The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 09-06-2011 AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 6th, 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 August 2nd, 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. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezoning from I-1 (Light Industrial) to B-4 (Regional Business) for Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Center 5th Addition. (9766 Fallon Avenue). Applicant: Riverwood Bank 7. Consideration of a request for extension of Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Cornerstone/DOJO LLC 8. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access. Applicant: SA Group Properties, Inc 9. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive- through facility in the Central Community District and to allow joint parking and d rives. Applicant: Masters 5th Avenue . 10. Consideration of a request for amendment to Final Stage PUD for Quad Development. Applicant: Monticello-Big Lake Pet Hospital 11. Tabled Item - 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 12. Community Development Director’s Report 13. Adjourn. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 2, 2011— 5:00 P.M. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Council Present: Clint Herbst, Glen Posusta, Tom Perrault, Lloyd Hilgart Absent: Brian Stumpf Planning Commission Present: Charlotte Gabler, Brad Fyle, Rod Dragsten, Barry Voight Absent: Bill Sparks Staff. Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Jeff O'Neill 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Mayor Herbst at 5 p.m. 2. Special Meeting/Workshop — Purpose Rod Dragsten introduced the topic as a review of a concept plan for Homestead Multi - Family Development Corporation requested by Mike Schneider. 3. Review of Homestead Multi -Family Concept Pian — Mike Schneider Angela Schumann introduced the discussion and outlined the land use and zoning designation and noted that no land use was designated in the 2008 Comp Plan. She also noted that the current land is undeveloped and lies in Monticello Township. She asked Mike Schneider to comment. Mr. Schneider explained that previously the land was not developable due to its location next to the freeway on-ramp. Since that road no longer serves as an entrance to the freeway, he is looking at possible uses to develop the land. He feels that the best use at this time would be multi -family housing and some commercial. Currently, the market is not supportive of single family housing but people are looking for higher end rental housing. He would propose high end multi-level housing rental units with below ground parking beneath the building. He would also place a community center building between the apartments as an amenity to the renters. Clint Herbst expressed a concern about the location adjacent to the freeway. Mr. Schneider commented that there are a number of places in the Twin Cities area where apartment buildings, including high end, are located right along the freeway. Clint Herbst also expressed a concern with being presented a concept plan which receives temporary approval from the City. After the developer completes his studies, he returns with a completely different concept which does not meet the standards originally planned. Clint Herbst does not want this to occur with this project. Minutes of Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting — August 2, 2011 Page 1 Mr. Schneider stated that he has preliminary approval for financing this project with the plans as presented. He would anticipate constructing one building first. He stated that he continually gets phone calls from people looking for rental units so he is sure this would fill a need in the community. He is also working on a similar project in Big Lake, which may be partly financed through a TIF district. Rod Dragsten asked if this would be market rent or subsidized. Mr. Schneider stated this would be market rent. He also noted that the demand is great for family rental housing, especially three bedroom apartments. This is part of the reason that he would propose placing a community building between the two apartment buildings. Steve Grittman asked what market ranges were shown by the studies that Schneider had done. Mr. Schneider stated the range showed $900 to $1800 per month. Rod Dragsten noted that, in his work as an appraiser, there is a great demand for three bedroom apartments and often waiting lists for those units. Charlotte Gabler noted that this land serves as an entrance to the City from the east and feels that it is important that it be situated in an attractive manner. Jeff O'Neill asked Schneider what he would do to make the project an attractive entrance to the community. Mr. Schneider commented that the townhomes that he built at the west end of town should serve as an example of what they could expect on the east end; they are nicely laid out with green space surrounding each set of units. Barry Voight commented that there are a lot of trees on the proposed site and he would hope that the building plans would preserve as many trees as possible when the site is developed. That would also help preserve the value of the property and keep it more attractive. Jeff O'Neill spoke briefly about the townhomes across the freeway in Sunset Ponds and asked Ron Hackenmueller to comment on the appearance of the townhomes along the freeway in Sunset Ponds. Ron noted that they had cleaned it up and made improvements since the new management took over. However, those townhomes are not considered high-end. Mr. Schneider suggested that the location along the freeway should not impact the ability to rent the units. His townhomes at the west end are located right along the freeway and he has not had issues with selling those units. They are also soundproofed so the freeway noise does not generate complaints. Brad Fyle asked about the impact of Ditch 33 on the land site and whether there would be an issue with the township. Glen Posusta explained that the problems should be rectified since the City redid the outlet for Meadow Oaks and Briar Oakes which resolved some drainage issues. Jeff O'Neill noted that the site would have to be annexed according to the agreement between the City and the Township. Minutes of Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting — August 2, 2011 Page 2 Steve Grittman explained that the comparison between properties in the Twin Cities and Monticello and proximity to the freeway is probably not entirely relative. From studies that have been done, high-end rental units are generally more desirable if located further from the freeway. Clint Herbst stated that this would be a risk that Mr. Schneider would have to undertake as part of the project if he proceeds. Glen Posusta stated that he would like to see as many trees preserved as possible and feels this would also make it more attractive. Angela Schumann explained that this project would have to abide by the zoning ordinance in relation to the sections on Tree Preservation. Angela Schumann summarized that it sounds like this land might be amenable to residential development. There might be some concerns about density. Mr. Schneider stated that he is looking at a maximum of 96 units for this project. Jeff O'Neill and Angela Schumann explained that one of the first things that would be needed would be a survey showing the trees to be removed and preserved within the campus. Mr. Schneider asked for an explanation of whether it is better to remove trees first and then approach the City with plans or the best approach for this. Clint Herbst explained that it might be best to look at where they want to site the building and then look at where trees are located within that site. The developer might find it preferable to switch the building locations to preserve more trees. Angela Schumann noted that it is usually preferable to preserve trees in clumps as they seem to survive better when left grouped. Mr. Schneider also noted that the type of trees might also make a difference if some are better quality than others. He has done some clearing on the property to remove some of the dead trees and undergrowth. Angela Schumann went on the explained some of the next steps, noting that he would need to meet with staff and Planning Commission to develop a preliminary plat and development plan. These things need to be in place before they can start the annexation proceedings. Lloyd Hilgart commented that as he read through the agenda report, he was not sure that this project would be a good idea. As he thought it over, he did not feel the site would be good for commercial purposes. He described an example of a project in Rogers that looks very attractive, has some nice amenities and overlooks Highway 101. He would envision something like that for a high-end housing project. Tom Perrault asked about sewer and water capability in that area. Bruce Westby reported to Angela Schumann that sanitary sewer is available, a watermain would have to looped through the site from Meadow Oak development, and storm water would have to be accommodated on the site with ponding. Jeff O'Neill asked about the old County right-of-way at the end of CSAH 75 and whether anything had been decided on that. Angela Schumann did not have any information at this time. Clint Herbst suggested that might possibly serve as an area for a storm water pond. Minutes of Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting — August 2, 2011 Page 3 Mr. Schneider stated that he sees this property as a destination site between Fargo and the Twin Cities. He feels that it would be a desirable place for people to locate. 4. Adjournment TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL MEETING AT 5:47 P.M. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. Recorder: Catherine M. Shuman Approved: Attest: City Administrator Minutes of Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting — August 2, 2011 Page 4 MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 2,2011 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Barry Voight Commissioner Absent: William Spartz Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart Stag: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, 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 July 5th, 2011 BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 5TH, 2011. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED 2-0. (Charlotte Gabler and Barry Voight abstained as they had not attended the previous meeting.) 3. Citizen Comments None 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda Rod Dragsten asked to consider items 7 and 9 first in 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 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 due to a lack of progress on the transition of the City from City ownership to ownership by the Quarry Church. At this time, the City and Quarry Church continue to work through site items related to the consideration of a purchase agreement and a further continuation is required. The City will complete an annual review of the special use overlay district, concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan review, unless otherwise warranted by separate rezoning actions. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, SPECIAL USE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO SEPTEMBER 6TH, 2011 MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CHARLOTTE GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11 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 The inventory of towers and antennas already in place throughout the City was used as a reference point for considering amendments to the code. The Planning Commission had previously come to consensus about developing potential amendments related to telecommunication towers and antennas. 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 Conditional 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 Steve Grittman outlined the proposed changes to current regulations within a revised Section 4.13 — Telecommunications Towers and Antennae, a revised Table 5-6 specifying accessory uses, and revised Definitions that would apply to the ordinance. Section 4.13, Telecommunications Towers and Antennae This entire section was reorganized with limited revision to the specific standards applying to these structures. Telecommunications facilities have been made accessory uses wherever they occur. Antenna and antenna support structures are proposed to be treated differently depending on location. The reorganization creates the following subsections: • Purpose • (A) Private Amateur Radio (permitted accessory structures in all districts) • (B) Private Receiving Antenna (permitted accessory structures in all districts) • (C) Commercial/Industrial Reception and Transmission (accessory Conditional Use in Business and Industrial Districts, requires screening) • (D) Wireless Telecommunications Antennae (new freestanding support structures allowed only by CUP in certain commercial and industrial districts). Co -location of antennae as permitted accessory uses on existing structures in commercial and industrial districts, along with the R-3 District. • (E) General Provisions • (F) Application process and submittal requirements • (G) Outside review of applications at applicant's cost • (H) Removal of abandoned installations 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11 There were questions related to tower and antenna location in the R-1 area. It was recommended that antenna be located on existing structures in the residential zoning districts. Co -location is the preferred approach. It was also suggested that screening standards be cross-referenced. There was discussion of eliminating ground clutter. Staff will follow up on the question about the exclusive rights of FiberNet in tower and antenna location. Accessory Use 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. There was considerable discussion of whether new towers should be allowed in residential districts. There seemed to be consensus on not allowing new towers in the R Districts and B-1 District and as Conditional Uses in other Business and Industrial Districts. Staff was directed to delete the R-3 District and the MH for wireless telecommunications support structure from eligible sites for new structures. The table would be amended as indicated. Chapter 8, Definitions The changes include separate definitions which provide would distinction between the antennae classifications. This amendment uses language that is consistent with industry language. The public hearing was opened. Hearing no public comment, the public hearing was closed. ROD DRAGSTEN MOVED TO TABLE THE HEARING ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS TO THE SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 MEETING TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION OF EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF FIBERNET IN TOWER AND ANTENNA LOCATION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BRAD FYLE. MOTION CARRIED 4- 0. 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 The applicant requested a rezoning from I-1 (Light Industrial) to B-4 (Regional Business) to accommodate their current and proposed expansion of uses at 102 Thomas Park Drive. These uses include the operation of a sports training/athletic training facility and indoor entertainment facility. The rezoning of the 2.44 acre site from an industrial designation to a commercial Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11 designation is consistent with the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan, which guides the property, as "Places to Shop". Rezoning the property brings it into conformance with the new code. The public hearing was opened. One of the property owners, Holly Klein, briefly described the facility use. The public hearing was closed. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED 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).MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CHARLOTTE GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance The Monticello Zoning Code is in its code tracking period, which is intended to identify needed language adjustments or minor corrections as a result of the new code's daily use and application. The majority of the proposed amendments are "housekeeping" in nature, but some represent new policy direction for the City. 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. 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. There may be circumstances in which the City desires the flexibility of allowing PVDs for industrial uses. 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. 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. 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11 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. 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. With the provision listed in section 5.5(B)(2), the setback allowance is relaxed to 6' for interior lots. 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 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. This amendment will also include a text amendment to Chapter 5, Section 3(B)(2)((i)(ii). 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. 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 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. Staff responded to questions and pointed to the discretion of the Commission to approve any variances. 5. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 4 (G) as related to Accessory Structure standards This amendment is a simple text change to eliminate a double -negative phrase within 5 Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11 the T -N district table text for accessory structures. 6. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 1Q) 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 in the text of Chapter 4 for the TN district are inconsistent with Table 4-4 for landscaping requirements. The amendments create consistency with Table 4-4. 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. Changeable copy signs would be subject to the following additional regulations. • No fluorescent text shall be permitted on such signs. • Signs must be permanently anchored. • Signs must be incorporated within the overall sign structure for both monument and pylon signs. There was considerable discussion about fluorescent lettering on signage in general. The Commission recommended: eliminating (16)(a)(i) which reads, "No fluorescent text shall be permitted on such signs," adding language to (16) (a)(ii) to read: "Signs must be permanently anchored to the sign," and adding language to (16) (a) (iii) to read "Signs must be incorporated within the overall sign structure for both monument and pylon signs and must be consistent with the balance of the sign design and materials." 8. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 5(H)(19) as related to Dynamic Displays The City carefully reviewed industry standards for best practices flexibility and aesthetic. Staff does not believe that it is the intent of the City to allow dynamic displays as temporary signs. Amendments add 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. 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11 The Commission recommended that (a) (iv) be changed to from five (5) seconds to three (3) seconds. 9. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 5(I) as related to Temporary Signs The amendment language 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 commercialibusiness 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 are limited to weekends and maximum amount of days per month. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 7 Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11 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 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. 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 required. 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, permitted otherwise. 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. Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11 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. The public hearing was opened. Hearing no comment, the public hearing was closed. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE #535, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS: IN CHAPTER 4, SECTION 5(H) (16) CHANGEABLE COPY SIGNS ELIMINATING (16)(A)(I) WHICH READS, "NO FLUORESCENT TEXT SHALL BE PERMITTED ON SUCH SIGNS," ADDING LANGUAGE TO (16) (A)(II) TO READ: "SIGNS MUST BE PERMANENTLY ANCHORED TO THE SIGN," AND ADDING LANGUAGE TO (16) (A) (III) TO READ "SIGNS MUST BE INCORPORATED WITHIN THE OVERALL SIGN STRUCTURE FOR BOTH MONUMENT AND PYLON SIGNS AND MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE BALANCE OF THE SIGN DESIGN AND MATERIALS." AS WELL AS A CHANGE TO CHAPTER 4, SECTION 5(H)(19)(B)(IV) REGULATIONS GOVERNING DYNAMIC SIGN DISPLAYS TO READ, "NO DYNAMIC SIGN DISPLAY SHALL CHANGE MORE THAN ONE TIME PER THREE (3) SECOND PERIOD..." BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE PURPOSE STATEMENTS OF MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CHARLOTTE GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 4- 0. 9. Consideration of reauest for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for Concent 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. The applicant requested a two year extension of the conditional use permit for PUD and preliminary plat for the proposed Mills Fleet Farm project approved in 2007 citing continued weak economic conditions as the foundation for the request. The site is expected to be developed consistent with the approved plans as soon as it is economically feasible to do so. BRAD FYLE MOVED 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. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CHARLOTTE GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11 10. Consideration to adopt Resolution 2011-71 finding that a modification to the Redevelopment Plan, TIF Plan for TIF District 1-39, and conveying EDA owned land to Suburban Manufacturing conforms with the Monticello Comprehensive Plan The Planning Commission was 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 conforms to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. Suburban Manufacturing proposed to construct a 38,000 square foot manufacturing and office facility at Otter Creek to consolidate their operations. The facility is a permitted use within the Monticello Business Center, zoned properly (I-1), and will comply with Otter Creek Covenants. The creation of TIF District 1-39 would provide a business subsidy and conveyance of EDA owned industrial land for the expansion of a Monticello business. The subsidy, which will consist of writing down land costs, would comply with the Monticello Comprehensive Plan by creating 11 new full-time jobs, providing high quality manufacturing development, and increased tax base. Staff provided an explanation of the "but for TIF" clause related to justifying the financial assistance so that a project can move forward. BRAD FYLE MOVED 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. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 11. Community Development Director's Report Silver Springs Update The concept for housing at Silver Springs that Mr. Blumentritt prepared does not include the Paumen property which would make it contiguous to the City and eligible for annexation. He plans to discuss the option to annex the Silver Springs property without it being contiguous with the Township Board. PUD Ordinance Workshop Staff will email the Planning Commission to establish a date for the postponed PUD workshop. CUP Extensions Three remaining CUPS which require extension due to non-use are: • DOJO/Cornerstone Development 10 Planning Commission Minutes — 08/02/11 Staff will try to contact. • Broadway Market/Steiner Development This property is now owned by USBank which has asked to extend its CUP for a year. A nuisance citation is being handled. This issue will be considered at the September meeting. • M&IBank M&I does not intend to build on this site. This property may be for sale, and in that case, it may be appropriate to bring this matter the CUP expiration before the Planning Commission. Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal According to the Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal Monticello has been one of the 10 fastest growing cities. 12. Adiourn BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:24 PM. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CHARLOTTE GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. Recorder: Kerry T. Burri Approved: September 6, 2011 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 11 Planning Commission Agenda: 09/06/11 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. Although progress continues to be made on the transition from City ownership to ownership by the Quarry Church, no actual change in ownership has occurred. Therefore, at this time it is unnecessary to take action on this item. As such, staff is again requesting continuation of this item to a subsequent meeting. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to continue the hearing on the amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Special Use Overlay District to October 4th, 2011. 2. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends Alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. Planning Commission Agenda — 09/06/11 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Rezoning from I-1, Light Industrial to B-4, Regional Business District. Applicant: Riverwood Bank. (NAC) Property: Legal: Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Center 5th Addition Address: 9766 Fallon Avenue The subject site is located at the southeast quadrant of Fallon Avenue and Chelsea Road Planning Case Number: 2011-023 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing the future land use designation from "Places to Work" to "Places to Shop", and Rezoning the subject parcel from I-1, Light Industrial to B-4, Regional Business. Deadline for Decision: October 11, 2011 Land Use Designation: Places to Work Zoning Designation: I-1, Light Industrial The purpose of the 1-1," light industrial, district is to provide for the establishment of warehousing and light industrial development. Current Site Use: The 3.15 acre site is used as an office building with multiple tenants and a common parking lot. A portion of the property is available for an expansion of the office uses. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Suburban Manufacturing, zoned I-1, Light Industrial East: Vacant (future Mills Fleet Farm), zoned B-4, Regional Business South: Integrated Recycling Technology, zoned I-1, Light Industrial 1 Planning Commission Agenda — 09/06/11 West: Computer components remanufacturing, zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial Project Description: The applicants are seeking a re -guiding and rezoning of the property to match the existing and proposed tenant uses with the zoning designation. Existing tenants are a combination of administrative offices and commercial office - service businesses, many of which deal directly with "retail" clients and customers on- site. Requirements for Comprehensive Plan Amendments Chapter 2.4 A (5) Approval Criteria Recommendations and decisions on Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be based on consideration of the following criteria: (a) Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error or addresses the need resulting from some changing condition, trend, or fact arising since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan; (b) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the guiding principles of the Comprehensive Plan; (c) The extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need; (d) Whether the proposed amendment will protect the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public; (e) The impacts on the natural and built environments, including air, water, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, water quality, vegetation, drainage, streets, and other engineering design or environmental factors; (f) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject property; whether the proposed design and land uses are appropriate for the land; and whether the proposed amendment will maintain or improve compatibility among uses and ensure efficient development within the City; (g) Whether the proposed amendment will result in a logical, orderly and predictable development pattern; (h) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose of this ordinance. Of these criteria, the most relevant for this specific parcel are items (f) and (g) relating to existing and future land uses, and logical development patterns. With regard to these 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 09/06/11 criteria, the designation of this site for regional business reflects some of the current uses on the site, and more importantly, reflects the expected growth in commercial retail traffic that will be spawned by the eventual development of the Mills Fleet Farm site to the east. Moreover, Chelsea Road would be expected to handle an increasing amount of retail traffic as the primary connection between interchanges at County 18 and Highway 25. Finally, the City's Transportation Plan includes a freeway overpass at Fallon Avenue, with the expectation that traffic on Fallon will increase significantly. Over time, land uses along Chelsea Road to the east have transitioned from industrial to commercial designations. This transition reflects the impacts that traffic access has on undeveloped land near a freeway interchange. This impact is also reflected in the uses on the subject property, and a land use designation change to a more commercial orientation would be consistent with this natural transition. Requirements for Zoning Amendments Chapter 2.4 B (5) Approval Criteria Recommendations and decisions on zoning amendments shall be based on consideration of the following criteria: (a) Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error in the original text or map; or (b) Whether the proposed amendment addresses needs arising from a changing condition, trend, or fact affecting the subject property and surrounding area. (c) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with achieving the goals and objectives outlined in the comprehensive plan. As with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the primary element of this application relates to changing conditions and trends in the surrounding area. In this regard, the comments in the previous section also apply to the rezoning analysis with regard to both past land use decisions and future growth due to patterns of ownership and transportation. Related Issues An amendment in land use designation on this lot stands on its own, based on the criteria outlined in the ordinance, along with the traffic and existing or future land uses of property in the area. Nonetheless, this change (and the rationale supporting it) raises the potential for discussion of similar changes on neighboring parcels. This current application relates primarily to existing uses and anticipated growth in the area. However, it is not unexpected that other parcels in the neighborhood will experience similar impacts. The Planning Commission may wish to take up, as a part of its annual 3 Planning Commission Agenda — 09/06/11 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Review process in January, the long-term land use planning for this area on a more comprehensive basis. Changing land use designations apart from a specific request by a property owner can raise compatibility issues with existing uses. As such, the Planning Commission may choose to consider how a broader change in land use designation would affect current business operations. These options would be appropriate for discussion as a part of the annual review. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Resolution of Recommendation 1. Motion to approve Resolution 2011-82 recommending the redesignation of the future land use for the subject parcel from "Places to Work" to "Places to Shop", and recommending City Council adoption of a zoning ordinance amendment rezoning the property from I-1, Light Industrial to B-4, Regional Business, based on findings of fact in said Resolution. 2. Motion to deny Resolution 2011-82, based on preliminary findings of fact attached as Exhibit Z. 3. Motion to table action on the request for further study. STAFF RECOMMNDATION Staff recommends Alternative 1. As noted in the report narrative, the conditions on the property and in the area are anticipated to change as commercial growth already planned for the area begins to take hold. This request is not the first change to commercial seen for the area, and is not likely to be the last. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution 2011-82 B. Aerial Parcel Image C. Comprehensive Plan Long Range Land Use Map D. Official Monticello Zoning Map Z. Preliminary Findings of Fact for Denial 4 Planning Commission Agenda — 09/06/11 Exhibit Z — Preliminary Findings of Fact for Denial 1. The property in question is designed for office uses, a permitted use within the I-1 Zoning District. 2. The properties to the north, west, and south are all industrial uses with no specific plans for change to more commercial activities. 3. Introduction of a commercial designation on the southeast corner of the Fallon/Chelsea intersection will put undue pressure on other parcels to seek changes in land use. 4. The City's industrial land supply in this area has already been reduced in volume through previous changes, and should be protected from further erosion. 5. Future changes to area land use and transportation systems, while planned, are still speculative. 6. The introduction of potential retail uses at this site will create compatibility issues with both light and heavy industrial users on adjoining property. 5 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2011 —82 Date: September 6th, 2011 Resolution No. 2011-82 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO COMPRHENSIVE PLAN AND 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, MONTICELLO COMMERCE CENTER 5th ADDITION. WHEREAS, Riverwood Bank has requested an Amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan Long Range Land Use Plan for the redesignation from Places to Work to Places to Shop, and the Monticello Official Zoning Map for the rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Center 5th Addition as legally described on the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning pursuant to the regulations of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 6th, 2011 on the applications 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: (a) The amendment and rezoning address the need resulting from a trend toward commercial land uses in the area arising since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan; (b) The proposed amendment and rezoning accommodate commercial uses which are compatible with existing and proposed commercial uses surrounding the subject property; the proposed design and land use is appropriate for the land with adequate parking, green space, and expansion area for similar land uses; and the proposed amendment will maintain or improve compatibility among nearby existing and planned commercial uses and ensure efficient development within the City; (c) The proposed amendment and rezoning to a commercial land use designation and zoning is consistent with the guiding principles of the Comprehensive Plan; (d) The amendment and rezoning to a commercial land use designation and zoning will result in a logical, orderly and predictable development pattern; and (e) The proposed amendment and rezoning to a commercial land use designation and zoning with the purpose of the Monticello Zoning ordinance. 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 Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Long Range Land Use Plan and 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, Monticello Commerce Center 5th Addition is hereby recommended to the City Council for approval. ADOPTED this 6th day of September, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION 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 MonYcello Gea ra hic lnlwmation 9 slam * � N rl4Q � r. �j 6 °^ryf R L•pantl . _ • _. .. vm.mr. � vbb.b smR � ♦bw.b vlx. i � vbb.b llcw.Y v.a.b.u.xbm ■ Imm.iy. vrbrgP,. bob Rix. RMw wg9wm 5rJVbb WY.M1Mby yq YY.tl.�N..b.l6 Rbb WYw M1mbY.� 25 � Nabow.x..r Q NNY V.IMq. E6 iWw 8b •�. Pu rYIwCS ` YOpadAOPYNwColcb %6d qj ub.oe urau.bn \�J b..MPmwinP.. 66 aw.ur Legend BASE ZONING DISTRICTS Residential Districts -- Low Residential Densities A-0 R -A R-1 -- Medium Residential Densities T -N R-2 R -PUD -- High Residential Densities R-3 M -H Business Districts B-3 A B-4 CCD Industrial Districts OVERLAY DISTRICTS Performance Based Overlay District Special Use Overlay District 1-2 ;Mississippi Wild, Scenic & Rec Overlay District L Shoreland District OTHER Water I I I i I I ICit of Monticello • • I I I I I 1 I I I IOfficial Zonin h4a9 P I i i . t I i I � � I � I � I � I ' — — — — -----— I ----— ; I I i [ , , I , � I ilcrest L-----—------- V. ----—------ V N.Pok °o I 3 N y, I — u.c7 e` W E Iv \ • " I \ \ \ Kam ub iew c o ,• . co • / / s`" 5 3 sa r LLj — ' r — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — !!■ 3 0 + ' +—__—__—--—--—__—--—--—-————————------' Lb...�� .. ;::: rrrr rrrr rrrr rrrr ::...... rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Ci M 1 •� •1111 a ;, �111 ■1■ CC .I �1■111■ ■111111111 l fo' 9�eti F I I _ I I I — — — — — — — — — — — J z 90th 6-2-11 Planning Commission Agenda – 09/06/11 1 7. Consideration of a request for extension of Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: DOJO/Cornerstone Properties (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND DOJO/Cornerstone Properties is requesting an extension of the conditional use permit issued for a Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development. The proposed development included the construction of two retail commercial buildings located on a 1.7 acre site located south of Dundas Road and east of State Highway 25. On August 5th, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the PUD. The City Council approved the CUP for PUD on August 11th, 2008. Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for the CUP was set to expire on August 5th, 2011. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits expire due to non-use after one year. As such, the applicant has requested a one-year extension. Any extension of the CUP is conditioned on the requirement that all previously approved conditions apply to any extension of the permit. The planning report for the original item has been provided for reference. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend extension for one year of the August 11th, 2008 Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development for DOJO/Cornerstone Development, with the condition that all previously approved conditions be assigned to the extension. 2. Motion to recommend denial of an extension of the August 11th, 2008 Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a multi-tenant commercial development for DOJO/Cornerstone Development, of the based on a finding to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the extension request for one additional year. D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Applicant Request Exhibit B: Planning Commission Report, August 5th, 2008 Exhibit C: Planning Commission Minutes, August 5th, 2008 Planning Commission Agenda – 09/06/11 2 Exhibit D: City Council Minutes, August 11th, 2008 Exhibit E: Conditional Use Permit Plan documents From:CaryHourscht[chourscht@lampertyards.com] Sent:Tuesday,August30,20119:22AM To:AngelaSchumann Angela, CanyoupleaseputCornerstone/DojoontheSept.6th.planningcommissionagenda.Forconsiderationof extendingTheCup/Pudusepermitforantheryear.Duetothecommercial/economicslowdown. Hopefullywithantheryear.Theconditionswillchange.Werewecangetstartedwiththeproject. Thankyouforyourtime CaryHourscht 763-807-8664Cell Council Minutes August 11 2008 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday August 11 2008 7 pm Members Present Clint Herbst Wayne Mayer Tom Perrault Brian Stumpf and Susie Wojchouski Members Absent None 1 Call to Order Mayor Herbst called the meeting to order at 7 pm and declared a quorum present The Pledge of Allegiance was said 2A Approve minutes of July 28 2008 Special Meeting Tom Perrault questioned on the last paragraph of page two dealing with the possibility of the DMV providing driver license services whether it should read could instead of would because it is not known whether the DMV will get the license service Ann Johnson Deputy Registrar Manager stated DMV will get the drivers license service if they have adequate room for the equipment TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 28 2008 SPECIAL MEETING SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI SECONDED THE MOTION MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 50 2B Approve minutes of July 28 2008 Regular Meeting BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 28 2008 REGULAR MEETING TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 50 3 Consideration of adding items to the agenda The following items were added to the agenda 1 Update on the PosustaLundsten land issues 2 Consideration of calling a closed session of the Council do discuss the TDS litigation and 3 Possible interchange at County Road 39 4 Citizen comments petitions requests and concerns No one spoke under citizens comments 5 Consent Agenda A Consideration of ratifying hires and departures MCC and Building Department Recommendation Ratify the hiredepartures as identified Council Minutes August 11 2008 B Consideration of approving atemporary liquor license for awine tasting event for HiWay Liquors for October 17 2008 at the Monticello Community Center Recommendation Approve a temporary liquor license for HiWay Liquors for October 17 2008 at the Monticello Community Center C Consideration to approve a one day charitable gambling license for Wright County Ducks Unlimited Chapter 039 for a raffle at River City Extreme 3875 School Boulevard on September 22 2008 Recommendation Adopt a resolution approving a one day charitable gambling license for Wright County Ducks Unlimited Chapter 039 for a raffle at River City Extreme 3875 School Boulevard on September 28 2008 Resolution No 200865 D Consideration of approving a temporary liquor license for Church of St Henrys Fall Festival on September 2021 2008 Recommendation Approve a temporary liquor license for the Church of St Henry for September 2021 2008 E Consideration of approving a temporary charitable gambling license for the Church of St Henrys Fall Festival on September 2021 2008 Recommendation Adopt a resolution authorizing the State Gambling Control Board to issue a charitable gambling license to the Church of St Henry to conduct charitable gambling activities at their fall festival on September 2021 2008 at the parish grounds at 1001 East 7 Street Resolution No 200866 F Consideration of approving a request for a conditional use permit for a comprehensive sign plan for amultitenant retail facility in the Central Community District CCD Applicant Scenic Sign Recommendation Approve the conditional use permit for a comprehensive sign plan for a shopping center located at 141 Broadway Avenue based on a finding that the proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance G Consideration of approving a request for an amendment to a conditional use permit for boundary adjustment and sign relocation in a B3 Highway Business District Applicant Amax Storage SelfStorage Recommendation Approve the PUD amendment for Amax Storage located at 36 Dundas Road based on a finding that the request is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and appropriate to the B3 District H Consideration of approving a request for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for amultitenant commercial development in a B3 Highway Business District Applicant CornerstoneDOJO LLC Recommendation Approve the PUDCUP based on a finding that the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the B3 District subject to the following conditions 1 The proposed site access point locations be revised subject to review and approval by the City Engineer 2 Any future proposal to accommodate uses which generate a greater offstreet parking demand ierestaurants the processing of a PUD amendment and additional parking shall be required 3 To better accommodate vehicular backing maneuvers the parking stall in the extreme southwest corner of the site along the sites southern boundary line be eliminated 2 Council Minutes August 11 2008 4 Building colors be specified and subject to City approval 5 The applicant revises the building materials as discussed in this report particularly as related to the building facades facing the surrounding streets 6 The landscape plan be amended to increase plantings on the site particularly along the south and west boundary areas 7 A photometric lighting plan be submitted in accordance with ordinance requirements subject to City approval 8 Consideration be given to attaching the two trash enclosures to the adjacent principal buildings Such enclosures or wing walls should be finished in materials similar to those used on the principal buildings 9 Requirements ofthe City Engineering staff are complied with as agreed to at the staffapplicant meeting on July 29 2008 10 Right of way dedication and vacations are finalized prior to final building permit approval 11 The freestanding monument sign shall be consistent with site buildings in terms of style material and color REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA J Consideration of approving a charge card at Holiday for DMV Recommendation Approve the credit card application for DMV with Holiday Station K Consideration of adopting an ordinance for false alarm charges for Fire Department Calls Recommendation Adopt the Fire Emergency Alarm System and Emergency Response Car Accident Fees Ordinance L Consideration of purchase ofone new Hydromatic 100 HP main lift pump with adapter brackets for the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant Recommendation Authorize the purchase of a new Hydromatic 100 hp replacement pump with adaptor brackets to fit the existing Ebarra rail system at a cost of 67816 plus freight and tax for atotal estimated cost of approximately 74000 This system has the shortest lead time of 1012 weeks M Consideration of authorizing advertising for Liquor Store Manager Recommendation Authorize advertising of the Liquor Store Manager position N Consideration ofhaving Bolton Menk Inc prepare a long range plan for the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant Recommendation Authorize Bolton Menk Inc to prepare the long range plan for the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant at a cost of 18000 to be completed within the next four months Brian Stumpf requested that agenda item 10 Consideration of having Bolton Menk Inc prepare a long range plan for the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant be moved to the consent agenda as item SN Items SH and SJ were pulled from the consent agenda BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH ITEMS SH AND SJ BEING REMOVED AND AGENDA ITEM 10 BEING ADDED AS SN TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 50 Council Minutes August 11 2008 6 Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion SH Conditional Use Permit for aplanned unit developmentfor amultitenant commercial development in a B3 Highway Business District Applicant CornerstoneDOJO LLC Clint Herbst stated that because this is a planned unit development the City should be getting something better in design He didnt feel that lap siding was compatible in a commercial area He said he didntknow what the trade off was on this building Community Development Director indicated that the applicant is in the process ofmaking upgrades to the facility design based on Planning Commission recommendations and is present at this meeting Gary DHeillyfrom DHeillyEngineering submitted a revised design drawing to the Council and reviewed some ofthe changes that were being proposed One major change was in the back elevation They continued with stones and increased the band across the top and sides Clint Herbst felt the changes were an improvement over what was shown before Jeff ONeill asked about the signage Gary DHeillyindicated that back lit signs are what they are looking at but a final decision has not been made He added that the type of signage selected will be uniform throughout the development Gary DHeillynoted that the building is only 144 feet long so they could not make too many additions without impacting the aesthetics Clint Herbst asked as aplanned unit development what was the tradeoff for the City The Planning Commission felt the use of the site and improvements to the building were sufficient Staff noted that the Planning Commission did not comment on the signage plan They did however recommend that the monument sign be constructed with materials consistent with what is used in the development Clint Herbst asked about possible restaurants being located there in the future and the impact on offstreetparking He said he didnt see anything on the plan that could be additional parking space The Council wants it known that there isnt offstreetparking in this area Susie Wojchouski felt that item 2 of the conditions of approval should be worded more strongly The situation is that there is no additional offstreetparking and any additional parking stalls needed because of a restaurant or other use that would generate a greater parking demand would have to be purchased from the adjacent property owner Tom Perrault questioned whether the brick shouldntcontinue all the way around the building so that back of the building mimics the building front Gary DHeillyfelt there was not enough space in the back to break it up Clint Herbst brought up the issue of the plantings for the site He felt the number of trees was excessive and when mature the trees could possibly end up blocking the view of the site and visibility is important for commercial property Jeff ONeill explained the standards are one tree for every SO lineal feet of site perimeter Staff noted that other commercial developments along TH 25 had adhered to the landscaping standards so this is consistent with what others had done Susie Wojchouski pointed out that the plan shows a tree in the median She expressed the concern that when the tree is mature it could impact visibility Clint Herbst noted there are areas in the downtown that are potential for development and he questioned how the landscaping standard would be applied there Jeff ONeill said staff will work with the applicant to get a reasonable number oftrees on the site 4 Council Minutes August 11 2008 CLINT HERBST MOVED TO APROVE THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DOJO LLC WITH THE CHANGES IN DESIGN AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWING SUBMITTED AT THE COUNCIL MEETING BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B3 DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED BELOW 1 The proposed site access point locations be revised subject to review and approval by the City Engineer 2 Any future proposal to accommodate uses which generate a greater offstreetparking demand ie restaurants the processing of a PUD amendment and additional parking shall be required 3 To better accommodate vehicular backing maneuvers the parking stall in the extreme southwest corner of the site along the sites southern boundary line be eliminated 4 Building colors be specified and subject to City approval 5 The applicant revises the building materials as discussed in this report particularly as related to the building facades facing the surrounding streets 6 The landscape plan be amended to increase plantings on the site particularly along the south and west boundary areas 7 A photometric lighting plan be submitted in accordance with ordinance requirements subject to City approval 8 Consideration be given to attaching the two trash enclosures to the adjacent principal buildings Such enclosures or wing walls should be finished in materials similar to those used on the principal buildings 9 Requirements of the City Engineering staff are complied with as agreed to at the staffapplicant meeting on July 29 2008 10 Right of way dedication and vacations are finalized prior to final building permit approval 11 The freestanding monument sign shall be consistent with site buildings in terms of style material and color AND TO HAVE STAFF REVISIT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN AND UPDATE THE COUNCIL ACCORDINGLY BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED THE MOTION MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 50 SJApprove credit card application for Holiday Gas Station Wayne Mayer stated the DMV is in the CCD District and there are at two other gas stations in the CCD District He questioned why the City excluded these stations Finance Director Tom Kelly said it doesnt make any difference where DMV gets their gas After talking to Tom Moores Tom Kelly feels this credit card would just be abackup and that the DMV would primarily be using the pump at the Public Works Building Wayne Mayer suggested the DMV could apply to the two stations that are in the CCD District Tom Kelly noted that the Public Works Department uses Reds WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO HAVE DMV CHARGE AT THE TWO LOCATIONS DOWNTOWN SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI SECONDED THE MOTION MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 50 5 Council Minutes August 11 2008 7 Public Hearing for proposed improvement to Jerry Liefert Drive and Kevin Longley Drive City Proiect No 20081OC City Engineer Bruce Westby provided background information on the scope of the work to be done on Jerry Liefert Drive and Kevin Longley Drive which includes milling and overlay ofthe bituminous surface and repair andor replacement of curb and gutter where needed Bruce Westby stated the project would also correct some drainage issues in the area The project is proposed to be funded through a mix of assessments and budgeted monies from the Street Department and the Street Reconstruction Fund Bruce Westby reviewed the PCI ratings that were used to evaluate the street and the work needed A PCI rating of 040 would indicate that areconstruction of the street is needed A PCI of4080 would indicate milling and overlay and a PCI of 80100would indicate sealcoating to be appropriate Kevin Longley Drive had a PCI of 5168 and Jerry Liefert Drive had arating of 6874 The estimated cost ofthe project is 27067458 It is proposed to assess 50 of the cost and the remaining 13533729 would be funded using 125000 from the Street Department budget and the remaining 1033729 from the Street Reconstruction Fund The total project costs includes indirect costs of 20 Indirect costs on new construction is about 28 The Council then looked at the method of assessing the 50 of the project costs It is proposed that single family and townhomes be assessed equally with double fronting lots assessed in the same manner as single fronting lots Based on 87 assessable units and an estimated assessable cost of 13533729 the cost per unit would be 155560 It is anticipated that if the project is approved plans and specifications will come back to the Council at their August 25th meeting with the Council considering awarding a contract at the September 22nd meeting The work would be completed this summer and the assessment hearing would be conducted on November 24th Mayor Herbst then opened the public hearing on the proposed improvements to Kevin Longley Drive and Jerry Liefert Drive Bill Seefeldt 167 Jerry Liefert Drive asked if this work included bringing the street level up to that ofthe railroad crossing He stated the street is not at the same level as the crossing and there is probably an elevation difference of at least 3 inches Council directed staff to check into this issue Charlene Jensen 218 Jerry Liefert Drive questioned why the City is doing these streets when there are other streets in worse condition She also asked about an area of the street when you come on to Kevin Longley Drive where water is standing She wondered if that was going to be corrected Clint Herbst responded that by doing this work now it extends the life of the street and saves money in the long run Bruce Westby indicated that curb and gutter will be extended out from Kevin Longley Drive to Prairie Road and there will be some grading in the ditch along Kevin Longley Drive Mike Renstrom 112 Kevin Longley Drive asked why the City didntbudget more than 125000 for this project Bruce Westby answered that the budgeted amount was based on 6 Council Minutes August 11 2008 the residents paying for a portion ofthe project He stated the cost ofbituminous has risen considerably so they tried to budget accordingly not knowing how much bituminous prices would increase Clint Herbst commented that if the City levied the total cost for all street improvement projects residents would be paying for the cost of all streets that were improved The Council felt levying part of the cost and assessing part of the cost seemed to be the fairest method Mike Renstrom asked what the life expectancy of a road is and was told it was 3035 years Mike Renstrom said the road was constructed in 1984 and he felt that most of the cracking of the street took place where the utilities were installed and were poorly compacted Bruce Westby stated in walking the area he didntrecall an area of settlement Mike Renstrom suggested that he look at the area of 112 Kevin Longley Drive Mike Renstrom said if the City is just overlaying something that was not properly installed to begin with they should expect that instead of this adding 1015 years to the life of the street it maybe closer to 67 The owner of the property at 212 Kevin Longley Drive stated he owned a duplex and noted that there are two other duplexes in the neighborhood He asked if they were going to be assessed in the same manner Since the duplex is not any bigger than a single family home he questioned why he should be assessed more Clint Herbst said each residential unit is treated as a separate unit He asked how many years the assessment would run Bruce Westby indicated this type ofassessment has typically been spread over 10 years The interest rate would be 1 higher than the interest rate the City would pay if the City was to bond for the improvements After the assessment is approved the property owner would have 30 days to pay without interest Dick Frie 206 Jerry Liefert Drive said he thought the timing ofthis project was good Even though bituminous costs have gone up the economic conditions have made it likely that contractors will be looking for work and the City should get good prices He asked when the proposed assessment amount would be known Bruce Westby indicated that the assessment hearing is tentatively scheduled for November 24th and that there will be mailed and published notice of this hearing Mary Rassat 162 Jerry Liefert Drive asked if the Council would reconsider assessing townhomes as separate units Clint Herbst said everyone uses the road to get to their homes and the City feels everyone should participate in the cost Brian Stumpf said he is not inclined to reconsider the assessment methodology since this seems to be the fairest way to handle the cost While he noted actual construction costs may change the dollar amount assessed he was not in favor of changing the assessment method Mayor Herbst closed the public hearing 8 Consideration of authorizing preaaration of Plans and Specifications for Kevin Lonley Drive Jerry Liefert Drive and Hawthorne Place North Street Imurovements City Proiect No 20081OC Bruce Westby reported on their study of Hawthorne Place North He stated there is water standing under the pavement which played a significant role in the deterioration of the street It is proposed to connect the existing drain the on the south side ofthe street to a catch basin and reroute the flow ofthe groundwater to a storm water pond The street will be resurfaced and some concrete curb and gutter will be replaced It is proposed to include this work as 7 Council Minutes August 11 2008 part of the Kevin Longley Drive and Jerry Liefert Drive project in order to get abetter price but the Hawthorne Place North part of the project will not be assessed to the abutting property owners The cost for the Hawthorne Place North portion of the project is estimated at 5554824 Wayne Mayer noted that before the residential development took place the area was a marshy and a good duck hunting spot Susie Wojchouski asked if the homeowners experienced water problems and how this proposed project would impact them Tom Moores had talked to the property owners in the area but they did not indicate any water problems However if there were water problems the work being proposed would reduce the amount of operation time for their sump pumps SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI MOVED TO AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR KEVIN LONGLEY DRIVE JERRY LIEFERT DRIVE AND HAWTHORNE PLACE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO 20081OC WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 50 9 City of Monticello GIS System presentation WSB Associates City Engineer Bruce Westby and John Mackiewicz from WSB Associates demonstrated some ofthe applications for the Citys GIS system In 2006 the City had authorized 35010 for development of a GIS system The purpose of the presentation is to show some of the uses for this technology and to discuss costs for additional development of the system In discussing the applications for use the Council discussed being able to locate private utility lines It was noted by John Simola Public Works Director that the private utility companies asbunts are not always accurate and sometimes the utility companies are not forthcoming in providing this information to the City John Mackiewicz described some the improvements and refinements they would be looking at for the GIS system This included a discussion of cost Nothing was budgeted for 2008 but it was proposed to budget funds in 2009 for software costs and training and in 2010 for data resources development 28300 is budgeted in Engineering for system enhancements and the software cost is budgeted in the capital outlay budget Brian Stumpf asked about the 35010 that was authorized by the Council that was used to develop the system and why