The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005 [11] Nov 01 Administrator ludy Weyrens Mðyor Richðrd C,rlbom Councilors AI Rðssier Ross Rieke Renee Symðnietz Dðle ~ck www.cityofstjoseph.com I I CITY OF ST. JOSEPH st. Joseph Planning Commission November 1, 2005 7:00 PM 1. Call to Order Public Hearing - Rezoning, Leo Buettner Location: Lot 2 Block 3 Buettner Business Park B2 Highway Business to I Industrial Public Hearing - Variance, Cory & Julie Ehlert Location: Lot 3 Block 1 Pond View Nine St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27 Subd. 4(0) 111 Five Hundred forty foot variance on accessory building size 2, College Avenue North, PO Box Phone ,20.,6'.7201 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes Public Hearing - Rezoning, Lumber One Avon Location: Adjacent to CR 121 and 290'h Street Agricultural to a mix of E & E (Education and Ecclesiastical) and R3, Multiple Family. 668 . Sðint. loseph. Minnesotð FðX ,20.,6,.0142 File 4. 7:00 PM 5. 7:15PM 6. 7:30 PM 7. Other Matters 8. Adjourn ,6174 St. Joseph Planning Commission November 1 , 2005 FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS 1. :J: f' r \J tJ-e..-r ~ W e Y"' 2. :re~ ( 1k(1~10h of ;;2;;; (Po ~~ \G..J, ~ ) :29 If 2'7- k2'w / Cf S I J6St:";J ~ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. I Attachment: Yes or No REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION . Leo Buettner, Rezoning Request DATE: November 1, 2005 AGENDA ITEM Rezoning Request - Leo Buettner PREVIOUS ACTION The EDA and Planning Commission have previously considered the request to conduct a public hearing. Based on the recommendation of the EDA, the Planning Commission initiated the process for rezoning Lot 2 Block 3 from current Industrial to B2, Highway Business. An extract of the minutes are included for your review. RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Recommend the City Council rezone the aforementioned property from the current Industrial to B2, Highway Business. COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS Leo Buettner will be represented by Jerry Hettwer. The business requesting rezòning has not authoriZ'fd release of their name as of the writing of this memo. The proposed use is consistent with B2, Highway Business and will be an asset. The development will include the use of two lots and the fIrst one is ' already zoned B2 Highway Business. If the information is available for release it will be done at the PC meeting on Tuesday evening. The rezoning does not address the development plan and the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to review the site plan at the time of development. /. Administrator Judy Weyrens MðYOf Richðrd C,rlbom Councilors AI Rðs~er Ross Rieke Renee Symãnietz Dðle Wick CITY OF ST. JOSePH www.cityofstioseph.com Public Hearing City of St. Joseph The St. Joseph Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, November 1,2005 at 7:00 PM. The purpose of the hearing is to consider rezoning Lot 2, Block 3 from the current Industrial to B2, Highway Business. The rezoning is being requested to allovJ the construction of a retail facility. The request forrezoning has been submitted by Leo Buettner 5855 Ridgewood Road, St.' CloudMN 56303. -<:' JudyWeyrens Administrator Project Area Note: MN State Law requires mailed notice to all property owners within 350 feet of a Variance, Special Use, Interim Use or Rezoning request. 2, College Avenue North' PO Box 668 Phone ,20.,6'.7201 . Sðint. lose ph, Minnesotð FðX 120.,6,.0142 ,6'74 October 10, 2005 Rezpning Request Lot One (1) and Two (2), Block Three (3), Buettner Business Park St. Joseph, Mn 56374 . I am requesting the rezoning of Lots One (1) and Two (2), Block Three (3), Buettner Business Park, St. Joseph, Mn 56374 from LI (Light Industrial District) to B-2 ( Highway Business District for the following reasons: 1. The property in its location is better suited for commercial highway business use. The B-2 Highway Business District was created to promote high value development taking full advantage of the city's highway location. 2. The potential purchaser needs more land then is available by utilizing just Lot 1, Block 3, Buettner Business Park. The rezoning would facilitate use of Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 as contigious parcels by the purchaser for the use intended. 3. The adjacent property to the West is currently zoned B-2 (Highway 75 Business District). 