Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[04] S & H Site Plan Reviews*1~ crr~• or s•r..unr:rrt Planning Commission Agenda Item MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: November 3, 2008 S & H Development, Site Plan Review Administration PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 4, 2008 to consider issuance of a Special Use Permit and PUD Amendment for S & H Development to allow the construction of two multiple family structures, two eight plexes and one duplex. The matter was tabled and the Planning Commission continued to discuss this matter on September 8, September 30, and October 13, 2008. On October 13, 2008 the Planning Commission recommended the Council issue a special use permit and amend the PUD to allow for the proposed development. The recommendation was passed on a 5-2 vote. At this same meeting the Council considered the site plan and tabled the matter to November 3, 2008. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Planning Commission requested additional information before the final site plan could be considered. Specifically the Planning Commission requested: • Revised site plan showing the 6' berm. • Revised site plan showing the future access to CR121 • Setbacks for the townhomes. (20' between buildings) The revised plans have been submitted and illustrate that the height is within the requirements. The revised plans also provide options for screening to include: 4' Berm detail with two rows of trees • 4' Bern detail with 8' fence and one row of trees • 6' Retaining wall with two rows of trees The revised site plan also indicates that the Norway Spruce will be 10' in height. The legend on the plan indicates the type and size of all landscaping materials. ATTACHMENTS: Revised site plan. REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission must accept a final site plan at this meeting for the Council to consider on November 6, 2008. September 8, 2008 Page 1 of 6 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, September 8, 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. City Representatives Present: City Engineer Randy Sabart & Mike Kotila, City Attorney Lori Athman Others Present: Michael Patnode, Pok Ye Hughes, William Capecchi, Sarah Pennings, Igor Lenznor, David Desmer, Sam DeLeo, Katherine Kraft, Margaret Hughes, Ellen Wahlstrom, Mariterese Woida, Thomasette Schuler, Sister Kara Hennes, Mimi Bitzen Agenda: Wick made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Andersen and passed unanimously. Minutes: Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes of August 4, 2008; seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. Public Hearing -Interim Use Permit 117 4th Avenue SE: Kalinowski called the hearing to order 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 10 Block 4, Eastern Park 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 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. Michael Patnode, 117 4th Avenue SE, St. Joseph, MN 56374 has submitted the request for Interim Use. As there was no one present wishing to speak, the hearing was opened and closed at 7:05 PM. Patnode approached the Commissioners to speak on behalf of his request for Interim Use Permit. Patnode stated that he is requesting an Interim Use Permit to operate a rental unit to help offset the mortgage. Commissioners questioned whether or not he resides at the home, to which Patnode replied that he works in Princeton and has been staying at his parents' house during the summer, however, his primary residence is St. Joseph. McDonald questioned why, if he is living in St. Joseph, was his City mail returned to the City Offices marked "undeliverable, no forwarding address". Patnode responded that during the summer he spent a considerable amount of time at his parent's house and the mail was not picked up on a regular basis. Once the mailbox was full, the Postmaster stopped delivering the mail. Deutz questioned whether or not the City utility bills are paid to current or if they have been returned as well. Patnode stated that he has just brought his utility bills to current. Anderson questioned Patnode as to where he resides, to which he responded, St. Joseph. He further stated that he is looking for employment in the St. Cloud area and will reside at his home. Kalinowski questioned Patnode as to the number of people living in the home to which he stated that he lives there with two others. Rieke again questioned where Patnode lives to which he responded St. Joseph and after further questioning he responded that he does live at 117 - 4th Avenue SE. McDonald made a motion to recommend Council accept the findings of fact, issuing an Interim Use permit to Michael Patnode, allowing an owner occupied rental at 117 4t" Avenue SE. The recommendation includes the following contingencies: September 8, 2008 Page 2 of 6 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. The motion was seconded by Wick. Discussion: Anderson questioned how often the Interim Use permit is renewed. Weyrens advised him that they are reviewed annually. He then stated that he has been advised that there are more than three people living in the home. If there are indeed more than the allowed number of tenants, Andersen questioned the process. Weyrens stated that if it is determined that there are more than three living in the home, the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to revoke the Interim Use permit. Ayes: Kalinowski, McDonald, Deutz, Andersen, Wick, Meyer Nays: Rieke Motion Carried 6:1:0 Public Hearing -Interim Use Permit. 415 7th 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 3 Block 2, Graceview Estates 3. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27 subd. 5 allows for an Interim Use Permit as follows: Residential rental provided the unit is owner occupied and provided the room(s) rented does not contain separate kitchen facilities and is not intended for use as an independent residence. For purposes of establishing 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. Crystal Hughes & Poke Ye Hughes, 415 71h Avenue SE, St. Joseph, MN 56374 have submitted the request for Interim Use. As there was no one present wishing to speak, the hearing was opened and closed at 7:15 PM. Mimi Bitzen approached the Commissioners with Pok Ye Hughes to address the request for Interim Use. She stated that Pok has been a resident of the Central Minnesota area for the past twenty years. Previously, she has owned a restaurant in the area. Bitzen added that Pok has been in contact with St. John's Prep School and has volunteered to bean Interim Host Mother to mentor international students. The home has 4 bedrooms and 3 baths. She advised the Commissioners that Pok will be living in the home full-time. Rieke stated that based on the information, he feels that the Interim Use Permit was not intended for this type of use. He questioned whether there will be more than two others in the home at one time. According to Weyrens, this type of use would meet the guidelines for an Interim Use Permit as there would always be two renters in the home. As there may be students staying there during vacations, Rieke questioned whether that would create a conflict. Weyrens stated it would be no different than other residents having visitors in their home. Deutz made a motion to recommend Council accept the findings of fact, issuing an Interim Use permit to Crystal and Pok Ye Hughs, allowing an owner occupied rental at 415 - 7th Avenue SE. The recommendation includes the following contingencies: 1. The rental license in non-transferable September 8, 2008 Page 3 of 6 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. The motion was seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. College of St. Benedict -Zoning Amendment: Recently, the College of St. Benedict approached the City with a request to construct a bus stop on 3~ Avenue SW in the backyard of 222 West Minnesota Street. Currently the property is zoned R1 Single-Family and is owned by the College of St. Benedict. Weyrens stated that the Commissioners are being asked whether they would like to see this area rezoned to E & E or consider a special use permit to allow for a bus stop in a R1 zoning district. Deutz stated that he does not believe the area should be rezoned as there are enough E & E areas in town. Andersen agreed with Deutz. Meyer stated that it would be best to consider a Special Use Permit rather than the rezoning. Based on consensus of the Commissioners, the City will hold a public hearing on October 13, 2008 to consider a Special Use Permit to allow for the construction of a bus stop in a R1 zoning district. Interim Use Permit Renewal: Weyrens reported that previously, the Commissioners considered the renewal of all current Interim Use Permits. Annually the Planning Commission reviews the applications for renewal of Interim Use to verify the property is in conformance with the Ordinance. When the Planning Commission considered the renewal applications, three property owners did not submit the required information. Therefore, the Planning Commission agreed to afford the property owners an additional 30 days to submit the material for consideration at this meeting. Weyrens stated that all three have since met the application requirements and all said that they did not know they had to complete the application process. William Capecchi was present to answer any questions raised by the Commissioners. Wick clarified that there were no violations at any of the residences. Deutz made a motion to approve the application to extend the Interim Use Permit for William Capecchi, 209 Minnesota Street E. The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. Rieke made a motion to table to request to extend the Interim Use Permits for Ryan Lieser, 403 151 Avenue NE and Thomas Ortmann, 308 10"' Avenue SE. The motion was seconded by Deutz. Discussion: Rieke suggested tabling those requests as the property owners were not present. Anderson questioned if the applicants were required to attend the meeting as a condition of renewal. Deutz stated that they were not required to be at the last meeting either,' however, as they missed the deadline for submission of the application for renewal he would have expected them to be present. Ayes: None Motion Fails 0:7:0 Nays: Kalinowski, Deutz Rieke, McDonald, Andersen, Wick, Meyer, Wick McDonald made a motion to approve the application to extend the Interim Use Permits for Ryan Lieser, 403 15` Avenue NE and Thomas Ortmann, 308 10`h Avenue SE. The motion was seconded by Meyer. Ayes: Kalinowski, McDonald, Wick, Meyer Nays: Rieke, Deutz, Andersen Motion Carried 4:3:0 McDonald questioned the status of the Interim Use Permit for Patrick Conway. Weyrens stated that the house is vacant and they are no longer renting at that residence. September 8, 2008 Page 4 of 6 Graceview Coalition: Sarah Pennings, 346 4'h Avenue SE, approached the commissioners to speak on behalf of the Graceview Coalition which is made up of approximately 100 voting citizens who are opposed to the proposed multiple family dwelling in Graceview Estates. Pennings stated that one of their main concerns is that of traffic and public safety. Based on her understanding of the information at previous meetings, 4th Avenue SE is constructed for traffic volumes of 1,400 cars per day; however, in the '00 traffic study, the traffic count was 2,450 cars per day. This traffic volume does not take into consideration the proposed apartment building, vacant lots or future senior apartments. She questioned how the children in this area are supposed to walk safely to school as the bus will no longer pick up those students and the trails are not required to be maintained during the winter months. She also questioned where the construction traffic will park. Pennings stated that the only solutions for their traffic and public safety concerns would be to either not allow the construction of the apartment buildings or consider the widening of 4'h Avenue. Ordinances were another issue addressed by Pennings. She stated that based on the 2002 Ordinances and her interpretation, the maximum height is 2 '/2 stories; however, now they are proposing a 3 story building. The Ordinance also stated that the plan must be approved within 12 months of approval by the City Council. Pennings stated that the proposed apartment building will be in their backyards or visible from their front doors. They do not feel that this fits aesthetically with the neighborhood. Pennings stated that had many of these residents known about the proposed multi-family construction, they would not have bought their homes. Currently, there are several homes for sale in Graceview Estates and the rental vacancy rate in St. Joseph is one of the highest in the St. Cloud Area. She asked the commissioners to consider those factors as well as the fact that the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University will be implementing the requirement of living on campus. The residents would like to see the "PURD" document that is continuously referred to. She also argued that all plats for Graceview Estates show the proposed development area as R1 rather than R3. Pennings stated that the residents were told that, due to the gas line bisecting the development site, the area could not be developed. In conclusion, Pennings stated that if the plan is approved, the City would be setting precedence for future developments. They are asking for the City to deny the plan to develop Outlot A, Graceview Estates 2 as multi-family. S & H Partnership -Graceview Estates 2: Weyrens stated that since the last meeting, there have been some revisions to the site plan for S 7 H Partnership. The owner has added a berm 3' to the development site as well as increasing the number of trees from 7 to approximately 15. The developer has also agreed to construct a temporary paved access to 7th Avenue. Sabart spoke to the residents with respect to their traffic concerns. He gave examples of the different street classifications and made references to local streets vs. collector streets. He stated that at previous meetings, the traffic information he provided was general information based on numbers from the APO with respect to traffic volumes. Those numbers are based on an average 10 trips per day. He explained three different traffic scenarios for the proposed development of Graceview Estates. (1) No additional development 800 vehicles (2) Existing development and proposed multi-family development 1,280 vehicles (3) Full build-out 1,920 vehicles Wick stated that based on scenarios 2 and 3; there should be no more than 1,000 vehicles/day. Sabart advised Wick that both 4`h Avenue SE and 7"' Avenue SE are collectors and can accommodate more than 1,000 vehicles. Wick questioned the parking along both sides of 4'h Avenue SE as collectors prohibit that. According to Sabart, not all collector streets prohibit off street parking on both sides of the street. Sabart added that, at the time of the original plat, there was a connection to Field Street shown. The actual September 8, 2008 Page 5 of 6 number of vehicles per day is based on the planning number of 10 trips per day to allow for intermittent vehicles in the area. Kalinowski questioned whether there are traffic safety issues created by the development. According to Sabart, both 4th Avenue SE and Elena are 36' wide. He also stated that due to the curvilinear streets, traffic will slow down. Currently, there is only a single access to Graceview. Sabart did say that it would be a good idea for the developer to provide a second access. Igor Lenznor approached the commissioners to speak on behalf of the original developers, Rick Heid and Bob Herges. He responded to comments made in the memo by the City Attorney. Based on that memo, he stated that it would be correct if this were a preliminary plat; however, this is a PUD not a preliminary plat. He then reviewed the timeline for the project: • Oct '01 Original Plan application received • Dec '01 Application for mixed residential uses Public Hearing held adopted resolution to the City Council Application for Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and Special Use Permit City Council tabled any action EAW was drafted -issues with the proposed multi-family development • Feb '02 Approval of the Preliminary Plat • Mar '02 Approval of the Special Use Permit to allow for mixed residential uses Lenznor then stated that because the Special Use Permit was approved, the City will need to amend the Special Use Permit because the developer is looking to reduce the density from what was originally approved. The City is following proper procedure for asking for site plan approval as that is needed. Lenznor advised the commissioners and the public that apartments would not be shown on a final plat as that is not legal. That type of housing style would only be shown on a concept plan. In conclusion, he stated that it is common sense when looking at the plat for this development that this is part of a larger plan. Kalinowski asked City Attorney Lori Athman for her legal opinion. Athman stated that it has recently been brought to her attention that the Special Use Permit was approved on March 7, 2002. At this time, she is unable to make a legal opinion as she would need more time to research this. She suggested that the commissioners table this until a later meeting. Meyer stated that the '02 Ordinance states that the maximum height can be either 2 '/2 stories or 35'. The current plan shows the building being greater than 35' tall. Linda Brown addressed the commissioners on behalf of the developer and stated that in the '02 Ordinances, they meet the requirements of height based on the definition of "Building Height". St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.4 Subd 12.' Building Height. The vertical distance measured from the average ground level adjoining the building to the highest point on the roof surface if a flat roof, to the deck line of mansard roofs, and to the mean height level between eaves and ridge of gable, hip and gambrel roofs. The Commissioner discussed the recent request of the property owners to re-open the public hearing for additional testimony. McDonald stated that while he is not opposed to hearing public testimony, he is uncertain that opening the floor for public input will result in new information that has not already been presented. Wick made a motion to open the floor for public comments as the developer has submitted revised plans. The motion was seconded by McDonald. Ayes: Kalinowski, McDonald, Wick Nays: Deutz, Andersen, Meyer, Rieke Based on the information presented by the Attorney representing the developer, the Commissioners agreed that a decision cannot be made without additional information. Weyrens recommended that the Commission list the items needing clarification and the matter can be placed on the next Planning Commission agenda. September 8, 2008 Page 6 of 6 The following information should be made available for the October 13, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. 1. Wick questioned the application process. He questioned the difference between the PURD application process and that of a Special Use. He also questioned how the Special Use Permit was approved without the approval of the Preliminary Plat. 2. Wick questioned the paragraph in the Attorney's memo relating to the timeframe for the approval. He questioned whether the Special Use Permit would have been void in 2004 due to no build-out. 3. Wick then questioned the clause in the developer agreement relating to the transfer of ownership if the property is sold. He stated that developer agreements do not transfer ownership. 4. Wick also raised some question as to the timeframe stated in the developer agreement. It was approved in 2003 with a completion date of September 15, 2005. What happened to the two year timeframe? 5. McDonald stated that the area is zoned R1 although it was planned to be developed as multi- family. He stated that it should be made clearer to the public so that they are aware of these types of issues. 6. McDonald questioned how the senior housing portion of the development can be labeled as this is an overlay. 7. Pennings stated earlier that the buses do not pick up students in the Graceview neighborhood. McDonald stated that he spoke with District 742 and they do pick up students in that neighborhood. The Lab school does not offer bus service to that neighborhood; however, after speaking with the principal, most of the students are dropped off by parents. 8. Wick questioned the portion of the EAW (page 4) which addresses what percentage of the 91 acres of the PURD can be considered multi-family. Deutz stated that there are no issues with density. 9. McDonald questioned who purchased the right-of-way for Field Street. Weyrens stated that it was purchased by the City. 10. Wick questioned how they can construct a 24' wide road when the City's standard is 36'. 11. Wick addressed the access issue. Deutz stated that if access is an issue, then the developer should be asked to show more access in and out of the development. 12. Meyer suggested that sidewalks be constructed due to the curvature of the roads. 13. Deutz questioned whether the City should set timelines for the development if it is to be done in phases. Rieke made a motion to table this discussion until September 17 at 7:00 PM or at a time when the requested information is available. The motion was seconded by McDonald and passed unanimously. Kalinowski thanked all of those in the public for their input and they will keep their concerns in mind when making their decision. Ad~ourn: The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 PM by consensus. Judy Weyrens Administrator October 13, 2008 Page 1 of 4 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, October 13, 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. City Representatives Present: City Attorney Lori Athman Others Present: Jim Schuman, Mark Beaty, Corey Gerads, Igor Lenznor, Mike Phillipp, Donna Kellerman, Nelda Dehn, Herman Gangl, Tom Gustafson, Jennifer Steinkamp, Ellen & Bob Wahlstrom, Judy & Marty Meyer, Brad Cob, John Gregg, Lanae Cobb, Don Fischer, Jason & Jennifer Abraham, Jacque French, Mike & Nicole Klassen, Sarah Pennings, Aaron Bangasser, Carol Jenkins, Margy Hughes, Tate Viere, AI Lindseth Agenda: Andersen made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Meyer and passed unanimously. Public Hearing -College of St. Benedict 37 College Avenue S: Kalinowski called the hearing to order and stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the issuance of a special use permit. The special use permit is requested to allow the construction of a bus shelter for the College of St. Benedict, in a R1, Single Family Zoning District. The proposed bus shelter will be located on property owned by the College of St. Benedict located at 222 West Minnesota Street. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27 Subd. 3: Uses under a Special Use Permit. The following uses shall require a Special Use Permit based on the procedures set forth in this Ordinance: a) Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community. k) Uses which in the judgment of the Planning Commission and City Council are similar to those listed in this zoning district. The request for special use was submitted by the College of St. Benedict, 37 College Avenue S. Weyrens stated that both subsections (a) and (k) were referenced as it is a safety issue; however, it will not be a public bus shelter. Previously, the Planning Commission met and came to consensus that this should be dealt with as a special use rather than as a rezoning request. She added that this bus stop will be used strictly for the transfer of students. Jim Schuman, 1604 Summit Avenue N, Sauk Rapids, approached the Commissioners and spoke on behalf of the College of St. Benedict. Schuman stated that the College of St. Benedict currently has a bus stop on 3~d Avenue NW. At this time the College is requesting authorization to construct a bus shelter to protect the students waiting for the bus from inclement weather. The shelter will be an open glass structure with an aluminum roof. McDonald questioned Schuman if he believes that the shelter will be used frequently by the students. Schuman stated the shelter is being built at the request of the students so it is anticipated that it will be used frequently. Deutz questioned Schuman as to the location of the building and whether it will be located on City or College property. Schuman advised the commissioners that they will meet all setback requirements. The public hearing was opened and closed at 7:10 PM as there was no one present wishing to speak regarding the request for special use. Deutz made a motion to recommend the Council issue a Special Use Permit to the College of St. Benedict to allow for the construction of a bus shelter for the College of St. Benedict in an R1 Single Family Zoning District. Approval is contingent that the structure must meet all setback requirements of the R1 Zoning District. The motion was seconded by Meyer and passed unanimously. October 13, 2008 Page 2 of 4 S & H Development: Weyrens presented the Planning Commission with the draft Findings of Fact, recommending the Council Issue a Special Use Permit and amend the Graceview Estates PURD to allow the construction of two R3 Structures with a total of 75 units and two eight plexes and one duplex. The Facts of Findings presented were those discussed at the September 30, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting. The Planning Commission requested staff to prepare formal findings for approval based on information presented by the Commissioners. Meyer questioned how the facts of finding were prepared to which Weyrens stated that they were based on submissions my commissioner McDonald as well as staff and the City Attorney. There were some questions as to whether these were facts to which Deutz stated that whether the motion approves or denies the application, the facts are an opinion. Deutz made a motion to accept the findings of fact as presented and request the City Council issue a Special Use Permit and PUD Amendment to S & H to allow the construction of two multiple family structures consisting of 75 units, two eight plexes and one duplex on Outlot A, Graceview Estates. The motion was seconded by McDonald. Discussion: Wick stated that it is his opinion that the Facts of Findings are merely opinion and do not include actual facts. He also stated that the Findings prepared were those of Commissioner McDonald and he too had prepared facts of findings. It was clarified that the motion that moved the matter forward was based on McDonald's Findings and that is what is before them tonight. McDonald stated that he is willing to reconsider some of the items if others have ideas. Ayes: Kalinowski, Deutz, McDonald, Rieke, Meyer Nays: Wick, Andersen Motion Carried 5:2:0 McDonald stated that the commissioners received a letter from Sarah Pennings, Graceview Coalition and he requested that it be included with the official packet to which Weyrens stated it would. S & H Site Plan Review: Mark Beaty, Cole Architects, approached the Commissioners to discuss the site plan. He stated that per City staff recommendation, they have submitted a revised landscape plan. According to Beaty, they plan to construct a 3' berm to act as a buffer between the apartments and the adjoining residential area. The 3' buffer will screen any headlights from the parking lot. He added that they plan to plant pine trees as well to serve as a year round buffer. Beaty stated that they will be using typical lighting for the parking lot. With respect to the buildings, Beaty advised the Commissioners that there will be "bump outs" on the building to give it an appealing fagade. The "bump outs" will be 36" rather than 30" to give the building a more 3D appeal. He stated that the decks on the building will meet the push/pull requirement. The building height must be less than 35' and they have a proposed height of 34'11". He stated that the height is due to the recent handicap rulings that state that tuck under garages must provide van access. Meyer questioned whether there will be brick on the front of the building. Beaty replied that fagade will include 35% rock faced block. McDonald stated that a big issue for the residents in Graceview is that of the construction traffic. He questioned whether all of the construction traffic can be parked on the apartment property to which Beaty stated that it could be. Rieke stated that staff has recently reviewed the history of this project with respect to access issues. Weyrens stated that they have and when the original concept plan was approved, they were to provide two access points to CR121. Although there is no guaranty that the College will allow for an access across their property, it is one suggestion to gain an additional access. She stated that they may want to allow the construction of the first building with the condition that Field Street be constructed prior to the construction of the second phase. Andersen questioned if there is a need for two accesses. Weyrens stated that, currently, 4`h Avenue is the only access into Graceview Estates. Deutz clarified that when the original concept plan was approved, there were to be two accesses to CR121 prior to full build-out. Weyrens stated that the two access points would be Callaway Street and Field Street. October 13, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Deutz questioned whether this would be built in phases to which Beaty and Weyrens both stated it would. Weyrens stated that this is the proposed timeframe for the project: Phase 1 Apartment #1 2008 Phase 2 Townhomes 2008-2009 Phase 3 Apartment #2 2009 She stated that they may begin construction of the townhomes at the same time as the first apartment building. Wick questioned the setbacks for the R3 Overlay with respect to the Townhomes. Wick stated that St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.29 Subd. 7(b) states that "In the event the side yard of an R-3 residence abuts another residential district, all principal structures shall be set back 50 feet from the property line." It appears that the townhomes only have a 20' setback. Deutz stated that the second building appears to only have a 40' setback from the side yard. Weyrens advised the commissioners that the townhomes would not follow the R3 Ordinance rather they would follow the ordinance relating to townhomes as those are the guidelines that have been followed for the other townhomes that were already built. Deutz mentioned that they are proposing a 3' berm and he stated he would like to see something taller. He then questioned whether there is another exit from the property and suggested that the project be developed in phases dependent upon gaining additional access to CR121. He, too, stated that there were some issues with them meeting the setback requirements. Rieke spoke to the architect and stated that there needs to be some more clarity before their site plan can be approved. Corey Gerads approached the commissioner and stated that he is the builder for the project. He questioned Rieke as to what he is looking for. Rieke stated that he would like to see more visuals with respect to the look of the project and the proposed berm. He would like to see where the proposed easement would be located and some clarifications on the conversations that have taken place with respect to an additional access. He also stated that he would like some revisions made to meet the setback requirements. With respect to the berm, Gerads questioned what height they would like to see the berm. Based on consensus of the commissioners, they would like to see a 6' berm. As the commissioners would like additional information, Kalinowski stated that the next meeting will be held on November 3 and the Planning Commission will take action at that time. Weyrens added that the Council with then act on it at the November 6 meeting. McDonald requested that the architect verify that they do meet the parking requirements for phase 1 by itself in the event that phases 2 and 3 are not built for any reason. Weyrens advised the commissioners that they do meet the parking requirements. In addition, Meyer requested to see civil drawings of the plan to show elevations and drainage. The commissioners clarified that the following issues should be brought back for consideration at the next meeting: • Revised site plan showing the 6' berm. • Revised site plan showing the future access to CR121 • Setbacks for the townhomes. Rieke made a motion to table the approval of the site plan until November 3. The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. Ad~ :The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 PM by consensus. Judy Weyrens Administrator September 30, 2008 Page 1 of 4 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in special session on Tuesday, September 30, 