Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 [07] Jul 06July 6, 2010 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 6, 2010 at TOOPM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Sister Kathleen Kalinowski, Commissioners Ross Rieke, Rick Schultz, Mike Deutz, Brian Orcutt, John Meyer, Dale Wick and City Administrator Judy Weyrens Others Present: Thomas Borresch Approval of the Agenda: Orcutt made a motion to approve the agenda with the following addition: After 3 Oath of Office — Rick Schultz The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. Minutes: Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes of June 7, 2010 with minor corrections as noted by Kalinowski. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Oath of Office: Weyrens administered the Oath of Office to Commissioner Rick Schultz. Tom Borresch — Interim Use Permit: Weyrens stated that the Planning Commission previously conducted a public hearing to issue an Interim Use Permit to allow for outdoor sales of accessory buildings at 8850 Ridgewood Road. At the time of the hearing it was noticed that the aforementioned property and the property he owns at 9 -17th Avenue SE are not in compliance with Ordinance provisions and requested Borresch work with the City staff to outline the non compliant issues and formulate a plan to correct the matters. Weyrens stated that the Public Works Director, Terry Thene, and City Engineer, Randy Sabart, have been working with Borresch to come up with a plan to bring the property into compliance. Since the last meeting, they have taken care of the issues with the accessory buildings and the railroad right -of -way. The buildings have been moved beyond the front setback line and they have submitted plans for paving, drainage and curbing. Weyrens stated that there have been significant improvements since the public hearing. Tom Borresch, 9 17"' Avenue SE, approached the Commissioners. He stated that there are two parcels in question. With regard to the property at 8850 Ridgewood Road, the rail right -of -way that was disturbed with a building and debris has been restored with the building being removed. He stated that they have contracted to have some seal coating and striping done over the next couple of weeks. He added that the landscaping is complete as well. Weyrens asked the Commissioners the following questions: • Should they be required to pave under the accessory buildings? • Should the number of units be limited? • What is the timeframe for compliance? She advised them that, due to the fact that this is an Interim Use Permit, they can place more regulations on the property. Wick clarified that the original request was for seven buildings. Borresch stated that he sees no reason to require paving under the accessory buildings. He advised the Commissioners that they also manufacture the sheds and, as a result, they are not going anywhere. Borresch added that those are the bulk of their business. Deutz questioned why they are having the parking area seal coated. Borresch advised him that the City wanted the parking lot striped for handicapped parking and he would like to seal coat the area prior to striping. Deutz then questioned Weyrens as to why pavement would be required under the buildings to which Weyrens replied that it is up for discussion as to how the Commissioners interpret the Ordinance. She stated that the City requires parking lots to be paved. Weyrens added that the biggest concern was to have the buildings located behind the front yard setback line, which has been completed. Deutz July 6, 2010 Page 2 of 5 questioned Borresch as to whether or not they have plans to have more than seven units on the property. Borresch responded that they have no plans for such. Meyer made a motion to approve the Interim Use Permit contingent upon the blacktop area being seal coated and striped as well as adopt the findings of fact granting the Interim Use Permit for a two year period. The motion was seconded by Deutz. Discussion: Borresch questioned whether or not the permit can be extended for more than two years. Schultz questioned whether the property is inspected annually. Weyrens explained that it should be brought back in two years to check compliance and, at that time, it can be extended. . Borresch stated that he would like to try and avoid anymore updates that may come up. Deutz stated that the approval of seven spots is fine; however, he would like to give him a little leeway for a few more spots as there may be a possibility of him needing that in the future. He stated that he doesn't want to have Borresch come back in a few months asking for more spots. Borresch stated that the only other type of structure that he would consider storing on that property would be an icehouse. Wick advised him that the application did not include a request to store that type of structure. Amendment: Meyer amended his motion to include the display area to encompass the entire concrete paid in front of the sheds at this time. Deutz accepted the amendment. Final Motion: Accept the findings of fact to allow for the sale of accessory buildings for an area not to exceed the currently length of the existing sidewalk/cement pad. The Interim Use Permit is valid for two years and is eligible for an additional two year term at that time. The motion passed unanimously. Weyrens stated that Borresch has a second property which has /had compliance issues. Borresh was issued a Special Use Permit to allow for the sale of trailers at 9 —17th Avenue SE. At the time the Special Use