HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 [06] Jun 05
, .
. ~ CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
21 First Avenue NW
P.O. Box 668,
St. Joseph, MN 56374
(320) 363-7201
Fax: 363-0342
. St. Joseph Planning Commission
City Hall - June 5, 2000
MAYOR 7:00 p.m.
Kenneth J. Hiemenz
CLERK! Call to Order
ADMINISTRATOR
Cari Schmidt New Business:
7:00 P.M. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Public Hearing
COUNCILORS - Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance - Accessory Buildings
Bob Loso
Cory Ehlert 7:30 P.M. Industrial Park Site Plan Review - Auto Body Repair Business
.Wit
L y Niedenfuer 8:00 P.M. S1. Joseph Gas and Bait Public Hearing -Variance Request
8:30 P.M. Knight Builders, Inc. Public Hearing -Variance Request
Approval of Minutes
. May 1, 2000
Adjourn
.
,
. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
21 First Avenue NW To: Planning Commission Members
P.O. Box 668, F h d I PI' . .
St. Joseph, MN 56374 rom: C a A. Car son, annlng Commission Secretary
(320) 363-720 I Date: 5/26/00
Fax: 363-0342 RE: Summary of June 5th Agenda Items
Ilk City Council/Plannin2 Commission Joint Public Hearin2
The Joint Public Hearing with the City Council and Planning Commission has been
MAYOR scheduled to discuss amending the Zoning Ordinance. The item in question is the accessory
Kenneth J. Hiemenz use section of the R-l Single Family Residential District and an addition to the definition of
an accessory use. Please bring the Waite Park sample ordinance that was part of the May
Planning Commission packet for reference.
CLERK!
ADMINISTRATOR St. Joseph Gas and Bait Variance Request
Cari Schmidt Mike Deutz, owner, will be presenting a proposal to construct approximately 300 square feet
to the west end of the existing structure. I have enclosed a copy of the site plan and
elevations for your review. The structure will be constructed on existing footings and
COUNCILORS . foundation. The owner is requesting a variance to the Highway 75 Business District exterior
Bob Loso material requirements. The Ordinance states that architecturally approved steel is
Cory Ehlert acceptable provided that 50% of the building consists of brick, stone, tip-up concrete panel
.Wit and/or decorative concrete block. Also, no landscaping is proposed with the project. The
Niedenfuer Fire Chief and the Public Works Director have reviewed the plans and have expressed no
concerns.
Kni2ht Builders, Inc. Variance Request
Kevin Dierkhising, owner, will be presenting a proposal to construct an accessory building
on their property at the corner of Ash and College A venue. I have enclosed a copy of their
site plan, proposed building, and landscaping plan. They are requesting a 4 foot variance to
the rear and side yard setbacks, leaving the accessory building 1 foot from the side and rear
property line.
The proposed building meets the requirements of the B 1- Business District as an accessory
use. In addition, none of the business's off-street parking will be effected. The Fire Chief
and the Public Works Director have reviewed the plans and have expressed no concerns.
Site Plan Review
The owners of a new auto body repair business will be presenting the Planning Commission
with a site plan to construct a new facility on Lot 13 of the Rennie Addition in the St. Joseph
Industrial Park. The use is permitted under the category of small assembly plants and sit,e
plan meets all the setback, parking and landscaping requirements. The Planning
Commission is required to review the landscaping as presented. The Fire Chief and the"
Public Works Director have reviewed the plans and have expressed no concerns at prior to
this memo. Comments will be brought forward, if any. The City Engineer and I are
working on a drainage issue of the lot and adjacent lots.
. If you have any questions regarding this agenda item, please contact me as soon as possible.
Thank you.
. Unofficial Minutes - Planning Commission
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on
Monday, May 1, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the St. Joseph City Hall.
Members Present: Chair Hub Klein. Commissioners Marge Lesnick, S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Gary Utsch, Jim
Graeve. Planning Commission Secretary Chad A. Carlson.
Members Absent: Kurt Schneider and Cory Ehlert
Others Present:. Ron Euteneuer, Thomas Klein, Lynn Christensen and Gene Boysen
Ron Euteneuer - BuUdin!! Inspector:
Mr. Ron Euteneuer, Great Northern Building Inspections, presented the process for administering the Building Code
in the City of St. Joseph at the request of the St. Joseph Planning Commission. Euteneuer presented a packet of
information, which he presented in detail to the Planning Commission members. Euteneuer detailed the following
handouts:
1) Checklist for Inspections
2) Site Plans for Decks
3) Commercial/Industrial Project Checklist
4) Building Permit
5) Building Valuation Data Sheet
Kalinowski questioned the source of the information provided by Mr. Euteneuer. Euteneuer stated that many of the
building requirements come rrom the State of Minnesota Building Codes. The City ofSt. Joseph has established
. many of the forms in the packet.
Euteneuer stated that the commercial and Industrial checklist will work if all the parties cooperate and everyone is
aware of the project, such as the public works director, fire chief, planning commission and city council. Euteneuer
recommended that the City Offices determine a chain of command for processing a building permit through the
City. Contractors, Builders and clients need to the process ahead of time and the City needs one point of contact.
The City Clerk Office was suggested for the first point of contact. Euteneuer further stated that the Building
Inspectors office should be last one contacted because they cannot give approval until all the City agencies have
approved the project.
Carlson stated that the City needs to determine whom the contact for building and zoning issues should be for the
City. Kalinowski added that the City should determine the delegation of duties and authority in the City Offices.
Graeve suggested that the City Offices give the developer a time frame on when materials need to be submitted in
order for the appropriate parties to comment and review the project.
Euteneuer stated that he would continue to work with the Mayor and the City Administrator on this issue.
Euteneuer discussed the building site plan and the new process for reviewing drainage and grading plans for new
developments. All builders will have obtain a grading! drainage/elevation certificate and approved by a qualified
surveyor prior to construction and obtaining a building permit.
Kalinowski suggested that whoever originated that document should be indicated at the bottom of the form along
with the date of origination.
Euteneuer stated that the requirement will be extremely controversial for the City because there will be an added
cost to the builders and developers in the community. Essentially, the builder or homeowner will have to hire a
. surveyor to complete the document. The requirement will be difficult to monitor and enforce, which will be left up
to the City and its engineer. Euteneuer stated that he cannot review the document because he is not a licensed
May 5, 2000 Minutes
. engineer or surveyor. Euteneuer stated no other community in the area is making this certificate a requirement and
it is his opinion should not be required. The additional cost will be added to already extremely high WAC and SAC
charges in the community. Since his company contracts with the City, he has no choice but to enforce the
certificate.
Graeve questioned if the drainage plan and certificate will solve the drainage problems in the new developments and
who will be responsible for making sure the developer and builder are meeting the requirements of . the certificate
and plan, in accordance with the surveyor.
Euteneuer stated that the drainage plan wlll not solve the drainage problem, but it will require the contractors to take
measures to control drainage on that individual lot. The drainage plan will be needed prior to obtaining a building
permit and approved prior to construction.
Carlson clarified that this requirement will not be retroactive to existing developments. All new developments and
subdivisions lot owners will be required to submit a drainage plan as a part of their building plans.
Euteneuer presented the fee schedule for building permits and the monthly report supplied to the City Offices. The
Planning Commission had no comment or questions.
Euteneuer explained the new building code requirements for residential structures as mandated by the State of
Minnesota. Euteneuer stated that it would raise the price of new construction 4-5%. In addition, wood fireplaces
have been banned rrom new residential homes. The Legislature and the Department of Energy implemented the
new energy code. It will be more difficult and expensive to construct a new home under category one.
Euteneuer concluded with stating that all industrial and commercial building projects be presented to the Fire Chief
and Building Inspector prior to coming to the Planning Commission for approval. Their signoff on the building
. plans should occur first. Euteneuer suggested that he meet with the Planning Commission in the future.
Kalinowski suggested that the Planning Commission members review the process for developments and get familiar
with the information presented tonight.
The Planning Commission expressed their appreciation to Mr. Euteneuer for attending the meeting and presented the
information.
St. Joseph Veterinary Clinic
Carlson presented the background rrom the July 1999 Planning Commission meeting regarding the Special Use
permit approved by the Planning Commission and City Council for the construction of a Equine Center at the St.
Joseph Veterinary Clinic. The Clinic presented modifications to the building plan approved in July of 1999. The
Clinic has removed the second floor of the facility and the outward appearance of the structure. The site plan has
not changed and the redesign of the structure continues to meet the requirements of the B-2 Highway #75 Business
District. The Planning Commission reviewed color renderings of the proposed change.
With the new design, the clinic eliminated the ventilation area to another location, and eliminated a conference room
on the second floor. The building materials will be steel and masonry brick.
Carlson stated that due to the significant change to the design of the facility, he requested the Clinic present the
proposed change to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
Lesnick moved to approve the reduction in size to the proposed addition to the St Joseph Veterinary Clinic
as it meets the requirements of the B-2 Highway #75 Business District Ordinance; Seconded by Kalinowski.
Discussion:
Utsch informed the owners of the clinic that the building permit must be pulled prior to July 1st or the
. special use permit approved in 1999 would be null and void The clinic plans to pull the building permit
this week
May 5, 2000 Minutes
.
. The motion passed with the following vote:
Ayes: Klein~ Lesnick, Kalinowski~ Utsch~ and Graeve
Nays: None Motion Carried
St. Joseph Lab School Addition
Thomas Klein presented the Planning Commission with the proposed addition to the St. Joseph Lab School. The
addition will accommodate the addition of an elevator and ADA compliant entryway on the southeàst side of the
building. Additional remodeling projects include the main level bathrooms, ADA accessibility with push button
doors and handrails, and a new ADA bathroom on the lower level.
Carlson explained that this project was added to the agenda to inform the Planning Commission of the project. The
Planning Commission needs to review the project prior to the contractor obtaining a building permit.
Lesnick questioned if the Planning Commission should be reviewing the project if the Fire Chiefhasn't reviewed the
project for safety.
Hub Klein stated the Lab School needs to complete this project before the Fourth of July Parade.
Carlson questioned if the setbacks of the R-l District have been met and if the alley in question will be a problem
for the addition.
Thomas Klein stated that the alley was vacated some time ago and all the setbacks are met. Carlson stated that no
action of the Planning Commission is needed and he will review the proposed addition with the Fire Chief prior to
authorizing the contractor to obtain a building permit.
. Thomas Klein addressed the Planning Commission regarding the Monastery and Lab School parking situation.
Klein assured the Planning Commission that a recorded easement does exist on the property to provide access to
both properties. If there are additional questions regarding the Parish's position on parking and garage project, he
suggested the Planning Commission members contact him directly.
Announcements
Carlson informed the Planning Commission of a situation that has occurred in the Pond View Ridge Addition. A
homeowner constructed a pole barn on their property with steel siding. According to our Zoning Ordinance,
accessory building area allowed, but the Ordinance doesn't regulate the design or aesthetics of the building. Carlson
recommended that the Planning Commission consider amending the Ordinance to enforce aesthetic requirements.
Carlson passed out a sample ordinance provided by the City of Sauk Rapids.
Kalinowski stated that she recalled a provision in the Ordinance that addressed this very issue. Carlson restated that
the current Zoning Ordinance doesn't address the design and aesthetic appearance of accessory buildings.
Utsch stated the Planning Commission should consider amending the entire accessory use section of the R-l, Single
Family Residential District. Graeve concurred and added that the Planning Commission should consider reducing
the amount of allowable accessory buildings throughout the Ordinance.
The Planning Commission discussed various options to amend the Ordinance.
Kalinowski moved to recommend the City Council set a public hearing date to consider amendment of
Subdivision 4 of the R-l~ the definition of accessory building and other references to accessory buildings;
Seconded by Lesnick.
The motion passed with the following vote:
. Ayes: Klein~ Lesnick, Kalinowski, Utsch~ and Graeve
Nays: None Motion Carried
May 5, 2000 Minutes
. Other Discussions
Utsch requested that Carlson clarifY the City Council's decision to deny Mr. Symanietz's Variance request to access
his Northland Addition lot ITom Northland Drive.
Carlson stated that the City Council reviewed the developer agreement for Northland Addition Four and determined
that amending or waiving the no access policy to Northland Drive would not be in the best interest or safety of the
community. Carlson further stated that the safety concerns of the landowner and residents took pr~edence over the
desires of the landowner.
Utsch cautioned the City Council on their decision as this issue will not go away due to Lot 2 of Northland Addition
Four and future developments along Northland Drive.
Kalinowski stated that the City Council agreed to bring issues back to the Planning Commission for further
consideration before they turned down a recommendation of the Planning Commission. There must be more
communication between the Planning Commission and City Council.
Carlson stated that State Statutes require action on a Variance or Special Use permit within 60 days from the date of
application. The City Council has final determination on recommendations ofthe Planning Commission and must
act within that 60 day period. In most cases, there isn't enough time to bring the issues back to Planning
Commission before the 60 days.
Kalinowski stated that she would like the minutes to reflect the Planning Commission request for the City Council to
confer with the Planning Commission before reversing a recommendation of the Planning Commission.
A!!enda Item Deadline
Utsch suggested that the Planning Commission set a specific date each month, which items have to be at the City
. Offices to be, included on the Planning Commission agenda. Utsch expressed his concern that the Planning
Commission hasn't been given enough time to review and research items on the agenda. Utsch suggested the
Twenty Third (23rd) of each month prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Items received after the 23rd would
have to wait until the next meeting.
Utsch made a motion to set the Twenty Third (23rd) of each month as the deadline for items to placed on the
Planning Commission agenda for the next meeting; Seconded by Kalinowski.
The motion passed with the following vote:
Ayes: Klein, Lesnick, Kalinowski, Utsch, and Graeve
Nays: None Motion Carried
Lesnick stated that the Planning Commission memo prepared by Carlson is extremely helpful to get a history of the
issues on agenda as the Planning Commission prepares for the meetings. Graeve added that the Planning
Commission minutes have been a very accurate account of the discussion.
Redevelopment District - City Hall Proiect
Graeve questioned the City Council's amendment to the Planning Commission decision to approve the
redevelopment district budget at $995,000. How can the City just change the budget without having the Planning
Commission review their change?
Carlson explained the role of the Planning Commission as a recommending body. The City Council has the
authority to accept, reject or modifY any decision made by the Planning Commission. The City Council made a
decision, at that time, that $995,000 wasn't enough funds to complete the project. However, since the
redevelopment plan has been adopted, the project costs are now down to $995,000 once again.
.
May 5, 2000 Minutes
· Utsch stated that he understood the Planning Commission's role but the redevelopment plan was passed out at the
meeting, and ifhe had more time to review the document, he would have voted differently.
Kalinowski reiterated that the Planning Commission needs to enforce the time table for agenda items so the
members have enough time to review the issues. Kalinowski added that the Planning Commission needs to increase
their communication with the City Council and the City must provide their rationale for the decisions made at the
City Council level. The Planning Commission needs to know when disputes are occurring and esp~iaIIy when a
recommendation is overturned.
Graeve requested that Carlson explain why a private landowner needed to be involved in the redevelopment area.
Carlson stated that redevelopment districts, by State Statute, must have a private landowner involved in the project.
Since the City owned the bank and was considered a public building, the property owned by Knight Builders, Inc.
had to be included in the project area. The project will not impact their business.
Kalinowski questioned why the project costs have decreased since the last meeting. Carlson stated that since the
city hall public hearing, the building committee identified some areas of construction that could be phased in later,
items were eliminated and interior design has been modified. A another public hearing is being held on May 3 to
discuss the changes and reduction in cost with the public.
Approve Minutes:
Lesnick moved to approve the April 3, 2000 minutes as presented; Seconded by Kalinowski.
The motion passed with the following vote:
Ayes: Klein, Lesnick, Kalinowski, Utsch, and Graeve
Nays: None Motion Carried
-
Adiourn:
- The Planning Commisreeting adjourned by consensus at 8:35 p.m.
W
//~.. v
Chad A. Carl~n
Planning Commission Secretary
,""
May 5, 2000 Minutes
· CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
21 First Avenue NW
P.O. Box 668,
St. Joseph, MN 56374
(320) 363-720 I
Fax: 363-0342
Ilk
MAYOR
Kenneth J. Hiemenz Public Hearing
City of St. Joseph
:::LERK!
!\DMINISTRATOR
:::ari Schmidt The Planning Commission and the City Council for the City of St. Joseph shall conduct a joint
public hearing on Monday, June 5,2000 at 7:00 p.m. in St. Joseph City Hall. The purpose of the
hearing is to consider an amendment to the St. Joseph Code of Ordinance 52.4, Subdivision 1 and
:::OUNCILORS 52.17 Subdivision 4 (e).
10b Loso Oral comments may be heard from the public and written comments can be submitted prior to the
'ory Ehlert hearing.
T-~wit
~iedenfuer Cari Schmidt
--
Clerk! Administrator
Publish: May 26, 2000
. VRajkOWSki -
11 Seventh Avenue North ~~~~~~~J lid.
P.O. Box 1433
St. Cloud, MN 56302-1433
May 30, 2000
320-251-1055
Toll Free 800-445-9617
Fax 320-251-5896 Ms. Cari Schmidt
City Administrator
rajhan@cJoudnet.com City of St. Joseph
P.O. Box 668
St. Joseph, MN 56374
Re: Accessory Building Meeting
Our File No. 20390
Dear Cari:
- I have had an opportunity to review Ordinances 52.4 Subd. 1, 52.17 Subd. 4e, and 52.14.
- All of these ordinances address accessory buildings in some manner.
I do not believe that it is necessary to amend the definition of the accessory building
found in Section 52.4, Subd.1. However, I agree that the City Council may want to look
"ank J. Rèj.<C\'Vs~i .. at the restrictions and regulations currently in place relative to accessory buildings in a
residential zone.
CrG':ïi ~. Hàr,srr:e!er
'eC!~r!c!-: :... Gr'J:""':x¿ Section 52.17, Subd. 4e, allows accessory buildings as an accessory use in a residential
VJr- ..:::;:; >..J. ,; :a- . area. The ordinance does not make any distinction between attached and detached
garages. This provision of the ordinance sets square footage limitations and other size
:1'"' ~. ~c~e:<;:- . restrictions based upon the lot size. This section also limits the number of accessory
. buildings.
~. ...... -,~ ., ~ ".-S '.
. . ':'. Over the years, there were amendments to this section to address the issue of storage
¡: ,jm J. C':::Sr-"T:2r. sheds and dog houses. Section 52.17 Subd. 4( e) ii, was added to address the storage
:'.,::'::: .\'. ~: ::;ì~·.,·:~">~ shed issue and subpart iv was added to address dog houses. In other words, at that time,
it was decided to allow two separate garages so long as the combined total area does not
. ~ exceed 1,000 square feet, a storage shed and a dog house/playhouse.
By way of comparison, a 28' X 36' foot garage is 1,008 feet. A typical garage is
approximately 22 to 24 feet in depth. A two car garage is about 22 to 26 feet in width.
" Farrell A three stall is at least 32 feet in width.
" ). Rajkowski and Richard W Sobalvarro are admitted to practice in North Dakota, Gordon H. Hansmeier in North Dakota and Wisconsin, Paul A. Rajkowski in Wisconsin and William). Cashman in South Dakota.
-Member of American Board of Tríal Advocates. .Oualifíed,ADR Neutral.
V
Ms. Cari Schmidt .
May 26, 2000
Page 2
The City may want to consider removing the specific provision which permits an accessory
buildings of less than 50 square feet, and simply add language excluding dog hou~~s and play
structures from the square foot limitation of the ordinance. However, with that, there should
probably be a definition added as to what a dog house or play structure is so that somebody does
not try to use those exceptions to circumvent the ordinance.
I believe that Section 52.14, Subd. 14, is the area of the ordinance where building type and
material should be addressed. Incidentally, I note that 52.17 makes reference to 52.13. However,
from recent additions to the ordinance, what had been 52.13 has become 52.14. Therefore, the
introductory language of 52.17 subd. 4e should be corrected to note this change.
Section 52.14, Subd. 14, sets forth some general requirements for accessory buildings. Accessory
buildings are currently limited to one story and 16 feet in height. We may want to look at
restricting the side wall height of an accessory buildings rather than the actual height. By
restricting the side wall height, we can assure that construction is more consistent with the home
that is located on the lot. In other words, rather than having a building with a 14 foot side wall
and minimal roof pitch to stay within the 16 foot height requirement, it may be better to restrict
side wall height to 10 feet and then allowing a roof pitch no greater than that of the main building -
on the property. In that manner, the garage or accessory building will have the same general
height and roof pitch as the main house so as to maintain consistency. It may also afford the -
home owner to have an opportunity to have a dormer or attic area in the upstairs of an accessory
building.
The counsel may also consider limiting or totally restricting pole barns, also known as "post frame
construction" buildings. I don't necessarily believe that post frame construction, in and of itself,
is objectionable. Unfortunately, post frame construction usually then brings with it metal siding,
metal roofing and a flat pitched roof. Those buildings are less attractive. It is possible to
construct a post frame building with the same type of siding found on the principle structure and
the same type of shingle or roof finish found on the principle structure. I recommend that the
Council direct its focus toward requiring consistency between the principle structure and
accessory buildings rather than the type of foundation or framing since the finish is what will be
observed by neighbors and the general public.
Finally, I would call your attention to Section 52.14, Subd. 16f, which addresses comer lots for
purposes of backyard and parking requirements. Arguably, this section significantly limits what
would be a backyard for purposes of a house on a corner lot. The backyard would be limited to
the rear comer of the property which is located not only to the rear of the house, but also behind
the side opposite of the side street of the comer lot. Essentially, corner lots are left with little or
no backyard.
~
·~
. Ms. Cari Schmidt
May 26, 2000
Page 3
The Council may want to consider identifying the ITont yard of a corner lot as defined by Section
52.4, Subd. 42, and establish a setback line ITom the side yard of a corner lot for the purpose of
defining backyard. 1 would suggest a side yard setback for an accessory building 'on a corner lot
(applicable to the side abutting the street) equal to the ITont yard setback of the house and no less
then the actual setback of the house on the lot. Our ordinance has a ITont yard minimum setback
of30 feet ITom the public right-of-way. Typically, the side yard setback is only 10 feet for the
main structure and 5 feet for a garage or accessory building. By making the side yard setback for
a corner lot 30 feet, we would essentially triple the side yard set-back where the side yard abuts
another street.
Cari, as things now appear, 1 don't believe that 1 will be available to attend the meeting on June 5.
1 am scheduled to be in Grand Rapids late that day for a motion. Let me know if you feel that
somebody ITom our office should attend. I will make arrangements. Otherwise, you can simply
pass the information on to me and I can draft the appropriate amendments as directed by the
Council.
