Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 [06] Jun 04 June 4, 2012 Page 1 of 5 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the St. Joseph Planning Commission met in regular session on Monday June 4 2012 at 7:OOPM in the St. Joseph City Hall, opening 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. City Representatives Present: City Engineer Randy Sabart, City Attorney Tom Jovanovich Others Present: Sister Kara Hennes, Sister Marlene Schwinghammer, Gary Renick, Tom Klein, Sandy Schultz, Ron Kramer, Mike McDonald, Gary Kraft, Courtney Cooper. Approval of Agenda: Cobb made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. Approval of Minutes: Schultz made a motion to approve the minutes of May 7 with minor corrections; seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. Ordinance Amendments: Kalinowski opened the public hearing and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider amendments to the following Ordnances: 1) Ordinance 52.10, Off Street Parking — Amendment delineates the requirements for parking pads in the front or side yards as it relates to parking. 2) Ordinance 52.21, Corridor Overly District — Amendment includes changing some site development requirements. 3) Ordinance 56, Fence — Amendment includes updating the fencing material, location for fence and conditions. Kalinowski stated that the Planning Commission will consider each Ordinance Amendment separately, opening and closing a public hearing for each amendment. ORDINANCE 52.10 OFF STREET PARKING - Kalinowski opened the public hearing at 7:05 PM and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider amendment to Ordinance 52.10, off street parking. With no one present wishing to speak, the hearing was closed. Dullinger and Meyer confirmed that new restrictions governing parking pads only relates to the front yard and side yard. The Commission agreed that considerable time has been spent on the Ordinance Amendment and it is ready for recommendation to the City Council. Meyer made a motion recommending the City Council adopt the amendment to Ordinance 52.10, Off Street Parking, regulating the location and material for parking pads in the front and side yard. The motion was seconded by Dubel and passed unanimously. ORDINANCE 52.21 CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT - Kalinowski opened the public hearing and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider an amendment to Ordinance 52.21, Transportation Corridor Overlay. Mike McDonald 213 — 13 Avenue SE approached the Commission in opposition to the language of the current Ordinance. He stated that when he was on the Planning Commission the Ordinance did not make sense to him and in his opinion it is business unfriendly. It was his understanding that the intent of the Planning Commission in 2011 was to remove the developed portion of CR 75 from the regulations, but the draft does not indicate such. He further questioned the use of the term view shed and how it was being applied. There being no one further wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Weyrens stated that the EDA recently met with one of the developers who constructed a building along CR 75, who was specifically questioned if the Corridor Overlay requirements presented and barriers. He responded that they did not have difficulties incorporating the requirements and the particular building constructed is the new model that he is constructing in other communities. Other than Cone Castle, Weyrens stated she was unaware of building concerns with the overlay district. City Engineer Randy June 4, 2012 Page 2 of 5 Sabart stated that he could review the boundaries checking for accuracy, making sure the desired area is described appropriately. The Commission discussed the setback requirements and the current Ordinance requires buildings to be setback at least 100 feet. The Commission agreed to reduce the setback using the existing buildings as a guide. Weyrens stated that staff will verify the setback and revise the amendment. Rieke made a motion to table action on the amendment to Ordinance 52.21 allowing staff to make revisions as discussed. The motion was seconded by Dullinger and passed unanimously. ORDINANCE 56.00 FENCE- Kalinowski opened the public hearing and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider the proposed amendment revises fence material, location and conditions. Ken Jacobson, 1315 Eagle Ridge Drive approached the Commission to speak in opposition of the proposed amendment. Jacobson agreed that the Fence Ordinance needs to be changed, but he does not agree with the provision allowing a property owner to place a fence adjacent to the property line unless the adjoining property owner agrees in writing. In his opinion the proposed fence amendment gives the person applying for the permit the right to the property Tine. He further objected to the revisions of material and stated that there is no fence material that is completely maintenance free and for that reason alone a two foot setback should be required. The previous ordinance required a two foot setback unless the adjoining property owner submitted a written consent. Jacobson stated that the Ordinance does not address how complaints or disputes are handled and while reading the Ordinance he feels the Ordinance is contradictory. One Ordinance states that if Ordinances are conflicting, whichever Ordinance is more restrictive applies. Jacobson questioned how this is administered. He concluded by requesting he Commission not adopt the changes as indicated in the proposed amendment. There being no one further wishing to testify the public hearing was closed. Rieke clarified that the existing Ordinance does allow a non - maintenance free fence to be constructed adjacent to the property line and that provision is not changing. The provision that is changing relates to non - maintenance free material. Under the existing Ordinance the fence