HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 [05] May 04May •+,19y~Z
Page 1
Fursuar.t to due call and notice thereof, the planninG Commission for
}. t-+,-, ~~, i }. ,., ,_f f = t . ~ ,_~ _~ .. p r, m ~ T. i n r e ti 7 3 i ~~. r ~ ~ e '_ ~ i o r1. ,_, Tt ; L O n d a y ~~I .~. y 4 , 1 !=1 `-~ a. t
7:00 p. m. in the St. Joseph City HaII.
Members Present: C,ha.ir H+~b {~:lein. Members of the Commission Ken
Hiemen~, Sr. F<athleen k:alinowshi, Linda Sniezek, Dan Nierengarten,
K-urt Schneider, Donald "Bud" keber. Judy Weyrens Secretary of the
Board.
Lathers Present: Council Liaison Stephanie Hazen, Nathan Loso, Bob
Loso, Tony Felzer, Joseph Hanson, Robin Hanson, Ed 1•;a.cures, Kay Lemke,
Robert Wagner, Leo Sadlo, Pat Zahler, Dave Pfa.nnenstein, Holly Lindell,
Caroline Schriml, JoAnn Lindell.
Fence Ordinance -- Public Hearin: Chair Klein called the hearing to
order at 7:00 p. m. The purpose of the hearing is to allow citizen
input on a proposed Amendment to Ordinance No. 56.1 of the St. Joseph
Cade of Ordinances. The propased Amendment regulates and controls type
and size of fence construction and location, in resid~_ntial and
business zones .
Commission members questioned the allowance to build a fence seven ~7)
feet high, they generally agreed that. fences in the side yards should
not exceed four a.nd one half t4 1/~) feet in height. Commissioner
Reber stated that privacy fences of seven feet. in height belong in the
rear yards only.
Commissioner Ka.linowski questioned the procedure a.s to I+ow the Building
Inspector is notified when a. fence is constructed. The building permit
application process should include informing the applicants that it is
their responsibility to contact +_he Building In•~pec+.or upon completion.
Commissioner Hiemenz requested Fire Departmen+_ input on whether or oat
it is necessary or desirable to make a. provision requiring a gate be
installed if a property is completely fenced. The gate would provide
access to the backyard in case of an emergency.
After discussion, Reber made a motion to recommend Council approval of
the amendment to Zoning Ordinance No 56.1 with the following
considerations:
1. Section 56.3 - It shall be the responsibility of the property
owner to contact the Building Inspector upon completion of
construction.
2. Section 56.4 (a.) - Fence: and walls located within a
residential area. shall not exceed the height of seven feet;
exr_ept fences located between the rear of the residential
structure and the adjacent roadway shall not exceed four feet.
3. Section 56.5 - The firm foundation should be a.t least twice
again as wide at the base as the wail and resting on footings.
u, S~ect}._n 56.'~ - The date will need to be c~hanoed according to
adopti,_n.
May 4, 1992
F'age 2
5. Opinion should be obtained from the Fire Department as to
=shat.her or not a prevision should be included to require gates
on fences that completely fence in a backyard.
The motion was seconded by Nierengarten.
Ayes: Klein, Hiemenz, Kalinowski, Sniezek, Nierengarten, Reber,
Schneider.
Naves: None. Motion Carried 7:0:0
The hearing was closed at 7:40 p. m.
1',a.y Lemke = Variance Hearin: Chair Klein called the hearing to order
at 7:45 p. m. and read the hearing notice. The purpose of the hearing
is to consider two req~:ests for variances to allow for construction of
an accessory building.
The first request is to consider a three (3) foot variance on the
side yard set back, in a R-1, Single Family zone. Zoning Ordinance
52.16 subd 6(a) requires side yard setbacks to be five (5) feet from
the garage or accessory building.
The second request is to consider a request for a thirty two foot
variance on the size of an accessory building in a R-1, Single Family
zone. Zoning Ordinance 52.16 subd 4(e) allows a maximum area of 800
square feet for a garage or accessory building.
