Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08-08W'WW.Gtyof stjoseph.com CITY OF ST. JOSEPH St. Joseph Planning Commission September 8, 2008 7:00 PM /-administrator 1. Call to Order ~udy Weyrens 2. Approval of the Agenda Mayor 3. Minutes -August 4, 2008 AI Rassier 4. 7:00 PM Public Hearing, Interim Use Permit Councilors Michael Patnode - 117 4`h Avenue SE Steve Frank Rick Schultz 5. 7:05 PM Public Hearing, Interim Use Permit Renee Symanietz Crystal Hughes & Pok Ye Hughes - 415 7`h Avenue SE Dale ~UU ick 6. 7:10 PM College of St. Benedict -Zoning Amendment 7. 7:15 PM Interim Use Permit Renewal Ryan Lieser, 403 -15L Avenue NE William Capecchi, 209 East MN Street Thomas Ortman, 308 -10`h Avenue SE 8. 7:20 PM Sarah Pennings, Graceview Coalition 9. 7:35 PM S & H Partnership, Graceview Estates 2 a. PUD Amendment b. Special Use Permit 10. Adjourn zs College Avenue North PO Box 668 Saint ~oseph, Minnesota 56374 phone 3zo.363.7zo1 Fax 3zo.363.o34a ST. JOSEPH CITY COUNCIL September 8, 2008 FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS NAME 1. ~~ .-~ 4. ADDRESS // /~U/TGi Cdr ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ,~ a g ~ ~-..-.~ r ~'"~ ~ F 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. .~~~~~~- ~ w: . , ,.. !~ i.a "'a .... ~ t, s~.j ~ ~ g~ `'~e e`er, ... /~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ 21. C[T~' pF s~r. Jt~N PH Council Agenda Item 3 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: September 8, 2008 Minutes -August 4, 2008 Administration Approve the minutes of August 4, 2008 PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Draft Minutes, August 4, 2008 REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Approve the minutes of August 4, 2008 August 4, 2008 Page 1 of 9 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, August 4, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Kathleen Kalinowski, Commissioners Ross Rieke, Mike McDonald, Mike Deutz, Mark Andersen, John Meyer, and Dale Wick, City Administrator Judy Weyrens Citv Representatives Present: City Engineer Randy Sabart, City Attorney Tom Jovanovich Others Present: Anastasia Gregg, Lana Gregg, Sarah Pennings, John Gregg, David Marquart, Heather Marquart, Mike Sand, Scott Nolan, Lisa Nolan, Josh Wimmer, Jason Abraham, Kristi Bartkowicz, Dustin Hochhalter, Angie Valkers, Jen Steinkamp, Katie Guerrero, Linda Butenhoff, Nathan Hackenson, Mike Klassen, Nikki Klassen, Jeff Tesch, Judy Meyer, Marty Meyer, Tom Gustafson, Ryan Pekarek, Katie Hultquist, Tom Hickey, Linda Brown, Dave LeSage, Mark Hultquist, Corey Gerads, Jake Rorabeck, Brian Shields, Kayla B, Eric Meyer, Donna Kellerman, Heidi R, Paul Fletcher, Kris Haugen, Traci Haugen, Nick Schmitz, LaNae Cobb, April Tesch, Ray Kellerman, Leon Conradson, Linda Conradson, Aaron Knutilla A enda: Deutz made a motion to approve the agenda with the addition of an update on the conservation training. The motion was seconded by Andersen and passed unanimously. Minutes: McDonald made a motion to approve the minutes with the following corrections: • Add Meyer as being present • Page 3: Non Conforming Use: Weyrens presented the amendme t to the Planning Commission rather than the Council. The motion was seconded by Wick and passed rceitn tisenschenk, Reconsideration of Interim Use requesting authorization to operate a re it at a portion of his property to help all ina ial r Craig's List for a renter an cei d a ons~ purchase the home in i s tl he had to live at the pro rty as ce th house, beginning with th asem it: enk ap ached the Commissioners 's la He stated at he is requesting to rent h ore, in April he decided to advertise on m s who offered him adown-payment to he agreed to the terms with the understanding that tenant has put several dollars into fixing up the McDonald stated that he d st the home recently and it looks much better than it did prior to the Public Hearing. He stated that they were concerned about the appearance of the home at that time and questioned some of the responses to the questions on the application. McDonald stated that he is satisfied that the property is owner occupied and appreciated the efforts to correct the outside lawn/storage issues. Eisenschenk stated that they re-landscaped the property in part for aesthetics and in part to resolve drainage issues. With regard to cars parked on the street, since they were working in the basement, all the furniture and belongs were stored in the garage. As soon as the basement is finished the parking concerns will be alleviated. Meyer made a motion to recommend Council approval of the Interim Use Permit for Keith Eisenschenk at 1306 Iris Lane NE to operate an owner occupied rental. The motion was seconded by McDonald. Discussion: Wick questioned how far the property is from the house on the west side. Eisenschenk stated that it is approximately 12' from the house to the property line. Andersen questioned whether or not he could vote on this matter as he knows the renter. Weyrens advised Andersen that he had to determine whether or not that would result in a conflict of interest. Wick questioned whether Eisenschenk signed the affidavit of residency verifying that he lives in the home to which he stated he had. The motion passed unanimously. August 4, 2008 Page 2 of 9 Public Hearing -Interim Use Permit. 1141 ~` Avenue SE: Kalinowski opened the public hearing and stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider an Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental in an R-1 Single-Family Zoning District. The property is legally described as Lot 4, Block 3, Loso's 2nd Addition. 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 it 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 all owners must occupy the property as their principal residence. The owners may not exceed two in number. For purposes of determining ownership, the owner/owners must provide a copy of a recorded deed or recorded contract for deed. A purchase agreement will not be accepted as evidence of ownership. Ryan Pekarek, 114 1~ Avenue SE, St. Joseph, MN 56374 has submitted the request for Interim Use. Pekarek approached the Commissioners and stated that he and his brother purchased the home in August 2007. Since then, he has purchased the home from his brother as Contract for Deed and is now 100% owner. He stated that, currently, he is the only one living there and he has been working to maintain/upkeep the property. He is requesting the Interim Use Permit to have some friends live with him. Kalinowski opened the Public Hearing. Delbert Collett, 116 1S~Avenue SE, approached the Commissioners and s stated that he has been a good neighbor so far. He questioned ho home. Weyrens advised him that he would be allowed two r e als would remain a rental unit if the home was ever sold to whi a was advise non-transferrable. He concluded by stating that, so he is d of ~ Mary Nierengarten, 110 1~ Avenue high of Pe rek as well a good neighbor so far and t she pes an u li in the ho Nierengarten, he has be idng by ity Ordinance highly of Mr. Pekarek. He nters he could have in the uestioned whether the home that the rental license is ekarek. . She stated that he has been me. According to 's. Dan Nierengarten, 110 venu E, proached the Commissioners and stated that, so far, Mr. Pekarek seems quiet an 'endl e a ed that they have been working hard to get the property fixed up and adhere to all City The public hearing was closed at 7:15 PM. Kalinowski stated that it is a pleasure to hear positive support from the neighbors. Deutz added that the brother could live in the home as well based on the definition of family. Deutz made a motion to recommend Council approval of the Interim Use Permit for Ryan Pekarek at 11418` Avenue SE to operate an owner occupied rental. The motion was seconded by Andersen and passed unanimously. Conservation Training: Weyrens stated that she has been contacted by the consultant who will be providing the conservation training as discussed in July. At that meeting the Planning Commission agreed to participate in the training provided it was pertinent to St. Joseph. Weyrens stated that the training will be based on urban settings. The Planning Commission requested that the training include examples of Cities the size of St. Joseph. Weyrens stated that dates for the training have not yet been set, but they are planning for the middle of October. The training will be held during the day and those attending will receive per diem. August 4, 2008 Page 3 of 9 Public Hearing -Interim Use Permit. 510 Fir Street: Weyrens stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider an Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental in an R-1 Single-Family Zoning District. The property is legally described as Lot 7, Block 1, Northland Plat 4. 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 it 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 all owners must occupy the property as their principal residence. The owners may not exceed two in number. For purposes of determining ownership, the owner/owners must provide a copy of a recorded deed or recorded contract for deed. A purchase agreement will not be accepted as evidence of ownership. Katherine Hultquist, 510 Fir Street, St. Joseph, MN 56374 has submitted the request for Interim Use. Hultquist approached the Commissioners with respect to her request. She stated that he originally purchased the home four years ago along with her sister. Since then, her sister has moved away and has signed a quit claim deed making her 100% owner. She is requesting the Interim Use Permit to allow her to have renters to help with the mortgage. The hearing was opened and closed at 7:20 PM as there was no one present wishing to speak. Andersen stated that recently, he noticed that the house was up for sale and questioned whether it was still on the market. Hultquist stated that her first choice was to sell the ho tit will be off the market on August 18. Andersen stated that it seems to be a nice house an s to be kept up nicely. Kalinowski questioned whether Hultquist is a student to whic ated is not. Andersen made a motion to recommend Coun pro Interi se Permit for Katherine Hultquist at 510 Fir Street to operate a ner 'ed al. The mot was seconded by Meyer and passed unanimously. Public Hearin - Annu I Pe its: Kali owski opened the public hearing and stated the purpose of the hea is to r e o upied Interim Use Permits and allow affect property owners discuss the imp of the to its. McDonald questioned Weyrens as to how the applications for renewal of interim use rmits re livered. Weyrens advised the Commissioners that they were delivered via postal mail a ut in the middle of July and were to be returned to City Hall. She questioned how the Commi sinners would like to handle those that were not returned. Weyrens stated that the purpose of the application was to have the property owner sign an affidavit stating that they do live there (if necessary) and to be able to track ownership requirements. McDonald then questioned the Interim Use Permit for Patrick Conway, 35 2"d Avenue SE. It was brought to the attention of the Commissioners that he no longer lives in the home, but has been renting. McDonald stated that he was looking at the tax records for this property on the Stearns County Website and found that in 2006, the home was listed as a homestead property and then in 2007 and 2008, it changed to non-homestead. Weyrens advised the Commissioners that the Police have done some investigation and found that he is no longer living there. Deutz stated that the homestead classification may have changed when he filed homestead for a different property. McDonald questioned how many others are renting in the home and not living there. Weyrens replied that the City is currently investigating the same at 308 10th Avenue SE. Weyrens stated that the application for renewal of the interim use permit also shows any violations or complaints that have been received at each address. One condition of the granting of the Interim Use Permits is that they must be in compliance with the Ordinances. McDonald questioned who would be responsible for creating a matrix for violations for rental properties, the City Council or the Planning Commission.. Weyrens stated that City Staff is currently working on a matrix for ordinance violations. She added that the City is considering imposing a fine on those properties who receive a notice for weed August 4, 2008 Page 4 of 9 cutting. Deutz questioned whether that could be done by administrative fines. According to Weyrens, it would be an administrative fine. It seems as it is the same properties every year that receive the weed notices. Deutz added that it should be a collaborative effort between all parties, both City and affected property owners, to review the proposed matrix. Kalinowski opened the Public Hearing for the annual review of Interim Use Permits. Deutz stepped down. With no one wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:30 PM. Rieke stated that there are four applications that were not received. Weyrens identified them as: • Patrick Conway, 35 2"~ Avenue SE • Timothy Ortmann, 308 10th Avenue SE • Ryan Lieser, 403 1~`Avenue NE • William Capecchi, 209 Minnesota Street E Weyrens suggested that these applicants be given a notice that they have an additional 30 days to apply for the renewal of their Interim Use Permit. McDonald stated that they should also be made aware of the consequences such as eviction of tenants ff they do not re-apply. McDonald questioned how the Commissioners want to handle those that have had weed violations. Wick stated that, in his opinion, weed notices should not prevent them from r their license as they were taken care of by the property owners. McDonald disagreed ands he lawn cutting is one of those items that cause a home to not blend into a residenti g. This a of violation is upsetting to the adjoining property owners. Meyer made a motion and seconded Don pp a ~` Interim Use Permit renewals as to vel i r • Mike Bader 10 th A e N • Brian Shields 1 iv • Linda Hutchin venu • Dale Schneider 4 C e Avenue N • Bryce Deter Jasmine Lane • Student Housing 30 Birch Street E • Jake Rorabeck 221 Birch Street W • Tom Dullinger 34 College Avenue N • Student Housing 119 College Avenue N Discussion: Andersen questioned whether all issues relating to the Rorabeck property have been resolved. Weyrens stated that they did reduce the number of tenants to abide by City Ordinance. This summer there were some questions relating to residency, but that has been resolved as Rorabeck is living in the home. McDonald stated that he understands the concerns of the neighbors as this is a residential area and should be maintained as such. Rieke questioned whether or not future applicants will be required to complete an affidavit of residency along with their application. Weyrens replied that it will be included with their application. Based on the application for renewal for Mike Bader, it was unclear as to whether or not he was living there as the address was not filled in. Weyrens stated that he is living there and is only required to be 50% owner in the property. the follow g applications for future violations: The motion passed unanimously. August 4, 2008 Page 5 of 9 Deutz returned to his seat. Weyrens stated that she will provide notice to those that have not yet returned their renewal applications that the Planning Commission will act on them at their next meeting. Rieke questioned whether it should be approached in that way or if they should be notified that their permit has expired. Weyrens stated that she will advise them that their Interim Use Permits have expired and they have 30 days to bring the property into compliance. McDonald made a motion to notify those property owners who did not re-apply for their Interim Use Permit that their permit has expired and that they will have the opportunity to return the required application for renewal for consideration at the next Planning Commission Meeting. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Public Hearin4 - S 8~ H Partnership: Kalinwoski called the hearing to order and stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the following: 1) Amendment to the Graceview Estates PURD approved in 2001; 2) Special Use Permit and PURD to allow the construction of two apartment buildings with a total of 75 units, two -four plexes and one -duplex Weyrens stated the original hearing notice included a request to Rezone the subject parcel from R1 Single Family to R3 Multiple Family. The proposed development site is legally described as Outlot A; Gracevie ates 2. The PURD Amendment, Zoning Amendment, PURD and Special Use Permit a ns have been submitted by S&H Partnership, 229 5`h Avenue S, Suite 101, St. Cloud, M Weyrens provided the Commissioners with some b roun to the oposed project. She stated that this project was started in 2001. This s origi art ife cycle ho 'ng project which contained a mix of single family ho ent tc a inat concept plan was approved in April 2002. This site contains a to of 9 cres wa oved as a PURD Development. The developers have been 's 20 Weyre s added that since this was approved in 2001, the Ordinances f 2001 u emai ct. Jovanovich added that this area was platted as a PURD which would alto r mixe s 'n a residential area where there is a large tract of land. At that time, there was only one 'nt of ' res gress and that was 7`h Avenue SE. At that time, they talked about an access to CR12 as a possible access to the South where the Field Street is located. When the plan was originally approved in 2002, the Council approved a mix of single-family homes (R1) and townhouses (R2) as well as a couple of apartment buildings. Originally, they proposed to construct 80 apartment units and 18 townhomes. The current plan consists of 75 apartment units and 10 townhomes, which is less density than what was originally approved. Weyrens stated that the proposed development would be called Graceview Estates 4. She stated that rezoning would not be necessary as a PURD allows for this type of project. Sabart spoke to the commissioners with respect to traffic volumes. He stated that streets are classified based on their functions and the balance between access and mobility. The City's Transportation Plan identified 4"' Avenue SE as a collector roadway. In 2001, he stated that there was some concern about a connection between 4"' Avenue and CR121. According to Sabart, the following scenarios are being reviewed: • Traffic generated today • Current traffic flows with the addition of the proposed development • Consideration of a full-build out of Graceview Estates • Consideration of a full-build out with the connection to "Field Street" Weyrens stated that she received a petition last Friday and it has been distributed to the Commissioners August 4, 2008 Page 6 of 9 Linda Brown (Bonestroo) spoke to the Commissioners on behalf of the developer, S & H Partnership. She stated that in 2002 the Planning Commission and City Council approved the PURD for Graceview Estates. They are now requesting an amendment as well as a Special Use Permit. The amendment is being requested to allow for the following: • Original Proposal: (1) 10 plex & (1) 8 plex Total 18 units • Current Proposal: (2) 4 plex & (1) duplex Total 10 units The current proposal would have a decrease in density. They are proposing that the ten unit structures be one story townhomes and that they be sold individually. The open space would be owned by an association that would be responsible for maintaining the property. They would designate easements to allow for access to the storm water ponds. The Special Use Permit is being requested to allow for the following: • 1 apartment building consisting of (40) units and (18) tuck-under garages • 1 apartment building consisting of (35) units and (14) tuck-under garages • There would be a total of 23 garages on site as well Brown stated that each building would have elevators inside. She stated that they have proposed to construct a community center between the two buildings as well as have a courtyard between and a work-out room. According to Brown, the proposed breakdown for each building is as fol Building A Buildino B 16 1 BR Units 11 20 2 BR Units 17 4 3 BR Units 6 In reviewing the Ordinances, she s a ey a th ensity calculations, have meet the building requirements and a us ce r irem d all setbacks as well. Jovanovich questioned Brown as t ui is he stated the current maximum height is 40'. The public hearing was ned at 15 Renee Symanietz, 354 4"' a SE, approached the commissioners and spoke in opposition to the proposed development consisting of apartments and townhomes. She questioned how traffic will be routed during the construction? She also stated that there are already multi-family units in this development. According to Symanietz, the residents were unaware that this was a proposed concept for this area and the development will have a negative impact on housing values in the area. Besides Field Street, she questioned whether or not there were any other viable options for re-directing traffic. Sabart stated that the Field road could be used for emergency vehicles. Weyrens stated that currently, the City is working on platting the road known as Field Street. Sarah Pennings, 346 4~"Avenue SE, addressed the following concerns that she, as well as some of the neighbors, have concerning the proposed development: • Safety of Road -The roads in Graceview Estates are very curvy and narrow • Proximity to schools and daycares • Is there really a need in St. Joseph for more rental properties? Pennings stated that she feels that St. Joseph is no longer a good place to raise a family; rather it is a cheap place to live. LaNae Cobb, 333 4~"Avenue SE, also approached the Commissioners in opposition to the proposed development. She stated that she is concerned about traffic flow and safety. She said this type of development just doesn't make sense in this area. August 4, 2008 Page 7 of 9 Don Fisher, 235 4~h Avenue SE, spoke to the Commissioners in opposition as well. He stated that he is concerned about the honesty of the developers. He stated that Rick Heid built his home and he was not advised about this being a concept for this area. He would like to see a reduction in size and height. Fischer suggested asking the College of St. Benedict to sell the developer additional land for the project. Ray Kellerman, 350 4~h Avenue SE, another resident in opposition to the proposed development, stated that his big concern is that of crime. In his opinion, rental properties generally bring increased crime. He stated that he is against an apartment building being constructed in that area. He stated that he was not informed of the plans for an apartment building in that area and, had he known, he would not have built his home. Judy Meyer, 343 4~"Avenue SE, approached the Commissioners and expressed her concerns relating to the proposed development. Meyer stated that when the original plans were approved in 2001/2002, the City did not have a PUD Ordinance. When they built their home, they were aware of the single-family homes and townhomes. In those types of housing markets, she stated that the residents take ownership and pay property taxes. She questioned whether those renting these apartments will care. She stated that she would hope that the developers would care about the concerns of the residents. She questioned what will happen to these apartments once the residency requirements change at the College. According to Meyer, she cannot believe that this type of development was approved in 2001/2002. Linda ButenhofiF, 514 Ellie Ct, stated that, she too, is in opposition to the proposed development. She stated that their development is full of children, dogs, cats, etc and the kid outside all the time. Graceview Estates, in her opinion, is a young residential communit . is too much traffic in that area already and the speeds are too fast. Butenhoff stated that s to ra her family in St. Joseph because of the good schools and the type of community th t. Joseph ha offer. Josh Wimmer, 450 Elena Lane, approac the C ion o state his osition to the project as well. He stated that he takes his ki ver a d t e is enough traffic now. They plan to have more children and he i orri bout saf en in that area. He also believes that, due to the constructio m , t it grope y values will decrease and they will not be successful in selling th home ' e ould to do so. Wimmer concluded by stating that this type of development does no eet th ne Dave LeSage, 457 Elena geared before the Commissioners as well to state his concern about the proposed development. a stated that he recently moved into the area and chose St. Joseph because he figured it would be a great family area. He was never told of these plans and questioned why the plat never showed this area as R3. He stated that he has lived in a duplex in Chicago in the past and knows that renters do not take care of the property. Katie Guerrero, 455 Elena Lane, addressed the Commissioners with respect to the proposed development. She stated that they are currently trying to sell their home and this type of development will not help. She stated that she has seen rental properties first hand and they are not kept up. According to Guerrero, the neighbors in Graceview Estates have a family atmosphere and they feel that they will lose that with the construction of the proposed apartments. Ray Kellerman, 350 4~n Avenue SE, approached the Commissioners again. He gave examples of the declining housing markets in other areas of the Country and stated that as property values decrease and people owe more than it is worth, they will begin to walk away from their homes. Tate Viere, 403 Elena Lane, addressed the Commissioners to state his opposition to the proposed multi- family development. Viere. stated that he has looked at the other apartments in town and they do not look good. When questioned about the Boulder Ridge complex, he stated that they are still new and in a few years, they will have the same type of appearance. He added that he is concerned about the increase in crime due to the construction of the apartments as well as the increase in traffic. Viere added that when August 4, 2008 Page 8 of 9 this original concept plan was approved, there were no homes built yet and when he built his home, this information was not disclosed to him. He questioned who is responsible for disclosing this information and stated that he intends to contact his realtor regarding this issue. The public hearing was closed at 8:45 PM. Anderson stated that he lives on 4th Avenue north of Baker Street. He recalls that when the first phase of Graceview was being constructed, the traffic was horrendous. People will always take the most direct route which in this case means taking Hwy 75 to 4th Avenue. He understands what the residents are saying and, he too, is against the project. Many of the residents made comments relating to renters and Anderson stated that one should not place judgment on renters. It is up to the management company to keep the property in good condition. McDonald, too, was disappointed in how these residents characterized renters. He stated that, for many, renting is a stepping stone to purchasing a home. Rieke asked for clarification on the previous actions regarding this proposed development as it seems as if it were very well documented. Jovanovich stated that this area was zoned as a PURD and they are allowed to build on what was planned in 2002. He has reviewed the previous ordinances from when this was approved and it appears that the height restrictions were 35' or 2'/z stories. The current plan shows a 3 story building (40') which does not meet the previous ordinance restrictions. He stated that if they plan to abide by the current ordinances rather than those of 2002, the area would require rezoning. As a result, he stated that this plan is premature at this time. McDonald questioned whether or not the holding ponds can be used in th ation for the percentage of building coverage or impervious surface. Wick questioned how mu tion the City has with respect to barriers. Jovanovich responded that the City and Develop agree some reasonable negotiations with respect to barriers. He then stated that th roblem is not barriers; rather the height of the structure as it cannot exceed 35' or 2'/Z stori eut ed wh er a part of the building could be buried? ...