Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 [10] Oct 07October 7, 2010 Page 1 of 7 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City Council for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Thursday, October 7, 2010 at 7:OOPM in the St. Joseph City Hall, opening the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members Present: Mayor Al Rassier, Councilors Dale Wick, Renee Symanietz, Steve Frank, Bob Loso and City Administrator Judy Weyrens City Representatives Present: City Engineer Randy Sabart, City Attorney Tom Jovanovich, Finance Director Lori Bartlett, Public Works Director Terry Thene, Police Chief Pete Jansky Others Present: Tom Klein, Mary Nimmerfroh, Randy & Deb Bunnell, Margeurite Fogarty, David Ace, Ellen Wahlstrom, Rebecca & Phil Mulvaney, S. Thomasette, Mary Niedenfuer, Paul Krey, Carol Jenkins, S. Kara Hennes, Roger Neils, Brandi Popenhagen, Scott Mareck, Diane Weick Public Comments: No one present wished to speak. Approval of the Agenda: Wick made a motion to approve the agenda with the following additions /deletions: Delete 4(a) Minutes Add Closed meeting following the regular meeting to discuss Labor Negotiations The motion was seconded by Loso and passed unanimously. Consent Agenda: Loso made a motion to approve the consent agenda as follows: a. Removed b. Bills Payable - Approve check numbers 043296 -043362 and EFT numbers 000456- 000460. c. Ordinance Amendments — Authorize the Mayor and Administrator to execute Resolutions 2010 -023 through 2010 -031 authorizing summary publications of the Ordinance Amendments. d. Application for Payment — Approve Pay Application #1 for the 201016"' Avenue SE Improvements and authorize payment to JR Ferche in the amount of $106,542.01. The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. Back Yard Chickens, Public Input: Rassier stated that in response to the request of a resident to amend the R1 Zoning District to allow backyard chickens, and the support of the Planning Commission, the Council agreed to accept public testimony on the matter before expending funds on drafting an Ordinance amendment. Therefore, at this time the public is invited to provided testimony on drafting an amendmet to allow backyard chickens in a R1 Zoning District. Weyrens presented the Council with written testimony she received via email. The email requested the Council provide for backyard chickens as part of being a sustainable community. Frank stated that when looking at Ordinances for other cities, this type of Ordinance is commonly referred to as a Poultry Ordinance rather than a Chicken Ordinance. He will address this if the Council chooses to move forward with this. Deb Bunnell, 601 Hill street W, approached the Council in opposition to the proposed idea of allowing chickens in backyards. She stated that she bought her home near the City, knowing that it would be annexed. She added that if she wanted to live near a farm, she would have bought farmland. She feels that chickens are a lot of work. If the City does allow chickens in the City, she believes that there will be no control. She urged the Council to keep in mind that they must decide that this is the best decision for all residents in the City. Bunnell stated that she is most concerned about the enforcement and how complaints will be handled. October 7, 2010 Page 2 of 7 Mary Nimmerfroh, 1307 Dale Street also approached the Council in opposition to chickens being allowed within the City. She stated that she moved into town, not into an agricultural or farm area. She suggested that, if chickens are allowed, they should only be allowed in agricultural areas. She stressed that this is town, not farmland. Mary Niedenfuer, 205 5th Avenue NW, approached the Council in support of allowing chickens within the City. She stated that she is absolutely in favor of chickens. According to Niedenfuer, there are communities all over America that allow them. In New York, for example, they are considered pets. She asked the Council to lose the emotion of whether or not to allow chickens. Allowing a few chickens is not going to turn St. Joseph into an agricultural community. She stated that a dog owner does not need to get permission from the neighbor prior to getting a dog. There is an ordinance in place to deal with a dog that is barking excessively. In her opinion, Chickens are quiet, clean and have a pleasant clucking sound as well as provide nutritious food. She also added that the coops must be limited; however, dog owners do not have regulations on dog coops. She thought that St. Joseph was to be a more progressive town. Randy Bunnell, 601 Hill Street W, stated that several of his neighbors have small animals. He expressed his concern about chickens attracting predators to the neighborhood. He does not believe there is a reason to allow livestock in the City. Paul Krey, 612 Hill Street W, approached the Councilors and stated that he was the person who asked the City to consider this request. He stated that, prior to purchasing his chickens, he asked his neighbor for approval and they were fine with it. He appreciates the positive commentary. Krey added that he grew up in this town and St. Joseph has always been an agricultural town. Previously, he lived in the township and was annexed by the City. He doesn't feel that it is a big deal to have a few chickens in his backyard; nobody has to have permission to have a dog in the City. He stated that he hopes the Council makes their decision based on factors and facts, not emotions. He thanked them for their time and consideration Diane Weick, 606 Graceview Loop, approached the Council and asked them to consider the size of the properties in St. Joseph. As someone who lives in an association with a smaller lot, she sees that this could become an issue. Symanietz made a motion to close the Public Input at 7:16PM; seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. Symanietz stated that several people have commented to her that they would prefer not to have chickens in the City. One item of concern was that of predators. Loso stated that he also spoke with residents about the request for backyard chickens. He spoke to approximately 30 people and, of those 30 people; one said that the City should allow them. If chickens are allowed, Symanietz questioned where we draw the line. According to Loso, this is the first request that he is aware of over the past 40 years. Rassier stated that, within the City limits, the zoning ordinances state what are permitted uses. The only way to allow chickens would be to rezone that area from R1 to Agricultural. He stated that chickens do not fit in the residential areas. Loso suggested that this type of request be considered through the use of the variance process. Jovanovich advised Loso that this would be something that could be considered through a conditional use permit process with conditions being placed on the property. Frank commented that he sees some logical fallacies, if we do this, it will lead to this, etc. He stated that that same argument could be made for anything. He stated that people in Waite Park have had issues with predators, not because they have chickens in their backyards. This type of request is being dealt with all over Minnesota and the League has been trying to come up with some background and policies for such. People are looking to raise chickens for both economic reasons as well as health reasons. He would like to see this request dealt with on a level playing field. He stated that Ordinances are changed all the time and, although people may not be enthusiastic, he stated that they could deal with it if there were conditions attached to it. According to Rassier, zoning is what it is and, if this is approved, it should be permitted using a conditional use permit rather than creating a separate ordinance for chickens. October 7, 2010 Page 3 of 7 Frank made a motion to table this until the League comes up with suggested policies for poultry within cities. The motion failed due to lack of second. Symanietz made a motion to deny the request to allow backyard chickens within the City limits. The motion was seconded by Loso. Discussion: Wick stated that he can see this working in some portions of the City. Other cities have their ordinances so locked down that it makes it impossible to have chickens. He added that just because a City has an ordinance, it does not mean that it is working. Ayes: Rassler, Symanietz, Loso Nays: Wick, Frank The motion passed 3:2 Field Street — Update on Status: Brandi Popenhagen approached the Council on behalf of WSB & Associates. She stated that she had been working on the Field Street project since the beginning. Popenhagen reviewed the scope of the project, what has been, where it is now and where it is going. The purpose of the study was to identify a corridor in the southern portion of the City to handle future growth. The majority of the property involved in the corridor is undeveloped land and located in St. Joseph Township. The proposed route will connect back up with Minnesota Street on the north and 20"' Avenue on the east side. The corridor will serve as an east and west transportation link. Part of the sutyd process included a review of potential cultural and historical impacts. The review originally identified three areas that would be eligible for historical preservation. The properties include: St. Isadore Farm, Rassier Farm and Monastery of St. Benedict. The proposed corridors needed to be aligned to protect the integrity of the historical properties. Avoidance became the criteria to move the project forward. After considerable study, a proposed alternative was eventually selected and forwarded to MN Cultural Resource as a preferred alternative. Environmental assessments were completed and mitigations methods were identified. The next step was approval by MN Cultural Resource, who requested the City enter into a programmatic agreement which is negotiated with the consulting parties. The purpose of the programmatic agreement is to protect the historical properties from development pressures. During this same time Cultural Resources dropped the Rassier Farm as potentially eligible. The stipulations of the agreement included: : • City to complete the National Historic Register Nomination Forms within five years of signing the agreement for St. Benedict's Monastery and St. Isadore's Farm. • City to complete a Management Plan for Monastery Woods Traditional Cultural Property within five years of signing the agreement. Based on the stipulations of the agreement, there were some concerns: • City would incur the costs of carrying out the stipulation agreement. • The timing for carrying out the agreement may not be feasible. • Searching for funding grant opportunities to offset the cost for carrying out the stipulations. One opportunity may be the FHWA/FTA Planning Grant administered by the APO. After speaking with the FHWA, they are pushing for a signed agreement putting closure to the study process. The FHWA Section 4(f) law requires the .Department of Interior's approval if the Programmatic Agreement is in place and by doing so, a letter of diminimous impact. The City cannot request that letter until the programmatic agreement is finished. If the project is not completed, the City would be prohibited form using federal or state money to construct the road in the future. Frank questioned how much the local government has spent so far. Sabart replied that $171,669.94 has been spent for Field Street and $120,278.34 for the North Corridor. Rassier advised Frank that the City has received funding from both the APO and the State to complete those studies. Weyrens added that there were federal funds used as well. Scott Mareck approached the Council on behalf of the St. Cloud APO. He stated that, several years ago, when the City approached the APO to request Federal Funding, this project was on the APO's financially October 7, 2010 Page 4 of 7 constrained transportation plan and was eligible to be submitted for APO dollars. Since then, the 2035 Transportation Plan has been adopted and funds were no longer allocated for Field Street, rather they were allocated to the North Corridor Study. He added that, at this point, this project may not be eligible for federal construction dollars either. He did state that this is still a valid initiative and urged the Council to continue through the process and complete the environmental assessment and pick a preferred alignment to be preserved to the best of the City's ability. Although the APO cannot guarantee funding for this project, the APO has solicited for $200,000 in planning funds which may possibly be used for the programmatic agreement. He stressed that he cannot tell for sure whether or not this will be eligible, but suggested that City staff submit the project. If it is approved by the FHWA, the APO TAC,and APO Full Board would then need to consider that along with the other requests. He stated that another option is, next fall, there will be solicitation for normal federal formula dollars, roughly $4million. These funds are generally used for highway and bridge projects and, at times, bike trails and busing. Mareck stated that the agreement may also be a possible use of those funds as well. Loso clarified that Mareck was suggesting that the City continue with the study process and not stop the project. Mareck replied that he would encourage the City to continue the process to see if a programmatic agreement can be agreed upon and executed. Consultants and staff have spent considerable resources on the project and it would be unfortunate to stop the project. He stated that, in the end, this is a policy issue rather than a technical issue and questioned whether the Council and Community feel that this is an important project. The proposed alternative is a fair compromise and, from a transportation perspective, it is the most ideal as it considers the social, economical and transportation issues. Frank suggested that the City explore the option of pulling the plug. He questioned whether or not the Sisters are happy with the preferred route and the design standards. Popenhagen responded that the Management Plan will set forth the design plans but the study had identified the road section as a two lane road. The preferred route will be below the St. Isadore Farm, turning towards 1 -94 south of St. Benedict and follow 1 -94 near Lake Sarah and turn north towards Minnesota Street. Frank questioned the cost of this project over the next couple of years if the corridor is not built until 2035/2040. Popenhagen advised the Council that if something is done with this project every 2/3 years, the documents will remain current. If the process stalls, there would not be any costs until the City is ready to proceed again. Mareck added that, typically, the entire process would not need to be re -done; rather some of the assumptions and modeling would need to be updated. Frank questioned the costs and questioned whether or not staff time has been figured into the proposed costs to which Sabart stated that there are some additional staff time and auxiliary costs that would need to be figured in. Popenhagen stated that any additional work would be mostly completed by the Historian; however, there are funds available for any additional work provided by WSB. Loso questioned the idea of going through the process of the programmatic agreement and finishing the project. Popenhagen stated that unless there are big changes, nothing would need to be redone. There was some discussion about the timeframe to complete the items required in the agreement to which the Council was advised that they would have five years from when the agreement is signed. Wick questioned the grant application and whether or not we can apply and accept it once it has been approved. Sabart advised the Council that they will most likely ask the City to commit to funds up front. The application period ends on October 31. Staff will need to zero in on those costs and get an application into the APO for approval of an 80/20 split. Wick questioned what items would be covered in the Management Plan that were not covered in the Section 4(f) process under federal laws. Popenhagen stated that, if there is an agreement in place, the FHWA would provide a letter of diminimous impact. Popenhagen reminded the Council that they must be able to carry out the stipulations within a 5 -year timeframe. Wick clarified that the agreement that was presented was not the most current to which Popenhagen replied that it was not; however, she tried to present all of the points addressed in the new contract. Weyrens questioned the Council as to whether or not they want to move forward to get prices, seek funds from the APO and sign the Programmatic Agreement, knowing that the City will have to either pay or shelf the documents. Wick suggested that staff come back with costs and possible ways to pay for this. October 7, 2010 Page 5 of 7 Weyrens stated that she had tried to get a copy of the final agreement with changes. Frank questioned whether or not staff has talked to the Monastery and whether or not they are okay with the proposed route. S. Kara approached the Council and stated that they all agree that this route would cause the least amount of disruption and thus all parties have agreed to that alternative. Wick questioned what happens if a property owner chooses not to put the property on the Historical Registrar. Weyrens replied that the City is required to prepare the documents and deliver it to the property owner and it is then their responsibility to record the document. The Council came to consensus that staff will solicit quotes to complete the paperwork for registering the historical eligible property on the federal register and land management plan, bringing the information back to the Council at the next meeting. Graceview Estates Homeowners Association: Weyrens stated that the City received a letter from the Graceview Estates Homeowners Association (GEHA) requesting the City review the private improvements in the development and consider accepting them as public. In addition, they are requesting the Council reallocate the 2006 Improvement to the individual lots, rather than the common lot. Weyrens presented the Council with a map of the area owned by the GEHA and highlighted the areas that will be discussed. She stated that staff broke this item into two sections, assessments and infrastructure. Jovanovich stated that letter received by GEHA questioned the legality of assessing the 2006 Cloverdale Improvements to the Common lot rather than breaking the assessment into individual assessments per parcel in the GEHA. Jovanovich stated that if they were going to oppose the assessment, it should have been done at the time of the final assessment hearing. The City followed MN Statute 429 in assessing the property and affording input to the public. The City has the ability to assess the common lot as was done; however, in speaking to other City Attorneys they have changed the practice to assessing each parcel instead of the common lot. It comes down to a matter of policy if the Council would like to reassess the units individually. He stated that common areas are included in the unit value based on a prorated share of interest in the community and that is how taxes are calculated. He also stated that if foreclosure takes place, it will impact something that has little or no value. Wick suggested that, from now going forward, the City assess the individual units, but given the timeframe, the City should not go back and reassess. He stated that parcels have changed hands since the original assessment and new home owners could be negatively impacted. Jovanovich stated that there is a legal method to reassessing each unit and each parcel would need to agree to the assessment. Rassier stated that if all owners sign, but there are some that are in the foreclosure process, the City would be out that money. Jovanovich replied that the bank is still responsible for that assessment. If the assessments are not paid, the County Auditor could start the forfeiture process and the City may end up with the land to recoup the assessments. Loso questioned whether or not the association is trying to dissolve. Symanietz questioned what happens to the lots that are empty and have never been sold. Roger Neils approached the Council as the attorney representing the GEHA along with Diane Weick, the president of the association. They stated that they would like to work to meet the residents' needs as well as those of the City. They started out by giving some background. Their stated that Graceview Estates was platted in three phases. One piece being the area to the west of 4 Avenue SE. Outlots B, C and D are not part of the association, nor are the single family homes. The association consists of lots 10 -88. They feel that when the developer proposed this plan in 2002, they didn't think about how things like this would get paid. The assessments in question were for an improvement to a road along the perimeter of the common area. Weick stated that the association doesn't have the authority to collect assessments. Of the 77 units, only 54 are occupied and paying dues. Wick questioned who pays the taxes on the vacant lots to which Neils replied that many are in default. Weyrens replied that each unit gets its own individual tax statement. Weick reported that none of the occupied units are in default, at this time. She stated that by assessing the common element, the City is requiring the association is required to act as the collection agent; which she feels is in appropriate. October 7, 2010 Page 6 of 7 Weick further stated that the properties within the association are paying approximately $105,000 in property taxes and she questioned where the City services are. Given the housing market decline over the past few years, the problem has been exacerbated and she stated that the association cannot sustain the infrastructure and keep itself viable. Rassier stated that, with respect to the street improvements, the association was assessed based on the abutting footage and thus the association was charged since the common area abuts 7th Avenue SE. At that time, the association was aware that they would be assessed for the assessments. Neils stated that he was not going to debate legal opinions, but stated that it is a better practice to assess the individual units. He stated that special assessments should be considered the same as taxes. It would be in both the City's and the Association's best interest to re- allocate the special assessments. Jovanovich advised the Council that if they choose to do so, all property owners would have to sign a waiver prohibiting future action on the assessment. Weick stated that it would be in the association's best interest to pay off the assessment rather than continue to pay interest. There was some concern about whether or not all of the homeowners would agree to pay their portion. Neils stated that they believe they can get 100% to commit. With respect to the 20 lots that are undeveloped, Jovanovich questioned who owns them. Neils responded that Lakeland Finance owns those lots to which Jovanovich stated that they are in receivership at this time. Frank questioned where all of this is going to lead as they are now questioning the assessments as well as the maintaining of roads and ponds. Weick stated that they are paying real estate taxes to the community, but they are responsible for their own infrastructure on the site and it does not seem clear. Frank questioned whether it is a waste of time to discuss these issues to which Jovanovich replied that it is not a waste of time, rather an example of what happens what developers are latitude with Ordinance provisions. It was stated that the infrastructure, including sanitary sewer and watermain, was constructed as private improvements, built to City construction standards. The Developers Agreement does not indicate the improvements are public so the City does not have liability or maintenance responsibility for the private improvements. Currently, the streets within the association are not maintained by City staff. Weick stated that the GEHA is requesting that those be considered public improvements and be maintained by staff. The Council discussed some of the risks associated with acceptance and it was stated that the improvements were accepted as private at the request of the developer. Neils stated that he is not representing the developer, rather the GEHA and there is a problem and that needs to be addressed. Weick advised the Council that these lots are being sold with the understanding that they have City services available to them. Wick stated that they do receive City services such as police, fire, etc. Rassier questioned Neils and Weick as to what they are looking for. They stated that in their opinion nothing in the developer agreement refers to streets and utilities as private. They are asking the City to take full authority for streets maintenance, pond maintenance, water and sewer maintenance, as well as split the assessments between the 77 property owners. Rassier questioned what would happen to the common area to which Neils responded that the association would stay in existence to maintain the common area. Wick stated that Liberty Pointe has the same issues. After considerable discussion, Frank suggested that a time- definite working group be formed to review these issues. Weick stated that they would like to find a workable solution and they prefer to work on this together with the City. Frank made a motion to appoint an adhoc committee consisting of Rassier, Symanietz, Neils, Jovanovich and Weick along with relevant City staff to discuss the issues and bring back suggestions no later than November 15. The motion was seconded by Wick and passed unanimously. Parking Ordinance: Due to the length of the meeting the Council agreed to discuss the proposed Parking Ordinance Amendment at the next regular Council meeting. October 7, 2010 Page 7 of 7 POLICE CHIEF REPORTS — No Report CITY ENGINEER/PUBLC WORKS DIRECTOR REPORTS Hydrant Flushing: Thene reported that staff has been doing some hydrant flushing this week. He advised residents to flush their systems by bypassing the water softener and opening up all of their cold water faucets for a couple of minutes. If there are any issues, residents should call City Hall. Power Outage: Thene reported that Xcel is planning a power outage between 3-6AM. Properties affected are those north of Baker Street, east of 7th Avenue and west of 4th Avenue. Affected property owners have been notified by Xcel. 16th Avenue SE Improvements: Sabart advised the Council that another newsletter will go out for this project. The contractor is currently working to rebuild the street south of Baker Street. He added that he has received the survey information from the abutting developer relating to some previous drainage issues. APO TAC: Sabart reported that he attended the APO TAC meeting. It was suggested that some funding be shifted to the North Corridor for ROW acquisition. between County Road 133 and Westwood Parkway. This shift will required the City to commit to purchasing the ROW for the corridor. ADMNISTRATOR REPORTS City/Township Orderly Annexation Agreement: Weyrens advised the Council that the Township will be acting on the revised land development polices before they are forwarded to the City Council for approval. Assessment Policy — Weyrens stated that this will be on the agenda for the next meeting. MAYOR REPORTS — No Report COUNCIL REPORTS SYMANIETZ Human Rights Joint Powers Board: Symanietz reported that the Joint Powers Board met and chose the committee members. The new director, Richard Cousins, was there and the new office is up and running Cara Ruff was appointed to represent St. Joseph. Wick questioned whether or not the Council will have the option to vote on the appointments to which Rassier replied that the appointments will come back to both cities for approval.. WICK — No Report LOSO — No Report FRANK — No Report Closed Meeting, Labor Strategy: Wick made a motion to close the City Council meeting pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13D.03 subd. 1(d), 2 to discuss labor negotiation strategy. The motion was seconded by Frank and passed unanimously. Adiourn: Mayor Rassier opened the closed meeting at 10:23 at which time Loso made a motion to adjourn; secon d by Symanietz and passed unanimously. d Wens d inistrator