HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 [03] Mar 07
I
I
I
I
I
March 7, ¥002
Page 1, of 8
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in regular sessidn
on Thursday, March 7, 2002 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. '
,
Members Present: Mayor Larry Hosch. Councilors Cory Ehlert, Bob Loso, AI Rassier, Kyle sChneider"1
Administrator Clerk Judy Weyrens, .
Citv Representatives Present: City Attorney John Scherer, City Engineer Joe Bettendorf, Public Work~
Director Dick Taufen. i I
Others Present: Gary Utsch, Lonnie Abbott, Bill Nelson, JoAnn Schneider, AI Gwost, Bob Herges, RicK
Heid, Linda Brown, Tim Muske, Chris Vance. '
APprove Aaenda: Rassier made a motion to approve the agenda with the addition of 13 (b) Joint
Planning sub committee. The motion was seconded by Schneider and passed unanimously. .
Consent Aaenda: Schneider made a motion approving the consent agenda· as follows:
I
a, Approve check numbers 30886 - 30942.
b, Approve the minutes of February 17, 2002,
c. Authorize the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk to execute the Memorandum of I
Understanding regarding Planning in the Orderly Annexation Areas, I
d. Accept the resignation of Officer Paul Schely and authorize the filling of said vacancy, I
e. Approve the Gambling Ucense application of the St. Joseph Uons Club to allow lawful
gambling at the La Playette, 20 College Avenue North and the EI Paso, 200 - 2'd Avenue
NW.
!
Discussion: The interview committee for the replacement of Officer Schley will be as follows:
Chief Jansky, Sergeant Young, Mayor Hosch, Adminstrator/Clerk Weyrens,
The motion was seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS TO THE AGENDA
I
JoAnn Schneider, Lambert PURD Reauest: JoAnn Schneider of 506 Gumtree Street East approached
the Council regarding agenda item 9 (a) and (b), PURD Application - Mark Lambert, Schneider I
requested the Council reconsider the request of Mark Lambert taking into consideration the amount of!
traffic it will add to the neighborhood and the safety of children biking on Northland Drive, Schneider also
,
stated that in the recent past the Council has agreed to research relieving traffic on Gumtree Street East
and the proposal before the Council at this time does not take that into consideration. If the developer 'is
not required to place a road at the center line of Lots 1 and 2 Indian Hills Plat, a future road wouid be I
difficult. Schneider encouraged the Council to continue studying transportation issues in St. Joseph in 'an
effort to provide efficient and adequate transportation for the residents of St. JO¡eph. I
Bill Nelson, Variance Reauest: Bill Nelson appeared before the Council to request a one hundred forty-
seven foot variance on the size of a business sign for the proposed St. Joseph Business Center. Nelsbn
purchased the property east of the First State Bank of St. Joseph and will be constructing an eight (8) unit
office suite, While each unit will be identified with a business sign, Nelson is requesting to letter the I
building for identification, While the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances makes a provision for such a sign; it
is limited to 50 square feet. Rassier clarified that tne letters will not be lit nor extend beyond the roof line,
and be similar to the lettering at Subway. .
!
Ehlert made a motion to adopt the findings of the Planning Commission, granting a one hundred
forty-seven foot variance on the size of a business sign, The motion was seconded by Loso and
passed unanimously.
March 7, 2002
Page 2 of8
RESOLUTION OF FINDING
I
The request of Bill Nelson for a one hundred forty-seven (147) foot variance on the maximum size of a
business sign came before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing hel~d on March 4, 2002. The
purpose of the hearing was to consider a variance to allow additional signage,
The property is legally described as follows: All that part of Lot One (1) Block (2) of Roske Addition, lying
easterly of the following described line: Beginning at the southwest comer of Lot 1, Block 2 Roske
Addition; Thence North 89029'58" East 421,64 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described;
Thence North 000 04' 23"; East of the North line of Lot 1, Block 2, Roske Addition and said Line there
terminating, according to the plat and survey thereof, now on file and of record in the office of the Steams
County Recorder,
st. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.14 subd 12 states that the area on one side of all such signs erected
on one street frontage of anyone premise shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet.
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 proposed plan is consistent with the following provisions:
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd (a) states: "That there are exceptional or extraordinary
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 I
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances must not be the result of actions taken by the
petitioner" .
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 commonly enjoyed by other
properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance".
st. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd,(c): "states 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 districf'.
st. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd, (d) 'states 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 the residents of the City".
st. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd. (e) "states 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 practicabl1a the formulation of a general
regulation for such conditions or a situation",
FINDING: The Planning Commission previously has stated the existing Ordinance is too
prohibitive; therefore, previous variances have been granted,
Resurrection Lutheran Church, Variance Reauest: Lonnie Abbott appeared before the Council on behalf
of Resurrection Lutheran Church to request a 6.4 foot encroachment in the front yard setback for a
distance of 20 feet. The encroachment is needed to allow for the addition of classroom space for the
Church, Abbot stated the Church has outgrown their space and due to the location of the building and
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
1
I
March 7, 2002
Page 3:of8
the needed space, it was not feasible to design the building without encroaching the right-of-way area.
Loso questioned City Engineer Joe Bettendorf if the encroachment will present any future problems for,
the City when expanding services, Bettendorf stated that he feels it is policy to encroach the right-of-way
areas as they are dedicated for a purpose. Rassier clarified that the encroachment is in the front yard set
back area, not the right-of-way area, which is an additional 30 feet beyond the right-of-way, After further
discussion Bettendorf stated that allowing the encroachment will not have a negative impact. 1
Loso made a motion to accept the findings of the Planning Commission approving the I
encroachment of 6.4 feet into the front yard setback area for a distance of twenty (20) feet. Th~
motion was seconded by Ehlert and passed unanimousiy, i I
RESOLUTION OF FINDING i
The request of Resurrection Lutheran Church for a variance to encroach the right-of-way area came I
before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing held on March 4, 2002, The purpose of the hearing
was to consider a variance to allow an addition to Resurrection Lutheran Church. The Variance request
is to allow an encroachment of 6.4 feet in the public right-of-way area for a dista~ce of twenty feet. I
The property is legally described as follows: The property is located at 610 County Road 2 and is legally
described as follows: That part of the Northwest Quarter Northwest Quarter (NW Y. NW Y. ) of Section of
Ten (10) in Township One Hundred Twenty-four (124) North of Range Twenty Nine (29) West, which lies
Northeasterly of the Northeasterly right of way line of the Burlington Northern Railroad, Northerly of the:
North line of Lot 12 of Auditor's Subdivision NO.4 and Easterly of the centerline of new State Aid Road·
No.2, LESS AND EXCEPT the North 26 rods of said NW Y. NW 1/4 , all in the City of St. Joseph, Stearns
County Minnesota. I
i
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 proposed plan is consistent with the following provisions:
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd (a) states: "That there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question as to the intended use of the I
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
FINDING: The properly In question is triangular in shape, therefore creating some
building restrictions, The denial of the variance would create a hardship to the properly
owner as the building could not be expanded and would no longer meet the needs of the
properlyowne~ 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 commonly enjoyed by other
properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance". .
i
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd.(c): "states that granting the variance requested will
not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other landsl in
the same districf', I
,
I
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd. (d) "states 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 the residents of the City", .
March 7, 2002
Page 4 of8
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd. (e) 'states 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 I
of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general
regulation for such conditions or a situation",
The recommendation is contingent upon the following:
The City Engineer verifies that the proposed encroachment will not in!terfere with future utility or
street improvements,
CITY ENGINEER REPORTS
Public Improvement Hearina, 15th Avenue NE and Elm Street East: Mayor Hosch reconvened the public
improvement hearing regarding the proposed improvements to 15'" Avenue SE and Elm Street East. City
Engineer Joe Bettendorf stated that the Council at the last meeting a!leed to notify an additional property
owner and consider the possibility of extending Elm Street East to 19 Avenue NE. Therefore, the public
improvement hearing will have to be tabled until the March 21, 2002 Council meeting.
Bettendorf stated that he along with City Staff reviewed the total costs of the improvements to the
Business Park to ensure that all costs have been allocated and the financing mechanism used for the
project is cash flowing. At this time it appears as $ 68,395 of assessments have not been assessed as
well as a deferred assessment for Borgert Products. Bettendorf stated that he has received
correspondence from the City Attorney regarding assessing the additional costs and will report back to
the Council at the next meeting,
Hosch tabled the hearing to March 21, 2002,
I
DTED Grant Bettendorf responded that the City of St. Joseph received an award announcement from
the Department of Trade and Economic Development regarding the County Road 121 project. The grant
award will abate the assessments in total for residents meeting the low to moderate federal income
levels. The grant application identified the number of low to moderate incoml~ families and those
properties will have their assessments abated. If property ownership has changed and additional families
qualify for abatement the City will be responsible for providing the funding for abatement. Conversely, if a
property on longer qualifies for assistance the assessments will not be abated.
Hosch stated it is his understanding that the grant submitted finished high in the rankings, to which
Bettendorf reported that it finished third in the State.
Railroad Crossina at First Avenue NE: Loso questioned Bettendorf on the possibility of re-opening 1"
Avenue NE near Sunset Manufacturing. Bettendorf responded that it is his understanding that when
Mark Lambert purchased the abandoned property from the railroad the crossing area was included in that
purchase. With the crossing in private ownership, the intersection could not be opened. Scherer stated
that he will reviewe this matter and will report back to the Council.
Bob HeraeslRick Heid Graceview Estates PURD and Rezonino Application: Scherer presented the
Council with a brief outline of the recent meetings with the College of St. Benedict regarding the sewer
easements and north access for Graceview Estates, The highlights of the leUer are as follows: 1) The
City will not commence eminent domain proceedings for a period of at least two years; 2) The College
would grant a permanent utility easement and a temporary construction easement along the south edge
of their property; 3) Over the course of the next two years the City would con1inue to work with the
College to find an acceptable north access; 4) The City provide some alternatives for assessments I
whereby the College is only being assessed if the property owned by the College is developed and
services are needed,
I
I
I
i
March 7, 2002
! Page TS
Scherer stated that developing a Memorandum of Understanding as stated above will be of no cost to the
City at this time. The agreement will allow the City and College to continue working together in an effort
to find a mutually acceptable location for the road. The College has stated at this time that they do not i
have a use for the property and would like an opportunity to plan for the use and highest use of the I
,
property, Scherer stated that there would be some expense if the City would go through the eminent !
domain process. However, as the road will not be needed until the second phase of Graceview Estates it
does not make sense to pursue that option at this time.
In budgeting for the construction of a north access, the City may consider requiring the developer to
contribute a fixed amount per acre, Loso stated that he is comfortable with the information presented at
this time and encourages the Council to move forward, The Council agreed to allow staff to work out the
details for the Developer's Agreement and present a final document for the Council to consider. I
Loso made a motion to approve the PURD application requesting a Special Use Permit to develop
the property know known as Graceview Estates with mixed housing and to rezone the propertyl
from agricultural to single family. Approval is contingent upon the execution of a Develope.r's I
Agreement between the City of St. Joseph and Pond View Ride LLP and the execution of a .
Memorandum of Understanding between the City of St. Joseph and the College of St. Benedict.,
The motion was seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously, i I
Mark Lambert. PURD Reauest to Construct a 44 Unit Apartment Complex: Mark Lambert approached:
the Council and þresented revised plans for the proposed construction of a 44-unit apartment complex 'on
the Indian Hills Park Plat. Lambert stated the revised plans are based on the discussion of the joint City
Council and Planning Commission meeting held on March 4, 2002, The revised plan includes locating a
ten (10) foot strip of landscaping on the Indian Hills Plat property, (the original plan placed a portion of \he
landscaping on the adjoining property), and a five (5) foot berm to shield headlights, Lambert stated th",
access is located on the centerline between lots 1 and 2 with a driveway running parallel to Northland
Drive on the east side of the proposed building.