The property is lccated at 33 Ash Street East and legally
described as Lot 011, Block 001, Original Townsite of St. Joseph.
The recauest for variance has been submitted by Kay Lemke, 33 Ash
Street East, P. O. Box 352, St. Joseph, MN 56374.
Kay Lemke spoke on her behalf and presented the Planning Commission
with her plans to tear dawn the existing garage and build a new garage.
Kay stated that she has a unique situation as she has a shared driveway
with her neighbor and iri order to utilize the driveway she needs a.
three (.3) foot variance on the side yard setback. At this time Kay
presented the Commission with a written agreement between herself and
her neighbor, Mr. Wagner, agreeing to the shared driveway. The
document has been notarised, and recorded with both properties. The
agreement was entered rota in 1985 and is for a term of forty (40)
years. Kay is also requesting a thirty two foot (32) foot variance to
exceed the maximum area. of 800 square feet for a garage or accessory
building. The additional space is being requested to allow for ample
storage space. Ms. Lemke's lot is exceptionally deep, at 200 feet and
the majority of that being backyard.
Reber made a motion to recommend Council approval of the three foot.
variance request of Kay Lemke, to allow construction of a. garage. The
approval is based on the following findings:
Section 52.7 subd 2 (a) - That there are exceptional or extra-
ordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in
question as to the intended u~~+~ ct tl-~c 1, r.~,k,Yl.t.r. ±}-,~~t Ij~~ ti~i± ~.1,1_~1:;~
g'.riai~,~.1 1• tc~ other I~1'rJl?er'ties in the same zoning district. The
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances mint not be the r~e~ul
Ma.y 4, 1092
Forge
of actions ta3~:en by the pet.it.ioner. "i'he extraordinary
circumstances are:
The proferty has a shared driveway with the adjacent
propert}~ to thn Wes+.
Section 52.7 subd = id) _ That the proposed variance will not
impair an adequate supply of light ad air t.o adjacent property, or
diminish or impair established property values within the
surrounding area, or in a.ny other respect impair the public
health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the City.
The motion was seconded by Sniezel<:.
Ayes: Klein, Hiemenz, ra.linowski, Sniezek, Nierengart.en, Reber,
Schneider.
Na~~es: None. Motion Carried 7:0:0
Schneider made a motion to recommend Council approval of the thirty twu
t32) foot variance request allowing a garage/a.ccessory building +.o
exceed the 800 square feet, based on the following findings:
Section 52.7 subd 2 (a.) - That there are exceptional or extra-
ordinary circumstances or conditions applying t.o the property in
question a.s to the intended use of the property that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zoning district. The
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances must not be the result
of actions taken by the petitioner. The extraordinary
circumstances are:
The property has exceptional depth, 200 feet., most of which
is backvard.
Section 52.7 subd 2 (c) = The granting the variance request will
not confer on the applicant any specia_i privilege that is denied
by this Ordinance to other lands in the same district.
The motion wa.s seconded by Fa 1 i nowslci .
Ayes: ~;lein, Hiemenz, Ka.linowski, Sniezel:, Nierengarten, Reber,
Schneider.
Hayes: None. Motion Carried 7:0:0
Chair FC!ein closed the hearing at 8:00 p.m.
Caroline Schrimi = Variance Request: Chair Klein called the hearing to
order at 8:00 p. m. and read the hearing notice. The purpose of the
hearing is to consider a three thousand, nine hundred and sixty three
13,963) rapprox.7 square foot. variance request. to split Lots 1 & 2 of
Flock: 2, Loso's subdivision. Zoning Ordinance 52.16 subd 5Cb) requires
a minimum lot size of 11,000 square feet for single family residential
lnt.5,
Th~_ i~-as*er iv 1?u: _i~,n of ? of 1 ~~ ~, Blo~_~1: ~ wi l l be joined to the
adjacent property (Lot 1, $locls 3; Loso's end Addit~iun), and t?';e
May 4, 19Q
Page 4
Westerly portion of t1Ye lot will become a separate lot%parcel of
,aP~:,+rr~uim.st.el_~ =,~:?arl t.h,~r~>>.~r7,~1, t.}-iiz.{_: =~a°;eP. `.7,`.'~~7'' Square feet
The request for variance has been submitted by Caroline Schriml,
10?_ - 1st Ave Southeast, P.0. Box 405, St. .Joseph, MN 56374.
