Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[05] Minutes, December 3, 2012 December 3, 2012 14 Page of Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the St. Joseph Planning Commission met in regular session on Monday, December 3, 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, Brad Cobb, Joe Dubel, Council Liaison - Rick Schultz. Administrator - Judy Weyrens. Others Present: Tom Klein, Sue Borgert, Cory Ehlert Riekemade a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Schultz and Approval of Agenda: passed unanimously by those present. Schultz made a motion to approve the September 4, 2012 minutes with minor Approval of Minutes: corrections; seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously by those present. Public Hearing, Borgert Variance Request: Kalinowski opened the public hearing and stated that the purpose of the public hearing is to consider the variance application of Borgert Products to relieve the property owner from constructing a structure with perimeter frost footings, allowing for the construction of a cold storage facility. St. Joseph Code of Ordinance 52.33 9(c): states all construction of new facilities shall consist of pre-cast tip up concrete walls, concrete block (painted or decorative), post frame/steel frame with a concrete block or poured concrete perimeter foundation with frost footings extending a minimum of eight (8) inches above the final grade, and stick built construction The request for variance has been submitted by Borgert Products Inc, 8646 Ridgewood Road; PO Box 39; St. Joseph MN 56374 Sue Borgert, property owner approached the Commission and stated that the company needs to construct a cold storage building and when contacting the building official for the City, she was informed that the building must be constructed with perimeter frost footings. While she understands the intent of the requirement, the building she is proposing is a secondary building that will only be used for cold storage and will not be visible from any public right of way. In fact the building will be located behind the existing facility. The proposed building will utilize their interlocking pavers for a floor so that if they no longer need the building it could be removed easily. She stated that she would prefer to reward the employees financially than place that same money in footings. She understands that the Commission cannot make a decision solely on the financial impact of the project but it is a consideration. When questioned if the building would be heated, Borgert responded no. The building will only be for cold storage. Some of the material that is produced needs to be placed in a dry area. Dullinger questioned Borgert if they have any future uses for the building, to which Borgert responded that any use other than cold storage would require a complete redesign. Borgert clarified that the building will not be accessible to the public, it will only be available to the employees. The design of the building will match the existing facility. Dubel questioned if the City allows for slab on grade accessory buildings in residential areas. Weyrens stated that the City does allow for slab on grade accessory buildings in some zoning districts; however, in 2005 the City modified the industrial zoning district to require the perimeter frost footings. The provision was added to try and increase the aesthetics of the industrial park. Cobb questioned if Borgert Products was included in the discussion in 2005 when the Ordinance was modified or if they had any comments. Borgert stated that they did not comment on the proposed changes. Cobb stated that he likes the idea of the interlocking blocks for the floor and questioned if the area could be used as a display for customers. Borgert stated that they would not bring the public to the proposed building as they have a show room to display their products. The public hearing was closed at 7:10 PM. December 3, 2012 24 Page of Cobb acknowledged that by granting the variance at this meeting, precedence could be set and questioned if any Commissioners have comments or concerns about setting precedence. Rieke questioned whether or not the Planning Commission has the ability to consider recommending approval based on the statutory requirements. Dubel questioned if the decision is different knowing that the building is temporary, and as such does not have heat, water or sewer. The only infrastructure in the building is electricity. Weyrens questioned Borgert the size of the proposed building in relation to the existing building to see if the building is accessory to the main structure. Weyrens also stated that while the Planning Commission could consider the facility temporary, what defines when it has to be removed or when does it sunset. Rieke stated it becomes difficult to manage a temporary building as at some point in the future it becomes insulated or expanded. The thought becomes we have a structure we need to modify it to meet new needs. Weyrens stated that she tried to research the intent of the Ordinance in 2005 and if it was intended for the main structure, excluding accessory buildings. Unfortunately she could not find such information. The current Ordinance states that all buildings must meet the requirements. Schultz questioned how the Ordinance is applied today and what process for example Precise Refrigeration used. Weyrens stated that the City has enforced the provision and Precise was allowed add ten feet to the existing building without the frost footings as they would nothing to tie into. However, their new additional was required to meeting the requirements. Schultz stated that when he reads the Ordinance it appears as the intent was focused on structures that are visible from the public right of way. The building proposed by Borgert does not have a visual impact from the road and he questions if they have to meet the same standards. Weyrens stated that while she does not disagree, the Ordinance states that all buildings must meet the standards. This may be an Ordinance the Planning Commission would like to consider amending. Cobb suggested the Planning Commission review the standards for granting a variance and determine if the proposed variance meetings the requirements. The Commission agreed and the following is a summary of compliance: 1. Is the proposed use allowed in the zoning district in which the subject property is located: Yes. 2. The variance will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control(s)? The