03-01-84 Annexation CommitteeMarch 1, 1984
ANNEXATION COMMITTEE
The Annexation Committee met on Thursday, March 1, 1984 at 4:00 P.M. in the Conference
Room at City Hall. In attendance were Chairman Chuck .Manning, Committee Members Paul
Palmer and Pat Springer, Councilmen Sandy Schindler, Wayne Saverud, FRDO Nakul Verma,
Mayor McDowell, City Attorney Glen Neier and City Surveyor Fred Zavodny.
Prior to the opening of the meeting, a tentative meeting date for this committee was set
for the second Wednesday of each month at 4:00 P.M.
Chairman Manning stated that at the 2/6/83 regular Council Meeting the Public Hearing
resulted in the amended City Ordinance to include PUD being referred back to committee
and asked Councilman Saverud to state then questions he had regarding the ordinance.
C. Saverud stated that Ross Plambeck, of the Community Development Department, has had
much experience --and was involved as an administrator. of PUD at one time. Ross' com-
ments on the proposed ordinance are as follows:
He felt that the initial approach in changing zones would be awkward for the city.
There are some spot zoning considerations. Legality aside, he felt the mechanism
would be more simple to follow under conditional use process. The mechanism in
initiating a PUD is impootant. Permitted use under conditipns would not involve the
many criteria as PUD.
C. Saverud stated that the Board of Adjustment has one of its only authorities on land
use. He feels that it would be more efficient to have the Board of Adjustment make this
type of conditional use than for us to go through all the legalities, without criticism
• of possibly spot zoning.
C. Saverud felt that another strong point was that the ordinance says that we may re-
quire some type of security to make sure that all the required improvements have been
satisfactorily completed. He feels this area should be made as tight as possible to
spell out more specifically what type of bonding requirements and to come down hard on
requirements on amenities.
C. Springer questioned the language of "at its discretion"in the ordinance, re above.
Ross stated that it is important that the plans submitted to the Building Department get
done as the Developer promised.
S. Springer said that the language should be changed since proposed as zone change
procedure. The Board of Adjustment decision is final; this is state law which takes
precedent over city ordinance.
C. Saverud mentioned the cut -back in Board of Adjustment authority, which now is limited
to set backs, fence heights, appeals, etc. If they are a viable body designated by this
Council, perhaps we should give them more prerogative. He would prefer to keep it
basically in house rather than have the whole function go through building,. zoning,
Board of Adjustment, as opposed to county involvement. Could it be set up that the
Board makes recommendation to Council and the Council actually establishes criteria.
City Attorney Neier defined Board of Adjustment powers. Our ordinance is written to
restrict the Board in keeping them out of land use, and gives the Council maximum amount
•of control in how the city would be zoned or variances handled. The Board of Adjustment
has final say in granting of conditional use permit, Council cannot issue such permits
under our ordinance. The state law is more versatile on this. A zoning classification
has to be given to the property before a special use permit is given for variance.
Annexation Committee Page 2 March 1, 1984
C. Saverud stated that a PUD has to be at least 2 acres and was concerned about spot zon-
ing. FRDO Verma stated that if a number of properties are involved, it is not spot zoning.
He stated that the Chamber of Commerce would like only 2 acres but currently is 5 acres.
Discussion followed on enlarging number of acres. C. Saverud questioned single ownership
does that prohibit 2 or 3 owners in a 2 acre area who want to redevelop jointly from do-
ing so and was told they could form a partnership.
C. Palmer stated that we should recognize that zones will be reduced and asked how that will
affect mixed use PUD. (Mixed use was stated to be commercial and industrial only).
C. Saverud asked about Page 4, d, re: no permit issued until 60% of units constructed and
occupied; too restricted? Certificate of Occupancy would solve that problem and 60% is
only an arbitrary figure.
Then C. Saverud inquired about "30 day limit for Zoning Commission to offer recommendatio"
what about quorum, why not "within reasonable time"? This is for developer's benefit/a
special meeting could be called.
He questioned "abandonment" is that rezoning? Was told it was not, that the DPW or
Building Official should monitor, City Attorney should serve timely notice. Time limits
on improvements, completion schedule expiration were also discussed: 3-5 years for com-
pletion generally on PUDs. Ordinance needs direction on this.
RE Item #7, C. Saverud questioned "the Zoning Commission shall, not initiate any amendments
IDto the zoning ordinance or official zoning map ... before completion of the development as
long as the development is in conformity with the approved detailed planned unit develop-
ment" and asked what the official zone would be in the meantime. A building permit cannot
be issued until zoning is established. This paragraph is too confusing, is it necessary?
City Attorney Neier will check into more clear wording. Neier stated that the official
date of the ordinance is when zoning is established for PUD.
Zoning map changes were discussed. The City has not changed the zoning map in about 2
years, this should be every 6 months, per Nick Verma. From the time the zoning ordin-
ance is passed, we have a,legally enforceable document affecting the map, advises Neier.
C. Saverud suggested that for clarity #7 should include "that upon the action of the
Council of the acceptance of the plan, the Building Official is thereby authorized to
issue the appropriate permits in accordance with the plan". However, maps will not be
altered.
Referring to paragraph #8, C. Saverud asked for clarification of mixed use PUD and was
told it refers to commercial, industrial and non-residential zoning districts.
C. Saverud's major concern was re-enforcability on bonding. C. Springer suggested
that maybe.a sentence such as: 'The City Council shall at its discretion waive require-
ments'.
C. A. Neier stated that we have an agreement outline that will be written to provide
assurance of specific performance that the job would be completed and this would be pre-
sented to the Council at another Public Hearing in 15 days. Nakul Verma will take care
of readvertisement of the notice.
Meeting adjourned at 5:30 P.M.
ms