Proposed Agenda WATERTOWN CITY PLAN COMMISSION City Council Chambers 23 Second Street NE. Thursday, February 19, 2015

Transcription

1 Proposed Agenda WATERTOWN CITY PLAN COMMISSION City Council Chambers 23 Second Street NE Thursday, February 19, 2015 Call to Order Roll Call 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Approval of Minutes from January 22, Approval of Minutes from February 4, KAKs Addition Rezone a. Public Hearing b. Commission Action Resolution Mack Estates Concept Plan Discussion 6. East Woods 18 th Addition Concept Plan - Discussion 7. Old Business East Acres Addition Assessment Plan 8. New Business 9. Executive Session 10. Motion to Adjourn 4:15 pm (Immediately following the Board of Adjustment Meeting) COMMISSION MEMBERS: Please notify Lori at X14 or lmarscheider@watertownsd.us as soon as possible upon receipt of this Agenda if you will not be able to attend the meeting.

2 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS PLAN COMMISSION CITY OF WATERTOWN, SD January 22, 2015 Members Present: John Stonebarger, Blake Dahle, Mike Lawrence, Jayson Maguire, Rhonda Johnson, and Pat Shriver Members Absent: Dennis Arnold and Dan Albertson (Council Liaison) Also Present: Stanton Fox, Sarah Caron, Ken Bucholz, Tim Lalim, Jill Steiner, Jeff Brink, Luke Muller, Mark Meier, Rob Beynon and others. Approval of Agenda: Lawrence moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Stonebarger. Motion carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes from November 20, 2014: Dahle moved to approve the minutes from November 20, 2014, seconded by Johnson. Motion carried unanimously. Willow Creek Village Rezone: Brink introduced the topic by stating that the City had received a petition requesting a portion of lot 4 and lots 5-8 of Willow Creek Village Addition be rezoned from R3 Multifamily Residential District to R1 Single Family Residential District. Willow Creek Village Addition went through the preliminary plan process in That plan showed C3 zoning adjacent to Willow Creek Drive and R3 zoning everywhere else. The petitioner would like to rezone the lots that are located next to the pond, because he feels that that area will be a desirable place to have single family homes. If the request gets approved the petitioner will replat the rezoned area into seven conforming lots. The adjacent zoning is R3 to the south, east, and west, and C3 to the north. Shriver opened and the public hearing. Dahle made a motion to approve the rezone, seconded by Maguire. Motion carried unanimously. Fence Ordinance Discussion: Brink introduced the topic by stating that staff was asked to look into the current fence ordinance and draft a revised fence ordinance so that the rules were more clearly stated and easier to understand. Shriver stated that the current fence ordinance allows seven foot tall fences in the front yard, does not regulate how opaque the fences can be, and does not require a clear view triangle. Shriver asked Brink to state the major changes that were being proposed. Brink stated that the proposed ordinance had regulations on where a fence could be placed, and had regulations on allowable heights in the front yard. Brink stated that in the front yard fences could not be more than 30% opaque which would allow people the ability to see through it. Brink stated that this ordinance proposal has a 25 foot clear view triangle for safety reasons. Brink also stated that new fences will be required to stay four feet away from an alley. Shriver asked if we should require fences to be a couple of feet off of the lot line so that the property owner can service them? Bucholz responded stating that has not been an issue in the past, and he thinks that having to mow a couple of feet of grass on the other side of the fence would be an issue. A lengthy discussion ensued about corner lots and through lots. The main reason/concern for regulating corner lots and through lots is so that people can have clear vision when pulling out of their driveway. Johnson asked if a fence could go adjacent to a sidewalk? Bucholz stated that the fence would be allowed to be installed up to the lot line. Examples of lots were looked at on the GIS. Luke Muller, 1 st District, stated that four foot fences that are no more than 30% opaque are a lot safer for pedestrians walking on sidewalks and safer for cars pulling out of the driveway. Shriver asked if there were any changes to commercial or industrial fences? Brink stated that the only change in commercial and industrial areas was requiring a 25 foot clear view triangle. Shriver asked if the utilities have issues with fences. Mark Meier stated that generally they do not have any issues with fences. Caron stated that whenever a project affects a fence, tax dollars go into repairing/replacing fences. Caron also stated that she does not think that fences should be allowed in drainage easements, because a fence will block the drainage and that Page 1 of 2

3 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS PLAN COMMISSION CITY OF WATERTOWN, SD January 22, 2015 it the whole purpose of that easement. Shriver stated that before next meeting Plan Commission members should drive around town and look to see what they like and don t like so hopefully an ordinance can be voted on in the next meeting. Old Business: Caron stated that at the previous City Council meeting the Council directed staff and the Plan Commission to revisit the Residential Lake District (R1L). This district was proposed but dropped 5 years ago, and Council thinks that the residential properties adjacent to the lake should have different regulations because they have different characteristics. Lawrence asked what is driving this? Caron stated that she thinks the Stony Point Development is part of the driving factors. Shriver stated that some of the differences between the lake and city proper is the ability to shoot fireworks and ability to store in the front yard. Luke Muller, 1 st District, discussed the future land use plan for the Pelican Township. Luke handed out a packet and went though it section by section showing the existing types of development as well as the future planned development. The sections that Luke discussed were near the edge of the comprehensive land use plan boundary and were mostly rural and are mostly planned to remain rural for the next twenty years. Luke plans on talking about areas closer to the city limits at the next comprehensive land use plan meeting. Due to the proximity of those areas closer to city limits there will be more planned future development and those sections will require a more in depth discussion. New Business: No new business was brought forward. Executive Session: Executive Session was not held. Motion to adjourn was made by Lawrence and seconded by Dahle. Motion carried unanimously. Pat Shriver, Chairman Page 2 of 2

4 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS PLAN COMMISSION CITY OF WATERTOWN, SD February 4, 2015 Members Present: John Stonebarger, Blake Dahle, Mike Lawrence, Dennis Arnold, Jayson Maguire, and Pat Shriver Members Absent: Rhonda Johnson and Dan Albertson (Council Liaison) Also Present: Stanton Fox, Sarah Caron, Ken Bucholz, Jill Steiner, Jeff Brink, Luke Muller, Mark Meier, Rob Beynon, Rod DeJong, Wade Beam, Dave Cook and others. Approval of Agenda: Arnold moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Stonebarger. Motion carried unanimously. Sherwin Williams Addition Preliminary Plan: Sarah Caron, the acting City Engineer, stated that 26 th Street was included in the East Park Development Preliminary Plan, but this property adjacent to it was not. This Preliminary Plan is just for one lot. Shriver opened the public hearing. Brink stated that this property was recently annexed and zoned C-3 Highway Commercial. Brink stated that there was a Design Review Team meeting and that the team had a few concerns. Brink stated that there is not a fire hydrant within 250 feet and there is no plan to put a water main in 26 th Street. So if a fire hydrant would be required the petitioners would have to put it in at their own expense. Chip Premus stated that the fire department is okay with waiting until 8 th Avenue is constructed and having the hydrant installed at the intersection of 26 th Street and 8 th Avenue. Mark Meier stated that as soon as 8 th Avenue gets platted the Municipal Utilities will install the water main. Stonebarger asked if the city has plans for this whole area? The City has not received a plan for the whole area. Rod DeJong stated that Aason Engineer is currently working on plans for 8 th Avenue. Rod explained how he thinks 26 th Street will be connected to Willow Creek Drive. Arnold stated that planning works best when the Plan Commission can see a plan for the whole area instead of one lot at a time. Sarah stated that the property does not have a vehicle turnaround. Shriver stated that a temporary turnaround needs to be installed. Rod agreed that one could be installed. Sarah stated that 11 foot lanes were approved in East Park Development. Rod said he intends on widening the culvert by 6 inches and designing the road to have 11 foot lanes. Rod stated that according to his preliminary truck turning movements templates, the trucks will be able to make the radius with 11 foot lanes without any problems. Sarah stated that the State has not given written approval for the access and size of the culvert. Rod stated that he will be submitting the applications to the State on behave of the landowner. Shriver stated that if the DOT declines any of the permits this Preliminary Plan will not be approved. It was pointed out that there is not enough room to fit sidewalks on the culvert. The developer can build a pedestrian bridge, and will be responsible for all costs of the improvements in the ROW exceeding the amount of money that the City Council agreed to pay. Sarah stated that the property is in a FEMA designated A Zone, and the elevations need to be determined. Rod stated that he has done analysis and the property is well above the flood plain and he plans of submitting a LOMA to revise the flood plain map. The Design Review Team feels that all the street widths within the Gateway Overlay District should have 66 feet of ROW to be able to fit the Landscaping Ordinance. The originally approved plans show 60 feet of ROW. Sarah stated that the landscaping requirement can come off private property, but if the City wants it to be included in the ROW the ROW needs to be widened. Shriver stated that the size of the ROW will not change the width of the street. Sarah point out that the current drainage of this property is to the south ROW, but after development a portion of this property will drain to the west and north. Page 1 of 3

5 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS PLAN COMMISSION CITY OF WATERTOWN, SD February 4, 2015 Rod stated that the parking lot will catch most of the water. The plans do not show how the property owner to the east will have access. Rod stated that their driveway will be near the end of 26 th Street. Dave Cook, representative of CO-HO and the petitioner of the East Park Development, stated that he is interested in revisiting his Preliminary Plan to try to iron out some of the details. Shriver asked how close are you to platting 8 th Avenue. Dave did not have an answer to that question. He stated that he still plans on 8 th Avenue being located in the same area. Sarah stated that East Park Development Preliminary Plan has expired, and asked how the Plan Commission wants to proceed. Shriver stated that plan should be revisited. The City staff had received a letter from the Morris Family, an adjacent landowner. Shriver highlighted a couple of concerns from the letter including drainage, fire hydrants, and variances in the Gateway Overlay District. The mayor stated that the City has been in contact with CO-HO about getting 8 th Avenue finalized and he feels that we are very close. The Mayor stated that he has talked to all the landowners and everyone wants development in this area. Shriver stated that the biggest concern for the Plan Commission is fire protect and asked the petitioner to explain what their plan for fire protection is. Wade Beam with Lloyd Companies, representing the petitioner, stated that this is a non-sprinklered building. The building is type 2-B Non-Combustible. Wade continued explaining the structural components of the building, which are all non-combustible. Shriver closed the public hearing. Sarah pointed out that the proposed resolution has conditions in it, and the Plan Commission should decide which conditions should be kept and/or deleted and add anything else that they feel is needed. After discussion a motion was made to approve the Preliminary Plan with the following conditions; 1. The property is platted within 3 years. 2. The Applicant is required to obtain SD-DENR NPDES storm water permit. 3. The Applicant is required to enter into a Development agreement with the City to include installation of required public improvements to 26 th Street East, installation of appropriately located fire hydrants, installation of turn-around, acquisition of any necessary easements for the turn-around, 33 feet of asphalt pavement plus curb and gutter outside the limits of the culvert, roadway design as approved by the Acting City Engineer crossing the culvert, 10 foot wide sidewalk on the downstream side of the culvert and 5 foot wide on both sides elsewhere, installation of all necessary ADA compliant sidewalk ramps in 26 th Street East and US Highway 212 rights-of-way, and compliance with floodplain regulations. 4. The Applicant is required to request all permits and approvals and if granted applicant shall install all improvements according to the South Dakota Department of Transportation. 5. Assurance that the drainage from this development will not adversely affect the neighboring properties. Motion to approve was made by Maguire, seconded by Lawrence. Motion carried unanimously. Page 2 of 3

6 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS PLAN COMMISSION CITY OF WATERTOWN, SD February 4, 2015 Old Business: Shriver pointed out that we need to revisit the East Park Development Preliminary Plan at a future Plan Commission meeting. New Business: Shriver wants a Plan Commission member to attend the Design Review Team meetings. Executive Session: Executive Session was not held. Motion to adjourn was made by Lawrence and seconded by Dahle. Motion carried unanimously. Pat Shriver, Chairman Page 3 of 3

7 Request for Plan Commission Action TO: Plan Commission THROUGH: Pat Shriver, Chairman FROM: Jeff Brink, Planner/Engineer II MEETING DATE: February 19, 2015 SUBJECT: KAK s Addition Rezone Petitioner: KAK s Lakeside Addition, Inc., Owner of property Background: Petitioner requests their property be rezoned from R-1 Single Family Residential District to R-2 Multi-Family Residential District to facilitate twin homes. Facts: 1. Adjacent Zoning Designation: R-2 Single Family Residential Attached District north. A-1 Agricultural District north. R-1 Single Family Residential District south. County Agricultural east and west. 2. Minimum Lot Requirements: R-1 R-2 a. Min. Lot Area: 9,000 sf 10,000 sf b. Min. Lot Width: 75 ft 85 ft c. Min. Front Yard: 25 ft 25 ft d. Min. Side Yard: 9 ft 9 ft e. Min. Rear Yard: 25 ft 25 ft 3. General: a. All lots will be conforming lots. b. Development immediately adjacent to these lots has not occurred. Action: History: Future: Plan Commission decision on Resolution (Rezone) 01/23/15 Petition Received 02/19/15 Plan Commission Public Hearing 03/02/15 City Council First Reading 03/16/15 City Council Second Reading and Public Hearing 03/21/15 Published if Approved 04/10/15 Effective

8

9 / 1 R3 KAK's Addition Rezone From R-1 to R-2 Vicinity Map R Feet inch = 200 feet R3 17TH AVE SW 33RD ST SW 36TH ST SW R2 AG R2 AG AG Areas Text petitioned to be Rezoned R1 19TH AVE SW Pelican Lake

10

11 Report and Recommendation of the City Plan Commission to Change Zoning District Boundaries To the City Council of the City of Watertown, Codington County, South Dakota: The undersigned hereby certifies that the following is a true, correct and complete copy of a Resolution introduced, fully discussed, and approved and adopted during the duly called meeting of the City Plan Commission held on the 19 th day of February, RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Plan Commission of the City of Watertown, South Dakota that: WHEREAS, KAKs Lakeside Addition, Inc., has certified that they are the owner of certain real property described as: Lots 1 2 and Lots in Block 10 of KAK s First Addition to the Municipality to Watertown in the County of Codington, South Dakota WHEREAS, the owner of the above described property has petitioned the City of Watertown, pursuant to Watertown Revised Ordinance for the adoption of an ordinance to change the zoning district boundaries of the City by changing the zoning of the above referenced real property from its current designation of R-1 Single Family Residential District, pursuant to Watertown Revised Ordinance 21.14, to R-2 Single Family Attached Residential District, pursuant to Watertown Revised Ordinance WHEREAS, the City Plan Commission of the City of Watertown has reviewed the petition, investigated and determined that the proposed change in zoning district boundaries meets all requirements set forth by City ordinance and is in accordance with the orderly planned development of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Plan Commission of the City of Watertown does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Watertown that 1) it adopt an Ordinance rezoning the above referenced property from R-1 Single Family Residential District, pursuant to Watertown Revised Ordinance 21.14, to R- 2 Single Family Attached Residential District, pursuant to Watertown Revised Ordinance 21.18, and 2) the R-2 Single Family Residential District be extended and applied to the centerline of the adjacent public right-of-ways. I hereby certify that the above Resolution was duly adopted by the City Plan Commission of the City of Watertown. Dated this 19 th day of February, Pat Shriver, Chairman Watertown City Plan Commission

12 Request for Plan Commission Action TO: Plan Commission THROUGH: Pat Shriver, Chairman FROM: Jeff Brink, Planner/Engineer II MEETING DATE: February 19, 2015 SUBJECT: Mack Estates Addition Concept Plan Petitioner: City of Watertown, Owners of the Multi-Purpose Facility location Background: The City of Watertown has bought property and plans of building a Multi-Purpose Facility. In order to develop property a preliminary plan needs to be approved and therefore, city staff has been working on a preliminary plan for the undeveloped portions of this quarter section. A Design Review Team meeting was held on February 11, 2015, and their comments are listed on the next page. Facts regarding Mack Estates Addition The property is located north of 14 th Avenue North, east of 11 th Street East, and west of 19 th Street East. The City is requesting an approval of a preliminary plan according to the City s Ordinances as part of the plat approval process. The property: 1. is mostly unannexed property and proposed to be residentially zoned with the potential of C-2 Local Commercial District adjacent to a collector route, 2. will be served by sewer, water, gas, and utilities within the ROW s of each street, 3. contains a FEMA designated floodplain and floodway within the site of the proposed Multi-propose Facility, and therefore the city must and is working with FEMA before 15 th Street East can be installed, 4. is proposed to have asphalt pavement. Each pavement width and ROW width will follow the 2004 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 5. has a natural drainage-way that the DRT felt should be bought by the City, 6. According to the current trail plan shows a 10 trail along 11 th Street East and along the drainage-way, 7. needs the Park Board to determine where park dedication will be located, 8. is proposed to have one cul-de-sac, 9. is not in the Aquifer Protection Overlay District.

