Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 [07] Jul 07July 7, 2008 Page 1 of 3 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, July 7, 2008 at 7:00. PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Kathleen Kalinowski, Commissioners Ross Rieke, Mike McDonald, Mark Andersen, John Meyer and Dale Wick, City Administrator Judy Weyrens Others Present: None Aaenda: Meyer made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. Minutes: Wick made a motion to approve the minutes of June 2, 2008. The motion was seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. Public Hearing -Interim Use Permit, 1306 Iris Lane: Weyrens stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider an Interim Use permit to allow an owner occupied rental in an R-1 Single-Family zoning district. The property is legally described as Lot 2 Block 5, Northland Heights. 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 all owners must occupy the property as their principal residence. The owners may not exceed two in number. For purposes of determining ownership, the owner/owners must provide a copy of a recorded deed or recorded contract for deed. A purchase agreement will not be accepted as evidence of ownership. Keith Eisenschenk, 1306 Iris Lane NE, St. Joseph, MN 56374 has submitted the request for Interim Use. The Public Hearing was opened and closed as there was no one present to speak. Weyrens advised the Commissioners that this property was one which the City received a complaint and, after following up on the complaint, it was determined that this was indeed being used as rental property. She added that, recently, this property received a weed notice as the grass exceeded the maximum height of 10 inches. In addition to the weed violation the property has vehicles parked on the grass, which is prohibited in R1 Zoning Districts. Weyrens presented the Planning Commission with pictures of the property. McDonald stated that he would have liked to have Eisenschenk present at the meeting as he had a few questions: • He questioned whether or not there are currently renters in the home? • He questioned how many people are living in the home as he saw a play set in the backyard. • McDonald then questioned how the City defines renters. He questioned whether alive-in boyfriend/girlfriend situation is a rental situation or whether they are considered family. In response, Weyrens stated that she was told that he was renting to a family who was interested in purchasing the home and that he does currently live in the home as well. She stated that he may have been renting for approximately a year since that is when he purchased the home. Kalinowski questioned whether Mr. Eisenschenk is the sole owner to which Weyrens stated he is. Meyer questioned several of the answers to the questions on Mr. Eisenschenk's application. • #6: Q. Will the proposed use depreciate the area in which it is proposed? A. "No, I take care of my property as if I was the only one living there." Meyer stated that he is not taking care of the property, which is why he received a weed notice. July 7, 2008 Page 2 of 3 #8: Q. Are local streets capable of handling traffic which is generated by the proposed use? A. "Yes, All vehicles stay in the driveway." According to Meyer, vehicles are not only parked in the driveway, but in the road as well. Based on the answers to those questions, Kalinowski stated that there is some falsification on the application and without him present clarification is not possible. Wick questioned the process for the approval, denial or tabling of this matter since the public hearing has already been closed. Weyrens advised the Commissioners that if the matter is denied, a letter would be sent to Mr. Eisenschenk notifying him of the denial as well as the need for eviction of the tenants. If he wishes, he can appeal the denial to the Council and the Council can request that it be reviewed again by the Planning Commission. McDonald made a motion to deny the request for Interim Use based on the following: • Failure to comply with the required yard maintenance. • Failure to be present at the meeting. Discrepancies with the answers on the application to what is seen when looking at the site. The motion was seconded by Andersen. Discussion: Rieke then questioned the process as well. He questioned whether or not it should have been tabled until the first meeting in August rather than denied. According to Weyrens, there is enough support for the denial. She did add that they need to determine the length of time to allow for the eviction of the tenants. McDonald questioned if he could re-apply for the Interim Use Permit at a later date. Meyer stated that he would like to see them given at least 30-45 days to correct the deficiencies before they would be forced to re-apply. According to McDonald, his problem is that it is an unfortunate situation for the family. Meyer added that he hates to approve or deny the permit due to the fact that Eisenschenk was not present. With regard to the outdoor storage items, they belong to the tenant of the property at 1306 Iris Lane. The motion passed unanimously. Meyer made a motion to give the property owner until August 31 to comply with the Ordinances before requiring an new application for Interim Use. Weyrens stated that the property owner could not make application for the Interim Use Permit until they are in compliance with current Ordinances. The motion was seconded by McDonald. Discussion: Rieke questioned whether Meyer would be acceptable to amending the motion to have tenants evicted no later than August 31. Meyer stated that that was not his intent and he withdrew his motion with McDonald withdrawing the second. Rieke questioned whether there would be another application fee required if they were to re-apply. Weyrens stated that they would be responsible for the $400 for the re-application. McDonald made a motion to allow the renters 4 months to vacate the property. Wick made a friendly amendment to require them to vacate the property prior to September 1. The motion was seconded by Wick. Kalinowski suggested that the tenants be notified of the violations with the yard. Rieke stated that they would not be notified as the property owners are notified of violations rather than tenants. Wick stated that Eisenschenk would be allowed to have two other unrelated persons besides him living in the home, if the permit we approved. He questioned whether the family would be considered unrelated July 7, 2008 Page 3 of 3 individuals or if they would count as one. Weyrens stated that the family would be considered one based on the definition of a "family". Anderson questioned the motion on the table. Weyrens replied that the tenants would need to be vacated prior to September 1 or the property would need to be in compliance with the R1 Ordinance requirements. Ayes: Kalinowski, McDonald, Wick, Andersen, Meyer Nays: Rieke Motion Carried: 5:1:0 Ordinance Amendment -Non Conformin4 Use: Weyrens presented the Planning Commission with the final amendment to Ordinance 52.08, Non Conforming Uses. McDonald made a motion to recommend the City Council accept the amendment to Ordinance 52.08, Non Conforming Uses, causing the same to be published and effective upon publication. The motion was seconded by Andersen and passed unanimously. Conservation Training: Weyrens stated that she has recently been contacted by the SJU Land Manager, Tom Kroll. He is requesting that the City consider accepting an offer to provide conservation planning as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances. They received legislative funding to promote conservation in the Avon Hills Landscape Area and they are offering to use part of the funding to sponsor a workshop focusing on St. Joseph. Meyer questioned what the costs would be to the City. Weyrens stated that there may be a small fee for each participant. Meyer stated that it may be too late to get their input on the Comprehensive Plan as they are almost done reviewing the proposed updates. Kalinowski questioned if a deadline has been set for the completion of the Comprehensive Plan to which Weyrens advised her that it must be done by the end of the year. Wick added that some of the City's Ordinances may need to change based on changes in the Comprehensive Plan. Meyer made a motion to accept the grant opportunity and attend the conservation training provided the training is focused on St. Joseph and decline the offer at this time to have the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances reviewed. The motion was seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. Comprehensive Plan: Weyrens stated that the Park Board will be meeting on July 9 for a presentation by the firm hired to prepare the Master Park Pan. The consultant will present an overview of the existing parks and the results of the City park survey. They would like to have the Planning Commission present as well as this presentation will lead into the next portion of the Comprehensive Plan dealing with Parks that will be discussed on July 23. McDonald stated that he is having a hard time picturing certain areas that are being discussed during the meetings on the Comprehensive Plan. He would like to have a tour showing him exactly where some of these areas are located. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 PM by consensus. ~~~~ ~~~ ud Weyr ns d inistrator