Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 [08] Aug 05August 5, 2013 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, August 5, 2013 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City hall opening with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members Present: Chair Ross Rieke, Commissioners Gina Dullinger, Chad Hausmann, Matt Killam, Daryl Schaefer. Council Liaison Rick Schultz. City Administrator Judy Weyrens. Members Absent: Commissioner Brad Cobb. Others Present: Tom Klein, Brian Loxtercamp, Cory Ehlert Approval of the Agenda: Schultz made a motion to approve the agenda as presented; seconded by Dullinger seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Approval of the Minutes: Schultz made a motion to approve the July 1, 2013 minutes as presented; seconded by Dullinger and passed unanimously by those present. PUD Amendment, S & H Partnership: Rieke opened the public hearing to which Weyrens stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider an amendment to the S & H Partnership PUD that was approved by the City in 2009. The proposed amendment changes the traffic pattern for an approved development. Section 4.2 of the executed Development Agreement between the City of St. Joseph and S & H Partnership requires a public hearing to revise the traffic pattern of the approved development. Weyrens reminded the Council that in 2009 the City approved the S & H development which included 60 unit Graceview Apartments and a second phase development which included ten patio /town homes. The development was part of a mediated settlement agreement which maximizes the development to ten housing units. Weyrens stated that the approved development plan includes a drive on both sides of the patio /townhomes and the revised plan creates one driveway in the middle of the development. The proposed amendment provides for additional green space, particularly abutting the residential homes and provides for two three unit homes and two unit homes. Tom Klein spoke on behalf of S & H Partnership. He stated that the goal of the amendment was to reduce the amount of black top and eliminating one access. in addition, the original plan included two quad units and by changing the configuration to a three unit structure, the roof lines are lowered, creating a similar pattern to that of a typical residential home. When questioned if the access will come from 4t' Avenue SE; Klein responded that it will use the same access as the one utilized by the apartment complex. Klein stated that the proposed modifications will reduce the overall cost of the development so that the homes can be affordable. Brian Loxtercamp, 512 Elena Lane questioned the developer as to the proposed cost of the units. Klein responded that the developer is anticipating a cost range between $ 149,000 and $ 179,000. With reard to size of the units, the two bedroom units will have approximately 900 square feet and the three unit will have approximately 1300 square feet and both will have a two car garage. There being no one further wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:15 PM. Hausmann stated while reviewing the plan he has noticed the reduction in asphalt and the increase in green space; therefore it is a win -win for both the City and Developer. Dullinger questioned if the Fire Department has any issues with the revised plan to which Schultz stated they would review the final plans. Weyrens stated that the proposed plan does have two means of ingress /egress and the roads are internal, considered private. Rieke questioned if the Planning Commission will review the document again in the final plat stage. Weyrens stated that the Final Plat is approved by the City Council and the submission for the final plat requires the complete development plan including landscaping, lighting, setback and final engineering. August 5, 2013 Page 2 of 4 Schultz question the western excess and if that will go anywhere, to which Klein stated that it will dead end. Schultz questioned if additional storm water management is required. Klein stated that the original plan submitted included drainage for both phase 1 and 2 and the amount of runoff will actually decrease with the proposed amendment. Weyrens stated that the City Engineer will verify the final plans. Schultz questioned if part of the plan will include landscaping as when the apartments were constructed berming and tree /shrubbery were required. Klein stated that they did not plan on additional landscaping. Schultz stated that there could be some potential conflicts such as lighting and how is that handled administratively. Weyrens stated the final development plan must include the detail to include building orientation, lighting and landscaping. Schultz the shared access to the apartments, potential conflicts and if the proposed lighting could impact the residents at the apartments. Klein stated that the property owner will most likely create cross easements for access and he does not anticipate lighting to be an issue as the units being proposed are single family dwellings that happen to be attached. Hausmann made a motion to recommend the City Council accept the PUD amendment, for S & H Partnership, considering the plan a preliminary plat and to require the developer to submit full development plans before the Council considers the final plat. The motion was seconded by Schultz and passed unanimously by those present. Ordinance Amendments: Weyrens presented the Planning Commission with draft amendments to land use Ordinances. A number of the proposed amendments are a result of the City Council desiring to have an Ordinance that allows the City to withhold a license or permit if the applicant has a past due invoice or fee with the City. The proposed amendment to Ordinance 55, Housing Occupancy is being requested to correct some inconsistencies. Sometimes when Ordinances are amended, they cross reference is not verified, creating a conflict. Weyrens stated that staff also noted a discrepancy in the R -4 provisions and questioned the Planning Commission on the intent of the Ordinance as it relates to rental. Is it the intent to require that all rental in R4 be owner occupied or 55 and older, or was it to allow for rental. In looking at the residential zoning districts, R1 is the most restrictive requiring owner occupied and an interim use permit; R2 allows non - owner occupied rental by issuance of a special use permit; R3 does not restrict rental; and then R4 goes back to the R1 restrictions. Hausmann questioned the proposed amendment withholding a permit/license for an outstanding invoice and if the provision is property or person specific. Weyrens stated that it is property specific. Rieke questioned if the Attorney has indicated that it is possible to withhold a license or permit. He has some concerns regarding the proposed amendment as there may be a case where a residents needs the income from the permit/license to remain viable. Rieke further stated that while it may make good business sense, there should be some other means of collection as through an agency as to him the proposed ordinance seems strong arming. Killiam stated that reversing the opinion, it is a way to leverage. Hausmann and Schaefer questioned the rationale behind the proposed Ordinance and if the City has been experiencing problems. Weyrens stated that the matter came forward during the delinquent utility hearing and one rental property owner will multiple buildings was delinquent with a substantial bill and the City was in the process of renewing rental licenses. The question became should that property owner be eligible for a rental license. Schultz concurred that the recent hearing is what precipitated the proposed amendment and while it is not a huge issue for the City at this time, it becomes a tool. Dullinger stated that working in a fee based industry this is a common practice. The Commission continued discussion on the R4 provisions and whether or not it is the intent of the Planning Commission to limit rental in the R4 zoning District. Cory Ehlert approached the Commission and stated that it was his understanding that the R4 did include rental and he recently had a prospective home owner decide not to purchase property in his subdivision as she could not rent. Her intent was to move here eventually but was overseas at the time. Schultz stated that he is hesitant to consider any changes as the Council just went through the residential rental, approving some modifications. August 5, 2013 Page 3 of 4 The Commission discussed how other Cities manage rental to which Weyrens stated that St. Joseph is the most restrictive the Council has been working on balancing the neighborhoods. Weyrens clarified that the only non -owner occupied rental allowed in the R4 Zoning district is limited to 55 and older. Regarding the regulations of other communities, Ehlert stated that St. Joseph has the most restrictive Ordinances and it is based on the past conflicts. He further stated that the City can require covenants in R4 districts to help manage the neighborhood. In addition, the only R4 neighborhoods are new subdivisions so those purchasing property would be aware that they are purchasing property in an area where rental is allowed. The Commission agreed to continue the discussion upon receiving information from other communities. Adlourn: The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:23 PM. AItr dmini ator r THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK