Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[03] Minutes September 4, 2012 Page 1 of 3 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the St. Joseph Planning Commission met in regular session on Tuesday, September 4th, 2012 at 7:00PM in the St. Joseph City Hall, opening with the pledge of allegiance. Members Present: Chair S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Members, Ross Rieke, Gina Dullinger, Council Liaison - Rick Schultz. Administrator - Judy Weyrens. Others Present: Tom Klein, Jordan Onnen, Cory Ehlert, Mike McDonald, Mike Duetz, Harvey Pfannenstein, Carol Pfannenstein Riekemade a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Dullinger and Approval of Agenda: passed unanimously. Schultz made a motion to approve the Aug 6th minutes; seconded by Approval of Minutes: Dullinger and passed unanimously. Mike Deutz, Special Use Permit Amendment: Kalinowski opened the public hearing with Weyrens reading the public hearing notice which stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider and amendment to the special use permit issued on Sept 3, 2009 releasing the property owner from the requirements to pave any portion of the property for parking, leaving the parking lot in its current state. The Special Use Permit issued Sept 3, 2009 allowed for a mixed use of residential and commercial development and allowed the property owner two years to complete the exterior improvements. The property is located at 31 Minnesota Street W and the request has been submitted by Mike Deutz. th Mike McDonald, 213 – 13 Ave SE approached the Commission in support of the amendment. McDonald stated that he was serving on the Planning Commission at the time the special use permit was issued and since that time the property has changed ownership and significant exterior improvements have been completed. McDonald stated it is his opinion that other businesses have been granted exceptions to Ordinances and Mr. Deutz should be given the same consideration. Additionally, while he understands it should not be a basis for making a decision, Mr. Deutz has been an active community member donating time and resources to improving the City of St. Joseph. Mr. Deutz has never requested financial incentives for his building projects, paying full commercial taxes. It is his understanding that if he is held to the terms of the development agreement, the business may not be financially viable and the City would have an open business space. While he would love to see the parking lot paved, he is requesting the Commission to consider the request of Mr. Deutz and waive the requirement to improve the parking lot. Mr. Deutz has the needed parking for his development, it is just not improved. st Harvey Pfannenstein, 26 – 1 Ave NW approached the Commission in support of the amendment. He reiterated the points made by McDonald. As a business owner, when a business starts, and goes into debt time is needed to recover the financial investment. In a time when businesses are financially struggling, it may not make sense to add additional financial requirements. The parking lot owned by Deutz is an asset to the entire downtown and functions as a public parking lot used by services clubs for brat sales, and visitors. Since Deutz has purchased the building he has demolished the dilapidated garage and improved the landscaping and building exterior. Forcing the issues when the money is not there can cause hardship to the owner and surrounding businesses. th Cory Ehlert, 427 – 12 Ave SE approached the Commission is support of the amendment. Ehlert stated that commercial property taxes are three times that of a residential lot and forcing the pavement of the parking lot owned by Deutz is a financial strain and could have the effect of closing the business. He stated that he sold the property to Mr. Deutz, and prior to him buying the property, he showed the facility to 20 – 25 people and no one was willing to make an investment. Mike had vision, and wanted to make improvements to the site. Investments inside and out, a Laundromat is a nice amenity for the community. There are a number of local organizations and businesses that also use the parking lot as a community parking lot. The prior owner had the property signed and they would tow cars. That is not community friendly. The original owner, developer’s agreement, had entered into that agreement. Now is not the time to put additional strain on the business owners. Have a building that is surrounded by three streets; September 4, 2012 Page 2 of 3 have a hard time seeing the City enforce parking when the City does not live by the downtown business rules. The City has to consider paving the downtown alleys and downtown improvements. Mike Deutz stated that he is present to answer any questions the Commission may have and thanked those who spoke on his behalf. Deutz stated that in additional to the financial burden of paving the parking lot, the downtown businesses do not know the financial impact of the relocation of CR 2, diverting traffic to CR 75 near the I94 Interchange. We do not need less traffic. He further