HomeMy WebLinkAbout[03] Minutes - March 71"P�
CITY OF HT JOSEPH Planning Commission Agenda Item 3
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
April 4, 2011
Minutes — March 7, 2011
Administration
Approve the minutes of March 7, 2011.
ATTACHMENTS: Request for PC Action
Draft PC Minutes — March 7, 2011
1 -2
3 -5
REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Approve the minutes of March 7, 2011.
3:1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3:2
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular
session on Monday, March 7, 2011 at 7:00 in the St. Joseph City Hall.
Members Present: Chair Sr. Kathleen Kalinowski, Commissioners Ross Rieke, Gina Dullinger, Mike
Deutz, Joe Dubel, John Meyer and City Administrator Judy Weyrens
Others Present:
Approval of the Agenda: Deutz made a motion to approve the agenda with the following addition:
Add Council Liaison Report
The motion was seconded by Rieke and passed unanimous
Election of Officers: Meyer made a motion to keep the o if as as year appointing S.
Kathleen Kalinowski as Chair and Mike Deutz as Vic Th ion was seconded by Rieke.
Ayes: Meyer, Rieke, Dullinger, Dubel
Nays: None. Abstain: K ki, Deutz Motion Carried 4:0:2
Approval of the Minutes: Deutz made a motion to a the minutes of Feb 2011. The motion
was seconded by Dubel.
Ayes: Kalinowski, Deutz, Rieke, Dubel, Dulli
Nays: None ain: Meyer Moti arried 5:0:1
Based on the minutes of February 7, Kali s d Weyren date the Commissioners on both
the vacant areas in the core of the City as as cussion stainability. Weyrens stated that
she is working on a map sho ' those vac rope a also d the Commissioners that they
will discuss the sustainab' in April.
Ordinance 52.10 — Pa : Weyren ted that ing Co ion previously held a public
hearing and recommen proval a propos endment to Ordinance 52.10. The Council;
however, did not accept th mm on and ha ked the Planning Commission to review the
amendment t relate prov s. A number of residents have recreational
vehicles rds d e o nd iring the installation of parking pad may
create ' I or loge es. ther issu ose during discussion was the requirement that
parkin must abut a way cess or h a driveway that extends to the parking pad.
Meyer state he is unsure the C is looking for. According to Weyrens, the Planning
Commission h viously appr the a ments as shown. When staff presented the Commission
the proposed am ent, it was d on concern from residents that is raised often. It comes down to
what people expect esidentia ghborhood. A number of residents contact the City with concerns
about having to look a hicle their house or complaints about the grass growing around the
obstacle.
Rieke suggested the possibilit f grass pavers to which Dullinger stated that she has dealt with quite a
bit in some of her design work. There was considerable discussion about the use of "recycled bituminous"
and whether or not crushed concrete would be considered the same and whether or not that would be
acceptable. Weyrens stated that the issue with that is the weeds that tend to grow thru the rocks..
According to Weyrens, the Council's main concern was that of Parking Pads for Residential Units [Subd
6(a)]. Deutz clarified that the issue is with residential areas.
Rieke again addressed the use of recycled or crushed bituminous and questioned whether or not it can
be used in commercial areas. Weyrens questioned whether they want to allow this by Special Use Permit,
3:3
similar to how it is done in the Industrial Districts. Deutz stated that there have been some businesses
that have been allowed this right whereas others have been denied.
Meyer redirected the commissioners and stated that the purpose of this discussion is to discuss the
location of parking pads /hard surfaces. Since the Planning Commission has already discussed this and
recommended approval to the Council, Meyer questioned whether they should continue this discussion or
let the Council make the final decision on the proposed Ordinance Amendment. Weyrens questioned
whether or not the Commissioners feel that the following requirements are unreasonable:
"Subd. 6
e. Parking pads may encroach into side and /or rear yard
i. They do not encroach into utility or drainage ee
ii. They are setback a minimum of five (5) feet fro
iii. Parking pads shall not occupy a viewing trian
curb intersect at intersections of two or morAM
Parking pads allowed in front yards must be
driveway. Total square footage of structure
than fifty (50) percent of the front yard. P
measuring twenty -five (25) feet from the c
streets."
Dubel replied that it is normal to have
"Parking pads existi
existing until a b
or rental permlare conformance requirement pimprovement
expressed con
permit. He state
this would apply to
The Commissioners sug
• Subd. 6(d): Add Ian
siding, windows, plu
ordinance.
Foperty line.
uring twenty -five (25) feet from the
.tea as an a
y, and parki
shall not occup
;t at intersections
part of an improved
Js shall not occupy greater
W ng triangle
or more public
option be allowed to continue as
by t operty owner. Upon building
io arkmg pad shall be brought into
mmissi ay grant an extension to this
the City to ensure said parking pad
s of the issuance of a building or rental
hich x"lained that it would be the date that the
hat a date inserted instead and the Commissioners agreed
time of Ordinance adoption ". Weyrens advised the
pro (ready includes the requirement for a hard surface. Deutz
confo nce with this ordinance upon applying for a building
wners pull permits to do maintenance work and does not feel that
ing permits.
(lowing changes:
stating that building permits for maintenance projects such as roofing,
, mechanical, etc would not pose the need for conformance with this
• Subd. 6(d): Change the "date of adoption" to April 2011.
• Subd. 4(b): Correct fraction typos.
Deutz then questioned the 25' viewing triangle. He questioned whether the 25' is from the curb or the
property line. It was clarified that it is from the curb. This lead to additional discussion regarding the
maximum square footage for the pad being no more than 50% of the front yard. Meyer stated that some
people's driveways alone cover more than 50% of the front yard. He commented that it is unreasonable to
make an ordinance to fit everyone. Dullinger agreed with Meyer and stated that perhaps it should read no
more than 50% of the lot rather than 50% of the front yard. Deutz questioned the required amount of
3:4
impervious surface to which Weyrens replied that 30% of the lot must not be covered by a structure or
combination of structures. Dubel suggested removing the word "structures" from Subd. 6(f) as a property
owner could have a garage door on both sides of their garage with a pad on the back side.
Dubel made a motion to recommend the Council adopt the following modifications to the
proposed Amendment to Ordinance 52.10:
• Subd. 6(d): Add language stating that building permits for maintenance projects such as
roofing, siding, windows, plumbing, mechanical, etc would not pose the need for
conformance with this ordinance.
• Subd. 6(d): Change the "date of adoption" to April 2011.
• Subd. 4(b): Correct fraction typos.
• Subd. 6(f): Change this to read "... Total square foots a parking pad not to exceed
500 square feet...."
The motion was seconded by Deutz
Discussion: After considerable discussion, the
the parking pads in front yards. Weyrens repl'
and numerous complaints.
Kalinowski added that there is a typo in SM
accommodate emergency vehicles... ". The
The motion passed unanimously.
!h was as to how it came to limiting
it was a re'llftd considerable discussion
c). It should read "Are table to
NDf'showfte removed.
The m
Council Liaison Report: Kalinow'ski stated that she would like to have the Council Liaison, which happens
to be Mayor Schultz, provide the Planning Commission with an update at each meeting. Deutz agreed
and stated that he would like to hear things straight from the Council rather than second hand.
Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:10PM.
Judy Weyrens
Administrator
3:5