Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 [07] Jul 02July 2, 2007 Page 1 of 3 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, July 2, 2007 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Bob Loso, Sr. Kathleen Kalinowski, Mark Anderson, Jim Graeve, AI Rassier, Mike Deutz. City Administrator Judy Weyrens. Others Present: Sue Palmer, Mike McDonald, Jon Peters, Jim Degiovanni A ends: Deutz made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously. Minutes: Kalinowski made a motion to approve the minutes of May 7, 2007 with minor changes; seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Concept Plan. Collegeville Development Group and Colleae of St Benedict: Weyrens reported that over the past year the City Staff has been meeting the Collegeville Development Group and representatives of the College of St. Benedict regarding a proposed development on property adjacent to County Road 121. Weyrens stated that the property is located south of Callaway Street and North of the Northern Natural Gas Station. The proposed development includes a mix of housing, business and recreation. Loso stated that the narrative that was presented was very confusing and he is not in favor of the proposed concept plan. Loso stated that he is not in favor of rezoning the property to Educational and Ecclesiastical, questioned the need for utilization of the PUD process and is opposed to the proposed density. Weyrens clarified that the proposed development consists of 53 acres meeting the minimum lot requirement for a PUD Development. Weyrens clarified that PUD is a Zoning Overlay and with underlying zoning districts. The concept plan before the Commission includes the following zoning classifications: General Business, R1 Residential and R3 Residential. When utilizing a PUD the density of each zoning district must be met, as a PUD cannot be used to increase density. Jim Degiovanni approached the commissioners on behalf of Collegeville Development Group. He stated that he had a hard time fitting their plan to the City's Ordinances. The area in question is currently owned by the College of St. Benedict. They would like to develop the site as a mixed use PUD. He added that Collegeville Development Group signed a purchase agreement for 10 acres on which they plan to construct a housing community for those 55 and older. According to Degiovanni, a majority of the total area will be used for athletic fields and student housing for the College of St. Benedict. Another small portion located at the northwest corner will be used for a clinic. He stated that there was also some discussion as to whether or not the area that the College plans to develop should be zoned E & E or 61. The College would like that area zoned E & E as it is more consistent with the rest of the property owned by the College. With respect to the R4 portion, Degiovanni stated that they are barely over the density. He stated that they would like to have private streets in that development; however the city does not allow that. In order to accommodate for street right of ways, they are requesting smaller lot setbacks. They would like to construct the housing portion in phases. Sue Palmer approached the Commissioners on behalf of the College of St. Benedict. She stated that the College has been working on a master plan for the future needs of the College of St. Benedict. As they are surrounded by monastery land on three sides, the College does not have expansion capacity except for the property east of CR 121. The master plan indicates that the College lacks recreational space for the students compared to colleges of the same size. Palmer then explained that they would like to see that area zoned E & E to be consistent with the rest of the College. Degiovanni stated that they have met with City Staff and they are currently asking the Planning Commission to give them some feedback regarding the concept plan. July 2, 2007 Page 2 of 3 Loso stated that he liked the idea of the retirement housing; however, he was not in favor of the smaller lots. Rieke stated that they need to blend their plans with the City's Ordinances. Degiovanni stated that he had a hard time fitting their plan to the Ordinances. Rieke questioned whether or not they have done this type of project in the past. According to Degiovanni, this plan is similar to a project that was done in Winona. He stated that although they will be smaller lots, some of the houses may be attached or share a driveway. Kalinowski was concerned with the timing of the project. Weyrens stated that the City does allow phasing to occur and once they begin a development they are committed to the proposed uses. City Attorney Tom Jovanovich stated that phasing may not be a good option in a PUD as there are different considerations and if economic factors slow the project, then the City is left with a half of a project. He added that the development of a PUD commits the developer to the uses as presented and can only be amended through a hearing process. Palmer questioned whether or not the area that they have proposed to use for student housing can be platted as outlots to which they were told they could. Palmer approached the Commissioners again to question the zoning of the property as E & E to be consistent with the rest of the College property. Loso stated that zoning it E & E would result in fewer regulations. Weyrens stated that the Comprehensive Plan uses CR 121 as the buffer for the E & E Zoning District. When staff reviewed the request, the College can accomplish their goals with traditional zoning, thereby not needing to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Loso questioned Degiovanni as to why they are submitting a joint plan. Degiovanni stated that they would like to develop only 10 acres; however, a PUD requires a minimum of 20 acres. Due to the fact that there are a number of mixed uses, it would be considered spot zoning if a PUD were not approved. Loso also questioned why the College would sell a portion of their land if they don't have enough room for their facilities. Palmer stated that they believe it would provide for a positive interaction between the residents and the students. Deutz questioned why the College is looking to add more student housing. Palmer explained that they plan to house more students and move to a 4-year residency requirement. Deutz stated that he is against the zoning of the property to E & E as it would give the City less control. Anderson questioned the definition of the E & E District. It is defined as follows: "It is the intent of this district to provide for an area occupied by public and private educational and ecclesiastical institutions. " Weyrens added that there are different criteria for these areas as they are generally larger areas. Degiovanni read the requirements for a PUD and stated that based on the entire 53 acres, they have low density. Deutz advised them that the whole project must come together. According to Anderson, this plan looks as if they are requesting spot zoning. He is in favor of the Collegeville Development Group and clinic portions; however, he is against the College's portion. Deutz agreed stating that it is too vague. Rieke advised the Commissioners that they need to be open minded when working with the College. Palmer stated that they plan to house a majority of their students; however, there will be some that will be exempt. Rassier stated that he would like to see the 13.6 acres shown as the clinic and the Collegeville portion rezoned to R4 and the balance be zoned as AG. That would allow the College to request rezoning as they bring an actual concept forward for Planning Commission approval. Graeve stated that it appears to be spot zoning as well. He likes the housing idea, but he would like to see more discussion between the City, Collegeville Development Group and the College of St. Benedict. Rassier also stated that he does not believe the clinic will be built on the site as proposed. There is some concern as to rezoning the property as 61 and the types of businesses that will be built there. Jon Petters, Collegeville Development Group, questioned whether the permitted uses can be controlled. Jovanovich stated that through the Development Agreement the City can limit the type of businesses that could locate in the 61 portion of the PUD. July 2, 2007 Page 3 of 3 Jovanovich stated that he is concerned with the number of variances required as presented. He stated that there are no criteria to support the various variances. He added that because the plans are so vague, it is hard to determine the parking and open space requirements. From a legal standpoint, he stated that it would be best to establish green space along the northern section and limit the types of uses allowed. Rassier stated that they should work with the Park Board as far as Park Dedication fees, etc. Degiovanni stated that he expected these comments from the Commissioners. He questioned what they would like to see as a next step for the project as they would like to move forward as soon as possible. Jovanovich suggested that the concept plan be amended to only include the portion of property that will actually be developed and leave the remaining property as an outlot. If the concept plan meets the Ordinance requirements Collegeville Development can move forward to the platting process. Adjourn: Deutz made a motion to adjourn; seconded by Anderson and passed unanimously. Ju eyren /( v~~ A mini trator