Planning Commission Agenda 02-01-2011
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 1st, 2011
6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, William Spartz, and
Barry Voight
Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart
Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman – NAC,
1. Call to order.
2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 4th, 2010.
3. Citizen Comments.
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
5. Consideration of a report on the adoption of the comprehensive amendment to the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance.
6. Consideration of amendment options related to Chapter 5.3 of the Monticello Zoning Code
relating to Adult Uses.
7. Adjourn.
Planning Commission Minutes — 01/04/11
do a resource search to determine how to proceed.
The Commission briefly discussed the importance of moving the Transportation Plan
forward to the City Council.
8. Consideration to review applications for open Planning Commission position
Angela Schumann will schedule interviews for the Planning Commission position
vacated by Lloyd Hilgart for Tuesday, January 11 th after 5 pm. These interview
appointments will be confirmed by email and a meeting notice will be posted. The
applicant selected would be brought forward to the City Council for approval at its next
meeting.
9. Consideration of items added to al4enda
a) Downtown Committee Update: Charlotte Gabler gave a brief report about the
Embracing Downtown Committee meeting she had attended. She indicated that the
McComb Group presented numerous statistics in their analysis of the area. There
was much discussion and brainstorming about how to get folks downtown, how best
to utilize City parks, and what to do about traffic. The Committee will meet again on
January 18, 2011.
10. Adiourn
WILLIAM SPARTZ MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:00 PM. MOTION
WAS SECONDED BY LLOYD HILGART. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Recorder: Kerry T. Burri
Approved: February 1, 2011
Attest:
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
1
Planning Commission Agenda: 02/01/11
1
5. Consideration of a report on the adoption of the comprehensive amendment to the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance. (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On January 10th, 2011, the City Council was presented with the final draft of the proposed
amendment to Title 10 of Monticello City Code - Monticello Zoning Ordinance for formal
review and adoption. The Council was also asked to review and approve the proposed Official
Zoning Map, which corresponds to the changes proposed by the amended code.
After presentation and discussion of the new zoning ordinance and official map, a motion was
made by Lloyd Hilgart and seconded by Brian Stumpf for Alternative #1, which reads:
“Motion to adopt Ordinance #522, an amendment to Title 10 of the Monticello City Code,
Monticello Zoning Ordinance, subject to the following, and to adopt the amended Monticello
City Official Zoning Map.
a. Exemption of section 3.7(C) – Floodplain and 3.7(E) – Shoreland
b. Adoption of current Title 10, Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapters
18 (Flood Plain Management) and 27 (Mississippi Wild & Scenic) by
reference.”
The Council voted 3-1 in favor of adopting the Zoning Ordinance and the Official Zoning
Map (and repeal of the existing ordinance). It was understood by City Staff that the motion
required a super majority (4/5) vote in order to approve the amended Official Zoning Map
along with the zoning ordinance. Adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance required just a
simple majority, which was met with the vote.
According to City Attorney Joel Jamnik, Ordinance #522 adopting the Zoning Ordinance and
the amended Official Zoning Map received the appropriate number of votes for approval. The
requirement for a super majority vote on the Official Zoning Map applies only to those
parcels affected by rezoning changes.
Therefore, with a simple majority vote, the Official Map was adopted along with the new
zoning code text. However, in order to accept the rezoning of parcels which were changed
relative to the new Zoning Ordinance, Jamnik recommended bringing this item back to
Council for a re-vote and adoption by a super majority vote.
Subsequently, on January 24th, 2011, Ordinance #522, including adoption of both the text of
the code and official zoning map, was submitted to the City Council for re-adoption. The
City Council re-approved the ordinance in a 4-1 vote, with Council member Perrault in
dissent. The Council also voted to approve summary publication of the code. With those
approvals, the summary ordinance was published on January 27th and thereby became official
City Code.
Planning Commission Agenda: 02/01/11
2
The new Zoning code and maps have been posted online. A demonstration of their use and
navigation features will be given at the February 1st Planning Commission and February 14th
City Council meeting.
As noted, MFRA project consultant Ben Gozola and staff have already begun tracking both
minor code adjustments and upcoming amendments. An overview of both is presented for
Commission’s information with this report.
Minor Adjustments
Minor adjustments are those made for consistency with prior Commission/Council
recommendations and to provide appropriate source references and dates. A list of these has been
provided by MFRA. These adjustments have already been made in the final version provided to
the Commission.
Upcoming Amendments
Over the next few months, staff is working on preparing report information on the following items
for possible amendment:
o Adult Use Ordinance – see Item 6
o Subdivision in R-1 and R-2 Areas for Lower Monticello and Original Plat
Consideration of subdivision in Lower Monticello and Original Plat for previously platted
lots which do not meet 12,000 square foot area minimum.
o Sign Ordinance
Multi-Tenant Building Temporary Signage
Consideration of additional days for multi-tenant spaces
New Business Temporary Signage Allowance
Consideration to allow bonus temporary signage of up to 40 days anytime within
first 6 months of operation. Current code requires the bonus use beginning on first
day of opening to public.
Billboards
Consideration of allowing off-premise signage within the community.
o Temporary Trash Receptacle Use
There is currently an allowance for construction dumpsters, but no allowance for
temporary placement of a dumpster for a specific period of time unrelated to construction.
o DNR Overlay Amendments
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
No action is needed at this time.
Planning Commission Agenda: 02/01/11
3
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
None.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. City Council Minutes – 1/10/11
B. Ordinance #522
C. Ordinance #522A
D. Minor Adjustments Listing
E. Adopted Final Monticello Zoning Ordinance
F. Only paper copies of the new code are provided. Please insert the final version copies
into the binder provided with the draft version prepared for Commission in January.
G. Adopted Final Monticello Zoning Map
H. Adopted Final Monticello Freeway Bonus Map
MONTICELLO ZONING CODE
MINOR EDITS INCLUDED IN FINAL DRAFT TO BE PUBLISHED/POSTED
ADOPTED 1/24/10
Section 2.4(B)(I)(3): Link was changed to “MN Rule Chapter 1300 “Administration of State
Building Code”
Section 5.2(G)(8)(h): Reference and link were changed to 5.3(D)(23)
Section 5.2(G)(11)(e): Reference and link were changed to 5.3(D)(23)
All sections which included language to the “effective date of this ordinance” were updated to
reference Section 1.4. Section 1.4 will ultimately need to include whatever the effective date is
according to your city attorney. Examples include:
o Section 3.7(D)(5)(a): “Effective date of this ordinance” text was linked back to Section
1.4 as shown below (rather than restate the effective date).
For lots of record created after the effective date of this ordinance as denoted in
Section 1.4, a buffer strip shall be maintained abutting all wetlands.
o Section 6.2(A) and (B): “Effective date of this ordinance” text was linked back to Section
1.4 as shown below (rather than restate the effective date).
(A) Legally conforming existing structures and uses in existence on the effective
date of this ordinance as denoted in Section 1.4 which become non-conforming to this
ordinance shall not be considered non-conforming, but instead shall be treated as follows:
(B) With the exception of structures and uses that meet the requirements of
Section 6.3(A), any structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date of this
ordinance as denoted in Section 1.4 may not be expanded, but may be continued—
