HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 [07] Jul 07
· www.cityofstjoseph.com ity of St. Joseph
St. Joseph Planning Commission
25 College Avenue North July 7, 2003
PO Box 668 7:00 PM
St. Joseph. MN 56374
(320) 363-7201
Fax: (320) 363-0342
1. Call to Order
ADMINISTRATOR
Judy Weyrens 2. Approve Agenda
MAYOR 3. . Approve Minutes
Larry J. Hosch
COUNCILORS 4. 7:05 PM- Public Hearing, Michael Bader, IOl - 5th Avenue NW
Alan Rassier Interim Use Permit, Owner Occupied Rental in RI Zoning District
Ross Rieke
Gary Utsch 5. 7:15 PM- Marie Loso, request to construct a new home in a General Business
Dale Wick Zoning District
6. 7:30 PM- Victor Aho, Concept Plan for the proposed development of
Morningside Acres
· 7. Ordinance Amend - Discussion inclusion of Firing Ranges as a Special Use Permit
in an Industrial Zoning District.
8. Other Matters
9. Adjourn
·
· ST. JOSEPH PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 7, 2003
FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
ADDRESS
IJ¿ ~ k ~J
t: øv/ ~~
,
2. fJr/ï ¡; Aßi.f3 S7'-. S:T..:Jo<
3. 1/;;7>Y 2- C~ 1...f 'L <5¡' ~<e-
4. eft¡ C;)(rl"f Av,,- tV
5. ~3S- JJ //11 iÞ- w ~fJ/cØ1 u
6. I/~ /,;p ~ ¡V~'~/~/
7. ¡C/oh I ?¡1f-5/-S~Fv'W¡¿U'Ln-~
8. /)t(~ ~oJ/fC$ ~~ 5fDo~
· 9. c¡ tJ 7J tv !I--.;~,
10. l-i'Õ1¡i W ~~~.
vV
II. -1(g) S{t! ~\1 0 ~V'J
12. 6tf £/£ ¡J-k ;//1/
13. /¡? 7-/G-~Ave:/V v/
14. /~O g;i /Iff ðr
IS.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
·
· I Attachment: Yes or No I
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Interim Use Permit - Michael Bader
DATE: July 7, 2003
AGENDA ITEM
Interim Permit, Michael Bader - Owner Occupied Rental in an Rl Zoning District
PREVIOUS ACTION
None.
RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
· Adopt findings approving the request with any contingencies
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
In approving or denying this request the Planning Commission must adopt findings using the standards
for issuing a special use permit. In the packet I have prepared findings in the affirmative stating that the
standards have been met. I have also included three contingencies for your review. The findings can be
modified based on the public input received and your comments.
·
· made a motion to recommend the City Council adopt the following finds,
recommending approval of the Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental unit in a R1
Zoning District. The motion was seconded by
Resolution of finding
The request of. Michael Bader for an Interim Use Permit request came before the Planning Commission
at a public hearing held on July 7, 200. The purpose of the hearing was to consider issuance of an
Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental unit in a R1 Zoning District.
The property is legally described as Lot Thirteen, Park Terrace, according to the plat and survey thereof
on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for the County of Stearns and State of
Minnesota located at 101 - 5th Avenue NW.
-St.Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27. subd 5 allows for an Interim Use permit as follows: Residential
rental provided the unit is owner occupied and provided the room (s)renteddoes not contain separate
kitchen facilities and is not intended for use as an independent residence. For purposes of establishing if
the property is owner occupied, the owner mustbe a natural person and the owner occupying the
property as his or her principal residence and must own a fifty percent (50%) or greater interest in the
property.
The request for Interim Use has been submitted by Michael Bader, 101 - 5th 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 findirgs:
The proposed use is consistent with the standards for granting an Interim Use Permit, St.
Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07.04
Therefore, based on the above findings, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendation:
Approvalof the Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental unit in a R1 Zoning District with the
following contingencies:
1. The rental license in non-transferable and ifthe property is sold or the ownership changes so
that the aforementioned no longer owns a 50% or greater interest in the property the Interim
Use Permit is null and void.
2. Approval of the Rental Housing Inspector
3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to review the license annually and revoke the
license if the property is in violation of the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances.
4.
The motion
ATTEST Gary Utsch, Chair
· Judy Weyrens, Administrator
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT
. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
25 College Avenue NW Fee$ .
Paid , Co 0.5(,
P. O. Box 668 Receipt #
St. Joseph, MN 56374 Date to I (J() I () 3
(320)363-7201 or Fax (320)363-0342
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss
COUNTY OF STEARNS)
NAME: /Yl¡ G ¡..¡ A 6" t. ~AI}Á¡( PHONE: "8d:1 - /q tL/
,
ADDRESS: ItJl 6--- AUEA.J(J€ fi/aI
/ J'<t'
I/We, the undersigned, hereby make the following application to the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of SI. Joseph, Steams County,
Minnesota. (Applicants have the responsibility of checking all applicable ordinances pertaining to their application and complying with all ordinance
requirements):
1. Application is hereby made for Special Use permit~duct the101l0wing: 5 P.t£c t1éJ¿ ~S'5z. ?'sí€At,(/
.çõ A T""/"I'é P (.) /<. ¡Ot;.jT!I o-Ç ~ ILl r/lc.Jcs / ~ A 'J ~ ... ". AJ¡£ ,
.
2. Legal description of land to be affected by application, including acreage or square footage of land involved, and street
address, if any (attach additional sheet if necess~ry): S € tE '
. . ". . / ." V 1. .;e /...
Mo-v ~r Ft!
R -I
3. Present zoning of the above describeg property is:
4. Name and address of the present owner of the abov described property is:
" Æ"
. \)to ",. IJ
5. Is thMoposed use~atible with present and future land uses of the area? Please explain: 9'~.
.. "CJ.Þf ·lf~
6.
7. Can the proposed use be accommodated with existing City service without overburdening the system? Explain:
cr~S. No CflAIJh~5 A.Jr::~Aæf;i:
8. Are local streets capable of handling traffic which is generated by the proposed use? Please explain: l(~S.
IV() C:1t¡lfh~ ,A)£'C£3$~.. lYÆIIJ/S.. (A)J'lC{ 1$ .<.Â&?Æ
€:IV(JbGI1 ß~' d2- ¡R£. '{~~..
.
Attached to this application and made a part thereof are other material submission data requirements, as indicated.
.
Applicant Signature: ~ Date:
Date: &f5'ft,;i
Owner Signature: ~ ~
~. ~ "\,../.
FOR OFFICE USE ONL Y
DATE SUBMITTED: DATE COMPLETE: DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLICATION DATE:
Planning Commission Action: _ Recommend Approval _ Recommend Disapproval Date of Action:
Date Applicant/Property Owner notified of Planning Commission Action:
City Council Action: _ Approved _ Disapproved Date of Action:
Date Applicant/Property Owner notified of City Council Action:
.
.
~ .þ # .....
.
- "'.,#-
/' ,
t.t
.c,
, (iA1fAC~
\
--~,# -
t "!
--.......
. Hofl$~ .
.
~ ~
..
,
~ (:) ,
~ ~
~ c.
c
'" ,
\
.
/01 $.¡.l All JV fA,)
- ", --
.
Uö/l7/U:> l4:17 FAX 13203525924 Home Town Tl1:1e @O2
.
R ~ C L-' (á..w'-i ' 'i. 0~
~ ) ¿; 4--b '7 I.f:j
Form No. 5-M - WARRANTY DEED
Indlvidua.l(s) to Joint Tenants
DEED TAX DUE: $494.67
D~te: 2/24/03
FOR. VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Robert G. Johnson, a single pen;on, Charles D. Johnson and Mary E. Johnson., husband imd
wife, Jo~ Johnson and Teresa M, JOMson, husband and wife, Bruce J. DanieJ, a single peT1!on. Jean M. Johnson Daniel, aka Jean M.
Danie\, II single person, Robert M. Johnson and Ke11y L. Johnson, husband and wife. Michac!l P. Johnson and Jeri R. Johnson, husband
and wife, Grantor, bereby conveys and W3rrnnts to Michael J. Bader and Kathloen A. Bader GrD.I1tees. as joint tenants, real property in
Stearns County, Minnesota, descnoed as foHows;
SEE A'TT ACHED EXmBIT A
together with all hereditamen!$ and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions:
Subject to casement!!, reservations or restrictions of record, if any.
Check box if applicable:
Jil'The Seller certifies that the seller does not know of any weUs OQ the above described re¡ll property.
t:J A wen disclosure certificate accompanies this document.
t:J I am fumiliar with the property described in this instrument and I certifY that the status and number of wells on the dC5cnoed
prop=rty have not changed since the last previously ñled well disclosure certifieat . .
Affix Deed Tax Stamp Here
Z /'
r;~rt&';4L 01c7D-1 þ~
T=" M. Jo~,"n ?!:- .... ~::~
-~ .~
., Y L: J b 0: . ~b.rt M JOM'~
STATE OF MINNESOTA }
SS. ~. .~
COUNTY OF STEARNS
Robert G. Johnson --¿
This instrum~m was acknowledged before me on 2/24/03 Charles D. Johnson and Mary E. Johnson. husband and wife, Joe Johnson
and Teresa M. Johnson. husband and wife, Bruce J. Daniel, a Bingle per9on, Jean M. Johnson DaTliel. aka Jean M. Daniel, B single
pcr50l1, Robert M. Johnson and Kelly L. Johnson, husband and wife, Mjchael P. Johnson and Jeri R. Johnson, husbacd and wife,
Robert G. Johnson, a single person Grantor.
NOTA K ~d,~ K, ~ ),.,,-tL,..,..- L
. LINDA K. WeSTBROCK
NOTARY PUBUC - MINNeSOTA S ONA TURE OF NOTA 11. Y LTC OR OTHER OFFICIAL
p,.t.¡ Commls.sion ~ Jan. 31, 2007
Check here if p"rt or 1111 of the land is Rcsi.t<:TCd (rQ=ns) I:] .
Tax SUtcmCTIU- for the Te.ul property dr:.!Icribed in thìs. instrument !lhouJd
be se-nt to (include l'1.&me and adòrcn of Grentee):
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRM'TF.D BY (NAME AND ADDKESS): MichaeJ & Kathleen Bader
Home Town Titlç, LLC JOl 5th Ave. NW
512 South Main Sttcct St. Joseph, MN 56374
:1t'í 7R
. www.cityofstjoseph.com ity of St. Joseph
City of St. Joseph
25 College Avenue North Public Hearing
PO Box 668
St. Joseph. MN 56374
(320) 363-720 I The Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph will conduct a public hearing on
Fax: (320) 363-0342 Monday, July 7,2003 at 7:05 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. The purpose of the hearing is
ADMINISTRATOR to consider an Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental unit in an R-1, Single
Family Zoning District. The property is legally described as Lot Thirteen, Park Terrace,
Judy Weyrens according to the plat and survey thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County
Recorder in and for the County of Stearns and State of Minnesota located at 101 _ 5th
MAYOR Avenue NW.
Larry J. Hosch
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27. subd 5 allows for an Interim Use permit as follows:
COUNCILORS Residential rental provided the unit is owner occupied and provided the room (s) rented
Alan Rassier does not contain separate kitchen facilities and is not intended for use as an independent
Ross Rieke residence. For purposes of establishing if the property is owner occupied, the owner must
Gary Utsch be a natural person and the owner occupying the property as his or her principal residence
Dale Wick and must own a fifty percent (50%) or greater interest in the property.
The request for Interim Use has been submitted by Michael Bader, 101 - 5th Avenue NW;
. St. Joseph MN 56374.
Judy Weyrens
Administrator
Note: State Law requires mailed notice to all property owners within 350 feet of a special
use, interim use, variance or rezoning request.
.
~':::'" __+_0 _
--~" I .
- " '~
- - ~,
- -
~,
"
"-
"- I
"- '~ ~
I
I
'~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ---------
I ---
I CSAH 75
I
I
I
I
I
- -
-
I
I
I
I
I Propos
site
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· I Attachment: Yes or No I
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Marie Loso
DATE: July 7, 2003
AGENDA ITEM
Marie Loso, request to construct a new home in a General Business Zoning District.
PREVIOUS ACTION
RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
· Deny the request for a variance or special use based on the letter from the City Attorney as the City does
not have legal authority to grant such.
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
I have met with both Marie Loso and her daughters and with her son Chuck. During the meetings I have
indicated constructing or enlarging a new home in a General Business District is not allowed and the
existing home is a non conforming use. I have also indicated that a variance or special use is not
allowable under the guidelines and laws the Planning Commission must operate. They have requested to
appear before the Planning Commission for a determination on such. For your convenience I have asked
Tom Jovanovich to review the matter and submit an opinion. That opinion is enclosed and it is the same
information I provided to Marie and her children. Tom will also be present at the meeting.
If the Planning Commission is inclined to rezone a portion of the B 1 Zoning District a public hearing
would be required and the following fees would apply:
Zoning Amendment - $ 250.00
Comprehensive Plan Amendment - $ 500.00
·
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CONSIDERATION
. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
RECEIVED 25 College Avenue NW Fee $
Paid
JUN 2 0 2003 P. O. Box 668 Receipt #
St. Joseph, MN 56374 Date
CITY OF ST. JOSEPH (320}363-7201 or Fax (320}363-0342
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss
COUNTY OF STEARNS) E
X NAME: J/1/1-:p.T-e LD ;Sò PHONE: ~¿'3 - 76?~
.
)' ADDRESS: /If! /d ~ tv LV 7371fI¡;'t¢~D ~
I/We, the undersigned, hereby make the following application to the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of St. Joseph, Stearns County,
Minnesota. (Applicants have the responsibility of checking all applicable ordinances pertaining to their application and complying with all ordinance
requirements):
1. Application is hereby made for: (Applicant must check anylall appropriate items)
_ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ Home Occupation Permit
_ Surface Water Management Plan (Grading Permit) - PUD _ Building Mover's Permit
_ Building Moving - Owner's Permit _ Development Plan Approval X Other, please specify:'
. V /) R I f:t N (E I ;; p r'= C (J.}l VI;i Fi P ¡?- /? rn / 1-
2. Lega! description of land to be affecte..d by application, including-acreage or square footage of land involved, and street
address, if any: /1 g i 51 / fJ {/ £ Iv ~/
.
3. Present zoning of the above described property is: ( C IV! 'M ßPC! ß L,
4. Name, address an_d phone number of the present owner of the above described land: (}/I)/êitS [ÔJ-- 0
(19 í S'r í-) l/£ 1'-1 I '11./ . :3:;l.o· 3 b 3 e_ 7 ..5~7-"d-
5. Persons, firms, corporations or other than applicant and present owner who mayor will be interested in the above described
land or proposed improvements within one year after issuance of permit applied for, if granted, are:
6. Attached to this application and made a part thereof are additional material submission data requirements, as
indicated.
Applicant Signature: ~ {;.. ~Oþ~ Date: t-s -- £3
Date: &~5 - -c. ..'3
Owner Signature: CJ¡ 'p :£ c>5O
FOR OFFICE USE ONL Y
DATE SUBMITTED: DATE COMPLETE: DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLICATION DATE:
Planning Commission Action: _ Recommend Approval _ Recommend Disapproval Date of Action:
. Date Applicant/Property Owner notified of Planning Commission Action:
City Council Action: _ Approved _ Disapproved Date of Action:
Date Applicant/Property Owner notified of City Council Action:
RECEn·'- -)
JUN 2 0 2(JJ3
CITY OF ST. JOSL~H .
To: 'J' _ fl.l-t-¿) 2,0 AI / N c;- (0 /J7 í/jI--5~- /v;y
,I.- LJ'J IV N / ¡y Y
./
S' 7, j03 £- r /-/) M I AI /V ,.
,-
í-I( 0- /Vi IVl /-} æ /IS L 0 -> ()
l ( s-, /> //; ¿/ ¡£- IV / 1/0
5' 7-/ J(:) .s &p 1-0 1"1 ¡ N /V
r /! F;< £,n;:_ ,f? t00 [;.(/: S/ T í-/ A;- ~ '::!: _
J- ¡( f) )(/ /~ r: t) /J /.-..... /1 l< 119 1'/ C £ / .5;-7 r' C I J'I L '-l.5>" /.. F ,.:-I,/'í/¡
, ¡
T ú c c Jy s ;- ¡? t{ c. ¡- ý-} j\( ¡:- Uj /-1 C />1 IS /J l /i} /
C' w 1<. R r.:;'~ AI r /í ¡J ¡J¡¿ C..s.--;S-. ,7 U) {; if L (J C C /Y 57/2 k êJ--- .- -- - - .
[' / 0/,..·/ ì!--J ìS 5' - -~ié' f-7, - ~- '''-''¡' 0 e- rJ--j/¿ (nl"
< Ot/l'li ¡.- ¿ /Y ¡ L)( ) /~-- '. i ,.' -> .
~T C C( Iê /? F/l/ ì ;- ----.. J3 ¡-:::
o .vc· ;-'1.- ..i. T i--(IC i-{ L {) ( c /..¡ .s;;/! er:-C:)-'rP/.)
;9- S' ?F;;? DR /) u.; /Iit r2 p /Y {/. 05 ¡;:: Û /~(5 /,-¡ EjÇ- 7 /:; L L
../ /
S'ÞT ß¡9cK' G' ('- ~'L /S
~- L-r" µ ,(- ¡ /v .::::-
.
.
June 25, 2003
Marie Loso
PO Box 121
St. Joseph MN 56374
Dear Marie:
I am in receipt of your application for a special use or variance to construct a new home in a
General Business Zoning District. As I have indicated to you and your son Chuck, a
residential home is considered a non-conforming use in a General Business District.
At your request I am placing your application on the July 7,2003 Planning Commission
agenda for a determination by the Planning Commission. The discussion at this meeting
will focus on whether or not a special use or variance is applicable. Please note that the
issuance of a special use or variance requires a public hearing. The meeting on July 7, 2003
will not constitute a public hearing. In preparation for the July 7, 2003 meeting I have
requested the City Attorney review the matter and provide an opinion.
. Enclosed, please find your check in the amount of$ 150..00. Requesting a determination by
the Planning Commission does not require a fee. However, should the Planning
Commission authorize a public hearing a fee of $ ISO.OO will be applicable. As always, I
will be more than happy to assist you with the completion of any paperwork that is
necessary.
CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
Judy Weyrens
Administrator
cc: Tom Jovanovich, City Attorney
File
.
.
July I, 2003
VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL
Ms. Judy \Veyrens
Clerk Administrator
City of St. Joseph
21 First A venue Northwest
P.O. Box 668
St. Joseph, MN 56374
Re: Request for Special Use Pennit or Variance to Construct a New Residential Unit
in the General Business District
Our File No. 22641
Dear Ms. Weyrens:
At your request, I have been asked to render an opinion regarding a request to the City by .
Marie Loso.
FACTS
It is my understanding that Marie Loso currently owns a residential home in the general
business zoning district. She has made a request to the City for either a special use
pennit or variance to construct a new residential home in this district.
DISCUSSION
Upon review of the application, I verified that the zoning classification of the property
in question is General Business. The attached exhibit identifies all pennitted uses and
uses, whereby application can be made for a Special Use Pennit in a General Business
Zoning District. As you can see, a residential dwelling is not identified under pennitted
uses or special uses. Therefore, such use is considered a non-confonning use. St. Joseph
Code of Ordinances 52.4 Subd. 77 defines the non-confonning use of a structure as the
use of a structure which does not confonn to the applicable use regulations of the district
in which it is located.
It is my understanding that you have indicated to Marie Loso that a special use pennit or
variance application is not applicable in this situation. At her request, this matter has
been placed on the July 7, 2003 Planning Commission agenda for their consideration.
.
. July 1, 2003
Page -2-
OPINION
It is my opinion that the Planning Commission does not have authority to issue a special use permit
or variance to expand or create a new non-conforming use as provided for in the St. Joseph Code of
Ordinance and Minnesota State Statute. The central business district does not allow for a single
family residential building. The non-conforming use section of the statute specifically prohibits the
enlargement, extension, reconstruction of a non-conforming use. With respect to residential
alterations, the residence maybe increased in the living area of no more than 20% of the existing
main floor square footage. This section does not allow for the construction of a new building.
The only manner in which a residential home may be constructed in the general business zoning
district is to rezone a portion of the district. It would be inappropriate to only rezone the Marie
Loso lot since this would represent spot zoning, which is prohibited by the Minnesota Supreme
Court. If a section of the general business zoning district is to be considered for rezoning to a
residential area, the following must happen:
1. The Comprehensive Plan must be changed to develop a portion of the general
business district as residential in the future.
2. The property may be rezoned after the appropriate public hearing and notice
. requirements are met.
If you have any further questions regarding this, please contact me. -
Sincerely,
RAJKOWSKI HANSMEIER LTD.
By
Thomas G. Jovanovich
TGJlbaw
.
Extract of Ordinance 52
52.08: NON-CONFORMING USES. ·
Subd. I: Intent. It is not the intent of this section to encourage the non-conforming use of land.
Non-conformities are declared by this Ordinance to be incompatible with permitted uses in the districts in
which the non-conformity occurs. A non-conforming use of a structure, a non-conforming use of land, or
a non-conforming use of a structure and land in combination shall not be extended or enlarged after
passage of this Ordinance by attachment on a building or land of additional signs intended to be seen from
off the premises, or by the addition of other uses of a nature which would be generally prohibited in the
district in which such use is located.
Subd. 2: Continuation of Non-Conforming Use. The lawful use of a building or structure existing
at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance may be continued although such use does not conform with
the district provisions herein, unless the use ceases for a period of one year.
Subd.3: Extension or Expansion of Non-conforming Use. A non-conforming use of a
residential, commercial or industrial building may not be extended or expanded by adding onto the
building. A non-conforming use of a residential, commercial or industrial land shall not be enlarged,
expanded, increased or extended to occupy a greater area than was occupied when the use became
non-conforming, except as specifically provided in Subd. 6 of this section.
Subd. 4: Structural Change. No existing structure devoted to a non-conforming use shall be
enlarged, extended, reconstructed, moved, or structurally altered except in changing the use of the
structure to a conforming use.
Subd. 5: Maintenance. Maintenance of a building or other structure containing or used for a ·
non-conforming use will be permitted when it ~ncludes necessary non-structural repairs and incidental
alterations which do not extend or intensify the non-conforming building or use.
Subd. 6: Residential Alterations. Alterations may be made to a residential building containing
non-conforming residential units when they will improve the livability and safety of such units provided,
however, that they do not increase the number of dwelling units in the building. Additions may be made
to non-conforming residential buildings, limited to an increase in the living area of no more than 20% of
the existing main floor square footage. The construction and alteration of garages and accessory
buildings is also permitted, as long as the improvements conform with the zoning requirements for both
the zoned use of the property, and the non-conforming use.
Subd.7: Change of Non-conforming Use. A non-conforming use cannot be changed to a
comparable non-conforming use. 'Whenever a non-conforming use has been changed to a conforming
use, or to a use permitted in a district of greater restrictions, it shall not thereafter be changed to a
non-conforming use of a less restricted district.
Subd. 8: Restoration After Destruction. Any non-conforming building or structure damaged
more than fifty (50) percent of its then appraised value, as appraised by an independent appraiser,
exclusive of foundations at the time of damage by fire, collapse, explosion or acts of God, or public
enemy, shall not be restored or reconstructed and used as before such a happening; but, ifless than fifty
(50) percent damage above the foundation, it may be restored, reconstructed or used as before provided
that it is done within twelve (12) months of the happening and that it be built of like or similar materials,
or the architectural design and building materials are approved by the Planning Commission.
Subd. 9: Discontinuance of Non-Conforming Use. If a non-conforming use of a building or land ·
is discontinued or ceased for a period of one year or more, or if the use is involuntarily discontinued and
Extract of Ordinance 52
ceased because of the revocation of a permit or the right to engage in the use, subsequent use of such
. building or land shall conform thereafter to the use permitted in the district in which it is located.
Subd. 10: Junkvard. No junkyard may continue as a non-conforming use for more than thirty
(30) years after the effective date of this Ordinance, except that ajunkyard may continue as a
non-conforming use in an industrial district if within that period it is completely enclosed within a
building or within a continuous solid fence of not less than eight (8) feet in height or other approved
screening which screens completely the operations of the junkyard. Approval of the fence or screen
design shall be obtained ITom the Planning Commission.
Subd. II: ~. Signs pertaining to or advertising products sold on the premises of a
non-conforming building or use may be continued only when the non-conforming use is permitted to
continue and such signs shall not be expanded in number, area, height, or illumination. New signs not to
exceed the maximum allowed under Ordinance 52. I I may be erected only after all other signs existing at
the time of the adoption of this Ordinance have been removed. New signs in conformity with the above
may have illumination not to exceed 240 watts on one face of the sign, but flashing intermittent or
moving illumination is not permitted.
Subd. 12: Buildings Under Construction and Buildin¡:?: Permits Granted Prior to Adoption of
Ordinance. Any proposed structure which will, under this Ordinance, become non-conforming but for
which a building permit has been lawfully granted prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, may be
completed in accordance with the approved plans; provided construction is started within sixty (60) days
of the effective date of this Ordinance, is not abandoned for a period of more than 120 days, and
continues to completion within two (2) years. Such structure and use shall thereafter be a legally
non-conforming structure and use.
. Subd. 13: Non-conforming Lots of Record. Where a lot of record exists within the City which is
vacant or built upon, but does not meet the lot requirements of the zone at the effective date of this
Ordinance, and the proposed or existing use is a permitted or permitted accessory use for that zone, a
building permit may be issued to build a new structure or reconstruct a destroyed structure as outlined in
Section 52.8.08; provided that yard setback requirements are met.
Subd.14: Non-Conforming Lots. A single-family dwelling and customary accessory building,
notwithstanding limitations imposed by other provisions of this Ordinance, may be erected in any district
in which single-family dwellings are permitted on any single lot of record at the effective date of adoption
of or amendment to this Ordinance. Such lot must be in separate ownership and not of continuous
frontage with other lots in the same ownership. The provisions shall apply even though such lot fails to
meet the zoning requirements for area or width, or both, that are generally applicable in the district,
provided that yard dimensions and other requirements not involving area or width, or both, of the lot shall
conform to the regulations for the district in which such lot is located. If, in a group of two (2) or more
lots under the same ownership, any individual lot does not meet the area and width requirements of this
Ordinance, the lot must not be considered as a separate parcel or land for the purpose of sale or
development. The lot must be combined with the one (1) or more contiguous lots so they equal one (l) or
more parcels of land, each meeting the area and width requirements of this Ordinance. Variances of area,
width and yard requirements shall be obtained only in accordance with Section 52.7, Subdivision 2 ofthis
Ordinance.
.
Section 52.30: B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. .
Subd. I. Intent. The Cen1Tal Business District has been established to encourage the continuation
of a viable downtown by promoting uses dependent of high volumes of pedestrian traffic; to provide for
regulation of the high intensity commercial uses located within the original core of the City; and, to
encourage parks/greenspace in the downtown. The Central Business District provides space for
concentrated general business and commercial activities at locations where they are easily accessible to
residential areas and, at the same time, minimizing negative impacts to residential neighborhoods.
Subd. 2. Pennitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted within the Cen1Tal Business
District:
a) Antique stores.
b) Appliance stores.
c) Apparel shops.
d) Artisan shops.
e) Bakery goods, sales and baking of goods on premises.
f) Barber and beauty salons.
g) Bicycle sales and repairs.
h) Book stores.
i) Boutiques.
j) Business/professional offices.
k) Coffee shops.
1) Farmers market for the sale of produce only. Notification and the submittal of a plan to
the Planning Commission is required. .
m) Financial institutions, including insurance companies.
n) Florist.
0) Fruit, vegetable and meat stores.
p) Government buildings.
q) Grocery and drug stores, not more than 10,000 square feet in size.
r) Hardware stores, not more than 10,000 square feet in size.
s) Hobby shops and gift stores.
t) Interior design services, including floor and wall covering stores.
u) Jewelry sales and service.
v) Laundry and dry-cleaning services.
w) Library.
x) Medical, optical and dental clinics.
y) Parks and Open Spaces.
z) Pet shops, excluding kennel services.
aa) Photograph sales and repair.
bb) Record and video stores.
cc) Restaurants, coffee shops, excluding drive-in service.
dd) Sporting goods stores.
ee) Other use determined by the Planning Commission to be of the same character as
contained in this Subdivision.
ff) Postal facilities
gg) Other use determined by the Planning Commission to be of the same character as
contained in this Subdivision.
.
Subd. 3. Special Uses. The following uses shall require a Special Use PeTI11it based on the
. procedures set forth in Section 52.07.03 of this Ordinance.
a) Convenience stores, excluding fueling facilities.
b) State licensed day care and nursery school facilities provided that:
1. Adequate off-street parking and loading is provided, and;
2. The facility meets all State licensing requirements pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 245A.02 and 45A.II.
c) Motor vehicle service stations.
d) Bars and liquor stores.
e) Auto, service and repair shops.
£) Mixed use of a PeTI11itted 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, and said permitted and residential uses are not conflicting. The area
consisting of multiple residential dwelling units must meet the standards of Section
52.29, Subd. 5 and 6; and said residential uses occupy only the upper and/or rear portions
of structures. Offstreet parking requirements shall be separately determined for the
commercial and residential uses in accordance with Section 52.1 O.
. g) Lodge.
h) Commercial Planned Unit Developments.
i) Other uses determined by the Planning Commission to be of the same character as
contained in this Subdivision.
.
Cj'-J \
c V'
\-\s~ ðì
-Z
~ 0 .
...-- Z
\~ II
0
8
y
.¿
0\
0
Z
t7 Cj9
\-\C)'d\~
J
I
Ç. \0 b I
, ¡ I
L1J.. 8,,1,~~O I II
¡
I
___._-1- I
-,-
---..---.---......--...-
----1- I
---....
.- -.
,OJ \ ~ \ - --
--. !
~...;
II
~t RECEIVED
1 r-7r-¡---··"r-·--r-
JUN 2 0 2063
lOOI1J ,J I~ CITY OF ST. JOSEP.
--.
-_.t~
---
--'-1.
......-
---
..-
H::fS .
TOct 6ZZ .
OZC YY.:I-
sz:n-er
O.....s::
<;"~~
..... .....
00 C/'.)
,>-3_
O>t:d
v;¡ -<
tI:I~
~~
~ 0
C/'.)
;3
'-<
0
C/'.)
tI:I
'"0
::r:
-- ~r;;\
,~" ~
(J> 11 ~
() ~~
1>
r J{J
!!'
z () ~
:..;
þ> 11
() ~q, ,øf¿ ~
r</fØ'>- '"
(p -)."J _'""' ~.
m - -- \ ~
-- \
- \ Å
t) - - \ \)'\
- - '6
- \
- -- \
- l'
- - \ ~
(p \
\
- \ ~
-4 \
m~ -p.....' \
\
\
11 -~ - -..>
- --
r ~ ---- ·tt
_-- ~q, ,"l
-- r</fØ'>-
~ ~ _---- -)."J
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
\ - -
\ - -
~-
~
<p.þ.r
~G'o
- -t
L
00-
<P"-A\-
mr-t
-oar
I-tm
....
...."-J E
::::r m
ZUJ<P RECEIVED
- r-t
- 0 JUN 2 0 2003
() ITV OF ST. JOSEPH
^
-
"-J
www.cityofstjoseph.com ity of St. Joseph ·
June 26, 2003
25 College Avenue North
PO Box 668
St. Joseph, MN 56374 Marie Loso
(320) 363-7201 PO Box 121
Fax: (320) 363-0342 St. Joseph MN 56374
ADMINISTRATOR
Judy Weyrens Dear Marie:
MAYOR
Larry J. Hosch I am in receipt of your application for a special use or variance to construct a new home in a
COUNCILORS General Business Zoning District. As I have indicated to you and your son Chuck, a
Alan Rassier residential home is considered a non-conforming use in a General Business District.
Ross Rieke
Gary Utsch At your request I am placing your application on the July 7, 2003 Planning Commission
Dale Wick agenda for a determination by the Planning Commission. The discussion at this meeting
will focus on whether or not a special use or variance is applicable. Please note that the
issuance of a special use or variance requires a public hearing, The meeting on July 7, 2003
will not constitute a public hearing. In preparation for the July 7, 2003 meeting I have
requested the City Attorney review the matter and provide an opinion. ·
Enclosed, please find your check in the amount of S 150..00. Requesting a determination by
the Planning Commission does not require a fee. However, should the Planning
Commission authorize a public hearing a fee of $ 150.00 will be applicable. As always, I
will be more than happy to assist you with the completion of any papel\vork that is
necessary.
CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
,~
~. ;4.~o~
C / /7 '7/W
Jud Weyrens
'nistrator
cc: Tom Jovanovich, City Attorney
File
·
.
~-----.-----.._-------~_..-._-----------.---------------~----
j
~ MARIE E. lOSO 75-946/919 12 7 4 9
~ L-200-585-229-172
~ 118 - 1 ST AVE. NW BOX 121 363-7592 2 0 .4iD
:.1 STJOSEPH'M~ k ~ -00 20~
i II ~:!: 1~'tt Of (. -SD { I $L2£~~~¡
Ii ~~ rrJu2 ../ '/ ~ Dollars {Ð ='.._
I ~I FIRST STATE BANK
"~~ OF ST. JOSEPH
I ¡¡~ ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA 56374
~ ~ EDUCATIONAL CENTER OF CENTRAL MINNESOTA g ___ .
¡ F~Ç? ~ t: t-r . tW-<.> ¿ ~ S; 2> ~
j r'~.:Og .gOg~ b.: .00 L.:12 qObll· 2 ?L.g
~ .~-
I:_____~-------~~------~--------~--~---------~---------~
.
. I Attachment: Yes or No I
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Victor Aho
DATE: July 7,2003
AGENDA ITEM
Concept Plan - Victor Aho
PREVIOUS ACTION
The City Council authorized annexation of the 23 acres known as Morningside Acres. The property
owner has been made aware of the Affordable Housing provisions and that building pennits may be
limited due to lack of infrastructure.
RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
. Provide direction to the developer as to the concepts presented.
COMMENTS/RECOMMENDA TIONS
I have enclosed the PUD section ofthe St. Joseph Code of Ordinance for your reference. In reviewing the
objectives of the Ordinance it does not appear as Mr. Aho's development qualifies for a PUD. Mr. Aho is
looking for reduced frontages and lot sizes and the PUD process is not meant to avoid the residential
zoning requirements.
MDG has also submitted comments on the proposed concepts. This meeting is the first meeting of the
platting process and details plans have not been submitted as they will follow the concept meeting.
-
-
.
Section 52.09: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) .
Subd. I: Obiectives.
A. It is the policy of the City to promote progressive development of land and
construction by encouraging Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) to achieve:
1. A maximum choice of living environments by allowing a variety of housing
building types and permitting an increased density per acre and a reduction in lot
dimensions, yard, building set-backs and area requirements;
2. A more useful pattern of open space and recreation areas and,.if permitted as part
of the project, more convenience in the location of mixed residential uses.
3. A development pattern which preserves and utilizes natural features, trees and
other vegetation, and prevents the disruption of natural drainage patterns.
4. A more efficient use of land and a resulting substantial savings through shorter
utilities and streets;
5. A development pattern in harmony with land use density, transportation facilities,
and community facilities objectives of the comprehensive plan.
6. A combination of compatible residential, industrial and/or commercial uses
which are allowed in separate zoning districts such as: .
Mixed residential uses allowing both density and unit types to be varied
within the proj ect.
Mixed commercial, residential or industrial land use with the integration
of compatible land uses within the project.
Subd. 2: General Procedure. Planned Unit Developments (POO) shall be proposed and approved
in accordance with this section. The burden of justification for any planned unit residential development
project shall be the exclusive responsibility of a developer. The developer shall be responsible for
providing the information and data required in this section. In addition, as the planned unit residential
development is an innovative approach, the developer shall provide any other data or information as may
be required by the Planning Commission or the City Council. It is the intent of this Ordinance to require
subdivision of property according to the St. Joseph Subdivision Ordinance simultaneous with application
ofthe POO.
Subd. 3: Pre-Application Meeting. Before submitting a formal application for a POO under
52.09.04, the developer shall meet with the Planning Commission. The purpose of this meeting is to
discuss early and informally the purpose and effect of this Ordinance and the criteria and standards
contained in this Ordinance and to familiarize the developer with the City's Comprehensive Plan,
including the land use plan, the major thoroughfare plan, and the parks and open space plan, the
subdivision regulations and the drainage, sewer, and water systems of the City.
Subd. 4: Application. An application for approval of a preliminary plan for a proposed PUD -
shall be filed with the City Administrator by the owner( s) of title of property for which the POO is -
proposed. The Development Review Application shall be accompanied by a filing fee as established from
time to time by City Council resolutions. The application with accompanying statements shall be
. submitted in the number of copies that are indicated on the Development Review Application, and shall
include:
a) A vicinity map at a scale approved by the Planning Commission showing property lines,
streets, easements, existing zoning, and such other items as the Planning Commission
may require to show the relationship of the proposed POO to the comprehensive plan of
the City, to existing schools and other community facilities and services, and to the
surrounding area;
b) A preliminary plan of the entire area in such detail as to show the land uses being
requested, the densities being proposed where applicable, the system of collector streets
and the off-street parking system;
c) A written statement explaining in detail and with supporting documentation the specifics
of the development plan as it relates to the type of dwelling units proposed and the
resultant population, the extent and nature of non-residential development and the
resulting traffic generated and parking demands created;
d) The proposed schedule for the development of a site;
e) A statement setting forth the reasons why, in the opinion of the applicant, the PUD will
be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives specified for PUDls by Section
52.09, Subd 1.
. An application for PUD and the development plan must be filed by the landowner or
jointly by all landowners ofthe property included in a project. The application and all
submissions must be directed to the development of the property as a unified whole. In the case
of multiple ownership, the approved finafplan shall be binding on all owners.
Subd. 5: Action bv Planning Commission. Upon receipt of a completed Development Review
Application, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the proposed POO following written
and published notice as required for amendments of this ordinance. The City Administrator shall have ten
(10) days to determine the completeness of the Application. Within thirty (30) days of such hearing, or at
a later time agreed to by the applicant, the Planning Commission shall recommend approval or
disapproval of the preliminary proposal with such changes and conditions as it may suggest and shall
transmit its recommendation to the City Council. In its recommendations the Commission shall
detennine whether the proposed POO is consistent with the objectives for planned unit residential
developments specified in Section 52.09.01 and with the comprehensive land use plan of the City;
whether the proposed development will advance the general welfare of a neighborhood and the City; and
whether the benefits, combination of various land uses, if proposed, and the inter-relationship with the
land uses in the surrounding area justify the deviation from standard district regulations allowed by this
ordinance for POOlS.
Subd.6: Action bv Council. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission,
the City Council shall consider the application within thirty (30) days after receipt from the Planning
Commission and, after holding such public hearings as it deems necessary, shall approve or disapprove
the application with such changes or conditions, if any, as it may deem appropriate. It shall include a
findings on matters on which the Planning Commission is required to make determinations under Section
- 52.09.05. The applicant shall pay for the cost of the Public Hearing.
- Subd.7: Final Review and Approval. An application for review approval ofthe final
development plan shall be filed by the applicant with the Planning Commission within twelve (12)
months of the date on which approval of the preliminary plat was given by the City Council. If
application for final approval is not made within the time required, the proposal shall be considered .
abandoned. An application for final approval may be filed for part of a PUD area for which preliminary
approval has been granted by the City Council. A final plan for a part of a POO shall provide the same
proportion of open space and the same over-all dwelling unit density as is provided in the over-all
preliminary plan.
Subd. 8: Documentation Required. A final application and its supporting documentation shall
give the same infonnation as is required of plats under the subdivision control ordinance of the City in
addition to such other information as required by this ordinance and by the Planning Commission as a
condition for approval of the preliminary plan. In addition, the application shall be accompanied by such
other documentation, such as restrictive covenants, incorporation papers, by-laws of home owners'
association, dedications, and other conditions specifically required by the Planning Commission and the
City Council for the particular PUD.
Subd. 9: Action on Final Application. Procedure for action by the Planning Commission and the
City Council on an application for review and approval of the final plan for a PUD shall be the same as
prescribed by this article for the action on the preliminary proposal. In giving approval, the Council may
specify the length of time within which construction ofthe project must be begun or completed, and it
may attach such other conditions as it deems necessary. The final development plan shall be in general
conformance with the preliminary development plan as approved.
Subd. I 0: Uses Permitted. Compatible residential uses may be combined in a PUD if the
proposed location of mixed residential uses will not adversely affect adj acent property or the public
health, safety and general welfare. When a POO proposes a mixture of single-family dwellings with
multiple dwellings, no more than twenty (20) percent of a tract shall be used as multiple dwelling .
development.
Subd. 11: Standards.
a) General. Every PUD shall confonn to the standards prescribed in this section.
b) Relationship of POO Site to Adiacent Areas. The design of a PUD shall take into
account the relationship ofthe site to the surrounding areas. The perimeter of the PUD
shall be so designed as to minimize undesirable impact of the PUD on adjacent properties
and, conversely, to minimize undesirable impact of adjacent land use and development
characteristics on the POO.
c) Minimum Size. A Planned Unit Development consisting of only residential uses shall
consist of at least twenty acres in accordance with Section 52.09.
d) Minimum Lot Size. The minimum lot size requirements of other sections of this
ordinance do not apply to a PUD except that the minimum lot size requirements of the
underlying zone shall serve as a guideline to detennine the maximum dwelling unit
density of a total development. The maximum dwelling unit density shall be determined
by the area remaining after appropriate space for street right-of-ways and any other
public dedications have been determined and subtracted from the total PUD area. The
City Council may, however, authorize an increase in the number of multiple dwelling
units up to the limits set by this paragraph when the site of the multiple dwellings allows
traffic to proceed from the multiple dwelling site to an arterial street so as not to create -
vehicular traffic in a single family or two family dwelling area neighborhood, and when
the proposed increase in density meets all the standards under the PUD Section and -
Sections 52.07.02 and 52.20 ofthis Ordinance. The maximum density for multiple
dwellings under the PUD shall be one one-bedroom unit for each 2,500 square feet of lot
. area, one two-bedroom unit for each 3,000 square feet oflot area, and one three-bedroom
unit for each 3,500 square feet oflot area and for each additional bedroom (over 3) per
unit, an additional 500 square feet oflot area. If the property involved in the PUD
includes land in more than one zoning district, the number of dwelling units or the square
footage of commercial, residential or industrial uses in the PUD shall be proportional to
the amount that would be allowed separately on the parcels located in each of the
underlying zoning districts.
e) Set-Back and Side Yard Requirements. Notwithstanding other provisions of this Article,
every lot in a PUD abutting the perimeter of the PUD shall conform to yard requirements
for the underlying district. Side yards between buildings in a PUD shall be not less than
ten (10) feet but such buildings may be built without reference to the property lines of
the individual lots on which they are built. Buildings shall be spaced to allow
emergency vehicles rreedom to maneuver between buildings.
f) Access to Public Right-of-way. The site of a PUD shall abut, and the streets serving the
PUD shall be connected to, at least one arterial street. Private streets shall be prohibited.
g) Utility Requirements. Utilities, including telephone and electrical systems, installed
within a PUD shall be placed underground. Utility appurtenances which can be
effectively screened may be excepted rrom this requirement if the City finds that such
exception will be consistent with the objective of this Article and the character of the
proposed PUD.
. h) Open Space. A minimum often (10) percent of the gross area platted shall be reserved as
open space and/or parkland. _ The City may choose accept a fee in lieu of open space
dedication in special circumstances. Common open space shall be either held in common
ownership by all owners in the PUD or dedicated for public use with approval of the City
Council. Whenever possible, common open space shall be linked to the open space areas
of adjoining developments. Common open space shall be of such size, shape, character,
and locations as to be useable for its proposed purpose.
i) Parking. Off-street parking and loading space shall be provided in each PUD in the same
ratios for types of buildings and uses as required in the underlying zoning district.
-
-
. ..
MUNICIPAL
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
MEMORANDUM
To: Judy Weyrens, City Administrator
From: Joanne Foust and Cynthia Smith-Strack, Municipal Development Group, Inc.
Date: June 30, 2003
Re: Victor Aho Concept Plan
Preliminary Review:
We have reviewed the Victor Aho Concept Plan as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan and
Subdivision Ordinance and have prepared the following comments:
Comprehensive Plan Consistency:
· The proposed plat is within District 13. The Comprehensive Plan recommends this area
. be developed with low density residential developments with higher density residential
. development adjacent to Co. Rd 121. The proposed plat contains low density as well as
medium density residential lots and 5-plexes. The proposed use appears to be
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Subdivision Ordinance
· Block length. The subdivision ordinance indicates that the minimum block length is 300
feet. On all three concept plans (A, B and C) the block on the east side, adjacent to Co.
Rd. 121 appears to be slightly less than 300 feet. In addition, the maximum block
length is 1,300 feet, with blocks over 800 feet requiring a pedestrian easement. A
pedestrian easement would bè required between the lots on the southern portion of the
plat in Concept A and all blocks in Concept Plans Band C.
· Street Access. As proposed, access to the subdivision would be from the east and
west. No street is proposed to extend to the south to access property to the south as it
develops. In order to serve this property, while limiting access points to Co. Road 121, it
may be desirable to require a street right-of-way and street be developed to the south.
.. Density. Concept Plan A text references 8-5 plex units and 42 single-family. The plan
however illustrates 9-5 plexes and 42 single-family units. Overall density proposed is
3.9 units per acre.
· Drainage. Storm water ponds are illustrated on Concept Plans A and C, but not on B.
Storm water ponding for all plans should be reviewed.
-
25562 Willow Lane. New Prague, MN 56071. (952) 758-7399. Fax: (952) 758-3711- mdq@bevcomm.net Page 1
· Lots. Concept Plan A illustrates triangular shaped lots on the southwest portion of the
. plat. It is often difficult to meet rear yard setbacks on this shape 'of lot. We would
recommend redesigning these lots to create rectangular shaped lots, which may require
the elimination of one of the lots shown.
· Lots. Concept Plan C illustrates two lots on the southwest corner that are either double
frontage lots (noted to be avoided in the Subdivision Ordinance) or lot remnants (also to
be avoided). This should be redrawn or further explained.
· Park Dedication. The comprehensive plan indicates that this area is just on the outside
boundaries of the community p ark service area, suggesting the need for a park in this
vicinity. The Park Board should discuss the long term needs/wants for park land for this
area. Concept Plan C suggests a park in the center of a residential neighborhood.
Access is at the corner of the street entering the subdivision and north-south streets.
Access at this point may cause conflict/hazards unless it is a 4-way stop. The proposed
location of the park suggests it will be a neighborhood park (surrounded on 3 sides by
residential units). The Park Board should discuss the type of park and contents desired,
as the proposed shape may limit recreational amenities, which may be added in the
future.
· Patio Homes. All three concept plans propose the development of a significant number
of patio homes (36-42). The city may wish to consider requiring the construction include
provisions for storm shelters either within each unit (a closet may be constructed to
accommodate this requirement) or a separate storm shelter within the development. As
this type of construction (slab-an-grade) becomes more common, cities are beginning to
. review storm shelter requirements for future residents of these subdivisions. Proposed
language to include in the Development Agreement follows:
"Storm Shelter: In cases where residential dwelling units are constructed slab on-
grade, provisions shall be made to provide for storm protection either internally to
the unit or in a separate storm shelter structure. Compliance with this
requirement shall be based upon Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) guidelines and standards which are on file with the City Building Official.
External storm shelters shall be considered accessory structures and shall be
subject to the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance."
-
25562 Willow Lane. New Prague, MN 56071. (952) 758-7399 . Fax: (952) 758-3711. mdq@bevcomm.net Page 2
~ ~ ~ ~
~ 0 w ~
~~Q ~ ~ r6
rP' e-1 . F.:- ~ g \^
¡¡¡ t; ~ ¡:q E-: ~ '!
, '" 0 U- ~<:::I ~
~ 0 ~:::: ~~~ \
W :5 ?: ~c! ~~t:c: ~1
~ ..., ë3 ~ ~<:::I ~~<:J
I~ t:.'¡ "'I ~~kI;
¡ ~ ~~ ~tl~
~§I ! ~. ~ ~. ~~ti3 /"1
,..:; ~ ~~ ~~~~ ,./ I
~ § ~~~~ .
~ ~I~ . "'i~ ~~~~ / /1
'tit.@. ~ III:~~~ ,. . ,.
~~~ ~. ~ "'i ~~::) ~ /' I
r ~~ ~~~: . /
~~~~ /'
~~ ::t~"" ./ I
~<::s ~;:S"'i
~~ ~~"'I~
0.; 0.; .., 0.; ... to; ~ / I
~ - . -;'woa";'" - - ------ - J
I I
~ I
~ ~ I
~ ~ I
~ I ¡ I
~ ~
~ g I ¡
~.. ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ I ~
~"'j .
~~ \
e-... ~~ ...
~ ~ \ !
~ ~ .. .... ~ :
~ ". ~
~ ........ Ot t... l
~ '" i\5
G I Xa7á~ 'f X37á-9 I ~ ~
;
~
----- - - -
"'OWI~N
. . e
, :r: it i!:~
bJ m CL ~ð
w C) w
C) (/) (f)1O §~
:> C'-I 0 ~:: ~
- -,
W e'1 ¡.-: ..J~
(J <::> ~ ~~ ~! :ß
w .-J 0 . I~ ~
0:: ;; Ç: "x
o l~i I ~ª ~~ (f)
< I
~~ ~~~
II ¡;
~Id. ~ š~ š¡e~ 2S
rl~
m~ m~'- ......
>-
i~ ~i!:~ ~
~~~ ~
.-
~I ~i~ ~ /
------ .;
- -~
~
-- ---- ~z~' avo!:! A¡Nnoo
i--¡---r ,.-,
\
\
~_~ I
0 ~~ s'1>·t
I
« ~~
~
0 I~-
r-
U ~-
>
I"-
...
~ I I ,,,
I;;
0 ~ ~~i-.--
LL ~ ,:,
L~'
Z ~~
I I :/J
« "I
-1 :¡¡ L-.:?
. . . ~'( -~
0... ~ L--:;,-
r-
0... r -" ~
LLJ ~ tj- ;ø
u . ,-. L\I
- ,(
~ ~
Z N
0 ii -- !t
U ~ I ~
~ I en
~r-
1--
I I I I I I I I ~ C'I
L :;''' :~, ("i' '" I ,¡ '":'¡''''' ~
. _1__~L_-L_L--1__1J_ .-
.-
~ - . - -
tt'Q£g :3 "os: .9Q.OO N
. . .
VI UIUallCe AmeUumelll
DATE: July 7, 2003
AGENDA ITEM
Ordinance Amendment - Firing Ranges
PREVIOUS ACTION
RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Schedule a public hearing to amend the Industrial Zoning District to allow firing ranges as a special use.
-
- COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
With the new conceal and carry legislation, firing ranges are in the process ofbéing planned. We have
already been approached by one individual who would like to construct a facility in the Industrial Park.
By including the use as a Special Use the Planning Commission will have more control an the operation
and storage of ammunition. We have discussed this matter with the Pòlice Chief and he does not have
any concerns with a firing range in the Industrial Park and concurs that they should be by Special Use.
Regardless of whether or not the firing range is built in St. Joseph (we are not sure at this time) we should
consider this matter. The League of Minnesota Cities is encouraging Cities to be proactive and adopt
provisions before the plans are presented.
The use of property for an indoor firing range shall conform to the following standards:
.
)/Á The firing range shall not be located on any lot adjacent to an existing
Residential, Educational/Ecclesiastical or Public District.
.1-)3' The firing range shall not be located within one thousand (1,000) lineal feet,
measured from building to building, of an existing firing range or establishment
licensed to dispense intoxicating or non-intoxicating beverages.
1Ø- The use, occupancy, and construction of the building shall conform to the
ì Minnesota State Building Code.
J\ )ð. The building and method of operation shall conform with the applicable
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, and
. OSHA standards for indoor ventilation, emissions into the atmosphere, indoor
sound levels, lead containment, and outside noise standards.
í
i
i The design and construction of the firing range shall completely confine all
~Æ.
J ammunition rounds within the building and in a controlled manneL The design
and construction of the firing range shall be certified by a registered engineer in
the State of Minnesota. The certified plans shall include the specifications and
construction of the bullet trap(s), ceilings, exterior and interior walls, and floors.
The certified plans shall state what type and caliber of ammunition the range is
designed to totally confine.
F. No ammunition shall be used in the range that exceeds the certified design and
. construction specifications of the firing range.
G. A written log of range users shall be maintained by the range operator and
available for inspection by the City at any/all times. The name and address of the
user shall be verified by photo identification. The log shall, but is not limited to:
i. The name, address and phone number of the range user;
ii. The time and date the user was in the range;
iii. If aged twenty-one (21) or more a photocopy the individual's permit to
carry a dangerous weapon.
H. Firearms shall not be stored on the premises when the range is closed for
business.
I. Ammunition shall not be stored on the premises when the range is closed for
business.
J. On-site supervision shall be supplied at all times by an adult with credentials as a
range operator. The range operator shall be responsible for the conduct of their
place of business and the conditions of safety and order in the place of business
and on the premises.
K. The applicant shall provide and maintain proof of liability insurance which shall
require the insurer notify the City Administrator in writing within ten (10) business
days of cancellation of the policy, a change in the limit of the policy and/or a
change in policy ownership. Said policy shall be available for inspection by the
City Administrator and/or hislher assigns at all times.
.
L. On site instruction shall be given only by Certified Firearms Instructors. Current
certificates for firearms instructors shall be on display in a conspicuous location .
in the premises and available for pubic inspection at all times.
M. An outside security plan for the general grounds shall be submitted to the City
Administrator or designee for review and approval.
N. The transport of firearms on the premises, to the premises and from the premises
shall conform to State Law.
O. Minors shall not be allowed in the range unless accompanied by an adult at all
times. This provision shall not be interpreted to prohibit minors from participating
in a firearm safety class which is supervised by an adult instructor.
P. Indoor firing ranges shall not sell or dispense intoxicating or non-intoxicating
liquors, nor shall they be located in a building which contains a business that
sells or dispenses non-intoxicating or intoxicating liquors.
Q. The Council reserves the authority to review or modify the performance
standards for the range.
.
.
JUN-23-2003 16:39 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES
P.14/19
,'O,
'3 1¿4~ iZ.J
t, 'éJ,t' ~
MAY :lOO2
IV/AI AMI!RICAN II
PLANNING
ASSOCIATION
Coping with Colleges:
How Communities Aclclress the ProbleMs
of Students .Li"ing Oft-Campus
By Craig Raborn
Coß1J.'11unìties With colleges and universities ha.ve long '. ,
struggled to develop effective methods for coping with the:
pressures of students living in off-campus housing, pa.rt.Ïcularly
the enctoachmc:nt of student: rental housing into nearby single.
family neighborhoods and the negative effects of this
encroachment. These impacts include a number of issues, such
as rising rental prices and loss of affordable hOll.~ing. major shifts
ill property values, increased n1,lisance and noise complaints,
traffiç congestion, and reduced parking availability. Aß
communities and neighborhoods cxperience these pot~nt¡a1ly
negative impacts, citizens may begin to bring pressure on eleCted
officials to take some type of corrective and preventative action.
.anners rnust give careful consideration to these issues and to
c: full rnnge of imxnediaté and long-term solutions so that they
might effectively solve these problem$ and create frarnework~ for
pl'C:VI:i:'1ring thci¡; reOcOlrttno:.
Effective regulatory approaches to
student housing issues almost always
involve some level of increased Stutknrs living (1Jfcarnpus (1ften mults in significant conumiorz¡ of
effort in code enforcement. singlefamily homes. This example in Austin, Texæ, 3how! &he driveway
. replacing rht: front yard, a siM stairway lending &0 an upstairs
apartmcnt, and a party patio" attached to the front olthe house. Also
College c:nrollm~t in the United States is projected to note the ,femi.permanent "For R~l1t" sip¡,
increase 12.4 percent betWeen 2002 and 2010 (National Center
for Education Statistics, 2002). In most cases, college enrollm.ents -:,i.~ø:j!Š~Ç!:fjij~~:i~:{~,
will significandy oUtpace schools' ability to offer on·catnpus
housing. This wilt accd(:1'atc the pmsurc: on nearby QUE 'i:i~i\O N S rif.~:p U T 'H I 5
neighborhoods to offcr off.caropus stUdent housing, and
consequently wilt force these communities co deal with the range ART I C~laï',;?/ J 0 I N US
of subseq1,leIlt issues. Furthermore, most college and univc:rsh:y ;:'5:~:"~t~:;;"' 0 N L I N E ·
campuses are located within the heart of their host communitics. ' :,:¡(l/({J;Y'!' .
where there is little room for addirionai housing capacity. This Outing cheweek of June ~if.i~~~·go online to participate in
combination of proj~tl:!:d enrollment growth and lack of existing our "Ask the: A1,1thor" tQ~:(à new ìmeractìvc feature of
housing faci~ties will concentrate and increase the impa.cts of Zoning News. Craig ~r.n~y{i1l be: available co an~:""cr
col1e:gc students living off~campus in coming years. c¡uestions ahouc this attiå'~nXGo to the AJ?A website at
There have historic:ally been two basic: approachc::s to addressing www.planning.org and fÒil~;1~rhe links .to the "Ask the
the a£fcas of coU<:g1: $tUdcnu that over·occupy rental dwcllIDgs in Author" scc:tion. From th~e, JUSt submit your questions
. singlc~family neighborhoods. These have been co cither resist about the article using..an e-mai11ink.. Th,c:: author will rc:ply.
encroachment of stUdent~c<:upicd housing or to adjust regulations posting the :utSWcrs cumulatively on the weositc: fo( th~
to acoommo4a.te growing Studcnt housing rcqu.íremenrs. Innovative benefit of all subscribers. This new fC!i.ture will be available
, techniques to solving oft-c.am.pus student re6idenee problems have: foUowÌJ\~ selected issucs of Zoning New! at ¡mnounGed
be¢n implcmen~ by some cities, and new approaches axe times. Afrer each online: discus..~ion is closed. the answers
continually being explored. Effecive regulatory approaches to will be sa.ved in an online archive available: clu'ou.gh the
StUdent housing issues almOSt always involve some level of mc:reasc=d APA Zoning News webpages.
JUN-23-2003 16:39 LE8GUE OF MN CITIES P.15/19
effort in code enforcement. Emuring Strong and cffi::ccivc: ço& Regulating Occupancy .
enforcement in neighborhoods may reduce much of th~ opposi cion People Living in a Dwelling .--
to stUdent housing.
COlllparlson of College TOwns
This iSSUE: of Zoning News examines 12 communities with Unrelated
similar "town and gown" charaçteristic;.s tQ determine and People
compare the range of regulatory approaches wed. Examined.
cities and a. survey of their approaches are shown in th~ t3.ble on
page 3. The approaches range from essentially taking no =-ction
to adopting nearly all ava.ilabl~ solutions.
The survey suggests no uniV/:rs...uy accepted approach to
addressing off-campus student housing issues. There are, < ..", ....,.. ,." --- <'111 "'-f
however, a combination of approaches wed in :< varí~cy or cities
that indicate om: of twO overall strategies: 1) restrict StUdent less RE~~T1CN more f
housing or 2) accommod.are it while mitig¡¡ting its impact. restricttve resùÍdive
Many of me communiti~s also combined several regulatory
tt:chniques to comprehensively address the issue. Def1nicíons of f.amily have been widcly litigat~d. Common
Cities that recognize the issue of off-campus studenr housing de£nitions in college communici~ rnnge [(om no more than
and its effect on single-family neighborhoods in either their tWO unrdared persons up to five unrela.r.ed persons. Some
comprc:h~nsive plans or other planning documents ap~ar more localities simply d~fine f.unily as "one or more persons living as
likely to have taken the «accommodate-mitigate" approach. a single housc:ke~pir¡g unit." I..a.s Cruces dennes th~ term bm
does not uS(;: the definition [0 place limits on rotal occupancy in
single-family dwellings.
Although using a narrow ddìnicion of family was upheld by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Belle-Terre II. Bol7W (416 U.S. 1,94 S. Ct.
1536, 1974). anumbcr of statcCQW1$ acro.o;.~ the country have since
rejected using narrow family ddlnidoM to solve problems .
associated with ovc:r-<xcupancy. A 1985 New York Court of
Ap~s case rej~t«I. 3. restrictive definition that no more th:ln cwo
Wllelated persons constituted a f.am.i.ly by deciding:
M:ltlifesdy, rcstrictiag occupancy of single.f=1.ily housing based
generally on the biological or legal rd.ationships ~twffl:> irs
itlb:l.bit:1l1ts bean no ~.a:l.b1e t'eLuiolUhip to the goals of
rcducin~ puking :md tnffiç problems, contro1liD.g POPII,lWOn.
demity and prevcntin¡; noi$\:: and dimarb:u\ce (dEaûons
omitted., emphasis :\ddecl). Thc:ir 2chj~enr d<:p<:nd~ not up"n
Ù\c biological or legal relations betw= the oecu¡>.QJ1r.i of a hou.se
bur generaliy upon the size of the dwdIing :lI\d the lot and the
Inçompadbillty bawl!rn howing often ~JUlts from (om/erNol'! of;ingl~- number or itS OCCUP:lI\ts. Thus, the ddìnirioD of family employed
ftmily ndghborho(/dân;o m4mt neighborhood!, H~.a twQ-SUJry here is both fan1ly ovçrinclusive it'> prohibiting" for example, a
apamn~m Looms Of)~r a singh-family house in Aumn, T~, with lin~ young unmarried collple from occupying a four·bedroorn hou.se
prouaion affimká 6) the "p"¡Clacy fin,!:. " who do not thR:1ren the purposes of the ordin:mce :lI\d
underindusjye in failing to prohibit occupancy of a two-bedroom
home by 10 or 12 persons who are related in only the most distant
Regulatory Toolkit manner and who might well be expectcd to present S~OIU
overC1owding and rr:úEc problem.s. (MçMinn I, Tt?W7 of Oymr Bay,
Rømieti1Jtfamily definition. Narrowly defining the t<:rrn 66 N.Y2d 544.498 N.Y,$.2d 1:28, 1985)
"fumily" is perhaps me most ~mmon memod of attempting to Reducing d~nsity may control some impaCtS of student ovcr-
deal with over~ccupatlon of rental propcrti~ in single-family
diStricts. It is also 1.l$U3l1y the first regulatory tl:!chnique that occupation, as the approach is intend~d to do. However, the
cities consid.er. At its core, this "pproac.:h is an attempt ro limit impacts that are inB.uenced by reducing density might not be:
overall popl.1l:ltion density in residential dimicts. By limiting the the impacts that generate: the most concern from neighbors and
number of unrelated individuals that may Jive in single-famHy residents. For example, if a primary <:on.cern of rcsidems is noise:
dwdlin~, c;oJlege communitic:~ sc:ek to reduce the impact of' from late-night parties or the behavior of tenants, linking a
stud~nts in residential nE:.ighborhoods. Homes rented to reduction in density to a. reduction of these imparn is tenu.ous
unrelated tenants ar¢ considered more likcly to ha~ full and speculative. A review of research and pla.nn.ing literature .
occupancy (a tenant for: every available room) than homes finds no indication of!inks between dcruîcy of OCCUpMcy and a
rented to funilies or occupied by owncrs. reduction in the type of disturbances that oft~n lead to cities
narrowing the definicion of family. In other words, this is an
approi.ch tha.t likely will not fix. the prob¡~. -
Craig Raborn & a Senior Associat~ at DU71.Ci17l A!¡ocittt~> a Enforcemmt of existing codes and stan.d.tz.rtls is critical. The
c~nsu.¡tin.!firm specializing in plan impl.mzmramm techniques in most common method for enforcing over-occupation viol~tions
i~ .11 .,..onnn(l rn ~.nmnl::1int<; from nc:i!1hbors and other residents.
. JUN-23-2003 16:4121 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES P .16/19
. Some dries have used hist:ori<: preservation discrictsas a tool NEWS BRIEFS
for managirig the impactS of stud~ts living otf-campus in
, single--family residential disuicts. Historic preservation districts
I
; provide communities with a. method for controlling tht: Nela..aska Supreme Court Upholcls
appearance of property, such àS frontryard parking, littt:r and CAFO Zonillg .
dcbris restrictions, basic property upkeep, and the like. In a unanimous d.ecision with one justice not participating, the
Enforcement is again critical to success, but also rdi(:S on self- NebtaSka Supreme Court in March rejected a challenge to one
enforcement solutions from within the neighborhood. A county's right to insist that a çoncenuatcd animal feeding
community also should permit existing nonconformances operation oornply with its n(;W wning ordinance. But the c:a..<;e,
within me dist¡:Ïet rocontinue provided that the property meets decided March 15, was clc:arJy a test of whetht:r the legislature,
the preservation distrkt's sca.ndarœ. in So 1 %7 stature, had c:xempred farm buildings from all :wning
Other overlay distri~ related to universities ha.ve been used. In requirements by counties.
some cases, these offer ways for cities to bcttc:r: regulate uses that The case began when Prenúum Farms, which was planning a
might naturally occur near uni~iries> alumni association offices. 5,OOO-bog operation in Holt County', in north.central
housing for visiting f.u:ulcy; tUtoring offices, àrt galleries, priva.te or Ncbr:.tSka., chose to challenge the çounty's 1997 zoning
public parking lots, fàculty-affiliaœd ICSearch facilicic:s, and so on. ordiX'lance. The regulations scipulate that any confined livestock.
Manhattan oonditionallyallows these types of uses within irs operation housing more than 1,000 animal units must obtain a
University Overla.y Distria.ln one case, an overlay district is used conditional use permit. After inq\Úring about its a.pplicability to
to restrict student housing: AllentoWn, Pennsylvania, has a Student the 6rm's projca ~d being told that it was not éXempt,
Residences Overlay Distr:ia that dccrc:ases the number of unrelated Premium Farms, which owns fOl,1r sires in the C:Ol,lnty, chose: to
stUdents permitted to 1M: in dwclling \UÚrs in ~ around ca.mpus. begin construction in November 1998 without a permit. In July
The ordinance is unique in that it specifically rd"erenœs student 1999, county zoning administrator Charles Fo)!: notified the
residences, and it was upheld in Pc:nnsylvaniQ. Cout[ challengt:$. In hrm that it ~<; in violation of county permit requirements. The
addition to the basic question of whether this approach is good company promptly filed an amended petition for declaratory
policy, planners also should c::onsidcr the risk of a challenge as judgment and a temporary injunction remaining enfoX'cement
discriminatory ag<Ünst suspect classes in other scttin~. . .for of the zoning regulations. The district court sided with
instance, if the population of a college disproportionately represents _ Premium Farms and granted die: injunction.
. a group of people that could be disciminated against, such as The firm latcI £iled a motion for summary j\ldgment that the
minorities or membe~ of a certain f.úth. regulations werr;jnvalid. Nebraska counties have long had th~
Restrictive covenants potentially offer an cffeccive way for power to regulate agriculmral }and uses thro\lgn zoning. At
neighborhoods to prevent encroachment of remal impacts. While issue, howcvc:r, was the ambiguol,l$ wording of the 1967 statute.
cities arc nOt usually involved in enforcing resuictive covenants, Premium Farms daimed that the following languagr: exempted
they c;ap provide information about covenants to neighborhoods, or farm buildings:
even aaivdy support neighborhood5 in the dcvel()pment of Within the: = of jurisdiction ~nd powers established by scccion 23-
covenants. Houston U$eS. and enfun.:es deed rcstriccions and
covenanrs ramer than zoning, and neighborhood$ might be able to 114, the county bO:lfd rrul.Y . . . rc:gulate, rcruio:, or prohibit the
=ction, <:onstnlctÏon, reeonsuuctÎon, alteration, or use or nOMrm
c:mu1aœ some aspects of Houston's program. TheQretically, buildin¡s or Stl'ut.'tureS ¡u¡d the use. or occupancy ofland . . . Nonf;¡rnl.
characreriscic:s of a zoWng distticr could be applied to a restrictive buildings arc all buildin~ cx.cepc those buildings urilü-ed for
covenant, making cIÚor<:ement largely a matter for neighbors to agricultural þwposd on a Emnstead of tweJ'lE)' :='CS or more which
handle:. There arc many unanswcred quescions about applying produCC$ one thous:u¡d dollars or \1orc: of.&rm productS e;\ch y=
areawide restrictions to existing neighborhoods, so if this approach
were to be considered, cities should sed< legal advice to properly The distriçt court sided with Premium Farms aDd invalidated
implement any programs.
Close coopeJ:ation with neighboring universities might offer the oounty's zoning regulation of farm buildings. This was a major
communint:$ a method to more effeccivdyinfl.uence me blow for Holt County. whose code established :¡¡. single zoning
universiciC$' development of on-cunpus housing, plan for spu.rtS of district but required conditional use pcrrni~ fOT confined livc:stock
growth in enrollment, and control disorderly $tùdent behavior. operations, which it dc:.fin~ as "torally rookd bl,1i1dings, whic:h may
Long-term solutions might involve rdying on mtnsit Systems be open-sided (for ventilation purposes only) or completely
and incentive zoning to encourage development of r~ote enclosc:d. on the sides, whc::rc:in animals or pou..ltry are housed ovt:r
student villages away &om affected nearby neighborhoods, solid concrete or dirt Roors, or slatted (patcial1y open) fio()t$ over
coordinating planning with the c:ollege or university, a.nd pits or manurc collection areas in pens, stalls. or cages, with or
creating. "¡¡tud.enrs-housing ba1ancd' progrø.ms bascd on the ideas without bedding materials and mechanical vc:nciladon." ,
of jobs-housing bal3J1ce that have been used in many places to Holt County appealed direcdy to the Nebraska S\.1preme
ensure a.dequate h01J$Íng where jobs will soon develop. Court, bypassing the court of appeals. and. me high court
Cities facing these pressures should not shy away from granted irs petition. The county argur:cl that the districr court's
. addressing them in comprehensive plans and. other pl:1nn1ng interpretation was ixnp.ractical and contrary to the statute's
doçumenrs. Such prc:c::mpcive attention will allow thl;$c legislative history, which had the more limited aim of IJparing
communities to i\ppr:oach the irnpac:tS of students living off. farms the burden of applying for building permits for: farm
campus with approp{.iare and effective planning solutions. rather buildings thar arc otten temporaI}' in nature_
than short-term or knee-jerk .reactions. University growth is a "It's the way counties always interpreted and enforced it,"
fact oflife for many communitic:s-e5pecially for thr: next few &;I}'$ attorney David Peak, who rcprc::senred Holt County. "Large
yc:ars-and they will encount(:r lessrrauma and more success if livestock says you œn't do anything. The test case reaffirmed
they develop strategies before the pressures are felt. that the statute said what we always thought it said." Prak notes
JUN-23-2003 16:41 LE~GUE OF MN CITIES P.17/19
ínspecrions to ensUI'I: compliance wÎl::h buil&ng and i:oning up to thJ:!:e unrelated persons in ~ single-family dweiling would ~
codes prior to allowing rental occupancy. Some prOgŒms also therefore define & rooming house as any dwe1.ling occupied by
require landlords to acquire some type: ofJandlord permit prior four or more un,dated persons. Rooming houses are then
to entering into any renral agreement. illowcd by right in cert<ùn distric::ts, usually all mulri-family
Columbia, Missouri, established :1. "Rental Unit zones or in an overlay district. They might also be speci1kally
Conservation Law" in 1978 mat require:s compliance with prohibited in certain single-family districts. ~
munerQUS city codes before issuing a ccrúficatc of Existing nonconforming uses :u-e r~uired to register within a
compliance ¡:equircd for rcntal U$e. A property owner wishing reasonable: rime, and a minimal fee mg.y be required at:
to rent peopeny must submit a formal :¡,ppJication, including registration. Nonconforming uses mar do not registcr within the
a. description of the property, owner and agem comacr allotted time and are later identified through iospc;çtÌons or ,
information, comc:nt for inspecrion, and c::e:nification of complaints must give up the nonconforming over-<>ccupanc:y. A
hearing and ventila.tion SY5tems. The ownc:r must also pay an ser of criteria for moniroring these nonconforming rooming
inspection fee. The inspection chl:':cks for com.pliance with houses is develo~d that also spe:cifies how those that create
Columbia's building, planning, signs, subdivision, zoning, documented problems may lost: theí¡: non-conformíng status r
and fire: prevention ordinances. Nonc:ompliance identified and cease Ovet-<x:cupancy. Enfo~mc:nt is a critical part of
through verification inspecrions or ne:ighbor complaints can making the rooming house program WQ¡:k and musr be part of
lead to revocation of the rental certificate. Columbia's rental any attempt to regulate: this use. One advantage of this program
inspection progra.m WQS upheld by the: Missouri Supreme is that enforcement ¡;houId be easicr rhan. çodc: enforcement for
COUrt in 1985 (Fm:h v. City ofColurnbia, 69.3 S.w. 2d 813; ovèr-occupancy becau¡;e: it unambiguously d<:fines what is an.d is
Mo.1985). not aJJowcd and how nonconforming uses are regulated.
:
[t,
:
!
.,
:
(Lift) StJ(dent ho~ing ofim g~~ (omplaints about 7!uiso.n=; hm rrash can. and rt(yc~ bim art: in m! unkept front yard of 0. sl/.flPQ¡edfy
si71gfç.family horn£' in Austin, ÚXfJJ, (Right) Anothel' annoyancç ofrtuknt hflu.IÌng it th~ proliftration (¡f/.easing ¡igm. These often rmuUn up
year-round, IZl/.owing the "prc-l.tt1.JÌng" mz¡on to run wirholl.l inta'T'Uption,
Othr:r communities have taken different renral inspection DÙorderly house deJign4tion. Manh:m:m created a
approac:h~: Gaine:svillc provides it:> licensed landlord list on the Diso,derly House Nuisance Code that aIJow5 the cÜy to
city's websÌt\!:; Boulder exempts renta.l~ where the owncr occ~pi~ moniror violations of a. broad range of ordinances by
the dwelling artd. rents to one or twO lodgc.cs and temporary dwelling unit. Repear violations ;IS defined by the ordinance
rentals such as faculty members renting homes while on and failure to offer abatement can. lead to sevc:re penalties,
sabbatical; and Manbco, Minne.sora, developed :\J1 easy-to-use :¡,nd both renant and properry ownc:r can be; hdd responsible.
website describing landlord and t1:nant rights, a.nd a.1so providing yjobrions thar are monitored include criminal offense:; on
detaìis for owners wishing to convert properties to rental uses. the premises, alcohol-related offenses, animal and fowl
Roummg h()ll.$e program. Some comm~niries have develop«! violations, and health, weed, and environmental nuisance
modified rooming house progJ::1.ms as a method of accommodating violations. ManhamuÙ ordinance does nor include violations
and mitigating stUdent housing impa.cts. These programs establish of the zoning code: but such violations could be inc1ude:d by
new definitions for rooming hollSe$, specifÿ whet\: they will Ix citi~ considerin.g this approach. Used in connection with
allowed in thcfut'1.1re, and regiSter and monitor exÍ$tÌug rental licensing or rooming house programs, a disorderly r-;
nonconforming rooming houses. The cities that have a.dopted or house nuisance code: could be an enforcement toðl with
are c;onsid¢IÌng this approach bdj~ that it is less costly and less tee:th.
&fficult to admÎni5ccr than rcmal inspection and landlord licensing Oth~1' appt"òáChes. There ace severa! other approaches that
approachc:s or õtrialy enforcing over-occupancy cod.;s. . citks and planners might consider in addressing fhe issues of
The rooming housr: dc:finition is typically changed to include student off-campus ho~sing, including both modif1ca.rions co
any type of existing over~OC'l1pancy. A city that currently allows tradítional approad\es and devc:loping innovative ones. !
JUN-23-2003 16:42 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES
P.18/19
. Some cicies have used historic prc:$erv;¡tion d1srricts as 3. tool NEWS BRIEFS
for managing the impactS of students living off·campus in
I singk.farnily residential districts. Historic: preservation districts HellNska S.,preBle Court Upholds
I provide communititS with a method for c:::ontrolling the
appearal:1ce of property, such as front.yard parking, litter and CAFO Zoning
debris rcstrictions, basic property upkeep. and the like. In a unanimous decision with one: justice not participating, the
Enforc:::em.ent is again criric:::a1 to succ:::ess, but also rdie:s on sdf- Nebraska Supreme Court in March fejected a challenge: to one:
enforœment solutions from within the neighborhood. A county's right to insist that a concentrated ani.mal feeding
community also should permit aisting nonconformano:s opr:ration comply with its new :tOning ordinance. But the casc:,
within the district to continue provided that the: property mec:t5 decided March 15, was clearlY:l rest of whether the legislaturc:,
the preservation distriCt's st<\ndards. in a. 1967 statUte, had exempted farm buildings from all zoning
Other overlay districts rc:l<l.ted to universities have been used. In requirements by counties.
somc cases. these offer ways for cities to better regulate u.~ that The case began when Premium FQ.rms, which was pLanninß a
might naturally oc:::c:ur near uniV'ersïtícs¡ alumni assocÎacion office:;, 5,OOO-hog operation in Holt County, in north-central
housing for visiting faculty; tutoring offices, art galleries, pñvate or Nebraska, chose to challenge the county's 1997 zoning
public parking lors, faculty--affiliatcd. researc:::h facilici~, and so on. ordin;Ulœ. Thl: regulation~ stipulate:: that any confined livestock
Manhattan conditionally allows tbese types of uses within its operation hou.sing more than 1,000 animal units mUSt obtain a
University Overlay District. In one case, an overlay district is used conditional use pernlÏt. .After inquiring about its applicability to
to restrict Student housing: Allentown, Pennsylvania., has a StUdent the firm's project and being told that it was not exempt,
Residenc:::es Overlay District th:1t decreases the nurobcr of unrelated Premium F:ums, which owns four siteS in the county, chose to
smdents permitted to live in dwelling units in areas around campus. begin construction in November 1998 without a permit. In July
The otdinancc: is unique in that it sp«:ifically refèrenccs Student 1999, county zoning 3.d.ministtator Charle.~ Fox notified the
residences. and it was upheld in Pennsylvania COUrt challenges. In firm mat it was in viola.tion of county pe::rmit rcquir.emems. Th~
addition to the: basic question ofwhemer this approac:h is good company promptly filed an amended pc:tition for declaratory
poHey, planners also should consider me risk of a cb:.illenge as judgment and a temporary injunction restraining enforcement
discriminatory -against suspect classes in other setti~_ . .for of the zoning règUlarion5. The district eourt sid.ed with
inStance. if the population of a college disproportionately representS Premium Farms and granted the injunction.
. a group of people that could be discriminated. ag:tinst, such as The firm later filed a motion for summary judgment that the
minori'dc:s or members of a certain faith. rc:gulations were invalid. Nebrask.à counties have long had the
Restrictive: covenants poœncially offer an dfective: wa.y for power to regulate agriculruralland uses through zoning. At
, " neighborhood.~ to PICV(;:Ot encroachment of fental impacts. While issue, however, was the ambiguous wording of the 1967 Statute::.
// dties ate not usually involved in enforcing restrictive co~na.nrs, Premium F:Utns claimed that the followíng lan~c exempted
they can provide information about covenants to neighborhoods, or farm buildings:
even aÇtÌve1y support neighborhoods in the dcvdopment of Within the area ofjl.lrisdiction ~ POWC!$ c:Sf<lblished by section 2.'1-
covenants. Houston uses and enfOrces deed r~'trictions and
c:ovc:nants rathr:r than zoning, and neighborhoods might be able to 114. the COUfIo/ board may. . . rc:gulate, restrict, or prohibit the
c:rcction, c:onrtru~tÎon, rcoon$tr\:lctÎon, alteration, or use: of nonF.um
emulate some 3Spect5 of Houston's program. Theoretically, buildings or suuaures Ilnd the use, or OCCl.1pancy ofland . . . Nonf.-µ-m
cbaracreristícs of a zoning distrìc:t could be applied to a. restriCtive buildings ~ ill buildings except those building$ uclli=l for
covenant, n1aking enrorcement largely a matter for neighbors to :¡gricultural Pw:posèS on a Fm:nntad of twenty acrc3 Of more which
handle:. There arc many unaDSWercd questions ;¡,bOUt applying produces one thous;¡nd dollars or more of farm prod~ c:ac:h year.
area.widr: restrictions to existing neighborhoods, so if this a.pproach
were to be considered, cities should ~c:ek legal advice to properly The district court sided with Premium Farms and invalidated
implement any progrnms.
Close cooperatíon with neighboring universicies might offi:r the county's zoning re¡u1acion of fu.rm bwldings. Thi:ö was a major
communities a method to more effectively influence the blow for Holt County. who~e code established a single zoning
univemties' development of on-carnpus housing, plan for spurts of district but required conditional use permits for confined livestock
growth in enrollment, and control disorderly student behavior. ope:.a.rions, which it defined 3S "totally roofed. buildi~, which may
Long-term solutions might involve: relying on transit systems be open.sidcd (for vmtilation purposes only) or completely
and incentive zoning to encourage development of remote: enclosed. on the sides, wherein animals or poultry arc: housed over
student villages a.way from afFectr:d nearby neighborhoods, solid concrete: or dirt floo.rs, or slatted (partially open) floors over
coordinating planning with the: college or university; and pits or manure collection areas in pens, stalls, or cages. with or
creating "students-housing balance" programs based on the ideas without bedding materials and mechanic::ú venwarion."
of jobsrhou.sing balance that have: been u.sed in ma.ny places to Holt County appealed directly to the Nebraska Supreme
ènsure adequate: housing where jobs will soon dl:Velop. Court, bypassing the court of appeals, and the high court
Cities facing these prc:$Sures should not shy away from granted its petition. The: cou,m:y argued that the district courts
'. addressing the:m in comprehensive plans and other planning interpretacion was imprac:::tiœl and contrary to the statute'::
documents. Such preemptive attention will allow these legislative: history. which had the more limited aim of sparing
J communities to approach me Ïmpaas of students living off- farms the burden of applying for building permits for far.m
" campus with appropriate and. effective planning solutions, rather buildings that are often tempor.uy in narure.
man short-term or knee-jerk reactions. Unive.síty growth is a "It's the way counties always interpreted and enforced it."
fact of life for many communicics-especially for the ne'X[ few says attorney David Pœk, whò represented Holt County. "Large
Ye:l.I&--a.nd they will encounter lc:s.~ trauma and more success if livestock says you c:aJ1~t do anything. Tho; te..~t case reaffirmed
they devdop strategies before the pressures are fdt. that the: statUte ,53id what we:: always thought it said;" Ptak notes
JUN-23-2003 16:43 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES P.19/19
dw: the law, whicb he concedes ha5 "Btrange language," w~ similar effect, pushing big box~s out of meir jurisdiction and
~', passed "long before megafarms were on the horizon" and tha.t into the cities,
"livestock. inteteSts were trying to use that section as à sword In May 2001, the Charlorce.Mecklenburg Planning ~
rather than a. shield. .. Commission in North Carolina released a report on the \
The high court's decision, which overturned the findings of challenge of big-box 'Vacancies and potenñal solutions for the
the lower court, borrowed libera.1ly nom the arguments in Ptak's problem. Although no "silver bulletn was discovered, the report
brief in support of Holt County's position. The court noted that providesínsight into the complexities of the problem, and may
statt.u:ory interprctatÌonshould not produce a nonsensical result. help further a growing national dialogue for addressing the
Ptak's brief cited numerow examples of the practical problem.
impossibility of regulating agricultural land uses while denying PAS and Zoning News are searching for examples of
countÎes any zoning authority over the br.Üldings themsclvc:$, intergovernmental agreements tha.t mitigate big-box
offcring the offsite jmpacrs of underg¡-ound manure storagE: as vacancies without encouraging the StOres to move to a
just one example. The court cited committeeh(;aring testimony neighboring jurisdiction. Send rdevant information to Nace
from U.s. Rep. Doug Bc:rc:uter, then a Ncbraska senator: Hutcheson, American Planning A$$ociation, 122 South
I would likc:to c:rnphasize again that we are noe Ilndcr this bill Michigan Avenue:, Suite 1600, Chicago, II 60603, or e-mail
nhutcheson@planning.org. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg
authod~ng zoning by counties. The counties a1r~y have char report is available to Zoning News subscribers. Send inquiries
power. They have ~he power to rc:gu1ate agriculture bnd =, . . . . to the above address. Nate Hurcheson
The feeling presented here is rhat f.¡rm bulldinS3' farming .itself is
such a changing o<:cupation and that many times buildings arc built
very tapidly and tom down juSt as mpidly and there arc restrictions
placed upon the IO~tîon of these such as they may must be: set back
SO nlany yards from the high......ay. These still hold but. . . in MOSt ZON/HGl(ej2orts
c:¡ses, these things l'.re exempt from building permits.
Until just a. few years ago, mosr counties in Nebraska ha.d not
enacted zoning ordinances or even created planning Workbook for Successful aedevelopment:
commissions, despite meir long-standing autbority to rcgulate An Idea ancl Resource Gui". fo.. Building
agricultural land uses through zoning.. now reaffirmed by the In Estall.ish." NeighLal'hoods
state high COUrt, The rapid expansion oflarge.scale confined Community First Inc., RO. Box 580, NapmJille, IL 60567. ")
livestock operations, howcvCJ:, has altered the political situation January 2002.30 pp. www.çommunityftrst:inc.org.
significantly, spurring numerous counties to establish planning The workbook is imended to be an educational tool th:>t
commissions and to åraft zoning regulations. Today, says Ptak, provides ideas and resources for new homes and remodds in
"OlÙY three or four counties" are left in the st;ite that are "not in established neighborhoods. It offers respectful considf;:ratÍons for
some stage: of ~dopùng zoning." blending projects with the defined charnctc:ristiC$ of the
Thus, the decision in Premium Farms 11- County of Holt was neighborhood, the block, the: adjacent bomes, and the site while
one in whích every rural county in Nebraska ha.d a stake. "We also allowing individual homeownc:rs the mæJ(imum flexibility
wcre: playing f01' all me marbles," says Ptak. Jim Schwab to build, expand, or remodd to m~et thèir own needs and
objectives. It is intended that the use of these ideas and
Vacant Big Boxes: A Follow-up Survey resources will res~t· in th~ valuable elements of predictability
In July 2001, 2Áning New! published ":Dark Stores Cast and mutual respec:t to both you and the existing neighborhood.
Shadows," by APA research associate Shannon Am'c;l:tong, The imenIÍon is not to mimic existing homes, but to allow for
about mitiga.ting the impacts of vac."tnt big-box retailers. Since diversity through a balanced and thoughtful approach.
then, t!i~ Planning Advisory Se~ice: (PAS) has logged more than The workbook is presented in a two-step fotmat: Step one
40 requests for further information on this copic--a high asks a series of questions about the neighborhood, the block,
number of requests for one issue:. the adjacent homes, and the: site to help identify the challenges
rn an attempt [0 gather morc solutions by Jocal jurisdictions, that may arise when building Or remodeling a home in an
and reacting in part to K-mart's announcement to dose: 350 established neighborhood; Step tWO presents ideas and resour<;es
srores, a follow-up survey was done with those same: 40 to assist in addressing those: challenges found in step one.
communities. Although sev~ra1 communities have drafted
ordinanccs cont:èrning design standards and maximum squ.are
footage: for big-box retailers, none have addressed the problem Zvt<1Jt1 Ntwl i¡ s monthly n"""I."", publiú!ed by the Amcrlcm Plonnån; !oo<>='~!ío~.
of \':leancy mitigation. Sub!criptioM Me "~iI,,bl. fo, $60 (U.S.) aod $82 (foreig..¡. W. P.u! Former, AlCP. &.,...\;"ç
Gwinner" County, Georgia., grß.ppJed with and mcn Director: WiJliam It I<l<in, Ala>, Dire"",r of &.c=h.
dismissed the possibility of using a. version of a solution 7.4,ú,,1 N_ i. produœd 0' APA. Jim .schM1b. MCr, God Miwd Davidson. £<1;«>.., B""'Y
5ili1, AJC!>, HC'lth.. OunpkU. .!';\y Dolniclc. Nor. ~..,<h"na. Sonj.y ¡.... .uCl'. Meg.;n Lcwil,
enacted by Peachtree City, Georgia., one of Armstrong's t:ó\$e "'1;.'. M.~ Morris. Ale!'. Lynn Ro"'. R.poncn; Sh....¡. Mo"hew>, A..Î:lt:<nt Editor; Li~
Study communities. The: Peachtree City ordinance requ.ìrE:s a. Buton, D"'¡S" .~d Produòlio....
Copytigbt Q2Q02by Amet¡.... P!ulningA5sociotion.122 S. Mic:higonAvc.;Suitc 1600.
rental agreement between tenant and owner with provisions Chiaso. 1L 60603. 'fh. Amen..n Plana,ng A..o.,.\lon oJ,,, h.. offi_.r 177G )
geared roward finding new and appropriate tcnants for the M;¡jS;\cl\U8¢t(S Aw:.. N. W.. W....lúng<on. DC 200~: www.planning.org
vacant space. However, the ordinance may also push bi.g-box. All righn: re$IIrvcd. No pm of dIU pubIi,,¡rjDII lI10y be rq¡roduccd ur ufi/i~.cd in onr fonn or
by '''Y m~n.. .1«~","¡. Of m..h.ni",l. indwline phð,OCðpyÎl1g. m:ordi..g. or by;my
retailers beyond jurisdictional boundaries and beyond a city's hifolmuion .srongcnmcL retrievi1l ðYstem) "I'IÎtÅOUt pcmû,dol\ La wtieiJl& ((('ten. the Amman
càpacity to control development. Gwinnct County planners l'\otIllinS Mo~lion.
Printed on recycled P'¡>er. including ~O·70% "'cydcd 61x:. (i)
and attorneys believe :a county ordinance would have a "nd 10% ~n~;."'C>' ~..
TOTAL P.19
JUN-25-2003 13:39 PED 6512283261 P.02/11
STUDENT HOUSING ZONING STUDY .
PED Staff Draft 3/23/03
City Council Request
The City Council has requested that the Planning Commíssion study and provide a recommendation on a
proposed ordinance to define and regulate dwe11ings occupied by college and university students (see
attached resolution). The proposed ordinance would oreate a Zoning Code definition of a student
dwelling, and establish parking requirements and a 350 ft. distance rcquirement between student
dwclliDgs.
Authority for Study
Amendments to the Zoning Code follow the procedures in Section 64.400 of the Code and Mi:cnesota
Statutes Section 462.357. Either the City Council or ~e Planning Commission can initiate citywide
amendments. Public hearings witb required notice are held at both the Planning Commission and the
City CounciL The City Council must hold ~adings on four successive weeks before adopting
amendments to ordinances, including the Zoning Code.
Problem Det}øition
Councilmembcr Jay Benanav initiated the City Council resolution on the proposed ordinance in response
to complaints he has 'received fÌ'om constituents related to single-family and duplex houses rented to
students. Benana.v's ward includes the 'Qniversity of St Thomas, Hamline University, and Luther
Northwestern Seminary campUSes, and is close to the campuses for the CoHege of St. Catherine, .
Macalester College, Concordia University, and the St Paul caIIlpus of the University of Mimlesota..
These are aU the residential colleges and universi~es in St Paul.
While the presence 0'£ so many col1eges and universities in St. Paul represents a tremendous cultural and
economic asset for the city, it also presents challenges for the lareely residential neighborhoods the
schools are located in. Sfngle-faririly and duplex housing rented to students is concentrated around the
oity's colleges and universities, particularly the residential campuses. A map of single-family and
duplex student rentals around the University of St. Thomas (attached) demonstrates this cOncentration,
with many blocks closest to campus in both the Merriam Park and Macalester Grove1s.nd neighborhoods
containing three, foUI', or five student rentals.
Complaints related to student rentals can usually be placed into one of two general categories: 1)
negative student behavior; ancl2) poor property maintenance. Student lifestyles sometimes conflict with
those of longer~term residents. Problems such as late night hours, loud parties that attract large numbers
of people and traffic, too many cars, t:ra.sb, and a genera11aok of courtesy can create an unpleasant .
environment for neighboring residents. There are also complaints that many mdent rentals are not as
well-maintaìned as other renter or ownet-occ1.lpîed housing. Students tend to be relatively short-term
. renters., and place fewer demands on landlords to maintain quaHty housing. Some property 'investors
have used the opportunity presented by student housing demand in the neighborhoodS around the
campuses to purchase large homes, collect high rents ñ-om undemanding students who are splitting the
costs, and do little to tnaintain or invest in the houses. In larger houses, landlords occasionally rent to
Page 1 of 6
.
JUN-25-2Ø03 13:40 PED 6512283261 P. 03/11
more than the maximÙtn of four unrelated individuals permitted bycîty ordinance. exacerbating the
. problems.
Longer-tenn residents ~ee an overconcentration of-student rentals as having a negative impact on
.. neighborhood quality ofIife. and a potential threat to property values. They are concerned that if the
balance is tipped toward too many studentrental$, ítwill1ead to disinvestment and instability resulting
from the exodus of family households and other residents with Ii longer-term stake in the neighborhood.
Concern is heightened in the Merriam Park neighborhood, where 51 % of housing units are rental,
aocording to the 2000 Census.
In 2002, the City Council sponsored e'chronic problem property forums" around the oity. Citizens were
invited to identify properties causing problems in their neighborhoods. The forom held for Wards 3 & 4,
which include five of~e six residential colleges and universities in the oity, generated a Jist of 47
proble+n properties. Approximately 40 percent of these prop.ert1es are known student rentals.
Experiences of Other Cities Across the County
Problems related to student rental housing and the impact on nei¡hborhoods are not unique to St. Paul.
Cities . around the country have tried a variety of ordinances and enforcement techniques to address
problem student housing. The St. Paul City COI.m.cil's proposed student housing ordinance is based on a
similar ordinance that was passed in 1997 in State College, P A, the home of Penn State University. The
State College ordinance creates a 225 ft. distance requirement'bernreen student rentals in an attempt to
prevent overconcentration. The Philadelphia sub~b of West Chester. home of West Chester University,
prohibits new student housing within 400 ft. of existing student housing. In Tuscaloosa, Alabama, the
City Counoil recently passed several laws bamùng the outdoor use of indoor furniture and reducing the
hours of al1~night bars~ and is considering a ban on parking in front yards. In Boston, police called to
. complaints about loud parnes are accœnpanied by housing inspectors who check for code violations.
Several cities limit the number of students who can live together in off-campus housing.
Student Hoosin¡ Trends in St. Paul
An analysis of student enrollment and the percentage of students living on- and off-campus at St. Paul's
residential colleges and universities ÍÌ'om 1992 - 2002 shows both mcreases'and deoreases in the number
of students living Qff..campus. Of the five major residential campuses, St. Thomas. Hamline and
Macalester have experienced declines in the percentage of their full-time students who live off-campus.
All three have added additional on-campus housing for students in the past ten years. Conversely, St.
Kate's and Concordia have shown inCreases in the percentage oftheÌr full-time students who live off-
campus (see attached table). Unfortunately, data is not readily ~vaìlable' to determine how many of the
off-campus students live in the nei¡hborhoods aroµnd the campuses. Certa,inly, some of these students
commute from areas outside the immediate neighborhoods around the campuses. In general, this analysis
shows that there have been bath increases and decreases in the nu.mber of full-time students living ofÏ-
campus. However, from this limited ~~ it is difficult to determine whether this ha$ led to specific
increases or decreases in the demand fOr off-campus student housing in the neighborhoods arotmd the
campuses.
An analysis of census data for persons living in non-fa.tnily households (excluding singles) from 1990.
and 2000 was completed for the block groups around. the five major residential campuses plu$ the
neighborhood west ofllie University of Minnesota St. :Paul campus. Four of the five block groups around
Page 2 of 6
.
,
JUN-25-2003 13:40 PED 6512283261 P.04/11
the University of St. Thomas showed increases of over 100 persons in the ten year period. The three ·
other blook groups showing increases of over 100 were: l) west of the üniversity of Minnesota St. Paul
campus; 2) the block group b<:twecn the Macalester College and Concordia University campuses; and 3)
the block group southwest of the Hamline oampus. Although it is difficult to say whether all of these
increases are attributable to students, it seems to indicate some inorease in student housing in these areas.
Prol2osed OrrfinSlnce
The oX'dinance proposed in the City Council resolution would create a definition of a student dwelling in
the Zoning Code. In summary, a student dwelling would be defined as a ¡roup of unrelated individuals
(limited to four under current city codes) living together in a single-family or duplex structure who are
students attending a college, university, community college, or technical schooL Multiple-family
dwellings of 3 units or more, fraternities and sororities, lawfully established rooming houses, and owner-
occupied houses with a subordinate room or apartment for rent would be exempted. A distanoe
requirement of 350 ft. would be established fot' any new student dwc11ing from existing student
dwellings. The ordinance would also require a minium of two par1ång spaces per student dwelling. The
regular Zoníng Code requirement for a housing unit is 1.5 spaces. Student rentals under this def1I1ition
would be registered and regulated through the City's existing rental registration program for single-
family and two-family structures, as established in Chapter 51 of the Legislative Code.
There are currently distance requirements in the Zoning Code: for a variety of uses, including human
service-licensed community residential facilities, transitional housing facilities, pawnshops, and adult
uses. These are a1l1egal uses that provide services to the connnunity. However, these uses can have
n(i;gativc impacts On a neighborhood, especially if they concentrated. The sàII1c could be said for single-
family and two-family stroc~~ rented to students. These rentals meet a need for student housing, but if
ooncentrated, can result in an unaccepæble level of negative impacts on surrounding residential uses.
The 350 ft. distance reqtiliement proposed for student rentals would allow about one student rental per ·
block.
Imnact on Eústine Student Rentals "
The attached map of housing rented to students in the neighborhoods around St Thomas demonstrate
that there are many blocks with more than one student rental. Wìth fue establishment of a 350 ft.
distance requitement, existing student rentals would become legally non-conforming. Non-conforming
uses for purposes of zoning code regulatìons can continue indçfiniæly, regardless of changes in
ownership. Howevert if a. non-conforming use is discontinued for 365 days, the use of the structure must
change to a conforming use. If questions arise about whether a non-conformmg student rental was
established prior ,to t1).e enactment ofthc ordinance, the City's Dept. of LiceDSe, Inspections, and
Environmental Protection would make ttris determination. There are also procedures esta.\?lished in the
Zoning Code fur re..estabJishing a non-conforming'use if it has been disc9ntinued for more than 365 days
or obtaining a variance :from the distance requirement. Tbe first action requires B. PlaMing Commission
pubHc heMÙlg and petition signed by 5U1"I'Q1.J.1\dg property owners; the second action requires a public
hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals. In SwnmaIYt the ex:isting supply of student rentals will
generally not be diminished by the establishment of a distance requirement, unless the owner of a stUdent
rental discontinues that use for more than a year. Such a situation would include sale ofa former student
rental to an owner-ocoupant The proposed ordinance would prevent the establishment of new student
rentals where there already are concentrations.
Page' 3 of 6
·
JUN-25-2003 13:41 PED 6512283261 P.05/11
The status oflegal-nonconformance for existing student rentals should partially address the concerns
. ex.pressed by both St. Paul's oolleges and universities and property owners who have made a financial
investment in rental property. Main.tenance of the existing supply of student housing is a ooncern for the
schools, who want to insure that their 'studentshave housmg choices, including the opportunity to I1ve
nearcampuli if on-campus student housing is either unavailable or not the living situation the student
desires. Property ~wners who have already made an investment in rental property will be able to
maintain the status of that housing as long as the property is registered as a student rental.
Implementation Issues
The proposed ordinance raises a number of issues related to implementation. These include:
· How many of-the maximum of four unrelated individuals in a rental unit need to be students for
the unit to be considered a student dwelling? .
· How willlandlO1'ds or city inspectors detemùne if a tenant in a unit is a student?
· How will an initial ditabase of student rentals be es~blished?
,
.. ' Are houses purchased by the parents of students regulated as student rentals?
- Would licensing be a better way to regulate student rentals than simp1y a Zoning Code
requirement?
.. Does the current fee for registering single-family and two-family structures under the City's
rental registration program generate enough revenue to cover the additional staff costs for
administering tbis proposed requirement?
Number of Students. It is not clear in the proposed ordinanoe whether all or some of the individuals in
a housmg unit need to be students for the unit to be considered a student dwelling. Problems associa.ted
with student rentals seem to'occur more frequently when three or more tenants are students. Defming a
student rental as including 3 or 4 tenants who are students eliminates situations where a single indiv.idual
. in a house with non-student roonunates or a couple who are attending school and renting a house are
classified as student dwellings.
Determining Student Statns. Landlords wíll be asked to register their units as student dwellings as part
of the City's current rental registration program. Landlords nomuùly require prospective tenants to fi11
out an application form when. applying to rent a unit. Landlords Will need to ask tenants whether they are
students as part of the 'application prooess. As with any other application information. providing
misinformation to a Jan~lord on an application can be grounds for temrinating a lease. If the Pt:Operty is
not and cannot be registered as a student rental, the landlord would not be allowed to rent to tenants
where three or more arc students. If there are complaints to City inspectors about the status of tenants in
a house that is not registered as a student rental, Çity inspeotors will need to oontaot the schools (starting
with the olosest school) to inquire whether an individual. is ,a. registered stugent at that school. The
ordinance should make olear that schools will be required to provi~e thi~ ínformation to the CitY upon
request:.
Database of Studellt R.entals. The City's rental registfation program (Cbapta- S 1 of the City's
Legislative Code) requires that landlords register their properties annually. If this proposed ordinance is
implemented, the Division of Property Code EnforcC1t1ent, which is responsible for. administering the
rental re¡istration program, will need to reVise its registration form to collect information on student
rentals and create a dataDase of existing student rentals.
Houses :Purchased by Student Parents. Currently, a property purohased by a puent for use of a chil~
Page 4 of 6
.
JUN-b-¿ø03 13:42 PED 6512283261 P.06/11
who is a student is not considered a. rental pr~perty for purposes of the rental regis1J:'ation program. This
is because such properties are granted homestead status for property tax purposes under state law. Since .
these propmies are not required to be rc~ed cumntly as rental properties, they would not be
consìdered student rentals for purposes of this ordinance, even if the child rents rooms to three other
students.
Licensing VB. Zoning Code Requirements. There has been a suggestion that creating a 1ic¢t'ls¢ for
. student rentals would be a better way to regUlate this use. St Paul primarily ìssues licenies. for business
uses, although rooming houses and bed and breakfasts. are examples ofresidenrial uses that are licensed.
Licensing student rentals would create a very large new category oflicen.ses that may be difficult to
handle given. existing staff levels. It would create another whole level of regulation that could perhaps be
more efficiently handled thro1,1gh Zoning Code and rental registration requirements, It could ~lso
threaten the legal non--oonforming status of existing rentals, whioh would be a concern for both the
schools and rental property owners.
Fees for Rental Registration. Currently, the City oharges an initiaJ. registration fee of $30.00 for a
single-family dwelling and $50.00 for a two-family dwelling. The annual renewal fees are $20.00 and
$40.00 respectively. Staff from the Division of Property Code Enforcement as well as the Dept. of
License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection would be involved in administration if this ordinance
is approved. Property Code Enforcement staff will need to handle the registrations and investigation of
coxnplaints about compliance. LIEP staffwould need to check compliance with zoning cod~
requirements for new student rental registrations, make determinations of legal non.conforming status,
handle variance requests and appeal, and infonn property owners about the process to reestablish a
nonconforming student house. staff from both offices should attempt to quantify anticipated additional
staff work that would be generated by this requirement and recommend establishment of an increased fee
to cover staff costs if appropriate.
Recommendations .
1. The City Council should enact the proposed ordinance, with some minor changes and
clarifi<!ations, to prevent additional OVeNoncentration of sÚldent rentals in neighborhoods
surrounding college campuses. Recommended revisìons to the ordinance language are attached
(still to be completed). Clarify that the number of students in a dwellìng must be three or four to
qualify as a. student rental. Change the language so that the distance requirement applies to
student rentals in any residential zoning distriots, includin¡ R-l through RM-3, notjwt within an
individual ~ing district. Clarify that the 350 ft. distance is measured lot line to lot lin=, .
Discussion: Student tmtals sometimes create problems for ~ding neighbors related to·
both student behavior and maintenance of property. The Zoning Code bas distance requirements
for other le¡al uses that can create problems for surrounding properties if the uses: are
concentrated. Existing student rentals· that do not meet the distance requirement would become
legal non-conforming uses and be allowed to oontinue as long as the use is not discontinued for
more than one year.
2, Improve enforcement of existing ordiDaDces to address problelD.$ with current student
rentals that would not be affected by the new ordinance.
. D~ion: Som= existing student rentals currently oause problems for neighboring residents.
The creation of a database of existing student rentals will allow staff from multiple City
departments and offices) ìncluding Police, Property Code Enforcement, and License. Inspections.
Page S of 6 .
JUN-25-2Ø03 13:42 PED 6512283261 P.07/11
. and Environmental Proteotíon, to more easily share information and work together better to
enforce existing ordinances related to property maintenance, overcrowdîng, and disruptive
student behaVior.
3. QUån.tify inttcased staff çosts resulting from administration and enforcement of the
student renta.l registration requirements and adjust rental registration fèes accordingly.
Discussion;. In this era of increasingly limited City financial resources, the added staff costs
resulting from new regulations need to be quantified and a revenùe source found. to pay for those
costs.
4. St. J'a11l's eoUeges and universities should b.e encouraged to be as respønsive as possible to
complaints about student behavior in the neighborhoods around their campuses.
Discussion: The University of St. Thomas has taken an increasingly proactive approach to
monitoring and a.ddressing problem student behavíor in the neighborhoods around ca1npus. St.
. Thomas' neighborhood liaison staff person tracks the location of student rentals and works with
both studènts and land101Ù$to encOuràge student renters to be good rteighbors. It is an effective
model that can be emulated by other schools.
Attachments
City Council resolution.
Map of student rentals around St. Thomas.
Table of student enrollment and housing status at St. Paul schools.
.
. Page 6 of 6
JUN-25-2003 13:43 PED 6512283261 p.0s/ì1
Council File # 03 .. .3<\
Green Sheet # :1oo~S\
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, l\fiNNESOTA \\ ·
Presented By ?J-¡- 0 ~w.. ~ Committee: Date
Referred To
.
RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE CITY'S PLANNJNG COMlYfISSION FOR STUDy,
REPORT, AND RECOlYfMENDATION AN ORDINANCE TO DEFINE AND
REGULATE DWELLINGS OCCUPIED BY STUDENTS.
1
2 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul desires to initiate certain amendments
3 to the City's zoning code which would define and regulate residential dwellings occupied by
4 students; and
5
6 WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 462.357, Subd. 4, the Council of the City of Saint
7 Paul desires to refer to the City's planing commission for study, report and recommendation the
8 following proposed amendments to the zoning code:
9
10 1. To Legislative Code § 60.204.D, adding the following definition: ,
11 ·
12 Dwelling, student housing. A living arrangement within a 1wfamily or 2~family dwelling by
13 persons unrelated by blood, nimriage, domestic partnership-or legal adoption, who are attending a
14 technical, community college, undergradUate or graduate programs offered by technical schools,
15 colleges or universities, or any combination of such persons. The residents of a student dwelling
16 share living expenses and may live and cook as a single housekeeping unit. Fraternity and
11 sorority houses operated in association with a college, university or other institution ófbighor
18 learning, lawfully established and operated rooming houses, multiple dwellings and any
19 subordinate apartments or rooms offered for let in I-family dwellings when the dwelling is
20 occupied by a family that is the recorded owner of record, of title are exempted from this
21 definition.
22
23 2. To Legìslative Code § 60.412, pertaining to principal uses pennitted in'RLL ~ough R-4
24 zoning districts. by adding the following section:
25
26 (18) Student dwellings, as defined in section 60.204.D, ar~ pennitted only when all of the
27 following standards are met:
28 ,
29 a. Occupancy in a one-family or two-family dwelling used as a student dwel1ing
30 shall :;Iot exceed four umelated persons as proscribed in Chapter 60.206 (f) of the
31 Legislative Code. '
32
33 b. N~ student dwelling shall be located within 350 feet of another lot used for a
34 student dwelling in the zoning district in which,the student dwelling is located.
35 ·
36 c. .No more than one bUilding on a lot may be used as a student dwelling.
JUN-25-20Ø3 13:43 PED 6512283261 P. 09/11
1 d. A minimum of twô pat'king spaces shall be provided per dwelling unit in 03·.3,
2 driveways or off-street parking areas. An parking spaces shan be established and
3 maintained in compliance with the site plan and paving requirements set forth in
. section 34.08 of this code.
Notwithstanding any law or ordinance to the contrary and for the purpose of
6 e.
7 promoting the health, safety and general welfare ofilie public by regulating
8 student dwellings in RLL, R-l through R~4 and RT-l and RT-2 zoning districts,
9 no property shall be occupied or used as a student dwelling until the property is
10 regiStered as a student dwelling under the program admhùstered by the director of
11 the office of citizen services according to section 51.03 of this co!ie. In addition
12 to the requirements of the zonmg code, the owner of a student dwelling shall also
13 comply with sections 51.08 and 51.09 ofthis code.
14
15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to"Minn. Stat. § 462.357. Subd. 4,
16 the Council of the City of Saint Pa.~ hereby refers to the City's planing commission for study.
17 report and reconun.endation the above stated proposed amendments to the zoning code.
I
.
-
~
!lleAS aY5 IAÐSen\
lJ#emtn.IIV ..- Requeste~ by Ðepa=tment of:
1~.L¡Ü;ey ....-
! ""OSZ:ZOlll --
I (òO.LeJIIaD . ~
¡li'ar.r;J.s -'" :ay:
! ,¡,;u¡z::y ""'
I,/CBl.:er ~ Form Approved øy C1ty Attorney
Adopted :by CCuceil: Date ~-... ~ ~. ~C:3 S!!'"
Adoption C:e:n;1t1ecl by Counl:.i SêC:r.'etazy ·
ApprOVl!!d by MayO¡:" :01" SUbmis.sion to Council
,
.
JUN-25-2003 13:43 PED 6512283261 P.10Vll
,
, '- 'I-- '
~ \0 vo¡.
-~ .~ ~ 1\.
VI( o. A (I) 1\
f--.-... \
! LTON
I \
CIS _/ ~.......
! II ~ '-
~ Iv 7-'1
; V
S - Ui
~ ~ Ll
~ >- ~ ~G ~
~ ~ 1\1 ð ~ I d
o ¡¡¡ = '\: - /..r
~! 10 "UN! - #" 1 - ~
en 2 i \ \ l 1J7 >.
~ ¡ AJ a¡;¡ T ~ ~ ~ j, .~
'2 1\ ¡ ~
~ I /I.~ ~
~ j' ~
-
.5 ASSUffi Ie..
_ .HI In i.J~:; v ~ ~ !;I ~Ll.I (jò e ~ -~
ß ;!! 1\2 Iv ~ ~ ' ~ ~ w ~ ~
; ~ I'R 1m II! ),l, cDAU!am . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
a:: tð J>. J ~ -= .
1: At )1rt ...... ~- ~ A
.g I I '."'r '- ~
.: r-= \ WHEE!. iR
en ~ j, I Y
>< W ~A P.V'fN{ - ..¡, ¡ R IrwEN
~ I
C. --1 '\..... ~/; ~ j ¡¡ IW1 Iv ~ t¡j
= ~ L 1~ 1/ ~ I; ~ -- ~ ª ~
~ H A.: :¡;'\,í'~- HCNEL 8 ~ ~ ~ ., ~-
c . / r ~ I 2 ~ P OR ~ ¡ ë
cu ~ _ / fj II!
~ ~ ~ II ~ NK.t~ ....~ þ(1 N ~
If ----;?'7 .,.......-~ 11/ / I'D
cb /' // I!t~ g 1]
'5 . S!; i . FINN i J"1 N , !ii
~ --0 I!J ill; ~ ~!!s ~
f / b A b _:b ...ll \ II MO.lN' CI.JI:<VE
ilf 7ì a ~ .t:~~ \ \ ¡!J~"- _- 1 --~ -'-
/~ I'--- ~ - __ _ '-
f f-- .i 'f it r- \ -
'v I L _ .-1.----
/ ~~~ -
...... r--V ..-
"l\ .
.~ ~z.
ST. PAUL: Parties air views on student housing plan ·Page 1 of2
. TwinCities-com
~",--~..-- --~-. A__Oi ",......~_~!fÄ""""....._..¡ "'" -,,.,,.,..""--""""""'''''''''*'''''
Posted on Sat, Jun. 14,2003
ST. ·PAUL:Parties air views on student housing plan
BY JENNIFER JEFFERSON
PÎoneer Press
St. Paul's efforts to address student housing problems in residential neighborhoods won't be_resolved soon,
a Friday public hearing made clear.
"We have spent six years working on this issue," city planner Donna Drummond said during a discussion of
a new plan to handle neighbòrhood complaints about college students.
"This ordinance is still a work in progress," she said.
The St. Paul Planning Commission discussed a proposal by Council Member Jay Benanav to deal with
complaints by limiting off-campus student housing in residential neighborhoods.
Benanav's proposal would for the first time define a student dwelling, require special registration of the
rental property, increase off-street parking requirements and require any new student rental units to be at
. least 350 feet - about one city block - from an existing s!udent dwelling.
After nearly two hours of testimony, the commission called for substantiàl alterations and said it wanted to
get more input from students.
0" . .
Commission members heard compliments and complaints about the ordinance from nearly all of the 50 or
so people in attendance, including college representatives, homeowners, landlords and former students:
Several homeowners spoke in favor of the restrictions for quality-of-life reasons. "Zoning maintains the
character (of the neighborhood)," said Dave Kuehn, a homeowner who lives near Hamline University.
Representatives from Hamlinè and the University of St. Thomas said their schools support the conceptof
the ordinance, but neither thought it would directly affect the number of students in the neighborhood or
their behavior.
From the students' viewpoint, the zoning ordinance "adds to feelings of being removed from the
community/, said Colin Haley, president of Hamline's student congress. "Most students want the same
things owners do."
Most opponents said the housing restrictions won't address the real problem - some students' behavior.
"The problem is still there if (existing student dwellings) are grandfathered in," said Bill Cullen, vice
president of the St. Paul Association of Responsible Landlords. "Are you saying it is OK to have a behavioral
problem every 350 feet?"
. "It's just spreading a bad thing around," said Tom Welna, who works with city officials, community groups
and residents as director of Macalester College's High Winds Fund.
http://www. twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/loca1l6084881.htm ?template=contentMod... 6/1712003
ST. PAUL: Parties air views on student housing plan Page 2 of2
In some cases the ordinance could even backfire, making landlords more likely to keep renting to students
rather than risk losing their exemption under the ordinance, one landlord said.
"I don't want to lose student status/, said Dennis Casey, who just bought a house near st. Thomas that he .
plans to rent out.
"It is restricting my ability to make money" by not having flexibility in choosing tenants, said another
landlord, John Benson, who lives near Hamline University. "It puts me in a very uncomfortable position."
Others raised questions because the proposal lacked protection for domestic partnerships and the
possibility of more drunk driving in neighborhoods because of students traveling greater distances between
party houses.
"_ , _'--,_ "-0.'"-' .-_~._~ ---.-:-,. - <- ,"'.''- '~..,..~"'__..~,~ -''-''-''-~'-'--'=~ ""'--~~'= ~-_,~___- ="-"",~ "'_-~,-,,"__""""""·~~"c.:=="':~~""''''''''__________=·_''_~'''''-·_~_-.,=o~_",·_",,_9.- .....~......r.~.-"-.-",O-__.,"-=-_-__·~......_-~_....."'=-__._.....,~"-~ - -,.~~
Jennifer Jefferson can be reached at jjefferson@pioneerpress.com or (651) 228-5272.
~--'--"'--'.-._-==-- --- '''''""'~--~~''~-~--''-~~.''-''''''~---.-:--~~"""",, ~~~='___~~~,,",,-__~""""-To-""-_____=-;,=,--~"",,~
ç 2003 Pioneer Press and \\;re service sourec->. All Rights Reserved.
h Up: /!wwvv. t\'á !lei ties. ç.om
.
.
. http ://www .twincities.comlmldltwincities/news/loca1l6084881.htm?template=contentMod... 6/17/2003
irom;WtMLlNütH ARGHITECTURE 320 253 2269 06/17/2003 08:17 #408 P~OO8/008
Jun 17 03 09r2Q~ P~.u~~.r ccns~~ .
JUN-17-2003 TUE 09~ 07 AM CITY OF 5T JOSEPH .uo~ 1 on t'A~ NU, ;~~~:J~~J -213B 1'.8
- 0.- __ ._._., __ .,_,. "--" ~_. -.... ,-,..... " t, '-'I
.
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CONSIDERATION
CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
25. College Avenue NW 41'-
ill1
P. O. Box 668 1t1fl~1
St. Joseph, MN 56374
(320)363-'r201 or Fax (320)363..0342
;:íT~TE 0' MINN~SOTA )
]&1
COUriTV QF STEAANS}
NAME: SC.HDO" O¡ST12iC:{ 7'-1 :J.. Þ.HONE: ,;} 53 - 9.3 7 D ...
AIJDRESS: '7:3 'loss F 1/ t1 11 E STCL(?UD M/( 5¿,:;;ol
\IWq. tItR II~~ MIO\ y IMI\otllefo~ 1II'fI/¡cIt\ðll1l1t\D ~ ~ 11/\11 f1a1lMlg C~n ef\llll ~ I:!I Sit J~, StumJ~.
MlftM!llllll. f"PPlønb"~ IIIÞ /91 10'11 ) ~ QICI\OQCI!IO "'1IH1I~~h: erdIftwa JIIU\I~ II'" ~ "~CI ~19,.,1I\;1\ O~1Iroc
1eQ.v1nsMn~:
1. ~tion i!¡ htreby mad!) far; (ß,ppJialM mWJt chect ðlyhll apprcp¡tat& illltlls)
_ Re7.0ning _ z.onÎ/lg O;djnllllte Ammdmenl _ I-IDmI& oceupallOn PamlÌt. .
_ &I~ Wð~r MDnBQCM!!J\t ~ (GradîðS P~I\) _ PUC _ Building MO¥ef', ~IL
. _ l3ulldlng MoYlng - ~Ðr':J Perm¡~ ..x Development PIIr1 Appt'O~1 . _ OI1\Uf tënpeci~: . . _ loS' ^
ì~\Pj)f?~R~ i^,$T~'=1li..V'l1:ji)¡J of c.ustb~iN¡ÐI!.>_uLvt c.u'tS· !0fJtJj./\ "0
m..k¡¿VIA"v·£ 'IdE ð,,/Ee.C.~¿H.V.Di ïVG A'ì TIllS $i í.e ¿¡
. 2. legal desct1plion of "00 ~ a!1JCted by ~lcalÏOl\ 1nd1J~ ~«!lpJate toata;. Of 1I:1IIIj inVOlVilCS, BI1G ~'fI~et
addre$~, If any; oJ I' J.:. J1rr ~ JJ J2. l':::) ~
a. iz-DU Cr1)'J OJ\! 'A l-
5. Perecns, firm!!, corporatiom¡ or Ol/æf Ulan ~Ilcant Md prUcnl owner who mBY 01' VJ\I/ be 1n1l3fG.'iœd iJl "Q atove œsttibecl
land or plÐ X)~d improwment5 wI!tIin '7f! V¡lar IIlIer is!UlJnœd pel'1T'1\ ;¡¡PP~ed for, if 9f2nle<l ~II::
I /19 , .
,
6. A\t.tCl\ad to 1t1i, 8p¡¡1I~tion.,,(I nœde .. JI;\ft thINa'.,. dd"!tIenaJ IM\WiIl rsUþmÙlSÏOf1 data Jtquimm~. as
inØlCatocf. 0"', t;.iJ.oJ03
Appli~11t Sign.tuN: ~
Ownar S1gnal1lre: _ ; c..: ~ z.ó /0:;)
FOR OFFICI: use ONLY
~ "ME COMPI,Ur.: tJA'r! C P\J8L,!C 1iF~ PuBUCATION DATE.;
¡"II CcmrnisSÞ1AØiOn: _ ~ APØ'V'III _ ~ ~~~ C~¡~d,i,c ;an;
D~~ ~1II'...rty Owner t\Orilled 01 Planning ~Aer1on: .
~ Ad\()\'\~ . _ AppIOvc<l _ ~prGv(X! Dau¡ at ,&.tfon:
- ate ADplieanvPtopMy 0wIItf tIOØfIAIt m CIty Caun~ ktløl'l:
-
isd 744'\"'r;er 9
..::~-.:--," Æ
.. '* .
Department of Buildings & Grounds 1? . ~~
ëlrnlO\\ \C
District Services Building Telephone: (320) 253-9370 Web site: http://isd742.orgldsb.html Clear Lake
737 Osseo Avenue South ITY: (320) 202-6800 E-mail: dsb@isd742.org C/eanvater
St. Ooud, Minnesota 56301 Fax: (320) 253-9376 Col/egevi//e
Luxemburg
P/easallt Lake
St. Augusta
St. Cloud
St. Joseph
Waite Park
June 20, 2003
St. Joe Planning Commission:
To alleviate the overcrowding at Kennedy Elementary School, the St. Cloud
School District has decided to utilize a 24'x72' portable enclosure. This
enclosure will be used on a temporary basis for 3-4 years. Upon completion .
of this lease, an addition to Kennedy will probably ensue. This enclosure will
accomodate two classrooms. All construction, including the porta.bles, will
be according to local and state codes. Please respond favorably to this request
at your earliest convenience, as a September 2,2003 start-up is warranted.
Thank you for your consideration.
~bÞu~
El Haus
Supervisor of Building & Grounds
District 742 Community Schools
-
-
co
WEMLINGER
. ARCHITECTURE
A DIVISION OF SJA
City of St. Joseph - -
Development Plan Application and Submittal Requirements
Submittal Required Provided Comments
1. Description of Site Yes See Application.
(Legal Description)
2. Ten (10) copies, Yes See Drawing A 1.1.
minimum size 11"x17",
of a Site Plan drawn at
scale showing:
A. Building location on Yes See Drawing A 1.1 .
the lot, drawn to scale;
B. Building elevations; Yes See Drawing A 1.2.
front, rear and side;
. C. Building exterior Yes . See Drawing A 1.2.
. materials and color;
D. Locations of ingress Yes See Drawing A1.1.
and egress points;
E. Dumpster and solid Yes See Drawing A 1.1 .
waste pick-up areas
and proposed screening
material;
F. Sign location and No No sign.
dimensions;
G. Lighting standard and No No parking lighting. Small wall
hood detail; fixtures at exit doors. See
Drawing E1.1. N/A.
H. Parking and loading Yes See Drawing A 1.1 .
areas identified;
. WEMLlNGER ARCHITECTURE
A DIVISION OF SJA
2035-15TH STREET N., ST. CLOUD, MN 56303
PHONE: 320·253-2100 FAX: 320-253-2269
we march@wemlingerarchitecture.com
Page 1 of 2
I. Drainage by the use of Yes See Drawing A 1.1.
arrow and/or contours;
J. Screening of heating, No Part of Temporary Classroom. .
ventilation and air- See Drawing A 1.2.
conditioning equipment;
K. Landscaping material No None required, Temporary
including the location, building in paved play area.
type of plant and size;
L. Fire hydrant and fire Yes See Drawing A 1.1.
lane locations;
M. Utility locations; No No utilities required for
Temporary Classroom addition-
Electric from existing building
Main supply.
N. Any other fencing, No Temporary buildings are leased
screening, of building for 4 years and will be removed
accessories to be located after that time.
in the development area;
3. Additional written or graphic No None required.
data reasonably required by
the Zoning Administrator or the .
Planning Commission as
described below: A project
narrative explaining the request
must be submitted.
4. Proof that the Applicant is the No Not needed for School District
Owner of the parcel in question. #742.
5. Required Fee. ($500.00 Deposit). Yes Submitted with Application.
.
WEMLINGER ARCHITECTURE
2035-15TH STREET N.. ST. CLOUD, MN 56303
PHONE: 320-253-2100 FAX: 320-253-2269
we ma rch@wemlingerarchitecture.com
Page 2 of 2
~ ~ ~Q" ~ .. }- ill . ~
III ~ II ~i\ 5 ~ i\ ~ _ § W :§ ~!J~"' ~~ F _ . <I) æ I N i~ it·
8¡hI15~~i~·~il~i II g2i ~h~~ : m~j~~ o!ll~ L~J ~¡¡!lI!~!I;! ~I ~ l~fÎl ß~ ~
~ !1!!lhmm ¡!'-'¡!llil!; II II ! II i¡ ! n 1.1.! in III i!. JH d I~i~~ ~ ~ will ~ ~ . h ¡ II Iii ~:;i:(
I ff t i¡1~W Ii i~ ~ I ~~ Ii ~ JI ~ ; ~~ ~~ i~~ ~i ihI ~~ < i~I.~~ . ~ ~ ~ r U ~ ~ -!Ö ~ d ï ~h~
~ U ~~~t9~;~d ~9~1~li~ i;:U i 1!~h;!I~I!~u~;tin~¡HuL;¡ ~ ~~ ~ ð([l~ï ~d ªõJ ~HIH!h~~ä
~ "~Ê \¡ è~ II~K" ~6Ê! ~~¡¡~::J ~~ ~ ~ ~¡¡ ~z 1: ~ ~ ~b~i! ~~s~H¡¡ ~a.J ~8!!~ ¡¡~ ~~~~'3 - ~~ ~z :z ~ ~ õil fl, ~l~i
8 ~5~ ~ ~~ ~~~~!~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~I ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ª ~~ f~~i! ~fi'iH!U hh n~ IU~H 8 ~iHI ~ «Â 00 Uti fin~~~
~ ~ ~If
;¡ a
I ~ r--l r--l
. ~,¡ I. !! I ~ ~ ~ L_J L__J
. ~ ~ 3.. I:- [ j::i - ~ r--, r--,
,---~-----------r-':.,-..---~----------~---, I , Q ~'I 8 ~"Ii ~ --1 J L__J
1:.' 1'" , I ,1' ,1' I ~ ~" II' !! ~lio . rrTT1-rrrr'
.1 I I \ I I _/f\ \ II \ I I I 9~2 . ~ oJ 't . ~ p: ~ I
-: T"£. . 1/[ .. Ti ì-'£ I 2g2 ~~@i ~-~ ~~ .~~ ~ ~ . . . .. . . I r--'
I I I" I ~R~ Sfi:(i æ =?gt-~ I} "I l__J
I I I I I ~;:¡: oS ~ Q",. RJ: i(¡:! .
I I I I . ;. tSx ~ :J;:O~ì1a åa ~
I I I I I ~Q §. .. ª~...- Q I r
I I I I I ~ . 'Q ~ ti.~! m I r--' r--,
. I: I: : ? ~3 .3~~ ~~ ~¡~~§ ~~ , .I~ L__J L__J õ
0" " , OLJi}l ,,~_ L Q 11 _~ I ~ ~ -'
~ I I I I I ~Sl:. ç:. g~ ~ ì1 ~:l I' ~ !I
" " I "
I' 'I I , 3 U r--l r--l ,-, n~
~ ~ .\: I I !i!d~ L__J L__J L-J ~
I I I I I x-
I 'I -, . I W
I"' . I fI¡
I It. I ~ I ~ 'tl I r- 1 r--l
I 1"'1 ,i'l ,1'1 I~"'I ... I(~~~ L_=..J L__.J
~)jo \.J.... .'+" i \.J....r .t' <{ , :~..-
I I;' .9 ~tÐiit
¡ ~ I m·til [==J I~ CJ
. ~t r--' ~I~ r-~l
~ I do L__J ~d!}: L_J
i> '
, I
, ,
! [==J : [==J
I I
I I -I . I
II' ~ ,~ ,~ ~: z
-1... ,"",,,,, l1.... ,1'" r r--' I r--' c;{
J) \J) . \J} \J) L__J I L__..J Q [.
1 I I I b I I., ~
: I I : ~ LU1JJ '::;
I" I I I -
t I I I ~ ~
: I. : : [ß
~: Ii: ~ M
!) I I r-~--I 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~
ë I I I -....it I I ff: ~ œ !
p i I I -) J ! i ~ ~
I. I L____,.J I I
: ~ I ¡: i ¡: : ~
, 11'J ,+...., 11'1 11'1 .
i... 'i'" 'i'" 'i'" ~ ~ i~
I I I G 1 ~!l g Q!;¡ ~ -(
>1 >1 >: -' >: ~W~~I<~~~~
~, ~, ~I 2 ~, ~~i!~~2~~~
~: 1i1 .~: ~: Q"~~~ ~~E.
ii' II' II' ii' ""', ~o~~o~d'l'ª
õ: : 1 - : ~~ ,~~~~~
.', , I I o~ . 0~ð3 ¡¡Ii
0: : : I ¡j n~n~I:~~ª
1 1 I I
I: ~ : :: . J
~ 1 I I I I (s iir:' ~ _._._ _.~.- - - _0
I J~ . J!- J!-' J,~: /í. 9~ · ~~
, J) :J (J) (J) (J): 3~~oi§~ l'!~~n~ ."' .'." I
I I 1 I 1 1 .Õ4l~ ;¡;
1 1 - 1 I I OR-
, , II, I I i !i!"~¡¡ _~I.. (. .'-.9 ...·.f ....., .~
J I J I : I 8!1_: ~~~~o ---, i
.." I I ,: ~ n. ¡/¡;¡¡ala! I ~I\!~
.' I I I I I . . I ~õ~
I) ': I I I ~ .Ø",I ~ :'-1
I I 1 t .1: (j) .Sli ~
J~ Ji: Ji: J ~ Hffi ,
I....., 11'1 ( I) II....., W æ.:I. IE·
,/ \1-' \1-' \1-' ~... . t-:ß 5 : on ~
: : :: ã Ri ffi <{ )- : ~ .g 't
I 1 I I ,.. §W :z d (ß I .1"/£,.;. .tr/£ ¡.
, . I " j!-O ,
b I I I I _ o::lZ I. ','1 ..Ø",9 G
~: : I 1 '":~~ 1 t
,. I I , - ~ '1:.
: : J ~ I 3~~
J [ . J ¡: JI: ~ J I: ~~x" ~ ~
I' II' II' II' illilPJi: ~ .'
) \ .,I" . [ ~
¡j
¡¡
a,
8:
.ø~,"'l ~.t9~ 1L 1 .~
'" ~
N Q i ~. \!)\!1
, 1 Z6
~ î!~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ¡. I~ ~ ~ 9
I:\~ . ~ ~ !! ¡,~~ ¡,~~ ¡,~~ ¡,~~ ~. x:>
d r 2:1 :~,.. :~.. :~.. :~.. ~ ____ _ UJ CO
~iI ~ ~~ !o·. ~o·. !Q. I!!o· fl1 ~
~¡ ;. ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~
~i: II~ ~~ . ~>I .
i~ ~S IU III ~ ~ ~ ~ ~¡~ ~
!~ t~ ~Õ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ S'õ
:!u _ U>-j¡ 0 ~ ~ A Z' . -. ;j
-------1 ~/í~ i~ -oE III ~ ~ 0'.. . ~
. ~~~m ð ~~3~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:; 0
.. 0 ~ ¡¡¡ u õ 0 0 õ~· .. !!
, ~ d II l'!~ <f);, ~ Ì1- ,;, II~~ .Eo¡) ~
: 1 .,. Ñ Å ffi !Loffi ~
I I [i: ~ t l hi!'-
3<JJÙ
I : !J!ctlii ~ ~z
I I . -
~ --1
I Q) fij
J Z
, C
I Q)
I >
I - ~
, I
I ~ § I Q)
, ~ ~ I ~
I. ; l I - ~
I ,,~Ii '()-,
, U 1:\ Il)~ ~ s
, d). &i
I 8 = ~
00 ~ -'
, ~ I U
, . . ~ ~ I ~
I - i! ~ ~ ~ !!
. ,,~ . ~ !z '- 3
I B B i33 E I~ ~ ¥1 ......,. !Ii
I 9LVI i '. UJ ""Yd9.1 a
-g" r Q ¡¡J !Ii
~Q~ ~ ih i Ii. ~ ~
~~2 !! !!~~ UJ' 'i .
------------------------ ~o~ iI. ¡¡~~ ~ ~x UJ3
!:@" ~~ ~.¡j 9 !:i ~ '"
h~ ~! ~~~ ¡¡ ::¡ ~
. . .
I
, -1
,
~ I Wa . . "
OJ « 0: II N ¡z if ·
< rt!li'~; ~ N
.' ~~ I !il1I 'Ih,..:
~o 8~ .II.¡ d~;:~ ~
Iù I- ~ ~ 0 gJ ! ~ 1 ~'1 Ii ~H~......
>- Ih ~~ Øu ¡h i ¡¡~g~
Q, ¡.:¡:¡.,¡ . . ,I .-
~ UæØ1'" ] ~)Jliill~ ð
z 0: ~ '2 " ~! i i. ~ '~~~
OJ '. ~ <ii ¡ iii. ¡II ,1,1'
. j i.U!!;!!'",1
, ~
! ~2 !l ~. '-,- ~~~ . ~
. 1\ ., ,I · ' "
~ ,"i! . ~~ - F II ~ ~
¿._ ¡ ,¡ ~ I ~ß ~ ~ ~ .
. LJ>:: . 'I"""'~' .-" t
OJ l\j'-F . "I! ¡ .-L ,~,~.Ù,'K~ ' ¡Ii! h ! II
i ~~~,,2 "(!" Ii 211!~ ~ f.~ ~ -0
J.r.\ ~~ I Idll ' .~< ~. ,", ¡ I~ ¡ I!
~ i! ;¡ ~>-~ ~r ,f W£
'\'. ~ ",I !, 'ê' " q M ·1 ~
II:¡! -$ I LÏi · . ~ n 1~ \;{ ~~ ~ ~ ~
';!!¡I . ['J If t,Vl····· '-'--'-: )( \ Ij ~
,. .' II --1 , ' 'H" --, ~~.> · '
,( , II .'"' ,.""". , i
D Il Ii II!î ' fI'2 ¡, ¡,
,1!1 ¡ , ¡¡ dJ,t--!¡ -' ,;
. Jb I !II .¡' " ! '
,1'\ I '--- I~_' .~ I! !
. II!~L! ~, n.. . . ,'~
il'i'" I - ,,' ::\
D ' ~¡ ~i~ n 1 ' a II ~ , ! U "-\ I
_ . "j ,---!I ,--" I ,"n '\ .'-..'f1
l -:7l ,,~~~ ~\I~ ~;. ~! /,,,", (~j ~
,i., ." ,; ,
~ 4>: ~l¡ ~ r Q ~~~ .f N' ~ I r#1I _Xyy..,y ,~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ 21.!- D~i i~~ ~ Q~ ~ 8
~ I".. :-:- ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ II!
, .'-.' -. ' , , '
! ' !!IH I~' ,jl ø 1<1 i
. \ _ ! n . .. " ' ,",
~ D. í ;' == '. ;!_[~...I t. ¡ II !t. I':' ·
", .. 7 ;, c:-----.. .. p, · ~ "; ",i ¡.
Ii' .. ,,': · I ¡, II illi fM "
" ! . !I' "t\. " 10 ¡Ii! ¡ hI' J
, ¡! ,,~.-...
-c I '- I ... ' ; ,
. II ,_ '. I:. ,
IUJ~~I. ~~ ,¡ ~ ' E. E
¡8~ ;a ~ ~ ~ n ~ n ~ '
II ¡¡~~ IÞ ,.~ :<' »>?>'~ >-:: " .
. ! . ¡ U I¡!I "-- , " 'fi' ;Jß ¡ff:(; !
~, .! I q =--- M \ . " 0< ~ !
" ~ ". , , ! " -' >. '- ,= ~
,¡ ,,-,t! .' !! ' ,"-" ,¡ ,.' ", ~' , " i
~ ;¡ III ti~ ~ §S I 11 ,~ ....,. ,r '" \,' ~. '.' ~,¡
~ . j' " , II . I ,.' . , I '-,
,t \ r ,,¡ , 01 p x m "'- -,
.. "" a '\ ,?- tJ I'. -"'" ¡ , i . _ t ,J' " V y y y y ::s::, "; i
l\!I~)~\!~' ¡f'¡. 'SfB "I: ~ w h d 'I, ~g¡ 11° ~~ ~ ;;11 ~ ~~ ' 7("" 0
...,., ' / / "j, [L ¡ . ffi~ ~¡¡ y~" ' !Ii
, . . ã " [". ìI'
__~ ~ . j' ,~I " - :. , · ,
, ~. '.' ~¡ ~ ;~ ~~r _ ~ 001"".' ,,, \'" ,.\t5 ~Ii æt ~~ ~hif¥ -0-.J . '1 Ii
, _ "' " I, .., , ,-. · ( r. «
. '0:' -'" - """'11';.,,-..,.;.-' }! . , 'j ..
~ 't--, d 'Ie! 1i,1,~" " . II =r'c"7"",," -, ~ .¡',' 0 ,¡¡! hI · ¡
,.- hi' 'Ii" II, ,~ 'd ---,. '. ! · . ,., I"! ¡r'" '
.. ~ ~~ E. - . ~O~ .0 ~ ~, ~¡ .. ~... , ) ~ 1/',' V
. ,t::o ~.: .¡! = -j ,II!"
i~£' .
~ =~ 1 . . 1:1 " r I -, 11// ::0> . r-------~: ]
~ ~ II .~'~¡ 'E' ., \ ,,¡ ~ U,- >..tJij ! I~ \. "n § ~
, . . '- , ~ .'
IL = . ~ - 'I'-.:, 1U
. ~ ," ,/ :
r< (I, Ie-- i \" >II
- .. ' ' ,.... . '" '
,- . " " . ,/ ."" .
. . ' ,""- . . ,.,. .
~ .~. , Ii ,I l ' il ..,~ r-----... . ~.' \
. . « h _ d, "6 co .L -k ,'!'-
I~ 2 I 3'" - h ill -,-----1 : ~"~. >-~ 0
, .' ,.' , .' ' . .
æ i 9~ . 1/!i! y-----1 I ~£' i ~~ ~;
. , _ / ,-, ,- ""''-
,! ~, .!.t: ,,~-;¡¡¡ -!~,-- ¡,I! j,
I " ~-, , <--- ." - ~ ..., ""
,¡ !' . , 'I!! i ~ '-'"
. ~ ~ ,: ~ l ~~ ~ ~~~ 51 ~ ' ~~~ ~~.
. t II I " ,.. " I" ,9 .<-- I' 'I, ,. '.,
,,_ ¡' '! . ì/! j! /... ..! ' ,ì j! I':
~ ì ~~ ~ ~' i _ ~ ì i, fÇ '-.' I ~, ?'~~f';fJa,~." 52 ~~¡ä . ~~ ~~~
~ ,!1 I' I:! ¡., ! ' \ ' f--"'" ~!, ¡II! ¡ ~~~ ~~;~
Q ,¡ ~¡( @ì ci ~ :~.. 0 ~ fl'jL 3 ~, ~/" ~." x~ ~ ~<I
,.1 '1' ,ø,,' , -I ,- '11_' ..,' -l.... " ' .,
! !!l1i ,11I!!!il! k . !)~,! ¡!@-. I:, ~;~ B ~ i~ ~~ ¡~~
. . . \"" .§ '--. ' .._ / " , I ¡ "",""
f l ¡¡ ~ ~' \ e;: " _, ~ !~i f\.: .",' .',' 2~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ S2~ ~1i' j
\ ".. ' . ~, " . " ." 1 '!' . ,..
. -' v ...; ¡ J ; ~ ¡ .,' !! i!J '.', ""''' ~ -P
~H I .~~ ~.f'¿... ~ l'n~~1 M r~ I· I n
, "' ,.,' ' ,," ... '
\. ¡ " ~ ~ :, ' ',_ ¡".\i ! !¡~ ¡i I ' ~
~ . B!!!J .' . t 3 ¡ ~ :s .~III~ ~ 0 ~ g 0
_ . !i ¡¡ ~¡j. '" 3:' d 11 æ
\,0 ~~~ ~ ¡ ~~~ ~ .~. ¡ !!!J (~i!~ I· I'!ß ~ ~ ~
"~I ., 0 -- . · ., . · ., ' ·
~æ~ ~ ~~;!i ~ §~~ @ f,~ ~J, ~~ ~~~. !!!. i~À I """" h nJ ß
, ..~ t: -; ~~ ~ h ~~~ '~~ ..~~ ¡;; É 1>¡Jæ I "-" ~~ ~ ~
~.. ~o~ > ~~~ 2~· ....
æ !~i! ~ ~!~ ¡,s~ E ~ ~
on
..
. . -
~/ ,