Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 [09] Sep 16 September 16,2015 Page 1 of 2 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Joint Planning Board for the Township and City of St. Joseph met in special session on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Rick Schultz. Members Jeff Janssen, Jerome Salzer, Steve Olson, Bob Loso, Chad Hausmann, Brenda Stanger, Mark Thompson. Secretary of the Board Judy Weyrens. Others Present: Michael Koltes, Hal Undersander, Ann Reischl, Katherine Rausch-Klein Approve Minutes: Janssen made a motion to approve the minutes of August 11, 2015; seconded by Loso and passed unanimously by those present. Rezoning, Rausch-Klein: Chair Schultz opened the public hearing to which Weyrens stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a request for rezoning approximately 3.37 acres from the current Commercial zoning district to Urban Expansion. The request for rezoning was submitted by Russell Rausch, Katherine Klein-Rausch, Brook Klein and Brittany Klein. Weyrens stated the property was previously rezoned to Commercial in 2011 which is consistent with the surrounding areas and the City future land use plan. When considering zoning, MN State Statute prohibits spot zoning and rezoning one parcel to Urban Expansion would create spot zoning. Further, the Joint Planning Board determined in 2011 that rezoning the property from Industrial to Commercial was consistent with the long range plans of the City and Township; therefore what has changed over the past four years to now consider rezoning to a classification that is not consistent with the surrounding property and long range plans. Weyrens stated that she had an opportunity to talk to Jennifer Buckentine from Stearns County Environmental Services and she stated that the property owner was concerned that a residential use is a non confirming use and they would prefer to operate the property as a conforming property as they propose to list the property for sale. Through discussion with Buckentine, it was clarified that the property owner can continue the use of a residential dwelling without rezoning and MN Statute includes provisions whereby the property can be reconstructed in the event of a disaster. The property owner was also questioning if an accessory building could be constructed under the current to which it can;therefore, rezoning the property is not needed. Schultz closed the public hearing. Loso asked if the property owner still operates a commercial business at the site. Weyrens stated that they have tried multiple business operations and along with using a portion for residential and the commercial component was not successful. The main reason for the application for rezoning was that the property owner wanted to be a conforming use. The current zoning makes it non-conforming. Janssen stated he does not see�he need for the rezoning if the owner can qccupy it as residential without having to rezone. Schutz added that the rezoning will not help or hinder them iin ari�ruv�y.` SalzeF st'at�d the board would be spot zoning if the request were to be granted. � Rausch, Klein approached the Board to discuss the reason for the rezoning request. Klein-Rausch stated they are looking to sell the property and the potential buyer wants to occupy the property as a residential use. Klein-Rauch added that leaving the property as a commercial use would limit the owners regarding expansion and addition of buildings. Weyrens stated there is nothing prohibiting the construction of additional buildings if the property remained commercial. Rauch-Klein believed that there were more restrictions under a commercial use and that the home would not be able to be rebuilt in its current use if it were to burn down. Klein-Rausch added she has received conflicting stories about what can and cannot happen with the property. Stanger read from the packet regarding the discussion had between Weyrens and Jennifer Buckentine from Stearns County. It read that the property can continue to be operated as a single family home and September 16,2015 Page 2 of 2 would be considered a non-conforming use. MN Statute allows the home to be rebuilt as a non- conforming use in the event it is destroyed.Weyrens added that the property will be taxed on how it is used, not on how it is zoned. Janssen stated that Minn. Statute 462.357 addresses issues being discussed. In the statute it allows the property owner to apply for a building permit to rebuild the home under the existing zoning and use if done so within 180 days or six months. Janssen and Salzer stated that the property owner would have the most flexibility regarding use if it remains as commercial. Loso made a motion to recommend denying the request for rezoning of the property located at 8551 County Road 75 from Commercial to Urban Expansion as submitted by Russell Rausch, Katherine Klein-Rausch, Brooke Klein, and Brittany Klein based on the following Findings of Fact. The motion was seconded by Hausmann and pass unanimously by those present. 1. The request for rezoning is not consistent wifh the future land use plan of the City. Further, the action would result in spot zoning which is prohibited by MN Statute and is not considered effective/and use planning. 2. The property owner indicated that they purpose of rezoning is to maintain the property as residential. The Joint Planning Board clari�ed that the applicant can continue the use as a single family dwe/ling under the current zoning as a non-conforming use. 3. MN Statute 462.357 governs non-conforming uses and residential structures are allowed to be rebuilt in the event of a natural disaster or�re provided the property owner secures a building permit within 180 days of the event. 4. The current/and use regu/ations wou/d allow the property owner to construct an accessory building should the property owner request. 5. The property owner has fhe most flexibility with regard to use, under the current commercial zoning classification. That is the property could continue to be used as residentia/or the owner could convert the prope►fy to commercial. Janssen also noted that if the use of the property is not residential within a year,then it is non-coriforming. Weyrens stated that a copy of the record from tonight's meeting and a copy of the state statute will be provided to the current property owner. Adiourn: Schaltz made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Stanger and passed unanimously. �-k� Rick Schultz J e n Joint Board Chair int o d Secretary '