Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 [07] Jul 22 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission and City Council met in joint session on Tuesday, July 22, 1997 at 7:00 p,m.in the St. Joseph City Hall, I City Council Members Present: Mayor Ken Hiemenz, Councilors Bob Loso, Cory Ehlert, KenTwit, Mary Niedenfuer. Planning Commission Members Present: Chair Hub Klein. Commissioners 5, Kathleen Kalinowski, Marge Lesnick, Linda 5niezek, Dan Nierengarten, Kurt Schneider, City Representatives Present: City Clerk/ Adm Rachel Stapleton, City Engineer Joe Bettendorf, Deputy Oerk Judy Weyrens, EDA Director Chad Carlson, Others Present: Bud Reber, Steve Frank, Mark Mimbach, Arnie Scheeler, Gary Schroeden Capital Improvement - Streets: Hiemenz stated the City needs to review the policy regarding the improvement to alleys, including financial responsibility, City Engineer Joe Bettendorf discussed alley improvement policies of adjoining municipalities, Sauk Rapids requires the property owner to pay 100% of the improvement and the City of 5t. Ooud requires the property owner to pay 66% of the improvement, Ehlert questioned Bettendorf as to the current policy for 5t, Joseph, Bettendorf responded that the City currently requires the property owner to pay 100 % of the improvement and the City must receive a petition with 100% property owners affected by the proposed improvement. Bettendorf stated that the alleys in the business district have been paid for 100% by the property owners, In addition, an alley was improved 1996 where the property owner also paid loo% of the improvement. I Niedenfuer questioned how many homes in St. Joseph have their only access through an alley, and if that would make a difference in a policy adopted by the Council, Niedenfuer reported that we have a situation where a property owner is requesting to have the alley abutting her property improved with the City bearing the costs, 1oso stated that the City cannot afford to improve alleys at the currEh1t cost ratio of 60 percent property owner and 40 percent City, Budget constraints will require the City to review the current policy for any street improvement, Loso questioned Bettendorf as to cost difference between a street improvement and an alley improvement. Bettendorf responded the cost is approximately one half as there is not curb and gutter involved with an alley improvement. Those present discussed a policy whereby the City would improve ,all the alleys in St. Joseph as the nearest intersecting streets are improved. Twit questioned if the Council was establishing a policy before a decision is made to have all alleys tarred, He stated that some residents may not want their alley tarred. An improved alley creates new problems such as increased speed. Additionally, some residents may not feel the cost I Page 3171 July 22, 1997 I of improvement will be a benefit to them as they don't have direct access to their property from the alley. Bettendorf also clarified that improving alleys will not resolve all drainage problems, Niedenfuer again questioned if the Council can make a decision regarding the property owner requesting improvement of her alley, Niedenfuer also stated that it is her opinion that all property owners have the right to have an improved access to their ' home, Hiemenz stated that the City cannot make an exception for a specific property owner. Once the policy is established it must be followed. Twit discussed the financial benefit of property owners abutting an alley as they do not have to pay curb and gutter, Therefore, requiring a higher cost participation for alley improvements is not unreasonable, I After considerable discussion, Loso made a motion to establish the following policy for alley improvement: Alley Improvement without City Project: If property owners abutting an alley request to pave an alley when the alley does not intersect a current street project the property owner will pay 90 percent of the improvement with the City contributing 10 percent. Additionally, the City must receive a valid petition of adjoining property owners with 80% signature support. Alley Improvement with City Project: The City will improve the alleys in St. Joseph as they intersect with street projects. The property owner will be responsible fo~ paying for 80 percent of the cost and the City will contribute 20 percent. I I i The motion was seconded by Twit and passed unanimously. Al Stellmach - Special Use, Mini Storage Units: The Council discussed if the City would determine the color of doors for the proposed mini storage units. After reviewing the I colo~ ~hoices and the role of the City, Loso made a motion to, not get involved in the ~ specifics of the door color.~ The Inotionwas-seconded by TWit and passed unarumously,,- Land Use Moratorium: Klein discussed the land use moratorium recommended by the Planning Commission. He stated that when property has been annexed it carried the same zoning classification as in the Township, The area of concern is property north of Minnesota Street to County Road 75 from 3<d Street NE to 16th Avenue, This property is currently zoned R-3, as it was in the Township, R-3 in St. Joseph Township allows for commercial uses in addition to residential uses. Therefore, this area needs to be re- classified. The second area of concern is North of County Road 75 from College Avenue North west to Millstream Park. When the City originally zoned this property St. Joseph did not have an Industrial Park and it was intended to have Industrial Development along this corridor. However, since that time the City annexed the Industrial Park. I Page 3172 July 22,.1997 I Twit stated that he felt the moratorium was justified but questioned what impact it would have on the EDA Director. Carlson responded that he has had some interes ' in property adjacent to County Road 75 and would work with the developers if the moratorium would be implemented. He has one completed application for development in the moratorium area. I Kalinowski stated that the recommendation was a unanimous vote by the Planning , Commission. She also stated that development applications should not have beèn I received after the recommendation for moratorium as the governmental process had already