Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[04] Minutes July 07, 2014 13 Page of Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in special session on Monday, July 7, 2014 at 6:30 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall opening with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members Present: Chair Matt Killam, Commissioners, Ross Rieke, Chad Hausmann, Daryl Schaefer. Council Liaison Rick Schultz. City Administrator Judy Weyrens. Others Present: Tom Klein, Ted Schmid, Ralph Finken, Jennifer Schmitz Killam made a motion to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded Approval of the Agenda: by Hausmann and carried unanimously by those present. Schultz made a motion to approve the minutes of June 2, 2014 and June Approval of the Minutes: 16, 2014. The motion was seconded by Rieke and carried unanimously by those present. Public Hearing, Special Use Permit: Chair Killam called the hearing to order to which Weyrens stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider a Special Use Permit to allow an accessory building on a R1 Single Family Residential lot without the construction of a principal structure. The property is legally described as Lot 12 of Block 4 of Northland Heights. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27 subd. 4 (g)[5] allows for a special use permit as follows: Accessory building not specifically permitted by this paragraph shall be prohibited unless authorized by a special use permit granted pursuant to Ordinance 52.07.03. The request for special use has been submitted by Lumber One Avon on behalf of Ralph Finken, 1338 Jasmine Lane E, St. Joseph MN 56374. Weyrens stated that staff had met with both Lumber One and Ralph Finken to discuss the requirement to construct a principal structure before an accessory building and the importance of constructing a facility that could be converted to a single family structure in the future. The proposed plan meets that requirement with the accessory designed and placed on the lot so that home could be constructed in the future. In addition, the property will include a restriction that the lot with the accessory building cannot be sold without a building permit secured for a principal structure. Jennifer Schmitz 1328 Jasmine Lane stated that she is in support of the proposed used but questions as to whether or not the two lots should be combined. She lives adjacent to the subject property and would not want the lot to be sold for just accessory space. It is her opinion that people are always looking at storage space and would not want single family lots to be sold for just accessory space. She further stated that she does not want to limit the build ability of the lot, nor does she want to look at a large structure. Weyrens clarified that the structure has been designed so that a structure could be added to meet the residential requirements and a contingency is recommended which requires a deed restriction prohibiting the sale of the lot with the accessory building without a building permit for a principal structure Ralph Finken, 1338 Jasmine Lane petitioner stated he understands that Schmitz wants to prevent a future home from being built close their property. He stated that he plans on living there as long as he can, but can understand the concerns of other residents in that area. As no one else was wishing to speak, Killam closed the public hearing. Rieke questioned Finken as to who the property owner of the lot with the accessory building will be, he or Lumber One. Finken stated that if the Special Use Permit is granted, he would purchase the property from Lumber One and would own the property and well as the accessory building. Ted Schmid, Lumber One, approached the Commission to clarify the building plans. He stated that the garage has been designed and placed on the lot so that in the future a home could be constructed. The July 07, 2014 23 Page of home would be similar to home owned by Finken, blending into the neighborhood. The property has a separate water/sewer curb box and driveway cut, similar to all lots in Northland Heights. Hausmann questioned how the can prevent the property with the accessory building being sold and maintained as just an accessory building. Weyrens stated that if the Planning Commission is inclined to recommend approval of the special use permit, a contingency will be added whereby within 30 days of closing on the property, a building permit must be secured for the construction of a principal structure. If approved by the City Council, the Findings of Fact or recorded with the property, notifying a potential buy of the restriction. The filing of the Findings of Fact is similar to a deed restriction. Hausmann made a motion recommend the City Council accept the Findings of Fact, issuing a Special Use Permit to Ralph Finken, allowing the construction of an accessory building at 1334 Jasmine Lane. The recommendation for approval is contingent upon items a-d which follow. The motion was seconded by Schultz and passed unanimously by those present. a. The property owner will construct the accessory building in compliance with the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances and MN State Building Code. b. The property owner will secure a building permit before construction of the accessory building. c. If substantial construction has not taken place within one (1) year after the date of a special use permit, the permit is void except that, on application, the Council, after receiving the recommendation of the Planning Commission, may extend the permit for an additional period not to exceed one (1) year. A special use permit authorizes only the conditional use specified in the permit and expires if, for any reason, the authorized use ceases for more than one (1) year. d. Any sale, transfer or other assignment of 1334 Jasmine, or of 1338 Jasmine, whether voluntary or involuntary, to any party that does not simultaneously own both properties, shall trigger the obligation to construct a principle residential structure on 1334 Jasmine which complies with the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances then in effect. A building permit must be applied for within thirty (30) days of the closing of the sale, transfer or other assignment, and completed within the time frame allowed in the building permit. Sign Ordinance: Weyrens presented the Planning Commission with additional information regarding the potential sign ordinance amendment. During the last Commission meeting discussion included adding a provision for off premise advertising along specific commercial corridors. At this same meeting sign companies requested the Commission consider finding a location where off premise signs would be allowed. Weyrens stated in discussing the matter with staff, two corridors could be considered: 1. B1 – General Business: To help downtown business, off premise signs could be considered nd on College Avenue, south of CR 75 to Minnesota Street and then west along MN Street to 2 Avenue NW. 2. B2 – Highway Business: Consideration could be given to allow along CR 75, requiring a distance between signs of 2000 feet, and further limit the distance between electronic signs. Weyrens stated that the draft amendment has not been updated to include off premise signs, rather the information is presented at this meeting to determine if it should be included. Hausmann stated that the City could allow off-premise signs, and have them regulated in the Ordinance. Schultz asked if the signs would be regulated by the corridor or zoning district. Weyrens stated that signs can be regulated by which corridor they are in. Schaefer agrees that the larger signs should be for the interstate and there can be smaller, informational signs to direct traffic to businesses in the B-1 area. July 07, 2014 33 Page of Schultz stated that any business who would want to put up a monument sign could also include off- premise advertisements for other businesses within the City. Schultz questioned how far west along MN nd Street the B1 Zoning District extends, to which Weyrens stated 2 Avenue NW. Schultz stated that it appears as though a gap will exist between the downtown area and the B3 zoning near I94. Schultz stated he got an email asking how signs are put up on I-94. Hausmann stated that they would need permission from the property owner. If the billboard faces the interstate and a permit is needed from MN-DOT. The off-premise signs along the interstate can be done as well with those also going through MN-DOT. Rieke stated he has tried to think of places in the City where signs could go. He is not sure that he wants billboards to be banned as there are good places for them. Schultz stated that there is probably an area in the City for billboards, but he does not know where that is yet. The general consensus of the Planning Commission is to not disallow billboard. Hausmann asked if the City has received any requests from businesses regarding sign. Weyrens stated that there hasn’t because businesses know they are not allowed. Hausmann stated that he would keep the ordinance the way it is but to add a provision to allow off-premise advertising via monument signs which will be regulated through the Ordinance. He is against the billboards, but is more for the monument signs to advertise the downtown businesses in St. Joseph. The Planning Commission was in agreement to only allow monument off premise advertising on College Avenue between CR 75 and Minnesota Street and on Minnesota Street West from College Avenue to I94. Council Liaison Report: Schultz stated at the Joint Planning Board meeting they approved the construction of an accessory building before the construction of the principal structure and at the second Joint Planning Board, an interim use permit allowing an asphalt plant issued for four years to St. Joseph Sand and Gravel. Adjourn: As the agenda had been completed, Killam adjourned the meeting at 7:15 PM. Judy Weyrens Administrator This page intentionally left blank