The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006 [06] Jun 05 Administrator Judy Weyrens Mayor Richard Carlbom Councilors AI Rassier Ross Rieke Renee Symanietz Dale Wick CITY OF ST. JOSEPH www.cityofstjoseph.com St. Joseph Planning Commission June 5, 2006 7:00 PM 1. Call to Order 2. Approve Minutes for May 1, 2006 3. 7:00 PM Public Hearing - Interim Use Permit, Owner Occupied Rental Timothy Ortman, 208 - 1 oth Avenue SE 4. 7:10 PM Public Hearing - Graceview Estates, PUD Amendment Reduce number of buildable lots 5. 7:20 PM Public Hearing - College of St. Benedict Height Variance 6. 7:35 PM Public Hearing - Sand Companies Variance Request, Rear Yard Setback 7. Crescent Hills Update 8. Adjourn 2.) College Avenue North' PO Box 668 . Saint. joseph, Minnesota )6.n4 Phone ,2.0.,6,.72.01 Fax ,2.0.,6,.0,42. May 1, 2006 Page 1 of 3 Draft Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of 5t. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, May 1, 2006 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair Gary Utsch. Commissioners:S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Jim Graeve, AI Rassier, Mike Deutz, Bob Loso. City Administrator Judy Weyrens. Others Present: David Potter, Bill Wasner, Ellen Wahlstrom, Daryl Studer, Hoger Beuning Aqenda: Lesnick made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Kalinowski. Graeve stated that he received a letter from Roger Beuning regarding preservation of the Core City and he would like to have that added to the agenda for discussion. He also stated that Daryl Studer from the Historical Society was present and they would like a few minutes for an update. Graeve also requested an update of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Lastly, he stated that he had a few announcements. Deutz stated that he does not want to act on any issues on which no information was presented for review prior to the meeting. Loso made a motion to table the request of Roger Beuning to discuss the preservation of the Core City until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Kalinowski. The motion passed. Ayes: Utsch, Loso, Kalinowski, Lesnick, Deutz, Rassier Nays: Graeve Motion Carried 6:1:0 The motion passed unanimously. Minutes: Lesnick made a motion to approve the minutes of January 17, 2006 with corrections being made as presented by Deutz and Kalinowski. The motion was seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously. Rassier made a motion to approve the minutes of March 13,2006. The motion was seconded by Kalinowski and passed unanimously. Deutz made a motion to approve the minutes of April 3, 2006 with changes being made per Kalinowski. The motion was seconded by Rassier and the motion passed. Ayes: Utsch, Deutz, Rassier, Lesnick, Graeve, Kalinowski Nays: None. Abstain: Loso Motion Carried 6:0:1 Midniqht Haulers: Previously, the Planning Commission had approved the development request of Midnight Haulers to include the construction of a 21,000 square foot addition to their existing facility. At this time, they are requesting the following: · Directional Sign · Relief from Tree Planting David Potter approached the commissioners representing Midnight Haulers. He stated that he is seeking clarification of the Development Agreement as to the need for trees along CR 133. According to Potter, the site plan shows trees ending at the beginning of the fence line. The minutes, however, show trees extending along the fence line as well. According to Weyrens, the Development Agreement was executed by both parties and states that one tree would be planted every 35' along CR 133. Utsch stated that he recalls this discussion and he stated that trees were not required along CR 133; however, if the fence were removed, then the remaining trees would need to be added. According to Rassier, the exterior adornment was not required along that side of the building due to the screening of the fence, but the trees would be required. Loso stated that both Utsch and Rassier are correct. They approved the relief from the exterior adornment as well as the trees beyond the fence line with the understanding that if the fence were ever removed, then both items would need to be added. May 1, 2006 Page 2 of 3 Draft Rassier made a motion to recommend the Council clarify the intent of the Developer Agreement as follows: Exterior Adornment adjacent to CR 133: If the fence along CR 133 is permanently removed, the front of the building facing CR 133 must meet the exterior requirements of the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances. Landscaping - If the fence abutting CR 133 is permanently removed, one tree shall be planted for every 35 feet of frontage abutting CR 133. The motion was seconded by Loso and passed unanimously. Weyrens stated that Midnight Haulers is also requesting approval to secure a building permit for a 48x96 directional sign to be placed by the entrance on 19th Avenue. She stated that the current Sign Ordinance does not have a provision for directional signs. Utsch stated that a 48x96 foot sign is too large for a directional sign. Deutz questioned the number of accesses to their shipping and receiving department. Potter explained that they have one main access as well as an emergency exit. In an effort to provide information to the Planning Commission, City staff contacted the surrounding Cities verifying the maximum allowed size of a direction sign. All of the area cities allow directional signs; however the size limitations vary. Weyrens stated that the St. Cloud definition is the most clear and states that a "directional sign is a sign which gives directions or instructions for the use on the lot on which the sign is located such as parking or exit and entrance signs". It also states that the "sign shall contain no advertising material. Loso stated that it would be nice to have a sign at the entrance to allow trucks to see where they should be entering and exiting the parking lot. Kalinowski questioned whether or not a maximum of 8' is pos.sible for the sign. Rassier made a suggestion to allow a 24' sign to which Potter stated he could accept an 18 square foot sign. Deutz made a motion to recommend that the Council approve the securing of a building permit for a direction sign to be located at Midnight Haulers. The sign shall not exceed 18 square feet and shall not contain advertising. This motion further clarifies that when the Sign Ordinance is revised in 2006 the direction sign at Midnight Haulers must conform to the new regulations. The motion was seconded by Lesnick. Discussion: Deutz stated that they will need to discuss the advertising on the sign. Potter stated that he would like to have shipping and receiving on the sign and he stated that he would wait until the Council reviews the Ordinances before adding his logo. When questioned whether having the name on the sign is considered advertising, Weyrens stated that the name should not be the prominent part of the sign. The motion passed unanimously. Historical Society Update: Graeve stated that he received a call from Daryl Studer of the St. Joseph Historical Society regarding the need to find a new home for the Society. Therefore, Graeve stated that he invited the Historical Society to the meeting. Daryl Studer spoke on behalf of the Historical Society. Studer stated that the St. Joseph Historical Socity formed five years ago and have since collected items of historical relevance. The First State Bank of St. Joseph has provided space for the Society for the past five years. However, the Bank has informed the Society that they must find a new location, as the bank needs the office space. Studer requested the Planning Commission help find a space for the Society to locate. Loso questioned the possibility of the Historical Society using the Old City Hall. Weyrens stated that the Food Shelf and TOPS currently use the facility. The facility is not well secured nor is the heating working properly. Loso added that the City should help them financially and show some City support. Wasner stated that they have received no money yet from the City and the only option is for the City to provide them space. The commissioners discussed ways to fund the improvements to the old City Hall. They discussed using Park Board money or possibly asking the Stearns County Historical Society for money. May 1, 2006 Page 3 of 3 Draft Weyrens stated that this is premature at this point and that they will be coming to the City Council meeting on Thursday to get feedback from the Council Tree Preservation: Graeve questioned the City Ordinance, which requires that trees be replanted when removed for development and how the same is enforced. Weyrens stated that the Tree Preservation Ordinance states that a developer "should" replace tress removed for development. The Ordinance clarifies the developer should find alternative development styles and re-planting is not required if the development style reduces the amount of trees removed. The development plan submitted by MN Land Development minimizes tree removal. In fact, if the developer planned the development as a standard R1, the entire site would have to be mass graded resulting in clear cutting. Graeve disagreed with the interpretation of the Ordinance. Upcominq Meetinqs: · May 22, 2006 · May 24, 2006 Special Meeting to discuss Crescent Hills, College of St. Benedict Dining Facility, and the Feed Mill project. Discussion of Ordinance Amendments Clean-Up Day: Graeveadvised the commissioners that on May 8th, there will be a clean-up day on which residents can come and help clean up the downtown area. Adiourn: Lesnick made a motion to adjourn at 7:55 PM seconded by Kalinowski. The motion passed unanimously. Judy Weyrens Administrator I Attachment: Yes or No REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Interim Use Permit DATE: June 5, 2006 AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing - Interim Use Permit, Owner Occupied Rental Timothy Ortman, 208 - 1 Oth Avenue SE PREVIOUS ACTION The City Offices received a complaint ofa rental unit at 308 _10th Avenue SE. When complaints are received a compliance order is mailed to the property owner and they have 10 days to respond. Mr. Ortman responded shortly after receiving the order and stated he was unaware that he needed a rental license and he would file the required paperwork. RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Adopt the findings of fact recommending the Council issue the Interim Use Permit. COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS Administrator I udy Weyrens CITY Of ST. JOSEPH www.cityofstjoseph.com City of St. Joseph Public Hearing The Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph will conduct a public hearing on Monday, June 5, 2006 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental unit in an R-1, Single Family Zoning District. The property is legally described as Lot 001 Block 003 Cloverdale Estates 4th Addition. The property is located at 308 - 10th Avenue SE. Mayor _____.______________________________._______ Richard Carlbom St Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27. subd 5 allows for an Interium Use permit as follows: Residential rental provided the unit is owner occupied and provided the room (s) rented does not contain separate kitchen facilities and is not intended for use as an independent residence. For purposes of establishing if the property is owner occupied, the owner must be a natural person and the owner occupying the property as his or her principal residence and must own a fifty percent (50%) or greater interest in the property. Councilors AI Rassier Ross Rieke Renee Symanietz Dale Wick Thomas and Ellen Ortmannand Timothy Ortmann, 308 -10th Avenue SE, St. Joseph MN 56374, have submitted the request for Interium Use. JudyWeyrens Administrator u WJU]tID L--l-= Publish: May 26,2006 - - 308 - 10th Avenue SE 2.) College Avenue North' PO Box 668 . Saint. joseph. Minnesota .,6,74 Phone ,2.0.,6,.72.01 Fdx ,2.0.,6,.0,42. RECN::n'~'ii""H' "-.w~. ffi':::'C' MAY' 1 '7 10 " (. 06 CITY OF S T. JOSEPH APPLICATION FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT CITY OFST. JOSEPH 25 College Avenue NW P. O. Box 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374 (320)363-7201 or Fax (320)363-0342 Fee $ Paid Receipt # Date STATE OF MINNESOTA) Or{-/1"Qt1 ~ o.nr-.. PHONE: NAME: f ) I e ~~~.Sb )ss '7 (p; ~ - Co 8::..:).~g/ .;2 0 ~--Jc;-seP-k:: . -------"~--_._-----_.._-------- ADDRESS: I/We, the undersigned, hereby make the following application to the City Council and Planning Commission of the City ofSt. Joseph, Stearns County, Minnesota. (Applicants have the responsibility of checking all applicable ordinances pertaining to their application and complying with all ordinance requirements): 6. Will the proposed use depreciate the area in which it is proposed? Please explain: - 7. Can the proposed use be accommodated with existing City service without overburdening the system? Explain: (~ . . I . 8. Are local streets capable of handling traffic which is generated by the proposed use? Please explain: Owner Signature:- FOR OFFICE USE ONLY APPDc-iITroNSUB1\IITTED:~---------~-------------------------- DA IE APPLICA DON COMPLETE: Planning Commission Action: _ Recommend Approval _ Recommend Disapproval Date of Action Date ApplicantlProperty Owner notified of Planning Commission Action: City Council Action: _ Approved _ Disapproved Date of Action Date ApplicantlProperty Owner notified of City Council Action: Address: Addition: Owner: Manager: Type of Structure: HOUSING, MAINTENANCE AND OCCUPANCY CODE ORDINANCE NO. 55 CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA .~ ~ 0 flr A./IJ.l-AJ Single Family Address; Address: . Multiple To the owner, lessee, agent or occupant of the above described premises, pursuant to the authority vested in me by 81. Joseph Code of Ordinances No. 55, you and each of you upon ~---------~wliom-ihis-order-shatl-be-ser v~d C:lre-herebrardeT&lwlthln---~--------aays to make t~------------------_.- following repairs. .lll lie' IV fEr; D TD sl1a tV ?rt tJr/' IJ {J (!4t(A'NJ1 J'Ae-p /Jf /1!?,Q r S2J ~ Failure to comply with this order may be grounds for imposition of a fine up to $1,000 and/or suspension or revocation of your rental license by the 81. Joseph City Council Dated this .;:J ~ r day of #1 t4<; . 2OO.S ~ <It) '" RE-IN8PECTION DATE d /~i . .~~~ 8YJosepf(Rental Housing Inspector 320-363-7201 COMPLIANCE DATE MAY-2MAY. 24. 2006:; 2: 26PMLJ1NR EDINA REALTY BUFFALO!:C(.:'iC 10: fb.:lt:lt:lCt:l':lNO. 798 P. 2'C::'O::: ~Mort~ ~~'r.... ~ 'til,I,"'-"'-f" 'Ji.I..NJ,~/I.'t,j.-.\ \~, , WYI'W,~rtgage.clOm AN AffILIATE Or (I'INA HA.LTY HOME inI1VICES, A C:OMI'LI:TE tEAt ~STAlE URVI(:l\:S COMPANY 5-23-06 TWIMC; This letter i~ intended to address the issue of own.ership regarding 308 - 1 Oth Ave, SE, Saint Joseph:. MN. Thomas James O~ purChClSCd this property on 5/12/2006 and is titled as the owner on record' along wi1b. his parents, Timothy and Ellie. Ortmann who co- signed on the Mortgage. As Thomas' loan oftic.eT) T assisted with the loan ptoc:essand .YQ.y.c:b.thath~j.~jhe titled.owner.Jfyou81'c.mneed.of.any.addltionaLinfonnation,feel free to contact me personally. Sin~re1y, ~~ SCt)Lt Hanis Vice President Edina. Realty Mortgage 327 - 13th Street Delano) MN 55328 763..972-4334 Office 612-889-3934 Cell 763..912..2132 Fax ." r'" ',' ..11 ; ~.,. ...... 5::""8 ,3.'4"'--- " 1 " ,..,,',. ..... . ... .. ." ,'1' ..:.. ;,.... .... :.. ....... .. I ..., .' .'... .. . I I , :....~d:.:~... 'A:' , ';::,~";.&'.'):,':H~;' .'. :~':""f"'I:;:"':~.y.v,~. ......~:.1 .~.,'iI'''.~' ~~ ...... . ~'. . :~. ~ .;^;.m W' ~.' , .....c. 1:). ... ;N. '6" . I'; ~ : ,-.;;:~_.- ""~ :.~ . . . "0" u..... t, I I '" ., ~ '",_ t,:' 0, ~ :4 .. I 0' J .. ;'~. ..0 , ~. ; .-tlt- . ", . . " ~ ...... ........ ~ . '.... ~:. :: . .~~.: .-; "; :f';";~: ;~V!>< ~~.~""...~ =(/1. ..: ~. '. ... . '. .', :,. ... .. ~ .~.... " ,~.. . ~. .:{A:~:r: ,'. :'~':.~~: .. ':~:"';~' :'~t~tn .... :'m~.:CJ ';:', .~':':). ::. ........ 'r:- - '.. ~:;:Q. 'w' :~~ .: '. . .: t .... ~. . . '. . ,:' . ", .' '. . I .... m.... . , , . ::I.Y'~::~. -. . - ~ 'Il~:,-I i ..G~:)~l :.:.~:: ...~?f.:~ : .... "~ . : .::...... ~ i . .....I~:.: ...... ': '.~ .;:: '; :::. ,it. i .::..:~, .: ::5 :....,.:.. .-F .': ;.., . ';~ OWjjns AllVH VNIG3 :.q:d9l:l . 90'Ol'vl'^V~' .... : .. , '. . [:.. ",,,,'~:' '8' D: <0' . . ..... '..........,.. . . ':. ........ , . ., , -=,' ";~' I "'..';.. .'"':~'; ~.'.. I" ) . . I " I " . .. Jr;, . I ,... ... . ..... .... .' ......... . :,..: 'f.1&':: ~'f'. ..~:w~ , . ' .... ... . .~..\, .; '. ,.- .. :. .' ..' '. . ". S 'd 86L 'ON Resolution of finding The request of Timothy Qrtman for an Interim Use Permit request came before the Planning Commission at a public hearing held Oh June 5, 2006. The purpose of the hearing was to consider issuance of an Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental unit in a R1 Zoning District. The property is legally described as Lot 001 Block 003 Cloverdale Estates 4th Addition according to the plat and survey thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for the County of Stearns and State of Minnesota located at 308 - 10th Avenue SE. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27. subd 5 allows for an Interim Use permit as follows: Residential rental provided the unit is owner occupied and provided the room (s) rented does not contain separate kitchen facilities and is not intended for use as an independent residence. For purposes of establishing if the property is owner occupied, the owner must be a natural person and the owner occupying the property as his or her principal residence and must own a fifty percent (50%) or greater interest in the property. The request for Interim Use has been submitted by Timothy Ortman, 308 - 10th Avenue SE; St. Joseph MN 56374. Notice of this matter was duly served and published. In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: The proposed use is consistent with the standards for granting an Interim Use Permit, St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07.04 Therefore, based on the above findings, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendation: Approval of the Interim Use Permit to allow an owner occupied rental unit in a R1 Zoning District with the following contingencies: 1. The rental license in non-transferable and if the property is sold or the ownership changes so that the aforementioned no longer owns a 50% or greater interest in the property the Interim Use Permit is null and void. 2. Approval of the Rental Housing Inspector 3. The Planning Commission will review the license annually and revoke the license if the property is in violation of the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances. 4. The City Office will place a notice in the St. Joseph Newsleader when the owner occupied rental licenses are reviewed and will accept public comments. The motion passed unanimously. ATTEST Gary Utsch, Chair Judy Weyrens, Administrator I Attachment: Yes orNo REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Graceview Estates- - PUD Amendment DATE: June 5, 2006 AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing - Graceview Estates, PUD Amendment Reduced Density, Revised Frontage PREVIOUS ACTION The City approved the Preliminary Plat for Graceview Estates in 2002. When the plat was presented to the City it was presented as a style of living using coving and trails, maximizing open space. The plat was approved and development has occurred since. Graceview is currently constructing the third phase of the development and the fourth phase has been submitted for review. RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Accept the Findings of Fact and recommend the City Council approve the Amendment to the Plat entitled Graceview Estates. COMMENTSIRECOMMENDA nONS The developer is requesting two amendments: 1. Reduction of Lots from 34 to 31 2. Utilize traditional front yard setbacks. First - reduction of lots. The developer is not changing the layout of the development, rather removing 4 lots to increase the size of lots in Block One. The attached illustrations verify that the plat design is the same. The second request is to not stager front yard setbacks. The current coving plan strategically placed the lots to provide for additional green space. The developer has indicated that the same intent can be met by changing the configuration of the lots. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH www.cityofstjoseph.com City of St. Joseph Public Hearing .The Planning Commission for the City ofSt. Joseph shall conduct a public hearing on Monday, June 5, 2006 at 7:10 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an amendment to the PUD entitled Graceview Estates. .... Mdyor ..--~-~Tire.Ptff).Amendmentreduceslhe-numberof-bujfdahle-lots-in-6raceview-Five-..........-.............. Richdrd Cdrlbom fr 34 31 '. om to . . Administfdtor Judy Weyrens . Councilors AI Rdssier Ross Rieke Renee Symdnietz Ddle Wick Pond View Ridge LLP, 25 -11th Avenue North, St. Cloud MN, has submitted the request for PUD Amendment. Graceview Estates 5th Judy Weyrens Administrator Publish: May 26, 2006 2. ~ Coil e g e A v e n u e Nor t h . P 0 Box 66 8 . S din t. I 0 s e ph, M in n e sot d ~ 6 .)7 4 Phone ,2.0.,6,.]2.01 FdX ,2.0.,6,.0,42. Graceview Estates 5 - Ammended POO Graceview Estates 5 has. been redesigned by decreasing the amount of lots from 34 to 31. The lot sizes are larger than previously approved. The front yard setback has also been adjusted in this area to 30 feet, as is typical. By creating larger lots, the varying setback is not needed to create the open sp~e feel. The larger lots in themselves, along with being along a curve the entire plat, will create the open space feel without the complication of varying the front yard setback line. These minor adjusnpents will enhance the appeal of Graview Estates 5. Also, these minor adjustments comply with the City ofSt. Joseph's comprehensive plan. 12 1 11 1 10 8 2 2 1 7 3 6 PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED LOTS (34) AMENDMENT TO PUD PLAN FOR GRACEVIEW 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All that part of Outlot B GRACEVIEW ESTATES 2, Stearns County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof 2 LESS AND EXCEPT 3 7 All of GRACEVIEW ESTATES 3, ----Stearns County, Minnesota~--------- according to the plat thereof. 6 5 8 NEW PROPOSED LOTS (31) 7 t:::::1 o -I -I 200 400 -I 600 g,urll!'ying &: 1Engin!'!'ring ~rnfl'ssinnals lInr. .60 lOtq All!'. %lnutq iOOait.r ~ark, .iBan 5.6387 (320) 259-8888 06061AMENDMENT SCALE IN FEET o (J) o (J) -" )> s:: rrl Z o s:: rrl Z -I ~ <: >-< 8 C/.l ~ "'C ~ "'C o C/.l gj t""' o ~ C/.l > ~ ~ <:5tJ ~~ o~ ~~ >~ Qo <~ ~c:: ~tJ ~ ~i ~ ~ ;;g o "'C o C/.l tr:l t:1 t""' o >-3 C/.l RESOLUTION OF FINDING PUD AMENDMENT - Graceview Estates The request of Pond View Ridge LLP for revision of their Plat entitled Graceview Estates, approved in 2002 came before the Planning Commission on June 5, 2006. The original PUD provided a living style using coving and trails, maximizing open space. The revised site plan utilizes the same concept, only changing slightly the front yard setbacks. In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of 81. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following [mdings: The proposed Amendment to the PUD does not compromise the integrity of the entire plat. The Amendment will still utilize the same development plan, decreasing the density, enhancing additional open space. Further, the setbacks in front yards will still be varied to match the existing development. Therefore, based on the above [mdings, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendation: Approval of the PUD Amendment reducing the plat entitled Graceview Estates by four lots and modifYing the front yard setback. Gary Utsch, Chair Judy Weyrens, Administrator APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO A PUD CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 25 College Avenue NW P. o. Box 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374 (320)363-7201 or Fax (320)363-0342 STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF STEARNS) NAME: Podview Ridge LLP ADDRESS: 2511lh Ave N. St. Cloud; MN 56303 PHONE: 320-253-1366 I/We, the undersigned, hereby make the following application to the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of 81. Joseph, Steams County, Minnesota.. (Applicants have the responsibility of checking all applicable ordinances pertaining to their application and complying with all ordinance requirements): 1.. Development Name: Graceview Estates 5 legal description of land to be affected by application, including acreage or square footage of land involved, and street address, if any (attach additional sheet if necessary): All that part of Outlot B GRACEVIEW ESTATES 2, Steams County, Minnesota according to the plat thereof. lESS AND EXCEPT All of GRACEVIEW ESTATES 3, Stearns County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof. 2. Percentage of development completed: 3. Name and address of the present owner of the above described property is: Same As Above 4. Nature of the proposed amendment: Three lots were removed to increase the overall size of the remaining lots. Also, the setbacks of Graceview 5 will vary in size however the setbacks will not vary as extensively as the approved PUD. 5. Is the proposed use amendment consistent with the overall development plan? Yes, this proposal is consistent with the overall development plan. The overall density will be decreased slightly and lot sizes increased. Although the setback variations will not be as drastic as those first proposed, the setbacks will still be varied enough to be consistent with the original PUD. 6. What impact will the proposed development have on the current and future development of the approved PUD? This amendment will have little effect on the approved PUD or future development. AppIicanl~"" ~,/ ~ _ _, Jd:J In, Owner Signature: Date: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ATE SUBMITTED: DATE COMPLETE: ____ DATEOFPUBUCHEARING___ PUBUCATIONDATE: lanning Commission Action: _ Recommend Approval __ Recommend Disapproval Date of Action: Date ApplicanUProperty Owner notified of Planning Commission Action: ity Council Action: _ Approved _ Disapproved Date of Action: Date ApplicanUProperty Owner notified of City Council Action: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF GRACEVIEW ESTATES 5 ST. JOSEPH TOWNSHIP, STEARNS COUNlY, MINNESOTA 15.3 ACRES +/- ZONED: PUD ! , I J FtJICt""/ ....L;/~)~ I x'';'' -~ ,,~:,-- t ~*::J. lIIl;HlIIDJ.YOS 3Uoe'UI01 ~-- -- nlCNl"_30FtO' SllJE..lOfttt RE/<<_SOF'Etf __lIIIIIYIMDlDftINCIIIlMIlNl$: , , 11':.1'Uf ,', "III' -I 1 II .ll!...rgr~:....J 1.._';.:.iLIJfL t I:,,;,,,,,--~~--I sr.,Ill5EPK'JOIM$W' Nl_pOo't"~'~C5TAJt$2._Ooo.olIIo._",,~..._JIIoII_ =-~ M ol~ D;n.1U:J, _e-q-._Id. ~\A"'p&.l_. ... . ~ ~ ~ tE:GeJO """" CA'K:tl &lS1~ ~~~ ==;~ ........:o-~ ~~~~='iDt ~.t. hII....~.....'U19 (:mI)i!5I-B1I88 !!i!!/G' ~:imol 1iF~~ .,.ur'tJNflI,,__OH ....... 1IO tOO l~ ICH.EINfm o IlDlCllEIIIOIlMCllllEflIEl' . IlOIlmIlIlOlIlIClIUDI'RIUND ~~~.3~.= 1..-/1._ _~~IlO.-B!!!!- PRELIMINARY PLAT OF GRACEVIEW ESTATES 5 ST. JOSEPH TOWNSHIP, STEARNS COUNTY', MINNESOTA 15.3 ACRES +/- ZONED: PUD :";::"\i;; , , I I I .r -)( i ~ =::J. _L_ nzo..z.ool ... . " Ii ~ c.l.'CHs.\$IIl ~':/:POU: ~ ~~~ ttuPHOM:PtOISTAI, 'lM!'JIf llilf'M' 'l~7T>I$TSOI1ltl r20-~~~lJJ(Il CIlIIliMl<<NlDnmDllloDllJIIC_M.- , , r J'SFID' 'l'IU.: : lO...rw.:.:._J L_.;.:J.a..~ =--~~tMDlI ~~~ P'P\R.lNI, MSlIlWIl ON t hnti'Jo'~_ r.:::~.';:::,Jiio't J.,. ...1..'1.....9318 (:Jl!D)1i!"_S'811 :"~"'PImINllI'l'fIl.R~M1_ -- "_""oI~ll~cro.tES2.~Co<o'q._~"'1lIoplat_ U;SSRlllDCO'T ....oICtW::fYft.flmAJ'[S"_~.~~Io""'pIGl_. sttIllC1(S:-- -- ~.30fttf Sltlf_l0fEET .!/Ill._SOFEE'l' IT..oIOSO'II~ ~llmJOO o DfNOTEIlI'lOHlIKlhWBIl'SEJ . IlOIClIESllCHaIOIbIOOf'OUII) ~~~15~ ~IL_ Iloar~UCOII!JlO,.~ \ Attachment: Yes or No REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION College of St. Benedict - Variance DATE: June 5, 2006 AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing - College of S1. Benedict Height Variance PREVIOUS ACTION When the City Council amended the Ordinance in 2003, the E & E Zoning District was amended to include the same restrictions as commercial and Industrial. The change in Ordinance limited the maximum height ofa structure to 40 Feet, the same as all other Zoning Districts. RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION COMMENTSJRECOMMENDATIONS As you can se~ from the enclosed comments, there are very few outstanding items, some of which will be finalized with construction plans. With regard to parking, the College can utilize all the parking within the campus. The Ordinance does not require that the parking be within a specific distance from a facility. Jim Fredricks has submitted a letter regarding the parking. The new facility will have capacity on the second floor to seat approximately 450, this is in addition to the dining facility. It is difficult to determine parking for the College as an analysis of all the buildings and use must be determined. I have included in your packet a resolution approving the variance and one denying the variance. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH www.cityofstjoseph.com City of St. Joseph Public Hearing Administrator Judy Weyrens The Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph will conduct a public hearing on Monday, June 5, 2006 at 7:20 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a sixteen and one-half foot variance on the maximum height of a structure. The Variance is being requested to construct a food service facility for the College of St. Benedict. The tower of the facility measures 56.5 feet. The proposed facility will be ____jocated~D_tbe_CoJlege_QtS1._aene_djctcamp_u-s->c-a_dja'c~.nlio_tbJLC1~!Ilen~ Libra[L_____.___._. __Mayor ________ Richard Carlbom Councilors AI Rassier Ross Rieke Renee Symanietz Dale Wick st. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.35 Subd 6 states: Height Requirements. No building constructed in the Educational Ecclesiastical District shall be more than 3 stories or 40 feet in height. Berming the building does not allow a building to be constructed higher than 40 feet. Elevation for the building shall be determined by the average grade of the land. Steeples and similar unoccupied design features shall conform to the standards set forth in Section 52.12 5 (a). The College of St. Benedict, 37 College Avenue South, St.Joseph MN 56374 has submitted the request for variance. Judy Weyrens Administrator Publish: May 26, 2006 2. 