Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-02-16 JPC MINMinutes of the Joint Powers Committee February 16, 1983 MEMBERS PRESENT Ray Senkus, Bill Lundquist, Ann Bodlovick, Harry Peterson, Cathy Buck STAFF PRESENT Douglas Swenson, Dennis O'Donnell, Rhonda Thode OTHERS PRESENT Dick Moore, Don Raleigh, Barry Stack, David Lundquist, Gary Swager CALL TO ORDER Ann Bodlovick chaired the committee and called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Cathy Buck moved to approve the October 20, 1982 minutes as presented. Seconded by Ray Senkus. Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Don Raleigh, representing David Lindquist and Leighton Johnson, stated the applicants were originally asking for concept approval for rezoning of Block 2 & 6, Ramsey & Carters Addition (presently zoned industrial) and subdivision of the property into twelve lots (lots 1-10 for residential use and 11 & 12 for commercial use); but are now asking the committee to approve the concept of rezoning lots 1-10 to residential and leaving lots 11 and 12 under their present zoning of light industrial. Raleigh stated if this request was acceptable the applicants were willing, as a condition of the rezoning, to enter into a development agreement allowing the zoning authority to make whatever restrictions he felt necessary for traffic, lighting, and other problems that might arise. The applicants are also willing to abide by that development agreement for any use that may be deemed inappropriate (such as fast food restaurants and retail businesses). Raleigh stated the property owners felt the City of Stillwater would prefer to have some type of business on lots 11 and 12 since they would not be desirable for residential use because of Greeley Street. In order to avoid spot zoning, O'Donnell recommended the entire parcel be zoned to residential or the applicants follow the PUD process.(See attached letter). Raleigh stated the applicants would rather enter into a development agreement because of the cost and time factor involved and not follow the PUD process. Any use on lots 11 and 12 would then have to be submitted to the Joint Powers Committee as a special use. Gary Swager stated they did not wish to follow the PUD process because it would cost $2,500.00 more per unit. O'Donnell responded to a question indicating it would not be zoning or the PUD process that would cost them extra money. Swager then stated it would be the potential time delay that would cost extra money. Joint Powers - Minutes February 16, 1983 Page 2 Ray Senkus stated that approval in any area where rezoning is requested would require a public hearing. Raleigh stated the applicants were not asking for actual approval, but approval of the procedure of application for rezoning and then bring the matter to a public hearing. Harry Peterson stated the question of rezoning came up at their last City Council meeting when discussing the feasibility study and the Stillwater City Council approved of the rezoning of the 10 lots to R-4 if there would be a development agreement to control the types of uses allowed on lots 11 and 12. Lundquist didn't see any point in rezoning lots 11 and 12 since the permitted uses in general business and industrial are almost identical if you rule out retail uses. Raleigh felt the rezoning of lots 1-10 to R-4 and leaving lots 11 and 12 as they are would meet the applicants needs of the property at the present time. Buck moved to set a public hearing for the next regular business meeting at 5:30 p.m. for the applications for subdivision of lots 1-12 and rezoning of lots 1-10. Seconded by Ray Senkus. Motion carried unanimously. Buck moved to set a public hearing for a special use permit for duplexes. Seconded by Ray Senkus. Motion carried unanimously. O'Donnell stated the following information still needs to be sub- mitted: a grading plan, drainage plan, erosion control plan, and a landscape plan. Dick Moore asked the committee if they had any objection to him doing the grading plan. The committee had no objection to this. GENERAL DISCUSSION Buck questioned what happened with regards to Mr. Johnson. O'Donnell stated the property owner is trying to resolve the problem. O'Donnell stated he had received a letter requesting an extension on the Metcalf minor subdivision. Buck moved that an extension be granted for the Metcalf minor subdivision. Peterson seconded. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Harry Peterson moved to adjourn at 7:20 p.m. Seconded by Cathy Buck. Motion carried unanimously. ti WASHINGTO-R4 ® U1\,JTY PLANNING DERART MENT Robert J. Lockyear Planning Coordinator, COURTHOUSE • 14900 61ST STREET NORTH • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 Lyle C. Doerr \, 612/439-3220 Building Official TO: JOINT POWERS COMMITTEE FROM: DENNIS O'DONNELL, PLANNER RE: JOHNSON - LINDQUIST REZONING AND SUBDIVISION DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 1983 Applicant/ The Washington County Planning Department has reviewed the rezoning and Legal subdivision request submitted by David Lindquist and Leighton Johnson. Discription The property is legally described as part of Block 2 & 6, Ramsey & Carters Addition. The site consists of 5.5 acres. Current The subject property is currently in an Industrial Zoning District. The Zoning/ applicants are proposing to rezone a portion of the property te. R-4 (Resi- 'Request dential) and the remaining portion Commercial (General Business). The applicant wishes to tlhen subdivide the Residential property into ten lots, each to be improved ��.ith a two family dwelling. The Commercial property is proposed to be divided into two parcels. No specific uses have been proposed for the Commerical lots. P.evie;.r Since there are two individual requests, specifically the rezoning and Comments subdivision, I would like to address each request separately. Our comments are as follows: I. Rezonin The subject property abuts Greeley Street on .the east and West Orleans Street on the north. Adjacent to this property on the west is the Charter Oaks Townhouse development. To the south is the Valley Bike and Skate Shop. Across West Orleans Street to the north are the Lilly Lake Apartments and one single family home that appears to also contain a business. On the east side of Greeley Street the property is zoned R-4 with two single family homes and a vacant lot. Further south on this side of Greeley Street the property is zoned Industrial. Accepted sound planning principles do not advise spot zoning of small parcels of land. In this case, the request is to rezone 1.5 acres of land to Commercial and 4 acres to Residential. The intent of proper planning and zoning is to keep like and, -compatible uses together to avoid! conflicts between the differing types of land use. Although the two- family Residential use proposed should fit well with the surrounding multi- family uses to the north and west, potential serious conflicts could arise between the proposed Commercial use to the east and existing Commercial/ An Equal Opportunity Employer Joint Powers Committee February 14, 1983 Page 2 Industrial uses to the south. One possible way of mitigating these potential problems would be to require substantial landscaping and perhaps earthwork (berms) so there would be a buffer between the uses. In any case, we have serious reservations about the zoning change of proposed lots 11 & 12 to Commercial. If the property were rezoned to Commercial, permitted uses would include fast food drive-in restaurants and retail businesses. Both of these possible uses could have a high volume of traffic therefore posing serious traffic hazards. Because of the relatively steep grade of Greeley Street in this area, it would not be wise to permit uses that would generate a high volume of automobile traffic. Industrial zoning would permit offices and most other types of businesses except drive-in restaurants and retail businesses. After reviewing closely the existing land uses in the area (multi -family to the north, Residential to the east, and now with duplexes proposed to the west along with Charter Oaks) I think consideration should be given to the thought of zoning this entire 5.5 acre parcel Residential with the possibility of the eastern most portion of this property (lots 11 & 12) as being suited for multi -family residential development. If the Joint Powers Committee does not feel zoning this entire parcel Residential is appropriate, I would feel more comfortable with the applicant pursuing this project under the Planned Unit Development section of the ordinance rather than a rezoning. Although the result will probably be the same, we could put conditions on the PUD permit and vie would not have to justify approving the spot rezoning request to others who may apply for a similar zoning change in the future. II. Subdivision Twelve lots are proposed in the subdivision. Lots 11 & 12 are proposed for Connercial' use and -lots 1 -- 10 for Residential (2 family structures). According to the Joint Powers Zoning Ordinance the following minimum lot requirements are applicable. R-4 Zoning District Commercial (G.B.) Lot Size 12,000 sq. ft. for 2 family structure 24,000 sq. ft. Public Road Frontage 80' 100 Road Setback 30' 40 Side Yard Setback 10' 20 Rear Yard Setback 30' 30 All of the proposed lots meet or exeed the square footage requirements. In addition, all lots meet or exceed the road frontage requirements with the exception of lot 3 and the lots on the cul-de-sac. However, lot 3 does meet the lot width requirements at the building setback line and the lots Di Joint Powers Committee February 14, 1983 Page 3 on the cul-de-sac are wide enough to accommodate a two family home meeting setback requirements. Therefore, we are not overly concerned with this. The applicant is proposing to attain access to the Residential 'lots via a new cul-de-sac off of West Orleans Street. Additional right-of- way is also being dedicated to enable the upgrading of West Orleans Street. The cul-de-sac meets all requirements of our ordinance with the exception of the radius of the cul-de-sac turnaround. A 60 foot radius is required and the applicant is showing only a 55 foot radius. The city engineer should be consulted to determine if this will cause a problem. To avoid traffic conflicts, we feel access to , lot 11 should be from West Orleans. An existing single family home exists on proposed lot 11. This is currently a non -conforming use. If this lot. were developed for Industrial use this home and all accessory structures must be removed prior to any building permits being issued. Conclusion At this point, the applicant is merely seeking concept a'ppro;-al of,- his fhis project. We would recommend the entire 5.5 acre parcel be.zoned Residential with the eastern most portion of the property perhaps being used -for multi -family residential development (townhouse, apartments, etc.) A Special Use Permit would be required for any multi -family development as well as for two family structures. If the committee does not feel Residential zoning is appropriate, we would recommend the applicant follow the PUD process for purposes previously mentioned. We would strongly recommend if this were -the course to be followed that the lots along Greeley Street be used for Industrial purposes not Commercial. A public hearing would need to be scheduled for the Planned Unit Development. In any case, the following information must be submitted for consideration of the preliminary plat: 1. Grading and drainage plan 2. Erosion control plan 3. Landscaping plan DCOD/ rl t . ___ _____ __ .. _____ ._____. ___ ______ ._____. ___ ______ ._____. ._____. ___ _____ __: v:- sl t i