HomeMy WebLinkAbout[02] Minutes, April 11
April 11, 2017
Page 1 of 3
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Joint Planning Board for the Township and City of St. Joseph
met in regular session on Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall.
Members Present: Chair Rick Schultz. Members Jerome Salzer, Steve Olson, Bob Loso, Gina Dullinger,
Michael Koltes, Ralph Eiynck, Mark Thompson. Secretary of the Board Judy Weyrens.
Others Present: Ann Reischl, Anne Jarrell, Randon Eiynck, Tracy Eiynck, Ron Klinker, Dave Demars,
Cory Ehlert.
Approve Minutes: Salzer made a motion to approve the minutes of December 13, 2016; seconded
by Loso and passed unanimously.
Public Hearing, Variance, Knife River: Chair Schultz called the hearing to order to which Weyrens stated
the purpose of the hearing is to consider a twenty three and eight tenths variance on the maximum height
of a structure. The request for variance has been submitted by Knife River and the variance would allow
for the construction of a third cement power silo.
Ron Klinker, Knife River spoke on behalf of the property owner. Klinker stated that since the St. Joseph
plant is centrally located, it serves eighteen ready mix concrete plants. Based on the need for cement,
the construction of a third tower will help guard against disruptions in the cement supply. The additional
storage buffers against reliance on third part distribution of cement powder that can impact operations
during peak production periods. Klinker further stated that the proposed silo is consistent with how they
are currently using the property as Knife River has two silos.
As no one present wished to speak the public hearing was closed.
Weyrens reminded the Board that the granting of variances is conditioned by MN Statute and includes the
highest standards. Weyrens stating in reviewing the application, the following questions have not been
addressed: 1) is the size of the silo the smallest deviation from the maximum height; and 2) If the silo
would collapse, would it be contained on the property owned by Knife River or would it fall on other
property.
Klinker responded that they already have two silos on site and the size they are proposing is an
industry standard. Further it would not be effective to use smaller silos. With regard to the location to the
sideyard, Klinker stated that based on site circulation and location of existing silos it would not be feasible
to move the location on the site. In addition, he has not heard of a silo failing and collapsing.
Loso questioned how much of the silo would land on adjacent property if a collapse would occur. Klinker
responded that if a collapse would occur, the only property other than the property owned by Knife River
that would be impacted is the property owned by the railroad.
Salzer made a motion authorizing execution of the findings of fact, issuing a twenty three foot
Variance allowing for the construction of a cement powder storage silo 68.8 feet in height based
on the following findings. The motion was seconded by Loso and passed unanimously.
1. In reviewing the variance in relation to MN Statute 394.27 Subd. 7 the board finds:
a. The proposed use is consistent with uses allowed in the Industrial Zoning District.
i. The property has been used for a cement production facility before the adoption
of official land use controls; therefore the use of the property is grandfathered. A
cement silo is necessary for the operation of a cement production facility.
b. The proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Industrial
Zoning District.
c. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as it encourages industrial
development of existing sites and expansion of the manufacturing sector of the economy.
d. Practical difficulties exist in applying the strict standards of the Ordinance, which include:
i. The facility already utilizes two silos of similar height and the height proposed is
the industry standard height. Therefore, the property owner is requesting to
April 11, 2017
Page 2 of 3
place a structure commonly used by production plants; a small structure would
not be effective.
ii. The forty-five (45) feet maximum building height restriction would render the silo
useless.
Public Hearing, Variance, Eiynck: Chair Schultz opened the public hearing to which Weyrens stated the
purpose of the hearing is to consider issuance of a variance to allow the construction of an accessory
structure closer to the road than the residential dwelling at 31897 Cedar Ridge Road. The request was
submitted by Randon and Tracy Eiynck.
Randon Eiynck, 31897 Cedar Ridge Road: Eiynck approached the board stating their lot has wetlands
surround their home and there is not much buildable space for an accessory building.
Weyrens stated the property owned by Eiynck is part of the Sunset Ridge Development. When the
property was platted a Development Agreement was required and included in the agreement was the
notation of limited developable lots. The agreement mentions the lack of buildable space for lots in
Sunset Ridge. For this particular lot, it is over 8 acres but just over 18,000 square feet of it is buildable. A
variance was granted for the same purpose in the same development in 2014. Weyrens added this
request is a good candidate for variance approval.
As no one else present wished to speak, Schultz closed the public hearing.
Salzer asked if the shed height is higher than the house. Eiynck stated the maximum height of the shed
would be twenty four feet and the height of the house at its highest point is around the same.
Salzer made a motion authorizing execution of the findings of fact, granting a variance on the
front yard setback requirement for an accessory building based on the following findings of fact.
The motion was seconded by Eiynck and passed unanimously.
Based on the Finding of Fact, the St. Joseph Joint Planning Board approves the Variance as
requested by Randon and Tracy Eiynck to allow construction of an accessory building closer to the road
than the principal structure at 31897 Cedar Ridge Road based on the following findings:
2. The topography of the property limits the area in which the accessory building can be located
and the property owner has placed the accessory building in the most practicable area.
3. The property owner is not deviating from the intent of the restriction requiring placement of
the accessory building behind the main structure. While the building is physically in front of
the main structure it will be placed behind trees, limiting the viewshed. Therefore the intent of
the MOU requirement is not deviated.
4. In reviewing the variance in relation to MN Statute 394.27 Subd. 7 the board finds:
e. The proposed use is consistent with uses allowed in the R4 Zoning District and provision
of the MOU included in the Orderly Annexation Agreement.
f. The proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the R4 Zoning
District and provisions of the MOU included in the Orderly Annexation Agreement..
g. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, allowing for accessory
structures within a residential district, and not deviating in size.
h. Practical difficulties exist in applying the strict standards of the Ordinance and MOU,
which include:
iii. The property owner purchased a large residential lot that would accommodate a
large accessory building and home and is requesting to utilize the property in the
same manner as adjoining property owners.
April 11, 2017
Page 3 of 3
iv. The subdivision entitled Sunset Ridge contains natural elements that create
building impediments and the property owner has placed the buildings in a
manner which disturbs the least amount of natural resources.
v. Section 3.4 \[b\] of the executed/recorded Development Agreement for the Sunset
Ridge Subdivision identifies the lot limitations for the above described property.
While the property is 8± acres, only 18,248 square feet is developable, limiting
the location of any accessory building.
The Variance is approved with the following contingencies:
1. The accessory building will be constructed so that it is harmonious with the principal structure
being constructed of similar material and color.
2. The accessory building can only be used for personal use. If the property owner intends to
use any part of the accessory building for home business or extended home business a
separate special use permit must be secured as required by the MOU in the Orderly
Annexation Agreement.
2. The Variance Permit is separate an independent from the building/lot requirements. The
residential accessory building must meet all the land use requirements as identified and
required by Stearns County Environmental Services and the Building Inspector for St. Joseph
Township
Adjourn: Salzer moved to adjourn at 7:15 PM; seconded by Schultz and passed unanimously.
Rick Schultz, JPB Chair Judy Weyrens, Secretary to the Board
This page intentionally left blank