HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.b, Zoning Ordinance Discussion .
` � 't )
P.O. BOX 510
(�1�u O 2875-145TH ST.W.
O ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA 55068
�J'ern 0u'n� 612-423-4411
Agenda Item 8
Tp; Mayor, City. Councit, City Administrgtor
FROM: Dean Johnson, Director of Community Development
DATE: September 15, 1989
SUBJ: Item 8 - Zoning Hearing
I'd like to take the opportunity to provide you with a summary on the Zoning
Ordinance adoption procedure to date. As you are well aware, we have completed an
intense, detailed aad lengthy review process by the Planning Commission and City
Council over the past two years. We have held two separate public hearings in August
to receive public input. We have a third hearing opportunity on the 19th for the
"new" testimony, which is in response to concerns about the sign provisions of the
proposed ordinance.
Based upon comments received at the past two hearings, staff have no
recommendations for additions or modifications to the ordinance, other than those
minor procedural revisions outlined by Mike Wozniak at the hearings. We have had
two meetings with the business community since the last hearing, which have resulted
in suggestions for revisions to the sign "ordinance:' There are some recommendations,
based on this input, that I would like to put forward at this time.
Mike hosted a meeting last week with several business leaders. The comments ranged
from rather hostile objections to literally any type of regulation to some very genuine
and constructive suggestions for revisions. The latter allows the City the opportunity
to understand concerns and suggest appropriate revisions, while the former doesn't
present an opportunity to respond at a1L
Mike has outlined the comments from the business community in a memo to the City
Council, dated September 11, 1989. The comments are rather limited in scope when
compared to the entire content of the sign provisions. I would hope that these
comments are an indication of the extent of the concerns, since the City Council
extended the comment period specifically for this purpose. Staff have made every
effort to encourage inpu[ from the business community and be prepared to respond
in time for the remaining public hearing. Obviously, new testimony is acceptable at
the hearing as well. We are simply attempting to address all issues in a timely
fashion and avoid unnecessary delays in the adoption of the ordinance. �i
There are nine specific issues identified in Mike's 9/11/89 memo. I would like to
briefly comment on each oae.
The first regards a grovision intended to avoid a public safety issue. Mike has
suggested language revisions that address the concerns of the business eommunity.
The second regards "flashing" signs and electronic reader boards. This is a subjective
ordinance provision. The current language prohibits flashing lights and "moving
messages." It is strictly an aesthetic consideration; although, there are strong
arguments that in certain locations and with certain signs, the distractions represent
potential hazards. These types of regulations are intended to provide consistency in
signage use rather than restrictions. Are blinking signs and message boards needed
to promote retail and service uses in the cammunity? This is the question that the
Council must address. It's an all or nothing provision. There is no mid ground.
' ' � September 19 1989 C �`'}cil Agenda Item 8 '�
Zoning Hearing �
Page Two
The third regards hours that business sigas may be illuminated. This reference comes
from other city ordinances implemented in the late 70's and early 80's. It was
specifically related to trends responding to the energy crisis. "Purpose no. 7" in the
beginning of the sign provisions accounts for this wording. At this point in time we
recommend deleting this provision in its entirety.
T�e fourth regards window signage. This is also a subjective standard, but it is not
either/or. Windows and skylights are architectural treatments which guarantee
natural Iight and aesthetic considerations. This type of regulation is meant to prevent
total visual intrusion through signage coverage. It is not meant to be overly
restrictive and eliminate advertising potentiaL Whether the regulation is 35%
coverage and 12-inch lettering or 25% aad 6-inch lettering, I believe there is need for
a particular standard to provide consistency and uniformity.
The fifth and seventh items are similar issues, relating to temporary signage and
advertising gimmickry. Presently, these sections require temporary permits for
po;tahle signs and banners, beacons and the like. We have suggested two 14-day
permits each year for the portables and two 3-day permits for the others. As in the
case of the window signs, some type of regulation is necessary to maintain consistency
anc� avoid unregulated and unlimited use of such devices. Our recommendations came
from other city ordinances. Many cities are more restrictive, some are less restrictive.
Apple Valley is similar to our language, while Lakeville suggests three 10-day permits
rather than two 14-day permits. This is an item that simply requires consensus on a
particular standard.
The sixth regards painting signs directly on the exterior surface of a building. I
don't believe there was as much objection to this provision as there was a request for
clarification. This is a rather standard provision in sign ordinances and is intended
to prevent the worst case from occurring. We allow wall signs to be affixed in all
commercial districts, up to 15% of the total wall area. This language does not preveni
advertising opportunity, it simply sets a minimum standard to protect other's
investments and the public interest.
Tre eighth regards the "locatian" of business signs. In our existing ordinance we do
n�t allow signs to be located off the site of the business itself. We are not proposing
any change to that. This is an "either/or" provision with little or no mid ground. Aa
exa�ple is when a business has frontage on a "back street" and wants a sign on the
main roadway. In order to be fair and consistent in sign regulations, all businesses
would be given this opportunity. The businesses along the main roadway will have
their own permitted signs and then the City must set standards for the location and
spacing of a conceivably unlimited number of other signs. Our restriction is typical
of sign ordinances, including our existing provision.
The ninth and last regards a safety provision. As is the case with all other provisions
of the zoning ordinance, pvblic health, safety and welfare is the basis for regulation.
This particular reference gives the Planning Commission the authority to guarantee
public health, safety and welfare. If an applicant feels the Planning Commission has
outstepped its authority, there is an appropriate appeals process in place to protect the
rights �f the applicant. I can't recommend any changes in this provision.
I am aware that the Chamber of Commerce has made a recommendation to adopt the
Zoning Ordinance, with exception to the sign provisions. It would appear that the
majo:ity of the proposed sign language is not in dispute. It is disappointing to think
that the time and effort of the Planning Commission and City Council over the past
two years is met with this conclusion. It appears that efforts of city staff during the
past two weeks [o resolve conflicts are unsatisfactory. It simply hurts to get this far
and not seek sesolution.
Sep.ember 19, 1989 t hcil Agenda Item 8 ��}
Zoning Hearing
Page Three
I respect the awareness of the Chamber to keep the balance of the Zoning Ordinance
adoption on track. I also believe that the Chamber is interested in reasonab1e,
consistent regulation which not only protects the non-busin�ss community, but protects
investaient by the business community. My remaining concern is w n we can resolve
the issues. ' '
If the comments at the public hearing suggest that there are many other issues in the
sign ordinance that have not been preseated to staff, the Council must evaluate the
pros and cons of not taking action on the sign provisions. Perhaps the issues can be
resolved at the meeting itself. In any event, I agree with the Chamber that the
CoLncil should not delay action on the balance of the Zoning Ordinance.
As noted in the beginning of this memo, we have no recommendations to cause the
revisions to the balance of the Zoning Ordinance. If the Council feels uncomfortabile
adopting the proposed sign provisions, then you must incorparate the existing controls
into the proposed ordinance. We can expand upon these scenarios at the meeting ',if
desired. '
1 �
P:O E30X 510
��1��11 O 2875-14�iltl ST. W
d R05EMOUNT. MINNLSOTA 550fiR
osernoun� �t2_ 42�-�4„
TU: CITY COUNCIL "��� � �
FROM: 1VIICHAEL WOZNIAK, AICP, CITY PLANNER
DATE: AUGUST 11, 1959
SUBJ: AUGUST 15, 1989 - REGULAR MEETING REVIEWS
9. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE
The purpose of this �public hearing is to consider the New Zonins Ordinance &
Official Zoning Map. Encloscd with this revicw are copics of the Ncw Zoning
Ordinance and Zoning Map plus a copy of the existin� Zonin� Map.
Since lhe City Council has extensi��ely reviewed the Zoning Ordinance text it is
my un�derstanding that all signiEicant questions regarding content have been
addressed at this point. If there are any further questions which should be
addressed prior to the hearing please fcel free to conlact me.
The new zoning map rcflects a variety of changes most of which wcre made
necessary by changes in the zoning ordinance text.' For example, since there are
three mul[i-family resideritial districts (R-2. R-3, R-4) in the new ordinance
versus one, the RM Residential Multiple district in the current ordinance it was
necessary to redesignate properties currenily zoncd RM to one of tl�c three new
dcsignations. It could be noticed that thcrc wcre a few RM spo[ ronin�s in the
arca just wcst of downtown which havc bccn changcd lo R-1 Singlc Family
Residential zoning. These properties are primarily duplexcs and bccause of small
lot sizes it would not be prac[ical to rcplace them if thcy should be removed for
any reason. Due to the creation of the C-4 Gcneral most of Soulh Rose Park
has becn rcdesignated to that district �vhich allows a ��idcr ran�c of retail uses
than thc prcvious C-3 Zoning. Sincc G1 zoning no�v ailows onl�� convcniencc
stores and sclf-scr�ice gasotine the retail uscs on thc Tom Thumb Store site
(145th St.) will now be rccognizccl as lcgal non-con forming uscs. A(so thc
Tcxaco Gas Stalion silc (soon to bc SuperAmcrica) has bccn rczoncd form C-3 to
C-1 in conformance �vi[h the proposcd use of lhe property. Fwthcr more in the
northwcst portion of the City many properities have heen rczoned from AG
Agricullure to RR Rural Residential to conform �vith thc Comprehensi��c Guide
Plan Dcsignation for that arca. For cxampic, subdivisions likc Rosemount Hills
and Mickclson's First and Sccond Additions �vhich �vcrc crcatcd prior to the
cxistcnce of tl:c RR di5trict havc bccn rcdcsi�natcd from R-i or AG. Othcr
propc:ti�s which arc lcss than 20 acres ici siu and cannot logically l�c uscct for
agricullurc arc a(so bcin� rcdcsi�natcd t� RR. Also si�nificant is that large
blocks o[ acreage in [hc easc portion of Rosemount currenlly zonccl IPRK
Industrial Park will be redesi�natcd to I-GEN Gencral IndustriaL Since put�iic
utilitics arc not available in this arca thc IPRK was a misnomcr because the Ciiy
would not allow highcr dcnsity dc��clopmcnt as allowcd in 1('RK District l�ut
rathcr would cnforce thc minimum 5 acrc lot size as rcquircd in thc I-GL•N
district. Thc Council should :1150 notc thal ]80 acres o( thc USPCI sitc have
been dcsignated WNI Wastc Management District. This con forms lo liac por�ion
of the USPCI sitc which is currcntly zoncd IPRK.
Plcasc contact mc prior to tl�c hcaring i!' thcrc arc anv qucslion rcgarcling thc
ncw zonins ordinancc map.
. • -:� . � � ��_,� �
As Council is aware this public hearing will be continued to August 29th and the
intent is to accept comments on the bulk of the orciinance on August 15th and
then to address the provisions relating to IJSPCI on August 29th. Since there
may be considerable public comment regarding the ordinance staff is
recommending that Couneil follow a specific procedurc to recieve comments in an
orderly fashion. Council w�ill be advised prior to the meeting regarding
procedures to be used for this hearing, Steps to be used witl including limiting
citizens to one comment and limiting Ihe question or commen[ [or each citiZen
to 5 minutes. City Administrator, Steve Jilk, will review these procedures with
Council prior to Che meetin�.
. ' 1 �
�,:� f� }• , F . , ,;;ix • �u
� �(,11 t� (►� .�s, . .��� ��i :��
r / 1 pE R(�iEMO1IN t h1WfdE, �r I A E�•�i4iH
` � �.1.�.�(.��'�'j.� �t�� �l! F;1? 1.'3 �3�111
x •---
.r.
TO: CITY COUNCIL
/f�� `7`h•
FROM: MICHAEL WOZNIAK, AlCP, CITY PLAI�NER
DATE: J ULY 13, 1989
SUBJ: JULY 18, 1989 - REGULAR MEETING REV[EWS
SET HEARING DATE FOR ZONtNG ORDINANCE AllOPTION
Having completed a productive review process with City Council of the Proposed
Zoning Ordiaance, S[aff has at this point prepared a fiaal revised draft
incorporating the changes desired by City Council. It is the conclusion of Staff
including City Administrator, Steve Jilk; Director of Community Development,
Deaa Johnson; and, City Plannex, Mike Wozniak, tha[ aow is the time for City
Council to solicit public comment on the docurnent and to consider taking action.
Included with this review is a copy of a Public Notice which would announce a
public hearing date of August 1, 1989 to be continued to August 15, 1989. The
aatice includes a summary of the most significant areas of change from the
current zoniag ordinance. The notice suggests that the Council cansider
questions or comments regarding the majority of the content of�.th,� qrdinance at
� the 'August lst hesiing date, however, it is has been suggested that considera[ion
of provisions creating a WM - Waste Management District and the permit[ing by
Iaterim Use Permit of Non-Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Facili[ies be done
exclusively at the August 15th Meeting.
Staff requests that Council set public hearing dat�s es indicated in the public
notice for consideration of the New Zoning Ordinance.
_ l �
i. ,y . . )/ � . . � I� � l.l'A t'.i
��P �.,� e l_:`t l t U , , ,i •,t ,�'
�
• � �
��• { itt2`ii.i.u)��t!1. t�� It�ir c,!A .`,7uu:)
.� � ���a6i���"��"���.tl� � � � (:1 1:�,3-�1^1�
. . , . . , . Public Natice ,�;. �� .
` New Zoning Ordinance
TO WHOM !T MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE tS HEREBY CIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Rosemount will conduct
a public hearing on Tuesday, August 1, 1989, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 2875
145th Street West, beginning at 8:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. This hearing
will be continued to August 15, 1989 at 8:30 p.m. also in the Council Chambers of City
Hall. The purpose of this hearing is to consider adoption of a New Zoning Ordinance.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PROPOSEll ZONING ORDINANCE
The City Council of the City of Rosemount intends to consider for adoption a new to
Zoning Oxdinance which represents a comprehensive revision to the current Zoning
Ordinance. The City's current Zoning Ordinance which was origonally adopted in 1972
and which had been amended from time to time, has been recogaized by the City as
being antiquated in terms of adequately addressing [he complexities of regulating land use
in today's development climate. Changing attitudes in the community, changing
developmeat trends and the addition of new state and federal land use regulations have
prompted a need to undertake a comprehensive revision of the City of Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance. The process of revising the Zoning Ordinance has ac[ually beea in progress
for several years. The current draft of the Proposed Ordinance represen[s a culmination
af efforts of both City Staff and Consultants as well as a considerable amount of review
time by the Planning Commission and City Council.
The Proposed Zoning Ordinance represents a continuation oC many of the concepts
regarding the orderly regulation of land use tha[ formed the basis of the current
ocdinance, however, the Proposed Zoning Ordinance is a much more detailed and all
encompassing document. This summary identifies those sections of the Proposed Zoning
Ordinance which iuclude the most significant addilional �rovisions or changes from the
requirements of the current Zoning C)rdin:�nce.
SECTION 3 (UEFINITIONS) - This scction has bccn consid�rahly cxpandcd with many ncw
dafinitions und changcs to mdny uf thc dcfinitiuns that wcrc uscJ in thc currcnt zc�ning
ordinancc.
S::CfION � (GENERAL PROVISIONS) - This section expands upon its counterpart in the
cLrrent ordinance to specify new or existing provisions which affect all zoning districts
or least several districts. For example this section includes prc�visions which regula[e the
conducting of a Home Occupation (busincss run out of a ho►ne); Home Occupa[ions are
permitted in atl residenlial dislricts and th� Agricullure District subject to the provisioas
cited in Section 4.
SECTION 5 (ZONING DISTRICTS) - This section which lists the Zoning Districts iadicates
thal the following new districts have bcen incorporated into the Proposed Zoning
Ordinance:
RL Low Uensity Single Family Residential District
R-2 Single Family Attached Residence District
R-3 NEuttiple-Family Residence Uistrict
R-4 Multiple-Family Residence Uistrict
C-4 Genera! Commercial District
WM Waste Management Uistrict
� )
SECT[ON 6 (D1STRICT REGULATIONS) - This section of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance
lists in detail the uses which are permitted in each Zoning District inctuding the five
new districts cited above.
SECTION 7 (DISTRICT DEVELQPMENT REG ULATIONS) - This section reflects changes
in dimensional requirements including yard setbacks, height limitations, density
requirements and open space requirements. Also included in this section under subsection
7.2 (Supplementary Regulations) are new provisions which regulate appearance of
Buildings by requiring that certain types of building materials be used in exterior
construction. This section addresses building aesthetics in all districts with particalar
atteation directed toward Commercial aad Industrial Districts and also to regulating the
size and appearance of accessory buildings in all Residential Districts and the Agriculture
District (under 20 acre parcel size).
SECTION 8 (OFF-STREET PARKING,LOADING AND LANDSCAPING) -Most significant in
this section are man�r changes in parking requirements for commercial and industrial uses
from what is required under the current ordinance. It has been long recognized by the
City that parking requirements in the currenl zoning ordinance are somewhat excessive
for certain uses and the new standards are an attempt to eslablish a more logical ratio
of parking for many commercial uses. Also, specific landscaping requirements are
established for all districts which cite numbers of required plantings of trees and
foundation plantings. The current zoning ordinance does specify that landscapiag is
required for new development but does not include any numerical requirements.
SECTION 9 (SHORELAND OVERLAY REGULATIONS) - This section adds completely new
provisioas which are not included in [he current zoning ordinance. It is the inteat of
these shorelaad overlay regulations to impose restrictions in addition to those required by
the underlying zoaing for the protection of shoreland areas, the preservation and
enhancement of the quality of surface waters and the wise utilization of water and
related land resources.
S�CTION 10 (SIGNS) - This section provides much expanded provisions for the regulation
of signs. A large section of definitions of various types has been included and more
� detailed ;information regarding permitting requirements has been inct�u�de�d." The ordinance
remains rela[ively stric[ regarding size requiremen[s for signs with the largest sign
allowed being l0U sq. ft. (10' x 10') for Commercial Developments with 10 or more
- businesses.
SECTION 11 (PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - ALL D[STRICTS) • This section specifies
standards by which Uses shalled be judged which because of the nature of their
operation are accompanied by excess of noise, vibration, dust dirt, smoke, odor noxious
gases, glare or wastes shall not be permitted. The provisions of this sectioa have beea
slightly modified from the corresponding provisions of the current zoning ordinance, but
the intent of the section remains the same. Added to this section are provisions to
allow Non-Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Facilily to be permitted by Interim Use Permit
subject to established conditions.
SECTION 14 (ADMINISTRAT[ON AND ENFORCEMENT) - This section of the proposed
ordinance includes a variety of provisions regarding the Adminisuation and Enforcement
of the Zoning Ordinance some of which were specified in the Current Zoning Ordinance
as well as several new requirements. Most significantly new or sigaificantly changed
requirements are established for the following:
1. Site Plan Review - requirements and procedures
2. Licensing Requirements for Contractors.
3. Grading Permil Requirements.
4. Mining Permit Requirements (Mineral Extraction).
5. Recyling Operalion Permil Reyuiremen[s.
, _..,
- '•� �
Provisions in Section 6 to allow creation of the WM Waste Management District and
provisioas in Section 11 to allow lhe devclapment of Non-Hazardous Waste Land Dis�osal
F�cility subject to lnterim Use Permit rcyuircmci�ls will be considered exclusively on the
August 15, 1989 public hearing date. Uther conlent of the Zoning Urdiaance will be
considered on the August 1, 1989 public hearing date.
Copies of the proposed City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance are available for review at
City Hall, weekays, during business hours, 7:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Any questions regarding
the proposed Zoning Ordinance may be directed to the City of Rosemount, Community
Development Depar[ment, ph.#: 423-4411.
Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to lhe above item will be heard at
these meelings.
Stephan Jilk, Administrator/Clerk
City of Rosemount
Dakola County, Minnesota
. ._
-
, , ,,} }
/ P.O. BOX 510
t�1�� � 2875-145TH ST. W.
� �n ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA 55068
OS'e'7/(��'un� 612-423-4411
TO: ROSEMOUNT BUSINESS OWNERS/EMPLOYEES
FROM: MICHAEL WOZNIAK, AICP, CITY PLANNER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 1989
SUBJ: COPY OF REVIEW FOR CITY COUNCIL FOR SEPTEMBER 19TH PUBLIC
HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE: SIGN
PROVISIONS
One Thursday, September 7, 1989, I met with a group of Rosemount Business '
Owners & Employees to discuss the sign provisions of the Proposed Zoning
Ordinance. Those present at that meeting voiced some valid concerns regarding
the effect the ordinance could have on their ability to use signage to bring
attention to their businesses.
I informed those present at the meeting that I would happy to incorporate their '
comments into my review for City Council prior �to continuation of the Public
Hearing to consider the Zoning Ordinance on September 19th. At our meeting
on September 7th we reviewed the entire section of the Proposed Zoning
Ordinance relating to signs and identified those sub sections which the business
owners/employees present thought should be changed or at least further
discussed by the City Council. In this review I have indicated which sub-
sections of Section 10 are of concern to the business community and further,
have tried to summarize what the concerns or problems involve. Lastly, I have '
given a staff response as to why the language was draf[ed and also, have
included recommendations from City Staff as to whether any changes should be , ;
made based on my September 7th meeting with business owners/employees. '
SUB-SECTIONS OF CONCERN TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY
Sub-section 10.1. C. 2: No sign shall contain colors, shapes, intermittent
� lighting or words such as "stop", "warning", "caution", etc. which may be
confused with traffic signing or controls unless such signs are intended and
approved for such use.
The concern of those business owners present at the September 7th meeting
regarding this provision was that it may preclude the use of signage where the
use of the words stop, warning, cau[ion, etc., would not represent a traffic
hazard that cauld be confused with public safety signs.
Based upon discussion at the September 7th meeting staf f will recommend to '
Council that Sub-section 10.1. C. 2. be modified to read as follows:
No sign shall eontain colors, shapes, words such as "stop", "warning",
"caution", etc. which may clearly be confused with traffic sigaing or
controls unless such signs are intended and have been approved by the
City for such use.
. . � �
��b-section 10.1 C. 9.: No sign shall contain intermittent, flashing or other type
� of lighting which changes in intensity or color when artificially illuminated,
except time and temperature signs.
Those business ownerslemployees present at the September 7th meeting had two
main issues with this provision. First, their appeared to be a consensus that the
use of flashing lights should not be excluded. Secondly, their also seemed to be
agxeement that businesses should be allowed to use electronic reader boards.
First, I should clarify the pasition of City Staff regarding this provision. The
use of flashing lights or lights which change color in Christmas Decorations
would not be in violation of this provision. Further, the display of christmas
lights which may flash or change color, and are for retail sale would not be in
violation of this provision provided they are clearing associated with the
Christmas Holiday. The only restriction on lighting associated with Christmas
would be if excessive lighting is used which clearly is a distraction to motorists
and a safety hazard.
City Staff continues to recommend to City Council that the use of flashing lights
or lights which change color for purposes other than Christmas decorations is
inappropriate and should not be allowed. Further, City Staff recommends that
exterior electronic reader boards do represent a distration and potentional hazard
to motorists that should not be allowed. This does not preclude the use of fixed
reader boards that do not move electronically.
3 Sub-section 10.1 C. 10: Business signs may only be illuminated during business
hou rs.
Business owners/employees present at the September 7th meeting thought that
this provision was excessive and should be removed.
After review City Staff has recognized that this provision was inadvertently left
in the current draft of the Proposed Zoning Ordiaance and that it should be
removed. Not only would this provision be unfair ta businesses but it would also
be difficult to enforce.
� Sub-section 10.1 C. 11.: Window sign or lettering shall not exceed 25% of the
total window area in which they are displayed, provided further that lettering
does not exceed six (6) inches in height. Exceptions will only be permitted
when window signs are used in lieu of other permiUed signage.
The consenus of those business owners/employees present was this section should
be eliminated and that their should not be restrictions on the use of window
signage or lettering. In particular there was a concern that the 6 inch limit oa
letter size was to restrictive.
The Ci[y Staff response to the idea of eliminating restrictions on window signage
is this: the limiting of window signage to 25% of window area is for aethetic
reasons. In recent months there ha5 been increased awareness by City Council
and by the Community in general of urban design issues and specifically the
desire to have an attractive downtown. This awareness stems largeiy from the
Study and Presentations of the Staff of the Center for Urban Design of the
University of Minnesota which was conducted several months ago. Allowing
windows of commercial buildings to be completely covered with signage would
. , _ _� �
negatively effect the appearance of those buildings and would detract from the
"Small-Town" Character which is so dear to the hearts of residents of '
Rosemount. Further, if window signage is used in lieu of other permitted
signage (wall signs, or freestanding signs} than more that 25% of window area
could be devoted to signage. Regarding the limit to a 6 inch letter size, the
intent of limiting letter size was to avoid excessively sized lettering which would
be detract from the appearance of a commercial building. Clearing window
signage is geared to the pedestrian and not motorists. Wall and Freestanding
signs which do not have limited letter size may clearly be more effectively used
for attracting the attention of motorists. Staff would suggest that the 6 inch
letter size for Window signage is a reasonable standard that provides businesses
with ample opportunity to catch the attention of pedestrians without negatively
affecting the appearaace of commercial buildings. Staff welcomes City Council
to consider this matter further if there is not consensus regarding this sub-
section. �
� Sub-section 10.1. C. 15.: Portabte signs or revolving beacons are allowed in
�'"' addition to permanent signs only by temporary permit issued by the Community
Development Department. The length of permits for revolving beacons or similar
deveices shall not exceed three (3) days and shall be issued a maximum of twice
per year. Permits for portable signs shall be issued a maximum of twice per
year for a maximum of fourteen (14) days per permit. Only one portable sign
per lot may be permitted.
Those business owners/employees present at the September '7th meeting
recognized that some portable signs are unattractive in appearance but showed a
consensus that there should be more flexibility in the regulation of portable
signs.
City Staff should note that one of the biggest aesthetic problems within the City
of Rosemount in terms of number of complaints would be the yellow partable
signs used by many businesses. Boih the Planning Commission and City Council
have clearly indicated that the use of those types of signs should be restricted.
The restriction on the use of temporary or portable signs in the Proposed Zoning
Ordinance is comparable to requirements of other area communities; specifically
it has been modeled closely after a comparable provision in the City of Lakeville
Zoning Ordinance. Rosemount is not alone in having a growing awareness in
community appearance and in taking increasing pride in promoting attractive
commercial areas and regulation of portable signs is an important mechanism to
avoid visual clutter in the Rosemount's Commercial Districts. '
� Suh-section 10.1. C. 16: No sign shall be painted directly on the exterior of any
building.
The business owners/employees present at the September 7th meeting did not
seem to understand the meaning of this provision.
This sub-section, just as it says, would preclude painting a sign directly onto a
wall surface. The main reason for this is to avoid having signs painted onto
surfaces which are not suitable for signage and upon which the painted sign will ',
rapidly fade or deteriorate so as to be unattractive or undesirable in appearance.
This section does not preclude a wall sign to be used where an appropriate
material is mounted on a wall upon which a sign would be painted.
' " + �� �
Z Sab-section 10.1 C. 18: Ribbons, banners, pennants, strings of lights and similar
devices are allowed in addition to permanent signs only by temporary permit
issued by the Community Development Department except when temporarily used �
for non-commercial purposes. The length of permits shall not exceed three (3)
days and shall be issued a maximum of twice per year.
T�e business owner%employees present at the September 7th meeting voiced
concern that this provision was overly restricted and that it should either be
modified or removed from the ordinance. Specifically they recognized Chat these
means of drawing attention to their businesses are very important in catching
the attention of the public.
In deueloping sub-section 10.1 C. 18., City Staff, the Planning Commission, and
City Council concluded that Ribbons, Banners, Pennants, Strings of Lights and
similar devices are most appropriately used to advertise special events or sales.
There was agreement that the carnival atmosghere they create is not appropriate
as a permanent feature of the landscape in Rosemount's Commercial Districts.
City Staff welcomes City Council to consider whether the proposed reguiation of
this means of advertising is appropriate or whether this section warrants
modification. It should be noted, again, that this section also is modeled closely
after a similar provisioa of the City of Lakeville Zoning Ordinance.
� Sub-section: 10.1 C. 19: Signs which advertise a business, activity, product or
service not located exclusively on the premises are probibited except as regulated
herein.
Those business owners/employees present at the September 7th meeting asked
questions as to why the City is so stric2 in regulating o£f-premise sign,
The City of Rosemount since its incorporation in 19'72 has strictly regulated the
use of off-premise signs. In reviewing the Proposed Zoning Ordinance the
Planning Commission and the City Council recognized that off-premise adver[ising
signs have a potential adverse effect on the enviroment, particularly in how they
may effect residential districts. Because of their overiding concern for the
appearance of the community the Planning Commission and the City Council in
their review of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance chose to limit the use of off-
premise advertising signs soley to property zoned General Industrial which does
not have a freestanding sign for an exisiting business on the property. City
Staff should point out that there is a national awareness of the blight which
billboards cause to our nations highways and that communities throughout the
couatry are now taking action to restrict the use of of f-premise advertising
signs.
J� Sub-section 10.1 C. 21: The Planning Commission may impose stricter
restrictions for the location of signs when there is reasonable evidence that any
sucb sign otherwise permitted may interfere with safe pedestrian or vehicular
movement.
The business owners/employees present at the September 7th meeting asked
questions regarding the need for this provision.
City Staff would comment that there are certain properties such as corner lots
where guaranteeing sight lines for motorists are not interupted is crucial for
, . . , • -:,� �
i
ensuriag traffic safety. The Planning Commission would only choose to apply a , 'I
standard stricter than dictated by ordinanee in an extreme situtation where it , ',
was determined that allowing signage that conformed to the ordinance could ' ,
cause a danger to the health, safety or welfare of the public. City Staff would
not recommend that this sub-section be changed.
CONCLUSION '
As City Planner I have made an effort to summarize some of the concerns of the '
Business Community regarding the sign provision of the Proposed Zoning
Ordinance in order to relay these concerns to City Council prior to the
continuation of the public hearing to consider the ordinance on September 19th
(5:00 p.m. - City Hall). I have also provided a staf f response to City Council
regarding these questions or concerns of the business community.
Those business owners/employees who met with me on September 7th and all '
other members of the Rosemount Business Community should bear in mind that
you are all welcome to attend the September 19th Public hearing to comment
directly to City Council. It is helpful for Council to be aware of issues and
concerns of the public prior to a meeting so that they may better respond to
questions and also so that they have a better understanding of the issues.
I would like to thank those business ow�ers/employees who took time to meet
with me on September 7th. Your comments and questions regarding the
ordinance were very helpful and have caused City Staff to closely exam the
reasoning behind many of the sign provisions included within the Proposed
Zoning Ordinance. I appreciate the fact that those present at the meeting
patiently allowed me to explain the City's position regarding these sign
regulation issues even though many of your personal opinions on the issues are
in conflict with the ordinance. I am certain City Council will seriously consider
your comments and concerns and your best way to influence the process is to be
present at the Public Hearing and to make comment to City Council. I urge you
to bear in mind that City Council has no desire to be overly restrictive to
businesses regarding the use of signage, but, also that Council has a
� responsiblity to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public and must act
in the best interest of the entire community.
, • /�cCE/l�EO
���:��
September 19, 1989 ,4� �S�ic ��f',�i�
Hazardous Waste Ordinance
I would like to put into the records the following new reasons
not to accept the proposed ordinance.
1. Only non-ha::.ardous waste will go in there. I repeat that ��
circuit boards from computers contain lead, tin and copper which
is hazardous when allowed to corrode. Paint waste is also
hazardous.
2. The 8 rni 11 iar� 1989 c�o 11 ars given to the city over 30 years
to maintain the site, when inflation is factored in, will be
wc�rth cnly 2 million dollars which I doubt will cover any real
problems. The environmental surcharge income for the county will
��r� L�':i�� 4i�ci �;t;s� ����i° ��'��- t_:itY wil l �5� ��.', �it3c� c��l Iars �i�r year wit}�
a waste stream input of 45, 000 tons per year. The county out of
p�ck�t e�enses per year is estimated at 10, 000 dollars and the
city �s at 5000 dollars, therefore the county 's income is about
7. 5 times the city 's wi�h only 2 times the e�ense. WHY IS THIS
A GOOD DEAL FOR THE RESIDENTS OF ROSEMOUNT?
3. The storm water drainage that USPCI refers to is only their
idea of what it should and would be. In view of the fact that I
sat on the storm water AD HOC committee that drew up the master
storm water plan for the city of Rosemount, this proposal was
never presented to us for approval . Is it consistent with what
we want for the city? The staff when giving Barr Engineering and
the committee the assignment, told us to do only tY�� West half �
T:'C�Ict A�:ron Avenue west to the Appl e Val l ey border. A 1 so that
when the East half of Rosemount started developing �hat thzy
would initiate a study on that.
4. The gundle liner that is used claims on site testing, both
� destructive and non-destructive seams tests and that they are
100% vacuum chamber tested. I find this to be false due to the
fa�t that it is extrusion welded on only one side and it comes in
22. � foot widths which when rolled out in the lengths requir�d to
line the cell it would be impossible to find that large a vacuum
chamber.
5• T}-�� leacr�,�t�, wr�ich is �•au�ed either by rain, snowfall ,
runoff or percolation, can become contaminated and then either
peht�le lime, quick lime andfor lime kiln dust and can be used to
bring back the PH ba?ance of the water befor� it enters the sofl
nr tne Mi�sissippi River. It, however, goes undetected and
leaches into the soil and upsets the FH of the soil which in turn
a� :�ws el�ctroly�is to wc��k on the many buried gasoline and LP
gas pipelines that I referred to at the last meeting. We thzn
havr � gcrad chance fc�r 3n e�plos:.on tY�at woul�� make Shoreview 's
z�losion Jery sanall uy comparison. That accident claimed, I
Yelieve, 2 lives and �bout 3-4 house�, not including the
suffering and pain. Is this project worth that kind of risk? I
thinl�: not.
6. I think that the council should keep in mind that BFI has a
proposal before the MPCA for a permit to burn hazardous medical
waste and store it at the site of the present landfill which is
in that area. I believe that the legislature has accepted the
rules and regulations for the handling of inedical waste. The
people that cap these cells predict that to be able to cap them
when fu�ll , whether it is the ash or the waste itself, maybe 20
yPars a�ay for a safe solution. Do we want this in our backyard
too? I think not. Remember that there are companies today that
go around and clean ug and cap the cells that were started or
filled up 20 years ago and thought to be safe only to find out ,
that today we have a much larger problem than was originally j
envisioned. '
7. M�y I suggest to you that you re� ect any type of waste
management ordinance because we are doing bur part for the state
as a whole. For e�:ample, the pollution at Koeh Refinery where
the state gets a large part of their ga�oline. That is not
��,��,��� �e�. T}-;�r� s:t�i�t�.�.t ►��e a;���t_i�:�csr� c,f �,I�t:titioi�ers of
Intectic�n Control an� tr�t 4h� r��y�ti�r ��a���r t.��ey wr�}e i?r�
}-,���yrti���u� ri���-�i�.�l wz3t�• T�ien :.�:c�r�t�ct Env�r��r�iriental r�ecovQry C�
(ENRECO INC. ) the Fisk Building, P. O. Box 933�, Amarillo, Texa�
',�105 t1�'c�� Cocle ���-�7�3-�424. Find out what tr�ey have to say
about the final costs and problems we may incur with such a
f��:i I it;. P 1 e3se do and make an informed decision.
8. Even though the Met. Council , thz MPCA, and Dakota County
s�y th� site is suitable, may I rsm�nd you that they c�o not
gcvern the city l�nd �.n� tr�3t t�nly Y��LF th� c:�au�c:�i �r�
respensible to the wishes of the people that elected you. AND WE
SAY NO ! ! ! tt � t
Thank you. .
Harry R. Willcox
�/' A-�d-o� � ,
�
USPCI, INC. August 14� 1989
� Mr. Stephan Jilk
City Administrator . , . 'I
2875 145th Street West ' . , . " , . '�
P. 0. Bo�t'''S10 � ' . ' ' ' I
Rosemount, MN 55068 � � � ' • �'
Dear Mr. Jilk: , . '. . ' � . . , �
We request that the City 3taff enter into negotiations with us concerning the
terrt� of a permft for, Development Contract regarding, and zoning for our pro-
posed non-hazardous industrial waste containment facility.
We acknowledge that the City curr�ently has a moratori�n in place which states
that granting the permits for, or rezoning for such a facility is not now
possible, and that the City may make such a prohibition pernianent. E'urther, the
City has stated that if this were to happen. the time and funds expended on
negotiations would be fruitless. As you know� it is our position that we have
certain rights to proceed. . ' . � .
However, anc] without� getting into the respective positiona of the City and the
underaiqned, and realizing that entering into negotiations aill not be used to
prejudice the rights of either party, we do wish to proceed with negotiations •
regarding the above referenced items and are willinq to do ao at our expense,
as outl ined below. ` . _•.+t'� : . _ ,
It fs unc3eratood and agreec3 that entering into negotiationa will not be used by
either party to prejudice the rights of the other with reference to any requested
. permit issuance, zoning matters, or other matters relating to the facility.
� Accord�ngl�►; �t3SPCI,� Inc�• is willing to reimburse the City of Rosemount for reason+
able and necessary out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the City, subsequent hereto,
for the review of the requeated permits� zoning� etc.� needed by the USPCI project. �
. ...�..... . . •
We request that you forward to our office at your earlfest convenience, a budget
and projected scope of out-of-pxket expenses ao that we can fornially approve the
expenditure. In the interim, and as a sign of our'intent. We herewith forward
a check to the City in the amount of $10,000 to cover iniCial City expenditures.
Thank you. .
Yery truly yours�
U.S. POLLUTION CONTROLi INC.
Ken Jackson
�:jr President
515 West Greens Road • Suite 500 • Houston, Texas 77067 • (713)775-7800
. 1 �
�, ' � 1 , „ �,�„ , �
�� "� �� �t ;�'!� (.�i ,.� 1 lrl `:1 N' li
4
r.tiAMr. � � Fi(i`iEh9;.ti�f:l t.tlhdl•!t Ir, '�. :uu;! i
�' '�� ` , ��. ,�.t.►�it'3i1t111�i�� �;� a::� aa>>
�
Agenda item 5e
TO: Mayor, City Counctl, City Admin[strator
FROM: Deaa Jo6ason, Director of Coinmuaity Development
DATE: June 15, 1989
S U BJ: June 20, 1989 Regular Meet[ag • Ageada [tem Se
Attached is a copy of an ordinance which will extend the moratorium on
landfills fro� July 1, 1989 to December 31, 1989. As the council is
aware, staff has been directed to conduct a planning study on landfills.
We do not anticipate completing the siudy for several weeks at the
earliest. We would recommend extension of the current moratorium,
which will expire prior to lhe next regular meeting.
• �=1 k=�: l = . �_� �=1 il 1 : 1 �� .� F'1vI } �=T 1�: 'r''.I�111 I ':: L :'t':� � I F:I•�:I F �:� �.:. _
�
.� . . � �/ �Y ��/
� ' Y
LA�'OERIC£S
� � /
GRANNIS, GRANNtS, FARR�LL & KNUT'SON
D�vio L.GanHnu• 1874•ig�St P�rnp�sron�u AssottenoH TFtecopt�it.
DAVOn L.GRANNIS,J�.• t910•3480 post Omce Box y7 - , t612)�lS-23S9
VA�lf.R B,G0.ANNIS 4O3 NO��YiiT BANK Btlttp�NG eU.IOTf B.KNlT'6CH
vehcF s.G�►n�N�s.ja. t6t Nw►n�coHc�o Exew�No� M�c►�ecc1•I►SAYtII
PersicK A. F�uxeu T1Homr J. Sn�c
DAvtD L GRAMNIS,llI SOVfH ST. PAUI.,MINNESpTA y�Q7S
AoGRa r'.KNU7]pN TFLErF10N[(6t2�4}S•1661
DAvtD L. HAAMBY61t
June 93, 1989
Mr. Stephan Jilk
Administrator/Clerk
City of Rosemount
2675 - 145th Street Weet
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear Steve:
Enclosed please find proposed Ordinance ex�ending the Znterim
Ordinance presently in �xi�tence prohibitinq issuance ef land use
approvals and building p�rmits for lasid�ills and similar uses.
The presen� Interim Ordinance ex�ires July 1 , 1969. The
extension 4rdinance should be adopted and published prior to July
1 , 1989 so there is no gap,
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, F�RRELL
& KNUTSON, P.A.
By•
.
David L. Grannis, III
DI,GTI7/klt;
Enc.s.
VIA FAX
�
• _ ' � �
City of Rosemount
Ordiaance No. XVIL
AN ORDINANCE EXTEND[NG AN lNTERiM ORDINANCE
TEMPORARILY PROH1BITtNG ISSUANGE OF
LAND USE APPROVALS AND BUIGDING PERMITS
FOR LANDFILLS AND SIMILAR USES
The City Council of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota ordains as
follows:
SECTION I. Intent: It is the intent of this ordinance to allow [he
City of Rosemount additional time to complete a more in-depth study
concerning appropriate land use controls for the regulation of landfills
and similar uses, and in the interim to protect the planning process and
the safety and welfare of the citizens of the community.
SECTION II. Temporary Prohibitlon: � Pending the completion of the
above referred to study and adoption of appropriate official controls,
no land use approv�ls or building permits shall be issued for landfills
and similar uses.
SECTION II[. Effective Date: This ordinance shall [ake effect from
and after its passage and publication and shall remain in effect until
the date of the adoption of the official controls contemplated hereunder
or December 31, 1989, whichever occurs first.
DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Rosemount this 20th day of June, 1989.
Rollan Hoke, Mayor
ATTEST:
,,,� Stephan Jilk, Administralor/Clerk
Published this day of , in the
Dakota County Tribune.
. � }
� 1T��t � � �
April 28, 1989
T0: Mayor Iioke
Councilmembers: Napper
Oxborough
Walsh
Wippermann
�
FROM: Stephan Jilk, Administrator/Clerk
�
RE: Project Coordination
Pursuant to our discussion on April I8, 1989, regarding pro�ects
such as the Dakota Countp Resource Recvvery Pro,ject, USPCI
Containment facilitp, Oxbow Pawex and potential �levelopment af
University of Minnesota lands I offer the fotlowing
recommendations and ideas for your consideration and discussion.
I. CONCEPT
City staff, in some cases and for some pro�ects, can not provide •
the expertise and the time, to offer all that is necessary to
respond to such pro�ects as we now find ourselves dealing with.
You have heard it said many times, and you have indicated
yourselves manp times that cities our size, with comparable sized
staff very rarely find ourselves attempting to deal with one of a
kind pro�ects such as the Resource Recovery Project, the USPCI
Containment facility and Oxbow Power . These projects, even if
technical expertise is available, require an immense amount of
staff time.
This time involvement comes from attending meetings with county
. staff, county boards, private developers, U of M officials and
manp hours of discussion among sta£f as to preparation for city
council meetings, addressing city posi.tions and general
ramifications of pro�ects such as these. Especial.lp when staff
does not carry the necessary expertise to address all igsues, as
thep come up, do these pro�ects require even more time to do
research, make contacts, etc.
Projects such as the Resource Recovery Project requires, on a
regular bases, about SOx of a full time staff person now.
Actually this 50z is split up among �everal people such as Dean
Johnson, myself and others. We are not dedicating 50Z of one
individual' s time. Some weeks this project has required as much
as 40+ hours of total staf£ time because of. the need to address
specific issues such as meeting with the County Board,
preparation for meetings, etc. Going back several years the
involvement by city council members and citq staf� on this issue
alone has been immense with no visible return on it' s investment.
Traveling to Europe, Oregon, Michigan, and attending conferences
here in Minnesota has drawn on staff and council excessively.
1
• _.,} �
Such issues as picking up on a lead from U5PCI, for instance,
when they were open3p considering a ash pelletization plant here,
then following up for several weeks in meeting�s, contacts, etc.
can' t be overlooked and yet takes staff. time - many times with
nothing to show £or it except more time sgent.
Dealing with the Rural Water pro�ect and meetings with the U of M
regents, their staff and engineering consultants consumed, for
several months much of sta£f ti�ae along with city council member
time.
The U of M continues to be a time consumer, aside from issues
such as Resource Recovery, because of involvement with Che U of M
advisory council, subcomraittees, the tenflnts on the U of M
property, etc. Again, a ma�or issue which cannot be 3gnored.
This Iist can go on and on - Koch Refining, Oxbow Pvwer, USPCI,
etc. Pro3ects and isaues which must be addressed - by staff
which is, at best , sufficient in si�e to handle typical suburb -
in - growth problems. It should be so simple to �ust hire
sufficient staff to minimally address these issues. We must,
though, deal with reality and financial constraints due to limits
on our operating budgets.
We have, to everqone' s. understanding, added several staf£
positions in the last three years - these positiong simply to
address our population and housing growth. When comparing
Rosemount to other cities in our class, as shown in the state
auditors report, we rank only slightlp higher in full time staff
per 1000 of population and yet we a11 ac},nowledge the r.ea1
"special issues" facing us. We not on7.y acknowledge these
"special issues" but have dec3ded we want to take an aetive part
in the decisions involving these "special issues" .
