HomeMy WebLinkAbout[07a] Interim Use - Borresch, Tom •
CITY OR ST. J ILPu Council Agenda Item 7(a)
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2010
AGENDA ITEM: Tom Borresch, 8850 Ridgewood Road
Interim Use
SUBMITTED BY: Administration
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
consider an Interim Use Permit to allow for outdoor sales. The public hearing was tabled as the
property was not in compliance with the Ordinances and the same property owner had Ordinance
compliance matters with is property across the street, 9 —17 Avenue SE
Mr. Borresch came to subsequent Planning Commission and has brought both his properties into
compliance. (See Planning Commission packets information included in this packet)
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: See following information.
ATTACHMENTS: Request for Council action 7(a):1 -2
Extract of PC Minutes, July 6, 2010 7(a):3 -5
PC Request for Action, July 6, 2010 7(a):6
Borresch Reqeust to PC 7(a):7
Pictures of site 7(a):8 -10
Site Map — Ridgewood Road 7(a):11
Site Map —17 Avenue SE 7(a):12
PC Request for Action 7(a):13
Extract of PC Minutes, April 5, 2010 7(a):14 -15
Extract of PC Minutes, May 3, 2010 7(a):16
Extract of PC Minutes, June 7, 2010 7(a):17
Application 7(a):18 -24
REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Accept the Planning Commission recommendations as follows:
8850 Ridgewood Road — Allow outdoor sales of accessory buildings with a display limit of 7, all
of which must be located behind the existing sidewalk, the permit will expire on August 5, 2012 at which
time Borresch can approach the Planning Commission for an extension for an additional two years.
(NOTE: The findings of fact will follow by email)
9 -7 Avenue SE — Extend the Special Use permit allowing for trailer display and sales on the
property for a period of two years. At the end of two years the property owner must come back to the
Planning Commission and if the use is to continue the display area must meet the Parking Lot Ordinance
requirements. (NOTE: The findings of fact will follow by email)
7(a):1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7(a):2
Extract of Planning Commission Minutes — July 6, 2010
Tom Borresch, Interim use
Outdoor Sales — Accessory Building
Tom Borresch — Interim Use Permit: Weyrens stated that the Planning Commission previously conducted
a public hearing to issue an Interim Use Permit to allow for outdoor sales of accessory buildings at 8850
Ridgewood Road. At the time of the hearing it was noticed that the aforementioned property and the
property he owns at 9 -17 Avenue SE are not in compliance with Ordinance provisions and requested
Borresch work with the City staff to outline the non compliant issues and formulate a plan to correct the
matters.
Weyrens stated that the Public Works Director, Terry Thene, and City Engineer, Randy Sabart, have
been working with Borresch to come up with a plan to bring the property into compliance. Since the last
meeting, they have taken care of the issues with the accessory buildings and the railroad right -of -way.
The buildings have been moved beyond the front setback line and they have submitted plans for paving,
drainage and curbing. Weyrens stated that there have been significant improvements since the public
hearing.
Tom Borresch, 9 17 Avenue SE, approached the Commissioners. He stated that there are two parcels in
question. With regard to the property at 8850 Ridgewood Road, the rail right -of -way that was disturbed
with a building and debris has been restored with the building being removed. He stated that they have
contracted to have some seal coating and striping done over the next couple of weeks. He added that the
landscaping is complete as well.
Weyrens asked the Commissioners the following questions:
• Should they be required to pave under the accessory buildings?
• Should the number of units be limited?
• What is the timeframe for compliance?
She advised them that, due to the fact that this is an Interim Use Permit, they can place more regulations
on the property. Wick clarified that the original request was for seven buildings. Borresch stated that he
sees no reason to require paving under the accessory buildings. He advised the Commissioners that they
also manufacture the sheds and, as a result, they are not going anywhere. Borresch added that those are
the bulk of their business.
Deutz questioned why they are having the parking area seal coated. Borresch advised him that the City
wanted the parking lot striped for handicapped parking and he would like to seal coat the area prior to
striping. Deutz then questioned Weyrens as to why pavement would be required under the buildings to
which Weyrens replied that it is up for discussion as to how the Commissioners interpret the Ordinance.
She stated that the City requires parking lots to be paved. Weyrens added that the biggest concern was
to have the buildings located behind the front yard setback line, which has been completed. Deutz
questioned Borresch as to whether or not they have plans to have more than seven units on the property.
Borresch responded that they have no plans for such.
Meyer made a motion to approve the Interim Use Permit contingent upon the blacktop area being
seal coated and striped as well as adopt the findings of fact granting the Interim Use Permit for a
two year period. The motion was seconded by Deutz.
Discussion: Borresch questioned whether or not the permit can be extended for more than two
years. Schultz questioned whether the property is inspected annually. Weyrens explained that it
should be brought back in two years to check compliance and, at that time, it can be extended. .
Borresch stated that he would like to try and avoid anymore updates that may come up. Deutz
stated that the approval of seven spots is fine; however, he would like to give him a little leeway
for a few more spots as there may be a possibility of him needing that in the future. He stated that
he doesn't want to have Borresch come back in a few months asking for more spots. Borresch
stated that the only other type of structure that he would consider storing on that property would
be an icehouse. Wick advised him that the application did not include a request to store that type
of structure.
7(a):3
Extract of Planning Commission Minutes — July 6, 2010
Tom Borresch, Interim use
Outdoor Sales — Accessory Building
Amendment: Meyer amended his motion to include the display area to encompass the entire
concrete paid in front of the sheds at this time. Deutz accepted the amendment.
Final Motion: Accept the findings of fact to allow for the sale of accessory buildings for an area
not to exceed the currently length of the existing sidewalk /cement pad. The Interim Use Permit is
valid for two years and is eligible for an additional two year term at that time.
The motion passed unanimously.
Weyrens stated that Borresch has a second property which has /had compliance issues. Borresh was
issued a Special Use Permit to allow for the sale of trailers at 9 — 17 Avenue SE. At the time the Special
Use Permit was issued, Borresch had indicated that the trailer sales would be temporary as he planned to
move the trailers to the other site once improvements were completed. Therefore, the Planning
Commission at that time issued a conditional Special Use Permit that required Borresch to meet the
parking lot requirements after two years if the use was to continue. Weyrens stated that the timeframe
has since lapsed and the improvements have not been completed. There is a plan included in the packet
which identifies the parking areas currently used for the outdoor sales.
There was some discussion about the possibility of extending the curbing to their property along with the
16 Avenue SE Improvements. The parking lot which is parallel to 16 Avenue runs very close to the
residential area and should not run the entire length. The Special Use Permit was issued to allow for the
sale of trailers. Weyrens stated that staff is looking to see if the Planning Commission feels that this
brings the property into compliance and, if so, whether or not the sales can continue. Borresch added that
he would still like to bring in docks and lifts for sale as well. He stated that the trailers would be sold
where the paved areas are located and the docks and lifts would be placed where the trailers are
currently located.
With respect to the Certificates of Survey that were presented, Deutz questioned why he surveyed the
property. Weyrens stated that when the staff met with Borresch it became apparent that the property
boundaries were uncertain and the only method of determining exact boundaries is through survey.
Borresch stated that things were fine in the past and, now, he must meet all new ordinances. Weyrens
clarified that the curbing that was installed was not the Ordinance requirement at the time of installation,
nor was the City contacted about the installation.
Deutz stated that it appears that the current drainage and curb /gutter are located in the City right -of -way.
Weyrens agreed and stated that staff met with Borresch and she has not yet received their comments.
She added that they are not allowed to have it in the right -of -way and they must have perimeter curbing
around the parking lot, similar to all others within the City.
Wick clarified what they are requesting the following:
• Authorize compliance with perimeter curbing.
• Authorize the sale of docks and lifts along 16 Avenue.
• Authorize the sale of ice houses [Weyrens stated that this falls under trailer sales]
• Authorize the use of an unpaved area for trailer sales.
Weyrens stated that these issues arose when they applied for the Special Use Permit. There were given
two years to come into compliance. Wick questioned whether or not they will be placing class 5 under the
docks and lifts. Borresch responded that they plan to keep it as is and just mow underneath them.
With respect to the renewal of the Special Use Permit, Weyrens questioned the Commissioners as to
what they want to do. She questioned whether or not they want to require the paving and curbing. Schultz
questioned how long this property had been without the paving and curbing to which Borresch responded
ten years. Weyrens explained that this became an issue when they applied for the Special Use Permit.
7(a):4
Extract of Planning Commission Minutes — July 6, 2010
Tom Borresch, Interim use
Outdoor Sales — Accessory Building
Deutz stated that the zoning never changed to which Borresch responded that it changed a little bit.
Weyrens stated that the B2 zoning district is geared more towards retail and sales.
Meyer made a motion to approve the extension of the Special Use Permit. The motion was
seconded by Schultz.
Discussion: Wick questioned the timeframe for the extension and Weyrens questioned what
conditions would be placed on the permit. Meyer suggested that they keep it as is and suggested
that this be for a five year time frame unless the use of the property changes. Borresch stated
that he was unaware of the fact that cement curbing was to be added. Orcutt questioned whether
lot 7 was proposed to be used for trailer sales too. Borresch explained that the docks and lifts
were just brought there. This area is basically used as a parking lot and there was some
discussion about not requiring class 5. Deutz stated that he sees no problem with how things look
now in fact, he stated that it looks nice. He also stated that he does not want any more confusion
with these properties. Borresch explained that he would like to know how much any additional
improvements might cost to see if it is feasible for their business. Weyrens stated that the Interim
Use Permit is scheduled to come back in two years and it would make sense to bring the Special
Use Permit back at the same time. Wick agreed and stated that two years is consistent with past
practice.
Amendment: Meyer amended his motion to approve the extension of the Special Use Permit for
two years to allow Borresch to come up with a plan for site improvements. Schultz consented to
the amendment.
Final Motion: Extend the Special Use Permit for a period of two years after which it will come back
to the Planning Commission for review and Ordinance compliance regarding site plan
improvements.
Ayes: Kalinowski, Schultz, Deutz, Orcutt, Meyer, Wick
Nays: None Abstain: Rieke Motion Carries: 6:0:1
7(a):5
l b )
•
1 CANNED
CITY OF s r.arr rtr Planning Commission Agenda Item
MEETING DATE: July 6, 2010
AGENDA ITEM: Tom Borresch, Interim Use Permit
Accessory Building Sales
SUBMITTED BY: Administration
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
consider issuance of an Interim Use Permit to allow for outdoor sales of accessory buildings. During the
process it was determined that the property owned by Borresch at 8850 Ridgewood Road and 9 — 17
Avenue SE are out of compliance with Ordinances. Before consideration, the Planning Commission
requested Borresch make the necessary improvements to bring the property into compliance. In
addition Borresch waived the requirement to act on his land use application in 60 days.
Borresch was originally scheduled to appear at the June meeting but he requested additional time to
work on the outstanding issues.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The revised site plans have just been submitted to the City late on
Thursday, July 1. Therefore, at this time the staff has not had time to review the plans. They will be
reviewed with comments for the meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Request for Planning Commission Action 4:1 -2
Borresch Letter regarding project updates 4:3
Site Plans showing what recent & proposed changes 4:4 -6
Certificate of Survey [Site 1— 8850 Ridgewood Ct] 4:7
Certificate of Survey [Site 2 — 9 17 Avenue SE] 4:8
Extract of Planning Commission Minutes [2010 Apr 05] 4:9 -10
Extract of Planning Commission Minutes [2010 May 03] 4:11
Extract of Planning Commission Minutes [2010 Jun 07] 4:12
Findings of Fact & Decision 4:13 -14
Application for Interim Use Permit 4:15 -17
Application for Variance 4:18 -21
Property Sketch 4:22
REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission should take action on the
interim use permit, approving with conditions.
7(a):6
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4:2
City Officials and Planning Commission 0
j:
1. Update as to the scope of work and terms discussed by Lee Gladitsch, Cityb 1 .
Inspector, Terry Thene, Public Works Director and myself, Tom Borresch and to
provide a proper site plan in applying for added product sales to various
companies at two separate sites
1. 8850 Ridgewood Ct, St Joseph MN 56374
2. 9 SE 17th Ave, St Joseph MN 56374
To Summarize:
#1 Site:
All terms discussed with the above have been met to include:
A. Removal of wall and proper placement of dirt and land.
B. Landscaping shrubs and plants, as per original plan.
C. A third move to another proposed storage building site.
D. Rearrangement of employee parking.
E. The seal coat and striping is under contract to be completed
mid July, along with the #2 location.
#2 Site:
17th Ave site depending on changes, if any to that location. A site
and survey plan has also been complete at that site as Roadway
Sport -n- Trailer also applying for a long term variance to sell
additional products such as docks and lifts as it's a nice fit with the
trailers and helps add sales in these economic stricken times,
although it's very seasonal. Both sites have always been kept
clean and organized. We will make improvements as logic and
finances will allow. Mike Borresch, my brother, and I hope our
applications and updated work will allow our further existence as
full company and product operations. We look forward to
continuing a good relationship with the council and
planning commission.
T nk you,
r 5 _ .__
Tom Borresch
7(a):7
3
1
i , \ 1 \ \ \1\ \ \ \ \ \` \ \ \' ` s
... ' ".'
•
-., -I, rfewe^' ,rx . M .may
�' .r
2nd Move
4
'. �. ...„....., .
--N - . ,. . .,
„,:,-
,,. .,....
Q z . _ ....,- --..1,,-- .......,,,,,,....,,,
tit Final Proposed Move
7(a):8
• y . � . µ a Q x •, 5
`` ' SCANNED
. 1}
Removed as agreed `"�» ,•' t
Zv . -id9, t t«
. ,
•
.. -
+ '.c ,4 11,, Cl
,.• 0" _ I , .s r t ; ;,
c, M1 , y ,
ti. '
+ « -: t r - 'a TI qt r. , ■ h Yri ;: •, >
le- •
�i•'' T - -- T -
•
Re- landscaped
•
7(a):9
---- -------7 '
- . . .. .
—. .
. .
'
i
li ,
.,.. •
• .. .1 . 1 i
1 1
IL, i i i =
• • , ,
.,.
'
\ . \ \ , •
...- -- - --
,
, .._
, .
•
—4.....
......
4,t•
..."....
iikwit
... . .. ,
. poo.....
. ..-
9
Lex- If Y1
. . _."....
I .
..... .. . ...... , . le
111 114411j
ilk
_ IiIV
• ....
1
.. ,.
- .". .111 -.. ' ! ot. .., • ...- - .......,.., a .- .
7(a)10
, � Y 011,11 OM. 1■60
M �� ,_
UOJJSaUO{J I S WIZ ll[E w — ...fie 0,101 0 N 61, 6 1)09 ¢ '.
6/ IOC% NH q °A ° bu an.. u.wrc u.„ NOM./ . e.. .. ��.. ...o..�.,�.....v....,..�.,�...� 5311a3dONd ONV1 1VM >
itel) I
U 1 n
I
7 OB991 39IiO.9N 1
V
0 O
R /8 3
€ ' o v ba
_ : w e / ii
HIM s r
I ; 3 W i p /
II
1 3 I i1
// a V. i , 1 i
r
, m - 1
% 1 1 t. 1
I 1 I 1
$ , I I
,
' 1 si
I
I 1
1 1
w!— I C ) 1 1 I 1
1:-
I I
Z5 1 1
C] 1 1 1
1
/ 1
I I
1 1 I
' '/ .<. ^ - f I i re.
O
1 a , , P./
/ 1
1 1 r — 1
N I I 1
Ft
1 ; , � ; uE5
��. I I ( i�� E I I ,, 6 I e 2g,".4 � _
ir' - IL , k , 1 / g
t o
1— \ \\ G. ca / I I /
2 e
It 4a �, - I m W
_ � _ w / �iw 1 � yl oa
10 I 1 I 1 l
111
— " — J0 / I I Y
., i pO
, 1 I f / I
/Y
V rc
I
p
I ` /
Pk
[ii 9 I/ I / / il it ;le
I L - J / Y / Eg Ebfli
1 I E s 1a r,.
■ r. Y gx g xEs "�
e y
�_/ 1 / E t; %= ' %.%
ir CV
® w Y / sfrssESa$
1 EJ ^ w J ,7
i h Y c)
_.., n,,,,_ , : 1
a \N - -H. _ . 1/ ,, •
w — - Ip
—9a —��M w 1 • 'Y
,
S•0 /I o 'N�
I
/ o
7(a):11
Wtl 02 13 0102/0r/9 O.0 102A100011669 \ 6 m010VJ \ 0100011669 \ 1669 \ 1
I,
ooa�sau0 �x �. - - ' .4..' ,w;.� ..d .350( . g ;I s ;
Z 5 , ' , n 3474,., 0001 ONV AN VONOON =
131110 P000 u 1 7m• . •.,,,„° ur0 iOMMMAN, .., o,,,,.°...,,°°,° „o,°.,e.°.,,,..,,,,,..,.°,...,, 53IlM3dOHd ONtllN31tlM
s
11- �y 8 ;S E F 0 '
ill 111 14l It! 1 .9 ° s W N C
55 & tt
; i g$�;r E y a o v 3 id 3 s 1 a >> E « a '
60t EE @ 3 gL /
@ a E E i g :, i f s fa a o oOe lle Q s+ 1 1 1 1 ._ "ice
E m
Q' "� i��a��@ °r E`er z g I I I {
!ill. '4E iiii sil "s_ <.2 m 1 5e 1 V N i 1 {
i
ILI I /
35 3AY HILL .., r— - - / -� sow. _
N S
■
..J 3 w- - c I - -- w— `a- -u— s 912. -ir.a _ _ _u —w_ ! 2
V II / U i - . - - 2 ® .. — .. — .-
- I
S s c G \ \
E. a 11
.3. 2 i
I .r§ /° m ° :1 a ° � 1 x
4 I s ��� � a ' ' � "
- i f: - c--- id / - t -!-- m I 17 0 ) !
I-- x [� N 1 o S y Y o 'er- a
‘l { j
IV* /,C
+ P I) 2 5 91 0f)
�1 3 s rd 4 I rk=
N 1 —
:1/11 ' ll 11
9,
B Iv
g$ r
0 /
/.
%_ •1 N ._.__________ _
.....____ ,_ ..,_ MU MaLMON - ” 3 7{ irurnr I x M 1 ..
1 1 / I i - - _- - -__
3 5 3,;:' W.91 __ wo r ld. -
/
II
i n /
I
Fg
A
0 F.E?
• a =� 7(a):12
Ntl 20' 90IO2 /00/9 blP 202AI00011660 \0VJ \0100011669 \1669\ 1
iNaLC 41/4- A -1-111 \ Aft
CITA' of s'C J9SBPH Planning Commission Agenda Item 5
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2010
AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing — Special Use Permit, Variance
Tom Borresch, 9 — 17` Avenue NE
SUBMITTED BY: Administration
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: In 2006 the Planning Commission recommended
approval and the Council adopted the Transportation Corridor Overlay District. This district affects
property that abuts major highways such as County Road 75. For your convenience I have attached a
copy of the minutes from the action in 2006.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City staff contact Tom Borresch when it was noticed that large
accessory buildings were placed in the front setback area at 8856 Ridgewood Road. The property in
question is zoned B2 Highway Business and also regulated by the Transportation Corridor Overlay
District. With regard to the B2 Zoning District, permitted uses do not include outdoor display sales. The
General Provision of the Ordinance does allow Interim Use permits for temporary uses in areas of
transition.
The Transportation Corridor Overlay District was established in 2006 as was intended to help protect the
investment of property owners. The B2 Zoning District contains high aesthetic requirements including
landscaping. When the Centra Care, Credit Union and Coborn's site was developed they were required
to meet the Corridor provisions and it did include additional costs. As buildings along the corridor are
expanded or building permits are required the provisions in the Overlay District apply. The recent car lot
approved by the Planning Commission and City Council included a provision that the car lot cannot
extend in the front yard setback or view shed.
In reviewing the variance application the statutory requirements for granting a variance are not met.
Granting a variance in this case will confer rights to one property owner that is denied to others in the
same district. With regard to the Interim Use Permit, the Ordinance states that in granting an interim
use permit the standards for granting must meet the requirements of the Special Use Standards. Again,
they do not seem consistent.
It is understood that the property owner is trying to survive the economic times and utilize his property
to the fullest, but we must apply the Ordinance. Based on the information submitted the variance and
interim use do not meet the criteria. The Planning Commission needs to determine if they concur and
weather approval or denial will have to identify the reasons for the decision and conclusion.
ATTACHMENTS:
Request for Planning Commission Action
Hearing Notice
Findings of Fact
Application for Interim Use
Application for Variance
Property Sketch
Vicinity Map
Ordinance 52.21 — Transportation Corridor Overlay District Site and Design Standards
Ordinance 52.07 Subd. 4 Interim Use Permit
Ordinance 52.07 Subd. 3 Standards for Granting Interim Use
2006 Action establishing Ordinance 7(a):13
Extract of Planning Commission Minutes — April 5, 2010
Public Hearing, Interim Use Permit/Variance — Tom Borresch, 9 17 Avenue NE: Kalinwoski calieCANNED
hearing to order and stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider an Interim Use permit to allow
outdoor sales and a variance to place items within the view shed of CR 75. The property is legally
described as Lot 002, Block 001, Neu Addition, located at 8856 Ridgewood Road.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 4(a) allows for an Interim Use Permit as follows: Purpose:
The purpose and intent of allowing an interim use is: 1) To allow a use for a limited period of time that
reasonably utilizes the property in the manner not permitted in the applicable zoning district; 2) To allow a
use that is presently acceptable but that, with anticipated development may not be acceptable in the
future.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.21 limits the storing or display of goods from the view of the corridor
roadway.
The request for Interim Use and Variance has been submitted by Tom Borresch.
Kalinowski opened the Public Hearing.
Al Stellmach approached the Commissioners in reference to the proposed Interim Use. He stated that he
owns Ridgewood Storage adjacent to the property seeking a variance and he has no objection to the
proposed use.
The public hearing was closed at 7:13PM.
McDonald began by stating that he does not believe that the sheds located entirely on his property.
Meyer questioned the Standard Procedures if the property owner requesting a variance /interim use does
not attend the public hearing. Weyrens stated that in the past the Commission has tabled action on the
matter, notifying the property owner that unless they attend the next regular scheduled meeting, the
Commission may deny the request.
Meyer made a motion to table the request of Tom Borresch for an Interim Use Permit/Variance at
8856 Ridgewood Road. The motion was seconded by Orcutt.
Discussion: Wick questioned whether this will meet the 60 -day rule to which Weyrens stated it
would.
Deutz stated that there are a lot of things to be discussed and asked for some history on the
property. Weyrens advised the Commissioners that the application came in late with the initial
application for a Special Use Permit. In reviewing the proposed used, the correct process would
be an Interim Use Permit. Since the subject property is in Corridor Overlay District a variance
was needed to place outdoor sales in the front yard green space. After the application was
reviewed it was determined that the existing building is constructed across the property line. In
additional the outdoor sale items are located on property not owned by the petitioner.
While reviewing the current land use request, the previous land use items were reviewed. The
existing facility was allowed through the issuance of a variance and special use. The variance
provided relief from the exterior requirements and the special use allowed a warehouse facility in
the B2 Zoning District. The special use limited the storage of material to that used by MN Home
Improvement or Leaf Guard.
In a separate action, the property owner secured an interim use permit to allow trailer sales at the
property owned across CR 75, located at 9 — 17 Avenue NE. The Interim Use was approved for
a one year period. If the property owner wished to continue the use, the parking lot must meet
7(a):14
the Ordinance regulations. At this time the property is not compliance with the Ordinance and the
Trailer Sales are still occurring. Weyrens stated that Borresch was contacted on Friday and the
morning of this meeting and he did not return the calls. Staff had wanted to discuss some of the
outstanding items.
McDonald questioned Weyrens as to how a building is constructed outside the property line.
Weyrens stated that at the time the facility was constructed the City outsourced the Inspection
Services and once the permit was issued, the inspector was to complete the necessary
inspections. The prints submitted to the City indicated the correct setbacks, but what happened
in the field cannot be traced. The building inspector relies on information from the property
owner. The process today is much different.
McDonald then questioned the use of viewsheds and stated that he cannot see how this fits in
entirely with CR75. He believes that a viewshed should be used to protect something of value to
nature. In his opinion, there needs to be a compromise somewhere. Orcutt stated that used car
lots are required to have asphalt and while reviewing the site before the Commission the existing
parking lot for the facility is not paved nor is the area where the accessory buildings are located.
He questioned Weyrens as to whether or not this is like a used car dealership and if bituminous
surfacing should be required.
Weyrens replied that car lots are approved through the Special Use Permit process and the
allowance for the use remains with the property. An Interim Use Permit is a temporary use that is
not permitted in the specific district, but is a use that is acceptable short term. Interim Use
Permits have specific terms that expire.
Meyer added that the property being discussed operated in the Township as a business and the
regulations in the Township were not as stringent. Uses and conditions allowed in the Township
are not necessarily those accepted by the City. Therefore some of the concerns are
grandfathered. The Planning Commission; however, has the authority at this time to request
modifications so the property is conforming.
With reference to Ordinances 52.21: Transportation Corridor Overlay District and Design
Standards, Deutz stated that he would like to review the entire ordinance, in a working session,
rather than picking out certain items for discussion. According to Deutz, it is apparent that the
Ordinance was not followed with either the Coborns project or the CentraCare project. He added
that the City cannot pick and choose who to apply the Ordinance too. McDonald agreed. Weyrens
suggested that they discuss this at their meeting in May and hold the Public Hearing in June.
Meyer added that 300' does seem extreme for a setback in the Overlay District.
Wick clarified that if this item is tabled until the May meeting, the public hearing would be closed.
Weyrens replied that no additional public testimony would be accepted; however, Borresch would
be able to speak regarding his request.
The motion passed unanimously.
