HomeMy WebLinkAbout(4) Land Use.~'', r'
-`i
~~ ~.F
~:-
';;.~:
.,,~: .
-a~~n+ ,
~t:h"'.
%~.-:., .
~~;_, .
:-~,:',
~Ft,'~; .
R'kJ:'t~~. ,.
.,:
r
~'~^{M"
'F!A
{~~. .
•~~ ~~
.~ eat:
~.Y~F1..~.1i ,
!~6T .x
.~~; ,
;~,,:
.~.:~, .
"`;~;
~, .
~~ /, , /C ~ Page 1 of 1
(/' (~ J
~`~.(/i l~ l~
Transportation overlay
Fram "Joe Walz" <jwalz@unique-software.com>
To <cstrack@municipaldevelopmentgroup.com>
Date Thu, 13 Nov 2008 07:13:06 •0600
Attachments jwalz.vcf [ 743 B ]
I need some documentation that specifies the requirement that we need to have a 100 ft buffer from the right of way. So please
provide this information.
Comment: How can St John's require you not to inGude their property in the City of Joseph planning and then try to dictate what
happens on the Walz property? After Tom got done speaking I had to look for my pocket book! We did not have a right to
develop, but they can specify all green space for Walz property!
Joseph Walz
http://webmail.bevcomm.net/hwebmaiUmail/message.php?index=27434
11/19/2008
ORDINANCE 52 -ZONING ORDINANCE
Section 52.21: TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT SITE AND
DESIGN STANDARDS
_.. ,,
~..~~
;~ ,~:: . .
~~~
:~~. .
,; Subd. l: Intent.
a) This district is intended to protect and promote the health, safety and general
welfare of the public; to enhance the visual appearance of the corridor; to protect
and promote the appearance, character and economic values along the corridor
and the surrounding neighborhoods.
b) This district is furthermore intended to maintain the long-term function of arterial
and collector roadways; to limit access and the number of conflict points; to
promote vehicular circulation; and to promote prevention or reduction of traffic
congestion and danger in the public streets.
~: .
~;~• ~. .
.,:~~.
~. ~~ ~...
Subd.2: Scone.
a) The Transportation Corridor Overlay District shall be defined as follows:
1. CSAH 75 Corridor:
A. West of South Fork of Watab River: areas within 300 feet from the
nearest edge of the CSAH 75 right of way.
B. CSAH 75 West of 20th Avenue: areas within 300 feet from the
nearest edge of the CSAH 75 right of way.
2. 20th Avenue Corridor:
A. South of CSAH 75: areas within 300 feet from the nearest edge of
the 20th Avenue right of way.
B. North of CSAH 75: areas within 300 feet from the nearest edge of
the 20th Avenue right of way.
is ..
.p ..!_
3. CSAH 2/CSAH 3 Corridor:
A. South of CSAH 75: areas within 300 feet from the nearest edge of
the FUTURE CSAH 2 right of way.
B. North of CSAH 75: areas within 300 feet from the nearest edge of
the CSAH 2/CSAH 3 right of way.
52.21-1
ORDINANCE 52 -ZONING ORDINANCE
4. 1-94 Corridor:
A. 500 feet from the nearest edge of the 1-94 right of way.
' Subd. 3: Exemptions. Single and two-family residential uses shall not be subject to the
standards of the transportation corridor overlay district. However, at such time that a single or
two-family residential use is to be converted to another use it will be subject to the standards of
the transportation corridor overlay district.
Subd. 4: Uses Allowed. Permitted, conditional, interim and accessory uses allowed
within the transportation corridor overlay district shall be the same uses those allowed in the
applicable underlying zoning district(s).
Subd. 5: Setbacks, site coverage, building height, building requirements contained within
the applicable underlying zoning district shall apply. In addition the following standards shall be
~--- ' ~ observed. All buildings shall maintain a minimum setback of one hundred (100) feet from the
~~;,~~ ~; road right-of--way limit. Corner lots shall maintain two front setbacks.
