Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 [06] Jun 07 . ~ CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 21 First Avenue NW P.O. Box 668, St. Joseph, MN 56374 (320) 363-7201 Fax: 363-0342 IþIr", St. Joseph Planning Commission cnu =.., City Hall - June 7, 1999 MAYOR 7 :00 p.m. Kenneth J. Hiemenz CLERK! ADMINISTRATOR 1. 7 :00 P.M. - Request to Make Building Permit Application - College of St. Benedict Rachel Stapleton 2. 7:05 P.M. - Request to Make Building Permit Application - Steve Dehler COUNCILORS 3. 7:15 P.M. - Recommendation of Roadway Name Bob Loso Cory Ehlert 4. Approval of May 3, 1999 Minutes Ken Twit e'\liedenfuer 5. Other Business a. July Meeting Date Change 6. 7 :30 P.M. - Public Hearing - Rezoning of property along County Road #75 to the Highway #75 Business District. 7. 8:00 P.M. - Public Hearing - Proposed changes to Ordinances 51,52,53, and 54. 8. Adjourn . . CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 21 First Avenue NW P.O. Box 668, MEMORANDUM St. Joseph, MN 56374 (320) 363-7201 Fax: 363-0342 To: Planning Commission Members From: Chad A. Carlson, Planning Commission Secretary I]Brtp Date: June 3, 1999 ciIU ii=m RE: Background Information for the June 7, 1999 Meeting MAYOR CollC2e of St. Benedict - Reauest to Make Buildin2 Permit Application Kenneth J. Hiemenz The College of St. Benedict is requesting approval to make a building permit application for the remodeling of the Loft. The Loft will be remodeled to house the Student Services Center. Please see the enclosed information regarding the details of the remodeling. CLERK! ADMINISTRATOR According to the Ordinance, the Planning Commission must review the plan in order to Rachel Stapleton recommend approval to obtain a building permit. However, the motion to approve the making of application for a building permit must be subject to the review of the Building Official and Fire COUNCILORS Chief. Bob Loso Cory Ehlert Steve Dehler - Reauest to Make BuildilU!: Permit Application Ken Twit I spoke with Steve Dehler regarding the construction of a walkway and access to the second floor .iedenfuer of his residence. If you recall, the west stairwell was eliminated with the construction of the new Michael Deutz Building. Mr. Dehler is requesting approval of the Planning Commission to proceed to make application for a building permit. Please find enclosed a draft sketch of the proposed deck and access. Mr. Scherer has stated that the construction of a new walkway, which replaces the old stairwell, will not require Mr. Dehler to conform with the parking lot standards adopted in 1996. After speaking with Ron Euteneuer's office, anything that is attached to the brick firewall or built between the buildings must be of non-combustible material (i.e. steel, concrete or other). Mr. Dehler is proposing green treated. According to Mr. Euteneuer, this is a requirement of the State Building Codes for safety purposes. Please be prepared to address this issue. Any motion to make application for a building permit must require the design be approved by the Building Official and Fire Chief. Recommendation of a Roadwav Name The Mayor is requesting that the Planning Commission review and recommend the naming of the new road into the Northland Addition. The Mayor is requesting that the Planning Commission consider naming the road Northland Drive due to the fact that the road does not match up with existing streets or the grid system. Other Business July 5th is the next scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. The City Offices will be closed on July 5th in recognition of the 4th of July holiday. In addition, I will be on vacation that week. I . suggest that the next meeting be scheduled for July 6th, Tuesday, Judy has offered to take minutes and I will have the packets ready by July 1 st for distribution. . Page #2 Planning Commission Ordinance Review All the information for the Public Hearings is included in the packet. In addition, a tetter from Mr. Scherer is included detailing his review ofthe Ordinances. I have enclosed suggestions and information addressing Mr. Scherer's comments. We will be discussing the issues in detail at the meeting. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 363-8573. . . . J , . . Unofficial Minutes- Planning Commission May 3, 1999 . Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday May 3, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall. Plannin2 Commission Members: Present - Chair Hub Klein. Commissioners, Kathleen Kalinowski, Jim Graeve, Gary Utsch, Cory Ehlert, Marge Lesnick and Kurt Schneider. Chad Carlson, Secretary. Others Present: Michael Deutz St. Joseph Mini Stora2e - Special Use Permit: Chairperson Klein called the public hearing to order on May 3, 1999. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a special use permit to allow for the construction of a mini storage facility. The property is zoned Industrial and St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.21 Subd. 2 states that all industrial uses shall require a special use permit. The property is legally described as follows: Lot Three (3), Block One (1), T.J. Addition. The request for a Special Use Permit has been submitted by St. Joseph Mini Storage, Mike Deutz; P.O. Box 634, St. Joseph, MN 56374. The hearing was duly published and held. At the hearing Mr. Deutz presented his plans for the construction of a third mini storage facility on the property in question. As required by Ordinance, Mr. Deutz has requested that a Special Use Permit be granted to construct the proposed facility. . Carlson informed the Planning Commission that the proposed project meets all the setback requirements, and the project conforms to the requirements of a Special Use Permit in the Industrial District and the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission discussed lighting, signage and security issues with the proposed and existing facilities. Deutz stated that the same lighting used on the existing buildings will be used on the new facility. There will be no additional signs on the premise and a security fence may be constructed in the future if problems occur. Kalinowski questioned the vacancy rate of the existing facilities. Deutz stated that the facilities on Joseph Street were 90% full and the facilities on CSAH #75 are 80% full. There being no further comments, Lesnick made a motion to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit. The motion was seconded by Utsch. Discussion: Ehlert questioned the elevation of the proposed storage facility. Deutz stated that the new building will be at the same elevation as the existing buildings. Deutz further stated that the re- construction of Joseph Street may change