Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.13.24CITY OF ST. JOSEPH www.cityofstjoseph.com 75 Callaway Street East | Saint Joseph, Minnesota 56374 Email: cityoffices@cityofstjoseph.com | Phone: 320.363.7201 | Fax 320.363-0342 St. Joseph Planning Commission Monday, May 13th, 2024 6:00 PM St. Joseph Council Chambers 75 Callaway St E **The meeting will also be available through Zoom** 1.Call to Order 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3. Public Comment 4. Agenda Review and Adoption 5. Approval of March 11th, 2024 minutes 6.New Business a.Outdoor Patio Permit - The LaPlayette 1.Permit appeal 2.Building materials b.PUBLIC HEARING Zoning Text Amendment Application Tyler Braegelmann– City Code 502.12 Subd 6 Section E c.PUBLIC HEARING – Vacation of Interior Easements Hansen Companies d.PUBLIC HEARING – Variance to the parking lot materials– Hansen Companies e.Proof of Parking Plan – Hansen Companies f.Building Materials – Hansen Companies 7. Old Business a. General updates 8.Other Business a. General updates 9. Adjourn ZOOM INFORMATION Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87642407431?pwd=bXlkL3NlM2VKNXVMdmk2MC91blYxUT09 Meeting ID: 876 4240 7431 Passcode: 797162 One tap mobile +19292056099,,87642407431#,,,,*797162# US (New York) Dial by your location Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kblhxKat7W 1 March 11th, 2024 Page 1 of 5 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met on Monday, March 11th, 2024, at 6:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall opening with the Pledge of Allegiance. Planning Commission Members Present: Commissioners Keith Louwagie, Adam Scepaniak, Jon Hazen, Carmie Mick, Gina Dullinger, Isabella Margl Absent: Mark Thompson Staff Present: Nate Keller Public Comments: None. Agenda Review & Adoption: Hazen made a motion to flip flop item 6, b. and 6, c. The motion was seconded by Dullinger and passed unanimously by those present. Approval of February 12th, 2024, minutes: Hazen made a motion to approve the February 12th minutes. The motion was seconded by Scepaniak and passed unanimously by those present. New Business: a.Public Hearing – Special Home Occupation 201 Pond View Lane Sheryl Matters is the owner and occupant at 201 Pond View Lane. She is proposing to operate a licensed home massage therapy business. This type of business is permitted through the Special Home Occupation License and requires Planning Commission recommendation and Council approval. Initially the license may be issued for up to a year. After one year the permit may be re-issued for a maximum period of five years. Action by the Planning Commission and Council will be required at the one-year renewal mark. The applicant is proposing to use 120 square feet of her home for the business. Parking generated by the business will be on-site and in the applicant’s driveway. A condition of approval is that no on-street parking be allowed to which the applicant was agreeable. The hours of business are proposed to be Monday – Saturday from 10AM – 6PM. No signage or exterior modifications to the home are proposed. Louwagie opened the public hearing at 6:04PM. As no one stepped forward to speak, Louwagie closed the public hearing at 6:05 PM. Hazen motioned to approve Finding of Fact 2024-001 approving Special Home Occupation Permit for 201 Pond View Lane. The motion was seconded by Scepaniak and passed unanimously by those present. b.Variance to the North Rear Building Setback 13 2nd AVE NW – House of Hern On November 13th, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended approval for the rezone at 13 2nd AVE NW . Council approved the rezone at their November 20th meeting. Owners of House of Hern, LLC (Craig and BriAnne Hern) have submitted formal plans to develop the former gas station site located at 13 2nd Ave NW. Their proposal has multiple actions items associated with it including. •Building placement/setback. •An off-site parking proposal with variances at 202 MN ST W . The proposed building would be 5,880 square feet, have a detached cooler, and on-site trash enclosure. City Ordinance 502.50 Subd 5 requires a 20’ setback to residential districts; the applicants are proposing a 12’ building setback to north rear lot line. The property located to the north is considered a legal non- conforming use, which means the property operates under a commercial use while being zoned residential. Future zoning for the area is commercial; however current zoning is R-3 residential. 2 March 11th, 2024 Page 2 of 5 Louwagie opened the public hearing at 6:10PM. Tim Borresch – 11 3rd Ave NW: Borresch had questions tied to the lot lines and ownership. Keller informed Borresch where the property line was and who has ownership. Borresch stated that he feels like the setbacks should be adhered to as most of the surrounding properties are still residential. He also feels like the proposed building is too large for the size of the lot. If it were smaller, it would not need the proposed variances. Elaine Niehaus – 219 MN ST W: Niehaus explained she bought the property at 219 MN ST W in 1997. She lived there while her child attended school and moved to St. Cloud afterwards. She kept the property as a rental. Neihaus shared she has been considering renovating the home and moving back to St. Joseph. After learning of the proposed business Niehaus is no longer sure she wants to renovate her property and move into it. Niehaus feels that the proposed building is too large for the lot and would be better suited for a lot on the highway. Diane Schneider – 207 MN St W: Schneider shared she has been a business owner in the City of St. Joseph for over 50 years. During her time as a business owner, she has not requested variances for the projects she has done. She has always followed the city’s ordinances and rules. Diane feels her rental house on the west side of 13 2nd Ave NW will decrease in value if the proposed variances are approved. Louwagie closed the public hearing at 6:24PM. The commission had discussion tied to the comprehensive plan of St. Joseph and whether the proposed variance meets the criteria. Commissioner Scepaniak felt that the area of the proposed building fits in well with the comprehensive plan of St. Joseph, citing the area of this proposed business is guided for commercial. Hazen shared that he understands the concerns of the property owners adjacent to the proposed business; however, agrees with commissioner Scepaniak that the future of St. Joseph’s commercial business district is moving in this direction. Commissioner Dullinger questioned why the detached cooler would not be considered a “building”. Keller responded by citing the city code definition of “building”. Dullinger explained her interpretation of the city code definition of “building” would