in 2009 28300 is needed to enhance the system He felt the City could better utilize what they have before spending additional funds for enhancements John Mackiewcz stated that the system is not utilized as much because some department information is not integrated with the system He felt the upgrades will make the system faster and easier Clint Herbst felt this was an ongoing cost of getting information into the system so it can be used Since the system is being used by a limited number of staff Brian Stumpf suggested budgeting money for training and then when staff is utilizing the system more look at upgrades to the system Susie Wojchouski asked about updating of the database and when it will be good enough without constant update and will it get to a point where the database is obsolete Bruce Westby felt the City had not tapped the potential of the system Clint Herbst asked what future City Councils could expect to keep this system up and running John Mackiewicz felt the City needs to have a good set of standards in place when development takes place To upgrade the system some of the cost could be passed on to the developers The parcel 8 Council Minutes August 11 2008 update is by the County so that cost is minimal It was estimated that maintenance cost of the system would be about 4000year Clint Herbst said its a difficult thing to do but if the Council could see how much time was saved or how service was improved it would be worth knowing Clint Herbst suggested this was something the Council should think about before making a decision BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO TABLE ANY ACTION ON DEVELOPMENT OF THE GIS SYSTEM TO A FUTURE MEETING TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 50 10 Consideration of having Bolton Menk Inc prepare a long range plan for the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plan Moved to the consent agenda as item SN with the recommendation to authorize the long range plan 11 Review and consideration of acceptance of the 2008 Annual Sidewalk Inspection Report for the City of Monticello Public Works Director John Simola presented the sidewalk inspection report for 2008 He stated there are 22 sidewalk panels that need replacement and 40 areas that need grinding Specific areas of concern were on Cedar Street in front of the Cedar Crest Apartments the US Bank site on 3 Street West a segment along Hart Boulevard and a segment along Farmstead Drive For sidewalk on the grid system the City will repair or replace two panels at no charge to the property owners The cost of the materials for the sidewalk repairs are budgeted and the labor comes from the Public Works Department In discussing the sidewalk repairs Clint Herbst felt it would be worth the Citys time to log these repairreplacement sites into the Citys system so that they could be tracked SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI MOVED TO ACCEPT THE 2008 SIDEWALK INSPECTION REPORT AS DRAFTED AND AUTHORIZE THE REPAIR WORK TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 50 12 Consideration and discussion and clarification of Council directives on facility needs and improvements Staff questioned at the last meeting whether the Council had authorize staff to consider expansion of the garagestorage building former Eisele property to accommodate the relocation of the DMV to that site but that was not specifically spelled out Brian Stumpf stated that was the Councils intent to relocate the DMV It was felt the DMV expansion was more an emergency type need since the DMV will need the space in order to offer the drivers license service The Council briefly discussed angled parking at the garagestorage building and possibility of a drive through The Council also discussed the signs that are stored at the site Gary Anderson Chief Building Official indicated that the normal process is to notify the sign owner that they have a set number of days to claim the sign If the signs are not claimed within that time frame they are destroyed However with the flood of building permits from the storm damage the workload has not allowed this to occur The Council suggested having an employee call the 9 Council Minutes August 11 2008 number listed on the sign and indicate they have 24 hours to pick up the sign Any sign not picked up within that time frame would be destroyed In further discussion the Council recommended that whenever City staff saw signs placed in public right of way they should call the number on the sign and let them know that they have 24 hours to pick it up or it would be removed The employee would check back after 24 hours and if the sign was not removed the City would remove and destroy it BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO AUTHORIZE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING GARAGESTORAGE FACILITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE DMV Tom Perrault felt the library site should be considered for a possible location for the DMV He noted there is room for expansion and the parking lot is in place so that would not be a cost for the city Some Councilmembers questioned the compatibility of the library and DMV uses being in the same site BRIAN STUMPF WITHDREW HIS MOTION TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO AUTHORIZE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL LOOKING AT THE EXISTING GARAGESTORAGE FACILITY THE PRESENT LIBRARY SITE AND THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET FROM CITY HALL AS POSSIBLE LOCATIONS MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO AUTHORIZE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO LOOK AT EXPANSION OF THE GARAGESTORAGE FACILITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE DMV AND STORAGE NEEDS AS DISCUSSED BY COUNCIL WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION MOTION CARRIED WITH TOM PERRAULT VOTING IN OPPOSITION 41 Gary Anderson asked if the RFP should be limited to local contractors and the Council concurred with using local contractors Gary Anderson also verified with council their recommendation for disposal ofthe signs Jeff ONeill stated he would check with the City Attorney for any recommendations before implementing the directive of the Council regarding the signs Added Items PosustaLundsten Land Issues Jeff ONeill asked that staff and two members of the Council be authorized to discuss the issue with the parties to see if they can come to some kind of settlement Brian Stumpf questioned why this issue was not being handled by the two property owners but felt if the issue was going to be dealt with by the Council it should be done by the full Council The consensus of the Council was that it should be handled by the full Council Clint Herbst stated he wanted the information prior to the meeting as he did not feel comfortable being asked for a decision without adequate time to review the issues and related data TDS Litigation Jeff ONeill asked that Council consider setting a special closed meeting to discuss the litigation The tentative date for the closed meeting is Monday August 18a at 7 am assuming legal counsel is available 10 Council Minutes August 11 2008 Interchange at County Road 39 Clint Herbst had met with John Chadwick and discussed the possibility of looking at County Road 39 as a location for an interchange An interchange in this location would be an impetus to development in the area Brian Stumpf asked if the interchange at County Road 39 would be in addition to the one proposed at Orchard Road and Clint Herbst indicated it would be just one or the other Bruce Westby stated he had talked to Terry Humphreys from MnDOT and he said the necessary studies would have to be done but two interchanges is not out ofthe question Bruce Westby said as part of the Transportation Plan they would be looking at locations for an interchange Clint Herbst felt that County Road 39 because the bridge is already there would not be as expensive Clint Herbst said the City should be looking at a simple solution that would open up the area Bruce Westby said the City could build something cheaper but the process of getting it in place is the same regardless of what is built so time wise it will not be any faster Bruce Westby said the traffic and environmental studies that are required would take considerable time Brian Stump felt the primary problem is TH 25 and the river crossing Susie Wojchouski asked when the Transportation Plan would be coming back before the Council Bruce Westby said it is tentatively scheduled for September 22d Staff hopes to include information on the closure ofRiver Street at TH 25 as part of the study Clint Herbst asked if they could get some cost figures for a design on County Road 39 Staff will work on preliminary cost figures Other Tom Perrault stated he had served on the committee looking at other wastewater treatment plant issues and he would like to continue to work on the committee dealing with the long range planning study the Council had authorized The Council was in agreement with that 13 Consideration of approvinS payment of bills for August 2008 BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF THE BILLS TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 50 14 Adiourn TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 940 PM SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI SECONDED THE MOTION MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 50 Recording Secretary 11 Planning Commission Agenda – 09/06/11 1 8. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for a Bank Facility with Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access. Applicant: SA Group Properties, Inc. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND SA Group Properties, Inc. is requesting an extension of the conditional use permit issued for a commercial development project at Broadway Market. On August 1st, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for cross parking, cross access and a drive-through for the commercial development proposed at the corner of CSAH 75 and CSAH 39. The site is 2.38 acres in area and is zoned B-4, Regional Business. The City Council approved the CUP in a series of approvals on August 28th, September 25th and October 9th, 2006. Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for the CUP will expire on September 25, 2011. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits expire due to non-use after one year. As such, the applicant has requested a one-year extension. The Planning Commission will note that the property owner has taken steps to properly maintain the site in accordance with City Code. Any extension of the CUP is conditioned on continued compliance with City codes relative to public nuisances. All previously approved conditions will also apply to any extension of the permit. The planning report for the original item has been provided for reference. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend extension for one year of the September 25th, 2006 Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access for the Broadway Market Development, with the condition that all previously approved conditions be assigned to the extension. 2. Motion to recommend denial of an extension of the September 25th, 2006 Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access for the Broadway Market Development, based on a finding to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the extension request. The request is consistent with current and proposed objectives for the B-4 District. Planning Commission Agenda – 09/06/11 2 D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Applicant Request Exhibit B: Planning Commission Report, August 1, 2006 Exhibit C: Planning Commission Minutes, August 1, 2006 Exhibit D: City Council Minutes - August 28th, 2006 September 25th, 2006 October 9th, 2006 Exhibit E: Conditional Use Permit Plan documents Exhibit F: Current Site Images Planning Commission Agenda – 8/1/06 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for cross parking and cross access and a request for Conditional Use Permit for a drive- through facility in a B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: Steiner Development. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Steiner Development is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for cross parking, cross access and a drive-through facility for a shopping center located at the corner of CSAH 75 and CSAH 39, west of O’Ryan’s. The site is 3.39 acres in area and is zoned PZM, Performance Mixed-Use. The applicant is proposing a 22,070 square foot commercial shopping center with multiple tenants to be located in the southeast portion of the site. The remainder of the site will be utilized for parking. A future commercial site is planned for the northwest corner of the site. This site will be subdivided at the time of development and processed as a separate application. Parking. The proposed building is approximately 22,070 square feet in area. Neither the proposed uses for the building or the approximate square footage dedicated for each tenant have been indicated on site plan. A drive-thru window is proposed for the south end of the building. The applicant has indicated that a potential tenant for this portion of the building would be a coffee shop. This unit is shown at 1,723 square feet. The total kitchen and dining areas for this tenant have not been provided. Staff has therefore estimated the area of the kitchen at 1/3 of the buildings, or 575 square feet each. The zoning ordinance permits a reduction in the gross square footage by 10% to account for mechanical space and other non-productive floor area. Tenants for the remainder of the site are assumed to be various retail services. As such, the required parking is as follows: Use Standard Required Spaces Coffee Shop/Restaurant Kitchen: 575 square feet Dining: 1,148 square feet 1 space for each 40 square feet of dining area 1 space for each 80 square feet of kitchen area 29 spaces 8 spaces Sub-total: 37 spaces Retail: 20,347 square feet 1 space for each 200 square feet 102 spaces Total (gross square footage): 139 spaces Less 10% - 14 spaces Total Parking Spaces required: 125 spaces 128 spaces have been provided, including four handicapped stalls. During a meeting with the applicant, it was indicated that a potential restaurant tenant may also occupy Planning Commission Agenda – 08/01/06 2 the northernmost unit within the strip center. A second restaurant use would create a parking deficiency. A restaurant tenant of the same size as the coffee shop would increase the total number of required spaces for the site by as many at 25 additional spaces. Staff does not support addressing the deficiency in parking by a joint parking arrangement without knowing the exact tenants for the site. Staff would also recommend limiting the number of restaurant uses on the site to one (not including the proposed future commercial pad). Any additional restaurant uses would require utilizing the future commercial site for parking. Conditional Use Permit Staff does not believe it would be feasible to assume that there will be no conflicts in the operating hours of multiple tenants. As such, we recommend a parking requirement that calculates the necessary spaces for each individual use. Based on the calculations above, the site meets the required parking, without cross easements, for the strip center area, based on the inclusion of one restaurant. At the time that the applicant has identified a tenant for the individual commercial pad, it will be appropriate to consider conditional use permit for cross parking between the strip center and the pad site, should additional parking beyond the required amount be needed. The Conditional Use Permit for cross access between commercial parking lots would be appropriate for this use, minimizing the need for vehicles to use the public street when circulating between commercial properties. Signage According to ordinance, in the case of a building where there are two or more uses and which, by generally understood and accepted definitions, is considered to be a shopping center or shopping mall, a conditional use permit may be granted to the entire building in accordance to an overall site plan indicating their size, location, and height of all signs presented to the Planning Commission. A maximum of 5% of the gross area of the front silhouette shall apply to the principal building where the aggregate allowable sign area is equitably distributed among the several businesses. The building may also have one pylon or freestanding sign identifying the building, in conformance with this ordinance. Two monument signs are proposed for site, as well as wall signage. Monument signs are shown on the corner of the site, at the intersection of CSAH 75 and CSAH 39, and at the entrance to the site off Hart Boulevard. A future sign is also indicated on the west side of the site, adjacent to the future commercial structure. This sign would accommodate that future building, and will instead be reviewed as part of any future application. The applicant has not provided details on the height or area of the monument signs or the area of the wall signs. Building elevations are not to scale, preventing staff from determining the gross area of the silhouette of the building. Based on the information has been provided, the concept plan exceeds the total amount of signage allowed. The applicant is proposing two monument signs, as opposed to the one allowed by ordinance, which would require a separate variance process. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/01/06 3 The tenants on the north and south ends of the building have wall signage on both the front and side of the building. Signage on both walls may be allowed if the total area of signage for the sight does not exceed the maximum requirement. T In summary, until exact building dimension information and sign dimension information, staff is unable to recommend approval of the sign plan as presented for this application. Drive Through The applicant is proposing a “low-volume” drive through in the northeast corner of the site. As proposed, the design provides a 12 foot wide drive lane with approximately 40 feet of stacking space behind the order board and 80 feet of stacking space behind the window. With the driveway length provided, at most, the drive-through would provide stacking space for four cars. Any excess vehicles would spillover into the parking lot, and block access to parking stalls. This would potentially create parking and traffic congestion problems. A low volume drive-thru would typically accommodate a business such as a coffee shop. The existing Caribou Coffee drive-thru has an average of five to six cars in the drive lane, with more during peak periods. Therefore additional stacking space is necessary. Staff recommends that a minimum of 40 additional feet of stacking space be provided to accommodate six vehicles, as measured from the pick-up window. The additional space necessary to extend the drive lane may require removal of three parking stalls to the west of the entrance. Removal of those three stalls would still allow the applicant to meet parking requirements, based on one restaurant tenant. Access/Circulation Access to the site is planned at two points off Hart Boulevard. The main entrance is located approximately 150 feet southeast of CSAH 39. A drive lane ranging from 24 feet to 26 feet wide will accommodate two lanes of traffic throughout the site. A one- way drive lane is proposed near the primary access to provide access to twelve angled parking stalls on the northeast side of the building. A 25-foot drive lane has been provided as a passing lane around the drive-through service lane. This drive lane will also provide a connection to the O’Ryan site to the south. A second access is located 80 feet south of the primary access. This drive provides access to the rear of the building. Staff is concerned with the orientation of this drive lane. This drive lane will be used by trucks for deliveries and garbage pick-up. As such, the drive lane should be treated as a one-way, with trucks only allowed to enter from Hart Boulevard. Appropriate signage should be posed at the entrance to this drive lane, indicating a “trucks only” entrance. All other vehicles will be able to utilize this drive lane to exit the site onto Hart Boulevard. The northwest corner of the site is to be subdivided and submitted as a separate application. As such, the edge of the drive aisle adjacent to the future site shall be curbed until any future development takes place. Staff recommends bituminous curbing, as it is expected to be temporary. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/01/06 4 Pedestrian access is accommodated with a series of pedestrian ramps. Said ramps connect the west portion of the parking to the sidewalk in front of the building. Pedestrian ramps also connect the site to an 8-foot bituminous trail located along CSAH 39. The site plan indicates that this trail is to be constructed by others. After review of the development agreement related to this plat, it has been determined that the trail will be constructed by the City. A ten-foot boulevard is required between the trail and CSAH 39. Said trail will connect to a sidewalk located along the west side of Hart Boulevard. 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 site has approximately 1563 lineal feet of perimeter, requiring 32 overstory trees, as opposed to the 23 that would be required under the floor area calculation. The applicant has provided 25 trees along the perimeter of the site, with four provided within landscaped islands. Proposed plantings include nine Autumn Blaze Maples, five Fallgold Ash, three Red Baron Crabapple, five Sentry American Linden, and three Colorado Spruce. The number of trees provided is nine short of the minimum requirement. A variety of shrubs and perennials are also planned for the site, including juniper shrubs, Goldflame Spirea, Red Gnome Dogwood, daylilies, and Summer Wine Ninebark. A seventh shrub, labeled as SKH, has not been identified in the plant schedule. The landscape plan shall be revised to include the name of the species. The code allowed for an equivalent of up to 50% of the required number of overstory trees to be created through the use of overstory trees in combination with other landscape design elements such as ornamental trees, shrubs, flowers, and berming. In no case shall the number of overstory trees be less than 50% of the above formula. The burden shall be upon the developer to demonstrate by narrative and by graphics how the equivalent effect is provided. The equivalent effect is subject to the approval of the City Council. After reviewing the proposed perennials and shrubs, staff does not recommend accepting shrubs as a substitute for the required number of trees. The juniper shrubs illustrated along perimeter of the site adjacent to CSAH 39 and Hart Boulevard are not expected to be large or dense enough to be considered equivalent to the tree requirement. Staff recommends that a minimum of seven additional trees be planted along CSAH 39 and Hart Boulevard. Staff also recommends movable planters surrounding both patio areas to screen the patios from the adjacent drive lanes. Particular attention should be paid to the portion of the south patio adjacent to the order board. Building Design The applicant has provided building elevations indicating the t ypes of materials to be used. Typical materials would include masonry brick, EIFS, canvas awnings, decorative sun screens, and rock face block. The center of the building steps down to Planning Commission Agenda – 08/01/06 5 avoid a long, monotonous façade. Submitted elevations are in black and white. Staff is comfortable with the proposed materials. However, we recommend that colored elevations be submitted to provide a more detailed illustration. Proposed materials for the trash enclosure have not been indicated. Staff recommends that said materials match those of the principal structure. In addition to building materials, staff is concerned with the location of two proposed patios, one each on the north and south ends of the building. The south patio, in front of the coffee shop, is approximately 450 square feet. This patio will contain tables for outdoor seating during the spring and summer months. No buffer is proposed to separate the outdoor seating area from the adjacent drive lane and drive-through order board. Staff recommends, at a minimum, the patio be enclosed by a decorative fence and contain moveable planters for additional screening, particularly adjacent to the drive-through order board. A similar patio, approximately 580 square feet in size is proposed for the tenant on the north end of the building. If this patio is to be used for an outdoor seating area of any kind, staff recommends similar measures to buffer the patio from the adjacent drive lane. Grading, Drainage, and Utilities. All grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The City Engineer has provided the following comments as a part of the Concept Plan review: 1. The slight jog in the trail along the east side of CSAH 39 from CSAH 75 should be eliminated provided there is enough space for landscaping and boulevard width. 2. Signage should be incorporated at the east entrance to only allow trucks to enter for access along the east side of the building. 3. The sanitary sewer system should include manholes, not cleanouts. A sampling manhole should be included for each service. 4. Provide traffic control to keep one lane of traffic open when making the watermain connection at Hart Blvd. 5. Provide fire flow calculations and check with the fire marshall on hydrants required within the site. 6. Reroute the storm sewer system along the east side of the site from CBMH 4 to CBMH 3 to avoid crossing utilities at an angle. 7. Engineering staff is in the process of reviewing the storm sewer calculations and may require storm sewer to be extended from the northwest corner of the site to connect into the system within the site instead of providing the curb cut. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/01/06 6 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for Joint Parking. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit a Joint Parking Arrangement, based on a finding that the proposed arrangement would meet the requirements for off-street parking, subject to the Conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a joint parking arrangement for Broadway Market. Decision 2: Conditional Use Permit for Joint Access. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit a Joint Parking Arrangement, based on a finding that the proposed arrangement would meet the requirements for off-street parking, subject to the Conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a joint parking arrangement for Broadway Market. Decision 3: Conditional Use Permit for Drive-Through Facility 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit a Joint Parking Arrangement, based on a finding that the proposed arrangement would meet the requirements for off-street parking, subject to the Conditions listed in Exhibit Z. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit for a joint parking arrangement for Broadway Market. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Broadway Market is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for joint commercial access and cross parking. The CUP for joint access is appropriate, and staff recommends approval. However, total parking supply may be an issue if the applicant leases any of the space to restaurant or café uses. In that event, a portion of the future development area would need to be converted to parking for the project. The applicant is also seeking a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through facility for the retail strip center. Staff recommends approval of said plans, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit Z. Planning Commission Agenda – 08/01/06 7 SUPPORTING DATA A. Aerial Site Image B. Project Narrative C. Applicant Submittal Package – Dated 5/18/06 a. Site Survey b. Site Plan c. Utility Plan d. Grading Plan e. Storm Water Plan f. Construction Details g. Landscaping Plan h. Lighting Plan i. Building Elevations j. Building Plans D. Sign Ordinance E. B-4 District Ordinance Planning Commission Agenda – 08/01/06 8 EXHIBIT Z 1. The site plan shall be revised to create at least 40 feet of additional stacking space behind the order board. 2. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide 7 additional overstory trees along CSAH 39 and Hart Boulevard. 3. The landscape plan shall be revised to identify “SKH,” as indicated on the plant schedule. 4. The applicant shall provide details on height and face area of all proposed signage. The sign plan shall conform to ordinance standards. 5. The applicant shall provide colored building elevations, including dimensions of the building, including the front façade. 6. The entrance to the east driveway shall be signed “trucks only.” 7. The sign adjacent to the future commercial site shall be reviewed as part of any application for the future site. The future development should be surrounded by bituminous curbing to establish an edge to the circulation and drainage of the main parking area. 8. Both patios shall be surrounded with fencing and moveable planters. 9. The applicant shall comply with any recommendations of the City Engineer. BR O A D W A Y M A R K E T ST E I N E R C O N S T R U C T I O N S E R V I C E S MO N T I C E L L O , M N SI T E P L A N 1- 0 6 - 0 2 2 1 6/ 1 3 / 0 6 C1 C6 Broadway Market Site—August, 2011 Planning Commission Agenda – 09/06/11 1 9. Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-through facility in the Central Community District and to allow joint parking and drives. Applicant: Masters 5th Avenue. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Masters 5th Avenue is requesting an extension of the conditional use permit for commercial development project known as Landmark Square II, located at the corner of 3rd and Locust Streets. On September 6th, 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for cross parking, cross access and a drive-through for the commercial development proposed, in addition to the Variance from parking lot standards. The site is .75 acres in area and is zoned CCD. The City Council approved the CUP on September 15, 2005. Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for the CUP will expire on September 15th, 2011. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance requires that conditional use permits expire due to non-use after one year. As such, the applicant has requested a one-year extension. The Planning Commission will note that the property owner has taken steps to properly maintain the site in accordance with City Code. All previously approved conditions will also apply to any extension of the permit. The planning report for the original item has been provided for reference. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend extension for one year of the September 15, 2005 Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access for the Landmark Square II Development, with the condition that all previously approved conditions be assigned to the extension. 