Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 [12] Dec 05 st. Joseph Planning Commission December 5, 2005 FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS NAME 1. \) e.A-tJ A, LJ ( (.~ 2. ~ V'vt ~ /A-\A.-C}- 3. .) /';;PF LIT F I J 4. 51~ L\\01\i\' b\~\\~{t~( 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. ADDRESS @ z"t:.- c;: e 12- ~ So. tlitI TIi p~(. UJ~~ p~ Q'505 t1iA'\clLQ4fL~ LA1 JI-lt+pU;(/:;P.cA.J6 N,J I ql~ (,~)\l~w s. ~,Jo..c I I I I I 1. 2. Administrdtor Judy Weyrens 3. MdYor 4. Richdrd Cdrlbom Councilors 5. AI Rdssier 6. Ross Rieke Renee Symdnietz Ddle Wick I I I i CITY Of ST. JOS~PH www.cityofstjoseph.com St. Joseph Planning Commission December 5, 2005 7:00 PM Call to Order Minutes Approve the minutes of October 3 and October 17, 2005 7:00 PM Public Hearing - Preliminary/Final Plat, Morningside Acres 3rd Addition 7: 10 PM Percheron Properties, Development Plan, 31 Minnesota Street W Other Matters Adjourn I I I St. Joseph City Council December 5, 2005 7:45 PM 1. Call to Order 2. 7:45 PM Preliminary/Final Plat, Morningside Acres 3rd Addition 3. Adjourn I I I I I I I I Joint City/Township Meeting December 5, 2005 8:00 PM 1. Call to Order 2. Annexation Resolution - Water Filtration Plant 3. Orderly Annexation Expansion 4. AdjQurn FUe 2. 'i CoIl e g e Aye n u e Nor t h . PO Box b b 8 . S din t. J 0 s e ph, M inn e sot d 'i b 17j4 Phone 12.0.16,.72.01 Fdx )2.0.,6,.0142. Joint Meeting As you will notice the City and Township have ajoint meeting scheduled for 8:00 PM, following your meeting. St. Joseph Township has requested to meet again to discuss the boundaries of the proposed expansion area of the Annexation Agreement. Please bring your maps from the last meeting. I I I I I I NOTES. . . . . . . . ... Also, their was some concern about the last meeting and the materials for the meeting. The maps presented that night were a product of the staff meetings. The Council had meet an hour before that meeting and received the map for the first time. We had been working on them for a week and had not discussed the matter with St. Joseph Township. Sorry about the confusion with the meeting material. January In January and February we will be looking at Ordinances that need to be reviewed and looking at Planning District 14. in the Comprehensive Plan. With the addition ofthe School it would be wise to review that district and discuss future land uses. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAFT October 3,: 2005 Page 1 of 2 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof,: the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in r~gular session on Monday, October 3,: 2005 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. ! Members Present: Chair Gary Utsch. Commissioners: Marge Lesnick, Jim Graeve, AI Rassier, SistJr Kathleen Kalinowski, Mike Deutz, Bob Loso Others Present: David Potter Approve Aqenda: Deutz made a motion to approve the agenda with the following additions/deletions/changes: · Split the meeting into a Planning Commission meeting, followed by a Joint Plannirg Commission/City Council meeting. I · Add Sand Companies - set special hearing date ' · Add Midnight Haulers · Add Minutes - September 12, 2005 The motion was seconded by Kalinowski and passed unanimously. Minutes: Lesnick made a motion to approve the minutes of September 12,2005; seconded by Rassier. Ayes: Utsch, Kalinowski, Deutz, Lesnick, Rassier, Graeve Nays: None Abstain: Loso Motion Carried 6:0:1 Rezoninq Request, Leo Buettner: Weyrens reported that the Planning Commission considered the request of Leo Buettner to initiate the hearing process to consider the rezoning of Lot 2 Block 3 Buettner Business Park from the current Industrial to B2, Highway Business. The Planning Commission did nbt have a written recommendation from the St. Joseph Economic Development Authority and referred tthe matter to the EDA for a recommendation. Since the last Planning Commission meeting, property owner representative Jerry Hettwer, appeared before the EDA and received a favorable recommendation requesting the Planning Commission to initiate the rezoning request as stated above. Weyrens presented the Planning Commission with the minutes of the EDA meeting whereby they : recommended Planning Commission approval. Weyrens clarified that the rezoning request is appro~riate as it is an extension of the current Highway 75 Zoning District. Loso made a motion acknowledging that the Planning Commission will initiate the rezoning request of Leo Buettner and authorized the scheduling of the pUblic hearing to rezone Lot 2 Bl,ock 3 Buettner Business Park from the current Industrial to B2 Highway Business. The motion w~s seconded by Rassier and passed. Ayes: Loso, Rassier, Utsch, Kalinowski, Graeve, Lesnick Nays: Deutz Motion Carried 6:1:0 Midniqht Haulers: Weyrens stated that previously Midnight Haulers approached the Commissioners and requested relief from some curbing on their property. The City does not have an opinion letter from the City Engineer as she received the information earlier this day. Loso made a motion to table this item until they receive a response from Tracy. I I : Utsch stated that there is no need to table this item as of yet because a decision cannot be madeuntili they either appeal the Ordinance Requirements or go through the variance process. According to Utsdh, they have had problems with their project since the beginning. The issue at hand is more than a simpl~ curb issue and as a result, they must request a variance. Wasmund, St. Joseph Building Official, was also present at the meeting. He stated that they are seeking relief of the curbing around the access lanes as DRAFT October 3, 2005 Page 2 of 2 well as the requirement of brick adornment on the front of the building. In addition there is an outstanding issue of fire suppression, which is required by the Fire and Building Code. Utsch stated that they, as a Planning Commission, could either leave the plan as it was approved or allow the property owner to request a variance. He also advised the Commissioners that they will need to be very careful when considering the variance request as other projects in the area have been required to fulfill this requirement. Rassier stated that the variance process should be followed through in a proper manner. He advised Midnight Haulers to apply for a variance for the adornment at the same time as the request for relief from curbing. According to Deutz, the curbing was originally required to control runoff. However, this is a very unique piece of property due to its size. The intent of the Ordinance requiring that 25% of the front of the building be brick was to create a nicer looking building from the road. He stated that he does not see a reason to require that when a fence will block the entire front of the building. Deutz questioned why Lemmer Trucking has not fulfilled the exterior requirement for the building expansion approved by the Planning Commission. This matter along with American Manufacturing will be referred to the Building Official for compliance. Weyrens advised the Commission that the earliest that they could schedule a public hearing is October 17, 2005 with the Council considering the matter at the October 20, 2005 City Council Meeting. Sand Companies: Weyrens advised the Planning Commission that Sand Companies is requesting to develop Sunrise Cottages, which is the Patio Home portion of the R3 area in Morningside Acres. The Plan approved in July 2004 included five (5) one-level patio homes and four (4) two-level patio homes. Since the public hearing the property has been sold to a different developer and they are requesting to construct all two story town homes. Since a special use permit was required for the R3 portion a new publiC hearing must be conducted amending the Special Use permit issued in July 2004. This hearing will be scheduled for October 17, 2005 as well. Adiourn: Deutz made a motion to adjourn; seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. Judy Weyrens Administrator I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 17 j 2005 Page 11 of 3 DRAFT Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in special session on Monday, October 17, 2005 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Gary Utsch. Commissioners: S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Bob Loso, Mike Deutz, AI Rassier. City Administrator Judy Weyrens. Others Present: Mary Schroden, Jane Lowell, Jim Sand, Richard Hennings, Brad Barth, Tim McKentie, George Malus, Todd Brenny, Mike Scherer, Ann Scherer Approve Agenda: Rassier made a motion to approve the agenda with the fol/owing addition: Add Approval of Rezoning - Possible School Location The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Public Hearinq - Special Use Permit. Sand Companies: Weyrens stated that the purpose of the heading is to consider the revision of a Special Use Permit issued on August 5, 2004. The Special User Permit I provided for the construction of eight (8) single-story patio homes and ten (10) two story town homes.j The revised site plan develops the entire site with two-story town homes. Utsch opened the public hearing. Richard Hennings of Sand Companies approached the commissioners to discuss the revised site plan for the Town home development. He stated that the town home development will be entitled Sunrise Cottages. In their original plan, they had planned to develop this area as a mix of town homes and patio homes, however, they have since sold that lot and the new developer is looking to build all two-story town homes. All of the units will be three bedrooms, rather than two. Due to the fact that they will be two-stbry units, the square footage will increase however the footprint will be smaller which will allow for more green space. , There being no one present wishing speak the public hearing was closed. Utsch stated that he was under the impression that the patio home development was funded through a government program for seniors. He stated that in his opinion St. Joseph does not have adequate housing options for seniors. Hennings stated that Sand Companies considered senior housing in the beginning but the area did not accommodate the required parking. Therefore the plan was changed prrior to City approval. In addition, Hennings further stated that the rent most likely would have been cost I prohibitive for the majority of senior citizens. ' Deutz made a motion to recommend the Council approve the amended Special Use Permit for Sand Companies aI/owing the construction of 18 two story town homes. The motion was seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously. Public Hearinq - Variance Request. Midnight Haulers: Weyrens stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider two variances, one relieving the curbing requirements and one relieving the exterior , requirements abutting a street front. The variance is being requested to allow the, expansion of Midnight Haulers. Weyrens added that she was under the impression that they were no longer requesting the I curbing variance., ! David Potter, President of Midnight Haulers, approached the Commissioners and stated that they are still requesting the curbing variance. There was some miscommunication between them and their engineer., He stated that they are requesting a variance for the curbing along the North side of their property facing the field and for the brick on the building facing CR 133. Potter stated that he is requesting relief from the exterior adornment Ordinance for the side facing CR 133 as it will be screened from the ROW. Therefo~e, adding adornment is defeating the intent of the Ordinance. I Al Viehill, Midnight Haulers, spoke in support of the variance request. It is his opinion that since the building facing CR 133 will be screened adornment should not be required. October 17, 2005 Page 2 of 3 DRAFT Mike Scherer, Scherer Trucking, also expressed support for the approval of the variance for the exterior requirements for the same reason that the brick will not be seen due to the fencing. Tom Brenny, Brenny Specialized, approached the Commissioners to state that he feels there is no need to require that 25% of the building have brick adornment. The Public Comment portion of the hearing was closed. Utsch stated that he had some concerns with granting the variances, as the variance worksheets were not complete. It is the responsibility of the property owner to provide why the variance should be approved. 1. Exterior Requirements: St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.33 Subd. 9(a) requires that a minimum of twenty-five (25%) of the exterior building finish directly facing streets shall consist of materials comparable to: face brick, natural stone or cultured rock, glass vinyl, stucco, aluminum lap siding, cut block, and concrete block. Rassier stated that he can understand the request to relieve some of the requirements for the exterior of the building. He stated that if a fence will cover up that whole side of the building, and he doesn't see a need for the brick. He would rather the adornment abuts 19th Avenue NE as that is the front of the Building. Deutz also added that he began looking at the different reasons for granting the variance for the exterior requirements. He stated that the face of the building is the side that runs parallel to the road. As a result, that is the side that would need to have the brick. He also stated that the intent of the Ordinance is to make businesses more aesthetically pleasing when driving by. It if will be covered with a fence, he sees no need for the brick. Deutz made a motion to recommend the approve the variance request to relieve a portion of the exterior requirements for 25% brick on the building. Relief will be granted for the side facing CR 133 only as this building side will be screened from public view. Further, if the fence is permanently removed the exterior must be adorned at that time following current Zoning requirements. The motion was seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously. 2. Curbing: St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.33 SuM. 9(m) requires concrete curb to 8612 specifications shall be used for al automobile stops and for all drive and parking areas. Property owner Dave Potter stated that there was some miscommunication between Midnight Haulers and their engineers. The Engineer hired by Midnight Haulers was not authorized to send a letter to the City stating that the property would be curbed. Potter stated that the curbing requirement is financially burdensome. He agreed to construct the improvement in June without a bid for the construction. Had he been aware of the cost in June he would have requested relief at that time. When questioned about the curbing requirement Ekola stated that drainage is not an issue as they can control the drainage in other ways such as swales, storm sewers, or catch basins. She stated that the need for the curb is due to a requirement of the City's Ordinance. Ekola did mention that she wants to review their plans whether they are putting in the curb or not. Utsch stated that if the request is granted precedence would be set and the City would have a hard time enforcing the Ordinance for other buildings. Deutz stated that the curbing requirement is an Ordinance requirement and financial considerations are not reasons for grating a variance. Rassier stated that he has concerns with the abutting property to the north jf curbing is not constructed. Potter stated that they will deal with that issue if and when I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 17, 2005 Page ~ of 3 DRAFT the property develops. Deutz questioned other businesses along 19th Avenue and whet~1 er or not they were required to add the curbing. According to Utsch, the Ordinance did not require curbing when they did their improvements and Midnight Haulers needs to comply with th~ Ordinances in effect. Loso made a motion to recommend the Council deny the variance of Midnight Hauers seeking relief from the perimeter curbing requirement. Denial is recommended as facts of findings are not presenUo grant the variance. The motion was seconded by Kalinowski. Ayes: Nayes: Utsch, Kalinowski, Loso Rassier, Deutz, Lesnick Motion Failed 3:3:0 {Note: St. Joseph Code of Ordinance requires a majority vote of those present to grant a variance. Therefore this matter will be forwarded to the Council as a recommendation to deny the requested variance. ) Lumber One - Request for Rezoning: Ted Schmid, Lumber One, approached the Planning Commissi~n requesting that the Planning Commission initiate the rezoning process for the proposed school and abutting property. The property is located adjacent to CR 121. Schmid requested the rezoning of approximately 75 acres to E & E and the remaining 28 acres R3. , Utsch stated it is his opinion that all rezoning requests should include a concept plan. As of this time a plan has not been submitted. Schmid stated he does not have a concept plan as he is not sure how the property will be developed. It is not his intent to develop the property for five to seven years. Therefore, he would like to build what the market dictates. Utsch stated that he would rather keep the 28 acres as an outlot, zoned Agricultural until a concept plan is submitted. According to Schmid, this piece of prop~rty would most likely be developed as multi-family due to the fact that there is no need for anymore singlei family lots and more schools are being built in multi-family areas. Deutz suggested that they rezone the property as R3 50 that people know what to expect in that area; however he did state that he would Iik$ to see a plan. i Rassier made a motion to initiate the rezoning process of the property owned by Bill Moilitor and authorize the scheduling of the public" hearing. The zoning request will consist of a mix of R3 and E & E. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Adiourn: Lesnick made a motion to adjourn; seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously. Judy Weyrens Administrator I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Attachment: Yes or No REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Final! Preliminary Plat DATE: December 5, 2005 AGENDA ITEM Sunrise Cottages - Preliminary/Final Plat PREVIOUS ACTION The Planning Commission and Council have previously considered a request to amend the Special Use Permit for the Townhome Development. Originally one owner was going to own the outlot and have an association. That has changed and each lot will be sold with an association. The only way to accomplish this is to platthe property. The plan submitted is the same one you have seen previously and this mo~e administrative than anything else. Therefore we are allowing the preliminary and final to be submitt~d at the same time. I RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Recommend the Council approve the Preliminary and Final plat entitled Morningside Acres 3rd Addit'ion. COMMENTS/RECOMMENDA TIONS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY Of ST. IOSyPH www.cityofstjoseph.com City of St. Joseph Public Hearing The Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph shall conduct a public hearing on Monday, A ., December 5,2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the St. Joseph City Hall. The purpose of the hearing is to dmmlstrator consider a preliminary plat for Morningside Acres Third Addition. The proposed plat is Judy Weyrenslocated adjacent to CR 121 and Iverson and contains 18 town homes. Mayor The property is legally described as Lot 2, Block 1 Morningside Acres 2nd Richard Carlbom The proposed plat has been submitted by Sunrise Cottage, 9505 Blackoaks Lane; Maple Grove, Councilors MN 55311. AI Rassier Ross Rieke Renee SymaJ~y Weyrens Dale Wick Administrator Publish: November 25, 2005 2.)" College Avenue North' PO Box 668 . Saint. Joseph. Minnesotd 'ih 4 Phone ,2.0.,6,.71.01 Fdx ,2.0,,6,,0')42. ~ - ~ ~ If') ~ . 01 ~ "'- :t m :it rJJ ~ u ~z ~o Q ~ l ~ ~ ~ r:/) ~ ~ ClQ t1~ ~ O~ ~ ~ ..... ..... N.... .... \\ -. -1 .... ....It'l '0 ..... \~ .... ~ , !i I ./ '1 / ~ i ././. . ./ /~C\~ J _ - 19:i'~V - I~~ i ./--./- /~ ! - fl'! ./- , .J _./ , _ - Zl.t~S !\ ", / - ./O'ZS 3 ~g ~\ \" i _- 0 t-o.. ..... - - ,,\ \j /. ....:...... .....-:......::: t-o.\ ~ ........... _ ~ ....../ 3: ~ '-...- - 6f f9 - \ ~ ( M"fv,90,!iON ~\ II) \ ~\ ~ \ t ~\ \ ",;:~~ \\ \ . t ~ \ 'I \ t 'I ~O""::. \ ~o. " r \ I \ ig,U} I ~ ..J I \ ~ ~I ~ \ NI \ \'-IC' ~ t'! I \ "'7'fA~ ~I \ ..' 10, ~I . It'l "" \ \ ~ ~I \ ~ ~I ". \ ~o ~ I t--It'l...... ~\ ;\0 I \ \ ~ I -It'l \ \ I ~\ ~';;\I j 'fl\ n.. : _.., n \ './ / o ~ ~ ~\ ' ~ ~ \ .;<...... '"; ~ \ ....9.f"..>',li.;... ~ \\ \ .<9<ty..... o -1 O. \ \ o . \ o , ./ ~ \ \..-- ~ .;:.--.""'" r-- \( 3, AdditiOn \1' ... aloc fld" 1(' c: I V \..- f \..ot Z'es seeo /) " I ~ i \J \.? .J line oslde /'.er A 0. r\ , '-l /".- E~orCllflg ~"I J l .. :s j,O (\- .b '- :s :::> -.- ";;>0 ~- <( I- o ~ ::> o i6 \ \ \-- \_\~ \_\~ r-/ \5_ \-- U) -'1 t-- <.... ') -.... " -.... M..ll,Zl.OOS J SS'Il .A. ------ \ \ \ ----\ \ ("") -7 ~- <..') C'~ c") ~ - \_\~ \.f) 66 C\I "'C ~ ~- C\J C) . --J ~ ~- :) \ () \ \ \ \....J c.."") -0) (\" ......1 -7 ~- , , -\ -7 ~- (.; Ul r-< \...- \\....\) -7 -:::..- , , ~... 66 -- -7 ~- r-\/ \...- <..; - - - - - - ->- I -.", ~' Vi ~- :<( 10 10 10 <0 - - ~ - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Development Plan - 31 Minnesota Street West Percheron Properties DATE: December 5, 2005 AGENDA ITEM 7: 10 PM - Development Plan - 31 Minnesota Street West, Percheron Properties PREVIOUS ACTION Previously the Planning Commission considered the Special Use permit allowing a mixed development of Commercial and R3. The Special Use Permit was approved but the development plan was not. At this time the Development Plan is being submitted. Staff comments have been complied via the Inspectron Memo. This information has been presented to the owner representative, Dean Wick, and additional . information should be provided at the Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Authorize the execution of the Development Agreement between Percheron Properties and the City of St. Joseph for the mixed density development at 31 West Minnesota Street. The should be contingent upo~ drainage plans approved by the City Engineer. COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS Developers are allowed to illustrate drainage via arrows for the site plan approval. However, before a . permit is issued the developer must provide the detail assuring the drainage meets the requirements. This provision is allowed in the event that a plan is not approved and a significant amount of funds have bee~ spent on Engineering. The proposed site has been reviewed and the drainage will work provided the . improvements are constructed property. I I I I I I " I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I __J ---1 ,-- ~ L__ If ~:;M7:Dad tJ.LS~ I l:d:dl:11 S tJl0S3NNIW ;G11f19 ~ 6f:"'VL :3 ......S.O....P6B S ~NIOllne :1 ~(];;)I-I 9Nlgr,{;;) P d I I I ! m i i I' ~ ~ I Q ~ ~NIOlms . !::i} I , I . . I , , I . . I i 1 ~ Ul a a a. 0- w d ~ DNIOlmS es !.;: (') t- O ~ Z o +rl . I IUl I- / I ~ 9m 'a (') I~ 0 ~ I~ z IUl 0 i~ -; B..:N :~ J::) M < ~ ------------------- CD U) 1 '0 ::i} jO E:'8t I .In? ~ ?MN -0 i 3~l:Jt?JIj~ I....: V9~~ : . YlVM;;)(]I~ I I E:'8t. I , I __________________ _ ___ _ ~ ~;;);;)9 _____ ~ N;;);;)~?~ .GX.g (];;)00d0~ I - --j Ul a a Q. 0- a rJ 1 q I , I i V~~ I I!~ / I I ~ N .S-.OI .~.b xl : () i- (]aNV' lNW ;;)~ 11M I ~ ';;0 ~ I-l~~ ;;)~(] ~ ~ aJJ9 9Nlgr,{;;) :IQ ;;)lV::J!(]N 9MmlW 30Jn tCM? ~~ .S"~: '\. M;;)N '\. I-I~V N;;)a~ " " a~~~ (17) a(]IAo~ --~ DNIOlmS ~ 0- CD 00 .... -l'- 31~3N03 6. ~ l:<~ CD t~'9S :3 ..~S.f:~P6B S = SnoNIWflllfJ .::D kITlv' ,-- ---r-- ---r-- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Site Plan Review - requested narative The existing Dehler/Linnennan Building (31 MN Street) has been purchased by Percheron Properties, LLC. The new owners wish to continue the same Use for the building as the previous owner. The structure is in the B-1, Central Business District. The current City Ordinance 52' for the B-1 Distric.t lists a Mixed-Use of residential and Office. as a Permitted Use .With a spet'cial Permit. The requirement of at least 50% of the interior square footage being used by a Permi ted Use has been met. The total building square footage IS 6,719 sf. The Residential Use sq e footage is 2,742 sf. Therefore, the Permitted Use is contained within 59% of the total buil<ling square footage. Upon conditions the City has issued a Special Use Permit. The Downtown Committee is currently looking at the exterior design for the front elevation. This construction was to occur once the committee has determined a policy for exterior e1evation$ in the downtown area. The other elevations will have new siding installed after the old is removfd. The exterior work can no longer wait for the commitee. The rear exit stairs will be upgraded and structural footing will be added to the two South support posts. 1, The upper two floors will. contain two rental units both exist, both will have minor remodelihg. The North Unit has three existing bedrooms. The South Unit has its main living area on ~he second floor with the bedroom sleeping areas on the third floor. The new owners wish to have a maximum of ten tenants in these two units. I The new parking lot design will be similar to the existing conditions. A curb exists on the So~th side of the property along the sidewalk. New curbing will be installed on the North and East. We are planning on working with the existing City sidewalk along the West side of the parking 19t. Currently the site drains to the .North and East, this drainage will continue with the new pavihg design. A trash enclosure is proposed at the West side of the existing garage. It will be screened from public view as per Ordinance. At this time a screened chain link fence is proposed. New grass areas are proposed for the North and East of the site with noted trees being added. .-tn existing hedge will remain on the far South property line. / 1\ We have had extensive conversations with Ron Wasmund concerning the existing stairs alo~g the West property line. As stated in the Special Use review, this stair is not in compliance with the building code. Ron and I have reviewed the IRC for information and have not been able to locate anything that disallows this stair. We have reviewed sections 704.2, 704.2.3, 1004.3.~, 1005.3.6, 1005.3.6.4, 1006.2.2, and section 1406.3 with table 601. Section 1006.2.2 states th~t "Exterior balconies, stairways and ramps shall be located at least 10 feet from adjacent lot lints and from other buildings on the same lot unless the adjacent building exterior walls and openin~s are protected in accordance with Section 704 based on :fire separation distance." Our contentio\? is that if the Duetz Building to the West was construction as per code, which we are assuming ~t was, then the one-hour separation allowing this stair exists. Ron and I did not find anything iin the Building Code that stated this stair could not be attached to the structure. . Respectfully submitted by Dean A. Wick, Outsource Management Services I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Inspectran, Inc. Memo To: Judy Weyrens City Administrator From: Ron Wasmund, Building Official cc: Date: 11/29/05 Re: Percheron Properties, 31 Minnesota Street West Special Use Permit I have reviewed the materials submitted on November 7,2005 by Dean Wick, Outsource Management Services for 31 Minnesota St.. The submittals consisted of a revised site plan and a written narrative. \ The revised site plan shows the existing parking area with new b612 curb installed on the north an~ east sides. The narrative indicates that the parking surface will be paved with asphalt surfacing. Twenty-three parking spaces are required based upon the mix of uses proposed on this property. The site plan shows 21 including the four spaces in the existing garage. The proposed layout is two spaces short of the required number. Except for the number of parking spaces, the proposed parking seems to be compliant with ordinance.[ The curb and surfacing are an improvement over the existing condition but a variance will be needed I for the proposed number of parking spaces unless two spaces can be added to the layout. ! I have reviewed the Building Code forrequirements of the exterior stairway. ltis a required exit. It can' be located where it is if the exterior wall of the adjacent property is constructed to a one-hour fire resistive construction and contains no openings. The adjacent wall is constructed with concrete block and has no openings. It is assumed to have been required to be one-hour fire rated when constructed due to it's proximity to property line. The stairway however should be structurally independent of the i adjacent structure. The attachment to the adjacent building must be covered by an attachment i agreement between the two property owners with evidence submitted to the building official or I structural supports must be added. i The topic of fire suppression has come up in discussions several times. St. Joseph Fire Chief Randy I Torborg provided me a copy of the State Fire Marshal's review from 1994. In that report, it is very! strongly recommended. It was recommended to be installed as an alternative to all of the corrections' needed to comply with some of the life safety requirements of the Uniform Building Code in effect at the' time. The use of the building at the time of that review was as a dormitory style residence with habitable space on three stories. While I agree that it would be advantageous to the owner to have an Automatic Fire Suppression System for protection of the residents and property and I would like to see it sprinkled, the use has changed to commercial offices on first floor and two rental units on the second and third floors. The uses are now governed by the International Building Code. The residential use of the property is . Page 1 classified as an R-3 Occupancy. IBC Section 310 defines an R-3 Occupancy as "residential occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in nature and not classified as an R-1, R-2 or I and where buildings do not contain more than two dwelling units." I I I I I I I IBC Section 93.2 governs where Automatic Fire Suppression is required and it has no provisions for R- 3 Occupancies provided that the required 2-hour fire rated separation is provided between the commercial occupancy on the main floor and the residential occupancy above. The owner will have to verify the fire rating of the floor ceiling assembly above the offices for the building official. They will have the option of providing the required 2-hour separation or sprinkling the building. The applicable building code sections are attached. Because the residential portion of this building has been owner occupied as a single dwelling unit I believe the proposed use as two rental units is a change in occupancy and the requirements of the International Building Code apply. Findings The mixed use of business/professional offices and multiple residential dwelling units requires a special use permit. 3 bedrooms = 4 spaces I I I I I I I I I I I I To qualify for a Special Use Permit at least 50% of the interior square footage (exclusive of basement or cellar) must be used full time for a permitted use, and said permitted use and residential uses must not be conflicting. The plans are not dimensioned or detailed with the square footages of the residential areas so the floor area ratio cannot be calculated. The applicant however states that the permitted use is 59% of the total floor area of the building. The ordinance states the permitted use must be full time, implying that the commercial use must be occupied before the rental units are permitted. The area consisting of multiple dwelling units must comply with the lot area requirements of Ordinance Section 52.29 Subd. 5 and 6. Applying the lot area requirements and schedule of allowances for two units with five bedrooms, the minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet is required. The existing lot area of 20,307.42 SF complies with the lot area requirements of Ordinance Section 52.29, Subd. 5 and 6. Multi family dwellings are required to have 4 spaces for a three-bedroom unit and 1.25 spaces for each additional bedroom per unit. Bedrooms greater than 140 SF of floor area are considered two bedrooms for computing the required parking. The two bedrooms on the third floor both measure more than 140 SF. 4 bedrooms = 5,25 spaces 10 Spaces required for rentals Office use requires one parking space for every 250SF of floor area. First floor contains 3225 SF of floor area. 3225/250 = 13 spaces Twenty-three parking spaces are required for the proposed use. Twenty-one spaces are shown on the site plan including the detached accessory building containing four spaces. . Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I i All parking stalls must be striped in conformance with Ordinance section 52.10 Subd.3 (f) and 52.1p Subd. 5 (m) The building complies with height and lot coverage requirements of Ordinance Section 52.30 Subd (6) and (8). Ordinance Section 52.30 Subd. 7 (a) states that before issuance of a building permit, all buildings bein~ constructed in the Central Business District must have a landscape plan approved by the Plannin~ Commission. No landscape plan has been submitted for review. I ! Ordinance Section 52.30 Subd. 7 (b) states that before issuance of a building permit all building$ constructed or undergoing exterior renovation or remodeling in the Central Business District must hav~ . the exterior finish design and materials approved by the Planning Commission. The exterior is required to undergo a renovation and repair to eliminate the bad siding condition. The applicant has been working with the D.owntown Committee on building finishes however no design has been submitted fot review. , i The exterior stairway on the west side of the building from the second floor is attached to the adjaCen~ building which is under separate ownership. An attachment agreement is required or redesign of thel stairway is required to eliminate the attachment. \ A lock box must be installed on the building in compliance with Ordinance section 52.31 subd 8(i) before final inspection. Complete building plans must be submitted for review and approval before building permit issuance. No signage plan was submitted for review. Insufficient plan details were provided to enable engineering review. Provid~ a drainage plan for engineering review. . Page 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Attachment: Yes or No REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Ordinance Request - Outdoor Burning DATE: June 2, 2003 AGENDA ITEM Ordinance Request - Outdoor Burning PREVIOUS ACTION RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION COMMENTS/RECOMMENDA nONS With the announcement of high fuel costs residents are seeking alternative heating sources. One ofthesie methods is an outdoor stove. We have received complaints of emission from residents near outdoor stoves. The matter was turned over to the PCA. However, they are encouraging Municipalities to adopt an Ordinance governing the same. They recommended reviewing the Ordinances of Two Harbors and Herman Town. We are in the process of receiving a copy of the Ordinances and will present a same on ! Monday night. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF ST. JOSEPH JOINT RESOLUTION 2005-30 (CITY OF ST. JOSEPH) & 2005-3 (TOWNSHIP OF ST. JOSEPH) , RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE DESIGNATION OF THE FOLOWING AREA AS IN NEED O~ IMMEDIATE ORDERLY ANNEXATION i I i , This is a joint resolution by the City of St. Joseph and St. Joseph Township to approve the designation of the following unincorporated area as in need of immediate orderly annexation: See attached legal descriptions (Exhibits "A" & "B")... WHEREAS, the above described property is currently owned by the City of St. Joseph; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Joseph now intends to locate a new water filtration plant upon said land, but said area has not been formerly annexed to the City; and WHEREAS, this Joint Resolution designates an area as in need of immediate orderly annexation, provides for these conditions for its annexation, and specificallY states that no consideration by the Director is necessary. the Director may review and comment. but shall. within 30 days. order the annexation in accordance with the terms of this resolution. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCil OF ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA) AND THE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ST. JOSEPH TOWNSHIP, MINNESOTA, AS FOllOWS: I i i 1. That the land legally described in the attachment hereto is hereby designated as an area in need of immediate orderly annexation. 2. That the Director over annexations in the designated area is hereby conferred jurisdiction by submission of this joint resolution to the Director. 3. That this joint resolution, which has designated this area as in need of immediate orderlYI annexation, provides for the provisions for its annexation, and sp~cifically states that no! consideration by the Director is necessary, the Director may review and comment, bu~ shall, within 30 days, order the annexation in accordance and with the terms of this! resolution. Adopted by the St. Joseph City Council the _ day of December, 2005. Mayor City Administrator Jerome Salzer, Township Supervisor I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Adopted by the Town Board for the St. Joseph Township the _ day of December, 2005. Ann Reischl, Township Clerk I I I I I I ~ I : D I I c '" I '6 'C o I en .!!! I ~ I E o I :n / X I .u :n I .::, I .() o I I '~~~.~ ", ~"~_,,~,, "_:..000 1 II j~~' .. V ~=~ ~ ~ < ~...r ~ "~\il / I--,.? ~ \"J .,om ".'m"~~ L l ~ JO I ~ ~OD!)L2{Jn'lLI)OQJ'? I:" :lI.'M6.000 M',.OO ..,ullla MHOo.(". ".. i;' ~".53~OO'()(}4] 51.21 1: '""".0'., ~ ""- ".'0\ " , 7' I~', /L/ q~~ · V/ / ./ ,,-~/ / 7 ': '" ",~'::ooo ._ -"'~v'". v - / /' / ~'\T 000 '" ~;~O,,~. ' .''''9.00~'O "'~ V / ~ L;~""'~ "/;"'0'"'0'0 L0J;1 /' n "'" ~ ~ 61,'"" '~"('.O;:6"': " ---, _r HOQ,O!rrM.\uQI..0I.1J>... ~J~ " ,j !:;J~,O, - / :::,! /,~C!:97 .."C;;;}// ~/I ~~"'l~"':0''':'""'1.000 """~,oo~~~.~ V L' "Tom,V iT'~ /' ~~j :..V"~ ",,:",b,coo,,~ '''200N.lOO ',:"'M,,"''''' " /r-->' 000 7"".'mo,,~o.ooo ':" " /'1""1'" / / ~" I /7 .. ~ L" A:, / , ..,'", ~"" "..l\. loo..""c<",.",,,,,,oo 1/ "7~;~ V'-'''V r/ / / .", "'/K\ Z.,,/v ..V L ..L"oo V . P Vi ~:Ymoool/~ / / / ,~A'~ / :/"'m / "~d ,_'m :'F! ~: "'/J 1 '/ ," ~'''~ ".""'.000 u' r- u '"r:',o~ r.M'''''I''''''01 U " L,C .r=. ""'p''''O''V 1/ .'0"', l..:~ ,001"+",0," >---. ! 11,100"">0"