Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 [08] Aug 01 August 1, 2011 Page 1 of 6 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, August 1, 2011 at 7:OOPM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Commissioners Ross Rieke, Gina Dullinger, Mike Deutz, Rick Schultz, Joe Dubel, John Meyer and City Administrator Judy Weyrens City Representatives Present: City Engineer Randy Sabart, City Attorney Tom Jovanovich, City EDA Director Cynthia Smith - Strack Others Present: Tom Klein, Jody Terhaar, Katherine Kraft, Susan Palmer, Tom Krebsbach, Phil Mulvaney, S. T. Scheeler, Dick Taufen, Peter Gillizter, John Greer, John & Anastasia Gregg, Cory Ehlert Approval of the Agenda: Schultz made a motion to approve the agenda as presented; seconded by Dubel and passed unanimously. Approval of the Minutes: Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes of July 11, 2011 with minor corrections noted by Kalinowski; seconded by Dubel and passed unanimously. Public Hearing, College of St. Benedict: Kalinowski opened the Public Hearing. Weyrens stated that the purpose of the hearing was to consider a development request of the College of St. Benedict. The public hearing will consider an amendment to the St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan to allow for the Zoning Classification of E & E in Planning District 12, subsequent rezoning to E & E, and preliminary plat entitled College 2 Addition or in the alternative, consider a request to rezone the property described below from the current agricultural to R4, issue a special use permit to allow for development of the property as a planned unit development (PUD) allowing for residential living quarters, recreation fields, a College Welcome Center and preliminary plat entitled College 2 Addition. The property is located east of College Avenue /CR 121, south of Callaway Street and north of the northern gas substation, legally described as: Section 10, Township 127, Range 29; 20.23A SE4SW4 S of Rd and Section 15 Township 124, Range 29; 30.83A NE4NW4 less 4.55AC S of N ROW Rd Also Less PT platted as College Addition. The requested was submitted by the College of St. Benedict, 37 College Avenue S, St. Joseph. John Greer approached the Council as the attorney acting on behalf of the College of St. Benedict. He began by explaining the four components of their request. a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Greer stated that the College of St. Benedict is requesting approval for a development east of CR121. He advised the Commissioners that they see it necessary to amend the future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the proposed development is consistent with the College of St. Benedict Master Plan that has been included in the City's Comprehensive Plan. He added that this property is located within Planning District 12. With respect to proposed future land uses for District 12, the Comprehensive Plan states that this area has been labeled as "an area of change ". The plan also states that "the area has been guided for future agricultural use with acknowledgement that the area will likely be used for a mixture of uses within the future ". Currently, the Future Land Use Map shows this area as "Medium Density Residential" and they are requesting that it be changed to "Educational ". According to Greer, further development of this property will not be "mixed use residential" thus the map is inconsistent with the College's future plans. He added that a change to the map would reflect a future use, not the future zoning of the property. b. Rezoning: According to Greer, they are requesting that the property be rezoned to EE with R4 as the alternative. As part of their request, they would like this area to be developed as a PUD; therefore, either zoning classification would work. If the area is rezoned as R4; however, they would require several exceptions to the R4 Ordinance. Greer stated that EE zoning is most desirable as it is tailored to what the College wants for this property. They are proposing to construct a Welcome Center, Athletic Fields as well as residential dwellings. He stated that August 1, 2011 Page 2 of 6 athletic fields would be permissible as a Special Use permit under the R4 zoning. R4 zoning is primarily for townhomes or other dwellings, residential in nature. Greer advised the Commissioners that, at the Concept meeting held with staff, it was noted that EE zoning doesn't contain strict definitions for the allowable uses. They are requesting that the property be developed as a PUD and he stated that by using the PUD process, it would give the City some control over the project. Greer added that the alternative R4 zoning could work; however, they would require several variances (approximately 7 or 8) to the Ordinance. In conclusion, Greer stated that it would be in the best interest of both the City and the College for this area to be rezoned as EE as it more closely fits the future uses of the property. c. Preliminary Plat: At the concept meeting, there were several issues raised by the City Engineer. Greer stated that, essentially, the plan would involve the following: • Lot 1 Welcome Center • Lot 2 Student Housing • Lot 3 Athletic Fields (Soccer Fields, Tennis