2. Motion to recommend denial of an extension for one year of the September 15, 2005 Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access for the Landmark Square II Development, based on a finding to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the extension request for one additional year. However, any future extensions should be considered within the scope of the pending approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment relating to the downtown, adoption of the Embracing Downtown plan and amendment to the existing CCD regulations. Planning Commission Agenda – 09/06/11 2 D. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Applicant Request Exhibit B: Planning Commission Report, September 6th. 2005 Exhibit C: Planning Commission Minutes, September 6th, 2005 Exhibit D: City Council Minutes, September 25th, 2005 Exhibit E: Conditional Use Permit Plan documents From:BarryFluth[barryfluth@charter.net] Sent:Monday,August29,20118:02PM To:AngelaSchumann Subject:Re:RequestforCUPExtension TotheMonticelloCityPlanningCommission: ThisisaformalrequestforaoneyearextensionoftheConditionalUsePermitfor theLandmarkSquareIIproject. Thankyou. Master’sFifthAvenue,Inc. BarryFluth,President Planning Commission Agenda: 09/06/11 1 11. Consideration of an Amendment to Final Stage PUD for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for Quad Development. Applicant: Monticello-Big Lake Pet Hospital (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Planning Commission is asked to approve an amendment to the final building elevation plan for the proposed Monticello-Big Lake Pet Hospital. The Planning Commission recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Veterinary Facility and an amendment to Planned Unit Development for Quad Development during its regular May meeting, and subsequently approved a final stage PUD for the detailed elevation plan for the development. Since the time of that approval, the applicant has been working with their architect and contractor to finalize building plans. At this time, the applicant would like to propose the removal of the stone wainscot along the west, north and south sides of the building, leaving the wainscot along the front elevation, or east side. The originally approved elevation and landscaping plan are attached for reference. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve the amended building elevations as presented as a part of a final stage planned unit development for Quad Development. 2. Motion to approve the amended building elevations as part of a final stage planned unit development for Quad Development, subject to modifications as directed by the Commission. 3. Motion to deny the amended building elevations as part of a final stage planned unit development for Quad Development. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The stone wainscot adds significant definition to the building. However, the varied roofline, roofline cornice detail, and the window placement serve to create a breakup of each of the building planes. Staff would recommend retaining the wainscot along the highly visible north elevation, which fronts School Boulevard. Although the rear elevation will also be visible from State Highway 25, improvements in landscaping may help break the visual plane along that edge. As an alternative to the requirement to retain the stone on the west elevation, the Planning Commission could recommend instead the placement of a small number of additional overstory trees along the rear elevation. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Approved Building Elevations B. Landscape Plan Planning Commission Agenda: 09/06/11 11. Tabled 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: At the August Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners indicated support for the amendments as proposed. However, the Commission did question the ordinance requirement for all switching equipment to be located within the Fibernet head -end building when within 1000' of the building itself, proposed section 4.13(E)(6)(e)(iv). The Commission opened and closed the public hearing on the amendment itself, but requested that staff provided clarification on the need for that requirement. Staff followed up with the City Administrator and Public Works Director regarding this provision. Commission will note that ordinance section 4.13(E)(2) requires that any new antenna structures be co -located when within % mile of an existing co -location site. The Jefferson Commons site, the location of the Fibernet head -end building, is also the site of a municipal water tower, which serves as an antenna co -location site. Therefore, Public Works felt strongly that all switching equipment should be centralized. This would avoid a cluttering of small utility structures under the water tower, which presents both maintenance and security issues for the City. In short, the requirement for co -location of the antenna structures themselves necessitates the co -location of the switching and power equipment. Staff is also seeking final clarification on the district information noted below: Conditional use, permitted use, prohibited districts for co -location of antennae for personal wireless services. See provision (D)(1)(a). Conditional use, permitted use, prohibited districts for new antenna support structures for personal wireless services. See provision (D)(2). To follow is the full June staff report, as well as the original Supporting Data. 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 Planning Commission Agenda: 09/06/11 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. 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. 2 Planning Commission Agenda: 09/06/11 • (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. • (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. Planning Commission Agenda: 09/06/11 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 4 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 11B 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 Section (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 con stitutes 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 o r 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 t he 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 improvements 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 their 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 11C Proposed Use Table Amendment (3) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures TABLE 5-4: 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 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) 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 11D 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, flowers, 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. ORDINANCE NO. 536 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 — MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE RELATED TO SECTION 4.13 — TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 4.13 — Telecommunication Towers and Antennas, Title 10 - Zoning Ordinance is hereby deleted and replaced with the following section: 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. ORDINANCE NO. 536 (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 Section (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. (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 ORDINANCE NO. 536 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: (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 (a) Co -location of antennae for personal wireless services shall be a permitted accessory use in "B", Business, "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. (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. ORDINANCE NO. 536 (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. (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. (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 ORDINANCE NO. 536 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. (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: ORDINANCE NO. 536 (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 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. (b) A statement describing the proposed project, together with written justification supporting the proposed installation. ORDINANCE NO. 536 (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 improvements 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 their service life, or upon discontinued use. (k) A security acceptable to the City adequate to ensure safe removal of all improvements upon decommissioning. (1) A development agreement specifying the terms of the Conditional Use Permit, including improvements, decommissioning, financial security, and other elements. (in) 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. The owner of the tower and the owner of the property are both responsible for removal of the tower as required by this Section. ORDINANCE NO. 536 Section 2. Section 5.3 — Accessory Use Standards, Title 10 — Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: Section 5.3 (C) - Table 5-4 shall be amended with the following additions and subtractions: (3) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures Section 3. Section 8.4 — Definitions, Title 10 — Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: 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 followingg: ANTENNA. PRIVATE AMATEUR RADIO: Shall mean equipment. includin 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. ACCESSORYTABLE 5-4: Types Base Zoning Districts "P" = Permitted — — AdditionalUse .Requirements "I" = Interim Permitted • T2 D C Private Amateur Radio P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 4.13(Al Private Receiving Antennae and P P P P P P P P P P p p p p p 4.13(B) Antenna Support Structures Commercial Transmission/ C C C C C C 4.13(C) Reception Antennae/Structures — — — — — — Co -located Wireless CC C C C C C C C C C C C C C 4.13(D) Telecommunications Antennae — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Wireless Telecommunications C — C — C C — — C — C — C C C C 4.13(D) 4.13(E) Support Structures Cemmand unkatmen ..... �« c«�,,,nas Antenna P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P } Satellite Dish e..«,...n P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Section 3. Section 8.4 — Definitions, Title 10 — Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: 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 followingg: ANTENNA. PRIVATE AMATEUR RADIO: Shall mean equipment. includin 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. ORDINANCE NO. 536 ANTENNA, COMMERCIAL TRANSMISSIONAND RECEPTION. Shall mean commercial and industrial communications equipment accessory to business operations of one meter in width or-reater, 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 SUPPORT STRUCTURE: Anyfivestanding pole, telescoping mast, tower, tripod, or other structure which supports an antenna and is not a building op aftoehed to . Such structure may be freestanding or attached to a building or other device that conforms to this ordinance. Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. Revisions will be made online after adoption by Council. Copies of the complete Zoning Ordinance are available online and at Monticello City Hall. . VFAJWI 9111,19 . WMI rdLVrfi. I Axle IF, RAMAIMPir, Iiiii VIE &%%l . „� RIM I .. _ 11 OWN t, 'I. I - W'", " .. ..-HOMM2. i NMI ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE: Anyfivestanding pole, telescoping mast, tower, tripod, or other structure which supports an antenna and is not a building op aftoehed to . Such structure may be freestanding or attached to a building or other device that conforms to this ordinance. Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. Revisions will be made online after adoption by Council. Copies of the complete Zoning Ordinance are available online and at Monticello City Hall. ORDINANCE NO. 536 ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 12th day of September, 2011. CITY OF MONTICELLO Clint Herbst, Mayor ATTEST: Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator VOTING IN FAVOR: VOTING IN OPPOSITION: Planning Commission Agenda: 09/06/11 1 12. Community Development Director’s Report. (AS) Embracing Downtown Design Guidelines Work on the Embracing Downtown project has been moving along at a brisk pace, with much progress having been made on the Market Analysis and Transportation components. Beginnings of the Land Use component are also starting to take shape, along with the first analysis work on the Implementation piece. In the coming weeks, the Embracing Downtown Steering Committee will be holding a series of meetings regarding plan progress. On September 1st, the Steering Committee will be meeting to review the progress on the entire project to date. They will also receive a draft “zoning/district” map for the downtown, paired with a preliminary set of design guidelines for the preferred alternative land use plan. Then, on Friday, September 16th at 9:00 AM, the Steering Committee, along with the Monticello Downtown Business Association, and the Chamber’s Downtown Partnership, will be invited to attend a workshop session on the design guidelines. The workshop will offer the opportunity for the stakeholders to roll up their sleeves and define what the design of the revitalized downtown will be. From signage to materials, landscaping to pedestrian corridors, this workshop will be the forum for ideas on shaping Downtown Monticello for the future. This information is directly relevant to the Planning Commission’s work and therefore, staff would ask that the Planning Commission begin to more formally engage in the project. I would highl y encourage the Planning Commission to attend the workshop on the 16th. I know that morning meetings are difficult for the Commission, but understanding the genesis of the design guidelines will be critical to the development of ordinance language for the CCD and the review of the coming Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Embracing Downtown Plan as a whole. If you have any questions on this information, on the project, or you would like to receive materials in advance of the 16th, please contact me directly. Safe Routes to School I was fortunate to be able to attend the National Safe Routes to School Conference held in Minneapolis in late August. The conference offered a broad spectrum look at providing safe pedestrian and cycling transportation connections for children. The conference included topics ranging from design and engineering of safer pathway routes to their promotion through better land use and GIS tools. The conference information dovetails very well with projects and programs resulting from the Live Wright initiative, such as bicycle racks being placed at the Monticello schools, and better trail mapping for the community. I will be working with the School District, Street Superintendent and Park Superintendent over the next few months to look for opportunities to improve Monticello’s current system and more ways to collaborate on events and activities which encourage kids to walk/bike to school. This is a project where better planning can directly support and serve the community. More info to come . . . Planning Commission Agenda: 09/06/11 2 Sensible Land Use Coalition Staff attended a recent seminar hosted by the Sensible Land Use Coalition which focused on the financing side of development projects. A representative from NorthMarq Financial spoke about the commercial/industrial lending side of the equation, while a representative from Builders Development Finance addressed the residential side. The quick summary – the nationals are buying and building residential in the inner ring. Suburbs like Plymouth, Shakopee, Maple Grove, and Eden Prairie are seeing stabilization and growth in their new SF permits. Some of these areas are actually teetering on a pipeline supply shortage of residential lots. On the commercial/industrial