Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[04] July 11 Minutes July 11, 2016 Page 1 of 5 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, July 11, 2016 at 6:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall opening with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members Present: Chair Rick Schultz, Commissioners, Gina Dullinger, Steve Olson, Matt Johnson, Chad Hausmann, Chad Johnson, and Daryl Schaefer. Community Development Director Therese Haffner Members Absent: Daryl Schaefer, Matt Johnson Others Present: City Administrator Judy Weyrens, City Engineer Randy Sabart, Tom Opatz, Len Bechtold, Victoria Erickson, Darwin Erickson, Mike Phillipp, Cleo O'Boyle Approval of the Agenda: Olson made a motion to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Johnson and passed unanimously by those present. Approval of the Minutes: Schultz made a motion to approve the minutes of June 13, 2016. The motion was seconded by Dullinger and passed unanimously by those present. Cory Ehlert, Extension of IUP, 29 MN St E: Weyrens reported that City Staff had sent Cory Ehlert a letter reminding him that his Interim Use Permit for 29 MN St E has expired. In the B1 Zoning District, residential rental is allowed provided that 50% of the building exclusive of the basement is used for commercial activity. In 2010 Ehlert purchased the facility and applied for and received an Interim Use Permit to allow a rental unit with the commercial component. The Commission agree that he could hae three years and at the end of that time he could make application for an extension for an additional three years. In 2013 Ehlert requested an extension for an additional three years and at that time, the Planning Commission stated that he could not renew the Interim Use Permit; rather he would have to have the main level converted to commercial. Being the renewal period has expired, the property owner is requesting an extension on the Interim Use Permit. If granted, a new public hearing would need to be conducted as there is not a provision to extend an expired Interim Use Permit. Cory Ehlert, Property Owner approached the Commission presenting them with a general history of the property. Ehlert stated the property went into foreclosure in 2010 and he opted to purchase the property as a rental unit. The property previously operated as a rental unit, licensed for eight tenants. He purchased the property shortly after the license expired and the property could only be licensed for three. Ehlert completed a remodel anticipating a business on the main level with living corridors on the 2nd level. Currently, Ehlert has yet to find a tenant for the commercial space. There are two individuals interested in the property. One of the options would convert the property to a commercial use or remodel the house for a bed and breakfast. Ehlert stated he would not want to leave the building empty and is requesting an extension on the Interim Use Permit. Schultz questioned whether there are other IVP's similar to this one. Weyrens stated the laundromat and Ehlert's office building are examples of a similar IUP where there is commercial on the main level and living on the second level. Ehlert stated there are current tenants whose lease expires August 1 st and other tenants wanting to lease for the beginning of the school year. Dullinger stated there would be benefits to holding a public hearing for an extension of the Interim Use rather than having an empty building. The Planning Commission by consensus authorized Ehlert to make application for a new Interim Use Permit to allow the property to operate as a rental property without the business use. Public Hearing, Fortitude Senior Living: Chair Schultz called the hearing to order to which Haffner stated the purpose of the public hearing is to consider the preliminary plat and PUD amendment for Fortitude Senior Living of St. Joe, LLC as submitted by Tom A. Opatz, owner and applicant. The property is located west of 7th Avenue SE and SW of Callaway St E and the purpose of the requests are to facilitate the July 11, 2016 Page 2 of 5 development of a senior multi-family residential facility. Haffner stated Opatz is requesting preliminary and final plat approval to move forward with a 47 unit senior apartment facility. Overall the density from the PUD amendment approved in 2006 has not been changed. The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which indicates the site is guided for multi-family residential. Haffner stated a letter was received in support of the development signed by members of Graceview Estates. Additionally a letter opposing the development was submitted by Len Bechtold and other neighboring residents. Len Bechtold, 412— 7t"Ave SE spoke in opposition to a three story senior complex. He stated he is not opposed to the idea of having a senior living facility but is opposed to a 40' structure. Bechtold stated he submitted a letter opposing the development with signatures from eight other neighbors with their request that the Planning Commission deny the three story apartment complex plan and move forward with a two story building. Bechtold further stated that the Developer should be required to plan the entire site, and has concerns as to what will happen with the remaining property. Victoria Erickson, 332— 7t"Ave SE spoke in opposition to a three story senior complex. Erickson supports the senior living facility, but is opposed to the three story building. Erickson added that in her opinion a three story building will be way too high and would not fit into the neighborhood. Mike Phillipp, 338— 7t"Ave SE spoke in opposition to a three story senior complex. He too stated that he agrees that a two story facility would be a better fit for the neighborhood. Phillipp questioned how the three story building will affect the look of the area when other surrounding buildings are two stories. Tom Opatz, Fortitude Senior Living spoke on his own behalf. Opatz stated it is important to put into context the difference between a two and three story building; the difference being 8 feet. Opatz added that in his experiences with senior living facilities, seniors prefer to walk a shorter distance, which is accommodated for in a three story building. The building is designed in a way to allow for large amounts of green space for seniors as well as shorter walking distances for the services that will be provided in the complex. Opatz stated the building will be 40 feet which is allowed within the PUD and included in the Comprehensive Plan. Opatz stated the ability to provide lower income housing for seniors is a need throughout Stearns County. He stated that he has outreached to the neighbors both through a meeting and one on one. He understands the desire for landscaping and he has provided what is being requested. He clarified that he does not have any plans for the remaining property and if it were to be developed, it would have to go through the planning process. Erickson stated that it is her opinion that the reason the homeowners in Graceview Estates support the project it is not impacting them to the same level as those who live on 7th Ave SE. Erickson added that she believes the major issue with constructing three stories versus two stories is financial. Bechtold agreed with Erickson that cost rather than water mitigation is the main reason a three story building is proposed. Cost should not be the neighbors or city's concern. Phillipp stated two story buildings do not have long hallways and that there are ways to control the length of hallways. Erickson agreed and added seniors like getting exercise and won't mind walking the extra distance. As no one else present wished to speak, Schultz closed the public hearing. Weyrens provided some background the Graceview Estates PUD. When the project was approved, the PUD process was utilized to maximize green space and create a specific style of living. The PUD was a phased development that was approved in 2002. While the entire area was zoned as R1, Single Family, the PUD included detached single family homes, patio homes, townhomes, multi-family structures varying July 11, 2016 Page 3 of 5 with units (4,6,8,10) and two multi family structures. As the buildings were built, the depending on the type of housing, the R1, R2 or R3 provisions were used. The PUD allowed for flexibility. The PUD also limited the property to a specific number of units. Therefore when Optaz purchased the property staffed reviewed the PUD that was approved and amended in 2006 to verify the maximum number of units that could be built on the property. This review indicated that the amended PUD included two ten plexes, one eight plex, four four plexes and the balance single family with a total of 51 units. If approved, the remaining property, other than was is proposed for platting is four units. The Developer did not have an intent to build more than one structure. When the neighborhood meeting was conducted Opatz illustrated the different locations that the building could be placed and residents misunderstood that to mean that future facilities would be constructed. Hausmann questioned whether the building could be relocated further to the north and west of the property. Opatz stated movement of the building is limited due to the setbacks of the 100 year flood plain. Already one of the garages needs to be moved due to the setbacks. City Engineer Sabart stated the setbacks are in place to protect structures in the event of a flood. Opatz added the building has already been moved 100 feet off of 7th Avenue. Schultz stated the development puts him in an uncomfortable position being he lives in the same neighborhood. Schultz noted that Graceview Estates Apartments were limited to 35 feet in height and believes Fortitude should follow those same requirements. Schultz added the only options given at the neighborhood meetings included a three story building and that the majority opposed that concept. Opatz questioned how the term majority is being defined as a letter in support for the development received 13 signatures and the one opposing the development included 9. Schultz stated the optimum height he would like to see would be 35 feet. Additionally Schultz believes if the two story option were presented, then more people would have been supportive. Another of Schultz's concerns was the access point on 7th Avenue. Schultz stated it would make the most sense to align the exit point between Erickson's driveway and Schultz's driveway as he does not want car lights going into his living room at night as people are exiting the facility. Sabart stated the access point is already aligned to align with the side property lines. Schultz stated his mom lived in two different facilities both were 2 stories. Two stories do work and it is a matter of how to get them to work. Opatz agreed with previous comments that building a three story is cheaper than a two story. However, the apartments are being built to allow for affordability for the tenants. Opatz added it would be great to make the building one story, however if trying to achieve having the units affordable to those low income tenants a three story building is the best, most affordable option. Dullinger stated current City Ordinance limits the height to 40 feet and there are no exclusions for three story buildings. Dullinger added she would have a tough time limiting the building in height as it meets all ordinance requirements. Dullinger added if the height of a building was a main concern, then an amendment to the Ordinance should have been previously proposed. Olson agreed with Dullinger that it is hard to limit someone who is following all the rules and ordinances. Olson added that in the case of the Graceview Estates Apartments, the garages are the only parts of the facility that is underground, making it easier to meet the 35 foot height that was defined in their developer's agreement. Hausmann agreed with Dullinger and Olson that the developer is not asking for a variance to go to three stories and the development meets everything as required by the Ordinances. Hausmann added that the developer has the right to build a facility at a