Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 [06] Jun 06June 6, 2011 Page 1 of 2 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 2, 2011. The motion was seconded by Meyer and passed unanimously. ORDINANCE REVIEW: 61, 62, and B3 Zoning Districts Previously, the Planning Commission agreed to review the uses permitted in the different zoning districts. Weyrens stated that she solicited input from the EDA and thus Strack provided an update of their recommendations. Kalinowski questioned whether or not the Planning Commission wants to allow drive -thrus in any of the business districts. Meyer suggested allowing them in the B2 district. Deutz then questioned the possibility of allowing them in the 61 area as well. He added that drive -thrus would help to keep traffic moving, especially in the downtown area where parking is an issue. In his opinion, he would like to see this included in both the 131 and 132 districts. Meyer questioned when the zoning districts were established requiring a special use permit for a drive -thru. Weyrens stated that they were created in the late 70's and then they were amended in 1992 and then again in 2000. According to Meyer, businesses have changed over the past ten years and people are in a hurry. He feels that they should be allowed to make the City more "business friendly ". Deutz, Kalinowski and Meyer all agreed that a business should not be required to apply for a special use permit provided that they meet all of the other ordinance requirements. Meyer made a motion to amend Ordinances 52.31 [B -1 Central Business District] and 52.32 [Highway 75 Business District] to include a drive thru as a permitted use. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Transportation Corridor Overlay Weyrens stated that this Ordinance has been reviewed several times. As a result, she provided the Commissioners with a copy of the Ordinance to include all of the changes that were proposed and the corresponding date. She advised the Commissioners that the Ordinance was previously amended by the City Council to accommodate Cone Castle. The amendment included the correction of some spelling /grammatical errors, redefining the corridors, exemptions as well as the addition of a section pertaining to the redevelopment of existing lots. It is now being brought back to the Planning Commission to see where to go next. Deutz questioned the possibility of discussing this in a workshop setting to which Schultz stated that the Council, Planning Commission and EDA recently met and they came to no conclusion on the Ordinance. Deutz suggested setting this aside until a joint meeting can be scheduled to review this again 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 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 June 6, 2011 Page 2 of 2 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. Another issue that was addressed was the fact that, when ownership changes, the new property owner doesn't need to give consent for an existing fence. Deutz stated that this has been around for 20 +years and he feels that the fence should be allowed on the property line. Rieke agreed. They agreed that there should be no need to have consent from the neighbor. He added that, in the past, there was a provision that if the fence was placed on the line, the property owner must have a survey to show that the fence is on the line. He suggested that they be required to provide either a surrey of the property or consent from the neighbor. Meyer agreed that the fence should be allowed on the property line. He stated that many fences are constructed due to neighbor disputes or privacy issues. He stated that the 5' setback is the big problem. Requiring the fence to be 2' off the property line does not provide enough space to maintain the remaining 3'. Meyer addressed the issue of living fences. He questioned whether or not they need to be 2' off the property line as well. Rieke suggested that a survey may not need to be completed if the property owner is able to find their property pins. There was discussion about the fence materials. The Commissioners would like a definition of a fence vs. wall. Deutz stated that fences are used to hide dumpster pads, etc. He questioned if a property borders County property, whether the same materials would be allowed. Weyrens replied that the County can supersede our Ordinances and stated that everyone must abide. Weyrens concluded that she will bring back a draft amendment and if they like the changes, a public hearing will be scheduled. She added that she will check with other cities as well to see how their fence ordinance reads. R1 — Single Family, Owner Occupied Provisions Weyrens explained that, recently, she has received requests for those being deployed to rent their homes. There have been some changes with the rules for homesteading your property while deployed and thus, the City can create a separate provision for rental as well. Currently, the Ordinance does not have a provision for such and thus she questioned whether or not the Planning Commission would like to relieve the owner occupied requirement in its entirety or whether they want to make an exception for Military members by use of either an Interim Use or Special Use process. Rieke stated that this would be considered a hardship and there are various definitions of a "hardship ". He added that other groups 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. Adwourn: The m;�fi g was adjourned by consensus. Ju eyr s Ad i istra or