could be placed adjacent to the property line if the adjoining property owner consented. The amendment before the Commission requires that non - maintenance free fences have a setback of two feet. The amendment further clarifies the materials and removes some grammatical errors. The Commission discussed the placement of the fence and if the City requires a survey. Weyrens stated that the Building Official verifies the placement and if the property lines are not evident, he has required a survey in the past. However, there is nothing to state that the survey is correct as they too can make mistakes, which has recently happened. Dubel stated that requiring a survey for a fence seems unrealistic as it will cost between $ 400 - $ 700 dollars. If there is a dispute, the property owners can use the court system to resolve, as the City is not a party to neighbor disputes. Cobb questioned Weyrens as to the questioned raised by Jacobson and conflicting Ordinances. The Ordinance referred to by Jacobson was an extract from the Transportation Corridor Overlay District. There are additional fence requirements in the Ordinance above and beyond Ordinance 56. In that case, the most restrictive Ordinance applies. Meyer stated that the Ordinance language has been changed from on the property line to adjacent to the property line. A property line is finite and no one owns that Tine; therefore each party can build up to the line. This gives each property owner full use of their property. The Commission agreed to change section 56.06, reversing the order of section a — e. Rieke made a motion to table action on the amendment to Ordinance 56 allowing staff to make revisions as discussed. Rieke clarified that the public hearing was closed and additional June 4, 2012 Page 3 of 5 testimony will not be received at the July meeting. The motion was seconded by Dullinger and passed unanimously. Church of St. Joseph, Rezoning /Special Use: Kalinowski called the hearing to order and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider the request of the St. Joseph Parish to rezone the property described below from current R1, Single Family residential to B1, General Business and to consider a special use permit to allow the construction of a fellowship hall connecting the church and school. The property is located at 12 Minnesota Street West. Gary Kraft of 3255 Ironwood Drive approached the Commission on behalf of the Parish of St. Joseph and offered to provide details to the Planning Commission if they had any questions on the request before them. The Planning Commission affirmed that they were aware of the building project and at this time did not need additional information. S. Kara Hennes of 104 Chapel Lane approached the Commission to speak on behalf of the Monastery of St. Benedict. Hennes stated that as the adjacent property owner to the south of the proposed expansion, she has some concerns for fire safety and access to the monastery residential dwelling entitled Marmion. In an effort to increase fire access, the Monastery has agreed to modify the south west entrance of the east/west ally between the church and monastery and removed the existing fence separating Marmion and the church property. S. Kara questioned if the City had the opportunity to react to one of the plans whereby the expansion for the church was located on the east of the church /rectory. This option seemed to have fewer impacts for the playground and fire access. There being no one further wishing to testify the public hearing was closed at 7:45 PM. Chair Kalinowski clarified that the action before the Planning Commission requires two separate actions, rezoning and the issuance of a special use permit. Weyrens clarified that the first action that needs to be taken is the rezoning as churches are allowed in any zoning district and the B1 Zoning change is being requested to maximize property setbacks. The reduced setbacks lead to the reduced fire access and need to explore alternatives. If fire or public safety is a concern and is not resolved, the rezoning should not be approved. The second action, special use, identifies the specific development rights that will occur on the property. The proposed expansion of a fellowship hall is not listed as a permitted use in the zoning district, but it is similar in nature to uses identified under special use; therefore the Church was required to request a special use permit. Rieke responded to the question raised by S. Kara and stated that the City has not received alternative building plans for the Church. The only plan submitted and the one before the Commission at this meeting is locating the expansion between the church and school, connecting the facilities. Weyrens stated that staff has identified two areas of concern, the first being Fire Safety /Access and ingress egress to the property. The proposed building expansion includes a 10,000 square foot addition to be used for a fellowship hall. The space will be connected to the Church and School. The distance between the school /church and Monastery is one fire access issue and the second is access to the south end of the church once the new building is constructed. The only way to access the back of the church will be from College Avenue. Therefore, it is recommended that the plans include a maintained fire access from Collage Avenue east to western property line. The second issue is the proposed revised ingress /egress to the property. The plans include creating a new access just east of the north south alley across the street. The access is being requested so that the playground can be moved to where the existing ingress /egress is located, 1 Avenue NW. Sabart stated the impact of relocating the ingress /egress from the current location at 1 Avenue NW to the mid - block. A significant issue is the location of the driveway to the intersection of Minnesota Street and College Avenue. Based on industry standards, using