4. The street between the industrial and commercial is Elm Street. The entire time the property was marketed, it has always been under the thought that someday this Lot Two would be rezoned to commercial. All purchasers of property in the park are aware that the highest and best use of this lot has always been commercial. 5. The pricing on the lot has always been from the beginning as a commercial property. 6. The use ofthis property as commercial would generate more tax dollars for the City of St. Joseph and would provide a more pleasant, attractive and aesthetically pleasing environment then a use as industrial. I would ask that you would rezone the property to B-2 Highway 75 Business District for the above mentioned valid reasons. Thank you, ~ ;t:~er¿l!~ 4< ~<I~~ Gloria Buettner APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CONSIDERATION CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 25 College AvelJ,ue NW P. O. Box 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374 (320)363-7201 or Fax (320)363-0342 Fee $ Paid Receipt # Date STATE OF MINNESOTA) j" COUNTY OF STEARNS) NAME: Leo and Gloria Buettner PHONE: 253-2444 ADDRESS: 140 15th Avenue North, Waite Park, Mn 56368 J/We, the undersigned, hereby make the following application to the City Council and Planning Commission of the City ofSt. Joseph, Steams County, Minnesota. (Applicants bave the responsibility of checking all applicable ordinances pertaining to their application and complying with all ordinance requirements): 1. Application is hereby made for: (Applicant must check any/aU appropriate items) X Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Home Occupation Unit Surface Water Management Plan (Grading Pennit) PUD Building Mover's Permit Building Moving- Owner's Pennit Development Plan Approval Other, please specify: 2. Legal description of land to be affected by application, including acreage or square footage of land involved, and street address, if any (attach additional sheet if necessary): LotOne (1) and Two (2), Block Three (3), Buettner Business Park, Stearns County, St. Joseph, MN 56374 3. Present zoning of the above described property is: LI (light Industrial District). 4. .Proposed zoning - Please describe the zoning reclassification you are requesting and a statement/narrative as to why your request should be granted. I am requesting a rezoning from LI (Light Industrial District) to B-2 (Highway 75 Business District). The purpose of the rezoning is in keeping withthe fact that this property is adjacent to County Rd. # 75 and is better suited for Highway Business. 5. Comprehensive Plan - Is the proposed rezoning consistent with the future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan? Yes. 6. Name and address of the present owner of the above described land: Leo and Gloria Buettner 140 151b Avenue North, ~f T~~~h MN~ W...:t..P.4.. Ç'(."!i,.<;ì' 7. Persons, fIrms, corporations or other than applicant and present owner who mayor will be interested in the above described land or proposed improvements within one year after issuance of pennit applied for, if granted, are: Not Available 8. Attached to this application and made a part thereof are other material submission data requirements, as indicated. APPIi..n.,s¡gn.'nre'd-::::~ ~ D.te: Oc'ober 10, 2005 Owner SIgnature: _~ . ~~ Date: October 10,2005 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY DA 1E APPLiCATION SUBMIITED: DA1E APPLiCATiON COMPLETE: , I Extract of September 21, 2005 EDA Minutes Buettner Business Park Rezoning Request Lot 2 Block 3 Buettner Business Park Cousideration of Rezoning Request. Chairperson Rieke introduced the topic. Strack noted that over the previous two months EDA staff have been interacting with a commercial retailer who is interested in expanding to the çity of St. Joseph. The name of the retailer and the nature of the establishment is proprietary at 'this time. The retailer has been in contact with Mr. Jerry Hettwer :from Hettwer Real Estate Servlces , regarding the purchase of two parcels within the Buettner Business Park. Strack stated that Mr. Hettwer had attended a Plamiing Commission meeting on the lih of September and reque~ted that the Planning Commission initiate an amendment to the official zoning map to rezone! the industrial parcel to highway commercial. Noting the parcels were within the Buettner Business Park, the Planning Commission deferred consideration of the request favoring the EDA review the rezoning request first. To those ends the