The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004 [06] Jun 07 CITY OF ST. JOSEPH WW"Il. cityofstjoseph .com St. Joseph Planning Commission June 7, 2004 7:00 PM Administrator ¡udy Weyrens 1. Call to Order Mayor 2. Approve Agenda Larry J. Hosch Councilors 3. Approve Minutes AI Rassier 4. 7:00 PM Public Hearing - Stonehouse Properties LLC Ross Rieke Variance Request - 44' variance on maximum sign size Gary Utsch St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.31 subd. 10 (b) I Dale Wick 5. 7: 15 PM District 742 - Building Permit request Construction of an additional portable classroom 6. Rezoning Request - Birch Street East 7. Other Matters 8. Adjourn File . 2.)" College Avenue North, PO \)ox bb8' Saint. joseph, Minnesotd )"6'1,74 Phone ,2.0.,6,.72.01 I:d x ,2.0.,6,.0,42. DRAFT May 3, 2004 Page 2 of 6 Janel Weísen spoke on behalf of Why USA Realty. Weisen stated that she presented the initial petition requesting rezoning of this area. She stated that she represents the property owner at 38 Birch Street East who is in the process of selling her home for a commercial use. The proposed buyer intends to convert the home to office space which will not result in excess traffic or noise. In addition the business hours for the office space will be Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. Jerry Hasselbrink spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. He stated that he represents the property owner of 103 Ash Street East whose property abuts to the south the area being discussed, Hasselbrink stated that he has many concerns with the negative affects the proposed rezoning will have on abutting property or the City itself. Hasselbrink stated that in his opinion, rezoning this property would conflict with affordable housing in three ways. 1. The future abutting homes will most likely become commercial; removing some of the most affordable housing stock. 2. Would make other affordable houses less livable. 3. Failure to protect neighboring housing values. Hasselbrink also stated that he feels that all those in favor of the rezoning are out there to make a profit. In his opinion 8t. Joseph accommodates a lot of commercial business and not enough affordable housing. The 8t. Joseph Comprehensive Plan indicates that the City offers a wide variety of housing options. The possible rezoning of Birch Street would eliminate a lot of possibilities for residents who are looking at affordable housing. As a City, S1. Joseph should be trying to preserve our existing neighborhoods not remove them. In response to the comments made by Hasse/brink, Deutz stated that he doesn't agree with the petition because he feels if those signing the petition did not agree with the Comprehensive Plan, they should have been at the public hearing or meetings discussing the future land use plan. Again, in response to the comments made by Deutz, Lemke stated that when circulating the petition against the rezoning, she had with her the hearing notice. The petition is an indication of residents not supporting the conversion of the neighborhood. With regard to residents attending the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan, she thought some residents did appear. Andreas stated that the meetings are not at times that are accessible for all residents to attend. In her case, she had to take a day of vacation to be at this meeting as she works nights. Tara Berger of 29 Ash Street East stated that the area in discussion is not a place where you will want to raise children. Traffic and noise from County Road 75 make this area not conducive for children. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:28PM. Utsch stated that previously the Planning Commission considered this matter and the rezoning was denied. At that time the Planning Commission initiated the petition. The denial included a motion that indicated the Commission would consider rezoning petitions on a per lot basis. Utsch agreed that area being discussed contains small lots and unless developers were to buy mu/tiple lots, a large development could not occur along Birch Street East. Loso agreed that the lots aren't very big and developers can be required to provide landscaping to buffer the adjacent area. Utsch acknowledged that the City did receive a petition in opposition to the rezoning and it will be come part of the file. However, at this time more than 50% of the property owners in the affected area have requested rezoning and the Ordinance allows for rezoning when such occurs. Lesnick stated that just like the other side of County Road 75, development along Birch Street would most . DRAFT May 3, 2004 Page 3 of 6 ~ likely be a small business that would not generate more traffic for that area. Lesnick concurred that because of the size of the lots, development would most likely be small offices. Utsch commented that there is not an overabundance of industrial or commercial lots in the City and it is his opinion that the property being discussed is more sellable as commercial than residential. Graeve stated that it is his opinion that the area in question is a nice place for homes and he has concerns about the houses behind the property in question. Further, he stated that he doesn't see a need for developing both sides of Highway 75 as commercial and is opposed to the proposed rezoning. Loso made a motion to recommend the City Council adopt the following findings, approving the rezoning of certain property from R1, Single Family to B2, Highway Business. The motion was seconded by Lesnick. RESOLUTION OF FINDING The request of WHY USA to rezone of all property north of the east/west alley abutting Birch Street East between the north/south alley between College Avenue North and 1st Avenue NE and the north/south alley between 1st Avenue NE and 2nd Avenue NE from the current R-1, Single Family to B2, Highway Business came before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing held on May 3, 2004. The hearing was requested by 50% of the property owners in the subject area. In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: Finding: The rezoning of the above described area is consistent with the St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan, and the City received a petition requesting the rezoning from over 50% of the property owners affected. - Ayes: Utsch, Lesnick, Peutz, Loso, Schneider Nays: Graeve Deutz resumed his chair. Public Hearina - Ordinance Amendment, 54.18, Park Dedication Fees: Chair Utsch called the public hearing to order and stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider an Amendment to St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 54.18, Public Land Dedication. The proposed amendment would change the method of calculation for parkland from a percentage of the land value to a per lot fee. The request has been submitted by The Park Board. Bruce Borghorst, Chair of the St. Joseph Park Board spoke on behalf of the Park Board. Berghorst stated that the Park Board recently completed a survey with regard to methods for calculating Park Dedication Fees. Currently the City charges 10% of the land value or purchase price. This method is not equitable as the need for park is not based on the selling price of land, rather the population served. The area Cities charge a per lot fee using Census data and parkland per person as a basis for calculating such. Using the same formula as other Cites, the park dedication fees would increase and provide the Park Board with sustainable development fees. The proposed fees would not impact commercial or industrial development. Loso questioned whether or not this new method was addressed to the area builders. Weyrens stated that they have not been notified individually. However, the Central Minnesota Builders Association (CMBA) receives copies of all agendas and they did contact the City regarding the new fee. Weyrens stated that they indicated they were going to attend the meeting, but are not present. DRAFT May 3, 2004 Page 4 of 6 Their being no one present to speak the public hearing was closed. . Utsch stated that because of the differences in land values between developers, it would be more equitable to charge a per lot fee rather than a percentage of the land value. Loso concurred with Utsch and stated that changing the method would be consistent with the other area Cities. Utsch questioned whether or not a per lot dedication fee would be more or less than the current fee charged. Berghorst replied that in most cases the fee would increase. The only case it wouldn't is if a developer paid a inflated land price. Deutz questioned why the Park Board is requesting to change the Ordinance and if the motivating factor is that we have not reviewed or updated the fee. He further questioned what impact the new fee would have on current developments. Berghorst said that the Park Board reviewed the fee as the City of Waite Park just changed their methodology and completed an area analysis. The Park Board received a copy of the analysis and noticed that St. Joseph was collecting far below what other Cities collect. With regard to current projects, Weyrens stated that this would not affect any developments where a preliminary plat has been submitted. Lesnick stated that she believes the proposed method for calculating Park Dedication fees is more equitable and would assist the Park Board in developing and maintaining the existing and new Parks. Utsch concurred with Lesnick, but would like an opportunity to review the total development fees to make sure that the additional Park Dedication fee will not elevate the development price in St. Joseph. Weyrens recommended the Planning Commission meet jointly with the Park Board to review the proposed fee. Loso and Deutz stated that the local developers should be contacted for review and comment. Deutz made a motion to table action on the amendment to Ordinance 54.18, Park Dedication Fee until a time when the Planning Commission and Park Board can meet jointly. If members of the Building Community attend the meeting they will allowed to present additional information. The motion was seconded by Graeve and passed unanimously. - Re-zoninq, Foxmore Hollow: Utsch stated that the Planning Commission has previously considered the preliminary plat of Foxmore Hollow. The plat as presented included a mix of single family homes and multiple family. The original plan that was submitted for Foxmore Hollow included a 23 unit apartment complex. The neighbors objected to the height and size of the building. It was requested that the developers meet with the neighbors to discuss development alternatives and come back to the Planning Commission within 60 days. Since the public hearing, the Developers have submitted a revised concept plan. The plan is not detailed as it is costly to design a building and until the Developers are provided direction as to what is acceptable, they are submitting a general schematic As requested by the Planning Commission, the developers meet with the neighborhood on April 22,2004. According to Herges, the neighborhood meeting went like any other neighborhood meeting in which a developer would request to construct and apartment complex. The neighbors in the proposed area do not want apartment buildings. Herges stated that they aren't trying to ruin the neighborhood. Foxmore Hollow will be well managed and they will be better than the existing rental units already in the area. Herges stated in his opinion, the City needs to provide a place for multiple family and it makes sense to put them near other apartments. Linda Brown of Surveying & Engineering Professionals Inc, addressed the Planning Commission. She stated that she is the Engineer for the proposed Foxmore Hollow Addition and clarified that the plan before the Planning Commission is a compromise from the first plan. It was her understanding that the neighbors didn't like the height or length of the proposed building, so it was re-designed. Utsch responded that in his opinion the revised plan is 100% better that the previous plan, but additional detail is needed. Utsch further stated that Herges/Heid are simply asking the Planning Commission to give them DRAFT May 3, 2004 Page 50f6 the same permission that was given to Sand Companies. Sand Companies presented a concept plan and the Planning Commission accepted the concept plan and denied the Special Use Permit until a detailed plan can be provided. Utsch stated that the Planning Commission needs to be consistent with their decision making process. Weyrens stated that the Planning Commission must decide if the area in question should be developed as R3. If so, then the Planning Commission should approve the rezoning request, but deny the Special Use Permit until the detailed plan is submitted. If the area should not be developed with R3, then both applications should be denied. Loso made a motion to recommend the Council deny the Special Use Request for Foxmore Hollow as the Planning Commission does not have sufficient information to approve a Special Use Permit. This Developer can re-apply for the Special Use Permit when the design plans are complete and the City will waive the hearing fee. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. The Commission continued to discuss the proposed rezoning of the outlot of the property known as Foxmore Hollow. Deutz stated that it is not his intent to approve a concept plan at this meeting. He agrees that the property should be developed as R3, but R3 does not have to mean apartment complexes. Townhomes are another form of multiple family developments. Deutz questioned if the zoning can be approved upon contingencies. Weyrens responded that zoning cannot be contingent as either it is suitable for multiple family or it isn't. The Planning Commission revised the R3 Ordinance to require R3 developments over 12 units to utilize the PUD process and make application for a Special Use Permit. This process allow the Planning Commission to enter into a development agreement that specifically identifies a pròject. The agreement would also specify a period of time for which the development must occur. Loso made a motion to recommend the City Council rezone Outlot A of Foxmore Hollow to R3, Multiple Family. The motion died for a laèk of a second. Utsch again stated that the Planning Commission must be consistent with their decision making process and decide if the property being discussed, should in fact be developed with multiple family. He stated he is not stating that the Planning Commission must rezone the property, rather decide what is the best use for the property. Graeve questioned Herges as to what market the apartments are being constructed for and if they will be a form of student housing. Herges responded that the housing would be market rate and anyone call live in the únits. The units will consist of a mix of two and three bedroom units. They will be similar to the existing buildings on CR 121. Deutz questioned the location of the holding pond and if it is feasible to construct two (2) twelve unit apartment buildings. Weyrens stated that the City Engineer is reviewing the drainage. The City is working towards regional ponds and it is anticipated that the projects for 2004 will drain to a central pond. If the central pond is not possible then the developer must receive approval from the County Engineer to drain to the ditch along CR 121. Weyrens stated that before the developer submits the application for the Special Use Permit, the drainage must be resolved. At this time the Planning Commission is considering whether or not the concept of two (2) twelve plexes is acceptable. Deutz reiterated that he is not opposed to the R3, but would like a more detailed plan. Loso made a motion to recommend the Council accept the findings of the Planning Commission and rezone Out Lot A of Foxmore Hollow from the current R1 to R3, Multiple Family. The motion was seconded by Schneider. DRAFT May 3, 2004 Page 6 of6 RESOLUTION OF FINDING The request of Bob Herges and Rick Heid to rezone Outlot A of Foxmore Hollow from the current R1, Single Family to R3, Multiple Family. In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: Finding: The rezoning of the above described area is consistent with the St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan. Finding: St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.29, requires the Developer to complete the PUD process and secure a Special Use Permit for R3 structures with more than 12 units. Therefore, the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to review the detailed plans before construction is approved. Ayes: Utsch, Lesnick, Deutz, Loso, Schneider Nays: Graeve Transportation Planninq: Weyrens presented the Planning Commission with proposed transportation illustrations for the re-alignment of CR 2. She further stated that the City is in the process of seeking proposals for completing the transportation study for the location of Field Street. Proposed Housinq Development: Weyrens reported that the Staff has meet with Rick Packer, the project manager for Arcon Development. Arcon is proposing to develop the Heim/Bechtold property as a PUD . with a mix of single and multiple family. The concept plan submitted by the Developer was extremely dense and the Developer has been asked to change the concept to meet the requirements of the Ordinance. R4 Zonino District: Weyrens stated that while reviewing the zoning classifications for multiple family, it appears as though St. Joseph does not have a district that pertains to town home or patio home development. Weyrens questioned if the Planning Commission would considering adding such. By consensus, the Planning Commission agreed to review and discuss adding an R4 Zoning District for the regulation of townhomes and patio homes. Adjourn: Deutz made a motion to adjourn at 9:15 pm; seconded by Loso and passed unanimously. Judy Weyrens Administrator DRAFT May 12, 2004 Page 1 of 2 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the St. Joseph Planning Commission and St. Joseph Park Board . met in Joint session on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 at 6:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Planning Commission Members Present: Chair (Council Liaison) Gary Utsch. Commissioners Jim Graeve, Mike Deutz, Bob Loso, Marge Lesnick. St. Joseph Park Board Members Present: Chair Bruce Berghorst. Board Members Chuck Muske, Dedra Duehs, Marge Lesnick, Bob Loso. Council Liaison Dale Wick. Others Present: AI Rassier. Utsch opened the meeting and stated the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the proposed amendment to Ordinance 54.18, Park Dedication. The Planning requested to meet jointly with the Park to discuss the need for changing the fee and why the change is requested. Weyrens stated that at this meeting the Planning Commission should focus on the methodology of determining the fee, not the rate that will be charged. The City Council will review the request of the Park Board and establish the fee. Berghorst stated that the Park Board was provided information from Waite Park, whereby they completed an analysis of the area Park Dedication policies. This analysis indicated that St. Joseph charged below what the other Cities are charging. In addition, the Cities reviewed all charge the Park Dedication Fee on a per lot basis rather than a percentage ofthe land value. Wick stated that the Park Dedication fees are the only revenue source for the Park Board and those funds must be able to provide recreational opportunities. Loso stated that he is concerned that the City does not budget for Park Development. Weyrens responded that when the City was faced with $ 126,000 in LGA cuts, the Council reviewed the entire budget and tried to determine how to maximize the revenue. The City is experiencing rapids growth and the park dedication fees far exceed any monies the City could budget for Park Development. Therefore, the Council eliminated the 2003 Park Development Budget and stated that until development slows down, -- they will not budget additional funds. Weyrens further stated that the City does provide financial support to the Park as the PublicWorks budget includes maintenance and capital outlay. - Deutz and Utsch stated that they agree that the formula should be based on a per lot fee, but question what the number should be. The City has implemented many new fees and they are concerned that increasing the dedication fee substantially will have a negative effect on development. Utsch stated that he is also concerned that the City requires connection or establishment of trails in addition to the Park Dedication fees. Lesnick stated it is her opinion that the City should be concerned with the profit the developers are making, rather what impact a proposed development has on park requirements. Deutz took exception to the comments of Lesnick and stated the discussion at this meeting should not be what the developer is making, rather the need for the fee and how parks will be sustained. Wick stated that the Park Board is working on a Capital Improvement Plan and some of the improvements include bathrooms for Klinefelter and Northland. It is estimated that the bathrooms will cost approximately $ 25,000 each. Park Development is expensive and the Park Board wants to assure that park development is ongoing and equipment and facilities can be updated and expanded as necessary. Weyrens stated that the fee should be related back to the Capital Improvement Plan and what funds are needed to develop parks based on an established plan. Weyrens stated that the per lot fee is an equitable method and she recommends implementing the new methodology. However, the City needs to make sure that the fee charged is equitable to both the City and developer. Loso made a motion to recommend the City Council adopt an amendment to Ordinance 54.18, Park Dedication fees and change the method for calculating dedication fees from the current percentage of land value to a per lot fee. The per lot fee will apply to all residential zoning DRAFT May 12, 2004 Page 2 of 2 districts, with R1 based on a per lot basis and R3 based on number of units. Commercial and Industrial requirements will remain at 2% of the fair market value. The motion was seconded by . Lesnick. Discussion: Utsch again stated that he is concerned that the City is asking the Developer to contribute a park dedication fee and a trail fee. Deutz concurred with Utsch and questioned if charging the developer for both is equitable. Utsch stated he is not opposed to the new methodology, just the proposed fee. Deutz questioned if the Park Board surveyed the Cities such as Avon? Berghorst stated that he did contact Cities with the same poplulation such as Zimmerman and Baxter. Of all the Communities Berghorst contacted, St. Joseph had the least expensive Park Dedication fee. Loso amended the motion to include that the Cities of St. Cloud, Waite Park, Sauk Rapids, and Sartell will be contacted to determine if their Park Dedication Fees include trails or if the Developer is required to construct trails in addition to the dedication fee. The trail system can include sidewalk andlor bituminous surfacing. If the majority of the Cities contacted include trails, then that will carry forward to a recommendation to the Council. If they have a separate trail requirement, that fee will be added to the dedication fee. Lesnick agreed to the amendment and the motion carried unanimously. Adjourn: Loso made a motion to adjourn at 6:55 pm; seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. Judy Weyrens Administrator -- · I Attachment: Yes orNo I REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Variance Request - Stonehouse Properties LLC DATE: June 7, 2004 AGENDA ITEM Stonehouse Properties - Variance Request - Maximum Size of Sign PREVIOUS ACTION The Planning Commission approved the development plan in 2003 for the Stonehouse Restaurant. When the plan was submitted the Planning Commission acknowledged that a sign would be located on the premise and if the sign meet the Ordinance requirements they could proceed without coming back to the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION -- Deny the Variance request, as the applicant does not meet the requirements for granting a variance. COMMENTSIRECOMMENDATIONS Included in your packet is worksheet for granting a variance. As you review the material in your packet the form can be used to identify any areas that you feel qualify the applicant for the granting of a variance. This same form will be used to clarify the findings of the Planning Commission. \ \ ):~,~ \ ª1 --' <.n W ... ~~~ '" w ~ CITY OF ST. JOSEPH ..--~ www.cityofstjoseph.com J . ~- . City of St. Joseph Public Hearing Administrdtor ludyWeyrens The Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph will conduct a public hearing on Monday, June 7, 2004 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. The purpose of the hearing MdYor is to consider a forty-four foot variance on the maximum size of a business sign. The Ldrry I. Hosch variance is being requested to construct the business sign for Stone House Tavern and Eatery. The property is legally described as Lot One Block One, St. Joseph Business Councilors Park, Plat 2 and is located at 2010 CSAH 75. AI Rdssier St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.31. subd 10 (b) 1: Signs shall have a surface area not Ross Rieke exceeding one hundred square feet per sign face with an aggregate total not to exceed two Gary Utsch hundred (200) square feet if double faced. Dale Wick . The request forVariance has been submitted by Stonehouse Properties, LLC, PO Box 511, St. Joseph MN 56374. Judy Weyrens Administrator ...... Publish: May 28, 2004 2. 'Í Coil e g e Äv e n u e Nor t h · P 0 Box 6 6 8 . S din t. 0 S e ph. M inn C sot d ') 6 , 7 4 Phone ,2.0..,6,.7201 fa x ,2.0.,6,.0,42 MEYER,SCOTT J . 8550 COUNTY ROAD 75 ST JOSEPH MN 56374 t WARt'\TERT,RUSSEL & RONALD 0 14735 FIRESIDE CIR COLD SPRING MN 56320 WARNERTF~\tlLYLTD 3720WEST ST GERMAIN APT 313 ST CLOUD :MN 56301 YAKSICH PROPERTIES LLC 115 RIVERSIDE DR NE ST CLOUD MN 56304 CITY OF ST JOSEPH .... PO BOX 668 ST JOSEPH MN 56374 WESTRA,DUANP & DANI J 5624W OAKES DR ST CLOUD :MN 56303 KREBSBACH R EST HOLDINGS LLC 27884 COUNTY ROAD 2 ST JOSEPH MN 56374 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2151 7TH ST N OMAHA 1\TB 68102 NELSON,P A TRICIA M TRUST PO BOX 42 LONG PRAIRIE MN 56347 I APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE I I CITY OF ST. JOSEPH . 25 College Avenue NW Fee $ Paid I P. O. Box 668 Receipt # St. Joseph, MN56374 Date (320)363-7201 or Fax (320)363-0342 I STATE OF MINNESOTA) I )ss I COUNTY OF STEARNS) l!We, the undersigned, as owners of the property described below, hereby appeal to the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of St. Joseph, Steams County, Minnesota to grant a variance from the St. Joseph City Code; (applicants have the responsibility of checking all applicable ordinances pertaining to their application and complying with all ordinance requirements): I PROPERTY OWNER NAME{S): Shne/Í1D7-l.d-u pyn PfAÅ7¿Ç I LLC, I PROPERTY OWNER PHONE NUMBER{S): (~ZD) 27/,- 27/- Z-50o I / ADDRESS: . 'h I, .d .. ·5: 20 10 c.s. :if 15 Sf ( :JoSe.' h /VIAl 5lI374 ßlf ¡"ntsS Offiu.' P. O. of. 'JII} SI,' JoSeph I 1111V Ç1¡;.37,-/. ZONING DISTRICT: AC::¡ Nðh - H-5+J LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Ld:: I, ßlo()(f lyJJf}. ~~fess Par/L. I Plitt 2- PROPERTY DWNER(S)' SIGNATUREIS): 4I1Jr--/'ß /~ / ~ l \ v -- The request{s) which we desire for our property is/are in conflict with the following section{s) of the St. Joseph City Code: Section Section Do a y of the special conditions and circumstances result from your own actions (if the answer is yes, you may not qualify for a variance)? f) State your reasons for believing that a variance will ~ot confer on you any s ecial privilege that is d,enied by t~e zoning code.t0 other lands, . d ,'. i vé structures or buildings in the same district: " '/ . '~I '4 ' / -H¡".e e~/1.aJt1. I{~(J-- ¡ ¡f. ti;};:Ís~ hfjSlh~~~ ~. -H/Le l~si1¡ 5. trß~ tJJiUt/!r,. ;'1- s-115 t'íí/id r¡¿; -h> (Â../ ,., '1~¡J<5 . dt~ bf "/ A f1.¡ ðf \ ( . D-· . I i ì I í I ¡ . State your reasons for believing 1hat a stricl enforcement of the provisions of 1he zoning code would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means thai the property in question cannot be put 10 a reasonable use if used under the conditions ai/owed by the zoning ordinance. Economic ¡ considerations alone shall not constitute a~ undue hardship under the terms of this code as referenced in state statules: . , / '.. nafu¡/.¿. 0 o-tu/ --- ' I I' S£t,~, t - I J \ I \ aterial submission data requirements, as indicated. ! 1 I .- Date: ç 10 I 011 I ~II 'I '21 Owner Signature: Date: ::> }o I I ¡ FOR OFFICE USE ONL y1 DATE APPLICATION SUBMITTED: DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE: Planning Commission Action: _ Recommend Approval _ Recommend Disapproval Date of Action: Date ApplícanUProperty Owner notified of Planning Commission Action: ~ City Council Action: _ Approved -_Disapproved Date of Action: Date ApplícanUProperty Owner notified of City Council Action: I I I . · PETREKLAW OFFICE P.o. Box 511 Soren Paul Petrek -Attorney 710 CSAH 75 E., #103 St. Joseph, MN 56374 Phone: (320) 271-2500 Fax: (320) 271-3461 Long Prairie Phone: (320) 732-2500 May 24, 2004 JudyWeyrens Adminstrator City of St. Joseph Re: Stonehouse Tavern & Eatery Dear Ms. Weyrens: Please find enc10sedthe amended Developer;sAgreement for the Stonehouse project. Our attorney, ScottHamàk, made some minor corrections. I have signed the corrected version and will sign another formal copy after the changes are incorporated. In the meantime, I intend the signed copy to be in full force and effect for our part. I have alsoinc1uded an addendum to our variance request. Our sign height is too short -- given the base of our sign is four feet below the surface of CSAH75. The ordinance says our sign can only be fifteenfeet in height. Since we're starting four feet below CSAH 75, ourreqùest is to have the whole sign nineteen feettall, that way it will be proportionately and visuàllyattractive. Call with any questions or concerns. sm71! ..~ ... /<J ¡/ir _.. \ Soren Paul Petrek: . PETREK LAW OFFICE SPP:rnp cc: Mike Gohman PETREK LA W OFFICE P.O. Box 511 Soren Paul Petrek - Attorney . 710 CSAH 75 E., #103 St. Joseph, MN 56374 Phone: (320) 271-2500 Fax: (320) 271-3461 Long Prairie Phone: (320) 732-2500 May 10, 2004 Judy Weyrens Administrator City of St. Joseph Re: Stonehouse Tavern & Eatery Variance Dear Ms. Weyrens: Please find enclosed the Stonehouse Tavern & Eatery's application for a variance regarding the exterior signage adjacent to CSAH #75, along with the$200.00 fee. The proposed sign is 144 square feet, 44 feet larger than the ordinance allows. Based on our discussion on May 10, 2004, you indicated that your office would provide the appropriate notice to the adjoining land owners. - I assume that we will receive a notice ofthe planning and zoning meeting where our request will be heard. Thank you. SPP:rnp cc: Mike Gohman · Addendum to Variance Request Stonehouse· Tarvem&E~tery May 10,2004 The applicant has determined that an additional component of the St. Joseph City Code Signage Ordinance adversely affects the projects proposed signage. This is due to the difference between the level ofCSAH and the location of the sign. The base of the sign is four feet below the base of the road, due in part to the set baèk requirements discussed in the original application. The proposed signageis one of a kind and will be best displayed if we can exceed the ordinance limit by four feettomake upforthelost height. The request is based upon all of the aesthetic and safetyreasons touched on before and our desire to display the sign to its full advantage. . We would be adversely affected ¡fwe are not granted the variances requested. .No special privilege would be bestowed upon us, but a denial would cause undue hardship as the sign visibility and appeal would be greatly hindered. P, ,;} '0 i 1/ /1, 'I _ /' ,ry. 'i" r ¡ .//'. - Date: 5/2'1/VY Signed: . /~ ¡} ( / ,M, -Soren Paul P.etrek(applibfut) ,.,"'" , -,"".L-~"" '-J' ;.....,...... \..:>r'd\:!llI\:! H.U. Mdh ler 3¿U ;¿b9-4074 P.Ol ,"" J '" A+I V1 ~ JV1~( k. - I . . . .. ~ ~ ~~ ~ n ;0; [J -r l I I .c:-- I . I I f I I I I I I , , , , I I r 1 I '-{ (fJ ' I , , II" I I . , ~--I I , I I , , [ ¡ I , mO is I I I I I , I , >, ~ ffi i~ : : : ~ , , ~ , , ;I , . ~ ; I 8 ' , RoI : ~ , , : ! ; ! m , , ~O : : . , , , , , - I 1 ~ ~ mC ~ I , , JJ(/) ; I , , I , , , -<m ' , , , I : ,---- - -~:~~-f~ ~ u~p~ i il~! ~ ~ ~ !!! ( n ~ ~ ~ ~ z: Sf ~ "'J( :r::'~" r *'''ì.\~ : ..~>*"..t,~ ~ ~"'~~'~'," :;",.p 6"'- -.<. \'-' Z. ·1 j.... I :( gl i ! ¡ , i ¡ / ,'I" . ¡. ' ,I;;íj:~,~r[-~'::'¡~~¡-~ I. ~ § ,,_" .!_, ' / ',,"j ',' I, I" ' , 8 ",., ";,, , ' . ' ilì!" " ' I I," ~ "!:' .,. " ' ' , I,,' r" ". '. . " ) 0 ~ '-~' . ,~",i :.;:'__0"- ' ,1,,', ,'~ Il ,,' . '1' 7' " "". ,'" """" ' I I'" . ", ",!" ",,,," ,'. , 1 ' , I ~" '1 . ,,' ,"'" ,'" ,," ' ",~ I / " ¡;.. 7'" " , '1"'/1"'" .' ....." !';' 1 J' r,"'''''I ¡ ~ /ll.:"!" \,{¡\~~' l' ",:-c,,-!;-,,,:,' i ¡ ! ' . ' ,F,,'" ., ""..,~ ,,' / " I' I , /!i!j=,;j\~\\f 4<:; ".\f";'0" ',I ¡ I ' " .' AI"~ <þ , . '. ~,,,,,,,',,,, J ! , : , > ' ,'" p",!\I,",,'," ,.é/" "M??" . 1 ' I 1 . I / ,eL",,,,,' ¿:<ëH;;;!î'./ ":i<">""'" !";:¡iI\ ,\,:,?\i,; ,-[, J /I"" ,......'.".' ....'.. .', 'I ,I /",f"1 ,"Ii,","" "', / ,ii,,'\. ~,¡;, [I I ",;I" ' ' ,,' ' ..'"'' .' I, I , I / I/'X"', \' " .'.; . '. " ,.'1", \" i i : " " ' " ,., ," .' 'I' I I- I I i ! " <, '" ,..,., , i 'Cfj' I ' i ~ I . ",",c, ~.:::~,-" ,.' <, , . ! , I . - '_ ~'" ' , , I ' " i ¡ "': 'c~ ,--~;~;~~~:~J~=::~jJ' i <:t: .µ .~ .0 I .~ ..J:: Þ<: ¡:,;¡ <~ D ~ _;;t.~ ~.w: in ~ : 190 ¡ (.)1 ! ",¡ ·1 t) I ~i 'I C I ~I " ¡ In. , ! y; I ,.j ¡ c, J ~! .. . f...· ¡..-... .-J ~ I ~I -. , ! ?): f .. . f.. .. Ii 0: . L r I i "\ ; :-1) ; i .~¡ .¡ iN) .. \~--'" I r (~~ I i ¡ \...---/ I I ! " I ,., 11'1' ¡¡ , !. . II ,¡II ,Iif ,I,ll ¡¡ ! h - I ! ~'I I I!'~ !\" ¡ I¡,'!, , ~~ Õ I:: ¡; p I ¡ "¡ '!' '!!lgI, _", I ; / ð 5 ' V' ¡, ".- II!" I '"!I " ' I !'! ¡ ii; liil ..j ~ ' i' 'u ¡. , I ' . a ~~ 6 r £+ î¡{o & I I~~iª "~§ r / i ¡ ¡II! ¡ I' r,.. ¡i!i ¡.. "i!i ¡~¡ I! ~ I I - '" ,i !I! i 'II ¡iql' I !í Ii!, ¡II!! 'I' I' !,' ¡ ¡ I', , I ig ¡; ¡ga "~~ Is ¡§~~ ~ rh r~ ~ :;~ w~~ / I II ¡ ¡I! II ill !¡li ¡¡¡I! ¡ II IIIII i!i !I , I , I 0 d I iii !! Iii, ¡Ii! ,1m ! Ii !Ii¡, ii, ,Ii / I ¡¡ v~ i ii gl , .!! =_ , , g I !"r~..~ ~ ~ ..~ / ¡ H . .; ~ . ¡ - I ¡ i , I j / I ! 5 . I I I ~.~ d~p;~ i ~~ , I i ¡Ii! d, il! ¡o! ! I¡ / 1" ,,¡eR ~rg Ai r i ' ¡ "a i to 5 )! , I ~ i i g!le .Ui ~I B" ~" ¡~ ~/ I ! ,I, r 1111, ;. II ¡II! ~~~. -§ 6 ð I, '0 i~ ¡ !! ¡!Ii J~ ~ib ~I :~ ~v !~ I "- <' - // ~ ~ ~ i:l":. H ...: I I' 8' I ï " .! .I , I / , g / ð g ~ , g ~ / ~ a . . ~I , / , / , / , / , / -- --- -- --- -~I~ , ~-------- / '11\ Þ' ¡-u. [} [} , /~ ~ - - - - --- - .µ - - .", - _n - .D -- ~ u_ or-! . . ~. ~ - u. n i ..c , x - w - . , L. Subd. 10: Signs. In the B-2 Highway 75 Business district the general provisions apply to all signs. - a) Business and Wall signs may be erected, attached or painted on to a structure and Advertising signs shall be prohibited. They are defined as follows: 1. Business Sign. A sign that is related to the business located on the same property to which it is located. 2. Wall Sign. A sign painted or placed against or attached to the exterior wall surface of a building or structure. 3. Advertising Sign. A sign which directs attention to a business, profession, commodity, service or entertainment which is sold or offered on a premise other than that on which the sign is located. b) Business signs may be erected, attached or painted on to a structure, and maintained in conjunction with a commercial use provided: 1. Signs shall have a surface area not exceeding one hundred square feet per sign face with an aggregate total not to exceed two hundred (200) square feet if double faced. 2. Such sign except a directional sign, is erected only on the premise on which the use, to which the sign relates, is conducted. 3. Notwithstanding the above, where two or more separate and individual businesses are conducting business in separate areas of a single building or structure, in which each operation owns or leases separate and individual premises, but share in the use and maintenance of common areas within or around the structure, then and in those circumstances, each individual business operation may be permitted to display an individual business sign as provided in subdivision a) and b) of this Section, except that said sign must be directly attached to that particular premises actually occupied by the business operation to which the sign relates. For the purpose of this subdivision, a combination of two or more business operations within a single structure includes, but is not limited to, shopping centers, shopping malls, and subdivided retail, office or industrial buildings offered for lease or condominium ownership. c) Wall signs may be placed or painted against the exterior wall or surface of a building or structure and are subject to the following regulations: 51. ~ ( 1. That the wall sign does not exceed one and one-half ( 1 'l'í) square feet per - lineal lot front foot or fifteen percent (15%) of the building frontage area - or seventy five (75) square feet, which ever is the greatest. 2. Wall signs shall not project above the roof. d) Advertising or pylon signs shall not be pennitted. / I / I I / I / I / 1 , ,/ ¡ ~ / . . I ¡t " i I I ! / ~ , ¡ ! I I ! I / I ~ .I ! , I ¡ ,~ ,.. I () I ./ .0 I ø iJ /i ¡i 'ì II ~ P!¡ I~ II~ /I tr rJ/ ,I I ~/ IL¡ fr'ldl! Illi I ~B ì! Ii Un !' § ~ I / ~ ¡ i~ ¡Pr¡! ¡Iii I ¡ I ~i ! II' 1. ~ i1¡¡ 1.: / /1 ~ð¡¡ ft I < . . I 9 , . ": ¡ I ' , / G Iii .,¡ '1111 Ii ¡ 1111 II~ I!:í ¡i !Ij i Ii I I / I I" I!'· , "i'l I,ll,!, ,II' II / I~ Ii! ilill Ii ¡ ¡I!I, IIII il! j! ¡II ¡ I I 'd !i! ¡¡I!i ~ I ¡¡~ 1,,1 !il 'I ili Iii / I I¡ 1'1 ,!,I ¡, ¡I., 1'" .11, ¡ Ii' / ¡ Ii, 'III; I' iil :11 iØ ' II. I !¡I·.li I :I~ Ilil "I I P "n' II "II ! ¡II 1,11\ ~! III'. , I ' (-;::;) '\'''T'F ;ë? ¡~:¡ ¡~~ î i{j) 1~-i ~;.o k-~ in J i2 !;t1 !F1 [Ell' bik ~ ¡ ~l ft....): -ia I Œ Œ, g it"~ "S !!J( - õlii¡ - w !! ~ ~r.r"'I';"" J.t. _______ "w._ w"',,- ""'_"" __F,^,",'.~A ....."1.. It b.ho " .. ..______________ - 10 ¡:~:';::.' .. 983.~. ;¡;;¡¡;;;;:"~;; ;t --- AND UTlU~.~ PLÞ.N .. (3Z0) Z9Ø-.. 0 HOUSE TAVC!{N ':=. (no) a,,,,olo . MINNf50T.Ä - - - - -.- - - - - - - . - ,-,-'t:P-~~~~~4~~!Ii%'¡¡;~~:tÔ$*-rø.:;m:';;,øw.~::;"""~"~L~~J,,:gO;""M~ tr:1 ~ ::r -J. eT' -J. rt :Þ ~ ~~~~ ~~¡.: ~ ~ ~ þ~§~~~!~ ¡¡ ~ " ~ H~ ~¡¡ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ii ~ R ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ¡¡ ~ ,.. 0 z or. fj :;u ~ . ~ ... () [:J ~ " ~ ~ æi'k iI ~ ~~_ ~ ~;m<.;>;: ~~~~*W;.\&.õ,Y.r.-m:W.'!-",lliŸ;;<" I I City of St Joseph Development Routing Form f Site Plan Submitted (Date): May 24. 2004 I Developer: Stonehouse Properties. LLC Planning Commission (Date): June 7. 2004 (Anticipated agenda date) I Date Plan is routed to appropriate departments May 26. 2004 I Comments to be returned by: June 2. 2004 I Proj ect Type Preliminary Plat B I Development Industrial I Final Plat X B2 Development R2 Development PUD B3 Development R3 Development I Departments for which comments are requested: re X City Engineer X Public Works X Building Inspector X City Attorney X Fire Chief EDA I Development Specifics: I Stonehouse Properties LLC is requesting a variance to construct a si'Zn exceeding the Ordinance Maximum of 1 00 square feet per face. The request is to allow an additional 44 square feet, making the sign a total of 144 square feet. The attached exhibit illustrates the proposed sign. The dimension of the I sign face is 6' x 2f '. The height of the sign is 19 '. As staff we had originallv informed the developer he could not exceed 15' in height as we thought that was included in the new Ordinance. It was missed in the uvdate, therefore we cannot enforce the height requirement. We will be coming back to the Planning I Commission for an amendment to the Sign Ordinance to resolve this issue. I Please review the attached development plans and submit written comments by the date indicated above. This form must be réturned to the City Offices by the date stated above. If you do not have any concerns please indicate so on the lines provided below. I I " Department Signature Date I Page lof 1 . I Judy Weyrens ~m' "Tom Jovanovich" <tjovanovich@rajhan.com> To: "Judy Weyrens" <jweyrens@cityofstjoseph.com> Cc: "Barb Zierden" <bzierden@local.rajhan.com> Sent: Thursday, May 27,20044:54 PM I Subject: Stonehouse Sign Variance Judy, I,have reviewed the application for a variance from the sign ordinance requirements. It is my opinion that the request does not eet the requirements for granting a variance for the following reasons: I 1. The proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The ordinance provides that on site business signs in the B-2 Highway 75 Business district be limited to 100 square feet. The request is to approve a sign that I is 144 square feet. This is an increase of the permitted size by 44%. This is not a minor change and it would allow for a substantial increase in the size of a business sign. It clearly goes well beyond the size of a sign that the City has authorized for this District. 2. The applicant has not shown any special conditions and circumstances which are particular to the land or structure which I do not apply to other land in the same District. other properties face the same set back requirements and many other properties in the same District are as far or farther away from CSAH 75 as this property. 3. The applicant has not demonstrated that the literal application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights I commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. The sign requirement allows the applicant to conduct a commercial business in the same manner as any other property owner in the same district. The applicant argues that the lettering needs to be·visible by motorists passing on CSAH 75. This assertion has not been proven by the applicant and even if it were true, it would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. It All property owners are subject to the same sign restrictions. Additionally, if the appiicant beiieves the current design has lettering that is too small, the sign can be redesigned to have larger lettering. . The applicant has not shown that strict enforcement of the sign regulations will cause undue hardship. Undue hardship I means that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions of the ordinance. -Here the property is being used in the exact manner the applicant wants to use the property, and that use is a restaurant. The fact that the sign is not as large as the applicant would like is not sufficient grounds for a variance. If the applicant believes that I motorists may have a difficult time reading the sign as designed, the applicant can redesign the sign with larger letters. The sign regulations do not prevent a reasonable use of the land as a restaurant. The applicant is in no different position than any other business in this district. 5. If this variance is granted based on the submission of the applicant, the B-2 Highway 75 Business sign restrictions will I essentially be changed to a minimum of 144 square feet since the applicant has provided no evidence that the applicant is in a different position than any other business in this district. If you have any questions regarding this opinion please call. I 10m Jovanovich ajkowski Hansmeier Ltd. 320-251-1055 rvanOVich@rajhanoCOm ~s is a transmission ftom Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd. and may contain information which is privileged, confidential, d protected by the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges. If you are not the addressee, note that any lsc1osure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this t""ission in error, please destroy it and notifY my office immediately at our telephone nnmher (320) 251-1055. I 6/2/2004 -- j¿. . SEH MEMORANDUM TO: Judy Weyrens FROM: Tracy Ekola, PE DATE: June 2, 2004 RE; St. Joseph, Minnesota Stonehouse Tavern SEH No. A-STJOE 0401 D41 The purpose of this memorandum is to provide comments regarding the proposed sign for Stonehouse Tavern. The base/rock benn for the sign is located within a private stonnwater pond on the Stonehouse Tavern site. From a stormwater capacity and engineering standpoint, the location of the sign is acceptable. However, pond maintenance will be difficult with this proposed sign location. This pond is a private pond and will not be turned over to the City of St. Joseph. Maintenance of the pond will be the responsibility of the property owner. If you have any questions, please call me at 320.229.4406. c: Ron Wasmund Joseph Bettendorf, SEH Dick Taufen; City of St. Joseph x:\s\stjoe\020600\cofT\m-jweyems043004.doc Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 1200 25th Avenue South, P.O. Box 1717, St. Cloud. MN 56302-1717 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com 320.229.4300 I 800.572.0617 I 320.229.4301 fax . I 'nspectran Inc. t' I Memo I To: Planning Commission Members, JudyWeyrens City Administrator From: Ron Wasmund, Building Official I Date: 6/3/2004 Re: Stonehouse Tavern Sign Plan Review I ~ I Background Stonehouse Properties, LLC. has applied for a sign permit to install a monument sign in the northwest comer of their site. The sign design consists of a 3' high berm covered with stone. I two 3'x3' concrete pillars 91 tall supporting a 6' diameter log. Suspended from the log is a wooden sign face with painted letterlng_ The sign face measures 6'x24' or 144 square feet. The sign face is proportionate to the mass of the sign created by the stone covered base and ,. heavy log element of the cross frame. The property is located in the B-2 zoning district. The sign ordinance allows a maximum of 100 square feet of sign face in the B-2 zoning district. I Stonehouse Propertìes, LLC has applied for a variance to the sign face,límitation. They feel that the larger sign will help identify the site and keep business in the City of St. Joseph. FindinQ-s I The proposed sign is unique in its design and location. It will readily identify the site. This is a sparsely developed comer with little or no competition for motorist attention compared to a I business along 2nd Street or Division Street in St. Cloud and Waite Parle This site is obvious. A reduction of 44% in the sign face will have little effect on the prominence of this site. I In r eVÎew 0 f t he variance a pplic;ation, I find nothing unique tot his s ite or sign d $Sign to support a variance. By granting a varianœ we would be providing privileges not given to others in the same zoning district. Literal interpretation of .the ordinance does not deprive the I applicant an opportunity for a sign. I Recommendations I feel the sign can be proportionately scaled down preserving the unique design and I character. I recommend not approving the variance request. t' . Page 1 I 2:13 39t'd 8NI NOè!183dSNI ø8saznS9 LÞ:60 Þ002:/£ø/90 -- . ~ -- _(~)[¿~~!t.