~. Jovanovich reminded the co issi rs of 60 ~. Weyrens suggested that they extend that by 60 days as the d rm on befo a approving or denying the request of the developer. Deutz made a motion to end a 6i~tlay Land Use ruling to allow for the developer to provide additional information w imum of 120 days from the date of application. The motion was seconded by Meyer. Discussion: Deutz questioned exactly what information the Planning Commission is looking for. Weyrens stated that they are looking for information relating to the building proposal vs. the 2002 Ordinances as well as additional buffer information. Wick questioned whether additional apartments are needed in St. Joseph as well as the traffic patterns and what roads are needed for this development to occur. Meyer stated that they need to increase the number of trees on the property, as 7 trees are not enough. Based on comments made by several residents, McDonald stated that it was the responsibility of the property owners to find out what the future plans were for the vacant lots. He added that if Field Street is constructed, it would add additional traffic along Elena Lane. McDonald continued by stating that if a developer wants to construct this type of housing, it is their decision as to whether or not they want to invest the money. Many of the neighbors were stating that their property values would decrease based on the construction of the apartments in their area. McDonald stated that he researched some of the property values for the homes near the Boulder Ridge Apartments and found that many of them increased by the same percentages. To state that their property values will fall based on the proposed development is an unscientific assumption. August 4, 2008 Page 9 of 9 Anderson reminded the commissioners that the residents are very concerned about the proposed development. He questioned what other alternatives there may be besides the apartment buildings. Brown stated that previously, the plan was approved for the construction of the two buildings similar to what they are proposing. The motion passed unanimously. Wick made a motion to table action on the proposed development until it is brought back to the Commissioners for consideration. The motion was seconded by Rieke. Discussion: McDonald stated that although the overall parking requirements have been met, the current parking plan does not meet the parking requirements for the construction of Phase One alone. He also stated his concern about the lighting and stated that they should not be directed towards the homes. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned by consensus. Judy Weyrens Administrator crrvoFtiT.~[1.SEPH Planning Commission Agenda Item 4 MEETING DATE: September 8, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing, Interim Use Permit Michael Patnode, 117 - 4~h Avenue SE SUBMITTED BY: Administration STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the Council adopt the Resolution of Findings granting an Interim Use Permit to Michael Patnode allowing a rental unit at 117 - 4`h Avenue SE. PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Last year the City notified Patnode that rental licenses are required in St. Joseph and we had reason to believe that he was renting his house. He responded by stating that he was not operating a rental unit from the above address. Shortly after this conversation, the City noticed a newspaper article on Patnode whereby he stated that he lived with his teammates at SJU. The City turned this matter over to the Attorney and it went through the court process. Patnode admitted to renting and paid a monetary fine. At this time Patnode is requesting to secure a rental license for his property located at 117 - 4`h Avenue SE and wanted to make sure he went through the correct process. The City has received a completed application and he is 10040 property owner. ATTACHMENTS: Hearing Notice; Application; Affidavit of Residency, Resolution of Findings; Vicinity Map; REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Authorize the Planning Commission Chair and Administrator to execute the Resolution recommending the Council issue an Interim Use Permit to Michael Patnode to operate an owner occupied rental unit at 117 - 4th Avenue SE. Resolution of finding The request of Michael Patnode for an Interim Use Permit request came before the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on September 8, 2008. The purpose of the hearing was to consider issuance of an Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental unit in a Rl Zoning District. The property is legally described as Lot 10 Block 4, Eastern Park Addition, 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 117 4`h Avenue SE. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27 Subd. 5: Interim Uses. The following are Interim Uses allowed by permit based upon the procedures and criteria set forth in Section 52.07.04 of this Code. a) 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 all owners must occupy the property as their principal residence. The owners may not exceed two in number. For purposes of determining ownership, the owner/owners must provide a copy of a recorded deed or recorded contract for deed. A purchase agreement will not be accepted as evidence of ownership. The request for Interim Use has been submitted by Michael Patnode, 117 4`h Avenue SE; 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 R1 Zoning District with the following contingencies: 1. The rental license in non-transferable . ATTEST 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 St. 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. Sr. Kathleen Kalinowski, Chair Judy Weyrens, Administrator ~. CITY OF ST. OS~PH 1 W W W. cityo f stjoseph.com Public Hearing City of St. Joseph Administrator The St. Joseph Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on Monday, September 8, 2008 at ~udy DUeyrens 7:00 PM. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an Interim Use permit to allow an owner occupied rental in an R-1 Single-Family zoning district. The property is legally described as Lot 10 Block 4, Eastern Park Addition. Mayor St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27 subd. 5 allows for an Interim Use Permit as follows: Residential AI Rassier 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 Councilors if the property is owner occupied, the owner must be a natural person, and all owners must occupy the Steve Frank property as their principal residence. The owners may not exceed two in number. For purposes of determining ownership, the owner/owners must provide a copy of a recorded deed or recorded contract Rick Schultz for deed. A purchase agreement will not be accepted as evidence of ownership. Renee Symanietz Dale ~1Uick Michael Patnode, 117 4~' Avenue SE, St. Joseph, MN 56374 has submitted the request for Interim Use. Judy Weyrens Administrator Publish: August 29, 2008 ~{{: 224 f 19 ~~(( 27 1 ~r 33' ~19~ 3w 7 11 149 ~ i ,442'..1 3014• Di ~3083143~20 ~ ~ '¢ ?fl ~ 2T 302 3tl4 ~`" 28 ^~$ '4 340 ~ +~! 32 ,r..-,-- 36 102 1o~a 1'10 1'14 1113 uf~I~~,~~~~C _~~~ 04 ~ 111 r u ~.,..'I OB lf --~.,__~ by 1'14~ ,,.,,,,,113 ~ ~ ~-.. 117 `-~~'~ , . ~' , 418 ?'~ _ ~ 117 4`'' Avenue SE 1+45 125 ( 422 r 4449: _._ _._ 127 126 '15"1 134 "130 155 t c f I~r:11~ 5'f _. 205 ~~ { ~ 2U9 ~~ 0 ~_ 5 tt zS College Avenue North PO Box 668 Saint ~oseph, Minnesota 56374 Phone 3zo.363.7zoi Fax 320.363.o34z ~~~EIV~D APPLICATION FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT City of St. Joseph 25 College Avenue N PO Box 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374 Phone (320)363-7201 or Fax (320)363-0342 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) s5 COUNTY OF STEARNS ) ~~~ ~ 5 2008 Fee $ f ~D, D~ Paid 1t"'~aS~ Date ~ - /,~~d EPH NAME: ~ ~f_.~~1~ Y~r~~ ti~._.~' ,°~._"`~.. L : ~ ~ PHONE: ~, i2. ~ ~ '~ ~ ~- ~'.~ I i ADDRESS: -'~ ~"{~ ~~' c°" /We, the undersigned, hereby make the following application to the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of St. Joseph, Stearns County, Minnesota. (Applicants have the responsibility of checking all applicable ordinances pertaining to their application and complying with the ordinance requirements.) 1. Application is hereby made for an Interim Use Permit to conduce the following: ~ C._C.'i~ ~ ~ ~(~ '`~ ~ N -~+w i_. f,~N ~ , i ~ >~l ou S i ~J ~ 4 W -.1~-2 A ~J ~ "T~ `~ ~~ ~ ~'rl ~ ~'A--~. (ZE c, !ter 2. Legal description ofland to be affected by application, including acreage or square footage of land involved, and street address, if any (attach additional sheet ifnecessary): ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ t,.~ C tC ~ 3. Presentzoning of the above described property is: ~,~-5 T~ i@~ i~~/'~- IC ~- ~ 0 I i°t arm 5 I o~ ~ Z~-I ILZ _ _ _ _ K~ ~ i U C° ri ~ 1.r~t-~t~ 4. Name and address of the present owner of the above described land: ~ !~ t'~ 5. Is the proposed use compatible with the future and present land uses of the area? Please explain: (""/ Yes ~""' No ~~~~= ~ + °~ ~: N ~~ 1 ~ i'v~ ~..1 t, i-1 3 ~ ~~>..~ c3~~ . ~.3 c~ .~ ~i~ tTro:~!1 l® (LC-~ ~-t ~' i~E ~ 1 t~ C t~ C~. C ~ tJ ~T~ ~ ~ -~ 1 ~ ~ ~ r ~ L~: +~` ~C - 1-(~ e~~ "T~a (~~ ~t ~t 1 r~ ! *~ C i,~. ~ ~.~~. __ __ 6. Will the proposed use depreciate the area in which it is proposed? Please explain: (` Yes ('~( No 7. Can the proposed use be accomodated wish existing City service without overburdening the system? Please explain: Yes ("" No Na /-~ ~ ~ i it L7!~~I't. ~ t T~~ 5 t= fz v° i C ~.S .A ~? L .~._o L3 E N~Vbt1(~ , ~;~ ~.- ~. `~ TF~ 12.E ~ !~~ ~ s e -.~ s ~ o ~ ~ uS ~ N C H nM E ~ >-~ ~ ~ ~V t G EIS . 8. Are local streets capable of handling traffic which is generated by the proposed use? Please explain: (-~ Yes ~"` No I~G a r=1-n D i Tl c~.Nt~ C. 7-2 i~ 1~ _i ~ r_ - ~ s`T ae N=~ T~ ,~'~,~,~i ; V G To ,f33 ~_ is SC.: 7J Attached to this application, and made a part thereof, are other material submission data requirements, as indicated. Applicant Signature: Applicant Signature: Date: ~_~~ ' d~ Date: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date application submitted: Date application completed: Planning Commission Action: ~" Recommend Approval r Recommend Disapproval Date of Action: City Council Action: ("" Approved ~`"' Disapproved Date of Action: Date Applicant/Propertynwner notified of City Council Action: CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 25 College Avenue North, St. Joseph MN 56374 (320) 363-7201 AFFIDAVIT OF RESIDENCY Applicant Name ~1~~~ J ~~~~~ Address ~ ~ ~ L~~ flVc ~~~ Zoning g~ R1, Single Family ("' 61, Central Business (' 62, Highway Business I'iint Form Number of Tenants Ownership Copy of deed showing Requirement Requirement r- 50% ~ t00% interest must be attached fulfilled C- Yes (~" No (- N/a I ~IU~c~1 ~ ~ ~~ being of legal age, do hereby by attest and affirm the following: 1. My primary esidence is _117 ~ ~ /~uc SE, and that I am the owner of record of the same. 2. The Interim Use Permit is only valid while said property is your primary residence and you are living at the same. It will be your responsiblity to notify the City of any change of residency. 3. I make this Affidavit for no improper purpose. 4. I understand that deliberater falsification and/or omission pertaining to this affidavit will in result in revokation of the Interim Use Permit and the City will pursue civil and/or legal action. Signature Z~~ Date ~ ~S- p~f State of MN County of Stearns t ~~ On this > r day of ~ 7 r?.,'' ~ , 20 ` ,before me ~ ~ ~' / ~ - ` `- , a notary public, personally appeared f '~ ~~. ~~~ ~^,~~ _ proved on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name (s) is (are) subscribed to this instrument, and acknowledged (he/she/they) exectuted the same. Witness my hand and official seal }` '% r ;. , Notary Signature r ~~ ~~' ~'~) ~ /%? ' (sEA~) SARAH BIALKE ~z NO?ARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA 1 ,,+:~ My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2010 1JEIli1 V 1CWVI111IIC 1VId(1 rage i o1 l Buffer Map 350' 117 4th Avenue SE -__ _ - ~, ~ ~, --I -~ - i ~ ~ -- ~ -- ~ , _ _ 7_ y. i. .~ , • .. - ~.. i ~ .__... ~ ._..__ ,___-_ ... ., ..t 1~ ~ , ' - 1 5 i, 11. t _ ~ ~ ~ _. --- . - _ _ ' !I ' I ~ i r - . - -1 A'r i , _._ ~ f D -- ~ y - - s r I - - ~_ n x134 ' 5 ~ '~~ ~ 1- ~ Z _. ~~ ~~ I n. I '~ is _- - ~. '• ~ - - i ~ ~ -- _. -y. ~ --- - -- ; ~.T ~ _ _-_.-~ _ tJ'.n:r:ES,~iTA _ .I I i II Y 'rI _ U: I (L~.rlll_1-- ~T.i - U _ . ~ S 1. 8EF ~; T ,. T ~.. r PF:'~ 51 ~ ,P i ~ ~ ~ ~--t ... --{ -_ ,. - I - ~- +_. _ ~ ~ ~~ a r -~ f ~.-. ~r§ ,, , ~~~'. I .z ~I J { . ~r 1 -- r• -- -- - tt~ r-.._ ~ .~ ~ ~^ R. _. _-r- -- --, _~ i i _..-~ j rc --_ ~. i ~ - -, _ --- ~ <<< Y3' --__..._ /~/~~J _ ~ Copyright L' SEH 3003 -- - -r ~ ~, ua -'~ r ~ ~ j ~ ~_ I _. I ~ ~. I 1 I I. fl _. ~'_ ~. ~ '_ - i~ T Aii.t •T d= _E ~~~ T F t .: T r c . _ i ~ _~ I ~ ~- _Y ~ ~- ~ f i f ~ y- -+r ~- ~C- _a~- 7 .i r 1 i -. ~•_ ~+ractx ~.i t - ~. . ~u+ctte ~T ~t - - Y ~ f 1(~I~~~'.If41~ 17 - r --I~ -_~_-~ Jfl ~ fv 'CirLLAWAY CT ~ ~~ -(---~---- -- y,,~ 1 V I ~ -~ I ~- ~ ' - I- -'f--i ~ I _r__~ y C . A ~ ~ ~rl~ ~l, ~ / ~~ f / ~, ~ ' m ~ ~ -_ _ - - 1 --- _ -f I I ! ~ , Ali s.' • _ ~ J , ~ ; ,r: = ',~f~ r ~~ _~-1. }- - r ~- i _~ y .~' ~ d ! ~~ y ~ ~ 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. https://portal.sehinc.com/sehsvc/html/dvo/mapLayout.htm 8/22/2008 ~~ ~{~~3~ No DeuNOVaar iAx~s AND TRIIN8FER i:NTEREO DATE . 3 f aoo (P AUDITOR 9EEPUTY $ `t • 53Sa~f • ~~ OFFICE OF COUMY RECORDER ~~ STEARNS COUNTY, MINNESOTA Doatment# 1205001 --- Certilled, Filed, and/or Recorded on ~~~ o° N 0&31-2006 at 12:28 PM ~~~~ DIANE t"aRUNDHOEFER ~ ST'EARNS COUNTY RECORDER Form No. 1-M -WARRANTY DEED Individwl(s) Do Individual{s) DEED TAX DUE: 5526.68 Date: August 25, 2006 FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, David R. Lodermieir, a single person, Grantor, hereby corweys and warrants to Michael 1. Patnode, a sir~le person, Grantee, real property in Steams County, Minnesota, described as follows: / Lot 10, Block 4, Eastern park Addition, Village of St. Joseph, according to the plat thereof on Sk and of record is the office of the County Recorder. Stearns County. Mi>ukaota. together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions: easements, covenants and restrictions of recorcl. Check box if applicable: ® The Seller certifies that die seller does not know of any wells on the described real property. O A well disclosure certificate accompanies this document. D I am familiar with the property described in this instrument and I mortify that tfie status and number of wells on the described real property have not changed since the last previously filed well disclosure certificate. Tltw*11 18/31/21106 11:~1:M ~ DEED TX t RAID 52b.6B STATE OF MINNESOtTA~ , ,, ,,, ,, COUNTY OF ~lKY!- } SS. This instrument acknowledged before me on August 2! NDTARIAI STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTFIER TITLE ANDREA WILLEMS Notary Pubgo~AMrRtaeota f:omtllaNen Jrsat.a00a THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY (NAME AND ADDRESS); Edina Realty Title 6800 France Ave. South Edina, MN 55435 ~U 1' ~ Y`C-f-I~YSYI ~j J3 ? i David R. Lodermieir Aleck here if part w all of dte land a Registered (Tturens) O Taz Stasemems br the real property described in this iretrurtrent should be sent b (indude name and address of Gmtee): Michael J. Patrtade 117 4th Avenue SE St. )oseph, Minnesota 56374 SCR ~_ of ~;~ ~. ~~ c n en .p ~i .~`• a ~ 'E~cOO y .; x a 0 3 om~ ~ ~~'a VUatn ~ H t0 V1 O ~ Z ~C, C a Q a ~ t a~ L ~ O u n -~ ~"'~ N W ~ o ~ o ~, c~ ~ W ~ O O O (g Q O ~ N H~ tYQtC QW OQw-t OQ 03~Q az Qttzn w ow~x ~y ok~ z wo 00 4, h 1- F- F- ~ W ~ roa ~~am ~n~w . mom ~!F-YOQF-~D wHwzwo ar»a~r o~ m i ~ ~- a m 8/29/08 -Attempted to send PH Notice to M. Patnode. 9/3/08 Came back as undeliverable - Moved, left no address. O ~0 ~D O .~ d r 4+1 4~ `n ecru c~F s•r. ~c~hrN MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: Planning Commission Agenda Item rJ September 8, 2008 Public Hearing, Interim Use Permit Crystal Hughes & Pok Ye Hughes - 415 7th Avenue SE Administration STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the Council adopt the Resolution of Findings granting an Interim Use Permit to Crystal Hughes & Pok Ye Hughes allowing a rental unit at 415 7cn Avenue SE. PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City received an application for Interim Use from Pok Ye Hughes and Crystal Hughes. They intend to rent to two persons and provide translation services. The staff has received all the information verifying that they are in fact the owners o f property. ATTACHMENTS: Hearing Notice; Application; Affidavit of Residency, Resolution of Findings; Vicinity Map; REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Authorize the Planning Commission Chair and Administrator to execute the Resolution recommending the Council issue an Interim Use Permit to Crystal Hughes & Pok Ye Hughes to operate an owner occupied rental unit at 415 7th Avenue SE. Resolution of finding The request of Crystal Hughes &Pok Ye Hughes for an Interim Use Permit request came before the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on September 8, 2008. The purpose of the hearing was to consider issuance of an Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental unit in a R1 Zoning District. The property is legally described as Lot 3 Block 2 Graceview Estates 3 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 415 7`h Avenue SE. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27 Subd. 5: Interim Uses. The following are Interim Uses allowed by permit based upon the procedures and criteria set forth in Section 52.07.04 of this Code. a) 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 all owners must occupy the property as their principal residence. The owners may not exceed two in number. For purposes of determining ownership, the owner/owners must provide a copy of a recorded deed or recorded contract for deed. A purchase agreement will not be accepted as evidence of ownership. The request for Interim Use has been submitted by Crystal Hughes &Pok Ye Hughes, 415 7th Avenue SE; St.loseph MN 56374. Notice of this matter was duly served and published. Inconsideration 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 R1 Zoning District with the following contingencies: ATTEST 1. The rental license in non-transferable . 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 St. 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. Sr. Kathleen Kalinowski, Chair Judy Weyrens, Administrator ~ CITY OF ST. OS~PH 1 wWw. cityof stjoseph.com Public Hearing City of St. Joseph Administrator The St. Joseph Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on Monday, September 8, 2008 at )udy Weyrens 7:05 PM. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an Interim Use permit to allow an owner occupied rental in an R-1 Single-Family zoning district. The property is legally described as Lot 3 Block 2, Graceview Estates 3. Mayor St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27 subd. 5 allows for an Interim Use Permit as follows: Residential AI Rassier 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 Councilors if the property is owner occupied, the owner must be a natural person, and all owners must occupy the Steve Frank property as their principal residence. The owners may not exceed two in number. For purposes of determining ownership, the owner/owners must provide a copy of a recorded deed or recorded contract Rick Schultz for deed. A purchase agreement will not be accepted as evidence of ownership. Renee Symanietz Dale ~Uick Crystal Hughes & Pok Ye Hughes, 415 7`t' Avenue SE, St. Joseph, MN 56374 have submitted the request for Interim Use. Judy Weyrens Administrator Publish: August 29, 2008 ~'"_~ ? 314. .3 3'16 i718 8D6 '~ v 4~2 A . ~ 8{17 ~r, ~ ~~ 328 ~' 80~ ~J +1flB 90b' ~~~ 332 .~-~.- nN t :>T ~ taA.tt _~ 1 . 8 i ' 81tt 908 94' 94A -812 338 i ~ ...,,.714 7q8' ~4'14~ t: ~ at~a~ aoe i~ti~z~~~F ~" ~ t9 I .~ ~~ .__... '+lt~a~a d~5 ~,a2t ~~a2a_ 52~a_, ~~~~ ~~`. tl.~__a~a r ,~ sae ~'~•`,.,~. -~. ~za ~ ~,_ Paz _.... ~, 536 __.__ 415 7`'' Avenue SE n ~=~ zs College Avenue North PO .Box 668 Saint ~oseph, Minnesota 56374 phone 3zo.363.7zoi Fax 3ZO.363.o34z. APPLICATION FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT City of St. Joseph 25 College Avenue N PO Box 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374 Phone (320)363-7201 or Fax (320)363-0342 Fee $ (~~ ~~ ,Paid 3~3~ Date ~~~2'()~ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF STEARNS ) NAME: I s > ~jk Ye PHONE: ,3~~ • ~! (~.,3. d 33 ~? ADDRESS: [, f IJ '~TN ~-~/ t~ S~ ~S I ~I QS EP~ r M /'~ S r%O 3~'~ I/VVe, the undersigned, hereby make the following application to the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of St. Joseph, Stearns County, Minnesota. (Applicants have the responsibility of checking all applicable ordinances pertaining to their application and complying with the ordinance requirements.) 1. Application is hereby made for an Interim Use Permit io conduct the following: " rerr ~''~oli fia~rl i'ddr~ S iii ~ ~?du~ ~r ,5~~ - fern-~ S~ ~ 2. Legal description of land to be affected by application, including acreage or square footage of lond involved, and street address, if any (attach additional sheet if necessary): 3. Presenizoning of the above described property is: ~ _. ~ J 4. Name and address of the present owner of the above described land: ~'~st~ ~'. ~c~fc,~ ~ 4~/S ~~ .fI-V~ SE Sf. osyrih , r~lN, s~ 3~ 5. Is the proposed use compatible with the future and present land uses of the area? Please explain: Yes r No ~i ~ o~ ~/Ze~~Ge Sf . 6. Will the proposed use depreciate the area in which it is proposed? Please explain: ~` Yes ~' No 7. Can the proposed use be accomodated with existing City service without overburdening the system? Please explain: Yes r' No ~~`(.,f/Le L!//~~ ~~~ /iC / ~/L Jv// l /v/rL ~ / i~ T~C.e s~GVr~I dam- ~(//' T//~ 8. Are local streets capable of handling traffic which is generated by the proposed use? Please explain: Yes r No /1~G ~~~~ ~a ,~-fte ~ur~h ham! aid s ~~ rah .~ Attached to this application, and made a part thereof, are other material submission data requirements, as indicated. Applicant Signature: `Oavltu-~ Applicant Signature: (~rso n /~ C~~ Date: Date: O FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date application submitted: Date application comp) eted: Planning Commission Action: r Recommend Approval r Recommend Disapproval Date of Action: Council Action: r Approved ~"` Disapproved Date of Action: Date Applicant/Property owner notified of City Council Action: CI TY OF ST. JOSEPH Print Form 25 College Avenue North, Si. Joseph MN 56374 (320) 363-7201 AFFIDAVIT OF RESIDENCY Applicant Name ~ r,, ~ , ~ ~ ~ u ~~ Address ~. ~ 5 NTH ~~ s~ . ST J a Sr1Pf-t . nn,N 5~ 3 ~~ Number of Tenants 2 Zoning ~R1, Single Family ~"' 61, Central Business {"` 62, Highway Business Ownership Copy of deed showing Requirement Requirement ~-- 50 ok "~' 100% interest must be attached fulfilled ~-- Yes (-" No (- N!a I being of legal age, do hereby by attest and affirm the following: 1. My primaryresidence is ~/S.~ ~~/~~, S~c~4~Sa~and that I am the owner of record of the same. 2. The Interim Use Permit is only valid while said property is your primary residence and you are living at the same. It will be your responsiblity to notify the City of any change of residency. 3. I make this Affidavit for no improper purpose. 4. I understand that deliberater falsification and/or omission pertaining to this affidavit will in result in revokation of the Interim Use Permit and the City will pursue civil and/or legal action. 7 Signature Date a~ - Oq--08 L ...................................................... State of MN County of Stearns On this ~.- day of 20C7~ .before me~~IXh~c, ~ .~~~1' , a notary public, personally appeared ~ ~ proved on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name (s) is (are) subscribed to this instrument, and acknowledged (he/she/they) exectuted the same. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Signat e (S TAMELA R. BUTLER ` NOTARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA `•~,w•~ My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2010 CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 25 College Avenue North, St. Joseph MN 56374 (320) 363-7201 Applicant Name ~°'6 Address %„~ f AFFIDAVIT OF RESIDENCY Zoning (~R1, Single Family ("'~; 61, Central Business ("` 62, Highway Business BUG 2 9 2008 u:i i ~, J~, ST. JOSEPH ~/~'~ Number of Tenants Ownership Copy of deed showing Requirement Requirement ~ 50% (" 100% interest must be attached fulfilled ~ Yes ("`; No ("` N/a I D t ~ ~ l~ ~ ~ being of legal age, do hereby by attest and affirm the following: 1. My primary esidence is~/f~ ~1~-tl~i ~~ ~~iv~~ ~ and that I am the owner of record of the same. 2. The Interim Use Permit is only valid while said property is your primary residence and you are living at the same. It will be your responsiblity to notify the City of any change of residency. 3. I make this Affidavit for no improper purpose. 4. I understand that deliberater falsification and/or omission pertaining to this affidavit will in result in revokation of the Interim Use Permit and the City will pursue civil and/or legal action. Signature ~ ~r' Date ~ ~L/ ~ ~ , ---~ ~~ State of MN County of Stearns On this ~ ~ da of 20 ~ P, before me~''~°~~ ~uj~SO~i . a notary public, personally appeared ~ proved on t e basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name (s) is (are) subscribed to this instru ent, and acknowledged (he/she/they) exectuted the same. Witness my hand and official seal. ~. nn~l.l~ 5A AP~1l:NOSCt~! ^ ~R ~L')td.~ i~Ub~~C. Notary Signature ~~~°~AL) ~"~nne:.ata .._, i y ~„rrnrnssion Expires January 31, 2011 DataViewOnline Map Page 1 of l Buffer Map ' --r - -i- I I I I I II ' r I I i I I C I I ~ 1 it I _- r~ ' I ~ t ~ - I _ i _ ~_ - _ _ ~ , i _~ ,_ - _ _ , _ _ ' I t r-- v . . ~ . - ~ ~ I r ~ t-. -. ' ~ - - r L~, i,._ --1 ~- _ F -- ~ .-. ~ - 't.. .._ r L' L i r _ -~ ~- ~ " C ~:~. Y'~. ~ r - ~ G: I._.t... Ir - - yi I~' ._._ _ - r. I ~ -- III, 1 ~ Cr,. ,Y, i r ~ rrI rT'__ ~ ~ TT', rr ~ l -' ~t 1 ~ I t I' ~ -~---- I - _ - u. ~ - - __ cr -.J `_~.t u. .~ I-~,.5~ ~..~' 1~---~ i _.- _ ~. ~ +Lil~ ~ l ,. ~' n I___ ' ,,,'l ~1 ~, ` I _~ `... ._. r ~ tr. t I I i I I t c ..R af~n _ ;. .~I 1: _rt• Sa>a.+c~N _I [-... _. frf.KFli `.1 t~ _, ~Ahi-4. ~ - ~ t tt 1.4 _._- _ - ._._ _. ~ t - n - __ I - ~ _ -- ~ '•~~ C IZ i.[c.,IFN D1~Z ~,T~ y ~ i -~ _ 1 T ~ T ~ ~ - Cs- ~ t I_ I, ~_ _ ~~ ~ ___ ~ _,r I i ~ r iLTr ~ n _ av ~ r .,;y ~T ~'.-~~,, ~Y_. ,. f,'r- l - -- ~ x - r :r, ~-- -- ._ - 2 ~ ~~ .u i ,~ I i ~ i ~ ~ f , - try ~ i ~ ~ rr, _ N ~ JI . .. -- ' ~ 'i~LT Ir~-' _ - LjA! F ti.~tt~-- ~. - ~.Q ~J,- is ~ t t iti,. ~' ~_ JI, / ~ L~_ ~ J ~ ~TI ~I~ _r ~_ 1 s. -~~r - ~ J~.-~ ~ ~._ - ~~~ i ~._ __ p ~ r -,_-, - ''~r't p j I ~i I i I; Y r `4; t. - - -- ------ ~ ' I -- - II _ - _ ~. c r r ' ~ ~ --- - - - ---- T Copyright Cr' SEH 2003 ;I - - - -- _ I ~ fl -- - 37'$ft + ' 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. https://portal.sehinc.com/sehsvc/html/dvo/mapLayout.htm 8/25/2008 ~'1~ ~~~ NO OEUNOUENT TAXES AND TRANSFER ENTERED QEPUTY, ~y . 535 33 . ~ ~ 9 Quit Claire Deed STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ l , (0 5 Date: August 15, 2008 OFFICE OF COUIdTY RECORDER STEARNS COUNTY- MINNESOTA ~~_ Document # 1265988 ._ __ Certified, Filed, andlor Recorded on ,tea 0&18-2008 at 01:20 PM --- DIANE GRUNDHOEFER STEARNS COUNTY RECORDER "The total consideration for the transfer of this property is $SO0 or less." , FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Crystal Hughes, unmarried person, Grantor, hereby conveys and quitclaims to Crystal Hughes and Pok Ye Hughes, Grantees as joint tenants, real property in Stearns County, Minnesota, described as follows: Lot 3, Block 2, Graceview Estates 3, Stearns County, Minnesota. together with all the hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto The Seller certifies that the Seller does not know of any wells on the described 1 o rty. Crystal H STATE OF NIINNESOTA } ss. COUNTY OF STEARNS ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 V " 'day of 2008, by Crystal Hughes, unmarried person, Grantor. NOTARY PUBLIC This instrument was drafted by: Robert L. Kalenda (#532b0) Kalenda & Associates 919 West St. Germain, Suite 2000 St. Cloud, MN 56301 320-255-8840 F~AlD i . 65 tax statements to: TNE~ESA IW. LOC~1-TFJ08.E Notary Publio-Minneapt~ tai Hughes uy comrnaebn Expires Jen ar, P~ 7`~ Ave. SE . oseph, MN 56374 15 TRESO4 8/1812@08 13:11:39 0800179A8 DEED rx x ~ Ct ~~ 1nQ1J 5CR ~ of .,~ crrv of s•r. ~~~rrH Planning Commission Agenda Item 6 MEETING DATE: September 8, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: College of St. Benedict -Zoning Amendment SUBMITTED BY: Administration STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Schedule the public hearing for a Zoning Amendment for 222 West Minnesota Street and 302 West Minnesota Street from the current R1, Single Family to E & E, Educational & Ecclesiastical. PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The College of St. Benedict approached the City to construct a bus stop on 3`d Avenue SW in the backyard of 222 West Minnesota Street. This property is currently zoned R1, Single Family and is owned by the College of St. Benedict. In reviewing the R1 Zoning Regulations a bus stop is not a permitted use; however, an argument could be made for a special use permit While discussing this matter with Jim Schumann of St. Ben's it seemed that another approach to would be to rezone the property from the current R1, Single Family to E & E, Educational and Ecclesiastical. The College currently owns the single family home on both sides of 3`d Avenue NW and 3`d Avenue serves as a main entrance to CSB. It would make better sense to rezone the property as E & E than to grant a special use permit for a bus stop in a R1 Zoning District. It does not matter which method is used. This matter is placed on the agenda for discussion only. If an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is chosen, the Planning Commission or Council should initiate such. In reviewing the proposed Comprehensive Plan the future land use for this area is E & E, making it consistent. The Current Comprehensive Plan has the area being discussed tied in with Park Terrace and Clinton Village and has proposed uses as Multiple Family or Single Family. ATTACHMENTS: Email requesting consideration for rezoning; Extract of the Ordinance relating to Zoning Amendment; Extract of 2002 Comprehensive Plan; Extract of draft 2008 Comprehensive Plan; Draft Land use Plan; site location for bus stop REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Council should provide direction to the staff as to which process is preferred, Rezoning or Special Use. Both processes will require a public hearing which will be conducted on October 13, 2008. Judy Weyrens From: Braegelmann, Sharon [SBraegelman@CSBSJU.EDU] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 3:57 PM To: Judy Weyrens Cc: Schumann, James Subject: Rezoning CSB Properties xi 1uay, Please bring to the September 8, 2008 Zoning Committee meeting a request from CSB to rezone both 222 West Minnesota Street and 302 West Minnesota Street properties from R-1 to E&E classification. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you! Sharon Sharon Braegelmann College of Saint Benedict Facilities Management Phone: 320.363.5985 Fax: 320.363.6397 Subd. 5. Text Amendments and Rezoning of Parcels Depicted on the Official Zoning ~• a) General. This Ordinance, which includes the official zoning map, may be amended by following the procedure specified in this section. b) Initiation. An amendment may be initiated by the following procedures: Upon the initiative of the City Council or the Planning Commission, or 2. By petition of fifty percent (50%) or greater of the property owners affected by the proposed amendment and fifty percent (50%) of those property owners within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the proposed change. If a property owner initiates a rezoning request the owner shall provide a boundary survey and preliminary building and site development plans prior to consideration of the request. 3. If the proposed rezoning request is consistent with the proposed future land use identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan, an owner may petition for the rezoning without signature of 50% of the affected property owners within 350 feet. If a property owner initiates a rezoning request the owner shall provide a boundary survey and preliminary building and site development plans prior to consideration of the request. . ~ Can .~ /~ h ~ ~ (~-~ ~k~~ ~ District Two Location District Two occupies the west central portion of the corporate limits. The district is bounded by: • Western corporate limits; • To the north by CSAH 75; • To the east by Second Avenue NW; and, • To the south by the ecclesiastical property. Existing Uses/Features Existing land uses within District Two are predominantly residential (single family, two family and multiple family) and agricultural in nature. There are also four parks within this district: Centennial, Hollow, Monument and Memorial. A summary of existing land uses within the Planning District Two follows: LAND USE TYPE TOTAL ACRES Single Family Residential 68.11 Two Family Residential .85 Multiple Family Residential 5.59 Public 6.78 Right-Of-WayNacant 30.61 TOTAL 111.95 St. Joseph Apartments (elderly apartments) are located within District Two. Major roadways include CSAH 75 and CSAH 2/Minnesota Street. Subdivisions within the district include: Hollow Park, Loso's 7'" Addition, Clinton Village Addition and Park Terrace. A historical marker commemorating the site of a former block house which was constructed for citizen protection purposes during the Sioux Uprising in 1862. Terrain is generally flat and conducive to urban development. Recommendations 1. Recommended future land use within District Two are predominantly limited to low density residential in nature, with the exception of property directly adjacent (within the first'/Z of the first tier of blocks) to CSAH 75 (Highway Business District) and CSAH 2 (General Business District) which shall be commercial or medium/high density residential in nature as they will allow for a smooth transition between the high traffic corridor and residential uses. - Implementation: City Council, Planning Commission and City Administrator. 2. Future pedestrian/bicycle trail constructions and linkages should be provided between Centennial, Memorial and Millstream Parks as a means of maximizing the use of the parks and to promote alternative transportation methods. - Implementation: City Engineer, Park Superintendent, Park Board, Planning Commission, City Council and City Administrator. 3. Pedestrians should be provided a safe route adjacent to CSAH 2 as the area continues to develop. - Implementation: City Engineer, Stearns County Engineer, Park Superintendent, Park Board, Planning Commission, City Council and City Administrator. City of St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan, 2002 Chapter 4 Page 11 4. The City should work together to monitor the amount of vacant lots available as a means of avoiding excess lot quantities, partially developed subdivisions and 'leap-frog' type developments. Implementation: Planning Commission, City Council and City Administrator . 5. The City should provide for trail extension from Second Avenue to all park facilities within the district. The trail extension within this district should comply with the Comprehensive Trail Plan. Implementation: Park Board, Planning Commission, City Council and City Administrator . 6. Future development driveway access points directly onto CSAH 2 and CSAH 75 should be avoided by planning internal road systems with provide access to the lots or when direct access is required, joint driveways. Primary emphasis on the two arterials should be mobility and traffic flow. Implementation: City Engineer, Planning Commission, City Council and City Administrator . 7. Continued judicial development of existing land resources is suggested. Implementation: City Council, Planning Commission and City Administrator . Cih of St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan, 2002 Chapter 4 Page 12 _ ~ ~ _ / _ L.~~.~~r~G! Four Aco~oximate ~ccation DIS't'ICi Four OCCUPIES a. i area north OS !-9~ A pOrtlOn IS ~Nltt':In the corporate limits and a portion within the Orderly Annexation Area. The approximate boundaries include: South of CSAH 2 • Fast of CR121 * i~;or'ihwest of Foxmore Hollow Subdivision and the St Jeseph cemetery • Nerth of Walz's Hilltop Acres • East of Interstate 94 Total Acres in District: 443 acres in this District. #'ortiara of District `Deveitipecl' I - t is ?~ '. , _ ,, u Subdivided Ac. ;~ Nan-Sutxl. Ac. ;`;umber of Acres Platted: 147 have been subdivided, 296 have not been platted. Number of Acres with Potential Development Considerations: 416 acres have potential considerations for development (shoreland, public water, and cultural resource). Areas of Stability and Areas of Change: Areas of stability and areas of change have been identified within this district. Portions of the district adjacent to CSAH 2 have been identified as areas of change, primarily due to previous development interest as demonstrated concept plan submittals from property owners. A second area of change was identified for lots abutting Minnesota Street in the `downtown' as defined in downtown redevelopment efforts. The majority of the district has been identified as an area of stability. Prominent Features Prominent features within Planning District Four include the College of St. Benedict campus, St. Benedict's Monastery, Lake Sarah, the proposed "Gateway Commons" development, and a large land area determined to be potentially eligible for listing in the Natienal Register of Historic Places. Existing Land Use Existing land uses primarily include agricultural, educational (private), and ecclesiastical uses. Proposed Future Land Use Porfiens of this district have been identified as `areas of change'. Future investment, public and private, is expected within this district during the scope of this plan. The substantial portion of non-subdivided area within this district has been determined to be potentially eligible for listing within the National Register of Historic Places. A second substantial portion of this district includes area developed by the College of St. Benedict or the St. Benedict's Monastery. The College of St. Benedict has conducted master ptannino efforts in the previous year, the results are illustrated in the image on the following page '. The master planning efforts are acknowledged here but have not been reviewed for consistency with this Plan, land use, or subdivision standards. P, final portion of this district is guided toward future commercia! and/or commercial/high density residential (R-3, R-4) development. The location of this property adjacent to I-94 and CSAH 2 make future land use planning extremely important. The City has an excellent opportunity to provide for substantial 'gateway' commercial and high density residential development within this portion of this district. Future development patterns will respect the mobility function of I-94 and CSAH 2; therefore, the development of future collector streets is imperative. Commercial and/or high value industrial nodes will be afforded City of St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan, 2008 Chapter 4, Fage 31 ~AN~''S~ excellent access from collector streets. Commercial and mixed commercial hig!, density resider:t!al develcornent will be clusteied around m2aning`ul intersections with collector streets. i~oda! deve!eprnent will orevide for unbar development as cohesive entities capable of creating and sustaining the 'gateway' nature of the interchange ~ he 'gateway' nature will be defined by inclusion/incorporation of public gatherine spaces, courtyards, open space preservation, uniform landscaping, and similar design principals in future developments. o provide for prudent timing and cost-savings, the ECA supports the City's proactive participation in providing municipal utility services to this area and collector street development in conjunction with the County's acouisition of righl-of-way and construction of CSAH 2 This means the City would work with property owners to proactively initiate improvements; however, the City would be reimbursed over-time by development fees. corridor study determining the need for an extension of an east-west southern collector street throuaY; this district has been the subject of substantial public discussion and divisiveness. The study is update). the goal of this plan is t~'OT to revisit this issue, re-open previous discussion, or recite previous information; rather, the goal of this plan is to acknowledge past activities, em5race Curren; st2tus, and reflect results of previous efforts. As such. ~itit3ert appti~abie langwage from:` update). City of St. !oseph Comprehensive Plan, 20Q8 Chapter ~, Page 32 ~ ~ H ~ U („1 ~ W Q ~ z ~ - L O ~ C~ ~. L = G ~ W L ~ go a~ _~ a~ w O ~. lI~ gt7~S E o Li U) ~a~Yxe m oC v ~ (~ U ~ ULl 3 N Q Q E ~F JQu ogc ~ o ~ tp `yyv~g555~LE ~``+wk e `- (n ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tu~~~~+4~ ° Z -~ f0 ~ (n ~ ~~ O U U ~ ..c. tiu_ Q> ~ o 4 LL a ~' '~ N -° d a L '` Q p ~ ~ Vi cC - Oi ~ c ~ ~ ., ~. ~. ~ ~ n ti k ~ ~ ,~ .'h.~ `ti t s ~a r 1~ ~ f y k - ~ ~ ?~rC~ rrrv pF,•r.~c~hrei Planning Commission Agenda Item 7 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: September 8, 2008 Interim Use Permit Renewal Lieser, Capecchi and Ortmann Administration STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Extend the Interim Use Permit for Ryan Lieser, 403 -15` Avenue NE, William Capecchi, 209 Minnesota Street East and Thomas Ortman, 308 -10`h Avenue SE. PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission considered the Interim Use Permit renewals at the August 4, 2008 meeting. At that time Lieser, Capecchi and Ortman did not submit an application for renewal and the Planning Commission provided for an additional 30 days for submittal of renewal. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: All applicants have met the requirements for renewal. When asking why they did not respond to the first letter that was sent, they indicated that they did not know they had to go through the process and Ortmann stated that he never received the notice. ATTACHMENTS: Application for renewal, letters requesting submittal of application REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Extend the Interim Use Permit for Ryan Lieser, 403 - 15L Avenue NE, William Capecchi, 209 Minnesota Street East and Thomas Ortmann, 308 -10`h Avenue SE. it i ,,, 1 ~~ ~~ ~ CITY OF 5T. JOSEPH 1~: ~O~!FC~,'r'/~,VE'rriAP. NOrih, ~:1. )OSe(JtL! l~/,~~1!' Sf,~i/G 31G) j63 7~0; AI'I'1.IC:A'I'IUN FOK hI:~EVI~AI. 01~ IN77?1~I1~9 US1: }'I:RMI'I` Applicant Narne Ryan Lieser Address 403 Lt Avenue NE Zoning ~' R1, Single Family ~ B1, Central Business ,. B2, Highway Business Date of Issuance Dec 7, 2006 Expiration Date N/A _ __ _. _ __.__ Printfr~~rr _._._.______.._...__ __.___._I Number of 1 enants ~~~ Extension Date N/A Conditions: 1.7 he rental license is non-transferable and if the property is sold or the ownership changes so that the aforementioned no longer onwns a 50% or greater interest in the property, the Interim Use Permit is null and void. 2. Approval of the Rental Housina Inspector. Rental Registration fees Paid (2007-2008 Rental Period) -Certificate of Compliance Issued (2008-2008 Rental Period) 3. The Planning Commission will review the license annually and revoke the license if the property is in violation of the St. 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. (- Yes - No N/A r" Yes ;- No N/A TX Yes j - No i N/A J-" Yes J-' No CX N/A X Yes ~-- No {~- N/A The following Ordinance Violations or complaints have been received by the City Offices or Police Department' No Violations 2007-2008 Rental Period Ownership Copy of deed showing Requirement Requirement ~ 50 % ,'~ 100% interest must be attached fulfilled ~ Yes (- No N/a I hereby affirm that my primary residence is I~IG.~ Ej4 1~~i l~ ~- and that I am the owner of record of the property subject to the Interim Use Permit which is being renewed by this application. I understand that the Interim Use Permit may be revoked if any information on the renewal application is false. Signature ~~~~ Date (~ i ~~ ~ I~~, .~ ~w. . ~:..,r. ^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ ^ . State of MPJ County of Stearns }- ',~,, ~,, 0 / I ~Q On this ~ da,J' of l.C~y/~J~' , 20~ ,before me ~ ~'l~'^' , a notary public, personally appeared (i1 ~ / proved on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name (s) is (are) subscribed to this instrument, and acknowledged (he/she/they) exectuted the same. Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Signature (~'~~,~~ ~ ~~~~" ~ -AL SARAH BIALKE NCl ARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA ~ My Cc n~~~,ss~on Ex ~~re° pan 2016 CITY Of Si. JOSEPH ~`; ~.G~iEOn;'ii%~,'"iU!' ~:!q`ih, ~(. %O~r'r:h;~'/!'l' ~F,{l~ !20 :f "< 720 AN1'l,iC~#7"11)1' I~t~)~ l~l:N1~WA~. OF 1N'lTRlh~ USF. I'1~.RM)7• Applicant Narr•~e William Capecchi Address 209 Minnesota Street E Zoning {; R1, Single Family -` B1, Central Business B2, Highway Business Date of Issuance Sep 20, 2007 Expiration Date N/A F'rir~t F c~i rr, fJumber of 1 enants Extension Date N/A Conditions: 1. The rental license is non-transferable and if the property is sold or the ownership changes so that the aforementioned ne longer onwns a 50% or greater interest in the property, the Interim Use Fermit is null and void. 2. Approval of the Rental ilousing Inspector. - Rental Registration Fees Paid (2007-2008 Rental Period) Certificate of Compliance (2007-2008 Rental Period) 3. The Planning Commission will review the license annually and revoke the license if the property is in violation of the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances. 4. The City Otfice will place a notice in the St. Joseph Newsleader when the owner occupied rental licenses are reviewed and will accept public comments. ?~~ Yes p.. No f N/A )X Yes ~ No )-~ N/A X Yes f~ No f- N/A ~- Yes ~ No ~X N/A Yes ~- No j- N/A The following Ordinance Violations or complaints have been received by the City Offices or Police Department'. No violations 2007-2008 Rental Period Ownership Copy of deed showing Requirement Requirement rX 50 % ~ 100% interest must be attached fulfilled ~ Yes i No N/a I hereby affirm that my primary residence is ~~1 E ~4,k>1~sa~ S~' and that I am the owner of record of the property subject to the Interim Use Permit which is being renewed by this application. I understand that the Interim Use Permit may be revok if a y information on the renewal application is false. ~~ ;~~j'. Signature ~~~ ~ ~ = j~ Date ~~,~-~ ~ ~ ,%~/ ` ' State of MN County of Stearns ~i~-, { 5 i ~ I'f' 1 ~ •~ On this 't Ir. d of ~ ~ ~ ~ , 20!~ ~ ,before me ~-'~ ~' ~~ ~• J ~.~ ~Y '1 ~! , a notary public, personally appeared ~ ,%~ _ ,f~':;~, ; proved on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name (s) is (are) subscribed to this instrument, and acknov~ledged (he/she/they) exectuted the same. Witness my hand and official seal Notary Signature '~' ~! ! / , j'~ ~~' / ~ ; ~ ;.~.~; ,~ SARAH BIALKE NOTARY PUBIC - MINNESO T F. ,~,~, My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2010 CITY OF ST. JOSEPH vnmw,. cityo(stjoseph.com Administrator ~udy Weyrens Mayor AI Rassier Councilors Steve Frank Rick Schultz Renee Symanietz Dale Wick July s6, Zoos Ryan Lieser 403 -1~` Avenue NE St. Joseph, MN 56374 RE: Interim Use Permit Renewal -119 College Avenue N Dear Ryan: Our records indicate that the property listed above is o~ the issuance of an Interim Use Permit. The Planning Ca Licenses Interim Use Permits on August 4, 2008 at 7:45 In order to be considered for renewal, the Offices no later than July 28, 2008. The check all appropriate boxes and sign ~,. rental must include a recent copy of'r.Y~,a~ note that the signature must be notar If the City Office does will expire and the prc or any succeeding yea If you have 320-363-71 additiona Sincerely, CITY OF ST. Judy Weyrens Administrator cc: Gary Utsch, Rental Housing Inspector 28, 2008 your IrF#`erim Use Permit license for the year 2008-2009 feel free to contact me at as rental property through n will be reviewing all rental litati~tust be returned to the City r:. i~ ~ ~,,~ ~' 1 pleted in part, please All app for owner occupied percentage'" , wnership, Please applications w~t be accepted. as College Avenue North PO Box 668 Saint ~oseph, Minncsota sb;74 Phone ;zo.;6;.7z.oi Fax ;zo.36;.o;4i ~. CITY OF ST. OSFPH 1 amov, cityo(stjoseph. com August 14, 2008 Ryan Lieser 403 - in Avenue NE St. Joseph MN 56374 Administrator ~udy Weyrens RE: Revocation of Interim Use Permit ,403 - i~ Avenue NE Dear Ryan: Mayor AI Rassier Please be advised that your Interim Use Permit to operate an owner occupied rental unit has been revoked. On July 16, 2008 the City mailed an application for renewal of your Interim Councilors Use Permit and requested that the application be returned no later than July 28, 2008 for Steve Frank Planning Commission consideration on August 4, 2008. Rick Schultz qs you are aware, when your Interim Use Permit was issued in 2006 approval was granted Renee Symanietz with the contingency that the Permit must be reviewed annually by the Planning Dale Wick Commission. Since you did not complete the application or appear before the Planning Commission on August 4, 2008 your Interim Use Permit has been revoked. Since you no longer have an Interim Use Permit, your property is not eligible for a rental license. If you are using the property for rental purposes you must cease immediately to avoid legal action. If it is determined that you are renting your property the City will pursue both Civil and Criminal remedy. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 320-363-7201. Sincerely, CITY OF ST. JOSEPH d W revs Ad inistrator Enclosures (2) cc: Gary Utsch, Rental Housing Inspector Phone zs College Avenue North PO Box 668 Saint Joseph. Minnesota 56374 ;zo.;6;.7zoi l=ax ;zo.;b;.o;qz cE,: 4.2`'0; 9:1~i;1~ E[;Ilt~ RE~_"Y EUFf~LO ~ - h~~• 2t' 2 C/TY OF ST, JOSEPH ~ , z5 College Avenue Noah, SL Joseph MN 56379 (320) 363-7201 APPLICATION FQR RENEWAL OF INTERIM USE PERMlT ~~ionx~ Applicant Name .~aaotlw Ortman Address 30810th Avenue SE 2oning Number of Tenants t: • Rl, Single Family (; Bt, Central Business (`, 82, Highway Business ~~ Date o! Issuance Jun 15, 2006 Expiration Date WA Extens'lon Date N/A Conditions: 1, The rental Ikense isnon-transferable and it the r changes so that the aforementioned no longer onpwn°ps a sy0g ~ o`d or the ownership greater interest in the ~~ Yes ("~ No ~ ; N/A Ixoperty, the interim Use Permit Is~nuN and void. ~. Approval of the Rental Housing Inspector. - Rental Registration Pees Paid (2007-2008 Rental Period) -Certificate of tompliar-ce Issued (7007-2008 iiental Period) ~ Yes r' N0 i.` N/A ~; Yes n No ~ N/A 3. The Planning Commission wr7l review the license annually and revoke the license ff the property is in oblation of the t. h r ~ ~'; Yes ~" ; No ~ N/A 4. The City Office will place a notice !n the St Joseph Newsleader when the owner occupied rental licenses are reviewed and will accept public comments. ~ Yes (~ No ~-, N/A The fotbwing Ordinance Violations or complaints have been received by the City Offices or Polke Department; No Violatbns 2007 20~ Rental Period Ownership 50 ~ Copy of deed~sTlowing R Requirement ~ r' 10096 interest must ~ at'tached •f ~ ied~t ~' [~; No ~ ,~ I Yes l.hereby,afflmt that mY primary rgsider~ is ~~~./ f~~~,,,Q property sabject~ to the.lntcrirr'r Use Perm -"'~~- ~ ~ ' ~ ~ant1 that ~I am ~tAe owrter,of +acordst~:the f'enrik !clay be revoked if art •infor do on lie 1reneyval~a mowed-by thrs applka~wn. 1 ynderstandshat~thl~ fnt~rwrm Ilse . Pplication is false. Signature _, Date 3 ^ ^ ^ • • • ^ ^ • ^ i ^ Y ^ • ^ ^ Y ^ • ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ A ^ ^ • • ^ A ^ 1 ^ • ^ ^ ^ • ^ ^ • ^ ^ ^ • Y State of MN County of Stearns , 4n this, day of 744~c,~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~d~.