HomeMy WebLinkAbout[04] MinutesOctober 7, 2013
Page 1 of 3
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission met in regular session on Monday,
October 7, 2013 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall opening with the pledge of allegiance.
Members Present: Chair Ross Rieke, Commissioners Chad Hausmann, Matt Killam, Daryl Schaefer,
Brad Cobb. Council Liaison Rick Schultz. City Administrator Judy Weyrens.
Approval of the Agenda: Schultz made a motion to approve the agenda as presented; seconded by
Schaefer seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Approval of the Minutes: Schultz made a motion to approve the August 5, 2013 minutes as
presented; seconded by Cobb and passed unanimously by those present.
Public Hearina, McDonalds. Sian Variance: Chair Rieke opened the public hearing to which Weyrens
stated the purpose of the public hearing is to consider a fifteen (15) foot variance on the maximum height
of a sign and to allow a pylon sign. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.32 subd. 11(b)(5] states: The
maximum height of a business sign shall be fifteen (15) feet in height; and section 52.32 Subd. (d) states:
Advertising or pylon signs shall not be permitted. The variance is being requested to allow the
construction of a sign 30 feet in height. The property for which variance is being sought is located at
1180 Elm St E; legally described as Lot 001 Block 001 of ST JOSEPH PROFESSIONAL PLATPiO LOT 1
BLK 1 LYING SLY OF FDL:COM NE COR -SE ALG E LN 248.99' TO POB -S891) W 181.78' TO W LN &
TERM. The request for variance has been submitted by McDonalds; 1650 W 82nd St; Bloomington MN
55431.
Weyrens stated that McDonalds is requesting to construct a thirty (30) foot pylon sign for visibility. They
have indicated that due to the topography and trees along the Wobegon, the restaurant does not have
adequate visibility and as a result is under performing. If the variance is approved, the existing
monument sign will be removed.
As no one present wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Cobb stated that he questioned the background of the sign ordinance and if there were any requests in
the past had been denied. Weyrens stated that applicants have requested to construct a pylon sign, but
after being informed they were not allowed and a variance would be difficult, no one has made application
for construction of a pylon sign. Cobb stated that he did view the property and in his opinion the bigger
issue for under performance may be related to access. Hausmann concurred and questioned access to
the property. Weyrens stated that the property can be accessed from Elm Street; however, people are
using a right in, right out access as full access.
Rieke stated a 30 foot sign is not as large as it sounds. He asked if there is a different design other than a
pylon. The members agree that precedence would be set going forward if this is approved. The question
was asked if there is anything unique about this situation to where it wouldn't set precedence. Hausmann
stated that if there is nothing unique about this situation then why not change the ordinance to 30ft.
Schultz stated that the concern is more about the pole rather than the height of the sign. He mentioned
that both Sentry Bank and Beeline have double column poles for their signs and they look really nice. The
members agreed that they would like McDonalds to come back with some alternatives other than a single
pole.
Cobb referred to the email in the packet and asked Weyrens about whether the $400.00 fee had been
received or if it needs to be received before the Commission can take action. Weyrens stated that the fee
would have to be received before the Council would consider the recommendation of the Planning
Commission. Schultz made a motion to table the request for variance to provide the property
owner an opportunity to submit alternative designs that are not pylon. The motion was seconded
by Hausmann and passed unanimously by those present.
October 7, 2013
Page 2 of 3
Public Hearing, Ordinance Amendments: Rieke called the hearing to order and stated the purpose of the
hearing tis to consider the following Ordinance Amendments:
• Ordinances 51; Ordinance 52.07; Ordinance 54; Ordinance 55.04 and Ordinance 57 to include a
provision whereby the City can withhold a permit or land use application outstanding invoice or
bill due and payable to the City.
• Ordinance 52.12 adding a provision to require a zoning permit for all accessories buildings less
than 120 square feet.
• Ordinance 52.32 clarifying language on exterior requirements in commercial zoning districts
• Ordinance 52.34 clarifying language on exterior requirements and permitted uses.
• Ordinance 56 modifying the footings for a fence and clarifying fence material
• Ordinance 52.30 discussion on whether or not non -owner occupied rental should be permitted in
R4 Zoning District.
Weyrens stated the Planning Commission and City Council have previously reviewed potential Ordinance
Amendments. The majority of the Ordinance for which amendment is being considered relate to adding a
provision whereby the City can withhold a permit or license if the applicant has an outstanding financial
obligation with the City. Weyrens stated that the Fence Ordinance has been changed since the last
meeting to include a provision excluding snow fence as an acceptable material for fence material.
As there was no one present wishing to speak the public hearing was closed. The Commission agreed to
review each potential Ordinance Amendment individually.
Ordinance 51: Weyrens stated that the City is required to issue building permits for windows and siding
replacement; which the City has, however, the Ordinance states that a permit is not needed. Therefore
the Ordinance is being amendment to reflect the current requirements and practice. In addition, the
proposed amendment allows the City to withhold a building permit if the applicant has an outstanding
financial obligation with the City and extends the time for construction from 7 PM to 9PM. Cobb stated
that he does not agree with the extended hours. Hausmann made a motion to recommend the City
Council adopt the amendments to Ordinance 51 as presented. The motion was seconded by
Cobb.
Ayes: Hausmann, Killam, Schultz, Cobb, Schaefer
Nays: Rieke Motion Carried: 5:1:0
Ordinance 52.07: Weyrens stated the proposed amendment includes a provision whereby the City can
withhold a land use application if the applicant has an outstanding financial obligation to the City. Cobb
made a motion to recommend the City Council adopt the amendment to Ordinance 52.07 as
presented. The motion was seconded by Schultz.
Ayes: Hausmann, Killam, Schultz, Cobb, Schaefer
Nays: Rieke Motion Carried: 5:1:0
Ordinance 52.11 -7(a): Weyrens stated the proposed amendment corrects an inconsistency in the Zoning
Ordinance. The maximum size of a sign in the individual Zoning Districts identifies the maximum size as
200 square feet and the Sign Ordinance identifies the maximum as 250 feet. Therefore, this amendment
corrects the inconsistencies. Cobb made a motion to recommend the City Council adopt the
amendment to Ordinance 52.11 correcting the inconsistency in sign size. The motion was
seconded by Schultz and passed unanimously by those present.
Ordinance 52.12: Weyrens stated the proposed amendment adds a provision requiring a zoning permit
for accessory buildings less than 120 square feet. While the MN State Building Code does not require a
permit, the City has been having frequent issues with buildings or objects placed over property lines or in
easement areas. Staff is recommending that all buildings under 120 square feet be permitted through a
zoning permit with a nominal fee ($ 10.00). The City will not make money or necessarily cover the costs
of the permit, but it will provide greater protection of easements and property lines. Weyrens stated the
other significant amendment to Ordinance 52.12 is the removal of the fence provisions as it is redundant
to Ordinance 56. The fence provisions are not changing, rather they are being consolidated to one
October 7, 2013
Page 3 of 3
Ordinance. Cobb made a motion to recommend the City Council adopt the amendments to
Ordinance 52.12, removing the fence provisions and adding a zoning permit for all buildings
under 120 square feet. The motion was seconded by Hausmann.
Ayes: Hausmann, Killam, Cobb, Schaefer
Nays: Rieke Abstain: Schultz Motion Carried: 4:1:
Ordinance 52.32 -7: Weyrens stated the proposed amendment to Ordinance 52.32 clarifies the exterior
requirements, reducing the adornment provision from 50% to 30 %. Schultz made a motion to
recommend the City Council accept the amendment to Ordinance 52.32 modifying the exterior
requirements. The motion was seconded by Hausmann.
Discussion: Schultz questioned if accessory buildings were required to include adornment,
particularly if they do not face a public right of way. Weyrens stated that accessory buildings are subject
to the same provisions and would require adornment. The Planning Commission questioned if language
could be added to the Ordinance excluding accessory buildings located behind a principal building from
the adornment provisions. Rieke made a motion to table action on the proposed amendment
allowing staff to modify the requirements for accessory buildings. The motion was seconded by
Killam and passed unanimously by those present.
Ordinance 52.34: Weyrens stated the proposed amendment adds biomedical and health science
research as permitted uses by issuance of a special use permit and reduces the requirements for firearms
to the provisions of MN Statute. Additionally the amendment removes inconsistencies in the Ordinance
requiring Planning Commission approval for site plan review and clarifies the exterior requirements.
Schultz stated the he has the same concerns regarding the requirements for exterior buildings as
Ordinance 52.32; therefore Schultz motioned to table the discussion until they are able to review
further. The motion was seconded by Schaefer and passed unanimously by those present.
Ordinance 54: Weyrens stated the proposed amendment includes a provision whereby the City can
withhold a land use application if the applicant has an outstanding financial obligation to the City. Schultz
made a motion to recommend the City Council adopt the amendment to Ordinance 54 as
presented. The motion was seconded by Schaefer.
Ayes: Hausmann, Killam, Schultz, Cobb, Schaefer
Nays: Rieke Motion Carried: 5:1:0
Ordinance 55: Weyrens stated the proposed amendment is to include a provision whereby the City can
withhold a rental license if the applicant has an outstanding obligation with the City and to correct the
inconsistencies in the Ordinance. The City has previously amended the rental provisions in the R1
Zoning District; however, those same provisions were not included in Ordinance 55 creating a conflict.
Therefore, the specific regulations will be removed from Ordinance 55 and will be replaced with verbiage
to direct one to the Zoning District for details. Schultz made a motion to recommend the City Council
adopt the amendment to Ordinance 55 as presented; seconded by Schaefer.
Ayes: Hausmann, Killam, Schultz, Cobb, Schaefer
Nays: Rieke Motion Carried: 5:1 :0
Weyrens stated that at the request of the Planning Commission she contacted the area Cities to compaire
rental provisions in residential areas. Weyrens stated that St. Joseph is the most restrictive and all the
area Cities allow rental in R1 Zoning Districts without issuance of a special or interim use permit.
Ordinance 56: Weyrens stated the proposed amendment merges the fence regulations in Ordinance
52.12 with Ordinance 56 to create one set of regulations. The only change in verbiage is to restrict the
use of snow fence as permanent fencing. The Commission discussed different definitions of fencing and
whether or not snow fencing should be allowed during the winter months, similar to the winter parking
time frame. The amendment also changes the responsibility of issuing a fence permit from the City
Administrator to the Building Official, as that is the current practice. The Commission requested Weyrens
provide additional information on verbiage regulating the use of snow fence. Schultz motioned to table
the fencing discussion to better define and determine duration utilization of snow fencing in
October 7, 2013
Page 4 of 3
residential areas. The motion was seconded by Hausmann and passed unanimously by those
present.
Ordinance 57. Weyrens stated the proposed amendment includes a provision whereby the City can
withhold an excavation permit if the applicant has an outstanding financial obligation to the City.
Hausmann made a motion to recommend the City Council adopt the amendment to Ordinance 57
as presented. The motion was seconded by Cobb.
Ayes: Hausmann, Killam, Schultz, Cobb, Schaefer
Nays: Rieke Motion Carried: 5:1:0
Adiourn: As the agenda was completed, Rieke adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7 :50 PM.
Judy Weyrens
Administrator