'i College Avenue North . PO Box 6 6 8 . Saint. ] 0 s e p h, M inn e sot a 'i 6 , 7 4 Phone ,2.0.,6,.72.01 Fax ,2.0.,6,.0,42. . COLLEGE OF . Saint Benedict March 14,2006 Judy Weyrens, City Administrator City of Saint Joseph PO Box 668 Saint Joseph MN 56374 --~-~--~~--~-----_._------------_.~_.~-~._._--- Dear Judy, Included in this packet you'll find the developer's agreement information, I've also included the developer check list and supportive documents to date. The Board of Trustees has not yet given CSB' s administration approval to move forward on the project but we anticipate receiving authorization at the May 23rd board meeting. Our goal is to have the developer agreement and contractors lined up to begin shortly after approval from the Board. In addition to the development plan application information, I have included a set of the latest plans and project presentation booklet that are still under development. We anticipate completion of our design and development plans at/around the end of March, at which time we will send you a copy. I have met with the City's inspectors to briefly discuss the preliminary plans. I anticipate introducing the inspectors to our architects and engineers in the near future. We want to address any issues in the early design phase. The estimated construction costs are approximately $5-6 million. Thank you in advance for your consideration and I look forward to working cooperatively with the City and your representatives on this very worthwhile initiative. Sincerely yours, r~~ Chief Physical PlantlFacilities Management Officer 37 South College Avenue .St. Joseph, MN 56374-2099 www.csbsju.edu Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employers College of Saint Benedict Development Plan Application 1. Description of Site (Legal Description) . See map & page #1 2. Ten (10) copies, minimum size l1'xl7' of a Site A. Building location on the lot, drawn to scale: Se~ page #1 B. Building elevations; front, rear and side: See pages #2-4 (Campus signature building designs: red brick, peaked roof, shingles, arches, white banding, windows, pavers etc.) C Building exterior materials and color:-,. See pages #2-4 D. Locations of ingress and egress points: Seepage #1 ------~------~--~-~--~ E. Dumpster and solid waste pick-up areas and proposed screening material: See page #1 F. Sign location and dimensions: See page #4 G. Lighting standard and hood detail: (Will use lolly pop style light fixture - campus standard) H. Parking and loading areas identified: See page #1 1. Drainage by the use of arrows and/or contours: See page #1 J. Screening of heating, ventilation and air-conditioning equipment: (Most mechanical systems will be located within the building) K. Landscaping material including the location, type of plant and size: (We anticipate using our campus signature pavers; plantingS would be similar to other plants on campus) L. Fire hydrant and fire lane locations: See page #1 (Existing fire hydrants identified, a future additional hydrant is proposed north of the new building) M. Utility locations; and: (all utilities are underground) N. Any other fencing, screening, or building accessories to be located in the development area: See page #1 3. Additional written or graphic data reasonably required by the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission as described below: A project narrative explaining the request must be submitted: See narrative 4. Proof that the Applicant is the owner of the parcel in question: See submittal #1 5. Required Fee ($500.00 Deposit): Included . COLLEGE OF Saint Benedict Date: May 30, 2006 To: Planning and Zoning Commission City of Saint Joseph PO Box 668 Saint Joseph MN 56374 RE: College of Saint Benedict Parking To Whom It May Concern: The College of Saint Benedict is proposing to construct a new dining facility that will also include a banqueting and conference area. The dining part of the project is replacing the dining facility we currently have in the College's Main Building. The public islhas been invited to dine there and will be invited to do the same in the new facility. The parking has been more than adequate and we believe will remain so. The banqueting and conferencing space will add to our current conferencing efforts. The increase in this area will primarily take place after the academic year has been completed as it has in the past. During the academic year when we do have some conferencing taking place, we will use the current parking on campus as we have done in the past, which has been more than adequate. All CSB' s parking is within a 5 minute walk of the proposed location. For example, we anticipate having approximately a capacity of 475 for conferencing and have the capacity for 1,100 for performances at the Benedicta Arts Center. In our opinion, the challenge for us is in scheduling, not a lack of parking. The College has 1,674 parking spaces available. In 2005 we issued 855 student parking permits and 335 employee permits. This has served us well in the past and we believe it will adequately serve us into the future. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns or if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, ~ ft;;reOOc~ Chief Physical PlantlFacilities Management Officer 37 South College Avenue St. Joseph, MN 56374-2099 www.csbsju.edu Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employers Inspectron Inc. ?II;. Memo From: Judy Weyrens, City Administrator Ron Wasmund, Building Official Applicant 5/23/2006 .-~--------~-~---_._---_.__._----------~---'--'-'-----------------_._~-~_._--~.__._---~----- To: Cc: Date: Re: College of 51. Benedict Dining Hall The college is proposing to construct a state of the art dining facility for the students. The facility will also contain a banquet facility for 500 people and the president's dining room. A portion of the main level will be the new bus terminal for students. Indoor waiting areas with coffee shops, computer terminals and restrooms will be provided. The banquet room will be open to the public for dining and special events. The dining hall is proposed as a two-story structure with a hipped gable roof. The footprint of the building will be 25,218 square feet. The second floor will be 19,401 square feet. The basement will consist of a mechanical room and utility tunnel. The basement will be 5,200 square feet. The majority of the building is The exterior finishes are asphalt roof shingles, and brick walls with cast stone accents. Large windows and bands of stone will break up the plane of the walls providing an architecturally pleasing design to the exterior. The facility is internal to the campus with an attachment to the east side of Clemens Library. Streets and utilities intemal to the campus will be reconstructed and relocated to accommodate this project. One new fire hydrant is shown on the utility plans. Additional hydrants maybe required. No parking facilities are shown. . Page 1 A recycling area is shown inside the building at the load dock area. No trash enclosure or dumpsters are shown on the plan. The reviewed plan does not contain electrical details therefore no lighting review was done. Landscaping consists of small areas of sod lawn, several deciduous trees, paver sidewalks and some bushes. It is assumed that the landscaping will match the landscaping standards . of the campus Findinqs 1. The structure as proposed complies with St. Joseph Ordinance Section 52.35 for permitted uses, and building exterior finishes. 2. The maximum height of the building permitted by Ordinance Section 52.35 Subd 6 is 40 feet. The main portion of the building measures 42 feet to the mean level between the eaves and ridge of the roof. The tower, which contains the president's dining room, measures 56 % feet to the mean level between the eaves and ridge of the roof. A variance will be' required for the proposed roof height. 3. Lot coverage was not calculated because no property lines were indicated. 4. No exterior dumpster storage was indicated on the plan. 5. No signage was indicated on the plan. 6. No parking plan was shown. Ample parking must be provided within 350 feet of the banquet hall. A parking plan must be submitted for review. 7. One fire hydrant was shown on the plans. Additional fire hydrants must be identified or installed. In lieu of adequate fire hydrants a fire department access lane will be required around the perimeter of the building. 8. A fire department key box must be provided near the main entrance to the building. 9. The following comments from the City Engineeer must be complied with: A. Drainage calculations are being reviewed. B. Provide detail showing underground stormwater storage facility. C. Contact City Engineer prior to installation of stormwater storage facility for on site review. D. Show temporary erosion control Best Management Practices (Le. silt fence, inlet control devices, etc) on the erosion control plan. . Page 2 E. An NPDES Permit will be required for this project. Submit permit to City Engineer. F. Provide a copy of the SWPPP. G. All proposed utility extensions included in the site plan are owned and maintained by CSB. The existing (privately owned and maintained) 10" sanitary sewer line located on the east side of the building appears to be in the building construction area. Will this line be relocated outside of the building construction area? Submit anticipated wastewater flow to City Engineer for review to determine if downstream sanitary sewer capacity is adequate for increased flows from Dining Facility. H. Comply with requirements per Water and Sewer Ordinances (Ordinance 41 -------~------~-----tl1rough45). . ----~----------.------------------- I. What facilities will be in place to minimize oil and grease discharge to the sanitary sewer? Recommendations It is recommended that responses to and corrections of the items listed as non-compliant or inconclusive be received before final approval of the site plan is made. . Page 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Judy Weyrens, City Administrator FROM: Tracy Ekola, PE DATE: May 18, 2006 RE: College of St. Benedict's Dining Facility St. Joseph, Minnesota SEH No. A-STJOE 0501 D73 Judy: Please find following the engineering comments regarding the above referenced project: 1. Drainage calculations were submitted and are being reviewed. 2. Contact City Engineer prior to installation of storm water storage facility for on site review. 3. Show temporary erosion control Best Management Practices (i.e. silt fence, inlet control devices, etc.) on the erosion control plan. 4. An NPDES Permit will be required for this project. Provide copy of NPDES Permit to City Engineer. 5. Provide copy of the SWPPP to City Engineer. 6. All proposed utility extensions included in the site plan are owned and maintained by CSB. The existing (privately owned and maintained) lO-inch sanitary sewer line located on the east side of the building appears to be in the building construction area. Will this line be relocated outside of . the building construction area? 7. Submit anticipated wastewater flow to City Engineer for review to determine if downstream sanitary sewer capacity is adequate for increased flows from Dining Facility. 8. Comply with requirements per Water and Sewer Ordinances (Ordinance 41 through 45). 9. What facilities will be in place to minimize oil and grease discharge to the sanitary sewer? Please feel free to contact me at 320.229.4406 with any questions you may have. Jmw x:\s\stjoe\corrunon\d73 st hens dining facility\m-city-051906.doc Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 1200 25th Avenue South, P.O. Box 1717, SI. Cloud, MN 56302-1717 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.comI320.229.4300 I 800.572.0617 I 320.229.4301 fax APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 25 College A venue NW P. O. Box 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374 (320)363-7201 or Fax (320)363-0342 Fee $ Paid Receipt # Date STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF STEARNS) IIW e, the undersigned , as owners of the property described below, hereby appeal to the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of St. Joseph, Stearns County, Minnesota to grant a variance from the St. Joseph City Code: (applicants have the responsibility of checking all applicable ordinances pertaining to their application and complying with all ordinance requirements): PROPERTY OWNER NAME(S): Colle2e of Saint Benedict PROPERTY OWNER PHONE NUMBER(S): 320-363-5507 ADDRESS: 37 S Colle2e Ave ZONING DISTRICT: E & E LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Colle~e of Saint Benedict PROPERTY OWNER(S)' SIGNATURE(S):r ~ The request(s) which we desire for our property is/are in conflict with the following sections(s) of the St. Joseph City Code: Section Height limitations Section Section Proposed non-conformance(s): Requesting a 16.5' height variance to construct a new dining facility What special conditions and circumstances exist which are particular to the land, structure or building(s) involved which do not apply to the land, structures or building(s) in the same zoning classification (attach additional pages as needed)? Height of existing buildings that have been constructed in that area of the campus Do any of the special conditions and circumstances result from your own actions (if the answer is yes, you may not qualify for a variance)? Consideration should be given to past building prolects on campus that were built prior to the establishment of the ordinance and an architectural concept was developed What facts and considerations demonstrate that the literal interpretation of the zoning code would deprive you of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning code (attach additional pages as needed)? We are the only E & E zoned parcel of land with significant acreage in addition to the Monasterv. The impact on others would be minimal if any. State your reasons for believing that a variance will not confer on you any special privilege that is denied by the zoning code to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district: The variance is on a proposed new building that is in the center of campus and would not negatively impact buildings owned by others; large tract of land. State your reasons for believing that the action(s) you propose to take is/are in keeping with the spirit and intent ofthe zoning code? The building in general meets the intent of the ordinance. The higher clock tower is the challenge. However much of the tower is unoccupied. State your reasons for believing that a strict enforcement of the provisions of the zoning code would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship under the terms of this code as referenced in state statutes: If strict enforcement of this zoning code would require significant expense and time to redesign the new facility. This would likely require a larger footprint which likely would not fit in the proposed location. The new structure would then likely not comply with our well established campus architectural concepts. Attached to this application and made a part thereof are other material submission data requirements, as indicated. Date: ~ LOb jU/Vl-L l, tJ b Owner Signatur . ~~6 Date: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY DATE APPLICATION SUBMITTED: DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE: Planning Commission Action: Recommend Approval Date of Action Date Applicant/Property Owner notified of Planning Commission Action: City Council Action: Approved Disapproved Date of Action Date Applicant/Property Owner notified of City Council Action: Recommend Disapproval ~ 3 ~ ~o 00 ~~ ~d @-- k~~) 0+ @-- @-- ., ~ tji ~~ o z ~ ill i /; ~ffi ~@ i~gj ...ffi~ i% ~ ~ ~ n -< ..1: J.: z o ~b Gj,c ....J.1I "-''''" tn= "-'''" '"'~ ~~ IE ~~ i~ ~F= """ e-- G-- 0-- G--- G-- 0-- e--:--- ~~ 0- ! ~ g", ~, ~~ ::2d ~ ~ 2 o .. '" 'il 01 ~ ~ " ill ..t-,LI ~... ~~ ~d 50, ~~ 8'oJ .9-,H oJ in o ~ ~[ lS~ ~~ <: .k J.: z o ~tr GjTi G:l~ 0';i ~g c:::=J c:::=J : ~ I ~~ : ~~ r ~;:: ': ~; I I " " " ---_H______Sl " II II II II II ---...J...I...------D " " " " " " " " " " " " " " II " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " II w.ok..!.: " -n-~------- II " l.J " " " " II ~ " " " " " " ti -' "'" F '" "'" 0- J >- '" "'" li5'b :J.I (/)." Q~ ~~ d&l ~ 1Jl e-- I" is 8 e-- ~ 0-- ~ 2 " ~ <! G--- 0-- 0-- e-- ~~ 0---:- o ~ ..S.6ir "8 ,LI "S-,vl !l1 I" ,.t-,U ~~ @~ ~~ ~!f! g. ;~ '" i .~ '" , Ji ~ "'. 00 ~;.!. I:-:~ z ijj u z o F ~5 GJ~ ::c::O- !5~ &1g i'5 !?1 ~[ lS~ ffi~ .O-,BI [:l "' !Z9 2itJ ~ iiiG-- ':J ~~ e-- e-- e-- @-- 0- ~. 00 ~~ ~~ ~ . COW iSd ~ 8-- .O-,'iB I I I I I I I 0- I I I I e-- I I 0- ~ I ~ I I ~ G " I '" I ~ I I 0-- I I g I ffi I ';;i il'~ '1/:<' I I 0-- i" W a ~ :;; <'i ~! w" ~d " W~ "'-' ~;< ~- ~! 1il~ i;l ."tr ,lL .9-,L\ ~ 1J1 ~ il'~ ~~ ~ 1\ ~ @- @- @--- @-- @--- d~. .' ~r . ~~ gd . . 1.I,f I ~~M ~ ~ Ii = - II [ I H-t-Htt-tt-Htt.1 ~ 'T " oJ .'a-,tt ~O-,gt I I I I I I I I I " I I I it:T ~-------{1 " " II " " " " " " " " " " " " " -----------,~ " " " " ---~-lT------JJ " " " " " " " II " " " " " " " " " " , 1rl oJ ...: .J: ..k = o ;::; ~J cd ,Ii ~: =i>l 0- e--- 0- e-- e-- @-- 0- @-- 0-- @-- ~ '" 111 ili ;;; il'i5 "I~ I I" I" I" I ~ I I ~ i III ~ ~ I ~ ~ !~ ~ .S-,LI ~ 0: 2 ~ " ,. ~ Ii Ii l< \0 , i " '" oJ '" -h ~ " ~ " " " " " " " " -U~{------11 w " " " " " " " " II " " " " " " II " ___-II II " I " I II I I " I II I " I " I II I " I II I " I " I II I II I ---Ll I I I I I I I ___________..1 " " II ~ " IIIIIUIlIIlIIlIIiIJUIIIIIIlI " 1III111111111111111111mlllll " IIlllllllllllllllUlIlIlIllI1l II 1Illlllll1l1l1llllIIIHIIUIlI " 1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIHlIIIJIIlI " , ~ " w , 111111111111111111111111111111 < 1!II1I11II1I11IlJJ\lIl111i1lJl II 11111111111111111[111111111111 " 11II1IJlIJlIIIIIIIIIJrllllllll " 11II11J11I1I11I1l11J1I11I1I11l II 1IIlfllllllllllllllllllJlIIIII " = " !!!I!IIIIII!I!!!I!!IIlIl!I!I!! " 0 " ~:cr " ~Ii " --'10 II "-';:" -----------,1 ~~ " " " " " " " " " Ii II Ii -----------11 -- Ii IlIlJlJlllllllllillllllllllltl 1IIIIIlltllllllllllJlIUIIIIII 1III1lIJIlIIJIIIIIIJlIUIIIIII " 1IIIIIII1I11I1I1IIHlIIllillll Ii IIIIIIIJIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIJIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111I1I11I11I111I1I1II11I1II1I1 II 111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 IIUIIIIIIUIlJIIIJIIIIIIIIlII 1IIIIIIIIIIIIlJlllllllllliHlI --- -----------j i II Ii II Ii II I: h ~~ ----2.._,.,_".~.._~_,.,' " 8 s s '" a!) 1333 0''"1 -',. lH~13H SN!C'11C18 ~ ,,--' 1 1(: O'i'l ~":'~:== (....~ %:;fn~ 0' ~ (....g - ss YlJD snt;JNfn(J118 " ~NIOlln8 )i:)1~8 ^~OlS - >: SlN3~HIVdV lS3M ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ C ~ Z << w f3 ~ ..J I ! 11 ti !! Ul :; w ~ I- . 0<< Z " 8 ""- >, ssnl$ 1..,4 I f'j $" / I D'""u ~ n u H ~ ~ I I j [j , I ! i . en : W I I- I o Z . o z m ( ..J (\Z~ ORDINANCE 52 ~ ZONING ORDINANCE Section 52.35: EE - EDUCATIONAL - ECCLESIASTICAL DISTRICT Subd. 1: Intent. It is the intent of this district to provide for an area occupied by public and private educational and ecclesiastical institutions. The institutions of the Sisters of the Order of Saint Benedict and the College of Saint Benedict predate the adoption of this Ordinance. The City recognizes the historic significance and cultural, religious and educational function of these institutions. However, this section is meant to prohibit the use of land by these and other educational facilities which would be incompatible with or detrimental to the essential character of land adjoining the Educational - Ecclesiastical District. Subd.2: Permitted Uses. a) Convents b) Novitiates c) Colleges and Universities d) College Preparatory Schools e) Churches and Similar Uses f) College Owned Student Housing g) Grade Schools h) High Schools i) Vocational Schools Subd.3: Uses Under Special Use Permit. The following uses shall require a special use permit based on the procedure set forth in this Ordinance: a) Streets and alleys which provide a means of ingress and egress to or from the institution. Subd.4: Permitted Accessory Uses. Accessory uses reasonably incidental to the function and purpose of permitted uses including, but not limited to: a) An independent power plant facility. b) Storage buildings for storage of equipment used in the maintenance of the property, not to exceed 30% of the gross square footage of the principal structure. 