the elevation. Ayes: Klein, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Schneider, Utsch, Ehlert and Graeve Nays: None Motion Carried: 7:0:0 . . . . RESOLUTION OF FINDING A request from Mike Deutz for a Special Use Permit came before the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on May 3, 1999. The purpose of the hearing was to consider issuance of a Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit is being requested to allow for the construction of a mini storage facility in the Industrial District. The property is zoned Industrial and St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.21 Subd. 2 states that all industrial uses shall require a special use permit. The property is legally described as follows: Lot Three (3), Block One (1), T.J. Addition. The request for a Special Use Permit has been submitted by St. Joseph Mini Storage, Mike Deutz; P.O. Box 634, St. Joseph, MN 56374. Notice of this matter was duly served and published. In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: The proposed use is consistent with the standards for a Special Use Permit as stated in St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 Subd. 4 (a-k). . Therefore, based on the above findings, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to approve the Special Use Permit as requested. Hearing was closed at 7 :25 P.M. Collee:e of St. Benedict - Approval of Buildin!! Permit Carlson presented a request from the College of St. Benedict to make application for a building permit for remodeling of the East Apartments. According to St. Joseph Code of Ordinances Section 52.22, all applications for a building permit in the Educational and Ecclesiastical District must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Carlson stated the following construction will be completed: 1) remodel kitchens 2) remodel bathrooms and vanity fixtures 3) replace floor finishes and paint units 4) improve ventilation 5) remove baseboard heat and install fan coil units for heating this year and connect central chilled water lines next summer for air conditioning. 6) replace electrical panels and upgrade smoke detector system There being no further comments, Graeve made a motion to approve the plans presented by the College of St. Benedict for the remodeling of the East Apartments and authorizing the College of St. Benedict to make application for a building permit. The motion was seconded by Lesnick. Ayes: Klein, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Schneider, Utsch, Ehlert and Graeve . Nays: None Motion Carried: 7:0:0 . I " . Approval of Minutes: Kalinowski made a motion to approve the March 1, 1999 minutes of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously by those present. Ehlert made a motion to approve the March 8, 1999 minutes of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously by those present. Other Business: Carlson presented information regarding the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinances. After speaking with area developers and businesses, the following items were of common concern during the discussions: 1) Should "Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service" be a permitted use within the Highway #75 Business District? After discussion, the Planning Commission recommended that "Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service" be placed under a Special Use Permit. Graeve stated that the Planning Commission should consider making every use within the Highway #75 Business District a Special Use Permit. Kalinowski stated that the Planning Commission needs to create specific standards for Special Uses that are uniform in every instance as not to discriminate. Carlson stated that he'll research other communities regarding this issue and present information to the Planning Commission at the next meeting. . 2) Should "hooded lighting" in the Highway #75 Business District be mandatory? Carlson stated that it is against the law to leave a United States Flag up overnight without spotlights and hooded light would prohibit this activity. After discussion, the Planning Commission stated that hooded lighting shouldn't be eliminated for one specific occurrence. The Planning Commission chose to leave the requirement for hooded lighting. 3) Should "wood siding" be an acceptable exterior use in the Highway #75 Business District? After discussion, the Planning Commission chose to leave "wood siding" as a prohibited exterior material for construction. The Planning Commission clarified that a log structure is not the same in nature as wood siding. 4) Should "underground sprinkling" be mandatory for all green space within a development? After considerable discussion involving cost, maintenance, and reasonability, the Planning Commission chose to eliminate mandatory underground sprinkling systems. However, the Planning Commission will strongly recommend the use of underground sprinkling, within reason, for every development that occurs within the Highway #75 Business District. 5) Should "foundation planting consisting of 50% of the building's dimension" be considered mandatory in the Highway #75 Business District? After discussion, the Planning Commission requested that Carlson define uniform standards for landscaping for all commercial development and eliminate the "foundation planting" requirement from the Ordinance. Hif;!hway #75 Business District Boundary Lines . Carlson presented a draft of the Highway #75 Business District boundary lines. After discussion regarding the boundary lines, Graeve made a motion to recommended the proposed district be presented to the City Council as presented by Carlson. The motion was seconded by Utsch. . .. ~ \ , Discussion: Carlson stated that a public hearing is needed to adopt the proposed changes to the Zoning · Ordinances. Carlson further stated that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map may be completed at the same time provided proper notification is given to the property owners. Klein questioned if the current uses along Highway #75 would be grandfathered under the new Ordinance. Carlson stated that changing from General Business to Highway #75 Business will not make uses along CSAH#75 non-conforming, but rather enhance development standards for new construction, re-construction or remodeling of existing facilities. Ayes: Klein, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Schneider, Utsch, Ehlert and Graeve Nays: None Motion Carried: 7:0:0 Other Business: The Planning Commission requested that the City Council consider hearing recommendations made by the Planning Commission and requiring City Council action within the same week of a City Council meeting. Specifically, the recommendations that are simple in nature and don't require public notification prior to the City Council meeting. Ehlert and Carlson will approach the City Council to request that they consider acting on Planning Commission recommendations at the City Council meeting that occurs within the same week. ~~aeve requested that Carlson or Ehlert approach the City Council and request a copy of the emergency service manual for the mobile home park be placed in City Offices. Kalinowski stated that Councilor Loso has a copy of the manual at his residence and a copy should be in the City Offices in case an emergency occurs and Councilor Loso is not available. tf/1.p r:;;---~CJ2j . ;;::;;:'}¡o ¿{ 1/ !de (:ov l.