Comments for MnAPA http://www.mnapa.com/blog Discussion Forums for the MnAPA Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:20:36 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 Comment on Non-conforming ordinance help…. by Rick Pearson http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=117&cpage=1#comment-745 Rick Pearson Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:20:36 +0000 http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=117#comment-745 The City of Robbinsdale has a non-conforming use permit. The zoning ordinance is online - see Section 510.081. The City of Robbinsdale has a non-conforming use permit. The zoning ordinance is online – see Section 510.081.

]]> Comment on Electronic Sign Ordinance Question by Ken Ondich http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=119&cpage=1#comment-744 Ken Ondich Fri, 03 Sep 2010 16:09:45 +0000 http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=119#comment-744 Hi Dan, We have some provisions in our current Zoning Ordinance Section 718 for Signs specific to Electronic Variable Message Signs. They are only permitted in our B-2 Community Commercial, B-3 Highway Commercial and I-1 Light Industrial Districts. We do not permit them in the B-1 Downtown district. They are also limited to one static message per 5 second interval. It's not the greatest regulations on them, but it has kept out some obnoxious ones in the past couple of years. Hi Dan,

We have some provisions in our current Zoning Ordinance Section 718 for Signs specific to Electronic Variable Message Signs. They are only permitted in our B-2 Community Commercial, B-3 Highway Commercial and I-1 Light Industrial Districts. We do not permit them in the B-1 Downtown district. They are also limited to one static message per 5 second interval. It’s not the greatest regulations on them, but it has kept out some obnoxious ones in the past couple of years.

]]> Comment on Electronic Sign Ordinance Question by Greg Kruschke http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=119&cpage=1#comment-742 Greg Kruschke Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:19:48 +0000 http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=119#comment-742 We have an ordinance that has been in place for around 5 years that is available on our website. We have had to make a few tweaks since then but it seems to work well overall. I also have some additional items from our research on the item if you would like. Contact me and I can arrange to get it to you. My phone is 507-333-0350 or gkruschke@ci.faribault.mn.us We have an ordinance that has been in place for around 5 years that is available on our website. We have had to make a few tweaks since then but it seems to work well overall. I also have some additional items from our research on the item if you would like. Contact me and I can arrange to get it to you. My phone is 507-333-0350 or gkruschke@ci.faribault.mn.us

]]> Comment on Non-conforming ordinance help…. by Kristie Leshovsky http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=117&cpage=1#comment-741 Kristie Leshovsky Tue, 03 Aug 2010 19:15:15 +0000 http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=117#comment-741 Moorhead City Code includes the following provisions for expansion of non-conformities: Nonconformities: An addition to a lawfully established structure which because of a change in the setback requirements is not in conformance with the current requirements may be added to, even if the addition violates the current setback requirements, provided that: a. The addition does not encroach across a property line. b. The addition does not extend into the applicable yard requirement greater than the existing structure. c. The length of the addition may not exceed the length of that part of the existing structure that is in violation of the current setback requirement or twenty feet (20'), whichever is less. We defer to MN Statutes 462.357 for rebuilding of structures. Moorhead City Code includes the following provisions for expansion of non-conformities:

Nonconformities: An addition to a lawfully established structure which because of a change in the setback requirements is not in conformance with the current requirements may be added to, even if the addition violates the current setback requirements, provided that:

a. The addition does not encroach across a property line.

b. The addition does not extend into the applicable yard requirement greater than the existing structure.

c. The length of the addition may not exceed the length of that part of the existing structure that is in violation of the current setback requirement or twenty feet (20′), whichever is less.

We defer to MN Statutes 462.357 for rebuilding of structures.

]]> Comment on Non-conforming ordinance help…. by Steve Grittman http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=117&cpage=1#comment-740 Steve Grittman Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:32:11 +0000 http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=117#comment-740 Dan - Little Canada has an entry in their non-conforming section that provides a simple allowance for the expansion of non-conforming residential uses. The two clauses read as follows: J. Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful non-conforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or the non-conformity. K. Non-conforming, non-income producing, residential units may be expanded to improve livability as a conditional use, provided that the non-conformity of the structure will not be increased. The review standard is to "improve livability" in order to qualify for the permit. Hope this is helpful to you. Dan -

Little Canada has an entry in their non-conforming section that provides a simple allowance for the expansion of non-conforming residential uses. The two clauses read as follows:

J. Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful non-conforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or the non-conformity.

K. Non-conforming, non-income producing, residential units may be expanded to improve livability as a conditional use, provided that the non-conformity of the structure will not be increased.

The review standard is to “improve livability” in order to qualify for the permit. Hope this is helpful to you.

]]> Comment on Non-conforming ordinance help…. by Dusty Finke http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=117&cpage=1#comment-739 Dusty Finke Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:17:16 +0000 http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=117#comment-739 Dan, The City of Medina has began utilizing Interim Use regulations to do what it seems you are discussing. In terms of re-building, the updated State Statute is fairly forgiving and allows for replacement of the existing non-conformity. Obviously, it does not protect expansion. Medina has selected certain uses and established them as allowed Interim Uses (for example, existing single family homes in a zone which will allow commercial in future years). Our language allows certain Interim Uses to continue without requiring a property owner to go through the IUP process (making them approved Interim Uses instead of non-conforming). The ordinance allows expansion of these Interim Uses, but then requires the property owner to obtain an IUP. For an example, you can visit our City Code on our website (www.ci.medina.mn.us/facts/code.htm), and look at the Interim Uses in Section 835. Good luck! Dusty Finke, City Planner dusty.finke@ci.medina.mn.us Dan,
The City of Medina has began utilizing Interim Use regulations to do what it seems you are discussing. In terms of re-building, the updated State Statute is fairly forgiving and allows for replacement of the existing non-conformity. Obviously, it does not protect expansion.

Medina has selected certain uses and established them as allowed Interim Uses (for example, existing single family homes in a zone which will allow commercial in future years). Our language allows certain Interim Uses to continue without requiring a property owner to go through the IUP process (making them approved Interim Uses instead of non-conforming). The ordinance allows expansion of these Interim Uses, but then requires the property owner to obtain an IUP. For an example, you can visit our City Code on our website (www.ci.medina.mn.us/facts/code.htm), and look at the Interim Uses in Section 835.

Good luck!

Dusty Finke, City Planner
dusty.finke@ci.medina.mn.us

]]> Comment on Duluth Comp. Plan Urgent Reply Needed by Bob Graham http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=115&cpage=1#comment-738 Bob Graham Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:04:40 +0000 http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=115#comment-738 It seems to me that the question is how best to manage change on Park Point. The area needs a specific plan for the area past the lift bridge and then some sore of overall diversified zoning. It seems to me that the question is how best to manage change on Park Point. The area needs a specific plan for the area past the lift bridge and then some sore of overall diversified zoning.

]]> Comment on Duluth Comp. Plan Urgent Reply Needed by Jan Karon http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=115&cpage=1#comment-737 Jan Karon Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:54:35 +0000 http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=115#comment-737 Suzanne, Thanks for the comment. The Planning Department is currently working on the Unified Development Code. There is an "ancient" code in effect, and my understanding is that R-2 is the current zone. Jan Suzanne,
Thanks for the comment. The Planning Department is currently working on the Unified Development Code. There is an “ancient” code in effect, and my understanding is that R-2 is the current zone.
Jan

]]> Comment on Duluth Comp. Plan Urgent Reply Needed by Suzanne Rhees http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=115&cpage=1#comment-736 Suzanne Rhees Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:05:04 +0000 http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=115#comment-736 Jan, When you say "zoned" traditional residential, I believe you mean designated or "guided" as Traditional Neighborhood in the Comprehensive Plan. The issue of consistency between plan and zoning is the key legal question here. Looking at that "TN" classification, it seems that densities are intended to range from 4-8 units/acre, with larger buildings at corners. Nothing about lodging uses, however, so there may be some inconsistency here. Has the City discussed a Comp Plan amendment along with the zoning change? (Disclosure: I worked on the Comp Plan as part of the consultant team, and before that on the Park Point neighborhood plan, if you remember that one -- around 2003. But of course, this comment is simply my initial impression based on very limited information!) Jan,
When you say “zoned” traditional residential, I believe you mean designated or “guided” as Traditional Neighborhood in the Comprehensive Plan. The issue of consistency between plan and zoning is the key legal question here. Looking at that “TN” classification, it seems that densities are intended to range from 4-8 units/acre, with larger buildings at corners. Nothing about lodging uses, however, so there may be some inconsistency here. Has the City discussed a Comp Plan amendment along with the zoning change? (Disclosure: I worked on the Comp Plan as part of the consultant team, and before that on the Park Point neighborhood plan, if you remember that one — around 2003. But of course, this comment is simply my initial impression based on very limited information!)

]]> Comment on Planning Fee Increase Question by Zach M http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=95&cpage=1#comment-733 Zach M Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:03:45 +0000 http://www.mnapa.com/blog/?p=95#comment-733 Fees! We are in the process of keeping track of the time and money we spend on each petition before the plan commission and appeals board. Every minute we spend on it. After a couple of months, it appears that we are undercharging by 50-150%. We will use this information to propose an increase to the fees. The reason I use to explain the need to collect fees is pretty simple, if you don't pay the cost for the services you are receiving, then everybody else in the community is subsidizing you. That part they don't mind. Then I remind them that means they are subsidizing everybody else coming through the system. Good luck! Fees!
We are in the process of keeping track of the time and money we spend on each petition before the plan commission and appeals board. Every minute we spend on it.

After a couple of months, it appears that we are undercharging by 50-150%.

We will use this information to propose an increase to the fees.

The reason I use to explain the need to collect fees is pretty simple, if you don’t pay the cost for the services you are receiving, then everybody else in the community is subsidizing you. That part they don’t mind. Then I remind them that means they are subsidizing everybody else coming through the system.

Good luck!

]]>