intent of the requirement for perimeter frost footings is not clear. If the intent is to require all buildings regardless of view from the public right of way, the answer would be no. If the intent is to only require buildings in view of a public right of way the answer is yes. 3. The variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: Yes 4. Application of practical difficulty standard: a. Borgert Products is requesting to use the property in a reasonable manner. b. The circumstance requiring the variance has the following unique characteristic: the proposed location of the accessory building is not visible from the public right of way nor does it front a public right of way. c. Granting the variance to Borgert will not change the essential characteristic of the area. d. The request for variance is more than financial as the building is temporary in nature and without frost footings can be removed easily. Dubel made a motion to recommend the City Council grant a variance to Borgert Products to construct an accessory building without perimeter frost footings based on the reasons stated in 1-4 above adding the following contingencies: 1. The Building is temporary in nature and cannot be used for any purpose other than cold storage. Any change in use will require the building to be reconstructed with perimeter frost footings. December 3, 2012 34 Page of 2. The only infrastructure allowed to the building is electricity. The building cannot include any other mechanical or plumbing infrastructure. The motion was seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously by those present. Proposed Amendment to R1 Zoning District: Weyrens reported that the City Council approved the creation of a temporary committee to review the rental provisions in the R1 Zoning District. The committee consisted of the following members: Mayor Rick Schultz, Cory Ehlert, Netti Pfannenstein, Noreen Loso and Diane Weick. The Committee is recommending the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider amending the interim use portion of the R1 Zoning District to allow for a temporary rental permit for residents who have been trying to sell their home without success. The proposed amendment would allow a property owner the opportunity to rent their home as a non owner occupied rental unit for a period not to exceed two years. The provision would require the property owner to complete the interim use permit process and they would have to provide proof that they have actively attempted to sell their home for at least three months. The interim use permit once issued is not renewable and expires after two years. The committee also recommended that 18 months after adoption of the amendment the committee meet again to review the utilization and effectiveness of the amendment as well as consider the economic conditions and if the provision should be expanded. Cobb questioned the proposed amendment requiring the provision that the property has been actively on the market for three months. How do you propose to monitor this if the property owner opts to sell the home without a realtor? Committee Member Cory Ehlert approached the Commission and stated if a property owner uses a realtor the listing agreement can serve as proof, but if a resident opts to sell without a realtor, which they have a right to do, then some standard should be developed. The property owner should be able to verify and illustrate the marketing efforts that have occurred over the past three months. Schultz stated that the option is requiring that they have a listing agreement with a licensed realtor. Dullinger disagrees with Schultz and stated that the proof should be up to the property owner and they should be able to show how they advertised or what efforts they have taken. Dubel agreed with Schultz and stated that a listing agreement is clear evidence that they have been actively marketing the property. It becomes an objective measure. Schultz stated that what criteria would the City use if a realtor is not utilized. Dullinger stated that after discussion she could concur with requiring a listing agreement. Ehlert stated that the questions raised by the Commission are the same questions and discussion that occurred at the committee level. The Committee wants to keep the integrity of the neighborhoods but also want to be sensitive to the property owner that has been trying to sell their home and end up in foreclosure. The Commission discussed the need to add a requirement to the proposed amendment that the property must be their primary residence. Cobb questioned the intent of the two year sunset and if the interim use could be extended. Weyrens stated that the committee had different opinions regarding this item. First, if the property must continue to be listed during the two year period it may be difficult to find renters as length of stay is variable. Secondly, if the IUP is allowed to be extended there may not be an incentive for the property owner to sell their home. Weyrens stated that the committee requested to review the matter again in 18 months to determine if the market conditions have changed or if the property owners are utilizing the new provision. Schultz concurred and stated that the committee was concerned about the two year limitations and could not agree on whether or not the provision should be expanded. It was for this reason that they felt the provision should be reviewed again in 18 months. Maybe the need is for three years and not two. Ehlert stated that he can easily create a baseline of current economic conditions and use that data again in 18 months. The Commission agreed that the proposed amendment with the addition of the clarification of ownership, including a one year residency, is ready for public hearing, pending City Council approval. Cobb expressed his gratitude for the work of the committee, to which the Council concurred. December 3, 2012 44 Page of Liaison Update: Schultz reported on the following: a) he requested the EDA conduct a work session to discuss the downtown foot print or vision and then follow-up with a meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council; b) one issue that the City will be facing is development adjacent to the new CR 2. Development in this area will include significant discuss regarding utility extension and planning/annexation. Adjourn: Kalinowski adjourned the meeting at 8:00 PM as the agenda was completed. Judy Weyrens Administrator