HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06-08November 6, 2008
Page 1 of 14
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session
on Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph Council Chambers.
Members Present: Mayor AI Rassier, Councilors Dale Wick, Renee Symanietz, Steve Frank, Rick
Schultz, Administrator Judy Weyrens
City Representatives Present: City Attorney Tom Jovanovich, City Engineer Randy Sabart, Finance
Director Lori Bartlett, Police Chief Pete Jansky, Police Sergeant Dwight Pfannenstein
Others Present: Marty Meyer, T. Schuler, Margy Hughes, Ellen Wahlstrom, Dave Marquart, Karl Terhaar,
K. Kraft, Rex Tucker, Kris & Traci Haugen, Shannon & Brent Esterberg, Kevin Jonely, Jennifer Abraham,
Judy Schwegel, Paula Revier, Jason Abraham, Mark Zimmer, Cale Pennings, Brad Cobb, April Tesch,
Nicole Klassen, Mike Klassen, Carol Jenkins, Jeff Tesch, AI Lindseth, Jerome Weyer, Brandon Platz,
Sarah Pennings, Anita Fischer, Donald Fischer, Kipp Dubow, Josh Wimmer, Bob Saiko, Alicia Peters,
Jacque French, Mike Sand, Nelda Dehn, Donna Kellerman, Judy Meyer, Igor Lenznor, Bob Herges, Linda
Brown, Brian Benjamin, Cory Gerads
Public Comments: No one present wished to speak.
Approval of the Agenda: Wick made a motion to approve the agenda with the following changes:
• Move item 7 (Canvass Election) -before item 5 (Public Hearing - S & H)
• Add 11e -Antenna Lease
• Switch 5 (a - PUD Amendment) and (b -Special Use PermitlPUD)
The motion was seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously.
Consent Agenda: Wick made a motion to approve the consent agenda as follows:
a. Minutes -Approve the minutes of October 14, 2008.
b. Bills Payable -Approve check numbers 040849-040923 and EFT numbers 040412-040417.
c. Capital Repair -Authorize the replacement of the roof at well house 4/5 at an estimated
cost of $3,583.00.
d. Energy Peak Shave -Authorize execution of an agreement with Northern States Power
Company to participate in the Peak Control Program for a period of five years.
The motion was seconded by Symanietz and passed unanimously.
Canvass Election. November 4. 2008: Schultz made a motion to approve the following City Election
results as final declaring AI Rassier Mayor Elect and Renee Symanietz and Bob Loso as Council
Elect. The motion was seconded by Frank and passed unanimously.
MAYOR P1 P2 Total COUNCIL P1 P2 Total
Brian Cihacek 322 337 659 Tom Gustafson 143 262 405
AI Rassier 278 806 1,804 Ross Rieke 104 258 362
Rick Schultz 374 665 1,039 Mike McDonald 119 300 419
Write-in 5 7 12 Herman J Gangl 53 203 256
Overvotes 0 0 0 Joshua Wimmer 274 419 693
Undervotes 727 239 966 Renee Symanietz 356 754 1,110
TOTAL 1,706 2,054 3,760 Sean Lathrop 53 136 189
Bob Loso 273 584 857
Steve Olson 104 278 382
Write-in 9 17 26
Overvotes 8 0 8
Undervotes 1,916 897 2,813
TOTAL 3,412 4,108 7,520
November 6, 2008
Page 2 of 14
Public Hearing - S & H Development: Mayor Rassier called the public hearing to order and stated that the
purpose of the public hearing is to consider the land use application of S & H Partnership requesting
approval of the replat for Graceview Estates II and PUD Amendment. The land use request is necessary
to allow the construction of a 35 unit apartment building, 40 unit apartment building, two four-plexes and
one duplex. The request for land use has been submitted by S & H Partnership. Rassier clarified that the
Council is conducting a hearing as allowed in St. Joseph Ordinance 52.07.
As a point of order, Jovanvich stated that after the public hearing is closed, the Council must make their
decision, whether approval or denial, based on factual findings. Each Council person should identify at
the vote their facts supporting their position. Jovanovich recommended that the Council not finalize
action as this meeting, rather, provide staff with direction to prepare final findings of fact. The Council
would then meet one more time to review and finalize the findings of fact approving or denying the
request.
Rassier stated that they, the Councilors, have received a lot of data and emails regarding the proposed
development. As the emails and correspondence have already been included as part of the hearing, he
asked that those wishing to speak address only new or appropriate issues. Frank advised the Public that
any information that is presented in writing can also be used as part of the official record for the public
hearing. Jovanovich stated that the following information will be accepted as testimony for the public
hearing and kept as part of the permanent record; 1) Information Booklet prepared by staff and submitted
as part of the Council packet for this meeting; 2) Information Booklet prepared by Igor Lenznor, legal
counsel for the petitioner and land seller and submitted as part of the Council packet for this meeting; 3)
Information prepared by the Graceview Coalition and submitted as part of the Council packet for this
meeting.
Rassier opened the floor for oral testimony and requested that each person speaking identify their name
and address. He also stated that oral testimony will be limited to three minutes and encouraged those
present not to duplicate testimony.
Jebb Willis, approached the Councilors on behalf of the Graceview Estates Homeowner's Association. He
stated that he represents 51 home owners and they protest the approval of the application by S & H
Partnership. He stated that "the developers are seeking to achieve the de facto reversal of single family,
R-1 zoning in Graceview Estates. This situation has arisen despite the City attorney's original
recommendation to deny the application for a special use permit unless the property was openly and
deliberately rezoned to R3." He added that "the Council was advised b y the City Attorney at a special
meeting in October 2008 to apply the standards found in City ordinance 52.07 when it reviews an
application for permitting multiple family dwelling structures of more than 12 units." He advised the council
that "the standards to approve the proposal have not been met." He referenced the following:
Standard 5: "Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including
streets, police and fire protection..."
Based on the facts, he stated that their "position is that two access roads to County Road 121 must be
fully secured, in a binding fashion, prior to any application approval in order to handle traffic volumes
which already, according to the City Engineer and a traffic count, exceed projections for the area."
Standard 6: "Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities
and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community."
Based on the facts, Willis stated that their "position is that to allow this potential cost shifting would
establish a public policy of private developer profit at public expense," They would "seek legal Council
and vigorously protest any such assessments on the association."
He concluded that they are requesting that the Council disapprove the current application.
Jacque French, 121 4th Avenue SE, approached the Council to address her concerns with the proposed
development. She stated that she lives in the two block stretch between Baker and Minnesota Street
which residents in Graceview use to access the development. The proposed development will create
November 6, 2008
Page 3 of 14
significant traffic impacts to their neighborhood. She stated that according to Ordinance 52, the applicant
does not conform to the standards as outlined in the zoning ordinance. She addressed the following
standards:
Standard 5: "Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems,
and schools. "
She stated that the current Graceview development does not have adequate streets.
Standard 1: "Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. "
French advised the Council that there are some safety concerns regarding the residents' ability to enter
and exit their driveways.
French stated that the increased traffic due to the proposed development is undesirable for their
neighborhood. In her opinion, this was a ~oorly planned development. French also stated that there was
some discussion about the widening of 4 h Avenue to which she thinks should not be considered as the
additional assessments would cause a financial hardship for the residents who are still paying for the
previous street assessments. She would like the request of S & H to be denied.
Edward Turley, 106 4th Avenue SE, spoke to the Councilors in opposition to the proposed development.
He stated that he is a current resident of the lower/older portion of 4'h Avenue SE. According to Turley,
there are some safety factors that should be taken into consideration such as the fact that oncoming
traffic cannot see more than 1/3 of the total street and residents backing out of their driveways cannot see
oncoming traffic He also stated that the widening of 4`h Avenue would result in faster driving speeds.
According to Turley, "4'h Avenue SE is currently a residential area of families, school bus stops, etc and
four homes that provide child care." This area was not designed or constructed to accommodate the level
of traffic that would occur as a result of the proposed development. I.
Turley concluded by stating that "this development is not safe, we cannot afford to make it safe and it is
out of character with this area. Again, we are not opposed to development, we are only opposed to this
development. We request you turn this application down because it is not safe and the developers did not
follow the proper processes."
Mike Sand, 441 Elena Lane, approached the Councilors on behalf of the Coalition. He stated that St.
Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 Subd. 3(e) states that a Special Use permit application can be
approved if it conforms to 10 criteria to which the Coalition has facts to support the denial of the
application. Similar to Turley, Sand stated that the Coalition is not opposed to development; rather they
are opposed to this development as it is not safe and the developers have not followed the proper
processes. He presented the Council with another petition which included 228 signatures and a copy of
the petition that was presented in August containing 93 signatures. Sand advised the Councilors that the
facts to support the denial will be addressed by other residents and members of the Coalition.
Anita Fischer, 235 4th Avenue SE, spoke to the Councilors in opposition to the proposed development.
She too, stated that she is not opposed to development in Outlot A, but she is opposed to this specific
type of development. In her opinion, the proposed development would have a negative effect on the
character of the neighborhood. She addressed the following:
Standard 3: "Will be ~...J harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended
character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. "
She stated that there are no sidewalks/walking paths along the west side of 4'" Avenue, nor are there
crosswalks or bike lanes. Currently, there is a low volume of traffic. With an increase in the amount of
traffic, Fischer stated that there is likely to be a decrease in the amount of social contact and sense of
community. Fischer urged the Council to oppose the proposed development.
November 6, 2008
Page 4 of 14
Alicia Peters, 213 4th Avenue SE, approached the Councilors to speak in opposition to the proposed
development. She stated that they moved to their home on 4th Avenue from Minnesota Street because of
the amount of traffic on Minnesota Street. She stated that there is limited site distance due to the curve in
the road. She stated that her daughter cannot cross the street alone and must cross through neighbors'
yards. She is unable to walk or bike along 4th Avenue SE. Peters also stated that "traffic around 7:30 has
been coming around 4th Avenue from the west on Baker Street cutting up 4th Avenue and turning on
Callaway to connect with College Avenue to reach the new Kennedy Community School. In the mornings,
the wait has become unreasonable for a development." She stated that if the proposed development is
approved she asks that it "be with conditions that address the residents' concerns regarding the
unacceptable level of risk to the health, safety and general welfare of residents".
