The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 12-03-2019AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 3rd, 2019 - 6:15 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson, John Alstad, Paul Konsor, and Alison Zimpfer 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 — November 4th, 2019 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 for an Accessory Structure in the Front Yard and Setback of 20 feet in the I-1 (Light Industrial) District Applicant: Matthew Jackson/Polaris 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration to adopt the 2019 Planning Commission Workplan for 2020 Workplan Preparation B. Consideration of the Community Development Directors Report 4. Added Items 5. Adjournment MINUTE S REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, November 4th, 2019 - 6:15 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson, John Alstad, and Paul Konsor Commissioners Absent: Alison Zimpfer Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Steve Grittman (NAC), Matt Leonard, Jim Thares, and Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order Sam Murdoff called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:15 p.m. B. Consideration of approvin� minutes a. Re�ular Meetin� Minutes — October lst, 2019 MARC SIMPSON APPROVED THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — OCTOBER 1ST, 2019. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. b. Special/Joint Meetin� Minutes — Au�ust 12th, 2019 MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL/JO1NT MEETING MINUTES — AUGUST 12TH, 2019. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. C. Citizen Comments � �� None. D. Consideration of addin� items to the a�enda None. E. Consideration to approve agenda MARC SIlVIl'SON MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 2. Public Hearings A. Public Hearin� — Request for Amendment to the Rivertown Suites Planned Unit Development for site and buildin� amendments Applicant: RiverTown Residential Suites, LLC Steve Grittman introduced the item and noted that the applicant was seeking an adjustment to Planned Unit Development. The project was approved for Planned Unit Development in 2018 due to the density of the proj ect. Since construction of the site, several issues have come up and need review by the City. Ground water was encountered on the site, requiring the site to be raised one foot in height. The applicant also was seeking the following changes, reapportioning the building Planning Commission Minutes — November 4th, 2019 Page 1 � 10 materials, removal of wall features above the roofline, retaining wall addition, changes to buffer screening and removal of the fence along the east portion of the site. Staff recommended keeping the fence, but recommended approval of the application with conditions. Sam Murdoff asked for clarification on the ground water issue. Matt Leonard explained that the water was perched water, but the applicant decided to move forward with revised plans. Murdoff also asked about the grade. It was noted that the applicant had to install a retaining wall to support the sidewalk. Architectural and building materials were discussed. Exhibit Z of the staff report indicated that it was staff's recommendation to retain the fence as originally approved. In the alternative that the fence would be removed, staff would recommend dense evergreen shrubs in the area over lilacs. Murdoff asked for the length of the fence. Grittman estimated that it was 160 feet. John Alstad asked what the intent of the fence was. Grittman explained that there was concern that parking would spill over to the commercial site to the east. The fence would serve as a buffer. Alstad asked for clarification on the monument sign. Grittman explained that it was a 4 x 6 foot sign. The location would be along Locust Street. Staff recommended moving the sign as close to the building as possible. Murdoff asked if there would be enough space for an evergreen planting along the east portion of the site. Grittman explained that there is four feet, six inches of separation from the curb and adequate space would be available. Paul Konsor asked if there were any concerns with drainage with the height addition. Grittman noted that the total impervious surface coverage was not changing. Leonard stated that the drainage plan was reviewed and acceptable. Sam Murdoff opened the public hearing. Lloyd Hilgart, 6413 82"d Street NE, noted that he was a member of the EDA and recommended no changes from the original plans due to the infusion of money from the EDA to the applicant. Charlotte Gabler asked if the application would also need to be reviewed by the EDA. Jim Thares explained that it would need to be approved by the EDA. Hilgart asked if the sign was asked for in the original PUD agreement. Grittman noted that in the original PUD, the applicant was to specify sign requirements. Clarence McCarty, 319 W. 3rd Street, explained that he no longer has tv reception due to the height of the building. Discussion between the Planning Commission and staff continued. Planning Commission Minutes — November 4th, 2019 Page 2 � 10 Murdoff asked if the sign that they were proposing was large for the proj ect. Grittman explained that in a typical suburban site, the sign would be small, but since it is located in the downtown, he thought the sign was acceptable. SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PG2019-033, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED PUD AMENDMENT, BUT WITH CHANGES REFLECTED 1N THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION BELOW, AND AS REFLECTED 1N EXHIBIT Z WITH THE EXCEPTION CONDITION B, IT SHOULD STATE "RETAINING ORIGINAL MASONRY/STEEL MATERIALS REFLECTED 1N ORIGINAL PLAN". MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-1 WITH PAUL KONSOR VOTING IN OPPOSITION OF THE MOTION AND REQUESTED TABLING OF ACTION. EXHIBIT Z Conditions of Approval Rivertown Suites PUD Amendment 213 3''d Street West Lotsl-3, Block 36, Original Plat 1, Compliance with each of the original requirements of PUD approval, with the modifications only as specified below: a. Exterior masonry wall treatment similar to the proposed stone used elsewhere extending to the ground elevation b. Retention of the masonry/steel materials and pattern to reflect the plans approved as a part of the original PUD. c. Retention of the vertical "wing-wall" extensions above the roof line as proposed and approved with the original PUD. d. Retention of the required fence per the original PUD condition. e. Addition of the monument sign as proposed, but shifted in location as far from the right of way as possible. £ Detail specification of the materials and color of the proposed modular block retaining walls to match the color of the masonry on the building. g. Comments and requirements of the City Engineer. h. Comments and requirements of other staff and Planning Commission. B. Public Hearin� - Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Places to Shop to Places to Live, Rezonin� from B-4 (Re�ional Business) to Planned Planning Commission Minutes — November 4th, 2019 Page 3 � 10 Unit Development, Development Sta�e Planned Unit Development, and Preliminarv Plat for a proposed multi-storv, multi-familv, apartment complex (3 buildin�s) with approximatelv 165 units Applicant: Dale Buchholz Construction (Mark Buchholz) Steve Grittman introduced the item. He noted that the applicant was applying for several land use approvals. Grittman explained that the applicant proposed amending the Comprehensive Plan from Places to Shop to Places to Live. For a total of 8 acres of the subject parcel (16 acres total). Grittman showed the Planning Commission the site plan. He said that the proposal was to construct three separate buildings of a total of 165 residential units. Grittman explained that a PUD is required because the proposal was for three separate buildings on one parcel. A plat would also be required. It was noted that the final plat may appear different than the preliminary plat. The applicant may demonstrate the commercial parcels as Outlots until future development is ready to proceed. Grittman explained that the applicant had sought Concept Stage PUD and received feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council. Discussion has also occurred with Staff and Boards to discuss an overall concept for the area that would include common stormwater, open space, and public sidewalks. Grittman noted that the apartment complexes would have under building parking. The first floor would be dedicated for such parking and the end through the 4tn floor would be residential units. Grittman also went into detail about the circulation plan and noted that access would occur on Edmonson and Cedar. It would be a phased development and based on the market. Grittman also reviewed the building materials and site lighting. Staff recommended approval of the application, with conditions as indicated in Exhibit Z. Sam Murdoff asked about having the trash dumpsters inside the building per the Exhibit Z conditions. Grittman explained that typically staff or the trash handler handle it. The underground parking has adequate space to accommodate. Murdoff also asked about access to Edmonson. Grittman explained that it is the intent to always limit access for collector routes, but it was not always possible. This allows for a safer roadway conditions. Paul Konsor asked for clarification on the phasing system. Konsor asked about connection into the future commercial development sites for better traffic flow and access. Grittman explained the phasing system and noted that it was an important consideration. Planning Commission Minutes — November 4th, 2019 Page 4 � 10 John Alstad asked why it was important to have a shared access agreement. Grittman explained that the driveway would squeeze between two commercial lots. There would be a lot of shared access for properties which necessitates the easement agreement. Charlotte Gabler asked if in previous plans the driveway separated the residential from commercial. Grittman explained that it could have been, but that the plans have changed several times. Grittman explained that the driveway was pushed to the south to help with safety and pushed it away from the Chelsea and Edmonson intersection. Buffering between commercial and residential uses was discussed. It was noted that the buffering requirement would be shared between users. Gabler asked about the stormwater management for the area. Grittman explained that it was noted in Exhibit Z that the applicant would work together to create a regional pond. Sam Murdoff opened the public hearing. Mark Buchholz, developer, introduced himself and thanked staff and the Planning Commission. He explained his excitement for the project and noted that they were letting the City guide them through the development. Murdoff asked if there were any concerns with the Exhibit Z conditions. Buchholz stated that everything seemed reasonable. Murdoff asked when the second access to Cedar would be installed. Buchholz noted that it would be constructed with the second building construction. Konsor asked for clarification on the phasing plan. Buchholz noted that phase one would begin in the spring or summer. Phase two would begin the following year. Phase three would begin in three years. The third phase will be market driven and could be flexible. Hearing no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Decision 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Places to Shop to Places to Live SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PG2019-029 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, REGUIDING AN APPROXIMATELY 8.06 ACRE PARCEL (LOT 7, BLOCK 1 OF THE DEEPHAVEN ADDITION) FROM "PLACES TO SHOP" TO "PLACES TO LIVE", BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION THAT THE PRO7ECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DIRECTION FOR THE CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL LAND TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, SUB7ECT TO COMPLETION OF THE PUD REZONING, PUD AND PRELINIINARY PLAT PROCESSES. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes — November 4th, 2019 Page 5 � 10 Decision 2. Rezoning to "PUD", Planned Unit Development SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PG2019-030 RECONINIENDING APPROVAL OF THE A REZONING FROM B-4, REGIONAL BUSINESS TO PUD, DEEPHAVEN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON FINDINGS 1N SAID RESOLUTION THAT THE PRO7ECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONIl'REHENSIVE PLAN DIRECTION FOR THE CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL LAND TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPECTATIONS OF BOTH MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND PUD DESIGN, SUB7ECT TO APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSNE PLAN AMENDMENT, COMPLETION OF THE PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT PROCESSES, AND THE CONDITIONS LISTED 1N EXHIBIT Z. MARC SIMPSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Decision 3. Development Stage PUD SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PG2019-031 RECONINIENDING APPROVAL OF THE A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR THE DEEPHAVEN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON FINDINGS 1N SAID RESOLUTION THAT THE PRO7ECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DIRECTION FOR THE CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL LAND TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPECTATIONS OF BOTH MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND PUD DESIGN, SUB7ECT TO APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSNE PLAN AMENDMENT, COMPLETION OF THE PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT PROCESSES, AND THE CONDITIONS LISTED 1N EXHIBIT Z. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Decision 4. Preliminary Plat for Deephaven SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PG2019-032 RECONIN�NDING APPROVAL OF THE A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE DEEPHAVEN ADDITION, BASED ON FINDINGS 1N SAID RESOLUTION THAT THE PRO7ECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DIRECTION AND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, SUB7ECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF EXHIBIT Z, AND TO THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING TO PUD AND PUD PROCESSES. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. EXHIBIT Z Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Stage PUD and Preliminary Plat Planning Commission Minutes — November 4th, 2019 Page 6 � 10 Deephaven Addition PID 155-500-142104 1. The City approves the flexibility incorporated into the plans cited in the staff comments for parking count, setback, shared access, multiple buildings on a single-parcel, unit size, and site landscaping subj ect to the modifications required by Exhibit Z. 2. Shift the west building farther to the west and south to open up views into the site from the northwest corner. The applicant continues to cooperate with the City's efforts to expand the site planning and common stormwater and open space improvements to the south, including dedications and final improvements, and construction access as necessary, among other requirements. 4. The applicant supplies the required traffic study and stormwater management plans and complies with the comments in response to the review of those documents. 5. The applicant revises the plan to show all pathways noted in the report, and constructs pathways for private use as a part of the PUD approval, and pathways for public use as a credit against the required park dedication. 6. The applicant enters into an agreement to manage shared access across the commercial lots to the west. 7. The applicant shifts the Edmonson Avenue access point to abut the property line, and agrees to accommodate shared access at the time of redevelopment of the adj oining parcel. 8. The applicant dedicates the right of way areas as recommended by the City Engineer and participates in the required improvements for that roadway to ensure its capacity for increased development, including pathway construction. 9. The City accepts the parking lot design and quantities as proposed, with the following exception: a. Redesign on the west building parking lot to accommodate a flow for exiting vehicles, including emergency service access and egress. An example of this design is illustrated in this report. 10. The applicant improves the private open spaces, and develops a phasing plan for private open space improvements, for consideration by the City and incorporation into the PUD development agreement. This shall include consideration of a playground facility on- site. 11. The applicant modifies the landscape plan to add shrub plant materials along the foundation areas of the building where the garage level is exposed. This modification Planning Commission Minutes — November 4th, 2019 Page 7 � 10 may result in lower tree planting quantities, but shall not drop below minimum requirements. 12. The applicant provides landscape irrigation to all landscaped areas. 13. The landscaping plans are modified to add the required buffer plantings at the north and west perimeter of the site. 14. The landscaping plans are modified to add the required landscaped island delineator spaces in the parking lot areas. 15. The plan is revised to incorporate trash handling within the garage areas of the building. 16. Brick or cultured stone is added to the building facing consistent with the comments in this report, or to at least 20% of the building face. 17. The EFIS base material is enhanced to add architectural pilaster components to the corners of the building base to emphasize the corners and de-emphasize the flat-wall impression of the ground floor. 18. The applicant adds window openings to the ground floor wall. 19. Commercial lighting areas are designed to avoid any glare or lighting impacts on the residential property. 20. The applicant complies with the recommendations of the Parks Commission as approved by the City Council for park dedication. 21. Final signage plans are provided and subject to review prior to final PUD consideration. 22. The Plat is modified to include easement dimensions consistent with Subdivision Ordinance requirements. 23. The preliminary plat is revised to reflect the outlot configuration described for the commercial area. 24. The Plat is modified to include an outlot for public space at Cedar and Chelsea of approximately 50 feet by 50 feet. The City will work with the applicant to create an appropriate plaza design and maintenance agreement that enhances access and development of the adj oining commercial land. 25. The applicant complies with the requirements of the City Engineer's report, including requirements for stormwater, right-of-way, and easements, dated October X, 2019. 26. Should compliance with final stormwater analysis require a substantive change to the lots or site plan layout for the PUD, the applicant will be required to submit an amended application to the City for review. Planning Commission Minutes — November 4th, 2019 Page 8 � 10 27. The applicant proceeds to Final PUD and Final Plat within the timelines addressed in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and prepares revised development stage PUD and Preliminary Plat documents consistent with the conditions approved by the City Council. 28. The applicant enters into a development and PUD agreement for the plat and PUD. 29. Comments and conditions of other staff and Planning Commission. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration to find acquisition of 300 East 4th Street in conformance with the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. Jim Thares introduced the topic and noted that the EDA would be considering entering into a purchase agreement at their Regular Meeting on November 14tn The parcel is located at 300 East 4th Street and is guided as "Places to Live" in the Comprehensive Plan. The site is a half of an acre and adj acent to a vacant right of way (Palm Street). To the west of the right of way, is an EDA acquired property. The purchase of 300 East 4th Street would be marketed for redevelopment. Discussion regarding the type of redevelopment occurred. Thares indicated that it could be affordable townhomes or apartment. It was noted that future land use applications would be likely. Paul Konsor asked what would happen to the exiting structure if the EDA purchased the property. Thares indicated it would be destroyed. MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2019-034 FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN LAND AT 300 EAST 4TH STREET BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF MONTICELLO COMPREHENSNE PLAN. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. B. Consideration of comment on the 2019 Plannin� Commission Workplan for 2020 Workplan Preparation Steve Grittman noted that the Community Development Department is looking for items to focus on for the 2020 year. Comments should be sent via email to Angela Schumann by the end of the month. C. Consideration of the Communitv Development Directors Report The Community Development Director's Report was provided in the packet. 4. Added Items None. Planning Commission Minutes — November 4th, 2019 Page 9 � 10 5. Adjournment MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:07 P.M PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: December 3rd, 2019 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes — November 4th, 2019 Page 10 � 10 Planning Commission Agenda — 12/03/19 2A. Public Hearing — Consideration of a repuest for variance for an Accessorv Structure in the Front Yard and Setback of 20 feet in the I-1 (Li�ht Industrial) District. Applicant: Matthew Jackson/Polaris (NAC) Property: Planning Case Number: Legal: PID: 155-066-001010 Lot 1, Block 1, Remmele Addition Address: 213 Chelsea Road East 2019-036 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND: Request(s): Deadline for Decision: Land Use Designation: Zoning Designation: Variance request to encroach into setback. January 14, 2020 Placesto Work I-1, Light Industrial District The purpose of the "I-1," light industrial, district is to provide for the establishment of warehousing and light industrial development. Overlays/Environmental Freeway Bonus Sign District Regulations Applicable: Current Site Use: Surrounding Land Uses: North: East: South: West: NA Hotel / Commercial Interstate 94 Fallon Avenue Overpass - Industrial Industrial Industrial Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct external mechanical equipment which is necessary to support an internal manufacturing line. Due to the nature of the process, the mechanical equipment must be located near an external wall, close to the manufacturing process. The proposed location is within the required setback from a public street, and the applicants are seeking a variance to accommodate the facility. Planning Commission Agenda — 12/03/19 ANALYSIS Variance to side vard setback. The variance request is to encroach into the sideyard setback on the eastern part of the property. Normally, the narrowest side of the property fronting a public street is considered the front yard. However, in this case, the building faces and is addressed from Chelsea. The Subdivision Ordinance utilizes a definition of "street" as a public right of way that provides access. Since Fallon Avenue does not provide access to this parcel (due to grade and intersection design), staff is treating Chelsea Road as the defined front lot line, making the Fallon frontage (where the encroachment is proposed) a side yard. The required setback for side yards adjacent to a public right of way is 30 feet, the same as the front setback The proposed setback for the equipment is approximately 21 feet from a public right-of-way. However, the parcel provided additional ROW and easement to accommodate the grade and construction of the Fallon Avenue overpass. Prior to the Fallon Avenue proj ect, the setback would have been approximately 31 feet in this location, in compliance with the zoning requirement. When reviewing variances, the Planning Commission, sitting as the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals, is required to consider whether the proposed use is a reasonable one, given the site and the neighborhood, and whether there are unique conditions of the property that create practical difficulties in putting the property to this reasonable use. 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 12/03/19 In this case, the applicant is proposing to install the equipment in a location that, prior to the road construction, would have met the required setback in a side yard. Moreover, the grade of the road increases as it ramps up to the overpass. This condition is also a result of the City road proj ect. The applicant is proposing to construct a fence that will help screen view of the equipment, although the road elevation will make this more difficult to achieve. The expansion resulting in the variance request does not encroach into the nearby utility and drainage easement. The proposed fence construction or detail has not been identified by the applicant. Per the zoning ordinance, fences on industrial property may be constructed up to 7 feet in height, or even higher when more than 20 feet from the side property line. Rather than an overly tall fence, planning staff would recommend landscaping in addition to the fence, such as a small line of evergreen shrubs to break up the view. This would be particularly important if the applicant is proposing chain link fence construction. The City Engineer's office has reviewed the plans and noted that as the proposal indicates as an extension of approximately 15' out from the building it does not appear to affect drainage. A condition requiring compliance with drainage considerations is included in Exhibit Z. But for the loss of the right of way for the Fallon overpass project, the required setback would be met from this property line. Moreover, the applicant is taking steps to accommodate screening of the equipment, and the facility is not encroaching toward other privately used property. As such, planning staff believes that the variance request is a reasonable one, given the unique conditions on the site (the loss of setback area due to the City's street proj ect), the proposed screening and the degree of encroachment proposed. The applicant has discussed other alternative locations for the equipment that would avoid the variance request, none of which appear to be suitable to the internal needs of the business. With this, the test for "practical difficulties" appears to be met, and the requirements for variance can be justified. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Decision 1. Variance from the side yard to allow a setback of approximately 21 feet. L Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2019-035 approving the variance of the subject property to allow encroachment into the 30-foot side yard setback as proposed on the application plans, based on findings made in said resolution, and subject to the conditions identified in Exhibit Z. Planning Commission Agenda — 12/03/19 2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution No. 2019-035 for the variance of the subject property to allow encroachment of the 30-foot side yard setback, based on findings to be identified following the public hearing. 3. Motion to table action on the Resolution, subj ect to additional information from staff and/or the applicant. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions 2019-035, approving the requested variance. The resolution includes suggested conditions identified in Exhibit Z. As noted, the expansion represents a reasonable and expected use of the subj ect property, and can be accommodated with the existing improvements, both private and public. Due to the changes to the property that resulted from the City's Fallon Avenue proj ect, there are practical difficulties in putting the property to what would have been a reasonable permitted use prior to the road project. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Variance Resolution No. 2019-035. B. Aerial Image, SubjectProperty C. Applicant Narrative D. Site Illustrations E. Site Survey Z. Conditions of Approval � Planning Commission Agenda — 12/03/19 EXHIBIT Z Variance to Side Yard Setback WSI/Polaris Industries Lot 1, Block 1, Remmele Addition 213 Chelsea Road East 1. The applicant provide additional information describing the proposed screening fence. 2. Addition of evergreen shrub plantings along the fence line to supplement the visual screening of the equipment installation. 3. The applicant provides for the accurate location and dimensions location of the equipment on the certified survey. 4. Drainage patterns are required to remain the same with the installation of the system. 5. Compliance with any conditions identified by the City Engineer. 6. Conditions identified by other staff or Planning Commission. 