The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 08-02-2011 AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman – NAC 1. Call to order. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 5th, 2011. 3. Citizen Comments. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 7, Special Use Overlay District, including amendments to the official zoning map of the City of Monticello. Applicant: City of Monticello 6. Continued Public Hearing – Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 13 - Telecommunications Towers and Antennas, Chapter 5, Section 1- Use Table, Chapter 5, Section 2 – Use Specific Standards and Chapter 5, Section 3 - Accessory Uses Applicant: City of Monticello 7. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Rezoning from I-1 (Light Industrial) to B-4 (Regional Business) for Lot 1 and 2, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park (102 Thomas Park Drive). Applicant: WHL Enterprises, LLC 8. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Applicant: City of Monticello SPECIAL WORKSHOP 5:00 PM – Mississippi Room Concept Proposal – 251 Partnership/Mike Schneider Chapter 2, Section 4(C), as related to Variances Chapter 3, Section 4 as related to R-2 and R-1 zoned properties in the Original Plat and Lower Monticello Chapter 3, Section 4 (D) and (E) as related to Attached Accessory Structure standards Chapter 3, Section 3.4(G) as related to Accessory Structure standards Chapter 3, Section 4(P) as related to Planned Unit Developments Chapter 4, Section 1(J) as related to landscaping standards in the TN District Chapter 4, Section 5(H) as related to Dynamic Displays Chapter 4, Section 5(I) as related to Temporary Signs Chapter 5, Section 2(F) as related to Entertainment/Recreation, Indoor Commercial Chapter 5, Section 2 as related to Restaurants (Special Event permits) Chapter 5, Section 3 as related to Accessory Uses: Outdoor Storage in Industrial Districts Truck Parking in Industrial and Commercial Districts Chapter 5, Section 3 as related to Attached Accessory Buildings Chapter 5, Section 4, as related to Temporary Uses 9. Consideration of request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for Concept Stage and Development Stage Planned Unit Development approval for a multi-tenant shopping center, a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage, a Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash, a Conditional Use Permit for a Motor Fuel Station/Convenience Store, a Conditional Use Permit for minor auto repair, and Preliminary Plat approval. Applicant: Mills Properties, Inc. 10. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2011-71 finding that a modification to the Redevelopment Plan, TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-39, and conveying EDA owned land to Suburban Manufacturing conforms with the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. 11. Community Development Director’s Report 12. Adjourn. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 5, 2011 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle and William Spartz Commissioners Absent: Charlotte Gabler, Barry Voight Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart Staff: Present: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller Staff Absent: Steve Grittman, NAC 1. Call to order Commissioner Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes of June 7th, 2011 BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 7TH, 2011. MOTION WAS SECONDED BILL SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 3-0. 3. Citizen Comments None 4. Conside ration of adding items to the agenda None 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 7, Special Use Overlay District, including amendments to the official zoning map of the City of Monticello. Applicant: City of Monticello The Planning Commission had called for a public hearing regarding an amendment of the Special Use Overlay District in relationship to the pending bowling alley site rezoning at their last meeting. Although the property is now commercially zoned it hasn’t yet changed ownership or been converted to use as a religious institution so it is not necessary to, at this time, amend the district. Quarry Church currently has a letter of intent on the property and will meet to work out platting, right of way and sale issues and will likely bring a purchase agreement to council by the end of August. Staff recommended reviewing the Special Use Overlay District after the sale transaction has taken place to determine which abutting or adjacent parcels should be removed from the districts. Planning Commission Minutes – 07/05/11 2 There was some consideration about the importance of reviewing the Special Use Overlay District on a consistent periodic basis. Staff will get direction from City Planner Steve Grittman about establishing a reasonable time frame for doing so. The public hearing was opened. BILL SPARTZ MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, SPECIAL USE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO AUGUST 2ND, 2011. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BRAD FYLE. MOTION CARRIED 3-0. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 13 - Telecommunications Towers and Antennas, Chapter 5, Section 1- Use Table, Chapter 5, Section 2 – Use Specific Standards and Chapter 5, Section 3 - Accessory Uses Applicant: City of Monticello The Planning Commission had called for a public hearing for amendments relating to telecommunication towers and antennas. As ordinance language revisions had not yet been completed, staff asked that the public hearing be continued to the August 2nd, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. The Commission briefly considered the inventory of towers and antennas already in place throughout the City as a reference point for considering amendments. There were a few specific questions related to the tower at the Workforce Center and the inventory in general. Staff agreed to look into residential requirements for rooftop power generators. The public hearing was opened. BILL SPARTZ MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS TO AUGUST 2ND, 2011. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BRAD FYLE. MOTION CARRIED 3-0. 7. Consideration of Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Code Tracking Update Staff had requested feedback on various text items that may require amendment since the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance. Many of these are minor adjustments to code while others require some policy decisions. The following items were noted and/or briefly addressed:  Variance law  Subdivisions in R-2 zoned portions of the Original Plat and Lower Monticello  Outdoor storage CUPs in industrial districts Planning Commission Minutes – 07/05/11 3 There had been some previous consideration of establishing stricter standards for outdoor storage in lieu of a CUP in industrial districts. Front storage was of particular concern. Staff will ask for IEDC input prior to the next commission meeting.  Regulations for building materials in the IBC Staff will also consult the IEDC about what type of building materials are preferred in the business campus. This section of the code had been reserved for future regulations.  R-A landscaping standards This section of the code had also been reserved for future regulations.  Industrial PUDs Staff recommended that this issue also be considered.  Occasional sale signage Non-profits serving the broader community have a need to market special events outside of temporary signage regulations. Staff will review the City of Buffalo’s occasional sale signage regulations and craft language for consideration.  Indoor entertainment conditions Although listed as conditional use in some districts, indoor entertainment conditions are not yet specified in the zoning code text.  Special use permit for events held after 10 PM Current special use permit regulations do not address outdoor entertainment after 10 PM. The commission may want to consider an option for a special use permit under certain circumstances.  Accessory structure language placement  Dynamic Display The text of the code does not specify that dynamic displays are intended to be for permanent signs only. Rod Dragsten asked Building Official Ron Hackenmueller for feedback about the temporary sign ordinance. The City has issued twice as many temporary signs as a year ago. There was some discussion about the need for applicants to be more responsible Planning Commission Minutes – 07/05/11 4 about proper placement of temporary signs as they are often placed in the right of way. Staff will prepare amendment language for these code tracking issues for consideration at the August Planning Commission meeting. 8. Community Development Director’s Report Bertram Chain of Lakes Park City Council approved the Phase 3 acquisition and the Wright County Board will consider providing funding match in July for the joint ownership of 126 land and water acres. This current purchase doesn’t include the beach but does include camp buildings. Staff will establish joint use agreements with the YMCA and continue to seek new grant funding for this project. Park and Trail Plan The Park and Trail Plan was approved by City Council and the interactive map is on the City website. The new brochure will soon be printed. NAC will be developing mobile applications to provide further access to these resources. State Shutdown The Walgreens project will not be delayed as a temporary electrical final had been issued. Plan reviews for plumbing are dependent upon the state. There should not be a significant impact unless the shutdown continues for longer than a few weeks. PUD Ordinance Workshop Staff suggested scheduling a joint Planning Commission and City Council PUD Ordinance workshop and will send out an email with proposed meeting dates. Building Update Although there have been no new single family permits this year, there have been several residential addition permits and numerous deck permits. The Department of Building Safety’s workload is currently 80% commercial and 20% residential. There have been 50% more blights than last year in vacant lots and foreclosed property. 9. Adjournment BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:50 PM. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BILL SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 3-0. Recorder: Kerry T. Burri __ Approved: August 2, 2011 Attest: ___________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 1 5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 7, Special Use Overlay District, including amendments to the official zoning map of the City of Monticello. Applicant: City of Monticello (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In June, the Planning Commission called for a public hearing regarding an amendment of the Special Use overlay district relative to the pending bowling alley site rezoning. In July, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on this item due to a lack of progress on the transition of the City from City ownership to ownership by the Quarry Church. At the time of the preparation of this report, the City and Quarry Church were still working through site items related to the consideration of a purchase agreement. As such, staff is again requesting continuation of this item to a subsequent meeting. Commissioner Spartz did request that staff discuss the frequency of needed review on the special use overlay district itself with the City Planner. Mr. Grittman has recommended that the City complete such review annually, concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan review, unless otherwise warranted by separate rezoning actions. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to continue the hearing on the amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Special Use Overlay District to September 6th, 2011. 2. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends Alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Official Zoning Map for the City of Monticello Cou nty Hwy 75 Chelsea Rd State Hwy 25 85th St NE 9 0 t h S t N E Linn St Pine St 7th St Sc h o o l B l v d Riverview Dr Cedar St W River St M a r v i n R d Jason Ave Dundas Rd W Broadway St Hart Blvd Country La Haug Ave NE Elm St W 4th St Fenning Ave NE Oakwook Dr Mall a rd La 95th St NE Fallon Ave NE Edmonson Ave NE Mississippi Dr 5th St C o u ntry C lu b R d Sandberg Rd P e l i c a n L a Fa lc o n D r Fenning Ave Walnut St Oak Ridge Dr Oriole La Club View Rd Broad way St Hillcrest Rd E River St Headman La M i l l Tr a i l L a Falcon Ave NE Wright St Benton St Elwood Rd Ramsey St 6th St River Mill Dr Wildwood Way Hilltop Dr Mi l l R u n R d Oak View La Farmstead Ave Ma r t i n D r 4th St E3rd St E Red Rock La Gillard Ave NE Maple St Fallon Dr Willow St View La E Grey Stone Ave Marvin Elwood Rd Fieldcrest Cir Fairway Dr Jason Ave NE Vine St Meadow La Jerry Liefert Dr Praire Rd Starling Dr Palm St Unknown or No Streetname Fallon Ave Golf Course Rd Falcon Ave Ke v i n L o n g l e y D r Craig La R e d O a k L a Front St 5th St W Thomas Park Dr Locust St M o c k i n g b i r d L a W 3rd St Eastwood Cir Briar Oaks Blvd F a r m s t e a d D r Henipin St E i d e r L a Dayton St Oak La River Forest Dr Meadow Oak Ave Kampa Cir O a k R i d g e C i r M i l l Ct River Ridge La Garrison AveOakview Ct Dundas Cir Kenneth La Otter Creek Rd Minnesota St Eagle Cir Crocus La M eado w O ak La Stone Ridge Dr Chestnut St 1 2 0 t h S t N E D arro w Ave N E Diamond Dr Pebble Brook Dr Widgeon La Washington St Bunker Cir H o m estead D r Thomas Cir E n d i c o t t T r Center Cir Oak View Cir Sandtrap Cir Country Cir Cheyen Ct O ld T e rrit o ral R d Tanager Cir Hillcrest Cir Osprey Ct A corn Cir Balboul Cir S w a ll o w C i r R i v e r s i d e C i r Meadow Oak Ct Matthew Cir E Oak Dr S t o n e R i d g e C i r Oakwood Dr Meadow Oak Ave NECounty H w y 75 Hart Blvd Marvin Rd Marvin Rd Wright St 90th St NE Cedar St Minnesota St $J U Z P G . P O U J D F M M P 0G G J D J B M ; P O J O H . B Q .J T T J T T J Q Q J 8 J M E 4 D F O J D 3 F D 0 W F S M B Z % J T U S J D U 07 & 3 - " : % * 4 5 3 * $ 5 4 1F S G P S N B O D F # B T F E 0 W F S M B Z % J T U S J D U !!! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! 4I P S F M B O E % J T U S J D U 05 ) & 3 8B U F S -F H F O E " 0 3 " 3 5 / 3 3 1 6 % 3 . ) BA S E Z O N I N G D I S T R I C T S Re s i d e n t i a l D i s t r i c t s -- L o w R e s i d e n t i a l D e n s i t i e s -- M e d i u m R e s i d e n t i a l D e n s i t i e s -- H i g h R e s i d e n t i a l D e n s i t i e s # # # # $$ % *# $ * * Bu s i n e s s D i s t r i c t s In d u s t r i a l D i s t r i c t s 4Q F D J B M 6 T F 0 W F S M B Z % J T U S J D U !!! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 6. Public Hearing — Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 13 - Telecommunications Towers and Antennas, Chapter 5, Section 1- Use Table, Chapter 5, Section 2 — Use Specific Standards and Chapter 5, Section 3 - Accessory Uses Applicant: City of Monticello (NAC) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In June, the Planning Commission called for a public hearing for amendments relating to telecommunication towers and antennas. The following areas were reviewed for potential amendments to the ordinance: 1. The City may want to consider whether allowing antenna and/or tower structures as principal uses is appropriate in any district. As a principal use, the tower would be the only use on the property. It may not be the intent of the City to completely prohibit such towers as principal uses in the new code. 2. The City should consider whether tower and antenna status as a permitted accessory use in all zoning districts is acceptable. More likely, in some cases the City would want to allow such tower uses only as conditional uses. Planning Commission will note that radio/television broadcast towers and telecommunication towers already require CUPS (4.13(E) and (F), but there is an opportunity to further clarify the requirements in the use tables to eliminate any confusion about where such uses are permitted versus conditional. 3. Differentiation between antennas and towers may better serve the City's interests, as the two are often quite different in terms of structure and placement. Separating towers, antennas and even perhaps the types of towers (radio/broadcast versus personal wireless) within the use tables themselves can help eliminate confusion during the review process. Standards for each would then de encapsulated separately within section 4.13. Planning Commission reached consensus on the following direction related to the above in terms of developing potential amendments: 1. Separate the varying types of towers/antennas within the tables and text and provide appropriate regulations for each 2. Generally prohibit towers/antennas as principal uses of properties with limited exceptions 3. Require Condition Use Permits for towers and some antennas in all zoning districts; display clearly within tables 4. Define what types of antennas may be allowed without a CUP and under what conditions Attached to this report are three documents representing proposed changes to the current regulations, including a revised Section 4.13 — Telecommunications Towers and Antennae, a revised Table 5-6 specifying accessory uses, and revised Definitions that will apply to the ordinance. A summary of the proposed changes follows below. Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 Section 4.13, Telecommunications Towers and Antennae This section constitutes a revision of the entire section, primarily through reorganization, with some limited revision to the specific standards applying to these structures. Telecommunications facilities have been made accessory uses wherever they occur, and have been specifically broken into antennae and antenna support structures (towers and the like). The purpose of this subdivision is that antennae are proposed to be treated differently from support structures, depending on location. In some cases, one or the other may be permitted or conditional, again depending on location. The reorganization creates the following subsections: • Purpose — largely carried over from current language. • (A) Private Amateur Radio — this section establishes amateur radio (primarily Ham and similar Short -Wave amateur radio operators) as permitted accessory structures in all districts, and creates nominal standards for adherence to the minimal standards that the City can apply. The code provides for antenna to extend up to 20 feet above district height limits, and creates a CUP provision to extend beyond that to 70 feet. • (B) Private Receiving Antenna — this section provides for antennae related to reception only for television and other electronic communications. These antenna are permitted in all zoning districts. • (C) Commercial/Industrial Reception and Transmission — this section establishes requirements for larger communications facilities — usually (but not exclusively) related to a media company or similar use. The equipment for this purpose is listed as an accessory Conditional Use in Business and Industrial Districts, requires screening from adjoining streets, and residential and business property, and is otherwise treated as mechanical equipment, whether ground or roof -top mounted. • (D) Wireless Telecommunications Antennae — this section establishes regulations for wireless technology (commonly cellular telephone and similar equipment). The text provides that new freestanding support structures are allowed only by CUP, and only in certain commercial and industrial districts. Co -location of antennae may occur as permitted accessory uses on existing structures in commercial and industrial districts, along with the R-3 District. Staff has raised a point for discussion as to whether the B- 1 District should be included in this list since it would most often be embedded in residential areas. Also for discussion would be whether co -location of antennae (not including new freestanding towers) should be allowed in other districts (the code has been drafted to allow such co -location by CUP in these areas). The presumption would be that such co -location might occur on taller buildings in the R-1 area such as churches, or on utility or public structures. • (E) General Provisions are consolidated in this section that apply to any proposed antenna or support structure. Most of these are translated directly, or adapted slightly, from current ordinance text. • (F) Application process and submittal requirements are found in this section. • (G) Outside review of applications at applicant's cost is authorized in this section. 2 Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 • (H) Removal of abandoned installations is covered in this section. Again, Planning Commission will note that the text proposed for section 4.13 lists in red point of discussion for the Planning Commission's input. Table 5-6 The changes to the table include the deletion of the broader Communications Antennae category in favor of separate listings for each type of antenna, along with specific classification of where each is permitted, conditional and permitted. Chapter 8, Definitions The changes include separate definitions which provide distinction between the antennae classifications provided above. At the June meeting, Planning Commission also requested that staff prepare an inventory of towers and antennas already in place in throughout the City as a reference point for considering amendments. That inventory has been prepared and is included with this report. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to recommend approval of Ordinance #536, proposed amendments to the City's regulation of Telecommunications Antennae and Towers, including amendments to Section 8.4 (Definitions), Section 4.13 (Telecommunications Antennae and Towers), and Table 5-6 (Accessory Uses by District) 2. Motion to recommend denial of Ordinance #536, proposed amendments to the City's regulations of Telecommunications Antennae and Towers. 3. Motion to continue the hearing on the amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Telecommunication Towers and Antennas to a future meeting. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends Alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Tower & Antenna Inventory B. Proposed Text of Section 4.13 C. Proposed Table 5-6 D. Proposed Definitions (Section 8.4) E. Ordinance #536 (to be provided at meeting) Tower—Bondhus Property 163 feet in height, Owner: Verizon Wireless LLC Tower is an accessory use Zoning District: I-1 Antenna—New River Medical Property Approximately 60 feet in height (85 ft AGL) Tower is an accessory use Zoning District: B-1 Antenna—TDS Property Approximately 90 feet in height Antenna is an accessory use Zoning District: CCD Tower—Workforce Center Property Approximately 150 feet in height Tower is an accessory use Zoning District: IBC Antenna—Olsen & Sons Property Approximately 70 feet in height Antenna is an accessory use structure Zoning District: B-3 Tower—Xcel Property 340 feet in height, Owner: Xcel Energy Services Inc. Antenna is an accessory use structure Zoning District: I-2 Tower—Monte Club Property 390 feet in height Owner: SBA Towers II LLC Tower—Monte Club Property 324 feet in height Owner: Bridge Water Telephone Co Tower—Monte Club Property Approximately 170 feet in height Monte Club Hill Towers Property Owner: Brian K Schultz Parcel Size: 8.67 Zoning: R-A, towers are principal use of property Distance to nearest residential property: Approximately 500 feet or 1/10 of a mile To w e r —Wo r k f o r c e C e n t e r P r o p e r t y Zo n i n g D i s t r i c t : I B C To w e r —Xc e l P r o p e r t y Zo n i n g D i s t r i c t : I -2 1 Exhibit 6B Proposed Text 4.13 Telecommunication Towers and Antennae Purpose. The City of Monticello acknowledges the legal right of telecommunication providers to locate within the City, and the need to accommodate the communication needs of residents and businesses. However, the City wishes to implement its legal authority to adopt zoning requirements which are nondiscriminatory, not intended to prohibit telecommunications service, and not based on health effects of radio frequency emissions. In order to establish uniform, nondiscriminatory regulations that protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the City, these regulations are intended to: (1) Minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design, landscaping, and siting standards. (2) Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure and weather related occurrences through structural standards and setback requirements; (3) Maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings to accommodate new telecommunication antennas in order to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community; (4) Utilize business, industrial and public land, buildings and structures for telecommunications whenever possible and/or appropriate; (5) Provide for the appropriate location and development of towers and antennas to accommodate the communication needs of the residents and businesses within the City of Monticello; (A) Private Amateur Radio. Private Amateur Radio, for the purposes of this Ordinance, shall mean equipment, including antennae, antennae support structures, and other related material, necessary to conduct Ham and Short Wave Radio reception and transmissions, only for use by those persons properly licensed by the Federal Communications Commission for such reception and transmissions, and who are in full compliance with all licensing requirements. (1) One (1) antenna and associated antenna support structure shall be a permitted accessory use in all zoning districts, provided that: (a) The owner/operator has current versions of all required licenses to operate said equipment. 2 (b) All equipment shall be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications, and pursuant to valid building and electrical permits, and any other applicable permit requirements. (c) Subject to CUP provisions in Section (A)(1)(d) of this chapter, no antenna or antenna support structure shall exceed the allowable height limits of the applicable zoning district in which it is located, plus twenty (20) feet. (d) By Conditional Use Permit, the height provisions of Sectio n (A)(1)(c) of this chapter may be exceeded, up to a maximum height of seventy (70) feet, upon a showing that the additional height is necessary for proper function of the equipment due to interference from terrain, vegetation, or adjoining buildings. Any such additional height shall require a setback from all property lines of no less than one-half (1/2) foot for every one (1) foot above the limits established in (A)(1)(c). (e) Except as allowed by Section (A)(1)(f) of this chapter, no freestanding antenna or antenna support structure shall be located within any required yard other than the rear yard of any parcel. (f) An antenna and its support structure may be located within the buildable area of a lot if mounted directly to the principal structure. (2) Any private amateur radio antenna or antenna support structure which is no longer in use, or for which the owner of property no longer has valid licenses, or which has fallen into disrepair to the extent that it can no longer serve its intended purpose, or which constitutes a hazard or nuisance, shall be considered a violation of the zoning ordinance, and shall be removed. (B) Private Receiving Antennae and Antenna Support Structures. Private Receiving Antennae and Antenna Support Structures, for the purposes of this ordinance, shall mean television and other electronic reception antennae for private use. (1) Private antennae less than three (3) meters in width and related support structures shall be a permitted accessory use in all zoning districts, provided that: (a) No antenna or antenna support structure shall exceed the allowable height limits of the applicable zoning district in which it is located, plus twenty (20) feet. (b) No freestanding antenna or antenna support structure shall be located within any required yard other than the rear yard of any parcel. (c) An antenna and its support structure may be located within the buildable area of a lot if mounted directly to the principal structure. 