Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 [07] Jul 12July 12, 2004 Page 1 of 8 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, July 12, 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. Administrator Judy Weyrens. Others Present: City Attorney, Tom Jovanovich, City Engineer(s) Joe Bettendorf and Tracey Ekola, James Fredricks, Steve DeCoster, Tom Matthews, Sue Palmer, Jamie Thelen, Jim Sand, Richard Hennings, Leland Mann, Jerry Barrels, Mary Schroden, Tom & Jane Lowell, Marilyn Ruhr Approve Agenda: Lesnick made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Graeve and passed unanimously. Approve Minutes: Loso made a motion to approve the minutes of June 7 and June 21, 2004; seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. Public Hearing -Interim Use Permit -Brian Shields: Chair Utsch called the public hearing to order and stated purpose of the hearing is to consider an Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental in an R-1, Single Family Zoning District. The property is legally described as Lot 004 Block 001, Hollow Park. The property is located at 321 Cypress Drive. The request has been submitted by Brian Shields, 321 Cypress Drive, St. Joseph, MN 56374. Brian Shields spoke on his own behalf. He stated that he purchased the home two years ago and he would like to continue renting the home to assist with the house payment. He further stated that since he has owned the property he has made improvements to the both the outside and inside. Bill Elftering of 329 Cypress Drive spoke in opposition to the proposed Interim Use Permit. He stated that in his opinion there is enough nuisance rentals in that area already. He stated that he has been trying to inform the City that Shields has been renting without a permit for a while and nothing has been done. Now, all of a sudden the City is allowing him to make application for a rental license. Elfering stated that he does not feel sorry for Shields. If Shields needs to have renters in order to be able to afford the house he should have thought about the payment before he bought the house. Their being no one further to testify, the public hearing was closed. Utsch questioned if their have been any complaints for Ordinance violations on the property described above. Weyrens stated that she is not aware of any police complaints. Loso stated that since there are four (4) parking spaces Sheilds should be granted the Interim Use Permit. Utsch stated that if the Interim Use Permit is granted, this is to be looked at every year. If there are any problems, it will not be renewed. He also stated that he is comfortable with allowing three unrelated tenants. Shields questioned if his girlfriend would be considered one of the three tenants. According to Utsch, she would be considered a tenant because she is not family. Shields stated that when he bought the house, his realtor told him he could four renters beside himself living in the house. He also said that he is renting the house to afford the house payment. Utsch stated that he doesn't know what realtors are telling homebuyers, but that is not how the Ordinance is written. Loso made a motion to recommend the Council approve the Interim Use Permit for Brian Sheilds, 321 Cypress Drive, allowing an owner occupied rental unit. The IUP is conditioned upon the following: 1. The rental license in non-transferable and if the property is sold or the ownership changes so that the aforementioned no longer owns a 50% or greater interest in the property the Interim Use Permit is null and void. 2. Occupancy is limited to 3 unrelated persons with Shield being one of the three. 3. Approval of the Rental Housing Inspector July 12, 2004 Page 2 of 8 4. The Planning Commission will review the license annually and revoke the license if the property is in violation of the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances. The motion was seconded by Graeve and passed unanimously. Public Hearing -Special Use Permit -College of St. Benedict, Presidential Residence: Chair Utsch called the public hearing to order. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the issuance of a Special Use Permit to allow the construction of a Presidents Residence in an Agricultural Zoning District. The request has been submitted by the College of St. Benedict, 37 College Avenue South, St. Joseph, MN 56374. Jim Fredricks ,Facility Management Director, and Jon McGee, Vice President of Planning, Research, and Communications, spoke on behalf of the College of St. Benedicts. McGee discussed some of the reasons as to why this Presidential Residence is so important to the College. He stated that the College has had considerable growth in the past 30 years, with the College of St. Benedict being a premier Catholic Liberal Arts College ranking among the top 100 Liberal Arts Colleges. The presence of the President living near the campus is a great opportunity for the College. The new President is the first lay president in the past 30 years to live in St. Joseph. The College would like for the President to be a more present in the community. Fredricks stated that the College is looking to build a residence for the President, which will be constructed on approximately four (4) acres. The structure will be asingle-family dwelling and hospitality center. The exterior materials as well as the landscaping will be consistent with those of the College. The residence will abut the Field Street right-of-way; however, when Field Street is constructed the access to the residence will be relocated. Fredricks stated that the architect is working on the drainage, parking, utilities and location of a fire hydrant. Previously, the Planning Commission has reviewed this matter at which time it was recommended the College make application for rezoning to change the zoning classification to R1, Single Family and requested the entire parcel be platted. It was originally thought that the property is question was one parcel. However, after review of the property, it was discovered that it is in fact two parcels. As a result, it would be possible to rezone just one parcel as R1. Based on the concept plan submitted by the College, the parcel in question is proposed to be used for soccer fields and the president's residence. If the parcel was rezoned as R1, the use of both the residence and the fields could be addressed through the Special Use process. The College is looking to have this property zoned E & E rather than R1. The Planning Commission is being asked to determine two things: whether or not the use is a permitted use in the Agricultural District with or without a Special Use Permit and whether or not allowing this development in said zoning district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There being no one wishing to testify, the public hearing was closed. Utsch stated that as he reviewed the permitted use and uses under Special Use, he would classify the President's Residence similar to that of a Bed and Breakfast. Utsch stated that he does not deem it appropriate to allow the proposed development in an Agricultural District as the use should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that use is Residential. Therefore, development of this property should include rezoning to R1. Loso stated that he is in agreement with zoning this area R1 with a Special Use Permit. City Attorney Tom Jovanovich stated that the College has the opportunity to plat the both parcels into one or plat only four acres. Fredricks stated the subject property is a 35 acre parcel and that the residence only sits on 4 acres. Jovanovich stated that there should be no problem rezoning the subject property is as R1 and platting only four (4) acres. Weyrens stated that platting typically takes two months to complete. Therefore, rezoning the property to R1 as a whole would be a quicker process. July 12, 2004 Page 3 of 8 Utsch questioned Fredricks as to how the remaining property will be developed in the future. Fredricks stated that there are no immediate plans to develop the remaining property and it may be three to five years before development occurs. If the College had to project what would develop on the remaining property, it would be a combination of housing and academic buildings. it would be about 3-5 years before the rest of the parcel is developed. Jovanovich responded that the Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property as residential and the projected development is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Fredricks responded that since there are no concrete plans for developing the rest of the area at this time, it would best to keep the area as Agricultural and allow for a Special Use Permit to build the residence. Utsch concurred with Jovanovich and stated that for the property to be developed as requested on Agricultural Zoned property, the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended. Jovanovich stated it is hard to classify the use as residential or institutional, however if the intended use is residential then the property should be zoned appropriately. Therefore it would be best to deny the request for a Special Use allowing for an expanded residential facility in an Agricultural District for the following reasons: Finding A: Determination of appropriate zoning. The subject property is currently zoned Agricultural. Finding: St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.26 Subd 1 states the intent of an Agricultural District is to provide for very low density residential development for persons desiring a rural life-style. The proposed development is not rural in nature. Finding B: Consistency with the St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is located in Planning District 8. Finding: The recommendation for future land uses within District Eight include the following: Single Family Development, Mixed Density Residential Development adjacent to 95tH Avenue, Fourth Avenue SE and CSAH 121 and Planned Unit Developments. Development must be consistent with the intended long range plan, therefore R1 Zoning is required. Finding C: Standards for granting a Special Use Permit. Finding: St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 Subd 31e1 which states that the Special Use Application should be harmonious with the general and applicable specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Development of property zoned Agricultural in Planning District 8 is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan which calls for residential development. Finding D: Reconsideration for rezoning. Finding: As the subject property is guided for single family development, the city would reconsider the application for Special Use if the property is rezoned to R1, Single Family. Attorney Tom Mathews spoke on behalf of the College and stated that he feels they have followed the procedures outlined in the Ordinance and believes they have the ability to construct the residence in an Agricultural Zoning District without securing a Special Use Permit. Utsch stated that the College was informed of the requirements as they were conveyed to the College at the last Planning Commission meeting. July 12, 2004 Page 4 of 8 Graeve questioned if this is a matter that needs to be resolved between the City Attorney and legal counsel for the College. Jovanovich stated that in his opinion the proposed use is not a single family structure and does require the issuance of a Special use Permit. Jovanovich clarified that on the plans submitted by the College it is stated that their will be public facilities within the structure, thus it is not a single family residence. Fredricks disagreed with Jovanovich and stated that the proposed residence is a single family dwelling with large gathering spaces. The facility will be the living quarters for the President. Jovanovich again clarified that the proposed use does not fit with the permitted residential uses in an Agricultural District. Further, according to the Comprehensive Plan, this area is to be developed residential. To allow for this to remain Agricultural with a Special Use, the City must first amend the Comprehensive Plan. Due to the fact that there are no immediate plans for the rest of the land, this could be zoned R1 and the Planning Commission and City Council would have the ability to use their discretion for a Special Use Permit in the future. Graeve stated that the Commission would like to see this Presidential Residence built and have the President living in the City; however, the use must meet City requirements. Matthews questioned if there would be a need for a Public Hearing to rezone this property as R1 and if so when it could be scheduled. Weyrens stated that a public hearing would be required for the rezoning and the platting. However, the process can be done simultaneously and can be scheduled for the end of July. Utsch made a motion to recommend the Council deny the Special use request of the College of St. Benedict to construct an expanded Single Family residence in an Agricultural District. Denial is based on the findings A-D identified above. The motion was seconded by Loso and passed unanimously by those present. Preliminary Plat Morningside Acres -Sand Companies: Chair Utsch called the Public Hearing to order and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a preliminary plat for Morningside Acres. The proposed plat is located south of St. Joseph Township Hall, adjacent to County Road 121 and contains 30 single family lots, 32 town homes and 18 patio homes. The proposed plat has been submitted by Sand Companies, 366 S. 10'h Avenue, Waite Park, MN 56387. Weyrens reported that previously, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing for the rezoning of Morningside Acres as well as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to allow for R3 zoning in Planning District 13. On April 1, 2004, the Council accepted the recommendations of the Planning Commission and amended the Comprehensive Plan to allow for R3 in the Morningside Acres Addition as well as rezoning the property as a mixed use of R1 and R3. The process also included a review of a concept plan. During review of the Preliminary Plat, it was determined that a number of variances will be required, with the majority of the variances on design standards. Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot approve the preliminary plat at this time, but can conduct the public hearing and close the same if the variance requests area acceptable to the Planning Commission. Weyrens stated that the information presented to the Commission includes the responses from the City Enginner, Attorney and Building Official. Jim Sand and Richard Hennings represented Sand Companies. Hennings stated they have reviewed the comments from the City consultants and offer the following responses: ENGINEERING ISSUES SAND COMPANIES RESPONSE How will sidewalk be constructed from They do not feel that they are responsible for the 295th Street to Iverson Street along CR construction of this sidewalk. Bettendorf stated that there 121? should be a sidewalk provided. So they will need to work on deciding who will pay for this July 12, 2004 Page 5 of 8 Will the accesses into multiple family site They will be private drives, so there will be no public be considered private streets or infrastructure and no street names. Utsch stated that the driveways? Two additional accesses from Fire Chief has given them the okay for the hammerhead to the multiple-family lots onto Iverson Street allow for emergency vehicles. may be considered to in order to provide better access for emergency vehicles into the multiple family site. Turn lanes on CR 121 shall be coordinated Sand Companies has not received a response from the with Stearns County Highway Department. Stearns County Engineer regarding approval of the plat. According to Bettendorf, Stearns County has indicated that they can repaint the street for a turn lane and a center turn lane would not be needed. However this has not yet been formalized by Stearns County. Buildings with elevations over 1130 may Only two lots will be affected by this. They will not be require pressure booster tanks to be guaranteed water pressure over 401bs. Bettendorf stated installed for adequate water pressure that they would need a booster tank in the house to give them adequate water pressure. stormwater pond setback requirement of The Ordinance requires 100' setback but buildings are only 100' is requested to be reduced to 50'. 50' from the pond. Bettendorf stated that he is okay with a Pond site conditions are conducive to allow 50' setback from the pond. Sand Companies will make this setback reduction. application for a variance. Revise typical cross section to provide 2" The Civil Engineer will work on this. This will be used base instead of 1 '/2" base. mainly for construction. Per the soils report, if subgrade is not Can be addressed during construction. capable of passing roll test, replace 12" aggregate base with geotextile, 18" select granular, 6" aggregate base. Warranty issues? Will the entire wetland located in the This decision will be made by the wetland Board. northwest corner of the plat be mitigated? If not, what is the extent of the mitigation? The multiple-family lot driveways do not The storm water will be drained into storm sewers which meet the 75' setback from wetlands. will be routed to the stormwater pond. Sand Companies However, this could be permitted if the will make application for a variance. improvements include curb, gutter and storm sewer, and surface water runoff from the pavement is routed to the stormwater pond. Access to Lot 2 Block 1 and Lot 1 Block 2, These lots will be maintained. Morningside Acres shall be maintained during the construction of utilities and street improvements for Morningside Acres Second Addition. The driveway location for Lot 1 Block 1 The driveway will be as far away as possible from 121. shall be on the east side (adjacent to the easement alon the east ro ert line in July 12, 2004 Page 6 of 8 order to allow a reasonable setback from the 103~d/Iverson intersection). BUILDING OFFICIAL SAND COMPANIES RESPONSE Lot Size Compliance Single Family lots meet the minimum lot size and minimum design standards Wetland and Wetland Mitigation - It Sand Companies has made application with Stearns appears as one single family lot will not be County Environmental Service to fill the wetland. The buildable due to the existing wetland. application is pending with approval anticipated on July 21, 2004. Visitor Parking - Is adequate parking Each townhome will have double garage and driveway. available. Therefore 2 visitor parking spaces are available. This has not been an issue in previous developments in adjacent communities. Address -Must be visibly displayed Each building will be identified with a monument sign and clearly visible. Fire Access -The private driveways are The plat has been resigned providing a turning radius. This long and the fire vehicles will be required to has been approved by the Fire Chief. back out a considerable distance. Density Calculations -The original plans Additional information has been provided verifying that the did not provide enough information to density is consistent with the requirements of the St. determine if the property met the Joseph Code of Ordinances. standards. Grading plans must include an elevation at The plans will be amended to include the requirement. each corner establishing the building grade. CITY ATTORNEY SAND COMPANIES RESPONSE Setbacks - IF developed as a PUD, the R3 portion exceeds the maximum allowed. The Plat can be submitted without use of a PUD thereby this requirement has no impact. Park Dedication Fee -The developer Sand Companies is requesting relief from the Park proposes to waive a portion of the Dedication Fees to provide affordable housing. City dedication fee or offset the dedication fee contributions for Tax Credit applications are looked upon with decorative lighting and sidewalks. favorably. Lighting is not a park use and relief of dedication fees should not be considered for this. Utsch made a few comments after hearing all of the information provided by Sand Companies and the consultants: 1. Preliminary Plat - He stated he is not comfortable with the plat; however, he could not approve the plat until the Stearns County Environmental and the Stearns County Engineer submit their comments. July 12, 2004 Page 7 of 8 2. 10' Rear yard setback -This setback is required as the plat is not being developed as a PUD. He has no problem with this, however he stated that it must be dealt with correctly and go through the right channels. 3. Sidewalk - He stated that it in his opinion the sidewalk in the development is part of the developer's responsibility and the sidewalk along CR 121 should be a City responsibility whereby Park Dedication fees could be used. Lesnick stated that in her opinion the Park Dedication fee should not be applied to internal sidewalks or decorative lighting. Further, the Ordinance requires connection to the park system and this plat should not be excluded from that requirement. Loso stated it is opinion that the Park Board has final authority over use of Park funds and this authority is granted through Minnesota Statute. The Park Board has previously requested this connection and it should be required. Utsch clarified that the Ordinance gives the City Council discretion in requiring connection to the trail system. However, if the Park Board has final authority then it will need to be addressed. The City Attorney will research the authority of the Park Board and report back to the Council. Sand questioned whether the preliminary and final plats could be approved at the same time. Utsch said that they could not do both at the same time. Jovanovich stated that the process could be expedited if all the outstanding issues were resolved and the Developers Agreement was ready for execution. Jamie Thelen ,President of Sand Companies, spoke in regard to affordable housing portion of the plat. Thelen stated that Sand Companies is seeking financing assistance through the Tax Credit Program. The program is very competitive and the application requires a letter of support from the City. The letter of support must indicate how the City is a partner in the project. Thelen presented a proposed letter which indicates the City is supportive of the project and has allowed increased density, waived development fees (park dedication), allowed for flexibility of the Ordinance and agreed to fast tracking of permits. After considerable discussion it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the City Council must authorize the letter of support and referred the matter to them. Loso made a motion to table the action on the Preliminary Plat until the City receives letter of approval from the Stearns County Engineer and Stearns County Environmental services. The motion is further tabled so that a public hearing can be scheduled for the required variances. The motion was seconded by Graeve and passed unanimously by those present. Graeve made a motion to table action on the Special Use Request to construct the Multiple Family units until the Planning Commission can conduct the required variance hearing. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously by those present. Other Matters Scheduling of Special Meeting: Weyrens requested the Planning Commission schedule a Special Meeting to consider the following: • Foxmore Hollow -Variance, Preliminary Plat, Special Use • Morningside Acres -Variance, Preliminary Plat, Special Use • College of St. Benedict -Rezoning and Preliminary/Final Plat The Planning Commission agreed to schedule a special meeting for July 26, 2004 at 7:00 PM. Arcon Development: Graeve suggested that with pending Arcon Development, the City consider how the Sauk River will be protected and invite interested persons/groups to a meeting. Graeve suggested the following groups be included in the planning process: St. Joseph Planning Commission; St. Joseph City Council; St. Joseph Township Planning Commission; St. Joseph Township Board; Pollution Control Agency; Watershed District; Stearns Environmental Services. Weyrens responded that the majority of the July 12, 2004 Page 8 of 8 agencies listed have already had input in the environmental review process and are aware of the extent of the development. Adiourn: Lesnick made a motion to adjourn at 8:45; seconded by Graeve and passed unanimously. J dy Wey~fen dmi istrator G~~~ad