Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 [05] May 03 CITY Of ST. JOSEPH · www.cityofstjoseph.com St. Joseph Planning Commission May 3, 2004 Administrator 7:00 PM udy Weyrens Mayor Larry . Hosch Councilors 1. Call to Order AI R.assier 2. Approve Agenda Ross R.ieke Gary Utsch 3. Approve Minutes Dale Wick 4. 7:00 PM Public Hearing - Rezoning of Property abutting Birch Street East from the current Rl, Single Family Residential to B2, Highway Business. · 5. 7:20 PM Public Hearing - Park Dedication Fees Change the methodology for calculating Park Dedication Fees from the current percentage method to a per lot fee. 6. 7 :30 PM Foxmore Hollow - Rezoning and Special Use Permit Request to allow the construction of two (2) twelve unit apartment buildings. 7. Transportation Planning 8. Proposed Housing Developments 9. Other Matters 10. Adjourn · 2~ College Avenue North' DO Box bb8 . Saint. joseph, Minnesota ~b,74 Phone '20.,b'.7201 I:a x '20.,b,.O'42 :? . St. Joseph Planning Commission May 3, 2004 FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS ~_...-.~~ (: // ,..-,1) ~ J- 'i-; í 'j CJ '/ 1. _~,-"yÞ , . (" '1LcfJ- :X,. £' / 'hS ' ,J "" /' 2. -J t'01~\~~-/·-é-WAt ~<tS .~\ ",Of) S '~\ ~/~ V'~ 3. Q.i~J \ G- ,,~\J \\~~ð"'JÀJ~t~" . r~ 4. awM.J? í eura~~ 1Le . "ß,"{Ja " . '-.. ~ _ _ . -(1-1 5. Gqu;JJ 6y6Ç /6 S j:=> . 'z..p¡ > -- ~ 6. /6W~ S~ í80q r2C:b fb~ Kt>- s.c(Ì!~%KE:Æ(I'I) 7. .17;1~~ 33 Çrl>~,5t: 5!v~ 8. f/1 ffwI. Q '/ rJ 0'IIAd.<\ I () II 'ì d-.q 5 I'.. ç, Sf' Ç.,"" / ~ ,'1 . 9. (~'/- JO/S7 2. '7 ~ /ßl ,$:)e.-- 10. . &b--i5;-:;:~ð- /¿:?t"F-? .. .;tç57%-- .-d-7!' 0~.ø<¿.> - 1../ p 11. ~~ ~v~~~')~ ~ 0,. \C ~ c._v h 12. }fuJ-rd 5:)¡rK-ei-er ii:C¡<i <tt - I D) ¡~ n . .( I 13. K..(ch..k.-líd ~A¡/t;é.d~r ( If ç' yL ~ /lú",-~jJ¿(,(}-{lcÞ.'L .2,)'-f(p? /0 ~ I/JVA.::) '}./,o-'72<"" 15. I rQ_..¿ (¡- IOY¿{ 21/(( 5;r t7 16. Jè/c(/ ~/1 sl" ~!o¿~ 17. ~~&/¿M..4:"'~¿ þ.&-¡¿'d ./YlO>'2<~ ~~ . " 18. _ t.v1 :¿¿;:-. þ-. \ _ ...... ..: ..:..... ~./. - -_/~ .. 19. ~ '. 'J/~~rÎ-Å-¡-~<lccl/J1~ 20. 21. . DRAFT March 22, 2004 ~ Page 1 of6 . Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in special session on Wednesday, March 22,2004 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Commissioners Presents: Chair (Council Liaison) Gary Utsch. Commissioners S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Bob Loso, Michael Deutz, Jim Graeve. Administrator Judy Weyrens. Citv Representatives Present: City Engineer Tracy Ekola, City Attorney Sue Dege, Building Official Ron Wasmond. Others Present: Galen Keyes, Randy Bunnell, Bernie Schloemer, Ann Reischl, Bob Reischl, Barb Schloemer, Jim Sand, Bob Herges, Thomas Homan, Rose Ann Homan, Rick Schroeder, Tom Herkinoff, March Schroden, Lon Nigen, Tom Lowell, Jane Lowell, Jody Terhaar, Richard Kuebelbeck, Helen Kuebelbeck, Amanda Blom, Joan Breth, Marilyn Ruhr. Approve Aqenda: Deutz made a motion to approve the agenda as presented; seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. Amendment to Ordinance 52.29: Utsch opened the public hearing at 7:00 PM and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider an amendment to Ordinance 52.29, R-3 Zoning District, that will require all apartment complexes greater than 12 units to complete the PUD process and to make application for a Special Use Permit. The following sections of the Ordinance are proposed to be amended: 52.29 Subd. 2(a}; 52.29 Subd 4 (e); 52.29 Subd 15. Utsch opened the floor to those wishing to speak. No one presented wished to speak and the public hearing was closed at 7:03 PM. Weyrens clarified that the Ordinance before the Commission at this time is similar to the provisions of the . R3 Zoning Ordinance before it was updated in 2003. The provision is being re-instated to allow the City to manage R3 Developments. Requiring an applicant to complete the PUD process and make application for a Special Use Permit allows the City to enter into an agreement for a specific development plan. If the _plan is not constructed within a specified period of time, either the zoning can revert back to the original zoning classification or the developer would be required to make application for a new special use permit. Concern was expressed that if the City rezoned property, or amended the Comprehensive Plan to allow for R3 Districts, the Planning Commission and Council would have little control over the type of R3 that would be constructed. R3 developments can include Townhomes, Patio Homes, Condominiums or apartment complexes. Deutz questioned the impact of the revised Ordinance to existing R3 Zoned property. Weyrens stated that the new Ordinance would apply equally to all R3 property where a development plan has not been approved. Kalinowski made a motion to recommend the Council authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute the Amendment to Ordinance 52.29 and cause the same to published. The motion ~as seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously by those present. Sand Companies - Morninqside Acres Development Plan: Utsch opened the public hearing at 7:20 PM and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider rezoning the property described below as R1, Single Family and consider a special use permit to allow the property to be developed with mixed density. The property is legally described as: Outlot A of Morningside Acres. The request for rezoning and special use has been submitted by Sand Companies; 366 - 10th Avenue; PO Box 727, Waite Park MN 56387. Jim Sand spoke on behalf of Sand Companies. Sand stated that Sand Companies is proposing to develop the area known as Morningside Acres as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD will . include 23 single family homes, 32 townhomes (Work Force Housing) and 18 patio homes (Senior Housing). DRAFT March 22, 2004 Page2of6 Prior to this meeting Sand stated that he along with company representatives, conducted a neighborhood . meeting to present the proposed plan to the neighborhood before approaching the Planning Commission for approval. Sand stated that at this time they are not ready to proceed with the Preliminary Plat, but are seeking approval for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Rezoning of Morningside Acres. Sand stated that he has received the comments from the City Engineer regarding the concept plan and will incorporate the comments into the preliminary plat. Utsch opened the floor to those wishing to speak. No one present wished to speak Utsch closed the public hearing at 7:25. Utsch stated that the Commission must make a recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning. The Planning Commission at the beginning of the meeting amended the R3 Zoning District regulations to require the completion of the PUD process and Special Use Permit process for all R3 over 12 units. Rezoning the property at this time does not grant development rights as the property owner would still need to receive a special use permit. While the hearing notice included the