HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 [10] Oct 01
CITY Of ST. JOSEPH
www.cityofstjoseph.com
St. Joseph Planning Commission
October 1,2007
7:00 PM
1. Call to Order
Judy Weyrens
Administrator
2. Approve Agenda
Mayor
AI Rassier
3. 7:05 PM Publie Hearing, Interim Use Permit
Jake Rorabeek, 221 Birch Street W
Councilors
Steve Frank
Rick Schultz
Renee Symanietz
Dale Wick
4. 7: 10 PM Public Hearing, Interim Use Permit
Student Housing LLC, 30 Birch Street E
5. 7: 15 PM Public Hearing - Monastery of St. Benedict
Varianee - Relief of Parking Requirement
Development Plan Approval
6. Collegeville Development Group - CR121 Housing Development
7. Adjourn
2') College Avenue North' PO Box 668' Saint Joseph, Minnesota )6'374
Phone Fo.)6).72.01 Fax )2.0.)6).0)42
CITY OF 8T.J()$IU~lt
Planning Commission Agenda Item
3
MEETING DATE:
October 1, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Public Hearing, Interim Use Permit
Jake Rorabeck, 221 Birch St W
SUBMITTED BY:
Administration
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the Council adopt the Resolution of Findings
granting an Interim Use Permit to Jake Rorabeck allowing a rental unit Clt 221 Birch St W Street.
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City Office received calls regarding the potential rental at 221 Birch
Street West. The calls received were from the surrounding property. A compliance order was sent to
Rorabeck and he confirmed that the property is being used as a rental property. The property is owned
jointly meeting the requirements of the Ordinance.
The Police did have contact with the property owner regarding cars parking on the front lawn. It is my
understanding that this matter has been resolved. Included in your packet is also a weed notice that
was sent on September 24,2007.
Rorabeck has not yet completed the rental inspection but will need to do so before the rental license
can be issued. This item does not need to be completed before the hearing, but must be done after the
Council approves.
ATTACHMENTS:
Hearing Notice; Application; Resolution of Findings; Vicinity Map; Weed Notice
REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Authorize the Planning Commission Chair and
Administrator to execute the Resolution recommending the Council issue an Interim Use Permit to Jake
Rorabeck to operate an owner occupied rental unit at 221 Birch Street West.
CITY Of ST. JOSEPH
www.cityofstjoseph.com
Public Hearing
City of St. Joseph
Judy Weyrens
Administrdtor
The St. Joseph Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on Monday, October 1, 2007
at 7:05 PM. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an Interim Use permit to allow an owner
occupied rental in an R-l Single-Family zoning district. The property is legally described as Lot
1, Park Terrace Addition.
MdYor
AI Rdssier
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27 subd. 5 allows for an Interim Use Permit as follows:
Residential rental provided the unit is owner occupied and provided the room(s) rented does not
contain separate kitchen facilities and is not intended for use as an independent residence. For
purposes of establishing ifthe property is owner occupied, the owner must be a natural person and
the owner occupying the property as his or her principal residence and must own a fifty percent
(50%) or greater interest in the property.
Councilors
Steve Frdnk
Rick Schultz
Renee Symdnietz
Ddle Wick
Jake Rorabeck, 221 Birch Street, St. Joseph, MN 56374 has submitted the request for Interim Use.
Judy Weyrens
Administrator
3:32
'\
'\
\
\
'\
\
\
\
'\
\
\
\
\
."
\
'\
\.
2. "C 0 II e g e Avenue North . PO Box b b 8 . S din t I 0 s e ph, M inn e sot d "b j 7 4
Phone j2.0.jbj.72.01 FdX j2.0.jbj.oj42.
APPLICATION FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT
CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
25 College Avenue NW
P. O. Box 668
St. Joseph, MN 56374
(320)363-7201 or Fax (320)363-0342
Fed
Paid
Receipt #
Date
ST ATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss
COUNTY OF STEARNS)
NAME: Danny, Kathleen, Jake Rorabe<plloNE: 612-720-1310
ADDRESS: 221 Birch St., St. Joseph, MN 56374
l/We, the undersigned, hereby make the following application to the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of St. Joseph, Steams County,
Minnesota. (Applicants have the responsibility of checking all applicable ordinances pertaining to their application and complying with all ordinance
requirements):
l. Application is hereby made for Interim Use Permit to cOlJ;ductthefollo.,ying: Bouqht home wi th my son,
He is a Junior at St. Jonns. He has 3 roommates.
Jake.
2. Legal description ofland to be affected by aQPlication1including acreage or square footage of land involved, and street address, if
any (attach additional sheet if necessary): Lot ,Park Terrace, Stearns Co., MN.
221 Birch St.. St. JORPph. MN RRS3 Rq. ft
3. Present zoning of the above described property is: R 1
4. Name and address of the present owner of the above described property is: Danny B. Ror a beck. Kat 11.1 een M.
Rorabeck. Jake D. Rorahprk
5. Is the proposed use compatible with present and future land uses of the area? Please explain: Yes, Nt s ~ n i s a
-St~de~t €f gt Johna I also have adauqhter ha may
at en S. ens.
6. Will the proposed use depreciate the area in which it is proposed? Please explain: No
7. Can the proposed use be accommodated with existing City service without overburdening the system? Explain:
Yes
8. Are local streets capable of handling traffic which is generated by the proposed use? Please explain: Yes
RECE~VED
SEP 0 6 2007
CITY OF ST, JOSEPH
Applicant Signatur :
of are other material submission data requirements, as indicated.
Date:
9/l/107
1/ 1"1" 7
Owner Signature.
Date:
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
DATE APPLlCA nON SUBMITTED:
DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE:
Planning Commission Action: _ Recommend Approval _ Recommend Disapproval Date of Action
Date Applicant/Property Owner notified of Planning Commission Action:
City Council Action: _ Approved _ Disapproved Date of Action
Date Applicant/Property Owner notified of City Council Action:
Resolution of finding
The request of Jake Rorabeck for an Interim Use Permit request came before the Planning
Commission at a public hearing held on October 1 , 2007. The purpose of the hearing was to
consider issuance of an Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental unit in a R 1 Zoning
District.
The property is legally described as Lot 1 Park Terrace according to the plat and survey thereof
on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for the County of stearns and
State of Minnesota located at 221 Birch Street W.
St. Joseqh Code of Ordinances 52.27, subd 5 allows for an Interim Use permit as follows:
Residential rental provided the unit is owner occupied and provided the room (s) rented does
not contain separate kitchen facilities and is not intended for use as an independent residence.
For purposes of establishing if the property is owner occupied, the owner must be a natural
person and the owner occupying the property as his or her principal residence and must own a
fifty percent (50%) or greater interest in the property.
The request for Interim Use has been submitted by Jake Rorabeck, 221 Birch Street W; St. Joseph
MN 56374.
Notice of this matter was duly served and published.
In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to
the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the Planning Commission
makes the following findings:
The proposed use is consistent with the standards for granting an Interim Use Permit, Sf.
Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07.04
Therefore, based on the above findings, the Planning Commission makes the following
recommendation:
Approval of the Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental unit in a R 1 Zoning District
with the following contingencies:
1. The rental license in non-transferable and if the property is sold or the ownership
changes so that the aforementioned no longer owns a 50% or greater interest in the
property the Interim Use Permit is null and void.
2. Approval of the Rental Housing Inspector
3. The Planning Commission will review the license annually and revoke the license if the
property is in violation of the Sf. Joseph Code of Ordinances.
4. The City Office will place a notice in the St. Joseph Newsleader when the owner
occupied rental licenses are reviewed and will accept public comments.
The motion passed unanimously.
ATTEST
Chair
Bob LoSQ, Planning Commission
Judy Weyrens, Administrator
Data ViewOnline Map
Page 1 of 1
221 Birch Street W
::"9:g.. .
-1':fJ1r
-...:1'$"
">,..~. '"i; -"
407
403
142
//'
\ <
Y140
134
130
101
128
41
124
35
120
31
116
112
o~.\
.------i~ \ \
\ % \\
I '.~ II
\ \
\ '
http://portal.sehinc.com/data View/mapLayout.htm
9/1812007
~.-
I
,
I
I
I
Administrator
Judy Weyrens
Mayor
Richard Cdrlbom
Councilors
Steve Frank
AI Rassier
Renee Symanietz
Dale Wick
www.cityofstjoseph.com
CITY Of ST. JOSEPH
TO:. DANNY & KATHLEEN RORABECK
1355 AWATUKEE TRAIL
HUDSON, WI 54016
DATE: September 24, 2007
Dear Property Owner:
To comply with the Minnesota Statutes 1971, Section 18.271 and St. Joseph City Ordinance,
and in effort to keep our City of St. Joseph neat and beautiful, this weed cutting notice is being
sent to you concerning your property as described below:
221 Birch St w
Address
84.53740.000
Parcel No.
Lot-001 Park Terrace
Legal Description
By City Ordinance, it is unlawful. to permit any weeds and grasses to exceed the average height
of ten (10) inches. The requirement includes the growth on adjacent frontage property to the curb
of the traveled roadway, or the center of the street and alley as necessary.
This is the only notice you will receive. All weeds and grasses need to be cut before
10-03-07
In the event you are unable to find someone to eradicate your weeds, please contact this office
for help in acquiring an operator. However, we encourage you to locate and contract the job on
your own terms.
