Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[04] Minutes - September 23, 2014 September 23, 2014 17 Page of Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in special session on Monday, September 23, 2014 at 6:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall opening with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members Present: Chair Matt Killam, Commissioners, Ross Rieke, Gina Dullinger, Chad Hausmann, Daryl Schaefer, Brad Cobb. Council Liaison Rick Schultz. City Administrator Judy Weyrens. Others Present: Nancy Ebel, Tom Klein, Steve Anderson, Troy Rheaume, Robyn Brinkman, Natalie Larson, Mike Schoenecker, Jon Petters, Mike McDonald, Mike Deutz, Nadine Olson, Ron Euteneuer Schultz made a motion to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded Approval of the Agenda: by Hausmann and carried unanimously by those present. Dullinger made a motion to approve the minutes of August 4, 2014. The Approval of the Minutes: motion was seconded by Hausmann and carried unanimously by those present. Ordinance Amendments, Sign and PUD: Chair Killam called the hearing to order and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider amendments to ordinances 52.11 Sign Ordinance and 52.09 PUD Ordinance. The Sign Ordinance Amendment repeals the existing Sign Ordinance and replaces it with a new Ordinance which includes provisions for dynamic signs. th Mike McDonald, 213-13 Ave SE: McDonald approached the Commission stating that there are three positive areas of the new ordinance: 1) illustrations for types of signs; 2) extending the height from 15 feet to 20 feet; 3) Special use permit in the B3 district. McDonald believes there is a long ways to go on the ordinance. He added a good tax base is needed to support the residents of St. Joseph. On the bottom of page 1, there was a new paragraph added, stating signs can be traffic hazards. McDonald stated that driving in any of the area cities, you will see dynamic signs. He added that both the Planning Commission and Joint Planning Board have approved dynamic signs over the past year. The City Council did not agree with the decisions and sent the sign ordinance back to the Commission. McDonald added that the Planning Commission is appointed for specific reasons and he hopes they stick to their guns in realizing the changing technology in dynamic signs. Another section on page 7, no pylon or pole signs are allowed in any district. However, in the new downtown districts, the signs must be conforming to the principal sign structure. Weyrens stated that the provision requiring existing pylon signs to meet the Ordinance requirements should have been stricken. McDonald stated that additionally the ordinance adds that signs cause distractions which could results in accidents. He is unsure where this is all coming from and would like to ask the Police Department how many accidents have resulted from the dynamic signs in town. On page 15 of the ordinance, it states that freestanding signs are permitted. In the freestanding signs definition, it stated it could include pole or pylon signs. McDonald mentioned that at the beginning of the ordinance pole and pylon signs are prohibited. It causes confusion while going through the ordinance. McDonald stated the ordinance should not be this confusing after having it on the table for almost a year. McDonald stated allowance of special use in the B3 district is very good, but feels that it should be allowed in the B2 district as well. He added that off-premise signs should be allowed in both B2 and B3. The new downtown area is the only place to allow off-premise signs. There are regulations to which signs cannot be put up within 500ft of a church, government building, or residential area. He extended an area 500ft out and there is no place a sign would be able to go with those regulations. Troy Rheaume: Rheaume approached the Commission asking why the City is getting so strict in regards to the advanced technology of signs. The new zoning ordinance cites studies done on the distractions that dynamic signs cause, however in his opinion there is no source to the data. Rheaume added that studies he found shows there is correlation between safety issues and dynamic signs. The survey was done for two years and there was no statistical increase in crashes in relation to dynamic signs. September 23, 2014 27 Page of Rheaume stated that in 2013 the City approved an electronic sign for the City and they did not have dialog on the safety concerns. He acknowledged that even though the sign was approved, it was never constructed. Since then the regulations have tightened and he is unsure why. He added that you can look at many of the area cities and seeking information from those cities to see if their signs have caused issues at those intersections. He asks the commission to keep an open mind. Dynamic signs have been in the City and when it was good for the city everything was passed unanimously. Steve Anderson, Franklin Outdoor Advertising: Anderson stated his main position is in the