Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 [05] May 02May 2, 2011 Page 1 of 4 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, May 2, 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, Joe Dubel, John Meyer and City Administrator Judy Weyrens Others Present: Tom Klein, Don Benkowski, Aaron Holthaus, Tom Holthaus, Jason Neurerburg, Tom Roos Approval of the Agenda Deutz made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Meyer and passed unanimously. Minutes Deutz made a motion to approve the minutes of April 4, 2011 with minor corrections. The motion was seconded by Dubel. Ayes: Deutz, Rieke, Dullinger, Schultz, Dubel, Meyer Nays: None. Abstain: Kalinowski Motion Carried 6:0:1 Public Hearing — Comprehensive Plan Amendment Kalinowski opened the public hearing and stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider amending the future land use map for Planning Districts 7 and 11. The proposed amendment to Planning District 7 would allow for Highway Business on the northern first tier lots and the amendment to Planning District 11 would allow for Highway Business on lots east of CR133, west of 15 Avenue NE. Kalinowski opened the public hearing. Tom Roos approached the Commissioners on behalf of North Central Truck Accessories to question the proposed amendment to Planning District 11. He stated that their business is located adjacent to the affected properties. He is concerned about traffic as there seems to be considerable traffic confusion in the area and questioned if the proposed amendment will impact traffic movement. Weyrens advised Roos that the proposed amendment would not create more outlets as those are determined by the Stearns County Highway Engineer. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow for greater . flexibility when selling properties. The properties would remain zoned as Industrial, unless a property owner was to apply for rezoning. She added that the parking standards are the same for both Industrial and Highway Business. Kalinowski closed the public hearing at 7:05PM. Planning District 7: Meyer questioned the reason for the proposed land use change from 131 to B2. Weyrens stated that when staff was reviewing the proposed development for the property at 118 -1 st Avenue NW, it was noted that drive thru businesses are not allowed in the 131 Central Business District. The subject property was zoned as 131 and the proposed development is a small neighborhood fast food /ice cream restaurant. When reviewing the land uses in the area, the property to the east on the corner is a car wash with a drive thru business, and the property to the east of College using the same street is also B2 Highway Business. Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a hearing to possibly amend the future land use map for the Comprehensive Plan for planning district seven (7). Deutz stated that, in his opinion, if this is being done for the sole purpose of allowing for a drive -thru, then only the property in question should be affected. He also stated that this property would be included in the Hwy 75 Overlay District. Weyrens replied that this property does not fall within the overlay district. The district boundary comes to the property line, but does not encompass the property itself. She added that the proposed amendment is not to change the zoning for the entire area, rather change the future land use. The second hearing at this meeting is to consider rezoning that specific piece of property. May 2, 2011 Page 2 of 4 Deutz questioned why change the future land use maps if the uses will not change. Weyrens explained that a potential developer cannot request rezoning for development that is not consistent with the future land use map. The proposed changes are not being made for one property; rather it is being done for the future development of the City. The proposed zoning is identifies how the property will develop in the future and there is potential that other drive thru facilities may locate in the general area as well. The other properties are not changing uses at this time. Deutz stated that it appears that the City is trying to change the zoning to accommodate a drive -thru and he feels that we are going about it the wrong way. He added that there are drive thrus at both City Hall and the Post Office, both of which are in the B1 zoning district. Weyrens stated that there are no provisions that allow for a drive thru in the downtown area at this time; however, she is unsure as to whether or not it was allowed in the past. According to Weyrens, the only way to approve a drive thru would be to zone the property as B2 and consider a Special Use Permit. Rieke questioned the impact of accepting the change. Weyrens stated that both B1 and B2 allow for retail; however, there are a few different uses listed under B2. The B2 zoning district allows for more professional services as well as big box uses. B1 allows for financial institutions, but doesn't allow for drive - thrus. Meyer suggested that the Commissioners review the B1 Ordinance. Dubel stated that it seems as though the City is looking to rezone the corner lot from B1 to B2 to allow for development rather than restricting it. He questioned how the residential home adjacent to this lot would be affected. Weyrens stated that unless they were to request rezoning, the property would remain B1 and the use would not change. Schultz questioned where the conflict arises between land use and rezoning. Weyrens explained that the property is currently zoned B1 and it cannot be rezoned unless it is consistent with the future land use map. Deutz stated that this area is set up for downtown with respect to parking, setbacks, etc. His concern is that the proposed amendment would limit development on the other parcels. Rieke stated that by changing the future land use map, it would not restrict those with properties zoned B1, but would allow for the added use of B2. Weyrens added that it would allow for more flexibility as there would be two options for development. The proposed change would not change the zoning map at this time. Planning District 11: The purpose of the proposed amendment to Planning District 11 is to amend the future land use map to allow for commercial development adjacent to CR 133 and Elm Street. The current future land use map guides the subject property to industrial and the proposed amendment would allow for highway commercial development. Again, rezoning is not occurring at this meeting, this amendment allows for flexibility when marketing the properties. Rieke questioned whether there were any discussions regarding the proposed amendment to Planning District 11. Deutz stated that if the proposed amendment doesn't take away any of the current land uses, he sees no problem. He doesn't want to see anything limited. Weyrens stated that the only impact would be if the City were to change its zoning Ordinances. Currently, each property is in compliance with today's ordinances. Deutz made a motion to recommend the City Council amend the future land use