Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 [03] Mar 05 March 5, 2012 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, March 5, 2012 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair S. Kathleen Kalinowski. Members John Meyer, Ross Rieke, Gina Dullinger, Brad Cobb. Council Liaison Rick Schultz. Administrator Judy Weyrens. Others Present: Nancy Notch, Harvey Notch, Ellen Wahlstrom, Graeme Maehler, Mark Dorn, Petter Gillitzer, Pat Meyer, Sue Ergen. Approval of Agenda: Schulz made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Rieke. The motion passed unanimously by those present. Election of Officers: Meyer made a motion to nominate S. Kathleen Kalinowski for Chair of the Planning Commission; seconded by Rieke. Ayes: Meyer, Rieke, Dullinger, Schultz, Cobb Nays: None Abstain: Kalinowski Motion Carried 5:0:1 Meyer made a motion to nominate Ross Rieke for Vice Chair of the Planning Commission; seconded by Schultz. Ayes: Kalinowski, Meyer, Dullinger, Schultz, Cobb Nays: None Abstain: Rieke Motion Carried 5:0:1 Special Use Permit — Four Season: Weyrens reported that at the February 6, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting the Commission tabled action on the request for up to 60 days to allow for additional information. Specifically the Planning Commission was seeking information on lighting, fencing, parking, and repair component of business. The following is a summary of issues and proposed resolution: Issue Concern Proposed Resolution Gate The current gate consists of a wire The property owner will construct an that does not limit after hour traffic opaque fence that can be locked with a key. Fence Property owners requested The current fence is located within one additional fencing or barricade east foot the setback so as an alternative the of the existing fence to prevent property owner is willing to install access to the property after hours. landscaping to discourage driving around the gate after hours Lighting Property owners expressed concern The property owner is willing to change that the lighting is shining into their the lighting and the Planning Commission home could require meter readings to verify that Ordinance requirements are met. Car Repair Property owners questioned the The property owner indicated that the only type of car repair that would be automotive work to be completed is allowed on site. cleaning and preparing cars. The cars will be under their ownership and service will not be available to the public Parking The property owner is requesting to Remains an open item use all area with the exception of the setback for parking • March 5, 2012 Page 2 of 4 Nancy Notch, 406 — 8th Ave NE stated her objection to the proposed special use and requested that addition requirements be added to prohibit loitering after hours, address the lighting, require that any vehicle on the lot cannot exceed the height of the existing fence, the repair on vehicles would be prohibited and on street loading /unloading of vehicles would not be allowed. Chair Kalinowski stated that the public hearing was closed on the request for special use and the Commission Members must decide if additional testimony is desired. The Commission agreed to allow an additional 5 minutes of testimony. Ellen Wahlstrom, 409 — 8tn Ave NE approached the Commission and stated that she does not understand the process used for the matter at hand. Wahlstrom stated that the neighborhood has been living with used car Tots moving in an out for the past 16 to 18 years and objected to only having five minutes to discuss their concerns. She stated that in her opinion this is a serious neighborhood issue and relates both the businesses that were operating and enforcement by the City. She stated that she is confused with the zoning process and the requirements listed in the Ordinance for granting a special use and do all eighteen conditions apply or just a few select. She also questioned the request of the property owner to relax the requirements for paving areas where cars are to be located and . what criteria the Planning Commission uses. In her opinion MN Statues require findings that support practical difficulties with economic considerations secondary and the burden of proof is the responsibility of the petitioner. Rieke stated that it is his opinion that a car dealership can work the site being discussed and he hopes that through the process a means for communication has been established between the property owner and neighbors. The purpose of the hearing is to hear the voice of the petitioner and those impacted by a petition. The Planning Commission has fulfilled this responsibility and must make a recommendation based on findings of fact. Cobb stated that in reviewing the information and hearing the concerns of the residents he has questions on the issues presented by the neighbors, particularly the lighting, security and parking. He questioned if the City is going to allow parking on non -paved areas. The Commissioners agreed that the one outstanding issue is parking, including which areas and if the areas will be required to be paved. Meyer stated that any parking area would minimally have to include class 2 or 5 material and that same area must be paved within 2 years. When questioned what the Ordinance allows for impervious surface, Weyrens responded 60 %. The Commission clarified that any area used for car parking must include class 2 or class 5 and within two years the same must be paved and the area cannot exceed the impervious limitations in the Ordinance. Dullinger stated that the property has a significant drop and questioned if cars could be parking on slopes safely. Meyer made a motion to recommend the Council issue a special use permit to Four Seasons accepting the findings of fact with the following conditions: a. All vehicles must be parked on paved areas or areas to be utilized must be paved within two years of issuance and a landscape plan must be submitted before utilizing front yard parking and shall not exceed 60% of the lot. b. The use of streamers and banners is prohibited. c. The property owner will install lights that do not project beyond the limits in the Ordinance and they will provide meter readings to verify compliance. d. Automotive repair