hearing
Dave Pfannenstein spoke on behalf of Caroline Schriml. Mrs. Schriml's
lot is currently about 13,516 square feet with the house and garage
siting in the front of the property. She is in the process of selling
her home and is requesting to split her property selling a portion to
the neighbor to the East, Joseph Hanson. Mr. Hanson's lot is not large
enough to accommodate the construction of a garage, and would like to
purchase the East half of Mrs. Schriml's lot. The plans would leave
Mra. Schriml's lot with 7,353 square feet, and the new parcel would
have 6,163 square feet.
Commission Hiemenz questioned whether it would 1-~e appropriate planning
to transfer problems from one lot to another based on the current
property owners needs. White it is important to respond to the current
needs of the residents, it is also important to be aware of the needs
of future property owners. Commissioner K.alinowski concurred.
Commissioner Heber stated that since the adjoining property owner
wishes to purchase the land, he did not see a problem.
Reber made a motion to recommend Council approval of the three
thousand, nine hundred a.nd sixty three C3,963} variance request to
split the above mentioned property based on the following findings:
Section 52.7 subd 2 Ca) - That there are exceptional or extra-
ordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in
question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zoning district. The
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances must not be the result
of actions taken by the petitioner. The extraordinary
circumstances are:
The adjoining *.zeighbor does not have enough square footage to
construct a garage and would be purchasing the parcel to add to
his current property.
Also, approval is recommended provided the property is only sold to the
adjoining land owner, to the West, Mr. Joseph Hanson, for the sole
purpose of constructing a garage.
The motion was seconded b,y Nierengarten.
Ayes: Y,lein, Hiemenz, Kalinowski, Sniezek, Nierengarten, Reber,
Schneider.
Nayes: None. Motion Carried 7:0:0
Ted Klein = Rezone Fx Varia.nce Appeal = Ted E=;lein appeared before the
%r~iriiTl].sic~ii ~tld ~~rYsented written request that the Commission
reconsider their derision of April 1992 at which ±i:r.e they denied
1-ii_ i~_.rii~est tc, rep-ne 1-~is I.,iof~erty aluns Old Highway 52 and denied h1S
Ma.y 4, 199
Page 5
variance request on the front yard setbacl Mr. F.leir; stated that his
reasons for the proposal is to allow construction of a new rental unit
to house five (5) students, aligning the new unit. with the ter:=_
e;<isting units.
The property is legally desr~~ribed a~ Lot i~C1 1?lock OG3. Those parts of
cots 1-?-3 & 4. Flock 3, Loso's 7th Addition Lying Sw'ly of a Line 75'
SW of Centerline of East Found Hwy #75.
The rezoning is needed to allow both parcels to be combined to have one
legal description, and it would allow enough square footage to build a
new unit.
Mr. Klein feels that the location of his property is best suited for
st.~adent rental, a~ the adjacent property is currently located R-3. He
feels it is desirable to have areas designated for student housing.
Mr. l;lein also stated that his property is a.n ideal location for
student housing because it is buffered on all sides. The North side -
Coun±.y Road 75, West and East side - R-3 Multiple Family, South side -
Old Highway 52 and apartment buildings.
Additionally, he feels that. the property will be a.n asset to the
neighborhood by eliminating the garage (pasty room). Ey removing the
garage and adding apartments it will enhance the looks of the huilding
along with final landscaping to make the apartment look more
appropriate for the neighborhood.
Commissioner Hiemenz discussed with the Commission the possible uses
for ±hat. piece of property a.nd felt that. it would be utilized best
zoned R-3 and allowing the additional unit,
Commissioner F'eber disagreed, a.nd felt that the area is already over
saturated with rental housing a.nd it would detract from the
neighborhood to allow a.n additionaI unit.