Hosch questioned why the landscape plan illustrates an access on the northern edge of the property
rather than the centerline as contained on page 1 of the site plan. Lambert stated that the landscaper
and engineer are separate firms and the landscaper was not aware of the discussions regarding the road,
The purpose of the landscape plan is to illustrate that the landscaping has been moved from private I
property and it is sufficient to provide the screening requested by the neighborhood. I
Chris Vance of 516 Fir Street East spoke on behalf of the neighbors abutting the property, Vance stated
that the natural screening plan is the same plan that Lambert originally presented, providing one tree I
every fifteen feet. It is his opinion that the proposed screening is insufficient. Vance stated the revisedl
plans appears to have moved the building closer to the existing homes on Fir Street East and the berm
proposed by Lambert will not screen headlights, Therefore, on behalf of the residents on Fir Street he is
requesting the Council reject the plan submitted by Lambert. i
!
Loso made a motion to accepting the findings of the Planning Commission and approve the PURD
Application for a Special Use Permit to construct a 44 unit apartment complex and approve the:
three foot Variance Request on the maximum height of a building,
DISCUSSION
Hosch stated that while he is not sure the petitioner has provided sufficient information to grant a
variance, he has reservations about denying the request. If the variance is denied the property i
owner can change the roof line to a flat roof thereby not needing a variance. In his opinion the 1
design presented is a better alternative than a flat roof. Lambert stated it was his opinion that thE>
height issue has been resolved with the redesign of the roof line, lowering the building two feet. I
I
I
....1""
,
,
,
March 7, 2002
Page 6 of8
Ehlert questioned if the building will be sprinkled, Lambert responded that once a building exceeds
16 units it must be sprinkled. Therefore this proposed building will be sprinkled.
I
Rassier stated that he has concerns with the proposed building. The Planning Commission during
the concept plan made the property owner aware that the access needlact to be along the centerline
of Lots 1 and 2. Rassier stated it is his opinion that the road needs to placed in the center with the
hopes of connecting to 4th Avenue NE at some point in the future. Fu~her, he stated he has some
concerns as to the location of the building and placing such a large building in a hill. While he
supports the construction of an apartment complex he does not feel the plan presented to the
Council at this time meets the requirements for granting a Special Use Permit and Variance.
Schneider stated it was his understanding that the purpose of the joint Planning and Council
meeting on March 4, 2002 was to resolve any unsettled issues, Lambert responded that the
proposal presented at this meeting is a result of the joint meeting and is requesting the Council
approve the plan as submitted. Lambert further stated that he has revised the landscaping plan
and at this time the only issue remaining is satisfying the neighbors. He feels the plan submitted
provides a good transition for the single family homes north of the proposed development. Lambert
stated it is his opinion the site is not suitable for residential development and will need to be
developed as multiple family or commercial.
Hosch stated that the plan before the Council contains many contingencies which leads him to
question if the plan is suitable for the site, Further, it is not good policy to render a decision with
numerous contingencies. If the plan is not acceptable it should be denied and a new plan
submitted allowing the Council, consultants and staff have adequate time to review the plan.
Vote call on the motion to approve the Special Use and Variance
Ayes: Loso
Nays: Hosch, Ehlert, Rassier, Schneider Motion Fails 1:4:0
I
Hosch made a motion to accept the following findings to support the denial of the PURD
application requesting a special use permit to construct a 44-unit apartment complex and three
foot Variance on the maximum height of a building. The motion was seconded by Rassier.
Findings
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.13 subd 2: Planned Unit Residential Dev1elopments (PURD) shall be
proposed and approved in accordance with this section. The burden of justification for any planned unit
residential development shall be the exclusive responsibility of a developer.
Finding: The developer has failed to provide justification that the proposed PURD application is
consistent with the standards established in Sf, Josevh Code of Ordinances 52.13.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52,13 subd, 4 (e): Action by the Planning Commission ..... In its
recommendation the Commission shall determine whether the proposed PURD is consistent with the
objectives for planned unit residential developments specified in Section 12.01 and with the
comprehensive land use plan of the City; whether the proposed development will advance the general
welfare of a neighborhood and the City; and whether the benefits, combination of various land uses, if
proposed and the inter-relationship with the land uses in the surrounding are.'3 justify the deviation from
standard district regulations allowed by this ordinance for PURD's,
Finding: The developer has failed to show the proposed apartment complex will advance the
general welfare of the neighborhood and the City, nor has he provided sufficient evidence to
justify deviation from standard district regulations.
I
I
I
I
~-r
March 7,12002
Page of 8
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd. (d): "states 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 the
residents of the City",
Finding: The proposed apartment complex is inconsistent with this standard.
Ayes: Hosch, Ehlert, Rassier, Schneider
Nays: Loso Motion Carred 4:1:0
MAYOR REPORTS
Countv Road 133: Hosch questioned Bettendorf regarding the status of CountY Road 133/8'h Avenue I3E
and if the County has turned that section over to the City. Hosch stated that the road is in need of repair
and questioned if the County will overlay the road before it becomes a City liability. Bettendorf responded
that before the overlay is constructed there are two residents along 8th Avenue SE that do not have City
services and it does not make sense to overlay the road before services are installed. As of this time the
County has not released that section of 8th Avenue SE to the City of st. Joseph,
Tax Abatement Seminar: Hosch reported that he will be attending a one half day seminar on Tax
Abatement on March 14 and encouraged the Council to attend, Rassier stated that he will attend as
well.
COUNCIL REPORTS
LOSO - No report
RASSIER
Memorandum of Understandina, St. Joseph Township: Rassier reported that on Monday, March 11,
2002 a public hearing will be conducted at the St. Joseph Township Hall regarding the St. Joseph
Township Zoning Ordinances and implementation of the St. Joseph Joint Planning Board. The Joint
Planning Board will regulate land use issues in the Orderly Annexation Area using the Ordinances of
Stearns County until a time when the revised St. Joseph Code of Ordinances is available.
EHLERT - No report,
SCHNEIDER - No report.
ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK REPORTS
Roske PropertY: Weyrens reported that a resident has approached the City about purchasing the
remaining lot on the Roske property, The lot is located on 4th Avenue NE and Minnesota Street East and
contains approximately .40 acres. The property does not have any outstanding assessments and utilities
services are available. Due to the size of the lot it is not suitable for commercial use. The party i
requesting to purchase the property intends to construct a patio home on the site, Since the property is
jointly owned, St. Joseph Township will also need to be approached to sell the property, Ehlert stated i
that he could prepare a market analysis to determine the selling price for the property, and indicated the
sale price will be somewhere in the high 20's to mid 20's.
Loso made a motion to sell Lot 3, Block One Roske Addition provided St. 'Joseph Township is n
agreement and a fair market value is established, The motion was seconded by Rassier and
passed unanimously,
Joint Plannina - Review of Ordinances: Weyrens reported that in light of St. Joseph Township requesting
the City to formulate a Joint Planning Board and participate in the land use controls of the Orderly
Annexation Areas, a sub- committee will need to be formed to review the St. Joseph Ordinances and
March 7, 2002
Page 8 of8
County Ordinances. It is the intent of the Board to add the zoning districts that are not currently in the St.
Joseph Code of Ordinances so that when property is annexed to the City, the standards have already I
been set. Once the revisions are adopted the County will transfer land use authority to the Joint Planning
Board. Weyrens stated the sub-committee will consist of two planning commissioners, two members of
the Council and the Administrator/Clerk. St. Joseph Township Supervisor Joe Bechtold is willing to assist
the committee if needed. At this time Mike Deutz and Jim Graeve have volunteered on behalf of the
Planning Commission. Ehlert made a motion to appoint Rassier and Hosch as representatives
from the City Council; seconded by loso and passectunanimously.
HeatinalCoolina Svstem, Cable Booth: Weyrens reported that she has contacted McDowall regarding the
heating and cooling of the cable area, McDowall has indicated that the most e,fficient manner to regulate
the temperature is through a separate unit. While venting could be attempted the cost saving would not
be significant. With regard to replacement of the existing system, Weyrens noted that replacement would
require no changes to the internal mechanisms. loso stated that the City has a considerable funds
invested in equipment and the City should strive to protect the investment. Loso made a motion
authorizing the expenditure of $ 3,200 for the installation of a heating and cooling unit for the
cable access both. The motion was seconded by Ehlert and passed unanimously.
Adiourn: Rassier made a motion to adjourn at 8:55 PM; seconded by Losio and passed
unanimously,
dJ
I
I