HomeMy WebLinkAboutPennings letter 10-10-08Memo
To: Planning Commission
From: Lori Bartlett
Date: 10/10/08
Re: Letter from Sarah Pennings, Graceview Coalition
Enclosed is letter received from Sarah Pennings, Graceview Coalition, on Friday, October 10,
2008. The letter was received after the deadline for the Planning Commission meeting. I am
enclosing the letter in your packets for correspondence review on the S&H Partnership
application.
Sincerely,
n
~ /J
Lori Bartlett
City of St. Joseph
Finance Director
October 10, 2008
I am writing you on behalf of Graceview Estates Coalition regarding the Final
Site Plan of Outlot A. During the last planning commission meeting you asked for our
input on what we would like to change on the plan and there are definite items we would
like to see changed.
As you all are aware we are continuing to fight the approval of the S&H application
on other levels, we believe this property must 6e re zoned and properly permitted
before any final plan is approved.
The Coalition would also like to see the developer carry ALL of the impact costs
associated with the additions listed below. We feel is it not the residents responsibility to
pay to maintain the safety and privacy we currently have, and which we relied upon when
purchasing our homes, because a developer wants to build in an area not zoned or
adequate to do so.
Our first concern with the final plan is there are not adequate accesses to CR 121 or any
effective arterial road. In the original buyers agreement the developer agreed to have 2
roads to CR 121 and there is currently only one. The developer should be required to
build this second access BEFORE any application is approved and certainly before the
site is improved and buildings are built. I hope the Commission keeps in mind where
their construction traffic will be going and where they will park their vehicles while
working on the site. Parts of 4th Ave SE is in no way, shape, or form built to handle the
current traffic along with construction traffic. You may ask the builder to take a side
street, but they will take the most direct route.
Our second concern is the buildings should be more cohesive with the surrounding
areas. We are requesting their final plan change to have owner owned quadplexes or
duplexes so that it is less intrusive to the area. To have two, 3-story apartment buildings
in a person's back yard are absurd. You have previously asked S&H to take our initial
concerns and come back with a "revised" plan. Their revisions only added a few trees
and a 24 (I thought it was 22 ft) foot road. They made no REAL effort to address the
residents concerns of how huge and intrusive these buildings would be. I think its time
you speak for your citizens Saint Joseph, and ask them to revise these buildings to be
more cohesive with the neighborhood.
Our third request is the developer creates more of a visual barrier surrounding the
apartments. We request they create a larger than 3 foot berm to keep even 10% of
privacy they have now. In a typical situation there is a density barrier with an apartment
of duplexes or other multi family homes. S&H has used their holding ponds as a "density
barriers" which to the residents does not in any way create an adequate barrier, especially
for visibility and sound. There has to be a substantial number of trees added to come
close to a proper barrier.
We believe the City should adopt and implement a "Crime Free ordinance" to any rental
units on this Outlot A. By doing this, the current residents of the azea will be somewhat
reassured that any rental property built will not house a lot of crime. Implementing a
crime free ordinance will not only help the current residents, it will also put less stress on
the law enforcement of Saint Joseph in turn, saving the city money. Other Central
Minnesota cities such as Sauk Rapids and Sartell have implemented such an ordinance
successfully.
I sincerely hope you take our concerns into account when approving a final site plan. If
you elect to approve this development, which for reasons already enumerated the
coalition believes you must not; it would wind up in the front and back yazds of people in
the city you make decisions for. Think about the re sale values of a home in our area and
ask yourself, "Would I want to buy a house here?" These are changes that you can insist
on to make the answer to that question more likely a yes than a no. These are all
reasonable requests.
Finally, these recommendations above are in no way to be considered negotiations or a
settlement. We will continue to fight the approval of the Special Use Permit and the key
elements of the approval process on other levels; we believe this property should be re
zoned before the final plan is executed and that timelines have expired.
T'hanl u, - ,,-~
C'~:
_,~
-.- : ~~ ~
Sarah Pennings
Graceview Coalition