{)ucJe> c / · ~ ¿z ~----ú:? .-t-fr c¿f-~~~_é/?iÙ .P11v1-h&t ¿c.L_ Graeve requested that Carlson contact the Krebsbachs to determine if the vacant lot could be used as parking for community residents until the property i~ sold. Carlson stated he would contact Jim Krebsbach. 9(/v:..{./( ¿~ "---( ¿ ~( }/7 "I (:/':~_ b t"( {(J V-<-- "j) (- Klein stated that the 90 minute parking in front of Sunset Manufacturing is not being enforced well enough. Klein requested that Carlson approach the Police Chief to see if the problem can be solved. Schneider stated that an article in the St. Cloud Times regarding sidewalks would be an excellent resource for the Planning Commission and will provide copies at the next meeting. Carlson updated the Planning Commission on the Bike and Pedestrian Comprehensive Development Plan. Ehlert stated the City Council approved $20 per meeting for the Planning Commissioners. Ehlert further stated that the pay will be retroactive to January 1, 1999. Graeve informed the Planning Commission of the 1 st Annual Fruhlingsfest on May 15th, 1999 starting with a parade at 1 :45 P.M. Graeve stated the purpose of the festival is to honor the College of St. Benedict's Basketball Team. Adjourn: The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:45pm. ~Æ- · r;":r Chad A. Carlson Planning Commission Secretary III GROOTERS LEAPALDT TIDEMAN " . A R C H I T E C T S Main Office: 808 Courrhouse Square, Sc. Cloud, Minnesota 56303 Phone: (320) 252-3740 Fax: (320) 255-0683 12 May 1999 www.gltarchitects.com College of Saint Benedict Loft Remodel Project St. Joseph Planning Board C/O Chad Carlson To Whom it May Concern, The Loft was the campus bookstore and social center of campus with post office and lounge. The Ardolf Science Center was attached in 1991 to the north end of the Loft building. Now the Loft will be remodeled to house the student services offices. This will include Registrar, Academic Advising, Career Services with a career resource center on the upper floor (see anached upper floor plan). On the lower floor, additional student support programs such as Upward Bound, English as a . Second Language, and Service Learning will be located (see attached lower floor plan). Sharing a plaza between the Science Center and north end of the Loft, the entry will be maintained as a split level lobby. Both floors and entry lobby will be handicapped accessible, have compliant toilet facilities and windows. The mechanical and electrical systems will be completely updated along with the windows and exterior Image. Thank you for reviewing this project presented here and contact Grooters Leapaldt Tideman Architects if you have any comments or concerns. If you would like us to be present at the meeting, please call and let us know. Sincerely, ~~~~JMJ . Ste en B. P. Ka1kman Architect SKlcs Enc. CC: David Leapaldt (9702CO I I) . Branch Office: 4-5 Second Avenue, Newport, Minnesota 55055 Phone: (651) 459-9566 Fax: (651) 768-7957 ~f ~ ~] , ~ ~ ~K -=- u , . , .- , I ' I - ..- = \ QJ \ a '\ "-' ' ....., . u \ ~. ~ I \ \ ,...¡;:: \: Q ~ Ii U /( ¡., . 'I, ! _ ,I -< ,~ QJ = ~ ! I ~ = ~, . "'.... ~ ' ',. ¡:;;¡ f I!! ....'1> ~ .1. '; "'4# :5! ' // ~ ~ ) = i 01)0\=. 0\ ~ O\~ .~ 1"""'( ~ r Ø\ ... a... \#,j, 0\ ~ QJ := ~ ~ ¡. Q Q.c¡. <'-' . . .". , .=~. p~ 0·'· .... .'. .'. tu I .. II J ~ ÔO 1m"" m ~~ I- [] []] IZ~ -- ~CJ~ ~S :=~;: ~ ~. r II ~ ~~ /" ~ ~ 1- ~ ~ 1"\ . I ( ) C:" II--F--- A = ~ .... ~"II - Q) , ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ []~~ Flñ1êš - ' I IF--- 17 r--r J ~ ~ J .. .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bJ!!JE= C '-þ~ ~ = ,... (l). . o· Z II .- '!"-"I :. i- I={ 1'- 0 ~ Q ~:'..=. ~ ~ ~~þ!J I I ~ ~ 00.··. ~ Œ5V ~ ~ ~ IU 7 0 ~ '.'. Z ~ ^ ~:> Q) . ~ <7~ ~ r I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'fVr ~ ~- ~ h- , . _. ~ ~ ~W1F ~ ~~~ ~.... <-~,., õ .~ ... ~ ~~Wþ I Z ~ U - . ... . Z '¥"¥ - :== - I·· 0 ~.. ~ .' ~ ~.-....-. . L I I 1.\ ~ ~'~çr ~ ~< ~ \::::: u ~h.. .... __~\ _ _. Cð') ~~ ~ .::>.'. S2 ~ . . r L - - - - - - - - - - - - - . -- Þ ,.:. ~ ¿ ..- . .'.'. Q;,q þ!J ~ -I,.--- .<:... 0 0 0'" .-f-,.C . -I- .... _ ~ ._..,. ...,. ~ - ~ _F--- .... 'Fr" 0 0 )) f- . :..: Ib."J ¡. - 1. ~~... þ!J - ~ é- r.IJ Z -~ :.<.' S2 (fJ S¿ _ ~ 1->· ~ ... ~ ~ ~.=,=: ê5 (" - · ~ ~ ,=~R-- ...... L- _ ... {¡j .- ~- - 1--.... ., r--,- -/-., ll~ J. --l- 1\ _. .. rT' rT' 11 \-- ., .. ~ ~1-1! - - 'C !-- .'. U ...... h- U· ..,- - ~~. 0 - ~ r IJ---~ .. '.. - I!== rT - '-- _ _. .... Q;,q - I.-- IL- " . L- .. .. rT - . -- .---.... ~ ( -.. t- \--- - 1-,.:.. 0 0 ~ . - ~~=--r-:.),. IT] I I -t=:==- b I-- I-- . . 1- .r--- r-- _ .. þ!J 1- - . r-- :.:, U ~ - II- -~ c.. Ü ~ ~ ~ ~ lì . . I={ µ .J= 1- f-- i---- ~ I-- L- ...... ~ ::;-' ·1_1--1,- -iI"-L---I.-t--~ - lL ... ~ - - '- ~::.:...:...::.<..' 0 11 ....... ..- f\ ~O· f--~ -f-J.--~ .....,........ ~ ~ . '.' , '. . : . ....:.. : .. It\AJJ lY"'- . I . ....:;. ...:. ..........., ~ '. .' f- ".<:: l- r--:..:: 7 +- ::::>.: ~ þQ ~ /--'.:< U U = Ü :r--:... _ - -.:<.: ~ = ~ .n .:..:.... r.,. (" ÞL. r~. +.. ;.;¡;.¡ rc:::: '.;<:':. 1==1 ÞL. l 'V t1JI 0 -I) .::>: 0 0 ¡=- "-..,,. = :.:> lID 10 Z f- I ~ .: .' b!J f- ~ ~/'. ~ '- ~~~ ~ I~'~ = r- ::'..:.'.~ §: >- : ·1n1rfrf1b Q) ::).!; ~ ~ Î ~ = ~~~ ~ ~ e ~ I/-- :.:.:< I¥"I'<-#. 1 f- _ ~ . ~ ~ CJ :..... f-I- .§ 0 Q.) :=:.\y.:: ~~'\ o~ = - ~ ~:ã +- ::" 'q~ ~ ~ CJ '- :...:...: ~ ~ J-c :r--::':'~: I H F=J -d r ( < W=::::::../! \JrI ! ~ ~ --7 C ~ C -I) .:....... IL/ ~. X ~ c ~ C': ~,j t5 t5 ffiJÎj U~ Q) J r-.>. _ _ II (f.) ~.~ r- :'.> ~ ~ þQ z ~ "--<:< ~ ~ t;¡¡;:I- ',".". 0 0 ~ µ.:¡ ..... ¡-'.'::' a ~ ~ . _ .. .'. ~....c t :.:.>: ~ = . C': _.":. FF\ Q. ,.- .:..:,::.. .. ... ... .. Þ'= == . '. . . .' ...... . '. . '. . .' '. . .. ~ ~" 0'\ C': '- ::..:>~:\:~...~.<:.. ..:.'<.:: :.::. ... :.::.:>.....~.::.:. <.'.~.::. ::. .:. 0 ~ 0'\ Q) f- .... .' . u· .............. .... .'. d U. --' 0'\ ~ c- .:. :>...: :... ..).:,.:.... : ':<:... .:.':.::..<::..:: . :.::..'. ::: >: :.: .' .:.. ~ ~ fI:) ¡.....-:..:.::.;..:..:...:..:.. :..