In the event that the property is not brought into compliance by the deadline stated above, the'
. eradication work will be performed at the direction of this office and will then be billed at prevailing
rates.
All bills not paid within thirty (30) days of cutting will be certified to the County Auditor as a special
assessment and will be collected as in the case of other special assessments.
If you have any questions, or if you believe an error has been made, do not hesitate to contact me
at 1-320-363-7201. Your prompt cooperation is greatly appreciated. .
Sincerely,
Randy Torborg, Weed Inspector
~
I
I
i
I
I
Note: Please also treat lawn for thistles.
2. )' College Avenue North . PO Box b b 8 . Saint. I 0 s e ph, M inn e sot a)' b., 7 4
Phone )2.0.jbj.72.01 Fax 12.0.,;b,.O,42.
Planning Commission Agenda Item
y
CJTY OF ST. JOSlt~Pf[
MEETING DATE:
October 1, 2007 .
AGENDA ITEM:
Interim Use Permit, Student Housing LLC
30 Birch Street East
SUBMITTED BY:
Administration
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Issue the Interim Permit as requested
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: In January of 2007 the Ordinance for 62 was modified to
allow owner occupied rental units inthe B2 Zoning District through the issuance of an Interim Use
Permit.
The Planning Commission and City Council considered the first Interim Use Permit in the B2 Zoning
District in August of 2007. The final resolution of the City Council approving the Interim Use Permit
included the following contingencies:
1. Approval of the Rental Housing Inspector
2. The Planning Commission will review the license annually assuring the property is maintained
according to the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances. The license will be renewed on compliance.
3. The Interim Use Permit shall expire when the majority of property is redeveloped as commercial
or within three years of October 1,2011, whichever comes first.
4. If the area surrounding 30 Birch Street East is not ready for commercial development, Deutz
may apply for a three year extension which will be subject to items 1 and 2 above
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 30 Birch Street East is currently zoned B2 and the property owner is
requesting to secure an Interim Use Permit similar to that which was issue in August for a similar
property.
The property has been inspected and no repairs are indicated.
ATTACHMENTS:
Findings; Hearing Notice; Map Layout; Application
REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend the City Council adopt the findings
issuing a Special Use Permit to Michael Deutz to operate a rental property in a B2 Zoning District with
the sited conditions.
Resolution of finding
The request of Student Housing LLC for an Interim Use Permit request came before the Planning
Commission at 0 public hearing held on October 1,2007. The purpose of the hearing was to
consider issuance of an Interim Use Permit to allow a rental unit in a B2 Zoning District.
The property is legally described as E 11' of Lot 5 and all of Lot 12 Block 13 and also E 11' of Lot 5
Block 13, Townsite of st. Joseph, located at 30 Birch Street E.
st. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.32 Subd. 121a) states: Interim Use Permit for Rental Units:
Residential units in areas that have been rezoned to commercial from residential shall be
allowed an interim use permit as a rental unit for a specific period of time. The maximum density
for rental units under the interim use permit shall be limited to the density which is allowed in the
R-1, Single Family Residential District.
The request for Interim Use has been submitted by Student Housing LLC, PO Box 637, St. Joseph
MN 56374.
Notice of this matter was duly served and published.
In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to
the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the Planning Commission
makes the following findings:
The proposed use is consistent with the standards for granting an Interim Use Permit, St.
Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07.04
Therefore, based on the above findings, the Planning Commission makes the following
recommendation:
Approval of the Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental unit in a B2 Zoning District
with the following contingencies:
1. Approval of the Rental Housing Inspector.
2. The Planning Commission will reviewthe license annually assuring the property is
maintained according to the st. Joseph Code of Ordinances. The license will be
renewed on compliance.
3. The Interim Use Permit shall expire when the majority of the property is redeveloped as
commercial or within three years of October 1 , 2011 , whichever comes first.
4. If the area surrounding 30 Birch Street East is not ready for commercial development.
Deutz may apply for a three year extension which will be subject to items 1 and 2 above.
ATTEST
Bob Loso, Planning Commission Chair
Judy Weyrens, Administrator
~
Judy Weyrens
Administrdtor
MdYor
AI Rdssier
Councilors
Steve Frdnk
Rick Schultz
Renee Symdnietz
Ddle Wick
CITY Of ST. JOSEPH
www.cityofstjoseph.com
Public Hearing
City of St. Joseph
The St. Joseph Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on Monday, October
1,2007 at 7: 10 PM. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an Interim Use permit to
allow a non owner occupied rental at 30 Birch Street E, legally described as E 11' of Lot
5 & all of Lot 12 Block 13 also E 11' of Lot 5 Block 13, Townsite ofSt. Joseph.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.32 Subd. 12: Interim Use Permit for Rental Units.
a) Residential units in areas that have been rezoned to commercial from residential shall
be allowed an interim use permit as a rental unit for a specific period oftime. The
maximum density for rental units under the interim use permit shall be limited to the
density which is allowed in the R-I, Single Family Residential District.
Student Housing LLC, PO Box 637, St. Joseph, MN 56374 has submitted the request for
Interim Use.
Judy Weyrens
Administrator
)11:-
@
~0'~_+<~'N~""';";""';';"=N;"""""'0..",="0"~"'"'0_"'^:'
. :~~~tl.~:t ~~~~-,^...~w "_'..w....
--~\
\ '\ \
\.\ \
\ .. \\24 \2. ~
\, \ \ i-----~----
\ .1 \.-.-~:=----..,---- \.
\ . --- ,.........-- \ \
~_J.---~ \ \ \
\\ \
\ '\ '\
2') College Avenue North' PO Box 668 . Sdint joseph, Minnesotd ')6,74
Phone ,2.0.,6,.7201 FdX ,2.0.,6,.0,42.
Data ViewOnline Map
Page 1 of 1
30 Birch Street E
'.
~~
...........
-................._-.....
...
.,",-~--.. ....., 120
-........... ...................
-""....~, J
.............. .........
454 7 ........... ....
f ......
.'lr ''''~
I ,-'.... "
I ~, ~....-....~
/ i ........., ~~.,~
/ ............... --...-
I '-~-.
I .. ----.......
II 209 r~-._..
207 '-'_
-.
412
,22
417
I
~
~tn'$""'"
o
L~~
~Itl
~
409,. i
403
DATE S1' W
-'bd'07
303
303
~
~
~
~
16
407
11
403
~(~H'll!M'!.
'0'1ll&1'~
"A"fllJ7~
-"'._- $I~CH Si
206.J -,-".., I
________- , ~~..,\ 115
-- ~)!f.,'f\( 123 _ .--\, .. M
,----'\ \ \ ,~-~ - \ . n ~
'. \ \, \" 119 ...---', 9: ! I Z 205
\ \, 26 \\------;; _~ l. 101 111: ,121 105 rn 2L0311
\ 118 \ \ "'-_--.::::::;:.--.\ 1. ' J CJ L ..L
\r:~~::.\\:---;~~:=\ \ , .-.-' - -..--AS~ s~ _.~ --'~;-- ~ ~
'., i \~~{~9 \25 \\-.---~03 _,j, \,' ..-J ~41 " I,', ':11~ 'I ',:, I'GjO I,
\~ \104.~ \, \\ .---.--:.- ..' - ~ ~ I 3~10a11101 '116' 12031,'
y-.-; \ J - .' .' 9; 31 ~ ~ 'I' 1
103'\' \ 35 J.---->---:.. s'\'~ _--4,..-------..\ ~ ~- I. __ I 'I III I , , II') 26
, , "-- 1\':;>" ..- \3:..-\ G:l. I , "6, ]' I 'I 'I 'I):>
.-J ' .' ", " _-----.,' \-- \"'l I 24 I, 'I I, 30 27 1;: ~ I ~, ~
- " ,- ~ r-----\, \\ ~ , .-l.--l---l L --=:,i -I 1----', I r---, I, 'I 21 1 rn
---\ "I \, 32 -'\26 \,\ \ \..::::::;::::--...-..-\ ~ a-r1~m ~~ II 1""'- 201
33 1\ k-- "\ ___- 2 \"20,). I I ~ I I '113,' 1211
.... I \ ---- .....-- \" 1 I I' 1171 125
_.----..-.\ ~ , _-----! ~:::.'\\-T\ \19 \ \ 16 L21 ,25 129 35 1 1103 107 I II ~ '~__I
\ ~ \.~----r'- '\ \ 2~, \ \ \--.;;\ \ ___r 'L',...J L_L-L~ L- 134
__-::-, I" , \ \ \ \19 \15\.-y\ ~3 '15 __J _ __.' _ MiNNESOTAST
.- --- \ \31 \ 35 \, 25 \ \\ '\ \ 1,\ '\ 1 \ c----~- MINNE.SOTA ST E '; -"T--'I'lT-r-l '; 200
..-I '-1 " \ '-'3 \ 13-'- ~,< I' I I '124 I <- ,
1--~'101L" '\33,\ \ \-...li--.....~-' 121 _.-.-----11 r 128 32 'fl:l 100 '1013 112 116 120 I " I ~ l, -=~4
l1I91~t ~ li~H ~OIl3, _J--.----'"' _---"""', \ 0 3 3ft 1-'1 {f' ; 20 I
Disclaimer: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be
used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data from city, county, state
and federal offices, and is to be used for reference purposes only.
http://portaLsehinc.com/data View/mapLayout.htm
9/20/2007
APPLICATION FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT
CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
25 College Avenue NW
P. o. Box 668
St. Joseph, MN 56374
(320)363-7201 or Fax (320)363-0342
RECEIVED
SEP 1 7 2007
OF ST. JOSEPH
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss
COUNTY OF STEARNS)
NAME: 3-r~:D.bJr' dJ-S.X~ ~ t!.(.(!.. PHONE: flPlo"" 363 -~sL9-.S.3
ADDRESS: ? {)~. ,Box. 6 3c/' ~;-. d..:5LPI!-, /4J .56'37.:/
I/We. the undersigned, hereby make the following application to the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of S1. Joseph, Stearns County.