~_~- ;~;J:_<'2{?___n_ _ __ ______ _ u I ..~~------_____~ n. ._. '___ . "". ____ ... '. ,h n, -~ ,-,n ........ ¡¡;¡,n '~-ti . ....... '. .".n: j .;¡. . . l/ i/" _n.. 1--- '-. . -.: ...1 I. L~.Û.f.... -tJ2L~n.,.t..-.L~.~t¿1¿B_.è.',Q_-A..Æ¿--.-J~c__.----.- -'...,-_.:..-::.....~.~~:~~--x:;y..L-f4U.7... -__-fZ.-w~-L-l.-(\..¿ft¿;'-~~.. __.:!--=-..ì : J /L-A-- . ... .. nn.). ~~;1iA~:~~~?~:'¡__bF;;);~:~9~~ ~!::4J~'I.i'~7=' ~ (/::>. 'I, " / M . I '. & (! v . ---- . - ~~--- - - - -~-121--1l2:0{¿j!'01- &t.L~.Jfdl--uø~~ß~®{4kA. _~< _ f:"t}~__ _ ____ __ _ I - #--:? " n__ _ ___/1 _ -~-'!é~7o.J. _./ ~ _ . a ~~ _____ _ __~______________ ________ _ _____ _____ ________ ________ I -u_ ... riÆ~'-¡ ;--~¡,- """"'" ;i-c-- --_n;_:.., ------.. ;n/¿~Á . . ··n. - . .bl, . £ -~ [L;tJ. JM¡yL LJU,~r"¿c.{4J ft?"" ,{l!U<, ~{.¿~~~£ _ _ _,_ ..-- .t4. ./J1:b.'I?'- .1.J)dÆ,<lud..k4~lc~~~~~.1 J';; __ I fC.~ ~ r/.~:;; {l Ln_ _ ð'// {7 ~/ # j/ .... . .. .-ð-AJ/ii}~ Ô'it£, -'-. ~~~-~--~L!".Lf4'_n '. - .. ..-' ,,1~ctllP"1 L2:t~ 11¿;;- . n ~ ø ..-.r?~.../~ ' . ,br/a~ ~~.:<-:e ~~j;:{t1'¿1Z;"rT--n,-. ~ ;;,a~- . '-- .--,~t::::b.-.Jl-~ z ~:~-.~j4¢Z~~;~£--- -4 ? - - ,--d---{-----1l~--, - . -fT' u_ .. -.n ". ..~. ..~.i';"".-.? :j.d~~:t::.:{1 -¿~tL.L¡¿AL-;~:~~~...e~.:f:..'d..~.'Í.~(~ž:¿¿ I- '{f /)" c.R ,,,{ tl ~ ,,--J,A.¿-a u,,~, -J~-4---d,¿z.;¿-~-d~~_f;;~?~:-:y ~-j¿.¿J _~&(.!.-:<ç{/' _._ ..f ""_u__ _I'" 'iTn .. .. - ul..__ -- -'u - -_0 _'''_ __"'_ '.. . ·u. -.h~~<d/ildjQW1LI¿.iL' I>Ó-./)rI1¿Ju~'¿~~_ ! i~ . . ¡ JJ ' . ¡ IJ ' 15 ' --~-__U --~'..~.:".' \-'-....---JL..~-e.ß!-7t.--.-. _~u_. - - . '.. --. '- --.Æ~ Á.·. -..--~.""..ßL... . .~."". _.' ..-~4?&.. ~.~ _¿.....:._.. ___~ /l./.A'!! £.¿'~;__..- I "~ I .,t.~¡?D ,/) 'Jþ J . ..:i¡i. -id~ ..ku.d1L ,.4"" " ,I... å¥:' A4<L&4'Ù~'k-!.~¿&cJ1!'Ø4.,t1 . - . .... .').'£ ',,< . r, /' ·1" . ". H nm--=:tf?M'€I{..~tit., 1.¥~J<¿~""~.4:¿L_ . ..__ ... ___.. . ... mn m.· --. n - - -- - --.1').--# - -,.. _ /'_._ ~: ..__.. m _ u__. . tø' .£~- ß~ . A J '?Ù'-" '. -e' , ,-- - --. U, ---_u.____. -- --- -------------~----~__;_'{;, {,,'''. --"'Cd_____~~____ _ ____._.__ __ _ _____ _. ---__n_ _____ ----___u______________._ ". _u,~ "~--un, '---------~Cr-u-~7Ì-;:;~'1u- '":"--.--..--.7J----)'----J,----.. U-í -{1------:?~ --d-u-----n--:;--~--------------. ',1"'// /,~ '" ~'" /, /., I ------1tÙkq~L_¡ Øhlø4~u~:~'f~~ ¿¿~4__~- I "u_ nu u . ..._ ..~_ I-u-- ---- U -------- -- -- ----___n_.. .a .., -_n.____ _un, ... _u__._ ....... --.-. 'n ---- -"U'" --'m_ .. n____ n '_.. ___ '.. ._.. 1'_ m,..._ mm'n_ _ m.. ,. u.. -- I ..L lallHmg L..Oll1lJ.llS~lOner Variance Worksheet I I I I Subd.2: Variances. a) Administration. A variance may be granted to allow a property owner to deviate from the {' specific developmertt standards applicable to a particular district. A variance shaIl not be granted to allow ausè that is not otherwise permitted in the district involved. In granting a variance the Board, or the Council in reviewing the Board's decision, may prescribe appropriate I conditions in conformity with this Ordinance to protect properties and the health and safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. When such conditions are made part of the terms under which the váriance is granted, violation ofthe conditions is a violation of this Ordinance. A variance shall not be granted by the Board, Dr by the Council upon review, unless I they find the following facts: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the I property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. The exceptional or extraordinary circumstances must not be the result of actions taken by the petitioner. I Applicable: Yes - No If yes, please indicate finding: I 2. That the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the I petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. Applicable: - Yes No Ie If yes, please indicate finding: I 3. - That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands in the same district. I Applicable: Yes No - - If yes, please indicate finding:· I 4. That the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or diminish or impair established property values within the -- surrounding area, or in any other respect impair the public health, safety or welfare of I the residents of the City. Applicable: - Yes - No I If yes, please indicate finding: I 5. That the condition or situation of a specific piece of property, or the intended use of said property, for which the variance was sought, is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for I such conditions or a situation. Applicable: Yes No - - " If yes, please indicate finding: I Planning Commissioner Variance Worksheet J I 6. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship on the particular property. Applicable: - Yes - No If yes, please indicate finding: 7. . That the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the zoning ordinances or property within the same zoning c1assjfication. Applicable: - Yes - No If yes, please indicate rmding: b) Variance Procedure. Application for a variance or appeal under the provisions of this section I- shall be made to the City Administrator/Clerk in the form of a written application, called a Development Review Application. The Development Review Application must be submitted three weeks prior to a variance request. . 1. The City Administrator/Clerk shall review all Development Review Applications and upon completion of the requirements of the application shall schedule a pliblic hearing. I I The City Administrator/Clerk shall have ten (10) days to review the application for In completeness. Notice of such hearing shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days nOT .- more than thirty (30) days to property o\-vners within 350 feet of the affected parcel as determined by the City Administrator/Clerk Such notice shall also be published in the tI official newspaper within the above time period. Failure of a property o\-vner to receive said notice shall not invalidate any such proceedings. 2. A variance of this Zoning Ordinance -shall be by majority vote of the full Board of n J Appeals and Adjustments. i I 3. If the Board of Appeals and Adjustments determines that the application be granted, the I Board of Appeals and Adjustments shall make its recommendation to the City Council within thirty (30) days of such determination. Upon receipt of such report, the City i Council shall either by resolution approve and confirm the decision, whereupon the I I~ permit as applied for may be issued, or shall refuse to approve and confirm the decision. If the City Council acts on an application granted by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, the City Council shall make its order deciding the matter and serve a copy . of such order upon the appellant or the petitioner by mail within ten (10) days after its decision. i ¡ 4. If the Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the application the Board shall make its I order and serve a copy of such order upon the appellant or petitioner by mail within ten (10) days after its decision. The appellant or petitioner may appeal the decision of the I Board of Appeals and Adjustments to the City Council by filing a written request of appeal with the City Administrator/Clerk ten (10) days afterreceipt of the written denial from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. The City Council shall review the decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments within thirty (30) days after notice of I said appeal. The City Council shall make its order deciding the matter and serve a copy of such order upon the appellant or the petitioner by mail within ten (10) days after its .. decision. i ·1 I I I Attachment: Yes or No I ,. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION I District 742 - Building Expansion DATE: June 2, 2003 I I AGENDA ITEM I District 742 ~ Request for authorization to secure a building permit to add portable classrooms to Kennedy Elementary School I PREVIOUS ACTION The Planning Commission on July 2, 2003 considered the same request to add two modular classrooms. I The School District indicated that the buildings would be temporary until a new facility could be constructed. Ie RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION I Authorize the application for a building permit contingent upon the approval of the Building Official. I COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS As the plans for the temporary classrooms did not arrive until Wednesday, June 2, they have not been I reviewed by the Building Official. However, in reviewing the Ordinance requirements for setback and lot coverage, it meets or exceeds the requirements. The School District is actively seeking space for a new facility and the modular classrooms are only a temporary fix. I I I I " I I I Extract of the July 3, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting I District 742 - Temporary Classrooms .. Independent School District 742 - Kennedv Elementary Temporary Expansion: Weyrens reported that I Kennedy Elementary (District 742) is requesting authorization to secure a building permit to construct temporary classrooms at Kennedy Elementary School. District 742 is in the process of re-structuring and has added 5th and 6th grade to Kennedy The addition of two grades will create a space shortage at the current facility and until a permanent structure can be constructed, District 72 is requesting to place two I modular classrooms on the site. Weyrens clarified that the property in question is zoned Educational and Ecclesiastical. In reviewing the Ordinance requirements, the plan submitted by District 742 meets all the setback and lot coverage requirements. Further, the Public Works Director has been consulted and the I proposed addition will not create drainage issues. AI Haus of Independent School District 742, approached the Planning Commission stating they have decided to utilize two 24'x72' portable enclosure with metal exterior that will accommodate two I classrooms. This enclosure will be used on a temporary basis for three to four years, Upon completion of this lease, an addition to Kennedy Elementary will probably ensue. Loso made authorizing Independent School District 742 to make application for a building permit I to construct two 24'x72' custom modular classroom to alleviate the overcrowding at Kennedy Elementary School. The buildings will be maintained no longer than July 7,2008. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously by those present. I " I I I I I I I .. I I I · d742 . I S /£[?ii~ØÞ'~cO r 9 I 142 ~,~J J ~arlment of Buildings & Ground, ~ð';;~g \\)\ ~ . triet Services Building Telephone: (320) 253-9370 Web site: http://isd742.orsfdsb.htmI Clear Lake 737 Osseo Avenue South 1TY: (320) 202-6800 E-mail: dsb®isd742.org Clearwater St. Qoud, Minnesota 56301 Fax: (320) 253-9376 Col/egeville I Luxemburg Pleasant Lake St. Augusta St. Cloud I St. Joseph Waite Park June 2,2004 I I City of S1. Joseph 25 North College Ave. S1.Joseph,~ 56374 I GentlemenlLadies: I To further alleviate the over-crowding at Kennedy Elementary S1. Cloud, the St. Cloud School District has decided to utilize two additional portable enclosures, 24' x 68'. These enclosures will be used on a temporary basis for 3-4 years. Each enclosure will accommodate lit two classrooms. All construction including the portables, will be according to local and state codes. Please respond favorably to this request at your earliest convenience as a September 7, 2004, start-up is warranted. I Thank you for your consideration in this request. I S:;7~ I El Haus, Supervisor I Buildings and Grounds I I I " I inn> ; f-' ~.:. !![.~: ':1;;,-> I ~OO'··'8 NV1d :L1.IS 'OOH?S ;..œJNN3) Ø(\Uø"~ øE>ø\lO') - \ J.01 9N1*Vå "J.5Ixa \ 'aNV1 õn:Il::! "I os-t"I 51 J."IH.L ~ ....V"W ~ ~~ aaA"Iå 51 9N1a1lna ::JO ~~ ~:ÐJI::I \ ~ \ 9Nla"I01 sna ·J.5Ixa \ \ \ \ \ \ '9NI*VcI ·J.5Ixa \ \ \ \ \ - \ -- \ - - - \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -~ \ \ --~- \ -~ - - L ------ ---- - -'- - - - - - - ~- - - - - --'- - · I Attachment: Yes or No I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION WHY USA - Rezoning DATE: June 3, 2004 Administration ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM Why USA - Request to conduct a public hearing for the rezoning of property on Birch Street East. PREVIOUS ACTION The City Council considered the request of WHY USA to rezone property along Birch Street East on May 20,2004. The Council voted on a motion to approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission and rezone certain property along Birch Street East from current Rl, Single Family to B2, Highway Business. The motion was seconded and passed by a 3-2 vote. However, a change in land use requires a - 4/5th vote of the Councilor 2/3rd. Therefore, the motion failed. - I have reviewed this matter with Tom Jovanovich who agrees that_the vote required for rezoning is Statutory and is included in the Ordinance Book in the same fashion. Once the Council acts on the rezoning request, the decision is final and cannot be appealed. The Ordinance does allow fora petitioner to resubmit the same application if the Council agrees with a 2/3rd vote RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION Consider the request to conduct a new public hearing for the rezoning along Birch Street and waive the public hearing fee FISCAL IMPACT COMMENTSIRECOMMENDATIONS - - Extract of the May 20, 2004 City Council Me~ting WHY USA - Rezoning Request Public Comments to the Aqenda: . Jerry Hasselbrink, court appointed attorney for Arthur Klein, addressed the Council regarding the rezoning of Birch Street East. He stated that the residential houses in the affected area should be maintained as single family homes. He also addressed the topic of affordable housing and stated that the St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan refers to affordable housing and the area in discussion contains affordable housing, meeting one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Hasselbrink also discussed the following: · People who are interested in living in that area would like this to remain a residential neighborhood. · If a person stands at the corner of Birch Street and 151 Ave, and they look west, they will see commercial, but if they look east, there is a lot of green area that protects those homes and makes it a livable area. · He feels there is no need for commercial development in the City ofSt. Joseph · Hasselbrink stated that there is a need for the City to maintain affordable housing. · If the re-zoning takes place, this will incorporate a "fly-over" mentality in which the neighborhood will not be treated with respect. · This will either interfere with neighborhoods or it will continue to provide affordable housing. Andrew Berger, 26 E Birch Street, stated that he sees this as a benefit to himself and his wife as well as the City. He stated that this is a risk that they are taking, but they are in favor of the re-zoning. Hasselbrink addressed the Council again and stated that he feels the Council should be representing those who are not going to profit from the re-zoning and that the Council should take a closer look at the original petition and the legality of the number of signers needed. Why USA - Rezoninq Request - Birch Street East: Janel Weisen of Why USA addressed the council . representing the buyer of 38 Birch Street East. She stated that the petition for reaoning was submitted so that the house located at 38 Birch Street East could be converted to office space. The office will not be ~ disruptive to the neighborhood as the hours will be Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM. Hosch stated that approval of a rezoning requires a super majority (4/5 vote) of the Council to pass. Wick questioned how many properties are involved in the rezoning petition. Weyrens stated that there were six (6) properties initially but the Planning Commission expanded the area including the two properties east of 1st Avenue NE and abutting Birch Street East. It was the opinion of the Planning Commission that the entire area should be included at this time as it is consistent with the future land use plan of the Comprehensive Plan. Rieke asked for some background on the issue. Utsch spoke on behalf of the Planning Commission. He stated that a Public Hearing conducted by the Planning Commission to rezone the property abutting Birch Street from the current R1, Residential to B2, Highway Business. The finding from the Planning Commission is that the rezoning of the area in question is consistent with the St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan. The City also received a petition requesting the rezoning from over 50% of the property owners affected. The Planning Commission took a lot of issues into consideration before recommending the Council rezone the property from the current R1, Single Family to B2, Highway Business. Some of the issues discussed include the fact that it will be hard to sell that property as residential in the future and not too many people want to live along County Road 75. Rassier stated that when he and Hosch were elected, one of the first things they looked at was where businesses should be located and Birch Street was seemed like an obvious location. At that time, a Public Hearing was conducted to rezone the same property being discussed at this meeting. The Planning Commission and Council agreed to wait to rezone the property until a time when it was ready for development. Now, we have slow interest moving businesses into that area. Wick stated that he has a couple of concerns with this rezoning. .-. 1. We don't know how the property will be used once it has been rezoned. - 1 Extract of the May 20, 2004 City Council Meeting WHY USA - Rezoning Request 2. We don't know how they will use the alley and side street. . Utsch spoke again and stated that by rezoning this area, we would be following the Comprehensive Plan. He also says that the Council should look at the request as though it were initiated by the Planning Commission, as they added to the area and authorized the public hearing. Utsch again stated that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Wick stated that the findings of the Planning Commission indicate the request has been submitted by WHY USA, therefore, a boundary survey and development plan should have submittèd. Weyrens stated that she has discussed the matter with the City Attorney, and there are two ways the issue can be resolved: 1. The Council can by motion acknowledge that the City Council initiated the petition for rezoning and after the motion is voted and passed they can then discuss the results of a public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission. 2. The Council can deny the request of Why USA and have the Council or Planning Commission motion to initiate the process and conduct a new public hearing. Hosch stated that he does believe the Planning Commission initiated the process in part by adding the remaining two houses. However, his concern with the rezoning is some of the permitted uses within the B2 Zoning Ordinance. Hosch clarified that he is not opposed to the rezoning, but would like to discuss further what uses should be allowed abutting Birch Street. For example, a strip mall would be detrimental to the abutting residential district and that use is permitted in the B2 Zoning District. Hosch stated that in reviewing the Zoning Ordinances he would prefer to rezone the area in discuss to B1, General Business. Weyrens stated that before that could be considered, the Comprehensive Plan must be amended. Rassier made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission to rezone the property abutting Birch Street from R1 to B2. The resolution of findings include that the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded by Utsch. . Ayes: Utsch, Rieke, Rassier Nays: Hosch, Wick Motion Carried 3:2:0 (Motion fails due to 4/5 requirement) ~ Hosch stated that he is not opposed to the rezoning or the conversion of the property at 38 Birch Street East to an office building. He doesn't want to rezone the whole area for fear of making a rezoning mistake. Utsch stated that as a result of the request being denied, it must go through the process again and go back to the Planning Commission. Utsch questioned Hosch and asked if he would rather rezone one piece of property at a time. Hosch says he would like to see a plan lot being developed. With that being said, Utsch asked him if he wanted to see a plan every time even though it is in accordance with the Ordinance. According to the way the Ordinance(s) are written, Rieke said that is not part of the process and to require such would require an Ordinance(s) change. Hosch stated that he is concerned about the permitted uses under B2. He would like to have a moratorium put on that area for future uses until this matter is resolved. Weyrens asked the Council ifit would be acceptable to rezone the area and look at requesting a Special Use Permit for property abutting a residential area. Hosch is concerned about certain businesses such as retail strip malls or grocery stores. Utsch stated that he would rather rezone the area property by property rather than rezoning the whole area and then having to go through the Special Use process after the area has been rezoned. Hosch made a motion to table action on the rezoning request and instruct the Planning Commission to consider amending the B2 Zoning Ordinance requiring a Special Use Permit for development abutting a residential neighborhood. The motion was seconded by Rieke. Ayes: Rieke, Hosch Nays: Utsch, Wick, Rassier Motion Failed 2:3 .- Rieke stated that it is his opinion that the neighborhood in question is ready to convert to business uses. Hosch stated he would like to amend the Ordinance to require any new business within 100 feet of a - 2 Extract of the May 20,2004 City Council Meeting WHY USA - Rezoning Request residential area, apply for a Special Use Permit. Utsch stated that issuance of a Special Use Permit would require the Planning Commission to draft a new Ordinance. Utsch further stated that the Council can not . take parts of B1 B2, and B3 and put them together without going through a public hearing process. Rassier stated that the City needs to decide what type of business fits a certain area and the Council needs to follow the guidelines established in the Comprehensive Plan that was just adopted in 2003. Hosch stated that it was not his intent to deny the rezoning request, but cannot vote on the amendment to the Zoning Map in the present format. Utsch again stated that if a new zoning classification is desired, that hearing process requires approximately two months. After the Ordinance is amended, WHY USA would need to re-apply to have the property rezoned and a new public hearing would be required. Hosch stated that he would support waiving the application fee for WHY USA. Rieke made a motion to clarify where the petition came from, acknowledging that the petition before the Council to rezone certain property on Birch Street East from R1, Single Family to B2, Highway Business was initiated by the City Council. The motion was seconded by Rassier. Ayes: Utsch, Rassier, Rieke, Hosch Nays: Wick Rassier questioned the Council as to where this is going? Rieke stated that Hosch wants to change the Ordinance and he is trying to determine a method whereby the property could be rezoned B2 and the neighborhood could be protected as well. Rassier stated that the Planning Commission considered the matter before the Council and it is his opinion that the Council should not micro-manage the actions of the Planning Commission. Hosch made a motion to table the rezoning request to review the Zoning Ordinance and determine a method in which the abutting neighborhood is protected from development. Motion dies for lack of a second. . -.-.. - - 3 Sec. R-4 TOWNHOME DISTRICT. . Subd. 1. Intent. The intent of the R-4 Townhome District is to accommodate a variety of single-family housing types, including single-family detached and single- family common wall attached housing units such as townhomes or rowhouses at low to moderate residential densities. The R-4 District is intended for those areas designated as medium and/or high density residential areas or residential planned unit developments within the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. a) Uses under Section 52.28, Subd. 2, except 52.28, Subd. 2 (b). b) Structures housing three (3) or more dwelling units of not more than two (2) stories each and contiguous to each other only by the sharing of common walls, such structures to be of the town or row house type, as contrasted to multiple-dwelling apartment structures Subd.3. Uses under Special Use Permit. The following uses shall require a Special Use Permit based on the procedures set forth in this Ordinance. a) Uses under Section 52.28, Subd. 3. / . Subd.4. Permitted Accessory Uses. ~ a) Uses under Section 52.28, Subd. 4. Subd. 5: Lot Area Requirements. a) Minimum lot area of 4,000 square feet per unit. Subd. 6: Setback Requirements. a) Per Section 52.28, Subd. 6. Subd. 7: Building Requirements. a) Building height shall not exceed two (2) stories or 35 feet as measured from the average grade of the land. b) The net housing density within the district is six (6) [alternative eight - (8)J units per acre of net buildable area of the subdivision. Net - buildable area shall be the total area less public street rights-of-way, . wetlands, drainageways, water bodies and slopes greater than twelve (12) percent. c) No more than 8 dwelling units shall be constructed within one structure. d) Each dwelling unit shall have two or more individual, separate entrances [alternative additional text to both the front and rear yard] . e) Provisions for shelter in the event of severe weather for each dwelling unit shall be demonstrated either in the form of the construction of a free-standing severe weather structure, a reinforced concrete safe room within each dwelling unit and/or basement/crawl space sufficient to house four (4) adults per dwelling unit. f) Buildings shall be designed to prevent the appearance of straight, unbroken lines in their horizontal and vertical surface. There shall be no more than two continuous townhouse dwelling units without a break in the horizontal and/or vertical elevations of at least thirty-two (32) inches. g) Provision shall be made for possible decks, porches or additions as part of the initial dwelling unit building plans. The unit lot shall be . configured and sized to include decks, patios, or porches. h) The exterior oftownhome dwelling units shall include a variation in building materials, which are to be distributed throughout the building facades and coordinated into the architectural design of the structure to create an architecturally balanced appearance. The preferred materials are: brick, stucco, stone, steel/vinyl/aluminum and fiber-cement siding. In addition, a minimum of 25 percent of the combined area of all building facades of a structure shall have an exterior finish of brick, stucco and/or natural or artificial stone. For the purpose of this section, the area of the building facade shall not include area devoted to window, entrance doors, garage doors or roof areas. i) The minimum width of a dwelling unit within the R-4 district shall be: 1. For single-family detached units or end units on buildings containing more than three attached units, 28 feet. 2. For internal dwelling units located in attached units containing more than three units, 24 feet. - ~ . Subd. 8. Site Coverage. No structure or combination of structures shall occupy more than 50% of the lot area. Subd.9.~ a) No sign shall be placed closer than ten feet (10') to any property line, except directional signs which have a zero foot (0') setback. 1. No sign shall be placed in any interior side yard 2. No sign shall be mounted on the roof of a building. 3. No signs shall violate the front, side or rear yard requirements. 4. Signs shall not be placed in the public right-of-way or easements. 5. Flashing or rotating signs resembling emergency vehicles shall not be pennitted. 6. Illuminated signs are not allowed. b) One unlighted sign per vehicle entrance identifying a dwelling unit complex. Such signs may indicate the name and address of the building . and rental or management offices. 1. Such signs shall have a surface area of all faces not ~xceeding an aggregate of fifty (50) square feet. 2. The height of the sign shall not exceeding eight feet (8') 3. Landscaping must be provided around the base of the sign. 4. The entrance to a development shall be one that abuts a collector or arterial road. c) One area identification sign for each multiple-residential complex consisting of three (3) or more structures. 1. Such signs shall have a surface area not exceeding fifty (50) square feet per sign face with an aggregate area not to exceed one hundred (100) square feet if double faced. 2. The height of the sign shall not exceed eight feet (8'). 