>..: ....:.;..::........:..: .':" :':..:. "CI'1 ,.: ~ . . . ..... Vu Q) ~ ~ ~où.'7a7 }. ~ ~ 0 .. H H. ' ¡I . . = f' . '" o .. ",' u ~ tJ \e" 00 w .- , I II 0 ~ ~ f"'\ I '" " ~ ~ ~ f' ~ ~ , ,.......¡ U ~ J 00 ÞIJ -= ~ ~ ~ 0 '¡ ~ ro 00 ~ ü ~ ~ ~ 0 '-' þ!J 0 z ~ '. I s¿ 6 ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m U ~ ..' ~ ÞIJ 0 ~. fi-- Q ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ u ~ ~ - g 0 ~ ~ ~ Z - U 1==1 ~ ~ u ~ _ 0 Þ6 0 ~ : ~~ ~ U w 0 1==1 U ~ = ~ o~ o þb, ÞIJ ....ill = o u _ -==lllill-I tE ~ ~úlll§§1 ¡II UJ Gb 0 ~ u 0 1Jlill~ ffi .' ~ ~- ~ ~. ~ II o ~ Cf) 1I1I1I~iiï ~ U ~ ~~= o Iillflgj~ ~~ Q) .5 ~ ~ 1~llliJl ~ . ~ ~ flllIl I ~ .- o ~-_ ~ -= ~ ~=~ ~ -§Jï r ..:: ~~ Q) ~ ~ 1Jlill~ ~ ~ * ~~ e lli11l~ ~ ì Q) , - - '*' "Q ='~ t "C. = i 0lJ ~ ~, .~ 0\ ~ r 1'\ ~ fI:) ..., J. r. J-c 0\ Q) Q) =-== ~ J..c 0 Q..J-c <~ I'ð . .- ::;u..J, II I . ~~ I" ~ " '- -~ \~ ~ 1 . .5i ø . . .",. \\] . \ .- \ 6N3E 0 ~ a . '\: . - t\t\ Ç) r:---ß \ '. J . - · ß nO ~~ ~ ~_rJvd- 0 '0\j '1 ~ - \ì5~~~.~\ 1\ 0" -- .~ O.~~~~ ~ - 6\ j ~r:J! ',~~ , ~ Ç¿6 '-- - = ~- 0::> _ I ..... - D. 1 I ' =-:-- ~ ~<J. · ~ rJ~ ~ H6t ~ - (:S5J r .:~ oS ~::...::=¡;;;; II I fii;~ .::. -/ Jd~ It:¡, f, __ r "~ ,. I I 7 I . .. "r "'"- I I 'i "". r V';:i '!-:- r-'t;:;J, SN4E ), · .... "r-"" L\\ - U·!L I or ,, ~-d _ ,,/ ,. = "" .'. He 1. -il Ip I~, l~ 1'---1 is -=1~ ',S ~ ' r~ - -D' = ~Ql, \1 · :- · · D c::J.I II r _ , .!!!: ~ _ \ C7 - I b. p".:!:.~ . ," L, ~ I -- \ ~ . J ~I jftL _ "'"L ~ ~Fí~,~ - I~ " = . -- ::= - ' -Í'Sd I ~~ I ~ """"'-, I -...i 'Œ:::J'I~ I~_ï r II II. __ ~ __ ?&O......~~::!d '~!IOtA ~I-,J _ __ ~ I , [1 1-"'1 1 (oj I . ~, .- J · 1. r- -Q. = l - ¿ 'l n ~ ~ u.-J;=;- I -, ~ ~I ~ 'I:J 4N3E ~ 1= 11 I ~ fJl E [~LL5) · n I - ì n I' 4N4E I I i I _ ' l,. , 0 ~}~.or. §L~ =- . . 1.8!illì:I.El ' ~ ~ ~ ~'" ~"~ moo OO-..'--JJ I 1 moo ~ I~~ ~~ 1~~ ' - DO _ = 1 .. ~ 0 I I 3N4E ~ , - - ==== ---;; "0 3N3E ~ ~ .I 'i.. þ ._, - --- - 5 ~ - - ~- T BEH':DlCT 11. -..:,."::.......:;~......... W 'EGE If 5, r 51. "",.de! __ -:;;.-~~~--~ ',. h, O.d.. c t ~- r: 5""" or I .... -- It _ -~ =---::.:::-:w. mf:l'e =>---_ - - . -.J .... 'C e¡ ~ ...« , .~ ~ 'b W ~~ ~ ~ \J x ~ -J ~ ~~} <) ""t:- -.4 ~ Q>~~\\ ~ «II ~-.J~ ~ <:Q\t-o .<";1 < ,& \- ù \; ..:j ~~ -'<5 ."" '\'- \- ..r¡. j,. ~ ~ -. ~ ~.~_.---......,----~" > - . G'~ I ~ - t.:ì :i-èi <) (""'\ Q;. { ~ ....) ']I. rs-- ; ; ~ ~ ! ~ . x ¡ C"- o. -- ! \ S ,,- ¡ '" . . ¡" 'J i , - ! ¿ ~ I -.ð I i ~ ! W , \ \ , (! , ';7( ~ ({. - ~ ~ ......¡ .. :;:r. . ~ ), Z·d BZvv-B9f>·OaB ~aI4aa a^a~s ·da~ dl.O:vO 66 B~ hErW .~ ~ \ Y) / f .",,/ / .-/ 1 -.1 .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ í .~ / ~ ~ / ~ ~ I '0 , --.---/ ~ ~ ( è~ ;¡ '- " .~~, ---- ~ ~ t:t:o " uH.. .-.------ . uu. . - uCu. n u - <l:i x' -:" ""'~ "'"\r: 't . ..--.,\. A ~ ~ // L~~':::. .. \ _... -.-...----~ (too.. ~ ./ k· ... ... / . /'. ..... I .' .~.. . '\ ~ . // ','/ \~_\~ . </ _/ /:~'-:./ "'. ,--,~. /~ I~"'" ........-. '-ï~ ":~". .- ..........-- ": / I- ..,..'-' ._, :' , -'. . .... ... ... , -"- -. ." ....-...:...-..-. ..... , ---" '(~\~;-=\ " . .~ \ ---~.~ \.: - . _u~ \, ...,. : ..:.~~. " , ~ --- . '. --- ~.=~-. . \ \:..: ..-'i". \, \:~... ----:-.__:.. \ .... ." ~ tod 8G??-E9E-oae ~al4acr a^a~s °da~ d¿O:?O 66 8~ ~~W ~ , Unofficial Minutes- Planning Co1tl11Ussion May 3,1999 . Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday May 3, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall. Plannin2 Commission Members: Present - Chair Hub Klein. Commissioners. Kathleen Kalinowski. Jim Graeve, Gary Utsch, Cory Ehlert. Marge Lesnick and Kurt Schneider. Chad Carlson. Secretary. Others Present: Michael Deutz St. Joseph Mini Storage - Special Use Permit: Chairperson Klein called the public hearing to order on May 3, 1999. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a special use permit to allow for the construction of a mini storage facility. The property is zoned Industrial and St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.21 Subd. 2. states that all industrial uses shall require a special use permit. The property is legally described as follows: Lot Three (3), Block One (l), T.J. Addition. The request for a Special Use Permit has been submitted by St. Joseph Mini Storage, Mike Deutz; P.O. Box 634, St. Joseph, MN 56374. The hearing was duly published and held. At the hearing Mr. Deutz presented his plans for the construction of a third mini storage facility on the property in question. As required by Ordinance, Mr. Deutz has requested that a Special Use Permit be granted to construct the proposed facility. . Carlson informed the Planning Commission that the proposed project meets all the setback requirements, and the project conforms to the requirements of a Special Use Permit in the Industrial District and the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission discussed lighting, signage and security issues with the proposed and existing facilities. Deutz stated that the same lighting used on the existing buildings will be used on the new facility. There will be no additional signs on the premise and a security fence may be constructed in the future if problems occur. Kalinowski questioned the vacancy rate of the existing facilities. Deutz stated that the facilities on Joseph Street were 90% full and the facilities on CSAH #75 are 80% full. There being no further comments, Lesnick made a motion to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit. The motion was seconded by Utsch. Discussion: Ehlert questioned the elevation of the proposed storage facility. Deutz stated that the new building will be at the same elevation as the existing buildings. Deutz further stated that the re- construction of Joseph Street may change the elevation. Ayes: Klein, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Schneider, Utsch, Ehlert and Graeve Nays: None Motion Carried: 7:0:0 . RESOLUTION OF FINDING A request from Mike Deutz for a Special Use Pennit came before the Planning Commission at a public . hearing held on May 3. 