Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 [05] May 22May 22, 2006 Page 1 of 2 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, May 22, 2006 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Gary Utsch. Commissioners: S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Bob Loso, Jim Graeve, AI Rassier, Mike Deutz. City Administrator Judy Weyrens. Others Present: Tim Erkilla, Ryan Gideon, Chad Carlson, Jason Novak A enda: Deutz made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Graeve and passed unanimously. Crescent Hills: Tim Erkilla, Westwood Professionals, approached the Commissioners on behalf of the developer. Ryan Gideon, Westwood Professionals, was also present along with Jason Novak representing the developer. Erkilla stated that the last time the Planning Commission met regarding this development, there were a multitude of outstanding issues such as: • Ordinance Issues • Storm water Retention Basin • Turn-lane configuration for County Road • Nature of Plat - Is it necessary to continue Hawthorne Lane or could that be eliminated from both the Northland Heights plat as well as Crescent Hills. Erkilla clarified that MN Land Development has submitted the proposed development as a PUD to protect the natural resources in the area. Since the public hearing for the preliminary plat entitled Crescent Hills has been conducted the number of lots has not changed; however some of the lot widths have been increased. To clarify why the development pattern submitted was chosen Erkilla discussed different development types. He stated that there are three different options for the shape of the lots. In a standard R1 Development, the lots are generally greater than or equal to 75' wide and 146' deep resulting in an 11,000 sq. ft. lot. In an R4 Development, the lots are generally greater than or equal to 60' wide and 100' deep resulting in a 6,000 sq. ft lot. On their preliminary plat, they are presenting lots that meet the 11,000 sq. ft. as required by the R1 Ordinance; however the lots will be 60' wide and 183' deep. According to Erkilla, they are submitting the application under a PUD to allow for more tree preservation as requested by the Commissioners. Although the Commissioners were also concerned with the 60' wide lot, they thought it would be a fair trade-off to keep the density the same, but keep more trees. City Engineer Tracy Ekola stated that she has reviewed the proposed plat and provided the developer with several comments regarding the Preliminary Plat for Crescent Hills. At this time the developer has addressed all the issues brought forward. Kalinowski questioned Ekola as to whether or not additional right-of-way must be obtained. Ekola replied that based on the project design additional right-of-way would not be required. Rassier questioned who is responsible for the turn lanes on CR 133. Weyrens responded turn lanes and how tld be worked out between the developer and Lumber One. Weyrens stated that the developer has agreed to pay the full cost and seek reimbursement from Lumber One for their share. Loso stated that according to the R1 Ordinance, the front footage must be 75'. Erkilla explained that if they change the design to make the lots 75' wide, they would need to remove a lot of trees. Loso then questioned how the plat would be affected if the lots were widened to 75' while keeping the depth the same. Ekola advised Loso that if the lots were widened to 75', keeping everything else as presented, they would lose a lot of lots. Gideon added that if they need to make the lots wider, then they would need to re- configure the lots resulting in more roads and less tree preservation. Erkilla added that they have already had to reduce the number of lots to make lots a minimum of 60' wide. Kalinowski questioned the type of housing style that would be built on these lots. According to Erkilla, they will construct houses with 2-car attached garages. Novak provided the Commissioners with some pictures of houses similar to what could be constructed on the narrower lots. May 22, 2006 Page 2 of 2 There were still some questions outstanding. Deutz questioned the intent of the Ordinance. Weyrens stated that the average width of the lot should be 75'. Utsch added that the problem with this plat is that the lots do not have an average lot width of 75'. Weyrens stated that the big question is whether or not this would be a good use for a PUD. Ekola added that this site is heavily treed and there is lots of topography. An alternate plan for the site would result is some mass grading which makes it more costly. The reason for the long lots is that they are trying to preserve the natural features of the site. In response to a questioned posed by Rassier as to whether or not the house fronts need to line up, the Commissioners came to consensus that they do. Gideon stated that the proposed housing footprints are 40' wide, which allows for plenty of room on the lot. Chad Carlson, Lumber One, approached the Commissioners stating that he represents the developer to the west of this site. According to Carlson, they approached the City with a request for PUD very similar to Crescent Hills. They were told they had to meet the minimum lot width of 75'. They re-submitted with a mix of R1 and R2 lots. He asked that they take their development into consideration when approving or denying their request. The consensus amongst the Commissioners is that the plat is too congested. Rassier stated that he understands that it is a difficult lot to develop due to the hill and the salvage yard. In his opinion, this fits the intent of a PUD with R1 on the lower end of site and R4 on the upper end. Lesnick stated that the Planning Commission has been asking for larger lots; however the developer continues to bring back the same size lots. Rassier suggested that they remove approximately 10 lots and widen the remaining lots. They could possibly add a cul-de-sac in the wetland area and potentially add more lots in that area. Novak approached the Commissioners again stating that this is a tough site to develop and that the same obstacles will be there in the future if it is not developed. They could do an R1 development; however that would mean losing more trees and their goal is to preserve the trees that are currently there. Loso suggested that the developer remove five lots. • 2 -Lot 1 • 2-Lot2 • 1 -Lot 3 Rassier stated that they could use lots 21 and 22 for twin homes rather than as single-family. Weyrens questioned whether or not the Commissioners want to see any screening along the salvage yard. Novak added that there would be a buffer/screening area. The Commissioners stated that they do want to see a buffer area. They suggested possibly replanting some additional trees along the property line to serve as the buffer. Deutz made a motion to approve the PUD/Rezoning request for Crescent Hills. The motion was seconded by Kalinowski and passed unanimously. Deutz made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat contingent upon the removal of the 5 lots (2- Lot 1 ~ 2 and 1-Lot 3) and provide that the Developer Agreement states that they are required to provide screening from the Salvage Yard. The motion was seconded by Kalinowski. Weyrens questioned whether or not the Developer could move forward if those changes are brought to City Staff for review, to which the Commissioners agreed. The motion passed unanimously. Gary suggested that the Ordinance discussion be moved to May 24 at 6:00 PM. AdLurn: Rassier made a motion to adjourn at 8:00 PM; seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. u y We~erfs ~~'~~ Ad inistrator