To become actively and effectively involved and become pro-active
rather than remain reactive in these issues, sta£f must not onlp
expand to allow sufficient time involvemenr hut mugt acquire
t:echnical expertise to deaZ �vith these issues effectively .
T3ecause of the role actively played by city sCaff and council in
the past we may find ourselves with some of the best educated
people in the state of Minnesota regarding pr. ojects such as
Resource Recovery. But as we g11 realize, more each dap, the
stakes may be high and the expertise to deal with these issues
effectivelp can' t be overplayed.
II. SPECIFIC ISSUSS
Citp Council. and staf� have discussed speci£ic pro�ects and �
general coordinarion/development issues involving these pr. o�ects.
We have discussed in the past tlie formation of a Port Authoritp ,
and electric utility, extensive use oF ta�c i�icrement financing,
industrial parks and others to taice .full advantage of some of
these pro�ects. ��
2
• _� ,
We hane consensus that in some cases we may be able to "make a
silk purse out of a aow' s ear" bp creating industrial development
from and around these pro�ects.
We have also indicated our need to be the catalpst to make this
happen - i£ it is going to happen. No one has the interest of
Rosemount more in mind than City Council and staff. We must make
it happen but do it effectivelq, creattvely and pet protecting
the community.
A11 of this takes time, money and expertise.
III. RBCOMMENDATIONS
1 . To deal with specifi.c envtronmental and legal issues,
suthorize staff to procure proposals and quotes from
individuals and/or firms to provide expertise to citp ataff
and citp council. Individuals and/or firms which have
background in pro�ect management, contract�,
intergovsrnmental activities, waste management activities
and possibly facilitp siting issues.
Because of other pro�ects and issues in the Metro �rea, such
as the Resource Recovery and USPCI, there are per�ons
qualified to provide this type of guidance.
Arrangements for papment by the hour (not to exceed a
certain amount) bp retainer and hourly or a fixed con�ract
£ee are all options which could be consic�ered. Staf£ would
obtain quotations for optional methods of payment.
2. To deal with �conomic Development, put t�gether a "team" of
city staf� to draft development proposals and to wortc with
the county, the U of M, and other companies. Most, if not
- all, of the ideas brought out in Joe W3�.9I1� 9 memo, I believe
have merit r�nd should be addressed as these projects unfold.
I believe we must thoroughly inve�tigate the ideas ofs
a. An electric util�ity
b. Industrial Park development - near U of M and Grief
Brothers
c. HRA involvement
d. Port Autliority status
e. Economic Development Authority (EDA)
f. Develop a £inancial assistance package for
development incentives
3
- 1 �`'! �
None of these are really new ideas for us. We have, at one time
or another, discussed a11 of these. Thep were the basis for the
Mapor' s presentation to the county last faXl. Theq are part of
discussions surrounding the potential construction of the .
Resource Recovery pro�ect.
To act pro—activelp we must be nble to develop a "game plan" for
these tppes of pro�ects. We must develop an overall concept to
set directian for an economic denelopment program.
We must somehow focus on the mer. its of all possibilities before
us and pet develop an onerall policp on how involved we want to
be and how creative we must be.
Having staff t.ime and resources to accompl3sh a program
development approach will be a c�mmitment on your behalf. As in
the past dealing with pro�ects and programs like these there are
no guaranteed results. We w:�l.l be risking time and money with
only hope for positive results.
To accomplish this from a staffing standpoint, I would suggest a
phased approach. First of all, I would suggesC tfiat most of this
"team" is in place. I see the kep players, as far as staff is
concerned, being myself, Dean Johnson, l4ike Wozniak and Tracie
Pechonick. That is HRA and Community Development. The
coordination of HRA and Citp will be essential and depending on
the HRA involvement, it may be critical. .
Expansion of this team will require staf£ing in the area of oae
additional person with a "background" in development pro�ects,
their financin�, construction and management. Another map be an
additional planning gerson to ass3st Mike Wozniak so as to
alleviate more of Dean' s involvement in the straight planning
issues.
Finally, additional clerical staff o£ at least one person wi11 be
necessarp. This clerical assistance wi.l.l be shared between
Communitp Development and general support. As these programs
develope. there will be added wortc for both my department and
Communitp Development. Additional clerical help, beyond the
first position, may be best served by administrative j.nterns to
my position to lighten mp responsibiliti.es in attendi.ng certain
meetings, dealing with reports and researching pro�ects. Of
course, all departments will be affected bp any ma�or pro�ects as
they develop.
In addition to these staff positions, �dditional assistance from
legal and financial consultants will be necessary. W�rking with
a lobbpist of our own and the League of Minnesota Cities w:t11 be
necessarq. We have now in place Roger Knutsan for legal services
and Springsted Inc. for financial aervices. I would siiggest that
there may come a time when a1.tPrnative f.in�ncing services would,
Ue su�gested because of specialia.aCion techni�c��tes an certain
issues, �
4
1 ,,
Development of this expanded team should not take place
immediatelp or all at once. At the present time, to init3ate
investigation of these pro�ects w311 require a lot of Dean' s time
and my time. these responsibilities ran be shared somewhat with
Tracie Pechonick but contacts witli companies such as Combustion
�ngineering, USPCI, Oxbow Power, etc. should be maintained bq
Dean or I.
The initial step, I believe is the hiring of one additional
clerical position for the Community Development Department and
general staff. This wi11 nllow the freeing up o£ time now being
spent bp Tracie and Mike as they are doing clerical work and give
assistance to Donna Quintus. Then Donna might give more of daq
to dap assistance to Dean� Tracie and Mike also.
Tracie, Mike and Dean will then be more available to begin to
develop contacts, legislative efforts on Port Authoritp, and
overall planning for pro�ect invalvement. As these pro�ects
unfold and develop additional staff w:t].l be addressed.
Funding for this positi.on and others need to be addressed. I can
suggest only that we will need to overrun aur hudget for 1989 for
this £irst position. this is not to say, based upon bu3.lding
pro�ections that sufficient funds wi11 not be available from 1989
revenue but this extra position is not budgeted for and so will
be an overrun.
Additional costs map b� incurred for some office furnishings.
The locatton o� this person' s work area may be another matter.
You have another report dealing witli spacial needs and
recommendations for investigation and deter.mi.nation o.f those
needs including the expansion of City IIall.
� In the interim we have investigated the posstbility of moving
personnel into the pol3ce quiet room downstairs and remodeling
the jail cells, which are not being used, into office �rea far
police to free up existing offices for a quiet room. This is
feasible and would work out well.
This is not to say we must remodel the police offices to hire one
�nore person, but we must begin to discuss that i�sue in light of
this staf.fing discussion and other future needs.
I would be pleased to discuss this entire mat:ter with pou prior
to and at Tuesday' s meeting.
i�
5
, .� _�
�/) ] f C� R )X �itll
l. 11 t� ()� .
Ri -it,IH `:� W
r It�� ! lt��i.�f)1 t.91NNf:(1T!\ ,.`•tN:R
�,0�'S�3'1't(1l f �i f s,l ,��,_.,�„
Agenda item 5d
TU: Mayor, Ctty Councit, Clty Administrutor
FROM: Dean Johnson, Uirector of Community 1)eti�elopment
DATE: April 27, 1989
SUBJ: Land Use Study - Pianning Consultant
The City Council recently adopted a moratorium on landfills, whieh was
intended to allow the City appropriate time to evaluale issues
surrounding the USPCI containment [acility �roposal, As the C�uncil is
aware, the new zoning ordinance has no provisions in it for a [acility of
this nature. At the� recommendation of the City Attorne��, the Council
passed a resolution recommending a land use planning stuJy be prepared.