1999. The purpose of the hearing was to consider issuance of a Special Use Permit. The SpeciallJse 'permit is being requested to allow for the construction of a mini storage facility in the Industrial District. . The property is zoned Industrial and St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.21 Subd. 2 states that all industrial uses shall require a speciàl use permit. The property is legally described as follows: Lot Three (3). Block One (n T.J. Addition. The request for a Special Use Permit has been submitted by St. Joseph Mini Storage. Mike Deutz: P.O. Box 634. St. Joseph. ¡vIN 56374. Notice of this matter \\'a~ duly served and published. In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: The proposed use is consistent with the standards for a Special Use Permit as stated Ìn St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 Subd. 4' (a-k). Therefore, based on the above findings, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to approve the Special Use PermÌt as requested. . Hearing was closed at 7;25 P.M. Colle£e ofSt. Benedict- Approval of Building Permit Carlson presented a req~est from the College of St. Benedict to make application for a building permit for remodeling of the East Apartments. According to St. Joseph Code of Ordinances Section 52.22, all applications for a building permit in the Educational and Ecclesiastical District must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Carlson stated the following construction will be completed: 1) remodel kitchens 2) remodel bathrooms and vanity fixtures 3) replace floQr finishes and paint units 4) improve vehtilation 5) remove baseboard heat and install fan coil units for heating this year and connect central chilled water lines next summer for air conditioning. 6) replace electrical panels and upgrade smoke detector system There being no further comments, Graeve made a motion to approve the plans presented by the College of St. Benedict for the remodeling of the East Apartments and authorizing the College of St. Benedict to make application for a building permit. The motion was seconded by Lesnick. Ayes: Klein, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Schneider, Utsch, Ehlert and Graeve Nays: None Motion Carried: 7:0:0 . . . Approval of Minutes: · Kalinowski made a motion to approve the March I, 1999 minutes of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously by those present. Ehlert made a motion to approve the March 8, 1999 minutes of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously by those present. Other Business: Carlson presented information regarding the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance~ After speaking with area developers and businesses, the following items were of common concern during the discussions: I) Should "Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service" be a permitted use within the Highway #75 Business District? After discussion, the Planning Commission recommended that "Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service" be placed under a Special Use Permit. Graeve stated that the Planning Commission should consider making every use within the Highway #75 Business District a Special Use Permit. Kalinowski stated that the Planning Commission needs to create specific standards for Special Uses that are uniform in every instance as not to discriminate. Carlson stated that he'll research other communities regarding this issue and present information to the Planning Commission at the next meeting. 2) Should "hooded lighting" in the Highway #75 Business District be mandatory? Carlson · stated that it is against the law to leave a United States Flag up overnight without spotlights and hooded light would prohibit this activity. After discussion, the Planning Commission stated that hooded lighting shouldn't be eliminated for one specific occurrence. The Planning Commission chose to leave the requirement for hooded lighting. 3) Should "wood siding" be an acceptable exterior use in the Highway #75 Business District? After discussion, the Planning Commission chose to leave "wood siding" as a prohibited exterior material for construction. The Planning Commission clarified that a log structure is not the same in nature as wood siding. 4) Should "underground sprinkling" be mandatory for all green space within a development? After considerable discussion involving cost, maintenance, and reasonability, the Planning Commission chose to eliminate mandatory underground sprinkling systems. However, the Planning Commission will strongly recommend the use of underground sprinkling, within reason, for every development that occurs within the Highway #75 Business District. 5) Should "foundation planting consisting of50% of the building's dimension" be considered mandatory in the Highway #75 Business District? After discussion, the Planning Commission requested that Carlson define uniform standards for landscaping for all commercial development and eliminate the "foundation planting" requirement from the Ordinance. Highway #75 Business District Boundary Lines Carlson presented a draft of the Highway #75 Business District boundary lines. After discussion · regarding the boundary lines, Graeve made a motion to recommended the proposed district be presented to the City Council as presented by Carlson. The motion was seconded by Utsch. . . Discussion: Carlson stated that a public hearing is needed to adopt the proposed changes to the Zoning I Ordinances. Carlson further stated that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map may be completed at the same time provided proper notification is given to the property owners. . Klein questioned if the current uses along Highway #75 would be grandfathered under the new Ordinance. Carlson stated that changing from Genera] Business to Highway #75 Business will not make uses along CSAH#75 noh-conforming. but rather enhance development standards for ne\' construction. re-construction or remodeling of existing facilities. Ayes: Klein. Kalinowski. Lesnick, Schneider. Utsch. Ehlen and Graeve Navs: None Motion Carried: 7:0:0 Other Business: The Planning Commission requested that the City Council consider hearing recommendations made b) the Planning Commissiop and requiring City Council action within the same week of a City Council meeting. Specifically, tre recommendations that are simple in nature and don't require public notification prior to the City Council meeting. Ehlert and Carlson will approach the City Council to request that they consider acting on Planning Commission recommendations at the City Council meeting that occurs within the same \veek. Graeve requested that Carlson or Ehlert approach the City Council and request a copy of the emergency service manual for the mobile home park be placed in City Offices. Kalinowski stated that Councilor Loso has a copy of the manual at his residence and a copy should be in the City Offices in case an emergency occurs and Councilor Loso is not availab]e. Graeve requested that Carlson contact the Krebsbachs to determine if the vacant lot could be used as . parking for community residents until the property is sold. Carlson stated he would contact Jim Krebsbach. Klein stated that the 90 minute parking in front of Sunset Manufacturing is not being enforced well enough. Klein requester that Carlson approach the Police Chief to see if the problem can be solved. Schneider stated that an article in the S1. Cloud Times regarding sidewalks would be an excellent resource for the Planning Commission and will provide copies at the next meeting. Carlson updated the Planning Commission on the Bike and Pedestrian Comprehensive Development Plan. Ehlert stated the City Council approved $20 per meeting for the Planning Commissioners. Ehlert further stated that the pay will be retroactive to January 1, 1999. Graeve informed the Pl,anning Commission of the 151 Annual Fruhlingsfest on May 15th. 1999 starting with a parade at 1:45 pIM. Graeve stated the purpose of the festival is to honor the College of S1. Benedict's Basketball Team. Adjourn: The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:45pm. .