Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 09-04-2012REGULAR MEETING MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 4th, 2012 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council 5:00 PM - Mississippi Room Collaborative Stage PUD Applicant: Cornerstone Chevrolet Commissioners: Chairman William Spartz, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman 1. Call to order 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes. a. Regular Meeting of August 7th, 2012 b. Special meeting of August 21st, 2012 3. Citizen Comments 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda 5. Public Hearing – Consideration of an amendment to Chapter 4, Section 4 – Exterior Lighting and Section 5 – Signs, as related to LED illumination. Applicant: City of Monticello 6. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for a Bank Facility with Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access. Applicant: SA Group Properties, Inc. 7. Consideration of an update on the Fallon Avenue Overpass planning 8. Consideration to review an update on Interim Temporary Sign Ordinance 9. Consideration to review an update on the R-3 (Medium Density) Residential District amendment. 10. Consideration to appoint a Commissioner to the review committee for the Economic Development Chapter of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. 11. Community Development Director’s Report 12. Adjourn. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 7, 2012 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: William Spartz, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler Council Liaison Absent: Lloyd Hilgart Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman-NAC 1. Call to order Bill Spartz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes a) Special Meeting of July 3rd, 2012 BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 3, 2012. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-0. b) Regular Meeting of July 3rd, 2012 BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 3, 2012 AS AMENDED. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-0. 3. Citizen Comments None 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda a) November Planning Commission Meeting 5. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapters and Sections as follows:  3.3(D) – Common Yard & Height Requirements  3.4(E) – Single-Family Residential District  3.4(H) – R-3 – Medium Density Residential District  3.7(H) – Performance Overlay District  3.7(J) – Special Use Overlay District  4.4(I) – Sign Lighting  4.5(I) – Temporary Signs  4.8 – Off-Street Parking  4.9 – Off-Street Loading Planning Commission Minutes 8/07/12 2  5.1 - Use Table  5.3(C) – Regulation for Residential Uses  5.3(G) – Regulations for Industrial Uses  5.3 - Accessory Uses  5.4 - Temporary Uses  8.2 – Rules of Measurement  8.4 - Definitions At the July Planning Commission meeting, staff presented information related to each of the proposed amendments and requested feedback from the Commission. The formal hearing was tabled to the August meeting to allow for the incorporation of feedback and preparation of the final ordinance document. In addition to those amendments reviewed in July, staff has added three amendments. The hearing notice was republished for those additional amendments, which are Section 4.4(I) – Sign Lighting, 4.5(I) – Signs and 4.9 – Off-Street Loading. The following amendments required further consideration. 1. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 4(H) as related to Density Standards for Medium-Density Residential The Planning Commission had requested that staff prepare information relating to options for a higher density R-3 district as well as a new R-4 district. An amended R-3 District would incorporate higher densities overall, with maximum densities allowed under a PUD rezoning. Such an amendment would ensure that densities are not too restrictive in terms of the amount of land required to construct a multi-family structure such as an apartment complex or senior living facility. Densities proposed for a new R-4 District would be similar to the increased allowances in the revised R-3 but allow the City the maximum amount of discretion in where such high density uses are allowed, as any new R-4 proposal would require rezoning. Existing code language allows up to 14 units per acre under performance or PUD standards, and up to 7.3 units per gross acre as a base density. Staff recommended that the code language be revised to allow up to 17 units per acre, and up to 10 units per acre for multifamily as a base density. Steve Grittman pointed out that multi-family housing is typically in that increased density range in reality and, as such, the R-3 District does not currently allow for multi-family housing from a functional standpoint. It is essentially a townhouse district. Brad Fyle indicated that he has no problem with allowing for higher density multi- family housing but that he is not in favor of a creating a new zoning district. He stated Planning Commission Minutes 8/07/12 3 that the R-3 District is workable the way it is and that the PUD would give the Commission an opportunity to determine if there is adequate space for what is being proposed. Charlotte Gabler noted that it would be useful to establish tiers for the R-3 District and to identify performance standards for varying densities if a new zoning district were not created. Steve Grittman indicated that rezoning would provide the most authority and discretion for the Planning Commission but reiterated that either option would be a workable process. Bill Spartz confirmed that the Comprehensive Plan calls for developing opportunities for life cycle housing and posed some development scenarios for consideration. Barry Voight said that he would lean toward rezoning because it offers the greatest flexibility. He also said that the Commission might want to set up a new zoning district in order to achieve their vision of what multi-family housing would look like in the community. Steve Grittman clarified that the density in the R-3 District would still need to be modified in the event that an R-4 District were to be created. He pointed out that it would also be necessary to clarify the purpose of each of the districts. Angela Schumann suggested that it would be an option to table this amendment due to the need for continued consideration of these issues. She suggested that the Commissioners review where R-3 Districts and Performance Overlays currently exist as they consider these issues. 2. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 7(H) as related to the Performance Overlay District Staff determined that, because there are Transition Features in place to mitigate potential land use impacts when commercial and residential uses are introduced adjacent to each other, no amendment to the Performance Zone Overlay district would be necessary. 3. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 7(J) – Special Use Overlay District When the code was updated to include the Special Use Overlay District changes, an error was made in assigning Adult Use to the IBC and I-1, rather than I-1 and I-2 Districts. The amendment relates to Table 5-1, rather to any provisions in Chapter 3, Section 7(J). Planning Commission Minutes 8/07/12 4 4. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 4 – Exterior Lighting as related to Sign Lighting In reviewing the ordinance requirements for sign lighting for a recent sign permit application, it was noted that the language was written in such a manner as to prohibit any sign lighting from being visible off-site. Staff has proposed an amendment which regulates instead the aiming, shielding and visibility of light sources specifically. (I) Sign Lighting Lighting fixtures illuminating signs shall comply with the standards of this section, and such fixtures shall exterior light sources shall be aimed and shielded so that direct illumination is focused exclusively on the sign face and the light source is not visible from off-site areas. 5. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 5(I) as related to Temporary Signs Staff recommended the addition of temporary community event signage through the amendments proposed below. A definition for Community Informational Signage is also proposed with the amendments to the Definitions section. Text of amendment(s): Section 4.5 (D) - Prohibited Signs Section 4.5 (D)(2) All off premises signs greater than six (6) square feet in area, except that the City may permit certain temporary signs to display messages for Community Informational Signs not related to the premises on which they are displayed. Section 4.5 (I) - Temporary Signs Section 4.5 (I) (5) Any temporary sign permitted under this section shall be required to display messages related only to the activity on the premises on which the temporary sign is located, with the exception that such sign may display messages defined as Community Informational Signs. The display of Community Informational signage shall not add to the number of days of temporary sign display allotted to a particular premises, business, or property by this section, and any such sign shall comply with all other regulations of this Chapter. Staff will review the Interim Ordinance for temporary signage in January of 2013. 6. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 9 as related to Off-Street Loading Planning Commission Minutes 8/07/12 5 Ordinance section 4.1(I) – Standards for Required Screening requires that all off- street loading facilities be screened in accordance with the provisions specified in that section. However, the ordinance regulations pertaining specifically to off-street loading contained in section 4.9(E), make no mention of those screening requirements. For ease of interpretation and use, staff is proposing an amendment to create a reference 4.1(I). Text of amendment(s): (E) Screening Except in the case of multiple dwellings, aAll loading areas shall be screened and landscaped from abutting and surrounding residential uses in compliance with Section 4.1(I), of this ordinance. If Commission wishes to recommend a less restrictive screening requirement, Chapter 4.1(I) – Standards for Required Screening could be amended to reflect the language in 4.9(E) as follows. (2) Items to be Screened The following areas shall be screened in accordance with this section: (a) Anything specifically called out by this ordinance as requiring screening. (b) Large trash handling and recycling collection areas (e.g., dumpsters and cardboard recycling containers); (c) Loading and service areas; All loading and service areas shall be screened and landscaped from abutting and surrounding residential uses and public rights of way. (d) Allowed outdoor storage areas adjacent to a public right-of-way; (e) New construction, demolition, or other site conditions that could be unsafe for pedestrians or vehicles. Barrry Voight asked for a definition of screening and expressed some concern about creating an amendment that may be burdensome. Charlotte Gabler and Bill Spartz agreed that item c would cover what the Commission was looking to do. Brad Fyle indicated that screening should be required at all loading areas. Barry Voight then suggested that the Commission move forward with recommending item c but asked that staff provide more definitive language in regard to screening criteria. 7. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 1 – Use Table Planning Commission Minutes 8/07/12 6 Staff highlighted the following changes to the Use Table. Adult Use is only allowed in the I-1 and I-2 District in the Special Use Overlay. Group Residential Facility, Multi-Family uses are to be amended from “Permitted” to “Conditional”. 8. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 3(C) for Residential Uses The City has the ability to regulate Group Residential Facility, Multi-Family uses as conditional uses under State Statute, and as such, the City Attorney has recommended that the City amend the ordinance to require a CUP for such uses in the R-2 and R-3 Districts. The City cannot require a Condition Use Permit for a Group Residential Facility, Single-Family. Text of amendment(s): (3) Group Residential Facility Licensed day care facilities qualifying as group residential facilities shall adhere to the following: (f) The Group Residential Facility, Multi-Family uses shall require authorization through a conditional use permit following the provisions of Section 2.4(D) of this ordinance. 9. Amendment to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 8, Section 4, Definitions A definition for “Community Informational Signage” is also included, per the amendment proposed above. Text of Amendment(s): SIGN, COMMUNITY INFORMATIONAL: A sign displaying information related to a community event open to public when such event is sponsored or operated by a person or organization in a not-for-profit capacity. Qualifying organizations shall include any organization established under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) or any other organization or individual registering with the City of Monticello meeting the requirements of this section. Staff indicated that the City Clerk had suggested removing the language “Section 501(c)(3)” and including, in its place, “as a non-profit”. In addition, she had suggested replacing “City of Monticello” with “Secretary of State”. Steve Grittman said that the intent of that language had been to give the City some discretion to allow those that may not be registered as non-profits the opportunity to place informational signage. He noted that City Council may want to adopt policy as to what type of non- profits would be eligible to do so. Staff will adjust the language accordingly for the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes 8/07/12 7 The public hearing was opened. As there were no comments, the public hearing was closed. Brad Fyle and Barry Voight both indicated that the medium density residential issue required further consideration. Angela Schumann noted that Steve Grittman would provide further review of the Group Residential Facility, Multi-family amendment and, if further clarification were to be required, the amendment would be brought forward at that time. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT OF AUGUST 7TH, 2012 AND AS CODIFIED BY ORDINANCE 561, EXCLUDING CHAPTER 3, SECTION 4 (H). BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-0. 6. Update on Consideration of a request for Rezoning from B-3 (Highway Business) to B-4 (Regional Business) and a Conditional Use Permit for Cross-Parking and Joint-Parking for a commercial development including a Clinic use. Applicant: Mickle, Bill/Warnert Commercial Properties Both applicants have withdrawn the requests for rezoning and conditional use permit in writing. 7. Update on Planning Commission Vacancies Angela Schumann highlighted some of the accomplishments of the Planning Commission during Barry Voight’s six years of service and thanked him for his reason, logic, common sense, and ability to look at issues from a resident’s standpoint. He said that he was honored to have helped shape the community. The other Commissioners also expressed appreciation for his work. The Planning Commission received an application for one of the two open seats on the Commission. Staff proposed scheduling a special meeting to interview the candidate at 5:30 pm on Tuesday, August 21st, 2012. 8. Community Development Director’s Report Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Staff assured the Commissioners that, although the new zoning ordinance continues to require amendments, there is no doubt that it is a functional document. Economic Development Director - Megan Barnett-Livgard resigned from her position as Economic Development Director. Staff plan to distribute high priority tasks on a short term basis and analyze the scope of the position. Planning Commission Minutes 8/07/12 8 Temporary Signs-Interim Ordinance - Staff will provide a report related to the interim temporary sign ordinance next month. The report will include information about enforcement and violations as well as the number of days the permits were actually used. Building Department - The City has issued 15 new single-family home construction permits so far this year. This is five more than anticipated for 2012. Subdivision Ordinance – A staff group will review the ordinance in detail to provide some focus for revision. The Planning Commission will tour the community on August 21st at 6 pm to explore how existing standards translate into actual land use prior to beginning the ordinance revision process. Paperless Agendas – Brad Fyle uses his iPad to review the Planning Commission agenda packet and is in favor of saving the cost of printing and mailing. Charlotte Gabler has agreed to explore the option of going paperless as well. Staff is working to provide the Commission electronic access to the agenda at the dias. Industrial Park Land – The IEDC will review the Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to make sure that policies and strategies continue to be appropriate prior to considering industrial inventory in the community. Two members of the IEDC were appointed to serve on a task force to review the need for additional industrial park. Charlotte Gabler expressed interest in working with the task force. The first meeting of the task force will be in September. Kjellberg Storage Request Update – Brad Fyle asked for an update on the Kjellberg’s outdoor storage request. Staff indicated that the application had been denied by the City Council. 