~c/ appeared 7~iewrr,rs 20~before me „ ~`r°'r proved on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be hoary public, personally is (are) subscribed to this instrument, and acknowledged (helshe/they) exectuted the same. Witness my hand androfflc~ sepal a name Gs) Notary Signature .;__-_- ~ SEAL y • WANDA J. WEBER '~ NOTARY PUBLIC-ItINVESOTA r~ Cwimicslon E;plrps Jen. S1, Y010 r r ill' `:F .1 ~~~.U~ ~~7 l '~;ansfer erttersd _... Date (~i ' • ~ ~' COt,niy A it+~ By ~~~ 8~f . ~3LI 7~ J ~~ `:~. iil or-~cc~ of couKry R~-coROr~ ~- STEARt+1S COUNTY, MINNESpTA txwmeric ~ 1195688 ~m Ce-tll9ed, Fileo, arstYot Rem pp ~ ~ 06-01-2006 at 01:59 PM ~~ an-~ c~RUNnfio~~ sTF~RNS t~utJfr REC,oRn>;x ~ w .: Forty To. 5-r1-WARRANTY DEED tndividual(+) to lout Tenonls .1etro LegAl Setvites DEED TA7C AL'E: ~ ~- ~~ oDI12ET 500625• A Dak: Diay 12, 2006~- 179323 ~'~'D 413226 FOlt VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Karla J. Bratti~ick, a sittgk Person, Cnantor hereb come and J. Ortmatm and Ellen K. Oritnaatt, husband and wife; .ett~ y ]h warrants to 7'imwthy real Property in Skams County, Mianesoq, descn"bed as folloaa: **Thomas James Oztmann r a~sin le t ~~ Lot 1, Block 3 of Cloverdale Estates 4°i Additiaa, Stearns , ' S peraoa County Minnesota. together with all hereditemettta and apptvtenttnceS belonging thereto, subject to the folloNiutg exceptions: easements, coveasms and restrictions of record. Check box if applicable: B The Seller certi5es that the seller does not kttow of any wells on the above desrn'bed real property. ^ A arch disclosure cerrificsn acerunpatries this document ~ I atn familiar with the property described in this insp~ttmient a~ I certify that the status and number of wells on the desrn'bed propem have not eLanged since the last previoasly 51ed well disclosore certificate. 6101/8886 ; 12t43:s8 86081A53E DEED TX Pf+ID 581.87 STAT)? OF AQA'WESOTA COU~'TX OF `-'M'RTGHT ~ ss. Karla J, aranwick This imstcwnent nas afJmowledged before me on May I2th, 2006 by Karla J. BratttticlS a singie person Grantor. NOTARIAL STAMP OR SFr-L (OR 071•~R TrJLE OR RA*t!C): / `, R ~~~ '`` IAICHELLE L ROBERTS IySlGNA7VREOFNOTARYP !.. ROTttt'ROp~gAL r ~'~r. t)p\~ NOTRRY oUatlC . 6t:NNESOTa CtKe7c here j[yarr pr a~i pf r~ yid iS Re 'stesed ~'S•••' MY Comm. Laolre: Jai. ~7. Zp/a D (Tor, gyn.) O THIS 7nSTRtJ1~'T wnS DRAFTED HY (NAME AA'D ADDRESS)v Edina Realty title 6800 France Avc. South Edina, MN 55435 Tar Statemsnts far the real Pt'aP~y dnafped um this ~.YftVYtaErJ s6ouM bt rent ro (include tunte and address of Oraaae): Timothy J. Ortmaaa 308 10th Avenue SE St. Joseph, Minnesota 56374 sc::,rc I o8'~~..,, ,,~n,! C.rr~~ 4F ti'r. Ji~tifiYH Planning Commission Agenda Item 8 MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: September 8, 2008 Sarah Pennings Graceview Coalition Administration PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission conducted the public hearing for the S & H Partnership application for PUD amendment and Special Use to allow the construction of multiple family dwelling units. The Planning Commission by motion closed the public hearing and discussed the project. The matter was tabled to provided additional information. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Public Hearings are conducted through Statutory authority and once the Planning Commission closed the public hearing, the hearing should only be opened for new testimony. It is a reasonable request to open the public hearing and allow testimony on the revised plan. The residents of Graceview Estates wanted to make sure that they would have an opportunity to speak at the meeting so they have requested an agenda time. Sarah Pennings will be speaking on behalf of the neighborhood coalition. ATTACHMENTS: REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: No Action is necessary this is an informational item. CiTI' OF tiT. J[kSBVH Council Agenda Item 9 MEETING DATE: September 8, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: S & H Partnership - Graceview Estates 2 a. Special Use Permit b. PUD Amendment SUBMITTED BY: Administration PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission conducted the Public Hearing for the Special Use Permit and PUD Amendment on August 4, 2008, the public hearing was duly published, notice mailed, open, testimony accepted and closed. After the hearing was closed the Commission discussed the project and requested additional information and the matter was tabled to September 8, 2008. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Public hearing allow the public to comment and provide testimony on a specific matter. The body conducting the Public Hearing when all the testimony has been provided and the body then discusses the proposal. At this point in the process the public testimony has ended unless additional or new information has been presented since the closing of the public hearing. In the case before the Commission, revised site plans have been submitted as a result of the public testimony and Commission concern. Therefore, it would be appropriate to provide for an opportunity for additional testimony. In summary, the following new information has been presented: 1. Access -The developer has agreed to connect 7`h Avenue SE to the proposed development allowing for an additional access or alternative to 4`h Avenue. The St. Joseph Transportation Plan discuss the road classification for 4`h and 7`h, both of which function as a collector road. 2. Landscaping-The original plan included very little landscaping. The revised plan has doubled the amount of trees and has included the construction of a three foot birm along the residential backyards. 3. Developer Information -The developer has provided a summary of projects they are or have been involved with. 4. Ordinance Interpretation -The City Attorney has provided a letter on the options available to the Planning Commission along with an opinion on the governing Ordinances. ATTACHMENTS: Revised site plan with landscaping, color rendering of building, projects S & H is involved with, legal opinion, emails and correspondence, response to questions, REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission must determine if enough information has been presented to take action on the matter and if so a recommendation to the Council should be formulated. If additional information is requested the information should be articulated and the matter tabled to your meeting in October. NOTE: Please bring your packet from the last meeting. The information has not been duplicated in this packet. Also, since this is a very complex matter if additional information is received before the meeting we will email the information or have it delivered. Exhibit "C" MEMO TO: Judy Weyrens FROM: Tom Jovanovich and Lori L. Athmann DATE: August 20, 2008, updated September 5, 2008 RE: S&H Development FACTS The preliminary plat of Graceview Estates is for a Planned Unit Residential Development. The preliminary plat calls for rezoning to an R1 zoning district with a Planned Unit Residential Development (PURD) overlay which would allow development of the 91 acres in various phases. The plan calls for single-family residences which would be controlled under the R1 section of the 2002 Zoning Ordinance, duplexes and townhomes controlled under the R2 section of the 2002 Zoning Ordinance, and apartment buildings which would be controlled under the R3 section of the 2002 Zoning Ordinance. The Graceview Estates Preliminary Plat was approved by the City Council on February 21, 2002. However, the particular proposed development property was never rezoned to R-3 district, which includes apartment buildings as provided in the R3 zoning ordinance. It remains zoned as a R1 district. Minn.Stat. 462.358, Subd. 3c sets forth the effect of subdivision approval. It provides as follows: For one year following preliminary approval and for two years following final approval, unless the subdivider and the municipality agree otherwise, no amendment to a comprehensive plan or official control shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout, or dedication or platting required or permitted by the approved application. Thereafter, pursuant to its regulations, the municipality may extend the period by agreement with the subdivider and subject to all applicable performance conditions and requirements, or it may require submission of a new application unless substantial physical activity and investment has occurred in reasonable reliance on the approved application and the subdivider will suffer substantial financial damage as a consequence of a requirement to submit a new application. The purpose of this statute is to provide protection to the preliminary plat once it is approved. For one year following approval of the preliminary plat, and two years following approval of the final plat, it is exempt from amendments from comprehensive plans or official controls. Minn.Stat. 462.358, Subd. 3c. Selmer Construction. Inc. v. City of Hanover, 667 N.W.2d 457 (Minn.App.2003). This case is probably most on point to the issue at hand. There, the Exhibit "C" construction company began the process of obtaining approval for a residential development. The city conditionally approved the preliminary plat and rezoned the land that was to be developed from RA residence-agriculture to R1A single family residence, with a PD-planned development overlay. The developer's agreement stated that the preliminary plat would be valid for aneight-year period of time. If any portion of the development was not finally platted within that eight years, the preliminary plat approval as to the property not finally platted was to terminate. Thereafter, the developer and the city entered into a subdivision agreement for the final plat of the first phase of the project. A short time later, the city council approved an interim ordinance which established a 12 month moratorium of residential developments. When the developer applied for final plat approval of the next phase of the project, the city denied the final plat, claiming the final plat application of the second phase was filed more than one year from the date of the preliminary plat approval and, thus, was subject to the moratorium. The district court and Court of Appeals upheld the city's denial of the final plat approval by way of summary judgment. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the denial. The Supreme Court noted that after the city grants approval of a preliminary plat, the statute allows the applicant to seek final approval. If the applicant has complied with the conditions and requirements set out in the preliminary approval, the city must grant final approval. (Here, there was a re-platting, and thus, in essence, the conditions and requirements have changed from the preliminary plat approval). The saving grace for this particular developer, however, was that the city extended its approval of the preliminary plat to eight years in the developer's agreement and, thus, the one and two year statutory time periods did not apply as the statute explicitly provides that for a subdivision involving planned and staged development, a city may by resolution or agreement extend those periods longer than two years if it deems it to be reasonable and appropriate. I understand from the last Department Head meeting, that the only Developer's Agreement entered into between the City of St. Joseph and Graceview Estates is the one dated September 28, 2003, which is attached hereto. The "Plan B Improvements" are to be completed by no later than June 30, 2004, except for final wear course which shall be completed by September 15, 2005. There is no Developer's Agreement for the other phased developments. Here, the only agreement between the City and the Developer is contained in the Developer's Agreement which provides, at Section 7.0, as follows: For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan or official land use controls shall affect the use, development, lot size, lot layout, or dedications of the development which is a part of this Agreement unless required by State or Federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by State and Federal law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the Ciry's Comprehensive Plan, official controls and platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement. The Agreement mirrors the statutory language. Based upon the language of the statute and the Court's holding in Selmer Construction, Inc., an argument can be made that for one, or two years, after approval of the plat, the standards contained within the plat, as opposed to the official regulations and controls, dictate in the sense Exhibit "C" that they are exempt under Minn.Stat. 462.358, Subd. 3c. From and after February 21, 2004, the City "may" require any official controls and platting requirements to dictate. I understand that the proposed re-platting meets all of the official controls, regulations, and plans, with the exception that the property is currently zoned as a R-1 district. Apartment complexes can only be constructed in a R-3 district. One could argue that, because two years have lapsed since the approval of the plat, they are no longer "exempt", and the Developer is obligated to now comply with the current zoning ordinance and official controls, as opposed to what was contained, or allowed in the approved plats. That being the case, the City could argue that any platting of this property must now conform to the controls of the R-1 zoning district. The counter argument is likely to be that there was no "amendment" to the zoning ordinance from and after the Preliminary Plat as the property was never rezoned in the first instance and, thus, this statute does not apply. However, approving a plat does not, by and of itself, amend the zoning district. Amendments to the zoning district must be accomplished through resolution and ordinance. That being said, although there has not yet been an "amendment", one would be required to change the zoning of this land from R-1 to a R-3. This is a unique case because here such an amendment, under the statute, could not be applied to this development for two years after the final plat was approved. However, in order to proceed with the development, an amendment is required to rezone the property to include R3 residential apartment complexes. We have the reverse situation from those in which the statute was designed to protect. In any event, there is the argument that because two years have lapsed since approval of the final plat, the city may now require the developer to comply with all comprehensive plans and official controls established in a R-1 zoning district. I believe this may be the strongest argument for the City to proceed to deny the application. However, Minn.Stat. 462.358 also provides that after the one or two year period of time lapses from the date of the approval of the plat, the municipality may 1) extend the period by agreement with the subdivider and subject to all applicable performance conditions and requirements, or 2) require submission of a new application unless substantial physical activity and investment has occurred in reasonable reliance on the approved application and the subdivider will suffer substantial financial damage as a consequence of a requirement to submit a new application. Thus, the City may require submission of a new application, which would require a new preliminary plat. I understand their replatting complies with all of the current conditions and officials controls (again, with the exception of the zoning district). A municipality must approve a preliminary plat that meets the applicable standards and criteria contained in the municipality's zoning and subdivision regulations. Minn.Stat. 462.358, Subd. 3b. The first argument is that it does not meet the applicable zoning regulations as it proposes erecting apartment complexes in an area zoned as a R-1 district. (Again, the hurdle is that the statute is geared toward "amendments"). Second, the statute goes on to further state the plat must be approved "unless the municipality adopts written findings based on a record from the public proceedings why the application shall not be approved". Id. At the public meeting, the public expressed concern over the proposed apartment complexes being erected and as it will cause congested traffic, student residents, and create lack of emergency routes. They also claim that they relied upon the fact that the comprehensive plan shows the property was zoned, and continues to be zoned R-1 when purchasing their homes. Arguably, these public concerns may provide sufficient "findings" to Exhibit "C" support the council's denial of the Developer's resubmitted application and preliminary plat. There is some case law, however, which goes against this argument. See Odell v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 792 (Minn.App.1984)(Aesthetic considerations and neighborhood opposition are generally not a sufficient basis for refusal to grant an application for preliminary plat approval involving the subdivision of a lot which meets all subdivision zoning requirements). A new application may not be required if "substantial physical activity and investment has occurred in reasonable reliance on the approved application and the subdivider will suffer substantial financial damage. Minn.Stat. 462.358, Subd. 3c. There are several potential arguments relative to this section of the statute. Thus, the following elements are necessary: 1) "substantial physical activity and investment has occurred; 2) in reasonable reliance on the approved application; and 3) the sub-divider will suffer substantial financial damage. Here, there has been no physical activity on the subject lot, as it remains vacant. Arguably there has been a substantial investment made through the purchase of the property in reliance on the fact that the preliminary and final plats were approved. However, the statute requires both substantial physical activity and investment occurring in reasonable reliance on the approved application. Thus, unless both criteria are met, the first element may not be satisfied. As to the second element, there has to be reasonable reliance on the approved application. The city could argue that it was not reasonable to rely upon the approved applications when in fact the property was never rezoned as a PURD and is still shown in the comprehensive plan as a R-1 zoning district, which does not allow apartment complexes. The city has at least a good faith argument that the reasonable reliance element has not been met. Finally, the third element requires a showing that the sub-divider will suffer substantial financial damages if the plat is denied. The current owner (and proposed developer) of the property is not the same individual or entity that originally subdivided and platted the property. Thus, there is the argument that the "sub-divider", for the purposes of this statute, is not the same as the current developer/owner. The actual original "sub- divider" of the property has not suffered any financial damage as he sold the property at a substantial price. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, there is a basis upon which to argue that the City has the authority to deny the final plat of this subdivision. Both the Developer's Agreement and the statute provide for a two year grace period from which no amendments to the ordinance or comprehensive plan can be applied to an approved preliminary and final plat. Since that two year period of time has lapsed, the City can require the developer to resubmit his application. Because the zoning district was never changed from R-1, any new application would have to meet the controls and requirements of the current official controls -including the requirements established for R-1 residential zoning district, which precludes apartment complexes. The City has some basis upon which to argue that the owner must resubmit his application and that the exception to the statute does not apply because 1) there was no substantial physical activity and investment that has occurred; 2) the owner did not reasonably rely on the approved application because the property was never rezoned and remained in the R-1 district; and 3) the current owner was not the subdivider and the original subdivider did not suffer substantial financial damage as a consequence of a requirement to submit a new application. Exhibit "C" AVAILABLE OPTIONS As discussed above, the relevant statute is not clear and there is no case law to guide the court on how the statute should be applied to the unique facts of this case. Given the ambiguity of the statute, and the particular facts of this case, the court could rule either way. The Minnesota League of Cities has reviewed this legal memo and agrees with our analysis relative to the uncertainty of applying and relying upon the statute in this case. With all of this in mind, the Board has the following three options: 1. It can approve the Developer's application. 2. It can deny the application with findings. In the event the Board elects this option, it must make, at a minimum, the following findings: a. Two years has past since the final approval was granted, and no extension of that period of time was granted. b. No substantial physical activity and investment has occurred in reasonable reliance on the approved application. c. No substantial financial damage to the subdivider will occur as a consequence of the denial. d. The original plat approval required two separate access roads to County Road 121 and that currently only one access road has been constructed. e. The proposed development creates a safety concern to pedestrians as a result of increased traffic, no sidewalks, and the lack of a second access road to County Road 121. 3. It can approve the application on the condition that the second access road to County Road 121 be constructed in advance of moving forward with the proposed development. 4. It can deny the application, but allow the Developer to reapply after the construction of the second access road to County Road 121 has been completed. Note: This is also exhibit "C" for the summary of questions. ~7--r--~r-r- r-, - -- `~ ~ ~,--Q - -- --- tn-AWN-~~OOJ6~vt 1.WtJ- fi-o(IDDD-ocn~o~~zcnpt-o mDcnClnDmp~ mmcxl ~z~nnnzmc~nem~o ~,-1~mmm~r~-~omno-o mmn~ncncnmDm-<z~_zm O=tntncnpzt7 n~<~7U m OD~~rtlICD~OnDm3rtn-~[ nn-ommmDnom-IZc~mr Dimon-a~nDn3m~yaz pcnnA~~~mmzc~zcDirn z ~>« ~~ ~ ~ ~pm_ CpDL~ ND~n ZZNr' 70Nr- mm~:~cnmDz,D- zOm oNmcnG~-IrQ~ X70 -n-InmzDu'7U D'D --I;UmmDr-1 p z rmDdmL~~1711N ~p u'cn~m' Dmmr o- U N \ ~ m -U r D z z 3 /~ Z rn „; pDmDNZm <~ , N m \ ~ "'om ~~ A s / ~m nA ~ D m~ O m z z ~ D ~, ~~ _ m z ~ -~ ~ o b ~~ E z~ m = Ox / 3 m N /' U s -~ --- \ ~~ ~i I ' \ Lm. ~ G ~ W yo9 ~ ~P-10 ~ ~ F ~ ~ \ Atmn~~ ~ c ~~ d m ~ `' m A l ~ m ~ 6~ ¢~~ ~ I ~® L ~ ___. _ __ _. _ ~ s _ ~ _ ~ X. ® ~ ~ - V ~ ~c m ~~~9 ,o ~ ~~, T o~ ~y~ ~ . '" y ~ s ~~C~F t8-3 ~~ O \ ~ O 5~~. ~,\ F,~s~CS`s a ~, \ C ~ ~ ~ a, ~. \ C'P ~ ~. \ C a ~\ E \C ~r 0 ~z n~ xD C mo AC z v~ D A z N -i r N I I N I I~ /nl ~~ J ~', t ~I d' 5'-Ol i ~ _ - - \ _ - _ - it _ m X 3. N ~ ~ ~ ~ J _ N ~` m ~ ~~J ~ O ~ i ~~(~1\7 J N 1/ _ Q 1 ,` Q~ E ~ Oo ~~ W ~ ~ W -- ---~ \ N ~ ~ w - ~/ ~y __ ~~ %~ ~= i~ m \ \ ., / / ~~ . w / ~, o DD / ~O 7070 c=E~r cS-I~r mfll n7< ZA Om- zT1E((i- ~%' m zz ~m az =~mo v too Nm01m / ~ AA -I pt~O~ / Am om A O Op ~p~pA N d~ D~pOA f / / /, 7l1 ~~ zO3xx Z /~ m ~ y vx Njn a -°~ ao~.`nn o ++ ~`n ° m -i .A ~ fJ T 'uk ONW C ~~ u D ~ 3 .,\ x ~ ~ ro m z -I ~ A ?~ ~ z m rrj, P cn m m \ "iW mOD O~~A DAppA ~ ~~03D -O 3x n \ z x . Z 11 Ox ~iw ~ v: li A o„ ~~„m O°~Qt~~ ~ ~ tAit m Dzi A m >< z PLOTT ED: 0 5-29-0a FlLE 9 : 080 38s11 CON : ~ __ - _ - ` • - - - - r gc ri e ~ a W ~ a[ e I _ 3 ~ - - - - m s p e ar d b a d r m v c p r i ,. W _ - _ __ a t o l a 1 Ic na d rc M rt c N T p - . _ _ _ _ _ - - _ L e c _ ~ _ _ - s _ __ _ - _ _ - -_ _ - - __ $ n tr _ _ 3 ) Lt N m NEW TREES t SHRUBS TYPE p ~ QUANTITY r 7c ~ t p T m 0 0 m D LETTER '" ~ -~ SYMBOL r U a+ m "a 3 d %a A c O O n Z Z li I A N 2 D D -i A A 3 fop ~ ~ T 7C INII -Aj _ A = D D ~ N Z < m .~ j j -Da D O ~ ~ E Z O m ~ D -a D D D U O m E O = m (1 y N ~ m m m O A m A 07 3 D T- 3 ~ A x - C g ~ m ./ ~ ~ x Z m -~ x n ¢ ~ Z A r < ~ N W Q W N ( ~ O N \/ {~ n = n m D D D iii 0 r L` c = D ~ T D m 3 r 0 0 0 0 (1 n i Z i z i i ~, D -~ O O O O Z m c c c m A Z m A A A A A D D D D b yy T "tea ~a m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 ~\ PLOTIEO: 024-0a FllE 080 38sif COtF. i 0 - - -- - r yc 71 a I a. spc la e - m _ w a p e ar d b e o d r m v c r i ~ W - - - - - - a d t o I _ a ul Ic d rci c ° - - - M N T ~ .. a _ _ "_ _ _ - - - - - - t - - - - - - - - - _ _" - - __ _ .f._ - N m 5 n t r - - - 3 f c T N@"11 ova z_ ~z< „o om AD fP ~ ~~ m m r Nr ~~ D m -TI w -) W Nrn .I r fll o ,~ Z tT1 v I~I~ELIMINAI~Y N~_~ ~O~ ~,Z< ~~ o ~" %~ D to ~ ~~ m m r a f n D m w = ~ ~ W N II ITI ~~ _~ ~m -I Z FOIE BIDDING ONLY v~ orrEO: os-za-ae Fly : oeo aeez cou: z e -- ~ I - r y c r i Fa i a , ap c i et e I ~ a - m a ear d b e a d r m ~r c r i ~ a d t a I a ul Ic na d rc i s r __ _ _ - - ~ a - T c ~ - -- -- - - - - - N m - 5 n tr~ 3 > c c i f l t f NIA -U pp0 z_ pZ< nO om AD Nr -i ~ m m r n Dm m ~ m oIm 0 z V~UI U' OpA; ~z<i -n p! omi ~v: ~~~ ~• . m m r N -~-~ ~~ D r m Q Wz W~ N =rn ,r 0 °rn C U C PI~ELIlVIINAl~Y - F'CJI~ BIDDING Ol~TLY PLOTfEO: W I O~ u N ~ =n - -- i 0 _ ~\- N T=-- ,o_ ~ N .w ° i 1 ~o-~ N U - ,-- .~ i O -ti-- ¢I r U N ll ' m N ~' n D m E D r '-- z r ~ - z o ~ . ~ m ~ N a W $ o .ro rn w A m s \~ U ~" - A X F'= - - -D, z N ~ ~ O o ~ ~ n Gz ~ . ~ ~' o m ;n ?' - _ P U x M1 Iy c p L~ L~ ~ J ~ p O m z ~ z O O r0 z D E U n m n W m v W A 1 O ~ m m n E ~' m D P r _ r- z w <N~ O a ~ w -9i-- N ' D o ti m e tl I17 W mN A N D ~ 2 A~ ^, z n U Um O P a ~ D~ ~ r N ~. D im U Z ~ _I NX 0 0 Z p ~ ~ ^ ~ Z Q : ~ o o D E U v m m w D A 0 U ~ E N D D ~' m r z r z m ~. ° ° -~ : -{ N O n ~ O r1I m A ~' X ,: D -1 _ ~' ~ s o p ~ ~ u ~ ~ z O 3 ~ ~ ~ m to m O O z - W ~- D _JI O O p DO w m A z C~ O m E N D D P m r zW r N O > -~ w ~ ~. e` ~ - ~ N o U `~'~' v o rIl N m N O s ~ z X r ~ ~ ° P o z z '<. ~ P ~ N v n D ' i c c tl o -~ 1 ~ N m O I} y O O z A P p W I .e.l z O z D O U w m ~ D A z P m n E N D ~` m r z w r , "' O _{ ,A a m r y, ~ ~ s a 1 -i ~ DA m A N ~ ~ D X :. -I ~ z A ` z n N N G' O ~ . r U N E N D z M W r I O ~ u W o ~ O -~ ~ ~ N m 0 tl m s A D W -{ X F z ~ n O c~ ~' I v ° D ~ O N s ~ x ° ~ 0 0 z A w D } A Oz O -~ I O W E tl ~ a m ~, m D O Z] z P N tl I N n N r - m m r r- m N z o ~ °- -I ~ ~ ~ W ° O ~ ~ ~ ~ O rn m A D W ~ X - z n o 0 n c~ ro n D ' W N ` - O a m x O -+ O m 7 '~~' W _~ A ~. z O ° D ^ U W ~ tl _ W m D O A ~ ~ m ~ ~` z (1 n m ~ y r - -~ z O \ W a I f ~` \ "' w m R o U In v o N m e A D N -1 ~ o z X .; ~ n U P O _ P ° ~ ~ ~ ~ v D I W O ~ N ~ 3 U m N x O .i D -~ W O O z z A i D A z p O D _ - n U W e O ~ ~ m @ z N W n a m D A f :. a c rn o n ~ ~ ` D D ~ z m a r r O ~ 1 m ~ W _ O D ~°~ ~' G ' ITf ( o wA m A D ~ . un X F , z O P P c i ~ z - C z D - o m `~ tlm s o N x O ~ O ~ m O I A B.. r J 1 z O ~ 1 o tl I~ [ z E tl A ~ ~ 1~ m D W A O ~ N ~ D A tl o ~ c ~ ° D 1 1p C a im a m p A 01 N c A O D ' ~ -_ A •- tl . z O D W E U ro a m O D A W Z ~_ PLOT 7E0 : 07- p}08 FlLE 08038p7 C OM: 1 _ _- 23'-9° w ~, m tlT N ~ - -----7r- -~ N m ,. (~ ~ ° W l7~ ! 13l'-6" _ --0--- - -------- ----- -- --~ ti ~ U ' - -------------- _ ~- -- W co N ~ ~' cn 36'-O" u' u7 ---------- -- - -n --=tt =n ~ n ~I 11 fra o- w +r QO I ~ O 21'-6" N ' O O N ~ 1 ~, W ~p ~ - o ~~ `=' ~ 4``" - CORRIDOR ' o _ _,n 1 ~ - Ctl I O .S] v, W - w w- --O I .O ~ O O ~ i 1- 3, ~., ® I III ~~ o- ~, w -O D O ~ '--- - - _ _ _~„- - - ;, a 25'-O,. l'-6" 6'-5" II'-5" 8 `h" '-9" ~ - i - _--____-W_- _- _.__ ~..____._ _N ____.A. __ __--__~ --_ -- N O 71 Y ~ I O O _ I ® w ~' ~. I "---- ---- ~ 3 O 3 ~ , O - .. -. - ~ i - 12'-0" 5'-9" ,-3" 5'_-3_" 5'-9" i2'-O"_ 3, .I ~, x W ~~; _~h ~ -- -_-------- = - - --- - --- ~ -= O h _ -_-_ - - ___- I W W NNNNAf vto~Fufd(yN~~J m-inv~ aWIJ- -~ 0 ~ -_- O W I aWU-O. . . . . r ~ O N N Oo m3?Dumxx Om?Dmv00()TLaDZ`OD3 1 ~ N N rmAi~':rDDzaArrxyxODZ i zAD7pD ]' _-1 N Of)m1XOZXlnmmrmOmD r()m OUNN X Z - _ ® ~ I mDUOp AAA=GTmU-fmmm=m0 xUm° .n T _ ~zmU. DyOmXOA zWmXOmU~u Z ~._. pyDjs~`_`-~eOzNDDDON(1z i zA~~Ti 3 - / 1 - ArA-j?ZOOIajI~Ca UU3N~AOD~tznOW CP _ - _ - I i -]AmmT<mm=x=Namm~mojuomzzmi~ 3 _~ ~ i 1 1 i _ ~ 13r 0~~ Ormi~~Ox A-X11z~A m-zi ~zixlcpzm-zid4'x ~ i -~- 1 1 -~-' I - AADDA-<t70~=zmiNhnllA Om~D-D-I w O ~ ~ ~ O 1 __ _ zA3A DOTV 'ID DDDCD 1-'t1Amn'~~ ~ OD ~--~- ~ ly O N OD oDAOU A -~-I N lIN nI w -'~OmD~-NiDO~D 00"Dm U<m Aye (P = Dymtl~ Nam zzcr- Dr D(T-1 '• _ - mmmmo~omo ,o° r~ 6~z~~-a ~p. w - W i <' O~ -gym mp mz 1m-Ntli'D O) N N CO N Nm~n mOmO m(1 1<nD O~~m;- IJ ~ ~ (J] N O O O ~ I I ~mNN '~mm jD -U ~=zn0 -A. 77 Vl ® '- ® V7 .n ~ .1+. I ~jlrz Nm OA x m~mOA ~ a I lO = O roGi Aw nD O~ .~ rim m(OIpA O D ~O A.. m~OA" - ! 1 ~ - ODr~ 'A-A Om Aa 3AA0 __.._ I I _ i`nlpi ~m° Atl <o D Nm -fl ~ ~ -- -- I c -o DARn' !~i m-m/ AA r LD 1 ^ u W 03ND A~ jfAi1 (1 O ADUw D Zw m-e m ~ ~ DAr P r m0 A ao ... W - O ~ ~_ ~ OD m m `- '~ a ~m< m m O ___ _ (n ~ (n mm m O m -t, - '-n _ ~ ~ '11 f1tl m ~ ~ ~ om -+ I' N ti O \ ; NO ~ ~ s - ~- ul 25'-4" - 5'-4" 25'-4" _ O ~WWWWW WW WW~NNn ~ __.-__ -_ - -_- _- - _ ~mJ n~jWN '~ mJ~maWNrp, mJ. W avi-IN-W am GNNDAm RANT nrTN'11N1t ]n'7t- - I ~'i E220 Ami ODDDm-fzrzDmAi Amrx - =00zA XXZinO(I~mzrDlnOm(lmmm0[I00 - _ _-__..__ _ ~ ~ O Q =~'o Aa~'mD~°Ntlnn'Pm~-~~ammX~'NAiO 3r_ .,I _I`'- /tJ~ °~ ~' 'i to P~ADmmy~mw,rr@m~~Aa'ce nAxyfDO~Ny _ \ / I Q li .n-+mDrzm~ncmA2<-DINV \DIOc D'A..7'_D-+ D n1 U] ~ ~ O i _ DD?82 AA 000Om ~mm pNimD~ ?_' Uzp1m -I C n I A mOA A -1()...IZ AU-«3 Z-I tl r- ~ ~y Unm~ADZmm UO m-IAm rm Dm OC'mm D ~~ - A E. In -(1. (1 t=C~ r mn~n'zrzz A N D ~ r O ~ U _ ~ - DmDNAOEmmmymz~m y~<Iit i!)ar10D ~ ni = ___ __, Q ~-~ N om mma ApEm z .. ~ J W i 3' 0„ rmrmPAaaA~a Abm ~zmmAnmm~~~-+ D ~ ~ I = _ yr 1 oommpxoWr~i<o ~o mNmO Nomm~oo 3~ a O ~ ~ --O" o w Nr m N O _ ~ I m „~ -Oozj--ximi pm'io ntl m mo AXONAmO O I -- O- -- xDO ~ 1m an E <A m<~ <NA z ~ _ ~ ~ I '-O' O m~m0 c jP 3O ND pm~ NOm (P Ii _I ~ ~ -__ _ _ O ~ - Nib ~ A mm mm ~ ~m m~ i OD D U O ~~ ----- W _ O W O -ni " vy Om ~ v -~y INjl~O ~ z I I N - N i ~ O zD ~O z a N~ m~T Z ~ O O -_ - ~ - ~ N r A NN mZ D O m~A ~ f. ~ - 1 Az z N zA AA Z X OE -a L~3 D m O - C ~~ NN D 3m DmD W -U ~ 3 - - ©_- _ ~ ~ i 3~ On o Inm m m a mN D A .9 °~ fJ °~ D _, -~ _ ~ - fil < z Ty N A ~„ 1 111 I I I m A~ m m = DOA ~Zjl - N 0 - O ~ b ~ roa D ~ r- O _ - - _ ~ ~ c D m r o - _, W ~ ~ < D D ~} O --- - - ~ o LT w Z O ~ -- ~ 00 a nl N _ ~.____ _ _ ___.~ '____ _ . ___ u, _ ~ ~ _ I - -- it ., g - g -II 1 _ ~ o O ___-__- - _ _-__-..-___- -O _ O - .__ti __- -_-_- -_- O O - ~ X O O W -_ __- o --- ----- --... 56.'-x° --- w tT w w w I I 131.. b -- ----- - -- --- -- - - - _ - O II'_II" -~~9'-8e-- 23' 4 __ _q' 4" E? II'-b _9 IO___ ~ -- -- b0'-II"--- O~ 9'-I i~~133 2 _ 13'-O _~ 9 ~" _ rl I3 -6 10 _L~' 1.3 2' - 12'-0" ~_- _ 39'-b" __ -_-__- e~- - .....i __.__ _ -- _ T N w .A, W m N ~ w i 00 ~ W -1" ~ ° Uf , N ~ -N ------- --3b'-O"-_ --•-Nn -~--------- ---36'-O".-- --__------.N 36,_O„ --- --~ ~ 21'-b„ Uf ~ - - - 1 - o- n ~,. O- - -- - D ~ O - - N q N ° --- •--- - C) - O o - ,.,.-~ -.T-~ - -----N N - r~= •-;--- wi ~ ~ n I ~ ~ - I w ~ = I- N ~ - n W r L w I- , U ~ - ° 1 ~-- -- ~ , u ~ , --- 9 -- ---- ~ - .. ~, - oo-' -- ---- ---- m CORRIDOR ,~ ~, ~~° ° o "~ t- - ~ w c~ F ~ -- - ~n O U' ~ - W W - r ~ ~ ' ~ , ~ 13' O„ N- O. `~ N ~ ® 111 x Q p `_: ;- ~ , - -'' fTl ~-~ ~ - I O _ O ~~ ~, ~, I D - - - -, .--- - - - _ - ~ o b w O 36'-O" - 25'-O" ~'-b" 6'-5" 11'-5„ 8,_b, ~_~{•• w I _~-__._-. __._- _____ ____-~f. -__.__ _. -_-____-_._- -_N --_--.-_-._ __- _ -- ._-. -_- _ _ N - ~ OD ~ J _ ° (~ N ` N m n E ~ -I1 Y ll w -.._- ~ u N A ]> _ O ® r ~ m r- m a -- -- - -- ------ i O z r. ~ _ Z w i m N - U i ~ f rJ 1~ j I -- .-_ _ o -p wA m b -O" _ 12' O" 12'-O" 5 9"~ 3 ~5'-3 i5__9' I2_ 6" _ _ ~ W I I - 3, o rn Nn X ~ O„--- - 35' 9" IO 6" __ 21 _3•, O --_--- _ ~ - -- - - - - - - b ~ NI ~ 0 b9'-b" 12'-O" I D _ - ~ z _.-_. w ° z ~ n ---- 81 b' -- - z ~ ~ om b - a ' z O I ^ #I ~ O Li A ~ ~ I ~ O _ _ O z \ z o. °D 0 ~ m W m W D A O n O m E N p n m r ~ r Z w jN x o .~. -i W yr a c v' ~ \ CD -I p ~ ~ ~ 3m - rp N IDA O N y O A N D :..I z N~ ~; i ~ ° °°° o p C I c j~ n b u w r Im s _ -i ~ N . m O O O bX z ~ O O D E ~ ~ m a_ m ~' A C ~ n E N ~ D t` m r z .. W r u ~ -. ~ ~ W O ~ S O ` tll m o A "' X :. b ~ -1 (1 W O Z C CI , ~ () D z O 3 O O H 1 l m o o I ~.l o O ~ w m D A c ~ omE --~ m n fP D D i '" r r m O a _{ W ~• o ~ \ -~ ~ rn N ~ o N m A N- O D ~ z X ~ O 4 c' O z o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'r ~ ~ ~ - Z ~ D 3 m o O O O m z z w D - A z p a O D 0 0 ~ w a m z C `' O m E n W D ~ r z r u O j -I `~` ,~ a \ i` 0 N W O ~ ~ ~ r < c ~ rrI :-t ' m < m d D A N ~b X n D ~ ~ O , z O wA ~ O r !P i D ~n E- ]> r r z O a• -1 ,^~,' _< N ~ W o o -D < rTl m O A D N -1 X -f Z n n O t, c , ~ ii D ! O 3 O N = ~ ~ O m O I z u w ~ A ~ O 1 0 a E ~ m m ~, n O '^ A Z c ~ N °m n E N n ~ ~ z r r -I r O _1 ~ \ ~ m N `~ ° -° ro o rn m a A D N ~ X z rf Lr O 0 0 ~ n Y ! w O „' a x ° o 0 ' + '~ z p r0 D I r` O w \ E O „ m w D O m A r ~ m n E Z m ~ ~ -I N w ~ "-- -( N O -U N Z ftl O N m O o A N -1 Z X :. z n p D O ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ n . D ' - w o c ~ _ -i ~ 3 N ;? O Oz O L~ A W ~ D o - z O o D ~ ° ~ W E ~ o , m W a D A ~ Z ~ o n E in n i z r I ~ O ~ ~ '-~ m `c-'' o U ~ -mac ~ fll wA m O A y N ~ ~n re0 X -I Z ~~ O ~ p C' c ~ Z zz~. D , ~ m O .. 3 m o o ~ o ~ I I z } ~-} O A ~ z O O D o 1 I z -\ ~ d . I, m N m D W O A D !, N ~ ~ fo D 'I m ~ ___ - ~, ~ N Q /~ N O yNNNU>m ~.: ~n swu.O_om,~.-u. awwf- ~Il I v ` N W311DI.ill=20m TDm AO(l(1-„r.AD-npD3 mA-1';r DD Z3 Arriyx ODZ I zjUDjpD OOm-IXOxzmmr„r m0(pDr(1m OOmN x D z .-~ __ ~ + N ll ® ® -Tt maoOpAAm=omOOimmm~mox=OmoC mAT Aropzu z~0 'pDD~z~OA X ~ ( ` - mmr ~ I ~z~zA ~ mDpO A Z D ~ A 3 _ 3 „ ~ I ___- -__ N L i I , „ A Z _ T D-i1~ ~ Or - A -i-1...ZOOm\C3 -U~3m AOD~m ON j Am m m C r~l 1 ~ ~ - ~ _ I ~ _ 1 ~ I I 1 I _ I I i-f _ (7f W lfl 3 O mnm O zzi (fO -I nD W Tm XX=XiI ON Z ~~L~S C p~ S < ~A~ Z S D ~ ~ ~ i _ Q ~ 9 ~O A „-i- 11 I i ~ f A'f-~, 2 oI -ao-mm_r_sr D a A ~ NOOz A-mtooD = OA<N~zN Z I- r„1 `1 - ~ I 1 D m = (1m O~Ar~ Z -1 DDyr~D IiIIA13„e'E O 3 O ~ w ~+ - D z r A D D m ~ ~~OmDr m-tmAD9 i+NI~mO OO~D (lf _ _ 1 _ DDTOD-i~-iNSmD zzcr Dr D(li mro p~~~mv mm ~OOmp~ .. I ~ w w N I ° N pW O j 1 / + O O /~ J 1 I ' ° e ~mz m OA x+ ?E 00 W \ m z \ _ - Dz 00 A t 70TH SA -- 1N `..J , _- Uf- I I s~~~ mAa om m~ mA° 3 - ~. _- ; I -j•' ~ 1 3, O„ pN(1 OD Zw -Di _D Am-1 „' mN~ O Oe . O~ ~. - . ~~ _ (( (r~~ W ~_~_ I -_ __ -1..I ~ D ~~ D z r° r A ao w iA~m .~~ =m AT uw l D ~ „' O w -fl . D m ... -- ~V -AAON D SW mb ~ W Q ~ N a ° =°03 ~' D mo m w D,A~ m ~ m n --- N Q N ~ N- N O O m m ~ ~ ~ _ O 11 m O m m mm m z O N w N ~ ^ ~l - i O-1 ~ I I ----- 'fl ~ ° m' N O - Q N ` W ~\ w Dn O ' " ( - - j - (n 25' -4" - 5'-4" 25 -4 O ~ ~ aaa a1 jWF+i slWpWh WWWWWW~~,f f.fN m y0. .~, mawu-0. m u ^ _ - ~'. -._- a -A _ O I O W amC N„!y Am AANr()['„fD~~m AT N~^~N I ESSO Am I ODDDm-fzrzDmA i Amr-S 'OOOA -XXZm O[f tnmzmDm Om Ommm O(100 mtfAZ N m zmoc -m 3- .- I N.. w N a= ^ I ~ ~ I N m ~z,lxum~~ 21-0 Aa ... \ONOnmt'in'O„~ITm13„IOiIX~NAA 9 /f' t , ° I ~ ° T + C~ADm~DO„Ib'~~Dm\pma~nh=DmOOND c im D D D D1 c m- ' _ I W X An ~ n Drz mAZ<-1 a DOAODA(10 OA nmmAm]mad~<ns D~mtl O~mmAaimmA O m z ° *~ I - I I - O p - f m cmm DmOt'mm An Enm -(1~(r (1 ZrZZ A N Dm A O m ~ D `m ~ - - - -- -' I 3, O„ T ~N oyoET mm om-Imm~ m~ I N Ozmm ADmm 3 A r i rin" D D~ (n ~ C n _.+ ` _ 1 , „ W~ Q I l)-- 1 AV .i-i m i W AaDb.'t „ l m=pvr".~WZmA DO m~m0 mjinOmOm r p O -+' ~.,_ 5 _O m I ~ O pE~~mti IO 0~1m~~r NDO n~ ~ p ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ 5,_O,, m ~ ° a - m-Din°p c ND Om~ N jCr 3[1 --I -1 OD t) ~ -- ~_-_._ . 7i1t~ yl~f~~~ D Om A -(fn• A -O D 3° - v I _ t'' ~~r~ Q _ w _ ° Nm $ o o m 3 a ~N n $ m rn _ -= C - O D (l 00 Op Om \ zn ~ ~1 ° ~. N ~ N N I ~ T m m vN v ~ 2D mpo (n Uf I O ~ v _rI T1 _ ~ A mW m~ z D WO OC1A Az z ~ ill O - - N W ~ ~m AA z X OE mC3 m p ~O n O\ D Z 3, O -' I- -- -- ~+ w 1 3 ~ \D m Nm W Do DNe m m -mom z ~ -~ m r V o ~- _ ~ N s= D o mm w c m 1) D / - ~ rn N I i7 s m o m A mT z m i m ~ w ~ ~ O O o N m DO AW - i o D a3 ' D rn ~-- ~ - ~ o m ~ 0 w 7p - t--- -- N (-- 1 ~ ~ ~ --- N - - W ~ -- w D D /- I -- - 'N g 8 ~ ~ il 1 - s n ., - y - I- _-- ---.. - - --- - i _ G~ w p o nl A Q CP ~ _ ` .-. - - N N _. t -- O ._-- I I 00 x w 2~- ~~ -----fir'-,_4„_ 2, q„ 3' O" IS'-O" 20'-O" I8'-O" 3' O" m -. ---- _ ---- -- _ --- __ - -~'6- O - m -„ - ~ -- 0 N O (, C m { D m n y ~ A N A ~ m N - _ O om ~ ~A m ~ }-n ~ I z O O D o+ E ~ a ~ m m m O A m Z C+ _~. - - - -- _- - _ S e ~- _ _ni L_. o ilm_ a ml - q & ~ - .- _ - '._ - _ _ -- _ _ _ _ _ - -- _ _ - u le fs sl n d In I _v r e le a set 6- ~ a_. - -. -..- - _ - » ff _ -_ _ ... _._ -. - - - - qre y c r di t tb s n. a e Ili a Io re I _.. i tT W_ _ _ - ^ __. ~ w s p e ar d b e o d r m v c p r Isa • _ .- R_ m --. ._.. ._. _ _. _ _ _ __ I _ ___ _ a _d t o 1 _e_ „_I Ic_ nsd rclC c I _ -° - _ H s _ _ _- -_ - ~ - -_ Z f _ - ~~ l,.Ii ---- - -~- - - -. ..._, ._-.. - --_~ -- -~- --- --- - i ' N m _ ~ _ _ ~ _ 5 n t r _ - - 3 f ~ c c _ ~ ~ ~ 'k„~ i1WrY:,_~A~ 0 G1 7~ S n n o D r o m z T m m N O O ^' 9 LARRY HEIM SURVEY BY st. cloud office C ~o DRAWN BY: CBG 3717 23rd Street Scu[h p~ o z PROPOSED ROADWAY LOCATION DESIGNED BY: Shcflt Cloud, MN 56301 ~ c m ~ m S & H REPEAT OF GRACEVIEW ESTATES [ ARRROVeoev: onK Phone: 320-251-a 550 ~ Bonestroo n o P - - - Fzx. 320-251-6252 ST. ]OSEPH, MN once oa zs-oa C. BONESTROG 2008 Website:www.bon estro o.COm 3 ~0 PM ..-., r n 0 r z n m 0 x z C7 C~J v~ Y y ~ N S .^ ~- ~ ] n' U' R C F G n 1 X. O N ~D a z? • _' .. aW~ ~'' o ° ~, ~' ~ ~. ~ W ~ -~ ~--- ,~.; c ~ N ~, Sep 04 08 02:48p Riverside Real Estate 3202513350 p.2 September 4, 2008 Judy: Linda from Bonestro called me several days ago and indicated that you would like to a sample of properties that we have built, we have sold, and are or are now managing. # of units Address Type of Property Status 30 530 15~' Ave SL Conventional Built 1987 l , 2 & 3 BR Sold 44 1420 East St Germain Conventional Built 2001 1, 2 & 3 BR Sold 2004 42 1428 East St Germain Conventional Built 20(-1 l , 2 & 3 BR Sold 2004 12 339 6`" Ave So Conventional Built 2001 2 BR Currently Managing 42 229 S'h Ave So Conventional Purchased 2003 1, 2 & 3 I3R Currently Managing 21 327 7'h Ave So Mixed Use Buili 1988 1, 2 & 3 BR Currently Managing 7 26/28/30 5`h AvSo Mixed t -se Purchased 1981 1, 2 & 3 BR Sold 2002 ='3 625 12'f' Av No Conventional Purchased 200$ 1 & 2 BR Currently Managed The units that we built have been either built by S& H Partnership or STC Builders of ;h Larry Heim and Jim Staalg are the owners. If you have any othe yuasti~ms please feel to call me at any time at 30-267-1936, C cy Lawrence N Heim builUrnanr~b~ OVER THE PAST WEEKS MANY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED REGARDING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOR S 8c H PARTNERSHIP. IN AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS, THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED HAVE BEEN COMPILED AND GROUPED INTO ONE TWO CATEGORIES AS LISTED BELOW. AS ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ARE RECEIVED THEY WILL BE ANSWERED AND PLACED ON THE WEBSITE AS WELL. NOT ALL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED HAVE BEEN LISTED BELOW; SOME OF THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN FORWARDED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT. THE WEBSITE CONTAINS DETAILS AS TO THE DATES AND ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION. ORIGNAL PRELIMINARY PLAT - 2001 When was the original preliminary plat submitted, approved by the City Council and how long is the term of the preliminary plan? Was the developer required to complete an EIS? Who was on the Planning Commission and City Council at the time of approval? If the plat was submitted in 1991 why did it take unti12001 to receive approval? Why does a concept plan have so much weight? Is it the preliminary or final plat that is before the Planning Commission? What version of the Ordinance is used to determine building compliance? Concept Plan -The first concept plan for the Graceview Estates Plan was submitted in September of 2001, not 1991. The concept plan was submitted to the Planning Commission, Park Board and City Council at a joint meeting. The developer presented what they called a life cycle housing development. The plan included traditional single family homes, patio homes, townhomes, bay homes, assisted living and multiple family facilities. In October 2001 (See PC Minutes on Website) the developer submitted a revised concept plan that changed the apartment facility from one large building to two 40 unit buildings. Preliminary Plat -PURD -At the time the Developer submitted the request for PURD the City did not have a formal application that was required to be completed. The developer submitted a project narrative and vicinity plan along with the concept plan and preliminary plat. Other than the engineering comments specific to utilities and infrastructure the submittal information along with the minutes have been placed on the website. Before the City could act on the plat, the developer was required to complete an Environmental Assessment Worksheet which considers the impact of the development. The purpose of the preliminary plat is to plan a large tract of land assuring that the infrastructure (both street and utility) is extended in the best interest of the City. Hearing Process -The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the PURD, Preliminary Plat, Special Use Permit and Rezoning in December 2001. At the time the request for PURD was submitted the City did not require rezoning for each different housing type. Rather, the entire parcel was rezoned R1 with a PURD overlay, allowing for the mixed density and use. Considerable discussion was held at that time and the City required additional access to CR 121 (Callaway Street). At the time of the development of phase one, the City started the process to secure the ROW for the access to CR 121 known as Field Street. Final Plat - When a developer intends to develop a plat in phases, a final plat is only prepared for the portion being developed. Before the City will consider a final plat, the preliminary plat must be approved by the City Council. The approved preliminary plat becomes the master plan for the tract of land. A developer can then develop the property in phases, seeking final plan approval for the portion being developed with utilities and streets. Therefore, a final plat was not submitted for the entire 91 acres now known as Graceview Estates. Development Agreement -Once the developer has submitted the required material for a final plat, construction documents, the City develops a development agreement for that portion being final platted. The developer's agreement will include project specific items that are a requirement of the phase. Ordinance Compliance - At the time the PURD was submitted the 1992 edition of the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances was in effect and used for compliance and process. The Ordinances went through a massive update in 2002 and a new edition was adopted by the City Council. The Ordinance Book has again been updated in 2008. The 2002 Ordinance replaced PURD (Planned Unit Residential Development) with PUD (Planned Unit Development). Up until 2002 only residential developments qualified for development through the PURD process, today commercial can also apply thereby the name dropped the "r". 2001/2002 City Council Members: Mayor Larry Hosch. Councilors Cory Ehlert, Bob Loso, AI Rassier, Kyle Schnieder. 2001/2002 Planning Commission Members: Chair Gary Utsch. Members S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Kurt Schneider, Mike Deutz, Jim Graeve. Council Liaison AI Rassier. FINAL PLAT/PUD AMENDMENT - 2008 Who is the developer -Background? What is the process, meeting dates etc... ?Can the residents be placed on the agenda? What is the role of the Council, is it to represent the public or the developer? What Ordinances are used to review the plat? Developer -Application for the replat of Graceview 2 was submitted by S & H Partnership of which Larry Heim and Jim Stang are the owners. S & H manage or operate a number of rental units in the St. Cloud area. Current properties managed include: 339 - 6th Avenue South; 229 - 5`h Avenue So; 327 - 7th Avenue So; 625 -12`h Avenue S all of St. Cloud. Properties built and sold include: 530 -15`h Avenue SE; 1420 East St. Germain; 1428 East St. Germain; 26j28/ 5`h Ave S all ofi St. Cloud. Process -The Developer was required to submit an application for Special Use Permit, PURD Amendment and originally re-zoning to R3. The City considered the application complete on July 29, 2008. MN Statute requires municipalities to act on a land use matters within 60 days of completed submission. If the municipality requests additional information, the action requirement can be extended and additional 60 days. The matter was placed on the Planning Commission agenda for August 4, 2008 and the public hearing was conducted. At this same meeting the Planning Commission closed the public hearing. During the meeting, questions arose as to which Ordinance applied and the standards being used for Ordinance compliance. The Planning Commission tabled action on the application and recommended the Council extend the deadline for action an additiona160 days to receive the following additional information: 1) access -traffic safety; 2) Landscaping and buffer for existing residents; 3) Review of applicable Ordinance. Additional information has been received by the Staff and will be considered by the Planning Commission on September 8, 2008. While the Planning Commission has closed the public hearing, enough new additional information has been presented that would warrant re-opening of the public hearing. However, this decision must be made by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will continue to discuss the matter and they do not have to make a decision at this meeting. The matter can be tabled again if additional information is presented. To meet the Statutory requirements, the City Council will have to make a decision on this matter the third Thursday in November. Placement on the Agenda -The Graceview coalition can be placed on the agenda to assure the opportunity for input. As of this time the City staff has received a request for such and the coalition will be placed on the agenda for fifteen minutes immediately before the Commission considers the request. Ordinance Compliance -Since the meeting on August 4, 2008 extensive review has been completed on the project. Review included the City Attorney and Attorney from the League of Minnesota Cities specializing in land use/land us litigation. A separate legal opinion is provided as Exhibit "C" that outlines the Ordinance Compliance. ROLES AND RESPONSIBLITIES The question has been asked as to the role of the City Council, Planning Commission and staff. To provide accurate information two exhibits have been attached to this memo. The exhibits are extracts from the Leaeue of Minnesota Cities Handbook a resource guide that is provided to all Cities. City Council -Exhibit "A" Planning Commission - "Exhibit B" Zoning Administrator - "Exhibit B" i~ r` ~ ~~111~~ s~_,, ; i ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~,,~ ~. A city Web site or publication may include biographical information about an elected or appointed official, a single official photograph of the official, and photographs of the official performing functions related to the office. There is no limitation on photographs, Web-casts, archives of Web-casts, and audio or video files that facilitate access to city information or services or inform the public about the duties and obligation of the city office or that are intended to promote trade or tourism. A city Web site or publication may include press releases, proposals, policy positions, and other information directly related to the legal functions, duties, and jurisdiction of a city official or organization. ~~1n"' ~`°` ~ ~" `'0 ,~'hd >. Cities may adopt more restrictive standards for the content of city publications or Web sites. II. City council and its powers It is the duty of the mayor, clerk, and council members to ensure the city is fulfilling its duties under the law and lawfully exercising its powers. see i i~,~,~in~,~,i;_ ci,~~„~~ i s for City officials can sometimes be held personally liable for failing to act or for more information about personal liability for official taking unauthorized actions on the part of the city. To avoid personal-liability actions. lawsuits, city officials should gain a working knowledge of the laws that regulate city government. Whenever there is any doubt about the validity of an action or procedure, city officials should consult their city attorney. A. Role of the individual council member Council members' statutory duties are to be performed, almost without exception, by the council as a whole. For example, the council, not individual members, must supervise administrative officers, formulate policies, and exercise city powers. Council members should devote their official time to problems of basic policy and act as liaisons between the city and the general public. Council members should be concerned, not only with the conduct of daily affairs, but also with the future development of the city. The most important single responsibility of a council member is participation at council meetings. In statutory cities, each council member, including the mayor, has full authority to make and second motions, participate in discussions, and vote on every matter before the council. n~'i' ~~~ nay „ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ `"~'~i In a statutory city, any two council members of afive-member council or any ' three members of aseven-member council may call a special meeting. Care should be exercised to give proper notice, however. HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES 6:15 This chapter last revised 7/24/2007 CHAPTER 6 As individuals, council members have no administrative authority. They cannot give orders or otherwise supervise city employees unless specifically directed to do so by the council. The council, however, has complete authority over all administrative affairs in the city. In Plan B cities, this authority is generally restricted to conducting investigations and establishing policies to be performed by the manager. '~~""' `'~` ~ ~ ~' ~"~ Under prior law that was repealed in 2001, all members of the council, iir~~~~ul~~l he Law~'(~nLch ;.. ,~.~ ;; including mayors, were "peace officers." Council members were authorized to suppress any "riotous or disorderly conduct" in the streets or public places of the city. This law no longer applies, and the mayor and individual council members have no peace-officer authority. B. The council's authority Van C/eve v. Wa!/ace, z16 The city council is a continuing body. New members have no effect on the Minn. 500, 13 N.W.2d 467 (Minn. 1944). bod exce t to chan a its membershi This means that all ordinances and Y P g p• resolutions remain in effect until the council alters or rescinds them, or until they expire through their own terms. At any time, the council can change any resolution, ordinance or administrative order whether or not the individuals presently on the council are the same as those serving when the council originally took action. ~'""~ ~'~' ~ "'~''" There are two exceptions to this rule. First, the council cannot dissolve a perpetual-cemetery-maintenance fund. Second, the council cannot rescind or Reed v. Ciry ofAnoka. 85 unilaterally alter any valid contracts. This means the law of contracts applies Minn. 294, 88 N.W. 981 (Minn. 1902). to the council as it does to an other a Whether a contract was validl Y p ~'• y made is a question of fact. The following information outlines the major areas of council authority and responsibility. 1. Judging the qualification and election of its own members ``~ ""' ~~"~ ~ ~ ~' ' `' ~ ~ ~~'i'~i ~. The council evaluates the credentials of individuals who are, or who claim to be, members of the council. This power includes certifying election results, determining whether an individual has the necessary qualifications to hold office, and deciding whether a council vacancy has occurred. 2. Setting and interpreting rules governing its own proceedings ~~"~" ~``" ~ ~ ~'- ~`'~ '"~"i '~ The council has the following powers: • To preserve order during its own meetings. • To establish rules of procedure. 6:16 This chapter last revised 7/18/2008 HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES 2. The planning commission C'tues Wray choose to establish plaatrtitg commissions to assist n _ortirag administration, but are not requred to do so. (Ho»•ever, if a city ltas adopted a comprehensive plan, a planning commission is mandatory}. Usually, it is a good idea to create a planning commission, because city council officials have multiple budgeting, legislative and admitistrative duties that they nnrst perform n addition to their land use resprntsibilities. Planning conunissiarts, on the other hand, are tuually composed of people wlio focus solely on zoning and development and, thus, can devote their full attention. ' `°='=' `'~" ` ~'- ''~ Planing commissions are created b}- ordinance or charter and may var}- n ~,~: a ~: size. C:inr council members maybe appointed to serve as conmission members. Chtce farmed, planning commissions, Frith city council consent,. may adopt bglaws or their own rules of procedure. The city' Wray provide the plantnng comutission n•ith staff including legal counsel, as necessary. In nttanv cities all zoning applications for conditional use permits, rezoning '= ''r~ -`= = ` and variances are submitted to the plantng commission for revie~r. If a t't a 5 planning commission exists. stau lair requires that the planting commission musr revie~r zoning ordnance amendments and amendments to the official map. ti4'ith limited exceptions, the planning contnission's role n reviering all types of zanitg applications is generally ad~tisory. The City C:auncil usually gives the plamrirrg commission recommendations great weight in their considerationts, but is not bound by them. 1"~'~' s~'t ~ ~=-}' The planning eonunission Wray bald required public hearings on behalf of the ;t,F.u city council, such as a hearing far a zoning ordinance amendment. 