ordinance refer to a distance from the property line rather than the curb. Meyer made a motion to approve the amendment to Ordinance 52.10 with the following change: Subd. 6(t) "...Parking pads shall not occupy a viewing triangle measuring not closer than twenty feet from the property line abutting a side street." The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Ordinance 52.12 — General Performance Standards: This amendment adds a fence provision for Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts; removing duplicate language regarding parking which is referred to in Ordinance 84 and Junk Cars. Schultz made a motion to approve the amendment to Ordinance 52.12. The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. 3:5 September 13, 2010 Page 4 of 7 Ordinance 52.21 — Transportation Corridor Overlay: This amendment clarifies the Corridor more specifically, provides for exemptions for already developed property, changes the setback requirement and removed the fence provisions. Deutz questioned how the Corridor is defined. He understood that the CSAH75 Corridor was changed from 300' to 1 00' from the nearest edge of the CSAH75 right of way. Wick responded and stated that Subd. 3(13) was added instead. According to Weyrens, Subd. 6(a) gives the Planning Commission some discretion as whether or not to allow parking in the front. Deutz stated that he is still concerned about the amendments to this Ordinance and would like further clarification. Wick made a motion to table the amendment to Ordinance 52.21. The motion was seconded by Meyer and passed unanimously. Ordinance 52.22 — Outdoor Dining: This is a new Ordinance that was created to govern outdoor dining. Schultz made a motion to approve the addition of Ordinance 52.22. The motion was seconded by Wick. Discussion: Meyer questioned Subd. 4 which states "...a minimum of five (5) feet of sidewalk width remains for pedestrians... ". He stated that that statement is contradictory to Subd. 4(a) which states that "Sidewalk caf6s shall be limited to ... on portions of private property immediately adjacent... ". It is also confusing as Subd. 4(c) states that "Maintenance of all private facilities on public property shall be the owner's responsibility ". He stated that those three sentences need to be clarified. According to Schultz, the goal is to leave a path for pedestrians to walk through. Jovanovich suggested that Subd. 4(a) be amended to state "sidewalks immediately adjacent" rather than "private property immediately adjacent ". The motion passed unanimously. Ordinance 52.31— B1 Central Business District: This Ordinance was amended to relieve the requirement for site plan approval by the Planning Commission if plans are consistent with Zoning District. Meyer made a motion to approve the amendment to Ordinance 52.31. The motion was seconded by Deutz. Discussion: Schultz questioned the use of Zoning Administrator vs. City Administrator within the zoning ordinances. Weyrens stated that she acts as the zoning administrator and it is referred to as zoning administrator rather than City Administrator because, at some point, there will be a zoning administrator for the City. The motion passed unanimously Ordinance 52.32 — B2 Highway Business: This Ordinance was amended to create a provision for seasonal /outdoor markets through issuance of an Interim Use Permit, relieves the requirement for site plan approval by the Planning Commission if plans are consistent with Zoning District. Orcutt made a motion to approve the amendment to Ordinance 52.32. The motion was seconded by Deutz. Discussion: Meyer suggested that Subd. 6(b)(2) be amended to state that "the size of a temporary building shall not exceed 120 square feet per vendor. ". Meyer and Jovanovich noted minor grammatical corrections within the Ordinance. Meyer stated his concern about the language in Subd. 6(b)(1) with respect to the phrase "shall be allowed ". Weyrens suggested that it be amended to read that "Residential units in areas that have been rezoned to commercial from residential shall be allowed and Interim Use Permit as a transitional use until the adjoining property is ready to transition. ". Wick stated that he would like the word "shall" changed to "may". Weyrens suggested "may be eligible ". The motion passed unanimously. 3:6 September 13, 2010 Page 5 of 7 Ordinance 52.33 — B3 General Business: This Ordinance was amended to relieve the requirement for site plan approval by the Planning Commission if plans are consistent with Zoning District. Wick made a motion to approve the amendment to Ordinance 52.33 with the same changes to Subd. 13(a) relating to Interim Use Permit for Rental Units as made to Ordinance 52.32. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Ordinance 52.34 — LI Industrial. This Ordinance was amended to relieve the requirement for site plan approval by the Planning Commission if plans are consistent with Zoning District. Orcutt made a motion to approve the amendment to Ordinance 52.34. The motion was seconded by Schultz and passed unanimously. Ordinance 52.35 — Educational and Ecclesiastical. This Ordinance was amended to include provisions for parking regulations. Meyer made a motion to approve the amendment to Ordinance 52.35. The motion was seconded by Orcutt and passed unanimously. Ordinance 58 — Telecommunications: This Ordinance was amended to update the title to include antennas and include antennas in provisions referencing towers. Schultz made a motion to approve the amendment to Ordinance 58. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Ordinance 84 — General Parking: Weyrens advised the Commissioners that a lot of the items that were deleted from this Ordinance were included in Ordinance 52.12. Deutz made a motion to approve the amendment to Ordinance 84. The motion was seconded by Schultz and passed unanimously. Deutz made a motion to close the Public Hearing; seconded by Schultz and passed unanimously. Chickens in R1 Zoning Districts: Weyrens reported that she spent some time gathering information and speaking with other zoning administrators regarding chickens in residential zoning districts. She provided the Commissioners with copies of several different models of ordinances relating to such. Some of them are strict and some vague, but there are some things that are consistent, such as: • Limit the number of chickens • Roosters are prohibited • Fencing is required • Restrictions on coop sizes and building specifications • Minimum setback from adjoining property owner • Licenses It seems as though either people want them or they don't. Recently, St. Cloud went through this process and, in the end, it was denied. There are a number of cities that do not allow chickens. She questioned the Commissioners as to whether or not they want staff to draft an ordinance to allow chickens in residential zoning districts. Staff is looking for clear direction and the Council should be notified if the Planning Commission wants to move this forward. The commissioners spent time discussing the idea of allowing chickens in residential areas. Rieke stated that he believes that a permitting process should be part of the process and there should be a fee based permit as well. He suggested that it be a similar process to an Interim Use in that it will cause it to come to the forefront on an annual basis. Schultz questioned whether the City is looking to inspect the coops and verify setbacks to which Weyrens stated that some cities do not do that due to staffing issues. If this is handled through an Interim Use process, Orcutt questioned if a signature would be required annually to 3:7 September 13, 2010 Page 6 of 7 which Jovanovich stated that the City can require that it be brought back annually. He added that he would not recommend having something contingent upon neighborhood compliance as other issues may arise. For example, two properties may have the same coop, but one may have more complaints due to maintenance and care. There was some discussion about the issuance of dog licenses and how this would be similar to that. Meyer expressed his disagreement with the use of the Interim Use process. Rieke stated that the Interim Use process allows some latitude for government to intervene if there are complaints and there would be a justifiable mechanism to withhold a permit. Deutz stated that there would need to be a matrix put in place for such complaints. Schultz added that perhaps a matrix needs to be written for use with all Interim Use Permits. Jovanovich re- stated that it would not be a good idea to approach this with approval based on neighborhood consent. Rieke stated that staff has reviewed some of the toughest ordinances and some of the strictest ordinances and he would recommend that the City come in at 70 %. He would like to see some good, solid ways to manage this. Several of the commissioners expressed their desire to move ahead with this Ordinance. Wick stated that it would be best to recommend to the Council that funds be expended for legal fees to look at a possible ordinance to allow chickens in the residential zoning district. Weyrens advised the Commissioners that the animal ordinance would need to be amended as well. Schultz made a motion recommending that the Council expend dollars to draft a possible ordinance allowing chickens in the residential zoning district. The motion was seconded by Deutz. Discussion: Jovanovich advised the Commissioners that staff will most likely draft a few different options for the Commissioners to look at. The motion passed unanimously. Request for Parking Relief: Weyrens advised the Commissioners that Teli's is looking to lease their second office space. The Ordinance; however, identifies parking requirements and they do not have enough parking on site. Therefore, they are requesting relief from strict parking regulations. Brad Neugart, 1409 3'd Street N, Cold Spring, approached the Commissioners on behalf of Telis, located at 14 College Avenue N. He stated that it is amazing that there is someone who is interested in leasing some space from them. The interested persons are looking to open a nutrition club. As indicated, there are three owners and there will be no additional employees. The proposed tenants have said that there will most likely be only one person on staff at a given time, sometimes two. He questioned Weyrens as to the total number of spaces required to which Weyrens stated they would need four spaces in addition to the two employees for a total of six. Neugart is proposing to find two spaces, use two angled spaces from an adjacent lot and then request relief for the other two required spaces. Kalinowski stated that this seems to be a perpetual problem. Neugart agreed, but stated he is excited to have a possible tenant. Meyer made a motion to grant relief of the two parking spaces contingent upon finding two spots at an adjoining property. The motion was seconded by Orcutt. Discussion: It was stated that the hours of operation are 7:30 -5, so off street parking should not be a problem. The motion passed unanimously. Update on the Orderly Annexation Process: Weyrens stated that, a while back, the Cities of St. Joseph and Waite Park, along with the St. Joseph Township met with a desire to create one process for land use within the Orderly Annexation areas. At the same time that the Planning Commissions were working on the Orderly Annexation Agreement, the City of Waite Park, Stearns County and St. Joseph Township were working on developing a Memorandum of Understanding for developers to follow. The two cities have drafted new documents that are agreeable to the St. Joseph Township and their attorney. This would result in a new Joint Planning Board that would be the final zoning authority for the Orderly Annexation area. The board would consist of four representatives from each City, four from the Township and one County Commissioner. This process does require a public hearing which has been set for October 4, 2010 at 8:00 PM at the Stearns County Administration Center, Room 121. 3:8 September 13, 2010 Page 7 of 7 Weyrens also advised the Commissioners that Stearns County finalized the Urban Expansion Area. A copy of that has been distributed to them for informational purposes. Weyrens questioned whether the Commissioners wanted to discuss this prior to the hearing. She stated that the Council will be seeing this final draft this week as well. Deutz stated that this is a step in the right direction and he would rather get comments at the hearing and have any necessary changes made at that time. Weyrens stated that it is the intent to have a decision made by each body following the hearing, if there are no changes needed. Adjourn: Kalinowski stated that the meeting was adjourned by consensus. Judy Weyrens Administrator 3:9 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3:10