EDA was asked to make a recommendation to'the Planning Commission as to whether or not the Planning Commission should initiate a request to rezone the property :from industrial to commercial. I I Motion Carlbom, second Gohman to recommend the Planning Commission initiate an amendment to! the City's Official Zoning Map to rezone a 7.836 acre parcel adjacent to TH 75 and Elm Street from Industrial to Commercial. I I Discussion followed. Hettwer explained the history of the site and the fact that the property owner wished the zoning change to be approved. Gohman questioned whether or not rezoning the property was the most logical means of allowing the confidential development to proceed. Weyrens noted the rezoning could not be contingent upon approval óf a site plan. Hettwer st<Ùed the purchase agreement would not be executed if the rezoning was not approved. The Board addressed potential industrial uses of the property. Rieke requested the motion be the subject of action. Motion approved 5:0. I Attachment: Yes or No. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION , Variance - Cory Ehlert DATE: . November 1, 2005 ' AGENDA ITEM Public Hem:ing -Variance on the Maximum size of an accessory building PREVIOUS ACTION RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Accept the Fact of Findings and request the City Council approve the variance as requested. COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS Packet material includes a completed application for Cory Ehlert. The variance is requesting a 514 foot variance on the amount of accessory space. As you can see from the application Ehlert is requesting to -- - ,. I use the same space twice, one at street level for a garage and one at the walk out level for storage. If a variance is not approved the home will still be constructed as indicated, only the garage space will be I habitable space. In reviewing the plans, this application for variance is unique in nature as the topography of the lot allows for the house design picked by Ehlert. Ehlert is also looking to maximize the building space on his lot, His àpplication is complete and he has provided fIndings as to why a variance should be granted. Administrator Judy Weyrens Mðyor Richðrd C,rlbom Councilors AI Rossier Ross Rieke Renee Symònietz Dðle Wick CITY OF ST. JOSEPH www.cityofstjoseph.com Public Hearing City of St. Joseph The St. Joseph Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, November 1,2005 at 7:15 PM. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a variance request on the i maximum accessory space in an RI, Single Family Zoning District. The property ownerjis requesting a fIve hundred and forty foot variance to allow a tuck under garage under the I , existing garage. ' St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27 SuM. 4 (g) III states: One or two accessory builditigs covering a combined area not greater than 1,350square feet are permitted. ' The property is legally described as Lot 3 Block I Pond View Nine. The request for rezoning has been submitted by Cory Ehlert, 427 _12''' Avenue SE; St. JosephMN 56374. Judy Weyrens Administrator Note: MN State Law requires mailed notice to all property owners within 350 feet of a Variance, Special Use, Interim Use or Rezoning request. 2, College Avenue North . PO Box 668 Phone ,10,,6',7201 . 5 ã i n t. 0 s e p h, ,M inn e sot d FðX ,20,,6,,0142 ,6)7 4 i~~£êg~æ 1'l;tJ"I! >>-l!1'I m~ÄJ~~~f!~ "t(¡)!::2iiì;¡:;-<" ~~!(¡ij~~.~~ U!:¡!2oœ'Icn ijj~,ûJo:r'U'" ç:' !í0:t! C Z:¡i:ID::I~P¡~ èln~:!!~~~ £:>o@~~:I''I ~~§;:¡:i!¡g~ ~~~~~~: ~êii~~~!íI m~ffl21'1",~ ~. ;;u~ã~t'! 'ij" -¡!:Io ~>~~~~E ¡ij~~ffi~ªm ~ -<-&I ;;U . "'J ;u 0 Z >-'3 t'J -o:r4"::II ~ t"' ::I:o....m t'J ~6~~ ~ ~ fIIz"'F l>; ....~§ør >-'3 '0 ... ~ ~ 'l':;:Uz C 0 N°:tP Z ~~;t() 'om "tI ~> ~ oOm ~ ~IØ::II 0 Z ~~õi ~ 00 !ž-o, ~·m 00 " 00 Þ.:I~S:o ~ ~~¡HI ....;!!::zo "0 'z m ¡;. E< ~ . " 0 , . ¡¡ ~ ~ ~ ~ ë5 .... ;:0 Ii:' 'd' ~ ~ É ~ f ~ ffl 0> ¡: :r: 1'1 S1 ~ :r: z ¡;; " ~ ~ I~!l o i ~ [J[J[JEB [J[J[JEB [j[][JEB " [J[][JEB :; [][][]E8 :: [][][]EEI :' [][][]EB '; [D[][DB3;, [D[][DEEI [D[][]B3 [D[][DEEI ; [D[][DEEI tIJ » () ?<: ,- , , 1:>/,>81 . '. . . ~ =..,'. " _, ø:. - .', . ,'.: .~ ..' ;u (5 :r: >-'3' t'J t"' t'J ~ >-'3 Õ Z IiñQ~:z:~-.¡c -2 ~O~ en>, ;U:S"'~ :;O;-tu::1ri1-o_ ~~~ii1~~~ >~o·,t:lo ~Z:I:1I;tmm -c<~è:I'1-<-< xc' -"-<'Otll ~~Emiij¡SI C~Õrrll'l~ ~:(~~%~ffl ~:"Pr"'-~~6 ~"'cn~~~E ¡;~!ij2Fo;¡: 1'1-<~ffi-<8~ o -<:;¡: :;ç z W "Dr.,.=- :to->m °6~;! ~Z'¡'F ..,¡o0'Cll' .