HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 [09] Sep 23
I
I
I
I
, I
September 23, 2p03
Page 1 of 7
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council and Planning Commission for the City of SI.
Joseph met in joint session on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 at 7:00 PM in the SI. Joseph City Hall.
Citv Council Members Present: Mayor Larry Hosch. Councilors AI Rassier, Gary Utsch, Dale Wick, and
Ross Rieke. City Administrator Judy Weyrens. i, I
Plannina Commission Present: Chair Gary Utsch. Commissioners S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge
Lesnick, Jim Graeve, Mike Deutz, Bob Loso, and Kurt Schneider.
City Representatives Present: City Engineer Joe Bettendorf,
Others Present: Rick Heid, Bob Herges,
Planning Commission Chair Gary Utsch and Mayor Hosch jointly opened the public hearing and stated
the purpose of the hearing is to amend SI. Joseph Code of Ordinance 52 - Zoning. Hosch turned the
floor over to anyone wishing to speak. Since no one wished to speak, Hosch then closed the public
hearing.
Listed below are additions made to the.51. Joseph Code of Ordinance 52 - Zoning:
· 52.07.2 (c) Variance - Successive Applications. Whenever an application for a variance has
been considered and denied by the City Council, a similar application for a variance affectin9
substantially the same property shall not be considered again by the Planning Commission or
City Council for at least six (6) months from the date of its denial; unless a decision to reconsider
, such matter is made by not less than four-fifths (4/5) vote of the full City Council. I
S. Kalinowski reported the colon used after Successive Applications should be replaced with a period to
be consistent with the SI. Joseph Code of Ordinance. ¡
· 52.07.3 (g) Special Use - Appeals: All decisions by the City Council involving a special use
permit shall be final except that an aggrieved person or persons shall have the right to file an
appeal within thirty (30) days of the decision with the Stearns County District Court.
i
S. Kalinowski reported that item (3.) should be reworded to include "on the lot in which it is located.
· 52.07.3 (i) Special Use - Successive Applications. Same as 52.07.2 (c) Variance.
· 52.07.4 (e) Interim Use - Successive Applications. Same as 52.07.2 (c) Variance.
· 52.07.4 (f) Interim Use - Appeals. Same as 52.07.3 (g) Special Use.
i
S. Kalinowski reported the colon used after Appeals should be replaced with a period to be consistent
. with the SI. Joseph Code of Ordinance.
,
·
52.07.5 (d) Rezoning - Successive Applications. Same as 52.07.2 (c) Variance.
I
· 52.11.3 (1) Temporary Signs - Temporary Leasing Signs: Temporary signs advertising available
lease space are permitted in all Business and Industrial Zoning Districts and are subject to th~
following reguiations: I
1. The temporary sign must be located on the same premises as the available lease space.1
2. The size of the temporary leasing sign cannot exceed the maximum allowed business sign in
the zoning district where the sign is to be located. i I
' Lesnick questioned if temporary signs are to be located in front of a business ii represents. Weyrens!
replied stating that they have left that flexible, as some businesses are unable to place a temporary si'gn
in the same location as their permanent sign.
September 23, 2003
Page 2 of7
Deutz reported that the Farmer's Market has their signs located in the County's right of way and
questioned if they would be considered exempt from any other businesses doing the same thing. Utsch
stated the only way the County would enforce the issue is if someone would notify them or if a
representative from the County would happen to see that it is in the right of way.
· 52.11.3 (Subd. 5) Temporary Signs - Business Signs: Business or industrial signs may be
erected, attached or painted on to a structure, and maintained in conjunction with a commercial or
industrial use proved the Business Sign meets the minimum standards as stated in each zoning
district.
· 52.27 (Subd. 7b) Single Family- Setback Requirements: The side yard setback shall be (10) feet
from the property line for the main structure and any garage or accessory structure. Where the
side yard abuts a public right of way, the side yard setback shall be twenty (20) feet from the main
structure and any garage or accessory structure.
Utsch reported that the reason the ordinance was changed was to help alleviate the tightness between
homes. Hosch stated that the 1 O-foot setback is not unreasonable. Rieke stated he feels that by
changing the side yard setback to 10 feet versus five is a big move on the City's part as far as for property
taxes. He also stated that he does not feel the homes are overbearing. Schneider reported that property
taxes are based on the value of the home and not by its size.
· 52.29 (Subd. 9) Multiple Family - Exterior Requirements: All exterior wall finishes on any building
shall include 2 or more combinations of the following materials: face brick, natural stone, wood
textured precast concrete panels, textured concrete block, stucco and pre-finished decorative
panels made of metal, vinyl or wood.
Deutz stated that it was his understanding that with R-3 Exterior Requirements, the City was looking at
some type of brick or stucco with vinyl or wood. Hosch stated he concurred with Deutz and thought the
exterior requirement included a certain percentage for example 25% for Industrial and 50% for Highway
Business.
· 52.33.4 (f) Industrial - Indoor Firing Range provided that:
1. The firing range shall not be located on any lot adjacent to an existing Residential,
EducationallEcclesiastical or Public District.
2. The firing range shall not be located within one thousand (1,000) lineal feet, measured from
buildin9 to building, of an existing firing range or establishment licensed to dispense
intoxicating or non-intoxicating beverages.
3. The use, occupancy and construction of the building shall conform to the Minnesota State
Building Code.
4. The building and method of operation shall conform with the applicable Minnesota Polluüon
Control Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, and OSHA standards for indoor ventilation,
emission into the atmosphere, indoor sound levels, lead containment and outside noise
standards.
5. The design and construction of the firing range shall completely confine all ammunition rounds
within the building and in a controlled manner. 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 desi9ned to totally confine.
6. No ammunition shail be used in the range that exceeds the certified design and construction
specifications of the firing range.
7. A written 109 of range users shall be maintained by the range operator and available for
inspection by the City all any/all times. The name and address of the user shall be verified by
photo identification. The log shall include, but not be limited to the following:
a. Name, address and phone number of the ranger user.
b. Time and date the user was in the range.
c. If aged twenty-one (21) or more a photocopy of the individual's permit to carry a
dangerous weapon.
8. Firearms shall not be stored on the premises when the range is closed for business.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
September 23, 2003
Page 3'of 7
9. 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 piace of business
and the conditions of safety and order in the piace of business and on the premises.
10. 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 cancellationi 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 his/her assigns at all times.
11. On site instruction shall be given only by certified Firearms Instructors. Current certificatek for
firearms instructors shall be on display in a conspicuous location in the premises and ava(lable
for public inspection at all times. " I
12. An outside security plan for the general grounds shall be submitted to the City Administrator or
designee for review and approval. !
13. The transport of firearms on the premises, to the premises and from the premises shall :
conform to State Law. '
14. 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. !
15. Indoor firing ranges shall not sell or dispense intoxicating liquors,' nor shall they be in a building
which contains a business that sells or dispenses non-intoxicating or intoxicating liquors.
16. The Council reserves the authority to review or modify the performance standards for the
range.
!
Hosch stated he has a concern that firearms shall not be stored on the premises when the range is I
closed for business. He questioned if this would omit the possibility of an indoor firing range wanting to
conduct sales. Hosch gave an example of an archery range; a person can purchase equipment and also
shoot their bow and arrow at the same facility. Utsch replied stating he believes there is State Statute!; a
person would have to abide by and to meet other criteria than what the City of SI. Joseph would require.
S. Kalinowski stated she feels that items (2.) and (15.) are similar and would lik~ to see the two I I
combined. Weyrens replied stating that she believes items (2.) and (15.) are separated because they¡are
two separate actions. Hosch stated he would like clarification from the City's Attorney and to somehow
condense the two items. I
I
Rassier stated that he has a concern with item (8.). He stated he could see an organization such as SI.
Joseph Rod and Gun Club conduct a gun course, supply the necessary equipment, and be able to store
the firearms at the firing range. Rassier further stated that he could not see a reason why you would ~ot
want to lock up a firearm. Hosch stated he is unclear as to why item (8.) is included in the ordinance and
that he would rather see a provision to inciude that firearms are to be secured, stored, and locked.. I
Graeve stated he feels that it would be a safety issue having firearms stored on-site and that it may
'create temptation for others to break into the firing range. It was clarified that item 8.) would be reworded
to include language that the firing range(s) will consist of storage lockers approved by the St. Joseph I
Police Department.
I
Wick questioned if item 7c.) could be clarified as he stated he feels this could be a catch-22. He I
questioned if a person buys a weapon, do they receive a permit at that time to carry their weapon or ifia
permit needs to be obtained before a person can purchase weapon. Weyrens stated that she would do
further research and report her findings to the City Council and Planning Comn;ission members. , I
, . 52.14.6 (Subd. 6c) Manufactured Home - Manufactured Home Park Lot Requirements: Eachl
manufactured home site shall be allowed to accessory building provided that: I
1. The accessory building is located at least three (3) feet from the property line and there is a six
(6) foot clearance between the accessory building and a structure on the adjoining property.
2. The maximum size of an accessory building shall be 120 square feet (8' x 10'). !
I
3. The accessory building must match the color of the manufactured home on which itis located.
S. Kalinowski reported that item (3.) should be reworded to include "on the lot i~ which it is located.
i
. Listed below are deletions made to the 51. Joseph Code of Ordinance 52 '- Zoning:
. 52.11.3 (Subd. 5a & 5b) Temporary Sign - Business Signs.
September 23, 2003
Page 4 of 7
· 52.27 (Subd. 7b) Single Family - Setback Requirements: The side yard setback shall be ten (10)
feet from the main structure and five (5) feet from garage or accessory building.
Deutz made a motion to approve the changes to A. - I.) Ordinance 52 made by Weyrens. The motion
was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously.
I
Wick made a motion to approve Ordinance 52 - Zoning to include the following changes;
seconded by Utsch.
· Items (a.) - (d.) Colons changed to periods.
· Exterior requirements item (g.) To be reworded for the intention of the Planning
Commission Council.
· Indoor Firing Ranges item (f.) Combining items (2.) and (15.). Item (8.) To be removed and
add verbiage to include having a secured area for the storage of firearms.
· Manufactured Home item (3.) should be reworded to include "on the lot in which it is
located.
· Temporary Leasing Signs for the exemption of the fee.
Ayes: Hosch, Wick, Utsch, Rassier
Nayes: Rieke Abstain: None. Motion Carried: 4:1:0
Discussion: Weyrens reported that she would do further research on item (7c.) Firing Range and
report her findings to the City Council and Planning Commission members.
Graceview Plat 2 Sidewalk Relocation: Bettendorf presented the City Council with pictures of what was
originally cut out of the trail. He stated they had discussed some modifications to possibly align the trail
closer to the road. Bettendorf recommends the City Council view the revised plans before they make a
final decision is make on how the trail is constructed. Schneider stated that he feels the concept plan has
drastically changed from its originai version. Herges replied stating the original concept plan never I
showed that the trail system between Graceview Estates Phase I and II were going to be connected.
Graeve questioned if the trail were to be placed next to the curb, would it then take away the public trail
concept. Bettendorf clarified that it would not take away from it. Rieke, Wick, and Graeve stated they are
opposed to having the trail abut the curb as they prefer having a 3-foot boulevard containing grass. Heid
stated that no matter if there would be 1-foot or 3-feet from the curb, grass will not grow, the sun in fact
would burn it. Another issue with moving the trail away from the curb, is the electrical boxes and gas
lines such as Stearns Electric.
Bob Herges, stated that the particular homeowners that would have had the trail 6-feet to 7 -feet away
from their homes, had a concern of people using the trail and being able to see into their basements and
that they did not want the trail that close. Herges stated one of the reasons why a trail system is
replacing the sidewalk is that the trail would be 8-feet wide so that it can be used for other recreational
uses other than walking. He also stated that they would consider striping the trail to help separate the
fiow of traffic. Bettendorf reported that another option they had discussed was staying within the distance
from the back of the curb and the easement line, which is approximately 14-feet to 15-feet of right of way
and also a 10-feet utility easement.
Utsch questioned if it is the City's obligation to clean the trail. It was clarified that it is however, during the
winter season, the trail will not be plowed. Rassier stated that when he was a member of the Planning
Commission at the time this concept plan came through, it was discusses that the trails would not have to
be maintained during the winter. Rassier stated it is his personal opinion that when Graceview Estates
plan came through, that was one of the biggest sellers and that rather than having a park, the Developer's
contributed the trail.
Hosch stated that it is his personal opinion that when looking at moving the trail so it abuts to the curb, his I
natural reaction was having a sidewalk made more sense until after reviewing and discussing the issue.
After reviewing and discussing the issue, Hosch stated he feels that constructing an 8-foot blacktop trail
makes sense. However, Hosch stated it would be nice to have a boulevard area with 2-foot to 3-foot area
of grass, he agrees that it will not be maintained, will be unattractive, and that it would be difficult to grow
grass in that area. Hosch made a motion to allow the construction of the trails to abut the curb, the
I
I
I
September 23, 2003
Page 5 of 7
!
, . I
trails to be 8-feet wide, consist of blacktop, to connect the walkways, and holding pond; seconded
by S. Kalinowski. ! I
Ayes: Hosch, Rassier, Utsch, Wick, Rieke, S. Kalinowski, Lesnick, Graeve, Deutz, Loso
Nayes: None. Abstain: Schneider Motion Carried: 10:0:1
I
Graceview Plat 2 - Callawav Street: Weyrens reported that the City had originally asked for Callaway I
Street to be extended when Graceview Estates II was to begin construction. Independent School District
742 does not want any equipment relocated to allow Callaway Street to be constructed as a constructiqn
road until spring 2004. Weyrens aiso reported that Heid and Herges are going to use Field Street for their
construction traffic. However, Weyrens pointed out that in the Developer's Agreement, it states that tha
construction road has to be constructed as a rural section road. Weyrens questioned what the City I
Council's decision is or what is their intent is for that road, is it for residential use or just for constructior)
vehicles or does the City Council want to consider looking at building Callaway Street now. I
Weyrens reported that Heid and Herges have agreed to pay for their whole contribution of $250 per acre
up front if the City were to construct Field Street now. Rassier stated it is his personal view that the
sooner they were to put Callaway Street in with curb and gutter, the better and not as a construction road
but as a City Street once the funds become available. Rassier also stated that it is his opinion that he .
does not have a problem with Field Street being constructed as a construction road but that it is to be
constructed with Class-2. Hosch and Utsch stated they concurred with Rassier,
Discussion on Development and Tree Preservation: Bettendorf reported that he does not have a good I
solution on how to save trees when building on typical city lots. Bettendorf also reported that he is finding
that lots of communities that the requirements to plant tress are becoming really stiff. Rieke questioned
what are other cities doing in regards to replanting. Utsch stated that when a developer purchases .
property they cannot be told what he/she can or cannot do with their property as long as they abide by the
SI. Joseph Code of Ordinances. I
Hosch stated that he believes he did not ask the right questions or did not rese~rch enough of what th~
impact would have on the development and further stated that this is exactly what the PUD's are for
which is to preserve natural land features such as this.
Adiourn: Deutz made a motion to adjourn at 8:50 PM; seconded by Lesnick and passed
unanimously.
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council and Planning Commission for the City of SI. I
Joseph met in special session on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 at 8:50 PM in the SI. Joseph City Hall.
,Citv Council Members Present: Mayor Larry Hosch. Councilors AI Rassier, GJry Utsch, Dale WiGk, Jnd
Ross Rieke. City Administrator JudyWeyrens. I
I
Weyrens reported that the MET Council fee schedule for determining WAC/SAC fees are enclosed In'the
City Council members' packets. The process has been used since 1973 and is intended to charge a I
utility fee based on usage. This matter has been discusses by staff and appears to be the most equitable
manner for determining fees. It was discussed if the new fees would deter development and the EDA
consultants indicated it would not as developers view WAC/SAC fees in the same manner as building
permit fees. The cities of Sartell and SI. Augusta have already adopted the fee schedule. Weyrens also
reported that the fee structure schedule allows a developer to be charged fractions whereas the cUrrEint
system the City uses, charges a developer by the number of gallons they use for example:
Gallons
Used
500
501
1,000
1,501
# of W AC/SAC
Charged
1
2
3
4
I
" .
September 23, 2003
Page 6 of?
Weyrens also reported that the most significant impact developers would see is those who are
constructing restaurants. If the purpose of the water and sewer access charge is to charge for the taxing
on the system, the fee structure would take into account.
Weyrens reported that the City had received a letter from Gohman Construction asking the City to
reconsider the proposal and had also received a telephone call from Ted Schmid of Lumber One, Avon
reminding the City that they need to have it on a fee basis and to make sure the City can support the fees
that the City is proposing.
I
Utsch questioned if the surrounding cities that have implemented this fee structure have any feedback or
have received any complaints. Weyrens replied stating that she had contracted one city but the contact
person was unavailable.
Hosch opened the public hearing for SI. Joseph Code of Ordinance 44 - Water and Sewer Access Fee at
8:55 PM.
Jerry Hettwer of Hettwer Realty Services, approached the City Council stating that it appears to him that
the City is putting the cost of infrastructure developments on the back of the commercial industrial base,
is not sure if the City needs to do that, and feels that it is a mistake.
Sy Prom of St. Joseph, approached the City Council stating that he feels that everything is being done
upfront and that it does not give a person to start small. Prom stated that it seems to him, is that it is a flat
fee based on the size of facility they will use. He further stated that he had two tenants, each leasing a
portion of his facility. Due to the growth of his tenants, they both have sought competitive property
outside of SI. Joseph and in result, they have doubled the size of Prom's facility. Prom recommends the
City be careful so they do not price themselves out and they have just lost two businesses.
I
Leo Buettner owner of Buettner Business Park, approached the City Council stating he feels they have
paid their share for utility costs and that by raising the costs it will drive potential buyers away. Buettner
recommends the City keep the costs where they are at in order to help them to sell their lots.
Hosch closed the public hearing at 9:10 PM.
Rieke questioned if the City would be better off auditing the W AC/SAC fees against the actual usage.
Weyrens replied stating that it would be relatively hard to do. Hosch stated he is adamant that the City
needs a fair equitable way of charging WAC/SAC fees. Rieke stated he concurs with Hosch and stated
he feels it should be a self-supporting system. Hosch stated his concern is with the loading docks, yard
storage buildings, and warehouses. Those types of uses should be based on the number of employees
they have versus the total square footage of the facility. Rassier stated that he does not feel it is a
system error, however that the problem is the parameter numbers for some of the items that have been
presented.
Wick questioned if the City would be able to conduct some type of review process. Weyrens replied
stating that the City would need to be cut and dry with their process otherwise the City would be opening
themselves up to subjectivity and the City does not need that at this time. Bettendorf stated he concurs
with Weyrens.
Weyrens recommends taking the comments received tonight and do further research and bring her
findings back to the City Council. Hosch stated he feels that this is the right direction the City is moving
towards, however what has been presented to the City Council tonight impact the community too much.
Wick made a motion to table 51. Joseph Code of Ordinance 44 Water and Sewer Access Fee I
issue requesting the parameter numbers be re-evaluated by City staff and to have their findings
brought back to the City Council to review. The motion was seconded by Hosch and passed
unanimously.
Discussion: Hosch stated that he encourages those present who have any questions or input to
notify City Offices.
I
I
I
I
September 23, 2003
Page 7 of 7
Ordinance 41 - Water Ordinance: Weyrens reported that Ordinance 41 - Water Ordinance has béen
tabled.
Ordinance 42 - Sewer Ordinance: Weyrens reporied that Ordinance 42 - Sewer Ordinance needs to b~
amended. Weyrens also reported that the amended ordinance has been reviewed by City Engineer Joe
Bettendorf and Water Superintendent Jim Marthaler. Bettendorf and Marthaler request the City Council
to amend Ordinance 42 - Sewer Ordinance as presented. Rassier made a motion to approve the
amendment to 51. Joseph Code of Ordinance 42 - Sewer Ordinance; seconded by Utsch and
passed unanimously.
,
Ordinance 71.11 - Clarification on minor consumption: Weyrens reported that when the Administrative!
Fines were going to be implemented, the City realized that there was nothing written in the SI. Joseph I
Code of Ordinance that states that it is a violation to consume alcohol under the age of 21. Weyrens is
requesting that Ordinance 71.11 be amended to allow for minors not to consume alcohol. I
Utsch made a motion to amend St. Joseph Code of Ordinance 71.11 to include the allowance fair
minors not to consume alcohol; seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously.
Adiourn: Utsch made a motion to adjourn at 9:40 PM; seconded by Hosch and passed
unanimously.
@.':f£'~
I
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
I
I