Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Planning Commission Agenda 09-01-2009
AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION September 1st, 2009 7:00 PM – PLEASE NOTE SPECIAL TIME Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman – NAC 1. Call to order. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 4th, 2009. 3. Citizen Comments. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory storage building in a mobile home park, zoned R-4, Mobile Home Park District. Applicant: Kjellberg’s, Inc 6. Consideration of a request for sketch plan review of a proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a ground-floor residential development in the CCD. Applicant: Master’s 5th Avenue 7. Consideration of a request for extension of Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access, and a request for Final Plat for Riverview Square Second Addition. Applicant: Broadway Market Investors, LLC 8. Consideration to review an update regarding the amendment of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for Off-Street Parking. 9. Community Development Director’s Update. 10. Adjourn. Planning Commission Agenda –9/1/09 1 5. Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory storage building in a mobile home park, zoned R-4, Mobile Home Park District. (TABLED FROM AUGUST) Applicant: Kjellberg’s, Inc. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Planning Commission reviewed this item during their regular meeting on August 4th. As the applicant was not present to answer questions from the Commission, the Commission tabled action on this item. The Commission did open and close the public hearing on this item. Staff has contacted the applicant and requested his attendance at the September meeting. Staff has also sent the required 60-day extension notice per State statute. The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of an accessory storage building. The storage building has been previously constructed without the required zoning reviews or building permits. The construction of the building without the required approvals represents a clear violation of the City building and zoning codes. The applicant indicates in the project narrative accompanying the application that the building has been inspected and passed for fire code compliance by Monticello Fire Department officials. The Zoning Ordinance, in Chapter 9, R-4, Mobile Home Park District, makes the following provisions: 9-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an "R-4" district: [A] Accessory Storage Buildings subject to the following conditions: 1. If associated with any open storage, the storage area is screened from surrounding mobile home units. 2. The storage area is surfaced to control dust and drainage. 3. The storage area and building(s) are for the sole use of the residents of the mobile home park and are not available for use by non-residents. In Section 9-3 [A] 1. (g), the ordinance further requires: “All structures (fences, sidewalks, roads, storage, cabana, or other) shall require a building permit from the Monticello Building Inspector.” The building is a 30 foot by 36 foot cold storage building. It has been located within a storage yard of about 120 feet by 200 feet. The storage area is surfaced Planning Commission Agenda –9/1/09 2 with a gravel Class V surface and is enclosed by a 6 foot tall chain link fence, strung with barbed wire along the top. There is a line of lilac shrubs along the eastern edge of the storage area. The storage area is open to view from the west and south. Conditional Uses are considered to be an approved use of property, provided the conditions required by the Ordinance and other reasonable conditions imposed by the City are met. In reviewing this CUP application, it is necessary to consider the request as if the building had not already been constructed. In doing so, staff would make the following observations: 1. The storage yard is not fully screened in accordance with the requirements of the CUP provisions. As a part of any CUP consideration, the applicant should be required to submit a landscaping plan that provides screening in accordance with the ordinance section screened from surrounding mobile home units. Landscaping plans are common requirements of Conditional Use Permit applications, and are specifically called for in the Mobile Home Park District, Section 9-2 [A] 3.(g) iii as follows: All areas shall be landscaped in accordance with landscaping plan approved by the City. 2. The storage area is surfaced with Class V gravel. It appears that the requirement for control of dust and drainage is met by the existing surface. 3. The applicants indicate that the building will be used for operations integral to the needs of the Mobile Home Park and its residents. While the building will be used by employees of the facility, and not the residents themselves, the applicant does not indicate any intent to use the building for outside users. As noted above, the applicants constructed the building without the required building permit. Such a permit is generally required for any building in the City, but is also specifically required by the language of the zoning district. The City’s Building Code provides for a double fee attached to the review of any building so constructed. As a part of this CUP, the applicant should be required to submit to a full inspection of the building, including corrections as noted by the Building Official resulting from said inspection(s). ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for an accessory storage building in an R-4, Mobile Home Park District. Planning Commission Agenda –9/1/09 3 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, with the following conditions (see draft findings attached to this report): a. Submission of a landscaping plan to City Staff showing full screening around the west and south boundaries of the storage area. Said landscaping should be designed to provide year-round screening to a height of at least six feet. b. Installation of the planned landscaping should be required to be completed by October 31, 2009. c. Any fencing proposed as part of the plan shall receive the proper permits from the City of Monticello d. The building shall receive full inspections by the City of Monticello Building Department, and be subject to double fees as provided by the City’s Building Code. e. The applicant shall make all corrections directed by the Building Department in a timeframe as directed by the Building Official 2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit. This motion should be based on the following findings, and other findings to be made by the Planning Commission: a. The associated outdoor storage area is not screened as required by the applicable zoning ordinance section (9-4 [A] 3). 3. Motion to table action on the Conditional Use Permit, pending the submission of a landscaping plan for Planning Commission review, and a report from the Building Department relating to required building code improvements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative 3, with a requirement that the plan is submitted by August 17 for staff review, and consideration by the Planning Commission at its September 1 meeting. If the Planning Commission wishes, it may recommend approval in accordance with Alternative 1, providing for staff review of the landscaping plan prior to City Council action. SUPPORTING DATA A. Site Plan and Application Materials B. Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Planning Commission Agenda –9/1/09 4 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Kjellberg’s Inc. 1000 Kjellberg Park 9127 State Highway 25, NE Monticello, MN 56362 1. The proposed building, if compliant with the Conditions identified in this report, will provide screening as required by the zoning ordinance. 2. The proposed building, if compliant with the Conditions identified in this report, will meet the requirements of the Monticello Building Code. 3. The proposed Conditional Use Permit meets all other applicable conditions and requirements of the zoning ordinance. 4. With adherence to these conditions, the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not be a threat to public health, safety, or welfare. 5. The proposed CUP will meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan relating to this use. 6. The proposed CUP will not tend to depreciate the value of the area in which it is located. 7. The applicants have demonstrated a need for the Conditional Use through their application materials. NARATIVE DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The site of the proposed cold storage building is located directly south of the present shop building at the site of the office and maintenance facility for Kjellberg's mobile home park. The presently existing structures include an office building and the maintenance shop. The presently existing site includes an asphalt parking area directly to the east of the presently existing structures and east of the proposed storage building. The asphalt parking area is to be used exclusively by the office and maintenance shop building. Directly east of the proposed storage building is a six foot high chain link fence. Also separating the proposed storage building from the asphalt parking area is mature lilac bushes approximately 8-10 feet tall. The fence previously mentioned extends approximately 60 feet south meeting a corner where the fence extends to the west approximately 200 feet. The fence again turns to the north approximately 120 feet. The fence again turns to the east approximately 120 feet where it meets the shop maintenance building. The area on which the proposed storage building is constructed is entirely secured by the six foot high chain link fence. Within the chain link fence is a gravel storage and work area. Which includes heavy equipment, scrap materials, recycling and refuse held for pickup and fuel supplies? The proposed storage building will be placed on a concrete slab dimensions 40'x 40'. The storage building will be 8 feet from the existing maintenance shop. The area between the storage building and the maintenance shop will be concrete with drainage provided to the west. The entire fenced in storage area is lighted by 24 hour flood lights and switched entryway lights for the existing and proposed structure. The proposed structure is a 30 x 36' un -insulated steel building of modular const4ruction. See attached American Steel Inc. design materials. The building will be provided with electrical power. There will be no sewer or water fixtures contained within the building or added to existing structures. The storage structure will provide inside storage for maintenance equipment. It will also contain a wood -burning furnace. The wood burning furnace will be connected to two ducts which will run into the existing maintenance shop. One duct is for heat supply and the other is for an air supply return. It is intended that the wood burning furnace will provide forced air heat to the shop in winter months. The ducts connecting the furnace to the shop are 16" corrugated steel, both fully insulated the Monticello Fire Department has inspected the building and furnace for fire code violations and after alterations by the owner it has been passed. The storage building will also be used to store fire wood to be used by the furnace. Please see 9/26/08 for further details of proposed structure's location to other buildings and Highway 25. APR -24-2007 13:26 FROM: AUG 15,2006 11:07A AMERICAN STEEL CARPORTS X 0) V CL TO.61233774 3098521805 s i P.3 page 2. APR -24-2007 13:27 FROM: TO:6123379574 P.4 AUG 15,2006 11:07A AMERICAN STEEL CARPORTS 3098521805 page 3_ cqj T- z c� b B[\ 4W P. tit Y� APR -24-2007 13:27 FROM: AUG 15,2006 11:06A AMERICAN STEEL CARPORTS +4b' 3098521805 d Pill w 1 Ls U U TO:6123379574 11 P.5 page 4 lllilil►�:)ilI I1 ioil RR RPR-24-2007 13:27 FROM: T0:6123379574 P.6 AUG 15,2006 11:09A AYAWCAN STEEL CARPORTS 3098521805 page 5 is 71 r • i tm rn 7 . Jsa Rif APR -24-2007 13:22 FROM: AUG 15,2006 11:09A AMERICAN STEEL CARPORTS 3098521805 79?Cx ........ in ro u�iurtr,a��„u� I H C mX 9-1 T0:6123379574 P.7 page i ty �,�aa�,fcnm„nom �O APR -24-2007 13:28 FROM: TD.G123379574 P.8 AUG 15r ZU06 11:0A AW&RIUM 5TMISL UARYUKY5 5u569L16uD paye r f. APR�24-2007 1.3:28 FROM: AUG 15,2006 11:10A AMERICAN STEEL CARPORTS 3098521605 4 fill! c� T G 'O Igo �,,•'• -iia y ,n aor TD:6123379574 p•9 patio 8 tj ibf MMIAWA t J 4tI DETAIL ' NOT TO SCALE / `_� A+ffs�evwro7• p � S EDAS74• E , �1- tet• �1 � - (LIm�.A/ avvl o7• Jr 7maz)�t N a9uTY4• w N 89T�15 f4' W 70780 _ °l l 1 \-MV ar nE S 1/1 Cr VE a -mm a< re S r/S Ar J/4 CF uE sw r/s1 t� ^v arwar b/ AE coom P Li' fie S r/S -,` CONC Cr W AE I/f 7 AE SW J/I 57EEL / BLOC: is go �.r W W �W 0 4� t, `\x DUP77 w `t DETAIL ' NOT TO SCALE / V r �1 BUX B HOUSE `11 1 I\ CONC 90 I 18.5 57EEL / BLOC: is go Vicinity Map I I I I I I — ( I I I I I I I NO SCALE l f I sd 1/4 1[7 I Section 15, Township 121, Range 25 /-LAT PAULL& M 71$ Stxrnr LM Or ME S //2 X 71C SE 1/4 ALTA / j/ To S t.i, W PROPERTY AREA a 6225 ACRES �4 ---------l"m------------ ._t t r s► cz� nE c �� .>F E 1, Ire a wov fz / r cr aE Sir r/v WE E J/1n uc 5a► J/I_\ g nE [!r SsW► 2/141!!!, rpt / \ � cr— �-sa a�arx RES qr — _�\ / / �Jfg r s a• sa — .