¡..ë:lgr <D:ozCl ~c~ø j ~§;unm -',' 0 ,g:~~ ~IO =- p ~ ~ '1:1 ~ Z !:Il !:Il c: '1:1 '1:1 ~ lI~""œ õ~g~ ziilq) m ~ OW t.1.~:S: 0 gAl!!!:: 1"0 Õ ~~z m ", " W œ ~ œ ~ I' " ~ ~ ~ " 0 '" -< " '" .. '" " >- ~ - "- .., z c ¡;; ,f <> r "- -< "' g 1 I ~ " ~ -< ¡;¡ z ~ '" ~ RJ I I" , ---- __n____'" ____ i.f !' " ~ ''''', "", 1--:: ~g~~ N~: : ~ ~ ~~!;< I' ~:,I''''I' ~" ~', I S! : : -'"'t1t '5 "" , ", 11\ ¡;j 1..¡-,:. :J¡ ;:>;¡, '~ , ~JD ¡- . ~ ¡;:-- ,~ ¡ , ~-J ~ ~ : : ~ -', I 'Jí " ., '" ",. . '''8 : ¡~'-., ¡. ,ª" ~~ ': If" ~ ~"" ~<~"~~~ :: ~ -,~ "':,2 : ":"',- "4:> " 'd : ¡""" , !ì\ ¡:¡ " ~:-" ,~,.,¡;j ~ ¡I~ ~'I "'.... "-.."" . '"\'\~... I ~~P"'\ : -... ".. ~;;¡' I' - I_'~ ~~~ : f'-) I' ø'r,-'-. :::, , ' 0' , I~ J _=_' 12'.°" 6' a" ~~-~: ' . ! I , , , , , , , , I , , I I , , , , 0-1 = ~__ 1~-1i;' 'qj. ~-- . - ------ --15' -10" " I' q ~ tJ/~~ ~ ~ ~ "" r-: ~ -I };;.£ ~. fl\0J ,.. ¡r¡ JF.b ~ E ~ fi:> P\ ~ .,.. . ~ ~ ~ ~ % å 20' 0" 7 '~ 01· It\¡ '~, '7' '- I I "J . .þ. I 1 ~ = I :l. ".~~~ n~, p Ô¡;õ~\.\, ,J .~ª § ~ ..." e '. .l _L~ 30' 0" ---- ~ '^\~ " ----- - ----- 1'-.., ~"i: : " (f)~'~~ : 0iT/> 1 ~ 1 riifl1~tD J 1 ::ur'C;l~,)( I I IlJ......'¡ ', fTI>(f) ~j I ,,».z~ I' :. '~f1~ ~"-" ' '~......... I ~ $'-4."+ -------- ...4-- --,,: ....1 _________ '-~ -- ~ Ie- r. ,.e-- )~~ , '" 8' 1Qt" " Õ I I~ m ..... J ~. :> - I ~ 1 IOI~ ", !r " ~O~~6:_ " "', '1"'",,1 " .. ., , [';;--6";'--- , , , , . , I , , I , , I , , I I , , I , , , I , , , . , I , , , , , , , !. , , , , , I , . tl , . : ~II s... I à!i< , , , , , , I , , I , , : 5''';'6'' ---- 4' 0" 1 54' 0" ---- ", 12' 4" ... ,( ~\\ -- - '! ~~p 8 ~N' ~", ~ ! ~; '1 , , , , Ii I , '-6" , , , , , , , , I 9'-10" 2'-2" :- -, , :1 , , , , , , , , , I , , L___ , , , 1 , --;- , , , , -t , , , I -, , , , , I , L_____ - -Jrl _J ------ I , '-T~- ¡=:J_ ,~ ~~ ',.. ' I ~;; .' , ~. .~ t!J. I~ ~ 1 IIL""':""_' 14·...0" ~ - -- - - 54' 0" ~ ~ ¡;; ~ ¡¡ " " -- - 5' 5" - ~ x !:! Q "' ~ ~. ..).2' '0" ---., ~--,> i' ' ~m ?õ '", _.J ì ~ 1n; I' 'ii, : ~. , 'n I , ~ , , .,. I :i~ ~ I I~ . r I~~ I' lei'!! J I~~ ta. I ~ ~ , , J L Õ r ~ - , , 22'-0" --] [I-U:::: ------ !I ~"..-/ ~ Lt-o" ,_ " '" 1 ~::: u " " F, .,. .,. c-;;¡{ r ;.. ~. 4' 4" m r I~ ~ CJ >- ~ ~ 0 '" " " :;; ¡:¡ I ;: " ~ m 0 :-" ," e? 1 - 30" 0" , __ J___________ ; ---- 1 I: ¡ O~i~:Þ : I 11'-8" "%% "'I I' , ~ gl!~~¡f ! '111 ~ ¡¡~~;:jJr~ Ie ~ ~ ~Flr IVI i J< I" i ll± i ' " I I I I 1 , , , I. : I Þ ¡ It¡~ i , . , ; ¡ IITI~ 'J ~ , , , I , , , , I : I , , , I t : , , : : , , , I : ~ , . ¡ I~t , , I , , , , , , , , , , , , , , I , , , , , , I , , 'I , , , , , , , , , , , , I , , , , , , I I , '- 11'-8" ~ >- ~ ~. I I 20"FLR~_ ,g.2o.C, [ 16' 0" 112~'~~ HI Ë":! 0':<> ! ~'""'- ~ :~ ~ . - - 41 : ¡¡ r " uo .., , ~ , , , , , , , , , . , I I , , I , , , , J , , : I , , , 1 , J 1. - -- -J I ~~ ~I .! ~¡ ., ãí ~ûlO::I:'tIè! ç:' !:o:::U i:m:li!JI't!~ i APPLICATION FORVARIANCE CITYÙF ST. JOSEPH 25 College Avenue NW P. O. Box 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374 (320)363-7201 .or Fax (320)363-0342 Fee $ Paid Receipt # STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF STEARNS) I/We, the undersigned, as owners of the property desctibed below, hereby appeal to the City Council and Planning· Commission of the City of StJoseph, Steams County, Minnesòta 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): PROPERTY OWNER NAME(S): COry & Julie Ehlert PROPERTY OWNER PHONE NUMBER(S): 320-420-1052 ADDRESS: 716-7'h Avenue NE. St. Joseph ZONING DISTRICT: R1. Sinele Familv LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3, Block 1 Pondview Ridee 9 PROPERTY OWNER(S)' SIGNATURE(S): , The request(s) which we desire for our property islare in conflict with the foi/owing section(s) of the St. Joseph City Code: Section 52.27 Subd, 4101 Section Section Proposed non-conformance(s): To build a 932 sauare faot àaraaelstoraae soace BELOW the exlstina 932 sauarefoof aaraae bn, the main level of the home I What special conditions and circumstances exist which are particular to the land, structure or building(s) involved which do not apply to the I land, structures or building(s) in the same zoning classification (attach additional pages as needed)? The 10DoaraDhv of the Drooertv in i 'uesfion rovidesano ortuni fora ara ebelowtheexistin ara e, Further thehomes ¡eselectedforthe ro eri alsoarovidesfora ara e under the existin ara e, Therefore s eeial circumstances exist both with the land and the buildin , ¡ Do any of the special conditions and circumstances result from your own actions (if the answer is yes, you may not qualify for a variance)? No, lam usin the exlstln to 0 re h and I had to chose ahouse desl n that wouid fit the same, I What facts and considerations demonstrate that the literal interpretation of the zoniog code would deprive you of rights commoniy enjoyed b) other properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning code (attach additional pages as needed)? The existlno Zonina Code has a maximumof1350s uarefeetolLotCovera e, tnm caselamonl còverin 932s uareleetofm iot-However lamusln that932s uare feet of lot covere e twice - once in the main ara e and once in the "tuck under" ara ebelow, State your reasons for believing that a variance will not confer on you any special privilege that is denied by the zoning code to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district: Not all Sinale Familv lots in Sf, Joseoh have the same tooooraohv as the lot stated above, The house desl n has been matched wilh the to 0 fa h and is a unl ue sffuatlon. State your reasons for believing that the action(s) you propose to take islare in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning code? , The soirit and intenf of the 1350 souare foot maximum for the accessory buiidina was to avoid very larae accessory buiidinas and/ar aaraaes not DraDor/ionate with the home and neiahbarhoöd. This reauest DOES NOT circumvent the intent of the code, it afiows for same additianai stora e s ce 1/3 of the cost ofbuiidin a detached buiidin of the same size. whiie maintainin. the Besthllt/cs and Intevn , of the i ' neiahborhood. Finafiv. the house elevailons wifi not chanae reaardless of the aaraae SDace and the aaraae soace wlfi became habftable $Dace if the variance is not aranted. State your reasons for beiieving that a strict enforcement of the provisions of the zoning code would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use jf used under the conditions ailowed by the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone shàil not constitute an undue hardship under the term$ of this code as referenced in state statutes: , - ". . . . -' . . . . ¡ Because of the toooaraohv I am trvina to maximize buiidina on the iot. usina the land to build a house that wlli fit wlli fulfillina the zonina reauirements and fit into the neiahborhood, I Attached to this application and made a part thereof are other material submission data requirements, as indicated. Applicant Sig~ature: ~ Date: Owner Signature: ~æ:- al/ Jt!#dÆ::r Date: , " . FOR OFFICE USE ONLY DATE APPLICATION SUBMITTED: ATE APPLICATION COMPLETE: lanning Commission Action: _ Recommend Approval --' Recammend Disapprovai Date af Action: Date ApplicanVProperty Owner notified of Planning Commission Action: ity Councii Action: _ Approved _ Disapproved Date of Action: ate ApplicantíProperty Owner notified of City Councii Action: made a motion to reconunend the Council approve a five hundred fourteen (514) foot variance on the maximnm accessory space allowed based on the following findings: RESOLUTION OF FINDING The request of Cory & Julie Ehlert for a five hundred fourteen (514) foot variance ou the maximum allowed , , accessory building came before the, Planning Connnission at a Public Hearing held on November 1, 2005. The purpòse of the hearing was to, consider a variance to allow additional accessory space. , The property is legally described as foliows: Lot 3 Block 1 Pond View Ridge Nine St. Joseph Code of Ordinances No. 52.27 Subd 4 (g) states: Accessory building(s) and/or private garage(s), either attached or detached, shall be subject to the following limitations, and the general requirements of Section 52.12, Subd.I. I , 1. One or two accessory buildings covering a combinêd area not greater than 1,350squarefeet are, i permitted. ~ I In consideration of the informàtion presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the ComprehenSive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the PID1Ìning Commission makes the foliowing findings: FINDING: The proposed plan is consistent with the foliowing provisions: St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd fa\ states: "That there are exceptional or extraordinary I ..' ·.1 circumstances or conditions applying to the 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 I circumstances must not be the result of actions taken by the petitioner. FINDING: The topography of the property in question provides an opportunity for a garage below the existing garage. Further, the home style selected for the property also provides for a garage under the existing garage. Therefore special circumstances extst, both with the land and the building. , I St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd. (b \: "states that the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the petitioner of rights commouly enjoyed by other properties in the same diJtrict nnderthe terms of this Ordinance". , : FINDING: The property owner is using the extsting topography and chose a house design that would fit the same. ! St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8subd.fc\: "states that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is defied by this Ordinance to otherlands in the same district". FINDING: The existing Zoning Code has a maximum of 1350 square feet of Lot Coverage, Th~ property owner is only covering 932 square feet of the lot - However, the property o;'ner is using the 932 square feet of lot coverage twice- once in the main garage and once in the "tuck under" garage below. I I , St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd. (d) "states that the proposed variance will not impair an I adequate supply oflight and air to adjacent property, or diminish or impair established property values I within the surrounding area, or in any other respect impair the public health, safety or welfare of the I residents of the City". I FINDING: The property owner is trying to find a home that fits into the neighborhood to protec~ the values of the surrounding properties and meet his needs. The home proposed keeps the integrity of the neighborhood and protects the land values, St. Joseph C.ode of Ordinances 52.8 subd.· ( ej "states that 'the conditi.on or situation of a specific piece bf property, or the intep.ded use of said property, for which the variance was sought, ,is not .of so general ¿r recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the fonnuIation of a general regulati.on f.or such conditions or a-situation". FINDING: Home styles vary greatly and the home selected would not fit on many lots in St. Jos~ph. The house deSign was chosen based on the topography of the lot. This variance would only be applicable for homes of similar style and there are currently no such designS in the City. Therefore this variance would not formulatè a general regulation. The moti.on was seconded by Attachment: Ye or No I REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Rezoning Request - E & E and R3 DATE: June 2, 2003 AGENDA ITEM Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Mixed Zoning request PREVIOUS ACTION The Planning Commission has agreed to initiate the process to conduct a public hearing for the rezomng' of 102 acres formerly owned by Aloys Bechtold. The request has been submitted by Ted Schmid of Lumber One who is proposing to sell approximately 75 acres to District 742 for a K-8 school and develop the remaining acreage as R3, Multiple Family. ' RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS At the time of writing this memo I have not received the information from the Attorney. Rajkowski i Hansmeier could not represent the City on this matter as they also serve a legal counsel for District 742 and Lumber One. The City has retained Kennedy and Graven to review the matter with a recommendation to the City. The Comprehensive Plan indicates the above area in the future as low density. Therefore the Comprehensive Plan must be amended. The subject property is located in Planning District 14 and while the district does allow for mixed and tiered density, it states it is for areas abutting CR 121. Further i comments will be provided by the Attorney. ' I I A site plan has not been provided as Ted has indicated the property will not be developed for fIve to seven years. The development will depend on the housing needs at the time of development. Since R3 Zoning requires a special use permit for anything over 12 units a hearing in the futore will be required. Again, the attorney representing the City will provide additional information. I will forward additional information as it is received. I was hoping that by waiting until Saturday I would receive the additional information. Administfðtor Judy Weyrens Mðyor Richðrd C,rlbom Councilors AI Rðs~er Ross Rieke Renee Symðnietz Dðle ~ck CITY OF ST. JOS~PH www.cityo/stjoseph.com Public Hearing City of St. Joseph The St. Joseph Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, November 