The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 02-05-2019AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 5th, 2018 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson, John Alstad, Katie Peterson Council Liaison: Charlotte Gabler Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Jacob Thunander, Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Regular Meeting Minutes — January 2, 2018 C. Citizen Comments D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda E. Consideration to approve agenda 2. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Variance to Chapter 4.5 Signs for a forty (40) foot pylon sign Applicant: Scenic Sign B. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5 and Chapter 8, Section 4 related to use, standards and definitions for event centers, places of public assembly, personal services, and commercial recreation - indoor Applicant: City of Monticello 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of a review of the Special Use Overlay District B. Consideration of an update on the 2040 Monticello Comprehensive Plan C. Consideration of the Community Development Directors Report 4. Added Items 5. Adjournment MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 2nd, 2019 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson, John Alstad, and Katie Peterson Commissioners Absent: Council Liaison Present Staff Present: 1. General Business A. Call to Order 7ohn Alstad Lloyd Hilgart Angela Schumann, Hackenmueller Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Brad Fyle called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6 p.m. B. Consideration of approvin� minutes a. Re�ular Meetin� Minutes — December 4, 2018 MARC SINIPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — DECEMBER 4, 2018. KATIE PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0 WITH SAM MURDOFF ABSENT. C. Citizen Comments �' �' None. D. Consideration of addin� items to the a�enda None. E. Consideration to approve a�enda MARC SINIPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. KATIE PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 2. Public Hearings A. Continued Public Hearin� - Consideration of a request for Amendment to Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapter 4.5 Signs, Section 19 Dvnamic Displavs Applicant: Citv of Monticello Angela Schumann reminded the Planning Commission that they requested the item to be tabled at the last meeting pending additional information including maximum dynamic sign size and illumination. Schumann indicated that staff had included a provision in the proposed ordinance which would cap the maximum sign area at 25% of the allowable sign area, but that a clarification of up to 25 square feet could be added. Planning Commission Minutes — January 2, 2019 Page 1 � 9 Brad Fyle opened the continued public hearing. Hearing no comments, the public hearing was closed. MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ALLOWING DYNAMIC SIGN DISPLAY FOR CIVIC AND 1NSTITUTIONAL USES AS PROPOSED. KATIE PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. B. Continued Public Hearin� - Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zonin� Ordinance Chapters and Sections relatin� to the Central Communitv District Applicant: Citv of Monticello Angela Schumann explained that the item was tabled at the December, 2018 Planning Commission meeting pending additional information and revisions to the draft ordinance amendments to the Central Community District (CCD). Schumann reviewed the public comments from the December meeting and provided detail on new revisions to the proposed ordinance to the CCD. Brad Fyle discussed the proposed restriction on building stories. He recommended one to five stories. Steve Grittman explained the proposed ordinance was written so that one story buildings would require a site plan review by the City Council, two to four story buildings would be permitted, and five plus story buildings would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Fyle explained the public hearing was continued and opened for comment. Steve Johnson, property owner in the downtown, commended City Staff and the Planning Commission for addressing his concerns. He supported the ordinance amendments as presented. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Sam Murdoff asked to revise the ordinance to include the requirement for site plan review by the City Council for approval of single story buildings in the CCD. Schumann summarized that staff would revise those sections to include the required site plan review in the following character areas: Broadway, Walnut/Cedar, and Pine Street. SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION PG2018-029 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 7XX FOR AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS RELATING TO THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT WITH THE ADDITIONS OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVALS FOR SINGLE STORY BUILDINGS. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes — January 2, 2019 Page 2 � 9 C. Public Hearin� - Consideration of a request for Rezonin� to Planned Unit Development, Development Sta�e Planned Unit Development for Vehicle Sales & Rental for a Recreational Vehicle Dealership, and Preliminarv Plat for Groveland Fifth Addition Applicant: Monticello RV — Scott Kunz Steve Grittman explained the request for the construction of a recreational vehicle dealership. Grittman explained that the proposal would split the lot into two, with one of the lots being used under the PUD for the dealership. The proposed development would cover just over six acres with the outlot being just under six acres. Access to the site would occur on the northeast corner of the lot. The building was proposed to be developed on the east portion of the site, with display area primarily on the west. Grittman explained that the applicant showed RVs parked in the front of their building. It was recommended moving those RVs elsewhere on the site to maximize visibility of the building. The applicant had indicated that they disagreed with staff's recommendation. Grittman also explained that the applicant is proposing all rock mulch (no grass) on the east side of the site. Grittman explained the flexibility the applicant was seeking through the PUD process. He noted the zoning code is set up with a specific area of building to land ratio. Normally under the zoning code, the building would need to be 23,000 square feet, but the applicant is proposing an 18,000 square foot building with an optional mezzanine space for an increased square footage of 2,000 square feet (total of 20,000 square foot). Grittman reviewed the staff report as provided in the agenda packet. Staff recommended approval of the application with conditions as described in Exhibit Z. He recommended discussion by the Planning Commission of the first two items on Exhibit Z regarding visibility of the building. Brad Fyle asked for clarification on the proposed stormwater pond, infiltration basin, and retaining wall on the west portion of the site. Angela Schumann explained that the Fire Department also reviewed the plans the applicant submitted. Schumann requested adding two additional items to the comments in Exhibit Z. These comments included any gates on site or the building have a lock box to allow for entry and turning radius information for their access point that shows adequate space for Fire Station's largest fire truck. Fyle was concerned with the size of the recreational vehicles and the width of the access point on Chelsea Road. Grittman explained staff would examine when the applicant submits turning radius information. Fyle was also concerned with on- Planning Commission Minutes — January 2, 2019 Page 3 � 9 street delivery. Grittman explained that was not allowed under the Zoning Code and adequate space internal to the site was provided. Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Keith Burnham, K.B. Properties, expressed concerns with the east side yard setback and buffer especially as RV's would be backed up next to his property and fence. He also noted safety concerns with the access point on Chelsea Road. Scott Kunz, Monticello RV Center, explained that they tried to be very accommodating of the City's requests including additional landscaping and rotating the building orientation. They also shifted their building so that there would be greater visibility on Chelsea Road. He also noted that RVs would face forward on Chelsea Road for better aesthetics. Kunz stated the number of employees would double with the facility. Regarding the discussion points on Exhibit Z, Kunz provided an alternative site plan that would remove four RVs from the front entrance and replace with a green/landscaped area and would include their pylon sign. John Kinghorn, Kinghorn Construction, responded to Fyle's concern with the retaining wall and fence. Kinghorn stated that they are working on civils to possibly remove the retaining wall and fence. Kunz reassured the Planning Commission of the twenty foot buffer between the parking lot and the property line. Sam Murdoff asked the applicant if the RVs would be parked on the entire east boundary. Kunz confirmed and added the plan was to have the park models (tallest RV's) there to maximize visibility. Murdoff also asked about the amount of space between drive aisles. Katie Peterson asked about snow removal on the site. Kunz stated the site sloped down to the west. He noted snow would be plowed to the south and southwest corner of the site. Lloyd Hilgart asked about the RVs that would be parked in front of the building. Kunz explained they would park their shorter RVs there. The average height would be ten to eleven feet. Keith Burnham reiterated concerns with the buffer on the east side of the site and the location of the access point on Chelsea Road. Sam Murdoff and Lloyd Hilgart asked for staff reasoning for shifting the building on the lot. Grittman explained to better increase visibility of the building. Katie Peterson asked if a sign located in the revised site plan would obstruct the view of the building. Grittman explained it would be minimal. Planning Commission Minutes — January 2, 2019 Page 4 � 9 Sam Murdoff asked for details on the signage. Kunz stated a pylon sign would be in the green space and far enough in the air not to obstruct the view of the building. Schumann also stated a sign plan would be required for Final Stage PUD approval. Peterson asked for clarification on the size of the greenspace. Decision 1— Preliminary Plat of Groveland 5th Addition SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PG2019-001 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GROVELAND STH ADDITION, SUB7ECT TO EXHIBIT Z WITH THE REMOVAL OF ITEMS 1 AND 2 AND THE ADDITION OF A 50 FOOT GREEN SPACE NEAR THEIR ACCESS PO1NT AND THE ADDITION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CONIN�NTS AS PROVIDED 1N THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Decision 2— Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PG2019-002 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REZONING FROM B-3, HIGHWAY BUSINESS TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1 OF GROVELAND STH ADDITION. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Decision 3— Development Stage PUD Approval SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PG2019-003 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1 OF GROVELAND STx ADDITION. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. EXHIBIT Z Preliminary Plat, Rezoning to PUD, Development Stage PUD Lot 1, Block 1, Groveland 5th Addition Ensure east boundary will not create concerns over interference with existing adj acent property improvements. 2. Maintain lighting compliance with code, ensuring that lighting levels will minimize impacts on adj acent property. Prepare and submit sign plans that demonstrate compliance with Sign Ordinance regulations. 4. Noise Ordinance compliance — including no outdoor paging/speakers that are audible from adj oining residential areas. Planning Commission Minutes — January 2, 2019 Page 5 � 9 Limit use of extended parcel to the south to landscaping and revise the landscaping plan to identify plantings and maintenance. 6. Provide materials detail for proposed retaining wall. 7. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer's report dated December 12, 2018. Execute a Development Agreement for the plat and Planned Unit Development. 9. Installation of a Fire Department lock box as directed by the Fire Marshal. 10. Submission of a plan demonstrating adequate circulation and turning radaii area for Fire Department apparatus. 11. Planned Unit Development and site plan will accommodate a 50' clear zone area at the entrance.to accommodate building views from Chelsea Road. This area may include signage as allowed by ordinance. D. Public Hearin� - Consideration of a request for Preliminarv Plat for Oakwood Industrial Park Fourth Addition Applicant: Citv of Monticello Steve Grittman explained the request for Preliminary Plat to accommodate the development of a new Fire Station for the City of Monticello. Grittman explained the proposed plat would shift the west boundary line 87 feet. Grittman explained the staff report as provided in the agenda packet. He noted no other land use applications were required for this development. Staff recommended approval with Exhibit Z comments. Brad Fyle was concerned about parking for the existing business and the ten foot drive space. Grittman responded the ten foot drive space was narrower than the City was used to, but would accommodate traffic adequately. Grittman also commented that the parking exceeded the requirement for commercial uses. It was noted that the drive space was seventeen feet rather than ten feet. Sam Murdoff asked if a buffer would be required between the two parcels included in the plat. Grittman noted that because both parcels were zoned B-4, it did not require a buffer. MARC SINIPSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PG2019-004, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OAKWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK 4TH ADDITION, BASED ON THE FINDINGS 1N SAID RESOLUTION, AND CONTINGENT ON THE CONDITIONS 1N EXHIBIT Z OF THIS REPORT. KATIE PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes — January 2, 2019 Page 6 � 9 EXHIBIT Z Preliminary Plat for Oakwood Industrial Park 4th Addition Parts of Lots 1 and 2, Oakwood Industrial Park PIDs: 155018001012; 155018001020 Signage and/or pavement markings required for one-way circulation at the north end of the site. 2. Landscaping plan shall be revised to illustrate required perimeter buffer yard planting. Trash enclosure is required to be constructed of the same or similar building materials as the principal building. 4. The architect should verify that the metal accents are a maximum of 15% of the building exterior. The site plan shall be updated to illustrate the location of any proposed monument sign, which must meet total allowable area of 100 square feet and 14' in height, as well as setbacks of 15' from the right of way and 6' from interior side property lines, to be located to ensure no visual obstruction. 6. Grading drainage and erosion control and utility plans shall be revised to meet the comments of the City Engineer's office. 7. Sign permits are required per sign ordinance regulations. 8. Comments of other staff and Planning Commission. E. Public Hearin� - Consideration to review for adoption the 2019 Monticello Official Zonin� Map Applicant: Citv of Monticello Angela Schumann explained that each year the Planning Commission was asked to review the Zoning Map and recognize rezonings that occurred over the past year. In 2018, there was one rezoning in the Central Community District (CCD) to Rivertown Suites PUD. Schumann explained that staff also found an error in the zoning map from a rezoning that occurred in 2014 where the proposed Fire Station would be located. It should be identified as B-4. Schumann also stated that with the annual review of the zoning map, staff request acceptance of the City's shoreland and floodplain mapping. She explained that no changes to the maps have occurred over the past year, but that FEMA was working on updating floodplain maps. Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the public hearing was closed. SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PG2019-005 RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 705 FOR Planning Commission Minutes — January 2, 2019 Page 7 � 9 THE 2018 CITY OF MONTICELLO OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, 1NCLUDING SHORELAND/FLOODPLAIN COMPANION MAP, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. KATIE PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of election of Plannin� Commission officers and appointments for 2019 Decision 1: Chair Position SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER BRAD FYLE AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING CONINIISSION FOR 2019. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Decision 2: Vice Chair Position BRAD FYLE MOVED TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER SAM MURDOFF AS VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2019. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Decision 3: Term Appointment SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER KATIE PETERSON FOR A THREE YEAR TERM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, EFFECTIVE 1/1/2019. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Lloyd Hilgart left the meeting. �� _l B. Consideration of review of Capital Improvement Plan — Citv En�ineer/Public Works Director Angela Schumann introduced the City's new City Engineer/Public Works Director. Matt Leonard provided the 2019-2028 Public Works Capital Improvement Plan (CIl'). Leonard explained what a CIl' was and the process for formulating a CIl'. Leonard indicated the Planning Commission's role in the CIP was to make sure it was in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Leonard explained where funding for CIP items came from. He also explained major items on the CIl' for Streets/General Public Works, Parks/Pathways, and Utilities. The 2019 total proj ect costs in the CIP budget was estimated at 6.8 million dollars. One of the maj or proj ects under the CIP was for a new Public Works facility. The Planning Commission asked Leonard about the potential for a new facility including timing and the use of the current Fire Station. C. Consideration of 2019 Plannin� Commission Workplan Planning Commission Minutes — January 2, 2019 Page 8 � 9 Angela Schumann provided the 2019 draft Planning Commission Workplan. She said it was developed from the Planning Commissioner's worksheets that they returned to staff. She explained the workplan focused to a large extend on Comprehensive Planning efforts. Schumann provided a list of intended research and reference for the coming year. MARC SINIPSON MOVED TO ADOPT THE 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKPLAN AS PREPARED. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. D. Consideration of the Communitv Development Director's Report Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report. Schumann added the Monticello DMV was voted the best in the state by WCCO. The news story would be shared on WCCO's evening news at 10 p.m. on January 3. 