Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[02] Minutes - Nov 18 November 18, 2014 14 Page of Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Joint Planning Board for the Township and City of St. Joseph met in special session on Tuesday, November 18 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Members Rick Schultz, Brenda Stanger, Hal Undersander, Mike Koltes, Ross Rieke, Chad Hausmann, Renee Symanietz, Jerome Salzer City Representatives Present: Terry Wotzka, City Eningeer Others Present: Craig Hiltner, Trent Merkling, Kevin Cox, Steve Gohmann, Jerry Gohmann, Brenda Stanger, Dale Wick, Steve Frank, Bob Loso. Symanietz made a motion to approve the minutes of August 11, 2014; seconded Approve Minutes: by Rieke and passed unanimously by those present . Public Hearing, Rezoning, CLC Partners, LLC: Chair Schultz called the hearing to order and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a request for rezoning from the current Urban Expansion to Residential 10. The request for rezoning is in accordance with Section 4.10 of the Stearns County Land Use and Zoning Ordinance #439. The property under consideration is the S ½ SW ¼ NE ¼ and the S ½ SE ¼ NW ¼ lying westerly of County Road 2 in Section 3, St. Joseph Township (124/29) containing approximately 40 acres. The property address is 31486 County Road 2, St. Joseph, MN 56374. The th request for rezoning has been submitted by CLC Partners LLC, 427 12 Ave SE; St. Joseph, MN 56374 for Roman L. Notch Revocable Trust, St. Joseph, MN. Cory Ehlert spoke on his own behalf. Ehlert stated the parcel is 40 acres and is the remaining parcel of the Roman Notch Trust. Previously the Joint Planning Board approved the plat entitled Sunset Ridge and the proposal before the Board is phase II of the development. Phase I has 11 of the 12 lots sold. The proposed plan is to split the land into 4 parcels of approximately10 acres each utilizing a common driveway for ingress/egress. The driveway will enter the property from the West on County Rd 2 and will utilize the existing driveway. Terry Wotzka, SEH stated that he is filling in for the City Engineer Randy Sabart. As requested by the City, Wotzka presented a map of the proposed subdivision to illustrate a conceptual lot development if the property were to be developed as an urban development. This is only conceptual to determine the future impact of utilities. The concept is not intended as a proposed layout for the future; rather is illustrates a development using the minimum City residential lot requirements. Schultz opened the floor to the public and as no one preset wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:15 PM. Salzer stated that the illustration Wotzka showed was fine, but why would they want another pleasant acres on that sandy soil. It is easy to contaminate. Salzer believes it would be better to have less density and larger lots until the City can get there. Rieke stated the illustration shows the potential future development in that area. However, there may never be further development beyond those larger parcels. Those that purchase the larger parcels may never want to develop it at some point in the future. Stanger questioned if the existing building site would remain to which Ehlert stated it would be removed. Ehlert added that the buildings would not fit on any of the lots and would not have any value to the development either. Hausmann questioned if the development would connect with Sunset Ridge right away or would that be in the future. Ehlert stated in his plan it would not connect to Sunset Ridge initially. The right of way is dedicated so it could potentially be done. Ehlert added that the plan has minimal impact. Building roads is very expensive and they are coming at it with a modest approach. Ehlert would not be opposed to dialogue about the western half of his proposal. November 18, 2014 24 Page of Hausmann questioned if they have met with Stearns County regarding access points. Ehlert responded that they had not as rezoning is the first step. At this point County Road 2 is not going to be accessed other than the shared driveway. Schultz questioned how the northern corridor will be taken care of in the current plan. Ehlert stated he did reach out to all home owners in that area about that area potentially containing a roadway. Schultz stated the County will not allow 2 access points onto County road 2. In the long range Transportation Plan, there is an access point to County Road 2 in the northern corridor. Schultz questioned if other types of rezoning were considered such as R1 or R5 rather than R10. Schultz added that exceptions were made on the Sunset Ridge development due to the type of land. However, this request has flat land that could be developed in other ways and rezoned into smaller parcels. Ehlert stated he was not comfortable going back to a higher density development. He did find that in Sunset Ridge, the lots that were 3-4 acres were a bit small. An R5 zoning request would be to take the acreage and divide it by 5. For this development it would be 8 five acre parcels. Ehlert questioned if the potential plotted parcels on the City plan would each have their own well and septic. Wotzka stated that they would. Additionally, the parcels that are around the 1 acre size could eventually be split in half once city services are extended to that area. A calculation was completed to see what the costs would be to extend City services to that area. The estimated costs to bring city water to the edge of the property is approximately $ 750,000. Weyrens stated that the concept plan as presented by Wotzka is only an illustration of once scenario. The MOU between the City and Township requires ghost platting which gives the City the ability to determine the impact of future utilities. Ehlert stated his take away would be that the City would like to see a higher density on the remaining 40 acres. Schultz stated that he would like to see higher densities in that area. He will also check with the APO to see where this plan will fall into the APO’s transportation plan. Rieke stated that higher densities would make sense from the City’s standpoint, however from a marketing standpoint; the 10 acre lots may be more attractive. Having more lots, each with their own wells and septic systems may make it harder to develop. Symanietz questioned how many lots Ehlert would prefer to be developed? Ehlert responded that less is more and he never pictured that area to being high density. Salzer questioned if the County would prefer four lots or 37 lots. Heidi, Stearns County Environmental Services stated that she cannot comment on what the County Board would prefer. If you are talking 37 lots with their own septic systems and wells, it would be hard to accommodate. Weyrens presented a memo from 2012 that had development questions, questions that the board should look at, such as how does it fit into the orderly annexation agreement. Weyrens added that the 37 lots are only indicated in the ghost platting which means it could potentially develop into that many lots. Hausmann thinks it would make sense to have the developers proceed with the 4 lots. Additionally, Hausmann suggested making it known to the buyers of the property the costs of running city services out to their lots. Hausmann added that if they can sell the 4 lots, then that’s great. There is the opportunity to develop further down the road to make the area into a higher density. Rieke stated that the City would probably like to figure out with the help of SEH, where the roadways and easements are going to be. Ehlert stated he understands the City’s position on the right of way. Ehlert added that no one knows when City services will be extended to those lots. He does not feel it would be right for the City to take ownership of the right of way in anticipation of the city services being provided. November 18, 2014 34 Page of The orderly annexation agreement is to provide balance. Not all lots within the city need to be smaller lots and not everyone wants to live in the City and the Memorandum of Understanding defines the terms of how the city and township agreed on how development can occur in the township area. Weyrens questioned if the board would be in agreement to table the discussion, extending the 60 day nd land use rule until the 2 Monday in December, giving the developer time to look at the options. Ehlert stated he is not opposed to looking at the development again and working with the city to obtain a higher density. Rieke made a motion extend the 60 day land use requirement an additional 60 days tabling further discussion until Monday, December 8th. The motion was seconded by Salzer and passed unanimously. Public Hearing, Rezoning, CLC Properties: Chair Schultz called the hearing to order at 7:55 PM and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a request for rezoning from the current Urban Expansion to Residential R10. The request for rezoning is in accordance with Section 4.10 of the Stearns County Land Use and Zoning Ordinance #439. The property under consideration is part of the NW ¼ and NW ¼ NE ¼ lying easterly of County Road 121 and northeasterly of the Sauk River in Section 23, St. Joseph Township (124/29), containing approximately 143.6 acres. The request for rezoning has been submitted by CLC Properties, St. Joseph, MN for American National Bank of MN, St. Cloud, MN. Ehlert spoke on his own behalf stating that this development is named River Ridge Estates. It is a 16 lot residential development along the banks of the Sauk River. There will be a variety of lot sizes ranging th from 2-10+ acres with a unique landscape and river frontage. The current access would be 290 Street. The current request is to rezone the property to R10. Ehlert stated that of the 143 acres, 72 acres is either impacted by wetland or the 100 year flood plain. The development will consist of parcel A and parcel B. Parcel B will be made up of 9 lots and includes the river. The lot configuration may change a bit as he continues to work with the watershed district. The primary access point for these homeowners would be a cul-de-sac. Parcel A consists of 7 lots. One of the 7 lots will be about 24 acres with most of that being wetlands. Wotzka displayed a drawing showing how the long term transportation plan calls for a road that would run through many of the lots. It would run from the North down to CR 121. The intent would be to skirt the wetland area. Ehlert stated that it would be difficult to build a road through the wetlands. As developers, they are required to have their development create little to no impact on the wetlands. Wotzka stated that Ehlert makes a good point as roads would be difficult to build without having impact to the wetlands. Ehlert presented a map showing the potential road realigning the road from the North to go across the Sauk River. He questioned that consideration be taken to this new road alignment idea which would be another way to connect to HWY 23. Ehlert stated he is not sure what the City would gain from having the road align with CR 121. Schultz questioned if the proposed road has any wetland impacts. Ehlert stated that it has an impact. Additionally, the road will travel into other municipalities such as the watershed district and Waite Park. Schultz questioned how far apart the two bridges would be. Ehlert stated that he is unsure of the distance. As no one else present wished to speak, Schultz closed the public hearing at 8:15 PM. Rieke stated he feels the development is a nice way to develop an interesting property. Rieke added that he likes the layout and the cul-de-sac component. November 18, 2014 44 Page of thth Symanietz stated that the future 12 Avenue and the future 20 Avenue connection could be able to handle the traffic. That way, the road through the development would not be needed. Rieke stated that th because 12 Ave was reduced in width, he would not like to see higher amounts of traffic on the road. Hausmann questioned if the City Engineer and developers should meet to discuss the impact to the Long Range Transportation Plan. Rieke made a motion extend the 60 day land use requirement an additional 60 days tabling further discussion until Monday, December 8th. The motion was seconded by Schultz and the motion carried. Ayes: Schultz, Hausmann, Symanietz, Rieke, Stanger, Koltes, Understander Naya: Salzer Motion Carried: 7:1:0 Salzer questioned how a road can be built if the watershed district or DNR opposes. Wotzka stated that the permitting process is not straight forward. Often, alternatives are looked at and the process can be quite lengthy. Hausmann added that the first thing you need to show is the ‘need’ to have the road. th Ehlert stated that for the purposes of the request, the only road plan that is in place brings 20 Street south to connect to CR 121. Ehlert stated that the map from SEH is new to him and he and the developer have not had time to figure how that would work with their development. Schultz made adjourned the meeting at 8:30 PM. Adjourn: Rick Schultz Judy Weyrens Acting Joint Board Chair Joint Board Secretary