Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 [09] Sep 30September 30, 2008 Page 1 of 4 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in special session on Tuesday, September 30, 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. City Representatives Present: City Attorney Lori Athman, City Engineer Randy Sabart Others Present: Several residents of Graceview Estates, Kip Dubel Agenda: Deutz made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. Graceview Coalition: Kip Dubel, 4147 32"d Avenue S, Minneapolis, MN 55406 approached the Commissioners to represent the Graceview Estates Community. He stated that this is a classic case of government picking winners vs. losers. The Graceview Estates Community is a small community of families whose lives will be massively impacted by a decision and it is their opinion that the request for rezoning of the area from R1 to R3 and the approval of the Special Use Permit be denied. Based on information from the City Attorney, Dubel stated that the City can deny the request based on the following: • The area must be rezoned to allow for the proposed construction. • The current Special Use Permit is invalid • Approving the plan would create a large amount of legal instability. He added that the residents would like the Special Use request to be denied due to the following concerns: • Safety: The roadways are already overburdened. • Long Term economic well being • Way of life for the residents. • Inadequate information -This will most likely lead to an insurance battle for the City. The residents were told there would be no apartments on that Outlot and that it was undesirable land to build on due to the gas line. Dubel concluded that it is the request of the Graceview Estates Community to have the request for rezoning and special use denied. They want their voices to be heard. Dubel presented a letter to the Commissioners prior to the meeting. In that letter, he made reference to a neutral third party attorney. McDonald questioned who he was referring to. Dubel stated that he was referencing the City Attorney. S & H Development: Weyrens stated that there has been a lot of discussion recently regarding the proposed development of Outlot A Graceview Estates 2 and new information has been presented for consideration. One of the items that has surfaced over the past weeks is the reference to the Special Use Permit issued in 2002. The Planning Commission must determine the intent of the Special Use Permit that was approved in 2002 and whether it allowed for mixed housing types or the mixed housing types to include the approval of the apartment complexes. If the Special Use Permit was for the mixed uses in general, the Permit is still valid as that permit allowed for mixed housing types throughout the development and that permit does not expire. However, if the Permit was issued for the mixed uses and the apartment building, then the commission would need to discuss if the portion relating to the apartment complex has expired. Weyrens clarified that the property under consideration at this meeting was final platted with Graceview Phase Two. McDonald spoke with respect to the intent of the Special Use Permit. In his opinion, based on what he has read and heard, the intent was very clear and the concept plan met the intent of the comprehensive plan that was in effect at that time as well as the current comprehensive plan. He also added that the developer has addressed all physical issues and they meet all requirements of both the 2002 and current September 30, 2008 Page 2 of 4 ordinances. He stated that, based on the information from the Attorney, the City cannot deny this based on an error in recording. He also stated that he would like to make it clear that the future development across the street will be for senior housing (55+). McDonald advised the Commissioners that he reviewed the criteria set forth in St Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 regarding the granting of a special use permit. Weyrens stated that the City received a valid application for Special Use and an amendment to the PURD. Due to the 60 day land use rule, the City had 60 days to make a decision or request a possible 60 day extension. The City requested the extension and now must act on the request. She added that the City Engineer has prepared some new information regarding the request for sidewalks along 4`h Avenue. That information has yet to be presented. Meyer questioned Athman as to clarification of the zoning of the Outlot. Is the area zoned R1 with an overlay district which is hypothetically R3. Athman stated that it is. Meyer clarified that it will not show as R3 due to the overlay. Athman then stated that the Special Use was approved to allow for a mixed residential district. Sabart stated that he was asked to prepare information regarding the capacity of the existing streets and sidewalk. Below is a list of the question asked and the responses. Sabart clarified that he is not proposing to widen any streets or construct sidewalk, he is simply responding to engineering questions asked. . • Is it possible for 4tn Avenue SE to be widened? Yes, it is feasible to widen 4`h Avenue SE; however there are some considerations to doing so. 1. The bituminous trail along 4th Avenue SE abuts the curb and the trail may need to be reconstructed. 2. The storm sewers and manholes are generally located near the curb and those would need to be re-routed. 3. There would be several driveways that would need to be reconstructed. 4. Fire hydrants are generally located a certain distance from the curb and those would need to be moved as well. 5. Private utilities are placed in the right-of-way or the public utility easement and widening the street may require that those be relocated as well. 6. Cost is the biggest concern as the City would need to determine who would bear the cost of widening the street. It is a fairly new street, so there would be limited availability to assessing those costs to the residents. Deutz questioned the cost for such a project to which Sabart estimated $100/linear foot. Wick questioned the length from Minnesota Street to the Graceview Estates. Sabart estimated that the length from 4th Avenue to Elena Lane to be 3,000 feet. Is it possible to construct a sidewalk on the west side of 4"' Avenue SE? Yes, it is feasible to construct a sidewalk along the west side of 4th Avenue SE although there are some items that should be considered. 1. The lots on the west side of 4th Avenue tend to have steeper driveways and some may need to be deepened to allow for the sidewalk. 2. Costs are another factor as assessing the residents may not be well received. 3. Impacts to private utilities. What are the effects of restricting parking to one side of the street? Sabart stated that restricting parking to one side of the street may enhance pedestrian safety, there are also some issues. If parking is restricted, it would be best to restrict parking to the east side of 4`h Avenue. The east side of the street also has the most useable space as there are less driveways and more curb. He added that parking creates a buffer between the trail and traffic and on street parking is generally a complementary function to pedestrian movement. Sabart then stated that allowing parking on both sides of the street tends to slow traffic up. September 30, 2008 Page 3 of 4 McDonald stated that wider streets tend to have increased speeds. Wick questioned Athman as to whether or not the Special Use permit was to allow for multi-family or mixed density. He stated that based on the R1 Ordinance and the PURD process, a special use permit would be required. The R3 Ordinance requires that a special use permit be issued for anything with more than 12 units. Athman stated that it is up to the Planning Commission to determine what was approved by the Special Use Permit as there was no formal application for permit and they must rely solely on the minutes. Wick stated that in 2002, the special use permit did not include specific details. Deutz, who was a member of the Planning Commission when the original special use permit was approved, stated that they looked at the density with the apartments being built. He stated that the engineer also reviewed the plans based on the apartments as presented with the concept plan. The developer is now asking for less density than what was approved in 2002. Wick stated that it is unclear as to what was approved based on the minutes from 2002. Deutz stated that the Commissioners need to make a decision to either approve or deny the request. If the Commissioners made a mistake in 2002, the current Commissioners need to move on. He added that this will most likely result in legal action with approval or denial of the application. Meyer stated that the original plan was for a mixed use development and the intent was for apartments. He also stated that the density is less than what was proposed in 2002. McDonald stated that he has taken the time to prepare a written findings based on section 52.07 Subd. 3 and presented each member with a copy of such. He briefly stated that it is his opinion that the Council approved the initial Special Use Permit on March 22, 2002 and the Permit included the uses on all 91 acres of the plat. He further stated that in his opinion: 1) the use will not be detrimental to the general welfare of the neighborhood as the development was anticipated and comparable to what can be expected in a residential neighborhood; 2) the proposed development is compatible with the St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan; 3) creates a diversified housing base; the developer is proposing to use an onsite manager so that neighborhood is not disrupted; 4) utility services are available; 5) no evidence has been produced to support that housing values will be reduced due to the apartment facilities. Wick stated that he too prepared a similar document only his recommendation is to deny the Special Use Permit as he does not concur that the special use permit is still valid and questions if the time limit for the preliminary plat has expired and the developer should be required to resubmit the plans. McDonald made a motion to recommend the City Council approve the Special Use Permit, accepting the Facts of Finding which he distributed at this meeting. The motion was seconded by Deutz. Discussion: Andersen stated that he respects the Commissioners that dealt with this in 2002; however, it may have been a good plan then, but it is no longer a good plan for the City. He stated that if the road is widened, he does not feel That the residents should be assessed. He understands that the developer has the right to build on the property, but the community does not want the proposed development. McDonald corrected Andersen by stating that the neighborhood does not approve of the proposed development, but that does not mean that the community is opposed. In order to approve or deny the special use permit, the Commissioners must also present facts of finding regarding their decision. McDonald presented his facts of finding based on the criteria set forth in St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 for the approval of fhe special use permit and Wick presented his for the denial. Rieke stated that it would be best for staff to review the facts of finding and present them to the Commissioners for review and approval. Amended motion: Direct staff to prepare Facts of Findings recommending the City Coucnil issue a special use permit to allow the construction of two multiple family structuresApprove the special use permit with staff preparing the findings based on those presented by McDonald. September 30, 2008 Page 4 of 4 Ayes: Kalinowski, Deutz, McDonald, Rieke, Meyer Nays: Wick, Andersen Motion Carried 5:2:0 The Commissioners will discuss the findings at the next meeting scheduled for October 13, 2008. Deutz suggested that the Commission accept public input during the October 13, 2008 regarding the site plan for the proposed development. The residents should have an opportunity to provide input for mitigation of the development. Meyer made a motion to recommend the Council amend the 2002 Graceview Estates PURD to add a third structure to the townhouse area, reducing the density from 20 units to 18 units. The townhome area will include two eight plexes and one duplex. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned by consensus. Jud We rens inistrator