7(a):15
4:10
Extract of Planning Commission Minutes — May 3, 2010 SCANNED
Interim Use, Variance — Tom Borresch: Weyrens stated the Planning Commission tabled action on the
Interim Use request of Tom Borresch to allow for display and sale of accessory buildings in a B2 Zoning
District. The matter was tabled in April as the petitioner /owner was not present. In reviewing the plans it
was noted that the accessory buildings were located on property not owned by Borresch and members
identified some compliance issues that needed to be addressed. Therefore the matter was tabled to this
meeting.
Tom Borresch approached the Commissioners as the owner of the parcel in question. He stated that he
has met with Weyrens and understands that the accessory buildings he has already placed on the
property are not located on property he owns. He also stated that he has been made aware of some
Ordinance compliance issues. As of this time he has not had the opportunity to determine how to resolve
the outstanding issues and would like some additional time so that he may meet with the Building Official
and Public Works Director to receive feedback and direction.
With regard to the structure he placed in the railroad right -of -way, he has contacted a representative of
the rail company leasing the tracks to determine setback areas. He again stated that he would like some
additional time so that he can get a better understanding of what exactly he can do and then propose
what can be done. Weyrens stated that the matter before the Commission is a land use matter that
requires action within 60 days of submittal unless the petitioner or City extends the time requirement.
Weyrens stated that prior to the meeting she discussed the requirement with Borresch and he stated that
he would be willing to extend the time requirement. Borresch presented the Commission with a letter
waiving land use action within 60 days of application.
McDonald made a motion to accept the waiver of the 60 -day land use requirement and table action
until a future meeting. The motion was seconded by Meyer.
Discussion: McDonald spoke to Borresch and stated that he appreciates him moving the
buildings back. In his opinion, it looks a lot neater and they are now located on his property, but yet they
are still visible from the road. Borresch added that they also have a parking issue that they must deal
with. McDonald questioned whether they will see what can be done with the property across the street as
well to which Borresch stated they will. He added that he needs to talk to the City about the proposed
improvements to 16 Avenue as well to see how /if he will be impacted by those improvements.
The motion passed unanimously.
7(a):16
Extract of Planning Commission Minutes — June 7, 2010
Tom Borresch, Interim Use Permit: Weyrens advised the Commissioners that Tom Borresch recently met
with the Building Inspector and the Public Works Director regarding outstanding site conditions. Borresch
has removed the accessory building that was constructed in the Rail Right -of -way and he is working on
restoration. In addition the accessory buildings for sale have been moved to behind the existing sidewalk,
outside the front yard setback. Borresch has requested additional time to complete the necessary work
so that both of his properties are in compliance with the Ordinance.
7(a):17
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT
City of St. Joseph
25 College Avenue N F ee $ ,
S INNE D o o •
PO Box 668 Paid
St. Joseph, MN 56374
Phone (320)363 -7201 or Fax (320)363 -0342 Date 3.1s. I o
STATE OF MINNESOTA) SG 24"5e INOoJ (al
) ss
COUNTY OF STEARNS )
NAME: tom borresch PHONE: 2,503,303
ADDRESS: 917th ave se st.joseph mn. 56374
I/We, the undersigned, hereby make the following application to the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of St. Joseph,
Steams County, Minnesota. (Applicants have the responsibility of checking all applicable ordinances pertaining to their application
and complying with the ordinance requirements.)
1. Application is hereby made fora Special Use Permit to conduct the following:
display & sell storage buildings on land we currently pay taxes on.
2. Legal description of land to be affected by application, including acreage or square footage of land involved, and street address, if any
(attach additional sheet if necessary):
neu add lot 002 block 001 subdivsioncd 00069 section 11 township124 range 029
3. Present zoning of the above described property is: 1B2 - Highway 75 Business
4. Name and address of the present owner of the above described property
same as above
5 . Is the proposed use compatible with the future and present land uses of the area? Please explain:
Yes (— No
we,re currently selling home improvement type products out of the same location
7(a):18
6. Will the proposed use depreciate the area in which it is proposed? Please explain:
✓ Yes No
many businesses along corridor display similar products or items.
7. Can the proposed use be occomodated with existing City service without overburdening the system? Please explain:
• Yes r No
not selling exact items along business corridor
8. Are local streets capable of handling traffic which Is generated by the proposed use? Please explain:
• Yes E No
dead end road
Attached to this application, and made a part thereof, are other material submission data requirements, as indicated.
Applicant Signature: CS • Date: 3.15.2010
Property Owner Signature: G r� Date: 3.15.2010
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date application submitted: Date application completed:
Planning Commission Action: E Recommend Approval r Recommend Disapproval Date of Action:
City Council Action: r Approved r Disapproved Date of Action:
Date Appllcant/Property owner notified of City Council Action:
7(a):19
City of St. Joseph k ,
Required Material Submission Wit.;3
Special Use Material s'4
Completed applications for Special Use requests and required fees shall be submitted the City of St. Joseph Zoning Administrator at
least 20 days prior to the proposed date of consideration by the City. The twenty days allows the City to review the application,
forward the application to other entities for review as required and notify the public as required. Only completed applications will be
accepted. It is the applicant's responsibility to submit required materials. If an application is determined to be incomplete,
notification, which indicates which portion of the application is incomplete, will be mailed to the applicant within 10 days following
submission of the application.
REQUIRED MATERIALS - The applicant shall provide the following:
MATERIAL REQUIRED COMPLETE COMMENTS
1. Additional written or graphk data reasonably fit Yes
required by the Zoning Administrator or the Planning
Commission as described below (- No h e. C�'t i 7 1 0�,� t 1
All applications must indude a narrative of the
Special Use request. The Spedal Use application S- }o�r.�,�. d v <.
must be completed M its entirety including the h o ✓ ` b tw c.9
reasons as to why the Planning Commission and
City Coundl should approve the quest. S -f. , s o.. -c ti w
ra ' 1 \ ' : ► \
I-,x.� w.-»".
rrar. G�.•✓ e(
2. Site Plan containing the following: R. Yes
- Legal description
- Site plan showing parcel & building dimensions E No D or —} , J
- Location of buildings showing square footage, �o \ � Z) s
easements, curb cuts, driveways, access roads, parking
spaces, off- street loading areas, sidewalks j ' S ` Ia L 0•10
- Landscaping and screening plans b ` �'` ' ' )
- Drainage and erosion control plan with elevations C W A.. o ` '' c- ` y
- Sanitary sewer and water plan with estimated use .- 0-t" fo %I-3 .D v-• • 4"-4 t1
- Soil type and location of wetlands
Proof of ownership LA./ i 4-. __ h s •r•y ��
eC av, 0 vr. co. 1 ./ ..v t. ✓•�-c1
3. Required Fee. Yes .al.. 1^rQ.c.rs S 0c' Mo.k - �v�
$400.00 Of held during a regular scheduled meeting) E No 04.A.,/' ,'1 � ,S
S J
$800.00 (If a special meeting is required) K a 1 \ . -. i(� P24
W (���► -Q v.) 3se 1c- s
4. Payment of Additional Fees. ) ►-•cam i. \cam vl J
I /we understand that I /we are responsible for reimbursing the City for any additional legal, engineering, building inspection or
planning fees associated with my request.
Applicant Signature:
Date: 3, c , 2 O I Q
7(a):20
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
of St. Joseph F - '1 �
25 College Avenue N ��
PO Box 668 Paid
St. Joseph, MN 56374
Phone (320)363 -7201 or Fax (320)363 -0342 Date ? ZZ , 1 U
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss
COUNTY OF STEARNS ) •
I/We, the undersigned, hereby make the following applkation to the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of St. Joseph,
Steams County, Minnesota. (Applicants have the responsibility of checking all applicable ordinances pertaining to their application
and complying with the ordinance requirements.)
PROPERTY OWNER NAME --' 1/4, lr'\ 0 Y Nee C_,k
`a.l 1 w Quit
PROPERTY OWNER PHONE NUMBER(S): 3 Z - ZS� 330 3 3z o, G 3 3
PROPERTY OWNERADDRESS: 8 k2;( t.�. S bS¢� rn,i• 501 q
ZONING DISTRICT: _ Z
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ha_ LA a.4d 04- b)oc k 00 i $ LA 1,d (1s( c .i C7o f) (0
PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE(S): 5-e-- tN� , -1-0 w S 4' ' ¢ 1 Z 4 1/G -1--� n 'L 5
s� R- A--
1. The request(s) which we desire for our property is/are In conflict with the following section(s) of the St. Joseph City Code:
Section: s 2 . -z. � Section: Section:
2. Proposed non -conformance(s):
T v D ; s ? L •e.-45-4,-..4-: L , w `t ► vim-'• ; 1 -" i Sib cZ p -tr ►� .J ; � -
op. i w. L. 1 \ d b a.. -I-„ ra 1 .� Z b rt 3 C s. sr S ...s 11 . b �. J •- s
r� .r -► a s r■-• 0 o . . = w (<.p,¢ F v-4-4 w e, I ► n- r ; u,. ea)
w S v. , cam I c. ti d s c c, p ;Vs-3 S i t■ ; o. ■-• e- 1 +-t•3 ST _Joe-*, 4•I
3. What special condidtions and circumstances exist which are particular to the land, structure or building(s) Involved which do not apply
to the land, structures or building(s) in the same zoning classification? (attach additional pages as need)
j�lr N o rd i n+ c_a. w wi i s- - + -3,..1 Lc: -�-'% ms ' - 1 s
co.r - ; cjo..- ► lty.ia w I nd yt � Q.,a ti; b:�- G,. d i� p Lc.y c
j v • ue s r 1'1 r.+.. Y �• t d ... G .• d V I.- -..J-r Z i J...1 4. v . p ..o ciwC1 -4
, c/ 1 i Qo s..v c9 P 4.v. Sc,..3 .
�ryV t P a y ; Y. ) "r" ?V.'s . -7 -4- A. �c • , S L S i... -._. C.c-Ars ...fit O%..Ns-
O v./ r 1404 - •-0 >, 1 S7 " 4-1- . S "C.) W 1-..� 0 ;
1 oc 3-, v\r $ ry 1 •vv -4-1- - . s , w ►- m r• s1-- S fi S tu.e.gp \■ ►x c :
rte. e.c. I r +' - J I 3? y o ^ p' , d u t.- ' o. t-o r ' r •- ∎ �J f o , r- - Tom•-■? S .
