HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 [01] Jan 05
Pursuant to due call and notiœ thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in
regular session on Monday, January 5, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the St. Joseph City Hall. I
Members Present: Chair Hub Klein. Commissioners S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Linda
Sniezek, Dan Nierengarten, Kurt Schneider.
Others Present: Dale Gruber, Mark Lambert, Roy Hinkemeyer, Pat Tubridy, Jim Westerhoff, Steve
Streng, Bob Wahlstrom. Ellen Wahlstrom, Jerry Frieler, Jerry Baggenstoss, Betty Baggenstoss, Mike
Deutz, Valeria Roeder, Bob Herges, Rick Heid.
MCO (Multi Coated Layered Ophthalí'nics) - Buildina Permit Authorization: Dale Gruber appeared before
the Commission on behalf of MCO. He stated that MCO is requesting authorization to construct a 20 x
56 addition to the existing building. The addition is necessary to house a new piece of equipment for
processing lenses. The addition of the equipment will add approximately 12 employees. The proposed
structure will not have a basement. However, the existing structure currently has a basement.
The Building Official has reviewed the plans and requested that the Planning Commission require the
owner to sprinkle the facility when municipal sefVices are available. Further, until that time, the
basement is to be used for storage only. Offices cannot be located in the basement until the building is
sprinkled.
Sniezek made a motion authorizing MCO to make application for a building permit as requested. The
Building Permit is contingent upon the owner meeting the requirements of the Building Official as
outlined in Exhibit A and approval of the Fire Chief. The motion was seconded by Lesnick. The motion
passed unanimously by those present.
Klein stepped down from his chair at 7:15 p.m.
North Park Third Addition - Mark Lambert: Mark lambert appeared before the Commission requesting I
preliminary plat approval of North Park Third Addition. Kalinowski reminded those present that Mr.
Lambert appeared before the Commission on November 2, 1997 requesting approval of North Park Third
Addition at which time the Commission recommended denial for lack of a development plan. On
November 20, 1997 the City Council reviewed the plat and requested Lambert submit a development
plan including all required easements and reappear before the Planning Commission. Kalinowski stated
at this time the Commission is reviewing the Plat with a development plan to include a parking lot.
Kalinowski questioned Lambert as to why the Commission is only receiving the information at the
meeting and requested clarification of the dates on the Quit Claim Deed presented to the Planning
Commission. Lambert apologized for the late submission of his plans and stated the holiday season was
of impact. As far as the dates on the deed, Lambert stated that he finalized the purchase of the
Railroad ROW (Right of Way) on December 30, 1997 and took possession of the property on the same
date. The document dates of April 27, 1997 relate to the original purchase agreement signed by
Burlington Northern.
On his behalf, Lambert requested to provide some background as to his opinion as to why he is before
the Planning Commission. He stated that he has reviewed the S1. Joseph Code of Ordinances
regarding the process for preliminary Plat. In his opinion that Planning Commission cannot deny the
plat, rather he must be notified of the deficiencies in the plat and what he must do to bring the plat into
compliance. Lambert stated that the Council has referred him back to the Commission for Preliminary
Plat approval with a development plan of a parking lot. While he submitted a schematic of the parking
lot, Lambert stated it is his opinion the site plat requested of him is not the intent of the Ordinance.
Rather, Lambert interpreted a development plan to include lot and block requirements. I
Lambert discussed his parking plan and stated it includes the parking for 30 cars for his existing
apartment complex. The parking lot has been in existence since 1994. Lambert also expressed
frustration with regard to the requirement that parking lots must be paved, but he will do so if the plat is
approved. The parking lot will also be stripped.
January 5,1998 Page 1 of6
With respect to requested easements,Lambert stated that he will honor any existing easements as the
property was purchased with all encumbrances. As of this time, the only easement secured by the City is
for the water tower light. However, Lambert stated that he is willing to amend the existing easement
agreement to include the Emergency Services Siren. Lambert stated that he has submitted a letter to
the Planning Commission stating the willingness to amend the easement to include the siren pole in the
existing easement under the same terms. This can be placed on the final plat. (;)iå RIiI! IP8RQ l+1ycb
ffl:êFI'ey Beea~Ge he RBd 8 f:umeh t..~t R 1'01:11' r~'f! Jw
Lesnick questioned Lambert if he is requesting approval of the same plat submitted on November 2,
1997 and if so, has the correction to existing zoning classification been completed. Lambert responded
that in his opinion-no one has provided sufficient information the property is currently zoned Agricutural.
Weyrens responded the City Attorney has reviewed the zoning maps and determined the property is zoned
Agricultural. Jovanovich further clarified that when the property was annexed into the City of 8t. Joseph, it comes
in as Agricultural and no formal proceedings occurred to change the classification. At this time Lambert
acknowledged the property is zoned Agricultural and stated he would have the plat corrected before submission of
the final plat.