I presume that you will distribute a copy of this letter to_ the Coup.cil members and Planning
Commission as appropriate.
-
- Very truly yours,
RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER LTD.
JHS/kjp
May 30, 2000
. st. Joseph City Council:
St. JosetJh Planning Commission:
HE: Amendment to the ,Accessory Buildin~ Zoning Ordin~nce
When considering a change to the present accessor¥ building
zoning ordinance, we ask that you consider the zoning ordinance
in our neighboring cities and increase the size in our city.
Sartell -- you may not cover over 35% of your lot with
building(s).
Waite Park -- you may not cover over 35% of your lot with
building( s ) .
Cold Spring -- you may not cover over 35% of your lot with
buildin,Q;(s).
Avon -- (within 1000 feet of a lake~ you may not cover over
25~ of your lot with impervious surface.
(over 1000 feet of a lake) YOU may not cover over
35~ of your lot with imtJervious surface.
Most people have mainten'3r1ce equipment such as lawn !;lowers,
snow blowers and ~arden trqctors. Many Deople also have
recreational equiDment such as motorcycles, snowmobiles, golf
carts, ATV~s or boats. We feel our city looks much better when
. these things are kept in a ¡;;arage, instead of in the back yard.
One or two larger garages that match the house look much better
than stora~e sheds of different colors and sizes.
Larger garages would increase the property value and therefore
increase tax revenue for the city.
Thank you for your consideration.
Doris Johnson
Gerald Johnson
~, ~
P1Ith.-va-- ~ ~
;--¿~ø~~
~esidents of St. Josenh
. -
11..
· a::
I ~
¡;S (!¡
z
a:: S2
"" a::
~ 0 ~
..J Z
· Æ 52 ÎI:>
I & -
· 0 X
¡j) ÔI
'i0 !:i
~
0-
If)
""
I
Ò
...
P IJ.
Ó 0::
W :::>
0:: I-
~
.(.)
.I~
t;J
If)
'0 . -,1- . -
N
W
~
,0 ~
, I
Ct::
"" I
. 0 I
0 Z
I 52 I
~ & I
~ I
"" I
· J:
0- I
Ct:: ""
«
o . - , ..9-. ¡
W -
(.) .
z I
æ I
'0 I
0
.... I
X
w '0 I
~ 0
(!¡______~________J
,
,
~ ·
r-I · I
Çl..,
OJ
.w
'.-1
U)
I
Q..,
]
U)
~
'.-1
8-
OJ
A:::
>-,
'ìj
0
çq
0
.w
::J
<C
~
. . .
.
. . .
.
"O-,OL rO- l 0- l
I~"S ,Ol "0 ,U ( "-,¡:~,v ~ kID\£ ,,0 ,OL ~rl4t 9 (~' D
000 000 ® 00
I~ ~
:D CD ® r w r 8 00
R' A () A I
N !ž~ -t Z~..,. <0
AI <{ g A V® « 8 .....
co ø A 0::0'
. :2 . -t ...."0 L 1-"" W
J; :2 0 I 8 Z I:: ° 0
R w;lt o(() In ® w ~ ~ ¡:;:.... b
"í' ~ B'Io . :i11ID J; .? ,r ? . ,Z¡ b .' i'; I§ ®.'
~ ~ @]\®<O V¡S ~ 6:::! T ~ ..,.
~ _ _ R I- Q) 0 ,\...
I "t ,t lIt ~ 0 0 ¡..; ~ r-:@
GL A ~" AI (J)@ a..@ r-.
u " ,,:::> :2 I ~
,< fš' Q on ~ ffi\ b
WIS'. W ~ AI
I <0 ~
~ í® 8-17~ t- ("> - I ,,9-,8 .9'"t-,£ "O-¿ Ol"t-,£ "O-,L L
I ~ "I" ",z.", ~ "9" ~
n~ ......JEI ~
" /_~~ ~@ ~ ~ ;¡.
!I~ I ~~ ®\~
J ® 111111111111111111111111
~ / 8~ .
0:: 0
:2 I
o A
/ ~S ~
I-@
b - ~®\ ~ :.,
I ~ I
<0 - I t- £ I 0- 9l 0 ....J....J ~ ;,.
... ,~" , '" I « .... r')
~ ;,. J:0
. I
..,. A
I ... ~
" A-1t'J :2
o ... "
I co -t 7 0
A - I - R 0
o = A 0 a:::.¡.
0" - r') I ....
"'co - -f- A ,,~
I - R co Z
A = 0 X
N - I - I
_ ðl§J ;,. :2!
= 00 ,
- a::: '
· L5 ..8-,9L
co a::: - L5
I «~ = 0::
"" ~ @J = « [§] b ~ 1- 00
.- 0:: = ~ 0 I I...šJ I
o _ a::: A A
::= - Or') ,- - N
8 ::=...
00 "O-,V "0-,9L
I =
~ =
- "
- 0
I
'0
· N
co
I
':.:t ..0-,8L "O-,t "S-,t
....
I~ /
~ "l-,9l "t-, l l-,6L
~ :2 1_ .
AI 8 ® 'f
o a::: A
~ r') ~ ,_ N
O[§]
. « 0
· N a:::
í' ® AI 1111111111111111 w
A 8 0/:2 ~
N N 0 a::
.... 0 lJ.. R
o::~ 0
// 0 I
:cO A
(J) ..,.
« ....
~ ;OM. () ® ®__
~ ~I-
Z
:5
lIt ,~L g_ l lIt ,9l "O-,t~ 0- ~t-,£ "t-,g "O-,ll "o-,t 0.....
u , " ,ú 0
0::: A I
T-
O"
o.
-'(x)
LL::::-
. . .
,
~ ,,6
-J
0.. CD
() W "S ,lL "t SL
~ ()
GW 0 ~
0
zG (/) z z~
_0 ~ ã3 ã3g
1..1...-
O~
O' Z I- I-~
~~ ¡:;: Z z~
1..1... W W W_
·W 0 O-J
F~ a:::
0.. 0 00..
(1)0.. « «(I)
0
0
0
0 z
0
I-
~
w=
-.J0
uS-,lL W .'
,.....
l- II
(f)=
w~
a 3:)-
0
0
0 .I
z z 0
0 0 0 z
0 l- I- 0 0
0 ~ ~ 0 I-
a w w ~
-.J= -1::
a wo wo wb
I I -1 I
c=J I",..... I""" w",.....
l- II 1-11 1-11
0::::= :J= (f)~
o~ o~ «,.....
z)- (f))- w)-
. . .
.
.
St. Joseph Planning Commission Members
St. Joseph City Council Members
City of St. Joseph
Re: Proposed addition to St. Joseph Gas & Bait, Inc.
Tlùs Building was built in the late 1980's on the northerly property line which is adjacent to
County Road 75. The building was built with the proposed addition as part of the long term
plan. The existing patio and footings are already in place for this expansion.
The total enclosed area of the proposed new expansion is three hundred and six (306) square feet.
Outside dimensions are seventeen (17) by eighteen (18) feet. The remainder of the three hundred
and six (306) square feet is a covered patio area. The three hundred (300) square feet enclosed
area is designed for a Deli area and/or storage area.
The issues with expansion along the Highway 75 Corridor are:
A. Parking - The additional square footage will not take away any parking
spaces. The additional expansion
requires one additional parking space which we currently have.
B. There is no loading dock.
. C. The expansion of the building will match the existing building which is a
four (4) foot wainscoating
out of brick and brick pillars.
D, E, F, and G do not apply.
. H. Signage will meet current City ordinances.
In regards to Landscaping requirements: The building was construcked on the property line and
the adjacent property is owned by the County of Steams. I am unable to meet those
requirements since I do not own that property.
In order to implement the new ordinance the new addition would look like an added on piece and
not match the existing building.
It is my opinion the new ordinance pertaining to the Highway 75 Corridor is for new construction
and not for a small expansion such as the proposed three hundred (300) square feet.
Sincerely, ."U" ' /' ~
I.....--"~ .' : ! 1/
/" . ~~
Micheal J. Deutz --->
President
St. Joseph Gas & Bait. Inc.
.
. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
21 First A venue NW
P.O. Box 668,
St. Joseph, MN 56374
(320) 363-720 I
Fax: 363-0342
Public Hearing
Ilk City of St. Joseph
MAYOR The Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph shall conduct a public hearing on Monday,
Kenneth J. Hiemenz June 5, 2000 at 8:00 p.m. in St. Joseph City Hal1. The purpose ofthe hearing is to consider a
variance request to allow an addition to St. Joseph Gas and Bait without meeting the exterior
building material requirements as stated in Section 52.22 B-2 Highway 75 Business District.,
CLERK! Subdivision 7 (c) Building Exteriors of the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances. Section 53.22,
ADMINISTRATOR Subdivision 7 (c) states that acceptable exterior building materials shall include brick, stone, tip-up
Cari Schmidt concrete panel, decorative concrete block or glass. Wood siding, plastic and other combustible
material not listed as acceptable shall not be used for building exteriors. Architecturally approved
steel is acceptable provided that 50% of the building consist of brick, stone, tip-up concrete panel
and/or decorative concrete block.
COUNCILORS
Bob Loso The property is legally described as: Loso's 3rd Addition Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Block 2 and
.E~lert part of vacated alley east of Lot 7 south of Highway 75 and north of Birch Street.
WIt
Mary Niedenfuer The request for variance has been submitted by Mike Deutz, P.O. Box 634, St. Joseph MN 56374
Oral comments may be heard fÌ"om the public and written comments can be submitted prior to the
hearing.
Cari Schmidt
Clerk! Administrator
Publish: May 26, 2000
--'.it
.
- ... \
\
. 1
.
\
"l(') .
"-
00
. :e~
0 --
hQ
:æ: CI).,.J
--
>(::>
LuQJ ".
IJ
~
Q r-\
<t 0
0 en
0 to
Q:: I/)
" ~
0
, I 0),
C-
--
>- t ,sr
'.
I- 'VQïg .~ C\J
:æ: . rI ~"}
(]_~<;Q Q'/Jd ?~ .
.r/.
:::> ......t.~..J\·{;.4 ~;..r_ '.~ ~"t..'.I·'" -..to·..,
0 -'";>
c:::~
U r ~ ...
Cl
~ O. C}
10' ::) -. . (;:1:
,.., .111
0
õI:
Q
<q
0
II::
). ,3
J-
~
:)
0
0
¡J
~
-J
It ~;
"
c:
>- I 9fl'OZI .,
: :-'
-J
.. CI)
, ft)
I ft)
- -
I -MN -3/\tf 1.51 -~
0\
.
.-
. z
0
t--f
f-
<{
>
l1J
- -'
LU
.:-
I
f-
:=J
z 0
0
¡: û}
0
, 0
E: 0
<{
3=
IU
z
~L
~
.
.
't- Z
~r 0
t--I
f-
«
>
UJ
-1
UJ
f-
ú)
. ill
5
-
.
,
I
...
....
=~
§
:::::.
~
/I § /
II ~
S If ~
f- 'V'"
o Õ Nf II ~
¡ c ~ "
,.... <1: IL tæã
~ ~ IL ~
z IL ~
II e
II §
/1 E
1/· ~
II eg
,,1/ §
1 ~ 3
F-ê. -
. ~ ~
~ ;
E§ . ~
~ . .-1
g UJ
_ ~ I
__ f-
_ n::
o
; z
ê
t
ê
~
E
S_
~
ê
§
. :
E=;;
<II
OIJ
jt
.J"
0°
~g
~~ <II
~~ ~
. ¡¡j~ ~
wO .
~IJ a
m~ <II
~~ ~g
~!t
0'"
.O~.L.I o~
'<.
000
119-le ,,9-,e nO-I(;' ~~
:. .... ." . .
'. '. '.,. -,
------------------- .;;-----~ '. '. :......'." . .' ,'" .. ?
H:JèJOd O;:::¡Õ!!;¡^O:J 9 ~ ¡ .... . ". ... . ..I e.' . ~
ÐN1.L5!X;;J ÍÌ) ~ i : ,.... ...... ... : '.' :.' ..:.,. .' ..
o t ".':., :" ~;;¡~. ·.7;1"'.... ?J\\J:. :' .... ~ ~ ~ .1:1&7; Olà.l .'.
I .:...;..~~.:-~.:.....:.:..~:~:~::~~~.~~..~:j~.......,.: .. ..~
.. ~ ." . .. .. .... .
I ~::". :.>:.3'.::<' .::.....::.:..::.~<::....:....-:. :'><":"::"·'1.:
I .... ·lL··· ..... i( ". .' I~· õ
c'J"~~ ' 'r:;<//,;"¡~~: ~
'. . u' tIJ· r. '. .'. . . .. . . .~: .,
:~ ....~:~c'.. ..8~j )::['.'., .,".. ;'.', ',.~r::~' ~
I ' ... ./...~ ,..' . [2.
ø ..' . ....... ...,/>.:.....:.:".. "::':- ~'...:';.: . ",:" , .:' ~ .," . .:..... . .-@:'.: '.:
. I ZtlJ ,..J.... ·,:..1, ,., -. .' :·1".. Õ Z
.. ,.·..f· '._ '" '. .... .' :.. "'I'~' n.
.... ~ . . . . . .- '. . . . . , ~. - <t
! ~ ~ 9 '. " /,:' ':,''¡ .; ,'. "'.,., 'ii,'; ø 7 i ~
- w
I ~ ~ 0
I ~
" : '. IL
- I
" ....
I ~ .
I ~-
'" 0
I "I .~'. ~
" ~.
""" I .0:'.
o W ~
g '- I ø ~>.
lL" <t ._
I tJ '. I æ: ~ ?
I- ". 0 III (Q
I iIJ ". I- .. . '. ~
5 ð I" ¡f) d
5 ":" ":
U gig .::Ii" .
'- .~. '.
I ~ 1'1 I a~.
(!) ~ '- !( ~. . Õ
I Z . ~ I '- ~ F: . ..!
_I f- f- ...... 0)
I 1-0 ~"~ g:.:"
tOw 'D I ,,¡, 1'-;.
I ~~ I . '.
I tlJ
- ..
I õ I!I I I ~ .tLXo1': 011\.1. 0 Z
, ~ '\.. ..! ~
'" ~ . . C"'t-=
. ....1.................... ~.......I ...................:.............1................................. ......~ ~
SN'f'
lie-Iii ,,9-,e ,,0-,(;
.O-&ll
t
~ ..
. ._..()~S~~~
.
-
21 First Avenue NW
P.O. Box 668,
St. Joseph, MN 56374
(320) 363-7201
Fax: 363-0342
Public Hearing
Ilk City of S1. Joseph
MAYOR The Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph shall conduct a public hearing on Monday,
Kenneth J. Hiemenz June 5, 2000 at 8:30 p.m. in St. Joseph City Hall. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a
variance request to allow the construction of an accessory building on property owned by Knight
Builders, Inc. Knight Builders, Inc. is requesting a 4 foot variance to the side and rear yard
CLERK! setbacks of the property. St. Joseph Code of Ordinance 52.21 Subdivision 5 (b) and (c) state
ADMINISTRATOR respectfully that side and rear yard setbacks shall not be less then 5 feet from the property line. /'
Cari Schmidt The property is legally described as: Northerly 66 feet of Lot 6, Block 9 St. Joseph Minnesota.
COUNCILORS The request for variance has been submitted by Knight Builders, Inc, 35 College A venue North,
.so St. Joseph MN 56374.
hlert Oral comments may be heard from the public and written comments can be submitted prior to the
Ken wit hearing.
Mary Niedenfuer
Cari Schmidt
Clerk! Administrator
Publish: May 26, 2000
.
, CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
21 First Avenue Northwest
. PO Box 668
St. Joseph, MN 56374
320-363-7201
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATION
A licant: fJe Owner: "3/>·/^- ç¿- -
Address: :SS- ¡J CoL.'-.Ç-- ~ b.J Address: It
?:D 'is,c. .bö'!
. .. 0'7 ..;_n - - ( {
S -...:~
Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROWÆasements
~ Variance Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development Rezoning
Sign
Subdivision
J KD ~ TOTAL FEE $ Date fee received 5//7~~
,~/z 7 (trõ Date application received
e PE!ITION~Rrv1UST¡:>BOYIDETHEF9LLºWING .............. ... ...n~':.F,~'-'.<,' ........ ....,
.;' A (st"~Dd-mâllingläbeìsofaU. property .owners 'Nithh350 JefJt~()fItie~ifoúnda'ges of the property.
(Thisinforriiatiòii must be . obtained lròril :ttie Steams CountýAùditors Offlce ) :.-
. T~é~Í'í:ånefuf¡siZefolded cop¡~s ofthe-pfaÙs. . .... ...'
.cPaY/T1ent of~1I. BS?Pciated f~esr.nust be,made)n tullwhel)applic::ation is rnade/~
- .!~ - . . - - ,- -' '. 0 .- -,_- :; " - '.'
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be
accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before fiJing
this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and
procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of the
application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within
ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am
responsible for all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in
my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this
application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of
Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application
and the fee owner has also signed this application.
~.~-Q 5-)7-6b
Signature of . Date
e
Signature of Fee Owner Date
I I' \ \ I: : \ ,
I I 'i I' .,
Iii 'I!;'! \ i i ;' ,-
"I ,I", ,
i ¡ ! II ¡ ¡ , I !
: ¡ II ' ! II ¡; I I
" !
I " I I, I ..
I I I ! I i 1_ I! I ¡
¡ I, I, Ii, ,
' , " I i I ¡ , ,
! I! I I:. , ,
!, ! Ii, ( i
i . ! I I I
I'I I III I I
I, II ! ! ¡! '! ¡
Ii· '! ¡ I ,! !. i ¡ !
' ¡ I . . I '., I I
! I II ¡ I, I I ' "
I I :!!': I '
ì I ¡ I li{J1 Hi. ,.
I : ¡ I !! ¡ )( !
: .' II :¡'C I
; ': I ! I' . ,
! i Ii .,1_ _ I
i I \ :! .! r<p ¡
, , \ ""
I I I ' ¡ i : ¡. . . .
, ;; ,. \J '=-1 .
' ¡ \ 'I ;;. ;
i ¡ i ,; _. I
! ,.. -
I·, 1'11-. Z- ¡
I " !. . .'. !
I ' I '. ,
! I . . i..f:\ ..D I
Ii; J . ,
ì _ i. I
Iii i .
I!· i' ¡
: : i , ! ~
¡I, ,
' I, I ¡ , '"
Ii', ,
I I! ;! t-< ,- -
I " :! ,
I i ¡ Ii: I
! :: I I
I !' ! ,
; I ¡ ! i
! ¡ i ! ! . ¡
I . I 'ì '
' 1 , i ¡ ¡ i !
I ' i I I ! ! I
I . I
I I : i ¡ í ¡
¡
!
- --------[----------'-
~ - -'-.-.- -...-- - I
~ '"
~ 0
' . ,
-
,
,
.
-
rJ,
£ 1 -..-.
,
f) -- ______..A....-_ -:_
- __ _u _ ~
~ -_.- - -. ?-'l-'
,----- .-
....-.. -. .+
----. I(
. - <
.
-ø - CM.E,RR Y
I I .
I I - ~c.act ~ ""o.'P'u£'
I I C - C' .c; þc.oz...
\
I tt:} .J'\J~ ,p~
-
I . I
I
It' I
I -
t:J t
- f1\ . .......,~,-_...... .--...-....- -.. .. _. ....._._w.............. ..' _......_____.___............. . -_.
t ~
¡> _ 0
.. .." . 'Ps:2:.o?o~~D
r
]\ 4AteðoC,G
,
(j
C3 0 0 ..
(\
. -." .~, .-. -
. .. ~- ...... . ................. ...
.P .~.. .
~ e:--¡:, S"T ,..j C¡
~'- '1) ~
--f\ ¡ I
(1\ .... I ¡
..., I )
.. I i
I ~ . _...........-. .., .'_ ,"" p_.__a_.·__ .--. I
I , . '_'U' .._~..... - p. 0"" . ._4_'0"'_, .....' _~_ _____.____ t
.-... . .... ... u.. . ....- ....-. .........
~ h' I
t I ...........-.... .. !
I ¡
,
\
I ¡
!
rt\ i ----Jl ¡
,
I 4 I
,
I ¡
,
I I
I ..---'-.....--..-... ....----.....-...--.-..... ...- . I
i
~ ~ I
~ j
,-$~:t?< ~t!"-'_ '.
. I
~ t&? 1
. .
I· -... . ..- ........ . .. .. ....-...... . .-.-.....-... ....---,., ...-...... ......... _.. 4 ...._.~__....._.... I
A<s~ CST Ré..€.{ ,
I ,-::----:;---:;1
, 1 101·· íõl j~~ íõl ·1
I I I I I I iiZi 101 I
I æJ æJ,' æJ
L~-_~__~~
I
'" 1m
'"
,-
~ ~
)
~
Q
~ °1
I'
1 I ¡
l ~m
_x
r-
o~ \
î':! I ~~
~~ I
~~ '
"
]:,
. IO~
ID:IDl ID=uJ ~ ~ .,
. ~'
~
~
IØ-Ð" REAR y~ ~ eETJ -...
--...---.....- ~ -
p
- ISØI f'RG.. .....òT LIE
- - - - -l .
-I::{ ~
~
()þ. ~
~§ '-
.
..... ~
Q~ ....
" I
~~ ~
6~ I ~
-~ .... I
~ìill /
1
~
I i
. I 1-::----::----::-1
I I 101 101 j~~ 101 I
I I II II i;~' 101 I
I æJ æJ æJ
L~__~__~~
I
II> 1M
II>
,- ,I
~
;G
~
~
t °1
. I
I ¡
I ~m
_X
r-
o~
I lili
î':!
~~ I
g~ __n
(t\ '-J ~~- ~~¡;."'~-~~~~-
I:
([][] 11\ ~[I~ "'~~~ !~~~~
't' . '-"¡.~IT)~ _v.~,^
V\ In : .:t~ . . , '"" ~ .......
~ ~ ~ ' 11 ~' ?J. ~ .~ ~ ~ :j
>i ~~ -~~t~~-~~c:¡~-
_tT' w. ~ ~"1"
'-'"' ~ ~tI}~"': ~ ¡-~
. ïiiiiiiF - - .... '~ ~ - ~ -
i':; ". ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~n., ~ ~ ~
- - )( ~. ~n '1 ~ ~ ~ = '.::1 (\ .~ ~ -
:t;. : ~ ~.~ ~ t: ~ - "., 11
I õ:r "- ~~ .: ~~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ \.
~~ ~ ~ i ~\t.~.
II....
-t~ )..)
2~ ~
~~ , -"
= 31 I