Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 [12] Dec 05December 5, 2005 Page 1 of 3 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, December 5, 2005 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Gary Utsch. Commissioners: S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Bob Loso, AI Rassier. City Administrator Judy Weyrens. City Representatives Present: City Engineer Tracy Ekola, City Building Official Ron Wasmund Others Present: Dean Wick, Jim Sand, Jeff Litfin, Tom & Sue Dullinger Minutes: Lesnick made a motion to approve the minutes of October 3, 2005. The motion was seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously. Kalinowski made a motion to approve the minutes of October 17, 2005. The motion was seconded by Lesnick. Ayes: Utsch, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Loso, Rassier Nays: None. Abstain: Graeve Motion Carried 5:0:1 Public Hearing -Preliminary/Final Plat. Morningside Acres 3rd Addition: Utsch opened the public hearing and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a preliminary plat for Morningside Acres Third Addition. The property is legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Morningside Acres 2"d and is located adjacent to CR 121 and Iverson and contains 18 town homes. Jeff Litfin, Minnesota Skyline Partners, approached the Commissioners and stated that MN Skyline has purchased the property developed by Sand Companies. The original plan submitted by Sand Companies included a patio home rental development. MN Skyline is proposing to develop an the area as private ownership, thereby needing to create individual lots. He advised the Commissioners that Otto and Associates has re-platted the proposed development area and there are now 18 lots and 1 outlot for common ground. Tom Dullinger, 919 College Avenue S, approached the commissioners to question the plan that is currently being discussed. He was under the understanding that this was originally going to be patio homes. He questioned whether or not that was still the plan. Utsch advised him that the original plan had been revised and the townhome concept was approved. The public comment portion of the hearing was closed. Rassier questioned the style of these homes and whether or not they will be split homes. Liftin advised him that these would be twin homes and there would be a party wall between the two homes. Rassier also questioned the distance between each of the buildings and whether or not there was enough distance between them to meet Ordinance requirements. Wasmund was present at the meeting and he stated that to meet the code for fire separation, they would need 3' to the property line and 6' between buildings. Utsch added that when Graceview had their townhomes platted, they were required to be 10' apart. Based on the drawings submitted, Rassier noticed that there was not enough distance between several of the buildings. Wasmund stated the following: ^ The required separation between buildings according to Ordinance is 10' ^ Building code requires a minimum of 3' from the property line for fire distance. 1' from the property line would not allow for any windows or doors on that side of the building. Rassier also questioned the access to buildings 8 and 9. Liftin stated that the driveway would be perpendicular off of Iverson Street. With regards to the drainage at the property in question, Ekola stated that there are no issues. Rassier then questioned whether or not the Outlot was going to be used for park dedication, to which Weyrens stated that it was not. Lesnick questioned if there were going to be garages December 5, 2005 Page 2 of 3 and if so, where they would be located. Liftin stated that each unit would have a 2-car garage located at the front of the unit and there would be a sidewalk along the garage leading to the entrance. Loso made a motion to table this issue until the next meeting due to incomplete plans and lack of information. Loso stated that there are too many questions that need answers. He also advised Liftin to work with Wasmund to be sure that their plans meet City Ordinances. Rassier then advised Liftin that if they cannot meet all of the Ordinances, they would need to apply for a variance. The motion was seconded by Graeve and passed unanimously. Percheron Properties, Development Plan: Weyrens stated that previously the Planning Commission considered the Special Use permit allowing a mixed development Commercial and R3 at 31 Minnesota Street West. The proposed development included a retail center on the lower level of the existing facility and remodeling the second level for housing. The Planning Commission and City Council approved the Special Use permit but the Development Plan was not ready for approval. Therefore at this time the property owner is requesting site plan approval. One of the issues outstanding is whether or not the Planning Commission will require the Developer to pave the existing parking lot. Based on the language in the Ordinance, pavement is required. The property owner will argue that the use is not changing and the pavement should not be required. Dean Wick, Outsource Management, approached the commissioners to represent the property owner. He stated that they have submitted plans including landscaping. He also stated that they met with the downtown committee to discuss theme development. The Committee has suggested restoring the existing building to the original design. Wick stated that the restoration would be cost prohibitive unless funding assistance is available. With parking being a big concern, Utsch questioned how many parking spaces are required