shall be limited to cars under ownership of the dealership and services will not be extended to the public. e. The property owner will install an opaque gate to prohibit after hour loitering and install landscaping to the east of the existing fence. The motion was seconded by Schultz and passed unanimously. March 5, 2012 Page 3 of 4 Villages at CSB — Preliminary Plat, PUD and Rezoning. Kalinowski called the hearing to order and Weyrens stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider a PUD and Preliminary plat entitled Villages at CSB and rezoning of the same from current Agricultural to R4 Townhouse /Patio Home Residential District. The proposed PUD is 55 plus age restricted development and consists of row homes, patio homes and two eight plexes. The proposed PUD will consider variances to the following: Front yard setback, side yard setback, rear yard setback, block length and setback from the pond high water mark. The property is located adjacent and south of Callaway, north of the CSB housing project and east of CR 121 /College Avenue. The request for platting and PUD has been submitted by Collegeville Companies, 15 Minnesota St E; #104; St. Joseph MN 56374; TJ Properties; 25 — 6th Avenue North; St. Cloud MN 56303 and current property owner the College of St. Benedict, 37 College Avenue North; St. Joseph MN 56374. Peter Gillitzer representing Collegeville Companies approached the Commission to discuss the proposed project. Gillitzer stated that the project before the Planning Commission is a 48 units housing development that is age restricted. The proposed plat represents and eight (8) million dollar investment in the community. The original plan presented to the Commission as a concept plan has been modified based on the comments received. The biggest challenge was the road width and access and location of utilities. While this is a PUD, it falls under the R4 Zoning District and design standards require a public road with limited access. Gillitzer stated that it has been difficult to plan utilities as Callaway was constructed with installing utility stubs. The development has already provided 40 foot easements along Callaway and cannot dedicate additional ROW. City Engineer Randy Sabart stated that the major engineering concern at this level of planning is the location of private and public utilities. The current plan locates the private utilities (cable) in the same area as the public and while easement can accommodate the utilities it has the potential of placing future financial impacts on the City. If /when Callaway is reconstructed or utilities are replaced, the City bears the financial responsibility of costs related to the private utilities; whereas, if they are located in a separate easement the City would not have a future cost. Sam Deleo, developer representative, stated that the private utilities could be moved to the interior street but that would result in utility boxes in the front yard and the developer was trying to create an aesthetic development. Meyer stated that it is not uncommon to have utility boxes in the front yard and they can be landscaped to detract from the box. The Commission agreed that the private utilities must be located in a separate easement in the front yard. Pat Meyer,245 — 4th Ave SE, approached the Commission and questioned the potential impact of additional traffic on 4th Ave SE. She stated that she lives on the corner of Callaway Street East and 4th Ave SE and she currently has difficulty leaving her driveway. The additional housing will only compound the problem. Currently Callaway is a through street making it difficult to exit her driveway. Meyer stated that he would like to address the traffic problem and questioned if traffic controls could be added to Callaway Street. Sabart stated that there is already a stop sign at 4 and adding additional controls may create additional problems. Developer representative Deleo addressed the concern identified in the City Engineer's letter regarding the number of variances required. Deleo stated that a PUD is generally a large variance and the intent was not to deviate from Ordinances; rather, how could the proposed property be developed maximizing land. He further stated that if the City would have approved the concept plan utilizing a cul -de -sac and private streets, the variances would not be needed. Sabart stated that his comment highlighted the variances required so that the Planning Commission and Council had an understanding of issues. March 5, 2012 Page 4 of 4 Dullinger stated that she appreciates the efforts of the Developer to redesign the project to address the concerns of the City. She questioned the final width of street to which Deleo stated that paved width is 20 feet and the roadway system is one way to accommodate the design standards of the City. Meyer made a motion to recommend the City Council approve the rezoning of the property from current agricultural to R4, Townhouse. The motion was seconded by Rieke. Ayes: Kalinowski, Rieke, Meyer, Dullinger, Schultz. Nays: None. Abstain: Cobb Motion Carried 5:0:1 Meyer made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat and PUD entitled Villages at CSB; seconded by Schultz. Discussion: Cobb stated that as a resident of Graceview Estates he understands the traffic concerns and one of the reasons he accepted the position on the Planning Commission was to assure that density and traffic are reviewed when development is presented. Cobb stated that adding traffic controls to Callaway will not alleviate traffic for the residents. He further stated that he plans to do some investigative work as development moves forward. Rieke stated that he was new to the City in 1984 and at that time 12 Avenue was being considered and that road now connects to the Coborn's Development. The City has completed extensive traffic planning and when pressures are identified, the City reviews the plans. Transportation Planning is an important tool for the City and needs to be forward thinking so that property is available for the needed corridors. Ayes: Kalinowski, Rieke, Meyer, Dullinger, Schultz. Nays: None. Abstain: Cobb Motion Carried 5:0:1 Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM. GI ei. ,?cam/ J e1 yre A ∎ strator :