map for Planning District 7 to allow for B2, Highway Business for properties north of Birch Street between College Avenue.and 2 nd Avenue NW and to amend the future land use map for Planning District 11 to allow for B2 Highway Business for property abutting CR133 west of CR133 and north of Elm Street. The motion was seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. Public Hearing — Rezoning & Special Use Kalinowski called the hearing to order and stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider an application for rezoning from the current B1, General Business to B2, Highway Business and an application for special use permit to allow for the development of a drive thru restaurant in a B2 Zoning District. The property is located at 118 1 Avenue NW, legally described as Lot 001 Block 012 and Lot 1 & West 46' of Lot 2, Block 12 Townsite of St. Joseph. May 2, 2011 Page 3 of 4 The request for rezoning and special use has been submitted by Thomas Holthaus, 9495 Deegan Avenue NE, Monticello, MN 55362 and Jason Neuerburg, JAT Restaurants. The public hearing was opened and closed as no one present wished to speak. Weyrens stated that the staff has been working with the developer to develop the site at 118 — Vt Avenue NW with a fast food restaurant. The existing house would be razed and new structure would be constructed. The proposed restaurant is a neighborhood restaurant and will not have indoor seating. The development plans are almost complete, however, since a drive thru restaurant requires a special use permit, the site plan will not be finalized until after the Planning Commission considers the special use permit as it could change traffic movement patterns and access. Weyrens stated that there was some question as to why the access is needed from Birch Street as it is already congested with the gas station /convenience store. In an email from the Developer, it was stated that their main goal was to minimize safety concerns with respect to the handicapped parking areas, pedestrian traffic, and larger vehicles entering the site. They also believe that the drainage would work better with the proposed layout accessing Birch Street. Meyer made a motion to recommend the City Council approve the requests for rezoning the property at 118 —1 Avenue NW from current B1, General Business to B2, Highway Business, and recommend approval of the special use permit allowing a drive thru in the 82 Highway Business Zoning District. The motion was seconded by Deutz. Discussion: There was some additional discussion regarding the access points. Rieke stated that 1 st Avenue doesn't concern him. This was a situation in which Birch Street was built out and thus became a busier street. He is most concerned about access to the corner. However, he stated that, considering the environment, he does not feel that this is a negative situation. Dubel added that he sees a safety issue with the access on Birch due to the fact that the traffic across the street is coming out any which way. Rieke stated that he does not see that as an issue. Schultz added that he sees concerns either way as this is going to be a busy corner. Meyer believes that it is better to have a couple of options rather than restricting them and since Birch Street is not a collector, access should not be limited. The motion passed unanimously. Update — Joint City Council /Planning Commission /EDA/Park Board Meeting Schultz advised the Commissioners that, at the joint meeting, it was decided that the Planning Commission should revisit the Corridor Overlay Ordinance as well as the Fence Ordinance. Schultz then questioned them as to whether or not there are any other Ordinances that the Commissioners would like to look at as well. Based on earlier discussions, Meyer stated that it would be a good idea to look at the 61 Ordinance to consider allowing for drive thrus. Deutz suggested discussing the various uses allowed in each district. Deutz stated that developers should not need to go through all of these hoops to allow for a drive thru. Council Liaison Report Schultz reported that the Council approved TIF 1-4 and 2-4. On May 4, the Council will be discussing the assessment policy and, if time allows, they may visit the facilities long range plans as well. He advised the Commissioners that he and Weyrens will be meeting with St. Wendel Township to discuss compost options to see if an agreement can be reached. Schultz also advised the Commissioners that Rivers Bend has requested to secure a second building permit prior to the permanent road being constructed as they have a request for a custom built home. They plan to have the road and the home completed by August. Meyer stated that he would like to know some of the background on matters that are referred back to the Planning Commission. Recently the Council has requested consideration or reconsideration of matters and he would like a better understanding of the issues when this occurs. Schultz responded that in the matter regarding the fence ordinance, he voted to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission, however, there was some disagreement and discussion regarding the construction of the fence on the property line, with permission from the adjoining property owner, vs. placing the fence 2' off of the property line. The Council has reqeusted the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to May 2, 2011 Page 4 of 4 discuss this and to solicit input from the residents. Weyrens added that there was some discussion about how a property owner is to maintain those two feet or how the adjoining property owner is to maintain their side of the fence. Schultz stated that the Corridor Overlay Ordinance has been discussed for six months or more without resolution. Weyrens advised the Commissioners that staff has discussed this and are proposing a PUD process for anything developed in the Corridor Overlay Area. If the proposed development meets the intent of the zoning district, then the City could provide relief from strict adherence to the Corridor Overlay. Another option is to consider each use as a special use. Staff will bring language back at the next meeting. Rieke added that he felt they were headed in the right direction. He stated that the Corridor Overlay would work in a perfect scenario; however, there are some areas where that doesn't work such as the area extending from the El Paso to Caseys. Meyer added that the Council and Planning Commission need to make a final decision on this. Deutz stated that they previously discussed getting rid of the Corridor Overlay Ordinance and including the different requirements in the individual zoning districts. Weyrens concluded by stating that, until a decision is made, what is on the books stays on the books. Schultz stated that the Council will be having their final discussion regarding facilities and he stated that the Commissioners may want to get involved in that discussion. Adjourn Deutz made a motion to adjourn at 7:50PM; seconded by Schultz and passed unanimously. Judy yrensr vow Ad n' trator