Permit was issued, Borresch had indicated that the trailer sales would be temporary as he planned to move the trailers to the other site once improvements were completed. Therefore, the Planning Commission at that time issued a conditional Special Use Permit that required Borresch to meet the parking lot requirements after two years if the use was to continue. Weyrens stated that the timeframe has since lapsed and the improvements have not been completed. There is a plan included in the packet which identifies the parking areas currently used for the outdoor sales. There was some discussion about the possibility of extending the curbing to their property along with the 16th Avenue SE Improvements. The parking lot which is parallel to 16th Avenue runs very close to the residential area and should not run the entire length. The Special Use Permit was issued to allow for the sale of trailers. Weyrens stated that staff is looking to see if the Planning Commission feels that this brings the property into compliance and, if so, whether or not the sales can continue. Borresch added that he would still like to bring in docks and lifts for sale as well. He stated that the trailers would be sold where the paved areas are located and the docks and lifts would be placed where the trailers are currently located. With respect to the Certificates of Survey that were presented, Deutz questioned why he surveyed the property. Weyrens stated that when the staff met with Borresch it became apparent that the property boundaries were uncertain and the only method of determining exact boundaries is through survey. Borresch stated that things were fine in the past and, now, he must meet all new ordinances. Weyrens clarified that the curbing that was installed was not the Ordinance requirement at the time of installation, nor was the City contacted about the installation. Deutz stated that it appears that the current drainage and curb /gutter are located in the City right -of -way. Weyrens agreed and stated that staff met with Borresch and she has not yet received their comments. She added that they are not allowed to have it in the right -of -way and they must have perimeter curbing around the parking lot, similar to all others within the City. July 6, 2010 Page 3 of 5 Wick clarified what they are requesting the following: • Authorize compliance with perimeter curbing. • Authorize the sale of docks and lifts along 16th Avenue. • Authorize the sale of ice houses [ Weyrens stated that this falls under trailer sales] • Authorize the use of an unpaved area for trailer sales. Weyrens stated that these issues arose when they applied for the Special Use Permit. There were given two years to come into compliance. Wick questioned whether or not they will be placing class 5 under the docks and lifts. Borresch responded that they plan to keep it as is and just mow underneath them. With respect to the renewal of the Special Use Permit, Weyrens questioned the Commissioners as to what they want to do. She questioned whether or not they want to require the paving and curbing. Schultz questioned how long this property had been without the paving and curbing to which Borresch responded ten years. Weyrens explained that this became an issue when they applied for the Special Use Permit. Deutz stated that the zoning never changed to which Borresch responded that it changed a little bit. Weyrens stated that the B2 zoning district is geared more towards retail and sales. Meyer made a motion to approve the extension of the Special Use Permit. The motion was seconded by Schultz. Discussion: Wick questioned the timeframe for the extension and Weyrens questioned what conditions would be placed on the permit. Meyer suggested that they keep it as is and suggested that this be for a five year time frame unless the use of the property changes. Borresch stated that he was unaware of the fact that cement curbing was to be added. Orcutt questioned whether lot 7 was proposed to be used for trailer sales too. Borresch explained that the docks and lifts were just brought there. This area is basically used as a parking lot and there was some discussion about not requiring class 5. Deutz stated that he sees no problem with how things look now; in fact, he stated that it looks nice. He also stated that he does not want any more confusion with these properties. Borresch explained that he would like to know how much any additional improvements might cost to see if it is feasible for their business. Weyrens stated that the Interim Use Permit is scheduled to come back in two years and it would make sense to bring the Special Use Permit back at the same time. Wick agreed and stated that two years is consistent with past practice. Amendment: Meyer amended his motion to approve the extension of the Special Use Permit for two years to allow Borresch to come up with a plan for site improvements. Schultz consented to the amendment. Final Motion: Extend the Special Use Permit for a period of two years after which it will come back to the Planning Commission for review and Ordinance compliance regarding site plan improvements. Ayes: Kalinowski, Schultz, Deutz, Orcutt, Meyer, Wick Nays: None Abstain: Rieke. Motion Carries: 6:0:1 North Country Trailer Sales: Weyrens stated the Planning Commission previously considered a request from North Country Trailer Sales to extend the vehicle display area on the east side of the property, using gravel areas. The Special Use Permit issued required all parking of display vehicles on paved areas. The property owner is