Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 [12] Dec 04 Official Minutes - Planning Commission I Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission met in regular session on Monday, December 4, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the St. Joseph City Hall. Planninl! Commission Members Present: Chair Hub Klein. Commissioners Marge Lesnick, S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Gary Utsch, Cory Ehlert, Kurt Schneider, and Jim Graeve. Planning Commission Secretary Chad A. Carlson. Others Present: Pete and Lisa Walz, Ellen Wahlstrom, Gregory Bechtold, Rick Heid, Larry Hosch, Bob Herges, and Gregg Stroeing. Walz Variance - Public Hearinl! The Walz's are requesting a variance to Ordinance 52.17, Subdivision 4 (e)(ii) which states that the combined area of a lot covered by the accessory buildings authorized in subparagraphs (i) above shall not exceed 10 percent of the total lot area. The Walz's are further requesting a variance to Ordinance 52. 14, Subdivision 16 (i) which states that residential lots shall have not more than a single curb cut providing access to the lot. The curb cut shall not be more than 24 feet in width. Lisa Walz stated that the additional access onto Minnesota Street would assist in the location of the new garage and would be aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. Many properties have access to Minnesota Street including many of their neighbors. The request for an access to Minnesota Street in not unusual. The access would not impair the public health and welfare. Lisa Walz stated that the proposed garage size would exceed the allowable square footage as stated in the Ordinance. After measuring the existing garage, the new garage would exceed the Ordinance by 54 square feet. Walz stated that if they are not able to construct the new garage as proposed they will be forced to rent a storage unit. Many other residents in the community have been granted a similar variance and it would not be detrimental to I the community's health and welfare. Lesnick stated that the lot is simply too small for the type of garage they are proposing, without removing the existing garage. There are safety concerns with having an access on Minnesota Street and they would loose their entire front yard. Walz stated that they would only create a 12 foot curb cut and have a turn around on their property. Utsch stated that he doesn't want to set a pattern of granting access to Minnesota Street and more than one access to a lot. He suggests the Planning Commission stay with the intent of the Ordinance. Walz stated that an alternative would be to reduce the garage size and use the same access onto 1 st Avenue, Ehlert stated that he would prefer to have the face and have access to Minnesota Street. In his opinion, the property would look similar to the properties on Minnesota Street. Since there is enough room to create a turn around on the property, the safety issue is not that big of a concern. Graeve suggested sharing a driveway with the neighbor and just widening that existing driveway. Walz stated that may work, but they have never discussed the option with the neighbor. Ehlert stated that it is a good idea, but does create a problem at resale. Relationships change over time and it may not be a good situation in the future. Utsch made a motion to recommend that the City Council deny the variance request for an additional access to the lot from Minnesota Street and to deny the variance request to exceed the maximum lot coverage by acces~ory buildings; Seconded by Lesnick. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Kalinowski, Lesnick, Schneider, Klein, and Utsch Nays: Ehlert and Graeve Motion Passed I December 4, 2000 Minutes Resolution of Finding I The request of Lisa and Pete Walz for a variance came before the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on December 4, 2000. The purpose of the hearing was to consider the issuance of a variance for to construct an accessory building, which exceeds the allowable lot coverage and a variance to allow a second access to the property from Minnesota Street. Section 52.17 Subdivision 4 (e)(ii) states that the combined area ofa lot covered by the accessory buildings authorized in subparagraphs i) above shall not exceed 10 percent of the total lot are<1. Section 52.14, Subdivision 16 (i) states that residential lots shall have no more than a single curb cut providing access to the lot. The curb cut shall not be more than 24 feet in width. The request has been submitted by Lisa and Pete Walz, 100 East Minnesota Street, St. Joseph, MN 56374. Notice of this matter was duly served and published. In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its applic<1tion to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City ofSt. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following fmdings: The proposed variance is not consistent with the standards for a Variance stated in St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 Subd. (a - e). Therefore, based on the findings above, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendation: Deny the variance request for an additional access to the lot from Minnesota Street and to deny the variance I request to exceed the maximum lot coverage by accessory buildings. Chair Klein closed the hearing at 7:25 p.m. Pond View Ridl!e Six - Final Plat Carlson stated that the Planning Commission needs to review the proposed options as presented by the developer for the three lots on the old Krestrieba Property. The developers are platting this area as a part of Pond View Ridge Six _ Final Plat. With Option B, the developers meet all requirements as stated by Ordinance, but Option A is preferred by the developers for development purposes. The Planning Commission needs to decide with what option the developers should proceed, and make a motion to recommend approval or denial ofthe Final Plat to the City Council. Hied stated that they would like to avoid cre<1ting an easement for utility purposes with Option B. Hied stated that Option A creates the greatest setback distance ITom the existing property owners and utility access is at the property line for each lot. Utsch stated that if the Planning Commission would approve Option A, would all the driveways be place on the south property line for each lot? Utsch recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance to the width requirement for lots 2 and 3 and approve Option A. Herges stated that the driveways for the lots would be place on the south property. Klein stated that there still is a safety issue with the property and the Planning Commission will face a similar situation in the future with the property across 12th Avenue. Graeve stated that there is a row of mature cedar trees on the property and would encourage the developers to save I those trees during development. Graeve would like to have this be a part of the motion granting the variance. Hied stated that they will save the trees provided that they are not on the building pad. December 