4. Added Items None. � ` 5. Adjournment MARC SINIPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:27 P.M. KATIE PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Recorder: Approved Attest: � Jacob Thunander February 5, 2019 Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes — January 2, 2019 Page 9 � 9 2A. A. Planning Commission Agenda — 2/OS/2019 Public Hearing — Consideration of a reauest for Variance to Chapter 4.5 Signs for a fortv (40) foot pvlon si�n. Applicant: Twin Citv Staffin�. (NAC) Property: Planning Case Number: Legal: Lot 6, Block 1, Thomas Park Address: 112 Thomas Circle 2018-053 REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Variance to allow a 40 foot tall freestanding sign, rather than the 32 foot height as permitted in the Freeway Bonus Sign District. Deadline for Decision: Land Use Designation: February 17th, 2019 Places to Work (Industrial) Zoning Designation: I-1, Light Industrial. The purpose of the "I-1," light industrial, district is to provide for the establishment of warehousing and light industrial development. Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: Current Site Use: Surrounding Land Uses: North: Freeway Bonus Sign District Commercial Office I-94 East: Light Industrial/Office South: Light Industrial/Office West: Light Industrial/Office Project Description: The applicants recently constructed and occupied a new office building from which they conduct administrative office functions, particularly, the recruitment of employees for various businesses. The applicants constructed a freestanding sign at the maximum square footage of 200 square feet, and a height of 30 feet. This exceeded the base zoning allowable sign height of 22 feet, but took advantage of the allowance in the Freeway Bonus Sign Overlay District for such signs up to 32 feet in height. Planning Commission Agenda — 2/OS/2019 The applicants now wish to increase the sign height to 40 feet, ten feet taller than the currently constructed sign. A variance to exceed the overlay district allowance is necessary to accomplish this objective. The Planning Commission sits as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for variance requests. ANALYSIS The subject property is located on Thomas Circle, a conforming parcel zoned I-1, Light Industrial. The property backs onto I-94, subject to a drainage easement that separates the property improvements (building parking lot, and sign) from the freeway boundary. Surrounding zoning is primarily Industrial, with Commercial along Chelsea Road and Highway 25 to the south and west of the area. ►I `� �� /I � �� 'F V a�` \�� = �3`�� _ �— �� ; � / � � :' <..� � �� -�__ ' ` ', `,� - .� 2�� SITE :_ ��-�� \ � Business Districts � I �-1 � B-2 � B-3 � B-4 _ CCD Industrial Districts IBC � I-1 _ �'� The applicants support their request by noting that the immediately adj oining neighbor to the east (Morton Buildings) has a freestanding sign that partially blocks a clear view of the Twin City Staffing sign for west-bound traffic on I-94. Moreover, the applicant notes that existing landscaping on property to the west interferes with a continuous view of the sign for east-bound freeway traffic. The applicant suggests that the greater height would allow better visibility of their sign. The zoning ordinance lays out several specific criteria for variance consideration, summarized as whether the conditions on the property create "practical difficulties" in putting the property to what would otherwise be considered a reasonable use. The language of the variance requirements are cited below, with staff comment for each requirement. 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 2/OS/2019 VARIANCE: Section 2.4(C) of the Zoning Ordinance states that approval of a variance may be may only be made upon a determination that practical difficulties will result based on all of the following criteria: (i) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if the provisions of this ordinance are strictly applied. COMMENT.• The property is a conforming Light Industrial lot with proper frontage on a local street, and the benefit of additional exposure from I-94. There appear to be a number of sign locations and/or configurations that would meet the expanded allowances of the Freeway Bonus Sign regulations. While the intent of the sign regulations are to ensure reasonable communication with the public, the ordinance does not guarantee that conditions on other property will mcrximize visibility of any particular� sign design or location. The current sign could be raised 2 feet under the terms of the ordinance, and including some design changes, could be made to be more visible. Moreover, other locations on the property may further enhance the visibility of sign, within the allowances of the zoning ordinance. (ii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable are unique to the property. COMMENT.• As noted, the property is a conforming parcel in the district. There do not appear to be any unique aspects of the subject property that would create an "unusable " condition. (iii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable were not created by the owner thereof. COMMENT.• The issues raised by the applicant are located on other properties, not the subject property. In this way, the conditions cited are not created by the owner. However, the chosen sign location and design are directly due to the actions of the owner. Other designs or locations may result in increased visibility. (iv) A Variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. COMMENT.• The City adopted the Freeway Bonus Sign Overlay District with the specific intention of increasing sign visibility options for commercial and industrial properties in proximity to the freeway and the interchanges. However, there was no expectation that the additional allowances (200 square feet v. 100 square feet; 32 feet height v. 22 feet) would maximize the exposure and visibility of every possible sign or every square foot of such signs. Landscaping, other signage, other buildings, freeway bridges, all manner of conditions can conspire to limit visibility, depending on the situation in question. Increasing sign visibility by merely increasing height can result in a never-ending battle of sign height variances. This 3 Planning Commission Agenda — 2/OS/2019 would, in fact, alter the character of the locality, counter to the intent of the sign ordinance. (v) Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a sufficient basis for a Variance if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the regulation. COMMENT.• The applicants have not suggested economic reasons for the variance. SUMMARY COMMENTS. The test for variance consideration is whether the use it reasonable, and the variance flows from conditions unique to the property that create practical difficulties in putting the property to that reasonable use. Signs are inherently reasonable aspects of commercial/industrial property. The City establishes sign regulations to limit the impacts of signage that interferes with other properties' reasonable uses. The City's Freeway Bonus Sign District acknowledges that additional visibility from the freeway is a unique aspect of property with this kind of frontage. However, there are limitations to the effectiveness of increasing signage size, height, or location merely to avoid existing conditions on adjoining parcels. Variance criteria are established to accommodate flexibility, but also to ensure that there is no other reasonable way to accomplish the intended use. While in this case, it is true that a portion of the applicant's sign is obscured by an adjoining property sign or vegetation, these are common conditions in the district, and along the freeway frontage. Moreover, it would appear that there are locations, height, or design options that would allow the applicant's message to be seen without variance. Message size, a sign that is loaded primarily on the outward side of the pole (rather than centered as now designed), or even a lower sign that is seen below the adjoining sign would all appear to be options. Finally, when the Planning Commission (sitting as the Board of Adjustment) considers a variance, it is imperative to consider how future requests from other property owners might be viewed in light of the conditions raised by this application. This aspect of "precedent" is one of the primary issues for Commission consideration — the use of variances is to be applied sparingly to ensure that only the most unique circumstances require a departure from the common ordinance regulations. � Planning Commission Agenda — 2/OS/2019 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS L Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2019-006, approving the variance for sign height as requested by the applicants, based on the findings in said resolution, and as may be otherwise stated by the CommissionBoard of Adjustments following the public hearing. 2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2019-007, denying the variance for sign height, based on the findings in said resolution, and as may be otherwise stated by the CommissionBoard of Adjustments following the public hearing. 3. Motion to table action on the Resolution(s), subject to submission of additional information from applicant or staff. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative 2, denial of the variance request. As discussed in the report, while it is true that the current sign is partially obscured by other signs or landscaping on adjacent property, the parcel in question is a standard, conforming light industrial lot where a freestanding sign can be placed in a wide variety of locations, and can further take advantage of the additional allowances of the Freeway Bonus Sign Overlay District. To qualify for variance consideration, there must be unique conditions on the property that create practical difficulties in putting the property to a reasonable use. There are many options for sign location and design on the property that would comply with these terms without variance. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2019-006 for Approval B. Resolution PC-2019-007 for Denial C. AerialImage D. Narrative E. Site Plans F. Site Images G. Sign Drawings 5 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. PC-2019-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNS IN THE FREEWAY BONUS SIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT WHEREAS, Twin City Staffing is requesting a variance to the maximum height requirements for freestanding signs in the Freeway Bonus Sign Overlay District to be able to construct a sign of up to 40 feet in height; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a site drawing and other documents illustrating the location of the proposed sign on the property for review; and WHEREAS, the existing sign is obscured by signage on adjoining property; and WHEREAS, the existing sign is insufficient in height to provide visibility to passenger vehicles along the adj oining interstate highway; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to increase the height of the sign in the existing location, but will not be encroaching closer to the side property line than the current location; and WHEREAS, site conditions support the requested setback variance based on the finding that practical difficulties result from the configuration of the subj ect parcel's inability to make reasonable use of the existing sign; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 5, 2019, on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the approval of the variance: 1. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulties in improving the property in a reasonable manner, due to the configuration of the lot and inadequate height of the existing sign, which suffers from limited visibility from freeway traffic; and 2. The existing parcel is of otherwise sufficient size and area. 3. Freeway visibility of the sign in the existing location and configuration is an integral aspect of reasonable use of the subject property. 4. The proposed sign and resulting height constitute reasonable use of the subj ect property. 5. The proposed sign will not be out of character with the area in which it is located. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the requested variance is approved. ADOPTED this Sm day of February, 2019, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION I� ATTEST: Brad Fyle, Chair Angela Schumann, Community Development Director CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. PC-2019-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO DENYING A VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNS IN THE FREEWAY BONUS SIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT WHEREAS, Twin City Staffing is requesting a variance to the maximum height requirements for freestanding signs in the Freeway Bonus Sign Overlay District to be able to construct a sign of up to 40 feet in height; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a site drawing and other documents illustrating the location of the proposed sign on the property for review; and WHEREAS, the existing sign is obscured by signage on adjoining property; and WHEREAS, the existing sign, as designed and installed, results in obscured visibility to passenger vehicles along the adjoining interstate highway for a portion of the sign; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to increase the height of the sign in the existing location, but will not be encroaching closer to the side property line than the current location; and WHEREAS, site conditions are common to the Light Industrial District in which the property is located; and WHEREAS, other sign locations or design configurations could increase visibility if implemented; and WHEREAS, adequate visibility for a freestanding sign would be possible toward the local street on which the property gains access; and WHEREAS, wall signage on the building (rather than freestanding signage) would also permit additional visibility of the site to freeway traffic; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 5, 2019, on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the approval of the variance: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated practical difficulties in improving the property in a reasonable manner, as freestanding signage is allowed only as an accessory use; and 2. The existing parcel is of otherwise sufficient size and area. 3. Freeway visibility of the sign, in this or other locations and/or configurations, is possible without need for a variance. 4. The existing sign at the existing height constitute reasonable use of the subj ect property. 5. The proposed sign, if increased beyond the allowable 32 feet, will be out of character with other conforming signs in the area in which it is located. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the requested variance is denied. ADOPTED this Sm day of February, 2019, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION I� ATTEST: Brad Fyle, Chair Angela Schumann, Community Development Director NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statute 13D.04, notice is hereby given that a public hearing of the Monticello Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the following matter: TIME: DATE: HEARING LOCATION HEARING SUBJECT: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT: 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, February Sth, 2019 Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Consideration of a request for Variance to Chapter 4.5 Signs for a forty (40) foot pylon sign PID: 155038001060 � 112 Thomas Circle Legal: Lot 6, Block 1 Thoinas Park Scenic Sign Angela ty Developrrient Director Oral testimony will be accepted on the above subjects, and all persons desiring to be heard on referenced subjects will be heard at this meeting. Written comments may be taken at the Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362 until the date of the hearing. Questions may be directed to the City of Monticello at 763-295-2711. Note: Recommendations of the Planning Commission will be subject to the approval or denial of the City Council. Date Posted: January 17, 2019 Date Published: Januarv 24, 2019 �� n�� PO BOX 881, ST CLOUD MN 56302 Date CITY OF MONTICELLO LAND USE APPLICATION CITY OF MONTICELLO 505 WALNUT ST, SUITE 1 Dear CITY OF MONTICELLO: I am writing to you on behave of Twin City Staffing, located at 112 Thomas Circle. We are asking for a Variance to extend the current height of the Pylon Sign to 40' tall. Currently we are at 30' and the code reads we can be 32'. Due to obstacles in the way, the sign cannot be seen from either direction until you are across from it on the Highway (Pictures attached). Tree's are in the way from one direction and Morton Builders sign is blocking the sign going in the other direction. [ believe we have a grievance with these obstacles in the way. So we are asking the City to allow us to extend the height an extra 10' where it can be seen from Highway traffic. Thank You, John DeZurik SCENIC SIGN CORP ,� NVId NOILYDOI 1��'Otld e c° �:,�.�=°:,i;" —{� /f 3ir.is xwds� C N �v� �_ fiy a°� 'SNa153Q3LfSv—' � cc a o� •,o��wr +w�a��wv �.vroxauisu.a,r,u� :u mwmm FW;� $, �pp ••Wuu au erc,z w av ai�so .av � N & m 103'Otld 1NiGA0YJtl 311@ ��-� y � ONIddV1S A110 MMl '"",q„� �^� �� a °' Y..� < w�. w.,w ..�+w.r.�, � � � 0 H Z Z � OS �e o3.va3ro 45 /e O o r \ OS /9 xx � 2 e� ei so �w � `3 _ o C NYId 311B soo e�woao.,::ora —� ��'�� OS �e a3�3H •• � S z e� ,5 N:11A3R�?l/.0 B 3m5 MIIYN 3� OS �B m � � c c $ o � qa��uuov •ou.ouuow �.vms3n�ia��:a �cu� :,� mar 03 � � a F3� S t oroqo ..wo�1 su eot.e w."°°+' � !e xM � v `�° e �,�,,,5 as W N „ 8 1�31'Otld 1N3W3�OWW1 3118 -yo.,,,� p p,y..w � Z - m �Nlddt�lS A110 NIMl '"""^"3p'°�,'�°b��^�,� �q��a�� ei e� so v � � 3E, � 5 •; o� E� @ # �g£ ' g� a 's a &�GR��'s e��,�@ �3y �ff:6 � � F � �, 4.. g e�$ , e 3 C C�£ 656 y�E��yL�� E� � Y� ° ?°o V1 a t 3 e��' ke�'��y 4�B�E' a:��Sd�� o�� - - o�a „ Z �� o e� e�`€�i�'^`s ss�i$ima ��. a� � ' Q �€ s8�'$ ; o ; v � s Y q e��€e9� �^'�asc�� Ya� k� _� �" �� a t � �, F � e . �=��ie �3�$� zi 5€�� s a ooa � � �x's - o :o 0 s �2 t� ^$g� � s��6 34e.��a^ �� _: mg �o a w W� <p�aa �y1W�\�— H 34_§ 3�?` Ys� r�93)'sg� �4 � £�a ``'aw = H '" I R� � E�� b�, i}�� gtE� 2� �CP„S•„g �tl -` n:ry �� Q a� oWe� U 3 N o Qo�i o W �`f �'�M9. ' �SE i 5 r aa's i i J< a ra� � y ��€ ix�l6'�d� ��Yt�� z�.�. m� z W €�re �£ � g , €�'� €e_x 8' $°pv r� 3'��n o � =g �zo ;�g " �x " '" ad�; ; >_ ° �L� „ ��a �� `s e §��c��g e��gV �,$��as�s��a � � a� -,'-..�' � " � - �W H p V �a��a"o�� 4i d �g �¢ 3II F 8^�Go z` 3ii £�� 4 0 3 m m^m t�a E9 & 5 g�� i��a3yoc� 4�au��g�e�s� w eW= @w3 =� o�v � gXs� -� W a„��&xo3 � ��a3�£s�@�� g��€gE�`��e�' ��}$�� i'a'� ��F w w°�� Z �� s:e�.sd` g �' f3a � 9�me@3°;v =�'a�£".�gz� W �ui a�z aJ,,� �?� ��'9 p W 0 2�=��a � $ �= � @�sa=_ w ��' �'y 6 g �, ` . ? � 'o � � �„ �� a ��? �,zz � F �'aps� � � z aags� �a�ti z��s��3��,��'�4�a�s�'�i�a ��e "� S" p88 �dC � ay' 6.a Z €iedd6" x D.oEmy �e�.o��s.. u�� .. a � �� „� '� : m"6 � � `o's � e gw e@�ai@`� a 'G g„� �„ssYye"�C ��r� �� x� ,r a.� � w,� � F�s3 F 6 `g'�d �•de3 w P� � e�� ' v�°��§ ��e a o m � -„ -.� o< _ ,.� _ � Yryo� � y ��.�,9=. �€��c�'��e��9_gi€��§i3�ii��e � O O mo mOs Oo O:ad a W»�� w B 0 ooc o0 ,- .� g o ax p QQm _ s�� o � �� Fr�m _ �._, � � ��o� � � Fg �� " ��e _ � y �� g.� �a�---- --L ---= --- � _ . re,. W 0 u/ �� R60� i� n—__ —�___ __ - I I o� m0 o I � � a � / � s I �i. i U �� ¢ „ i °_= N � y % � �� a° ' I w U��r o'� , o I � ��_' Q 8go / � 6 O �:n,O I i I 2�oo W�.Fu �\ � so ✓ o ." I i 1 u ��, � og, � � � � � �� 4'�� Q� ?