Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[04] Minutes Nov 04 November, 7 2013 14 Page of Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, November 4, 2013 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City hall opening with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members Present: Chair Ross Rieke, Commissioners Gina Dullinger, Chad Hausmann, Matt Killam, Daryl Shaefer, Council Liaison Rick Schultz. City Administrator Judy Weyrens. Members Absent: Commissioner Brad Cobb Others Present: Mike McDonald, Tom Klein, Al Nowachek, Adam Silvers, Joe Pfannenstein, Mike McDonald, Troy Rheaume. Killam made a motion to approve the agenda as presented; seconded by Approval of the Agenda: Schultz seconded. Motion carried unanimously by those present. Schultz made a motion to approve the October 7, 2013 minutes as Approval of the Minutes: presented; seconded by Dullinger and passed unanimously by those present. Public Hearing, Interim Use Permit: Chair Rieke opened the public hearing to which Weyrens stated the purpose of the public hearing is to consider granting an interim use permit to allow an owner occupied rental at 321 Jasmine Lane E. 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 independent residence. The owners may not exceed two in number and a copy of a recorded deed or recorded contract for deed must be provided. The interim use permit request was submitted by Adam Silvers. Adam Silvers spoke on his own behalf and stated that he recently purchased a home in the City and the others living with him were helping him make payments. Weyrens asked how many were residing at the house to which Silvers responded 5 including himself. Weyrens stated that she written testimony that was signed concerned residents on Jasmine, which expressed concern about the number of people entering and exiting the household and whether or not underage drinking was occurring. Al Nowachek, 503 Jasmine Lane spoke in support of the Interim Use Permit. He stated that he came to the hearing as a character reference for the men living at 321 Jasmine Lane. He stated that he has known most of the men since they were little and he knows the type of people they are. He went on to say that they are living there to help reduce the cost of their education as if they lived on campus they would be paying approximately $ 800/mo. Living off campus allow them to reduce their housing cost to approximately $ 250.mo. Nowachek stated he gave the men permission to park in his driveway in the event they need overnight parking or additional spaces. He is concerned that the letter from the concerned citizens on Jasmine Lane is a bit of a double standard, as they have people over and cars parked on the street as well. As no one else wished to speak, Rieke closed the hearing at 7:10 PM. Schultz questioned if the letter received was signed or if there is any idea how many residents share that concerns expressed. Weyrens stated there are no signatures as the letter was closed concerned residents of Jasmine Lane. Rieke stated that the concerns stated in the letter can be address through enforcement and that interim use permits are renewed each year. Weyrens stated that the property is limited to a maximum density of 3 three unrelated persons and based on the information provided by Silvers, the current density is five. Therefore, the density will have to be reduced and the Planning Commission should consider a time frame for compliance. Rieke responded that since this is current violation he did not feel it was appropriate to discuss enforcement matters; rather they should be handled administratively. November, 7 2013 24 Page of Schultz made a motion authorizing the Planning Commission Chair and Administrator to execute the Findings of Fact, recommending issuance of an interim use permit to Adam Silvers, 321 Jasmine Lane E with the following contingencies: a. The property owner will reduce the number of tenants to two, no later than December 31, 2013. b. The property owner will complete the license process with 30 days of Council approval of the Interim Use Permit at which time the property shall be in full compliance with the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances, including the maximum density. c. The property owner will manage the property in compliance with the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances. d. The permit shall be reviewed annually with notification in the St. Joseph Newsleader allowing for input from the neighborhood. e. The Interim Use Permit shall expire upon transfer of property. Discussion: Weyrens stated that the interim uses are reviewed every August for compliance. If there are no violations, then it is renewed by administration. If there are violations, then the permit will be brought to the Planning Commission again. Motion to recommend approval was seconded by Hausmann and passed unanimously by those present. Public Hearing, Special Use: Chair Rieke opened the public hearing to which Weyrens stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a special use permit which would replace an existing billboard with a digital face at 320 Old HWY 52. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27 subd. 3(k) identifies uses which in the judgment of the Planning Commission and City Council are similar to those listed in the zoning district. The request has been submitted by Mike Deutz. Weyrens stated that the property submitted a building permit application to reface an existing billboard with a digital sign. The building permit application was denied as billboards are not currently allowed in the City limits. The use is allowed to continue as a non-conforming use which is regulated by MN Statute. th Mike McDonald, 213 13 Ave SE: believes the City is overly restrictive on signs in general in the City. He stated that the sign has been there for a long time and that the studies done regarding signs are old. He added that electronic signs are all over the place. The EDA paid 1000 to a chiropractor to change the sign and is not sure what the difference between that instance and this one. McDonald further stated that the City was considering converting the existing sign on CR 75 and College Avenue to digital and questioned why the City could propose such a use, but a property owner cannot. Weyrens clarified that when the City constructed the existing electronic sign a special use permit was issued after a public hearing was held. At that time the Ordinance was different and billboards were allowed. The City was looking to keep the existing use and would have gone through a process. Joe Pfannenstein approached the Commission stating that he is supportive of advertising in the City in order for the business to succeed and for people to know what’s out there. Mike Deutz spoke on his own behalf. He stated that in his opinion he is only performing maintenance on the sign with minor changes to the dimension. The current trend in billboards is to use digital technology so he is replacing the existing billboard with a new face. Deutz stated that if the Planning Commission has any questions Troy Rheaume, sign vendor, would be available to answer any questions. With no one else wishing to speak, Rieke closed the public hearing at 7:24 PM. Rieke