require the cooler to be considered a building and therefore should be subject to following the setback requirements. Keller provided further background by reading the Finding of Fact resolution which states a zero lot line setback and includes language addressing the cooler. Ryan Cross - BCI Construction: Cross spoke regarding the commercial detached cooler, what it would look like, how it would operate and that there are decibel requirements to keep the noise down. Cross shared they are aiming to be good neighbors and look forward to building a building that fits in with the future vision of St. Joseph. Staff and commission discussed that the current abutting properties are zoned residential which is why the variance request is necessary to modify the setback requirements. Keller pointed out that in the future when these properties are rezoned commercially these variance requests will be unnecessary because there are no setbacks for commercially zoned lots. Scepaniak made a motion to approve the Finding of Fact 2024-002 approving Variance to North Rear Setback at 13 2nd Ave NW. The motion was seconded by Margl. Aye: Margl, Scepaniak, Louwagie Motion Fails 3:3 Nay: Dullinger, Hazen, Mick 3 March 11th, 2024 Page 3 of 5 c.Non-conforming structure – Extension Request 13 2nd Ave NW – House of Hern Keller provided the commission the highlights of the extension request: •April 20th, 2023, the gas station previously on this lot was demolished. •The building was setback 2’ off the west lot line. •Due to those setbacks the building was considered legal non-conforming. Another reason the building was legal non-conforming is because the lot was zoned R-3 multi-family residential with commercial use. •City code allows the structure to be replaced within one year so long as the non-conformity (westside setback) is not expanded. The applicant is requesting a six-month extension to October 20th, 2024, to cover unforeseen circumstances such as weather etc. Dullinger asked staff for clarification on the setback. She noted that it appeared the old building did not extend as far back on the west side as the proposed building will. Keller explained the expansion is considered an expansion to the non-conformity which would be the setback itself. Not the amount of distance of the setback. Keller mentioned that legal did concur with this assessment. Dullinger made a motion to approve extension request of six months to Oct. 20th, 2024, to allow building to be constructed at the previous non-conforming setback of 2’ (feet) on the West side. The motion was seconded by Hazen. Aye: Margl, Scepaniak, Louwagie, Hazen, Mick Motion Prevails 5:1 Nay: Dullinger d.Motion on parking proposal Keller gave an overview of the applicants parking proposal. •The applicant’s development plan on the lot at 13 2nd Ave NW leaves no room for parking. •City code allows developments in the downtown district (B-1) to propose alternative parking arrangements. •The applicants are proposing to create 38 parking spots at 202 MN ST W. •The proposed parking lot is owned by the Sisters of St. Benedicts and have agreed to a five-year lease. •The parking plan requests two variances. o Variance for west side setback. o Variance to maximum allowed impervious surface. Keller explained the commission may choose to table action on the overall parking plan and go through the variances that apply to the parking proposal first if that is preferred. Hazen made a motion to table action on the parking proposal until after the public hearings relating to the parking proposal. The motion was seconded by Dullinger and passed unanimously. i.Public Hearing – Parking lot setback 202 MN ST W Keller gave an overview of the proposed variance for the parking lot setback. •City code requires parking lots to be 15’ setback from residential districts. Commercial districts do not have parking lot setbacks. •The property to the west is currently zoned residential but is guided for future commercial. •The applicant is proposing to be 4’ off the west side. A vinyl fence along the entire west side is to be constructed to buffer the lot and shrubs are proposed to line the east side of the lot as a buffer for headlight pollution. Louwagie opened the public hearing at 6:55PM. 4 March 11th, 2024 Page 4 of 5 Janet Jonas - 206 MN ST W: Shared that she has lived in her home located at 206 MN ST W for 30 years. The proposed parking lot will abut her property line. Rather than looking out her living room window and seeing downtown, she will now be looking at a vinyl fence. She shared she will no longer be able to enjoy her backyard due to the noise and traffic of the parking lot next door. Jonas wanted to know how far the fence would be from her property line. Ryan Cross - BCI Construction: Cross estimated the fence would be 10’ from Jonas’s house. Tim Borresch – 11 3rd Ave NW: Borresch feels it is unfair to treat the adjacent lots as if they are already commercially zoned lots while they are still zoned residential. Borresch went on to ask what the lighting will look like for the parking lot; if it will be low profile lighting or if there will be street lighting. Borresch shared his concerns relating to, the five-year parking lot lease, light pollution due to the proposed parking lot, dust that will be created by using the gravel alley way as an entrance/exit to the parking lot, a sewer line that goes through the lot, ability of the alley way to handle 2-way traffic. Craig Hern - Applicant: Hern shared that he and his wife are from St. Joseph and have family ties to the property at 13 2nd Ave NW. Initially when they purchased the lot, they were unsure what they wanted to do with it. They created a survey where folks could provide feedback and offer suggestions for what they would like to see there. Hern explained there was an overwhelming response for food, café, family, and coffee. With that they did a lot of research and traveled around the country and to Minneapolis looking for ideas. From those travels the food hall idea was born. Hern shared that they based their decision with the lot on the future comprehensive plan of being zoned B-1 commercial. The process has been a learning curve for them, they are trying their best to be good neighbors and apologized for the hardships that has/may cause. Hern explained how they arrived at the parking lot plan. Mark Matters – 201 Pond View Lane: Matters shared that he felt an off-street parking lot across the busiest street in town (MN Street) is unacceptable. Gene Marie Lust – Representing the Sisters of St. Benedict’s: Lust shared they are supportive of the parking lot and look forward to seeing it become a useful space. They are also supportive of the proposed food hall. Lust explained the college has first right of refusal and it would have taken a significant