The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000 [07] Jul 10 " ..' - ~ ~~L\c.. ~edt~ . ..~ . CITY OF ST. JOSEPH .1 First Avenue NW '.0. Box 668. t. Joseph. MN 56374 320) 363-7201 'ax: 363-0342 a St. Joseph Planning Commission City Hall - July 10,2000 7:00 p.m. ,fAVOR .enneth J. Hiemenz :LERK/ CaD to Order .DMINISTRATOR ,ari Schmidt New Business: 7:00 P.M. Paul-Mar, Inc. Public Hearing - Variance Request OUNCILORS Db Loso 7:45 P.M. Subdivision Discussion - Joint Trenching for Utilities ,Dry Ehlert sIwit Approval of Minutes ~iedenfuer - June 5, 2000 - Adjourn .._n.....,. . , . . ~ . CITY OF ST. JOSEPH ~l First Avenue NW '.0. Box 668, ;t. Joseph. MN 56374 320) 363-720 I MEMORANDUM 'ax: 363-0342 To: Planning Commission Members . ~a ft From: Chad A. Carlson, Planning Commission Secretary 8 Date: 7/3/00 >fAVOR RE: Summary of July 10th Agenda Items :enneth 1. Hiemenz :LERK/ Public Hearin2 - Variance Request: .DMINISTRATOR Paul Sullivan, owner and operator of the Taco Johns and Stardust Video, is proposed in to :ari Schmidt discontinue to the video business and replace it with a Chester Fried Chicken franchise. Enclosed in your packet is the interior layout ofthe facility and site plan of the entire building. Also, Mr. Sullivan has prepared a summary of the proposed use and describes the :OUNCILORS parking issue in detail. Db Loso :ory Ehlert According to S1. Joseph Code of Ordinance, Mr. Sullivan needs a variance ofthree parking .it spaces in order to operate the Chester Fired Chicken operation. Subway has contacted City iedenfuer offices expressing their concern of additional traffic congestion the new business will cause and will be attending the meeting. Joint Trenchin2 Discussion: Mr. Graeve has requested the Planning Commission place this item on the agenda for discussion. I have done some research on the issue via the League ofMN Cities research department. They have contacted me and there is little documentation on how other cities are handling the issue. I will continue to work with the City Attorney and other communities prior to the meeting. I would suggest that the Planning Commission make a formal motion and direct the City Council to address the matter through the City Administrators office. Since this is a policy issue, the City Council must adopt a policy regarding this issue. If you have any questions regarding these agenda items, please contact me as soon as possible. Thank you. ~ .. , ! . Unofficial Minutes - Planning Commission -- Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission and City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in Joint Session on Monday, June 5, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the St. Joseph City Hall. -- Plannin2 Commission Members Present: Chair Hub Klein. Commissioners Marge Lesnick, S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Gary Utsch, and Kurt Schneider. Planning Commission Secretary Chad A. Carlson. City Council Members Present: Mary Neidenfuer, Cory Ehlert, and Ken Hiemenz Others Present:. Duane Blascziek, Bud Nagh, Doris Johnson, Jerry Johnson, Craig Zahara, Mary NimmirfToh, and Mike Deutz, and Kevin Dierkhising. Joint City Council and Plannin2 Commission Public Hearin2: Carlson read for the record 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 7:00p.m. in St. Joseph City Hall. The purpose of the hearing is consider an amendment to the St. Joseph Code of Ordinance 52.4, Subdivision I and 52.17 Subdivision 4 (e). Klein stated that the hearing was needed to review the accessory building ordinance in the R-I Single Family District. The Planning Commission and City Council should review the size, materials and location of accessory building. Klein recalled that the Ordinance did state that "pole barn" construction was not allowed in any residential district. Hiemenz stated that the issue with accessory buildings has been on the fTont page since a homeowner in the Pond View Ridge Addition constructed an accessory building. Since the City has no recourse at this time, the other homeowners could proceed with enforcing the covenants that exist in the development. Hiemenz stated that City is researching the possibility of adopting subdivision covenants or making them a part of the developer's agreement. Hiemenz also stated that he remembers an ordinance excluding pole barns as accessory buildings but it doesn't appear to be in the current ordinance book. - - Hiemenz requested that the Planning Commission refer to Mr. John'Scherer's letter and suggested amendments to the Ordinance. Klein requested that the Planning Commission review the letter submitted by Doris Johnson. Included in her letter are examples of other surrounding communities. Utsch recommended that the Planning Commission considers limiting the number of accessory buildings to two and have a maximum square footage of 1,500 square feet. Utsch further stated that the 10% lot coverage should remain in the Ordinance to limit the number of accessory building on small lots. Kalinowski concurred with Utsch and referenced the letter by Mr. Scherer, which states that the Planning Commission should consider limiting the number of allowable units. Kalinowski requested input &om the Johnson's. Doris Johnson addressed the Planning Commission and their intent to purchase one of two lots in the Northland Addition. The largest lot is 21,000 square feet and their intention is build a garage large enough to store their car collection. The garage would be attached to the house and consist of four stalls, approximately 1,350 square feet. Johnson requested that the Planning Commission strongly consider increasing the maximum size. Ehlert stated that having a large garage is not necessarily bad and in many cases is good for the aesthetics of the neighborhood because the toys and other items are in the garage rather then in the yard. Ehlert further stated he would rather see one large garage versus 3 or more small sheds on the property. Mary Nimmirfi-oh, resident, requested a definition of accessory buildings and questioned if gazebos are considered an accessory building. NimmirfToh further stated that the Planning Commission should not limit the number of accessory buildings because the current recommendation limits homeowners with small lots and the Ordinance needs to fair to everyone. June 5, 2000 Minutes - . , Schneider stated in his opinion, a 30 x 36 foot garage is a huge 3 stall garage and that City should not allow more then 1,080 square feet. If enforced, the current Ordinance does work to control the number of accessory buildings - with the 10% lot coverage clause. It all comes down to lifestyle choices when purchasing a lot or a home. - Utsch suggested that the City should not penalize someone with a large lot by not allowing them to have a large garage or accessory buildings. Limiting the number to one or two accessory buildings and increasing the maximum square footage to 1,500 square feet works in the benefit for all lot sizes, even with the 10% lot coverage. Ehlert stated that the Planning Commission maybe assuming that the 1,500 square feet would be two buildings, but in all reality it could be one huge building. Ehlert stated that the Planning Commission has not heard a variance request to the 1,000 square foot maximum for a very long time. In his opinion, the Ordinance s serving its purpose and variances can be heard on a case by case basis. Hiemenz stated that if the Planning Commission is going to recommend a limit of one or two accessory uses, he suggested that the Planning Commission consider Mr. Scherer's comments and exclude dog houses and play centers as an accessory use and define them in the Ordinance. Utsch stated that the definitions of a dog house and play center must be very specific with no room for interpretation by the residents trying to work around the Ordinance. Schneider restated that the Planning Commission needs to reconsider the proposed maximwn square footage allowed for one or two accessory buildings. A triple stall garage is huge and has plenty of room for storage. The community may see the construction of a 5 stall garage that may be more unsightly to the community. The construction must fit the lot. Schneider also suggested that Planning Commission recommend a 24 foot maximwn curb cut for a driveway into the property. Niedenfuer stated that City Ordinances can't be everything to everybody. City must consider variances by the procedures set forth in the Ordinance and they must be adhered to. The Planning Commission and City Council must have a vision of what is community is going to look like in the future. - - Johnson stated that the City's process for requesting a variance is very time consuming and can delay construction for months. Again, she suggested that Planning Commission recommend increasing the allowable square footage. Ehlert suggested that the Ordinance continue to read the 10% lot coverage and a 1,000 square foot maximums, but in order to use the 10% as a maximum, the lot would have to have a minimum of 11,000 square feet. Ehlert further stated that the pitch of the accessory building would have to match the pitch of the principle structure. Utsch clarified that his suggestion included eliminating the extra 120 square feet available, over and above the 1,350 square feet allowed for one or two buildings. Kalinowski moved to recommend that the City Council approved the proposed changes to the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances Section 52.17, Subdivision 4(e) and 52.4 as follows: Amendments to Existing Ordinance: 1) Change e (i) to increase the allowable square footage of one or two accessory buildings not to be greater then 1,350 square feet in area; 2) Eliminate e (ii); 3) Change e (iü) to state that the allowable square footage of accessory building shall not exceed 10% of the total lot area; and 4) Eliminate e (iv). Additions to Existing Ordinance: 1) Accessory building sidewalls shall not exceed 10 feet in height and must have the same pitch and site line as the principle structure; 2) Permitted accessory buildings shall not include pole barns or post frame construction; June 5, 2000 Minutes . , . " 3) The exterior materials and siding of an accessory building(s) shall be homogenous to the principle structure; . 4) Any property having one or more accessory building(s) shall not have more then one curb cut to the property and no wider then 24 feet in width; 5) Exclude dog houses and play structures from the number and size limitations and general requirements of this section; 6) Create specific and detailed definitions for dog houses and play structures to be included in the Ordinance; and 7) Define a corner lot rear yard area as defined by the City Attorney. Discussion: Ehlert expressed his concern for rental units in the R-l District and only allowed to have a 24 foot curb cut. The City requires that all rental units must have oifstreet parking and this may limit the mobility of parking on any rental property. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Klein, Lesnick, Kalinowski, Utsch, and Ehlert Nays: Schneider Motion Carried Ehlert questioned what type and size of structure requires a building permit in the City of St. Joseph. He expressed his concern that many small accessory buildings have been constructed without permits. Hiemenz stated that Ordinance 51.1 defines what construction activity requires a building permit. Hiemenz further added that all accessory building, regardless of size, must have a building permit. Industrial Park Site Plan Review: Craig Zahara and Duane Blascziek presented their plans for the construction a new auto body repair shop in the St. Joseph Industrial Park. They have purchased Lot 13 in the Rennie Addition. They presented the Planning - Commission with the site plan and landscape plan for the business. - Kalinowski clarified that the parking area meets the requirements ofthe Ordinance. Zahara added that the area behind the building will be fenced for security purposes and employee parking. Utsch questioned if old cars and parts will be stored on site. Zahara stated that the nature oftheir business will not require them to maintain an area for old cars and parts. Ehlert clarified that the entrance to the building will be on the east side and the overhead doors will be on the north side of the building. Kalinowski stated that the site plan has indicated were landscaping will take place, but the type of landscaping is not mentioned on the plan. Zahara stated that he would be interested in some suggestions from the members of the Planning Commission regarding what they would like to see. They will plant and landscape the area to the best of their ability. Ehlert stated that the site plan identifies the landscaped area, but could they provide an itemized list of the plants and shrubbery that will be in the area at the next Planning Commission meeting. Utsch questioned the timeline of the fence surrounding the rear ofthe facility. Zahara stated that they would not need to put the fence up right a way. Since they will be the only employees for a while, the cars will be stored inside until they are finished. Once the business grows and space is needed, cars waiting to be repaired will be placed outside in the secured area. Ehlert cited the complaint procedure established by the City Council. If a complaint would be filed against the business, a fence would have to be constructed within a time period. June 5, 2000 Minutes . . . :.1 Schneider suggested that no cars could be stored outside unless they are in a secured area (i.e. fence). Allow them 30 days to complete the construction once cars appear outside. . Ehlert moved to approve the site plan and landscaping plan with the following conditions: 1) a detailed summary of the plants and shrubs that will be used for landscaping; and 2) the business must construct a fence within 90 days of the City Offices receiving a complaint or tbe need to store cars outside of the building. Seconded by Kalinowski. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Klein, Lesnick, Kalinowski, Utsch, Ehlert, and Schneider Nays: None Motion Carried Lesnick made a motion tbat the fence constructed for the auto body repair shop be a minimum of six (6) feet in height; Seconded by Ehlert. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Klein, Lesnick, Kalinowski, Dtsch, Ehlert, and Schneider Nays: None Motion Carried St. Joseph Gas and Bait - Public Hearin2: Carlson read for the record the Planning Commission of St. Joseph shall conduct a public hearing on Monday June 5,2000 at 8:00 p.m. in St. Joseph City Hall. The purpose of the hearing was to consider the issuance of a variance for to exterior building material requirements in the B-2 Highway #75 Business District. The variance is requested to allow for the construction of an addition to the St. Joseph Gas and Bait facility. -- Mike Deutz, owner, detailed the expansion project to the St. Joseph Gas and Bait facility. The expansion will - consist of a new storage facility and canopy over the existing patio area. The footings and the foundation were poured many years ago in anticipation of the expansion. Deutz further stated that the addition will match the existing building and will not have brick on the north side of the building. The building was constructed on the northerly property line, adjacent to the County ROW line. There is no room to construct a brick wall with footings on the north side of the building. Deutz is requesting a variance to the St. Joseph Code of Ordinance 52.22 Subdivision 7(c). The new addition will provide for the expansion of the deli area. Carlson requested the Planning Commission refer to the summary of the project submitted by Mr. Deutz for reference. Being no further discussion or questions, the following motion and finding were made: Kalinowski moved to recommend that the City Council of St. Joseph approve tbe variance, as requested by St. Joseph Gas and Bait, to St. Joseph Code of Ordinance 52.22 Subdivision 7( c) as it consistent with the variance standards stated in St Joseph Code of Ordinance 52.8 a-e; Seconded by Lesnick. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Klein, Lesnick, Kalinowski, Dtsch, Ehlert, and Schneider Nays: None Motion Carried Resolution of Finding The request of St. Joseph Gas and Bait for a variance came before the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on June 5, 2000. The purpose of the hearing was to consider the issuance of a variance for to exterior building material requirements in the B-2 Highway #75 Business District. The variance is requested to allow for the construction of an addition to the St. Joseph Gas and Bait facility. St. Joseph Code of Ordinance 52.22, Subdivision 7 ( c) Building Exteriors requires that acceptable building materials shall include brick, stone, tip-up concrete panel, decorative concrete block or glass. Wood siding, plastic, and other June 5, 2000 Minutes , .. . '- ',.1 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. - The request has been submitted by St. Joseph Gas and Bait, 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 variance is consistent with the standards for a Variance stated in St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 Subd. (a-e). Therefore, based on the findings above, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendation: Approve the Variance request to St. Joseph Code of Ordinance Section 52.22, Subdivision 7 (c) Building Exteriors which allows for the construction of the addition without meeting the 50% exterior materials consisting of brick, stone, tip-up concrete panel and/or decorative concrete block. Chair Klein closed the hearing at 8:45 p.m. Kni2ht Builders. Inc. - Public Hearin2: Carlson read for the record the Planning Commission of St. Joseph shall conduct a public hearing on Monday June 5, 2000 at 8:30 p.m. in St. Joseph City Hall. The purpose of the hearing was to consider the issuance of a 4 foot variance to the side and rear yard setbacks in the B-1 General Business District. The variance is requested to allow for the construction of an accessory building on property owned by Knight Builders, Inc. Kevin Dierkhising, owner, presented plans to construct an accessory building on the southwest comer of the - property. The accessory building is a much needed structure to house materials and equipment for the business. - Currently, the business leases two storage units in different locations. Due to the size constraints of the lot and the requirements for off-street parking, the building must be placed within a foot of the side and rear property line. This would require a variance offour (4) feet to the St. Joseph Code of Ordinance 52.21 Subdivision 5 (b) and (c). Lesnick questioned if the building will provide for additional parking space and will the building consist of the same exterior materials as the existing building. Dierkhising stated that the building's primary purpose would be to store the materials and equipment needed for the business. The accessory building will be the same color and material as the existing building. Dierkhising further detailed the extensive landscaping plan that will accompany the construction of the building. Being no further discussion or questions, the following motion and finding were made: Lesnick moved to recommend that the City Council of Sf. Joseph approve the 4 foot side and rear variances, as requested by Knight Builders, Inc, to St. Joseph Code of Ordinance 52.21 Subdivision 5 (b) and (c) as it consistent with the variance standards stated in Sf. Joseph Code of Ordinance 52.8 a-e; Seconded by Kalinowski. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Klein, Lesnick, Kalinowski, Utsch, Ehlert, and Schneider Nays: None Motion Carried Resolution of Finding The request of Knight Builders, Inc. for a variance came before the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on June 5, 2000. The purpose of the hearing was to consider the issuance of a 4 foot variance to the side and rear June 5, 2000 Minutes 1 . . . I .. . yard setbacks in the B-1 General Business District. The variance is requested to allow for the construction of an accessory building on property owned by Knight Builders, Inc. . St. Joseph Code of Ordinance 52.21 Subdivision 5 (b) and ( c) state respectfully that the side and rear yard setbacks shall not be less then 5 feet fTom the property line. The request has been submitted by Knight Builders, Inc. 35 College A venue North, 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 variance is consistent with the standards for a Variance stated in St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 Subd. (a-e). Therefore, based on the findings above, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendation: Approve the Variance request of 4 feet to the side and rear yard setbacks to the property located at 35 College Avenue north for the purpose of constructing an accessory building on the property. Chair Klein closed the hearing at 9:05 p.m. Approve Minutes: Lesnick moved to approve the May 1, 2000 minutes as presented; Seconded by Kalinowski. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Klein, Lesnick, Kalinowski, and Utsch, - Nays: None Motion Carried Abstain: Schneider and Ehlert - Other: Ehlert expressed his concern with the Building Inspector's comments, as read in the May 1,2000 minutes, regarding the drainage plan now required by the City of St. Joseph with all new subdivisions. If the Building Inspector has some major concerns with the implementation and effectiveness, the City Council should be aware of those concerns. Ehlert stated that he will bring the concerns raised by the Building Inspector forward to the City Council. Carlson passed out some motivational material provided by the Mayor. Carlson informed the Planning Commission of the resolution made with Super America and the trash container enclosure. The City Council approved a variance of five (5) feet due to utility lines located in the area, which will allow for the necessary space to construct the structure. Adjourn: The Planning Commission meeting adjourned by consensus at 9:45 p.m. Chad A. Carlson Planning Commission Secretary June 5, 2000 Minutes CITY OF ST. JOSEPH avenue NW 668, Joseph. MN 56374 ZO) 363-7201 x: 363-0342 a Public Hearing City of St. Joseph i\YOR nneth 1. Hiemenz The Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph shall conduct a public hearing on Monday, July 10,2000 at 7:00 p.m. in St. Joseph City Hall. The purpose ofthe hearing is to consider a variance request to St. Joseph Code of Ordinance 52.14 Subdivision 4 (0) which states that ..:RKI restaurants and cafes shall have a least one space for each four (4) seats used by patrons, plus one tMINI!lïRATOR (1) space for each employee on the maximwn shift. 'j Schmidt The property is legally described as: East 18 feet of Lot 15 and all oflot 16, Block 2, Loso's Third Addition, St. Joseph Minnesota. IUNCILORS The request for variance has been submitted by Paul-Mar, Inc., 211 County Road #75 W, St b Loso Joseph MN 56374. 'Y Ehlert 1 Twit Oral comments may be heard fTom the public and written comments can be submitted prior to the ry Niedenfuer hearing. . Cari Schmidt Clerk! Administrator Publish: June 30.2000 ... · , . , CHESTER FRIED CHICKEN Paul Sullivan is requesting a variance of 3 parking spaces at the present location of Taco John's and Stardust Video. The applicant wishes to close the existing Stardust Video and, in it's place, install a Chester Fried Chicken quick service Express, to be managed and largely operated by the owner. As per city parking ordinance: > Chester FC requires 3 spaces for customers, 2 for employees = 5 > Taco John's requires 8 spaces for customers, 4 for employees = 12 Total Spaces Required = 17 Current Spaces Available = 14 Requested Variance = 3 - About 70% of the food purchased at Taco John's is consumed off premises. This will be further encouraged at Chester FC through its Take-Home concept, limited seating, and take-out promotions. Also, the product at Chester FC requires no point-of-purchase assembly, unlike Taco John's and most other QSRs. In addition, the average video browsing time before a transaction is 4 to 6 minutes, bringing the average Stardust customer visit to 6 or 8 minutes. The streamlined operational procedures of Chester FC Express can reduce these average times by one-half or more (Taco John's) and up to 75% (Stardust Video), thus reducing the impact on parking space time. Respectfully Submitted, yµ. ~CL ~ Paul Sullivan ~.. . . .~ CRJ - --- ..- ..- r-r:------ I I I' II II P (\ \ oç:F\(E- ( (/ i [R] , i ~ i l_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ [R] ~ rR"T-R. ~. ~ 1-\ ~. Ý.:1 Ç;j I I I I I f I I I I -, I I D I f I I I I I I I I I I I Iñ. Ctilpy.MI>iol"rùr<t Ch¡,ktn I ( I I i I I I I I I I f ¡.J -- ?,j . ¡;j f:3 " ~ . " . -.. D ...D ~ \ \n - 0 0 ... :r ) a- :t- t'I1 - fft ... c:P c--I ... -- N ~.... - - 0 0 - -- 0 - I ') ~~'fà'Sa.c.""~£ t>~~ - :r: ~-e.."" \ ~ eb L, ~.¡. "'2-000 ~ \.k~~ ßa~ corl'\e.r f..e..-'\(ß,· , . . . . . . . 20' SETBACK REO.'D ----- - / . I / GATE ;,. '-0. 3' SIDEWALK A PHALT PARKING AREA . I TURF 10" SETBACK REQ.'O è --------- I T r~ es... ~ ¡1î('~+vre. - SÚJCwf I'll C{f I e .f CVrJ'e.r t'ec! YVlQfl~S F-<^"C e- )~I'v.bs . - 11 u ~ (I. '" .3 !n·; ~ Arb 0 r 5,' t-CI.. e...5 > JIJ ~ .' (J-f. ('..f LCJ lOr ~ (' eJC... k:. Ir~ Ace. €", +- )4('11, r C ' ~ock ) (', ,,<1' .. . ., , . I .c .,- , . .....- . ~ ,-.~-~.;'- 5 0 ~ ~,:.{;; '" '. ';:",."" '<1 '5~~} ."" .'.-. CcJ( o~·¿ ( . -. ," ~- "'~'.. ~.,. ....;;."5~ Fowert ) ,~ ,~ . .~~~~~~: It'" 11 vc..( s I ~ifi, :~