side, projects are still very difficult to finance without significant equity investment by the developer. The star of the commercial financing picture is multi-family housing. These projects are attractive to investors and are being funded. The power point presentations from the seminar are attached for reference. PUD Ordinance Workshop Planning Commission is asked to set a date for the workshop. I have tentatively planned for Tuesday, September 20th, if that is acceptable to the Commission. Shoreland/Wild & Scenic Update I have spoken with Roger Stradal, our DNR Regional Representative, regarding the status of the review on our ordinances. With the recent State shutdown, localized flooding and consolidation of some DNR offices, he has been unable to complete a review. He stated that he will be sending the document directly to St. Paul for review and final comment. I indicated that I will be contacting him at the end of September for an update. If I do not receive feedback at that point, I will send formal notice for a60-day review by the State. Fi n a n c i n g Up d a t e Au g u s t 20 1 1 Da n Tr e b i l No r t h M a r q Ca p i t a l , LL C No r t h M a r q Ca p i t a l , LL C • Na t i o n a l Mo r t g a g e Ba n k i n g Fi r m Na t i o n a l Mo r t g a g e Ba n k i n g Fi r m – Ar r a n g e De b t / E q u i t y fo r Co m m e r c i a l RE • $7 Bi l l i o n An n u a l Pr o d u c t i o n Vo l u m e • $7 Bi l l i o n An n u a l Pr o d u c t i o n Vo l u m e • $4 0 Bi l l i o n Se r v i c i n g Po r t f o l i o • Si s t e r Co m p a n y of No r t h M a r q R E Services OV E R V I E W OV E R V I E W • Wh a t ty p e s of le n d e r s ar e ac t i v e no w ? Wh a t ty p e s of le n d e r s ar e ac t i v e no w ? • Wh a t ty p e s of pr o j e c t s ar e fi n a n c e a b l e ? • Wh a t ar e th e ra t e s on th e s e lo a n s ? Wh a t ar e th e ra t e s on th e s e lo a n s ? • Eq u i t y re q u i r e m e n t s an d so u r c e s • Le n d i n g as we mo v e fo r w a r d • Le n d i n g as we mo v e fo r w a r d Wh a t Ty p e s of Le n d e r s are Ac t i v e No w ? Li f e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n i e s Li f e In s u r a n c e Co m p a n i e s • Se v e r a l bu c k e t s of mo n e y al l se e k i n g yield Se v e r a l bu c k e t s of mo n e y , al l se e k i n g yield • Mo r t g a g e yi e l d s hi g h co m p a r e d to al t e r n a t i v e s al t e r n a t i v e s • Lo n g ‐te r m le n d e r s on hi g h qu a l i t y assets • Re l a t i v e l y co n s e r v a t i v e Li f e Co Qu a r t e r l y Co m m i t m e n t s Li f e Co Qu a r t e r l y Co m m i t m e n t s $5 0 $3 5 $4 0 $4 5 $$2 5 $3 0 $3 5 $1 0 $1 5 $20 $0$5 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20102011 20 0 1 20 0 2 20 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20102011 Co m m e r c i a l Mo r t g a g e ‐Ba c k e d Si i (C M B S ) Sec u r ities (C M B S ) • Pr o v i d e d by Wa l l St r e e t Pr o v i d e d by Wa l l St r e e t • Pa c k a g e d to g e t h e r an d so l d as bo n d s Mi d l ld id hih • Mi d to lon g ‐te r m len der on mid to high qu a l i t y as s e t s CM B S Or i g i n a t i o n Vo l u m e CM B S Or i g i n a t i o n Vo l u m e $8 0 , 0 0 0 ons $6 0 , 0 0 0 $7 0 , 0 0 0 Millio $4 0 , 0 0 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $3 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 Q00 Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10Q11 1Q 1Q 1Q 1Q 1Q 1Q 1Q 1Q 1Q 1Q 1Q1Q Go v e r n m e n t “Ag e n c i e s ” Go v e r n m e n t Ag e n c i e s • Fa n n i e Ma e Fr e d d i e Ma c & HU D Fa n n i e Ma e , Fr e d d i e Ma c & HU D • Mu l t i ‐fa m i l y , As s t Li v i n g , Af f o r d a b l e etc. pr o p e r t i e s pr o p e r t i e s • Lo n g ‐te r m le n d e r • Fa n n i e / F r e d d i e – fu t u r e in qu e s t i o n Ba n k s Ba n k s • Tr a n s i t i o n a l & te r m le n d i n g (s h o r t to mid‐ Tr a n s i t i o n a l & te r m le n d i n g (s h o r t to mid te r m ) • Pe r s o n a l gu a r a n t y re q u i r e d • Pe r s o n a l gu a r a n t y re q u i r e d • Lo o k to sp o n s o r , so wi l l i n g to le n d on l li l low e r qu a li ty re a l es t a t e MB A – Or i g i n a t i o n s In d e x MB A Or i g i n a t i o n s In d e x 40 0 30 0 35 0 20 0 1 Av e r a g e Qu a r t e r = 10 0 20 0 25 0 114 10 0 15 0 050 101 301 102 302 103 303 104 304 105 305 106 306 107 307 108 308 109 309Q10Q10 Q Q3 Q Q3 Q Q3 Q Q3 Q Q3 Q Q3 Q Q3 Q Q3 Q Q31Q3Q LE N D E R CO M P A R I S O N Li f e Co C M B S A g e n c y B a n k Pr o p e r t y Ty p e s A l l –H i g h Qu a l i t y Al l –M i d to Hi g h Qu a l i t y Mu l t i f a m i l y A l l Pe r s o n a l Gu a r a n t y No n e Ty p i c a l l y Re q u i r e d No n e Ty p i c a l l y Re q u i r e d No n e Ty p i c a l l y Re q u i r e d Pe r s o n a l Gu a r a n t y Gu a r a n t y Re q u i r e d Re q u i r e d Re q u i r e d Gu a r a n t y Re q u i r e d Lo a n ‐to ‐Va l u e 65 ‐75 % 70 ‐75 % 75 ‐80 % 75 % Lo a n to Va l u e 65 75 % 70 75 % 75 80 % 75 % Te r m 5 ‐25 Ye a r s 5 ‐10 Ye a r s 5 ‐20 Ye a r s 3 ‐7 Years Am o r t i z a t i o n 1 5 ‐25 Y e a r s 3 0 Ye a r s 3 0 Ye a r s 2 0 ‐25 Years Ra t e s 4 . 5 0 ‐5. 7 5 % 5 ‐6. 5 0 % 3 . 5 0 ‐4. 7 5 % 4 . 5 0 ‐5.25% WH A T TY P E S OF DE A L S AR E GE T T I N G DO N E NO W ? DO N E NO W ? • Mu l t i f a m i l y Mu l t i f a m i l y – De f i n i t e l y th e de s i r e d pr o p e r t y ty p e So u g h t by al l le n d e r ty p e s – So u g h t by al l le n d e r ty p e s – Li f e Co ’ s wi n n i n g hi g h qu a l i t y , lo w le v e r a g e Fu d a e t a l ey ou d ih t o – Fu nda menta l s very sou nd right now WH A T TY P E S OF DE A L S AR E GE T T I N G DO N E NO W ? DO N E NO W ? • Re t a i l Re t a i l – Le n d e r s pr e f e r gr o c e r y ‐an c h o r e d “N e c e s s i t y ” re t a i l re t a i l – Pr e f e r #1 or #2 gr o c e r in th e ma r k e t – Li f e Co ’s CM B S Ba n k s – Li f e Co s , CM B S , Ba n k s – Ca r e f u l un d e r w r i t i n g in ‐pl a c e re n t s as co m p a r e d to ma r k e t co m p a r e d to ma r k e t – Un a n c h o r e d re t a i l is di f f i c u l t (C M B S / B a n k ) WH A T TY P E S OF DE A L S AR E GE T T I N G DO N E NO W ? DO N E NO W ? • In d u s t r i a l / O f f i c e In d u s t r i a l / O f f i c e – Li f e Co ’ s on l y at hi g h qu a l i t y an d lo w e r le v e r a g e le v e r a g e – Ne a r ‐te r m le a s e ro l l o v e r ma k e s it di f f i c u l t – Ca r e f u l un d e r w r i t i n g in ‐pl a c e re n t s as – Ca r e f u l un d e r w r i t i n g in ‐pl a c e re n t s as co m p a r e d to ma r k e t WH A T TY P E S OF DE A L S AR E GE T T I N G DO N E NO W ? DO N E NO W ? • Si n g l e ‐te n a n t (I n v e s t o r ‐ow n e d ) Si n g l e te n a n t (I n v e s t o r ow n e d ) – Ex t r e m e l y di f f i c u l t un l e s s te n a n t is in v e s t m e n t gr a d e (B B B + ) an d ha s lo n g re m a i n i n g lease gr a d e (B B B + ) an d ha s lo n g re m a i n i n g lease te r m WH A T TY P E S OF DE A L S AR E GE T T I N G DO N E NO W ? DO N E NO W ? • Si n g l e ‐te n a n t (O w n e r ‐oc c u p i e d ) Si n g l e te n a n t (O w n e r oc c u p i e d ) – Ba n k an d / o r SB A pr o g r a m is th e be s t option • SB A ha s ex p a n d e d cr i t e r i a as pa r t of st i m u l u s SB A ha s ex p a n d e d cr i t e r i a as pa r t of st i m u l u s • SB A fe e s de c r e a s i n g an d ma x i m u m lo a n si z e s in c r e a s i n g • Up to 90 % fi n a n c i n g WH A T TY P E S OF DE A L S AR E GE T T I N G DO N E NO W ? DO N E NO W ? • Co n s t r u c t i o n (Al l pro per t y typ es ) ( pp y yp ) – Mu l t i f a m i l y is pr e f e r r e d pr o p e r t y ty p e • Up to 80 % Lo a n ‐to ‐co s t • Nu m e r o u s ex a m p l e s ac r o s s me t r o (8 , 5 0 0 + / ‐ pr o p o s e d ri g h t no w ) Ci l – Com m e r c ial • Bu i l d ‐to ‐su i t Ex Wh o l e Fo o d s Ed i n a – Ex . Wh o l e Fo o d s ‐ Ed i n a • La r g e pr e ‐le a s i n g re q u i r e m e n t s (7 5 % + ) – Ex : Fo r d Ce n t r e ‐ Mi n n e a p o l i s Ar e a P r o p e r t y # of Un i t s Up t o w n B e n n e t t Si t e 2 1 7 Up t o w n F l u x 2 1 6 Up t o w n 1 8 0 0 La k e 5 7 Up t o w n T r a c k 29 1 9 8 Up t o w n T h e Wa l k w a y 8 7 Up t o w n T h e Gr e e n l e a f (A f f o r d a b l e ) 6 3 Up t o w n B u z z a Bu i l d i n g (a k a Le h m a n n Ce n t e r , Af f o r d a b l e ) 1 2 0 Do w n t o w n H o l d e n Bu i l d i n g (H i s t o r i c Re h a b ) 1 2 0 Do w n t o w n P r e c i s i o n Bu i l d i n g (H i s t o r i c Re h a b ) 1 3 0 Do w n t o w n 8 0 0 3r d No r t h (H i s t o r i c Re h a b ) 2 0 7 Do w n t o w n 2 2 2 He n n e p i n (D o w n t o w n Ja g u a r ) 2 8 4 Do w n t o w n Fl o C o Fu s i o n (S t u d e n t ) 84 Do w n t o w n Fl o C o Fu s i o n (S t u d e n t ) 84 Do w n t o w n O a k St r e e t Ap a r t m e n t s 6 0 Do w n t o w n S t a d i u m Vi l l a g e Fl a t s 1 2 0 Do w n t o w n 1 0 0 3r d Av e SE (A f f o r d a b l e co m p o n e n t ) 2 0 0 Do w n t o w n 7 0 1 2n d St r e e t Ap a r t m e n t s 1 0 0 Do w n t o w n M i l l & Ma i n 3 7 5 Do w n t o w n S t o n e Ar c h Ap a r t m e n t s Ph a s e II 5 6 Do w n t o w n N o r t h Lo o p Vi l l a g e (a k a Do c k St r e e t Ap t s ) Ph a s e I 1 8 5 Do w n t o w n N o r t h Lo o p Vi l l a g e (a k a Do c k St r e e t Ap t s ) Ph a s e II 2 0 0 Do w n t o w n 1 0 3 Se c o n d St r e e t No r t h 2 5 9 Do w n t o w n T u r n s t o n e Gr o u p si t e 19 N. 8t h St 1 4 0 Do w n t o w n S o o Li n e Bu i l d i n g 1 2 0 Do w n t o w n 4 0 1 Oa k Gr o v e (B r a d Ho y t Si t e ) 1 2 4 Do w n t o w n M a g e l l a n De v e l o p m e n t Si t e (L o r i n g Pa r k ) 3 5 5 Bl o o m i n g t o n G e n e s e e (P e n n & Am e r i c a n ) 2 3 4 Bl i Sl b Th Ri h d l G 28 2 Bl oo m ing t o n Sl os bur g ‐ Th e Ri chd ale Gro u p 28 2 Bl o o m i n g t o n C o v i n g t o n at No r m a n Po i n t e 2 5 0 Ed i n a S o u t h d a l e Si t e 3 0 0 St . Lo u i s Pa r k E l l i p s e on Ex c e l s i o r Ph a s e II 6 0 St . Lo u i s Pa r k T h e We s t En d 1 1 9 St . Lo u i s Pa r k P a r k Su m m i t Ap a r t m e n t s 1 9 2 Pl y m o u t h P l y m o u t h Ap a r t m e n t s 1 5 7 St Pa u l F a r m e r ' s Ma r k e t Fl a t s 5 8 St Pa u l Pi o n e e r ‐En d i c o t t (H i s t o r i c Re h a b ) 55 St Pa u l Pi o n e e r En d i c o t t (H i s t o r i c Re h a b ) 55 St Pa u l P e n f i e l d 2 5 0 St Pa u l W e s t Si d e Fl a t s (1 4 2 ma r k e t , 36 af f o r d a b l e ) 1 7 8 55 Co r r i d o r L a k e & Hi a w a t h a (3 5 0 ma r k e t , 10 0 se n i o r , 10 0 af f o r d a b l e ) 5 5 0 55 Co r r i d o r 2 9 t h Av e n u e Ap a r t m e n t s 6 4 55 Co r r i d o r L o n g e l l o w St a t i o n 1 8 0 55 Co r r i d o r O a k s St a t i o n Pl a c e 1 0 4 PA R T I A L TW I N CI T I E S DE V E L O P M E N T PI P E L I N E PA R T I A L TW I N CI T I E S DE V E L O P M E N T PI P E L I N E Mo r t g a g e Ra t e s Mo r t g a g e Ra t e s Li f e Co C M B S A g e n c y B a n k In d e x 1 0 ‐Yr Tr e a s u r y 10 ‐Yr Sw a p 10 ‐Yr Tr e a s u r y 5‐YrSwap y p y p In d e x Ra t e 2 . 1 7 % 2 . 3 7 % 2 . 1 7 % 1 . 2 5 % “S p r e a d ” 2 . 1 0 % 3. 4 0 % 2. 4 0 % 3.00% To t a l N o t e Ra t e 4 . 2 7 % 5 . 7 7 % 4 . 5 7 % 4 . 2 5 % Mi s c Mo s t Li f e C o ’ s ha v e fl o o r s of No Fl o o r s N o Fl o o r s ManyBanks havefloorsof ha v e fl o o r s of 5% +/ ‐ have floors of 5% +/‐ Ca p i t a l St a c k Ca p i t a l St a c k 10 0 % 4% Eq u i t y 75 % 25 ‐35 % Eq u i t y Me z z a n i n e Fi n a n c i n g Pi e c e 16 % of to t a l (8 0 % of eq u i t y ) 50 % 25 % 80 % Fi r s t Mo r t g a g e 5. 5 0 % Ra t e 65 ‐75 % Fi r s t Mo r t g a g e 5. 0 % Ra t e 0% 20 0 6 ‐20 0 7 2 0 1 1 Ho w is th e Eq u i t y Ga p Be i n g Fi l l d ? Fi l l ed? • Hi s t o r i c Ta x Cr e d i t s Hi s t o r i c Ta x Cr e d i t s • Lo w ‐In c o m e Ho u s i n g Ta x Cr e d i t s N Mk T Cd i • New Mar ket Tax Cre di ts • TI F Ho w is th e Eq u i t y Ga p Be i n g Fi l l d ? Fi l l ed? CA S H CA S H $$$$ Fi l l i n g th e Eq u i t y Ga p Fi l l i n g th e Eq u i t y Ga p • In s t i t u t i o n a l Eq u i t y – La r g e r De a l s ($ 5 mi l l i o n in eq u i t y pe r de a l ) – Cl a s s “A ” as s e t s Pi d 90 % f it dd – Pro v id e 90 % of eq u it y ne e ded – De s i r e d re t u r n s in hi g h te e n ’ s to 20 + % • “Fr i e n d s & Fa m i l y ” or “Co u n t r y Cl u b ” • Fr i e n d s & Fa m i l y or Co u n t r y Cl u b – Sm a l l e r eq u i t y in c r e m e n t s – Lo n g e r ‐te r m in v e s t m e n t ho r i z o n Lo n g e r te r m in v e s t m e n t ho r i z o n – De s i r e d re t u r n s in mi d to hi g h si n g l e di g i t s – Mo r e typ ic a l wi t h sm a l l e r in v e s t o r s yp Wh a t Wi l l Ef f e c t Le n d i n g as We M Fd ? Mov e For w a r d? • Am o u n t of di s t r e s s Am o u n t of di s t r e s s • La r g e vo l u m e s of ma t u r i n g lo a n s I • Int e r e s t ra t e s • He a l t h of ec o n o m y To t a l Ou t s t a n d i n g Di s t r e s s To t a l Ou t s t a n d i n g Di s t r e s s $3 0 0 $3 5 0 $2 0 0 $2 5 0 $1 5 0 $2 0 0 $5 0 $1 0 0 $0 J '0 8 FM A M J J A S O N D J '0 9 FM A M J J A S O N D J '1 0 FM A M J J A S O N D J F Tr o u b l e d RE O Re s t r u c t u r e d Re s o l v e d Co m m e r c i a l / M u l t i f a m i l y De l i n q u e n c y Ra t e s Am o n g Major In v e s t o r Gr o u p s In v e s t o r Gr o u p s 8. 0 0 % 9. 0 0 % 5 0 0 % 6. 0 0 % 7. 0 0 % 3. 0 0 % 4. 0 0 % 5.00 % 0. 0 0 % 1. 0 0 % 2. 0 0 % 0. 0 0 % 20 0 7 Q1 2 0 0 7 Q3 2 0 0 8 Q1 2 0 0 8 Q3 2 0 0 9 Q1 2 0 0 9 Q3 2 0 1 0 Q1 CM B S Li f e Co Fa n n i e Fr e d d i e Ba n k s & Thrifts So u r c e : Mo r t g a g e Ba n k e r s As s o c i a t i o n CM B S Mo n t h l y De l i n q u e n c y CM B S Mo n t h l y De l i n q u e n c y 8.219% 9. 0 0 0 % 8.219% 6. 0 0 0 % 7. 0 0 0 % 8. 0 0 0 % 3 0 0 0 % 4. 0 0 0 % 5. 0 0 0 % 6. 0 0 0 % 1. 0 0 0 % 2. 0 0 0 % 3.00 0 % 0. 0 0 0 % May‐08 Jul‐08 Sep‐08 Nov‐08 Jan‐09 Mar‐09 May‐09 Jul‐09 Sep‐09 Nov‐09 Jan‐10 Mar‐10 May‐10 Jul‐10 Sep‐10 Nov‐10 Jan‐11 Mar‐11 May‐11 M S N J M M S N J M M S N JMM Co m m e r c i a l Mo r t g a g e Ma t u r i t i e s Co m m e r c i a l Mo r t g a g e Ma t u r i t i e s In t e r e s t Ra t e s In t e r e s t Ra t e s • At hi s t o r i c a l lo w s At hi s t o r i c a l lo w s – Fe d e r a l Go v t w i l l ke e p sh o r t ‐te r m ra t e s low th r o u g h 20 1 2 th r o u g h 20 1 2 – Lo n g ‐te r m ra t e s ar e mo r e di f f i c u l t to co n t r o l ar t i f i c i a l l y ar t i f i c i a l l y He a l t h of Ec o n o m y He a l t h of Ec o n o m y Jo b s ! Jo b s ! Jo b s ! Pa r t i n g Th o u g h t s Pa r t i n g Th o u g h t s • Ba n k s ar e wo r k i n g th e i r wa y ou t of their Ba n k s ar e wo r k i n g th e i r wa y ou t of their pr o b l e m s – Th i s co u l d le a d to op p o r t u n i t i e s fo r in v e s t o r s – Th i s co u l d le a d to op p o r t u n i t i e s fo r in v e s t o r s • “C a s h is Ki n g ” Sh o w Me Th e Mo n e y ! Sh o w Me Th e Mo n e y ! Bi l l Ke e n a n Bu i l d e r ’s De v e l o p m e n t & Fi n a n c e Bu i l d e r s De v e l o p m e n t & Fi n a n c e (BD F ) BD F BD F BD F BD F • Ha v e be e n in bu s i n e s s fo r 38 ye a r s Ha v e be e n in bu s i n e s s fo r 38 ye a r s • Ni c h e is re s i d e n t i a l co n s t r u c t i o n an d land de v e l o p m e n t in me t r o de v e l o p m e n t in me t r o • Fu n d i n g so u r c e s in c l u d e ow n e r ca p i t a l d bk db an d ban k debt Ho w do we ke e p mo v i n g fo r w a r d ? Ho w do we ke e p mo v i n g fo r w a r d ? Ho w do we ke e p mo v i n g fo r w a r d ? Ho w do we ke e p mo v i n g fo r w a r d ? • Ge n e r a l gu i d e l i n e s Ge n e r a l gu i d e l i n e s • De v e l o p m e n t lo a n s Pl d i l • Pre s o ld co n s t r u c t ion loa n s • Co n s t r u c t i o n lo a n s on sp e c ho m e s • Op p o r t u n i t i e s fo r th e sm a l l e r bu i l d e r