52.35-1 ORDINANCE 52 - ZONING ORDINANCE c) Swimming pools, tennis courts and other recreational facilities. All swimming pools must be fenced around the perimeter. The fence must meet the requirements of Section 52.12 Subd. 2 of this Ordinance. Subd. .5: Building Permit Required. Construction of facilities must be by a building permit issued by the building inspector to insure building code compliance, and all building permit applications must be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief or Fire Marshall and the Planning Commission. A building permit must be issued by the building inspector and building plans approved by the Fire Chief or Fire Marshall and the Planning Commission for remodeling of existing facilities for a same or similar use. Subd. 6: Height Requirements. No building constructed in the Educational Ecclesiastical District shall be more than 3 stories or 40 feet in height. Berming the building does not allow a building to be constructed higher than 40 feet. Elevation for the building shall be determined by the average grade of the land. Steeples and similar unoccupied design features shall conform to the standards set forth in Section 52.12 5 (a). Subd.7: Setback Requirements. a) The front yard of any building shall be 35 feet from the lot line. b) The side yard of any building shall be 20 feet from the lot line,. unless the side yard abuts a street or highway in which case the setback shall not be less than 30 feet. c) The rear yard of any building shall be 20 feet from the lot line. Subd. 8: Site Coverage. No structure or combination of structures shall occupy more than 50 percent of the lot area. Subd. 9: Other Requirements: a) Screening: All heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment, and refuse storage areas shall be screened and in a suitable location as determined by the Planning Commission. b) Lighting: All lighting not under the authority of a governmental unit shall be hooded and no light may directly strike any public right of way. c) Landscaping: In addition to requirements relating to parking lots, the Development Plan shall show a unified landscaping scheme for the development. d) Parking: All parking lots shall conform to the standards setforth in Section 52.10. All lots shall include parking controls and other landscaping techniques to improve their aesthetic quality and to direct the flow of traffic. 52.35-2 ORDINANCE 52 - ZONING ORDINANCE Subd. 10: Development Plan Requirements. No building permit shall be issued until the City Council approves the Development Plan after consulting with the Planning Commission to determine that the use and development is compatible with and complementary to adjacent land uses, and consistent with the stated intent of this zone. The developer shall provide the .following items to the Planning Commission and City Council for any development located in the Educational-Ecclesiastical District: a) Building location on the lot, drawn to scale. b) Building elevations; front, rear and side. c) Building exterior materials and color. d) Locations of ingress and egress points. e) Dumpster and solid waste pick-up areas and proposed screening material. f) Sign location and dimensions. g) Lighting standard and hood detail. h) Parking and loading areas identified. i) Drainage by the use of arrows and/or contours. j) Screening of heating, ventilation and air-conditioning equipment. k) Landscaping material including the location, type of plant and size. 1) Fire hydrant ,and fire lane locations. m) Utility locations. n) Any other fencing, screening, or building accessories to be located in the development area. 0) When required, evidence of completion of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program and/or the City of St. Joseph Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). p) If applicable, evidence of compliance with federal, state and local pollution and nuisance laws and regulations, including, but not limited to glare, smoke, dust, odors and noise. The burden of proof for compliance with appropriate standards shall lie with the applicant. 52.35-3 ORDINANCE 52 - ZONING ORDINANCE q) Required Feel Agreement. 1. Payment Required. Any person filing a petition requesting developplent plan review shall pay a fee according to the schedule established by the City Council. 2. Amount. Fees payable under this section for development plan review shall be in an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. Preparation and review of all elements of the required development plan, as listed and described above, is to be at the sole expense of the developer and at no expense to the public. The fee is payable at the time of filing a petition and is not refundable. In addition to the above fees and in the event the City incurs professional fees, either legal, engineering or professional planners, or any other cost, including but not limited to, postage and publication expenses, the applicants shall reimburse the City for those fees, and the City officials may require an escrow deposit, cashier's check or letter of credit for these fees prior to the final action on the application for development plan review. Such escrow or letter of credit shall be in the form approved by the City Attorney. 3. Development Agreement. In the event additional review by the City or its assigns is anticipated and/or needed during implementation of Development Plan, or other similar circumstance, the City shall require the property owner(s) and/or developer(s) enter into a development agreement with the City. The development agreement shall stipulate the conditions for approval and the City's authority to inspect the development. The agreement shall further require the owner or developer, as the casemay require, furnish a cashier's check, escrow account or irrevocable letter of credit in favor of the City in an amount equal to 110% of all costs associated with City's review of the development, including but not limited to, engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative, as estimated by the City. Such escrow or letter of credit shall be in the form approved by the City Attorney, shall be conditioned upon the approval of the development plan. 52.35-4 ORDINANCE 52 - ZONING ORDINANCE aesthetic compatibility with surrounding properties to ensure that they will not adversely impact the property values of the abutting properties or adversely impact the public health, safety and general welfare. 1) Residential dwellings in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Districts, except those within approved manufactured home subdivisions: 1. Shall have a minimum roof pitch of 4: 12, and each roof shall be shingled or feature approved materials. 2. Shall maintain a minimum width of twenty-two (22) feet throughout a minimum of seventy percent (70%) of the structure. 3. Shall be placed on permanent foundations of wood or concrete. Subd. 5: Height and Yard Exceptions. a) Chimneys, cooling towers, elevator bulk heads, fire towers, drive-in movie theater screens, grain elevators, silos, penthouses, stacks, tanks, water towers, pumping towers, radio or television towers, monuments, cupolas, steeples and mechanical appurtenances pertaining to and necessary to the permitted use of the districtin which they are located, shall not be included in calculating the height of the principal structure. Wind energy towers and solar collectors will be allowed by the variance procedure provided under this Ordinance. * b) Outside stairways, fire escapes, fire towers, porches, platforms, decks, balconies, boiler flues and other similar projections shall be considered as part ofthe building and not allowed as part of the required space for yards, courts or unoccupied space, provided, however, that this provision shall notapply to one (1) fireplace or one (1) chimney, not more than eight (8) feet in length and projecting not more than thirty (30) inches into the allowable side yard space nor cornices not exceeding sixteen (16) inches in width nor to platforms, terraces or steps below the first floor level, nor to unenclosed porches or other ground level unenclosed projections not over one (1) story in height which may extend into a front or rear yard not more than five (5) feet, or into a side yard not more than four (4) feet, but such platform shall be restricted from the five (5) foot required side yard in the residence district. Subd. 6: Independent Sewage Treatment System Provisions. a) Once available, all sewage and water facilities shall be connected to the Municipal sewer and water facilities within ninety (90) days of when said services become available. Where sewers are not constructed or in operation all sewage facilities shall be connected to approved septic tanks and disposal fields. This provision shall not apply to temporary construction sites, or portable units. 52.12-7 RESOLUTION OF FINDING Denial- Height Variance, College of St. Benedict The request of the College of St. Benedict for a sixteen and one half foot variance on the maximum height of a building came before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing held on June 5, 2006. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a variance to allow the construction of a new dining facility. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.35 Subd 6 states: Height Requirements. No building constructed in the Educational Ecclesiastical District shall be more than 3 stories or 40 feet in height. Benning the building does not allow a building to be constructed higher than 40 feet. Elevation for the building shall be determined by the average grade of the land. Steeples and similar unoccupied designfeatures shall conform to the standards set forth in Section 52.12 5 (a). In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: FINDING: The proposed plan is inconsistent with the following provisions: St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd 2 (a) f11 states: "That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. The exceptional or extraordinary circumstances must not be the result of actions taken by the petitioner. FINDING: The design of the building is a direct result of actions taken by the petition as they have the ability to design ability that meets the Ordinance requirements. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a) f21: "states that the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance". FINDING: Inconsistent St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd 2.(a) [31: "states that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands in the same district" . FINDING: Inconsistent St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a) [4]: "states that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area, or in any other respect impair the public health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City". FINDING: Inconsistent St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a) [5]: "states that the condition or situation ofaspecific piece of property, or the intended use of said property, for which the variance was sought, is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or a situation". FINDING: While there are limited properties zoned E & E, the same height restriction is included in all Zoning districts and similar requests could be made. . St. Joseph Code ofOrdinaIices 52.07 subd 2 (a) f61: "states that the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship on the particular FINDING: Inconsistent St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a) r7l: "states that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the zoning ordinances or property within the same zoning classification. FINDING: Inconsistent Based on the above findings, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny the 16 Yz foot variance on the maximum height of a building. Gary Utsch, Planning Chair Judy Weyrens, Administrator RESOLUTION OF FINDING Approval- Height Variance, College of St. Benedict The request of the College of 8t. Benedict for a sixteen and one half foot variance on the maximum height of a building came before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing held on June 5, 2006. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a variance to allow the construction of a new dining facility. 81. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.35 8ubd 6 states: Height Requirements. No building constructed in the Educational Ecclesiastical District shall be more than 3 stories or 40 feet in height. Berming the building does not allow a building to be constructed higher than 40 feet. Elevation for the building shall be determined by the average grade of the land. Steeples and similar unoccupied design features shall conform to the standards set forth in Section 52.12 5 (a). In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of 8t. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: FINDING: The proposed plan is consistent with the following provisions: 8t. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52. 07 subd 2 (a) r1l states: "That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property in question as to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. The exceptional or extraordinary circumstances must not be the result of actions taken by the petitioner. FINDING: The College Property contains multiple buildings with a centralized design theme. The proposed dining facility is designed to match, therefore the height is required. 81. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a) r21: "states that the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the petitioner of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance". FINDING: The only properties in the E & E Zoning District are school and Monasteries thereby not affecting many properties. 8t. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd 2.(a) r31: "states that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands in the same district" . FINDING: Same as above 81. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a) [4]: "states that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area, or in any other respect impair the public health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City". FINDING: The proposed building would continue to enhance the College of St. Benedict creating aesthetic design. 8t. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (a) [5]: "states that the condition or situation ofa specific piece of property, or the intended use of said property, for which the variance was sought, is not of so general or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or a situation". FINDING: Due to the cost of constructing towers it is unlikely that similar requests will be received by the City as a result of this variance. 8t. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd 2 (a) r61: "states that the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship on the particular FINDING: The height variance is limited to the tower and not the entire facility. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.07 subd. 2 (aH71: "states that the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the zoning ordinances or property within the same zoning classification. FINDING: The height variance is limited to a small portion of the building, therefore the Ordinance is not compromised. Based on the above findings, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the 16 Y, foot variance on the maximum height of a building to allow the construction of the dining facility for the College of St. Benedict. Gary Utsch, Planning Chair Judy Weyrens, Administrator I Attachment: Yes or No REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Sand Companies Variance Request DATE: June 5, 2006 AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing - Variance Request, Rear Yard Setback PREVIOUS ACTION The City Council and Planning Commission approved the development entitled Momingside Townhome. The approval included a variance on the rear yard setback and a special use permit. RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Recommend the Council approve a 6 inch variance on the rear yard setback for the comer of the facility that is encroaching the setback. COMMENTSIRECOMMENDATIONS Minnesota Townhome was built with financing from MN Housing. When the project was closed an asbuilt must be submitted with the final documents. When the asbuilts were completed it was noticed that one comer of the building is approximately 6 inches in the setback. The letter from Sand Companies indicates that the error is a result of OTTO & Associates submitting the wrong survey. This type of error is considered a building irregularity. The diagram illustrates that the encroachment is only one comer of the building. Sand Companies cannot close the financing without a letter from the City stating that the building meets the zoning requirements. CITY OF ST. JOSEPH www.cityofstjoseph.com City of St. Joseph Public Hearing Administrator Judy Weyrens The Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph will conduct a public hearing on Monday, June 5, 2006 at 7:35 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a variance on the rear yard setback. The variance is needed to correct a building irregularity for the Morningside Townhome Development. The variance will correct the setback for one corner of the facility. The property is legally described as Lot 1 Block ___~~omjngsjd_e)~,c[es_2~Addj1iQJL~____'_____ _______ ____~___________._________n _ May~~______ Richard Carlbom Councilors AI Rassier Ross Rieke Renee Symanietz Dale Wick Sand Companies, 366 South Tenth Avenue; Waite Park MN 56387 has submitted the request for variance. 81. Joseph Morningside LLC ~t8~ Judy Weyrens Administrator Publish: May 26, 2006 2. 'j Coil e g e A v e n u e Nor t h . P 0 Box b b 8 . S a i n t. J.o s e p h. M inn e sot a 'j b , 7 4 Phone 12.0.,6,.72.01 Fax- ,2.0.,6,.0,42. Sand Companies, Inc. City of St. Joseph 25 College Avenue NW P.O. Box 668 St. Joseph, MN. 56374 366 South Tenth Avenue PO Box 727 Waite Park, MN 56387-0727 Office: (320) 202-3100 Fax: (320) 202-3139 . E-mail: SCI@SandCompanies.com Website: www.SandCompanies.com May 9, 2006 Re: S1. Joseph Morningside, LLLC Morningside Town homes Attn: Ms. Judy Wyrens City Administrator Dear Judy, As a follow up to our phone conversations. and visit yesterday", I'm submitting an application for a variance or more accurately an amendment to a variance already granted under Ordinance 52.29-07 which allowed a setback of 23 feet from the East property line of Lot I Block 3. Simply stated, is that due to the complex shape of the building and the angle between the building and the property line, a mistake was made causing on small comer ofthe building to be approximate 5 inches into the setback area. Our request is to relax this setback area by 12 inches to 22 feet, so that we are in compliance and allowing Otto & Associates to complete the AL T A survey for our lender, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. We ask for this consideration for this City supported project, as this is an Affordable Housing project with very tight budget constraints and any other remedy would be very costly. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Sim CO~ Vice President of Development Construction . Property Management . Development Equal Opportunity Employer APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH 25 College Avenue NW P. O. Box 668 St. Joseph, MN 56374 (320)363-7201 or Fax (320)363-0342 Fee $ Paid Receipt # Date STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF S1EARNS) IfWe, the undersigned, as owners of the property described below, hereby appeal to the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of St. Joseph, Stearns County, Minnesota to grant a variance from the St Joseph City Code: (applicants havetbe responsibility of checking all applicable ordinances _________~fl1Iininj!; tQ their application and complvinj!; with all ordinance requirements): .---------~---- PROPERTY OWNER NAME(S): St Joseph Morningside, LIe PROPERTY OWNER PHONE NUMBER(S): ADDRESS: 366 Sounth lOth Ave, PO Box 727 ~Jaite park,MN 56387 ZONING DISTRICT: R-3 Multi Family Residential LEGAL DESCRIPTION: lDt 1 Block 3 Mornings!.LdAddition,city of st. PROP"'TY OWNER(S)' SlGNAruRE(S> C~ 320-202-3100 LToseph, Co of stearns The request(s) which we desire for our property is/are in conflict with the following sections(s) ofthe St. Joseph City Code: . 52.29-07 Special Use pexmit . SectIon - Section Section Proposed non-conformance( s): Building corner 0.4 ft {5't) over sideyard What special conditions and circumstances exist which are particular to the land, structure or building(s) involved which do not apply to the land, structures or building(s) in the same zoning classification (attach additional pages as needed)? Due tu can..o1ex :;:,1.1ctlJe u;C .Ult::: Lu..i:.lJ..Wl';:J & Ult::: c3111;;jllewLwee11 the builJiIl~J & the property 1: 1\ 'TQist,,*e . waS' "made' causi:ng one small corner to :be 0.4 ft 01? 5 lnches 1nto the setback axea Do any of the special conditions and circumstances result from your own actions.(ifthe answer is yes, you may not qualify for a variance)? NA What facts and considerations .demonstrate that the literal interpretation of the roning code would deprive you of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the roning code (attach additional pages as needed)? l\T~. State your reasons for believing that a variance will not confer on you any special privilege that is denied by the zoning code to other lands, StructUf. eS or buiIdm." .gs in the ~me district: .' 'A,\varIance aoes notmcrease density, floor area, number of units ur any other property' improvements' State your reasons for believing that the action(s) you propose to take. is/are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning code? 'filt= VC1L.LCUIU::: w.Lll llul lLlClL:::L~a.ll.y Clfft=L.;l v~5uCll 5pa.~, ili:>e5 Hal ..i.rl~.Jill~~€: on any easements and would allow COIt!?leted buildina to remalnas currentlY constructed. State your reasons for believing that a strict enforcement of the provisions of the zoning code would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship under the terms of this code as referenced in state statutes: 'TIhprp . i'~. no feasiblo IOC1th0d to :HIO"\,e em .m<:>Qi.fy thel::nrll<:ling & foundation to respec'C me eS'CaDlis1led set.'bacR..' -~r'QC; Date: q t><... FOR OFFICE USE ONLY DATE APPLICATION SUBMITTED: DATE APPL.ICATION COMPLETE: Planning Commission Action: _ Recommend Approval _ Recommend Disapproval Date ot Action Date Applicant/Property Owner notified ot Planning Commission Action: City Council Action: _ Approved _ Disapproved Date otAction Date ApplicantlProperty Owner notified ot City Council Action: ~-- -;" " ":'.:.l.-:;':'\". '.~~.:~~ \ +-- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ :" a oaOl ,,8 ~fJ .- -'" "" . ..:~ .... . .a ::e. "'. . -,' ,', - ~ ' .#. ,# ~H~ [;1Il ,..~ a5G) '.: .. ". -V ..'.' . '.:' ..~~.'," .... ": ...... ,._' t:.. '.,_.' ~~: . :.< -c:i-.; '~':'. :~ .~~~ ~'..'; .:~ .:l::.~. :;~} . . ~~ :. .,'. - '., :....: <: ~;:: ...~\:. .,:':... '.:? :::'/: ::,-' .:<. '.:/ :;:~.: . .\-.....:;. <(:: ~"~';. .. ..: .<, . ;>..:: o. 15.3 - " ~ ~\\ -'l ~ v" ~ ~v~ '( ~: 't~ ~. Q ~ " o v ~ ~ ~ ~0 ~nd Companies, Inc. I hereby certify that this survey. . plan, or .report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a .duly Ucensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the sta~. sota. 'i~O~ Drawn By: Scale: Checked By: .All _ n^. \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ \ \ I '\ i ,\ I _\ .--.- \ ---'-'''--" . \ . \ I ''a \ "C- I '" ~ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (J ,... - c ( \ \. \ \ \ )>. ~ ):.: II :/:l. C) 0) )>. n. ~ (fj ~ /- ffiTTO RESOLUTION OF FINDING The request of Sand Companies for a six inch variance on the rear yard setback before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing held on June 5, 2006. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a variance to correct a building irregularity . The property is legally described as follows: Lot I Block 3 Morningside Acres 2nd Addition Notice of this matter was duly served and published. In consideration of the information pr~sented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: FINDING: The variance is needed due to an inadvertent error in the field and it is cost prohibitive to correct the error. Gary Utsch, Chair Judy Weyrens, Administrator i. . .~, -'.. '. r\ "';:\\I"W~ '. -:: . :: ~ ."..\ '. '......\ '. \ I, \ , \" " ,. \ , ". '~I . .\....-,;...----- "I:~i; . ., ~~ I pi ;r~ I I ~~lll. ,'i~\I.J',.. . " .. ,) 1....... . ;:If'U','j){.:..;i'' . ..i€"',.:,.,...........',.. ,~,......... ....... . .~~~.:... ..:;~=:#S;.,. ':.:",." . ":. ....... ~i'T · .!ill ',f f.t\f;:.;:J .~ ""r . f;i~?-\'i~l .~;.~ ,~~$cq ..... ~!.l c.Jif'l~ 0.... ;r....'"'....~~--:--....---lr1. _-=----~~f,l; . /' " , '--."..j ~ ~;~.t--'----..~------~-~~,:.-:----------------- '.' ."y \ I f& _..._______~=~~ -;------:----.:.----.:..-------------.:."''''..;-4 ./ :J- - --.----1 -;- ;;;;r~;;- u:; -. . . \.:1:. :: "_' . NIl . ~ ........w/ddi!e . f \" .. ....... , ' .~~~..,:.,. 1I01,_"II.i__' . li'MII'::.Iis. ::..~ =::.. , WtiStwood W\W' . 1 I\..;..ft I ~-":.":.t.",::=",,~;~ \- __ =:,....... """"" ~~ _ RM5lU fRDP(&O 1QNlNG I.fmJJ )eraJne C WUIidaciI: _ OS/06/06 .- N>. 19552 '\;>, N i~...fb . ~Sut stJIJTH l.B.t (JF~EfloR"+H ,e,)R~AL.D'NE GOHU~_HOV1H lINE tr' me SJ/2 < . JOMt'-CO'l. fJF lHl '. :;e~ ~e~ ClFrHE$1/ZtJF'THCfIWIIHT.;6t.C.Z...._, /J. Ll3RAt"m/4"sa;.~: =~~':l . .J --' ..;;;I~.~_.. ... ..'If~..... " r'" .'1r- ~/- s~-,..~ '-. <.; / r / / / ii1N I I bb \ 1\ i~ 1\ Ii I ill I I!Jb I \ b~ I I ~g -;;;~~;;;~--------l I -.... 'lWlI ......... ICW -- NIIl ....... ...........1- I "'.. ---.... JIIl1l211tlt...._... 1t.000000MII_ .::" - - uu.NS! t........ WIIItwODd WMlL h-J W"'" I ~~"""...:':"'::s:-''''':';~ \- . ........... II .. .............. ~fOI - Rt'Mt.D PROPOSED lC>>UNC CR1C) r....... Co Wiii8iiIck .- fTiJ/06/06 _ I<co 19552 , I- I I I i I I 1 ! ll' Westwood May 30, 2006 WestWood professional Services 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie. MN 55344 . NOTES TO THE CITY COUNCIL CRESCENT HILL PRELIMINARY PLAT . MAIN 952-937-5150 n'x 952-937-5822 TOLL FRe. 1-888-937.5150 . MAIL wpsGWestwoodps.com www.westwood.......m On May 22, 2006 the St Joseph Plannirig Commission approved the Crescent Hill Preliminary Plat and PUD Plan. There were a number of conditions~ One of the ,. conditions was that some lots be removed from the plat. The discussion leading up to . that was concern about the number of 60' wide lots. Further, there was dlScUssion that since the "island" block (Block -# 2) had qllite a few 60' wide lots, which nligbt . 'be the place to eliminate lots. The Planning Commission discussed eliminating as many as Slots. . the developer cannot accept. a loss of Slots as his plan is already drawn up consistent with the density* allowed in R-I zoning. However, the developer wishes to show a willingness to reach a "middle" ground. In preparing a revised Preliminary Plat /PUD Plan for submission to the Council, the Developer asked WestWood to eliminate two lots from the plan and suggested they be located in the "island". (Block 2). In ~vis~g our preliminary plat we observed alternative methods to reduce density which were . more appropriate responses to this land planning issue. The alternatives andthe chosen solution are summarized here. . Remove 2 lots from the island block . . When we removed 7 . 60' wide lots in the "island" (Block 2) the remaining lots on that block become substantially wider (over 70' wide). With that change, the south half of that Block, with these 70' plus lots (on 16th Avenue NE) are across the street from ,the twinhomes, while on the north side they are across the street from 60'. wide lots in Block 1. We typically like to have lot sizes and housing styles similar across . the street orreflectit1g a gradation of density from more dense to less dense or vise- .. versa. This gradatiOn is not reflected if2lots are lost from the "island" block as (starting from the salvage yard) would be twfu home lots, then our widest 73' wide . lots, then 60' wide lots. This is a smallest.1O largest to small sequence of lot size. Remove llot from each side of the street (HoneylocustLane) We then looked at taking one lot out of each side.ofHoneylocust Lane. We noticed that the lots on the Block 2 side of Honeylocust Lane llnproved to approximately 73 ' wide, the effect on the 'other.side of the street was not nearly as noticeable. Since there are so many more lots on the NW side of the street (Block 1) compared to the SEside (Bock 2), deleting one lot on that side only added 3-4' in width to lots on the north side"ofHoneyloctist Lane. We felt thatwouldbe a huge disappointment to the Planning Commission and Council if deletion of one lot only showed up as 3-4 feet to . the remaining lots (lots numbered 7.20) in that row. Essentially no new 70'. wide lots . would be created on the north side of Honey locust Lane. . I I i ! I i I i I I . I ;1 ESTA81.ISH~D IN 197.2 lWlN anESIMETRO $T. CLOUEI BRAINERD j ,I "T, westwood Nates to City Cauncil May 30, 2006 Page 2 cif2 Delete 210ts from Block 1 (il~rth side' of HODejtlocust Lane) , Westwood then <?Onsidered taking both lots aut .of the NW side .of Haneylocust Lane (Block 1). With this change the raw oflats in Block 1, from lat 1 through lot 16, will average 70' wide Or more. That way,we eSsentially eliminate 60' wide lats replacing them with 70' wide lats. These wider lats will be located closest to the single family development planned to the west .of Crescent Hill and further rec;luce the lat density in , the area with the mastpreserved 1rees (the NW comer). Designwise, removing two , lats from Black 1 (making those deep lats 10' wider) makes the lawest density area of Crescent Hill .occur in the row aflots furthest from the salvage yard. That met~od .of reducing project density was used in the Preliminaty Plat! PUD Plan submitted for Cauncil review as it seems the mast appropriate approach to land planning. We hope this letter explains the rationale used in the Preliminary Plat /PUD plan before you. ",' Sincerely~' " WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES cr~ &iiJJ Tim Erkkila Senior Project' Planner *The proposed PUD is matching the lot area requirements on average, but is below the norinallot width. The effect of this lot size request is that the lots have excess depth. with the tree, preservation area oecmring in the "extra deep" rear yard areas. ESTAaLlSH~O IN t972 planning> engineering> surveying