5 Date: Motion By: CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. Resolution No. Seconded By: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WHEREAS, the applicant operates an existing hotel at 213 Chelsea Road East, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Remmele Addition; and WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial District, in which manufacturing establishments are allowed as permitted uses; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to add mechanical equipment necessary to support an allowed manufacturing process; and WHEREAS, the proposed expansion will encroach into the required side yard setback adj acent to a public street, requiring a variance; and WHEREAS, the proposed encroachment will be less than ten feet into a required setback of 30 feet; and WHEREAS, the expansion will otherwise be consistent with the improvements currently on the property; and WHEREAS, the proposed land use is a reasonable use of the subject property, consistent with the land uses in the area, including other industrical establishments; and WHEREAS, the right of way adj acent to the side yard was acquired by the City for a road improvement, which created a setback requirement that would not have impacted the proposed location; and WHEREAS, the City expects no further need for public street improvements within the subject yard or easement area for the foreseeable future; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the matter at its regular meeting on December 3rd, 2019 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 recommendation of approval: 1. The proposed expansion is consistent with the intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use is reasonable, given the conditions in the area, and on the subj ect property. 3. There are practical difficulties in using the lot as proposed without approval of the proposed variance. 4. The proposed expansion will otherwise meet the requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for consideration of the proposed setback variance. 5. The proposed expansion will not create undue burdens on public systems, including streets and utilities. 6. The proposed use will not create substantial impacts on neighboring land uses that are not within the expectations of the current zoning allowances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, sitting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, Minnesota that the proposed Variance is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: The applicant provide additional information describing the proposed screening fence. 2. Addition of evergreen shrub plantings along the fence line to supplement the visual screening of the equipment installation. 3. The applicant provides for the accurate location and dimensions location of the equipment on the certified survey. 4. Drainage patterns are required to remain the same with the installation of the system. 5. Compliance with any conditions identified by the City Engineer. 2 6. Conditions identified by other staff or Planning Commission. ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 2019, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION : ATTEST: Sam Murdoff, Chair Angela Schumann, Community Development Director o . V ��' Y . 4�. .. ' � , . � �.' r� . ... . 't r' �.',� � �.�.. +� f ' � " � �� O l 1 : � "� � y� i,i.si . � CV � � !. � • " , � � � �i . � 35� a.�.. _ �� ` �,�:` * A'� ^ ��1�1 � I v "�;� r,� ' � i , �.,M „ F � y' ; �`� ' � � � G f�, y � .. .* r:�i � ,�, -p G �,, � �� „ � � � E� i G' a; " P i' ' ' i.r+ ¢ � `° f �'-.M' �. , --T` ° + ' !�. - r�. � (� .. • �. ,'r♦ ��y_ �y�. � � +� �I�' �"-�� G� t . � �.f� . � _ !� � �� ' , .+w �� ''�� --F ❑ '�` - .',�' �. ` -� �- tV . ,� � � � � �� 1�'' Q Q ... "` .R+ �+a -s iry/ -, �LI � �, " , • An1 rr} � �� " Y • V � r— +r� � ,i�, +�64 .. �'� � �1 . � � i ri�y �p � ...' , ' _ � �� , . F�r�y �F i4 � - !/ � ! l.� .. � � e� ��1•� � �'7�' � � )�'I ,� . � ti�.. /r�71 -. � .� 1 �. �, A �� 4 � . n , �?� � - fl' . � � r ' . � "L ��' �� 1„ �� T, . . . . . � Y �. � r �* . � �: ,'/p" F�'-�' -*� +r '- -- k �,�`, ,��° : '`�: .� ,r7.. '+' � � 1 . � � � !� / _ .. .. i �i � N �''Y • C'! � . ; �--� � - CI C7 G��.. - uV , ?: j � :'� � � ��'�' ��r. '��': : p• ` _ ,� - ; �!lr, . _ �r � � � � � � � . � �y �_ '-� ` ,� � � � � �: 'g � � 5 C+ �, . `�I,`-� .�� , c''] ,t""} �: . l[1. lCy � � . . ■ � 7,�y . ��!} � i r e'�:� G�" ,��e � J � �. _ �S3 u7 • �e' �7 u7 � � � ' � � r ��Q@� I_�� .. � ' . 4 . . _' Id f ��IfS". ' i � y � , t . ' ` 1 � 'i� r.. ' i' - . -�_` _ _ _ _ . . , � � ,. 't. ''� ��lYr� '" � � T � `� � � ' ~ iµ� }� �� r .� 0 � t�� J �a� . � � � � � r°� E� f IX _ �U' � � � ,,,� - �Y r� �� . U _ i .t }� � '�d',1� u�-, '� � ` � � � e � . � �; �,"� �''' � � , E � s: � � �N � _ � � f ; - � wq y '3 '4 ,, !F �.` �Rfi,��i s �� '� +'�- •� U ��y, `m.,C�.. �f/M1■ ,�ry � : �,_ .f - e . _� \ ('� -��. � , Y' � ^F.,�s. � F, T - ' � i 4 '�,� � � � . : . �' � CV �^r � �,�. ,�; ► ,�� , �• ' „"7�y. +a, _ - � �� i ., � O - /'•r . �" F' � . � ' TI�. � p r - �` ' �'' * v N ��'� � �� ►- , T � � r _ �--� c-I � � '�" € �t i' ,�� • F + �� m� � ` �+ . �+ � _ �$ �� G Q � `�' E ' - , � � 7 " '� �'� � � � Q CV � � a.�, '� � -.' � - N � i ��: �`� •�� ,� � ' `� � +I��i .� e �j. � � � �1r� - � r..�i .. , � �� =* � ' , �00 C� � '/��y� 06 r N W •Y ! . ' � fF` � P, r�y 1� � ■ � � � �� Y� � Q � ,� • V 'f-`�'�. r�� 4 ��' ' � � � �- ��;_ �� x � :�: r �� ' ��' '��. ;�f � ' � . . N�n � � : f � .e�� i►� �— :,. . _ . � � `�....,� : !- � � �,�. � r � u� ' �`�,..-� '11� '�< ", �L � '�� t ' .� �` ,.��i��.' �� ,'�-y - �c.� ,� � � �- • , .,. f� • ' " - _ OCa � ` �-� � � t j ' �/ , '` c''T, � � ti. � �� s� O a '``^�-`". lt f Jt �u�'T�. +._, '�, �, ,,... � r � � ��:�. � a c ",� I � *,;:.,n�-' _ - v ,., ,- �. : o ,�' �, ;Bk�;' �, � �,.�` . _ � � ' - ` � . a�" � (J� +� ; j . p . , -p'; , �,��- � ; � � � J �fl `' �i` � �'� �i � � � � ■ , � . �G � �� i17 � ^ ^, .. �V�� -� i � M L > `-SC ,�^,k'1'� i" ��4'y� �� 'I�i.�.w' • � f f+�� a R� k L �i a w 0 N pF� . �. tli�!' . � "�� '` IIIs' _ � V ' ' _ " I 't' C7� X — � � � � � �T-�- �� "' . � Ir -❑ r � � .. 'r' . [� �. � U r i � 4� � � � � �+ � � � �� `�� ° v . i v� i�� . � r � � � ,� �� - � � � � '; �,a � v �' �, � • Fv 3 �c � � A -- -- u� �° ' � �n+ . �3 , _ , � ` . � � ;. � ,. '� . , � `'� �- , ", � : �. �,�, . ,� I � a��n O u�y� ;�� ¢ `� �'.� r1':.:--.�u._ � � ,.'_'z " � m =; � �n - . � � . _ aF � -I .....�.�«.