Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-06 October 18, 2006 Page 1 of 4 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the St. Joseph City Council met in joint session with the St. Joseph Economic Authority and St. Joseph Planning Commission at 4:00 PM at the St. Joseph City Hall. City Council Members Present: Mayor Richard Carlbom. Councilors AI Rassier, Ross Rieke, Renee Symanietz, Dale Wick. Administrator Judy Weyrens. EDA Members Present: Chair Ross Rieke. Members Mayor Richard Carlbom, Tom Skahen, Ken Jacobson, Carol Yaggie-Heinen. Plannina Commission Members Present: Members S. Kathleen Kalinwoski, Marge Lesnick, Jim Graeve, Michael Deutz, Bob Loso. Council Liaison AI Rassier. City Representatives Present: City Attorney Tom Jovanovich, Building Official Ron Wasmond, Public Works Director Dick Taufen, City Engineer Tracy Ekola, Building Official Ron Wasmond. Mayor Carlbom opened the meeting and stated the purpose of the meeting is two fold, the first part will focus on discussion with the EDA on current activities and projects and the second part will focus on Ordinance Amendment. Carlbom turned the floor over to the EDA Chair Councilor Rieke. EDA Activities - Chair Rieke stated that it is important for the City committees to meet routinely to discuss items of mutual concern. Rieke stated that one of the current projects of the EDA includes reviewing current and future land uses for property adjacent to County Road 75 and College Avenue. EDA Director Smith-Strack stated that it is important to the EDA to look at all aspects of the community and where additional development could occur. She stated that in particular the EDA looked at how second tier development could occur between 1st Avenue NE and 1st Avenue NW, north of Ash Street and south of Minnesota Street. The review of property identified development Impediments including financial, structural and land use including transportation issues. The EDA is working on how to overcome the impediments and spawn development. Deutz questioned the area of re-development and how much property is included. Carlbom stated that the EDA is in the early stages and details have not been completed. This meeting is a first step for re- development. Deutz requested clarification on the redevelopment district and use of TIF. Strack-Smith stated that an area would be established and TIF plans would be established with the area. Each TIF plan would be separate district affording full utilization of TIF. Rassier questioned why the redevelopment area does not extend down to 4th Avenue NE. Smith-Strack stated that the property near 4th Avenue NE is guided and used as single family. However, the EDA could review the property area. Carlbom stated that sometimes it is best to start small and expand the area at a later time. Rassier stated that it is his opinion that the City should be looking at long range, not short range. Deutz stated that he concurs with Rassier as it takes time to make changes. Ash Street is an example of how long it can take to re-zone an area for commercial development. Rassier stated that he believes the property between Ash Street and County Road 75 is the commercial district. Skahen stated that he believes that taking small steps is more effective than trying to develop a large plan. Rieke stated that the City should be looking at establishing partners to help foster the development. Sometimes it takes more than one property owner to create development. It is important for the City to establish a goal so that the EDA can approach property owners about future redevelopment. Graeve would like to see the revitalization of downtown before additional commercial development. He further encouraged redevelopment of the Quonset on Ash Street. It is also his opinion that the north side of County Road 75 should be developed first as it is not residential. The south side of County Road 75 is primarily residential and should continue as such. Rieke stated that the EDA has discussed many alternatives including the suggestions of Graeve. The EDA would be more than happy to improve the Quonset; but it requires a development plan. Deutz stated that most of the properties east of College Avenue and north of Ash Street are already being using as commercial property. For example, Jim Loso October 18, 2006 Page 2 of 4 operates a pottery shop and a rental unit, Art Reber operates a rental unit and beauty shop. Jacobson stated that it is important to look at the areas now so they do not become blighted properties in the future. Rieke stated that this meeting is really to begin the dialog process and determine how do we start. Carlbom question if Planning Commission Members have any questions about the area for development or financing mechanisms available. Carlbom stated that the redevelopment area could offend some residents in the redevelopment area. Rassier questioned what type of development the EDA is considering for the redevelopment area. Smith-Strack stated that it would be a blending of downtown commercial and highway 75 development. The EDA did not get to far into that discussion, as it is more important to define the redevelopment area first. The EDA is looking to make the area easier for development, assisting with the removal of impediments. Wick questioned the area for commercial development and if the EDA is considering increase the land area adjacent to Ash Street. Smith-Strack stated that it is an expansion of what is currently zoned commercial. Carlbom stated that in his opinion we cannot wait until downtown revitalization project is complete as that project is a ten to fifteen year project. Some of the property owners may not want to wait that long for development. If the City is not proactive, then development may not be consistent with the vision of the City. Graeve stated that if the development is residential friendly such as the business center, then it makes sense. However, if the development is high use such as McDonalds, it will have a negative impact on the residential units. Rieke stated his first reaction to expanding the commercial district was to consider additional property east rather than south. The City also needs to look at the residential uses between Minnesota Street and Ash Street and determine the interest of the residents. Rieke stated that the EDA has discussed other items to include incentive for redevelopment. Loso questioned why the EDA doesn't meet with all the property owners and have a discussion rather than talk around them. Rieke stated that it is important for the City Boards to have the discussion before property owners are contacted. At this time Mayor Carlbom thanked the EDA members for participating in the discussion and turned the floor over to acting chair Kalinowski to discuss Planning Commission concerns. PlanninQ Commission: Kalinowski stated that the Planning Commission has been meeting regularly to review and discuss proposed Ordinance Amendments. The proposed amendments are a combination of staff and Planning Commission requests. At this time Kalinowski turned the floor over to the City Attorney, Tom Jovanovich. Jovanovich stated that over the past two months the City Staff and Planning Commission have been reviewing Ordinances formulating proposed amendments. The process started with the City Staff who helped formulate the requested changes and those changes were then presented to the Planning Commission as Ordinance Amendments. The Planning Commission has meet twice to review documents and is ready to have discussion with the City Council. The following is a summary of Ordinance Amendments discussed: Ordinance 56 Fence: Allow for fences to be placed on utility easements. Deutz questioned the use of maintenance free fencing and if it could be defined. Jovanovich stated that he does not like the term maintenance free and requested that the Ordinance define what maintenance free includes. Those present agreed that the following material should be listed as permitted: vinyl, plastic, chain link stone, brick, stucco. [56.07 (c)] Ordinance 52.11. SiQn Ordinance - Municipalities have been challenged in Federal Court on Ordinances regulating signs. Sign companies are targeting communities with major corridors, making a request for a sign permit. Once they are denied, they make a claim in Federal Court. Two Cities have lost such cases in court and the federal court has thrown out the entire Ordinance. The League of Minnesota Cities has advised Cities to review their sign Ordinance. Therefore, the Sign Ordinance October 18, 2006 Page 3 of4 included in packet material is a draft that has been approved by the League of MN Cities and they will be forwarding the same to other communities as a sample sign Ordinance. Rassier questioned when the sign moratorium would be lifted since the Ordinance is complete. Jovanovich stated the moratorium could be lifted at the same meeting the Sign Ordinance is adopted. Ordinance 32. Easement - Grave stated that in his opinion the Ordinance is overly bureaucratic as the applicant must submit a plan to the Administrator who in turn forwards it to the Public Works Director who has to then return it to the City Administrator. Graeve questioned why the process has to be so cumbersome. Jovanovich stated that the City Office typically receives applications, as it can be difficult to find the Public Works Director due to the nature of his position. Graeve suggested the language be changed to the applicant must submit an application to the appropriate person. Those present agreed to leave the language as presented in the draft document. Ordinance 84. Traffic & Motor Vehicle - Jovanovich stated the current Code of Ordinances separates traffic and motor regulations throughout the Code. The proposed amendment creates one Ordinance for Traffic & Motor Vehicle, simplifying the Code. Ordinance 51. BuildinQ Numbers & Kev Boxes: The Police And Fire Chiefs requested additional language to assist with the enforcement of Lock Boxes and Addressing. Ordinance 52.28. R-2 Two Familv Residence - Clarified lot coverage and accessory building locations Ordinance 52.12. Accessory Buildinas - The current Ordinance contained inconsistencies so the language was clarified that buildings not requiring a building permit could be placed within 5 feet of the property line and other accessory buildings must be located 10 feet from the property line. Ordinance 52.09. Planned Unit Development (PUD) - Kalinowski stated that the Planning Commission spend considerable time reviewing and discussing Planned Unit Developments. The proposed Ordinance before the Council provides PUD opportunities in all zoning classifications. The purpose of the Ordinance is to encourage innovative development using underlying zoning regulations. Jovanovich stated that the Ordinance is still in progress as the Planning Commission is working on defining land-disturbing activities. Graeve questioned the verbage regarding density. Smith-Strack clarified that even though the property is developed as a PUD, the development still requires an underlying zoning district. Jovanovich stated that in developing a PUD, the developer must take the total area to be developed and determine the density under traditional zoning. This number becomes the maximum density. The developer can then design the development with dense areas provided the maximum density is not exceeded. Rieke questioned how the Collegeville Development Group project would fit into the parameters of the proposed PUD Ordinance. It was clarified that the B1 District does not include a minimum lot size and the proposed development consisting of housing and retail would qualify for utilization of the PUD process. In addition, Deutz stated the intent clarifies how a PUD may be utilized. Graeve questioned how wetlands can be included in density calculations. He further questioned if the City can prohibit the mitigation of wetlands. It was clarified that wetlands can be included in a development plan and become an aesthetic feature of the development. Ekola stated that the City relies on Stearns County Environmental Services to review the wetland applications. These applications are reviewed by many agencies. Ekola stated that the board reviewing the wetland applications is very detailed and does not grant all requests. The first option they consider is avoidance. Deutz questioned the minimum acreage requirement for PUD utilization in a B2 Zoning District. He questioned if this requirement is counter productive to the redevelopment efforts of the EDA. It was agreed to modify the Ordinance to include the following sentence: Redevelopment areas shall be exempt from the minimum acreage [52.09 subd 3 (b) {2}] October 18, 2006 Page 4 of 4 Ordinance 112. Exterior Furnaces - Wasmond stated that the intent of the Ordinance is to limit outdoor multi fuel burners used to heat structures. Typically such burners emit odors that can affect adjoining property. Weyrens stated that the City received a complaint in 2006 and upon calling the PCA discovered that their agency can assist with enforcement, but only if the City has an Ordinance. Jovanovich clarified that the Ordinance only regulates outside burners that are used to heat a structure and outside recreational burning is not affected. Interim Use Permit - Deutz questioned what happened to the suggested Ordinance Amendment that would allow rental as an Interim Use permit in transitional zoning areas such as CR 75. If the goal of the City, including the EDA, is to develop under utilized property adjacent to CR 75 allowing an Interim Use Permit for rental would allow developers to purchase the property as it is offered for sale. The developer can than cash flow the purchase through rent payments. Most developers would prefer to construct a commercial development than be a landlord for a single family rental. However, with the ability to cash flow properties it becomes difficult to encourage redevelopment. Rassier stated that he understands the transitional use and rental, but at what point can the City require the property be converted a commercial use. Jovanovich stated that his office will research the matter, however, he has concerns that the Interim Use Permit might create non-conforming uses. If that is the case, it becomes difficult to sunset a non-conforming use. Therefore, he would like to review property rights granted through a permitting process. Deutz stated that he disagrees and it is pure economics. Developers would rather develop commercial than keep rental units that do not cash flow. Rassier stated that he does not disagree with Deutz but he just wants to make sure that the City can legally cease a use when the time is appropriate. Jovanovich stated that he will research this matter further and present the information to the Planning Commission for consideration. Loso stated that the City could use eminent domain proceedings if the property owner does not wish to convert the property. Jovanovich and Carlbom stated that the laws have changed and eminent domain is very difficult to use for economic development. Jovanovich stated that the changes made at this meeting will be included in the public hearing for the proposed amendment. Weyrens stated that it is anticipated that the public hearing for the Amendments will be conducted in November at a special meeting. ,r The meeting was fldjQurned by consensus at 5:40 PM. i \ . ~u~~~~~;~'I{ .~.. (yc i(//./ Admiti'istrator