Lambert stated that in his opinion the real issue is the City placed the water tower in the middle of a
street and assumed they would own the property which he purchased. He stated had the City placed
the tower on property owned by the City, the development of North Park Third Addition would not be an
issue. There fore, it is his opinion1he City created the problem by placing the water tower to close to a
property line.
Weyrens stated that the City strageicaly place the tower in the current location. At the time the tower was
constructed the City was aware of the abandonment plans of Burlington Northern. It was the understanding of the
City that at the time of abandonment, the property would become available to the City. Jovanovich further clarified
that the when the City chose a location for the water tower, it was aware of the need to place the tower in a location
with enough open space for maintenance and to provide a location that would be harmonious with the surrounding
land uses. Therefore, the tower was located at the present location. The property was zoned agricultural as well as
the surrounding property and the placement of water tower in this district is consistent with the zoning classification.
Kalinowski questioned Lambert with respect to an easement for the maintenance of the water tower. The
City Engineer has presented a 5chematic indicating a need for a 120 foot radius tower maintenance
easement (from the center of the tower). Lambert stated that when he originally presented his plans for
preliminary plat, he was willing to grant an easement a building was constructed. However, since that
time Lambert stated that he is not sure he is willing to provide an easement unless is compensated for
such.
Jim Graeve, 619 Minnesota Street East requested that if Mr. Lambert is requesting fair compensation
then he should state so upfront.
Upon Kalinowski requesting an answer from Mr. Lambert, he stated that his purpose for attendance at
this meeting is for plat approval of North Park Third Addition, not to negotiate an easement. He again
stated the Commission needs to review his plat with a development plan of a parking lot. Lambert
expressed frustration with the line of questioning and stated that it is his opinion that the City is the bad
guy who built on property they did not own.
Jovanovich again discussed the strategic reasons for the water tower placement. The placement included
that the property would fulfill the open space requirement for water tower construction and this use is
consistent with agricultural zoning. The City also had anticipated purchasing the excess ROW for future
maintenance. At this time Jovanovich referred to a letter drafted to Planning Commission dated October
24, 1997. This letter details the open space rationale for water tower placement.
Lambert stated that he is willing to wQrk with the City, but the City cannot assume that he will turn the
property over to the City.
lesnick questioned Lambert why he was platting as he does not need the property platted for a parking
lot. She- also stated that she feels that Lambert purchased the property from under the City.
January 5,1998 Page2of6
Lambert responded that the Planning Commission needs to forget about the past, he is the current
property owner and he has a plat before the Commission and is requesting approval. Further, he stated
that he does have plans to build an apartment complex on this property, but does not have the support of
the City at this time.
Jovanovich stated that appears as their is confusion as to the intent of plat approval. Their is
considerable evidence presented stating objection to an R-3 development of North Park Third Addition.
Ample evidence was submitted on November 2 indicating the property was not large enough for an R-3
development. The City Attorney responded that the plat as submitted does not meet the minimum
frontage requirement. The City Engineer submitted objections to the possible adverse effects on the
water tower. The tower was constructed on Agricultural zoned property as well as the surrounding
property to fulfill the open space requirement. Jovanovich stated he is aware that he withdrew his
application for rezoning, but at this time he is stating that at some time in the future he will be requesting
to construct apartments. When a resolution is passed, the findings of fact may include the Planning
Commission is placing you on notice that the property is currently zoned agricultural it is not large
enough for multiple family development.
Lambert stated objection to the references to the rezoning request as he withdrew that request. He
reminded the Commission that he is before them at this time for a plat approval for a parking lot.
Jovanovich stated the Commission received letters of opinion based on a development application
completed by Lambert. It was not until the meeting that Mr. Lambert withdrew is request. Therefore,
the letters became part of the official record of the meeting. Further, while the developer is platting the
property for a parking lot, he is also informing the Commission that at some point he will be requesting to
construct apartment buildings on the same plat. The Commission at this time is making the petition
aware that if they approve the plat, it is approved as an agricultural plat, which is consistent with
adjoining property and land uses. Jovanovich stated at this time the Commission is putting Lambert on
notice that the property is not large enough for multiple family development. At this time Jovanovich
read excerpts from the opinion letters from the City Attomey and City Engineer.
Mike Deutz stated that since Lambert has recorded the sale of the property, a value has been
established. If the City needs to obtain an easement and the property owner is unwilling to do such, the
City could go through the condemnation process. Deutz stated that it is his opinion that condemnation
can be done at anytime and if the property cannot be built the property should not increase in value.
Jovanovich stated that the Planning Commission has three options at this time:
1. Recommend approval of the plat under the current zoning of Agricultural and place findings
of fact that the property is not large enough for multiple family development. Further a
finding could be included stated the zoning is consistent with adjoining land uses.
2. Establish a temporary easement for water tower maintenance and request the City Council
begin negotiations for a permanent easement that would be beneficial to all parties.
3. Request the City begin the process of condemnation recognizing that we have a water tower
and need the easements to prevent future problems.
Lambert stated he is willing to work forward. He is here at this time because the Commission denied his
plat and at this time he has submitted a revised development plan.
Kalinowski questioned Lambert as to the ingress/egress for the parking lot. Lambert responded that
currently the property has been accessed by Elm Street. However a curb cut has been placed in North
Street and they could use College Avenue as an additional ingress/egress. Weyrens reminded the
Commission that if traffic is being collected to College Avenue, a plan would need to be submitted to the
Steams County Engineer for his comment and review.
Sniezek stated that earlier this day she contacted the Steams County Engineer who indicated that he still
has concerns as to the amount of traffic and additional safety issues that could arise.
January 5, 1998 Page 3 of 6
Lambert stated that it is his opinion that the Commission is being too literal in interpreting the
I requirement for a develepment plan. He again stated his interpretation of the development plan
requirement relates to lot and block development and not the use that will occur on the plat. Lambert
also stated objection to prior comments of Jovanovich with regard to future development of the property.
Ehlert discussed the Council action of November 20 and questioned Lambert if he fulfilled the
requirements. In a letter dated November 21, Lambert was instructed to submit a development plan for
the parking lot to include all easements and ingress/egress.
lambert stated that he has addressed the light pole and siren easements but feels allowing an
easement for the tower-maintenance would constitute a taking.
Schneider stated that he can understand Lambert wanting to build additional apartments, but is not sure
the ROW property is the property location. Further agrees the City needs to negotiate an easement for
maintenance of the tower and understands the desire for compensation.
Tom Skahen, Sunset Manufacturing questioned the Commission as to why they are plating the property
if it does not need to be platted for a parking lot.
Ehlert discussed the letter from the City Attorney and options for plat approval. The letter indicates the
City would be allowing a variance on the minimum acreage required for an agricultural lot due to the
unique shape and history of the lot. In reviewing the property, Agricultural zoning is appropriate and
compatible with existing land uses, including the water tower. Ehlert stated he feels the City has enough
tools to secure the easement and keep the required open space for the water tower. He will encourage
the City to begin the negotiation process to obtain a water tower maintenance agreement.
Lesnick stated she does not feel a plat needs to be approved for a parking lot and is uncertain as to why
the Commission should approve such. She also questioned if the drainage has been resolved. Lambert
stated that he has not requested an opinion on such but will do so before final plat approval.
Jerry Baggenstoss requested clarification as to whether or not Lambert has agreed to the easement for
tower maintenance. Kalinowski responded that he has not, but is willing to negotiate with the City.
Sniezek stated that the plat should not allowed as it does not meet the minimum lot requirements for
Multiple Family or General Business. She also stated that the developer is creating his own hardship for
future development and should not be allowed to appear in the future for a variance. The property was
purchased knowing the development constraints (lot size and shape and the inability to meet the
minimum lot size for various zoning districts).
Their being no further comments, Jovanovich reviewed the options to the Commission and proposed the
following resolution:
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat of North Park
Addition Third Addition with the following understanding:
The Preliminary Plat is recommended for approved under the current zoning classification of
Agricultural. Approval is based on the following:
1. The 5 acre minimum lot size is waived based the unique shape of the lot and the
past history of the property. The property is most appropriately zoned as Agricultural
based 011 existing land uses of surrounding property.
2. Prior to submission of the Final Plat for North Park Third Addition, the developer
shall provide the City with a perpetual easement to allow for the continued location
and maintenance of a water tower light and Emergency Service Siren. The
easement shall be fully executed and recorded.
3. The developer will secure written approval of a drainage plan for North Park Third
Addition from the City Engineer prior to final plat submission.
January 5, 1998 Page 4 of6
4. The developer will secure a written opinion from the County Engineer on I
ingress/egress for North Park Third Addition.
5. The City and Developer (Mr. Lambert) shall negotiate a resolution to the issue of a
maintenance easement for the Water Tower prior to final plat submission.
Furthermore, the Preliminary Plat approval is based on the following findings of fact:
1. On October 20, 1997 Mark Lambert completed a development application requesting Preliminary
Plat approval for North Park Third Addition and a request to rezone the property from current
agricultural to R-3, Multiple Family. The development application included a proposed site plan for
an eight unit apartment complex.