P.eber made a motion to recommend Council denial of the rezoning request.
from Single Family to R-3, Multiple Family, and Council denial of the
thirteen t13) foot variance request on the front yard setback based on
the following findings:
Re-Zoning request:
Denial is requested based on the following findings, which
contra.dict_ the Joseph Code of Ordinances:
Section 5'' Z subd 1_ To promote and protect the general public
health, safety, morals, comfort and genera.'. welfare of the
inhabitants of the City of 5t. Joseph.
Section 5~.~ subd 3: To prevent the overcrowding of land and
L'tl~~u? _,=~i.~~entratiut-i Of populat7.on.
Section 52.E ~ubd 6: '1'o promote the etr~.racter and preserve and
Y?-,hsr?ti=e the stability of i~r•operties and areas within ±he City.
May 4, 1992
Fa.ge 6
Variance Request Findings:
Denial is based on the following findings, which contradict the
Joseph Code of Ordinances.
Section 52.7 subd ~ (a) That there are exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances or~ conditions appi,ying to the
property in question as to the intended use of the property that
do not apply generally to other properties in the •~ame zoning
district. The exceptional or extraordinary circumstances must
not be the result of actions taken by the petitioner.
Section 57.7 subd 2(d) That the proposed variance will not
impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property,
or diminish or impair established property values within the
surrounding area, or in any other respect impair the public
health, safety or welfare of the residents of tY-,e City.
Due to a lack of a second, the motion failed.
Hiemenz made a motion to recommend Council approval of the Re-zoning
request from R-1, Single Family to R-3 Multiple Family based ort
conformance to the following sections of the St. Joseph Code of
Ordinances:
Section 52.2 subd 4: To promote the proper use of land and
structures to determine the proper spacing of buildings
Section 52.2 subd 7: To fix reasonable standards to which
buildings, structures and land shall conform for the benefit of
all.
The motion was se~~onded by Sniezek.
Ayes: Klein, Hiemenz, Kalinowski, Sniezek, Nierengarten,
Schneider.
Nayes: Reber. Motion Carried 6:1:0
Hiemenz made a motion to recommend Council approval of the thirteen
foot variance request on the front yard setback: as requested based on
the conformance with the following findings:
Section 52.7 sub d.(b): That the literal interpretation of the
provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the petitioner of
rights commonly enjoyed by otFier properties in the same district
under the terms of this Ordinance.
Section 52..7 subd (c): That granting the variance requested will
not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied
by this Ordinance to other lands in the same district.
Section 52.7 subd (d) That the proposed variance will not impair
_ 1',~:-, j_1-1,':• -I' 11~~~t ~.iid ~.Ii~ t~~ r~.1.ja~_ent t~i~~~~cj }y:~ _, j.
diminish or impair established property values within the
~ui~Yt=~U'tl~~iii-y~'~ ~ti.l~'~.. r~r iTl ~rl;;' Other respCCt lltlpalr the p11bI1C
health, safety or welfarc_ Of thF resident Of tl-ie Cits.
May 4, 19Q
Fagg 7
Section S?.7 ~~ubr1 Ce): That the condition or situation of a.
_'L".iR is1+1i~ ryi gL;r- _'t PL~_, ~f t'r`, ~r t. ll ~' irl}~=nf~~,-i ,;;-, r:. oT oaid property,
for- which the variance wa.= s~s~7!-;r ~s nc:t cf s? ~_+r~er.-;.1 Gr
recurrent a nature ,mss to mal<e reason;~bly practicable the
formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or a
situation.
Additionally, t_he following conditions will apply to the variance:
Before a. rental license is issued to the property, the area.
designated as a parking lot will be black topped and stripped.
The motion was seconded by k:a I i Wows 1; i .
Ayes: k:lein, Hiemenz, Kalinowsl~i, Snie~ek, ~dierengarten,
Schneider.
i\~ayes: Reber Motion Carried 6:1:0
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p. m.
Respectf"u"l)ly submitted,
Judy ~~leyrens
Secretary of the Board