Minnesota, (Applicants have the responsibility of checking all applicable ordinances pertaining to their application and complying with all ordinance
requirements):
1. Application is hereb~~defor Interim Use Permit to conduct the following: 4.J .,- Pw ~ LLT;J 6
A'f E.::> '72C!---tf -:::57'" L. .:5'/, J05L:.::7>4 .
2. Legal description of land to be affected by application, including acrea,ge or square footage of land involved, and street
address, if any (attach additional sheet if necessary): .d5 L-L A trAC.-f/-c:::z:> e Q 'r..z::.F..:rc 4 -rE-
o of. -:5cJ?:' vi-y
3. Present zoning of the above described property is: ~ tl-uJ A'; 15 ~...s::t::: ~L.:S.5.'
4. Name and address of the present owner of the above described property is: AtZM~ c Ve:.u r.2-
-p.Q.Bo'><.. C3~ ..6'(. .:::T'Qs-L~d, ;Vj;.J ..:5.b3:?~
5. Is the proposed use compatible with present and future land uses of the area? Please explain: J <5 ,..z::r'~
{!.::.~.sr:5 re.~ r ~..:z::rrl ,J.e:...z:.<;;fl..Bo~..s 6,J 25ol"Tf ..::::S:z::bL~.,
6. Will the pr posed use depreciate the area in which it is proposed? Please explain:
Or .:z::r!s (!",~.s=S7-:C.-,Ir ~:x:..TH - t.L- ,<.tlJ2:> tI.s-LxJ .:r:r.s~,
7. Can the proposed use be accommodated with existing City service without overburdening the system? Explain:
y L..:5., I-r.5> eo .J:5.:z:::5 re...,J r vJ.z: Tr-/ ...:r T$ (! v 'l? ?i0J-r t/..:S~ ""
8. Are local streets capable of handling traffic which is generated by the proposed use? Please explain:
y ,!-.:5 I ::c r~ (! o,J.:5:c:3 --r'L..J T" oJx T-rI .:rr..s C! c) i! :e i0J r (./.::.C .
Attached to this application and made a part thereof are ther material submission data requirements, as indicated.
Owner Signature:
Date:
9..5'-D 1
9_5'-01
Applicant Signature:
Date:
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
DATE SUBMITTED:
DATE COMPLETE:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLICATION DATE:
.
Planning Commission Action: _ Recommend Approval _ Recommend Disapproval Date of Action:
Date Applicant/Property Owner notified of Planning Commission Action:
City Council Action: _ Approved _ Disapproved Date of Action:
Date Applicant/Property Owner notified of City Council Action:
Planning Commission Agenda Item ~
err)' QF liT. JCJ\$ICI>"
MEETING DATE:
October 1, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Public Hearing - Monastery of St. Benedict
Variance - Relief of Parking Requirement
Development Plan Approval
SUBMITTED BY:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the conditional variance
relieving parking and accept the Development Plan.
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Monastery of St. Benedict presented a
development plan to construct a new residential facility. During review for Ordinance Compliance, it was
noted that the new residential facility would be required to provide 48 parking spaces.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: When the City updated the Zoning Ordinance, the E & E Zoning
District was modified to include the general provisions of the Ordinance so that all the zoning districts
would be consistent. While the proposed residential facility is a redevelopment, the new building must
meet the current Ordinances. That is, the former residential structure was constructed before the current
regulations and that use can continue without items such as parking as long as the building remains. The
new construction requires adherence to the Ordinance.
The monastery is a community within a community and vehicles for the community are limited to the
fleet owned by the monastery. As can be seen from the enclosed, the monastery has sufficient parking for
the fleet they manage.
As the Monastery has stated that at some point the facility may be used by another user such as the
Church or College, the variance granted in this case would be a conditional variance. The variance is
approved as long as the facility is used for housing for the monastery. Upon change of use, the property
owner will be required to submit a parking plan meeting the Ordinance requirements providing 48
parking spaces.
ATTACHMENTS:
Hearing Notice; Application; Parking Plan, Findings, Building
Plans
REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Recommend the Council grant a conditional
variance to the Monastery of St. Benedict relieving the parking requirement for the residential structure
entitled Marmion, accepting the findings of fact.
Accept the development plan authorizing the issuance of a building permit for the residential structure.
Judy Weyrens
Administrdtor
MdYor
AI Rdssier
Councilors
Steve Frdnk
Rick Schultz
Renee Symdnietz
Ddle Wick
www.cityo!stjoseph.com
CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
Public Heariug
City of St. Joseph
The St. Joseph Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on Monday, October
1, 2007 at 7: 15 PM. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a variance relating to the
parking requirements for the construction of a new residential facility for the Monastery
of St. Benedict.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.35 Subd. 9(d): Parking: All parking lots shall conform
to the standards set forth in Section 52.10. All lots shall include parking controls and
other landscaping techniques to improve their aesthetic quality and to direct the flow of
traffic.
St. Joseph Code ofOrdiannces 52.10 Subd. 4(b): Boarding house, rooming house, bed
and breakfast, multiple family dwellings and rental residential dwellings. One and one-
half (1 Yz) spaces for each single-bedroom dwelling, two and one-half (2 Yz) spaces for
each two-bedroom dwelling, four (4) spaces for each three-bedroom dwelling and an
additional 1.25 spaces for each additional bedroom within the dwelling. Any bedroom
larger than 140 square feet shall be considered as two bedrooms for the purpose of
determining the total number of bedrooms within a dwelling. Fractional numbers shall be
rounded up to the next highest whole number.
Sisters of the Order ofSt. Benedict, 104 Chapel Lane, St. Joseph, MN 56374 have
submitted the request for Interim Use.
Judy Weyrens
Administrator
2) College Avenue North' PO Box 668 . Sdint Joseph, Minnesotd )6,74
Phone ,20.,6,.]201 FdX ,2.0.,6,0,42.
(
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
25 College Avenue NW
P. O. Box 668
St. Joseph, MN 56374
(320)363-7201 or Fax (320)363-0342
Fee $
Paid
Receipt #
Date
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss
COUNTY OF STEARNS)
IIWe, the undersigned, as owners of the property described below, hereby appeal to the City Council and Planning Commission of the City ofSt. Joseph,
Stearns County, Minnesota to grant a variance from the St. Joseph City Code: (applicants have the responsibility of checking all applicable ordinances
pertaining to their application and complying with all ordinance requirements):
PROPERTYOWNERNAME(S): Sisters of the Order of Saint Benedict
PROPERTY OWNER PHONE NUMBER(S): 320- 36 3-71 00
ADDRESS:
104 Chapel Lane
St. Joseph. MN S6?74
ZONING DISTRICT: Educational-Ecclesiastical District
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(8p.p. Rt.t.R~hP'(l)
PROPERTYOWNER(S)' SIGNATURE(S): 8; f'lt.P.T'f'l nf' t.h!'! OT'Cl!'!T' nf' 8A;nt. R!'!n!'!Cl; 0.t
~-
\._-
Treasurer / Director of Finance
The request(s) which we desire for our property is/are in conflict with the following sections(s) of the St. Joseph City Code:
Section 52.35
Subd. 9 (d)
p~ Proposed non-conformance(s):
~
~/u4AM'~ . . .
what spelial conditions and circumstances exist which are particular to the land, structure or building(s) involved which do not apply to the
land, structures or building(s) in the same zoning classification (attach additional pages as needed)?
Section
52.10
Subd. 4 (b)
Section
Do any of the special conditions and circumstances result from your own actions (if the answer is yes, you may not qualifY for a variance)?
What facts and considerations demonstrate that the literal interpretation of the zoning code would deprive you of rights commonly enjoyed by
other properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning code (attach additional pages as needed)?
State your reasons for believing that a variance will not confer on you any special privilege that is denied by the zoning code to other lands,
structures or buildings in the same district:
State your reasons for believing that the action(s) you propose to take is/are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning code?
State your reasons for believing that a strict enforcement of the provisions of the zoning code would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the zoning ordinance. Economic
considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship under the terms of this code as referenced in state statutes:
Attached to this application and made a part thereof are other material submission data requirements, as indicated.
