HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 [09] Sep 08Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on
Tuesday, September 08, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the St. Joseph City Hall.
Members Present: Chair Hub Klein. Commissioners S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Kurt Schneider, Jim
Graeve. Deputy Clerk Judy Weyrens
Others Present: "Bud" Reber, Chad Carlson, Nadine Borgert, Tim Kiernan, Jean Kiernan, Steve Frank, Jeron
Schneider, Shari Claire, Steve Dehler, Terese Kruger-Lahr, Andy Lahr, Diane Schneider, Goeff Partridge, Mildred
Reisinger, Lou Krebsbach, Jim Krebsbach, Charles Potter.
Mike Deutz - MN Street Develo mp ent: Chad Carlson, EDA Director, spoke on behalf of Mr. Deutz. Carlson stated
that since Deutz appeared before the Commission in July the seating capacity of the proposed restaurant has
increased, requiring Deutz to present a revised parking plan. At this time Deutz does not have the parking plan
completed and requested this matter be tabled to a later time.
Minutes:: Lesnick made a motion to approve the July 6, 1998 Planning Commission minutes with corrections;
seconded by Graeve and passed unanimously by those present.
Lesnick made a motion to approve the August 3, 1998 Planning Commission minutes as presented; seconded by
Ehlert and passed unanimously by those present.
Extension of Municipal District Boundary Carlson discussed the proposed expansion of Borgert Products. The
expansion will be financed in part with Tax Increment Financing. In order to utilize TIF, the project must be within
a Municipal District. At the present time the Industrial Park as annexed in 1992 is the Municipal District.
Therefore, before Borgert Products can utilize TIF, the Municipal District Boundary must be extended to encompass
their property. Carlson stated that State Law empowers the Planning Commission to extend the District Boundary.
The Commission agreed to meet at 7:30 a.m. to discuss the proposal at which time Carlson will present the
necessary documentation.
Proposed Wetland Ordinance : S. Kathleen discussed the Wetlands Ordinance and that the proposal before the
Commission has been drafted by a sub committee consisting of Ellen Wahlstrom and representatives from St.
Joseph City and Township Planning Commissions. The sub committee prepared both a proposed Ordinance and a
Wetland Preservation statement to be included in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ellen Wahlstrom stated that she did considerable research on wetlands before presenting a draft Ordinance. The
original Ordinance presented was a lengthy document that was condensed by the sub committee to two pages.
During the research process Wahlstrom stated that she contacted several agencies for their recommendations. Some
of the agencies included Stearns County Environmental Services, Fish and Wildlife and the Army Core of
Engineers. It was during this research that she discovered drafting a Wetland Ordinance was not sufficient, but a
Wetland Preservation Statement needed to be added to the Comprehensive Plan as well.
Wahlstrom requested the Commission add the following conclusion statement to the draft Wetland Ordinance or the
Wetland Preservation Statement:
These lands embody both our past and our future. They nurtured the existence of our ancestors and must
do the same for our heirs. Protection of natural areas is neither a nicety nor is it a fringe issue. To protect
that which sustains us is nothing more than good planning and common sense.
Kalinowski stated that it is her opinion that the above statement is already in the Comprehensive Plan in various
statements. Further she stated that the reason the draft Ordinance was condensed was to have an Ordinance that was
clear and concise. Kalinowski then read several statements from the Comprehensive Plan which in her opinion are
the same as the conclusion statement presented by Wahlstrom. She further stated that the sub committee reviewed
the conclusion statement and felt the same concept was part of the definitions of the Ordinance and inclusion of the
statement would deviate from their goal to keep the Ordinance clear and concise. Lesnick concurred with
Kalinowski and stated she does not feel it is necessary to include a statement to use common sense as that is part of
all decisions making.
Ehlert stated that the final draft submitted is a good compromise and it has been reduced to a clear and concise
document. However, he would not be opposed to including the conclusion statement in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan is the master plan for the future of St. Joseph and including a philosophical statement
notifies developers of what to expect.
Graeve stated he supports the inclusion of the conclusion statement and feels that it is consistent with the goals of
the Comprehensive Plan and philosophical in nature.
Graeve made a motion to recommend the City Council accept the Wetland Preservation Statement as prepared by a
joint Committee of Ellen Wahlstrom and Planning Commission members from St. Joseph Township and the City of
St. Joseph, and establish a public hearing date to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded by
Ehlert and passed unanimously by those present.
Ehlert questioned if the conclusion statement presented by Wahlstrom would be included in the Wetland
Preservation Statement. Commissioners agreed to discuss that matter further after the public hearings.
Public Hearing -Special Use and Variance Borgert Products: Chair Klein opened the hearing and stated the
purpose of the hearing is to consider a Special Use Permit to allow the expansion of Borgert Products. Further, the
property owner is requesting a three (3) foot variance on the maximum height of a structure. The Special Use
Permit and Variance are needed to allow the construction of a building to house a new piece of equipment used in
the manufacturing of their product.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.21 subd 2 states: All permitted industrial uses shall require a Special Use Permit.
St Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.21 subd 7 states: No structure hereafter shall exceed 45 feet in height. The
proposed building will be 48 feet in height, requiring a three (3) foot variance.
The property is legally described as follows:
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SW % of the NE %) of Section Eleven (ll), Township One Hundred
Twenty-Four (124) North, Range Twenty-Nine (29) West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, St. Joseph Township, Stearns County,
Minnesota, which lies northerly of the northerly right-of--way line of the Burlington Northern Railroad and which lies westerly of
aline 706.92 feet west of an measured at a right angle to, and parallel to the east line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter (SW %a of the NE %a); subject to easements of record, if any.
The request for Special Use and Variance has been submitted by Nadine Olson on behalf of Borgert Products, PO
Box 39, St. Joseph MN 56374.
Nadine Borgert spoke on behalf of Borgert Products. She stated the facility will be used in the manufacturing
paving stones and concrete products. The variance on the height of the building is needed to accommodate for
specialized equipment needed to manufacture products. The proposed addition will also provide Borgert Products
with room future expansion. Further, they anticipate needing additional space in the future for an expanding
market.
Carlson also discussed the need for Borgert Products to request the City Council allow a lot split of their property to
accommodate the requirements of Tax Increment Financing.
Ehlert discussed the need to plan for transportation links in the Industrial Park as well as growth areas in the City.
Carlson stated that there are plans for transportation links to service the Industrial Park. The current plan would
divide the Borgert property in half. Therefore, an alternate plan of moving the east/west link is in process. One
proposal includes moving that link southerly, tying into Ridgewood Court and then to County Road 134. Ehlert
stated that the Joint Planning Commission requests that all development proposals include a transportation plan to
assure that proper ingress and egress is provided. Elhert also stated that it is important to have a master
transportation plan so that traffic can be moved effectively and efficiently.
Weyrens read a letter submitted by Jerry Hirschfield, and adjoining property owner supportive of the request.
There being no further comments, Ehlert made a motion to recommend the Council adopt the following findings of
fact. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously by those present.
Resolution of finding
The request of Borgert Products requesting a Special Use and Variance came before the Planning Commission at a
public hearing on September 8, 1998. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a Special Use Permit to allow the
expansion of Borgert Products. Further the property owner is requesting a three (3) foot variance on the maximum
height of a structure. The Special Use Permit and Variance are needed to allow the construction of a building to
house a new piece of equipment to be used in the manufacturing of their product.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.21 subd 2 states: All permitted industrial uses shall require a special use permit.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.21 subd 7 states: No structure hereafter shall exceed 45 feet in height. The
proposed building will be 48 feet in height, requiring a three (3) foot
variance.
The property is legally described as follows:
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SW %4 of the NE %) of Section Eleven (11), Township One Hundred
Twenty-Four (124) North, Range Twenty-Nine (29) West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, St. Joseph Township, Stearns County,
Minnesota, which lies northerly of the northerly right-of--way line of the Burlington Northern Railroad and which lies westerly of
aline 706.92 feet west of an measured at a right angle to, and parallel to the east line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter (SW %a of the NE %); subject to easements of record, if any.
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:
Special Use Request:
The proposed use is consistent with the standards for a Special Use Permit as stated in St. Joseph Code of
Ordinances 52.8 subd 4 (a-k~.
The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the zoning classification of the Industrial Zoning District
as stated in the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.21 subd 1.
Therefore, based on the above findings, the Planning Commission recommends the Council approve the Special Use
Permit as requested.
Variance Request:
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 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 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: The product manufactured is specialized requiring a piece of equipment that cannot fit in a
building less than 45 feet in height.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.7 subd 2(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 or a situation.
Finding: The product manufactured is specialized.
The Fire Chief has had the opportunity to comment and has not submitted any concerns and a letter of
support was submitted by an adjoining property owner.
Therefore, based on the above findings the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the
variance request as submitted.
The hearing was closed at 7:58 p.m.
Public Hearing -Rezoning Request Tim Kiernan - 11 6"' Avenue NW: Chair Klein opened the hearing at 8:00
p.m. and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider re-zoning a parcel of property currently zoned R-1, Single
Family to R-2, Multiple Family. The Zoning change is requested to allow the property owner to secure a rental
license for more than 3 unrelated persons and the creation of a two family dwelling.
The property is legally described as:
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NWI/4 SE %a) of Section Nine (9) in Township One Hundred
Twenty four (124) North of Range Twenty-nine (29) West Stearns County, Minnesota and also part of Lol Three (3) in Auditor's
Subdivision No. 4 of said Section 9 specifically described as follows: Commencing at the point of intersection of the centerlines
of Iowa Street and Minnesota Street as platted and dedicated in the Original Townsite of the Village of St. Joseph; thence in a
Southwesterly direction along the centerline of said Minnesota Street and the centerline of State Aid Road No. 2 for a distance of
1767.97 feet fir a point of beginning; thence continue Southwesterly along said centerline 109.73 feet; thence Northwesterly at
right angles 208.71 feet; thence deflect right 90 °O] ' 20" a distance of 109.73 feet.• thence deflect right 89 °58' 40" a distance of
208.67 feet to the point of beginning. The street address of the property is as follows:
I1 - 6`h Avenue Northwest.
The request for rezoning has been submitted by Timothy and Jean Kiernan, 1362 - 20~` Street SE; Buffalo MN
55313.
Tim Kiernan spoke on his own behalf. Kiernan presented a zoning map on which he identified the areas in the City
which are currently zoned R-2 and R-3. Kiernan stated his intent when he built the home was to rent to three (3)
persons as allowed by Ordinance. However, at this time he feels a need to increase the number of tenants to five..
He further stated that he was unaware of the amount of traffic that is generated on County Road 2 and feels that the
amount of traffic is not conducive to single family development. In fact, he feels that the house could not be sold as
a single family dwelling due to the traffic.
Kiernan presented the following reasons for allowing the zoning change: the property is large enough to avoid
overcrowding, setback from the house to adjoining property in the rear is seventy feet, the house was built using the
original foundation, the house was built to current building codes and has proper ingress/egress windows, the house
has four bedrooms, four bathrooms, three living rooms; the house can easily be converted to a duplex by adding a
second kitchen, and off street parking is more than adequate.
Lesnick questioned what the property was zoned when it was built.
Kiernan responded that it was single family when he purchased it and that was his original intent. The
house was built for his daughters while attending the College of St. Benedict. He again stated that he was unaware
of the amount of traffic generated on County Road 2. Jean Kiernan responded that there was no big plan in the
beginning to convert the house to multiple family. They are not in the business of student rental but they need to
maintain the house.
Commissioners questioned the two doors on the front of the house and their intent when the house was built.
