The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 03-10-2009AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 10th, 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 Call to order. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 6th, 2009 and the joint Planning Commission and City Council Sign Workshop minutes of January 6th, 2009. 3. Citizen Comments. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 5. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales & Display as related to an outdoor volleyball facility in a B-4 (Regional Business) District. Applicant: River City ExtremelParnell, Mark 6. Public Hearing -Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, regulating Signs. Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission 7. Continued Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for amendment to Chapter 3 of the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance, Title 10 of Monticello City Code as related to Final Platting. Applicant: City of Monticello 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 Consideration to appoint Chairman of the Planning Commission for 2009. 10. Community Development Director's Update. 11. Adjourn. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 6th, 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 Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and declared a full quorum of the Commission. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of November 5~' and December 2nd , 2008. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER Sa' and DECEMBER 2nd, 2008. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 3. Citizen Comments Dan Lemm, 11803 Cameron Avenue, addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Lemm inquired whether the Planning Commission has discussed how to address decreasing property values due to the housing crisis and options to ensure that vacant properties are maintained. Mr. Lemm also indicated that the State of Minnesota has reviewed gravel resources in the area between Monticello and Buffalo and indicated there is an area of no- build. Schumann stated that the City Council had recently passed an ordinance related to emergency water shut-off for unheated, visibly vacant properties. She noted that she would also provide the Commission with an additional update on the status of foreclosure prevention and remediation as part of item 10. In regard to the question about development in areas of existing aggregate resources, Planner Grittman stated that the County had put these areas into plan. Lemm indicated that it could affect the land owned by the mobile home park could be affected. Grittman stated that staff would follow-up on that item. Planning Commission Minutes - 01/06/09 4. Consideration of adding items to the a eg nda• Hilgart requested information as related to the Denny Hecker properties. He also noted that the trailer storage still exists on the property between County Highway 75 and I-94. 5. Consideration of a request for approval of the final plat of St. Henry's Catholic Church 1St Addition. Community Development Director Schumann presented the report for the item, stating that the Planning Commission is asked to approve the final plat of St. Henry's Catholic Church 1St Addition. Schumann stated that the approval is a housekeeping item related to the 2004 CSAH 18/I-94 Interchange and 7th Street projects, as the interchange project required the realignment and completion of West 7th Street. Schumann explained that by ordinance, the Planning Commission is required only to review and approve preliminary plat. However, as this final plat represents a different lot and ROW configuration from the preliminary plat (which was approved in 1997), the Planning Commission is asked to consider its formal approval. The plat included here represents the current alignment and reconfiguration of adjacent lots. Schumann reported that the actual recording of the final plat document has been delayed until this point due to the intensive review process on the plat. The plat fully conforms to ordinance requirements and all other vacations and approvals relating to the plat were received previously. Schumann stated that staff is recommending approval of the final plat. Dragsten clarified that all other lots had been previously approved. Schumann confirmed that the other lots in the St. Henry's Addition were approved with the first platting. It was noted that the new lot south of 7th Street is a buildable lot. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF ST. HENRY'S CATHOLIC CHURCH 1sT ADDITION, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PLAT IS CONSISTENT WITH MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 6. Consideration of a request for extension of a Conditional Use Permit for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for K'ellt berg Estates. Applicant: Ocello, LLC Schumann reviewed the request for extension, stating that the Concept Stage PUD approved for the Kjellberg Estates project is a 372-unit mixed residential development project adjacent to the Kjellberg West homes property and the Jefferson Commons commercial district. The project is proposed to consist of both single-family uses and a 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 01/06/09 mix of townhome styles. Schumann stated that this would be the second extension request. On September 6th, 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a concept stage planned unit development request for the proposed Kjellberg Estates project, submitted by Ocello, LLC. Schumann indicated that the City Council approved the concept stage PUD on September 12th, 2005. Planning staff did not make a specific recommendation, believing that Commission would weigh the objectives of the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan, as well as the current economic conditions in terms of unit mix. Schumann noted that the proposal for Poplar Hill, the proposed residential property directly west of this property, has since lapsed. That factor, along with the purchase of the property at the Bertram Chain of Lakes, may lead to some reconsideration of the type of residential use here is in order. Gabler asked if the Commission can extend the permit for 6-9 months. At that point, the approval would expire and they would start over. Grittman responded that the Commission has the discretion to grant an extension at whatever interval they deem appropriate. Dragsten noted that current economics make ashort-term extension unlikely. Charlie Pfeffer, representing Ocello, LLC addressed the Commission. Pfeffer stated that honestly, they do not know when this project will move forward. However, they and the City have spent time developing this concept, so they would like to preserve the extension. He stated that while he understands the City's motives for step-up housing, this site is perhaps not the appropriate place for that product. Pfeffer also noted that there is quite a bit of buffer between the residential and the commercial area, which would lessen the potential conflict. Pfeffer stated that the intent with the project was to provide a density transition. Pfeffer explained that he believes that a conversation about density will become critical at the time growth does come back. Spartz noted that if this plan doesn't go forward within the next two years, would Ocello want to know today this plan should be altered, or would they want to delay that decision. Dragsten further clarified that if market conditions change completely, isn't this plan likely to change, as well. Pfeffer agreed, stating that if the market comes back, and the product shown here isn't feasible, the plan would be revised. He noted again that density would most likely be a key issue due to cost, transportation, energy and other factors. Hilgart commented that he does not have any issue with extending the approval. The property it is adjacent to make this plan reasonable. Voight agreed. He did note that based on some of the old report, there were some items that would need to be revised as the plan moved to development stage. However, this is a good location for transition from higher density to lower density housing. Dan Lemm again addressed the Commission . He stated that he has concerns relating to the Planning Commission Minutes - 01/06/09 point at which these townhome associations go back to property owners versus developers. Lemm stated that his point is that the association dues should be put into an account by which the developer cannot access the funds, which are to be used for association maintenance. MOTION BY HILGART COMMISSIONER TO RECOMMEND EXTENSION OF THE SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONCEPT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR KJELLBERG ESTATES FOR ONE YEAR, WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS BE ASSIGNED TO THE EXTENSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 7. Public Hearing -Consideration of amendment to Chapter 14B (Central Community District) of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance as related to the re-assignment of design review in conformance with the 1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan. Applicant: City of Monticello Planner Grittman reviewed the staff report for the item. Grittman stated that the proposed ordinance amendment would essentially eliminate the role of the Design Advisory Team and their role in review of CCD development. Grittman stated that when the downtown plan was completed, it anticipated a design review due to the design elements incorporated into the 1997 Revitalization Plan. It essentially created another layer of review specific to the downtown area. As the Team has not had an extensive amount of activity as of late, the idea is to transfer the role of review for land use applications such as CUPS or variances to the Planning Commission. For permitted uses, the review would go to staff. The review is for consistency with the 1997 Revitalization Plan standards. Grittman stated that it is hoped that the current members of the DAT will still serve the City in a design review capacity by conducting an analysis of the existing Downtown area as action plans are developed for the Downtown. Dragsten clarified that DAT's role was confined only to the CCD. Grittman confirmed. He explained that the design guidelines for downtown do not go away, this ordinance just shifts the responsibilities. Wojchouski indicated that this is a very good change. Dragsten stated that DAT served an important role during the first phases of the downtown revitalization efforts. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT CHAPTER 14B (CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT) OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED. Commissioner Spartz added a thank you to all those who had served on the Design Advisory Team over the years. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 4 Planning Commission Minutes - 01/06/09 Consideration of amendment to Chapter 6 of the Monticello Subdivision Code as related to Parks, Open Space and Public Use. Applicant: City of Monticello Schumann requested that the Commission open and continue action on this item, as staff would request additional time for research and development of the amendment. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO OPEN AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REQUEST. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 9. Consideration to review and recommend appointments for expiring Planning Commission Term ~. It was noted that three Commission appointments were up for 2009. The Deputy City Clerk had noted that Dragsten, Voight and Spartz's terms were expiring. There was some question about the staggering. Schumann stated that she would verify the terms pending the recommendation. Wojchouski stated that on behalf of the Council, she hopes they will all continue. Voight indicated that he would continue to serve. Spartz indicated he would serve another three year term. Dragsten stated that he would also like to continue to serve. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND THE RE- APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS SPARTZ, VOIGHT AND DRAGSTEN FOR AN ADDITIONAL THREE YEAR TERM ON THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 10. Consideration to complete an annual review of the 2008 City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan. Schumann provided a presentation regarding the annual review of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that per the Plan document itself, the Planning Commission is asked to complete an annual review of the adopted 2008 City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan, and to provide recommendations for amendment, if desired. The Comprehensive Plan states that an annual review of the Plan "keeps an active and current focus on achieving the vision for Monticello and the use of the Comprehensive Plan." To aid the Commission in this review, Schumann noted that excerpts of the Plan were included in the Commission's packet, along with an analysis of the major concepts of the Plan. While the focus of the Commission's discussion would most likely be regarding land use, comment is certainly not limited to that chapter. Planning Commission Minutes - 01/06/09 Schumann stated that the Economic Development Authority and Industrial & Economic Development Committee will be asked to review Chapter 4, "Economic Development", and to comment generally on the "Places to Work" portion of the Land Use Chapter. The Parks Commission will be asked to review Chapter 5 "Parks" and to comment on the "Greenways" and "Places to Recreate" segment of the Land Use chapter. These groups would be asked to provide any formal recommendations or amendments to the Commission in February. Schumann reported that the Commission should be aware that significant alterations to the Plan require formal amendment, which requires asuper-majority of the City Council for adoption. In her presentation, Schumann discussed the Plan's two year evolution, which allowed the City to review both rapid growth and then the impacts of a slow down. As such, the plan does provide a measured response to growth and growth expectations. Schumann noted that to-date no amendments to the plan had been proposed or passed. Schumann pointed out that one of her primary concerns was related to how the City will balance the need and desire for development with move-up housing opportunities or conservation design principles in areas with significant natural resources. She posed the question whether the City will accept "development at any cost", or will it seek to balance the need for growth with the changing nature of development. Schumann explained that the Comprehensive Plan gave special priority to the need for modifying Land Use Controls, citing that in order to achieve the Comprehensive Plan's land use policies, the Zoning Ordinance language must be revised in support of Comp Plan statements and objectives. This will also become more critical as the City responds to the changing nature and design of growth as a result of the economic conditions. Schumann again stressed that outside the Met Council area, the zoning ordinance is the City's primary legal control. The Comprehensive Plan outlines Next Steps, for which Schumann reviewed progress to date. The Natural Resource Inventory called for has been completed and accepted by the City and has been forwarded to the DNR, from whom the City received a grant for completion. The Transportation Plan is in draft format and will be forward to the Commission on January 16th, with a public hearing scheduled for February 3ra In regard to next steps in Downtown planning efforts, Schumann reported that a recent meeting the Chamber's government affairs committee yielded interesting discussion on the downtown. In thinking about how to proceed, Schumann stated that while the Comp Plan didn't call for a complete revision of the 1997, it may be that a grass roots effort stemming from the downtown properties themselves. The City's Finance Director, Tom Kelly, has begun putting the pieces of a Financial Management Plan in place. In particular, the City will have a Capital Improvement Plan that outlines long-range infrastructure and land use improvements for the community. Commission will have the opportunity to review and comment on this plan. 6 Planning Commission Minutes - 01/06/09 Schumann discussed the trend line for residential growth, which was approved in the Comp Plan. Schumann stated that she would like the Commission to comment on whether the pace is appropriate. It may be too aggressive, given the current economic conditions. Dragsten agreed. Gabler stated that it was a fair assumption at the time. Something may change and looking at it annually will allow for a revision. Dragsten stated that the upward climb of growth may be too steep. Anderson reported that 2008 saw 16 new housing permits. Schumann commented that the reason the number is so important, is that a realistic look at growth impacts the City's financial plan. However, the other side of the coin, is that there may not be someone who can provide a good analysis of these new numbers. Spartz inquired what the impacts of under or over projection could be. Schumann stated that Tom Kelly could provide more insight on that. Grittman