9. Added items a) November Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 6th must be rescheduled due to the conflict with the General Election. Staff will try to reschedule the meeting for Tuesday, November 20th. 10. Adjourn BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:07 PM. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3-0. Recorder: Kerry T. Burri __ Approved: September 4, 2012 Attest: ___________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 21, 2012 - 5:30 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, William Spartz Council Liaison Absent: Lloyd Hilgart Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller Council Members Present: Clint Herbst, Tom Perrault 1. Call to order Chairman Spartz called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. Planning Commission Interview The interview had been cancelled by the applicant and would be rescheduled. 3. Subdivision Ordinance Workshop Revising the subdivision ordinance had been identified as one of the primary goals of the 2012 Planning Commission workplan due to the need to update regulations and provide continuity between the new zoning ordinance and the platting process. Staff noted that, although the subdivision ordinance isn’t directly tied to achieving all of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan, it is an important part of defining a vision for the community. The ordinance will help to clarify what makes for good neighborhoods, and commercial and industrial developments. Staff from Community Development, Building and Engineering Departments reviewed the ordinance in detail and identified:  Outdated language  Language that may be eliminated or revised based on existing or recent ordinance amendments  City ordinance or Design Manual specifications that should instead be included in the subdivision ordinance  Suggested ordinance additions from other sample codes Angela Schumann indicated that Planner Steve Grittman had conveyed to her that it has become increasingly more important that specific engineering standards be included as part of the subdivision ordinance as such standards provide legal grounds for approving or denying requests. Staff also outlined some policy issues for the Commission to consider as part of the Planning Commission Minutes – 08/21/12 2 ordinance revision process. These include:  Entrance Monument Placement and Design Standards  Ponding Placement and Design Standards  Street Width and Design  Sidewalk and Trail Connections  Lighting Standards Commission feedback will be provided to planning consultant Ben Gozola of MFRA. He will prepare a draft code for a first review by the Commission in November 2012. Staff will follow up that review with an open house to obtain public input on the draft subdivision ordinance prior to the formal pubic hearing. 4. Community Tour Those present at the meeting proceeded to a windshield survey tour of Monticello subdivisions, including: Hillcrest Timber Ridge River Terrace Original Plat Featherstone Union Crossings River Mill Hillside Farm Rolling Woods Carlisle Village The tour attendees focused on the design aesthetics of each subdivision. Angela Schumann requested that the group provide general observations related to each development. The tour attendees indicated support for the following neighborhood design features:  Pocket parks within residential neighborhoods - without large athletic field space  Landscaped center medians in collectors with provided maintenance  Narrower road widths when separate off-street parking facilities are provided in townhome developments  Collector street routes should have sidewalks or pathway on both sides  Parks should ideally be served by sidewalk or trail connections  Lower volume streets do not always require sidewalks  Prefer that development occur with the natural grade of the land to bring out character of lots and streets  Surmountable curb in residential areas  Require maintenance-free design on monuments, must be maintained in common by association Planning Commission Minutes – 08/21/12 3  No strong opinion about the length of blocks, but the group did like some curving in residential neighborhoods  Support for ornamental lighting within residential neighborhoods  Strong support for selecting a single design for lighting in industrial, commercial and residential areas and applying it consistently.  No specific recommendation on lighting spacing, but the group did cite Featherstone and 7th Street as an appropriate example of spacing and lighting for both street and pedestrian ways  Agreed that street connections between neighborhoods is important and should be retained  Preferred use of decorative pavers with landscaping in high traffic commercial boulevards within the downtown area. The tour attendees also identified areas of concern in terms of subdivision design. Concern was expressed regarding private streets and the potential for maintenance issues due to lack of adequate association support. The group agreed that fewer private streets would be preferred. The group also felt that shared driveways for residential properties should be discouraged. 5. Adjourn The special meeting was adjourned at 7:25 PM by Chairman Spartz. Recorder: Kerry T. Burri __ Approved: September 4, 2012 Attest: ___________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Agenda – 9/04/12 1 5. Public Hearing – Consideration of an amendment to Chapter 4, Section 4 – Exterior Lighting and Section 5 – Signs, as related to LED illumination. Applicant: City of Monticello (NAC) Property: NA Planning Case Number: 2012-031 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): The Planning Commission is asked to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would address illumination standards for signage. Currently, the standards require shielding of the light source to avoid glare or light spillover onto streets and adjacent properties. Related to this requirement is a standard that requires site lighting to be shielded in the same way, and also requires such lighting to cast no more than 0.5 foot candles of light onto the adjacent right or way or private property. Since the development of the sign ordinance, the use of LED (Light Emitting Diode) lighting for signage has become more popular. LED light is emitted in a particular direction, and consists, usually, of many individual light sources (diodes). This LED lighting has the effect of appearing brighter to the eye since it is cast directly toward the viewer, rather than broadcast and spread by a shield or lens, and because many individual lights are used, rather than just a few. Because the City’s regulations prohibit lighting in which the individual light source is exposed to direct view, the use of LED lighting is technically not allowed by the code. However, staff believes that the request for usage of LED lighting for signs and building accents may become more common. As such, the LED light source requires consideration by the City in terms of specific regulation. Options for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider include the following: 1. Leave the ordinance as it is written, requiring any LED lighting to be shielded. 2. Amend the ordinance to allow such lighting, but regulate the intensity of exposed LED lighting, along with other factors, such as location, zoning, and/or traffic. 