HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 [09] Sep 10
.
ity of St\Joseph
25 College Avenue NW
P.O. Box 668, , )
St. Joseph, MN 56374
(320) 363-7201 í
St. Joseph Planning Commission I
Fax: 363-0342 ./
September 10, 20001
CLERK! 7:00 PM
ADMINISTRATOR
Judy Weyrens
1. Call to Order
MAYOR
Larry J. Hosch 2. Approve Agenda
COUNCILORS 3. Approve Minutes, July 2 and August 6,2001
Bob Loso
Cory Ehlert 4. 7:05 PM - Nancy Schmidt, 113 Able St E., Discussion on Owner Occupied Rental Unit
Kyle Schneider Requested Action: Discuss the postponed hearing and the special use request.
Alan Rassier
5. 7: 15 PM - Tanner System, Site Plan Approval- Lot 11 Block 1 Rennie Addition Requested
. Action: Allow the construction of 7200 square foot building
7 :30 PM - Tim Borresch, 12 - 3rd Avenue NW, discussion on revised garage size
6.
7. 7 :45 PM - Tom Borresch, 9 - 17fu Avenue SE & CR 75 Requested Action: Discussion on the best
use for each property and the storage shed constructed without a building permit.
8. 8:15 PM - S1. Joseph Meat Market, 17 Minnesota St W, Building Pennit approval Requested
Action: Authorize application for building permit to reconfigure the back entrance to the processing plant.
9. 8:30 PM - John Forsythe, 19 College Avenue North, Building pennit approval. Requested
Action: Authorize application for building permit to construct accessory building and revise windows.
10. 8:45 PM - Zoning Discussion, Proposed Rl conversion to Highway 75 Business
11. Transportation Planning, discussion on how to proceed
12. Other Matters
13. Adjourn
.
.
MEMORANDUM
\
Date: "September 7, 2001
To: ¡ St. Joseph Planning Commission Members
/
From: Judy
Re: Notes to the Agenda
4 The hearing for Nancy Schmidt had to be canceled due to the property owner not filing the necessary
paperwork on time. I have had some difficulty getting this matter to the Planning Commission. Because
the hearing was scheduled I am requested that Nancy Schmidt appear before the Planning Commission to
discuss her request. The hearing will be rescheduled for October. I am also sending a note to all the
neighbors that the hearing will be tabled to October and why the delay is necessary. I have already
infonned Ms. Schmidt that they will be billed for the additional costs because the delay.
. 6 Tim Borresch is requested to reconfigure the garage you approved last month. In the packet you will fmd a
drawing.
7 Tom Borresch will be approaching the Commission regarding the utility shed he constructed on Highway
75. The issue before the Commission is the issuance of the building pennit. While the building has been
completed the Commission must still review the plans. The penalty will automatically be assessed when
the pennit is secured. Tom would like to discuss with the Commission potential development plans for
both his properties, the one located at 9 - 17th Avenue SE and the County Road 75 Building.
9. John Forsythe, Bo Diddley's is requesting authorization to construct a small utility shed for storage to be
located south of the building. He also is requesting a building pennit to change the windows facing
College A venue. The General Business Ordinance requires the Planning Commission to review all
building pennit requests.
10. The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission re-discuss the original motion regarding the
Highway 75 rezoning due to a Planning Commission conflict of interest. To help alleviate this problem in
the future I have included a conflict of interest pampWet in your packet. Also, please fmd enclosed a
petition regarding this same issue. It is important to remember that the public hearing has been closed and
the discussion that takes place at this meeting should be between the Commissioners. After a public
hearing is closed additional testimony cannot be accepted. I believe that the petition submitted is not new
infonnation, rather a summation of the opinion of the affected residents.
12. Other matters: In your packet please fmd a proposed amendment to the Commercial and Industrial Zoning
Ordinances. The EDA Consultants are recommending the City review and revise the Zoning Ordinance
regarding outside storage of materials. They have written a proposed draft for review. Any amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance would require a public hearing. The consultants are also requesting that the entire
. Zoning Ordinance be reviewed.
'. Unofficial M'mutes - Planning Commission
PW'suant to due call and notice thereot: the Planning Commission met in regular session on Monday, July 2, 200 I at
7:00 p.m. in the St. Joseph City Hall.
Members PreseDt: Commissioners Jim Graeve, Gary Utsch, Marge Lesnick, Kurt Schneider, Mike Deutz and AI
Rassier.
Members Absent: S. Kathleen Kalinowski
Others Present: Roger Tamm, Dorian Davidson, John Meyer, Pete Rothfork, Randy Tarberg, Lonnie Abbot, Jœnn
Schneider, Joe Hienen, Randy Schmitz,
ADPI'Owl of Mends:
Deutz moved to approve the agenda; Seeonded by Graeve. The motion passed unanimously by those
present.
Tamm Phot02raDhv - Variance PubUc HeariB2:
Carlson introduced the variance request as presented by Tamm Photography. The project consists of constructing an
addition to the existing building located on Cedar Street. The new structure will be 30' x 30' in the rear of the
existing building. The project is located in the Highway #75 Business District and must meet the following
requirement muter Section 52.22 Subdivision 7 (c):
Acceptable building materials shall include brick, stone, tïp.up concrete panel, decorative concrete block or
glass. Wood siding. plastic and other combustible materials not listed as acceptable shall not be used for
building exteriors. Architecturally approved steel is acceptable provided that at least 500/0 of the building
(excluding windows and doors) consists of brick, stone tip--up concrete panel, decorative concrete block
. and/or glass. Any buildings undergoing renovation, repair or an addition, so as to require the issuance of a
building pennit, shall be brought into conformance with this subsection at the time the repairs, renovations
or addition are complete.
Carlson stated that Roger Tamm is present and requesting a variance to Section 52.22 Subdivision 7( c).
Tamm introduced himself and his business to the Planning Commission. Tamm stated his mtent to establish a
photography studio m the old Vombrock Clinic. He stated that he doesn't intend to place brick on the existing or
new fàcility to meet the requirements of the Ordinance. He intends to match the color and material of the existing
building. Tamm stated that the garage will be removed and the parking requirements are met.
Rassier questioned the company's plans for additional landscaping on Highway #75. Tamm stated that the wheel
chair ramp will be eliminated and landscaping will be place in the same location. Also, additionallandscapmg will
be done throughout the lot to be used for photo shoots.
Lesnick stated that smce the Planning Commission has required other businesses owners. such as Mr. Deutz and Mr.
Borrech to conform with the Ordinance, the Planning Commission should not be granting a variance for this project.
Carlson and Rassier COtTected Lesnick by stated that Mr. Borresch was granted a variance to the same Ordinance.
Mr. BOlTesch did not complete the project as presented and did not complete an addition to the existing building.
Mr. Borresch did not add brick to his facility.
Schneider suggested that Mr. Tamm use landscaping and building materials that will meet the requirements of the
Ordinance. Sclmeider further added that making the new building consistent with the existing building can be done
without use the same materials.
Deutz requested mput &om Carlson regarding the parking needed for the facility. Carlson stated the business faUs
. into the category of Retail-Service Establishment and the parking requirements have been met.
Graeve requested Carlson provide an explanation to the Planning Commission of his recommendation to approve the
variance request. Carlson stated that the recommendation to approve was based on the fact the new building in the
June 4, 2001 Minutes
rear of the lot, limited visibility from Highway 75, the existing building is very good shape, and he meets all the ·
standards of the variance specific to his request.
Rassier made a motion to retommend the City CouDcil dfl¡y II varianœ to anow the construction of an
addition to a buildiDg withia the Highway 75 Business District without meeting the exterior building material
requlremeats as stated 1B Sedion 52.22 Subdivision 7 (c) of the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances. The motioø
was seconded by Graeve. \
Discussion: I
.'
Rossier proposed that Tamm present a proposal to place brick on the south and east side of the facility to
meet the 50% requirement.
Gary adtkd that the west side should be covered as well.
The motion to t~ommend denial of the Variance was passed UD8nimously by those preseDt.
Resolution of Finding
The request of Roger Tamm, Tamm Photography, for a varianœ œme before the Planning Commission at a public
hearing held on July 2, 200 1. The purpose of the hearing was to consider the issuance of a variance for to construct
an addition to an existing building within the Highway 75 Business District without meeting the exterioc building
material requirements.
Section 52.22 Subdivision 7 (c) states that accepUible building materials shall include brick, stone, tip-up concrete
panel, decorative concrete block or glass. Wood siding, plastic and other combustible materials not listed as
acceptable shall not be used for building exteriors. Architecturally approved steel is acceptable provided that at least
50% of the building (excluding windows and doors) consists of brick, stone tip-up coocrete panel, decorative ·
concrete block and/or glass, Any buildings undergoing renovation, repair or an addition, so as to require the
issuance of a building pem1i~ shall be brought into conformance with this subsection at the time the repairs,
renovations Œ' additim ate complete.
The request has been submitted by RogerTamm, Tamm Photography, P.O. Box 241, Avon, MN 56310.
Notice of this matter was duly served and published.
In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its appliC31ion to the Comprehensive
Plan and Ordinances of the City ofSt, Joseph, the Planning Commissioo makes the following findings:
The proposed variance is not consistent with the standards fur 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:
Denial of a variance to allow the construction of aD addition to a building within the Highway 75 Business
Distrkt without meeting the exterior building material reqairements as stated in Section 52.22 Subdivision 7
(c) oftbe St. Joseph Code ofOrdinanees.
Chair Utsch closed the hearing at 7:35 p.rn.
DM Partnershio Preliminarv Plat:
Carlson introduced the DM Partnership Preliminary Plat for Indian Hills Park. The Plat consists of four lots. The
Planning Commission has two issues to resolve at this public hearing:
1) make a recommendaticn to deny or approve the Preliminary Plat and ·
2) make a recom.mendatim to rezone Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2.
Brown Herkc:nhoffpresented the plat on behalf the developers.
June 4, 200 1 Minutes
. Deutz stated that he is ready to approve the plat as presented. However, there is a transportation issue that needs to
be discussed. After discussion of the transportation issue. he would make a motion to approve the plat.
Utsch ~ed that before a motion is made he would like t~ have more discussion at the Planning Commission level
and have input ftom the public.
Schneider questi<Jned that if the plat was approved, ðoesn;t ~minate the Planning Commission ftom controlling
the development and road construction in the proposed plat. sier stated that as the property develops, the
Planning Commission must approve a site plan. The preJim}fuuy plat is the first step in the development process,
, .í
;
Schneider cautioned the Planning Commission on approvi.Jig a plat without requesting additional transportation
requirements. It is very difficult to change a plat once it i~ approved. The current plat must include a road for
additional access to the Northland Development.· Sclmeider gave a history of past dis<;ussiODs of the Planning
Commission and City Council' '
Deutz stated that the proposed plat meets all the zoning requirements.. The property has access onto Northland Drive
and doesn't need a road through the property for access
Schneider stated that the plat needs to include a road easement that is adjacent to the Rothfock Property for a future
road corridor. The City Council made promises to look into the access issue.
Rassier suggested that the plat approval include a provision of creating an easement on the plat and through the
Rothfork property to ensure an access to the Northland Addition.
Carlson stated that the Planning Commission cannot approve easements on property that are not part of the
preliminary plat in question. There are two different owners involved.
. Utsch stated that the City Engineer designed optioos to create a road conidor. Some of the options did not work do
to the grade. One option was feasible and did relieve the traffic in the housing addition. The Planning Commission
and City Council promised to analyze the situation and take some action.
Deutz questioned if a alley way existed north of the railroad tracks along the Rothfork property. Carlson stated that
there isn't a recorded easement and this area only serves as a snowmobile traiL
Lesnick stated that the cul-de-sac area was supposed to be a park for Northland Addition. The Planning
Commission never approved a cul-de-sac in this area.
Carlson presented information ftom Joe Bettendorf: City Engineer and Ted Schmid, Developer~ stating their
concerns regarding the development of a road corridor connecting to 4th Avenue. Carlson added figures ftom the
APO that suggest a new road corridcr will not relieve the perceived traffic problem that exists œ Gwntree Street.
Schneider stated that the Northland Development will continue grow and the need for additional access will be
needed. The entire Northland Development uses Gumtree Street to access the development The Planning
Commission needs to consider connecting the development CR#2 and other road to the nmh and west for future
development.
Deutz suggested that the preliminary plat should be a separate issue ftom the transp<rtation discussion that is
occurring. Deutz suggested that the Planning Commission consider extending 4111 A venue south to Cedar Street.
The Planning Commission needs to work with Rothfork.
Joann Schneider addressed the Planning Commission and stated her concerns:
1) Preliminary Plats for N<rtbland Development have changed ftom year to year and the development
. doesn't look like the original design. Thus, access where eliminated and new ones were not added.