-... � � �, � p ' � w� !""' "`" ,. , ti . � � I � �� _ ' I�� .. �"� ' : ; Criteria for Variance 11-15-2019 WSI Polaris has made a significant investment in High Pressure Die Cast capital equipment that will expand manufacturing capabilities as well as create new jobs in the city of Monticello. The equipment is temperature sensitive and will require a closed loop heat control system to regulate the thermal conditions of the various components in the process. This heat control system equipment uses outside ambient air to modify processing fluid. Engineering has determined the critical distance from Die Cast components to the heat control system equipment. It is this recommended distance that locates the equipment alongside the South/East side WSI building as shown below with Yellow Arrow. Equipment area is 43' x 15' The location will require a variance approval to go from a 30' front yard setback to a 20' front yard setback from the outside edge of our new cooling equipment. This site will be prepped with concrete to conform with the water drainage patterns as well as a privacy fence shown below. Equipment area is 43' x 15' which includes concrete and fencing. Variance Approval Criteria Approval of a Variance may only be made upon a determination that practical difficulties will result based on all of the following criteria: * The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if the provisions of this ordinance are strictly applied. — In order to meet the distance requirements for the cooling process there were only a few spots on the WSI that were an option. * The circumstances rendering the property unusable are unique to the property. The property because of the Fallon overpass addition, has 2 front sides. These are the only 2 that can be considered for this project because of the distance from the machines inside the building. * The circumstances rendering the property unusable were not created by the owner thereof. The side being considered was well within the setback rules until the Fallon overpass road was put in. * A Variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The location is below the street view and the opposite side of the pedestrian sidewalk along Fallon Road. That along with the privacy fencing should not negatively impact the character of the area. * 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. The 3 other locations that were considered all had significant negative impacts. The East side walkway would have partially blocked the employee entrance. The parking lot location parallel to South side of building would eliminate 5 parking places which would create a space issue for employees as well as significant construction work for water drainage. The Rooftop location was not feasible due to the weight of the equipment — structural analysis showed the existing roof structure was not able to support the equipment load. � I � I , � f _ _ _ ___ -� _ _ _ _ _ � -__ _ � � � � � �� . � �� Q� �a - � U � K Q N � � � 2 Q N K � z 3 a S � o oa a o� w3 O � 5 � O O � 03 - �N wa m� Za SO 3e�i�3p rc� r3r� NOIltltlOdtlOJ 0GiU33NIflN3 � � 9sas ics(c�c �a wrv 2H�rzu� 9616 StrS C 9i1 SZ 'd 'Z 'dht '4t l€1 'D35 6Q9b- b NR �,Lodu a�W 4i U Q�e 1IZ4 NW' 'Ol�3�llNOW s�iaisnaNr rsm 'JNI 'S3Ri1S(IONf ISM ,�nans auu oNv� i�rs�v/viiv (��z �.�� . ��, r °"„�,ti ��sasza��N ~+•.,�""�.. �' � w > �� z ��E ' � E _ � e O F w U � �, W W � $ � � P. z � � - ° i o � a k a i $ � � � � r� , � � � � � �. P� � q �� ; � � � � � � i � E" = � N .� �� U - � � q _ � �..? n G" �� I ,w � � � f r,�,7�� .. ,�,<� - a �z.,.� � . w �E �_ ��3z �_�c c�l n M» e � � � 4_._ � � `� \\ .� �� \ � � \ �� 'Yo?� •, � --- -� � �' � ,� � e� � � � ��, �b, � ,�� .� �� , �� \ ` a . �:\"�4. � . �: ;`;f. � �� ;z= '� • r ,� . � - . ;�, F� ""�'�" "�� >, � r `�� ' �;�" " ` a K �� J �"�,f .0 �� iR _ ' _ � . . ,�=� �'�� , � .. ° . E � �` ;�, �r ` 1� �,.,r "� - ,;e,. r � . � a y'F� �.�. �_. < � � � � � �3: .- � � � � �� .. . - r e '�,: s� c�'' ;:. _ : � �"� � } � � �1f��a # :� _ ..� � �:t p'�t 3�$� r �� . / _ � {r. _ z- .. . Y � -_ � �� _ � � � � '�.X.,�. �: i� q- , �*.� '- ��c'�v: ..�� - ' � ��`,,� � f"` . �µ k�' t - .. !' t .-.aa.a,t �.r�"- .,ts??"�. - - _ � -. � "�� - t 3 � � ' � r' � � �� : 4 7r -g-K �.. � �t,m sh �.�?_�-' _ s' �c. �i � ;_ . �,< x '-�-`�-�S'� to ` . .. � � 4K.�+� �Y� �_ �t._ . I �:, . __- _ . '��-� _,_ " � I `� - - 4 � � h.. . - - , � � �C' _ Il t}•� � , - . _ . �_ , '- ..' - � �� - �� • . P �'" l " :E �� C. .�I �� i `�,�A_ - , , S' . _ . __ .. _ _ ,,.. ` _ . . - . . 3 .,�.. �� , � Y,i.f 1=. Y � .'' , " . � s�. y. " �'4 i.`�� X-� �� ^`. . � . '�`" h � i �c � , � �;�? � � , � �-- � ' $ � ;� z � Planning Commission Agenda - 12/03/19 3A. Consideration of 2020 Plannin� Commission Workplan A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Staff is requesting that Planning Commission review and adopt the 2020 Planning Commission Workplan. As previously noted, a significant amount of staff resources are necessary in 2020 to support the Monticello 2040: Vision + Plan and the proposed development workload (Spirit Hills, Haven Ridge, Buchholz, etc.). This is reflected in the draft workplan. A request for the Commission to attend additional training has been added. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS L Motion to adopt the 2020 Planning Commission workplan as drafted. 2. Motion to recommend changes to the 2020 Planning Commission Workplan as directed by the Commission. 3. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Subj ect to any comment of the Commission, staff recommends adoption of the workplan at this time. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. 2019 Workplan, Draft 11/25/19 1 CITY ��OF —� �� Monticello Monticello Planning Commission 2020 Goals & Obj ectives Workplan DRAFT 11/25/19 The Monticello Planning Commission is established to advise the Mayor, Council and Community Development Department in matters conceming planning and land use matters; to review and make recommendations regarding the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, subdivision and zoning ordinances and other planning rules and regulations; to establish planning rules and regulations; and to conduct public hearings. 2020 Statement: The Planning Commission will support efforts to develop and implement the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. The Planning Commission will work collaboratively with the City Council and other City boards and commissions in its work to achieve the Plan and the strategic goals of the city. Administrative £� Trainin� • Attend in-house Land Use Basics training. • Complete the Basics of Land Use and My Roles as a Planning Commissioner through Government Training Services • Commissioners achieve LMNC Land Use Basics Certification • Understand land use application process. Comprehensive Plan General • Support and participate in the community-wide planning for the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan process. Land Use As the City's primary planning agency, actively lead and participate in 2019-2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use update process. o Evaluate Places to Work/Industrial land area inventory and site development challenges in support of increasing and diversifying the tax base and providing living wage employment opportunity. o Develop recommendations for residential density identification, including lot size and configuration, within the City's growth area in support of Comprehensive Plan goals. o Analyze and recommend land use planning designations for Silver Springs and Interchange planning areas. � o Review in more detail the commercial land inventory and recommend zoning classification in support of the City's long-range goals. o Evaluate impacts of advancing technology, including driverless vehicles, on land use. Transportation • Receive an update on the City Capital Improvement Plan - the City's guide to capital investment within the community; determine any required actions steps associated with priority capital projects. • Provide input in anticipated 2019-2020 Transportation planning initiatives, including planning for the northwest interchange and the transportation network to serve annexation area, including collector routes such as Fallon and 85th. • Respond to and encourage community participation in the Central Mississippi River Regional Planning Partnership as necessary and directed by the City Council. • Develop an understanding of Complete Streets policies and potential for integration into site planning and development. Park & Pathway • Evaluate development proposals for consistency with the adopted Pathway Connection Guide Map in support of the Cit�s goal of a more walkable and bikeable community. • Provide necessary support to an anticipated 2019-2020 Comprehensive Plan update to the Park & Pathway plan, with specific detail on the downtown park and open spaces. Economic Development • Develop an understanding of and support the EDA's role in redevelopment, housing and economic development, including: o Marketing of vacant property and redevelopment sites o Affordable housing o Rehabilitation of housing o Downtown development/redevelopment programs Culture & Community Health • Develop an understanding the role of health in community planning and support integration of health principles into the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. Zoning Ordinance • Complete a review of the City' s home occupation ordinances. • Complete a review of the City's noise ordinances. Research £� Cit� Department Update Topics As resources and time allow, the Planning Commission will consider research and information related to the following topic areas, which are listed in priority order. � Topic * Priorit Understand Cit and EDA-owned ro ert inventor and industrial land anal sis Develo familiarit with the newl formatted Subdivision Ordinance Other: � Planning Commission Agenda - 12/03/19 3B. Communitv Development Director's Report Council Action on Commission Recommendations • Consideration of a Request for Amendment to the Rivertown Suites Planned Unit Development for site and building amendments. Applicant: RiverTown Residential Suites, LLC Approved on regular agenda on November 12th, 2019 with modified conditions from that approved by Planning Commission. Conditions were modified per below: • Increase in the building height, provided thai e�erior masonry wall treatment similar to the proposed stone used elsewhere e�ends to the ground elevaiion, with the notation that due to the grade, • retaining walls would be installed on the north elevaiion with rock mulch between building and retaining wall per site plan dated 11-6-19. • Applicant has verified stone and metal board and batten (and steel horizontal lap) would be used per 10-18-19 plan with changes to east elevation as approved by Counci� • Remove wing wall per plan dated 10-18-19 in favor of east elevation break up with stone stair step matching west elevation and board and batten siding. • Arbor vitae on north line rather than fence line; no arbor vitae or landscaping or fence line on east line in favor of the railing along sidewalk. Placement of arbor vitae on the north line is subject to drainage and utility lines in the area. • & U; Landscaping on north and east sides as space allows. • Addition of the monument sign as proposed, but shifted in locaiion as far from the right of way as possible. • Specification of the materials and color of the proposed modular block retaining walls to match the color of the masonry on the building. - As proposed on 11-12-19 as either Option A or B • Comments and requirements of the City Engineer, other staff and Planning Commission. Monticello 2040: Vision + Plan Update The attendance at the Future Forward: Community Speak Out was amazing! Thank you all for encouraging turn out. You can see all the materials from the TAGCAC meeting and Future Forward Speak Out by using the links below. An overview handout of activities to-date and FAQs on the project are also attached. Station 1: Introduction Station 2: Monticello Fast Facts Station 3: Monticello Mapped Station 4: Monticello Speaks Station 5: Land Use + Character Station 6: 2040 Scenarios Planning Commission Agenda - 12/03/19 Mark Your Calendars - Joint Council and Planning Commission on 12/09 The Planning Commission and City Council will review the draft Monticello 2040 Vision Report at 4:30 PM on Monday, December 9th. This is an important meeting, with a draft statement presented representing the community's feedback to-date, ready for initial review and discussion. Spread the Word! The City has not received any applications for the Planning Commission seat, which will be vacant beginning January 2020. Please let your friends and neighbors who may be interested know about the opening. Applicants must be residents. https://www. �overnmentj ob s. com/careers/monticello/j ob s/2595495/plannin�- commission-member-volunteer?��a�ety�e jobO�ortunitiesJobs Please see the most recent City Council Connection and Highlights for other important news: https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/vertical/sites/%7B46185197-6086-4078-ADDC- OF3918715C4C%7D/uploads/Council_Connection_20191128.pdf https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/index.asp? SEC=F 18BE4D0-OB7D-49F9-8773- D1B2526EE7D3&DE=8B61A6C4-113F-4CC2-B547- 414CSF23DB6B&Type=B BASIC 2 What is a Comprehensive Plan? A Comprehensive Plan is about planning for Monticello's quality of life. A comprehensive plan reflects our shared concerns and aspirations, anticipates future growth and development, and supports a thriving, healthy city. The Comprehensive Plan is the city's blueprint for growth and is the foundation upon which development and land use decisions are based. It contains long term goals for the City's growth and the implementation strategies that will help the City achieve those goals. It is the official adopted policy regarding the future location, character, and quality of physical development, and the conservation and enjoyment of the natural environment. In short, it's about our future! A Comprehensive Plan is also a guide to decision making. It provides the City a means for balancing social, economic and environmental benefits with the costs associated with development. Most other City policies and regulations regarding growth and development are based on the Comprehensive Plan. All development-related ordinances and regulations, such as the Zoning Ordinance and design guidelines, must be consistent with and implement the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. How will Monticello's plan be developed? Monticello has made an important decision to undertake its Comprehensive Planning process — Monticello 2040: Vision + Plan - in two phases. Monticello 2040 starts with defining ourselves as a community. In the first phase of the project, beginning in late summer 2019, the community has the opportunity to get engaged in a series of events and activities to speak out about their wishes, goals and values for Monticello's future. Those aspirations become the foundation of Monticello's 2040 Vision and will inform the second phase, the Comprehensive Plan process, which will start in 2020. Achieving the vision depends on a plan. The second phase of Monticello 2040: Vision + Plan is the development of the Comprehensive Plan, creating a community-wide plan for growth over the next 20 years. The Comprehensive Plan will build on the Vision and community values, focusing on land use planning, transportation system coordination, utility improvements, open space enhancement, community health, and economic and cultural development. Who uses the Comprehensive Plan? Monti2040 is the community's