Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 [04] Apr 07April 7, 2008 Page 1 of 4 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, April 7, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Kathleen Kalinowski, Commissioners Ross Rieke, Mike McDonald, Mike Deutz, Mark Andersen, John Meyer and Dale Wick, City Administrator Judy Weyrens City Representatives Present: Rental Housing Inspector Gary Utsch, Public Works Director Terry Thene Others Present: Steve Kalkman, Mark Murphy, Gary Kraft Agenda: Deutz made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. The motion was seconded by Wick. Weyrens requested to add the following: • Introduction of Public Works Director The motion passed unanimously. Introduction of Public Works Director: Terry Thene approached the Commissioners and introduced himself as the new Public Works Director. He stated that he worked for the City of Savage for the past twenty years. According to Thene, when he started in Savage, the population was about the size of St. Joseph and when he left, they had a population of 26,000. Minutes: Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes of March 3, 2008 with minor corrections as noted by Kalinowski. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Rieke arrived late. Public Hearing -Ordinance Amendment 52.08 Non Conforming Use: Weyrens stated that the purpose of the hearing was to consider an amendment to Ordinance 52.08: Non Conforming Use. The proposed amendment would reflect recent changes in MN Statute regarding the ability to reconstruct non conforming structures in the event of damage greater than 50% to the structure. The public hearing was opened and closed at 7:05 PM as no one present wished to speak. Weyrens advised the Commissioners that currently the City's Ordinance is in conflict with MN Statute. In 2006 the Legislature amended the rebuilding section of the non conforming use Statute that allows a property owner to rebuild a non conforming use if a building permit is secured within 180 days of the event that caused the damage. Kalinowski questioned the section of the proposed amendment where a reference is made to the structures value and requested clarification on how the value is determined. Weyrens stated that the City contracts with Stearns County for assessment services. They would likely come and appraise the home first. If the homeowner disagrees with the appraised value, they can hire their own appraiser and the values can be negotiated. Deutz questioned whether these values would go to a board of appeals if there is an issue with the market value determined by Stearns County. Weyrens stated that the Board of Appeals only meets in the spring time. McDonald added that there will most likely be disputes as the market values determined for tax purposes are generally understated. Weyrens advised the commissioners that she would receive clarification on this section and bring the information back to the City Council. Wick questioned the meaning of Subd. 8. Based on how it is written, it appears that if they applied for a building permit today and a storm hit tomorrow, they would not be able to re-build the current use. Weyrens stated that the proposed Ordinance mirrors state statute; however, she stated that she would check for clarification on this. McDonald added that they would have 180 days after the event to re-build. April 7, 2008 Page 2 of 4 Meyer made a motion to table the amendment to Ordinance 52.08 Non Conforming Use until further clarification is received. The motion was seconded by McDonald and passed unanimously. Public Hearing -Ordinance Amendment 55 Housing Occupancy: Weyrens stated that the purpose of the hearing was to consider an amendment to Ordinance 55 Housing Occupancy to include livability standards. The public hearing was opened and closed at 7:15 PM as no one present wished to speak. The Commissioners made the following comments with reference to Ordinance 55: • Page 55-01 Subd. 3(a): "Any such property which has a valid license under the previous rental ordinance, and which would have passed inspection under the rep vlouS ordinance, shall receive a provisional..." Kalinowski questioned whether it should read "...passed inspection under the present ordinance..." instead. Weyrens stated that it can be amended so that any license issued prior to April 1, 2008. • Page 55-02 St. Benedict's is plural and should be Benedict. • Page 55-07 Subd. 1 I.U.P. should be defined as Interim Use Permit. • Page 55-20 Subd. 5 The draft indicates that Stairways, Porches, Balconies has been removed from the title but they are still referred to in the paragraph; therefore, they should remain in the title. Delete the two sentences that make references to free from deterioration as it is redundant with the sentence that requires stairways, porches, balconies, handrails and guards to be in safe condition. • Page 55-25 Subd. 12 (b) Parking Surface Standards. The provision should end with ".. for a distance of not less than 10 feet. Weyrens stated that Building Official Ron Wasmund responded to the Planning Commission inquiry regarding the reference in the Ordinance to homes built before 1940. Wasmund indicated that he could find no significance to the reference and speculated that the reference relates to HUD housing. Therefore, Wasmund recommend that 55.09 Subd. 3 be amended to: No dwelling unit containing two or more sleeping rooms shall have a room arrangement such that access to a bathroom or water closet compartment intended for use by occupants of more than one sleeping room can be gained only by going through another sleeping room. A bathroom or water closet compartment shall not be used as the only passageways to any habitable room, hall, basement or cellar or to the exterior of any dwelling unit. Weyrens stated that there is still some concern with the provision regarding built-in deficiencies and how they will be defined. Deutz stated that he would like to see a definition of a built-in deficiency so that it does not become a matter of subjectivity with each inspector. Weyrens stated that examples of built-in deficiencies would include a porch that may have been converted to a bedroom or a an attic that is being used for livable spaces. Both these spaces were not intended for living quarters when most homes were built. Deutz asked for comments from the City's rental housing inspector, Gary Utsch. Utsch stated that if the City looks back to when most of these homes were built, they will find that there were no ordinances in place at that time. Just the same, at that time, attics were generally built to be used as a storage area not a habitable area. In his opinion, it would not be