billboard side of things. He appreciated the invite from the City to join them at a previous meeting to discuss the ordinance. The draft prohibited billboards. He stated he could come with a list of about 30 St. Joseph business who are advertising using billboards in other cities. He questioned that the city look at the different corridors. Billboards belong on CR75, CR2, and off of I94. He added you can make corridors to allow for billboards in a regulated manner. Nancy Ebel, 29457 Kiwi Court: Ebel appreciates the work the Planning Commission has done on the sign ordinance. She would not like to have dynamic signs, but understands the need for signs in certain areas. Ebel added she appreciates the look and feel of St. Joseph where it is at and does not want to have flashing signs visible in the City. McDonald questioned why a separate license is required for a dynamic sign. There was also a section that includes the allowance of a new sign being built brighter than the old one. He is wondering how that is measured. Anderson stated he also has studies showing that dynamic signs are not a danger factor when it comes to traffic safety. As no one else was wishing to speak, Killam closed the public hearing. Cobb questioned what the ramifications are if the Planning Commission asks for a continuation on the moratorium. Weyrens stated that she would have to check to see if a moratorium can be extended and if show what the process would include. The moratorium ends on November 22, 2105. Cobb stated they have had a number of meetings and input sessions and added he would need to go back and digest the ordinance in order to understand it further. Weyrens stated that the dynamic sign language came from the League of MN Cities sign ordinance. Schultz questioned where the 500ft for off-premise signs came from as he doesn’t remember it being in prior drafts. Weyrens stated that it was in there earlier, but would double check as she was of the understanding that it mirrors MN Statute. Rieke questioned how long the ban on billboards has been in place. Weyrens stated it has been that way for as long as she can remember. Rieke questioned the City sign referred to by Rheaume. Weyrens stated that in 1997 the City completed the special use permit process to allow an advertising sign in a business zoning district. At that time the City allowed off-premise signs in commercial districts provided they did not exceed the square footage allowed at that time. Therefore the sign the City had was a conforming sign at the time of installation. Dullinger recommended revising the section regarding off-premise signs in the B-3 Zoning District. It is her understanding that the purpose of the section is to allow property owners within the district to construct an off-premise sign and it does not currently read as such. Schaefer thinks it is critical for the businesses along MN to have signs along CR75. Hausmann added that is the main piece he would like to bring to a work session. Other than that, he added the rest of the Ordinance looks good. Rieke stated the City needs to look at the locations of signs rather than sign types. He added that much focus is being placed on the types of signs. He would like to see the locations of the signs be the main September 23, 2014 37 Page of focus. The types of signs are different based on technology. Rieke added it would be like regulating the type of siding people use on their house because of advancements in the siding industry. Schultz stated that the ordinance is trying to govern signs in zoning areas. If those standards were to be relaxed, the process would be brought back to the beginning again. The main issue Schultz sees is the allowance of off-premise signs. In the Ordinance, corridors are defined along MN Street and College Ave. He would rather have them along CR2 and CR75. In the meeting in January, the EDA, City Council and Planning Commission started the process for creating a new sign Ordinance and the draft before the Commission at this time reflects the concerns expressed. Rieke stated it is more important to talk about what areas, what sizes, what types of signs, but less about who is going to buy them and whether they are downtown or not. He agrees with Schultz that CR75 is a high priority area due to low residential impact, high traffic counts, and faster speeds. Rieke added that the City needs to be more relaxed as to what types of signs are allowed in these areas and it should not matter what types of sizes are put in the areas. Schultz stated he does not want CR75 to look like other cities where all you see is billboards; however that might be the one corridor where billboards fit. Eventually as the City expands, CR2 will be the same type of corridor as 75 where there will not be much of a residential impact. His goal is to give businesses the ability to advertise outside of the Central Business District with off-premise signs. Cobb questioned what the main concerns the Council had regarding the sign ordinance. He suggested making a list of the outstanding items and concerns of the Council and go over them in a separate meeting prior to the moratorium ending. He wants to get it done right so that when it goes to the Council, they would approve it as well. Schultz responded the concerns of the Council include: non-conforming signs, billboards, corridors, off-premise signs, and dynamic & electronic updates. Schultz made a motion to table further discussion on the sign ordinance. The motion was seconded by Hausmann and passed unanimously. 