Mike Klassen, 411 Elena Lane spoke in opposition to the proposed development. He stated that there are
some traffic concerns and that there needs to be a second access to CR121. He stated that currently
Elena Lane is a long dead-end road which is in violation of the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances. He
presented the Council with a letter from residents along 4th Avenue with issues relating to snow removal.
Nicole Klassen, 411 Elena Lane spoke in opposition to the proposed development. She stated that
currently there is only one (1) ingress/egress for Graceview Estates and that there are two cul-de-sacs
which are dead ends. According to Klassen, the functional lengths of these cul-de-sacs are not in
compliance. She added that with an increase in traffic, there is an increased risk to the public.
Karl Terhaar, 241 4th Avenue SE, approached the Councilors to state his opposition to the proposed
development. He addressed the following:
Standard 1: "Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or City'
Standard 5: "Will be served adequately by essential public facilities...
Terhaar spoke, not only as a resident, but also as the principal of the St. Joseph Lab School. He
addressed the fact that currently, children are able to cross 4th Avenue and walk to the bus stops with
relative safety. With the addition of the proposed apartments, there would be increased health and safety
risks for children and the handicapped. At the previous Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner
McDonald reported on a discussion he had with Mr. Terhaar regarding the children that walk to the Lab
School. He stated that the children are generally dropped off rather than walking. Terhaar stated that he
failed to ask why the children do not walk to school to which he would have replied that there is no safe
route to the Lab School.
Terhaar concluded by stating that the proposed development would not be in compliance with the
Ordinances and it would create compound safety concerns in the development.
Donald Fischer, 235 4th Avenue SE, addressed the Councilors as well in opposition to the proposed
development of Outlot A. He stated that he shares the same opinion that he is not opposed to
development of Outlot A; however, he is opposed to the particular proposal brought forth by S & H
Partnership to develop the property with two apartment buildings, quadplexes and a duplex. He stated
several reasons for his opposition. He too, stated that the proposal is not consistent with the 10 standards
and that it is not the right fit for this development. He spoke regarding the following:
Standard 1: "Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health (...J or general welfare of the
neighborhood or the City. "
Fischer stated that the traffic projections have been based solely on the residents in Graceview Estates. It
would not take into account the number of cars cutting through the neighborhood to access CR121 or
CR75. He added that increased traffic volume impedes people's willingness to be outside. He also stated
that, as a nation, children are a lot less active. According to Fischer, they are not ready for this type of
development.
November 6, 2008
Page 5 of 14
Kipp Dubow, legal counsel for the Graceview Coalition, approached the Council in opposition to the
proposed development. Dubow stated that the proposed development will affect the health, welfare and
safety of the community. The proposed development would create unsafe conditions in the neighborhood
and the residents cannot afford to make it safe. He added that when the second access to CR 121 is
constructed, the developer can reapply for a special use permit. Dubow stated that in his opinion the
community has changed dramatically since 2002 when the original concept was approved.. The changes
in the community should be enough for the City to reconsider the application before them at this time.
Dubow reiterated that the property in question is zoned R1 and the residents in the area are not opposed
to single family development of the subject property.
Carol Jenkins, 360 N. Carrington Avenue, Buffalo, WY 82834, spoke in opposition to the proposed
development. She stated that she and her husband own property at 506 Graceview Loop and they
oppose the special use permit to construct multiple family dwelling units. She discussed the Planned Unit
Development and Special Use Permit Processes. She stated that the "PUD permitting process is a two-
way street" between the developer and the jurisdiction over a phased period of time. She added that the
"city ordinances place requirements and time restrictions on both the PUD and the SUP processes and
the permits that are issued are not open-ended". She reviewed some of the history of the development of
Graceview Estates. She stated that "there is a pattern of behavior by these developers of taking action
before ensuring that legal entitlements are granted and secured and blaming others for the consequences
of these actions." She added that the "City is not responsible for the developer's decision to buy and sell
the property without legal and current entitlements, including the required special use permits." According
to Jenkins, S & H has not yet applied for the special use permit as required; therefore the Council cannot
act on the matter.
Brad Cobb, 333 4th Avenue SE, approached the Councilors and stated that he was prepared to speak
about safety; however, he would simply address one item, access to CR 121. According to the Planning
Commission minutes of December 19, 2001, the City Council and Planning Commission have agreed to
an east/west corridor -Field Street to be constructed on the southern edge of the property. It was to be
constructed in 2006. He stated that it is now 2008 and he is not aware of any construction plans.
Jeff Tesch, 407 Elena Lane, addressed the Councilors with respect to the following standard:
Standard 3: "Will be designed, constructed (...J change the essential character of that area"
He stated that the proposed apartment buildings and townhomes will dramatically change the character of
the area. According to Tesch, the largest building in Graceview, currently, is 24' to the ridgeline. The
largest building, as proposed, would be 38' to the ridgeline, which is 58% taller. He added that the
apartment building will be ten times the volume of a typical single family home. Again, the proposed
apartments will dramatically change the character of Graceview Estates.
