Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 [11] Nov 10Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday November 10, 2003 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair (Council Liaison) Gary Utsch. Commissioners S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Bob Loso, Jim Graeve, Mike Deutz, Kurt Schneider. Administrator Judy Weyrens. Others Present: Gene Lange, John Meyer, Dorian Davidson, Joe Hoffman, Marcus Marsh, Brandon Kappes. Approve Agenda: Kalinowski made a motion to approve the agenda as presented; seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. Lange Excavating, Variance Request: Chair Utsch called the public hearing to order at 7:05 PM and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a ten foot variance on the side yard setback to allow the construction of an Industrial Facility. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.33 subd 6 Side Yard (a): Side yard setback shall be at least twenty- five (25) feet from the lot line. The property is legally described as follows: Lot 6 Block 1, Rennie Addition. The request for variance has been submitted by Gene Lange, 48 North 3~d Street, Waite John Meyer spoke on behalf of Lange Excavating. Meyer stated the Rennie Industrial Park was platted under the previous Zoning Regulations which only required a 10 foot sideyard setback. The property was platted with deep sideyards and narrow frontages, a design which accommodated a 10 foot setback. However, the new Zoning Ordinance increased the side yard setback to 25 feet which is appropriate for the lots being platted at this time. If the property owner must meet the new requirements, the proposed building cannot be constructed and the City may not see Industrial Development on the remaining lots. Their being no one requesting to testify for or against the variance request, the public hearing was closed at 7:07 PM. The Planning Commission concurred that the new setback may limit industrial development on the remaining lots and requested that the Ordinance be amended to exclude the Rennie Addition from the new setback requirements. Loso made a motion to recommend the Council approve the ten foot variance request of Lange Excavating based on the following findings: RESOLUTION OF FINDING The request of Lange Excavating for a ten (10) foot variance on the side yard setback came before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing held on November 10, 2003. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a variance to allow additional for the construction of an Industrial Facility . The property is legally described as follows: Lot 6 Block 1 Rennie Addition St. Joseph Code of Ordinances No. 52.33 Subd 6 Sidevard (a) states side yard shall be at least twenty- five feet from the lot line. 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 52.07 subd 2 (a) f 11 states: "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: The property was platted under Ordinances that only required a ten foot sideyard setback. Therefore the lots are narrow and deep. St Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a) f21: "states 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 Industrial Park in which this propertylvariance request is located is nearing completion and all the existing buildings in the park are built with a ten foot sideyard setback. St Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a) [5]: "states 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 majority of the Industrial Park on 19th Avenue SE is built, therefore there are only a few lots that would require this exception. The new Industrial Parks are designed to accommodate the larger setback. St Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a) f71: "states that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the zoning ordinances or property within the same zoning classification. FINDING: The 10 foot setback would be consistent with the existing structures and adjoining lots. The motion was seconded by Kalinowski and passed unanimously. Weyrens stated that the site plan presented to the Planning Commission is complete with the exception of the final grading plan which must be submitted at the time of building permit application. Utsch requested that the Development Agreement between the City of St. Joseph and Lange Excavating include a provision whereby the ingress/egress will consist of a minimum 10 foot concrete apron. Utsch clarified that the parking area from 19th Avenue to the edge of the building must be paved in accordance with the Parking Ordinance. Deutz made a motion to recommend the Council authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute a Development Agreement between the City of St. Joseph and Lange Excavating to allow the construction of an Industrial Facility. The Agreement shall include the site plan submitted by DM Building with the addition of the concrete apron and submittal of the final drainage plans. The motion was seconded by Loso and passed unanimously Joe Hoffman Variance Request, 104 - 15t Avenue NW: Chair Utsch called the hearing to order at 7:20 PM and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider the following variances: 1) Two foot variance on the rear yard setback; 2) Two foot variance on the side yard setback; 3) Eight foot variance on the maxim lot coverage. The variances are being requested to reconstruct the accessory building located at 104 - 1~` Avenue NW, legally described as: N54' of the S116' of Lot 7 Block 12 Townsite of St. Joseph. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.12 Subd. 1 (a) states: In all residential districts detached accessory buildings shall be located in the rear yard. When located within ten (10) feet of the rear wall of the principal building they shall comply with all yard requirements applicable to the principal building in the district. Where accessory buildings are to be located more than ten (10) feet from a rear wall of the principal building they shall not be located closer than five (5) feet from an adjoining side or rear lot line. All accessory buildings shall setback a minimum of fifty (50) feet from front street right-of-way lines. Accessory buildings are further limited not to exceed over one (I) story of sixteen (16) feet in height. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.12 Subd. 9 states: No structure shall occupy more than 30% of the lot area. The request for variance has been submitted by Joe Hoffmann, 104 - 1 ~ Avenue NW, St. Joseph MN 56374. Joe Hoffman spoke on his own behalf. Hoffman stated that he is requesting three variances so he may reconstruct the existing accessory building located on his property, which is in dire need of repair. Weyrens stated that the property in question is located in the General Business District and is being used as anon-conforming use. The Ordinance allows accessory buildings to be constructed/remodeled as a non conforming use, however, the Zoning Regulations which are the most stringent applies. In the case before the Planning Commission the R1 Regulations are the most stringent and have been applied. Weyrens further stated that the side and rear yard setbacks are contingent upon the approval of a variance on the maximum lot coverage. It is not good policy to grant a variance so that another variance can be considered. Hoffman stated that he intended to use the existing foundation to reduce the cost of the reconstruction. Therefore he is not requesting to enlarge the accessory building, only rebuild the existing building. Their being no one requesting to testify for or against the variance request, the public hearing was closed at 7:22 PM. Utsch stated that he supports granting the eight (8) foot variance on the maximum lot coverage, as if it were denied Hoffman could not construct an accessory building. However, with regard to the side and rear yard setback, Utsch stated that the accessory building could be constructed without the variance as the building could be shifted two feet to meet the requirements. Kalinwoski concurred with Utsch and stated that while she concurs the building is in need of repair, the Planning Commission is prohibited from making a decision based on financial constraints. Loso stated that it is his understanding that in the early 1990's an adjoining property owner received a variance for the same issue and Hoffman should be provided the same rights. Weyrens stated that if the Planning Commission would like the past information, the City Office could provide such. However, when researching the past, not only will the property need to be reviewed, but the Ordinances that where in effect at that time also need to be reviewed. The City has amended the Zoning twice in the past ten years. Lesnick concurred with Loso and stated that she supports the granting of the variance for the rear and side yard setback. The property owner should be allowed to rebuild the garage and should not have to incur additional costs by replacing the foundation. Utsch stated that the Planning Commission should not base a decision on past action. The Ordinances have been updated and the Planning Commission is charged with enforcing the Ordinances that currently in place. Further, if a mistake was made in the past, it should not be the basis for making a decision today. Deutz stated that he has a problem granting a variance for anon-conforming use as the purpose of the Ordinance is to limit the expansion of those uses and encourage the transformation of the property to the permitted uses. Weyrens responded that the Conforming Use section of the Ordinance allows a property owner to construct an accessory building. Graeve questioned if it is illegal to grant a variance so that a second variance can be secured. Weyrens stated that it is not illegal, but it is not good policy. A variance request should be an independent action and should not rely on a secondary variance. Schneider stated that while he empathizes with the property owner, the denial of the side and rear yard variance will not prohibit the property owner from reconstructing the accessory building. Schneider further stated that there are other properties that may encounter the same problem and the Planning Commission needs to look at the intent of the Ordinance and not set a precedence. Kalinowski made a motion to recommend the Council to approve an eight foot variance of Joe Hoffmann based on the following findings: RESOLUTION OF FINDING The request of Joe Hoffman an (8) eight foot variance on the maximum lot coverage in a R1 Zoning District came before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing held on November 10, 2003. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a variance to allow for the replacement of an accessory building The property is legally described as follows: N54' of the S116' of Lot 7 Block 12 Townsite of St. Joseph St Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.12 Subd. 9 states: No structure shall occupy more than 30% of the lot area. Inconsideration 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 52.07 subd 2 (a) f 11 states: "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: The property owner is requesting to reconstruct an existing garage that was built before the current Ordinances were adopted. The garage will be built to the same size as the existing garage. However, due to the small lot the lot coverage will be exceeded. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a) f21: "states 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 property owner would be denied the right to have a garage if he could not rebuild his garage, and that right is enjoyed by all property owners in an R1 Zoning District. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a) [5]: "states 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 lot was platted as part of the Original Townsite and the lots platted after 1990 were significantly larger. Therefore this will not be a recurring issue. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a)171: "states that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the zoning ordinances or property within the same zoning classification. FINDING: The property surrounding the subject property consists of small lots with accessory buildings and the development would be consistent with surrounding property. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Kalinowski made a motion to recommend the Council to deny the two, two foot variances of Joe Hoffmann based on the following findings: RESOLUTION OF FINDING The request of Joe Hoffman for two, two foot variances on side and rear yard setbacks came before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing held on November 10, 2003. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a variance to allow for the replacement of an accessory building The property is legally described as follows: N54' of the S116' of Lot 7 Block 12 Townsite of St. Joseph St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.12 Subd. 1 (a) states: In all residential districts detached accessory buildings shall be located in the rear yard. When located within ten (10) feet of the rear wall of the principal building they shall comply with all yard requirements applicable to the principal building in the district. Where accessory buildings are to be located more than ten (10) feet from a rear wall of the principal building they shall not be located closer than five (5) feet from an adjoining side or rear lot line. All accessory buildings shall setback a minimum of fifty (50) feet from front street right-of-way lines. Accessory buildings are further limited not to exceed over one (I) story of sixteen (16) feet in height. 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 52.07 subd 2 (a)111 states: "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: There is no hardship present and the property owner has the ability to move the garage two feet and construct the requested garage. St Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a) f21: "states 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 granting of this Variance would grant this property owner rights in contradiction to the Ordinances not granted other property owners in the same zoning district. St Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a) f71: "states that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the zoning ordinances or property within the same zoning classification. FINDING: The variance would be inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinances. The motion was seconded by Deutz. Ayes: Utsch, Kalinowski, Graeve, Deutz, Schneider Nays: Loso, Lesnick Motion carried 5:2:0 Minnesota Association of Farm Mutual Insurance -Development Plan: Marcus Marsh representing Minnesota Association of Farm Mutual Insurance presented the Planning Commission with a plan to construct an insurance office building. The building will be located on the westerly 150 feet of Lot 1 Block 2 of Indian Hills Park Addition. The site plan includes the following: • 3200 Square foot building • Exterior will consist of lap siding and brick • 24 parking spaces will be provided, including 1 handicap space • The landscape plan will consist of trees and shrubs • Anticipated construction date is Spring, 2004. • The building will face Elm Street East • The lighting plan consists of a wall pac lights which will be attached to the building. Weyrens stated that the site plan submitted is complete and the final drainage plans will be submitted before the building permit is issued. Utsch requested and Marsh agreed to install a 10 foot concrete apron for the ingress/egress. Commissioners requested that the landscaping plan be expanded to provide a buffer between the residential neighborhood and the proposed building. Marsh agreed to prepare a revised landscape plan which will be submitted prior to application for a building permit. Deutz made a motion recommending the Council authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute a Development Agreement between the City of St. Joseph and Minnesota Association of Farm Mutual Insurance. The site plan will include a revised landscape plan and include the construction of a 10 foot apron. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. Brandon Kapges -Interim Use Permit ReQUest, 32 - 15' Avenue SE: Brandon Kappes re-appeared before the Planning Commission with additional information for his request for issuance of an Interim Use Permit. Kappes stated that he only has a two bedroom house and therefore he should only be required to provide 3 parking spaces. Weyrens stated that the when determining required parking, the size of the bedroom is considered. Based on the dimensions of the bedrooms, five parking spaces would be required. Utsch questioned if each bedroom is required to have two means of ingress/egress. Rental Housing Inspector Steve Hagmann stated that he has reviewed the home located at 32 -15t Avenue SE and it meets all applicable fire and safety codes. The only issue outstanding is the parking. There is enough property to provide five parking spaces, but the ingress/egress would need to be moved. Kappes stated that at this time he does not wish to reconstruct the ingress/egress as he plans to construct a garage in the near future. Weyrens questioned Kappes if he would be willing to reduce the number of tenants to one until a time when additional parking could be provided. Kappes stated that he was acceptable to limiting the maximum occupancy to one tenant. Loso made a motion to recommend the Council issue a contingent Interim Use Permit to Brandon Kappes allowing an Owner Occupied Rental unit in a Single Family Zoning District based on the following findings. Resolution of finding The request of Brandon Kappes for an Interim Use Permit request came before the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on October 6, 2003. The Public Hearing was closed and the Planning Commission tabled action until November 10, 2003 so that additional information could be provided. The purpose of the hearing was to consider issuance of an Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental unit in a R1 Zoning District. The property is legally described as The Southerly 17.4 feet of Lot 2 and the Northerly 30.2 feet of Lot 3, in Block 1 Loso's Subdivision of Block 2 of Loso's First Addition, according to the plat and survey thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for the County of Stearns and State of Minnesota located at 32 - 2"d Avenue SE. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27. subd 5 allows for an Interim Use permit as follows: Residential rental provided the unit is owner occupied and provided the room (s) rented does not contain separate kitchen facilities and is not intended for use as an independent residence. For purposes of establishing if the property is owner occupied, the owner must be a natural person and the owner occupying the property as his or her principal residence and must own a fifty percent (50%) or greater interest in the property. The request for Interim Use has been submitted by Brandon Kappes- 32 - 2"d Avenue SE St. Joseph MN 56374. 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: The proposed use is consistent with the standards for granting an Interim Use Permit, St. Joseuh Code of Ordinances 52.07.04 Therefore, based on the above findings, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendation: Approval of the Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental unit in a R1 Zoning District with the following contingencies: 1. The rental license in non-transferable and if the property is sold or the ownership changes so that the aforementioned no longer owns a 50% or greater interest in the property the Interim Use Permit is null and void. 2. Based on the parking plan submitted, the rental license shall restrict the number of tenants to one (1). If the property owner increases the off street parking, a new plan must be submitted to the Planning Commission and they will reconsider the maximum occupancy. 3. Approval of the Rental Housing Inspector 4. The Planning Commission will review the license annually and revoke the license if the property is in violation of the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances. The motion was seconded by Deutz. Ayes: Kalinowski, Deutz, Schneider, Graeve, Lesnick, Loso Nays: Utsch Motion Carried 6:1:0 Commissioner Announcements/Concerns KALI NOWSKI Questioned the status of the Interim Use Permit for Papa Guisepe and if the required parking has been secured. Weyrens responded that seven parking spaces have been designated in the parking lot owned by the Parish of St. Joseph. In addition, the City is in receipt of the signed parking lease between the owners of 13 Minnesota Street West and the St. Joseph Parish verifying that the parking is available for the rental license period. Questioned the enforcement of the Temporary Sign Ordinance and who is responsible for such. Weyrens responded that the City will be hiring a new Building Official effective December 1, 2003 and slhe will be responsible for all building activity including enforcement. The new Inspector will staff the office 40 hours a week. GRAEVE Reported on the Stearns County Five Year road plan. He along with several residents attended the public hearing and requested that the County Road plan include the construction of the County Road 2 bypass which will alleviate truck traffic through the City. Graeve reported that the proposed roadway has been included in the Five Year Road Plan. AdJourn: Loso made a motion to adjourn at 8:20 PM; seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. _ G~:~ ~~ ud Weyr~s ~' ,~ Adm istrator `