including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement—
unless:
o Definitions for “Nonconforming Structure or Building” and “Nonconforming Use” now
include the reference to Section 1.4
County Hwy 75
Chelsea Rd
State Hwy 25
85th St NE
9 0th St N E
Linn St
Pine St
7th St
School Blvd
Riverview Dr
Cedar St
W River St
M
a
r
v
i
n
R
d
Jason Ave
Dundas Rd
W Broadway St
Hart Blvd
Country La
Haug Ave NE
Elm St
W 4th St
Fenning Ave NE
Oakwook Dr
Ma lla rd La
95th St NE
Fallon Ave NE
Edmonson Ave NE
Mississippi Dr
5th St
Country Club Rd
Sandberg Rd
P
e
l
i
c
a
n
L
a
F a l c o n D r
Fenning Ave
Walnut St
Oak Ridge Dr
Oriole La
Club View Rd
Broadway St
Hillcrest Rd
E River St
Headman La
M
i
l
l
T
r
a
i
l
L
a
Falcon Ave NE
Wright StBenton St
Elwood Rd
Ramsey St
6th St
River Mill Dr
Wildwood Way
Hilltop Dr
Mill Run Rd
O a k V i e w L a
Farmstead Ave
Martin Dr
4th St E
3rd St E
Red Rock La
Gillard Ave NE
Maple St
Fallon Dr
Willow St
View La E
Grey Stone Ave
Marvin Elwood Rd
Fieldcrest Cir
Fairway Dr
Jason Ave NE
Vine St
M e a d o w L a
Jerry Liefert Dr
Praire Rd
Starling Dr
Palm St
U
nkn
own
or
N
o
Streetn
ame
Fallon Ave
Golf Course Rd
Falcon Ave
Kevin Longley Dr
Craig La
R
e
d
O
a
k
L
a
Front St
5th St W
Thomas Park Dr
Locust St
M o c k i n g b i r d L a
W 3rd St
Eas
twood C
ir
Briar Oaks B lvd
F
a
r
m
s
t
e
a
d
D
r
Henipin St
E
i
d
e
r
L
a
Dayton St
Oak La
River Forest Dr
Meadow Oak Ave
Kampa Cir
O
a
k
R
i
d
g
e
C
i
r
M i l l C t
R i v e r R i d g e L a
Garrison Ave
Oakview Ct
Dundas Cir
Kenneth La
Otter Creek Rd
Minnesota St
Eagle Cir
Crocus La
Meadow Oak La
Stone Ridge Dr
Chestnut St
1 2 0 t h S t N E
Darrow Ave NE
Diamond Dr
Pebble Brook Dr
Widgeon La
Washington St
Bunker Cir
Homestead Dr
Thomas Cir
E
n
d
i
c
o
t
t
T
r
Center Cir
Oak View Cir
Sandtrap Cir
Country Cir
Cheyen Ct
Old Territoral Rd
Tanager Cir
Hillcrest Cir
Os p rey Ct
Acorn Cir
Balboul Cir
S
w
allo
w
C
ir
R iv e r si d e C ir
Meadow Oak Ct
Matthew Cir
E Oak Dr
S t o n e R i d g e C ir
Oakwood Dr
Meadow Oak Ave NE County Hwy 75
Hart Blvd
Marvin Rd
Marvin Rd
Wright St
Cedar St
Minnesota St
City of Monticello
Official Zoning Map
Zoning Districts
A-O
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-PUD
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
CCD
I-1
I-2
R-A (formerly R-1A)
T-N (formerly R-2A)
I-BC (formerly I1-A)
M-H (formerly R-4)
Other
Mississippi Wild, Scenic & Rec Overlay District
Overlay Districts
CCD Residential Overlay District
Performance Based Overlay District
Water
1-24-11
Fr
e
e
w
a
y
B
o
n
u
s
S
i
g
n
Ov
e
r
l
a
y
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
M
a
p
³
Le
g
e
n
d
Fr
e
e
w
a
y
B
o
n
u
s
S
i
g
n
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Ch
e
l
s
e
a
R
o
a
d
Interstate 94
Marvin Road
Cedar Street
Chelsea Road
State Hwy 25
12
-
2
0
-
1
0
Planning Commission Agenda: 02/01/11
1
6. Consideration of amendment options related to Chapter 5.3 of the Monticello Zoning Code
relating to Adult Uses. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Attached to this report is a memorandum examining the impacts of the City’s growth over
time, combined with updates to its zoning ordinance as they relate to the regulation of adult
oriented uses. In summary, these changes have raised the need to adjust zoning allowances
and buffer distances to ensure that the ordinance continues to meet legal standards in this area.
Since it has been some time since the City conducted this type of analysis, staff has provided
a brief “Question and Answer” format for City official review. The regulation of adult uses is
often misunderstood, and due to first amendment issues, requires special attention.
QUESTION & ANSWER: ADULT USE ORDINANCE
Q.1. Why does the City have an ordinance that allows these uses?
A.1. In a long series of legal cases, entertainment and arts-related activities have come under
the protection of the “Free Speech” clause of the first amendment – perhaps more
descriptively thought of as “Free Expression”. As a form of expression with First
Amendment protection, the City has limited ability to regulate adult-oriented uses.
Q.2. Doesn’t creating an ordinance allowing adult uses encourage their location in the
community?
A.2. Probably not. Purveyors of adult entertainment base their location decisions like any
other business. These types of uses are allowed by nature of their first amendment protection
– not having regulations would diminish the City’s ability to manage where they go in the
community.
Q.3. Why don’t we create an ordinance that prohibits these uses?
A.3. The courts have made it clear that such ordinances are unconstitutional as an illegal
constraint on expression. If a City is found to have such an ordinance under a legal challenge,
a court would throw out the City’s code, and the adult use would have free rein to locate
where they wish, without the City’s ability to manage the impacts of the use.
Q.4. Can we create an ordinance that includes these uses as potentially allowed, but limits
their location in such a way that effectively zones them out of the City?
A.4. No. This would be called a “pretextual” ban – the City may regulate certain aspects of
these uses, but may NOT have an ordinance that effectively bans them under the guise of
“regulation”. A court would treat this type of ordinance the same as an outright prohibition.
Q.5. Well then, what kinds of regulations can we adopt?
Planning Commission Agenda: 02/01/11
2
A.5. In the area of speech regulation, the City typically has the ability create what are
commonly called “time, place, and manner” regulations. As a general rule, the City may not
discriminate by the content of the speech, nor may it discriminate by the identity of the
speaker. However, the City can place non-discriminatory restrictions based on location, or on
the style of delivery of a message, or on the duration or timing of a message in the protection
of public health, safety, and welfare. In addition, the City may prohibit “obscene” speech.
Thus, an adult use establishment which is otherwise properly located may be prohibited from
displaying messages that are judged to be obscene.
Q.6. What do you mean by “properly located”?
A.6. A number of US Supreme Court cases have addressed this issue. The most relevant is
City of Renton, WA v. Playtime Theatres, a case that arose in Renton, Washington over a
challenge to the City’s ordinance regulating the location of adult theatres. In Renton, the
Court majority established that the City’s regulations were not regulating the content of the
speech, but rather, regulating the “secondary effects” of that speech which might be imposed
on the public, especially populations judged to be sensitive to these effects. Renton’s
ordinance, and the court opinion validating it, established a number of standards for the
regulation of adult-oriented uses. Cities were granted the ability to regulate the location of
these establishments to mitigate the potential secondary effects of such uses.
Q.7. What kinds of regulations can the City adopt?
A.7. Essentially, the City can create restrictions by zoning district that limit the ability of the
establishments, or the patrons of the establishments, to have an impact on defined sensitive
populations. These usually take the form of defining the uses, specifying which zoning
district such uses can be located in, and then creating a buffer zone from sensitive land uses
that the City wishes to protect from the secondary effects of the establishment. It is critical to
note, however, that the zones and the buffers need to be placed in such a way that adult use
have a “reasonable” opportunity to locate in the community (see the comment on “pretextual”
prohibitions above).
Q.8. How much “opportunity” does our ordinance have to provide to avoid being
considered a “pretextual” prohibition? One lot? An entire shopping center?
A.8. Unfortunately, this is where the requirements are a little murky. The court’s standard in
Renton was a “reasonable” opportunity, a preciously minimal guide. In Renton, Washington,
evidence was introduced that the ordinance regulating adult uses created an opportunity area
of 5% of the City. The courts found this area to be meet its’ standard of reasonableness. In
the years since, many communities have confused the 5% threshold as some sort of silver
bullet standard. It is not. However, it is the only real guidance we have, so we think of it as a
good target to show evidence of reasonableness. Coming to far short of that threshold should
raise some questions about the effect of the ordinance in illegally regulating expression.
Q.9. What are these sensitive uses we can protect?
Planning Commission Agenda: 02/01/11
3
A.9. Monticello’s ordinance is typical, listing the following:
Residentially zoned property.
Agricultural land located in the neighboring township or in the City that is
guided for residential use.
A licensed daycare center.
A public or private educational facility (elementary, middle, junior high or senior
high school).
A public library.
A church.
Amusement places such as roller rinks, dance hall and bowling alleys.
Liquor sales (establishments)
Q.10. How much buffer can we leave from these uses?
A.10. Monticello’s current ordinance provides a 700 foot buffer. Others rely only on the
zoning district boundaries, and several ordinances use 100 feet or some increment as their
buffer zone. The balancing act is to provide some separation, while continuing to provide a
reasonable opportunity area.
Q.11. What if all of the land we provide is taken up by buildings and current uses?
A.11. The courts have been clear that it is not the City’s responsibility to play realtor for the
adult use establishment – they must fend for themselves in the real estate market and if all
properly zoned and located parcels are full, that’s the market working, not the ordinance, just
as it would be for any other business looking to locate in a particular zoning district.
Q.12. What do we need to do?
A.12. The attached memorandum provides an outline of the City’s zoning districts, and a
summary of the eligible area under the current regulations. Because staff, including the City
Attorney, believe that the Xcel Energy property is not likely to be considered “eligible” due to
Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements, not to mention its proximity to large areas of
parkland, the remaining I-2 zoned land provides less than 3 percent opportunity area, and just
over 1 percent when the current 700 foot buffer is applied. The challenge will be to find some
combination of buffer distance and increase in the area of properly zoned parcels to get to
“reasonable” – in general, something closer to 5%.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1: No decision is requested at this time. The purpose of this report is to permit
discussion of the options at the Planning Commission level, in preparation for ordinance
amendments to be considered at a future public hearing.
Planning Commission Agenda: 02/01/11
4
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation is offered at this time. This reference information is being presented to
the Planning Commission for discussion purposes and to generate a Commission-directed
course of action for future amendment, which staff will be prepared to bring forward in
March.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
1. Background Memorandum
2. Preliminary maps
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Grittman
FROM: Bob Kirmis
DATE: January 26, 2011
RE: Monticello - Adult Use Opportunity Area Analysis
NAC FILE: 191.07 - 10.20
At your request, I have conducted a review of the City’s adult use requirements in
specific regard to provided opportunity area. In this regard, the following comments are
offered:
Purpose. As noted in the Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of the City’s adult use
regulations is to provide for the establishment and operation of adult uses within the City
while providing controls which limit negative impacts upon residential and commercial
areas.
Legal Requirements. As a general rule, the City seeks to meet a threshold of
approximately five percent of its land as area potentially available for adult
entertainment uses. While this threshold is not an explicit legal requirement, it was a
level upheld by the United States Supreme Court in a Renton, Washington case that
established a right to regulate adult uses. In Renton, the City had adopted an ordinance
that created a dispersal requirement for adult entertainment uses, based on a finding
that such land uses had the potential to create negative “secondary” effects.
In most zoning theory, the City regulates the “primary” effects of land uses – noise,
traffic, light, odors, building mass, etc. However, entertainment is a form of expression
protected by First Amendment free speech principles. As such, the City may not create
a zoning regulation that prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, this form of
expression. In the Renton decision, the Supreme Court upheld the City’s restrictions on
adult entertainment uses since they regulated the “secondary effects” of the land use,
such as the potential for corruption of minors, but still made provision for such uses to
locate within the City. Renton’s ordinance provided an area of about five percent of the
City’s land area for these uses, and as such, five percent has become the common
2
numerical target for many of these types of regulations. It should be noted that the
Court’s standard is “a reasonable amount”, and they found five percent in Renton to
meet that “reasonableness” standard.
It is important to note that the City is not required to ensure that any of the land is
actually available for which a potential adult-oriented establishment would be eligible. It
has been said that the City is “not required to play real estate agent” for such uses.
Thus, if all eligible land is occupied and/or not for sale, that is the problem for the
prospective business operator, not the city. As a result, the analysis is basely simply on
a raw land area calculation, and any study of actually available real estate is
unnecessary.
When these ordinances are being considered or reviewed, a concern is often raised that
the City is somehow encouraging adult entertainment uses to locate within the
community. However, based on free speech jurisprudence, there is a presumption that
such uses are allowed. As such, the City’s regulation is an attempt to restrict where
those uses could go and protect sensitive land uses or individuals from their impacts.
Existing Regulations
District Allowance. Presently, principal adult uses are only allowed within the City’s I-2,
Heavy Industrial Districts.
There are five areas of the City which hold I-2 zoning designations as described below.
The largest is the Xcel Energy power plant site located on the extreme west end of the
City between Interstate 94 and the Mississippi River. The site overlays 549 acres of
land. While the site is considered eligible for a principal adult use from a zoning
standpoint, the land cannot be considered potentially available from a practical
standpoint. Thus, the site shall not be considered “developable” for the purposes of this
analysis.
The second area is located south of Chelsea Road East and east of County Road 117.
This area is characterized by typical industrial uses upon lots averaging approximately
five acres in size. The area is bordered by light industrial uses on the north and east, by
commercial uses on the west and by residential uses on the south. The area consists
of approximately 111 acres of land.
The third area is a single a single lot located south of Chelsea Road West and west of
Dalton Avenue. The lot is currently occupied by Apple Valley Ready Mix and measures
14.7 acres in size.
Finally, a triangular-shaped lot (having an I-2 zoning designation) is located east of
Riverview Drive between Interstate 94 and the BN rail line. The lot measures 1.7 acres
in size.
3
Not including the power plant site, 127.6 acres of I -2-zoned land exists in the City. This
equates to 2.6 percent of the City’s total “developable” acreage.
Opportunity Area. The City of Monticello covers 5,774 gross acres of land. However,
not all of this is considered “developable”. To provide a realistic representation of actual
“developable” land for principal adult uses, the following have been subtracted from the
referenced total land area of the City:
Xcel Energy power plant site (549 acres)
Federal, State and County roads (240 acres)
Subtracting the aforementioned property leaves 4,985 acres of “developable” land
within the City.
Of this “developable” total, approximately 128 acres are zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial (not
including the power plant site). This equates to 2.6 percent of the City’s total
developable land area.
To mitigate possible adverse impacts upon sensitive uses, the Zoning Ordinance states
that principal adult uses may not be located within 700 feet of the following:
Residentially zoned property.
Agricultural land located in the neighboring township or in the City that is
guided for residential use.
A licensed daycare center.
A public or private educational facility (elementary, middle, junior high or
senior high school).
A public library.
A church.
Amusement places such as roller rinks, dance hall and bowling alleys.
Liquor sales (establishments)
When the 700 foot separation requirement (from sensitive uses) is applied to the
eligible1-2 areas within the City, the opportunity area is reduced from 128 acres to 58
acres. On a percentage basis, this reduces the opportunity area from 2.6 percent (of
the City’s total “developable” acreage) to just 1.2 percent. Thus, the City’s present
opportunity area is significantly less than that suggested by the courts.
Alternative Regulations. To address the noted opportunity area deficit, the following
alternative regulations may be considered:
A. Reduction of Separation Distance Requirement (in I-2 Districts). One alternative
may be to reduce the 700 foot separation requirement applied to I-2 zoning
4
districts. As previously noted, the City’s present opportunity area totals 1.2
percent of the City’s developable area.
The following is a summary of varied separation distances upon eligible I-2-
zoned areas of the City:
BUFFER DISTANCE ACRES PERCENT OF TOTAL
700 feet 57.7 1.2
500 feet 81.1 1.6
300 feet 99.1 2.0
100 feet 119.6 2.4
B. Allowance of Use within I-1 Districts and I-2 Districts. A second alternative is to
make a further allowance for principal adult uses in the City’s I-1, Light Industrial
Districts. Presently 251 acres of I-1-zoned property exist within the City
There are two areas of the City in which hold I-1 zoning designations, each
consuming approximately half of the total I-1-zoned property in the City.
One area is located south of Interstate 94 and east of County Road 117 and
borders the industrial park.
A second area is located on the west end of the City south of Chelsea Road
West, east and west of Dalton Avenue.
If a 700 foot separation distance (from sensitive uses) were to be similarly
applied to the City’s I-1 Districts, an additional 173.7 acres would be available for
principal adult uses. This would increase the total opportunity area from 57.7
acres and 1.2 percent to 231.4 acres and 4.6 percent.
C. Rezoning of Parcels from I-1 to I-2. A third alternative is to rezone some I-1
parcels to I-2 thereby making such properties eligible for principal adult uses. In
review of the City’s zoning map and Land Use Plan, two alternatives have been
examined.
Option 1 - Fallon Avenue Area
In this option, the I-1 zoned parcels located south of Chelsea Road East and east
of Fallon Avenue have been considered for rezoning.
If such parcels were rezoned from I-1 to I-2, the following opportunity areas
would be provided according to separation distance requirement:
BUFFER DISTANCE ACRES PERCENT OF TOTAL
700 feet 71.5 1.4
5
500 feet 86.2 1.7
300 feet 117.5 2.4
100 feet 136.9 2.8
Option 2 - Fallon Avenue and Dalton Avenue Areas
Recognizing that the rezoning of the noted Fallon Avenue parcels (to I-2) would
fall significantly short of the 5 percent opportunity area threshold suggested by
the courts, additional I-1 properties which flank Dalton Avenue have also been
considered for rezoning (to I-2). Specifically, lands located approximately 700
feet south of Chelsea Road West have been considered .
If the Dalton Avenue parcels were also rezoned from I-1 to I-2 (in addition to the
referenced Fallon Avenue parcels), the following opportunity areas would be
provided according to separation distance requirement:
BUFFER DISTANCE ACRES PERCENT OF TOTAL
700 feet 129.3 2.6
500 feet 146.3 2.9
300 feet 177.6 3.7
100 feet 197.0 4.0
Conclusion
At 1.2 percent of the City’s total “developable acreage, the City’s existing adult use
opportunity area is clearly less than the 5 percent opportunity area suggested by the
courts.
There are a variety of options available to the City to address this opportunity area
deficit. The options examined as part of this analysis are as follows:
A. Reduce the separation distance requirement in I-2, Heavy Industrial
zoning districts.
B. Allow principal adult uses within both I-1 and I-2 zoning districts.
C. Rezone selected I-1, Light Industrial parcels to I-2, Heavy Industrial.
A reduction to 700 foot separation distance currently applied in I-2 Districts will not
approach the recommended 5 percent opportunity area. In this regard, it is important to
note that no separation distance at all would equate to an opportunity area of only 2.6
percent.
6
If the City were to allow principal adult uses in both I-1 and I-2 zoning districts with the
current 700 foot separation distance requirement, an opportunity area of 4.6 percent
would result. Lesser separation distances were not evaluated as the 5 percent
opportunity area would be achieved with the 700 foot requirement (lesser separation
distances would likely result in opportunity areas greater than 5 percent).
Rezoning selected I-1 parcels to I-2 would provide for greater opportunity areas, the
degree of which would be influenced by the applied separation distance requirement.
Summary
As can be seen on the “Target Opportunity Area Map”, we would need to get to about
198 acres to be at 4.0%, and 222 acres to be at 4.5%. The two main areas of I-2 and
I-1 shown on the map total 171.3 acres, leaving a deficit of 27-51 acres respectively,
with a 100 foot buffer. There are a total of 54.5 additional acres available by maximizing
the areas south of Chelsea on the west side, and including all lots without freeway
frontage on the east side. Obviously, increasing the buffer would change the calculus
by reducing the opportunity area throughout.
If you have any questions regarding this material, please advise.
Target opportunity area 4.5%: 222.0 acres
4.0%: 198.0 acres
City Industrial Park, I-1 and I-2 areas southwest of gas line easement: 33.1 acres
Oakwood Industrial Park area, N/S of Chelsea, E/W of Fallon Ave.: 138.2 acres
Subtotal 171.3 acres