Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 [05] May 03May 3, 2004 Page 1 of 6 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, May 3, 2004 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair (Council Liaison) Gary Utsch. Commissioners: Bob Loso, Marge Lesnick, Jim Graeve, Mike Deutz, Kurt Schneider. Administrator Judy Weyrens. Others Present: Delyte Andreas, Dorothy Court, Janel Weisen, Andrew Berger, Tara Berger, Galen Keyes, Kevin Sura, Kay Lemke, Thomas Homan, Ann Reischl, Bob Reischl, Bruce Berghorst, Richard & Audrey Schroeder, John & Ilene Schroeder, Randy Bonnell, Rick Heid, S. Kara Hennes, Jerry Hasselbrink Approve Agenda: Lesnick made a motion to approve the agenda as presented; seconded by Loso and passed unanimously. Approve Minutes: Loso made a motion to approve the minutes of March 22, 2004 as presented; seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Public Hearing - Rezonina Request .Birch Street East: Chair Utsch called the public hearing to order and stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the rezoning of all property north of the east/west alley abutting Birch Street East between the north/south alley between College Avenue North and 1St Avenue NE and the north/south alley between 1St Avenue NE and 2"d Avenue NE. The property is currently zoned R-1. The request has been submitted by Why USA Realty, 1511 E Minnesota Street, St. Joseph, MN 56374. Deutz stepped down from his seat on the Planning Commission because of a conflict of interest with the possible rezoning of Birch Street. Kay Lemke of 33 Ash Street E spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. Lemke questioned the members of the Planning Commission about her desire to not have St. Joseph look like Division Street in Waite Park and St. Cloud. She also stated that she has some concerns about increased traffic and the effect on property values/taxes if the area is rezoned. Lemke also made the Planning Commission members aware of the fact that she did go around the neighborhood and asked everyone to sign a petition against the rezoning. She feels that St. Joseph should be a more friendly and welcoming City and there is already a lot of rental property and office space available in the City. Delyte Andreas of 29 E Ash Street spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. She stated that when she bought her house it was zoned R1 so he had the expectation that the neighborhood would remain residential. With the possibility of this area being rezoned from R1, Single Family Residential to 62, Highway Business, she is concerned about the possibility of increased traffic, noise, trash (if a fast food restaurant is brought to the area) and increased insurance rates. Mike Deutz spoke in support of the proposed rezoning. When the Comprehensive Plan was amended the long term plan indicated this area would be expanded for commercial growth. He is in favor of the rezoning because he feels that the lots are too small to develop without purchasing at least two lots. Deutz stated that in his opinion this is a step in the right direction for the City of St. Joseph. In regards to the residents being opposed to this rezoning, Deutz commented that when the City conducted the public hearing for the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, not one of these neighbors spoke against the future land use plan, which converted the area in discussion to commercial. Andrew Berger of 26 E Birch Street spoke in support of the proposed rezoning. Berger stated that he owns property in the area being disused and believes the conversion to B2, Highway Business is appropriate. Rezoning the area is a risk to him as a property owner, but he is willing to accept that. If the area is rezoned commercial and they can't sell their home for commercial use, they are stuck with a house that they cannot sell. However, if it is rezoned and they can sell their property, they can move on and it would be a step forward for them as well as the City. May 3, 2004 Page 2 of 6 Janel Weisen spoke on behalf of Why USA Realty. Weisen stated that she presented the initial petition requesting rezoning of this area. She stated that she represents the property owner at 38 Birch Street East who is in the process of selling her home for a commercial use. The proposed buyer intends to convert the home to office space which will not result in excess traffic or noise. In addition the business hours for the office space will be Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. Jerry Hasselbrink spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning. He stated that he represents the property owner of 103 Ash Street East whose property abuts to the south the area being discussed. Hasselbrink stated that he has many concerns with the negative affects the proposed rezoning will have on abutting property or the City itself. Hasselbrink stated that in his opinion, rezoning this property would conflict with affordable housing in three ways. 1. The future abutting homes will most likely become commercial; removing some of the most affordable housing stock. 2. Would make other affordable houses less livable. 3. Failure to protect neighboring housing values. Hasselbrink also stated that he feels that all those in favor of the rezoning are out there to make a profit. In his opinion St. Joseph accommodates a lot of commercial business and not enough affordable housing. The St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan indicates that the City offers a wide variety of housing options. The possible rezoning of Birch Street would eliminate a lot of possibilities for residents who are looking at affordable housing. As a City, St. Joseph should be trying to preserve our existing neighborhoods not remove them. In response to the comments made by Hasselbrink, Deutz stated that he doesn't agree with the petition because he feels if those signing the petition did not agree with the Comprehensive Plan, they should have been at the public hearing or meetings discussing the future land use plan. Again, in response to the comments made by Deutz, Lemke stated that when circulating the petition against the rezoning, she had with her the hearing notice. The petition is an indication of residents not supporting the conversion of the neighborhood. With regard to residents attending the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan, she thought some residents did appear. Andreas stated that the meetings are not at times that are accessible for all residents to attend. In her case, she had to take a day of vacation to be at this meeting as she works nights. Tara Berger of 29 Ash Street East stated that the area in discussion is not a place where you will want to raise children. Traffic and noise from County Road 75 make this area not conducive for children. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:28PM. Utsch stated that previously the Planning Commission considered this matter and the rezoning was denied. At that time the Planning Commission initiated the petition. The denial included a motion that indicated the Commission would consider rezoning petitions on a per lot basis. Utsch agreed that area being discussed contains small lots and unless developers were to buy multiple lots, a large development could not occur along Birch Street East. Loso agreed that the lots aren't very big and developers can be required to provide landscaping to buffer the adjacent area. Utsch acknowledged that the City did receive a petition in opposition to the rezoning and it will be come part of the file. However, at this time more than 50% of the property owners in the affected area have requested rezoning and the Ordinance allows for rezoning when such occurs. Lesnick stated that just like the other side of County Road 75, development along Birch Street would most May 3, 2004 Page 3 of 6 likely be a small business that would not generate more traffic for that area. Lesnick concurred that because of the size of the lots, development would most likely be small offices. Utsch commented that there is not an overabundance of industrial or commercial lots in the City and it is his opinion that the property being discussed is more sellable as commercial than residential. Graeve stated that it is his opinion that the area in question is a nice place for homes and he has concerns about the houses behind the property in question. Further, he stated that he doesn't see a need for developing both sides of Highway 75 as commercial and is opposed to the proposed rezoning. Loso made a motion to recommend the City Council adopt the following findings, approving the rezoning of certain property from R1, Single Family to B2, Highway Business. The motion was seconded by Lesnick. RESOLUTION OF FINDING The request of WHY USA to rezone of all property north of the east/west alley abutting Birch Street East between the north/south alley between College Avenue North and 15' Avenue NE and the north/south alley between 1~ Avenue NE and 2"d Avenue NE from the current R-1, Single Family to 62, Highway Business came before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing held on May 3, 2004. The hearing was requested by 50% of the property owners in the subject area. In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: Finding: The rezoning of the above described area is consistent with the St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan, and the City received a petition requesting the rezoning from over 50% of the property owners affected. Ayes: Utsch, Lesnick, Deutz, Loso, Schneider Nays: Graeve Deutz resumed his chair. Public Hearing -Ordinance Amendment, 54.18 Park Dedication Fees: Chair Utsch called the public hearing to order and stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider an Amendment to St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 54.18, Public Land Dedication. The proposed amendment would change the method of calculation for parkland from a percentage of the land value to a per lot fee. The request has been submitted by The Park Board. Bruce Borghorst, Chair of the St. Joseph Park Board spoke on behalf of the Park Board. Berghorst stated that the Park Board recently completed a survey with regard to methods for calculating Park Dedication Fees. Currently the City charges 10% of the land value or purchase price. This method is not equitable as the need for park is not based on the selling price of land, rather the population served. The area Cities charge a per lot fee using Census data and parkland per person as a basis for calculating such. Using the same formula as other Cites, the park dedication fees would increase and provide the Park Board with sustainable development fees. The proposed fees would not impact commercial or industrial development. Loso questioned whether or not this new method was addressed to the area builders. Weyrens stated that they have not been notified individually. However, the Central Minnesota Builders Association (CMBA) receives copies of all agendas and they did contact the City regarding the new fee. Weyrens stated that they indicated they were going to attend the meeting, but are not present. May 3, 2004 Page 4 of 6 Their being no one present to speak the public hearing was closed. Utsch stated that because of the differences in land values between developers, it would be more equitable to charge a per lot fee rather than a percentage of the land value. Loso concurred with Utsch and stated that changing the method would be consistent with the other area Cities. Utsch questioned whether or not a per lot dedication fee would be more or less than the current fee charged. Berghorst replied that in most cases the fee would increase. The only case it wouldn't is if a developer paid a inflated land price. Deutz questioned why the Park Board is requesting to change the Ordinance and if the motivating factor is that we have not reviewed or updated the fee. He further questioned what impact the new fee would have on current developments. Berghorst said that the Park Board reviewed the fee as the City of Waite Park just changed their methodology and completed an area analysis. The Park Board received a copy of the analysis and noticed that St. Joseph was collecting far below what other Cities collect. With regard to current projects, Weyrens stated that this would not affect any developments where a preliminary plat has been submitted. Lesnick stated that she believes the proposed method for calculating Park Dedication fees is more equitable and would assist the Park Board in developing and maintaining the existing and new Parks. Utsch concurred with Lesnick, but would like an opportunity to review the total development fees to make sure that the additional Park Dedication fee will not elevate the development price in St. Joseph. Weyrens recommended the Planning Commission meet jointly with the Park Board to review the proposed fee. Loso and Deutz stated that the local developers should be contacted for review and comment. Deutz made a motion to table action on the amendment to Ordinance 54.18, Park Dedication Fee until a time when the Planning Commission and Park Board can meet jointly. If members of the Building Community attend the meeting they will allowed to present additional information. The motion was seconded by Graeve and passed unanimously. Re-zoning, Foxmore Hollow: Utsch stated that the Planning Commission has previously considered the preliminary plat of Foxmore Hollow. The plat as presented included a mix of single family homes and multiple family. The original plan that was submitted for Foxmore Hollow included a 23 unit apartment complex. The neighbors objected to the height and size of the building. It was requested that the developers meet with the neighbors to discuss development alternatives and come back to the Planning Commission within 60 days. Since the public hearing, the Developers have submitted a revised concept plan. The plan is not detailed as it is costly to design a building and until the Developers are provided direction as to what is acceptable, they are submitting a general schematic As requested by the Planning Commission, the developers meet with the neighborhood on April 22,2004. According to Herges, the neighborhood meeting went like any other neighborhood meeting in which a developer would request to construct and apartment complex. The neighbors in the proposed area do not want apartment buildings. Herges stated that they aren't trying to ruin the neighborhood. Foxmore Hollow will be well managed and they will be better than the existing rental units already in the area. Herges stated in his opinion, the City needs to provide a place for multiple family and it makes sense to put them near other apartments. Linda Brown of Surveying & Engineering Professionals Inc, addressed the Planning Commission. She stated that she is the Engineer for the proposed Foxmore Hollow Addition and clarified that the plan before the Planning Commission is a compromise from the first plan. It was her understanding that the neighbors didn't like the height or length of the proposed building, so it was re-designed. Utsch responded that in his opinion the revised plan is 100% better that the previous plan, but additional detail is needed. Utsch further stated that Herges/Heid are simply asking the Planning Commission to give them May 3, 2004 Page 5 of 6 the same permission that was given to Sand Companies. Sand Companies presented a concept plan and the Planning Commission accepted the concept plan and denied the Special Use Permit until a detailed plan can be provided. Utsch stated that the Planning Commission needs to be consistent with their decision making process. Weyrens stated that the Planning Commission must decide if the area in question should be developed as R3. If so, then the Planning Commission should approve the rezoning request, but deny the Special Use Permit until the detailed plan is submitted. If the area should not be developed with R3, then both applications should be denied. Loso made a motion to recommend the Council deny the Special Use Request for Foxmore Hollow as the Planning Commission does not have sufficient information to approve a Special Use Permit. This Developer can re-apply for the Special Use Permit when the design plans are complete and the City will waive the hearing fee. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. The Commission continued to discuss the proposed rezoning of the outlot of the property known as Foxmore Hollow. Deutz stated that it is not his intent to approve a concept plan at this meeting. He agrees that the property should be developed as R3, but R3 does not have to mean apartment complexes. Townhomes are another form of multiple family developments. Deutz questioned if the zoning can be approved upon contingencies. Weyrens responded that zoning cannot be contingent as either it is suitable for multiple family or it isn't. The Planning Commission revised the R3 Ordinance to require R3 developments over 12 units to utilize the PUD process and make application for a Special Use Permit. This process allow the Planning Commission to enter into a development agreement that specifically identifies a project. The agreement would also specify a period of time for which the development must occur. Loso made a motion to recommend the City Council rezone Outlot A of Foxmore Hollow to R3, Multiple Family. The motion died for a lack of a second. Utsch again stated that the Planning Commission must be consistent with their decision making process and decide if the property being discussed, should in fact be developed with multiple family. He stated he is not stating that the Planning Commission must rezone the property, rather decide what is the best use for the property. Graeve questioned Herges as to what market the apartments are being constructed for and if they will be a form of student housing. Herges responded that the housing would be market rate and anyone call live in the units. The units will consist of a mix of two and three bedroom units. They will be similar to the existing buildings on CR 121. Deutz questioned the location of the holding pond and if it is feasible to construct two (2) twelve unit apartment buildings. Weyrens stated that the City Engineer is reviewing the drainage. The City is working towards regional ponds and it is anticipated that the projects for 2004 will drain to a central pond. If the central pond is not possible then the developer must receive approval from the County Engineer to drain to the ditch along CR 121. Weyrens stated that before the developer submits the application for the Special Use Permit, the drainage must be resolved. At this time the Planning Commission is considering whether or not the concept of two (2) twelve plexes is acceptable. Deutz reiterated that he is not opposed to the R3, but would like a more detailed plan. Loso made a motion to recommend the Council accept the findings of the Planning Commission and rezone Out Lot A of Foxmore Hollow from the current R1 to R3, Multiple Family. The motion was seconded by Schneider. May 3, 2004 Page 6 of 6 RESOLUTION OF FINDING The request of Bob Herges and Rick Heid to rezone Outlot A of Foxmore Hollow from the current R1, Single Family to R3, Multiple Family. In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: Finding: The rezoning of the above described area is consistent with the St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan. Finding: St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.29, requires the Developer to complete the PUD process and secure a Special Use Permit for R3 structures with more than 12 units. Therefore, the Planning Commission will have an opportunity to review the detailed plans before construction is approved. Ayes: Utsch, Lesnick, Deutz, Loso, Schneider Nays: Graeve Transportation Planning: Weyrens presented the Planning Commission with proposed transportation illustrations for the re-alignment of CR 2. She further stated that the City is in the process of seeking proposals for completing the transportation study for the location of Field Street. Proposed Housing Development: Weyrens reported that the Staff has meet with Rick Packer, the project manager for Arcon Development. Arcon is proposing to develop the Heim/Bechtold property as a PUD with a mix of single and multiple family. The concept plan submitted by the Developer was extremely dense and the Developer has been asked to change the concept to meet the requirements of the Ordinance. R4 Zoning District: Weyrens stated that while reviewing the zoning classifications for multiple family, it appears as though St. Joseph does not have a district that pertains to townhome or patio home development. Weyrens questioned if the Planning Commission would considering adding such. By consensus, the Planning Commission agreed to review and discuss adding an R4 Zoning District for the regulation of townhomes and patio homes. Adiourn: Deutz made a motion to adjourn at 9:15 pm; seconded by Loso and passed unanimously. ~.Gl ~/~ J dy eyr ns dmi istrator