3. Landscaping must be provided around the base of the sign. - - 4. Sign content shall be solely for displaying the name of the apartment complex. . d) Wall Sign: One wall sign shall be allowed for the purpose of street identification. Such sign cannot exceed twelve (12) square feet. e) Sign Removal - All signs not maintained and kept in good repair or in non compliance of the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances shall be subj ect to removal upon direction of the City Building Inspector. Subd. 10: Yard Cover. Every yard on a premise on which a dwelling stands shall, within 3 months of issuance of a certificate of occupancy, be provided with lawn or combined lawn cover of vegetation, gardens, hedges, shrubbery, and related decorative materials and such yards shall be maintained consistent with prevailing community standards. Motor vehicles may not be left parked or unattended on or within a yard. Grass shall be maintained so not to exceed a height of 6 inches. Subd, 11. Additional Requirements. Uses may be subject to additional requirements contained in this Ordinance including, but not limited to the sections governing parking, home occupation, floodplain, signs, etc. Subd. 12: Regulation of Activities Adjacent to Wetlands. a) The following activity shall be subject to a 50 foot setback from . wetlands: The construction or maintenance of a building attached to a foundation, including but not limited to, pole buildings. For purposes of this paragraph, pump houses, moveable storage sheds, recreational docks and stonn water or erosion control devices shall not be considered buildings. b) The following activity shall be subject to a 75 foot setback from wetlands: The construction or maintenance of paved driveways or areas designed for the parking of a vehicle or trailer. Subd. 13: Common Areas. All common areas within an R-4 development, including, but not limited to, open space, wetlands, greenways, drainage ponds, driveways, parking areas, play areas, etc., shall be owned in one of the following manners: a) Condominium ownership pursuant to Minn. Stats. ch. 515A. b) Townhome subdivision common areas shall be owned pursuant to Minn, Stats. ch. 515B. c) A homeowners' association shall be established for all developments within the R-4 district which have areas under common ownership (subject to review and approval of the City Attorney) and shall at all - - times be responsible for all exterior building maintenance, approval of . any exterior architectural modifications, landscaping, snow clearing and regular maintenance of private driveways and other areas owned m common. Subd. 14: Development Plan Requirements. No building pennit shall be issued until the Planning Commission reviews the development plan to detennine that the use and development is compatible with adjacent land uses, and consistent with the stated intent of this zone. Upon the request of the Planning Commission the City Council will make the fmal detennination on site plan approval. The developer shall provide the following items to the Planning Commission for any development located in the R-4 Townhome Residence District: a) Building location on the lot, drawn to scale. b) Building elevations; front, rear and side. c) Building exterior materials and color. d) Locations of ingress and egress points. e) Dumpster and solid waste pick-up areas and proposed screening material. - f) Sign location and dimensions. ....... g) Lighting standard and hood detail. h) Parking and loading areas identified. i) Drainage by the use of arrows and/or contours. j) Screening of heating, ventilation and air-conditioning equipment. k) Landscaping material including the location, type of plant and size. I) Fire hydrant and fire lane locations. m) Utility locations. n) A description of provisions which shall be made on the site for adequate open space, recreational areas, transit options, etc. to properly serve residents of the facility including a discussion ofthe perceived needs of the residents (i.e. senior citizens, students, families with children). 0) A copy of proposed covenants and/or homeowner's association agreement(s). - - p) Any other fencing, screening, or building accessories to be located in the development area. . q) When required, evidence of completion of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pennitting program and/or the City of St. Joseph Stonn Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP), r) If applicable, evidence of compliance with federal, state and local pollution and nuisance laws and regulations, including, but not limited to glare, smoke, dust, odors and noise, The burden of proof for compliance with appropriate standards shall lie with the applicant. s) Required Fee/Agreement. l. Payment Required. Any person filing a petition requesting development plan review shall pay a fee according to the schedule established by the City Council. Il. Amount. Fees payable under this section for development plan review shall be in an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. Preparation and review of all elements of the required development plan, as listed and described above, is to be at the sole expense of the developer and at no expense to the public. The fee is payable at the time of filing a petition and is not refundable. In addition to the above fees and in the . event the City incurs professional fees, either legal, engineering or professional planners, or any other cost, including but not limited to, postage and publication expenses, the applicants shall reimburse the City for those fees, and the City officials may require an escrow deposit, cashier's check or letter of credit for these fees prior to the final action on the application for development plan review. Such escrow or letter of credit shall be in the fonn approved by the City Attorney. Ill. Development Agreement. In the event additional review by the City or its assigns is anticipated and/or needed during implementation of Development Plan, or other similar circumstance, the City shall require the property owner(s) and/or developer(s) enter into a development agreement with the City. The development agreement shall stipulate the conditions for approval and the City's authority to inspect the development. The agreement shall further require the owner or developer, as the case may require, furnish a cashier's check, escrow account or irrevocable letter of credit in favor of the City in an amount equal to 110% of all costs associated with City's review of the development, including but not limited to, engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative, as estimated by the City. Such escrow or letter of credit shall be in the fonn approved by the City Attorney, shall be conditioned upon the approval of the development plan. - - - ·D I D YOU KNOW.? - Conditional Use Permits and Variances By Erin Pratt n Minnesota, property owners can the standards, however, the council CUPs and variances. One of the most request deviations ITom the strict must grant the CUP. important is the application of the enforcement of a city's zoning ordi- Procedural requirements and standards 60-day rule, set forth in Minnesota nance through conditional use pennits for granting variances. The procedural Statute § 15.99. The statute provides (CUPs) and variances. On the surfåce, requirements for granting a variance are that a municipality must approve or deny CUPs variances appear similar. set forth in Minnesota Statute § 462.357, a written request relating to zoning However, city officials should subdivision 6. Under this statute, the within 60 days. If the city does not act, know about important differences board of appeals and adjustments hears the request is deemed automatically before deciding to grant or deny a request. variance requests. The board may be a approved. Minnesota courts have gen- The most important distinction separate body, a planning commission erally demanded strict compliance with between a CUP and a variance is the or a council. A strict reading of Minne- the requirements of this law. Given the type of deviation ITom the zoning ordi- sota Statute 462.357, subd. 6, does not numerous requirements of this law, nance. CUPs involve uses that generally mandate a public hearing; however, please contact the League's Research are not consistent with a particular Minnesota Statute 462.357, subd. 3, Department for detailed memoranda zoning district, but are allowed in spe- states: "No zoning ordinance or outlining the statute. cific circumstances set forth in a city's amendment ... shall be adopted until Right of appeal. Any aggrieved zoning ordinance. For example, a city a public hearing has been held." A person can challenge a city's action on a may allow a business in a residential variance could be considered an variance or CUP in state district court. _ district if the business meets the require- amendment. However, the city's zoning ordinance ments set forth in its zoning ordinance. Despite the legal uncertainty, the may require the party to first exhaust On the other hand, variances are pennit- League recommends holding a public administrative appeals. When reviewing ted departures ITom strict enforcement of hearing for variance requests. A hearing a city's action, courts give the deciding a. zoning code as applied to a parficular provides both the property owner and body broad deference and will look to piece of property if strict enforcement affected neighbors a chance to present see whether its action was reasonable. would cause the owner undue hardship. their views, and may prevent a challenge Courts will overturn a city's decision if For example, an owner may apply for a to the board's decision. it is found to be arbitrary and capricious, variance ITom a zoning ordinance's The board may grant a variance only meaning it is not supported by factual height limitations. when strict enforcement of the zoning evidence. Therefore, in acting on CUP Procedural requirements and standards ordinance causes the owner undue and variance applications, the city should for granting CUPs. The procedural hardship. Undue hardship means: make written finding supporting its requirements for granting a CUP are · The property cannot be put to reason- decision. Courts will look to such find- found in Minnesota Statute § 462.3595. able use without the variance. ings if the grant or denial is challenged. A city council or planning commission · The owner's plight is not caused by For more information. If you have must first hold a public hearing. The the owner and is due to circumstances questions or would like more infonna- statute requires at least 10 days notice unique to the property. tion on this topic, please contact the in the official newspaper. Although not · The variance, if granted, will not League Research Department at (651) mandated by statute, many zoning alter locality's essential character. 281-1220 or (800) 925-1122. r- ordinances have a city's planning com- Under this standard, owners must mission review the request and make a show they would like to use their land recommendation to the council. The in a reasonable manner that is prohibited council, or other designated authority, by the zoning ordinance. Additionally, then decides whether the proposed use economic circumstances cannot, by meets the standards laid out in the zon- themselves, create an undue hardship. ing ordinance. The board has broad discretion when Councils have wide discretion in determining whether an owner will determining whether or not the stan- suffer an undue hardship. Erin Pratt is research attorney with the dards in the zoning ordinance have Application of the 60-day rule. League of Minnesota Cities. Phone: (651) been met. If the proposed use satisfies There are also similarities between 281-229. E-mail: epratt@lmnc.org. MAY 2004 MINNESOTA C I TIE S 1 9 League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust 145 University Avenue West, St Paul, MN 55103-2044 . L-e- a/Mirmøsol:a Ci6.ø (651.) 281-1200 · (800) 925-1.122 Fax: (S51) 281-1298 · TDD: (651) 281-1290 Ciliu f'1'O'IWIing -n-"" www-lmnc.org THE LA TEST WORD 'ON TBE"60-DA Y RULE" MINN. STAT. § 15.99, MINNESOTA'S AUTOMATIC APPROVAL STATUTE In 1995, Minnesota joined about two-dozen states in adopting an "automatic approval" statute, Minn. Stat. § 15.99. That statute provides that a rilUnicipality must approve or deny a written request relating to zoning within 60 days or it is deemed approved. According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, "tþe underlying purpose of Minn. Stat. § 15.99 is to keep governmental agencies from taking~too long fu deciding land use issues..." Manco of Fainnont, Inc. v. Town Board of Rock Dell Township, 583 N.W.2d 293, 296 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). Courts have generally demanded sttict compliance with the requirements of the law. Accordingly, the law has resulted in numerous lawsuits against local governments. This memo reviews basic requirement of the law and discusses some of the more common TIÚstakes cities have made in applying it. It also highlights the 2003 changes made by the Minnesota legislature in an effort to clarify the law-these statutory changes govern all applications after June 1,2003. . General Rule The general rule states that the "Failure of [a municipality] to deny a request within 60 çlays is approval of the request." Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2. The statute also provides that "a . T municipalitY's] response meets the 60 day time limit if the [municipality] can document that the response was sent within 60 days of receipt of the written request." Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 3(c). Statutory Exceptions 1. The 60-day time period does not begin to run if the city notifies the landowner in writing witlrin 15 business days that the application is incomplete. The city must also state what infonnation is missing. (The 2003 legislature increased the period from 10 to 15 days.) 2. The city may grant itself another 60 days (up to a total of 120 days), if before the end of theinitial60-day period, it notifies the landowner in writing of its intent to take additional time to consider the application, the reasons for the extension and the anticipated length of the extension. 3. Time period is tolled while other necessary state or federal approvals are being sought. - - -I This material is provided as general informati·on and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your .auorney for advice concernjng specific situations. Small Cities Track 2004 Land Use Regulation - 23 Elements of the Law What is a "written request" fOT purposes of starting the 60-day period? . What constitutes a "written request" has been the subject of several court decisions. For instance, it has been argued that a request submitted on the back of a napkin was enough to start the clock. The courts have also found that submission of a request in a letter or as part of a settlement proposal may be enough to start the time running. The 2003 legislature clarified the law in this regard by defIning a written request as a submission on a city approved form, or if there is no form, submission of a writing with the specific governmental approval sought listed on the first page of the document. To summarize: · The request must be submitted in writing on the city's application form. · A request not on the city's form must clearly identify on the fIrst page the approval sought. · The city may reject as incomplete a request not on the city's fonn, if the applicant does not include all required information. What is considered "related to zoning?" It might be useful here to quote the precise wording of the statute to see that the statute on its face covers much more than just requests "related to zoning." Except as otherwise provided in this section and notwithstanding any other law to . the contrary, an agency must approve or deny within 60 days a written request ..... relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area for a pennit, license, or other governmental approval of an action. Minn. Stat. § 15.99 subd. 2 (2002) The courts have been rather expansive in their interpretation of the phrase "related to zoning." While no one would likely argue that it includes requests for parcels specifIc to rezonings, and requests for conditional use permits and variances; courts have also found the law applicable to requests for signpennits, wetlands determination review, subdivision approval, request for road permit. In short, almost all requests affecting the use of land have been treated as subject to the law. The 2003 legislature clarified the law a bit when it held that the statute did not apply to subdivision and plat approvals, since those processes are subject to their own timeframes. In addition, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled that Minn. Stat. § 15.99 does not apply to building permits. What constitu~es a denial under the lavv? There have been a number of court decisions on the question of what constitutes denial of a request. In most situations, the courts have required the city council to actually pass a motion This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for iegal advice. - Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. - - -'2- Small Cities Track'2004 Land Use Regulation - 24 denying the request. In fact, the Minnesota Supreme Court went so far as to find that an unsuccessful motion to approve was not the equivalent of a denial. TIlls decision was overturned . by the 2003 legislature, which held that a motion to approve which fails is the equivalent of a denial, so long as those voting against the motion state on the record, the reasons for denying the request. The courts have also required a formal motion to deny even when a city has a moratorium in place that would otherwise prohibit the proposed application. Along with the denial motion, the law requires that the city adopt written findings supporting denial. The law states, "If the written statement is not adopted at the same time as the denial, it must be adopted at the next meeting following the denial of the request but before the expiration of the time allowed for making a decision under this section." The law also requires that the "written statement must be consistent with the reasons stated in the record at the time of the denial. The written statement must be provided to the applicant upon adoption." . As indicated, the law and court decisions interpreting it, mandate that the findings be adopted within the 60-day period. To summariie: · When a vote on a motion or resolution to approve fails for any reason, the failure constitutes a denial of the request provided that those voting against the request state on the record theìrreason(s) for opposing t4e request. · When a multimember governing body denies a request, it must state the reasons for denial on the record and provide the applicant, in writing, with a statement of the reasons for denial. . · If the written statement ofthe reasons for denial is not adopted at the same time as the denial, it must be adopted at the next meeting following the denial of the request _ but before the expiration of the 60-day period. · The written statement of the reasons for denial must be consistent with reasons stated in the record at the time of denial. · The written statement of reasons must be provided to the applicant upon adoption. What about an incomplete application? If the city receives an application that does not include all the city required infonnation, the clock does not begin to run, if within 15 days (increased from 10 to 15 days by the 2003 Legislature) of receipt of the application, the city infonns the applicant in writing that the application is incomplete and what infonnation is missing. An application is incomplete if it does not include the application fee. This would suggest that the city give some thought to being clear about exactly what infonnation it requires for various types of land use applications. The city may want to consider developing a checklist and reviewing its zoning ordinances to make explicit what items are required. This will This material is provided as ge-neral information and is not a substitute for lega I advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specIfic situations. - - -3- - , Small Cities Track 2004 Land Use Regulation - 25 not only help the applicant, but will act as a sort of fail safe mecþanism for city staff who need to thoroughly evaluate applications within the fIrst 15 days. . What needs to be done for the city to extend the time periodfòr an additional 60 days? The law allows a city the opportunity to give itself an additional 60 days to consider an application, if the city follows specific statutory requirements. In order to avail itself of an additional 60 days. the city must give: 1. Written notification to landowner before the end of the initial 60 day period; 2. The reasons for extension; and 3. The anticipated length of the extension. The courts have been particularly demanding on local governments with regard to this requirement. The courts have required local governments to meet each element of the Statute. They have also been clear that oral notice or an oral agreement to extend is insufficient. What is needed to extend beyond 120 days? A city can only go beyond 120 days if it gets the approval of the applicant. The city must either initiate the request in writing and have the applicant agree to it in writing, or the applicant by written request, may ask for an extension. Otherwise, the city must act on the request within the designated timeframe. Again, the courts have demanded strict compliance with the statutory requirements. Accordingly, oral representations or actions by the applicant should not be treated as justification for delaying action on a pennit. . This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. - Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. - ~ -4- I Small Cities Track 2004 Land Use Regulation - 26 League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust . 145 University Avenue West, St Paul, MN 55103-2044 I-g.u. 0{ Mñmettøhz Ciliu (651) 281-1200 · (800) 925-1122 F.ax: (651) 281-1298 · TDD: (651) 281-1290 C;t;u ",..,...m;.rg ~ www.lmnc.org THE NECESSITY OF ADEOUATE FINDINGS/ REASONS TO SUPPORT MUNICIPAL LAND USE DECISIONS. . When a city's land use decision is challenged in court, the court's review is quite narrow. The standard of review of a City's land use decision is limited to whether the city had a rational basis for its decision. "Land use decisions are entitled to great deference and will be disturbed on appeal only in instances· in which the city's decision has no rational basis." SuperAmerica Group, Inc. v. City of Lit tie Canada, 539 N.W.2d 264,266 (Minn. App. 1995). That is, courts review a municipal body's decision to detennine if it is unreasonably arbitrary or capricious. Swanson v.City of Bloomington, 421 N.W.2d 307,313 (Minn. 1988). This narrow scope of review accorded to the land use decisions of cities reflects judicial recognition that local governing bodies are in the best position to assess what zoning classifications and decisions best serve. the public welfare. Larson v. Washington County, 387 N.W.2d 902, 905 (Minn. App. 1986). In land use cases, Minnesota courts are looking for a sufficient statement of the reasons given by a the city to grant or deny an application request. The role of the court is to examine the city's reasons and ascertain whether the record before the city council supports them. The reasons .... given by the city must be legally sufficient and have a factual basis. Minnesota case law and statutory law demands that the reasons for a city's decision on a land use case be articulated on the record. We recommend the city adopt writing findings of fact, or "reasons," and conclusions oflaw when it makes land use decision. The city should approve a document that contains all the relevant facts. The document should then apply those facts to the relevant criteria. When a city is presented with a land use application, the role of the city council/planning commission is to apply the facts presented to the law and to articulate the reasons for its decision. The role of the city council/planning commission is to.determine and consider how the facts presented to them compare with the city's articulated standards. The city council and/or planning commission should base their decision on the facts presented at the hearing and then apply those facts to the legal standards contained in city ordinances and relevant state law. City staff reports should reference applicable city code provisions. (E.g. review standards in ordinance granting a variance.) Example or A Variance Consideration Under Minnesota law, a municipality may grant a variance where unique circumstances of the - individual property create an undue hardship. Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.357, subd. 6. "Undue hardship" generally means: - - I AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Small Cities Track 2004 Land Use Regulation - 27 The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under . conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The ''undue hardship" requirement does not mean a property owner must show that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Instead, the undue hardship standard requires a showing that the property owner would like to use their property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by ordinance. Minnesota courts have explained there are three requirements for granting a variance under the "undue hardship" standard. The requirements are: (1) reasonableness; (2) unique circumstances; and (3) the essential character of the locality. Samvle ofCitv Code Variance Standards Is the proposed variance in conformity with the established criteria contained in the City Code: (1) Because ofthe particular physical surrounding, shape or topographic conditions of the specific parcel ofland involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out; (2) The conditions upon which the petition for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought; (3) The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the . value or income potential of the parcel of land; (4) The grant ofthe variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to ~ other land or improvements in the vicinity in which-the parcel of land is located; (5) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values with the vicinity. (6) The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Code and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Consider standards #1 and #2 pertaining to the unique circumstances of the subject property. An example of an adequate reason, or "finding" to support a denial: The existing topography involves slope and floodplain issues that limit development in some portions of this property. The property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac, has a stand of trees and a significant grade change of 44 feet. The proposed building has been placed to maximize the property despite the existing slope and floodplain issues. VS. An example of an unfounded reason: - - - ! Small Cities Track 2004 Land Use Regulation - 28 . Unique circumstances· exist because the applicant niistakenly believed he could develop his property-as proposed. Consider standard #5 pertaining to the issue oftràffic. An example of an adequate reason, or "fmding": The proposal will generate traffic that will have a significant negative impact on the transportation system capacity and will result in diminution of the level of service and safety of said system especially at the intersection of First Street and Main Street. Numerous aôjacent property owners testified at the public hearing about current congestion and specifically that it currently takes "three to four light changes just to get through the intersection." VS. An example of an unfounded reason: The proposal will generate excess traffic. In fonnulating adequate findings or reasons to support a land use decision, one of the key steps is to apply the facts presented to the standards contained in the city ordinances. In other words, use . the standards already set forth in the city ordinances as the template or guide to the city counci1/planning commission consideration of a land use application. - - I - Small Cities Track 2004 Land Use Regulation - 29 . This page was intentionally left blank. . - - - i Small Cities Track 2004 Land Use Regulation - 30 CITY OF·BURNSVILLE . DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA IN RE: Application of J.L. Wagerman Homes, Inc. FINDINGS OF FACT For a variance at 1232 Bluebill Bay Road AND DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT On September 18 and October 1, 2001, the Burnsville City Council met at its regularly scheduled meetings to consider the above application of J.L. Wagerman Homes; Inc. for a setback variance for Lot 10, Block 1, Lyndale Beach 2nd Addition (the "-subject property"). The Applicant was present and the City Council heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak at the meeting and now makes the following Findings of Fact and Decision. . 1. The subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. 2. The subject property is also within a Shoreland Overlay Zoning District. 3. The Applicant has applied for a 37 foot shoreland setback variance. The zoning ordinance requires a 75 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark ("OHW") and the Applicant wants to reduce the required setback to 38 feet. 4. The Applicant has entered into an Option Contract with Loren R. Wuttke and Norma Wuttke for the subject property dated June 15, 2001. 5. Loren R. Wuttke acquired the subject property in 1968. Mr. Wuttke is currently the record owner of the subject property as evidence by Torrens Title Certificate No. 29205. 6. Loren R. Wuttke also acquired Lot 1, Block 1, Wuttke Lakeshore Estates ("Lot 1") in 1968. Mr. Wuttke is currently the record owner of Lot 1 as evidenced by Torrens Title Certificate No. 49063. 7. Mr. Wuttke has provided the City a quit claim deed, quit claiming Lot 1 to the "Travis R. Wuttke Education Fund." The deed is dated October 20, 1987. The deed - is not notarized, was never filed with the office of the Dakota County Registrar of Titles, - - I Small Cities Track 2004 Land Use Regulation - 31 and is not memorialized on the title to the property. Travis R. Wuttke is Loren Wuttke's son. There is no evidence that the 'Travis R. Wuttke Education Fund" existed in 1968 or has ever existed. . 8. On May 14, 2001, Loren Wuttke and his wife, Norma Wuttke created the "Travis Reed Wuttke Trust." On May 15,2001, Loren R. Wuttke and Norma Wuttke quit claimed Lot 1 to "Paul John Radde, as Trustee of the Travis Reed Wuttke Trust." The deed has not been memorialized on the title certificate for the property. 