Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 [01] Jan 07January 7, 2002 Page 1 of 7 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, January 7, 2002 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Gary Utsch. Commissioners S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Kurt Schneider, Jim Graeve, Mike Deutz. Council Liaison AI Rassier. Administrator Clerk Judy Weyrens. Cit~Representatives Present: City Attorney John Scherer, City Engineer Amy Schaefer. Others Present: Joyce Albrecht, Mark Lambert, Carol Butkowski, Mel Butkowski, Chris Vance, Tim Muske. Approve Agenda: Lesnick made a motion to approve the agenda with the addition of Finken Water Softner Lot Split request; the motion was seconded by Kalinowski and passed unanimously. Public Hearing -Variance Request, Subway Foods: Chair Utsch opened the public hearing at 7:05 and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a 100 percent variance on the exterior requirements for property in the Highway 75 Business District. The variance is being sought to allow an 8' x 10' accessory building to be constructed without meeting the exterior requirements. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.22 Subd. 7 (c) states acceptable building materials shall include brick, stone, tip- up concrete panel, decorative concrete block or glass. Wood siding, plastic and other combustible materials are not listed as acceptable, and shall not be used for building exteriors. The request for variance has been submitted by William Nelson, PO Box 42, Long Prairie MN. Joyce Albrecht spoke on behalf of William Nelson. Albrecht stated that she had an 8' x 10' metal shed erected at the Subway site during the summer to be used for storage of lawn equipment. Before the building was erected she stated she contacted the Building Official and was told she could install the shed as it is placed today. After the shed was installed she received a letter stating that the building needed to meet exterior requirements. Therefore, Albrecht stated she is applying for a variance. Rassier stated that he does not object to the storage building, but feels the building should meet the exterior requirements. Albrecht responded that had she been aware of the requirements she would have erected a building that met the Ordinance requirements. Deutz questioned if the building was built on site or if the building was prefabricated; and if the building is placed on a cement pad. Albrecht stated that the building is prefabricated and is not placed on a cement pad. Deutz stated that he is not against the aluminum building, but is not sure that the building meets the intent of the Ordinance. Deutz further stated that it is his understanding the Highway Business Zoning District was created to ensure the Highway 75 corridor would be developed aesthetically. Graeve questioned Albrecht whether she would be willing to modify the building to meet the minimum requirements. Albrecht stated that she felt she complied with the Ordinance when she discussed the matter with the Building Official and at this time the only remedy is to purchase a new building. The current building cannot be modified. Although Schneider empathized with Albrecht, in his opinion the building needs to be modified and suggested the Commission consider allowing Albrecht until June 2002 to modify the building. Utsch closed the public hearing at 7:17 PM. Rassier made a motion adopting the following resolution of finding, denying the variance request of William Nelson. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. January 7, 2002 Page 2 of 7 Resolution of Finding The request of William Nelson for a variance came before the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on January 7, 2002. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a 100 percent variance on the exterior requirements in the Highway 75 Zoning District. The variance is being sought to allow an 8' x 10' accessory building to be constructed without meeting the exterior requirements. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.22 Subd. 7 (cl states acceptable building materials shall include brick, stone, tip- up concrete panel, decorative concrete block or glass. Wood siding, plastic and other combustible materials not listed as acceptable shall not be used for building exteriors. The property is legally described as follows: Lots 13, 14 and the west 31 feet of Lot 15 Block 2 Loso's 3`d Addition, located at 217 County Road 75 West. 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 development is not consistent with the standards for granting a variance as stated in St. Joseph Code Ordinances 52.8 Subd. 8. Therefore, based on the above fmdings the Planning Commission makes the following recommendation: Denial of the 100% variance on required exterior building material. The Commission further recommends the property owner be allowed to keep the building until June 1, 2002 allowing the property owner time to explore alternative solutions for storage. Public Hearing, Mark Lambert, Variance request: Chair Utsch called the hearing to order at 7:20 PM and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a variance request with regard to the construction of a 44 -unit apartment building. The variance request is to allow afive-foot (5') variance on the maximum height allowed, for the construction of a three story building. The property is legally described as follows: Lot 1 Block 1 Indian Hills Park Plat. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.16 Subd 7 (a) states, "No building hereafter erected or altered shall exceed 2'/Z stories or shall it exceed 35 feet in height, except as hereinafter provided. The proposed plat has been submitted by Mark Lambert, 101 - 5~' Street, Suite 910, St. Paul MN 55101. Utsch stated the Planning Commission at the December 3, 2001 meeting conducted a public hearing to consider a PURD Application issuing a special use permit to construct a 44 unit apartment building. During the public hearing it was noted that the building would exceed the maximum height of 35 feet and the property owner would need to make application for a variance. Therefore, this hearing is to consider the same plan submitted on December 3, 2001. The testimony taken at this time must be related to the height variance, as the Planning Commission closed the public hearing on the PURD Application on December 3, 2001. Mark Lambert spoke on his own behalf. He stated that he is proposing to construct a 44 unit apartment building on Lot 1 Block 1 Indian Hills Plat. Lambert stated it is his opinion that the building is attractive and will be a nice addition to St. Joseph. The apartment unit will provide affordable housing for future residents of St. Joseph. As stated at the public hearing on December 3, 2001, the site plan includes a caretaker unit in addition to the 44 unit apartment complex. Lambert stated that the elevator shaft proposed for the building needs a height of forty (40) feet, thus requiring a variance. Further, Lambert stated if he would berm the building, (not exceeding the 35 feet in height from the grade), he could construct the proposed building without a variance. City Attorney John Scherer stated that according to the St. JoseQh Code of Ordinances, height is based on the average grade of the property. January 7, 2002 Page 3 of 7 Lambert expressed frustration with his site plan approval as in his opinion the project is being jeopardized by the proposed road between Lots I and 2, Block 1 of Indian Hills Park Plat. Lambert reiterated that the proposed building will assist the City with efforts to provide affordable housing and senior housing. He assured the Planning Commission that he is planning a quality building that meets the needs of St. Joseph. At this time Chair Utsch opened the floor for comments and/or questions. Chris Vance of 515 Fir Street East questioned the market being sought by Mr. Lambert. He questioned if the building is being constructed to include seniors, why does it lack a community room or any gathering spaces. Vance stated it is his opinion that the outside appearance of a building does not determine the quality of the building. Vance also questioned if the Planning Commission is going to require Mr. Lambert to construct a fence around the property to serve as a buffer. He further stated that he had a conversation with Mr. Lambert regarding the fence at which time Lambert stated he would install a fence conditionally. Vance stated that in his opinion a fence is necessary to limit the inadvertent illumination of homes along Fir Street. Matt Chouinard of 522 Fir Street East questioned the procedure to assure that fencing would be a requirement of the project. Chouinard concurs with Vance that fencing is crucial for the existing neighborhood. Without fencing the lighting from the proposed building could become a nuisance. Mel Butkowski of 502 Fir Street East stated that when he purchased his property he did not know that apartment buildings were being proposed adjacent to his property. Butkowski stated that based on the plans submitted, the west side of the building will extend higher than the existing homes on Fir Street East. It is his opinion that the apartment building will eliminate the view from the existing homes, his lot was advertised as a "lot with a view". Butkowski stated that he does not want to look out his window and see an apartment building. Carol Butkowski of 502 Fir Street East requested the City review the procedure used when mailing notices of public hearings to property owners of a rezoning, special use or variance request. She stated that they were in the process of building their home when the property owned by Mr. Lambert was rezoned from Highway Business (B2) to Multiple Family (R3). Therefore the notice was mailed to the builder and he did not forward the information. Joel Heinen of 606 Fir Street East stated that he too was unaware the property in question was rezoned from commercial to multiple family. Heinen stated the he would prefer a commercial development over the construction of a 44-unit apartment complex. Lambert stated that he was willing to meet with the neighborhood to try and reach a compromise but did not feel they were interested in working together. He further stated that the building will be terraced into the hill and the plan submitted has taken a unique parcel of property with development constraints and turned it into a site for affordable housing. Utsch closed the public hearing at 7:40 PM City Engineer Amy Schaefer presented the Council with the following information regarding the proposed apartment complex: / The elevation of the proposed apartment complex is 1103 and the existing homes on Fir Street East and 5~' Avenue NE are at 1130. Therefore, the first homes along Fir Street and 5`}' Avenue will sit below the elevation of the apartment complex. / The grading plan submitted is incomplete and a portion of the drainage is on property not owned by Mr. Lambert. / The east /west road between lots 1 and 2 has not been established / The site plan provided includes an access for Lot 2 which is not part of the proposed