52.09 PUD Provisions: Chair Killam opened the public hearing to accept testimony on the proposed amendment to Ordinance 52.09. The amendment requires 100% of the street frontage of a building in the B1 Central Business District be utilized for a permitted use, rather than the current 50%. In addition, the amendment identifies minimum lot requirements. Weyrens stated the change to the PUD ordinance allows for multi-level buildings in the downtown area that also provide for residential units. As no one present wished to speak, Killam closed the public hearing. Dullinger stated that the portion of the existing Ordinance that reads “Residential uses occupy only the upper and/or rear portions of structures” should be corrected to remove the portion that is upper and/or rear portions of the structure. The new provision requires 100% of street level to be used for permitted use. Hausmann made a motion to recommend the City Council accept the Amendment to Ordinance 52.09 PUD. The motion was seconded by Schaefer and passed unanimously. Interim Use Renewal: Weyrens stated in the Business Districts, Interim Use Permits are allowed for non - owner occupied rentals until the area in which they are located is ready for conversion to the business use. They are issued for an initial 3 year period, subject to annual renewal and ordinance compliance and can be extended for an additional 3 year period. There are 5 properties that the Planning Commission is being requested to extend an additional 3 years. None of the properties have Ordinance infractions and they have all been inspected for compliance. Rieke made a motion authorizing the extension of the second three year period for the interim use stst permits at the following locations: 30 Birch St E, 119 College Ave N, 119 – 1 Ave NE, 104 – 1 Ave NW, 409 College Ave N. The motion was seconded by Schultz and passed unanimously. September 23, 2014 47 Page of Public Hearing, Bayou Blues: Chair Killam called the hearing to order to which Weyrens stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a PUD and Preliminary plat entitle Bayou Blues, rezoning of one of the lots from current R1 Residential to Central Business District, and closure of a portion of the north/south alley. Mike Schoenecker, Winkelman Building Corp. spoke on behalf of the developer, Jon Petters. Schoenecker stated that Petters is proposing to develop property adjacent to College Avenue and the east/west ally in the 100 block of Minnesota Street. The development will consist of the following: 1. Bayou Blues – Commercial and residential structure with a foot print of approximately 6, 700 square feet. The structure will include two floors of residential complete with elevators and deck for each unit. The second floor may include some business along with the residential; however, the business would be more residential as the residential portion of the building will include a secure entrance. It is anticipated the structure will house a New Orleans style restaurant and 14 dwelling units. 2. Flats – Four unit condominium structure complete with elevator, in ground parking and roof top decks. Schoenecker added the building will have more of an upscale look with the first floor having 13ft high ceilings, the second floor having 9 foot ceiling and the third floor will have 11 foot ceiling. The building will also have an elevator. There will be 14 garages. 3. Artisan Studio – The third structure is restoring the existing garage which is over 100 years old. It is anticipated that the structure will be used for a studio or art gallery. Schoenecker stated that the restaurant will be requesting a liquor license and will include an outdoor patio. Keeping with the New Orleans theme, it is anticipated that Jazz musicians will perform at the facility from time to time. Weyrens clarified that the property on which the flats are proposed to be located is currently zoned R1, Residential and the application before the Commission is seeking rezoning to B1, General Business. In addition, the applicant is seeking to close the north south alley to manage traffic. Mike Deutz questioned the size of the proposed structure and how it fits within the current regulations. He questioned if there was a footprint of the project other than just maps that show the elevation. Schoenecker stated that the foot print of the main structure is 6,700 sq. feet. Because there will be three finished floors that will bring it close to 21,000 sq. feet. Weyrens stated a piece the City is waiting on is the density calculation proving it follows