— — — _T_ s AIA 'or• E ra15 8 8 _ x S EMUdEWr FM ax Aa _ 7 — —— \\ �.e--p�' x A \ N 807em" Wtf�T�7."f�3 e� ave arses s� rr �- �(ct�,x1� trl "-sZ7tnx LAE cis 71E s 1�2 Cr71� ' r/4 r �ie� �a> rr s� r p.ri S SYt/7N LAIE Oc 7hE £ 1/1 CF A£ SAI' 1/4 atauuw arArrr UOItAB/r 213 W. BROADWAY, P.O. BOX 179, REW9-M-08: To A ALTA / A(511 LAID 171.E "I&Y maymELLq M/NNESOTA 55382 PHONES 76J -295 -JW FAX,4 76,-295-7406 0"Wif 61+ UrECAM Or PAM M 4 TAMM F-390 9 Planning Commission Agenda –9/01/09 6. Consideration of a request for sketch plan review of a proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a ground-floor residential development in the CCD. Applicant: Masters Fifth Avenue . (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The applicants are seeking concept review comments relating to a residential project on the property at Locust Street and Third Street – the second phase property of Landmark Square. The City has previously reviewed plans that proposed a commercial project on the site, including accommodation of a drive- through facility and restaurant space. The previous design incorporated a two story façade. The site in question is approximately 33,000 square feet in area according to the applicants and fronts Locust and 3rd Streets. CCD District Requirements In the CCD, residential uses are permitted on upper floors of buildings. The allowed density for such uses is one unit per 3,000 square feet of lot area, plus a bonus density of 25% where the project includes covered parking. As such, up to 14 units could be accommodated on the site for upper-story residential. The CCD also allows ground floor residential uses at a maximum density of one unit per 9,000 square feet by Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of this language is to comply with the intent of the Downtown Revitalization Plan which encourages predominantly commercial uses on the ground floor. Under this standard, the applicants would be permitted an additional 3 units, for a maximum residential density on the site of 17 units. The applicants are seeking comment on an alternative arrangement that would allow 20 residential units in a two story “row-house” style building. The proposal is inconsistent with the current zoning regulations in two ways – total number of units (20 rather than 17) and the number of units on the ground floor (10 rather than 3). Land Use Policy In the Downtown-related portions of the Comprehensive Plan, commercial uses are intended to dominate, with residential uses generally occupying upper floors in the core areas, or properties that are more related to the surrounding residential districts. It is important to note that residential uses are allowed – indeed, a project of 17 units, designed to have no more than 3 units on the ground floor and with covered parking, would meet the specifics of the current zoning. Planning Commission Agenda –9/01/09 The property in question has commercial uses on three sides – Landmark Square to the north (including a full-service restaurant), commercial service/office space to the east, and commercial retail to the south. Land to the west has been residential, but is currently vacant, although a portion of that block is occupied by a gas/convenience facility on Broadway. Looking farther west, residential uses dominate on all of the blocks between Broadway and Fourth Street. The applicants suggest that the site in question is not a high-value commercial site due to its lack of exposure to either Broadway or the more commercial streets to the east (Walnut or Highway 25). Moreover, they believe that commercial uses will not be viable for the foreseeable future due to the number of superior commercial sites and the amount of vacant commercial space in existence. Processing the Proposal At this time, the applicant is seeking feedback on a sketch plan basis only. To accommodate the request, the City would eventually need to consider one of two alternative zoning actions: Amendment of the CCD district language to accommodate residential projects of this density. Rezoning of the site to a PUD District that would define the style and density of the development. Amending the CCD language would affect the entire district, whereas rezoning to a PUD district would affect only this parcel. The PUD designation will also requires a more detailed review of site plan documents for the project (including plans for architecture, integration of the site with the Landmark Square I project, utility service, stormwater management, landscaping treatments, and other details of the development) and the creation of detailed zoning language specifically for this block. Procedurally, in either case the City would want to specify the terms and limits of residential use in the CCD. Considerations The initial questions for the Commission presented at the sketch plan stage are: (1) Whether the City is interested in altering its current comprehensive plan and/or zoning policies to accommodate more housing in the CCD; and (2) If so, whether that alteration should apply to the CCD generally, or this block only. Planning Commission Agenda –9/01/09 If the City believes that a residential project is appropriate for this area, the follow-up issues relate to the general concept presented as part of the applicants’ submission, including building design and site planning. As the plan is preliminary, more detail would be necessary in a subsequent review (as noted above) before the project would be ready for a final approval. Sketch Plan Reivew The sketch plan submitted by the applicants shows a 20 unit row house design, although the units appear to be “flats” – 10 units on each floor rather than 20 side- by-side units. The site plan envisions a 40 space parking lot, including 13 spaces that would be housed in a covered garage in the northeast corner of the site. The garage is not shown in detail. A green space is also included in the interior of the site of around 3,000 square feet. Site issues to be resolved include coordination of the site access and drive aisle areas shared with Landmark Square I, use and improvement of the “Raingarden/Greenspace”, and other details. Building issues to consider include the unit design, unit size (units appear to be only about 500 square feet in floor area), unit access (access to second story units appears to be via an exterior stairway and continuous deck), as well as the garage building. Building materials identified for the front of the building include mostly EIFS and cultured stone, with red tile roof at the corner. It should be noted that staff has also discussed with the applicant the possibility that a project could be designed that would allow for an immediate residential development, while at the same time reserving space for future ground floor commercial. Naturally, at this time, there are a number of unanswerable questions in that regard. How much immediate residential on the property would be necessary to make it pay the developers to hold a portion for future commercial? Is there adequate existing residential market to make more residential units feasible at this time? ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The Commission is asked to give the applicant general direction regarding the concept so that they are able to weigh the costs and time involved in preparing a formal application with necessary documentation. At this point, the Commission can generally point the applicant in one of three directions: (1) Support further consideration of a Comprehensive Plan amendment and provide detailed comments regarding the proposed concept. Planning Commission Agenda –9/01/09 (2) Supporting further consideration of the creation of a PUD district specific to this block and provide detailed comments regarding the proposed concept (and process the proper permits to accommodate this development). (3) Indicate that there is no support for a comprehensive plan amendment or PUD district and request that the applicant prepare an alternative design that retains the required commercial, while accommodating the permitted residential component. As noted, the applicants could re-design their project to a 17 unit residential development to meet the existing regulations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment is a land use policy issue for the City to consider. The proposed change has the potential to alter what has been anticipated as a greater concentration of commercial uses in the downtown area, while allowing for residential on upper floors to increase the concentration of residents (and thus, potential business customers) in the district. This application asks the City to move away from this strategy on the subject parcel and allow for the development of a residential project that would create a defined edge between commercial and residential areas. The City should think about this question as it relates to this particular parcel, but if appropriate, the downtown area in general. Separate from the land use issue would be the project design. If residential uses in of this type are considered acceptable, the City must determine whether the concept shown by the applicants meets the expectations for residential uses in the community. Staff does have concerns related to a unit design that appears to be 500 square feet and accessible only from the exterior that could be mitigated by more detailed drawings. SUPPORTING DATA 1. Sketch Site Plan 2. Building Elevation Drawing GRANITE CITY REAL ESTATE August 10, 2009 Ms Angela Schumann, Community Development Director City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, Mn 55362 RE: Sketch Plan Review for property located at 213 3rd St West, Monticello, MN Dear Ms Schumann, Granite City Real Estate has been retained by Barry Fluth, the owner of the above described property, to research and recommend the highest and best use for the property. Our determination has resulted in this request for the City of Monticello to consider a high density residential use for the site. Our analysis team consisted of the following individuals: Mr. Jim Pflepsen, Broker and President of Granite City Real Estate (GCRE) Mr. Mike Bobick, CCIM, Broker at GCRE Ms Kate Hanson, Commercial Agent, GCRE Ms Jean Cushman, Commercial Agent, GCRE (and resident of Monticello). Over the past several years, Jim Pflepsen has been involved numerous real estate developments totaling in excess of 15 million dollars. Mike Bobick has practiced commercial real estate 10 years with involvement in over 17 million in commercial and residential development. Kate Hanson and Jean Cushman have contributed to the thought process on the use of this property based on their day-to-day involvement in the office and retail leasing and sales market in Central Minnesota. We understand Monticello's Comprehensive Plan calls for this property to be commercial/retail in nature, at least on street level. Our understanding is that the street level is targeted for service oriented commercial, general retailers or office -service type users. This would be consistent with the various businesses located along Broadway in Monticello. We would like to feel comfortable in recommending this type of additional development for Mr. Fluth's property but we have concluded otherwise. The reasoning is as follows: We are all aware of the near term oversupply of this property type in Monticello. This situation is the same for most Minnesota communities and for that matter, much of the country, If we thought this sector would come roaring back in a few years we'd recommend that Mr. Fluth wait for the market to come back. But unfortunately it is not that simple. What we find in the retail market going forward is that either the retailer is a "big or junior box" offering low, low prices based on huge volume or the retailer is small and needs to locate very near the traffic generating "box" retailer. in both cases the retailer wants high traffic counts and to be located on, or be visible from major roadways. In terms of office and service oriented, the same traffic pattern requirements apply in anything "impulse buy" related. All too often to our liking, many uses in this category which are not dependent upon traffic and visibility become possible "work at home" scenarios. In short, communications like the internet and remote access virtual offices have changed the way business is done for many users. We have watched the City of St Cloud closely over the years with their struggle to fill storefronts in the downtown area. Even with the county and city government, the financial centers and all the professionals in downtown St Cloud, landlords still struggle trying to fill vacant storefronts. I have been involved as a commissioner on St Cloud's Historic Preservation Commission and have a passion for the historic charm of a core downtown area, thus from a personal standpoint, I am a proponent of downtown and strive to look for ways to make projects work in these areas. For these reasons we feel the highest and best use of the property is residential. We are however, sensitive to the Central Business District look and feel and in keeping with that look we propose a row house or brownstone appearance to a structure, with perhaps brick accents and a stucco finish. I have attached a site plan sketch and an elevation concept drawing for your review. What we envision: -An all residential, high density building -General market, residential apartment rentals, averaging 750 square feet per unit -Two or possibly three story building -One and two bedroom units -Garages and surface parking on site -Green space, rain garden, nicely landscaped courtyard feel on the interior of the site -Parapet style roofline, in keeping with the downtown urban look We are open to the City's input to make this a win for all involved. We believe that quality housing near the core downtown area will help keep it thriving. We ask that you consider our request to develop a 100% high density residential building at 213 Yd St West, Monticello. S'ncerel , ike B ick, CCIM, Broker Granite City Real Estate, LLC 58 IO`h Ave South Waite Park, MN 56387 320-253-0003 office 320-333-2692 cell 2 FIX x IV QWw NOaa lana1 t7Nt I.o-,T - 1.1-,x - - .LaaN-.5 1S11:D4-i �RNb7 aAING I I a; 's Z b �C o tn UJ 6o =� w J uj � IL 3 o w ,x w fr_� lA PLANNING AND PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - 605 WALNUT STREET, SUITE I PLANNING CASENO. /;qZi l �i:�1;1j111 MONTICELLO, MN 55362 City Hail: (763) 295-2711 Fax: (763) 295-4404 b110NTICELLO E -h9 ail: Con) mdev(a)cLinonticello.nui.lis TYPE OF APPLICATION (CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX or BOXES) BASE APPLICATION FEE (FFFS ARE C11"THATIYF. } ❑ VARIANCE REQUEST $200+ $500 for single family/$200+ $1000 deposit for all others ❑ CONDITIONAL USE $200 per application + review deposit 6 + units 3 © F, 5T ❑ Conditional Use Permit 11+ acres $10,000 ❑ Planned Unit Development -Concept Stage Final stage PUD requires no application fee/deposit. AO ❑ Planned Unit Development - Develop. Stage ❑ Planned Unit Development - Final Stage Residential ❑ SUBDIVISION PLAT R2 112A Sketch Plans Sketch Plan: S50+ review deposit Business ❑ Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat: $300 + review deposit B2 ❑ Final Plat Final Plat: $50+deposit ❑ SIMPLE SUBDIVISION $200 + deposit Based on number ofresulting lots ❑ REZONING /MAP / TEXT AMENDMENT $200+ deposit ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT $200+ deposit Cl SPECIAL MEETING $350 Cl VACATIONS/OTHER $125 DEPOSIT FROM BELOW TOTAL FEE & DEPOSIT TO BE PAID ��Vva � a,v vbt mamb ui„y, ascu un onpnnsca invo,veu in reviewing apps€canon materials Dy t_;3tyMarr ano consultants; they are subject to modification. Consultant services are necessary as determined by City staff for Planner, Engineer, Attorney & other consultants. Applicant is responsible for all expenses related to application review. Deposits required as follows. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. 0-3 acres $2,000 I - 5 units $1000 4-10 acres $6,000 6 + units 3 © F, 5T $150 per unit 11+ acres $10,000 Agricultural/Open Space PROPERTY ADDRESS/ LOCATION: -- -( 3 _ 3 APS ( ` 0 , M 0wrl CX-LLd PROPERTY LEGAL D ESCRIPT ION: L ,.5 1 1 1 `}- 3 L__!)LA--_0 fzs� CURB ENT ZON ING: (CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX & CIRCLE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT) ❑ Agricultural/Open Space AO ❑ Residential RI RIA R2 112A R3 R4 R -PUD PZR ❑ Business PZM B1 B2 B3 B4 CCD ❑ Industrial 1-1 1 -IA 1-2 DESCRIBE REQUEST: �, FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT - Proposed Zoning: FOR SIMPLE SUBDIVISION - Size of Parcel to Be Divided: FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT ONLY - Proposed Name of Plat: Total Plat Acres: Name of Firm Preparing Subdivision Plat: Address: Primary Contact Name: E -Mail Address: Day Phone No.: FAX No.: FOR VARIANCE ONLY - Please Identify the unique property conditions or hardships that justify granting of a variance, FEE TITLE PROPERTY OWNER NAME:IrI T� F (F—r�t pt " ec- tA Lk n APPLICANT / BUSINESS NAME: i<}vutk P�(--L( (f{ Address: 5— 7 -7 p 0 — h U E— ' J`�S�J Primary Contact ame: wt <�. ���tAddress: Day Phone No.:3 'z-bezbF A X. N K0 2-- FEE PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE Date I. CANTSIGNATUR Date ]PPLCANT y116a1161 app nt agrees that all Information provided is true and correct, that the applicant has provided all required checklist Information provided by the applicant on this form is true information, and that the applicant has read and understands ad and correct. I applicable Monticello City Codes. APPLICATIONS WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTED WITH ALL REQUIRED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. DEADLINE FOR AGENCY ACTION © 60 Days: El 120 Days: E] Waiver Received: DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED: FEE RECEIPT NUMBER: APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE BY: 0 NOTICE SENT: CASE ASSIGNMENT: DATE: Planning Commission Agenda – 09/01/09 1 7. 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: Broadway Market Investors, LLC (AS) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Broadway Market Investors and M & I Bank are requesting an extension of their conditional use permit for commercial development project at Broadway Market. On September 2nd, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a bank facility at the corner of CSAH 75 and CSAH 39. The site is one (1) acre in size and is zoned PZ-M, Performance Mixed District. The City Council approved the CUP on September 22, 2008. Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for the CUP will expired on September 22, 2009. 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. All previously approved conditions will apply to any extension of the permit. The planning report for the original item has been provided for reference. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend extension of the September 22nd, 2008 Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a Bank Facility with Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access for M & I Bank with the condition that all previously approved conditions be assigned to the extension. 2. Motion to recommend denial of an extension of the September 22nd, 2008 Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a Bank Facility with Drive-Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access for M & I Bank with the condition that all previously approved conditions be assigned to the extension. 3. Motion of other. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the extension request. The request is consistent with current and proposed objectives for the PZM District. SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Staff Report for September 2nd, 2008 Exhibit B: Conditional Use Permit Plan documents Exhibit C: September 2nd, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit D: September 22nd, 2009 City Council Minutes Planning Commission Agenda — 09/02/08 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a Bank Facility with Drive -Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access, and a request for Final Plat for Riverview Sauare Second Addition. Applicant: Broadway Market Investors, LLC (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND M & I Bank is seeking Conditional Use Permit and Final Plat approval to construct a bank facility at the corner of CSAH 75 and CSAH 39. The subject M & I site seeking approval with this application is one (1) acre in size and is zoned PZ -M, Performance Mixed District. This site is part of a previously approved multi -tenant shopping center development called Broadway Market. At time of approval in August of 2006, the submitted materials indicated that the subject commercial site would be subdivided at a future date. The applicant is proposing a 4,557 square foot bank building on the northwest corner of the Broadway Market development. This application requires conditional use permits for a drive through lane and to allow a bank facility in the PZ -M District. In addition, the applicant is seeking final plat approval, as preliminary approval was granted with the initial Broadway Market application in 2006. ANALYSIS The subject site is located within the existing Broadway Market shopping center on the northeast corner of CSAH 75 and CSAH 39. Comprehensive Plan. Monticello's 2008 Comprehensive Plan currently guides this site's land use as Places to Shop. Zoning. The purpose of the PZ -M District is to provide a land use transition between high density residential land uses and low intensity business land uses, as well as the intermixing of each such land use. The proposed bank facility application satisfies the intention of the zoning district. Land uses which have no storage of merchandise and are service oriented (bank facilities) are allowed by Conditional Use Permit, provided that: • When abutting R-1, R-2, R-3, or PZR district, a buffer area with screening and landscaping in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], shall be erected. Staff Comment: The adjacent land uses are not residential in nature. Planning Commission Agenda — 09/02/08 Final Plat. The applicant has requested final plat approval in conjunction with this application. Final plat approvals are subject to Council decision. A copy of the proposed final plat has been included in the supporting data for reference. The subject M & I site is platted as Lot 1, Block 1 of River View Square Second Addition. Lot 1, Block 1 is one (1) acre in size and located on the southwest side of Hart Boulevard. The remaining acreage of the Broadway Market development is now platted as Lot 2, Block 1 of River View Square Second Addition. Access and Circulation. Access to the bank site is provided via internal parking lot access with adjoining commercial uses. Entrance into the Broadway Market development is from CSAH 39, and more specifically Hart Boulevard. As a condition of approval, carried over from the Broadway Market approval conditions, the owners of the M&I Bank and Broadway Market will be required to execute a cross -parking and access agreement for the property. A draft of a cross -easement for this purpose had been prepared by the applicant and is included as supporting data. Internal drive lanes throughout the parking lot are a minimum of twenty four (24) feet in width; wide enough for two (2) lanes of traffic. The drive through lane, located at the northwestern edge of the site measures twelve (12) feet wide at its narrowest. Pedestrian access through the site is provided by hardscaped plaza surface adjacent to the building. No sidewalk connections have been shown. Lot Requirements and Setbacks. Setback requirements are based upon the zoning requirements of the district for which the project would be zoned if conventional zoning was applied as described in Chapter 3, Section 3, of the Ordinance. The following chart demonstrates the applicable performance requirements of the B-3 Highway Business, as well as what is proposed for the site: Required Proposed Compliance Minimum Lot Area 12,000 s.f. 43,692 s.f. Compliant Maximum Building Height 2 stories 1 story Compliant Lot Width 80 feet 260 feet Compliant Front Yard Setback 30 feet 83 feet Compliant (Hart Blvd.) Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 101 feet Compliant (Southwest) Side Yard Setback (CSAH 39) 30 feet 34 feet Compliant Side Yard Setback 10 feet 53 feet Compliant (Southeast) Drive Through Lane. The applicant is proposing a drive through in the northwest side of the site, adjacent to CSAH 39. As proposed, the design provides a 12 foot wide drive lane with approximately 140 feet of stacking space. The submitted application materials indicate accommodations for four bank -teller bays, with one fourteen (1.4) foot drive lane open for pass-through circulation. With the driveway length provided, the drive through 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 09/02/08 would provide stacking space for up to twelve (12) vehicles at peak periods. The site plan illustrates signage directing vehicles to the drive through banking and ATM services. Drive through bank buildings are allowed by Conditional Use Permit. The Zoning Ordinance contains the following requirements for such uses: • The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of lot. Staff Comment: The building elevations indicate a four (4) sided architectural treatment which are cohesive with surrounding buildings. • At the boundaries of a residential district a strip of not less than five 5 feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 G of this ordinance. Staff Comment: The adjacent land uses are not residential in nature. • Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot landscaped or covered. Staff Comment: The applicant does not indicate any light standard islands specifically, but the perimeter and space adjacent to the building is being landscaped or sodded. • Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 G of this ordinance. Staff Comment: The adjacent land uses are not residential in nature. • Parking areas and driveways shall be curbed with continuous curb not less than six 6 inches high above the parking lot or driveway grade. Staff Comment: The parking areas and driveways are specified with a continuous curb and gutter. • Vehicular access points shall be limited shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movements shall comply with Chapter 3 Section 5 of this ordinance and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Staff Comment: Access points and circulation comply with Ordinance standards, and vehicular conflicts appear to be minimized. • All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the public right of way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 H of this ordinance. Staff Comment: According to the photometric, all site lighting not associated with the building is tilted 15 degrees below horizontal position. • The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The City Engineer's report is included for reference. The comments are primarily detail and follow-up requirements. No design or layout changes are required. Parking. The applicant is proposing a bank facility, and has been reviewed as a "service establishment." The following chart demonstrates the minimum number of parking stalls Planning Commission Agenda — 09/02/08 required for the site: Required Proposed Tenant Area 90%) Requirement Stalls Stalls The site plan illustrates thirty one (3 1) parking stalls for the bank facility, including four (4) parking stalls located west of the southwestern dividing median. The proposed project exceeds the required parking stalls for this type of use. The Zoning Ordinance requires that each parking space be not less than nine (9) feet wide by twenty (20) feet in length. An exception is allowed for up to twenty five (25%) percent of the required parking spaces to be not less than seven and one half (7 %z) feet in width by not less than sixteen (16) feet in length when served adequately by access aisles. These compact parking stall should be marked as such. The proposed application indicates four (4) parking stalls that measure eight (8) feet in width by twenty (20) feet in length. These parking stalls are acceptable, but must be marked as compact parking. ADA compliance requires a parking lot of this size to provide two (2) accessible parking stalls, of which one (1) must be van accessible. The submitted plan indicates two (2) ADA parking stalls, one measuring eight (8) feet in width and the other seven (7) feet in width with an eight (8) foot van aisle. These ADA parking stalls should meet Zoning Ordinance minimum standards for non -compact parking requirements and must be adjusted. As noted in the access comments above, the Broadway Market project includes a joint parking and access agreement between this parcel and the planned retail center. The parking on the site is more than adequate to meet the requirements, particularly since the pad site to be occupied by the bank was considered a potential restaurant location which was considered when planning for parking supply on the property. Lighting. A lighting photometric plan for the site, excluding building lighting, has been submitted for the proposal. The photometric does indicate readings exceeding one (1) footcandle at the front and southwest side yard property lines. These property lines are internal to the Broadway Market development, thus they are acceptable. The photometric indicates the use the following: Light Type Number Proposed Recessed Commercial with Specular Louvers 6 16" parking roadway optic with one 400 watt metal halide tilted 