amount of time to go through the proper channels to sell the lot to the Hern’s. Lust also explained the monastery and the college are currently in a long-term planning state and thought the lease was the best option so the food hall project could go on. Kevin Kluesner – 29645 95th Ave: Kluesner pointed out there should not be an issue with having the parking lot across the street. Friday’s, Saturday’s , and Sunday’s the east parking lot of St. Joseph’s Catholic Church is used by the public who cross MN Street to patronize businesses downtown. Louwagie closed the public hearing at 7:34PM. The commission discussed items related to improving the street right of way for the parking lot, the lease agreement for the parking lot, lighting for the parking lot, fencing setbacks, and minimum parking spaces for this building. Craig Hern – Applicant: Hern explained the details of the parking lot lease have not been legalized at this time. Hern and the Sisters will move forward with the lease agreement if the parking lot proposal is passed. Dullinger made a motion to approve Finding of Fact 2024-03 approving Variance for Parking lot setback at 202 MN ST W. The motion was seconded by Scepaniak. Aye: Mick, Louwagie, Scepaniak, Margl Motion Prevails 4:2 Nay: Hazen, Dullinger 5 March 11th, 2024 Page 5 of 5 ii. Public Hearing – Variance for Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage 202 MN ST W – House of Hern Keller informed the commission that the maximum impervious surface coverage is fifty percent because the subject property is zoned residential. The applicant is proposing 85.32% impervious because they intend to pave the lot to meet the minimum number of parking spots required. Louwagie opened the Public Hearing at 6:52PM. Tim Borresch – 11 3rd Ave NW: Borresch shared his confusion and frustration with the process of approvals for the proposed project. Louwagie closed the Public Hearing at 6:54PM. Dullinger shared her appreciation for the application process and to the applicants for sharing their vision. She explained from a designer’s standpoint and with respect for the financial capacity of the owners and the city, the applicants are looking for parameters through the proposed variances. Dullinger explained things like alley way improvements, fences, and lighting will all be addressed if the project moves forward. Margl asked if the percentage of coverage has been reviewed by an engineer. She is concerned with runoff because the parking lot is surrounded by gravel. Keller shared infiltration requirements do not have to be met because the site is under one acre of disturbance however rate control is required and will be met through underground PVC collection. Hazen made a motion to approve Finding of Fact 2024-004 approving Variance to the maximum allowed impervious surface coverage at 202 MN ST W. The motion was seconded by Scepaniak. Aye: Margl, Scepaniak, Louwagie, Hazen Motion Prevails 4:2 Nay: Dullinger, Mick Dullinger made a motion to recommend approval of the Parking Proposal - 202 MN ST W. The motion was seconded by Margl. Aye: Margl, Scepaniak, Louwagie, Dullinger, Mick Motion Prevails 5:1 Nay: Hazen Old Business: a. General updates - none Other Business: a. General updates: Keller shared discussion continues at the legislature regarding parking, land use, and planning. Keller will follow up with the commission as discussion continues. b. Joint Planning Board – March 13th. c. All Boards and Commissions meeting – March 26th @ 5:30PM. Adjourn: Dullinger moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:15PM. The motion was seconded by Margl and the motion carried. Minutes approved by: Nate Keller Community Development Director 6 Planning Commission Agenda Item 6a 1 and 2 MEETING DATE: May 13th, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Outdoor Patio Permit - The LaPlayette 1.Permit appeal 2.Building materials SUBMITTED BY: Community Development STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 6a 1 - Staff has recommended that the applicant submit permit and appeal the denial. This is because direction is needed from PC and Council on how to process the request which could include direction on potential code changes. Staff recommends some consideration into code changes. PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: None BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The La Playette has submitted a permit for outdoor patio. Their intention is to block off the rear of their facility, install a fence along the Northern side to enclose the space and utilize the area as a patio. They are also looking to potentially install a more permanent structure to enclose the space and create some permanence. The permanent structure is still TBD but could potentially be installed late summer 24’ or early 25’ (if everything is approved). Over the past 3 plus years the La Playette had a patio up but they took it down. Leniency was given because when the patio was first installed it was during COVID and the subsequent restrictions. After COVID leniency continued. Since the patio was removed and is now proposed to be reinstalled staff needs recommendation from PC and decision by Council on how to handle because the proposal conflicts with City Code and does not allow staff to administratively approve the proposal. The conflict is 502.22 Subd. 3 Section M (Outdoor Dining City Code) which requires “all off-street parking regulations and spaces to apply and compliance be maintained”. The La Playette’s proposal includes blocking off eight off-street parking spaces in the rear of their facility. The placement of the perimeter fence will allow for the creation of three more temporary parking spaces so a net loss of five parking spaces will occur. Tacoholics has an agreement with the La Playette to have a “right of way” for deliveries. The La Playette is going to maintain access for Tacoholics. If the structure is approved and installed a 4’ wide pathway on the Eastern perimeter will provide access. The perimeter fence can be moved as well to create accessible access. The structure will also have garage doors. Building materials – potential structure for patio Also being requested is approval on the materials of the potential structure the La is looking to install. The structure will consist of metal seamed roof with siding of trim and batten boards, glass (windows), awning along the sides, and metal. Given the location of the La is in our Downtown district these materials are not specifically allowed. Ordinance 502.50 Subd. 7 Sections A-G call out a variety of allowed materials. Section H allows the City Council after a review and recommendation by the Planning Commission to approve other alternative materials including “durable decorative synthetic materials, concrete composite material which can be comparable or superior and mimic the appearance of other approved materials.” 7 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Outdoor patio permit as submitted by the La Playette 2. Email correspondence 3. Outdoor dining ordinance REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 6a 1 - Direction on the appeal. There is a myriad of paths the city can take and the Commission can recommend. Some options include: • Temp. suspension of the ordinance enforcement (allowing applicant to proceed forward with patio) • Direction to evaluate and explore potential code amendments which could: • Eliminate the references to off-street parking or modify the restrictions • Denial of patio 6a 2 – recommendation on the proposed materials for the patio structure 8 B-1 DOWNTOWN DISTRICT ALLOWABLE MATERIALS Subd. 7: Building Materials. Building facades shall be designed to avoid a monolithic design and feature divisions in materials, textures and separate entrance treatments. The exterior surface of all buildings and structures must be constructed of one of, or a combination of, the following building materials. a)Brick or face brick including textured, burnished and colored block; b)Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture (excluding raw concrete block painted or unpainted or ceramic faced); c)Wood; d)Natural or cut stone; e)Glass or any combination thereof; f)Stucco; g)Pre-finished architectural metal panels when utilized for accent and/or architectural components of buildings such as the entry or entry appendage, a required enclosure or screen or architectural roofing as an intended designed accent (not to exceed 15% of the exposed wall area on any two visible sides of the building). h) Any other materials approved by the City Council after a review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, including but not limited to durable decorative synthetic material or concrete composite material found to be comparable or superior which mimic the appearance of other approved materials. i)Roof Materials. All roofs which are exposed to a view or are an integral part of a Building’s aesthetics will be constructed only of commercial grade asphalt shingles, wood shingles, standing seam metal, slate, tile or copper. The City Council may consider green roof options that reduce stormwater runoff and improve water quality. 9 10 11 12 From:The LaPlayette To:Nate Keller Subject:Back lot patio at LaPlayette Date:Wednesday, April 24, 2024 1:06:50 PM Parking: We will lose 8 spots in the current lot setup. Once the fence is setup this will create 3 more spots to park in front of the fence in a different configuration than how the lot is currently striped. So a net loss of 5 spots. Intent of the fenced in patio area: Patio will be set up seasonally from May 1st to the end of October. The perimeter of the patio will be the outside wall of the LaPlayette, The outside wall and fence of Tacoholic and the garage which is owned by the Lofts on Minnesota Street. The North perimeter will be a fence that is constructed to meet City rules. The fence will then be professionally imaged by one of our distributors as it has been in years past. During special events an outside bar will be set up in this enclosed area. Otherwise drinks will be served inside the bar and taken outside. Food will be allowed from all places in town just as it has always been at our bar. There will be seating made up by spool tables, stools and possibly picnic tables. This will allow our customers to enjoy the weather during this timeframe. Create another space for our customers to enjoy and add to the vibrancy of downtown St Joseph ! 13 14 15 Planning Commission Agenda Item 6b MEETING DATE: May 13th, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING - Zoning Text Amendment Application Tyler Braegelmann– City Code 502.12 Subd 6 Section E SUBMITTED BY: Community Development STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is supportive of the proposed amendment PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: None BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Staff have been working with Mr. Tyler Braegelmann over the past several months on a proposed development. Mr. Braegelmann plans to construct multiple buildings on two lots in the Industrial park off Co Rd 133. Mr. Braegelmann’s plan includes an eventual total of 7 structures which would be leased out to different tenants. Braegelmann will eventually need to consolidate the two lots and vacate the interior easement between the lots. His 1st phase includes constructing three buildings on the Northern part of the 1st parcel as shown below: 16 Braegelmann’s plan to lease out the buildings to multiple tenants could foster an Industrial business incubator. Start-up companies can lease space with the hopes that they eventually outgrow their space and stay in the community by constructing an even larger facility nearby. City Code 502.12 Subd. 6 Section E states “Every building hereafter erected or structurally altered shall be located on a lot as herein defined and in no case shall there be more than one (1) principle building on one lot unless provided in this Ordinance”. Therefore the plan to have multiple principle buildings on one lot is in conflict with the Code. As staff worked with Mr. Braegelmann on his plans and solutions to the Code conflict staff offered some pathways which included: •Combine the structures into one contiguous building •Re-plat the buildings as a Common Interest Community plat. This would essentially place each building on its own parcel ID allowing the owner to sell each building separately. A CIC plat is common in areas where a Business Strip mall exists and multiple tenants lease space. •Pursue a Zoning text amendment to allow more then one building on a lot After discussion on the pros and cons for each Mr. Braegelmann pursued the Zoning text amendment. Staff is supportive of the change and recommends that the existing code language should be updated. The applicant has included some suggested language however staff is also including some slight modifications to the language depicted by Mr. Braegelmann. The language suggested by staff includes specifying that single-family districts cannot have more than one building per lot. This therefore would allow other Zoning Districts like I-1 Light Industrial to have more than one principle building on a lot (all other Zoning requirements need to be met). Staff also worked with legal throughout this process including: weighing the various options, along with the drafted amendment language. 17 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance amendment application 2. Written narrative submitted by applicant 3. Civil plans from applicant 3. Ordinance amendment resolution 4. Ordinance amendment summary publication REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 1.Open and close public hearing after staff presentation 2.Motion on proposed Ordinance resolution 2024-001 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ORDINANCE 2024-001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 502, SECTION 502.12 SUBDIVISION 6 SECTION E New language is underlined and in red font The City Council for the City of St. Joseph, HEREBY ORDAINS that City Code Section 502.12 Subdivision 6 Section E shall be amended as follows: 1. That Section 502.12 Subdivision 6 (e) shall be amended to read as follows: E.Every building hereafter erected or structurally altered shall be located on a lot as herein defined and in no case shall there be more than one (1) principal building on one lot in single family residential districts unless provided in this Ordinance. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of St. Joseph, Minnesota this 20th day of May, 2024. Rick Schultz, Mayor ATTEST David Murphy, City Administrator This amendment was published on , 2024. Document drafted by: City of St. Joseph 75 Callaway St E St. Joseph, MN 56374 41 Resolution 2024-002 SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2024-001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 502.12 Subd. 6 Section E The following official summary of the ordinance referred to has been approved by the City Council of St. Joseph as clearly informing the public of the intent and effect of the amendments. Ordinance 502.12 Subd. 6 Section E The ordinance amendment adds specific language that single-family zoned residential properties are not allowed more than one principle building per lot. A printed copy of the entire ordinance is available for inspection by any person at the office of the City Clerk any Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00a.m. and 4:30 p.m. or on the City website at www.cityofstjoseph.com This document hereby is made a part of this ordinance and is attached hereto. _____________________________ Rick Schultz, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ David Murphy, City Administrator SEAL PUBLISHED IN THE ST. CLOUD TIMES ON ________________, 2024 42 Planning Commission Agenda Items 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f MEETING DATE: May 13th, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: 6c Public Hearings – Vacation of Interior Easements Northland Business Center Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, Block 1 6d Public Hearing – Variance to the parking lot materials 6e – Proof of Parking Plan 6f – Building Materials ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of items 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Subject lots were platted in 2019. Planning Commission approved of the plat in Feb. 2019. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Adam Hansen owner of Hansen Companies (applicant) is proposing to construct a new 82,500+S.F. manufacturing facility which will also contain 6,000 S.F. of offices. The location will be off Jasmine Ct and 21st Ave NE (Industrial Park off Co Rd 133). Hansen and Companies is a cabinet manufacturer based in St. Joseph (since about 2005). The proposal requires multiple action items tied to: on-site parking, easements, and building materials. Hansen has a purchase agreement on the parcels which are owned by CLC Partners, LLC. 43 6c – Public Hearing Vacation of Interior Easements Northland Business Center lots 4, 5, 6, 7, Block 1 Hansen Companies (applicant) is proposing to vacate the interior easements between lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 Block 1 of Northland Business Center. The easements are all standard drainage and utility easements that were dedicated during the original platting of the Northland Business Center plat. The easements do not have any city utilities running through them and the applicant has provided signatures from area utility providers approving of the vacating of the easements. The purpose of the request is so the applicant can consolidate the lots into one and construct a building along with associated site improvements like parking over the vacated easements. Engineering and Public Works has reviewed the request and did not have any concerns. 6d – Public Hearing – Variance Parking lot materials Hansen is proposing to pave the entire site minus the loading area in the rear of the facility. The rear of the facility is proposed to be surfaced with crushed granite/asphalt. The loading dock area where trucks will be parked will be paved with concrete. The city has seen similar requests of this nature in past projects (Trobec’s, Goodin, etc.) A variance is needed because City Code 502.10 Subd. 3 Section N states “all off-street parking and loading spaces together wit driveways, aisles, and other circulation areas, shall be a hard surface constructed of concrete, bituminous, or paver stone.” As with any Variance the project should be evaluated on its own merits to the Variance criteria outlined which follows MN State Statute 462.357. 44 A resolution to approve and a resolution to deny the Variance has been included. As a side note - Given the half dozen or so requests we’ve had to not pave staff suggests the PC also look at evaluating the code for potential modifications. If an ordinance consistently has variances to depart from the language and those variances are being granted then consideration into amending the code should occur as the code is not serving a purpose anymore. Variance Criteria: A variance may be granted if enforcement of a zoning ordinance provision on a particular property would cause the landowner practical difficulties as defined by MN State Statute 462.357. A variance shall only be permitted if all of the following facts and conditions exists: 1.The variance is consistent with the adopted St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan. 2.The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance. 3.The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Practical difficulties as used in connection with the granting of a variance shall mean: a.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. b. The plight of the landowner is due to the circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner c. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4.Economic considerations alone shall not constitute practical difficulties under the terms of this Ordinance. 5.Practical difficulties shall include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 6.Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in MN Statute 216C.06, Subd. 14 as may be amended, when in harmony with the zoning ordinance. 7.Additional Conditions: If granting a variance, the City Council may impose conditions to ensure compliance with this Ordinance and to protect adjacent properties. Finding of Facts have been supplied for each Variance proposal. The Findings of Fact go directly off the above criteria. 6e Proof of Parking Plan Hansen and companies are proposing to not construct all of the minimum parking spaces required by code for their new building. City Code 502.10 Subd. 4 Section Z allows for flexibility in minimum parking spaces provided some justification is given to why not all the required parking spaces are needed. Here is what is being proposed by Hansen and what is required: Proof of Parking – Hansen Companies Code requires 3 spaces per 1,000 S.F. for “manufacturing, fabricating, or processing of product” + 1 space per 300 S.F. for office. Total production area = 82,500 s.f. therefore 246 parking spaces are required Total office area = 6000 s.f. therefore 20 more parking spaces are required Total required: 266 Total that could be constructed from Hansen’s plan: 218 Total proposed to be constructed: 72 Employees Day shift = 55 45 Night shift = 6 Total = 61 total spaces at peak time and during day shift Growth – company is expected to add another 13 hires in the next six years. As company grows additional spots could be added for employees if needed. The site plan shows additional parking areas specifically the area along the Eastern side (front) near the Office portion of the building. Very limited walk-up or other traffic to site besides employees. Hansen and companies therefore are asking for approval to construct 72 total parking spaces. The city has granted these “proof of parking” plans to previous projects like Goodin Company. The flexibility of a “proof of parking plan” within the code offers a tool to alternative solutions on a case by case basis to avoid forcing unnecessary overbuilding of parking on-site. The PC and Council reserve the right to place reasonable conditions on the Proof of Parking plan. 6f – Building Materials City Code 502.62 Subd. 10 Section C requires 25% material breakage on exterior building materials for properties in our Industrial park that face streets. The 25% breakage must consist of materials comparable to: “face brick, natural stone, cultured rock, glass (not including doors/windows), vinyl, stucco, aluminum lapsiding, cut block, and concrete block (surface treated with applied decorative texture/material). Pre-cast or cast in place concrete buildings shall provide same amount of adornment.” Hansen’s building is facing streets along the East (21st Ave NE and Jasmine Court), North (Co Rd 133) and small portions of the Western rear (CO Rd 133). Therefore, these portions technically require the 25% breakage. Pic above shows the Eastern portion of building (front entrance) facing 21st Ave NE. Please refer to the attachment for additional exterior depictions. Hansen is proposing a “exterior built with a precast concrete panel with a finish of a steel form w/cast in reveals. The reveals will have color change allowing a break in the look. The walls will also have a textured architectural break. The architectural break will be at least 25% of the exterior of the building. 46 Examples of the proposed pre-cast with steel finish 47 The pre-cast concrete proposed (which has architectural steel panels and various colors breaking up the materials) appear to meet the intent of Ordinance 502.62 Subd. 10 Section C (by staff interpretation). The materials proposed are comparable to and of even better quality/durability then required materials (specifically where the code references and in comparison, to aluminum lap siding). ATTACHMENTS: Vacation application Signed copies from area utility providers Variance application Site plan Certificate of Survey Resolution Vacating Easements Resolution approving Variance Resolution denying Variance Civils showing the exterior building materials REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Agenda item 6c 1. Conduct public hearing 2. Motion on Finding of Fact 2024-027 Vacating interior drainage and utility easements for lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 1 of Northland Business Center plat Agenda item 6d 1. Conduct public hearing 2. Motion on Finding of Fact 2024-028 approving Variance for Parking lot setback at 202 MN ST W (resolution 2024-028X to deny variance has also been included) Agenda item 6e 1.Motion to approve Proof of Parking plan as proposed by applicant to allow a reduction in the amount of required parking spaces needing to be constructed Agenda item 6f 1.Motion on interpretation of City Code 502.62 Subd. 10 Section C to allow alternative exterior Building Materials as proposed by applicant 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 EXHIBIT B 57 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATING DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTS: Vacating the drainage and utility easement as dedicated in NORTHLAND BUSINESS CENTER, according to the recorded plat thereof, Stearns County, Minnesota, bounded as follows: -On the North by a line measured 6.00 feet North of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the South line of Lot 4, Block 1, said NORTHLAND BUSINESS CENTER. -On the East by a line measured 12.00 feet Southwest of, measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the Southwesterly right-of-way of Jasmine Court as dedicated in said NORTHLAND BUSINESS CENTER. -On the South by a line measured 6.00 feet South of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the North line of said Lot 5, Block 1. -On the West by a line measured 12.00 feet East of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the West line of said Lot 5, Block 1 and said Lot 4, Block 1. Vacating the drainage and utility easement as dedicated in NORTHLAND BUSINESS CENTER, according to the recorded plat thereof, Stearns County, Minnesota, bounded as follows: -On the North by a line measured 6.00 feet North of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the South line of Lot 5, Block 1, said NORTHLAND BUSINESS CENTER. -On the East by a line measured 12.00 feet Northwest of, measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the Northwesterly right-of-way line of 21st Avenue NE as dedicated in said NORTHLAND BUSINESS CENTER. -On the South by a line measured 6.00 feet South of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the North line of said Lot 6, Block 1. -On the West by a line measured 12.00 feet East of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the West line of said Lot 5, Block 1 and said Lot 6, Block 1. Vacating the drainage and utility easement as dedicated in NORTHLAND BUSINESS CENTER, according to the recorded plat thereof, Stearns County, Minnesota, bounded as follows: -On the North by a line measured 6.00 feet North of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the South line of Lot 6, Block 1, said NORTHLAND BUSINESS CENTER. -On the East by a line measured 12.00 feet Northwest of, measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the Northwesterly right-of-way line of 21st Avenue NE as dedicated in said NORTHLAND BUSINESS CENTER. -On the South by a line measured 6.00 feet South of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the North line of said Lot 7, Block 1. -On the West by a line measured 12.00 feet East of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the West line of said Lot 6, Block 1 and said Lot 7, Block 1. 