Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout(2) MinutesNovember 3, 2008 Page 1 of 5 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, November 3, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Kathleen Kalinowski, Commissioners Ross Rieke, Mike McDonald, Mike Deutz, Mark Andersen, John Meyer and Dale Wick, City Administrator Judy Weyrens. Citv Representatives Present: City Attorney Tom Jovanovich Others Present: Margy Hughes, Tom Gustafson, Thomasette, Herman Gangl, Rick Schultz, Carol Jenkins, Sarah Pennings, Bradley Cobb, Sean Lathrop, Nelda Dehn, Donna Kellerman, Diane & Rex Tucker, Jeff Tesch, Mike & Nikki Klassen, Igor Lenznor, Linda Brown, Norm Cole Agenda: Andersen made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by McDonald and passed unanimously. Minutes: Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes of September 8, 2008 with minor changes as presented. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Deutz made a motion to approve the minutes of September 30 with minor changes as presented. The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes of October 13, 2008. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. S & H Development. Site Plan Review: Igor Lenznor approached the commissioners on behalf of S & H Development. Linda Brown, Bonestroo, was also present to represent the developer. She clarified the phasing plan for the project. • Phase 1 - 2009 1 apartment building and 1 - 4unit townhome • Phase 2 - 2009/2010 1 - 4unit townhome and 1 duplex • Phase 3 - 2010 1 apartment building Brown also clarified that the additional ingress/egress on the property owned by the College of St. Benedict is for emergency purposes only. Norm Cole, Cole Group Architects, was also present to represent the developer. He began by addressing the berming issue. He suggested the following: 1. 4' berm with a double row of 10' evergreen trees. This would create 14' vertical screening with a 15' width. 2. 4' berm with a fence and a single row of trees to create 14' vertical screening. 3. 6' berm with a double row of trees. He stated that this option is not aesthetically pleasing. McDonald questioned how far the berm would be from the curb to which he was advised it would be 15'. Rieke questioned the easement for the ingress/egress. Brown advised the commissioners that they are required to provide access for an emergency. Wick questioned the developer as to the setbacks for the townhome portion of the project based on the following: St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.30 subd. 7(h): Where more than one (7) principal use building is to be located upon the same site, the separation between buildings shall not be less than (40) feet. Lenznor stated that the townhomes have a 10' interior yard setback. To allow fora 40' between the buildings, they would need to connect the 4 plexes and create an 8 plex. Wick also questioned the floor area for the townhomes. Brown stated that, based on Ordinances, attached townhomes require a floor area greater than 12,000 sq, ft. The townhomes have an average square footage of 2,500/lot. Brown added that they will be a 17,000 square foot common space. November 3, 2008 Page 2 of 5 Sf. Joseph Code of Ordinance 52.30 subd. 7(k) states "provisions for shelter in the event of severe weather for each dwelling unit shall be demonstrated either in the form of the construction of a free- standing severe weather structure, a reinforced concrete safe room within each dwelling unit and/or basement/crawl space sufficient to house four (4) adults per dwelling unit". Lenznor stated that the units will contain a safe room; however the actual layouts for each unit have not yet been designed. There has been much discussion regarding the future access to CR121. McDonald stated that the emergency access does not meet the requirements for the second access. He added that the City has the right-of-way for Field Street. Lenznor stated that, in 2002, the original developer dedicated 60' of right- way for the future road as well as paid afee/acre for the developer's share of the corridor. Wick corrected him and stated that that money was for the connection to CR121 on Callaway. The future roadway "Field Street" has not yet been dedicated or platted and it is a federal appointed corridor. Brown stated that the developer was not aware that they were responsible for the second connection to CR121. Rieke questioned the purpose of the special meeting that was held by the City Council and the City Attorney. Wick stated that the meeting was called by two of the Council members and they met to review the process for the proposed development. Jovanovich stated that the City allowed for the development of the 91 acres with the requirement that they have two ingress/egresses to CR121. Callaway was to be constructed along with the first phase. Brown stated that there are currently 3 accesses to Graceview: 4th Avenue, Callaway and the temporary road along 7th Avenue. Meyer added that the Developer Agreement stated that there shall be