15 1 space/200 degrees below horizontal position (40,000 lumens, 450 watts). Bank 4,557 s.f. 4,101.3 s.f. s.f. of floor 21 stalls 31 stalls degrees below horizontal position (25,000 lumens, 450 watts). area The site plan illustrates thirty one (3 1) parking stalls for the bank facility, including four (4) parking stalls located west of the southwestern dividing median. The proposed project exceeds the required parking stalls for this type of use. The Zoning Ordinance requires that each parking space be not less than nine (9) feet wide by twenty (20) feet in length. An exception is allowed for up to twenty five (25%) percent of the required parking spaces to be not less than seven and one half (7 %z) feet in width by not less than sixteen (16) feet in length when served adequately by access aisles. These compact parking stall should be marked as such. The proposed application indicates four (4) parking stalls that measure eight (8) feet in width by twenty (20) feet in length. These parking stalls are acceptable, but must be marked as compact parking. ADA compliance requires a parking lot of this size to provide two (2) accessible parking stalls, of which one (1) must be van accessible. The submitted plan indicates two (2) ADA parking stalls, one measuring eight (8) feet in width and the other seven (7) feet in width with an eight (8) foot van aisle. These ADA parking stalls should meet Zoning Ordinance minimum standards for non -compact parking requirements and must be adjusted. As noted in the access comments above, the Broadway Market project includes a joint parking and access agreement between this parcel and the planned retail center. The parking on the site is more than adequate to meet the requirements, particularly since the pad site to be occupied by the bank was considered a potential restaurant location which was considered when planning for parking supply on the property. Lighting. A lighting photometric plan for the site, excluding building lighting, has been submitted for the proposal. The photometric does indicate readings exceeding one (1) footcandle at the front and southwest side yard property lines. These property lines are internal to the Broadway Market development, thus they are acceptable. The photometric indicates the use the following: Light Type Number Proposed Recessed Commercial with Specular Louvers 6 16" parking roadway optic with one 400 watt metal halide tilted 15 1 degrees below horizontal position (40,000 lumens, 450 watts). 16" parking roadway optic with one 400 watt metal halide tilted 15 1 degrees below horizontal position (40,000 lumens, 900 watts). 16" parking roadway optic with 400 watt clear metal halide tilted 15 5 degrees below horizontal position (25,000 lumens, 450 watts). Planning Commission Agenda — 09/02/08 Signage. The applicant has submitted a signage plan, detailing proposed signs for the bank facility. Based on staff calculations, the maximum allowable square footage of sign area is one hundred (100) square feet. The following signs are proposed: Number Number Size Sign Type Allowed Size Allowed Proposed Proposed Compliance Directional No larger Sign A — Two N/A than ten (10) 1 10.31 s.f. No, variance Sided s.f required Directional No larger Sign B — One N/A than ten (10) 1 10.31 s.f. No, variance Sided s.f required Informational No larger ADA Parking Accessible N/A than ten (10) 2 1.78 s.f. Compliant Sign s.f. Informational No larger Do Not Enter N/A than ten (10) 2 1.78 s.f. Compliant Sign s.f. Informational No larger Drive Through N/A than ten (10) 5 10 s.f. Compliant s.f. Freestanding 47.19 s.f. of Monument 1 1 sign face Sign* One hundred No, variance Building Wall 50.21 s.f. Si * � 1 (100) s.f. 3 total required Window Wall 5 10 s.f. total Sign* *Maximum allowable square footage of sign area per lot shall not exceed the sum of one (1) square foot per front foot of the building, plus one (1) square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building, up to one hundred (100) square feet. Screening and Landscaping. Commercial sites require a minimum of one (1) tree per 1,000 s.f of gross building floor area or one (1) tree per fifty (50) lineal feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater. For this proposed project, the lineal site perimeter measurement was utilized, which equaled seventeen (17) overstory trees. The submitted landscape plan indicates seventeen (17) overstory trees, with sixty five (65%) percent deciduous and thirty five (35%) coniferous which complies with Ordinance. The size requirement of said overstory trees also complies with Ordinance standards. As a note on overall landscaping, staff would recommend irrigation of all boulevard areas. Building Materials. The submitted application materials indicate that all four (4) exterior elevations will be treated with the same degree of architectural integrity. Building materials include modular face brick, stone caps and panels, glass, concrete Plarming Commission Agenda — 09/02/08 slate roofing tiles and manufactured cut stone. The application also includes illustrative building elevations and photographs of existing similar M & I bank buildings. Each building elevation appears to contain a balanced mixture of the aforementioned building materials. The rear elevation of the building does front on the well traveled CSAH 39, but due to the balanced mix of architectural treatments the otherwise "back" side of the building is aesthetically pleasing. Grading, Drainage, and Utilities. The City Engineer and consulting engineer from WSB have reviewed the grading and drainage plans, as well as the utility plans for the project. As noted above, their comments do not require changes to the overall site layout or use, relating instead to detail and plan set standards, as well as follow-up requirements of the project's construction. Copies of the engineering comments are included with this packet. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1. Regarding the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a bank in the Performance Zone Mixed District (PZ -M), a Conditional Use Permit for a drive through lane and Final Plat approval, the City has the following options: 1. Motion to approve the request for Conditional Use Permits and Final Plat approval, based on a finding that the drive through lane and proposed use are consistent with the intent of the PZ -M District and underlying B-3 District, as well as the requirements of the Broadway Market approval, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit P. 2. Motion to deny the request for Conditional Use Permits and Final Plat approval, based on a finding that the drive through land and proposed use does not meet the requirements for Conditional Use Permits and are not consistent with the intent of the PZ -M District and underlying B-3 District. RECOMMENDATION M & I Bank is requesting Conditional Use Permits and Final Plat approval. Conditional Use Permits requested include a drive through lane and to allow a bank facility where the requested zoning is PZ -M Performance Mixed District. The drive through lane and bank facility use generally meet the requirements for the requested Conditional Use Permits and staff recommends approval. Regarding the request for Final Plat, the overall site plan appears to be consistent with the requirements of the respected district. Planning Commission Agenda — 09/02/08 SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Final Plat Exhibit B: Civil Title Sheet Exhibit C: Site Demolition Plan Exhibit D: Site Geometric and Paving Plan Exhibit E: Grading and Erosion Control Plan Exhibit F: Utility Plan Exhibit G: Civil Detail Sheet Exhibit H: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Exhibit I: Landscape Plan Exhibit J: Floor Plan Exhibit K: Exterior Elevations Exhibit L: Existing M & I Photographs Exhibit M: Illustrative Exterior Elevations Exhibit N: Photometric Site Plan Exhibit O: City Engineers Memo Exhibit P: Draft Cross -easement Agreement Exhibit Q: Broadway Market Site Plan Exhibit Z: Conditions of Approval W li 11;311" Conditions of Approval M & I Bank Conditional Use Permits and Final Plat Recommended Staff Conditions agreed to by Applicant and adopted by Planning Commission: 1. The applicants execute a cross -parking and access agreement with the Broadway Market property owners to ensure proper access and shared parking. 2. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer. ■aavvoavoo owvaamxa '—`` `-'—"` Yi0S3NNIN '01130LLNOY4 b 0113JILYOW G^ sec ys�s [�csc1 NNtlB I v W YLN N Nw rw�{�N.MdsllPiiN � V 133HS 3UI 1WO saw W V Li Z a 5 Z Za o I J a zU a Q ZaZ o I— goo r (/) Z< 00 w J _I wzUW xO z V)E�o �a a J Z J U w0mga� w -jrwozZ J0�o, uu SWJJ2 w-® Q VNNowZ NOacaZS o g Z Q 44 J aCL 0LU z 2 Lu� Z Z Om LU V WLU LV � > 06 o W 0 cl 0a r N a NNt o W U u7 OI'w 20 N C7 Lo �0 0 U O -R 4Wl m K W>�.NZ Z�DY�mm ?ON IA 0>; OmMW aW — zULU pMM� UrZ^^O (nZ mQ NZZvva JNZ�XZ 0g:j �a"(Z cw) m U-OU IMM-L�u Z O a O CL 0: O U 'y O a VWNW o O �O=NWnx z 10-t04x- wU n I I zz I o r33�rz UW2Inm p�p rhW wQV> n Mlil a� w a Y x O N N r o w Z Lu ���rwcO.� Yn�ri,.cOi VI0S3NNIV4 '0113311NOV4 NOLLOWLSOM 0113OL1NOVi NNYS I V IN NVId NoanOV430 3115 OPP 4 BBEIE19S OOH El VI0S3NNIVi '0113011NOrl unnUNOA NO-+ lOW ANYS I V NVId ONtAVd GNV 01N.3Y4030 311S ep -4 ;t I .44 S 0 SBEI S EM OMMM M N, t. ........... ........... ........... flu EN, VIOSWNIVI VMDUNOVI --NGd3FlMSNO3- 01130LLNON XNVe I V H NYld )WIlin �nW fa All 5 70 to z 8 0 a 0 Lle Nil Ygrsh 19; l T'l 11! 21 Is emo I fill N" S3NNIN '01'13311NOV4 HOSION- 0113011NOIN ANVG I V IN i33HS "IlY130 I[/MO �T �T 0 R li r m i JA Z All r. 7. ---i - —— VI053NNIN '0113011NON 01130LLNOV4 XNV13 I V N 4A V C -A NY1d N01IN3A38d NOIin-nOd N31VMMN04__,..- aa 'fit 1. gill 11v - It It & z fill 1 1s gar IE; s i I I A 15! -E 5! tit 1k 1k, V 6-1 lit V10 ANNA '011:10LLNOV4 0113)UNON >1NV9 I V V4 NVId 3dVOSONYI F— a I I 3e §Q _cl � 3 5 s 3" � � I� X, 4. x IN U- 01- 7 CAI i I '! 4-J CIS ...... [.5 Ja -- ------- - -- - ------- -&H 0 911.� z 0 ...... [.5 Ja -- ------- - -- - ------- -&H 0 MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008 6:00 PM Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman — NAC 1. Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and declared a full quorum of the Commission present. 2. Consideration to approve the minutes of August 5th, 2008. It was clarified that Commissioner Voight made a motion to approve the minutes of June 3rd and July 1St, 2008. Commissioner Spartz seconded those minutes. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 5th, 2008. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 3. Consideration of adding items to thea eg nda. NONE. 4. Citizen comments. NONE. 5. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for an expansion of services for a Senior Housing Project in a Performance Zone Mixed (PZM) District. Applicant: Presbyterian Homes/Mississippi Shores Planner Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the proposed addition is located on the east side of the building. The purpose of the addition is for a wellness center for the current residents. It is not increasing the unit count or activity capacity. In terms of meeting ordinance requirements, the proposed addition meets setback requirements and no additional parking demand is created by the addition. It meets all other zoning standards. Grittman noted that the expansion is being developed with materials similar to the existing building. Staff is recommending approval with no conditions. Spartz inquired how the parking demand would not be impacted, even though the building was becoming larger. Grittman responded that the ordinance regulates parking based on use. For Mississippi Shores parking demand is based on the residential unit capacity, therefore parking demand is not increased for the wellness center activity alone. Gabler inquired if the applicant is making any changes to lighting or landscaping. Grittman indicated that they were not. Dragsten referred to need to amendment to CUP. Grittman confirmed that any change beyond the original scope, including that for square footage, required an amendment to PUD. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Dan Lemm, 113 Cameron Avenue NE, asked if the land on which MIssisippi Shores is located is owned by the hospital district. He commented that if the hospital owns the property, then they should be the applicant for this permit. Dustin Sayre, representing Presbyterian Homes, addressed the Commission. Sayre confirmed that there was a property agreement, and Presbyterian Homes now owns the property. He explained that Presbyterian Homes owns properties all across the Twin Cities area. Sayre indicated that the wellness center will primarily be used as a fitness and exercise area. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE APPLICABLE B-3 AND PZM DISTRICTS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Spartz recommended that prior to this item being presented to the Council, Presbyterian Homes should provide verification that they own the property. 6. Public Hearing = Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a Drive -Through Facility, Joint Parking and Joint Access, and a request for Final Plat for Riverview Square Second Addition. Applicant: Broadway Market Investors, LLC Planner Grittman provided a review of the staff report for the request. Grittman stated that the conditional use permits will formalize the cross easement agreement needed between the two properties and allow for a drive through facility for the bank. Grittman stated that a review of the plat and site plan has indicated that setbacks and plat requirements are complaint. Grittman noted that the access points have been reviewed 2 and found to be acceptable and that the sign plan is complaint and consistent with ordinance requirements. Screening and landscaping also meet code requirements, as does the lighting plan, with a few tweaks at perimeter. Grittman illustrated the building elevations for the Commission. He noted that staff had met with the applicant regarding the conditions in Exhibit Z. The applicant stated that they would have no problem with meeting those conditions. With those comments, Grittman stated that staff are recommending approval of the request. Dragsten asked about minimum width for parking spaces. Grittman noted that the 8' space has a van accessible space adjacent to it for handicap accessibility. Dragsten confirmed that the free-standing sign will be a monument sign. Grittman confirmed. Dragsten noted irrigation was recommended, but was not a condition. Grittman noted that irrigation is not required by the ordinance, but it is always a recommendation. Wojchouski asked if there is signage on the southwest elevation. Grittman confirmed that there is sign identification on the tower, but there is none on the wall itself. However, the monument sign will also be visible on that side. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing Dan Lemm again addressed the Commission. He inquired whether there would be a will push button door for handicap accessibility. Dragsten stated that the building code would dictate that element. Lemm stated that it may not be code for the state, but he would ask the Commission to consider it. Sean Lathrop, KKE Architects, addressed the Planning Commission, representing the applicant. He noted that while there is no code that requires push door operators, but the doors are constructed to be handicap accessible. Dragsten asked if there are cash machines. Lathrop confirmed that there will be a drive up ATM on the outside lane. Dragsten asked Lathrop to confirm that the materials on the outside will be what appears on the building. Lathrop confirmed that they would be. Voight asked Lathrop to address the elevation for the longest wall. Lathrop referred to mansard at 23' in height, while the top of drive thru is at 15 feet. He noted that the mansard base is Kasota stone, as are all the piers. These variations will provide visual appeal and creak -up. Grittman noted that there is a small retaining wall on the site, which is just to hold the elevation of the site; it is just a couple of feet high. It is not a screening wall. Dragsten asked if they would be irrigating. Lathrop stated that he would assume so, but he will bring it to the attention of the client. Spartz inquired if the applicant is aware of the conditions. Lathrop confirmed and stated that there are no issues with meeting the conditions. 3 Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing, no other comments. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE AND PROPOSED USE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE PZ -M DISTRICT AND UNDERLYING B-3 DISTRICT, AS WELL AS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BROADWAY MARKET APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS: 1. The applicants execute a cross -parking and access agreement with the Broadway Market property owners to ensure proper access and shared parking. 2. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 7. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Preliminary and Final Plat for Monticello Commerce Center Eighth Addition and a Request for Rezoning from I -IA (Light Industrial) and B-2 (Limited Business) to B-4 (Regional Business). Applicant: I & S Group Inc. Planner Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the applicant is requesting an approval for preliminary and final plat for Monticello Business Center 8th Addition. Grittman clarified that the original version of the final plat document is actually incorrect. The only platting that is occurring is for the subject parcel itself, there are no outlots. A revised plat illustrating that condition has been provided in the packet, as well. Grittman stated that when reviewing plat, the City needs to make sure that any plat is consistent with the subdivision ordinance. Development on that site must be consistent with the zoning ordinance. Grittman noted that this is not a CUP or PUD. In those circumstances, the Planning Commission is used to reviewing architecture. In this case, the rezoning and plat review do not offer the opportunity to incorporate design comments. As such, staff has held comments to zoning compliance only. Grittman indicated that the plat is a single lot at7.6 acres, which is proposed to be rezoned to B-4, the City's standard retail commercial district. The site is currently split by two zoning districts. The land to the east is zoned B-2, and the land to the west is I- IA. The single lot is proposed as B-4, which would accommodate the use proposed as permitted. The applicant's plan is for a single building retail structure. The site itself has about 390+ parking spaces, based on staff report. Grittman stated that by ordinance, 420 spaces are required, based on the 93,325 square foot retail building proposed. That size includes a mezzanine and dock space. Parking standards apply to usable square footage of the building. The applicant is also proposing a proof of parking arrangement to meet the 420 required spaces. It is staff's assumption that 392 spaces is probably more than needed and staff is recommending the parking arrangement as shown. IV. Grittman explained that the applicants have not shown signage information, which will be shown at a future time and a separate application will be made. If it is consistent with the code, it may not come before Planning Commission. Grittman indicated that staff did make some notes on landscaping requirement, as per code they need another 33 overstory trees. These will also help to accomplish additional screening of the dock area. Staff did meet with applicant and they are agreeable to revising this item. Grittman noted that the loading docks are on the Chelsea Road side. This is acceptable under the code, providing that docks do not face the street. In this case, they will need an 8' screening wall, and will have recessed docks. The combination of those items with the landscaping additions will meet screening requirements. Grittman stated that the lighting plan does bleed in excess of code requirements, but the applicants indicated that they will modify to meet requirements. He explained that the engineer's comments will not require any redesign of the site, and the applicants will be required to meet the requirements. Staff had one comment related to access, which is a provision for access to adjoining commercial properties. Grittman stated that every development will have access, but to the extent that street access will be allowed, the engineers will work with development to limit them wherever possible. There is an understanding that we don't know what developments might be, but the applicant has indicated that they would be willing to work with the City as the adjoining lands develop. Hilgart asked about B-4 zoning, stating that extending B-4 zoning all the way along the north side might make sense. Grittman noted that the comp plan guides this area as commercial, but that question might be answered by the property owner. Spartz inquired if this area would be impacted by the proposed Fallon Avenue overpass. Grittman stated it would be running west of this site. Gabler asked if the Commission could address the plainness of the building. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Bob Doren, addressed the Commission. Doren stated that he is the site building manager from the corporate office of Kohl's. Bruns also introduced Lynn Bruns of I & S Engineering. Doren addressed the landscaping around dock, stating that Kohl's will make those enhancements in the green space along the boulevard due to tight spacing near the building and dock. Dragsten asked if something can be done to enhance the wall planes of the building. The internal architect for Kohl's stated that this is a pre -cast structure, which is a new prototype for Kohl's. Right now, they are generating new ways of looking at these buildings, and part of that is a way to break up the building. Since this is pre -cast, the architect stated that they will use paint changes to give it more visual interest and depth. Future elevations will show that. West elevation use a parapet feature. Dragsten noted that there is significant elevation exposure along I-94, and visual appearance is important for the City. 5 Dragsten asked if they can comply with Exhibit Z. Doren stated that other than the landscaping change noted, they would comply. Dragsten asked if their free-standing sign would be on two metal posts. Doren stated that they do not have a sign package ready, but that it is basically one pole. Bruns stated that they may negotiate an off -premise sign. Dragsten commented that the Commission is working on changing the sign ordinance. As part of that, they are working on getting signs to be similar to building style. Doren stated that right now the concept is a single pole. There is potential for a monument sign with a panel for Kohl's and others. Dragsten asked about timeframe. Doren stated that plans are for March 2010 opening, but they may be asked to look at an October 2009 opening. Dragsten inquired about rezoning along Chelsea. Charlie Pfeffer, representing the land owner, indicated that the reason for rezoning portions at a time has to do with real estate taxes and the tax classification of the property. At this time, they would support only the rezoning of this portion. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Voight stated that concern about landscaping adjacent to screening wall is reasonable. Dragsten stated that if they improve the wall plane, the City can adjust the screening. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONING TO B-4, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-4, REGIONAL BUSINESS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z AS FOLLOWS. 1. Internal cross access easements to future development surrounding the Kohl's site must be provided. The provision of these accesses may be made as a part of the development agreement. 2. Signage is not a part of preliminary plat approval. The applicant must submit a signage plan as part of a separate review and approval. 3. Submitted landscape plan must be revised to include an additional thirty (33) overstory trees or equivalent understory plantings. These trees must be not less than 25% deciduous and 25% coniferous. 4. The area adjacent to the loading dock must be landscaped with a layered vegetated screen to run the length, including overstory trees, shrubs and perennials. on 5. The retaining wall must be a minimum eight (8) feet above finished grade. 6. The developer must provide financial security that guarantees live growth of the plant materials for a two (2) year period from the date of installation. 7. The applicant shall provide a separate trail easement document to encompass the existing trail along the north side of Chelsea Road. 8. The final plat is subject to the review and comment of Mn/DOT. 9. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineering staff. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 8. Sign Ordinance Amendment Update Grittman referred to a timeline presented to the Planning Commission for the process of amending the sign ordinance. Dragsten stated that it his goal to have it done and in place in February to accommodate spring commercial development. 9. Adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Recorder 7 Council Agenda: 9/22/08 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING — MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday September 22 2008 — 7 p.m. Members Present: Clint Herbst, Wayne Mayer, Tom Perrault, Brian Stumpf and Susie Wojchouski. Members Absent: None 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Herbst called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and declared a quorum present. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. 2A. Approve minutes of September 8, 2008 Special Meeting - Budget. SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 8, 2008 SPECIAL MEETING RELATING TO THE 2009 BUDGET. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0 2B. Approve minutes of September 8, 2008 Regular Meeting. Tom Perrault clarified on the add on item about the crosswalk on School Boulevard that the individual appreciated the fact that the City had put the information out that it is state law that vehicles stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk although the individual still had concerns about the speed of traffic on School Boulevard and the safety of pedestrians. TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 8, 2008 REGULAR MEETING. BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Brian Stumpf requested that item #10 on the regular agenda be moved to the consent agenda with the date for Liquor Store Manager interviews set for Tuesday September 30, 2008 at 5 p.m. 4. Citizen comments, petitions, requests and concerns. None. 5. Consent Agenda: A. Consideration of ratifying hires and departures MCC, Liquor and Engineering. Recommendation: Ratify the hires and departures as identified. B. Consideration of accepting improvements and authorizing final payment for Monticello Business Center (Otter Creek Industrial Park) Grading and Drainage Council Agenda: 9/22/08 Project, City Project No. 2006-18C. Recommendation: Accept the improvement and authorize final payment for the Monticello Business Center (Otter Creek Industrial Park) Grading and Drainage Project, City Project No. 2006-18C. Res. #2008-75. C. Consideration of approving a request for amendment to a conditional use permit for a Planned Unit Development for an expansion of services for a Senior Housing Project in a Performance Zone Mixed (PZM) District. Application: Presbyterian Homes/Mississippi Shores. Recommendation: Amend the conditional use permit for the expansion of Mississippi Shores based on a finding that the proposed addition is consistent with all zoning regulations of the applicable B-3 and PZM Districts. D. Consideration of approving a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through facility, joint parking and joint access, final plat and development agreement for Riverview Square Second Addition. Applicant: Broadway Market Investors, LLC. Recommendation: Approve the request for a conditional use permit to allow a bank in the Performance Zone Mixed District (PZM), a conditional use permit for a drive-through lane and final plat and development agreement approval for Riverview Square Second Addition based on a finding that the drive-through lane and proposed use are consistent with the intent of the PZM District and underlying B-3 District as well as the requirements of the