Committee Minutes

Minutes/Finance/Development Standby Committee
Wednesday, June 22, 2005 – 4:00 p.m.

The Finance/Development Standby Committee met on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. in Room A101 in City Hall with Committee Chair Christensen presiding. Present at roll call were: Christensen, Glassheim, Hamerlik.

Chair Christensen called the meeting to order at 4:15p.m. Noon.

1. Central Business District Housing Task Force.

Keith Lund, Community Development Manager, stated that this item is coming to committee for further discussion on two points: 1) to determine if owner occupied units should be allowed on in the downtown area, for which a consensus has seemed to be yes; and 2) if a 1st floor residence should be allowed in the core downtown area, of which a proposal has been made to allow if they are elevated 3’ and/or set back 25’ from the street. Lund reviewed the handouts with the committee which include a map which shows the properties in the downtown area that have a footprint of less than 1,000 square feet, between 1,000 and 2,000 square feet, and a second handout which shows the frontage and building areas. He continued by reading from an e-mail from Glassheim proposing the use of minimum of 3’ elevation and the 25’ setback, both of which would allow the currently proposed developments to proceed in the downtown area, while addressing the concern expressed by some in allowing living areas on the main floor. Group consensus was that all thought main floor living should be allowed, but that there should be some limits, both in area allowed and in appearance to the general downtown where it is allowed.

Hamerlik stated that he would like to see restrictions developed that would encourage development, but that would not create a situation that would discourage a business from coming downtown to locate. He continued that he would envision it so the heart of the commercial area would have no main floor residential. Glassheim was in favor of allowing main floor development in smaller properties, such as those under 2,000 square feet, with a 20’ setback or 3’ elevation and that this would allow for a blanket policy that would not require spot zoning which is tougher to deal with as time goes on. Lund commented that with the 20’ setback this would mean that the first 20’ of a building would need to be used as a commercial storefront, with the remainder of the first floor being available to develop as housing. Hamerlik inquired whether Glassheim also wanted to address certain lots being eligible on the basis of the frontage. Lund stated that staff is not in favor of this, as there are zero lot lines downtown, so what may appear to be one large parcel, may in actuality be many small ones connected and could result in housing developing where we would prefer to have commercial. As staff, he commented that square footage seemed a better basis to use. Lund continued that staff has a concern with trying to be too specific on zoning and whether or not this would need to also go through planning and zoning before it was implemented.

Christensen stated that the committee is not addressing any zoning changed, but rather discussing changing the definition of permitted uses within the areas of a certain zoning. Lund stated that his concern is if they find this needs to be considered by planning and zoning as well as this committee that the timeline for implementation could push the final approval date back and that by rather adopting the elevation and setback or footprint/frontage determiners for allowing housing could accomplish the same thing, but in a quicker timeline.

Hamerlik stated that he has a concern that using the square footage as a determiner alone will not generate enough properties eligible to accomplish the goal of the Council and that it may not be located in all of the areas where we would like to see development. Glassheim stated that the limits could always be changed later if those fill up and we see a need to add more, and stated that he has a concern with allowing too much area and then it’s harder to pull it back.

The group discussed some current proposed projects that have been held up, such as the YMCA building project, and whether these modifications as are being discussed will help the developers be able to move along with their projects. Staff consensus was that they would.

The group discussed whether when apartments were allowed on the main floor the change was intentional or an oversight. Staff replied that the change was made in 1993 or 1994 and per Bev Collings in Inspections, the change was a conscious decision. Hoover stated that the main additional change that is being requested is to be able to have not only apartments, but owner occupied on the main level, as apartments are already allowed. The group discussed the definitions as they exist in code and debated on the terminology needed to allow the inclusion.

Glassheim brought up that is there is a zoning change that the matter would need to go before the planning and zoning commission and that they have a very defined and stringent process that must be followed and this could postpone the implementation for at least four months. The group discussed not wanting to make too specific a change and redefine the downtown just to accommodate one or two developers. Christensen stated that there should not be a need to go through a zoning change, and that the same can be accomplished by an ordinance change in definitions.

Glassheim proposed excluding and property with less than 2,000 square feet, a 3’ elevation or at least 25’setback. Christensen was not in favor of the 25’ setback as that did not seem to leave enough space for a good sized store front. Hamerlik brought up designating certain areas that should be included so that the core downtown business district could be maintained as commercial and no living areas on the main floor. The group discussed what should be viewed as the core business district, with the area determined as 3rd and 4th Streets from about University Avenue to Kittson and on DeMers Avenue from the Sorlie Bridge to 5th Street.

