HomeMy WebLinkAbout(05) Public Hearing - S & H Development
Council Agenda Item 5
MEETING DATE: November 6, 2008
AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing, S & H Development
SUBMITTED BY: Administration
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission on
September 30, 2008 recommended the Council approve the amendment to the 2002 Graceview PURD.
The amendment allows a third structure on the Townhouse portion of the Outlot, reducing the density
from 20 units to 18 units.
The Planning Commission on October 13, 2008 recommended the Council issue a Special Use Permit to
allow the construction two multiple family structures, one with 35 units and one with 40 units. The
recommendation was forwarded on a 5:2:0 vote. (See Graceview Booklet)
The Planning Commission will be considering the site plan for the apartments on November 3, 2008.
The information received by the Planning Commission has been included in the Graceview Booklet in the
front starting with page A-29. The recommendation of the Planning Commission will be forwarded as
soon after the meeting as possible.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council at a special meeting discussed the status of the
proposed development in an effort to gain a better understanding of the project. No action was taken
at that meeting and the minutes have been included in the packet.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As you are aware, the City Council must make a decision on this matter
no later than November 24, 2008. The City is obligated to act under the legislation that requires
governing bodies to act on land use applications with 60 days of complete submittal unless the matter
has been extended an additional 60 days. In the matter before the Council, the action requirement has
already been extended 60 days and the only way it can be extended beyond that time is if the developer
or petitioner agrees.
The pages in your Graceview Booket that begin with the letter A, are new information that has been
received since the Planning Commission has acted. The information includes an opinion from the City
Attorney on both general issues and ADA matters, information from the City Engineer on the ability to
add width or sidewalk to the existing development and alternative layouts if the apartment site were
reconfigured, letters received and the Planning Commission material.
You will also find a sheet that lists accidents. One of the residents have requested information as to
how many incidents have occurred on 4th Avenue NE. From the table it is clear that almost all accidents
occurred at the intersection of CR 75 and 4th Avenue. It is also apparent from the table that the
accidents have dropped and that is due to the signal lights.
Depending on the action of the City Council, if the Council would like to review any findings that are
produced at the meeting, a special meeting could be scheduled for the following week to review the
actual findings. This is only an option.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT:
ATTACHMENTS: Graceview Booklet
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: The Council should either authorize staff to prepare findings based on
the discussion at the meeting on November 6, 2008 or adopt findings at the meeting.
~ CITY O~ ST. OS~PH
1
u~u~a~ cityof stjusr~~h_~ om
City of St. Joseph
Public Hearing
The City Council for the City of St. Joseph will be conducting a public hearing on Thursday,
November 6, 2008 at 7:00 PM. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the following 1)
Amendment to the Graceview Estates PUD approved in 2001; 2) Special Use Permit and PUD
Ac~mini;trati,r
to allow the construction of two apartment buildings with a total of 75 units, two -four
~~~~h \\'~ ~ ~< ~~~ plexes and one- duplex. The proposed development site is legally described as Outlot A;
Graceview Estates 2.
Ma~~o' Persons wishing to testiry will oe limited to three minutes and written testimony may be
AI Ra„i~ r mailed to: Judy Weyrens, Administrator; City of St. Joseph; PO Box 668; St. Joseph MN
56374. Written testimony will be considered as part of the public hearing if submitted to the
Conn ilur above address.
Steve i-rank
R~~:k S~h~lrz The PUD Amendment and Special Use Permit applications have been submitted by S & H
Ranee Symani~°tz Partnership, 229 - 5th Avenue South, Suite 101; St. Cloud MN 56301
Dale \V''~~k
Judy Weyrens
Administrator
Publish: October 24, 2008
--_ ~ ~{: i
_- - '~~ fiti
~: ~ ._ ~,
-N ~" L1. L~ r-~
_ m / caaT4i U<
~y'~.!] ~
1
Outlot A,
Graceview Estates 2
,t' ) `
~ ~ L~ I ~~
'~
zs ~,ollege Avenue North P~ Box 668
Phone Sao 363.7zoi
Saint ~oseph, 'Minnesota 56374
fax 3zo.363.o34z
Planning Commission Recommendation
Graceview Estates -Site Plan Review
The St. Joseph Planning Commission met on Monday November 3, 2008 to consider the site plan review
for the project entitled S & H Partnership. The site plan contained the following development:
1. Two- three story apartment complexes, one with 35 units and one with 40 units.
Townhome development to include two-four plexes and one duplex.
After reviewing the site plan detail and considerable discussion, Meyer made a motion to recommend
the City Council execute a Development Agreement between the City of St. Joseph and S & H
Partnership to allow the development described in 1 and 2 above. The Agreement shall include the
following requirements:
LANDSCAPING/SCREENING
North Property Line: The entire length of the parking lot as it abuts the north property
line shall include the following landscape/screening detail:
a. Four foot berm
b. Single row of evergreens spaced 12' on center and 10' in height.
c. Eight foot vinyl fence
d. Ground cover -other than grass
East Property Line: The property to the south of the east entrance side shall contain
four evergreens, 10' in height and planted parallel to 4`h Avenue SE.
West Property Line: The landscape detail on the west side shall include the following:
a. Four foot berm
b. Double row of evergreens spaced 12' on center and 10' in height.
c. Ground cover -other than grass
Before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 35 unit apartment complex, the
following screening must added:
a. Six foot vinyl fence along the property line abutting Lots 6, 7, and a portion
of Lot 8, Graceview Estates 3.
SETBACK
Interior: The R-4 Zoning District requires a forty foot separation between
buildings within a development site. The requirement is inconsistent
with the side yard setbacks as the Ordinance only requires a 10 foot side
yard, leaving a building separation of 20'. Therefore, the Planning
Commission acknowledges the inconsistency in the Ordinance and will
require a building separation in this development of no less than 20'.
BUILIDNG EXTERIOR/INTERIOR
Exterior: The entire development project as described in 1 and 2 above shall be
constructed with a unified design schematic to include material and
color.
Interior: Each of the single family homes in the Townhome portion of the
development will contain a severe weather structure within each unit.
TRANSPORTATION
Temporary Road: Before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any structure
in the proposed development, a temporary connection to 7cn
Avenue will be constructed. The connection will consist of a 22'
bituminous rural road section as proposed by the City Engineer.
East/West Corridor: Before construction of phase III of the proposed development, a
traffic count of the Graceview area will be completed. The
traffic count will consist of actual traffic counts not projections.
The purpose of the traffic count is to determine if the
transportation system in the area supports the additional
development or if it will necessitate the need for the
construction of Field Street.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Phasing Plan: The proposed development is scheduled to be completed in
three phases, with the last phase completed in 2010. If the
project is not completed by December 31, 2010, it shall be the
responsibility of the Developer to request an extension of the
development plan.
Development Agreement: The Developer shall execute a Development Agreement
outlining the project detail and developer obligations
and responsibilities of the City.
The motion was seconded by McDonald.
Ayes: Kalinowski, Deutz, Rieke, McDonald, Meyer
Nays: Andersen, Wick.
