HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 [05] May 05May 5, 2003
Page 1 of 7
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular
session on Monday, May 5, 2003 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall.
Members Present: Chair Gary Utsch. Commissioners S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Jim
Graeve, Kurt Schneider, Mike Deutz, Bob Loso. Administrator Judy Weyrens.
City Representatives Present: City Attorney Tom Jovanovich
Others Present: Linda Schyma, Diane Schneider, Philip Zehner, Doug Carlson, Lance Honer, Norm
Cole, Joe Finley, Mark Lambert, Jim Bensoof, Darrel( Bruest(e, Steve Hagman.
Approve Agenda: Loso made a motion to approve the agenda as presented; seconded by Lesnick
and passed unanimously.
Linda Schyma, Special Use and Variance Request: Chair Utsch called the public hearing to order and
stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider issuance of a Special Use Permit to allow a rental unit in
a General Business District and a Variance to allow parking for the rental unit in a parking area located
further than 350 feet from the property. The property is legally described as: the south 61 feet of the
east 27.15 feet of Lot Twelve (12), Block Nine (9), in the Townsite of St. Joseph and is located at 11
College Avenue North.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.20 provides for the following under Special Use: Mixed use of a
permitted use and a multiple residential dwelling units, but only if at least 50% of the interior square
footage (exclusive of the basement or cellar) is used full time for a permitted use. The area consisting of
multiple residential dwelling units must meet the standards St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.19 subd 5
and 6. Parking requirements shall be separately determined for the commercial and residential uses in
accordance with Section 52.14 subd. 4.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.14 provides a collective provision for off-street parking facilities for two
(2) or more buildings or uses provided, collectively, such facilities shall not be less than the sum of the
requirements for the various individual uses, computed separately in accordance with the table, and
Subdivision 4, and said buildings or uses are within 350 feet of the parking area
The request for Special Use and Variance has been submitted by Linda Schyma.
Linda Schyma spoke on her own behalf. Schyma stated that she has owned the property at 11 College
Avenue North for the past 15 to 20 years. Schyma stated that the upper level of property has been used
as a rental unit since approximately 1992 when her daughter Mary Kay Nordman received a Special Use
Permit to allow a rental unit in a General Business District. Schyma stated that she was recently informed
that a rental license could not be secured for the property as parking for the rental unit is no longer
available.
At this time Utsch opened the floor for questions or comments.
JoAnne Schneider of 408 Gumtree Street approached the Planning Commission questioning the
appropriateness of granting a variance for the parking requirement for a rental unit. Schneider stated that
it was her understanding that Schyma did have a parking arrangement with Loso's Mainstreet Pub but
since the issuance of the Special Use Permit Mr. Loso did not renew the previous parking arrangements.
Schneider stated that she does not oppose the issuance a rental license for the aforementioned property,
but questions if granting a variance would resolve the downtown parking issues.
Schneider stated that she owns a rental unit in the downtown area and provides the required parking.
However, due to the shortage of parking spaces, her tenants have been unable to use the provided
parking spaces. Schneider stated that if the rental unit at 11 College Avenue North does not need to
provided the required parking adjacent to the property, then the Planning Commission should review the
Parking criteria of the Ordinance. The more potential users for available parking spaces will only create
additional parking congestion.
May 5, 2003
Page 2 of 7
Weyrens stated that she received written objection to the proposed Special Use and Variance from St.
Joseph Mutual Insurance. The letter indicated that they objected to the initial Special Use that was
issued in 1992 and are equally opposed to the Special Use at this time. The letter further indicates that
the Insurance Company is concerned with excess refuse and parking related problems, both which have
been problematic since the issuance of the Special Use Permit.
There being no one further wishing to testify, Utsch closed the public hearing at 7:10 PM.
Utsch questioned how Schyma was able to secure a rental license since the Special Use Permitted
granted in 1992 contained a condition that the rental license was non-transferable and the license was
originally issued to Mary Kaye Nordmann. Schyma stated Mary Kaye Nordmann is her daughter and had
interest in the property for a two year period.
Weyrens clarified that in addition to the license being non transferable, the Special Use Permit was
issued with the clear understanding that the rental unit must have three off-street parking spaces provided
by Mark Loso. The Special Use Permit contained the following contingency: "If the parking arrangements
with the adjacent property owner, Mark Loso, cease, the special use shall become null and void".
Weyrens stated that the City has been made aware that the parking arrangements with Mark Loso are no
longer available. Therefore, Schyma was sent notification that the rental license would not be issued for
the year 2003-2004.
Schyma responded that she was unaware of the off-street parking agreement and the contingencies of
the Special Use Permit. She further stated that she had been informed by the rental housing inspector for
the City that her rental unit was grandfathered under the old Ordinances. Weyrens responded that the
property was grandfathered in respect to the number of tenants, but a Special Use Permit carries unique
conditions specific to a property. The conditions of the Special Use Permit were recorded with the
property and the City Offices has the official recording document verifying such.
Schyma stated that she had spoken with the College of St. Benedict and they have agreed to sell seven
parking permits to Schyma each year. It was clarified that the proposed parking is located more than six
blocks form the property. Utsch stated he has a hard time believing that a tenant would park more than
six blocks away from their residence. In addition, Utsch stated that he cannot recall any Special Use
Permits that have been issued for rental units where the property owner was not required to provided the
necessary parking, including requiring the parking to be adjacent to the property which is being rented.
Loso made a motion to accept Resolution PC2002-_ denying the Variance and Special Use
Permit as requested by Linda Schyma. The motion was seconded by Graeve.
Discussion: Steve Hagman, City Rental Inspector approached the Planning Commission.
Hagman stated he has been the City of St. Joseph's Rental Inspector for four years and had been
informed by the former City Administrator, Mayor, City Council, and City Attorney that the rental
list that was provided illustrated the above described property as grandfathered under a previous
version of the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances. Therefore Hagman stated he has been under
that assumption that they did not need to provide parking. Hagman clarified that this is the only
rental unit within the City of St. Joseph that does not provide any off-street parking. Utsch
clarified that the number of occupants were grand-fathered in and that is a separate issue from
the Special Use Permit.
Hagman further stated that the Planning Commission should be aware that the air conditioner
and fire escape are located on the adjoining property and refuse removal is also provided by the
adjoining property owner. Weyrens clarified that if the fire escape is not available the rental
license would be suspended due to fire/building code issues. Jovanovich stated that the property
line issue is not one for the City to resolve and is considered a neighbor dispute.
Deutz and Graeve recommend giving Schyma time to find parking within 350-feet
May 5, 2003
Page 3 of 7
Loso made a motion to amend his motion to include the waiving of the public hearing fee if the
property owner can secure parking for the rental unit within the required 350 feet of the above
described property. Graeve seconded the amended motion and it passed unanimously.
BMD Commercial. Loso Trust Property Proposed Uses Philip Zehrer of BMD Commercial Real Estate,
approached the Planning Commission to discuss potential uses for the Loso Trust property located on
Birch Street West. Zehrer stated that he has been working with the trust agent, US Bank, trying to find a
tenant to lease the facility. He stated that RL Siding is a potential tenant for the building, but the
Ordinance governing the General Business District does not list Storage Facilities as a permitted use.
Zehrer stated that this building is difficult to lease as it is not heated, the plumbing is not updated and the
building has a unique shape. Therefore, using the building for a storage business makes sense.
Utsch stated in the past, this property has had a tendency of storing items outside and the property
begins to look like an outside storage facility. Weyrens stated that the new Ordinances include an outside
storage provision requiring that all material stored outside must be screened from public view. Zehrer
clarified that the property has been cleaned with only a truck and dog kennel stored on the property.
Utsch questioned Jovanovich if the City could place a restriction on a Special Use Permit that no outside
storage will be allowed. Jovanovich stated a Special Use Permit typically includes special provisions
and/or restrictions and limiting or prohibiting outside storage would be appropriate.
Weyrens questioned Deutz if the EDA is considering this property as part of a potential redevelopment
district. Deutz, also a member of the EDA, stated that this property has been listed as a potential
redevelopment area which would include a refurbishment of the exterior. The Planning Commission
encouraged Zehrer to contact the St. Joseph EDA consultants for possible renovation and development
assistance of the property stated above.
Kalinowski made a motion authorizing the property owner of Birch Street West to make
application for a Special Use Permit in a General Business Zoning District to allow a storage
facility in said Zoning District. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously.
Carlson Development - Wobeaon Trail Addition Preliminary Plat Doug Carlson of Carlson Development
approached the Planning requesting Preliminary Plat approval for the Wobegon Trail Plat. Weyrens
stated that the City did receive correspondence from Stearns County Environmental Services stating that
the proposed plat is an exempted wetland. Weyrens stated that there are two separate issues before the
Planning Commission at this time, they are: 1) Preliminary Plat; 2) Site Plan Approval. The Commission
should resolve the Preliminary Plat before finalizing the Development Plan.
Deutz made a motion to recommend the City Council approve the Wobegon Trail Addition Plat
contingent upon approval of the City Engineer. The motion was seconded by Loso and passed
unanimously.
Discussion: It was clarified that the temporary water and sewer hookup would be included in the
frnal plat approval. Loso questioned if the proposed development will utilize the sewer main
recently installed near the existing Maintenance Facility. Weyrens stated that at this time it would
not be financially feasible, that is why the property owner is installing temporary water and sewer
lines.