3 (2) Any private antenna or antenna support structure which is no longer in use, or which has fallen into disrepair to the extent that it can no longer serve its intended purpose, or which constitutes a hazard or nuisance, shall be considered a violation of the zoning ordinance, and shall be removed. (C) Commercial Transmission/Reception Antennae and Antenna Support Structures Commercial Transmission and Reception Antennae and Antenna Support Structures, for the purposes of this ordinance, shall mean commercial and industrial communications equipment accessory to business operations of one meter in width or greater, but not personal wireless telecommunications service equipment. (1) Commercial transmission/reception antennae and antenna support structures shall be allowed as accessory uses only by Conditional Use Permit following the provisions of Section 2.4(D) of the zoning ordinance, and shall comply with the following additional requirements: [In final draft, add sidebar reference to accessory use Table 5-6] (a) Antennae and antenna support structures for commercial transmission/reception shall not occupy the front yard of any parcel. (b) Antennae and antenna support structures allowed under this section shall be fully screened from adjoining residentially zoned parcels. (c) Antennae and antenna support structures allowed under this section shall be fully screened from adjoining public right of way. (d) Antennae and antenna support structures allowed under this section shall be fully screened from adjoining commercially-zoned property, that is, any parcel with a “B” zoning designation. (e) Antennae and antenna support structures allowed under this section shall meet all other zoning conditions related to the location of mechanical equipment, whether ground or roof -top mounted. (D) Wireless Telecommunications Service Antennae and Antenna Support Structures Wireless telecommunications service antennae and antenna support structures, for the purposes of this ordinance, shall mean any equipment necessary to provide or support all types of wireless electronic communications, including, but not necessarily limited to, wireless “cellular” telephone, radio, and internet transmission and reception communications between mobile communications providers and users, including public safety communications. (1) Wireless Telecommunications Service Antennae 4 (a) Co-location of antennae for personal wireless services shall be a permitted accessory use in “B”, Business [possibly exclude “B-1” District?], “I”, Industrial, “CCD”, Central Community District, and the “R- 3”, Multiple Family Residential zoning districts on any existing conforming antenna support structure. (b) In all other zoning districts than those identified in Section (D)(1)(a), location of antennae for personal wireless services shall be a conditional use. [consider prohibiting in these districts?] (2) Wireless Telecommunications Service Antennae Support Structures (a) Support structures for personal wireless service antennae shall be allowed as an accessory use only by conditional use permit, subject to the following provisions: (i) Antenna support structures for personal wireless services shall be no greater in height than the maximum height requirements of the zoning district in which the antenna support structure is located, unless otherwise allowed within this section. (ii) Antenna support structures for personal wireless services in the “R- 3”, Multiple Family Residential, “B-1”, and “B-2” zoning districts shall be required to be attached to, or mounted upon, the principal building, and shall match said building in color and other design features so as to minimize visibility. [Confirm that these Districts will accommodate antennae at all, pursuant to (D)(1)(a) and (b) above] (iii) Antenna support structures for personal wireless services in the “B- 3” and “B-4” zoning district shall be limited in height to seventy five (75) feet as measured from the natural grade at the location of the structure. (iv) Antenna support structures for personal wireless services in the “I”, Industrial districts shall be limited in height to one hundred fifty (150) feet as measured from the natural grade at the location of the structure. (v) Any antenna support structure shall be designed to accommodate the co-location of other antenna arrays. (vi) Any freestanding antenna support structure shall be of monopole design. (vii) All freestanding antenna support structures for personal wireless services shall be painted a galvanized light-grey color. (E) General provisions for wireless telecommunications service antennae and antenna support structures. (1) No new freestanding antenna support structure shall be located within one (1) mile of any existing freestanding antenna support structure. 5 (2) No new freestanding antenna support structure shall be approved when there exists a co-location opportunity within one-half (1/2) mile of the proposed structure location. (3) Prerequisite. A proposal for a new telecommunications tower shall not be approved unless it can be documented by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or structure within a one (1) mile radius of the proposed tower— transcending all municipal boundaries—due to one or more of the following reasons: (a) The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of an existing or approved tower or building, as documented by a licensed professional engineer, and any existing or approved tower or structure cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost. (b) The planned equipment would cause interference with other existing or planned equipment at the tower or structure. (c) Existing or approved towers and structures within a one (1) mile radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary for reasonable function. (d) The applicant has demonstrated that location of the antennas, as proposed is necessary to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas which cannot be adequately served by locating the antennas in a less restrictive district or an existing structure. Information provided as part of the capacity analysis, that is a trade secret, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13.37, shall be classified as non -public data. (e) Other unforeseen reasons that make it unfeasible to locate the telecommunications equipment upon an existing or approved tower or building. (4) Siting Provisions (a) Antennae shall be located on existing buildings and structures whenever possible. (b) No part of any antenna or antenna support structure, nor any appurtenances to such structure or antenna, shall extend over any public right of way or property line, nor be located within an public utility or drainage easement. 6 (c) Antenna support structures shall be designed to replicate materials and colors of similar structures in the area, such as lighting or utility poles. (5) Setbacks (a) In all zoning districts, the antenna support structure and any appurtenant structures shall comply with the minimum setback requirements of the district in which the proposed structure is to be located, or the distance determined as the fall zone of the structure by a licensed professional engineer, whichever is greater. (b) In all Zoning Districts, no freestanding antenna support structure shall be located within two hundred fifty (250) feet of an existing residence, or the proposed home location on an approved Preliminary Plat. (c) All antenna support structures shall be located in the rear yard of parcel whenever practical. (6) Design and Construction (a) No advertising or identification of any kind intended to be visible from the ground or other structures is permitted, except applicable warning and equipment information signage required by the manufacturer or by federal, state, or local authorities. (b) All antennae, antenna support structures, and accessory structures shall be in compliance with all City and State Building Codes, as applicable, and shall obtain all necessary permits. (c) Structure design, mounting and installation of the antenna and antenna support structure shall be in compliance with the manufacture’s specifications, and installation plans shall be approved and certified by a licensed professional engineer. (d) Antenna support structures and antennae shall be grounded for protection against a direct strike by lightning and shall comply, as to electrical wiring and connections, with all applicable provisions of all State codes. (e) All transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within a structure or cabinet whenever possible, and shall adhere to the following: (i) If a new tower accessory building is necessary to house such equipment, it shall be architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment, and shall be screened from view by landscaping as deemed necessary by the City Council. (ii) Accessory equipment associated with a rooftop antenna, satellite dishes, or wall antenna shall be located within the building, cabinet, or within a roof or ground enclosure which is 7 constructed of materials and color scheme compatible with the principal building. (iii) All transmitting, receiving and switching equipment shall be housed within a structure or cabinet. Such structure shall be architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment, and shall be screened from view by landscaping consistent with the screening and landscaping requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. (iv) Antenna support structures located within 1000’ feet of the FiberNet Monticello Co-Location Building shall be required to locate all transmitting, receiving and switching equipment within the FiberNet Monticello Co-Location (7) Lights and Attachments (a) No antenna or antenna support structure shall have lights, reflectors or other illuminating devices of any kind, unless required by a Federal or State regulatory authority. (b) Lights attached to antenna support structures may be approved by the City Council as a part of a Conditional Use Permit when such lights are used to illuminate a parking lot or other use on the ground, provided such lights meet the exterior lighting requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. (8) Site Landscaping (a) The site on which an antenna or antenna support structure is located shall be landscaped to control dust, weeds, drainage, and to improve aesthetics of the property. (9) Non-Interference (a) No antenna installation shall transmit signals in a way that causes interference with any other electronic device. (F) Application process and submittal requirements for wireless telecommunications service antenna support structures (1) Submittal Requirements. All applications for a Conditional Use Permit for any antenna or antenna support structure shall be accompanied by the following materials: (a) Documentation, in the form of a signed lease or other adequate proof of property interest, demonstrating that the applicant has authority to seek the requested permit from the owner or owners of the parcel in question. 8 (b) A statement describing the proposed project, together with written justification supporting the proposed installation. (c) Proof of insurance against injury or property damage caused by structural failure of any element of the installation. (d) The legal description of the property on which the improveme nts are to be located. (e) A certified survey of the property showing all existing conditions, along with the proposed improvements. (f) A coverage study prepared by a Radio Frequency Engineer showing alternative antenna support structure locations, co-location options, and whether such alternatives can accommodate the proposed antenna with reasonable coverage, including any known approved but unconstructed locations. Such plan shall include all existing towers, buildings, and other possible support structures. (g) A landscaping and screening plan. (h) A grading and drainage plan. (i) Architectural drawings of all appurtenant structures planned for the site. (j) A decommissioning plan outlining the means, process, and anticipated costs of removing all improvements at the end of th eir service life, or upon discontinued use. (k) A security acceptable to the City adequate to ensure safe removal of all improvements upon decommissioning. (l) A development agreement specifying the terms of the Conditional Use Permit, including improvements, decommissioning, financial security, and other elements. (m)Other information specified by the Community Development Director and/or City Council necessary to support the application and permit adequate municipal review of the request. (G) Outside Review. At the request of the Community Development Director, the City may seek and obtain the advice of outside experts to review technical materials submitted by the applicants, including the advice of structural experts, radio frequency engineers, or for any other related area of analysis. The applicant shall submit an escrow to cover the costs of such expertise. (H) Removal of Abandoned or Unused Antennae, Antenna Support Structures, or Other Appurtenant Elements. Any tower and/or antenna which is not used for six (6) successive months shall be deemed abandoned and may be required to be removed from the property. All abandoned or unused towers and associated facilities shall be removed within twelve (12) months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the City Council. After the facilities are removed, the site shall be restored to its original or an improved state. If a tower is not removed within twelve (12) months after the cessation of operations at a site, the tower and associated facilities may be removed by the City and the costs of removal assessed against the property. 9 The owner of the tower and the owner of the property are both responsible for removal of the tower as required by this Section. Exhibit 6C Proposed Use Table Amendment (3) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures TABLE 5-6: ACCESSORY USES BY DISTRICT Use Types “P” = Permitted “C” = Conditionally Permitted “I” = Interim Permitted Base Zoning Districts Additional Requirements A O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P 5.3(D)(1) Accessory Building – minor (≤ 120 square feet) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(2) Accessory Building – major (> 120 square feet) P P P P P P C P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(3) Adult Use – accessory C 5.3(D)(4) Agricultural Buildings P 5.3(D)(5) Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(6) Boarder(s) P P P 5.3(D)(7) Commercial Canopies P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(8) Private Amateur Radio P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 4.13(A) Private Receiving Antennae and Antenna Support Structures P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 4.13(B) Commercial Transmission/ Reception Antennae/Structures C C C C C C 4.13(C) Co-located Wireless Telecommunications Antennae C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 4.13(D) Wireless Telecommunications Support Structures C C C C C C C C C C 4.13(D) 4.13(E) Communication Antennas and Antenna Support Structures P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(9) Donation Drop-off Containers P P 5.3(D)(10) Drive-Through Services P P P C P P P 5.3(D)(11) Fences or Walls P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(12) Greenhouse/Conservatory (non-commercial) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(13) Heliports C C C C C 5.3(D)(14) Home Occupations P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(15) Indoor Food/Convenience Sales P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(16) Incidental Light Manufacturing P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(17) Off-street Loading Space P C P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(18) Off-street Parking P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(18) TABLE 5-6: ACCESSORY USES BY DISTRICT Use Types “P” = Permitted “C” = Conditionally Permitted “I” = Interim Permitted Base Zoning Districts Additional Requirements A O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P 5.3(D)(1) Accessory Building – minor (≤ 120 square feet) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(2) Accessory Building – major (> 120 square feet) P P P P P P C P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(3) Adult Use – accessory C 5.3(D)(4) Agricultural Buildings P 5.3(D)(5) Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(6) Boarder(s) P P P 5.3(D)(7) Commercial Canopies P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(8) Private Amateur Radio P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 4.13(A) Private Receiving Antennae and Antenna Support Structures P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 4.13(B) Commercial Transmission/ Reception Antennae/Structures C C C C C C 4.13(C) Co-located Wireless Telecommunications Antennae C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 4.13(D) Wireless Telecommunications Support Structures C C C C C C C C C C 4.13(D) 4.13(E) Communication Antennas and Antenna Support Structures P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(9) Donation Drop-off Containers P P 5.3(D)(10) Drive-Through Services P P P C P P P 5.3(D)(11) Fences or Walls P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(12) Greenhouse/Conservatory (non-commercial) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(13) Heliports C C C C C 5.3(D)(14) Home Occupations P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(15) Open Sales P P P P P P C C C 5.3(D)(19) Operation and storage of agricultural vehicles, equipment, and machinery P 5.3(D)(20) TABLE 5-6: ACCESSORY USES BY DISTRICT Use Types “P” = Permitted “C” = Conditionally Permitted “I” = Interim Permitted Base Zoning Districts Additional Requirements A O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 Satellite Dish Antenna P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(25) Shelters (Storm or Fallout) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(26) Sign(s) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(27) Solar Energy System P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(28) Swimming Pool P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(29) Large Trash Handling and Recycling Collection Area P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(30) Wind Energy Conversion System, Commercial C C C C C 5.3(D)(31) Wind Energy Conversion System, Non-commercial C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 5.3(D)(32) Exhibit 6D Proposed Definition Amendments AGRICULTURAL BUILDING means a structure on agricultural zoned land designed, constructed, and used to house farm implements or agricultural produce or products used by the owner, lessee, or sub- lessee or their immediate families, their employees, and persons engaged in the pick up or delivery of agricultural produce or products grown or raised on the premises. The term “agricultural building” shall not include dwellings. AGRICULTURAL SALES shall mean the retail sale of fresh fruits, vegetables, flower s, herbs, trees, or other agricultural, floricultural, or horticultural products. The operation may be indoors or outdoors, include pick-your-own or cut-your-own opportunities, and may involve the ancillary sale of items considered accessory to the agricultural products being sold or accessory sales of unprocessed foodstuffs; home processed food products such as jams, jellies, pickles, sauces; or baked goods and home-made handicrafts. The floor area devoted to the sale of accessory items shall not exceed 25 percent of the total floor area. No commercially packaged handicrafts or commercially processed or packaged foodstuffs shall be sold as accessory items. No activities other than the sale of goods as outlined above shall be allowed as part of the agricultural sales business. ALLEY: A public right-of-way less than thirty (30) feet in width which affords secondary access to abutting property. ANTENNA, TELECOMMUNICATION: A device used for the transmission and/or reception of wireless communications, usually arranged on an antenna support structure or building, and consisting of a wire, a set of wires, or electromagnetically reflective or conductive rods, elements, arrays, or surfaces, inclusive of the following: ANTENNA, PRIVATE AMATEUR RADIO: Shall mean equipment, including antennae, antennae support structures, and other related material, necessary to conduct Ham and Short Wave Radio reception and transmissions, only for use by those persons properly licensed by the Federal Communications Commission for such reception and transmissions, and who are in full compliance with all licensing requirements. ANTENNA, PRIVATE RECEIVING: shall mean television and other electronic reception antennae for private use. ANTENNA, COMMERCIAL TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION: Shall mean commercial and industrial communications equipment accessory to business operations of one meter in width or greater, but not personal wireless telecommunications service equipment. ANTENNA, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE: Shall mean any equipment necessary to provide or support all types of wireless electronic communications, including, but not necessarily limited to, wireless “cellular” telephone, radio, and internet transmission and reception communications between mobile communications providers and users, including public safety communications. ANTENNA, RADIO, AND TELEVISION BROADCAST TRANSMISSION: An antenna used to transmit public or commercial broadcast radio or television programming. ANTENNA, PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE: An antenna used for the transmission and reception of wireless communication radio waves including cellular, personal communication service (PCS), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging and similar services. ANTENNA, SATELLITE DISH: An antenna incorporating a reflective or conductive surface that is solid, open mesh, or bar configured and is in the shape of a shallow dish, cone, horn, or cornucopia. Such an antenna is used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves between terrestrially and/or orbitally based transmission or receiving systems. This definition shall include, but not be limited to, what are commonly referred to as satellite earth stations, TVROs (television, receive only), and satellite microwave antennas. ANTENNA, SHORT-WAVE RADIO: An antenna used for the transmission and reception of radio waves used for federally licensed short-wave radio communications. ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE: Any freestanding pole, telescoping mast, tower, tripod, or other structure which supports an antenna and is not a building or attached to a building or structure. Such structure may be freestanding or attached to a building or other device that conforms to this ordinance. APARTMENT: A room or suite of rooms which is designed for, intended for, or occupied as a residence by a single family or an individual and is equipped with cooking facilities. Includes dwelling unit and efficiency unit. An apartment is offered only as a rented or leased residence, as distinguished from condominiums and townhouses, which allow for separate ownership. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/02/11 Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Rezoning from I4 (Lightlndustriab to B4 (Regional Business) for Lot 1, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park (102 Thomas Park Drive). Applicant: WHL Enterprises (AS) Property: North Half of Lots 1, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park The subject site is located east of Thomas Park Drive on the north side of Chelsea Road. Planning Case Number: 2011-018 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Map for rezoning from I-1 (Light Industrial) to B-4 (Regional Business) Deadline for Decision: August 21 st, 2011 (60 days) Land Use Designation: Places to Shop Zoning Designation: I-1 (Light Industrial) The purpose of the I-1, regional business district, is to provide for the establishment of commercial and service activities which draw from and serve customers from the entire community or region. Current Site Use: The approximately 2.44 acre site is was developed as a single story metal shell building that was used previously as a roller rink. The site is currently used as an athletic and event facility (Personal Services and Entrainment/Recreation, Indoor Commercial). Surrounding Land Uses: North: I-1 zoning - currently Hoglund Transportation East: I-1 zoning – currently Attic Storage, a permitted use in the light industrial district South: B-2 zoning — Recently rezoned to B-2 from I-1. Site of the former bowling alley, now vacant and owned by the City of Monticello. West: B-2 and B-4 zoning — currently vacant parcels and Best Western Chelsea Inn ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a rezoning from I -I to B-4 to accommodate their current and proposed expansion of uses. These include the operation of a sports training/athletic training facility and indoor entertainment facility. According to City ordinance, recommendations and decisions on amendment to the Official Zoning Map of Monticello shall be based on consideration of the following criteria: • Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error in the original text or map; or • Whether the proposed amendment addresses needs arising from a changing condition, trend, or fact affecting the subject property and surrounding area; or • Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with achieving the goals and objectives outlined in the comprehensive plan. This application request for rezoning meets both the second and third consideration for amendment as detailed below. Comprehensive Plan The subject site is guided (by the Comprehensive Plan) as a "Place to Shop". As the reference implies, such designation is intended to accommodate uses which are primarily places of commerce rather than places of work/employment. The rezoning of the site from an industrial designation to a commercial designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's land use direction and resolves an existing inconsistency with the plan for that site. The subject site is bordered on the west by properties currently guided as "Places to Shop". Such properties are zoned as B-4 or B-3 districts. In contrast, properties to the east of the subject site are guided as "Places to work" and hold I -I and I-2 zoning designations. All of the parcels directly abutting the site to the north and east are guided for long term use as "Places to Shop". In this regard, the rezoning request continues the pattern of transition from industrial to commercial land uses as guided by the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning In terms of desired zoning designation, the Monticello Zoning Ordinance states that "the purpose of the B-4 (Regional Business District) is to provide for the establishment of commercial and service activities which draw from and serve customers from the entire community or region. Given the purpose statement, the district allows such commercial uses as offices, convenience stores, general retail, financial institutions, restaurants and personal services (salons, spas, etc.) as permitted uses and then allows uses such as outdoor recreation and vehicle fuel sales by conditional use. The site is also bordered by other commercially zoned property to the west (B-4) and south (B-2). 2 It is noted that either the B-2 or B-3 designations would also meet the "Places to Shop" designation set by the Comprehensive Plan. However, given the City's strengthening of the B-3 as an exclusively auto -oriented district and the site's location well off of Highway 25, staff does not believe a B-3 designation is appropriate for the site. Rezoning the property to B-2 would not allow the current and proposed uses of the site as either a conditional or principal use and was thus not requested by the applicant. Based on the preceding analysis, it is the opinion of staff that the B-4 (Regional Business) zoning designation is appropriate for the subject property. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Motion to adopt Resolution 2011-69, recommending rezoning of Oakwood Industrial Park, north half of Lot 1, Block 1 from I-1 (Light Industrial) to B-4 (Regional Business). 2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution 2011-69, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends rezoning of the property as requested. The rezoning request from 1-1 to B-4 is consistent with the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan, which guides the subject property, as "Places to Shop". In addition, as the Comprehensive Plan guides properties directly adjacent to the site on the north and east as "Places to Shop", a B-4 zoning designation is consistent with the conversion of the area from industrial to commercial uses. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution 2011-69 B. Aerial Site Image C. Site Zoning Map D. Site Long Range Land Use Map (2008 Comprehensive Plan) E. I-1 Purpose & Zoning Regulations F. B-4 Purpose & Zoning Regulations G. Monticello Zoning Ordinance Use Table 3 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2011 –69 Date: August 2nd, 2011 Resolution No. 2011-69 Motion By: _____________________ Seconded By: ________________________ A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF MONTICELLO OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE REZONING FROM I-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) TO B-4 (REGIONAL BUSINESS) FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, OAKWOOD INDUSTRIAL PARK. WHEREAS, WHL Enterprises, LLC has requested an Amendment to the Monticello Official Zoning Map for the rezoning of the north half Lot 1, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park as legally described on the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for rezoning pursuant to the regulations of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 2nd, 2011 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The application is consistent with the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan for Places to Shop. 2. The proposed amendment addresses needs arising from a changing condition, trend, or fact affecting the subject property and surrounding area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota: 1. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §462.357, the application for Amendment to the City of Monticello Official Zoning Map for the Rezoning from I-1 (Light Industrial) to B-4 (Regional Business) for Lot 1, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park is hereby recommended to the City Council for approval. ADOPTED this 2nd day of August 2011, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Rod Dragsten, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director EXHIBIT A North half of Lot 1, Block 1, Oakwood Industrial Park, except the south 75 feet of the west 100 feet of the north half of Lot 1, Block 1, City of Monticello, Wright County 102 Thomas Park Drive—Aerial Image 102 Thomas Park Drive—Zoning 102 Thomas Park Drive—Land Use CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.1 Use Table Subsection (A) Explanation of Use Table Structure City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 259 TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT Use Types “P” = Permitted “C” = Conditionally Permitted “I” = Interim Permitted Base Zoning Districts Additional Requirements A O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 Agricultural Uses Agriculture P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.2(B)(1) Agricultural Sales P 5.2(B)(2) Community Gardens P P P P P P P P P 5.2(B)(3) Stables C 5.2(B)(4) Residential Uses 5.2(C)(1) Attached Dwelling Types 5.2(C)(2)(a) - Duplex P 5.2(C)(2)(b) - Townhouse C P 5.2(C)(2)(c) - Multiple-Family C P C P 5.2(C)(2)(d) Detached Dwelling P P P P P P None Group Residential Facility, Single Family P P P P P 5.2(C)(3) Group Residential Facility, Multi-family P P 5.2(C)(3) Mobile & Manufactured Home / Home Park C C P C C 5.2(C)(4) Civic & Institutional Uses Active Park Facilities (public) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P None Active Park Facilities (private) P P P P P P P 5.2(D)(1) Assisted Living Facilities C P C P C 5.2(D)(2) Cemeteries C C C C C C 5.2(D)(3) Clinics C P P P C None Essential Services P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P None Hospitals C P P P C 5.2(D)(4) Nursing/Convalescent Home C C C C C C C C P P P 5.2(D)(5) Passenger Terminal C C C C C None Passive Parks and Open Space P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P None Public Buildings or Uses C C C C C C P C C P P P C P P 5.2(D)(6) Schools, K-12 C C C C P C I I 5.2(D)(7) Schools, Higher Education C C None Place of Public Assembly C C C C P C 5.2(D)(8) Utilities (major) C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 5.2(D)(9) CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.1 Use Table Subsection (A) Explanation of Use Table Structure Page 260 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT Use Types “P” = Permitted “C” = Conditionally Permitted “I” = Interim Permitted Base Zoning Districts Additional Requirements A O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 Office Uses Offices P P P P P P P 5.2(E) Commercial Uses Adult Uses P 5.2(F)(1) Auction House C 5.2(F)(2) Auto Repair – Minor C C C P P 5.2(F)(3) Automotive Wash Facilities P C C 5.2(F)(4) Bed & Breakfasts C C C C C 5.2(F)(5) Boarding House C 5.2(F)(6) Business Support Services P P P P P none Communications/Broadcasting P P P P 5.2(F)(7) Convenience Stores C P P P 5.2(F)(8) Country Club C 5.2(F)(9) Day Care Centers C C P P P C 5.2(F)(10) Entertainment/Recreation, Indoor Commercial P P C C none Entertainment/Recreation, Outdoor Commercial C C C C 5.2(F)(11) Financial Institution P P P 5.2(F)(12) Funeral Homes P P P 5.2(F)(13) Hotels or Motels C P C P 5.2(F)(14) Kennels (commercial) C 5.2(F)(15) Landscaping / Nursery Business P 5.2(F)(16) Personal Services C P P P 5.2(F)(17) Recreational Vehicle Camp Site C 5.2(F)(18) Repair Establishment C P P P P P 5.2(F)(19) Restaurants C P P C 5.2(F)(20) Retail Commercial Uses (other) P P P 5.2(F)(21) Specialty Eating Establishments C P P P none Vehicle Fuel Sales C C C C 5.2(F)(22) Vehicle Sales and Rental C C 5.2(F)(23) Veterinary Facilities (Rural) C 5.2(F)(24) Veterinary Facilities (Neighborhood) C C C C 5.2(F)(24) Wholesale Sales P P P none CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.2 Use-Specific Standards Subsection (A) General Regulations Applicable to All Uses City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 261 TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT Use Types “P” = Permitted “C” = Conditionally Permitted “I” = Interim Permitted Base Zoning Districts Additional Requirements A O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 Industrial Uses Auto Repair – Major C P P 5.2(G)(1) Bulk Fuel Sales and Storage P P 5.2(G)(2) Extraction of Materials I I I 5.2(G)(3) General Warehousing C C P P 5.2(G)(4) Heavy Manufacturing C 5.2(G)(5) Industrial Services C P 5.2(G)(9) Land Reclamation C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 5.2(G)(6) Light Manufacturing C P P P 5.2(G)(7) Machinery/Truck Repair & Sales P P 5.2(G)(9) Recycling and Salvage Center C C 5.2(G)(10) Self Storage Facilities P C P 5.2(G)(11) Truck or Freight Terminal C P P 5.2(G)(12) Waste Disposal & Incineration C 5.2(G)(13) Wrecker Services C P 5.2(G)(14) 5.2 Use-Specific Standards (A) General Regulations Applicable to All Uses (1) Combination Uses In commercial and industrial base zoning districts, combination uses may be allowed within the principal building with each use subject to all regulations in this ordinance. Table 3-1: Base Zoning Districts Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The amended Monticello Zoning Code is in its code tracking period, which is intended to identify needed language adjustments or minor corrections. Such amendments are necessary as a result of the new code's daily use and application. Staff is requesting that Planning Commission consider a number of amendments to various chapters of the code as described below. All proposed amendments are noted in red. The majority of the proposed amendments are "housekeeping" in nature, but some represent new policy direction for the City and may require additional discussion. 1. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section 4(C), as related to Variances The amendment proposed is consistent with Minnesota Statute change related to variance review and approval. The changes in the statute relate to the standards by which a zoning authority may issue a variance. The changes are very subtle, but essentially create a more flexible variance standard for cities. Text of amendment. 2.4(C)(1) Purpose and Scope The Variance process is intended to provide limited relief from the strict requirements of this ordinance in those cases where strict application of a particular requirement will create an at=y hardship practical difficulties due to circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. It is not intended that Variances be granted to allow a use not permitted by the underlying zoning district, nor to merely remove inconveniences or financial burdens that the requirements of this ordinance may impose on property owners in general. Variances are intended to address extraordinary, exceptional, or unique situations that were not caused by the applicant's act or omission. 2.4(C)(4) Review (a) Variance Criteria Approval of a Variance may only be made upon determination that undue har-dshi-P practical difficulties will result based on all of the following criteria: (i) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if the provisions of this ordinance are strictly applied. (ii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable are unique to the property. (iii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable were not created by the owner thereof. (iv) A Variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. (v) Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a sufficient basis for a Variance if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the regulation. Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 2. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Section 4(P) as related to Planned Unit Developments Provision 2.4(P)(4), Permitted Locations for PUD Rezoning allows PUDs only within residential or commercial zoning districts and prohibits PUDs within industrial districts. The City currently has only a small number of Planned Unit Developments in place (previously approved under Conditional Use Permits) in industrial districts. However, there may be circumstances in which the City desires the flexibility of allowing PUDs for industrial uses. As with residential and commercial PUDs, any industrial PUD would be held to the same process and approval criteria. This flexibility may be especially useful as the City seeks to develop and/or attract high-end business/industrial users. Text of amendment. 2.4(P)(4) Permitted Locations for PUD Rezoning (a) A rezoning to PUD may be requested for any residential, commercial, or industrially zoned area. Further clarification within the PUD ordinance is also needed relative to the structure of the collaborative process. A formalization of the make-up of the Collative Team and the public values statement should be required steps within the PUD process. One of the main concerns expressed regarding the PUD process was the potential for delay or additional steps. The better defined the process, the better information staff can provide to applicants. The Planning Commission will be holding a September workshop to review in detail the PUD ordinance. The Commission will walk through the current ordinance process and provide recommendation for additional amendments as needed for a future Planning Commission meeting. 3. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 4(D) and (E) as related to Attached Accessory Structure standards This amendment is needed to provide better usability and clarity as related to setbacks for attached accessory structures in the R -A and R-1 districts. Currently, the standards for the R -A and R-1 residential districts require a setback of 10' for all attached accessory structures based on a reading of Tables 3-4 and 3-5 alone. However, when taken with the provision listed in section 5.5(B)(2), General 2 Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 Standards and Limitations for Accessory Uses and Structures, the setback allowance is relaxed to 6' for interior lots. This is confusing and can be easily simplified. By amending the code to provide a footnote which allows attached accessory structures to be setback a distance of 6' from the property line, the table language for both the R -A and R-1 districts is then consistent with language found in the Allowable Yard Encroachments section, 3.3(D)(2) and with current setbacks for many properties throughout the City. Deleting the reference in Chapter 5 is then also necessary. Text of amendment: Amendments listed in red in tables below. i REQUIRED YARDS (in feet) Max Minimum Minimum Roof -- — — Height Minimum Floor Areas Building Pitch & Soffit Front Interior Street Rear (stories / (sq ft) Width (vertical rise/ Side [1] Side feet) (ft) horizontal run) Single Minimum foundation g sizes b home type 6" / 12" Family 35 10 20 30 2.5 stories by 3 24 Building [+[2] 35 feet M [ ] no soffit um 2000 finishable {3}[4] [ 1 ]: For interior lots, attached accessory structures maybe allowed to meet a 6' setback, provided that the sum of both side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20'. {1}[2]: The required rear yard shall consist of a space at least 30 -feet in depth across the entire width of the lot that is exclusive of wetlands, ponds, or slopes greater than 12 percent. f2}[3]: 2400 square foot gross floor area excluding a basement or cellar for two story homes and a 1600 square foot foundation for multi-level, rambler and split entry homes. ff41: Finishable square footage is exclusive of attached accessory space. ■ An attached garage shall be included with all principal residential structures in the R -A district. ■ See Section 5.3(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory structures. Accessory The minimum floor area for all attached accessory structures shall be 700 sq. ft. Structures No portion of any garage space may be more than five feet closer to the street than the front building line of the principal use (including porch). ■ See footnote f I1 above as related to setbacks for attached accessory structures on interior lots. Other Section 3.3, Common District Requirements Regulations Section 3.4(B), Standards Applicable to All Residential Base Zoning Districts to Consult Section 4.1 I, Building Materials (not all Section 4.8, Off -Street Parking inclusive) Section 4. 1, Landscaping and Screening Standards 3 Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 This amendment shall also include the following text amendment to Chapter 5, Section 3 (B)(2)((i)(ii) (a) Attached Accessory Buildings (i) An accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principal building if it is connected to the principal building either directly or by an enclosed passageway. Such accessory buildings shall adhere to requirements for the principal building. - 7"-- ="' 170. 4. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 4 as related to R-2 and R-1 zoned properties in the Original Plat and Lower Monticello From time to time, the City receives inquires and requests by property owners within the Original Plat and Lower Monticello plat to split their properties. These parcels are most often 66' x 165' in length are located in R2 Zoning Districts. M REQUIRED YARDS (in feet) I Max I Minimum Minimum Roof Height Minimum Floor Areas Building Pitch & Soffit - Front Interior Street Rear (stories / (sq ft) Width (vertical rise/ Side [I] Side [3] feet) 2.5 stories 1,050 foundation/ (ft) horizontal run) Single 1 5" / 12" Family 30 ] [2] 20 30 35 feet 24 no minimum Building I I 1 2,000 finishable [4] 1 soffit [1]. in additien te theidentified minimurn setharks e sum Af beth Side yard setbacks shall be a Fniniffluffl 9 20 feet. For interior lots, attached accessory structures may be allowed to meet a 6' setback, provided that the sum of both side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20' [2]: Interior side yard setbacks for single family homes on lots of record with a lot width 66 feet or less in the Original Plat of Monticello and Lower Monticello shall be at least six (6) feet. [3]: The required rear yard shall consist of a space at least 30 -feet in depth across the entire width of the lot that is exclusive of wetlands, ponds, or slopes greater than 12 percent. [4]: Finishable square footage is exclusive of attached accessory space. ■ An attached garage shall be included with all principal residential structures in the R -I district. Accessory See Section 5.3(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory structures. Structures The minimum floor area for all attached accessory structures shall be 550 sq. ft. ■ See footnote [I] above as related to setbacks for attached accessory structures on interior lots. Other Section 3.3, Common District Requirements Regulations Section 3.4(x, Standards Applicable to All Residential Base Zoning Districts to Consult Section 4.11. Building Materials (not all N Section 4.8, Off -Street Parking inclusive) Section 4. 1. Landscaping and Screening Standards This amendment shall also include the following text amendment to Chapter 5, Section 3 (B)(2)((i)(ii) (a) Attached Accessory Buildings (i) An accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principal building if it is connected to the principal building either directly or by an enclosed passageway. Such accessory buildings shall adhere to requirements for the principal building. - 7"-- ="' 170. 4. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 4 as related to R-2 and R-1 zoned properties in the Original Plat and Lower Monticello From time to time, the City receives inquires and requests by property owners within the Original Plat and Lower Monticello plat to split their properties. These parcels are most often 66' x 165' in length are located in R2 Zoning Districts. M Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 In many cases, their properties actually consist of two legal lots but are legally described as one parcel. Under the current ordinance, these properties cannot be split due to lot area and width requirements. The Commission will note that the setback standard has already been adjusted to accommodate these longer, narrower lots. The amendments drafted to the R-2 district standards would allow these properties to be split for the purposes of development. New development will be required to meet all other code standards as outlined in the development. 5. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 4 (G) as related to Accessory Structure standards This amendment is a small text change simply to eliminate a double -negative phrase within the T -N district table text for accessory structures. Text of amendment: ■ An attached garage shall be included with all principal residential structures in the T -N district. ■ See Section 5.3(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory structures. Accessory The minimum floor area for all attached accessory structures shall be 480 sq. ft. Structures For front -loaded attached accessory structures, no portion of any garage space may be more than five feet closer to the street than the front building line of the principal use (including porch). • No private driveway leading to an accessory structure may Fet exceed 18' in width at the front yard i property line. Other Section 3.3, Common District Requirements Regulations Section 3.4(B), Standards Applicable to All Residential Base Zoning Districts to Consult Section 4.1 I, Building Materials (not all Section 4.8, Off -Street Parking inclusive) Section 4. 1, Landscaping and Screening Standards 5 REQUIRED YARDS (in feet) I Max Height Minimum Floor Minimum Minimum Roof Pitch Front Interior Street (stories / Areas Building & Soffit (vertical rise/ [ I ] Side Side Rear feet) (sq ft) Width (ft) horizontal run) Single Family 25 6 25 20 Front Load 2.5 stories 1,050 foundation 5" / 12" Single Family 35 feet 15 6 15 25 2000 finishable / [2] 24 I No minimum soffit Rear Load [ I ]: The maximum front yard shall be 30 feet for front load homes and 25 feet for rear load homes. [2]: Finishable square footage is exclusive of attached accessory space. ■ An attached garage shall be included with all principal residential structures in the T -N district. ■ See Section 5.3(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory structures. Accessory The minimum floor area for all attached accessory structures shall be 480 sq. ft. Structures For front -loaded attached accessory structures, no portion of any garage space may be more than five feet closer to the street than the front building line of the principal use (including porch). • No private driveway leading to an accessory structure may Fet exceed 18' in width at the front yard i property line. Other Section 3.3, Common District Requirements Regulations Section 3.4(B), Standards Applicable to All Residential Base Zoning Districts to Consult Section 4.1 I, Building Materials (not all Section 4.8, Off -Street Parking inclusive) Section 4. 1, Landscaping and Screening Standards 5 Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 6. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section l (J) as related to landscaping standards in the TN District The proposed amendment represents a minor language adjustment to correct an error in the quantity and size of the trees required on each lot and to maintain consistency with the accessory structure standards within Table 3-7 above. The existing ordinance requirements are also inconsistent with Table 4-4 for landscaping requirements in the TN. The amendments below create consistency with Table 4-4. Text ofamendment. (2) Tradition Neighborhood (TN) District Landscaping Requirements Lots in the TN district shall adhere to the following additional landscaping requirements: (a) No less than 60% of the square footage of the front yard area shall be planted in garden meeting the following requirements: (i) 2.0 caliper inches of canopy trees plus 2 ornamental trees or 4-.0 2.0 caliper inches of canopy trees + 1 evergreen tree (ii) tin , aliper- ehes of „ri,, ,meal tees (iii) No less than 1 shrub per 20 square feet of front yard area (iv) No less than 1 deciduous flower planting per 20 square feet of front yard area (b) No private driveway leading to a garage may be more than 18 feet in width at the front yard property line. (c) Lot area that is not covered by shrubs and trees may be covered with lawn, gardens, and patios or decks. (d) A landscaping plan must be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. (e) A landscape security shall be provided to ensure the landscaping of each lot in accordance with this section. 7. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 5(H) as related to Changeable Copy Signs These amendments are intended to provide additional requirements related to the sign aesthetic. 2 Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 Text of amendment: (16) Changeable Copy Signs Within commercial and industrial districts and for civic and institutional uses including, but not limited to, public school facilities, hospital and medical facilities, municipal facilities and places of public assembly, one (1) changeable copy sign shall be allowed per site provided that the area of the sign not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the allowable sign area or fifty (50) square feet, whichever is less, for a freestanding or wall sign. The area of this sign shall be counted against the maximum sign area for the building, except where the property owner has agreed to forgo the use of temporary signs in accordance Section 4.5(I)(2) in which case the area of the changeable copy sign shall be allowed in excess of the maximum sign area. (a) Changeable copy signs are subject to the following additional regulations. (i) No fluorescent text shall be permitted on such signs. (ii) Signs must be permanently anchored. (iii) Signs must be incorporated within the overall sign structure for both monument and pylon signs. 8. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 5(H)(19) as related to Dynamic Displays In developing the standards for Dynamic Displays, the City carefully reviewed industry standards for best practices in order to craft an ordinance that met the desired aesthetic and safety requirements of the City, but was still flexible enough for business use. However, staff believes that one important requirement was not included in the final regulations. This is the need for such displays to be permanent signs. Staff does not believe that it is the intent of the City to allow dynamic displays as temporary signs. Although temporary signs are regulated in a separate section of their own, staff believes that adding a definitive statement about the permanent nature of dynamic displays will further support this requirement. The proposed amendment also cleans up some of the inconsistencies within the language of the text. Text of amendment: (a) Regulations governing Dynamic Signs Displays (i) Dynamic signs displays shall have messages that change instantaneously, and do not fade, dissolve, blink, or appear to simulate motion in any way. Prohibited blinking signs shall include signs which are displayed as continuous solid messages for less than the time required by subpart (iii) of this subsection below. The exception to this regulation is the allowance of messages that appear to scroll horizontally across the 7 Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 sign, but are otherwise in compliance with the requirements of this ordinance, including the definition of "scrolling signs". (ii) Dynamic signs displays shall not be permitted in any Residential zoning district. (iii) Dynamic sign displays shall be permanent signs. (iv) No dynamic sign display shall change more than one time per five (5) second period, except time and temperature displays which may change as frequently as once every three (3) seconds. (v) Dynamic signs displays shall be no brighter than other illuminated signs in the same district. (vi) Dynamic sign displays shall be designed to freeze the display in the event of malfunction, and the owner shall discontinue the display immediately upon malfunction, or upon notice from the City that the display violates the City's regulations. (vii) Applicants for dynamic sign displays shall sign a license agreement supplemental to the building permit agreeing to operation of a sign in conformance with these regulations. Violation of these regulations shall result in forfeiture of the license, and the City shall be authorized to arrange disconnection of electrical service to the facility. (viii) No Dynamic sign Ddisplay shall be permitted to be located in a yard or on the side of a building which abuts a residentially zoned parcel. 9. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 5(1) as related to Temporary Signs The amendment language below allows the City some flexibility to accommodate special event signage for both community and private events. For example, Farmers Market and occasional sale entities who have a short-term need for small direction signage. The provisions are limited to the CCD, where space for such signage is limited due to zero lot line building setbacks. Other commercial/business areas have available land area to accommodate signage via other existing code provisions for sandwich boards and temporary signs. Additionally, many of those areas lie along County or State ROWS, where the City cannot permit any off -premise signage. The Temporary Sign provisions have also been listed individually for clarity purposes, as well. In January of 2012, it is anticipated that additional amendments to the Temporary Sign provisions may be needed as a result of the interim ordinance currently in place. Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 (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 beginning on the first day of the business opening to the public. (4) Businesses or organizations with their activities located in the CCD, Central Business District, may display temporM, 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 temporar signs, or "sandwich board" signs displayed pursuant to Section 4.5(C)(7). Sims allowed under this section may, at the discretion of the Council, be permitted under the following conditions: (i) Off -premise, temporaU signs shall be no more than four (4) square feet in area. (ii) Off -premise temporary signs shall be no more than three (3) feet in height. (iii) Notwithstanding other regulations to the contrary, such signs s 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. (iv) 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 expressarg nt of permission for Cil, inspectors to enter the propelu for the purpose of inspecting and/or removingsaid asigns. (v) 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 0 Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 accordance with Section 2.4(K). Separate fees may be established for sibperiod or annual -period permits. (vi) Eligible days for the display of signs subject to this section shall be Thursday, Friday, Saturday, or Sunda, only. . 10. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 8, Table 4-7 The proposed amendment provides needed clarity in the minimum number of parking spaces required for retail commercial uses where 50% of the floor area is not retail in nature. The current standards, depending on the size of the building, could create a shortage of parking on commercial sites. Commercial Uses (continued) Retail Commercial Uses thousand (1000) square feet of floor area 10 1.0 space for each two hundred (200) square feet In General If in the CCD district, one (1) space per three hundred fifty (350) square feet of floor space OPTION #1: 8.0 spaces 0 One (1) space for each two hundred (200) In which 50% or more of the gross floor square feet devoted to public sales or service plus one ( I ) space for each 500 area is devoted to storage, warehouses, square feet of storage area and/or industry. The number of spaces may be determined by either of the OPTION #2: 8.0 spaces OR e0ne (1) space for each employee on the listed options maximum shift plus one (1) space for each 200 square feet devoted to public sales or service. 1.0 space for each two hundred (200) square feet Specialty Eating Establishments If in the CCD district, one (1) space per three hundred fifty (350) square feet of floor space 4.0 spaces plus two (2) spaces for each service stall (not pump) Vehicle Fuel Sales Those facilities designed for sale of other items than strictly automotive products, parts, or service shall be required to provide additional parking in compliance with other applicable sections of this ordinance Vehicle Sales and Rental 8.0 spaces plus one (1) additional space for each eight hundred (800) square feet of floor area over one thousand (1000) square feet Veterinary Facilities 1.0 space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet 1.0 space for each two hundred (200) square feet Wholesale Sales If in the CCD district, one (1) space per three hundred fifty (350) square feet of floor space Industrial Uses Auto Repair— Major See Parking Schedule #1 [Section 4.8(H)(2)] Extraction of Materials See Parking Schedule #2 [Section 4.8(H)(3)] 8.0 spaces plus one (1) space for each two (2) employees on the maximum shift General Warehousing or, at a minimum, at least eight (8) spaces plus one (1) space for each one thousand (1000) square feet of floor area 10 Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 11. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 2(F) as related to Entertainment/Recreation - Indoor Commercial and Specialty Eating Establishments The intent of these amendments is to provide specific requirements for both the permitted and conditional uses of property for both the Entertainment/Recreation- Indoor Commercial and the Special Eating Establishment Uses. Commission will note that these two uses have no specific standards written into the text of Chapter, but are listed within the tables as conditional uses in some of the districts. Status as a conditional use warrants that the City develop standards by which the uses should be reviewed. Definitions of each are provided for reference below: ENTERTAINMENT, INDOOR COMMERCIAL: An establishment providing completely enclosed recreation or entertainment activities. Accessory uses may include the preparation and serving of food or the sale of equipment related to the enclosed uses. Included in this definition shall be bowling, roller skating or ice-skating, billiards, pool, motion picture theaters, and related amusements. This use does not include adult uses. SPECIALTY EATING ESTABLISHMENTS: Establishments selling specialty food items that normally do not constitute a full meal, including but not limited to: ice cream parlors, dessert cafes, snack shops, juice and coffee houses, and bakeries. In the process of developing standards for the two uses above, staff has also found the need to for a minor amendment in the standards for the Entertainment/Recreation — Outdoor Commercial provisions. The suggested additions are included in the amendments below. Text ofamm&nent.- Subsequent sections of the ordinance shall also be reordered to accommodate the inclusion of the provisions below. (11) Entertainment/Recreation— Indoor Commercial (a) No auctions shall take place on the premises. (b) Outdoor storage shall be prohibited (c) Noise shall be controlled consistent with the standards of this ordinance. (d) When abutting a residential use, the property shall by screened with an aesthetic buffer (Table 4- 2), Buffer Type `B") in accordance with section 4.1(G) of this ordinance. 11 Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 04)(12) Entertainment/Recreation — Outdoor Commercial (a) When abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with at least a semi-opaque buffer (Table 442, Buffer Type "C") in accordance with section 4.1(G) of this ordinance. (b) Adequate measures to contain the proposed activity on the subject site shall be provided (c) Dust and noise are controlled consistent with City ordinance. and with Minnesot (d) Traffic generated by the proposed use does not exceed the capacity of surrounding streets and intersections to accommodate it. (e) The site shall conform to parking requirements as provided in this ordinance. (f) Parking lot setback from residential uses must be 15 feet or greater. (g) The site shall conform to signage requirements as recommended by the City. At no time shall the signage exceed the requirements as provided in this ordinance. (h) The site shall conform to lighting requirements as provided in this ordinance. The lighting shall be restricted to be consistent with the hours of operation, within one half hour of open and close times. (i) The hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. (23) Specialty Eating Establishments (a) Drive through service, if approved as an accessory use within the applicable district, shall be located to the side or rear of the building whenever feasible. (b) For all specialty eating establishments, if the establishment (building) or outdoor seating area is located within 300 feet of a residential zoning district, the following standards shall apply: (i) The use shall require authorization through a conditional use permit. (c) Restaurants having outdoor seating (including, but not limited to, seating for dining or listening to live or recorded acoustic or amplified entertainment outside of the building) shall comply with the following standards: (i) The outdoor portions of the restaurant shall not operate after 10:00 P.M. 12 Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 (ii) The outdoor seating area shall not obstruct the movement of pedestrians along sidewalks or through areas intended for public use. 12. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 2 as related to Restaurant Uses The current regulations for restaurant uses require that outdoor portions of restaurants cease activity after 10:00 PM. The amendment proposed has arisen out of the need for the Planning Commission and Council to be able to consider circumstances in which a restaurant may wish to offer outdoor entertainment opportunities beyond 10:00 PM and allow such use under a separate permit. Staff is proposing the use of a Special Event Permit (see 5.4(E)(11)), to be approved by the City Council. This allows the permit to be issued in an expedited manner, but only after review and authorization of the Council. Text ofamen&nent: (2-0) (21) Restaurants (a) For all restaurants, if the establishment (building) or outdoor seating area is located within 300 feet of a residential zoning district, the following standards shall apply: (i) The use shall require authorization through a conditional use permit. (ii) Primary access from local residential streets shall be prohibited. (b) Restaurants having outdoor seating (including, but not limited to, seating for dining or listening to live or recorded acoustic or amplified entertainment outside of the building) shall comply with the following standards: (i) The outdoor portions of the restaurant shall not operate after 10:00 P.M unless a Special Event Permit for such events has been approved by the City Council. (ii) The outdoor seating area shall not obstruct the movement of pedestrians along sidewalks or through areas intended for public use. (c) Restaurants having drive-through facilities shall require a conditional use permit and comply with the following standards: (i) All requirements for an accessory drive-through facility shall be met. (ii) The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of lot. 13 Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 13. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 3 as related to Accessory Uses In comparing Table 5-4 to the specific regulations for Outdoor Storage listed in section 5.3(D)(22), it is staff's position that there are three issues to be addressed. There first is related to ease of use and consistency. Outdoor Storage is listed as Permitted for both I-1 and I-2 properties within the table, but within the specific standards for Outdoor Storage in section 22, it states that a conditional use permit is required within industrial districts. The second issue is the intent of the City as related to when a CUP is needed. Staff believes it was the intention of both the IEDC small group and the Planning Commission to set up a gradually increasing set of regulations for outdoor storage, based on the district. For example, outdoor storage is not permitted within the IBC, but such storage is conditional in commercial districts and permitted in the I-1 and I-2. In discussions with both the IEDC small group and the Planning Commission, staff's recollection is that Outdoor Storage was intended to be conditional in both I-1 and I-2 when abutting residential uses or districts. This could perhaps explain why the CUP requirement was listed in section 22. To eliminate this confusion and gain conformance with the intent of the IEDC and Planning Commission, staff proposes the following amendment to 5.3(D)(22)(b) as related to these components of outdoor storage. Finally, in considering the location and allowance of truck parking on commercial and industrial sites, staff would recommend that the City consider truck parking as outdoor storage. This is consistent with the current definition in Chapter 8 of the code. Truck parking as storage would then be permitted in industrial districts (except when abutting residential districts, where it would require a CUP as noted above) and conditional in commercial districts. In cases where truck parking is conditional, staff has added additional requirements related to mitigating potential negative impacts. Text of amendment. (a) In business and industrial districts, the following shall apply: (i) The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses in compliance with Section 4.1(I) of this ordinance. (ii) Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in compliance with Section 4.1(I) of this ordinance. (iii) Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. (iv) When such storage is to include vehicle parking, storage areas must be paved. (v) Vehicle storage may not occur within front or side yards. 14 Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 (vi) All lighting shall be in compliance with Section 4.4 of this ordinance. (vii) Does not take up parking space as required for conformity to this ordinance. (viii) Noise shall be controlled consistent with the standards ofthis ordinance. (ix) The use shall require authorization through a conditional use permit following the provisions of Section 2.4(D) of this ordinance. (b) In the I-1 and I-2 districts, the following shall apply: (i) When abutting a residential district or residential use, the outdoor storage use shall require authorization through a conditional use permit following the provisions of Section 2.4(D) of this ordinance. (ii) The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses in compliance with Section 4.1(I) of this ordinance. (iii) Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in compliance with Section 4.1(I) of this ordinance. (iv) Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. (v) Vehicle storage shall not be permitted in front yards. . (vi) Noise shall be controlled consistent with the standards of this ordinance. (vii) All lighting shall be in compliance with Section 4.4 of this ordinance. (viii) Does not take up parking space as required for conformity to this ordinance. 14. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 4, as related to Temporary Uses Unlike Farmer's Markets and Garage/Yard Sales, Wayside Stands do not list a maximum allowable time limit per calendar year. Due to the seasonal nature of these types of uses, such regulation is recommended. Text of amendment: 5-6: TEMPORARY USES & STRUCTURES TemporaryTABLE Structure (per site) Permit(s) Required Additional Temporary Structure Construction Dumpster Until issuance of certificate Yes Sec 5.4(E)(1)(a) (on public ROW/property) of occupancy or two days following expiration or Construction Dumpster (on private property) finaling of a building permit No Sec 5.4(E)(1)(b) Construction Trailer Until issuance of certificate Yes Sec 5.4(E)(2) of occupancy Recreational Vehicle Use I month Yes Sec 5.4(E)(3) Real Estate Office / Model Until 85% occupancy of Yes + Building Permit Sec 5.4(E)(4) Sales Home the phase is reached 15 Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 Temporary Mobile Cell 30 days Yes + Building Permit Sec 5.4(E)(5) Site Temporary Sign 40 days per year Yes Sec 4.5(1) Temporary Storage in a 30 days per year Yes Sec 5.4(E)(6) Portable Container Tents, Canopies, Tarp Garages, and Hoop 30 days per year Yes Sec 5.4(E)(7) Buildings Temporary Sale Continuous; up to 5 Farmer's Market months per year on a Yes Sec 5.4(E)(8) single site 4 days per event; Garage/Yard Sale 3 events total per calendar No Sec 5.4(E)(9) year Temporary Merchant See Title 3. Chapter 10 of City Code 3 days per week; Wayside Stands up to 4 months per year No Sec 5.4(E)(10) on a site Special Events 14 days per calendar year, Special Events per parcel unless expressly Yes Sec 5.4(E)(I 1 ) stated otherwise B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to recommend approval of Ordinance #535, amendments to Monticello Zoning Ordinance as proposed, based on a finding that the proposed amendments are consistent with the intent of the Purpose Statements of Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 2. Motion to recommend approve of Ordinance #535, subject to the exclusion of proposed amendments: (list by number referenced in staff report), based on a finding that the proposed amendments are consistent with the intent of the Purpose Statements of Monticello Zoning Ordinance 3. Motion to recommend approval of Ordinance #535, subject to the following revisions , based on a finding that the proposed amendments are consistent with the intent of the Purpose Statements of Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 16 C. Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1 above, subject to Planning Commission's comments. Staff has found that the proposed amendments are consistent with the intent of the Purpose Statements of Monticello Zoning Ordinance and represent needed clarifications or corrections to the ordinance. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 2, Section 4(C) B. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 2, Section 4(P) C. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 3, Section 4(D) D. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 3, Section 4(E) E. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 3, Section 4(F) F. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 3, Section 4(G) G. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 4, Section 1, Table 4-4 H. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 4, Section 1(J) I. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 4, Section 5(H)(16) J. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 4, Section 5(H)(19) K. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 4, Section 5(I) L. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 4, Section 8, Table 4-7 M. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 5, Section 1, Table 5-1 N. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 5, Section 2(F) O. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 5, Section 3, Table 5-4 P. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 5, Section 3(D)(21) Q. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 5, Section 4, Table 5-6 R. Proposed Section 3.4(F) — (R-2) Single and Two -Family Residential District S. Aerial Image of Original Plat and Lower Monticello Area T. Original Plat of Monticello U. Plat of Lower Monticello V. Ordinance #535 17 Typical R-2 Lot Configuration (A) : Single and Two Family Residence District Section 3.4 (F) R-2 Single and Two-Family Residence District The purpose of the "R-2" single and two-family residential district is to provide for low to moderate density one and two unit dwellings and directly related complementary uses. Maximum Density through PUD or Performance Standards = 6223 5,445 sq. ft. per unit (7.0 8.0 units per gross acre) Base Density = 12,000 sq ft per unit or 3.6 units per gross acre (10,890 sq. ft. per unit or 4.0 units per acre in the Original Plat as indicated below). Minimum Lot Sizes R-2 District Original Plat Lot Area 12,000 s.f. 10,890 s.f. Lot Width 80 feet 66 feet Typical R-2 Building Types �'!t ;,%!a -:- -:-F w ;��r�">-z _ e c".Yt+'. t - • airy% '6'�-T ;:fit ' i `Ri-it'+, a�wL . '".3'�CY,-7; ice l ce. •= .:1 - --!-a:�r tya .� f�F. - _ y .r,' - S. «PMR.7 -..� �y �1`s- '"tf�-J !,• «.t .�j[-,2':'�`.�''-C•. .,,. '� "'•'va,�.. .� Vic; r.y. :i sk'=7r' Y n:.i; - trZr;7`��r . .,{,4.w. s•;'l'S�:: ."t".,..J% .../_!;''"..r s.. R4.-.:F.a; ..�+v_,f,... Y.`,.w T,r _7. ,',,mss-^ m+,M. ,x,`d;..e •'t-7 .•I9 .! t..�i�'�"�.r ,• '1'f .d•an.• -• ;:' ear.. �,' N,• F •F+- • T. o :: 2:✓ z}'. R .h'..: ' �.:jq-. 4...+. i4 syg � r 'v �:. �i .Prt•. s� 9' yl', - }�,, {' ..�. rF.w, of ♦5.ti :, S.;�i:. ,r ,q J. s F� �, .. 7., t?4-.-'.r:k �' -�• ?..-f.�.i .iC.' R'.ls r. - c !. � //, �4' rECy J 4r. - 1-.1:;iu ..j.:: .':� b� +.:', �,a t 1Y.i:. Xti .! Fll Y .i �Rw•i,'S. 1..:nl :... ♦ ••I yy1 Y Vit. r' - . ,z'- _•.� t. bc"�• f-.:ro ; Yti -.,,; (�. �, C 7 .?:dy,tj �s�7�p;.Yj „�—.10-1-,''.,1• S 4_'- `�A� f ! .-t . - t' aS �:�6 _ S, -b�. jfef�i��+<,-l" ti A, .11 aJ' L r - r - V r:..I. 4 Y • .! 1. :•t•. "� vVS� nf..Nr!+I'Nk i�:a.%yvr: 1��I•ry {biI..'l t r- .";'i'r _t' . ., : •.J/::, ?e •,'. r T'rt.�i ;,t.: �J. '�;.�!;'� :;1;.-,:�* e�u.:" �n ••c .1. t.. f'' C� �, ft7 C �f*^. ZOtu'i 'i1 V t J ,a �,�:." l �F', T r< N` j. i. {� _%\ 3J'�-ter•` •0. , tit •. _ }.. e Y T Y.Ybn.3 r ;fs h1 J 4 - 4 f ,A •,,;�i "*'• ,� ;,F T% nw-:d,.K+,.•.•.L i, 4w� _ ,} Y '�F r'+ _a y ( y� F _t ;:7 r1t S P S'r .); •'` C ''7w �� \ A ��.'� i J. )A ,';t .+ ♦`•4 •�•. 'q.`♦ F tr re- 7.'c. z sk ^::'a _ 1. `r.•.. ,o•,sy. ice.. gi iY. _,1. .,• f'�,},•^t ° '.v e..r. ✓4.�..� a "'� iii.+ F;a.w t �..j; a 1. !w .+y-T�. :._ •, ; rs \ y fir, �' Y t-.+, y,4 ScO�+ R1. I.t >> rr, i ° ry } -� •A, r.*rl`s � J .r '1i ..� .� 21 r FF. s - < r�crlc 1%o.7r•'<<_rt _ w .. i 4 3 ♦' „•F 7�7 e : , �. rT ./;.' . - ., A •:-� , -.fi y `r' Y� 1. .:�y - ^ti I �i 5 G a 4 r .t_ t vz . `i ✓ `- '. .. 1. C. . - I 1;0 - r :':'_ .:_ _ ,.. ; IJ _ "� S i'� :, n,i R'.3 t- I C q.t 1 Y .a �. r. k y r. . y; �,'F ,. f . : ]. � �" .. ` _ - - i• �. ;�I. . V �. +, „ k. . 1141 , i _ ! c 5� V. -` . "C .: -� +fir .w I16�-i I...-, � ' ip y, . S r' �, } ♦F . L. �'� y f %� v ' t -. • . - . -. .., .. . ' , . --� . + 1. C. . - I 1;0 - . .� . . �- ,� � . . : F''f � 5 ' v F•,t . 1141 , i _ . . . . V. . : .J . "C � - -� O - YJL.PLV . ... .. 4 /. ' ..�.- I. - t . �- _ v ^�:. C1M `•ra % ., a .. .�: , '`' , - - , :M1 , . �. Ai'm 11 .�. . - J' t• . %c .o"" J t t �a 1�Ll _\ �\ �i- ` _ r .iii- � �V 1w.: �n� `; ` F ! F �� \,�\` F�' ` , 11 �, Vf y,,i-�'`+ r! arc oF. f 1Q'/l:'`�yr� . . 11 . I ..: .0 k N v J � _ ., , v w `'�� t 11 �:." �, Via\ ; '� ' ' u v. \ l ``\ �•�, y ,', J aT. - k4h t Y..yi .S -i t �.LF». ice. \_L. .,�Y ,4 �,F . i:. .v:::•.'1 :,.j w v' r::wr_�+{,�2Y .� k. �� 7 +. _ a.n .'' .i_ t V 1tr tibi _- .}�t \ o V:'\-�C"it,,.•`:V_.tL.t t •( y r, ,J i 4, �• I �� e _ >.i.: iR`-; ♦. „ .1`''ti tiJ'G• :n: r'• t ft„r .7j''i .ri r .�• k . -�. :.: ` �`-x :`�=i f '.w'dlil . -r�:” :-.71 •' 4 - - -^- r' r,+- '�.r _ e^) , . YLS+r„r,: ','y;. t.. .rSy- , 't' 1,; iff 51--3..�5+' rrK ✓r .4 _ V" H �:�; ;'^�': •1}r. 'C. Y4 .. •:.r: •' %N' J..i.'-..,a•;, ^%xa_ tra ,i -*:,'t .t}:7 •f :F hw; L +. +• '•'.,, `i't \ r.� f LLLra: •{`"�.•. "^+y. ;s -.2.a -rJ!. •'fit .e. 3 i i .r:,•,:•. wr'r, a ,�.. r.. 11 t :F., ..,:�.,,,;'atE-8+1_.r,. _ i. ,.r•' 4 •...1-s,.•t-. vA :�.._ .F"•:4: �.., .r's, ..... _- s;. .. _. _. .', ..._ " .. _. . _ . _z''.•e . _ a'. I. w.. __ x...,...�•r.r.,.`sa .r.�5..__,..._.._ w'-- - - u�<I'i�i':i� - � .{;,. e�.�_.� —/ i'�r "ii'i� ��/.f �i 'f/!..!•%!i �� Ci /�/�(5//J ��l / — �r.•e:%JiL r, U-, ,�:�1'�%GiIJ_D�t�L��u��ir .�c��f�'c ..� � Cl��c �Y�2.c� v�� ,fi�t'�� {�GtnG• -v�: -:a r�a, :,.f' .., ,� ....� . _`•. �, r��n�cG� c�cvz.�u /�c��l r✓6-r�� l�,vG �-�cf rU�te��`" �' �:��y _o,/' �' l= P '�s'':rt-'' ., � . ,��U! [..� �� z:�� r 2• ci�� .L�7 � c`�/� � C.a G✓rr- �jt L>�4 �r •' L��L_ _ '' �� . a=gip--� . �� c. ��. s�. �r.� ,� . � . �- �r� ��_...��.7'�., .�=- �U . _ ;$tet_, -r: ss .xl�rMYr'l +/�Gu �dc�rrd-� 4 4v�� eel r •k ."�'��yy�� "'ti4��f/�, �-!j/1• - . ��II/�//j,�J��//""JJf/��,,,� !�� J�l ��j,� r. . . ............ - a :• •�';_ � �i mss: �' ;tY�t.' ,} � � _ .. ►. ;;�' 4C -Z cc......G•.,��_0 _. %�;G- lam GCG�_ r� ,�._• . - ��r��•.,�� f��-mac :�; :. r �-r f .. o- �44Z .� �''„� C�:c:4CG:•"•��.�..rf� ,. ��:_-��-r_..� .�..�J � r/f ��f ��l- �i-c ��-'�.G'�fl/ ..� l �. 0 , ISG Lz`+n., j`7 -.•..w �w+..G+�w e,�. K -. -- -' �.. .- i • : •� L1-4 :.., 4+(o.k. a6»..,, .,. ,.;.-h..J.'.•..w. et.k, ��:- w.L�4 yk: 5%AT w:.itl: q4.�1 - 5.•k7 oN„ e, •w..M,,,l ..;,31..,,.....5. S.e1 �4�ek,.a; a4.y+. .. .. Lti\(31 CH11'Cs\ w+..'� +,..+.w,�.d.. - Y ...�l.E 0,.,16L.k Ww1,,...g1.'.. �r,V.J..:nw.w a r..,Ak N• ry5' �v tr\ US....ww + I .� ,Y•! w a.' . 3w>,.9.. 1w:". Jr u• -x` y. will - u /h Esem, �,�;,a� �,�., .,. w..��wl .»�1... �,..... �,.:�. �,-�-.� .....W.� ,,..��, �,, '� •. ' l4 �w...•M.,.,a.u.A".3�. 19�J a�yw�.�� .�,w�.ycwlel�d,AS ��.x u1.wv.,9LoJ�.I,.��dl.' - _- -- __.�.�.—_.,_..----,.._ _ .- `�'11.714II-�•w..l;� Vw�.s: �" ':•1L:14:. . + i Ilw h4w.,.,.U: d�>y w..�J:..Ae�%c okw m+Aac4 A.w,.....9-...a d•". iso �, �5 alb I �61iw' , i °i..•...,. -,,.,�.�w.,.•iz..11o c.;„•iy,u tir.,�ld: S«.;4.'1.�w.M..;....t> ....•.,.�5 { i G 9n �u'til.a,... � .. '. /' !' „a....al,lwA. b\ A, �.:w.�,,..,,,i.,.4....41. ., `"Ali" •J,.�,� � - �� "'ti 1.; W.19w1., I w y a ..14,.11. ,M5 ... - _ � ILS 7.,�.;,1,•:..,.4..H., L 1.,.5. w.,�l. ttc...,,..,,. 4-L.. d«.w. �.�J•.�...,.d. �__:� , �ru•trk;: du IN nA IX ' Eli OEI 1 r q •1'44 loaf<U ,w.....;1, I �4 jW 10 zi . � S r s L. .t • c TRS : �` +. � '� - \ , i - ^ -! < e ,''FEET sl f. n �i n• / - _ .. "s J` 4 i• - ..r^T.'.: '. ourtor OLLT LEr �:/ - ,4J p4y ca a 46W A.' ft. a -A z7w eit f4L ND. 4.6L 17 a t6 t6 dI.J I i. WL na NO 7ez 1 "�: la I I may- �••" i-.� p, x� �4\� s _--,' . ro I CJ -`.moi ..] - ,iJ•, /' �/ !�v F i . - I J 1� ` �° / n't°. V 5 ; � ` � � i v\�f ` °. \a 4' a -'°V 1 / V >, Y %�- NV �.\yam Jr • 4\ � v ro �' - �° � V . 4 � i / \�/!• � Y- C`�- �' A � .`, y ,� / �`.G'y °/\ . t� �'� a y/ 9: `e�. \�: � � tl `, ,.r, v � • i 75 40 Fy tv r\3, 4 4 ` roe. �\ � '•_ ./�` � ��•' s / \\ ``\ 1 , f /\� �' a V' y`.`u a.V/f ',�J�m '6° u / �p '�•`• y'. / y� t 5, `V � r ...4 ��C\ a -• � - q �v / // }�• ^ Rv ..`I� o- / "� �..� �r� v v: 1.4 ° I Th Onx tj s IM, v \ a Planning Commission Agenda – 08/02/11 1 9. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for Concept Stage and Development Stage Planned Unit Development approval for a multi-tenant shopping center, a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage, a Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash, a Conditional Use Permit for a Motor Fuel Station/Convenience Store, a Conditional Use Permit for minor auto repair, and Preliminary Plat approval. Applicant: Mills Properties, Inc. (AS) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND On June 12th, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a concept and development stage planned unit development and preliminary plat request for the proposed Mills Fleet Farm project, submitted by Mills Properties, Inc. The City Council subsequently approved the requests on June 25th, 2007. The City Council (with the recommendation of the Planning Commission) has granted the applicant an extension of the conditional use permit and preliminary plat for one year in each successive year since the time of the original approval. . Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for PUD and preliminary plat would have been set to expire on June 8th, 2011. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits expire due to non-use after one year. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that all preliminary platted property be final platted within 1 year. However, the City must take official action to effect the expiration of an approved CUP and preliminary plat and has not done so in the case of this approval. The extension letter sent by the applicant requests a two year extension period. The letter cites the economic conditions as the foundation for this request. The planning report for the original item has been provided for reference. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend extension of the June 25th, 2007 Conditional Use Permit for Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for the proposed Mills Fleet Farm for a period of two years, with the condition that all previously approved conditions be assigned to the extension. 2. Motion to recommend extension of the June 25th, 2007 Conditional Use Permit for Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for the proposed Mills Fleet Farm for a period of one year, with the condition that all previously approved conditions be assigned to the extension. 3. Motion to recommend denial of an extension of the June 25th, 2007 Conditional Use Permit Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for the proposed Mills Fleet Farm, based on a finding to be made by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/02/11 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends extension of the CUPs and preliminary plat as requested by the applicant. The applicant has indicted that it is their intent to develop the site consistent with the approved plans as soon as it is economically feasible to do so. However, it is noted that the Commission has consistently recommended for the extension of CUPs for one year terms. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Applicant Extension Request Exhibit B: Staff Report for City Council – 6/12/07 Exhibit C: Site Plans Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 1D 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Concept Stage and Development Stage Planned Unit Development approval for a multi -tenant shopping center, a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage, a Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash, a Conditional Use Permit for a Motor Fuel Station/Convenience Store, a Conditional Use Permit for minor auto repair, and Preliminary Plat approval. Applicant: Mills Fleet Farm. (NAC) BACKGROUND Fleet Farm is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for concept stage and development stage Planned Unit Development for the construction of a big box retail store, gas station, and car wash, as well as Preliminary Plat approval. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage, a Conditional Use Permit for a car wash, a Conditional Use Permit for a motor fuel station/convenience store and a Conditional Use Permit for minor auto repair. The total site is 36.04 acres in size and is located within the Monticello Commerce Center on Chelsea Road. The applicant is proposing a 273,201 square foot retail building with outdoor storage on the south side of Chelsea Road and a 4,378 square foot motor fuel station with a car wash on the north side of Chelsea Road. Both sites are currently zoned I -IA, Light Industrial. A request for Rezoning and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is currently being considered by the City for the site as part of a separate application. The applicant submitted a request for rezoning to B-4, Regional Business on the north side of Chelsea Road, and B-4, Regional Business on the south side of Chelsea Road. However, it should be noted that the applicant's narrative request submitted with the north side rezoning request refers to a request for B-3, Highway Business Zoning. On June 5t', the Planning Commission recommended approval of rezoning for the north side parcel to B-3. As the B-3 District includes the requested conditional uses, that district has been used for analysis purposes in this report. It should be noted that the B-4 zoning district would include as permitted or conditional all the uses of a B-3 district. The rezoning requests were heard by the Planning Commission at their May and June regular meetings, and will be acted on by the City Council on June 25`x', 2007. ANALYSIS The subject site is located on Chelsea Road East, within the existing Monticello Commerce Center. The site is directly south of Interstate 94 and west of the CSAH 18 interchange. The site relies on PUD for shared parking, proof of parking, building height, and multiple buildings. Comprehensive Plan: Monticello's Comprehensive Plan currently designates this area for industrial use. Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 CUP/PUD: A Planned Unit Development allows for flexibility in performance standards with the understanding that the development will be held to higher standards of site and building design than would ordinarily be required. It is the applicant's responsibility to design the development with significant benefits and communicate those benefits to the City for allowing a CUP/PUD. Preliminary Plat. The site is platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 of Mills Addition to Monticello. Lot 1, Block 1 is 29.79 acres in size and located on the south side of Chelsea Road. This lot will contain the Mills Fleet Farm retail store. Lot 2, Block 1 is also on the south side of Chelsea Road and is 3.87 acres in size. This lot is identified for future development. Lot 1, Block 2 is located on the north side of Chelsea Road and will contain the motor fuel station and car wash. This lot is 2.38 acres in size. Outdoor Storage. The applicant is proposing an outdoor storage area on the south side of the retail building, on Lot 1, Block 1. Open and outdoor storage is permitted as a conditional use in the B-4 District, provided the following conditions are met: 1. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses. Comment: The site abuts the Monticello High School property to the south, which is zoned R-1. The applicant is proposing a fence 18 feet in height constructed of metal fascia panels and expanded metal fence sections surrounding the outdoor storage area, as well as landscaping to screen. A portion of the outdoor storage area will also be surrounded by precast concrete wall panels. The City may wish to comment on whether it believes a metal fence is appropriate for this area, in relationship to surrounding uses and standards. 2. Storage is screened from view from the public right of way. Comment: The storage area site does not abut any public right-of-way, and will be screened from Chelsea Road by the remainder of the building. 3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. Comment: The outdoor storage area is proposed to be surfaced with concrete. 4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences. Comment: A sample lighting plan from a similar Mills facility in Blaine was supplied for reference. However, no lighting plan specific to this site has been submitted at this time. Said plan shall be required as a condition of approval. Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 As an additional condition of approval, staff recommends that no exterior racking be allowed anywhere on the site. Car Wash. The applicant is proposing a four -bay, touchless car wash on the north side of the motor fuel station site, on Lot 1, Block 2. Car washes are permitted by Conditional Use Permit in the B-3 District, subject to the following conditions: 1. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. Comment: The architectural appearance of the proposed buildings and function of the site will not be detrimental to the surrounding properties. However, staff provides additional comments on the overall design of the car wash in the "building design " section of this report. 2. Magazining or stacking space is constructed to accommodate that number of vehicles which can be washed during a maximum 30 minute period and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Comment: The site has approximately 180 feet of stacking space, adequate for up to nine vehicles. The proposed stacking space appears appropriate for the four car wash stalls. 3. At the boundaries of a residential district a strip of not less than five feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 G of this ordinance. Comment: The site does not abut any residential districts. 4. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot shall be landscaped or covered. Comment. No lighting plan has been submitted at this time. Said plan shall be required as a condition of approval. 5. Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 G of this ordinance. Comment: The site does not abut any residential districts. 6. The entire area other than occupied by the buildings or plantings shall be surfaced with material which will control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 Comment: The site is proposed to be surfaced with bituminous and concrete. 0 7. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Comment: The drainage plan has been reviewed by the City Engineer and the applicant must comply with all recommendations outlined in his memo dated June 4, 2007. 8. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the public right of way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 H of this ordinance. Comment: No lighting plan has been submitted at this time. Said plan shall be required as a condition of approval. 9. Vehicular access points shall be limited to create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement and adjacent driveways and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Comment: Vehicular access is evaluated under the "access and circulation " portion of this report. 10. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in � compliance with Chapter 3 Section 9 of this ordinance. Comment. All signage has been reviewed and is detailed under the "signage " section of this report. 11. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 12. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. Motor Fuel Station/Convenience Store. Motor fuel stations/convenience stores are allowed in the B-3 District by Conditional Use Permit, provided the following requirements are met: 1. Regardless of whether the dispensing sale or offering for sale of motor fuels and/or oil is incidental to the conduct of the use or business, the standards and requirements imposed by this ordinance for motor fuel stations shall apply. These standards and requirements are however in addition to other requirements which are imposed for other uses of the property. 0 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 2. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. Comment: The architectural appearance of the proposed buildings and function of the site will not be detrimental to the surrounding properties. However, staff does have concerns regarding the architectural appearance of the buildings as related to the site's freeway visibility. These concerns are discussed later in this report. 3. The entire site other than that taken up by a building structure or plantings shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Comment: The site is proposed to be surfaced with bituminous and concrete. 4. A minimum lot area of twenty two thousand five hundred (22,500) square feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred fifty (15 0) feet by one hundred thirty (13 0) feet. Comment: The subject site is 103,673 square feet in area, 205 feet wide and 547 feet deep. 5. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be installed. Comment: The City Engineer has reviewed the grading and drainage plans and has provided comments. These comments are detailed in a memo from the City Engineer dated June 4, 2007, and compliance with these comments will be required as a condition of approval. 6. A curb not less than six 6 inches above grade shall separate the public sidewalk from motor vehicle service areas. Comment: There is no public sidewalk adjacent to the motor vehicle service area. 7. The lighting shall be accomplished in such away as to have no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the public right of way and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 H of this ordinance. Comment: No lighting plan has been submitted at this time. Said plan shall be required as a condition of approval. 0 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 8. Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed, pump islands shall be installed. Comment: Pump islands are proposed at all fuel pump locations. 9. At the boundaries of a residential district a strip of not less than five feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 7 G of this ordinance. Comment: The site does not border any residential districts. 10. Each light standard landscaped. Comment. The applicant has not submitted a photometric plan indicating the location of each light standard. This shall be required as a condition of approval, as well as landscaping of each standard. 11. Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 G of this ordinance. Comment: The site does not border any residential districts. 12. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement and adjacent driveways and shall comply with Chapter 3 Section 5 of this ordinance and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Comment. This issue is reviewed in detail in the "access and circulation " section of this report. 13. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 9 of this ordinance. Comment: All signage has been reviewed for compliance, and detailed later in this report. 14. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 15. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance with Chapter 13 Section 4 of this ordinance. Comment: No outdoor storage is proposed for the motor fuel site. It should also be noted that no outdoor sales and display is proposed for the car wash, motor fuel/convenience site, or big box site. 0 6 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 No outdoor sales and display within the PUD will be permitted without the separate review and approval of a conditional use permit for that purpose. 16. Sale of products other than those specifically mentioned in Chapter 13 Section 4 be subject to a conditional use permit and be in compliance with Chapter 13 Section 4 F of this ordinance. 17. All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the Council upon investigation in relation to a formal request finds that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or better by modifying the conditions. 18. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. Minor Auto Repair. The applicant is proposing an auto service center within the big box retail store where minor auto repair will be performed. The auto service center is located on the south side of the building, adjacent to Chelsea Road. Minor auto repair is allowed by Conditional Use Permit, subject to the same 18 conditions outlined above for the motor fuel station/convenience store use. The proposed auto service center is entirely enclosed within the principal building. Therefore, all conditions of approval are being evaluated as part of the big box retail store. Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The applicant has requested rezoning for the south portion of the site from I-1 A to B-4, Regional Business. There is no minimum lot size or setback requirement for the B-4 District. On the north side of Chelsea Road, the B-3, Highway Business standards were applied. The following chart demonstrates the applicable performance requirements of the B-3 District, as well as what is proposed for the site: No minimum lot area is required for the B-3 District. However, the proposed motor fuel station use requires a minimum lot size of 22,500 square feet. The proposed car wash and convenience store buildings and accessory uses on the north side of Chelsea Road meet all setback requirements, as demonstrated above. Parking. The applicant is proposing a retail store with an auto center, warehouse and office space, a convenience store/gas station, and a car wash. Staff has Required Proposed Minimum Lot Size 22,500 sf 103,673 sf Lot Width 100 feet 205 feet Front Yard Setback 30 feet 50 feet Side Yard Setback 10 feet 30 feet Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 118 feet No minimum lot area is required for the B-3 District. However, the proposed motor fuel station use requires a minimum lot size of 22,500 square feet. The proposed car wash and convenience store buildings and accessory uses on the north side of Chelsea Road meet all setback requirements, as demonstrated above. Parking. The applicant is proposing a retail store with an auto center, warehouse and office space, a convenience store/gas station, and a car wash. Staff has Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 reviewed the building areas for each use and calculated the required parking for the site. The following chart demonstrates the minimum number of parking stalls required for the site: Tenant Area 90%) Requirement Stalls Retail 175,497 sf 157,948 sf 1 space/200 sf of floor area 790 spaces Warehouse 78,416 sf 70,575 sf 1 space/500 sf of floor area 142 spaces Office 6,028 sf 5,426 sf 3 spaces plus 1/200 sf of area 31 spaces Auto Center 6,962 sf 6,266 sf 8 spaces plus 1/800 sf of area 19 spaces over 1,000 sf Sub -total require 982 spaces Convenience 4,378 sf 3,941 sf 1/200 sf of floor area 20 spaces Store/Gas Station Car Wash 5,100 sf 4,590 sf 0 in addition to gas station 0 Total Required 1,002 spaces The site plan illustrates 862 parking stalls on the retail store site, and 23 parking stalls on the gas station site, for a total of 885 parking stalls. The motor fuel station/car wash site on the north side of Chelsea Road is adequately parked with three excess stalls. As the site is a PUD, shared parking may be accommodated. In summary, the site is 117 parking spaces short of the minimum requirement. While the site is under -parked, a large number of stalls are provided. Due to the large amount of impervious parking area already provided, in lieu of providing additional parking stalls, staff recommends that the applicant provide proof of parking for the 117 additional stalls required. The proof of parking shall be provided on Lot 2, Block 1, which is currently reserved for future development, or elsewhere on the site. In the event that lack of parking becomes an issue for the retail site, the City may require construction of the proof of parking stalls. Landscaping. South Side Site Landscaping For commercial sites, a minimum of one overstory tree per 1,000 square feet of gross building floor area, or one tree per 50 lineal feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater, is required. The retail site on the south side of Chelsea Road has 3,913.63 lineal feet of site perimeter, requiring 79 overstory trees. Under the floor area calculation, 273 overstory trees would be required. As the floor area calculation is the greater of the two, the floor area calculation shall prevail, and 273 trees shall be required for the retail site. The applicant is proposing 273 overstory trees for the retail site, including Douglas Fir, Colorado Blue Spruce, Austrian Pine, Little Leaf Linden, Sugar Maple, River Birch, Common Hackberry and Manchurian Ash. Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 The majority of the trees proposed are around the perimeter of the site and within parking lot islands. The applicant has provided 31 landscaped islands within the parking lot to break up the monotony of this large space. A total of nine overstory trees and ten shrubs are proposed on the north side of the retail building to screen the auto service center from Chelsea Road. The applicant has also provided a number of shrubs throughout the site. Future Retail Site Landscaping Lot 2 of Block 1, the future development site, contains 1816 feet of site perimeter, requiring 37 overstory trees. No trees are proposed for the future development site at this time, as landscaping for that area will be provided at the time of development. South Site Buffet- Yard Landscaping In addition to the minimum landscape requirement, a buffer yard is also required adjacent to the south property line, due to the conflict in uses between the big box commercial retailer and the High School. A commercial to institutional land use conflict is considered an "A" level conflict. This conflict requires a 10 foot landscaped yard with a minimum of 40 plant units. The applicant is responsible for one half of this requirement. The applicant has provided a landscaped yard with 430 plant units along the south property line, satisfying the buffer yard requirement. The site borders an industrial use to the east, which is a level `B" conflict. The buffer yard requirement for the east property line is a 20 foot minimum landscaped yard with 80 plant units. The applicant has provided a 20 foot landscaped yard along the east property line with 470 plant units. The minimum requirement is therefore met in this location as well, and the industrial user to the east will not be responsible for any buffer yard plantings. North Side Site Landscaping The gas convenience store/car wash site contains 1424.58 feet of site perimeter, requiring 28 overstory trees, versus the nine that would be required under the floor area calculation. As such, the perimeter requirement shall prevail. The applicant has provided 28 overstory trees, satisfying the minimum requirement. Trees provided include Douglas Fir, Colorado Blue Spruce, Austrian Pine, Little Leaf Linden, River Birch, Common Hackberry and Manchurian Ash. The majority of the trees provided are along the site perimeter and within the vacuum island adjacent to the car wash. The applicant has also provided a number of shrubs. Shrubs are proposed between the overstory trees around the perimeter, and surrounding the pylon sign and monument sign. 0 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 The City recognizes the value of interstate highway exposure to commercial and industrial developers. However, the City also wishes to avoid the undesirable monotony of fully exposed building sides and rears. Therefore, it is important to provide natural visual variety to the travelers on the interstate. Natural visual variety and pleasing aesthetics project a clean and welcoming image for the City. Commercial and industrial developers of lots/parcels having substantial exposure to the interstate shall be required to landscape/screen to provide 60% opacity year-round with at least 80% of such screening to be of natural materials. The proposed gas convenience store/car wash borders Interstate 94 to the north. The applicant has proposed dense vegetation on the north side of the site, including 12 trees. Of those, seven are evergreen trees to provide year-round screening. North Side Buffer Yard Landscaping The north Chelsea site also borders an industrial use to the west, which again is a level `B" conflict. The buffer yard requirement for the west property line is a 20 foot minimum landscaped yard with 80 plant units. The applicant is responsible for one half of this requirement. The applicant has provided a 10 foot landscaped yard along the east property line with 289 plant units. The applicant has provided the minimum number of plant units, as well as the minimum 10 foot landscaped yard. The property owner to the west shall be responsible for a 10 foot buffer yard as well. However, no additional plant units are required. As a note on overall landscaping, staff would recommend irrigation of all boulevard and buffer yard areas. Staff would also recommend that similar to other recently approved commercial and industrial projects, the applicant be required to provide overstory boulevard tree plantings. Additionally, similar to the Union Crossings PUD site, staff would recommend the use of pavers and scored concrete in pedestrian crossing areas and in handicap accessible areas of the parking surface. This recommendation is in lieu of striped pavement. Lighting. No lighting plan has been submitted at this time. A lighting plan specific to this development shall be required as a condition of approval. Signage. The applicant has submitted a signage plan, detailing proposed signs for both the big box retail store and the motor fuel station/car wash site. Pylon/Monument Signage The applicant is proposing a 400 square foot pylon sign on the north side of Chelsea Road to gain visibility from the freeway. In addition to the 400 square foot pylon the applicant is proposing a 126 square foot monument sign. No other freestanding signs are proposed in the remainder of the development. As stated, the applicant is proposing a 400 square foot pylon sign at a height of 50 feet. For the Union Crossings site on the north side of I-94, a sign of this area and Is 10 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 a height of 57 feet was permitted by PUD, provided that other signs in the project • were limited to wall or monument signs, due to the size of the overall development and the size and number of the retail stores and other uses. The Union Crossings development contains Target, Home Depot, an inline retail center, a detached strip retail center, and other proposed uses. The subject Fleet Farm site is much smaller than the Union Crossings site, and contains only one user. Additionally, the site includes a provision for a 67 foot tall silo as part of the big box site. In that regard, staff does not believe the proposed 400 square foot sign at 50 feet in height is appropriate for the site. The site is within 800 feet of the freeway and is therefore allowed a freeway standard sign up to 32 feet in height and 200 square feet in area on either the north or south side of Chelsea Road. In that regard, staff recommends that the applicant reduce the size of the proposed pylon sign to not exceed 200 square feet and limit height to 32 -feet. . North Side Wall Siknawe For the motor fuel store, wall signage up to 10 percent of the total fagade may be provided for the site, not to exceed 100 square feet. The front facade of the building is 956.5 square feet in area. The rear fagade is visible from I-94, for an additional 956.5 square feet of fagade. The use is therefore eligible for 100 square feet of signage. The applicant has proposed four, 40 square foot LED display signs, and four, 32 square foot identification signs within the lighted canopy. Therefore, the total wall signage proposed is 288 square foot of signage, exceeding the maximum. The applicant is proposing five, 8 -foot wall signs for the car wash, as well as three, 9 -foot wall signs, for a total of 67 square feet of wall signage. Due to area of the fagade for the car wash, the applicant is eligible for up to 100 square feet of signage. Therefore, the proposed signage is well within the parameters of the ordinance. The applicant has not utilized all wall signage permitted for the car wash, and therefore may be allotted the remaining 33 square feet to be used on the motor fuel store. However, the applicant has exceeded even the 133 square foot allotment. Staff recommends that the applicant eliminate signage or reduce the size of signage on the convenience store to not exceed 133 square feet. South Side Wall Signaize On the south side of Chelsea Road, the big box retailer is visible from both Chelsea Road and Dundas Road. The total fagade on the north elevation, visible from Chelsea Road, is 9,854 square feet. The fagade area on the west elevation, visible from Dundas Road, is approximately 19,435 square feet. Ten percent of total fagade area is equal to 2,929 square feet of signage. The ordinance states that the site is eligible for signage equal to 10% of the total fagade, up to 100 11 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 square feet. In this case, the 10 percent calculation greatly exceeds 100 square feet. Therefore, the maximum allowable signage is equal to 100 square feet. The applicant has proposed 825 square feet of signage on the east elevation, and 199 square feet of signage on the north elevation. The total area of signage proposed therefore is 1,024 square feet. However, the current zoning ordinance language does not account for big box retail stores, where large wall signs do not appear out of place with the structure. The signage proposed by the applicant in this case is proportionate to the large building. Allowances relative to building size for wall signage were made for past projects which also include larger building facades. The applicant has not proposed any additional freestanding signs on the south side of Chelsea Road. Therefore, the proposed signage appears to be appropriate for the site. Access and Circulation. South Side Access and Circulation Access to the big box retail site is provided at two points extending south from Chelsea Road. One access is located in the far northeast corner, and one is located 140 feet to the west. The northwest access point is 45 feet in width where it intersects with Chelsea Road, wide enough for three lanes of traffic including a right -turn lane. The western access is only 30 feet in width where it intersects with Chelsea Road, only allowing enough space for two lanes of traffic. Staff recommends that the width of this west access be increased to provide additional space for a separate right -turn lane in this location as well. Staff also recommends that each access should include a protected right -turn lane along Chelsea Road. Internal drive lanes throughout the parking lot are a minimum of 24 feet in width, wide enough for two lanes of traffic. The drive lane on the north side of the site extending toward the auto center is 30 feet in width. A drive lane extends along the east property line and wraps around toward the south, providing access to the west side of the building. This drive will be utilized by trucks to access the loading dock area on the west side of the building. This drive lane is approximately 28 feet in width, and appears to provide adequate space for turning movements for truck traffic. North Side Access and Circulation Access to the motor fuel station and car wash site on the north side of Chelsea Road is provided at two points as well. Both access drives extend north from Chelsea Road into the site. Both drives are 30 feet in width, wide enough for two lanes of traffic with no turn lanes. Internal drive lanes are all a minimum of 30 • 12 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 feet in width. Staff recommends that access to this site be limited to one driveway near the east edge of the site to avoid potential conflicts with vehicles accessing the existing driveway to the west, and that this access also include a protected right -turn lane along Chelsea Road. The site is designed so that customers purchasing fuel can pull into the site, circle through the fuel pump area, and exit back out onto Chelsea Road. As such, the fuel pumps are oriented to be parallel with Chelsea Road. The orientation of the pumps in this manner limits stacking space for waiting vehicles, and creates a very tight site. Due to the depth of the site, there appears to be adequate room to orient the fuel pumps to be perpendicular to Chelsea Road, providing more stacking space. This may require the applicant to shift the convenience store building and car wash to the north. However, as stated above, the site appears to have adequate depth to support such an arrangement. As such, staff recommends reorienting the fuel pumps. Due to the tight conditions on the site, staff also offers the option of relocating the car wash and motor fuel station to the south side of Chelsea Road on Lot 2, Block 1, a 3.87 acre site reserved for future development. This site would allow additional room for access and stacking that is not available on the chosen 2.38 acre site on the north side of Chelsea Road. Pedestrian access through both sites is accommodated through a series of sidewalks at the front of each building. Due to the size of the parking lot and the amount of traffic expected, staff recommends that the applicant provide pedestrian crossing striping and pedestrian curb ramps between the parking lot and the front of the Mills Fleet Farm building. For the overall site, the City Engineer and consulting engineer from WSB have reviewed the plans regarding access and street design, and have provided the following comments: 1. Only one access towards the east side of the site north of Chelsea Road will be allowed. There appears to be ample room on site to push the building to the north to provide acceptable levels of circulation for all vehicles on site. 2. Right -turn lanes should be provided at all access locations on Chelsea Road. 3. The temporary cul-de-sac at the east end of Dundas Road, just west of the Mills Fleet Farm building, must be reconstructed as a permanent cul-de- sac as part of this project. This may require using some land on the Fleet Farm site. 4. Provide pedestrian crossing striping and pedestrian curb ramps as needed between the parking lot and the front of the Mills Fleet Farm building. As a note on this item, for the south side retail site, planning staff have recommended scored concrete and pavers as an alternative to striped 13 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 pavement. This recommendation is consistent with other recent PUD retail project recommendations. 5. The entrance to the future lot (Lot 2, Block 1) should be shown conceptually on all plans. Building Design. North Side Building Design On the north side of Chelsea Road, for the motor fuel station, the building will be constructed primarily of rockface concrete block with ribbed concrete block accents with an orange metal canopy. The primary building materials will be earth toned in color. The car wash will be constructed primarily of random rib exposed precast concrete panels. The car wash will have overhead doors on the north and south elevations. Staff is concerned with the appearance of the car wash as visible from the interstate. The proposed design exposes four overhead doors to I-94 with few aesthetic details. The City has a limited amount of freeway exposed land available, and should therefore hold all freeway exposed uses to high development standards. The applicant is requesting approval via PUD, which allows the applicant flexibility from performance standards in exchange for high quality building design. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant consider an alternate design for the structure, including alternate building materials, more visual detail, and/or re -orienting the building so that the overhead doors do not face the freeway. Again, staff also offers the option of relocating the car wash and motor fuel station to Lot 2, Block 1 on the south side of Chelsea Road. South Side Building Design On the south side of Chelsea Road, the big box retail store will be constructed with stacked, pattern exposed precast concrete near the foundation followed by random, rib exposed concrete for the remainder of the building. The front entrance will be accented with EIFS plaster, as will the auto service entrance. The building will be gray in color with orange, white, and black accents. Overhead doors are proposed on every side of the building, with the majority of these doors on the west side near the loading dock and on the north side for the auto service center. The applicant is proposing a 67.67 foot silo at the front entrance of the building, constructed of EIFS plaster with an orange pre -finished sheet metal dome. The remainder of the building is a maximum of 33.67 feet in height. Building height in the B-4 District is limited to two -stories. The proposed silo greatly exceeds two stories in height. The applicant is requesting flexibility on this feature as part of the PUD process. The applicant is requesting PUD approval for the site. The City's PUD Ordinance allows flexibility to performance standards with the understanding that the 14 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 development will be held to higher standards of site and building design than would ordinarily be required. In keeping with the intent of this ordinance, staff recommends that the applicant revise the elevations for the big box retail store to provide additional aesthetic details to break up the long fagade. Specifically, staff recommends that the applicant provide additional vertical details, roofline variations, and materials in contrasting, but coordinating colors. Staff recommends that said details be applied to all four sides of the building, with the emphasis on the east, north, and west elevations. Similar requirements were applied to previously approved big box retail stores in the City, including Target and WalMart. Furthermore, staff recommends that the applicant consider an alternate color for the top of the proposed silo. The applicant is proposing a silo nearly 68 feet in height with an orange cap. While staff recognizes that this silo is a signature element for all Fleet Farm stores, the color appears to be out of character with the surrounding area. Staff recommends that the silo cap be white or cream in color, similar to the Lakeville store, to increase the aesthetic quality of the site. Grading and Drainage. The City Engineer and consulting engineer from WSB have reviewed the grading and drainage plans and provided the following comments: 1. Based on the proposed use of the property north of Chelsea Road as a fueling station the City is requesting that the storm sewer system serving this site be routed through the High School Pond to the south, rather than routing it to the west along Chelsea Road. 2. The grading of the infield area between the two entrances to the Mills Fleet Farm site south of Chelsea Road should be revised to provide positive drainage to the storm sewer structure located in the middle of this area. Is there a reason that this has been graded as a low area? 3. Combine the two storm sewer outlets to the High School Pond into one outlet at the south end of the parking lot. 4. Provide all required drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of both sites. 