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 5, 2008
To: Mayor Rassier and Members of the Planning Commission
From: St. Joseph Planning Commission
Re: S & H Partnership Planning Requests
The Planning Commission on Monday, November 3, 2008 made a motion to forward
affirmed findings for the recommendation to approve the Special Use Permit to allow the
construction of two multiple family structures one with 35 units and one with 40 units
and approve the PURD (PUD) Amendment to allow a third structure in the proposed
townhome portion of the proposed development, while reducing density.
Ayes: Ka/inowski, Deutz, Rieke, McDona/d, Meyer
Nays: Andersen, Wick
Commissioner McDonald introduced revised facts of findings supporting the issuance of
a Special Use Permit to S & H Partnership to allow the construction of two multiple
family structures containing a total of 75 units. The revised findings do not change the
basis for the recommendation; rather the revised findings provide factual data with
supporting documentation. The additional information is intended to provide the Council
with additional testimony before garnering a decision on the Special Use Permit.
PO BOX 668 PHONE (320) 363-7201
City of St. 7oseph 25 College Avenue North Fnx (320) 363-0342
St. Joseph MN 56374 E-MAIL jweyrens@cityofstjoseph.com
wes slfE http://www.cityofstjoseph.com
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 Gave 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 any
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 additional 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 with 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 nof.enaane in anv act intended to facilitate illegal act+vity; including drug-related
illegal activity, on or near the said premises.
3. Resident or members of the household wilt not permit the dwelline to be used for or to facilitate
itleoal 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 any (options, 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 enoaoe 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. '
t/tis added addendum shat!
NANCY. A single violation of the provisions of
and material npn-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 pse 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. iN AGEMEtJT INC
sy:
Date Signed:
(Resident)
(Resident)
Resident(s) acknowledges receipt of the addendum by
signature of this document.
Date Signed:
300 E. St ~ ~t
~OIi~PAN~ES _~~&
CREDIT/CRIIVIINAL BACKGROUND CHECK CONSENT FARM ~~
A Lora! Records Check of the St Cloud Police Department /Any 11Z1V County Sherilg's
Department and A Search of the Minnesota State Criminal Records and or the Federal
Bureau of Investigations Criminal Justice Information tiles will be performed on yon
pnrsnaat with the lease agreement of the apartment cemplez to which yon are applying,
By dgning this form yon are allowing the St. Cloud Police Department and/or Screening
Reports, Inc, to release the criminal data maintained in those Des which applies ender
Statues & Ordinance:
1. Yon have ihoright to be inf'om~ed thatlNH PROP TYIVL4TfAt>ENIEIyT is n9°~B C]'imdnsl
Baclcgmmd Check ro determine if you have bees convicted of a (,`time.
2. You have theright to be informed by lNH PROPERTY iareNAGEMRx•t.
backgtvtmd check and to obtain a copy of the rtxults. °f ~ results of a crizomal
3. Yon havethe right to obtain from St Cloud Police Deparmtent /Steams County Sheriffs
tmd/a The. Z~tnean vofe ( ~Api~ any tocaads that fa~ntts the basis for the report obtained.
recoad tinder section 13.04, snb.4.~~ ~ ~Y ~ completeness of infotatatioa eom>siaed in the ~R or
S. Yon have the right to be infonmod by i~NH PROPERTY a xAG~~
aceeptaace has been denied because of the resuhs of this Baekgotmd Check, ~~ applicati~ ~
APPn+ployte Iajornradon - PLF.A.SE PRINT CLE.lRLY
Last Name First Name Middle Name
Havc you ever been known by anotlxxNatne?(Maiden, Aliases) --`
Date of Birth (3endet: Male Female Race
.------
DriVe[~6 LIC. #
Ctnt:eat Address Apt #
. State: ~~ Soh, #
~tY State 8t Zip ~,
Have you lived in Mimesota for at least the Past 10 Years? Yes ` No Phase I ist ~~ A h.
laved AnYwheie Other Than Minnesota:
Prinz Address Apt# (qty State 8~ Zip ZAy~,
This Release sha11 be effective for ONE{1J year from the date dgned.
Appheaat Signature Date
All Applicants over the age of eighteen (igj Mnat hill otrt an individual C~imiinal Background
Check
For a fnee coP!' olYo~ crediYcriirrirra[ r+eport;.please contact Scnaritrg Reports, Ltc,
729 NRoutc 83, Suite 321, BtnsenviUq IL 60106 Toll Free Plmne (866)3U9-4042,
P;~miae~nsnvv-~oaMS~cxnrmvwl:.Dtx 9r~noos
1NH Companies, ]nc.
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 all 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 ] 8 years of age or older, or a legally
emancipated minor.
)NH Property Management, Inc. Resident Selection Criteria
• Occuoancy Limits
Two (2) people may occupy a l bedroom apartment,
Four (4) people may occupy a 2 bedroom aparhnent. 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 with an additional cost of $100.00 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 andlor b) advance payment of one (1) or more month's
rent. Negative items on credit reports may be grounds for denial of an application.
• Criminalliaclcgronnd
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 1 year, an applicant may be considered with a) a qualified guarantor and/or b)
advance payment of one (1) or more month's rent. Negative items (i.e. evictions, non-renewals,
tutlawful 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 Tess than 2.5
times, an applicant may be considered with a) a qualified guarantor or b) advance payment of one (l )
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, 300 E. St Gttmain St., St Cloud, MN 56304 Ph: (320)2585000 Fax: (320)258-5270
RENTAL. APPLICATION
Date Property Name & Address Apartment p
To crprAlte your application, h fs!»tpartaut to provide urformation Fn ALL. tkr cwrgories ;F'jeaac~dl.oa! Reptol hlislory Information.
Jot tke past 3 yP.ors, urcluding landlord phone nrembe+s, Employment lafornratlora with.phane numbers
PERSONAL INFOAFFIATION May we contact you by rmall? NO YES:
Applinnt Name (Plnu Print Clnrly) Other Names Used (Married, Maiden, or Nickname)
Date of Birth Social Security Drivers Licertu #
Applicant Preent Addrrss Apt # Rent Amount Move-In Date Move-Out Date
Cell or
City State__Zip Home Phone Present Landlord/Manager Phone
Praiaus Adthcss Apt. # Rent Amount Movc-In Date_ Move-0ut Date
City Sure. Zip Home Phone Landlord/Managtt Phone
MONTHLY INCOME
Ettrpkyed by Conuct or Supervisor's Name Monthly Income Start Date End Date
Address Ciry Sute Zip Phase
Previous Employer, If My Sort Date End Date Reason For I.c+ving
Address Ciry State Zip Phorro
OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME (Asslstancq Part-Time JoD, Ete)
SoutcdConuet Arrtount Pa Month Phone
SotrrcdContut Amount Ptt Month Phtme
BANX REFERENCE (lodinte Bank Branch amt Services L>acd)
Name Address City State Phoda
(Plisse circle all that apply) Checking Savings Ltim
PERSONAL REFERENCE
Name (Father/ Mother /Guardian) Address City State_Zip Phone
M Case of Etttergency Please Contact Address Ciry Sute,_Z,ip Phone
MOTOR VEHICLE
Litmsc Plate # Make Year Model & Color Monthly Auto Payment PET(S) _YES`NO
FIAVE YOU EVER
Nave you ever been convicted of a crime (except driving citation)? (Circle Answer) YFS NO
Flave you ever been evicted or asked to vacate? (Circle Answer) YES NO
[f you answered YFS to either of the questions abose, please explain:
LIST ALL OCCUPANTS OF UNR -
Name Relationship D.O.B. Name Relationship D.O.B.
Name Relationship D.OE. Natne Relatonship D.O.B.
15 there any information flat might appar on your credit, rrnul or criminal history that you wish to disclose and/or address up front, knowing that failure to disclose such
information may be considered grounds for denial of this applinlion? YES NO
(You may uuthe-buk side ofthis applieatba to provide addidond In[ormatlon.)
Applicant understands and agrees that if he/she makes incortect or mislt:ading rtatemrnts or omissions on this form, Applicant will forfeit hislha deposit
Applicant tmdersunds and agrees that hrlshc has only applied for a tenancy. This form is not a least, but an applicatlon and offer to (ease which maybe accepted or rejected
by Managemrnt. If Management does not accept this application, the deposit will be refunded. If Management notifies the Applicant that the applicaton has been accepted,
Applicant must aster into the tenancy applied for or the deposit will be forfeited.
Appllntbn professing b done by Screening ReporW, lac., 729 N Route 83 #321, Bensenville, n 60106 Too Free (866) 389042 Fax (866}i89-4043.
Applinnt hereby grants to Management full authoriution necessary to verify the infornntian rn this form, included but trot limited to credit history, rental history, income
veri5ntian, criminal tteord, atformation from public agencies and other information relevant to this applicatOn for a ruidrnlial tenancy.
Maottgemeot b a fair honalag provider sad will gent equal opportuolty to all perwas under the law.
MmragtnrrenVOwner Signature Applicant Signature
INH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.
RESIDENTIAL LEASE
(Minnesota Statutes, Sectlons 325G.29,325G.36). Cert)fication of a contract by the Attorney General under Me plain language contract
act is not otherwise an approval of the contract's legality or legal effect.
RESIDENT' (List all persons who will live in the Apartrnent
'MANAGEMENT (enter company name, if applicable) INH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC
STREET ADDRESS OF PREMISES: ('Apartment)
APARTMENT NO DURATION OF LEASE (Enter number of months or month-totrtonth.)
STARTING DATE OF LEASE DATE THIS LEASE ENDS (if appropriate)
NOTICE PERIOD (The NOTICE PERIOD is two full months unless this Lease states a different notice period.)
$50 late tee after the 51h
MONTHLY APARTMENT RENT SERY4CE CHARGE Additional $75 Collection Fea after the 10th
OTHER MONTHLY RENT CHARGES (e.g., garage/storege)
TOTAL MONTHLY RENT SEGURRY DEPOSR
UTILITIES iNCtUDED iN RENT: o Heat o Hot and Cold Water o Other
UTILITIES PAID BY RESIDENT: o Electridty o Telephone o Other 4 ~` ~~
Q{tontK¢~6~c,'_ to#tiro fo{:-.
(The fdbwing is required by Minnesota Statutes, Seetion 5048.181,)
Authorized Manager of Apartment _ INH PROPERTY MANAGEM INC
300 EAST ST. GERMAIN STREET. ST. CLOUD. MN 56304
An owner of the premises or an agent authorized to accept service of process and receive and give receipts for notices and demands is
INH PROP RTY ANAGEMEpIT INC
Address 300 Elt$T ST GERMAIN STREET ST CLOUD MN 56304
't4?rere approprfafe; ular terms used in this Lease irrGude the
plural, and Pronouns o1 one rider include all:perrders.
Addltlonal Agreements (ff any):
Management (acting as agent for the owner d the premises) and Resident agree to the terms of this Lease and any attachments that may De made paA
of this Lease.
MANAGEMENT
(Resident)
INH:PROPERTY MANAGEMENT: INC.
by (Resident)
Date: Signed.
Deposit• Rent: Outer. (Resident)
paid _ due _ paid _ due _ paid _ due _
Date signed
Residentatknowtsdges roceipt of the Lease by signature. of this document.
TERMSC+F"1'H!S LEASE
RENT
1. PAYMENT: RESIDENT wAl pay MANAGEMENT the full monthly rent before midnight d the first day of each month while this lease is in effect
atxl during any extensions or renevrdis of this Leese. Rent will be paid as required by MANAGEMENT.
2. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR RENT: Each RESIDENT Ls individually responsible for paying the full amount of rent and any other money owed
to MANAGEMENT.
3. OI1TY TO PAY RENT AFTER EVICTION: If RESIDENT is evicted because RESIDENT vitiated a lens of Otis Lease, RESIDENT must stlU pay
the hrtl montl>fy rent unt8: 1) The Apartment is re-rented; 2) the DATE THIS LEASE ENDS; or 3) ff the Lease is month-lo-rnortM, 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 unlit the
DATE TFIIS LEASE ENDS or, if the Lease is month-IO-month, until the end of the next notice period.
4. LATE RENT SERVICE CHARGE AND RETURNED CHECK FEE: RESIDENT will pay the SERVICE CHARGE listed atxrve if RESIDENT does
not pay the full monthly rent by the 5th day of Use month. RESIDENT also will pays fee of S30 for each resumed check.
USE OF APARTMENT
5. OCCUPANCY AND USE: Only the persons Rsted above as RESIDENTS may live in the Apartment Persons not listed as RESIDENTS may live
in the ApaMtenl only wdtlt the prior written consent of MANAGEMENT. RESIDENTS may use the Apartment and utllifies for normal residentlal
purposes only.
6. SUBLETTING: RESIDENT may not lease the Apartment to other persons (subleq, assign this Lease or sell tlta Lease without the prior written
consent of MANAGEMEM.
7. RESIOENT PROMISES: 1) Not toad in a loud, bdsteraus, unruly or Bwughtlass marxter or dishnb the rights of the other residents to peace and
quiet, or allow hisfiur guests to do so; 2) to use the apartrrrertt ony as a private residence. and not ~ any way that is Mlegal or dangerous or which
would cause a eancellation, restriction or increase in premium in MANAGEMENT'S insurance; 3) not to use or store on a near the Apartment
any tlammaWe or explosive substance; 4) not b Interfere in the management and operation of the Apartment building; 5) that the Apanmertt,
corrurton areas or area surrounding the buBding wiq rid be used by the RESIDENT or by anyone acting under his/her control to manufacture, sell,
give away, barter, deliver, exchange, distribute, a possess any Illegal drugs.
8. WATERBEDS: RESiDEN'1' may rWt keep a waie[bed or otiter water-fliled (umiture in.the Aparbment wiUtotrt-the Prig wrfnen consent of
tr1ANAG~MENT:
8. PETS: RESIDENT may rqt keep enimat5 Of pets oTarry Idnd In the;ApartrrtemiwithouLthe wrden consent>of MANAGEMENT.
C. CONDRIONOFAPARTMENT
1ti. MANAGEMENTPROMt:SE3: 1)That theApartmentandall oommonareas are fit for use:as a reslttential premises; 2) to keep tits Apartmentin
reasonable r~air and make necessary repairs wlthina reasonable time after wfitlBn notice by RESIDENT except whentlamege is eatised by
the intentional or negligent conduct of the RESIDENT ar titsRrer guest9: 3)•to tnainFdin Ute ADartrnant In eompUanoe with applipWa health and
safety codes excepiwhen a vidatlon of the health and safety codas has'Naen caused by the intentional or na9tigent canducl of the RESIDENT
orttismerpuests; a) to keep the rAnurrort areas dean and in good condition.
11. 1ESIDENT PROMISES: 1) Not t0 darrmpe'or mi9tr6e the Aparlrrentor waste:the utUifies provided by MANAGEMENT a atlow hislher guosCS to
do so; 2) not to paint a wallpaper the AParfrrtent, tx metre arty stmclural drartgas In ills Apartment wittwut the prig written consent of
AAANAGEMEfJT; 3) m keep tits Apartment dean; 4j:fo plus written notce m MANAGEMENT of any necessary repairs to be made; 5) to notify
MANAGEMENT immedlatey of any conditions in the Apartment that are dangerous to human health or salary, or which may damage the
Aparbment or waste utlities provided by MANAGEMENT; 6} titat when RESIDENT moves out, the Apartment will be left in good condition, oxcept
fw:ordinary wear.and Dear, n not to remove any fixtures or tumisNngs supDl~ed try MANAGEMENT wititout the prior written consent of
MANAGEMENT: 8) to cooperate with MANAGEMENT'$ efrorts atpest corttrgl, This may inducts, among other things,. RESIDENT'S emptying
and cleaning cabinets, drawers and dosets; pUBing lumiture awayfrem walls, and aNowimg exterminator to enter and treaLttra Apartment.
i2 SECURITY DEPOSIT: Manaperrrent may keep a0 or part of the scarily deposit a} fof tf amage to pie Aparirttent be)rortd ordinary wear antl tear,
and b) for rent tx other moneyowed ere MANAGEMENT,
13: DESTROYED OR UN WAEILE APARTNEN7:1f the Apartment is desfroycd or damaged so$ is urtfltto: Ave in due to any cause, MANAGEMENT
may cancel this Lease Immediatety and may choose not b rebuild or restore the Apartment It the destruction or tlanlage was-not RESIDENT'S
fault and MANAGEMENT cancels this Lease, rent wAl be pro-ratatl and ills balance w1U'be refunded to RESIDENT.
D =QURATION l'>F LEASE
14. FAILURE TO GNE POSSESS10N:1f IANAGEMENT pnnot provide the ApaMtartt>to RESIDENT at ti+e.atart oilhis lease, RESIDENT tartnot
sue MANAGEMENT for any resuUfrtg damages but RESIDENT will cwt start paying rent until tre/she gets posaeasian of'the Apartnrenl
t3. MOVING OUT BEFORE LEASE ENDS: tf RESIDENT moves out of the ApertrtrenttSefore the .DATE THIS:LE:RSE ENDS, RESIUEtJT is
resporrs."ble'farrerttend arty at7ler losses or costs itdudarg cacti costs and attorney?s fBea. !f you rrkut terrttktate-your lease prior to the expiretion
date, you wUt be assessed a 5300.00 early lease temdnation tea, plus you wAl be respalsiDletor tent due up to tits date your unills re-rented
tx yota lease term expires.
16. TERiUNAT10N OF 1FJ1SE 1MTH SPECIFlED ENDING DATE: If f2ESIDFM wishes to move out of the ApatOitant on the DATE THIS'IEgSE
ENDS.'RES1DENf must glue MANAGEMEM priorwrlden nodce'equal to the NOTICE PERIOD. If RESIDENT fails b_gilre propel notice,
AAAPIAGEMEIV'T may a} extend fie Lease for one NOTICE PERIOD and b) raise the rent If RESIDENT stays in the Apartment alter ills iJATE
THiS LFJISE ENDS. wHh the apP~al of the hL4NAGEMENT, and RESIDEtT and hUWAGEMENT have notrenewed this. Lease orenlered in
to a ne+!+-lease; this Lease shall be extended under its original terms excelX a) the durationshalLtte champed io. monUrto-rttonth, and:b)
MATJ/~GEMENt' may raise the rent.
1T. Tt.R111NAT10N'ANDALTfxiATION OF MONTH-70~tONiH i.FASE: Wttan the lease is matiMto•mortth, MANAGEMENT and.RE51DENT may
tertrtinate the lca3e anfyby prying the other party written noCoe equal b the"NOTICE PERIOD. A rtotlce to.r;anpel a lease. is e$etftlve on"the
test dayof'the month. MANAGEMENT may change any of the terms of a month-to+rwntfi lease, inducting the amounfof rent, by giving
-RESIDENTwrlttennotica at least equal to the NOTICE PERIOD.
18. MOVWG OUT Of THE APARTMENT: RESIDENT vritl move outof tits AparbnentwhenfMS'Lease ends. 1f RESIDENT moves outafter this
Lease ends, RESIDENT wBl be liable b MANAGEMENT fa any resulting losse3 inducting rent, court costs and attorney s fees.
E. RIGIfTS t)F MANAGEMENT
19. EYICTION:if RESIDENT violates arty of the terms of this Lease, RESIDENT may tie evicted immadWtely and vdtiqut prior notice, ILRESIDENT
is evicted twt does not move out vduntertly, MANAGEMEt~fT may,bring em evitdion aUbrt. l1 RESIDENT vidatos a term. of this lease ttut
MANAGEMEtT does not sue or avid RESIDENT, MANAGEMENT may atiUsue or avid RESIDENT ~rany other violater or taint of Otis Lease:
Urtdersfate law, a lawful seizure from any Apartment d arty Utegal object or substance, fnduding:drugs, t~rtstifutes urYatvfulDossession of the
Aparbnemt by that RESIDENT, and is groundsforen automaticevkilon. In the event of an apprevetl unk'trartsfer, the transferritp RESIDENT
wpbs assessed a 5150:00 transfer fee.
2D- t:YtCT70N AFTER PART1Al PAYMENT OF RENT; It is expressly agreed to between MANAGEMENT and RESIDENT that, pursuant to
AtlrvMesota Statute 504.t}2, subd. 1(c), acceptance by MANAGEMENT of less than the full amount of renidue iron RESIDENT does not waive
MANAGE#AENT'S right to recover paasesslon of the rental premises for nonpayment by RESIDENT of balance of rent,awed:NVWPitiEAitENT.
2t, ATTORNEY'S:FEES AND"ENFDRCEMENT"COSTS: N tANJAGEMEtd'T brings arty legal action against RESIDENT, RESIDENT musipey
MANAGEMENT'S adualattomeys fees: or tracer legal fees and expenses Inducting fees paid to a collection agency, expenses, and court costs
aunt d rent b paid "after the IegaLaction is starred.
22. MANAGEMENTS; tilGifT T0"ENTER:"MANAGFJr1EAlT or.its authorized agents may enter Ne Apartment at any reeaonable time b inspect,
knprvve: maintain or repair file Apartment, or do other itecassary vAnc, or fo sturw Ins Apartment to potential new RESIDENTS or buyers.
23. MIWAGEMENT`S LEGAt,: RIGtiT5 AND REldED1ES: MANAGEMENT may use its legal rights and ramerbes in ary oomtrinatian. By usi6g arts
or more of itrese rights or remedies, MANAGEMENT does not glue uP any other rights or remtediestt may have. Aooeptance of rent dces clot
waive MANAGEMEtJ'T'S right to evict RESIDENT tor:any pasta existing violation of any farm of this Lease.
34. LEASE tS'SUBJECT' TO MORTGAGE: The Apartittetttbtdlding may tie mortgaged or may De sub)ed to a contract for deed. RESIDENT aigrees
that the riphb of the twirler of airy preser+ta future mortgage or coiitraa fa deed era superbr to RESIDENTS rights. For exaRrple if a nwrtgage
on-the ApaArtterlC trwldutg 3s'foreck>,ed: the person whodoredoses on the Apartrnant txa"Idinp rnay. at their option, tenninale:RESIDENT'S°Lease.
F. L1ABIli7'I OF RESIDENT AND MANAGEMENT
25. DAMAGE OR ]HJURY TD RESIDENT OR NISiHER PRDPERTY: MANAGEMENT i9.not:fESpgnslble for artytlartlege orfnjury titat is done;to
RESIDENT or trisRrerproperty, guests or Qteirpropertythatwes not caused Dy MANAGEMENT. AWNAGEMENT tacommeft~ that IESIDENT
obtain Renteratrtstrance to protect agakutlnf uHes a propertydamage.
yg: /1GTS L3F Tti1RD PART~Si #AANAGEMEt7T b rwf roypons'ble ~r the actions, or for arty darnagas, in)ury or harm caused by third parties (sudr
as other°residents„guests, intnrders or trespassing) who era not under MANAGEMENTS contrd.
2T. RESIDENT SHAIJ. REIMBURSE htANAGEMEttT FOR 1}Any loss, property damage, or coat d repairorseMCe (ndudfrg plumWng problems)
Dosed t>y rteglipance orlmproper use by RESIDENT, tilsRrer agents, famey o• guests: 2)arty loss ar damage caused by doors or windows being
Iefl open; 3) ag costs tdANAGEMEIJT has because of abandonment of the Apammantor other oblations of the Lease try RESIDENT; such as
coats fona0ver4sing the AparVrlents; 4) all wort costs and attorney's fees MANAGEMENT has in any wifforevidion, unpaid rent, or arty otiter
debts dtarge.
~: WHEN PAYMENT'S ARE DUE: Any amountavred by RESIDENT is due when MANAGEMENT asks for>IL MANAGEMENT doss notgive up ifs
right to,any money owed by RESIDF_N'f bacatrse of MANAGEMENTS faAure artleiaty lh asking forany payment: Iu1FiNi4GEMEN7 can ask for
arty moneyowed by RESiDENT before tx after RESIDENT moves wf ~ the ApeMlertt
G: MISCELLANEOUS.
"29. FALSE OR MISLEADING RENTAL APPLiCAT10N: H FANAGEMENT detamnines tlrafany oral or written statements made by RESIDENT in
tits roritat applkation or otherwise are noLfrue or wntplek In anyway, then RESIDENT tws viotated this lease:and lnay be evkded:
3p BUILDIIICs RULES AND ATTACHMENTS ARE PART OF IFA.SE; NOORAL AGREEMEtVT3: Any attadiments to tnls Lease are a part Of ihls
Lease. If a term ~ arty attadtment contticrs with anyltum of tt>is Lease, the attachment tatm will be controlling. MANAGENAENTS txliWing toles
are a pari of leis Lease, and MANAGEMENT may make reasonable changes in these rules at any tlrrre by giving RESIDENT wriCen rrotioe. No
ordl apreemutts have been made. This Lease and 1ta attachtrrertts andcry ofFier vrtitten agreements are the entire agreemalt between
RESIDENT and MANAGEMENT.
31: NOTtCES:AII fESIDENTS agree tlietnotioes and demands delivered by MANAGEMENT to the Apartrnent arelxoper:rlotioe to all iiESiDENTS,
and are atfeclive as soon as tieUvered to-the Apartrnenl
EMlfllQM1/EMT~ItL QU1tti.ITT RO~t~D
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,
Clea 20-558-2428
G~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 rtment complex. T roject will include
parks and wa a 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 EOB Monitoris also posted on the Environmental
Quality Board home page at www.mnplan.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 EAW 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)
~rr~{~ .rt ~ ~ :~
t • .. .!
-'
YY A
,.Y -. -
Y
C?(pZarao, _ rr' # .4r ~~`r`L~~.-s. ~~- ."fit ~ ~. k~ ~.a' 'a~ ..
l~ew Plan~ir~g '~'e~~>~~~~gy #'or a Better Future
VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1
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 suburban town centers 3
M 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-
opnient successes witli4land
developers, builders and pol-
icymakers, In the hope of
~ contrlbupng repllcable plan-
ninp_solutlptas for: today`s
bousing industry,problems;._
This Issue_highllghts Bevel-:.
opments that. are more effl-
cient to bulld, yet provide a
4etter quality of life through
a broad range of income ~lev-
eis. Small town warmth.: and
space are infused into_devel-
opment within a sprawl-sen-
spiv context:Items discussed
lnclude:ne~y land. use mod
els, distinctive suburban,
town. centers, smart subst3-
Lutes ftir landscape buffers,
berms and screenJng walls; -
the benefits of new planning
technology, and better.
optttins #or aiitegrating tom
merda] tvlth resIde~tial uses.:
'Govtag: A method of ptenning which utilizes a unique
meandering road pattern combined with non-standard unit
setbacla to add intcrcat.and create areas of extra open spaces
along the street, called 'Cows'. Coviag mathematically
tednecs linear tee[ at iafrastruetitre fhy 20% on average);.
Deasitygrnerally remains the same as conventioaalplan lay-
outs.
* Brtyhome Concept: An altcmative to both conventional and
peo-traditonal commuuitirs, the $ayhome Concept creates e
cotmcetcd, wamt neighborhood with apses and enhanced inte-
riorlexrerior views. Unlike traditional neighborhoods, upita
face<onto space (Hatted of sweet} and arc connected by watk-
waya. This is achieved while eHtting IiHtar fat of paving and
related ietra.5tructure by up:to 50^/0. Hayhomes arc single f"am-
t7Y detached homes with traditional-stytt architecture and also-
elation-maintained outdoor areas. TUe traditional aNey is
replaced with private drive atxesv throughout.
