Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[04] Minutes March 3, 2014 15 Page of Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, March 3, 2014 at 6:30 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall opening with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members Present: Chair Ross Rieke, Commissioners Gina Dullinger, Matt Killam, Daryl Schaefer, Chad Hausmann, Council Liaison Rick Schultz, City Administrator Judy Weyrens. Others Present: Tom Klein, Randy Schmitz Hausmann made a motion to approve the agenda as presented; seconded Approval of the Agenda: by Killam seconded. Motion carried unanimously by those present. Schultz made a motion to approve the minutes for December 2, 2013, Approval of the Minutes: January 13, 2014, and February 3, 2014. The motion was seconded by Schaefer and passed unanimously by those present. Public Hearing, Special Use/Variance, Continuation: Rieke stated that the Planning Commission at the February 3, 2014 meeting considered the special use and variance request of Rolling Ridge Properties. The special use would allow the operation of a special events center and the variance was being requested for relief from the strict parking regulations. The Planning Commission tabled action on the matter so that additional information could be obtained. Therefore, Rieke opened the floor for comments and being none the hearing was closed. Weyrens stated that since the last meeting, staff has met and reviewed the application for the events center, addressing the concerns of the Planning Commission. The concerns with the Special Use included:  Alcohol management: The Police Chief has reviewed the site and has requested some additional plantings near the parking lot columns to delineate where alcohol cannot pass.  CR133: The County Engineer, Jodi Teich, was contacted regarding any traffic or road impacts. Teich wanted to reiterate the prohibition of parking along CR 133.  Guest Suite: The property owner was requesting a guest suite for the bride/groom or CEO of the event where they could stay overnight. The idea has been reviewed by the Building Official and would be permitted with appropriate inspection and life safety measures  Development Rights: Issuance of the special use permit is valid upon completion of all building code requirements.  Applicable Ordinance: The sight must be managed in accordance with all applicable Ordinances to include noise, bon fire, and signage. Weyrens added that the special use and the variance need to be handled separately starting with the special use. The special use allows the recreation center and the variance is regarding an unpaved parking lot. Discussions were had with the City Engineer and there was no reasoning to not allow the special use. A suggestion to extend the permit for a year was recommended in case the project was not completed within a year time. Killam asked whether the permit would need to be renewed yearly to which Weyrens responded that it would not. Once a special use is granted it remains with the property. Killam asked if the special use could be revoked. Weyrens stated that it cannot be revoked; however, enforcements by the City can be made depending on what the potential violation/s are. Rieke stated that the potential issues would more than likely surround the use of alcohol and how that is regulated. He reiterated that the property owner would not be applying for an off-sale license and that the catering company would be responsible for being licensed. Schultz stated that previously there were lengthy discussions on parking and whether the variance should be granted. Schultz added that it is in an urban area and as the area develops he is concerned with granting the variance. He is unsure of what the answer should be. March 3, 2014 25 Page of Hausmann suggested planting a different type of grass to make it more convenient for parking. He feels that the field parking goes along with the theme of the event center. Rieke stated that it is hard to project the development in the district. He added that it would be nice to have something in writing for in the future. Weyrens stated that the parking issue can be reviewed annually or years down the road. She added that the potential paving of the parking lot could be looked at in future years if the venue becomes year-round. Hausmann stated that he likes the idea of revisiting the variance if the event center becomes year-round. He added that under the current proposal he is in support of the parking as it is to go along with the feel of the venue. Hausmann suggested that the event center be allowed to put up no parking signs along CR 133 during events only prohibiting parking along the road. Schaefer supported the variance stating that it would make sense to keep the lot unpaved. He agreed with the re-evaluation of the variance if the event center becomes year-round. Dullinger stated that the evaluation of the variance would not mean that the parking lot would have to be paved at that time; rather the commission evaluates the situation at that time. Hausmann asked how the property owner would go about trying an event in the winter. Weyrens recommended coming back to the City to ask for an administrative amendment at that time. It can then be monitored. Dullinger made a motion recommending the City Council accept the Findings of Fact, granting a Special Use Permit to Randy Schmitz, Rolling Ridge Properties to allow a special events center at 31101 County Road 133 based on the following facts and contingencies. The motion was seconded by Schultz and passed unanimously by those present. 1. The proposed Special Events Center will not not be detrimental to or endanger public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the neighborhood; will be harmonious to the neighborhood; will not change the characteristics of the neighborhood, will be adequately served by facilities and services; will not create excessive additional costs for services; will not involve activities that involve excessive noise, production of traffic, fumes, glare or odors; will not create traffic congestion; will have adequate facilities for off street parking; will not result in the loss or damage of historic property The following contingencies shall apply: 1. Insurance – The property owner should provide the City annually with a certificate of insurance, providing proof of insurance as an events center or gathering space. 2. Alcohol will only be provided by a vendor with a valid MN Caters License, which must be provided to the City annually. Additionally, alcohol can only be consumed in designated areas, cannot be taken beyond the east pillars leading to the parking lot, the property owner will mark the area with a sign indicating “no liquor beyond this point”, and the property owner will further delineate the area will alcohol cannot leave the property by adding plantings to each side the pillars that approach the parking lot. 3. Ordinance Enforcement – the Events Center shall be subject to all applicable Ordinances to include noise and recreational fires. 4. Parking – all parking must be in designated areas and parking on CR 133 is prohibited. 5. Guest Suite – The events center includes a guest suite to be utilized by Bride and Groom or CEO reserving the facility with the following restrictions: the suite can only be occupied for one night; the suite will serve as a bread and breakfast with no cooking facilities with all food catered; the rental inspector shall annually inspect the unit to assure that life safety measures are satisfied. Typical rental inspection fees shall apply. 6. Inspection – The City reserves the right to inspect the property at any time. 7. Signage – all signage must be in accordance with St. Joseph Code of Ordinance 52.11. March 3, 2014 35 Page of 8. Occupancy Restrictions – Per MN State Building Code the maximum occupancy load must be posted and adhered to at all time. 9. Development Rights – The Special Use Permit does not become valid until all building code issues have been resolved and a certificate of occupancy has been issued by the Building Official. Weyrens stated the second matter before the Planning Commission is a variance on the unpaved parking lot. The request for variance from the parking is unique to this situation in that:  The property owner is requesting a special use permit to offer a venue in a rural rustic setting, a historic barn site. In this case, a paved lot would not be characteristic.  The proposed use is seasonal, May to October, and is not used every day; rather special event parking.  The property owner has 22 paved parking spaces on site and will be providing 148 parking spaces in an alfalfa field that will either include a parking attendant or valet parking.  Additional parking on granite based material is also available. Rieke reiterated that the Planning Commission has a general consensus on the following.  That the property is unique  The Commission wants to have some type of reconsideration should circumstances change down the road. Schefer made a motion recommending the City Council to accept the Findings of Fact, granting a Variance Request to Randy Schmitz, Rolling Ridge Properties to relieve strict enforcement of the parking lot requirements as they relate to the application for a special use permit to operate an events center in a historical barn located at 31101 county Road 133 based on the following facts and contingencies: 1. The applicant is proposing to use the property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The variance requested is harmonious with the adjacent area as the property is part of a 40 acre farmstead. 3. The property owner is requesting relief from the parking lot provisions to keep the property in a rural setting and paving the parking area would alter the characteristics of the area. 4. The events center is a seasonal business that only requires parking when events are scheduled. The parking areas are not needed when the facility is not rented. 