Glassheim pointed out that, given that area, there would need to be an exclusion to allow either of the developments currently being proposed to proceed on the properties as bid.

Hamerlik requested that staff draft the proposed changes and e-mail them out to committee members for comment on wording. The group discussed the appropriate wording that should be used and descriptive boundaries. Consensus was that in the area zoned as B4, exclude apartments and owner occupied units on main level on 3rd Street and 4th Street from University Avenue to Kittson Avenue and on DeMers Avenue from the River to 5th Street, unless such units are elevated at least 3’. The group reviewed the map to determine if there was any area South of Kittson that would be a concern if there was main floor living areas and it was noted that there were none on initial review.

Lund expressed a concern that the group was not looking at zoning of specific blocks, but rather where the property fronts in determining the permitted uses. Christensen stated that the changes that the group is making do not affect the zoning of the property, but rather they are a change in ordinance to modify the permitted uses in property that has a particular zoning.

Lund stated that he will check with Laffen on the development that he is working on in the downtown area so that he is aware and can make sure as he continues that the development will fall within the new guidelines.

Glassheim stated that there would still be time for amendments to this recommendation at the Council level if there is an unforeseen consequence that affects a development in progress, as it will go to COW, then need to have a first and second reading at Council meetings prior to being adopted.

The group consensus was to forward this to Council for the COW meeting on Monday, June 27. Christensen requested that the rest of the Council Members be provided with a map like the ones given to the Committee with the exclusion areas highlighted.

2. 2006 Community Development Block Grant Program.

Lund stated that the handouts distributed show the proposed process for this program for 2006. He continued that this is the same process that was used in 2005 and a recommendation to again use the United Way as the administrator for the public service allocation and the Citizen Advisory Committee for the bricks and mortar allocation portion of the funds, with final funding approval on November 7, 2005. He informed the committee that there is anticipated to be $1.3 million available for the 2006 CDBG Program. Of that, he stated that there will be approximately $476,000 from regular CDBG entitlement, an estimated $820,000 in program income generated from previous CDBG projects. There could be approximately $200,000 for public service projects and approximately $259,000 for administration of the CDBG program and projects, with the balance (approximately $836,000) available for bricks and mortar projects.

Hamerlik stated that he knows in addition to this there will be a request from CVIC coming forward for an annual ongoing allocation of $100,000 to support their programs.

The group discussed the process as outlined in the staff report submitted. Lund stated that at this time staff is requesting that the committee approve the process, timeline and for United Way to serve as administrator and further, that he will be asking them to reduce their request to $200,000.

Motion by Glassheim, Second by Hamerlik, to approve the staff report detailing the process and timeline as submitted by staff, including recommending utilizing the United Way as administrator of the program for 2006. Aye: All. Motion carried.

Group discussion returned to discussion of the upcoming request from CVIC. Hoover stated that if CDBG funds were to be allocated the funds would need to be expended for projects that would satisfy the national objectives, i.e. the projects must (1) benefit low/moderate income people, (2) eliminate slum and blighted conditions, and (3) address an urgent community need. The group discussed the amount of the request and whether it was excessive, given that all others in the City budget have been asked to look for ways to cut their budgets. Glassheim asked if their would be support for a lesser amount as an ongoing allocation. Christensen replied that he does not believe that a nonprofit should be written into the City budget and particularly not when we are looking for ways to cut. Glassheim stated that when CVIC comes in to do their presentation they will be highlighting their rationale for asking to be treated differently than other nonprofits, as they feel they are doing quasi-governmental public work because some of their clients are court ordered to participate in the counseling program.

Hoover reiterated that CDBG funds could only be used for this purpose if the program funded falls under the national objectives and be under the cap for public spirited funds. Lund added that there potentially could be more than the $200,000 that United Way will be given available, and possibly up to $295,000 total, and perhaps under this the Council could specify a certain amount that would go to CVIC and request that no administrative fee be charged on that portion since the United Way will not be allocating it. Hamerlik pointed out that this could be opening a door to further requests from other nonprofits for similar allocations and then we are back in the business of deciding how much money each gets annually, which is what we contract with United Way to do. The group discussed that there was a strong desire to not shift back to having the nonprofits apply directly with the City and to have a fair process for all nonprofits that is without bias, which is what we have currently with the application process administered by United Way. Glassheim stated that he felt the Council should at least listen to the planned presentation at the Mayor/Council Work Session and not make a decision until after that.

3. Adjournment.

Motion to adjourn by Hamerlik, Second by Christensen. Meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,



Sherie Lundmark
Admin Spec Sr