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. City Representatives Present: City Attorney Lori Athman, City Engineer Randy Sabart Others Present: Several residents of Graceview Estates, Kip Dubel Agenda: Deutz made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. Graceview Coalition: Kip Dubel, 4147 32"d Avenue S, Minneapolis, MN 55406 approached the Commissioners to represent the Graceview Estates Community. He stated that this is a classic case of government picking winners vs. losers. The Graceview Estates Community is a small community of families whose lives will be massively impacted by a decision and it is their opinion that the request for rezoning of the area from R1 to R3 and the approval of the Special Use Permit be denied. Based on information from the City Attorney, Dubel stated that the City can deny the request based on the following: • The area must be rezoned to allow for the proposed construction. • The current Special Use Permit is invalid • Approving the plan would create a large amount of legal instability. He added that the residents would like the concerns: • Safety: The roe • Long Term ecc • Way of life for 1 • Inadequate infc residents were to build on due request to be denied due to the following he residents. v ~rmation -This will most likely lead to an insurance battle for the City. The told there would be no apartments on that Outlot and that it was undesirable land to the aas line. Dubel concluded that it is the i rezoning and special use deni Commissioners prior to the m~ McDonald questioned who he of the Graceview Estates Community to have the request for 'y want their voices to be heard. Dubel presented a letter to the In that letter, he made reference to a neutral third party attorney. ferring to. Dubel stated that he was referencing the City Attorney. S & H Development: Weyrens stated that there has been a lot of discussion recently regarding the McDonald spoke with respect to the intent of the Special Use Permit. In his opinion, based on what he has read and heard, the intent was very clear and the concept plan met the intent of the comprehensive plan that was in effect at that time as well as the current comprehensive plan. He also added that the developer has addressed all physical issues and they meet all requirements of both the 2002 and current proposed development of Outlot A Graceview Estates 2 and new information has been presented for consideration. One of the items that has surfaced over the past weeks is the reference to the Special Use Permit issued in 2002. The Planning Commission must determine the intent of the Special Use Permit that was approved in 2002 and whether it allowed for mixed uses or the mixed uses including approval of the apartment complexes. If the Special Use Permit was for the mixed uses in general, the Permit is still valid as that permit allowed for mixed housing types throughout the development and that permit does not expire. However, if the Permit was issued for the mixed uses and the apartment building, then the commission would need to discuss if the portion relating to the apartment complex has expired. Weyrens clarified that the property under consideration at this meeting was final platted with Graceview Phase Two. September 30, 2008 Page 2 of 4 ordinances. He stated that, based on the information from the Attorney, the City cannot deny this based on an error in recording. He also stated that he would like to make it clear that the future development across the street will be for senior housing (55+). McDonald advised the Commissioners that he reviewed the criteria set forth in St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 regarding the granting of a special use permit. Weyrens stated that the City received a valid application for Special Use and an amendment to the PURD. Due to the 60 day land use rule, the City had 60 days to make a decision or request a possible 60 day extension. The City requested the extension and now must act on the request. She added that the City Engineer has prepared some new information regarding the request for sidewalks along 4th Avenue. That information has yet to be presented. Meyer questioned Athman as to clarification of the zoning of the Outlot. Is the area zoned R1 with an overlay district which is hypothetically R3. Athman stated that it is. Meyer clarified that it will not show as R3 due to the overlay. Athman then stated that the Special Use was approved to allow for a mixed residential district. Sabart stated that he was asked to prepare information regarding the capacity of the existing streets and sidewalk. Below is a list of the question asked and the responses. Sabart clarified that he is not proposing to widen any streets are construct sidewalk, he is simply responding to engineering questions asked. . • Is it possible for 4"'Avenue SE to be widened? Yes, it is feasible to widen 4th Avenue SE; however there are some considerations to doing so. 1. The bituminous trail along 4th Avenue SE abuts the curb and the trail may need to be reconstructed. 2. The storm sewers and manholes are generally located near the curb and those would need to be re-routed. 3. There would be several driveways that would need to be reconstructed. 4. Fire hydrants are generally located a certain distance from the curb and those would need to be moved as well. 5. Private utilities are placed in the right-of-way or the public utility easement and widening the street may require that those be relocated as well. 6. Cost is the biggest concern as the City would need to determine who would bear the cost of widening the street. It is a fairly new street, so there would be limited availability to assessing those costs to the residents. Deutz questioned the cost for such a project to which Sabart estimated $100/linear foot. Wick questioned the length from Minnesota Street to the Graceview Estates. Sabart estimated that the length from 4th Avenue to Elena Lane to be 3,000 feet. Is it possible to construct a sidewalk on the west side of 4"'Avenue SE? Yes, it is feasible to construct a sidewalk along the west side of 4th Avenue SE although there are some items that should be considered. 1. The lots on the west side of 4th Avenue tend to have stepper driveways and some may need to be deepened to allow for the sidewalk. 2. Costs are another factor as assessing the residents may not be well received. 3. Impacts to private utilities. What are the effects of restricting parking to one side of the street? Sabart stated that restricting parking to one side of the street may enhance pedestrian safety, there are also some issues. If parking is restricted, it would be best to restrict parking to the east side of 4th Avenue. The east side of the street also has the most useable space as there are less driveways and more curb. He added that parking creates a buffer between the trail and traffic and on street parking is generally a complementary function to pedestrian movement. Sabart then stated that allowing parking on both sides of the street tends to slow traffic up. September 30, 2008 Page 3 of 4 McDonald stated that wider streets tend to have increased speeds. Wick questioned Athman as to whether or not the Special Use permit was to allow for multi-family or mixed density. He stated that based on the R1 Ordinance and the PURD process, a special use permit would be required. The R3 Ordinance requires that a special use permit be issued for anything with more than 12 units. Athman stated that it is up to the Planning Commission to determine what was approved by the Special Use Permit as there was no formal application for permit and they must rely solely on the minutes. Wick stated that in 2002, the special use permit did not include specific details. Deutz, who was a member of the Planning Commission when the original special use permit was approved, stated that they looked at the density with the apartments being built. He stated that the engineer also reviewed the plans based on the apartments as presented with the concept plan. The developer is now asking for less density than what was approved in 2002. Wick stated that it is unclear as to what was approved based on the minutes from 2002. Deutz stated that the Commissioners need to make a decision to either approve or deny the request. If the Commissioners made a mistake in 2002, the current Commissioners need to move on. He added that this will most likely result in legal action with approval or denial of the application. Meyer stated that the original plan was for a mixed use development and the intent was for apartments. He also stated that the density is less than what was proposed in 2002. McDonald stated that he has taken the time to prepare a writter and presented each member with a copy of such. He briefly sty approved the initial Special Use Permit on March 22, 2002 and acres of the plat. He further stated that in his opinion: 1) the u welfare of the neighborhood as the development was anticipate expected in a residential neighborhood; 2) the proposed develc Comprehensive Plan; 3) creates a diversified housing base; the manager so that neighborhood is not disrupted; 4) utility servicE produced to support that housing values will be reduced due to jings based on section 52.07 Subd. 3 that it is his opinion that the Council Permit included the uses on all 91 rill not be detrimental to the general ~d comparable to what can be ;nt is compatible with the St. Joseph reloper is proposing to use an onsite e available; 5) no evidence has been apartment facilities. Wick stated that he too prepared a similar document only his recommendation is to deny the Special Use Permit as he does not concur that the special use permit is still valid and questions if the time limit for the preliminary plat has expired and the developer should be required to resubmit the plans. McDonald made a motion to recommend the City Council approve the Special Use Permit, accepting the Facts of Finding which he distributed at this meeting. The motion was seconded by Deutz. Discussion: Andersen stated that he respects the Commissioners that dealt with this in 2002; however, it may have been a good plan then, but it is no longer a good plan for the City. He stated that if the road is widened, he does not feel that the residents should be assessed. He understands that the developer has the right to build on the property, but the community does not want the proposed development. McDonald corrected Andersen by stating that the neighborhood does not approve of the proposed development, but that does not mean that the community is opposed. In order to approve or deny the special use permit, the Commissioners must also present facts of finding regarding their decision. McDonald presented his facts of finding based on the criteria set forth in St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 for the approval of the special use permit and Wick presented his for the denial. Rieke stated that it would be best for staff to review the facts of finding and present them to the Commissioners for review and approval. Amended motion: Direct staff to prepare Facts of Findings recommending the City Coucnil issue a special use permit to allow the construction of two multiple family structuresApprove the special use permit with staff preparing the findings based on those presented by McDonald. September 30, 2008 Page 4 of 4 Ayes: Kalinowski, Deutz, McDonald, Rieke, Meyer Nays: Wick, Andersen Motion Carried 5:2:0 The Commissioners will discuss the findings at the next meeting scheduled for October 13, 2008. Deutz suggested that the Commission accept public input during the October 13, 2008 regarding the site plan for the proposed development. The residents should have an opportunity to provide input for mitigation of the development. Meyer made a motion to recommend the Council amend the 2002 Graceview Estates PURD to add a third structure to the townhouse area, reducing the density from 20 units to 18 units. The townhome area will include two eight plexes and one duplex. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Adiout Judy V' Admini /,. ~,. NEW TREES t SHRUBS TYPE O ~` QUANTITY ~' 7c ~ S (~ T m O n m D LETTER © ' -~ 9YriBOL T N "0 3 O N V C Z Z 0 fn N A D ~ E E _ 0 0 m m z ]c m H m i D D o () D O 3 < = T < j i D ~ A m 0 ~ - m A ~ N 3 = m D ~ m E ~ Z m ~ D N ~ C y r D = A n m E ~ m j m m m A A A m = y r 3 -( _ D ~ ~ n ~ x m Z = n m -I < ~ Z m A r ~ < W O w O ~ N (\ t ~ n = n m = D D , m c r m I I I - ~ m m ~ o m ~ A ~ C ~ ~ D r ~ m r ~ S 3 () m O m O m O m O D n ~ i i z i i N H 1 O O O O D z i ~ O m m my m A A A A A D D D D T m T U ~ ~ ~ U m 0 m o m O m O ~\ &. _ _ _ I p S .ee o. . ell eml _ ~_.-.-i :.. ~ _ • n - - ~ - ~ - u l a le CP ~ .ee nt vh _ - - - I 1. - - m~ ,r , -` 1 r yc ri a i e, spc iet eo I T _ _ ~ W u s eer db a d rm r I c r i i e d t a l e ul I c d rc rt ec _ q _ - _+_ - _ u B 1d r; ete ~ t _ - e a I _C6e. e t t.. Z _ n nl~ ee __ T _ _ _y~ ._ _ ~- - ~-~atE~. -+br- . ~u~~ oe ._._ __ ~ _ + ~ I ~ N ame _ L Zn. . ~._ ~S2 4E ~ Stl~ L-Gleue. (3 OJ G51 - HN.Sl3 G5~0 ' /~ ~,. NEW TREE$ i r n ~ = c m D m m ~ v O 0 0 o m r" m n A < m < < D O ~ D r r E Z m m ~ Z 111 D r ~ 2 'p D V = A n ~ N m m m n m A m A A m D y X 3 < T ~ A ~ X m z x n m ~ < ~ Z m A r < N I^ a O u• O ~ N ( ~ L m D D n D r m - ~ m a D t~ C I D D D m ~ D = r r r r 3 ~ r m o m 0 m 0 m o D n Z N Z ~ Z 2 2 Z D D O O O O z i ~ O m m Imp m A A A A A D D D D a T ~ T ~ ~ a ~ m m m m 0 0 0 0 PLOfTLO: s-io-oe nee oeoae~n coo: a i I A ' ~ .. 1 -g I ~ i ' l p I : . ^ 1 ~ ~' - r T u a!e d lake) m o t ~n d ~n D_ r of s'ehki o ~fla ia wl ~ ~G to p . a I~.~ ~,y L. ~.J ~ Y~hdi ^ hip r' .~.f R~~.Y I.~P ~ t I~. II o. , - ~ ~ W i i . - - T . _ . , , • ~ ^ ~ • I { ~ { -'~,, TT y- I!,7 l . ,•~ _l _ _ - ~ T h,~rebg -~ r d a Ta ep c i at a P' R .G w 1 ~l' E ~ ~T, S ~ ~ ~_ L __ - W ~ _ ~ _. __ _. i--~ _ , 1J L 1l G. - ' u ~ e~p a `` ~ ~ n d b el e l o d m I d r c i t r ^ ^ _ ~ ^ m o '~ ' ; y--~ CJ j } Tl ~ _ ~ ~ _ I e u id` t e } ~d f L a 0 . _ u O( L rc c ne M a afAL _i c N T ..r ~ i , _ I I ~ f __ I ~ . _ i. ~ ~,~ryl ~ ` _. . ,.... Q eLe LL . _. c .~Z~8 8 _ _. _ ~ - ~ Ij ~ ~ 6.n ^ k P e..02 AL• F I - _.:. .__ _f r ~ . _1 ~. - _~ ` ~j l ~ ~ f_ _. 1 i I H .- . I _... ... . . ^ N ame Q Si H ero e _ _ _ _ _ °u e _ _ ~3 in~ Ga 20~ cs uE. 'iN i5l3b1. ~~csi /~ ~,. NEW TREES i n ~ x c m ~ m ~ 3 O m X 0 0 m N N A n D m i ~ m 0 m z < < O < T m Z m y r - e ms m ~ y z A a ~ n i n N ~ a = m n m e m y = m m '.'~ A .mU 'a @ y r ~ r j ? D ~ ~ m D ~ ~ x Z _ ~ m -~ < ~ Z m ~ ~^ W "' O W O N N /'~ \ / n ~ x ~ 1e 2 D D , m m . I - u, - u, ~ m m ~ p D C = = D D ~ ~ _ r- D r r n r m o m o m a m o D p n z i i i i i N -+ ~ 0 0 0 0 D z = m o m m m A m A A A A A D D D D 9 U T ~ ~ ~ ~ U m 0 m 0 m o m O `. /:, \ \ \ ~ ~~ \. ~ 'll f N o d e I 0 L 1 ; ' 0 - - . - ' - ~'. ~ ~ - - mn ~ rr - - - -- _ -__ _ u y c a r a er r l d 6 e e o I d e r m ap c it l et c up ~ r u a A R I _ T. W. o - T _ _ ~ e u d t e l d r L e e a ul I e o [ c ns Let a d tr of: rc i H N s hV T - - Y . . - T ~ 1 _l I ~ _ ~ - ~ _ - _ {3 ~ -~ . x 1~2 e8 - u _ _ ~ ~ _ __, nE _ - _ _ - - 3 d) 'G 5~1 i L 't /~ ~,. NEW TREES i r x ~ x [~ m m A N V ? ~ N X 0 0 m N m p (Nl D m i 7c ~ m ~ i ... l ~ z ~ r < ~ m ~ ~ D s m D T E ~ z N ~ A 3 A O < ~ ~ ~ ~ A m n m m n m e m y = m ~ A A D ~ c ~ _ ~ m n ~ x Z = n m --~ < ` `" z m A r ~ w O w m O H A fl x n m ~ D D m C m 1 1 1 - ~ m a m o m m L~ C x D r D r D r D r m ~ D x 3 r m o m 0 m 0 m o D n w7 N ~ Z Z Z Z Z D 1 O O O O z i m o a m A m TI A A A A D D D D U A U A A A T A m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 /' / z / `\ 1 - g _ i T he e tta,pc Q_ eh o I m e _ - - mn i ~ ~r r I1 h r y c r i a hi is dp c fidnt~ a _I_ T $ W _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o e a er d 6 e_ o d r m r 1 _ up c r i ~ ., a - _. e u d t a l a ul I c ns t d _. f - rc it n N c T e .~ oc ~. __ - _ _ __ _..- _ . _. - - -. I _ .. et -- - .._. - _. - a - -- - - - - - _ ~ - -1 - - N m $ nt r 1 c 3 c9T0 /,. ~,. NEW TREE9 r n ~ = c m D A i m m 3 ~ i ~ z 0 0 m 0 A m N N D A D A O - = < i r ~ ~ i O y r r e m ~ ~ D z m D T ~ ~ Z ~ N '~ ~ 3 .a O < O v A m tl m m m () A m A A ~ D 3 < = D v v m ~ ~ x Z _ ~ m ~ < ~ _ Z m A r r ~ W O W O w N //\\ t D D _ n m D m 0 r m - u, u, D D C = = D r r D D r ~ ~ m p m o m 0 m o D A n N ~ Z i Z O 2 O Z O Z O D z i m !D l9 ~ m A m A A A A p D D D D U a m U V m A 7 m T V m 0 0 0 0 ~; \ \ i - - ~ e c o _wlin_ s _ - - - w _ • n ~ - _.- - - u - d. a r le ._C P ~ _a. ~- - - - Wp ~ rr r r y c r i d 6 a i a d ep c~(at e e o I C 1 I T ' -__ . .. . _ - _ __ w e p e d t e er l a e ul o Ic ne d m rc it c u it c r is . _ o ' u dLt i L ~m N T - - - - - - - - - - _ ~ .._ -- - - _- - - - - d • N' et -0m~r µ - ~ y h ~7B Sr 8 . eture_ ~ _ ~ eEA emu cr ~Cp 1 ~O> Lya G9N 54 t 3{+1. _ _ /~ ~,. NEW TREES i r n ~ = c m V N ~ 3 O N m N X 0 0 m A n D N D 3 m = _ < ~ i ~ m D ~ r r E ~ m ~ v D = ~ m ^ Z N r 3 A O n C m m ~ m E m D 3 m V A A A m D r 3 < 3 D ~ A n ~ x m Z = n m ~ < ~ _ Z m m r ~ N a ~ w O ~ N D D _ n m D m L~ C D S D r D r D D m r r m m m m D n o o O o n = i i z i i N ~ -i O O o 0 D z i m O ~ m my m A A A A A D D D D T U U U V 7 T D m 0 m o m O m O / ~: i Rajkowski Hansmeier ,~ ~ : ~° 11 7th Avenue North P.O. Box 143s St. Cloua, MN 56302 320.251.1055 800.445.9617 tof-free 324.251.SII96 fax October 29, 2008 www.rajhan.corn St..loseph City Council 25 College Avenue North P.O. Box 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374 RE: S & H Plat -Graceview Estates ADA Regulations Our File No. 27702 Dear Council Members: Thomas G. Jovanovich tjovanovich(a~ rajhan.com At the request of Council Member Steve Frank, I am issuing this opinion in response to his inquiry as to whether or not the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") necessitates any revisions to the roadways located within the Graceview Development. The issue presented is whether or not the construction of two large apartment buildings and the anticipated increase in traffic would necessitate any revisions to existing sidewalks and/or crosswalks in order for the city to be in compliance with the ADA. FACTS As pointed our by Council Member Frank, there are reportedly a number of children, elderly; and other individuals who use motorized scooters that presently live within the Development. Council Member Frank raises two concerns with the existing pedestl•ian sidewalks and crosswalks within or surrounding Graceview Development. The first concern involves the intersection of Calloway and College Avenue. This intersection has a trail which is the primary route for nine children to walk and/or bike to St. Joseph Laboratory School. There is no crosswalk, nor is there a sloped access to the sidewalk on the west side of College Avenue. There is a driveway access to the cemetery a few yards up the road that the children may use to access the sidewalk. However, this means the children must cross College Avenue diagonally, thereby increasing the distance they must travel and increasing the risk of injury when crossing the street. This risk may be ~ ,~, la. ~ ir- ~.icn ~ ,-~ F.~ni ~~~~ a r!o ~ fa,l:oi.~. ~ca!i:7 D~L•ci , 1 i.: c"yin ~_ ; ~iia~.~~a~ ~. Rajkowski Hansmeier :~ ~°~~°~ October 29, 2008 Page 2 further heightened with the anticipated increase in traffic on Calloway and the number of children fi~om the apartment complexes that will potentially be walking to school. The second point of concern is the crosswalk situated at the east side of Fourth Avenue Southeast and Calloway Street. There is no crosswalk located on this street and the only sloped access to the trail is through a homeo«mer's driveway. The concern is that any increase in traffic and the potential number of pedestrians, including children, using this route will create a potentially dangerous situation. Given that the apartments will be designed to be handicap accessible, the number of individuals using the existing trail is likely to increase. LSSUE The primary issue to be addressed in this opinion is whether or not the City tnay be in violation of the ADA with respect to the existing sidewalk and crosswalk at Calloway in connection with the construction of the two new apartment buildings. In support of his concerns, Council Member Frank refers to the publication issued by the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHV4'A) entitled Designing Sidewalks mad Trails for Access, Part II of IL• Best Practices Design Guide. In addition to reviewing this publication, additional research was conducted as to the requirements and regulations set forth in the ADA, as well as the pertinent sections of the American with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities ("ADAAG"), and the informational guide entitled Accessible Sidewalks and Street Crossings issued by the Federal Highway Administration. OPII\IOl\ Based on the above research, it is my opir>;on that any claimed violation of the ADA as to existing pedestrian walkways would not provide a sufficient basis upon which to deny the permit/plat. It can, however, provide a basis upon which to impose certain conditions on the construction of the apartment complexes to address concerns of accessibility of disabled persons. DISCUSSION The publication cited by Council 'Member Frank provides the scope and intent of the publication. It was "created to provide planners, designers, and transportation engineers with a better understanding of how sidewalks and trails should be developed to promote pedestrian access for all users, including people with disabilities." (emphasis added). The publication also contains the express disclaimer that "The information presented in this guidebook is meant to be used as guidance only and should not be construed as requirements or regulations". )il other words, the publication contains recommendations, not meant to supersede or supplement the regulations contained in the ADA. They were designed to "supplement and provide guida~lce where standards have yet to be adopted". Rajkowski Hansmeier:~~~~~r~'°~~`: October 29, 2008 Page 3 Title 11 of the ADA of 1990 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the pro~~sion of services, programs, and activities by state and local governments which requires all newly constructed and altered facilities to be readily accessible to persons with disabilities. Under the ADA, newly constructed and altered sidewalks and trails should be accessible and usable by people with disabilities. The U.S. Access Board first published the ADA Accessibility Guidelines in 1991, which likewise provide specific scoping information and technical requirements for new construction ar:d alterations. Modifications that affect usability are considered alterations under the ADA, such as resurfacing of a roadway beyond normal maintenance is an alteration. Hotivever; spot repair, such as repainting markings or patching potholes, is considered maintenance and does not constitute alterations. Based on the foregoing, it will be difficult to impose the ADA to the existing sidewalks or crosswalks situated at Calloway Street because they are not "newly constnucted" or being altered as a result of the development of the apartments. For that reason, there is no obligation to modify them at this juncture to comply with any ADA requirements. The second issue is whether or not the intersection and crosswalk must comply with the ADA Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"}. In general, these requirements include a 26 inch sidewalk width and a periodic b0-inch passing width. The minimum width of a crab ramp must be 36 inches, exclusive of flared sides. Again, these requirements apply to new construction and alterations. The Guidelines for designing sidewalks and trails are not specifically addressed in the ADAAG. However, public and private entities that design and construct sidewalks and trails are still obligated under the ADA to make them accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. Until specific standards are adopted as part of the ADAAG, some of the existing scoping and tecluiical provisions for new construction and alterations can be applied to the design of pedestrian facilities. These provisions are specifically quoted by Council Member Frank in his a-mail. However, there is no design, construction or alteration that is being done for the intersection and crosswalks located on Calloway. All of these criteria, however, can be applied to the design and construction of any sidewalks and/or crosswalks to be constructed as a part of this phase of the development. Based on the foregoing, it is this office's opinion that the construction of the two new apartment complexes would not create a violation of the ADA as it pertains to the existing sidewalk and crosswalk located at Calloway Street. 1f the construction of this phase of the Development would require the sidewalk and crosswalk at Calloway Street to be "altered", then, in fact, they would need to be reviewed to determine if they comply with the requirements of the ADA. ,~~,,; ~i,•;o Rajkowski Hansmeier ~'~`~~``~° f~ro:~lcl~~ c clecr ci'~ec 5sn October 29, 2008 Page 4 COl\CLUSIOI\ In summary, the application of the ADA requirements relative to the sidewalk and crosswalk located at Calloway Street would not provide a strong basis upon which to den}= the perniit. It would, however, provide a basis upon which to impose conditions upon the construction of the apartment complexes. This would be similar to the applications of the legal opinions rendered by this office on August 20, 2008, with regard to statute which provides that a plat expires two years following final approval, and on September 24, 2008, with regard to the ordinance provision which provides that a special use permit expires within one year. All of these legal principals, in applying them to the case at hand, are not support by well-established case law. In other words, they represent one interpretation of the pertinent statute and ordinance. The City will be, to some extent, treading on new ground in asserting these arguments as a basis to deny the pernlit before it. As I indicated during the city council meeting, the best course for the council is to weigh the evidence presented at the public hearing and issue findings on the specific factors identified in the ordinance. Relying on one or more of the foregoing mentioned legal principals as the sole basis for denying the permit will generate the highest risk of liability against the City. The better course, and which will likely produce the least risk of liability against the City, would be to identify the areas of concern (i.e. traffic and pedestrian safety) and place conditions on the permit to address those concerns. Sincerely, RAJKOWS I IIAN )BIER LTD. ~/ ~,. v , f By ~~, --~,.e., Thomas G. J~novich TGJ/baw Rajkowski Hansmeier '`~~~ -~~: 1 i /th Avenue North F.O. Box 1433 St. Cloud, MN 56302 320.251.1055 800.445.9617 toll-free 320.251.5896 fax www.rajhan.com October 30.2008 Judy Weyrens City Administrator 25 College Avenue North P.O. Box 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374 St. Joseph City Council 25 College Avenue North P.O. Box 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374 Thomas G..lovanovich tjovanovich(c~raihan.com RE: S & H Plat --- Graceview Estates Attorney Answer and Opinions to Numerous Questions Regarding Procedure from City Council Our File No. 27702 Dear Council Members and Ms. Weyrens: Numerous questions have been asked by City staff, Plaiuiing Commission members, and Council members regarding various issues surrounding the request by S & H Partnership's for a replat and special use permit for a portion of Graceview Estates. This letter will attempt to address the various questions and issues presented. City staff has also informed me that there may have been some misunderstandings about comments I made at the City Council meeting on October 14, 2008. I will attempt to clarify any misunderstandings in this letter. CITY COUNCIL'S ROLE IN APPROVING OR DENYING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION One of tlae major points of discussion at the October 14; 2008, City Counci] meeting had to do with the City Co1.u1ci1's role in either approving or denying a special use pernlit recommendation from the Planning Commission. This letter will readdress those issues and will outline the parameters the Council must use in reviewing the Planning Commission's decision. .'liC; re~< a :. ,i d~_l~•'iri) u'. d.4ionc;c,:_. `c,i it-: Da Lrt., ~Ur. i', Da60r~. \:,:~;,_onsr~ ord is iicliga:~~ Rajkowski Hansmeier:'`` ,~°~=` ,J.: _ lir I'iU C :~E':1' G:I E'f ..C1 ~ '.G~ ,.C ~~~u~ October 30, 2008 Page 2 It has also come to any attention that certain members of the City believe that my comments at the October l4, 2008, meeting gave the Council the impression that "they can deny the request and here is how you get to do it." This comment does not accurately convey what I vas attempting to represent to the Council. It is my hope that this letter will correct any misunderstanding bythe Council. In reviewing the Planning Commission recommendations on the S & H Plat, the Council has three possible courses of action. However, the action actually taken by the Council must be supported by appropriate facts. Based on the facts presented at a public hearing, the Council will likely find that one of the following three courses to be appropriate: 1. Approve the Planning Commission recommendation without any changes; 2. Approve the Planning Con~rnission recommendation with additional conditions; or 3. Deny the Planning Commission recoirunendation. In deciding which action to take, the Council may not be arbitrary or capricious. The action it takes must be based on the appropriate facts which are presented at the public hearings. Accordingly, if the Council decides to approve with additional conditions or deny the recommendation, the Council must provide findings of fact which have been submitted at the public hearings to support its additional conditions or denial. In reviewing the special use recommendation by the Planning Commission, the Council must use the ten factors listed in Ordinance 52.07 at page 6. Attached to this letter is a copy of the ten conditions which must be addressed in either approving, denying or granting a special use permit with conditions. Whatever direction the Council may take, the ruling of the Council must be supported by facts which are relevant to one or more of the ten conditions. There are a number of conditions which the Council may want to consider with respect to the request for two apartment buildings -one 40-unit Uuilding with 18 tuck-under parking stalls, and one 35-unit building with 14 tuck-under parking stalls. Some of the conditions that have been discussed and which the Council may want to consider could include the following: 1. Specification of appropriate buffers between the development and other lower- density housing on lots which abut the property. The conditions could include tree size, type and number. 2. Benn size around certain portions of the property. !. ~. Rajkowski Hansmeier a~-=~-:`~~`~ October 30, 200£ Page 3 3. The requirement to build apt access road for ingress and egress of the traffic generated by the Development to 7~~' Avenue SE. 4. Possibly allowing only one apartment building to be built at the present time until Field Street is completed to provide ingress and egress from the Development to College Avenue. 5. Requirement that the owner provide easement documents to provide access to the St. Ben's property in the future. 6. Requirement that there be no construction equipment parked on public streets surrounding the Development. 7. Requirement that the managers of the apartment complex live on-site. 8. Subject to a condition that the owners obtain a building permit which complies with all ADA requirements currently required by law. The above list of conditions is not meant to be all-inclusive. It is set forth as possible examples of conditions the City Council may want to require. However, it is important to keep in mind that any condition which the Council requires must be supported by facts which conform to the ten standards which are set forth in Exhibit 1 to this letter. There has been discussion at various Planning Commission meetings and City Council meetings that the plat request and conditional use permit maybe denied based on Minn. Stat. §462.358, Subd. 3 or Cit}~ Ordinance Section 52.8. Minn. Stat. §462.358, Subd. 3(c) provides in part that a City may require submission of a ner~- application for a plat 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 Ordinance provides that if no substantial constriction has taken place witlun one year of the special use permit being issued, the special use permit becomes void. These matters were discussed in more detail in memos to the City, dated August 20, 2008, and updated September 5, 2008, and September 24, 2008. As pointed out in the memos, it is unclear what the likelihood of success would be if the request for apartment buildings is turned down based on application of either the State statute or City Ordinance. Nevertheless, if the Council would proceed by application of either of the State statute or City Ordinance, the decision of the Council would have to be supported by sufficient facts in the record. OPINIONS ON LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS Ili' A COURT CASE There have been questions addressed to City staff and attorneys as to what "exactly" the staff and attorneys recommendations and findings are and requests that these "recommendations be clear". Unfortunately, such recommendations are not possible until the full record is established through public hearings. However, based on the evidence to date; I believe the following opinions are in order. If the City Council denies the request, it is likely litigation will occur. This type of litigation is costly for all parties. At this time, it is difficult to predict the outcome of such ~; J,_,,.~,~ Rajkowski Hansmeier ; ~< October 30, 2008 Page 4 litigation. The reason for this difficulty is that there are no controlling cases interpreting the statutory language or ordinance language which would be used in denying the request. Additionally, the record of the Council's action in approving the initial plat during late 2001 and early 2002 is very sparse. Accordingly, it is difficult to predict with any accuracy whether a denial of the request on these grounds would be upheld by a court. Approval of the request with conditions to protect the public health, welfare and safety maybe the most prudent course. Such an approach would reduce the likelihood of litigation. If litigation occtu-red, the chances of the City prevailing are greater than air outright denial if supported by facts in the record. Additionally, the conceals of various citizens on the negative impact of such a development can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions in allowing the project to go forward. INSURANCE COVERAGE IN THE EVENT OF A COURT CASE The City has coverage for litigation arising out of land use decisions by the City. It is likely that there would be coverage for all damages sought in such litigation. The League Insurance Trust would pay 100% of the first $25,000 in litigation costs. It then pays 85% of the next $225,000 in litigation costs. It then pays 60% of litigation costs over 5225,000. However, keep in mind that premiums for the City's liability coverage are experience rated. The coverage for land use regulation is weighted more heavily in the experience rating formula than are ordinary liability claims, such as the construction case the City was involved in a few years ago. Accordingly, insurance premiums would likely go up if there is litigation arising out of the S & H Plat. ZONING STANDARDS FOR THE APARTMENT COMPLE7~ AND TO~VNHOME/PATIO HOA'IE PROPOSAL The Council has asked what zoning standards would apply to the apartment complex and tov~mhomes proposed by the owners. Since this is a replat, the current Zoning Ordinance would apply. The R-3 regulations would apply to the apartment complex, and the R-4 regulations would apply to the townhome/patio homes. VOTE ~TF,EDED FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT A question has been raised as to what the voting requirement means in the Special Use Permit Ordinance. (Ordinance 52.07, Subd. 3(d)(3)). This provision states that "approval of a special use permit shall require passage by a majority vote of the full City Council." This means that any passage of a special use permit requires at least three votes of the full City Council. Rajkowski Hansmeier ,~~:~~`~`~` October 30, 2008 Page 5 The land use regulations of the City set forth three different voting requirements, depending on any number of circumstances. First, most actions require a simple majority of the Council members present. Since a quorum can consist of as little as tlrree members of the Council, some decisions would only require two votes if there are only three Council members present. At the other end of the spectrum is the requirement that any amendment to rezone shall be effective only if two/thirds of all members of the Cotmcil concur in its passage. This is often called the super majority. Under the super majority Wile, four votes would be needed to amend the Zoning Ordinance. The reyuirement that there be a majority vote of the full City Council under the special use regulations does not require a super majority vote, nor is it a simple majority vote of the Council members present. It requires that ai least three members vote in the affirmative for any approval of a special use permit. Accordingly, if only three Council members are present for a meeting, it would take all three members' votes to obtain passage of the special use permit. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT QUESTIONS (ADA) A Council member has asked questions with respect to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and its application to roadways located within and around the Graceview Development. This matter is addressed more thoroughly in a letter to the Council, dated October 29, 2008. However, it will be discussed briefly here. The question presented to the City Attorney was whether the City would be in violation of the ADA with respect to existing sidewalks and crosswalks in connection with the constnretion of the two new apartment buildings. Based on the research, it is our opinion that any claimed violation of the ADA as to existing pedestrian walkways would not provide a sufficient basis upon which to deny the permit or plan. The City would not have the power to force any private entity to modify the existing walkways. However, the ADA does provide a basis upon which to impose conditions on the construction of the new apartment complex to address concerns of accessibility of disabled persons. CONCLUSION The best course for the Council is to weigh the evidence presented at the public hearing and other evidence which has been presented at the prior public hearings and issue findings on the specific ten factors identified in the Ordinance. Relying on one or more legal principals or factual issues as the sole basis for denying the permit will generate. the highest risk of liability against the City. The more prudent course, and the course which will likely produce the least risk of liability against the City, would be to identify the concerns with respect to safety, health and welfare (i.e. traffic and pedestrian safety) and place conditions on the permit to address those concerns. • C"~a~ ~~ Rajkowski Hansmeier:~~~-=~ ~` ,,, :,~~.,~ ~ -. e•c~. o': _ -;-ion :i c: October 30, 2008 Page 6 Sinccre]y, RAJKUWSKI HAN~ IER LTD. _j I ~~.ti`'f r 4 By ~ Thomas G TGJ/baw Enc]osure / ~~ ~. ~r ,, _, ~ i ~ - -,.- ~ ~ ORDINANCE ~2 - "CONING ORDINANCE the specific standards set forth below, as it would apply to the particular use at the proposed location: Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or genera] welfare of the neighborhood or the. City. 2. Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific objectives of the comprehensive plan of the City and this Ordinance. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the genera) vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area, 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing of future neighboring uses. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, and schools. 6. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fames, glare or odors. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which are so designed as not to create traffic congestion or an interference with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. 9. Will have adequate facilities to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. 10. Will not result in the destruction; loss or damage of a natural; scenic, or histo:•ic feature of major importance. f) Denial for Non-Compliance. If the Planning Commission recommends denial of a special use permit or the Council orders such denial, it shall include in its recommendations or determination findings as to the ~~ays in which the proposed use does not comply with the standards required by this Ordinance. 52.07-6 . .%' -~` Ordinance Section 52.07, Subd. 3(e) Standards: The Planning Commission shall recommend a special use permit and the Council shall order the issuance of such permit if the application conforms to the specific standards set forth below, as it would apply to the particular use at the proposed location: 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. The apartments will be professionally managed by INH Companies. On-site managers will live in the apartments. An applicant with a felony will not be considered for residency and a gross misdemeanor or other negative items found on a required Criminal Background check may be grounds for rental denial. In addition, renters must sign a lease addendum for "Crime-Free/Drug Free Housing". This agreement allows the owners to terminate the lease in the event a renter, members of the renter's household, or guests violate the agreement (attached). The developers are experienced in running quality multi-family housing in the St. Cloud area. Adding these number of units should only proportionally increase what could be expected in any neighborhood when density is increased (such as when the 46 single family homes were built to the south of these vacant lots). Traffic safety concerns are addressed in standard 8. 2. Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific objectives of the comprehensive plan of the City and this Ordinance. The complex was harmonious with the former comprehensive plan as well as meeting the desires of having a diversified housing base as outline in draft of housing chapter (five) of the soon to be completed 2008 comprehensive plan. This new, higher-end, market-value complex creates broader mixed housing options to help sustain a healthy tax base. With credit tightening in our nation's current economic environment, fewer people will likely be able to qualify for home loans and this project will provide availability to other options. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. The essential character of this neighborhood was defined in 2002 when the Life Cycle housing concept was initially approved, although the city could have done a better job of documenting mapping the neighborhood. The fact that the area in question was designed to include apartments is clear from the testimony of members of the Planning Commission and City Council who served in 2002. The apartments were also noted in the MN Environmental Quality Board publication dated March 18, 2002 and clearly shown on a map of the entire project in a Site Design newsletter dated the Fall of 2002 (both attached) As such, this segment of the total plan will not change the essential character of the Life Cycle development but rather contribute to the concept by allowing non-homeowners a better chance to live in and enhance our city. The developers have a solid history of managing units of this size and style within the St. Cloud area. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. The owners (S&H Partnership) plan to have on-site managers to help ensure that apartment rules will be followed at all times. There is no reason to believe that the apartment citizens will create any hazards or disturb adjacent homeowners more than anv other type of housing that would be located in the area. At the request of homeowners, the developers have agreed to create a higher berm with more tree cover than originally planned or required. The proposed future use of land directly east of this phase of development is for multi-family senior (over 55) housing. The land directly to the west in owned by the College of St. Benedict and their long term plans show that land as being used for athletic fields and college dormitories. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, and schools. The concept for the availability of Life Cycle Housing within the entire 91 acre track was approved in 2002 and services planned and sized for the eventual full-build-out of the Graceview Estates neighborhood. A modification to allowed on-street parking should be considered as outlined in the response to standard eight. Snow clearance has been brought up as a concern. The Director of Public Works has stated that the roads in the Graceview Estates addition are plowed curb-to-curb, although cul-de-sac streets take longer to clear (identical to any other neighborhood with cul-de-sacs). The safety of students walking was brought up as a concern. All public school students can be bused to school (at no additional fee). The principal of the local parochial grade school stated, to his knowledge, no students walk to the Lab school from the Graceview neighborhood. When dropped off by school bus, most students are only a few feet from their doors with the longest having to walk approximately one half block. The addition has limited sidewalks but does have extensive asphalt trails that can and are used as sidewalks. The city does not shovel the trails in the winter. A possible solution for those worried about safety would be for the property owners to shovel the trail in the winter similar to what is required of most other residents in the city with sidewalks. The city could also review its policy on snow removal from sidewalks/trails. 6. Will not create excessive additiona] requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The proposal will have a positive economic impact to the city due to its ability to draw in new citizens seeking this type of lifestyle and also grow our tax base. Upon completion of all phases of this proposal, over $496,000 in WAC/SAC (delayed sewer and water hookup) fees will be collected to help pay the costs of bonds used to install infrastructure. Not allowing the project to proceed would be detrimental to the economic welfare of the city. When examining the tax records of homes just north of the city's last large new apartment complex (Boulder Ridge) the values of those home did not decline but rose at the same rate as the rest of the city. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. There is no evidence that the proposed 40 and 34 unit apartment nor the 8 and 10 plexes would create any problems noted above than what would be the norm for this density of development. The buildings and parking lots meet or exceed all ordinance requirements for such facilities. As noted in the first standard, behavioral requirements of the apartment residents will have more controls than those placed on neighboring home owners. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which are so designed as not to create traffic congestion or an interference with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. The main Ingress/Egress will be on 4th Ave SE, which is designated as a collector street in the city's Transportation Plan. Baker street intersects with 4th Ave SE. Baker is also a designated collector with a similar amount of apartment and townhouses located a couple of blocks east of the intersection. Traffic counts indicate that Baker (which is the same width as 4th) currently easily handles well over four times the volume of traffic as 4th, with no apparent safety problems. 4th Ave SE currently dead-ends going south, therefore (once past Calloway Street going south) will likely be used only by residents who live in the addition. Due to neighbors concerns regarding the width of 4th Ave SE it is suggested that parking be prohibited on the east side of the street. If concerns still exist, the city could restrict parking on 4th Ave SE entirely in the Graceview edition (off-street parking room appears to be ample). The future development of another East/West corridor (commonly referred to as Field Street) will also help traffic congestion. During the construction phase of the project, developers have agreed to make sure construction traffic will park on the property itself rather than city streets. An emergency ingress/egress point has been identified that leads to 7th Ave SE. 9. Will have adequate facilities to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. Yes. The plan meets all off-street parking requirements. 10. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature of major importance. No. The site is an empty field at this time with no historic significance LEASE ADDENDUM FOR CRIME -FREE /DRUG -FREE HOUSING In consideration of the execution or renewal of a lease of the dwelling unit ident~ed in lease, Owner and Resident agree as follows: 1. Resident, any members of the resident's household or a guest or other person under the resident's control shall not engage in illegal activity, including drug-related illegal activity, on or near the said premises. "Drug-related illegal activity" means the illegal manufacture, sale, distribution, purchase, use or possession wfth intent to manufacture, sell, distribute, or use of a controlled substance (as defined in Section 102 or the Controlled Substance Act [21 U.S.C. 108]) or possession of drug paraphernalia (MN Statue 152.092) 2. Resident, any member of the resident's household or a guest or any other person under the resident's control shall not engaqe in any act intended to facilitate illeoal activity, including drug-related illegal activity, on or near the said premises. 3. Resident or members of the household will not permit the dwelling to be used for. or to facilitate illegal activity, including drug-related illegal activity, regardless or whether the individual engaging in such activity is a member of the household. 4. Resident or members of the household will not engage in the manufacture, sale, or distribution of illegal drugs at ~ locations, whether on or near the dwelling unit premises or otherwise. 5. Resident, any member of the resident's household, or a guest or other person under the resident's control shall not engaqe in act's of violence or threats of violence, including but not limited to the unlawful discharge of firearms, prostitution, criminal street gang activity, intimidation, or any breach of the rental agreement that otherwise jeopardizes the health, safety, or welfare of the landlord, his agent(s) or tenants. deemed a A single violation of fhe provisions o/ vial non-compliance with the lease. "' It is understood and agreed that a single violation shall be good cause for termination of the lease. Unless otherwise provided by law, proof of violation shall not require criminal conviction, but shall be by a preponderance of the evidence. 7. In case of conflict between the provisions of this addendum and any other provisions of the lease, the provisions of the addendum shall govern. 8. This LEASE ADDENDUM is incorporated into the lease executed or renewed this day between Owner and Resident. MANAGEMENT (Resident) INH PROPER r M AGEMENT. INC By: Date Signed: (Resident) (Resident) Date Signed. Resident(s) acknowledges receipt of the addendum by signature of this document. 300 E. St Lsasmg ~~ Germain Street ~ ~ - co~P~v~ES p>~:~3~0;~ Fax: (320) 258-5270 ~''a'w.inbproperass.com CREDIT/CRIIVIIIVAL BACKGROUND CgECK CONSENT FORM A Local Records Check of the St Cloud Police Department /Any MN Coanty Sheriff's Department and A Search of the Minnesota State Crim~al Records and or the Federal Bnrean of Investigations Criminal Justice Information files will be performed on yon pnranant with the lease agreement of the apartment rnmplez to which yon are applying, By signing this form yon are allowing the St. Cloud Police Department and/or Screening Reports, Inc. to release the criminal data maintained in those files which applies ender Statues & Ordinance. 1. Yon Lave the right to be informed that INH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT is requesting Criminal Background (2reck to determine if you Lave Lech convicted of a Clime. 2. You Lave the right in be informed by I1VH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT of the results of a criminaal background check and to obtain a copy of the results. 3. You Lave the right to obtain from St Cloud Police Department /Steams Coanty Shcri$'s Department and/or The B~ueau of Cli~nal Apprehension, any records that forms the basis for the report obtained 4. You Lave the right to cLallcnge the accuracy and comgrleteness of infoanation contained in the report or record under serxion 13.04, sub.4. 5. You Lave the right m be informed by INH PROPERTY MANAGEII~NT if yotn• application for acceptance has been denied because of the results of this Baclrgormd Check Applicant/Eraployee Injorntation -PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Last Name First Name Middle Name Have you ever been known by another Name? (Maiden, Aliases) Date of Birth Driver's Lie. # Gender: Male Female Race: state: Social Sec~airy #. Cent Address Apt # City state & Zip ~Y Have you lived in Minnesota for at least the Past ] 0 Years? Yes - No Please List Complete Address if I:ived AnywLce Otter Than Mi~esota: Prior Address Apt # Ciry State ,~ Zip County This Release stall be eIIeetlve for ONE (1) year from the date signed. APP~t SiBaahue Date All Applicants over the age of eighteen (18) Must I~511 out an individual Criminal Background Check For a free copy of your crediYcrimura! report, please contact Screening Reports, Inc, 729 NRoute 83, Suite 321, Bensenville, IL 60106 Tol/ Free Phone (866)389-0042. P:\mist\L.EASING~FORMS\CRTMIIIAL.DOC 9/9/2008 ~~ .zv~ INH Companies, Inc. 300 E. St. Germain Street St. Cloud, MN 56304 Phone: (320) 252-2000 Fax: (320)252-2752 www. inhproperties.com Thank you for choosing INH Property Management, Inc. We are more than happy to assist you in locating your new rental home. We are an Equal Opportunity Housing Provider. We fully comply with al] federal, state and local fair housing, civil rights and equal opportunity laws. As a professional management company there are criteria that our applicants must meet. All applicants must be 18 years of age or older, or a legally emancipated minor. INH Property Manaeement Inc. Resident Selection Criteria Occupancy Limits Two (2) people may occupy a I bedroom apartment. Four (4) people may occupy a 2 bedroom apartment. A maximum of two (2) adults may occupy a 2 bedroom apartment. Six (6) people may occupy a 3 bedroom apartment. A maximum of three (3) adults may occupy a 3 bedroom apartment. (Property Specific: the addition of one (1) adult may be allowed v•~th an additional cost of $] 00.00 per month) • Credit A credit score of 600 or higher is required for all applicants. An applicant with a score lower than 600 may be considered with a) a qualified guarantor and/or b) advance payment of one (1) or more month's rent. Negative items on credit reports may be grounds for denial of an application- • Criminal Background An applicant with a felony will not be considered for residency. A gross misdemeanor or other negative items on a criminal background history may be grounds for denial of an application. • Rental History A minimum of 1 year verifiable rental history is required of all prospective lessees. If there is no rental history, or less than l yeaz, an applicant may be considered with a) a qualified guazantor and/or b) advance payment of one (1) or more month's rent. Negative items (i.e. evictions, non-renewals, unlawfiil detainers, etc.) on one's rental history may be grounds for denial of an application. • Income Requirements Applicant's income must be 2.5 times the amount of the apartment rent. If the income is less than 2.5 times, an applicant may be considered with a) a qualified guazantor or b) advance payment of one (1) or more month's rent. (Section 8, Rural Development or individuals receiving rental assistance of some sort, excluded) • Photo Identification Prior to viewing an apartment and or applying for residency, all adults will be required to show valid photo identification. Acceptable identification includes: personal driver's license, state-issued photo identification card, passport or other federally issued photo identification. (~ ~~ INH Companies, ?00 E St. Germain St , St Cloud, MN 56304 Ph. (320)258-6000 Fax (320)258-5270 \.. RENTAL APPLICATION Dale Property Name & Address Apartment p To expedite y»ur application, it is inrpartant to provide injormadan in ALL the cwegories. Please fill out Rental Nisrory~ Information for the posy 3 years, including landlord phone numbers, Employment Information with phone numbers PERSONAL INFORMATION May we contact yov by a-mall? N'O YES: Applicant Name (Please Print Clearly) Other Names Used (Married, Maiden, or Nicknartx) Date of Birth Social Sxunry Drivers License p Applicant Present Address Apt. p Rent Amount Move-In Date_ Movc-Out Datc Cell or City State_Zip Home Phone Presrnt LandlordlAianeger phone Previous Address Apt. p Rent Amount Move-!n Date_ Move-0tn Date City Sutc Ztp Home Phone Landlord/M onager Phone MONTHLY INCOME Employed by Contact or Supervisor's Name Monthly Income Start Datc End Dete Ciry Previous Employer, I(Any Stan Date EM! Uate Reason Fur Address City State Zip Ph< OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME (Assfatanee, Part-Time JoD, Etc) SourcdContact Amount Pa Month Phone SourcdContut Amount Pcr Month Phone BANK REFERENCE (indicate Bank Branch and Seniees Used) Na,rc Address City State Phone (Please circle all that apply) Checking Savings Loan PERSONAL REFERENCE Nanx (Father/ Mother /Guardian) Address City State"Lip Phone In Case of Emergency Plase Contact Address Ciry State_Zip Phone MOTOR VEHICLE I.icenst Plate fi Make Year Model & Color Monthly Auto Payment PET(S) _YE$_NO HAVE YOU EVER Have you ever bern convicted of a crime (excryt driving citation)? (Circle Answer) YFS NO Flave you ever been evicted or asked to vacate? (Circle Answer) YES NO If you answered 1'FS to either o(the questions above, Please etplain LIST ALL OCCUPANTS OF UNIT Name Relationship D.O.B. Name Relationship D.O.B. Name Relationship D.O.B. Name Relationship D.O.B. Is [here any information that might appear on your credit, rrntal or criminal history that you wish to disclose and/or addras up fiont, knowing that failure to disclose such information maybe considered grounds for denial of this appliulion? YES NO (You may uae the back aide of ihia appliutioo to provide eddltlonal In[ormatlon.) Applicant undersatds and agrees [hat if he/she makes incorrect or misleading statements or omissions on this form, Apphunt will (orfei[ his/her deposit. Applicant understands and agrees that hdshc has only applied for a tatancy. This fomt is not a least, but an application and offer to lease which may be accepted or rejected by Managenent. If Managemrnt does not accept this application, the deposit will tx refunded. [t Management notifies the Applicant that the application has been accepted, Applicant must enter into the tenancy applied for or the deposit will be forfcivA. Application prncasiog la done by Screening Reports, loc., 729 N Route 83 ft321, Bensenville, tL 60106 Toll Free (866) 3894042 Fax (866),3894043. Applicant hereby grants to Managetrtertt full authowtion necessary to verify Ne inftxmatian on this form, included but not limited to credit history, rental htstory, income venfiution, criminal record, information from public agencies and other infomntion relevant to this application (or a rtsidrnlial tenancy. Management is a falr hoaalog provider aad will grant equal opportunity to all perwns under the htw. ManagementlOwncr SignaNre Applicant Signature INH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. RESIDENTIAL LEASE (Minnesota Statutes, Sections 325G.29-325G.36). Certifiption of a contract by the Attorney General under the plain language contract act is not otherwise an approval of the contract's legality or legal effect. RESIDENT' (List all persons wM will live in the Apartment I! MANAGEMENT {enter company name, it appticaGe) __ lNH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. STREET ADDRESS OF PREMISES: ('Apartment) APARTMENT NO DURATION OF LEASE (Enter number of months or month-to+nanth.) STARTING DATE OF LEASE DATE THIS LEASE ENDS (it appropriate) NOTICE PERIOD (The NOTICE PERIOD is Mro full months unless this Lease states a diHerenl notice period.) SSO late fee after the 5th MONTHLY APARTMENT RENT SERVICE CHARGE Additional $75 Collection Fee after the 10th OTHER MONTHLY RENT CHARGES (e.g., garage/storage) TOTAL MONTHLY RENT SECURRY DEPOSR UTILITIES INCLUDED IN RENT: o Heat ^ Hot and Cold Wafer ^ Other UTILITIES PAID BY RESIDENT: o Eledridty ^ Telephone ^ Other o The pr°Rcsea wcrc c°n'u'rer°C I>atOr ro )478. o,See ntnclieQ disetnsurt for- infcimafion. .-.. (The tdlowing a required Dy Minnesota Statutes, Section 5048 181 ) Authorized Manager of Apartment INH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. ING. 300 EAST ST GERMAIN STREET. ST. CLOUD. MN 56304 An owner of the premises or an agent authorized to accept service of process and receive and give receipts for notices and demands is INH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. INC. Address ___ 300 EAST ST. GERMAIN STREET, STCLOUD,_MN 56304 I - - ._ - ~--------- ~t'nere app~cpnb: e, singular terms used ir. tins Lease include fha phrrd i. andp r ~ .d rie 7.~; r,'r AddlNonal Agreement (if any): Management (acting as agent for the owner of the premises) and Resident agree to the terms of this Lease and any attachments that may be made pan of this Lease. MANAGEMENT (Resident) !NH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. INC. by (Resident) Date Signed Deposit: Rent: Other (Resident) paid _ due _ paid _ due _ paid _ due Date signed Resident acknowledges receipt of the Lease by signature o1 this document. TERMS OF THIS LEASE RENT 1. PAYMENT: RESIDENT will Day MANAGEMENT the full monthly rent before midnight of the first day of eadt nanth while this lease is in effect and during any extensions or renewals of this Lease, Rent will l>e paid as required by MANAGEMENT. 2. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR RENT: Each RESIDENT is individually responsible for paying the full amount of rent and any other money owed to MANAGEMENT. 3. DUTY TO PAY RENT AFTER EVICTION: If RESIDENT is evicted because RESIDENT vitiated a term of this lease, RESIDENT must still pay the lull monthly rent unfit: 1) The Apartment is re-rented; 2) the DATE THIS LEASE ENDS: or 3) if the Lease is month-to-month, the next notice period ends. If the Apartment is re-rented for less than the rent due under this lease, RESIDENT will be responsible for the difference until the DATE THIS LFASE ENDS or, K the Lease is month-to-month, until the end of the next notice period. 4. LATE RENT SERVICE CHARGE AND RETURNED CHECK FEE: RESIDENT will pay Ne SERVICE CHARGE listed above if RESIDENT does not pay the full monthly rent by the 5fh day of the month. RESIDENT also will pay a fee of $30 for each returned chede. B. USE OF APARTMENT 5. OCCUPANCY AND USE: Only the persons fisted above as RESIDENTS may Nve In the Apartment Persons not listed as RESIDENTS may live in Cte Apartment only with the prior written consent of MANAGEMENT. RESIDENTS may use the Apartment and utilities for normal resitlential purposes only. 6. SUBLETTING: RESIDENT may not lease the Apartment to other persons (sublet), assign this Lease or sell this Lease without the prior written consent of MANAGEMENT. 7. RESIDENT PROMISES: 1) Not to act m a loud, bdsterous, unruly or drorx,)ntless manner or dlsaub the rights of the other residents to peace and quiet, or allow 1ti5/her guests to do so; 2) to use the apartment onty as a private residence, and not in any way that Ls Ulegal or dangerous or which would puss a cancellation, restriction or increase in premium in MANAGEMENTS insurance; 3) not to use or store on or near Na Apartment any flammable or explosive substance; 4) not to interfere in the management and operation of the Apartment !wilding; 5) that the Apartment, common areas or area surtounding the twtlding will not be used by the RESIDENT or by anyone acting under his/her control to manufacture, sell, give away, barter. deliver, exchange, distribute, or possess any illegal drugs. 8. WATERBEDS: RESIDENT may not keep a waterbed or outer water-filled furniture in the Apartment without the prior written consent o} MANAGEMENT. 9. PETS: RESIDENT may not keep animals or pets of any klrxl in the Apartment withotri the written consent of MANAGEMENT. C. CONDITION OF APARTMENT 10. MANAGEMENT PROMISES: 1) That the Apartrnent and aA txxnmon areas are fit for use as a residential premises; 2) b keep the Apartment in esazonable repatr and make necessary repairs within a reasonable time after written notice by RESIDENT except when damage Is posed by the Ntentlonal or negligent conduct of the RESIDENT or hLsRter guests; 3) b maintain the Apartment In compliance with applipble health and safety codes except when a vitiation of the health and safety codas has been posed by the intentional or negligent cortdud of the RESIDENT or iti8/lter guests; 4) b keep tfte common areas dean and in good txxtdidon. 