Well, it is that time again. Time for a City Council meeting! Here is what happened (and yes, I am back on schedule getting these out).
I will take this one opportunity to mention (and won't mention it again because it isn't the purpose of this blog), that I AM running for a second term as Mayor, so please write-in Jay Arrowsmith DeCoux on the ballots in November. And remember! Your vote is your say!
Thank you!
The meeting was called to order at 6:30pm with Councilor Kennedy absent (and Councilor Benson coming in a minute later).
I opened up the public comment period and invited members of the public to come forward and share their comments and we had some people come forward.
We had local resident Hal Greenwood come forward and speak on behalf of one of our agenda items. He spoke in favor of granting a re-zoning to the Spry property based on its legacy as a commercial building and the potential economic benefit a repurposing of the building would provide.
Second we had Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Jim Boyd echo those sentiments commenting that the property has been assessed as a commercial property and has been paying commercial property taxes for decades, so thus it should be allowed to be re-zoned to match its historic and current use.
Third we had local resident Todd Sylvestor come forward and speak against the requested change saying that it was unwarranted in the current example and the Council needs to act with consistency on the topic of the residential zone.
Fourth we had Betsy Bowen speak in favor of the re-zoning saying that even though she owns and operates a similarly non-conforming property, the benefits of having the proposed property re-zoned far outweigh the risks, thus making it a good thing all around.
The Council thanked these people for their comments and I closed the Public Forum.
The Consent Agenda was the usual three items (Approving Previous Meeting Minutes, Approving Current Meeting Agenda, and Pay Bills) and was unanimously approved.
The Council moved on to the Planning Commission Report, which was populated by a request from a property owner (Spry) and the property purchaser (Surbaugh) to have the interested property re-zoned from R-1 Residential to MU Mixed Use Commercial. The argument for the change is the property's proximity directly across the street from the MU zone and its historical use as a commercial building throughout its existence, far pre-dating the formation of the City's Zoning Ordinance in 1971.
The Planning Commission reviewed the request and made the recommendation to the Council by a vote of 4-0 to deny the request because it didn't meet the criteria put forward in the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a change of zoning. In order to be able to change the zoning of a property you have to be able to prove that the re-zoning is in compliance with the Land Use Plan in the Comprehensive Plan, that there was a mistake when the property was originally zoned in 1971, and that the rezoning offers a unique and clear public benefit beyond the convenience and benefit of the owners.
The Planning Commission found that this request didn't meet those requirements and made that recommendation to the Council.
All of this information sparked a great deal of conversation about the logistics and legalities of the property's current non-conforming use status that it has because it was grandfathered in when the zoning ordinance was created in 1971. The place that was unclear was whether or not the non-conforming use applies to the
entire property as long as some portion of the property is still being used for the non-conforming use or if
sections of the property lose the grandfathered non-conforming use if they haven't been used for that purpose for 12 months.
All that the ordinance says is that if the property isn't used for the non-conforming use for 12 months, then the non-conforming status is lost. It isn't very clear.
The Council spent a great deal of time asking questions to try and get to the bottom of this. The main question for the property was whether or not the second floor, which has been used as a residence for many years could revert back to commercial use as an office or if it would have to remain residential because of the clause I mentioned above.
There was no clear answer for that question and it was eventually decided that the Planning Commission needs to consider that before the Council does.
There were two issues that needed to be addressed: 1. Is the Council going to approve the request to rezone the property? and 2. If the City doesn't do that, how can we clarify the rules for grandfathered properties?
In the end the Council voted to deny the request for the re-zoning in one of the most confusing votes I have ever taken (Vote YES to deny the request... It was confusing). Councilor Moody voted against the motion (Vote NO to support the request...see what I mean?). The evidence that the Planning Commission brought forward was something that, in the current lay of the ordinance, was pretty clear... in a muddy sort of way.
I amended the resolution before it was passed however to reflect my, and others' feelings that there
was an error made in the original zoning of the building and that the building should have been zoned commercial in the first place. This is a small statement, but considering the building's history, it seemed appropriate.
There was, however, considerable conversation after the vote regarding the City's need to put some more effort and time into rebuilding the Zoning Ordinance because we continually get hit with situations that the Ordinance is not outfitted to handle. This may be an unrealistic goal, but the Council showed significant interest in a complete re-writing of the ordinance based on the values identified in the upcoming Community Planning/Comprehensive Planning process. So BE A PART OF IT! HAVE YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!
That topic absorbed a great deal of the evening, but there was more to be accomplished, so we marched on...
The next item was the renewal of all of the Liquor Licenses for the City. Don't worry, we approved the renewals, so the beer will still be flowing.
The Council also looked at some more information pertaining to the preliminary budget that we needed to approve this evening. The proposed number of 5.49% was still present in the forefront, but Administrator Roth provided the Council with some perspective numbers to assist in our idea of perhaps raising the levy more than we need to in order to save up some money for future projects. He informed us that we already put away nearly $100,000 a year for such a purpose and we do about that much in each department as well, so we are doing ok for reserves. He also showed that a 1% increase in the City Levy is equal to $8718.65, which isn't a lot of money. It would take a 5-10% increase in the levy to begin to put away enough money to make a difference in the City's debt payments or to pay for one of the nearly $12 million of capital projects that we have on the calendar before 2021. With all of this information and the knowledge that we budget conservatively on the performance of the City's Enterprises (Liquor Store and Rec. Park), the Council felt comfortable with the number and set the preliminary budget at 5.49%. To be clear, this means that the Council cannot increase the levy more than that, but can reduce it before December.
The Council was then shown the amended Request for Proposals discussed at our last meeting. The request identifies that the City will be receiving bids to be the Construction Manager for the Public Works Facility until October 11th after which we will be interviewing and hiring the firm that will build the building. All of the changes suggested at our last meeting were present in this draft including the authority for the Council to have the final approval of all contracts and for the inclusion of renewable energy technologies into the building. There was a motion and the Council unanimously passed it, so that request will go out tomorrow!
We had one other item:
We received a bid to purchase the restaurant building off of the Tomteboda property at the top of the hill for $1000. The Council weighed the pros and cons of keeping the building to potentially increase the value of the property should the City seek to sell it in the future or to be used for another purpose. In the end the Council voted to accept the bid and sell the building for $1000 so that we don't get stuck with it later and so that it can be put to use.
Riding on the shirt-tails of that request was another bid for a few of the other buildings on the property, which the Council accepted, with the exception of one request, which was to remove and move just the garage from the motel unit, which the Council deemed too invasive and would leave the property even worse to look at than it is right now.
The good thing is that there will be some clearing of those buildings!
On to Council Updates:
Councilor Mills reported great news from the Park Board for the season however they are strapped for workers and the Park Board is interested in revisiting what the responsibilities of the Park Employees is.
Councilor Moody reported that the Director of the Art Colony, Amy Demmer, came before the EDA to request their support in continuing to develop a Cook County Cultural Plan as well as to continue helping to develop the local arts economy. The EDA voted to assist with staff time.
Councilor Benson went to a North Shore Management Board meeting, which is an agency that works on protecting the Lake Superior shoreline and watershed. She reported that they are updating their management plan and that the City will have to approve the updates made at some point. She thought it would be good to have the Management Board put on a presentation on the Plan for the City and County at some point because we are both players in the Plan.
The Board is also working on some interactive maps for the area to showcase wayside rests and other points of interest on the Shore, and the Glensheen Mansion in Duluth is looking to connect its campus to the Superior Hiking Trail and potentially install different interpretive pieces about the Congdon family history in the area.
I only had a few things actually:
CCLEP is having an Energy Efficiency Expo on October 1st and it is going to be awesome. They want people to sign up, so do that on the website:
cookcountylocalenergy.org
I reported on the Arts Economy meetings that I have been invited to and have been keeping up on. The major ask that the group has of the City is to form some sort of Arts Commission to manage public art and aesthetics.
I asked if we should relocate the bike fix station that is currently in front of the Co-Working Outpost to a higher traffic location. I suggested the new Visit Cook County location, other suggestions were Harbor Park. The Council will think about it and decide at a future meeting.
The last thing that I had was that I received a few complaints from people in the community regarding the quality of the rental housing stock in town. There isn't anything that the Council can directly do about this, but it is of note in all of the conversation that we have had about housing! We need to do something!
That's it for this meeting. It was a long one.
As always, if you have any questions or comments, please let me know!
