Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 [12] Dec 03 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, December 3, 2001 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph Fire Hall. Members Present: Chair Gary Utsch. Commissioners S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Mike Deutz, Jim Graeve, Kurt Schneider. Council Liaison Al Rassier. City Administrator/Clerk Judy Weyrens. City Representatives Present: City Attorney John Scherer, City Engineer Joe Bettendorf. Others Present: Rick Heid, Bob Herges, Rick Harris, Linda Brown, Darwin Erickson, Ann Reischl, Joe Bechtold, Steve Schirber, Herb Bechtold, Gladys Schneider, Don Schneider, Kevin Kluesner, Duane Gaida, Loyola Gaida, Justin Honer, Tim Muske, Matt Chournard, Al Gwost, Rick Schultz, Karen Marchand, Rand Marchand, Mike Phillip, Herman Gangl, Robert Rice, Mary Rice, Art Budde, Donna Budde, Victoria Erickson, Jean Marthaler, Brian Donnay, Brenda Donnay, Larry Hosch, Tom Herkinoff, Mark Lambert, Mel Butkowski, Carol Butkowski Bob Herges, Rick Heid – Graceview Estates Preliminary Plat: Chair Utsch called the hearing to order at 7:00 PM and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a preliminary plat, P.U.R.D. application to develop approx. 91 acres with mixed housing, and to rezone the property from current Agriculture to R1 Single Family. The property is thth located South of Baker Street and West of 7 Avenue NE/95 Avenue. Legally described as follows: The Southeast Quarter of The South East Quarter (SW ¼ SE ¼) of Section Ten (10) in Township One Hundred Twenty -Four (124) North, of Range Twenty-nine (29) in Stearns County, Minnesota, LESS AND EXCEPT; The North 66 feet thereof AND ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT the East 30 feet thereof. The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE ¼ NE 1/4) of Section Fifteen (15), in Township One Hundred Twenty-four (124) North, Range Twenty-nine (29) West n Stearns County, Minnesota, LESS AND EXCEPT: Commencing at The Northwest corner of said NE 1/4 NE ¼; thence East on an assumed bearing along the North line of said NE ¼ NE ¼, a distance of 500 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 00 degree 09 minuets 26seconds East parallel with the West line of said NE ¼ NE ¼ a distance of 1330.93 feet to the South line of said NE ¼ NE ¼; Thence North 89 degree 57minutes 43 seconds East along said South line of NE ¼ NE ¼; a distance of 819.95 fee to the East line of said section; thence North 00 degree 10 minutes 42 seconds West along said East line a distance of 1330.38 feet to the Northeast corner of said Section; Thence West along the North line of said Section 819.47 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. AND The Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW ¼ NE ¼) of Section Fifteen (15), in Township One Hundred Twenty-four (124) North, of Range Twenty-nine (29) West in Stearns County, Minnesota, LESS AND EXCEPT: That part of the NW ¼ NE ¼, of Section 15, Township 124, Range 29, described as follows: Beginning at the NE Corner of said Quarter-Quarter, said Point being south 89 degrees 11minutes West, 1320 feet from the NE Corner of said Section; Thence along the East line of said Quarter-Quarter, due South 310 feet; thence South 89 degrees 11 minutes West 250 feet; thence due north 310 feet to a point on the North line of said Section; thence along said North line North89 degrees 11 minutes East, 250 feet to the point of beginning. The request for preliminary plat and P.U.R.D. development has been submitted by Bob Herges and Rick Heid; 25 N th 11 Avenue, St. Cloud MN 56303. Bob Herges stated that he and Rick Heid recently purchased property from St. Benedict’s Monastery to develop with mixed residential housing units. The property contains approximately 91 acres and is located between south of th Kennedy School, south of Baker Street East and west of 95 Avenue. Herges stated that in an effort to provide quality development, he hired a landscape designer to plan the development. The proposed development has been named Graceview Estates. At this time Herges introduced landscape designer Rick Harris. Harris stated that he has worked in over 250 communities providing planning services. Harris presented some basic information on planning and discussed how he prepares a development. The process used by Harris includes integrating the characteristics of the community while maximizing the use of the land. Harris stated that when he plans a development, a typical design has 32% less streets, larger lots and provides for significant side and front views. Graceview Estates has been designed as life cycle housing, housing for all levels of living. The development will include bay homes, townhomes, single family homes, multiple family homes and senior units. The development includes ten ingress/egress with an average lot size is 14,253 square feet. Chair Utsch opened the floor for questions and comments. th Art Budde of 106 – 7 Avenue SE stated that he is pleased with the concept of the housing development and types of thth housing. However, Budde questioned why the extensions of 4 and 5 Avenues do not match the existing street alignment. In his opinion the lack of a four way intersection will create poor visibility. Therefore, the streets should be aligned to match. Budde also questioned if access to County Road 121 will be provided. th Herges stated that the plat has been redesigned eliminating the extension of 5 Avenue and a four way intersection has th been created at 4 Avenue. This change has been made as a result of input received from the public prior to the public hearing. Bettendorf stated the long term plans include a connection to County Road 121. Bettendorf further stated that he had the plan reviewed by a traffic engineer and he is recommending that a second ingress/egress to CR 121 be provided near Kennedy School. The development is large and traffic needs to be moved efficiently to major roads. Herges stated that he and Rick Heid do not own the property that connects to County Road 121. However, they did meet with the property owner, (College of St. Benedict), and they are not supportive of extending a road through their property. thth Steve Schirber of 30152 - 95 Avenue questioned if the new development plans include the reconstruction of 95 Avenue, and will the City require access to County Road 121 before construction can begin. Utsch stated that the Planning Commission and City Council will be meeting in December to discuss the Transportation Plan for St. Joseph and the need to establish the east / west route planned for south of the proposed development. th Bettendorf stated at this time there are no plans to reconstruct 95 Avenue. It would be prudent to install utilities th simultaneously with the installation in Graceview Estates, the City Council has discussed the island of property on 95 Avenue that is still in St. Joseph Township and the process of annexing those properties. At the time of annexation utilities will be available and the street will be improved. thth Herman Gangl of 30084 – 95 Avenue questioned the future alignment of 95 Avenue if the street is improved. It is his understanding that the current road is off center and the road will be moved. Bettendorf stated that when the road is improved or reconstructed, the road will be placed in the correct location. Without completing survey details and viewing the property the exact location of the road cannot be determined. Bettendorf stated he will review the matter. th Kathy Salzer of 131 – 4 Avenue SE questioned the amount of traffic that will be generated by the proposed housing development, both during construction and after the homes are constructed. Salzer questioned how traffic will be controlled during the construction season and after the development is completed. th Utsch reiterated the City Council and Planning Commission will be meeting on December 17 to discuss the future roads. The Planning Commission understands the need to establish connections to County Road 121 and construct an east / west corridor at the southern end of the development. Bettendorf stated the City could require the developer to provide a temporary road for construction traffic. This road should be connected to County Road 121. The temporary road could be installed at the same location the traffic engineer is requesting a second ingress/egress. The developers will need to negotiate an agreement with the College of St. Benedict as they are the owners of the property which abuts County Road 121. thth Mike Philip of 30018 – 95 Avenue questioned the future street design for 95 Avenue from Baker Street East to the Palmersheim property, what accommodations have been made regarding the natural gas line and if a holding pond or storm sewer is planned for the area being developed. Bettendorf responded that the developer and City are aware of the gas line and have made provisions for it in the design. The easement for the gas line prohibits any construction in the easement area. As far as surface water and drainage, the development is engineered with storm sewer/catch basins and the surface water will be drained to the existing holding ponds as well as the new ponds proposed in the development. Bettendorf further stated the housing development has been planned with catch basins. th Brian Donnay of 202 – 7 Avenue SE reiterated the need to provided alternate ingress/egress for the development and encouraged the Commission to require a road to County Road 121. Bob Kroll read a statement concerning planning and the need to consider public input in the decision making process. Bettendorf stated that he agrees with the need to involve the community in the planning of the development and that is the purpose of the public hearing. All testimony received at this meeting will be considered before a decision is made. th Rick Schultz of 30054 – 95 Avenue questioned the design of the proposed development. Schultz stated that it is his opinion that comparable housing should be constructed adjacent to the existing housing stock. Therefore, the rental units proposed adjacent to his property should be changed to single family homes. th Herges stated the area adjacent to the 95 Avenue is proposed to be upscale attached housing. The homes are not rental units, rather town homes. The proposed value of the attached housing will exceed the value of the existing house stock adjacent to the proposed development. th Art Budde of 106 – 7 Avenue SE restated that he would like the Planning Commission to require an access to County Road 121 and questioned the rationale for requiring an ingress/egress to County Road 121 adjacent to Kennedy School. Bettendorf responded that when determining the location of roads there is a minimum distance that must be considered. The City’s transportation plan has always included an east/west corridor running parallel to the proposed development. The City placed the two accesses using the original one planned. Further, it is important to construct roads where they will be used. A portion of the property retained by the College of St. Benedict is in the process of being sold for a commercial use. Therefore, the proposed road near Kennedy School would no only serve the housing development but the commercial development as well. The Planning Commission may consider using this proposed road as a temporary construction road as well. Mary Ann Graeve of 619 Minnesota Street East questioned who owns the property referred to as Field Street and how close will proposed development and roadway be in relation to the existing wetland. If the proposed development allows for surface water to drain into the wetland there is a possibility the wetlands will become contaminated. It seems to be a common trend for people to use chemicals in lawn care and if proper drainage is not provided it could be detrimental to the residents of St. Joseph. Graeve stated that when making decisions the City needs to look at the quality of life and how the proposed development will affect the lives of the residents of St. Joseph. Bettendorf stated that the College of St. Benedict owns the property referred to as Field Street. The current construction plans for County Road 121 include providing water and sewer lines in the same area. Therefore, it is certain the City will be able to secure the necessary right-of-way for the construction of an east/west corridor. As far as the surface water drainage, the development will be drained with holding ponds and storm sewer outlets so that the wetlands will not be disturbed. Herges stated that he has been researching the possibility of internalizing the sanitary sewer system and water for the proposed development in the event that an agreement cannot be reached with the College of St. Benedict. In discussing this matter with his engineers, it appears as though it would be a feasible alternative. Therefore they may not have to use the proposed Field Street. th Jean Marthaler of 139 – 7 Avenue SE questioned the ingress/egress for the development and who will have the final authority if the access to County Road 121 is required. Marthaler also requested the developer be required to provide a temporary road for construction vehicles. Marthaler also questioned the depth of the proposed holding th pond that to be located near 4 Avenue SE and Baker Street East. Bettendorf responded that the Planning Commission will review the testimony presented at this meeting and make a recommendation to the City Council; at which time the City Council will make the final decision. As far as the depth of the pond, it is proposed to have a maximum depth of six feet. rd Gladys Schneider of 118 – 3 Avenue SE stated she is not opposed to the development and is impressed with the presentation. However, Schneider questioned if anyone has considered the affect the development will have on the current City water supply and storage capacity. The residents have recently paid for a new water storage facility and she does not feel that she should have to pay for another tower in the near future. Bettendorf responded that the City has recently purchased additional sewer capacity / conveyance from the City of St. Cloud. Therefore, the City will have a sufficient sewer capacity for many years. The City will have to begin researching an additional site for a second water storage facility and land for additional wells. The cost of the future improvements will be paid for by hookup fees for all new developments. In 1986 the City implemented water and sewer hookup fees and these fees have paid for many improvements to the utility systems. The City Council will be reviewing the current fees in the upcoming months to assure that the fees collected will cover the future utility expenses created by the growth the City is experiencing. th Duane Giada of 29772 – 95 Avenue questioned the proposed east/west extension referred to as Field Street and the thth redesign of 95 Avenue. The proposed housing development vacates a portion of the existing 95 Avenue realigning the road around the proposed development. Gaida questioned the need for the realignment. Bettendorf responded that the road referred to as Field Street is proposed to be located south of the wetland area near the existing gas shelter. There being no additional testimony Kalinowski made a motion to close the public hearing at 9:10 PM; seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. The Commission agreed to discuss the testimony received on December 19, 2001 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. At that time a recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. Chair Utsch will meet with the City Engineer, Attorney, Developers Rick Hied and Bob Herges and City Staff to review the items of concern and present the information to the Planning Commission on December 19, 2001. Mark Lambert, Proposed 44 Unit Apartment Complex, PURD Hearing: Chair Utsch opened the hearing and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a P.U.R.D. development plan to construct a forty four (44) unit apartment building under a special use application and to consider a fifty (50) foot variance on the size of a business sign. The proposed development is to be located on the following described property: Lot 1 Block 1 Indian Hills Park. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.19 subd. 4 provides for a special use permit to develop multi family dwellings over 12 units through the PURD procedural process. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.14 subd. 12(a) allow for business signs provided that the area on one side shall not exceed fifty square feet. th The proposed PURD application has been submitted by Mark Lambert, 101 – 5 Street, Suite 910; St. Paul MN 55101. Mark Lambert spoke on his own behalf. Lambert stated he plans to construct a 44 unit apartment building and a care taker unit. The apartments will be considered high end market rate, three stories in height – complete with elevators. The building will be three stories high. The majority of the units in the proposed apartment complex are one bedroom units with some two and three bedroom units. Lambert stated that he understands the City has an option to construct a road between Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Block 2 and his site plan provides for such. However, the site plan submitted does not use that access. Rather, an ingress/egress has been provided in the north-east corner of Lot One. Lambert stated the elevations of the land make the site plan difficult to plan. Therefore, he believes he has designed the best plan based on the characteristics of the land. Chair Utsch opened the floor for questions and comments. Mel Butkowski of 502 Fir Street East stated that he is against the proposed apartment complex as it abuts a residential neighborhood. He further stated that when he moved into his home the property proposed for development was zoned Commercial and questioned when the zoning classification was changed and if the property owners should have been notified. Weyrens stated that the property was rezoned in June or July of 2001 from Commercial to R3, Multiple Family. All property owners within 350 feet of a proposed zoning change are mailed a notice. However, when homes are under construction, the builder is typically listed as the property owner and that is whom the notice is mailed to. Lambert responded that the proposed building will be terraced into the hillside with the roof line extending approximately five to ten feet above the hill. The grade difference is significant and the residential neighborhood should not notice the impact from the apartment building. The proposed building will provide upper end housing, not student housing. Allan Gwost of 407 Gumtree Street East stated he was opposed to the proposed 44 unit apartment complex as it will detract from the view of the existing homes and create additional traffic that could create a public safety issue. Lambert responded that under the present zoning classification he could construct three 12 unit apartment buildings without approval from the Planning Commission or City Council. Aesthetically one unit may fit into the neighborhood better than three units. As far as the traffic concerns, the traffic will not go north through the housing development, rather it will go south to County Road 75. Utsch stated that when the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat for Indian Hills Park, one access was provided and that was located between Lots 1 and 2. The City is trying to limit the number of accesses to Northland Drive as it s a primary street and safety is a major concern. With this in mind, the City has already denied a property owner the right to access Northland Drive. Finally, in regard to the rezoning of the property in question, a public hearing on this matter was conducted in June. City Attorney John Scherer stated that the City is working on alternative transportation plans for the Northland area. st One possibility is to re-open 1 Avenue NE near the feed mill. Opening this road would alleviate some traffic through the Northland Addition. Utsch stated that the Council and Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter on December 17, 2001. Chris Vance of 516 Fir Street East stated objection to the proposed apartment complex. He stated that while the property owner states the building is not intended to provide student housing it has the appearance of such. In fact, the proposed building looks similar to a hotel. Vance questioned why the site plan does not include any playground equipment. It is his opinion that if families were looking to rent an apartment they would want some kind of playground equipment. Lambert responded that he is willing to install playground equipment for the tenants but will wait to see the ages of the tenants and plan the equipment accordingly. Vance further questioned if any screening is included in the site plan. Lambert responded that he will consider some type of screening if that is what the neighborhood is requesting. Tim Muske of 506 Fir Street East questioned the time schedule for the proposed project. Lambert responded that he plans to complete the dirt work in April/May with framing to begin sometime in May. If everything goes well the completion date should be sometime in August. Muske expressed concern for the safety of the neighborhood children during construction. Children are drawn naturally to construction work and requested that Lambert provide some type of fencing during the construction. Matt Chouinard of 522 Fir Street East expressed concern regarding the proposed ingress/egress and requested that the location be reconsidered. th Randy Marchand of 617 – 5 Avenue NE stated objection to the proposed apartment complex. Marchand stated he is concerned with the amount of traffic that will be produced by the apartment complex. The intersection at Northland Drive and County Road 75 is already a hazard and a signal light should be installed to help move traffic in a safe manner. Marchand is also concerned that the proposed apartment complex will be occupied with students and he does not want to deal with issues related to student rental property. Joel Heinen of 606 Fir Street East questioned the rezoning of the property. Before he built his home he checked the zoning of the surrounding property and it was either residential or commercial. Heinen questioned the process used for rezoning the property in question. Heinen further stated that if apartments are constructed he would rather see 36 units than 44. Weyrens reiterated that the rezoning hearing was conducted in June of 2001 and if a property was under construction at that time, the hearing notice was mailed to the builder. Many times the City does not know who the owner of the home is until the home is occupied. It is up to the builder to notify their customer of any proposed land use changes. City Attorney John Scherer stated that the height of the building will need to be verified. If the building exceeds 35 feet a variance will need to be considered, which will require a public hearing and property owner notification. Scherer further discussed the common access referred to by the Planning Commission. When the Council approved the Developer’s Agreement for the Indian Hills Plat, it included a provision whereby the City would have to pay for the road between Lots 1 and Lot 2 unless the road is needed for the development of the adjoining lots. The City has one year to decided to construct the road and one additional year to build the road. The reason for the language in the Developer’s Agreement is that before a property owner can be assessed the City must be able to show increased value to the property being assessed. It is questionable whether or not it would add value as the property already was assessed for Northland Drive. There being no further comments or questions Utsch closed the public hearing at 9:50 PM. Deutz questioned Lambert if he is willing to provide screening acceptable to the neighborhood, and if he is willing to install playground equipment. As far as the access, Deutz stated that in reviewing the elevations the building could be moved further west, which would lower the building and allow for use of the intended ingress/egress between Lots 1 and 2. Lambert responded that he is willing to screen the property and would prefer fencing if the neighbors request such. As far as playground equipment, he will not purchase equipment until he knows what market he has secured for tenants. Additionally, Lambert stated he was not sure the building could be moved as the elevations of the property make the site difficult to develop. Schneider questioned the proposed ingress/egress and stated it was his understanding that the property would only be allowed one common ingress/egress to Northland Drive. The decision was made being mindful of public safety issues. Also, as stated earlier the City has already denied one property owner the right to access to Northland Drive. Scherer requested that the City Engineer prepare a traffic study that will assess the impact of the proposed ingress/egress. Utsch stated that it is his understanding the following issues need to be resolved before a decision can be made: 1. Safety of the proposed ingress/egress 2. Can the property be required to use one common ingress/egress? 3. Can the developer move the building to the west addressing some of the concerns of the adjoining neighborhood? 4. City Staff should review the Ordinance reqarding maximum height and schedule a public hearing as necessary. Utsch will meet with the City Engineer, City Attorney and City Administrator to review the above concerns and report back at the next Planning Commission meeting. The Commission agreed that they would consider this matter on December 19, 2001 if all the requested information is available. Deutz made a motion to table the PURD application of Mark Lambert to January 7, 2001; seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously by those present. Deutz made a motion to adjourn at 10:20 PM; seconded by Schneider and passed unanimously. Adjourn: Judy Weyrens Administrator/Clerk