The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002 [02] Feb 04 . College Avenue NW ity of St. Joseph P.O. Box 668, St. Joseph, MN 56374 (320) 363-7201 St. Joseph Planning Commission Fax: 363-0342 February 4, 2002 CLERK! 7:00 PM ADMJNISTRATOR Judy Weyrens MAYOR 1. 7 :00 PM Call to Order Larry J. Hosch 2. Approve Agenda COUNCILORS Bob Loso 3. Approve Minutes Cory Ehlert Kyle Schneider 4. 7:05 PM - Ted Schmid, Concept Plan Northland Six Alan Rassier 5. 7:30 PM - Bill Nelson, Site Plan Approval-Roske Property St. Joseph Business Center - 8 unit business complex 6. "7 :45 PM - Mark Lambert, Apartment Complex a. Variance Request - Height . b. PURD Application, Special Use Application to Construct an apartment complex 7. Other Matters 8. Adjourn . DRAFT October 1,2001 . Page 1 of6 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, October 1, 2001 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. . Members Present: Chair Gary Utsch. Commissioners S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Mike Deutz, Jim Graeve, Kurt Schneider. Council Liaison AI Rassier. Administrator/Clerk Judy Weyrens. . Others Present: Kay Lemke, Dorothy Court, Ellen Wahlstrom, Jim Krebsbach, Lance Honer, Bradley Torok, Art Reber, Richard Adams, Al Witte, Leo Buettner, Tom Borresch, Shawn Christen. Approve Agenda: Kalinowski made a motion to approve the agenda with the removal of item 7 (c), Public Hearing, Nancy Schmidt; seconded Deutz, Discussion: Weyrens clarified that Ms. Schmidt has withdrawn her request for a public hearing requesting a special use permit to secure a rental license. Schmidt has provided the City with an affidavit that the property will not be rented. The motion passed unanimously, Minutes - August 6.2001: Lesnick made a motion to approve the minutes of August 6, 2001 as presented; seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously, Minutes - September 10. 2001: Graeve requested the minutes be amended to change the language on page three to state that Commissioner Deutz stepped down from bis chair due to a conflict of interest, not a potential conflict of interest. Weyrens stated that the Commission cannot detymúne a conflict of interest. Therefore, the wording of potential is correct. Deutz stated that he does-not feel it is a conflict of interest as . the Planning Commission is only a recommending body and as such has no decision making power. If the Planning Commission had decision making power then it would be a conflict. The Commission agreed to . leave the language as written. Graeve requested the wording on page two regarding Tanner System be changed from: When questioned if they have ever had anycomplaintsfrom neighbors, representatives stated that they have always been good neighbors and do not have any complaints. TO: When questioned if they have ever had any complaints regarding contamination or fuel spills, representatives stated they have always been good neighbors and do not have any complaints, Kalinowski made a motion to approve the minutes of September 10, 2001 with the correction stated above regarding Tanner Systems, The motion was seconded by Lensick. Ayes: Dtsch, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Graeve, Rassier Nays: None Abstain: Schneider, Deutz Motion Carried 5:0:2 Bob Herges - Site Plan, Development South of Kennedv School: Bob Herges appeared before the Commission to discuss bis proposed development south of Kennedy School. Herges stated that he is in the process of completing the design work for the proposed development and questioned if the Planning Commission had any concerns before the plans are completed. Herges stated that since the preliminary site plan meeting the plan has changed to allow for three (3) apartment units rather than one large unit. Utsch questioned if the proposed development will have access to County Road 121 (College Avenue South). Herges responded that the plat does not abut County Road 121 (College A venue South) and the College and Monastery of St. Benedict is not receptive to continuing a road from south of the proposed development to County Road 121 (College A venue South). Utsch stated that the City needs to establish an east/west corridor to move traffic from the neighborhoods to major arterials. The Commission was in agreement that the development must include more than one ingress/egress. . Rassier questioned the Park dedication fee for the development. Herges stated that he has proposed to pave the walking trail system within the development and connect the trail to Klinefelter Park in lieu of payment. The path will be six (6) feet wide and improved with asphalt. DRAFT October 1, 2001 , Page 2016 Graeve questioned if the development will include any affordable housing units. Heid responded that the plat does include some dwelling units near $ 110,000 as wèll as apartment units that will be moderately priced. The Commission was in general agreement with the design of the development and encouraged Herges to move forward with the prelinùnary plat process. Doug Stang - Stang Custom Cabinets: Doug Stang appeared before the Commission to discuss the pennitted uses in a General Business area and whether or not a cabinet shop is a pennitted use. After considerable discussion the C9mmission determined that Stang could make application for a special use pennit as it is similar in nature to other general business uses as stated in the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances. Stang stated that he has agreed to remodel the building and fix the exterior as part of his lease agreement. Building Official Nancy Scott questioned the type of work that will be completed in the facility. Stang responded that he will only be constructing the cabinetry in the facility and he will not do any finish work. There will be no outside storage and the garbage receptacle will be stored indoors. Scott agreed to meet Stang and complete an inspection to verify any code issues that will need to be addressed. If after the inspection Stang wishes to move forward he should contact the City Offices for an application for a Special Use Pennit. Lance Honer, Re-zoning Request. Agricultural to Multiple Familv: Utsch called the hearing to order and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider re-zoning a parcel of property currently zoned A, Agricultural to R-3, Multiple Family. The zoning change is requested to allow the property owner to construct a multi-family dwelling structure. . The property is legally described as: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10 in Township 124 North, of Range 29, less the Northerly 26 rods thereof, and less that part thereof lying Southerly of the Great Northern Railway right-of-way, and less that part platted as Lot 12 of Auditor's Subdivision No.4, an . Addition to the City of St. Joseph, and less railroad right-of-way, and subject to highway easement and other easements and restrictions of record. Containing 11.84 acres, more or less. The request for rezoning has been submitted by Honer Partnership Inc., 21- 21't Avenue North, Waite Park MN 56387. Lance Honer stated that the Honer Partnership is requesting rezoning to develop the parcel described above with mulit unit apartment buildings. The site will contain senior rental, market rate rental and student rental units. I At this time Utsch opened the floor for comments and questions. There being no comments or questions I the public hearing was closed at 7:50 PM. I Schneider stated it is his opinion that before property is rezoned, the Planning Commission should be presented a site plan for development. He also questioned whether or not the proposed site -is the best area for rental units. Schneider stated the Commission and City Council need to determine if the City needs I additional R3 housing or if enough area is provided already. ¡ Utsch stated that rezoning at this time does not authorize the construction of an apartment building. Rather, J it allows the property owner to prepare site plans for consideration at a PURD hearing. Any apartment complex over 12 units must be issued a Special Use Permit through a PURD process. Honer stated that his ¡. company is requesting rezoning at this time because considerable engineering must be completed before the property can be developed. If the property cannot be rezoned his company does not wish to incur the \ additional costs. I I I DRAFT October 1, 2001 . Page 3 016 Kalinowski questioned how many units would be developed on the site, and if Honer has prepared a site plan for development. Honer stated thathe has not prepared a detailed site plan. However, he has a rough plan of how the site will be developed. Without any engineering details, it is anticipated to have a total of 55 units on the proposed site and the build~gs will be constructed in a horseshoe design. Schneider again stated that he does not believe it is prudent to rezone property without first viewing a site plan. The City recently reviewed possible areas for R3 and this parcel was not included. Deutz responded that until recently this parcel was located in St. Joseph Township. Rassier stated that while he feels the proposed site is a good location for multiple family housing he too would like to see a site plan before rezoning any property. Rassier made a motion to table further discussiòn on the proposed rezoning until the November 5, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, The motion was seconded by Kalinowski and passed unanimously. Commissioner Deutz stepped down from his chair at 8:20 PM. Mike Deutz. Rezoning request. R1 Single Familv to R3 Multiple Familv: Utsch opened the hearing at 8 :20 PM and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider re-zoning a parcel of property currently zoned R-1, Single Family to Highway Business. The zoning change is requested to allow the property owner to sell or develop the property as commercial. The property is legally described as: Lot 009; Block 002 - Lots 9 & 10 Less E lOT Block 2 Townsite ofSt. Joseph . AND Lot 004 Block 013; Townsite ofSt. Joseph The request for rezoning has been submitted by Mike Deutz; PO Box 634; St. Joseph MN 56374. Deutz spoke on his own behalf. He stated that both the properties are currently student rental units and he would like the opportunity to develop both sites commercially. At the present time he is working with an individual to rent one of the properties but it will need to be rezoned. Deutz stated that it is his opinion that all the property abutting County Road 75 will eventually become commercial and should be rezoned as such. Deutz further stated that one of the properties abuts the commercial zoning district. At this time Utsch opened the floor for comments and questions. Jerry Hasselbrink spoke on behalf of property owner Art Klein, 103 Ash Street East. Hasselbrink stated that the property he is representing Ï$ occupied by two vulnerable adults and feels that rezoning the property would be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood currently is a quiet family neighborhood and rezoning the property to the north of his clients' property would destroy the family nature. The rezoning of these properties has the potential to have a domino effect on the remaining neighborhood. The City should be fmding ways to keep senior citizens and families in neighborhoods, not destroy their character. The rezoning of the above mentioned property would also be spot zoning and any Planner can provide information that spot zoning is bad public policy. Utsch read a letter prepared by Dorothy Anderson of 103 Ash Street East. The letter stated objection to the proposed rezoning as she felt the neighborhood characteristics would cease to exist. She also questioned the motives of the Planning Commission and Council for making such a change. . Schneider clarified that any property owner has the right to petition for rezoning. Even though Deutz is a Planning Commissioner, he still owns property and has rights as a property owner. However, Mr. Deutz is seated in the audience to avoid any conflict of interest. DRAFT October 1,2001 . Page 4 of6 Ellen Wahlstrom of 409 - 8th Avenue SE spoke in objection to the proposed rezoning. Wahlstrom encouraged the Commission to deny the request and retain thé neighborhood characteristics. Wahlstrom is of the opinion that if the property is rezoned to commercial, Highway 75 will look like Division Street in S1. Cloud. When driving down County Road 75 it currently has the appearance of a residential area and that is what the City should retain. Doris Johnson of 35 - 1st Avenue NE stated objection to the rezoning request and clarified that the properties for which rezoning is being requested are not surrounded by rental units or commercial uses. Kay Lemke of 33 Ash Street East spoke in objection to the proposed rezoning. Lemke agreed that rezoning the property could change the characteristics of the neighborhood and requested the Commission deny the request. In her opinion this is a gradual encroachment upon the remaining residential neighborhood. Shawn Christen of 26 Birch Street East spoke in objection to the proposed rezoning. Christen stated that in his opinion the neighborhood is more residential than commercial and should remain that way. Christen further questioned the need for more commercially zoned property and stated it is his opinion the City does not need additional commercial property. Kay Lemke of33 Ash Street East stated that if the property is rezoned, traffic will increase in the neighborhood creating a safety concern. Utsch closed the public hearing at 8:40 PM Lesnick stated that after listening to the public input it is her opinion the property should remain zoned Rl Single Family until a development plan has been submitted. . Kalinowski stated that the Commission did agree to consider individual requests for rezoning along County Road 75. There are many businesses that could be placed along County Road 75 that would look residential in character, such as an insurance office or craft store. Deutz stated the house located at 24 Birch Street West is in dire need of repair. The best use for that property would be to demolish the home and construct a commercial building. Deutz stated it was his opinion that at the August 6, 2001 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission agreed to consider each request for rezoning along County Road 75 as they were submitted. One of the reasons the Planning Commission decided against for not rezoning the entire area along County Road 75 commercial is that residential property owners may face a hardship when trying to sell the property. Deutz is requesting the same consideration as a residential property owner. Rassier stated that he can agree to rezone the property at 24 Birch Street East to commercial but indicated the property at 400 - 15t Avenue NE should retain RI, Single Family zoning. The property at 24 Birch abuts commercial property and in his opinion would not be spot zoning. However, the property at 400 - l5t Avenue NE is in a residential neighborhood and changing the zoning would be spot zoning. Utsch concurs with Kalinowski that the Planning Commission did agree to review each petition for rezoning and reiterated ,the property abutting County Road 75 should be zoned commercial. Graeve stated his objection to the proposed rezoning and referred to the Goals and Objectives of the S1. Joseph Comprehensive Plan. One of the frrstgoals is to protect the residential neighborhoods, and the proposed rezoning of the property stated above in is direct conflict with this goal. Further, Graeve questioned the provision in the S1. Joseph Code of Ordinances whereby 50% of the property owners must petition for rezoning before a hearing is considered. Kalinowski stated that the Ordinance refers to an amendment change, not necessarily a rezoning request. The Commission requested Weyrens to contact the . City Attorney for clarification on the process for rezoning. DRAFT October 1, 2001 Page 5 0[6 · Kalinwoski made a motion to table the rezoning request of Michael Deutz to November 5, 2001 at which time the process for rezoning will be clarified, The motion was seconded by Graeve. Ayes: Kalinowski, Lesnick, Schneider, Graeve Nays: Utsch, Rassier Motion Carried 4:2:0 Deutz resumed his chair àt 9:05 PM Richard Adams, Comtrac Site Plan Approval: Richard Adams appeared before the Commission to request a lot split and site plan approval for a 7200 square foot building. Adams stated that he has signed a purchase agreement with Leo Buettner to purchase the southerly 400' of Lot 2 Block 1 of the Buettner Business Park Plat. Adams stated that he owns a company called Comtrac, a specialty contractor fabricating communication towers. The executive offices are located in Backus and he is looking for an additional site for warehousing. In addition to the executive offices, he rents a facility in Paynesville. This is the facility that would be relocated to St. Joseph as it is more centrally located. The proposed site does not currently have electricity, but Comtrac will be working with Stearns Electric if the site plan is approved. The site has water and sewer but does not have a paved road. The future improvements for the Business Park include the construction of 15th Avenue NE and Elm Street East. Adams stated that not having a black topped road to his facility is not a concern. Typically employees leave from the warehouse on Monday and return Friday. Comtrac has equipment to remove snow and they could also blade the gravel road. Weyrens presented the Commission with a letter from the City Engineer requesting that the road be improved before the site is develQped. When questioned as to the time frame for construction, Adams stated that he needs to be operating in a new · facility by December of2001. Therefore, it is imperative that the Commission act on this matter at this time. Architect Brad Torok discussed the proposed building. The building will be approximately 7200 square feet constructed of steel and rock faced. Two drainage ponds will be provided on the site. The facility will be used for housing large equipment and materials and will have two small offices: The offices will consume less than 10 percent of the building. Since the roads are not yet constructed the driveways will be gravel also. Torok stated that until the elevations are known it is not prudent to install driveways. The parking lot is proposed as a second phase of the development, as Comtrac would prefer to wait until the roads are constructed. Utsch clarified that the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances requires industrial and commercial projects to have an improved parking lot that is striped. The Commission agreed that the property owner must complete the driveway in spring of 2002. Utsch stated that he would like to table this matter for clarification from the City Attorney and Engineer on outstanding issues. Adams responded that he cannot wait for a decision and one m1,lst be made at this meeting. The Commission had considerable discussion on the unimproved access and if it is prudent to allow development before roads are constructed. Included in the discussion was fire protection and concern was expressed that protection may be limited, possibly causing liability to the City. Deutz inquired the type of fencing that would be installed. Torok responded that chain link fencing with lathes would be installed. Deutz made a motion to recommend the City Council approve the lot split request and site plan for Comtrac, contingent upon the following: 1. The property will be screened with lathing 2. The driveway on Elm Street will be paved according to the direction of the City · Engineer 3, Adequate ingress/egress issues shall be referred to the City Attorney and City Engineer for approval. DRAFT . October 1,2001 Page 60f6 . 4. Fire Chief and Building Official Approval 5. The parking lot will be installed as required in the St~ Joseph Code of Ordinances, 6. 15th Avenue NE will be constructed according to the plans of the City Engineer 7. The undeveloped portion of the property to the north will be maintained as green space and meet the guidelines of the St, Joseph Code of Ordinances The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously, Tom Borresch, Building Addition Request: Tom Borresch appeared before the Commission to discuss his plans for expansion at the site located at 8856 Ridgewood Road. Borresch stated that he will take down the existing accessory building ifhe can add on to the existing building. Utsch stated that ifhe can meet the requirements, including the exterior requirements an addition is feasible. Borresch stated that he will install brick venire on the building to meet the Ordinance requirements. Scott questioned the time line for completion as the accessory building does not meet code and must be removed. Borresch stated that he is uncertain as to when he will complete the addition but he would have it completed no later than July 1, 2002. Scott stated that if the building is to remain even temporarily it must be moved as it is not designed to handle a large snow load. ' :Q.assier made a motion authorizing Borresch to make application for a building permit to construct àn addition to the structure located at 8856 RidgewoodRoad provided that the all the Ordinances and State Building Codes can be meet. The addition must be completed by June 1, 2002 and the temporary accessory building may remain until that time provided that the building is moved, or a liability release is given to the Building Official. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously, . Old Business: Weyrens reported that a Transportation Planning meetirÍg will be established to discuss the proposed east/west road in Northland and the east/west road abutting Graceview Estates. Adiourn: Lesnick made a motion to adjourn at 10:30 PM; seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously, Judy Weyrens Administrator/Clerk . Draft December 19, 2001 Page 1 of3 . Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission met in Special Session on Wednesday, December 19,2001 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Gary Utsch. Commissioners S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Kurt Schneider, Mike Deutz, Jim Graeve. Council Liaison Al Rassier. Administrator Clerk Judy Weyrens. Others Present: Bob Herges, Rick Heid, Tom Herkinoff, Linda Brown. Approve' Agenda: Deutz made a motion to approve the agenda with the addition of Commissioner announcements; seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. Bob Herges, Rick Heid - Graceview Estates Preliminary Plat: Utsch stated that he along with the City Engineer, City Administrator and Public Works Director met with the developers to review the proposed development. The following is a list of issues raised at the public hearing along with possible resolutions. CONCERN RAISED AT HEARING POSSIBLE RESOLUTION The proposed development will create additional traffic 4th, 5th and 7th Avenues will be posted with seven ton through residential neighborhoods. weight restrictions. Construction delivery vehicles cannot access seven ton roads. Rather than extending 4th Avenue SE, 5th Avenue SE could be extended. This change would not move traffic straight through to County Road 75 and people may choose an alternate route. . A temporary construction road should be installed adjacent to Lot 5 Block 8 Residents on 95th Avenue requested the developer The developer has already changed the plan to change the design so that similar style of homes will be construct bay homes adjacent to 95th A venue rather adjacent to their property. than the original design where Town homes would abut 95th Avenue. Access to County Road 121/College Avenue South The developers do not own the property that abuts should be required. County Road 121 Therefore, they cannot construct a road :trom the proposed development to County Road 121. However, the property owner, (College of St. Benedict), has agreed to allow a temporary construction road. The City Council and Planning Commission have agreed that an east/west corridor (Field Street) needs to be constructed at the southern edge of the proposed development. However, the construction of Field Street will not occur until at least 2006. Park Dedication Fee The Park Board will be meeting to discuss allowing the developers to pave walking trails and connect the . trails to Klinefelter park in lieu of payment of the Park Dedication fees Draft December 19,2001 Page 2 of3 The Commission spent considerable time discussing access to County Road 121(College Avenue South). Herges . stated that he and Heid recently met with the College of St. Benedict to discuss access to County Road 121. The College is in the process of selling a portion of the property in question for a commercial building. The proposed access to County Road 121 has the potential of benefiting the commercial project. Therefore, Herges stated that he and Heid are trying to come to an agreement with the College. At this time the College is in the process of appraising the land and once the appraisal is completed they will meet again \vith the College of St. Benedict. Herges is hopeful that they v.rill reach an agreement v.rith the College. Deutz questioned if the City has the authority to condemn property for the purpose of providing access roads. \Veyrens stated that although the City does have the that authority it is hoped that the College and the developer will come to an agreement. Schneider questioned if the City could give the developers a deadline as to when they have to have the access completed. Weyrens stated that the issue before the Planning Commission at this time is the preliminary plat. It is important to make sure the road connections are planned and secured within the development. After the preliminary plat is approved the developer will come back to the Planning Commission requesting [mal approval of the first phase of the development. The Planning Commission could consider limiting the number of homes to be built before the access to County Road 121 is complete. Herges stated that if they owned the property to County Road 121 they would build the access in the first phase. However, since they do not own the land they have no right to construct the proposed road. Graeve stated that the road to County Road 121 is crucial in making the downtown area easily accessible to residents of this area. Rassier made a motion to recommend the City Council adopt the following Resolution of finding, approving the Preliminary Plat for Graceview Estates; the motion was seconded by Kalinowski and passed unanimously. Resolution of finding The request of Bob Herges and Rick Heid for a P.D.R.D. application and rezoning request came before the Planning . Commission at a public hearing held on December 3, 2001. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a preliminary plat, P.D.R.D. application issuing a special use permit to develop approx. 91 acres with mixed housing; and to rezone the property ftom current Agriculture to R-1 Single Family. The property is located south of Baker Street and West of 7th Avenue SE/95th Avenue. The property is legally described as: The Southeast Quarter of The South East Quarter (SW 1. SE '.I..) of Section Ten (10) in Township One Hundred Twenty -Four (124) North, of Range Twenty-nine (29) in Stearns County, Minnesota, LESS AND EXCEPT; The North 66 feet thereof AND ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT the East 30 feet thereof. The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1. NE 1/4) of Section Fifteen (15), in Township One Hundred Twenty-four (124) North, Range Twenty-nine (29) West n Stearns County, Minnesota, LESS AND EXCEPT: Commencing at The Northwest corner of said NE 1/4 NE 1.; thence East on an assumed bearing along the North line of said NE 1f. NE '.I.., a distance of 500 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 00 degree 09 minuets 26seconds East parallel with the West line of said NE 1f. NE 1. a distance of 1330.93 feet to the South line of said NE 1f. NE '.I..; Thence North 89 degree 57minutes 43 seconds East along said South line of NE '.I.. NE II.; a distance of 819.95 fee to the East line of said section; thence North 00 degree 10 minutes 42 seconds West along said East line a distance of 1330.38 feet to the Northeast corner of said Section; Thence West along the North line of said Section 819.47 feet to the point of beginning and there tenninating. AND The Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW 1. NE 1f.) of Section Fifteen (15), in Township One Hundred Twenty-four (124) North, of Range Twenty-nine (29) West in Stearns County, Minnesota, LESS AÌ'm EXCEPT: That part of the NW 1. NE 1., of Section 15, Township 124, Range 29, described as follows: Beginning at the NE Corner of said Quarter-Quarter, said Point being south 89 degrees 1 I minutes West, 1320 feet from the NE Corner of said Section; Thence along the East line of said Quarter-Quarter, due South 310 feet; thence South 89 degrees 11 minutes West 250 feet; thence due north 310 feet to a point on the North line of said Section; thence along said North line North89 degrees 11 minutes East, 250 feet to the point of beginning. - Draft December 19, 2001 Page 3 of 3 . The requestfor preliminary plat and P .V.R.D. development has been submitted by Bob Herges and Rick Heid; 25 N 11th Avenue, St. CloudMN 56303. In consideration ofthe infonnation 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 [mdings: The proposed development is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements of the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances. Therefore, based on the above [mdings, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendation: Approval of the P.U.R.D. application granting a special use permit to allow for the development of91 acres with mixed housing and to rezone the above mentioned property from Agricultural to R-1 Single Family. Approval is contingent upon the following: 1. 4 th, 5th, and 7th A venues are posted as 7 ton roads 2. The northern access to County Road 121 will be moved to Lot 5 Block 8 3. The property abutting 95th A venue will be developed with Bay homes rather than the proposed T ownhomes. 4. The Park Board approves the Park Dedication Fee - allowing the paved walking path to meet the park dedication requirement. 5. A temporary construction road will be installed at the access mentioned in #2 above. 6. Only phase one of the development can be approved without a paved access to County Road 121. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to come to an agreement with the adjoining property owner for access to County Road 121. If an agreement cannot be reached the developer should notify the Planning Commission. 7. Approval of the City Attorney and Building Inspector . 8. Approval of the City Engineer - meeting all the requirements detailed in a letter dated November 28,2001 (See exhibit "A") Lesnick made a motion recommending the City Council mapping the northern County Road 121 extension to Graceview Estates on the Official Transportation Map; and, if the developer cannot reach an agreement with the property owner the City will construct the road within the means available to municipalities assessing affected property owners, The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously Miscellaneous: Graeve reported the Fruelingsfest planning will begin on January 14, 2002 at the St. Joseph Community Fire Hall. The theme for the 2002 event is "Celebrate Historic Baseball." Adiourn: Deutz made a motion to adjourn at 8:30 PM; seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously, Judy Weyrens Administrator/Clerk ,;-. . DRAFT January 7,2002 Page 1 of7 . Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, January 7,2002 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Gary Utsch. Commissioners S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Kurt Schneider, Jim Graeve, Mike Deutz. Council Liaison Al Rassier. Administrator Clerk Judy Weyrens. City Representatives Present:· City Attorney John Scherer, City Engineer Amy Schaefer. Others Present: Joyce Albrecht, Mark Lambert, Carol Butkowski, Mel Butkowski, Chris Vance, Tim Muske. Approve Agenda: Lesnick made a motion to approve the agenda with the addition of Finken Water Softner Lot Split request; the motion was seconded by Kalinowski and passed unanimously, Public Hearing - Variance Request. Subwav Foods: Chair Utsch opened the public hearing at 7:05 and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a 100 percent variance on the exterior requirements for property in the Highway 75 Business District. The variance is being sought to allow an 8' x 10' accessory building to be constructed without meeting the exterior requirements. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.22 Subd. 7 ( c) states acceptable building materials shall include brick, stone, tip- up concrete panel, decorative concrete block or glass. Wood siding, plastic and other combustible materials are not listed as acceptable, and shall not be used for building exteriors. The request for variance has been submitted by William Nelson, PO Box 42, Long Prairie MN. Joyce Albrecht spoke on behalf of William Nelson. Albrecht stated that she had an 8' x 10' metal shed erected at the Subway site during the summer to be used for storage oflawn equipment. Before the building was erected she . stated she contacted the Building Official and was told she could install the shed as it is placed today. After the shed was installed she received a letter stating that the building needed to meet exterior requirements. Therefore, Albrecht stated she is applying for a variance. Rassier stated that he does not object to the storage building, but feels the building should meet the exterior requirements. Albrecht responded that had she been aware of the requirements she would have erected a building that met the Ordinance requirements. Deutz questioned if the building was built on site or if the building was prefabricated; and if the building is plåced on a cement pad. Albrecht stated that the building is prefabricated and is not placed on a cement pad. Deutz stated that he is not against the aluminum building, but is not sure that the building meets the intent of the Ordinance. Deutz further stated that it is his understanding the Highway Business Zoning District was created to ensure the Highway 75 corridor would be developed aesthetically. Graeve questioned Albrecht whether she would be willing to modify the building to meet the minimum I requirements. Albrecht stated that she felt she complied with the Ordinance when she discussed the matter with the , Building Official and at this time the only remedy is to purchase a new building. The current building cannot be modified. , Although Schneider empathized with Albrecht, in his opinion the building needs to be modified and suggested the Commission consider allowing Albrecht until June2002 to modify the building. ! Utsch closed the public hea~g at 7: 17 PM. Rassier made a motion adopting the following resolution of finding, denying the variance request of William Nelson, The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously, I '. I DR..<\FT January 7,2002 Page 2 of7 Resolution of Finding . The request of William Nelson for a variance came before the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on January 7,2002. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a 100 percent variance on the exterior requirements in the Highway 75 Zoning District. The variance is being sought to allow an 8' x 10' accessory building to be constructed without meeting the exterior requirements. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.22 Subd. 7 (c) states acceptable 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. The property is legally described as follows: Lots 13, 14 and the west 31 feet of Lot 15 Block 2 Loso's 3'd Addition, located at 217 County Road 75 West. 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 development is not consistent with the standards for granting a variance as stated in St. Joseph Code Ordinances 52.8 subd. 8. Therefore, based on the above findings the Planning Commission makes the following recommendation: Denial of the 100% variancè on required exterior building material. The Commission further recommends the property owner be allowed to keep the building until June 1, 2002 allowing the property owner time to explore alternative solutions for storage. Public Hearing. Mark Lambert. Variance request: Chair Utsch called the hearing to order at 7:20 PM and stated the . purpose of the hearing is to consider a variance request with regard to the construction of a 44 - unit apartment building. The variance request is to allow a fIve-foot (5') variance on the maximum height allowed, for the construction of a three story building. The property is legally described as follows: Lot 1 Block 1 Indian Hills Park Plat. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.16 subd 7 (a) states, "No building hereafter erected or altered shall exceed 2 Ih stories or shall it exceed 35 feet in height, except as hereinafter provided. The proposed plat has been submitted by Mark Lambert, lOI - 5th Street, Suite 910, St. Paul MN 55101. Utsch stated the Planning Commission at the December 3,2001 meeting conducted a public hearing to consider a PURD Application issuing a special use permit to construct a 44 unit apartment building. During the public hearing it was noted that the building would exceed the maximum height of 35 feet and the property owner would need to make application for a variance. Therefore, this hearing is to consider the same plan submitted on December 3, 2001. The testimony taken at this time must be related to the height variance, as the Planning Commission closed the public hearing on the PURD Application on December 3, 2001. Mark Lambert spoke on his own behalf. He stated that he is proposing to construct a 44 unit apartment building on Lot 1 Block 1 Indian Hills Plat. Lambert stated it is his opinion that the building is attractive and will be a nice addition to St. Joseph. The apartment unit will provide affordable housing for future residents ofSt. Joseph. As stated at the public hearing on December 3,2001, the site plan includes a caretaker unit in addition to the 44 unit apartment complex. Lambert stated that the elevator shaft proposed for the building needs a height offorty (40) feet, thus requiring a variance. Further, Lambert stated ifhe would berm the building, (not exceeding the 35 feet in height from the grade), he could construct the proposed building without a variance. City Attorney John Scherer stated that e according to the S1. Joseph Code of Ordinances, height is based on the average grade of the property. DRAFT January 7, 2002 Page 3 of7 . Lambert expressed ITustration with his site plan approval as in his opinion the project is being jeopardized by the proposed road between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 ofIndian Hills Park Plat. Lambert reiterated that the proposed building will assistthe City with efforts to provide affordable housing and senior housing. He assured the Planning Commission that he is planning a quality building that meets the needs of St. Joseph. At this time Chair Utsch opened the floor for comments and/or questions. Chris Vance of 515 Fir Street East questioned the market being sought by Mr. Lambert. He questioned if the building is being constructed to inClude seniors, why does it lack a community room or any gathering spaces. Vance stated it is his opinion that the outside appearance of a building does not determine the quality of the building. Vance also questioned if the Planning Commission is going to require Mr. Lambert to construct a fence around the property to serve as a buffer. He further stated that he had a conversation with Mr. Lambert regarding the fence at which time Lambert stated he would install a fence conditionally. Vance stated that in his opinion a fence is necessary to limit the inadvertent illumination of homes along Fir Street. Matt Chouinard of 522 Fir Street East questioned the procedure to assure that fencing would be a requirement of the project. Chouinard concurs with Vance that fencing is crucial for the existing neighborhood. Without fencing the lighting from the proposed building could become a nuisance. Mel Butkowski of 502 Fir Street East stated that when he purchased his property he did not know that apartment buildings were being proposed adjacent to his property. Butkowski stated that based on the plans submitted, the west side of the building will extend higher than the existing homes on Fir Street East. It is his opinion that the apartment building will eliminate the view from the existing homes, his lot was advertised as a "lot with a view". Butkowski stated that he does not want to look out his window and see an apartment building. Carol Butkowski of 502 Fir Street East requested the City review the procedure used when mailing notices of public hearings to property owners of a rezoning, special use or variance request. She stated that they were in the process . of building their home when the property owned by Mr. Lambert was rezoned from Highway Business (B2) to Multiple Family (R3). Therefore the notice was mailed to the builder and he did not forward the information. Joel Heinen of 606 Fir Street East stated that he too was unaware the property in question was rezoned from commercial to multiple family. Heinen stated the he would prefer a commercial development over the construction of a 44-unit apartment complex. Lambert stated that he was willing to meet with the neighborhood to try and reach a compromise but did not feel they were interested in working together. He further stated that the building will be terraced into the hill and the plan submitted has taken a unique parcel of property with development constraints and turned it into a site for affordable housing. Utsch closed the public hearing at 7:40 PM City Engineer Amy Schaefer presented the Council with the following infonnation regarding the proposed apartment complex; ./ The elevation of the proposed apartment complex is 1103 and the existing homes on Fir Street East and 5th Avenue NE are at 1130. Therefore, the fIrst homes along Fir Street and 5th Avenue will sit below the elevation of the apartment complex. ./ The grading plan submitted is incomplete and a portion of the drainage is on property not owned by Mr. Lambert. ./ The east / west road between lots 1 and 2 has not been established ./ The site plan provided includes an access for Lot 2 which is not part of the proposed development. ./ Curb and -gutter plans are incomplete. ./ The proposed northerly access presents a potential safety issue as the entrance is at the top of a crest thereby limiting visibility. . DRAFT January 7,2002 Page 4 of7 Utsch stated it is his opinion that the building should be lowered approximately ten (I 0) feet and the access at the . top of the hill should be moved south with one access serving both properties. Schneider questioned whether or not the plan submitted is realistic for the site proposed. Schneider further stated that sometimes a plan does not fit a specific parcel and the property in question has many constraints. He questioned Lambert if he was aware of the constraints before he purchased the property. Lambert stated that he was aware of the property constraints but believes the site plan submitted can be modified to meet the City requirements. \Vhile he could construct four buildings on the site, it is more economical to construct one. The lower unit cost for constructing one building is passed on to the consumer, thus making the housing more affordable. As far as lowering the building, Lambert stated that it is cost prohibitive to lower the building significantly but he wiII review the plan. Rather than lower the building Lambert stated that he would be willing to redesign the roof line, giving the appearance of lowering the building. Graeve questioned whether or not the building could be moved further into the hill west and south. Lambert responded the building could be moved some but it would not be enough to make a significant difference in the height. Deutz questioned the order in which the Planning Commission should consider the requests of Lambert. Scherer responded that it does not make a difference if the Commission addresses the variance first or the PURD application. \Vhen making a decision the Commission must determine if the requests meets the standards as outlined in the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances. Scherer stated that while the plan can be modified to make some adjustments, he would caution the Planning Commission from approving the plan contingent upon a modified plan. The Commission as well as the residents should have the opportunity to review the revised plans. Scherer recommended the Commission review the material presented at this time and make a decision based on the material before them. Scherer questioned whether the Fire Department has had an opportunity to review the plan. Upon review of the elevations there may be a concern that fire trucks cannot access the entire building. The Commission agreed to refer this matter to the Fire Department. Schaefer discussed the northern access with the Planning Commission stating that the access indicated on the plans . should be moved a minimum of 60 feet south. Schaefer presented the Commission with statistical infonnation on stopping/sight distances with regard to southbound vehicular traffic. Based on Schaefer's calculations, a car traveling at a speed of 45 mph would be unable to stop until swpassing the access by a distance of 100 feet. Lambert responded that as the sewer lines have already been installed, relocating the road further south would result in having to relocated the sewer lines as well. Utsch stated that he has had the opportunity to review the Developer's Agreement regarding the Indian Hills Park Plat and the City does have the opportunity to require one common access for both lots I and 2 Block One Indian Hills Park Plat. Lesnick concurred with Utsch and stated that she believes safety is a major concern and if the access is moved to the location originally designated by the Planning Commission, safety would not be jeopardized. Rassier stated that he believes the road should also be installed as originally designated by the Planning Commission, even if the City has to pay for a portion of the road. Utsch clarified that if the access to Lambert's property is not a public road the City would not be responsible for payment thereof. Upon soliciting the recommendations of the City Engineer, Schaefer responded that it is her recommendation that the plan be denied based on the following: I) potential safety hazard of the proposed ingress/egress to the site; 2) insufficient grading plan; 3) insufficient curb and gutter plans; 4) provision of a plan that indicates a buffer. Rassier made a motion to recommend the City Council approve the PURD Application granting a special use permit to allow the construction of a 44-unit apartment complex. The motion died for a lack of a second. Utsch made a motion to recommend the Council adopt the following findings; recommending denial of the of the PURD Application requesting a special use permit to construct a 44-unit apartment complex. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. . DRAFT January 7, 2002 Page 5 of7 · RESOLUTION OF FINDING The request of Mark Lambert for a PORD application requesting a special use permit came before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing held on December 3, 2001. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a P.U.R.D. development plan to construct a 44 unit apartment building under a special use application and to consider a fifty foot variance on the size of a business sign. The proposed development is to be located on the following described property: Lot 1 Block 1 Indian Hills Park. S1. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.19 subd. 4 provides for a special use permit to develop multi family dwellings over 12 units through the PURD procedural process. S1. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.14 subd. 12( a) allow for business signs provided that the area on one side shall not exceed fifty square feet. The proposed plat has been submitted by Mark Lambert, 101 - 5th Street, Suite 910; S1. Paul MN 55101. In consideration of the infonnation presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of S1. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following [mdings: S1. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.9 subd. (a) states: "Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenìence or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City". Finding: The entrance as proposed on the submitted site plan may be detrimental to public safety, S1. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.9 subd ( e) states: "Will be serVed adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and · sewer systems, and schools". Finding: An adequate drainage plan has not been submitted. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.9 subd (h) states: "Will have vehicular approaches to the property which are so designed as not to create traffic congestion or an interference with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares" . Finding: The entrance as proposed creates a potential for traffic interference. Therefore, based on the above [mdings the Planning Commission recommends denìal of the application. Before resubmitting a site plan the following information should be submitted: 1. The road access should be placed as in accordance to the Developer's Agreement, allowing for ~ one common entrance. 2. A revised and complete drainage plan. 3. A complete curb and gutter plan. 4. Plans for fencing. Utsch stated the Commission needs to address the variance request for the maximum height of the building. Rassier made a motion to recommend the Council approve the five (5) foot variance as requested to allow for a 40 foot, 3 story apartment building, The motion was seconded by Deutz, Ayes: Rassier, Dèutz Nays: Utsch, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Schneider, Graeve, Deutz Motion Fails 2:5:0 · DRAFT January 7,2002 Page 6 of7 Utsch made a motion to recommend the Council deny the five (5) foot variance request and accept the · following findings: RESOLUTION OF FINDING The request of Mark Lambert for a five (5) foot variance on the maximum height of a building came before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing held on December 3,2001. Tbe purpose of the hearing was to consider a variance with regard to the construction of a 44 - unit apartment building. Tbe variance request is to allow a five- foot (5') variance on the maximum height allowed, or the construction of a three story building. The property is legally described as follows: Lot 1 Block 1 Indian Hills Park Plat. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.16 subd 7 (a) states, "No building hereafter erected or altered shall exceed 2 12 stories or shall it exceed 35 feet in height, except as hereinafter provided". In consideration of the infonnation 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: FINDING: The proposed plan is inconsistent with the following provisions: St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd (a) states: "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 actions taken by the petitioner. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd. (b ): "states that the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district · under the tenns of this Ordinance". St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd.( c): "states that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands in the same district". St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd. (d) "states that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area, or in any other respect impair the public health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City". St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.8 subd. (e) "states that the condition or situation of a specific piece of property, or the intended use of said property, for which the variance was sought, is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the fonnulation of a general regulation for such conditions or a situation". The motion was seconded by Kalinowski Ayes: Utsch, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Schneider, Graeve Nays: Rassier, Deutz Motion Carried 5:2:0 Utsch stated the Commission needs to address the business sign variance request of Mark Lambert. The public hearing on December 3, 2001 also considered a fifty (50) variance on the size of a sign to allow a temporary leasing sign. City Attorney Scherer stated that rather than granting a variance on the size of a sign, the Council should · consider granting an extension of the maximum days a temporary sign can be displayed. DRAFT January 7, 2002 Page 7 on · Deutz made a motion to recommend the Council allow Mr, Lambert to display a temporary sign stating "Now Leasing" for a period of twelve months, subject to extension, The sign cannot exceed 50 square feet. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously, Transportation Planning: Weyrens stated that Transportation Planner Scott Merick prepared a letter regarding the adoption of an official map. A copy of the letter will be forward to all Planning Commission Members. Minutes: Rassier made a motion to approve the minutes with the deletion of Commissioner Lesnick from those present, The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Lot Split Request - Finken Water Softner: Weyrens reported that a portion of one of the lots in the Industrial Park has been sold. Joanne Foust of Municipal Development Group has requested the Commission review the lot split and make a recommendation to the City Council. Deutz stated that it is his understanding this matter must go before the St. Joseph Economic Development Authority for approval as well. Deutz questioned the rationale in splitting a lot in the Industrial Park as it is his understanding the lots were platted to accommodate larger businesses. The Commission requested additional information before making a recommendation to the City Council. Lesnick made a motion to table the lot split request of Finken Water Softner until additional information is available. The motion was seconded by Graeve and passed unanimously, Adiourn: Lesnick made a motion to adjourn at 9:05 PM; seconded by Schneider and passed unanimously. · Judy Weyrens Administrator/Clerk · . MEMORANDUM Date: February 1, 2002 To: Planning Commission From: Judy Weyrens Re: Northland Plat Six Enclosed in your packet please find a proposed layout for Northland Six. Ted Schmid will be appearing before the Planning Commission with a concept plan. The staff (Public Works Director, Fire Chief, City Engineer, Planning Chair, Administrator and Mayor) met with Ted to review the preliminary plan. Ted Originally requested to go through the PURD process for the plat so that he could reduce some lots for attractive priced housing. However, in reviewing the PURD Ordinance it refers to mixed density. Since the entire development is single family, the PURD process does not apply. In discussing this matter with John Scherer, he recommended that Schmid apply for a variance on the lots that are for attractively priced lots. The proposed plat has 103 lots, of which 34 will need a variance. At this time the plan is only concept to generate discussion. Schmid will be bringing a revised illustration based on the recommendations of the staff meeting. . . ..- H1'i'/ÒWI\~Vl8:0t "8 'UBîSW!l p8¡.!e:)a~~D -- NtMy aNo ~1I'Im - ñotø¡j _-rA;:.¡¡' -iIM , D "'- rJ -- .... --=-0 ~ .. ..,..... ~NtIIf"" -....... f- .. ~~""Ì ~. ~ ~ ---~ ~~ ~ ~,~- . \.¡ .!... ~ ~ "'-'\ 3 ~~ ~ ~ ~""''-J...j .t ~ t. ----------r------¡--- "~ . .... ~ '.",: ..' .. . ~ -, r ..,' I I _._/_ .-'" ~-i"\'I~"U' ,( :f' I ~~.. " f', ..... I"~ '"'\ r' I I -- ~ \ -... '. ( J ..¡- ~ ...., t"- ' " ,. ._; I I ~ ...¿, ~ .v r..J ,. ~ "";)- -::y. \ ¡' 'i \ I I =>1'\ _ IC ~ ..:.¿ ......... .1.) ~..' \ I ~...... -. '"^ _ """ CIQ ~ ç~ 1 I (r \ I I -.......... ~ -" ~ - . - 1 r, r1 I I ~ . " !!!I,'~. \ I 1 )~\(. Jt~I",)J \,,' ~ 1 : ""- M ~ .,. 1 .'. <"I \ I ""- (þ ~ rj I ':i- ~ _ """ T'- C:!' I, "to) i..·'W .~ ,. I ~' I I ~ r- .... I I ,~.. /. '" 0 \~ ,~'-\" _ I " ,-, I / N ... ... \ I ~ - - ..:> "" V'o - - ,/ '.... .' \ v.. . - J.._ œ...... \~ _ L ~ ~ ..:: ~ ~ Õ ~ ~ .... [m--";' 3r¡ - .. <> · b 6 0..,,( c;o "';; .. o\¡ ~;¡ { ~ 3<.,. H1l ..J. -oJ ...1 -....l .."s ~ -..i -I. l!~ -¡;:- ~r.. - ¡ - - ~ - - I L.. N ,." [... ï 4---J -=- \ ' r----- ~ .... --1 ... It! I '-\ "!J I on to! ~---- "'-----. -"'I 1nt...1 C] ... ,. ¡.cI;.---L ~~ -..s;: X.. \ \ ~ ~J Z0 b__; I'í 10 ......, ---- ~ if '" .L ~ I \ ~ ¥ r---.,..---- _ "" I -r-"ï¡- '" I .1'\ . , . ,... I ill :._~ r----.{ ~ VI 1/ ï / .=.J L" J ... ' I- ~ ' I tlNV1WON ...... -< - ....----------------. -I I W , w II.. ... ~ - . ;: ~ ~ 2 ----------- ~ !!!!!!! ¡! ~ ; D ~ ~ jiii~ii § ¡ ...... Yo " ../ 3: ~"~-7''".... L- t .. \ II:: .- I ' .-: ,,~/ \c'" I ", ït /" ~ J."" \ ¡ >" ~ --- ~-~~~~1 ..J\ 0 -----{ - I I''¡ I I " I ) ~ Z t!~_~ î--T--J ~ I'" cJot{ f ., I _ I ¡+- __-1 < L U') I ...... ...." -I' g - 1- /') ~. !... I .y >- JIJ "!>I)Y elM. , 1 _P__¡ lit- ~ \ ~ f ~ r- "J . f , "..J or , 1 I ~ I ,.,~ 0 .- "" li\ ---- I'! '" 1 .... --> _I I Q I I ÎJ I I ---- I . Ñ\ -----I I 1 ..,( 1'_ .J I'll \~ ~ .\C'J I I . ¡ "7J-I ~ - J So ~ :IN....V IIN" ~ & : 1 -".... -, \- K '1/11 10<0' (,'/ " I "I n1 :u ~ - _ i! 1// :¡!í / i }í 1 __1~-_1.__.L . I I: iO :"^;'I III ¡U '( 1)f I I a ~J! ,\,1 ~ II I ! 1 I !q.o; - '\ - I n I I I r i :if I' ,._" . ïl¡~j:1 'I '1,1 'If' ill 1 ~ I § ~~J - I,... ,I I . ,I I ~p __.____________~_~;~ " ---::_l___ ____L__l___L-__L__L__J . I ! p~ ! \ . 1 , ~" 1:/['...1 (ij)J'()1-J >4MQ" 1.IH)T:!ilT ?!iI!iI?'~ '...,1-' . MEMORANDUM Date: January 31, 2001 To: . St. Joseph Planning Commission From: Judy Weyrens Re: Bill Nelson, Site Plan Approval Ordinance Requirements Building Proposal Zoning Classification -Highway Business (p. 156) The development plan submitted is to construct a business center with eight office suites. The Permitted Uses 52.22 subd 2 (a) [ii] proposed use meets the requirement of the Office Space Ordinance. . Setback Requirements (p. 158) Front Yard -10 foot landscape from CR 75 with The site plan provided illustrates the 10 foot building set back 20 feet. landscape area. The building is setback further than 20 feet - Front Yard requirement satisfied Side Yard - 10 feet from property line East side yard - over 200' . West side yard - over 50' Rear Yard - 10 feet from property line Rear yard - 37.50 feet at closet point Height Requirement - cannot exceed 35 feet Elevation at the highest point - 33 feet Other Requirements - (p. 158) a. Parking Lots - requires paving and marking The area will be paved an marked, meets requirements b. Loading Dock Does not apply c. Building Exterior - 50% brick, etc... The building will be 100% brick and stucco exceeding the requirements. d. Screening Plan has been submitted e. Lighting - Lighting must not be directed at The lighting plan provided meets the requirements. County Road 75 or areas outside the Development f. Stops and curbs Will meet requirements g. Landscaping Detail plan included, meetS requirement h. Signs- The proposed sign will not exceed 30 feet . Development Plat Requirement (p. 159) Meets requirement - included in material . PROPOSAL FOR THE ST. JOSEPH BUSINESS CENTER . PRESENTED BY I WILLIAM NELSON I I I ) ; ¡ ) I ~ DATED JANUARY 25, 2002 I I ¡ I THE UNDERSIGNED PROPOSES TO . BUILD AN EIGHT (8) UNIT BUSINESS CONDOMINIUM ON THE BELOW DESCRIBED PROPERTY: ALL THAT PART OF LOT ONE (1), BLOCK TWO (2) OF ROSKE ADDITION, LYING EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, ROSKE ADDITION; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES, 29' 58" EAST 421.64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINE TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 04' 23" EAST TO THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, ROSKE ADDITION AND SAID LINE THERE . TERMINATING, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT AND SURVEY THEREOF, NOW ON FILE AND OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE STEARNS COUNTY RECORDER (SEE ATTACHED PLAT) IT'S THE INTENTION OF THE UNDERSIGNED TO DEVELOP THIS PROPOSED BUSINESS CENTER WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE "IDGHWAY 75 BUSINESS DISTRICT". . ¡llm~llilijfilliimll . f ¡~ f 1J I i '¡IJlirldn!J·iqf~ii!i i i . ! · If i. ( 1tlsI!dlIl ¡Ii' IIIJ Ii! I" ¡.en!! i ,h¡llIfU¡!,:,'i'jJ-'f ! i un I mjUU¡mtdliil!h!fJf II illI f , I ! \ '~- ~ ! ~ I - :--c 1.-..-.. . -,-... .' '" __...f. .. . I :-t .... I Sf I ~ ! ~ I , ~ , u !'1'4 I ."0...".. ::t~ , "'c I Q 01"'. It""~"''''' ~ :t I I ò~~=~g~~i ~ . ;to 0;......... . I.ú~ ... " . ..00.......... Q::~ ~ ~ kW¡.."o..",..oa .>- ~" I' I -. 12~!~i~~:i a.Lu $ ; " ~ .... .. :> '" g ...... " a a: II,; 'I '" -..,. . I .. ...~~·..·211 -.... ¡.; . " ~~ . . ~ '! '! . . ::. CI) .. £ I :i::;;;:::::;:t: ~ . I .......... - aa i ~ ::t -" !888I1Un ~ ) I ª:..;.;.;....;.; .... ......... .. .. .200.. ~ JltJl)þt "......"" ~ I" ..: " 1'.. "'.1..0'. .1' ~ ~!~~;~ft~~~ ~"o· ..0:...;.".. ~ ...I! 0".....· g"......o.... """0. -, ~s.. L" ..-r.... .,1IIC1"...0001O""00 I . ~ ~'.,~:;;; ::! å";.wi~.~":"''':'';'¡': (', .... ...."'........,....G.,~Q- '-- I .':,: Q ~.... - 'I:.~" Q 2: I " ,. !.II .~.. "'!I! ~ ..:': . ....".."......01 \ "\ ~!'i!'~p.:~!"~!":w~pt!- 0 Ie a...... ............ .\ : ....00.."............0.. ~ GI . . """'-f'lII\"1I\ 000010'\ ... !! .t; .. == \ r;~~~~~~~~~88~ ). I oJ ~ .;';~' : t : ·b~k~k:~~:~gki : ~ .,:; I \ t'. I .ta....22:......... = i5 . -fII -- . : ~~ . s! iii ¡./,.,., ,r'o, . \ :~: .\ .. ....... II i :t ..:. '" .... 2_H".""......0........... eo .. ., . .,. .t01l1l0 . !-, :............................. . eiE~~:: , . ,I¡ : ~ II ~ .,,~ ..Iii .', L!II .. CI i " ',.' -. æ ;I~~""I I -: "-"-"-"- - II 3_ t ;: . 'j" . :j1.... .~ 0.1" ¡:ã ' H:J.~JnOJ :! - .~~. ..M 0: ~~r !51 '. ;J Q II i..illlI .f ~ .... ......G ~~ ... lì\l!~ ~~I . -¡;:. ~"'i ::" .:,' ... I') ~,,¡ \ @ I!! !~8 :¡" T 7 Ir, OØ'H/ "¡,~~ : i "'¡¡at: I!!m I!! .' .: ¡:: ~ " . 00'''' ·Ii. \ .. ~¡:!" i ..:/. ~ . lit ~ ~ 3.oo.oo.DO n ::::. m. ; ~ I~:!.· iii I I 1!;~ "C. .. \ 0 """........... . "!~ .\ .~ t ~ $ ~oCQ '.~"" I -t II \ N ,,;.. G ~ ~~~8°' I ¡ ! ;3 ~ ~ :: ___~: $ I It ¡... ~ã ~ II I øntl 'M '.»2 tOO..J \ II. I : a-" ~ . . ; ....:)_. :--_. ~Z~ II :2 i ~ffi 0'" ~.1 : . ... - I : ¡..; ...e J 1Øtt'".'»tma \" I ~ I \. ~ "~::. ... __ " ..' 'j ~···..pt·'orl. i.CO.ooM H ....... . . ~ ........ fr·Ht.!..A .2.00.00,004 ...............~ ~ ~_.. V"-"," ¡ ·......·..........·t·oo,co\ ..·..r......· ¡ ..~~·~·iMH...··· ,,-,,-v-u"T" \.._.._.._~~. .. ~ ~;~ ¡ ¡ \ \ \ I~~ \ \ ~t M ~ M "" PROPOSED USE OF UNITS . ALL RENTALS WILL FALL WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION 2: PERMITTED USES FOR THE IDGHWAY 75 BUSINESS DISTRICT. BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ALL REQUIREMENTS MET, SEE . ATTACHED SITE PLAN!! HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS BUILDING AND SIGNAGE WILL NOT EXCEED 30 FEET!! . - ~ PARKING SEE ATTACHED SITE PLAN! BUILDING EXTERIOR FRONT OF BUILDING, SIDES OF BUILDING AND BACK OF BUILDING WILL ALL BE OF BRICK. FACE OF OVERHANG WILL BE STUCCO (EIFS), - AS PER ATTACHED PLAN! WE ARE - THINKING OF A BRICK COLOR THAT WILL ACCENT OUR WINDOW AND TRIM COLOR, WHICH IS BURGUNDY! SCREENING ALL UNITS HA VE ROOFTOP HEATING AND AIR-CONDITIONING, WHICH WILL BE SCREENED BY ROOF DESIGN. REFUSE SCREENED AS PER SITE PLAN! - SUBDIVISION 8: - DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS SEE A TT ACHED SITE PLAN THAT INCLUDES "A" THROUGH "N" WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT PART OF "K" THAT ASKS FOR TYPE PLANTS AND SIZE. WE HA VE A GREAT DEAL OF "GREEN SPACE" DEDICATED TO THIS PROJECT. - ALL GREEN SPACE WILL BE IRRIGATED. ANY DECIDUOUS TREES PLANTED WILL BE OF THE 6 TO 8 FOOT SIZE AND ANY CONIFERS PLANTED WILL BE OF THE 4 TO 6 FOOT SIZE. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE HAVE 20 TREES DEDICATED TO THE PROJECT. THE TRI-ANGLE SPACE EAST OF THE BUILDING MAY HA VE A ROCK GARDEN WITH FLOWERS AND . PERENNIAL PLANTS. - ~ SUMMARY PAGE THE INTENTION OF THIS PROJECT IS TO CREATE A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS COMPATIBLE AND COMPLEMENTARY, NOT ONLY TO WHAT IS PRESENTLY BUILT, BUT TO FUTURE PROJECTS. THE HIGHW A Y 75 BUSINESS DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS ARE NO LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN THEY SHOULD BE, AND THIS DEVELOPER AGREES WITH - THE INTENTIONS SET FORTH WITHIN ITS SUBDIVISIONS! RESPECTIVEL Y SUBMITTED BY; WILLIAM B.NELSON ~~ /' ~ i j I ¡ i i í '" i " i "- '" ¡ " j " i "'-,...., i i i , I "'-.,.,., ¡ '" I "'- i "",,< i , ¡ , " lJ-j i ""< j '. " I ". D '. '" ~ i '" U ¡ ! >" " Z '" 1 D ì í [[' [ ! {II\} 1IIIVlSIJ t-i i ' I ----.- l- I LJ! ' t-7 U ¡ :::J I ~ ¡ ~ ~I- i ~ i W W W(/) j I l- I- I-Z - I-W I- I-ZD CJ f :::JU :::J :::JWU .-_.,_..~.,,--- LJ LJ<[ " 32Uz I / 0- ..,:'..../' I ~-.,- ('<'''I< ¡::::¡ <:: ¡::::¡(/) <[(/)<[ Z >'\ Z --1(/)L <[Z " <[ WI ¡ W fJJ WZD i ÇQW I-t-iLJ j ~~ t-i(/):3 í :::JLJ . :::J (/):::J i U " U ~ ÇQL... ¡ W ~::cD i J L... " I- D I- <[0->- =c! ",I :::J ZWI- LJ t-i(/)~CU LD 0 t-i W.........' ¡::::¡ --1JQ..lf)0 Z W .DCULf( i <[ ¡ ~ I- ~........." j W ÇQ 0-(/)0-.-..-. ¡ -, --1 æ: «[I D :::J Q.. U I l- i L... ¡ '16 D i " " _i C/)j W -'. .......... ¡::::¡ --1 :,-;V Z D Q.. J .. J )!J\lNI\lè(J )!J\lNI è(J _I 0 uf 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 ì 0 0 i .1'-0 (Y) ¡ 0 i cu 0 ¡ W 0 I --1 0 D '" 0 '" ¡ w 1 0- u co I u .-. <t c:o I w n. n. ¡ <t ! u - :f a - ---J z <t J: ¡ Z í W i W ¡::::¡ i ~ W Q1 LJ Q.. .-. Q.. ¡ 0 ~LJ(/) <[ ¡ ¡ cu --1~W U ¡ t-i LJ W :::J:Y::U ¡::::¡ Z LJ~<[ Z <[ cuW<[Q.. <[ ¡ --1 \D~Q..(/)<;;tI I W I ~ t-i i L... ¡ I ¡ I . í L... <[ ~ W (/) W i --1 I 0 D ; 0 0- 0 L... , 0 I cu (/) i j I- ... f ::c .-. 0 .-. I ñ 0 W <;;t í --1 II ... i , .-. D LJ 0- @J i Z ¡ t-i ! 0" ¡::::¡ (/) W --1 l- I If) (/) t-i t-i ! w .-. :::J :::J Z ! \:J L... ÇQ :::J <t ¡ Z ¡ ~ W æ ~ co c:o ¡::::¡ <:]æ<1 W Z W W æ: U (/) . . . Z 0 t--I f- <[ , D > , W ---1 , D W , , , f- . , , (/) , D , <[ , W , , , 00 , 0 , D ::x:: u I-f 00 0::: 0 ¡::Q i 0 0 í Z ,al 0 1---1 0 f- Z 0::: <[ W 0 I- > 1---1 Z 00 0 f- w W <[ u ---1 > (/) W (/) W w z I ---1 if' ...... .' f- 0 W "' (/) m :::::> æ: ¡::Q I 0 I Z f- 0.. ~ :J w 0 (/) 0 0 (/) J l- (/) - 0 U ,v 0 1n :" U Z 0 0 1---1 f- i U :::::J 0 æ: æ:f- W(/) f-Z . 00 (/)Z8 0.. 0 m >< >- L~ ZW I- DUZ 1-1- i t--I(/)<[ z...... WZ f-(/)2:: >:::::> D ~ <[WI uO::: i'l >ZD ......w 1-0.. WI-iU I- 00 ---1(/):3 <[(Y) D """ W::::::) , W o..~ , ÇQLL . ---1 , 01- Z &ID <[ I- ....." 0 , U L....I- , 1---1 ,C <[(L>- (/) Ol-f , D , f- oZ D ZWf- 0::::::::> , <[ , 1---I(/)æ:0JO , > ,ç; , ~DWC)f- , , . W ---1)(L~ , D , ---1 , , W _DCUf- , W , , æ:f-æ:"" 0 D (L(/)(L..--IZ , f- (/) W :s . . iu . - - - - '-' - - - - - IIIIIIJ - - - III .. ... - - , -¡:0' d ll::IlOl ...'R<1~ 11õ+.....rlf' Hi. I lIlt 11 lIrat'll] I Hou:lnt Wal18ge/ talalng' ,_ Mounting elide Slzo (811,) Lamp Numbør _ .' IIn:ert Coda at ~ In Catalog I) ',_ i ,12' 125W I'$MH MPI\:612-Q . 1" 1-1/2' Cloæ PDle Moun! ~ 12' 15OW1'SMH MPR:615-M , 2" 6> Extemed Pole Mount 16' ¡roNPSMH PR.:62O-M 3 =2" AdU~!B Filtat 16' 251m PSMH P!ì:625-M 4 = Yoke /Mum 16' ~PSMH PR.:.63D-M 6 = 112" Adjus1aÞI~ Fillnr 1õ' œN PSMH PII:B32,M (12' housing O/1ly) 16' 350W PSMH PR:635-M K = ROIJnd iutJe Qn-tenler I 16' 400WPSMH PR':'G4D-M Tenon Mgunt [16' hOusing gnly) 12' 5CfN MH MPR:405,D [For Z-3I8' or 3" O,D.) 12' lOW MH MPR:401-D M œROUI1d Tube OIf"C!:tl1e( 100w MH MPR.:.41D-D Di~ Mount(16' housing Qnly) 175W MH MPR':'417-M N" Willi Mavnl 175W MH PR':'417-M ~/. 8 = Wlt1\outMOUnllng (h¡r¡:wa¡e) 25r!N MH ~:42S'M ., , '. (!actory-dril~) 400WMH .:.44D-M I 24 l000w MH PR·4~~M. NOTE: WhEn usil,g mulliple 22' ~Q. ng_using$ - . . at 90' COl\figuta1ion,1 special 12" ¡¡¡m 1$ 1:r 3SW HPS Nlþf¡_503·' required: OOl\SullllClO1)' 101' availabililyand i 12' 5ðW HPS MPR::505,D pricing. f 12' 70W HPS MPR.:.507-M ! 12' 100w HPS MPR.:51D-M 12" 150W HPS MPR;515-M, 16" ~ 2SOWHP5 PA:52S·M ) 16" ~ 4fIJN HPS PfI:540·M .. 22' 1fXJOW HPS PR:S99-M The 12" and 16" J'IollSlngs of Ih8 Parking¡Roadway UglIt have a Type III asymmelrlc Dptlòm: (hI:IoIY,lnstalle1l) C/Jan8 Add Aller dislrîbutlon pallem (16' 250W MH is field adjustablslo Type II). The 22' housing has DemlptIDn Sulllx To 3uIf/I .. Type " asymmetric distribution. Ideally suited lor roadway applications, pørking areas 2TN EneIgy Savif19 £b1laS (!SB)(1~ f'$I.IHo.~) 27 or for buifóîng mounted security lighting. 121Ï\1Reador ballast (5D-15OW HPS lZ'!wusing only) 1 I 48OVbalIastI2!lO-4ÐlJWPS!.nI.l1!r-11Xlmt.8i&7II-1111)WHP$0/IJy1 5 _ Three Sizes: Qua¡'VoItba11as1 (50-10ùW MH only) M . 12' squarex 5" deep (305 x , 27 mm) Tri,volt ballast (200--400w PSMH. T .. : - 16' square x 6.5' deep (406)( 165 mm) 7D--1000wMH & 7O-1DOOWHP5 QIIIy)(Canadatlhly) ~ 22' square x 9.25' deB¡! (559 x 235 mm) Single tuse·12rN ESB. 120V, 2m 01 347V) 27.1. 2 or 6 F ~ - O¡¡al fut&" (2O&V, 240V or 4B1JV) 3. 4 or 5 F 3 e2'leYe!(2SG-4OOWHÞSonJy)(12W,271VIII"347Vj 1,;1or6 ~ ~. Quartz Stindby (~.œ1ay ~) Ondudes 100w a 1a1\1Þ1 ("!; mv ESB) a '! LJplighl Lens Frnme U ~ BulWn photDœí¡O (Factory-installed with all rnounlìngs otl1ef lllan 2' Adjl.l$1abln fitter) NO'Œ:. n/a On 1000w w/1ZOV; aJ( 480V 27, 1,2,3, 4 or Ii P _ EèmaJ Photocell' (Factory·111S1aI1ed) (Page 89) ~ for 11x1u!es wl1000w. 120V 1 P \ For nxtm \'I/48IN 5 P , . Fb!wes wId1 ractgi)'-insIalled photocell and/or fuse suppfied wilh single volliQe ballast. i Am=orles: {Aet¡!..1nsÞlledl .' , . ¡ 12" hoUtlng 16" housing, 22" housing 4QOO Wì~GU3Ia FWG·12 . FWG-16 FWG·22 . Ty¡¡ical Cand1epawer D!$\r1Mon 01 Typical canøtaþOwer Distribution of Backllghl Shield SBl"12 . saL-16 . Sfll-.~ 400W HPS ParklnglRoadway Ugftt 150W HPS parklng/Roadw.¡y Ullht, Bungn P/1Q!oœIl ~inWM\oiIn2'~FIIo1 Cablog' For flX!Ule$ wmov (nfa on I000Wl PC-1 ~ ..._. ".......... . ~ 20' 40' 6D' !O' '00' 20' 4D' 60' SO' I . : 24.4 ' \ 1/.1.3 1õM1 ' ¡ O~· I ' , . I'll _ L 6.1 ¡~ J ; " T0/T0'd 8è:£-¡: è00è-Þè-N~r - - MEMORANDUM Date: January 31, 2001 To: Sl Joseph Plæming Commiss;on t i ¡!J From: Judy Weyrens ç/\) Re: Mark Lambert, Building Proposal The City Council on January 17,2002 reviewed the reconmiendations of the Planning Commission with regard to the PURD application and Variance request of Mark Lambert. The City Council, at the request of Mark Lambert, extended the 60 day requirement so that the development plan could be tabled and sent back to the Planning Commission for further review. The Council outlined the areas of concern and requested that City Staff (City Engineer, Fire Chief, Public Works Director, Planning Commission Chair, Administrator and Mayor) met before the February Planning Commission and address the issues of the City Council and Planning Commission. The subcommittee stated above met with Mark Lambert on Wednesday, January 30, 2002. The table below illustrates the concerns of the City and well as solutions that would be agreeable with the developer. The Council request Lambert provide a survey illustrating the height of the proposed development in relation to the homes constructed on Fir Street East. Please find that detail attached to this memorandum. Lambert will not be able to have the drainage plans or lighting plans completed before Monday night. The Committee was comfortable with Lambert approaching the Planning Commission without redrafting all the plans. - - Unresolved Issues Possible Solution Building Height Lambert has agreed to review the plans and if possible reduce the building ITom a three story building to a 2 and Y2 story building. This change will lower the building approximately three feet. In addition the roof line will be changed lowering the building approximately three feet. Total reduction iu Height - approx, 6 feet Lambert has also provided the City with property survey's showing the height of the building in relation to the existing homes on Fir Street. Access Lambert has moved the access approximately sixty feet, reducing the safety concern. While the Planning Commission and Council was looking for one access point Lambert has satisfied the safety requirements. Neighborhood Request - Berm, Fencing Lambert has agreed to provide the five property owners abutting the proposed project with dirt and sod for a benn. Any further allowances must be worked out with Lambert. Lambert has agreed to look at placing some type of - barrier near the garage and hill to prevent young - sleders from hitting the parking lot. - It was the consensus of those present at the staff meeting that a chain link fence is not desired and should be removed from the plan. Lambert agreed. Fire Safety Lambert has agreed to provide a flat 20' area around the perimeter of the building for fIre access and try to reduce the radius's on the corner. The Fire Chief was satisfIed with the compromise. Drainage Plan, Curb & Gutter Lambert agreed to provide Bettendorf with hydraulic information so that the drainage can be reviewed. Lambert further agreed to revised the drawings with the recommended changes and submit a FINAL plan for Bettendorf to review. Overlay Cost The City Engineer recommended the City Council consider overlaying NortWand Drive if Curb and Gutter is installed. The cost of the overlay would have to be absorbed by the developers. During discussion with Lambert it was estimated the cost of the overlay to be approximately $ 7,000 - $ 8,000. Lambert did not commit to the overlay. Snow Removal The City Engineer requested the site be reviewed to ~ assure that the site would provide for snow storage on NortWand Drive. Bettendorf agreed to review - this matter. Note: Mark Lambert Thursday evening at approximately 5:00 PM and indicated that his designer did not feel the building could be lowered to a 2 Yz story building. Lambert did indicate he could still reduce the building height by six feet with redesigning the roof. I informed Lambert to bring all his information to the Planning Commission. - 02-01-2002 11:46AM FROM COLE GROUP ARCHITECTS TO 3630342 P,01 , ;:; : : i l ,1111 . t I I I I ~ , .' :J¡II'~ - 4~~· ÞI .,... ,:+: ,"} I , Ii 1_ f- - . .. - , ." '" 101' ... - ~ ....... :4 I , : i . ' j - ',1.1:;: i I;l C' ~ I I ... 1oJ' . .c:1!'!' JI:. "''I II . .;j ,i : i ')1,. '. . . . 4 il ! I I '" .' !-- f I" . ~ L l!; ': .... ~,' :~:: I- - ; . ¡:i:' , I- ~ JanG~~ 31i 2002 . I- -. i .! ¡ : . ::....: M¡:~rt· . ~ '; .: í!¡:: . . " : . f..,..-! ¡Ii' , . ...... : '-1~E'! 14 ~....., Aft"-- nnaÆna St. 'O~....d. MN . . I- . '1'1 ,t"'""O ;t-"~~ -~ . " '.:. ~; : . i- .: : ~;": . . I- ; ! 1i ,.... . i Mr ~ßinert: . . l.,- .¡ . !!rr--!~ . '- ;. íil::', ., . " ..: .: '- .; ~ ~pho.œ <XmVema!1on today, I have some senous IeSeIVations regarding depressmg the fim.med :floor elev$>D: of eo- ~ th'e ~ into the ground 2 or :3 feet. Some ofwbîch are as follows; . I- i i 11 ,~. '. . "~ -. . ) 1: ~Håndk:apaccessibility codes teqUire a tamp slopect-20 feetofnmf01' eveIY 12 inches of elevation' . .:: . ¡. ç~~~ arc,additional,te(¡uirenæntsfor ~g¡ wery 30 Íínea1 feet:of~, This WÒUlcl amoUDtto ~60 . · ¡.:. . ; ·to ~:I ': 1ï=t Of: œmp outside eagh of'the exit doors, These ramps become a lQe and snow safety conœm. J-.; i I: .' . .' ,I- . . ~ 2, ~ tho grade !Iigher than finishc:cl fioor lends itself to water and moiSture infiltmtion· whioh n:SIÛtS in dampness :: '. '1 or ~ iDSide:the aparb:neDt units. . . ' . - :1- ¡.' ¡ii!: . . . . :.tiI : :; .3:' ~¡tho:gradc: higher,. the first íloor windøws wìll have to be shortenecl:and widened. TJµs will rœult in a tèss: . - :.-.::. '.j' ,~took totheoverallbuíldi.ng. . . -., il':' . .J- J 4:: A ~ ~ ~ in e1eYDtìœi will. ' require 5 or 6 steps at eat:h~, ThisJon:es an ~ to ßegotiate these.~ : .' ¡ 'eyeq¡~.theY COme and go from the·building. This ~ everything from carryïng in grÐCerieS ~ taking out trash . { aM ~;1ìIrDitufe in and out. . . . ¡ !!. .: , I .:. - . '.:]. X ~ ~me:othcr Concerns as wen and wonld prefer to explore other SCl1Ili~DS before coDSic1ering this option. : I . '., \ ,! : ' · ~_I_- . . i I: : -,- ' . . . ·1' '.-:-: : .:; .Si.JJ.vZ*r .~~ . : . . . II . . i . ;,--' j : ¡ii.. . . . .' . ,';.. . ì:!;' . . · - .; ,:1. . . ¡ . .. ; : !:¡ ,: '. '.. . . ";.' :' :1 :: wrNoimCd~ Archîtect :: . .' '. . I. ¡ ~ j : I ..1- !."!!I ;, . . . . t-". ! . 1:1 :: .' . '. ..... '- . ~ ";' . . I 'P' ~ .: if .: . ',' ,:",--:.; . I!I' '. : . '..:..-.; I:·· :., I -j.;.... ~ '. I ¡ ! ! - . . : . '¡;"- .: '¡:I; . . :i . J .'1 II;:~' . .,'.. '. .¡:.;. ,', .I¡': . . . . : . L ' " ¡. . .' j-;. '.' . "I I . , ~ I·: . qfl' . ' :' . _I .::t~ . ': : ¡ ¡.: ". . . .,: . '-'- . ¡ II . :... .~ :. ,: ¡!! ~ ¡ . : ' . . ' . :' . ':1 i· TOTAL P.01 1 ___ FE~-Ol-~~fRLJQ:52 AM LAW OFFICES FAX NO. 851 223 5318 P. 02 FE8, 1. 2002 10: 15AM LARSON ENGINEERING OF MN NO. 1963 .- . - Lnon ~ 0' ItIftneIatI 8Dt..... R_ WhIte ..., I..aktt.. H1tH100 est .'4111 IJu: IS' ""'","1 - i Larson - Febroa.ty I, 2002 Mr. Mark Lambat Lambert &, Assooiate6 101 Easts1H Street. Suüe910 St ~ MN 551Q1 RE: st. Joseph Dcvc1~ St.1oseph. Miunesota. Oem Mr. ) ~mbert: rt Î! om undersuiDiitIg 'that me Ci1y of St J'*Ph bas requested that the ~ ií*Þ1~.u1 buildiag log;œd on Lot 1, Block 1, Indian Hills Park be lowered 2 to 3 feet. HoWèVer, lowering the building floor slab elewtion 2 feet to 3 ftot ara1eS dr1iœge anâ a.cœss pttlems. ~ ~ building floor slab below grade greatly ~es the poteutial tor waa- inffitnl.tion Í11t) the lower level of tbe buitdíng. To ~ ùùs risk will mquire 11= ìnstaDa1ion of an extensive waJtqAuOßng and drain tì1c system. whicb may limit the mnomrt of ùrlütndion. but CIMOt B'1A1'R11t~ to pmvcm watEr infi1tration into the lower }eve1- Lowering the building will dso create access problems to the building, puticularly for - handica.ppc:d ~ ADA guidßlines require that the ~ slOJ» along a bindiœpp:d - atUssìbl~ route be no more than 1 vertical to 20 horizonmL Two 5O-foot to 6O-foat concme ramps wouldbave to be ~ to p-ovkIe access wíhe lower }eve1. Since cblmging sìœ pdes impact¡ many oiber ~ of the project. the most ~ way to the reduce the overall œ:i8bt of the proposed apanmem bti1ding by 2 to 3 ~ IDiY be 'to modify the IOOf desip. if that is possible. If you bave any quc~ pleMe comact us at 651-431-9120. Sincerely, Larson &~ni ftr~~~ <me A ~t'.baJ. P.E. Project E.ngîr¡e« - ·...- p.2 Jan 29 D2 O~:50p + TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR MARK LAMBERT NORTHLAND PL.AT FÓUR: ~ I BLOCK' I I I f I I'IßI ,..,~ I I., I· I I N .~ ( 111",,, I I I S0AI.E:1*"UIO· IWI' I :~ I ...-- I I I I -~ ,I . - I IIIIUI£" I f MOUII I ,tIOIIIt I '[--:--t-<,\ I '..,': ~': : ..:"~-{...r.A, /) -I- .... 1 ....., \ \ I / I / / .t .... .,,'" ,/ I( I ....... .I \ I \ : -~... (i I ~I ~ -~ I' o I , f" _v.... I' I I t IJ I" I, I . I -' I¡II - ,1 " I . I .I I' " ,i I - : (, - I I: , I r \ r ( : II / ..-:: ...... ~, I .......- ~I I{ .-...... ìI I, I t I "'....... I , It, \1 .-',..... /' I' ,/ , \ II .... -L- / I / 1\ 'I .....,.... .... ¡/ ,7-"-7- 7- \ I ....... ... ,I' t' ,; " ,,, I fe " ,. ... " I' I' I / .... .... , I' I / \ I ,,,'.. ../ ,. I' I I' I I \ .... ' ,. " I' I' / " / I' r I I' \A / /' ,. ... I' I .-~ I" o /'... ' '" / I I ' I . !/,' ,/' " I / \ '\ . I I' ./ / I ' \ r \ ,; ," / / .I I r \ \ / I' ' , I I I / I I - ,. H_'¡; I' " ...¡.... , -'.- .--.1. -..-_. ,,__ I I . ... , '" I I ~- I~ _...... -~ -S1Jf'J ,,';;,.:....1 I ....:- ~ , teœrr CF.RI'FY '!HAt ntS I'tNI. SlIVEr. OR RØICItI' -~~--n-..... - .. ÞlUil>ND III' ME (It \/NIIat IIr iiìiGr SIII'!ImS4OIII1C ---_ --~~- ~ r M A ÞUI.Y ucøem I.ItIC) SUIftÐQR ,,~ 11£ ... .s --.;-~=- ot K srm ON ..~ LIIIIM H. IROJiM a ~DF1l.£ ELeV. IMÆ LIœt5E NO. =sa 02014 20 'd 8L£9 EGG 199 'ON Xij~ S30IjjO Mijl Wd vL:£O 301 2002-6G-Nijf JAN-29-2002 TUE 03:14 PM LAW OFFICES FAX NO. 651 223 5318 p, 03 .]~n Z9 02 02:50p p.a 0 - (.II (11 0 2 ITi ;! - S 0 c r- ~ ~ a -t ~ c::: ~ ... ::!l ~ 01 Q :b: ~~ ~ ~ ?S~ ~ ~ rr, ~r-' 0 rr; c ~n¡ 2 ..,., .. s .;0. ;g :;I: <=~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~ ¡:; O¡;:E- ~ ~ ~~ z ~ ;~~i g} \':¡ ~~ ~ ",_"CI m ~~~ a ~ ~ ~:Þ~~ CD ~ ~ Q8 oc:: ::! ~ ~~ .z~~ r' I;¡::;¡c:i ~ ~~J"I1"'t ~ rnz~~ ~ cg t: ~äctn i ¡ãi ~ ~$. z cn~(I p C c:: II~ c(JIi It.) ~~~ ~ :2~~ Ø\ ( N Mi ~! JAN-29-2002 TUE 03:15 PM LAW OFFICES FAX NO. ·651 223 5318 P. 04 ~an 29 02 D4:0Sp p.a - u :'1 0 :::;1 OM ,.,~ :-t!;:'1 &~ i~ 0 ... p ;'\ :¡;: å~:!) ... 'tJ ::J 0 g en O!:~ ~ C2§ :DO 1D5i z ... à - 0 ... 0 ~ r-- 0 -i ~ ... ~ ~~ R~ ~r=:: 11-0 . n, ~ :::¡ ~ '" !\) S - œ :~ ... (A ~~ - :¡,. - ÃJ ~ i ~~;E- ~~ :!¡?Jil .~~ ~ .~ :c roI- 2~ I !!ll ê5 ~~~~ ~~ ~ Z O~ ª ~~ Z,,<!:¡~ !5~~ ~ii:2 ..... [;: ¡llil:lc:fñ :!l § ¡ã-u a o!1J¡ ~ 1'1'1 ~~~ Z 0 P ¡~~ ." :I: 5 :r: i~g œ I\) m~~ ~ c.I z ! 0 ~sa~ 0 rT° ;e z il 0 Q ;"1 :::~ :-i~:"1 ~~ Ç) :'1 8 "" ~ ~~~ 0 g5 Æ~ª Z ;¡ ... ~ 0 0 A r- '>' I C I -f ... ~ 01 0 n'tl ~:c ~~ Q~ ~~ C)~ ~ ~r:=: ~£'T"¡ .... ... s: ~~ ~ C 0.../";- ::0 :z .....¡~:r: ~~ M g æ<;:{ '" _"Q:IJ ;¡= ~i:~~ s;:~ ¡ ~ ~>š;n ~ - ~a~ ¡~!!l:( ~ - I§~~ ~~ ~CJlg:i! -t ¡:: ¡Þ'SciiS n Çj ~ i~'1 c!ai ~ ê~~ ~ ~gC: ~~~ i~~ NI ª-c~ (.01 CÞ :2!~ CII N I"'IÕ Z i~ tIIO JAN-29-2002 rUE 03:15 PM LAW OFFICES FAX NO. 651 223 5318 P. 06 Jan 29 02 04:0Bp p.4 I :'1 ~'T 0 §[!¡ rn't/ o~ ~~ ~!!;'"! 0 1I:;r¡: p ;'1 ijŒl:!l ~ ~ 2~~ Gli§ ~ z it1 ..& .... ~ ... 8 ~ r- 8 () ""'i Ii ~ .... /1 ~~ UI 0 I't\ g~ =i ~~ ~r-- -.f"rJ Q ~ ~ - ~ <:~ "" - ~ ~ i °i~- ~~ .., ~:J: ~~ ~... !;: ~ .....-"Qe ð CD ~~I . \ ::II ~:Po C':I ~ ~ \ C ~ /\ i~ ~~ i~~:!( ........ \ I'I~ ;i~~ )~~ ..... J:: ~ ~¡ ~ ~ i~~ .C::: e!X1 ::ti 1'1 cn~~ ß Ilj c:@!i 2-a::a t3 ~~~ I :i!Q~ 1'Iz í~ - JAN-29-2002 rUE 03:16 PM LAW OFFICES FAX NO, 651 223 5318 p, 07 Jan 2S 02 02:51p p.7 0 g S :z .- $ 8 r- ð gs a -1 ""'-i c:: $J1 ... ::r, ~ (J'I 0 ~ ~~ ~ Ý) 5 g~ ~ ~ ,,¡:::: -.tort¡ Q .." .. N s: 0 ~ :J: <~ ... - ... <::) 0 ~ - ~ i ~~~- ~ ~ ~~ ~§ ~ rr; ~~ ;c. ~Ë~~ \::i ~ tD a ~ ~ ~:~~ C¡J ~ ~ i~~::( ~ ~~ r- . ~~~~ ~ 2~O ~ --¡ ~ ;Q~ d .' ¡:; }"Sc:1ñ 0 ~ iZi !f aª ~ 1"'1 ~ ê!i~ ~~~ a· cU)~ N ~il ¡;,¡ ~ %i3 "'z §ä - 2002 Mayoral Appointments All terms are one year in length unless otherwise noted. Three year terms begin in January and end in January of the cited year. ActinQ Mayor Bob Loso APO Executive Committee Mayor Hosch APO Full Board Mayor Hosch, Planning Commission Chair Gary Utsch, Bob Loso BuildinQ Inspector and Compliance Officer Nancy Scott, AIISpec Services Cable Commission 3 year tern - 3 member commission 2000-2003 . Tom Nahan 2002-2005 Noreen Loso Central MN Transportation Alliance Mayor Hosch Economic Development Authority 6 year term, 5 member authority 1997-2003 Mayor Hosch 1997-2002 Bob Loso 2001-2007 Ross Rieke 2000-2006 Bruce Gohman 1999-2005 Mike Deutz EmerQency Services Director Ordinance No. 27 Steve Schirber Fire Advisory Board Dave Theisen Cory Ehlert Judy Weyrens S1. Joseph Township Appointment Joe Bechtold Fire Chief Annual Election, Council confirmed Dave Theisen Assistant Fire Chief Randy Torborg Fire Marshall Dave Theisen Forester Mike Sworski Healthy Community Partnership Mayor Hosch Cory Ehlert Health Board Ordinance NO.26 - 3 year term, 3 member board Thomas Newton MD 2001-2004 Randy Torborg - 1999-2002 200-2003 Ken Twir Hiring Committee Mayor Hosch Bob Loso Cory Ehlert Kyle Schneider AI Rassier Orderly Annexation District Planning & Mayor Hosch Zoning Authority Joint Planning Committee Mayor Hosch (Orderly Annexation) Gary Utsch Marge Lesnick AI Rassier Official Depositories First State Bank of S1. Joseph US Bank Smith Barney Shearson Prudential Securities Dane Bosworth . Juran & Moodv (MJK) Official Newspaper - Legal Notices S1. Joseph Newsleader except construction/improvements Official Newspaper - Legal Notices S1. Cloud Times construction & improvements Park Board 3 year term, 7 member board 1999-2002 Lonnie Abbott 1999-2002 Bruce Berghorst - 2001-2004 Jennifer Wirz 2000-2003 John Walz - 2000-2003 Marjorie Lesnick 2001-2004 Chuck Muske Park Board Liaison Kvle Schneider Planning Commission 3year term, 9 member commission 2001-2004 Mike Deutz 2000-2003 Kurt Schneider 2002-2005 S. Kathleen Kallinowski OSB 2000-2003 Marjorie Lesnick 2001-2004 Jim Graeve 2002-2005 Garv Utsch Planninq Commission Votinq Liaison AI Rassier Police Commissioner Ordinance No. 21 Mayor Hosch Properties Number Official Ordinance No. 31 City Enç¡ineer Rental Housinq Inspector Steve Haç¡man Safety Coordinator Dick Taufen S1. Cloud Economic Development Larry Hosch Partnership SCEDP Alternate Municipal Development Group S1. Cloud Area Planning District Board Mavor Hosch SCAPD Alternate Bob Loso Sales Tax (half cent) Mayor Hosch Cory Ehlert Judy Weyrens Stearns County League of Cities Mayor Hosch Representatives Bob Loso Weed Control Commissioner Mavor Hosch Assistant Weed Control Commissioner Mike Sworski Affordable Housinç¡ Draftinç¡ Committee Cory Ehlert S1. Cloud Area Chamber of Commerce Mayor Hosch S1. Joseph Recreation Association Cory Ehlert Kyle Schneider -