2) She disagreed with the APO numbers and stated that 86 households use Gumtree Street. If a new road
would eliminate 50% of the traffic, it would be worth the effort.
June 4, 2001 Minutes
3) She referenced City Council minutes that recommended the Planning Commission pursue the road .
issue at greater length and the City Engineer admitted that a road corridor could be completed with the
steep grade and recommended one design
Lonnie Abbott stated he agrees with the comments made by Joann Schneides- and added that the Planning
Commission needs to pursue options as presented by the City Engineer. Abbott added that extending 4th Avenue
south to Cedar Street would impact existing businesses in the area.
Pete Rothfork stated that he is not sure why he is part of the discussion. The Planning Commission is reviewing a
preliminary plat presented by DM Partnership and his project is adjacent to the development. He requested that the
Planning Commissîœ not confuse his property with the issue at hand.
Utsch stated that transportation issues must be considered with any new development. The Planning Commission is
discussing tnmsportatioo issues that may or may not involve your property.
John Meyer, DM Partnership, stated that the Planning Commission is required to review the preliminary plat and not
traffic concerns of the Northland Addition. The property west of Northland Drive does not require additional
access. Northland Drive provides acœss to the property.
Carlson presented that Preliminary Plat 3 fur Northland Addition. The preliminary plat was approved and contained
the Rothfork cul.cte--sac. The preliminary plat was approved in 1994 by the Planning Commission and City Council.
The owner of the property would have to agree to change the design if the road would go through the property.
Schneider suggested creating an easement on the Indian Hills Plat that would align with the cul-de-sac. The
transportation issue would be solved, He agreed that the owner would have to change the plat and may require legal
action.
Gary Schleicher asked if the Planning Commission or the City Council has done anything since the City Council .
recommended City should research a road corridor. The Planning Conunission came to consensus that nothing has
been done. Schleicher further added that approving the plat as is would cause additional traffic problems in the
neighborhood. The City have made promises that were kept or the pr~ takes to long.
Lonnie Abbott stated that the new development with the cul-<ie-sac would require the developer to contribute land or
money. The City Council could negotiate a road easement instead.
Sclu1eider asked Rothfork ifhe was willing to give up property for a road ~ent through his property. Rothfock
stated that as the present time, he unwilling to negotiate a road easement. The preliminary plat was approved in
1994 and has not idea why bas been part of the discussion.
Rassier stated that the development must have a road easement on the plat to access Lot 1 and 2 of Block 2. The
City has a policy that eliminates all driveways onto Northland Drive. Carlson clarified that the policy Rassier is
referencing only impacts the Northland Additiro housing development and residentia1lots.
With discussion ending, Utsch called the question.
Deutz made 8 motion to ~oD1mtDd the City CoueU approve the Preliminary Plat of Indian Hills Park lIS
presented with the addition of 66 foot attess easement aad cul-de-sac adjacent to Lot 1 and 2 of Block 1. The
motion was ~ded by Rassier.
The motioa approved with the following vote:
Ayes: Graeve, Rassiert Utscbt Lesnick, Deutz, and K.aliDowski
Nays: Schneider MotioD Passed
DM PartDersiúD- RezonÌDe: of Lot 1 and Lot 1. Bloek 1: .
June 4, 200 1 Mimrtes
'. Davidson opened his remarks by eliminating Lot 2 of Block 1 &om the rezoning request. Davidson stated that DM
{ Partnership only wishes only to rezone Lot 1 for the future development ofmulti-fiunily development Davidson
stated that a multi-family development would fit well in the area and provide a nice traDsitioo ftom. single family
residential to Highway 75 commercial
Graeve requested that Davidson expand on the ~~e property, development layout and potential buyers.
Davidson stated that they are too early into the pr to answer those questions accurately. DM Partnership will
make the Planning Commission aware of the devel ent as it is designed. When a site plan is developed, they will
present it the Planning Commission. /
./
Pete Rothfork address the Planning Commission ¡md spoke in favor of rezoning the project to R-3 Multi-Family as it
is a better fit then Highway 75 Business. .-
Deutz requested the Planning Couunission recall a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council.
This area was discussed as another area the City could have a mixed use development that includes R-3.
Rassier moved to recommend the City COUDeil approve the rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1 of the Indian Hißs
Park to R-3 Multi-Family from Highway #7S Business Distrid. The motion was seconded by Graeve.
The motion was passed unaBimousJy by those p~nt.
Pete Rothfork stated that he would be willing to meet with the City Council and Planning Commission regarding
this issue. Rothrork again stated that at this time he would not support a road corridor through his property.
Scenic ~ialties - Zonine: Rec¡ommendation:
Carlson introduced the project to the Planning Commission. Scenic Specialties has a pW'chase agreement signed for
the Dorene Rennie property, consisting of 14 acres and located on Hwy 133. The City is proposing to annex the
.. property to the City and the Planning Commission needs to recommend zoning district for the entire 14 acres. Once
the property is brought into the City, the owner will plat the property for his business. Staff is recommending
. Highway 75 Business District for this parcel.
The Planning Commission discussed the future plans of the property with Mr. Randy Schmitz. Schmitz stated that
the project will be used for his landscaping business and he plans to plat the 14 acres once it is annexed to the City.
Schneider made a motion to re£ommend the City COWIeil zone the 14 aeres to' be annexed by the City and
owned by Scenic Spedalties as Highway #7S BUSÏDess. The motion was seeonded by Rassier.
Discussion:
Deutz questioned if this property will be subject to future assessments and hoo1cup fees.
Carlson stated that he has informed that owner of the hook-up fees, trunJc sewer charges and pending
assessments as the City develops to the north
The modon passed uuanimously by those present.
COlDIl1Í5Sioner Announcements:
Utsch announced a joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting has been scheduled for July 16, 2001at
7:00pm in the Fire Hall. The meeting is a public hearing on the proposed zoning changes in the .community.
Minutes:
Deutz made a motion to approve the minutes of June 4, 2001 as presented. TIae motion was seconded by
Lesnick.
. Discussion:
Lesnick staled that she questioned Carlson regarding the development of the industrial park. Carlson
stated that he will review the Planning Commission tape to confirm the comment made by Lesnick.
June 4. 2001 Minutes
¡
í
The motion passed unanimously by tbose present .¡
Adjourn
The Planning Commission meeting adjourned by consensus at 9:25p.m.
Chad A. Carlson
Secretary
.
.
June 4, 2001 Minutes
"
(. Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of 81. Joseph met in regular
session on Monday, August 6,2001 at 7:00 PM in the 81. Joseph City Hall.
Members Present: Chair Gary Utsch. Commissioners Marge Lesnick, Kurt Schneider, Michael Duetz, S.
Kathleen Kalinowski, Jim Graeve. Council Liaison AI Rassier. Administrator/Clerk Judy Weyrens.
Others Present: Fire Chief Dave Theisen, Clarence Fischer, Jean Dehler, Steve Dehler, Goeff Partridge,
Randy Torborg, Bill Elfering, Bill Lowell, Mark Winter, Keith Gruber, Doris Johnson, Dorothy Court, Kay
Lemke, Tim Borresch, Tillie Wasner, Ellen Wahlstrom, Loren Loso, Doug Inselman, Donald Schneider,
Gladys Schneider, Elmer Rakotz.
Approve AQenda: Kalinowski made a motion to approve the agenda as presented; seconded by
Lesnick and passedunanil11ously.
Jean Dehler, Special Use Request, Rental in a General Business District: Utsch opened the public
hearing at 7:00 PM and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a special use permit to allow a
rental unit in a General Business District. The property is located at 31 West Minnesota Street, legally
described as Lot 007, Block 009 Townsite of St. Joseph; Lot 8 Less E 2' and the E'ly 6' of Lot 007 Block
009 Townsite of St. Joseph. The request has been submitted by Jean Dehler.
81. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.21 Subd.3 (f) provides for the following under special uses: Mixed
use of a permitted use and a multiple residential dwelling units; but only if at least 50% of the interior
square footage (exclusive of the basement or cellar) is used full time for a permitted use. The area
consisting if multiple residential dwelling units must meet the standards of Section 52.19, Subd. 5 and 6.
Parking requirements shall be separately determined for the commercial and residential uses in
accordance with Section 52.14, Subd. 4.
. Jean Dehler spoke on her own behalf. She stated that she is requesting to secure a rental license for one
unit on the second and third floor. The proposed plan includes the bedrooms being on the third floor with
kitchen and bathroom on the second floor. Dehler stated that there is currently a fire wall that separates
the units.
Lesnick questioned if the parking area will be marked and if the required fire lane is designated and
marked. Dehler stated the submitted parking plan illustrates that sufficient parking is available. As for the
fire lane, the sign has been vandalized.
Fire Chief Òave Theisen presented the Commission with a letter from the Fire Marshall dated 1994. The
letter indicates that if a portion of the second and third level of the building will be used for rental, fire
codes must be satisfied. The major code that needs to be completed is the installation of a sprinkler
system. Theisen is requesting that if the Special Use is granted, the Fire Marshall be contacted to inspect
the building and the property owners would be required to adhere to the fire codes. Rassier stated that
when the city reviewed the Rental Ordinances, language was included to adopt the State Fire Code.
Tllerefore, any code violations discovered by the Fire Marshall would need to be corrected.
There being no further testimony the public hearing was closed at 7:15 PM.
Oeutz questioned if a special use permit is issued, would Dehler be required to pave the parking lot.
Weyrens stated that the Ordinance only requires the lot to be paved if a building permit is needed to
complete remodeling. Installing a sprinkler system would not qualify as remodeling, therefore the parking
lot would not be required to be paved.
Rassier made a motion to recommend the adoption the fOllowing Resolution of Finding, granting a
. Special Use Permit to Jean Dehler, 31 West Minnesota Street.
Resolution of finding ·
The request of Jean Dehler for a special use permit came before the Planning Commission at a public
hearing held on August 6, 2001. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a Special Use Permit to
allow a rental unit in a General Business District.
The property is legally described as follows: Lot O'Q7 Block 009 Townsite of St. Joseph; Lot 8 Less E 2'
and the E'ly 6' of Lot 007 Block 009 Townsite of sf. Joseph. The request for Special Use has been
submitted by Jean Dehler, 31 West Minnesota Street, 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 the following recommendation:
Approve the Special Use Request with the following contingencies:
1. The Rental License shall be contingent upon the property being inspected by the Fire Marshall
(Fire Chief), Building Official and Rental Housing Inspection.
2. All Fire and Safety Codes found to be deficient will be corrected before a rental license is issued ·
and the property occupied.
3. The property owner will immediately designate and mark the required fire lane as agreed to in
1994.
The motion was seconded by Utsch and passed unanimously.
Kellv McCann, Special Use Request, Owner Occupied Rental Unit in an R1 Zoninq District: Utsch
op~ned the hearing at 7:23 and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a special use permit to
allow an owner occupied rental unit in an R1 Single Family Zoning District. The property is located at 134
- 6th Ávenue NW and is legally described as follows: Lot 9 Block 3 Clinton Village. The request for
Special Use has been submitted by Kelly McCann.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.17 Subd 3 (I) allows a special use permit as follows: Residential rental
if owner occupied. For purposes of establishing if the property is owner occupied, the owner must be a
natural person and the owner occupying the property as his or her principal residence and must have a
fifty percent or greater interest in the property.
Kelly McCann spoke on his own behalf. He stated that he was unaware of the rental regulations in St.
Joseph and upon receiving notification from the City followed the process as outlined in the above
mentioned Ordinance. McCann stated that he does own and reside at the property in question and rents
living quarters to three (3) other persons. McCann further stated that he has been renting since
November of 2000. Utsch clarified that if a special use permit is allowed, only two tenants in addition to
Mr. McCann would be permitted.
Goeff Partridge of 601 West Ash Street requested the Planning Commission deny the request of
McCann. He stated that the neighborhood in Clinton Village only has one rental property and that is
located at the entrance to the housing development. When that rental unit was constructed the residents ·
were told by the builder that he was building the home for his children to live in while attending college.
Since the rental unit has been constructed the neighborhood has been plagued with problems including
excess cars parked on the front lawn, parties and the lack of lawn maintenance If this rental unit is an
,
. example of what the neighborhood can expect, then the Planning Commission and Council should deny
the request. Partridge stated that it is his opinion that the Council has a responsibility to protect the
character of the neighborhood. If the special use permit is granted it is his fear that a precedence will be
established and rental units will dilute the neighborhood. Therefore, Partridge encouraged the
Commission to deny the request.
Bill Elfering of 329 Cypress Drive requested the Planning Commission deny the request permitting a
rental unit in Clinton Village. Elfering stated it is his opinion that too many homes are being converted to
rental units and the Council and Planning Commission need to protect the single family homes.
