The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About(02) Comprehensive Plan MaterialTo: Honorable Mayor Rassier Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission Administrator Weyrens From: Cynthia Smith-Strack, Municipal Development Group, Inc. Date: November 7, 2008 Re: Comprehensive Plan Update Open House BACKGROUND: A public hearing on the 2008 St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan Update (CPU) is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. at th the Fire Hall on Wednesday, November 12 . The hearing will be hosted jointly by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The purpose of the hearing is to accept oral and written testimony on CPU. The purpose of the public hearing is not to debate with those presenting information, but rather to contemplate/consider testimony after the hearing has been completed. At this time I have not received written testimony applicable to the hearing. In the event such written testimony is received it shall be presented and read into the record of the hearing th on November 12. ORDER OF BUSINESS: The order of business will include convening both the Planning Commission and the City Council meeting. Following the call to order, the meeting purpose should be stated and the process of providing testimony should be explained. I will have a brief powerpoint presentation addressing the CPU, the process followed, and core principals/strategic directions established. Following the presentation the public hearing process should be initiated and testimony received. After the hearing is closed discussion by/among the Planning Commission and the City Council is appropriate. Formal action (i.e. Planning Commission recommendation th or Council approval) on the CPU is not anticipated to occur on November 12. REVISED DRAFT AVAILABLE: The revised narrative has been uploaded to the City website (www.cityofstjoseph.com) under the ‘Comprehensive Plan’ link. The revised narrative is independent of the proposed maps supplementing the text. The maps have also been uploaded to the City’s website. You will not be receiving fresh copies of the CPU at this time as most changes were format/typographical in nature. You will receive final copies upon th plan approval. Electronic files will be available for reference during the November 12 meeting. For those of you desiring to review changes since the joint meeting of October 29, 2008, the City Administrator has Word documents of each chapter available. You may review proposed changes by selecting the ‘review with comments’ option from the ‘review’ menu in Microsoft Word. Please contact the City Administrator to receive such files. ATTACHMENTS TO MEMO: Attached to this memo you will find written and oral comments presented to MDG at an open house conducted on November 5, 2008 at City Hall. The comments are provided for your review and consideration. Said comments will also be incorporated into Chapter One of the CPU. 1 The comments from the open house allude to comments referenced at the October 29, 2008 meeting. Said comments were submitted a group of land use planners retained by St. John’s University to review/comment on the physical profile and land use sections of the CPU. Since the items were alluded to at the open house, they are also attached hereto. Please note I have added comments to those items as well. The final attachment is an email sent to MDG in response to comments submitted by a group of land use planners retained by St. John’s University. Again, please note the attachments are offered for review and consideration. If changes/adjustments are desired, specific direction is kindly requested. ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct public hearing. 2 Ð¿¹» î ±º íð COMMENTS FROM OPEN HOUSE NOVEMBER 5, 2008 WCCR: RITTENOMMENT ARDS ECEIVED Tom Kroll, Saint John’s Land Manager 320.363.3126 “Please find attached ideas for submission for transmission to the Planning Commission and for inclusion in the Comments Section of the Comprehensive Plan” îÍÈ×ÈÔ×ÏÛÈ×ÊÓÛÐÉÊ×Ö×Ê×ÎÙ×ØÓÎÈÔ×ÉÈÛÈ×Ï×ÎÈÛÚÍÆ×ÛÊ×ÛÈÈÛÙÔ×ØÛÖÈ×ÊÈÔ×É×ÊÓ×ÉÍÖÙÍÏÏ×ÎÈÉ ÖÊÍÏÈÔ×îÍÆ×ÏÚ×Ê ÍÌ×ÎÔÍÇÉ×ÛÊ×ÌÊ×É×ÎÈ×ØèÔ×ÏÛÈ×ÊÓÛÐÉÊ×Ö×Ê×ÎÙ×ØÅ×Ê×ÌÊÍØÇÙ×Ø ÇÎØ×ÊÙÍÎÈÊÛÙÈÖÊÍÏéÛÓÎÈòÍÔÎªÉÈÍÈÔ×ÖÍÐÐÍÅÓÎÕïîÙÓÈÃÌÐÛÎÎÓÎÕÌÊÍÖ×ÉÉÓÍÎÛÐÉúÊÓÛÎêÍÉÉÛÎØ ò×ÛÎùÍÐ×ÏÛÎÍÖùêìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕòÛÃïÓÙÔ×ÐÉÍÖ÷ÏÏÍÎÉÛÎØíÐÓÆ×ÊÛÎØùÔÊÓÉðÛÊÉÍÎÍÖÈÔ×ïî ðÛÎØèÊÇÉÈî×ÓÈÔ×ÊéÛÓÎÈòÍÔÎªÉÎÍÊÛÎÃÍÈÔ×ÊÕÊÍÇÌÌÊÍÆÓØ×ØÕÇÓØÛÎÙ×ÍÊÓÎÌÇÈÓÎÈÍÈÔ×É× ÙÍÏÏ×ÎÈÉèÔ×ÃÛÊ×ÓÎÈ×ÎØ×ØÛÉÌÊÍÖ×ÉÉÓÍÎÛÐ©É×ÙÍÎØÍÌÓÎÓÍÎÉ¨ÈÍÈÔ×ØÊÛÖÈÙÍÏÌÊ×Ô×ÎÉÓÆ×ÌÐÛÎ ÛÎØÅÓÐÐÔÍÌ×ÖÇÐÐÃÚ×ÖÇÐÐÃÊ×ÆÓ×Å×ØÛÎØÓÏÌÐ×Ï×ÎÈ×ØÈÍÛÕÊ×ÛÈ×ÄÈ×ÎÈÚÃÈÔ×ùÓÈÃÍÖéÈòÍÉ×ÌÔ Tom Kroll, Saint John’s Land Manager 320.363.3126 “Chapter 1, Definitions” please include: buffer low impact development TMDL related to pollution, etc. Green infrastructure in addition to green buildings” Tom Kroll, Saint John’s Land Manager 320.363.3126 “Map 9-2 Park Area. Please be sure that parks and trails are connected especially with bridge over Watab and Wobegon Trail. Map 2-9. Does this reflect NRIA, natural resources inventory assessment? Map 4-6. It seems like greenways alson traffic corridor are less, why?” Tom Kroll, Saint John’s Land Manager 320.363.3126 “Saint Johns should be called educational/ecclesiastical land use as it is now under County Planning.” Tom Kroll, Saint John’s Land Manager 320.363.3126 “The 240 acres of the “Bauerly” or “Hoffman” farm between St. Johns and the Horner County Park is four or six lots under conservation easements limiting housing to one per forty. You may want a new land class.” Ð¿¹» í ±º íð COMMENTS FROM OPEN HOUSE NOVEMBER 5, 2008 Tom Kroll, Saint John’s Land Manager 320.363.3126 “The St. Joe Comp Plan should acknowledge and embrace the existence, partnership, and benefit of the monastery and College in the vision statement.” Tom Kroll, Saint John’s Land Manager 320.363.3126 “Consider moving the wildlife search corridor from Saint John’s and County 2 onto the ‘green space’ identified on Map 2-9.” Hubert Walz “We question the buffer along the freeway (100’). It should be up to the fence. The buffer is not needed and would be a loss to the land owner.” Anonymous “How much weight does mapping of potential environmental significance/sensitivity hold in planning and zoning? Is there another process that would nail it down more? OCR: RAL OMMENT ECEIVED Planning Commissioner McDonald Should the existing zoning map for St. Joseph Township be referenced and included in the land use plan? It seems that since parcels within the orderly annexation agreement are going to be annexed at some point, the planning boards or joint board should be discussing this. Ð¿¹» ì ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN CTK OMMENT FROM OMROLL SJ’LM AINTOHNSANDANAGER The following 3 documents were produced under contract from Saint John’s to the following MN city planning professionals. Brian Ross and Jean Coleman of CR Planning; Jay Michels of Emmons and Oliver; and Chris Larson of the MN Land Trust. Neither Saint John’s, nor any other group provided guidance or input into these comments. They are intended as professional “second opinions” to the draft comprehensive plan and will hopefully be fully reviewed and implemented to a great extent by the City of St. Joseph. Ð¿¹» ë ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN Comments on St. Joseph Draft Comprehensive Plan Introduction The following comments on and recommendations for the City of St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan are offered primarily to address natural resources in the annexation areas, the bulk of which lie south and west of the existing City. We have developed new language that could be inserted into the Comprehensive Plan and recommended some text modifications of existing recommendations. A complement, not a critique Our comments must be prefaced with several acknowledgements: First, these comments are not intended to be critical of the draft comprehensive plan or plan process but instead to be complementary. The changes that were made were intended to meet the Comprehensive Plan goals and vision through the lens of conservation practices. Second, these comments are intended to set the foundation for utilizing best practices in protecting the community’s ‘green infrastructure’ in the annexation areas. The goal of this review is guided by the goals of the Legislative and Citizens Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) grant for preserving the Avon Hills’ landscape, administered by Saint John’s Arboretum: To best protect landscapes, local ordinances need to actually carry out the lofty intentions expressed in most comprehensive land-use plans. Funding will be available to . . . submit draft comprehensive plans and ordinances for review by . . . recognized experts on land-use planning for conservation. Furthermore, the comments are offered fully recognizing the following limitations of our review: The review was outside the context of the Plan process. During a comprehensive plan process, stakeholder and community decision-makers typically engage in a discussion to arrive at a general consensus on what is important to the community, the vision for the community’s future, and the priorities for implementation. Some of our comments may be addressing discussions that have already occurred within the Plan process. The comments are not comprehensive in scope. The goal of the following comments is to find elements where the city’s and the annexation areas’ green infrastructure can be better accommodated. We did not examine the full, comprehensive, set of goals that include transportation, industrial development, retention of the historic downtown, recreation, etc. Summary of recommendations Generally, our comments address the following points: Thorough assessment of natural resource information - The draft Comprehensive Plan presents a wealth of background detail for the City of St. Joseph, including the annexation areas and the Ð¿¹» ê ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN natural resources in those areas. While we believe that additional natural resource information is needed, this additional information is typically gathered as a special addition to, or even separate from, the comprehensive plan process. We have recommended the completion of a Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment process (NRIA) to meet the needs of integrating development with green infrastructure. Good incorporation of green infrastructure goals - The Plan goals, objectives, and policies acknowledge the need for and importance of the community’s green infrastructure. The existing policies set the stage for more specific recommendations that we have included to meet the city’s green infrastructure goals. Critical recognition of the need for buffers and open space - The future land use description presents development scenarios that buffer a number of critical natural resource areas in the annexation area. Providing buffers is the single most critical element for protecting natural systems and St. Joseph’s natural heritage. However, a higher level of conservation design is called for in a number of areas, and an acknowledgement of the ongoing maintenance needs for green infrastructure. Recommendations for important surface water planning - The Plan acknowledges the need for significantly more attention to planning for the protection of surface waters. The existing Plan does not adequately discuss the risks associated with proposed development patterns and, for instance, the impaired water status of the Sauk River. The impaired water status is likely to require changes in development techniques and priorities, and infrastructural needs that come with the responsibility for meeting the City’s assignment of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Linking the future land use map to development market - The Plan clearly lays out an assessment of future growth as it relates to demand for land. This link does not, however clearly address the method by which the City will stage development in response to market demand, particularly as it relates to annexations and utility extensions. We have suggested language that commits the city to a staging process that ensures compact, efficient development that responds to market demand in a logical staged manner. Role of conservation design in green field development - The Plan set specific policies for integrating natural, cultural, and historic resources into the development process. Additional recommendations for using conservation design principles in the annexation areas would help set reasonable expectations for development in those areas. Conservation design in the annexation areas abutting the Avon Hills policy area (County Comprehensive Plan) could also open opportunities to limit the need for extension of centralized sewer that appears to be contemplated in the future land use map. Consistency with County Plan for long-term growth areas - The Plan includes specific recommendations for the City to interact with the County and townships, particularly in light of the large annexation area that may remain under County zoning control for a number of years. Ð¿¹» é ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN Better integration of policies for those areas is, however, warranted to meet natural resource and natural system protection goals. Agricultural protection and natural resource protection goals for the long-term annexation areas need to be more fully developed in the Plan. Ð¿¹» è ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN XI. NATURAL RESOURCES GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES GOAL #1: R. ETAIN QUALITY OF LIFE INHERENT IN THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES Objective A: To the extent possibleEstablish a balance between promoting, protecting, enhancing and preserving natural and physical features (including, but not limited to, woodlands, wetlands, soils, steep slopes, surface waters, groundwater) while managing requests for development and redevelopment. Policy/Recommendations: 1. The City should encourage efforts to preserve wildlife species by documenting including preservation of natural habitat areas and pre- settlement (native) vegetative communities as part ofa natural resource inventory and assessment (NRIA) process and preserving such areas either proactively (before development proposals) or as part of the development process. 2. The City should encourage the use of natural resource data/studies for planning and review of development and redevelopment such as soils, topography, groundwater etc. 3. The City should require continual compliance with approved subdivision grading and drainage plans and make sure such approvals are maintained. 4. The City should carefully regulate development in areas adjacent to shorelands, wetlands and floodprone areas to preserve these as environmentally significant and visually attractive amenities. 5. The City should encourage development to conform to the natural limitations presented by topography, soils or other natural conditions. 6. The City should identify and protect significant scenic areas, open spaces, historic or archaeological sites and emphasize proper management of open space areas in order to preserve trees, wildlife, pre-settlement (native) landscape communities, floodplain, water quality and similar environmentally sensitive features. 7. The City should update the floodplain management ordinance to reflect model ordinances created by MnDNR in 2005. 8. The City should investigate the establishment of ‘buffer zones’ adjacent to high value wetlands. The buffer zones should be kept in a natural state. MDG COMMENT (11.7.08): THE CITY HAS ESTABLISHED BUFFER ZONES ALREADY THE SUGGESTION WAS TO REVIEW. Ð¿¹» ç ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN 9.The City should consider revisingreviseshoreland standards to reflect some alternative shoreland standards implemented in several North Central Minnesota Counties, and currently in rule development by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. MDG COMMENT (NOVEMBER 7, 2008): THIS PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD MEAN YOU ARE COMMITTING TO REVISING SHORELAND STANDARDS. ALTERNATIVE SHORELAND STANDARDS ARE VERY RESTRICTIVE COMPARED TO WHAT IS IN EFFECT TODAY. SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURES INCLUDE RIPARIAN WATER FRONT USE, ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE, LIMITING DOCKS, PROHIBITING JOINT CONTROLLED ACCESS POINTS, LIMITING NUMBER OF DOCKS, ETC. THIS IS ESPECIALLY SIGNIFICANT WHEN YOU ATTEMPT TO APPLY TO EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD AND/OR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS A ZONING ISSUE. 10. The City should review the surface (storm) water ordinance, the subdivision regulation ordinance, and other applicable ordinances to ensure that low-impact development concepts are incorporated. MDG COMMENT (NOVEMBER 7, 2008): SPECIFIC COMMENTS SHOULD BE DEFINED IF THIS IS INCLUDED. Objective B: Protectand improve the quality and use of surface water through support and coordination with the County SWCD, watershed organizations and state and federal agencies. Policy/Recommendations: 1. The City should encourage and promote land use practices to protect and improve surface water resources. 2. The City should require appropriate erosion controls during construction and consider enforcing through developer’s agreements and/or onsite inspections. 3. The City should complete a natural resource inventory and assessment in order to establish a priority listing of environmentally significant or sensitive areas to monitor, preserve, enhance and/or protect and consider the potential for creating a natural resources inventory. MDG COMMENT (NOVEMBER 7, 2008): THIS PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD MEAN YOU ARE COMMITTING TO A NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY (I.E. $150,000 EXPENSE). IT SHOULD ALSO BE STATED THAT THE NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT DOES NOT PROVIDE COMPLETE PROTECTION FOR EVERY POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE. 4. The City should evaluate the impact of stormwater runoff on surface water in the City and respective growth areas and encourage the development of management tools. 5. The City should support the coordination of planning and implementation efforts between the SRWD, watershed organizations, land & resource management offices as well as state and federal agencies. 6. The City should utilize regulatory tools such as ordinances and design standards to ensure that surface water management goals are achieved. Ð¿¹» ïð ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN 7. The City will comply with the requirements of the Phase II NPDES program. MDG COMMENT (NOVEMBER 7, 2008): THE CITY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH PHASE II NPDES REQUIREMENTS. IT IS UNDER 10,000 IN POPULATION AND NOT REQUIRED UNDER PART B OF MN. RULES CHAP. 7090. SWPPPS ARE COMPLETED BY DEVELOPERS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS WHEN REQUIRED TO DO SO UNDER 7090. THE ONLY WAY THE CITY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DEVELOP ITS OWN SWPPP IS IF A PETITION IS FILED WITH THE MPCA AND THE COMMISSIONER DECIDES ONE IS WARRANTED. IS PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUED AS A PETITION TO MPCA? a. The City will develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and submit it to the MPCA for review and approval. b. The City will submit annual reports on the implementation of the SWPPP. c. The City should review or develop ordinances to ensure compliance with the NPDES Phase II permit requirements. d. The City should develop a program to review, permit, and inspect proposed developments in accordance with the NPDES Phase II permit requirements. e. The City will partner with the SRWD, Stearns County, and the Stearns County Soil and Water Conservation District, and other entities to reduce overlap in activities required as part of its SWPPP. f. The City will hold an annual meeting with residents, developers, and other interested persons as required by the NPDES Phase II permit. 8. The City should work with Stearns County, local watershed districts, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and other agencies to address impaired water bodies within the City. a. The City will participate in Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies and Implementation Plans to address impaired water bodies within the City. MDG COMMENT (NOVEMBER 7, 2008): THIS MEANS YOU ARE COMMITTING. COST OF SUCH A STUDY IN NOT KNOWN. b. The City will incorporate completed TMDL studies into its stormwater management plan. 9. The City will work with other units of government and other partners to identify waters in danger of becoming impaired and work to avoid these waters being listed as impaired in the future. a. The City will work with the SRWD to monitor surface waters in the city so that water quality issues can be identified and addressed. Objective C: Preserve the environment as a sustainable resource. Policy/Recommendations: 1. The City should coordinate plans and work with all agencies responsible for the protection and restoration of our environment. Ð¿¹» ïï ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN 2. The City should administer and support the state environmental review program (EAW, EIS). 3. The City should initiate plans to correct any and all abuses and preserve areas critical to the City’s way of life. 4. The City should encourage tree planting on private property within the City and reexamine a tree preservation and replacement ordinance as a part of the Zoning Ordinance to protect valuable trees in areas which will be developed in the future. 5. The City should examine specific requirements for environmental protection that may be incorporated into the City’s Subdivision regulations such as identification of existing trees of a substantial size as part of the preliminary plat required data. Larger subdivisions could require an MLCCS-based inventory to be submitted until the city or other entity completes such an inventory for the larger city and annexation areas. MDG COMMENT (NOVEMBER 7, 2008): THIS IS AN EXPENSIVE PROCESS, WILL DRIVE UP COST OF DEVELOPMENT MEANING LESS AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LOTS. THE CITY WOULD ALSO NEED TO INCORPORATE SOME SORT OF AN ORDINANCE WHICH RELATES TO THE QUALITY OF SUCH CLASSIFICATIONS. 6. The City should consider amending local controls to provide for ‘green’ and iow-impact development concepts. 7. The City will support efforts for private land protection when they help to protect important public resources. This may include the use of conservation easements, transfer of development rights, conservation development or other strategies. MDG COMMENT (NOVEMBER 7, 2008): THIS SPECIFIES IT IS MANDATORY THE CITY ALLOW FOR ‘PRIVATE’ LAND PROTECTION WHEN THEY ‘HELP TO PROTECT IMPORTANT PUBLIC RESOURCES’, ‘MAY CONSIDER’ INSTEAD OF SHOULD WOULD GIVE CITY MORE FLEXIBILITY. OTHERWISE ‘IMPORTANT PUBLIC RESOURCES’ SHOULD BE DEFINED. 8. The City will develop conservation subdivision/design standards for use in the appropriate areas of the City. These Standards will consider reducing or eliminating minimum lot size, setbacks, width requirements and other design constraints but require a certain percentage of the site (at least 40%) be set aside in protected open space. MDG COMMENT (NOVEMBER 7, 2008): THIS MANDATORY POLICY IS FRAUGHT WITH DIFFICULTIES. FIRST, THE POLICY IS MANDATORY. SECOND, THE 40% OPEN SPACE FAR EXCEEDS THAT WHICH MN. STAT. AND CASE LAW HAVE SUPPORTED, 10% IS STANDARD. THIRD, ‘APPROPRIATE AREAS OF THE CITY’ IS UNDEFINED. FOURTH, THIS IS ANTITHETICAL TO SMART, COMPACT URBAN GROWTH WHERE SMALLER LOT SIZES DECREASE VOLUME OF LAND CONSUMED AND KEEP DEVELOPMENT AND UTILITY COSTS AFFORDABLE. FIFTH, THIS COULD DRAMATICALLY IMPACT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. FINALLY, THE CITY SHOULD ADDRESS HOW THIS IS AN INCENTIVE TO DEVELOPERS VS. TAKING OF PROPERTY WITHOUT COMPENSATION. Ð¿¹» ïî ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN Objective D: Recognize the role of agricultural practices and land uses in sustaining community character, protecting urban reserve, and diversifying the local economy. Policy/Recommendations: 1. The City should identify protection strategies for agricultural practices in areas that are designated as urban reserve – eventually to be developed with urban services. MDG COMMENT (NOVEMBER 7, 2008): EXAMPLES SHOULD BE CITED. THE CITY SHOULD CONSIDER WHETHER IT WISHES TO MAINTAIN AG OPERATIONS WITHIN THE URBAN RESERVE OR ALLOW FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING AG USES AS THEY ARE QUITE DIFFERENT. 2. The City should identify and protect agricultural landscapes, working with the County and townships where necessary, that contribute to St. Joseph’s rural community character, but still allow for efficient expansion of urban services. MDG COMMENT (NOVEMBER 7, 2008): THE DEFINITION OS ‘AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES’ SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN CHAPTER ONE. DISCUSSION OF HOW ‘AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES’ CONTRIBUTE TO ‘RURAL COMMUNITY CHARACTER’ WITHIN THE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH SHOULD BE APPROPRIATELY ANALYZED. 3. The City should recognize the economic value of agriculture and the extra value of locally-produced food as a economic development niche in its land use regulations and its annexation decisions. MDG COMMENT (NOVEMBER 7, 2008): FURTHER EXPLANATION AND SPECIFICITY NEEDED TO ADDRESS INTENT AND MEANING OF THIS POLICY. GOAL #2: W . IDESPREAD KNOWLEDGE AND APPRECIATION OF NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES Objective A: Educate the community about its natural resource assets and encourage them to think about their use and impact on the natural resources of the community and greater areas. Policy/Recommendations: 4. The City should maintain a current list of persons to contact at various local, state and federal agencies which are responsible for protecting the environment. 5. The City should distribute new information relating to environmental regulations to all policy makers and elected officials as it becomes available and to the public through the City newsletter. 6. The City should promote environmental stewardship including reducing, recovering and recycling waste materials. 7. The City should maintain data that reflects the economic benefits of natural resource preservation to the local economy. 8. The City should proactively build an appreciation for environmentally sensitive or significant areas within the community. 9. The City should seek opportunities, such as conferences and publications to learn about emerging issues regarding the environment Ð¿¹» ïí ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN and provide training for elected and appointed officials to assist them in dealing with the complexities of environmental issues. 10. The City may consider conducting periodic reviews of natural resource/environmental technology, resources, and incentives as a means to promoting a balance between urban development and natural resource preservation. 11. The City should hold meetings annually to educate residents, elected officials, and developers on new and emerging issues in natural resource management and surface water management. GOAL #3: SBD. USTAINABLE UILDING ESIGN Objective A: Conduct community outreach regarding sustainable building design principals. Policy/Recommendations: The City should obtain or prepare information relating to sustainable building design for distribution to residents. Such information should address: a. Site selection and layout, b. Optimal energy efficiency, c. Conservation and protection of water resources, d. Use of materials that minimize life-cycle environmental impacts such as global warming, resource depletion and negative consequences for human health, e. Enhancing indoor environment by maximizing day-lighting, controlling moisture and providing proper ventilation, f. Consider operation and maintenance practices that reduce maintenance requirements, including water and chemical use. The City should update its website with a sustainable building design page. Information available could include general concepts of sustainable design, links to additional information and pictures/illustrations of sustainable design projects. The City should partner with a recognized expert to conduct a seminar (summit or workshop) for local contractors regarding sustainable building design. The City should promote proper site selection for new construction including promoting consideration of reuse or rehabilitation of existing structures. GOAL #4 P LID. ROMOTEOW MPACT EVELOPMENT Objective A: Conduct community outreach regarding low impact development principals. Policy/Recommendations: The City should obtain or prepare information relating to low impact development for distribution to residents. Ð¿¹» ïì ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN The City should partner with the SRWD, Stearns County, the Stearns County SWCD, and others to conduct a seminar (summit or workshop) for local contractors regarding sustainable building design, low impact development and other emerging issues. Objective B: Incorporate low-impact development principles into the existing City’s Building and Land Use Regulations. Policy/Recommendations: The City should amend existing controls or develop and adopt a new ordinance requiring all development to utilize low-impact techniques. MDG COMMENT (NOVEMBER 7, 2008): DOES THE CITY WISH TO REQUIRE ALL DEVELOPMENT UTILIZE LOW IMPACT STORMWATER & SITE DESIGN TECHNIQUES? TYPICALLY LID SUPPLEMENTS EXISTING SYSTEMS VS. REPLACE THEM ALL TOGETHER. COST OF IMPLEMENTING LID – BOTH TO DEVELOPMENT & RESULTING LOTS BUT ALSO LONGTERM MAINTENANCE & OPERATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. The City’s low-impact development standards should require developments to: a. Utilize the “Considerations for Development” map and the priority listing of environmentally significant or sensitive areas (see Goal 1, Objective B, Policy 3) to identify environmentally sensitive features. b. Preserve the natural features of the site or utilize constructed systems that mimic the natural hydrologic system c. Limit storm water runoff rates and volumes to pre- development levels d. Retain, infiltrate, and filter stormwater runoff before its release into the City’s waterbodies e. Eliminate or entrap pollutants before they enter surface waters f. Restore or enhance the ability of soils to absorb, retain, and infiltrate water g. Minimize impervious surfaces in new development MDG COMMENT (NOVEMBER 7, 2008): CONSIDER COST & BENEFIT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND LONG TERM MAINTENANCE & OPERATION. Ð¿¹» ïë ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN TABLE 4-1 PROJECTED ACREAGE DEMAND* NetGross PopulationHousehold Households Year Acreage Acreage Forecast Forecast Added DemandDemand 2006 5,873 1,661 n/a n/a n/a 2010 8,117 3,171 1,510 503 654 2015 10,217 3,991 820 273 355 2020 12,808 5,003 1,012 337 439 2025 13,908 5,433 430 143 186 2030 15,753 6,154 721 240 312 TOTAL 9,880 4,493 4,493 1,498 1,947 * Assumes 2.56 persons per household; net density of 3 units per acre, 20% right of way, and 10% parkland. Table 4-1 illustrates a projected need for 1,498 net acres of land needed to accommodate future growth through the year 2030. The net acreage calculation excludes land area required for roadways and parks. Approximately 40 acres of vacant and/or infill lots exist within the community (source: tax class non- homestead single unit). Some of the vacant lots do not include improvements. Therefore, it is estimated an additional 1,450 net acres will be needed to accommodate residential growth through the year 2030. The gross acreage demand will be accommodated under the volume of acreage existing within the orderly annexation agreement between the City and Township. The demand for new acreage needed could be reduced by promoting infill and redevelopment and/or by increasing allowable net density, perhaps by instituting a minimum density per acre within residential zoning classifications. The current ratio of residential to commercial/industrial acreage in the City of St. Joseph is 73% to 27%. The percentage for the 2002 CPU was 76% residential use to 24% commercial use. It is noted that neither calculation included mixed use developments. Mixed uses account for 114 acres of property within the City. If the current 73%/27% ratio of residential to commercial/industrial property continues, an estimated 550 additional net acres will be needed to support future commercial and industrial growth. It is important to note that future growth boundaries depicted on the Future Land Use Map (Map 4-6) at the close of this Chapter) contain more acreage than the gross acreage demand as portions of land in the growth boundaries are already developed with rural residential subdivisions and/or businesses located in the township or contain wetlands or creek land. In addition, land will be required for public and institutional uses. The future growth boundaries depicted on the Future Land Use Map (Map 4-6) at the close of this Chapter contain more acreage than the gross acreage demandnoted above (a total forecast need of 2,497 acres). The annexation areas, in contrast to the forecast, include almost 11,000 gross acres. As noted later in the plan, to meet the goal of efficiently extending urban services the city will need to implement a coherent staging plan. Setting clear staging goals will prevent premature extensions of infrastructure and limit the chances of a sprawling development pattern into the agricultural and natural resource areas surrounding St. Joseph. MDGCOMMENT(NOVEMBER7,2008):STAGINGPLANSARENOTREQUIREDOUTSIDEOFTHETWIN CITIESMETROPOLITANAREA.STAGINGPLANSCANARTIFICIALLYINFLATERAWLANDCOSTSLEADING TOMOREEXPENSIVERESULTINGLOTS(PROBLEMATICFORCOMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIALGROWTHAND Ð¿¹» ïê ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN POTENTIALDETRACTORTOAFFORDABLEHOUSINGINITIATIVES).INADDITIONSTAGINGPLANS CONCENTRATETHEFUTUREOFURBANGROWTHINTHEHANDSOFALIMITEDNUMBEROFPROPERTY OWNERS.IFSUCHPROPERTYOWNERSCHOOSENOTTODEVELOP,PACEOFGROWTHCANBESLOWED ORSTALLED.THECITYSHOULDMAKEACONSCIOUSCHOICEOFWHETHERORNOTTOPURSUE STAGING.ALSO,THETOWNSHIPSUGGESTEDTHECITYANNEXADDITIONALSECTIONS,THECITYDID NOTARBITRARILYSEEKALLADDITIONALPROPERTYPROPOSEDTOBEINCLUDEDINANORDERLY ANNEXATIONAGREEMENT.STAGINGREQUIREMENTSINTHETWINCITIESMETROPOLITANAREAHAVE NOTSIGNIFICANTLYRESULTEDINCOMPACT,CONTIGUOUSDEVELOPMENT.GROWTHHASBYPASSED AREASWITHSTAGINGPLANSANDRESULTEDINSPRAWLINGSUBDIVISIONSINAREASWITHOUTSUCH REQUIREMENTS(E.G.WRIGHTCOUNTY).STAGINGPLANSHAVEALSOBEENLINKEDTOINCREASING OCCURRENCESOFRURAL,CLUSTER(I.E.CENTRALIZEDBUTNOTMUNICIPALSYSTEMS)SUBDIVISIONS INTOWNSHIPSRESULTINGINFURTHERDISSECTIONANDSEGMENTATIONOFAGRICULTURALLANDS. Ð¿¹» ïé ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN VI. FUTURE LAND USE Map 4-6at the close of this chapter offers a visual representation of future land use projections. It is noted projected land uses depicted on Map 4-6 may be adjusted in location if the location of collector streets that are planned are slightly adjusted. This plan and subsequent documentation takes into consideration the land uses that have previously been approved by the City, and the land uses encourage compact, contiguous development. It efficiently uses the existing and proposed infrastructure and capital investment. As previously noted, there is more acreage included in the future land use map than the City will logically consume by the year 2030. Future land use map boundaries are coterminous with orderly annexation area boundaries. Map 4-6 at the close of this chapter offers a visual representation of future land use projections. The future land use map boundaries are coterminous with orderly annexation area boundaries. This plan and subsequent documentation takes into consideration the land uses that have previously been approved by the City, and the future land uses are intended to result in compact, contiguous development. The ultimate build-out portrayed in the future land use map efficiently uses the existing and proposed infrastructure and capital investment.As previously noted, however, there is considerably more acreage included in the future land use map than the City will likely serve by the year 2030. In order to ensure compact, contiguous development and efficient use of existing and proposed infrastructure and capital investment, the city will stage development in response to market conditions, protect natural systems when development occurs, and retain the viability of agricultural areas that contribute to St. Joseph’s rural character. MDG COMMENT (NOVEMBER 7, 2008): STAGING PLANS ARE NOT REQUIRED OUTSIDE OF THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA. STAGING PLANS CAN ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE RAW LAND COSTS LEADING TO MORE EXPENSIVE RESULTING LOTS (PROBLEMATIC FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AND POTENTIAL DETRACTOR TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVES). IN ADDITION STAGING PLANS CONCENTRATE THE FUTURE OF URBAN GROWTH IN THE HANDS OF A LIMITED NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS. IF SUCH PROPERTY OWNERS CHOOSE NOT TO DEVELOP, PACE OF GROWTH CAN BE SLOWED OR STALLED. THE CITY SHOULD MAKE A CONSCIOUS CHOICE OF WHETHER OR NOT TO PURSUE STAGING. ALSO, THE TOWNSHIP SUGGESTED THE CITY ANNEX ADDITIONAL SECTIONS, THE CITY DID NOT ARBITRARILY SEEK ALL ADDITIONAL PROPERTY PROPOSED TO BE INCLUDED IN AN ORDERLY ANNEXATION AGREEMENT. STAGING REQUIREMENTS IN THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA HAVE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY RESULTED IN COMPACT, CONTIGUOUS DEVELOPMENT. GROWTH HAS BYPASSED AREAS WITH STAGING PLANS AND RESULTED IN SPRAWLING SUBDIVISIONS IN AREAS WITHOUT SUCH REQUIREMENTS (E.G. WRIGHT COUNTY). STAGING PLANS HAVE ALSO BEEN LINKED TO INCREASING OCCURRENCES OF RURAL, CLUSTER (I.E. CENTRALIZED BUT NOT MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS) SUBDIVISIONS IN TOWNSHIPS RESULTING IN FURTHER DISSECTION AND SEGMENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS. VII. ANNEXATION The City of St. Joseph and St. Joseph Township entered into a joint annexation agreement effective January 1, 1997 which has recently been amended. The original annexation agreement divided a portion of St. Joseph Township into a twenty-year annexation area with annexation eligibility achieved at either five or ten year increments. The annexation area is depicted on the Map 4-7 at the close of this chapter. The City and St. Wendel Township have held orderly annexation discussions since 2002, however, it was the consensus of the Township that annexation (related to providing centralized sewer to riparian lots) was not appropriate at this time. The City of St. Joseph will be responsible for providing centralized urban service to St. Wendel Township when a petition is submitted and approved. Table 4-2 below illustrates existing land use volumes within the orderly annexation area as of February of 2008. It is noted the vast majority of property within the annexation area is used for agricultural purposes. Ð¿¹» ïè ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN TABLE 4-2 EXISTING LAND USE – ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA Land Use Land Use Group Annexation Area Non-Classified Agricultural Agricultural 812.4 Agricultural Agricultural 6,010.0 Agricultural - Duplex or Triplex (Homestead) Agricultural 79.3 Agricultural - Partnership or Extra Full Homestead Agricultural 0.4 Agricultural - Son/Daughter and Mother/Father Agricultural 131.3 Church Property - Sanctuaries and Educational Facilities Institutional 19.8 Church Property - Other Residences and Parsonages Institutional 19.8 Church Property - Service Enterprises Institutional 0.1 Commercial Land and Buildings Commercial 36.9 Commercial Land and Buildings - (preferred) Commercial 509.7 Federal Public Property Park 3.8 Industrial Land and Buildings Industrial 5.0 Industrial Land and Buildings - (preferred) Industrial 47.6 Low Income Rental Housing 4 or more Units Multiple Family Residential 0.0 Manufactured Home Parks Multiple Family Residential 0.0 Municipal Law Enforcement, Fire, and Administration Municipal 1.7 Municipal Public Property - Other Municipal 0.0 Municipal Public Service Enterprises Municipal 0.0 Private (Nonpublic) Academies, Colleges, and Universities Institutional 1,037.4 Public Burying Grounds Cemetery 0.0 Public Elementary and Secondary Schools Institutional 0.0 Public Utilities and Attached Machinery Public 0.5 Public Utilities/Attached Machinery - (preferred) Public 11.3 Residential Single Family Residential 1,114.3 Residential - 1 Unit (Non-Homestead) Single Family Residential 533.8 Residential - 1-3 units Commercial 246.1 Residential - 4 or more units Multiple Family Residential 325.0 Residential - Duplex or Triplex (Homestead) Multiple Family Residential 0.0 Seasonal Recreational Residential Single Family Residential 31.1 State Public Property Public 20.9 Tax Exempt Miscellaneous (Undefined) Tax exempt, Undefined 0.0 èíèûð While St. Joseph has planned for annexation of a large potion of St. Joseph Township, most of this area will remain as urban reserve within the tenure of this plan (2030). Until market conditions warrant extension of urban services (or the creation of conservation subdivision areas that permanently protects natural systems and scenic vistas), the annexation areas will remain under land use control of the Township and County. The city will, consistent with the goals of both this Plan and the Stearns County Comprehensive Plan, work to prevent premature subdivision of these areas and maintain an agricultural density of one unit per forty acres. Urban services will be extended sequentially in order to ensure a compact development pattern. Annexations and subsequent subdivisions will include natural resource assessments to ensure protection of green infrastructure. MDG COMMENT (November 7, 2008): ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION OF THE INTENT OF THE STATEMENT “UNTIL MARKET CONDITIONS WARRANT EXTENSION OF URBAN SERVICES OR THE CREATION OF Ð¿¹» ïç ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION AREAS THAT PERMANENTLY PROTECTS NATURAL SYSTEMS AND SCENIC VISTAS” IS REQUIRED. REQUIRING ALL ANNEXATIONS AND SUBDIVISIONS TO INCLUDE NATURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS WILL INCREASE DEVELOPMENT COSTS. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF ‘ENSURE PROTECTION OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE’ IS ALSO WARRANTED TO DETERMINE WHAT TYPE OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE PROTECTED. VIII. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT The City of St. Joseph features plentiful natural resources including several wetlands of diverse types, several old growth tree massings and the South Fork of the Watab River. The City is committed to preserving its natural resources as evidenced by its review of storm water drainage issues and its desire to educate the public on issues relative to surface water quality. The City of St. Joseph has not adopted a surface water management plan. However, the City’s zoning and subdivision ordinances include standards pertaining to on-site storm water management and erosion control plan approval processes for all commercial/industrial land disturbing activities and new residential subdivisions. To protect and perpetuate the City's natural resources it is recommended the City adopt a comprehensive surface water management plan, as described below. Identifying funding sources and authorizing the development of the plan rests with the City Council. A surface water management plan will be used to guide the development and expansion of the City’s drainage system in a cost-effective manner that preserves existing water resources. Possible goals of the surface water management plan include, but are not limited to: assessment of the current system; the identification of an ultimate storm drainage system for the entire City; reduction of public expenditures necessary to control excessive volumes and rates of runoff; flood prevention especially those urban in nature; identification of current and future drainage patterns; protection and enhancement of the areas natural habitat; promotion of ground water recharge; definition of all drainage outlets; and reduction in erosion from surface flows. The development of a surface water management plan should be initiated by the City Administrator and City Council with assistance as requested by the Planning Commission. It is expected the surface water management plan would be developed by a certified engineer and approved by the Department of Natural Resources. Implementation of the surface water management plan would be achieved with assistance from the City Engineer, City Administrator, Planning Commission and City Council. A. Managing Stormwater Runoff Stormwater runoff is a leading source of water pollution. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is the permitting authority in Minnesota for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the federal program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address polluted stormwater runoff. Federal NPDES regulations were developed by the EPA in two phases. The Phase I Stormwater Program was established in 1990. The Phase I federal regulations require two general categories of stormwater discharges to be covered under a NPDES stormwater permit: 11 regulated categories of industrial activity including construction activity that disturbs five or more acres of land, and municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) serving populations of 100,000 or more. The MPCA established the Phase I Stormwater Program at the state level in 1994 and 1995. The Phase II Stormwater Program was established in 1999. Phase II expanded the scope of the NPDES Stormwater Program to include smaller MS4s in urbanized areas, construction activities that disturb between one and five acres of land, and smaller municipally owned industrial activities. The MPCA established the Phase II Stormwater Program and the state level in 2005. Ð¿¹» îð ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN The City of St. Joseph is included on the list of cities that must obtain a NPDES Phase II permit. To obtain the permit, the City is required to develop a stormwater pollution prevention program (SWPPP) to address six minimum control measures: 1) Public education 2) Public involvement 3) Illicit discharge detection and elimination 4) Construction site runoff control 5) Post-construction runoff control 6) Pollution prevention in municipal operations The City must identify best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals associated with each minimum control measure. An annual report on the implementation of the SWPPP must be submitted to the MPCA. B. Impaired Surface Waters The federal Clean Water Act requires states to adopt water-quality standards to protect surface waters from pollution. These standards define the amount of a pollutant that can be in the water and still allow the water body to meet its designated uses, such as drinking water, fishing or swimming. The MPCA has established standards for a wide range of pollutants, including bacteria, nutrients, turbidity and mercury. A water body is considered “impaired” if it fails to meet one or more water quality standards. The MPCA publishes a list of impaired waters (waters not meeting water quality standards) every two years. For each water body on the list, the MPCA will conduct a study to determine the allowable Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for each pollutant that exceeds the standards. Local governments are required to incorporate completed TMDL studies into their surface water management plans. The 2008 impaired waters list includes the Sauk River, which flows through St. Joseph Township south of the current City limits. This reach of the Sauk River is listed for fecal coliform, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and turbidity. The South Fork of the Watab River, which flows through the City of St. Joseph is listed for mercury. The MPCA has completed a statewide TMDL for all waters in the state listed for mercury and the Sauk River TMDL is expected to be completed in 2009. C. Additional Studies The additional studies described below will help the City manage its surface water resources more effectively. Surface Water Management Plan As noted above, a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) would serve as a guide in conserving, protecting, and managing the City’s surface water resources. The purpose of a SWMP is to identify water resources problems and solutions and help the City manage the increased runoff associated with future development and land use changes. The plan should include a full review of the current surface water system in St. Joseph. Watersheds and runoff paths should be identified and mapped. This information can used to create a hydrologic model of the City. A hydrologic model can help the City determine how to effectively manage stormwater runoff. Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment A Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment (NRIA) catalogs and assesses the natural resources found in a particular area. An NRIA should document the geographic location, ecological integrity, and importance of natural resources within the City’s boundaries. A NRIA provides guidance regarding the Ð¿¹» îï ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN long term stewardship and protection of resources. The NRIA should also include an assessment of the functions and values of wetlands within the City. The information can be used by the City to make informed decisions regarding development, and conservation and management of natural resources. Ordinance and Program Review Effective ordinances and associated implementation programs are the keys to implementing the visions laid out in the comprehensive plan. In order to ensure that the City’s controls are adequately protecting surface water resources, it is suggested that the City review existing ordinances and programs relating to surface water and stormwater management and future development. MDG COMMENT (November 7, 2008): IF CITY DECIDES TO RETAIN LANGUAGE, CONSIDER MOVING LAST SENTENCE TO GOAL #1, OBJECTIVE C AS IT IS AN ACTION ITEM. Ð¿¹» îî ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN IX. LAND USE PLAN & DISTRICT PLANS LUP-G A. AND SELAN ENERAL Changes in land use are inevitable and fundamentally variable. Sometimes within a community, the pace of change may be nearly imperceptible; other times the pace of change may be so swift it’s unsettling or daunting. Furthermore, land use change may take a multitude of forms. For example, change within a single community could include new housing development, new industrial development, decline in structural conditions within the original townsite, and/or movement of ‘downtown’ businesses to highway commercial corridors. St. Joseph is a rural growth center with a distinctive downtown, a growing number of residents, a potential for future highway commercial, and assorted park/recreational opportunities. The City has set for the following policy plan intended to guide future growth and redevelopment within the City. GOAL #1: F,C,EMG LEXIBLEONNECTED AND FFICIENT ANAGEMENT OF ROWTH Objective A: Proactively collaborate with adjacent local units of government, educational institutions, and regional entities to manage growth. Policy/Recommendations: 1. The City should collaborate with Stearns County and St. Joseph Township to help ensure land use decisions in areas likely to become urban in the future are not counter-productive (e.g. development of subdivisions with decentralized water/sewer facilities in the orderly annexation area). The City will support County land use controls in urban expansion areas that limit residential development to agricultural densities and primarily agricultural land uses. MDG COMMENT (November 7, 2008): URBAN RESERVE TRULY DESIGNED TO PROTECT LANDS UNTIL FURTHER SUBDIVISION OCCURS ARE EXTREMELY VALUABLE. HOWEVER, THE CITY SHOULD CONSIDER WHETHER SUCH RULES WILL ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF FEEDLOTS IN THE ANNEXATION AREA AND IF THAT IS SOMETHING THE CITY WILL ALWAYS SUPPORT. IN ADDITION, THE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALLOWS FOR CONSIDERATION OF A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM IS NOT YET INSTITUTED. THE CITY SHOULD DETERMINE WHETHER A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM WOULD BE EXTENDED TO THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA (AND URBAN RESERVE DISTRICT). IF THIS IS THE CASE VAST AREAS WITHIN THE ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA COULD BE UNAVAILABLE FOR FUTURE SUBDIVISION DUE TO TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. URBAN RESERVE DISTRICTS ARE MORE COMMONLY INCLUDED IN MUNICIPAL ZONING ORDINANCES. THE STEARNS COUNTY ORDINANCE DOES NOT INCLUDE AN URBAN RESERVE DISTRICT. 2. The City should continue to plan for necessary infrastructure improvements through a capital improvement plan and by reviewing proposed subdivisions to determine: a. Impact on existing and future transportation facilities, b. Impact on existing and future surface water management systems, c. Adequacy of park facilities within the proposed development, d. Appropriateness of the proposed use(s), e. Adequacy and quality of proposed sanitary sewer and water facilities, and, Ð¿¹» îí ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN f. If sufficient capacity is available within proposed sanitary sewer and water facilities to service the proposed development. g. Adequacy of administrative and/or community services (i.e. general government, public works, police/fire protection, etc). h. If proposed subdivisions are contiguous with other developed areas and consistent with the city’s staging goals, and, MDG COMMENT (November 7, 2008): ‘CONTIGUOUS’ MUST BE DEFINED AS IT CARRIES NUMEROUS MEANINGS. i. Impact on green infrastructure (natural systems, water quality, habitat areas, consistent with NRIA) and mitigation of impacts. MDG COMMENT (November 7, 2008): THE LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN MIRRORS THE CITIES PREMATURE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS, SPECIFIC FINDINGS MUST APPLY. THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE UNDER (i) ABOVE TO MY KNOWLEDGE HAS NOT BEEN TESTED IN COURT FOR ABILITY TO DENY PLAT BASED UPON THAT FINDINGS EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR IN CONCERT WITH OTHER STANDARDS. 3. The City should take measurable steps to implement the Comprehensive Plan as may be amended. 4. The City should collaborate with Stearns County and St. Joseph Township to minimize conflicts between agricultural and non-farm land uses through local ordinances and official controls. The City will, in development and administration of local controls, recognize agriculture as a desirable land use for both character and economic goals, in areas connected to the ultimate extent of annexation and where urban services may not be economically extended. MDG COMMENT (November 7, 2008): IT IS PRESUMED THE INTENT OF THIS STANDARD IS NOT TO PRESERVE AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN AN URBAN RESERVE DISTRICT BUT RATHER HOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND IN LARGE LOTS UNTIL IT IS PROPOSED FOR URBAN USE. PRESUMABLY THE INTENT OF THIS STANDARD IS NOT TO RETAIN AGRICULTURAL USES WITHIN URBAN AREAS. CLARIFICATION/RE-WORDING IS REQUIRED. 5. The City should require staging plans be submitted with all requests for concept plan and/or preliminary plan/plat approval so as to monitor improvement needs/timing and volume of vacant acreage. 6. The City should concentrate public investment in projects which achieve multiple goals such as commercial revitalization, environmental restoration/preservation and housing stock diversification. 7. The City should adopt Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) management ordinances and implement a maintenance program (consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080-7083). 8. The City will consider designating conservation subdivision standards for annexation areas with high value natural resources (as identified in the NRIA, discussed earlier) and that may not require urban services to accommodate development. MDG COMMENT (November 7, 2008): CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS MAY NOT ALWAYS BE FEASIBLE OR DESIRABLE. THE PHRASE ‘MAY NOT REQUIRE URBAN SERVICES TO ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPMENT’ IS CONCERNING. GOAL #1: F,C,EMG LEXIBLEONNECTED AND FFICIENT ANAGEMENT OF ROWTH Objective C: Work with local and regional partners to conserve, protect and enhance the regions vital natural resources. Ð¿¹» îì ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN Policy/Recommendations: 1. The City should conserve natural resources – particularly surface and groundwater resources – and protect vital natural areas when designing and constructing local infrastructure and planning land use patterns. 2. When making land use decisions, the City should refer to policies relating to protection of environmentally sensitive or significant areas and water quality policies contained in Chapter Two of this Comprehensive Plan (Physical Profile). 3. The City should request consultants preparing plans and specifications for new municipal facility construction projects consider Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines (MSBG). 4. The City should consider implementing MSBG in new municipal facility construction projects. 5. The City should address MSBG in development manuals or site plan/subdivision review criteria and provide MSBG educational materials to residents and builders. 6. The City should consider completing a local natural resource inventory which could identify the precise location, quality, and quantity of resources within the City and the annexation area. Such information can be used to prioritize areas for protection/preservation as urban development occurs. The City could investigate partnering with other agencies (e.g. watershed management organizations, educational institutions, etc) as a means of lowering the cost of conducting the inventory. 7.Alternative to #6 - City will pursue the identification of significant scenic, cultural and natural areas that contribute to the quality of life of St. Joseph’s residents. The City will engage in a natural resource inventory and assessment by ___ 20__, funding permitting, which will identify natural communities to at least a level 3 MLCCS classification. The City will then develop a map or open space plan to help guide its natural resource, open space and park acquisition goals. MDG COMMENT (November 7, 2008): ALTERNATIVE REQUIRES CITY TO PERFORM NRIA, REMOVES OPTION TO EITHER CONDUCT OR NOT. 8. The City should work with property owners to consider conservation of high quality or locally/regionally significant environmental and/or cultural resources. Ð¿¹» îë ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN GOAL #3:PS-TA,CI,HC RESERVATION OF MALLOWN TMOSPHEREOMMUNITY DENTITY AND ISTORICHARACTER Objective A: Work to ensure the City of St. Joseph continues to be a community with its own distinctive character and sense of place. Policy/Recommendations: 1. The City should retain existing places and spaces where people gather and interact, especially within the Central Business District (i.e. Downtown). 2. The City should embrace efforts to preserve and brand the Downtown as the historical focus of the community’s heritage through its “Let’s Go Downtown!” revitalization program. 3. The City should consider allowable uses, design guidelines and mixed use opportunities within the Downtown as a means of providing for a multi-functional, pedestrian-oriented Downtown core. 4. The City should deliberately strive to establish and retain government/social services, the post office, the library, educational facilities and other places of assembly within the Central Business District. 5. The City should adopt environmental preservation standards which protect prime examples of landscape characteristics such as the Sauk River corridor, woodlands, and wetlands which have historically defined the scenic (visual) and physical qualities of the City and region. Standards can be created as performance standards applying to specific resources, such as a woodlands protection standard, an overlay district that applies additional natural system/natural heritage protection in specific areas, or as part of a conservation subdivision and design ordinance. 6. The City should review structure siting guidelines as they relate to the development of commercial nodes and related uses adjacent to the Highway 75 corridor so as to promote the corridor as an aesthetically pleasing and balanced reflection of community values and priorities. 7. The City should require infill development in previously built-up areas be sympathetic in scale and bulk to existing development within the immediate area. For example, redevelopment in the Central Business District should be designed to place buildings forward on lots, have parking in the back of the structure, and require minimum densities similar to existing development (e.g. 90% of the lot may be required to be covered by structures). In another example, infill development in residential neighborhoods within the original townsite could be required to be similar to the existing housing styles – either single story or two story, depending on what is most prevalent. 8. The City should work with Downtown property owners to implement design guidelines developed by the Urban Environs Work Group in conjunction with the “Let’s Go Downtown!” project. Ð¿¹» îê ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN District One Portion of District ‘Developed’ Approximate Location District One occupies an area south and west of Interstate 94 (within St. Joseph Township). The approximate boundaries include: South and west of Interstate 94 Sections 7,8,16,17,18,19,20, & 21 of St. Joseph Township District One is located at the western edge of what is likely to be the ultimate growth boundary for the City of St. Joseph, abutting the “Avon Hills” area (as identified in the County Comprehensive Plan) in Collegeville Township. MDG COMMENT (November 7, 2008): DOES CITY WANT TO ADDRESS THIS? Subdivided Ac.Non-Subd. Ac. Total Acres in District: 5,310 acres Number of Acres Platted : 622 acres platted; 4,688 not subdivided Number of Acres with Potential Development Considerations: 2,501 acres (flood plain, public water, hydric soils, wetland, and slopes greater than 15%) Areas of Stability and Areas of Change : Earlier in this chapter ‘areas of stability’ and ‘areas of change’ were identified. Areas of stability are places the City expects to remain relatively constant over the duration of this Plan. Therefore, the primary land use objective is protecting the area from intrusion by incompatible uses. Areas of change are expected to modify, transition or transform in the relatively near term. Therefore, investment whether public or private, is expected in new development or redevelopment efforts. Land area not labeled as ‘change’ or ‘stability’ are not expected to be serviced by municipal utilities in the near term, however, conditions leading to utility extension and/or subdivision can change. Neither areas of stability or change have been identified within this District. Prominent Features Prominent features within Planning District One include CSAH 2, Kraemer Lake, CR 51, Frontage Road, several areas of relatively intact woodlands and wetlands in Sections 7 and 8predominately in Sections 7 and 8 but also in other parts of the district. Existing Land Use Existing land uses primarily include low density rural residential and agricultural uses, with some substantial natural area holdings in the northern-most sections of the district. Proposed Future Land Use Proposed future land uses within this district are general in nature. The district is including in this planning effort as a means of providing sufficient guidance in planning and designing future utility sizes, placement, and location. Annexation and urban development of properties within this district will likely but not necessarily be subject to property owner petition and/or water quality issues. At this time most portions of Sections 7 and 8 are expected to be retained as open space; however, portions of Section 8 in the vicinity of I-94/CSAH 2 interchange are suitable for commercial/industrial nodal development with higher density residential uses transitioning to lower intensity uses. Section 16 is split by Interstate 94 portions of this section with good access and visibility from I-94 and/or “Frontage” Road are guided toward future commercial, mixed commercial/high density residential, mixed commercial/industrial, and industrial. Future development should respect the mobility function of I-94. Ð¿¹» îé ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN Commercial, mixed commercial/high density residential and industrial development will be clustered around high functioning intersections and developed as cohesive entities suitable for the ‘gateway’ nature of the interchange. The ‘gateway’ nature will be defined by inclusion/incorporation of public gathering spaces, courtyards, open space preservation and similar design principals in future developments. A portion of this section features a cultural resource eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. As such, that area is guided toward open space preservation. Section 17 includes CSAH 2 frontage and a portion of Kraemer Lake. Areas with good access to CSAH 2 are expected to provide for future urban commercial uses. Areas adjacent to Kraemer Lake are guided toward continued low density residential development. Areas between CSAH 2 and Kraemer Lake will be suitable for transitional residential development at low to medium (R-1, R-2, R-4) intensities if/when they become urban in nature. Any proposed subdivisions of property within this sectionshall be reviewed jointly by the township and the city so as to provide for the logical future extension of municipal utilities. Lot sizes for rural development are expected to be greater than five acres and ideally no less than 40 acres. The larger lot sizes will help retain plausible future utility extension routes and assist in streamlining public investment (past, present, and future). Section 18 includes the remaining portion of Kraemer Lake. This section is expected to continue to sustain and include future low density residential development (R-1, R-2, R-4) if/when urban services are extended. Any proposed subdivisions of property within this section shall be reviewed jointly by the township and the city so as to provide for the logical future extension of municipal utilities. Lot sizes for rural development are expected to be greater than five acres and ideally no less than 40 acres. The larger lot sizes will help retain plausible future utility extension routes and assist in streamlining public investment (past, present, and future). Section 19 is not expected to be the site of urban development over the duration of this plan. However, thesection is guided herein for future urban use as low density residential (R-1, R-2). Any proposed subdivisions of property within this section shall be reviewed jointly by the township and the city so as to provide for the logical future extension of municipal utilities. Lot sizes for rural development are expected to be greater than five acres and ideally no less than 40 acres. The larger lot sizes will help retain plausible future utility extension routes and assist in streamlining public investment (past, present, and future). Section 20 includes CSAH 2 frontage and areas suitable for future urban residential use. Areas with good access to CSAH 2 are expected to provide for future neighborhood commercial uses such as ‘mom-pop’ shops and convenience stores. Areas in the remainder of this section are guided toward continued low density residential development (R-1, R-2, R-4) if/when they transition to urban development. Areas between CSAH 2 neighborhood commercial development and lower intensity uses are particularly suited to transitional residential development (R-2, R-4) if/when they become urban in nature. Any proposed subdivisions of property within this section shall be reviewed jointly by the township and the city so as to provide for the logical future extension of municipal utilities. Lot sizes for rural development are expected to be greater than five acres and ideally no less than 40 acres. The larger lot sizes will help retain plausible future utility extension routes and assist in streamlining public investment (past, present, and future). Portions of Section 21 with good access to “Frontage” Road are suitable for future urban light industrial development and/or business park development. The remaining portion of the section is generally suitable for mixed intensity residential development (R-1, R-2, R-4) if/when urban utilities are in provided. Any proposed subdivisions of property within this section shall be reviewed jointly by the township and the city so as to provide for the logical future extension of municipal utilities. Lot sizes for rural development are expected to be greater than five acres and ideally no less than 40 acres. The larger lot sizes will help retain plausible future utility extension routes and assist in streamlining public investment (past, present, and future). Ð¿¹» îè ±º íð COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS CONTRACTED BY ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY TO REVIEW PLAN Proposed future land uses within this district, as shown on the future land use map, include a breadth of types and mixes. The district is included in this planning effort as a means of providing sufficient guidance in planning and designing the ultimate gray and green infrastructure for this district. As such, the locations and density of the buildout, and future utility sizes, placement, and location will be dependent on the market need for urban expansion and upon conducting a NRIA. The NRIA can be conducted well in advance of development, possibly in conjunction with the watershed district, Stearns County, area universities, or other governmental stakeholders. Annexation and urban development of properties within this district will be subject to St. Joseph’s staging plan to ensure efficient extension of infrastructure, protection of the district’s green infrastructure. Until such time as compact, efficient development extends from the existing urban pattern of development out to Interstate 94, this district will be maintained as urban reserve. Until annexed by the city, the County and township have land use responsibility for this district. The area is currently designated as Agriculture or as Avon Hills Natural Area in the County’s Comprehensive Plan and is currently zoned A-40, an excellent holding pattern until market demand is sufficient for the city to annex. Based on the NRIA the City will more comprehensively plan for the pattern of development and the appropriate mix of land uses (commercial, industrial, residential, open space, agricultural) that meet the city’s land use goals, objectives and policies. MDG COMMENT (November 7, 2008): THE CITY SHOULD DISCUSS WHAT ORDINANCE APPLIES TO THE OAA AREA AND HOW IT RELATES TO THE STATEMENT ABOVE. UNDER MN. PLANNING STANDARDS LAND USE AUTHORITY IS TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY UPON INCLUSION IN AN ORDERLY ANNEXATION AGREEMENT. THE PHRASE ‘UNTIL MARKET DEMAND IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE CITY TO ANNEX’ IS AMBIGUOUS AND SUBJECTIVE. THE FINAL SENTENCE IS ALSO AMBIGUOUS AND SUBJECTIVE. THE NARRATIVE DETAIL IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT RELATING TO FUTURE LAND USE IS PROPOSED FOR DELETION. THIS NARRATIVE PROVIDES SUBSTANTIAL EXPLANATION OF DISCUSSION SURROUNDING THE CREATION OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE CITY SHOULD MAKE A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO EITHER INCLUDE OR EXCLUDE SUCH TEXT. Ð¿¹» îç ±º íð Page 1of 1 Consultants Comments "Joseph Walz" <jwalz@unique-software.com> From <cstrack@municipaldevelopmentgroup.com> To Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:56:30 -0500 Date Consultant’s comments on St Joseph Draft Comprehensive Plan: The comments that you received from the consultants is totally trying to control the development of the town west of the city. These organizations are trying to limit development of this area. Limit the tax structure, limit land owners rights to development. We do not support the changes from the consultants! Please do not insert theses comments into the Comprehensive plan. The organizations had the chance to provide input during the meetings. The consultants should have been at the meetings if they wanted to control the out come of the Comprehensive plan. Why start over, they are bypassing the land owners rights to object to these last minute changes. So again please do not insert these changes. Joseph Walz Ð¿¹» íð ±º íð http://webmail.bevcomm.net/hwebmail/mail/message.php?index=2710611/7/2008