to go ahead and razle the crowd in and go ahead and call to order the St. Joseph uh Planning Commission of January 12th, 2026. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. All right. Item number three, agenda review and adoption. I would entertain a motion.
I got a motion and a second by both of them. Uh, any discussion? Awesome. All those in favor? I >> I. >> Anybody opposed? Great. Passes. Number four, election of chair and vice chair for 2026.
>> Okay. Just wait. Anything you would like to say? >> No. This one's all on you. >> Okay. >> Chair. >> Okay. Second. >> I got a motion in a second to keep me as chair. Any discussion? I would be open if anybody else wants to take it.
>> I just got here, right? Um, all right. All those in favor? I >> I >> I. Anybody opposed? Okay. Usually we should have voted Mark in. All right. Well, then I'm going to go ahead and also vote in um Isabelle here for vice chair again for 2026. >> Second.
>> And we got a second. Any discussion? >> You good with that? >> That's fine. >> Anybody else want to take it? All right. All those in favor? I >> I. >> Anybody opposed? All right. Now, on to number five. >> Yeah. So, we have a new planning commission member this evening. Um, so
Cody, I can hand it off over to Cody if Cody wants to say anything. Otherwise, um, he will be joining us. >> Off. So, yeah, if you want to just give us a little bit. >> Um, my name's Cody. I lived in St. Joe my whole life. I have a family out here and I'm happy to be part of the community.
>> Awesome. Well, welcome. We're excited to have you and thank you so much for serving. >> All right. Any questions for him? We got anything? >> No, they're good. All right. Right, we're going to move on to number six. Out there, we have public comments. This is anybody willing to speak um about um
anything except on the agenda. Feel free to come up to the stand, say your name, where you live, if you have anything to say not on the agenda for tonight. Going once, going twice. All right, I'm going to go ahead and close public
comments. All right, and then we're going to look for number seven, uh approval of the minutes of December 8th, 2025. I got a motion. >> Second >> and a second. All those in favor? I. >> Anybody opposed? Here we are. Number
eight all the way down. Took us four minutes. Pretty good. Uh new business a joint planning board member appointments. >> This is another one where I'm looking over to you. So joint planning board meets as needed. Remember they meet on
the second Tuesday of the month at 700 p.m. as needed. Typically that means one or two meetings a year. So we just need two volunteers from the PC to serve on that. We also have two council liaison.
So four total city reps and then the township also has four reps. So just two people. >> Are you already on that or no? So you're already on that. So you need two others besides Andrew. >> And I will say I did speak with Mark before. He is not going to object if
anyone volunteers him >> because it was me and him on it. I know last year and I was vice chair. I've been on it for three years. So I'm okay stepping away if Isabelle you would like to join. Okay. Well then I would make a motion for Isabelle and Mark to be on the joint planning board. >> I'll second that.
>> Second. Any discussion? It's really fun. >> Sure. >> Awesome. All those in favor? >> I. Anybody opposed? Welcome to the joint planning board. All right. Now, Nate, we're going to get to you. Uh, let's see. 8B, future land use amendment.
>> All right. Thank you, chair. So, for consideration this evening is a project submitted by the monastery. This project entails three separate actions this evening. First one being
the future land use amendment, second reszone, and the third is the preliminary plat. Little bit of background. Um, the Sisters of St. Benz are proposing to build a new monastery. This monastery is going to be a all-in-one campus. Um, that will include a chapel and living
quarters. The proposed location of the monastery would be over existing lot lines. Thus, why we are here this evening for these three different actions. The goal really is to just consolidate multiple outlots into one
contiguous lot. Right now there's five or six out lots. So um the proposal is to consolidate all of those to allow the facilitation of the new building. Here's a couple overview maps. The one
that uh shows all the outlots, those are what I am referencing when I say what's going to be um consolidated. So all those outlots will be consolidated into one larger lot. You can see the graphic um that's outlined in blue. Um it's
about 253 total acres once all those are combined. And you can uh see up in the Let's see if I can get my laser pointer to work here. Um this is the proposed location of the
new monastery building right here. Future land use amendment. um included a table in your packets and um cut and paste that over here as well. So this is the current descriptions. So we have various outlots outlot D, E, F,
G, and H which you can see in this map over here. Um those are right now guided in our comprehensive plan for different uses like community oriented mixed use um public uses. Those would change to
just the educational um district consolid. Yep. >> Could you give us a little bit of overview of what community oriented mixed use means? >> Yeah. So, it's essentially a mixeduse district within our comprehensive plan.
>> We do not have a zoning designation within our traditional zoning ordinance that follows community oriented mixeduse, but it's a mix of residential and commercial. >> Okay. Um, so some of those outlots are guided for that use within our
comprehensive plan. We would transition those into one guidance to facilitate the um construction of the new monastery. So again, taking all what's outlined in yellow here, consolidating that into one, and with that
consolidation, cleaning up those different zoning designations within our comprehensive plan and our reszone, which I'll get to here, the reszoning. So again, this is the current zoning on how those properties
are zoned as it is today. Um, you can see here too the different outlots. Um, outlot D, uh, which is right up here Minnesota Street. That's currently zoned R1, single family. Then we have outlot E right here, which is zoned B3, general
business. And then also outlot F, which is zoned that way. Outlot G is zoned how we're proposing to um, reszone. So there's no change in how outlot G is. Outlot G is the larger one right here.
And then lot H, which is the furthest lot to the south, which is adjacent to I94, is currently rural residential. Those would all fall under our educational and ecological district. Um, that's again to um make the zoning all
consistent and one as part of that lot consolidation. This is the preliminary plat showing all those lots as one here. Some staff comments which the applicants have addressed um is at the time of
final plat. So um pending tonight's action and then action at the city council next Tuesday on the preliminary plat. The next step for the applicant would be to submit a final plat. And at that final plat, we ask that there are
easements that are dedicated around the lot in these areas that are highlighted in yellow, just standard drainage and utility easements. Um, we do that as part of any new plat. So the requested actions tonight are to
open and close the public hearing on the future land use amendment and then we would ask for a motion on that resolution and then also open and close public hearing for the reszone. Ask for a motion on that resolution and then the last public hearing is on the
preliminary plat and the subsequent resolution you can see um numbered right here. So these resolutions are drafted as they are contingent on final plat approval which would be again the subsequent step and the last step in
consolidating these lots and cleaning up the zoning. So great. >> We'll pause there with any questions if you have any. >> Does anybody have any questions currently? It's first first big thing if you want to speak. No. Um yeah, I have Dustin. I
just really wanted to know kind of what that just you already explained what I wanted for the educational piece of it. If there's no other comments, I'm going to go ahead and move forward. Everybody good? No comments from Nate? All right. So, that'll lead us uh to 8B. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing
for future land use amendment. And if anybody would like to speak on that, please step up, say your name. Don't all move at it once. Anybody on the call? Beautiful. Well, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing for the
future land use and then I would entertain a motion on the resolution PC 20261. >> I'll make a motion. >> I've got a motion to approve. >> Second >> and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? I. Anybody opposed?
That one passes. Okay. I will go ahead then and open uh the public hearing for the reasonzoning. Um anybody would like to speak on that one. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close that one as well and then I will
entertain a motion for O2. >> Make a motion. >> I got a motion. >> I'll second. >> I got a second. Any more discussion? Okay. Um, I've got a motion to second. All those in favor signify by I. I. Anybody opposed? Okay, that one passes.
And third and final, we're going to open the public hearing for the preliminary plat. Uh, first two were really lively. Anybody want to speak on the third? Okay, we'll go ahead and close that one as well. And then we will entertain the
motion for 003. >> So moved. >> So moved. >> Second. >> And a second. Any more discussion? All those in favor? I >> I. >> Anybody opposed? Those pass. Thank you.
We'll go ahead and move on to old business number nine. 9A Nate. Thank you guys. Thank you so much. Good luck. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you, chair. So, next item up for consideration is also a public hearing as well. So, this is coming back to the planning commission after a few months of conversation and discussion and direction from the commission. We brought back a final
draft ordinance amendment for tattoo shops and beauty salon. What this ordinance amendment would do as written is it would add a definition for a tattoo shop and body art and it would also define where that use is allowed. Right now that's drafted to be allowed
in the B1 central business district which is our downtown district. And then we also are adding a definition for a beauty salon. There is a public hearing that's required for this. So, we would ask that the commission take action on
the ordinance resolution and the summary publication. You'll recall that this really started off uh in conversation because we had an inquiry that was interested in potentially doing a tattoo studio and we
just did not have a clear use that aligned with that. So what we're attempting to do is clearly define and then um define what the use is and then also where it's allowed. So I'll pause
there with questions otherwise that's my presentation on that. >> Anybody have questions? I've got just one. So pretty much only in the ordinance the only thing that we're changing right now is pretty much just to add to F tattoo and body art.
And then you define body or beauty salon and tattoo body art. Correct. >> Yeah. So a beauty salon, how we're defining that is it's a business where people receive professional cosmetic treatments like hairdressing and manicures. And a tattoo body art, we're
defining it as a licensed business that provides permanent tattoos and makeup to clients using needles and ink. >> Okay. So that's really the only thing right now for >> Do those definitions kind of follow what other cities Yeah. have done?
>> Yeah. So I would say they're as close to the majority of what I've seen out there. Um a lot of them so well some may just have body art, some may just have tattoo. Um but we recognize that not everyone equates the
two. So we put tattoo and body art cuz it's >> you know using a ink on the body basically. So >> y >> you said you were going to talk to legal about like the piercing part of it. Did that get counted then in part of that
and with the ink and needles like does that count piercings then? >> Yeah. I'm trying to remember exactly what the question was. Um, back then I did talk with legal in terms of the
definitions and that and they were okay with that. Um, and regardless any use has to follow state law and guidance and regulations. Yep. So, if there's state licenses that are needed on top of, you know, others, then they would be
obligated to follow those. >> Yep. Yep. Does that Did I answer your question? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? So you're looking for us to do we need to amend the ordinance.
>> So you'll your first action will be to open up a public hearing. >> Yep. >> And then your second action would be to act on the resolution amending the ordinance and then your third action would be to act on the summary publication.
>> Okay. That's what I was going to mark here for. All right. Well, I'll go ahead right now and we will open up the public hearing for the zoning amendment. Tattoo shops and definitions for beauty salon and tattoo shops. Please step up, say
your name, where you live. >> Kevin Clusner, 29645 95th Avenue. Um, I have no problem with a tattoo or body art business or studio opening up. I just would hope that we
have some type of u sense of aesthetics if it's going to be downtown. I mean, when you drive around greater Minnesota, you go through some areas uh where the tattoo places look kind of shady, for lack of a better word. And
I'm not suggesting you can put that into an ordinance, just kind of a general understanding that u we have a nice downtown. It's welcoming. It's uh we have some really awesome businesses downtown and I
just don't want to uh take away that charm that we've got. Thank you. Anybody else? All right, I will go ahead and close the public hearing. Um any more discussions
then? Nate, I don't I can't find the packet. Where are the requests for it again? So now we're looking for publication or no? >> Yeah. So the ordinance resolution would be ordinance PC 2026-00004 and then the summary publication
would be a second here. >> 005. >> Yeah, I think you're right. I don't have it pulled up here. Yes. PC 2026-00005 >> celebrity of public >> publication
>> all right any more discussions before we do that um I know with the comments I know it's a good idea of business is business we definitely want business but I think you know I agree with Mr. closer to say that welcoming. Obviously, if we
have a business come down, they still also have to abide by our ordinances, right, of how the aesthetics look in downtown, too. So, hopefully that's something obviously that will be taken in consideration to hopefully have a welcoming business as well. So, thanks for that. But I will go ahead and
entertain a motion right now uh for the zoning amendment for PC 2026004. >> I'll make a motion. I got a motion and a second. Any more discussion? All those in favor of approval of PC2026004
say I. I. Anybody opposed? Okay. Passes. And then I would look for summary of public of publication for PC 2026004 or 005, excuse me. >> I got a motion >> second >> and a second. Any further discussion?
All those in favor? I. Anybody opposed? Okay, that gives our old business. Now we're on to other business. Yes, Nate 10A. >> Yeah, >> discussion only, right? >> Yeah. Thank you, chair. And I'll just
kind of provide an overview of this. Uh this is our first step in what we've been tasked with. So I'll give a little bit of background and then kind of set the stage a little bit. Um I did include some information in the packets and I'll kind of explain some of that here. Um
but really this is coming forward. Um we talked several months back. Um we had an interest um from a developer to do smaller residential lots with private septic and or wells. Our current rural
residential district requires a minimum of 10 acres in size. A lot of the properties within St. Joseph are zoned rural residential. Um those are the that's the default zoning district that township properties have been annexed
into historically. Um and that district allows a variety of different uses that are tied to continuation of township type of uses like agriculture, uh farming, um feed lots, things of that nature. Um,
so that's kind of the basis of that zoning district. So, uh, with this request, we recognize that, um, a change would be needed if we were to facilitate smaller subdivision lots
that would be not on all city utilities. So, this means that we either have to establish a new zoning district for that or we amend the rural residential district and we put in like a conditional use permit or a planned unit
development process um to outline what the requirements would be for a district like this. Um, we really need to part of this work is going to be clearly defining the standards on lot sizes, um, utilities,
where in the city this would be appropriate, um, and then the limitations. Part of why this is being considered and part of the interest on why the council had this as a item as well for us to look into is there's infrastructure um
concerns right now. Um in terms of we want to facilitate more single family housing growth in the community, but in areas that are prime for that, there's lift stations that are required. those lift stations are not feasible for the
developer or the city to um support financially. Um water service can be extended to a lot of um properties. Water isn't usually as challenging. It's the sewer component that is the most challenging.
Um so it's just some policy considerations as we start to think through what would a ordinance look like and what would that entail. um is we're going to be looking at like city boundaries, future growth areas.
We want to avoid allowing this type of development in an area that can create like a isolated pocket where there's a subdivision that's not on utilities, but the subdivisions around it are on utilities or as the city grows now we
have a pocket. there's um you know lots of reasons why we wouldn't want to u facilitate that or you know support that. So kind of clearly defining where in the city this would be allowed. Um part of the homework that I've did thus
far is also I reached out to a septic designer as well just to kind of get their input and feedback on um you know what's the appropriate size of a lot. Um, with septic designs, you have to have a primary location and a secondary
location. Um, and there's a lot of factors that go into individual lots and what determines the suitability of a septic system. So, I would say there's not like a golden minimum size per se. Um but one thing that they did recommend
that um as staff I would support too is the county is the ones right now that reviews all septic designs. Um so looping in the county um once we draft an ordinance and that looping them in
early in the process at like a preliminary plat stage would be advisable. So then that way they can help determine as well if these developments are suitable for septic systems um and have another eye on there. So
again just some staff guidance in that. Um also consideration of maximum density um for these subdivisions. Um it is possible um you know I'm cautious on opening up the floodgates for smaller
lot subdivisions. not on full city utilities. Um because it's possible where I've seen in other cities where they've had a four or five phase project that had you know 100 plus lots that is all well in septic. Um that can prove
challenging. Um so having smaller um caps on how many lots you can do is something I think the commission uh should consider or discuss. And then also, you know, we wouldn't want to, of course, allow this option
just solely based on uh the cost of utility extensions and um the developer, you know, um having to upfront that are using that as justification to to do these. Um and then
so there's kind of three pathways I I would say on where we could head with a ordinance itself. Um the first is we could draft an ordinance that allows septic and city water. So they're required to hook onto water, but they're
allowed septic. That's one option. Second option would be allowance of both private well and septic likely on slightly larger lots than if we were to require septic and city
water. Or the third one is to amend that rural residential district and then have a conditional use permit process or that that would allow these in that district but would allow smaller lot sizes than
the minimum 10 acres that we have right now. So I know that thrown a lot to the planning commission in that and there was a lot of information that was provided in the packet. Um the purpose of tonight is to kind of get the commission thinking through those
things. Um I would hope to come back in the next month with just some very rough drafted kind of language. Um with the goal of potentially in April having something where we are having a formal hearing and considering adoption of
changes to allow a development like this. Um, we will also have conversation with the council as well, likely at a workshop. So that way we're coordinating between the planning and uh, planning commission and the council to kind of come to a shared
goal or consensus on how this would look. So I will pause there. I feel like I've been talking for a while. So um, questions, thoughts, >> tapping. I have many. Feel free, please.
So, a question I guess with the if we did something with the a like zoning itself, you were talking about like an amendment for like possibly even doing PUDS. Would that be a possibility with like some
stipulation that like as a majority of the systems start to fail, they may need to connect to city water and sewer if available at that time. >> Yeah. So, um, regardless of if we add a
new zoning district or if we amend the rural residential and add a conditional use permit process or that, a subdivision will require a developers agreement which we will stipulate the specific conditions tied to that. Um, I
included a example of a developers agreement from the city of Sartell who has allowed these developments in their community. it's called uh Northern Metals and you'll see within that developers agreement there are requirements to um tied to that exact
question. oftentimes to these developments, we will reserve larger easements and require larger easements for that same purpose that down the road when sewer becomes more readily available that there is the ability to
put in all of those utilities in there. Um one kind of conversation with the you know allowance of septic and well or allowance of just septic and requiring city water is uh it's one thing when a septic system fails I think it's another
thing when a well fails um that's creates a lot more challenges and liabilities not just on developer but also on city if you can't get water it can't do much so um you know that's something to consider too uh as you're
thinking about which direction to head and which way to go. Um you know think through those kind of different scenarios like that. Um again you know from my staff perspective um we want to be very transparent in the potential
areas where we would allow this and clearly define that. Um but it should be pretty limited um in terms of that just because of potential problems you could create with allowing septic and well septics failing then you're coming in
doing utilities assessments. So it just kind of um can be challenging. >> So the whole overall issue is that we just don't have the sew depth that we need to be able to tie these subdivisions in. Is that correct to be able to get the sewage out of there? I
mean, is the sanitary lines aren't deep enough? Is that is that the main issue or what are I mean, are we >> So, so can I I can piggyback off of that like and maybe you can help us, Andrew, because I know you're on the council, too. But, you know, you say that we have ongoing logistical challenges and that
the council's expressed interest in smaller residential services, right? Like, we want to get single dwelling family here in St. Joseph, but we also don't want to put the cart before the horse. What's the stipulation for the lift stations? Is it just the money?
Like, I understand you don't want to just pass it on to the developer. It's a lot of money, but why isn't it interested in looking at what the lift station would take or grants or things along those lines, so you don't even have to run into these problems down the line?
>> Yeah. So, um I can speak on the second part of that on the grant element of it. Um there's just not grants available for infrastructure like this for market rate single family. Okay. >> Uh the legislature has put a lot more
attention on residential because of the housing crisis and things like that. Um and there has been a program that has been established that um it's kind of similar to what we call the business development public infrastructure grant which is
meant for industrial parks to get lift stations and proper utilities. However, it's a very tiny amount of money and a lot of cities um including us at the last round did not qualify. Um, and if we did qualify, you're talking about
maybe $50,000 tops. Um, >> for a million dollar list, >> which is not going to get us to the finish line. So, um I think part of the conversation is um are there these like let's call them edge areas of the
community where we know that the community and the city's growth will not extend past that and we know that there's challenges in getting those utilities there. But they can offer a transition from um the properties
outside the city that are straight rural to something that's a little bit less rural to then our urban core and our you know >> so my other question would be and it goes back to there is if we don't have a lift station we do hookups out there for water correct which should be easier and
then you do septics and then let's say down the line we have money to be able to put a lift station in how does that rework work then in getting them hooked up to sewer. >> Yeah. >> Septics. >> Yep. So, it would come down to
developers agreement and what is stipulated in the developers agreement for that particular subdivision. Uh some subdivision uh developers agreements will read that once sewer becomes readily available and you would define what readily available means that sewer
is then required to be hooked onto that development. Now, it's always harder to come after the fact, right? Because now you're dealing with, let's call it, 30 lots, 30 homeowners who will state that,
hey, my septic system is just fine. I just put this in 5 years ago. I don't want, you know. So, you're gonna have to have very strong language and you're gonna have to will be willing to, if that comes to that time, um, have a very
strong developers agreement and justification. You know, we of course would work with our legal team in that. Um but these are developments that you know we would foresee probably in areas that you know they might be 20 25 years
out um for sewer potential if if ever you know very boundaries of the the community you know areas where it just can't grow past this is going to be the last line or the last stop on the train ride to get the
utilities too. So I think it's about kind of defining sure where that is. >> Bl up our zoning map. >> Yeah. >> And I only say that because I again I have a strong stance and I know you know Corey we've talked about this like I don't want to again run before we could
walk. You want to grow responsibly because you don't want to have other situations arise if you don't have the proper stuff in place to be able to get those residents hooked up. I'm not saying that it's not a good deal. And I know for you as a developer, and I'm saying Cory who's in the office, that's
a lot of money for you to put on as a developer for the lift station. Um, >> but I mean, we could say too, in theory, if you allow city water, septic have the language that says, you know, upon failure of systems or readily available,
you're increasing your tax capacity in the meantime, >> which should allow those expansions >> Yep. >> quicker. And I know we're talking about this parcel right here down here. And and it's a good one. And I think that's, >> you know, with the school out there,
family, that's exactly where I think we'd want to build. So, you know, I just say I want to be able to again not cut us off at the heels to say that if we agree to this and then we can get a lift station in there somehow that, you know, you pass it back on to hook them up so
that you could expand farther if we need to. or you know I look at when we talk about some of the constraints of future annexation of the city boundaries may shift over time. >> Yeah. >> Like that's a big concern too and if you're going to annex some of those in but
>> again let me be clear I'm not opposed to getting single family housing in the city of St. Joseph. I just want to see ultimately a lift station there. Like that's just my my personal belief. If we're in agreeance and we look at like
your potential options and pathways, I think you we would want to amend the existing rural residential district alto together, right? To say your one one acre lots, things along those lines. So, it's not 10 and which allows smaller
like you said lots through the conditional use permit. And then again, you can permit the septic but require the water hookups at least at a minimum. Right. And then again, I like how you said apply strict limitations to avoid the widespread cup based on subdivisions
of where it's at. >> Yeah. So, if that's the route that we ended up going, yeah, I would um strongly advise the commission and the council that um we put in specific stipulations within the ordinance itself. And we don't just like
say, okay, you can do this as long as you submit a conditional use permit. Because then if that is the case, we may see a influx of conditional use permits. Yes. And then we would have to have justification to deny substantial justification.
>> Um which is very difficult. So I would recommend that if we have it as a CUP, we say it's a conditional use subject to A B C D E, you know, subject to a minimum lot size of a acre and a half,
subject to um a maximum lot subdivision of 30, you know, and we would go down the road >> and then that would help us kind of hopefully paint a picture on where exactly these would go because yes, the
whole conversation did yes start with uh this lot uh right here which >> is and could be a you know good candidate for something like this. Um, but we have to look at the entire city, right? We have to look at if someone's
over here and they want to do it. If someone's, >> oh, they're right here and they're right next, you know, and, >> you know, really trying to limit that potential again because of the problems that could cause. So >> put in the cup the some link to that
availability of services within x amount of years looking at like the city's CIP like something like that. Like if you know there's going to be utilities in that area within
five years the answer could still be no. >> Like I mean I don't want to make it too >> Yeah. So I mean we could I would say at this stage it's really about brainstorming what kind of conditions you as a commission would recommend and want to see and then we start drafting
some of that and then we start working with legal on is this legality is it does it check through you know because forecasting where utilities are going to be 5 years 10 years from now is a very hard thing to do. No
cities grow like a traditional planned, you know, like a if a city planner was growing a city, you know, they don't grow incrementally outward, you know, it's um farmer Bob up in the, you know, northwest corner who, you know, wants to sell his property. You know, it's those
kinds of things and how do we manage that? So, um >> I guess I'm agreement in agreement with John that we should I would like to see it be city water. I'm okay with septic but we do need yes some stipulations and
I would like to see something about you know something about if systems start to fail or availability of services you must hook up within x amount of time or if the majority you must hook up that type of thing. Well, then if I go back
one step, I know, you know, in looking at your reason for exploring this topic again, we want housing. We want people here. Um, yeah, it's it's a desirable town to want to live in, right? I'm not saying it's not, but it goes back to, you know, many areas require that list
station which involve we know high capital cost. And the other one says ongoing operational and logistical challenges. >> What are those? >> Is that from my memo? Yeah, it's very it's very open-ended. Yeah.
And I know in talking with developers and stuff like that, like it's a million dollars. That's a lot of money to put in a lift station to But you get that in there. And yes, we talk about, you know, and Corey, we've talked about this before. We have 32 lots out there, but if you get a lift station, you might be
able to put more single homes out there. Correct. And hopefully sell more homes. But I want to know what is the ongoing operational and logistical challenges besides the cost >> and then what is our long long-term plan here? Is is it just to keep trying to
>> bring people into the city, >> right? Which which I agree bring right >> brings in money. Brings >> what is the long if we're already having issues with this? >> What is our long-term plan on this? Don't get me wrong, in 50 years, you know, I I might not be here, but are we
just kicking the can down to the next generation for it to be their problem? >> Cover some of that. >> Yeah. >> So, I think it's twofold. So, I think the the first purpose is to think creatively and how we
>> grow our single family development. Um, but then two, again, going back to this can't be something that just works today. it has to be something that works in the future, right? >> Um, so clearly defining those areas, thinking
>> very far ahead, which is really hard to do nowadays, but 10, 20, 30 years. Um, you know, a good example of this is I 94 right here. Um, our comprehensive plan has future land use designations for
areas that are outside of that. right now we do not control that >> right >> we do not it's not part of our orderly annexation area it's not part of anything so if we were to have more control over that this would be a future
you know uh say annexation or that um so it's thinking about um like I had put in the memo about not just our boundaries now but our boundaries into the future and what agreements are in place that would you know there's some areas of
town we're not going to grow past like going again to that example of the the lot that um brought up this discussion. We're we're not going to grow past the river cuz that's getting into Way Park, right? >> Um do you have or does the city have any
more strategic plans to annex in any more of the township? So, um I would say the most strategic plan that we have that relates to that is our comprehensive plan which shows the areas west of I94 under future zoning designations. I would think that
that conversation will really heat up when it's our update of our comprehensive plan in 2 3 years. Um when that gets updated, we're going to have conversation in terms of what is that future area. Um but that would require
us to amend our current orderly annexation area and um you know have plentiful conversations with the township um in terms of that corridor >> cuz I know there's hardship when we brought in the annexation last time and
they can't hook up to city, they can't hook up to city water, they can't hook up to sewer. So again, are we kicking the can down to say and I'm not again I'm not opposed to rural like growing it. My my question is ongoing operational and logistical challenges. This has slowed and prevented
residential growth. Well, the only thing that's slowed it is we don't have a lift station now. >> Mhm. >> Or another plan. >> Well, correct. And then again, I'm I'm not opposed to what we talk about if we want to do that. >> Yes, that'll survive us for 25 to 50 years
>> and then I'll be in my 90s, hopefully still alive, but who knows? But it looks at it as yes, I know we want to grow, but I just like that responsible aspect and I just I'm just posing the questions, right? So >> if you have an like I know the biggest
thing is the high capital cost. We know that that's the biggest constraint I think right now, >> but are we just trying to sidestep the million-doll lift station to be able to get homes in there just to get them in? >> No. So I I would say that we don't want to open floodgates to provide just uh
developer justification to come to the city just because of that reason. Um there's some design challenges. Design challenges I think can always be overcome. It's just that some design challenges do equate to significantly higher cost. You know it might be topography things, it might be
environmental things. Um there's a host of different things that would play into that. Um, I would at some point probably invite our engineer to kind of talk a little bit about uh some of these maps that I've included in here. U I didn't get a, you know, full one-on-one with uh him in that, but this one right here
that's very colorful that kind of looks like a zoning map >> um is showing the future lift station areas um in the community. um and taking a look at where are those future lift stations? Um what are some of those challenges uh besides just getting the
pipes there and cost? Um you know, you can see some of these numbers correspond to the uh table over here that identifies like what lift station numbers it is, but essentially different colors are different lift stations and where they would go. Um, so I think also
having conversation about um, even with these, are there areas in the city that are almost out of reach with in these lift station areas, you know, and just kind of trying to paint that picture again of looking at the city as a whole,
looking at growth boundaries as a whole, um, looking at environmental things. You know what's rough is, you know, we're >> the community center's kind of falling through. We have a $4 million bond. Can we just acquaint that and have them give that to us for >> that would be great.
>> That would solve that would solve a lot of problems. >> You know what I mean? And I just find it hard to believe that there's not more money out there to be able to develop to get good housing and to do it the correct way. Just a thought. >> So again, there the legislature has
increased what it was, which before is nothing. I would I would think that in the coming years there will be more >> resources that will probably go towards that >> but I don't know. Um and I don't again even if there are is it going to be
enough to get us over the hump. Um the biggest thing is there's just not a lot of there's really no funding mechanisms for market rate type of things. Um, so, okay. >> Do we have >> lift stations in like a capital
improvements plan somewhere? Like, >> I mean, if not, I feel like they maybe should be. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yep. So, um, I would say the stance has been that, you know, development. It's been on the shoulders
of developers. So, um, and that includes out in our industrial park area. So, um, off County Road 133, right, we have the industrial park. We filled it out. That's another scenario. City doesn't have the money. Developer can't afford
it. We are seeking bonding money from the state to supplement that so we can make the second industrial park come online and come to fruition. So, um, >> yeah. Well, I mean, it's all all good
discussion. I don't know. Does anybody else >> I feel like I've talked a lot, too, but >> anything? Just learning? >> Just learning. >> Okay. I mean, what do you guys think? Anything? I mean, >> I guess I have some of the same thoughts. I just I guess that my question is just that, yeah, what are we doing long term? Like, like you had
said, what are we doing long term instead of just I mean, yes, you want to bring the housing in. get that you want to, you know, I think that's maybe a good short-term solution, but what is the what is the long-term plan then to try to solve this? So, it's not >> can we limit the number
>> all the way down? >> What's that? >> Can we limit the number of them? You can only do we like only allow x amount. >> So, yeah, we can put up um many types of different stipulations. So if you mean can we limit the number as in like limit
the number of like lots or limit the number of developments >> that we allow >> like putting a cap on it kind of thing >> for now >> like I said you can put you could put it in correct and I know >> yeah that's a good question >> you brought up you know we had >> was it correct me if I'm wrong you had
one where there was like a hundred units that we were going to do and when you came back to us last time I think you broke it out into 30 or 32 is that correct of developments there. Okay. So, I mean, you look at that of this area that we're talking about for him, you
know, for the developer to develop. It's really only 30 lots, but would you say they're over they're over an acre about one? Do you want I mean, >> if you could just shed some light because I know it's been a while, Corey, since we kind of talked about it and I know we're looking for things and Yeah.
Thanks. >> Cory. Uh, my name's Corey Ellard, just a resident in St. Joe and um and a developer and and um we did the industrial park like Nate says. Um I'll I'll just just some some overview thoughts. I think you guys are really
tracking in the right direction. Um, I think uh just a my my thought on the CUP is a really good tool for you guys >> to really just kind of gives you that broader brush to say does this work or doesn't it and and here's the reasons we
don't think it does or the here's the reasons we we do think it will work. Um, I think when I think about this real residential, as Nate and I have talked a lot over the last couple of months, this is really one of those I think a unique application to a piece of property that
just doesn't fit the mold of a traditional residential development. Now, that could be because like Nate said, maybe you have some environmental challenges. You got a wetland to get through and you just can't get services there. Well, and correct me even wrong, that that area too. Like you said, we're
not going any farther past the river. Like that's kind of what you mean is it's kind of its own unique area right there. >> That's correct. Yeah. And so I was just sharing some big picture oversight for long term. Yeah. And I think you guys, you know, you're you're asking the right
questions of yourself that, you know, we have to, if we're going to draft an ordinance, we want it to be able to apply for the next 10 or 20 years to what me and whoever else might come and have a piece of property on the fringe of this community. And I think, you know, the fringes are the important
parts. It's those areas of of of our city, larger parts of our city, uh that, you know, I think that uh something like this would work. Now, I also think that when you as a city uh have to plan like your all your housing stock, right, you guys are going to have some
conversations and the state and federal are talking about higher density so we can make homes more affordable and those are good conversations. I think uh when we look at parcels like this, Kaylee Court's a good example. We had 95 acres there. We had, you know, flood plane and
other uh areas and to deal with this parcel's similar. we it it just serves a higher or a lower density population or lower number of lots. Um uh and frankly right now the people that are building
uh can afford the cost of building are they they want a little bigger lot. They don't want to be in the city on a small three you know half an acre lot or quarter of an acre lot. >> So would these lots be to build? >> Yeah. So these would be and to get back to your questions, we have lots that are
in like 2.3. Okay. >> All the way down to 1.42 or something like that. There's a couple. >> It's split out into like 32, didn't it? Before or how many? >> Yeah. 32 lots is kind of our preliminary plan. We haven't vetted this past Randy SART and you know gotten too deep. This
is just a very preliminary plan. >> So we're going to we're going to have to go through that process of course you know for future preliminary plan approval, all those things. But our intentions here are to have uh low impact, lower density, nicesiz lots that we can sell uh to a client base that
frankly can't afford to build a home right now. And that might be clients that are ranging from 400 to $800,000 home purchases. And that's pretty significant. Um so, uh so I guess that's that's just a quick narrative on on this
parcel. Um you know, we back up to the park. We think that's got some great appeal. Um and yeah, yeah, to your point earlier, there was u when Archon had this, you know, Joe Betolds here, he remembers those days. This was Joe's property, incidentally. And uh you know,
there was a plan >> between where Kennedy Elementary School and Woodrest sits and all of this property. I mean, it was like 980 residential units. I mean, this would have doubled the size of city of St. Joseph back in 2003 when this parcel
these parcels were assembled by art. So here we are 20 some years later just trying to still absorb that property that just never came to fruition. So >> So is that something as a developer we go and we say we maybe we go for this option three right and we say hook up
the water can have septic >> and then say 15 20 years down the road we can get a lift station in there. Does that place on to you then to get the septics out as the developer? >> No. I I think I don't I don't know if I would recommend that you guys attach yourself to such a steep requirement
because there may just not be feasibility to get s sewer there. Like again in this parcel, where would we put a sewer a lift station to serve this 38? I mean, if you that one map that Nate had up, it's the purple. It's the stuff north of
>> Can you bring that back 21 >> right here? Right. >> I'm sorry. It's not purple. It's it's the orange that you see there, Nate. But we're the future Jade Road as it would potentially tie into like 20th Avenue. That's that's the most location for a
lift station. When you do a lift station as a city, you want it to be able to serve hundreds of acres >> potentially or you know some a big chunk of land. >> So a lift station in this parcel uh you know John would just have its
challenges. Wouldn't make sense to put a lift station of that cost down there to serve 32 lots, >> especially if you're not going to build past that. Correct. >> Yeah. We've got the river, we've got I94. There's just some boundary limitations that will never go beyond that. >> And that's kind of what I was looking at. That's some of those logistical
challenges if it gets there, too. And so Nate, I look back if we look at more of our rural residential to the north, like that's something to where again I don't think we want to handcuff oursel to your point Cy if we can get a lift station even farther north that could that could
supplement and you know instead of this one spot right here we would want stations more farther north is what you were saying to be able to get to there. Okay. >> Yeah. They're they're just so cost intense. You want to be able to serve as many residential lots as possible and users at the end of it. Yep.