Economic volatility &
land development
FALL 2002
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. At 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-
six states have approved
RHSD communities-all of
which rely on new planning
technology (Cooing*, which
earned our firm the 1999
Professional Achievement
Award for Innovation in
Land Planning, Bayhomes*
and CND, a land use concept
described more fully later).
This year to date, we
planned an additional
10,000 homes. Our services
expanded from exclusively
private enterprise design
and planning, to include
municipal consulting.
Attendees of the 2002 Int'1
Builders show in Atlanta
gave our firm great reviews
on the educational seminar
we presented.
We had an
opportunity
to meet many
of you after-
wards and at
our Exhibit
Booth.
SiteComp,
our sister
company and
provider of
our high-tech
CDIS-based
®2002 RHSD, Inc. Coved Neighborhood @3 homes/acre conid on pg.2
~r ' ,
~~ ~.
ye
~
r
-v,
,rte 'h'~~t. ~....
- t~:
~
_~.
~, f
t
~' ~
'r~
~,s~ ~ r
..
'
., ~ ~
,.
PAGE 2 ~ IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE THROUGH NEW PLANNING TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1
RHSD •eeompllsM,enu
can'd hOm pp1
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 #1v1904 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
k~ . >:a
~_ r.. <
;a
Rg7M ~M!NV~44
tioNV~wrrto+w
Y IE tt 1~ q io 1 T I- O Nt
JliN101i1K' 2~-dit..~67
:,.t=f. ,u: u
li ,l
See Nelghborhoads .for the
Zlsl - Cen7irry at -our
$ooth#N1904- to the
TecHomExpo_ ® The 2Q03
Intemattonal 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 nowto sched-
ule afree booth consulta-
tion. Discover how to
irncrease your curb
appeal and accelerate
your absorption rate.
Bring upcorrtr~g proj-
ect plans K/e look for-
wa~ tv meering you
and. answerjng any
Q1ieSllOnS thal oUT earpe-
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.
• BuUt at walkable scale
• Street length is reduced (typically 2096) 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
toPob'mPhY
• 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 to showcase the 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.
eont'd next page
VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1 IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE THROUGH NEW PLANNING TECHNOLOGY PAGE 3
Three unique concepu 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
~..
_ ~ ~ -;, I ' e ~ - ----- - --j
~ n~"" ~ ~
~ ~ ~i _ _ -
.r
Y ,.
~,
piped in to compliment the ~- "~ ~ F
setting. In warmer weather, ~.R ~ _ - '^•
a fully digitized dancing ,~'~ ~_~.' ~ ~ ~~t
water feature, similar to the ~~ k~'~,.e~ ~
Bellagio in Las Vegas, will set ~" ` - ~
the atmosphere for nearby ~ -;~ _~~
diners and shoppers. High- ®2002 [tHSD, Inc. Mixed Use TownCenter
rise and mid-rise units over- the major arterial streets nic trail system.
look low-rise homes, to max- have been eliminated by the
inuze views. Potential con- use of buffers in the form of
flirts between .pedestrian generous, landscaped set-
and vehicular traffic along backs which contain a sce-
. .,
` ~i_
~ ,r'.
~~ ~.:.:
Y
~. Y ~. ~r
Cy. ° '~
r.~''S °~r .~ _ 'Std
Concept #2 High Tech Catalyst: Town Center Northwestern U.S.
This re-plan of a vacated airport site had many design town center to a high tech center with restaurants, a new
challenges. Geographic elements surrounding the site City Hall, high school and community recreation center.
were similar to the Bozeman, Montana region. After hear- The technology component will give the 700 high school
ing the city's concerns, the focus shifted from a traditional 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
~_~
,~r ary -
_ • _ - ~i `e ~ ;~,.,~....--..
~ __W__~__._
..e^:W ' •. , , :,. r vitality of the town's exist-
- ~ ~ " ' ~ ~ '~' ~ ing businesses on the "main
., + _ street" just a short stroll to
~*~ ~'
, ~ ~ the west. To keep develop-
-
„~,.
j
~~
~~ .. v ~
n •---~-
ment costs within reason,
""
-.~ _
-'~~°' (~--~ some of the existing airport
_ ~°' .,_~ ~;~~~ ~ infrastructure was pre-
~r, er served.A broad mix of hous-
i ~
~. ,~,~
= ing exists within a five
~~
~:~.~, minute walk from work
~'°;' ; r _
~
~ '~ places; all within a spacious
` `
~ • ~ ..
~` ` ~- setting. This center should
~
_ ----~ . _, ; ~__~ _.... ~ _ __._~ plant the seed for regional
~
_
t ~ economic growth.
®2002 RHSD, Inc. Mixed Uae Town Center @ ~~V
_...... I y ~i ..
.. .. ~..-
PAGE 4 IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE THROUGH NEW PLANNING TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1
Concept #3 Small Town Warmth with Space & Affordability: Heritage -Freeport, Bahamas
in: November of 2801,,
RHS>~ began design oFa.large
~,, . ,
master-plapnecl community.
for the~residents of Freeport,
$ah~m~s• `
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
housing, a new
Junior high
school,
local -_ ,
retail, neighborhood parks
and a linear park system
were all important to the
success of the plan.
However, given-the initial
pricing, the only way to
pay for the infrastructure
was to incnease 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-
ments of the orIgi-
nal plan, while
reducing the _
amount of a _ ,
~, ~ v a:
I
r:
i
_ ~,
'- _. .. _ - _ -7
- - : ..- . _ nn.
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
;a`'`- ~__ cos t
~~' , <~- ~r~~
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
c~mrtercial uses.
02002 RHSD, Inc.ll;iixed Use Community
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...
.~
'~-„-~
_~-
SY ~
~.-
is
~'. ~wt'~
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 plan to add connectivity mon to luxury communi-
Miller, of TJ Miller & and warmth, while reducing ties. The BayHomes will
Associates in Minnesota, road and utility infrastruc- compete price-wise with
brought his 66-acre site plan ture.This enabled the Bevel- less-attractive attached
to us, after experiencing dif- oper to gain additional housing in surrounding
ficulty in gaining project space and free up more communities, yet include
approval. The site is located funds for architectural both two and three car
in Isanti, a small community detail and landscaping. garage options.
half hour north of the Twin The developer, Brian The Villages' winding
Clties. Mr. Miller's land sale Iverson of Iverson Real boulevards and walkways
was contingent upon deliv- Estate Corporation, MN, also required complex design
Bring it with an approved had an architectural back- calculations that TEC
plan. It is quite common in ground, and soon began Engineering from Eau
the mid-west, to see aesthet- experimenting with space Claire, Wisconsin, handled
icallyplain, incompatable and views to produce an with ease, using CDIS tech-
development and -strip cen- exciting new moderately- nology. Their attention to
ters along the arterial streets. priced housing model. The detail and the design
Isanti's main problem was, in ensuing community offers nuances were critical in the
order to grow, it needed to 371uxury-style homes along engineering phase. Three
attract industry, and with the Rum River, 96 months after our initial
industry, it needed affordable BayHomes and 128 town- presentation to the city, the
housing. The developer's homes. The moderately- CND plan received final
main problem was the site's p r i c e d
location - a half hour drive
BayHomes _
- _
~ z ~ .~,~
beyond the city's edge. As and town- ' '_
much as Isanti needed hous- homes have ; .~ f.~_ ~~" G ~-
ing, it did not need more architectural r ~'
bland subdivisions. Within detail and ele- ~-- ~ ~~~'; _
days, we developed a CND ments com- ,
~~ r='
s - ~ _ . ~ r.