Carlson Development -Wobegon Trail Apartments. Site Plan Approval: Carlson presented the Planning
Commission with a revised site plan and requested approval of the Plan. Utsch stated it is his
recommendation that the Planning Commission should review the revised site plan and identify items that
need to be included in the Developer's Agreement. The matter could then be finalized at the June 2,
2003 meeting. Weyrens stated that as this matter is regulated with the 60 action ruling, the Planning
Commission must either approve the plat at this meeting or extend the time period another 60 days.
Jovanovich questioned Carlson if they would be willing to extend the action deadline an additional 60
days. Carlson requested before he agrees to such he would request the Planning Commission outline
the areas that need resolution. The Planning Commission outlined the following items needing resolution:
May 5, 2003
Page 4 of 7
Engineering
^ The annexation should be reviewed to assure that the eastern portion of CSAH 2 was included in
the annexation document.
^ The building pad needs to elevated 6 to 10 feet and must be completed with suitable material to
avoid problems in the future.
^ The watermain must show an 8" gate valve connection with the existing water main located at
First Avenue Northeast and Fir Street East.
^ The water main should show an 8-inch gate valve at the connection with the existing water main
located at First Avenue Northeast and Fir Street East.
^ The water main should be extended past the northern most hydrant, east out the driveway, and
stubbed out north and south to provide for a future loop of this line. A hydrant should also be
placed at the end of this line.
^ The forcemain should maintain a positive slope to the existing manhole located at First Street
Northeast and Fir Street East entering the existing manhole as low as reasonably possible. If the
forcemain enters the existing manhole 2.5 feet above the inlet, then a drop will be required.
Recreational Equipment
^ A playground plan must be submitted illustrating the type of equipment and location that will be
constructed.
^ The playground facility should be designed fora 69 unit complex. The plan submitted does not
appear adequate.
^ The playground should include activity for residents of all ages.
^ The bike storage will not be considered recreational activity.
Deutz made a motion to extend the 60 land use action requirement so that the above stated
information can be submitted and a Development Agreement can be prepared. The motion was
seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously.
Weyrens clarified that the Preliminary Plat can be forwarded to the Council for approval separate from the
Development Plan.
Summit Management, Proposed R3 Development: Weyrens reported the Planning Commission has
received a revised site plan for the proposed 44-unit apartment complex proposed by Mark Lambert. The
Planning Commission had previously reviewed the proposed site plan and tabled action until the following
information was provided:
Drainage: The proposed development plan indicates that the storm water will drain to the City
holding pond west of the proposed site. The City Council on April 17, 2003 agreed to the
drainage plan contingent upon the developer and City agreeing to a fee for the storm
water storage. Therefore, a drainage plan has been submitted and the Development
Agreement will specify the fee that will be charged for the drainage.
Fire Issues: The Fire Chief has reviewed the plan and will not require that the fire lane be maintained
year round, including snow removal, if the connections are placed in the same location as
they are indicated on the plan.
Lighting: The Lighting was required to be installed on the garage to reduce light pollution to the
residential neighborhood north of the proposed development.
Access: The Planning Commission required that the City Engineer review the proposed access to
the property and determine if the property would best be served with one access located
between Lot 1 and Lot 2 Indian Hills Park Plat. The access would extend west, requiring
residents to approach the building from the west, rather than the east as presented.
Norm Cole of Cole Group Architect, approached the Planning Commission stating that bedroom
configuration has changed since the last meeting. The following table indicates the final bedroom
configuration and the required parking:
May 5, 2003
Page 5 of 7
# of # of
Units Bedrooms
6 1
35 2
3 3
Totals 44
Required # of
Parking Stalls
9.0
87.5
12.0
108.5
Weyrens stated the revised plan submitted to the Planning Commission indicates that only 104 parking
spaces are provided. Weyrens recommended that a new cover sheet be submitted for inclusion in the
Developer's Agreement that indicates the correct number of parking spaces.
Joe Finley, legal counsel for Lambert, approached the Planning Commission requesting clarification on
several items in the proposed Developer's Agreement. The following is a list of items from the
developer's agreement that were discussed:
3.71ngress/Egress -The developer's agreement states "Access to the property shall be constructed as
shown on the Final Site Conditions Plan "A". Jovanovich stated "vehicular access" had been added to
now read "Vehicular access to the property shall be constructed as shown on the Final Site Conditions
Plan "A".
3.11 Drainage Plan -The City Council has agreed to allow the development to drain to the City holding
pond subject to determining a storm water fee. This matter will be resolved by the City Council on May
15, 2003.
3.12 Landscaping -Jovanovich stated that there is a time frame in which landscaping for R1 & R2 have
to be completed and the R3 Ordinance does no contain such a provision. Therefore, the City has
suggested, and Summit Management has agreed, to place a $15,000 escrow with the City to ensure
compliance with the landscape design requirements. The escrow will be released when both the
playground equipment and the landscaping have been installed.
3.13 Fire Hydrant-Jovanovich received authorization from Fire Chief Dave Theisen to delete the entire
paragraph. Theisen stated that as long as the fire connections are located as indicated on the plan and
the fire lane is left open he will not require the fire lane to be plowed and maintained during the winter
months.
3.19 Requirements for Certificate of Occupancy -Finley requested that the since the Lambert is placing $
15,000 in escrow in part for the assurance of the construction of a playground facility, the Certificate of
Occupancy should not be connected to the construction of such. Cole stated that if the construction of
the 44-unit apartment complex is completed in December 2003; it will be difficult to install the playground
equipment especially if the landscaping is not completed. Jovanovich will correct this section as
requested.
3.20 Construction Schedule - It was consensus of the Planning Commission that the completion date of
the development including the playground will be one (1) year after the issuance of the building permit,
subject to reasonable extension for delays due to force majuere causes and material supply shortages
beyond the control of Developer.
The Planning Commission questioned whether or not Lambert will install curb along Northland Drive.
Lambert responded that his plans do not include curbing as it should be coordinated with the property
owners abutting Northland Drive on the east side as well as his property.
Graeve stated it is his opinion that the proposed access to the property is not a safe access and
recommends the access to the development be moved to the center point, accessing from the west.
Jovanovich stated he had specifically asked Bettendorf if the access at the north end of the development
meets engineering standards and he responded that it met transportation standards. Jovanovich stated it
is difficult to deny something when there is factual basis to support it.
May 5, 2003
Page 6 of 7
Jim Benshoof of Benshoof & Associates, approached the Planning Commission on behalf of Mark
Lambert. Benshoof stated that he has been retained by Lambert to complete the transportation study and
determine the most effective and safe manner to access the property described above. Benshoof stated
that while he appreciates the safety concern, it is his opinion that the best access for the property is the
one illustrated on the plan. If the access were created on the center point of Block One Indian Hills Park
Plat, the elevations would make the road difficult to construct and create a road with an undesirable
elevation.
Darre118ruestle of Luma Sales Associates, approached the Planning Commission on behalf of Mark
Lambert. Bruestle stated that he has been retained by Lambert to design the outside lighting. Bruestle
stated that two separate lighting plans have been submitted and recommends that the plan labeled "A" be
adopted as part of the development project. Plan "A" includes Spaulding fixtures that are mounted on
the apartment building approximately 28-feet off the ground. Layout "A" illustrates that no light extends
beyond the back of the garages, thus giving no light pollution on the adjoining residential neighborhood.
Conversely, lighting layout "B" only includes lights on the garage, back and the sides of the apartment
building providing only minimal lighting. Bruestle stated in his opinion layout "B" will not provide a safe
area.
Schneider questioned Bruestle as to what assurance is provided that light will not filter into the residential
district. Bruestle responded that the foot-candle print measures the lighting and the meter illustrates the
candle illumination at 0.0. Weyrens clarified that the revised Zoning Ordinance restricts candle
illumination to 0.4. Therefore layout "A"' meets the requirements of the Ordinance.
Jovanovich stated that Bettendort is requesting that the drainage for the lower lot of Block 1 not be
included with the Developer's Agreement. The City Council has already stated that Lot 2 Block 1 can
drain to the City holding pond so there is no need to include any additional language. Lambert stated that
he would prefer that the drainage for the entire block be considered at this time since the hydrology
calculations have been completed. Jovanovich stated that he would review this matter with the City
Engineer, but agrees that the drainage for Lot 2 should not be considered at this time.
Deutz made a motion to recommend the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Administrator
to execute a Development Agreement between the City of St. Joseph and Summit Management for
the construction of a 44 unit apartment complex based on the plans approved by the Planning
Commission.
Ayes: Utsch, Deutz, Loso, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Schneider
Nays: Graeve Abstain: None Motion Carried: 6:1:0
Discussion: Weyrens stated the exhibits presented to the Planning Commission at his meeting
will be attached to the Developer's agreement as exhibits to assure that the approved plans are
constructed. Lambert questioned the status of the site plan approval. Jovanovich responded the
site plan has been approved except for the assessment for drainage which will be decided by the
City Council on May 15, 2003.
Other Matters: Weyrens stated that the City has received a number of Development requests and
questioned if the Planning Commission would consider meeting specially if needed. The Commission
agreed to meet on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 at 7:00 PM if Development Plans are ready for review.
Ad~iourn: Loso made a motion to adjourn at 8:50 PM; seconded by Graeve and passed
unanimously.
~~1
~` f 6
Ju W yrens
A inistrator