Broadway Market approval subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicants execute a cross -parking and access agreement with Broadway Market property owners to ensure proper access and shared parking; and 2) The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer. E. Consideration of approving a request for preliminary and final plat for Monticello Commerce Center Eighth Addition and a request for rezoning from I -IA (Light Industrial) and B-2 (Limited Business) to B-4 (Regional Business). Applicant: I & S Group, Inc. Recommendation: 1) Approve rezoning for Lot 1, Block 1 Monticello Commerce Center 8t' Addition from I1 -A, Light Industrial and B-2, Limited Business to B-4, Regional Business based on a finding that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2) Approve the request for preliminary and final plat approval for the plat of Monticello Commerce Center 8`h Addition based on a finding that the proposed plat is consistent with the intent of the B-4 Regional Business subject to the following: 1) Rezoning and plat approvals are considered to be granted upon fee title ownership of the subject site; 2) Internal cross access easements to future development surrounding the Kohl's site must be provided as recommended by the City Engineer. The provision of these accesses may be made as a part of the development agreement; 3) Signage is not a part of preliminary plat approval. The applicant must submit a signage plan as part of a separate review and approval; 4) Submitted landscape plan must be revised to include an additional thirty three (33) overstory trees or equivalent understory plantings; 5) The area adjacent to the loading dock must be landscaped with a layered vegetated screen to run the length including overstory trees, shrubs and perennials; 6) The retaining wall must be a minimum eight (8) feet above finished grade; 7) The developer must provide financial security that guarantees live growth of the plant materials for a two (2) year period from the date of installation; 8) The applicant shall provide a separate trail easement document to encompass the existing trail along the north side of Chelsea Road; 9) The final plat is subject to the review and comment of MnDOT; and 10) The applicant shall comply with 2 Council Agenda: 9/22/08 all recommendations of the City Engineering staff as detailed in the memos of 8/27/08 and 9/9/08. F. Consideration to approve amendments to the EDA Business Subsidy Criteria (Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund). Recommendation: Approve the amended Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF) Business Subsidy Criteria. G. Consideration to approve an encroachment agreement for the 4`h Street right of way. Recommendation: Approve the encroachment agreement as related to the 4`h Street Right of way. H. Consideration of adoption of resolutions for special assessment agreements for Mills Properties, Inc. and M&B of Monticello for the Chelsea Road Reconstruction Project, City Project No. 2006-31C. Recommendation: approve adopting resolutions for special assessment agreements for Mills Properties, Inc. and M&B of Monticello (Suburban Manufacturing) for the Chelsea Road Reconstruction Project. I. Consideration of adopting a resolution supporting I-94 corridor expansion funding. Recommendation: Adopt a resolution supporting I-94 corridor expansion funding. J. Consideration of granting a decrease to the individual pension for Volunteer Firefighters Relief Association Members. Recommendation: Grant the decrease of benefit level to $3,500 for 2008. K. Selection of date and times for Liquor Store Manager interviews. Recommendation: Schedule Tuesday September 30`h beginning at 5 p.m. for conducting second interviews for the position of liquor store manager. Items #513, #5E, #5F, #5I and #5J were pulled from the consent agenda. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTING OF ITEMS #5A, #5B, #5C, #5G, #5H AND THE ADDITION OF #10 FROM THE REGULAR AGENDA AS #5K. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0 6. Consideration of items removed from the consent a enda for discussion #5D Conditional Use Permit, preliminary and final plat far Riverview Square Second Addition: Clint Herbst pulled this item because of the number of trees that were being required of developments in the business district. Clint Herbst felt there is a difference if the business is located adjacent to a residential district where the trees would be serving as screening between the residential and business uses or if the business is adjacent to other commercial uses. The commercial property needs exposure and the excessive landscaping requirements may reduce the exposure. City Planner, Steve Grittman stated this provision of the ordinance has been applied to all development but if the City wants to look at changing this provision of the ordinance that could be done. Susie Wojchouski concurred that the City went overboard and this requirement should be reduced. 3 Council Agenda: 9/22/08 Clint Herbst felt the City needs to flexibile with this requirement. Brian Stumpf suggested revising this provision of the ordinance. Steve Grittman commented that few developers have complained about complying with this requirement. He did suggest that since other communities have different landscaping/tree requirements staff could look at these and bring this back to Council. CLINT HERBST MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A BANK IN THE PERFORMANCE ZONE MIXED DISTRICT (PZM), A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH LANE AND FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT APPROVAL FOR RIVERVIEW SQUARE SECOND ADDITION BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE AND PROPOSED USE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE PZM DISTRICT AND UNDERLYING B-3 DISTRICT AS WELL AS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BROADWAY MARKET APPROVAL AND SUBJECT TO 1) THE APPLICANTS EXECUTING A CROSS -PARKING AND ACCESS AGREEMENT WITH BROADWAY MARKET PROPERTY OWNERS TO ENSURE PROPER ACCESS AND SHARED PARKING; AND 2) THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY ENGINEER. SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0 #5E Preliminary and Final Plat approval and rezoning for Monticello Commerce Center 8`h Addition: The property is located between Chelsea Road and I-94 west of County Road 18. At the present time the east part is zoned B-1 and the west part is zoned I- IA. It is proposed to rezone the property to B-4. Planning Commission discussion focused on design elements of the proposal. The proposed use is a permitted use in the B-4 zoning district. The Planning Commission had other comments concerning the plat and those conditions are listed on Exhibit Z. Charlie Pfeffer spoke to the Council regarding the language in the agreement referenced in Exhibit Z and other staff reports. His concern was that they are mandated into cross access easements. Both the property owner and Kohl's would like the language about cross access easements revised. At this time they are not prepared to sign off on the agreement as it relates to cross access easements. Charlie Pfeffer explained when the Kohl's proposal is approved, they will be coming forward with a planned unit development proposal containing two four-way stop intersections on Chelsea Road for the remaining 12 acre lot. The 12 acre parcel will be split into smaller lots with private drives. He felt #2 on Exhibit Z should read: "Internal cross access easements to future development surrounding the Kohl's site are permissible." City Attorney, Joel Jamnik pointed out that there are documents that also reference this provision and if the Council agrees to the change to #2 in Exhibit Z the other documents would have to be changed to reflect that as well. There was some discussion on the need for the cross easements and why staff felt this was necessary. Charlie Pfeffer stated they had no problem with the three accesses for the Kohl's site but they don't know what will develop west of Kohl's. They don't want to be mandated into a situation without knowing what the results will be. Charlie Pfeffer also questioned if #5 on Exhibit Z which states the area adjacent to the loading dock must be landscaped could be deferred until site plan approval. Steve Grittman noted this provision related to landscaping that would build up the screening by the loading area. Clint Herbst asked if this could be taken out and the landscaping plan be looked at later. Scott Burkus from Kohl's also questioned the wording that the "area adjacent to the loading dock must be 4 Council Agenda: 9/22/08 landscaped." The area adjacent to the loading dock is sidewalk. They would like to negotiate where the landscaping would be located. Steve Grittman stated they could add that the location of the landscaping could be determined at a future date. Lastly Charlie Pfeffer brought up #10 on Exhibit Z and noted if the Council approved the change to item #2 the staff memos referenced would have to be revised to reflect that change. Tom Perrault had questions about striping of accesses and whether there was adequate room for the flow of traffic. WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO APPROVE REZONING FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1 MONTICELLO COMMERCE CENTER FROM I -IA, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND B2, LIMITED BUSINESS TO B-4 REGIONAL BUSINESS BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED REZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0 SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI MOVED TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR MONTICELLO COMMERCE CENTER 8TH ADDITION BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE B-4 REGIONAL BUSINESS AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS BUT WITH REVISIONS TO #2 RELATING TO CROSS EASEMENTS; #5 ADDING THAT THE LOCATION OF THE LANDSCAPING WILL BE DETERMINED AT A LATER DATE AND #10 THAT THE MEMOS REFERENCED BE REVISED TO REFLECT THE CHANGES MADE IN CONDITIONS #2 AND #5: 1) REZONING AND PLAT APPROVALS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE GRANTED UPON FEE TITLE OWNERSHIP OF THE SUBJECT SITE; 2) INTERNAL CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SURROUNDING THE KOHL'S SITE ARE PERMISSIBLE; 3) SIGNAGE IS NOT A PART OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT A SIGNAGE PLAN AS PART OF A SEPARATE REVIEW AND APPROVAL; 4) SUBMITTED LANDSCAPE PLAN BE REVISED TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL THIRTY-THREE OVERSTORY TREES OR EQUIVALENT UNDERSTORY PLANTINGS; 5) THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE LOADING DOCK MUST BE LANDSCAPED WITH THE LOCATION OF THE LANDSCAPING TO BE DETERMINED AT A LATER DATE; 6) THE RETAINING WALL MUST BE A MINIMUM EIGHT FEET ABOVE FINISHED GRADE; 7) THE DEVELOPER MUST PROVIDE FINANCIAL SECURITY THAT GUARANTEES LIVE GROWTH OF THE PLANT MATERIALS FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD FROM THE DATE OF INSTALLATION; 8) THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A SEPARATE TRAIL EASEMENT DOCUMENT TO ENCOMPASS THE EXISTING TRAIL ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF CHELSEA ROAD; 9) THE FINAL PLAT IS SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW AND COMMENT OF MN/DOT AND 10) THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY ENGINEERING STAFF AS DETAILED IN THE MEMOS OF 8/27/08 AND 9/9/08 WHICH WILL REVISED TO REFLECT CHANGES MADE BY THE COUNCIL AS NOTED ABOVE. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0. #5F Amendments to EDA Business Subsidy Criteria (Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund): Tom Perrault questioned the section on minimum wage and whether the federal minimum wage should be used or the state minimum wage noting that one may be higher than the other. Economic Development Director Megan Barnett stated the federal minimum wage is $6.55 and 5 Council Agenda: 9/22/08 state minimum wage is $5.25. The 2009 minimum is proposed to be $7.25. Megan Barnett said although she was not a part of the discussions on the amendments it was her understanding if the subsidy was more than a certain dollar amount they needed to go with federal standards. TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO APPROVE THE AMENDED GREATER MONTICELLO ENTERPRISE FUND (GMEF) BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5-0 51 Resolution supporting I-94 corridor expansion funding: Wayne Mayer pulled this item because he said there is nothing in the budget for it and he didn't see any benefit for Monticello to contribute to this. Bruce Westby said the benefit would be to get the freeway expanded through Monticello. By establishing a coalition they hope to get support for the expansion. At this time MnDOT does not have money to fund the project. Wayne Mayer felt the proposal was too open ended. Brian Stumpf expressed some concerning about hiring a lobbyist. Susie Wojchouski disagreed and felt the group would be able to get things rolling at the federal level. Clint Herbst said if there is no money to do this project the lobbying effort is pointless. Wayne Mayer felt the proposal could be reevaluated again in a couple of years. WAYNE MAYER MOVED NOT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING I-94 CORRIDOR EXPANSION FUNDING. BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI VOTING IN OPPOSITION. 4-1 #5JDecrease in individual pension for Volunteer Firefighter Relief Association: Brian Stumpf stated he pulled this item because as a vested member of the relief association he would be abstaining from voting on this item. The error that led to the reduction request was that an individual was omitted from the report and the pension calculated for him was not included in the city's liability. As a result of this error the City had to contribute $15,578 to the relief association. Fire Relief Association representatives said the pension was decreased because the market was low and the value of funds declined. It was noted that if there is a surplus of 110% then the relief association can grant increases in pension without Council approval. Brian Stumpf stated that Monticello is only one of a few cities that do not have a city contribution. Brad Fyle said they could do some research and bring back what is done in other communities. He felt the $15,578 was a one time contribution unless the City in the future changed their position on City contribution to the relief association WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO GRANT THE DECREASE OF BENEFIT LEVEL FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS RELIEF ASSOCIATION TO $3,500 FOR 2008. SUSIE WOJCHOUSKI SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH BRIAN STUMPF ABSTAINING. 