9+ 1. The zoning administrator Typically, a city will have a staff person who acts as the "Zoning Administrator" who is the first point of contact with the public on zoning matters and provides and receives zoning application forms. Generally, this person will also perform a preliminary review of the application, refer the application to the Planning Commission (if one exists) or City Council for review and offer one or both bodies a staff report reviewing the adequacy of the application. Depending on the size of the city and the number of zoning applications the city typically receives, the position of zoning administrator may be a full-time position or a part-time position. In some cities, the city clerk simply bears the additional title of zoning administrator. 2. The planning commission Cities may choose to establish planning commissions to assist in zoning administration, but are not required to do so. (However, if a city has adopted a comprehensive plan, a planning commission is mandatory). Usually, it is a good idea to create a planning commission, because city council officials have multiple budgeting, legislative and administrative duties that they must perform in addition to their land use responsibilities. Planning commissions, on the other hand, are usually composed of people who focus solely on zoning and development and, thus, can devote their full attention. M~~~. scac fi ab2.3sa, planning commissions are created by ordinance or charter and may vary in SUba ~ size. City council members may be appointed to serve as commission members. Once formed, planning commissions, with city council consent, may adopt bylaws or their own rules of procedure. The city may provide the planning commission with staff, including legal counsel, as necessary. In many cities all zoning applications for conditional use permits, rezoning M»n scac ~ a6z 3sz, and variances are submitted to the planning commission for review. If a sUba 3 planning commission exists, state law requires that the planning commission must review zoning ordinance amendments and amendments to the official map. With limited exceptions, the planning commission's role in reviewing all types of zoning applications is generally advisory. The City Council usually gives the planning commission recommendations great weight in their considerations, but is not bound by them. M»n stac § a6z.ss~> The planning commission may hold required public hearings on behalf of the sUba 3 city council, such as a hearing for a zoning ordinance amendment. 28 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES • Variances. Northwestern College In quasi judicial situations, a reviewing court will closely scrutinize the v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 86s ci 's decision to determine whether the ci has rovided a le all and tY ~ Y tY P g Y (Minn. 1979) factually sufficient basis for denial of an application. In quasi judicial situations, due process and equal protection are the main reasons for the more stringent scrutiny. Due process and equal protection under the law demand that similar applicants must be treated uniformly by the city. The best process for insuring similar treatment among applicants is to establish standards in the ordinance and to provide that if standards are met, the zoning permit must be granted. An application may generally only be denied for failure to meet the standards in city ordinances. A reviewing court will overrule a quasi judicial city zoning decision if it determines that the decision was arbitrary (failed to treat equally situated applicants equally or failed to follow ordinance requirements). 1. Standard of review for re-zoning applications stare, by Rochester An application for a rezoning is a request for an amendment to the zoning Ass n of Neighborhoods v. City ordinance. When reviewing applications for re-zoning, the court has ruled of Rochester, 268 that the city continues to act in a legislative capacity, even though the re- N.w.2a sas (Minn. zoning application may only relate to one specific parcel owned by one 19~s) individual. The existing zoning ordinance is presumed to be constitutional, See Section VC and an applicant is only entitled to a change if they can demonstrate that the Standards for reviewing zoning existing zoning is unsupported by any rational basis related to the public applications: limits on health, safety and welfare. city discretion. 2. Making a record of the basis for zoning decisions Mann. scat. ~ ~s 99~ The 60-Day Rule requires the city to provide reasons for its denial of a Sl,ba z(a) . zoning request. These reasons for denial must be stated on the record. In See Section VA The addition the ci must rovide the a llcant with a written statement of the 60-Day Rule. ~ tY P PP reasons for denial. The reasons for denial or approval, whether written or stated on the record are considered the city's "findings of fact" on the application if later court review of the city's decision is necessary. ZONING GUIDE FOR CITIES 31 SuperAmerica Group, Findings of fact are also essential to the zoning process, because they enable Inc. v City of Little Canada, s39 Nw 2a a reviewing court to sustain a city's zoning decisions. When a land use 26a (Minn. ct. App. decision is challenged in court, the standard of review used by the court is 1995); Swanson v City very limited. The city's decision will be upheld if the findings of fact of Bloomington, 421 Nw za 307 (Minn. demonstrate a rational and legally sufficient basis for the decision that is not 19ss); Larsan v arbitrary or capricious. Washington County, 387 NW 2d 902 (Minn. Ct. App 1986) See also LMCIT risk management memos, The Necessity of Adequate Findings/Reasons to Support Municipal Lmrd Use Decisions and All /Need to Knox About Findings orFact I Learned in Eighth Grade. See also LMCIT sample finding of fact. zylka v. city of Findings of fact should state all of the relevant facts the city considered in crystal, 167 N.W.2d as,(Minn. 1969) makin Its decision on the zonin a llcation. A fact is relevant if it roves g ~ $ pp ~ p or disproves that the application meets the legal standards of the city ordinance and state law for granting the zoning request. For example, applications for conditional use permits and variances are all subject to See Sections Vac Conditional use particular standards that are or should have been spelled out in city permits and V3d ordinances, or have been defined by state law or court decision. h1 evaluating Requests for variances from the any particular zoning request, the reviewing body should apply the relevant zoning ordinance, for facts to the particular standards that govern the specific type of decisions more information on being made. The basis for reviewing specific types of zoning applications is the standards of review for conditional discussed more extensivel later in this memo. y use permits and variances. a. Neighborhood opposition Minnetonka Certain zoning applications may generate vocal public opposition. Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Frequently, cities struggle with handling vocal neighborhood opposition in /nc. v. Svee, 226 their findings of fact. However, general statements of public opposition 9w.zd 3o6(Minn. should not be a finding of fact listed as a basis for denying a zoning ) application. Nor should the official record intimate that public opposition is For more information on the underlying basis for the city's findings of fact. if a zoning application public opposition meets the requirements of the ordinance, it must be granted, despite the see LMCIT risk disa royal of the nei hbors. pp g management information memo, Frolicking Betx~een the Landmines: Current Problems in Municipal Dei~elopment and Redevelopment. 32 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES Minnetonka Congregation of However, this does not mean that all statements of the public must be Jehovah's Witnesses, disregarded. A significant part of the zoning process is generally the public Inc. v. svee, 226 hearing mandated by the Municipal Planning Act. The Municipal Planning tv.w.za 306 (Minn. 1975). Act requires that all parties interested in an application, including the applicant and neighbors, be granted an opportunity to speak and present their views on the application. While general statements of opposition may not be used as a finding of fact, statements made by the public that are concrete and factual relating to the public welfare are acceptable findings. For example, a finding of fact should not be "public opposition to the project is strong." But a finding of fact can be, "numerous statements were made at the public hearing by neighbors in the vicinity of the project that streets in the area are already highly congested. The addition of a shopping mall would significantly increase congestion on streets that are at capacity." Where possible, findings of fact that refer to statements by the public should be corroborated by studies and/or expert testimony or opinions. b. Conducting a public hearing Public hearings are required prior to the city taking action on numerous types of zoning issues. A public hearing must be held for: Minn. Stat. § 462.357 . Zoning ordinance adoption or amendment. subd. 3. Minn. Stat ~ 462.3595 • Conditional use permits. subd 2. Minn. Stat ~ 462.357 • Rezonings. subd. 3. City ordinances may also require additional hearings for certain matters. Since variances are considered in the nature of a zoning amendment, some cities hold hearings for variance requests as well. As this is an unsettled area of law; please consult your city attorney on the practice of holding hearings for variances. Notice of the hearing must be published in the official newspaper at least 10 See sample public days prior to the hearing, and notice must be mailed to property owners hearing °°tice within a 350-foot radius of the land in question (including landowners within the 350 foot radius who may live outside the city). ZONING GUIDE FOR CITIES 33 Judy Weyrens P.O. Box 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374 Dear Judy Weyrens, This letter is in regards to the request of re-zoning Graceview Estates 2 by S&H Partnership. We are writing to let you know that we strongly oppose the rezoning of this land for development of apartment buildings and town homes. This is a serious lack of insight and judgment by the developer. As the apartment complexes in this community are not even operating at half of their occupancy. We are prepared to fight this to the better end to protect the values of our homes. You will be hearing from us often as this process plays out. Sincerely, Brent and Shannon Esterberg ~~ .~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ AtJG 2 6 200th CITY ~~ ;,, - ,r~Skr~N rage i of ~ 1~~~~1~i~~Ke~~l~' :~~lll`~,t~~«ru From "1=~sci;er. l~~r~nal~~'' ~l)i~ltiCHl-aZ r; c~h~j~a.e~u% To "symanietzrenee@clearwire.net" <symanietzrenee@clearwire.net> G...~.. - =~ SubjectOpposition to Proposed Rezoning of Outlook A, Graceview Estates 2 Date Sat, 26 Ju12008 13:55:34 -0500 [07/26/2008 12:55PM MDT] This HTML message has styles embedded in it. Glick here t~> S1lt)~~~' the Steles. Council Member Symanietz, I am emailing in regard to the proposed rezoning of Outlook A, Graceview Estates 2 from R1 Single Family to R3 Multiple Family dwellings. Both I and my wife, Anita Fischer, are adamantly opposed to this rezoning. The creation and occupancy of the proposed apartment, fourplex, and duplex dwelling units will SIGNIFICANTLY increase the traffic volume on 4~' Avenue Southeast as there is no other access to this parcel of land. We believe the large increase traffic will endanger the children that live in the neighborhood and reduce property values. We strongly urge you to vote against the rezoning of Outlook A, Graceview Estates 2 to R3 Multiple Family dwellings. Your constituents, Don and Anita Fischer 235 4~' Avenue Southeast St. Joseph, MN 56374 Don Fischer Associate Professor/Physical Education Chair Strength and Conditioning Coach HCC 22A http://hostopia.clearwire.net/hwebmail/mail/message.php?index=13421 7/27/2008 Judy Weyrens To: Mike Sand Subject: RE: Graceview Estates Apartment Building Coalition Group From: Mike Sand [mailto:mikesand34@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 12:50 PM To: Brad Cobb; nhaakonson@clearwire.net; curt@landolures.com; coachabraham@hotmail.com; klbartkowicz@hotmail.com; andersonkurta@johndeere.com; johnand; mnddonnay@yahoo.com; joshuajwimmer@hotmail.com; robinlynnsand@yahoo.com; geoffandmay@hotmail.com; ndehn@charter.net; lesageda@q.com; jtesch@acusport.com; tylzjames@yahoo.com; katie.billy@gmail.com; mlandsy@yahoo.com; comib114@yahoo.com; mikesand@yahoo.com; rjs_tunnelrat@yahoo.com; jblomker@hotmail.com; duke.the.dobe@live.com; trudeez@yahoo.com; cglad@isd742.org; 35este@live.com; dietmands@mywdo.com; chevygirl72@clea rwire. net Cc: Sarah Pennings; Judy Meyer; Judy Weyrens; LaNae Cobb Subject: Re: Graceview Estates Apartment Building Coalition Group This is a response I got from Rick Schultz, Im sure some of you got the same response or information but I thought I would share it with you. Mike Sand 441 Elena Hi Mike. Just so you know, I live on 7th Ave SE. The lot/house you're living in used to be a famers field of corn, oats and soybeans. !objected to Graceview from the very beginning, knowing increased noise, traffic and other issues would surtace because of the townhomes and association. I lost then. The PURD has little wiggle room. Please blame those on the council and Planning and zoning at the time of approval, 2001-2003. Ultimately, it was their choice and responsibility that doomed future uses of the land. I am opposed to the aprtment building, but my hands are almost tied down. If the buiilders are convinced to build such a structure, they are well within their rights to do so, as it meets the Planned Use from the Graceview Plat. As a city, our last course is to require adequate roadways/pathways and minimal disruption to current land use, included within the builders agreement. I have convinced the P/Z board to open the door for another public hearing on this matter, once final plans are completed. This final plan will show exact height and building specifications along with roadway/transportation options. Please let me know what else I can do. Thanks for your time. Rick... Judy Weyrens From: Sarah Pennings [pennysap@gmail.comJ Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:03 AM To: Judy Weyrens Subject: Graceview Estates Hi Judy, I have a few questions I was wondering if you could answer. If you don't know the answers would you be able to direct me to the correct person? I was wondering (If I have this correct) why the concept plan was tabled for such a long time for Graceview Estates. From my understanding it was proposed in 1991 and was not passed until 2001 is that correct? I was also wondering where I would find the current parking ordinances and the PURR ordinances. (for housing and apartments) Another question I have is how much weight does a concept plan have? Is it just the preliminary plan and now they are passing the final plan? Is there a way we can get onto the agenda for the planning commission meeting again, if so, how do we do that? I think there are a LOT of un answered questions and concerns that we all have and we would like to have some answers. My last question is what exactly is the city councils role, is it to represent the public? Is it to represent the developer? I know some of these questions you may not have an answer to, but if you know of a different person I should be contacting please let me know. I really appreciate you time Judy, Thank you. Sarah Pennings Judy Weyrens To: Butenhoff, Linda J. Subject: RE: Graceview Estates Follow up From: Butenhoff, Linda ]. [mailto:Ijbutenhoff@stcloudstate.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 11:49 AM To: Judy Weyrens Subject: Graceview Estates Follow up Dear Ms. Weyrens, I am still very concerned about the possibility of placing two apartment complexes, two fourplexes and a duplex in my backyard! Could you me an update on the situation. In your letter, you state that there was "Preliminary" approval. Why is it being interpreted as "law". I have been told by legal experts that developers use "concept" plans and "preliminary approval" as a way of holding cities hostage to what they want to do. Could you also tell me if an EIS was done and if so when? Is it available on-line? Could you clairfy some of these things? sincerely, Linda Butenhoff 514 Ellie Court Judy Weyrens From: Brad Cobb [1231t1c@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:24 AM To: nhaakonson@clearwire.net; curt@landolures.com; coachabraham@hotmail.com; mikesand34@yahoo.com; klbartkowicz@hotmail.com; andersonkurta@johndeere.com; 'johnand'; mnddonnay@yahoo.com; joshuajwimmer@hotmail.com; robinlynnsand@yahoo.com; geoffandmay@hotmail.com; ndehn@charter.net; lesageda@q.com; jtesch@acusport.com; tylzjames@yahoo.com; katie.billy@gmail.com; mlandsy@yahoo.com; comib114@yahoo.com; mikesand@yahoo.com; rjs_tunnelrat@yahoo.com; jblomker@hotmail.com; duke.the.dobe@live.com; trudeez@yahoo.com; cglad@isd742.org; 35este@live.com; dietmands@mywdo.com; chevyg ir172@clearwire. net Cc: 'Sarah Pennings'; 'Judy Meyer'; Judy Weyrens; 'LaNae Cobb' Subject: Graceview Estates Apartment Building Coalition Group All, First thank for attending last night neighborhood meeting concerning the construction of the apartment buildings in the middle of Graceview Estates and for your attendance this coming Thursday night meeting-same place and time. Many of us feel mistakes were made a long time ago that allowed plans to be created which allowed these apartments to be built. The key right now is that they have not started construction and we still may have an opportunity to get things changed. Many of us feel that the city needs to protect our rights. It is un-imaginable to all of us to even think about having not one but two apartment building structures the size of the Boulder Ridge (which is located on the north side of Cty Rd 75 across from Casey's) in the middle of a nice - single family residential area and not affecting our quality of life, safety, and property values. Below is a brief summary of items that I thought were of greatest concerns -you may have your own list of concerns - with Ms. Judy Weyrens response -she is copied this message. We also have a list of 37 concerns by the City Engineer -most of a technical nature concerning this apartments.. We encourage all of you to attend the Sept 8 Planning Meeting which we assume will be at 7PM at City Hall. We have been told in Judy W. email below that the planning committee will not take additional comments on Graceview - but how can they not if we have so many folks there again. Our goal is to have 200 supporters in attendance. We also encourage you to call, mail, and email every city council person, local newspapers, and other residents of St Joseph on a regular basis starting today -right now - to get their support to stop the construction of these apartment buildings. We need ALL of you to help in this effort and we need it right now -TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I have provided you the email links to all the city council members below. I do not have the email addresses of the planning committee. AI Rassier-Mayor- alanrassier(a~yahoo.com 363.4711 All these are council members: Steve Frank- sfrank(a~stcloudstate.org 493.0311 Rick Schultz - rschultz(c~mywdo.com 260.0393 Renee Symanietz - symanietzrenne(a~clearwire.net 980.1461 Dale Wick - contactdalewick hotmail.com 363.0221 City of St Joe website (all this info here too) www.cityofstjoseph.com Begin your own email conversations with our elected officials right now. Watch for more email notices and updates. And share this information with all of your neighbors who are not receiving this email. Thank you Brad Cobb Good Afternoon- The next meeting for the Graceview Estates project will be September $, 2008. At that time the Developer will be present and revised plans will be submitted. They should be available through the website the Friday before labor day. He is still proposing the apartment complexes but wilt be revising the landscape plan and planning a second access. The Planning Commission has closed the public hearing already and it will be up to the Planning Commission if they want to reopen the hearing. The opening of the hearing should only be for new information that was not presented at the public hearing. The Developer has submitted all the required calculations verifying the height, density and setback. Based on the information presented the proposed development meets the Ordinance in place at the time of Preliminary approval and the Ordinances as they read today. Information will be provided in the packet material identifying the requirements of 2002 and 2008 as they relate to the proposed development. This information will also be available on the website at the time the Planning Commission packets are delivered. With regard to utilities, the City has the infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development and we have asked the developer to provided the second access. I would also like to clarify the reference to the original plan developed in 1991. I am not sure what you are referring to as the Graceview Estates Preliminary Plat was approved by the City Council in April 2002 and by the Planning Commission in February 2002. Bob Herges and Rick Heid also developed a Plat entitled Pond View Ridge that was approved in 1991. This plat had nothing to do with Graceview Estates as they did not even own the land at this time. I have asked the engineer, Randy Sabart, about the holding pond. The pond in the northwest will be re-shaped and excavated to handle the year 100 year event back to back. Bath ponds will meet the City pond standard and hydrology calculations are used to determine if they meet the requirements. The ponds you are referring to does handle more than just the proposed development. The second pond has an outlet for overflow adding additional capacity. I hope this answers some of your questions, please feel free to contact me if you have additional questions. Ludy From: Brad Cobb [mailto:1231t1c@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:40 AM To: Judy Weyrens Cc: 'Frank, Stephen'; 'Sarah Pennings'; 'Butenhoff, Linda ].'; 'LaNae Cobb' Subject: Graceview Estates Follow up Ms. Judy Weyrens, City Adm. St Joseph MN, A few neighbors got together last night to identify the outstanding issues with the planned development of the apartment buildings in Graceview Estates. This issue is still un-resolved in our opinion - we do not want apartments being built in the middle of a residential neighborhood and we feel that the city still has an opportunity - in fact - a responsibility to protect the current residents from such a development. We strongly feel that building apartments (non-ownership dwellings) would cause safety, loss of property value, increase crime and traffic congestion in this neighborhood. Times have changed since the original plan was developed in 1991 -17 years ago. It also appears that the PURD and/or ordinances of 2001(?) are in conflict or at least need further review. Example 1: In the 2002 Original Ordinance Subd 10 Uses Permitted =that compatible residential uses may be combined in a PURD if the proposed location of mixed residential uses will not adversely affect adjacent property or the public health, safety, and general welfare. We have identified a number of safety concerns primarily those related to street traffic and only single access point into the primary area of Graceview Estates - 4'h Ave. S.E. Example 2: In Subd 11 Standards Sec b =Relationship of PURD to adjacent areas that the design of a PURD shall take into account relationship of the site to the surrounding area, designed to minimize undesirable impact of the PURD on adjacent properties. Example 3; In Subd 11 d Minimum Lot Size =talks about maximum dwelling unit density shall be determined by the area remaining after appropriate space for streets... Also in the ordinance there is language in Subd 5 Actions by Planning Commission shall determine whether a proposed PURD is consistent with the PURD in Sect 12.01 and with the comprehensive land use plan of the City. (we need to ID this comprehensive land use plan-is it found online?) whether the proposed development will advance the general welfare of a neighborhood and the city. There is a lot of information about unit densities, streets, setbacks, holding ponds, and utilities that need to be considered as well. Here is a brief list of outstanding concerns: 1) Inadequate street and public utility development in and out of Graceview Estates which cannot support additional living units and traffic flow. 2) Traffic safety concerns about having 85 living units coming and going from such a small area onto one street. 3) Property values and overall appearance of the neighborhood will diminish because of these apartments. 4) We feel that the City still has an opportunity to protect the current residents from such a development from taking place base but may not be willing to stop the development for fear of legal action by the developer. The leadership of the city needs to seriously think about the short and long term ramification of allowing 75 apartment units in 2 very large buildings constructed in the middle of what is currently a very nice neighborhood. 5) In the document dated 7/25/08 by Randy Sabart it identifies a number of items, comments, or concerns that all really needs to be addressed but Items #1 & 2 are very important ones. 6) HOLDING PONDS We have photographs from 2006 of the holding pond in the northwest corner of the proposed apartment development that shows near capacity holding capabilities (water levels to the top edge of the holding pond) WITHOUT the construction of more impervious surfaces. Also, is this holding ponds current design, location, and calculations using storm water run off from 4~' Ave S.E. and those homes only OR was the design of this holding pond constructed to accommodate both current street and home storm drainage AND the proposed 85 unit living area or portion there in? When is the next public debate, meeting, or hearing (Planning Commission or City Council Meeting) scheduled for this Graceview Estates development? Thank you, Please share these views with whoever you feel needs to be aware of them and again, please let me know of the next scheduled public meeting on this subject - we anticipate another strong showing of neighborhood support. Bradley H. Cobb Pre~id~_rtC i:0 Green Corridor Consulting, Inc. '.33 4th Hve. S.E. 5t. )es~ph MN 50371 320.A93.G095 1231t1c(a)charter.net Judy Weyrens To: LaNae Cobb Subject: RE: Graceview Estates Follow up From: LaNae Cobb [mailto:LCobb@bethlehemlutheran.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:55 PM To: Judy Weyrens Subject: RE: Graceview Estates Follow up Judy -The email I just sent previously was intended to be sent to my husband -sorry for the mistake.....you can disregard the message. Thanks, LaNae Cobb From: Judy Weyrens [mailto:jweyrens@cityofstjoseph.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:34 PM To: Brad Cobb Cc: Frank, Stephen; Sarah Pennings; Butenhoff, Linda J.; LaNae Cobb Subject: RE: Graceview Estates Follow up Good Afternoon- The next meeting for the Graceview Estates project will be September 8, 2008. At that time the Developer will be present and revised plans will be submitted. They should be available through the website the Friday before labor day. He is still proposing the apartment complexes but will be revising the landscape plan and planning a second access. The Planning Commission has closed the public hearing already and it wil! be up to the Planning Commission if they want to reopen the hearing. The opening of the hearing should only be for new information that was not presented at the public hearing. The Developer has submitted al! the required calculations verifying the height, density and setback. Based on the information presented the proposed development meets the Ordinance in place at the time of Preliminary approval and the Ordinances as they read today. Information will be provided in the packet material identifying the requirements of 2002 and 2008 as they relate to the proposed development. This information will also be available on the website at the time the Planning Commission packets are delivered. With regard to utilities, the City has the infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development and we have ... 1 Judy Weyrens From: Brad Cobb [1231t1c@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:40 AM To: Judy Weyrens Cc: 'Frank, Stephen'; 'Sarah Pennings'; Subject: Graceview Estates Follow up Ms. Judy Weyrens, City Adm. St Joseph MN, 'Butenhoff, Linda J. ; 'LaNae Cobb' A few neighbors got together last night to identify the outstanding issues with the planned development of the apartment buildings in Graceview Estates. This issue is still un-resolved in our opinion - we do not want apartments being built in the middle of a residential neighborhood and we feel that the city still has an opportunity - in fact - a responsibility to protect the current residents from such a development. We strongly feel that building apartments (non-ownership dwellings) would cause safety, loss of property value, increase crime and traffic congestion in this neighborhood. Times have changed since the original plan was developed in 1991 -17 years ago. It also appears that the PURD and/or ordinances of 2001(?) are in conflict or at least need further review. Example 1: In the 2002 Original Ordinance Subd 10 Uses Permitted =that compatible residential uses may be combined in a PURD if the proposed location of mixed residential uses will not adversely affect adjacent property or the public health, safety, and general welfare. We have identified a number of safety concerns primarily those related to street traffic and only single access point into the primary area of Graceview Estates - 4'" Ave. S.E. Example 2: In Subd 11 Standards Sec b =Relationship of PURD to adjacent areas that the design of a PURD shall take into account relationship of the site to the surrounding area, designed to minimize undesirable impact of the PURD on adjacent properties. Example 3; In Subd 11 d Minimum Lot Size =talks about maximum dwelling unit density shall be determined by the area remaining after appropriate space for streets... Also in the ordinance there is language in Subd 5 Actions by Planning Commission shall determine whether a proposed PURD is consistent with the PURD in Sect 12.01 and with the comprehensive land use plan of the City. (we need to ID this comprehensive land use plan-is it found online?) whether the proposed development will advance the general welfare of a neighborhood and the city. There is a lot of information about unit densities, streets, setbacks, holding ponds, and utilities that need to be considered as well. Here is a brief list of outstanding concerns: 1) Inadequate street and public utility development in and out of Graceview Estates which cannot support additional living units and traffic flow. 2) Traffic safety concerns about having 85 living units coming and going from such a small area onto one street. 3) Property values and overall appearance of the neighborhood will diminish because of these apartments. 4) We feel that the City still has an opportunity to protect the current residents from such a development from taking place base but may not be willing to stop the development for fear of legal action by the developer. The leadership of the city needs to seriously think about the short and long term ramification of allowing 75 apartment units in 2 very large buildings constructed in the middle of what is currently a very nice neighborhood. 5) In the document dated 7/25/08 by Randy Sabart it identifies a number of items, comments, or concerns that all really needs to be addressed but Items #1 & 2 are very important ones. 6) HOLDING PONDS We have photographs from 2006 of the holding pond in the northwest corner of the proposed apartment development that shows near capacity holding capabilities (water levels to the top edge of the holding pond) WITHOUT the construction of more impervious surfaces. Also, is this holding ponds current design, location, and calculations using storm water run off from 4t" Ave S.E. and those homes only OR was the design of this holding pond constructed to accommodate both current street and home storm drainage AND the proposed 85 unit living area or portion there in? When is the next public debate, meeting, or hearing (Planning Commission or City Council Meeting) scheduled for this Graceview Estates development? Thank you, Please share these views with whoever you feel needs to be aware of them and again, please let me know of the next scheduled public meeting on this subject - we anticipate another strong showing of neighborhood support. Bradley H. Cobb President,JCE0 Green Corridor Consulting, inc. 333 4th Ave. S.E. St. Joseph fv1N 56374 3?0.493.4655 1231t1c(a1charter.net Judy Weyrens To: LaNae Cobb Subject: RE: Graceview Estates Follow up From: LaNae Cobb [mailto:LCobb@bethlehemlutheran.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:49 PM To: Judy Weyrens Subject: RE: Graceview Estates Follow up What does this mean about the public hearing being closed? Did they say this at the last meeting? The 1991 date was in her information? According to all this info it doesn't sound like we have a leg to stand on.....Nae From: Judy Weyrens [mailto:jweyrens@cityofstjoseph.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:34 PM To: Brad Cobb Cc: Frank, Stephen; Sarah Pennings; Butenhoff, Linda J.; LaNae Cobb Subject: RE: Graceview Estates Follow up Good Afternoon- The next meeting for the Graceview Estates project will be September 8, 2008. At that time the Developer will be present and revised plans will be submitted. They should be available through the website the Friday before labor day. He is still proposing the apartment complexes but will be revising the landscape plan and planning a second access. The Planning Commission has closed the public hearing already and it will be up to the Planning Commission if they want to reopen the hearing. The opening of the hearing should only be for new information that was not presented at the public hearing. The Developer has submitted all the required calculations verifying the height, density and setback. Based on the information presented the proposed development meets the Ordinance in place at the time of Preliminary approval and the Ordinances as they read today. Information will be provided in the packet material identifying the requirements of 2002 and 2008 as they relate to the proposed development. This information will also be available on the website at the time the Planning Commission packets are delivered. With regard to utilities, the City has the infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development and we have asked the developer to provided the second access. I would also like to clarify the reference to the original plan developed in 1991. I am not sure what you are referring to as the Graceview Estates Preliminary Plat was approved by the City Council in April 2002 and by the Planning Commission in February 2002. Bob Herges and Rick Heid also developed a Plat entitled Pond View Ridge that was approved in 1991. This plat had nothing to do with Graceview Estates as they did not even own the land at this time. I have asked the engineer, Randy Sabart, about the holding pond. The pond in the northwest will be re-shaped and excavated to handle the year 100 year event back to back. Both ponds will meet the City pond standard and hydrology calculations are used to determine if they meet the requirements. The ponds you are referring to does handle more than just the proposed development. The second pond has an outlet for overflow adding additional capacity. I hope this answers some of your questions, please feel free to contact me if you have additional questions. Judy Judy Weyrens From: Brad Cobb [1231t1c@charter.net] Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 8:48 AM To: 'Dale Wick' Cc: 'Frank, Stephen'; pennysap@gmail.com; 'LaNae Cobb'; 'Judy Meyer'; Judy Weyrens Subject: Graceview Estates Planning Meeting Mr. Dale Wick From the responses and comments that I heard last weekend there should be a number of Graceview residents attending the planning meeting tomorrow evening (I unfortunately will be out of town on business but my wife will be representing our family)- Monday 8/4. I am sure that a large percentage of them will be coming based on the public notice letter that appeared in the Newsleader on 7/25 which described 3 items on the agenda: 1.) Amendment of the Graceview PUD approved in 2001 2.) Re-zoning of the said property from a R1 Single Family to R3 Multiple Family (established in 1991?) 3.) Special Use Permit and PUD to allow the construction of the apartments, duplex and fourplex units. I would suggest that the meeting on 8/4 concerning the Graceview agenda item begin with a clear explanation of the process and what the options would be for us at this point -seems there is some misinterpretations of our options that I learned of this week that many folks attending this meeting might not be aware of. Many of us thought we had an opportunity to lobby against the re-zoning change to stop the development of apartment units.This is a passionate concern for many of us and I would hate to see the meeting turn negative. The bottom line for me is that if we have an option of stopping the development of apartment units (non-property ownership tenants) this is the best option. Then next best option for me is to see the land developed into townhomes (property ownership) like the ones currently employed in the development. All of this cannot begin until additional access roads/streets are planned and constructed. Thank you and good luck at the meeting. Bradley H. Cobb President/CEO Green Carridar Consulting, Inc. 333 4th Ave. S. F. 3t. Joseph MN 56374 32C1.493.46~`~ 1231t1c(a~charter.net Judy Weyrens From: Wick, Dale [Dale.Wick@wolterskluwer.coml Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 1:17 PM To: Judy Weyrens Subject: Graceview Estates Judy, here is the response I sent to the people who have sent me their concerns. Dale I wanted to let you know that I appreciate your comments about the rezoning that was scheduled for Monday. I also wanted to let you know there have been some developments that have occurred this past week that have changed Monday's meeting. The rezoning has been scratched from the agenda. It was found that the development is covered by the City's vote on the original PURR approved in February of 2002 and the City is legally bound by that vote. Having lived on 4th Avenue S.E. from 1994 to 2001, believe me when I tell you that I share your concerns about traffic in the area. I am hoping to be able to address those concerns in some fashion with this development. I received many emails on this subject so forgive me if I copy and paste this response to many of your neighbors. If you would like to talk about this further, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Dale 363.0221 Dale Wick Manager of Interactive Marketing Wolters Kluwer Finonciol Services 6815 Sauk View Drive St. Cloud, MN 56302 320.240.5693 tel 320.240.5972 fax dale.wickCwolterskluwer.com www. WoltersKluwerFS. com Judy Weyrens From: Brad Cobb [1231t1c@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 6:31 AM To: 'Larry Hosch' Cc: 'Judy Meyer'; 'LaNae Cobb'; pennysap@gmail.com; Judy Weyrens; alanrassier@yahoo.com Subject: RE: Graceview Estates Re-Zoning Concerns Larry Thank you very much by helping out with a phone call or two - we would appreciate that support. That was the reason I copied you on my email to Judy W. because of your past involvement with the St Joseph City Council and to bring some "past" perspective to this zoning issue. Sounds like a rather large Graceview Estates neighborhood crowd is planning to attend this meeting on 8/4 and a well signed petition will also be submitted to the city office on or before Friday. A few of us are requesting comments from the city police and fire chiefs on the public safety concerns for such a complex. A number of us feel the single biggest issue is public safety -there is only one street going in and out of Graceview Estates - 4th Ave S.E.and in our opinion (we live here and see the traffic patterns especially during the winter months) this street cannot handle anymore traffic. This is a residential neighborhood with several day cares and many families with small children. And with only one side of the street having a sidewalk brings another element of concern as well. Then the economic and personal effect of having a large apartment (non ownership properties by tenants) in our backyards is also a major concern for many of use. Again, we would appreciate any help we can get on this matter. Sincerely Brad Cobb Resident Graceview Estates St Joseph MN Thank you Judy for taking the time to talk with me about my concerns with the Graceview Estates re zoning meeting and apartment building projects and for sending me that map. I am also cc'ing State Rep Larry Hosch this message too -Larry is someone I trust to ensure things are done correctly and fairly. I really believe the City needs to move very cautiously with this project on these fronts: A Public Safety -with only one current access road (4th Ave S.E.) going in an out of Graceview and with the addition of 85 (x2 or x 3 depending on how many individuals live in each unit with vehicles) units will directly impact traffic volume and causing driving concerns on an already busy residential street. We cannot build anymore living units in this development until other access roads are built and traffic flows studied. We will be inviting a serious accident to happen here -especially with all the families that live along 4`" Ave S.E with small children and several child day cares and the non Graceview Estates residents who use Callaway Street as a short cut to Kennedy and St Bens. THIS IS THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT REASON WHY WE CANNOT BUILD ANY MORE LIVING UNITS IN GRACEVIEW with a close second being lose of resale value see B next. For the homes that will be closest to the apartment buildings like mine - I feel we will be losing a quality of life or comfortableness by having an apartment within 50 feet(?) of our back yard.... Does that seem fair? Would we ever be able to resell our home at its current value? I would like to invite you and/or the builders, city planning group and/or city council members to my back yard for a friendly visit to see for themselves - I am serious about this invitation. Also, looking at the plan you sent me - I see a lot of potential for re structuring or location of some of the buildings and parking spaces assuming the re-zone is approved so that they are not so close to our homes. It really is hard to imagine a 3 story monster apartment building staring down on our home from our back yard. I feel the building should be in the middle of the area not on the edges nearest single family homes. I am very concerned about pedestrian traffic cutting through our yards as a short cut to these apartments and if this were to ever happen (trespassing by these apartment residents on my yard) - I will be become the police force worse nightmare for logging complaints and holding someone accountable. E) You stated that St Bens has a rule that 90% of their students need to live on campus but I feel that other 10% (and/or the St Johns crowd) will find these apartment pretty convenient to live in. I have recently driven by some of the apartments in St Joe and you can tell right away which ones are student housing apartments and low income apartments. I think we all know what market this builder is going after -lets not kid ourselves here. Again, thank you Judy for your time and consideration in this matter. I realize that you are not the policy maker. FYI- a petition is circulating around the development and should be presented on August 4. I am going to help with that petition drive but will not be at the actual August 4 Brad Cobb 333 4t" Ave. S.E. St Joseph MN 56374 271.0093 From: Judy Weyrens [mailto:jweyrens@cityofstjoseph.com] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 1:07 PM To: 1231t1c@charter. net Subject: Judv Wevrens From: Brad Cobb [1231t1c@charter.net) ,ent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 6:31 AM . o: 'Larry Hosch' Cc: 'Judy Meyer'; 'LaNae Cobb'; pennysap@gmail.com; Judy Weyrens; alanrassier@yahoo.com Subject: RE: Graceview Estates Re-Zoning Concerns Larry Thank you very much by helping out with a phone call or two - we would appreciate that support. That was the reason I copied you on my email to Judy W. because of your past involvement with the St Joseph City Council and to bring some "past" perspective to this zoning issue. Sounds like a rather large Graceview Estates neighborhood crowd is planning to attend this meeting on 8/4 and a well signed petition will also be submitted to the city office on or before Friday. A few of us are requesting comments from the city police and fire chiefs on the public safety concerns for such a complex. A number of us feel the single biggest issue is public safety -there is only one street going in and out of Graceview Estates - 4`h Ave S.E.and in our opinion (we live here and see the traffic patterns especially during the winter months) this street cannot handle anymore traffic. This is a residential neighborhood with several day cares and many families with small children. And with only one side of the street having a sidewalk brings another element of concern as well. Then the economic and personal effect of having a large apartment (non ownership properties by tenants) in our backyards is also a major concern for many of use. lgain, we would appreciate any help we can get on this matter. Sincerely Brad Cobb Resident Graceview Estates St Joseph MN Thank you Judy for taking the time to talk with me about my concerns with the Graceview Estates re zoning meeting and apartment building projects and for sending me that map. I am also cc'ing State Rep Larry Hosch this message too -Larry is someone I trust to ensure things are done correctly and fairly. I really believe the City needs to move very cautiously with this project on these fronts: Public Safety -with only one current access road (4`" Ave S.E.) going in an out of Graceview and with the addition of 85 (x2 or x 3 depending on how many individuals live in each unit with vehicles) units will directly impact traffic volume and causing driving concerns on an already busy residential street. We cannot build anymore living units in this development until other access roads are built and traffic flows studied. We will be inviting a Judy Weyrens From: Brad Cobb [1231t1c@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:48 PM To: alanrassier@yahoo.com; sfrank@stcloudstate.edu; rschultz@mywdo.com; symanietzrenee@clearwire.net; contatctdalewick@hotmail.com Cc: Judy Weyrens; pennysap@gmail.com Subject: FW: Graceview Estates Re-Zoning Concerns Date: July 29, 2008 To: St. Joseph City Council Members From: Brad Cobb, resident of Graceview Estates Subject: Opposition to re-zoning Graceview Estates St Joseph City Council I am opposed to the re-zoning of the Graceview Estates Single Family to Multi Family for a number of different reasons: • Public Safety -with only one current access road (4`h Ave S.E.) going in an out of Graceview Estates addition and with the addition of 85 (x2 or x3 depending on how many individuals live in each unit with vehicles) units will directly impact traffic volume and causing driving concerns on an already busy residential street. We cannot build anymore living units in this development until other access roads are built and traffic flows are studied. We will be inviting a serious accident to happen here -especially with all the families that live along 4`h Ave S.E with small children and several child day cares and the non Graceview Estates residents who use Callaway Street as a short cut to Kennedy and St Bens. THIS IS THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT REASON WHY WE CANNOT BUILD ANY MORE LIVING UNITS IN GRACEVIEW ESTATES ADDITION. • For the homes that will be closest to the apartment buildings like mine - I feel we will be losing a quality of life or comfortableness by having a 3 story apartment building within 50 feet(?) of our back yard.... Does that seem fair? Would we ever be able to resell our home at its current value? Would you want this development in your backyard? I would like to invite the builders, the city planning group andjor city council members to my back yard for a friendly visit to see for themselves - I am serious about this invitation. • 1 am very concerned about pedestrian traffic cutting through our yards as a short cut to these apartments and if this were to ever happen (trespassing by these proposed apartment residents on my yard) - I will be become the police departments worse nightmare for logging complaints and holding someone accountable. Once you approve a re zoning situation, it is hard to change it back. Once the building are built you can never go back..... How can you say yes when so many people say no to this proposal! You will be amazed at how many people wi11 be showing up for the August 4 planning meeting that are apposed to the re zoning and the building of apartments in the Graceview Estates addition. Brad Cobb, 333 4`h Ave. S.E. St Joseph MN 56374 271.0093 Judy Weyrens From: Brad Cobb [1231t1c@charter.net] dent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 3:48 PM .'o: alanrassier@yahoo.com; sfrank@stcloudstate.edu; rschultz@mywdo.com; symanietzrenee@clearwire.net; contatctdalewick@hotmail.com Cc: Judy Weyrens; pennysap@gmail.com Subject: FW: Graceview Estates Re-Zoning Concerns Date: July 29, 2008 To: St. Joseph City Council Members From: Brad Cobb, resident of Graceview Estates Subject: Opposition to re-zoning Graceview Estates St Joseph City Council I am opposed to the re-zoning of the Graceview Estates Single Family to Multi Family for a number of different reasons: • Public Safety -with only one current access road (4th Ave S.E.) going in an out of Graceview Estates addition and with the addition of 85 (x2 or x3 depending on how many individuals live in each unit with vehicles) units will directly impact traffic volume and causing driving concerns on an already busy residential street. We cannot build anymore living units in this development until other access roads are built and traffic flows are studied. We will be inviting a serious accident to happen here -especially with all the families that live along 4t" Ave S.E with small children and several child day cares and the non Graceview Estates residents who use Callaway Street as a short cut to Kennedy and St Bens. THIS IS THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT REASON WHY WE CANNOT BUILD ANY MORE LIVING UNITS IN GRACEVIEW ESTATES ADDITION. • For the homes that will be closest to the apartment buildings like mine - I feel we will be losing a quality of life or comfortableness by having a 3 story apartment building within 50 feet(?) of our back yard.... Does that seem fair? Would we ever be able to resell our home at its current value? Would you want this development in your backyard? I would like to invite the builders, the city planning group and/or city council members to my back yard for a friendly visit to see for themselves - I am serious about this invitation. • 1 am very concerned about pedestrian traffic cutting through our yards as a short cut to these apartments and if this were to ever happen (trespassing by these proposed apartment residents on my yard) - I will be become the police departments worse nightmare for logging complaints and holding someone accountable. Once you approve a re zoning situation, it is hard to change it back. Once the building are built you can never go back..... How can you say yes when so many people say no to this proposal! You will be amazed at how many people will be showing up for the August 4 planning meeting that are apposed to the re zoning and the building of apartments in the Graceview Estates addition. Brad Cobb 333 4th Ave. S.E. St Joseph MN 56374 271.0093 Judy Weyrens From: Brad Cobb [1231t1c@charter.net] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 3:35 PM To: Judy Weyrens Cc: rep.larry.hosch@house.mn; 'LaNae Cobb' Subject: Graceview Estates Re-Zoning Concerns Thank you Judy for taking the time to talk with me about my concerns with the Graceview Estates re zoning meeting and apartment building projects and for sending me that map. I am also cc'ing State Rep Larry Hosch this message too -Larry is someone I trust to ensure things are done correctly and fairly. I really believe the City needs to move very cautiously with this project on these fronts: A) Public Safety -with only one current access road (4`h Ave S.E.) going in an out of Graceview and with the addition of 85 (x2 or x 3 depending on how many individuals live in each unit with vehicles) units will directly impact traffic volume and causing driving concerns on an already busy residential street. We cannot build anymore living units in this development until other access roads are built and traffic flows studied. We will be inviting a serious accident to happen here -especially with all the families that live along 4`h Ave S.E with small children and several child day cares and the non Graceview Estates residents who use Callaway Street as a short cut to Kennedy and St Bens. THIS IS THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT REASON WHY WE CANNOT BUILD ANY MORE LIVING UNITS IN GRACEVIEW with a close second being lose of resale value see B next. B) For the homes that will be closest to the apartment buildings like mine - I feel we will be losing a quality of life or comfortableness by having an apartment within 50 feet(?) of our back yard.... Does that seem fair? Would we ever be able to resell our home at its current value? 