Keith Gruber of 114 - ¡th Avenue NW requested that the Planning Commission deny the request of
McCann. Gruber stated that he too has concerns that if another rental property is allowed in Clinton
Village it will become as unsightly as the rental property located at the entrance to the devel.opment. It is .~--
his opinion that the City does not have control over the number of students living in a rental unit as the
number of cars consistently parked in front of the rental unit at the entrance would indicate in excess of 7
tenants. Weyrens clarified that proving residency is extremely difficult. Even if the Housing Inspector
could conduct random inspections, there is no way to prove by counting cars or beds how many tenants
occupy the rental unit. Schneider stated the City investigated eliminating the grandfather provision
allowing 5 unrelated persons to occupy a rental unit, but found it would be illegal to do so.
Steve Frank of 606 Birch Street West stated he was asked to speak to the Planning Commission on
behalf of some residents in Clinton Village. He stated that while he has not noticed any problems with the
property owned by McCann, he is concerned with a precedence that will be established by granting the
first Special Use Permit for an owner occupied rental unit. The Ordinance was just adopted in 2000 and
Frank questions how many requests will be submitted to the Planning Commission if the McCann request
is approved.
. Clarence Fischer of 126 - 6th Avenue NW requested the Planning Commission deny the request of
McCann and questioned the amount of bus traffic to and from the group home also located in Clinton
Village. Weyrens stated the buses provide transportation for the residents of the group home and
operation of such is a permitted use in an R1 Single Family ZOning District.
Utsch closed the public hearing at 7:46 pm.
Kalinowski stated it is her opinion that the request before the Commission is Within the guidelines of the
Ordinance. However, at the present time the property owner has one too many tenants and would need
to resolve that matter. . . --
Schneider stated that before a special use permit can be issued, the Planning Commission must find the
request to be within the standards outlined in the Ordinance. Schneider stated it is his opinion that the
fOllowing Special Use Standards as stated in the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.9 Subd 4 are
compromised:
a. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals,comfort, convenience
or general welfare of the neighborhood.
d. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses
i. Will have adequate facilities to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve
the proposed use.
Kalinowski questioned Schneider as to what he considers endangerment. Further, she stated that the
property owner does have sufficient off-street parking as he can park a maximum of three cars on his
property. Schneider responded that currently the cars are parked on the street. As such. residents and
children must navigate around the cars creating a poténtial safety hazard.
. Utsch stated that in his opinion allowing an owner occupied rental in Clinton Village would change the
character of the neighborhood, which is contradictory to the standards for granting a variance. Utsch
".
expressed concern that the property owner is currently in violation of the Ordinance, exceeding the ·
maximum number of tenants allowed.
Based on the testimony presented to the Planning Commission, Kalinowski made a motion to
recommend the City Council adopt the following resolution, denying the Special Use Permit
request of Kelly McCann. ,
\
Resolution of finding
The request of Kelly McCann for a special use permit came before the Planning Commission at a public
hearing held on August 6, 2001. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a special use permit to
allow an owner occupied rental unit in a R1, Single Family Zoning District.
The property is legally described as follows: Lot 009 Block 003 Clinton Village. The request for Special
Use has been submitted by Kelly McCann, 134 - 6th Avenue NW, 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 not consistent with the standards for a Special use Permit as stated in St.
Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd 4 (a-k). The following standards have not been satisfied:
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.9 Subd. 4(a): Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public ·
health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City.
Finding: Parking tenant vehicles on the street may cause a safety issue for residents, including children as they
may be required to navigate around the vehicles.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.9 Subd. 4(c): Will be designed, constructed, operated and
maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character
of the genera/vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area.
Finding: The proposed special use will be non conforming to the majority of the neighborhood changing the
character of the neighborhood.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.9 Subd. 4(d): Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing
or future neighboring uses.
Finding: At the present time there are no rental licenses issued in Clinton Village and the infusion of rental units
may change the use of the existing homes and discourage families from moving into the neighborhoods in the
future.
Therefore, based on the above findings, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendation:
Deny the Special Use Request of Kelly McCann to operate a owner occupied rental unit in an R1
Zoning District.
The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously.
AI Stellmach, Special Use Request - Mini Storaqe Units in HB Zoninq District and Variance on Exterior
Requirements: Utsch called the public hearing to order at 8:06 pm and stated the purpose of the hearing
is to consider a variance and special use permit to allow the construction of an additional storage facility
in a Highway Business Zoning District; and a variance to relieve the property owner of the exterior
building material requirements. The property is located on Ridgwood Road and is legally described as
Lot 003 Block 001 Neu Addition. The request has been submitted by Allan Stellmach, Ridgewood Self ·
Storage.
.
". St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.22 Subd. 7 (c) states that acceptable exterior building materials shall
include brick, stone, tip-up 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 at least 50% of the building (excluding windows and doors)
consist of brick, stone, tip-ap concrete panel and/or decorative concrete block. Any building undergoing .
renovation, repair or an addition, ~ as to require the issuance of a building permit shall be brought into
conformance with this subsection t the time repairs, renovation or additions are completed.
Allan Stellmach spoke on his owr behalf. Stellmach stated that he started this project seven (7) years
ago. When the project began t~e property was zoned light indistrial and all uses were considered by
special use permit. At that time' he presented a plan that included five (5) buildings. The first phase
consisted of one building, and·i3s time progressed additional buildings were constructed. Since the
origil1al buildin.gs ,«ere c()nstructed, the zoning classification for the property has been modified to
Highway Bu~iness.As such, the Planning Commission would need to issue a special use permit.
Further, the Ordinance regulating Highway Business includes a provision for exterior finish requirements.
Stellmach stated that he is seeking relief from the exterior requirements as his project has been in
progress for the past seven (7) years, prior to the enactment of the new zoning district.
Utsch closed the public hearing at 8:10 pm.
Commission member concurred with Stellmach that his project has been in progress and the change in
zoning district has caused the need for the variance. Further, the unique shape of the property in
question limits the type of development. Utsch clarified that when the last building is constructed,
(facing Ridgewood Road), the exterior requirements would not be waived.
.. Deutz made a motion to recommend the Council adopt the following findings and approve the
Special Use and Variance request of Allan Stellmach to construct two mini storage units.
Resolution of Finding
The request of Allan Stellmach for a special use permit and variance came before the Planning
CO[l1missìon at a public hearing held on August 6,2001. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a
Special Use Permit to allow the construction of two additional mini storage units and a variance granting
relief from exterior finish requirements of Ordinance 52.22 Subd. 7 (c).
The property is legally described as follows: Lot 003 Block 001 Neu Addition.
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).
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.7 Subd. 2(a): That there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question as to the intended use of the property
that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. The exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances must not be the result of ,!ctions taken by the petitioner.
Finding: The City initiated a change in zoning which resulted in additional requirements. The development of the
property has taken over seven years. When the development was initiated the City approved the development
. plan and denying the request at this time could create a hardship for the property owner.
Therefore, based on the above findings, the Planning Commission makes the following recomme~~~t.!on_:
Graeve made a motion to recommend the Council keep the zoning as Rl, Single Family for the ·
property adjacent to Highway 75 between College Avenue North and Third Avenue NE,
Ayes: Rassier, Graeve, Schneider
Nays: Lesnick, Kalinowski, Utsch, Deutz Motion Failed, 3:4:0
Deutz made a motion to table further discussion on the rezoning for the above "mè,ntioned
property until additional information on transitional zoning is provided to the Planhing
Commission. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. /
Area #5 - Resurrection Lutheran Church. Proposed change: Agricultural and E & E.
Lesnick made a motion to leave Resurrection Lutheran Church zoned Agricultural until the City
develops Public Zoning regulations. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed
unanimously.
th
Area #6 - The area located between College Avenue South and 4 Avenue SW. Proposed
change: College Avenue South to Chapel Lane - R1 to E & E; Chapel Lane to 4th Avenue SW- R1
to R2.
Rassier made a motion to recommend the Council zone the property between College Avenue
South and Chapel Lane as E & E; seconded by Graeve and passed unanimously.
Utsch stated that he has received comments regarding changing the zoning to R2 from Chapel Lane to
4th Avenue NW. Schneider stated that the proposed change looks better on paper and the Planning
Commission should reconsider this area. Kalinowski stated that the Planning Commission should review
the zoning regularly and this may be an area for future consideration. Rassier stated he feels the ·
property should be rezoned to R2.
Rassier made a motion to recommend the City Council zone the property between Chapel Lane
and 4th Avenue NW to R2 Multiple Family. The motion was seconded by Deutz.
Ayes: Kalinowski, Deutz, Utsch, Rassier
Nays: Graeve, Schneider, Lesnick Motion Carried 4:3:0
Area #7 - Property north of Old Highway 52. Proposed Change: R2 to R3
Weyrens stated that a portion of the property is already zoned R3 and the change would only affect the
rental units on the western edge. Therefore, Lesnick made a motion to recommend the Council leave
the property as currently zoned, a mix of R2 and R3; seconded by Graeve.
Ayes: Utsch, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Schneider, Graeve, Rassier
Nays: None. Abstain: Deutz Motion Carried 6:0:1
Area #8 - Property located between Clinton Village and the Millstream Monestary house.
Proposed Change: R1 to R3.
Based on the testimony received at the public hearing on July 16, 2001, Lesnick made a motion to
recommend the Council leave the above mentioned property zoned R1 Single Family. The motion
was seconded by Deutz.
Ayes: Utsch, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Schneider, Graeve, Deutz
Nays: Rassier Motion Carried 6:1:0
Minutes: Kalinowski made a motion to table approval of the minutes until the next meeting;
seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously.
Other Matters: Utsch stated that the Planning Commission should consider meeting twice a month until ·
the current projects are completed. Weyrens reported that a joint meeting between the City Council,
'. Planning Commission and Park Board has been scheduled for August 13, 2001 at 7:00 PM. The purpose
of the meeting is to review the proposed subdivision south of Kennedy School.
Adjourn: Lesnick made a motion to adjourn at 10:05 PM; seconded by Deutz and passed
uanimously.
)
I
JudyWeyrens
Administrator Clerk
j
.
.
. . .
I : ,
I
0') I I I
,
I I I
I I I
,\[> I
ã, -I I I ,
, fTl I I I
, I
~ lJ
¿;ç I I ,
I
'z I
I
æl
I J\ I ~ ~--------~------l
~~ -, (/) :,r-: '. >?t»!
~¡n II=¡
'" fTl
"J'" 0 I' ,... . "I'
" \J ; ·f.. ::..:. \.,' ';': ..1 : .\.:~. /:.....:":,- ,'. ~i
o,e;;:
z " ." .. I.
I "T:" .:......~.. :o'. :." r"
I '" ¡g
OJ . ." . .
I q ... .' '] ~
.' .' o.
, , . I~' . :.. . . . .:.' ~
I 9- \ . .: . : ..'. I'
~ . .
, ' . .
. . . : .
.:.. . ....
I '.¡ ,:" . . .... '," '.' ,. 'j
9-
,O-,Ot ,0 ,01 .:: ......:., ',..: ':.' :: ,', ~
t. " _. .... ~. " "J ~
J I I ,
I I Z
, ,
I I
, ,
I I Z
, I
I I
I -------.... ,
I -.-L JJ m
, ,"
m r
, Z
I I I 0 JJ
I ~f' z
"- "- I -I
, ;!¡n -
I 0
"J'" ¡¡; m ....1. (J)
,
! ,0-,9 q
¡;: I
I ,0-.9 "! 9- » ....1.
10' 0' t;) t;) I
~ ~ 9-
ET BAC ¡n -<
, OJ OJ 0 OJ
1 ~ ZI
'"
, "- ij "'5 ~~J!5J!r 0
I I ~; ~;§;~~ r
9-
"'!þ! '" -< ^ en
, ~ ê~~~~» -
I I !þ! :;J!Þ!!Þ!JJ -I
, R n ~~tnªtI)m f
I 0> ~t;)~ ~» u - ....1.
"0 0 i 00 0 -I
10' 0' W:: ~~'" OJ» ~
u , ~ Yi",'" '" ~
CJ I YJJn ~§~:t!r fTI
~ SET
~ ;'171 ë5 (')1"10 Z
I Z o~
'" I "- "- ¡n~~!þ!C m
~~>~S
I
I ~5!§J!-
"'a"'O
I ¡no ~O~~Z OJ š:
I ~~ ~~ g.. c
~¡n ;!O~?j 5
"''" ",~~8 z
, . . .' u¡ '"
. " I
... . . ..: 0. ~
I ¡gl;
I '" ~ ~~~~~"U
",,, q (J)
;!~ '" ... I !¡¡ 5~eg~»
I g-< 0 ~ ~~~~~~
I /, ~ ~~~~~Z
, '" Yic ;¡:f:>G)
I I u "~)o,
In~ '" 0> --"'''-10
, , .... ~ In"!<!~
I g¡ ~~;J!»