the classification of roadway, volume of traffic (present and future) and speed limit, the minimum distance from the intersection should be 225 feet. The proposed plan indicates less than 150 feet. The minimum distance allows for minimal car stacking during June 4, 2012 Page 4 of 5 peak hours. In addition to vehicular traffic, the proposed ingress /egress will encourage pedestrian traffic at a location other than street intersections. Vehicular traffic expects pedestrians at intersections and not at mid - block. An additional concern is the loss of parking spaces in the downtown area. The potential loss is between two and four cars, depending on the access constructed. Sabart stated that since Minnesota Street is controlled by Stearns County, they were contacted for an opinion on the revised access and they provided a letter stated they did not support the proposed ingress /egress. They too expressed concern for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Rieke questioned the architect, Courtney Cooper of Hagemeister Mack, if the parish has an alternative plan that utilizes the existing ingress /egress. Cooper stated that he does have some alternatives, but does not want to present unless the plan is denied by the Commission. Rieke stated that he is hearing the Board indicate there are significant safety concerns with the proposed plan as the intersection will have high demand at specific times. If the City is looking at becoming more pedestrian friendly in the downtown area, the proposed plan does not meet that goal. Schultz stated that the proposed expansion would increase the traffic demands as the new facility could be used for special events or on a more regular basis that just Saturday night and Sunday morning. Once the building is constructed, the building could be used for non - church events and they could occur at any given time during the day, increasing traffic demand at the intersection of Minnesota Street and College Avenue. Cooper stated it is not the intent of the church to use the facility for non - church events or even weddings. The fellowship hall is intended for gathering space before and after masses and to expand capacity during seasonal services. Cooper stated that the church requested to change the ingress /egress to create a safe playground area. The new facility will be located where the current playground equipment is located so the school had to find a place for the playground. It was logical to place the playground on the North West side of the school as it could be separated from vehicular traffic. In addition to the soft playground area, a portion of the pavement will be used for activities such as dodge ball or ball games. Schultz commented there is still a traffic conflict, not a perfect playground. Cooper confirmed that traffic would not be cutting through the playground in the new plan. The Commission questioned Cooper as to the number of parking spaces that will be provided. Cooper responded that the proposed plan includes approximately 159 parking spaces, utilizing the property across the street and the existing parking lot. The expansion will result in a loss of 30 parking spaces on the site with the building. Cooper stated that the Church is also working with the College of St. Benedict to lease additional spaces for special services such as Christmas and Easter. Dubel questioned where the buses will park when servicing the school. Cooper stated that the buses currently use CR 121 /College Avenue and that will not be changed. Meyer stated that he concurs with the City Engineer that changing the ingress /egress has the potential of creating safety hazards. Even if the access where moved so that the driveway is 225 feet from College Avenue, the ingress /egress would then be too close to 1 Avenue NW. Dubel concurred and stated that the current driveway approach is not sufficient for the amount of traffic. He further stated that the Planning Commission is charged with protecting public safety, and unfortunately the decision should not include private safety concerns. Therefore, since they are petitioning party, any improvements that are needed for the project should become the responsibility of the church. Chair Kalinowski confirmed the Planning Commission is not inclined to recommend the Council approve the proposed plans with a mid -block ingress /egress; therefore, it would be appropriate to provide the Commission with alternative plans. The Commission agreed they would prefer an alternative plan, but since they were not provided before the meeting, action on the plan would not be appropriate at this meeting. Cooper presented the Commission with alternative plans which utilized the existing ingress /egress. Commission reiterated that the driveway approach will need to be modified to create a safe intersection at 1 Avenue NW. June 4, 2012 Page 5 of 5 Kalinowski requested that the petitioner review the information provided at this meeting and present revised plans for the next Planning Commission meeting. The revised plans should address the ingress /egress and fire safety issues. Jovanovich clarified that the Planning Commission should not take action on the matter until all fire safety issues have been resolved. Cooper requested clarification on the screening requirement for the HVAC equipment. The proposed plan utilizes a two foot parapet. Visibility of the equipment will be minor. The Commission agreed that use of a parapet for screening is acceptable. Dubel made a motion to table the rezoning and special use permit request of the St. Joseph Parish so that the property owner can prepare and present revised plans for the construction of a fellowship hall. The matter is tabled until July 2, 2012. The motion was seconded by Schultz and passed unanimously. Adjourn - Meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM 4■■■. d ,i)eyzAzd/z-I dy eyr ns Admi istrator THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK