Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout(05) St. Joseph Action Groupcrr~r nF KT JohF vtt MEETING DATE: December 18, 2008 Council Agenda Item AGENDA ITEM: St. Joseph Action Group -Comprehensive Plan Comments SUBMITTED BY: Administration BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The St. Joseph Action Group has requested to be placed on the agenda to discuss the Comprehensive Plan. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT: ATTACHMENTS: Letter from St. Joseph Action Group REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: 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 and 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 19, 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 requests. 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 further consideration; hence we are bringing these to the attention ofthe city council. At the November 26 Planning Commission meeting, there was no opportunity to respond to the consultant's presentation ofthe 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 far a zoning change. Secondly, as there is no other opportunity to respond to the Planning Commission regarding what we think was incomplete information, we feel this council meeting is the only venue left for any public dialogue. Therefore, we requested to be on the December 18a` council agenda before the council acts on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. There are the five items we believe are important to be discussed further: • _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 and 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 S WMP. 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 adopt a SWMP," rather than just recommended that the city adopt a SWMP. The consultant noted that doing a S WMP would becost-prohibitive, but offered no specifics about cost sources. Keep in mind that this would not have to be done in 2009. Instead, 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, reseazch and planning could be going forward with the help of community 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 zoning 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 springing up all over the country to provide more 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 Transportation Appendix 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 Plan is critical as was cleaz 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 aze requesting aze forward thinking concepts already in evidence in our changing world. Annual Report: Because the 2008 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 relevant to changing life styles and preserving our vital resources. We must envision societal, economic and environmental changes over the next 20 years. In Chapter 11, p 13, V 11, 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 to 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 Kroll 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 fimds will be set aside to finance a Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment (NRIA). Delax 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 framework for future growth and sustainability of our unique hometown of St. Joseph was a very long and challenging process. Respectfully submitted by, St. Joseph Action Group Preserving Special Places Appendix: St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan Maps/Tables Needing Revision Titles for Maps as the~ppeared on the St. Joseph City Website Dec. 9, 2008 Chapter Two-Attachments Final Draft.pdf • Map 2-1 • Map 2-2 • Map 2-3 • Map 2-4 • Map 2-5 • Map 2-6 • Map 2-7 • Map 2-8 • Map 2-9 and Sens St. Joseph Contours St. Joseph Hydric Soils St. Joseph Watershed St. Joseph Public Works and Wetlands St. Joseph Flood Plain and Shoreland Overlay District St. Joseph Geology St. Joseph Groundwater Sensitivity St. Joseph Cultural Properties St. Joseph Area of Potential Environmental Significance itivity Map 4-6 Future Land Use UPDATED 10.31.08 Map 4-6A Future Land Use UPDATED 10.31.08 Map 4 PUD Subdivision created 10.30..08 Chapter Four Attachment • Map 4-5 A • Map 4-S B • Map 4-5 C • Map 4-5 D • Map 4-5 E • Map 4-5 F • Map 4-5 L • Map 4-5 M • Map 4-5 N ! Planning district Maps Maps.pdf St. Joseph Planning District 1 St. Joseph Planning District 2 St. Joseph Planning District 3 St. Joseph Planning District 4 St. Joseph Planning District S St. Joseph Planning District 6 St. Joseph Planning District 12 St. Joseph Planning District 13 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 7-3 St. Joseph Sewer Collection System Map Large Maps on Future Land Use • May 12, 2008 map DRAFT • June 9, 2008 map DRAFT Maps in Transportation Appendix • Figure 6 Future Transportation Network • Figure 8 Full Build-Out Traffic Forecasts Paragraph 4.3.1, page 28 on Field Street is inaccurate when it says: "...the Future Transportation Network Map shows the preferred alignment at this time." The 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 included in the Transportation Appendix, they require a footnote to that effect. December 12, 2008