stated that to the extent that these numbers are used for infrastructure planning, they are important, but at this time, it is just a guess at a number. Dragsten asked if the Commission could make a recommendation on the growth projections. Schumann stated that her thought is that Commission could consider a re- adjustment. Schumann continued, stating that the Comp Plan makes a series of policy statements, and Commission should consider whether those statements are still valid. Next, the Comp Plan looked at land use in two ways, first from a designation or type perspective, then also from a geographic perspective. For each of these areas, the Comp Plan lays out a set of overall policies and then strategies and objectives for each. The Commission is also asked to review those statements for validity. Finally, the plan includes a review of geographic locations relative to growth and the corresponding land use map. Schumann reported that while staff noted no amendments in specific, there were some general recommendations in relationship to achieving Comprehensive Plan objectives. First, staff recommends a more detailed analysis of growth trends as stated. Commission may feel that current trend is adequate, but taking a second look at some data and information may give the Commission a better perspective on that number. Second, staff would strongly recommend action to proceed with a revision to the Zoning Ordinance in support of achieving Comp Plan objectives. Planning Commission has recommended moving forward with the RFP for the revision. However, the RFP's distribution has stalled due to concerns about budget. Schumann reaffirmed reasons why this is so critical and noted that the City won't know how much it will cost until the RFP goes out. City Council will be asked to re-define priorities; Commission may want to bring that forward as a priority. Last, Schumann sought input from the Commission regarding fostering of a local downtown-based group of stakeholders to develop an action plan for the downtown, as described within the Comprehensive Plan. Hilgart inquired if Schumann knows the number of developed lots available in the City. Hilgart stated that he is curious how many years worth of inventory is left before someone would open a new development. In short, he inquired what is the exiting 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 01/06/09 supply. Schumann stated that she will provide that information at the next meeting, but estimated it at a 5-year supply based on current growth rates. Grittman stated that if Commission feels that 150 units per year is a good average number, you may find that you have a short supply of buildable lots. At 150 units per year, that supply will go more quickly than expected. Wojchouski inquired whether the Comp Plan was just approved in November. Schumann responded that it was approved in May of 2008. Schumann asked if the Commission had any formal amendment proposals. Spartz asked about formal motions regarding the Zoning revision. Schumann stated that the Commission had taken two formal actions. The first action was to draft the RFP and the second was to release the RFP. Spartz stated that he would make a formal recommendation to move forward with Zoning Ordinance revision. Voight agreed that this priority needs to go forward to the Council. Gabler asked about the statement that the City would not actively seek to annex or extend services north of the river. Schumann stated that the City is actively engaged in regional planning with Big Lake and Big Lake Township. While the City is looking at regionalizing waste treatment, it does not include pipeline infrastructure at this time. Dragsten noted that the Comp Plan allows for a range of housing types, and asked if that range would be further defined by revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. Schumann responded that the Comp Plan provides general policy statement, but the zoning ordinance will actually set the form and design. Hilgart commented on the "every neighborhood should have reasonable access to a public park" statement in the Plan. Hilgart asked if the City is changing policy to take money instead of land in light of Bertram Lakes project. Schumann stated that the Council trend has been toward larger regional parks, for a variety of reasons. The Comp Plan statement indicates that the City will provide a connection to a park. So while you may not have a park in your neighborhood, the City will provide reasonable access to a local park. Spartz stated that detailed analysis on growth trends may be premature at this point. Schumann stated that perhaps looking at the numbers in a more general sense maybe adequate, as long as the Commission is prepared to address the reality of the actual numbers. Hilgart reiterated the need for a better baseline of information to analyze the growth trend. Schumann stated that perhaps the recommendation is not to change the number per se, but just to pull some resource information together for Commission's review. Grittman agreed, stating that in that way, the Commission could just monitor the rate in context of a larger picture. As related to the downtown planning item, Schumann stated that she is interested in whether the Commission wants to take an active role, or whether the Commission would like to see something more grass roots in nature. 8 Planning Commission Minutes - 01/06/09 Wojchouski suggested that economic circumstances being what they are, one could take the approach that active planning may be premature. However, when development starts to come back, the City should be ready for it. Wojchouski asked if there had been any interest expressed in redevelopment in the downtown. Schumann responded that the City had recently seen two conceptual proposals for downtown. She also noted that there can be issues at times with using a 1997 plan to use for planning in 2009. Wojchouski agreed; she stated that it is important that the discussion come from downtown. She noted that the 1997 Plan is difficult to use at this point due to the increasing traffic issue in downtown and the changing nature of commercial enterprise in other areas of the community. Schumann also commented that there are new faces downtown with new perspectives, and bringing them in and getting their input and ownership is critical to success of any plan for downtown. She stated that perhaps at the time that a downtown group coalesces, the Planning Commission could assign to that downtown group. In terms of procedural changes to the 1997 plan, Grittman stated that if there are principles in the plan that need to be changed, you actualize them through zoning, but you can create a policy statement for adoption into this comp plan. Wojchouski stated that she would envision that within the next 5-7 years, the downtown will need to be completely re-evaluated. She re-stated that round table discussion is her preferred alternative. Schumann stated that in her opinion, the challenge is to be clear on what the City expects from the discussion. Are we going to have a discussion, a discussion with outcomes, and then how will we be productive? To date, Schumann stated that she has seen great discussion as it relates to the Comp Plan, but no real outcomes as it related to this Comp Plan process. The City has to have a realistic expectation of outcomes. Wojchouski stated initially, the discussion should just be afree-for-all to let people feel like they have been heard. In this way everyone has a voice. From there, it could lead into structured outcomes. She reiterated that people feel like they need an opportunity to be heard and to just express ideas. Spartz agreed with this idea and stated that he believes it is important not to have outcomes. Any revitalization will most likely bemarket-driven. He stated that he is cautious about setting outcomes. Schumann confirmed that the Commission was picturing an open forum driven by the public to brainstorm ideas. From there, it gets more structured. Wojchouski stressed that the input must come from the business and property owners downtown rather than the community at-large. Dragsten stated that he is hearing a consensus that the Commission would like the downtown planning to be driven by discussions lead by the downtown business and properties themselves rather than directing the effort. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO CONTINUE TO MONITOR RESIDENTIAL GROWTH TRENDS AS IT RELATES TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROJECTIONS, TO RECOMMEND PROCEEDING WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE REVISION IN SUPPORT OF ACHIEVING COMPREHENSNE PLAN GOALS, AND TO SUPPORT EFFORTS BY THE DOWNTOWN PROPERTY OWNERS TO ENGAGE IN A PLANNING DIALOGUE. 9 Planning Commission Minutes - 01/06/09 MOTION SECONDED BY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 11. Consideration to call for a public hearing on the Monticello Transportation Plan. Schumann indicated that staff has seen a draft of the lan, which will be revised slightly to clean up for PC review. It will be forward on Jan 16t~ in preparation for the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MOTICELLO TRANS PLAN FOR FEBRUARY 3rd, 2009. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. 12. Community Development Director's Update. Schumann provided a verbal update. She noted that she will bring Commission some updated info on the Hecker properties as soon as she has it. In regard to the trailer at 75/I-94, because that property is in the Township and is subject to County zoning, Schumann stated that Wright County has sent correspondence to remove the trailer signage in accordance with County zoning and noted prosecution by the County would commence if needed. Schumann highlighted that the City and County had closed on 319 acres of the Bertram Chain of Lakes property. In the next few weeks, the task force that has been working on this project will start outlining the public park planning process. FiberNet Monticello is moving forward with asmaller-scale piece of the overall fiber project, installing a fiber backbone within the community. The lawsuit is currently in appeal and it is Schumann's understanding that the full project will move ahead once that clears. Schumann reported that in terms of foreclosure prevention and recovery, the City is working to acquire approximately $500,000 in grant funding for foreclosure recovery projects, including gap assistance, rehabilitation, and limited land purchase and demo. In application for this grant, the City Council adopted a neighborhood stabilization plan, focusing on where these types of programs are needed most. Monticello is partnering with anon-profit to secure those funds. Staff continue to monitor the situation closely. The Economic Development Director is working closely with title companies, banks and realtors to communicate on available resources and opportunities. Schumann noted that there are so many resources and options out there for home owners, the key is to provide awareness. Schumann stated that she would bring neighborhood stabilization plan together to the Planning Commission when complete. Dragsten inquired whether there is any interest in the community in terms of relocation and expansion. Schumann stated that as evidenced by the extension request, Monticello is still a viable location for growth and development -all the amenities are still here. While there are no specific developments proposals, developers are still positioning themselves for future growth, both industrial and commercially. 10 Planning Commission Minutes - 01/06/09 Wojchouski commented that she would like staff to provide an update on how the school district may be impacted by the economic conditions. 13. Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Recorder 11 MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 3rd, 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 Call to order. Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and declared a quorum of the Commission, noting the absence of Commissioner Hilgart and the presence of Council Liaison Wojchouski. 2. Community Development Director Schumann indicated that the minutes of January 6`t', 2009 would be provided at an upcoming meeting. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP OF JANUARY 6a', 2009. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT . MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 3. Citizen Comments. NONE. 4. Consideration of adding items to the a eg nda. NONE. 5. Public Hearing -Consideration of amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan for the adoption of Chapter 6: Transportation Plan. Applicant: City of Monticello Community Development Director Schumann introduced the Transportation Plan, noting that the State Statute allows for the Planning Commission's review of the Transportation Plan during a public hearing. She noted that if adopted, the Plan becomes Chapter 6 of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. A supermajority of the City Council will be required to adopt the plan formally as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Grittman indicated that a staff report had been prepared as an introduction to the document, summarizing the contents of the plan to serving to aid the Commission frame their recommendation. A proposed resolution had also been prepared in the event that Commission is prepared to recommend adoption of the Plan. Grittman stated that staff's recommendation is for adoption of the Transportation Plan. One particular aspect of the plan that staff focused on was Highway 25. Grittman noted that the Planning Commission had spent quite a bit of time discussing Highway 25 during the Comp Plan process, and this plan outlined options for alleviation of the current and future congestion. Staff is recommending a further study of roundabouts as the preferred option, as staff believes roundabouts provide the best alternative to solving multiple corridor issues over the long term. Grittman noted that multiple jurisdictions will be involved in the ultimate decision. 'The goal for staff was to encourage further detailed study of roundabouts for the corridor. The other major issues staff has reviewed relate to river crossings, a third interchange location, and overall transportation system function. City Engineer Bruce Westby thanked the Commission and emphasized the Transportation Plan is designed to assist the Commission, Council, property owners and developers as a decision-making document in transportation. It is a planning document, and as such it does not have a specific set of measures that has to be implemented in a certain order within a certain timeframe. Westby turned the detailed presentation of the plan over to Chuck Rickart of WSB & Associates, the plan preparer. Rickart stated that the primary purpose of the plan is to provide technical guidance to policyrnakers and staff on transportation issues within the community. Although it is not specific, it does provide a foundation for future transportation decisions. It also provides the ability for coordination between neighboring communities. The overall objective is to accommodate growth through transportation. This is achieved by maintaining access for business in both motorized and non-motorized traffic and doing so efficiently. Rickart stated that the previous transportation plan provided a basis for this preparation. From there, the recently adopted Monticello land use plan was incorporated, as well as long range plans from Big Lake. This was done to be able to review river crossing projections. The next step was to update traffic projections based on the long range documents. Rickart indicated that the plan provides a basic analysis of existing conditions in terms of what is there today and what issues exist. Then, the plan analyzes future roadway access, non-motorized traffic, transit, aviation and goods movement, and finally funding. Dealing specifically with Highway 25, engineering staff understood through the Comp Plan that Highway 25 was perhaps the largest single issue to be addressed by the Transportation Plan. Rickart stated that existing traffic at the river crossing is 27,500- 35,000 vehicles per day. At 2030, approximately 45,000 vehicles per day are projected. 