APpn~nts;g~~~l:;'- D"",~~ ~""""7
Owner Signature: r ~ ~~ Date:
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
DATE APPLICATION SUBMITTED:
DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE:
t-
Planning Commission Action: _ Recommend Approval _ Recommend Disapproval Date of Action
Date Applicant/Property Owner notified of Planning Commission Action:
City Council Action: _ Approved _ Disapproved Date of Action
Date Applicant/Property Owner notified of City Council Action:
Application for Variance to City of St. Joseph Ordinance
Sections 52.35- subd. 9 (d) and 52.10- subd. 4 (b)
Proposed non-conformance-The parking plan for a new building to replace the former Marmion
Hall does not meet the required off-street parking ordinance.
Special conditions/circumstances-The proposed building replaces an existing building that
housed more residents than the new one. The parking requirement for this building is met in a
centralized parking area that provides 24 hour-365 days of availability for monastery cars.
Any special conditions-The residents of this building are members of the Sisters of the Order of
Saint Benedict. As such, they do not own cars individually. Cars and parking are available to all
sisters in monastery residences through a fleet of cars located in a central parking lot. Please
refer to Addendum A and B.
What facts, considerations demonstrate-The College and Monastery share a campus with
distinct parking to meet each of our needs. We identify shared parking spaces for peak times or
special event needs.
State reasons that variance will not confer special privilege- We believe that our situation is
unique to the City of St. Joseph because we are a community within a community. Unlike most
residential areas, we share land, buildings and ownership in a way that allows efficient use of
spaces central to our community areas. The current ordinances for residential areas do not fit
this type of community living.
State reasons for belief that actions are consistent with the code-The monastery parking plan
meets the number of parking spaces required for the number of cars that are part ofthe central
fleet. The transportation needs of the monastery are assessed each year according to the
number of sisters at the monastery who have specific needs. Mini buses and vans are used daily
to decrease the number of cars needed. This allows for more parking spaces than the code
requires. Guest and employee parking areas are provided in special areas close to the Sacred
Heart Chapel. Please refer to Addendum A and B.
State reason that a strict enforcement would cause undue hardship-The monastery would not
be able to replace the former Marmion Hall in its current location if we need to provide parking
for 48 cars. This will cause serious housing concerns or require housing to be at too great a
distance for sisters to get to prayers, meals and Eucharist.
Addendum A-Monasterv Parking Areas
Map Position A - Monastery Fleet Lot-29 spaces
B - St. Wendelin Hall-3 spaces
C - Monastery Guest House-10 spaces
D - Gathering Place Circle Drive-24 spaces
E - Monastery Guest Lot- 30 spaces
F - Maintenance Area - 8-10 employee spaces
G - Spirituality Center -8-10 spaces
H - Monastery Garage-7 spaces
I - Lot 2 - 8 spaces
J - Lot 1- 12 employee spaces
K- House 202-1 space
L - Maintenance Vehicles-5 spaces
Total available spaces= 149 spaces
Total Vehicles= 54 (44 automobiles, 2 Station Wagons, 2 Vans, 1 Mini Bus & 5 Trucks)
Total number of Sisters living on campus with transportation needs=142 sisters
Total number of Sisters who drive and live on campus= 96 sisters
\.
lul-!!?;r::1tt;;;:;:rB'
~
\U
~
t-
Ul
.c;
~
o
Vl
UJ
~
....
%
j
~il
^
~
~
'(~
.'l., ....
'1'"
~ '"
"J-'"
~
~~
r....)...
ll!./ff
~k
~~
~~
E\J
~
-7
>...
~
i:!.l.::
...):1:
Q~
,. ~
""'.. D
:->?c.. .1~>i, ",_._"_ ,~"':";~';>'O.""
, '"""'"~~"';'I'~~_'
......:....,........1..' j";'.' ...... ................'.. .... '.'
~~....p
::~;<i(,;:,_ \"-
,-:-.,,,'-.'
-:~'::"~/~ ::::::!:
;W .. 9 ;,;~~.,A:I.ji;i',
! ~.'~ .. . -.':> ;._:;"1.:'/~'--"'::~~;:~
. .
1~
.!
. . ~
~Vl
~~
J
:.:1~,
r
. .
.O~;:'
. Q,
. . .
. .
."tlt...~..,ff,,;; si~.~,*,
. .
4.
I-~~~
(l::-tllC."<t'
~ ~o:
o D
. '~~~s.w..
1 .~
I I
I
IClJ~ I
!m 0---1
I I'
I -----4
: [IJ :.;
.' tu
~""lS
o-l.
.210
*-.
~
.~ ~'
V\
~
~
~
~
~
~
J
I~
"~
('\1
t] .
~. . '" '
vQl. .
.,'~.
fl-.
. rnw-- .. It.
~--~ r fj
~'fD I!~
.i'.'...i............,',.,.'.'.'.8"""',','".,.,.,.,.,.,......j.~ l' ..
......;0.0;.;:;;................................................' 1
.. .__......:.>>:.:.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ;', I I
!11111i jj i i Ii 'I 'ii I
!i I'd 111111 II II ~
II ",II 'I! Ila
,.illl/ill, ! H
111!iI' Ill! l!
i!,,1 , lild!
>, 'I ,! I Ii
1'1 r II!
III II
,=./
-::-~~~~~~~ : - . ~)$E~.==-=':~=
~
.~~
.~a
~
II!! Ii 11 II ii!!llll! ~
!! Il I 'I! I'e 11'1',1 I! ~
,'ii I ~. II 6
ilfl i 'Ii nil i:1 iU
'I i ! ! 1'11. Iii I!
Plldll!lu
II i II U I!'II~
ill 111'111
,. I I
~
N
NEW MARMION HOUSING
!!2!'l'! SAINT BENEDICT'S MONASTERY
. ,'"'"..... 1112Y.'~;I=
~
~
i .
I ~~~~:
r=
u----------
w
w
]~
i i
i r,-_m____
H II
II II
" . I.
~::=::::::
..
0::
6
;;
..
S
~
..
:;;
]~
i
c ,
~ ~:::::::::
r=
~::::::::-
>
w
N
NEW MARMION HOUSING
SAINT BENEDICT'S MONASTERY
~cr..~ 111~~1~~~
J;
00000000
Piil"l~
iilii!l!~
I I ! I f i I . ~
I ! ., I &
I I ". il
i
m~~~':it=J 1Io<Tr. ........
..~_c..n__"'''''''~Cloool.'''''''''''
_~"'."',,"~U\'l<I:l>
~-
".......t.IooI,l..'IoIo__.._.._~..-
..."'..,_................_.......'....~1WI1lo_
...................,_M..._M~
RESOLUTION OF FINDING
The request of the Monastery of St. Benedict for a 48 space parking requirement came before the
Planning Commission at a Public Hearing held on April 2, 2007. The purposeofthe hearing was to
consider relief from the parking provision of the E& E Zoning district the construction of residential
facility
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27 Subd. 7 (b) states Side yard setbacks shall be ten (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 thirty (30) feet from the main structure and any garage
or accessory structure.
The St. Joseph Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on Monday, October 1, 2007 at 7:15
PM. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a variance relating to the parking requirements for the
construction of a new residential facility for the Monastery of St. Benedict.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.35 Subd. 9(d): Parking: All parking lots shall conform to the standards
set forth in Section 52.10. All lots shall include parking controls and other landscaping techniques to
improve their aesthetic quality and to direct the flow of traffic.
St. Joseph Code of Ordiannces 52.10 Subd. 4(b): Boarding house, rooming house, bed and breakfast,
multiple family dwellings and rental residential dwellings. One and one-half (1 %) spaces for each single-
bedroom dwelling, two and one-half (2 %) spaces for each two-bedroom dwelling, four (4) spaces for
each three-bedroom dwelling and an additional 1.25 spaces for each additional bedroom within the
dwelling. Any bedroom larger than 140 square feet shall be considered as two bedrooms for the
purpose of determining the total number of bedrooms within a dwelling. Fractional numbers shall be
rounded up to the next highest whole number.
Sisters of the Order of St. Benedict, 104 Chapel Lane, St. Joseph, MN 56374 have submitted the request
for Interim Use
In consideration ofthe information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the
Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the
following findings:
FINDING: The proposed plan is consistent with the following provisions:
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd (aHl1 states: "That there are exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question as to the
intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning
district. The exceptional or extraordinary circumstances must not be the result of actions taken
by the petitioner.
FINDING:
The petitioner is part of a community within a community and ownership of
vehicles is limited to the petitioner. The petitioner provides fleet vehicles to the
membership and provides adequate parking for such. The community is located
a large tract of land with multiple buildings.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. (a)f21: "states that the literal interpretation of the
provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by other
properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance".
FINDING: It is unknown if this situation can be duplicated in St. Joseph as there are no
other known "communities" in St. Joseph.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd.(aH31: "states that granting the variance requested
will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other
lands in the same district".
FINDING: See subd. (a) [2J above
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. (a)[4] "states that the proposed variance will not
impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or diminish or impair
established property values within the surrounding area, or in any other respect impair the
public health, safety or welfare ofthe residents ofthe City".
FINDING:
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. (a)[5] "states that the condition or situation of a
specific piece of property, or the intended use of said property, for which the variance was
sought, is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the
formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or a situation".
FINDING: The request for variance is in a limited zoning district that will not have a large
impact. See above.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. (a)[6] " states that the variance requested is the
minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship on a particular property."
FINDING: The variance is being requested as the membership does not have individual
ownership of vehicles and the parking spaces will not be utilized.
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. (a)[7] "states that the variance would not be
materially detrimental to the purposes of the zoning ordinances or property within the same
zoning classification."
FINDING: The variance request is consistent with the other facilities in the zoning district.
The request for variance shall be conditional with the following contingency:
The variance is approved so long as the facility is used for housing for the Monastery of
St. Benedict. Upon change of use, the property owner will be required to submit a parking plan
meeting the Ordinance requirements, providing 48 parking spaces.
Bob Loso, Planning Commission Chair
Judy Weyrens, Administrator
t:IT'\'OT! ST. JOS":">>
Planning Commission Agenda Item
MEETING DATE:
October 1, 2007
AGENDA ITEM:
Collegeville Development Group
CR 121 Residential Development
SUBMITTED BY:
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission twice has reviewed the
Collegeville Development Group (CDG) concept plan for a residential development along CR 121. The
first meeting in July included the entire 51 acres adjacent to CR 121. The project included a mixed
development with the College and CDG. The concept plan included recreation fields/space for CSB on
the southern portion, residential for CDG, dormitories for CSB and a proposed medical -facility. The only
development that was actually being proposed at this time was a townhouse/patio home development by
CDG. The Commission requested that the concept plan be reduced to exclude the recreation
fields/space. See attached minutes.
In August, CDG came back to the Planning Commission again only this time with a 20 acre tract which
would include the dormitories, medical facility and housing development. The Planning Commission
stated requested that the plan be reduced to eliminate the CSB housing and business use and move
forward with only the residential portion. The Planning Commission indicated that the application would
include a Preliminary Plat, Zoning and Variance. See attached minutes.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since the August Planning Commission meeting the staff has
meet with CDG representative. On September 11,2007 the City received an application for development.
The material was forwarded to staff for review and comment and a follow up meeting was scheduled for
September 26,2007. At this meeting staff comments were received and distributed. Based on the
Ordinances a nUl!1ber of issues were highlighted.
Since the August Planning Commission a misunderstanding of the purpose of a concept plan has arisen.
The developer left with the understanding since the Planning Commission approved the concept and
wanted the project to move forward that Ordinance review would not prohibit the project from
progressing.
At the September 26, 2007 staff meeting, the staff indicated that we are not opposed to the project, but we
are charged with enforcing the Ordinances and do not have the authority to deviate. We indicated that if
the Planning Commission wants to change the Ordinance staff will be happy to process any amendments.
CDG has the right to make any application for variance they feel is needed. It is up to the Planning
Commission to determine if the variance meets the statutory requirements.
Whether or not the staff "likes" the development is not a consideration. As staff we present the Planning
Commission with a report on Ordinance compliance and will carry out the direction provided. At this
time the Developer is coming to the Planning Commission asking for clarification on how to move the
project forward. Please remember that this meeting is not a public hearing and the Planning Commission
cannot indicate whether or not a variance will be approved.
ATTACHMENTS:
Past correspondence
REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Provide direction to staff on how to proceed
j::mt 9t~'nJOSJ!iPf(.
Planning C.,mmission Agenda Item
L/
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. lfthe 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 S1. 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. Staff has carried out this message and has
repeatedly informed the College of this. As staff we 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 staff we 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.
Extract of Minutes -July 2, 2007
Concept Pl~. Collegeville Development Group and College of St. Benedict: Weyrens
reported that over the past year the City Staff has been meeting the Collegeville
Development Group and representatives of the College of St. Benedict regarding a
proposed development on property adjacent to County Road 121. Weyrens stated that the
property is located south of Callaway Street and North of the Northern Natural Gas
Station. The proposed development includes a mix of housing, business and recreation.
Loso stated that the narrative that was presented was very confusing and he is not in favor
of the proposed concept plan. Loso stated that he is not in favor of rezoning the property
to Educational and Ecclesiastical, questioned the need for utilization of the PUD process
and is opposed to the proposed density.
Weyrens clarified that the proposed development consists of 53 acres meeting the
minimum lot requirement for a pun Development. Weyrens clarified that pun is a
Zoning Overlay and with underlying zoning districts. The concept plan before the
Commission includes the following zoning classifications: General Business, Rl
Residential and R3 Residential. When utilizing a PUD the density of each zoning district
must be met, as a PUD cannot be used to increase density.
Jim Degiovanni approached the commissioners on behalf of Collegeville Development
Group. He stated that he had a hard time fitting their plan to the City's Ordinances. The
area in question is currently owned by the College of St. Benedict. They would like to
develop the site as a mixed use PUD. He added that Collegeville Development Group
signed a purchase agreement for 10 acres on which they plan to construct a housing
community for those 55 and older. According to Degiovanni, a majority of the total area
will be used for athletic fields and student housing for the College of St. Benedict.
Another small portion located at the northwest comer will be used for a clinic. He stated
that there was also some discussion as to whether or not the area that the College plans to
develop should be zoned E & E or B 1. The College would like that area zoned E & E as
it is more consistent with the rest of the property owned by the College.
With respect to the R4 portion, Degiovanni stated that they are barely over the density.
He stated that they would like to have private streets in that development; however the
city does not allow that. In order to accommodate for street right of ways, they are
requesting smaller lot setbacks. They would like to construct the housing portion in
phases.
Sue Palmer approached the Commissioners on behalf of the College of St. Benedict. She
stated that the College has been working on a master plan for the future needs ofthe
College of St. Benedict. As they are surrounded by monastery land on three sides, the
College does not have expansion capacity except for the property east of CR 121. The
master plan indicates that the College lacks recreational space for the students compared
to colleges of the same size. Palmer then explained that they would like to see that area
zoned E & E to be consistent with the rest of the College.
Degiovanni stated that they have met with City Staff and they are currently asking the
Planning Commission to give them some feedback regarding the concept plan.
Loso stated that he liked the idea of the retirement housing; however, he was not in favor
of the smaller lots. Rieke stated that they need to blend their plans with the City's
Ordinances. Degiovanni stated that he had a hard time fitting their plan to the Ordinances.
Rieke questioned whether or not they have done this type of project in the past.
According to Degiovanni, this plan is similar to a project that was done in Winona. He
stated that although they will be smaller lots, some of the houses may be attached or
share a driveway.
Kalinowski was concerned with the timing of the project. Weyrens stated that the City
does allow phasing to occur and once they begin a development they are committed to
the proposed uses. City Attorney Tom Jovanovich stated that phasing may not be a good
option in a PUD as there are different considerations and if economic factors slow the
project, then the City is left with a half of a project. He added that the development of a
PUD commits the developer to the uses as presented and can only be amended through a
hearing process. Palmer questioned whether or not the area that they have proposed to
use for student housing can be platted as outlots to which they were told they could.
Palmer approached the Commissioners again to question the zoning of the property as E
& E to be consistent with the rest ofthe College property. Loso stated that zoning it E &
E would result in fewer regulations. Weyrens stated that the Comprehensive Plan uses
CR 121 as the buffer for the E & E Zoning District. When staff reviewed the request, the
College can accomplish their goals with traditional zoning, thereby not needing to amend
the Comprehensive Plan.
Loso questioned Degiovanni as to why they are submitting ajoint plan. Degiovanni
stated that they would like to develop only 10 acres; however, a PUD requires a
minimum of 20 acres. Due to the fact that there are a number of mixed uses, it would be
considered spot zoning if a PUD were not approved. Loso also questioned why the
College would sell a portion of their land if they don't have enough room for their
facilities. Palmer stated that they believe it would provide for a positive interaction
between the residents and the students.
Deutz questioned why the College is looking to add more student housing. Palmer
explained that they plan to house more students and move to a 4-year residency
requirement. Deutz stated that he is against the zoning of the property to E & E as it
would give the City less control.
Anderson questioned the definition of the E & E District. It is defined as follows:
"It is the intent of this district to provide for an area occupied by public and
private educational and ecclesiastical institutions. "
Weyrens added that there are different criteria for these areas as they are generally larger
areas. Degiovanni read the requirements for a PUD and stated that based on the entire 53
acres, they have low density. Deutz advised them that the whole project must come
together. According to Anderson, this plan looks as if they are requesting spot zoning.
He is in favor of the Collegeville Development Group and clinic portions; however, he is
against the College's portion. Deutz agreed stating that it is too vague. Rieke advised the
Commissioners that they need to be open minded when working with the College. Palmer
stated that they plan to house a majority of their students; however, there will be some
that will be exempt.
Rassier stated that he would like to see the 13.6 acres shown as the clinic and the
Collegeville portion rezoned to R4 and the balance be zoned as AG. That would allow the
College to request rezoning as they bring an actual concept forward for Planning
Commission approval. Graeve stated that it appears to be spot zoning as well. He likes
the housing idea, but he would like to see more discussion between the City, Collegeville
Development Group and the College of 8t. Benedict.
Rassier also stated that he does not believe the clinic will be built on the site as proposed.
There is some concern as to rezoning the property as BI and the types of businesses that
will be built there. Jon Petters, Collegeville Development Group, questioned whether the
permitted uses can be controlled. Jovanovich stated that through the Development
Agreement the City can limit the type of businesses that could locate in the B I portion of
the PUD.