two east/west connections to CR121 at the majority of build-out. He then questioned what is considered to be the majority of build-out. Brown stated that there are several phases yet to be developed within Graceview Estates. Weyrens presented the commissioners with a map showing what has been platted so far. Meyer questioned who is responsible for pay for the construction of Field Street. Weyrens stated that the commissioners need to make a decision on the following: • Berming issues Issues relating to the multi-family and townhome development • Transportation issues With respect to the berm, Deutz questioned why it is shown as being flat on top. Cole replied that they are shown as flat on top to allow for the planting of trees. He questioned what the commissioners would like to see. Meyer suggested that, near the parking area, they consider a vinyl fence or a retaining wall. Lenzner stated that a retaining wall requires more maintenance and a vinyl fence would be more economical. Cole added that they suggested a 4' berm as it would hide the headlights. Wick stated that he was in favor of the fence; whereas, Andersen stated that the retaining wall would look better and he would rather not have the berm. The commissioners came to a consensus that they would like to see a 4' berm with an 8' fence to include a single row of trees on the berm, 12' from center along the length of the parking lot. Weyrens questioned the commissioners as to whether or not they have any suggestions or changes for the multi-family section. She questioned Cole as to the landscaping near the townhomes. Cole stated that they plan to plant evergreen trees. They were not planning to construct a berm, rather plant trees as shown on the landscaping plan. Wick questioned the lighting on the building. Deutz stated that they intend to construct the buildings in phases and questioned whether or not they should be required to have consistency. Weyrens stated that they should require the exteriors to be consistent to which Cole stated they planned to have similar styles, etc. Previously, there were some questions relating to the setbacks in the townhome portion. Jovanovich stated that there are some discrepancies in the Ordinance with respect to the interior setbacks. The commissioners added that the developer must meet the requirement for the storm shelter in each unit. The commissioners then discussed the transportation issues and the future access to CR121. Lenznor stated that Graceview Estates 2 was constructed after the original access to CR121. He questioned when the 2"d connection was discussed. Jovanovich suggested that the commissioners not allow any future November 3, 2008 Page 3 of 5 development until the future access is constructed. Meyer questioned who would be responsible to pay for the connection. According to Jovanovich, the City would not be responsible, rather the developer. They would then be able to make an agreement which would state that they would be reimbursed for some of the costs as development occurs. Deutz stated that the property owned by the College of St. Benedict will not be developed any further. He was also under the impression that the City was going to receive federal funds to pay for the construction of Field Street. Weyrens advised Deutz that currently there are no federal funds available to pay for the construction of Field Street. Lenznor spoke to the commissioners again regarding the need for the 2"d access. He stated that, previously, the City Engineer made a decision that there is adequate access without Field Street. Since then, he has not heard otherwise. McDonald clarified that there is adequate access for today, but not for full build-out of Graceview Estates. Jovanovich stated that there has always been talk of a 2"d access. He questioned whether anyone has done a traffic study to calculate the additional traffic due to the development. Wick stated that they have been presented with traffic projections. According to McDonald, there is more traffic along 4t" Avenue and Callaway as people use that route as a short-cut to go to the new Kennedy School. Wick questioned the possible approval of the site plan and whether or not they can make it contingent upon a review of the traffic patterns before phase 3. Jovanovich stated that it would be better to approve phases 1 and 2 and deny phase 3 until future traffic studies are completed. Jovanovich questioned the commissioners to how much traffic both Callaway and 4t" Avenue were built for. Brown stated that all of this information was studied in 2002. Deutz advised Srown that it was discussed as the developer donated 60' for the additional access. According to Brown, it was discussed, but it was not a contingency for the development. With respect to the screening along the southwest portion of the development, Rieke questioned why there were no trees shown. Brown stated that there were no trees, nor a berm, shown due to the location of the gas line. Rieke suggested that a fence be constructed along the property lines of the lots to the south (lots 6, 7, portion of 8). It is a consensus of the commissioners that 2"d access will need to be constructed. Wick suggested that the traffic pattern be reviewed prior to the construction of phase 3. Meyer stated that phase 3 may not trigger the need for the 2nd access, rather the development of additional single-family homes, may trigger it. Deutz then added that the construction of the senior housing may trigger the need for the additional access. McDonald questioned who will pay for the construction of Field Street. He questioned why the developer would be held up if the City cannot make a decision as to the location of the corridor. According to Weyrens, 7t" Avenue will be constructed as an emergency access. According to Deutz, the developer has an aggressive plan for build-out of the proposed development. He questioned whether or not the City should give them a date for completion in the event that it takes longer due to economic constraints. Jovanovich added that if they are given a completion date, they can request an extension, if necessary. Brown stated that the proposed timeline is approximate as development is determined by the economy. Weyerns clarified that the commissioners want to place the following contingencies on the site plan: 1. Landscaping: On the north side, there will be a 4' berm with a single row of evergreen trees placed 12' on center along with an 8' vinyl fence. On the east, there will be landscaping as presented on their plans. On the west, there will be a 3' berm with a double row of evergreen trees. 2. Exterior: The buildings will be constructed with a unified design schematic for color and material types. 3. Phase 3: Along with the construction of the second apartment building, there will be a vinyl fence constructed along lots 6, 7 & a portion of lot 8. 4. Townhomes: Each townhome will be designed to include a severe weather structure. 5. Connection to 7'" Avenue: The temporary connection to 7t" Avenue will be constructed at 22' wide as shown on the plans. November 3, 2008 Page 4 of 5 6. Timeframe: The developer will have until December 31, 2010 to complete development or request an extension. Jovanovich advised the commissioners that they have two options: 1. Approve the site plan for all three phases 2. Approve phases 1 and 2 and deny phase 3 until a traffic study is complete. There was some discussion about the future traffic concerns. Meyer stated that a traffic study should be conducted prior to the construction of phase 3 or prior to the development of another outlot in Graceview Estates. McDonald stated that the development of the proposed senior housing would also create the need for a traffic study. The traffic study should be based on actual traffic data. 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 7m Avenue will be constructed. The connection will consist of a 22' bituminous rural road section as proposed by the City Engineer. November 3, 2008 Page 5 of 5 East/Vllest 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. Agreement: The Developer shall execute a Development Agreement outlining the project detail and developer obligations and responsibilities of the City. Discussion: Rieke stated that eventually there will be a need for a second connection to CR121. Lenznor stated that the City should look at traffic counts prior to holding off the construction of Phase 3. According to McDonald, there is a need for the 2"d connection prior to full build-out. Lenznor stated that the developer is not agreeing to pay for any future connections. Deutz questioned whether the phase 3 portion will be platted or shown as an outlot. Weyrens stated that it will be replatted. The motion was seconded by McDonald. Ayes: Kalinowski, Deutz, Rieke, McDonald, Meyer Nays: Andersen, Wick. Motion Carried 5:2:0 Revised Findings of Fact -McDonald: McDonald stated that when he presented his findings of fact for the approval of the Special Use Permit, his intent was to be as factual as possible. He has since then prepared more factual findings which he would like to have presented to the Council at the Public Hearing. Rieke made a motion suggesting that a letter from staff with the revised findings be submitted to the Council for public comment. The motion was seconded by Deutz. Discussion: Wck stated that it should not come from the Planning Commission as an official document. McDonald stated that he is disappointed in his first draft of the findings and feels these are more accurate. According to Wick, neither set is accurate. Jovanovich stated that the commissioners can submit the findings as a group or as individuals to have them part of the public record. Rieke stated that the Council will need to have separate findings for the approval or denial. According to Deutz, the Planning Commission cannot give the City Council enough information to help them make this decision easier. Ayes: Kalinowski, Deutz, Rieke, McDonald, Meyer Nays: Wick, Andersen Motion Carried 5:2:0 Adjourned: The meeting was adjourned by consensus. Judy Weyrens Administrator