2 Rickart outlined the Transportation Plan's analysis of possible improvements to deal with this volume. Rickart reviewed short term improvement options. The first option was signal timing modification implementation. Rickart stated that with other recent improvements, signal timing could be improved in the corridor. Second, adding turn lanes could help improve the capacity of the corridor, primarily at 7th Street, I-94 and Broadway intersections. Third, the study looked at access modifications, such as closing off side street access in certain locations, concentrating access at Broadway, 4th and 7th Streets. Signals could be placed at these intersections as part of this. The plan also looks at roundabouts in lieu of signals. In a scenario including roundabouts, similar to access modification at 4th, 7th and Broadway, traffic would be concentrated to roundabouts at those intersections. Rickart noted that the study indicates that roundabouts illustrate the largest long term benefit and improvement to the corridor. Rickart also reviewed long-term solutions for the Highway 25 corridor congestion, including looking at a one-way pair option. Rickart described the function of one-way pairs. Ultimately, over the long-term, the options illustrating the most improvements to the corridor include a second river crossing and an additional western interchange to pull traffic to other routes. Rickart noted that timelines illustrated in the plan assume normal funding cycles for Mn/ DOT and typical project development. Improvements can move forward if funding situations change. Rickart reviewed the Highway 25 corridor improvement options in greater detail. In discussing signal timing changes and turn lane improvements, Rickart stated that as part of an upcoming mill and overlay project on Highway 25, Monticello work with Mn/DOT to add turn lanes as noted in the plan. For the medium term, access modifications such as median extension with signal additions or roundabouts could be implemented. A lot of these things could also take place timed with development. Rickart noted that again, although these improvements do have an overall improving impact on the corridor, the long term issue is that 45,000 vehicles will still be traveling Highway 25 and crossing the river. In order to mitigate delays due to that traffic, the options for alleviating problems at the river are to add an additional lane, aone-way pair, an additional river crossing and another interchange, or a combination of those improvements. In terms of interchanges and overpasses, Rickart stated that the Fallon Avenue overpass has been identified in previous plans. This plan assumes completion of that overpass in 2030. The Federal Highway Administration has indicated that prior to construction of any other interchange west of Highway 25, the Fallon Avenue overpass is required to be completed. It is estimated that about 11,000 cars would use that overpass. This plan anticipates up to two interchanges west of Highway 25, Rickart reported. These could be located anywhere between County Road 39 and Orchard Road and would divert about 6,000 cars per day from the Highway 25 corridor at I-94. However, 3 eventually, that traffic would still find its way back to Highway 25 to cross the River. In short, these improvements would not impact the river crossing, but would improve functionality of the Highway 25 corridor. Rickart explained that river crossing options reviewed in the plan include cone-way pair with a corresponding river crossing or the widening of an existing bridge. These options would require improvement to the interchange at I-94. Rickart commented that staff had noted that the primary issue with aone-way pair is the creation of two high-volume barriers within the downtown. This creates problems for east-west traffic movements and pedestrian crossings. The Transportation Plan also reviews three additional river crossing locations. The first was at Orchard Road, connecting to Sherburne County Road 11. It is estimated that this crossing would see a traffic volume of 11,000 vehicles per day, and would divert approximately 7,000 vehicles out of the 45,000 crossing at Highway 25. With a possible County Road 11 interchange at I-94, it would also create a regional connection. Rickart suggested that the negative could be that the growth areas are on the other sides of the community at this time; this option would most likely not serve immediate growth areas. The second river crossing option was at Washington Avenue, connecting to Sherburne County 14. This option would see a traffic volume of 22,000 vehicles per day, and divert 16,000 vehicles out of the 45,000 in 2030. Although this route would not be a direct connection to I-94, it would align with the Fallon Avenue overpass. This would be a purely local connection providing access for local population. However, it would carry a significant amount of traffic. It also serves the growth area of south Monticello and Big Lake. The third option was a river crossing aligning with the interchange at CSAH 18. This crossing would carry 18,000 cars and divert about 10,000 trips from Highway 25. Primarily, the issue with this crossing is that it gets closer to the proposed Otsego crossing. The spacing then becomes unlikely to create as large of an impact on Highway 25 traffic, Rickart stated. It does provide a little bit more regional impact connecting to Highway 14 and directly to the existing interchange at CSAH 18. Rickart then explained that other item reviewed in detail within the plan included the collector roadway network. The expansion of this network includes extensions of School Boulevard west of Highway 25 to County 39, the extension of 7th Street west to eliminate the existing gap and improvements to 85th Street south of School Boulevard. Rickart also discussed completion of the north frontage road or 95th Street, which uses existing right of way from the old interstate ramp. He stated that other north-south and east-west minor collector improvements are also identified to improve the overall roadway network. For non-motorized transportation, Rickart stated that two plans were created within the plan. The first is a local plan identifying trail, sidewalk and on-road paths. The second connects those local systems to a regional plan. The creation and coordination of these two plans ensures non-motorized connections are provided. Rickart noted that the plans use the recently completed Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment as a foundation for trail opportunities. He commented that the non-motorized plans were developed with the Parks Commission with assistance from City Administrator O'Neill and Schumann. 4 In terms of transit, Rickart indicated that the plan discusses the existing park and ride facility along south Highway 25 and the existing service provided by RiverRider. The study did look at possible connections to the Northstar commuter rail service in Big Lake. Working with River Rider, it was determined that the primary obstacle to expansion of transit service to Northstar is the bottleneck at Highway 25. River Rider has commented that getting across the river in bus is no different than in a car in terms of congestion. Rickart suggested that a future river crossing could change that scenario. The other connection reviewed within the plan was to connect to the Metro system coming out of Maple Grove. Again, the drawback is funding sources. Rickart relayed that River Rider indicated that they are able to acquire only so much funding for service design. Providing a metro connection would take almost their whole budget. They have commented that if their budget expands, they would also consider a system expansion. Rickart summarized the plan's analysis of funding and financing. He stated that the plan envisions that the City will work with Wright and Sherburne Counties and the State wherever possible. He reported that a regional coalition has been formed to review river crossing alternatives, as the more involved with surrounding communities for solutions, the more likely Monticello is to gain funding support. Rickart stated that federal funding exists and cycles will be coming up; Monticello will work with Mn/Dot to get some projects into the funding priority list. The other option for improvements funding is through local assessments. Rickart cited CSAH 18, which was built with a local assessment program. Rickart concluded by outlining the next steps, which include the incorporation of public hearing comments. Staff will bring those comments, along with results of meetings with outside agencies, forward to the City Council. He reported that staff is looking at Council adoption in March of this year. Engineer Westby clarified that when staff discusses a recommendation as related to roundabouts, staff is recommending a detailed study on the level of service these types of improvements would provide to the corridor. In short, the goal would be to provide a much better foundation of knowledge before recommending that the City move forward with an actual implementation alternative. Westby also introduced the outside agency representatives present, including Terry Humbert with Mn/DOT, John Mentor, the Sherburne County Public Works Director, and Wayne Fingalson, Wright County Highway Engineer. Chairman Dragsten inquired if all of the Highway 25 improvement options would be further studied, or is staff recommending that just the roundabout study move forward. Westby stated that there maybe elements recommended that do not require great study. However, with any major improvements, a larger study is commenced to cover environmental impacts and design impacts and to look at costs and benefits. Westby stated that the study would look in detail at whatever options the City directed. Community Development Director Schumann again addressed the Commission, stating that the Police Commission has reviewed the document and would forward comments to the City Engineer. The Parks Commission has also reviewed the plan, in particular the Trails portion. They recommended approval, with some comments. Schumann entered 5 into the record the draft minutes of the Parks Commission for that purpose. Schumann reported that the IEDC had also reviewed the plan. While the IEDC did not provide a formal recommendation, they did provide general comments for the Commission's review. Other formal written comments from the public had been received and were also entered in record. Commissioner Gabler provided her thoughts on the plan, stating that she thought the plan functioned very well. She stated that in some areas, it was perhaps too vague and could have been more detailed, for example in the area of transit. Gabler noted that Monticello has strong potential for growth, which should cross beyond residential into other development sectors. This notation was made in relationship to the plan introduction. Gabler stated that table 5.1 seemed to provide a good task list for future transportation improvements. She also noted that in terms of a possible river crossing at Washington Avenue, the IEDC commented on the proximity to the hospital and she noted that further study ion relationship to hospital expansion would be needed. Finally, in looking at the timeframe presented in the plan she asked if there was a way to look at the interim picture, for example projections at 2015. Rickart stated that the 2030 timeline was selected due to a complete land use plan for development to that point. Rickart explained that the City would need to determine a land use picture for 2015 in order to determine a transportation projection for that timeframe. Gabler inquired if an analysis of what impact another interchange in the west would have in terms of impact on the City's industrial park. Rickart stated that typically, the development would drive the interchange location. Rickart noted that the interchange would obviously provide an improvement for access to those industrial developments. Gabler suggested that a better clarification of timing on an interchange was needed. Commissioner Spartz began his comments by stating that he thought transportation in many ways dictates land use. Spartz stated that the Highway 25 corridor is his biggest concern and found this plan addresses that issue in depth. He indicated that he would support working with neighboring communities to improve transit options. There is a great need to look at how to make transit function better and he believed that it should be a 0-5 year option. Spartz stated that his other suggestion related to river crossing. He indicated his discouragement at it being a long-range solution. Spartz commented that a researching a second river crossing needs to be a clear direction for the City. Spartz continued, stating his personal view as a user of the current roundabout in Monticello. In that regard, he is not a big fan, as it doesn't seem to function as it should. While he understands it is a public acceptability issue, he commented that he is struggling with understanding its application in Monticello. For example, how a large vehicle with a camper or boat is going to maneuver through a roundabout. If another bridge will help alleviate the volume of traffic, perhaps the roundabouts will accentuate what happens downtown. Everything he has read about roundabouts indicates they are safer and allow traffic to move better. However, he would like to know about situations where they don't work for comparison purposes, as he is concerned about the volume of traffic coming for multiple directions. Commissioner Voight stated that after reading the plan, he thought that as Chapter 6 of the Comp Plan, this is the best chapter in the entire plan. In his opinion, it is far and 6 above the quality of the balance of the comp plan because it lays out specific analysis and potential modifications. While it does not prescribe a specific route, it lays out the options, along with likely impacts. He stated that it provides guidance with foundations for that guidance. Voight explained that he also approved of the solid justification for the Fallon Avenue overpass. Before reading this document, that improvement seemed like a bridge to nowhere. After reading this plan, he indicated that he understands the need. Voight reaffirmed that preparing the plans for the Fallon Avenue overpass and for a second bridge crossing is critical. While the river crossing may be a 30 year project, it is essential to have a plan in place. He cited stimulus funding and that if funding becomes available in such scenarios, Monticello needs to be prepared. He commented that he thought the plan was well organized, but that overall, the City needs more aggressive in planning. Voight inquired about extending frontage roads along Highway 25; if there was a reason the roads aren't named. Rickart responded that they are commonly referred to as frontage roads, but they are extension of Cedar and Deegan, so they could be labeled that way. Dragsten re-stated that Fallon Avenue needs to be a top priority. Dragsten agreed that the plan was well prepared. He cited Table 5-1 with the listing of priorities as an important tool. He noted the combination of intersection improvements along Highway 25 could be lumped as one improvement, as they all aid in the functionality of that corridor. Dragsten questioned whether the City would look at all of the options further, and then narrow them down. Rickart stated that the next step in a detailed study would be an intersection control evaluation (ICE). In this case, the ICE would be at 4th Street, 7th Street and County Highway 75. The City will look at all options for those intersections from signals to roundabouts. Mn/DOT then reviews the options and from there formal recommendations will be developed based on the analysis. Dragsten inquired what the timeline would be for immediate options noted, such as signal timing and River Street modifications. Rickart answered that District 3 does have an application in for Highway 25 signal retiming through the first stimulus allotment, which is about a 12 month timeline. River Street's most recent study will be brought to Council next week. Pending that review, something may move forward there as well. Rickart also noted that as far as turn lanes, County 11 will get dual left turn lanes in Sherburne County in 2010. The Transportation Plan identifies right turn lanes at 7th , I-94 and County 75 to also support Highway 25 corridor improvements. Those could be completed with the Highway 25 overlay project, which is expected in 2010. Gabler commented that if the City is considering turn lanes and also roundabouts, isn't the City spending money twice? Rickart indicated that would be true. If roundabouts are truly something the City is interested in considering, it would be important to accelerate study timing in order to avoid duplicative spending. Dragsten inquired why the old Highway 75 off ramp doesn't get used as 95th street. Westby responded that the existing ramp was left in place because Mn/DOT is looking at replacing the twin bridges and wasn't sure if they would need those ramps for traffic control, so they were left in place. 