1 would like to invite you and/or the builders, city planning group and/or city council members to my back yard for a friendly visit to see for themselves - I am serious about this invitation. C) Also, looking at the plan you sent me - I see a lot of potential for re structuring or location of some of the buildings and parking spaces assuming the re-zone is approved so that they are not so close to our homes. It really is hard to imagine a 3 story monster apartment building staring down on our home from our back yard. I feel the building should be in the middle of the area not on the edges nearest single family homes. D) I am very concerned about pedestrian traffic cutting through our yards as a short cut to these apartments and if this were to ever happen (trespassing by these apartment residents on my yard) - I will be become the police force worse nightmare for logging complaints and holding someone accountable. E) You stated that St Bens has a rule that 90% of their students need to live on campus but I feel that other 10% (and/or the St Johns crowd) will find these apartment pretty convenient to live in. I have recently driven by some of the apartments in St Joe and you can tell right away which ones are student housing apartments and low income apartments. I think we atl know what market this builder is going after -lets not kid ourselves here. Again, thank you Judy for your time and consideration in this matter. I realize that you are not the policy maker. FYI- a petition is circulating around the development and should be presented on August 4. I am going to help with that petition drive but will not be at the actual August 4 Brad Cobb 333 4`h Ave. S.E. St Joseph MN 56374 271.0093 - -~o- - -- }Z~!~l)~Rt~l~ :~11}:c~r~~a3-c3 From "I3utenh<~f~l: Li~~da :i " <ljh~-lenhc~i'i a ic9c~i~dstai~.edii To "symanietzrenee@clearwire.net" <symanietzrenee(aclearwire.net> IZe!'cirt a` sham -~ ..' Subject[No Subject] Date Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:40:16 -0500 [0728/2008 o1:40PM lv1DT] Dear Councilwoman Symanietr: It is with great concern that I write to you. I just received a letter in the mail from the City Administrator, Ms. Judy Weyrens, announcing a Public Hearing on changing the zoning for Outlot A, Graceview Estates 2. I am deeply concerned about the construction of two appartment buildings with 75 units in my backyard. Our neighborhood, as you know, is full of small children. I am concerned about the safety of my child and the rest of the neighborhood children. I have been told my a local realtor that these appartments will likely by more than half full of college students. When I first moved to St. Cloud, I lived near SCSU campus and I am well aware of college student behavior and attitude toward their environment: loud music, broken bottles, trash, etc. In addition, as you know, property values have fallen, the construction of appartment buildings in this neighborhood will not help maintain the value of our homes. Does the city have statistics on what will happen to property values once the appartments are buiR? I would like to see this data. Will it be available at the hearing? What is your position on this issue? I would hope that you oppose the changing of the zonin g from Ri, Single Family to R3, Multiple Family. Or, is the publich hearing just a front and the matter already decided since S&H Partnership has ahead submitted permit requests for constructiong. Is this how our city does business? I thought we lived in a democracy! Sincerely, Linda Butenhoff 514 Ellie Court St Joseph, MN 56374 http://hostopia.clearwire.net/hwebmail/mail/message.php?index=l 3565 7/29/2008 MEMORANDUM Date: September 5, 2008 To: Planning Commission From: Judy Weyrens RE: Ordinance Compliance The attached pages are an illustration showing that proposed project meets the Ordinance requirements in both the Ordinances in place at the time of original submittal and the Ordinances in place today. The only requirement not being met is to rezone the property from the current R1, Single Family to R3, Multiple PO BOX 668 PHONE (320)363-7201 25 College Avenue North PAX (320) 363-0342 Clty of st. Joseph St. Joseph MN 56374 E-MAIL jweyrens@cityofstjoseph.com WEB SITE http://www.cityofstjoseph.com o g o 8 0 m 0 m II II II J 0 H O ~ D uoi O 8 O t d N M M 3 \ o F ~ a x x x c 0 ~ ~ N N • ' ' 7 m O 7 O m Q d K 1 ~,. a0 CO OD O N N M J S o 00 0 0 0 0 g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m S M 0 m $ m °m ~ ~ i II II II II II Q ~ 0 v II II II II II II II Q O ~ O w ~ C O C_ i ~ ' O ~ ~ o O O O 3 o O O O I m O m .r O OO M O fY1 w O v g v ~ o 'r c c o ~ £ i x x N rn ~ x " a v °~ o • I v rn ~ c 1° «' ~ v o LL ! ~ y ° v i ~ ~ .~.. ° ° n Q Q Z 3 GJ Q Z Q Q Q Q Z ~ GJ Q G/ Q Z Z Q I~ O C ~ p ti 0 c C ~ 1 7 ~ W 3 7 ~ 1 7 i f0 ~ 1 V 'O d 'O = fo ~ V ~ N ~ 00 1 Y h 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8^ S O O O O O S S g Q l~0 ~ .n-I mV N 00 11 0 0 ~ ~ N 1f1 N 0~1 N O M ~ O N V N N Y rl N ~ ~ C C J C C J y ICO y N J II II II O 0 11 II II II II O C 0 11 II II II II II II O C C E II C ~ II II II "` ^ O O 0 ~ p F- m ~n G ~„ N N p 8 S W ~ C N O y~ O p 'O C R d a_+ W d =~ ~= • W 00 p~ O M O (rf ~ C U O m p v01 ~~ s 7 2 o 7 V\\ Z 9~ N M M O1 p~ m N N~ ~ a \ .r C d O ~ w 8 d d Gl O 'C .~ ~ d e•1 fV 8 d ~ m~ ~ N •£ U~ N ~ £ V W ~ N a x x x ~ x x ~ ~ 'g ~ x x ~ ~ x 8 C Y x V ~ x x x ~ y ~ O O ~ '00 ~ N ~ '~O '00 rN.. W £ H ~ N ~ Y Y N O Y ~ to 01 O a~+ ~ ~ = N O d a~-+ U~ d Y r H Y~ m > >; 3 waz P az ~LL waz 3 az a ~ ~,i Q>Y a> >; ~Y .-1 n ~ .-1 •-1 1O a m o .-I v m m v~ O o rl v m m c m. c a m v~ ~ y v~ OC c+1 d .-1 n ~ •-+ •~+ ~ a C M y ~ ~ ~ 7 7 ~ d d d 3 +, ~ ~ +' ~ m ~ OD ~ y. [D [L [D rl N M L 10 .O ti 'O N L A .C U '6 O1 w m O N N N M O ~ y N 10 d F 6 H 0o S goooo 8g goooooS Sg c°o~ N~~-1 rn~ g a g ~- 8 0 ~~ ~ u i ~ N ~ ~ N a m ~ H ~ N ~ C C Y V C C ~ ~ J Q J J C C ,•~ II II II O II II II II II O C 0 II II II II II 11 II O C N ~ y ~ II ~ II II II 0 C C ' y O y O 0 0 0 ti ~ ` ' C y a+ Y !_' OC o S S ~ O O O . _ C p N m O '~' U M M ~ O M .-f n U > > (g \ \ 3 O N M M ~ f Yf O Q~ , O O Q M M N N \ U N ~ N N \ ~ rl N a \ ~ N '6 N Gl OJ -8 ~ 8 C 7 p m~ ~ C_ O U ~ C_ C_ O U N ~' N Vl o x x x N ~ x x £ ;, ~ H ~ x x E v E v x o > C x rJ +y x x x C ~ O C A +~' .O 01 ` ' C e0 ++ '0 w+ ~ O L' d .O .O C Q y H C W Q H - 6 N ~„ ~„ ~' =, G = YO N O ~ ~, YO YO ~, Vf ~ - Z ~ r Y = Y Z ~ ~ 3 ~ z w ~ ~ ~z w ~ Z O az a d 3 3 > e > > ; ~ m ~co o o o -1 0 o ~ o o ~ ~ o a d > c ot Q ~c ~ ~ ~-~I N a . v m O o.-1 o a m mo v 0 mo a a y o ti N a o v ; ~ r ~ > > v v v Q m J ~ ~ J ~ 'O 'O N W C C C N N M Y f0 S! u ~ 4J Y N ~ tJ '6 d r.: 00 O N ry A O Ira m N M O -+ v~ of F- d F- d h r+' C1 -• •~ •~ NJ -. ~ ~D Cf ~ fD d -• VJ ~D ~ ~ - -• 3 d TI ~D - ~ -• •"' - C ~ W ~ _ N D cn C ~ cn cn ~ C ~ C UJ 7 C C ~ ~ ~ ~: C. ~ A Q ~ Q 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A „-~' N ~ ~ r ~ ~ C Q v ~ ~ r. ~ ~ C N d ~D o~ a m a w n .. cn Q _ .. w v .. cn .. a .. ~ ~ r -~ -~ ~ ~ o- v ~ ~ v m v~~ ~ ~ Q~ rn ~, O o m m m ~ O X W W W Q m ~ °~ ~ ~ 3 m ~ ~ ~ v - o ~, (D O_ S O_ (n ~ C 7 ~_. cD ~ n c O O (D ~ S ~• ~• 7 fD cD N ^' - c cD ~ x N ~ ~' ° v °? c ~ a m D ~ ~, - cn ~ ~. v c o 0 0 0 ~ a~i ~ ~~ m ~ ° v ~ ~, c o cD ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cD ~ ~ r O ~• ~ Q ~ ~ ° ° ~ 1 ~' ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ Q "1 • ~ ° ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ O n n n ~ O (D ~ O < < ~ O O S ~ ~ ~ n (D (D ~ ~ O N v Sll ' ~ O O Ul O ~ fD (D Q O (Q ~ ~ N = Q ~- ~ (Q ~ -0 ? to y 7 (~ cD ~ 7 ~ ~ (D cn cn (n ~ ~. ,~ O (~ _. ~ (D . ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ O (O Q (D p (D ~ ~~ (D n ~ y ~ O N C C ~ C C ~ ~ v v v ~ d S ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ 4? i '- V (D ~ Od CD 3 ~ ] ( D ~ (D (D (D N O N C ~ N 7 ~ `Z 0 7 0 C Q ~ a. Q A O fD (D ('D ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ O o ~? o i o ~ m ~ o 0 0 ~ N • _ g a n o o c c ~ 3 ' ~ v ~,' m ~ ~ m w ~° o ~' m cr'- v' ° ~ ' ~ v v v 5 ~ ° m ~, ° ~ cQ ~ rn v (D ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ C v - ~ o • • cn m m m ~ aJ N ~ m (D v v c n ° ° ~ x ~ ~ ~ n m ~ o = /Q ~ lV ~• a • ~' m ~f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , cn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N. ~ ~ _ o~ v ~° c co ~ c ~ ~ ~ m a ~ m~ m ~ _ O ~' ° Q~~° cn o ~ ~ go ~ ° o ~ ° O ~ i • c. Q w v, ccn c ~ rn ~ ~ ~ m _ • fn N C a ~ ~ C O ~. ~? ~ O ~' ~ (D (D .~ A (D f D ~ ~ ~ cn fD ~ n O ~ CD O ~ (D c v~ m ai a co o ~ m 3 ~• _ ~ i ~ ~ m n v m ~ -a m ~ r. m ~ ~- v ,r ~. ~ .Y 3 ~~ c cn m ~ o ~ m ~, N ~ ~ ~ ~ A N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n Zl _ p ~. 1 r T i t r T n f y ~ ,. ~ "f' T _ _ _ _ _ ~. T T F F F ~ T ~ T ' 'L T i' T _ i. ~ cn N cn ~ .. S 'O to -!+ CD ~ O~ o_ (D ~p _ .. d .. N n a Q .. W N .. cn cn -^ CD .. d .. v n ~ ~~ (D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W N ~ W .. ~ CD O v N . . ~. ~ c cn =~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' _ m v °~ ~ ~, D_ Q =., ~ ~, O o ~ ~ v v m m n ~ ~ v _ _ _ v ~' ~ ~~ D _ N co ° ~ ~•~ ~ m ~ cn~ ~ ~ m ~ ~p:cn - ~ ws o ~'s cn o ~ ~ ~ ~ n n ~ c ~.~3.0 o wN~~!~ 0 3 ,c °~~ c C - m~~ o n~ ,~ `<u, m 3 v o v~ ~ Q~ m $ ° m 3 ~ m u, c v v m ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ cn - gy o -a ~ m ~ cn c a m W 0o W ~. ~~ m m ~ 3 m ~~~~ c ~ ~ v ~ p °- -v~ m rn °~ cn c a m cn a ° . c o o m ? m ~ c ~ co O ~ • O - O !D v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ( D -p• ~ ~ n -p 7 S O ( /~ N -0' p C ( ~ "a p) ~ ° ' ~ ~ v C ~ (%i C ~ v .~-. `< ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ m a N o ~ ~ ~ o m ~ ~, - ~ v ! . v ~ O Q m m ~, c ~, cn• m ~ v ~ 7 ~ o_ ~ d cn ~ , cD '-' ~ O cD O- O ~ 7 cD l O ~ ? d. ~ ~ lD V n n ~ .-. O O N 3 ° ~ << o c m ~ ~' o ~ ~ m ~ ° ~ m fm m ~ ~ cn f/~ m ~ " < < fD N g ( v ~ ° ~ ~ ~ w v ~ ~ ~ ~. O v N S . ~ ° c~ a- ~ -~ ~• ~ 1 ~ - ~ ~ n y C N ~ • - O cD "1 - N ~' ~p S N O ~ ~ (D v D . O n ~p C Q o ~ O O s ~ ° ' < a N ~ . ~ ~ ~ cn ~ cn °' ~ c ~. 7 o W O O _ _ - c D ~ C ~ _ ~. _~ j Q cD ~ ~. O ? ~ cD ~' cD ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ C O' _ln O .Cl O ? 3 ~ ~ .-. ~ O < O -~ O n O p ~, n N "O O S O (D O < n ~p N ~_ O fA N~ O C O < v ~ 3 C ~ c S N l D ~ N O N N O ~ O~ ~ - N (a ~ O~ Q O ~ ~ , ~ - O q1 N .n•. ~ N ~. ~• cn ~• ~ ~ ~ N ~ - S O_ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ O O f~ cD cD ~ ~ `G ~ ~ ~ C0 (~ ~ °> ~ _ a' ~ N ~ > ? ~ cn ~ ~ °- °" O ~ Q (^D (^D C v v n ~ ~ O ~ cn ~ cn ~ ~ fD N W o a ~ D_ ~ c 3 , ~. ~. ~ cD ~ O c v fD x r: cD a ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ Q O O (n O ~ cD S = N CJi O O C v a O ~ ~ (D 00 n ~: ~ O O ~ ~ p~ ° O O O 7' ~ N O ~ p ~ ~ ~ O ~ C ~ ~ O ~ O N ~ ~. (D ~ ~ N N . ~ (D Q ~ N 7 ~~ O ~ C O fD N~ ~O ~ O v o (j1 O 7 ~ O N • O Q Q ( l ~ ~ O ~ ' S ~ CD ~ ( ~ - O (~ fD N Q C O N• ~ Q O ~ -' ~ ~ O ~ D D O ~ ~ ~ CD . C O .~ (O n ~ N ~ C d ° CD C7 ~ , A fD Q ~ Q S ' ~ ~ N ~ ~ O. ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ a o o~ o ~ m x ~ ~ v ° ~ ~ v~ a ' < ~ ~ o ~ m w ni ~ ~ m v v v ~ ~ ~ ~ ° m ~~ 1 O ~ r--h ~ o TT N ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ a CD ~ m O , N (~ n O n' 7 O = ~ ~ O O `G N ~ fD W cn (~D O O C N ~~~ N N Q ~ ~ O ~p ~ O_ N ~ ~ y ~ O ~ (D ~ 7 ~ , C CD n O ~ n Q n C)'1 o ~ ~ O 7 N p C 7 yi ~ O ~ 7 ~ . N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• C ~ ~ N Q ~, ~ > ~ O ~ CD (D ~ ~ Q ~ cn N o ~ 7 O O ~ ~ - C ~~ ~ ~ • ~ ' N ~ Q n ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ - O -+. ~ (D ~ ~ N N C CD n N N ~ (O ~ 'C (D ~ (D ~ (D (Q ) ~ ( cD i O 7 fD ~ _ S O 7 ' .D ~ ~ ~ v n-. lA ~ ~' C Ql ~ ~ N i v .n-. Q ~. ~ fD O n ~ ~ N C in : cn ~ ~ 0 ~I ~ fD ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ W O ~ ~ . (t] ~ ~ O v 3 ~ ~ ~ `D 0 v ~ cn m i c ' ~ ~ m -a ~ n ° o ? ~ a ° ~ ~ v n ~ ~ ~ v c ~ cn ° o °' cn ~ ~ m ~ O ~ (D cn l D N cn ,~ ~ ' - ~ v o~ o < ~ O ~ ~ ~ c o Q ~ °' c ~ a _ o ~ ~ ~~ ~ m o c m v, ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~~ c - v ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ _ (D ~ ~ ~ (~ CO S ~ (D ~ (OD V `G ~ ~ lD ~ A ~ N CD (D ~ Q ,~ c T r 'Y~ r, T r !D c. i~ r !C ;~ .''r .r.. 'p CC !C ~,L, _ ~_ = ~ ~ ~ ~ _. ?~ Oo - - - ;C 'C, - f T T 7. 'L r ,.~. C1 -. ~ •+ to -• ~ ~D n 7 ~D d -• UJ ~D ~ 'G - -. ~ C1 'f7 ~D - a -• r- - C ~ W ~ y ~DD~cn C)c/~ ~fA stn ~f/1 c p a p c p c co c co c m e a ~, p < a ~ a c a c a c a • c .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O 7 ~ ~D K 3 ,-' ~ e=D 7 p m 7 ,~ o ~. n y a D ~ 7o c~ ~ n fl? n ~ ~ cn ~- ~ ~ n: m e ~ ~~ v c m ~ n cfl cfl ~~~ m a~ m m o 0 ~ m m a. -. a (~ 0 (A ~ 1 ~p m 7 y m~ o~ m g~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (/~ O ~ N ~ In _ N ~ ~ ~ v ~ Q ~. fD O ~ v ~ 7 "p °- _ ~ o CD o ° ~ a v - v cu O ~ - ° a O y ~ O 7' ~ 3 ~ X O (D ~ D = O O_ O_ f D ' ~ ~ ~ ~ CD ~ N O ~ ( D (D ( ~ ~ Zl _ ~ (D ~ O (<D ~ < N CD `G N (D CCD cn N ~ ~p 'O N ~ v (D N O- • _ (D ~ In (O N O ~ - N ~ N ~ 3 ~ 0- _ O N ~?. ~ cD ~ o_ ~ ~ m~ m v ~~ ~ ~~ , cD Q _ 1 n 1 O ~ ~ q; n 7r O_ ^F O n~ c N n ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .rt ~ O ~ _~ N 0 ~ _ ~ _ ~ O C (D O O Q ° S w ~ ~ ? ~~ a ~ ~, ~ m v ~ ~ 3 v o ~- p c a Ica Q~N ~o cn m ~ ~ • - ~' v v c ~ a, m ~ cn' .~ ~ fl- a. ~ ~ ~ m m m m ~< n~ ~~ o ~ o• ~ m ~• v g n ~ ~ ~ c m ~ ~ m m ~~ o~ m v ~ _a ~ m v o ~ ~, ~ ~.o o v • _ s~, 1 ~ O 1 ~ ~' 7 0 (D X 7 ~ (~D ~ C _ (D ~ " (D O O a O ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ _ ~ X 00 O O n• ~ fD ~ cD ~ fn O O ' .-. ~ ~ i ' _ - - ~ ~ - 6 O Q ' _ ~. ~.- __ s ~ ~ d C __ ~ ~ ~ (D W LL ,^ %r , T ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ OS ~ CTt ~ ^' :r 'W~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ v w ~ c o .. o~ c ~, o ~ ~ o ~~ -., o .. ~ v o .. ~ a n o m o m ~ . ~ v o .. -a _ ~ ~ a cn co ~ .. a _ .. n .. -o v~ ~ ~ ~ .. v . . 1 ~ ~ n 7 ~ C C C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q 1 ~ ~ O N ~ ~ N Q ~ O O' O ~ ~ ~ = O Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ v ~ N N ~ O (D ~ ~ Q O O O L O o h m O p o ~ • v~ ' v ~. ~ ~ v~~ O o c ~ ~ co m ~ o ~ ~, ~, _? o 0 ~ ~p ~ N d ' O ~ 7 ~• <• ~ ~. cn ( D O~ n N O ~ x v C N ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ _ ~ O C ~ O p N ? 7 (D fD (D n ~ tU 7 N ~ C CD 7 O m c a ~ ~ ~ O. (D fD ~, ~ ~ ~~ ~ n~ W a .G -. - ^. ~ • O Q O cD Q ~~ W n Q a C ~ cD Q 0 . to N ~ ~ ~ cn < N ~ C ~ ~ p ~ ~ o O 3 a _ ~ p to v, m v ~' N cn cD c ~ fD n ~ , ~ cD ~ a n ~ ~ ~ _ . c v r. ~ m ~ ~ ~ . cn v m O ~ cn ~, v ~, ~ Q m i n ~ v m ° n m o co ~ ~ rn a 3 ~ m Q a ~ w ~ a ~ o_ (D ~ ~ w ~ o ~ ~ m ~ - v, ~, cn CD 7 C C7 (D X fD + . .-. 7 O d ( D ~ D- .~-. O. N ? ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~, fn ~ 'n O ~ lD N v N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• ~ ~ ~ O ~ fD ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ c ~ • ~ ~ a v ~ v o ~ ~, m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, o ~ cn 3 ~ ~ m m cn ~ n. ~ ~ ~ 3 v o W ~ n (D O ~ ~< O O CD ~ -O ~ ~ Q ~ ~ N~ ~, n N O~ 7' N to O - p (D Q ~ ~ ~ ul Q N O ~ , 7 T. O ~ O ~ O 1 ~ Q C < 1 1 ~ ~ (~ ~ ~ ~ 1 Q ~ ~ <p . cn cD ~+ n ~ ~ 1 D O ~ ~ C ~' ~ cD _ ~ O ~ N cD ~ O O cD ~ ~, o c < o~ ~~ (D O ~. 3 _ v 3 O ~~ m (D cn m~~ o Q c o . (D ~ ~, o 0 0 ~ c~c m co 1 ~ m o 7 a ~ m < o ~ ~ ° ~ ~ c~ m ~.. m ~ cu (~ Q Q ~ 1 .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ _ (n ~ m m v = ~ c • ~• cn ~ s -• ~ ~ ~ m x ~ n ~, - < ~ ~,~ ~ m in c - ~ o ~• ~ ~ v m co cn ~ CD cD . ~ m s c ~ a a ~ cD ~ ~ ~ N ~. ~ cn m < O ~~ v ~ m m m a m Q m? m ' v o n ~ _ w~ ~ O p ~~ N 7c v ~ ' O (D ~ ~ c v N O ~ O O N C c (/~ 7 ~ ~ - 7 O N (D ~ S ~ _ C CD J: _ < ii s .~C' ~f = ~" O Q _ _ _ Q .~ T T T ' T ~ W S T 3 - ,- x J .. T`. J ~ ~ C ~^ ~ C ~ ~ C O a C 1 < ~ a ~ a ~ ~ ~ t7~ ~ ~~ A C ~ W a ~ ~ ~, ~ ~. ~ ' ~ v a ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w - .~ ~ cc ~ ~. m cc ~ - c O N ~ v fD ~m = CD ~ ~~-o a ~ m ~ ~' v ~ ~ O ~ ~, y cfl ~ ~ m n ~ : cn cpn -a y 3 m ~ ~ -p g y o n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CD O ~ _. _ y O Tl X 7 (D 7 6 N O ~~ ~ ~ ~ (A y ~ 7 - O O ' 'O N N ~ _ Q p N N y n~ 0 Q O C - ~ p Q~ W~ (D ~ ~ `Z (D ~ O O' ~ ~ ~o. ~ ~ ~o v_ m m N ~~ ~ v°-'~~ ~ C) "~ d ~ O ~ y Q ° m fl-~a~ca ~ N / O ~ to 7 n O• ~- y ~ a ~ o ~ m 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ m v~ a v y fl. ' v Q ~ O v a~ v a cn p' ° `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Oa 7 . ~ m upi v y v ~- v ~ c ~' cnD °- a ° y ~ ~ i N fD 7 i ~ ~ v ~ A ~_ O n ~ y C ~ ~ Q ~ ~ a D ~ _ m ;X: rv O - J Z _ > ~; ~ cn-O ate`-~ ~p o -~ v cD cn Qs~y ~ a' v -- ~ ~.3~. a = ~ m ?~ x n A a ~ v v m ~ y ~ °' o ~ _ °- -~ ~ y c i c , n 1~ ~ v ~ n 1 n ~ i v ~ _ ~• 0~ ~~ Q _ ~ 0 p ~ ..-. ~ 1 1 ~ y ~ ~• O A (A ~ ~ ( ~ O ~ CD O 7 y ~ ~ Q. ~ (O ~ y ~ ~ N ~ ~ C'D ~ ~ ~ (D ~. L fD N O -.. y ~ ~ ~ O O O O , y O ~ CD ~ ~ ~ ~ y ill ~ 3 f7 ~ _ .-. y ~ ~. C d ~ S N ~ In ~ ~ l/1 7 ~ f7 n ~ • O N S v ~ ~ "O v f D c'> W ~ ~ O ~ v (O y ~ ~ cn ~ ~ ~ _~ m o 3 ~, 0 0 ~, v 0~ 7r ' - ~ Z7 m o o~ y v a= o ~, v ~ ~~ CD y ~ y o_ v y 7 Q n. m y. to ~ 7 ~ O ~ co ° 3 ~' C ~ d O ~ ~ v a ~ cn ~ (D ~ ~ - (~ rn m y S v = _ `G ~ y y v y n O (n• ~ (D lA ~ O ~ CA ~ v ~ ~ _ - (n 7 fD Q p' ~' ~ c° 7 7 y ~ ~ ~. n ~ ~ O- d p (D ~ a O -~ lD Q ,- (D (D 7 (f~ ~ ~ x ~ ° O 7 "O ~p (D o (D v ~p ~ (D Q v N~ y~ oo rn~ ~. O (D o o C ~~° o ~ Q 7 Q y N y ~ CD _ ~ ~ ~ y y o ~ Q n N v 7 p -• (O v `G fD Vl Q (D (D ~ - ~ O O Q (O fD y (D (D S d Q O' v ~ (~ O_ -OO N = - 7 (p Q a~~ ~~ ~ a y .z `~ °o ~ °o m n a ? ~ m ~ m ~. a `°° v o w> °~' ~ N a 3~~~ v ~ y 3 ~ N~ o o° j - a a ~ o N~° o o- c m~ ° v m o o ~ c 3 ~ ~ Q y m °~ rn ~ _~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ y v ° U, ~ v, ~ N ~ 00 n ~ . ~ ~ 0 7 n p~ ~ N ~ to ~ '~ 7 O ~ n N ~c- ? ~ ~ ~ N O ~ ~ D ~ lD N Q O O ~ C 7 ~ ~ d ~ ~ fll ~ ~ ~ d ~ W y r-. N y 7 ~ '~ 4 _ ~ O WO (D ~ D ~ ( ° a ~ ° ~ O a ~ cn ~ l ~ o m ~ o (n ~ ~ ~ ~ O yam ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~~ a v`~ ~ o a -~ _~ cu ~ cn y ~? ~ m y ~ ~~ ° ~ ~ m ~c~~ ~ ° ~ ~' O ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ . o 0 0~~ o ~~ v. ° v s~ ~° °o °' c v v 3 ~ m m ° ~ ~, o m 7~ (D N (~ ~ (D y 7 O ~ ~ C Q N ~ Q A y ~ O~ N ~ p m a cn OO N . ~- ~ 0 p o cD ~ ~~ ~ O ~, n y C f/~ ~ ~ m ~ m' ~ ~ m ~ a ~° ~~ ~• v ~~ ° > >• o n • O ~ ~ ~ y p C ~ (a ~ ~ v ~ ~? d ~ CD ~ N c n (D N p_ ~ ~ O 1 ~ ! ~ 1 f~D C C Q ~~ ~ ~ c~ ~ c~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ C Q- va ~ ~ ~ c~ N C N O -• NO (Ap W C =,, ~~~~ O 7 n 3 0 ~l U1 ~ A n W . In N D N ~ N ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ A W N~ O~ (D v n v~oooo ~ x '~ O ~° ~ ~ ~° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D s ~• ~ z v m cn o ~ m ~ ~ 3 .5 ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ o v r. 3 v ~ -~ ~ -~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ cQ m ~ C7 7 n~ A ~~ n C C C A- O C O 7 n O _n A~ ,~~, _ O O ~ CD Cn > (D Q O Q ~ ~° n n p ~ ~ ~ ~ CD m ~ ~ cD ~; ~° v N C m ,~ ~ o 0 0 ~° g o to ° ~ ~ n v n ~ -o - 3 ~ v ~ N °' -° ~' ~' m m mom-, a Q m ~ _m - ~ ~' ' ~_. v ~ c ° ~ ~ cn (D c ~ Q ~. tU ? °' 3 ° T. 3~ O ~ v v (~ O W ~ ~° mo ? ~ ~. -- ~ m ` o ° s ~- ~ ~ m v - o m - ' °' ~ m ~ " ° r c v ~ D ' cn A o v < N v o ~ i m v w w N m o m n ~ '0 - ` ~ a v N A y ~ m ~ cD n 7 ~ 1--F C ~ ! j W CIl O U1 ~ < ` A A r~ cD ~ ~ 7 cD ~ co (O ~ o G ~ O_ X 0 0 0 O ~_ 7 Q O n m 3 m ~` O O (LZ ~ ~ C a p- ' ~ O ~ -a -h fn O j' n , ~ n ~ m ~ ~ ~ <n (n cn "d ~ ~ ~ .O C (D ~ N ~ y ~ cD n 7 ~p ~ cD (D ~ ~ C `G (n ~ • _ C `G ~• ~ ~ ~ `~ j ~ v C ~ cD m cD A ~ v S ~ cD Q ~ ° ~ ~ ~. 3 O N ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ = ~ ~ n ~ p O (fl CD < ~' CD fD '~• O v ~ ~ v ~ ~ 7 ~ ( ~D ( DD ~ ~ Q ~• ~ S ~ ~ 3 cn x ~ , m ~ 3 v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ m ~, Q ~ 0 0 0 ~, ~ v n ~• ~ ~ o j ~ ~ ~ ~ m m v,' v v v cfDn o• 0 0 0 ~ m ° ~ n m o' ~ ~ ? ~, ~ v m e °~ -0 3 - ~ v n7i v v v c~ v~~ o ~ ~ v N~ o 3 m ~3 °p `~ ~~ ~~ m o°cnmmm v~m3~o v v v ~ ~ ~~ m~ c °- ~ ~~ - ~n ~ 3 _ °• o ~ a~ ° c°n C o O a~'O ~°,-O ~ a3 o c m Ov v o 3 A ~ ~ ~ m c ~ 3 o c n i o ~ ~ v `~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ m n ~~ ~ ~ 1 - n~ ~° ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ m v m c n ~' o m ~ ~ °~ ~ cn 1 ~ ~ Q m Q ~, ~ ~ v a- N `~ ? y ~ O N ~ Q ~ N~ (D -'' O ~ N (O ~ N ~ ~ o_ ~ ~ m - v C O m n cn ~ m N ~ - 0 °' w m 0 ~ m ~ ~ ~ cn ~ a v y ° m C7c ° ~ ~ ' 0 o 6 z 0 ~ ? ~ nm 5~~ ~ p c ~ p 3 p ~ ~. ~ o cn o ~ ° ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ o ° ~ m a m ° 3 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o n a m X 3 0 ~ ° ~, ~ °~ 3 A ~ v v ~, o o m m ~ v, 3 m n ~, ° ~, co - m c cn 3 m 0 3 3 =' 3 ~ ~~ ~ C ~ ° -p ga -oo~ ~ ~ ° s~ ~' ~ ~ ~rn ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ n o~ O ° v ~ 3 m v~ m o~ ° m° A N N 3 N p 7 ~ ~ O~ CD C v A ~, ~ ~ p O 0 3 p ~p ~ ~ ~ ~ C . fD W ~. N ~ (D ~. ti Q. ~ O fD O ~ ~ ~ A n ~ S O O n 3 3 v~ ~ '~ CD O < O v ~. ~ n~ ~ ~ 1 A fD ~ Q. cD ~ cD cp O n c° o O m c~ v A co ~ n O - -, cD O ° m O N ~ j ~ ~ m v ~ o ~ m v ~ v o ~ O- o ~ ~ ~ o 'n ~ N ~ A . ~ mm av ~ m O ~ o v ~ n c ~ ~m~ cD 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ m N ~ C Q (D ~ x ~ to O O ~, C n C to ~ p 7 S ~ A o ~~ v = 7 C 0 ~ O n n n~ ~~ n o m c n m N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ N 7 ~' ° ~' ~ m ~• n N ~ O n CD m ~ ° ~ O A o n ~ 7 p O ~ O ~ ~ ~ = 1 ^~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cn ~ ~ /~ • I <D lD N 3 -+~ o~ ~ n n p 0 0 m~ 3 3~ 3~ co n~ c ~' a y m ~ (D c0 cn ? ~ C c (n lD v v ~ 7 , `G to ~ . ~ X CD j- v cD cD N O cD ~, (D N O n lD < ~. ~ ~ ~ (D C A 7 ~ cD `< fn O O_ A ~ fD . v 3 n o• ~ -° v m O <° ~ Q v ~ • o cn ` ~ cD ~ ~, ~ n~ 3 m o a c c~ v ~' ~ ~ z m o c v 3 m ~' ~ ~ c ~~ o 3~ c° 3 v c ~' o o m -,' v -o x 3 ~ v N Q o• ~ 3? ~' ~ c°n ~ cn ~ ~• m o m ~ c 3 A a ~ A cD n (D A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^. ~ n _ O = ~ ~ O ~ < _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~F ~ ~ n C C ' CD o ' gin ~• (Q N ~ ~ cD ~° O ~ ~ cD ~ N O C ~ A• n ~ ~ N ~ lD ~ ~ cn _ ~O "p cD = v (~ c N V1 C _ N p ~ p . 3 ~' ~ v 7c (D ~ _ ~ p c n c ~ ~ N cD ~ S ~ <n -p -o n ~' ~ ~~ ~ a ~v v a _ A~, m cn ~~~ ° ~N 3 _ ° ~ - ~ ~ ,~ o ~ „ c ~ o o' ° ~ . ~ cN m ~ c°'n ~ ~ ~ v m v ~ ~_ y = ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ o in ~ m ~° _ ° cn a ° n m m m ~- ~ ° ~' m ~ ~ ~ °' ~ x o < 3 cn ° O ~ ~ N O cp 0 lD to d ~ -p ~ (D - CD (D 3 N ~ m v ~ 3 3 m ~ ~ n ~ C~•~ ~'nv, m ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ fn ~ n ~ A x ~ cD ~ m j v ~~ cn p m o• p ~ O 3 ~ ~ o ~ 3 S N ~ ~ .-. ~ A 3 .z (D fD 7 (D ' S ~~ O y Q ~ 3 ~ = C 3 7 m cD ° r n ~ ° ~' m v g ~ _~ v ~ - ° ~ m ~ y ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ 3 m `_<. m Q o m m ~ ~ .. cp r N ~ C 7 Q a• d a -~ ~, ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ N o n n ~ D ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w N p Oo W W ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ m ~ c ° N a ~ ~ ~ v g v ~ ~~ . 5• . 7 (O , fn Cn 7" ~ ~ CD -~ ~ ~G , C C C Q ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 7 (D "O ~ ,~ .~ ~' O 3 O D ~ ~' C N ~, 3 m ~ -° 3 ~ ~ v m ~ o 0 0 ~ _ ~ C N N W W ~ ~ O ~• " . ~ A A (~ ~ 7 cD O~ ~ ~ ~ CD ~ cn N i i D ( DD ~ ~ i ~ v W W N ~ lD ~ ~ ~ p I~~ W ~ ~ 1 nn 7 0 ~ O O O C ooo ~v o ~ ~ C ~ • y (O ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S SU v ` ~ C ~m N N v .A-. CD C cD ~ ~. ' ~ a ~ fD m cum o v, ~~ o c p O ~ 3 n A 0 v ° ~ cD CD ~ DD N ~ C ~D ~ ( ~ c D O ~ O ~' m a 0 (n . ' ~ ~ - m cn m ~ o o 0 o a° ~, ~, ~, 0 3 ~ (D p Z ~, ~ ~ ~ • N O O O n ~~ o ~. N n ° Q~ ~ m ~' ~~ m m m ° m ~ ~• ~ m v m y ~ v p_ ~ o c ~ v ~ C ~ ~' o m~ n 3 ~~ ~ ~ ~. p n O CAD ~_ j X 3 O m 0 0- . _,, ~ ,~ c ~° m -° ~ = ~~ g~ °o ~' °~ 3 ~ o ~ C p ~~ v 0 O~ ~,'~ ate (n . a ~ 0 c~ 1 n ~ c -° ~ o ~. ~ v o ° n ~• ~ cn ~' m N n ~ N: a c m ~ v? a ~ v ~ s m m o ~ ~ , v n ~ ~ ~' 3 3 o ~ . m ... m ~ ' o C ~ m ~ o n o 3 m c ~ ~ 0 _~ ~ N - X N ~ ~ `G 3 _ ~ ~ . + ~ ~ _ 3 3 -~ ~ o cn ~ ~ 3 ° ~ ° ~~~ < v O 3 ° co cD ~ n ~ cD _ Q O n ~ ? ~ O ~• A v tG N cn y ~ < CD ~ ~p ~ p n n ° 3 m m ~ m m ~ ~' v ~.~ nrn ° `G ~ N (D < O Q ~ O ~ _ ° O 3 (O ~ cD ~ l ° cD 1 ~ O (D ~~ ~, O (^D ~ ~ -+. cD ~ d ~ ~ ' ~ ~; a- ~ C a - ~ v ~ ~ 7 `~ Q . -° rn n~ n~ n c° ~ y z ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °" c m ~ ~ ~ . -~.. ` v 3• C co o O_ ~ us °- ~ t° O ~ ° C m Q°o ~n3 fD o C ~ Z7 Q~ m n o nn ~ n ° ~ ~ `-_~ ~ gv~3m~ ° - - m n = ~ ~• v c ~' ~~3 ~~ m cDC° ~ ° ~ m 1 0 ~ ~ v ~• 3 ~ N A ° , O m ~~ fD (D A ~-gym 3 ?. ~ ~• A ~ ~ o- o ~, O ~ 3 m °- Q m C ~ c~ o o v~ c cn m ~ 3 ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~• v s c~ ~' - ~ ~ fD n N c~ C o ~ v A n° a o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ m ~ o °.~ n 3 c co 5' 3 Q 3 ~ m N ~ , (D O 3 ~ (D (~ ~ CD O ~' ~ ~ O O- - `G O . 3~ _ ~, ~ °' n _ ~ _ `~ 0 3 ~ ~' 0 cn m ~ , 3 3 v o ~ ° n (D ~ S ~_ n~ y (D O N C n < m v 3 o m Q a 3 = c ~ c m w ~ ~~ .-. ~ ~' ~ m ~ O ~, ° ~• ~~ ~ (p ~ o O T T 2 ST. JOSEPH PLANNING COMMISSION September 8, 2008 FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS 2. 3. 4. s. 6. 7. 9. ~~~11/ ~~ff zr~~ 10. M~ ~-I-n~~ 11. 12. 13. 14. 16. ~ ~~,"~-f /, 18. ~U~ f~~~ ysL~c~ 21. ~aG ~~ ~~ 3 ~U ~/~,~~~ S~ 2©~ E ~wK S~, /oir ~ .~~ ~. ,s ~ ~i~ 3 ~' l 1-t y ~"` ~ ~ SE ~~ s~..Gk..C ~4h~ .~~ yam' ,~~- s~ 33.E ~ ~-(2 z ~~ ~ +~ S~ -~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ -~- 5G 3a~ ' ~~' ~~~ S ~~_ ~~ y SiS ~C.t-lC C~ ~~ f~I~~~E ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ST. JOSEPH PLANNING COMMISSION September 8, 2008 FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS NAME 2. 5. 6. 7. s. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. ~~ ~~ ~h~~ ADDRESS ,~ . ~ <,~ ~%~ 4 ~ d ~~~fa, l.~i ti.~-(. 2~ ~ ~- ~~ ~~s ~~~~ ~