Josh Wimmer, 450 Elena Lane, stated that the issuance of a Special Use Permit must conform to the
Comprehensive Plan. Currently, the City is updating the Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 5 indicates that
St. Joseph has a higher vacancy rate than others in the surrounding area. He questioned who will rent the
proposed units with the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University requiring students to live on
campus. In his opinion, with the current status of the economy, the proposed development will be a
detriment to the neighborhood.
Sarah Pennings, 346 4tn Avenue SE, approached the Council in opposition to the proposed development.
She stated that the proposed development is not safe and they (the residents) nor the City cannot afford
to make it safer. She added that it is out of character for the area. She stated that they would like the
Council to deny the application and future development should include the following conditions:
1. Two access roads to County Road 121 must be built before any further development of
Graceview Estates.
2. Any development of Outlot A must be owner units rather than rental units.
3. The roof height at the ridgeline must not exceed that of the highest structure currently built in the
Graceview Estates Development. Any apartments should not be larger than any of the current
townhomes in Graceview Estates.
November 6, 2008
Page 6 of 14
4. Any impact costs for infrastructure should be carried by the developer.
5. Any costs to negotiate negative impacts to the surrounding area should be carried by the
developer.
6. Any negative impacts requiring mitigation should include effective protection of privacy for
adjacent homes, light pollution, noise caused by increased density and effective traffic and view
shed protection. This includes mature trees 25' or higher, LED lights with full shading, a 6' berm
with fence and two rows of trees behind it.
Pennings stated that had the developer presented a plan with lower density and followed the proper
procedures, the residents would not have had so much opposition. She stated that they have nothing
against those who would possibly rent those units. She added that it is about the safety of the families
that currently live there. She stated that she has two children and they moved to St. Joseph because it is
quiet and because of the character and closeness of the neighborhood along with the safe atmosphere.
According to Pennings, this development clearly does not meet the ten conditions for a special use
permit. She added that they are not opposed to development, but this development. They are asking the
Council to deny the application because it is out of character, not safe and the developer did not follow
the proper process.
Igor Lenznor, Rieke Noonan, approached the Councilors representing both the original developer and S &
H Partnership. Along with him was Bob Herges, the original developer and Linda Brown and Brian
Benjamin with Bonestroo.
Bob Herges stated that he is the original developer of Graceview Estates. He gave a brief history of the
development. The property was purchased in 1991 from the Sisters of St. Benedict. The Sisters required
that the property be developed to include housing for all walks of life such as apartments, townhomes,
single family homes and patio homes. Herges stated that they hired a professional land developer, Rick
Harrison, to create a plan for the development. Harrison is known for developing PURDs using the
lifecycle housing concept. Lifecycle housing contains housing for different stages of life such as:
Beginning -Apartments,
Townhomes,
Single Family Homes
Larger Single Family Homes
Patio Homes
End -Retirement Housing
The Council was presented with a concept to include all types of housing and it was approved as such,
The planning, designing and engineering process took over a year. They met with the City Council,
Planning Commission and Park Board. All of the issues that are being addressed now, were addressed
then. Originally, they had one 80-unit building shown; however, the city requested two buildings instead.
Graceview was then platted with two apartment buildings. The plat that was presented and approved in
2002 is exactly the same as the development that has occurred to date. In fact, if an aerial photograph
where superimposed over the preliminary plat, it would match. They helped to build Callaway Street from
4th Avenue to County Road 121.
Herges stated that once they presented their final plans for Graceview Estates, the St. Cloud times did an
article about the proposed development. In his opinion, those residents that say they were unaware of the
proposed apartments, did not do their homework as they were on all of the plans that were approved.
On behalf of S & H, Herges stated that they met with the City several times and were given assurances
based on the plans that it would be approved. They moved forward with the sale based on those
assurances by the City. S & H built and owns several apartments in the St. Cloud area.
Herges added that there are lots of lots and unit left to sell and develop. They are trying to offer housing
types for everyone. According to Herges, this is the best looking development in the City.
November 6, 2008
Page7of14
Linda Brown, approached the Council as the engineer that worked on the original plans as well as the
current plans. She stated that in 2002, they were working with the PURD which was an overlay for an R1
zoning. She added that the utilities were designed to service both apartments and townhomes. The
roadways were also built to serve the entire development. In 2002, the Council approved 2 - 40 unit
apartments, 1 - 8 plex and 1 -10 plex. With the proposed development, they are looking to reduce the
density by 13 units with 1 - 35 unit and 1 - 40 unit apartment, 2 - 4 plex and a duplex.
Brown stated that in 2002, an EAW was required and completed. The EAW was reviewed by
approximately 50 different agencies. None of the agencies replied with concerns about whether or not the
roads were capable of serving the entire 91 acres.
Lenznor approached the Councilors again to address several issues. There is the argument that the
developer did not follow the proper procedures for a special use permit. The Council approved a special
use permit in 2002 for the 91 acres. The developer came back after the process was started and was told
that an additional special use permit was needed. He stated that when the original project came before
the City Council, they approved the entire 91 acres. The original special use permit was required to allow
for density greater than what was traditionally allowed in an R1. Roads were never an issue at that time.
He stated that now there is some concern that 4th Avenue SE cannot handle the additional traffic. Based
on what he has heard, the City Engineer has not said that the road cannot handle the increased traffic.
The Planning Commission has asked for the south access (Field Street) to be constructed prior to any
development. As the City was unsure where Field Street will be, the developer was asked to dedicate 60'
ROW as a condition of preliminary plat. When the original ~lat was approved, the developer was required
to pay for apportion of the construction of Callaway from 4 h Avenue to CR121. In addition, the developer
was required to pay a $250 impact fee for each lot for future roads in the development.
Lenznor stated that the residents feel that it is a burden on the City to not have adequate crosswalks. He
stated that the additional property tax revenue can be used for traffic/safety.
Frank stated that the Planning Commission suggested that a traffic count be done and the developer is
stating that the current roads are adequate. Frank questioned if they are afraid of the results if a traffic
count is done. Lenznor stated that the City can do a traffic count; however, they cannot hold the
development up until it is completed. He added that a traffic count may help to determine when Field
Street will be constructed.
Brian Benjamin, spoke to the Councilors as a Transportation Engineer with Bonestroo. He stated that he
has looked at the City Engineer's traffic counts as well as the Comprehensive Plan and the APO
standards. It appears that the roads are adequate. With respect to crosswalks, Benjamin stated that they
provide a false sense of security as they are generally not signed appropriately.
Cory Gerads, builder for the proposed development, approached the Councilors and showed a visual of
the proposed apartment buildings. He stated that they will have tuck-under garages available as well a
detached garage option, exercise rooms and a community room. They plan to use high end products
rather than the standard apartment building. These apartments will be a perfect fit for the neighborhood.
Based on comments made by the developer, Dubow made the following comments:
1. He stated that the comment that was made with respect to the residents not doing their
homework is incorrect. He advised the Councilors that there was a sign on the property that listed
the different housing styles and apartments were not listed.
2. The community should not be vesting their safety on federal funding that may someday be
received.
November 6, 2008
Page 8 of 14
Herges approached the Councilors and stated that he was responsible for the sign placed in the
development. The sign did not list the apartments as the purpose of the sign was to benefit the five
builders that were building homes Graceview Estates rather than promote the apartment.
Rassier stated that they have talked about the different roads going in and out of the development. At full
build-out, it is anticipated that the residents of the proposed development will have four ingress/egress
options. There were some questions relating to the length of the cul-de-sac and he stated that it was
approved as such on the concept plan. It was extended because it was a good fit for this development.
He is aware of the fact that the apartments in St. Joseph are not full; however, he stated that studies have
been done that show that there is a shortage of apartments in the City. The widening of 4"' Avenue was
not discussed as part of the development; rather it was investigated as the residents stated that the
streets were too narrow. The Planning Commission approved facts of finding supporting the development.
According to Rassier, the proposed development is the same as the concept plan and the outlot should
be developed as presented.
Schultz stated that he lives on 7`h Avenue SE and that the residents in that neighborhood filled the room
back in 2001/2002 when the original plans were presented. Different designs were suggested at that time,
but the plans that were approved are what the Planning Commission and City Council wanted at that
time. He stated that what looked good in 2002 may not look good now.
Symanietz added that she lives in Graceview Estates and when she bought her house, she did not see
any maps showing the apartments. According to Symanietz, lots of residents were misled. She added
that there is different evidence now to show the need for another access road. Currently, with cars parked
on both sides of the road, cars cannot get through.
Wick reported that he went through the Planning Commission minutes at which they discussed the
proposed development to understand what was approved in 2002. Wick stated that in his opinion, the
Graceview Estates 2 plat did not show any townhomes or apartments. The 2002 Comprehensive Plan
shows this area as R1. Wick stated that the draft plan for 2008 now shows this area as Multi Family
Residential. Graceview Estates 3 was approved consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the PUD
Ordinance.
He also advised the Councilors that, in 2002, the PURD Ordinance was changed to the current PUD and
there have been two PUD amendments since that time. It appears that the developer has been changing
the Ordinances throughout the process. According to Wick, there are significant differences between PUD
and PURD.
Based on information provided by the Developer, Wick addressed the following from the Citizens
Committee in reference to the Field Street study and the designation of Dale Street as a collector. He
referenced the following: "Safety -Approximately 34 private driveways, getting in and out of these
driveways would be coming increasingly difficult. Safety -access spacing for full intersections is
approximately one (1) street per 390 feet. Collector roadways should have one (1) full movement
intersection per 660 feet and private access should not be permitted. Again, turning onto and from these
roadways becomes difficult as traffic increases. Neighborhood Impacts -This roadway is currently
functioning as a local neighborhood street. Changing the character of this area by changing the roadway
to a collector road may be undesirable for the surrounding neighbors". According to Wick, 4"' Avenue is
being designated as a collector and he stated that there are some safety/access issues to deal with.
Frank stated that when he first heard about the proposed apartments, he was very negative. He was
under the impression that this area was zoned R1 according to the maps of the area. With respect to
residents not doing enough research, Frank stated that the real estate agents and the City need to be
more open. He stated that as he looked at it, he was inclined to say that City should try to make the
development work.
November 6, 2008
Page 9 of 14
The additional roads need to go in; however, they keep getting put off. He requested that people stop
referring to the east/west corridor as Field Street. Frank added that he attended the Planning Commission
meeting at which he said the developer stated they do not want to pay for the additional roads. He stated
that the residents are not to look at the cost/benefits of the proposed development; however, the
developer stated that the proposed apartments will bring added revenue to the City. Frank stated that it
will not generate too much revenue as there is infrastructure needed. Frank added that Waite Park has
several more apartment buildings than St. Joseph and they also receive more police calls. Sabart
advised the Council that utilities have been designed for the entire 91 acres, including the size needed for
multiple family structures. Frank questioned what the costs would be for the construction of the roads.
Sabart replied that to construct a 2 lane road with median extending from Elena Lane to CR121, the
estimated cost would be $782,000.
Frank commented that the language in the Comprehensive Plan is not as good as it should be. He
questioned why there is no staging in the proposed development going from R1 to Townhomes and finally
the apartments. Brown stated that the proposed plan is part of a lifecycle plan. Frank questioned whether
the proposed plan could be shown as different configurations. Brown responded and stated that the
developer is not the original owner of the property.
Wick also addressed the following in the Developer Agreement:
" For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive
Plan or official land use controls shall affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or
dedication of the development..."
He stated that these agreements were made in 2003, 2004, and 2005. According to Wick, this clause is in
the Development Agreement to protect the City from these types of things. He stated that these items
need to stay under current controls.
Frank questioned whether or not this item can be put on hold to which Rassier stated it cannot.
Jovanovich stated that the land use application being discussed was originally accepted by the City in
July 2008. MN Statute requires that land use applications be acted on within 60 days of submission of a
completed application; however, the City can extend the time frame and additional 60 days which the City
has already completed. Therefore, the Council must action on the application before them to avoid the
application being approved by default.
Wick made a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Schultz.
Discussion: Jacque French approached the Councilors for a second time. She stated that this
was the first time that she heard of 4th Avenue being designated as a collector street. French
added that the residents were given no notice of the change.
Don Fischer, 235 4th Avenue SE, re-addressed the Councilors as well. He stated that, according
to the APO, collector roads should have unlimited access for vehicles to include large trucks.
There are signs at both ends which limit the size of vehicles in the development. He questioned
whether 4th Avenue SE functions as a collector road to which he stated it does not. He also
questioned the studies that have been done with respect to the need for additional apartments.
He questioned whether that was done prior to the College of St. Benedict and St. John's
University stating their 4-year residency requirements for students. Rassier stated that they were
done prior to which Fischer stated that there will additional vacancies as a result.
Carol Jenkins, approached the Councilors again as well. She stated that she is confused as the
road was built as a 7-ton road, but he signs say it is a 5-ton road. The plat shows R1, but it is
actually multi-family, She again stated that she is confused.
November 6, 2008
Page 10 of 14
David Marquart, 517 Ellie Ct. approached the Councilors and stated that the proposed fence
along the proposed development would abut his yard. He stated that he would like to give input
as to the construction of that fence along his property line.
The motion passed unanimously.
Rassier advised the Council that they must make a decision. Jovanovich stated that once the Council has
made a decision to approve or deny the application, he would like to give staff time to prepare the findings
of fact based on the Council's reasons for their decision. Wick questioned whether they need to follow
Roberts' Rules which states that they must make a motion in the positive rather than a negative.
Jovanovich stated that it can be made either way, but it must pass 3:2.
Wick made a motion to deny the Special Use Permit for Graceview Estates. The motion was
seconded by Schultz.
Discussion: Rassier questioned Symanietz as to whether or not she was comfortable voting on
this issue. She stated she was.
Ayes: Wick, Schultz, Symanietz, Frank
Nays: Rassier Motion Carried 4:1:0
The Councilors each stated their reasons for the approval/denial of the Special Use Permit.
Rassier Stated that he agrees with the original facts of finding approved by the Planning
Commission therefore he voted against the motion to deny the land use application.
Symanietz Stated that she voted in favor of the motion to deny the Special Use Permit as there is
"no second access in place and it would be detrimental to the residents involving safety
issues going in and out of their driveways".
Wick Stated that he voted to deny the Special Use Permit based on the following:
^ "From a standpoint of the Developers Agreement and the State Statute of the 2 year
limitation, the original purchasers/original developers have been following both the
Comp Plan of 2002 and the Ordinances since then and I don't see any reason why
the new property owner would need to fall back to the old ordinances. From the City's
standpoint, we need to keep current our land use controls."
^ "We also talked about Statement #3 in the codes, well actually Statement #2, it's not
harmonious with the comp plan."
^ "We also talked briefly about traffic and although it's not, it's one of the things that's in
there, there are inconsistencies with traffic projections in original worksheets and
application and actual 2006 transportation plan with full build-out, indicated 1200
traffic through 4"' Avenue. I think that area needs to be looked at."
^ "Zoned, right now, R1. That's in here as well underneath #2 subd. Ordinance. #3 as
far as being harmonious with neighborhoods. 2 - 3story apartment buildings going
into an R1."
^ '~Aln rlircn+ .+nne ~n ~+n .+r}cri.+l rn~rl u.hinh ic. cmm~4hinn #hn4 uinc. in 4he nrininr.l
ste#=Per Wick, item was to be stricken.
^ "We talked about #8 -vehicle approaches and concerns about calling 4th Avenue a
collector road when nothing happened with the 2-block area."
^ With respect to item #1, Wick stated the proper language "it's not against the
developer, it's against the process. It's stated in there as well. It should follow the
process for the new Ordinance and comp plan changes. Need to first do the comp
plan changes and then the Ordinance changes."
November 6, 2008
Page 11 of 14
Schultz Stated that he concurs with the findings of Wick, adding the following:
^ "2"d Access is necessary due to increase in traffic (potential). Traffic concerns not
adequately dealt with/current congestions/interterence. More than 12 units. Field
Street 2006/2008."
^ "Failed to follow proper procedure. Permit became void. Developer has yet to re-
apply. Re-application is necessary."
^ "Increased traffic will intertere with current public thoroughfare."
^ "Lack of buffer/harmony/appearance to general vicinity."
^ "Rental occupancy in conflict with Comp plan."
Frank Frank concurred with the findings stated above and added:
• Special Use Standard #6 "will not create excessive additional requirements of public
costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic
welfare of the community especially in light of the developer saying they should not
pay for the road and the estimated 700,000+ and the impact to other services."
Schultz made a motion to continue this matter until November 12 to allow the City Attorney to
prepare the final findings denying the Special Use Permit based on the findings of each Councilor.
On November 12, 2008 the Council will review the findings for finalization and submittal to the
Developer.
Ayes: Wick, Symanietz, Frank, Schultr
Nays: Rassier Motion Carried 4:1:0
Schultz made a motion to deny the PUD Amendment based on the same facts of findings
identified by each member of the Council. The motion was seconded by Wick.
Ayes: Wick, Symanietr, Frank, Schultr
Nays: Rassier Motion Carried 4:1:0
Wick made a motion to deny the re-plat of Graceview Estates 2 based on the same facts of finding
identified by each member of the Council. The motion was seconded by Symanietz.
Ayes: Wick, Symanietz, Frank, Schultr
Nays: Rassier Motion Carried 4:1:0
T
Schultz made a motion to extend the meeting time until 10:30p.m. The motion was seconded by
Frank and passed unanimously by those present. (Wick was not present for this motion)
SYMAN I ETZ
COUNCIL REPORTS
Misc Info: Symanietz advised the Council that she had some information relating to energy and windmills.
The information was presented to Weyrens.
St. Cloud Area Joint Planning Board: Symanietz reported that she is a member of the sub-committee for
cities going green.
SCHULTZ - No Report
2 AM Bar Closing: Rassier stated that previously, the Council conducted a public hearing to accept
testimony on the potential extension of bar hours until 2 AM at which time the Council requested
additional information. Weyrens presented the Council with information from the Police Chief as well as
the area cities. The area Cities indicated that they have not seen an increase in activity since the
implementation of the extended hours. There were some questions relating to the fees for extending the
November 6, 2008
Page 12 of 14
hours. Weyrens advised the Council that the fee is administered through the State of Minnesota. The City
can only add a fee for the extended hours if there is a nexus to the fee charged.
Frank stated that he spoke with Mike Williams, City of St. Cloud and the City Administrator for the City of
Bartell and neither of them have experienced any problems with the extension of the bar hours. In his
opinion, St. Joseph has a different situation. Frank stated that during discussions with other communities
he noticed that the fees charged by St. Joseph are on the light side and suggested that the City review
the fees along with any Ordinance Amendment.
Chief Jansky approached the Councilors and stated that with the extension of the bar hours, there may
be some overtime required at times as he stated that he does not plan to adjust the schedule until it is
necessary. Schultz questioned if they can call for extra help on Fridays and Saturdays, if needed. Jansky
replied that they can call for mutual aid, if necessary.
Frank stated that the Colleges are willing to purchase ID readers for each of liquor license establishment
provided they are used. Jansky stated that he has spoken with several of the bar owners and managers
and they stated that they would be willing to use them if they were installed. Wick suggested that if the
readers are installed as control measure to help alleviate minor consumption, the City may consider
raising the fee for underage consumption.
Wick questioned how day light savings time would be handled. Zimmer stated that they would continue to
close at 2AM as scheduled.
Weyrens advised the Council that staff would like authorization to prepare an amendment for such.
Jansky stated that the parking ordinance may need to be amended as well if they plan to allow parking on
the streets past 2AM.
Frank suggested that the City try the 2AM bar closing for one year as the license is issued annually by the
State, limiting the extended hours to Friday and Saturday nights. He also suggested that all bars be
required to use the ID readers and that the fine for minors be increased.
Weyrens questioned how the Council would like to handle special events that may want to extend past
midnight as limited by the current ordinance. Rassier stated that the extension would need to be
approved by the Council with their special event license.
Wick questioned the limiting of the days of the week to Friday and Saturday. He questioned how special
dates such as St. Patrick's Day would be handled. Schultz suggested that it be all or none for the 2AM
closing.
Rassier suggested that the Ordinance amendment be brought to the Council in December for approval
and would then be effective in January. Wick asked for staff to prepare two different amendments, one
with the limiting of days to Friday, Saturday and special days and one with no limitations to the days.
CITY ENGINEER REPORTS
Southwest Beltway: Sabart stated that he attended the 15~ meeting of the Advisory Committee meeting of
the Southwest Beltway with Councilor Wick. He stated that they are working with various agencies on
review comments for the draft scoping document, There are three different build alternatives that have
been graphically defined. There is a public input meeting scheduled for January 7 in Waite Park. Frank
questioned if St. Joseph has chosen a preferred alternative to which Sabart stated that the scope of the
Study is not to identify one preferred route. Rather, the study will identify areas which can be studied
further; the document is only a scoping document.
November 6, 2008
Page 13 of 14
Symanietz made a motion accepting the alternatives that have been graphically identified and
request Stearns County to review the three built alternatives and begin the public input phase.
The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously.
MAYOR REPORTS
Due to time constraints, Rassier had no reports.
FRANK - No Report
WICK - No Report
COUNCIL REPORTS (continued)
ADMINISTRATOR REPORTS
Sales Tax Committee, Survey Request: Weyrens advised the Council that the Sales Tax Committee
would like to do a mailing/survey to get input from the Community on components residents would like to
see in a Community Center. In addition to the survey, SEH will be hosting an open house for residents to
discuss the components on November 18. The Sales Tax Committee has recommended mailing a post
card survey to the residents, explaining the process and inviting them to the open house. .
Rassier made a motion accepting the recommendation of the Sales Tax Committee, mailing a
survey to all residents requesting information on the definition of a Community Center. The
motion was seconded by Symanietz.
Discussion: Frank made the following comments relating to the survey:
1. There is likely to be little response.
2. Surveys will be coming in for a long time.
3. By sending it to the property owners, as listed in utility billing, renters, the Sisters, and
students living in the dorms will be left out. (Weyrens stated that the survey will be made
available to the Monastery and students)
The motion passed unanimously.
Union Negotiations -AFSCME: Weyrens stated that the negotiation team recently met with AFSCME to
begin labor negotiations. She advised the Council that they should sit down and to review the proposal
and set some parameters. She suggested meeting on the 17th in a closed session after the public hearing
to which the Council concurred.
Antenna Lease: Weyrens presented the Council with an amendment to the tower lease between the City
of St. Joseph and Verizon. The amendment allows for additional antennas and identifies the
responsibilities of each party. During the amendment process, the City Attorney, Sue Dege, discovered
that Verizon has more antennas on the tower then they indicated. At this time Verizon has agreed to pay
the back rent which is approximately $ 20,000. Schultz questioned why all of the antenna lease revenues
are put in the water fund. Weyrens stated that 10% is put into the general fund and the balance into the
water fund to help pay for repairs and upkeep of the water tower. Frank questioned whether or not the
City should allow others to rent space on the tower as well. Weyrens stated that Sprint also has antennas
on the tower and the City is cautious about allowing additional vendors as they must access and cut into
the tower to install the equipment. At some point the City needs to worry about tower integrity.
Schultz made a motion to execute the Mayor and Administrator to execute the amendment to the
lease agreement with Verizon. The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously.
Request to Refund Water/Sewer Access Fee: Weyrens advised the Council that when Graceview Estates
was developed, the developer, Pond View Ridge, paid all their hookup fees at the time of platting to avoid
the increased fees. At the time the fees were paid the Ordinance was silent as to whether or not
Water/Sewer Access fees could be prepaid and it was a significant savings to prepay. Since that time the
City has amended the Ordinance prohibiting the prepayment of WAC/SAC fees. They are now
November 6, 2008
Page 14 of 14
requesting a refund on those lots that have not been built. Weyrens stated that if the City were to refund
the fees, they would receive more money when they re-apply and pay the new fees. Wick stated that he
does not support the refunding of fees, especially since they were paid to avoid the increase, it was a risk
they took. He further stated that the City would be setting precedence to refund fees so he opposes the
refunding. The Council concurred with Wick and the Council by consensus denied the refund.
Parkway Business Center: According to Weyrens, they are really close to coming to an agreement with
the developer of the Parkway Business Center. They have a potential use for the area, but they first want
to finalize the Developer Agreement before marketing the lots. According to MN Statute, they cannot
legally be marketed until the final plat is approved. Weyrens stated that there is no infrastructure yet and
they plan to install the utilities privately in 2009. She added that they have no contractor picked yet for the
installation of the utilities. This matter should be ready for Council approval at the next regular meeting of
the Council.
Ad~iourn: Wick made a motion to adjourn at 10:20PM. The motion was seconded by Frank and
passed unanimo
J y eyre
dmin strator