7 They will be replacing the bridges in July of 2009 - 2010. Staff will continue to talk with Mn/DOT on whether the City will be able to use those once the project is complete. Dragsten asked Mr. Humbert and Mr. Fingalson to comment on the overall plan and roundabouts in particular. Mr. Terry Humbert, District 3 Project Development Engineer, thanked the Commission and City staff for the opportunity to review and comment on the plan. Humbert stated that he had reviewed plan and in general concurred with the results of the plan. Regarding roundabouts, Mn/DOT is generally in favor of them as they have shown to reduce crashes and improve travel speeds. While they don't work everywhere, Humbert stated that extra analysis would be completed to include how semi-trucks or large vehicles would move through at this location. Dragsten asked Humbert to comment on Monticello's application in terms of roundabouts. Humbert stated that two-lane roundabouts are not yet functional on Minnesota highways, although they are under construction at Highway 95 and 65. He noted that similar to dual lane left turns, people will learn how to drive them. Dragsten inquired about bridge funding. Humbert responded that it is most likely that trunk highway funds would not be eligible because a second bridge would carry local traffic, which is not on the trunk highway system. There maybe State Aid or other local funding options and federal funding maybe available. Spartz asked Mr. Humbert about multiple roundabouts within a short distance. Humbert replied that although multi-lane roundabouts are somewhat limited, there are interchange locations where roundabouts are used at closer spacing. Spartz inquired if those are in Minnesota. Humbert replied that they are located in Minnetonka and Medford. Wojchouski stated that she was under the impression that the State is recommending roundabouts at locations such as Highway 75 and Highway 25. Humbert answered that in general, it is the favored option for intersections, although there is a caveat that other constraints that may not yield it as the final option. Spartz inquired what some of those constraints might be. Humbert responded that it might be right of way acquisition issues, spacing, or excessive traffic movements in one direction. Wayne Fingalson, Wright County Engineer, addressed the Commission. Fingalson stated that although they have not reviewed the plan in great detail, the plan provides a good framework in terms of how transportation improvements would be constructed. Fingalson stated that in response to the questions about roundabouts, there is a place for them, but there is a learning curve as to how they function. There is a good system in place for evaluating all options. Spartz inquired about the possibility of partnering with other communities to expand park and ride and transit options, as this would ultimately take vehicles off Highway 25. Fingalson commented on the initiative coming out of Wright County Economic Development to support further study of metro transit expansion. Fingalson stated that although increasing transit options make sense, getting people across the bridge is still a problem. Voight indicated that he believes that people will continue to use I-94 to commute over Northstar as a quicker option. Fingalson commented that funding is always a factor in any transportation improvement. Fingalson noted that federal and state funding limitations do exist. While the stimulus will help, there are still too many projects for the amount of funding. Westby expanded on roundabout locations on multi-lane roundabouts, noting the two- lane roundabout in Richfield. The 2020 volume there are projected to be 40,000 vehicles. There are also multi-lane roundabouts in place in Woodbury on Radio Drive. These are not on the State Highway system, but are in existence for reference on how these types of roundabout systems function. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Bob Viering, on behalf of the Monticello Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Commission. Viering echoed the comment that the Plan is well written and researched. It provides a good analysis of the current situation and laying out options. He indicated that the only long-term solution to the Highway 25 issue is the construction of a second bridge. The Chamber would support seeing steps taken to make this a priority. In regard to Highway 25, the Chamber would also encourage working with Mn/DOT to implement the other short-term solutions. Finally, in looking at commuter patterns, Viering cited a recent study indicating that currently approximately 50% of those living in Monticello commute into the 7-county metro area. The vast majority of that is on I-94. Only 20% of people who live in Monticello live in Monticello. So, as I-94 does impact residents and those coming in to work in Monticello, Viering stated that the Chamber would add the improvements to I-94, including possible expansion, be added as a priority. Viering noted the presence of Sherburne and Wright Counties, as well as the State, as a positive to start working on the bridge project. John Mentor, Sherburne County Public Works Director, addressed the Commission. He noted that Sherburne County has been working closely with Big Lake, Big Lake Township, Mn/DOT and the City of Monticello on the dual left turn lane on County 11. It will be a step to improving congestion on Highway 25. As the last gentleman had suggested, these entities have already been meeting for a little over a year on these mutual transportation issues. One of the topics of discussion has obviously been the bridge. In that regard, while there is a need for the local connection, he encouraged continued cooperation with the City of Big Lake, Big Lake Township and Sherburne County. Mentor did not that the County Board does have a current policy prohibiting condemnation for transportation, which is important to note in terms of a local bridge project. Dragsten agreed that mutual cooperation will be essential in getting the bridge project completed. Shannon Bye, Monticello Township, addressed the Commission. She commented that relying on the freeway is not always a good option, especially on Fridays and weekends. She encouraged a closer look at transit. She noted the Chamber's previous comment on I-94 commuter traffic. In light of that, she stated that the transit option should be viewed as a part of any I-94 improvement priorities. 9 Charlie Pfeffer, addressed the Commission representing Ocello, LLC. Pfeffer referred to carbon-related issues in terms of where development will occur. He stated that as developers, it adds a significant issue as to where people will choose to live and work. Pfeffer encouraged the Commission to be aware of that and to view the plan as somewhat fluid in light of those impacts. Chairman Dragsten asked if it would be possible to clarify comments as related to I-94. Rickart stated that they could add comments related to the I-94 coalition into the plan. Terry Humbert indicated that right now, looking at traditional funding, the addition of lanes to I-94 is probably beyond 2030. Mn/DOT has identified the six-lanes of I-94 as a `tier-two" project for the stimulus. He explained that an issue to be dealt with is lane balance. When adding lanes, Mn/DOT needs to be aware of lane transitions. South of the Crow River, the Metropolitan Council also has some jurisdiction. Dragsten asked when Mn/DOT may find out about such funding. Humbert stated it would most likely be 2010. Hearing no other comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Wojchouski sought confirmation from Westby that the Chelsea Road traffic counts would be included in the final plan. Westby confirmed that they were inadvertently omitted and would be included in the final plan. Spartz commented that although roundabouts may not be his favored option, if it works best for the Highway 25 corridor, then the essence of moving the plan forward is most important. Dragsten suggested that no matter what occurs in short-term on Highway 25, the need for the bridge crossing is clearly a priority and that it should be moved from 2030-2050 timeline to 2015-2030 timeline. Dragsten inquired if a bridge crossing was included in the Sherburne County plan. Mentor indicated that it was not. Wojchouski stated that for Big Lake, this is not an immediate, perceived problem as it is in Monticello. Dragsten concurred, although it can ultimately impact their commuting residents. Gabler agreed, noting that as it takes a long time to plan for such improvements, and as such plan for the improvements from 2009-2015. The Commissioners agreed that the emphasis should be on planning for this crossing. Gabler also recommended that the Fallon Avenue Bridge remain the number one priority for 2009-2015. Dragsten suggested grouping all of the Highway 25 improvements into one category. Rickart clarified that Fallon Avenue overpass only needed to be completed before any other interchange be considered. The Commissioners agreed that it was still a priority. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 2009 MONTICELLO TRANSPORTATION PLAN, WITH THE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AS NOTED, INCLUDING: 10 • ALL OPTIONS FOR HIGHWAY 25 IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING THE IMMEDIATE STUDY OF A SECOND RIVER CROSSING, BE TAKEN AS A FIRST PRIORITY FOR STUDY AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO. • THE COMPLETION OF THE FALCON AVENUE SHOULD REMAIN A HIGH PRIORITY FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO AS STATED WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. THIS MOTION MAY BE BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE AMENDMENT PROVIDES AN APPROPRIATE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUPPORTS THE PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN, AND FURTHERS THE CITY' S LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES THROUGH THE PROVISION OF VITAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 6. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for final plat for Union Crossings Fourth Addition and amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Union Crossings. Applicant: Ryan Companies Planner Grittman presented that staff report for the request, stating that Ryan Companies is seeking a subdivision of the existing Union Crossings Lot 2, Block 2 to create two parcels from what is currently one. Grittman reported that the purpose of the subdivision is to separate the property occupied by the Office Max building from the easterly remainder of the property. The Office Max parcel will be Lot 1, Block 1 Union Crossings 4th Addition, and the remainder will be Lot 2. Lot 2 will be set up to accommodate future development, and maybe split again at that time. Grittman explained that Union Crossings was developed as a Planned Unit Development to provide for a variety of retail buildings in a shopping center arrangement. The zero- lot-line subdivision in this case does not raise any issues from a planning standpoint, since the site was developed to provide utilities and stormwater control on a comprehensive basis, rather than lot by lot. As such, the engineering staff have recommendations as to easements and similar issues, but there is no concern with forgoing the easements that would have otherwise Grittman stated that staff is recommending approval of the plat as proposed. Dragsten inquired as to the reasoning for the irregular lot lines. Grittman responded that it is most likely these jogs are due to carving out lot lines based on needed parking and private utility connections. Dragsten stated that it would seem this configuration may eventually lead to property issues. Grittman agreed that is true for residential property, but in this case, the overall development is under the control of a single property manager. 11 Gabler asked if the applicant is familiar with the conditions noted. Grittman indicated that they are. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PLAT AND PUD AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE APPLICATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL PUD APPROVALS FOR UNION CROSSINGS, WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY ENGINEER. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 7. Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for amendment to Chapter 3 of the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance Title 10 of Monticello City Code as related to Final Platting. Applicant: City of Monticello Community Development Director Schumann stated that staff are seeking continuation of this item to allow staff time to further review and discuss the need for this amendment. Spartz inquired why this hasn't been done in the past. It would appear to be a checks and balances measure. Dragsten stated that as Commission reviews these sites in detail at preliminary, it would be nice to see the plats in their final configuration. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 8. 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 Schumann stated that staff is also seeking continuation of this item. Staff is completing additional research as related to statutory requirements and the City's park service area. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 9. Community Development Director's Update. Schumann noted that this will become a regular written update. Much of the information has been compiled from a report given to the City Council. Schumann did not the inclusion of building permit and housing inventory information. 12 It was noted that Kohl's has made a decision not to locate in Monticello. Charlie Pfeffer, representing land owner Ocello, explained that Kohl's representatives and Ocello had met to put the final touches on the purchase and operating agreements. However, after that meeting, Ocello learned that national executive committee had decided not to pursue the Monticello Kohl's store. It was a market decision. Commissioner Dragsten stated that he appreciated having the updates provided. 10. Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 13 Planning Commission Agenda- 03/10/2009 5. Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor sales and service at River City Extreme for an outdoor volleyball and games area, zoned B-4, Regional Business. Applicant: River City Extreme. (NAC) REFERENCE & BACKGROUND In May, 2006, River City Extreme submitted a request for Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales and Service, which came before the Planning Commission and City Council in largely the same layout as now proposed. Several neighbors were in attendance to voice concerns over current operations, and the impacts that the proposed outdoor volleyball activity would have on their neighborhood. Among the issues raised by the neighborhood were: • Noise (loud voices, profanity, car doors slamming, etc.) from patrons in the parking lot at closing time. • Noise (breaking glass, metallic clanging, etc.) from refuse hauling in early morning hours. • Traffic (including cut-through traffic exiting the facility, drag racing, etc.) generated by the bowling center and related facilities. • Pedestrian traffic cutting through neighboring residential property. The neighbors suggested that these issues would be intensified with the addition of outdoor volleyball, and including new concerns that would be generated by the volleyball use itself: • Whistles and cheering generated by officials and crowds in the volleyball area (the applicant indicated that they would not be having organized leagues, and as such, would not expect whistles). • Additional noise from outdoor alcoholic beverage consumption in the volleyball area. • Potential for patrons to use exit gates and depart from the volleyball area with alcoholic beverages and consume them in the parking lot. • Lighting impacts from the volleyball use, which are not currently an issue. • Proposed hours of operation (to 11:00 p.m.), suggesting that 9:00 would be better if the use were to be allowed at all (the applicant indicated that he would be comfortable with a 9:00 or 9:30 closing time. The Planning Commission discussed the options for limiting hours and requiring screening nets as conditions that would be necessary to mitigate the potential negatives created by the outdoor use of the site. In the end, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend denial of the CUP, based on fmdings that the outdoor use was not compatible with the neighboring residential area due to the probability that additional noise, lights, traffic and other negative impacts of the use would be added to the current problems encountered by the residents. Those voting . to consider approval of the permit felt that a trial period would be justified to test whether the concerns would be realized. The City Council denied the request 3-2, based on these same concerns. As with the • • ~~ ~J Planning Commission Agenda- 03/10/2009 Planning Commission, those voting for approval favored the business use of the property and believed that the conditions would control negative impacts. River City Extreme is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor sales and service to allow the construction of an outdoor volleyball court on their site within the Jefferson Commons subdivision. A 70,120 square foot bowling alley and banquet facility was previously approved for the site. A variety of complimentary uses were also proposed within the principal structure, including a pro shop, arcade, bar, full kitchen, office and banquet hall. 'The site is zoned B-4, Regional Business. The construction of the building was modified to a phased plan, with the construction of the banquet center to be part of phase II. As summarized above, the volleyball and games area was previously requested during the spring of 2008. The Planning Commission found at that time that there were several concerns over lighting, noise, and other impacts on the adjoining neighborhood. Many of the concerns related to existing issues, and the addition of the outdoor facility would make these concerns worse for the neighboring residential area. The City Council denied the request upon noting that once granted, the Conditional Use Permit would be a permanent condition of the site unless terms were violated, leading to a revocation. The applicant is once again proposing the construction of an outdoor volleyball court in the southwest corner of the building, where the future banquet space is proposed. The volleyball court would remain in this area until such time as construction begins on phase II of the building. The proposed area will contain two volleyball courts in a space 7,315 square feet in area. The courts are designed to have four feet in between and are surrounded by a grass perimeter. In the previous application, the applicant had also mentioned an additional area within the fenced portion that would be available for various games on the existing lawn grass. The applicant's current application does not include this use, but this matter should be clarified during the hearing. ANALYSIS Conditional Use Permit. Open or outdoor service is a permitted Conditional Use in the B-4 District, if the use is connected with the principal use and is limited to thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor area of the principal use. The proposed courts will comprise an area equivalent to approximately twelve (12%) percent of the building. The Conditional Use Permit is also subject to the following conditions: Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of the neighboring residential uses or an abutting residential district in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2 G of this ordinance. i Comment: No sales area is proposed for the site. The use is instead an outdoor service use. The applicant has previously noted that there will be no outdoor alcohol sales in the area. The applicant has indicated that all actual sales activity, including alcohol sales, Planning Commission Agenda- 03/10/2009 • will be confined to the building, although plastic beverage service after sale will be allowed into the court area. ^ All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right of way or from neighboring residences and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3 Section 2H of this ordinance Comment: The applicant is proposing to light the court area with wall pack lighting, currently mounted on the building, or to be added on the existing building walls. A photometric plan for the area had been submitted, indicating readings up to 5.9 footcandles at the perimeter of the court. Many facilities of this type augment lighting for safety and convenience of the participants. Addition of lighting around the perimeter of the facility would shine toward residential areas in violation of the City's ordinances, so the City and applicant should be certain that the current lighting will be adequate if approval is granted. Any additional lighting beyond the noted shielded wallpacks will require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, and must be reviewed by the City. If available light becomes an issue, the applicant should consider shortening the hours of operation where natural light will be adequate. ^ Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust Comment: As stated above, no sales area is proposed for the site. The use will be surfaced with sand appropriate for a volleyball court. ^ The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met Comment: The applicant has followed required protocol as related to application for conditional use permit. Fencing. As opposed to the vinyl coated chain link previously proposed, the applicant is proposing a 12' high mesh netting around the perimeter of the courts. The net material will provide an effective barrier, while not posing as a significant safety risk. Such material has been used for other recreational facilities within the City. Access Control. The applicant has indicated that no exterior access will be provided to the fenced court area. Access into and out of the court will be through the interior doors on the west side of the building (east side of courts). Parking. The minimum parking requirement for bowling alleys is five parking spaces for each lane, plus the required additional spaces for related uses contained within the principal structure, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. A total of 473 stalls were approved with the original site plan. The total parking requirement included stalls for the future banquet space, which will be replaced by the volleyball courts in the interim. As such, no additional parking is required for the use. Planning Commission Agenda- 03/10/2009 Si A. B. C. D. E. F. Z. 1PPORTING DATA Applicant Narrative Proposed Court Site Plan Site and Landscape Plan Site Images Lighting Plan Fence Detail Conditions of Approval DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL 1. The proposed use, pursuant to the conditions attached to the CUP approval, would be in compliance with the terms of the Zoning Ordinance related to Outdoor Sales and Service in the B-4 Zoning District. 2. The limitation on hours is necessary to protect the residential character of the neighboring properties due to lights and noise. 3. Due to the orientation of the building, and the location of the existing lighting, no • direct light will impact the adjoining residential neighborhood. 4. There will be no outdoor sales or service of alcoholic beverages in the outdoor area, permitting the applicant to manage the impact of alcohol consumption in the subject area. 5. All activity will occur within an enclosed (fenced) area which will minimize the impact of patrons wandering into the areas that are more exposed to the neighboring property. 6. The facility has adequate parking to facilitate the new activity. 7. Adequate screening exists between the subject site and the neighboring property to accommodate the outdoor use. • S~ Description of Request River city extreme is requesting a special use permit for the construction of a volleyball court to or facility to create outdoor summer activity for those that play volleyball. 1. The court yard will be located on the south side of our building facing school blvd. with our building acting as a screen for the houses on the north side of us. 2. We would like to light this court with some hooded directional lighting .Below our roof line. 3.On the west and north sides of the court we will put up retractable netting as to confine play to that area. 4.landscaping outside of court yard is already in place .Due to original building plan. S.No signage is necessary for the courts 6. Survey, site plan, existing conditions, grading, and utility plan. Are already on file from existing building plan. 7. Hours of operation: 4:00 pm to 10:00. pm Monday thru Saturday based on league demand. 8. Alcoholic beverages are served inside our building and can be taken out only in plastic containers. Seating is on the sidewalk only. 9. Fencing in the court yard will be 12' high. Mesh barrier netting Thank you for your time and review on this request. Respectfully Mark Parnell River city extreme. 5� �\ w �rn ,4/ ( ii �✓ Fco� f ' ) vy �.F ,N ~za~ U~Z Q W ? U ~ ~ W g Z W ~~~ ~ n e ~ a "' ~i$~ ~ - J a ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ vet a J -~ F x _ a .~ 7 n Z dyey r Yt !B ~&F ~!~ a a ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ s W ~~ ~~ ~~~ n ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~8~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ s ~ ~g ~ ~ a ~~ q5~ 6 ~t~ 3~~ ~ ~3g ~~~~i r{ Y ~ i~ ~~~ ~ !Ng ~~~RW ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ o ~ ~ ~ ~~ $~~g~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ g~ ~ ~~ ~~G~G~~ ~~ ~ ~g~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ gag ~~ ~- ~ ~~ ~ ~®~~o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ 3.~ ~t ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ 3~ ~~~ ~~3~~ ~ ~~ a ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~3 ~ ~~ 1 ~i~~~~ $ ~~~~~~s~~ T13 ~~@ w i 4 v z J p ~~y~ e 6!E " 1~ ~ ~~~ R 1 9~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ d~ ~~~~1 ~ ~ ~ i ~~ F oap4 ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~E`R~ i , ~ ~ Q~~~ ~R~~~~~~~~.i~E~~~~~4~~nd ~E~di~ ~ s ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ a a~ ~ : <« ~ ~ _ ;;_ a ~,1'' (I '... ~, ~~, ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~a~~~~~€ '~'~ ~~¶ .. ~~ :~ ~~ ~ W O 2 E= 2 Q .~ a r 0 .a m m m d 0 ro d ~o v d v a 0 N C N v w c m a 2 a 4 a U N 2 a J Q ~~ ~ ~e~ o~ p ! p 8il IB6 i~l ~Ic ~~~ J Fj7rl AN Yw ,W. ONWAft �©a }zz��f � �� a., .. � ¥�\ `�1��:�\� � . . , - r �,� w, w �.�%+��\%>� �. »�/z. . . . .: £ � .� t a :� �� ;� � • \ � � � \ � } \ � � i � \ ~~ 88Ft ; 00• I~ Ne N• N• /N J• Ne ~-'• EP N O W ~ ; N 61 00 ~1 00 ~.T\ ~ ~l % ~' ODe e ~ N• i-~• Na,' ~ e I-'• ODa (11e J ' ~ o0 0 ~!f~ oo `'-cam ~ N O ,.' , . -~ '`. ` cn' ~' J' oo' / co' ~-, a ~,~~-~ _ ~, e 00 ; o0 0~ w o i ~ w . -~.\\ ' ~. w ~ a~ ~ i w -A ~. .rn ~ 4- ~ ~ rn rn S-~ ~ cn w . N: ~ ' . We rP• / EP• ' ~' (31e ~ d1•'( _ ale ale ~• .. N ~ ~e c-t t~ o ~ 1~ Lo cn ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~a; ' w ~ `~ ~, r . ; :., ; Ne W• ' W~ EP• EPe Ul` 00® f-~~ ~ hje U7 O 61 W Oo Ui J _ N ~ N ~~ ( ~ l ~. ~, Ne Ne N• We r We ~• ~• ~e • . ~-- ' W O tP ~O -P tD ~.7 ~~~.-- rte ~~ . N ~ f ~~- em. h'• i-1• I~?e ~~~ Ne- ~f~- _- We We ~• ~e ~• Ol lD ti W } 61 t N 0~ l~ N N ~~C~~V~ ~ BAR s o xaaa CATALOG NO. TYPE NO. JOB NAME ~~onc~ 1-~a GP Flood Series Floodlighting GP3 Medium) OR RING INFORMATION Catalog NUmber: Exarnple: GP3T2flOMAL5 GP 3 SERIES MOUNTING SOURCE VOLTAQE GP-General T-Trunnion R9A i- 5-400V Purpose SIB (IP65 & UL) WATTAGE CWA MH OPTTONS 8-t20V-277v Fbod S•2-319" tenon LX :- 3-Medium slipiitler {UL) 200.200w HX-HPf or See Below 250-250w CWA HPS for 520-320w plyA ~- dtsfrihutlen ~ MA (250w, 400w) 350.350w . HX-HPF Opliens ~ LX (250w, 400w) 400.406w Pulse STart ' PMA {200w, 250w, 320w, 350w, 400w} M H ACCESSORIES GP3GS =Visor GP3WG =Wire Guard GP3VS = Vandal Shield PTIONS L = Lamped BLANK =General Purpose Optics C = Cutoff Optics PCB = Button Photo Control TI,R = Twist Lock Receptacle with Shorting C~ TRP = Twist Lock Receptacle with Photo Control FS = Fusing TECHNICAL INFORMATION 13.94' &2t` (353.9mm) I (157.1mm) l 1203' 1fi7" (3~.Smm} [400mm) _L__._ 1334' 6.21' {3539mm} ~ (157,7mm} 12.03' (30S.5mrn} ,3.06' 1 {484.imm} IP65 Rated :1 :~L. ! UL Wet Location Lfsled PRODUCT SPE IFICATIONS • The GP Fbod comhaies architechxal design with on-site versafi6ty and is designed for general purpose floodlightbg applications • Applications include security, roadway area, accent, facade, recreational fields, Nagpale, and s'~gn Ilghttng • Mow~tfllg options for poles, walls and ground/fbod are available • Reflectors Include general purpose and cutoff optics • Fixtures available with trunnion (IP65 and UL) and sltpfitter (UI_) mooting • IP65 Rated using trunnion mcxmting fc extra protection aga'uist water, dust an detxis (l ;onsuk factory for IP65 slipfitter option) • Keyhole slots an trunnion facilttate hands-tree rnocmting • One piece die cast aluminum door wit clear tempered glass lens Ls hnged tc the dte east ahrminum housing toreas maintenance • F~truded siGcane ntbber gasket for long life • Integral heat sink ensures cool operation. • ED28 lamps formetai hatida and ED1: lamps for high pressure sodium • Lens screws are captive stainless steE fasteners • Duraplex ft dark bronze polyester powder finish is standard and also avallab~ In a variety of designer color • Unit can be armed above or below horizontal • Available with vandal shields, wire guards and glare shields • PubUshed 5-year IlmOed warranty 1-20 GP Flood Series Floodlighting GP3 Medium PHOTOMETRICS GP3 Cutoff Optics 400w Metal Halide Haunting Height: 25 ft. Lumens: 36000 NEMA: 7H x 6V Conversion Data GP3 General Purpose Optics 400w Metal Halide - 45' Mounting Height: 25 ft. - 45 Lumens: 36000 NEMA: 6H x $V Mounting Height Wattage (MH} 20 1.56 250 0.69 25 1 400 1 30 0.69 v v°°v yvuii l~~.w INDUSTRIAL Industrial Nets Safety Nets Truck Nets INSTALLATI®N Installation Tips Installation Tools A~t~uT NETTING About Netting F.A.Q Rnrriarc nttp : u w w w. s e amar, c otn~ nets 1 v o 11 eyb al l_net. html S~ 4" mesh will stop deer, predatory birds, volleyballs, flying discs, basketballs and footballs! Size 4 #21 -- Stock Number ~ ~I Gick to Order ~ ~ - - - ~~ U SHIPPING Price ~~ (Continental US) --- ~ 10'X 10 ~ ~ NE5APN101021 ----- ~, ~ $36 57 ~~ $9.55 0'X 15 -- - - --- ii NESAPN101521 -- -------- - ------ - - ---- i~ $43.15 I $9.90 - __-~L -----' ---- - ~ i 10'X 20 NESAPN102021 ~ ~~$50.23 1 $9 90 J ~ ~ ~ 10'X 25 _ --- -- ---_ - - ~ NESAPN102521 _-- --- ----- -- -_- -- - ----$59.82 ~~12.95 ___ ---- - ~ 0'X 30 ~ _ - --- - NESAPN103021 --lL -------____- --- ___ - -- - --- -- ~ $71.57 ~ $13.40 - ~-----~~- _ - -.~ _- -- _ 10°X 35 __. (i NESAPN103521 i L __--__ ~~$84.12 $14.10 -~ - -- - --:. -::_ I~i 10'X40' --- - _ _. . - r .----- - ~ -- ~ NESAPN104021 _--' ~---- _ __ _ _ -- -i ~------ $98.05 ~~ $14.80 - i- -- ~ _ --------- ~ - -- ~ ----~ ' 10'X 50 _ _ - -_ [ESAPN105021 -- _ - - _ __ _~ $124.82 ~ $16.60_ ____ _ _ 10'X 80' .-- _. I _ J NESAPN108021 _ _ ~_ _ _ J $199.36 __, $19.50 _ _ _ __~ 10 X 100 _~~NESAPN1010021 [$241.57 l~ 10 Foot High, 1-3/4" _3l4~~ farrier Nets READY TO USE! WIDE. ;-~ . ; ~~ ' 0x3. Ox2 90xd 10x10 0x1 Ox2 10x3 ._ _ t _~ ~Y .;r 1...~ Pre made panels UP TO 100 FEET ~ ~ ,~.,~,. ..~.~ 1-3/4" square mesh nets in a #21 black polyethylene. Weather resistant -Lasts up to 10 years! Complete with rope border on ali sides and 10 foot rope tails on all 4 corners, ready to hang up. ~~~ ~ ~' `gyp ~7 _~ << ~.~ ~' :~ ~;l ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ .~ 'L i ~ 1-3/4" mesh net will stop many s ..4 ,., ~ . sizes of volleyballs, sports balls - ~ ~ =~ ~~ - ~~`~-= 2 Of $ t t2 z i^tnnn ~t.ne nae ...t ...............»._.».....,.........,, ..,....~..» 5F ___ __- -- __-- - ---------------.-J -- - -- - 12' X 20' NESAPSN122021 'I $74.32 _ i~ $15.45_ ________ and pucks! ~ ~ ~~~, ti -.,. ,. ~ ~ ~ - a ~ _-- ,_ _ _. _ i ---- - I Sae 1-3/4" ,j Stock Number Pl rice j #21 i~ Cf+ck to Order J~ _ . _, -- -- - i ~ UPS SHIPPING i (Continental US) --- ~ - ---- --i ~----- ' NESAPSN101021 $44.77 io' x io - '. ~--- - --~ ~- - ----, ~- ---I I ;, $13,20 ---~ ~----------~ -----------„-- - - i 10' X 15' i' NESAPSN101521 I $55.78 ---,r - I $13.90 -- - - - _ - - - -- - 10' X 20° ~, NESAPSN102021 ~~ $ 46 .13 --- - -- ~ ~! $14.60 I ~ - 10° X 25' ~~ NESAPSN102S21 -l~ $75.58 J $15.75 10' X 30' ~i NESAPSN103021 ~ $88.37 I - - _ _------ _ _ 1 ~------- -----~ _ J $17.40 ~------ ---- ~ 10' X 35 i :-_ -_ - --- - ~- ~ NESAPSN103521 ~` $104.44 ~ $18.30 J - _ ~ .. i ~- -~ -- 10' X 40 it NESAPSN104021 $126.77 I_- - _ _,~------- - --J -- - --~ -- ---- -I ~ $19.20 ~ ~ - ~ -- -- -----J 10' x 50' ~I~I NESAPSN105021 Il $151.39 i --- ~ $20.50 __... .-_.._. l_--__.__---..-_. ___._ ..__ ____ ___ 10' X 60 '~ NESAPSN106021 ~ $183.79 __ ___.-__. .J _. --__. ____-- ___.____I $21.80 ~ ' 10 X $0 ii NESAPSN108021 j $247.22 I $25.10 --- 10' X 100' ~! NESSN1010021 $298.01 ~-- -- __ °- ------- ---- ---~ - --- ' $28.90 ---- J --- -- -----~ 12 Foot High Barrier N ets -READY TO USE! i , Pre made volleyball net panels UP ~ ,~~ ~"~ ,{ ~" " TO 100 FEET WIDE! ~ ' - ~~ ! i.l~: ~~' ~~~ ~ ~~ ~° ~ `I ~ ,~ ~ i-3/4 square mesh in a #21 black ;~~ i l h l W th t t y T~ 1 ~a`, rr ~~1 ~ ~. ~ 1 ~ ~ t '+~ ~ ~ ~ ~ er res yet y ene. ea s an - ~ po Lasts up to 10 years! _ . „~, ' ~ '"` ~ ~~1~~-la~j~,~~~ ~. gyp. '~/i ~,~ _. - Complete with rope border on all L sides and 10 foot rope tails on all 4 I . '~ , ` ~ ~ .. <. ~ corners, ready to hang up. _ +-~q,`'^'-,, ~ 1-3/4" mesh nets will stop many rt ll and cks! i f b ~~ ` ~' ~~ ~ pu s zes o spo s a s -~ ~ , ~. , Size 1 3/4" Stock Number ~----- "Price #21 ' Click to Order '_-------------- i- - , __~ - UPS SHIPPING ~(Continental US)__~ 12' X i2° I' NESAPSN121221 ~ $50.71 ~ $14.20 -_---j 3 of 8 1 /31 /2009 2:05 PM Planning Commission 03/10/09 6. Public Hearing -Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, regulating Signs. Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND In April of 2008, the Planning Commission requested that staff begin working on an amendment to the Sign Ordinance, separate from a potential overall revision to the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission cited the lack of cohesion within the current ordinance language, and the need to review the language for practical application to current sign requests. The Planning Commission and staff recognized community input as a critical component for preparation of the document and ultimately to producing an effective ordinance. As such, the following opportunities for public comment were undertaken as part of the amendment process. • Two initial public meetings were held to gather input prior to crafting the new ordinance. • A draft ordinance was reviewed for revision during two consecutive regular Planning Commission meetings. • Staff attended a Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs meeting for the purpose of presenting the draft ordinance and gathering feedback. • Planning Commission and City Council held a joint public workshop for the purpose of reviewing the ordinance in detail and soliciting questions and comments for additional revisions. • A final public workshop was held in February, during which sign case scenarios were illustrated and discussed in detail relating to the draft ordinance. Primary differences between the current and proposed ordinance were also illustrated. The draft presented for public hearing is reflective of the comments and suggestions that were offered during the public forums above, as well as the goals and objectives stated by the Planning Commission early in the process. These included: ^ An overall goal of facilitating effective communication with the public while avoiding visual sign clutter and maintaining public safety on the roadways. ^ Providing incentives for preferred sign types, rather than mandates. ^ Making the ordinance more "user-friendly". ^ Clarifying expectations for sign design. ^ Increasing consistency for sign allowances throughout the community. ^ Eliminating content-based regulations that will not withstand legal challenge. Planning Commission 03/10/09 • The final draft includes a large number of format changes to accomplish these objectives. The draft ordinance has also been reviewed for compliance with statute and recent case law. It should be noted that in discussions leading up to the public hearing, the Commission highlighted three primary areas of the draft ordinance which maybe subject to further analysis and revision. These relate to temporary signage duration, time and movement limitations for dynamic displays, and regulations pertaining to window signage. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend adoption of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, regulating Signs, based on a finding that the proposed ordinance provides adequate means of expression and promotion of the economic viability of the business community, while protecting the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. Motion to recommend adoption of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, regulating Signs, based on a finding that the proposed ordinance provides adequate means of expression and promotion of the economic viability of the business community, while protecting the health, safety and welfare of the community, with revisions as noted by the Commission. 3. Motion to recommend further study. 4. Motion of other. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Sign Ordinance amendment. The ordinance represents a marked improvement in clarity over the existing ordinance. It is staff's perspective that it provides needed balance between additional flexibility for property and business signage with the City's goals for overall consistency and fairness in sign regulations. However, staff does have some concern regarding the dynamic display and window signage regulations. While staff understands the concept of using the proposed language as an interim feasibility test, immediate amendments to the proposed ordinance may cause some concern about the new ordinance's credibility. The adoption of language which the City believes it can and should enforce is also a priority for staff. SUPPORTING DATA A. Chapter 3A -Signs (Draft) B. Chapter 3, Current Sign Ordinance Regulations C. Zoning Practice, Excerpt D. Letters of Public Comment ~` 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-1 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. 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 maybe 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. 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. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A-2 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 maybe 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 SIGNS 3A-3 CANOPY: Aroof--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 maybe 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-4 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. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A-5 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. ~II~~ HEIGHT OF SIGN ~~~~ RoaOway Height of Sign ~,r ~~+ ~, 4;~. ~, Marquee Sign Monument Sign MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A-6 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 SIGNS 3A-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) MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A-8 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-9 TEMPORARY SIGN: Any sign which is erected or displayed for a specified period or ~ ` ~~ ~ `~ a ~ ~' >, ~ ~ { time, including, but not limited to, banners, . ~ 1 ~ search lights, portable signs, streamers, ~ ~~,~ pennants, inflatable devices. rs ~ ~ ~ ~~, ,~ ~ „, TIME AND TEMPERATURE SIGN: A sign that displays only current time and Window Signage 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 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A-10 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. 3. 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. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A-11 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. [B] 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. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A-12 [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: 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. Within zoning districts other than "R" and in those cases where a parcel of land exceeds ten (10) acres, regardless of its zoning, no sign shall exceed 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. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A-13 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 maybe 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 SIGNS 3A-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: 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: Anon-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 maybe 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 SIGNS 3A-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 maybe 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 maybe 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 SIGNS 3A-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): 1. 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 Wall Sign Area Calculation MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A-17 2. For monument signs, are shall be [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. calculated as for wall signs. n Structural members of the sign, ~ n~e s ~ including supports or other - - - ~ ` decorative features shall not be considered as a part of the measured sign area: Monument Sign 3. For pylon signs, the entire area of Area Calculation 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, ~ A -~ shall be exempt from the area - calculation. B Sign area [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. Pylon Sign [O] Landscaping: A site plan shall be Area Calculation 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. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A-18 [R] Window Signs: Window signs shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the total area of the window in which they are displayed. Window signs meeting this provision 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. 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 SIGNS 3A-19 No dynamic sign shall have lettering smaller than ten (10) inches in height. 2. Dynamic signs shall have messages that change instantaneously, and do not fade, dissolve, blink, or appear to simulate motion in any way. Such signs may change by turning off for a period of at least two (2) minutes between displays. 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". 3. Dynamic signs shall not be permitted in any Residential zoning district. 4. No dynamic display shall change more than one time per two (2) minute period, except time and temperature displays which may change once every three (3) seconds. Dynamic signs shall be no brighter than other illuminated signs in the same district. 6. 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. 7. 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. 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. 9. 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. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A-20 [W] Design and Materials Standards for Signs in Commercial, Industrial, CCD, PZ Mixed, and PUD Districts. 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 maybe 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: MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A-21 a. The area of the sign shall not exceed four (4) square feet. 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: 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. d. For shopping centers greater than one hundred and fifty thousand (150,000) square feet of aggregate building MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A-22 square footage and greater than twenty (20) acres in site area, two (2) freestanding signs maybe permitted. Two (2) pylon signs maybe constructed or, as an alternative, one (1) pylon and one (1) monument sign maybe 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. 5. 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 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS 3A-23 signs unless the tenant's business has an exclusive exterior entrance and subject to the following requirements: 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 SIGNS 3A-24 ~~~ Subject to the terms of an approved subdivision development agreement or conditional use permit, a grading permit allowing land reclamation shall be issued by the City Engineer and City Building Official. Upon application for a grading permit for land reclamation, a fee for grading permit shall be paid to the City by the applicant. Such fee shall be determined by City Council resolution. (#322, 4/12/99) 3-8: MINING: Under this ordinance, mining is the extraction of sand, gravel, or other material from the land in the amount of four hundred (400) cubic yards or more and removal thereof from the site without processing. Mining shall be allowed only under the terms of a development agreement for subdivision or by the issuance of a conditional use permit in all districts. Such permit shall include as a condition thereof: a plan for a finished grade which will not adversely affect the surrounding land or the development of the site on which the mining is being conducted, and route of trucks moving to and from the site, shall regulate the type of material mined from the site, 3. a program for rodent control, 4. a plan for fire control and general maintenance of the site, 5. controls for vehicular ingress and egress, and for control of material disbursed from wind or hauling of material to or from the site, 6. a calendar of specific dates when mining operations will be conducted, including specific beginning and ending dates, and the submission of a surety by the applicant in an amount determined by the City Engineer to be equal to 100% of the value of the cost of restoring land whereupon mining is to occur and repairing the degradation of roadways used to transport soils. Subject to the terms of an approved subdivision development agreement or conditional use permit, a grading permit allowing mining shall be issued by the City Engineer and City Building Official. Upon application for a grading permit for mining, a fee for grading permit shall be paid to the City by the applicant. Such fee shall be determined by City Council resolution. (#322, 4/12/99) 3-9: SIGNS: [A] PURPOSE: This subdivision is established to protect and promote health, safety, general welfare, and order within the city of Monticello through the establishment of a comprehensive and impartial series of standards, regulations, and procedures governing the type, numbers, size structure, location, height, lighting, erection, use and/or display of devices, signs, or symbols serving as a 3/45 visual communication media to persons situated within or upon publicright-of- ways or properties. The provisions of this subdivision aze intended to encourage opportunity for effective, orderly communication by reducing confusion and hazazds resulting from unnecessary and/or indiscriminate use of communication facilities. [B] PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED SIGNS: 1. PERMITTED SIGNS: The following signs are allowed without a permit but shall comply with all other applicable provisions of this subdivision: (a) Public signs (b) Identification signs: There maybe one (1) per premise not to exceed two (2) square feet in area. If the sign is freestanding, the total height may not exceed five (5) feet. (c) Integral signs (d) Political campaign signs: Shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet in all other zoning districts. Every campaign sign must contain the name and address of persons responsible for such sign, and that person shall be responsible for its removal. Signs shall remain in place for no longer than five (5) days after the election for which they are intended. All signs shall be confined to private property. The City shall have the right to remove and destroy unsightly signs or remove signs after the five (5) day limit and assess a fee of five dollars ($5.00) per sign for removal. (e) Holiday Signs: Displayed for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days. (f) Construction Signs: Such signs shall be confined to the site of the construction, alteration, or repair, and shall be removed within two (2) years of the date of issuance of the first building permit or when the particular project is completed, whichever is sooner as determined by the City Building Inspector or his agent. One (1) sign shall be permitted for each major street the project abuts. No sign may exceed fifty (50) square feet. (g) Individual Property Sale or Rental Signs: Signs must be removed within fourteen (14) days after sale or rental of property. Signs may not measure more than four (4) square feet in "R" districts, nor more than twenty (20) square feet in all other districts. There shall be only one (1) sign per premise. Corner properties, however, may contain two (2) signs, one (1) per frontage. 3/46 (h) Information/Directional Signs: Shall not be larger than ten (10) square feet and shall conform to the location provisions of the specific district. (i) Portable Signs (as defined in Section 3-9.(B).2.(e).i) Such signs shall be subject to the following requirement: (j) Signs for promoting and/or selling a development project: For the purpose of promoting or selling a development project of three (3) to twenty-five (25) acres, one sign not to exceed one hundred (100) square feet of advertising surface maybe erected on the project site. For projects of twenty-six (26) to fifty (50) acres, one or two signs not to exceed two hundred (200) aggregate square feet of advertising surface maybe erected. For projects over fifty- one (51 acres, one, two, or three signs maybe erected. No dimension shall exceed twenty-five (25) feet exclusive of supporting structures. Such signs shall not remain after ninety-five (95) percent of the project is developed. Such sign permits shall be reviewed annually by the Zoning Administrator. If said sign is lighted, it shall be illuminated only during those hours when business is in operation or when the model homes or other developments are open for business purposes. The signs shall be allowed only within the CCD, Central Community Zoning District. 2. The signs shall occupy the public or private sidewalk area within five (5) feet of the entryway of the business it serves. The placement of the signs shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle circulation. If on the public sidewalk, such signs shall be placed so that no less than six feet of sidewalk is available for passing of pedestrians. 4. The signs shall display messages oriented toward pedestrians. 5. The signs shall not have electrical connections, nor include any lighted or moving component. The display of such signs shall be limited to the hours of the business it serves. 7. The signs shall be constructed of wood or other materials determined acceptable by the City. Color and design shall meet the design guidelines for the CCD zoning district, and shall not be composed of "flourescent" colors. 3/47 8. The maximum size of such signs shall be no greater than five (5) feet in height and six (6) square feet in area and must comply with all other regulations of this ordinance. 9. Any sign placed under this section shall infer an indemnification of the City of Monticello by the owner of the sign for any liability or claim made involving the sign or sign location. 10. No such sign shall be connected or attached to any public structure, including light poles, traffic control devices, public street furniture, utility equipment, or other such facility. (#403, 11/10/03) 2. PROHIBITED SIGNS: The following signs are specifically prohibited by this paragraph. (a) Any sign which obstructs the vision of drivers or pedestrians or detracts from the visibility of any official traffic control device. (b) Any sign which contains or imitates an official traffic sign or signal, except for private, on-premises directional signs. (c) Any sign which moves or rotates. Exempt are time and temperature information and barber poles. (d) Any sign which contains or consists of banners, pennants, ribbons, streamers, strings of light bulbs, spinners, or similar devices, except in case of Subsection [C], Paragraph 4. (e) Portable signs as defined in i below and other attention-getting devices as defined in iii-v below, except as allowed in Section 3-9.(B). 