Kiernan responded that the doors open to one landing and the upper level is one unit. The only reason two doors
were installed was for ease of moving furniture in and out.
Lesnick questioned how many persons live in the house. Kiernan responded that for the 1997 - 1998 school year
they rented to five students. Weyrens clarified the Rental Housing Inspector may have erred but Kiernan was made
aware of the regulations when the house was constructed.
Lesnick read the letter from the County Engineer where he requested the City require the property owner close the
ingress/egress to County Road 2 as a permit was not obtained and it presents a safety hazard. Kiernan responded
that he was unaware of the concerns of the County and when the house was built was under the understanding that
Gene Lange had secured the necessary permits.
Geoff Partrdige, 601 Ash Street West, stated that he has received calls from many of the residents in Clinton
Village. In his opinion the property does not have the look of a single family residence; rather an absentee landlord.
Signs of the property not being a family dwelling include: the lawn is nothing but weeds, single family dwellings
have manicured lawns that have been seeded or sodded and they are routinely cut; the property has the presence of
party with a keg in the yard, again, not present in single family yards; the driveway is sand whereas all other
driveways in the neighborhood consist of a hard surface; the property has a sand volleyball court in the backyard,
something usually seen in a park, not a neighborhood; the yard is frequently cluttered with a free pile of furniture or
household items and construction material strewn around. Partridge clarified that the property requesting rezoning
is the gateway to a neighborhood and the dwelling in its present state is not conducive to a family neighborhood.
Terese Kruger-Lahr, 504 Ash Street West, clarified that the protest to multiple family is not a personal vendetta. In
fact, the neighborhood has very little problems with the current tenants, but there is no guarantee it will always be
that way. Further, the changing of zoning would change the character of the neighborhood.
Kruger-Lahr also discussed the petition circulated in the neighborhood which read as follows:
The owners of the residence are seeking to change the zoning of the residence located at I1- 6`"Avenue
NW from R-1 Single Family to allow a duplex. This will increase the number of people and cars that can be at the
residence.
Several years ago when this house was built several of us notified City Officials that this house was being
built with two front entrances. We were told not to worry. It would be zoned R-1 Single Family housing. The
owner rents to students and he wants to get the City to approve a zoning change to allow this to be converted to a
duplex.
This is not just a concern for the immediate neighbors. This message is from those who live close and a
good block away.
We are not opposed to multiple housing or college students. Many of us have lived in multiple unit housing
for many years, some of us work at local colleges. However, we are asure that one of the reasons you bought your
house in this area was that you, like us, thought you were buying into an area of single family homes.
There is not doubt in our mind that if this change is made others will ask to do the same and the character
of our neighborhood will change. Recently buyers seeking to buy single family homes for student housing have
approached some of us.
The above petition was signed by 21 homeowners.
Chuck Potter , 423 Minnesota Street West, stated he did not sign the petition, but is opposed to the rezoning.
Potter is concerned with the additional noise, potential deterioration of the property and increased traffic. Potter also
questioned the status of the proposed realignment of County Road 2 to County Road 75.
Steve Frank, 606 Birch Street West, stated that everyone approached to sign the petition did so without hesitation.
If they had enough time, in his opinion, 100 percent of the families would have signed the petition. Frank also
clarified that the past residents of 11 - 6`~ Avenue NW have been good neighbors but there is no guarantee that will
continue. Further, he stated that is was his understanding that economics could not play a role in the decision to
rezone.
Schneider questioned whether or not the Commission would be setting precedence by rezoning the property. Other
landlords may see this as a way to manipulate the maximum density allowed per household. Schneider concurred
that the property in question is in a neighborhood setting and should remain Single Family.
Bud Reber, 21 - 2"d Ave SE, stated that he was the Mayor when the house was constructed and the Council received
many inquires as to whether or not the house was a duplex. On numerous occasions the Building Official was
requested to inspect the property and the property owner was aware that the area was zoned Single Family and the
City had no intentions of changing such.
Ehlert stated that the Comprehensive Plan discourages spot zoning and that is what the petitioner is requesting.
However, if the property owner could be required to make the home meet the same standards as other homes in the
neighborhood (such as manicured yard, paved driveway), it maybe advantageous to rezone the property. Ehlert
discussed the amount of time the Commission spent reviewing the zoning in St. Joseph, including the placement of a
moratorium on certain areas to allow such review.
Ehlert clarified that the Commission must review the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances anytime a land use
change is requested. The review is to make sure that land use is consistent with the future plans of the City. He
agrees that the property may be hard to sell as a single family home due to the traffic, but agrees that precedence
may be set by allowing the requested change.
Klein and Ehlert briefly discussed the plans to re-route traffic from County Road 2 immediately west of Clinton
Village and connect to County Roads 75 and 3. Ehlert stated that it is his understanding this project has been
scheduled for the year 2000.
Partridge stated that it is his opinion that the long range plans for the City include additional residential development
west of Clinton Village as both Ash Street and Birch Street are extended to the west, abutting the adjoining field.
There being no one to comment further Grave made a motion requesting the Council adopt the following findings
and deny the Rezoning request of Tim Kiernan. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously by
those present.
Resolution of finding
The request of Tim Kiernan to rezone a parcel of property came before the Planning Commission at a public hearing
held on September 8, 1998. The purpose of the hearing is to consider re-zoning a parcel of property currently zoned
R-1, Single Family to R-2, Multiple Family. The Zoning change is requested to allow the property owner to secure
a rental license for more than 3 unrelated persons and creation of a two family dwelling.
The property is legally described as:
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NWI /4 SE %) of Section Nine (9) in Township One Hundred
Twenty four (124) North of Range Twenty-nine (29) West Stearns County, Minnesota and also part of Lot Three (3) in Auditor's
Subdivision No. 4 of said Section 9 specifically described as follows: Commencing at the point of intersection of the centerlines
of Iowa Street and Minnesota Street as platted and dedicated in the Original Townsite of the Village of St. Joseph; thence in a
Southwesterly direction along the centerline of said Minnesota Street and the centerline of State Aid Road No. 2 for a distance of
1767.97 feet fir a point of beginning; thence continue Southwesterly along said centerline 109.73 feet; thence Northwesterly at
right angles 208.71 feet; thence deflect right 90 °01 ' 20" a distance of 109.73 feet.• thence deflect right 89 °58' 40" a distance of
208.67tifeet to the point of beginning. The street address of the property is as follows:
11- 6r Avenue Northwest.
The request for rezoning has been submitted by Timothy and Jean Kiernan, 1362 - 20~' Street SE; Buffalo MN
55313.
Notice of this matter was duly served and published
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:
1. The proposed request is not consistent with the Social Objective of the Comprehensive Plan which
states: Keep neighborhoods intact and promote the growth of healthy and vibrant neighborhoods
2. The proposed change would not be consistent with City policy prohibiting spot zoning. The property
is contiguous to a R-1 Single Family district.
3. The proposed request may set precedence opening a window for other landlords to request rezoning to
increase the maximum occupancy allowed.
Therefore based on the above findings the Planning Commission recommends the Council deny the rezoning
request.
The hearing was closed at 9:00 p.m.
Commissioners discussed the request of Stearns County Engineer Doug Weishaar to have the driveway on County
Road 2 eliminated as it presents a safety hazard and a permit was not obtained. The Commission determined that if
the road is regulated by the County, the City does not need to get involved and turned the matter over to the Public
Works Director, Dick Taufen. If after Taufen discusses the matter with Weiszhaar the City needs to be involved,
Taufen should report to Ehlert who will bring the issue to the City Council.
Lot Split Request, Lou Krebsbach: Lou Krebsbach appeared before the Commission to request authorization to
split a portion of Lot 14 Block 10 Original Townsite. Krebsbach stated that in 1986 Triple K Enterprise requested a
lot split of lot 14 to establish a single property for the rental house and to allow the Phillips 66 Station to expand. At
that time the westerly 20 feet and southerly 83 feet were split from lot 14. At this time the property owned by
Krebsbach is for sale and they would like the opportunity to sell the rental house separately from the remaining land.
Krebsbach presented the following reasons for allowing the lot split:
1. The proposed lot lines are consistent with the actual use of the rental property in recent years.
2. The proposed lot line provides the developer of the adjacent parcel more frontage on Minnesota Street
and more square footage for commercial development.
3. Expanding the lot lines beyond the proposed lot lines would require the rental house owner to acquire
land that was previously utilized by the Phillips 66 Station and recently the subject of a petroleum tank
release investigation and clean up
Commissioner's clarified that the lot split is also needed so that the rental property could be sold and have adequate
parking. If the property were sold as the property is currently recorded there would be no parking for the rental unit.
The Commission stated that even though the property is zoned General Business, the rental is operating under
grandfather status and the lot requirements are that of Multiple Family (how the property is being used.). While the
property does not need to be in strict compliance, when a change to the property is made the lot requirements should
be considered and met as close as possible. Therefore, if the property were returned to the 1986 dimensions the lot
would almost meet the requirements.
Krebsbach stated the main reason for requesting the lot split as presented was to limit any prior contamination to one
lot, one property owner. MPCA reserves the right to re-inspect a contaminated site at any time. If at some time
additional cleanup is required negotiations with an adjoining property owner would not be required.
Lesnick questioned if the lot were approved as requested and the property owner of the rental unit decided to tear
down the house and rebuild, 43 feet of frontage would be insufficient. Krebsbach stated that due to the cost of
demolition, it would not be feasible to tear the house down and rebuild. It is Krebsbach's opinion that a property
owner would remodel the house before demolishing.
Graeve questioned Krebsbach as to how he saw the property being developed. Krebsbach responded that in his
opinion the property is not large enough to develop as multiple family so commercial appears to be the best solution.
After considerable discussion Schneider made a motion to recommend the City Council authorize the lot split of
Krebsbach Enterprise creating the following lot: the easterly '46 feet of lot 14 block 10 Original Townsite. The
remaining 20' of lot 14 will be attached to the adjoining parcel. Further, the recommendation is based on the
following:
Allowing the lot split as stated provides a marketable lot that has not been exposed to contamination.
The motion also requests that the current rental property be allowed to continue operating as in the past with a
maximum density of 8 persons (based on the 1998-1999 rental license). The motion was seconded by Lesnick and
passed unanimously by those present.
Wetlands Ordinance: The Commission continued discussing the Wetland Ordinance and setback requirements.
Schneider questioned the proposed setback for storage units. Wahlstrom stated that the sub committee discussed
this matter and felt that the setback on storage sheds would be controlled by other mechanisms.
Weyrens questioned the plan review process proposed. The draft states that the development site plan shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission. She questioned if the Commission had the resources to review wetland
areas and if the County should be doing this before a site plan is submitted to the Planning Commission.
Kalinowski responded that the Commission discussed this matter at great length with Stearns County Environmental
Services. They indicated that they would not have time to review every site plan but could serve in an advisory
capacity.
Graeve made a motion to accept the proposed Wetland Ordinance as drafted by a sub committee of Wahlstrom and
St. Joseph City and Township Planning Commission and recommend City Council approval. The motion was
seconded by Kalinowski and passed unanimously.
Weyrens will contact St. Joseph Township to verify any changes they may have made with the proposed Wetland
Ordinance and incorporate the changes so that both jurisdictions are using the same language.
Graeve questioned the Commission on the status of the conclusion statement presented by Wahlstrom. It is his
opinion that it would fit in the Comprehensive Plan under the Quality of Life. Commissioners agreed to table this
statement indefinately.
Adjourn: Lesnick made a motion to adjourn at 9:50 p.m.; seconded by Schneider and passed unanimously.
Judy Weyrens
Deputy Clerk