The moratorium ordinance expires July 1, 1989. The City Attorney has
recommended that we make every attempl to complete the planning study
and resolve the zoning ordinance issue prior to July L In order to
expand upon our own viewpoints on this matter and meet a ragidly
approaching deadline, t wouid like authorization io obtain quotes from
planning consultan[s to assisl the City in this projecL
. • eV 1 � ,
�,�< t'�` ia�,�r ,i�i
;��tf C) ^R7. ��,tiict w
'-",,-,�u.'��,R �; `R ` �/ liil`_iR'It���PJI tiAIC1PJ1"�(�iA !;�:OFP
; �UJ�L.��Vl�l� f,12 1:'? dd11
��
Agenda i tem 6a
TO: Mayor, City Council, City Administr;�tar
FROM: Dean Johnson, Director of Community 1)evelopment
DATE: February 3, 1989
S[.IBJ: Februury 7, 1989 Regni7r Aleetin� - A�cnd� Item 6a.
6a. Zonin� Ordinance Amendment
Staff have had many meetings and discussions regarding the proQosed amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance, eliminatin� landfills as permitted uses. The over-riding
issue surrounding the ordinance change regar�is the language contained in our
entire new zoning ordinance. As we have asscrird, the ne�a ordinance cioes not
allow landfills. Thc purpo�c c>f lhc inlerim c+rdinancc amendn�cnl is lo re('Iccl
that pending ordinance inlent.
You are welfi aware of the p�silion taken hy USPCI on Chis matter. After
discussing our intentions and options wilh our attorncys, we are convinced that
our actions have been proper. tn an effort to reducc tcnsions and eliminate any
misconceptions about our intent; h�we��er, ���e ha��e a�reed that the City Coui�cil
should adopt a moratorium on landfills, in licu of thc intcrim amendment.
A moratorium will provide the City .Council the full opportunity to review the
issue of landfills within the contexl of the entire new zoning ordinance revisions.
The moratorium will remain in effect until July ], 1989.
Atlached is a cover letter from Dave Grannis and a morat�rium ordinance for
council consideration.
,, . .. . . . , . . ... ... . _ . .
02. 03. 8 �J 02 : � �_ �PI��f *GR�NNI S LA��_...'�F I RI�i P0 1
�.��
G�v�s, Ga�uvNss, ��.r.& Kxt,resox
nevm 1.Ga�►a�n-�B�a-�96� A�asssiowu.�ocs�► 7'�.��:
DAv�L Gae�or�,,Jn.-l9ias�ea rasr,�,r,�saac sy t6u><ss-z3s9
v�s.rssn� �!3 rraa,v�r aut�c&ta.a�c �j��
YaNta B.Gw�r4 J�.` 16t NC�'rs;COttGritD F�odt�l�tGs �,g�'J.$g�G
P,t�ic�cA.Fat�tss �tjyrjx g7.P,�ut,Ma�a�t�rra SSD7S
Devm L GaA�tLi,III
�ocaa N.�cxv�o� rsus���o�rs(� 632a 4SS-1661 �/I A �'
D�vm 3�.H�a�r�
•m.�e�� �eb�`uary 3, 1989
��,�
Mr. De�n Jo�n�on
Dir�ctox a� Cammunity 13svsiopment
City of Rosemount
�87� - 745th S�ree� �e�t
Rc�semaUnt, M����ot� 554fi8
Re: Zoning Ordinanoe Amendment
Subdivision 8.2a
Dear Dean.
BecaUse of th� concezn ana objection to the propased �.}nendment to
you= �on�ng Oxdinance relating to 3anafills, it is our
r�cwnmendation that an in�erim Orfl3nanGe terupora�ily prohib3.ting
3ssuanoe of Iand use approvals and buil��ng permit� fcr Iandfills
b� adopt+ed and that th� Couneil dizeet the C1ty Planner to
pz�pare a �tudy an the issues �nd make written recammendations.
Enclosed are copies of a progosed Ordin�nce and Regolution for
consideration by the Council.
I� you shou�.c� have any further questiona, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Very truly yours,
GRANNIS� ��IS r �`11RRELL
& KNUTSON, P.A.
"�;,
BY- —
vit� L. Grannis� II I
DLGIII/k�t
EnGs,
� 02. 03. S �J 02 ; y Ph�i � GRANNI S L�. ' F I RI�i PQ3 �
CITY OF ROSEl�Oi3N�'
DAROTA C`�UNTX, MINNE50TA
�t880LVTIOM .
Date Aesol.ut�on �to.
Motian By Second� By
�tEBQLUTI��T DI�tECTZ1�G THa CISY�A k��R
TO pAEPh&� ]! BT'UD'Y QF J�1P�tOP1tI]�IT34 �O�FIIiit#
C4�4'�R03�B FGR �A�i�FTLLB 7�D BZI�IL�R UBEB
WHEREAS, the City i� Cancexn�d th�t 7.a►ndfill� �tnd �imilar
uses could have a ne�ative isnpact on the ad j acent prop��:-t�.�s a�d the
community ae a whvle. .
NOWi THEREpORE, BB �T �SOLVED by th+a Rosemount CftX Council
that the City*s planner is �i.rected by June 1, 1989, to prepare a
study on the issu�s an� to m�ke r�cnmm�»s3��iQ�e vn appropriate
c�fficit�l cahtrols. .
PASSED AND DLTLY ADOP'FED by tty� Ci�y CouriCf 1 of the City a�
Ro�amount this dag a� , 1989.
CITY OF ROSEMOLTN`,�'
(SEAL) J,�Y: �
Ra�?��» Hoke, ?4ayar
A7"rEST:
Stephan J lk, A�m ri �txat�r/Cl�tk
.� _.. � . _ ,.
02. 03. $ 9 02 : � � PM *GRA1`dl'3I S LA .' F IR11+i P02
ORDIN?1NCS 1Q0.
CZTY OF ROSEM�UNT
� t�A�CoTA COUN�3i, MZNN�.soTa
l�i i�T8R�1�[ QRn��A�CB '�'Ejt�'C1RAR�L7 PRORIBxTII4ti IH�t7Al1[CE
Oa �D IISg I�PP�C3Y71I,8 711QD BOILDZlRt# PE�'�'8 p'OR
I.AbiDFILLB 713itD 8Z]dTL�R tT9B8
� CITY COiFNCIL OF TRF CITY OF ROSEl3�UNT ORD�lINB.
Section i. Intent: It is the �ntent of thig ordinana� ts�
aliow the C�.ty ot Rosemount time to compl�te a more in�depth study
GOnCeJCnirig mpproPx�ate �.and u�e contxolA �oX the reguxat�on of
lar�dfilla a�nd similar usea, and in �h+a int�rim to prot+�ct tri�
plar,ni�g pro�� and the ��t�ty and w�if�re oP th+a citiaens of the
communit�.
Soation Z. Temporary Prohibition: Pendi.nq tbe cr�mpl��tia�
of the abave reterred to study and adoption of appropria��� ofPicial
controls, no ?�and us� appro'va�It� or building pdrmits aha11 he isBued
�or landfills end si�il�r u��.
8ectio� 3. Ef�e�tive Datte� Thia ordinance ehall take
�ttect from and a�ter itg passag+a ��t pu�ii�ati�r� ��a Bhall remain in
e�teet until the date of txie ade��ion of th+� official controls �
contempl$t�d hereun�e� oX Ju1y 1, 2989, Wh�chsver occura first.
PA5S�D AND DULY AD�PTED by the City Councl�. of *.t�p City of
Rosemou�t th�s d�►y Qf , 1989. .
cz� oF xas�au�rr
gY:
�toll�n Noka, Mayor
A'I"rEST:
5tephan J 1k, Adn► n ��,�$tazjC�e�k