>> Great. Thanks. Anybody have questions for Corey? >> John. >> Yep. >> Can I speak? >> Yeah, you can come up. Joe, sure. We'll go rogue. Just real quick, say your name, Joe, because I know you live down there, too.
And then just where you live. >> Yeah. I'm Joe Beck. I live on Jade Road joining the property. >> Yeah. Uh the reason I landed that long I sold it like in early 2000 is because of the difficulty of developing it. The the concern I have
with that land is it's it's 8 in of black sand and it's coarse gravel. >> Okay. >> And that's a problem with septic systems. I realize the colonies response for the septic systems and I know they can develop them. >> Yeah. >> With basically m what I call mound
system. You align them with clay so don't go down. Yeah, >> because it's so close to the Sock River. >> Yep. >> So, >> great. >> And the other thing is, does the city allow if I buy, let's say, a threeacre lot from I have to hook up to the water, does it
allow it for me to put in a private well to irrigate my land >> to do both? Can you hook up and do a private well >> only? I'm not talking for the not the residential only irrigate like >> yeah for for irrigation and that as long as it's um approved through the
department of health I think I think um there's no uh yeah for irrigation in a rural residential area we don't have any stipulations against >> so they could do both so long as it's we have water >> they could do a well >> for irrigation
>> they could do a well for irrigation if they if you're talking about um subdividing and creating a three acre lot. We wouldn't allow that because it'd have to be at least 10 acres. >> Okay. >> I mean, uh, when you're used to having your own well and then the city's water
is very expensive. >> I mean, if I have three, four acres and I want to water my lawn or vegetation. >> Yeah. >> Some of those lots you can just drive a point down and get water just for that purpose. I I it would be very
>> Yeah. the do that >> the majority of the rural residential lots I think have existing wells already cuz they're farmland and such so they use you know >> is that something you can put into the option if we if we amend the existing
rural residential >> uh put in can you explain that put in the irrigation option >> that they could do that if they want to have a well for irrigation as well >> instead of for the city hookup I mean still have to hook up to city but could they have a well >> in This is rural rural though. It's not
rural residential zoned. It's not zoned. >> Yeah. >> Right. Is zon as an R1, not as an RR, right? >> Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. So, you're saying require city services, but maybe >> that wouldn't work. >> Okay. Okay. >> Sorry. >> No, you're good. This is good. >> I just had thoughts, too. Just
>> thinking out loud. This is what we want. Okay. So, >> anything else? No. >> Okay. Thank you guys. >> Just a thought on that. Um there are a lot of uh uh city residential lots that have Sandpoint wells right now and they
just uh they they notify the city and uh then they're not out of that watering ban and then they can uh sprinkle it's just for exterior use. So, your domestic water, like Joe was saying, still you're required to your all your domestic water inside your house has to be city services.
>> But your exterior well, if you wanted to drive a sandpoint, like Joe said, yeah, the water tables probably 9 10 feet, you know, static water table below there. The when we did the other testing on we had to do uh um soil borings and
determine where that high water mark was uh on Kaye Court, which is right across the street. Probably pretty similar, wouldn't you think, Joe? It was like the static water table was like 54 in below grade. >> Oh. >> So it's it's it's not too far. So you could get sandpoint well. They're they're easy. They're you know and it's
perfect for for watering. >> Right. >> I just want to just share one thought again. I just want to make sure my point is clear that I I think as a city we you know we want to have a good balanced housing stock and inventory of lots. If you want to live in a a small city lot
on a patio home and have HOA services, we have those. If you want to live on a nicer, a little larger city lot, have all the city amenities in in, you know, city streets, curb, gutters, sidewalks, we have those. Um, so I think just adding another uh lane or another option
for housing inventory, I think, is just a good good balanced residential plan. And that's what we're trying to bring here is is some larger lots and that don't al always have to have city services. Um we worked through that up on um 320th. We worked through the joint
planning board. Uh I want to say that was probably 2016 and 2017. It's off off of 320th Street. It's called Cedar Ridge uh uh road up there. Um, in fact, Mark uh Thompson lives up there >> and we had an agreement there that all
buyers acknowledge that in the event that city services ever does come uh they have to accept them. There was a majority requirement. So, you know, 75 or 80% of the people had to request the city services to come in. So, you have to have a super majority for the residents to to want the services. There
you go. >> Yeah. >> And um >> and then uh and then they couldn't oppose it also. So they couldn't once it's a decision there was a a caveat in there that they just couldn't fight it or sue the city or you know any frivolous other stuff. So there was it
was pretty pretty clear line of in the event that it it's required because of failing systems uh and the safety of all the city would extend services and there was >> and I think that's something that we wanted. >> Yeah. So I think we can work through that. >> Okay. >> Um I I I'm pretty confident that.
>> Great. Thanks Corey. Any other questions? Nate, do you got anything else for us? >> Did that give you a long- winded answer of which way you could go or >> No, this is good. Um, I appreciate this conversation and the comments and that and just thinking through this cuz it's a lot to digest and think through and we
want to make sure we try to do it the best we can. Um what I would then propose for uh next month is I'll try to come back with examples of different stipulations and >> like I think are we in agreeance kind of
we we want to stick with option three. Do you guys and guess >> I think the up is a good idea. >> Yep. >> With the amending the rural residential. >> I would love to kick around the idea of creating a new zone. >> Okay. >> Um >> and we haven't talked about that yet. So yeah.
>> Right. It was one of the options earlier. I think it's a tool. Um, >> sure. >> Piggybacking off what Corey said, >> but yeah, I don't hate that idea either. >> There's a lot of natural boundaries on this property specifically. Y >> and you guys mentioned balancing what works for this property and what works
for an overall city planning widespread. What makes most sense? >> There's a lot of natural borders here. You know, we talked about the capital expenditure on a lift station and what can it maximally service down here. We're kind of in
>> its own little >> it's a unicorn. Yeah. You know, it's it's 32 acres as it sits right now is undevelopable or 32 lots, however many acres. >> About 70 >> 74. Okay. >> As it sits today, probably not developable without the septic. Um, it
makes me think then too, what other areas in our city could also fit in that a that zoning, >> right? I think that would maybe be a good >> Yeah, I like that idea. >> Would that then allow us to potentially then limit that a little bit more where
at some point like maybe that's no longer being a proposed future land use? >> Yep. So, there's pluses and minuses to both pathways um call it. Um, I would say one of the challenges tied with if we were to go the cup route and allow it
as a CUP within the rural residential is we'll have to really be tight on the stipulations within the ordinance. Additional conditions besides what you could place as a commission. Um, and that can be a challenge because we got to make sure those are right. Um, if we
create a new zoning district, uh, one of the pluses to that is, um, we can put in some of those same stipulations within the ordinance itself, but there would be no property that's zoned that way right now. So, every request would have to
come forward in a reszone fashion. >> Sure. >> And they would have to provide justification to reszone that based on our qualifying factors. >> Right. So, >> well, and you have qualifying factors and I don't I don't like the idea of obviously people coming to spot zone
certain things. That's not a a good thing to do. That's why I asked if we have a new zoning, is it is it feasible to look as a city, what other options might be able to at the same time zone those unicorns, per se? And one other route we could take with that too is
because one of the factors we look at when we reszone is just what we looked at earlier this evening on some of the monastery stuff is the future land use map. Yeah. >> Um there could be an avenue that we amend of the future land use map and define on there where those future areas
are. >> Sure. Um, we wouldn't have to do that, but I think that would set that stage pretty well in determining the assessment if that property is suitable for that or not. >> Great. >> Does it meet what we clearly defined in
our future land use map? Is it in one of those areas? >> And then that would give justification for a yes or a no response to that. And if we went with that kind of route, then I'm assuming the one map with like all
the future lif stations and all of that would be considered when we look at something like that. Like >> yeah, I think we should have um discussion. I think maybe I'll try to get our engineer um invited to one of our meetings and just kind of go through that from his lens because I cannot
speak that language effectively. So, um, it would be good for him to kind of help paint a picture too in, okay, these are kind of the areas and, you know, from his lens, these are the areas that would be very challenging that maybe are near those boundaries and that would help us
set the stage for defining it on that future land use map. >> Sure. >> That may help you limit the areas to then point out. >> Well, then you could still keep your rural residential for what we wanted it to be. >> Yeah, I don't hate that idea. That's a good idea. Does that help you now?
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, this is great. Yeah. No, I have homework to do. So, good. Um, yeah. Like I said, I will try to come back next month with some example language and stipulations and that and >> if you got time, you could look at both kind of options and then
>> maybe we'll have the other couple members here too and you can study up too, right? >> Um, great. >> Anything else for Nate on that one? All right, we can move to general updates. Just a couple here. I did submit a what's called our TA grant. So it's our
transportation alternatives grant. Um actually thanks to Corey for the letter of support for that one as well. >> So um that would extend the trail from where it currently ends uh right at Jade Road in the corner of Kennedy over here.
this corner. It would extend it coming down here through Kennedy's property crossing um a little bit of Corey's property right there and then connect to the Riversbend Trail. >> Cool. >> Um I'm also looking at a second phase for um when we completed Riversbend
Park, we got what's called LCCMR funding. That is a legislative fund allocation. um looking at that as a second um phase for Rivers Ben Park to complete the trail out here. Um there's no match required from the city for that.
>> Cool. >> And we did well with our first one with documentation and all that. So, we're looking at that. And then the last update I have is um I did meet with a developer last week and all I can say
really is it'd be a senior apartment project on a property that would that already has utilities readily available. It's just outlot right now. Um that may come forward this this spring. So uh
>> anything new on our acquired property where Casey's used to be and what's happening with that? No on the Casey's site. Uh no, other than they conducted an auction on a lot of the things that were uh salvageable or that. Yep. >> Um so um
>> to the left right there. >> Yeah. The completion of of that um allowed us to basically put that money towards the um eventual demolition um of the building and that. So,
>> are you going to de are they going to demolish it? I thought we were going to keep stuff for gassing, for the fire, for police, those types of things >> for the fueling and such. Yeah, the building more than likely would would go >> away. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Cool.
And anybody got anything else? >> You got anything else? >> I have a question. >> Yeah. Um, do we know how much like our like housing growth grew last year? It seems like we had a lot of projects pop
up. So, I'm just kind of curious. >> Yeah. So, I actually put something in the newsletter that will be coming out that um everyone should get direct mail to or whatnot. So, our actually our single family permits were slightly up this year. So, we saw
um some activity actually out in Northland Park out here. >> Yeah. So, lumber one has kind of chugged away out there. Um and this is starting to fill out. So, um and we're having conversations with um other developers in that in terms of facilitating more
infill housing. um some of that may come forward as well, but overall, yeah, our single family permits were up and then we had the two apartment projects um that proceeded. So, we were up in multifamily. Um what I'll say about multif family is we only have I think
maybe two three lots that are zoned properly and have utilities there that would facilitate more multifamily. After that, we don't have anything else. Um and we are getting some interest on those lots like the senior um apartment
that I mentioned and then a second phase of um potentially Joetown apartments. So um you may see some more growth on that but after that there's not really anything else for multifamily. So um
>> and when is our comp plan coming? >> Yep. So our comp plan was in 2018. So, couple years >> soonish. >> Yeah, couple years. Yep. Um, now in greater Minnesota, we're not required to update it once every 10 years. Um, in
the 7count metro area, it's a required by the Met Council. Um, legally, you have to update it every 10 years, but we still strive to update it every 10 years. So, we have allocated money out of the budget every year. we put some
money away to um account for that comprehensive plan and um hiring a consultant to to do that because it's quite the task um specifically the engagement component. So yeah, couple more years
already. It's 2026. Crazy. So yeah. >> Anything else, Nate? >> I don't have anything would entertain a motion to adjourn. >> Make a motion. >> I got a motion. >> Second. >> I got a second. All those in favor? I
>> I want to post. Welcome to the fun and thanks everybody.