Planning Commission Agenda Packet 10-14-1987AGENDA
RE7GUTAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, October 14, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
Members: Richard Carlson, Joyce Dowling, Richard Martie, Cindy Iemm,
Jim Ridgeway
7:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order.
7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of the regular meeting held
September 8, 1987.
7:34 p.m. 3. Public Hearing - A simple subdivision request to subdivide
an existing unplatted lot into two unplatted lots.
Applicant, Debbie Kramer.
7:49 p.m. 4. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow placement of a
detached garage within the sideyard setback requirement.
Applicant, Bruce Parson.
8:04 p.m. S. A request for general concept stage review of a planned
unit development to be known as Highland Heights One.
Applicant, Rivera Financial and Development Company.
Additional Informational Items
8:34 p.m. 1. Input on a possible replotting of a city industrial lot.
8:49 p.m. 2. Input on possible redevelopment projects on the old
Monticello Ford site.
9:04 p.m. 3. Consideration of modifying the finance plan for Tax
Increment Redevelopment District #6. Applicant, City of
Monticello. Council Action: Approved as per planning
Commission recommendation.
9:06 p.m. 4. Sketch plan review of a planned unit development to be
known as Highland Heights One. Applicant, Rivera Financial
and Development Corporation. Council Action: Approved as
per Planning Commission reoommendation.
9:08 p.m. 5. A variance request to allow a public right -0f -way to be
used for off-street parking. Applicant, Glenette
Properties. Planning Commisaion'e variance approval otands
approved, as there were no appeals.
9:10 p.m. 6. Simple subdivision request to resubdivide two residential
lots. A variance request to allow the placement of a house
within the sideyard setback of a resubdivided lot line, and
a variance request to allow two residential lots, when
Planning Commission Agenda
October 14, 1987
Page 2
subdivided, to be less than the minimum lot square
footage. Applicant, Dan Prie. Council Action: Denied as
per Planning Commission recommendation.
9:12 p.m. 7. Simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing
residential lot with an existing duplex house on it into
two zero lot line duplex residential lots. A variance
request to allow a residential lot to be split into two
residential lots with either lot having less than the
minimum lot square footage. Applicant, Leola Backstrom.
Planning Commission's simple subdivision and variance
denials stand, as there were no appeals.
9:14 p.m. 8. Amendment to a certain area in the Monticello Zoning Map.
Applicant, City of Monticello. Council Action: Approved
as per Planning Commission recommendation.
9:16 P.M. 9. Amendment to the Monticello Sign Ordinance that a minimum
of one address sign shall be required on each building in
all zoning districts. Applicant, City of Monticello.
Council Action: Approved as per Planning Commission
recommendation.
i
9:18 p.m. 10. Annual Planning Institute Seminar Update.
9:23 p.m. 11. Set the next tentative date for the Monticello Planning
Commission meeting for Tuesday, November 10, 1987,
7:30 p.m.
9:25 p.m. 12. Adjournment.
MINVM
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, September 8, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Joyce Dowling, Richard Martie, Cindy Lemm,
Jim Ridgeway
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Gary Anderson, 011ie Roropchak
1.
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Richard Carlson at
7:32 p.m.
2.
Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the
minutes of the August 11, 1987, meeting. Motion carried unanimously with
Cindy Lem abstaining.
3.
Consideration of Modifying the Finance Plan for Tax Increment
Redevelopment District t6. Applicant, City of Monticello.
011ie Roropchak was present to explain to Planning Oommission members the
modification to the finance plan for Tax Increment Redevelopment
District 86.
A brief explanation as to the reason for modifying was that seas cost
overruns had occurred in the excavation of the building site. With no
input from the public, motion was Bade by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Cindy
Lemm, to approve the modification of the finance plan for Tax Increment
Redevelopment Distict 16. Motion carried unanimously. See Planning
Commission Resolution 87-3.
d.
Sketch Plan Review of a Planned Unit DeveloQment to be known as Hi"land
Heights One. Applicant, Rivera Financial and Development Corporation.
Mr. George Rivera was present to propose a sketch plan for a planned unit
development to be known as Highland Heights One.
Mr. Rivera explained the intent of the proposed business uses which he
was intending to put in and the intention of the multiple family housing
to be put in on Blocks 2 and 3.
Mr. Rivera explained the proposed commercial development going from the
south end along Marvin Road to the north beginning with Block 1, Lot 1,
to have a drive-in fast food businecal Block 1, Lot 2, to have a two
story office complexL and Block 1, Lot 3, to have a family type
restaurant; and Block 1, Lot d, to have a one-story office complex.
Block 2 would have four 4 -unit townhouses built on the entire block.
Block 3 would have 12 4 -unit townhouses built on it. Mr. Rivera
Indicated he had a substantial amount of local interest from local
builders and possibly local investors for this proposed type of
coQmercial/residential development.
ON
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/8/87
Page 2
Mr. Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from the Planning
Commission members. Mr. Jim Ridgeway questioned where his other
developments were that his firm has been or has worked on in the past.
Mr. Rivera answered that the other developments have taken place in
Brooklyn Park, St. Michael, and Maple Grove areas. Mr. Ridgeway again
questioned as to who the local builders would be. Mr. Rivera answered
that there are local builders, which he would not mention by name, that
were interested in the townhouse part of his project and there was also
interest from local investors on the proposed commercial developments.
Mr. Ridgeway also questioned the proposed project time table. Mr. Rivera
countered that, subject to everything being approved by Planning
Commission members and City Council, he hoped to be underway with some
part of his project en or about Thanksgiving time in November.
Chairperson Richard Carlson questioned as to what area is being set aside
for park dedication. Zoning Administrator Anderson countered that the
park dedication part of this proposed planned unit development is being
worked out with the developer in a much larger scope but is in
relationship to this project.
with no further input from Planning Commission members, motion was made
by Richard Martie, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to approve the sketch plan
as submitted for a planned unit development to be known as Highland
Heights One. Motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing - A variance request to allow a public right-of-way to be
used for oir-street parKing. Applicant, GlenetE6 Properties.
Mr. Glen Ertel was present to explain to Planning Commission members his
intent to expand his existing parking lots at the two 8 -unit apartments
on west Third Street. Mr. Ertel explained to Planning Commission members
the problem he has when the parking ordinance ban goes into effect from
November 15 to April 15 with the number of apartment renters having more
vehicles than the number of spaces which he can accommodate in his
parking lots.
Comtmiasion members felt very uneasy with allowing Mr. Ertel to develop
into a public right-of-way when there was more than sufficient land on
his own property to develop additional off-street parking. Du. Ertel was
questioned if he knew any additional conditions that were to be placed
with it subject to approval of his parking lot expansion. Mr. Ertel said
that he wan aware of the additional conditions which may be attached
should a variance be approved this evening for his parking lot
expansion.
With no further input from the public or from the Planning Commission
members, motion was made by Cindy Lemm, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to
deny the variance request to allow public right-of-way to be used for
off-street parking. Motion carried unanimouely. The reason for
MI
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/8/87
Page 3
denial is that Planning Commission members fail to see the hardship as
submitted by the applicant in that there is sufficient land area to
develop additional off-street parking on his own property and not use the
public right-of-way. Motion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Richard Martie,
to allow parking lot expansion up to the public right-of-way adjacent to
Hennepin Street to allow expansion of an existing parking lot with the
following conditions.
a. The owner is responsible for the relocation of the two garbage
dumpsters, which must go into an enclosed area.
b. The owner is responsible for the striping of the entire parking lot.
c. The owner is responsible for the placement of a handicapped sign and
post for his parking lot.
d. The owner is allowed to create a maximum number of three compact car
spaces in his expanded parking lot.
The motion carried unanimously.
6. Public Hearin - A simple subdivision request to resubdivide two
residential lots. A varlarlCe _re quest to allow the placement or a house
within the siceyaro aetOaCK Or a resuDdivlded lot line, and a variance
[.juest to allow tow residential lots, when subdivided, to be less than
t6e minimum lot square footage. Applicant, Dan Frio.
Mr. Dan Frie was present to propose his simple subdivision request of two
existing residential lots. Mr. Frie indicated they would like to split
the lots cast and wast versus the current north and south layout of these
existing two residential lots.
Mr. Frio indicated the type of house that would be built on this newly
created vacant residential lot would be a front to back split level type
of homer and with the newly created subdivided side lot line, there would
be a minimum of 20 feet between structures on that side only.
With no further explanation from the applicant, Chairperson Richard
Carlson then opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Marvin Woolhouse
questioned the nood for an additional house to be placed on his lot when
the previous owner of this property built the house on the center of the
two existing platted lots. Mr. Kenneth Link had no objection to the
proposed subdivision as long as the lots aren't subdivided the way they
are presented on the enclosed site plan. Mr. Tom Wintz opposed the
proposed lot subdivision due to the small size of the lot that would be
created. With no further input from the public, Chairperson Richard
Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the planning Comiooion.
0
i
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/8/87
Page 4
Mr. Richard Martie questioned the sizing of a proposed house on this
lot. Chairperson Richard Carlson questioned the City staff's
recommendation for approval of this proposed subdivision, knowing the
current house would be within 7.6 feet of the newly created aide property
line. zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, explained to planning
Commission members that a restrictive sideyard setback could be
established as a condition to approval of this subdivision request, that
there be a minimum of 20 feet between structures on the north side of the
property. They could also establish a sideyard setback on the south aide
of the proposed house on this lot.
With no further input from the public, motion was made by Richard Martie,
seconded by Cindy Lem, to deny the simple subdivision request to
resubdivide two residential lots; and denied the variance request to
allow the placement of a house within the sideyard setback of a
resubdivided lot liner and denied the variance request to allow two
residential lots, when subdivided, to be less than the minimum lot square
footage. Motion carried unanimously. The reason for denial is that the
property, when subdivided, is too close to an existing house and it is
too small a lot in that it doesn't meet the minimum lot square footage
requirements.
7. Public Hearing - A si.?le subdivision rec to subdivide an existing
residential lot with an existing duple)( house on it into two zero lot
line duplex residential lots. A variance rest to allow a residential
lot to be split into two residential lots %A h either lot havins less
than the minimum lot square rootage. Applicant, Leola Backstrom.
Leola Backstrom was present to propose her simple subdivision request to
allow her to subdivide her existing duplex on a single residential lot
into a zero lot line duplex creating two lots. Planning Commission
members felt uneasy with Kra. Backstrom's request in that there wasn't
sufficient land area to accommodate the zero lot line duplex. With no
further input from the public or the Commission members, motion was made
by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Richard Martie, to deny the simple
subdivision request to subdivide an existing residential lot with an
existing duplex house on it into a zero lot line duplex residential lot.
Commission members also denied the variance request to allow a
residential lot to be split into two residential lots with either lot
having less than the minimum lot square footage. Motion carried
unanimously. The reason for denial was creating the zero lot line duplex
with each lot having less than the minimum lot square footage.
Public Hearing - An amendment to a certain area in the Monticello zoning
MflP• ApPlicarit, City or Monticello.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning Commission members
that the City Administrator, Rick Wolfateller, would like to request the
Planning Commission members to table this rezoning request until the next
regularly scheduled Planning Commmission meeting.
0
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/8/87
Page 5
The Planning Comamission members acknowledged the City Administrator's
request for tabling it, but they felt time was of the essence in that
public hearing notices had been sent, the public hearing notification had
been met, and they felt now was the time to get on with it and apply some
new type of zoning to this affected area. Planning Commission member Jim
Ridgeway questioned applying B-2 zoning in the two middle sections of
this rezoning request. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated we put
B-2 zoning in to allow flexibility of some type of residential multiple
family to occur in and near the school district, the northwesterly most
portion of the school's property; and also by allowing B-2 in the area,
there would be the possibility of having same type of multiple family
next to the freeway. Mr. Ridgeway indicated he thought the best use for
the area next to the freeway would be for some type of highway business.
Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any input from
the public. Mr. Shelley Johnson, Superintendent of Monticello Schools,
was present to indicate the Monticello School District had no problems
with the proposed zoning as indicated on the site plan. He did indicate,
however, that we might at some point in time look at some type of B-3
zoning in the northern one-half of this middle section.
With no further input from the public or Commission members, motion was
made by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Joyce Dowling, to amend a certain area
of the Monticello Zoning Map with the only change going from B-2 (limited
business) to 9-3 (highway business) in the north one-half of the center
section of this zoning map area. Motion carried unanimously.
9. Public Hearins - An amendment to the Monticello Sir Ordinance that a
Mint— or one (1) acoreas siV shall be recnirea on each oullaing In all
zoning alstricts. Applicant, City or Monticello.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to planning Commission members
the intent of the amendment to the zoning ordinance attaching address
numbers to all buildings and/or dwellings in the City of Monticello. The
initial request stemmed from requests from first responders, the
Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District Ambulance Croup, and also from the
Wright County Sheriff's Department indicating it would be easier to
identify properties if all properties had address numbers that were
visible from a public street.
Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Planning iosion members
that they could add or delete any sections to the proposed sign ordinance
amendment.
With no further input from the public or Oormiasion members, a motion was
made by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Cindy Ltmm, to approve the amendment
to the Monticello Sign Ordinance that a minimum of one address sign shall
be required on each building in all zoning districts. Motion carried
unanimously.
Planning Commission Minutes - 9/8/87
Page 6
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
1. A tabled variance request to allow a deck to be constructed within the
sideyard setback requirement. Applicant, Tam: Lindquist. Planning
Commission's variance approval stands approved, as there were no appeals.
2. A variance request to allow a driveway curb cut in excess of the maximum
curb cut driveway width allowed. Applicant, Westside Market. Planning
Commission's variance approval stands approved, as there were no appeals.
3. A conditional use request to allow major auto repair in a B-4 (regional
business) zone. Applicant, Pred and Patricia Culp. Council Action:
Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
4. A variance request to allow construction of an attached garage within the
sideyard setback requirement. Applicant, William Sparrow. Planning
Commission's variance approval stands approved, as there were no appeals.
S. A variance request to allow construction of a detached garage, front
entry, and front open porch within the front yard setback requirement.
Applicant, Daniel Anderson. Applicant withdrew his variance request.
6. A conditional use request to allow a beauty shop as a home occupation in
an R-1 (single family residential) zone. Applicant, Joanne Roerchler.
Council Action: Approved as per Planning Commission recommendation.
7. Consideration of a new Planning Commission member. Council Action:
Approved as per majority vote of the Monticello Planning Commission
members.
8. The general consensus was to set the next tentative date for the
Monticello Planning Commission meeting for Wednesday, October 14, 1987,
7:30 p.m.
9. lotion by Jim Ridgeway, seconded by Richard Martie, to adjourn the
meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at
10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
"g r /"wq
Gary Anderson
Zoning Administrator
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/14/87
3. Public Hearing - A simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing
unplatted lot into two unplatted lots. Applicant, Debbie Kremer.(G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Debbie Kramer is proposing to subdivide off the northerly 108 feet of
their unplatted lot. The simple subdivision of unplatted property is
allowed by an owner once. The proposed simple subdivision of this land
which Mrs. Kramer is proposing does meet the minimum requirements of our
ordinance for land area to be subdivided. As part of the interceptor
sewer line project, water and sewer facilities were run up the street to
service this property.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the simple subdivision of an existing unplatted lot into two
unplatted lots.
2. Deny the simple subdivision request to subdivide an existing
unrlatted lot into two unplatted lots.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Raving reviewed the applicant's request, City staff recommends approval
/ of the simple subdivision request to subdivide this unplatted lot of
' record into two residential lots under the ownership of Debbie Kramer.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed simple subdivision request] Copy of
the proposed simple subdivision.
�. I:.
..I IN. PT QT PT AN
IADORCSS ' �IJYa'F�I /'llii/II•_Sh'/A �7�CPJ"••'.• .. PERMIT NlMMR
1 SCRIPTION :;LAT"'C.IJ'o� •�•/YN SAO/�W48L.00K AOOI
l •'.II 9 ji.•.: ?
S0. rT. or 31TE ARCA "I- 30. R, O/ AREA OCCLPICD BY BUILDING
INSTRYICTIONS TO APPLICANT
THIS FOM4 MELD NOT .t U390 WHLM PLOT PLAM,S DRAWN TO BCALC ARE FILED WITH THE PERHIT APPLICATION,
.OR NEW BUILDINGS. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING 111FONMATION1 LOCATION OF ►RO►O3ED CONSTRUCTION AND MIMING
IMPROVCMEMTS. SHOW BUILD/110 SITE AND
SETBACK DIMENSION!. SHOW EA3MENT3. ►INION CONTOURS OR DNAINAOE. 1
PIR3T •LOON CLLY ATIOM3. '.T.ELT LLEVAT IOM AMO EEK. ElEYA710N. $MOV LOCATION Of WATER. 7CKR. (IAS. I
'NO ELECTRICAL SLAP ICE LINED. ENOV LOCATIOM3 OF DUMYEY PIKS. 3►ECIFT THE USE OF EACH SUILOINO
.NO EACH MAJOR PORTION TNCREOF.
INDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE I / EACH GRAPH SQUARE EOUALS20-O' BTaIO*
it
II •
- I I •
I12NNE'S.0T-A STREP
1/WS p1111T INTI the OFOODSSd coRA1REIMN *0 mN101IR to FIM dII11M1 m u10 u1SI I/IO..N Nxm IRO IINI M CRMIGII It to IIMGI NIOIOVI
•t1ARRF•R.R.►A�RFA.
Sege "
AKIA1" 86.690980.F6A RF.A.F.AFFAA..At....................................................
Na. OITT YSt O10.T1
IUNCD Pzm APFWVCD By DATE.
Planning Comonission Agenda - 10/14/87
4. Public Hearing - A variance request to allow placement of a detached
2arace within the sideyard setback requirement. Applicant, Bruce
Parson. (G.A.)
Mr. Parson is proposing to construct a detached accessory garage within
the sideyard setback. In reviewing the site plan and the existing
conditions on the site of the placement of the proposed garage which Mr.
Parson is requesting, there would be 7 feet between the proposed garage
and an existing house immediately east of this proposed garage. In
residential zoning, we try to keep a minimum of 15 feet in some areas,
and in the rest of the area 20 feet between structures. In this case,
however, there is an existing house immediately east which poses a
problem in that Mr. Parson could construct a garage of a smaller size and
be 10 feet from the property line which is actually the westerly side of
the existing house immediately east of this property and still have only
10 feet between structures.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance request to allow placement of a detached garage
within the sideyard setback.
2. Deny the variance request to allow placement of a detached garage
within the sideyard setback.
C. STAPP RM MWWMTION:
Staff recommends denial of the variance request to allow placement of a
detached garage within 7 feet of the side lot line. If we had some
additional room immediately east of this proposed lot line, one could
possibly look favorably at a variance. But with no additional room on
the side lot line, with that being an existing house immediately east of
this property being built right on the lot line, we strongly recommend
denial of this variance request.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed variance request] Copy of the site
plan for the proposed variance request.
I J 4
p'
p�avoyst �
tG,S=a"
•-gMS"�7Nts
k
2.s-0.
Pi or PLAN
319 E. SRWWAY
OW,VER BRGCE PARSON
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/14/87
5. A request for general concept stage review of a Manned unit developoent
to be known as Highland Heights One. Appllcant, Rivera F1nanctal aha
Development Coarpany. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Rivera has been unable to submit the City staff for their review a
completed concept stage plan for a planned unit development to be known
as Highland Heights one. Therefore, we recommend that the Planning
Omission table Mr. Rivera's request until the next regularly scheduled
Planning Commission meeting on November 10, 1987, 7:30 p.m.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/14/87
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
1. Input on a possible replatting of a city industrial lot. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Monticello currently owns lots 9 and 10, Block 2, Oakwood
Industrial Park Addition in the City of Monticello.
011ie Roropchak, City Economic Development Director, has had a problem
trying to find small enough lots to accommodate the smaller businesses
that have come in to talk to her about relocating to Monticello. The
chances of selling part or parts of these lots are better than trying to
sell each of the individual lots separately.
Before you tonight is a rough draft of a proposed subdivision of these
two lots to accommodate six individual 1+ acre lots. The intent behind
this agenda item is to get any input Planning Commission members may have
on this prior to sending it to City Council for their formal reaction
before any action is taken to plat or riot to plat these two industrial
lots.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Recommend approval of the layout of the subdivided two industrial
lots.
2. Recommend denial of the subdividing of these two industrial city
lots.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Subject to any further input the Planning Commission members may have in
the replotting of these two industrial lots, we recommend the Planning
Commission look favorably at the replotted lots as presented.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the lots to be replattedN Copy of the site plan
for the two lots to be resubdivided.
g22.1L
?,-So At.
I.S3�c \ : to
J
�° Co 5A
oa
io
V
1.26 At. \ 1.49 Ac.
�R.ar o.�sr
C. "w Arr t (, •• w #-tdl
'
C. S NN � 40000-
��1�� �,� RAMI • 1—•�I+� � ������r - _ J ��
Ir- Rcr raw ouN0-4S Rd
0
1
1',n 100'
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/14/87
" ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
2. input on possible redevelopment projects on the old Monticello Ford
site. (G.A.)
011ie Ror%xhak, Economic Development Director, will be present to
explain some of the possible redevelopment projects for the old
Monticello Ford site. There will be no alternative actions, staff
recommendation, or supporting data for this item.
Planning Commission Agenda - 10/14/87
ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
10. Annual Planning Institute Seminar Update. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This is the planning seminar which last January Richard Carlson, Jim
Ridgeway, and myself attended. If any of the members of the Planning
Commission that have riot attended this would like to attend, there are
two dates that are available, December 4 and January 20, at the Earl
Brown Center on the University of Minnesota St. Paul campus.
There will be no alternative actions on this item.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff strongly recommends that the three Planning Commission members,
should it fit in their work schedules, plan to attend this seminar. The
staff member and the two Planning Commission members which did attend
this seminar last year felt that this was a very worthwhile seminar. We
are also recommending that the City Council members attend such a seminar
also. We feel it would be very worthwhile to the ODuncil members to
attend this should it fit into their work schedules.
' D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the pamphlet submitted for the Annual Planning Institute.
ANNUAL PLANNING INS x Y i LMS
FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS
Four Dates
Three Locations!
November 13
Grand Rapids
November zo
New Ulm
December 4
St. Paul
January 20
St. Paul
GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE
` NHO SHOULD ATTEND?
ft, ra of planning commissions,
boards of adjustment/appeals and
governing bodies in Minnesota
cities, counties and townships.
Also valuable for members of
other advisory commissions,
housing and redevelopment
authorities, staff without
degrees in planning, and real
estate professionals.
INSTITUTE COSPONSORS
• Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities
• Association of Minnesota
Counties
• Humphrey Institute of Public
Affairs
• state Planning Agency
• League of Minnesota Cities
• Minnesota Chapter, American
Planning Association
• Minnesota Association of
Townships
Minnesota Planning Association
Annual Planning Institutes are for those new to lard use
planning or interested in a review of fundamentals.
PROGRAM FEATURES
• Informational presentations combined with workshops
and simulations
• Faculty with extensive backgrounds in planning and
instruction
• Packet of handy reference materials designed to make
your job easier
• Answers to your questions about duties and procedures
ImOrove vour ckiLr Making zoning decisions, evaluating
subdivision proposals, learning and applying planning
terminology and working effectively with others in the
planning process. Plus eam heal rotate Credit, this
program has applied for six hours of credit to the
Ca=isaioner of Securities, relating to Continuing Real
Estate Bducation.
These institutes are for you. REGISTER TODAYI
ro=-.W-
/o
DA 1'E:ii IAXWFIUNS
at Hbverber 13 (Friday)
Rainbow Ion
1300 Highwey 169 E.
Grand Rapids, MN 55714
218/326-9655
at November 20 (Friday)
Holiday Inn, New, Ulm
2101 S. Broadway
New Ulm, MN %073
507/359-2941
• Decerber 4 (Friday)
e January 20 (Wednesday)
Earle Brum Oenter
0 Of M St. Paul Camp:a
1890 Buford Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108
(Enter on Snelling
through State
Fairgrounds)
612/624-3275
CORE FACULTY
IAN TRA00112H BAIL, Planner i
Attorney, Rasmussen i Ball
GMRGS )DRF, Attorney, Riff i
Allen
GLNM IS80G, Planning Direc-
tor, Consolidated Planning
Dept., Rocester/Olmted
Oxanty
GEOR3B MVECS, Council Metmber,
City of St. Anthony
DAVE SEUJM3 ei, Attorney,
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly i
Lindgren
KAREN S)PYFIR, Attorney,
Hatrepolitan Connell
FURTHER INFORMATION
Contact Sandi Hoglund
(Registration) or Vivian Hart
(Program) at Government
Training Service 612/222-7409
or Hi mmota Toll Free
800/652-9719
An Advanced Plasming Institute
will be hold early In 1988.
Boa registration form.
NY-
Addrer^
PROGRAM iiGL• NDA (All Sites)
8,30 REGISTAATI(N
as
9:00 INIICOLIf.TION TO PIAIMtG: toy Plan? Elements of e
CaVrehen sive Plan, Legal Aspects of Plmming
10:25 FJWF 5190371' BRPJIR
10:40 BASIC PIAt2r= TOOLS-PNW It ZONING, VARIANCES,
CCMrrI@AL USE PMUTS= Definitions, H ionale,
Dsee, M/tha Mieconceptims, Nor-Tos,
Nort{Onform(ng uses
•20NM CASE STLDIEB: 900TUMCA1. PROBLEM BOLVDW
Participants are placed into stall groups in which
they work on rural or urban zoning issues based on
actual situations and timely co cerns.
12:10 LAMM
Is
1:25 BASIC PLANK= TOOLS -PART Iia
SMIVISION ROMILATI(N: Definition,
Rationale, Uses, Content, Procedures, Design
Standards, Financial Guarantees, Special Provisions
•6VA[IATING A SUBDIVISION PBOPOSiU.t A SIMNBATION:'
Participants work in stall groups to evaluate a
developer's subdivision plan using standard
planning tools -the caryreheneive plan, ordinances,
aerial and roil maps
3145 TBE LOIS OP TB PLAWIND O MMISSIONER, THE at1 m
OFFICIAL, SIR" AND TOE Baume OF ADAIS'8027f/APPEALS
Responsibilities of each groups procedureel tips on
conducting effective meetings and public hearings
(Panel of local officials)
4:30 AD30LM
NDISn Thie curriculum is a repeat of what has
been offered in previous years.
REGISTRATION/CANCELLATION
The $45 per person registration includes Each,
refreshment breaks and handout materials.
Register in advance on the attached form (at least 10
days prior to tie Institute date). Ayyll refute of the
zea w111 ho made ii the registration in cancelled 3
working dW In eeveme of the Jmagram. Substitutee for
registered participants may be ands at any tum.
Should inclement weather (or other clrcmetanceo boyard
our control) necessitate program cancellation,
participants will be notified via mmosoaamts on WOOD
Radio and other local statism.
About fie Government Training Service (OM
GIBnt
and le s public organization, of prtli whose mission is to paineet who d"Ingofficials
by providing end leadership noeda of polluyoakero, ate[[ and appointed stile to try providing
Innovative. c'o preMmive, practical training and consulting to publicly funded
organist law.
REG 1ST RAT ION
1987/88 RAN/11113 tNTITPA B
(CREU ONE)
_ November 11 - Grand Replde _ r we ' r 4 -St. Paul
_ November 20 - Nov Ulm _ January 20 - St. Raul
Daytime fora ( U
City/Stata/lin
Jurisdiction Tltte Ib log in position—
=10 _ Fhclased Is 64!/perem =10 to Government Training Service
_
Bill me 194! plus 43 billing charge)
_ Sed sea more lnfor®tlon on Twin Cities Ontnighc s000modatiaro
8sd as more information on Advanced Planning institute
Ploam aril to Government Training Service, 202 Mlrassots Bulldinj, 16 Est
4th Street, St. Paul, IN 55101 — 6t )seat 1 di armor z rnrttaas natal