HomeMy WebLinkAbout(3) Comprehensive Plan''~ Planning Commission Agenda Item
CITY OF lST. ~Ul~Ii.PN
MEETING DATE: December 17, 2008
AGENDA ITEM: Comprehensive Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Administration
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: New Comprehensive Plans will be delivered once the final document is
approved by the City Council.
I have placed in your packet a letter that has been sent to the City Council regarding the Comprehensive
Plan. They have also asked for an agenda time to discuss their concern.
ATTACHMENTS:
REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
MUNICIPAL
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
City Administrator Weyrens
FROM: Cynthia Smith-Strack, Municipal Development Group
DATE: December 8, 2008
RE: 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
BACKGROUND:
Written input from a public hearing held on November 12, 2008 regarding the draft 2008 Comprehensive
Plan Update was assembled and discussed at a special Planning Commission meeting on November
26th.
Summaries of written comments submitted at the November 12th public hearing were developed for the
November 26th PC meeting. Complete information was included in the packet attachments. Below is a
summary of each issue discussed at the November 26th PC meeting and resolution of said issue. For ~rour
convenience, the resolution of each issue (as agreed by the Planning Commission on November 26) is
highlighted in bold text face.
WATER QUALITY ISSUES:
Comment from Public: Policy/recommendations in Chapter 4 should be changed to require as opposed to
recommend approval of a surface water management plan.
PC Discussion: This suggestion was embraced and is included in Chapter 4, Goal #1, Objective C
as PolicylRecommendation #8.
Comment from Public:. The PC should consider referencing the hydrological cycle in the goals, objectives,
policies, and recommendations section of Chapter 2.
PC Discussion: This suggestion was embraced and is included in Chapter 2, Goal #1, Objective A,
PolicylRecommendation #6.
Comment from Public: Proposed text: Ch. 2, Pg 26, Goal #1, Objective A, Policy 8: 'The City should
maintain established buffers adjacent to high value wetlands. The buffer zones should be kept in a natural
state.'
PC Discussion: This suggestion was embraced. Text in Chapter 2, Goal #1, Objective A, Policy 8
has been changed to: "The city should retain established `buffer zones' adjacent to high value
wetlands. The buffer zones should be kept in a natural state".
MDG, Inc.
Page 1 of 7
Comment from Public: Proposed text: Ch. 2, Pg 26, Goal #1, Objective A, Policy 9 'The City should revise
shoreland standards to reflect alternative shoreland standards implemented in several north central
Minnesota counties.
PC Discussion: The Planning Commission discussed the existing shoreland Ordinance and the
timeframe for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to develop revised shoreland
standards. The MnDNR has not drafted replacement language at this time but it required to within
a few years. The Planning Commission made a finding that the shoreland Ordinance was an
Ordinance which would be appropriate to review following approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Update since local ordinances are a means of implementing the policy framework defined in the
CPU. The Planning Commission also suggested it would be advantageous to wait for formal
changes to the DNR's model shoreland ordinance.
This intent of the public comment was also embraced. Text in Chapter 2, Goal #1, Objective A,
Policy 9 has been changed to: "The city should consider reviewing shoreland standards to reflect
alternative shoreland standards implemented in several North Central Minnesota Counties and as
model ordinance language changes are mandated by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources under the current State review process".
Comment fram Public: Propose to amend text in Ch. 2, Pg 26, Goal #1, Objective B, Policy 2, to require
erosion control measures be enforced though development agreements/on-site inspections.
PC Discussion: This suggestion was embraced. Text in Chapter 2, Goal #1, Objective B, Policy 2
has been adjusted by replacing the term `consider enforcing' to `shall enforce said controls'.
Comment from Public: Propose to amend text in Ch. 2, Pg 26, Goal #1, Objective B, Policy 3, to require
the City complete a natural resources inventory and assessment (NRI/A).
PC Discussion: This suggestion was discussed at length and partially accommodated. The
Planning Commission expressed a desire to conduct and NRI/A but noted the item was not
included in a Capital Improvement Plan at this time. The Planning Commission addressed the
public comment by adding the following to text to Chapter 2, Goal #1, Objective B, Policy 3, "The
city should obtain costs for and budget for an NRI/A". Policy 3 now states: The city should
establish a priority listing of environmentally significant or sensitive areas to monitor, preserve,
enhance and/or protect .The
city should obtain costs for and budget for an NRI/A.
Comment from Public: Propose to amend text in Ch. 2, Pg 26, Goal #1, Objective B, Policy 4, to require
the City develop and use alternative stormwater management tools.
PC Discussion: This suggestion was embraced. Text in Chapter 2, Goal #1, Objective B, Policy 3
has been adjusted as follows: "The city should evaluate the impact of stormwater runoff on
surface water in the City and respective growth areas and encourage the development and use of
alternative management tools such as rain aardens and other emerging management tools".
MDG, Inc.
Page 2 of 7
HISTORIC/CULTURAL RESOURCES
Comment from Public: Add alisting/table of the eleven parcels identified as eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places as per Field Street Corridor Study review by MnDOT Cultural
Resources to Chapter Two of the 2008 CPU. Reference the new table in Ch. 4, Goal 3, Objective A,
Policy 4.
PC Discussion: This suggestion was discussed at length and partially accommodated. The
Planning Commission noted a number of properties were determined as eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places as part of a recent transportation corridor study, but that the
list may not constitute a comprehensive listing of the potential of other parcels for eligibility in the
National Register (NR). In addition, the Planning Commission found at this time it was up to
individual property owners to file for actual listing in the NR. Finally, Planning Commission
members concluded eligibility for listing in the NR did not immediately and completely preclude
use of certain property for public purposes, including public roadways.
The outcome of Planning Commission discussion was to incorporate the table/listing of eleven
parcels identified as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as Figure 2.18 in
Chapter 2 providing language similar to that discussed at the Planning Commission prefaced the
listing. Language in Chapter 4, Goal 3, Objective A, Policy 4 was not altered to specifically refer to
the new Figure 2.18 in Chapter 2.
To those ends the following language was drafted for insertion into Chapter 2 on Page 24.
"A federally funded transportation corridor study identified several parcels within the southern portion of the
city as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. While the properties identified in fhe
corridor study are listed below, the listing is not construed as a complete listing of properties within St.
Joseph eligible for listing in the National Register.
It is further noted that at this time, the fee owners of eligible properties are entitled to seek actual listing in
the National Registry. Finally, it is noted that eligibility for listing in the National Register or actual listing in
the National Registry does not immediately and completely preclude use of certain property for private or
public purposes. Such private purposes could include, but are not limited to, razing of structures that have
exceeded their useful lifespan. Such public uses could include, but are not limited to installation of public
roadways."
Figure 2.18
Historic and Cultural Properties in St. Joseph
(:ligible for the National Regisfer of Historic Places
SN-SJC-006 Roeder House 11 3~d Avenue NW Ca. 1905
SN-SJC-033 Convent of St. Benedict Lode SW'/<of N'/: T124N R29W Sec 16 1925
SN-SJC-034 Convent of St. Benedict Shrine (Our Lady
of Grace SW'/, of N'/: T124N R29W Sec 16 1933
SN-SJC-035 Convent of St. Benedict Dai Bam Minnesota Street 1910
SN-SJC-036 St. Jose h Parish Cemete Colle a Avenue South 1855
SN-SJC-037 Convent of St. Benedict Cemete Colle a Avenue South 1884
SN-SJC-072 St. Jose h School 32 Minnesota Street West 1927
SN-SJC-091 Rassier Farmstead 29748 91St Avenue 1931
SN-SJC-092 St. Isidore Farm St. Benedict H Farm 29643-5 95~ Avenue 1948
SN-SJC-093 Convent of St. Benedict Woods (Monastery
Woods SW'/, of N'/: T124N R29W Sec 16
SN-SJC-098 Convent Fields SW'/<of N'/: T124N R29W Sec 16 Ca. 1889
MDG, Inc.
Page 3 of 7
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 8c ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Comment from Public: Chapter 11, Implementation; pages 3-4. Testimony requests consideration of an
adjustment to goal # 3 and the addition of two goals #23 & 24. The aforementioned suggestion relates to:
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), alternative energy sources (i.e. solar & wind),
and education of public leaders and citizens.
PC Discussion: This suggestion was embraced and is included in Chapter 11.
LAND USE
Land use: Walz Propert
Comment from Public: Representatives question the city's transportation overlay ordinance and the
amount of green space or open space suggested by other persons providing testimony at the hearing.
PC Discussion: The Planning Commission discussed the existing Transportation Overlay
Ordinance and the ability to use property within the area subject to overlay. The PC noted it would
be appropriate to review the overlay ordinance following approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Update since local ordinances are a means of implementing the policy framework defined in the
CPU. The PC also found the overlay ordinance does not preclude any type of use of areas
adjacent to the edge of an applicable public right of way. Rather, signs can be placed 20' from the
edge of a ROW and parking can be placed 50' from edge of ROW.
The Planning Commission did find it necessary to adjust Map 4-6 (Future Land Use, i.e. FLU) and
4-6b (FLU: Environmental Overlay) to represent a transportation corridor overlay adjacent to the
entire sections all alternatives for a northern, east-west arterial corridor as illustrated in the city's
transportation plan.
Land use: former Kennedy Elementary
Comment from Public: A person providing testimony requested an explanation be provided as to why the
former Kennedy Elementary School was guided toward medium density residential and not public use.
PC Discussion: The Planning Commission found that under the CPU medium density corresponds
to R-2 or R-4 districts, under both districts government buildings, public/semipublic recreational
buildings or community centers, libraries, public or private schools are allowed as special uses.
Therefore, the existing use is consistent with the proposed future use. In addition, the site is
adjacent to CR 121 (Minor Arterial), Baker Street (Community Collector), and a CSB master plan
that indicates commercial and medium density residential components.)
Land use: Gateway & Millstream Properties
Comment from Public: Property owners support commercial with optional residential component adjacent
to Lake Sarah and commercial west of Watab and north of 75 (near Millstream Park). GTI (owners of
'Gateway' property) expressed concern that too much of their property was guided toward residential to
be able to effectively provide for a thriving mixed use node. They recommend removing all reference to
residential as it relates to the subject property and adding vehicular oriented commercial.
PC Discussion: The Planning Commission discussed the need to consider both the future land
use map and the associated narrative when deciding whether or not a proposed land use would
be consistent with the CPU. Mixed use appropriateness is defined by type and density. Allowable
MDG, Inc.
Page 4 of 7
components (in this case residential and commercial mixed use) must be represented in the land
use map and associated narrative. Failure to include a reference in both locations could preclude
the establishment of such a mixed use in the future. The classification `community mixed use'
encompasses highway commercial development as defined in Chapter One of the CPU. The
Planning Commission recommended the property owners submit a revised use concept to the
Planning Consultant for inclusion in the Future Land Use Map. The requested communication has
occurred and Map 4-6 and 4-6a are being adjusted.
Land Use: Hawkins Property
Comment from Public: Requests Spring Green site be guided toward commercial rather than industrial
use.
PC Discussion: The Planning Commission discussed this request and found that the parcel
should be changed to commercial rather than industrial use. Map 4-6 and 4-6a are being adjusted
accordingly.
Land Use: K. Johnson, former Trobec Event Center
Comment from Public: Requests half of the site be guided toward medium density residential rather than
commercial use but the portion containing the Event Center remain commercial. The property owner
would like to install medium density units south of the facility to better utilize acreage.
PC Discussion: The Planning Commission discussed this request and found that the southern
half of the parcel could accommodate medium density residential and remain consistent with
existing land uses in the vicinity. Map 4-6 and 4-6a are being adjusted accordingly.
Land Use: Graceview as a PUD
Comment from Public: An individual testifying requests the Graceview Subdivision be removed from Map
4-8 illustrating existing PUD subdivisions within the City. The map was created pursuant to input from an
earlier meeting.
PC Discussion: The Planning Commission discussed the statement from the public hearing and
noted the Graceview Development was developed as a planned unit development and will
continue to be a planned unit development as opposed to a conventional subdivision.
Land Use: Density and downtown
Comment from Public: An individual testifying requests the PC hold discussion regarding density and
conservation design. A second individual suggests 3.96 dwelling units/net acre is too high.
PC Discussion: The Planning Commission addressed this comment noting the existing allowable
densities under urban development were specified within individual zoning classifications. The
PC noted it would be appropriate to review density as defined in each classification within the
zoning ordinance following approval of the Comprehensive Plan Update since local ordinances
are a means of implementing the policy framework defined in the CPU.
Comment from Public: An individual providing testimony also more work be done in the areas of
downtown design standards, cultural/historic preservation, and downtown revitalization.
PC Discussion: The Planning Commission noted design guidelines for the downtown were
embraced under the 2005 Downtown Revitalization Plan. The design guidelines were approved by
the PC and the CC in 2007. The "Let's Go Downtown" revitalization effort is on-going. The PC
invites any entity interested in hosting a revitalization event visit with the City Council, Planning
Commission, or EDA.
MDG, Inc.
Page 5 of 7
Comment from Public: Finally, an individual testifying suggests more directive languages "will" or shall vs.
should, 'it is suggested' or'should be considered'.
PC Discussion: The Planning Commission noted the CPU was a policy framework and not a
prescriptive document. The goals, objectives, and policies/recommendations are to be taken in
context of the entire document.
Open Space
Comment from Public: This testimony mirrors that provided at previous meetings and input sessions,
suggestions include preserving I-94/CSAH 2 interchange in its present state and requiring 40% open
space be maintained. Agricultural preservation is also mentioned.
PC Discussion: The Planning Commission noted the CPU includes references to open space
preservation, preservation of environmentally sensitive areas, preservation of small town
atmosphere, downtown revitalization, infill/redevelopment, and mixed use nodal development as
core concepts while at the same time acknowledging the need to grow in urban area to maintain
vitality. The Planning Commission included areas south/west of I-94 at the request of the
township. The Planning Commission finds it supports the existing scope of the CPU at this time.
Should changes arise in 2009, the PC feels it would be appropriate to review such changes at that
time. As a result Policy #8 was added to Chapter 4, Goal #1, Objective A to further investigate
areas south/west of I-94 and open space preservation within twelve months of approval of the
CPU.
The following statement was added as Policy #8 in Chapter 4, Goal #1, Objective A: "The Planning
Commission should review open space preservation as it relates to urban development
southwest of /-94 within twelve (12) months of approval of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
by the City Council".
Sidewalks
Comment from Public: An individual testified about sidewalks. Information is attached.
PC Discussion: The Planning Commission addressed this comment noting the existing
requirements for sidewalks are included in the Subdivision Ordinance and the transportation plan.
The PC noted it would be appropriate to review the subdivision ordinance following approval of
the Comprehensive Plan Update since local ordinances are a means of implementing the policy
framework defined in the CPU. The PC also noted the transportation plan was to be reviewed in
2009 and approved thereafter.
MDG, Inc.
Page 6 of 7
ORAL TESTIMONY:
Comment from Public: In addition to written testimony submitted at the November 12th public hearing, oral
testimony regarding several issues was also received. The following are noted as per my written notes,
and not intended as a catalogue of subjects addressed at the hearing. Additional information may be
included in meeting minutes.
Public Comment: Agricultural preservation should be provided for within the City limits.
PC Discussion: The Planning Commission noted the CPU includes references to open space
preservation, preservation of environmentally sensitive areas, preservation of small town
atmosphere, downtown revitalization, infill/redevelopment, and mixed use nodal development as
core concepts while at the same time acknowledging the need to grow in urban area to maintain
vitality. The Planning Commission included areas south/west of I-94 at the request of the
township. The PC notes a ruling by an Administrative Law Judge that rural land uses are most
appropriately governed by townships (Rockville -Maine Prairie Detachment Petition). The
Planning Commission finds it supports the existing scope of the CPU at this time. Should
changes arise in 2009, the PC feels it would be appropriate to review such changes at that time,
agricultural preservation could be included in the discussion.
Public Comment: Local food production.
PC Discussion: The Planning Commission addressed this comment noting additional information
in needed to be able to fully explore this concept. This item may be examined more in the future.
Public Comment: Inclusion of Planning District 1 in the CPU.
PC Discussion: A meeting between the City and Township is scheduled for early December. The
outcome of that meeting will be an important determinate of the PC's response to this comment.
ACTION:
The revised narrative has been posted on the City's website. Changes to the future land use map have
been requested and will be posted on the web as soon as received.
A resolution recommending approval of the CPU to the City Council is attached for your consideration.
Please note the resolution can be found immediately following this memo.
MDG, Inc.
Page 7 of 7
CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2008-
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE 2008 ST. JOSEPH COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATE, A COMPILATION OF POLICY STATEMENTS, GOALS, STANDARDS, AND MAPS GUIDING
THE OVERALL FUTURE GROWTH AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 462.355, Subd. 2; The St. Joseph Planning Commission may,
recommend to the City Council the adoption and amendment from time to time of a comprehensive
municipal plan.
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of St. Joseph with its Planning Agency, the St. Joseph Planning
Commission, authorized the updating of its Comprehensive Plan in 2008; and,
WHEREAS, The proposed Comprehensive Plan Update is based on local and regional historical facts,
trends, and governmental planning standards; and,
WHEREAS, The Comprehensive Plan Update is a dynamic planning tool intended to guide the future
growth and redevelopment of the City; and,
WHEREAS, Before adopting the comprehensive municipal plan or any section or amendment of the plan,
the planning agency shall hold at least one public hearing thereon; and,
WHEREAS, A notice of the time, place and purpose of a hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan
Update was published once in the official newspaper at least ten days before the day of the hearing with
a copy of the notice posted for public viewing; and,
WHEREAS, A copy of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update is on display at the City Offices for
public review; and,
WHEREAS, A joint public hearing by the St. Joseph Planning Commission and the St. Joseph City
Council was held in the manner described in the public notice; and,
WHEREAS, The proposed comprehensive plan may not be acted upon by the City Council until it has
received the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Planning Commission of the City of St. Joseph,
Minnesota hereby recommends the City Council approve the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly made by Commissioner
and duly seconded by Commissioner and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor:
And the following voted against the same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted this day of , 2008.
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
City Administrator
To: Mayor and City Council Members
From: St. Joseph Action Group Preserving Special Places
Date: December 12, 2008
Re: Response to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Revision aril. Adoption
At the November 26 Planning Commission meeting, comments from the
Comprehensive Plan public hearing compiled by MDG consultant, Cynthia Smith Strack,
were discussed by commission members. Commentaries and input given at the November
14, 2008, public hearing were well-prepared and based on credible information noted in
the material presented_ The Planning Commission accepted some of what was presented
and we appreciate the commission's approval of these r~uests. There were other items
the commission agreed could use further study which would be undertaken after the
Comprehensive Plan was approved.
There were also items the commission decided against putting in the plan. Of these items,
we feel five are important enough to be given father consideration; hence we are
bringing these to the attention of the city council. At the November 26 Planning
Commission meeting, there was no opportunity to respond to the consultant's
presentation of the input from the public hearing. We were not allowed to respond even
though another participant asked to give additional input regarding an item of personal
interest.. This resulted in the planning commission agreeing to his request for a zoning
change. Secondly, as there is no other opportunity to respond to the Planning
Commission regarding what we think was incomplete information, we feet this council
meeting is the only venue left for any public dialogue. Therefore, we requested to be on
the December 18th council agenda before the council acts on the 2008 Comprehensive
Plan.
There are the five items we believe are important to be discussed father:
• Density and Conservation Design: The consultant. dismissed this concern as "a
red flag" and there was no further discussion. The result was a distorted view of
density, since conservation design intentionally allows as many houses as the
older, standard development designs, but does it in a manner that provides more
livable, healthier environments for families and for natural resource
preservation. At the public hearing, it was requested. that language in policies,
goals anal objectives include conservation design as a recommendation for
development in future growth planning for the next 20 years. We ask again that
this be considered.
• Surface Water Management Plan: St. Joseph does have a storm water
management plan but not a surface water management plan (SWMP} which is
different In the 2002 Comprehensive Plan, it was "recommended" that the city
adopt a SWMP. That never happened and since 2002 there have been instances
when surface water has been compromised, especially during construction. We
asked and are asking again for the language to read, "the city will ~lopt a
SWMP," rather than just recommended that the city adopt a SWMP. The
consultant noted that doing a SWMP would be cost-prohibitive, but offered no
specifics about cost soinces. Keep in mind that this would not have to be done in
20E?9. v~ funds could be set aside to build up a reserve for the time it could
be done and adopted. Surface water issues will be of significant importance in
the next 20 years. More surface water regulations will not only be needed but
required as our surface water is already impaired and will become even more
impaired unless we take appropriate action.
• Downtown Revitalization: Considerable attention has been. given to downtown
revitalization in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission accepted
an offer by the St. Joseph Action Group to sponsor a seminar led by main street
consultants to assist the community in its revitalization efforts. In the
Comprehensive Plan, stronger commitment statements should be made to get
this process going. Even in these difficult times, ideas, concepts, research and
Planning could be going forward with the help of conununity volunteers in a
collaborative effort with St. Joseph businesses and residents. It would be a show
of support for "main street" and would not have to be a major cost item.
• Agricultural Zoning: In the future mning maps, no land is zoned agricultural.
Agriculture need not be restricted to traditional farming. Looking out 20 years,
our food supply landscape will change and there will be viable commercial
opportunities to grow and supply food on a more local but larger scale than
backyard gardens. Community gardens are already s}xinging up all over the
country to provide mare local and healthier food options. Further study is
needed to somehow incorporate or accommodate agricultural zoning in future
planning for the city of St. Joseph.
• Comprehensive Plan Maps: Many maps in the Comprehensive Plan and in the
Trunspnrtation ~fppendix are outdated. and. inaccurate. They show "Field Street"
bisecting the Rassier Farm north/south, east/west and. monastery and college
land even though there are two new preferred alternatives (G2a and G4) for a
southerly east-west collector road. The location of proposed roads in the
Comprehensive Pian is critical as was clear in the recent Graceview controversy.
To make this task easier, a list of maps and tables needing correction is
appended.
The future zoning designs in the Comprehensive Plan establish a mindset for today's
planners to look at land use and see a different use for the land than future life style might
dictate. We feel the language changes we are requesting are forward thinking concepts
already in evidence in out changing world.
Annual Report: Because the 20(1$ St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan is an ongoing
living/working document, it is important to have an annual report. The report would
include actions taken based on the Comprehensive Plan framework and changes that
should or could be made to keep it relevarrt to changing life styles and preserrring our
vital resources. We must envision societal, economic and environmental changes over the
next 20 years. In Chapter 11, p l3, VI 1, Comprehensive Plan Review and Revision, it is
recommended. that staff and city administrator, planning commission or city's consulting
planner report on an annual basis tct the city council regarding issues and other relevant
information as these relate to the Comprehensive Plan.
Finally, it is our understanding that the following items will be under study in 2009:
• Material submitted by Tom Krall regarding open space issues.
• Input from meetings with stakeholders and neighboring entities to coordinate
future growth plans.
It is also our understanding that Comprehensive Plan language will include a statement
that funds will be set aside to finance a Nahaal Resource Irrventary a~Assessment
~~)-
Delay Approval: For the reasons we have addressed in this letter, we request that the
2008 Comprehensive Plan not be adopted. until density and conservation design, SWMP,
proactive and energized downtown revitalization, agricultural zoning, and updated. maps
are further discussed, and in some manner, included in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan.
We thank the city council for this opportunity to address these matters as we have been
involved in the plan revision process from the beginning. It was not our intent to bring
input at this late date, but opportunities for timely public input and dialogue were very
limited during the planning process- The 2008 Comprehensive Plan was a work in
progress that evolved over almost a year and new information was always forthcoming.
Because of its Long-term significance and because it is the looking glass for guiding
future growth for St. Joseph for the next 20 years, it needs sufficient time to envision that
future wisely and well.
We also wish to applaud the St. Joseph Planning Commission and consultant, Cynthia
Smith-Strack for their commitment to this important task. We acknowledge establishing
this fiamework for future growth and sustaunability of our unique hot~town of St. Joseph
was a very long and challenging process.
Respectfully submitted by,
St. Joseph Action Group Preserving Special Places
Appendiz: St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan Maps/Tables Needing Revision
Titles for Maps as the appeared on the St. Joseph City Website Dec. 9, 2008
Chapter Two-Attachments Final Draft.pdf
• Map 2-1 St. Joseph Contours
• Map 2-2 SL Joseph Hydric Soils
• Map 2-3 St. Joseph Watershed
• Map 2-4 St. Joseph Public Works and Wetlands
• Map 2-5 St. Joseph Flood Plain and Shoreland Overlay District
• Map 2-fi St. Joseph Geology
• Map 2-7 St Joseph Groundwater Sensitivity
• Map 2-8 St. Joseph Cultural Properties
• Map 2-9 St. Joseph Area of Potential Environmental Significance
and Sensi tivity
Map 4-6 Future Land. Use UPDATED 10.31.08
Map 46A Future Lard Use UPDATED 10.31.08
Map 4 PUD Subdivision created 10.30.08
Chapter Four Attachment 2 Planning district Maps Maps.pdf
• Map 45 A St. Joseph Planning District 1
• Map 4S B St. Joseph Planning District 2
• Map 45 C St Joseph Planning District 3
• Map 45 D St. Joseph Planning District 4
• Map 4-5 E St. Joseph Planning District 5
• Map 4-S F St. Joseph Planning District 6
• Map 45 L St. Joseph Planning District 12
• Map 45 M St. Joseph Planning District 13
• Map 45 N St. Joseph Planning District 14
Chapter Seven
• Map 7-1 St. Joseph Sanitary Sewer Collection System
• Map 7-2 St. Joseph Drinking Water Distribution Map
• Map ?-3 St. Joseph Sewer Collection System Map
Large Maps on Future Land Use
• May 12, 2008 map DRAFT
• June 9, 20(18 map DRAFT
Maps in Ti ar~sportation App~endiz
• Figure 6 Future Transportation ATetwork
• Figure 8 Full Build-Out Traffic Forecasts
• Paragraph 43.1, page 28 on Field Street is inaccurate when it says:
"...the Future Transportation Netv~r9ark Map shows the preferred
alignment at this time." Tike alignment shown is not one of the
two current preferred alignments, G2a and G4
Table 12: Recommendations, p. 30 relative to Field Street needs to be corrected.
Appendix A -Stakeholder Group Transportation Network Maps*
• Transportation Plan Stakeholders Planning Group -Map A
• Transportation Plan Stakeholders Planning Group -Map B
• Transportation Plan Stakeholders Planning Group -Map C
*Note: Because these maps are no longer accurate, if they are inched in the Transportation
Appertdi~c, they require a footnote to that effect.
December I2, 2008
November 26, 2008
Page 1 of 6
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in special
session on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 6:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Council Chambers.
Members Present: Chair S. Kathleen Kalinowski. Commissioners Michael Deutz, Mark Anderson, Ross
Rieke, Mike McDonald, John Meyer. Council Liaison Dale Wick. Administrator Judy Weyrens.
Citv Representatives Present: Planning Consultant, Cynthia Smith-Strack.
Others Present: S. Kathryn Kraft, Ellen Wahlstrom, Bob Wahlstrom, Margy Hughes, Brian Schoenberg.
Mark Anderson, Terese Anderson, Joe Walz, Hubert Walz.
Comprehensive Plan Update: Kalinowski opened the meeting and stated the purpose of the meeting is to
discuss the comments from the Public Hearing regarding the Comprehensive Plan. At this time
Kalinowski turned the floor over to consultant Cynthia Smith-Strack.
Smith-Strack presented the Planning Commission with a summary of comments received at the public
hearing held on November 12, 2008. Smith-Strack stated that she would like to go through the comments
and decide whether or not the items should be added to the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Meyer stated that he has concerns adopting the revised Chapters Two and Four that were
presented to the Commission on behalf of an outside consultant. The requested changes in his opinion:
• Exacerbate urban sprawl by increased greenway
• Create a financial burden by requiring the City to complete a natural resource inventory
• Create additional tax burden for the City as prime commercial and industrial property will not be
allowed to be developed (due to increased greenway)
• Open the door for other groups to promote their concerns. The proposed edits are based on land
preservation and the City may have developers request to re-write the Ordinance based on
development need.
Meyer also expressed disappointment that St. John's University does not wish their property to be
included in the Comprehensive Plan and that they do not want to involve the City in their planning. He is
surprised that an employee of SJU has become so entrenched in the St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, Meyer made a motion requesting the Planning Commission disregard the information
presented regarding Chapters Two and Four. The motion was seconded by Deutz.
Discussion: Eck stated that the Commission cannot disregard the testimony that was received,
it happened and the Commission must react to the same. Deutz stated that while he does not agree with
all the information, the Planning Commission should review the items and agree to either include the
information or not. Rieke concurred and questioned if there is a reason that the Plan needs to be
adopted this month. McDonald agreed that the items presented at the meeting on November 12, 2008
should be reviewed for possible inclusion.
Meyer withdrew his motion as did Deutz his second.
The following is a list of issues presented at the Public Hearing as well the Planning Commission
response:
WATER QUALITY ISSUES:
Comment from Public: Policy/recommendations in Chapter 4 should be changed to require as opposed to
recommend approval of a surface water management plan.
The Commission agreed to include the comment in Chapter 4, Goal #1, Objective C as
Policy/Recommendation #8.
November 26, 2008
Page 2 of 6
Comment from Public: The PC should consider referencing the hydrological cycle in the goals, objectives,
policies, and recommendations section of Chapter 2.
The Commission agreed to include the comment in Chapter 2, Goal #1, Objective A,
Policy/Recommendation #6.
Comment from Public: Proposed text: Ch. 2, Pg 26, Goal #1, Objective A, Policy 8: 'The City should
maintain established buffers adjacent to high value wetlands. The buffer zones should be kept in a natural
state.'
The Commission agreed to amend chapter 2 Goal #1, Objective A, Policy 8 to "The city should
retain established `buffer zones' adjacent to high value wetlands. The buffer zones should be kept in a
natural state".
Comment from Public: Proposed text: Ch. 2, Pg 26, Goal #1, Objective A, Policy 9 'The City should revise
shoreland standards to reflect alternative shoreland standards implemented in several north central
Minnesota counties.
The Planning Commission discussed the existing shoreland Ordinance and the timeframe for the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to develop revised shoreland standards. The MnDNR has
not drafted replacement language at this time but it required to within a few years. The Planning
Commission made a finding that the shoreland Ordinance was an Ordinance which would be appropriate
to review following approval of the Comprehensive Plan Update since local ordinances are a means of
implementing the policy framework defined in the CPU. The Planning Commission also suggested it
would be advantageous to wait for formal changes to the DNR's model shoreland ordinance.
The Commission agreed to change text in Chapter 2, Goal #1, Objective A, Policy 9 to: "The city
should consider reviewing shoreland standards to reflect alternative shoreland standards implemented in
several North Central Minnesota Counties and as model ordinance language changes are mandated by
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources under the current State review process".
Comment from Public: Propose to amend text in Ch. 2, Pg 26, Goal #1, Objective B, Policy 2, to require
erosion control measures be enforced though development agreements/on-site inspections.
The Commission agreed to amend text in Chapter 2, Goal #1, Objective 8, Policy 2 by replacing
the term `consider enforcing' to `shall enforce said controls'.
Comment from Public: Propose to amend text in Ch. 2, Pg 26, Goal #1, Objective B, Policy 3, to require
the City complete a natural resources inventory and assessment (NRI/A).
This suggestion was discussed at length and partially accommodated. The Planning Commission
expressed a desire to conduct and NRI/A but noted the item was not included in a Capital Improvement
Plan at this time. The Planning Commission addressed the public comment by adding the following to text
to Chapter 2, Goal # 1, Objective 8, Policy 3, "The city should obtain costs for and budget for an NRI/A"
Policy 3 now states: The city should establish a priority listing of environmentally significant or sensitive
areas to monitor, preserve, enhance and/or protect
. The city should obtain costs for and budget for an NRl/A.
Comment from Public: Propose to amend text in Ch. 2, Pg 26, Goal #1, Objective B, Policy 4, to require
the City develop and use alternative stormwater management tools.
The Commission agreed to amend the text in Chapter 2, Goal #1, Objective 8, Policy 3 as follows: "The
city should evaluate the impact of stormwater runoff on sun`ace water in the City and respective growth
November 26, 2008
Page 3 of 6
areas and encourage the development and use of alternative management tools such as rain gardens
and other emerging management tools".
HISTORICICULTURAL RESOURCES
Comment from Public: Add alisting/table of the eleven parcels identified as eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places as per Field Street Corridor Study review by MnDOT Cultural
Resources to Chapter Two of the 2008 CPU. Reference the new table in Ch. 4, Goal 3, Objective A,
Policy 4.
This suggestion was discussed at length and partially accommodated. The Planning Commission
noted a number of properties were determined as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places as part of a recent transportation corridor study, but that the list may not constitute a
comprehensive listing of the potential of other parcels for eligibility in the National Register (NR). In
addition, the Planning Commission found at this time it was up to individual property owners to file for
actual listing in the NR. Finally, Planning Commission members concluded eligibility for listing in the NR
did not immediately and completely preclude use of certain property for public purposes, including public
roadways.
The outcome of Planning Commission discussion was to incorporate the tableAisting of eleven parcels
identified as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as Figure 2.18 in Chapter 2
providing language similar to that discussed at the Planning Commission prefaced the listing. Language
in Chapter 4, Goal 3, Objective A, Policy 4 was not altered to specifically refer to the new Figure 2.18 in
Chapter 2.
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 8< ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
Comment from Public: Chapter 11, Implementation; pages 3-4. Testimony requests consideration of an
adjustment to goal # 3 and the addition of two goals #23 & 24. The aforementioned suggestion relates to:
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), alternative energy sources (i.e. solar & wind),
and education of public leaders and citizens.
The Commission agreed to amend language in Chapter 11 to accommodate the above.
LAND USE
Land use: Walz Prooerty
Comment from Public: Representatives question the city's transportation overlay ordinance and the
amount of green space or open space suggested by other persons providing testimony at the hearing.
The Planning Commission discussed the existing Transportation Overlay Ordinance and the
ability to use property within the area subject to overlay. The PC noted it would be appropriate to review
the overlay ordinance following approval of the Comprehensive Plan Update since local ordinances are a
means of implementing the policy framework defined in the CPU. The PC also found the overlay
ordinance does not preclude any type of use of areas adjacent to the edge of an applicable public right of
way. Rather, signs can be placed 20' from the edge of a RO W and parking can be placed 50' from edge
of RO W.
The Planning Commission did find it necessary to adjust Map 4-6 (Future Land Use, i.e. FLU) and 4-6b
(FLU: Environmental Overlay) to represent a transportation corridor overlay adjacent to the entire sections
all alternatives for a northern, east-west arterial corridor as illustrated in the city's transportation plan.
November 26, 2008
Page 4 of 6
Land use: former Kennedy Elements
Comment from Public: A person providing testimony requested an explanation be provided as to why the
former Kennedy Elementary School was guided toward medium density residential and not public use.
The Planning Commission found that under the GPU medium density corresponds to R-2 or R-4
districts, under both districts government buildings, public/semipublic recreational buildings or community
centers, libraries, public or private schools are allowed as special uses. Therefore, the existing use is
consistent with the proposed future use. In addition, the site is adjacent to CR 121 (Minor Arterial), Baker
Street (Community Collector), and a CSB master plan that indicates commercial and medium density
residential components.)
Land use: Gateway_& Millstream Properties
Comment from Public: Property owners support commercial with optional residential component adjacent
to Lake Sarah and commercial west of Watab and north of 75 (near Millstream Park). GTI (owners of
'Gateway' property) expressed concern that too much of their property was guided toward residential to
be able to effectively provide for a thriving mixed use node. They recommend removing all reference to
residential as it relates to the subject property and adding vehicular oriented commercial.
The Planning Commission discussed the need to consider both the future land use map and the
associated narrative when deciding whether or not a proposed land use would be consistent with the
CPU. Mixed use appropriateness is defined by type and density. Allowable components (in this case
residential and commercial mixed use) must be represented in the land use map and associated
narrative. Failure to include a reference in both locations could preclude the establishment of such a
mixed use in the future. The classification `community mixed use' encompasses highway commercial
development as defined in Chapter One of the CPU. The Planning Commission recommended the
property owners submit a revised use concept to the Planning Consultant for inclusion in the Future Land
Use Map. The requested communication has occurred and Map 4-6 and 4-6a are being adjusted.
Land Use: Hawkins Property
Comment from Public: Requests Spring Green site be guided toward commercial rather than industrial
use.
The Planning Commission discussed this request and found that the parcel should be changed to
commercial rather than industrial use. Map 4-6 and 4-6a are being adjusted accordingly.
Land Use: K. Johnson, former Trobec Event Center
Comment from Public: Requests half of the site be guided toward medium density residential rather than
commercial use but the portion containing the Event Center remain commercial. The property owner
would like to install medium density units south of the facility to better utilize acreage.
The Planning Commission discussed this request and found that the southern half of the parcel
could accommodate medium density residential and remain consistent with existing land uses in the
vicinity. Map 4-6 and 4-6a are being adjusted accordingly.
November 26, 2008
Page 5 of 6
Land Use: Graceview as a PUD
Comment from Public: An individual testifying requests the Graceview Subdivision be removed from Map
4-8 illustrating existing PUD subdivisions within the City. The map was created pursuant to input from an
earlier meeting.
The Planning Commission discussed the statement from the public hearing and noted the
Graceview Development was developed as a planned unit development and will continue to be a planned
unit development as opposed to a conventional subdivision.
Land Use: Density and downtown
Comment from Pub/ic: An individual testifying requests the PC hold discussion regarding density and
conservation design. A second individual suggests 3.96 dwelling units/net acre is too high.
The Planning Commission addressed this comment noting the existing allowable densities under
urban development were specified within individual zoning classifications. The PC noted it would be
appropriate to review density as defined in each classification within the zoning ordinance following
approval of the Comprehensive Plan Update since local ordinances are a means of implementing the
policy framework defined in the CPU.
Comment from Public: An individual providing testimony also more work be done in the areas of
downtown design standards, cultural/historic preservation, and downtown revitalization.
The Planning Commission noted design guidelines for the downtown were embraced under the
2005 Downtown Revitalization Plan. The design guidelines were approved by the PC and the CC in 2007.
The "Let's Go Downtown" revitalization effort is on-going. The PC invites any entity interested in hosting a
revitalization event visit with the City Council, Planning Commission, or EDA.
Comment from Public: An individual testifying suggests more directive languages "will" or shall vs. should,
'it is suggested' or 'should be considered'.
The Planning Commission noted the CPU was a policy framework and not a prescriptive
document. The goals, objectives, and policies/recommendations are to be taken in context of the entire
document.
Omen Space
Comment from Public: This testimony mirrors that provided at previous meetings and input sessions,
suggestions include preserving I-94/CSAH 2 interchange in its present state and requiring 40% open
space be maintained. Agricultural preservation is also mentioned.
The Planning Commission noted the CPU includes references tv open space preservation, preservation
of environmentally sensitive areas, preservation of small town atmosphere, downtown revitalization,
infill/redevelopment, and mixed use nodal development as core concepts while at the same time
acknowledging the need to grow in urban area to maintain vitality. The Planning Commission included
areas southwest of I-94 at the request of the township. The Planning Commission finds it supports the
existing scope of the CPU at this time. Should changes arise in 2009, the PC feels it would be appropriate
to review such changes at that time. As a result Policy #8 was added to Chapter 4, Goal #7, Objective A
to further investigate areas south/~vest of I-94 and open space preservation within twelve months of
approval of the CPU.
November 26, 2008
Page 6 of 6
The following statement will be added as Policy #8 in Chapter 4, Goal #1, Objective A: "The Planning
Commission should review open space preservation as it relates to urban development southwest of 1-94
within twelve (12) months of approval of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update by the City Council".
Sidewalks
Comment from Public: An individual testified about sidewalks and the need to continue to plan and
provide a pedestrian walkways/trails.
The Planning Commission addressed this comment noting the existing requirements for
sidewalks are included in the Subdivision Ordinance and the transportation plan. The PC noted it would
be appropriate to review the subdivision ordinance following approval of the Comprehensive Plan Update
since local ordinances are a means of implementing the policy framework defined in the CPU. The PC
also noted the transportation plan was to be reviewed in 2009 and approved thereafter.
Deutz made a motion to table action on the Comprehensive Plan to December 17, 2008 at 5:30 PM
at which time the final comments will be ready for inclusion in the Plan. The motion was
seconded by Meyer and passed unanimously.
Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:10 PM.
Judy Weyrens
Administrator