3. Amend the ordinance to allow the use of LED lighting according to the industry. Planning Commission Agenda – 9/04/12 2 Ordinance Requirements: Section 4.4 of the zoning ordinance currently includes the following requirements for lighting and specifically, for sign illumination: (2) Shielding (a) Exterior Light fixtures in excess of 60 watts or 100 lumens shall use full cut-off lenses or hoods to prevent glare or spillover from the project site onto adjacent lands and streets. (1) Maximum Illumination Levels All outdoor lighting and indoor lighting visible from outside shall be designed and located so that the maximum illumination measured in footcandles at ground level at a property line or right-of-way center line shall not exceed the standards in Table 4-5, Maximum Illumination Levels. Cut-off lighting shall be designed to direct light downward (e.g., shoe box style). TABLE 4-5: MAXIMUM ILLUMINATION LEVELS Type of Use [1] Maximum Illumination (Footcandles) All Uses 0.5 at all ROW center lines Residential or Civic & Institutional Use 0.5 at Property Line Commercial or Industrial Use [2] 1.0 at Property Line Parking Lots 1.0 at Property Line [1]: See Table 5-1: Uses by District [2]: The minimum illumination level at the property line shall be 0.2 footcandle. Section 4.5 of the zoning ordinance currently includes the following requirements for sign illumination: (7) Illuminated Signs Illuminated signs shall be shielded to prevent lights from being directed at oncoming traffic in such brilliance that it impairs the vision of the driver and may not interfere with or obscure traffic signs or signals. Lighting may not illuminate any adjacent properties, buildings, or streets. A photometric plan is commonly required for site lighting and provides that reflected light intensity at the property line may not exceed 0.5 footcandles. Lighting is measured in various ways, and there are numerous units of measurement. Essentially, all light measurements rely on the basic candela, which approximates the Planning Commission Agenda – 9/04/12 3 total amount of light emitted by a candle. A footcandle, then, is the intensity of a one candela light source measured on a one square foot area, one foot away from the light. Finally, light is also measured as to its total luminance – the total amount of light being produced by a light source. This is often measured in “nits”, and is a metric measurement of the light energy in one square meter. Various complications arise, depending on the angle of view, the spectrum of light (meaning the color and intensity), and the amount of ambient light (daylight vs. night, other lighting in the area, etc.). The complicating factor with LED lighting is that because light is directional, LED lighting can be made to appear brighter to the eye than other background light by directing the light outward, rather than scattering it out and downward through a shield or lens. LED lighting is commonly measured by municipalities as to the number of “nits”. However, an LED light source will often create light that does not raise issues of footcandles at the property line. Staff has been provided information from a potential sign applicant proposing to utilize LED lights which would generate a maximum of 0.4 footcandles on the site of the sign, with most areas showing much less. This is despite the fact that other similar installations in the region of this technology appear to be far brighter than other background lighting. It should be noted that LED lighting can be made subject to variable power, and dimmed from its maximum intensity. However, this application has not been able to go forward since it violates the City’s prohibition against view of the direct light source. In a survey of other communities, staff has found that many other cities, although troubled by the technology, have not regulated LED light sources in this way. Others have this type of prohibition, but have not enforced it on these lights. Finally, there are some communities that have applied a “nit” standard, and others that have allowed the use of LED-lit signage with an agreement that the lighting is dimmed during certain hours. As noted, the City has basically three options. 1. The first would be to continue to prohibit unshielded light sources. This approach would require LED installations to include a shielded cover over the channel of light emitters – an option available to the user. No change to current ordinance language would be necessary to follow this option. 2. The second option would be to allow the LED lights without shielding, but regulate location, intensity, and other factors. The light level in this example is taken from the Planning Commission Agenda – 9/04/12 4 City of Bloomington’s regulations for external video displays. An amendment would be worded similar to the following: (7) Illuminated Signs Illuminated signs shall be shielded to prevent lights from being directed at oncoming traffic in such brilliance that it impairs the vision of the driver and may not interfere with or obscure traffic signs or signals. Lighting may not illuminate any adjacent properties, buildings, or streets. Notwithstanding this provision, LED light displays may be installed without shielding provided that: (a) Unshielded LED light displays may only be located on B-3 or B-4 zoning properties. (b) Unshielded LED lights are not installed in any area that abuts residentially zoned property; (c) Unshielded LED lights are not installed in such a way as to direct light toward residentially zoned property within 500 feet of the light source. (d) Unshielded LED lights may not exceed a maximum illumination of 5000 nits (candelas per square meter) during daylight hours and a maximum illumination of 500 nits (candelas per square meter) between dusk to dawn as measured from the sign’s face at maximum brightness; (e) Dimmer control. Unshielded LED lights must have an automatic dimmer control to produce a distinct illumination change from a higher illumination level to a lower level for the time period between one half-hour before sunset and one half-hour after sunrise. 3. The third option would allow the use of LED lighting without restriction, providing it complies with the other terms of the zoning ordinance. That language would be written as follows: (7) Illuminated Signs Illuminated signs shall be shielded to prevent lights from being directed at oncoming traffic in such brilliance that it impairs the vision of the driver and may not interfere with or obscure traffic signs or signals. Lighting may not illuminate any adjacent properties, buildings, or streets. Notwithstanding this provision, LED light displays may be installed without shielding provided they meet all other provisions of this ordinance and other applicable city requirements when considered in combination with other sign elements. Planning Commission Agenda – 9/04/12 5 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval of a zoning ordinance amendment relating to the use of LED lighting displays with the conditions identified in Option 2 above. 2. Motion to recommend approval of the zoning ordinance amendment related to the use of LED lighting displays with the notations identified in Option 3 above. 3. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, maintaining a requirement that all illuminated signs, including LED displays, shield the source of light. 4. Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified by the Planning Commission and staff report. C. STAFF RECOMMNDATION Staff notes that the technology for LED displays has resulted in some communities being subject to sign illumination that was not anticipated by traditional sign regulations. Some communities have adopted new regulations to manage the technology, some are essentially ignoring its installation. It is noted in the staff report that while the technology can result in unusually bright display, it is also adaptable to current regulations through shielding and/or dimming. The City may choose to accommodate the technology under current regulation, or it may accommodate it through a “loosening” of the shielding requirement in certain conditions. The options in this report should provide an avenue for pursuing any of these objectives. In most cases where new technology is presented, staff would counsel a gradual accommodation if one is to be made, since this would provide the city with the ability to manage the change as the city and businesses gain experience with the technology as it evolves. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Chapter 4.4 – Exterior Lighting B. Excerpt, Chapter 4.5 - Signs C. LED Specification Sheet Example Planning Commission Agenda – 09/04/12 1 6. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for a Bank Facility with Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access. Applicant: SA Group Properties, Inc. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND SA Group Properties, Inc. is requesting an extension of the conditional use permit issued for a commercial development project at Broadway Market. On August 1st, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for cross parking, cross access and a drive-through for the commercial development proposed at the corner of CSAH 75 and CSAH 39. The site is 2.38 acres in area and is zoned B-4, Regional Business. The City Council approved the CUP in a series of approvals on August 28th, September 25th and October 9th, 2006. Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for the CUP will expire on September 25, 2012. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits expire due to non-use after one year. As such, the applicant has requested a one-year extension. The Planning Commission will note that the property owner has taken steps to properly maintain the site in accordance with City Code. Staff continue to monitor the site for compliance. Any extension of the CUP is conditioned on continued compliance with City codes relative to public nuisances. All previously approved conditions will also apply to any extension of the permit. The planning report for the original item has been provided for reference. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend extension for one year of the September 25th, 2006 Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access for the Broadway Market Development, with the condition that all previously approved conditions be assigned to the extension. 2. Motion to recommend denial of an extension of the September 25th, 2006 Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access for the Broadway Market Development, based on a finding to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the extension request. The request is consistent with current and proposed objectives for the B-4 District. Planning Commission Agenda – 09/04/12 2 D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Applicant Request Exhibit B: Planning Commission Report, August 1, 2006 Exhibit C: Conditional Use Permit Plan documents Planning Commission Agenda: 09/04/12 1 7. Consideration of an update on the Fallon Avenue Overpass planning. (BW) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: City Engineer Bruce Westby will be present at the September meeting to present information regarding progress on planning for the Fallon Avenue overpass and related improvements. Planning Commission Agenda: 09/04/12 1 8. Consideration to review an update on Interim Temporary Sign Ordinance (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In February of 2011, the City of Monticello adopted an interim ordinance allowing for the expansion in usage of temporary signage. The interim ordinance expired on January 1, 2012. In March of 2012, the City Council extended the interim ordinance through December 31, 2012. The following table illustrates a comparison in flexibility allowed under the interim ordinance. The complete interim ordinance, which includes other performance standards, is also included with this report as Supporting Data. Code Requirement Existing Ordinance Interim Ordinance Signs Allowed Per parcel Per business, sign must be located on parcel on which business in located Number of Signs per Location 1 1 sign every 75 linear feet of ROW, 1 sign per business Number of Days (Annual) 40 Unlimited Permit Required Yes Yes Banners, Flags, Pennants One per parcel, 40 days One per parcel, 40 days The interim ordinance was adopted to allow the Planning Commission, and City as a whole, an opportunity to analyze the temporary sign issue over a finite period and determine the impacts (both positive and negative) of the interim regulation. In extending the interim ordinance, the City Council requested strict enforcement and reporting for the purpose of better analyzing alternatives for final amendment language. Staff has prepared the following report on temporary sign use under the interim use ordinance, current as of July 31, 2012. 1. Permit Issue Data To-date, 35 temporary sign permits were issued in 2012. This includes those permits issued after enforcement action as noted in item 3 below. The Monticello Chamber of Commerce has indicated that the community is currently home to approximately 430 businesses. Planning Commission Agenda: 09/04/12 2 2. Days Used Surveys were sent to all temporary sign permit holders on July 9th and July 30th requesting information on the number of temporary sign days used to-date. Eleven responses (for 13 properties) were received. Number of days used was reported as follows: 0-40 Days: 8 41-120 Days: 3 121+ Days: 2 3. Enforcement Actions To-date 17 violation notices have been issued for temporary signs. As there is no limit to the number of days under the interim ordinance, the two primary enforcement issues were that a permit had not been requested/issued, and the signage was to large. There were also violations issued for the number of temporary signs. 4. Street corridor images In reviewing the images taken by building inspectors over the last 6 months, the primary issues were again related to the lack of permit, size and location of signage. Once again, many signs are illegally placed within the ROW or were off-premise. The use of city, county, state and federal right-of-ways for signage is strictly prohibited and in the case of state, county and federal right-of-ways, cannot be permitted for temporary signage under any ordinance amendment. This is a recognized issue for many commercial corridor businesses seeking to gain visibility for their temporary signage. However, the City does not have the ability or authority to address this issue. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: No action requested. In December of this year, staff will bring forward a complete year of analysis for the Commission’s review. The outcome of the analysis will include options for consideration for final temporary sign ordinance amendments. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None at this time. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4.5 – Signs B. Interim Ordinance #555 CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.5 Signs Subsection (I) Temporary Signs City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 201 (20) Design and Materials Standards for Signs in Commercial Districts, Industrial Districts, the CCD District, PUDs, and Performance Based Mixed Use Development (a) In General The design and materials of any sign shall be consistent with the building materials requirements of the district in which the sign is located, and shall be the same as, or compatible with, the materials and design of the principal building(s) on the property. (b) Specific Materials for Pylon Signs All exposed pole or post structures must be wrapped or faced with stucco, architectural metal, brick or stone consistent with building architecture. (I) Temporary Signs (1) For property in a Business District or an Industrial District (see table 3-1), the use of commercial temporary sign devices shall not exceed forty (40) days per calendar year per building. Not more than one (1) temporary sign device per building shall be displayed upon a property at any one time. The area of temporary sign devices shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. (2) In cases where properties forego, in writing, temporary signage allowed by Section 4.5(I)(1) above, an additional permanent message board sign up to fifty (50) square feet in area shall be allowed. Such sign may be incorporated into a property’s freestanding sign or the building as additional wall sign area. Freestanding signs shall be subject to the height limitations of the applicable zoning district. (3) Subject to other provisions of Section 4.5(I), one (1) additional temporary sign device shall be permitted for a business on a one-time basis for a period of up to forty (40) days to be utilized