58 59 Document drafted by City of St. Joseph RESOLUTION 2024-027 RESOLUTION VACATING INTERIOR EASEMENTS AS LEGALLY DESCRIBED FOR LOT 004, LOT 005, LOT 006 AND LOT 007 OF NORTHLAND BUSINESS CENTER WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Joseph held a public hearing on May 13th, 2024 following a publication, mailed and posted notice for the purpose of hearing those present to consider the vacation of drainage and utility easements; and WHEREAS, the easements to be vacated are legally described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, it appeared in the best interests of the public and the City of St. Joseph that such a vacation of easements be vacated and discontinued; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request to vacate easements on the subject property at their May 13th meeting; and BE IT RESOLVED that the City Administrator and Mayor are hereby authorized to execute the vacation of easements; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA, duly assembled that the following described easements in Exhibit A are hereby vacated to wit: ADOPTED by the City Council this 20th day of May, 2024. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH By Rick Schultz, Mayor ATTEST By David Murphy, City Administrator 60 Document drafted by City of St. Joseph EXHIBIT A Vacating a drainage and utility easements as dedicated in NORTHLAND BUSINESS CENTER, according to the recorded plat thereof, Stearns County, Minnesota, bounded as follows: On the North by a line measured 6.00 feet North of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the South line of Lot 4, Block 1, said NORTHLAND BUSINESS CENTER. -On the East by a line measured 12.00 feet Southwest of, measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the Southwesterly right-of-way of Jasmine Court as dedicated in said NORTHLAND BUSINESS CENTER. -On the South by a line measured 6.00 feet South of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the North line of said Lot 5, Block 1. -On the West by a line measured 12.00 feet East of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the West line of said Lot 5, Block 1 and said Lot 4, Block 1. -On the North by a line measured 6.00 feet North of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the South line of Lot 5, Block 1, said NORTHLAND BUSINESS CENTER. -On the East by a line measured 12.00 feet Northwest of, measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the Northwesterly right-of-way line of 21st Avenue NE as dedicated in said NORTHLAND BUSINESS CENTER. -On the South by a line measured 6.00 feet South of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the North line of said Lot 6, Block 1. -On the West by a line measured 12.00 feet East of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the West line of said Lot 5, Block 1 and said Lot 6, Block 1. -On the North by a line measured 6.00 feet North of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the South line of Lot 6, Block 1, said NORTHLAND BUSINESS CENTER. -On the East by a line measured 12.00 feet Northwest of, measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the Northwesterly right-of-way line of 21st Avenue NE as dedicated in said NORTHLAND BUSINESS CENTER. -On the South by a line measured 6.00 feet South of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the North line of said Lot 7, Block 1. -On the West by a line measured 12.00 feet East of, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with, the West line of said Lot 6, Block 1 and said Lot 7, Block 1. ; and 61 Document drafted by City of St. Joseph EXHIBIT B 62 EX H I B I T B 65 Our Proposal involves paving all the needed parking locations within the site Including access & approaches. Loading Docks & overhead doors will also have concrete pads at them. The request to allow a substitute surface like crushed granite only applies to the rear of the bldg where there is minimal traffic, the area will not be visible from 21st ave NE (the front of the facility) and will have limited view from Jasmin Ct. Allowing substitute surfacing fits in with the character of other industrial properties in the city where parking areas & approaches are paved but rear loading areas have substitute surfacing. The substitute surface will be of a material that is lowest level of dust & will be maintained, it will also provide some infiltration of rainwater & lessen runnoff. 63 The loading area in the rear where the substitute surfacing is being requested is screened by the building from 21st Ave NE. Having an alternate surface in the rear loading area matched the consistancy found throughout the city where loading areas and the rear of the facility has an alternate surface 64 RESOLUTION 2024-028 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM PARKING LOT STANDARDS WHEREAS, Hansen Land Holdings, LLC, applicant and CLC Partners, LLC owner of property has properly applied for a variance to the required parking lot material requirements for the subject property identified in Exhibit A: WHEREAS, the St. Joseph Planning Commission held a public hearing on the variance request on May 13th, 2024, at which time all persons wishing to be heard regarding the matter were given an opportunity to be heard; and FACTS: 1.That Hansen Land Holdings, LLC, hereinafter referred to as “Applicant” has properly applied for a variance. 2. That the matter was duly published and notice was provided to property owners within 350 feet of the Subject Property. 3. That the Applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on May 13th, 2024 and that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, reviewed the variance request and recommended approval of the variance. 4. That the Subject Property is zoned I-1 Light Industrial. 5. That City Ordinance 502.10 Subd. 3 Section N requires “all off-street parking and loading spaces, together with driveways, aisles, and other circulations areas, shall be a hard surface constructed of concrete, bituminous, or paver stone.” 6. That the applicant is proposing to install crushed granite/asphalt in portions of the rear loading area of their facility as depicted in Exhibit B. All other parking areas and circulation spots will be paved surfaces. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA, that the following Findings of Fact support a variance to the minimum parking lot requirements is adopted: 7.That the variance is consistent with the St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan and in alliance with Economic Development goal of: Retain, attract and grow businesses. The development of the parcel aligns with the permitted uses in the Light Industrial District. 8.That the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance and the applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner but cannot do so under the 66 rules of the ordinance. The applicant is proposing to pave the entire parking areas minus the very rear of the facility near the loading area. 9.That the Applicant has established that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance which include: a.That the circumstances of the property are not entirely caused by the landowner, and the proposed variance for crushed surfacing will only impact the areas identified in Exhibit B. These areas will mostly be out of view from the public rights of way. b.That the applicant’s request is unique. The property is zoned I-1 Light Industrial and crushed surfacing has been used in properties in this Zoning district especially in the rear of buildings and storage areas like the applicant is proposing. c. That the variance is reasonable given the existing I-1 Light Industrial properties in the city commonly have a crushed surfacing in the rear or storage areas of their facilities. d.That the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood given the variance proposal for crushed surfacing is found in other I-1 Light Industrial properties and the crushed surface will not be seen from the public right-of-way. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1. Based on this Finding of Fact a variance to the minimum parking lot standards on the subject property is approved with the following conditions: a.This Finding of Fact resolution approving the Variance shall be recorded at Stearns County recorder’s office. b.The proof of parking proposal submitted by the applicant shall require approval by the City. c.Site plan approval and land disturbance permit approval will need to occur along with Building permit approval for the subject property and all other applicable ordinances adhered to including stormwater regulations. d.If within one (l) year after granting a variance, the work permitted is not started, such variance shall become null and void unless a petition for an extension has been approved by the City Council. e. The crushed surfacing shall not cause any dust pollution and shall be maintained at all times and not erode onto other adjacent properties. No tracking of the crushed surfacing onto city streets shall occur. Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted by the St. Joseph City Council this 20th day of May, 2024. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH By Rick Schultz, Mayor ATTEST By David Murphy, City Administrator 67 EXHIBIT A Parcel Address = TBD Legally described as: Lot 004, Lot 005, Lot 006, and Lot 007, Block 001 of the Northland Business Center *Parcel ID’s: 84.53735.0205 – Lot 004, Block 001 of Northland Business Center 84.53735.0206 – Lot 005, Block 001 of Northland Business Center 84.53735.0207 – Lot 006, Block 001 of Northland Business Center 84.53735.0208 – Lot 007, Block 001 of Northland Business Center *A new Parcel ID for the subject properties will be assigned at the time the lots are consolidated into one lot. 68 EXHIBIT B 69 RESOLUTION 2024-028X A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM PARKING LOT STANDARDS WHEREAS, Hansen Land Holdings, LLC, applicant and CLC Partners, LLC owner of property has properly applied for a variance to the required parking lot material requirements for the subject property identified in Exhibit A; WHEREAS, the St. Joseph Planning Commission held a public hearing on the variance request on May 13th, 2024 at which time all persons wishing to be heard regarding the matter were given an opportunity to be heard; and FACTS: 1.That Hansen Land Holdings, LLC, hereinafter referred to as “Applicant” has properly applied for a variance. 2. That the matter was duly published and notice was provided to property owners within 350 feet of the Subject Property. 3. That the Applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on May 13th, 2024 and that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, reviewed the variance request and recommended denial of the variance. 4.That the Subject Property is zoned I-1 Light Industrial. 5. That City Ordinance 502.10 Subd. 3 Section N requires “all off-street parking and loading spaces, together with driveways, aisles, and other circulations areas, shall be a hard surface constructed of concrete, bituminous, or paver stone.” 6.That the applicant is proposing to install crushed granite/asphalt in the loading dock area in the rear of their facility as depicted in Exhibit B. All other parking areas and circulation spots will be paved surfaces. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA, that the following Findings of Fact to deny a variance to the minimum parking lot requirements is adopted: 7.That the variance is not consistent with the St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan. 8. That the variance is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance. 9. That the Applicant has not established that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. 70 a.That the circumstances of the property are caused by the landowner. b.That the applicant’s request is not unique and the circumstances have been caused by the landowner. c. That the variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA, as follows: 1.Based on this Finding of Fact a variance to the minimum parking lot standards on the subject property is denied. Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted by the St. Joseph City Council this 20th day of May, 2024. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH By Rick Schultz, Mayor ATTEST By David Murphy, City Administrator 71 EXHIBIT A Parcel Address = TBD Legally described as: Lot 004, Lot 005, Lot 006, and Lot 007, Block 001 of the Northland Business Center *Parcel ID’s: 84.53735.0205 – Lot 004, Block 001 of Northland Business Center 84.53735.0206 – Lot 005, Block 001 of Northland Business Center 84.53735.0207 – Lot 006, Block 001 of Northland Business Center 84.53735.0208 – Lot 007, Block 001 of Northland Business Center *A new Parcel ID for the subject properties will be assigned at the time the lots are consolidated into one lot. 72 EXHIBIT B 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83