Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 [04] Apr 11April 11, 2011 Page 1 of 4 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City for the City of St. Joseph met in joint session on Monday, April 11, 2011 at 6:30 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. City Council Members Present: Mayor Rick Schultz. Councilors Dale Wick, Renee Symanietz, Steve Frank, Bob Loso. Planning Commission Members Present: S. Kathleen Kalinowski, Ross Rieke. Park Board Present: John Anderson, Chad Hausman, Peggy Fogarty EDA Members oresen t: Chad Davey Others Present: Mike McDonald Mayor Schultz stated that purpose of the meeting is to meet as a group of policy makers to have discussion on the growth of St. Joseph and how the footprint of the City might look in the future. Some of the discussion items for this meeting include: Amendment to Transportation Corridor Overlay and Fence Ordinance, update on the proposed re- alignment of County Road 2 and communication between and amongst decision makers. Ordinance Amendment — Transportation Corridor Overlay District: Schultz stated that over the past six to eight months the Planning Commission has been discussing the provisions in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District and whether the Ordinance is effective. The Planning Commission recently recommended tabling indefinitely the proposed amendment. Since the Ordinance is currently codified the provision as published must be enforced. Therefore, if there are provisions that need to be changed it should be completed so as not to hinder redevelopment. Frank requested Weyrens provide a brief summary of the history of the Ordinance. Weyrens stated that the Ordinance was developed in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Update. Concern was expressed that as the City developed major corridors such as County Road 75 will become similar to that of Division Street in St. Cloud. That is, the corridor will have considerable impervious surface, signs and buildings, with little green space. Therefore, the purpose of the Ordinance is to provide additional aesthetic requirements including building material and green space. Some businesses along County Road 75 have invested considerable resources in their building project based on the Ordinance requirements, so it becomes difficult if the Ordinance is now abandoned. Weyrens further stated that some of the difficulty with the Ordinance is how to regulate the residentially developed property on the south side of CR 75 between 2nd Avenue NE and 2nd Avenue NW. One of the proposed amendments the Planning Commission considered included excluding that property from the requirements of the Overlay District unless the existing building on the property is razed. However, it has recently been determined that a single lot development in the existing area between 2nd Avenue NE and 2nd Avenue NW could still not meet the requirements. Therefore some additional amendment language will still need to be added. Chad Hausman stated the City of Sauk Rapids has a similar Ordinance and it has worked well in their downtown. He did concur that application of the Overlay requirement is problematic in a developed area. Schultz stated that he wants St. Joseph to be as business friendly as possible and has concerns if the current Overlay Ordinance has the opposite impact, that is, a hindrance to development. Rieke stated that the City has experienced some redevelopment along CR 75 where homes have been converted to commercial use and those projects have been a great addition to the City. However, if the homes would have been razed, a new structure could not have been constructed to meet the intent of the Ordinance. The lots in the area referenced are long and narrow making single lot development difficult. April 11, 2011 Page 2 of 4 Rieke would rather allow for a special use permit to allow for consideration if the lot does not fit. Granting of a special use permit requires findings of fact giving the Planning Commission and City Council discretion to allow the development under specific conditions. Rieke concurs that buildings have been constructed meeting the requirements and he does not want to minimize the investment they made in the community. Wick concurred and stated that the Ordinance is important, but just needs some modifications. Schultz questioned if the proposed County Road 2 re- alignment will also be required to adhere to the Overlay Ordinance to which Weyrens stated that the Ordinance does apply to all major corridors. Schultz further questioned those present if that is what the City intended. Rieke responded that it is his understanding that the purpose of the Ordinance was for open space development along all major corridors and the visual impact would be important. It was agreed that the matter would be sent back to the Planning Commission with suggested language allowing for a special use permit process for redevelopment areas. County Road 2 — Schultz stated that he also wanted to have some discussion on the proposed County Road 2 realignment. Stearns County is in the process of land acquisition for the right -of -way and they have a number of properties that have yet to settle. The County Engineer intends to bring the matter back to the County Board of Commissioners for an update. If the County goes through the eminent domain process they could be complete by August at which time the project would be bid. It is anticipated that some prep work could be completed over the winter months with construction starting in the spring of 2012. Schultz stated that the County is not planning to construct a trail other than extended shoulders. If the City wants a separated trail it would be our responsibility to secure any additional right -of -way along with designing the project. Those present received a preliminary layout of the proposed trail as it would connect Minnesota Street to County Road 2 and then cross County Road 75 continuing along County Road 3 until it reaches the Wobegon Trail. Symanietz stated that she supports the construction of the trail as it will create a pedestrian loop around the City and will serve as an amenity for not only the residents, but development as well. Downtown businesses should also see some impact with the increased activity. Hausman questioned if the trail were constructed with the County Road 2 project, would it be a City or County Project. Weyrens stated that the City would be responsible for the design and construction costs and management, but the project will be bid with the County Road 2 improvement. The City Engineer prepared a preliminary estimate for the construction with a projected cost near 1,000,000. Wick clarified that $ 200,000 is for box culverts and that amount could be less depending on the County portion of the project. Weyrens stated that the project does not include any trail on the west side of County Road 2 but the illustration highlights the extension for the future. Hausman stated that if the City has a desire to construct the trail it will be most economical to do so in conjunction with the County Road 2 project. If the City cannot afford to complete the trail with bituminous, at a minimum the bench for the trail should be developed, and paving can occur later. Schultz stated as the Park Board moves forward with planning they should consider if the City should pursue the construction of the trail and if so, to what degree. When questioned how the trial would be funded Weyrens responded that the Sales Tax revenue could be used for the trail as it is a regional trail. Loso questioned if the sales tax revenue could be a revenue stream for a bond issue to which Weyrens stated it could. Schultz questioned Anderson as to the availability of Legacy funding. Anderson stated that the Legacy funding program is in transition working on new distribution formulas, but the trail would qualify as a project if funds are available. April 11, 2011 Page 3 of 4 Loso stated that based on information from the City Engineer, the City has about a two month window to determine the trail should be constructed in conjunction with the realignment. Hausman stated that if the City decides not to do any portion of the trail at this time, the future cost will be double as we will not have a crew that is already mobilized in the area. Weyrens clarified that the cost estimate does include some lighting, particularly along Minnesota Street. Hausman suggested that the City consider the following options: • Expand the shoulder width on Minnesota Street to allow for pedestrian movement rather than constructing a separated trail. • Determine the cost for grading and building the bench for the trail only Frank stated that for him the decision comes down to funding. He supports the trail and would like to the construction but has concerns with the fiscal constraints of the City. He further stated that if the City moves forward with the construction he would like to see the trail maintained over the winter months. Symanietz stated that she sees the trail extension as part of the revitalization of the downtown area as it will be more people to the businesses. She also stated that she would like to see mile markers placed n the trail if it is constructed. Loso stated to him the negative of the trail is the funding. If the City uses all the available Sales Tax Revenue for the trail, funds may not be available for the development of the Sauk River Park near Arcon. He further stated that the City will have transportation and building obligations in the near future and part of the sale tax revenue was intended to cover those costs as well. Schultz stated that when reviewing the master park plan, 15 million worth of improvements are identified without funding sources. In addition to that the City has to consider how a community center fits into the sales tax funding. The EDA and City Council authorized the formation of a rental housing study group to review the impacts of the residency requirement of CSB /SJU. The study may have an impact on the footprint for downtown. The City Council needs to have a discussion on future facilities for the City to include a community center. Communication — Schuutz stated that he would like to increase communications and information sharing between and amongst groups. The City Council recently discussed the importance of the EDA presenting a quarterly report to the Council along with a brief monthly report. Schultz stated that the Council does not receive a lot of information from the Park Board and it would be helpful if minimally the minutes could be forwarded. Loso stated that the Liaison for each subsidiary body is responsible for reporting to the City Council. Frank stated that another topic for discussion is what should be included in the minutes. Some people look for a diary of what happened while others are only concerned with recording final actions. The City does a combination for City Council minutes. Anderson stated that he recently prepared the minutes for the Park Board and every person has a different style. Maybe the City wants to establish a policy of what is expected in the minutes. Loso reminded those present that the minutes reflect what the person taking the minutes observes so it is difficult to have consistent minutes when different people prepare the minutes. Rieke questioned whether or not the League of Minnesota Cities has a standard format that can be used for a guide to minute taking. Schultz stated that the purpose is not to direct the minutes, just to make sure that all Boards and subsidiary bodies prepare minutes and they are available to the public. Kalinowski stated that the purpose of the minutes is to keep a historical account of formal actions and that is how the minutes should be reviewed. Schultz stated that the improvement to communication includes updating the City website. He stated that it is his opinion that the City website does not reflect well on the City. More and more people use the website as a first impression of the City and he would like to see the entire site redesigned. He also stated that he believes the City website is difficult to use or find information and needs to be more user April 11, 2011 Page 4 of 4 friendly. In addition the search engine is clunky. In a discussion with representatives of CSB, they have offered to provide assistance in the redesign. Fence Ordinance. Schultz stated the last discussion item is the proposed amendment to the Fence Ordinance. Recently the Council requested the Planning Commission consider an amendment to the fence Ordinance requiring maintenance free fencing that is located on the property line only be allowed if the adjoining property owner agrees with a written statement. This process is required for non maintenance free signs already. The Planning Commission rejected the proposal and recommended the Council keep the Ordinance as written. At the last Council meeting the Council requested the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment reconsidering the matter. Wick stated that a maintenance free fence on the property line still required maintenance around the post and if it is on the line the neighbor must maintain the fence. Ad'ourn: The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:15 PM. Jud eyr s Ad in' trator