4,2000 Minutes Graeve made a motion to recommend that the City Council make a variation, via Letter of Transmittal, to allow the plotting of Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block 5 of the Final Plat of Pond View Ridge Six I Addition without meeting the 75 foot minimum width requirement of a lot stated in Section 54.7 Subdivision 4 of the Subdivision Ordinance, provided that the access to Minnesota Street from Lot 1, Block 5 of the property is eliminated and the entrances to the lots on 12th Avenue be place on the south property lines of each lot; Seconded by Kalinowski The motion passed unanimously by those present Letter of Transmittal Pursuant to Section 54.5, Subdivision 5 of the Subdivision Ordinance, whenever it is found that the land included in the subdivision plat, presented for approval, is of such size or shape or is subject to, or is affected by such topographical location or conditions, or is to be devoted to such usage that full conformity to the provisions of this Ordinance is impossible or impractical, the City Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council by letter of transmittal that said Council authorize variations or conditional exceptions in the final plat so that substantial justice may be done and the public interest secured. In recommending such variations or conditional exceptions, the City Planning Commission and City Council shall find the following: 1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property; 2) That the variation or exceptions is necessary for reasonable and acceptable development of the property in question; 3) That the granting ofthe variation or conditional exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the particular property is situated; and 4) The variation or exception does not adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. I The Planning Commission by this Letter of Transmittal is recommending following based on the fmdings above: A variation to allow the plotting of Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block 5 of the Final Plat of Pond View Ridge Six Addition without meeting the 75 foot minimum width requirement of a lot stated in Section 54.7 Subdivision 4 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Herges stated that the Planning Commission and City Council has reservations regarding the wetland delineation preformed by WetTech and approved by the Steams County Enviromnental Services. Herges had the Planning Commission refer to the letters from the Board of Water and Natural Resources and Steams County Environmental Services. The County approved the replacement of wetlands on a 2:1 ratio and the advisory committee has signed off on the replacement. Greg Bechtold introduced himself as the new wetland compliance officer for Stearns County. He has taken the place of Melissa Wester who is no longer with the County. Bechtold echoed Herges comments by stating that the County has approved the wetland taking and replacement requirement. Utsch stated that the wetlands that will be affected by the City's setback requirements are in Phase Two of the development and they will be dealt with at that time. Utsch questioned Outlot A. Herges stated that on the preliminary plat this area was platted for residential lots. After the wetland delineation, this area became an area of wetland that must be saved and remain a wetland. Bechtold explained the process of notifying agencies that regulate wetlands throughout the nation. Over twenty agencies have been contacted. The agencies have 30 days to respond or a no response is considered a "no comment". Generally, agencies won't respond to wetlands less than three acres, unless there is a great concern. Ellen Wahlstrom expressed her concern to the Planning Commission, developers, and Steams County regarding the I process and monitoring of the wetlands. She requested that the plat not be approved until all the agencies have responded and until the two lots in phase two are eliminated. She expressed concern to County regarding the monitoring of property owners adjacent to wetlands. December 4, 2000 Minutes Bechtold stated that the Steams County Environmental Services staff is not capable of monitoring every wetland in the County. Their method of response is compliant based. Wahlstrom stated that every development in the City ofSt. Joseph has destroyed wetlands and the City is paying a I big price. A large wetland is being eliminated with this development and City is always considering variances when it comes to natural resources. Utsch stated that the developers are preserving all the areas required by the County and mitigating the wetlands where the road is being constructed. Bechtold confmned Utsch's statement. Wahlstrom stated that the developers should be responsible to notify the property owners that their lot contains a wetland and it cannot be damaged. The Planning Commission needs to say no to variance requests that will be coming phase two. Ehlert stated that the City has created a process where developers and homeowners must submit a grading and drainage plan for each lot. This will help identify and preserve wetlands in the this and all future developments. Graeve stated that drainage from lawns and gardens are the precise reason wetlands are being destroyed. Graeve questioned who will own the wetlands that are preserved. Herges stated that they are looking at the following three options: 1) donate to adjacent property owners 2) city ownership, or 3) donate to DNR or other wetland agency. Wahlstrom stated that the City of St. Joseph has a setback for homes from wetlands to eliminate the contamination from filtering into the wetlands. Phase Two will need two variances in order for them plot two lots. The wetland needs to be flagged on the property and variances should not be granted. Hied stated that the conversation taking place tonight regarding wetlands with this plat is outside of the jurisdiction I of the City. The County approved the wetland plan as submitted and the City has no right to second guess their decision. Herges again asked the Planning Commission to review the approval letter from Steams County Environmental Services. Lesnick moved to recommend that the City Council approve the Pond View Ridge Six Final Plat as presented with the variations to the minimum lot width requirement and the eliminate of the access to Minnesota Street from Lot, Block 5 as approved. The motion passed unanimously by those present. Approval of Minutes: Lesnick moved to approve the November 13, 2000 minutes as presented. Seconded by Utsch. The motion passed unanimously by those present. Announcements: Ehlert informed the Planning Commission regarding the rental license issue with Linda Sniezek. The City Council will be considering an extension of the special use permit due to the circumstances surrounding the family renting the home. Adjourn: The Planning Commission meeting adjourned by consensus at 8:40 p.m. /é ?;!;~p Chad . Carlson - --~\ Planning Commission Secretary I December 4, 2000 Minutes