Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 07-07-2009 AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION June 2nd, 2009 6:00 PM – 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 May 5th, 2009 and June 2nd, 2009. 3. Citizen Comments. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, regulating Signs as related to signage for institutional uses. 6. Community Development Director’s Update. 7. Adjourn. SPECIAL MEETING 5:00 – 6:00 PM and 6:30 – 9:00 PM Mississippi Room Monticello Zoning Ordinance Comprehensive Update – Presentations & Interviews MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION May 5th, 2009 6:00 PM Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison Present: Tom Perrault Staff: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman — NAC Call to order. Chairman Dragsten noted the full quorum of the Commission and the presence of Council member Perrault as the Council member liaison, filling in for Council liaison Wojchouski. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission 2009. Gabler noted that she did not both make the original motion and second the minutes in March. Voight indicated that he believed he made the motion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH AND APRIL, 2009. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Citizen Comments. NONE. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. NONE. 5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to Chapter 6 of the Monticello Subdivision Code as related to Parks Open Space and Public Use.Applicant: City of Monticello Grittman provided the staff report for the continued item. He indicated that the amendment involves changing the park dedication requirement for the City of Monticello Planning Commission Minutes — 05/05/09 as related to new development. The substantive change is the adjustment for the requirement of land dedication when new development occurs. Right now, there is a flat 10% requirement within the Monticello subdivision ordinance. Grittman explained that standard was adopted by many Minnesota communities years ago. However, over the past few years, there have been court decisions and statutory changes that make the exaction of dedication more clear. Essentially, the City is allowed to take land for park dedication equal to the demand that the new development places on the park system. The calculation ratio is intended to provide proportionality between the dedication and demand, Grittman stated. Grittman reported that staff had provided an illustration of how the proposed amount of dedication requirement would be calculated. The illustration provides an analysis of parkland currently in the system, the amount of development or population existing and then projecting those two items under the long-term full development of the annexation area. Using that ratio, the City is able to calculate the amount of park land needed to meet that new development demand, including the Bertram Chain of Lakes. Based on the numbers for existing and projected population and park demand, the new dedication requirement is 11.4%. The change in the subdivision language will also built on the assumption that the same percentage would be carried forward into new development areas as the annexation area is built out. That amount is 9%, then as Bertram Lakes is factored in, it moves to 11.4%. The report also includes a calculation for converting the requirement from land to cash, due to the fact that not all development will include a land dedication. The City actually has the statutory authority to choose between land or cash for new development. Grittman noted that the City does not have an updated Park and Trail Plan. Grittman also reported that the changes to the statute now require that the City has to calculate the cash fee based on the value of the land no later than at the time of final platting. So, the City starts the dedication for new developments with the land requirement, and then converts that requirement to cash. That is done on an acreage basis, but then is further broken down to a per unit number, which the City Council then adopts as part of its fee schedule, which is adopted each year as an ordinance. This fee is then adjusted annually based on land values in the real world. Currently, land values are lower, so logically that dedication requirement would then be lower. Grittman noted that there is some also language that was incorrectly included in the City dedication ordinance when an amendment was adopted a couple of years ago. Essentially, the Planning Commission is being asked to approve the language change allowing for the 11.4% land dedication requirement. There is also language in the amendment that allows developers to challenge that number if they choose and provides the process for that challenge. Commissioner Hilgart confirmed that the City gets to choose whether dedication will be land or cash. Grittman confirmed that to be true, and also indicated that the City can choose where that land will be within a development. That is obviously a negotiation with the developer. Hilgart stated that this calculation actually is an increase in percentage, although the cash number may have gone down. Grittman replied that is true, but indicated that the cash value went down substantially, because land is worth less 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/05/09 at this point, but also went down more dramatically because until a few years ago, the dedication fee could include both the cost of acquisition and development. The recent change in the statute now allows for the dedication fee based only on the value of the land. Grittman said that the City can still spend the dedication funds on development, but cannot calculate the fee including those costs. Hilgart inquired what the current dedication per unit fee is. Grittman stated that it is about $3500 per unit. Hilgart asked if the City would just be taking cash from this point forward. Grittman stated that while recent park dedication strategy has been a preference for dedication fees in order to fund the Bertram Lakes acquisition, the City also has other local or neighborhood park needs. So, depending on the location of the development, the City may still choose land. He also noted that the City can also split cash and land requirements within a development arrangement. Dragsten inquired whether the fee will be based on the purchase price of a particular piece of land. Grittman responded that the Council will adopt a park dedication fee in January based on whatever evidence the City has of land value at the time of fee schedule adoption. However, it is possible that if there is evidence that land values have changed mid -year, then that fee has can be adjusted. However, it must be done by ordinance. Schumann explained that this subdivision amendment information will be sent forward to the City Council. Along with the subdivision ordinance amendment, the Council will also hold a hearing on the amendment on the fee schedule for park dedication. Staff will be proposing the same scenario that is presented in this report. Schumann stated that for the City Council, another review of land values will be completed to make certain that the park dedication fee Council reviews is based on a recent per acre value. She noted that it is difficult to find a good cost per acre number due to the lack of comparables for land values. Dragsten stated that he likes the idea of adjusting the fee based on the values in the marketplace. Hopefully that aids Monticello, as it may help keep Monticello competitive in fee ranges. Dragsten stated that he is not sure he agrees on the 11.4% requirement. It may be too high. He indicated that it seems like a large amount of land to be dedicated to park. Dragsten inquired if the City knows how much is in the dedication fund. Schumann confirmed that the Finance Director has an understanding of that fund balance, and that a certain amount has been used for the first acquisition at Bertram Lakes. However, she noted that the City also has other additional funding mechanism for the Bertram Chain of Lakes outside of park dedication. These include State grants, sale of City properties, etc. Schumann indicated that what is critical is a good determination on the proper dedication percentage. She explained that the 2008 Comprehensive Plan does call out the Bertram Chain as part of the City's park plan and that is the reason for including it in the percentage requirement. Perrault inquired where the base 9% came from. Grittman stated that amount came from totaling the current system parkland and then the population is serves. Grittman stated that 9% of the City is occupied by park and open space. Grittman indicated that at the same ratio of park to population, the City would need to continue to develop 9% of land as park. Schumann added that part of the rationale for purchasing Bertram is that a portion of that park will be used as an active City recreation area. Schumann noted that through public input, it has been determined that there is a deficit in active play field Planning Commission Minutes — 05/05/09 space in the City. So, the 9% currently occupied by City parks is not meeting the current population demand and that is the reason behind including the Bertram Chain of Lakes in the calculation. Additionally, the Bertram number includes only the City's share of Bertram, not the full acreage. Perrault asked if the current park and trail acreage includes Montissippi Park. Schumann indicated that is does because if Montissippi park weren't there, the City would have an unmet demand, or the City would have purchased land somewhere else to have an equivalent facility. Although the County owns and operates that facility, it serves the local population. Perrault agreed that 11.4% seems like a lot of land. Grittman stated that the standard in the industry is still 10%. Nine percent is what the City is operating at currently, with the additional 2.4% of the 11.4% attributable to Bertram Lakes. Schumann stated that a park plan analysis for determining dedication could be a very detailed study of current facilities, location, and unmet need. The simple calculations prepared for this amendment provides a basic analysis that provide needed background for setting the dedication requirements. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Spartz stated that the staff report makes the point that the analysis and resulting dedication provides a reasonable method for dedication requirements. Spartz stated his opinion that the dedication requirements put forth are accurate and necessary to include Bertram, which is part of this process. Although this may be a higher number, Spartz suggested that it seems that Bertram is needed to serve the population. Dragsten noted that the dedication requirements can always be reviewed as the comp plan is reviewed. Depending on development, it can be also be adjusted. Schumann stated that even if the Bertram Chain of Lakes wasn't in the comp plan, the dedication is geared toward meeting that unmet demand somewhere else. Dragsten stated that is the reason for his question for where dedication funds are currently being used. For example, perhaps those funds could be used to purchase property to meet that need. If there are funds available, then the City wouldn't need to raise the percentage, because the City should be able to use funding to meet that need. Grittman stated that he assumed that the existing dedication funds would also have been able to use to develop parks, as well. Grittman reaffirmed the new restriction that the City can't use development of parks to calculate the requirement number for dedication, but the funds can be used to build play areas and trails. Hilgart commented that he believes that neighborhoods need to have play areas. Not everyone is going to want to load up in the car and go to the YMCA (Bertram). He noted that his daughter plays soccer and there is not enough field space. Even though Bertram will be nice, it may not be convenient. Schumann did note that the Comp Plan stated that although the Council wants to consolidate regional facilities, the City should provide neighborhood facilities, or provide reasonable access to other neighborhood parks through trail connections. Hilgart suggested the size of a development should perhaps determine the presence of a neighborhood park. Dragsten referenced the costs for L, Planning Commission Minutes — 05/05/09 maintaining and operating neighborhood parks, which was the reason for regionalizing. Grittman commented that as the City grows, the need for an updated park plan with those policies set forth becomes more important. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 6 OF THE MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION CODE AS RELATED TO PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC USE, BASED ON A FINDING THE AMENDMENT REPRESENTS A CLEAR NEXUS BETWEEN THE DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS AND THE NEED FOR PARKLAND AS ILLUSTRATED BY PAST AND FUTURE PARK PLANNING EFFORTS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 6. Community Development Director's Update. Gabler inquired if Schumann can clarify what is included in the "other" category for Citizen Service Desk inquiry type. Schumann stated that the City is currently averaging about one inquiry a day. Primarily, staff see a lot of questions about utilities and blight. "Other" includes everything from MCC, Chamber requests, spring tree, plant etc. Dragsten inquired who monitors this service. Schumann stated that depending on the type of inquiries, it is funneled to the appropriate department. However, she and the City Administrator monitor the desk to provide some level of accountability. Dragsten inquired whether the Planning Commission needed to be involved with any changes to the ordinance as related to the level of blight inquiries. Schumann responded that the City Council had recently adopted changes to the City Code for public nuisance. She stated that Building will be doing a 6 -month report on how those changes are working. She stated that the changes streamline the way the City responds to blight. Dragsten inquired whether blight is localized or is all over. Schumann confirmed that is scattered throughout the community. Schumann stated that one of things the City is working on with GIS is linking this type of information with GIS mapping, so that the City can provide a visual image on the activity. In terms of type of blight, it is varied. 7. Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes — 04/07/09 MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION April 7th, 2009 6:00 PM Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Council Liaison Present: Staff: 1. Call to order. 2. 3. 4. 5 Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Lloyd Hilgart None. Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman — NAC Chairman Dragsten noted the absence of Commissioner Hilgart and Council member Woj chouski. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of March 10th 2009 Schumann reported that the minutes would be provided at the May meeting. Citizen Comments. None. Consideration of adding items to theagenda. Commissioner Gabler requested an update on the status of the Denny Hecker properties. Commissioner Spartz requested consideration to discuss a spring clean-up on some of the vacant or undeveloped properties. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for Amendment to Planned Unit Development for a retail commercial development at Monticello Travel G Community Development Director Schumann reviewed the staff report for the request, stating that the applicant is seeking an extension for the project known as the Monticello Travel Center, Landmark Center. The applicant is seeking a one year extension. This will be the second extension for the project. Schumann illustrated the project location. Schumann stated that staff sees no issue with the extension and is requesting approval. Gabler inquired whether the applicant had met all conditions. Schumann stated that they had submitted revised CUP plans and at the time they submitted for a building permit, those documents would be reviewed for compliance with conditions. Dragsten inquired whether the applicant was requesting the one year extension. Schumann stated that she had indicated to the applicant that one year was consistent with the Planning Commission's previous extensions. Spartz stated that he would like to stay consistent with precedent set for one year. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE JUNE 11TH, 2007 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A RETAIL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT MONTICELLO TRAVEL CENTER 2ND ADDITION, TO JUNE 11TH, 2010, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. Chairman Dragsten inquired if there was something before the legislature involving a timeline for preliminary plat expirations. Grittman confirmed that there is some bill language being floated that relates to that, but no one knows whether that will move forward. It would affect preliminary plats. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to Chapter 6 of the Monticello Subdivision Code as related to Parks, Open Space and Public Use. Applicant: City of Monticello Planner Grittman reviewed the information provided to the Commission. First, he indicated that the park dedication language that will be inserted is very simple. The calculations behind that number can be complex. Grittman noted that there was also alternative language that got adopted into the ordinance with the last amendment that needs to be eliminated. Essentially, the 10% dedication number currently required will be replaced with another number. Grittman noted that he did have an opportunity to talk with the Parks Commission about the ordinance amendment and the calculations. Grittman explained that using the existing amount of park dedication and the current population, results in a ratio of park demand. That number is then carried forward to apply to new development, with the inclusion of the Bertram Chain of Lakes. Additionally, when land is not desired by the City, the City has the option of selecting a cash dedication. The change in the statute that occurred recently only allows the City to use the cost of land acquisition to calculate the fee, not the development costs of the park and the land costs. So, based on that previous formula, the park dedication fee had risen up into the $3500 range. When that is removed and reformulated based on need to convert to price per acre based on recent Bertram Lake acquisition costs at $25,000/acre, it works out to $3,182 per acre cash dedication. Further converting that to a per unit count, it amounts to approximately $1,414 of cash fee per unit. Reviewing the calculations, Grittman stated that the amended ordinance would then require 11.4% in land dedication. The City then also adopts a fee by ordinance for the cash dedication. The per unit basis also means that a developer with a higher density 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 04/07/09 development would pay more in park dedication, which makes sense, given that the more persons, the more demand on the park system. Commissioner Voight inquired if a developer builds a higher density development, would the City would receive more cash than if they paid on a per acre basis. Grittman concurred, stating that the statute acknowledges that the more homes, the more demand on the park system. Voight asked how the City selects the proper park dedication percentage. Grittman stated that the number needs to be based on a park plan that serves the entire service area population. Theoretically, the City would have a plan for the amount of parkland it needs for its entire growth area and in what general vicinity. By adopting such a plan, the City has a rationale for the amount of park it needs, where land dedication would be taken, and where cash dedication will make up the difference. So, while Monticello doesn't have a plan for the future annexation area, the City does know that it will grow into that space and the comp plan does include reference to parkland for that growth area. So the City has taken what is working for the current population and system, and then applies that to the growth area, then adds the Bertram into the calculation consistent with the comp plan and the unmet need. Voight inquired about the 70/30% numbers. Grittman stated that those numbers relate more directly to Bertram. The City cannot say that all of the Bertram acquisition is the responsibility of new development. The 70/30 is based on an approximation that 30% of the City's entire future limits is currently developed. The 70% represents the growth area yet to be developed. The 70/30% ratio is then applied to the Bertram acquisition to be able to provide a rationale for how much of that acquisition needs to be included in the dedication requirements. Voight asked if the City can take future park dedication funds from one area to pay for property elsewhere, such as Bertram. Grittman confirmed that can and should occur. He also indicated that the park dedication funds can also be used to develop parks, but it just can't be used to calculate the dedication amount. Dragsten asked if the 11.4% would then be required with all new residential development. Grittman stated that would be true, unless the City adopted a different plan that illustrated that the City needed something outside of the land area shown to be needed. The 9% number is what the City currently has in parkland. The additional 2.4% represents the Bertram Lake acquisition. Dragsten inquired why the City wouldn't take part of the 9% to acquire Bertram. Grittman stated that if the City could say that the 9% parkland was the right number for the existing population, then only 9% should be required. Then, the City could also logically say that as the City grows, 9% is also the right number for dedication to serve the new population. However, in looking at the future growth area, Bertram Lakes is an additional piece needed to fill the service area's needs. Dragsten stated that is his point. The 9% seems to work well. Schumann indicated that the reasoning behind the purchase of Bertram is that the 9% is not in fact adequate. There is tremendous pressure on exiting active play facilities, which is why the City is actively pursuing the Bertram purchase. It will include 80 acres of active play field area. Dragsten indicated that to add more expense to development in this market is difficult. Grittman pointed out that the cash payment is actually reduced significantly. The current $3,500 per unit included many assumptions that are no longer valid based on the statute. inquired if the City would adjust the cash payment each year. Grittman stated that the City should do so, as the statute requires that the dedication be based on the value of the raw land no later than at the time of final platting. Dragsten asked when the fee would be paid. Grittman replied that is a matter of City policy. The statute implication is that the City would take the land or cash in lieu of at the time of final platting. The City of Monticello has been in the practice of deferring that payment until lot development. Schumann explained that in most cases, the City has an agreement with the developer that sets the terms of the payment process. Grittman stated that there is a fairness issue. She said that traditionally, the City had assigned park dedication as a special assessment via development agreement. Grittman noted that as phases progress, fees should be adjusted based on the current rate. Deferment can create procedural problems. If one developer has to provide the land upfront, they no longer have that asset. Another developer may defer the cost and build it into the costs set with the builder. Dragsten asked about the clause referring to a separate park and trail surcharge. Grittman stated that should not be charged by statute. Dragsten stated that his primary concern is that the City's fees remain in line and competitive. Schumann responded that this is definitely a concern, but Council has kept both trunk and building fees flat for the past two years. Dragsten noted that values are now equivalent to 2002-2003 rates. Schumann stated that it is a balancing act to make sure that the City can cover the cost of doing business while still keeping development costs as low as possible. Schumann said that the upcoming development listening sessions coming up will hopefully indicate how those strategies are working. Grittman added that this amendment will now be commensurate with real land costs. Additionally, because parks are a valuable asset to encouraging quality in the City's development, the City has to balance the need for this infrastructure and keep up with demand. Spartz asked when the last park dedication adjustment was made. Grittman stated that while it should be done annually, the current fee has been in place for about three years. Going forward, it would be recommended that it should be revised annually with the fee schedule adoption. The Commission reviewed a hypothetical 100 acre development proposal under the current and proposed structure. Spartz inquired how long this formula would remain in place. Grittman stated that it would remain. until the point at which the City completes and adopts a park plan. The City would then use that plan as the basis for changing the way the dedication would be formulated. Spartz asked how this fits with the comprehensive plan objectives. Grittman responded that many surveys illustrate that the parks and trails system in a community is often a top amenity that developers and residents look for. While the fee doesn't actually create high-end homes, there is definitely an indirect relationship. F Planning Commission Minutes — 04/07/09 Gabler inquired how townhomes and senior complexes would be treated for dedication purposes. Grittman replied that they would be charged on a per unit basis. However, if they do include some private recreation space, that also has to be included in the calculation for dedication. Voight inquired how the classification of parks is determined. Grittman stated that it is often by size and separation between parks. It is now the City's policy to have fewer neighborhood parks, with more consolidated regional parks for maintenance and cost purposes. These are then spaced further apart. Voight commented on the fact that the City does not have a current park plan and he inquired when this would be done. Schumann responded that the Bertram Chain of Lakes project, the capital improvement plan, and the parks already planned for but not yet completed, set the table for a future park plan, which could be completed by the Parks Commission. Schumann explained that with this input, staff will put together ordinance language for the next meeting. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 6 OF THE MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION CODE AS RELATED TO PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC USE TO THE MAY 5TH MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 7. Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update Request for Proposals —Consideration of Next Steps Schumann stated that when the City Council authorized moving the RFP process forward, the RFPs were sent immediately, with proposals due on April 1St. The City received ten proposals in response to the request. Schumann reported that all ten proposals had been provided to the Commission, along with a rating form for each proposal. It is proposed that an ad-hoc group including all five Planning Commission members, along with two City Council members and one representative from the IEDC and EDA would meet to pare the ten proposals down to three for interview and presentation. Schumann noted that this project may not move forward should the Council decide that it is not a priority project. Dragsten asked if the Planning Commission should wait until the City Council sets this as a priority. Schumann stated that the Council did authorize moving forward and a lot could depend on the budget and merit of the proposals. Schumann noted that with a quorum of the Commission, it would need to be posted as an open meeting. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO HOLD A PUBLIC MEETING TO REVIEW ZONING ORDINANCE PROPOSALS ON TUESDAY THE 21 ST AT 4:00 PM. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIOER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 8. Community Development Director's Update. Voight inquired why the sign ordinance did not move forward at the last Council meeting. Schumann replied that it was due to scheduling conflicts with Mr. Grittman and Mr. O'Neill. Voight also asked for a status update on the transportation plan. Schumann indicated that due to issues, primarily with a second river crossing, the City Council wanted some additional Information. The City Engineer is working on putting that meeting together. Council just wanted a better footing for that river planning process before formally adopting the transportation plan. Schumann reported that there were only a handful of inquires and some question on reconfiguration. Chrysler is basically in control of those properties and will be responsible. In regard to blight issues on vacant properties, Schumann noted that the City is looking for ways to actively involve developers in getting the process moving. Last year a letter was sent. This year, staff will most likely do the same. Schumann provided the Planning Commission with an overview of development listening session topic areas. Schumann reported that a joint workshop between EDA and City Council to review the TIF management plan was planned and the Planning Commission is welcome to attend. The session will focus on how districts are performing and options for TIF and TIF related flexibility for future projects. Anderson reported that Junk Amnesty would be held on the first Saturday in May. The annual spring sweep for public nuisance will start on the west side of the community and move east. 9. Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Recorder 0 MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION June 2nd, 2009 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 noted full quorum and the presence of Council liaison Wojchouski. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 5th 2009 Schumann indicated that the May minutes would be provided to the Commission in July. 3. Citizen Comments. NONE. 4. Consideration of adding items to theagenda. Schumann referenced that the Commission would be asked to approve a resolution as related to the FiberNet application for federal grant funds during this meeting. Chairman Dragsten concurred, stating that it was his intent to add that as item 12 for consideration. Commissioner Gabler also asked for a River Street update. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an extension of an Interim Use Permit for the Alternative Learning Program located in an I-1 (Light Industrial) District Applicant: Monticello Independent School District Community Development Director Schumann provided the staff report, stating that the Alternative Learning Program is seeking an extension of their interim use permit, which is located in an I-1, Light Industrial district. The original permit was considered for the 1998-1999 school year. Schumann reported that the IUP was intended to be a short-term permit to ensure that the City's industrial objectives would not be impacted. At the time of the original approval, a number of conditions were applied which, which Schumann reviewed. Schumann reported that the City has extended the interim use permit four times. Each time, there has been discussion related to finding an alternative location for Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 the program in a suitable district. However, with each decision, it was determined that the ALP's impact was minimal to this location and that the applicant was able to meet conditions. Staff believes that the base I-1 zoning is still appropriate. As far as considering an alternative location, Schumann stated that given a pending review of the zoning ordinance, at that time the Commission could consider what the allowed uses for this district should be and relate that back to this particular use. Schuman stated that staff are recommending approval of the permit. Hilgart inquired if there have been any complaints about this use in the three years since last approval. Schumann responded that the City had received none. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. School District Superintendent Jim Johnson addressed the Commission. Johnson indicated that it was his intent to discuss the strength of the ALP program and what it means to the district. He indicated that the public school system is intended and designed to educate the masses. Sometimes not all children fit into that setting. Johnson stated that ALP has been a part of the community for over ten years, with over 150 graduates of the program. Johnson commented that these are students who may not otherwise have graduated, as they don't fit into a traditional school program. Johnson explained that children have different backgrounds and the ALP offers them an alternative that fits their learning style. Research shows that the setting, outside of a school building, contributes to these students' success. Johnson explained that ALP staff are present and could talk more about the strength of the program. He stated that the district does understand that it will need a more permanent location, but the current location is part of its success. Johnson noted that Turning Point has been recognized statewide and that Tom Keating, a long-time teacher at ALP, was recognized as a teacher of the year. He had much to do with success of Monticello program. Gabler asked Johnson to discuss the use of Eastview Elementary. She inquired if it is too much of a school building for this program. Johnson stated that right now, 90% of the Eastview building is utilized with Head Start programs, ECFE programs, another alternative program called Prairie House, and other district programs. Spartz inquired if students are learning trades at the school. ALP teacher Lynn Haldey, 15831 127th Street SE, Becker, spoke to the Commission. She indicated that she has taught at Turning Point since its inception. She stated that built into program is leadership training piece for juniors and seniors. That program is designed to inspire students to go on to continuing education in 4 year and 2 year programs. Spartz clarified that the reason for his question is that trade schools are permitted in the I-1 district. Spartz confirmed that if they are going to learn a trade, they do go outside. Haldey stated that Turning Point provides all of the core curriculum that a high school has to provide. Dragsten inquired how many students use this program. Johnson stated that they currently have about 30 students; their capacity is 44 students. ALP typically averages about 25-30. Johnson noted that this has changed because of the different options available to students and parents. Dragsten asked if students come from within and outside of the district. Johnson stated that the majority of students are from the district, but open enrollment is allowed. Other communities have put programs in place modeled 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 after Monticello's Turning Point. Dragsten inquired how most students get to the ALP building. Johnson responded that there is bus drop off and pick-up and because of that, less parking is needed now. Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR THE ALTERNATIVE LEARNING PROGRAM, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE CONTINUES TO RAISE NO ISSUES WITH THE SURROUNDING USERS, AND CONTINUES TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS ABOVE. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 6. Public Hearin - Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zonin Ordinance, Chanter 3, Section 3-5, as related to the regulations for Off -Street Parking Applicant: City of Monticello Schumann reviewed the staff report, stating that staff are bringing this item back to the Commission for another review due to recent activity and concerns. She noted that the Commission worked on this item for quite some time in 2007. Schumann explained that this spring, the City Council approved an amendment to the City Code for public nuisance. The Building Department utilized that ordinance and the zoning ordinance to complete their customary annual spring sweep. Schumann reported that the sweep generated 289 violation notices. Of those notices, 156 written were for off-street parking violations. Of those, 70 were directly related to recreational vehicle parking. For that reason, as well as the number of concerns registered with staff, Council and the Building Department, staff is requesting a secondary review of the off-street parking ordinance back for review. Schumann referred to the areas of primary concern within the ordinance, including: • Permitted locations for recreational vehicle parking • Permitted locations for motorhome vehicle parking (which may or may not be included in recreational vehicle terminology) • Parking surface requirements in the side yard for vehicle parking, including recreational, motorhome and passenger vehicle parking • Rear yard parking restrictions by area Schumann stated that staff that rather than having an open discussion about the ordinance at this meeting, it would be worthwhile to have a workshop -oriented discussion about this topic. This would provide the opportunity to view some examples, view visual scenarios and perhaps talk with residents who got these violation notices. Schumann stated that if Commission were given a piece of paper and asked to interpret the ordinance, each would have a different picture of where parking were allowed. That is due in part to the inconsistencies in clauses of the ordinance, as well as the other items Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 noted. Schumann also noted that in thinking about the arrangement of the ordinance, as with the recent sign ordinance amendment, the parking regulations may need to be more illustrative with diagrams and charts that provide for much clearer interpretation than just text. Dragsten asked if staff is thinking this review should precede the full ordinance revision project. Schumann confirmed. She also clarified that the public nuisance ordinance is a City Code. Off-street parking is a zoning code and so in the past, parking violations were treated differently. Schumann described the new public nuisance process, by which a property receives a first notice from the City, with one follow-up inspection. If the notice has not been complied with, it is turned over to Wright County sheriff's Office, who then completes an inspection, writes a citation if needed and then completes a follow-up inspection. At that point, if not remedied, the violation is sent forward to the Wright County Attorney's office. Schumann stated that violations of the zoning ordinance were treated differently in the past. The Building Department would issue a violation notice, then re -inspect. If the notice wasn't complied with, they were eventually sent on to the City Attorney. In the most recent sweep, Schumann reported that all violations were processed in a public nuisance format. Wojchouski asked how many were cited. Schumann stated that about 289, with 156 for off-street parking. She noted that a significant portion of those noticed also complied with the first notice, moving their vehicles. However, a large batch were sent through to Wright County. At that point, staff asked Wright County to cease action on the parking violations. Gabler asked if the Commission was unclear in its direction on surfacing requirements. Schumann affirmed that the stated the minutes actually showed that Commission did talk about what they wanted for surfacing in the side yard and confirmed those requirements. The Council also talked about those requirements and added surfacing types to allow for maximum flexibility. Wojchouski stated that she appreciated getting the images, as they illustrated what some of the issued related to this ordinance were. She indicated that she had some concerns with this ordinance and its impact on personal property. She stated that it can add more costs for homeowners which may not be needed if items are neatly stored. She also noted that in reviewing the ordinance, she had questions on what things meant. Schumann noted that these inconsistencies are an additional concern. The definitions section of Chapter 3 does not include any definitions for "vehicle", "passenger vehicle", or "recreational vehicle". Schumann noted that Council had quite a bit of discussion on the recreational vehicle topic within the last five years and as such, it is likely that as the City considered the 2007 amendments, the focus was on parking surface and location and not the type of vehicle to avoid that issue. Grittman confirmed that was the case. Gabler stated that most violations appear to be boats and trailers. She also questioned if the City is crossing into property owner's rights. Schumann stated that the Commission was very specific in vehicle parking on improved surfaces. Grittman stated that the surfacing requirement is commonly applied because of the potential for blight, grass and 11 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 weeds, underneath those recreational vehicles. So a neighbor might not complain about a vehicle being parked, but would complain about the property maintenance in that parking area. Voight asked what specifically about the public nuisance code instigated the level of complaints. Schumann answered that it wasn't necessarily complaints, it was just that the public nuisance code inspection and zoning inspection got lumped together for the spring sweep. Voight confirmed that it isn't that the public nuisance and zoning ordinance don't correspond to one another, it was just that the two inspections occurred together and that the zoning ordinance included its own inconsistencies. Schumann agreed. Spartz asked what happened last year, as this off-street parking ordinance was in place last spring. Schumann replied that it was not a problem last year because of the storm, which consumed the Building Department's energy. Building Inspector Ron Hackenmueller confirmed that the department only completed a small sweep in 2008. Schumann also explained that the 2009 sweep was much more comprehensive due to the new public nuisance ordinance, which now corresponds directly to what Wright County is asking for. Gabler asked if the City is looking at private covenants with the City sweeps. Schumann stated that while the City ordinance may replicate what those private covenants may indicate, the City is not involved in any enforcement on those private documents. Wojchouski asked for a refresher on the two differing processes for public nuisance versus zoning ordinance violations. Schumann reviewed that with a public nuisance violation, a property receives a first notice from the City, with one follow-up inspection. If the notice has not been complied with, it is turned over to Wright County sheriff's Office, who then completes an inspection, writes a citation if needed and then completes a follow-up inspection. The Sheriff's Office has the latitude to give the property owner some time to remedy the problem. At that point, if not remedied, the violation is sent forward to the Wright County Attorney's office. Violations of the public nuisance code are misdemeanors. Schumann stated that in the past, violations of the zoning ordinance were typically treated differently. They are still misdemeanors by code. However, with zoning ordinance violations like those for off-street parking, the Building Department would issue a violation notice, then re -inspect. If the notice wasn't complied with, they were sent on to the City Attorney. So, zoning ordinance violations were handled internally for the most part. The City Code has a lot of punch, the Zoning Code hasn't in the past. But in 2009, all those violations got turned over to Wright County. Voight asked where the graphic included in the Planning Commission's packet come from. Schumann stated that NAC had drafted it as part of the 2007 amendment. Voight confirmed that it is not currently in the ordinance. Schumann stated that graphic would be very helpful to actually be included in the ordinance and even expanded upon. 5 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 The Commission briefly discussed various situations involving location of parking and surfacing. Hackenmueller pointed out the inconsistencies related to parking clauses for recreational versus where passenger parking could be located. Schumann clarified that there wasn't anything necessarily out of order in sending the zoning ordinances through to Wright County, but that was not the typical process for the City. She stated that it would be preferable to have as much individual City contact with residents prior to sending it through to the attorney's office in an effort to work with residents. Secondly, she stated that the ordinance is currently such that staff could read it and come to an agreement on what the language intends and how it should be enforced. However, if a resident can't pick it up and be able to understand it clearly, that is a problem. Spartz stated that if there were 156 parking citations, a large number of people who then probably complied. Spartz suggested that there may have also been those that were less clear and need additional consideration. Schumann stated that there is a wide spectrum for consideration of off-street parking situations. Hilgart asked if there are 289 total violations, how many complaints were made. Schumann stated that the volume on the service desk is picking up, now averaging about 4 inquiries a day. Most of those are public nuisance, although she stated that she does not know how many are parking -related. Hilgart stated that although as a neighbor he wouldn't want to look at some of these items, the other point is that this is personal property. There is a need to balance the two. He commented that if there are no complaints, then perhaps it is not a problem. Schumann responded that the ordinance in place may be in concept the ordinance that the City wants. If so, then let's eliminate inconsistencies and add some illustrations to make it crystal clear. Hilgart stated that these types of issues have probably always been there, but it just may be the violation notices that generated the concern. Schumann stated that the large number of parking complaints seem to be related to on - street parking. Gabler asked what type of format Schumann wanted for the workshop. Schumann replied that she would like a more informal workshop setting allowing the Commission to whiteboard their ideas with pictures of specific situations and the opportunity to hear from the public on this issue. Schumann did note that this evening is a public hearing, but a workshop may make people feel more comfortable. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Diane Romano, 131 Hedman Lane, stated that while she understands the intent of the ordinance, but the ordinance itself is hard to understand. She stated that she is trying to get into compliance. She stated that what bothers her is that she would like the City to work with residents rather than have to deal with Wright County. It would be ideal if the 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 City would do everything possible to work with residents until people just absolutely will not comply. Dragsten asked if there should be a longer grace period. Romano said not necessarily, although she did ask for one. She said that her point is that she would like the City to work with residents on how to correct the situation before taking it further. Dragsten asked if there is someone at the City that residents should be talking to about these issues. Schumann stated that it is the Building Department. Hackenmueller stated that is another reason to bring this item back to the Commission, not only to confirm the ordinance standards, but also the enforcement process behind it. Romano asked if all citations had gone to Wright County. Schumann answered that any off-street parking violations that were not recreational vehicle in nature were sent through to Wright County. Hackenmueller and Schumann had met with Deputy Brad Anderson, Monticello's representative, and a hold has been put on all other citations. The County has been very helpful and understands that the City is working through all of this. Romano also noted that due to economic conditions, it is tough for people to make the improvements required by this ordinance. It is a lot to expect of residents. Dragsten stated that although the idea is to keep neighborhoods looking nice, he agreed that the goal is for the City to do its best to work with residents. He cited those concerns as a good reason to take a comprehensive look at this ordinance. Gordy Yaeger, 1205 Sandy Lane, addressed the Commission. Yaeger stated that he has lived in Monticello for 30 years. He has owned a motorhome since 1979. In his situation, his lot is narrow and there is nowhere to put the motorhome behind the property. The motorhome is stored for 7 months out of the year and is often gone during the summer months. He stated that he has never received a citation before this year. He suggested that perhaps the ordinance should be based on how items are stored. Rather than one ordinance covering everything, there should be some leeway based on the circumstances. Schumann noted that Grittman had pointed out an important distinction — what is parking and what is storage. That may be critical to how the ordinance language is clarified. In terms of the workshop, she said that it would be ideal if the City Council and Planning Commissioner were all on the same page from the start. The Commissioners briefly discussed a format for the workshop. Hilgart inquired what the maximum width for driveway would be, as it relates to the amount of parking surface available. Grittman responded that the ordinance had been place for some time and is common in many communities. Grittman stated that there is some fluctuation based on the balance for needed parking space and managing the amount of impervious surface and stormwater issues. 7 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 Schumann suggested the alternative Planning Commission meeting date of July 21St, 2009 for a joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop. She indicated that she would confirm that date by email. 7. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for Mills Fleet Farm Addition. Applicant: Mills Properties, Inc. Schumann provided the staff report for the item, stating that on June 12th, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a concept and development stage planned unit development and preliminary plat request for the proposed Mills Fleet Farm project. The City Council subsequently approved the requests on June 25th, 2007. On June 9th, 2008, the City Council, with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, granted the applicant an extension of the conditional use permit and preliminary plat for one year. Schumann explained that due to non-use, the conditional use permit for PUD and preliminary plat will expire on 9th, 2009. Schumann noted that the extension letter sent by the applicant requests a two year extension period. The letter cites the economic conditions as the foundation for this request. She indicated that staff recommends extension of the CUPs and preliminary plat as requested. The Commission has typically granted one year extensions. Commissioner Voight inquired why the applicant had requested two years instead of the traditional one year. Schumann replied that given market conditions and timelines for bringing a project out of the ground, they have requested two years. Spartz stated that it was his recollection that the Planning Commission recommended denial of this request. Schumann stated that the Commission denied the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning, but recommended approval of the CUP and preliminary plat. Spartz asked what happens if the property is sold. Schumann replied that the CUP runs with the land and is only valid for the specific purpose outlined by the CUP and PUD. However, the rezoning to B-4 is still valid, unless the City acts to rezone it again. If Mills choose to sell the property, it is zoned commercial. Schumann confirmed that they could sell the property and build a permitted use project there. Spartz stated that he is more comfortable going year by year and reviewing each year by year. Dragsten stated that while he understands that point, for a large commercial project, it takes a long time to get these projects out of the ground. He indicated this preference that the extension be for two years. Hilgart agreed with Commissioner Spartz. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE JUNE 25TH, 2007 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PROPOSED MILLS FLEET FARM FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-1, WITH COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN IN DISSENT. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through facility in the CCD. Applicant: Masters 5th Avenue _ Schumann reviewed the staff report for the request, stating that Masters 5th Avenue is requesting a second extension of their conditional use permit for the project known as Landmark Square II. Schumann indicated that on September 6th, 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Joint Parking and Drives and a Conditional Use Permit for Drive -Through Facility, submitted by Masters 5th Avenue. The City Council approved the Conditional Use Permits on September 12th, 2005. Due to non-use, the conditional use permit for PUD would have expired on September 12th, 2006. The applicant requested and was granted a subsequent one-year extension in January of 2008. Although the CUP has again been unused for a period exceeding one year, the applicant is again asking the Commission to consider the extension request. Schumann said that the Landmark Square II development is also subject to a Tax Increment Financing District development plan and agreement. The applicant has less than two years to develop the property under the terms of that agreement. As such, Schumann said that staff would recommend the extension for the conditional use permit be granted for a two year term, or consistent with the TIF agreement timeline. Schumann explained that a timeline concurrent with the TIF agreement gives the applicant a consistent timeline. Spartz asked if Schumann knows the date of the agreement. She replied that she did not. Dragsten asked if the district can be extended. Schumann responded that she did not know if this particular district could be extended given the developments status. Wojchouski noted that the developer is monitoring this district and the prospects for development very closely. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR JOINT PARKING AND DRIVES, AND A DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITY FOR MASTERS 5TH AVENUE FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED THE TIF DISTRICT AGREEMENT TIMELINE, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 9. _Consideration to review an update to the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development as related to Signage for the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital. Schumann reported that as the Commission is aware, the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District has changed its name to the New River Medical Center. As such, they will be G'� Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 adjusting their sign package reflective of that change. She noted that in June, 2008, the City approved an amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for the comprehensive sign plan for the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital. Due to this change, the hospital is proposing to change the name on all signage proposed under the comprehensive sign plan. The applicant is proposed no other changes to the signage in terms of size, type or location. As the City cannot regulate content, no amendment is required or needed. However, staff is bringing this item forward to the Planning Commission at the hospital's request. It is for update purposes only. Dragsten noted that no Commission action is necessary. 10. Consideration of an update on the Zoning Ordinance Request for Proposalrp ocess. Schumann reported that the Zoning Ordinance Ad -Hoc Selection Committee met on Tuesday, May 5th for the purpose of reviewing the ten proposals received for the comprehensive zoning ordinance revision. The goal of the meeting was to narrow the proposals down from ten to three. She stated that during the Ad -Hoc meeting, the group was able to fill the first of the three interview and presentation spots. However, the second and third positions were undecided due to a four way tie in consulting proposals. IEDC representative Don Roberts was unable to attend and would have provided the deciding vote for the final two interview/presentation spots. However, Mr. Roberts was unable to review the four proposals and provide a recommendation due to time constraints. At staff's request, Council liaison Wojchouski was able to review the four proposals and provide a final recommendation on the two open positions. As a result, Schumann indicated that the consulting firms selected to interview and present are: 1. Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC) 2. Landform 3. McCombs Frank Roos (MFRA) Schumann requested that the Planning Commission set a date for the interview and presentation by these firms. The interview/presentation meeting will be posted as a public meeting: It is hoped that in addition to the Planning Commission, the balance of Ad -Hoc members and all Council members will be able to attend the interview and presentation session. Staff will notify all Council members directly of the date and time for that session. Schumann also noted that this exercise is being used to gauge the caliber of planning firms in relationship to appointment of a consulting City Planner firm. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO HOLD THE PRESENTATION AND INTERVIEW SESSIONS FOR THE ZONING ORDINANCE PROJECT ON JUNE 14th, 2009, SUBJECT TO FURTHER CONFIRMATION. 10 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 11. Community Development Director's Update. Schumann noted that the Planning Commission received a personal invite and brochure with their packets for the Bertram Chain of Lakes event on June 22nd Schumann reported that in regard to the Development Listening Sessions, staff has compiled the summaries for each of the development listening sessions, along with an executive summary document. The City Administrator is currently reviewing the document. Pending his review, the documents will be published, with a hard copy sent to each Council and Planning Commission member, along with all developer participants. The final document will also be posted online. Hilgart noted that there has been activity at Carlisle Village to better maintain the vacant properties. Schumann explained that Main Street Bank, the financial institution that has guaranteed the development, will be formally taking control of the development's vacant properties in mid-June. The Community Development Director and City Engineer have been working closely with Main Street Bank over the last year, as they also control Sunset Ponds assets. Main Street has proven to be very responsive to on-going needs/issues at both developments. 12. Consideration to review and adopt a resolution in support of a Broadband Technologies Opportunities Program (BTOP) grant application through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Schumann noted that the resolution is consistent with other resolutions adopted by the City Council and other entities for this project. She also noted that there is a clause specifically related to the Comprehensive Plan and this project's direct relationship to support of Comprehensive Plan objectives. The Commissioners agreed that they were comfortable with the resolution as written with the exception of the clause related to funding, as funding related to the FiberNet project is not within their scope of authority. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ ADOPT A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CITY COUNCIL'S EFFORTS TO APPLY FOR A BROADBAND TECHNOLOGIES OPPORTUNTIIES PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION THROUGH THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND 1NFORMITON ADMINISTRATION, WITH THE LANGUAGE RELATING TO A 20% CITY MATCH BEING STRICKEN FROM THE RESOLUTION. MOTION CARRED 4-0. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 13. Consideration of an update on River Street project. Schumann reported that the Council had discussed the River Street item at the last Council 11 Planning Commission Minutes — 06/02/09 meeting. Much public comment was taken. The City Council has asked staff to come back to the City Council with additional information and options. Gabler asked if the Council wanted any input from the Commission. Wojchouski said that it would be welcomed, as would any information that would help the Council make their decision. Hilgart inquired if anything was happening with the downtown theater. Schumann reported that two of the primary property owners on the block are working together. While there has been active discussion and concepts, there is nothing formal proposed for the block at this time. Hilgart noted that Anoka had turned their old movie theater into a community theater. Schumann explained that the Monticello Arts Council had looked at that building, but did not pursue it further for a variety of reasons. 14. Adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 12 Planning Commission Agenda – 07/07/09 1 5. Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, regulating Signs as related to signage for institutional uses. (AS) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND In April of this year, the City adopted a new sign ordinance. The sign ordinance was the result of much work by the Planning Commission and community, and has so far been working very well. However, at this time staff is requesting that the Planning Commission consider an amendment to the new ordinance for the purpose of including institutional uses as an allowable land use type for dynamic displays. The new ordinance allows for the use of dynamic displays in commercial and industrial districts, but does not include a provision which would allow these types of displays at schools, municipal facilities, churches or hospitals. As Commission may recall, there was discussion of including these types of uses in the allowable provisions for dynamic signs, but that language was not included in the final version of the ordinance document. Staff is proposing the following amendment to the ordinance in order to provide that allowance. 3A-10: GENERAL REGULATIONS: [S] Changeable Copy Signs: Within commercial and industrial districts, and for institutional uses including, but not limited to, public school facilities, hospital and medical facilities, municipal facilities and churches, one (1) changeable copy sign shall be allowed per site provided that the area of the sign not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the allowable sign area or fifty (50) square feet, whichever is less, for a freestanding or wall sign. The area of this sign shall be counted against the maximum sign area for the building, except where the property owner has agreed to forgo the use of temporary signs in accordance with Subp. [H] 2. of this Section in which case the area of the changeable copy sign shall be allowed in excess of the maximum sign area. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend adoption of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3A – Signs, as related to signage for institutional uses as proposed. 2. Motion to deny the proposed amendment. 3. Motion of other. Planning Commission Agenda – 07/07/09 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the proposed amendment. In many cases, the use of dynamic displays at institutional facilities serves the community by providing an important avenue for public information on events, activities and programs. Additionally, staff recalls that during the recent ordinance discussions on dynamic displays, there was general support for the use of this technology for the purpose of public information at these types of facilities. SUPPORTING DATA A. Sign Ordinance B. Proposed Amendment Document CHAPTER 3A SIGNS SECTION: 3A-1: Findings, Purpose and Intent 3A-2: Definitions 3A-3: Severability 3A-4: Permit Required 3A-5: Permit Not Required 3A-6: Prohibited Signs 3A-7: Non -Conforming Signs and Uses 3A-8: Enforcement and Penalties 3A-9: Substitution 3A-10: General Regulations 3A-11: Temporary Signs 3A-12: District Regulations 3A-1: FINDINGS, PURPOSE AND INTENT: [A] Findings: The City finds: Exterior signs have a substantial impact on the character and quality of the environment. 2. Signs provide an important medium through which individuals may convey a variety of messages. 3. Signs can create traffic hazards and aesthetic concerns, thereby threatening the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The City's zoning regulations include the regulation of signs in an effort to provide adequate means of expression and to promote the economic viability of the business community, while protecting the City and its citizens from a proliferation of signs of a type, size, location and character that would adversely impact upon the aesthetics of the community and threaten the health, safety and welfare of the community. The regulation of the physical characteristics of signs within the City has had a positive impact on traffic safety and the appearance of the community. [B] Purpose and Intent: It is not the purpose or intent of this Chapter to regulate the message displayed on any sign; nor is it the purpose or intent of this Ordinance to regulate any building design or any display not MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A- defined as a sign, or any sign which cannot be viewed from outside a building. The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to: 1. Regulate the number, location, size, type, illumination and other physical characteristics of signs within the City in order to promote the public health, safety and welfare. 2. Maintain, enhance and improve the aesthetic environment of the City by preventing visual clutter that is harmful to the appearance of the community. 3. Improve the visual appearance of the City while providing for effective means of communication, consistent with constitutional guarantees and the City's goals of public safety and aesthetics. 4. Provide for fair and consistent enforcement of the sign regulations set forth herein under the zoning authority of the City. [C] Effect: A sign may be erected, mounted, displayed or maintained in the City if it is in conformance with the provisions of this Ordinance. The effect of this Chapter, as more specifically set forth herein, is to: Allow a wide variety of sign types in commercial zones, and a more limited variety of signs in other zones, subject to the standards set forth in this Chapter. 2. Allow certain small, unobtrusive signs incidental to the principal use of a site in all zones when in compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. 3. Prohibit signs whose location, size, type, illumination or other physical characteristics negatively affect the environment and where the communication can be accomplished by means having a lesser impact on the environment and the public health, safety and welfare. 4. Provide for the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this Chapter. 3A-2: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, wherever they occur in this Chapter, shall be interpreted as herein defined. Terms not defined shall have meanings provided in Chapter 2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A- ABANDONED SIGN: Any sign and/or its supporting sign structure which remains without a message or whose display surface remains blank for a period of one (1) year or more, or any sign which pertains to a time, event or purpose which no longer applies, shall be deemed to have been abandoned. Signs applicable to a business temporarily suspended because of a change in ownership or management of such business shall not be deemed abandoned unless the property remains vacant for a period of one (1) year or more. Any sign remaining after demolition of a principal structure shall be deemed to be abandoned. Where a sign has received a special permit or other City approval, such approval shall run with the principal use of the property, and such a sign shall be considered to be abandoned under this definition when it meets the conditions specified in this section, notwithstanding the prior special approval. AWNING SIGN: A building sign or graphic printed on or in some fashion attached directly to the awning material. AREA SIGN: A sign identifying a series of related parcels or uses, rather than a specific parcel or use. ATTENTION GETTING DEVICE: Any device whose primary purpose is to attract public attention to a use of land (but which is not a building or the use of land itself), whether two or three dimensional, and whether through graphics, light, movement, shapes or other method. Such device may be either permanent or temporary, and would be regulated as a sign under the appropriate sections of this Chapter. BALLOON SIGN: A sign consisting of a bag made of lightweight material supported by helium, hot, or pressurized air which is greater than twenty-four (24) inches in diameter. BILLBOARD: See definition of Off Premises Sign. BUILDING SIGN: Any sign attached or supported by any building. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3A- SIGNS 3 CANOPY: A roof -like cover, often of fabric, plastic, metal, or glass on a support, which provides shelter over a doorway. CANOPY SIGN: Any sign that is part of or attached to a canopy, made of fabric, plastic, or structural protective cover over a door or entrance. A canopy sign is not a marquee and is different from service area canopy signs. CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN: A sign or portion thereof that has a reader board for the display of text information in which each alphanumeric character, graphic or symbol is defined by objects not consisting of an illumination device and may be changed or rearranged manually or mechanically with characters, illustrations, letters or numbers that can be changed or rearranged without altering the face or surface of the sign structure. CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN, ELECTRONIC: A sign or portion thereof that displays electronic, non -pictorial text information in which each alphanumeric character, graphic, or symbol is defined by a small number of matrix elements using different combinations of light emitting diodes (LEDs), fiber optics, light bulbs or other illumination devices within the display area. Electronic changeable copy signs include computer programmable, microprocessor controlled electronic displays. Electronic changeable copy signs include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto buildings or objects. Electronic changeable copy signs do not include official signs. COMMERCIAL SPEECH: Speech advertising a business, profession, commodity, service or entertainment. CONSTRUCTION SIGN: A sign which identifies the parties involved in the design and/or construction of a building subject to an active building permit. Canopy Sign Changeable Copy Sign MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A - DYNAMIC DISPLAY: Any characteristics of a sign that appear to have movement or that appear to change, caused by any method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, whether the apparent movement or change is in the display, the sign structure or any other component of the sign. This includes displays that incorporate technology or methods allowing the sign face to change the image without having to physically or mechanically replace the sign face or its components as well as any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking or animated display and any display that incorporates rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through digital input, digital ink or any other method or technology that allows the sign face to present a series of images or displays. ELECTRONIC GRAPHIC DISPLAY SIGN: A sign or portion thereof that displays electronic, static images, static graphics or static pictures, with or without text information, defined by a small number of matrix elements using different combinations of light emitting diodes (LEDs), fiber optics, light bulbs or other illumination devices within the display area where the message change sequence is accomplished immediately or by means of fade, repixalization or dissolve modes. Electronic graphic display signs include computer programmable, microprocessor controlled electronic or digital displays. Electronic graphic display signs include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto buildings or other objects. ERECT: Activity of constructing, building, raising, assembling, placing, affixing, attaching, creating, painting, drawing or any other way of bringing into being or establishing. FLAG: Any fabric or similar lightweight material attached at one end of the material, usually to a staff or pole, so as to allow movement of the material by atmospheric changes and which contains distinctive colors, patterns, symbols, emblems, insignia, or other symbolic devices. FLASHING SIGN: A directly or indirectly illuminated sign or portion thereof that exhibits changing light or color effect by any means, so as to provide intermittent illumination that changes light intensity in sudden transitory bursts and creates the illusion of intermittent flashing light by streaming, graphic bursts showing movement, or any mode of lighting which resembles zooming, twinkling or sparkling. FREESTANDING SIGN: Any sign which has supporting framework that is placed on, or anchored in, the ground and which is independent from any building or other structure. 5 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A- FREEWAY CORRIDOR AREA: A special signing area encompassing land located within eight hundred (800) feet either side (north or south) of the centerline of Interstate 94, in addition to certain areas along Trunk Highway 25 south of Interstate 94'north of Dundas Road, East of Sandberg Road, and West of Cedar Street. (See Exhibit A of this Chapter for the Freeway Corridor Area.) HEIGHT OF SIGN: The height of the sign shall be computed as the vertical distance measured from the crown of the adjacent street surface at centerline to the top of the highest attached component of the sign. ILLUMINATED SIGN: Any sign which contains an element designed to emanate artificial light internally or externally. MARQUEE: Any permanent roof like structure projecting beyond a theater building or extending along and projecting beyond the wall of that building, generally designed and constructed to provide protection from the weather. MARQUEE SIGN: Any building sign painted, mounted, constructed or attached in any manner, on a marquee. MONUMENT SIGN: Any freestanding sign with its sign face mounted on the ground or mounted on a base at least as wide as the sign and which has a total height not exceeding fourteen (14) feet. MULTIPLE -TENANT SITE: Any site which has more than one (1) tenant, and each tenant has a separate ground level exterior public entrance. HEIGHT OF Ca.11bd AQ— Height of Sign Marquee Sign Monument Sign MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A - MULTI -VISION SIGN: Any sign composed in whole or part of a series of vertical or horizontal slats or cylinders that are capable of being rotated at intervals so that partial rotation of the group of slats or cylinders produces a different image and when properly functioning allows on a single sign structure the display at any given time one (1) of two (2) or more images. NON-COMMERCIAL SPEECH: Dissemination of messages not classified as commercial speech which include, but are not limited to, messages concerning political, religious, social, ideological, public service and informational topics. OFF PREMISES SIGN: A commercial speech sign which directs the attention of the public to a business, activity conducted, or product sold or offered at a location not on the same lot where such sign is located. For purposes of the Sign Ordinance, easements and other appurtenances shall be considered to be outside such lot and any sign located or proposed to be located in an easement or other appurtenance shall be considered an off premises sign. OFFICIAL SIGN: Signs of a public noncommercial nature including public notification signs, safety signs, traffic signs, direction to public facilities when erected by or on behalf of a public official or employee in the performance of official duty — See also "Public Sign". POLE SIGN: See definition of Pylon Sign. PORTABLE SIGN: Any sign which is manifestly designed to be transported, including by trailer or on its own wheels, even though the wheels of such sign may be removed and the remaining chassis or support is converted to another sign or attached temporarily or permanently to the ground since this characteristic is based on the design of such a sign. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3A- SIGNS 7 PROJECTING SIGN: Any sign which is affixed to a building or wall in such a manner that its leading edge extends more than two (2) feet beyond the surface of such building or wall face. PUBLIC SIGN: Any sign posted by a governmental agency of a public, non- commercial nature, to include signs indicating scenic or historical points of interest, memorial plaques, and the like, and signs for civic interest groups within the City of Monticello when signs are erected by or on order of a public officer or employee in the performance of official duty — See Also "Official Sign". PYLON SIGN: Any freestanding sign which has its supportive structure(s) anchored in the ground and which has a sign face elevated above ground level by pole(s) or beam(s) and with the area below the sign face open. ROOF: The exterior surface and its supporting structure on the top of a building or structure. The structural makeup of which conforms to the roof structures, roof construction and roof covering sections of the International Building Code. ROOF SIGN: Any sign erected and constructed wholly on and above the roof of a building, supported by the roof structure, and extending vertically above the highest portion of the roof. ROOF SIGN, INTEGRAL: Any building sign erected or constructed as an integral or essentially integral part of a normal roof structure of any design, so that no part of the sign extends vertically above the highest portion of the roof and so that no part of the sign is separated from the rest of the roof by a space of more than six (6) inches. Projecting Sign Pylon Sign(s) 1 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A- ROTATING SIGN: A sign or portion of a sign which turns about on an axis. SANDWICH BOARD: A sign placed near the entrance of a business, usually on the public or private sidewalk, advertising particular aspects of the business goods or services. SCROLLING TEXT: A type of dynamic sign movement in which the letters or symbols move horizontally across the sign in a continuous scroll, permitting a viewer to observe the message over time. Scrolling shall not include flashing or other types of video movement. SHIMMERING SIGN: A sign which reflects an oscillating sometimes distorted visual image. SIGN: Any letter, word or symbol, poster, picture, statuary, reading matter or representation in the nature of advertisement, announcement, message or visual communication, whether painted, posted, printed, affixed or constructed, including all associated brackets, braces, supports, wires and structures, which is displayed for informational or communicative purposes. SIGN FACE: The surface of the sign upon, against, or through which the message of the sign is exhibited. SIGN STRUCTURE: Any structure including the supports, uprights, bracing and framework which supports or is capable of supporting any sign. SUSPENDED SIGN: Any building sign that is suspended from the underside of a horizontal plane surface and is connected to such surface. Sandwich Board MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A- 0 TEMPORARY SIGN: Any sign which is erected or displayed for a specified period or time, including, but not limited to, banners, f search lights, portable signs, streamers, pennants, inflatable devices. TIME AND TEMPERATURE SIGN: A sign Window Signage that displays only current time and temperature information. TOTAL SITE SIGNAGE: The maximum permitted combined area of all signs allowed on a specific lot. VIDEO DISPLAY SIGN: A sign that changes its message or background in a manner or method of display characterized by motion or pictorial imagery, which may or may not include text and depicts action or a special effect to imitate movement, the presentation of pictorials or graphics displayed in a progression of frames that gives the illusion of motion, including, but not limited to, the illusion of moving objects, moving patterns or bands of light, or expanding or contracting shapes, not including electronic changeable copy signs. Video display signs include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto buildings or other objects. VISIBLE: Capable of being seen by a person of normal visual acuity (whether legible or not) without visual aid. WALL: Any structure which defines the exterior boundaries or courts of a building or structure and which has a slope of sixty (60) degrees or greater with the horizontal plane. WALL SIGN: Any building sign attached parallel to, but within two (2) feet of a wall, painted on the wall surface of, or erected and confined within the limits of an outside wall of any building or structure, which is 10 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A- supported by such wall or building, and which displays only one (1) sign surface. WINDOW SIGN: Any building sign, picture, symbol, or combination thereof, designed to communicate information about an activity, business, commodity, event, sale, or service, that is placed inside a window or upon the windowpanes or glass and is visible from the exterior of the window. 3A-3: SEVERABILITY: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Sign Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of this Sign Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Sign Ordinance in each section, subsection, sentence, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid. 3A-4: PERMIT REQUIRED: No sign shall be erected, altered, improved, reconstructed, maintained or moved in the City without first securing a permit from the City: [A] The content of the message or speech displayed on the sign shall not be reviewed or considered in determining whether to approve or deny a sign permit. [B] Application for an administrative permit shall be filed by the property owner or designated agent with the Zoning Administrator on forms to be provided by the City. [C] Application for a permit shall contain the following information unless waived by the City: 1. Names and addresses of the applicant, owners of the sign and lot. 2. The address at which any signs are to be erected. The lot, block and addition at which the signs are to be erected and the street on which they are to front. 4. Type and size of sign (e.g., wall sign, pylon sign). 5. A site plan to scale showing the location of lot lines, building structures, parking areas, existing and proposed signs and any other physical features. 6. Plans, location and specifications and method of construction and attachment to the buildings or placement method on the ground. 11 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A- 7. Copy of stress sheets and calculations showing that the structure is designed for dead load and wind pressure in any direction in the amount required by this and all other laws and ordinances of the City, if required. 8. Written consent of the owner or lessee of any site on which the sign is to be erected. 9. Any electrical permit required and issued for the sign. 10. A detailed description of any electronic or electrical components that are proposed to be added to the sign. 11. Other information to demonstrate compliance with this and all other ordinances of the City. [D] The application shall be accompanied by a fee as established by City Council resolution. Applications for amending administrative permits shall be accompanied by a fee as established by ordinance. [E] The Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant, in writing, of an incomplete application within fifteen (15) days of the date of submission. [F] The Zoning Administrator shall review the application and related materials and shall determine whether the proposal is in compliance with all applicable evaluation criteria, codes, ordinances, and applicable performance standards set forth in this title within sixty (60) days of submission of a complete application. 3A-5: PERMIT NOT REQUIRED: The following signs shall not require a permit and are allowed in addition to those signs allowed by Sections 3A-10 and 3A-11 of this Chapter. These exemptions, however, shall not be construed as relieving the owner of the sign from the responsibility of its erection and maintenance, and its compliance with the provisions of this Chapter or any other law or ordinance regulating the same. [A] The changing of the display surface on a painted or printed sign only. This exemption, however, shall apply only to poster replacement and/or on site changes involving sign painting elsewhere than directly on a building. [13] Signs two (2) square feet or less in size. [C] One (1) sign per property in residential districts not to exceed four (4) square feet. 12 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A- [D] All non-commercial signs of any size posted in any number from August 1 in a state general election year until ten (10) days following the general election, and thirteen (13) weeks prior to any special election until ten (10) days following the special election. [E] Official and Public signs. [F] One (1) sign shall be allowed per street frontage when a property is offered for sale or lease, provided that: 1. Within the "R" zoning districts, no sign shall exceed twelve (12) square feet in area and six (6) feet in height for single-family, two- family, townhouse, and quadraminium units; or thirty two (32) square feet in area or eight (8) feet in height for multi -family or institutional uses. 2. For parcels in zoning districts other than "R", as well as for any parcel larger than ten (10) acres in any zoning district, signs may be up to ninety six (96) square feet in area or twelve (12) feet in height as defined in this ordinance. One (1) additional such sign shall be allowed for any street frontage which exceeds one thousand (1,000) linear feet. For the purposes of this section, frontage on any right of way, including local streets, County or State Highways, or I-94 shall constitute a "frontage", regardless of access. [G] Sandwich board signs are allowed within commercial zoning districts provided that: 1. Not more than one (1) sign is allowed per principal building except that one sign is allowed per tenant within a principal building having two (2) or more tenants each with an exclusive exterior entrance. 2. The sign shall only be displayed when the business is open to the public. 3. Except in the CCD, Central Community District (See subp. 7. of this Section), the sign shall be placed only on the business property and shall be located within required principal building setbacks, or encroaching into required setback areas a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall not be placed on any vehicle. 4. The signs shall be located so as to maintain a minimum five (5) foot pedestrian walkway and so as not to obstruct vehicular traffic. 13 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A- 5. The sign shall be set back a minimum of two (2) feet from the back of curb of a public street or private drive aisle. 6. The sign shall conform to the following height and area requirements: a. Height: Five (5) feet. b. Area: Six (6) square feet. 7. For sandwich board signs within the CCD, Central Community District, such signs may be located in accordance with the provisions of Subp. 3 of this Section. In addition, such signs may be placed upon the sidewalk or boulevard portion of a public right- of-way upon the issuance of an annual license in accordance with the provisions and process of Section 3A-4 of this Ordinance. a. In addition to the provisions of Section 3A-4 [C] of this Ordinance, the owner of the sign shall provide a certificate of general liability insurance with minimum coverage of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) naming the City as an additional insured for the sign to be located upon the public right-of-way within the CCD, Central Community District. 3A-6: PROHIBITED SIGNS: The following signs are prohibited: [A] Any sign, signal, marking or device which purports to be or is an imitation of or resembles any official traffic control device or railroad sign or signal, or emergency vehicle signs, or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic or which hides from view or interferes with the effectiveness of any official traffic control device or any railroad sign or signal. [B] All off premises signs greater than six (6) square feet in area. [C] Content classified as "obscene" as defined by Minnesota statutes section 617.241. [D] Flashing signs. [E] Roof signs. [F] Rotating signs. [G] Shimmering signs. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3A- SIGNS 14 [H] Signs which move or imitate movement, except for dynamic scrolling signs as defined in this ordinance. [I] Signs painted, attached or in any other manner affixed to trees or similar natural surfaces, or attached to utility poles, bridges, towers, or similar public structures. [J] Off Premises Signs: 1. Off premise signs existing as non -conforming structures at the time of adoption of this ordinance greater than six (6) square feet in area shall be considered a principal use of property. 2. Annual permits are required for all off premises signs. Off premises signs shall be removed as a condition of construction of another principal use upon the property or platting or subdivision approval for the land on which it is located. 3A-7: NON -CONFORMING SIGNS AND USES: [A] Signs: A non -conforming sign lawfully existing upon the effective date of this Ordinance shall be regulated in accordance with Section 3-1 of this Chapter. [B] Uses: When the principal use of land is legally non -conforming under Section 3-1 of this Chapter, all existing or proposed signs in conjunction with that land use shall be considered conforming if they are in compliance with the sign provisions for the most restrictive zoning district in which the principal use is allowed. [C] When a sign is considered to be non -conforming due to size, location, or other factor, but represents a conforming use of land, such sign may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, unless it is considered to be abandoned as defined by this Chapter. When a non- conforming sign has been damaged to an extent of 50% or more of its market value, such sign shall be considered to be abandoned if no building or sign permit has been applied for within 180 days of the date of damage. 3A-8: ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES: This Chapter shall be administered and enforced in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 28 of the Zoning Ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3A- SIGNS 15 3A-9: SUBSTITUTION: The owner of any sign which is otherwise allowed by this Sign Ordinance may substitute non-commercial copy in lieu of any other commercial or non-commercial copy. This substitution of copy may be made without any additional approval or permitting. The purpose of this provision is to prevent any inadvertent favoring of commercial speech over non-commercial speech, or favoring of any particular non-commercial message over any other non-commercial message. This provision prevails over any more specific provision to the contrary. 3A-10: GENERAL REGULATIONS: [A] Accessory Structures: Except as provided for by Section 3A-6 [J] of this Chapter, all signs shall be considered accessory structures. [B] Setbacks: All freestanding signs shall be set back fifteen (15) feet from any property line abutting a public right-of-way and five (5) feet from any side or rear property line. No sign may be located within a drainage and utility easement. [C] Standards Adopted: The design and construction standards as set forth in Chapter 4 of the 1997 edition of the Uniform Sign Code as may be amended, are hereby adopted. [D] Electrical Signs: The installation of electrical signs shall be subject to the State's Electrical Code. Electrical service to such signs shall be underground. [E] Approval: No sign shall be attached or be allowed to hang from any building until all necessary wall and roof attachments have been approved by the Zoning Administrator. [F] Sign Interference: No signs, guys, stays or attachments shall be erected, placed or maintained on trees nor interfere with any electric light, power, telephone or telegraph wires or the supports thereof. [G] Illuminated Signs: Illuminated signs shall be shielded to prevent lights from being directed at oncoming traffic in such brilliance that it impairs the vision of the driver and may not interfere with or obscure traffic signs or signals. Lighting may not illuminate any adjacent properties, buildings, or streets. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3A- SIGNS 16 [I] Permit Display: Signs requiring permits shall display in a conspicuous manner the permit sticker or sticker number. [J] Placement: No sign or sign structure shall be erected or maintained that prevents free ingress or egress from any door, window or fire escape. No sign or sign structure shall be attached to a standpipe or fire escape. [K] Structure: A freestanding sign or sign structure constructed so that the faces are not back to back, shall not have an angle separating the faces exceeding thirty (30) degrees unless the total area of both sides added together does not exceed the maximum allowable sign area for that district. [M] Square Footage Calculation (Total Area = A x B): For wall signs, the area of a sign shall be that that area within the marginal lines created by the sign surface which bears the advertisement or, in the case of messages, figures or symbols attached directly to the part of a building, which is included in the smallest rectangular figure which can be made to circumscribe the message, figure, or symbol displayed thereon: TOTAL AREA= (A)(B)+(A)(B) Structure Measurement A `Imre Wall Sign Area Calculation 17 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A- 2. For monument signs, are shall be calculated as for wall signs. Structural members of the sign, including supports or other decorative features shall not be considered as a part of the measured sign area: 3. For pylon signs, the entire area of the sign face or cabinet shall be considered as a part of the measured sign area. Structural supports, provided that they have no message or other graphics, shall be exempt from the area calculation. [N] Height: The top of a wall sign, including its superstructure, if any, shall be no higher than the roof of the building to which such sign may be attached. [O] Landscaping: A site plan shall be submitted as a part of any application for a freestanding sign which includes plans for the landscaping of the area near the sign, and which demonstrates that the sign will complement the existing or proposed general site landscaping of the property. [P] Motor Fuel Facilities: Signs for motor fuel facilities shall be regulated by the sign provisions for the zoning district in which the facility is located, except that within a freestanding sign, an area not to exceed sixteen (16) square feet shall be allowed for continuous display (no flashing, scrolling or other animation) of electronic or non- electronic changeable copy identifying current fuel prices in accordance with Minnesota state statutes section 239.751. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3A- Monument Sign Area Calculation �p� Sign Area fi Pylon Sign Area Calculation 18 KrNs [R] Window Signs: Window signs are not considered a part of the maximum sign area otherwise allowed under this Chapter and do not require a permit. [S] Changeable Copy Signs: Within commercial and industrial districts, one (1) changeable copy sign shall be allowed per site provided that the area of the sign not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the allowable sign area or fifty (50) square feet, whichever is less, for a freestanding or wall sign. The area of this sign shall be counted against the maximum sign area for the building, except where the property owner has agreed to forgo the use of temporary signs in accordance with Subp. [H] 2. of this Section in which case the area of the changeable copy sign shall be allowed in excess of the maximum sign area. [T] Time and Temperature Signs: Within commercial and industrial zoning districts, an area not to exceed sixteen (16) square feet within a freestanding or wall sign shall be allowed for display of an electronic time and temperature sign subject to the sign provisions for the zoning district in which the sign is located. [U] Projecting Signs: Projecting signs maybe allowed in commercial districts provided that: There is a minimum of eight (8) feet of clearance under the base of the sign to the ground below. 2. The sign does not project more than five (5) feet beyond the wall to which it is mounted, may not project over any vehicular drive aisle or traveled portion of a public or private street and except in the CCD, Central Community District may not project over a public right-of-way. 3. The area of the projecting sign is not more than fifty (50) percent of the maximum area allowed for an individual wall sign in the respective zoning district in Section 3A-11 of this Chapter. [V] Dynamic Displays: Regulations for Dynamic Signs. Based on studies related to the use of dynamic sign displays and driver distraction, the City finds that dynamic signs, as defined by the zoning ordinance, have a unique potential to create driver distraction, a major cause of traffic crashes. As a result, the City has adopted special regulations that relate to such signs. These regulations shall apply to all proposed dynamic signage in the City, whether new or existing, conforming or non -conforming at the time of adoption of this ordinance. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3A- SIGNS 19 Dynamic signs shall have messages that change instantaneously, and do not fade, dissolve, blink, or appear to simulate motion in any way. Prohibited blinking signs shall include signs which are displayed as continuous solid messages for less than the time required by Subp. 4 of this Section. The exception to this regulation is the allowance of messages that appear to scroll horizontally across the sign, but are otherwise in compliance with the requirements of this ordinance, including the definition of "scrolling signs". 2. Dynamic signs shall not be permitted in any Residential zoning district. No dynamic display shall change more than one time per five (5) second period, except time and temperature displays which may change once every three (3) seconds. 4. Dynamic signs shall be no brighter than other illuminated signs in the same district. 5. Dynamic displays shall be designed to freeze the display in the event of malfunction, and the owner shall discontinue the display immediately upon malfunction, or upon notice from the City that the display violates the City's regulations. 6. Where access to the Minnesota Amber Alert technology is available, all applicants for freestanding sign licenses employing electronic dynamic sign technology shall display such messages as they are made available by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety or other responsible agency. License applicants shall be required to submit information from the State of Minnesota documenting the availability, or non-availability, of such access as part of their license application. 7. Applicants for a dynamic display shall obtain a specific license for such display from the City of Monticello, and shall sign a form agreeing to operation of the sign in conformance with these regulations. Violation of these regulations shall result in forfeiture of the license, and the City shall be authorized to arrange disconnection of electrical service to the facility. No Dynamic Display shall be permitted to be located in a yard or on the side of a building which abuts a residentially zoned parcel. [W] Design and Materials Standards for Signs in Commercial, Industrial, CCD, PZ Mixed, and PUD Districts. 20 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A- 1. The design and materials of any sign shall be consistent with the building materials requirements of the district in which the sign is located, and shall be the same as, or compatible with, the materials and design of the principal building(s) on the property. 3A-11: Temporary Signs: [A] For property in the `B", Business Districts, "I", Industrial Districts, "CCD", Central Community District, or the "PZM", Performance Zone — Mixed District, the use of commercial temporary sign devices shall not exceed forty (40) days per calendar year per building. Not more than one (1) temporary sign device per building shall be displayed upon a property at any one time. The area of temporary sign devices shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. [B] For property within the P -S, Public Semi -Public District, the use of temporary sign devices shall not exceed fifty (50) days per calendar year per property. Not more than one (1) temporary sign device per property shall be displayed at any one time. The area of temporary sign devices shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. [C] In cases where properties forego, in writing, temporary signage allowances of Subp. [H] 1. of this Section, an additional permanent message board sign up to fifty (50) square feet in area shall be allowed. Such sign may be incorporated into a property's freestanding sign or the building as additional wall sign area. Freestanding signs shall be subject to the height limitations of the applicable zoning district. [D] Subject to other provisions of this Section, one (1) additional temporary sign device shall be permitted for a business on a one-time basis for a period of up to forty (40) days beginning on the first day of the business opening to the public. 3A-12: DISTRICT REGULATIONS: In addition to the signs allowed by Sections 3A-5 and 3A-9 of this Chapter, the following signs shall be allowed within the specific zoning districts: [A] Within A -O, "R", "P -S", and PZ Residential zoning districts, the following additional regulations apply: Except for the uses specified in Section 3A-12 [A] 2. and 3. of this Chapter, one (1) sign shall be allowed provided that: a. The area of the sign shall not exceed four (4) square feet. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3A- SIGNS 21 b. Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height of six (6) feet. 2. In addition to the sign allowed by Section 3A-11 [A].1 of this Chapter, one (1) residential area identification sign shall be allowed. Such sign shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area and eight (8) feet in height. 3. Government buildings and structures, public, quasi -public or private recreation buildings, public parks and recreation areas, public and private educational institutions limited to accredited elementary, middle or senior high schools, and religious institutions such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues shall be allowed two (2) institutional identification signs not exceeding seventy-five (75) square feet in area and eight (8) feet in height. [B] Within the CCD, PZ Mixed, commercial and industrial zoning districts, the following additional regulations shall apply: 1. Total Area of Signs: The total area of all signs displayed on a lot shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the total building facade fronting not more than two (2) public streets. 2. Freestanding Sign: a. Unless otherwise specified in this section, one (1) sign is allowed per lot. The area of a freestanding sign may not exceed one hundred (100) square feet each side with a maximum height of twenty-two (22) feet. b. In the Freeway Corridor Area as defined by this Chapter, the area of a freestanding sign may not exceed two hundred (200) square feet each side with a maximum height of thirty two (32) feet. C. If a monument, rather than pylon sign is utilized, an additional one hundred (100) square feet of area beyond the total area calculated in Subd. [B] 1. above, devoted to wall, canopy or marquee signs shall be granted. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE For shopping centers greater than one hundred and fifty thousand (150,000) square feet of aggregate building square footage and greater than twenty (20) acres in site area, two (2) freestanding signs may be permitted. Two (2) 3A- SIGNS 22 pylon signs may be constructed or, as an alternative, one (1) pylon and one (1) monument sign may be constructed. When the latter option is chosen, the monument sign shall be no greater than fourteen (14) feet in height nor more than one hundred (100) square feet in area. The pylon sign may be no greater than fifty (50) feet in height and four hundred (400) square feet in area. 3. Wall, Canopy, or Marquee Signs: a. Wall, canopy, projecting, and marquee signs shall be consistent with the maximum area requirements of Section 3A-12 [B] 1 above. b. Wall, canopy and marquee signs are permitted on any building facade except those which abut properties zoned for residential use. 4. In addition to the sign allowed by Section 3A-12 [B] 1 of this Chapter, one (1) area identification sign shall be allowed. Such sign shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area and twenty five (25) feet in height. Multiple Occupancy Commercial And Industrial Buildings: When a single principal building is devoted to two (2) or more commercial or industrial principal uses, signs shall be allowed subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator based upon the following requirements: a. The maximum individual sign sizes for multiple occupancy buildings and individual businesses that may display a sign shall not exceed the maximum provisions in the same zoning district in Section 3A-11 of this Chapter. b. Commercial retail, office, or mixed use multiple occupancy buildings may display a freestanding sign consistent with the applicable zoning district provisions in Section 3A-11 of this Chapter. c. Except as provided by window, changeable copy, or temporary signs in this Ordinance, individual tenants of a multiple occupancy building within a commercial or industrial zoning district shall not display separate wall, canopy, or marquee signs unless the tenant's business has an exclusive exterior entrance and subject to the following requirements: MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3A- SIGNS 23 i. Each sign shall be limited to the maximum wall sign size permitted in the applicable zoning district provisions in Section 3A-11 of this Chapter. ii. The sign shall be located only on the exterior wall of the tenant space to which the sign permit is issued, but are not required to face a public street. iii. A comprehensive sign plan is submitted that includes all of the following information: a) A site plan to scale showing the location of lot lines, buildings, structures, parking areas, existing and proposed signs, and any other physical features of the area included within the proposed comprehensive sign plan. b) Elevations to scale of buildings included within the comprehensive sign plan including the location of existing or proposed wall, canopy, or marquee signs. c) To scale plans for all existing and proposed signs of any type included within the comprehensive sign plan indicating area, dimensions, height, materials, colors, and means of illumination(if any). d. No permit shall be issued for a new or replacement sign for an individual tenant except upon a determination by the Zoning Administrator that it is consistent with the approved comprehensive sign plan. [C] In a PUD, Planned Unit Development District, signing restrictions shall be based upon the individual uses and structures contained in the complex. Signs shall be in compliance with the restrictions applied in the most restrictive zoning district in which the use is allowed. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3A- SIGNS 24 Planning Commission Agenda- 07/07/09 1 EXHIBIT B. ORDINANCE NO. ______ CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE AS RELATED TO SIGNAGE FOR INSTITUTIONAL USES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 3A-10[S] of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: Changeable Copy Signs: Within commercial and industrial districts, and for institutional uses including, but not limited to, public school facilities, hospital and medical facilities, municipal facilities and churches, one (1) changeable copy sign shall be allowed per site provided that the area of the sign not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the allowable sign area or fifty (50) square feet, whichever is less, for a freestanding or wall sign. The area of this sign shall be counted against the maximum sign area for the building, except where the property owner has agreed to forgo the use of temporary signs in accordance with Subp. [H] 2. of this Section in which case the area of the changeable copy sign shall be allowed in excess of the maximum sign area. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. Adopted by the City Council of Monticello, Minnesota on the ____ day of ______________, 2009. CITY OF MONTICELLO By: Mayor Clint Herbst ATTEST By: Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator