HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 [11] Nov 26November 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.
City 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: Wick 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 through 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 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.
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 surface 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':
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.
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 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.
The Commission agreed to amend language in Chapter 11 to accommodate the above.
LAND USE
Land use: Walz Propertx
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 fo 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 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 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.
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.
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 Progert
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 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.
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.
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.
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 southwest of 1-94 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 southwest of 1-94 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 south/west 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.
~y ~'~
udy eyrens
inistrator