2. On November 2, 1997 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for consideration of the
Preliminary Plat of North Park Third Addition and rezoning of such. In accordance with St. Joseph
Code of Ordinances 54.6 subd 2(e). the plat was reviewed and recommendations were received
from the following:
~ The City Engineer expressed objection to the proposed plat because of the water
storage facility which was constructed in 1993. The tower was located in the present
location based on need to place the tower in a location where their is sufficient open
space. Therefore, as the property was zoned agricultural and the surrounding
property was zoned as such the tower was constructed.
g The City Attomey expressed objection to the site plan as the proposed development
@J
did not meet the requirements of St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 51.11 subd, which
requires a minimum front lot width of 150 feet. The plat as submitted has a front
footage of 101 feet.
~ The County Engineer expressed safety concems for ingress/egress for the proposed
site plan.
Upon the opening of the hearing, Mr. Lambert withdrew his request for rezoning and
requested the Commission approve the preliminary plat for the sole purpose of a parking lot. The
Planning Commission unanimously recommended the City Council deny the preliminary plat based
on the following findings: (extract of the November 2, 1997 Planning Commission Hearing)
a. The City Attorney has provided testimony that a plat should have a purpose before
approve is granted. (The petitioner withdrew his development request)
b. The petitioner has stated that he can use the property for the intended use without
the property being platted. Therefore the City is not imposing any hardship on the
property owner.
c. The City has received letters from the City Engineer, Stearns County Engineer, and
St. Cloud Area Planning Organization expressing concerns if the property were
platted and developed.
3. On November 20, 1997 Mr. Lambert appeared before the St. Joseph City Council requesting
approval of North Park Third Addition. The City Council requested that Mr. Lambert submit his
development plans for the parking lot to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Lambert was
instructed to submit a plat plan indicated all easements and ingress and egress for the development
of a parking lot.
4. Mr. Lambert submitted to the City Offices on December 30, 1997 a copy of a Quit Claim Deed
verifying ownership of all property included in North Park Third Addition. The document was
January 5, 1998 Page 5 of6
executed on December 30, 1997 and recorded at the Stearns County Recorders Office on December
31, 1997 at 4:00 p.m.
Jovanovich stated that if the Commission agrees with the above, he will prepare the resolution and
findings attaching all exhibits. The Commission could review and formally approve at another meeting.
Ehlert made a motion requesting the City Attomey draft a resolution, including all attachments, for the
Planning Commission to review based on the above information. The Commission will meet on
January 14, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. to review the draft and formalize a recommendation to the City Council.
The motion was seconded by Nierengarten and passed unanimously_
The hearing was closed at 8:40 p.m. at which time Klein resumed the Chair.
Kalinowski stated she appreciates the comments and recommendations of Jovanovich and the Planning
Commission should prepare similar findings on all land use applications.
Development Alternative - Pond View Five: Developers Rick Heid and Bob Herges appeared before the
Commission to discuss a possible PURD development on the north end of Pond View Ridge. The
original preliminary plat was approved with this section being R-1 single family lots, all meeting the
minimum lot requirement (11,000).
Herges is requesting the Commission allow smaller lot sizes in this section so that patio homes could be
constructed. Herges stated that patio homes do not require as much land per lot and people purchasing
patio homes do not want a largè yard to maintain. Herges stated another reason for the smaller lot
sizes was to build houses that will fit in the existing neighborhood. He stated that the market will not
support homes in the north section over $ 90,000.
Herges stated that the proposal they are presenting would consist of both patio homes and traditional
homes. A revised preliminary plat would be presented to the Commission with all lots reduced to 9,000
square feet. The Planning Commission agreed with the concept of providing a housing mix, but
questioned if it would be advisable to grant a variance on the minimum lot requirement. The
Commission agreed to refer this matter to the City Attorney for his recommendation and review.
Meredith Underud: Meredith Linderud appeared before the Commission to discuss the maximum height
of a tower as regulated by S1. Joseph Ordinances. The Ordinance restricts the height to 40 feet and
requires a setback of 125% of the tower height. She stated that she is ham ratio operator and works with
Steams County and is requesting to construct a tower 80 - 85 feet in height. The height requested is to
allow for efficient and maximum communication. Linderud also stated that she contacted the City before
purchasing the lot and it was her understanding the City had no restrictions. The tower will be located 10'
away from the house and 15' from the side yard. The Commission agreed to schedule a variance
hearing in February upon confirmation from the City Attorney.
Adioum: Lesnick made a motion to adjourn at 9:50 p.m.; seconded by Nierengarten and passed
unanimously by those present.
~cty~~
Judy Weyrens
Deputy Clerk
January 5, 1998 Page6of6