Jovanovich stated that he is concerned with the number of variances required as
presented. He stated that there are no criteria to support the various variances. He added
that because the plans are so vague, it is hard to determine the parking and open space
requirements. From a legal standpoint, he stated that it would be best to establish green
space along the northern section and limit the types of uses allowed. Rassier stated that
they should work with the Park Board as far as Park Dedication fees, etc.
Degiovanni stated that he expected these comments from the Commissioners. He
questioned what they would like to see as a next step for the project as they would like to
move forward as soon as possible. Jovanovich suggested that the concept plan be
amended to only include the portion of property that will actually be developed and leave
the remaining property as an outlot. If the concept plan meets the Ordinance
requirements Collegeville Development can move forward to the platting process.
Extract of Minutes - August 6, 2007
Collegeville Development Group (CDG) - Concept Plan: Weyrens stated that previously
the Planning Commission reviewed a concept plan for CDG/CSB for 53 acres along
CR121. At that time the concept plan included a mix of commercial, high density single
family, a dormitory for College Use and recreational fields. At that meeting the Planning
Commission encouraged CDG is reduce the concept plan removing the recreation fields.
At this time CDG has revised the concept plan reducing the area from 53 acres to 14.
Jim Degiovanni approached the Commissioners to present their revised concept plan.
The revised concept plan only includes the single family high density, utilizing the R4
Zoning District and the commercial portion as it abuts Callaway Street. In reviewing the
St. Joseph Code of Ordinances the revised plan meets the density requirements; however,
there are issues with the setbacks. Degiovanni advised the Commission that they could
plat it as individual lots for Patio Homes or as single lot condominiums and meet the
requirements. It is only when twin homes are constructed that the setback requirements
cannot be met.
The Planning Commission discussed the required to have 20 acres to utilize the PUD
process and whether or not this development qualifies. The concept plan includes five
acres of commercial development with 9 residential. At this time there are not definite
plans for the commercial section. As a result, Degiovanni stated that they need several
variances. Weyrens stated that it is her understanding that the residential portion of the
development will with age restricted to 55 or older. If this is the case, one of the findings
for a variance could be that the developer is filling a housing need of the City by
constructing homes for residents 55 and older. The City has received requests as to when
the City is going to construct a development for retired residents that are looking for a
smaller home with less upkeep.
Deutz stated that, at one point, they were looking at private roads. Degiovanni stated that
they have conceded and they now plan to construct public roads. Loso questioned
whether they meet the density and the lot size. Degiovanni stated that they cannot meet
the depth requirements as stated in the R4 Ordinance. He suggested that they make the
lots deeper and create easements. Rieke questioned the driveway lengths and stated that
they should be no less than 30' from the ROW.
Anderson questioned Degiovanni as to the square footage of the lots. He replied that in
phase 3, the smallest lot is 45xlOO and in phase 2, the smallest lot is 40x90. Loso then
stated that in his opinion a 40' wide lot is too narrow. Degiovanni responded that they are
trying to keep the lots small as elderly residents do not generally like large lawns. He
then added that some of the lots may have shared driveways to which Loso said would be
a good idea.
Degiovanni advised the Commission that they would like to break ground this fall. He
questioned the Commission as to what steps he needed to follow to move the project
forward. The Commission responded that he would need to complete the application
process as outlined in the Ordinance. From the discussion at this meeting it appears as
the application would include a preliminary plat, variance and rezoning.
1) Although the track of land is more than 20 acres, as a whole, only 10 acres will be
classified as a residentialPUD. The other 12.69 will remain agricultural. The ordinance requires
that the minimum net site area for "each zoning district" be met (excluding areas not suitable for
development). Ordinance Section 52.29, Subd. 2 (b)(2). If they are seeking a non-single family
PUD, then they must have 20 acres of property within the residential zoning district. They are
only proposing 10 acres be rezoned as residential. For this reason, the proposed track of land
does not qualify for a non-single family residential PUD - regardless of the fact that they have
more than 20 acres of contiguous land in two different zoning districts.
2) The ordinance requires that the PUD be governed by the use regulations of the
underlying zoning classification. The permitted uses in Agricultural districts is limited to single
family residences. Uses under a special use permit, however, provides for "Planned Unit
Residential Units". Ordinance Section 52.26, Subd. 3 (g). Thus, in order to meet this element of
the ordinance, CSB would need to acquire a special use permit for a PUD in order to conform to
the use regulations of the underlying agricultural zoning classification.
3) The PUD provision also provides that "common open spaces" shall be either held
in common ownership by all owners in the PUD or dedicated for public use with approval of the
City Council". Ordinance Section 52.09, Subd. 3(b)(4). Whenever possible, common open
space shall be linked to the open space areas of adjoining developments. It cannot be determined
from the plans where the proposed open spaces are to be located. The proposed drainage open
area cannot be counted as "open space" under the ordinance. Ordinance Section 52.30, Subd.
15(h).
4) CSB is not seeking a zoning change in their 12.69 track ofland and will remain
Agricultural. Only the 10 acres owned by CDG is being proposed for immediate development.
The PUD development plan and agreement must identify all the proposed land uses, and those
uses shall become permitted uses with the acceptance of the development plan and agreement.
Any change in the list of uses presented in the development plan and agreement will be
considered a major amendment to the PUD and will require certain procedures to amend them.
Ordinance Section 52.09, Subd. 4(a)(1). In applying this provision, all ofthe uses ofthe land
which makes up the PUD (10 acres and 12.29 acres) must be identified. They are proposing a
specific use of the 10 acres (townhouses/patio homes), but nothing for the 12.69 acres. That must
be demonstrated in the development plan.
5) Development of a project may be phased, in which case each complete phase may
be processed separately through both preliminary development plan review and final
development plan review. A map showing all property owned or controlled by the developer
which is contiguous to the development site or which is within the area determined by the City to
be relevant for comprehensive planning and environmental assessment purposes, together with a
preliminary plat of said properties' eventual development through all potential phases shall be
submitted with the application for the first phase. The developer is not responsible for providing
a preliminary plat for contiguous or nearby property which is not owned or controlled by the
developer. Ordinance Section 52.09, Subd. 8. The PUD application states "The current owner is
the College of St. Benedict" Thus, the entire property was owned or controlled by the same
entity, CSB, at the time the PUD application was made. Based on their application "Collegeville
Communities LLC has only entered into a purchase agreement with CSB to purchase the easterly
ten acres.. .". The PUD application is also being jointly made by CSB and CDG,thereby giving
2
each entity "control" over the project. Thus, the entire track of land proposed by the PUD is
owned and controlled by the developer and, thus, the plat must show the intended uses of all of
the land.
6) The proposal also does not demonstrate the benefit to the public intended pursuant
to the criteria set forth at Section 52.09, Subd. 2. The applicant bears the burden of proving one
or more public benefits.
Issue No.2: Is An Environmental Assessment Worksheet required for this proposed PUD.
Short Answer: Yes. An EA W is mandatory when there are 50 or more unattached or 75 or
more attached units in an unsewered unincorporated area or 100 unattached units and 150
attached units in the sewered unincorporated area. The maximum units buildable on the entire
22.69 acres exceed 75 attached units, and, thus, an EA W is mandatory.
Analvsis: An Environmental Assessment Worksheet CEA W") is designed to set out the basic
facts necessary to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") is required for
a proposed project. Any government unit with approval authority can order a discretionary
EA W if it determines that the project may have the potential for significant environmental
effects, unless the project is exempt (those where no government approval is necessary). A
discretionary EA W may also be used to jointly review projects, which independently do not
exceed a mandatory threshold, but collectively may impact the same geographic area. If the
responsible unit determines a project has significant environmental impact, an environmental
impact statement becomes mandatory as well.
The proposed PUD most likely falls within the definition of a connected action. This
occurs, in pertinent part, when one action is a prerequisite for the other, the first occurring
previously or simultaneously; or neither is justified by itself; that is, the two projects are
interdependent parts of a larger whole. Because both areas are dependent upon the other in order
to meet the PUD requirements, they can be classified as two or more projects which must be
considered as one project, regardless of ownership or timing. Id. j4410.1000 and 4410.2000,
Subd. 4. The most common "connected action" occurs when independent landowners with
adjoining properties jointly design a residential or commercial project without regard to the
ownership boundaries. Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules, page 3 In addition to
impacts directly attributable to immediate action, some impacts can be the cumulative result of
other past, present and reasonably future actions. Thus, cumulative potential effects of related or
anticipated future projects must be considered and taken into account when preparing the EA W.
The proposed PUD could also possibly fall within the definition of a "phased action"
which is defined as "two or more projects by the same proposer that the Responsible Governing
Unit ("RGU") determines will have environmental effects on the same geographic area and are
substantially certain to be undertaken sequentially over a limited period of time.". In other
words, there must be the same proposer, same area affected, and timing. Only one and not all of
a group of owners need be involved in both projects ifthat owner's stake is substantial. Guide to
Minnesota Environmental Review Rules, page 3. Here, the CBS and CDG is the same proposer
for the entire project as they filed the PUD application jointly. The land is adjoining and is being
combined in the request for the purposes of meeting the PUD minimum area requirements. For
residential projects, the total number of units potentially buildable on all contiguous land
owned or under an option by the proposer be considered, regardless of whether the whole
3
area or only a part is proposed for immediate development. The land must be zoned or
identified in an adopted comprehensive plan for future residential development. Id. at 4. If
the proposer does not yet have plans for part of the area, the number of units potentially
buildable is calculated from the maximum allowable units per acre under the zoning
ordinance. If the total potential number of units exceeds a mandatory threshold, review is
required for all phases. The review can be staged to coincide with phased development
approvals.
Whether the PUD falls within the connected or phased action definitions, the 22.69 acres
as a whole should be considered as one project for the purposes of determining whether an EA W
is mandatory. Here, CDG proposal is for 46 units which will be a mixed of detached patio
homes, townhomes, and row homes. As a R-4 zoning district, the net housing density is six units
per acre of net buildable area. The total acreage is 12.69. The net buildable acreage is not
determined, but even assuming it is 10 acres, the maximum units allowed would be an additional
60 units, resulting in a total of 106 units. A EA W is mandatory when there are 50 or more
unattached or 75 or more attached units in an unsewered unincorporated area or 100 unattached
units and 150 attached units in the sewered unincorporated area. Of the proposed 46 units, 11
will be single family homes, 19 will be townhouses, and 16 will be oblate. Assuming the CSB
area would be developed similarly, there would be a total of32 single family homes, 38
townhouses, and 32 oblates. The attached units would exceed 75 (38 + 32) and, thus, an EA W is
mandatory.
Environmental review may be deferred if all phased action stages or connected action
components cannot be adequately defined. An EA W must precede approval of each stage or
component deferred for review. Basically, the 12.69 acres owned by CBS and connected to the
immediate development of the CDG parcel can be deferred until it is developed in the future.
Section 4410.1000, Subd. 4 and 4410.2000, Subd. 4. The initial review must describe the
anticipated stages or components to the extent known, providing a general discussion of how
they will likely relate to project impacts. Id.
CONCLUSION
Because CSB and CDG have filed a joint application for a PUD, a map showing all
preliminary plat of the properties' eventual development through all potential phases must be
submitted with the application for the first phase. Furthermore, given the maximum units
buildable on the entire 22.69 acres exceed 75 attached units, an EA W is mandatory.
SECTION II: VARIANCE REQUESTS:
The intended use of the property is for R4 Townhouse/Patio Residential Use. The proposal is for
46 units which will be a mix of detached patio homes, townhomes, and row houses. It will be
platted as a planned community pursuant to the Minnesota Common Interest Community (CIC)
Act. Occupancy of the housing units is intended for persons 55 years old or older. At least 80
percent of the units will be occupied by at least one person who is 55 years old or older.
Patio Homes The proposed plan states that some of the homes may have basements (buyer's
choice). A patio home is defined as "a single-family attached or detached unit constructed on a
separate relatively small lot consisting of a one level living area with open space setbacks on two
(2) sides. CDG and CSB acknowledge that there are restrictions against basements in patio
4
homes. However, it urges the city to allow such basements, or two-story patio homes, under the
special use permit contained at Subd. 3(m) this provides: "uses which in the judgment ofthe
Planning Commission and City Council are similar to those listed in this zoning district".
The permitted uses also include Townhouses and Row houses of not more than two stories each.
Ordinance Section, Subd. 2(b)( c). The developer correctly asserts that there is no restriction
against two story townhouses or row houses, but does not take into account whether such
townhouses or row houses will have basements, thereby creating a three story unit (two stories,
plus a basement). This is contrary to the overall ordinance requirement that no townhouse or row
house be more than two stories.
Density Calculations and Variance ReQuest.
The proposed R-4 area is for ten acres which includes 1.9 acres of right of way, leaving 8.1 acres
of net building area. The ordinance allows for up to six units per acres which would allow for
48.6 units on the 8.1 acres. The development is for 46 units and, thus, meets the density
requirements. Ordinance Section 52.30, Subd. 5(h). However, the maximum dwelling unit
density is to be determined by the area remaining after appropriate space for street right of way,
other public dedications, such as storm water detention ponds, trails and parklands and common
areas have been determined and subtracted from the total PUD area. Ordinance Section 52.09,
Subd. 4(a)(7); 52.30, Subd. 15(h). Excluded from the calculation shall be areas normally not
developable, such as waterways or water bodies, streets, pedestrian facilities, storm water
controls, and placement of public utilities. Id. The only deduction accounted for in the plan is
for right of ways.
The application further states that the density proposal is reasonable because the proposed
development will be an age restricted development primarily for households with at least one
person 55 years or older; and the buyers are going to be persons not interested in maintaining
yards. Their alleged target population is primarily "empty nesters" who prefer high density
developments with minimal yard work.
Minimum Lot Area ReQuirements.
The proposal does not address the lot area requirements. For PUDs, the building height and
corresponding setback requirements are governed by the requirements of the underlying zoning
district classification. Ordinance Section 52.09, Subd. 4(a)(5).
Patio homes and townhouses or row houses have different minimum lot area requirements. The
ordinance provides as follows:
Minimum lot area
Lot width
Lot depth
Detached patio homes:
Townhouses or row houses
(per unit)
6,000
4,000
60
75
100
120
Section 52.30, Subd. 5(g)
According to the plat, the proposed development includes:
5
11 patio homes
16 row house units
19 townhouse units
Total Square feet required:
66,000 minimum square feet (6,000 xlI)
64,000 minimum square feet (4,000 x 16)
76.000 minimum square feet (4,000 x 19)
206,000
If they have 6.1 net buildable acres, they will have a total of265,716 square feet (6.1 x 43,560
square feet per acre). However, the plans do not set aside cornmon useable open space
comprising of landscaping and facilities and areas containing significant trees, which must be
deducted from the total lot area in determining whether the minimum lot area requirement is met.
Ordinance Section 52.30, Subd 15(h). The plans do not take these areas into consideration. The
plans contain insufficient information and data to determine whether or not the density capacity
as required by the ordinance is met.
Setbacks Variance Requests
Front Yard. Townhouses, patio homes and row houses all have a 30 foot front yard setback
requirement. The plat proposes a 16 foot front yard setback from the front of the attached
porches. The garages are consistently set back at least 30 feet from the street. This requires a
variance for a 53 percent decrease in the front yard ordinance set back requirements. The
required yard setbacks shall not be reduced in PUDs. Ordinance Section 52.09, Subd. 9(b)(3).
Side Yard. Patio homes and row houses all have a 20 foot street side yard set back requirement.
The plat generally conforms to this requirement except some homes on the comer lots may be
closer than the 20 foot street requirement if a side or comer porch feature is included. The
applications claims the enclosed portions ofthe home comply with the 20 foot setback, however,
the plat shows several corner homes being only 18 or 19 feet from the side street. With the porch
feature, the side yard setback run between 10 and 12 feet from the street. For townhomes and
row homes, the side yard set back requirement is 25 feet. In reviewing the proposed plat, it
appears that only patio homes occupy the comer lots. This requires a variance for roughly a 50
percent decrease in the front yard ordinance set back requirements for corner lots which attached
porch features. The required yard setbacks shall not be reduced in PUDs. Ordinance Section
52.09, Subd 9(b)(3).
Rear Yard. Townhouses, patio homes, and row houses all have a 20 foot rear yard set back
requirement. The application states that no rear yard setback requirement is met on any lot. It
claims the actual rear yard setbacks vary from 18 feet around the common area to 11 feet facing
the athletic fields. eSB and eDG claims this variance is reasonable because the units having the
shortest rear yard setbacks (11 or 12 feet) adjoin the property owned by CSB and face the
common area lot that will be a part of the eIe plat. This requires a variance for about 10 percent
on all of the units, except those running along the south development line, which would require a
variance of between 55 and 60 percent. The required yard setbacks shall not be reduced in
PUDs. Ordinance Section 52.09, Subd 9(b)(3).
In addition, town homes require a minimum lot depth of 120 feet. The average lot depth is 105
feet, with some being 100 foot lots and others varying from 110 to 115 feet in size. This requires
a variance for between 5 and 17 percent. The minimum lot size as required in an R -4 resident
zoning district may only be reduced by up to 15 percent. The required yard setbacks shall not be
reduced in PUDs. Ordinance Section 52.09, Subd 9 (b)(1).
6
It does not appear that the development would meet the requirements for a variance under the
zoning ordinance. This is undeveloped land with no unique features. Accordingly, the proposal
does not justify a variance. The developer is in essence asking the City to amend the zoning
ordinance through variances. This is not proper.
Gara!!es and Parkin!!
Garages have the same set back requirements as the principal dwelling, as stated above. It
appears from the plat that the garages meet all of these requirements and that no variances would
be necessary in this regard. In addition, the ordinance requires that each dwelling unit shall be
provided with a minimum of two parking spaces, one of which shall be in an attached garage.
Section 52.30, Subd. 8. It appears that all of the patio homes have an attached two car garage,
which satisfies this requirement. The total 35 townhouse and row house units all have a one car
garage, meeting the requirement of one parking spot being in an attached garage. The
development must provide for an additional 35 parking spaces under the ordinance. The plat
also shows 16 surface parking spaces, or 19 short of the ordinance requirement. Off-street
parking in a PUD shall be provided in the same ratios for types of buildings and uses as required
in the underlying zoning district. Ordinance Section 52.09, Subd. 4(a)(8). The City may reduce
the number of parking spaces in commercial districts provided the PUD applicants submit
information demonstrating a reduced need for parking facilities pursuant to a special use permit.
fd. There is no similar deviation in off-street parking for residential zoning districts.
Miscellaneous
Finally, they are seeking to develop the property in three stages, but there is no fixed proposed
timeline provided for in the application. 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 to
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.
The ordinance also provides that where more than one principal use building is to be located
upon the same site, the separation between buildings shall not be less than forty feet. Ordinance
Section 52.30, Subd. 7 (h). There is no indication on the plat as to whether this requirement is
met.
Finally, the ordinance requires for shelter in the event of severe weather for each dwelling unit in
the form of the construction of a free-standing severe weather structure, a reinforced concrete
safe room within each dwelling unit and/or basement/crawl space sufficient to house four adults
per dwelling unit. If the patio homes, or two story townhouses or row houses are not developed
with basements, this requirement might want to be explored to ensure it is met. Ordinance
Section 52.30, Subd. 7(k).
7
~
SEH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Judy Weyrens, City Administrator
City of St. Joseph
FROM:
Randy Sabart, PE
City Engineer
DATE:
September 26, 2007
RE:
St. Joseph, Minnesota
Village at CSB
Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan Review
SEH No. A-STJOE 0801 D76
I reviewed the preliminary grading and utility plans dated August 27,2007, and have the following
comments:
Utilities
1. Illustrate the proposed sewer and water main sizes on Callaway Street. Add two gate valves on
Callaway Street at each water main branch into the subdivision.
2. Terminate the sanitary sewer on centerline on Callaway Street west ofMH-6 at a manhole.
Extend sewer and water stubs south out of the pavement and past the trail a suitable distance to
prevent future street and trail disturbance.
3. Maintain the maximum sewer depth from MH-6 to MH-3. Extend sanitary sewer and water stubs
to the south plat line south ofMH-3 to serve the future CSB concession/locker facilities.
Considering the potential depth ofthe sanitary sewer and the proposed "tight" corridor, it would
be desirable to maintain a 66-foot wide right-of-way and observe the required setbacks. Future
excavation of the sanitary sewer will potentially be more challenging considering the proximity
of the proposed building pads.
4. Illustrate the proposed sanitary sewer and water main locations to service Lot 1, Block 2.
5. Illustrate the proposed sewer and water service locations. Each unit shall be served by individual
sewer and water services.
6. Sanitary sewer manhole MH-1 appears to be deeper than necessary. Review and revise
accordingly.
7. Extend MH-2 further east to serve the last unit at the southeast corner of the subdivision with less
encroachment to the neighboring unit to the west. Adjust locations ofMH-3 through MH-4
accordingly.
8. Dedicate a public drainage and utility easement for the storm sewer outfall to the pond in
conformance with Ordinance 54.16 Subd. 5c.
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 1200 25th Avenue South, P.O. Box 1717, St. Cloud, MN 56302-1717 /
SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.comI320.229.4300 I 800.572.0617 I 320.229.4301 fax
Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan Review
September 26, 2007
Page 2
9. Center the storm sewer outfall pipes between the housing units at the southeast comer of Pond
1P.
10. The suitability of the proposed storm sewer connection at CR 121 should be reviewed and
accepted by the Steams County Highway Department. Submit documentation of Steams County's
acceptance. Verify the pipe diameter of the storm sewer on CR 121. The plans indicate a 24-inch
pipe, the County's design documents suggest an 18-inch pipe is present.
Streets and Grading
11. Submit architectural character documentation (dimensions, elevations, etc.) for proposed building
units.
12. Submit pavement design information. At a minimum, the aggregate base thickness shall match
the Callaway Street thickness (7 inches).
13. Illustrate street and driveway grades. Illustrate pond identification numbers and the high water
and normal water levels.
14. Construct driveways at Callaway Street with concrete aprons.
15. Align pedestrian crossings perpendicularly with the pavement (near Lot 1, Block 2).
16. Update MnlDOT Specification referencestoihe-bituminous-pavementmix--designs-iHustrated-on -
the Typical Section.
17. The Planning Commission should review and establish any development screening requirements
for the abutting rear-yard lots of Graceview Estates.
18. Adjust the pad elevation for the southeastern-most unit to maintain at least the minimum 2 feet of
vertical separation requirements from the pond high water level and the lowest opening (also see
comment 22).
19. Adjust pad elevations to accommodate a 6-inch vertical grade separation within the first 10 feet
ofthe house pad and maintain minimum 2 percent yard grades (see house pads on the corners of
Lot 1, Block 1).
20. Grade drainage swales along the east line of Outlot A. Illustrate the proposed contours.
21. ClarifY the scope of reconstruction of Callaway Street. Illustrate the proposed street grades.
22. The driveway lengths (10 feet) for the northern unit on Lot 1, Block 2 are not long enough to park
a typical vehicle without overhang. Revise the off-street parking lot to comply with Ordinance
84.08 (example: aisle width).
23. The narrative suggests some units may have basements. Illustrate the potential lowest level
elevation and lowest opening for these units. Demonstrate compliance with the pond vertical
separation requirements.
Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan Review
September 26,2007
Page 3
24. Verify run-off is not trapped or diverted into the adjacent yard at southeast corner of subdivision.
Plat
25. Adjust radius of temporary cul-de-sac right-of-way to comply with Ordinance 54.16 Subd. 31.
26. Revise several setback requirements for the R-4 zoning district that are not met.
27. Confirm compliance with the following ordinance provisions:
a. 52.09 Subd. 3.b.2.A.
b. 52.09 Subd. 4.a.2.
c. 52.09 Subd. 4.a.8.
d. 52.30 Subd. 5 and 6
e. 52.30 Subd. 7.k.1.
f. 52.30 Subd. 8
General
28. Submit preliminary lighting and signage plan.
Enclosure
djg
c: Dick Taufen, City of St. Joseph (w/enclosure)
Ron Wasmund, Inspectron Inc. (w/enclosure)
p:\pt\s\stjoe\common\d76_cdg.callaway\m.city prelim grading rev-092607.doc
Judy Weyrens
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cynthia 8m ith-Strack M DG, Inc. [cstrack@mu nicipaldevelopmentgrou p. com]
Wednesday, September 19,20074:46 PM
Judy Weyrens
Comments on "village at C8B"
Hi~
Here are a few comments re: the 121 development.
1. PUD to consist of 22.6-acre development. Collegeville Communities is proposing to develop
ten acres. The remainder to be retained by College of St.
Benedict. We must have ghost plat for remaining 12.6 acres and any other abutting property
under ownership of other party so as to determine maximum scope of project so as to determine
whether a mandatory EAW is required.
2. One of the applicant's Collegeville Communities suggests be allowed to retain flexibility
of final floor plan. Applicant notes they may choose to build detached patio homes, townhomes
of one and two stories in height, some with basements, some without. The footprint of each
dwelling will "average 1000 to 1400 sf not including a garage. This type of (flexibility~
would appear to be problematic in that it could alter grading/drainage requirements.
3. The applicant is proposing 46 units consisting of: 11 single family units, 19 town home
units and 16 "oblate". The term (oblate~ needs additional clarification as to intent of use.
4. Proposed subdivision appears to meet the density requirements~ subject to further
definition as described in #4 above.
5. Under the single family PUD requirements~ setbacks must be achieved for each lot. Setbacks
vary by density in the R-4 District but must be: 30~ front~ 20~ in rear~ 10' interior (except
for detached units) and 20~ street side yard. PUD ordinance doesn't allow for variance to
setbacks. Lot depth for townhomes doesn~t meet ordinance requirement of 120~. Under the PUD
lot width requirement may be reduced by up to 10% provided an area similar to the aggregate
area for which relief is afforded is provided in the form of open space~ tree preservation
and/or natural area preservation.
6. PUD standards requires a major internal street within the PUD connect to either a minor
arterial or collector street. As proposed without ghost plat the development appears to not
meet the standard.
7. The development centers on senior living in connection with the (ollege of St. Benedict.
Presumably those living within the development will be attending events at the College and
are within walking distance. Facilitation of safe pedestrianways and crossings of major
streets remains a concern.
8. (IC (planned community) requires covenants be submitted to City for review.
9. The narrative states the dwellings will have ('pitched roofs and attractive details such as
porches or window boxes". Same renderings of what is proposed would be beneficial.
10. Variance requires a finding of 'undue hardship~ that is (unique to property~. This
appears to be difficult to establish since parcel consists of bare land at the moment and it
is difficult to establish how the property owner is deprived of rights commonly afforded to
owners of property in similar classification.
1
11. Have prov1s1ons for bus transit service been contemplated. It seems reasonable that since
the demand for parking is perceived to be less that the demand for bus service would
increase. Consideration should be given for accommodation of Tri-Cap vans and buses.
12. Access to <oblate' housing seems to be by common driveway. Driveway width is not
illustrated. Since this is presumed to include a measure care for aged, will emergency
vehicles be able to gain access to the site thru driveway?
Cynthia Smith-Strack
Municipal Development Group, Inc.
888-7MDG-INC (toll free)
952-758-7399 (Metro)
888-763-4462 (fax)
25562 Willow Lane
New Prague, MN 56071
www.municioaldeveloomentgrouo.com
2