5. A minimum pavement grade of 2% is recommended throughout the parking lot. Utilities. Regarding the utility plan submitted, the City Engineer, Public Works Director, and consulting engineer have provided the following comments: 1. Replace all 90 -degree watermain bends with two 45 -degree bends with a minimum of 10 -feet of watermain between the bends. 2. Provide profiles of all utilities at crossing locations to make sure no conflicts exist. 3. If any portion of the southerly site is to be split off and sold at a later date it must have its own utility services in order to do so. 15 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 4. Sanitary sewer manholes with a drop of more than two -feet must be an outside drop manhole. 5. The City's Fire Chief must review the final utility plans to ensure that there are an adequate number of fire hydrants on site, that they are spaced adequately, and that a hydrant is located no more than 150 -feet from each FDC for the building for adequate fire fighting capabilities. 6. Show trunk sanitary sewer on north end of Lot 1, Block 2. 7. Keep tank field out of 12 -foot drainage and utility easement along south edge of Lot 1, Block 2. 8. Verify the size of the watermain service on the south side of Chelsea Road. 9. Show sanitary service from property line to the west of Lot 1, Block 2. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS. Decision 1. Regarding the request for a Conditional Use Permit for Concept Stage and Development Stage Planned Unit Development approval and Preliminary Plat approval for a big box retail store, motor fuel station/convenience store and car wash, the City has the following options: A. Motion to recommend approval of the request for Concept Stage and Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat approval for the entire site, based on a finding that the proposed uses constitute a superior project as required by PUD and are not consistent with the intent of the B-4 and B-3 Districts, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. B. Motion to recommend approval of the request for Concept Stage and Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Block 1 only, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z, based on a finding that the proposed uses on the south side of Chelsea Road constitute a superior project as required by PUD, and the uses proposed on the north side of Chelsea Road are not consistent with the intent of Planned Unit Development. C. Motion to recommend denial of the request for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat approval, based on a finding that the proposed uses do not meet the requirements for PUD and are not are not consistent with the intent of the B-4 and B-3 Districts. Decision 2. Regarding the request for a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage, the City has the following options: A. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storage, based on a finding that the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the B-4 District and the use satisfies the conditions of approval. 16 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 B. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a Open and Outdoor Storage, based on a finding that the conditions for approval have not been met. Decision 3. Regarding the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash, the City has the following options: A. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash, based on a finding that the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the B-3 District and the use satisfies the conditions of approval. B. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash, based on a finding that the conditions for approval have not been met. Decision 4. Regarding the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Motor Fuel Station/Convenience Store, the City has the following options: A. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a Motor Fuel Station/Convenience Store, based on a finding that the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the B-3 District and the use satisfies the conditions of approval. B. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a Motor Fuel Station/Convenience Store, based on a finding that the conditions for approval have not been met. Decision 5. Regarding the request for a Conditional Use Permit for Minor Auto Repair, the City has the following options: A. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Minor Auto Repair, based on a finding that the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the B-4 District and the use satisfies the conditions of approval. B. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit for Minor Auto Repair, based on a finding that the conditions for approval have not been met. RECOMMENDATION Mills Fleet Farm is requesting Concept Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat approval, as well as approval of four conditional use permits. All requested approvals are contingent on the sites being rezoned from the existing I-lA zoning to B-3, Highway Business and/or B-4, Regional Business. 17 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 The City Council will hear the requests for rezoning and comprehensive plan amendments at their June 25 meeting. 0 Conditional Use Permits requested include a car wash and a motor fuel station/convenience store on the north side of Chelsea Road where the requested zoning is B-3, Highway, and outdoor storage and minor auto repair on the south side of Chelsea Road, where the requested zoning is B-4, Regional Business. With the exception of not submitting a photometric plan, all uses generally meet the requirements for the requested Conditional Use Permits and staff recommends approval. Regarding the request for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat, the overall site plan is generally consistent with the requirements of the respected district. However, staff does have some concerns relating to signage, building design, and parking, among others. The proposed building design for the big box retail store lacks visual detail and overall aesthetics, which are required to justify flexibility for PUD. The applicant has also exceeded the freestanding signage allowances for the PUD, wall signage allowances on the gas station/convenience store site, and has not provided adequate parking. Staff recommends that these items be remedied as conditions of approval. As stated above, the requested approvals are contingent on the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments requested by the applicant. In the event that the land is rezoned, the City should consider if the proposed uses and building designs are appropriate for the site, particularly as this land is visible from the freeway. It is reasonable for the City to expect higher quality architecture for any land rezoned to commercial. The car wash proposed adjacent to Interstate 94 lacks visual detail and overall aesthetics. It appears as though the applicant has chosen the site on the north side of Chelsea Road to gain freeway exposure with both the buildings and the pylon sign, as there is more than adequate space on Lot 2, Block I on the south side of Chelsea Road for a motor fuel station and car wash. In the event that the City chooses Option A under the approval for the request for Concept and Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat, staff recommends approval only under the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. In the event that the City chooses Option B, and requires the applicant to move the motor fuel/convenience store and car wash to the south side site, staff recommends that only the applicable conditions in Exhibit Z be applied. Under this option, the City may choose to to remove those conditions that may no longer apply. • 18 • Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Applicant Narrative Exhibit B: Existing Conditions Exhibit C: Site Plan Exhibit D: Grading Plan Exhibit E: Utility Plan Exhibit F: Erosion Control Plan Exhibit G: Overall Landscape Plan Exhibit H: Typical Floor Plan Exhibit is Retail Store Elevations Exhibit J: Convenience Store Floor Plan Exhibit K: Convenience Store Elevations Exhibit L: Car Wash Floor Plan Exhibit M: Car Wash Elevations Exhibit N: Yard Entrance Floor Plan and Perimeter Packing Elevations Exhibit O: Seasonal Display Elevations Exhibit P: Typical Signage Exhibit Q: Sample Site Photometric Plan Exhibit R: Photos of Lakeville Site Exhibit S: City Engineers Memo — June 4, 2007 Exhibit Z: Conditions of Approval 19 Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 EXHIBIT Z Conditions of Approval Mills Fleet Farm Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permits 1. All approvals are contingent on the outcome of the requests for rezoning and comprehensive plan amendments submitted by the applicant in April, 2007. 2. The applicant shall reduce the size of the proposed pylon sign to not exceed 200 square feet in area, nor 32 feet in height. 3. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan specific to this site, demonstrating readings not to exceed one footcandle at all property lines. 4. No exterior racking shall be permitted anywhere on the site. 5. The applicant shall provide proof of parking for 117 parking stalls. In the event that parking becomes an issue on site, the City may require construction of all or a portion of these stalls. 6. Wall signage for the convenience store shall be reduced to not exceed 133 square feet. 7. Only one access towards the east side of the site north of Chelsea Road will be allowed. 8. Right -turn lanes shall be provided at all access locations on Chelsea Road. 9. The temporary cul-de-sac at the east end of Dundas Road, just west of the Mills Fleet Farm building, shall be reconstructed as a permanent cul-de-sac as part of this project. 10. The big box retail site plans shall be revised to include the use of pavers and scored concrete in pedestrian crossing areas and in handicap accessible areas of the parking surface. Pedestrian ramps shall also be provided for the entire PUD site as required by the City Engineer. 11. No outdoor sales and display is permitted within the PUD without the request and review of a subsequent conditional use permit. 12. The entrance to the future lot (Lot 2, Block 1) shall be shown conceptually on all plans. 13. The fuel pumps at the motor fuel station shall be re -oriented to be perpendicular to Chelsea Road to provide more stacking space. • 20 • • Planning Commission Agenda — 06/12/07 14. The applicant shall revise all elevations for the big box retail store to provide additional vertical details, roofline variations, and materials in contrasting, but coordinating colors. 15. The applicant shall revise the car wash design to provide alternate building materials with more visual detail, or relocate the car wash to Lot 2, Block 1. 16. The cap of the proposed silo shall be white or cream in color, as opposed to orange. 17. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer, as outlined in his memo dated June 4, 2007. 18. The applicant shall verify the directional arrows and directional labels on all plans. 21 , ,w• • - - %. , City Council Minutes: 6/25/07 096 the workshop. Clint Herbst asked if the Building Department staff would go through the inspection information from HUD and MHFA and get back to the Council if these agencies' inspections are lacking in certain areas and also look at the fee changes suggested. This information can be considered at the next meeting if all the information is obtained. Gary Anderson asked if there were any other concerns the Council wanted to address at this time so that everything could be dealt with at the next meeting and not have to be brought back again. This will come back as a regular agenda item. Tom Scott indicated that the staff and legal counsel should be able to do the research and make the changes for the next meeting. SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI MOVED TO TABLE ADOPTION OF THE RENTAL PROPERTY LICENSING ORDINANCE, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE AND FEE SCHEDULE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. Consideration of a declaration of negative EAW impact — Applicant: Mills Properties, Inc. Consulting Engineer, Bret Weiss noted that the 30 day comment period for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Mills Fleet Farm had passed and to date no comments had been received from any agencies. Therefore they were recommending the City issue a Negative Declaration of need for an EIS for Mills Fleet Farm. TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF NEED FOR AN EIS FOR MILLS FLEET FARM DEVELOPMENT. BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a change in land use designation from industrial to commercial and a request for rezoning from I -1A (Light Industrial) to B-3 (Limited Business) — North side of East Chelsea Road. Applicant: Mills Properties, Inc. Consulting Planner, Steve Grittman provided the background information for agenda items #9 and #10 relating to rezoning issues for the Mills Fleet Farm site. The property on the north side of Chelsea Road is a 2.3 acre site. The applicant is requesting a comp plan amendment to change the use from industrial to commercial and a rezoning of the property from I -1A to B-3 or B-4. The Planning Commission met on this item on June 5, 2007 and met on the parcel on the south side of Chelsea Road in May and again in June. Both sites are guided as industrial and are requested to be changed to commercial. The south site is the location for the main store and the north parcel would be the site of the convenience store/gas station. Brian Stumpf pointed out that at the meeting in May only three of the Planning Commission members were present and in June four of the members were present. The Planning Commission recommended 2-1 against any change to the comp plan and rezoning for the property on the south side of Chelsea Road but recommended 2-1 in favor of the rezoning and comp plan amendment for the property on the north side. The staff report laid out the pros and cons which Steve Grittman briefly summarized. Factors supporting the 7 City Council Minutes: 6/25/07 LAND IS COMMERCIAL DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CSAH 18 INTERCHANGE HAS CHANGED THE NATURE OF THE AREA ADDING • FREEWAY ACCESS AND HIGHER TRAFFIC VOLUMES; 6) THE INCREASED TRAFFIC ON CHELSEA ROAD WILL NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON EXISTING PROPERTIES; AND 7) THE REQUEST WILL NOT CAUSE LAND IN THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS PROPOSED TO DEPRECIATE. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. Tom Scott wanted verification that findings listed for the rezoning to B-3 would apply to B-4 zoning as well. Steve Grittman indicated it would. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a change in land use designation from industrial to commercial and a request for rezoning from I -1A (Light Industrial) to B-4 (Regional Business) — South side of East Chelsea Road. Applicant: Mills Properties, Inc. Steve Grittman indicated there was no additional background information to be provided and he would address any questions the Council may have. This site would be the location for the main building. Tom Perrault stated that another location had been looked at in the area of Chelsea Road/Dundas Road/Edmonson Avenue and he wondered why that site would not work for Mills Fleet Farm. Bruce Buxton stated that although the site was similar in size it was not visible from I-94. The site was surrounded by four streets so there would be four street assessments. There would be multiple landowners involved so negotiation for the acquisition of the site would be more difficult. The site was some distance back from TH 25 and didn't offer any visibility to the public. Lastly the cost for the site was not feasible. Susie Wojchouski asked if there were any other sites they had considered. Mr. Buxton stated they looked at a site to the south which had power lines running through it which would keep them from placing a facility of their size on the site. They had looked four sites but they were narrow and didn't allow placement of the building on the site as well as meeting the parking and setback requirements of the ordinance. Wayne Mayer asked when there would be a ground breaking for the facility. Ron Brezinski, CFO for Mills Fleet Farm said that was not known at this time. They try to do one new facility a year. When the planning process is completed they can then do the calculations to determine when the site should be developed. WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING TO B-4, REGIONAL BUSINESS TO ACCOMMODATE MILLS FLEET FARM RETAIL STORE BASED ON THE FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT V OF THE JUNE 25, 2007 COUNCIL REPORT AS FOLLOWS: 1) THE SUBJECT SITE IS SURROUNDED BY A MIX OF LAND USES AND THE AREA IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY INDUSTRIAL; 2) THE REQUESTED ACTION WOULD NOT RESULT IN SPOT ZONING; 3) THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE LAND IS COMMERCIAL DUE TO THE LIMITED AMOUNT OFLAND WITH THE CITY WITH FREEWAY EXPOSURE; 4) THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE LAND IS COMMERCIAL AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE E City Council Minutes: 6/25/07 they have to get the property owners to agree to work out the access issues. The City would keep any easements they have. Bret Weiss said there is no reason the City would want to keep the right-of-way but he questioned whether the property owners could resolve the issues. Clint Herbst asked where the cul-de-sac would be located. Bret Weiss said it would not all go within the right-of-way but would encroach onto the Mills Fleet Farm site. Wayne Mayer agreed that it would be nice to be able to vacate the street. He questioned the value of having a stub road. Susie Wojchouski asked if any promises had been made to anyone relating to Dundas Road. John Simola felt you have to involve those property owners in the decision Clint Herbst felt this item needed further investigation. The reorientiation of the gas pumps was recommended based on one access to the north site. If the City allows the two accesses the relocation of the pumps would not be necessary. The Council felt the convenience store site needed two accesses for movement of traffic and safety considerations. The Planning Commission felt additional fagade improvements to the building should be made and those improvements should be specified in continued discussions with Mills Fleet Farm. Facade improvements to the rear exposure of the car wash facility was recommended. The Planning Commission felt as a commercial site with the exposure it has to the freeway there should be some additional improvements made but did not specify what. Bruce Buxton addressed the five items. The car wash site has an 85' easement on the north side adjacent to the freeway. That land is being used for stacking for cars entering the carwash. He noted that the carwash is a harsh environments and the design of the building was meant to withstand those conditions. Clint Herbst stated they weren't suggesting drastic change in design merely dressing up what is there. Bruce Buxton felt because the ordinance required that they landscape so that the building is 60% opaque to the freeway the design dressing was not necessary. The building is 14' high and with the landscaping most people won't even see the carwash from the freeway. As far as architectural changes to the building, Mills Fleet Farm offered to take the Council, Planning Commission and staff down to see their facility in Rochester which is currently under construction. Wayne Mayer asked if the pylon sign being used at Rochester was the same one they were proposing for Monticello. The City of Rochester allowed them to place the 400 square foot sign that they had originally asked for here. Bruce Buxton stated that the 400 sq. ft. sign is allowed by conditional use permit under city ordinance. Wayne Mayer asked why staff wanted the sign area reduced. Jeff O'Neill said there was no other sign competition so staff felt it could be smaller. Steve Grittman said the sign of that size is allowed specifically for shopping centers where there are multiple tenants. Mills Fleet Farm felt they were a shopping center even though they are the only tenant in the facility. Wayne Mayer stated he did not understand why the City was trying to impede their strategy. He felt if it was within City ordinance why not give it to them. Steve Grittman responded that this is a single tenant use not a shopping center. Wayne Mayer felt if you want to limit signs you achieve it by changing the sign ordinance. Otherwise the City should permit the signage allowed by ordinance. Staff indicated that 32' x 200' is what the ordinance would allow. Rod Dragsten, Planning Commission Chair noted that in looking at the sign, they looked at 11 City Council Minutes: 6/25/07 AUTOR REPAIR AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR MILLS FLEET FARM WITH THE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z AS MODIFIED: 1) TWO ACCESSES WILL BE ALLOWED FOR THE CONVENIENCE STORE SITE THUS ELIMINATING CONDITION #13; 2) THE PLYLON SIGN APPROVED AS REQUESTED BY APPLICANT 50 FEET IN HEIGHT AND 400 SQUARE FEET OF AREA; 3) CONDITIONS #9, #14 AND #15 SHALL BE LOOKED AT FURTHER. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Stewart Mills thanked the Council and staff for the courtesy extended to them and gave a history of their firm. He pointed out that they did not request any assistance from the City such as TIF to locate in Monticello. 12. Consideration of award of bids for Chelsea Road Improvement Project, City Project No. 2006-31C. The City received 13 bids for the project with Latour Construction submitting the low bid. The base bids ranged from $1,291,907 to $1,639,891. As part of this project four alternates were bid: 1) Concrete pipe, 2) HDPE pipe; 3) Pathway with concrete pipe or 4) Pathway with HDPE pipe. The bid was less than the engineer's estimate. WSB recommended moving forward with the bid using the concrete pipe. If the City decided to proceed with the pathway it would add approximately $64,000 to the project cost. Once the Council determines what alternatives they would approve the assessments would be recalculated and brought back to the Council Brian Stumpf asked why they felt the City should go with concrete pipe even though it is more costly. Bret Weiss responded that concrete pipe is part of the City design standards. This road would carry a lot of traffic and they feel concrete would hold up better. RCP is more stable and less likely to crush. Brian Stumpf stated he is not in favor of the trail that is being proposed and Susie Wojchouski concurred. Jeff O'Neill responded that the City is putting a lot of traffic on the road. He felt this segment of pathway would have a lot of use because of the school and residential areas. Wayne Mayer felt for the price it would be worth it to have this pathway in place. Susie Wojchouski stated the industries didn't want a lot of pedestrian traffic going through an industrial area. Clint Herbst asked if the City would be picking up the cost for the pathway. Bret Weiss said the other option is to have the property owners construct the pathway as development occurs. Shawn Weinand stated when they committed to the project they supported a pathway on Chelsea Road. Their assessment includes the pathway. Wayne Mayer wanted to emphasize the Fallon Avenue overpass safety issues and that is a reason for the pathway. With the bid coming in less than the engineer's estimate that cost savings could be utilized for installation of the pathway. The original feasibility report covered expanding the pond at the reservoir site but that was pulled out of the project. The wellhead protection group wanted the pond lined but that was not included in the project. The pond issue will be something that will be coming back at a future date. Brian Stumpf asked how much money had been set aside for assessment. Bret Weiss responded $844,000 for this project which included the pathway and lighting. The agreement with Weinand is that the road would be constructed with a pathway. Susie Wojchouski asked 13 • .��... ...Aa.......r: 0,d,e.............� PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ENOMEER9 ... MILLS ADDITION TO MONTICELLO 9� e � I \ I -..,„ ._. ` / LOT I f H\ r,G!^• � -\ � `".. I "� 1 ` � ..,,,.: \ '- ..- I /•, � ACK? .. \ \ 77 -•R�..\�� -.� 1 LOT 1a_. I • � wAm. N. «F I ro �: •, ' � �� Illi III II ,, \ <.,� . , � I • , ��1:>;>�.. `•' f�ld.l,}.R, '+W`—... III II II' I �. •1\ � \�„` •i l' _ � .•��''S �� ,`111 fir/ ��•�i -.. _ _ _�. '— G 1 I11 r I` b I:irOT R ` A \:.. I :.•' ��4/ L _ 1.04 off, \ LOT 1LOT I R �M a � l k z �.:. s:• BvocK LOT 19 LOT .i` LOT 7 ''> S I \. � WI IiN111.1 LO s.r.el..Iv I �A I . .• ._. , � ,, . .iw i ,; � ci• • I , =Iw .: MmI .oeFsw ro 000AUl+n _ ti , eLR+Ki 41 NCE F'NA M_�?ESME'EYfiM,, ll NAME: AW 'FA N 0 PARTAUOjR•S IS 10.SION ND. 9. DESCRIPTION: PART OF LOTS 10, 18 AND 19, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA FEE OWNER: MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL PARK INC. 4065 CHELSEA RD W. Non •-. e, IN {(FII MONTICELLO. MN 55362 SEE ENGINEERING DIUVIINGSfGRAOURIWAI AND WtOROSED UTUTY AHO GRADING APPLICANT: M1kl PROPERTIES. INC. P.O. BOX SOS EXISTING INRDRLunDN. ,e,..,v...��e..a. BRAINERD. MN. SURVEYOR: �DS7804 IH SMITH L LTING PARK 7804 INDUSTRIAL PARK RD .��... ...Aa.......r: 0,d,e.............� BAXTER. MN. ZONING: LIGHT INDUSRIAL-A AREA: 37.27 ACRES ENOMEER9 ... DATE: MAY 3. 2007 r,RCRlrecrs '„w REVISED DATE: MAY 77, 2007 w+o sw y_- E,rvIRCNAeEMA1 SER VICES .+. 0 0 z z � � o s ; z O i ;et- to to cn m w H Q W w O U 3z z F w C7 = > w a a wz z > w o Q o a O > U w W ■ Q gz O w Z o 5Q ¢ iLD o > z J -l — Z W COcn �Z IL wW yJ. Z W C Q. Z LLLfi (6 o a W Ii Z W o ZZ Z �o �Z z Z_ �a �ow �Q o� 0> z aWz Q wZ Ow zg OJd mo LL Lu ow¢ zQ Ero °-� zo LLzw a W gW OO 0 -J CL aJ �� j UQw w� LLQwjr�< Q H - ZZ Q Wwz QJ W W ?�� Q �w aH, ZZ CCQ � Er (1: o W O O Q O Q Q W Q _ oC U U U m U >- d ?- d r C\j p r O C\Jr O T O _ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q WZ { z � a = w co ,� f a cn z 0-0 a Q ti O O J J Q F x $Rx oaC z z zz zaaa� z0 0 www c U g aaa to o zgQmZZ -UQW Q U)LD L) a — CO 0 0 e w wQ�00 WZZZ� w�(5Z)ww oggg6 U C) 00000r or C\1Cli' T T N M 4 L6 L6 T T T T C7 UUUUUU JJJJ 10 • • "" g3anu3g iv1N3,Mpwvl3 . r' 0S3SNOIN70' `O"LLN N V1NNIW'OT30LLNOW m �� 'DNI S3I1213d0idd 8111M Lj U MN 133ld STlw s a J. g N $ Z'Z'L 'E�d'Wl OOZSdH ElZ@I9'�wS'�40'Wd SS�IE:ZL00Z/BL5'OLO'6�'W'OL08S LL-O}lRJlt'J1lU1YS1O0Y.N�LS�N7900'OLOOBSLlONI1mWnY'FOLa065Lt01SllI15Ll1:f' 1r u 53antf35 T/Lv3vepaiM3 "-, sao.3nansmm ?N of ." NV Id ALr W1 „' •• v1o531N1110-nmmm ° E alp T� 'SNI S311N3dONd Sl7W v MV -11331d STIW i 97.4 w 6� UZI �� LU LL(Np Is7�iBf6 a� 6f Nit 3C I LL, 0 e� 1 1 I ! s � ilk 1 mail$ aaak R =-------- — X11 I� I iFl•EbVY�-OOZSdH LLZOfJB'�LoS''uV�'Wd Sf�OY�ZL00Z/BLK'0'YJ•�'^P'OLOBSLL-if1i0'J\L�'IIAi'J\o6b'J\ab15 MSN-000'OLOOBSll01oA�IvoW'OL0085LlNSTIWSt I\�f ' dtd alp o asfa$ 97.4 w 6� UZI �� LU LL(Np Nit LL, 0 UJ d J OvLL. LL N 11 N LL $ ni f �.f Z �gi Y •• U)r C g C f $ xi =-------- — X11 I� I iFl•EbVY�-OOZSdH LLZOfJB'�LoS''uV�'Wd Sf�OY�ZL00Z/BLK'0'YJ•�'^P'OLOBSLL-if1i0'J\L�'IIAi'J\o6b'J\ab15 MSN-000'OLOOBSll01oA�IvoW'OL0085LlNSTIWSt I\�f • rI si�nn3s lv1w3NxoxwH3 SWL30,OLLNW LVNK 3 suo•3wnsam VIOS3Nmm-oTT3mmm °' S sto3lrm m •• 'ONI S311N3dONd STIW SO WWi133lisiTvi g yE F a F w Z F�O F� Z deo K J m (x7 � JW O IJl W y 0 U 80 Ow h =w �s =N �� zu¢51-5 U<� OW mZZ� Wy 6ZZ Q% 6V of aW r Q r.o o% w w U WO .00 39!w �� g� m of rci Qoz o aom No dna orcoxi o x %ii �qr=w 0'L ua ui kyr < o 30 mar 6-'N0%J = a x0 '-9'- 53 =5m LyZO p tJi� WE yaF ow vgazusi ri qa aw oo m oC aom = w yes t: '0z0 o W . r , r .0 mar 5 O Z O z O Pa ZZ:L'£sd'WIOOZSdH£LZOtls'--S'suYO'Wd ZS:OY:ZLOOZ/BL/S'L'90'6-'OLOsSI I-U3'SOO\LO\IIMOlOWO\a�LS wsNOW OL009"LLQA 11'OLOOBSLLOSTIWSLLI �W K Rim O%fri Owe YW Q a0 m��U Wp Wya FW o2z K C��YYmJiJiJJ 6 g o00 �Q ZOZ 0�6 fQ f� w q O ]� F � f G <w K =nn w O _p z0 F twRz <m �F Po w� a1 fl ow-o-iiw Ink K¢ - <,E 0 Z w m i��w0 O ii Oa w W aw�n'wi co J MOM-. z �Sf. g U m 3os°' 0 o3�Tl F- W ZZ:L'£sd'WIOOZSdH£LZOtls'--S'suYO'Wd ZS:OY:ZLOOZ/BL/S'L'90'6-'OLOsSI I-U3'SOO\LO\IIMOlOWO\a�LS wsNOW OL009"LLQA 11'OLOOBSLLOSTIWSLLI ,,,�,-- sxYner3srix�+oe�wa -` f." snox9iuns arrvl S -- sw9uow % h 0 1H It 3 e �� 3 11111 � € � a (( qj i� � a pg i r�[ gg e F s c6 s : f F 1 Ypt! fI 4 Y `� 8t e I � @ Y¢ H g 2 d9I P. fix 4 $IIf Fp ij a �Q iY��3q$ F � Y `Y� ----------- v 133 % h 1=AI a Z'Z� 1'cod VOOOZ9dHCLZ3a6'j=UOS's! OVId£O:6L:Z LOOZ/9L19'9£x4Z 0'll'6rnp-OL095LL-dYML�l1�1010W�t aiol5 MRN-000'OL00£SLLO�oA�O�N"OLDOBSLLO�SI�IWSLI n• '�" �• vios�aLw'onaouaon -�Lxs3Lix�aoaasTYn wavdL3�asTnw � � Y � $J t ! F v 133 enc Jai c F g M m.