within six (6) months of the first day of the business opening to the public. Such signage shall not be limited by the provisions of Sections 4.5(I)(2). (4) Businesses or organizations with their activities located in the CCD, Central Business District, may display temporary, off-premise signs by express permit issued by the City Council or the Council’s designee where access to commercial areas requires directional signage from the City’s arterial roads. Signs allowed under this section shall be considered to be in addition to any other sign allowances, including permanent signage, other on-site temporary signs, or “sandwich board” signs displayed pursuant to Section 4.5(C)(7). Signs allowed CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.5 Signs Subsection (J) District Regulations Page 202 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance under this section may, at the discretion of the Council, be permitted under the following conditions: (a) Off-premise, temporary signs shall be no more than four (4) square feet in area. (b) Off-premise temporary signs shall be no more than three (3) feet in height. (c) Off-premise temporary signs shall be limited to no more than one (1) sign every seventy-five (75) lineal feet of street frontage, but no more than three (3) signs per parcel. (d) Notwithstanding other regulations to the contrary, such signs may be placed upon the public sidewalk within a City street right of way. Any such sign placed on the public sidewalk shall be located so as to avoid impeding pedestrian traffic, and to avoid visual interference with vehicular traffic. (e) An application for an off-premise, temporary sign shall be accompanied by a written statement of permission from the owner of the private property on which the sign is to located. Such statement shall include an express grant of permission for City inspectors to enter the property for the purpose of inspecting and/or removing said signs. (f) An application for signs subject to the provisions of this section may be made for a single period of display, or in the alternative, the City may grant approval for annual license for the display of such signs in accordance with Section 2.4(K). Separate fees may be established for single-period or annual- period permits. (g) Eligible days for the display of signs subject to this section shall be Thursday, Friday, Saturday, or Sunday only. (J) District Regulations In addition to the signs allowed by Section 4.5(C) and Section 4.5(I), the following signs shall be allowed within the specific zoning districts: (1) Within residential zoning districts (see table 3-1), the following additional regulations apply: (a) Except for the uses specified in Sections 4.5(J)(1)(b) and 4.5(J)(1)(c) below, not more than one (1) sign shall be allowed provided that: (i) The area of the sign shall not exceed four (4) square feet. Planning Commission Agenda: 09/04/12 1 9. Consideration to review an update on the R-3 (Medium Density) Residential District amendment. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: During the August regular meeting, the Planning Commission tabled action related to a zoning amendment for the R-3 (Medium Density) Residential District. The proposed amendment addressed the potential for allowing higher densities in the R-3 than currently allowed. Planning staff presented a variety of options for the Commission’s consideration, including increased densities in the R-3, and/or the creation of a new higher density district, an R-4 District. Planning staff noted that the City would have significant discretion in the creation and application of an R-4 District, as any property seeking to achieve the densities allowed under an R-4 would need to seek rezoning. After discussing the potential alternatives, the Commission indicated that more time was needed to analyze the options. The Commission also commented that any increase in density should be offset by enhancements in design standards in support of the Comprehensive Plan’s objectives for amenity-based move-up housing. As such, staff will be providing the Commission with a set of revised amendment options in October. The options will include:  Leave the R-3 District densities as currently regulated and add a higher density R-4 District. The R-4 District will require prescribe performance standards which must be met as opposed to conditional or negotiated under a PUD.  Amend the R-3 District to allow for a small increase in density in performance overlay or PUD requests. Adopt an R-4 District as noted above.  Adopt amendments to the R-3 which graduate densities from lowest densities at permitted use to highest densities achieved under a PUD. In addition to providing density recommendation for each option, staff will also provide specific performance standards (building materials, landscaping, parking, etc.) and analysis on the level of approval discretion under each option. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: No action requested. A new hearing notice will be published for the proposed amendments for the October meeting. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None at this time. Planning Commission Agenda: 09/04/12 2 D. SUPPORTING DATA: Previous analysis, amendment options and housing information for the city was provided with the August Planning Commission agenda. Planning Commission Agenda – 09/04/12 1 10. Consideration to appoint a Commissioner to the review committee for the Economic Development Chapter of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. (AS) A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND: In discussions with Megan Barnett-Livgard regarding the workplan of the IEDC, it was noted that an assessment of the need for future industrial land area was a top priority. In that regard, staff offers the following information for consideration. The Planning Commission completes an annual review of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, consistent with a directive adopted within the plan itself. In past years, the review has been focused on Chapter 3, Land Use. However, in light of the need for a more detailed review of City goals related to industrial land use identification and the potential for another (or expanded) future park, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission, IEDC and EDA work together to complete a thorough review of Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4, Economic Development as a first step. The Comprehensive Plan is the City’s primary tool for guiding land use decisions, including where industrial land is best located and what type of industrial development is sought. The Economic Development Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan then sets out the overall goals and strategies for realizing the City’s vision for economic development. Since the time of the adoption of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, much has changed. A detailed review of the Economic Development chapter of the Plan will allow all three bodies the opportunity understand how the strategies of the plan have been applied and to discuss the current validity of the Development Strategies enumerated in the plan. The group can identify where changes need to be made, or whether they should remain as guiding policies. At the very least, the review is an opportunity to complete an update to the baseline data included in the chapter, based on more recent Census data. From that renewed understanding of economic development goals, the group can delve further into the question of whether the amount of land area designated on the existi ng Land Use Plan is sufficient to meet the goals identified, where a new or expanded park should be located, what types of industry the City should focus on for those locations, and what development scenario (private, public or joint venture) is the best strategy for meeting the Plan’s goals. With the above in mind, staff would suggest the following process:  October - A preliminary worksession between the Planning Commission, IEDC and EDA, or a subcommittee of the three groups, to review Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan for potential amendment  November – Review of information on existing industrial land inventory and guided industrial land area (acreage, lot size, zoning, absorption rate, use, etc.)  December – Identification of expansion or additional industrial land sites and structure to accomplish development Planning Commission Agenda – 09/04/12 2 The full Economic Development Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan is included for reference. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend _________________ to a joint worksession between representatives of the IEDC, Planning Commission and EDA to review the Economic Development Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan as related to analysis of industrial land supply. 2. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends alternative 1. A full review of the Comprehensive Plan’s Economic Development Chapter serves as an appropriate platform for launching a more specific discussion on available and future industrial land area. D. SUPPORTING DATA Monticello Comprehensive Plan - Chapter 4, Economic Development Economic Development | 4-12008 Comprehensive Plan Ideally, the Comprehensive Plan does not have an Economic Develop- ment chapter. Th e Land Use Plan would be suffi cient to channel market forces to meet the development objectives of the community. In reality, certain development needs cannot be met without public intervention. Th e Economic Development chapter of the Plan focuses on the aspects of Monticello’s future that require particular attention and action by the City. Th ese actions include: Attracting jobs Expanding the tax base Enhancing the economic vitality of Downtown Facilitating redevelopment Attracting Jobs Th e creation and retention of jobs is one of the most important objec- tives for Monticello. Jobs, particularly jobs with income levels capable of supporting a family, are key to achieving many elements of Monticello’s vision for the future. Jobs attract residents to the community. Jobs will pay a critical role in creating the type of “move up” housing sought by the City. Jobs provide the income needed to support local business and govern- ment services. Retention of businesses promote community stability by keeping jobs and residents in Monticello Th e Community Context chapter of the Comprehensive Plan contains a section on Employment. Th is section contains data about employment in Monticello and of its residents. Among the key fi ndings in this section are: Monticello has been a net importer of employment - there are more jobs in Monticello than workers living in the community. According to the 2000 Census, 5,111 people reported working in Monticello while 4,262 Monticello residents were part of the civilian labor force. 4 Comprehensive Plan does not have an Economic Develop- er. Th e Land Use Plan would be suffi cient to channel market eet the development objectives of the community. In reality, elopmentneedscannotbemetwithoutpublicintervention Economic Development Chapter Contents Attracting Jobs ............................4-1 Expanding the Tax Base ............4-2 Enhancing Downtown ...............4-5 Facilitating Redevelopment .....4-5 Development Strategies ...........4-5 4-2 | Economic DevelopmentCity of Monticello Th e job base in Monticello is made up of a wide range of small to medium sized employers. In 2007, Only fi ve employers report more than 100 employ- ees, Monticello Public Schools, Xcel Energy, Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Monticello-Big Lake Hospital, and Ultra Machining Company (according to listing of major employers from Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development). Workers for Monticello businesses come primar- ily from Monticello and the surrounding region. Over 80% of people working in Monticello lived in Monticello, adjacent townships, Big Lake, or other places in Wright and Sherburne counties (2000 Census). Th e 2000 Census found that only 26% of people working Monticello also lived in the city. 69% of working Monticello residents held jobs in other places (2000 Census). More than one-third worked in Hennepin County. Th e 2000 Census reported a mean travel time to work of 26 minutes. 45% of Monticello workers indicated travel time to work of 30 minutes or more. In 2007, St. Cloud State University conducted an as- sessment of establishing a bioscience park in Mon- ticello. Th e results of this study provide important insights on future job growth. Th e study identifi ed a series “strengths” for attracting bioscience fi rms to Monticello: Land availability (compared to Metro Area). Access to major highways (I-94, U.S. 10 and STH 25). Regional growth of employment base. Development of local fi ber optic system. Proximity to universities. Overall location. Expansive park system. Monticello Community Center. Many of these factors would also apply to attracting other types of businesses. Th e St. Cloud State study also made note of several weaknesses in attracting these business to the com- munity. Th e list included: Lack of hotels and lodging. No defi ned plan. Small community. Low tax base. Th e recommendations of this Study apply to eff orts to establishing a bioscience park and to overall develop- ment of Places to Work: Site Location - Need to have site that are suitable and attractive to potential businesses available and ready for development. Funding - Funding is essential to provide sites and for incentives to attract and retain the appropriate businesses. Local, state and private funding sources should be explored. Tax treatment - Th e City gains important tools from special tax zones that have been made avail- able at state and federal level. Partnerships - Attracting jobs to Monticello re- quires partnerships with other stakeholders. Expanding the Tax Base A traditional objective of local economic development planning is the expansion of the property tax base. Under the current system of local government fi nance, property taxes are the largest source of city revenue. For this reason, it is an important aspect of economic development planning in Monticello. Understanding the Property Tax System Eff ective strategies to promote the growth of the tax base require a clear understanding of the property tax system. Property Valuation Th ere are three forms of property valuation. Th e foun- dation of the property tax system is Estimated Market Value. Th is amount is the value of a parcel of property as set by the County Assessor. In some circumstances, the State Legislature limits the amount of Estimated Economic Development | 4-32008 Comprehensive Plan Market Value that can be used for taxation. Th ese adjustments result in the Taxable Market Value. Th e value used to calculate property taxes is Tax Capacity. Tax Capacity Value is a percentage of Taxable Market Value. Th e percentage factors are set by the State Legislature and vary by class of property. Changes in the Tax System Traditional economic development theory seeks commercial and in- dustrial development as a means of building tax base. Historically, the system supported this approach. A dollar of estimated market value of commercial-industrial property carried a higher tax capacity value than residential property. Over the past twelve years, tax “reforms” by the State Legislature have changed this situation. Th e chart in Figure 4-1 shows how legislative changes have reduced the tax base created by commercial-industrial development. Th is chart is based on the tax capacity value for $3,000,000 of Taxable Market Value. Th e legislative changes in the rates used to set tax capacity mean that this property produced 56% less tax base in 2007 than in 1997. Th is trend takes on additional meaning when compared to other classi- fi cations of property. Figure 4-2 compares the tax capacity value for the primary forms of development in Monticello. Th e valuations in this chart are based on assumptions about the density of development and estimated market value of new development. Changes in these assumptions will alter the results. 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 199719981999200020012002 to 2007 Ta x C a p a c i t y V a l u e Figure 4-1: Changes in Tax Capacity Value - Commercial/Industrial 4-4 | Economic DevelopmentCity of Monticello Industrial Retail Offi ce Single Townhome Apt Acres101010101010 Coverage30%30%30%3612 Development (SF or Units)130,680130,680130,6803060120 EMV per SF or Unit6580100400,000250,000150,000 EMV 8,494,20010,454,40013,068,00012,000,00015,000,00018,000,000 Tax Capacity169,134208,338260,610120,000150,000225,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 IndustrialRetailOfficeSingleTownhomeApt Ta x C a p a c i t y V a l u e Figure 4-2: Tax Capacity Comparison Figure 4-3: Tax Capacity Comparison Other "Larger" 6% Xcel Energy 39% All Other Tax Capacity 55% Economic Development | 4-52008 Comprehensive Plan Th is chart clearly illustrates the current reality for eco- nomic development strategies. All forms of develop- ment contribute tax base to the community. It is risky placing too much weight on one type of development for tax base growth. In addition, cities do not control the critical elements of the tax system. Changes in the system lead to unanticipated results at the local level. Tax base growth has implications that are unique to Monticello. Th e chart in Figure 4-3 shows the distribu- tion of taxable (Tax Capacity) value in Monticello. Xcel Energy creates almost 40% of the City’s tax base. While it has provided a unique asset for the community, it is essential that the tax base become more diversifi ed. Enhancing Downtown Maintaining a successful Downtown is an important element of the economic development plan for Mon- ticello. Downtown is a key business district providing goods, services and jobs for the community. Down- town is unlike any other business district because of its unique role in Monticello’s identity and heritage. Th e Land Use chapter describes plans, policies and strategies related to Downtown Monticello. Downtown is part of the Economic Development chapter because of the likelihood that city actions and investments will be needed to achieve community objectives for Down- town. Th is intervention may include: Public improvements to provide services or to enhance the Downtown environment. Provision of adequate parking supply. Acquisition of land. Preparation of sites for development. Removal of other physical and economic barriers to achieve community objectives. Th ese actions may require the use of tax increment fi nancing, tax abatement or other fi nance tools avail- able to the City. Facilitating Redevelopment Th e Comprehensive Plan seeks to create a place where land use plans, policies and controls work together with private investment to properly maintain all properties in Monticello. It is recognized that this approach may not succeed in all locations. Despite the best plans and intentions, properties may become physically deterio- rated and/or economically inviable. In such places, city intervention may be need to facilitate redevelopment and prevent the spread of blight. Th is intervention may include: Acquisition of land. Preparation of sites for development. Remediation of polluted land. Construction or reconstruction of public improve- ments. Provision of adequate parking supply. Removal of other physical and economic barriers to achieve community objectives. Th ese actions may require the use of tax increment fi nancing, tax abatement or other fi nance tools avail- able to the City. Development Strategies Th e following strategies will be used to implement the Comprehensive Plan in the area of Economic Develop- ment: Th e City must use the Comprehensive Plan to pro-1. vide adequate locations for future job-producing development (Places to Work). Th e City should adhere to the Comprehensive Plan 2. to encourage stable business setting and promote investment and expansion of facilities. Th e City should coordinate utility planning and 3. manage other development to ensure that expan- sion areas are capable of supporting new develop- ment in a timely manner. Th e City should evaluate the need and feasibility 4. of additional city-owned business parks as a means attracting the desired businesses. 4-6 | Economic DevelopmentCity of Monticello Th e City should establish a plan to evaluate the 5. feasibility of implementing the recommendation of the St. Cloud State study and if feasible to take necessary action to attract bioscience businesses to Monticello. Th e City will continue to work with existing busi-6. nesses to maintain an excellent business environ- ment, retain jobs and facilitate expansions. Th e City will work with the Monticello-Big Lake 7. Hospital to ensure the retention and to promote the expansion of health care services in Monticello. Th e City will use the Comprehensive Plan to main-8. tain and enhance the quality of life in Monticello as a tool for attracting businesses and jobs. Planning Commission Agenda – 9/04/12 1 11. Community Development Director’s Report. Planning Commission Vacancies A reminder that the Planning Commission has two interviews for the vacancies on the Commission on Wednesday, September 5th. The interviews begin at 5:00 PM in the Academy Room. Interview questions and applications for the positions are included with this agenda packet. Growth Projections As part of the annual review of the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission directed staff to complete an analysis of projected housing units and population growth over the life of the plan. NAC has completed the analysis, the results of which are included with this report. Staff will discuss the findings with the Commission during the regular meeting and will seek direction regarding a potential amendment to the Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan as may be necessary. Embracing Downtown/TIF District Update Progress continues to be made in support of the Embracing Downtown plan. City Administrator Jeff O’Neill and myself will staff the Downtown Leadership Team and Steering Committees in order to provide City representation and will continue to provide staff assistance to the group’s marketing and outreach efforts. In terms of progress on the ground, Staff is working with Ehlers & Associates to understand the redevelopment potential and costs on Block 34 (SE corner of TH 25/CSAH 75), including business relocations and redevelopment of businesses and the completion of intersection improvements. The EDA has also approved the completion of the “knockdown analysis” for District 1-22. This analysis will yield information on the amount of increment available for redevelopment projects within the district. The analysis is critical in aiding the City in its understanding of all the tools and funds available to accomplish redevelopment objectives. Business Expansions & Remodels Tire Service Inc has applied for a permit to add 1620 square feet to their existing building. Walker In-Store has submitted a permit application for an interior remodel. WSI has submitted a permit application for a 47,000 square foot addition to their existing building, and Dr. Wong at Lakeland Dental received permits to remodel the old Monticello Times building. Our thanks and congratulations to each of these businesses for their continued investments in the community. Planning Commission Agenda – 9/04/12 2 Community Development Intern Ellen Eden, a Community Development major at St. Cloud State University, joined the City of Monticello team as an intern on August 28th, 2012. Ellen will be with the City until December 10th, 2012. The internship is unpaid, but will qualify in meeting credit and major requirements. Ellen’s work will include assistance on CUP audits and compliance, neighborhood involvement programs, and Live Wright initiatives. Update on Great River Trailways and Trailhead Improvements project City staff was recently notified that the City was awarded all requested grant funding for trailway segment 3 ($20,016) and trailway segment 4 and the trailhead ($36,111). This means the City was successful in securing grant funding for the construction of all four trailway segments plus the trailhead improvements. Staff is therefore continuing to work with WSB to complete the required environmental documentation, with Xcel Energy to secure the necessary easements for the four trailways and the trailhead facility, and with BNSF to obtain approvals and easements for a new pedestrian RR crossing for trailway segment 3. Staff will also continue to seek additional funding via private donations to help offset our local match costs for these improvements. Construction of these improvements will begin in the spring of 2013. Due to the timing of the requested grant approvals, the construction of trailway segments 1 and 2 will occur first, and the construction of trailway segments 3 and 4 and the trailhead will occur last.