Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 [07] Jul 16 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the St. Joseph City Council and Planning Commission met in joint session on Monday, July 16, 2001 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph Community Fire Hall. City Council Members Present: Mayor Larry Hosch. Councilors Bob Loso, Al Rassier, Kyle Schneider and Cory Ehlert (arriving at 8:30). City Administrator/Clerk Judy Weyrens. Planning Commission Members Present: Chair Gary Utsch. Commissioners S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Mike Deutz. Planning Commission Secretary Chad Carlson. Mayor Hosch opened the public hearing at 7:00 PM and stated the purpose of the hearing is to accept testimony regarding the proposed zoning changes recommended by the Planning Commission. Hosch stated that all persons wishing to speak will have the opportunity and will be limited to 5 minutes. Administrator/Clerk Weyrens clarified the following items: 1. Property is taxed based on the valuation not the zoning classification. Therefore, changing classification from residential to commercial does not automatically increase property taxes. 2. Property rezoned will be allowed to continue the current use and will be grandfathered. As such the property can be sold and continue to be used in the grandfather status. However, if the property is destroyed beyond 50%, the property could not be rebuilt under the grandfather status unless approved by the Planning Commission. Mayor Hosch opened the floor for comment and requested that all persons speaking identify their name and address. In an effort to allow input on all proposed zoning classifications, testimony will be taken on each area independently. To follow is a summary of testimony received. ndth Area #1 – Property located south of Minnesota Street between 2 Avenue NW and 5 Avenue NW. Proposed zoning change from R1, Single Family to R2, Multiple Family. rd Tim Borresch of 11 – 3 Avenue NW: Encouraged the Commission to leave the zoning classification as it currently is zoned. Borresch expressed concern for the considerable amount of traffic that is generated on County Road 2 and if adding additional rental is appropriate. th Mary Niedenfuer of 202 – 5 Avenue NW: Requested the zoning remain R1. She stated the homes along Minnesota Street are some of the older homes in St. Joseph and they should be preserved. Other communities preserve the older housing stock and convert them to unique shops. Utsch responded that the Planning Commission felt that changing the property to R2 would be the highest and best use for the property. The rear of the property is the campus/monastery of St. Benedict so it seems to be logical to zone that property for rental. Elmer Rakotz of 605 East Able Street: Questioned the need to have additional rental and the City should be encouraging single family homes. Shelly Thomas of 400 Cypress Drive: Encouraged the Commission to leave the zoning as R1. Thomas indicated that R2/R3 create additional burdens on the City and taxes are already high enough. She further stated the City should spend time trying to relieve the tax burden on single family home owners. At this time Mayor Hosch presented the Commission and Council with a petition from the residents of Ash Street East encouraged the Council to keep single family zoning. The residents of Ash Street East have been trying to keep their neighborhood in tact, and the rental properties in the area are working against the. Area #2 – Property located south and abutting County Road 75. Proposed zoning change from current R1 Single Family to Highway Business. Marline Eich of 220 Birch Street East: Questioned what happens to the property in the proposed zoning area if the home is destroyed. Weyrens clarified that the property owner would need to receive Planning Commission/City Council approval before reconstruction. Ken Hiemenz of 316 Minnesota Street East: Questioned how the City plans on providing ingress/egress to the properties in question and the purpose for the change. Hosch stated it is his opinion that the best use for property adjacent to County Road 75 is Commercial. Both sides have already seen considerable commercial growth. Rassier concurred with Hosch and stated it makes planning sense to zone property abutting County Road 75 as Commercial, the development is already occuring. Hiemenz stated it was his understanding the City did not want to create a St. Cloud Division Street. By promoting commercial growth along CR 75 it will do just that. Hiemenz encouraged the Council and Commission to review the St. Cloud Area District Plan before making any decisions. Utsch stated that in reviewing the zoning map, the Commission viewed the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Book. The proposed changes include a review of the entire City. Utsch stated it is his opinion that St. Joseph cannot remain a small town and it is better to be proactive in planning than reactive. Highway 75 has the highest traffic flow and it should be developed commercially. Kay Lemke of 33 West Ash Street: Stated that 12 homes are affected by the proposed zoning modification. As property owners wish to sell their homes they may be limited or unable to sell their home because of the inability to rebuild their home if destroyed. She also questioned how long before the City would zone the next block south as Highway 75. Area #3 – Property located north of Clinton Village and south of the Millstream Monastery House. Proposed zoning change from current R1 Single Family to R3 Multiple Family. AND Property located on Old Highway 52 from current R2 to R3. Kevin O’Leary of 612 Birch Street West: Read a prepared statement encouraging the City Council to encourage a strong community base, which comes from strong neighborhoods who are in turn residential home owners who have a vested interest in their home. He further stated it is his opinion that the responsibility of the Council and Commission should be to the common good of the St. Joseph community residents who have a vested interest in their home. Finally, O’Leary stated that the City has more than enough rental units. S. Kara Peters of 104 Chapel Lane: Peters spoke on behalf the Monastery of St. Benedict and stated that she has concerns with the proposed rezoning. The Monastery would like to sustain the Millstream Area and not develop the above mention area with high density. S. Miriam Ardolf of 104 Chapel Lane: Ardolf stated that the Colleges are at a level where growth is not anticipated. Both Colleges have added additional campus housing to help alleviate the saturation in the neighborhoods. Therefore, their may not be a need to plan for a significant amount of R3 Multiple Family housing. Colleen Murphy of 337 Cypress Drive: Murphy read the Minnesota Statute regarding the process for rezoning property and requested the proposed zoning modifications go back to the Planning Commission for review. Sally Pitzen of 304 Old Highway 52: Pitzen cautioned those present both audience and Council/Board Members from assuming all R3 is student housing and encouraged the Council to leave the portion on Old Highway 52 R3. Pitzen stated that she currently lives in the Townhomes on Old Highway 52 and the majority of the building is filed with professionals who work in and near the community. There are not many market rate apartments in St. Joseph and increasing the density along Old Highway 52 will only encourage student housing. Deutz stated that the property on Old Highway 52 is already being used as R3 so the zoning should reflect the use. The recent area Affordable Housing Study completed indicated that St. Joseph needs to provide additional market rate rental units. The proposed zoning modifications provide the perceived need. Graeve concurred with Deutz ad stated that the five area Cities support the results of the Housing Study and there is a need for rental throughout the region. th Tara Tollefson of 129 – 7 Avenue NW: Tollefson clarified that the City cannot discriminate when it comes to housing and do not have control whether or not a unit is student rental. Tim Cooney of 337 Cypress Drive: Cooney questioned the definition of a family and if the City has market rate rental units available where are the people going to work. Larry Brownie of 615 Birch Street West: Brownie stated that he moved to St. Joseph because of the small town atmosphere. He questioned why a City cannot stop growth as many times growth carries a considerable cost. He also stated it is his opinion that the Affordable Housing discussion in not worth it. Steve Frank of 606 Birch Street West: Frank stated that he has been asked to speak on behalf of his neighborhood and the following comments are a reflection of a neighborhood meeting.  While the City meet all legal requirements, Frank indicated that due to the large impact of the decision, residents should have been given a greater time to respond.  MN Statutes require that rezoning decisions be supported by evidence that indicates a rational decision with the burden being on those who want to make the change.  St. Joseph does not have a HRA and redevelopment includes a provision which includes the necessity to have a governmental agency such as the HRA.  The property owners in Clinton Village purchased their property knowing that the vacant field was zoned R1.  Questioned conflict of interest on the Planning Commission.  Questioned the validity of the Housing Study completed by Admark stating that it may be flawed.  The St. Cloud Area Joint Planning Committee indicates that St. Joseph meets the goals of Affordable Housing.  Large multiple family units may cause a tax burden on the residents of St. Joseph.  Recent changes in the State Law may lower the amount of taxes that can be collected from multiple family units.  The main benefactors from bringing apartments into St. Joseph will be the apartment developers, some business such as convenience stores, fast food places and bars. Dan Murphy of St. Cloud: Questioned whether or not the School District was contact as additional housing may create an additional burden on the City. Glen Hommerding of 701 Birch Street West: Questioned why the City needs growth and what benefit there is to the residents of Clinton Village if the property is rezoned to R3. Deutz stated that the City does not have a need for the additional R3 but needs to plan where it should go. As far as taxes, Mark Lambert who owns the Campus Villa Apartments pays the highest taxes in St. Joseph. th th Dave Borgen of 104 – 6 Avenue NW: Questioned how the rental unit on the corner of 6 Avenue NW and Minnesota Street was approved. He routinely has to pick up garbage and beer bottles and does not wish this to be expanded in the neighborhood. Nettie Pfannenstein of 208 East Ash Street: Cautioned the Council in rezoning a neighborhood from single family to multiple family. Ash Street neighbors have been fighting to keep the neighborhood as there are many rentals on Ash Street. Annually they have to worry about parties and garbage. Once the neighborhood is converted to rental it is hard to convert back. St. Joseph has plenty of rental units and they should require the Colleges to provide additional housing. Dave Thomas of 407 Cypress Drive: Requested the City install a swimming pool in the area proposed to be zoned R3. Area #4 – Resurrection Lutheran Church Property, Kennedy Elementary School and St. Joseph Parish Campus. Proposed zoning change from the current Public to Educational and Ecclesiastical. Ken Hiemenz of 316 East Minnesota Street: Questioned why the zoning change is proposed, as the current E & E Ordinance applies to the College/Monastery of St. Benedict. Further, areas being changed would become non conforming uses. Hiemenz also questioned if the Commission is recommending to change all the religious properties to E & E. Carlson responded that the City currently does not have an Ordinance that controls property zoned public. It is his understanding that the Ordinance governing Public includes a provisions for schools. Rassier stated that the Planning Commission concurred that the properties in question would best be governed by the E & E Ordinance. Some type of land controls should be in place. Area #5 – Buettner Industrial Park Lot from current Industrial to Highway Business Ken Hiemenz of 316 East Minnesota Street: Stated it was his opinion the EDA Board improved the property with the understanding that it would be industrial in nature. Hiemenz further stated that Highway Business has a more restrictive land use than Industrial and that may limit development. Area #6 – Property located at 514 East Minnesota Street. Proposed zoning change from current R1 to R2. Nancy McDarby: Questioned why the Council/Commission is requesting to change a property from R1 to R2. While the property surrounding this one parcel is R2 there is no rule that the property must be zoned to match the adjoining properties. Maybe the City should consider rezoning the surrounding properties R1. McDarby stated it is her opinion that the neighborhood has enough rental and Minnesota Street may not be the best place for student rental. Elmer Rakotz: Stated he too agrees that the neighborhood has enough rental and maybe the surrounding property should be rezoned to R1. Rassier made a motion to close the public Their being no one further wishing to provide testimony, hearing at 9:00 PM: seconded by Loso and passed unanimously by those present. Mayor Hosch stated that the Planning Commission and City Council will review the testimony received and make a decision on the proposed changes. At this time it is anticipated that a decision will be made at the August 2, 2001 City Council meeting. The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:15 PM. Judy Weyrens Administrator/Clerk