1 c" / I 9-
~~ In "m r
;g ;., ~~ OJO
, '\7~ , §!' ~z sgC
I fIo~~ CJ '" !þ!0o~Ç
¡n!þ!CJ e g o~zCJ
, ~~ ;¡: ¡n '" u u :I:¡!!~;J!::!
L._____ ~:e5? 0
OJ 'q gJ'" ~ - - 8~:I:CO
ge ~ ~ u)~~~z
'" ~ ~ ;.,~~..
CJCJ
In
~ '" :!J
0 t;) '"
~ b '"
~ ... '"
'" . ~ -------'5:--..-----------------------------------------------------
-<
CJ
~ 19th. A'Æ. NE
"O-.t~ ,0-,99 ,0-,01
,0-,9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------...----------------------
:!J 19th. A'Æ. NE
'"
'"
:I:
-<
CJ
!
~>,
mr Pn>JooI Pro¡.ot NoIM aM Add~ F1tm NorM and Add,..... -- -..
" 119 TANNER II ('¡raerne HD. Mahler, AlA ~- '"
~ '..::'-'. Principal ø
00\0 :J
ø
08/22/01 14 N. 7th Ave. 5ulte r-i è.
BILL CONLON 51. tlaud, tM !iØ'Ø z
0
500. (320) 251-0330 ,~ i
AS INDICATED . ,'",,'1 .;.<:..:1...., Ill: gJ$J W}-JtJn
. . . , , 1 . . I .. FfI: W}-4074 No. Revision/Issue Date
_T-__ _ - .. .~- - ··'~",,"-'-'-9___""'--'~_
About Page 1 of I
ABOUT TANNER®
Tanner's Concept is Unchanged & Unchallenged
Here's how to stop air line freeze-ups: Introduce a few drops
of a Tanner® De-icant into your air line using a Tanner
Dispenser. A Tanner Dispenser precisely delivering a Tanner
De-icant: That's a Tanner System!
. Safe· Economical· Easy to Size· Easy to Install· Easy to
Use
We are the Answer to the Aggravation & Cost of Compressed
Air Line Freeze-Ups.
-Many industries use compressed air as a
primary source of power. Too often, the air
. lines freeze up. The result is very costly - a shut
down-
How Much Does a Tanner® System Cost?
The only costs are the purchase of the Tanner® Dispenser and
the Tanner De-icant as needed. Starting at a few hundred
. dollars, a Tanner System is far less costly than expensive air
dryers. The truly important comparison, however, is to the
enonnous cost of being shut down!
.
http://www.tannersystems.comlabout.html 8/27/01
Industries Page 1 of 1
·
INDUSTRIES SERVED
lv/any industries use compressed air as a primary source of
power. Too often, the air lines freeze-up. The result is very
costly - a shut down. Over 72 years ago, my great grandfather,
Ernie Watkins, first solved this problem for the Northland /
Transportation Company (later Greyhound). Since then, many
industries all over the world have been using
our simple, safe, inexpensive and effective
system for stopping air line freeze-ups.
We want you to learn more.
Jon Watkins, President
Frequently Served Industries
· Sawmills' Asphalt Plants' Mines
· Environmental Cleanup Sites' Snowmaking
equipment
· Lumbering' Wastewater Treatment· Railroads
· Aircraft ground support (e.g., refueling) .
Quarries
· Marine applications' Agriculture
· Construction: Roads & highways, Buildings,
Tunnels, ·
Dams, Bridges, Pipelines, Airfields, Military
projects, Water & sewer lines, Aggregate plants,
Waterways, Site
preparation, Power plants
Some Interesting Applications:
· Pneumatic Cattle Gates
· Gas Station Service Air
· Pneumatic Bubblers on Dams or in Boat
Harbors
· Pneumatic Snow Plows on Trains
· Pneumatic Car Wash Doors
· Compressors on Junk Yard Cranes
· Pneumatic Bag Houses
· Pneumatic Arc Welders
·
http://www.tannersystems.comlIndustries.html 8/27/0 I
Dispensers Page 1 of 1
TANNER® DISPENSERS
Tanner Dispensing Units are available in 9 specially designed
models. There is one that is right for practically any air system )
& application. Every Tanner Dispenser installs quickly and
should more than pay for itself in the fIrst season's use.
Designed for safety, they are easy to operate and maintain and, /
.I
except for the Frosto® Electric Vaporizer, they use no
electricity. A Tanner Dispenser is the only safe and efficient J
means of dispensing Tanner De-Icants into your air system.
-Click On-
COMPACT DISPENSERS (Air lines up to 2")
TANNERID TANKS (Portable air lines 3" to
6")
FROSTOB) VAPORIZER (All High Volume
Stationary Air lines)
. .
.
.
http://www.tannersystems.com/Dispensers.html 8/2710 I
Oe-Icants Page I of 1
·
TANNER® DE-I CANTS
TANNER DE-ICANTS are available in three advanced
Tanner Formulas, TANNERGAS®. NO-TOX 2@and
FROSTO@. When Tanner De-Icants are injected directly thru'
our dispensers into your compressed-air equipment they bond
with the moisture and prevent it from freezing. Additionally,
Tanner De-Icants have special additives that prevent corrosion
and inhibit rust, and a special lubricant that helps prevent 0-
rings and other rubber or synthetic parts from drying.
-Click On-
TANNERGAS@
NO TOX 2®
fROSTO@
·
·
http://w"\vw.tannersystems.com/De- I cants. html 8/27/01
FAQ Page 1 of 1
.
Frequently asked Questions
CUSTOM DE-ICING SOLUTIONS
From Tanner Systems
Need a tank that handles operating pressures greater than 200 PSIG
(14 kg/cm2)? Just call Tanner! We custom-build systems to handle
virtually any pressure requirement and any size air line. Call or
write for a free quotation.