issuance of the Special Use Permit, Utsch recommended the Planning Commission deny the Permit as the detailed plans have not been submitted. Loso stated that he is concerned that the additional developments will generate too much traffic for the area and questioned if a traffic study has been completed. He stated it is his opinion that such a study should be completed before the developments are approved. Ekola responded that traffic has been considered when County Road 121 was designed. The County Engineer designed the road with a look at the future growth of St. Joseph. The particular development before the Planning Commission at this time did not meet the requirements to complete an Environmental Assessment review, which would include a detail traffic analysis. However, the Arcon Developers used the AUAR process for their Environment Assessment which is the most comprehensive review process. This document details traffic concerns in the general area being discussed at this meeting. Ekola further stated that it is estimated that the . proposed developments will generate between 300 and 500 trips per day on County Road 121. Deutz questioned if the extension of sidewalk from 295th Avenue to the Morningside Development is a City or County responsibility as he does not believe the property owner would be responsible for such. Ekola responded that typically a developer is required to extend infrastructure or facilities when they request development approval. The extension of sidewalk is a direct benefit to the Moringside Acres addition. The City should review the sidewalk extension as part of the trail system. Weyrens responded that the Park Board has required that all development extend sidewalk or pathway to the trail system, so the extension of sidewalk from 295th would be consistent with what other developers have been required to construct. Sand stated that they will review this requirement when the preliminary plat is designed. Loso made a motion to recommend the Council Amend the Future Land Use Map for Planning District 13 to include R3, Multiple Family Use in the southern section of Morningside Acres. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously by those present. Loso made a motion to recommend the Council rezone Morningside Acres as follows: All property north of the inlet to Morningside Acres shall be R1, Single Family and property south shall be R3, Multiple Family. The motion was seconded by Kalinowski and passed unanimously by those present. Deutz made a motion to delay action on the Special Use Permit request until a detailed plan has been submitted. The motion was seconded by Loso. Weyrens stated that since the property owner has not submitted a preliminary plat or detailed site plan, the request for Special Use should be denied. The City is required to take action on a land use requirement within 60 days of acceptance. While the Statute does allow a City or property owner to extend the time frame, it may not be in the best interest of the City to extend time frame when a plan is not available. Deutz and Loso withdrew the motion. . DRAFT March 22, 2004 Page 3 of6 . Deutz made a motion to deny the Special Use Request of Sand Companies to construct R3, Multiple Family housing as detailed plans for the development are not available. The motion also waives the hearing fee for the Special Use Permit when Sand Companies submits the required plans. The motion was seconded by Loso and passed unanimously. The Planning Commission recessed at 7:30 PM and reconvened at 7:40 PM. Foxmore Hollow - Preliminary Plat and Development reauest: Utsch opened the public hearing at 7:40 PM and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider rezoning a portion of the property described below as R1, Single Family, a portion of the property R3, consider a special use permit to allow the property to be developed with mixed density and consider a preliminary plat for a development to be called Foxmore Hollow. The property is legally described as: The South 25.5 acres of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SW Y. NW Y. ) 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 the Southerly 30 feet of the Northerly 1834 feet of the Easterly 660 feet of the West One-half of the Northwest Quarter (W % NWY.) of Section Fifteen (15), in Township One Hundred Twenty-four (124) North, of Range Twenty-nine (29) West, ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT the Easterly 435 feet of the southerly 600 feet of the Northerly 1102.18 feet of the Southwest Corner of the Northwest Quarter (SW Y. NW Y.) of Section Fifteen (15), in Township One Hundred Twenty-four (124) North, Range Twenty-nine (29) West, ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SW Y. NE Y.) of Section Fifteen (15), in Township One Hundred Twenty-four (124) North, Range Twenty-nine (29) West, in Stearns County, Minnesota, described as the follows. To-wit; Beginning at the West Quarter corner of said Section 15; thence North 00 degrees 14 ' 36 "West on an assumed bearing along the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter )SW Y. NW Y.) a distance of 841 .50 feet to its intersection with an existing fence line; thence North 89 degrees 01' 27" East along said fence line a distance of 260.00 feet, thence South 00 degrees 47" 36" East a distance of 845.47 feet to its intersection with the South line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SW Y. NW Y.); thence West along . said South Line a distance of 260.02 feet to the point of beginning, subject to township and right of way, all being in Stearns County, Minnesota. The request for rezoning and special use has been submitted by Bob Herges and Rick Heid, 25 - 11th Avenue North, St. Cloud MN 56303 Utsch stated that he will open the floor for questions or comments and reminded those present to limit their comments to three minutes. After all those wishing to speak have been heard, the hearing will be closed the Commission will discuss the proposed development. Tom Homan of 10119 - 295th Street spoke in opposition to the proposed development. Homan stated that the neighborhood has not seen the proposed development plan and it is his understanding that the proposal includes a 23 unit apartment complex. Homan stated that a petition was circulated in the neighborhood expressing opposition to the R3 development as a large apartment building is not consistent with the neighborhood. Homan stated it is his opinion that the addition of the apartment complex combined with 23 single family lots will add 118 cars to 295th Street. Currently the road is used by only 52 cars. While the development of Morningside Acres includes a connection to 103rd Street, providing an alternative to using 295th Street, the majority of the traffic will still use 295th Street. In conclusion, Holman requested the Planning Commission deny the R3 request. Ann Reischl of 10187 - 295th Street spoke in opposition to the proposed development. Reischl stated that proposed apartment complex is three (3) stories and the height will destroy the characteristics of the neighborhood. Amanda Blom spoke in opposition to the proposed development. Blom stated that the proposed development is not consistent with the existing neighborhood and will compromise the quality of the such. . She further stated that since the area is open it is conducive for wildlife and the proposed development will take away that amenity from the residents. The development will be a detriment for the animal population. DRAFT March 22, 2004 Page 4 of6 Matt Breth questioned the target market for the proposed development and questioned if the development . is low income or students. Bob Herges responded that the housing is market rate and is not targeted to a special interest group. The plan includes R3, as it is his opinion that the portion of the plat that abuts Wilshire Apartments is best suited for rental. Herges questioned those present if there is a type of R3 development that would be acceptable. Reischl responded that she is opposed to the size and the height of the proposed building and prefers something smaller. Marilyn Ruhr questioned if the proposed R3 is targeted for college housing. Herges responded that the housing is available to anyone. When they were developing Graceview Estates they received a number of inquires as to rental options. This facility could fill that need. Furthermore, the proximity of the property to the downtown area make the proposed site ideal for multiple family development. Roseanne Holm expressed opposition to the proposed project. She stated the proposed apartment complex will be located directly across from her property and she has not seen a plan. Lon Negin stated that he has been retained by Heid/Herges to design the apartment complex for Foxmore Hollow. The apartment building serves as a transition from the existing multiple family to residential and the design of the proposed building complements the architectural design of the College buildings. Bernie Schloemer questioned the height of the building to which Negin stated 38 feet. Jerry Schreifel of 728 College Avenue South questioned the need for additional rental and stated in his opinion the neighborhood being discussed at this time already has enough rental. Mary Schorden of 828 College Avenue South stated that she is opposed to the density along CR 121. . She questioned if the apartments could be constructed in the northwest corner of the plat, abutting the maintenance facility for the College of St. Benedict. Their being no additional testimony, Utsch closed the public hearing at 8:05 PM. Grave questioned if the Planning Commission could divide the plat approval in two sections, excluding the R3 portion. By excluding the R3 portion of the project, the developers could conduct a neighborhood meeting and discuss development alternatives. Utsch requested the Commission consider each item on the agenda separately, beginning with the Comprehensive Plan. Utsch reminded the Council that the Ordinance Amendment adopted by the Planning Commission provides the Planning Commission with a second opportunity to approve a R3 development. Amending the Comprehensive Plan to include R3 does not give a developer the right to construct any type of R3 without first securing a Special Use Permit. Deutz made a motion to recommend the Council Amend the Future Land Use Map for Planning District 8 to include R3, Multiple Family Use. The R3 Use shall be allowed on the outlot of the property being platted as Foxmore Hollow. Discussion: Deutz questioned if the proposed apartment complex could be moved to the north end of the outlot. Lon Negil stated that the original plan submitted to the City did have the building on the north side of the lot, but the Zoning Ordinance requires parking to be located in the rear yard. Therefore, the building had to be placed at the proposed location. Those present clarified they are requesting the apartment complex to be located in the northwest corner of the plat, not the outlot. Herges responded that relocating the apartment complex to the northwest corner is not a viable option for development. The reason that R3 is being requested in the illustrated location is that it . is adjacent to an existing R3 development. DRAFT March 22, 2004 Page 5 of6 . Graeve stated that he would prefer to not take action on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment until the developer presents a revised sketch plan. If the City takes action at this time without a plan, the City will be reacting in the defense. The motion was seconded by Loso. Ayes: Utsch, Kalinowski, Loso, Lesnick, Deutz. Nays: Graeve Motion Carried 5:1:0 Utsch stated that the Planning Commission must act on the plan before them at this time. Tom Herkinoff, representing Bob Herges, requested the Planning Commission move forward with the R1 portion of the development. Herkinoff stated that they can continue to work with the neighbors to see if a compromise can be reached with the neighbors. City Attorney Sue Dege stated that the Planning Commission can move forward in this fashion, with the understanding that the outlot where the proposed R3 development will go, is excluded from approval. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to move forward with the plan excluding the outlot, which has been designated for multiple family dwelling units. Deutz made a motion to recommend the Council approve the R1, single family zoning for Foxmore Hollow, excluding the outlot adjacent to 295th. The motion was seconded by Graeve and passed unanimously by those present. Deutz made a motion to table the rezoning of Outlot A, Foxmore Hollow (Lot 19 Blk 2) and extend the 60 land use action requirement an additional 60 days. The motion was seconded by Graeve and passed unanimously by those present. Weyrens stated that the developers for Foxmore Hollow have requested to develop the property as a PUD to accommodate mixed density development. While the plat submitted meets the density . requirements of the R1, Single Family Zoning District, the minimum depth of 125 feet per lot has not been meet. Developing property as a PUD allows for relief from the strict adherence to the Zoning regulations. The Planning Commission should specify what, if any zoning regulations are being relieved if the PUD is recommended for approval. Deutz made a motion to recommend the Council authorize Foxmore Hollow to be developed as a PUD, providing relief from the depth of the lot. The motion was seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously by those present. Preliminary Plat - Foxmore Hollow: Utsch stated the Planning Commission must also consider the Preliminary Plat for Foxmore Hollow. The City has received the required submittals which include the following comments: · Foxmore Hollow requires the use of 29Sth Street. Ideally, it would be upgraded with water, sewer, streets curb and gutter. 29Sth will serve as the only ingress/egress for the proposed development. Therefore, if the street is not upgraded at this time, the development will be constructed using a substandard road that will need to be re-built due to the increased traffic. It is anticipated that the proposed development will double the traffic on 29Sth Street. · 2951h Avenue is not constructed to City standards and is paved a width of 18' without shoulders. A typical City is street is 36 feet wide with shoulders. Consideration should be given to upgrading 295th Street and adding water and sewer. · If 29Sth Street is not upgraded, the City will have to deal with a % street as the south side of the street is in St. Joseph Township. While the City and Township have an agreement for snow removal, an additional agreement would be needed for the maintenance of the road. · There is a cost savings to reconstructing 295th Street while Foxmore Hollow is being developed. The developers will be required to pay their fair share portion and will have the ability to spread . the costs over the entire development. If the improvements are done at a later time, then only those properties abutting 2951h would be assessed. DRAFT March 22, 2004 Page 6 of6 · If the project is not completed in 2004 or 2005, the City will have the ability to do so in 2008. . However, the overall costs will be higher not only due to inflation, but the utilities will be extended outside the road sections adding an additional cost. · Drainage needs to be reviewed by the Stearns County Engineer and any holding ponds should be platted as an outlot with vehicular access. · Consideration should be given as to whether or not sidewalk will be required on the north side of 295th Street and if so, will the cost be borne by the Developer? Utsch questioned why there are existing buildings illustrated on the proposed plat. Herges responded that the property is being purchased from Leonard Walz and he will be retaining four lots, two of which have existing homes. One of the homes will be demolished and the other will be remodeled. The Planning Commission concurred that any buildings remaining must meet current setback requirements. In addition, any debris must be removed and driveway access to the existing homes must be brought into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Richard Kuebelbeck questioned the location of the main gas line and if the easement has been included in the proposed plat. Herges stated that he will double check the location of the easement and revise the plat if needed. Deutz made a motion to recommend the Council accept the Preliminary Plat for the R1 portion of Foxmore Hollow contingent upon the following: 1. Approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney 2. The lots retained by the current property owner whereby structures or portions of structures remain, must conform to all Zoning Requirements, including, but not limited to setback, outdoor storage and driveway regulations. . The motion was seconded by Kalinowski. Ayes: Utsch, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Deutz, Loso Nayes: Graeve Motion Carried 5:1:0 Adiourn: Loso made a motion to adjourn at 9:10 PM; seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Judy Weyrens Administrator . . Attachment: Yes or No I REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Rezoning - Birch Street East DATE: May 3, 2004 AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing - Rezoning of property abutting Birch Street from the current Rl, Residential to B2, Highway Business PREVIOUS ACTION Previously the Planning Commission enacted a resolution calling for a public hearing to rezone the property abutting CR 75 from Rl, Single Family to B2, Highway Business. At the time of that hearing, the majority of residents objected to the rezoning. The property retained the Rl Single Family Zoning Classification. . When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2003, the future land use map for this area guides this same area for B2 uses. Therefore, rezoning the property is consistent with the future land use plan. With regard to the neighborhood. The neighborhood in question has experienced turnover in prbperty owners, and this time 50% of the property owners petitioned the Planning Commission to rezone the property to B2, Highway Business. RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Recommend the Council rezone the property identified from the current Rl, Single Family to B2, Highway Business. COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS As a reminder, spot zoning is not a good zoning practice and if the entire area is not zoned B2 then the following should happen: 1. The request should be denied in the entirety with the property remaining Rl 2. The B2 Zoning district could be extended for contiguous property. For example, the zoning classification could be extended fonn the eastern edge of the district to I st Avenue or just one house. . As I mentioned earlier the remaining option is to rezone the entire district. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH . WWlWI. cityofstjosep h .com Public Hearing City of St. Joseph The St. Joseph Planning Commission will be conducting a public hearing on Monday, May Administrator 3,2004 at 7:0 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the udy Weyrens rezoning of all property north of the east/west alley abutting Birch Street East between the north/south alley between College A venue North and 1st Avenue NE and the north/south Mayor alley between 1st Avenue NE and 2nd Avenue NE. The property is currently zoned R-l. Larry I. Hosch All persons wishing to be heard will be heard with oral testimony limited to 5 minutes. Councilors Written testimony may be submitted to the City Administrator, City of St. Joseph, PO Box 668, St. JosephMN 56374. AI Ròssier Ross Rieke Judy Weyrens Gary Utsch Administrator Dale Wick ". ~. . "". ~.. rnæ [J]J§ CD ~ Œ~ . )" ... ... ... . ~..... ... L...-J ~q \J I} , ~ôi~1I;~~[d ~~.øœl~5 ,~.. _~~ ~J Publish: April 23, 2004 . 2. :; Co II e g e A v e n u e Nor t h . P 0 Box b b 8 . S din t. I 0 S e ph. M inn e sot d ,,6, 7 4 Phone ,2.0.,6,.72.01 I'd X ,2.0.,6,.0,42. . My name is Janel Weisen, I am a realtor at WHY USA EQUITY REALTY, in S1. Joseph, MN. This letter is a request to the Planning Commission. I ask that you would once again consider re- zoning the six to general business that are located north ofthe all on Birch 8t in S1. Joseph. I currently have a Purchase Agreement for the home located at 38 Birch St. St. Joseph. The offer . is from Superstar Sports, a business that is currently in the 8t. Joseph business center. Superstar Sports would like to purchase this home for office space. They currently are open Monday-Friday from 7:30-5:00, because they are not a retail outlet, there would not be a lot of traffic due to them moving in to this property. Please take note of the attached signatures, from 50% of the home owners that this re-zone would affect. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Janel Weisen WHY USA EQUITY REALTY 259-4990 . Each Office Independently Owned and Operated (Ê) [B ~iAl;Y fO'-,.c..I'CV!OG MLS Please circle one of the options and return to me in the enclosed envelope no later then Wed Peb 18th. Thank you again for your time. ---- --~ YES CI AM INF A VOR OF RE-ZONING ) ~~....-~--<.->.<~.---~ ------ . NO I DO NOT WISH TO HAVE THIS RE-ZONED AT THIS TIME SIGNATURE ,{J. 1?->-'"'<:17 o·t,g ",-,j-- me¿ ~. ~. /\ ADDRESS <, . J ~ ) f'Cvî ~L~~\ v -, - . Each Office Independently Owned and Operated (Ë) [B !<fA1TOR fOUR MOUSI>IG w.e: FAX NO. P. 02 . PJ~~ ~iJ'¢l~ one CIf'lhe optio)')!) and retum to me in the cnc10scd envelope. no lat~ Ibm Wed Feb 181h. nl:~nkyott a~aín far your time. . ". .. 4_-'~~' ·-···-·-----·....'..·--....------.1 . -"---.~ . C/ÿ;'¡S ¡ AM INfA VOR OFlŒ-7.0NfNO ~ ' .."... .......... ~._~_.~- NO ! DO NOT WlSn TO HAVE Tlll~ AR-ê.A RlJ...ZONED AT THIS TIME '" HICìNATURE ~; K' ,_,,___.,._____ ! . - - SZL-Q Z0/TÐd S66-1 LÞLÞ5SZ0ZS X~W3H-WOHj 9Þ:ZT Þ0/-ÞT-SÐ Please circle one of the options and return. to me in the enclosed envelope no later then Wed Feb 18th. Thank you again for your time. ---~--.---...._~..."'.., . '--__ YES I AM INF A VOR OF RE-ZONrNG"~'- _,~:==.~:~:~=...o .- -~·-----~-"·.·_____h o- w. . - _ -.. _>~_ _ _.~, _..___..~ .F.~ <. > -- NO I DO NOT WISH TO HAVE THIS AREA RE-ZONED AT THIS TIME SIGNATURE ~. rJ5,--jj¡¡L ADDRESS J I / /¡!¡;; . ' S+A K:( R:).~ r- - i/1Æ..) _ 0.7\, -..- ............ 1;. . Each Office Independently Owned and Operated (Ê) IB REAlTOR £OUlllolO\.lWiG M'.C:: I -.. ---1 I DArt. ST.E I--" I:f.] . ~ ~ ~ COUNTY.ROAD. E ~.-. Bffi.CH ST E '. .,.,~ ~~I I . . RECEIVED fl/~/ J.. 0 t.1 t.¡- " APR 2 9 200~' h ' Þ ! . . ~ J; e~;7 .¿ IV Ii 0 (j f/f-- 5 ;,' J1 ¿ d "d tt./ qr ¿ '1'1' I, ê~' / f¿' -tJ '€. ST. SEPH. V ¡, - : :J- ð 11 ~ 1J 0-(, 1 h.¿ r-d I e;. tt C r) r¡-ud ! y ;;!.ó l1é'-d fl· I h;5 Is , Q 1/ .0 I e¡..,ti no ,..fA ð f 'fl>. e,¡d/yj e5r q ! Ù, / ahtlí''êJ f,l-c.Þ' S1'r¿e f Q~r Þ&ft,¿;e'-BJ'1 1ke.. ho¡..-¡-/'/{;tictrl1 01/e7 bef0¿V;\ {o//îf^¿Ilt/é?/la,e Jor-fA aXle! J~ flve nuf:- tJlZ ahdt'he, ø()Î"thIS'tJ¿lt~ {{lie j e -r to e e l"-c r ¢"' fI þ'e" JIÎ~-(j N ¡;. Ql1d ØiJ i!.!t fl V ê /l tJ, e. f./ Ii- !' )C¡t .¿ N a fJJ 'tl (] ddl-e6 S ¡?JCð~ 1,1--;/ J5 ~ iemf-<- '33 ¡¿, !ld1 Sf. .563--%t3 ~ .:1:r . Ì1~~ trf L ~7 ~ . _? G3 - 7 S"I.f:L ¡ 17lN'¿ Î/lM./ ~~ /j-r:- -ASl-¡ 3(.,s'7f;C7 1: -~J-~/ ~~ f~I7~ß'~~ 3C3-~5J! I,' /(,0 ,J III b< /.,' ~e-- ~. (~ dJ 1::., ~-sor .' ;) dJ [/ d-tJ ,-- ~ ? '-3 -?(}9 ,~ ')t:' l 'w-/?tt d.-I 6:... ' ~ G -o~ H I ì .----- 1 /. ~ ,) .7 ( /d.5 ~cM '. " Jf~Þ " ,!t~t~:jv ~~! ~~3.ri%'l à;< '..1.:¿'Æ~t.t- ". ~¡,~~C~l &7' ~ / () 7 t: /j j II 5·t ' 4uÀ~ a. ~~&3 I 1 / J;Z ur-tU f II W-, :. ,,' 7" ~5" ~~~G<i- '~6 - ? I~tf ~ a5- ~ ~ J?74/P),S II ,~4-~ ~ ¡tJs hvi !1ve.. /liE. 3h3 -lj/12. /{ '~ ,;;4a~;. '{ht.7t0i. -'r;\ J~ '1!e;'1~e' iA/e/é'.f" v.35;-- f}Vê /1/£ e:;J'O-SfO'J.. ~ 2-1 ~ &~ 3'1fJ'E ¡s+-Cf\J'e, 3GS-Lf/{;S- l- Zí Kf~10 b 'rrkn ?ÆE.1Hf3 2ï/~COt] \- ~\ . {yt,~~ 0}~ ¿ffEfi:St-\' .st· Zs:6-ZZ(o Lj ~ lJJ~ Ckt-- .;:¿ 9 L Áh. SI ' '3 c. J - 74 s<f ':;1-1 ,<Z? " ~ 30 -¡d-Av¿ ¡/.., ,3(..3 - '13$'5 . ~ ~ a 1- -- /:>rl/VE ¡ò§' - ó<:2Y- ð!~? {(a8 è!1~-Ð~ ðì l~f0L að~-o3'\q tit /ð 1 C~~~1 /¡¿1.ß-rÞ¡'¿~- ~ /; ( 4 C{/l/J¿. 11 ( 3 ~ 3- g'J" Ø' Y -:t' 1" Î I '), Y· ~, .... ,,}' 'C"" 'J' ~ "'( Ò G' , ~L1.. L·G,/ '\ i :n ",. I 1 RECEIVED · (~~ Jír-",,;~ ". I\PR 2 6 2004 .-,/ -}--'Î J ¡, -- [ ¿~>'J-'r,yvtifl-./..,_.'C-.A/ _L~'4.~? 'Jj"-'~iV1~:-LlA:-.4 \.... ~ . ./ c, <C'I-JY'OF STf'JOSËPP¡( '. r! ':J ,! í " ',. J "'/ /L ,"Ii J /' ,7 I) ! "" ' )I"" u~b¡..Þ1'-J_ [. )'Z/,y 0 J ~.. _.,..7 ,¡- [ii" ! I LV'"O ·.A · ( ,'-6 ~JI¿ l>vWL~ (') ,'- ;_~ I' ')" '. " , .þ" t" ¡;.S-/) <0.' t ",' " ,,' 'i f ,j Óv¿ , ,'---. .-/"--- -, ) _J_' l. -~__ - " _7. 'f ,/;',',. , /ð '--1¿;.:i.CC ,,¿'ß-nZ:"'~~-<--0r-- 0 -----"C- 6.L¿L7"¿ .:/ (I ,.' It", "", ~- b-,¿ --+-, ) t¡/ ,-i-- f Ç/,' , ¿ú /c," ,,") , f t¡}j~&;~"2iL",,!fÚ;;:'&; .' 'JY(/t-tA-l~¿L..a?t-r.1 (}--¡ teL ~Þ-L~,....i4 , ;:P' . ¡"" ¡, \ ( ~ ,,'., I ¿P" la, '!1h,' 'f}- / -:tfAü'L keel ðL-V'-k .Û CJ¿L0 tj!¿·c.j¿lt_~~. ',' j . /, ", y!LÞ/~, ,-1- ~ ~ ~ 'jIL~ ,z;;L af~ I/~ tÛ~( ~( ~~:«-¿ ?fJ ",ÎLÞ¿, ~Jv d,V, ~ L;'>7:..h¿.¿, .~Q.¿'U--':h,~' '~'¿v ~ / (, /.' I (¡ f/rJ / f' ," Þf-c~ "( ê-'7!¿1Lð7rU- ¡~ j(~~ eJ!-~ ~ :z!t(L) ¿£ / I~ Þ/P'..2I. ¿¿ /ì, Je. 4./ â-~T ~ , ,/1 '-'-";¡ ~. 0 ' "'. ß r,' ", ," "~, ./ 6 ÛL - [U-,f-l¡. d!f¡¿t-. c.k ~ .h¿v1.i!A4.V L¿d-¿'¿'¿ ','., ,/; if ,i;' iJ /' . '/ /), ) t ,".-'- ,: /.¿-.¡:, .- . L,~,,~~~, f,;/\~,<',,~ -;(uí't>/~ CLd-U¿/:.~~~ 01£,':(. ..r!.¡- ~ /(/ fJ',/J//):f'--*'r:' ,;', If! , /\..,'1 "-,' or ,. -~~<£....--(¡ 1.--- A __ _ 0 / , , " ,,' ß, , .~rL k4, L~é¿,"::"'- ,- 7-1L.¿G1:z-?-7?¡;:" ,it:..;.~ 1,//, . // 'J'" /7 "t/ ,,' Yt'L-)~~jL.¿i~ ,~ð7--t.--Ltc~" ,,) ~ ¿ /,/ 't·· . J A- ..'. - ~ ~ ,/ -' / t- ____ ' /r.. / /) _ . ;/1 ~;-;"- /t.tt--z:;¡¿ 1- (, l 7j ,~.œ;¡;:." ~ ~ J¿' J.u ,_ , _ ~ -:~~,7Y¿', ðl'-~,'" tV' ~¿¿~",,/ / t: ,J;¡;!, I '/'/.~' 4~~~ P-{/, 'y / ,'ý 'LL€~~/¡.z¿¿n>i~7" (/1 ( -- // ' " ,.y,/'H-¡f ~ i/i .d, í,~()~ub ~t/[q ¡d-(~ ~'bt4L '¿ft¿'~~12ÞL- ." --<-I ,', ,Yc í'-l, (l « Ii) (, .-L 6 {f Ii-~~. r ~ 7,f~ tAg <'-<~ do~-ßð7.c-r/ 0~.~/'tbL¿~¢-/ ø j t. A / j// ''',/ ,p-1'C-¿¿>¿¿tc..h I , ~. í P'¡' ~-",\"" ,,/ -z",f!' /f újw¿fW;rÞ¿ I " /,' ~ /V <' t .,¡:.-... _~ / ,tÎ' {V ' ,(2.¿¡¿¿¿,.-; it) Ú)ZtC/02/; ~~¡ / v 3 ¿=: ú..a.-L ,/.¿.e-, . . I Attaçhment: Yes or No I REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION St. Joseph Park Board - Park Dedication Fees DATE: May 3,2004 AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing - Amendment to the Park Dedication Fees PREVIOUS ACTION The Park Board has surveyed the surrounding Cities Park Dedication Fees and has requested that the City change the methodology used for calculating such. Currently developers for single family developments are assessed a park dedication fee of 10% of the land value. The land value is based on the purchase price. Therefore, the developer that pays less for land pays less for dedication fees, but the demand for parks is the same as the person who pays more for land. Therefore, the new formula includes charging a flat fee per lot based on the following factors - population, land price and acres. . STAFF RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Accept the recommendation and recommend the Council revise the methodology for determining Park Dedication Fees Tor Residential Developments to a per lot fee. Commercial and Industrial Lots charges shall remain at a percentage of the land value and connection to the trail system will remain. COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS The City Office staff and Engineering Firm is in the process of compiling the total fees for development in St. Joseph. It is agreed that the formula should be changed to a per lot fee, but we would like to make sure that once the new fee is adopted the total development price per lot is consistent with the area Cities. The proposed methodology would provide consistency in dedication fees, and be easier to administer. The analysis we are performing would be required ifthe fees were challenged and we need to determine if the fee needs to be moved up or down. This information will be presented at the meeting on Monday. Just as a reminder all amendments to the Zoning or Subdivision require a public hearing to be held by th~ Planning Commission. . City of St. Joseph . Change to Parkland Dedication Proposal On April 15, 2004 the St. Joseph City Council reviewed a proposal by the Park Board to change the calculation of parkland dedications fees within the city. The recommendation by the Council was to start the process through the Plam1Ïng Commission to consider these changes. The current calculation is based on the purchase price of the land involved and is calculated by charging Residential Developments a 10% fee of the purchase price of the land and Commercial/Industrial a 2% fee. Trails that connect to the City's trail system are also a requirement for each development. Based on recommendations ftom staff and further investigation of other cities' calculation techniques, it is recommended that the city change is calculation to a per lot calculation, for residential developments, rather than a percentage. This will make the dedication amount consistent among the developments and make it easier for staff and developers to calculate the amount required. The 2000 Census population density numbers were used in fOffimla and a lower than average, between area cities, price of land was used for the in lieu calculation. Using this method, as you can see in the attached examples, St. Joseph has considerably less parkland dedication fees than the other cities in the area. A starting ratio, as . recommended by the State, of 10 acres for every 1,000 residents was used. Any of the factors (population, land price, acres per resident) can be tweaked or updated to provide the proper value for the dedication. Requested Action: Adopt the change to the Subdivision Ordinance to increase the parkland dedication fees to the following: Single Family: 1,172 sf or $914 per lot Multi-Family: 1,250 sf or $975 per unit Commercial/Industrial 2% (Same) Connection to City Trail System (Same) - e Assumptions: . The City's goal for parkland is 10 acres for every 1,000 residents. (This is the same as 0.01 acres per resident) Single Multi Family Family Average St. Joseph Household Size, 2000 Census 2.69 2.87 Proportional Share Contribution for Each Household, Acres * 0.0269 0.0287 Proportional Share Contribution for Each Household, Square Feet ** 1,172 1,250 Proportional Share Contribution for Each Household Cash in Lieu*** $ 914 $ 975 * This is calculated by multiplying 0.01 by the household size. (The acres of parkland needed for each of resident multiplied by the average number residents per household.) ** This is calculated by multiplying proportional acres by 43,560 (The number of square feet in an acre.) *** Cash in lieu of is based on $0.78 persquare foot land value Area City Dedication St. Joseph Development Comparison Sartell Development Single Multi Original Proposed Single Family: 1,198 sf or $920 per lot ( $0.77 per sf) Northland 7 28 o $ 5,475 $ 25,591 . Multi-Family: 900 sf or $700 per unit ( $0.78 per sf) Commercial/Industrial: 5% Northland 8 23 o $ 5,475 $ 21,021 St. Cloud Liberty Pointe 71 15 $ 43,000 $ 79,519 Single Family: 610 sf or $1,196 per lot ( $1.96 per sf) Multi-Family: 480 sf or $792 per unit ( $1.65 per sf) Commercial/lndustrial: 0% Local Comparisons Sauk Waite Sauk Rapids Development Sartell Rapids St. Cloud Park Single Family: 1,350 sf or $1 ,687.5 per lot ( $1.25 per sf) Northland 7 $25,760 $ 47,250 $ 33,488 $ 23,408 Multi-Family: 700 sf or $875 per unit ( $1.25 per sf) Commercial: 5% or $2.00 per sf Northland 8 $21,160 $ 38,813 $ 27,508 $ 19,228 Industrial: 5% or $1.55 per sf Liberty Pointe $75,820 $ 132,938 $ 96,796 $ 69,601 Waite Park Single Family: 1,072 sf or $836 per lot ( $0.78 per sf) Multi-Family: 876 sf or $683 per unit ( $0.78 per sf) CommerciallIndustrial: 5% . CITY Of ST. JOSEPH . www.cityofstjoseph.com Public Hearing City of St. Joseph Administrator The St. Joseph Planning Commission wi11 be conducting a public hearing on Monday, May 3,2004 at 7:20 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an Judy Weyrens Amendment to St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 54.18, Public Land Dedication. The proposed amendment would change the method of calculation for parkland from a Mayor percentage of the land value to a per lot fee. Larry . Hosch All persons wishing to be heard will be heard with oral testimony limited to 5 minutes. Councilors Written testimony may be submitted to the City Administrator, City of St. Joseph, PO Box AI R.assier 668, St. Joseph MN 56374. ~ R.oss R.ieke Judy Weyrens Gary Utsch Administrator Dale Wick Publish: April 23, 2004 . . 2) College Avenue North' PO Box b68 . Saint. Joseph. Minnesota )6174 Phone 120.161.7201 ¡: a x 120.161.0142 Attachment: Yes or No REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Parkland Dedication Fees DATE: April 15, 2004 Park Board ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AGENDA ITEM Park Dedication Fees PREVIOUS ACTION The Park Board has reviewed different methods of calculating Park Dedication fees and is requested the Council request the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing to modify the Subdivision Ordinance to change the fee to a per lot fee versus the current 10% fees. . RECOMMENDED COlJNCIL ACTION Authorize the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing on May 3, 2004 for possible amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance FISCAL IMP ACT Consistency with Park Dedication and Park Board Development Fees. COMMENTS/RECOMMENDA TIONS The current method of calculating park dedication fees is based on the total per acre paid for the property being developed. While this method has worked well for the City, it is inconsistent when comparing developments. For example if Northland only paid 8,000 per acre and Graceview paid 15,000 per acre, Gracevie\v would have a much larger requirement with the need for parks being the same. Therefore, changing the Parkland dedication fee to a per lot fee is more consistent and will provide for equal contribution. Enclosed in your packet is a sample prepared by the Park Board. Bruce Berghorst may be present at the meeting to discuss this. Ifhe cannot make it, Dale will speak to this issue. . . I Attachment@No I REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Rezoning / Special Use Request - Foxmore Hollow DATE: May 3, 2004 AGENDA ITEM Foxmore Hollow - Rezoning and Special Use Permit request to allow the construction of two (2) twelve unit apartment buildings PREVIOUS ACTION The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 22, 2004 for the Development Plan for Foxmore Hollow. The Development Plan required the following: 1. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2. Rezoning of the Leonard Walz property to a mix ofRl and R3 3. Use ofthe PUD process, providing relief to the depth of the lot. 4. Issuance of a Special Use Permit to allow the construction of the R3 5. Preliminary Plat Design . The minutes for the March 22 meeting are included in your packet for approval. As you can see, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing and closed the same. The result of the public hearing was the recommended approval of the following: I) Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; Rezoning the Rl portion of the plat; Use of the PUD process; and approval of the preliminary plat for the Rl portion only (with contingencies). The Planning Commission requested the developers reconsider the 23 unit apartment complex. The neighbors objected to the height and size of the building. It was requested the Developer's meet with the neighbors to discuss development alternatives. At the April 4, 2005 Planning Commission meeting Herges and Heid appeared before the Council again with a revised site plan that changed the one building to two (2) twelve unit buildings. The new proposal would be similar to the existing multiple family on CR 121 and would only be two stories in height. The plan presented was only a concept to receive feedback from the Planning Commission. The Commission requested that before the developer's appeared before the Commission again they should provide additional detail such as a typical floor plan. RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION . COMMENTS/RECOMMENDA TIONS Points of clarification - · Drainage - the City is looking to see if regional ponding is a possibility in this area. If that does not come to fruition, the Developer may will have to change the R3 portion of the plat to accommodate a holding pond. In addition, if a pond will be required, the Stearns County Engineer will also need to approve the drainage plan. Procedure - The public hearing has been closed. It is up to the Planning Commission if they want to seek additional testimony. The only remaining issue is the R3 portion ofthe plat. As you recall the Ordinance has been amended for R3 zoning districts and all development with more than 12 units will be required to obtain a special use permit. This permit allows the City to have a site specific plan. If the plan is not under construction within 12 months, the Special Use Permit will expire.\\ Revised Plan - The plan submitted is not the final plans. Before Bob and Rick spent considerable resources fmalizing the details a concept had to be accepted. The plan has been submitted to the neighborhood on April 22, 2004. The plan submitted to the Planning Commission is the same plan presented to the neighborhood. Due to the 60 day land use rule the Planning Commission should make a recommendation at this time. It may be wise to table or deny the special use permit until the detailed site plan can be submitted. The rezoning can be established at this time. Please keep in mind that ifthe special use is denied a new public hearing would be required. The · other option is to have the developer provide the City with a written statement waiving the 60 day land use requirement and setting a specific date as to when they must be back with a final site plan. · ~; Iii !iJ ~~ ~~\flS ~6 1Cà1.. Ct 8 '. ~ ~ 51~ R .. ..' gr 15 w Z !! ~ ~ ~ ,.W, ' , Kiw\C\ ' . ~ - ê. ~ i ~ ;¡ 8 ; : ~j¡j' ~! ~ _ ~ 11 ~ ~ tj ~ ~ ~ t: I'MI , ~_ _ 0" .2 b EO v; W H' 1l : ~ i ~ ~ ¡~l~L.Qi. -;ißb¡¡;::&O".¡j~ "it; I' o;!i 'ãfa~ ê ~ ~~ ~ ¡;.¡ ü' 0 -a, , ~ ~ ~'1 fu . -é'- 0 ~w ~ ..e ~ . tJ)f-"'lii95th.AIIQ êJ b'*~H~.~2,,~ ~¡¡ l' I" ~ .. roo_ JI'\~ ii.~ ê ~ - 8~ ~i~1 ~'Ii! . "J ~'::~.0~8!~: 'io. ~ .t;¡ ~ ~<E"- .ë~tiiJ ;¡; jIí jIí ~ -tE ~ ~ !!o !l' þ ~£,j¡:~~~~:<n 3~ ð §!:! ~;!! $~"~~ ¡ ~ 7;~ Iz:§ :i! '< .-- 0 ~ _' . Zv; ~M ~ >- I'ii. i~~~§gif~~r ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~¡~ f6 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~! Zt: ~. J:~zðg~5ª,õ8~ CL~,":: w ~.~~ E 5 .ã ~ ~ :¡ ~§ ÐI·~ ~ o",,~.~ ~ w I' ~ ß ~ m ~v; ~ ~ rJ ~h¡¡ú~~~~ ~~:'5 d ~ ~ ¡ o. I ~~ B~Vn: d* ~~~~å<i ~~~ § ~ 0 _b~ ~~f~~¥õ~~~~ ~~W~æ¡ ~~~£ ~ ~ £Z?£~§~::-..::;'j o..~ 70 ff:B'~3 ;2 w ............ .2 o;>.....ë:I: E3= t3= _ i5:~ . a:::~ ~o~~ ,3= ¡; 888iß V>-~ 0 gZ-zf !3~~ w~ w. 7" " NNN;; ~~~¡¡}8~-t~~~ ~~~~I'~ I'~~~~ ~ ~~~o c.......- CI '::-0'0 =:0 0 o::a:: I- ~ffioW k. NNO ~~~~~~g~~~. ø~~2~0. 8g~ ~o. 0 ~~~ ; r: 0 .a~ _E "'0,,;'; J ~o ßf5 ~ 000 , ß;8~Ij~l~fÆ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ IJ&~~.oola. .~ó~~i~w~~i~& W . . ~ > v;'5~J,,^5,,;¡_~ ßozg!õ!;;e~ i:'og~ '" ffi 0, i ~ / :':H;~~~o;] ~~~~i§I';>;~i§ß§o~g g:18 ~ -t~ 0 od.~~.§h ~~o.¡¡¡"'¡\¡~~"'¡¡¡-~o ~ ¡,J;Ii r.¡ ~ ð -,,"5~~' z. 0.,,/= "'ß ¡;I~õ!;¡"~ I" c:; 0 iñ¡:¡ ~ ~ ~ ~B¿'õ5Ü:8'£~1f \i:~zg~~~5 ~zßt:: ~ C ~zz:J t; ð _ ~o'" ._ o;¡o o~ ~,,~_ W g ~(;j_. ,j¡",~_~~ ~!¡I"'!I~~g",~\1~"'f5 & ~ ~.g 0. ß z ~ bfJ~jå ;~~§t~H~~~ ~i~~ld~§~¡¡¡=:ê~~ ffi~¡!:§O> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¡> ~ I -:ª:b~.:.a §"h ~II!~'" ¡¡¡e.~~~~~~w~ ~;:r!'S ~ !;' ~ ~ " ~ £ , J i .~H~h~~: ~~~º ~~M~f~"'.~:e ~ ~¡( !ña ~ I ~ d 3 1l ~ ~ ¡¡ 01~1~~"IÆI¡ _ ~.8~w~B",~I!!e~i . ~ H;£g~J;¡J~ ~ w'¡,¿I''3<I'~<'3§.8~ \ EI IJ. Ä@ @me :é::E'_.9-~:ê:g¡....:'2,g z "'=Nn ..¡ vild"':o;j 0> 0 \ H~~~_~':o R;s - l' £8~!~~:;~:f õ Ë!.~·EÕg:'5ª . ~ÆH0'i~i~~-r /" I ~ I.I]~I;II;J ~ - - __ - - - ~. H!!!mm -- c - or"". \ ~ ¡¡ °bo~..a·l~Ë. ,.'" ~ f''''~~i¡¡··'''' ~ " ~ ž .~2~~.~ R O'-N'~ i! CJ '" ê ;s~ :j¡~oo2" -~ ~ \--- ¡; . t - dooi,._äl~g wi. ~ !:í N,j¡~'¡-.og'.!N ¡;:w~ f '- I ~ :;¡ !' 5~~iÍ!~·~"h~ ~¡;:;: iIi til ~ "-J i ~ .."'L~b~ d~ w~d z ~I c [i¡I' ~ .-é~~~,," ~~I z~": ~ 01 ~~~ -::-.J í~_ I I ~ Fht>óU~Ë~,g ~>~ I ~ I~ ê TJ iii!:!~ r---: o~ ~ u ¡;¡~~ I ~ '? '.J'.. ~ ,'-..J ~ '3 ": ~ 0 \ ~ - -"'- - - j ê~ '1'- ":: I I ¡ 1 ---,-] :1;:: -...!...... ~ N!;¡ 0. Š !;¡' ~~ ~~ I:! ! ' ': ,: ;!''¡ I . . ~~~ I I ~ ·i' - -~ i ~J ¡¡¡§bi~ ~ 0;S¡¡ 0 ~ rc :~ ~ I I N ~ ~ \:S~ 0>' w U ~ ~ ~ wiE~ ~ ~ I ~ v; ¡;; I I ¡;:~~~ Iß / ¡;: ~ N t' ~i5~I: ~ . .1'- - - '" ~ N 0. ~ I "" ~ 081:'w~ 0 ~ ~ (j ,!t w~~iE": Ii' ~~ §? ~ 9 ~~ I I 5g§i5~ ~ wZ~ \3~ "' ~ ~ ~'Z~ ~W~~ ç: ß,ffi ~ 0" 000 ~ w~z . .' I 0 l( ~ ~ ~~ \ I zv;z~o ¡;:OW~ I ¡;: ~ ,!. '" i5ffi:~. - - >- w ~ '" ov; I f- ::c z '" ¡;¡ , z~ ": <.. 0. ffi fu Z f- v; r ..' ~~-tß '\, t .. ~ a. '" _ 0 Nil- ~_-V; 'x '> " N ~~~~ ~"" '> '.; è. ~~~~ ~ ~_ a. Iii ~ ~ ~ g h ~ ~ -), ~ '-.J t;~5- _æ go()~ ~a) "'Èrn g~ h-... ~()æ æi3 i5 -' "'T t¡; gs '" " "-0 C(::::-.J ~ ~ I I ~"'''' I ~ '" .. ¡;¡~ ..<.0 ~ oz ~z (\.... 2 2 "- ~o ~ z~ ~ ~ wo ",a. "'0 ::>'" . ~ U fl. ~~~ ~ ~~I~ ~ ~~~~ N zgo-: I ~ ffi:S~ ~ ;;:~3:1:¡ C(9:: ~~ w~ gª w'" o. 'ß !eW , O~ w w X J o.wwo. VJ OQ..a.g I NM u:g~VI ~Z ~~M~ .. . '!e I I 10 t¡ % I ðð'3~".~· ß . . J~:ðððl is 1>0~J~J> : ::¡ I ~~~I>I>I>~ ~ ;;; ~~I~~~~ ~ : I ~~ ~H~ o I'~~~.'" ~ 1, "' ~~~3~",~ w '>. ¡: "o~ : I 1'! ~~~~~~~ o " v; ~'_N~~W 15 \1 '" ~ v; 'b .. -. < ¡;; '. w i-, ¡; ~~ ~ wo;:i x - - - - - - - - ¡;:~~~ ~ I " ~~~;ë / '. I ~ I", ~ ~ ~;~~ / § I I ~ I -- ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ --- . - - ,"':" ~'" ~ I ~ . ~g; - - - - I "'...~ 00 ,~ 0 I I;t.a::..-. ""':ï: $W -N I Ó z.z '" I ::lõ'" ù~ w~': ::¡ i~~~ ð 18m æ~ ¡;:w~ \ I ~ó ~ I . ~ Zz ~:;ë ~~~ " :'é ~~ ~o~ ~~~~ ~ I ::;~ ~-t~ I I ~~~~ ::; !~ ~~~ I . ,il~:'o~ ~ I I z'^ " .' I .-' .. . , ;.."...- -'~~"C:.-- _~__~~ ~~~.".- - - -- _J._- - _J ..~. - .-- I I "'. (a) M ..9£,L'\o.oo N .. (w) ^' .LO.ft.~O N ~ m........... ÇQ"L<;9Z M .LO.£Y.~O N n. ... "' ~ ~ o \,' I/) . 00 Lo 0) s:; ... ~ I") o ~ ~ s:; tI ... IA I"- IA t¡Q ~fM tQ ftl!.t¡tQ .tßlU'itQ tQ tfI ' s:; I S:;6+fIttn 'I:: ~ U'i 6+< ~I'\J 6+ of .S :a- ~ - tflQ a. Q s:; _ iI.1 ~ :1M Q...- ~ l ~ 'ON 'H'\f'S':) ~ I.t ~ . ~~ tfI M LO ~~-LO N .S ::n 6+ t) lot ::I 5S ~l ~ 'ON 'H'\f'S':) 5S tßI \ 0 It) -------------~ - r - I \ I g OT I I I I . I g I I I - I I I ,... t:i I . .. I I ~ :> I . .....,. ..'0".......'0"... r.· , ,..'<':':. ·x W.6i% x ":;ii&: .,.~,' .« «<,~,,:., . .... I :::> \t.m:*:*~{~~~:::1::':::='::~~~~~:·~~1:'%¡=*.«:?: ..;:::m;:~::':~I·:-:lt~;.: ·~~~m~~:~.. ":ø?:~ I 5 .::::.:......~...:::. .. .............;."/. .....::' ·......9;~·....·.·.. *:....... ':::.. ',' '" "'x' ...... ::::' o '" \ '·::~ë:?'~¡¡~::Mh:i!¡¡j+·< i'tßl ~p~t'f At +J.*"'P g '. \ - \ ~~ W . I '~k:ii~:(i,*¡¡L~~iim:':«1~#w'<:@::¡:h~i1k*,'""~~~Iî' «.ildtl·;ii .....~-:-:..;.:.; .............-:-:.. oX':':. ...........~):w;-...........a~....-:~~....$ w."*:-;>;-:-''«-1';«'~-: ¡:¡ \ :::J~ï::::~:~3. *~~:~::~::-df:~:f$}~:.t'::::fâ:W4a~::'::::~ ~..::; "'::'*::::;':W~1*~Wlli?J:::: 1 (}::: 8 M:i.#è¡;';W~:%::·{",:,;,:·,:k:Mt:,·Ø ':w ,.@;:":(i, ,"*,', . <..·.."'u.·.·.·,^· I o 8J I I 0 ~ <f I X 1ä3 I o (' l.1.. I ili"7/.0«::::~ .....-+ 0 - >",~?ðllh ¿.v,.;:ž%i%j~ 0::: I ¡,Y,f.¡;,,«,,;~ O ,Y¡~ß'/'<~~': I ¡¡¡f'¿.fu,,\+ ,w-..i!:.r,·!*M I..L.. ,""éAW~~ I ÐV1Þ&M Z :' w&tì1iÞ: ~ I I :r::W<tttt';t § :5 I 111\11 If¡(tll~f:L't'l· \ ~ Q... I +W'4m¡~1 . '(kj¡,*,"'#:,:¡:,*~~I,x<;'Ii.t'<~.~'';:; . I I 1fltd~¡ J ;~t.tji.IJ1i.f~lt;~;mm:: ~ fW¡&%tt ~ oÓ ßI11·¥qîKWH~~~ww,;,,"n:t.w I Q... I :$!'I'tt+ %:?'f.<¡;'0.il~J'.x:ié&.r~"~~~·%:$~¡ W I 111111 I'II~:,I.~ I ü I A1fÞww 1 :tt%J1\i\:·r,1 w n:I¥Þtfßf,= II z I -'" tIDj~;t l~~' ~(l\%i~W"irÆj~ ...., :-x:»,Þ,:::,;~~·.:.:r~~~:x:::: . @~';~';';~l~::::~:::-iqr::: ~~::æ-~. .. .::::::~::::~ *<';' ... :;$;.;« =;:::< . o I h1iijwt~~ ,"; Ttt1mW}{ili . I Z 0 oÓ ".,:<t"¡¡«ml'<<mMdff#~: I I . I fuWÞ¡¡¡%f.#~ 2ilrwEfl·w*¡t Ü '%:;1'/'< &~'*è';:¡~' :: 1.0,1,:<:,*,<"" ii: T <"'dfh::ijtl~%~'" ~l~hM~ ~Æ I . I ,pw<:t'!:< '4:ii1 , ;: '''':4",,¥p't!<¡t :0.d%':<:?-b . =t·:Efi;!f,- :¡::N~.a~=*=«~ $;::~~::: .~~ W';'';OOSili:t I tI3t¡,;UJllilidfulm4WÆW I :--..W.'1·-:...;xn::.'N...;'-/," ~,;::-.,* ::@:';':';'::-~' I tlBl% {i% :~'. i)ilWffi#}Jì1 I l'ø;.;wlt ;¡f7Jj . .. ~%1~::·;~ ,.' ~t¡ I :lffll¡¡t~;llìll II I W:8r¥W::::I··~~~~ü*r{~~~rn:~~ï&%::~~: :f:"-@i-::;:::.~~: ·~~~:-:::m:~~~-=t:~lli'=:8:ill:W$~;$ I :::=.3.:.'~~~~* :,-:.,t:;:m:~*~:::::*,\:.:W':::/;$:'~~~ i~lf:f~j~¡ tt~).~~ ~fï@tf¡@f1~Mj I yþ§,;<¡,: tg¡¡::'WW::ii~~@jW I I îll\l: li~11I1~1.tf~íít.~ I I I I OT ----~---Î I \ I I I ~ \ ~ I CX) ...... g r- 6 ~ co ~ I W ... \ ~~ r<)~ I ~~ o.¡- 0,0 \ ~~ _ -.-.,. _ _£..6- __ _ _ 1- -- -- ~ S 00-+7'35" E 8+.0+ ,., ~ ,., . " . \ . :;t : : , j ! ¡ I . 1 ¡ .. . : ,. ; . . , I I ¡ ì i - .- :. : "-. .'-.. ¡ .. .''dÞ j ,. . 1 ! , ¡ i ~ . ¡- ¡ , . \ I :\ I '! I . \1 : : . i ..... . ß ~I ----_...-\ $ ---" ¡ i . -.- . " 2-d 010S-SS2-02E -30~d 't'U3 ~ he^~ns dl.S:vO vO S2 ~dl:J Apr 29 04 04:58p Surve~ & Eng'g ProF. 320-259-9010 p.3 - - ï=3 t e(\- .tJ. r/t J. . p. , ; .J. ~I- - - tJ. J.- -~ - -J ~. r·, - \'Ie! 1:- , þ JI' + J- ~I "... J IT] .~. C! ¡ JI TI . - Apr 29 04 04:58p Surve~ L En~'~ Prof. 320-259-9010 p.4 . . -- If .. ..J¡L.~ ¡ £. . ,~ -¡-- Ir m ï . ~ l.. _ ~ 'I 'fÞ<tþ Þ,. I , '0 r I I p. J . 1,1'1 t I - ... ." I, ¡ ~ .- r ¡ I i .' ~~. I ,"- .. . ¡ i · . f - ~. I ! i . . I -. . I ~ I ., ra·" i I I ¡ - - - I I .- f I co" I· I I 1 i 1 · i ! J . f ,.;...¡;., J. ". j 111 f. ... - ~ I . "f" , · . 1- . . ~~. .. 1. T' .. Apr 29 04 04:58p Surve~ & Eng'g ProF. 320-259-9010 1'.5 -. . ~J ,. . .. . co tEll , I .:;.¡, 1 ~. J . -~ \ . - , , . . . ~ .' - . . -.- . :.. . ..... . _ ..c ,..ì ~ ~O~~..... ~ ,... t.A - ~"..."_" ........_;__...... ...,............ . ._ _____ . , . '·_w. _. ._._ ,''''.. ..,... '..... _.,,____._,'_.__... ~... '''. .,,_.__. ""'''''' '. .. Hpr 2~ 04 04:59p Surve~ L Ent't Prof. 320-259-9010 p.6 . . . -- . C' . ©' ;!-l . :0' 1 1 '. [r ~1 .~ . .. . Î .. " " -" 2 ~ . .....0......- ~....., ..... - -- - - ..---......-----.---.-. -~ .~- . - ._..,~- ......-......-_....--.'-.-..,...-.......~.. ".- . .... · I Attachment: Yes or No I REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Transportation Planning DATE: May 3, 2004 AGENDA ITEM Transportation Planning PREVIOUS ACTION The City is in the process of seeking proposals for a transportation study for the location of Field Street. The City Engineer has prepared various alternative transportation routes to being the planning process. Through discussion of the City Council and EDA, two alternatives have already been eliminated. The proposals at this time are for discussion purposes only and is an FYI for the Planning Commission · RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FYI item COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS · . I Attachment: Yes or No I REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Proposed Housing Development DATE: May 3,2004 AGENDA ITEM Proposed Housing Development PREVIOUS ACTION RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FYI item . _COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS The City Staff has meet withthe Arcon Developer regarding the HeimlBechtold property. The development proposal includes various housing types and 952 housing units. As staff we have had many concerns with the proposed concèpt plan and have requested the developer submit additional information. The attached letter is a combination of staff comments. It is anticipated that staff will again meet with the developer before he presents his plan to the Planning Commission. The major concern with the plat is the density. As you can see from the attachec;lletter, we are requesting the developer to provide information that he is meeting the intent of the Ordinance. This item is for information only. Arcon is Planning on attending your June meeting. . I N X <0 co 0 N .~ (f¡ / .µ V> -0 . .~ LL / (fJ +' E .c x W / 0 0 CO '0 N 0 / Q) 0 '-' .µ (fJ / V> / X W -1 LL :2 0.. (J) 0 lO .~ ~ b ~ 0 0 N " CO 0 " ~ 0 ) FILE NO. PRELIMINARY ~ ASTJOE0208.00 CONCEPTS SEH DATE: CSAH 2 / FIELD STREET ALIGNMENT FIGURE 04/08/04 SAINT JOSEPH, MN NO.2 c (J'J -0 I' r- X r- r- I r<) x Q) ro 0 (\ .~ UJ / ...., (f) -0 Q) LL / (/) ...., .0 1: X W / 0 0 ro 0 N 0 / Q) 0 ......, ...., UJ / (f) / x W -.J lL I W (f) L (L I'- l{) 0 r- N 0 '<t 0 0 N "- ro 0 "- '<t 0 J¿ FILE NO. I PRELIMINARY CONCEPTS ASTJOE0208.00 FIGURE CSAH 2 / FIELD STREET ALIGNMENT SEH DATE: NO.3 04/08/04 SAINT JOSEPH, MN