Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[04f] Interim Use Permit - Keith Eisenschenk~~~ t:tr~° o~ i~ r. ac~a rH . . MEETING DATE: August 21, 2008 Council Agenda Item 4 f AGENDA ITEM: Interim Use Permit -Keith Eisenschenk SUBMITTED BY: Administration BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 7, 2008 to consider the issuance of an owner occupied rental at 1306 Iris Lane. Due to the applicant not appearing thereby the Commission could not ask clarification questions, the Commission recommended the Council deny the tnterim Use Permit. On July 17, 2008 the City Council considered the Interim Use Permit of Keith Eisenschenk as he requested reconsideration and appeared before the Council. The Council requested the matter be sent back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration and recommendation. On August 4, 2008 the Planning Commission recommended the Council approve the Interim Use Permit for Keith Eisenschenk as requested for property located at 1306 Iris Lane. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: See draft minutes of PC meeting, August 4, 2008. ATTACHMENTS: 1} Draft August 4 PC minutes; 2) August 4, 2008 Planning Commission Action form; 3) July 19, 2008 Council Action Form; 4) July 17 Draft Council Minutes; 5) Affidavit of Residency REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: Authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute the Resolution of Findings, issuing an Interim Use Permit to Keith Eisenschenk to operate an owner occupied rental at 1306 Iris Lane East. DRAFT -Extract of Planning Commission Minutes August 4, 2008 Keith Eisenschenk, Interim use Permit Keith Eisenschenk. Reconsideration of Interim Use Permit: Eisenschenk approached the Commissioners requesting authorization to operate a rental unit at 1306 Iris lane. He stated that he is requesting to rent a portion of his property to help alleviate financial matters. Therefore, in April he decided to advertise on Craig's List for a renter and he received a response from someone who offered him adown-payment to purchase the home in 2009. Eisenschenk stated that he agreed to the terms with the understanding that he had to live at the property as well. Since then, his tenant has put several dollars into fixing up the house, beginning with the basement. McDonald stated that he drove past the home recently and it looks much better than it did prior to the Public Hearing. He stated that they were concerned about the appearance of the home at that time and questioned some of the responses to the questions on the application. McDonald stated that he is satisfied that the property is owner occupied and appreciated the efforts to correct the outside lawn/storage issues. Eisenschenk stated that they re-landscaped the property in part for aesthetics and in part to resolve drainage issues. With regard to cars parked on the street, since they were working in the basement, all the furniture and belongs were stored in the garage. As soon as the basement is finished the parking will be alleviated. Meyer made a motion to recommend Council approval of the Interim Use Permit for Keith Eisenschenk at 1306 Iris Lane NE. The motion was seconded by McDonald. Discussion: Wick questioned how far the property is from the house on the west side. Eisenschenk stated that it is approximately 12' from the house to the property line. Andersen questioned whether or not he could vote on this matter as he knows the renter. Weyrens advised Andersen that he had to determine whether or not that would result in a conflict of interest. Wick questioned whether Eisenschenk signed the affidavit of residency verifying that he lives in the home to which he stated he had. The motion passed unanimously. ~~~ c:rr~twrnr.~~nhrN Planning Commission Agenda Item 4 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: August 4, 2008 Keith Eisenschenk, Reconsideration of Interim Use Permit. Owner Occupied Renta1,1306 Iris Lane PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission recommended denial of the Interim Use Permit to Keith Eisenschenk to operate an owner occupied rental. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: See comments from Council request form, sub heading, Actions since Planning Commission Meeting. For your convenience I have included the packet information from the July Planning Commission meeting. There is still some question as to whether or not the applicant is residing at the house. Eisenschenk appealed the recommendation of the Planning Commission on July 17 and requested the Council reconsider the recommendation. So that the Planning Commission could ask the questions need to clarify the application, the Council referred the matter back to the Planning Commission. As many of you are aware, Cities are required to action within 60 days of accepting a completed application for certain land use matters. An Interim Use Permit is a land use matter where the action requirement applies. If a City does not act within the time frame, the application is automatically approved. Municipalities do the authority to extend the 60 days by motion if additional information is needed. Since the Council referred the applicant back to the Planning Commission for additional information the motion included a 30 day extension of the 60 day land use rule. ATTACHMENTS: Council request form -July 27 Council Meeting, Draft Extract of Council minutes, Planning Commission material from July. REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: crrv o~ ~ r. ~~~MrH Council Agenda Item MEETING DATE: July 17, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: Interim Use Permit, Keith Eisenschenk SUBMITTED BY: Administration BOARD/COMMISSIONjCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Unanimously voted to recommend the Council deny the request for an Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental at 1306 Iris lane. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Planning Commission has recommended denial as the property owner was not present to answer questions and clarify the contents of the application. The application indicated that cars for the tenants would not be parked on the street and pictures of the property indicated the opposite. In addition some of the Planning Commission members have seen the property and view the same. The property also is in violation of the outdoor storage and weed Ordinances. Pictures of the property illustrated that a boat is parked on the front yard on the grass. The Ordinance requires boats that are parked in the front yard to be on a hard surface, of which grass is not. The pictures also illustrate that a snow mobile is parking on the side yard, not a trailer, which is required by Ordinance. The property is also in violation of the weed Ordinance as the grass exceeds the maximum height allowed. A notice was mailed to the property owner. The Planning Commission has also expressed concern as to whether or not the property owner was residing at the residence. Without the property present the questions could not be answered, therefore, the Planning Commission recommended denial. The motion included a provision that would require the tenants to be removed no later than September 1, 2008. The Planning Commission discussed whether or not to table the matter or deny based on the absence of the property owner. Two factors were involved, first the property owner did take the initiative on his own behalf to secure an Interim Use Permit and when he did complete the paperwork he did not show up for the public hearing. Secondly, the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the Council and the property owner has the right to request reconsideration. Therefore, the if extenuating circumstances existed as to why the applicant could not attend the meeting or he requested reconsideration the Council could send the matter back to the Planning Commission. ACTIONS SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The morning after the Planning Commission meeting the father of Keith called me to make arrangements to meet with me. Please see the phone log for details. As of this memo, the property has been cleaned up considerable. The grass has been cut, the boat, snowmobile and basketball device have all been moved. The Police Chief has verified that property has changed significantly to the positive since July 7. Eisenschenk has also indicated that he will be re-landscaping the yard within the next three weeks. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENTS: Notice to Keith Eisenschenk, Planning Commission RPA, Application for Interim Use, Hearing Notice, Vicinity Map, Proof of Ownership, Weed Notice, Phone Logs (3), July 7 pictures of property. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: The Council has the following options: 1) Accept the recommendation and deny the application for Interim Use based on the findings of the Planning Commission. !f the applicant wished to secure a rental license he would have to make a new application including paying the fees. 2) Since the property owner has cleaned up the property and realized that he should have been at the Planning Commission meeting, the Council could refer the matter back to the Planning Commission. 3) The Council could approve the Interim Use Permit. Draft -Extract of City Council Minutes July 17, 2008 Keith Eisenschenk, Interim Use Permit Interim Use Permit. Keith Eisenschenk: Weyrens stated that the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on July 7 to consider an Interim Use Permit for Keith Eisenschenk, 1306 iris Lane. As the he was not present at the public hearing and Commissioners requested clarification on the submitted application, the Planning Commission recommended that the Council deny the request for Interim Use. Weyrens stated that one of the concerning items to the Planning Commission was the management of the property. The City has had to mail notice of violation of the weed and outdoor storage Ordinances. Since the Planning Commission meeting the outdoor concerns have been resolved. Frank questioned what the options would be if the Council was to deny the request. Weyrens stated that if the request were denied, the applicant could begin the appeal process or they could re-apply for the permit. When questioned if residents were present at the public hearing, Weyrens responded that no one appeared. Wick stated that he would like to see this issue sent back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration. Rassier stated that he is concerned about the tenants that are currently living in the home. As a result, Frank stated he would like to see the request sent back to the Planning Commission with a timeline. Weyrens stated that the City is bound by State Statute to act on the matter within 60 days of accepting a completed action, unless the Council extends the timeline. The timeline can be extended for a specific purpose, such as clarifying the information on the application. Weyrens requested the Council extend the 60 day land use requirement 15 days, allowing the matter to be referred to the Planning Commission on August 4 and brought back to the Council on August 11. Rassier made a motion to refer the Interim Use Permit Application of Keith Eisenschenck, 1306 Iris Lane back to the Planning Commission and extend the 60-day land use requirement 15 days. The motion was seconded by Symanietz. Discussion: Schultz questioned Weyrens to the types of questions, besides proof of residency, that were raised by the Commissioners. Wick stated that they also questioned the number of cars and the fact that they were not parked in the driveway. They also questioned his response to the following question on the application: 6. Will the property use depreciate the area in which it is proposed? "No, I take care of my property as if I was the only one living there." They questioned how he will ensure that this is taken care of. Schultz questioned whether proof of residency has been established to which Weyrens stated that we have proof of ownership. Jansky added that the parking is an issue during winter parking restrictions. Eisenschenk spoke to the Councilors and stated that the vehicles were parked in the road as they are trnishing the basement and the garage was full of building materials. Once the project is completed, the cars will be parked in the garage. The motion passed unanimously. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 25 College Avenue Narth, SL Joseph MN 56374 (320) 363-7201 AFFIDAVIT OF RESIDENCY Applicant Name ( ~ [' ~~Ser~S Ll~..i1 Address I ~(o i6 (~ ~ ~N ~~ Zoning 4G~'kt, Single Family (' Bt, Central Business (' 62, Highway Business Ownership Copy of deed showing Requirement Requirement ~ 50,E ~/ 100% interest must be attached fulfilled ~/ Yes I ,~(~ v~ being of legal age, do hereby by attest and affirm the following: Print Form Number of Tenants 3 ~ No ~ N/a i. My primary esidence is (3(5Cu :-;s Lr~ ~~ and that I am the owner of record of the same. 2. The Interim Use Permit is only valid while said property is your primary residence and you are living at the same. R will be your responsibl'rty to notify the Cty of any change of residency. 3. 1 make this Affidavit for no improper purpose. 4. I understand that deliberater falsification and/or omission pertaining to this affidavit will in resuk in revokation of the Interim Use Permit and the Cty will pursue civil and/or legal action. Signature ~® ,~-3 _ (, "..~~~~ Date 7 _ ~ ~ _ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ r ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ State of MN County of Stearns ~'~ On this .- day,of a ~ 20 ~ r before me ~ ~ /t'h -~ a notary public, personalty appeared _ .~:~ proved on the asis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name (s) is (are) subscribed to this instrument, and acknowledged (he/she/they) exectuted the same. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary 4~` JUDY ANN WEYRENS (SEA ~ NOi'AkY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA ~~~~~~~ My Commission Expires Jan, 31, 2010