requesting to utilize approximately 200' of gravel area for display which they will improve with bituminous surfacing within two years. Deutz made a motion to allow North Country Trailer Sales an additional two years to complete the improvements at which time the Special Use Permit will be revisited. The motion was seconded by Orcutt. Discussion: Rieke questioned the size of the area on which they are looking to park the vehicles and trailers. Weyrens stated that they are requesting 200' from the east of the building not July 6, 2010 Page 4 of 5 extending past the front building line, extending back to the property line. Deutz commented that they have done a good job cleaning up that area to which Wick and Weyrens agreed. The motion passed unanimously. Ordinance Update — Transportation Corridor Overlay District: Weyrens reminded the Commissioners that they recently talked about consolidating the Transportation Corridor Overlay District with the B2 and B3 Zoning Districts. She advised them; however, that some of the conditions did not make sense for both ordinances. She suggested adding some clarification that these conditions would only apply to new development areas and exclude those that are already built. If they change the entire Ordinance, then all those existing developments would be required to meet the new provisions of the Ordinance. Weyrens explained that she included a map showing the setbacks illustrating the corridor boundary. Meyer stated his concern with the 100' right -of -way. He questioned where that came from and stated that it is confusing. With the 100' setback from the road right -of -way and the 40' landscaped greenway, there is an additional 60' of area that is paved surface where nothing can occur. He stated that he can understand the suggestion of parking on the side of the building, but believes that this needs to be looked at as there is too much extra space in the front of those buildings. Weyrens stated that the section along County Road 75 from 4th Avenue NE to 1st Avenue NE would be excluded from those provisions. Rieke commented that the First State Bank building does not comply with the 100' setback and he feels that it looks fine. Meyer stated that the 100' is too restrictive. He agrees with the 40' landscape greenway, but feels it would look better to see parking in the front of a building rather than in the back. Weyrens suggested that they re- identify the overlay district and change the 100' setback to 40'. Weyrens also suggested removing Subd. 6(a). Wick added that he feels the 100' setback is not the issue rather parking is the issue. According to Rieke, people are going to use their property in a way that makes sense and there must be some give and take as we, the City, want them to generate tax revenues. Meyer added that the Ordinance needs to be designed in a way so that the City does not need to issue Special Use Permits to change the Ordinances. He stated that the City needs something that is consistent and useable and he sees no reason that they come before the Planning Commission prior to any construction. Wick suggested looking at the B2 and B3 Ordinances as well. Weyrens agreed and stated that if they meet all of the Ordinance requirements, they should be able to get a building permit without addressing the Commission. Meyer also expressed his concern with the 1 -94 Corridor and the Sign Standards. He stated that he feels it is ludicrous to require a setback of 500' from the nearest edge of the 1 -94 right -of -way. Weyrens agreed that the sign standards need to be addressed as according to the B2 and B3 Ordinance, they are allowed to have a sign up to 15' rather than the 8' according to the Transportation Corridor Overlay. Weyrens explained that it is hard to merge the Transportation Corridor Overlay Ordinance with the B2 and B3 Ordinances. She questioned what types of things would make this Ordinance better and then stated that perhaps the Transportation Corridor Overlay Ordinance should be removed and a new zoning district should be added for these properties and be property specific. Deutz stated that the City cannot keep chasing everyone out of downtown and we need to make St. Joseph more developable or businesses will move out of town. Kalinowski suggested that staff re -do the Ordinance and bring it back for review. Ordinance Update — Parking: Weyrens stated that staff has received lots of complaints regarding parking on the grass and thus the Commission should begin discussing the parking Ordinance. Rieke stated that he recently read an article about a new system in which a metal grid can be buried under the dirt and then the area would be seeded to allow for parking on the grass. Weyrens stated that she is aware of that system, but staff will continue to receive calls regarding parking. Weyrens questioned the Commissioners as to whether or not they have any thoughts on parking in yards. According to Deutz, Ordinances are only as good as they are enforced. Weyrens explained that the problem with enforcing the ordinance is related to how it is currently written. She suggested either removing the provision for no parking on the grass or define a parking pad. Rieke stated that in order for enforcement to be enforceable, there needs to be a definition. July 6, 2010 Page 5 of 5 Weyrens also stated that staff wants to look at parking in the B1 District with respect to perimeter curbing that is required where it is impossible Adiourn: Schultz made a motion to adjourn at 7:40PM; seconded by Meyer and passed unanimously. j We Y revs strator