7. Consideration of awarding bid for street and drainage improvements for Kevin Longley Drive, Jerry Liefert Drive and Hawthorne Place City Proiect No 2008-10C City Engineer, Bruce Westby provided the results of the bids for this project. There was a total of six bids with Knife River Corporation having the low bid of $168,112.42 which was about $40,000 less than the engineer's estimate. The bid included an alternate for adjusting existing manholes using metal rings. The project will be funded with $125,000 from the Street department and with 50% of the cost for Kevin Longley Drive and Jerry Liefert Drive derived from special assessments. The cost of the improvements for Hawthorne Place North will come Planning Commission Agenda –9/01/09 1 8. Public Hearing: Consideration of a request for an amendment to Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to parking and storage on residential property. Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City has been working to clarify its allowances for the keeping of motor vehicles on residential property. This discussion has focused on passenger automobiles and light trucks, but has included attention to the keeping of recreational vehicles and equipment (such as trailers), as well as some limited discussion of the keeping of commercial vehicles. There are a number of locations in the current ordinance where parking and storage standards are located, and the those standards have been amended over the years, raising some concerns about both ease of use and comprehensive coverage. The City Council and Planning Commission conducted a workshop meeting to develop a consistent view on how to approach these vehicles, and where on residential lots they believed best provided for reasonable storage with minimal negative impacts to neighbors. At this point in the process, a final consensus on commercial vehicles has not been determined. In the proposed ordinance language, we have created a categor y called “Small commercial vehicles” and where standards for such vehicles would be located, we have inserted the text “Reserved”. In this way, the City can adopt regulations addressing passenger vehicles and recreational equipment, then make a minor adjustment when commercial vehicle regulations are agreed to. As such, we have created preliminary definitions that track some State licensing regulations for commercial vehicles. Some of those regulations are based on weight, which is a common municipal standard, but which the Wright County Sheriff’s office has expressed reluctance to enforce on private property (enforcement on public roadways avoids some of the concerns over showing “probable cause” when entering private property). The regulations that are proposed in this regard are primarily included as placeholders to facilitate final amendments – it is acknowledged that changes are likely when commercial vehicle parking regulations are addressed as a second step in this project. The changes to the existing code language are proposed below, in a strikeout – underline format to permit easier review and analysis of the proposal. Planning Commission Agenda –9/01/09 2 2-2 DEFINITIONS [PB1] PARKING: The act of keeping a passenger vehicle as defined herein on an approved parking space, properly surfaced, for a temporary period of time. [PC1] PAVED: A parking space or storage space which is surfaced with only the following materials: Asphalt, concrete, and natural or man-made paving stones such as brick, granite, or concrete pavers, provided such pavers have a flat surface area of no less than nine square inches. [SQ] SURFACED: A parking space or storage space which is paved, or surfaced with crushed rock, such as Class V limestone, crushed or decomposed granite, “con-bit”, or landscaping rock of adequate durability to support the load parked or stored thereon. [UA1] UNSURFACED: A storage space which is covered by vegetation, such as grass or other landscaped cover, and which is mowed or trimmed to meet the City’s weed control regulations. Unsurfaced space may not include bare ground which may be subject to erosion, tracking of mud onto the roadway, or drainage of silt into a public drainage easement or waterway. [VC] VEHICLE, PASSENGER: A vehicle capable of moving under its own power which is licensed and operable for use on public roadways, and shall include the following vehicles: Passenger automobiles, pick-up trucks and sport- utility vehicles of less than 9,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, pick-up trucks and sport-utility vehicles of between 9,000 pounds and 13,000 pounds with no visible commercial messages, commuter vans of a capacity up to 16 persons, and motorcycles. [VD] VEHICLE, RECREATIONAL: (1) A vehicle that is used primarily for recreational or vacation purposes, and which is licensed and operable for use on public roadways, whether self-propelled, carried on, or towed behind a self-propelled vehicle. (2) Operable recreational equipment that is not licensed for used on the public roadway, but used off-road, such as all-terrain vehicles, boats, off-road motorcycles, race vehicles, snowmobiles, or similar equipment. Such equipment shall be properly licensed if the State of Minnesota provides for such licensing. (3) Licensed, operable trailers which may be used to tow recreational equipment, whether such trailers are loaded or unloaded, including utility trailers. Where a trailer is loaded with recreational equipment, such trailer and equipment shall be considered to be one (1) piece of equipment for the purposes of this section [VE] VEHICLE, LARGE COMMERCIAL: A vehicle used for commercial purposes which is a semi-tractor and/or semi-trailer, dump truck, or any other Planning Commission Agenda –9/01/09 3 commercial vehicle that does not qualify under the definition of a “Small Commercial Vehicle”. [VF] VEHICLE, SMALL COMMERCIAL: A vehicle used primarily for commercial purposes, including pick-up trucks and sport-utility vehicles larger than 9,000 pounds gross vehicle weight which display a commercial business message, and all other commercial vans or trucks, regardless of commercial message which are no greater than any of the following dimensions: 22 feet in length, 8 feet in height, and 8.5 feet in width. [VG] VEHICLE STORAGE: The act of keeping a recreational or commercial vehicle as defined herein on a parcel in an eligible storage location for an extended period of time without regular use, and with proper surfacing or maintenance of the groundcover as required. [YB] YARD, FRONT: A yard extending across the front of the lot between the side lot lines and lying between the front line of the lot and the nearest line of the building. An open space on a lot lying between the front line of the principal building and the front lot line. The front yard shall include space adjacent to the side lot line which lies in front of the front building line closest to the side lot line in question. When, due to unique characteristics of a lot or building, a particular open space may be considered to be either front yard or side yard, the open space in question shall by default be considered to be a portion of the front yard. [YC] YARD, REAR: A yard extending across the full width of the lot and lying between the rear line of the lot and the nearest line of the building. An open space on a lot lying between the rear line of the principal building and the rear lot line. The rear yard shall include space adjacent to the side lot line which lies in back of the rear building line closest to the side lot line in question. When, due to unique characteristics of a lot or building, a particular open space may be considered to be either rear yard or side yard, the open space in question shall by default be considered to be a portion of the rear yard. [YD] YARD, SIDE: A yard between the side line of the lot and the nearest line of the building and extending from the front line of the lot to the rear yard. An open space on a lot lying between the side lot line and the closest side building wall, except that where space may be considered to either side yard an either front or rear yard, it shall by default be considered to be classified as front or rear, as applicable. Planning Commission Agenda –9/01/09 4 3-2 GENERAL BUILDING AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS [M] REFUSE: Passenger automobiles, station wagons, recreational vehicles, large or small commercial vehicles, and any other trucks not currently licensed by the state. or which are, because of mechanical deficiency, incapable of movement under their own power, parked or stored outside in violation of the City ordinances are considered refuse or junk and shall be disposed of. [N] EXTERIOR STORAGE: All materials and equipment expect as provided for in Chapters 5 through 19 of this ordinance shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties except for the following: 2. Recreational equipment and vehicles, subject to the parking and storage regulations in Section 3-5 of this ordinance. 4. Off-street parking of passenger vehicles and trucks not exceeding a gross capacity of nine thousand (9,000) pounds small commercial vehicles in residential areas, unless otherwise required to be screened according to Section 3-5 of this ordinance. 3-5 OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS [D] GENERAL PROVISIONS 7. Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use may be utilized solely for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, no more than one (1) truck not to exceed gross capacity of nine thousand (9,000) pounds, and recreational vehicle and equipment. Not more than one recreational vehicle or trailer may be parked in a residential driveway at one time. Any additional recreational vehicles or trailers must be parked behind the front building line of the principal structure. For purposes of this ordinance, recreational vehicles shall include snowmobiles, ATV’s, campers, trailers, motorhomes, boats, and the like. Under no circumstances shall required parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for the storage of commercial vehicles or equipment or for the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants, or customers of business or manufacturing establishments. 7. Parking and/or storage of passenger vehicles, recreational vehicles and equipment, and small commercial vehicles shall conform to the requirements of Figure 3-5-1 and Planning Commission Agenda –9/01/09 5 Figure 3-5-2. Under no circumstances shall large commercial vehicles be parked or stored in residential zoning districts, or on property that is used for residential purposes. Planning Commission Agenda –9/01/09 6 Figure 3-5-1: Diagram Area Key Passenger Vehicles Recreational Vehicles Small Commercial Vehicles Other Notes Driveway leading directly into a garage within the front yard of a lot. A Any number; Paved One such vehicle; Paved Reserved Parking space adjacent to the driveway within the front yard of a lot. B One vehicle; Paved One such vehicle, if it is the only such vehicle within the front yard Surfaced Reserved Other portions of the front yard C No No No Side yard, adjacent to garage side of structure D Yes, within a space consisting of the 15 feet adjacent to the building. Surfaced Yes within a space consisting of the 15 feet adjacent to the building. Unsurfaced Reserved Must maintain minimum 3 foot setback to side lot line in all cases. Side yard more than 15 feet from garage E No No No Side yard on opposite side of house from garage F No No No Side yard on corner lot facing a public street G Yes, within a space consisting of the 15 feet adjacent to the building. Surfaced Yes within a space consisting of the 15 feet adjacent to the building. Unsurfaced Reserved Must maintain minimum 3 foot setback to side lot line in all cases. This space may encroach to within 5 feet of the right of way, provided screening is included Rear yard H No Yes Unsurfaced Reserved No current limit to number of such vehicles – must maintain a 3 foot setback to lot line Planning Commission Agenda –9/01/09 7 Figure 3-5-2 (not to scale): Planning Commission Agenda –9/01/09 8 9. (k) SURFACING: All areas intended to be utilized for parking of passenger vehicles and driveways shall be surfaced with concrete, bituminous, brick, concrete pavers, or masonry pavers. Beyond the front building line of a single family home, crushed granite, crushed limestone, con-bit and landscape rock may be utilized as surfacing materials. The City Engineer shall annually review the list of acceptable materials to be used for surfacing of any parking space as provided by this ordinance. Paving and surfacing requirements for parking and storage of passenger vehicles, recreational vehicles, and small commercial vehicles for single and two-family dwellings shall be as found in Figures 3-5-1 and 3-5-2. Except in the case of single family and two-family dwellings, driveways and stalls shall be surfaced with six (6) inch class five base and two (2)inch bituminous topping or concrete equivalent. Drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and subject to his approval. City staff may waive this requirement it is determined that the drainage plans do not merit further study by the City Engineer. Staff determination in this regard shall be based on size of parking surface area, simplicity of design plan, and proximity/accessibility to existing storm sewer facilities. EXCEPTIONS: See D.9 (s) Stall Aisle and Driveway Design Conditional Use Permit. [F] LOCATION: All accessory off-street parking facilities required by this ordinance shall be located and restricted as follows: 3. For single family and two family dwellings, off-street parking on a paved driveway within fifteen (15) feet of any street surface shall be allowed as long as it does not block any public sidewalk or pathway. 