development. / Curb and gutter plans are incomplete. / The proposed northerly access presents a potential safety issue as the entrance is at the top of a crest thereby limiting visibility. January 7, 2002 Page 4 of 7 Utsch stated it is his opinion that the building should be lowered approximately ten (10) feet and the access at the top of the hill should be moved south with one access serving both properties. Schneider questioned whether or not the plan submitted is realistic for the site proposed. Schneider further stated that sometimes a plan does not fit a specific parcel and the property in question has many constraints. He questioned Lambert if he was aware of the constraints before he purchased the property. Lambert stated that he was aware of the property constraints but believes the site plan submitted can be modified to meet the City requirements. While he could construct four buildings on the site, it is more economical to construct one. The lower unit cost for constructing one building is passed on to the consumer, thus making the housing more affordable. As far as lowering the building, Lambert stated that it is cost prohibitive to lower the building significantly but he will review the plan. Rather than lower the building Lambert stated that he would be willing to redesign the roof line, giving the appearance of lowering the building. Graeve questioned whether or not the building could be moved further into the hill west and south. Lambert responded the building could be moved some but it would not be enough to make a significant difference in the height. Deutz questioned the order in which the Planning Commission should consider the requests of Lambert. Scherer responded that it does not make a difference if the Commission addresses the variance first or the PURD application. When making a decision the Commission must determine if the requests meets the standards as outlined in the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances. Scherer stated that while the plan can be modified to make some adjustments, he would caution the Planning Commission from approving the plan contingent upon a modified plan. The Commission as well as the residents should have the opportunity to review the revised plans. Scherer recommended the Commission review the material presented at this time and make a decision based on the material before them. Scherer questioned whether the Fire Department has had an opportunity to review the plan. Upon review of the elevations there may be a concern that fire trucks cannot access the entire building. The Commission agreed to refer this matter to the Fire Department. Schaefer discussed the northern access with the Planning Commission stating that the access indicated on the plans should be moved a minimum of 60 feet south. Schaefer presented the Commission with statistical information on stopping/sight distances with regard to southbound vehicular traffic. Based on Schaefer's calculations, a car traveling at a speed of 45 mph would be unable to stop until surpassing the access by a distance of 100 feet. Lambert responded that as the sewer lines have already been installed, relocating the road further south would result in having to relocated the sewer lines as well. Utsch stated that he has had the opportunity to review the Developer's Agreement regarding the Indian Hills Park Plat and the City does have the opportunity to require one common access for both lots 1 and 2 Block One Indian Hills Park Plat. Lesnick concurred with Utsch and stated that she believes safety is a major concern and if the access is moved to the location originally designated by the Planning Commission, safety would not be jeopardized. Rassier stated that he believes the road should also be installed as originally designated by the Planning Commission, even if the City has to pay for a portion of the road. Utsch clarified that if the access to Lambert's property is not a public road the City would not be responsible for payment thereof. Upon soliciting the recommendations of the City Engineer, Schaefer responded that it is her recommendation that the plan be denied based on the following: 1) potential safety hazard of the proposed ingress/egress to the site; 2) insufficient grading plan; 3) insufficient curb and gutter plans; 4) provision of a plan that indicates a buffer. Rassier made a motion to recommend the City Council approve the PURD Application granting a special use permit to allow the construction of a 44-unit apartment complex. The motion died for a lack of a second. Utsch made a motion to recommend the Council adopt the following findings; recommending denial of the of the PURD Application requesting a special use permit to construct a 44-unit apartment complex. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. January 7, 2002 Page 5 of 7 RESOLUTION OF FINDING The request of Mark Lambert for a PURD application requesting a special use permit came before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing held on December 3, 2001. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a P.U.R.D. development plan to construct a 44 unit apartment building under a special use application and to consider a fifty foot variance on the size of a business sign. The proposed development is to be located on the following described property: Lot 1 Block 1 Indian Hills Park. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.19 subd. 4 provides for a special use permit to develop multi family dwellings over 12 units through the PURD procedural process. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.14 subd. 12(a) allow for business signs provided that the area on one side shall not exceed fifty square feet. The proposed plat has been submitted by Mark Lambert, 101 - 5"' Street, Suite 910; St. Paul MN 55101. 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 52.9 subd. (a) states: "Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City". Finding: The entrance as proposed on the submitted site plan may be detrimental to public safety. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.9 subd (e) states: "Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, and schools". Finding: An adequate drainage plan has not been submitted. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.9 subd (h) states: "Will have vehicular approaches to the property which are so designed as not to create traffic congestion or an interference with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares". Finding: The entrance as proposed creates a potential for traffic interference. Therefore, based on the above findings the Planning Commission recommends denial of the application. Before resubmitting a site plan the following information should be submitted: 1. The road access should be placed as in accordance to the Developer's Agreement, allowing for one common entrance. 2. A revised and complete drainage plan. 3. A complete curb and gutter plan. 4. Plans for fencing. Utsch stated the Commission needs to address the variance request for the maximum height of the building. Rassier made a motion to recommend the Council approve the five (5) foot variance as requested to allow fora 40 foot, 3 story apartment building. The motion was seconded by Deutz. Ayes: Rassier, Deutz Nays: Utsch, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Schneider, Graeve, Deutz Motion Fails 2:5:0 January 7, 2002 Page 6 of 7 Utsch made a motion to recommend the Council deny the five (5) foot variance request and accept the following findings: RESOLUTION OF FINDING The request of Mark Lambert for a five (5) foot variance on the maximum height of a building came before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing held on December 3, 2001. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a variance with regard to the construction of a 44 -unit apartment building. The variance request is to allow afive- foot (5') variance on the maximum height allowed, or the construction of a three story building. The property is legally described as follows: Lot 1 Block 1 Indian Hills Park Plat. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.16 subd 7 (a) states, "No building hereafter erected or altered shall exceed 2 '/z stories or shall it exceed 35 feet in height, except as hereinafter provided". 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: FINDING: The proposed plan is inconsistent with the following provisions: 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 o"r extraordinary circumstances must not be the result of actions taken by the petitioner. St Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd. (b): "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". St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd.(c): "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". 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". 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". The motion was seconded by Kalinowski Ayes: Utsch, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Schneider, Graeve Nays: Rassier, Deutz Motion Carried 5:2:0 Utsch stated the Commission needs to address the business sign variance request of Mark Lambert. The public hearing on December 3, 2001 also considered a fifty (50) variance on the size of a sign to allow a temporary leasing sign. City Attorney Scherer stated that rather than granting a variance on the size of a sign, the Council should consider granting an extension of the maximum days a temporary sign can be displayed. January 7, 2002 Page 7 of 7 Deutz made a motion to recommend the Council allow Mr. Lambert to display a temporary sign stating "Now Leasing" for a period of twelve months, subject to extension. The sign cannot exceed 50 square feet. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. Transportation Planning: Weyrens stated that Transportation Planner Scott Merick prepared a letter regarding the adoption of an official map. A copy of the letter will be forward to all Planning Commission Members. Minutes: Rassier made a motion to approve the minutes with the deletion of Commissioner Lesnick from those present. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Lot Split Request - Finken Water Softner: Weyrens reported that a portion of one of the lots in the Industrial Park has been sold. Joanne Foust of Municipal Development Group has requested the Commission review the lot split and make a recommendation to the City Council. Deutz stated that it is his understanding this matter must go before the St. Joseph Economic Development Authority for approval as well. Deutz questioned the rationale in splitting a lot in the Industrial Park as it is his understanding the lots were platted to accommodate larger businesses. The Commission requested additional information before making a recommendation to the City Council. Lesnick made a motion to table the lot split request of Finken Water Softner until additional information is available. The motion was seconded by Graeve and passed unanimously. Adjourn: Lesnick made a motion to adjourn at 9:05 PM; seconded by Schneider and passed unanimously. d Wey ns Ad inistrator/Clerk