WHAT TANNER SYSTEMS DO:
PREVENT CONDENSED WATER VAPOR IN COMPRESSED AIR
LINES FROM FREEZING:
· DOWN TO MINUS 72 F. AMBIENT
TEMPERATURES AT FULL LINE PRESSURE
· LOW DEW-POINTS NOT DEPENDENT UPON
. REDUCED AIR LINE PRESSURES
· DE-ICING IS CONTINUOUSLY EFFECTIVE - DOES
NOT DEGRADE OVER PERIOD OF TIME - A
UNIQUE BONDING AGENT ADDITIVE ADHERES
TO MOISTURE
. · EFFECTIVELY PREVENTS FREEZING WHETHER
OR NOT AN AFTER-COOLER IS BEING USED AND
IF OIL CARRYOVER FROM COMPRESSOR IS
EXPERIENCED
· DE-ICANT FEED IS AUTOMATICALLY
PROPORTIONED TO AIR USE (Except in Frosto
Vaporizer)
· DE-ICANT FEED IS APPROXIMATELY 200 TO 300
PPM BASIS WEIGHT OR VOLUME - NOMINAL
RATE IS ONE DROP PER 20 CU.FT. OF AIR USED
· OPERATING COST FOR DE-ICERS IS
APPROXIMATELY 2 TO 3 CENTS PER 1000 CU.FT.
OF AIR USED - LOWER FOR VAPORIZERS
.
http://www.tannersystems.com/FAQ.html 8/27/01
Contacts Page I of 1
·
Tanner Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 59
Sauk Rapids, MN 56379-0059
U.S.A.
PHONE: 320-252-6454
TOLL FREE: 800-461-6454
FAX: 320-252-3001
IVEBSITE: www.tannersystems.com
EMAIL: tannerinciWaol.com
·
·
http://wwv.¡. tannersystems. comlContacts.html 8/27/0 I
TIM BORRESè)¡ : ).:~.~:!.. t¡'·,t. iL. '. ':,J I..
· 12 3RD AVE NW ' ..,\ ç ".~ '
ST JOSEPH MN ,\'.
I. '<\ ,\...... ....,¡:
H 363-4769 W 363-4435 ,\
'\ -' I
,// Baseball field
i
/
J
Alley Alley 132'
40't
54' New 83'
198' Garage
· 30'
w 26'
1-1
0..
CI.:) !20'
.......
1-1
('1) 22'
('1)
.......
66' N
HOUSE
22 x 66 W+E
1452sq
20' 34'
.. ..
S
! 32'
· Minnesota Street
-
.
v'
<::1
'V
'V
'7
'V
.\9i ~
~ 'V
r---
, "(j "(j
, Î I \7
'7~- '7 ~
í7-
___ ; 'V
! -v1 "1
FJ- ,
. ' II! 'V ,---'
"I . '
, 'I . ,I . ,
C " ¡, YJ '
! I' !
. II "1 / !
"q'vlL// ,I
"< ' !
V7 ' ' '
¿. '., " '
, .
! \, ~ ,! II ~,'
\ 'J ,i
., \ " . . ,
- V-I I I
--1 '
I
, \7 I !
, q "':~\\'J ,," i ¡ Jj
, .e,<' I I',
',~ " \ " " q ,',I 'V II """"."
"'" I
\7 'í",
\7 . I' ',.,"""" 1 ; ..-1
~ "(j I ""
~ 1'-
~ i ",
__ _ ¡ "c.. .
h i ~
I,i L.·~ L ... v ¡ JI ", _____1 1:'-1 C7:
. I I ...1 '..J
, ! . ¡~ :" '
V.:! . ; .. / ,
~, /.. .,. o¿ ''.. ' . \
...1 . ( ,'<. -7
::::; :;;~ ¡ ~ ~...
f--- lÜ V)
,-I ')) ,/) :< ?;' ':',,~
,___, (j) LÌ l~J
>1 ~~
~~I-r-
U W
I æ
· :r: I- w
U :,¿ p:¡ u
æ :::;: w I-
rÎ\v « æ u
I l- V)
I- t5 ~
u
« /:E ë9
.,
[
,
;
;
;
I
!
I I I II i ~;' ¡
~~ I
¡ ¡
, ,
~ ; I
i.l_ ~~ ,-,
¡-- i
': i ,
-.
.---
,.i.' , ,-
2: ¡
I .-
! -,
~ ,-. -.
¡ ¡
/0
! x
i ~-}- --
I I -
I .- , ..
~ ~J ! -
¡ 1/, ¡ .-
"
I LC' i
[ -
· ¡ '. ~ i ;
~-, :.1
I .>{ 'j
,,j !
I G i
I
I Z I
>------< I
i ;:~ ì
¡ ~, I
2: ¡
I I
I I i ¡'- -.{,
{- .<:-.2 ~l
.~ .6 .,;-
.2-.~
I I I I I I T ~f
i
I I I ! ,__ -I
I I i
[
¡ I
I I I
¡ I ~I
¡
I [ ¡ I ' ,
I I u,
l i ,
,
I I ·v
¡ ! j
1 ,.,
1. .,'
, ./,
· '--- -----
------
... '\
V
t;¡M
!II'
I- "M
U
W
VJ
. ¡::::¡¡::::¡ U
<[¡::::¡ I-
U<[ U
æ:VJ
II-W
U~ÇQ
æ::::EW
<[ æ:
I-
I-<[Z
UW<[
<[:::E,
~ ~ ~~~~=~ ~
;h!~~ ~~~~~~~
~ r: LJ f'L 2 ~-, ~ c', i: ~ 3 ~~
"
"-
. ' '
~
v'
f.L '--~J --~;
- '
" '
u C/) ,;,
';' -è
..
, ~M
,. '
D ",
"
0)?
~<
'"
..:>
V" .L L'1
',"
;-
Vi
,~- UJ
I
\
.
.
Proposed Amendment to Chapter 52.14, Subd. 15 of the City Code entitled
"General Fencing, Screening, Landscaping and Storage."
(e) Outdoor storage: Commercial and Indust~ial Uses.
1. Except as allowed by district u~e ~ovisions, outside storage of equipment,
materials and inventory as a princ/pal or accessory use for commercial and
industrial uses shall require an c6nditional (interim) use permit subject to the
provisions of this Ordinance. All commercial/industrial outside storage shall
conform to the following conditIons:
aa. The area occupied is not within a required front or required side yard.
bb. The storage area is totally fully screened and landscaped according
to a plan approved by the Zoning Administrator who reserves the
right to consult the Planning Commission and City Council for
approval.
cc. If abutting a Residential District or a residential use, screening and
landscaping is provided according to a plan approved by the Zoning
Administrator who reserves the right to consult the Planning
Commission and City Council for approval.
dd. The storage area is surfaced to control dust with approved material
. such as crushed rock, bituminous, asphalt, concrete, etc.
ee. Any/alllighting shall be directed away from the public right-of-way
and from neighboring residences.
.