4. For single family and two family dwellings, the part of a paved driveway within boulevard portion of the street right- of-way shall only be used for parking in a manner that does not block any public sidewalk or pathway. 5. SETBACK AREA: Except for single family and two-family dwellings, required accessory off-street parking shall not be provided in front yards or in side yards in the case of a corner lot in R-1, R-2, R-3, PZ, and B-1 Districts. For single and two-family dwellings, setback and location requirements shall be located as found in Figures 3-5-1 and 3-5-2. 6. In the case of single family, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, parking shall be prohibited in any portion of the Planning Commission Agenda –9/01/09 9 front yard except designated driveways leading directly into a garage or one (1) open surfaced paved space located on the side of a driveway away from the principal use. Said extra space shall be surfaced with concrete or bituminous material. For single family and two-family dwellings, parking shall be located as found in Figures 3-5-1 and 3-5-2. 7. In the case of single family dwellings, parking shall be prohibited in any portion of the rear yard. In the case where the only attached or detached garage on a property is located in the rear yard, parking may be allowed in designated driveways leading directly into a garage, or on one (1) open surfaced space located on the side of a driveway away from the principal use as shown in Figures 3-5-1 and 3-5-2. Said extra space shall be surfaced with concrete, brick, bituminous, concrete pavers, masonry pavers, crushed granite, crushed limestone, con-bit, or landscape rock as required by Figures 3- 5-1 and 3-5-2. 8. In the case of single family dwellings, parking in the side yard shall be allowed on a surfaced space only as shown in Figures 3-5-1 and 3-5-2. Said space shall be surfaced with concrete, bituminous, concrete paver, or masonry pavers. Beyond the front building line of a house, permitted surfacing materials shall also include crushed granite, crushed limestone, con-bit or landscape rock. These regulations summarize the discussion of the City Council and Planning Commission from the workshops and other subsequent meetings. As noted previously, the treatment and definition of small commercial vehicles, along with the threshold between small and large commercial vehicles, needs to finalized to complete this section of the ordinance. That exercise can be accomplished as a next step after the consideration of this ordinance. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance related to the requirements for location and surfacing of parking and storage of Passenger, Recreational, and certain Commercial vehicles. 1. Motion to recommend approval of the ordinance as proposed. 2. Motion to recommend denial of the ordinance as proposed. 3. Motion to table for further discussion and modification. Planning Commission Agenda –9/01/09 10 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption, with the understanding that further work is necessary to finalize the commercial vehicles portion of the material. Planning Commission Agenda – 09/1/09 1 9. Community Development Director’s Update. (AS) BUILDING DEPARTMENT UPDATE General Permit review and inspection: To-date the department has issued 668 building, plumbing, mechanical and sign permits. Property Maintenance: Average 4-5 blight/nuisance per week on Service Desk alone, plus additional field notices. A total of 331 violations have been issued for the year. Storm-related permit close-out. Building is currently completing an update on new numbers after the recent letters were sent to open permit holders (1600), which resulted in a flurry of close-out inspections. From here there are two roads to be taken pending direction from Council: 1. Send one more letter out to attempt close-out. After that last attempt, a final letter will be sent to those open permits remaining indicating that the City has attempted to close-out projects but will note for records that action/permit is incomplete. 2. Sweep community for: 1. work that was completed without permit 2. homes that have become property maintenance/nuisance problems due to unrepaired storm damage 2008 Rental permitting: This is a top priority for completion. The department has been directed to work with Campbell Knutson for those who remain non-compliant. There are 21 non-compliant properties. For these, the Building Department will: 1. Double check all rental records of the 21 properties to ensure nothing is missed. 2. Check Wright County title records for each property to ensure the owner we have listed is indeed still the owner 3. For all properties listed that we do not have an application for or any other response we will try and contact the current occupants to see if we can get proof of the property being rented 4. We will attempt to call each of these property owners one last time before we send this list to you for prosecution 5. Print all information (documents, pictures, etc.) and create a file for each property to send this info to you 288 properties licensed for 2008 (approximately 1100+ units inspected) 2009 Rental permitting: Department. is wrapping up inspections for those who have applied and has begun sorting out who hasn’t applied, who applied but didn’t call for inspections, and who called but didn’t pass. 158 properties licensed for 2009 Planning Commission Agenda – 09/1/09 2 Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment Angela Schumann has been asked to provide a presentation to the DNR District Managers regarding the Monticello Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment project. The NRI/A was funding by a DNR grant and the managers are interested in hearing more about the project results and application. The presentation is scheduled for October 5th. Neighborhood Watch Programs The Community Development Department is working with the Wright County Sheriff’s Department to provide resources to Monticello residents interested in starting their own neighborhood watch groups. This information will be posted under the “Monticello Living” section of the City website. Chamber of Commerce – Government Affairs Angela Schumann will be presenting a final report on the outcomes of the Development Listening Session to the Chamber’s Government Affairs Committee at 8:00 AM on Friday, September 11th at Premier Banks. Commissioners are welcome to attend. Monticello Downtown Business Association The MDBA is planning another great event – a Fall Festival in downtown. Watch for more news on this late September event on the City’s website. Sign Ordinance Brochure The City teamed up with the Chamber to distribute the new sign ordinance to the business community. The City paired the ordinance with a cover letter and brochure designed specifically for businesses. (See attached.) Existing Home Sales Beat Expectations In July. ABC World News (8/21, lead story, 3:45, Muir, 8.2M) opened its broadcast with "something we haven't seen in four years: four straight months of existing home sales going up. Houses sold in July at more than five million homes, extending a winning streak that began in the spring. It is renewing hope tonight that the housing market is making a comeback." NBC Nightly News (8/21, lead story, 2:45, Gregory, 8.37M) reported, "Existing home sales last month rose more than expected, up 7.2 percent, the highest month-over-month percentage increase in more than a decade. Sales are surging largely due to a tax credit for first time homebuyers." The CBS Evening News (8/21, story 4, 2:35, Mitchell, 6.1M) reported, "Bernanke said today prospects are good for an economic turnaround, and there are signs of it in the housing market, with used home sales up for the fourth straight month, posting the Planning Commission Agenda – 09/1/09 3 biggest monthly gain in at least 10 years." CBS (Tracy) added, "Last year, it took 80 days to sell a house. Now it's just 21. Nationwide, the seven percent jump in home sales marked the fourth straight month sales are up. The last time this many homes sold was August of 2007." The AP (8/21, Zibel) reports that according to the National Association of Realtors, sales "hit a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.24 million in July, from a pace of 4.89 million in June. It was the fourth-straight monthly increase and the strongest month since August 2007. Sales had been expected to rise to an annual pace of 5 million." The AP calls the report "another sign that the US economy is on the verge of a long-awaited recovery after enduring a brutal recession and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression." And the Wall Street Journal (8/22, A1, Hagerty, Timiraos, 2.01M) says the monthly increase was the largest since 1999. Bertram Chain of Lakes The County/City received word that the Bertram project has once again made first-round cuts for LCCMR funding. The City and County will be presenting before the LCCMR on September 30th. Subcommittee Notes: The Friends of Bertram Lakes has a Facebook site up and running with membership growing fast. A database for email and mailed reports has also been created. The goal for 2010 will be to get a separate website up and running for Bertram. Currently, all information on the project is hosted on the City of Monticello website. Jeff O’Neill and Tom Pawelk, who both serve on the Athletic Complex subcommittee, will be meeting with Paul Erickson, Director of the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission onsite to discuss development and funding opportunities for the City’s Bertram Lakes recreational complex. Mn/DOT’s I-94 Twin Bridge Replacement Project Update Mn/DOT has completed their clearing and grubbing operations and is currently constructing westbound bypass lanes to allow traffic to be shifted over to allow the CSAH 18 off-ramp to be reconstructed with its new alignment. This work will require the old CSAH 75 off-ramp to be reopened for several weeks, which is likely to occur within the next week or two. Construction of the new westbound bridge is also underway, which resulted in the closure of the pedestrian pathway south of East Broadway on Wednesday, August 19th. This closure will remain in effect for the remainder of the construction season. Users of this pathway are being rerouted along Meadow Oak Avenue to CSAH 18. Partners, a private equity firm and is largest shareholders, offered to !.5 percent majority interest for 70 ,r share or $35 million. [bursday, Select Comfort share - will decide whether to accept linp '-al or scuttle it. They've had ,on .o mull the Sterling -Select t agreement, a period in which pany has made progress on its fi- turnaround plan - and improved .. 2007 2008 2009 Source: Bloomberg News its stock price. It closed Tuesday at $2.57 a share. In the second quarter, Select Comfort beat analysts' earnings expectations and closed 21 stores. Analysts had projected a loss of 12 cents per share, when special items were excluded, but the company lost icies, marketing firms vo to these Web'nerds' ;acy computer skills helped a Web development moving into the advertising and marketing arena. S )OD Bravo is a Bloomington .evelopment company es not offer creative de- ategies or flashy graph- -lien* websites. nst is nerds. Some exact, developers who ea of the corporate of - s "The Nerdery" and .tred on the company's website. engineering and code, ?hics," said Sierra Bra- ucklin. "Clients always ad agencies and mar- irms that dream up of - promotions for their .es on D2 ► DICK YOUNGBLOOD • Star Tribune Sierra Bravo co-founders Mike Schmidt, left; Mike Derheim, center, and Luke Bucklin. "We work hard to make this a fun place," Schmidt says. lain as consumer confidence 1e prices rebound tK ST100 Gold (oz.) Oil (bbl.) 3 -month A0.67 A$2.20 V$2.32 T-bill 143.68 $945.90 $72.05 0.16% u�.or�.aaw vi uYll% %,U111IJQ11Y W1111 4 11CCU to close any capital raising transaction, regardless of the terms," Galt's Jeff Lick wrote in the letter. Lick argued that Sterling should not be permitted to buy shares at a substantial discount and that "such a windfall prof- it" would be unfair to the other sharehold- ers. He argued that all shareholders should be given the opportunity to buy shares at Select continues on D2 I, - HOME HOME PRICES SHOW SIGNS OF RECOVERY Home prices across most of the country have started to rise from the depths of the housing slump, according to new figures released Tuesday. Nationally, prices in the second quarter rose 1.4 percent from the first quarter, their fust quarterly increase in three years, according to the widely watched Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index. For the Minneapolis -St. Paul market, the report didn't list a quarter -to -quarter change. But in June, prices rose 3.1 percent from May, one of the larger increases among the 20 metro areas surveyed. From April to May, S&P/Case-ShiUer home price index Twin Cities prices had risen 1.1 year -over -year percentage change in percent. Compared with a year the 20 -city index ago, however, Minneapolis -St. Paul area prices in June were down 19.8 percent, the report 10 lune June said, greater than the 15.4 0 +3s 3i percent decline among all 20 -10 -..... metro areas surveyed. -zo% 2005 2006 2007 2008 f09 S&P/Case-Shiller home price index Ranked by one-year percentage change, Jan. 2000 =100 SEC ordered to explain Bank of America deal D3 Junk mail volume is down sharply this year D5 10 -year 30 -year Prime LIBOR U.S. dollar T -note T-bond rate 1 month 1.4309 $/euro 3.43% 4.22% 3.25% 0.26% 94.20 yen/$ Y June 1 -yr. June 1 -yr. Metro area index % chg. Metro area index % ehg Dallas 119.68 -2.2% Seattle 149.53 -16.1% Cleveland 106.38 -3.0 Chicago 124.99 -16.7 Denver 126.92 -3.6 Los Angeles 160.90 -17.8 Boston 152.71 -5.9 Tampa 140.90 -19.5 Charlotte 120.66 -9.6 Mpls: St. Paul 113.48 -19.8 Washington 174.32 -11.8 San Francisco 124.70 -22.0 New York 171.49 -11.9 Miami 145.37 -23.4 Atlanta 107.52 -13.7 Detroit 69.49 -25.0 Portland 148.47 -15.2 Phoenix 104.73 -31.6 20 -city composite 141.86 -15.4 Las Vegas 107.31 -32.4 San Diego 147.31 -16.0 Source: Standard & Poor's SEC ordered to explain Bank of America deal D3 Junk mail volume is down sharply this year D5 10 -year 30 -year Prime LIBOR U.S. dollar T -note T-bond rate 1 month 1.4309 $/euro 3.43% 4.22% 3.25% 0.26% 94.20 yen/$ Y