the ordinance. th Mike McDonald, 213 13 Ave SE questioned the parking. McDonald stated it was his understanding that a portion of the site proposed for development is already restricted for parking for the Millstream Shops and Lofts. McDonald added that parking downtown is already an issue and he wants to make sure there will be enough parking for this new development. Petters stated that when the Shops and Lofts were constructed, the plans included another structure that would have required the additional parking. He further stated that very seldom is the parking lot provided for the Shops and Lofts filled. Deutz stated that he has property on two sides of the development and parking has always been a concern to them. He added people are going to park where it is convenient. The development does not show parking for specifically for the restaurant. He is not opposed to the development, but the parking which is already an issue, is a concern. Regarding the alley, he is concerned with the survey that was prepared for the development that illustrates that the alley is not located within the platted boundaries. Based on the survey that alley should be located east approximately 20 feet. Weyrens clarified that the City is not proposing to vacate the alley, rather close. Petters stated it is not critical for the development that the alley be closed, but thought it would be more convenient for the residents to not have traffic run through there. Tom Finken, 15 MN St E spoke in support of the project. Finken stated he currently lives above Bello th Cucina and has not experienced parking issues other than on the 4 of July. Finken added he originally September 23, 2014 57 Page of was from Melrose where projects like these were denied and as a result their downtown is dead. He stated that a project such as the Bayou Blues can add vibrancy to a downtown and spur additional development. Schoennecker addressed the parking issue stating there will be 67 parking stalls which exceeds what is required for the combined usage. Additionally, the entrance to the building will be on the corner of the lot, not at the middle of the building. Tanya Finken, 15 MN St E spoke in support of the project. Finken stated that she was concerned as a restaurant owner when Bello Cucina opened, but those fears have been relieved. She stated that she has benefited from Bello Cucina as when they are full or have a waiting line, some patrons come to her establishment. She added that having different food venue options is great along with the added possibilities of having office space. McDonald stated he supports the project, but feels it is a good time to review the parking. He suggests the Planning Commission look at both properties when factoring in the amount of parking spaces required. Weyrens clarified the parking in the Central Business District stating that the Ordinance allows the Planning Commission and City Council discretion in determining the amount of parking. Historically the amount of parking has been determined based on the full requirements of the Ordinance and the Planning Commission and Council have required full parking for residential uses, but have provided relief for the commercial components. Weyrens stated that the staff has yet to receive final plans and some of the material presented at this meeting have just been received and not reviewed. Part of staff’s job is to make sure ordinances are complied with. Cobb questioned if the property owners north of the project along Ash Street have been notified. Weyrens stated hearing notices have been sent to everyone within 350feet of the project location. Rieke questioned if there is anything the Planning Commission needs to address at this time or provide feedback for staff. Weyrens stated that staff will continue to review plans as they are received and at some point the Planning Commission and Council will have to discuss the pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the alley and how to make the development safe for all. Schultz agrees there is a parking issue, but there is also a pedestrian issue which then turns into a safety issue. Walkability in the alley will need to be addressed. Schultz agrees with Deutz in that people are going to park where it’s most convenient. He added the City needs to know that’s coming and it will need to be dealt with. He is less concerned with the parking and more concerned about pedestrian traffic. Hausmann agrees that the parking and pedestrian issues should not be the developer’s issue, rather the City’s issue. Cobb questioned if there is a plan to put up any type of fencing to separate the development from the residential areas. Petters stated that there is a 2 foot setback and fences and shrubs can be put along those property lines. Regarding the pedestrian issues, Petters stated that they would like to work with the City to incorporate safety measures for pedestrians. Dullinger agreed with Schultz and Hausmann that the parking and pedestrian issues are related and it should not be the responsibility of one developer to solve those issues. Deutz questioned what is going to be done with the alley. What is the City’s position on either relocating it or abandoning it? Deutz added he doesn’t feel like it should be an issue the residents living along the alley to deal with. Weyrens stated the development is not contingent on the closure of the alley. Deutz stated that he does not want the dust from traffic in his yard. If nothing is going to be done, he would not be in support of the project, unless the alley is moved to where it is platted. Rieke stated he is not aware of the issue, but it is something that will not be decided on tonight. September 23, 2014 67 Page of Schoennecker stated that a rain garden is going to be installed along the alley to prevent traffic from going in there. The Fire Department would still be able to have access through that alley but would need to drive through the rain garden. Weyrens added that the City has their sanitary sewer alongside the West side of the alley. Where the alley is driven on and where the alley is platted are in two different locations and that is not uncommon in the older parts of town. Petters stated that vacating or closing the alley is not an issue when it comes to their development. Weyrens stated the other portion of the hearing is the rezoning the property on the east side of the property to rezone from R1 to commercial. Going from residential to commercial does require a super majority from the City Council due to the changes in density. The final component to the hearing is the preliminary plat. Cobb stated that every time he hears the term rezoning a red flag goes up in his head. He is wondering how it impacts the neighbors as far as the ability to sell their homes in the future. Weyrens stated it could have an effect, however notices were sent on this issue and no phone calls or correspondence were received concerning the issue. Petters added that it will be zoned commercial, but it will still be a residential use. Rieke stated that most people who have lived in the City for quite some time should expect this type of development in the Central Business District. It has always been a plan to expand the area, but it did not happen as fast as one thought. Cobb stated that in his own scenario, things can be surprising for residents and it should be something that they remain aware of. Cobb brought to attention an error in the date on the subdivision review application which will be fixed from 2015 to 2014. Schaefer stated he is of the opinion that the development will be a great asset to the community; however, there are details in the plan that need to be addressed for the long term viability of the downtown and development. If a parking problem exists and is not addressed it can be reflected in the financial viability of the businesses in the downtown area. Due to the need for additional information, Cobb made a motion to table the public hearing to a meeting to be held in October. The motion was seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. Council Liaison Report: EDA Update: Schultz stated the EDA held a roundtable with realtors and other professionals to discuss development in the City. A variety of items were discussed including the new two housing developments south of town, lack of inventory, and an always changing market. When developers are looking for space, they want a shovel ready lot, which the downtown area lacks.. Visioning Meeting: City Council met in a work session to talk about direction and what needs to be emphasized for the City in the future. There was an emphasis to make the downtown atmosphere people friendly and to increase the walkability. From the items discussed, a list will be compiled of the areas the majority of the focus should be put on, to make sure investments are made in the right areas. Rieke stated he was unable to attend the meeting. He does want to clarify that in order to pursue other downtown development that Gateway Commons needs to come off of the front burner. Rather, St. Joseph is a City made up of many different businesses and people. Rieke feels that Gateway Commons would add flavor to the City. Schultz stated that until gateway commons come forward, it is off the table and other projects may be pursued. There are more projects out there than money and the City can legally only bond for so much. Facility Study: A facilitator was hired from WSB regarding the city facilities. The first meeting will be held th on October 13 6:00PM and it will be opened to the public. The goal of the first meeting is to have an overview of the process and to ask for additional volunteers to be a part of the facilities committee. September 23, 2014 77 Page of Cobb questioned what the process with the Old Kennedy School is. Schultz stated that it is a 3-4 year commitment and the plan is to build a new early childhood building after that. Adjourn: As the agenda had been completed, Killam adjourned the meeting at 8:02 PM. Judy Weyrens Administrator This page intentionally left blank