plan! Because the document will set a vision and goals for Monticello's future, the Monti2040 Plan will be developed as a plan that all community stakeholders can use to understand more about how their community will grow and how they can be a part of supporting a more vibrant, thriving Monticello. From a more technical perspective, the Comprehensive Plan is used by the City Council, Planning Commission, other boards and Commissions, and City staff to inform and guide policy decisions regarding land use, development and infrastructure improvements within the City. Developers, real estate professionals and property owners also use the Comprehensive Plan as an informative document to understand the City's vision and policies regarding land use and development. Why should I participate? How does this affect me? Do you care about congestion on Highway 25? Do you wonder what the City is doing to support downtown? Do you want better pathway connections to parks and stores? Do you think about how Monticello could be a safer place? Maybe you want more places to shop, or eat, or work. These considerations, and many, many more, are the reason to participate in Monti2040. Decisions about parks, paths, road improvements, economic development, housing choices, and public safety are all shaped by the Comprehensive Plan. Ifjust a few community members participate, the vision and goals of these few people will drive the development of the City over the next twenty years. The best plan for the next 20 years is a plan developed by a community that has worked together to define a common vision and framework to achieve that vision. Participation by the community is the most important aspect of a comprehensive planning process. The City's goal is to adopt a document that has been vetted, inspired and crafted by those that live, work, create, and recreate In Monticello. Get involved. Learn more. https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/monti2040 • 11 I� I� I''� +�P L A� N Kick Off & Pep Rally Highlights • The September kick-off events for Monti2040 were a success! Thanks to all who attended the introductory Technical and Community Advi- sory Committee meetings September 6t" and 7t"! We had great at- tendance on the community bus tour . • Although it was a cold and drizzly day, great feedback was received at the Music on the Mississippi event on Saturday, September 7th. • Monticello 2040 Sounding Boards were placed around the communi- ty. The Sounding Boards featured four key questions to help us better understand Monticello's strengths, challenges, vision, and values. • In addition, the Sounding Board was available in digital form at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/montisurvey1. • All Monticello School District staff were emailed to encourage completion of the online survey and Sounding Boards. = o � TAC/CAC Pep Rally 10/15/19 �-�Monticello)3; � - r �., �NyRe. ._. �., .�._... ��,� . � . ,�m . ...m.�, ��.. � � �� ...�' � � -,__ �;� ,_...:.d_ -�s '� - - - _...k _._ ....... �:r�. _ �y:�,^� ,�,,� _. ,.. 1 -.� .r ... . ._ �: _ -� _a m..... � ,_ 4 Monti2040 Sounding Board • Staff inet with the Monticello Rotary and Monticello Fire Department to get their Sound- ing Board input. • At the October 15t" Monti2040 Pep Rally, the TAC/CAC helped us focus on the voices we need to hear in this process, the best way to reach them, and provide the CAC and TAC the resources they need to champion the plan and encourage participation). • The first and second issues of the Monti2040 enews have been sent- sign up at: https:// www.ci.monticel lo.mn.us/ monti2040 • Four online "Quick Polls" were posted on social media for the first phase of engagement. • With Lakota, the City developed a Monti2040 FAQ to help the TAC/CAC and policymakers talk about the plan and encourage community involvement. TAC/CAC Bus Tour, 9/6/19 Future Forward: Community Speak Out Events • City staff attended the downtown Trick or Treat event on October 24th, 2019 to ask what qualities participants most appreciate about their community and to encourage attendance at the November 2nd event. • Thursday, October 315t and November 15t, a series of Stakehold- er Meetings were held to gain additional insight on the challenges and opportunities for the community. Participants are at right. • On Friday, November 15t, a TAC/CAC Meeting was held to preview the information to be presented at the community workshop. • The Future Forward — Community Speak Out! was held on Saturday, November 2nd with great participation! The event was held in conjunction with the craft fair at the MCC. Great participation and feedback! • Following the Speak-Out, a new survey has been posted to con- tinue gathering input from community members who couldn't be at the November 2nd event. Tell your friends, neighbors and coworkers about the survey and encourage their partic- ipation! https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/monti2040 * ��.� ,�,,: �', z. � � �� r � _ + �� +� ` ' -�� Downtown Trick or Treat Community Speak Out! - — — - ---�i� I � ��",'",q� Community Speak Out! � " ' �.----. - Student Stakeholder Session So What Else is Happening and What's Next? • You can see all the materials from the TAC/ CAC meeting and Future Forward Speak Out by visiting www.ci.monticello.mn.us/ monti2040 Station 1: Introduction Station 2: Monticello Fast Facts Station 3: Monticello Mapped Station 4: Monticello Speaks Station 5: Land Use+Character Station 6: 2040 Scenarios • A "Navigating Your Competitive Future" workshop was held on Thursday, November 14t", 2019 from 4:30-6:30 PM at the Prairie Center Building to provide a market per- spective on development. Panelists for the session included: • John Rask, Vice President Land, M/I Homes • Patrick Daly, Dir. of Real Estate Devel- opment, Land, Ryan Companies US, Inc. • Jamie Thelen, President/CEO, Sand Companies, Inc. • Tammy Omdal, Managing Director, Public Finance, Northland Securities • Staff will be continuing to seek input at local events and locations prior to the end of the month • Monticello High School Resource Fair • St. Henry's Church • MCC • Mark Your Calendar! • The next TAC/CAC meeting is tentative- ly scheduled for Tuesday, December 10t" at 4:30 PM. • The next community workshop, which is expected to feature the draft Vision Report is scheduled for Tuesday, December 10th at 6 PM. �e�� r� �er��t �r l��i�rr �C�aC��n�r�t ��vr �ion��r�+1� �isi�rr �xoi€�r�ae�r� i� �an ��ir�tj�r��! �e�tr�pi�o� �o� [�i� c,�rrrrrrurrary'S �7�eI'e��d i��f]' Od7d �0! af'w�fT�I �*P7e}+ Vi'�ttfTt [d7�if CJiy C�5 �'��Fj�� O� �C�0��7�i5�7 a�eP C�7�l��7�' [�il�_ d1�e zn�e �cc�r� ��r��rid�d' r� F�r� arr t�r� �r�r��€s a�rr7 d�� s �€r��w y��ur v;�ion r�xr allon�'c�err� ir� tt�e Fr�zr�re_ �h� � it�r +�f f�l �r�ti��l �� tirtiri �I k��c�rr�� ur�i#� f��us��1 �r��und �rh�l� pr��rvin� it� f�1�n#ic�ll� will ��r-�� r�ri�d�l f�r f�c��v � t��vr� ��n d+�v�l�� ir�t� � , �� r�� ►f t�� rry+��t 1�+1�n�ic�ll+o r��rill �e�k t� uph�old i#� f�l�ntic�ll� �rill t�e��m� k��n f�r �rn�ll citi�� r� th� �#a#�, t��t rri�k�s 1�lantic�ll� #h� . �nd �it�r �f �h�i�e f�� c�pl� t� li�r�� r�r�r1� �nd �I��r. Th� �i#� c►f fl�l�onti�ell� �� , �n�l ��rr�rr�ur�it�r t��t re�p��t� #he q�u�Ji#� �f it� er��rir�nrt��r�t, fast�r� � ��ens� �f , ��r�ur�� lif��#�I� ar�� up��c�r#� a �a� �r�m�t� � �r��p�r�u� ��c�r��m�.