Tag Archives: jpb

Want information on joint planning office? Come to Thursday’s forum.

Posted on by
Reply

I was called to the front desk earlier last week to assist a gentlemen who wanted some information on the Greater Bemidji Area Joint Planning Board. He was an area resident and was trying to gather some research. So I walked him back to my desk, where we talked and did a little bit of online searching.

The man, whose name I did not catch, had some concerns about the joint planning office having taken over development and enforcement of zoning regulations in the city and Bemidji and Northern townships.

"You guys haven’t written about this," he said, referring to the Pioneer.

And I just kind of blinked at him. I mean, no reporter really expects a ton of people to read every word that he or she writes in every issue. But you kind of hope that even if someone doesn’t read much more than a headline here or there, the reader would at least understand the overall issues facing the city (i.e., right now, I would hope that even the most casual reader knows what BREC and LGA stand for, maybe even understand how LGA impacts your local city budget).

I explained to him that, yes, the Pioneer has been covering the JPB since its inception more than two years ago. But more than that, I explained, we covered the early, sometimes tense meetings between city and township officials that eventually led to the creation of the joint planning office.

It’s been more than five years, I said.

The man was very nice, and we had a fairly pleasant conversation (I think). He said he regularly reads the Pioneer and was aware of the annexation plans between the city and townships, but, he explained, he had not think we covered anything in regards to the JPB and zoning regulations. We did a quick search in our online archive system and he left with a list of newspaper dates.

I instantly thought of him Thursday, when I received the press release from the Bemidji Area Chamber of Commerce, which is hosting an open forum from 4-5:30 p.m. Thursday at City Hall with the JPB to discuss the joint planning venture, its history and process. The main focus is planned to be on business owners who want to ask questions.

More on parking from the JPB meeting

Posted on by
1

Here’s a little bit more on the driveway discussion from last night’s Greater Bemidji Area Joint Planning Board meeting. The JPB decided to recommend some changes to a section of its ordinance that would have required paved driveways for most residential parcels if a major improvement was made to the building or lot or if the residence was converted to a rental. The changes would not have applied to lots with more than 1 acre of land.

I didn’t want to spend too much time in the article that ran today (http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/event/article/id/100016756/) on the pros and cons of paved driveways since it sounded like JPB members wanted to add some flexibility into that requirement.

But there was definitely some good discussion.

Parking issues have long been discussed in Bemidji, from what I understand. I know in my 2 1/2 years here, I’ve heard those concerns come up several times at council meetings and various committee groups. And, like Mel Milender said last night, most of the residential parking issues seem to be directed at rental properties.

But, as Milender also noted, parking issues are not all confined to rental properties.

"The other main (area of concern) was when new homes are built and don’t have paved surfaces, the deterioration around the neighborhood is much quicker," Milender said.

JPB members recognized that there are problems with parking throughout the JPB’s coverage area, but said there had to be some flexibility for homeowners.

Specifically, JPB members asked if gravel could be included as an option in addition to "bituminous, concrete, pavers" surfaces required for driveways.

But Milender said that would be a return to the current parking requirements.

He agreed that gravel can certainly be aesthetically pleasing, but said the current parking requirements are not resulting in nicely maintained – or defined – parking areas.

JPB member Clark Chambers said he had a paved driveway along a gravel road, which resulted in problems. Due to weather and street maintenance, the gravel would be pushed onto the driveway and then end up in the lawn, which resulted in the deterioration of the lawn.

"It’s extremely difficult to deal with a paved driveway on a gravel road," he said.

Milender said the JPB should also consider what its goals are for the future of the community. He noted that city residents who live along dirt roads object to having to pay assessments for paving their roads, but having paved driveways make it easier to rationalize the improvements.

"It’s the chicken and the egg theory," he said.

JPB member Richard Lehmann suggested that the parking standards should define a difference between a parking lot and a driveway and handle their standards differently. He noted that he has different driveway surfaces for different garages at his home.

"We need to have some flexibility in there," he said.

What do you think?

- Bethany

Thoughts on open meetings

Posted on by
Reply

I once was told this: Reporters should be seen and not heard.

I think it was intended to say that reporters should just cover events, not speak or take part in events or meetings. While I’m sure I’ve broken this rule over the years at some point(s), I still remember the first time someone directly asked me a question during a meeting.

Years ago, I was a reporter covering two county boards, one of which at the time was trying to plan for its first visioning session (like goal-setting). Commissioners were trying, during a regular meeting, to figure out how they could hold this visioning meeting to tackle very difficult issues facing the county without having the public – or media – there.

The county attorney told them it had to be a public meeting, and the commissioners accepted that. However, they still just wanted to be able to work on issues without disruption. So the question was raised if they could ask the media not to come. The attorney said they could always ask, but couldn’t keep us from attending.

So one of the commissioners turned and looked straight at me: "Well," I recall him saying, rather grumpily. "Would you come if we held this meeting?"

(This may or may not surprise you, but I used to be very, very shy and quite afraid of people; I certainly didn’t appreciate the attention now centered on me.) I managed to squeak out that I would imagine that since it was the county’s first visioning session, that, yes, I would likely attend. And I did, a few weeks later, when the session was held.

Anyhow, my point is that now, several years later, I still get a little ruffly (I don’t think that’s a word, but it fits here) when elected officials talk about the potential of holding meetings without inviting the public or being less than hospitable to residents who want to listen in or observe.

So I need to add my 2 cents to a comment that was made during last night’s joint planning meeting.

Officials were discussing the possibility of meeting as a full group (Bemidji City Council, Bemidji Town Board and Northern Town Board) more often than once a year. It was suggested, by Tim Mountain, that meetings could be held perhaps twice a year. Cliff Tweedale, the facilitator of the meeting, said he would even be in support of semi-annual gatherings for food and coffee and just general discussion. Not a formal, sit-down-at-the-table-with-an-agenda kind of meeting. Just socialization.

It was asked whether such a get-together would be a public meeting and officials were told that it would have to be.

Then came a comment that pained my ears: "We shouldn’t invite the public."

This came from John Rowles, a Bemidji Town Board supervisor, who I had not known before last night’s meeting.

Comments like that sting a reporter’s ears: We are, hopefully, consistent champions of having public work done in a public atmosphere. So, yeah, even if elected officials get together intending to have sandwiches and soda, there is still a possibility – even if it is remote – that they could end up discussing important issues. Even if no solutions are identified or actions are taken, sometimes the path to reaching those decision (the discussion) is just as pertinent. So I wasn’t thrilled.

Fortunately (from my perspective), Rowles quickly explained himself.

All JPB members are elected officials serving on a board representing their respective city or township, he said. A JPB meeting is not the appropriate place to come complain about a dead animal or local issue. Rowles said he would prefer the public to attend the local township meeting versus a joint meeting of the JPB entities.

At least his position made sense, even if I don’t particularly agree with it.

- Bethany

Two updates

Posted on by
Reply

I have two updates on topics I’ve previously written about in this space: the joint planning meeting from last night and previous votes by Bemidji City Councilor Greg Negard.

 

First: joint planning. Officials at the joint planning meeting last night decided, after some discussion, to go with the first agenda that I posted on yesterday’s blog entry. Jan Heuer, a supervisor on the Bemidji Town Board, in particular, objected to the change in the agenda.

Cliff Tweedale, the facilitator for the meeting, said he didn’t have any problems going with the first agenda. He did explain what happened, stating that he, Mel Milender and Rita Albrecht had been discussing a potential agenda for a while when Mel needed to post an agenda to meet legal requirements. Milender added that all of the topics listed on the original agenda were intended to be discussed either way, most likely under the "short-term issues" section on the second agenda.

The matter was resolved.

The meeting last night was quite interesting. I guess I should have known better, but I did expect more solutions to be reached regarding certain issues, such as Algoma Park. But that was kind of a dumb expectation, to be honest. Officials had way too much on their plate for a two-hour meeting to be able to reach conclusions on such issues.

Instead, Tweedale led the group to identify methods in which solutions could be established in the short-term. Several issues will likely be addressed through a communication strategy that will be developed between city and joint planning staff, and then, ultimately, the Joint Planning Board.

So more information will be forthcoming – which will, hopefully, address some of residents’ many concerns.

 

Second issue: Greg Negard’s votes.

This one is way overdue. (Again, I got backlogged.) But this was an issue that came up earlier this month. I wrote on this issue in August, pondering whether Negard’s vote regarding the proposed height for development in the south shore changed. He originally voted along with the council majority on Aug. 10 in favor of a motion that I had interpreted as authorizing City Manager John Chattin "to make a presentation to the JPB on behalf of the city in favor of the height increase."

Negard, who also serves on the JPB, then voted that Wednesday, Aug. 12, on the JPB against the increase in height. (The height increased was approved, however.)

I maintained in the Aug. 13 blog entry that, no, Negard’s position did not change.

To quote myself (which feels very strange, by the way):

"I tried to be very careful in the wording of the motion, which I included in a story in Wednesday’s Pioneer, writing: "The Bemidji City Council [Monday] voted 6-1 in favor of a request from City Manager John Chattin to gain council support in asking for the height variance. Councilor Barb Meuers was opposed."

OK, so why I am re-hashing this now?

I stated in my Aug. 13 blog that I would have checked the minutes of the meeting, but they weren’t ready. Well, the Bemidji City Council on Sept.8 received the minutes of the work session at which Negard voted with the council authorizing Chattin’s presentation.

But the minutes weren’t approved that night. Negard took exception to the way the motion was written: "Motion by Waldhausen, seconded by Hellquist, directing Chattin to relay to the Joint Planning Board the Council’s support of an 80 foot height limit for the BREC. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Lehmann, Hellquist, Johnson, Negard, Waldhausen, Downs. Nays: Meuers."

Negard said Sept. 8 that he did not vote in favor of the height, but rather in favor of allowing the presentation to the JPB. Kay Murphy, the city clerk, said she would listen to the tape and return with any corrections to the minutes.

The revised minutes were presented – and approved – this past Monday. The motion now reads: "Motion by Waldhausen, seconded by Hellquist, directing the City Manager to address the Joint Planning Board to seek the higher height variance. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Lehmann, Hellquist, Johnson, Negard, Waldhausen, Downs. Nays: Meuers."

(In fairness to Murphy, by the way, she didn’t record the minutes of the Aug. 10 work session as she was on vacation; someone else was filling in.)

So, yeah, it’s kind of an old issue now. But I thought I should at least give you readers the final update on the matter.

- Bethany

Did Greg Negard’s position on the south shore height change in three days?

Posted on by
1

The question was raised last night as to whether Bemidji City Councilor Greg Negard, who also serves on the Greater Bemidji Area Joint Planning Board, changed his vote on the proposed increase in height for the development around the Bemidji Regional Event Center.

The JPB on Wednesday voted 5-3 to approve a request from the city of Bemidji to allow development in the south shore to reach as high as 80 feet rather than the 65 feet allowed by ordinance. Negard was one of the three opposed.

Fellow JPB member Richard Lehmann, who also is the Bemidji mayor, said last night that Negard voted in favor of the request Monday evening during a Bemidji City Council work session.

But that’s not quite accurate.

Yes, the City Council did vote 6-1 on Monday, with Negard voting in favor. But the motion did not state that it would be a vote on the council’s position on the height increase. Rather, the vote authorized City Manager John Chattin to make a presentation to the JPB on behalf of the city in favor of the height increase.

I tried to be very careful in the wording of the motion, which I included in a story in Wednesday’s Pioneer, writing: "The Bemidji City Council [Monday] voted 6-1 in favor of a request from City Manager John Chattin to gain council support in asking for the height variance. Councilor Barb Meuers was opposed." (Emphasis has been added by me, just now.)

It is quite possible that Lehmann, or someone else, may have understood the motion to be more than what I have stated it as being. But I believe I took careful notes. And, I’m confident that Negard knew very well what he was voting for or against.

Negard, responding to Lehmann during last night’s JPB meeting, pointed out two things: 1, he was not voting in favor of the height request Monday as much as approving the presentation by Chattin; and 2, at last night’s meeting he was representing the JPB and not the council.

So, in returning to the original question: Did Greg Negard’s position on the south shore height change in three days? No, I don’t believe it changed at all.

A note: Typically, I would double-check my notes versus the official minutes of the meeting. But since the work session was held Monday, the draft minutes will not be available until today or tomorrow. And the minutes will not be made official until after the council approves them, presumably during this coming Monday’s meeting.

Reaching new heights?

Posted on by
Reply

A few hours from now, the Greater Bemidji Area Joint Planning Board will decide just how high development will be allowed in the south shore. I don’t expect the decision, whichever way it may go, to come without some good discussion. Consider that the Joint Planning Commission last month tied on its vote, 5-5, as it considered the issue.

By ordinance, development in the Lakeshore District (the south shore redevelopment) can reach 65 feet. The Bemidji Regional Event Center will be about 21 feet above that, for which the city of Bemidji received a variance in December.

Now, the city has requested a variance to allow associated development to reach 80 feet.

The arguments on both sides have merit. The city wants to allow higher development to reach up to 80 feet tall so that development would be more "aesthetically-pleasing" and utilize different roof levels. The city would require that anything built above 65 feet would not be occupiable (I know this isn’t technically a word, but it works nicely here) and that only 50 percent of the building be allowed to be that tall. Basically, the city wants to force developers to build something other than big, rectangular buildings.

But on the other side are those who want to preserve the views of and from the lake. Planning commissioners have said that the 65-foot level was based on the height of trees in the area so buildings would not extend higher than what is naturally along that shoreline now.

Further, some JPB and JPC members believe they were misled on the height issue. Select members recall that when they were initially asked last year to consider the raised height for the BREC that they were assured, by city representatives, that the city would not request an additional height for complimentary development.

Did this happen? I can’t be 100 percent sure, although I’m inclined to say yes. I was at the meeting and I do have a faint memory of a city representative stating that he did not believe the city would request an additional height variance, as it is now. But I can’t find that statement in my notes. City Manager John Chattin, who made a presentation to the JPC last month on the latest height request, acknowledged that he, too, has heard of the assurance — but said that if someone did say that, he would have misspoken. The city has always intended to ask that the height limit be raised, Chattin said.

So all of this will come into play tonight as the JPB makes a final determination on the height issue. Public comment will not be taken, considering that the public hearing was held earlier this year.

This is the kind of meeting I really look forward to covering. Good discussion, valid arguments.

But, perhaps even more so than that, I am interested in seeing the JPB decide on the future of city development. The joint planning process just began a couple of years ago – and now officials from not only the city, but also the neighboring townships will dictate how a very key piece of city land will develop. I find that fascinating.

So will it pass? I really don’t know, either way I think it will be close. But my gut says yes, that if all eight JPB members are able to attend tonight’s meeting, the city will get its height variance.

We will see.