9. Section 10-8-10(0)(1) of the City Code provides: Construction on Nonconforming Lots of Record: a. Lots of record in the office .of the County Recorder on the date of enactment of this Ordinance that do not meet the requirements of subsection 10-8-.1 O(C) 1 of this Section may be allowed as building sites without variances from lot size requirements provided the use is permitted in the zoning district, the lot has been in separate ownership from abutting lands at all times since it became substandard, was created compliant with official controls in effect at the time, and sewage treatment and setback requirements of ,this Chapter are met. . b. A variance from setback requirements must be obtained before any use, sewage treatment system, or building permit is issued for a lot. In evaluating the variance, the City Council shall consider sewage . treatment and water supply capabilities or constraints of the lot and shall ..... deny the variance if adequate facilitie£ cannot be provided. ,.- c. If, in a group of two (2) or more contiguous lots under the same ownership, any individual lot does not meet the requirements of subsection 10-8-1 o (C) of this Section, the lot must not be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purpose of sale or development. The lot must be combined with the one or more contiguous lots so they equal one or more parcels of land, each meeting the requirements of subsection 10- 8-1 O(C) 1 of this Section as much as possible. 10. The subject property and Lot 1 abut. Both lots are substandard in area. The subject property is 13,549 square feet. Lot 1 is 9,307 square feet. The minimum lot size under the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance is 20,000 square feet. The lots have not been in separate ownership at all times since they became substandard in size. The current zoning ordinance requirements set forth in subsection 10-8-10 of the City Code cited above were adopted in 1994. Similar ordinance provisions have been in place since 1984. The requirements are mandated by state law, Minn. Stat. 103 F. 20', et. seq. and regulations, Minn. Rules 6120.3300. Since 1984 the minimum lot size requirement has been 20,000 square feet. - - - I Small Cities Track 2004 Land Use Regulation - 32 11. The 1987 quit claim deed for Lot 1 from Loren R. Wuttke and Norma Wuttke to the "Travis R. Wuttke, Education Fund" did not create a conveyance of the . registered property. . Minn. Stat. § 508.47, subd. 1 provides in part, lithe act of registration shall be the operative act to conveyor affect the land. 11 The 1987 deed was never registered. The 1987 deed was never delivered to the 'Travis R. Wuttke Education Fund" since it did not exist. On May 15, 2001, Loren R. Wuttke and Norma Wuttke conveyed the property to "Paul John Radde, as Trustee of the Travis Reed Wuttke Trust." The trust was created on May 14,2001. 12. In March 1997, Loren Wuttke informed real estate agent, Connie Tupin, that he owned both lots. 13. In 2000 a setback variance was also requested for the property which is the subject of the current application. A variance from the requirement that the lot be combined with Lot 1 was also requested. No mention was made of the 1987 deed. The application was subsequently withdrawn. 14. In May 2001 Loren Wuttke called Councilmember Deb Moran and informed her that he owned· both lots. He further informed her that he could deed one lotto his son: -"- -. . . ~ . 15. If the subject property and Lot.1 were combíned they would satisfy the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size requiremént. ,', . 16. The 1987 deed did not separate the ownership of the two abutting lots. ..... Even Wit did separate the ownership, it would constitute a self-created hardship. - 17. The purpose of the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size provision is to protect water quality by reducing impervious surface and the resulting runoff of pollutants into the lake, provide less intense use along the lakeshore to prevent overcrowding or excessive density, and to create open space. 18. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate the variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. 19. The subject property combined with the abutting lot provides a reasonable use of the property as a building site. . 20. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has advised the City that the swale between the two lots may be filled and relocated. This would provide flexibility in the use of the property. The City would also vacate the easement between the two lots. 21. The Applicant seeks a setback variance which, if granted, would be for a lot that is not buildable without combining it with the adjoining lot. - - I Small Cities Track2004 Land Use Regulation - 33 22. The City has not been provided a site plan for the two lots consolidated as a single building site. The City is therefore unable to determine the need for or the propriety of a setback variance for the combined lots. . 23. Loren R. Wuttke and Norma Wuttke conveyed Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Wuttke Lakeshore Estates to Charles Wilson and Cheryl Wilson. Pursuant to a Decree of Divorce the two lots were divided with one lot being granted to Charles Wilson and one lot to Cheryl Wilson. A building permit and setback variance were issued for Lot 3 in 1999. The division of the property into separate ownership was the result of a court decree. When the City approved the variance for Lot 3 it was not aware that the lots had previously been in common ownership during the pertinent time period. DECISION Applicant's request for a setback variance is denied. ADOPTED this 1st day of October~ 2001 CITY OF BURNSVILLE BY: Elizabeth B. Kautz, Mayor . ........ ATTEST: .~:~ Susan P. Olesen, City Clerk - - - I Small Cities Track 2004 Land Use Regulation - 34 DRAFT RESOLUTIONNO. 5988 . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA APPROVING . THE A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO ALLOW BUSINESS PARK AND RESIDENTIAL USES, AS WELLAS TRAILS IN THE SHORELANDOVERLAYZONE WHEREAS, Ryan Companies U.S., Inc., applicant and Valley Green Business Park, property owner, has made application for conditional use permit approval under City Code Sec. 11.54 to allow business park, residential~ and trail uses in the Shoreland Overlay Zone; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as found on Exhibit A: and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed CUPs on November 6 and November 20, 2003; and WHEREAS, all requir~d public notices regarding the public hearing were posted and sent; and -- - WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed CUPs subject to the ·conditions listed below; and . WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the requested CUPs at its special meeting of December 9, 2003; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCJL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that it adopts the following findings of fact related to the requested CUPs; Criteria #1 The use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantiaIlydiminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity; Finding #1 The proposed business park uses would be located and accessed in such fashion that they will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the immediate facility. The business park uses will have a positive effect long term on the fiscal stability of the community. In addition, the future construction of business park uses will have a positive effect, in that they will serve to mitigate noise generated by vehicles on STH 169 that currently reaches properties to the south. Finding #2 The proposed residential use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of propelties in the area. The residential use will result in less traffic - JIT-241177v1 SH155-79 Small Cities Track 2004 Land Use Regulation - 35 DRAFT generation from the subject site than would be the case if the site were developedfor exclusively bu,siness park and commercial uses. Moreover, the . proposed residential use will provide a life-cycle mix ofhou,sing types of substantial individual and combined value. Finding #3 The proposed. trail is a significant piece of trail and park system for this area proposed in the Dean Lake Park and Trail Master Plan. As such, it will add an amenity available to the public generally, including residents of properties in the immediate vicinity, and in tum enhance the value of such properties. Criteria #2 The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses allowed in the area; Finding #4 The subject site is bounded on the north by STH 169; on the west by CSAH 83; on 'the south by CSAH 16; and on the east by Dean Lake. Thus there are 110 immediately adjacent vacant properties. The accesses planned for the subject site will be consistent with MNDOT and Scott County access guidelines, and thus consistent with orderly development of vacant properties in the vicinity. Criteria #3 Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided; . Finding #5 Adequate access roads exist to serve the subject site. Local roadways, ..... sanitary sewer, wat.er, and drainage, as well as any other necessary facilities will be constructed as a part of the project. Criteria #4 The use is consistent with the purposes of the zone in wWch the applicant intends to locate the proposed use; and Finding #6 The proposed business park, resideil.tial, and trail uses are consistent with the pwposes of the Business Park (BP) and Medium-Density Residential (R- 2) Zones, with the conditions set forth below. Criteria #5 The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding #7 This use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site commercial, bu,siness park, and residential PUD uses. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the requested conditional use permits are hereby granted subject to the following conditions: a. That the business park uses, residential uses, and trails within the shoreland overlay zone shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the terms of .- - - l JJT-241177vI SHI55-79 Small Cities Track 2004 Land Use Regulation - 36 DRAFT PUD approval (City of Shakopee Resolution No. 5986) and preliminary plat approval (City of Shakopee Resolution No. 5987) . b. Because the City has an·adopted Storm water Management Plan, business park uses in the shoreland overlay zone shall be allowed up to 75% impervious surface coverage. c. The maximum allowable building height forboth residential and business park buildings in the shoreland overlay zone shall not exceed 35 feet. In determining building height, the zoning ordinance provisions in place at the time of issuance of building permits shall control. d. The shoreland buffer zone shall provide 75% opacity in summer, leaf-on conditions for business park uses within 5 years of restoration in the buffer zone. e. Trails, as depicted on the plans identified in connection with the PUD, shall be allowed within the Shore Impact Zone. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held tWs _day of , 2003. ..-- - Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: . City Clerk ..... - - - JIT-24 I I77vl SH155-79 Small Cities Track 2004 Land Use Regulation - 37 . This page was intentionally left blank. . ...... - - - \ Small Cities Track 2004 Land Use Regulation - 38 RESOLUTION NO. 5891 . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA DENYING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EAGLE CREEK PONDS WHEREAS, Noecker Development L.L.c. ha& made application for preliminary plat approval of Eagle Creek Ponds on property located at 7301 Eagle Creek Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the ShakQpee Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the preliminary plat on April 17, 2003; and WHEREAS, all required public notices regarding the public hearing were posted and sent; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission has recornmended·denial of the requested preliminary plat based on the findings below; and WHEREAS, the City Councîl reviewed the preliminary plat request at its meeting of Jùfie 3, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that it adopts the following findings of fact . relative to the requested preliminary plat approval: ~ Finding A: The propos~d street layout does not reflect good planning and development for the City in the following regards; . The proposed plat provides only one access into and out of the site, and does not take account of future limitations that may be placed on that access with future improvement and expansion of CSAH 16. The proposed access will not serve prospective residents well, either from the perspective of their access, public safety access, or buffering of lots along CSAH 16 from the noise of future increased traffic. . Because the preliminary plat as revised does not show the future development pattern for the northern part of the site, the City Council is unable to evaluate that portion of the site. Finding B: The proposed plat is subject to the requirements of the Woodland Management Ordinance. The applicant has submitted a tree inventory, but it is not clear that the applicant has a plan i,n place that meets the requirements of that ordinance for tree replacement/woodland management. - - Small Cities Track 2004 Land Use Regulation - 39 Finding C: The proposed plat (as revised) does not facilitate the use and future development of adjoining lands. Specifically, it does not propose an immediate roadway connection to these lands, and chooses to leave . the construction of the extension of Pike Lake Trail (which is critical to access for both tills and adjoining properties) to the City at some future date. Finding D: In order to serve the 'subject site with properly looped water and sanitary sewer service these services will have to cross properties owned by others. The applicant has not demonstrated that these can and will be obtained. If he is unable to obtain easements for those purposes, the subdivision cannot be economically served with those utilities. As proposed by the applicant, the subdivision has only one access, that being from CSAH 16Æagle Creek Boulevard. While it is presently allowable as a full intersection, the expansion of CSAH 16 to a 4-lane facility in the future will limit the proposed access to a right-in/right -out condition. The applicant . depends on the construction of Pike Lake. Trail by the City and the development of - - - the adjacent properties to gain a second access. In the short term, at least, the proposed access does not provide good or economical access for public safety services (police and fIre). Finding E: The infonnation submitted to date by the applicant does not . ~ demonstrate that the requirements of the City's Shoreland Ordinance are met for those lots that are witilln the Shoreland Overlay Zcme for the PriorLake Outlet Channel. The applicant has failed to submit all of the inforination for plat approval required under City Code Sec. 12.21, Submittal Requirements for Preliminary Plats. Finding F: As submitted, the land use represented by the proposed plat of the southern portion of the subject site is consistent with the City's adopted 1999 Comprehensive Plan. - I - .- Small Cities Track 2004 Land Use Regulation - 40 - BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that Noecker L.L.C.'s request for preliminary plat approval . of Eagle Creek Ponds is hereby denied: Adopted in . session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held this ----.:. day of , 2003. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk '. - - - . ~ - Small Cities Track 2004 Land Use Regulation - 41 - . . - - This page was intentionally left blank. . - - Small Cities Track 2004 Land Use Regulation - 42