_ ..
..
---
~' ~ ~_
_._ ..
Original Plan
- ~~ ~ ~". .. ._ r .. tom. ._ _~,
8
_.
_~ ~w
:~
~'` - ~ ~
-J ~~ ~...
'.i'' ~
~W~W
a ~rA~
~.~ ~, __, _ - F
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.
. ~ ~';
oEp@ Fran N.Y E~uu fq
Bayhome Front
omm Iron Yr E,u. cdc
Bayhome Rear
»~ _:
BayHomes
CND Plan
VOLUME 4, ISSUE t IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE THROUGH NEW PLANNING TECHNOLOGY PAGE 7
In the 20th century, strip malls were .built with:
unsightly rear loading docks<that could have easily been
serviced ffom the front instead, or via internal truck
bays. Stringent loading dock ordinances .required exces-
sive setbacks and costly screening, Nea+v methods of
planning offer creative alternatives fwar transitioning land
uses that result in commercial elements being visually
irresistable to nearby residents.This elirninat,°s the need
'for expensive paving,..setbacks, walls, earth-mounds and
screening. Good architecture can create attractive rear
accesses that invite adjacent residents into the buiiclings.
The economic reality of good: design positively impacts
home values over time, creating stability and strengtlt for
the municipality.
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.
~'
:Make it iriresistabie!
- x -- _-
~; ~ s ~ . ~
9 _,
02001 RHSQ int.
8100 Wayzata Bivd
Minneapolis, MN 55426
Phone:763-595-0055
Fax:763-595-0080
Email: info@rhsdplanning.com
Please Note our
New ;~ rode To
Improving Quality of Life
through New Planning Technology
We're on the Web!
See
rhsdpianning.com
Rick Hazrison Site Design Studio began seven years ago as a design firm
dedicated to raising community living standards. Hazrison's prior 25-year
professional background spans the areas of land development, planning,
and specialized software development geared for engineers and surveyors
(this resulted in the SiteComp® CDIS software product).This unique com-
bination of tools and knowledge led Harrison to his aspiration of afford-
able, attractive housing for a-1. 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 affordable housing agencies.
Texas builder embraces new planning technology for Active Adult Community
Sitterle Homes under-
stands it takes origi nality 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 i
with recreational V
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
Y
other awards. But om.
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
~,
s , ~ c,
was reversed, as coving pro-
duced 23% less 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
_~it~, ~ in yield. "The
openness and
q~.=. beauty that cov
ing provides
should translate
~3 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
t ~
i _j ~ i, ,roc ^ :
! ~ ~ ~~'
` ~ ct~~ -~
,.
-~~1
-,,. t ...~- d ., " l -~
~.~ ~_ r..
~ Q
i ~Z '~ ~~
, ~ li~ ~~~,~ ~.w ~ f "~ ~ fi~sil~ tal.t~ ~ ~
a .~ ~ ~- ..~,UUNTY ROr+c. 2
}~ .onto ~ ~° ~ , ,a~
.. 3 . $ +v Jt ,,, ., r
/ ~ ~ '
' ~ ~~ V ii ~ S ~ p ~ ~
~ ~ J
` ir,;
~~•
jiDO , fJ w ~ t.f ~j • ~
~ 12500 iS7aJ ~ `yjv ~ ^...
- .
., ~ }..~3 ~ ~-- ( ' "'i~ _ ~'~,,... vim, i ~ t ... I ~^- r i. ~--
_ i
, a +r'
?' , ~ - ~
,.~ 7._,_. ~.r ...,. ~ ~....4,... _... ...... -_r ..~_ ~~ _ _ ~ ~
~~ ~ i
~.
i ti I J •-....~.. - ~ i
..
1. I
7~ '7
~ ry ~ ~°. '7
i - ;e.,,
11~-5-2008
From: Kipp L Dubow, Counsel, Graceview Estates Community
To: Mayor and City Council, St. Joseph Minnesota
Attn: Judy Weyren. s
PO Box 668
25 College Avenue North
St. Joseph, MN 56374
Re: Special Use Permit for Graceview Estates.
I. Introduction
Mayor and ladies and gentlemen of the St. Joseph City Council, my name is Kipp
Dubow. I am an attorney hired to advise and speak on behalf of the Graceview Estates
Coalition. My role is to discuss why the St. Joseph City Council should turn down the
proposed special use permit for Outlot A, Graceview Estates 2. The residents of
Graceview Estates know that the land in question is not going to lay fallow in perpetuity.
However, the developers did not follow the necessary procedures, and the residents of
Graceview should not be punished for the developer's lax practices. Further, Graceview
Estates residents will show that this development is not safe and that making it safe is too
expensive. Finally, the development does not fit the community. We ask you to deny the
SUP.
II. The City Counsel should deny the SUP and set aside the Planning Commission's
recommendation -because it does not conform to St. Joseph Ordinances and the
developers failed to follow proper procedure.
The City Council should deny the SUP because the developers never applied for the
appropriate permit -not in 2002, nor for the current development. First, no SUP permit
was ever issued in 2002. The-Commission r-eked on .a memorandum from the Gity
Attorney in determining that a "paperwork" error can/should not stop passage of the SUP
for 2002.1 The problem with the Commission's application of the City Attorney's opinion
is that the Commission only followed half of what the City Attorney said on the matter.
The City Attorney did suggest that the city may be limited in its ability to deny the 2002
SUP solely based on it's own failure to follow procedure.2 However, in the next section
of the memorandum the City Attorney clearly states that,
The [St. Joseph] Ordinance required two separate and distinct special use
permits for this development. First, to allow for mixed residential density.
1 Memo. form Thomas Javanovich and Lori L. Athmann, Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd., to Judy Weyrens,
Administrator City of St. Joseph, re S&H Development/Graceview Estates, 1-2 (September 24, 2008)
(Copy on file with City of St. Joseph).
z Id. at 2.
Second to allow 'for the construction of the apartment complex, a use permitted in
R-3 only under a special use permit. Even if the Planning Commission finds that
the PURD was for the entire 91 acres, the proposed development required two
separate special use permits. s (Emphasis added).
In other words-the Planning Comm-fission may have been correct that it could allow- the
developers to benefit from the phantom 2002 SUP. However, in order for the developers
to go forward with the construction of multifamily dwellings consisting of more than (12)
units, such as have been proposed for Outlot A, a new SUP which complies with the 2008
city ordinance must be applied for and approved. a No such application exists.
The absence of the second special- use permit application is based on the omissions of the
developer alone. Unlike the 2002 SUP, here there is no error on the part of the City. The
City Attorney's memorandum cited by the Planning Commission clearly stated that
complying with the 2008 ordinance was made necessary, by " ... the developer's own
failure to either substantially construct the multiple family dwelling units, or request an
extension, within the timeline established by the ordinance."5 Accordingly, in order to
grant the requested SUP the developers must now provide a full and detailed SUP
application that is far more detailed and stringent than a subdivision application form.6
The law demands that the Planning Commission, the City Council and the citizens of St.
Joseph be allowed to evaluate the developer's proposal based on the current Ordinance.
There is no `paperwork error' that can prevent that from happening.
III. The City Council should deny the SUP because the development does not meet
the standards for particular use set forth in S~ Joseph Ordinance 52, Conditional
Use Provision 2008.
T-he CtyCouncil cam and should turn down the-proposed special use permit. In 6rder to
qualify for a SUP a proposed development must meet the requirements of St. Joseph
Ordinance Section 52.07-5 by complying with 10 standards. This development does not
meet the requirements specifically as they pertain to safety, cost and character. Members
of Graceview Estates are educated professionals who worked long and hard to document
,exactly why_and how .or_dinance' ~ standards ;ire nor Ynet. The Cs~uncil will hear.from these
dedicated wives, husbands and community members during the open hearing.
A decision denying the special use permit will be legally and factually supported, and if
need be, will hold up in court. The community members of Graceview Estates will
provide specific examples of how the proposed development does not comply with the
standards required by the Ordinance. The vast majority of information documented will
address the negative impacts that the proposed development will have on the health,
3 Id. at 3.
4 See Ordinance Section SZ.29, 5ubd. (4)(e).
5 Memo. form Thomas Javanovich and Lori L. Athmann, Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd., to Judy Weyrens,
Administrator City of St. Joseph, re S&H Development/Graceview Estates, 4 (September 24, 2008) (Copy
on file with City of St. Joseph).
6 St. Joseph Ordinance Section SZ.Z9, Subd. 4(e) and Ordinance 13.
2
welfare and safety of community members. As a general rule courts are loath to substitute
their judgment for that of local government, especially when issues of public safety are
concerned. In order for a decision to be overturned a reviewing court would have to find
that the City Council acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.8 Generally a court will
make such a finding only if there are `danger signs' suggesting that a decision was based
on a deciding body's will rather than its judgment and that the body failed to take a hard
look at the problem at hand.9 The Community members of Graceview Estates will
provide the Council with substantial factual information allowing the Council to come to
the rational conclusion that the proposed development is unsafe, the community cannot
afford to make it safer and that it does not fit the character of the area. Accordingly, the
SUP should be denied.io
IV. In the alternative, the City Council should deny the current SUP application and
allow the developers to reapply once a second access road to County Road 121 been
completed.
The matter before this counsel is the approval of a special use permit. However, the
initial memorandum from the City Attorney dealing with this development discussed the
issue of rezoning. That discussion is closely analogous to the matter at hand. In that
memo the City Attorney comes to the conclusion that the City can turn down a re-zoning
application based on a number of still present conditions.' 1 The City Council could
choose to be guided by the options provided by the City Attorney and approved by the
League of Cities as to the Council's decision on the proposed SUP. If so the Graceview
Estates Coalition requests that this Council follow option four in Exhibit C and "[D]eny
the current application, but allow the Developers to reapply after construction of the
second access road to County Road 121 has been completed."lZ The construction of a
second access road goes a long way towards limiting the safety hazards accompanying
this development. Ensuring that the developers file an application is necessary because a
~ When considering decisions of a governmental unit involving judgment and discretion, the court will not
subsritute its judgment for that of the governmental unit. If the reasonableness of the action of the
governmental unit is "at least doubtful, or fairly debatable," the court will uphold the action. Willer v.
Foley, 317 N.W.2d 710 (Minn. 1982).
s The standard of review for governmental decisions is whether they were arbitrary or capricious. Carl
Bolander & Sons Co. v. Cit1~ of Minneapolis, 502 N.W ~d 203, 207 (Minn. 1993). If an agency's decision
represents its will, rather than its judgment, the decision is azbitrary and capricious. Id. A reviewing court
will intervene only where there is a "combination of danger signals [that] suggest the agency has not taken
a `hard look' at the salient problems and `has not genuinely engaged in reasoned decision-making."' Here,
Minnesota law requires an EIS "where there is potential for significant environmental effects" and "review
of the administrative record also reveals that the MPCA failed to consider the cumulative environmental
effects of the finishing sites." Pope County Mothers v. MPCA, 594 N.W.2d 233 (Minn. App. 1999).
9Id.
io Land use decisions are entitled to great deference and will be disturbed on appeal only in instances where
the municipality's decision has no rational basis. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids , 313 N.W.2d 409, 416-17
(Minn. 1981); Swanson v. City of Bloomington , 421 N.W.2d 307, 311 (Minn. 1988).
ii Memo. from Thomas Javanovich and Lori L. Athmann, Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd., to Judy Weyrens,
Administrator City of St. Joseph, re S&H Development, Exhibit "C" (August 20, 2008, updated September
5, 2008) (Copy on file with City of St. Joseph).
iz ld, at 5.
3
SUP application that conforms to the current Ordinance is not currently filed. Fairness
and civic justice demand that the developers come before their local government and
prove that their plan is safe, cost effective and a fit for the community. Just like any
resident of St. Joseph who wants to put up a deck.
V. Conclusion
Mayor and ladies and gentlemen of the City Council no one thinks that the land in
question is going remain in its current state forever. But this development is unsafe and
the community cannot afford to make it safer. The developers did not follow the
necessary procedures and the proposal does not fit with the character of the
neighborhood. The developers make two basic arguments in their favor. Neither of which
deals with the facts on the ground. First, they claim that no new SUP is needed and that
the Council's current actions are superfluous. This argument is legally tenuous at best as
myself and the City Attorney directly contradict it.13 At worst it represents an attempt to
procure special treatment based on stretched legal principals. Second, they argue that
noshing has changed since the original PURD was approved. In the case of the promised
and necessary second access road to County Road 121 the developers are correct nothing
has changed. As to the fact that the neighborhood roadways are already running over
capacity, two new daycares opened, dozens of children moved in and the housing market
collapsed -they could not be more wrong. The lives of the residents of Graceview Estates
are not lived in the murky minutes of a Council meeting held 7 years ago. The Council
will be presented with more than enough information about Graceview Estate's current
condition by way of facts, reasons and figures to deny the SUP. If this matter is indeed
headed for a courtroom St. Joseph should prevail if the Council bases its judgments on
the record as it will be developed. The owners of Outlot A have options. The area is
currently zoned for single-family residences. If the developers decide that Single-family
residences are not an appropriate risk at this particular time they can come back to the
Planning Commission, prove that their idea is safe, cost effective and a fit for the
community. In other words the developers should not receive special treatment. They
should have to follow the rules just like any resident of St. Joseph who wanted to add a
garage or an addition to their home in hopes of increasing its value.
The residents of Graceview Estates humbly request that this Council deny the special use
permit.
Sincerely,
Kipp L Dubow, Esquire
Counsel, Graceview Estates Community
4148 32nd Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55496
i3 Infra.
4