for both the rental units and the commercial use of this property. Wick stated that there are 10 spaces needed for the rental portion and 13 for the commercial portion. There was also some question as to whether or not the rental parking spaces will be marked and designated. Weyrens and Wick agreed that they will as that is a requirement of the Ordinance. The proposed development is two parking spaces short of the Ordinance requirements. However, the B1 parking regulations allow the Planning Commission discretion in determining the required parking. Lesnick questioned if the parking access will be defined. Wick stated that access to the parking lot will be on 15t Avenue NW. Utsch stated that staff comments indicate the landscape plan is incomplete. Weyrens stated that typically a landscape plan is illustrated on a separate sheet, identifying each species to be planted. Wick indicated that the trees are shown on the plan and they plan to either seed or sod the lawn depending on the time of year that the lawn is put in. The stairway between the buildings is another item of concern for the Commissioners. Wick stated that he will be discussing this with Deutz at a later date and he requested that they keep that issue separate from the Development Plan. Wick also stated that he would be discussing this issue with Wasmund as to what is allowed for existing uses in the Minnesota State Building Conservation Code. Utsch questioned Ekola as to whether or not the drainage plans have been approved. Due to the Engineering costs associated with illustrating drainage plans, those plans must be approved before a permit can be issued. The proposed site has been reviewed and the drainage will work provided that the improvements are constructed properly. Rassier questioned Wasmund as to whether or not a new firewall separating the buildings would be required and whether or not that wall can have any windows or doors. Wasmund stated that the wall must be 10' from the property line and they can have openings in the wall. The firewall must be structurally independent. Currently, the wall is a concrete masonry wall and it is on the property line. The wall should create a separation between buildings and the buildings cannot be attached. December 5, 2005 Page 3 of 3 Discussion included whether or not the staircase could be contained within the existing facility, eliminating the attached stairway. Wick stated that relocating the stairway could be cost prohibitive and he has not explored that option. Based on information provided to the Commissioners, Rassier questioned the following finding: "To quality for a Special Use Permit, at least 50% of the interior square footage (exclusive of uses must not be conflicting. The plans are not dimensioned or detailed with the square footages of the residential areas so the floor area cannot be calculated. The applicant, however, states that the permitted use is 59% of the total floor area of the building. The ordinance states that the permitted use must be full time, implying that the commercial use must be occupied before the rental units are permitted." Wasmund stated based that on information provided to him that finding is in compliance. However, he has not seen a print to verify the measurements himself. Wick stated that the property owner is seeking approval to move forward with the development and is requesting site plan approval. Wick further stated that it is his opinion that the issues raised by the Commission at this meeting can be addressed through the building permit process. Loso stated that it is his opinion that the property line parallel to the alley should be curbed. Curb and gutter would define the parking area and prevent cars from driving over the proposed grass area. Wick stated that at this time they have not planned to curb the alley and it is his opinion that curb and gutter should be part of a City improvement. Kalinowski questioned whether or not the property owner is intending to place business signs on the property. Wick stated that a sign is proposed that will be located above the three connecting windows on the front of the building. He assured the commissioners that it would meet City Ordinance requirements. Rassier stated that the proposed development is a good use for an existing facility and he would like to make sure it moves forward. However, past history had indicated that it is easier to deal with Ordinance and Building Code issues before a permit is issued. Utsch concurred with Rassier and stated that site plan approval cannot be granted until all issues have been resolved. Rassier made a motion to table site plan approval for Percheron Properties until the January Planning Commission meeting. The matter is being tabled so that the following matters can be resolved: 1. Verification via measurements as to whether or not the proposed development meets the 50% commercial requirement. 2. Resolution on the exterior stairway 3. Parking Lot improvements The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. Other Matters: Weyrens advised the Commissioners that an Ordinance for outdoor burning is being drafted for discussion in 2006. Rassier questioned whether or not that Ordinance would allow for corn burners in the house. Weyrens stated that the proposed Ordinance is outside burners of any kind. Lesnick questioned whether or not that ordinance would also apply to wood burners used for burning garbage. Weyrens stated that current regulations do not allow garbage to be burned. Adjourn: Graeve made a motion to adjourn at 7:45 PM, seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. W~ n ~~~~ d inistrator