~" ~~ ,:
r ~: ~; Subd. 6: Parking Standards. The following standards shall be in addition to those
required within Section 84 of this ordinance relating to off-street parking and loading. Where
standards conflict the most restrictive standard shall apply.
a) Parking areas shall be designed and located so as to have minimal visual impact
along transportation corridors. Therefore, all parking areas shall be constructed in
the rear or side yards, unless specifically permitted in the front yard by the
Planning Commission. When permitted in the front yard, additional landscaping
and buffering may be required by the Planning Commission to minimize visual
impact. No parking will be allowed within a fifty (50) foot setback from the
nearest external boundary of the applicable transportation corridor right-of--way
limit.
b) Where a development application covers land located adjacent to an existing
'-x-~- ~= ' parking lot used for similar purposes, a vehicular connection between the parking
s~k':.' lots shall be provided wherever possible. For development applications adjacent
~." =`~ = to vacant properties, the site shall be designed and constructed to provide for a
N!
~`'_ ~~ " °' ~ future connection.
c) Parking lot landscaping. All development sites shall landscape an area equivalent
to fifteen (15) percent of the total area of the required parking lot. Said required
landscaping shall be employed within the subject parking lot and adjacent to
walkways within and leading to/from the subject parking lot.
Subd. 7: Sign Standards. The following standards shall be in addition to those required
within Section 52.11 of this ordinance relating to signs. Where standards conflict the most
restrictive standard shall apply.
52.21-2
..p ..
rM.. ! t ,
~~- ;> ORDINANCE 52 -ZONING ORDINANCE
=:,a
~:
,~a.>> .
' r3,e;Jr;'N . .
' a) Free-standing signs shall not be placed nearer than twenty (20) feet from the
nearest edge of the transportation corridor right-of--way.
b) Free-standing signs within the required landscaped greenway shall be designed in
a manner complementary to the landscaped greenway.
c) Free-standing identification signs shall have aloes-profile design not more than
eight (8) feet in height and shall be designed to complement and reflect the
architecture of the building.
Subd. 8: Site Design Standards.
~~```°` ~ a) Viewsheds.
~~ _.
.x.r:~,z„ .,
.. 1. Viewsheds shall be defined as the area between two separate locations
,~ - - wherein an uninterrupted view of each point is maintained. The viewshed
in the transportation corridor overlay district shall at a minimum
correspond to a forty (40) foot landscaped greenway as measured from the
nearest edge of the applicable right of way.
2. Viewsheds shall be considered in all development proposal applications
within the transportation corridor overlay district.
3. Development shall be designed to minimize the visual intrusion of all
buildings, structures, and landscaping in the viewshed.
b) Outside stora eg /displacegoods. Outside storage or display of goods except
`"~' ~
ti ~:. ~.; automotive and similar large item sales shall be completely screened from the
. view of the corridor roadway by the employment of a vegetative buffer. This
k'ykaa~'," .
~~
~
standard is in addition to those required within the underlying zoning
.
; . -
~,` - - ~ "
classification and Section 52.10, Subd. 10 of this ordinance relating to outdoor
~~~,,,
'~'' ~ ~"~
~ storage. Where standards conflict the most restrictive standard shall apply.
_ ,
~-
,.,.:
c) Utilities. Utility lines, including electric, cable and telephone, to serve the
development project shall be installed underground. All junction and access boxes
shall be screened. All utility pad fixtures, meter boxes, etc. shall be shown on the
site plan and integrated with the architectural elements of the site. In redeveloping
areas within the transportation corridor overlay placement of utility lines
underground is highly encouraged.
d) Fences.
1. This standard is in addition to those in Section of this ordinance relating to
fencing. Where standards conflict the most restrictive standard shall apply.
,.
~~~ 52.21-3
ORDINANCE 52 -ZONING ORDINANCE
2. Fences exceeding four (4) feet in height shall be located in the side and
rear yards only.
3. Chain link fences, including those with slats are prohibited when visible
from the public right-of--way.
4. No fence shall be permitted in the front yard, except that those provided to
-.F `' enhance the visual appearance of the site/landscaping plan may be allowed
~` ~ - " ' l provided they do not exceed two feet in height and are of a reasonable
~ linear length.
;~~,~ : "
~. ~~ .,
e) Mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment shall be shielded and screened
from the public view and designed to be perceived as an integral part of the
building.
f) Street tree landscaping. In all instances where commercial and/or multi-family
residential districts are adjacent to any public street, street treeJlandscaping will be
required as approved by the City.
Subd. 9: Building Layout/Design.
t. ~ ~ .
s, ;." : '
A~
r~q yam,...
.~
.~:
F~
a) Integrated development. All buildings within the property shall be developed as a
cohesive entity, ensuring that building placement, architectural treatment,
vehicular and pedestrian circulation and other development elements work
together functionally and aesthetically. Architectural treatment shall be designed
so that all building facades of the same building (whether front, side, or rear) that
are visible from the public right-of--way, shall consist of similar architectural
treatment in terms of materials, quality, appearance and detail.
b) Clustering. Buildings shall be clustered together to preserve natural and landscape
open areas along the transportation corridor. Buildings shall be arranged in a
manner that creates well-defined open space that is viewable from the traveled
portion of the corridor.
c) Architectural Appearance/Scale.
1. New buildings shall have generally complex exterior forms, including
design components such as windows, doors, and changes in roof and
facade orientation. Large flat expanses of featureless exterior wall shall be
avoided. The treatment of buildings shall include vertical architectural
treatment at least every 25-30 feet to break down the scale of the building
into smaller components.
2. Orientation. Building facades and entrances should be oriented in a
manner toward the primary means of vehicular access.
52.21-4
,:~:_..
~~:
~~ :wn 'C-. ..
ORDINANCE 52 -ZONING ORDINANCE
Scale and proportion. New construction should relate to the dominant
proportions of buildings and streetscape in the immediate area. The ratio
of height to width and the ratio of mass (building) to void (openings)
should be balanced.
4. Architectural details shall continue on all facades visible from the public
right-of--way.
S. Any facade with a blank wall shall be screened with vegetative treatments
and/or the installation faux architectural treatments (e.g. fenestrations) so
as to break up the mass and bulk of the facade in a manner fitting the
intent of this section.
. ~»~
.,_•~""
. ~; -
;,,.,,
sa~~~~r' ._ ,
~,,~„ -~
~,
,~
d) Materials. Building materials shall be typical of those prevalent in commercial
areas, including, but not limited to, stucco, brick, architectural block, decorative
masonry, non-reflective glass and similar materials. Architectural metal may be
used for a portion of facades facing public rights of way but shall not be the
dominant material employed with windows and doors being excluded from this
calculation.
e) Color. The permanent color of building materials (to be left unpainted) shall
resemble earthen tones prevalent in nature. Showy and striking colors shall be
avoided.
fl Lighting:
All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be down-directed, with light trespass not
to exceed 0.5 foot-candles at the property line.
~:..G .. .
.y~' +r.6 ~.. .+
,.~ ..
>:~:,;..
~>
'. K~ ~ a'~
ti.
,,~~ - .
~~~:,~
~- ,.
2. All island canopy ceiling fixtures shall be recessed.
3. Whenever possible commercial lighting should be reduced in
volume/intensity when said commercial facilities are not open for
business.
Subd. 10: Vegetative Screening/Buffers.
a) This standard is in addition to those in Section 52.12, Subd. 3 of this ordinance
relating to landscaping. Where standards conflict the most restrictive standard
shall apply.
b) Any required vegetative/planting screen shall be designed, planted and maintained
in accordance with a landscaping plan approved by the Zoning Administrator.
c) The painting screen shall provide an effective buffer between the area to be
screened and the adjoining roadway or commercial/industrial development.
52.21-5
~,:~...~ 8 c..
r.:.
~° -~ ~ • ' ORDINANCE 52 -ZONING ORDINANCE
_;~ ~~
d) The planting screen may be comprised of previously existing vegetation (provided
that the majority of such existing vegetation is trees), new plantings or any
combination of existing vegetation and new plantings. When complete, the
vegetation and plantings shall provide a dense year-round screen satisfying the
purpose and intent of this section.
e) The planting screen may consist of a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees
and/or shrubs or a planting of evergreen trees and/or shrubs.
f) The planting screen shall be subject to on-site inspection by the City which, if
necessary, may prescribe that additional plantings be made in order to satisfy the
'~;,;:.~,'
:,
standards set out herein.
``°^'~ g) The property owner shall maintain vegetative/planting screening in accordance
"~ -=^ with the approved landscaping plan and to abide by requirements for any
~`''~ ` ~ additional plantings.
h) Vegetative buffering. In all instances where commercial and/or multi-family
residential districts are adjacent to single-family residential districts, and in all
instances where commercial districts are adjacent to multi-family residential
districts, there shall be established within the commercial and/or multi-family
district, as applicable, a screened yard of vegetative buffering between the
districts. The arrangement and spacing of the vegetative buffer shall be provided
' ~ ~ , ~ in such a manner as to effectively screen the activities of the subject lot. It shall
generally be provided along the property line, unless topographic or other
`µ .
r: :,
considerations would make it more effective if located back from the property
,
.r ,
line.
,.~- , <,.
~•
,
~~
~"
.
~4w AF
P S.s:
c'
~~ 1~ ~ C Page 1 of 1
Re: Old Kennedy School Property
From "Cynthia Smith-Strack MDG, Inc." <cstrackC~municipaldevelopmentgroup.com>
To "'jweyrensC~cityofstjoseph.com"'<jweyrensC~cityofstjoseph.com>, "Fischer, Donald"<DFISCHERC~CSBSJU.EDU>
Cc "Wick,Dale' <dale.wickC~wolterskluwer.com>
Don,
The former elementary school is guided toward medium density residential which corresponds to the R-2 and R-
4zoning classifications. The former school is adjacent to a minor arterial (CR 121) and a major collector (Baker).
In addition, the CSB master plan illustrates commercial and medium density uses on southern border. Please
note that the following are special uses under both the R-2 and R-4 classifications: government buildings,
public/semipublic recreation buildings & community centers, libraries, public or private schools so the existing
use if continued will not be non-conforming.
I will include your email in the packet for the PC meeting on 11.26.08.
Cynthia Smith-Strack
Municipal Development Group, Inc.
888-7MDG-INC (toll free)
952-758-7399 (Metro)
888-763-4462 (fax)
25562 Willow Lane
New Prague, MN 56071
www. mu nicipaldevelopmentgroup.com
Quoting "Fischer, Donald"
Cynthia and Judy,
At the public hearing regarding the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Saint Joseph, I raised the question of
why the property associated with the old Kennedy school property was designated for medium density
dwellings. At the time, I did not realize that the hearing was to collect information only and not for the
Planning Commission to provide requested information. I apologize for inappropriately asking the question.
However, my question remains. Could the City please provide me a rationale for why the old Kennedy school
property is designated for medium density dwellings in the Comprehensive Plan?
Thank you for your time.
Don Fischer
Associate Professor/Physical Education Chair
Strength and Conditioning Coach
HCC 22A
College of Saint Benedict
Saint Joseph, Minnesota 56374
320-363-5581
http://webmail.bevcomm.net/hwebmail/mail/message.php?index=8360 11/19/2008
~.
+,~
t'•
,r..
_ .r; ::
C=• ,.
," ,
§.:
~~AplI
1 Y~3. f.
~~~:
I~,~ure ~~d Use
Re: Zoning
From "Cynthia Smith-Strack MDG, Inc." <cstrackC~municipaldevelopmentgroup.com>
70 "Schoenborn, Brian"<Brian.SchoenbornC~leonard.com>
Cc "'Robert Motzko"' <rgmotzkoC~stcloudstate.edu>, "'Kip Cameron"' <kipcC~granite-tops.com>
Brian,
Page 1 of 2
Please review the latest version of the future land use map (i.e. Map 4-6) posted at the city's website
www.cityofstjoseph.com under the "comprehensive plan" link. You should also refer to the narrative included in
chapter four of the draft plan. The property adjacent to Lake Sarah is guided toward mixed
commercial/residential use which is further defined in the chapter four narrative under planning district four. The
properly adjacent to CSAH 75 is guided for commercial use in the future.
I will pass a copy of this email onto the Planning Commission for information. I strongly recommend you or a
representative attend the planning commission meeting on Wednesday Nov. 26 at 7 p.m. in the Council
Chambers. The PC will be reviewing input from a public hearing held Nov. 12th. One item to be addressed will
likely be the volume of area guided to commercial use in the future land use map.
Please contact me for more information if needed.
Cynthia Smith-Strack
Municipal Development Group, Inc.
888-7MDG-INC (toll free)
952-758-7399 (Metro)
888-763-4462 (fax)
25562 Willow Lane
New Prague, MN 56071
www. municipaldevelopmentgroup.com
Quoting "Schoenborn, Brian"
Cynthia-
I thought I would check in with you again regarding the proposed zoning for our property at the
intersection of I-94 and County Road 2. As both Kip and I have mentioned, it is critically important that
our property be zoned commercial. Our development will likely include some second floor loft living
space with retail below but, for the most part, it will be commercial. This is especially the case
with CSB/SJU going to all students living on campus. Any kind of significant residential zoning of our
property will kill our development. No one wants to live that close to I-94.
Please contact us with your questions.
Thanks,
Brian
MY SERVICES WWW.LEONARD.COM
BIOGRAPHY
Brian ). Schoenborn
~;
,;
s~:~..
yt~.~j_%tS, a
•SiSti`'
~,,,.
~~ ~:~
Attorney
320-fi54-4102
brian_,sch_o. enbo_rn@leonard_.com
Download__vCard
http://webmail.bevcomm.net/hwebmail/mail/message.php?index=83 57
1 1 / l ~/LOO N
`~ C~S Page 1 of 1
~U~
~~~~~
Re: Rezoning request
From "Cynthia Smith-Strack MDG, Inc." <cstrack@municipaldevelopmentgroup.com>
To "Garry 8 Marj Hawkins"<twohawks2@charter.net>
I will forward your comments to the Planning Commission for consideration at a meeting on November 26th. I
don't have authority to approve or deny your request, nor does the Planning Commission as they make
recommendations to the City Council. The Council has authority to decide. The change you are requesting would
~A,: make your business non-conforming, a fact I suspect will impact any recommendation.
~,;~.~
A;i, --
+- Cynthia Smith-Strack
^'"~~• Municipal Development Group, Inc.
s'' 888-7MDG-INC (toll free)
~~~';' ~ 952-758-7399 (Metro)
888-763-4462 (fax)
25562 Willow Lane
New Prague, MN 56071
www. municipaldevelopmentgroup.com
Quoting Garry &Marj Hawkins
Cindy,
~.:.
''
":_.
~;r~~;;.
i,?t .:
:::
?t4
,; .
. ~::.
~~
++~
~:,:.
I sent an a-mail last week requesting consideration of rezoning Lot 1 block 5 of Buettner Business Park
from "light industrial" to "commercial." I am very anxious to accomplish this rezoning so that I can market
my property to commercial entities.
My property has extremely desirable exposure to high trafFc and a sale to a commercial entity would help
move forward the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Please let me know what my next steps should
be to facilitate consideration of my request.
Thank you.
Garry Hawkins
Spring Green and Lawn Care
http://webmail.bevcomm.net/hwebmail/maiUmessage.php?index=8356 11/19/2008
/~ ,~C ~ Page 1 of 1
~.~ (/! J
GiIL~
Comprehensive Plan
h .lam
:,~
~«' ,
:~;,~ ~ ,
. ~:'
_; r
„~~<
~r~~~
K,
•~T:J:~q..~
Frorts "Garry ft Marj Hawkins' <twohawks2C~charter.net>
To <cstrackC~municipaldevelopmentgroup.com>
Cc "Stan Weinberger" <Stan.WeinbergerC~gpmlaw.com>
Date Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:49:29 -0600
Cindy,
As owners of Lot 1, Block 5 (2.6 acres) in Buettner Business Park, we respectfully request that the zoning
designation be changed from "light industrial" to "commercial "as part of the Comprehensive Plan. This 2.6
acres is isolated from the main industrial park and is adjacent to property which is already zoned
"commercial." We were the first buyers of land in this park in 2000-2001 and purposefully built our present
building on the back portion of the property with the intent to develop the corner of County Road 133 and
Elm Street East. To date, we have lost one potential sale for a professional building due to the zoning
restriction.
The Comprehensive Plan objectives speak to supporting decisions that increase local employment
opportunities and promote commercial development. The Plan further states the intent to "encourage new
commercial development to locate in existing commercial/industrial parks and commercial/industrial zoned
areas."
We request that this information be made part of the record and request your thoughtful consideration.
Thank you,
Marj and Garry Hawkins
http://webmail.bevcomm.net/hwebmaillmail/message.php?index=27458 11/19/2008
(,~ ~, d
_,~~ ~5~~
.~
___.____~~_ _____ ~
~
._~__ _________ _._ _ ._ _ ______ _____._~ A________ ___.___ ~___
,,
~/\'~/~u1`/~`/1 C~
_~~---
..._.M -._....s~,.... ~.~_......rv f ....._..,~Y.~V4L.`~~ ..,..~-X~~~` ~.-»._.. ~ .~~1-_V~-~-^~"~~'~``41_...._,...~~1J-~1.~ 1' \V ~.._~..-_
\
\y ~ ^y` J`~e ., D ~//` /off /`~ \ ,_ [ ~ _~`
/~..-~~. ~v `~~~.
......_..:._.-.~__..-._......_. ...-.3L.~~.1.1~ ___~ _... ___'-5rn,J-~CS~-~~1.C_._. ~11~E. _~ -L-=-~..--._~'~R,~...~~ U..~-~.~/1 \JL ~ ~~
.__.._~:____ ~--_~___. ___ __ _.____.~._ w ._.._ ~-~_ _~ ___.._.__.__~_~____.___
_ - -
_._.__. _____ _... _~ ,,
~_. __._ ~~..~.., _ .__. _ ~L..~~~w_._.. ,~
~
s
~
_ _
.. __.__
_
_ ~~..
~\ o ~* bo-~-•
__ _ ~_.___
_ S __~- _~_,_.___. __._._ _ _ ~.
._~
.
_~.__.__
..__.
. __
n
~__~__.~.~_.____.~_,_ !
f ~
~ _...___._.__._.___ . __..__..._ __~.. w.__.__.....__.. _._..,_..__.._..._._. __.___.__.~__,___..__..-- --- _...__ __--------____..--
.r 4a.
-~~ ~..
~~ ~. > ~ ~
:.;; _)~ ~ r ~
'~ Date: November 12, 2008 J hn(,~ CU ~5 . t ` 5 v t C~-~C.
~~ ,~ ,
{~ ~ To: St. Joseph City Planning Commission
"'' ~~ Cynthia Smith-Strack, Municipal Developmem Group, Inc.
From: Philip Welter
29413 Kiwi Court
St. Joseph, MN 56374
Re: Comments for Public Hearing -Draft Comprehensive Plan
You have heard many concerns about the draft comprehensive plan already expressed this evening. I have a
number of additional concerns and some quick questions to add to the list! But, before I do, I want to clearly
state that, because of the many serious concerns that many of us have, it is the intern of the St. Joseph Action
Group to ask you to delay seeking the approval of this current draft in order to enable the Commission to give
~~t T~, ~~
~fi; ~- full and serious consideration to these expressed concerns.
-~`
First, some general observations...
r~~ ~fY .
~ ~ ~ x PUBLIC INPUT
`~ ~•~ ` The Planning Commission and City Council regularly invite public input. We are happy to provide it,
.:.a.>.~
tonight, as you've already heard, as well as at other times. Members of the Action Group have attended every
one of the Planning Commission meetings which have dealt with the comp plan and have read, thoroughly
and repeatedly, the errtire document
AVAILABLE RESOURCES
The Action Group was among the sponsors of the recent "Growing Green for Growing Cities" conference.
Many of you were in attendance. All of you have been given copies of that portion of the conference which
dealt with the draft comprehensive plan. We feel that this is a valuable resource and strongly encourage you
to acknowledge, study and incorporate the suggestions and recommendations which came from this
conference. Indeed, it seems counter productive to pass up this opportunity for an expert and objective
second opinion.
' °'~~ Similarly, there is other material currently available and work that has already been done, some of which
~~t;-;>
'~~;~t:~' ~ ought to find its way through discussion into the comprehensive plan and which, in effect, will make your job
~~ ~ easier. This includes aspects of the Section 106 Review undertaken by the MnDot Cultural Resources Unit
~' ~; and the "Architectural History and Evaluation of the City..." produced by Carol Zellie, as well as many of the
documents produced by the St. Joseph Action Group, some of which you have received tonight.
:. ,.