·ém~ Chad A. Carlson . Planning Commission Secretary '" "i · VRajkoWSki Î 1 Seventn .Avenue North ~~~~~A~~I Ltd. P.O. Box 1433 S:. C¡oue, h/1N 56302- '1~33 May 19, 1999 320·251-1055 To'! Free 800-445-9617 Mr. Chad Carlson Fax 32·J·251-5896 City of St. Joseph City Hall ra¡rlc1n~-cioudnet.::orn P.O. Box 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374 Re: Ordinance Changes Our File No. 16397 Dear Chad: I have an opportunity to review the proposed ordinance changes which are being · suggested by the Planning Commission. I have prepared this letter to communicate my comments regarding the proposed changes. If I do not comment with regard to a proposed change, you may assume that the change is fine as proposed and it raises no issues in my mind. Frank J. Rajkowsk! .. In presenting these comments, I recognize the fact that there may be a reason for some of the proposed changes which I am not aware of. Even though I may have some questions GOedon H. Hansmeier with regard to the change, the Planning Commission may be able to provide further Frederick L Grunke infonnation which addresses those concerns. Thomas G. Jovanovich· . I also appreciate the fact that the Planning Commission views the zoning and subdivision John H. Scherer regulations as documents which are not etched in stone. As times and circumstances Paul Á. RajkovvskiO change, the ordinances should be reviewed to assure that they reflect the current needs Kevin F. Gray and wishes of the City. In undertaking this review, the Planning Commission has maintained the balance between the stability and predictability of respecting the existing VV¡iliam J. Cashman ordinances while making changes deemed necessary for the good of the community. Richard W. 50balvarro The comments I have are as follows: Betn S. Thompson Lotte R. Hansen 1. Section 51.5. I believe that the word "to" added to that provision should be behind Mark E. Arneson the comma rather than in front of it. · G. Hamak Patrick J. Larkin Frank J. Rajkovvski and Richard vv. Sobaivarro are admitted to practice in North Dakota, Gordon H. Hansmeier in North Dakota and Wisconsin, Paul A Rajkowski in Wisconsin and V'¡illi¡¡!/ì J. Cashman in South Dakota. -rviember of American Board of Trial Advocates. -Qualified ADR Neutral. v . . Mr. Chad Carlson . May 19, 1999 Page 2 2. Section 51.6. I have some reservations in allowing the Building Official to extend completion dates where there is no criteria established on which the Building Official should base his or her decision. I would suggest that the ability to extend the building pennit be exerqised only where a delay in construction occurs for reasons outside the control of the ¡Jroperty owner or where the work has been substantially completed within one year. 3. Section 52.3, Subd 1: The language which is deleted in subdivision 1, creating an exception for e{ára territorial zoning regulation under circumstances where the City lies within four milþs of another municipality, is taken from Minn. Stat. § 462.357, Subd. 1. That is the law¡Whether or not that provision is in the ordinance, that provision would govern extra territorial zoning. 4. There was a comment and deletion in the definition of "Family" found in Section 52.4. Several years ago, the definition of family for purposes of occupancy of a building in a single family area, was changed from five to three unrelated persons. Subpart B of the ordinance was !added to effectively "grandfather" any existing rental units so as to allow them to continµe in an R1 area with five renters. At that time, there was some concern of the landlords '-tith regard to the loss of their rental license due to conduct by the tenants . outside their cçmtrol. That is the reason for the language which is omitted in this redraft. 5. Under Section 52.4, the definition of "Rooming House" refers to both "lodging house" and bed and breakfast. I believe that the reference to the "bed and breakfast" should be omitted or the¡tenn "rooming house" should be omitted from the ordinance and either "lodging housf' or "bed and breakfast" used in its place as the context requires. Later, "bed and brcalµast" is separately defined. In reviewing the remainder of the ordinance, I do not note any other references to a bed and breakfast as a pennitted use in any zones. Unless there is some reason to use the tenn "bed and breakfast" elsewhere in the ordinance, I don't see any reason to separately define it at this time. 6. With regard to the definition of "Lodge" found in Section 52.4, I would suggest that the definition be e((panded as follows: "A bu~ding or place opened to members of veterans or fraternal organi~ations, qualifYing as tax exempt under the Internal Revenue Code, land to the guests of members while in the company of members. " 7. Section 52.6 discusses the necessity and procedure for requiring a building pennit. That section should be compared with the language found in Section 51.1 to assure consistency . between the $0 sections. ", ~ · Mr. Chad Carlson May 19, 1999 Page 3 8. Section 52.8, Subd I(e) would require the City Council to notify the Planning Commission within seven days if the City Council rejects the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Although I believe that this would be a good practice, I don't believe that language should be in the ordinance. As a practical matter, how would the notification occur? Would it be by a separate certified letter to each member of the Planning Commission? With the publication of the City Council meetings over local cable, members of the Planning Commission can observe the Council's action as it occurs. I believe that this requirement by ordinance would create more problems than it is intended to solve and I suggest that it be dropped. 