maximum height of 40 feet. All neighbors may not be happy with it, but it is their right to do so. July 11, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Olson stated he understands where the concerns are coming from. However, if there is open developable land, there is not much that can be done if the developer is adhering to the City's Ordinances. Schultz questioned what the requirements of sign will be. Weyrens stated the height limitations are 20 feet. Opatz stated the monument sigh will be ground level. Opatz stated he will be paying outstanding assessments in the amount of around $120,000 and WAC/SAC fees around $295,000. Hausmann questioned what the developer would have to do if they wanted to develop Outlot A at a density greater than the 4 allowed. Weyrens stated the developer would have to come back to the Planning Commission asking for an increase in the density and a public hearing would be required. Johnson stated when he bought his house along 7th Avenue, he was hesitant due to the open field. Johnson added a three story building is not ideal, but believes seniors are the best possible neighbors. Johnson stated it would be hard to deny the building based on it meeting all the requirements, even though he is a neighbor and will be having to look at it every day. Weyrens suggested having the discussion regarding screening and landscaping of the property. Haffner recommended having additional landscaping to what is proposed on the plat. Haffner added the setback from 7th Avenue is 100 feet and the rear setback is 70 feet. Additional landscaping is being suggested along the north side of the garages and on the southwesterly side of the facility. A variety of trees are being proposed at different heights. Opatz stated per City Ordinance, there are requirements for the number and sizing of variance kinds of trees. Opatz added a lighting plan was submitted that meets the requirements of the City and is also sensitive to the neighbors. Dullinger questioned if there are any proposed berms to screen lighting creating a buffer entering the development. Opatz stated there is a possibility of adding a berm along 7th Avenue. However, it would take away from the views of those in the facility that will be utilizing the bike trails. Opatz added that those living in the facility are living there to be a part of the community and should not be fenced or sectioned off. Bechtold asked if there is a rezoning associated with the request. Weyrens stated there is not. The property will remain the current zoning classification. The property is an R1, but is in the overlay of a PUD. Bechtold questioned what would happen if the developer would default and the building would be vacant. Weyrens stated she cannot predict the future. The building would remain zoned the same and would be limited to 55+. The only way that could change would be if the developer were to come back to the Planning Commission. Weyrens added the developer's agreement is recorded and stays with the property even if it becomes bank owned. Dullinger made a motion recommending the City Council approve the amendment to the PUD allowing for the construction of one 47 unit senior apartment building with four detached garage units. The motion was seconded by Olson. Aye: Hausmann, Dullinger, Olson, Johnson Nay: None Abstain: Schultz Motion Carried: 4:0:1 Sabart stated the outstanding engineering comments are none that would limit the further approval of the development. Sabart added the main concern is the location of the cul-de-sac near Faith Lane. Staff had proposed the cul-de-sac be located at the end of Faith Lane. It will allow staff to continue to maintain Faith Lane and allow for a separation from a city street to a private driveway. Olson made a motion recommending the City Council accept approve the preliminary and final plat for Fortitude Senior Living of St. Joe, LLC. The motion was seconded by Dullinger; motion carried. July 11, 2016 Page 5 of 5 Aye: Hausmann, Dullinger, Olson, Johnson Nay: None Abstain: Schultz Motion Carried: 4:0:1 Haffner stated the recommendation of the Planning Commission will go to the City Council. Prior to Council approval, the site plan will need to be approved. Site plan approval can also be completed by staff, or the revised plan can be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Opatz stated the cul-de-sac will be moved to the end of Faith Lane. The garages will be located in the same location but straight on to the road rather than at an angle. Temporary Family Health Care Dwelling Law: Haffner stated in May 2016 the Temporary Family Health Care Dwelling bill was signed into law. The purpose of the new law is to provide temporary transitional housing for a mentally or physically impaired person by allowing them to stay in a temporary dwelling on a relative's or caregiver's property. The temporary structures allowed would be required to be primarily pre- assembled, cannot exceed 300 square feet or be attached to a permanent foundation. Cities are allowed to opt out of the new law by ordinance provided it is done so by September 1St. A public hearing would need to be held to enact the new ordinance. Staff has reached out to area cities with St. Cloud opting out, Sauk Rapids will likely opt out and Waite Park and Sartell will bring the issue to their next meetings for discussion. Hausmann questioned what the next steps would be if the City opts out of the law. Dullinger stated it would allow the City time to define what standards and requirements would be for the allowance of the temporary dwellings. Consensus of the Planning Commission is to move forward with the process to opt out of the law by scheduling a public hearing at the next meeting. Council Liaison Report: Schultz stated the Council's tour of the Government Center will be at 5:30 PM tomorrow. Anyone in addition to the Council can attend as well. Admiourn: Schultz made a motion to adjourn at 7:30 PM. The motion was seconded by Hausmann and passed unanimously by those present. Therese Haffner Community Development Director This page intentionally left blank