Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 [04] Apr 02 April 2, 2012 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, Monday April 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members Present: Chair S. Kathleen Kalinowski. Members John Meyer, Ross Rieke, Joe Dubel, Gina Dullinger, Brad Cobb. Council Liaison Rick Schultz. Administrator Judy Weyrens. Others Present: None Approval of Agenda: Cobb made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Schultz. The motion passed unanimously. Approval of Minutes: Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes of February 6, 2012 with minor corrections; seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. Schultz made a motion to approve the minutes of March 5, 2012 as presented; seconded by Dubel and passed unanimously. ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS — Weyrens reported that over the past months the Planning Commission has reviewed a number of Ordinances requesting modifications or additional information. The Ordinances to follow are ready for final review and scheduling of a Public Hearing. The Commission agreed to review each Ordinance separately. Ordinance 52.21 Transportation Corridor Overlay — Weyrens stated that previously the Commission recommended and the Council approved an amendment to Ordinance 52.21 Transportation Corridor Overlay, correcting the corridor descriptions. At the same time the Commission considered amendments to the setback requirements, sign and fence provisions, and lighting. The commission agreed to consider each item independently. CSAH 75 Corridor— East of lSr Ave NW— Meyer made a motion to recommend amending the provision for 52.21 Subd. 2(a) 1 (A) to 100 feet from 300 feet. The motion was seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. Setback — The current Ordinance requires a minimum building setback of one hundred (100) feet from the right -of -way. The Ordinance prohibits parking within a fifty (50) foot setback from the nearest external boundary. Meyer made a motion to recommend amending 52.21 Subd. 5 to reduce the building setback to forty (40) feet and amend 52.21 Subd. 6(a) to reduce the prohibition of parking to forty (40) feet. The motion was seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. Sign Provisions — Ordinance 52.21 restricts the height of a sign to eight (8) feet while the B2 Zoning Districts allows a fifteen foot fence. Staff is recommending that the two Ordinances should be consistent, using fifteen feet as the standard. Meyer made a motion recommend amending Ordinance 52.21 Subd. 7(c) limiting signs to fifteen (15) feet in height. The motion was seconded by Dubel and passed unanimously. Fence Standards — Weyrens stated that the fencing and mechanical equipment screening provisions are a duplicate provision that is contained in the General Standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission concurred that the provision only needs to be included once and it would be best to have the information in the General Performance section. Rieke made a motion to recommend amending Ordinance 52.21 deleting subd. 6(d) and 6(e). The motion was seconded by Dullinger and passed unanimously. Lighting Standards — Similar to the fence provisions, the lighting standards are a duplication and can be eliminated in Ordinance 52.21. Dubel made a motion to recommend amending Ordinance 52.21 deleting subd. 9 (f) 1; seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. April 2, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Fence Ordinance Setback — Weyrens stated the City Council received a request to review the Fence Ordinance and under what circumstances afence can or should be allowed adjacent to the property line. Previously the Ordinance required a two foot setback on all fences unless the adjoining property owner agreed to the placement in writing. The ordinance has since been changed to allow a maintenance -free fencing on the property line without signature of the adjoining property owner. When property owner were required to keep the fence back two feet there was a tendency for the property owner not to maintain the two feet and some concern was expressed about adverse possession. Meyer clarified that the Ordinance cannot allow the fence to be placed on the property line; rather it has to be placed adjacent to the property line. Meyer stated it is his opinion that the Ordinance should not be changed to require a two foot setback or signature of the adjacent property owner. Weyrens stated that generally the City Attorney does not recommend requiring property owner signature as property owner's change disagreements can occur. The Commission reviewed the fence ordinance requesting the following changes be considered for amendment: 56.03: Correct reference to Ordinance 56.05: Remove the statement that all wood fences shall be painted. 56:07 (a): Remove the provision requiring property owner signature 56:07 (b): Replace fence located on property line to adjacent to property line 56:08: Correct reference to Ordinance Cobb questioned if the Fence Ordinance should include language requiring fencing around swimming pools. Weyrens stated that the building code and R -1 Single Family Ordinance includes a provision requiring perimeter fencing around pools. Schultz made a motion to authorize a public hearing on the proposed amendment to Ordinance 56. The motion was seconded by Dullinger. Ordinance 52.10 Subd. 7 — Parking Pads: Weyrens presented the Planning Commission with a draft amendment recommended by the City Council regarding parking pads in residential areas. The amendment has been reviewed multiple times by the Planning Commission and City Council without resolve. The draft submitted by the Council only regulates parking in the front yards and requires an improved surface. Schultz stated the Council opted to submit a draft that was simplistic and one that could be enforced by the Police Department, eliminating parking on the grass. Meyer requested clarification on the language regarding the front yard as the draft before the Commission appears that a driveway is not allowed. Weyrens stated that the Ordinance defines front yard as that area between the street and main structure. Meyer and Cobb stated that based on the definition the residential driveway would be in violation. Schultz stated that the Planning Commission can modify or recommend an alternative; the City Council did not want to send the matter back to the Planning Commission without some direction. Meyers suggested modifying the language to allow parking pads in the front yard provided they are part of or adjacent to the existing driveway. This language would allow parking in the front yard but not on grass. The following is a summary of changes for the proposed amendment: 52.10 7(a): Any off - street parking facilities to residential uses shall feature improved surfaces (ie. Cement, asphalt, pavers and the like) as defined in Ordinance 52 Subdivision 5204 Section 7 and to be made part of and adjacent to the existing driveway. 52.10 7(b): For the purpose of this section the driveway will be defined as a private way or road for vehicles leading from the street or road to the garage or house. 52.10 7(c): All off street parking to be pervious hard surface, dust free with reasonable drainage April 2, 2012 Page 3 of 3 52.10 7(d): Under no circumstance shall the maximum impervious surface shall not exceed the maximum for each specific zoning district. For R1 Single Family Zoning District the impervious service shall not exceed the limits defined in section 52.27 Subdivision 7 of this code. Dubel made the motion authorizing a public hearing for the proposed amendment to Ordinance 52.10 Subd 7: Parking pads for residential units in All Zoning Districts. The motion was seconded by Meyer. Ayes: Kalinowski, Meyer, Rieke, Dubel, Dullinger, Cobb. Nays: None Abstain: Schultz Motion Carried 6:0:1 Council Liaison Report— R1 Rental Ordinance. Rieke reported that he is part of the Mayor's ad hoc committee reviewing the current R1, Single Family rental provisions. The current R1 Ordinance only allows rental licenses for property that is owner occupied and the Committee is reviewing this provision to determine if a modification is needed. Part of the request is to consider the current economic conditions and if the Ordinance is applying undue hardship to residents that cannot sell their home, but could find someone to rent the property. In some cases, if rental were permitted, the property owner could avoid foreclosure. Rieke stated the question is should we be looking to modify the Ordinance to meet the current economic times and are there enough situations where this becomes an issue or does the current Ordinance meet the needs of the City. Cobb questioned if the concern is that the City has a surplus of rental homes and it would not be beneficial to increase the numbers or is the issue that realtors are realizing a new market. Schultz stated that the when the ad hoc committee has completed their task, the information will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 PM. � J udy Weyrens Ad nistrator THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK