Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 [03] Mar 07March 7, 2011 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, 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 unanimously Election of Officers Meyer made a motion to keep the officers the same as last year appointing S. Kathleen Kalinowski as Chair and Mike Deutz as Vice Chair. The motion was seconded by Rieke. Ayes: Meyer, Rieke, Dullinger, Dubel Nays: None. Abstain: Kalinowski, Deutz Motion Carried 4:0:2 Approval of the Minutes Deutz made a motion to approve the minutes of February 7, 2011. The motion was seconded by Dubel. Ayes: Kalinowski, Deutz, Rieke, Dubel, Dullinger Nays: None Abstain: Meyer Motion Carried 5:0:1 Based on the minutes of February 7, Kalinowski asked Weyrens to update the Commissioners on both the vacant areas in the core of the City as well as their discussion on sustainability. Weyrens stated that she is working on a map showing those vacant properties. She also advised the Commissioners that they will discuss the sustainability efforts in April. Ordinance 52.10 — Parking Weyrens stated that the Planning Commission previously held a public hearing and recommended approval of the proposed amendment to Ordinance 52.10. The Council; however, did not accept the recommendation and has asked the Planning Commission to review the amendment again as it relates to the parking pad provisions. A number of residents have recreational vehicles parked in their yards during the off season and requiring the installation of parking pad may create financial or logistic issues. The other issue that arose during discussion was the requirement that parking pads must abut a public way for access or have a driveway that extends to the parking pad. Meyer stated that he is unsure what the Council is looking for. According to Weyrens, the Planning Commission has previously approved the amendments as shown. When staff presented the Commission the proposed amendment, it was based on concern from residents that is raised often. It comes down to what people expect in a residential neighborhood. A number of residents contact the City with concerns about having to look at a vehicle from their house or complaints about the grass growing around the obstacle. Rieke suggested the possible alternative of 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, March 7, 2011 Page 2 of 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 setbacks, provided: i. They do not encroach into utility or drainage easements. ii. They are setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the property line. iii. 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. f. Parking pads allowed in front yards must be constructed as an integral part of an improved driveway. Total square footage of structures, driveway, and parking pads shall not occupy greater than fifty (50) percent of the front yard. 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." Dubel replied that it is normal to have a viewing triangle and supports the provisions. Kalinowski commented on Subd. 6(d) which states: "Parking pads existing at the time of this Ordinance adoption shall be allowed to continue as existing until a building permit or rental permit is requested by the property owner. Upon building or rental permit application or rental renewal application, the parking pad shall be brought into conformance with this Ordinance. The Planning Commission may grant an extension to this requirement provided sufficient escrow is filed with the City to ensure said parking pad improvements are completed within nine (9) months of the issuance of a building or rental permit." She questioned the date of adoption to which Weyrens explained that it would be the date that the Ordinance is published. It was suggested that a date be inserted instead and the Commissioners agreed on using April 2011 rather than stating "at the time of Ordinance adoption ". Weyrens advised the Commissioners that the current rental process already includes the requirement for a hard surface. Deutz expressed concern about the need for conformance with this ordinance upon applying for a building permit. He stated that many property owners pull permits to do maintenance work and does not feel that this would apply to those types of building permits. The Commissioners suggested the following changes: • 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. 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 impervious surface to which Weyrens replied that 30% of the lot must not be covered by a structure or March 7, 2011 Page 3 of 3 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 footage of the parking pad not to exceed 500 square feet...." The motion was seconded by Deutz Discussion: After considerable discussion, the question was raised as to how it came to limiting the parking pads in front yards. Weyrens replied that it was a result of considerable discussion and numerous complaints. Kalinowski added that there is a typo in Subd. 7(c). It should read "Areas suitable to accommodate emergency vehicles... ". The word "of" should be removed. The motion passed unanimously. Ordinance 52.12 Subd. 2 — Fences Weyrens stated that the Council has requested the Planning Commission discuss the provision in the Fence Ordinance as it relates to placement. The current Ordinance allows a property owner to place a fence on the property line provided the entire fence is located on the property for which the fence is constructed. It has recently brought to the attention of the Council that this provision allows one property owner to "own" the property line prohibiting the adjoining property owner to construct a fence on the line. The Council questioned if the Ordinance should require that any fence on the property line include the signature from the adjoining property owner. The current Ordinance requires a signature from the adjoining property owner if the fence is not maintenance free and the fence must be set back two (2) feet. Meyer made a motion to leave the Ordinance as written which allows a property owner to place a maintenance free fence on the property line without consent of the adjoining property owner provided that the entire fence is on their property. The motion was seconded by Deutz. Discussion: Rieke questioned the types of fences that can be constructed as there seemed to be some confusion about what materials can be used. Meyer questioned whether chain link fences are acceptable in residential areas to which Weyrens stated that most permits are for chain link fences. The motion passed unanimously. Council Liaison Report Kalinowski 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. riistrator ns / THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK