Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 [08] Aug 29 August 29, 2012 Page 1 of 4 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Joint Planning Board for the St. Joseph Township/City Orderly Annexation area met on August 29, 2012 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph Town Hall. St. Joseah Town Soard Members Present: Jerome Salzer, Chair. Supervisor 8renda Stanger. Town Clerk Ann Reischl. Township Attorney Dan Zimmermann. St. Joseph Town Plannina Commission Present: Hal Undersander, Doug Fredrickson, Ralph Eiycnk, Michael Koltes St. Joseph Citv Council Member Present: Mayor Rick Schultz. Councilmembers Dale Wick, Renee Symanietz, Steve Frank. City Administrator Judy Weyrens. City Attorney Susan Kadlec.City Engineer Randy Sabart. Others Present: Mark Bromenschenkel, Stearns County Commissioner, Cory Ehlert, Dan Thielman, Carl Stich, Ron Schroden, ReZonina, Corv Ehlert—Roman Notch Trust: Supervisor Jerome Salzer opened the meeting and stated the purpose of the meeting is to consider the recommendation of the Joint Planning Board regarding the rezoning request of Cory Ehlert. Ehlert is requesting rezoning the property described as: lying southerly of 320th Street, located in the SE'/, NE '/ and part of the NE'/< NE '/, of Section 3, St. Joseph Township 124, Range 29, containing approximately 62.50 Acres. The request is to rezone the aforementioned property from the current Urban Expansion(UE}to Residential 5(R5). Salzer clarified that the Joint Planning Board for the Township/City has conducted a public hearing on the request and they have forwarded a recommendation for approval.to the Joint Planning Board. While it may seem duplicative, the Joint Planning Commission cannot make final decisions on zoning; therefore it is forwarded as a recommendation to the Joint Planning Board. Cory Ehlert approached the Board as the developer for the proposed subdivision and spoke on his own behalf. He stated that he is requesting to rezone a portion of the Roman Notch property from the current Urban Expansion to Residential 5. The Roman Notch property is east of CR 2, south of 320t^Ave and north of the existing City of St. Joseph Corporate Limits. The proposed subdivision contains approximately 62 acres and the proposed subdivision would create twelve single family lots ranging from four to eight eights in size. The property does contain a fair amount of wetlands therefore some of the larger lots contain significant wetland areas. Ehlert stated that while the property across the road (320'n Street) is in a different jurisdiction (St.Wendel Township), the subdivision proposed will be similar to the development north of 320�h Street. Salzer opened the meeting to comments from the pub�ic. Carl Stich, St.Wendel Township Supervisor questioned why the developer is not being requested to access CR 2 for ingress/egress. He stated that 320�h Street is already congested and in his opinion does not need the additional traffic. Ehlert stated that CR 2 is not adjacent to the portion being developed; therefore the only access is 320th Street. Stich questioned why they could not get an easement from the property owner as it is the same owner. Ehlert responded that they are trying to preserve the farmland. Salzer stated that the property is being platted so that at some point in the future a second access could be constructed. Stich stated that the traffic on 320th is moving fast and the road has changing heights creating potential sight limitations. He has concerns with additional traffic exiting on 320th Street. Weyrens clarified that the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the rezoning and while the concerns expressed are vatid they should be discussed during the platting process. Mr.Warnert questioned how far from a feedlot does the plat need to be. Salzer stated that Ehlert will have to address that issue at the time preliminary platting but he believes the minimum setback from a feedlot is 700—750 feet. August 29, 2012 Page 2 of 4 Ron Schroden stated he owns property near the proposed development and it is his understanding that the City is requesting smaller lots with a higher density. He stated that he prefers the large lot development as proposed by Ehlert. There being no one further to comment, Salzer closed the comment portion of the meeting. Salzer requested Township Attorney Dan Zimmerman advised the Board how to move forward. Zimmerman stated clarified that the property being discussed is located in the Township and could for some period of time. However, the property is part of the Orderly Annexation Area which gives the City the opportunity to comment and have input. Ultimately both the City and Township must decide on this matter and findings of fact must be established. Zimmerman stated that the Township and City need to review the information balancing the needs of the City and Township. The property is still in the Township; however, as property develops the Board needs to look at the long range and future plans of the City as identified in the Comprehensive Plan as use that information as a guide. In the matter before them,the property is in the last zone for annexation so it could be a number of years before annexation occurs. The board also needs to consider the potential extension of utility services, location of the proposed developed in relation to the current municipal boundaries, natural resources, transportation plans and characteristic and development status of the adjoining property. Kadlec concurred with Zimmerman and stated that the Board does need to consider the when it does come into the City, the impact that it will have on City services. The City is looking to minimize financial impact by assuring that easements and access is good for both today and the future and that is why so much effort is spent on planning. Symanietz stated that the northern corridor is parallel to the southern edge of the proposed plat and wants to make sure that people that purchase the property are aware that a major roadway may abut their property. Frank stated that does not have a problem with the access or one access; however he is concerned that the proposed development is leap frog development and has some concerns for the future costs of extending utilities. City Engineer Randy Sabart stated that when looking at the future senrice districts, constructing services in a rural development can be problematic. The lots are large and the cost of services become more expensive which passed through by an assessment. The City will have the responsibility of showing benefit of the assessment. Salzer stated that residents would have the opportunity to subdivide their lot if and when the City provided services. Sabart concurred and stated that he has requested the development submit a ghost plat that shows future lot lots. Ehlert stated that they do not anticipate selling the property to first time home buyers; rather people that are looking to upgrade and looking for a different style of living. Anyone that is going to buy in this development, will check to see that it is located near the City and will have an understanding that property could someday be annexed. With regard to the area, Ehlert stated that he has talked to a number of the large land owners surrounding his proposed plat and they intend to keep the property agricultural. Wick expressed concern that the proposed north easUwest corridor has the potential for running parallel with the back lots of the proposed subdivision. In looking at the future intersection planning, the development needs to aware the access to and driveways will be limited to the corridor. In addition to the corridor, he is concerned with the costs of providing future services and does not wish to place the City at a disadvantage. Finally, the proposed use is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan illustrates that area as commercial, due to the north easUwest corridor. So it is inconsistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the Urban Expansion is to allow for orderly development and not leap frog development. Salzer stated that he does not understand how this is spot zoning as the property surrounding the proposed subdivision is all large lot development. Wick clarified that the proposed use before the JPB is August 29, 2012 Page 3 of 4 the first development since adoption of the Orderly Annexation Agreement and it is within 1000 feet of the City limits. The property being discussed has a greater chance of being annexed than the property north of County Road 3. Schultz questioned if the City would have an opportunity to discuss the lot sizes and configuration. City Attorney Susan Kadlec stated the Joint Board would conduct the public hearing and have input. Zimmerman questioned Sabart if he is familiar with Ghost platting, and if Stearns County requires such. Sabart stated that he is familiar with the concept but has not actively worked on a project that required the process. Kadlec stated that she is very family with the process and has facility the use of the technique requiring a plat to provide multiple dwelling and septic sites. It is a good tool for both the municipality and person owning the property as they have a means to recoup costs later if they decide to sell a portion of the lot. Salzer questioned Bromenschenkl if he as a County Commissioner has any concerns to which he stated that he supports the concept and is glad that a second means of ingress/egress has been provided. He stated that people are looking for alternative housing styles. Frank questioned if the City and Township vote together or if it is separate votes. Zimmerman responded each Board will vote separately and must each vote affirmatively for the rezoning for the property to be officially rezoned. He stated that it is his understanding that the developer has provided the needed information so that action can be taken at this time. St. Joseph Township: Stanger made a motion to approve the rezoning of the aforementioned property from the current Urban Expansion (UE)to Residential 5 based on the findings below. The motion was seconded by Salzer and passed unanimously. 1. The rezoning is requested to allow a large lot residential development and the proposed development is compatible with adjoining land uses and retains the rural character of the area. 2. The proposed large lot residential development preserves the natural resources of the area such as wetland and trees. 3. The rezoning is compatible with the purpose of the Urban Expansion Area managing the impact of growth and development of the rural area. 4. The proposed development includes a single access for the proposed twelve lots and the developer indicated that he has discussed the matter with the Fire Chief and he support the development with one access point. However, in planning for the future,the developer is required to provide an easement allowing for a second ingress/egress. The easement shall be at least 66' in width and located in the southwest quadrant of the proposed plat. 5. The proposed development may have impacts from the future east/west corridor as identified in the St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the proposed development may require modifications to 320"'Street to accommodate the additional traffic. City of St. Joseph: Loso made a motion to approve the rezoning of the aforementioned property from the current Urban Expansion(UE)to Residential5. The motion was seconded by Schultz. Discussion: Symanietz likes the changes that were made since the last meeting and wanted an assure that a disclosure would be included with the plat documents that the property is in an area where annexation could occur and the future north east/west corridor would impact the southern lots. Loso stated that any disclosure should be in writing as part of the development and recorded on the impacted lots. Ehlert stated that he is working with the title company and does not have a problem with full discfosure. Loso stated that he would prefer to have a disclosure in the agreement informing the property owner that they will be responsible for the water/sewer costs when the City annexes the property on the owner will be responsible for 100% of the cost. Ehlert stated that it becomes more difficult to include a waiver that a future property owner will pay whatever cost the City determines. Loso stated that he would like to see the assessment policy included as well. Kadlec stated that including a disclosure can be included. Wick stated that the OA agreement stated that the City will develop orderly and cost effectively, August 29, 2012 Page4of4 that is why rezoning this property at this time may not be in the best interest of the City. When questioned the process for assessing, Sabart stated that providing benefit for sewer to a large lot may not be realistic, that is why the ghost platting is important. Ayes: Schultz, Symanietz Nays: Wick, Loso, Frank Symanietz stated that she voted yes as the developer has met the conditions such as second access and full disclosure. Frank stated that he voted no, and without getting into the economics, the Council has to consider how it fits in the Orderly Annexation Plan, Comprehensive Plan and financially how it will impact the City. Wick stated that he voted no as the proposed development is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, development would not encourage orderly extension of essential services, and it is premature and leap frog development. Schultz stated that he voted yes, as the proposed development does provide for diversity in housing, protects some of the natural resources in the area, and supports joint efforts in transitional areas. Loso, voted not as the developer would not support including the assessment policy as part of a disclosure to future property owners. He needs to see the disclosure in writing before he can agree to any development. Ehlert stated that he is willing to look at the disclosure, but finds it difficult to try and provide protection for everyone. Loso stated that the City has been in too many situations where disclosure has not occurred and it is problematic for the City and Township, not the developer. Salzer expressed frustration with the City and does not feel the Township should be prohibited from increasing their tax base. Without development the property will remain in the current state with little taxes. The proposal before the Joint Planning Board is, in his opinion, a good development for both the City and Township. He further stated the property is in the Township and does not think it is fair for the City to dictate how the Township develops. Loso made a motion to reconsider the rezoning request concerning the Notch property and approve rezoning the property from the current Urban Expansion (UE)to Residential 5 provided the developer includes a written disclosure for future property owners on the impact of extending services,the potential of annexation and the future north east/west corridor. The motion was seconded by Symanietz. Kadlec stated that the Council cannot place conditions on rezoning, it is either a yes or no to revote. Contingencies can be placed on the plat,just not zoning. Further, the Council must first act on a motion to reconsider the vote and if that vote is affirmative, a new motion could be considered for the rezoning. Loso restated his motion to reconsider the rezoning for the property described above, known as the Notch property. The motion was seconded by Symanietz. Ayes: Schultz, Loso, Symanietz Nays: Wick, Frank Symanietr made a motion to approve the rezoning of the aforementioned property from the current Urban Expansion (UE)to Residential 5. The motion was seconded by Schultz. Ayes: Schultz, Loso, Symanietz Nays: Wick, Frank Schultz, Loso, Symanietz and Frank reiterated their rationale for their vote as the same for the original motion that failed. Loso stated that he voted yes, as the proposed housing will keep the character of the existing area which is a low density area and the surrounding property will not be ready for development for a number of years. Wick made a motion to adjourn; seconded by Frank and passed unanimously. O.r.a..� � rome Salzer, Ch ir, JPB Ju eyr s, ecreta to the JPB