considered abuilt-in deficiency if the use were changed to make an area habitable. April 7, 2008 Page 3 of 4 Utsch addressed the issue of stairways and asked how the Planning Commission would like to handle them. He stated that during his inspection, he will primarily be looking at safety when it comes to stairways. If the stairway is open on one side, the owner will be required to close it. If the stairway is being altered, the property owner would be responsible for bringing it up to code. He cannot make someone tear out a stairway to bring it to code unless they are building something. If the stairway meets all safety requirements, no changes will need to be made. He also added that if there is little headroom in the stairway, they will first need to look at what is above the stairway before determining if it needs to be brought to code. Meyer stated that, in his opinion, stairways will be the biggest deficiency that will be found in many of the older homes. Utsch added that he will be looking for ways to make stairways safer. Wick questioned Utsch as to how the stairs are measured in relation to the maximum weight load. The Ordinance states that they must be able to hold 1001bs/sq. ft. Utsch stated that this can be determined by looking at the structure underneath. Weyrens questioned Utsch if they rental inspection for 2008-2009 will include two inspections. Utsch responded that one inspection will be completed for each unit, but two inspection reports will be generated. The first report will be the same report, enforcing the same Ordinance that was in place for the 2007-2008 licenses. The second report will identify compliance items needed by the newly amended Ordinance. Weyrens clarified that landlords will have two years to make the required changes and completing the inspection this year will identify the impact of the Ordinance. Until the inspection is completed on the proposed amendment it is impossible to know the impact. Weyrens stated that any problems that occur will be addressed after all inspections have been completed. McDonald stated that the health and safety are the most important issues to be addressed. He questioned whether the Ordinance is broad enough for Utsch to do his job to which Utsch stated yes. Deutz questioned Utsch as to how many, in his point of view, are going to need substantial updates. Utsch stated that it is hard to say until he actually does the inspections; however, he said that there are approximately 400 rental units and he suspects that 30-40 of them will have problems that will need to be addressed. He added that there are a couple of property owners that will need to make decisions relating to their rental properties. According to Utsch, basements are going to be the biggest issue as he stated that he will be looking for a minimum ceiling height of 6'6". According to Weyrens, it would make sense to first make an inventory of what is out there and work from there. Deutz added that there may be a lot of landlords with issues. In reply, Weyrens stated that all of the landlords were given notice of the meeting at which they could address any problems with the Ordinance and no one appeared before the Commission or expressed concern. Meyer made a motion to recommend the Council approve Ordinance 55 causing the same to be executed and published. Further, after the inspections are completed for the 2008-2009 license period, the rental inspector will provide a report to the Planning Commission identifying the impact of the amended Ordinance. At this time the Planning Commission may amend the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Wick. Discussion: Before approving the Ordinance, Utsch stated that he would like the Commissioners to look at page 55.25 Section 55.12 (b) relating to Parking. This provision requires that parking areas abutting a paved roadway will be required to pave the parking space. All other spaces can remain gravel. Utsch expressed concern with the impact in the commercial area and if they really intended to require paved parking areas on residentially used property. The Commission agreed to modify the section by ending the provision with the following: "for a distance of not less than 10 feet." Ayes: Kalinowski, Rieke, Andersen, Meyer, McDonald, Wick. Nays: Deutz Motion Carried 6:1:0 Centracare -Development Plan Review: Weyrens presented the Commission with a site plan for the construction of a new Centracare Medical Clinic. The Clinic will be located at the southeast intersection of County Road 133 and County Road 75. Centracare has purchased just under five acres of property from Coborns. The development plan is part of the Coborn's PUD previously approved by the Planning April 7, 2008 Page 4 of 4 Commission. The PUD Agreement identifies footprints and uses for potential structures. As each structure is constructed the Planning Commission reviews the site plan. Therefore, CentraCare has submitted a detailed site plan for the construction of a medical clinic. Steve Kalkman, SJA Architechts, approached the Commission on behalf of Centracare. Kalklman indicated that CentraCare is proposing to construct phase one of a potential three phase development. Phase one consists of a 12,000 square foot medical clinic. Kalkman clarified that the parking illustrated on the site plan is for the full build out. At this time only 121 of the 197 parking spaces will be provided. Weyrens stated that the City staff has reviewed the site plan and do not have any significant outstanding issues. The plan as presented was complete and revisions were completed as requested. At this time the staff is recommending the Planning Commission accept the development plan as submitted. Commissioners questioned Kalkman as to the location of the business sign. Kalkman responded that the business sign will be located at the northwest corner of the property adjacent to County Road 133 and the ingress/egress to the property. Meyer made a motion to approve the site plan as presented and request that staff prepare the Development Agreement for Council Approval. The motion was seconded by Wick. Discussion: McDonald questioned the maximum number of employees that the new facility will accommodate. Kalkman stated that the facility will be designed for 7 physicians. A representative from Centracare added that there are approximately 3-4 support staff per physician. Kalkman then stated that there will be 121 parking spaces available based on Ordinance 52.10 3(f). They plan to construct a 2- story building continuing the same use with a total number of 197 parking spaces. The motion passed unanimously. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:00 PM. y G ~~ Jud Wey~ens Ad nistrator