5. The property owner can provide 22 parking spaces that are paved and can be used for the special events. Contingencies: 1. When the events center is converted to a year round business, the property owner shall be required to meet the parking requirements to include paving. Discussion: Dullinger stated that in her understanding the City has the ability to look at the characteristics of the property and decide on whether or not the parking should be paved. She added that the lot in question, unpaved, fits the character of that venue. Schultz asked whether the lot would be used for overflow parking for regular business needs. Schmitz stated that he doesn’t have the needs to use it as overflow at this time. The motion was seconded by Dullinger and passed unanimously by those present Ordinance 52.11 Signs: Weyrens presented the commission with a draft sign ordinance. Weyrens stated that rather than marking up the current ordinance, a new one was drafted. The draft is for discussion purposes and feedback is encouraged in order to give staff direction. Weyrens noted that there are quite a few pages and was unsure if everyone had a chance to review it. The question was asked whether there wanted to be an additional meeting to specifically discuss signs. March 3, 2014 45 Page of Rieke stated that the magnitude of this item is hard to grasp when there are so many instances and different situations that apply to signage. Schultz asked if he were to put on a magnetic signs to his vehicle if that would fall under the mobile sign. Weyrens stated that even though it is not specifically identified, it is referred at the end of the mobile sign definition. Rieke added that it is becoming a more common thing for individuals to have advertisement wraps on their vehicles. Schultz stated that in other cities, the heights of the signs are based on the speed limits. Weyrens stated that you cannot have two different height requirements in the same zoning district if the speed limit changes. Hausmann asked how many sign requests are made in a year and how the current sign ordinance regulates these requests. Weyrens stated that there are about a dozen a year and that she could get that information. Weyrens added that enforcement is typically seen with the temporary signs. Killam asked what the difference between the canopy sign, awning sign, and projecting sign. Weyrens stated that the Local Blend has a canopy sign whereas the Laundromat has a projecting sign. Weyrens added that in the B3 area, the EDA is looking at having a master sign plan to regulate the signage. Schultz asked if non-conforming signs should be included in the Ordinance. Weyrens stated that in other cities she found that they do not allow the enhancements to the sign. Schultz asked if the bank would want to enhance their sign, how they would go about doing so. She added that language can be put in to explain what intensification means. Rieke stated that he has been noticing signs more now. He added that some digital signs are out there and have a lot of flashing. Weyrens stated that there is a section in the ordinance that regulates those areas. After that time, it becomes enforcement. Weyrens stated that she will send out a blank table to the Planning Commission for them to write down the different signs in the different zoning districts. Schultz asked how much detail should be in the table. Weyrens stated that they would like to have a lot of detail in the table for an easy reference. Weyrens added that off-premise signs are considered billboards and are not allowed. The ordinance only allows one advertising sign on premise. It does not include off-premise. Schultz stated that some city businesses would benefit for an off premise monument sign directing people to the businesses in the city. Schultz added that he would like to see the Industrial district separated from the business districts in the Ordinance as there are some provisions that apply to industrial but not to the business district. Ordinance 56.00 Fence: Weyrens stated that the fence ordinance was previously discussed by the Planning Commission that requested modification to the material used for fencing. The proposed draft includes the final language that was requested. Hausmann suggested adding language to the 56.05-4 as follows, “The following materials for fences are prohibited, but not limited to.” Killam made a motion to recommend the City Council adopt the amendments to Ordinance 56 as presented with the inclusion of the language “but not limited to” in section 56.05.4. The motion was seconded by Hausmann. Ayes: Hausmann, Killam, Dullinger, Schultz, Schaefer Nays: None Abstain: Rieke Motion Carried 5:0:1 Council Liaison Report: Schultz reported that the sign that was previously supported by the Planning Commission and was sent to the Council was denied. The denial was due to non-compliance with City Ordinances and State Statutes. He added that the Council had a work session regarding Park Terrace where an assessor for the project was approved. Legislative priorities for the area cities were also approved. Additionally, the housing incentive provided by the EDA was approved to jumpstart housing March 3, 2014 55 Page of development within the City. Weyrens added that for the first 10 homes built in the City in 2014, the city will waive up to $5,000 in wac/sac fees. Move MN Conference: Schultz reported that he sat in on the conference regarding the lack of funding for transportation. th APO: A new director was hired for the APO and will start in the Role on March 10. Rieke stated that he will be talking with the Mayor about moving out of the Chair position for the Planning Commission. He would like to have a conversation about how that will take place at a later time. Rieke adjourned the meeting at 7:53 PM. Adjourn: Judy Weyrens Administrator THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK