Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[03] Minutes - February 2, 2009~~ crr~' OF tiT. JUS[tl'H Planning Commission Agenda Item 3 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: March 2, 2009 Minutes -February 2, 2009 Administration Approve Minutes of February 2, 2009 REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Approve minutes of February 2, 2009 February 2, 2009 Page 1 of 5 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, February 2, 2009 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Kalinowski, Commissioners Rieke, McDonald, Deutz, Orcutt, Meyer, Wick and City Administrator Judy Weyrens Others Present: Alan Rassier, Jim Mosche, Irma Hoffmann, Bill Rothfork, Colleen Petters, Bob & Ellen Wahlstroms Approval of the Agenda: Deutz made a motion to approve the agenda with the following addition: Add 2a Mayor Rassier The motion was seconded by Meyer and passed unanim Oath of Office: Weyrens administered the Oath of Office to .the'folloiniing commissioners: Michael McDonald, Michael Deutz and Brian Orcutt. Mayor Rassier: Mayor Rassier approached the the Planning Commission and for all the work tF Election of Officers: McDonald made a motion to The motion was seconded by Deutz. Chair: S. Kathleen K ki Vice-Chair: Michael Deutz Orcutt made a motion to close n The motion passed Minutes: Wick made °, otian to The motion was secon y M Ayes: Kalinows iek Naysr~ 'None Public He nrip, Interim .Fermi stated the-purpose of the rental at01~t Avenue NW, ~sioners to thank t1ie ~~~ do. ~?~the officefis-the same by M lecting Fla inowskSCta~r for Id. the Me r rcutt, Wick otion Carried 6:0:1 noted by Kalinowski. t '~~~~~3.4 1 ~ Ave e~ . :'~alinowski opened the public hearing and is t sider an In im Use Permit to allow a non owner occupied Ily des t~b~„d as Lot 7 Block 12, Townsite of St. Joseph. St. Jose h Code"~'f~Ordinances 5i7 Subd.'!~: Interim Use Permit for Rental Units. a) Residential units~~n reas that h e been rezoned to commercial from residential shall be allowed an interim use permit as ° >ental unit specific period of time. The maximum density for rental units under the interim use permit ~'i be li j to the density which is allowed in the R-1, Single Family Residential District. The request for Interim Use was submitted by Irma Hoffmann. Weyrens stated that the material provided to the Commission includes an illustration of the uses of the property surrounding the property owned by Hoffman. When the Business Zoning Districts were amended to include a provision for non owner occupied rental units in areas that are predominately residential, the intent was to allow rental until the neighborhood was ready for conversion to commercial. A provision was added to the Ordinance to license rental properties in these areas by issuance of an Interim Use Permit. Therefore, when the Planning Commission considers a request for Interim Use, the expiration dates of Interim Use Permits in an area should be consistent. for volunteering to be on year. passed unanimously. and Deutz as Vice Chair. February 2, 2009 Page 2 of 5 With that in mind, there is an existing Interim Use in the immediate area surrounding the Hoffman property which expires in 2011. Based on the Ordinance, the request before the Commission should expire in 2011. Irma Hoffmann, 302 E Ash Street, approached the Commissioners stating that she is requesting the Interim Use. The property was owned by her son who is deceased and she would rather occupy the home than let it sit vacant. With no one present wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Wick questioned the exact date in 2011 when the permit would expire. According to Weyrens, the other permit expires on March 3, 2011. She added that the property owner can then request a three year extension of the permit; however, it will be reviewed annually by the'planning Commission to determine whether the area is ready to convert to a business use. Weyrens stated that it would not be approved by the Council until February 19, 2009. ~ ` Hoffmann questioned whether the taxes will increase will now be taxed as anon-homestead property. Wick made a motion to authorize the Planning the Resolution recommending the Council to 15t Avenue NW, expiring March 11, 2011. The unanimously. ~~ r uvm. ~ ica~ n iu, .~i.rc~.~ai vac r ci n ni - i~~ and stated that the purpose of the heari~ and used trailers as well as used autos. The property is legally d BEG 115.50' N of SW c~ W793.88 term. f~- require a The request for Special Uses-~iias subf Jim Musche "approached the C is Fimrite and is speaking on his be ,~ ~< on the useWeyrens stated that the property mission Chair and A tnnistrator to execute an Interim Use Permit ~o-lrma Hoffmann, 104 was seconded by Deutzd~„passed ler Sa~ies~ alinowski called the hearing to order a Specs Use Permit to allow for the sale of new S'Lf CO RD 75 and N of FDL '.~ S84D E 601.22' to ELN OF cial Use Permit. The following uses shall in Section 52.07.03 of this Ordinance: rite, North Country Trailer Sales LLC. me behalf of David Fimrite. He stated the he works for Mr. he ha •family emergency. Mary Ann Graeve, ' innesota ~ meet E approached the Commissioners and stated that she lives at the corner of 8th Avenu nd Min ota Street. She questioned what they are referring to as a trailer, what the weight of the tra of ~ ' what their use is. She was advised that most of the trailers will be snowmobile trailers or smal - r- trailers. The weight is similar to that of a small pickup. Graeve also questioned the weight restrictio on 8th Avenue as the road was just built. Weyrens stated that it is built as a 7 ton road; but it is marked for 5 ton. McDonald stated that when he read the notice, he was envisioning mobile home trailers; however, after looking at their website, they sell small trailers rather than mobile homes. Nancy Notsch, 406 8th Avenue NE, approached the Commissioners in opposition to the proposed special use. She stated that they have been through this before and it is a nightmare living next to a use car dealership. She stated that, in the past, there were several promises made and nothing ever happened. They have dealt with issues such as trash in their yard, customers using their swing set, people assuming they are the owners and receiving inquiries about the business, etc. People tend to look at used cars after the lot closes, which results in lights shining in their home in the evenings. In her opinion, this does not February 2, 2009 Page 3 of 5 create a safe environment for her grandchildren. The only way she feels that this would be an acceptable use is if they were to construct privacy fence along the entire length of the yard. McDonald questioned whether or not they own the area along the tree line to which Notsch stated that they do based on a past land exchange between them and Scherer Trucking. She concluded by stating that it is hard living next door to a used car dealership. Ellen Wahlstrom, 409 8th Avenue NE, also approached the Commissioners regarding the proposed special use. She stated the safet~r issues that Notsch addressed are issues from past experiences. She voiced her concerns regarding 8t Avenue as it was recently built and they have already had to do some patch work. In her opinion, heavy traffic along 8th Avenue would only make the problem worse. She doesn't have a problem with them hauling in one vehicle at a time, but she is worried about vehicles coming in on large transport. According to Wahlstrom, this type of use.is an undesirable situation for the neighborhood. With the road being her concern, she questioned whether or not the residents would be responsible if the road needed to be repaired. She stated that the~!.would like some assurance from the ~..,. City stating that they would not be assessed for any road repairs=due to the increased traffic. She also suggested that, if the use is approved, they lock the dealership-after hours to prevent traffic after hours. ~` ~~ ~ ' ` Mike Borresch addressed the Commissioners in opposition as well. He s~l businesses conducting trailer sales in St. Joseph ancf;three would be too ~, ; ,:y well and several in St. Cloud. ~" ~' ' Jim Graeve, 619 Minnesota Street E, stated that he would like to Notsch property. He also suggested tha~they sell only t oilers ark With no further public comment, the pu McDonald questioned Muschel as to where`' Cross Town Auto. The Com i loners were most. Rieke questioned the orient zoning. eyr allowed by Special Use ~ it and th ~ a reasonable. He also quests .whe the lease. H er~ty ,d no co be attache e rop~or th ~ se. W s .. Permit~~ould be attach o;~a spe se. that there are already two r, There are two in Avon as to protect the was clo are~~sated now. r ised tfi" t ihev_tend I that they are located near 12-15 cars and 10 trailers at is stdted~tat it is zoneds B2 and this type of use would be place o ,e conditions on the property, provided they are got there vas talk of purchasing the property blended in with uestioned whether or not the Special Use Permit would cLvishe Commissioners that the Special Use McDonald'' uestioned wheth of th can reasonable require screening of the parking area. Weyrens s ate~,at it meets th 'Wing re r rnents. Deutz questioned whether these types of conditions are shed to the pro , y and yer questioned whether the Landlord would then be responsible for ~rag,those impr ements. It was suggested that there be a gate that is closed after business hours so ttet~• he busine oesn't interfere with the neighbors. A fence along the property would be an expense o~e landl it was also suggested that they redirect the lights onto their property. The Commissis u rstand that how they run their business has nothing to do with the landowner. Kalinowski que d'whether or not the lighting requirements are reasonable to which Weyrens stated that there are lighting provisions that can be enforced by Ordinance. Rieke stated that he is in favor of a fence two feet off the property line. Meyer questioned the concerns raised by the Public regarding 8th Avenue. Weyrens stated that the property owners were assessed 100% as this was the first improvement after being annexed into the City. Technically, this is a County Road, therefore, the County paid for a portion as well. Any future improvements would be assessed at a 60/40 split with the City paying for 40% of the costs. Deutz questioned Weyrens as to what kind of problems have already occurred since the road was built. Weyrens replied that there were some warranty issues that came up; however, C & L did come and fix them. She added that in order for the City to assess the property owners, they must have to show a benefit to the property owners. The Planning Commission does not set polices for assessments. February 2, 2009 Page 4 of 5 McDonald stated that they can encourage the new owners to access the property off of County Road 75 rather than Minnesota Street. He added that the City should not consider the effect of competition when reviewing land use requests. There was some question about whether or not they should require that the parking lot be paved. Deutz questioned whether or not they can afford to pave the property. According to Wick, the City has required other businesses to pave their lots. Weyrens explained that if a building permit is issued, they would be responsible for paving the parking lot. She added that if they do pave the parking lot, there are different storm water regulations and the improvement requirements more than bituminous surfacing. McDonald stated that this business will be located along County Road 75 and it should look nice. He also stated that he is in favor of another business in town paying taxes; however, there is the conflict of improving the tax base and that of safety. Kalinowski stated that it is difficult because the owner of the business is not the property owner. F' r r .,~4 _~~.~,; Meyer stated that he would like to see a 6' security fence ;along.,the property line, the lighting to be changed and the existing fence to be removed. He made`a -nofion to table the approval of the r ,.,,,: ~:~~-~ Special Use Permit for 30 days until they provide lighting and fencing plan. The motion was seconded by Rieke. ~~,'<r_ ~a 4?' Discussion: McDonald questioned whether , ny of the property is prayed. Weyrens stated that the apron entering the lot is paved. Meyer sta edrthat lighting is a big thm this site. Orcutt added that the addition of a fence along the property line makes sense. Deutz q ' stioned whether they would be required to take down the existing ferice. Weyrer~S~`suggested tha ~ ~ e Building Inspector take a look at the existing fence and determine ~Vtiethe ~~r not it needs to be ' ° oved or if it can . _, ~ e ~~ be replaced. Meyer stated that ,would like to see the owner present at the ne meeting to answer an uestions. ~~~- `'~~~ . The motion passed unanimously. consider an Amendme Ordi Ornamental Banners i e B-1 available for review at th i~ C and written comments ma received. T e o d ame banners ~ _c ; re I not signage~~thout a lot o r. ,~ Colleen a `fir approached th provided th;~'~vith a picture sh~ the Millstream 5i~s and Lofts 11 (S on the City, ;n,City Office by vski~5tated that tfS"erpurpose of the hearing is to he prop s.~d-~amendment includes provisions for t Full text'bf:~lie Ordinance Amendment was bsite. All persons wishing to speak will be heard the stated that no written comments were good to have signer ~#rictions. Th would be to identify e:~'ndividual The public hearing was `~ :om the Millstream Shops and Lofts to hang 4 _o inq banners would allow for additional mi ers as the owner of the Millstream Shops and Lofts. She the pr osed banners which are 20 x 40. Their goal was to make k tastef~n downtown St. Joseph. She agrees with the City that it is oposed signs would be 9'1"above the sidewalk and the purpose Rieke questioned whether the support beams are more than 20' apart. He was advised that they are not closer than 20'. Deutz stated that they amended the Sign Ordinance last year for the Downtown area. The proposed Ordinance requires that the banners be 10' from the ground; however, most of the buildings are only 10' tall. He suggested a height restriction of 8-9'. Rieke then questioned whether 8' would allow for snow removal. It was also suggested that focal signage and county signage be reviewed as well for potential hazards. Wick questioned the definitions as they all changed due to the addition of ornamental signs. McDonald stated that the definition should include a size for such. Deutz questioned what exactly an ornamental banner is as it is not clear by the definition. Weyrens agreed that the del:fnition was left very generic. She stated that she will look for a better definition. There were some questions relating to the size whether it is February 2, 2009 Page 5 of 5 short and long rather than narrow and tall. Meyer clarified that this ordinance is relating to permanent banners rather than temporary ones. McDonald agreed that it needs to be better defined. Meyer made a motion to table the approval of the Ordinance Amendment. The motion was seconded by Rieke. Discussion: McDonald questioned the possibility of adding banners across Minnesota Street and whether that would be allowed by Ordinance. He suggested banners to welcome the students or to be used for large events, similar to how the Christmas decorations are hung. Weyrens stated that there are some questions about how they would be anchored and who would be liable in the event that there were damages. In the past, there was a banner across Minnesota Street and it resulted in damage to a vehicle when it fell and there were sparks on the power line as the banner blew in the wind. Weyrens advised the Commissior~~rs:ihat the City is always liable. She stated that this could be re-addressed. ~'r'~.., The motion passed unanimously. fi ~~`~ '~`-~, ~~ 2009 Planning Commission Goals: Weyrens stated that other Commiss~l8oards tend to set goals at the beginning of each year of items to focus on throughou't.;tlie year. She ques i • ned whether the Commissioners would be interested in setting goa'Is`or prioritize work items for. Q09. They agreed that they would hold a work session following the meeting on March 2. Meeting with Graceview Residents: McDonald stated that,he was made aware of an ,~o~ ing meeting that the College will be having with the esidents of Graceview Estates to present their ~`ure plans. It was suggested that this meeting be posted i"'thent that there~quorum of Planning Commission Members present. The meeting will be heldan 'February 12, 2009 at 7:00 PM at the College of St. Benedict. ~ '"~"' Adiourn: Adjourned by c~r~t~8:15 PM. Judy Weyrens Admini