1,2005 at 7:30 PM. The purpose of the hearing is to consider rezoning a portion of the ! property described below as E & E and R3, Multiple Family. The hearing is also requesting an amendment to the St. Josenh ComDrehensive Plan allowing for R3 the area described I below. The rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment will allow the construction of a school facility and mixed unity density. The Soùthwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 124 I North, Range 29 West, Stearns County, Minnesota. AND The south 225.33 feet öf the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 124 North, Range 29 West, Stearns County Minnesota. AND The Southwest Quarter of the! Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 124 North, Range 29 West, Stearns I County, Minnesota, LESS AND EXCEPT the South 858.00 feet (52 rods) ofthei East 660.00 feet (40 rods) of the said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Containing 75.0 acres more or less. I The request for rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment has been submitted by Ted Schmid, Lumber One Avon, PO Box 7, AvonMN 56310 Judy Weyrens Administrator Project Area \ ~ .. (J j / Note: MN State Law requires mailed notice to all property owners within 350 feet of a Variance, Special Use, Interim Use or Rezoning request. 2, College Avenue North' PO Box 668 . Sðinl. Joseph, Minnesotð ,6)7 Phone ,20,,6,,7201 FðX ,20,,6,,0142 Kennedy . 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www.kennedy-graven.com . C H ART ERE 0 November 1,2005 JAMES J. TlIpMSON AttomlfY at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9209 Email: jthomson@kenn!ldy-iiven.com \ JudyWeyrens City Administrator CityofSt. Joseph 25 College Avenue N PO Box 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374-0668 RE: City of St. J osephlSt. Cloud Independent School District No. 742 Dear Ms. Weyrens: I am providing this opinion to you in response to the October 25,2005 letter from City Attorney I Thomas Jovanovich. I reviewed the background information included with Mr. Jovanovich's letter \ and I also reviewed the City's Zoning Ordinance and various maps that Mr. Jovanovich provided to \ me. I will not repeat all of the facts contained in that background information, however, a brief I summary of the facts would be helpful so that you can understand the basis for my opinion. I Facts Ted Schmid currently owns approximately 102 acres of land in S1. Joseph Township. The land is adjacent to the City, and the City has an orderly annexation agreement with the Township. The land is undeveloped, and Mr. Schmid is requesting that the City annex the property. The property is not presently served with any public infrastructure. The property is zoned agricultural and is in District Fourteen of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The recommended land uses in District Fourteen are: 1. Single family or mixed density residential development within areas contiguous to existing urban locations; 2. Park or open space; 3. Specialized recreational areas adjacent to the Sauk River; and 4. Tiered higher intensity uses, such as commercial and high density residential adjacent to CSAH 121 and the CSAH 121/138 intersection. Mr. Schmid is proposing to sell approximately 75 acres of the property to the School District, and he would retain the remaining 27 acres for future development. JJT -270454vl SA565-2 Judy Weyrens November 1, 2005 Page 2 The purchase agreement between Mr. Schmid and the School District states that the purchase price is $19,600per acre for a total purchase price of $1,470,000. The School District has asked the City to contribute $224,000 towards the purchase price. In exchange, the School District would enter into an agreement with the City allowing the City to use the school for certain uses. The purchase agreement contains a contingency provision that allows Mr. Schmid to cancel the transaction if he does not obtain. an appraisal report valuing the property at not less than $3,150,000. If he obtains such an appraisal, the School District must provide him with a gift letter acknowledging a donation of $1,680,000 to the School District. In order to obtain such an appraisal, it appears that Mr. Schmid believes that a rezoning of the property to either R-3 or R-4 is necessary. Consequently, the purchase agreement contains a contingency making such a rezoning a condition of the sale. The purchase agreement is also contingent on Mr. Schmid and the School District mutually agreeing to the method by which municipal utilities would be extended to the property at no cost to Mr. Schmid. Ouestions You have asked the following questions: 1. Is it proper for the City to rezone or change the comprehensive plan designation of the property that Mr. Schmid will be retaining if the property cannot be developed for approximately five years, and the property owner does not lmow whether there will be a market for this type of housing being requested? 