Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 [02] Feb 02February 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 unanimously. Oath of Office: Weyrens administered the Oath of Office to the following commissioners: Michael McDonald, Michael Deutz and Brian Orcutt. Mayor Rassier: Mayor Rassier approached the Commissioners to thank them all for volunteering to be on the Planning Commission and for all the work that they do. Election of Officers: McDonald made a motion to keep the officers the same as the previous year. The motion was seconded by Deutz. Chair: S. Kathleen Kalinowski Vice-Chair: Michael Deutz Orcutt made a motion to close nominations; seconded by Meyer and passed unanimously. The motion passed unanimously electing Kalinowski as Chair for 2009 and Deutz as Vice Chair. Minutes: Wick made a motion to approve the minutes with minor corrections noted by Kalinowski. The motion was seconded by McDonald. Ayes: Kalinowski, Rieke, McDonald, Meyer, Orcutt, Wick Nays: None Abstain: Deutz Motion Carried 6:0:1 Public Hearing, Interim Use Permit-104 1St Avenue NW: Kalinowski opened the public hearing and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider an Interim Use Permit to allow a non owner occupied rental at 104 1St Avenue NW, legally described as Lot 7 Block 12, Townsite of St. Joseph. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.31 Subd. 13: Interim Use Permit for Rental Units. a) Residential units in areas that have been rezoned to commercial from residential shall be allowed an interim use permit as a rental unit for a specific period of time. The maximum density for rental units under the interim use permit shall be limited 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. 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 based on the use. Weyrens stated that the property will now be taxed as anon-homestead property, Wick made a motion to authorize the Planning Commission Chair and Administrator to execute the Resolution recommending the Council to issue an Interim Use Permit to Irma Hoffmann, 104 1S' Avenue NW, expiring March 11, 2011. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Public Hearing, Special Use Permit -North Country Trailer Sales: Kalinowski called the hearing to order and stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider a Special Use Permit to allow for the sale of new and used trailers as well as used autos. The property is legally described as: 2.50A. that part of E2NE4 lying S'LY of CO RD 75 and N of FDL BEG 115.50' N of SW cor of SE4NE4 - S84D E 75.60' - S87DE 120' - S84D E 601.22' to ELN OF W793.88 term. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.32 Subd. 4: Uses Under Special Use Permit. The following uses shall require a Special Use Permit based on the procedures set forth in Section 52.07.03 of this Ordinance: e) New or used auto dealerships The request for Special Use was submitted by David Fimrite, North Country Trailer Sales LLC. Jim Muschei approached the Commissioners on behalf of David Fimrite. He stated the he works for Mr. Fimrite and is speaking on his behalf as he has family emergency. Mary Ann Graeve, 699 Minnesota Street E approached the Commissioners and stated that she lives at the corner of 8th Avenue and Minnesota Street. She questioned what they are referring to as a trailer, what the weight of the trailers is and what their use is. She was advised that most of the trailers will be snowmobile trailers or small car trailers. The weight is similar to that of a small pickup. Graeve also questioned the weight restriction 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 safety 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 8'h 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 they 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 stated that there are already two businesses conducting trailer sales in St. Joseph and three would be too many. There are two in Avon as well and several in St. Cloud. Jim Graeve, 619 Minnesota Street E, stated that he would like to see the property fenced to protect the Notsch property. He also suggested that they sell only trailers and no vehicles. With no further public comment, the public hearing was closed. McDonald questioned Muschel as to where they are located now. He replied that they are located near Cross Town Auto. The Commissioners were advised that they tend to have 12-15 cars and 10 trailers at most. Rieke questioned the current zoning. Weyrens stated that it is zoned as 62 and this type of use would be allowed by Special Use Permit and they can place some conditions on the property, provided they are reasonable. He also questioned whether or not there was talk of purchasing the property blended in with the lease. He received no comment. Wick then questioned whether or not the Special Use Permit would be attached to the property or the lease. Weyrens advised the Commissioners that the Special Use Permit would be attached to a specific use. McDonald questioned whether or not the City can reasonable require screening of the parking area. Weyrens stated that it meets the zoning requirements. Deutz questioned whether these types of conditions are attached to the property and Meyer questioned whether the Landlord would then be responsible for making those improvements. It was suggested that there be a gate that is closed after business hours so that the business doesn't interi`ere with the neighbors. A fence along the property would be an expense of the landlord. It was also suggested that they redirect the lights onto their property. The Commissioners understand that how they run their business has nothing to do with the landowner. Kalinowski questioned 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 8`h 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. 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 motion to table the approval of the Special Use Permit for 30 days until they provide lighting and fencing plan. The motion was seconded by Rieke. Discussion: McDonald questioned whether any of the property is paved. Weyrens stated that the apron entering the lot is paved. Meyer stated that lighting is a big thing on this site. Orcutt added that the addition of a fence along the property line makes sense. Deutz questioned whether they would be required to take down the existing fence. Weyrens suggested that the Building Inspector take a look at the existing fence and determine whether or not it needs to be removed or if it can be replaced. Meyer stated that he would like to see the owner present at the next meeting to answer any questions. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing Ordinance Amendment -Signs: Kalinowski stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider an Amendment to Ordinance 52.11 (Signs). The proposed amendment includes provisions for Ornamental Banners in the B-1 Central Business District. Full text of the Ordinance Amendment was available for review at the City Offices or on the City website. All persons wishing to speak will be heard and written comments may be sent to the City Offices. She stated that no written comments were received. The proposed amendment is due to a request from the Millstream Shops and Lofts to hang banners which are currently not allowed by Ordinance. Allowing banners would allow for additional signage without a lot of clutter. Colleen Petters approached the Commissioners as the owner of the Millstream Shops and Lofts. She provided them with a picture showing the proposed banners which are 20 x 40. Their goal was to make the Millstream Shops and Lofts to look tasteful in downtown St. Joseph. She agrees with the City that it is good to have sign restrictions. The proposed signs would be 9'1"above the sidewalk and the purpose would be to identify the individual shops. The public hearing was closed. 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 local 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 definition 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 Commissioners that the City is always liable. She stated that this could be re-addressed. The motion passed unanimously. 2009 Planning Commission Goals: Weyrens stated that other Commission/Boards tend to set goals at the beginning of each year of items to focus on throughout the year. She questioned whether the Commissioners would be interested in setting goals or prioritize work items for 2009. 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 upcoming meeting that the College will be having with the residents of Graceview Estates to present their future plans. It was suggested that this meeting be posted in the event that there is a quorum of Planning Commission Members present. The meeting will be held on February 12, 2009 at 7:00 PM at the College of St. Benedict. Adjourn: Adjourned by consensus at 8:15 PM. dy eyr s Admi istrator