stated that in his opinion, the location of the sign is where it has the least impact on the City. Schaefer stated that he sees it as an existing structure and the property owner is looking to complete maintenance and he does not have an objection to the proposed special use request. November, 7 2013 34 Page of Reike stated that a fair question would be whether changing the sign substantially would call into question the grandfather status. Schultz added that his only concern is the non-conforming sign in the ordinance, and how to go about extending the use of non-conforming use. He stated you cannot take a non- conforming object and make it conforming. Weyrens clarified that the only portion of the billboard that will remain is the posts as a new crossbar will be attached to the existing poles and the new digital face will connect to the cross bar. Killiam asked whether there is positive or negative feedback on the billboard. Troy Rheaume stated that he has received requests for advertisers who are interested in utilizing the sign for their advertisements. When questioned about the length of each advertisement, Rheaume stated that they typically have six to eight advertisers with each ad displayed for eight to ten seconds. The industry is regulated and prohibits flashing and provides standards, of which his company adheres to. Deutz stated that he would be open to allowing the City to use the sign for community events as well. Schultz asked how the brightness of the sign is adjusted. Rheaume stated that they can adjust it to lower the brightness. Hausmann added that he does not have a problem with the location of the sign and stated that it would be nice to include road closure and emergency type updates on the sign as well. Weyrens stated that the property being discussed is a separate parcel without much ability for development and it is currently zoned as R1, Residential. Deutz stated that the County has the property as commercial to which Weyrens clarified it is commercial for taxing purposes only, zoning is different. Dullinger stated that she agrees with Deutz that he is merely performing maintenance on the sign as in today’s environment, refacing a billboard probably is updating it to digital. Hausmann questioned the photograph presented to the Planning Commission as it looks like the number of support poles has increased. He questioned if the support structure will change. Deutz stated that the poles are the same, they will not increase. Deutz clarified that the only change in the sign is a slight increase in the height, but it is nominal. Hausmann made a motion to recommend to the Council issue the special use permit allowing the use to continue as the property owner is refacing an existing sign with modern technology, which in his opinion is a maintenance issue. The motion was seconded by Killam. Aye: Rieke, Hausmann, Killam, Schaefer, Dullinger Nays: Abstain: Schultz Motion Carried: 5:0:1 Weyrens stated that the special use will also come before the council on November 21, 2013. Continuation – McDonalds Variance Request: Weyrens stated that she had correspondence from McDonalds in which they stated that they are requesting a new hearing to allow a sign 40 feet in height. While she has not received the request as of this meeting, she recommended the Planning Commission extend the time period to act on a land use matter an additional 60 days, in the event they decide not to request a new hearing. She stated that they recently used flags to check visibility and they felt an additional ten feet is needed to create the desired visibility. They indicated that the trees and overgrown shrubbery limit visibility. Hausman requested that when the matter comes to the public hearing, the property owner provide some data on the distance required for visibility. Schultz motioned to table action the on the request for variance for the maximum height of a sign as presented by McDonalds, and to extend the land use requirement date an additional 60 days. The motion was seconded by Hausmann and passed unanimously by those present. S&H Partnership: Weyrens stated that the Planning Commission has previously considered the concept plan for a ten unit townhome development and recommended the Council accept the preliminary plat. Since that time the property owner has changed the layout slightly and the City Engineer is requesting that the property owner provide screening at the end of the street facing the rear yards of Ellie Court and th that a street light be placed on the intersection of 4 Ave SE and the driveway to the apartment complex. November, 7 2013 44 Page of Rieke stated that typically if the City Engineer has specific views on the projects or enhancements to the project, that that should be something that the Planning Commission would agree with. The Commission discussed whether or not the developer should be required to add a street light as the ten homes proposed do not have a significant increase. Weyrens stated the same developer owns the Apartment Complex therefore the additional light is being requested. Tom Klein, representative of S & H, spoke on their behalf. He stated that they have reviewed the comments of the City Engineer and will work through them for compliance. He did question the need for the street light and will discuss the matter further with the City Engineer. The Planning Commission affirmed the request of the City Engineer and stated that before the Council can review the final plat, the concerns of the City Engineer must be addressed. Ordinance Amendments – 52.32 and 52.34: Weyrens stated that since the last meeting she has provided revisions to Ordinance 52.32 (B2 Highway Business) and 52.34 (Industrial). The new verbiage does not require an accessory building to meet the exterior adornment requirements if they are located in the rear yard and are not visible form the public right of way. Schultz made a motion to recommend the Council approve the amendment to Ordinance 52.32 presented with the grammatical change suggested by Dullinger. The motion was seconded by Hausmann and passed unanimously by those present. Schultz made a motion to recommend the Council approve the amendment to Ordinance 52.34 as presented with the grammatical change suggested by Dullinger. The motion was seconded by Hausmann and passed unanimously by those present. Ordinance Amendment – 56, Fence: Weyrens stated that at the last meeting staff had requested the Planning Commission prohibit the use of snow fence as permanent fencing; however, since the last meeting it was discovered that the Ordinance limits fence material to wood or chain link. Hausmann asked whether PVC fencing would be allowed. Weyrens stated that in Ordinance 56.07 under border fence, plastic is included. The Planning Commission requested that staff review the Fence Ordinance again and provide a list of acceptable fence material for consideration by the Planning Commission. Council Liaison Report: Schultz discussed the meeting held at the St. Cloud Library regarding the relationships between townships and cities. He attended the EDA real estate round table and thought it was one of the best sessions he had been to. The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:23 PM. Adjourn: Judy Weyrens Administrator