$ 4 i m 1.1 ]AIR E E i Y9 1=AI a Z'Z� 1'cod VOOOZ9dHCLZ3a6'j=UOS's! OVId£O:6L:Z LOOZ/9L19'9£x4Z 0'll'6rnp-OL095LL-dYML�l1�1010W�t aiol5 MRN-000'OL00£SLLO�oA�O�N"OLDOBSLLO�SI�IWSLI I * • s�w3srixs«owwa o:aa11A bNW �y ...... SibA3rWlR QIVI $ ,N �" si�atnrnn M .a.. .. V1053NbtlN'07T3011NOW 4 � b .....++ Sa33Ni'JN3 _� S311ll3dONd 5TAW Y J Wavi��isiaw S S $ E li o o 3; Hil ; l i l" iz � \ m El #n a: 1,i1 Hail 111113 8 2'E�l'E�WI WZSdH C1i0218'A��S'MV�'Wd EO�LZ�ZL00Z/BtIS'9Gx9Z t'Ll'Bmp'OL09Sll-d7Mt0\IIAI�00V��alo)S Matt'000'of WBSIIJ�gIa:�1�YlU[OOBSIIUSTIWSt 11f I m _ j IL N �Y co r Ow N O O N 11 0 m LL J d J_ N LL 2'E�l'E�WI WZSdH C1i0218'A��S'MV�'Wd EO�LZ�ZL00Z/BtIS'9Gx9Z t'Ll'Bmp'OL09Sll-d7Mt0\IIAI�00V��alo)S Matt'000'of WBSIIJ�gIa:�1�YlU[OOBSIIUSTIWSt 11f I WYld 3dV=W41 -- snlnaas rLnnaoaiv�a ._ tl1'OM S3llU3d dS OW 4N .m, saoAanbns aunt °""•" •• 'OIA S311N3dOLd STOW [ J 3u ar WWi133Id sIILry ff ill) CD e 0" o � 3 � IIA fla r AGF Ila E�YR it O® �2Rg 9pwe �Fia sa 4R • • Z'Z:L't.d'rvl OOZSdH tLZ@78'iowuoS'cuV0'Wd4GLZ""O" L""'XbZZ'Ll'B"OLO85LL-d7MLJ\IIAID\CICVD\"mS—N9000LDOS9Lta M>-Ot IA-OLOOBSt LO\SIIIASLL\:! 1101111 HER B991 0000ee'ovee� 011 SII ��00000 �eeeesee • • Z'Z:L't.d'rvl OOZSdH tLZ@78'iowuoS'cuV0'Wd4GLZ""O" L""'XbZZ'Ll'B"OLO85LL-d7MLJ\IIAID\CICVD\"mS—N9000LDOS9Lta M>-Ot IA-OLOOBSt LO\SIIIASLL\:! • J nlna3 ns aNv� aiuta NS 1110S3NNIW'01130I1NOW ya31n'wv B1'xO ••� 'JIJI S311l13dOLld S1lIW i J W2ftlj 13319 SlliW B Z'Z�l'£�Wl OOZSdH ELZOMB'loWuoS'glu0'Wd OO�ZZ�ZL00Z/8LI5'9Ex4Z£'Ll'�G'OLOBSIL-dl-ML0\lIMJ100YJ\a�otS^�+'�OGOO85LLP�MIa�'.IuuW-OLOOBStLO�STIWSI t\�( ' _...... 6tl33WCNS3 1N3NNOnH,3 �-B:'ry ... NVId "LIS ,m, stoA3ntlnsrnm M ViOS3NNIW'0713O1LN0ll 4 t 'ONI 5311?J3dOMd STIIW WWd133ld SlllW Q� yy k M sR!H a�eaa�ff II ='oo} 40 -i: � IIII ill ,,..;; s It ©Ina � .r C �� j n 25. o N En s � RR IRR IRR 9 gig .......... ................................................................................................ - .............. '-- 33II F � / a - — - LU LL -N — — N J iS ,� ! •� 8 ~ I O W0 LL rn W x r CL Z'ZL'Cld W- OOM ELZOiJB'��5'�WO'Wd LVSf:l LOOZ/9L/9'OZO'&OLOBSL L-dS-Z071L3%IIAIO10OVO\—IS McN"000'OLOO99L LOlM-IL+.LO08S L WSIIIWS LtI 0 -" 53�M1tl351'/IN3WNOtl�nN3 VIOS3NNln*3NPqg ON, 'S3IW3dOUd SrIlIW Vf"A iam:f Slim r M-0 ........... rill M I: In ON! 81 17, 111; 13 ON 23 'W. 4 Ogg- ----- ----- r Planning Commission Agenda - 8/02/11 10. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2011-71 finding that a modification to the Redevelopment Plan, TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-39, and conveying EDA owned land to Suburban Manufacturing conforms with the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. (MB) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission is asked to adopt a resolution stating that a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1, the TIF Plan for District No. 1-39, and conveyance of EDA owned property to Suburban Manufacturing conform to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The Contract for Private Development between Suburban Manufacturing, the EDA, and the City states the development must comply with state, regional, and local ordinances, zoning, and construction regulations in order to receive TIF assistance. The EDA will hold a public hearing to review the TIF Plan and conveyance of land at their August 10, 2011 and the City Council will hold their required public hearing at the August 22, 2011 meeting. The purpose of the creation of TIF District 1-39 is to provide business subsidy and conveyance of EDA owned industrial land for the expansion of a Monticello business. Suburban Manufacturing currently operates out of two facilities in Monticello. They continue to experience growth and desire to consolidate and expand both operations under one facility. They are proposing to construct a 38,000 square foot manufacturing and office facility on a portion of Outlot C Otter Creek Crossing 2nd Addition (also known as the Monticello Business Center). The proposed manufacturing and office facility is a permitted use within the Monticello Business Center, zoned properly (I-1), and will comply with Otter Creek Covenants. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt Resolution 2011-71 finding that a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment project No. 1, the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-39, and conveyance of EDA owned land to Suburban Manufacturing conforms to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City of Monticello. 2. A motion to deny adopting Resolution 2011-71 and directing staff to prepare applicable findings of fact. 3. Motion to table any action. C. RECOMMENDATION: City Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. The Planning Commission and Monticello EDA have approved similar projects in the past including; UMC, Dahlheimer Distribution, Karlsburger, and etc. Suburban Manufacturing desires to expand their Planning Commission Agenda - 8/02/11 current facility and in the process will create an additional 11 full time jobs in Monticello. The proposed business subsidy, which will consist of writing down land costs, complies with the Monticello Comprehensive Plan by fostering job growth, high quality manufacturing development, and increased tax base. The industrial use is also consistent with the guided designation of the adopted Land Use Map. D. SUPPORTING DATA: 1. Resolution 2. TIF Plan 3. Land Use Map 4. Economic Development section of the Comprehensive Plan 389514v2 MNI MN190-139 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2011-71 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1, A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-39, AND A PROPOSED LAND SALE CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority (the "EDA") and the City of Monticello (the "City") have proposed to adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39 (the "TIF Plan") therefore (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans") and have submitted the Plans to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3; and WHEREAS, the EDA has additionally presented the Commission with the terms of the proposed sale by the EDA of certain property in the City described as a portion of Outlot C, Otter Creek Crossing (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City; and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the terms of the sale of the Property to determine whether such sale complies with the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plans and the proposed sale of the Property comply with the City’s comprehensive plan and conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Dated: _______________________________________ Chair ATTEST: ___________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director This document is in draft form for distribution to the County and the School District. The TIF Plan contains the estimated fiscal and economic implications of the proposed TIF District. The City and the EDA may make minor changes to this draft document prior to the public hearing. As of July 25, 2011 Draft for Planning Commission Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39 (an economic development district) within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 City of Monticello Economic Development Authority City of Monticello Wright County State of Minnesota Public Hearing: August 22, 2011 Adopted: Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105 651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com Table of Contents (for reference purposes only) Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 Foreword.............................................................1-1 Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39 Subsection 2-1.Foreword...............................................2-1 Subsection 2-2.Statutory Authority........................................2-1 Subsection 2-3.Statement of Objectives...................................2-1 Subsection 2-4.Redevelopment Plan Overview ..............................2-1 Subsection 2-5.Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired .2-2 Subsection 2-6.Classification of the District.................................2-2 Subsection 2-7.Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District ...........2-3 Subsection 2-8.Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ......2-3 Subsection 2-9.Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued ......................2-4 Subsection 2-10.Uses of Funds ...........................................2-5 Subsection 2-11.Business Subsidies.......................................2-5 Subsection 2-12.County Road Costs .......................................2-6 Subsection 2-13.Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions.................2-6 Subsection 2-14.Supporting Documentation .................................2-8 Subsection 2-15.Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ........................2-8 Subsection 2-16.Modifications to the District.................................2-9 Subsection 2-17.Administrative Expenses ...................................2-9 Subsection 2-18.Limitation of Increment...................................2-10 Subsection 2-19.Use of Tax Increment....................................2-11 Subsection 2-20.Excess Increments......................................2-11 Subsection 2-21.Requirements for Agreements with the Developer ..............2-12 Subsection 2-22.Assessment Agreements.................................2-12 Subsection 2-23.Administration of the District...............................2-12 Subsection 2-24.Annual Disclosure Requirements ...........................2-12 Subsection 2-25.Reasonable Expectations .................................2-13 Subsection 2-26.Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment.................2-13 Subsection 2-27.Summary..............................................2-13 Appendix A Project Description......................................................A-1 Appendix B Map(s) of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District ..........B-1 Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................C-1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District........................................D-1 Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form .......................................E-1 Appendix F Findings Including But/For Qualifications.....................................F-1 Monticello Economic Development Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 1-1 Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 Foreword Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ("M.S.") Section 469.094, Subd. 2 of the Act, the City Council of the City of Monticello (the "City") transferred the control, authority and operation of any project defined in M.S. Section 469.174, Subd. 8 (relating to tax increment financing for such projects) and any other project or program established by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Monticello (the "HRA") from the HRA to the City of Monticello Economic Development Authority (the "EDA"). The EDA accepted responsibility for the control, authority and operation of each project and program of whatever nature herefore established by the HRA. The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 is recommended. It is available from the Executive Director of the EDA at the City of Monticello. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1. Monticello Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39 2-1 Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39 Subsection 2-1.Foreword The EDA, the City, staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39 (the "District"), an economic development tax increment financing district, located in Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1. Subsection 2-2.Statutory Authority Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the EDA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing public costs related to this project. This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1. Subsection 2-3.Statement of Objectives The District currently consists of a portion of one parcel of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District is being created to facilitate the construction of an approximately 40,000 square foot manufacturing facility in the City. Please see Appendix A for further District information. The EDA has not entered into an agreement but has described Suburban Manufacturing, Inc., or a related entity as the developer at the time of preparation of this TIF Plan. Development is likely to occur in the fall of 2011. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1. The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District. Subsection 2-4.Redevelopment Plan Overview 1.Property to be Acquired - Property located within the District is owned by the City and is further described in this TIF Plan. 2.Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws. 3.Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer. 4.The EDA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District. Monticello Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39 2-2 5.The City proposes both public and private infrastructure within the District. The proposed reuse of private property within the District will be for a manufacturing facility, and there will be continued operation of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 after the capital improvements within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 have been completed. Subsection 2-5.Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the District. The EDA or City currently owns the property to be included in the District. Subsection 2-6.Classification of the District The EDA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is an economic development district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12 as defined below: "Economic development district" means a type of tax increment financing district which consists of any project, or portions of a project, which the authority finds to be in the public interest because: (1)it will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state or municipality; or (2)it will result in increased employment in the state; or (3)it will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the state. The District is in the public interest because it will meet the statutory requirement from clause 2. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c, revenue derived from tax increment from an economic development district may not be used to provide improvements, loans, subsidies, grants, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to developments consisting of buildings and ancillary facilities, if more than 15 percent of the buildings and facilities (determined on the basis of square footage) are used for a purpose other than: (1)The manufacturing or production of tangible personal property, including processing resulting in the change in condition of the property; (2)Warehousing, storage, and distribution of tangible personal property, excluding retail sales; (3)Research and development related to the activities listed in items (1) or (2); (4)Telemarketing if that activity is the exclusive use of the property; (5)Tourism facilities; or (6)Qualified border retail facilities; (7)Space necessary for and related to the activities listed in items (1) to (6) In meeting the statutory criteria the EDA and City rely on the following facts and findings: The facilities in the District meet the conditions of Purposes 1, 2, and 7. The District is being created to assist in the construction of a manufacturing facility for Suburban Monticello Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39 2-3 Manufacturing, Inc. The proposed facility will be used for manufacturing and related activities. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111 or 273.112 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District. Subsection 2-7.Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b., the duration of the District will be 8 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City. The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2013. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2021, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2014, the term of the District will be 2022. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Subsection 2-8.Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 2011 for taxes payable 2012. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 2013) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1.Change in tax exempt status of property; 2.Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3.Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements; 4.Change in the use of the property and classification; 5.Change in state law governing class rates; or 6.Change in previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the EDA or City. The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2012, assuming the request for certification is made before June 30, 2012. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the District appear in the table below. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1, upon completion of the projects within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The EDA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2013. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed. Monticello Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39 2-4 Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC)$53,250 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)$7,730 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)$45,520 Original Local Tax Rate1.14565 Pay 2011 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate)$52,150 Percent Retained by the EDA100% Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the EDA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building permit was issued. The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and determined that no building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the City. Subsection 2-9.Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by an interfund loan. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan Modification. This provision does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are shown in the table below: SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL Tax Increment$467,600 Interest $7,400 TOTAL$475,000 The EDA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments from the District in a maximum principal amount of $391,100. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as-you- go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval. Monticello Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39 2-5 Subsection 2-10.Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the construction of a manufacturing facility. The EDA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project(s) for certain District costs, as described. The EDA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the following table. USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL Land/Building Acquisition$329,340 Site Improvements/Preparation$5,000 Utilities$5,000 Other Qualifying Costs$5,000 Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$46,760 PROJECT COST TOTAL$391,100 Interest $83,900 PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL$475,000 The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total projected tax increments for the District as shown in Appendix D. Estimated capital and administrative costs listed above are subject to change among categories by modification of the TIF Plan without hearings and notices as required for approval of the initial TIF Plan, so long as the total capital and administrative costs combined do not exceed the total listed above. Further, the EDA may spend up to 20 percent of the tax increments from the District for activities (described in the table above) located outside the boundaries of the District but within the boundaries of the Project (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spend outside the District), subject to all other terms and conditions of this TIF Plan. Subsection 2-11.Business Subsidies Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered a business subsidy: (1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000; (2)Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses, such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria; (3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at the time the improvements are made; (4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3; (5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing Monticello Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39 2-6 it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost; (6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to provide those services; (7) Assistance for housing; (8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23; (9) Assistance for energy conservation; (10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law; (11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation; (12) Benefits derived from regulation; (13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions; (14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999; (15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business; (16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 19; (17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value; (18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally technical nature; (19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local government agency; (20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority; (21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less; (22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration; and (23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100. The EDA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions. Subsection 2-12.County Road Costs Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the EDA or City to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the EDA or City within forty- five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the EDA and City and consultants, the proposed development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The EDA and City are aware that the county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing. Monticello Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39 2-7 Subsection 2-13.Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA or City has determined that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: IMPACT ON TAX BASE 2010/Pay 2011 Total Net Tax Capacity Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) Upon Completion Percent of CTC to Entity Total Wright County 126,611,79545,520 0.0360% City of Monticello16,429,52145,520 0.2771% Monticello ISD No. 88222,973,63845,520 0.1981% IMPACT ON TAX RATES Pay 2011 Extension Rates Percent of Total CTC Potential Taxes Wright County 0.39306034.31%45,520 17,892 City of Monticello0.46729040.79%45,520 21,271 Monticello ISD No. 8820.27029023.59%45,520 12,304 Other0.015010 1.31%45,520 683 Total 1.145650100.00%52,150 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the actual Pay 2011 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on actual Pay 2011 figures. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2012 rates, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b): (1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the District is $467,600; (2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. An impact of the District on police protection is expected. The City currently contracts with the Wright County Sheriff’s Office for police services. The Wright County Sheriff's Office tracks all calls for service. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police calls for service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic, and additional overall demands to the call load. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment in vehicles or require that the City expand its contract with Wright County. The probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. Typically new buildings generate few calls, if any, and are of superior construction. The city does not expect the Monticello Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39 2-8 development to require any new capital investments or hiring of additional staff. The impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The development is not expected to significantly impact any traffic movements in the area. The current infrastructure for sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from the proposed development. Based on the development plans, there are no additional costs associated with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks. The development in the District is expected to contribute an estimated to sanitary sewer (SAC) and water (WAC) connection fees. The probable impact of any District general obligation tax increment bonds on the ability to issue debt for general fund purposes is expected to be minimal. It is not anticipated that there will be any general obligation debt issued in relation to this project, therefore there will be no impact on the City's ability to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit. (3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $110,307; (4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. It is estimated that the amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $160,433; (5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax increment financing plan. No requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed development for the District have been received. Subsection 2-14.Supporting Documentation Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the EDA and City's findings: •Application for Business Assistance Financing. Subsection 2-15.Definition of Tax Increment Revenues Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: 1.Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S., Section 469.177; 2.The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was purchased by the Authority with tax increments; Monticello Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39 2-9 3.Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the Authority with tax increments; 4.Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments; 5.Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and 6.The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under M.S., Section 273.1384. Subsection 2-16.Modifications to the District In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any: 1.Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e); 2.Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; 3.A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF Plan; 4.Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA or City; 5.Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid or financed with tax increment from the District; or 6.Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA or City, shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor. If an economic development district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 12 must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the EDA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District. The EDA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan. Subsection 2-17.Administrative Expenses In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the EDA or City, other than: 1.Amounts paid for the purchase of land; 2.Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the District; 3.Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the District; or 4.Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued Monticello Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39 2-10 pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or 5.Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance costs described in clauses (1) to (3). For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982, and before August 1, 2001, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, no tax increment may be used to pay any administrative expenses for District costs which exceed ten percent of total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36 percent) of any increment distributed to the EDA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue. Subsection 2-18.Limitation of Increment The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6: if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity Monticello Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39 2-11 has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. The EDA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately August 2015 and report such actions to the County Auditor. Subsection 2-19.Use of Tax Increment The EDA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located in the District for the following purposes: 1.To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project; 2.to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082; 3.To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan; 4.To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4; 5.To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the EDA or City or for the benefit of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 by a developer; 6.To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and 7.To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Wright County to the EDA for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. The EDA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for EDA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement activities outside the District. Subsection 2-20.Excess Increments Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the following: 1.Prepay any outstanding bonds; 2.Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds; 3.Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or Monticello Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39 2-12 4.Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates. The EDA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after the end of the year. In addition, the EDA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 or the District. Subsection 2-21.Requirements for Agreements with the Developer The EDA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the EDA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the development with City plans and ordinances. The EDA or City may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 10 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 10 percent of the acreage, the EDA or City concluded an agreement for the development of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the EDA or City should the development not be completed. Subsection 2-22.Assessment Agreements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 2-23.Administration of the District Administration of the District will be handled by the Executive Director of the EDA. Subsection 2-24.Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA or City must undertake financial reporting for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15. If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax increment from the District. Monticello Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-39 2-13 Subsection 2-25.Reasonable Expectations As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon EDA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the use of tax increments. Subsection 2-26.Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment 1.General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082. Tax increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure. 2.Pooling Limitations. At least 80 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 20 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of the District. 3.Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall be deemed to have satisfied the 80 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year following certification of the District, 80 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5. Subsection 2-27.Summary The City of Monticello Economic Development Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105, telephone (651) 697-8500. Appendix A-1 Appendix A Project Description The City will be selling 4.5 acres of land to a local company, Suburban Manufacturing, Inc. or a related entity, relocating from another site in the City for a better location to expand. The 40,000 square foot manufacturing facility will be built by the end of 2011. The assistance is in the form of a write down of land and site improvements. The value of the building and land is estimated at $3,690,000. The City originally financed land acquisition for the site through and interfund loan. The City also incurred debt to install infrastructure to the stie. The TIF will be used to reimburse the City for these obligations. Appendix B-1 Appendix B Map(s) of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District Appendix C-1 Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcel listed below. Parcel Number Owner a portion of 155191000030*City of Monticello *This parcel will be subdivided and re-platted prior to request for certification of the TIF District. Appendix D-1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District 7/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 1 Base Value Assumptions - Page 1 Su b u r b a n M a n u f a c t u r i n g - N o I n f l a t i o n Ci t y o f M o n t i c e l l o E D A , M i n n e s o t a Ma n u f a c t u r i n g P r o j e c t AS S U M P T I O N S A N D R A T E S Di s t r i c t T y p e : E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t Ma x i m u m / F r o z e n L o c a l T a x R a t e : 1 1 4 . 5 6 5 % P a y 2 0 1 1 Di s t r i c t N a m e / N u m b e r : 1 - 3 9 Cu r r e n t L o c a l T a x R a t e : ( U s e l e s s e r o f C u r r e n t o r M a x . ) 1 1 4 . 5 6 5 % P a y 2 0 1 1 Co u n t y D i s t r i c t # : T B D St a t e - w i d e T a x R a t e ( C o m m . / I n d . o n l y u s e d f o r t o t a l t a x e s ) 4 9 . 0 4 3 0 % P a y 2 0 1 1 Fi r s t Y e a r C o n s t r u c t i o n o r I n f l a t i o n o n V a l u e 2 0 1 1 Ma r k e t V a l u e T a x R a t e ( U s e d f o r t o t a l t a x e s ) IS D 8 8 2 0.21721%Pay 2011 Ex i s t i n g D i s t r i c t - S p e c i f y N o . Y e a r s R e m a i n i n g N A In f l a t i o n R a t e - E v e r y Y e a r : 0. 0 0 % P R O P E R T Y T A X C L A S S E S A N D C L A S S R A T E S : In t e r e s t R a t e : 4. 0 0 % Ex e m p t C l a s s R a t e ( E x e m p t ) 0 . 0 0 % Pr e s e n t V a l u e D a t e : 1- F e b - 1 2 Co m m e r c i a l I n d u s t r i a l P r e f e r r e d C l a s s R a t e ( C / I P r e f . ) Fi r s t P e r i o d E n d i n g 1 - A u g - 1 2 F i r s t $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 1 . 5 0 % Ta x Y e a r D i s t r i c t w a s C e r t i f i e d : Pa y 2 0 1 1 Ov e r $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 2 . 0 0 % Ca s h f l o w A s s u m e s F i r s t T a x I n c r e m e n t F o r D e v e l o p m e n t : 2 0 1 3 C o m m e r c i a l I n d u s t r i a l C l a s s R a t e ( C / I ) 2 . 0 0 % Ye a r s o f T a x I n c r e m e n t 9 R e n t a l H o u s i n g C l a s s R a t e ( R e n t a l ) 1 . 2 5 % Ass u m e s L a s t Y e a r o f T a x I n c r e m e n t 2 0 2 1 Aff o r d a b l e R e n t a l H o u s i n g C l a s s R a t e ( A f f . R e n t a l ) 0 . 7 5 % Fi s c a l D i s p a r i t i e s E l e c t i o n [ O u t s i d e ( A ) , I n s i d e ( B ) , o r N A ] NA No n - H o m e s t e a d R e s i d e n t i a l ( N o n - H R e s . ) 1 . 2 5 % In c r e m e n t a l o r T o t a l F i s c a l D i s p a r i t i e s In c r e m e n t a l Ho m e s t e a d R e s i d e n t a l C l a s s R a t e ( H m s t d . R e s . ) Fi s c a l D i s p a r i t i e s C o n t r i b u t i o n R a t i o 0 . 0 0 0 0 % P a y 2 0 1 1 F i r s t $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 . 0 0 % Fi s c a l D i s p a r i t i e s M e t r o - W i d e T a x R a t e 0 . 0 0 0 0 % P a y 2 0 1 1 O v e r $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 . 2 5 % Agr i c u l t u r a l N o n - H o m e s t e a d 1 . 0 0 % Pe r c e n t a g e T a x Y e a r P r o p e r t y C u r r e n t C l a s s A f t e r La n d B u i l d i n g T o t a l O f V a l u e U s e d O r i g i n a l O r i g i n a l T a x O r i g i n a l A f t e r C o n v e r s i o n Ma p # P I D O w n e r A d d r e s s M a r k e t V a l u e M a r k e t V a l u e M a r k e t V a l u e f o r D i s t r i c t M a r k e t V a l u e M a r k e t V a l u e C l a s s T a x C a p a c i t y C o n v e r s i o n O r i g . T a x Cap.Area/Phase 15 5 1 9 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 C i t y o f M o n t i c e l l o O t t e r C r e e k 7 1 6 , 1 0 0 0 7 1 6 , 1 0 0 5 9 % 4 2 4 , 0 0 7 P a y 2 0 1 1 E x e m p t - C / I P r e f . 7 , 7 3 0 71 6 , 1 0 0 0 7 1 6 , 1 0 0 42 4 , 0 0 7 0 7 , 7 3 0 No t e : 1. L a n d V a l u e h a s b e e n p r o r a t e d t o r e p r e s e n t 4 . 5 b u i l d a b l e a c r e s . B a s e V a l u e s n e e d t o b e r e f i n e d f o r t a x e s p a y a b l e 2 0 1 2 a n d m ay b e h i g h e r w h e n t h e C o u n t y a s s i g n s a v a l u e u p o n t r a n s f e r . B A S E V A L U E I N F O R M A T I O N ( O r i g i n a l T a x C a p a c i t y ) Pr e p a r e d b y E h l e r s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . - E s t i m a t e s O n l y N: \ M i n n s o t a \ M o n t i c e l l o \ H o u s i n g - E c o n o m i c - R e d e v e l o p m e n t \ T I F \ T I F D i s t r i c t s \ T I F 1 - 3 9 \ T I F R u n s \ M o n t i c e l l o T I F R u n 7/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 1 Base Value Assumptions - Page 2 Su b u r b a n M a n u f a c t u r i n g - N o I n f l a t i o n Ci t y o f M o n t i c e l l o E D A , M i n n e s o t a Man u fac t u r ing Pro jec t Pr o p e r t y Pe r c e n t a g e P e r c e n t a g e P e r c e n t a g e P e r c e n t a g e F i r s t Y e a r To t a l M a r k e t V a l u e M a r k e t T a x P r o j e c t C o m p l e t e d C o m p l e t e d C o m p l e t e d C o m p l e t e d F u l l T a x e s Ar e a / P h a s e N e w U s e S q . F t . / U n i t s S q . F t . / U n i t s Val u e C l a s s T a x C a p a c i t y 20 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 P a y a b l e Ma n u f a c t u r i n g 4 5 , 0 0 0 6 0 2 , 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 C / I P r e f . 5 3 , 2 5 0 1 0 0 % 1 0 0 % 1 0 0 % 1 0 0 % 2 0 1 3 TO T A L 2, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 5 3 , 2 5 0 Su b t o t a l R e s i d e n t i a l 0 0 0 Su b t o t a l C o m m e r c i a l / I n d . 4 5 , 0 0 0 2 , 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 5 3 , 2 5 0 No t e : 1. M a r k e t V a l u e i s b a s e d u p o n e s t i m a t e s f r o m D e v e l o p e r . To t a l F i s c a l L o c a l L o c a l F i s c a l S t a t e - w i d e M a r k e t Ta x D i s p a r i t i e s T a x P r o p e r t y Di s p a r i t i e s P r o p e r t y Val u e T o t a l T a x e s P e r Ne w U s e Ca p a c i t y Ta x C a p a c i t y Ca p a c i t y Ta x e s T a x e s T a x e s T a x e s T a x e s S q . F t . / U n i t Ma n u f a c t u r i n g 5 3 , 2 5 0 0 5 3 , 2 5 0 6 1 , 0 0 6 0 2 6 , 1 1 5 5 , 8 6 5 9 2 , 9 8 6 2 . 0 7 TO T A L 5 3 , 2 5 0 0 5 3 , 2 5 0 6 1 , 0 0 6 0 2 6 , 1 1 5 5 , 8 6 5 9 2 , 9 8 6 No t e : 1. T a x e s a n d t a x i n c r e m e n t w i l l v a r y s i g n f i c a n t l y f r o m y e a r t o y e a r d e p e n d i n g u p o n v a l u e s , r a t e s , s t a t e l a w a n d o t h e r f a c t o r s w h i c h c a n n o t b e p r e d i c t e d . To t a l P r o p e r t y T a x e s 9 2 , 9 8 6 Cu r r e n t M a r k e t V a l u e - E s t . 4 2 4 , 0 0 7 le s s S t a t e - w i d e T a x e s ( 2 6 , 1 1 5 ) Ne w M a r k e t V a l u e - E s t . 2 , 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 le s s F i s c a l D i s p . A d j . 0 D i f f e r e n c e 2 , 2 7 5 , 9 9 3 le s s M a r k e t V a l u e T a x e s ( 5 , 8 6 5 ) Pr e s e n t V a l u e o f T a x I n c r e m e n t 3 7 5 , 7 3 6 le s s B a s e V a l u e T a x e s ( 8 , 8 5 6 ) D i f f e r e n c e 1 , 9 0 0 , 2 5 7 An n u a l G r o s s T I F 5 2 , 1 5 0 Va l u e l i k e l y t o o c c u r w i t h o u t T a x I n c r e m e n t i s l e s s t h a n : 1, 9 0 0 , 2 5 7 W H A T I S E X C L U D E D F R O M T I F ? M A R K E T V A L U E B U T / F O R A N A L Y S I S TA X C A L C U L A T I O N S PR O J E C T I N F O R M A T I O N ( P r o j e c t T a x C a p a c i t y ) Pr e p a r e d b y E h l e r s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . - E s t i m a t e s O n l y N: \ M i n n s o t a \ M o n t i c e l l o \ H o u s i n g - E c o n o m i c - R e d e v e l o p m e n t \ T I F \ T I F D i s t r i c t s \ T I F 1 - 3 9 \ T I F R u n s \ M o n t i c e l l o T I F R u n 7/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 1 Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3 Su b u r b a n M a n u f a c t u r i n g - N o I n f l a t i o n Ci t y o f M o n t i c e l l o E D A , M i n n e s o t a Ma n u f a c t u r i n g P r o j e c t Ma n u f a c t u r i n g P r o j e c t Pr o j e c t O r i g i n a l F i s c a l C a p t u r e d L o c a l Ann u a l S e m i - A n n u a l S t a t e Adm i n . S e m i - A n n u a l S e m i - A n n u a l P E R I O D % o f Ta x T a x D i s p a r i t i e s T a x T a x G r o s s T a x G r o s s T a x Aud i t o r at N e t T a x P r e s e n t E N D I N G T a x P a y m e n t OT C C a p a c i t y Ca p a c i t y In c r e m e n t a l C a p a c i t y Ra t e I n c r e m e n t I n c r e m e n t 0 . 3 6 % 1 0 % I n c r e m e n t ValueYrs.YearDate - - - - 0 8 / 0 1 / 1 2 - - - - 0 2 / 0 1 / 1 3 10 0 % 5 3 , 2 5 0 ( 7 , 7 3 0 ) - 4 5 , 5 2 0 1 1 5 % 5 2 , 1 5 0 2 6 , 0 7 5 ( 9 4 ) ( 2 , 5 9 8 ) 2 3 , 3 8 3 2 2 , 0 3 4 0.5201308/01/13 10 0 % 5 3 , 2 5 0 ( 7 , 7 3 0 ) - 4 5 , 5 2 0 1 1 5 % 5 2 , 1 5 0 26 , 0 7 5 ( 9 4 ) ( 2 , 5 9 8 ) 2 3 , 3 8 3 4 3 , 6 3 6 1201302/01/14 10 0 % 5 3 , 2 5 0 ( 7 , 7 3 0 ) - 4 5 , 5 2 0 1 1 5 % 5 2 , 1 5 0 2 6 , 0 7 5 ( 9 4 ) ( 2 , 5 9 8 ) 2 3 , 3 8 3 6 4 , 8 1 5 1.5201408/01/14 10 0 % 5 3 , 2 5 0 ( 7 , 7 3 0 ) - 4 5 , 5 2 0 1 1 5 % 5 2 , 1 5 0 26 , 0 7 5 ( 9 4 ) ( 2 , 5 9 8 ) 2 3 , 3 8 3 8 5 , 5 7 9 2201402/01/15 10 0 % 5 3 , 2 5 0 ( 7 , 7 3 0 ) - 4 5 , 5 2 0 1 1 5 % 5 2 , 1 5 0 2 6 , 0 7 5 ( 9 4 ) ( 2 , 5 9 8 ) 2 3 , 3 8 3 1 0 5 , 9 3 5 2.5201508/01/15 10 0 % 5 3 , 2 5 0 ( 7 , 7 3 0 ) - 4 5 , 5 2 0 1 1 5 % 5 2 , 1 5 0 26 , 0 7 5 ( 9 4 ) ( 2 , 5 9 8 ) 2 3 , 3 8 3 1 2 5 , 8 9 2 3201502/01/16 10 0 % 5 3 , 2 5 0 ( 7 , 7 3 0 ) - 4 5 , 5 2 0 1 1 5 % 5 2 , 1 5 0 2 6 , 0 7 5 ( 9 4 ) ( 2 , 5 9 8 ) 2 3 , 3 8 3 1 4 5 , 4 5 8 3.5201608/01/16 10 0 % 5 3 , 2 5 0 ( 7 , 7 3 0 ) - 4 5 , 5 2 0 1 1 5 % 5 2 , 1 5 0 26 , 0 7 5 ( 9 4 ) ( 2 , 5 9 8 ) 2 3 , 3 8 3 1 6 4 , 6 4 0 4201602/01/17 10 0 % 5 3 , 2 5 0 ( 7 , 7 3 0 ) - 4 5 , 5 2 0 1 1 5 % 5 2 , 1 5 0 2 6 , 0 7 5 ( 9 4 ) ( 2 , 5 9 8 ) 2 3 , 3 8 3 1 8 3 , 4 4 6 4.5201708/01/17 10 0 % 5 3 , 2 5 0 ( 7 , 7 3 0 ) - 4 5 , 5 2 0 1 1 5 % 5 2 , 1 5 0 26 , 0 7 5 ( 9 4 ) ( 2 , 5 9 8 ) 2 3 , 3 8 3 2 0 1 , 8 8 3 5201702/01/18 10 0 % 5 3 , 2 5 0 ( 7 , 7 3 0 ) - 4 5 , 5 2 0 1 1 5 % 5 2 , 1 5 0 2 6 , 0 7 5 ( 9 4 ) ( 2 , 5 9 8 ) 2 3 , 3 8 3 2 1 9 , 9 5 9 5.5201808/01/18 10 0 % 5 3 , 2 5 0 ( 7 , 7 3 0 ) - 4 5 , 5 2 0 1 1 5 % 5 2 , 1 5 0 26 , 0 7 5 ( 9 4 ) ( 2 , 5 9 8 ) 2 3 , 3 8 3 2 3 7 , 6 8 0 6201802/01/19 10 0 % 5 3 , 2 5 0 ( 7 , 7 3 0 ) - 4 5 , 5 2 0 1 1 5 % 5 2 , 1 5 0 2 6 , 0 7 5 ( 9 4 ) ( 2 , 5 9 8 ) 2 3 , 3 8 3 2 5 5 , 0 5 4 6.5201908/01/19 10 0 % 5 3 , 2 5 0 ( 7 , 7 3 0 ) - 4 5 , 5 2 0 1 1 5 % 5 2 , 1 5 0 26 , 0 7 5 ( 9 4 ) ( 2 , 5 9 8 ) 2 3 , 3 8 3 2 7 2 , 0 8 7 7201902/01/20 10 0 % 5 3 , 2 5 0 ( 7 , 7 3 0 ) - 4 5 , 5 2 0 1 1 5 % 5 2 , 1 5 0 2 6 , 0 7 5 ( 9 4 ) ( 2 , 5 9 8 ) 2 3 , 3 8 3 2 8 8 , 7 8 7 7.5202008/01/20 10 0 % 5 3 , 2 5 0 ( 7 , 7 3 0 ) - 4 5 , 5 2 0 1 1 5 % 5 2 , 1 5 0 26 , 0 7 5 ( 9 4 ) ( 2 , 5 9 8 ) 2 3 , 3 8 3 3 0 5 , 1 5 8 8202002/01/21 10 0 % 5 3 , 2 5 0 ( 7 , 7 3 0 ) - 4 5 , 5 2 0 1 1 5 % 5 2 , 1 5 0 2 6 , 0 7 5 ( 9 4 ) ( 2 , 5 9 8 ) 2 3 , 3 8 3 3 2 1 , 2 0 9 8.5202108/01/21 10 0 % 5 3 , 2 5 0 ( 7 , 7 3 0 ) - 4 5 , 5 2 0 1 1 5 % 5 2 , 1 5 0 26 , 0 7 5 ( 9 4 ) ( 2 , 5 9 8 ) 2 3 , 3 8 3 3 3 6 , 9 4 5 9202102/01/22 T o t a l 46 9 , 3 4 9 ( 1 , 6 9 0 ) ( 4 6 , 7 6 6 ) 4 2 0 , 8 9 3 Pr e s e n t V a l u e F r o m 0 2 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 2 P r e s e n t V a l u e R a t e 4 . 0 0 % 3 7 5 , 7 3 6 ( 1 , 3 5 3 ) ( 3 7 , 4 3 8 ) 3 3 6 , 9 4 5 Pr e p a r e d b y E h l e r s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . - E s t i m a t e s O n l y N: \ M i n n s o t a \ M o n t i c e l l o \ H o u s i n g - E c o n o m i c - R e d e v e l o p m e n t \ T I F \ T I F D i s t r i c t s \ T I F 1 - 3 9 \ T I F R u n s \ M o n t i c e l l o T I F R u n Appendix E-1 Appendix E Minnesota Business Assistance Form (Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development) A Minnesota Business Assistance Form (MBAF) should be used to report and/or update each calendar year's activity by April 1 of the following year. Please see the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) website at http://www.deed.state.mn.us/Community/subsidies/MBAFForm.htm for information and forms. Appendix F-1 Appendix F Findings Including But/For Qualifications To be added prior to the public hearing But-For Analysis Current Market Value424,007 New Market Value - Estimate2,700,000 Difference2,275,993 Present Value of Tax Increment375,736 Difference1,900,257 Value Likely to Occur Without TIF is Less Than: 1,900,257 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: 08/02/11 1 11. Community Development Director’s Report. (AS) Silver Springs Update Staff met with Mr. Blumentritt on site at Silver Springs on July 14th to discuss his development of a proposed phasing plan as well as the recent changes to the site. As Council as aware, the land is being converted back to agricultural use at this time. The City Administrator and Community Development Director encouraged Mr. Blumentritt to meet with both Wright County Planning and Zoning staff and the Monticello Township Board in order to keep both apprised of his concept and progress. At the time of this report, Mr. Blumentritt had met with both entities. Both encouraged Mr. Blumentritt to continue discussions with the City and were appreciative of his efforts to keep them updated. The largest potential issue seems to be the need to create a contiguous land arrangement for annexation purposes. The concept Blumentritt has prepared does not include the Paumen property, which would make it contiguous to the City and therefore eligible for annexation. Mr. Blumentritt plans to discuss with the Township Board the option to annex the Silver Springs property without being contiguous at his earliest opportunity. Staff has also begun reviewing the Alternative Urban Areawide Review and Utility Study documents that had been completed for the Jefferson at Monticello project so that we are ready to address infrastructure questions as the idea continues to evolve. PUD Ordinance Workshop Due to the special workshop for Mr. Schneider, the PUD workshop has been postponed for August 2nd. Staff will be asking the Planning Commission to set an alternate date for the workshop during the meeting. Again, the goal will be to hold a joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop aimed at developing a full understanding of the practical application of the new PUD Ordinance. In particular, staff wanted to focus on the collaborative components of the new code. CUP Extensions In reviewing application indexes, there are three remaining CUPs which require extension due to non-use (outside of the CUP for Mills Fleet Farm on this agenda). These are:  DOJO/Cornerstone Development  Broadway Market/Steiner Development  M & I Bank The Broadway Market property is now owned by USBank after default by the previous property owner. In talking with the property owner’s real estate representative (Jim McCaffrey of Cassidy Turley), it was indicated that USBank will likely seek to allow the existing approval to expire. He is consulting with USBank officials at this time in that regard. He indicated that it is likely the bank will want to sell the property free of previous entitlements. Staff have indicated that regardless of USBank’s direction, notice is in process Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 2 for public nuisance, which will require property maintenance on the site and removal of the steel rebar extending out from the existing foundation. The Broadway Market rep also indicated that in his conversations with M & I Bank, they are also not likely interested in extending their CUP. They had indicated that it is not their intent to build on the site. Staff has asked the Cassidy Turley agent for a contact and M & I Bank, as staff’s previous attempts to get an answer from an appropriate contact at the bank on the CUP issue have been unsuccessful. The City Attorney has indicated that CUPs do not automatically expire due to non-use. To stand up to potential challenge, the City must take formal action to revoke or cause the expiration. Therefore, for both M & I and Broadway Market, Planning Commissi on may see such action requested on an upcoming agenda. At the time of this report, staff had not yet made contact with representatives from Cornerstone development. Any extension request for that project will appear on the September agenda. Updates on other CUPs: o Progressive Development’s concept stage PUD, requires extension, but has been delayed due to the applicant’ request regarding a separate road assessment agreement, which has not been resolved due to easement issues. o Masters 5th Avenue has an existing CUP approval for a commercial development at Landmark Square II. Although more recent proposals have been brought forward for a residential development on the site, no formal approvals on those have been granted. Staff will contact the applicant and verify is he wishes the CUP to remain in place for the time being. All other CUPs approved within the last 5 years are active/in progress or are PUD housing approvals already in active development. Such examples include Warnert Commercial, Monticello Marketplace (adjacent to Buffalo Wild Wings) and such residential developments as Hunters Crossing, Carlisle Village and Spirit Hills. Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal Monticello made the top ten! According to the Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal Monticello has been one of the 10 fastest growing cities. The full list with source information is attached. Walnut Street Boulevard Paver Project On July 13th, the City Council authorized moving forward with the replacement of the brick pavers throughout the Walnut Street corridor. The project, which will be completed this year, will replace the pavers with stamped, colored concrete. The concrete, along with new landscaping elements, will also be put in place in island within the 3rd Street parking lot and around the new common dumpster enclosures in that lot. Planning Commission Agenda: 08/02/11 3 CSAH 75 Pedestrian Underpass Improvements Also on July 13th, the City Council approved the placement of a box culvert for the CSAH 75 pedestrian underpass. Thanks to the generous donations of the Land of Lakes Choir Boys, Xcel Energy and Veolia, the culvert will provide a grade-separated crossing for the CSAH 75 area. The culvert should arrive on site in early to mid-September. Staff continues to look for additional funding sources to fund the construction of the connecting trails. TH 25 / CSAH 11 / CR 14 Intersection Improvements (Mn/DOT project) Mn/DOT has resumed work on this project, but due to the delay caused by the State shutdown the estimated project completion date of September 2nd is likely going to be pushed back 2 to 3 weeks. Staff has still not heard whether the contractor was able to move the lane shift out of downtown Monticello and onto the bridge per our request. Cu Z e P N C C O C O C O V d" "Z3 -m cy) N N r- r- .- N O U3 O O) ,._%' O L oN m v o "' Ln CL)N Q O co -- U C 15 � cz Cn OU .Q Q "c" p p ` r 3 U• Q U) N C4 o M N oT a ccv -� c514 cc 0 a�Ni 1 �w�/w� IC 0 (n U ai Q) . x �0._ W �n -o .y o '� c� ELAJ -0 o v• (ll (1) C M CZN U �--' v C LE w 'a c r W U-2 ca C U U Cf)O7 X `� c c�'o h v nRi 'v L "N c •�-' Z U M C� C6 cif CCS '' a) 01 � O r o c o. `� d c h w ani N = o �. 4) C ~ Y O - = "'Q C Y .-. S Q) c cb .. m ca •� m "� to -a c w m� CA O W N r O �--' O Y C O� O O Y . _� p U i C (� U U O ` 11 II � �- o f o o n o ` 3 ° rn 4 LU a) O a� a> c ct1 ca O C c� U c0 a> s .a 3 L% �' J U ..�-. E Q CD U) cz L% Q d � U = U U� in ®LJ6 .n m Q- c ~' aEi o o G �' o a o 4 Cil Z I U R I ti CO N v C-1 C11 o EJ - N c E _ < � ai V) O s r E n c c 2 E o � �J E o E n Ln ro > > c >o c c? E ai E o c c m N o o 0 c c E w e a'i - c D > c ? c c E a c o a� ai o - o_ d c O O c c E 3 c o o? _ o Y ro a a) E a E o v a c N c r cts E a> E a`� U� E _ o E ro n c E of o .v 0 i s s Z ci cn m > - ro c c E o c m- L ._ 0 m c n c o n E E Y -X 0� U n � a> E - E ro U 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 0 0 _c 3 E ro :> 0 0 Cs -� O C7 c ` -_ ai o c E° c> ro o c 0 c > c s O o N cn ro c> �] cn ro Q o (D Z- ro o_ a a� = a� r °n a� c ai ro a' p� r - u 0 c m ro - ro ro Q, ° m of W p E ro L) C� 0 n s Z c ro D o S J S o s aa)i C7 c_0 c cr m c> (r} c m o Q c n s O- S c >+ O c o c c s 0 c o a o o c O o o) n o o m e _0 o ai u of ca M -� E > C c� E _ _ m Y o cn a O m m ro�_s �v �ro n o �_ro> c 1J rod s c �0 o Ll�0 c'�c >Y D� � �� too m. ro caro c 0 o a m 4 ro ro ro s ° o o .° - o .� o ._ 3 ro -� 3 ro a� r ro E o? ro E E ro o c _ c `o ro m r n - a m 2 U3 tib "u �m -�2'�-�C.'3"v �ti U �m �� 0 m�"� J U� u F -d 0 �]m"� �U u QO �cn'u 1°F° "� �Q "u I°U'� mY'� Y m �0 "u d u YJ u ��'v Y J c C H 'C CD00 wimpE ° E oT v cno �`-' ��° �C1•J o Lnm m m m m 0 co Cn Ln .. � o f Cn a+ N a o � C\ c6 m o M 4- j- co r' co N 0> i m y cv m Cv ai CO CD LO Cv m e o o CN C� Cn d o m cD o CN yo� m� m c\� T �� m( m� ri� mN ocv m� m� �� co co m� o �� m 04 cc m T T C a e a� C o "• a a a rn N E � c ai y m No 0 L7 c 0 0 0 o cn m o m 0 CN CN 0 0 0 CD Cn �t m Co v Cn �n C\ w C\ Cn o, .- co m cv Ln o CD R ai �o o m o �� O 0 C\ cn�� 0 m c\ `t o CO �v coo m c\ C0 �� o °� m co m c� 0 Jn Lo - o cv o co f o o co 0 Cn m r cn ti 0 0 o c o a m o) o r� L- o m C c ° t coOm �m C cn O a c O� C cDO,Cp CO�d, �r �ofO ��v o�T� Cpm cvto n CXJ �L to�� c, �,c�J c0(` -m n cock cow a)T C 6 cri C\ �O m T c� ,n CD CD v � o w CO � N - o ti co cD a' m L T Co � Cb I- Co v �* C4 cv o o of .. v� o � co v� coo om X0) moO v0i 0r-) C' �m C\ c\_ LO Amo o�vC`J �c5m °'01n and C�� o T N cD m Cri 0 cn Cn cn mco w y 69 T � `9 ` cf3 � v3 69 `� E9 tf� T T � 6c} 69 E9 EA v9 E9 _ � N 69 ' UVJ m o ° LM :• o rn coo 'n C° m N o C\ C m CN o o N O o o 00 o Cb m "T CEJ C\ Cv CD f m d o ms o� 'N .co CD r cJ c\ '- C4 0'0 (D mN Mg) �°o)' rn C- ro �� CN co �I-CC) �� om LO COm o� o� ooL- ca o y n� vcv om c\�, mo o- o� o� �O �m CO cD o C� c Ct N N a V) cry co CY) LO co � Oj CV O Co ok Ln r cD � � v e co CN � 'n � Cd 0 (0 om C� C D C\I � T � r � NLO CO m m cmo a� .0i C ° o T r CO C\ N CN CD CN -� Lo Cvo (Doti (D C\ CN T� - c) C14 cm goN o. E � o CL) c �I CIO c)) °'rn SCD �C\q0 �O o�cD coop LO (D v� mCN LO v�o �r� �� N� �G) mm mcc �0) °'vco �7 C14 LO �c`no �° cno om Nco r�O c�0 Gi C\_Ln ( ° 0 04 Cvm om Lq0) vo m� CN 03 �°' mO mm TL �m oQ0 nC\ Co0) o)� o c Cl.a L� �m C6 C\� m v n m v' m� 00' Cpm oC0 cn� Lio �� o mo 0°J Ln� �0 oo � N 0 0 r� .-� m� rm (�1C0 C.yO cyCJ �Lo OCTC\I ,_m ,-CO Cv� (D CN V Lor-- C`Ja tnCy ACV (Y) Tm f L NCO ,--.CD SCO LAN 3 ax 0 o c 0 cv m C -r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O i O \ \ \ \ \ M r tf co et Cl) 07 r ti GO Na) Co N N M It n a N ^ 0\0 LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ o \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Q• a O O C� C? n O O 67 O'1 tb h n h ra M N N N N r r r O O O M mO O M N N N N N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r O O C 0 N C c C: Q cc c O O O O CO 0Ufm� O CU O LO O O O m ofom O O oG) co o 1 LO o m CN LO 0 Mco LN 0 G) ui c\ m cv m m° Lw CO m 0 04 co 71- zLf) LO m CN c cN m v co o m Cn OD 0) v m� z� v m Q v ° a� Cn n m o co Lo m N 3 �- o cD > L7 m Z c Z^ >_ 0) J� m o o cfl LO - > m cD t- LO L7 ro v CD Cf O CO Ln LU > of N o) T - Ch Z (0 LC) �j CD Cfl ai Cn o 0f c\ rn v CD Cv co o Cn c c >Cfl co L I— roo cD O o mN v m �� oc�D Q) LI) o zo m N L- a Q n m o m a) a ro 00 m m m Cn cn LO V) Lf) °' > m n m CO c� ro O -0 O •3 om �n •Cn �m �� >� N m � Lo cn YIn CD �O d Y ro� o CD o c �Lc '� o m inCn m � m _rom ro 0 _ M" of rom �Z n Qto (n �m a-� L7 Z Z �� O a�cn >Z C0l :3 ;J- Dm Z QL7 LLILO Z n y� mom, C� O O U Z Z 0 L W LC) > LO n Z d- 1 m J d Ln cL n 7 z L) L Q) LO _ a) roCn m -� -_`n Q n o in ».� Uz _ o c d �Lj oLo C `Z `n 3 - m� �Z m o� 0Z roZ mZ o� ° �� OU) c c �� ->� vOi Y ° n > 3 n �Z c� v �� v)Z �Z �U� 0� CO O O LO >. O V1 cn O Z m c G) (" z s E° co n. I ao ro m v T c a� O- a� c- rn 0 > > -0� __ ro t7 Q t o c� E ro �c 0 _� of Z y L a ° Z D ro O m_ ro O 0 > v a c- o ] c- co C'3 � >. c [d m U M c v .. c� � Y O_ Mimi O O Cm CDD O O U :1 Cn O C� �- CD J O N U O LC) > U c E .a O .L O '� to -- t y O O O U� >' W m J c3 p (3J m o -+� O ro W C/1 ca E m m a� 0 ° ro fQU m D:CD� �� F °LO a) °� o vfE- °� co c a0 a' �o c m0 rood J +;�._ LL ro -'r -� °0 0 ro NO N d O >O > m a ro C� 4 YO ocn r ..O E NL n °O 00 �� O Yr m0 d JgCO ) mb-- E n E i -c ELO E y� n -(D 00 O �O c _ ." m �v0 .:� t�� +�m� cm-� mO ro t s - c m Y O 0 mm cQ 000 o m Op mO ro sL` c v O m c) m O� o m,n ro mO ro +.r -_ cO r Z xr S U) v) (lir Cn Om0 IZ.'t W (nCD(n u0U ca Nm W r W r2 L5 LL L_ =C\C 3co�i =CO= CN J UL�U �r m m �� W ZCDZ xr S xr S NCV (n JCDJ (1 mL L cc Ile CV O CCW2 R:tLOA� CD VIM CO c4m Cc wip V� T� vam V+ cm cm