9. I am a little confused with the changes in the application process for a special use permit found in Section 52.9, Subd 2. It appears as though the proposal is for the submission of a development review application three weeks before the submission of a special use request. I am afraid that this may cause some confusion as to the commencement of the 60-day period in which the City has to act on such requests. Also, if a property owner submits a development review application, and in conjunction therewith submits a special use permit application, under state law, does the City have the authority to tack on an · additional three weeks to the 60-day period within which they have to act on the request? I think not. Although the function of the Planning Commission would improve greatly if it had more time to review development information before a hearing, state law may not afford that luxury. If the Planning Commission needs time to evaluate the development information prior to a public hearing, the proper method is to schedule the hearing at a later day or continue the hearing while seeking more information. Chad, I would be interested in hearing more about the background behind this proposed change. 10. Section 52.9, Subd 2(h) would add the language "including possible encroachments of wetlands" to the application information. I believe that the use of the words "possible encroachments" could render this requirement largely ineffective. I would suggest that the following language be substituted in its place: "Soil type and the location of wetlands as defined by Minn. Stat. § 103G.005, Subd. 19, which are located within the property." The Stearns County Environmental Office can inform applicants of the existence of wetlands. 11. Section 52.9, Subd 3(b) is being changed to require the Planning Commission to make recommendations to the City Council with regard to a special use permit "within the guidelines as required by State Law." State law does not specifically provide a time within which an advisory committee must report to a governing body with regard to a special use · request. The 60-day rule established by state law applies generally to action by the city. It is not broken down by planning commission action and city council action. Therefore, I v . Mr. Chad Carlson . May 19, 1999 Page 4 would recommend that the 30-day limitation currently within the ordinance remain. If the Planning Commission does not report within the 30 days, the Council may proceed. 12. The introductory language of Section 52.9, Subd. 4 should be revised to read as follows: "The P~anning Commission shall recommend a special use permit, and the Council shall order the issuance of such permit if the application conforms to the specific standards of this ordinance set forth below, as it would apply to the particular use at the proposed location:" 13. \Vith regard to'Sectiol1 52.13, Subd. 4, nüher than to refen~ng to fees listed in Appendix A of the Code, I }Vould substitute the following language: ". . . accompanied by the fee as is periodically established by the City Council." In that manner, it is clear that the City Council has the authority to set the fee and change that fee from time to time without needing to amend the ordinance. The various fees of . the City are set by resolution periodically reviewed and adopted by the City Council and incorporated into the Code as an appendix. 13. I have reviewed Section 52.13, Subd. 11 d dealing with minimum lot size for a PURD. It is my understanding that the ordinance requires the City to look at the minimum lot requirements for the uses prescribed for the PURD. In other words, if the intent is to develop the prpperty as single family, we should look at the lot size for an R1 development. ¡After removing street right-of-ways and easements from the equation, the total area of the property being developed as a PURD should be divided by the minimum lot size for an ~llot to determine the total number ofR1 units which could be developed within the proþerty. Then, when the PURD is actually platted, the number of lots platted should not exceed the maximum aiiowed under that formula, but the actuaì lots when platted may be smaller if the balance of the parcel is comprised of green space, common areas or other public uses. That number is only a guideline. If any other facts set out in the ordinance ~xist, the City may increase the number of dwelling units as appropriate for the parcel. 14. I believe that some additional language could be added to Section 52.14, Subd 3j, such as follows: "When off street parking is required, the parking area must be design~ted for that purpose and individual parking stalls . appropriately striped." . ~ · Mr. Chad Carlson May 19, 1999 Page 5 15. The Central Business District is described in Section 52.14, Subd 4. I agree that a plat map of the City should be reviewed to confirm that the area described corresponds with the area which should be designated as Central Business District for parking purposes. 16. The proposed change to Section 52.14, Subd 4b would not be enforceable. Requiring parking spaces at a rental unity by age of occupant would not be workable. It would be virtually impossible to control the ages of occupants. What would happen if the property is rented to a family of a IS-year old when that individual turns 16. How can the City regulate changes in parking requirements as new tenants are brought into the dwelling. The only way this issue can be regulated is to establish the off-street parking requirements when the property is developed based upon the number of bedrooms or dwellings available for lease. Similarly, Subd. 2 also sets parking requirements by occupants as opposed to units or bedrooms. Rather than trying to establish requirements by the number of occupants, which is subject to change depending on how many people occupy a bedroom, a better approach may be as follows: "One and one-half spaces for each single bedroom dwelling, two · and one-half spaces for each two bedroom dwelling and four spaces for each three bedroom dwelling. Fractional numbers shall be rounded up to the next highest whole number" 17. Under Section 52.15 a new business zone will be created which is identified as Highway 75 Business District. The Industrial District is retitled as a "light industrial" district. I don't see a problem with the reclassification, although it should be noted that any area currently zoned industrial will not be rezoned. Industrial use is being redefined, The uses within that area may change if we are now excluding any heavy use. 18. Section 52.16, Subd 3 (h) and Subd 4 (title) have typographical errors. 