Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 [05] May 01 I Official Minutes - Planning Commission Pursuant to due call and notice thereof: the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, May 1, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Hub Klein. Commissioners Marge Lesnick,S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Gary Utsch, Jim Graeve. Planning Commission Secretary Chad A. Carlson. Members Absent: Kurt Schneider and Cory Ehlert Others Present:. Ron Euteneuer, Thomas Klein, Lynn Christensen and Gene Boysen Ron Euteneuer - Buildinl! Inspector: Mr. Ron Euteneuer, Great Northern Building Inspections, presented the process for administering the Building Code in the City of St. Joseph at the request of the St. Joseph Planning Commission. Euteneuer presented a packet of information, which he presented in detail to the Planning Commission members. Euteneuer detailed the following handouts: 1) Checklist for Inspections 2) Site Plans for Decks 3) CommerciaVIndustrial Project Checklist 4) Building Permit 5) Building Valuation Data Sheet Kalinowski questioned the source ofthe information provided by Mr. Euteneuer. Euteneuer stated that many ofthe building requirements come from the State of Minnesota Building Codes. The City ofSt. Joseph has established I many ofthe forms in the packet. Euteneuer stated that the commercial and Industrial checklist will work if all the parties cooperate and everyone is aware of the project, such as the public works director, fire chief: planning commission and city council. Euteneuer recommended that the City Offices determine a chain of command for processing a building permit through the City. Contractors, Builders and clients need to the process ahead of time and the City needs one point of contact. The City Clerk Office was suggested for the first point of contact. Euteneuer further stated that the Building Inspectors office should be last one contacted because they cannot give approval until all the City agencies have approved the project. Carlson stated that the City needs to determine whom the contact for building and zoning issues should be for the City. Kalinowski added that the City should determine the delegation of duties and authority in the City Offices. Graeve suggested that the City Offices give the developer a time frame on when materials need to be submitted in order for the appropriate parties to comment and review the project. Euteneuer stated that he would continue to work with the Mayor and the City Administrator on this issue. Euteneuer discussed the building site plan and the new process for reviewing drainage and grading plans for new developments. All builders will have obtain a grading! drainage/elevation certificate and approved by a qualified surveyor prior to construction and obtaining a building permit. Kalinowski suggested that whoever originated that document should be indicated at the bottom of the form along with the date of origination. Euteneuer stated that the requirement will be extremely controversial for the City because there will be an added I cost to the builders and developers in the community. Essentially, the builder or homeowner will have to hire a surveyor to complete the document. Euteneuer stated it is his opinion that the requirement will be difficult to monitor and enforce, which will be left up to the City and its engineer. Euteneuer stated that he cannot review the May 1, 2000 Minutes document because he is not a licensed engineer or surveyor. Euteneuer stated no other community in the area is I making this certificate a requirement and it is his opinion should not be required. The additional cost will be added to already extremely high WAC and SAC charges in the community. Since his company contracts with the City, he has no choice but to enforce the certificate. Graeve questioned if the drainage plan and certificate will solve the drainage problems in the new developments and who will be responsible for making sure the developer and builder are meeting the requirements of the certificate and plan, in accordance with the surveyor. Euteneuer stated that the drainage plan will not solve the drainage problem, but it will require the contractors to take measures to control drainage on that individual lot. The drainage plan will be needed prior to obtaining a building permit and approved prior to construction. Carlson clarified that this requirement will not be retroactive to existing developments. All new developments and subdivisions lot owners will be required to submit a drainage plan as a part of their building plans. Euteneuer presented the fee schedule for building permits and the monthly report supplied to the City Offices. The Planning Commission had no comment or questions. Euteneuer explained the new building code requirements for residential structures as mandated by the State of Minnesota. Euteneuer stated that it would raise the price of new construction 4-5%. In addition, wood fireplaces have been banned from new residential homes. The Legislature and the Department of Energy implemented the new energy code. It will be more difficult and expensive to construct a new home under category one. Euteneuer concluded with stating that all industrial and commercial building projects be presented to the Fire