begun, Hiemenz requested Stapleton to clarify with the City Attorney wht ! the moratorium becomes effective and if the development application received is valid, , Niedenfuer made a motion approving Special Interim Ordinance 1997-1 placing a development moratorium on all real property located in the following areas: a) That area lying north of Minnesota Street East; east of TItird Avenue NE; south of the Burlington Northern right-of-way; and west of Sixteenth AvenueNE ' b) , That area lying north of County Road 75 right-of-way; west of College A venue North; south of the Burlington Northern right-of-way; and east of Millstream Park The motion was seconded by Twit and passed unanimously. I Comprehensive Plan: Kalinowski presented the revised Comprehensive Plan and stated that all the changes requested by the Council have beèn completed, The revisions included changing references of the Planning Commission to the City and]' including the business community throughout the Plan. She also stated that the Planning Commission requested additional input from interested persons byatten 'ing the St. Joseph Chamber meeting and opening two meetings for additional commenJ , Steve Frank expressed the following concerns: 1) discouraged mentioning private groups in the Comprehensive Plan; 2) discussed quality of life concerns and encouraged the Plan to be more than land use planning; 3) questioned the rationale of appoinm,!g Board! Commission members that do not live within the City limits. 4) it is his opWon that the Boards/Commissions are a "good old boys club" and encouraged the City to change this image and not allow residents to serve on multiple boaJ~ds; 5) encourag¥ the City to include youth in the Comprehensive Plan and actively pursue goals pertaining to such. Those present discussed the need to incorporate youth activity goals in the Comprehensive Plan. Hiemenz discussed calls he has beèn receiving regarding par issues and requested the Park Board to work with the residents. Le~ck stated that she too has beèn receiving calls and the main issue is the hockey ring, She stated that u\e Park Board attempts to accommodate all interested persons when they attend meetings. The Park Board will be addressing the hockey rink issue and she is confident the Page 3173 July 22. 1997 I I proposed resolution will meet the needs of the residents of 51. Joseph, Lesnick also requested that future concerns be forwarded to the Park Board, Hiemenz requested the Park Board consider implementing year round activities in addition to facilities, Kalinowski made a motion to adopt the Comprehensive Plan with the following' corrections: · Addition of recreation for people of all ages · Addition of recreation all year round · Addition of reference to the Economic Development Authority · Verification of the term Park and Recreation -vs- Park Board. The motion was seconded by Twit and passed unanimously, Steve Frank stated his objections to the manner in which the Comprehensive Plan was just adopted. He stated this is a public hearing and he had to request to speak and when he did his comments were not given consideration, Schneider stated the Council and Planning Commission did listen to what he had to say and discussed the information before making a decision, I Communication, Planning Commission and City Council: Kalinowski discussed the concern she has when reading the 51. Toseph Newsleader and from its contents senses i friction between the Boards. She stated the Planning Commission and Council are both' working for the betterment of the City and need to work together. The Planning I Commission takes their responsibility seriously and reviews the Ordinances when I making a recommendation to the City Council. If the Council has questions or need I further clarification on a recommendation, the issue should be sent back to the Commission, Further, if the Council is privy to information regarding a specific issue, that information should be presented to the Commission at the time of the hearing. It is her understanding that it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to conduct the Public Hearing and all information should be presented at this time. Additionally, it is the role of the Planning Commission to do the footwork for the City Council, The Council should not receive new information after a hearing is conducted. The Planning Commission tries to be very articulate in all recommendations made to the City Council, FinallY'~l1e stat" ed,.it, is not gooc!. public wlations to look as though I the Council and Commission are fightipg in thePllplic arena. Niedenfuer stated that the Commission has a difficult job and she appreciates all the I work they do, However, she stated she has a difficult time approving something when' the City Attorney advises them not to, Twit stated the Council received a letter from the City Attorney regarding the Variance requests for Leander Zipp and Leon Hoffman, The letter was received the night of the meeting and the Council needed to recess to review the information. Kalinowski stated that it would have been helpful had they referred the matter back to the Planning Commission, or forwarded a copy of the letter from the Attorney to the Planning Commission, ' I I I I I . Page 3174 July 22, 1997 Hiemenz stated the Council cannot always refer the matter back to the Planning Commission because of the 60 day Statutory requirement on Land Use Issues. H also stated his support of the Planning Commission. Lesnick stated the Planning Commission has a great liaison and the Council should refer to him if they have questions, Lesnick also clarified that the Council only receives the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings and does not have knowledge of all the detail of re discussion. She encouraged the Councilors to attend the Planning. Commission meetings to gain a better understanding. ! I Open Meeting Law: Hiemenz reminded those present of the open meeting law ar¡d the necessity to disperse immediately after meetings. A video tape on this law is available for any Board or Commission wishing to view such. ' I Adiourn: Twit made a motion to adjourn at 10:00 p,m,; seconded by Loso. The motion passed unanimously, (;/ c:Át' y Weyrens . D puty Oerk I Page 3175 July 22, 1997 I