A. (7G. 1 r .1 w i \ 1 Y •-• 4, 1 542, � � .p S ►.r. L 1 i� � � l.,.S7 S ....s � �'1-. p ..- o
F 1 <- 5 u ,a L. e- - .1 - � . -q- �- ,-� J d e-s e. 7(a):21
4. Do any of the special conditions and circumstances result from your own actions? If the answer is yes, you may not qualify for a variance.
r Yes IX No
5. What facts and considerations demonstrate that the literal interpretation of the zoning code would deprive you of rights commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning code? (attach additional pages as needed)
No v - J'1 - . 1 / d o ► %r� ��1.. S �. -,.�2 - J'1 wJ
a rv'N prix) pas J y--3
-
6. State your reasons for believing that a variance will not confer on you any special privilege that is denied by the zoning code to other
lands, structures or buildings in the same district
Jo., y -1-1.3 !.. 5 cle" %P .. -
1 ./ - �,� .y v r , d o ,e f' - p er,- �- 9 taw,., w L . PL C -) % )
,,
p) 4 S �/'� v G r W f v t.
7. State your reasons for believing that the action(s) you propose to take is/are in keeping with the spirit and the intent of the zoning code.
r■ Lochc
KQ a-p A...74- Y.,
o r 1J) )j i. b �... r ✓'C >z S . v )) -4-to y-(4-
S c3 c o- -. c o-+R.:Jl�� -r`� iapp
8. State your reasons for believing that In a strict enforcement of the provisions of the zoning code would cause undue hardship. Undue
hardship means that the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the zoning
ordinance. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship under the terms of this code as referenced In the state
statutes.
d. d S .- -4- 1-‘ , H r. . 0
p 4 y s � . r. l� V ei O � -�
$N .r.1 4.- r- ' .t._ t c.. �. 0 -A p n. . 2 Q - Z ( ?c - � � La_ 0 ✓-
. - s i v 5,-)--0 p ,�! c -i k 1 .� �-.? 1 O It_ c. �-� . l f, mac b ism_
p o , +. r �t►-s , 6r%- o C- y s m -e-d ► u..-L , f3 44 1t4 .
7(a):22
Attached to this application, and made a part thereof, are other material submission data requirements, as indicated.
Applicant Signature: 61_ ( Date: `3
Property Owner Signature: 6\ Date: 3 -
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date application submitted: Date application completed:
Planning Commission Action: r Recommend Approval r Recommend Disapproval Date of Action:
City Coundl Action: r Approved r Disapproved Date of Action:
Date Applicant/Property owner notified of City Coundl Action:
7(a):23
City of St. Joseph
Required Material Submission
Variance Material
Completed applications for variance requests and required fees shall be submitted the City of St. Joseph Zoning Administrator at
least 20 days prior to the proposed date of consideration by the City. The twenty days allows the City to review the application,
forward the application to other entities for review as required and notify the public as required. Only completed applications will be
accepted. It is the applicant's responsibility to submit required materials. If an application is determined to be incomplete,
notification, which indicates which portion of the application is incomplete, will be mailed to the applicant within 10 days following
submission of the application.
REQUIRED MATERIALS - The applicant shall provide the following:
MATERIAL REQUIRED COMPLETE COMMENTS
1. Additional written or graphic data reasonably r Yes
required by the Zoning Administrator or the Planning r �- rno cot
No
-�
Commission as described below:
All applications must include a narrative of the O.i n 0
variance request. The variance application must be
completed in its entirety induding the reasons as to C-- /o c .L Q �� s ,1
why the Planning Commission and City Coundl C3vu� ir•� '� 5 y i
should approve the request.
* c,,, 1 o c� L - 1 cp. u -An/
2. Requir l� - � �� t c�lr SS4- Yes
0 N.- I o I y
5400. Id uring a regular scheduled meeting) 31 r No G 1 ,,,� - (] I u..• - �-.— Go ,.- .r ;ci -t�✓
$800.00 (If a special meeting is required) 7 I '' I __ 11 t P. 41,...,41_ C � -+— t-. t j ;
c-c. v.,. y o rJ
I'D 41 '4 i )^.t--SJ C. 1 ln.S aL,
3. Payment of Additional Fees.
I /we understand that 1/we are responsible for reimbursing the City for any additional legal, engineering, building inspection or
planning fees associated with my request.
Applicant Signature: 3L Date: 3 2Z ( 0
7(a):24
[ T
`l (
-F ..
..--z: ri 4 1
•=7 1 4 ''. . 7? 3 49 Cttlfts, 2)
C
W ^ N T' -0) ' j
3 � 5 3 2 3
1.
t :2 e) 3 3 71 i■ ) 7 ; =- 1
y 3 1
iv' .1 1)1•4° U
3 4 4 `t 4 -. I , ---)
i ,.., a.
.. . , 3
r ,3 / -0 7- 4 , -i
4 ; , -,- .
4
4t N;>10 L rh o 01
S. r s v , '4.
1 / r . �' 3 i
1- i as 4 N � �1 / 1 i
.6n 3 i T , --- - it
,,,
. 1 1 . - , .. • v>i ,,, > '7 4 , 1 ' N I 3 i
i v3
u, 0 v ,! T s 3
1
- 1 ' ' ' . i
i 1 - 2 , S - 0 ° i %) i 3 .-
.-', i —0 i 3 -r .-.-- D.. 4 6 i (.
a J. • 8 C 3 ",
--V
(
i 1 L ,J
('
'Z
7 (x): 25
1 1 I • .
4-1
II