Chief and Building Inspector prior to coming to the Planning Commission for approval. Their signoff on the building plans should occur first. Euteneuer suggested that he meet with the Planning Commission in the future. I Kalinowski suggested that the Planning Commission members review the process for developments and get familiar with the information presented tonight. The Planning Commission expressed their appreciation to Mr. Euteneuer for attending the meeting and presented the information. St. Joseph Veterinary Oinic Carlson presented the background ITom the July 1999 Planning Commission meeting regarding the Special Use permit approved by the Planning Commission and City Council for the construction of a Equine Center at the St. Joseph Veterinary Clinic. The Clinic presented modifications to the building plan approved in July of 1999. The Clinic has removed the second floor of the facility and the outward appearance of the structure. The site plan has not changed and the redesign of the structure continues to meet the requirements of the B-2 Highway #75 Business District. The Planning Commission reviewed color renderings of the proposed change. With the new design, the clinic eliminated the ventilation area to another location, and eliminated a conference room on the second floor. The building materials will be steel and masonry brick. Carlson stated that due to the significant change to the design of the facility, he requested the Clinic present the proposed change to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Lesnick moved to approve the reduction in size to the proposed addition to the St. Joseph Veterinary Oinic as it meets the requirements of the B-2 Highway #75 Business District Ordinance; Seconded by Kalinowski. Discussioft: Utsch infonned the owners of the clinic that the building permit must be pulled prior to July ¡st or the I special use permit approved in 1999 would be null and void The clinic plans to pull the building pent/it this week May 1,2000 Minutes I The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Klein, Lesnick, Kalinowski, Utsch, and Graeve Nays: None Motion Carried St. Joseph Lab School Addition Thomas Klein presented the Planning Commission with the proposed addition to the St. Joseph Lab School. The addition will accommodate the addition of an elevator and ADA compliant entryway on the southeast side of the building. Additional remodeling projects include the main level bathrooms, ADA accessibility with push button doors and handrails, and a new ADA bathroom on the lower level. Carlson explained that this project was added to the agenda to inform the Planning Commission of the project. The Planning Commission needs to review the project prior to the contractor obtaining a building permit. Lesnick questioned if the Planning Commission should be reviewing the project if the Fire Chief hasn't reviewed the project for safety. Hub Klein stated the Lab School needs to complete this project before the Fourth of July Parade. Carlson questioned if the setbacks ofthe R-l District have been met and if the alley in question will be a problem for the addition. Thomas Klein stated that the alley was vacated some time ago and all the setbacks are met. Carlson stated that no action of the Planning Commission is needed and he will review the proposed addition with the Fire Chief prior to authorizing the contractor to obtain a building permit. I Thomas Klein addressed the Planning Commission regarding the Monastery and Lab School parking situation. Klein assured the Planning Commission that a recorded easement does exist on the property to provide access to both properties. If there are additional questions regarding the Parish's position on parking and garage project, he suggested the Planning Commission members contact him directly. Announcements Carlson informed the Planning Commission of a situation that has occurred in the Pond View Ridge Addition. A homeowner constructed a pole barn on their property with steel siding. According to our Zoning Ordinance, accessory building area allowed, but the Ordinance doesn't regulate the design or aesthetics of the building. Carlson recommended that the Planning Commission consider amending the Ordinance to enforce aesthetic requirements. Carlson passed out a sample ordinance provided by the City of Sauk Rapids. Kalinowski stated that she recalled a provision in the Ordinance that addressed this very issue. Carlson restated that the current Zoning Ordinance doesn't address the design and aesthetic appearance of accessory buildings. Utsch stated the Planning Commission should consider amending the entire accessory use section of the R-l, Single Family Residential District. Graeve concurred and added that the Planning Commission should consider reducing the amount of allowable accessory buildings throughout the Ordinance. The Planning Commission discussed various options to amend the Ordinance. Kalinowski moved to recommend the City Council set a public hearing date to consider amendment of Subdivision 4 of the R-l, the definition of accessory building and other references to accessory buildings; Seconded by Lesnick. The motion passed with the following vote: I Ayes: Klein, Lesnick, Kalinowski, Utsch, and Graeve Nays: None Motion Carried May 1,2000 Minutes