`�oos ' p0o � ` � \ = � o ��I z��'� \ 9� 3 ? ve' �� o o : • � � �� I ��r� ° \ � ��o � a o aa " I �_�� . '� ~ - � � 3��: 8 ` 9\.. J`� 60\ I �w � �O a `�� I = � �� _�'�°ohg y� � . ry° ' � I' � .�`aV�� I , c � i ' ��i .� �,� � ,Ra,o� z � � d o ' � � `� �,' � �� R�O� � � i WII , 7 � ,. � ° `�,� y �� ! �� . _ � �;; �oo�� ; � � � n� ��; �: i�"' i �ti i�'�� g Is '` \� Q ��,; I'I s . { S � I kfl �.� �3 ka 4 ., . . "_ �`\\\ - �� i I IIIF o{U ¢e .Y\` - � 1 5 ° o� � \ . &a > k' o o ,\\ /%'��e � :0 z I II: \ O �O r•�;0�011� � � m �/ .. O �-� V . ��ry�N 0�•�� . $ $ o . . . I ... � � i � O _ g� . u ; _ __. _... a � v � I� a 9 '--�Y C"' ��mbg9 '. - .-. _ ...-. ��..�.. N o� o� o� �g a�� sewo4l NVId 3pYWYtlO pilY DMOYtlD a�• yn g� C C � t o w loe�uuW 'WMWIwW •MON� ��uoVl EN H W ;� g� � y H m 1031'Otld 1N3'13AOtldW1 3118 ;, DNIddd1S All� NIMl L Nn153n931oiSv--� �NM33�'I.9.�'9'!/.il.� .� w �e+n �eil�a� �wv -+n,ca-.^S -�� «�...;�^�m +A+., woxa.. .4. ,m rw �.w� .r«.. � 3M5 mXIu3� 3•mi�u: � 4S +B 03M.?3N as �o m N aa ° U -o as a x. � c i �' o a� ei so uro �j c � -�p�: � "_ .�,� Y d a �fi. . "E'�M� ffi"-"- :c [ :; N a f� s �-Y -�o�° � S S.o �°¢a_ 'E6p" oGe� - FS e� (7 ��y�" � Fe�% _�__� _ e�� uY°o`—` •Ea�'� t g� � �y ��} �, _E$ � ,� e � c �se�i� °5;_ g9° "g�a=`�' _ _ ' _ = v3se�s � a�g $ ¢ a €( -� 6eg - € - g - � � � €g � ga a E F a �aCa` I n N�s��3 S M.F. W W B Q N g c pFi g e �e E 5 �. 8 N o ��`po � g s� 4. F8 M e Y %� � J<' o� a � I o 3 L. d. ps � E`"' > o az�oo a � $ � .E V G�gz�'"pzj� Z . i �k �S C% F i Y � e P 8. � LL ' o .sE : o _ �._ y _ ;E o a��,pwos o (7 �� i i' �q � g ' g.3 k E � F:" W n � � � ' 8' q e b. eg ° fry .$ 5 oo_au„$x g- �t�` 2�uu��u��u =- „e_e=�xeE'd¢o_- e= - _ e€=°p��a e#�8� - ., - e€x� ,. - w ' a8z� - W� � Y ��g �5, �� .�� _ � �� '� , �� . v � � �'— .��- —�� _�.�r- --- � - -.-� �= -- - $ / �� j � �\A _—` �� ' I "� �� l� � �� 'i ;� ' ' \ i o� \. � � � , d ��:� / � �� r�� ' [ � ' / � '� � II i i , � � � � � i- � � �! rl � � ` \ � ��t� , �:'li ,". ij.� Y ,' � � �, �, �� '� j' SI y �" � � �� i oo ,�..,, I �/ � � , j,� � ��` ✓ o�� x � �•%: � � � � .}` o 0��• ¢� . ,;��\�i,1 's � ;IS ' �� x� i� �� i�. v:\� � ��;, � � ��-; �, �� '.� ' �' z - ° - � �� f -,- ., �ti . � �� .�'�� a• %.� �'i�: . � �� :�� ,,�. , ; � � , ��n� a' � �� ✓.�� 'I I , �� . � �, �� ;�� , � �� ` � � �'� �� ' — r` - � � ��A �� , "�'" �'� �� "� � c� �� \ -� i .�, � � y ��; i .- \ g Ek \♦ \\ � e N, ;,� A I.�� I i I. � p 1 . �'� �S \ \ �� I I�I F ' .. ��\ `\ \ _ r ; � � \ ' ��i �� y ,�' I � � : , ' �j `�v,�- o ;�� , � � �;�- � �: , �� ,_.. � . ; ` :r � , m , . , �� , . ,. , v , . ;� - � _, a��i�; sewo4l NYId All'M111 tl31VM ONv l.tlY1MYe �io�.uww 'mHa�uow sro�p nwoui au 1'J31'Otld 1N3W3AOtldIW 3118 ONIddd1S All� NIMl � Ez�� F. ^ S b9 tl y o . m �o�Af» �° 2 a� 5 M1 aF 3 �� Q ��wr o'G 4 �T 3"Ns 'S e@": � ��il � ; g�� m .._�EO W I�I � �m� �. �;ies �7 I � o tl/ ��Ri & m8^Fc J i'IiI zSND(53O3LISv—_� ' � �t ?vro3anva.va�cu� �.umw m�� n'�"5 a�� u�e��iw ,�.+.wwwm.we.„ �.w.`, v OS /e a3Mv� _ as � o�+ ('� a a _ � 2�= a� — as �a xn+ ' � e� ei sa � g �3 N a � _ � � � ¢Ca rc p a �a o F Y�Cao N o o�Eo� J a o��o a � o za�oo W LL taz�3�ai�^S x a��Gw"o� Zuuuuu�t�c�u v Q e „ i c � • d ��o F :' .� . - __ _ _ ._ �. � v v . ._..- , . .. _ ' _ fr c e $g _ �j :; �� - _ _ _ e e � P � ,. �� 0 ; � � �y L 8� �$ � f _ � ,�� '— �� ___� ��_ i i % y� X �. � /�y;'__ ��. � 6 _� __ 6Q . I ' / F� ' _�: — 1�� L :ia � �' � e e � g � � � �� <� '° I �. _ e � � E�o .;./ �. ��//� � i /' ` �� _ ' � t � P � I "-58.%g €T „/ ,%F�/-�/ ��l�a` . . ° �� \\ I � .�€ a � "9� /� �� f��.' � � ��$S �� " ��1 e 8 ��' / r /f � � . � "� � � � � � ��°' II I sx =�., s _eax � I�il�l �« `-� €d��, � � `J � �'� - � � � � � � ,\ ,,',, � -' / /�� ' I ; � I"'i� !'�� , ' � 0 9> i w I• _ �, I � � � �� _ �� \;I\ � � i . - � . �m _ _ • a e .�� . 1 �� .. � � o a t � $ o _ B �-�� \ � � i i �. �88 5 , • ��p`� I ' � � e � 8x - e � •'` \\ � �� `�; ��8� , t I �I� .� � g � 8 0 ' � �� ,��' .� �, Sc %' 9 E. � .�\� jY$ ��_. �\ �; . I� t 9S' q _ pY �� k � � o °$ i eYBll I� 1 _ ( ..Seob EC 8 . e Yo .. ..� � r � � �[ � ' •\ �\ ��A -1 ,,I � � �e. as e � xg \ ��'�'t� � �� -�"�� _� I : �� 4 � "' � � ; � �i , � e r _ �V' �C � -� S�'� �� I � � I. � �� _ . �g� g E n? \ � � � � � �� . 3k=_ � � . � , _ Qam �e E �. e_e�=a:e �$�� a��' ��\��i ��i � � �� - �� g�',;;I � I . �. �� a � ��I � �� '� o� �" �� •��i�i�� : $ •h� s r. . � � � �\� _ _ os.x ;�e P€fr o_�oa �e .� � g & Y 5 -N � g.. _ 8 � t � v ¢� - E.Be -g . �e r $ . -� g a z�e s�� Bo��a g 8 g� � o � 8.- b Y - a � o=z C .Y '� $p8 gP . C e e. � 8c9 g �€ 2 ce�e oEog Fx �$P x88 E� .�$ .ESgY�.u��k��o. `x` �m_ ��v ; ��v� ± ��1 ��' � � �e��g i \. s ':Y�� p �.'+-�� i �3��F �I : a � �� . � � � /� �t �i ��i . ;,\ / . �b� \ ` I �. 'I . ly �,, �l -�,d,', �'� v_;` I�. , �.��. \� —F; I� I �. _ , . ��` Q ...: _ _ ,I. _._ __. ... ! A��JI�j SLUIOI�l Nrw wvin mixae weois :„ � � 'a'n Fm c c "� a�� •�..wrov'aaa�ww IaNO ��wW1 Lu f A o� g� � N `n $ 1�3fOtld 1N3N3AOtld1Y� 3118 „ m DNIddV1S All� NIMl 6 Esi�F� t:� � � ae " A:�a�� n � � a ' ". &i � ��5�� $�� r ��C[tl � �I ��'� o N��' $ 8 m�..c J.. I.' I g'� � ' _ E o _ osg _ $ Ck2 _ �e„ - C'_ og` F'�' - P y� € C 8 8 � �;a $� F a v y ' 4 8 c � 8 � � € o � _ rr n ror..o,.s_: _ _ : so. _ " ==��s � � 2� e e ED k' � � �� _ �_ .e gX ' `6 o'- E$ �� c B d9 € Y § �� M 6' � s e o �g 8 8o S � 8.°; -'- 08 �3°0o�8.-ex ' 9. �eg � �_� ' € S:`. ��a�.g _. � „ _e ._� se.x �SEE3 -- — nae�sev- —� 'rx mura, �wsa o,v anvavv�ui� „e w � �i� �YPGL'^C� ��3�� m s . 'ura 4w /Mw k�w I �+ e �� a� u� �� . ^ �p ��pe �$ � _ f 1 ��' � i � �� _ � ,� ,, ,�� - 4;l ��i;� � - �j , � � �, �, ; �g�� f;,'; �,' °r� ; �s�',il + � �_�a i'l!4j . � � �; �� '/ir��. ��'� oa, / `q��,�\ o�� ,E �„ \ � . �� +�\\F �/ � \ ��, �� .♦ � � 8 � ��\, as �e a3x.vx as � �} 3 _ _v Na as �e x.« U � � 2 ei a� so � � fq n C7 2 � 3 � ¢ ��a o �s w � a <pca� N o 0�5�0 J ¢ op 5 a > o z=�oo w LL wos.?��__ � X n�°4u��www5 � �u�uuuuu 2 " Nrw ioeinoa Naeov� ,��••�.,�... — �•�- 0 '•.? z °; e1°e,pe�a —� 3ms irum, xonaa, as ,�e w�.v,r, o ,s.; � a 2' S s� F Y. ,v��saaaits e as .e � ' V oi „ o,. �io.�ww'ou�ouuow o:viasanva.va�i.v� . m o 3 q ; fr .wao ..Wo�u. su �, .a,. � o r� � � . � � e ��y,V as .a x.« v W y'n g o 1 J 3 1' O tld 1N3W3A0lIdWl 3118 ,Z .P„A '� p � � P� - � m ONIddV1S A110 MMl ^"^";�"'^��•�-,«a �— � 4= �� a's � ' 3 � Q „ �F H �� _ , a �'�� Fgua � �33 �, 'pga � � � Ya� N 3iR� E k.€:c � g = r O � ��Z � U Z O w� W J � • .oz J � o W �_� � ko a $�. eE `•. 6P� o -� .�Q pM�$ Seg� n i�:u 3 - _ s_�� a @ -s ��E_2 �s'�fi E 4��` F``� ve _�� [ F�O�'£_� Dy�e$�� gy°B8 E F e XB. A.£9i g �r Q e � �F 5 ee$ � R € y o �' .. � . S.. . L5 4 56 6 Sg c a9g.�aSE?�S�frx� £'F �aEe�a•e ?se �>88e. Y � s's%��E;s"gs?''-'�a 4g z�Bo.Ee-°�Cqs%"��{�'F G as«;e�e�.,$�-�'°� '6;a e'�"€��,�°*p'°E•�`_�gi.SZ E °xEs�B°s e" o�e �-.. stl_ & „��sxbEa�i9��F�a�' e _ �� . n w�<�wpa=..w .w+av.w�,w.`, a� e� so � � �., % .ea�Ye e � e s ' • " ' \ eB n _ �Ea a �$ E �"��etePx s F• �g ^!8. �aF�°�_ 'k;a �„i8 ? $ y 'a-,ige �� g s�a3' a�=„^F, s-a °a�¢ o i c7 6 y �c='p� e a�'sa :'$ fY§r �a.s°��a s_`� &'¢� � s = a � ; � F:€_ga�=� Eisa e; �'s��; �seE` - �g- ogs$ - � a = ff� g �_� ' � S H _ 1. FF �,s gg 6 £��.. 3 g' .$ .� aCn rc p �s q. BI � y �s F i( . p C g � E S � `� "g �C � - P .6 � $3Sfi Y . �S. ' h F � arcCna �y e 5 � 3 .{� �eb Y' Z -° � y �$` � � € a � _ � .� � ; C-;a -� eEa€b@� g� � a'E`go�4gS� a�Fe d�s y- �3�¢0 3 � d � � � : �a � %a;r-.;� 8•sg � � g��s kg8 x€ p€�$€y � � ooa�� o r $ yyy e� g o a� i=0r= � azs�x� s�:e�"�s,g�o€sge ;" p�= >� a=��o � g g ` : C� , vg - %e ° =EpYB a€-. "EP� E U uai��ou�n�S � � � S . � � � � :3s_F'•�; z'aF'�C�. � �kf_€oY_� ,�aa 8'^4a6gsB LL w =� ., � I � � � � €s�s��;�o@ $z��€::° _:ze^as�i„E,�"'f€"=vF°�:�.g�s �C a ;��`,�pwo�4 � ?Bt.p e-° ' B�SS: �'o� oi.:%�'E�S _Mae.2yy�gx6`_'y�% W �' � � i �:"•. � 5 t $ p[�€' i ic g � S � o_Nn.Ne�m �.� �"� . 8.� � @� z�siy�a e¢ esa £@ ati. - aea f@pEe�$� 2 u��u , � i I i � �€a S�s ;:?$PS��in t €g t��;. . s$� h�4"ease�: � 1 � g- �.. . 5' _ n n . n n. f � i ° 'e ' Y g6 E 'o � v_ _ dee'�F be _ ig� �gp :` ;E§E� g6eE u � ._gE `=,�0 ez = e gn Sya:sxFFeP �:�`p-gi n@� w Eg"°EayMa2 a��'6=ep ��re E� �£=e5'fl=6�Y �a��yge�( Se� Ea.a. E€ c$=o�N€y e�¢x f- . ek qaap�ops� a^eg�g� �a� '�Q^°;84��@; P °"d"€s'"e. .-�"@;€.x>�§ �RE��g;e€ osE Bee s "_% Fo,e vF e: _=�tsaAF�H� ;�:!°6B: g� �C�o%g"etC,g�EogzEeFe.€ ieF � �e 8�ea �5 Se��ep€s�e�g�� 2�e:�5 L6. g€�'�%N � €{e�Le �` F S €'�e .�[q g �6€ � 3kk5:i.P�eE�.e_Ne�Fiw[�'u.4�e _ . _,__ __ \ s _ ' YEs .,.ti.,,,.. - s � ` F � � _� \ \ � - � _ —_ � M _ ' '��a I i ¢ _ ��$��x I I s` �I� i� , � � _ I��i �I !� �, � � �. � � �" b� '� � � i =',� � � �, � �\ 1� ' - � \ I�, � e I W, / \'. I I�$ � I , I�_: — ._ 1\ — � T/ �I � � im6 � Iv� " i \ ��o)l�(, �,4 �� ,..`_' __. ( f.l - , . . . . . . i I �_ . . _ i �. � II a��►� sewo4l , �,, a,_ 8M g� V 5� .� c c z� o� f W T' � -� c 4 H "m NVId 81YA01T3tl ONY BNOI11ON0� DW181X3 �1. ��uuDY 'o�1oN�oW �Jy� t�WOVl SU 1�3fOtld 1N3W3AOtlNY1 3118 DNIddV1S A110 NIMl � e8 F £ � - �P : � 3V�� k Fpuw $ � ; e�€w � ��oFE3 �ag � 7 �ma5 e :2�;v 2 vi �� a m.::W � � Z w Z o � o � �' a U ?�O ¢ R O �� U N ' ~ ��i � f � � �=' a m�o d d�a W �.x ,SN�/53091)doa—�—� �.VM.43n'l�,\'3'11.�1J �!emnn�m t2 `�'0id �9lT�D �'w1 .n�-^S �� wti�i4wou�i� w� .. �cw� ..w.w wn�.w.�.w.w , 3mt ,�ua,n I�°i�i✓x ,,,x ,uw I OS ,e a3x�3�� 9E _��k _ _ ` ' _ g = � �60`" _ _ E- r$�a §a "=°8E'� og� [yE' S�[� '' BYorg o8� _ _" _ -=8g = �y E'�aoY8�8� .8�'�� o�Fg ax o- -_ °sE - - - z �'e�E.ye ° e''__ -_�8 - � €P _ '��e:bg` YtgE�"o�: _ � �€�o_o,sao�oo��ei�•�s�e�pe O- ,. � o h e � m m f%) n 3 � � nK5 0 C� � YrcCa` J o �; � {L �n��; o a��<�pxc= x n v.�Ww 5 W _ �uo�0000u W<� �� o8M Yi c �� E � :�4 �$� �' �d � � '_. . �-' � .s,_' � + � _ � � � � � � fi -� �: - - - _ � t � � ,o��, �� ; � � ,��> As � � — . P 6�� g � , �� ,� � �� j I ss�. �a '. , ,�� J ��m'� � . 8� � � � �J '�,� ./`,/� O� � Q � �p �� d ,\ . V � . � x II F.I I ! , ' � � / . Q I I i ��I' { �y Q , t ` ,�� ' FG _7 �I . . i O� . �,- -:, ..A� � �. ' � �� i ' �� O� . . � � � I �'I�� . , � A : � � � �� . , �r I y .,\ ' ��.�� r � � � m�: "I I , `I � ��' �� , � �� \„��@ '� � � �', i� �$g� ' I�' ..i��' e� ° �,A�� 3��- ��` � � ' �� ff \ . .�o . � � �_ �� Di t �� ,\ p \R . A � ��a ` \ ,I ' , . � � � �� . � � � ` � - Qc ? V �� . � � - - _ ��I : � � �� I� : a� ��, �s ' ' i , \� . � m W , as�:, ` g= �F � a� � ' � g= �� Q i -'_ ,.. . ', . _ � sd E .. , avnaa ,o..,..,._._ —_ „�, , — • b� as",oe'S�" —t� �I mss mua�, 3,ns ,...,onaa� as .s o�.v�x� :$�.< ,„' \v/ � 5 q Fm �.u�i�naers�__ �, � C C $ � Q •m+. yOY�uuM 'ON�WIW W 'J.V1N39:\'/.�.V3 ]l,i/J ;ie mevAae OS .ie a3w�90 � _ ,3 � ; fr e op.i� uaoul m� w �av � �,w � � � �, rv � � < An'4"S as .e M«wa W y _ 1'J3l'Otld 1N3W3AOtldIW 3118 y� �o 0 ' DNf��V1S All� NIMl `"` '°" ei e� so � � ��°� w � � "a 8 5 � " C.". �� o � � g e o � �' e� a �� V � 8 �� y" c � <N'J. 4a e Q Z h �g '�s " '€� e� • 'a� z � ; < e �' ff W� �� €� s '� 3 a o �R �� g �� a � �� 8 �� c a �c° o �.� ��., : w = ��a Na ��e � � <pto� s �t�s3 �� N o oi� � �,. � ; �d� ,A� a a J`a o i + � t� �` ��€�� u�� I�. . m� 4� �� e W u __o s �_�� i O �� t �sSSgs� °u x �� wwos g� ""' = uuuu��uuu � . . . . .. _. _._._ _ _ _._... —,. `�' uJ _ !` I,f N� �'. $!� I II �SI� �� a`N'6 � L:`i�� J i ' � ,' � � � 9 ^ � �� " w i��-� � e t; e ��7.k�, °a�a- � m:� �a� '�� J �� 5., ��1 3 mi� a< � �� h �� ''�=i'� u N { 3 �� f �� 5��\ �� $ � � �` � � i� I �u � ir.0 h i � �� .1. ..p ��.� ! ��0�1 @ a � < � ��t �� ?.�. _ . 4, � ��; . .�_ �r ,� z = �------ — �i�i % —� , � _..�___ , ' � � �¢' i,: �j"$ I It'' � = -`� ^ 3:e � � 1�i 6 I_� �: � � 1 � . � � �. � 1� � ,p � . � ��,� I „ ,� ��' , 'I;': p 4 �. ��, ��' 4",`; i., � �;T i �._. '_" _. _. __— _'.- -� '— � J � . _ .. �`Sc'P _ �_. iP i�..e� ¢R, . 3 — ��', ��I,�,. p , 4 yp � ,I 911r �� :6 � � �'I,�I� j��l�i e, o;; F$� ArS �. '- � i ��1 � .� ,� '�t 3�:4� �gl �jc '., Hq; I�ji �;r t I� rt� I; ! C J _ —_ �''� :� r, �.,- .._---- � i ii„i I;� A.'�a,ll� ._. � � ,� I ��F�a� �f �I--- t� � i�'I �IIlI I $� „n � � � ��. i s � , �{�l � l�l - . � fl � � � I��N�� l1 � �i 't, ��'�., I f ' t� . �# � � .�,� . II� �� i i �' v Y«i � �.. � � �. !1, � � �� I � � , • i,_ � � �i !� � �. �� ;, ��'�� i � _ �i ' ; .c � ' �r, li "� �i' � 'I� I � i5 ��ii r' I j , : .r _� ; G;T � r' 4„`. . . . - ---------- _ . '�` ' ) 8 f � S �t u ' -- �----�-��e. , � i;� t�'f� � �,�'.. �� i i s t �� '�� e! � � . �iee�� . dL� iL� Y�d� � �'. �� ti� �� '�'�so 7, �!I i6 �� , I .' 9, � q� � 1 ��S � a i t �� j � u1 � u -� � I ; 1 � I n'� ' ��\ ��ti"�' `` . ( ��' � � � ,. p�, �, � � $ �. �� F�i i ,, �' � a ��,�„x � i. t g ��; , � �',�;; �r ;° ' ; i �� u,�✓��' ,,, F`6 �T j ' :�, � �t�; st�ti� �.;; — � _ _ _ .'L-- `` . NYId 3dVDBONYI �= fi� [a c c � r o z� •Jo.•uuw roMw+uav . �NNH'J ��wo41 E{l F q 3�' $a FE � y n_ 1�3!'Otld 1N3Y3AOtldWI 3118 � m DNI�jd1S AlIJ NIMl � �: a � m ?; Q � � � �n a �i 1 �� g�"�y � YC£Ee Q 3 Cp� � f7A �iR4 S m.�oW z5 N�I.4309115 P—.—� ��,�33.,,.��,,>,.,,, � � �, � �—.� .n�-"5 wa.�`�.rou�=.`+ wn aw w a�°+w�.,�.rww,� n� sss 5�� - : � ,_ a gQ g �%' 3@� �n 6 98 � � e.e'. %i m g '»§ i e . $ fi I ifi , �C ee i a a ES . Hy p $Y ' �°5 j -.g g 5 e �v 9 . _ � _ na S= =e° ge gs"f e � !a € .` � ^�� x`x4 � `� ; aE� a� �`a�e E25 yygxfi C m.. n Aulee � l8'mm x F bg a5 - B a 6�� a i � rns mua3� 3r ru�0i � OS /e a�N� as .e o3 � o r\ as �e w« v z ei� � c s - ; _ 3 , ` � , gg ° - i c g � � � � (' i � � P= 6 � ��q g�4 8 g° E �� 'g�• € ��= a= ;� g> ��a�� ggg¢ €g % ga °�D�QFa �t��; a ,€g � "F a e a 6= �� g�� ef 6 d:i e n € � � € 6 � i � P "� � _ ,` e B��YaS £��€,.r , �, : . {�6 e. � � d j � � � E � � egp ¢ 6 P B f fi��g�d Y� 9 � �5e � F`-� 4�.? L�'-%x`F` ¢�� 6 a €��€�?b��e ;;�Y6�� 4�[� �;e�.-� a#s��`=P�;�gg�c�fi $5` = E '•' �8 � � e E6 p��$Eq��Eaa°4�gF��`e� efa "ss? ss4�ts��a�t; ��€��_& f%! a 2 �+ a s ¢ gCz � O � w�o i � a�zo� J `a �on d > o �a�oo V g"�� LL wa?� __ � W nN�uN�nwwos = uuuuuuc�uc� t� - - - . , .... � 3� - ` .. - - - . �� )� r . ; I� ��' .- — — --- � I � _ � 1-- e.� ._ .. �.� . , � � /// �/ . � �:�� \ a /� �- , � W / g0�"— � � __ � 1�: W/ W � \ 'I �� ,a�� gl N/� „` �� /Y ✓£ \� �e W. II ��i h� ' �� " �� , / �'< , i� t oo�, `� s i � i � \ /� / � ,� � � , � J '�� / �,,,, �� - �. � � ; � ; � � � / /, �� I� 1, � / � : � � I � � �'oo� - � �' � �� . � � � �'� i o /�� : � � `. , .,�� I , l o �a o� � ( � � �i '�rl�ryl�� m � % ,� �L , / // � � �. � �� .. � � �o � � � � � � �� - � a� i i \=_ s L _� �� so � � � � �_ , ,r� F �� '' � \ , � � �� r � �" _ . � - / Pi \` �U > �\' � \� I:^ � �;�� ° 3�. -� ,,� �� ' ;�r � w�� . � m � I (,� ��$ � � ��y�, : � � }p.�:' _F i II 5 0� d:�g F�� v"i'1-�q' I�p'�I i N�� $3dM ��E � . �4�i! � r � � � � , � � y � � 1 ' , \ ,�.��v \�� '. J \`\ ` �;' � 11'.� I ' � �� \ e � �{< [ i �� :� �� , �'�, � _ �� ,�° i �;I �� \ o `� � �'� �� f � ;,i � � � �� I ,I �°� � � � � r 'i•, � i �� ° i� � �_ �� . �' � � � � �,��. �,� ��_��'� i �e= �� o` 1 y�� I I �� r..� a i,.� ��' �i��' � I I � � �� Ti i �,\ �' ,s -� \+.,�� Y �� 1 �� i - '" '. __ i � ' ` ' I.� i. ,-. � � a��1�� sewo4l * '� . . ��u�� " � �e _� ii�� ' � �.�:�� . . _ ' _ . _ np -7^� . . . a.:,ih �;�11 . - � , ' . ... . :�'t.'„ri.?k � , . . - . .. .. . . � . _ . . . . .:. :=��. � ° , :�� , ��. � ��-� �� K'.ii �-�i 1A"-�.� � y � . } _ . fi:'-• �� 1. ' ��f j� T ' 1�;C � � � , � P i r�:A�..� - '�.'] . . . � . _. _., . �:'� �--^�"' = ..'r- � .. �. f� ! -� 3 ! I� .-3.. �.. �� .. wc�^.� �g � ' . .- � ' � ,� � , . . v��' �I . ',Y,' _ ... .. ;.r �� . a,a a,i t t��y�11 df �.r R. '.' { . 'LY%e�",�'�' : r`-Y �� 'a �4�:i� .��y`t• ,� �'�� ,.��.� � :�.;.: _�--- - _ - '.t.:� - . . ' . .. . . .. . ... _ . . �r� . -'� - r'�7� � . T� `-k �� ✓ �i �. �+y:. g �`r... X*�S+'�'��'.. ,�. � . .. ,_ .. .;.r�- , _ . Ih� Gm� 9'��i �?�S ri�r. , . � �y� � i � . "^ � :�SY '� � -l�a�„+�,"'"s`� _ _ �, " ......- .,.--"".r.�►�,nr�'°�so' � -�' `�• * - - ..-..,_ - _^r .• _ - -• ":........ �" . y � " - � � � . �.�-��. =._u 3 . .. � ., , - t �.5�_� � �� `. 's �--.. �, ^ `J . � . ' , ' ry. � �a �' �w., �1.,....- . .. , . . J�, x'' '�. � � ..a" �. C• �,�'� � � �'._� '�.. �/'s'r-#` <�x�':. t� rI +�I.• -- ~ t �'=+"- . _ • � . �a '�.�-- ��1'lY ( �IT ti'C:117'I:\Ci i��) MORTDN ' `��i BUIIDINGS , + �_ t t ��A E 1 ' / 1.-. ..—�. � � ^ �",a'� '?�'�'�" i/ - . � . ' S�, j � � ��Y -'±'t �� \, "'�" . ., ys"i c � . .i.� � \ , '' r t ° �..,, .� � ^W � i Y H OC W J J Q U U w w v> Y w M Q Z Z Q Z Z J w J m Q a LL� Y C� g ��J�a33 � . . yLLNx¢�^ Z z �_ � � z� 3 r a �c - '� N ¢ � r t� rn w "' � ��i m ? n rv z � � w � � Z m m p �n Y � � � V W Z 7 � > J O �a"�m � ��w � Z j � d '�L� � V d � � =o �x .� o � " 1 a. r �o — �� ^ 1 O C �o w O J M m a � O R � � � W � �° O � � �� Z � 2 l�1 H Q � H ZVwZ > ° a Q Q�Q o O U z Z Y � z � O o � O z Z i U �i� m <oZ w a 3, � a � ol U � Z � O S � � Q s -�a f C U Z � o ¢LLm�z 1 U � 6w Z E OQ � � u � 00 < �� '� �� "�4 a e-., , _ ri %�'�i:" . ?"�.� . ��:,; � S `� ..,} t�ZNZ � 4 {'}' NyQW � �yt ��wp zmQO a�ix �._ . ... �o�a ,. > a o� m'"" �-c�LLa w j � a waw� � Q w��m ��U¢ � LLU MORTONBUILDINGS, INC� www.mortonbuildings.com 113 Thomas Park Dr. Monticello, MN 55362 Office: 763-295-2929 City of Monticello Planning and Zoning 505 Walnut St Monticello, MN 55362 To Whom it May Concern: I am writing in support of Twin City Staffing's request to raise the sign on their property adjacent to ours. At present the Twin City Staffing sign and the Morton Buildings sign obstruct the view of each other. Raising the Twin City Staffing sign would be beneficial to both businesses. Thar�y�. u for you�time. ' � ,-� � �,�! y� - -� � �'``-/ -'Lu�l-� �/ �-��. Richard Rothstein TWIN STAR EQUIPMENT & MFG. INC. 1770 Ridgewood Ave St. Paul, MN 55110 651-829-4547 January 31, 2019 Dear Mike, Thank you for taking the time to show me your space for lease in your building located at 112 Thomas Circle Monticello, MN. We have narrowed our search for a 5-year lease on our new office space, to your building in Monticello and another building near Clearwater. Clearwater has a definite advantage as their signage on the freeway is better for advertising our business. If you can resolve your sign issue and we would be able to utilize the end of your building for our sign, we would prefer to be located in Monticello. Also, we are anticipating growth and the fact that you can add on to your facility makes if very intriguing. Thanks for your time and please let me know how everything works out. Sincerely, �� 4�c-tr�- Pat Iwan Principal Twin Star Equipment & Mfg. Inc. �:� � ,._ ---� �` _ � _ _ .....�_....+� , - s� - ,� �.; - --,� ... - ;�� _. � ,.. .,i - 4 � �.� ;Jk-� . .nv.� ,....:�_.A- i . _ . ... � � _• .--' .. ,. -.. . . ..rt... . . �. .. . �; � x, . . . ' . . _ - _. . .,f" • �, : . _ _— .,.� .y«._ ��w.�,M....�,��,.^,.... .. �..s� �....�.....s ',-^' .. , ... . ..-.�.. .... . ...i .,. ..� .. *��p4� �;z ..:. . � T . � , :, � �. �; . -�...�,- ...,.�.,r-„+.+�«w.:..�.+� ,�.A+......w..a=..+M..�_ ,�ye�,.•.,�wqyl�i.:i.� . A _. ��:,.•w�,..-^T-��rs-rt-.n,.w�y -.�...,.._ .., .. w.. . : .: � ,. . . . . _. ;,,,,,,;_ . ,. .:.._„,.,: ,. _._ � -..+.F - . . . ,.�.,.. �.. . , . .. . . . ..,... . .. _ . ,.�.�..,... .. ..�. .....,n�• , a �;' .:+� vx'i., . �" �� : �'Y ' v�l ....a. �I� . .q�' . ' " :� a. �sY"_. .... . � Y5^'.:dn� . . . . �. .wp ✓. . ,�} "' .,w.� �� y � i � . � � i._ .� .: .Q '. - --�.a.,o�-T t i F 1 ��''�� # � . .. : �..;,,t � � � � ��— ..+�..�.. � � =�' ,�} + �!� _ .� � � _ �.�� ...�_ �'' ±;�� ;�� ,�+, ,� �6,� i �t r .� � ; " � - °��' `�`�''�� - � u �`' + � '` --` ,' ' � - �� '� ; � �,�,�, ` � �--�= � � � F,� ,� • —� �� . ,�r ;; t � a ,. #- � �� — �_ �� ,• i;^�' i �.`� }�1� � 4' w• � � "' _-_�x—_-..� '� q v - , ., . r ____ � ,� � . > ��A�_ � _ � F � �tSj �� -_ A �` �.s � . .., - .. .:2^ .. -- . ..> .. ' . . .: �.«.,. f�^ s4ti.�,. . x. . (�� y �� - . ' !' .. �y �.� .``� � _ � ^F !` 'i :�� 4 � ,'�� . ��. � : ' .� �,. a „ � � �. _ %� w �.... �. � . . ' ___ . �A �.�eX"r�^.�k.f " ` ,. 7��' .. ... -w... _..� , Y .�� "�.. � K � �Y. � � . . . j . ., . ' .. r . . .-A� !" . �, „' � re '"a _ �� - �- ... _� ��.. .a ' � �r + � �j, , .. y . . �„ .�., .n a,.+ �. ... v✓ � .j� � �J `�+�nl� . tF' ' ��v ' � � J � - . .. -,: � S .. ifil T ` `� t'� . " � � � �.. � .. :t� �,::.,' � � v� . . � � .' e' - _...... _:v�a ,,:� . i±�°.�^= _ .�,ry" x".�, �'" . .. . .�. �. � � - � �.�� ... . - - t i �1� <� l s' f � �"'°(�� r � i : . � s � +- �,�e.'�r,#. ) Q ��a 't '.r:r�' . . �` ` p � . .. ' � �; � �'�� d ,��,}�.t< "iJs��, ' � - ..r.a � �� .. ;y. { .i � w1 � i �` . "� � .ar.» _ � �,�'"_ � � � ^'+►. :o, � Ie�1l�'�'_ ._-.... � = .� ♦ � ' � �� i 7 � ,f ��f.i�llJ r ! 4/ �� . . t 1 (.-_�. � :;�h' � !': �.- �' :, 1Fr . �� ,�^ � � y" �� . � + �, ,'."'. .,.,�,e .. ,�• _ a. �. ._.---�_ .� � . . a� . . � ��a..;. �� .�+_ _ f . ., � _�� a:r,� =-. � >" it �+. .y _r � . �, i, _ �a ti_ _ i � �"' - . - _� _ s 1 / t �, i'j`- �' ��, J Q{/�J` S": ��J '(': �� . ��al..�,'. .. �'.• P � ....� Y ,,. . . .. y. _ . �; _ , � „a .••..�..� +r v,�s!_r, _, ., . 'S"cr.' .. . .. �'.;4'.n.. xt. � . _- � . _ ..�.e�s�`.arr � � � , 1 , �� . = 1' .r.x,�,.:_ . _ _ , . 5-� � . .. ` .. � .. ` .. .. . �., , w,.,� ��.,.,� `r+�Yk^!..Y, .. ,.. ' . .. - r .. "�,ti��':� N . - . . .. " � - '. . ^ , w}. `.... .. ' .. ' � Cr � ;'n .. ` ' . ;i,+t4� . " . . " . '. ... . _ ' -.°�. � - . ,. 1 Y. ... . . ��. � - • ,. .. "� .. . � ' . ' ,.'..z^+C::�. . .. . ��. �4 Y:t . � � �� 4 � t;• .,. . . . . � .. .. � -j-� F'. . .. . -r ,e,� 5•..: -� . � . - � ♦ „ ..�. � . ' � �. .. _ . n , s+ . . .. . - ..m � ��: � - �4A < . .. ` ... � . . . ... � n f 4 � i, x = .a,. , . � � -� a a� a P � • w rw - .. .,,.. -- ` i��TF °` '� � �.'nf ' s � _ . _ ;, y � x . a �_ , . , .. , .�, . . , - „ _ . . ,�, _� ..�� „ . � n � _, x .d, :,<- _ � _ ' � a o � .... . ;. _ , - � - � � . .s *,iy. � �.., �..,.. �... _, � .. � _ - . ,,MY, . ^`� `" . .. " . .. .. -. ... .t . h . y �. . ... . . . .�. •.,� v , � . ; � t _ f �-. . � . .. �, ,. ,+ _ - ��,� � .. . - .,� � �.. .�. , _ .. . .^... ' .. -^ - .. . . ,..,,,„ _ � - ... .._ .-�, �:.R . . x, +» T - - „ �,._ . � t: . .... ,.. ,� - _ f . . .m., � _ , -x . - - - . . � -.- .._ ., . ' �, . _ . _ _ ..;. . ":�... , �.. ,. . _. r� �._ — ,. , ._ . �. ..,. . .. < ,� . . . ._� m,.. - ,�� .. .:. . , - ...-> y �, . � �' : , ..: . _ � � . . . " _. ,� ...... .. ' ., � . . ... .�` �.. a�-�. '> .. , - _ . - - .' - <: . , „__ .,i -- �� . .<-- �. . . . . . . . . . „ _. �< - --� . ... .- .. ,.�, , F , . g . . . _ <- . ,,:.a.: � : _ - . t , �- , y � .. , , � - � .., . w�, � _ � �.�- � _, -, .z .. � . . -.. . . . .. .. � . 'z_ � �: �� . _ . �.._ . - r� �'�[...-.E � .. - ., - _ _ : "' � �. y.:�4 rtY' �....: ' Fj - rY .» . . _ �v .. . - . .v. . .:. ^ "sY "� . .. "' 'r^'d t '+ f �y,,, . � � .� e. . . �. . . N e > .. -r} .. -x.. .. } a.. _ .. .�� . 1 .s ^" ♦._ . ' -..� ' .'asa- ' w v_ .. „ -�a < � .t't � � �. v� , . sa-... .h.� ..�Y A � > . . _ _ a - c� � s:.i+•�. , . . < � , t. r. � . .�. � _. . . - . �. . a':� .. T . `i' �a.a '.. ' . "" ..a av ..�. :. � t " ., .r v ...{, �y . . ."� . . ' . � '� _ .0 . .. . . L " � � �. . . v . .. . , � > � �.. . -�, a,. , r ._ .i, 8. . . . . . Planning Commission Agenda: 02/OS/19 2B. Public Hearin� - Consideration of a request for amendment to Monticello Zonin� Ordinance Chapter 5 and Chapter 8, Section 4 related to use, standards and definitions for event centers, places of public assemblv, personal services, and commercial recreation — indoor. Applicant: Citv of Monticello (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Staff have prepared initial language and analysis for the proposed ordinance amendment. However, as of the time of this report, staff have not had a chance to review and discuss with the City's legal counsel. This step is preferred prior to Planning Commission review due to the nature of the amendment. As such, at this time, staff is asking the Planning Commission to table action and continue to hearing to the March regular meeting. City Planner Steve Grittman will be present to provide a summary of direction to-date. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to table action on the item and continue the public hearing to the March Sth, 2019 regular meeting. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As noted, staff supports tabling at this time. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. N4RTHWEST i4SSt)CIATED Cl7NSULTANTS. INC. 4800 ❑Ison Memorial Highway, 5uite 202, Gplden Valley, MN 55422 Telephc�ne: �'63.239.25a5 Facsimile: 763.239.25�1 planners@nacplanning.cnm MEMORANDUM TO: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman / Ryan Saltis DATE: January 31, 2019 RE: Monticello — Adult Land Use FILE: 191.06 — 18.01 BACKGROUND In 2014, the City reviewed and updated its adult-oriented entertainment land use regulations, ensuring that the then-current ordinance and mapping were consistent with the original intent developed and adopted in 2011. The original research, staff report to City Council, and City Attorney's review memorandum are attached to this report for reference. In summary, the City undertook to alter the regulation adult-oriented land uses by location and number of zoning parcels (rather than strictly by percentage of City size); and drawing a specific overlay zoning district (rather than limiting uses to a separation distance from the defined "sensitive" land uses). As with any such regulation, it is necessary to monitor land transactions and land uses to ensure that the number of parcels continues to provide a reasonable opportunity for First Amendment-protected speech to occur. In this update, staff examined the land uses in the area of the Special Use Overlay District, as well as changes to property dimensions processed since the last update in 2014. Adult land uses in Monticello are allowed in parcels falling within both an industrial district and the Special Use Overlay District. Within those districts, adult uses are restricted to parcels that do not abut or share a property line with sensitive uses. According to the Special Use Overlay District, sensitive uses include residential zoned properties, day cares, educational facilities, libraries, parks, churches, places for amusement, and liquor stores. ANALYSIS To identify parcels and land acreage available for adult land uses planning staff: • Researched for any recent noteworthy items related to the regulation of such facilities. No significant developments were found. The primary observation was that such adult- oriented facilities are either static in number, or that most news items were related to illegal activity rather than retail sales or display of sexually-oriented materials or entertainment. Computed the total number of industrial/special use parcels not abutting the described sensitive land uses, along with the total buildable land acreage available within those parcels. In 2014, 28 parcels were available for adult land uses, totaling 108 acres. 8 parcels (41 acres) were located in an industrial area in west Monticello (primarily the City's Business Park), and 20 parcels (67 acres) were located in industrial area in south-central Monticello (primarily Oakwood Industrial Park), as shown on the 2014 analysis map. Identified changes to lot configuration within the boundaries of (and directly adjacent to) the existing Special Use Overlay District. In this case, two subdivisions have occurred during this period that increase the total number of distinct parcels, increasing parcel count to 30 (from the previous 28). However, no land was removed from the district, resulting in 108 acres of land zoned to accommodate the Special Use Overlay District, the same as 2014). Identified changes in land use in the areas in and near the Special Us Overlay District. The most apparent change was the opening of a commercial day care facility in at 102 Thomas Park Drive. This parcel is currently zoned "B-4", Regional Business District. Surrounding parcels include districts such as "I-1" Light Industrial, "B-2" Limited Business, and "B-3" Highway Business. The Special Use Overlay District, which allows for adult uses, is located to the east near the parcel that the daycare operates from but does not directly abut it. Moreover, the use has street access that will not share routes to or from Chelsea Road, the nearest collector roadway with any uses in the Overlay District. As such, the use is not expected to be impacted by the Special Use Overlay District. A map showing the location for commercial daycare in relation to the Special Use Overlay District is displayed below: � ��`� , �_.� � -�' ``` —� / � j ' � '._. :�---,_ LL �=a��r'� � � E ___,i�\� �, T' � �PaikD; �"`- �` ti� E � ,;�j..,� , * , STAFF SUMMARY , New Commercial " Daycare Use B-? B-3 _ B-4 ' ; Special Use Overlay Distriet � I-1 _ I-2 The number of parcels in the Special Use Overlay District has increased slightly due to internal subdivisions that have occurred since the land review, and the acreage size of the District has remained unchanged. The addition of a commercial daycare facility to commercial property near the District does not appear to affect the District, as the daycare parcel does not abut any parcels in the District, nor does it share primary street access with any such parcels. As such, it appears that no changes are necessary to the Special Use Overlay District map or its regulations at this time. SUPPORTING DATA Adult Use Study Map 2019 Adult Use — City Council Report of April 25t", 2011 Adult Use — Attorney Memo, February 23rd, 2011 \ .� � � � � � � U N jn � Q (6 co co Q N `� ON i � (6 � � � a� m �� Q � � � Q N N N � � C R J N > � N C N � � N � (6 � m .� N � � � a� m � � �a � � N � � i N 0 = � � N 'w. � �� N � U (n N � n� U 7 'c n ;� a � o � Z � N N U � � � �a a� C � � T � C O p U a U � L � � � 0 N Qa � m � o � L U a a p C f6 Z � � m o � �y �U � � City Council Agenda: 04/25/I 1 11. C�nsideration of adopting Resolution #2011-24 and Ordinance #52R amending the Monticello Zonin� Ordinance relatin� to Adult-Oriented Land Uses and amendin� the official Monticello Zoning Map; Applicant, City of Monticello (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At its April St", 2011 meeting, the Monticello Planning Commission continued its examination of the City's adult-oriented use regulations in the zoning ordinance. The Commission's initial discussions preceding the April meeting included an extensive study of options for regulating these uses, and how the City's regulations — originally adopted in the mid-1990s — were no longer adequate to protecY the CiYy from a legal challenge. As identified in that study, Yhe City's current regulations restrict adult-orienied land uses to the I-2 zoning district. As the City has grown over the years, combined with changes to the land uses around and within the I-2 district, the remaining land available to such uses falls short of what is commonly considered an acceptable level to avoid interfering with free expression opportunities. The City Attorney's has office provided an updated summary of cases decided since the Washington (City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres) Supreme Court case, which established the original basis for regulation. Out of that summary, the Planning Commission considered two options for updating its ordinance: (1) `Buffer-Percentage Approach": increasing the available area through a change to the buffer distances in both the I-1 and i-2 District (2) "Overlay District Approach": establishment of an overlay district that would apply to speci�c parcels in a quantity adequate to provide a reasonably sound balance between regulation and opportunity for the location of adult uses. There was no public comment made during the public hearing. After consideration, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance following the "Overlay District Approach", option (2) above. Staff supports this option as being the easiest to administer and monitor over the long term, the least intrusive to existing property owners, and likely the most stable as the City grows outward in population and area. Attached to this report is a proposed map identifying the parcels that would be subject to the overlay district, along with an ordinance establishing the City Council Agenda: 04/25/I 1 amendments, and tinally, a resolution that proposes �ndings of fact in support of the ordinance. The I�DC and the �DA have both had an opportunity to review and comment on the draft amendments as proposed. Both support approval as written. Only a few changes have been made to this �nal draft of the overlay district, reflecting the Planning Commission's interest in maximizing the protection of the various sensitive uses, and reflecting a final resolution of the property lines and ownership patterns. These changes are as follows: (1) A reduction in the number of Yotal available parcels from 43 in the material first considered by the Planning Commission to a mapped total of 39 parcels — still within the reasonable opportunity identified in the court decisions provided by the City Attorney. (2) The reduction of 4 parcels reduces the overall supply of land from 164 acres to 159 acres. (3) A resulting reduction in the percentage of available land from 3.5% to 3.4%. The City Council has also been provided with amendment language and a map for the "Buffer-Percentage Approach" for reference, although this amendment option is not the recommended alternative. To follow is a staff report reviewing the two approaches, which was presented to the Planning Commission on AprilSth, 2011. The City has been examining the potential for updating and amending its adult-ariented use regulations. As a part of previous review, the Planning Commission has considered how such regulations are viewed from both a land use and legal perspective, and the types of changes that should be considered to bring Monticello's regulations into conformance with generally accepted requirements for regulations of this kind. To highlight the current condition, the City's existing regulations limit adult-oriented uses to the I-2 District, and maintain a 700 foot buffer from sensitive uses. As applied to the Ciry's [-2 areas, these uses are exclusively schools, parks, and residential zones. The code provides for other sensitive uses, but there are none of those other uses near the I-2 district properties. This limitation has left the City with an "opportunity area" in the range of just one percent of the City's usable land area, and just a few eligible parcels— a range that raises significant concerns over the legality of the regulations. For reference, the usable land area of the City has been calculated as the total gross acreage, subtracting all Federal, State, and County highway right-of-way, and subtracting also the land owned by the Xcel Energy power plant, since it is largely covered by a buffer zone that would make it ineligible for private development. 2 City Council Agenda: 04/25/I 1 For tracking purposes, staff has calculated tl�e usable acreage currently zoned for commercial and/or industrial purposes — a total of about 2,190 acres, approximately 48% of the usable total. Many of tbe cities cited by the City Attorney that had percentage areas significantly less than five percent also were identified as having particularly low percentages of commercial and industrial land uses overall. This is not necessarily the case for Monticello. The approach taken by most communities subsequent to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1986 ruling in City of Renton [WashingtonJ v. Playtime Theatres was to devise regulations that separated adult-oriented uses from those areas where sensitive populations might be present (most notably residential, schools, libraries, parks, and similar uses). Cities have endeavored to maximize the separation distance from these uses, while retaining an opportunity for adult-oriented uses to locate in the cammunity, by providing an opportunity area of approximately 5% of the city's land area. The Reiaton Court ruled that such re�ulations did not directly regulate speech (which would be protected under First Amendment limitations), but instcad regulated the secondary effects of the adult-oriented use on other sensitive land uses. In this analysis, so long as the City's regulations provided a reasonable opportunity for such uses to locate in the community, the regulations could be considered legitimate. In the City Attorney's analysis, it is noted that the 5% informal threshold has virtually always served as adequate evidence of "reasonable opportunity". Below this level, a number of communities have been able to defend the constitutionality of their regulations by showing that a reasonable opportunity was available, even though the informally recognized 5% threshold might not be met. Tn most of those cases, the city's regulations provided the opportunity far several parcels to be used far such businesses, relying on the nuinber of actual parcels, rather than the percentage of total area. The City Attorney notes that each of these cases succeeded on specific factual scenarios. The Attorney further notes that when the city's regulations limited the opportunity area to less than 1%, the cases tended to turn out unfavorably for the city. The Planning Commission has directed staff to examine opportunities to maximize the separation distance within the parameters supported by the City's legal representatives. As a part of this study, staff examined a number of options aimed at meeting the obj ectives of the Planning Commission, as well as maximizing the "defensibility" of the proposed regulations. This report forwards two of those options as the most effective choices for consideration. These are summarized below, and a draft set of regulations is attached. `Buf%y- -Percenta�e Approach " - Percenta�e Tdzy-eshold The first option utilizes the traditional 5% threshold approach. While this approach creates a potential far more eligible land than the second option, the Attorney's report City Council Agenda: 04/25/I 1 highlights that it is likely the "safest" approach, in regard to being able to defend the City's ordinance from a legal challenge. With a 275 foot buffer from sensitive uses, the current land use pattern would yield about 236 acres, or 5.07% of the City's net usable land area to the potential for adult uses. To follow this approach, the City would need to make the following changes: l. Amend the I-1, Light Industrial District to add adult-oriented uses as a pennitted use, with the same conditions in the I-2 district. 2. Amend the regulations to provide that no parcel with frontage on I-94 would be eligible for an adult-oriented use. This amendment is intended to avoid the highest profile properties advertising such activities to the passing public. 3. Change the regulations to provide for a buffer distance of 275 linear feet, reduced from the current 700 feet. 4. Retain all other regulations as currently adopted. One difficulty here is that we have assumed that the City will not want adult-oriented uses abutting the freeway, and have calculated the opportuniry area with this assumption. The issue is that the freeway is not really a"sensitive use" tl�at would be subject to the negative secondary effects of adult-oriented uses. As a result, applying the normal "buffer" distance is not appropriate. To resolve this problem, an additional restriction would need to be added to the I-1 District entry related to adult-oriented uses that specifically prohibits their location on freeway-abutting parcels as a basic zoning restriction, separate from the "buffering" approach. Further, to accomplish this, the City Attorney's preferred approach would be to actually create separate zoning districts, rather than try and exclude certain uses within the limits of a zoning district. Essentially, the City would need to restructure its current two �ildustrial Districts into three districts. In short, task 2 above would be divided into the following subtasks: a. Create a new "I-3, Freeway Industrial District" which mirrors the uses in the original I-1, with no adult-oriented uses. b. Rezone properties with freeway exposure to the I-3 District (which has the effect of leafing them in the same position they are now). This is the preferred approach of the City Attorney's office. Staff was concerned that the creation of a new base zoning district, changes to the current base district, and rezoning of several parcels would be confusing to the property owners, and cumbersome to administer. As a result, a second option was developed that relies on the "number of eligible adult-oriented parcels" approach which has been upheld in some of the cases cited by the Attorney. That option is described below. "Overlav District A�proach "- Nufnber of Parcels This approach essentially creates a buffer of variable distance by establishing an ordinance that allows adult-oriented uses only on parcels that don't abut sensitive use 4 City Council Agenda: 04/25/I 1 parcels, overlaying portions of both the T-1 and T-2 Districts. Thus, the i-1 and T-2 Districts would provide for the opportunity for adult-oriented use on parcels that do not share a common property line with parcels zoned or used for residential, school, or park In addition, the overlay district would be applied only to those parcels that rely on internal street access, and do not have exposure to the interstate freeway. The net result of this approach would be a percentage of about 3.5% of the City's total area, a total of as many as 43 separate parcels available, and about 164 acres of available land area. This would be out of about 4,680 buildable acres in the City, of which about 2,560 acres of are currently zoned commercial or industrial. The net effect of this approach is a slight reduction in the percentage area, although still about 3.5%. It also has the effect of increasing the buffer in most areas, since it follows property lines rather than a fixed distance. It is staff's opinion that while the percentage drops below the 5% target thresl�old, tlie number of available parcels provides for a reasonable opportunity for adult-oriented uses while balancing the City's interest in protecting the sensitive land uses from the secondary effects of those uses. As noted, the separation distances vary, since they are dependent on location of property lines. The following table shows the least separation distance to various land use types: Land Use Distance Location Single Family Residential 394 ft. Groveland Subdivision at Chelsea Road Multiple Fainily Residential 271 ft. Golden Eagle Lane (340 ft. to bldg.) Public Park 493 ft. Bertram Lakes near Chelsea Road Public School 698 ft. NW corner of Little Mountain at Fallon The City Attorney's office endorses this approach as being consistent with cases where restrictions have been successfully defended. The primary concern in this regard is that the parcels chosen for inclusion do not create a concern over "spot zoning". This means that the City must be careful to create regulations that permit such uses in larger blocks of land area, raCher than a series of scaltered, deCached parcels thal may sug�esl incompatible land use patterns. Steps to accomplish this approach are somewhat problematic, since the City would have to map a specific area, rather than just rely on a buffer distance to define the potentia] area. Moreover, this approach would not change over time — a benefit in that it is more predictable, but potentially negative if the City does not monitor the introduction of new uses — such as a commercial daycare operation — into the district. To implement this approach, the City would need to do the following: 1. Remove adult-oriented uses as a permitted use from the I-2 base district language. City Council Agenda: 04/25/I 1 2. Amend the current adult use regulations to stand alone as a separate overlay zoning district, with the chosen overlay district title. 3. Map and adopt the overlay district for the designated area. While the changes to the current ordinance are somewhat more extensive (due to the creation of the overlay district, and transfer of the adult-oriented use language into that section from its current locations), this approach ends up being least disruptive to current property owners. The permitted uses of the base district do not change significantly, and properties would not need to be rezoned to reflect district language changes. It should be noted that with adoption of either ordinance amendment alternative, Interim Ordinance #524 will be automatically repealed. B. ALTF,RNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve Resolution #2011-24 and to approve Ordinance #528, an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for Adult-Oriented Land Uses and an amcndment to thc Official Monticello Zoning Map based on the "Ovcrlay District"-Number of Parcels approach with amendments to create a"Special Use" overlay zoning district and changes to the Official Monticello Zoning Map as noted in this report. Motion to approve the `Buffer-Percentage Threshold" approach with a 275 foot buffer zone, addition of adult-oriented uses to the I-1 District, and other amendments as noted in this report. A rnotion to approve the "percentage threshold" approach will reguire the pYeparation of a new resol�ution with fi�dings of fact to support such approval. This resolution would then be presented foN appr-oval at a subsequent Council meeting. Motion to deny Resolution #2011-24 and Ordinance #528 at this time. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends Alternative #1 above. Staff recommends amendments to the City's adult-oriented use regulations, due to the concerns that the current regularions, including the 700 foot buffer limitation of adult uses to the I-2 District only, and the changes to the City's land use pattern over time, have resulted in overly restrictive regulations of such uses, leading to the possibility that the restrictions might be subject to legal challenge. Consistent with the Planning Commission, staff recommends the second "Overlay District" approach — effectively creating a buffer by mapping a specific set of parcels that ensures no adult-oriented use could be located on a parcel that abuts a sensitive use area, and also ensuring that no freeway frontage would be used for such businesses. This 0 City Council Agenda: 04/25/I 1 option provides for more than 40 individual parcels, approximately 3.5% of the City's land area. It requires the creation of an overlay district to map the allowable area. Staff prefers the "overlay district" approach for the following reasons: • It avoids reconfiguring and rezoning base districts for existing industrial propertles. • It maintains a reasonable amount of opportunity (3.5% of area, and more than 40 individual parcels). • It avoids freeway exposure, preserving that for higher uses, consistent with the City's economic development interests. • It maintains a better separation fro�n nearly all existing sensitive use locations. • The overlay approach can be more easily manipulated in the future to maintain reasonable opportunity and adjust for changing land use patterns. Either approach is supported by thc City Attorney's office. Under either ainendment option, staff would recommend routine monitoring of the adult- oriented use opportunity area. Changes in land use pattern, business location, and many other factors can affect the enforceability of the City's regulations over time. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Ordinance #528 — Recommended amendinent: "Overlay District" approach Ordinance #528 — Alternative amendment: `Buffer-Percentage" approach Resolution #201 1-24 — Findings of Fact Exhibit A- Planning Commission Report, dated 2/1/11 Exhibit B- February 1, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit C- Planning Commission Report, dated 3/1/11 Exhibit D- March 1, 20ll Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit E- Northwest Associated Consultants Opportunity Area Analysis, dated 1/26/11 Exhibit F- City Attorney's Memo, dated 2/23/11 Exhibit G- Map —"Overlay District Approach" Exhibit H - Map — "Buffer-Percentage Approach" Exhibit I - Interim Ordinance #524 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Angela Schumann CC: Steve Grittman FROM: Andrea McDowell Poehler DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 RE: Monticello — Adult Businesses and Zoning Staff has asked this firm to review whether recent case law has addressed the issue of City zoning ordinances limiting the areas in which adult businesses can lawfully operate. Unfortunately there is no "bright line" test or clear answer to this question. A review of recent cases is important to gather general information on how courts are analyzing the zoning question. I. General Rule The United States Supreme Court in the City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc. case in 1986 stated that the standard for determining what the proper zoning is for adult businesses is whether an ordinance allows for reasonable alternative avenues of communication. In applying this standard, the Supreme Court determined that, under the specific facts of the City of Renton, the ordinance provided reasonable alternative avenues of communication where "five percent of the entire land area" of the city was available for adult theater sites. Although cities have used the 5% figure from the Renton case as a benchmark, neither the United States Supreme Court, nor the Constitution mandates communities make a minimum of 5% percentage of land available for the operation of adult businesses or any specific percentage at all. Thus, it is important for cities to review case law to understand the factors that a court may consider when determining when reasonable alternative avenues of communication are made available under an ordinance. Most cases look beyond a mere percentage to other factors, such as the suitability of the areas purported to be available for commercial development, to determine whether a reasonable alternative channel for adult communication exists in the community. IL Total Land Available to Adult Uses Exceeds 5 percent. A. Ordinance Found Constitutional. Most of the authority since Renton has addressed factual scenarios where more than five percent of the city's land is available for adult uses. Where more than five percent is available for adult uses courts have seemed generally willing to find the sexually oriented business ordinance constitutional. is61g��1 In the 1991 case of Alexander v. Minneapolis, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a zoning ordinance limiting adult uses to 6.6% of commercial land. In 2006, the Minnesota Court of Appeals similarly addressed the percentage of land available for adult-use businesses under a county zoning ordinance in County ofMorrison v. Wheeler, and found the ordinance constitutional. The adult-use business owners argued only five percent of the total land in the county was available for adult uses. The county responded by arguing 64 percent of all commercial property in the county was available for adult-use businesses. Id. In finding the area to represent a constitutional alternative source for operating of an adult use business, the court stated "[tJhe law requires at least some chance of an alternative source; it does not require that it be immediately available and cheap." Quite a bit of the case law addresses zoning ordinances where more than five percent of a city's land area is available for an adult business. See e.g., D.H.L., 6 F. Supp. at 78-79 (finding 10.4 percent reasonable where additional factors indicated an adult business had a reasonable opportunity to operate); Alexander v. Minneapolis, 928 F.2d 278, 284 (8th Cir. 1991) (finding 6.6 percent reasonable); Buzzetti v. City ofNew York, 140 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1997) (finding 11 percent reasonable); Specialty Malls v. City of Tampa, 916 F. Supp. 1222, 1231 (MD. Fla. 1996) (finding 7.5 percent adequate because the ordinance "not only [met], but exceed[ed] the First Amendment protection required by Renton); Centerfold Club, Inc. v. St. Petersburg, 969 F. Supp. 1288, 1303 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (finding 6.3 percent adequate). IL Total Land Available to Adult Uses is Less Than 5 percent. A. Upheld as Constitutional Some courts have upheld ordinances that had the practical effect of allowing adult uses on less than five percent of total land or of land zoned for businesses use. In Schneider v. Ramsey, the District Court for the District of Minnesota found an ordinance provided reasonable alternative channels for communication where 2.5 percent of the total land in the rural community was available for adult uses. Approximately 88 percent of the city was zoned for residential use, meaning that approximately 35 percent of the land zoned for commercial use and 9.7 percent of the general urban area was available for adult uses. In City of Crystal v. Fantasy House, Inc., the Minnesota Court of Appeals evaluated a permanent zoning ordinance allowing for adult use businesses in ".9 [percent] of the land in [the city] and 15 [percent] of the city's industrial and commercial zones." In overruling the district court's finding that the available land for adult uses was insufficient, the Court of Appeals noted "the limited area available [for adult uses] in [the city] is a result of the city's overwhelmingly residential character and conservative planning practices." Specifically, only six percent of the entire city was zoned for commercial or industrial uses. The city's conservative planning practices meant that "any difficulty that [the business] has in locating in [the city] stems from difficulties faced by all prospective real estate purchasers [and that] the permanent ordinance provides reasonable alternative avenues of communication and is constitutional." is61g��1 2 Following the United States Supreme Court's holding in Renton, courts across the United States have found that ordinances restricting adult use to less than five percent of the area covered by the ordinance are reasonable and pass constitutional muster. See e.g., Casanova Entm't Group, Inc. v. City ofNew Rochelle, 165 Fed. Appx. 72, 73-74 (2d Cir. 2006) (upholding an ordinance that had the effect of limiting adult uses to 2.77 percent of the city); Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C. v. City ofLittleton, 311 F.3d 1220, 1240 (lOth Cir. 2002), vacated on other gr�ounds by 124 S. Ct. 2219, 541 U.S. 774 (holding availability of approximately one percent of city land was sufficient where over 20 sites were available for adult businesses and given the small population of the city and that only one adult business was located in the city) i; North Ave. Novelties, 88 F.3d at 445 (holding the plaintiff business's reliance on the fact that less than one to three percent of land within the city's limits was available was insufficient to find alternative locations were unavailable); Lakeland Lounge v. City of.Iackson, Michigan, 973 F.2d 1255 (Sth Cir. 1992) (holding availability of 1.2 percent of the city was sufficient); Allno Enters. v. Baltimore County, 10 Fed. Appx. 197 (4th Cir. 1991) (upholding zoning ordinance leaving .16 percent of total acres in county available); M.J. Entm'tEnters. v. City ofMt. T�ernon, 328 F. Supp. 2d 480 (S.DN.Y. 2004) (granting summary judgment in favor of defendant city where .67 percent of city was available for adult uses); S& G News, Inc. v. City of Southgate, 63 8 F. Supp. 1060 (E.D. Mich. 1986) (holding 2.3 percent of the county's land area was sufficient); Stringf'ellow's ofNew York v. City ofNew York, 91 N.Y.2d 382, 403, 694 N.E.2d 407, 419 (1998) (holding 4 percent of total land zoned for business in a city was sufficient). In Casanova Entertainment Group v. City of New Rochelle, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of a topless dancing nightclub's request for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of local ordinances barring topless dancing at its current location. In holding the appellant nightclub did not show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, the court noted that while only 0.04 percent of the city's total land area was available for adult-entertainment businesses, the "statistic [could] not be viewed in isolation [because the city was] a highly developed residential suburb with less than 5[percent] of its total land area available for any commercial use. Six lots, representing 2.77 percent of land zoned for "[1]ight [i]ndustrial development," however, were available for adult-entertainment purposes. In holding that the nightclub was unlikely to succeed on the merits, the court impliedly held 2.77 percent is a sufficient alternative area where zoning ordinances restrict adult uses. In Stringf'ellow 's of New York v. City of New York, 91 N.Y.2d 3 82, 403, 694 N.E.2d 407, 419 (1998), New York's highest state court found a zoning ordinance limiting adult entertainment establishments in certain zoning districts was constitutionally permissible where "about 4[percent of the total commercial land was available] when reduced by land encumbered by properties that are unlikely to be developed for commercial use." is61g��1 B. Struck Down as Unconstitutional Some of the case law addressing a zoning ordinance where less than five percent of a city's land area is available has held the ordinance unconstitutional. See e.g., Franklin .Iefferson, Ltd. v. City of Columbus, 244 F. Supp. 2d 83 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (finding ordinance with effect of limiting adult uses to 0.047 percent of the city's land and allowing 11 sites for adult use violated the United States Constitution); International Eateries ofAm., Inc. v. Broward County, 726 F. Supp. 1556, 1567 (S.C. Fla. 1987) (finding 0.03 percent of the county's land available to be inadequate). These examples, however, seem particularly extreme in that the cities attempted to limit adult uses to the extent that less than one half of one percent was available (0.047 percent and 0.03 percent). In 1990 in the BrookparkNews & Books v. Cleveland case, the Ohio Court of Appeals found that a city's zoning ordinance unconstitutional where only 3.6 acres of 48,384 acres, or seven one-hundred-thousandths of one percent (.00007 percent) of acres, in the city were available for adult uses. The court held that "[t]his percentage of available adult usage in a city the size of Cleveland on its face is unduly restrictive and significantly curtails freedom of expression and access to protected speech." In 2002, the Federal District Court for the Western District of Michigan noted in Exec. Arts Studio, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, that it was generally wary of finding an ordinance limiting adult uses to less than one percent of the city's acreage or to fewer than a dozen sites constitutional. The court concluded by finding a zoning ordinance limiting adult uses to less than one-half of one percent of the city's commercial property unconstitutional. In 2006, the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota weighed in the question of adult uses in Northshor Experience, Inc. v. City of Duluth, Minn. On the city's motion for summary judgment, the court concluded that an ordinance making 4.34% of the city available for adult uses was not per se reasonable or constitutional because it did not provide a reasonable alternative avenue for communication. The court evaluated photographs provided by the plaintiff adult business and found the "available land" was occupied by the airport or "heavily industrial, either lacking infrastructure and inaccessible or occupied by an existing heavy industrial use, such as a manufacturing plant or mineral piles." As such, the court stated that its evaluation of the reasonableness of available alternative locations and the constitutionality of allowing adult uses in 4.24% of the city had to come further in the litigation. Ultimately, this authority cannot be taken to mean that ordinances restricting adult uses to less than five percent of a city's land are per se unreasonable. Instead, the authority is better taken to mean that there is no bright line separating reasonableness from unreasonableness and additional factors necessarily inform a finding of reasonableness. 1s6187v1 4 III. No Bright Line Test. Some Courts have been reticent to find that five percent represents a generally-applicable guidepost. As such, the courts have found that additional inquiry into a particular zoning ordinance and its affect on availability is necessary. In PAO Xiong v. City ofMoorhead, Minn. the District Court for the District of Minnesota held in 2009 that it was unable to determine whether an available area of 6.25% of the City's total land area and 29% of the city's commercial and industrial areas was sufficient to constitute a reasonable alternative avenue for communication. On the city's motion for summary judgment, the court found it had insufficient information because the parties disputed whether the sites were platted and accessible by road, the character of the areas had not been established, and the court could not determine whether the space available was sufficient to leave the "quantity and accessibility of speech substantially intact." The plaintiff business owner in North Ave. Novelties v. City of Chicago relied on expert testimony to find that less than one percent of the land within the city limits was available for adult use. In relying on Renton and other adult use zoning cases, the plaintiff business owner argued the city's availability represented a smaller acreage than other approved areas. The city's expert alternatively testified that between one and three percent of the city was available for adult uses. In rejecting the plaintiff business owner's comparisons to other cases, the court held "that the amount of acreage, standing alone, is largely irrelevant." The court noted that the constitutional requirement of a reasonable opportunity to do business "can, and most likely does, result in vastly different acreage percentages [between regions]." These differences, however, "in no way imply that the regions with lower percentages are acting unconstitutionally." In M.J. EntertainmentEnterprises v. City ofMt. T�ernon, the District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to the defendant city where a zoning ordinance made only .67 percent of a city available for adult uses. The court noted that the constitution does not mandate a minimum percentage of land be made available for certain types of speech and that the constitution only requires a location provide "a reasonable opportunity to disseminate the speech at issue." The district court judge then noted that at the time alternative avenues of communication were only found constitutionally insufficient in one of two circumstances. First, where there were no sites available. Alternatively, the judge wrote that alternatives are found insufficient where the zoning scheme requires an existing adult business to relocate to a particular area, prohibits an adult business's establishment within 1,000 feet of a school or religious institution, and the ordinance is specifically enacted to create a buffer between the existing business and a school. IV. Factors Considered in Determining Reasonable Alternative Avenues of Communication are Available. Some courts have looked to a variety of factors in determining whether reasonable alternative avenues of communication have been made available. is61g��1 5 A. Number of Sites Available As an alternative to evaluating the percentage of land area available for adult businesses, some courts have found that the question of constitutionally reasonable alternative locations can be answered by the number of locations available that could accommodate additional locations. See e.g., Diamond v. City of Taft, 215 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding where seven sites were available, and three of those sites could house adult uses simultaneously, based on the commercial real estate market in the city, the three sites created a constitutionally acceptable alternative); R. V.S., LLC v. City of Rockford, 266 F. Supp. 2d 798 (N.D. Ill. 2003), rev'd on other gr�ounds by 361 F.3d 402 (7th Cir. 2004) (holding 11 or 12 sites were available which provided a reasonable opportunity to disseminate the adult speech in this particular community); 3570 East Foothill Blvd., Inc. v. Pasadena, 912 F. Supp. 1257, 1265 (C.D. Cal. 1995), aff'd, 99 F.3d 1147 (holding an ordinance allowing for the opening of eleven additional adult businesses was a reasonable opportunity where only one adult business currently existed). Conversely, however, this parcel availability approach may indicate that a zoning ordinance unconstitutionally limits the ability of a sexually oriented business to operate. See e.g., .Ianra Enters. v. Reno, 818 F. Supp. 1361, 1364 (D. Nev. 1993) (finding three parcels insufficient). B. Whether Proposed Sites are Physically and Legally Available As in PAO Xiong, the Federal Court of Appeals for the 2"d Circuit in T.IS of N.Y. v. Town of Smithtown evaluated in 2010 "whether proposed sites are physically and legally available, and whether they are part of an actual commercial real estate market in the municipality." Noting that "[s]everal factual considerations underlie the question of whether sites are part of an actual real estate market[,]" the court evaluated the likelihood of the sites becoming available, the physical characteristics of the sites such as accessibility to the public, infrastructure, and suitability to "some generic commercial enterprise." Where these criteria are met, the sites "can qualify as available, even if they are in industrial or manufacturing zones." Requiring the proposed adult business to develop the site does not render the site unsuitable; however, "[w]here the physical features of a site or the manner in which it has been developed are totally incompatible with any average commercial business" or there is a dearth of basic infrastructure critical to private development. It is important to note, that the failure of a particular site to meet the sizing, pricing, or logistical needs of an adult business is irrelevant in determining the overall geographic availability for adult uses. See e.g., T.IS, 598 F.3d at 31-32 (citing Renton, 475 U. S. at 54; Topanga Press, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 989 F.2d 1524, 1532 (9th Cir. 1993)) (stating availability of a particular site is not limited by the site's best suitability to a"big box" enterprise); Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C., 311 F.3d at 1240 (holding only industrial, warehouse, office, and shopping centers were not part of relevant commercial real estate market); Isbell v. City of San Diego, 258 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2001) (rejecting argument that relevant alternative real estate market must exclude parcels occupied by businesses like car dealership because potential profits, overhead costs, and infeasibility of use were not appropriate factors in evaluating the availability of alternative channels); Allno Enters., 10 Fed. Appx. 197 (4th Cir. 1991) (holding is61g��1 6 the unsupported assertion of an adult business operator that the owners of land would lease only to industrial operations were not an appropriate consideration in determining overall availability). CONCLUSION The authority from Minnesota case law and case law outside of Minnesota indicates that multiple factors need to be taken into consideration in addition to a mere percentage of availability. Courts review the specific facts of a particular city to determine whether alternative avenues of communication have been made available to adult businesses, such as the percentage of total land area devoted to commercial/industrial and whether a reasonable portion of the commercial/industrial land available, whether a reasonable number of sites have been made available, and whether sites are physically and legally available. As is evident in the court cases noted above, there is no clear bright line test regarding what is "reasonable." Courts have the hardest time finding ordinances allowing adult uses on less than one percent of land constitutional. Clearly, the "safest" area for a zoning ordinance, however, appears to be above the five percent of total land area available as approved in Renton. Below the five percent, courts seem to approve ordinances allowing adult uses on more than two to 2.5 percent of the land more often than not, but courts will make a detailed analysis of the factors noted above. Is61g��1 � Planning Commission Agenda: 02/OS/19 3B. Consideration of an update on the 2040 Monticello Comprehensive Plan (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Staff have prepared a draft request for proposal for consulting services for the 2040 Monticello Comprehensive Plan. It is the goal to bring the draft RFP forward to the City Council on February l lth, 2019 to authorize posting and distribution. At this time, staff is providing the draft RFP to the Planning Commission for feedback. As the Planning Commission is aware, the Comprehensive Plan is the city's guide for growth and development for the next 20 years. The Plan reflects the community's vision and articulates the goals for how Monticello will take shape during this period. Monticello last updated its Comprehensive Plan in the period between 2006-2008. The need to update the Comprehensive Plan at this time is two-fold. Generally, cities update their plans approximately every ten years, to better address changes that have occurred within the community and beyond which may impact future growth. Even with a ten-year update timeline, Comprehensive Plans purposefully look out over a long-range planning horizon, most often twenty years. This long-range span affords cities the opportunity to think in the broadest terms about its future. In Monticello's case, the need to update the Comprehensive Plan is amplified by significant changes on the horizon, which include maj or transportation and utility infrastructure improvements, potential tax base and land use transitions as related to the nuclear plant, and land use questions left unresolved with the last plan update. During the 2019 budgeting process, staff presented a two-pronged approach to the proposed update of the Plan to the City Council. The first component, Phase 1, is the Visioning process. The second component, Phase 2, is the Comprehensive Plan document. Both components are called out in the draft RFP and the proposal requests specific scope and cost identification for each phase. This will aid the city in establishing a budget for Phase 2 in 2020. Phase 1 would first flesh out ideas and issues which will shape the community in the next 20 years. The community would then prioritize these issues and identify alternative scenarios to capitalize on the opportunities and address the challenges. Phase 1 would conclude with a set of guiding action statements and a community vision. This phase is envisioned as highly participatory and future-forward. The action statements and vision will provide the platform for the planning to be accomplished in Phase 2. After completion of the Visioning component, the groundwork is set for developing the more traditional Comprehensive Plan chapters, Phase 2. These include Land Use, Economic Development, Parks & Open Space, Transportation and Utilities. The information gained from Phase 1 will guide the development of the goals and policies in these chapters. The importance of public participation throughout the process for both phases cannot be understated. Should the Council decide to proceed with the RFP, staff intends to meet with stakeholder groups. Staff would like to begin immediate outreach to encourage active participation. This will include Monticello Township, the school district, hospital, community organizations, and others. Planning Commission Agenda: 02/OS/19 We will be looking for community volunteers to serve as plan champions and liaisons to foster community-wide commitment to the vision and the plan. Council will appoint a selection committee to review the received proposals, conduct interviews and recommend a final proposal selection and contract award. The scope of work also calls for a technical advisory team, which will function as the project steering committee. The make-up of this team will be a later Council decision. To summarize, staff envisions the following process to start the project. If approved, the proposal would be released on February 15th, with the introductory meetings held before or shortly after that date. The intended schedule for the full process is described on page 14 of the RFP. 1. Approval of the draft RFP for release 2. Comprehensive Plan introduction meetings with community stakeholders 3. Release of RFP 4. Appointment of Proposal Selection Committee 5. Proposals received — April 1, 2019 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: None. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff encourages the Planning Commission to review the draft RFP and provide any feedback or comments to staff prior to presentation to the City Council. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Draft RFP — 2040 Monticello Comprehensive Plan MONTICELLO 2040 Request for Proposal to Prepare a Community Vision & Comprehensive Plan Proposal Due Date/Time Apri11, 2019 4:00 PM (CST) I. PROJECT OVERVIEW The City of Monticello is seeking a consulting firm(s) with considerable experience in scenario-based strategic planning, community design, land use planning, economic analysis, and community engagement to update the city's Comprehensive Plan. The objective of the project is 1) to provide the community with a clear vision for its future developed by an engaged and informed community and 2) the strategies to achieve that vision, ultimately reflected in an updated Comprehensive Plan. The plan documents should be visually appealing, usable, and legally defensible. The plan will address the transformational issues at work in the community and region, which will shape Monticello over the next 20 years. These issues will include fundamental changes in tax base, land use, and transportation, among others. In addition, with an Orderly Annexation Agreement in place with Monticello Township, which will expire in 2025, the 2040 Plan will recognize the opportunities for growth and development in this area and focus on engaging township residents in the process. The 2040 plan is a shift in character, process and format in comparison to the existing 2008 Comprehensive Plan. While prior Comprehensive Plans serve as context, the 2040 plan will represent an innovative and transformative blueprint for Monticello's future. The city intends for the 2040 plan to be a community-oriented plan organized around a shared vision and actionable outcomes. The plan will be completed in two phases. A. Phase 1: Scenario Planning & Visioning � The first phase of the project will require a futurist planning strategy, employing scenario- based planning tools. The first task is the identification of issues that will shape the community for the next 20 years. Initial community-wide input will be gathered on trends and forces with the goal of developing specific scenarios for Monticello 2040. Harnessing transformational forces will be a critical component of this planning effort. The consultant will then work with the community to define a preferred alternative scenario for the identified issues, culminating in the development of a shared community vision and specific, concise guiding action statements to inform the second phase of the plan. B. Phase 2: Comprehensive Planning The second phase of the project is the preparation of the city's guiding document for growth and development over the next 20 years. The Comprehensive Plan document will emphasize the relationship between the vision and action statements established in the first phase and the plan's specific study components. This phase of the planning effort will provide clear direction and guidance for decision making within the traditional comprehensive plan chapters. The Comprehensive Plan will also clearly articulate the inter-relatedness of the study components. ��IMUIVIIY IfI�I�IV 8� �O�I�F�EHENS111E �LAN �Fris pro�cess �d ir`# IA�IPI..EMENT�l1�N DOCUM Eh1T5 �� ,��,�,�a�,�� ,t�� # Issue Id�a�tifi��tion Sc�n��rio [�eu�lv�m�nt � Preferred Se�nario ��lection Actian 5#at�ment Dev�lopment 1#ision Stat�emerrt � Comprehensi�r� Rlanning * E�;�r�c�rr-�i� L�e�v�. , * Parl�s, �'�thuv�ys � r��r. :�;;; • Camnm�unnty l��nt�t;� �. ?�^_:' +� T��ns[�^�`•:tir��t P1;= STF�ATECI� PL.AI+1 4r�i II. COMMUNITY BACKGROUND The city of Monticello is a vibrant community located along the Mississippi River. The community is proud of its cultural heritage, excited about its recent growth and development, and determined to develop strategies to confidently meet the challenges of the next 20 years. Monticello was founded by second-generation Americans who migrated west in the mid - 1800s. Founded in 1856, the city grew quickly during the early settlement years and then leveled to a population of about 1,300. Then, between 1969 and 1972, two major events occurred that would have a major impact on the community. During that time, a nuclear power generating plant was constructed and Interstate 94 was completed, skirting the southern boundary of the original city site. The City of Monticello is now a free-standing urban fringe city with its growth driven by a prime location on Interstate 94 between the Minneapolis/St Paul Metro area and the City of St. Cloud. The residential population is currently estimated at 13,000. However, the population of the Monticello area as a regional center is far in excess of 13,000, as Monticello is located along a heavily traveled commuter route. It is estimated that the population within a five-mile radius of the city is over 50,000. It is important to note that Monticello is not a suburban commuter city; rather Monticello acts as a regional center, offering a variety of workforce opportunities with a comparable ratio of those commuting in for work as out. Although a cross-section of housing stock in both age and value exists in the community, much of the population growth in the last thirty years been fueled by development of starter homes and townhomes. The city offers a full range of services to residents and is home to the CentraCare Monticello hospital, Independent School District #882, and other institutions that serve the community. Non-profit and volunteer organizations round out an active and involved Monticello. The city also maintains over 100 acres of parkland and 11+ miles of paved pathways for both passive and active play recreation. Residents also enjoy access to the Monticello Community Center which features a water park, fitness center, track, basketball courts, senior center, indoor playground, meeting space, and City Ha1L In addition, the City of Monticello and Wright County have partnered to acquire and operate 1,200 acres of open space in Wright County, known as the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park. This irreplaceable natural area includes undisturbed shoreline and natural habitat, as well as 120 acres for a city-owned and operated regional athletic park. Monticello is also a regional hub of commercial development, owing to its location at the intersection of State Highway 25 and I-94. The increase in residential population along the I- 94 corridor, coupled with excellent transportation access, propelled recent commercial growth. The community is home to both large franchises and local retail and commerce. Previous land use and utility planning initiatives have provided the resources necessary to serve commercial users. The city is now reaping the benefit of such investments. Development along Highway 25 and I-94 anchors commercial centers which include the noted major retailers. Sufficient land is available to support continued commercial development in these areas. Redevelopment of the downtown area has also become a major focus of the city. Recognizing the downtown as the heart of the community, investments in events, arts and culture, buildings, and property have taken center stage over the last two years. For the purposes of industrial development, the City actively markets 50 acres of public industrial property with collector road and utilities, and is currently marketing the property to qualifying industrial users. There is also available private industrial land located throughout the community, but industrial land supply is an issue for consideration. The need for additional industrial land for workforce and tax base expansion will be a major issue for Monticello looking forward. The city, with an active Economic Development Authority, has been very aggressive in its economic development strategies and is focused on workforce development and growth in tax base. The city has created a number of TIF districts, which support both new development in industrial areas and redevelopment in the original downtown. Monticello's tax base relies heavily on the presence of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), which currently represents over 55% of the tax base for the city. The city is actively pursuing strategies to diversify and strengthen the tax base and manage the fluctuations in valuation at the MNGP. With the development and implementation of a city-based fiber-optic system, coupled with a second privately owned and operated fiber-optic system, Monticello residents and businesses are well-positioned to take advantage of the digital age. An annexation agreement is in place to accommodate future growth and development within Monticello Township. The agreement provides for development which makes the most of the amenities of the area, while preserving agricultural resources and open space. Monticello is also aware of its central location within the region. Growth southward into the city's annexation area, as well as growth pressure from the communities of Big Lake and Becker to the north, have created a need for Monticello to reach out to neighboring communities to think more broadly about transportation, utility and economic development. In summary, because of geographic location and rich history, Monticello features aspects of an older small town, as well as the needs of a growing regional center outside the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan area. III. OUTLOOK Phase 1 of the 2040 comprehensive planning project requires that the selected consulting firm(s) present a creative and inclusive approach to support a community-wide identification of forces and needs likely to influence Monticello's next 20 years. The selected consultant will bring a future-forward approach to the identification and actualization of transformative forces affecting Monticello, and will develop truly creative and differentiating solutions. While Phase 1 will require a community-based effort, looking toward 2040, the city has identified a preliminary set of issues which have the potential to shape the community. These matters are described briefly below. 1. Current Orderly Annexation Agreement The City of Monticello and Monticello Township have a current agreement for orderly annexation of a large portion of the township which expires in 2025. Phase 1 of the Plan will engage the township residents in discussions on future planning for the annexation area and new ideas for growth and annexation. The recognition of township residents and property owners as stakeholders in the process is important to fostering a broader vision of the Monticello community. Continued efforts to coordinate planning are critical. � � � 2. Xcel Energy Transition Monticello is home to the Xcel Energy Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP). The MNGP is currently licensed through 2030 and at present represents 55% of Monticello's tax base. Xcel Energy/Northern States Power also controls approximately 600 acres of land surrounding the plant facility. The plan will address the possible and eventual decommissioning of the plant, and the remaining fuel storage which may occur on-site. The city seeks to understand the full economic and social impact of the plant within the community and to develop specific strategies to maintain a vibrant, healthy and economically successful community. In addition, the existing Burlington Northern (BNSF) rail spur which runs through the city to the power plant should be evaluated for unexplored opportunity. 3. TH25 Congestion and Relief Minnesota Trunk Highway 25 between I-94 and State Highway 10 is a vital local transportation artery supporting economic and social well-being in the region. However, congestion on this highway has increased in recent years, creating traffic, development and safety issues for the community. The corridor also provides the only bridge crossing over the Mississippi within a 10-mile growing suburban area. The bridge crossing is located on TH25 in Monticello's core downtown, connecting Wright and Sherburne counties. 6�Page A coalition of local jurisdictions was initiated to develop a unified effort among local and state interests for the purposes of joint planning and securing funding for necessary regional transportation improvements. Continued pressure on the corridor and transportation alternatives to relieve the pressure are key topics for the economic future of Monticello and the region. 4. Education A primary partner in the success of any community is the school system. Monticello is fortunate to have an incredible resource in the Monticello School District. The District has undertaken recent strategic planning and is working to define its own innovative path to future success. Incorporating the parents, children, educators, and administration within the school district is a top priority for the planning effort. Feedback from this stakeholder group will support planning related to workforce development, land use planning for future school facilities, pathway and park locations, culture, technology, and much more. In addition, facilitating discussion within the school and at school events will aid in reaching a broader audience with the planning effort and establishing a core of people of all ages committed to the vision of the new Comprehensive Plan. 5. Mississippi River Crossing Resulting from preliminary analysis completed by the Highway 25 Coalition, a study suggesting a new bridge crossing of the Mississippi has been prepared. At present, the study is in draft form and provides optional alignments for the second river crossing. The siting and funding of a river bridge is a significant undertaking. Bridges serve as a connection - between communities and commerce. Monticello is approaching this planning initiative with significant consideration, recognizing the long-term impact that the bridge will have on land use, transportation and economic development. A second bridge connecting Wright and Sherburne Counties has the potential to create incredible, dynamic, and long-lasting economic benefit for the affected communities. 6. West Interchange A third interchange serving the City of Monticello from the west has been identified in past Comprehensive Plans. An Interchange Land Use Study was developed to analyze land use potential for varying location scenarios. Ideally, the new Comprehensive Plan will incorporate this information and develop land use solutions to utilize and support this interchange. 7. Workforce Development The shortage of qualified workforce for Monticello's numerous manufacturers and industries is consistent with trends felt regionally and nationally. Attracting and retaining workers is a high priority for the community, as is growing the workforce. Clearly, the diversification and growth of tax base is related to the potential decommissioning of the Xcel Nuclear Plant, and to Monticello's future economic viability. The development of an educated, trained and engaged workforce that contributes not only economically to the community, but in residential and other social sectors, is also vital. 8. Priority Growth Areas, Transitional Land Use F� Housing The city will need to work through a prioritization of future growth areas. The prioritization will evaluate infrastructure, transportation, utilities, and amenities. It will look at a changing dynamic between land uses, where the lines between industry and commerce merge, and where workers seek to live closer to both. A more focused look at the Orderly Annexation Area Sections, including opportunities for unique development patterns and styles (such as cluster housing) and locations for life-cycle housing is required. The previous Comprehensive Plan also did not identify density for undeveloped guided residential areas. A conversation on density is needed to better focus utility and transportation extensions and growth areas. Identification of density will also assist developers in evaluating project siting. 9. Community Identity and Culture Although Monticello has strong historic roots anchored by the Mississippi River, its local community identity lacks coherence and clarity. There is not currently a cohesive and recognized statement of "who we are' and a defining statement of "who we will be'. 10. Regionalization Monticello is a sub-regional center, acting as a hub for commerce and services to the surrounding communities given its location on prime transportation corridors. The community should evaluate opportunities to capitalize on this central location to work with adjacent jurisdictions to maximize growth potential and efficiency. Smart growth benefiting all is also occurring due to changes in utility infrastructure, including the location of a Google datacenter in neighboring Becker. The review of comprehensive plans and utility plans in adjacent communities will need to be part of the full comprehensive planning process. 11. Sherburne County Rail Park A study has been completed for an approximately 3,200-acre rail-based industrial park in Sherburne County. While the magnitude of the proposal will require years of planning and investment, the completed study includes conceptual park designs and projected economic impacts. The BNSF inain rail line between Seattle and the Twin Cities and Chicago to the east running through the Sherbume County provides the basis for the proposal. The rail park as proposed represents significant regional impact including an estimated 16,000 to 17,000 jobs, along with traffic and multiplier development. Monticello's proximity to the proposed development and its role as a regional center requires that Monticello continue to monitor the project's progress and potential for impact. This includes the potential for a new river crossing route. 12. Demographics, Diversity F� Equity Monticello, like many communities, will need to address changing trends in demographics and determine the best methods for ensuring equity among its stakeholders. In 2019 the city is engaging with the League of Minnesota Cities, the Government Alliance on Race & Equity, and cohort cities to learn more about how to evaluate internal structures and organize future practices and policies using racial equity tools. The city's goal is to incorporate these ideas and tools into our planning efforts. . � i�i � � � 13. Technology Rapidly advancing technologies affect us all - autonomous vehicles, green energy, workforce mobility, etc. Monticello's vision and comprehensive plan will recognize that innovation provides a pathway to success and the possibilities are limitless. The comprehensive plan should address the possibilities as opportunities and prepare a roadmap to reach its full potential. IV. PROJECT GOALS The Phase 1 planning and visioning effort is intended to result in a document which can be used by the community at-large, but also serves as the foundation for the comprehensive planning effort for Phase 2 of the project. The Phase 2 2040 Comprehensive Plan document is anticipated to be a significant update of the city's existing 2008 plan. Rather than a standard technical document, the city is seeking a plan which is anchored by a clear vision for the future and written in a way which ensures its use as a guiding document for city decisions. Project goals for both documents include the following. 1. Futuristic: creative, imaginative, agile, and out-of-the-box examination of the forces - both large and small - that will change the community; 2. Community-focused: plans developed by the people that live, work, learn, and recreate in greater Monticello; 3. Inclusive: reflect a process which incorporates the many viewpoints, needs, and opinions of the residents and community stakeholders; 4. Consensus-based: organized around a shared vision and community-developed guiding action statement principles; 5. Accessible: easy-to-read, easy-to-use, with a strong emphasis on visual interest and the use of photographs, charts, tables, and picto-/infographs; 6. Strategir. responds directly to the shared vision with action-oriented statements and focused on measurable outcomes; 7. Connected: acknowledge and address the inter-relatedness of the various planning elements that create and shape community; 8. Data-driven: provide an evidence-based framework for decision-making; 9. Transparent: the planning process and its related impacts should be made clear to stakeholders; and 10. Accountable: detail implementation and suggested measurement tools to support achievement of the vision. V. SCOPE OF WORK The following is a general description of the tasks required of the consultant(s). A final scope of services will be negotiated and finalized once a consultant is selected. In preparing a proposal, the consultant should feel free to modify, revise or otherwise amend the list of tasks to best satisfy the project goals identified previously. L Initial meeting with city staff to review the project scope, schedule, and deliverables; map out final project timeline; begin the process of data collection and issues analysis; and clarify any outstanding questions or concerns. 2. Confirm plan format to include vision, guiding action statements, plan sections and implementation outcomes. 3. In partnership with city staff, develop and implement the community engagement effort, including plan branding and project communications. 4. Regular project meetings with staff and technical advisory team. 5. Preparation of ineeting summaries for all staff and engagement meetings and events. 6. Periodic reports to the City Administrator and Community Development Director. 7. Specific to Phase 1: o Project initiation meeting with staff and technical advisory team. o Develop the Community Context. ■ The data that describes who we are. ■ The data which provides insight into opportunities for growth and development on which Monticello can capitalize. ■ The data that describes who we will be. o Facilitate a community-wide preferred scenario plan resulting from an issues identification and response scenario process. o Establish the shared vision. o Develop specific guiding action statements in support of the vision. o Prepare a finalized document for adoption by the City Council to include: ■ Vision Statement ■ Action Statements ■ Preferred Scenarios ■ Community Context ■ Appendix of Engagement 8. Specific to Phase 2: o Project initiation meeting with staff and technical advisory team. o Review, update, and revise as applicable the contents of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan consistent with the city's vision and guiding action statements. o The Phase 2 project document will include the following components: • Executive Summary • Land Use: Chapter will require comprehensive review and analysis. o Residential o Commercial o Industrial o Parks, Pathways & Open Space o Downtown o Transition Areas/Mixed Use o Community Spaces & Uses • Economic Development: Chapter will require comprehensive review and analysis. This will include consultation with the city's financial consultant, Northland Securities, to respond to and develop recommended strategies. o Tax Base o Workforce � ' � o Development � o Redevelopment • Transportation: Chapter requires a minor update of the vehicular component, with primary focus pedestrian and bicycle components. o Vehicular o Pedestrian o Bicycle • Parks, Pathways F� Open Space: Chapter requires a minor update of the main components, with primary focus on the incorporation of noted guidance and development of the Downtown Open Space Plan. o Existing Parks & Pathways o System Objectives o System Plan - Parks and Pathways ■ Incorporation of Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment ■ Incorporation of Pathway Connections Guide Map ■ Incorporation of regional parks and pathway information ■ Incorporation of Safe Routes to School Plan recommendations o Downtown Open Space Plan • Utilities: RESERVED. Review current information as part of process. a. Water b. Sanitary Sewer c. Storm Sewer d. Green Infrastructure • Community Identity F� Culture: New chapter to be developed for the 2040 plan. o Plan chapters shall include specific support relating to the vision and guiding action statements. o Plan chapters shall include an implementation component for each chapter. o Plan shall include recommendations for suggested measurement against guiding action statements and vision. o As previously noted, the process shall include regular meetings with the technical advisory team. o Presentations and engagement with advisory boards or commissions as necessary for plan chapters. o Complete a legal review with the City Attorney for compliance with the requirements of Municipal Planning Act. 9. Presentation of draft plan sections to various boards/commissions, including all required public hearings, and final draft to Planning Commission and City Council for approval. � 13��age VI. ENGAGEMENT The project will require an extensive community engagement process. The project is specifically intended to foster relationships between city leaders, staff, residents and area stakeholders. Selected consultant(s) will anticipate involvement and coordination of engagement activities with city staff. The selected consultant(s) will provide a clear understanding of roles of staff and consultant in engagement activities as part of the proposal document. It is anticipated that Phase 1 of the project will require the most intense community engagement activity. Community-wide involvement is critical to building a shared vision and commitment to the project by the numerous stakeholders. Phase 2 of the project will continue to require community input at key points throughout the process, which are to be identified by the consultant based on project approach. For purposes of the 2040 Plan, the city's high priority populations to engage include: • Families • Low-income populations . � • Youth • Diverse and immigrant populations _ • Monticello Township residents • Seniors • Community partners: � o School District o Hospital o Business and Industry o Community organizations and non-profits • Regional partners - Monticello Township, cities of Big Lake and Becker, Wright and Sherburne counties It is expected that the selected consultant(s) will utilize a variety of tools and forums to achieve community-wide participation, including but not limited to those listed below. Professionally prepared and presented digital and print materials are a priority. • Website pages and updates • Social media posts - invitations and summaries • Non-traditional meeting venues • Engagement at partner locations • Pop-up meetings • Focus groups and workshops • Public presentation software and resources (visual preference, smart phone polling, etc.) • Portable project summary boards • E-newsletter • Press releases • Surveys (to the extent useful) VII VIII � TIMELINE (SUGGESTED) 1. Apri11, 2019 2. Apri12019 3. May 2019 4. May 2019 5. June - October 2019 6. November 2019 7. December 2019 8. January 2020 9. February - September 2020 10. October - December 2020 11. December 2020 DELIVERABLES Proposal submittals due Proposal review and interview Select consultant(s), contract Begin Phase 1- Data Analysis Community Scenario Planning & Visioning Formal Public/Board Review of Visioning Document and Guiding Action Statements Adopt Vision and Guiding Action Statements Begin Phase 2- Data Analysis Prepare and Draft Phase 2- Comprehensive Plan Formal Public/Board Review of Comprehensive Plan Adopt Final Comprehensive Plan The following items are required deliverables of the project and should be incorporated into your proposal narrative, timeline, work plan, and budget. 1. Project website (itemize as separate budget line item). 2. Electronic copies of all process and plan communication. 3. Electronic copies of the two plan documents (Phase 1 and 2), in edit-ready formats (Text in Word or Adobe InDesign format required, graphics in Adobe InDesign format, maps to be provided in both .dwg layers and .pdf) QUALIFICATIONS AND ROLES Multidisciplinary teams, which may be a single firm or a consultant team consisting of individuals and/or firms with specialized expertise, are encouraged to submit a proposal. Qualified firms will demonstrate: 1. Familiarity with scenario-based strategic planning 2. Experience at successfully developing consensus-based plans 3. Strong facilitation and engagement skills 4. Experience at gathering and utilizing data to inform the planning process 5. Knowledge of communications and branding 6. Ability to constructively challenge key participants 7. Experience inspiring stakeholders to think innovatively 8. Extensive experience in land use planning 9. Ability to coordinate among multiple stakeholders X. OWNERSHIP & RIGHTS The City of Monticello reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, to waive technical specifications or deficiencies, and to accept any proposal that it may deem to be in the best interest of the city. Although not preferred, the City reserves the right to select different consulting proposals for Phases 1 and 2. All work products and intellectual property resulting from the contract and defined scope of work and intellectual property will become the property of the City of Monticello. XI. BUDGET The total budget for the project for Phase 1 is $40,000. Phase 2 is anticipated to be budgeted for 2020. City staff is available to assist in completing and reviewing various plan sections, provide greater detail, context, and history, gather data, assist in meeting facilitations, and offer technical support. Additionally, City Hall is located within the Monticello Community Center and is equipped with media projection, production equipment, large format plotting and reproduction equipment, and meeting space. City staff can assist in arranging additional meeting and engagement event space at locations throughout the community. The proposed budget total should include all expenses and materials to deliver the work product. The city requests a proposed line item budget as part of the submittal package. The city will not be liable for any costs incurred by the consultant in the preparation of a proposal submitted in response to this RFP, in conduct of a presentation, or other activities related to responding to this RFP. No costs chargeable for work under this proposed contract may be incurred before receipt of either a fully executed contract with the city or specific written authorization from the City of Monticello. The final contract dollar amount will be negotiated with the selected consultant/team. If the city is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the selected firm, negotiations with that firm will terminate and the city may select another firm. XII. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL The following materials must be received by 4:00 p.m. (CDT) on Monday, April 1, 2019 for a proposal to be considered. During the evaluation process, the City of Monticello reserves the right to request additional information or seek clarification from a consultant/team, or to allow for corrections of errors and/or omissions. All submissions are to include the following components for each of the two �hases, prepared as separate itemized proposals. A. Project Overview 1. General Information: provide a brief overview of firm, including qualifications to execute the contract 2. Proposal Understanding: include a summary of the consultant's understanding of the project as described in this RFP, including the desire by the city for a strategic, community-focused plan B. Qualifications � 1. Personal Qualifications: a Identification of lead project manager and contact information b. Name, proposed role, hourly rate, anticipated time commitment to the project, and biography of each team member 2. References: include a list of at least three municipal clients for which consultant has conducted comprehensive planning, visioning, community engagement and/or land use analysis C. Proposal Submitted materials must provide a clear understanding of the proposed approach. 1. Project Overview: provide specific approaches, methods and assumptions that will be utilized to accomplish each task 2. Proposed Work Plan and Schedule: provide a proposed work plan divided into distinct phases and including a list of key tasks, milestones, approximate dates, project deliverables and resource needs 3. Community engagement plan: provide an overview of approach including anticipated activities, collaboration with city staff, and efforts to engage high priority populations 4. Budget: identify cost estimates for each segment of the scope of services and work plan. At minimum, identify costs for the following: i. Community engagement activities and materials ii. Staff and public meetings (include anticipated number) iii. Plan drafting and revision (include anticipated number and any consulting staff review) iv. Production of final document(s) v. Any other anticipated budgetary needs including incidentals All responses, questions and correspondence should be directed to the contact below. In the interest of fairness to all respondents, please do not contact other staff or elected or appointed officials unless instructed to do so. A list of questions and pertinent responses will be posted on the city's website. Angela Schumann Community Development Director City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Angela. schumann@ci.monticello.mn.us One electronic copy of the proposal, in Adobe PDF format, and ten (10) hard copies shall be submitted to the email and address above. � XIII. REVIEW PROCESS & SCORING The RFP subcommittee will evaluate and rank all submitted proposals. After conclusion of this review, the subcommittee will recommend the most qualified consulting teams or firms to the City CounciL The decision will not be made by ranking alone, but will be based on a combination including, but not limited to: ranking, presentation, proposal merit and other qualifications. The Council will review the recommendations and invite the top candidates to conduct a presentation before the Council, members of city staff and representatives of the Planning Commission. Presentations are expected to occur in April, 2019. The City Council will make the final decision on the consultant firm selection, with input from the subcommittee, Planning Commission and staff. Once authorized to proceed, the "most qualified" consulting team or firm will be expected to immediately assist in developing a final scope of services and contractual agreement. Scoring criteria follows. SCORING CRITERIA APPROACH Demonstration of an innovative and creative approach to scenario 15 points lannin Clear process to identify preferred scenario and action statements 15 points to address these issues A strategy is devised to draft a community-based vision based on 15 points develo ed consensus A comprehensive approach is taken that acknowledges the 10 points interconnectedness and com lexit of issues Design and language techniques will be engaged to make the 10 points lans accessible, eas to read, and eas to use Understanding of comprehensive planning requirements and 10 points detailed lan a roach to com letion A work plan is submitted that is realistic based on the level of the 15 points scope provided and identifies high-level goals, strategies and timeline COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Community engagement plan includes multiple engagement 15 points techni ues Specific tactics proposed to target high priority populations and 15 points create an inclusive lannin rocess Clear definition in roles of staff and consultant in the engagement 10 points rocess Planning process is designed with transparency of decision 10 points makin and im lementation strate 'es in mind A process is identified to regularly update the community on 10 points ro ess made towards im lementation of the lan BUDGET Pro osed bud et is reasonable and reflective of ro'ect needs 15 oints Lan a e is included statin the bud et is "not to exceed" 5 oints EXPERIENCE Project team has experience creating innovative, strategic and 10 points inter-related com rehensive lans Project team has experience creating action-oriented, phased 10 points im lementation lans Project team has the comprehensive skills, capacity and 5 points technolo 'cal resources needed to com lete the ro'ect At least three references are rovided 5 oints TOTAL 200 Points XIV. SUPPORTING REFERENCES & RESOURCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. www. ci.monticellamn.us. 2008 Comprehensive Plan, including all Appendices City of Monticello 2018 & 2019 Strategic Plan Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment Monticello Orderly Annexation Agreement Interchange Planning Study Trunk Highway 25 Coalition Study Materials 2017 Housing Study Area Comprehensive Plans - Wright County, Becker, Big Lake Resource Partners Monticello Independent School District Monticello Township � � Wright County Live Wright - Wright County Statewide Health Improvement Program CentraCare Health - Monticello Wright County Community Action - Central Minnesota Initiative Foundation XV. GUIDANCE REFERENCES City of Shakopee - Envision Shakopee, Comprehensive Plan City of Minnetonka - Imagine Minnetonka The Futurist.com 20�� Planning Commission Agenda — 02/OS/19 3C. Communitv Development Director's Report Council Action on Commission Recommendations • Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment from `Places to Shop' to `Places to Live' and a request for Zoning Map Amendment for Rezoning from B-4 (Regional Business District) to R-4 (Medium-High Residence Density Residence District) for a 125 unit senior living development. Applicant: Headwaters Development — Michael Hoagberg Council reconsidered the motions of December IOth, 2018 on .Ianuary 14th, 2019. Council voted to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and to Rezone the site to R-4 for senior housing; both motions 4-1 to approve. • Consideration of a request for Map Amendment (Rezoning) from A-O (Agriculture — Open Space) to R-1 (Single Family Residence) District, Development and Final Stage Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary and Final Plat for a 241ot single-family development. Applicant: Novak-Fleck Inc (Horst Graser) Council acted to approve the rezoning to R-1, the final plat, development agr�eement and final stage PUD for Featherstone 4th Addition on .Ianuary 28th, 2019. • Consideration of a request for Amendment to Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapter 4.5 Signs, Section 19 Dynamic Displays. Applicant: City of Monticello City Council approved the amendments to the sign ordinance on .Ianuary 2gth 2019 on the consent agenda. • Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapters and Sections relating to the Central Community District, Applicant: City of Monticello City Council approved the amendments to the CCD ordinance on .Ianuary 28th 2019 on the consent agenda. • Consideration of a request for Rezoning to Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Vehicle Sales & Rental for a Recreational Vehicle Dealership, and Preliminary Plat for Groveland Fifth Addition. Applicant: Monticello RV — Scott Kunz The applicant requested tabling of this item. The applicant is considering changes to the site and building plans which may require an amended application and public hearing at the Planning Commission level prior to moving on to Council consideration. Planning Commission Agenda - 02/OS/19 Downtown Round - January The third Downtown Round event was held on Thursday, January 17th at Rustech Brewing in Monticello. The session focused on answering questions about recent projects in the downtown and the proposed Walnut corridor improvements. The attendees also spent time generating ideas for promotion and marketing the downtown. Downtown Rounds will be set quarterly for 2019, with the next meeting scheduled for April 18th at a location to be determined. Outdoor Storage Amendment The amendment proposed in late 2018 to the Outdoor Storage provisions of the ordinance is not moving forward at this time. Should the need arise to address changes of that nature, a new public hearing will be requested. 2 �t]EFARTIMENT OF TRANSPt]RTATI[3N DATE: Ja nua ry 21, 2018 TO: Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Distribution List FROM: Claudia Dumont, Minnesota DepartmentofTransportation(MnDOT) SUBJECT: I-94 Reconstructionfrom ClearwatertoAlbertville (SP 8680-173) Environmental Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet — Notice of Availability Enclosed please find the Environmental Assessment (EA)/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the I- 94 Reconstruction from Clearwaterto Albertville project (State Project 8680-173). The proposed project includes reconstruction of I-94eastbound and westbound from Trunk Highway(TH) 24 in Clearwaterto CSAH 37 in Albertville. Thisenvironmental document alsoevaluatesthe addition of athird lane both eastbound and westbound I-94 between Clearwaterand Albertville. The total project length is approximately 24.2 miles. Due to length and funding constraints, this corridor has been divided into segments. Major construction between Clearwaterand Monticello is anticipatedto begin in 2020 and last twoconstruction seasons; with some minor construction (i.e. temporary pavement and crossovers) starting late in 2019. The segment between Monticello and Albertville is unfunded atthe currenttime. This EAwas prepared as a part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and state environmental review process to fulfill requirements of both 42 USC § 4332 and Minnesota StatutesChapter 116D. Atthe federal level, the EA is used to provide sufficient environmental documentation to determine the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or that a Finding of No Significant I mpact (FONSI) is appropriate. This document also serves as an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1300 allowsthe EAtotakethe place ofthe EAWform, provided thatthe EAaddresseseach oftheenvironmental effects identified in the EAW form. This EA includes each ofthe environmental effects identified in the EAW form. It is used to provide sufficient environmental documentation to determine the need for a state EIS or that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. The Minnesota Department ofTransportation is the proposer and Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this project. Preparation of an EAW is considered mandatoryunder Minnesota Rules, part 4410.4300, subpart 22, item B. This document is made available for public review and comment in accordance with the requirements of 23 CFR 771.119(d) and Minnesota Rules, part4410.1500through 4410.1600. Copies of the EA/EAW are being distributed toagencies on the current Minnesota Environmental Quality Board distribution list and other interested parties. The EA/EAW can be accessed electronically on MnDOT'swebsite at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i94-m�-clearwater/. It will also be available in hard copy atthe following locations: • MnDOT- 3725 12th Street North, Saint Cloud, MN 56303 • Great River Regional Library, Saint Cloud - 1300 West St. Germain St, Saint Cloud, MN 56301 • Great River Regional Library, Monticello - 200 W 6th St, Monticello, MN 55362 • Great River Regional Library, St. Michael -11800 Town Center Dr, St Michael, MN 55376 • Great River Regional Library, Clearwater-740 ClearwaterCtr, Clearwater, MN 55320 �DEPARTIMENT OF TRANSPt]RTATI[3N A public hea ring on the EA/EAW will be held on January 29, 2019 from 6:00 p. m. to 8:00 p. m. at the Monticello Community Center (North Mississippi Room) Iocatedat505 Walnut Street, Monticello, MN 55362. Verbal and written comments will be recorded. Written comments on the EA/EAW will be acceptedthrough February 20, 2019 and should be directed to: Claudia Dumont Project Manager MnDOT 3725 12t" Street N Sa int Cloud, M N 56303 Cla udia. Dumont@state. mn. us Enclosure: I-94 Reconstruction from ClearwatertoAlbertville project Environmental Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (January 2019)