The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About[03] Minutes - June 6 201111",P� C1w Of ST. 306"'R MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Planning Commission Agenda Item 3 July 11, 2011 Minutes —June 6, 2011 Administration Approve the minutes of June 6, 2011 ATTACHMENTS: Request for PC Action Draft PC Minutes —June 6, 2011 REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Approve the minutes of June 6, 2011. 1 -2 3 -4 3:1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK KIV14 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, June 6, 2011 at 7:OOPM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Commissioners Ross Rieke, Gina Dullinger, Mike Deutz, Rick Schultz, John Meyer and City Administrator Judy Weyrens Others Present: Approval of the Agenda: Deutz made a motion to approve the agenda as presented; seconded by Schultz and passed unanimously. Minutes: Deutz made a motion to approve the minutes of May ;1. The motion was seconded by Meyer and passed unanimously. ORDINANCE 61, 62, and B3 Zoning Districts: Previously, the Plan permitted in the different zoning districts. Weyrenlesped Strack provided an update of their recommendati Commission wants to allow drive -thrus in any of t the B2 district. Deutz then questioned the possibi that drive -thrus would help to keep traffi ,moving, issue. In his opinion, he would like to s his included in when the zoning districts were establish that they were created in the late '70's ande According to Meyer, businesses have chand over feels that they should be allo d to make theIty n all agreed that a busines t be requir jo all of the other ordinan. Ire Meyer made a motion [Highway 75 Business seconded bv,,,Deutzan as PaTshission "' d to review the uses e solicite " t from the EDA and thus nowski questioned er or not the Planning ess districts. Meyer s ted allowing them in awina th the B1 ar ,,.well. He added Central Business District] and 52.32 as a permitted use. The motion was Transoortabdh Corndof�O �ay: s state Ordinance has been reviewed several times. As a result be, pro ." vided the "oramissio with a cop the Ordinance to include all of the changes that were pro pt aed and the corresps tadIng he advised the Commissioners that the Ordinance was previously arnetded by the it Council to mmodate Cone Castle. The amendment included the correction of somespelling /gramrna>y al erro edefining the corridors, exemptions as well as the addition of a section pertaining to theredevelopment of existing lots. It is now being brought back to the Planning Commissiato fee where go next. Deutz questioned the possibility of discussing this in a workshop setting to whlclSchultz seed that the Council, Planning Commission and EDA recently met and they came to no con on tin tiie Ordinance. Deutz suggested setting this aside until a joint meeting can be scheduled to review thlgain as a group. Meyer, on the other hand, feels that the Planning Commission should meet alone in a workshop session to review the Ordinance and disburse a final draft to the Council once it is finalized by the Planning Commission. Dullinger added that they may need to look at different types of corridors and perhaps the corridors should be defined at a later time. Since the Ordinance was adopted in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan, Schultz stated that the EDA should be present to discuss what they envisioned for this area. Rieke stated that it is the role of the Planning Commission to determine setbacks, etc and it is the role of the EDA to populate that area. Fence Regulations: Previously, the Council requested that the Planning Commission review the Fence Ordinance. The Planning Commission recommended leaving the Ordinance in its current form. Weyrens 3:3 stated that the Council is again asking the Planning Commission to review the Fence Ordinance. Deutz stated that they [Planning Commission] have already made a decision, but it was not what the Council wanted to hear. Meyer questioned what the Council would like to see changed. Weyrens explained that the issue is that of the distance from the property line. She stated that, currently, maintenance free fences can be placed on the property line without consent from the adjoining property owner. The following questions arose; • Is there a need for a signature from the adjoining property owner? • How does one maintain the fence if it is on the property line? Weyrens presented the Commissioners with some draft language. She reminded the Commissioners that any changes to this Ordinance would require a public hearing. It was suggested that the Planning Commission conduct the hearing and get feedback on the issue. #her issue that was addressed was the fact that, when ownership changes, the new property owner cjt need to give consent for an existing fence. Deutz stated that this has been around for 20 +years an property line. Rieke agreed. They agreed that there s neighbor. He added that, in the past, there was a p property owner must have a survey to show that required to provide either a survey of the property fence should be allowed on the property line. He stat disputes or privacy issues. He stated that the 5' setbacl �` els thaf4lhe fence should be allowed on the The no need Love consent from the that if the fenc..... placed on the line, the is on the line. He sted that they be nt from the neighbor er agreed that the t man es are co nst d due to neighbor lem. Requiring' " .fence to be 2' off the property line does not provide et o 4h /space to mai remaining 3'. Meye addressed the issue of living fences. He questioned whe�not they nee a 2' off the property line as well. Rieke suggested that a survey may not need to be cor�ei d if the pr owner is able to find their property pins. There was discussion wall. Deutz stated tha County property, whe supersede our Ordinan Weyrens hearing v ordinanc+ e materials �I are to hide dC e same rials woulr d state t everyon she e rs w3W like a definition of a fence vs. questioned if a property borders iyhs replied that the County can st abide. ame rent and if they like the changes, a public eck*th other cities as well to see how their fence R1 — SinjhMmilv, Owner Occu 2ied Pr %omes. : Weyrens explained that, recently, she has received requests for ose being deployed to rent There have been some changes with the rules for homesteading yo�tr;,property while deploythus, the City can create a separate provision for rental as well. Currently tl�e Ordinance d* not have a provision for such and thus she questioned whether or not the Planning Co Ission wouldilAe to relieve the owner occupied requirement in its entirety or whether they want to meke an eepton for Military members by use of either an Interim Use or Special Use process. Rieke stated that would be considered a hardship and there are various definitions of a "hardship ". He added that other; rbups have hardships as well. He suggested that if new language is drafted, it should require proof of a hardship. Schultz questioned whether or not the Commissioners want to go down the avenue of opening this up to the military. The Commission agreed to review further. Sidewalk: Schultz stated that he requested this item be placed on the agenda and wanted to make sure the Ordinance includes provisions for sidewalks along developments. The Commission agreed to continue the discussion of Ordinances at a proposed meeting on June 23, 2011. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned by consensus. 3:4