Other Discussions I Utsch requested that Carlson clarify the City Council's decision to deny Mr. Symanietz's Variance request to access his Northland Addition lot from Northland Drive. Carlson stated that the City Council reviewed the developer agreement for Northland Addition Four and determined that amending or waiving the no access policy to Northland Drive would not be in the best interest or safety of the community. Carlson further stated that the safety concerns of the landowner and residents took precedence over the desires of the landowner. Utsch cautioned the City Council on their decision as this issue will not go away due to Lot 2 of Northland Addition Four and future developments along Northland Drive. Kalinowski stated that the City Council agreed to bring issues back to the Planning Commission for further consideration before they turned down a recommendation of the Planning Commission. There must be more communication between the Planning Commission and City Council. Carlson stated that State Statutes require action on a Variance or Special Use permit within 60 days from the date of application. The City Council has final determination on recommendations of the Planning Commission and must act within that 60 day period. In most cases, there isn't enough time to bring the issues back to Planning Commission before the 60 days. Kalinowski stated that she would like the minutes to reflect the Planning Commission request for the City Council to confer with the Planning Commission before reversing a recommendation of the Planning Commission. A!!enda Item Deadline Utsch suggested that the Planning Commission set a specific date each month, which items have to be at the City Offices to be, included on the Planning Commission agenda. Utsch expressed his concern that the Planning I Commission hasn't been given enough time to review and research items on the agenda. Utsch suggested the Twenty Third (23rd) of each month prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Items reÅ“ived after the 23rd would have to wait until the next meeting. Utsch made a motion to set the Twenty Third (23rd) of each month as the deadline for items to placed on the Planning Commission agenda for the next meeting; Seconded by Kalinowski. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Klein, Lesnick, Kalinowski, Utsch, and Graeve Nays: None Motion Carried Lesnick stated that the Planning Commission memo prepared by Carlson is extremely helpful to get a history of the issues on agenda as the Planning Commission prepares for the meetings. Graeve added that the Planning Commission minutes have been a very accurate account of the discussion. Redevelo ment District - Ci II Pro' Graeve questioned the City C01Jncíl's am~ ent to th~ Planning Commission decision to approve the redevelopment district budget at $995,000. How can the City just change the budget without having the Planning Commission review their changÿ? Carlson explained the role of the Planning Commission as a recommending body. The City Council has the authority to accept, reject or modify any decision made by the Planning Commission. The City Council made a decision, at that time, that $995,000 wasn't enough funds to complete the project. However, since the redevelopment plan has been adopted, the project costs are now down to $995,000 once again. I May 1,2000 Minutes I Utsch stated that he understood the Planning Commission's role but the redevelopment plan was passed out at the meeting, and ifhe had more time to review the document, he would have voted differently. Kalinowski reiterated that the Planning Commission needs to enforce the time table for agenda items so the members have enough time to review the issues. Kalinowski added that the Planning Commission needs to increase their communication with the City Council and the City must provide their rationale for the decisions made at the City Council level. The Planning Commission needs to know when disputes are occurring and especially when a recommendation is overturned. Graeve requested that Carlson explain why a private landowner needed to be involved in the redevelopment area. Carlson stated that redevelopment districts, by State Statute, must have a private landowner involved in the project. Since the City owned the bank and was considered a public building, the property owned by Knight Builders, Inc. had to be included in the project area. The project will not impact their business. Kalinowski questioned why the project costs have decreased since the last meeting. Carlson stated that since the city hall public hearing, the building committee identified some areas of construction that could be phased in later, items were eliminated and interior design has been modified. A another public hearing is being held on May 3 to discuss the changes and reduction in cost with the public. Approve Minutes: Lesnick moved to approve the April 3, 2000 minutes as presented; Seconded by Kalinowski. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Klein, Lesnick, Kalinowski, Dtsch, and Graeve Nays: None Motion Carried I Adjourn: The Planning Commission meeting adjourned by consensus at 8:35 p.m. ~~f /} ~_~-~, ~':_. ,//.__'~¿//c / / '://<t;~'¿_/ (;Gf~//,Z; -<'"~=~ Chad A. Carlson Planning Commission Secretary I May 1, 2000 Minutes