1 (i) and as provided for in Subsection [C], Paragraph 4. (#403, 11/10/03) i. Portable signs shall be defined as an advertising device not permanently attached to a building, facade, or pylon. ii. Banners shall be defined as fabric, paper, vinyl, or similar material which carries a specific message and which can be hung on a wall, facade, awning, canopy, suspension cable or wire, etc. iii. Streamers/Pennants shall be defined as flags, triangulaz pennants, spirals, spinners, etc., attached in series to a single cord or support line which is then strung or suspended from point to point. iv. Inflated devices shall be defined as inflatable devices which may be stationary or airborne (but tethered) which are intended to attract attention to a specific location or site. 3/48 v. Searchlights -self defining. (#150, 5/27/86) (f) Signs which are attached in any manner to trees, fences, utility poles, or other such permanent supports, except for those signs found on fences (inside) of baseball parks. (g) Advertising signs of 200 square feet or more in place on or before June 23, 1980, and which are the principal use of the lot of record as of the above date and which have an agreement on file with the City on or before August 23, 1980, in the form so designated by the City Administrator, which is signed by the property owners and the advertising sign owners and all signatures notarized, may continue as a non- conforming use until such time as the lot of record above is developed or improved, in which case, the non-conforming advertising sign must be removed within 60 days after written notice from the Building Official. (h) Advertising signs as defined in Chapter 2 of this ordinance of 199 square feet or less in area, except that those signs which were in place on or before 8/15/75 may continue as anon-conforming sign. (i) Except for Electronic Message Board Signs as allowed in Section 3 [E]4.(f). No sign shall display any moving parts, nor shall it be illuminated with any flashing or intermittent lights, nor shall it be animated. Exempt are time and temperature information and barber poles. All displays shall be shielded to prevent light to be directed at on- coming traffic in such brilliance as to impair the vision of any driver. No device shall be illuminated in such a manner as to interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal. (1/10/00, #340) (j) Roof Signs. (k) Projecting Signs except as hereinafter provided. (#334, 9/13/99) [C] GENERAL PROVISIONS: 1. All signs shall comply with Maintenance Section 5-305 of the 1970 Edition of Volume V of the Uniform Building Code as promulgated by the International Conference of Building Officials. 2. When electrical signs are installed, the installation shall be subject to the City's Electrical Code. No signs other than governmental signs shall be erected or temporarily placed within any street right-of--way or upon any public lands or easements orright-of--ways. 4. The temporary use of portable signs, decorative attention-getting devices, and searchlights shall require an annual or daily permit. 3/49 (a) An annual permit for portable signs, as defined herein, shall be granted for a maximum period of forty (40) days per calendar year. As a condition of the annual permit, applicant shall maintain a daily record of the use of portable signs on a form provided by the City. (#23 8, 6/14/93)(#150, 5/27/86} (b) A permit for decorative attention-getting devices shall be issued for a maximum period often (10) days with a minimum period of one hundred eighty (180) days between consecutive issuance of such permits for any property or parcel. (c) All portable signs and attention-getting devices must be well maintained and kept in good repair at all times. T'he Building Official shall order the immediate removal of any device considered to be damaged or in poor condition. Non-compliance shall be just cause for revocation of the permit without refund. (d) All portable signs and attention-getting devices shall be allowed only on the property or site where the business or enterprise is situated. No placement shall be allowed on publicrights-of--way. (e) All portable signs and attention-getting devices shall be on ground level except that banners and streamers may be affixed to a building, facade, permanent pylon sign, or other permanent fixture. Airborne inflatable devices shall be tethered on site. (f) Not more than two (2) portable signs shall be displayed at the same time. (g) Not more than two (2) attention-getting devices shall be permitted to be displayed in conjunction with any portable sign. (h) A decorative attention-getting device may bear the name of the business, but shall not bear any service, product, price, etc., advertising message. (i) Permit fees shall be set by the City Council and shall be payable upon application for said permit. (#150, 5/27/8b) (j) Public banners maybe hung from city street light fixtures for a period of up to one (1) year. Design and placement of the public banners shall be consistent with the following standards: Design and placement of public sign/decorativebarmers must first be approved by the City Council and annually thereafter. Prior to Council consideration, applicant shall submit a banner placement plan which shows proposed 3/50 banner design, size, pole location/elevation, duration, and proposed manner by which the banners shall be hung. Banner placement plan shall also describe financing sources for purchasing and installing public banners. 2. Public banners may be hung from parking lot light fixtures or from other structures on private property only in conjunction with a City Council approved public banner system. Except for requirements outlined in section 4.(j) of this ordinance, said banners are exempt from sign regulations. The City shall not participate in fmancing any portion of the cost of public banners placed on private property. City crews may assist with the installation of public banners placed on private property if compensated at actual cost to install banners. 3. Except for Christmas banners, all banners shall contain an element of the City colors and/or City logo. No private advertising maybe allowed on any banner hung in conjunction with a public banner system. 4. Public banners hung from streetscape fixtures shall be no larger than 14" by 45". Banners hung from standard street lights shall be no larger than 28" by 80". 5. Public banners shall not be hung in a position that will cause a substantial obstruction of visibility from the street to advertising, traffic, and directional signs and shall not be hung in a position so as to interrupt corner sight lines. 6. Public banners maybe hung only on alternate streetscape fixtures unless otherwise approved by Council. 7. Banners placed on City fixtures shall become the property of the City. If damaged or in need of repair, banners maybe removed by City staff. The public banner system maybe discontinued, and all banners, including those on private property, maybe ordered removed at the discretion of the City Council. 8. The bracket system used to hang banners shall be of sufficient strength to withstand strong winds and shall be designed in a manner that allows easy installation and removal of banners. 5. All signs shall display in a conspicuous manner the owner's name, permit number, and date of erection. 6. All height restrictions on signs shall include height of sign structure. 3/51 7. In any district, any portion of any sign exceeding two (2) square feet shall be set back a distance equal to fifty percent (50%) of the required building setback for that district as defined in Section 3-3 [C] of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, as may be amended.. (#269, 5/8/95) Any sign now or hereafter existing which no longer advertises, or identifies a bona fide business conducted, or a service rendered, or a product sold, shall be removed by the owner, agent, or person having the beneficial use and/or control of the building or structure upon which the sign maybe found within ten (10) days after written notice from the Building Inspector. The City of Monticello or its agent is authorized and required by this ordinance to enter into an agreement with the United States or any of its agencies or departments to the end that the objective stated in Title 23, United States Code, Section 131, Section 319, or any other applicable federal statute to obtain non-conforming signs along the Great River Road within the city of Monticello. However, the City of Monticello or its agent shall not be required, nor allowed, to expend funds for the acquisition ofnon-conforming signs or advertising devices under this chapter until federal funds in the amount of 75% or more to his acquisition cost are made available to the City of Monticello for the purpose of carrying out this ordinance. No sign nor advertising device legal under Laws 1971, Chapter 883, shall be required to be removed or relocated until payment, as provided in Laws 1971, Chapter 883, is tendered by the City of Monticello. 10. Signs may be located on conforming fuel station pump island canopies. Such signs shall be considered as wall signs, and shall be regulated in the same manner as any other wall signs on the property. (#247, 3/14/94) [D] NON-CONFORMING SIGNS: 1. The following are non-conforming signs: (a} Off-premise signs, except signs located inside ball parks and on bus benches. (b) Prohibited signs. (c) All other signs not expressly prohibited but which do not conform to the provisions of this subdivision. 2. Anon-conforming sign may not be: (a) Changed to another non-conforming sign. 3/52 (b) Structurally altered except to bring into compliance with the provisions of this subdivision. (c) Expanded. (d) Re-established after its removal for thirty (30) days. (e) Re-established after damage of more than fifty (50) percent of sign replacement cost except to bring into compliance. 3. All non-conforming and prohibited signs shall be removed or brought into conformity with this ordinance after notification in writing within the following time period. (a) Any sign in violation of the prohibited signs as defined in [B] 2: Thirty (30) days (exception: advertising signs, five (5) years). (b) For all other non-conforming signs: five (5) years. 4. Notwithstanding any other requirement in Section 3-9 of this Ordinance to the contrary, off-premise or advertising signs may be relocated as follows: (a) This section shall apply exclusively to off-premise advertising signs of 200 square feet or greater that have a specific, written, fee or leasehold interest in the property on which they are currently located, and which are required to be removed pursuant to City acquisition as part of a City utility or road project. (b) Such signs may be relocated to another part of the same parcel on which they were located at the time of the acquisition by City Council resolution. (c) Such signs may be relocated to another vacant parcel subject to the application for and approval of an Interim Use Permit per the requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. (d) In addition to any other requirements or restrictions deemed appropriate by the City Council, the owner of such relocated sign under (b) or (c} above shall not enter into any lease that extends the duration of such sign beyond the soonest termination date to which the sign is subject at the time of the relocation. Upon such date, the relocated sign shall be removed and shall not be re- established within the City limits of the City of Monticello. (e) The owner of any sign relocated pursuant to this section shall enter into an agreement with the City of Monticello providing for 3/53 the date of removal and the terms of any lease or other contract governing the relocation. (#423, 4/11/05) [E] DISTRICT REGULATIONS: The following sections concern signs which require application and permit. Within the A-O, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, PS and PZR districts, signs are subject to the following size and type regulations: (a) Institutional or area identification signs, provided that the gross square footage of sign area does not exceed eighteen (18) square feet, and if the sign is freestanding, the height does not exceed eight (8) feet. (b) Public Signs (as defined in Section 2-2[PJ]. Such signs shall be subject to the following requirements: 1. Any public sign for civic interest groups within the City of Monticello shall have a face area no larger than 18" x 24". 2. Civic interest groups within the City of Monticello may, at the discretion of the Council, have up to three off-site directional signs. 3. Any public sign for a civic interest group within the City of Monticello shall be green in color with white lettering only. (#460A, 5/29/07) (c} In the PS District two institutional identification signs not exceeding a total of 75 square feet and eight (8) feet in height are allowed in addition to the institutional or area identification sign identified in Section 3-9[E]la.. (#314, 8/10/98) (#447,5/22/06) 2. Within the PZM, B-l, B-2, B-3, B-4, CCD, I-l, I-lA, and I-2 districts, signs are subject to the following size and type regulations: (#298, 10/13/97) (#334, 9/13/99) (a) Within the PZM and B-1 districts, the maximum allowable square footage of sign area per lot shall not exceed the sum of one (1) square foot per front foot of the building plus one (1) square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building, up to one hundred (100) square feet. Each lot will be allowed one (1) pylon or freestanding sign and one (1}wall sign or two (2) wall signs total. (b) For buildings in which there is one (1) or two (2) business uses within the B-2, B-3, B-4, CCD I-1, I-lA, and I-2 districts, and for buildings used for commercial retail activities located within a PZM district and located on property adjacent to B-2, B-3, 3/54 B-4,CCD, I-1, I-lA, or I-2 districts, there shall be two (2) options for permitted signs, as listed below in 2(b)i and 2(b)ii. The property owner shall select one option, which shall control sign development on the property. (#298, 10/13/97) (#334, 9/13/99) i. Option A. Under Option A, only wall signs shall be allowed. The maximum number of signs on any principal building shall be six sign boazds or placards, no more than four (4) of which may be product identification signs. Signs may be displayed on at least two walls, or equal to the number of streets upon which the property has legal frontage, whichever is greater. Each wall shall contain no more than two product identification signs and two business identification signs. The total maximum area of wall signs shall be determined by taking twenty percent (20%) of the gross silhouette area of the front of the building up to three hundred (300) square feet, whichever is less. If a principal building is on a corner lot, the largest side of the building may be used to determine the gross silhouette area. For purposes of determining the gross area of the silhouette of the principal building, the silhouette shall be defined as that area within an outline drawing of the principal building as viewed from the front lot line or from the related public street(s). ii. Option B. Under Option B, a combination of wall signs and a maximum of one (1) pylon sign may be utilized. The total number of business identification signs allowed (whether wall or pylon) shall be at least two (2), or equal to the number of streets upon which the property has legal frontage, whichever is greater. Only two product identification signs shall be allowed, and these wall signs maybe only on one wall. The total maximum allowable sign area for any wall shall be determined by taking ten percent (10%) of the gross silhouette area of the front of the building up to one hundred (100) square feet, whichever is less. The method for determining the gross silhouette area shall be as indicated in Subd. 2.(b)i. Above. Pylon signs shall be regulated as in Subd. 4 below. For single or double occupancy business structures, the total maximum allowable signage on the property shall be three hundred (300) square feet. For multiple occupancy structures, the total maximum allowable signage on the property shall be as determined under Subd. 3 below. 