Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 [08] Aug 15Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in special session on Monday, August 15, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Hub Klein. Commissioners S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Linda Sniezek, Dan Nierengarten, Andy Brixius. Council Liaison Ken Hiemenz. Secretary Judy Weyrens. Others Present: Kathy Scheil, Leanne Walsh, Oda Larson, Elizabeth Doyle, Mary Krafnick, Janet Nadeua, Mary Johnson, Coral Heinen, Stan Larson, James Jopp, Howard Pierskalla, Michelle Lindell, Bob Wesely, Igor Lenzner, Cheryl Josephs, Kent Simon, Rosemary Meyer, Fran Court, Marilyn Court. Kevin Rocheleau, Kevin Schirmers, Alban Mohs, Elmer Pryzbilla, Irvin Klocker, Ben Hollerman, Joe Miller, Peter Giroux. Public Hearincr - Stearns County HRA: Chair Klein called the hearing to order at 7:15 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a request for a special use permit. This permit would allow for the construction of duplexes in an area zoned R-3. Additionally, the hearing will consider the following variances: a. 35` variance on the front yard setback b. 20' variance on the side yard setback c. 40' variance on the rear yard setback St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.18 subd 7(a) requires the front yard of any R-3 residence to be thirty-five (35) feet. Ordinance 52.18 subd 7(b) requires side yard setback of not less than twenty (20) feet. Ordinance 52.18 subd 7(c) requires a rear yard setback of not less than forty (40) feet. The variance is being requested to construct townhomes. The property is legally described as follows: Lots 1-6, Block 1, Cedar Village II; Lots 1-4, Block 1 Cedar Village III. Igor Lenzner, legal counsel for HRA, spoke on their behalf. Mr. Lenzner stated that they sketched four (4) plans altering the layouts and at this time would like opinion from the neighbors and the Commission. HRA would like to reach a compromise with the City and the neighbors in an effort to construct a successful project. The dwelling units have been changed from six (6) duplex dwelling units to three (3) four (4) unit townhome dwelling units. The access to the units has been changed from Outlot A to variations on the east and west side of the proposed construction. A cul-de- sac, with a 50' radius is located on the rear of the parking lot. The radius should be sufficient for emergency equipment to turn around. All the sketches include a green area located centrally in the development. Each of the four (4) plans require a twenty (20) foot variance on the rear yard setback. Additionally, one (1) proposal requires a variance on the setback of the garage, and another requires a side yard setback variance. If the four plans are not acceptable to the Commission, an alternative plan was presented that did not require any consideration of the Planning Commission. Howard Pierskalla questioned if the HRA could attach the garages to the units. By attaching the garages, the units would be more consistent with the existing townhomes. Kent Simon, architect for HRA, stated that HRA does not have additional funding to attach the garages as it is very costly. Those present questioned where the snow would be hauled in the winter. Mr. Simon stated that HRA would be managing the property site and the snow would not be deposited on property other than that which they own. The snow would be deposited in the green area. Mike Murphy questioned whether the HRA would construct a fence behind the cul-de-sac to prevent headlights from shining in the adjoining townhomes. Cheryl Josephs, HRA representative, stated that fencing is not part of the project and they are not willing to add fencing. Commissioners and those present discussed the distance between the garage units and the dwelling units and questioned if the distance could be reduced. Mr. Simon stated that for those residents occupying the units, a garage is an amenity and the distance does not make a difference. Additionally, if the garages were moved closer to the dwelling units, the green space would be diminished. Kalinowski questioned the type and amount of light for the parking lot and garage area. Mr. Simon stated that the parking lot would have site lighting as would each of the garage units. Additionally, the townhome units would have a light on the front and back porch. Hiemenz questioned if HRA would be replatting the property making the lot one parcel and non-saleable as separate lots. Kalinowski stated that the City Attorney has recommended replatting the property to one single lot. Bob Wesley stated that he has recently purchased a townhome in Cedar Village and questioned if the project as proposed is too large for the site. Mr. Lenzner stated that the reason the site in St. Joseph was chosen was because it was Large enough to accommodate twelve units. HRA funding allocates a certain dollar amount for each unit. Therefore, if the number of units were reduced on the site, the units would not be any larger and the garages would-not be attached. Hiemenz questioned if HRA would provide an on-site Manager. Ms. Josephs stated HRA does not have a provision for hiring an onsite manager, nor would they consider one. Kalinowski made a motion to recommend Council approval of the twenty (20) foot variance on the rear yard setback as requested by Stearns County HRA. Approval is recommended based on the following findings: In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.7 subd 2: A variance shall not be granted by the Board, or by the Council upon review, unless they find the supporting findings: a) That there are exceptional or extraordinary 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 circumstances must not be the result of actions taken by the petitioner. Finding: The property as described above is landlocked and does not have an ingress/egress. Additionally, access to outlot A was denied by the property owners. d) That the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or diminish ar impair established property values within the surrounding area, or in any other respect impair the public health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City. Approval is based on the following contingencies: a) Approval of the Fire Chief b} Presentation of a final. draft of plan C2 (see attached) c) Replotting of the property as recommended by the City Attorney. The motion was seconded by Brixius. Ayes: Klein, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Sniezek, Nierengarten, Hiemenz, Brixius. Noyes: None. Motion Carried 7:0:0 Mr. Lenzner requested the Commission grant approval of the special use permit so they would have flexibility. The Commission clarified that the move to approve the variance is only for the attached site plan, any changes in the plan would require further action by the Planning Commission. Therefore, Sniezek made a motion to table the request for Special Use until September 6, 1994.. The motion was seconded by Brixius. Ayes: Klein, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Sniezek, Nierengarten, Hiemenz, Brixius. Noyes: None. Motion Carried 7:0:0 The hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. Public Hearinct - Front yard Variance Request, Rosemary Meyer: Klein called the hearing to order at 8:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a twelve (12) foot variance on the front yard setback to allow construction of an accessory building. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.16 subd 6(a) states. "Front yard setbacks of not less than 30 feet on all public right-of-ways, unless 30 percent or more of the frontage on the same side of the street between two intersecting streets is improved with buildings that have observed a greater or less depth of front yard in which instance no new building or portion thereof shall project beyond a straight line drawn between the point closest to the street line of the residence upon either side of proposed structure or, if there be residences upon only one side, then beyond the straight line projected from the front of the nearest residences, but this regulation shall not be interpreted to require a front yard of more than 50 feet. Where the street is curved the line shall follow the curve of the street rather than to be a straight line." The property is legally described as follows: The North 100 feet of the North 208.72 feet of the South 1(722.14 feet of the West One-half of the Southwest Quarter (W 1/2 SW 1/4} of Section Eleven (11), Township One Hundred Twenty Four (124} North of Range Twenty Nine (29) West. Rosemary Meyer spoke on her behalf. Ms. Meyer stated that she had met with the Building Inspector to discuss the possibility of constructing an addition to her house and a garage. At this time a building permit was issued. Therefore, the excavation was complete and the footings were ready for inspection when the City had the project stopped. Ms. Meyer stated that it wasn't until this time that she was aware she was in violation of the City Ordinance. Klein opened the hearing to those present. Those present expressed concern as to how this error occurred and what can be done to prevent this .from happening in the future. Their neighborhood still has vacant lots and they are looking for some assurance that the City Ordinances will be adhered to. Kevin Rocheleau stated that he has no objections to the variance request of Ms. Meyer. Since Ms. Meyer has purchased the property she has continued to improve the property and the proposed addition will be a benefit to all the neighbors, as she is increasing the home value. After discussion, Kalinowski made a motion recommending the Council approve the twelve (12) foot variance request based on the following: in consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: St Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.7 subd 2: A variance shall not be granted by the Board, or by the Council upon review unless they determine supporting findings: a. That there are exceptional or extraordinary 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. Finding: An error was made in the authorization of the building permit, which was not the results of actions taken by the petitioner. b. That the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. Finding: The petitioner has a right to have a garage. 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 the City. Finding: As stated by the neighbors, allowing this addition will only increase the surrounding home values. e. That the condition or situation of a specific piece of property, or the intended use of said property. for which the variance was sought, is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions. The motion was seconded by Sniezek. Ayes: Klein, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Sniezek, Nierengarten, Hiemenz. Brixius. Hayes: None. Motion Carried 7:0:0 Kalinowski made a motion requesting the Council send a letter to the Building Inspector expressing concern as to how this error could happen and request that he review the City Ordinances to avoid future errors. The motion was seconded by Brixius. Ayes: Klein, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Sniezek, Nierengarten, Hiemenz, Brixius. Hayes: None. Motion Carried 7:0:0 The hearing was closed at 8:50 p.m. Public Hearing - Joe Miller Cold Storage Facility: Chair Klein called the hearing to order at 8:50 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a request for special use permit. This permit would allow for the construction of cold storage units in an area zoned General Business. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.20 subd 3(e} allows other uses determined by the Planning Commission to be of the same character. The property is legally described as follows: The West Two Hundred (200) feet, as measured along the Northerly right-of-way line of Trunk Highway Number Fifty-two (52) of the following described tract: All that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE 1/4 NW 1/4} of Section Ten (10), in Township One Hundred Twenty-four (124) North, of Range Twenty-nine (29) West, in Village of St. Joseph, Stearns County Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of North along the East line of said Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4), a distance of 559.31 feet to a point on the Northerly right-of-way line of Trunk Highway 52; thence 88 degrees, 18 minutes West along said right-of-way line 831.57 feet; thence North O1 degrees, 35 minutes East 290.22 feet to its intersection with the Southwesterly right-of-way line of the Burlington Northern Railroad; thence Southwesterly along said right-of-way line to its intersection which said East line of Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of Section 10; thence South along said East line 87.91 feet to the point of beginning. Joe Miller spoke on his behalf. Mr. Miller stated that he plans to construct a storage facility with 14 units. Each unit would be 10' x 24', and would be used for the storage of household goods and vehicles. In addition, he would be constructing a shed 24' x 30' for storage. City Engineer, Joe Bettendorf, submitted a letter requesting that the location of the sewer line be verified so as not to construct on top of the line. Mr. Miller stated that his proposal would not be on the sewer Iine. Mr. Miller present written authorization from Burlington Northern Railroad to construct the storage units one foot inside the railroad right-of-way. There being no one present to object, Lesnick made a motion to recommend Council approval of the Special Use Permit to construct a cold storage units, based on the following: In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd 4: The Planning Commission shall recommend a special use permit and the Council shall order the issuance of such permit only if both the Planning Commission and Council find that such use at the proposed location: Findings: The special use meets all the requirements a-k. The motion was seconded by Sniezek. Ayes: Klein, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Sniezek, Nierengarten, Hiemenz. Brixius. Nayes: None. Motion Carried 7:0:0 The hearing was closed at 9:10 p.m. Hiemenz reported on a parking lot that was being constructed in non compliance with the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances. The parking lot is for the property owned by Sunset Manufacturing. The City Council will be sending a letter requesting compliance. Chair Klein adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Judy Weyrens Secretary of the Commission