Courts, Storage, Restrooms) • Outlot A Greer stated that the College is not looking to develop this property at this time and thus they would like to keep the zoning as is. This property is subject to a future development. • Outlots B, C, D Storm Water Retention Area d. PUD and Special Use Permit: Greer stated that the College is proposing to develop this property as a PUD with either EE zoning or R4 zoning. He stated that the PUD will put restrictions on future development. Again, he stated that rezoning the property to R4 would create the need for several variances. Staff identified the following findings to which Greer commented: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the Official City Comprehensive Plan. Response: Greer stated that the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive plan except the future land use map. 2. The proposed request is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. Response: Greer explained that it would be consistent with the future uses to the extent that the administrative building (Lot 1) will be located across from campus and the athletic fields (Lot 3) will be adjacent to Graceview Estates and will act as a buffer between the homes in Graceview Estates and the student housing. He stated that it would be a continuation of the College Campus to include the athletic fields. Greer added that Outlot A is to be used for some future development. 3. The proposed request conforms to performance standards in the Code. Response: According to Greer, if the property is zoned EE, development would comply with development standards in the code. If the property is zoned R4; however, there would need to be some exceptions. 4. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. Response: Greer stated that, from an Engineering standpoint, it is not contemplated that it will be any more than 128 students and that, along with the Welcome Center, will not be a burden on capacity. 5. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Response: According to Greer, the proposed development is adjacent to CR121 which is a major arterial street/collector street. It is anticipated that there will be heavy traffic in the future as the City develops further to the south. They feel that they have August 1, 2011 Page 3 of 6 adequate capacity from CR121 and Callaway Street. Greer added that they have received a letter from the County Highway Department allowing them one access on to CR121. At the concept meeting, there were some concerns about an emergency exit; thus the boundary of Lot 3 has been expanded to allow for an emergency exit. Additional comments from staff include the following conditions to which Greer responded: 1. Uses allowed to be specifically defined and limited. 2. Parking study 3. Subsequent approvals Response: Greer stated that the specifics of the welcome center are not overly detailed. He added that they plan to phase this development project in three phases beginning with the student housing followed by the moving of the athletic fields. He added that the construction of the Welcome Center may be a few years down the road. According to Greer, the City is requesting that a parking study be completed; however, there is ambiguity as to how many parking stalls will be needed for spectators. Richard Taufen, 32 2 Avenue SW, approached the Commissioners in opposition to the proposed project. He urged the Planning Commission members to study the proposal real hard as traffic problems will continue to get worse. He stated that 6 -8 years ago, when the City discussed the possible "Field Street ", there was a lot of opposition from the College and Convent. With that, the project was pulled and when it becomes a reality, the City will have to fund the entire project. He stated that he would like to see the request denied. John Gregg, 327 4th Avenue SE, approached the Commissioners and questioned what will be constructed between his property and the open field that is there currently. With the help of Commissioner Dubel, Gregg was able to see where the project is in relation to his property. Greer stated that the area abutting his property will remain, as is. S. Katherine Kraft spoke in favor of the proposed project. She stated that she feels it is a good plan and feels that it gives the College the opportunity to expand women's sports. As for the property owners in Graceview, Kraft stated that the project will give them a buffer with the athletic fields rather than having more apartments. She added that this development will help to force the traffic issue and stated that "Field Street" will have to come to be. Kraft concluded by stating that the athletic fields will help to bring more people into the City for various events which will benefit the businesses in town. Anastasia Gregg, 327 4 Avenue SE approached the Commissioners and questioned the height of this building to which Greer responded that the student housing is proposed to be 36 1 /2' tall. She also • questioned the parking to which she was advised that the parking plan can be found on the site plans. Cory Ehlert, 427 12 Avenue SE, addressed the Planning Commission as a taxpaying resident as well as owner of several investment properties within the City. He stated that he has been a part of a committee that has been formed to discuss the impacts of the proposed changes to student housing. He sees this is a huge problem for the City. By removing 128 students from the current off - campus housing, there are going to be several vacancies. This may lead to issues such as crime from a more diverse tenant base, vandalism and potentially more foreclosures. Ehlert explained the effects of this being a tax exempt parcel of property. The taxpayers in the City provide roads, sidewalks, police protection and fire protection, yet they do not pay property taxes. He urged the Commissioners to delay action on this request and ask the College and St. John's University to join the Committee to help find a solution for the problem as well as discuss the services that the City provides. The public hearing was closed at 7:40PM. The Commissioners then discussed the items in order that they were presented: a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Deutz stated that he is not sold on the requested change to the Comprehensive Plan. According to Deutz, staff brought up some good points to consider when considering a change. Deutz stated that the proposed development will benefit the College, August 1, 2011 Page 4 of 6 not the community. Meyer added that staff identified the following findings as a basis for making a decision: 1. Response to changing conditions and community attitudes. 2. Whether there is a public need for the change and the change being proposed is the best means of meeting the identified public need. 3. Whether there is a net benefit to the community that will result from the change. Based on those findings, Meyer stated that, in his opinion, their request does not meet the need for a change to the Comprehensive Plan. After listening to the public comments, Dubel stated that it would be a detriment to the City to allow for the change. Meyer asked the College to speak regarding their stand on the proposed Field Street. When the "Field Street" project was being studied, there was a lot of opposition from the College and they took extreme measures to ensure that it did not cross their property. Greer stated that it was his understanding that the property for "Field Street" has already been dedicated to the City. Sue Palmer approached the Commissioners on behalf of the College. She stated that the original "Field Street" was to cross the Sisters' property, not the College's property. Deutz stated that the College never came to the Council in support of the project. Greer re- stated that the College dedicated the required land for the City to build "Field Street" as they see necessary. Meyer questioned the rezoning of Outlot A. Weyrens stated that they are not requesting to rezone Outlot A until they have a use for the property. Schultz questioned whether a motion is required to which Weyrens stated they must make a motion either denying or approving the request as there was an application. Deutz stated that the reasons for denial are included in the packet. According to Jovanovich, Weyrens normally prepares the findings; however, that was not done for this as there were too many issues. As a result, staff will prepare findings based on the Commission's decisions and that will be brought back at a later meeting for approval by the board. He stated that the more findings, the better for a denial. Jovanovich also discussed the potential rezoning and stated that once a property is rezoned, the City has little discretion as to its future uses. Greer re- stated that they would like to develop this property as a PUD. Deutz questioned why they are requesting the EE zoning. Greer replied that they would need approximately nine different variances if the property was to be rezoned R4. Greer advised the Commissioners that the only change that they are requesting is to have the color changed on the future land use map. They feel that this would be a benefit to the City to have a less confusing and non - inconsistent zoning map as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Due to some concern raised by the public, Dubel questioned whether or not this property will be tax exempt. Greer replied that it is the expectation that the Assessor will find that this property is college property and thus it will be classified as tax exempt. He added that the College recently made it a policy to have all students live on campus and to have that policy fully implemented within the next four years. Strack advised the Commissioners to be aware of the process. If the property is rezoned to EE, an amendment is required; however, if it is rezoned R4, an amendment would not be required. Strack added that the EE district was originally added as a zoning district to encapsulate the property that was already developed and owned by the College and Monastery of St. Benedict. At that time, it seemed to be the best method for addressing zoning. Therefore, the zoning district became vague and specific uses were not identified. Strack advised the Commissioners that the residential portion of the proposed development would fit with the R4 zoning and the Welcome Center and athletic fields would be considered special uses. When using a PUD, Strack August 1, 2011 Page 5 of 6 stated that variances can be offered to accommodate mixed uses. Strack concluded that there are a lot of issues associated with the proposed project, it is extremely complex. Schultz questioned staff as to whether or not they would be required to use the PUD process if the area is zoned EE. Jovanovich stated that they would not need to use the PUD process. He stated that there are two reasons for using a PUD: o Single detached dwelling units o Non single family dwelling units and other mixed uses Schultz questioned why staff is suggesting that this property be zoned R4 rather than R3. Weyrens replied that that decision is based on the composition of the dorms and the other proposed uses. Deutz stated that he would like to see a motion to deny the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Kalinowski, on the other hand, stated that she would like to see the motion in the positive rather than the negative and then state reasons for the denial. Jovanovich advised the Commissioners that if the motion to approve doesn't pass, then they must provide reasons for the denial. He stated it would be best to just have a motion for denial if that is their decision. Rieke made a motion to deny the request for an amendment to the Land Use Map as part of the Comprehensive Plan based on criteria as indicated by staff that the EE zoning district was created to quantify the current land uses rather than create future land uses as well as, from a stewardship perspective, it would allow the City better management of the proposed project. The motion was seconded by Deutz. Discussion: Rieke expressed that the College has been an excellent community partner and they have been involved, in so many ways, in where the City has been, what it is today and where it is going. He stated that he understands that this is a free enterprise situation and also understands the issue of private enterprise. Overall, he believes this is a good project. Friendly Amendment to the motion: Schultz added a friendly amendment to state that there is no public need for the change as it benefits a specific property rather than the community at large. The motion passed unanimously. Jovanovich stated that he, along with City staff and the City Engineer will prepare findings, based on their discussion, for the denial and it will be presented for approval at the next meeting. b. Rezoning: Greer approached the Commissioners and stated that, in light of their decision to deny the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, they are withdrawing their request for EE zoning and are instead asking for the alternative R4 zoning. They feel it would be a waste of time to ask for EE zoning if the City is not willing to change the Comprehensive Plan. Meyer made a motion to accept the request of the College to remove the request for EE zoning. The motion was seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously. Dubel questioned whether they are rezoning the property from R3 or AG. Weyrens clarified that the current zoning is AG and they are requesting that it be rezoned R4. Strack reminded the Commissioners that they are not requesting that Outlot A be rezoned at this time. That piece of property will remain as AG. Rieke made a motion to recommend the City Council rezone the property owned by the College from AG to R4 with the exception of Outlot A. The motion was seconded by Meyer. Discussion: Meyer suggested asking the College to be a part of some ongoing discussion regarding the financial impacts of their plans on the City's rental housing community. Ayes: Rieke, Meyer, Kalinowski, Dullinger, Dubel, Schultz Nays: Deutz The motion passed 6:1:0 August 1, 2011 Page 6 of 6 c. Preliminary Plat: Kalinowski questioned whether or not a decision should be made regarding approval of the Preliminary Plat. Weyrens replied that there are still a lot of outstanding engineering issues. She questioned the applicant as to when they can expect resolution on those. Dubel raised the question of storm sewer to which Sabart stated that there is a large proposed pond on Outlot B that does not have a piped outlet. The College's Engineer has indicated that there are some technical details that have not yet been resolved. Dubel questioned whether or not they did their calculations based on Outlot A remaining as AG. Sabart responded that is part of the information he is waiting to receive. d. PUD and Special Use Permit: Rieke questioned whether or not they need to take action on these matters due to the 60day rule or whether they can be tabled. Weyrens replied that staff never received the complete application for the PUD and Special Use Permit and added that the City has more time to consider the preliminary plat. Greer indicated that they can have their engineering issues addressed within a week. Rieke made a motion to table action on the Preliminary Plat and PUD /Special Use Permit requests until the next scheduled meeting unless a special meeting is held. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Council Liaison Report: Schultz stated that he had no report as everything has been televised. Adjourn: Deutz made a motion to adjourn at 8:30PM; seconded by Meyer and passed unanimously. i. U!' 4 eyrens • inistrator