2. Is it legal for the City to contribute $224,000 to the School District to assist in the purchase of the property? 3. Are there any other legal impediments involving any actions that the City will need to take with respect to the matter. . Answers 1. The fact that the property would not be developed for approximately five years does not, by itself, prevent the City from changing the comprehensive plan designation or rezoning the property. However, because the property is not currently served by public infrastructure and because no specific development plan has been proposed, the City could reasonably conclude that any zoning or comprehensive plan changes would be premature. In addition, any such changes must be based on valid land use principles. The fact that a property owner wants. property to have a higher market value, by itself, would not be a proper basis for changmg the comprehensive plan designation or the zoning of the property. 2. T~e expenditure of $224,000 would be a lawful use of public funds in a situation such as this where the School District would be providing consideration to the City in the form. ofa use agreement by which the City is able to use the property. JJT-270454vl SA565-2 Judy Weyrens November 1, 2005 Page 3 3. I am not aware of any other legal impediment that would prevent the City from taking the actions that the City is contemplating. Analvsis The August 5, 2005 letter from Mr. Jovanovich to the City Council contains a detailed legal analysis of the questions that you have raised. I will not repeat that analysis here. A few additional comments might, however, be helpful. The Minnesota Municipal Planning Act (Minn. Stat. ~ 462.351 et. seq.) provides cities with the authority to adopt or amend their comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. When a city adopts or amends a zoning ordinance or a comprehensive plan, a city is acting in a legislative capacity. Courts will uphold such decisions as long as they are supported by a rationale basis that relates to public health, safety and general welfare. State. by Rochester Association of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885 (Minn. 1978). Nothing in the Municipal Planning Act requires that a specific development proposal accompany a request for a rezoning or a comprehensive plan amendment. However, the lack of such a proposal, especially if combined with the unavailability of public infrastructure, can certainly indicate that such a request is premature. The City's comprehensive plan contains a recommendation regarding future land classifications for the property in District Fourteen Applying generally accepted land use principles, the City could decide to revise that classification if the applicant brings something to the City's attention that would indicate that circumstances have changed since the original recommendation was made. A decision to revise the existing land use classification or zoning would not be defensible if the sole basis for that decision was simply to increase the market value of the property. Although changes in market value can sometimes be the effect of a rezoning, such changes cannot be the sole cause for the rezoning. In my opinion, rezoning property simply because the property owner wants an increased value for the property is not a valid land use planning reason for such a decision. A city can spend public funds and enter into cooperative agreements with school districts for the joint use of school facilities. In this case, the proposed agreement between the City and the School District contemplates that the City could use the playground, the gymnasium on one Saturday morning per month, and use the facility as a polling place. Those types of things are ample consideration for the expenditure of public funds. Whether $224,000 is a fair payment for those uses is a policy matter for the City Council to decide. Sincere! , CL cc: Thomas Jovanovich JJT-27Q454vl SA565-2