13 Design Review Team (DRT) thoughts/concerns/recommendations on Sherwin-Williams Addition 1. Even though the Comprehensive Land Use Plan allows Local Streets to have 60 of ROW the DRT would like the Local Streets to have 66 of ROW. 2. Water quality and quantity facilities need to be calculated and shown on the plans. 3. The DRT feels that each development in this area should be named Mack Estates Addition to avoid the confusion of multiple naming designations within one area. 4. The DRT would like to see the City plan each quarter section adjacent to City limits so that there is no more postage stamp planning 5. Typical sections need to be provided. Action: History: Plan Commission discussion on Mack Estates Addition Concept Plan 02/19/15 Plan Commission Concept Plan Discussion 03/19/15 Plan Commission Public Hearing (Preliminary Plan)

14

15

16 Request for Plan Commission Action TO: Plan Commission THROUGH: Pat Shriver, Chairman FROM: Jeff Brink, Planner/Engineer II MEETING DATE: February 19, 2015 SUBJECT: East Woods 18 th Addition Concept Plan Petitioner: Joy Nelson and Peggy Haugen (Haugen Nelson Reality), Owners of property Background: Petitioner requests approval of a concept plan for East Woods 18 th Addition. Next month the petitioner plans on requesting approval of the preliminary plan, annexation, and R-1 Single Family Residential District zoning of their property. A Design Review Team meeting was held on February 11, 2015, and their comments are listed on the next page. Facts regarding East Woods 18 th Addition The property is located east of 25 th Street East, and south and east of East Woods 17 th Addition. The petitioners are requesting an approval of a concept plan so that at next month s meeting they can request approval of a Preliminary Plan, an Annexation, and R-1 Single Family Residential District zoning designation. The property: 1. is adjacent to city residential zoning and county agricultural zoning districts, 2. is proposed to be completed in phases with the first phase having 33 R-1 Single Family Residential lots, 3. is proposed to have 60 of ROW for both 10 th Avenue North and 26 th Street Circle. 10 th Avenue is proposed to have 34 of pavement; whereas 26 th Street Circle is proposed to have 32 of pavement, 4. is proposed to have one cul-de-sac, 5. will be served by sewer, water, gas, and utilities within the ROW s of each street, 6. is proposed to have 4 of sidewalks on both sides of the streets, 7. is proposed to have a park dedicated area and water detention area as part of the second phase, 8. is not in the Aquifer Protection Overlay District.

17 Design Review Team (DRT) thoughts/concerns/recommendations on East Woods 18 th Addition 1. The DRT has major concerns about where the collector routes in this area will be located. According to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan collector routes are to be located at all quarter and section lines. a. 25 th Street east in on a quarter line and was suppose to be north south collector route but previous developments have made that impossible and the DRT wants to see a plan showing were the new north south collector will be located. b. The southern edge of this development is on a quarter line and although the previous developments do not have a collector route going west of this development the DRT feels that a collector route needs to be located at the southern portion of this property heading east. 2. Even though the Comprehensive Land Use Plan allows Local Streets to have 60 of ROW the DRT recommends all Local Streets to have 66 of ROW. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan has 75 of ROW for minor collectors. 3. The International Fire Code, which has been adopted by the City, only allows 30 residential units extending pass the nearest intersection. The nearest intersection currently is 10 th Avenue North and Oak Drive, and there are already 26 residential units. Unless this development can get 10 th Avenue to connect to another street only 4 more residential units should be allowed. 4. Water quality need to be calculated and shown on the plans. 5. The Park Board needs to verify that they are in agreement of the park dedication location or they need to determine were a park dedication will be located. Action: History: Plan Commission discussion on East Woods 18 th Addition Preliminary Plan 02/19/15 Plan Commission Concept Plan Discussion 03/19/15 Plan Commission Public Hearing (Preliminary Plan, Annexation, & Zoning) 04/06/15 City Council First Reading (Annexation & Zoning) 04/20/15 City Council Second Reading and Public Hearing (Annexation & Zoning) 04/25/15 Published if Approved 05/15/15 Effective

18

19

20

21 CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

22 14TH AVE SE!(!(!(!(!( Blue Line: Existing Sanitary Sewer!(!(!(!(!(!( 15TH AVE SE 17TH ST SE 15TH ST SE 12TH AVE SE 13TH AVE SE 14TH AVE SE 14TH ST SE 13TH AVE SE / 1 Pink Line: Existing Storm Sewer East Acres Addition Assessment Plan Vicinity Map Red Dots: Fire Hydrants Feet inch = 200 feet