.', s.:'~ AREAS OF CONCERN ('T'his is not an exhaustive list as individuals who have already spoken tonight have
.. earlier cited other issues and concerns)
1. Density and Zoning
We feel that there needs to be significant additional conversation regarding density and zoning standards.
We feel strongly that the language and content of these areas of the comprehensive plan need to be up to-date
and reflectcurrent "best practices" regarding conservation design principles.
2. Language
`' "v • We urge the Commission to develop and incorporate more directive language throughout the plan, to
choose to use "shall" and "will" as verbs rather than "it is suggested" or "should be considered", etc.
• The language of the comp plan should be reviewed for its clarity and precision as it is the legal
' ' document that drives the city's policies and ordinances that should flow naturally from it.
`.~ ~? • Dated, unnecessary and irrelevant material ought to be eliminated.
. r_~
#~,~T.
Y
/E''
~'
~~ ~''
?``
~.
~..:.
.;~~~ ; ; .
~~'
3. Additional Content and Material Needed
The Action Group recommends that more work be undertaken in the areas of
• design standards
• cultural and historical preservation
• downtown revitalization
Given the significance of these three areas we feel that the current draft comp plan could be strengthened in
~: ` ~ its treatment of them.
"~~'f-~
4. Neat Steus`!
.'~`' ~' Although not a content area, we believe that both the Commission and the Council need to consider the next
•~r';
°~ <: ~ . steps in the process which will determine the impact on and consistency and congruity between the newly
';.-u,'y~ revised comprehensive plan and the city's policies and ordinances. And, we believe that this conversation
ought to begin before the approval of the plan.
,.:;~t,~
r.
5. An Offer i
,-~ < _..
= With respect to downtown revitalization, the Action Group stands ready to research and seek funding
,; `;:, ' assistance in order to sponsor ahalf-day workshop on the "how, what and why" of downtown revitalizaiton.
At this point we would expect this workshop to be of assistance and possibly inspiration for city officials and
- other interested parties.
6. Complete Document
Officials are often fond of citing the comp plan as a reason for doing or not doing this or that. We believe that
it will be a terrific advantage to have a document in place that is consistent, clear, definitive...and complete...
in every way. For this reason, we urge that all of the suggestions and recommendations which you ve heard
- - ` this evening, and with which we hope that you agree, be included in the draft plan before its approval is
,R "~~;~` sought. It is true that qualify time spent now is valuable time saved later. We believe that an already good
a~ • start can be turned into an excellent final product! Please be assured that many People stand ready to assist
i4 ~..-..
you with the process.
~ , . ``
~~'' THE ST. JOSEPH ACTION GROUP FORMALLY REQUESTS THAT THE ST. 30SEPH CITY
,. ;,:
' ~~"`~ PLANNING COMMISSION DELAY SEEKING THE APPROVAL OF THE CURRENT DRAFT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UNTIL A DATE THAT CAN BE THOUGHTFULLY AND
...::~ . COLLABORATIVELY DETERMINED.
,-
,:~.:
"` fftime permits, we do have some isolated questions, concerns and observations:
,s-.,,
•~~.'
1. The Introduction to the Draft Comprehensive Plan, Section V, refers to a survey as one basis for the plan.
In order to validate the findings from a survey it would be necessary to know: a. how many surveys were
available; b. how many were returned; c. the window of opportunity for the return of the survey.
2. How and where is the data and public input gathered from the surveys, public exercises and meetings
integrated into the comp plan? (Note: The Visual Preference Survey public input responses in the
Introduction to the Comprehensive Plan, pp. 49-38, may lack validity due to a hurried process and
insu,,~}'icient time fo responr~)
3. Where in the comp plan is the problem of building abandonment addressed?
4. Is there evidence in the plan of sufficient and ongoing communication and cooperation between the City
. ~~. of St. Joseph and neighboring government entities?
- =~ < : 5. How and to what extent were the City Engineer and other city stafT involved in the revision process of the
.,, con lan?
ti. The Introduction to the Comp Plan, Section V, bullet # 9 refers to the Community Arts Board. Does the
l'.Y.
~" ' city have a Community Arts Board?
~~: "_:
"" ;r r' ~. All acronyms employed in the docume~rt ought to be included in the glossary.
8. From your experience of revising the comp plan, how caxld resident involvement and input in city
Planning be improved and increased in the future?