19. Section 52.19, SuÌJd 4(f) creates a new classification in an R3 are~ pemlÍtted by a special use permit for multiple student dwellings of over six units. Multiple family dwellings up to 12 dwelling units are permitted in the area. I believe that we will be creating problems in trying to designate multiple rental units as student or non-student units. If property is developed as a multiple family dwelling, it would be difficult regulate the rental of the property and exclude students. What about high school students? What about a young married couple where the wife is completing her degree at St. Cloud State. I also have some concern that the City would be violating equal protection requirements of the constitution discriminating in housing. I would drop this provision. · v . Mr. Chad Carlson . May 19, 1999 Page 6 20. With regard to Section 52.20, Subd. 6, I would not change the title of that subdivision to "SETBACK REQUIREMENTS" since the subdivision deals with issues of building height, landscaping and other matters other than setbacks. 21. With regard to pection 52.21, Subd 4c and e, I would consider removing the requirement restricting gas ~tations and auto service stations to areas at least 200 feet £Tom "meeting places having a! seating capacity of more than 50 people." That provision is difficult to regulate and will serve little purpose at this time since that industry is highly regulated to assure safety. 22. With regard to Section 52.21, Subd 5c, I would suggest language be added requiring a rear yard setbaçk where commercial property abuts Rl or R2 property. 23. With respect tq Section 52.22, Subd 2, I have some genuine concern with regard to the discretion granted to the Planning Commission. First of all, uses designated as "pennitted uses" are generally that; permitted. The section dealing with pennitted uses should not also contain language requiring the applicant to satisfy a vague standard requiring the property to be ('compatible and complimentary" to the land uses. What is more, this ordinance gives that authority to the Planning Commission. A special use pennit authority . is reserved to tµe governing body by Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes. With that said, I would r~commend that the language in question be removed from subdivision 2. It would be okay:to have the language inserted into subdivision 1 as a statement of purpose or intent, or including it under subdivision 4 which relates to a special use pennit. Even there, I would also remove reference to the discretion of the Planning Commission since a special use pennit authority is vested in the governing body. 24. With regard to ¡Section 52.23, Subd 4f, I would suggest that language be changed as follows: "Uses determined to be of a similar nature as those pemlitted in Subd. 2 are allowed with a special use pennit under Subd. 4, if a finding is made that the uses will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the City." 25. With regard tolSection 52.23, Subd 5, I would delete the first sentence as it may be confusing (if it !relates to metes and bounds legal descriptions). It is also redundant since it is saying that t~e lot area shall be the area of the lot. I believe that it would be better for the developer to present a surveyor drawing to scale showing the property lines, total area of the property subject to the industrial use, the location of the structures and other improvements and setbacks £Tom lot lines. . . ~ ~ . . Mr. Chad Carlson May 19, 1999 Page 7 26. With regard to Section 52.23, Subd 6 dealing with front yard and side yard setbacks in an industrial area, I would not rely solely upon the requirements of the Buettner Business Park Covenants. First of all, protective covenants are subject to amendment and expiration. What is more, there are areas that are zoned industrial that are not contained in the business park and would not be subject to those covenants. I believe that the ordinance should set appropriate setbacks, but also acknowledge that the property is subject to any greater setback as established by protective covenants or other agreements of record affecting the property. In dealing with setbacks, we may also want to address the issue as to what happens when industrial property abuts a street and residential property is located on the other side of the street. Is the setback still a 100 feet rrom the property line? Is the street right-of-way considered as part of that setback? I also believe that there may be some value in defining what is pennitted and not pennitted within "landscape" setback areas required in an industrial area. Generally parking, storage and signage is not pennitted. Grass, shrubs, and trees are pennitted. Fences may fall in either category, depending on the judgment of the City. 27. Under Section 52.24, it will be necessary to redefine the area that is zoned educational- . ecclesiastical. I don't necessarily believe that we will have to have a separate legal description for those zones since we do not have a legal description for the other zones contained in the ordinance. I believe that those areas can be designated on the official zoning map as is any other. 28. Under Section 53.1, where a trailer home and/or mobile home is defined, there appears to be a typographical error in the definition. It is my understanding that there are some concerns as to the City's ability to require landscaping as a condition of a special use pennit. When considering a special use request, the City must judge the request and consider how the use would effect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Ifvalid concerns of this nature arise, the request is generally denied, unless the concerns can be addressed by cl)nditions. Landscaping is a common meíhod to address concerns regarding the appearance of a use. If the landscaping conditions are imposed to address a valid public concern, they would be enforceable. If landscaping requirements are not necessary to address a valid concern, they may not be enforceable. Chad, any changes in zoning, which would include the establishment of the highway business zone and the designation of properties as highway business would require a public hearing and appropriate notice to the affected property owners and adjacent thereto just as we would for any other rezoning. Because of the broad-based changes which will be occurring in zoning, it may make sense to schedule a public hearing for final approval with notice sent out to all property . owners within the City with water bills. Why don't you give this some thought. Otherwise, it will be necessary for you to look at each separate property which may be affected by any of these 'v . Mr. Chad Carlson · May 19, 1999 Page 8 changes, including areas around St. Ben's for the expanded zone and send out separate notices. Rather than run the risk of excluding some properties, it may be easier to provide a blanket notice to all residents. Very truly yours, RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER LTD. ~; ~ /~yi Uolm H. Scherer mS/baz L:\gen\16397\cg Chad 51999 · ·