11. RESIDENT PROMISES: 1} Not b rfarttage a misuse the Apartment a wazb Ste utilities provided by MANAGEMENT or apow hisRter guests to do 60; 2) not t0 paint or wallpaper the Apartment, Ot make any sWctural changes In the Apartment without the prior written consent of MANAGEMENT; 3) b keep the Apartment dean; 4) b give written notice b MANAGEMENT of any necessary repairs b be made; 5) to notify MANAGEMENT immediately of any conditions In the Apartment that are dangerous to human health or safety, or which may damage the Apartment ar waste utlpties provided by MANAGEMENT; 6) that when REStDENi rtwves out, the Apartment will be left in good condition, except for ordinary wear and tear; 7) not b remove any fixtixaz or furnishings supplied by MANAGEMENT without Ne prior written consent of MANAGEMENT; 8) to cooperate with MANAGEMENTS eftoAs at pest control. This may indrxle, among other things, RESIDENT'S emptying and Leaning cabinets, drawers and doseb, puAing furniture away from walls, and allowing exterminabr b enter and treat the Apartment. 12. SECURfTY DEPOSR: Management may keep aB ix part ti the sewrily deposit a) for damage b the Apartment beyond ordinary wear and tear, and b) far rent w other money owed the MANAGEMENT. 73. DESTROYED OR UNWABLE APARTMENT; If the Apartment is destroyed or damaged so tt is unfit b pve in tlue b any cause, MANAGEMENT may prtoel this Lease immediately and may choose not b rebuild or restore the Apartment 11 the desWction or damage was not RESIDENT'S fault and MANAGEMENT cancers this Lease, rent will be pro-rated and the balance will be refunded b RESIDENT. D. DURATION OF LEASE 14. FAlt.t1RE TO GIVE POSSESSION: If MANAGEMENT pnnot provide the Apartrnertt b RESIDENT at the start of this Lease, RESIDENT pnnot sue MANAGEMENT far any resultLtg damages but RESIDENT will not start paying rent untll he/she gets possession of the Apartment 15. MOVING OUT BEFORE LEASE ENDS: If RESIDENT moves out of the Apartment before the DATE THIS LEASE ENDS, RESIDENT Is respor~stble for rent artd any other losses or costsstdudrtg total costs end atbrrtey's fees. If you must oemtinate your lease prior b 7te expiration date, you will be assessed a 5300.00 early lease termination tee, plus you will be responsible for rent due up b the date your unit is re{ented or your lease tens expires. 16. TERMINATION OF LEASE YYITH SPECIFIED ENDING DATE: If RESIDENT wishes b rttove out of the Apartment on Ste DATE THIS LEASE ENDS. RESIDENT must give MANAGEMENT prior written rtotlce equal b the NOTICE PERIOD. If RESIDENT falb b give proper notice, MANAGEMENT may a) exterW the Lease far one NOTICE PERIOD and b) raise the rant Ii RESIDENT stays in the Apartrrtertt otter Mte DATE THIS LFJISE ENDS, with the approval of the MANAGEMENT, and RESIDENT and MANAGEMENT have not renewed this Lease or entered in to a new Lease, this Lease shall be extended under its original terms except a) the duration shall be changed b montfrto-mond, and b) MANAGEMENT may raise the rent 17. TERMWATION AND ALTERATION OF MONTH-TO-MONTH LEASE: When the lease is month-lo-month. MANAGEMENT and RESIDENT may terminate the Lease mly by giving the other party writlen notice equal b the NOTICE PERIOD. A notice to pncel a Lease is effective on the last day of the month. MANAGEMFIJT may dtange any of the terms of a month-tr}rttortth Lease, Mduding the amount of rent by giving RESIDENT written notice at feast equal b the NOTICE PERIOD. 18. MOVING OUT OF THE APARTMENT: RESIDENT wip move out of (fie Apartment when this Lease ends. If RESIDENT moves out otter this Lease ends, RESIDENT will be liable b MANAGEMENT for any rasultlttg losses inducting rent, court cosh and attorney's fees. E. RIGHTS OF MANAGEMENT 19. EVICTION: ff RESIDENT violates any of the lama ti this Lease, RESIDENT may be evicted invnediably and widput prior notice. If RESIDENT (s evicted Dut does not move out vduntarily, MANAGEMENT may bring an eviction actor. I1 RESIDENT violates a term of this Lease but MANAGEMENT does not sue or avid RESIDENT, MANAGEMFIJT may stL sue or evict RESIDENT fa any other vitiation or term of This Lease. Under state law, a lawful seizure from any Apartment ti arty illegal objector substance, inducting drugs, ixmstltutes uNawfW possession of the Apartrrtent by that RESIDENT, and is grounds for an automatlc evlctlort. in the event of an approved unit transfer, the transferring RESIDENT wlp be assessed a 5150.00 frartsfer fee. 20. EVICTION AFTER PARTIAL PAYMENT OF RENT: It La expressly agreed b between MANAGEMENT and RESIDENT that, pursuant b k~8rvtesoU Statute 504.02, sutra. 1(c), acceptance by MANAGEMENT of less than the full amount of rent due from RESIDENT does not waive MANAG1=Iv1ENTS right b recover possession of the rental premises for non-payment by RESIDENT of balance o1 rent owed MANAGEMENT. 21, ATTORNEY'S FEES AND ENFORCEMENT COSTS: tt MANAGEMENT brings arty legal action against RESIDENT, RESIDENT must pay MANAGEMENTS acWal attorney's fees, or o8ter legal fees and expenses Indudng fees paid b a ctilection agency, expenses, and court cosh even if tent b paid after the kcal action is started. 22. MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT'f0 ENTER: MANAGF~tENT or Its au7torized agent may enter the Apartment at any reasonable time b inspect, improve, maintain or repair the Apartrttenl, Or do other necessary work, ix b strove the Apartment b potential new RESIDENTS or buyers. 23. MANAGEMENT'S LEGAL R1CaFlTS AND REfdEDIES; MANAGEMENT may use ib legal right and remedies in any combination, ey using one or more of these rights or remedies, MANAGEMENT does not give up any other rights a remedies It may have. Acceptance of rent does riot waive MANAGEMENT'S right b avid RESIDENT for any past or existing violation of any tern of this Lease. 24. LEASE IS SUBJECT TO MORTGAGE: The Apartment building maybe mortgaged a may De suh}eU b a contreU for deed. RESIDENT agrees that the right d the tttider of any present a future mortgage ar contract for deed are superior b RESIDENTS right. For example if a rttortgage on the Apartntartt building b foreclosed, trte person who forecloses on the Apartrrtent braiding may, at their option, terminate RESIDENTS Lease. F. LU181LtTY OF RESIDENT AND MANAGEMENT 25. DAMAGE OR INJURY TO RESIDENT OR HIS/HER PROPERTY: MANAGEMENT is rrot reasonable for arty darttage ix injury that a done b RESIDENT or his/her property, guests a trtek properly that was not posed by MANAGEMENT. MANAGEMENT retxxrtmends that RESIDENT obtain Renter's Instaance to prated against htJtaies or property damage. 28. ACTS OF THIRD PARTIES: MANAGEMENT is rrot respmsible for the adlorts, or for any damages, injury a harm posed by third parties (such as other residents, guests, intruders or trespassing) who are not under MANAGEMENTS control. 27. RESIDENT SHALL REIMBURSE MANAGEMENT FOR 1) Any bss, property damage, or cost of repair or service (atduding plumbing problems) posed by negligence or knproper use by RESIDENT, hLs/her agents, family a guests; 2) any kxs or damage puled by doors or windows being left open; 3) ail vests MANAGEMENT has because of abandonment of the Apartment or other violations of the Lease by RESIDENT, veal as cosh far advertisirp the Apartments; 4) ail court costs and attorneys fees MANAGEMENT has in any suit for eviction, unpaid rent, or any other debt or t9targe. 28. WHEN PAYMENT'S ARE DUE: Any amount owed by RESIDENT is due when MANAGEMENT asks for it. MANAGEMENT does rwt give up its right b any money owed by RESIDENT because of MANAGEMENTS failure or delay In asking for any payment MANAGEMENT pn ask for any money owed by RESIDENT before or after RESIDENT moves out of the Apartment. G. MISCELLANEOUS 29. FALSE OR MISLEADING RENTAL APPLICATION: If MANAGEMENT determines that any oral a written statement made by RESIDENT in the rental app8p8on or otlterwlse are riot Wear txxnpleb In anyway, then RESIDENT has vblated this Lease artd maybe evicted. 30. BUILDING RULES AND ATTACHMENTS ARE PART OF LEASE; NO ORAL AGREEMENTS: Any attachment b this Lease are a part o1 m~ Lease. If a term of any attachment ix7ntliCis with any term of 8tis Lease, the atachment tens wilt be confrdling. MANAGEMENTS building rules are a part of this Lease, and MANAGEMENT may make reasonable changes in tltese rotes al any tkrre by giving RESIDENT written notice. No oral agreements have been made. Tlea Lease and it attachments and any other written agreements are the entire agreement between RESIDENT and MANAGEMENT. 31. NOTICES:Ap RESIDENTS agree that rtotlces and demands depvered by MANAGEMENT to the Apartment are proper rtodce b art RESIDENTS, and are ef7ectrve as soon az delivered b the Apartment ENTIlQNrENT1lL QUJILITT t41tlD Environmental Assessment Worksheets Comments due on April 17, 2002 Clearwater Property Description: The proposed development will consists of a retail commercical complext and multiple and single family housing. The proposed development will be served with municipal water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and utilities of an urban setting and public streets. RGU: City of Clearwater Contact: Debby Millner, City Clerk, PO Box 171, Clearw 20-558-2428 ~ Graceview Estates Description: Pond View Ridge Partnership proposes to construct a residential development complex on approximately 91.07 acres +/- of land located on the south side of the city of St. Joseph, south of East Baker Street. The development will contain a mixture ofsingle-family homes, ba home s a retirement community and a artment complex. T roject will include parks and wa e community use. RGU: City of St. Joseph Contact: Judy Weyrens, City Administrator, 25 The EQB Monitoris a biweekly publication of the Environmental Quality Board that lists descriptions and deadlines for Environmental Assessment Worksheets, Environmental Impact Statements and other notices. The EQB Monitoris also posted on the Environmental Quality Board home page at www.mnptan.state.mn.us Vol. 26, No. 6 Next issue: April 2, 2002 Submittal deadline: March 25, 2002 March 18.2002 College Ave., PO Box 668, St. Joseph, MN 56374- 0668; 320-363-7201 EAW Need Decisions The noted responsible governmental unit has made a decision regarding the need for an EA W in response to a citizen petition. ^ Metropolitan Council, Riverview Corridor Busway between 1-35E and Smith Avenue, Petition denied • Steele County, Kevin Deml feedlot project, Project exempt ^ Steele County, Allen Deml feedlot project, Project exempt ^ Plymouth City Council, Hidden Terrace project by SVK Development, Project exempt ^ Cass County Planning Advisory Commission, Development of an Island in McKeown Lake. Petition denied EIS Need Decisions The responsible governmental unit has determined the following projects do not require preparation of an EIS. The dates given are, respectively, the date of the determination and the date the EAW notice was published in the EQB Monitor. ^ City of Shakopee, Blue Lake Watershed Drainage Improvements, March 6, 2002 (December 10, 2002) ^ Wright County Board of Commissioners, Tiller Corporation, Silver Creek Sand and Gravel Mining Operation, February 26, 2002 (December 24,2001) ^ City of Arden Hills, Gateway Business Center, February 25, 2002 (January 21, 2002) S ,~ ~ .. s: I ~ .. 02001 RHSD.Irc a _v ,.e'~_ .~v ~ New Planning Technology for a Better Future VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1 _. FALL 2002 Inside this issue: ^ Economic volatility & land development 1 ^RHSD accomplishments 1 ^ Int'I Builders Show 2003 2 ^ Wholeness in the wburbs: Adding a focus 2 • Three unique concepts for wburban town centers 3 ^ A new neighborhood land use formula: CND 4 • Two CND Neighborhood examples 5-6 ^ Giving commercial a facelift 7 ^ In conclusion/ Recommendations 7 ^ Texas builder embraces new planning technology for Active Adult Community 8 Our newsletter's purpose is to share innovative devel- opment successes with land developers, builders and pol- icymakers, In the hope of contrlbudng replicable plan- ning solutions for today's housing industry problems. This Issue highUghts devel- opments that are more effi- cient to build, yet provide a better quality of life through a broad range of income lev- els. Small town warmth and space are infused into devel- opment within asprawl-sen- sitiv context. Items discussed lnctude new land use mod- els, distinctive suburban town centers, smart substi- tutes for landscape buffers, berms and screening walls, the benefits of new planning technology and better options for integrating com- mercial with residential uses. 'Cooing: A method of planning which utilizes a unique meandering road pattern combined with non-standard unit setbacks to add interest and create areas of extra open space along the street, called 'Coves'. Cooing mathematically reduces linear fee[ of infrastructurt tby 20% on average). Deasity grnttally remains the same as conventional plan lay- outs. __ _...- t • Bayhome Concept: An alternative to both conventional and neo-traditonal cotrununities, the Bayhome Concept crwtcs a wmcckd, wamt neighborhood with space and enhanced inte- rior/exterior views. Unlike traditional neighborhoods, units fact onto space (instead of street) and are connected by walk- ways. This is achieved while cutting linear feet oC paving and related infrastructure by up to 50%. Bayhomes are single fam- ily detached homes with traditional-style architecture and also- elation-rnaintaincd outdoor areas. The traditional alley is replaced with private drive access throughout. Economic volatility & ~~ land development Since last year, as Americans' 401 Ks and stocks began to dissipate, it looked as though the search for security would put housing investment on top. However, for a considerable portion of the market, home ownership isn't happening. Every $1000 price increase displaces a significant share of the market. External factors such as growth regulations, moratoriums, community design criteria and/or mold insur- ance are impacting price and profitability. Ai no time have we ever had an era where the way we deal with forces existing at the planning stage of development could make or break the success of a development and the attainability of housing. RHSD accomplishments for 2002 To date, cities in twenty- This year to date, we six states have approved planned an additional RHSD communities-all of 10,000 homes. Our services which rely on new planning expanded from exclusively technology (Cooing", which private enterprise design earned our firm the 1999 and planning, to include Professional Achievement municipal consulting. Award for Innovation in Attendees of the 2002 Int'1 Land Planning, Bayhomes" Builders show in Atlanta and CND, a land use concept gave our firm great reviews described more fully later), on the educational seminar we presented. We had an r opportunity '~ to meet many of you after- - °'` _ wards and at i,' _ •~ ~~-~~~ ~' a our Exhibit ~~~'!~`~. i ~' 1 Booth. ~,~~ ~ w..,4~ ._.~~,. .. SiteComp, .,r, ~l~s~- our sister ""'`' company and provider of +~ ~-~ ~.. k ~ ~_ our high-tech ~ ~ 5~ a,:. ____ ,,~r, ~~'~ CDIS-based ~~~~~-~~~~w wq••~~~p^N, ©2002 RFLSD, Inc. Coved Neighborhood @3 homes/acre curie o~ Pq.2 PAGE 2 I IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE THROUGH NEW PLANNING TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1 RHSO accomplv+menu cont'0 Irom pg 1 surveying and civil engineer- ing software, was recently awarded several large mili- tary and private enterprise contracts. SiteComp soft- ware has been our key to meeting all of our customers' deadlines and enabled us to quantify and analyze spatial areas (and infrastructure ele- ments) easily and instantly. The 2003 International Builders Show We invite you to stop by our Booth #N1904 during Jan. 21-24, 2003, to learn how builders, homebuyers, and municipalities can reap big BENEFITS from better planning. Our hi-tech multimedia exhibit will showcase excit- ing (mostly) suburban com- munity examples being built in different parts of the country. You will notice throughout, that we place l~''I t.i 1 7 I 'ts' ` L:~ L .. t`w: ,~ 't R O T N ~ N N V A l C O N L C N T I O N a exno'rilosw J.iYNVl1RY 21-2#, imOJ ~- ~~~ : ,~= ~: KIV~w D~MM~fIHN.t O.1~ See Neighborhoods for the 21st Century at our Booth#N1904 in the TecHomF.xpo @ The 2003 International Bullders Show. special emphasis on the early land planning stage as a means for builders, develop- ers and municipalities to raise living standards while keeping a handle on devel- opment impact and costs. Contact us now to sched- ule afree booth consulta- tion. Discover how to increase your curb appeal and accelerate your absorption rate. Bring upcoming proj- ect plans. We look for- ward to meeting you and answering any questions that our expe- rience might lend itself to. Wholeness in the suburbs: Adding a focus Residents of new master-planned communities frequently express a desire for interesting (nearby) places to go, such as a town center, in their communities. A "Suburban Town Center" can do more than just create a focus in the "Master Plan". First, it should benefit the region by becoming a region-wide destination, a growth catalyst; and second, it enables the neighborhood to become a fairly self- reliant community where people live, work, play and pray while accommodating auto or multi-modal forms of transporta- tion. Suburban dwellers, like their urban counterparts, are interested in convenient retail, jobs and recreation, but in Three unique concepts for suburban town Discussed on pages 3 and 4 are examples of suburban town centers and mixed-use communities, each intended to address specific concerns. Two of the three communities are still in planning, so precise locations have been omitted. All centers & adjacent residential areas share these ele- ments: • Provide a greater sense of space than conventionally planned communities. • Offer higher density than surrounding suburban development. • Built at walkable scale • Street length is reduced (typically 20%) throughout both resi- dential and commercial uses (through new technology and design). Plans are compatible with the flow of the natural suburbia, this doesn't have to mean the usual bland archi- tectural offerings. For example, suburban town centers should replace traditional strip malls with well-exposed shops positioned convenient to both car and pedestrian access, yet integrated with adjacent residential uses. To benefit the region, the "Suburban Town Center" should be designed to attract thousands of residents for an after- noon or entire day of shopping and walking through the amenities. To achieve this, be sure to include activities for singles, seniors and families. Town centers offering region- wide draws, are discussed below. centers topography. • Non-expenditure on typical street length frees up portion of infrastructure budget for application to other areas, such as architecture /landscaping. • Connective Neighborhood Design (CND) replaces suburban zoning transitions; CND is used [o showcase [he neighbor- hood better and infuse warmth throughout. CND is explained on page 5. • All sites include common gathering places; in addition, resi- dents experience space adjacent to their homes. • Greater separation exists between pedestrian and vehicular traffic, to enhance safety beyond traditional or conventional design capabilities. cont'C nest page VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1 IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE THROUGH NEW PLANNING TECHNOLOGY Three unique concepts for suburban town centers continued Concept #1 Recreational Catalyst: Town Center Midwestern U.S. In an area of bedroom sub- urbs, where subdivisions, strip malls and big block retail rule, this 300 acre parcel is set to accommodate 1,000 homes, while still maintaining the integrity of the original site's park-like expanses. The surrounding population exceeds 100,000 people, so from this and other factors, it was determined that a recre- ational focus was needed. All main roads lead to a recreational focus, made up of a large central park, spe- cialty shops and restaurants. The proposed 13-acre central park will feature an ice rink in the winter, with soft music piped in to compliment the setting. In warmer weather, a fully digitized dancing water feature, similar to the Bellagio in Las Vegas, will set the atmosphere for nearby diners and shoppers. High- rise and mid-rise units over- look low-rise homes, to max- imize views. Potential con- flicts between pedestrian and vehicular traffic along the major arterial streets nic trail system. have been eliminated by the use of buffers in the form of generous, landscaped set- backs which contain a sce- PAGE 3 Concept #2 High Tech Catalyst: Town Center Northwestern U.S. Thls re-plan of a vacated airport site had many design challenges. Geographic elements surrounding the site were similar to the Bozeman, Montana region. After hear- ing the city's concerns, the focus shifted from a traditional ~~ ,.rte ~ ~ ~~ ,~r~a~r s+ ~- .r ~~. ~, + ~ ~, ~~:';~ '~ ', town center to a high tech center with restaurants, a new City Hall, high school and community recreation center. The technology component will give the 700 high school students ajump-start into 21" century jobs, by including both study and work oppor- tunities. At the same time, it will not detract from the '~!., _.~ - ~'~ vitality of the town's exist- ' i '!~ ~ ''~+ ing businesses on the "main street" just a short stroll to the west. To keep develop- ~~~+' .~',. ~ ment costs within reason, _.. r- ~ some of the existing airport infrastructure was pre- served.A broad mix of hous- ing exists within a five minute walk from work places; all within a spacious setting. This center should _. _ . plant the seed for regional a '~"•~"_ economic growth. [.~ .~. ©2002 ItHSD, Inc. Mixed Use Town Center 02002 RHSD, Inc. Mixed Use Town Center PAGE 4 IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE THROUGH NEW PLANNING TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1 ' ~}~~~ i Concept #3 Small Town Warmth with Space & Affordability: Heritage -Freeport, Bahamas In November of 2001, RHSD began design of a large master-planned community for the residents of Freeport, Bahamas. Norm Shearing, Director of Planning and Development for The Grand Bahama Development Company Ltd.' "Given the pristine set- ting of this 400 acre parcel of land, we wanted to save as much of the natural vege- tation as possible while accommodating amixed-use community consisting of approximately 1,000 entry to mid-level housing units. Following a pricing analysis of our original traditional neighborhood master plan, we found the cost of the infrastructure work pushed the outer limits of our man- date to provide high quality affordable housing to Bahamians. The main components of the / # plan: low density j housing, a new ; ; ~'-,~ + junior high ~~ ,. school, ~~ ,, local ',~. j retail, neighborhood parks and a linear park system were ail important to the success of the plan. However, given the initial pricing, the only way to pay for the infrastructure was to increase density, thus defeating our main design principle. In exploring different design alternatives, I was introduced to Rick Harrison of Rick Harrison Site Design Studio. Working with Rick, we managed to ~ retain the main ele- 1~~' menu of the origi- /' ~ ~ nal plan, while ,l -t'g :~~ reducing the ~r _ amount of ,~ ~a a~ paved roads by 26%, or 12,000 lineal feet. This resulted in a minimal decrease (5%) in the num- ber of units, yet a 41% increase in the amount of parks and open space. Our preliminary budget pricing indicated a US$940,000.00 non-expenditure (see Heritage ~~_ cost analysis on our web site) over the original design. Needless to say, we are very happy with not only the reduction in infrastructure costs, but with the living standards attained by the final plan generated by Rick Harrison and his team" A beautiful park mall con- nects the two schools and cor^.niercial uses. A new neighborhood land use formula The garage-dominated, vanilla image of suburbia and many new communities is ready for overhaul. Suburban land use patterns (transitional zoning) show- case low-end forms of hous- ing along perimeters of development and along col- lector streets, which lessens the value of areas. Neighborly walks down streets frequently turn into walks along walled corri- dors, or worse, views of unsightly home rears, which eliminates potential social interaction. As an alternative, we suggest... ®2002 RH.SD, Inc. I14ixed Use Community PAGE 6 IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE THROUGH NEW PLANNING TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1 CND Example #2 Villages on the Rum (River), Isanti, MN In April this year, Terry Miller, of TJ Miller & Associates in Minnesota, brought his 66-acre site plan to us, after experiencing dif- ficulty in gaining project approval. The site is located in Isanti, a small community half hour north of the Twin Cities. Mr. Miller's land sale was contingent upon deliv- ering it with an approved plan. It is quite common in the mid-west, to see aesthet- icallyplain, incompatable development and strip cen- ters along the arterial streets. Isanti's main problem was, in order to grow, it needed to attract industry, and with industry, it needed affordable housing. The developer's main problem was the site's location - a half hour drive beyond the city's edge. As much as Isanti needed hous- ing, it did not need more bland subdivisions. Within days, we developed a CND plan to add connectivity and warmth, while reducing road and utility infrastruc- ture.This enabled the devel- oper to gain additional space and free up more funds for architectural detail and landscaping. The developer, Brian Iverson of Iverson Real Estate Corporation, MN, also had an architectural back- ground, and soon began experimenting with space and views to produce an exciting new moderately- priced housing model. The ensuing community offers 37 luxury-style homes along the Rum River, 96 BayHomes and 128 town- homes. The moderately- p r i c e d BayHomes and town- , homes have architectural detail and ele- - - ; menu com- -- , j ' f _,: Original Plan mon to luxury communi~ ties. The BayHomes will compete price-wise with less-attractive attached housing in surrounding communities, yet include both two and three car garage options. The Villages' winding boulevards and walkways required complex design calculations that TEC Engineering from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, handled with ease, using CDIS tech- nology. Their attention to detail and the design nuances were critical in the engineering phase. Three months after our initial presentation to the city, the CND plan received final _,~~~.:t~:. ~' J ' ~ . . U JI~y .ii - ~ - plat approval. Today, we are planning phase II for The Villages on the Rum, a much larger and more involved extension of the community. Villages on the Rum will set the seed for sustained growth in Isanti. e ~~ lam„ a,~, ....o. a.. ~... ~, Bayhome Front Bayhome Rear BayHomes CND Plan VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1 IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE THROUGH NEW PLANNING TECHNOLOGY PAGE 7 Make it irresistable! In the 20th century, strip malls were built with unsightly rear loading docks that could have easily been serviced from the front instead, or via internal truck bays. Stringent loading dock ordinances required exces- sive setbacks and costly screening. New methods of planning offer creative alternatives for transitioning land uses that result In commercial elements being visually irresistable to nearby residents.This eliminates the need for expensive paving, setbacks, walls, earth-mounds and screening. Good architecture can create attractive rear accesses that invite adjacent residents into the buildings. The economic reality of good design positively impacts home values over time, creating stability and strength for the municipality. ©2002 RHSD Photo of Cotnmercial Shopping Center Reaz View In conclusion/Recommendations Most surveys agree that between 70 and 80 percent of the U.S. market desires space, in either suburban or rural settings. However, 20th century suburban development styles also frequently resulted in poor stewardship of the land. Yet, the vast majority of planning solutions today only offer urban-density solutions, with very little alternatives in between. Community planning methods critically impact the way our neighborhoods look, our quality of life, the cost of housing and whether or not builders are profitable. The following issues deserve careful consideration now, and require innovative, forward-thinking solutions possible with better planning technology: 1 Suburban regulations originating from the early 20th cen- tury set the course for many of today's suburban (and urban) problems. It is easy for municipalities to blame developers for bland, disconnected development, but it is ordinances themselves that actually promote this. 2 It is time to take advantage of technology's gifts to land planning -creativity and land use efficiency. Creativity can result in higher living standards; efficient land use opens the door of home ownership to a broader market, while reducing expenditure for developers, homebuyers and municipalities. 21" century communities can and should be warm, scenic, spacious and interesting neigh- borhoods. Finally, these neighborhoods set the founda- tion for economic stability while consuming far less in natural resources. We are proud to be a catalyst in new planning technol- ogy. As always, we are available to plan outstanding com- munities in your area, as well as write design guidelines that enable municipalities to achieve the innovation they desire. Also, feel free to have your civil engineering and sur- veying professionals visit SiteComp.net for an introduction to CDIS technology. If you're a municipality that is experi- encing long learning curves with GIS, it's time to simplify it with CDIS. ~ 02002 RHSQ Inc 5100 Wayzata Blvd Minneapolis, MN 55426 Please Note our Phone: 763-595-0055 New Area Code To: Fax: 763-595-0080 Email: info@rhsdplanning.cotn Improving Quality of Life through New Planning Technology We're on the Web! See rhsdplanning.com Rick Harrison Site Design Studio began seven years ago az a design firm dedicated to raising community living standards. Harrison's prior 25-year professional background spans the areas of land development, planning, and specialized software development geared for engineers and stuveyors (this resulted in the SiteComp© CDIS software product).This unique com- bination of tools and knowledge led Harrison to his azpiration of alTord able, attractive housing for all. His original community design concepts merge homes and recreation work areas with space, nature, privacy, and an improved sense of neighborhood within asprawl-sensitive context. The company's extensive client list ranges from top national developers to afTordable housing agencies. Texas builder embraces new planning technology for Active Adult Community Sitterle Homes under- stands it takes originality to be a leader in active adult housing. As you are reading this, Sitterle Homes of San Antonio,Texas will be break- ing ground on 'Roseheart', a coved, luxury sin- gle-family active adult community with recreational amenities. Sitterle Homes received the prestigious Grand Award from the Texas Association of Builders (TAB) for three of the past five years, in addi- tion to numerous other awards. But Roseheart almost did not get built. The engineer's first analysis of the coved plan was that when com- pared to a conventional lay- out, coving's curvilinear design would cost more to construct, yet after a closer review, that initial report was reversed, as coving pro- duced 23% /ess street and conformed to the rock-laden topography better. The builder chose the coving design even though it had a slight lot loss, because the overall design, along with the gain of generous green- belts,which will be used for extensive walking trails and neighborhood features such as gazebos and ponds, more than compensated for the small difference in yield. "The openness and beauty that cov- ing provides should translate into a premium in pricing for home sales", according to the builder. Future newslet- ters will cover the neighborhood's progress as it undergoes con- struction. ©2002 RHSD, Inc. Coved Plan _. i ~ ~ `~ I ~~ ~j ~~ '- ~ ~' ~ 1" 7 °~' ~ ~ ~ a~c- __, j _ _ _i. ~ II I Cn ,~ ~ ~, a 1 ,~,. ~~ ~~ r,; ~ ;' ~~ .._~ i ; ~ i 1 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~,'~ ~ si ~ ~(P ' ~ ~ ~ i L ~ { ~ ~ ~ ~•~ u `_ ~ ~ ~,. ~ ~ O O . . ' Y. _ ~:_ ~ _ .~~J~v ~"'~ - .~,.~..~- COU~UT" ROAD 2 8 ~ ~~ ~, ~ b ~ x ~ , e ~ o g U ~ ~ I ~--~~ r~ ~~~ s? OOtt i x ~ (N) L q ~ ~ w _~_ ~..rL:~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ 1~ : i ~d _ i ., i , _ `i! -~ ~ j Uri + ~._.__.~ ,tea ~ i J4 ) ~ ~. ~ ~ goo ~ ~~j ~ = ,`~~~~ ', . +` I"" _ ~ __ y ._i , '~ r ,....~,... ._ ~ ._t .. _ ._ ...rt_ .~_ ..:I~.. _ ~ _L_ ~~..._ --~ --- : ~_._._. ~. ~.._ ~~ Y~ r' y ~- _.. _ .~~' -_ .-. -; ,~ _ ___ , - _-_ n ; X `: :; . ~~ ~ _ _ _ ~ ~ -- -