stated that the rental on the second level is geared for student living and it has yet to be determined the impact of the College residency program. While he currently has the upper level rented, it is not at capacity and is not rented for the next school year. With regard to the Laundromat, it does not cash flow and cannot support additional business expenses. The public hearing was closed at 7:15 PM. Kalinowski questioned if he has any plans for additional use for the property. Deutz stated he has completed the Laundromat portion and has room for additional office suites. Would like to invest a small amount of money to provide a deck to attract and lease as small offices. The deck is the only thing left, but ran out of money on the deck. Trying to lease the spaces, but it is a tough market. Rieke stated that there has to be a balance between enforcing the Ordinance and asked if there are any options for granting the request for a year at a time. Weyrens commented the Planning Commission has the ability to do what they see fit, as the matter was published as an amendment to the existing conditions placed through the public hearing process. Schultz stated that he has been a proponent of creating or establishing a downtown parking area and has requested the EDA to include such planning in their goals for the upcoming year. He further stated that while the City is considering constructing a community center at the present City Office site, there may be an opportunity to incorporate a downtown landscape component. Rieke asked about the timing since we have a paid hearing in front of us now. Schultz explained the key is how fast the facility comes together, do not have a timeline, but certainly goes with the Community development project. We could delay this for a year but do not want to pay for another public hearing, nor have Deutz pay again. Would like to have a meeting with the business owners and plan together. We are not trying to make a public lot, but trying to make alleyways and lots more cohesive in the inner city block. Kalinowski questioned if Commissioners were leaning towards granting relief for a specified period of time or delay until the building has additional tenants? Rieke stated he would be hesitant to delay for a five year period, but would like to say this hearing is bought and paid for and could look at this 2 years out. Weyrens stated that the Planning Commission cannot table action on the matter as it is a land use application which requires action within 60 days of submittal of a completed application. If the desire is delay and reconsider, it would be appropriate to specific the number of years for delay and then allow a renewal period, similar to what is completed for Interim Use Permits. Rieke stated that he does not support total relief, but supports some time of delayed relief. Adam Ripple, attorney for Deutz, suggested that the condition for pavement simply be extended from September 30 2012 to September 30, 2015. Schultz stated that it would be his preference to tie the parking improvements to a downtown paving plan. Deutz stated that he does not necessarily want to be tied to that type of agreement, as it may still not make financial sense. The Commissioners agreed that suggested language could include relief until either the City completes a downtown parking plan or three years whichever comes first. Dullinger asked at what point it would trigger a new special use permit if the use changes. Kalinowski explained if office space was utilized that would change the parking and felt that the 21 spaces is excessive, but looking at it more realistic by the type of business. Deutz explained the plan was drafted back in 2006, since then use has changed and 2 tenants right now don’t require any parking. Rieke commented if we are not going to deal with 21 spaces, what is the correct number. We don’t want to September 4, 2012 Page 3 of 3 create what the middle ground is but if we don’t look at a middle ground, but how do we make the parking system work. Asphalt today is not a smart investment in this situation. Rieke made a motion to recommend the City Council amend the Special Use Permit issued to Mike Deutz on September 3, 2012 as follows:  The owner will not be required to pave the parking area or complete a landscaping plan until September 30, 2015.  The permit can be extended for an additional two year term with approval by the Planning Commission, ratified by the City Council. The motion was seconded by Schultz and passed unanimously by those present. Council Liaison Report Schultz reported the City Council approved the establishment of a committee to review the R1 rental housing concerns with the committee members as follows: Nettie Pfannenstein, Noreen Loso, Cory Ehlert, Diane Weick, Rick Schultz. Schultz also reported that John Meyer has resigned from the Planning Commission effective immediately. The position will be filed with the appointments in January. Adjourn: As the agenda was completed, Kalinowski adjourned the meeting at 7:30PM Judy Weyrens City Administrator THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK