HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 [07] Jul 02
www.cityofstjoseph.com
CITY Of ST. JOSEPH
St. Joseph Planning Commission
July 2, 7007
7:00 PM
Councilors
Steve Frdnk
AI Rdssier
Renee Symdnietz
Ddle Wick
4. 7:00 PM Collegeville Development Group/College ofSt. Benedict
Concept Plan CR121
5. Adjourn
2.') College Avenue North' PO Box 668 . Sdint. loseph, Minnesotd ')6)74
Phone 12.0.161.]2.01 FdX 120.161.0)42.
ST. JOSEPH PLANNING COMMISSION
July 2, 2007
FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
NAME ADDRESS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular
session on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall.
Members Present: Chair Bob Loso, Jim Graeve, Ross Rieke, Sr. Kathleen Kalinowski, Mike Deutz, Mark
Anderson, AI Rassier, City Administrator Judy Weyrens
Others Present: Cynthia Smith-Strack, Rand Shaeper
Aoenda: Loso made a motion to approve the agenda with the following addition:
Add 6a
American Manufacturing
The motion was seconded by Kalinowski and passed unanimously.
Minutes: Rassier made a motion to approve the minutes of April 2, 2007 as amended. The motion
was seconded by Anderson and passed unanimously.
Ordinance Amendment. Accessory Buildinos: Chair Loso opened the public hearing and stated the
purpose of the hearing is to consider an amendment to St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.12 Subd. 1 (a),
Accessory BuildinQs. The proposed amendment would change the rear yard setback of an accessory
building from 20% of the depth of the lot to five (5) feet from the year yard lot line. Weyrens stated that
when the Ordinances were amended in 2006, one of the changes increased the side yard setback for
accessory buildings in an R1 Zoning District from five (5) feet to 20% of the depth of the lot.
During the implementation of the amended Ordinance it was discovered that the new setback should not
apply to detached accessory buildings. If the new setback is applied, detached accessory buildings
would be located in the middle of the back yards. In addition, if accessory buildings are located with large
setbacks their may be the propensity to store access material or belongs in that space as it would not
have much use. Therefore, staff has requested the Planning Commission and City Council authorize the
amendment to Ordinance 52.12 amending the rear yard setback for detached accessory buildings to five
feet.
As there was no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Kalinowski made a motion to recommend City Council adoption of the amendment to Ordinance
52.12 Subd. 1(a) establishing the rear rear yard setback for a detached accessory building to be
five (5) feet. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Economic Development: Chair Loso opened the public hearing and
stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider and amendment to the Economic Development portion of
the Comprehensive Plan.
Economic Development Director Cynthia Smith-Strack appeared before the Commission to present the
revised changes to Chapter 11, Economic Development, of the St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan. Strack
stated that the St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan was updated and approved in 2002. Since the
Comprehensive Plan is a working document, the plan needs to be reviewed and updated on a continuing
basis. As a result, the EDA is presenting an entire update of Chapter 11 relating to Economic
Development. The major changes include updating all the statistical and trend data. Smith-Strack stated
that Chapter 11 is divided into the following sections:
Section One:
Introduction: Gives a brief description of the goal of the EDA for the City of St.
Joseph.
Economic Development Overview: Location, Population and the City's Economy.
Economic Trends: Income/wages, labor force and commercial and industrial
construction.
Section Two:
Section Three:
Section Four: Construction Costs: According to Strack, it is important for the City to have
information available as to the costs of development/redevelopment within the
City as well.
Section Five: Financial Incentives Available: This section outlines some of the incentives that
may be available to qualified applicants.
Section Six: Business Input on Economic Development: This section includes results of a
business retention and expansion survey that was done in 2006.
Section Seven: Technology: This section explains the technology that is available within the City.
Section Eight: Commercial Districts: It is important to understand the different commercial
zoning districts and what type of development is desired within each district.
Section Nine: Industrial Development: Industrial Development is as important as commercial
development, thus it is important for the community to understand industrial
development as well.
Section Ten: Economic Development Plan: This section describes the role of the EDA in
bringing new development to the City of St. Joseph.
Rassier made a motion to approve the Resolution recommending City Council approval of the
amendment of Section 11 of the 2002 City of St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan relating to Economic
Development. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously.
Downtown Committee - Desion Guidelines: Smith-Strack updated the Planning Commission on the
status of downtown committee. Smith-Strack stated that the Downtown Project includes four working
groups, one of which is an Urban Design Committee. The purpose of this committee is to establish draft
design standards future development-redevelopment. The draft report is being presented to the Planning
Commission at this time solicit input on the draft proposed design standards and to determine the best
method for soliciting public input.
Strack stated that the EDA is working on a grant program to assist the downtown property owners with
fa9ade improvement. The grant program would allow property owners funding in the amount of $ 1,000
to be used exclusively for fa9ade finish. The EDA would be limited to five grants the first year. The EDA
is aware of some businesses that are interested in the funding source. Rieke stated that the EDA
recognizes that $ 5,000 is not a significant amount of funding, but it is a good starting point.
Based on discussion amongst the Commissioners, it was determined that it would be best to solicit public
input prior to holding a public hearing. Loso suggested that the reported be presented to the public at a
public forum. He stated that the Urban Environs work group should present the information to the core
business owners and the residents. Rieke stated that it would be a good idea for a work group to be
formed consisting of a representative from the Planning Commission, City Council, EDA, and Downtown
Committee - Urban Environs Group. Loso suggested a timeframe of approximately 9 months which
Strack stated is an achievable timeframe.
Rassier questioned whether the City should consider amending the entire B2 Ordinance or simply the
Downtown Area. He also suggested that once the report is presented to the Public and the work group
has had a chance to review the public comments that any potential Ordinance Amendments be brought to
the Planning Commission for review.
Deutz questioned whether or not the Market Study commissioned by the City and EDA will be
incorporated into the draft document presented to the Commission. Smith-Strack stated that the Market
Study and draft document are two different matters with the Market study a tool for economic
development.
American Manufacturinq: Weyrens presented with a proposed development plan for American
Manufacturing, 819 _19th Avenue NE. The proposed development plan includes the construction of a
7,600 square foot storage facility. The facility will be located in the rear of the existing facility. The
proposed use is consistent with the zoning district, Industrial. Weyrens stated that the City has received a
development that is complete with the exception of the parking. The submitted plan includes a parking
space that is located in the front yard setback which is prohibited. She further clarified that the site
contains enough property to relocate the parking stall.
Rand Schaper appeared before the Commission on behalf of American Manufacturing. Schaper stated
that he is the architect for the facility and stated that the site plan will be amended to move the one
parking space. Schaper stated that American Manufacturing has seen consistent growth and is need of
additional storage space.
Weyrens requested the Planning Commission authorize execution of a development agreement to allow
the construction of the proposed facility. Loso questioned if the lighting plan and Landscape plan are
included in the provided information. Schaper stated that the landscaping plan has been submitted and
continues the landscaping that was installed with the last project. The lighting plan consists of wall mount
fixtures to light the parking area. Rieke questioned Weyrens as to whether or not there are any other
items of concern that need to be addressed. She stated that there were some issues with the parking and
curbing, however, those have been addressed. Rassier advised Weyrens that he would like to see the
minutes from their previous site plan approval to ensure that all items were met with the original building.
Deutz made a motion to recommend the City Council approve the development plan of American
Manufacturing, authorizing the construction of a 7600 square foot facility. Further the
development agreement should include any prior requirements that have not been fulfilled from
the past building addition. The motion was seconded by Kalinowski.
Ayes: Deutz, Kalinowski, Graeve, Rieke, Rassier, Loso
Nays: None. Abstain: Anderson
Motion Carried 6:0:1
Colleaeville Development Group: Rassier stated that he received a phone call from the Petters Group in
reference to the CDG project. They stated that they were very impressed by how well the different groups
and City staff worked with them to get their plans approved.
Adiourn: Deutz made a motion to adjourn at 8:00 PM, seconded by Rassier and passed
unanimously.
Judy Weyrens
Ad ministrator
Planning Commission Agenda Item
Lj
(:ITY OF ST. J(J,~":I'R
MEETING DATE:
July 2,2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Concept Plan, Collegeville Development and College of St.
Benedict.
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: None
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City staff has been working with Collegeville Development
Group for a number of months. The largest issues discussed is the density. The City Ordinance allows
for smaller lots and frontages provided that the development is a PUD and the density for the underlying
zoning district is met. In the information in this packet, the density is not met. If the PUD included the
entire 53 acres and there is no additional building on the property, the proposed development would meet
the requirements. However as you can see, the College of St. Benedict does not want to commit to the
use of the property. So while the concept plan is ajoint venture, the City is only being requested to
approve the multi family portion and medical site.
This concept plan requires many variances of the Ordinance and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. One
of the other issues before the City is the College request to rezone the entire site as E & E. As staffwe
have carried out the Comprehensive Plan which does not permit such zoning across County Road 121. At
the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted considerable discussion occurred regarding this issue. The
City had indicated that CR 121 would be a natural barrier. Staffhas carried out this message and has
repeatedly informed the College of this. As staffwe have suggested that the property be zoned a mix of
residential and commercial. As such all the proposed uses could be accommodated. Even though the
uses would be accommodated the zoning district requirements would still apply and require code review.
Due to the number of issues outstanding on this project we are forwarding the concept plan to the
Commission for review and comment. The agenda item will be a discussion as to what will be allowed.
I have asked the City Attorney to be at the meeting on Monday evening. As staffwe have not been
satisfied that the proposed development meets the intent of the PUD Ordinance. Weare trying to make
sure that we keep the integrity of the Ordinance and assure that the City applies the Ordinances equally to
all applications.
ATTACHMENTS:
Collegeville Development Group Site Plan
REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Provide direction as to what areas the
Commission is willing to vary from the Ordinance.
MEMO
TO:
Thomas G. Jovanovich
FROM:
Lori L. Athmann
RE:
City of St. Joseph
DATE:
June 15, 2007
COMMENTS ON 121 COLLEGEVILLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
(CALLOWAY DEVELOPMENT)
INTRODUCTION:
Collegeville Development Group (CDG) and College of St. Benedicts (CSB) submitted
the attached Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development for review by the Planning
Commission. The proposed PUD includes about 53 acres, of which CSB has the right to
purchase 10 acres for the purpose of developing fifty units of market rate housing. College of St.
Benedicts is no longer allowing the use of the back green space. This significantly changes the
proposed density of the PUD. After the streets are constructed, there will be about 7.9 acres
upon which they propose to construct 50 single family homes, townhouses, and/or possible
future dormitories. This means each lot will be about 40 to 45 feet in width. Essentially, the
same overall development plan is being used, only on a smaller parcel of property. Attached is
the most recent proposal.
OVERALL PLAN
There are three proposed zoning districts within this PUD 1) R-3 Townhome; 2) R-4
multifamily housing, and 3) B-1 central business.
R-3 Multifamily Area: Total proposed area to be designated as R-3 is about 12.6 acres,
a part of which will be owned and developed by CDG into 12 apartment units. According to Jim
Degiovanni's narrative, the purchase agreement is for 10 acres. We should confirm the actual
area as it will impact a determination of the scope of any issues with ordinance requirements.
They also propose to include future student apartments and ancillary facilities, like
parking and tennis courts. Student housing plans are not finalized, but anticipate they will
include 150 to 250 bedrooms. Total number of housing units is not yet determined.
This district is controlled by the PUD Ordinance, which provides for an exception to the
minimum of20 acre parcel. See Section 52.29, Subd. 2.
The maximum density for multiple dwelling units is one bedroom unit for each 2,500
square feet; one two bedroom unit for each 3,000 square feet, and one three bedroom unit for
each 3,500 square feet. The plan is that all of the student housing units will be two bedroom,
resulting in 75 to 125 units. This would require a minimum lot area of between 225,000.00 and
375,000.00 square feet. There are 43,560 square feet in an acre and, thus, they would have to
have at least 5.16 to 8.60 acres designated for this purpose. The apartment unit will require an
additional .82 acres, bringing the total minimum lot area to at least 6 acres to 9.4 acres.
Based on the comments made at the last meeting, after the streets are constructed, there
will be about 7.9 acres upon which they propose to construct 50 single family units and
townhouses. PUD Section 52.09, Subd. 7 provides that the maximum dwelling unit density shall
be determined by the area remaining after appropriate space for street right of ways and other
public dedications have been determined and subtracted from the total proposed PUD area. If
they construct 250 bedrooms, they will fall short of the minimum lot requirements by about 16
percent (9.4 acres divided by 7.9 net acres). The PUD allows, in single family PUDS, that the
minimum lot size may be reduced by up to 10 percent. Section 52.09, Subd. 9(b). It can be
reduced by up to 15 percent if a portion of the area is set aside for common open space use (play
areas, trails, benches), the area contains significant trees, it preserves or creates one or more
goals of the comprehensive plan, or the applicant demonstrates the area proposed to be set aside
creates a public benefit that would not exist if the minimum lot size were not modified. They
would need a variance on that issue, which would likely result in them needing a variance to
satisfy the minimum set back requirements as well (i.e. 150 feet at the building setback line; 80
feet setback from public right-of-way, minimum 20 feet side yard, and 40 feet from rear yard.),
Section 52.29, Subd. 5(b)(d)(e); Section 52.29, Subd. 7(a-e).
Furthermore, there is no allowance for parking spaces provided within the building,
which requires that 300 square feet be subtracted from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit
requirement. There is no indication of how many, if any, parking spaces will be provided. What
about garages?
They also propose to include ancillary facilities within the student apartments, such as
parking and tennis courts. If these are deemed major outdoor recreational features (requiring a
substantial investment equal to greater than five percent), the minimum lot area must be reduced
by 75 square feet per unit. Again, there is no indication of how many parking spaces will be
provided, but 300 square feet must be subtracted from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit.
Tennis courts may be provided only if the maximum lot coverage requirement is not exceeded.
52.29, Subd. 3(d).
One also needs to know if there are going to be any communal facilities, such as laundry
facilities or an on-site manager unit, which would require an additional 3,000 square feet per
unit. Section 52.29, Subd. 5 (b)(7).
Finally, they are seeking an indefinite amount of time in which to commence
construction on the apartments planned in this area. The PUD requires a developer to commence
construction no later than one year. Section 52.09, Subd. 15. If the project is not begun within
one year, the land will revert back to its prior zoning classification. In order to maintain some
control over when this development occurs and the city's overall comprehensive plan, it might
be better to fix a time period (i.e. 3 years) and then allow for extensions of time thereafter, if
appropriate. Otherwise, there is nothing the city can do in the event the developers' decide not tc
pursue the proposed plan to construct apartments, or to gauge the time frame by which such
apartments are to be constructed. This may impact the city's determination relative to the need
for further multiple housing dwellings in reviewing future development plans.
R-4 Townhome Proposal: Total area is about 8 acres and will be owned and developed
by CDG. Propose to divide into 38 lots available for either single family or townhome
structures. In this district, they propose to construct patio homes and single-family common wall
attached housing units, such as townhouses, patio homes, twin homes or row houses. As noted
by Jim Degiovanni, an amendment to the comprehensive plan may be necessary to accommodate
this use within a medium and/or high density residential area or residential planned unit
development currently under the comprehensive plan.
Based upon Section 52.30, Subd. 3(k) a special use permit is required for planned unit
residential development.
The proposed R-4 area is 8 acres, which includes about 1.9 acres of right of way, leaving
6.1 acres of net building area upon which they propose to construct 38 units. As noted in the
proposal, the net housing density within the district is six units per acre of net buildable area.
They propose a modest variance to increase the net housing density by 1.4 more units on the
permitted 8 acres.
In addition to that variance, they would also need a variance to the minimum lot area
requirements. For townhomes, group and row homes, the minimum lot area requirement is
12,000 square feet per unit. Section 52.30, Subd. 5(b). If they want to construct 38 units, they
need at least 456,000 square feet. If they have 6.1 net buildable acres, they only have a total of
265,716 square feet (6.1 acres x 43,560 square feet per acre). That is about a 200,000 square feet
short of the ordinance requirements for townhouses and row houses. Detached patio homes,
however, only require a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. They is no indication as to how
many town houses, patio homes, row homes will be built. They are all categorized under a
"blanket" classification of multiple dwelling homes.
Furthermore, the lot area requirements for detached patio homes include minimum lot
width and depths of 60 feet and 100 feet. Section 52.30, Subd. 5(a). The proposed drawing and
reference in the concept plan shows preliminary plans which include a patio home on a lot that
"might be" 40 feet by 90 feet. This variance would be in addition to the variance they
acknowledge they will need for the setback requirements and site coverage (variance request for
a 2.2 percent increase).
In addition, the ordinance requires that each dwelling unit shall be provided with a
minimum oftwo parking spaces, one of which shall be in an attached garage. Section 52.30,
Subd. 8. I do not see any reference that each lot area requirement has been reduced to reflect
such parking spaces. However, there does not appear to be any "reduction" allowance (as in the
case ofR-3) for parking spaces. See above.
H-l t:entral Husiness. This area totals about 3.6 acres. The type of business or user for
this site is not known, but hopes to find a medical center. The larger B-1 tract is approximately
30.7 acres and its intended use is for athletic fields and ancillary facilities.
The concept plan does not include any information, other than basic anticipated uses (as
stated above), for the business area. Of possible concern is the designation of both the medical
clinic and the athletic fields and ancillary facilities being classified as B-1 district. Although the
medical facility is certainly within the permitted uses under Section 52.31, Subd. 2(x), there is no
similar permitted use for athletic fields and ancillary facilities as indicated in the concept plan,
except the broad "other commercial planned unit developments" which requires a special use
permit As noted in the concept plan, they intended to designate it as Ecclesiastical district, but
went to a B-1 business district after talking with the city staff.
Any proposed development plan of this area would have to be approved by the Planning
Commission at a later date when a building permit is requested. Any proposed site plan would
reveal any ordinance violations or issues.
.(,
'I"~. ,~,
June 4, 2007
Judy Weyems
City. Administrator
City of St Joseph, Minnesota
Emailed and Hand Delivered on June 4, 2007
Dear Judy:
We have enclosed materials for consideration of the Concept Plan approval for the land
owned the College of 8t. Benedict. The tract is located east of College A venue be
Calloway Street as presently constructed and Field Street as planned.
I have attached a Narrative in support of this request.
Y ouwill find with this cover letter the following materials:
1. An aerial photograph with a site plan of the Collegeville Development Group ten
acre tract superimposed on it.
2. An overall site plan for the entire CSB site showing proposed locations of the
CDG development, a possible health care clinic, student apartments, and athletic
fields.
3. An SEH sketch showing the location of the underground gas line.
4. A sketch showing the location of two I-acre drainage ponds and a preliminary
right of way area calculation.
S. A proposed phasing plan for the CnG site.
6. A site plan of the CDG ten acre tract showing 38 single family or townhome lots
with rough lot dimensions; and a multifamily site which we are planning for 12
additional attached units.
7. A set of preliminary foot prints of possible home designs that could be
constructed as either attached or detached units.
Weare requesting that you schedule this Concept Plan for discussion at the Monday, July
2nd meeting of the Plan Commission.
Narrative Description of the Proposal
The College of St. Benedict is the owner of approximately 53 acres as shown on the
attached materials. Collegeville Development Group and CSB have entered into a
purchase agreement for ten of those acres with access to Calloway Street. The ten acre
tract is also shown approximately on the attached materials.
CSB has employed a campus planning consultant (DLC) to assist it with a development
plan for the site. The concept that has developed is a mixed use development including
medium density privately owned senior housing, business uses, student apartments to be
owned by the College, and CSB athletic fields and facilities.
Mixed Uses
The development proposal is for mixed uses including the following.
The CDO site is medium density residential consisting of approximately 50 units
consisting of single homes on narrow lots, twin homes, and or town homes.
A lot on the intersection of Calloway Street and College Avenue would be planned as a
business commercial use to be sold to a private sector user, and most desirably would be
a health care clinic serving the greater St. Joseph area.
The remainder of the land would be retained by the College and used for College related
purposes including student apartments and athletic fields.
Phased Development
Both CSB and CDG want to phase the development of their respective portions of the
property.
The CDG tracts.
CDG wants the option to develop its property in up to three phases depending on how
fast sales of its residential units occur. A proposed three stage phasing plan is attached.
We would like to commence construction of units in Phase One in the fall of2007 if the
City permits the units on Calloway Street to commence before the first extension of the
first leg of internal streets and utilities are constructed. Our hope is that the remaining
units in Phase One would be constructed in the summer of 2008 after the first extension
of internal streets is completed.
Construction of the streets and utilities for Phase Two could start in late 2008 with
construction of homes to commence on Phase Two in 2009.
Construction of Phase Three homes could start and be completed in 2009.
The Clinic Site.
The Clinic Site is proposed for the intersection of College Avenue and Calloway Street.
The lot would be platted as part of the initial development. Construction would depend
on when CSB can secure a buyer for the site.
The CSB Property.
, I
The balance of the property is to be retained by CSB for uses related to the College.
The CSB property would be platted as an Outlot.
CSB is not certain yet when the CSB property will be developed; and wants the
flexibility to make those decisions in the future.
Ordinance Issues
There are numerous questions and issu~s which need to be resolved that are related to the
City Zoning and Land Use Development Ordinances. I have attached a narrative
addressing the issues that I have identified. City Staff may identify others that I missed.
Thank you for consideration of this request.
S' corelY~ '
im Degiov .'
Chief Corporate Officer
\-
"
Cc Sue Palmer, Sonja Gidlow, Jim Fredricks, Jon Petters, Colleen Petters, Nathan
Woodworth, Todd Rhoades.
NARRATIVE
TO
CONCEPT PLAN PROPOSAL
FOR
MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
BY
COLLEGEVILLE COMMUNITIES LLC
AND
THE COLLEGE OF ST BENEDICT
Introduction
Collegeville Development Group LLC, through it subsidiary Collegeville
Communities LLC, is planning a 50 unit residential development on land owned by the
College of St Benedict.
CDG and CSB are submitting this Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development
for review by the Plan Commission prior to proceeding further. The proposed POO
includes approximately 53 acres located on College Avenue east ofthe CSB campus.
CDG and CSB have entered into a Purchase Agreement pursuant to which CDG
has the right to purchase ten (10) acres from CSB for the purpose of developing fifty (50)
units of market rate housing targeted for buyers who are 55 years or older.
The concept for the PUD proposed below has been developed after several
meetings among CDG, CSB staff, and City staff.
General Description
A general development site plan is attached to this Narrative. It shows the various
over-lay districts proposed. The overlay districts are for R-3 Townhome, R-4 Multifamily
Housing, and B-1 Central Business District Zones.
The R-4 Townhome area is approximately eight (8) acres and will be owned and
developed by CDG. The proposed site plan includes 38 lots available for either single
family or townhome structures.
The R-3 Multifamily area is approximately 12.6 acres which will be partially
owned and developed by CDG for approximately12 apartment type. It also includes area
for student apartments and ancillary facilities like a parking lot and tennis courts to be
built and owned by CSB. CSB has not yet fmalized plans but expects that the housing
facility may eventually include 150 to 250 bedrooms. The total number of housing units
is yet to be determined.
The general development site plan includes two B-1 Central Business District
tracts. The smaller tract is approximately 3.6 acres located at the intersection of Calloway
Street and College A venue. CSB has not fmalized an agreement for a user on that site,
but hopes to fmd a medical clinic to occupy the site.
The larger B-1 tract is ll-pproximately 30.7 acres. OriginallyCSB intended to
request that larger tract be designated as an Educational and Ecclesiastical district, but
upon dispussions with staff has agreed to have it designated as B-1 which permits its use
as athletic fields and ancillary facilities.
Subdivision 4(a)(7) of the POO ordinance provides that 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.
R-4 Townhouse Overlay District
It is the intent of the R-4 Townhouse/Patio Home District to accommodate a
variety of single-family housing types, including patio homes and single-family common
wall atta~hed housing units such as townhouses or row houses at low to moderate
residential densities.
The R-4 District is intended for those areas designated as medium and/or
high density residential areas or residential planned unit developments under the
Comprehensive II. .!!.!~_~~ .~~~~~!~.4~gJX:~l)?.~!~E~~~j~~.~j!h_q!Y..~~~f(,_~h~~.i~_!!!~y..../.,__
be necessary to request an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate this
use.
The R-4 District shall be developed by Planned Unit .._.~.~~'.?~~~~~~~.u_.-..---
with the provisions of Ordinance 52.09. Accordingly, CSB and CDG will be jointly
submitting a PUD application assuming approval of this Concept Plan Application.
Permitted Uses in an R-4 District include Patio Homes, Row Houses,
Townhouses, and Twin Homes. The CDG development will consist of 38 units that will
satisfy those definitions as set forth in the Ordinance
Twin Homes are permitted to be on separate lots, but row houses and townhouses
are not. We should discuss with the City Building Inspector if there are any implications
for things like multiple stub connections for sewer and water.
Density Calculations and Variance Request
The proposed R-4 area is for 8 acres which includes 1.9 acres of right of way
leaving 6.1 acres of net buildable area. Subd. 5(h) allows for up to 6 units per acre which
would allow for 36.6 units on 8 acres.
Accordingly the PUD will need to permit a modest increase over the maximum
density. The increase is for 1.4 more units than otherwise permitted on 8 acres. However,
we have not actually completed a survey to determine the actual total net building area.
The variance request is reasonable because the proposed development will be an
age restricted development primarily for households with someone 55 years or older; and
because of the very low over all density of the 53 acre PUD.
Setbacks
We are requesting a variance from standard setbacks. The set back requirements
set forth in Subdivision 6 are for 30 foot front yard, 10 foot interior side yard, 20 foot
street side, and 20 foot rear yard. Our plans are to build homes with front porches that
will have 12 foot front yard setbacks.
Site Coverage
Even though this is a small self contained development without any through or
collector streets we have provided for street right of way that complies with City
standards.
Subd. 9 provides that on lots developed for townhouse or rowhouse or attached
patio home units, no structure or combination of structures shall occupy more than 50%
of the lot area; and on lots developed for detached patio home units, no structure or
combination of structures shall occupy more than 35% of the lot area.
We are proposing a variance from typical site coverage requirements. Although
we have not yet finalized house plans we have some preliminary plans that include a
1400 patio home with a 480 foot garage to be located on a lot that might be 40 feet by 90
feet. The ratio of coverage on a lot such as that would be 1880 of structure compared to
3600 of lot area or a ratio of 52.2 percent as compared to the ordinance requirement 50%
or less.
R-3 Multiple Family Residence District
The R-3, Multiple Family Residence District is intended to provide a district
which will allow higher density or residential development where city sewer services are
available.
the proposed R-3 overlay district would include up to 12 townhome or apartment
type units to be owned by COO; and the student apartments owned by CSB. The CSB
apartments will not be developed until a future date.
Minimum Square Footage for CSB Student Housing and COO Multi-family Housing
, ' ,
The CSB proposal is for 150 to 250 bedrooms.
The CDO proposal is for 12 two bedroom units.
According to the 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.
Ifall ofthe student housing units were 2 bedroom units that would translate into
75 to 125 units; or a need for 225,000 to 375,000 square feet or approximately 5 acres to
approximately 8.6 acres.
The 12 CDO units would require 36,000 acres or approximately .82 acres.
Accordingly the 12.6 acres proposed for R-3 should accommodate the proposed
total number of bedrooms proposed by CDO and CSB.
Setback Requirements.
We have yet to finalize plans for the CDO apartment style homes, but may need
to request variance approval from the strict requirements normally applicable to R-4
zones.
Planned Unit Developments Phasing Problem and Variance Request.
We are requesting a variance for the time requirements contained in Subd. 15
which states that if land is rezoned as an R3-PUD, a developer shall have no longer than
one year in which to begin construction of the multiple dwelling structure. If the project
has not begun within one year from the date of rezoning, the land shall revert back to its
prior zoning classification before the request for the R3-PUD.
Both CDO and CSB are requesting an indefinite amount of time in which to
commence construction of the apartments planned for the R3 areas. We believe this is
justified because all of the adjacent land is owned by the developers; and we do not feel
there is a significant public purpose served by requiring commencement of construction
within a year.
Section 52.09: pun provisions
We believe the proposed 53 acre planned unit development satisfies the purpose
and intent provisions of Ordinance Section 52.09 on PUDs and also benefits the public.
If approved, the PUD will provide additional land for commercial development
near the City of St. Joseph CBD, it will allow CSB to develop needed student housing
and athletic facilities, and allow COG to construct market rate housing for persons
desiring to live in an age restricted development.
Subd. I : Purpose and Intent.
The purpose of a PUO as stated in the ordinance is to "provide for the
modification of certain regulations when it can be demonstrated that such modification
would result in a development, which would not increase the density and intensity of land
use beyond that which would be allowed if no regulations were modified; would preserve
or create features or facilities of benefit to the community such as, but not limited to open
space or active recreational facilities, which features or facilities would not have been
provided ifno regulations were modified, would be compatible with surrounding
development, and would conform to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan ".
The proposed 53 acre PUD achieves the purposes and intent ofthe ordinance.
Types of Planned Unit Developments
We are proposing a PUO to be mix of both of the types ofPUO allowed by the
ordinance. Two types of planned unit developments are allowed by the ordinance:
(1) Single-family PUO's: and
(2) Non-single-family PUDs, comprised of attached dwelling units,
detached dwelling units not on individual lots, retail, commercial,
recreational, office, service or industrial buildings, or any combination
thereof, the necessary streets and other public and/or private rights-of-way
to serve such uses, and any appurtenant common open space, recreational
facilities or other areas or facilities.
A PUD may comprise both of the above types, subject to compliance with
the use regulations of the zone in which the POO is proposed to be
located.
Distance. Between Buildings.
The planning commission shall set minimum distances between structures to assure
adequate. sunlight and open space; provided, that minimum distances required by building
and fire codes shall be met.
c) Non-single-family PUDs.
Non-single-family PUDs shall be subject to the following limitations in modification of
regulations in addition to those limitations set forth within the underlying zoning
classification.
, ' ,
1. When a PUD containing dwelling units is proposed on property having more than one
underlying residential zone, the total number of dwelling units allowed may be
determined by 1:111IL~~,~.!J:'!_~~~!:_C!f~~~H!!J:g~!!~.~~~<.>~~_~_!~.1?_~_!~.<::~!~~_9..l)._~~~h__ __ __._ _. ._,'," ,-
portion Qfthe PUD area located in a separate zone according to the regulations of
that zone.
2. The City, at its discretion, may allow the number of units arrived at under subsection c-
1 (immediately above) be located anywhere within the planned unit development
subject tb the PUD approval process set forth in this chapter and provided that the City
make a fJnding of fact that a public benefit resulting from such action is present.
.
COLLEGEVILLE DEVELOPMENT
ColLege of 51. Benedict
02/12/07
CERMAK RHOADES ARCHITECTS
I ,
v
Saint Benedict
C:unpllS I'lan 20(l(') NI1'i'l"m11Cr
)rawing l.~ Campus Plall PrOiGCl
Sai,;'t Be~(;dict "
- -,-:- T
COnlpUs. Pbtt ~O{}::;
C'll~LEi,if ~U~DL'it.i'.i
'%~f?0; POr~'1i.J.,L COLlt('jt ..\(:Ql:rsrr!t)~
J:i.i RJgJu("rRdu.'i:l1
.n'.M' r" ,'...If ',w.~~'.n.. t'"
=I-.T""""....'''':"..,''-',;.....",....
~,,,,,,: RES1JL',,:.r. OWX..E~H1P lSSt'ES
- .....(~H~:'IIC('OKr -::;;;::- L\l?R.O\".ED(.;\""\rpt:'j,:t'TRY
Ki':sn);r.N'n_~;..f-~"\I$il'G & \'RU/'t)Sf,-1) IMIi{:::~? FkOPDf-itORO."DSct P.'\.RKNG
~~ I~R(i1l()~i-J) Ann.. nc M'-t.()W"J~tO mrCSn{I~XW~"lR~
~ PROPf)stD ATHtr:TTC rrr.LD-S
DOBeR. LIPSKY. CftAlC ANO ASSOCIATES. 'Ne~
C:l....p,,, :..nt r",ril;,1' PIli""''': Conu.!t"n."
,~
l___
8',,"
~
c
'"
-q
x
Q)
Q)
'"
~
<5
o
,/
o
o
is
'"
o
,,-
Q)
.2,
+-
\I)
,/
V1
,,-
I-
a..
,,-
a:
W
-oJ
c;:
I
w
V1
::<
a..
~
N
;;
'"
o
o
N
;:::
"-
'"
\ \, $\ - \ L l\~"\'
. \. ", -12'-"---- , ~ I \ - \
\.._._....__ ,.___j co \-\ \
1 i-BAKE~ST. E. I \0\\
I I I \' .
I L_ I -~ .... ~ ~~\(
51; ITI 8" "G.9..... o!?~"'"-_ ". H 1 0 JI.. ." ' , Ie.
I' I '~IF<4l'd~t '~----~--------iF--~ ",,,.'
1
COLLEGE AVE./CR 121
TRUNK WATER 1 ,/" " -,."<-
t5' - SERVICE AREA cr;i1::.0'-;,--
: 1 APPRO:ATi~~~t:t~ ST. / ---< '"":--...-<~
1 0" SERVICE AREA
,.J.G
~..,
I
\ - \
\J'
1~
~
APPROX. FIELD ST.
WATER/SEWER
SERVICE AREA
1
\\
\ I 8 4i I" \ 'v--.-----.c.E: N 4
'l I-~'? O//--:::;~'
8 /I , -.+----------- ;C.'--. , / "
,.r=---~~" ~;
t1, 8 '->:;~"~.:~~:::-:.~::----~- 8 . .~ ' n----.~-7~.'
\N -~,._ ',,1>----: ,1.."",..-.,..--...1'1. 4:~ .~,~ '~:.. ;;J -"-',"
'I ~t r--...--...n.m--------...~;, -----"'-.~ ..
i :'
I =.
.
.
--1
.
,
,
:
.
1\....._
o
150
300
t,;
i
~
SEH
FILE NO.
ASTJOE0601.00
DATE:
06/07/06
FIGURE
NO.1
COLLEGE OF ST. BENEDICT
SERVICE AREAS
ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA
, ,
llJU)u)
lLJlLIlLI
~~~
UUu
<(<C<C
O~-:
--cQ
us
l- .
-0
U).
....J~
~" 1----1
~~<C
1LI~1-
>1-0
00(1-
""j
H-,
-1
I
'+;
/-''\
<'1 '
l-
t)
is
UJ
z
UJ
10
lri
u...
o
UJ
~8
-l-
8~
, ,
,
C)
t')
C)
z
:5
(L
CJ
Z
~
:r:
(L
U)
I-
U
w
I-
:c
U
0::
<(
U)
w
Cl
<(
o
:c
0::
~
<(
::E
0::
w
U
I-
Z
w
::E
a..
o
-'
W
>
W
Clu
w:.o
-'~
....JQJ
- OJ
>.
WUi
(!)or--
w<lJO
-' 0)-
-'<IJ""
o=g~
UOo
.
, I
,f"'\ cJ) cJ)
tuu.J~
.~~o
00.......
<(<(""'4..
c()Q)~
cri-=r---..
lU$
I- .
U")q"
W~
.......JI-
~tlj~
UJ alaI-
>1-
O~I-
~
Ul
"t
t\l
t>
5
lU
Z
ILJ
10
~ ~
II.. ,
~ tJ.
~ g .
o. ~
u:.
I' ,1
...
\'C\
I'L
I
1
.-
<=\0
~
op ,
I
tit: I
I
I
D
i
I
j
.
I
t..I"-
c;.
L
1[L{] I
3Q...x 4 0 WW
Lt 0 ~ "to lZ0 ~ V\,
24
32)( tlftJ t..t:Jr /UN
efCJ X 9~ ~r 7'AI/;(/
//2.9 ~~
, ,
/2.
I"
l.n
1
7"H
10
/PO
lU:. -
I ,.e
: r.:D,
I
I
..
~ I
.
l:
I II
rnJ OOJ
5
3t.:. ~ q D fo0
LfL..l Y. ~D-li-Ollrv
f
1
~
2'1
3r;.x~C/ 4:Yr /rt7.Af
44}( 'fa.t.#r rw /iV
/~,,~ ~I';
"J'S ~~~/
h'N...t ....tP'? 16 l( 8 b
./Vp.v -LP7 /6 X Pp
b-z
...
[]JJl lJc[J
U,i0l 110 x); 1r
CVL02J lb"t-Qb
""'7
Mrh-'
a.
I
I
r
--...
,
I
t
\ i '
.:d'!:. S6 #/
~ 07 all )( OS
40{ Q) 1 {Q{;
!.~
I
[]J[]
[]dO
J-v/?
o
o
W4
t\
-..r7
--..
0/1
~
, 1 '
~ -b$z/
-1-n os? x c?S
--1- 01 0& i~ O~
.",911'1
OJ ?
d
--
em I OU>9'd'
\?'lXvZ
uool
l,.-z
08
--
J,,,,
,
,
111'\-
I~
,
r
(~...l"?> ~'$. b P E/
..,LP-;1. 0 Jl X f?S
----'
I
,
7J fo1 Q~ x. Q[;
[[j[J
-~[TI tffi
: -~ r j
t _
: . I d -;;;'
~1-r J '
So
LJ
08
Y7
1111'1'1
~
-: i: \