Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 [05] May 06Page 1 of 4 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, May 6, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Gary Utsch. Commissioners Mike Deutz, Jim Graeve, S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Kurt Schneider. Council Liaison AI Rassier. Administrator /Clerk Judy Weyrens. Others Present: Brad Bohlen, Ron Molus. Approve Agenda: Kalinowski made a motion to approve agenda; seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. Brad Bohlen, Variance Request to construct a deck: Chair Hosch opened the public hearing at 7:05 PM and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a 14 foot variance setback of the public right of way to allow the construction of a deck. St. Joseph Ordinance requires a 30 foot setback from all public right of ways. The property is located at 349 Pond View Lane East, St. Joseph, MN 56374 and the request has been submitted by Brad and Holly Bohlen. Brad Bohlen spoke on his own behalf and stated that he is before the Planning Commission to request a variance to construct a 14x14 deck. Bohlen said he was unaware of the home being constructed too close to the property line and the realtor led them to believe that they would be able to build a deck. Bohlen further stated they had no prior knowledge that they could not build a deck until they met with the City Building Official Nancy Scott. Utsch stated that while he does not have an issue with Bohlen constructing a deck, many times a deck starts out just as that but then turns into a screen porch, then to a three season deck and finally is converted to an addition to the main structure. Bohlen responded that he would be willing to sign a statement that the deck could never be screened or enclosed if the variance is approved. Rassier stated that he viewed the property and the location of the proposed deck and it is his opinion that the deck would not impair visibility to the abutting streets. The house was laid on the property crooked and the points of the house landed on the setback line. Rassier stated it is his opinion that without the ability to add a deck the header board and patio doors become useless. Therefore, a hardship is present to the property owners and a variance should be granted Kalinowski questioned if the proposed deck creates a safety risk. Rassier stated that the area where the deck is proposed in his opinion would not create any safety issues. In fact he stated that the trees that are currently located in the right-of-way area present more of a danger than the proposed deck. Deutr questioned Weyrens if in the past the City has granted a variance in the public right-of-way area. Weyrens responded that since the requirement is for safety the City has been reluctant to grant a variance in the right-of-way area. The issue before the Planning Commission at this time was a topic of discussion at the monthly Department Head meeting. As a result, the City Attorney has provided an opinion on the setback requirement and suggested that an alternative deck be considered without needing a variance. Deutr questioned Bohlen if constructing the deck below the first level is an acceptable alternative. Bohlen responded that he would prefer to construct the deck he presented for approval, but would be willing to consider alternative options. Deutz made a motion to recommend the Council deny the fourteen (14) foot variance of Brad Bohlen based on the following findings: Page 2 of 4 RESOLUTION OF FINDING The request of Brad & Holly Bohlen for a fourteen (14) foot variance on the front yard setback came before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing held on May 6, 2002. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a variance to allow additional for the construction of a deck. The property is legally described as follows: Lot 15 Block 1 Pond View Ridge Four St. Joseph Code of Ordinances No. 52.17 Subd 6(a) states front yard setbacks of not less than 30 feet on all public right-of-ways. 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 (a) 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: A hardship is not present. The property owner has the ability to construct a patio without the variance. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd_1b): "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: Granting this variance would confer rights to the above mentioned property owner that are not commonly enjoyed by other property owners in an R1 Zoning District. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd.lc): "states 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". FINDING: Granting this variance would confer rights as stated cove. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd. (d) "states 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: Proposed variance is inconsistent with this standard. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd. (e) "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: Proposed variance is inconsistent with this standard. The motion was seconded by Kalinowski. Ayes: Utsch, Kalinowski, Deutz, Lesnick, Grave, Schneider Nays: Rassier Motion Carried 6:1:0 Rezoning Request: Utsch called the hearing to order and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider rezoning Lot 3 Block 1 Roske Addition from P, public to R1, single family. The zoning changes requested to allow construction of a single family dwelling. The request has been submitted by the City and Township of St. Joseph. Page 3 of 4 Weyrens clarified the property being discussed is currently zoned public and the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances does not include requirements for public zoning at this time. Weyrens clarified that the property owner constructing the home on the above mentioned property is aware of the risk if the zoning change is not approved. Deutz stated that while he is not opposed to the rezoning, he is opposed to the process that was followed and wanted to know if the City is going to allow developers to begin construction without necessary approvals. Weyrens stated that this request is unique, as the property is owned by the City and Township and the property in question has a zoning classification without any guidelines. The City Attorney will be preparing the definitions for Public Zoning when the Ordinances are updated. The Public Zoning classification will only be used for property owned by the City of St. Joseph. Utsch closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Rassier made a motion to recommend the Council approve the rezoning request of the City and Township of St. Joseph based on the following findings: RESOLUTION OF FINDING The request of the City and Township of St. Joseph to rezone a parcel of property from current public to R1, single family came before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing held on May 6, 2002. The purpose of the hearing was to consider the rezoning of the property to allow the construction of a single family home. The property is legally described as follows: Lot 3 Block 1 Roske Addition 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: FINDINGS: The property is currently zoned public and the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances does not have a zoning class titled the same. Further, Public Zoning is intended for municipally owned property and the property in question has recently been sold by the City and Township of St. Joseph. The motion was seconded by Kalinowski and passed unanimously. Utsch opened the council for further discussion. Rassier made a motion for rezoning from public to R1. A motion was seconded by Kalinowski and was passed unanimously. Ron Molus. Lot Split Request, East Minnesota Street: Ron Molus appeared before the Commission to discuss alternative developments for the property he owns at the intersection of 12th Avenue NE and East Minnesota Street. The property is approximately 24,000 square feet and if the property were split, each lot would meet the minimum lot square footage requirement. Weyrens informed the Commission that she has contacted Stearns County regarding this matter, as 12th Avenue NE is a County Road. Stearns County will not allow any additional accesses to 12th Avenue NE. Therefore, if the lots are to be split, the required frontage of 75 feet must extend along Minnesota Street East. The Commission reviewed the development alternatives presented by Molus. If the lots are to be split for residential development, a variance on the minimum average frontage would need to be secured. The Planning Commission encouraged Molus to consider developing the lot as an R2, multiple family. Under the Ordinances the minimum lot requirements would be met without needing a variance. Page 4 of 4 Leo Buettner, Lot Split request: The Planning Commission received correspondence for the EDA consultants (MDG) requesting consideration of splitting the westerly 429 feet of Lot 2 Block 1, Buettener Business Park. The lot split is needed to accommodate the building request of Finken Water Softer. Finken will be constructing a new facility in 2003. Weyrens presented the Planning Commission with a tentative site plan. Before a building permit is issued for this property a site plan application will need to be completed and approved before both the EDA and Planning Commission. Schneider questioned if the proposed lot split has been approved by the EDA . Weyrens clarified that issues arising from Ordinance requirements fall under the authority of the Planning Commission and City Council. Matters dealing with park covenants and building plans are presented to the EDA for a recommendation to the City Council. Graeve questioned why the lot split is necessary and what will be constructed on the proposed site. Deutz responded that when the property in the Buettner Business Park was platted, the lots were purposely left large to accommodate any size business. It was the philosophy of the EDA that if small parcels were requested the property could be split, but they had hoped large lots would be attractive to Industry. Schnedier made a motion to recommend the City Council approve the splitting the westerly 429 feet of Lot 2 Block 1 Buettner Business Park. The recommendation is contingent upon submittal of a registered survey. The motion was seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously. Comprehensive Plan Update: The City Council entered into an agreement with Municipal Development Group for the updating of the Comprehensive Plan. Utsch stated that he was part of the process to select a consultant and he is confident that Municipal Development Group will be an asset to the City. The following consultants were interviewed: Dahlgren, Shardlow and Urban (DSU); Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC); and Municipal Development Group (MDG). Weyrens requested the Planning Commission review the proposed questionnaire presented by MDG and contact the City Offices with any changes no later than May 10, 2002. Ordinance Review -Establish special meeting: The City Council has established a special meeting for May 20, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. This meeting is a joint meeting between the City Council and Planning Commission to review the proposed Ordinance amendments to the sign and R3 Ordinance. Other Matters: Rassier reported that the City Council has added Transportation Planning to the Capital Improvement Plan. The City Engineer presented the Council with an estimate to identify Field Street on an official map. The estimate is approximately $140,000.00. Ju eyrenS/ l/ l A mini trator /Clerk Ad~iourn: Lesnick ma~ motion to adjourn to adjourn at 8:40 PM; seconded by Deutz