3/55 (#272, 06/26/95) (#230, 06/22/92) (#247, 03/14/94) (#265, 12/12/94) Conditional Uses in Commercial and Industrial Districts: The purpose of this section is to provide aesthetic control to signage and to prevent a proliferation of individual signs on buildings with three (3) or more business uses. The City shall encourage the use of single sign boards, placards, or building directory signs. (a) In the case of a building where there are three (3) or more business uses, but which, by generally understood and accepted definitions, is not considered a shopping center or shopping mall, a conditional use shall be granted to the entire building in accordance with an overall site plan under the provisions of Option A or Option B (described in 2 (b) i and ii above) provided that: i. The owner of the building files with the Zoning Administrator a detailed plan for signing illustrating location, size in square feet, size in percent of gross silhouette area, and to which business said sign is dedicated. ii. No tenant shall be allowed more than one sign, except that in the case of a building that is situated in the interior of a block and having another building on each side of it, one sign shall be allowed on the front and one sign shall be allowed on the rear provided that the total square footage of the two signs does not exceed the maximum allowable square footage under Option A or Option B described in 2(b)i and ii above. iii. No individual business sign board/placard shall exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total allowable sign area. iv. An owner of the building desiring any alteration of signs, sign location, sign size, or number of signs shall first submit an application to the Zoning Administrator for an amended sign plan, said application to be reviewed and acted upon by the Zoning Administrator within ten (10) days of application. If the application is denied by the Zoning Administrator, the applicant may go before the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting. v. In the event that one tenant of the building does not utilize the full allotment of allowable area, the excess 3/56 may not be granted, traded, sold, or in any other way transferred to another tenant for the purpose of allowing a sign larger than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total allowable area for signs. vi. Any building identification sign or building directory sign shall be included in the total allowable area for signs. vii. Any sign that is shared by or is a combination of two or more tenants shall be considered as separate signs for square footage allowance and shall meet the requirements thereof. viii. All signs shall be consistent in design, material, shape, and method of illumination. (b) In the case of a building where there are two (2) or more uses and which, by generally understood and accepted definitions, is considered to be a shopping center or shopping mall, a conditional use permit may be granted to the entire building in accordance to an overall site plan indicating their size, location, and height of all signs presented to the Planning Commission. (#396,7/28/03) A maximum of five percent (5%) of the gross area of the front silhouette shall apply to the principal building(s) where the aggregate allowable sign area is equitably distributed among the several businesses. In the case of applying this conditional use permit to a building, the building may have one (1) pylon or freestanding sign identifying the building which is in conformance with this ordinance. For purposes of determining the gross area of the silhouette of the principal building(s), the silhouette shall be defined as that area within the outline drawing of the principal building(s) as viewed from the front lot line or from the related public street(s). For shopping centers of greater than one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) square feet of aggregate building square footage and greater than twenty (20) acres in site area, two freestanding signs may be permitted under this section. The applicant may construct two pylon-style signs in conformance with this ordinance, or in the alternative, may construct one pylon-style and one monument- style sign. When this latter option is chosen, the monument sign shall be no greater than eighteen (18) feet in height nor more than one hundred (100) square feet in area, and the pylon may be no greater than fifty (50) feet in height and four hundred (400) square feet in area. (#396, 7/28/03} 3/57 4. Pylon Sign: The erection of one (1) pylon sign for any single lot is allowed under the following provisions: (a) Location: No pylon sign shall be located closer to the property line than as allowed in Section 3-9 [C] 7. In the case of a corner lot, both sides fronting on apublicright-of--way shall be deemed the front. (#269, 5/8/95) (b) Parking Areas, Driveways: No part of the pylon signs shall be less than five (5) feet from any driveway or parking area. (c) Area, Height Regulations: SPEED AREA HEIGHT ROAD CLASSIFICATION (MPH) (SO FT) FEET Collector 30 25 16 35 50 20 40 100 24 Major Thoroughfares 30 50 18 35 100 22 40 125 24 45 150 26 50 175 28 Freeways and Expressways 55 200 32 and above Highway 25 NA 50- 22 100 i. In the case of subject property directly abutting State Highway 25, pylon sign area may range from 50 sq ft to 100 sq ft depending on total lineal feet fronting Highway 25. 3.03 feet of pylon sign area is allowed per every 10 feet of lineal frontage with the following exceptions: 1) all properties may erect a pylon sign with a sign area of 50 regardless of front footage abutting Highway 25, and 2) the maximum pylon sign area shall not exceed 100 sq ft regardless of total lineal footage of property abutting Highway 25. (#173, 4/10/89) 3/58 (d) Definitions: Definitions of road classifications apply as defined by the official comprehensive plan as adopted. (e) Application: The level at which the sign control system applies is determined by the type of road, as defined above, which directly abuts the subject property. In the case of subject property directly abutting more than one (1) road, each designated by a different road classification type, the less restrictive classification shall apply in determining sign area and height. ii. Actual sign height is determined by the grade of the road from which the sign gains its principal exposure. iii. Area as determined by the formula under 3 (c) above, applies to one (1) face of a two (2) faced pylon sign, or two (2) faces of a four (4) faced sign, etc. iv. A bonus allowing "freeway standard signs" (200 sq ft in area and 32' high) in a commercial or industrial area is available to all businesses located within 800 feet of a freeway but do not abut a freeway. (f) Electronic Message Boards maybe allowed in the B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts and on those parcels within the CCD Zoning District which have direct frontage on Trunk Highway 25 south of 4th Street, as a part of the freestanding or pylon sign display provided that: i. The sign complies in all other respects with the sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. ii. The sign does not create a traffic hazard or a nuisance. iii. The sign does not flash its message, although continuous scrolling text is allowed. iv. The sign meets all requirements of the City's Building and Electrical Codes. v. The sign does constitute a separate or additional freestanding sign support structure. The sign must be otherwise allowed under this ordinance as a pylon sign or must be a part of an allowed pylon sign plan as defined herein. 3/59 vi. The electronic message board portion of the sign does not constitute more than fifty percent (50%) of the allowable pylon sign area, or seventy (70) square feet, whichever is less. (#340, 1/10/00) (g) In the B-3 Zoning District only, certain parcels maybe allowed to construct a second freestanding sign on the property when the following conditions are complied with: i. The property directly abuts Interstate 94 and one other collector (or higher) status street. ii. The property in question is no less than two (2) acres in area. iii. The second freestanding sign shall be located no closer than three hundred (300) feet from the first freestanding sign on the same property. iv. Only one of the two freestanding signs maybe located within any yard (front, rear, or side) of the property. This clause shall be interpreted to mean that each sign shall be required to have a separate roadway as its primary exposure. v. Where two freestanding signs are allowed, the sign that fronts on the road which serves as the primary access shall be of a monument design, with a maximum height often (10) feet and a maximum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. vi. Where two freestanding signs are allowed, the sign that fronts on the freeway exposure shall conform to the provisions of Section 3 [E] 4.(c) above. This section shall not be applied to the calculations for signage when an applicant is seeking development design flexibility under the City's Planned Unit Development provisions. viii. Both signs allowed under this subsection shall meet all other applicable provisions of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. (6/11/01, #361) 5. Address Numbers Sign: DELETED (3/24/08, #476) 6. Projecting Signs: Projecting signs shall be permitted within. the CCD District but only in the "Broadway Downtown District" thereof as defined by the Monticello Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan. Only 3/60 one (1) projecting sign maybe erected per business, with no more than two (2) such signs erected per building, subject to the following conditions: Projecting signs: (a) Shall be only business identification signs. (b) Shall be fronting on a public street. (c) Shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area. (d) Shall be considered a wall sign for the purposes of maximum allowable sign area. (e) The edge of the sign closest to the building must be no farther than 12 inches away from the building. (f) May extend over the public sidewalk, but shall not extend closer to the public street than to within 3 feet from the backside of curb. (g} Shall be at least 8 feet but not more than 12 feet in height above walking surfaces or sidewalks. (h) Shall not be internally illuminated, but maybe externally illuminated. [F] FEES AND LICENSE: (#334, 9/13/99) FEES: (a) Payment Fees: The permit fee and other fees and charges set forth in this ordinance shall be collected by the City before the issuance of any permits, and the City Administrator, Building Inspector, or other persons duly authorized to issue such permit for which the payment of a fee is required under the provisions of this subdivision may not issue a permit until such fee shall have been paid. (b) Double Fees: If a person begins work of any kind for which a permit from the City is required without having secured the necessary permits therefore either previous to or on the date of commencement of such work, he shall, when subsequently securing such permit, pay double the fee provided for such permit or is subject to the penalty provisions of this ordinance. (c) Fees Required: Sign. applications and subsequent fees will be required for all signs which do not appear in Chapter 3, Section 9 [B] (permitted and prohibited signs). Fees shall not be required for repairs of signs and sign structures. 3/61 G Decision Making in Sign Codes: How to Comply with the First Amendment and Avoid Litigation By Daniel R. Mandelker, FAICP Sign codes often contain discretionary decision-making procedures. They may contain a permit requirement, may permit some signs only as conditional uses, and may authorize hardship variances. Officials may also be allowed to waive or modify some regulations, such as setback requirements. More creatively, sign codes can authorize a design review for customized signs that meet design criteria. These discretionary decision- makingprocedures raise free speech problems because they are prior restraints on the expres- sive content that signs contain. This article re- views the prior restraint problem and explains how sign codes can be drafted to avoid it. WHAT THE PRIOR RESTRAINT PROBLEM IS A prior restraint exists when a sign code pre- vents someone from exercising his free speech rights. Suppression of speech in this manner can occur through the discretionary review procedures in sign codes that require govern- mentapproval. Speech is suppressed prior to the time the sign is approved. A prior restraint problem can arise when a sign code does not provide clear standards for decision making. Government bodies and officials then have the opportunity to refuse approval of a sign arbitrarily because the standards are not clear. Another prior restraint problem arises when a sign code does not contain time limits on deci- sion making or contains time limits that are too long. Government bodies and officials can then suppress speech by unreasonably delaying decisions. The law that applies to prior restraints is free speech law, but it is different from the free speech law usually applied to sign regulation, which prohibits discrimination against noncom- mercialspeech and almost always holds a sign code invalid if it regulates a sign's content. The law that applies to prior restraints is more demanding and less forgiving. The rule that requires regulations like sign codes to contain clear standards under which discretionary deci- sionsare made is one example. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained, ifthere are no stan- dards or the standards are not clear, it is difficult for courts to distinguish between a "legitimate denial of a permit and its illegitimate abuse of censorial power." (See Lokewood v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co., 486 U.S. 750, 757.758 (1988)•) This is a difficult requirement. Courts accept standards that are objective or require a ministerial decision, such as whether a sign complies with specific height and area require- ments contained in the code. Standards that require the exercise of discretion have more trouble. Assume that a provision in a sign code authorizing setback variances for on-premise signs does not contain standards or authorizes a variance "in the public interest." This stan- dard is probably invalid as too vague to meet prior restraint clarity standards, though courts may nnhnld such a standard when frea snrarh ZONINGPRACTICE 3.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION ~ poge 2 review. These standards often provide that a design may be approved if it is "compatible" with surrounding uses and with the design of the building on which it will be displayed. In a federal court case, Desert OutdoorAdvertising v. City of Moreno Valley, l03 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 1996), for example, a sign code authorized the issuance of a permit if the sign "will not have a harmful effect upon the health or welfare of the general public and will not be detrimental to the welfare of the general public and will not be detrimental to the aesthetic quality of the community or the surrounding land uses." The court held the ordinance was an unconsti- tutional prior restraint, noting that "[cjity of- ficials have unbridled discretion in determining whether a particular structure or sign will be harmful to the community's health, welfare, or 'aesthetic quality."' Time limits on decisions are another problem under prior restraint rules. An unrea- sonable delay in decision making is a prior restraint on speech because it improperly delays the time when a sign can be displayed. This problem has received attention in the U.S. Supreme Court, but the results are not clear. (See Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316 (2002).) Although earlier cases held that time limits are required to avoid a prior restraint, this case appears to have held that time limits are required only if an ordinance does not regulate content. An example of a content regulation in a sign code is one that authorizes signs only for certain causes, such as saving the environment. This type of regulation may seem innocent, but it is uncon- stitutional because it regulates what a sign can say. The difficulty is that it is impossible to tell in advance of a court decision whether a sign code is or is not content-based, be- cause the law on this problem is not clear. The only safe advice is to provide time limits for decisions to guard against a finding that a sign code regulates content. Otherwise the decision-making process, and perhaps the entire code, will be held invalid. Neither are the courts clear on how long a time limit for decision making is acceptable. A decision by one court that 6o days is adequate is prob- ably good advice; see Redner v. Dean, 29 F.3d 1495. 1500 (11th Cir. 1994)• HOW PRIOR RESTRAINTS AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF SIGN CODES Decision-making procedures in sign codes will be held invalid if a court finds that the stan- dards for decision are not clear, or that the time limits for decision are too short or nonexistent. sign code are so essential to its structure and purpose, a court may then decide the entire sign code is invalid, even if the rest is consti- tutional. The entire code will fall if the invalid decision-making procedures are so critical to the code that the rest of the code cannot stand. A sign company that challenged the sign code because it was denied a permit under arbitrary standards can then claim a vested right to its permit. It can argue the code is invalid retro- actively so that no code was in effect when it applied for a permit, which must therefore be granted. This a complicated argument that sometimes succeeds and sometimes doesn't, but it is worth thinking about. Litigation over sign codes can also be very expensive. Cases costing a million dollars in combined legal fees are common. More- over, asign company plaintiff can recover its legal fees from a local government under a federal statute if it "prevails" in a case, and that means it can recover fees even if the local HOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN GET SUED A local government can get sued in a number of ways because of a prior restraint problem in its sign code. One way, of course, is a suit by an applicant for a sign permit or other approval who is denied a permit, and who sues claim- ingthe standards contained in the code are Because the decision-making procedures in a too vague or that time limits on decisions are ZONINGPRACTICE 3.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION page j invalidate them. The Supreme Court explained this in City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co., 486 U.S. 7So (1988). The plaintiff sued when the city adopted an ordinance giving the mayor the authority to grant or deny applications for an- num news rack permits. Instead of applying for a permit, the plaintiff brought suit challenging the permit ordinance as facially unconstitutional. The Court granted standing: [O]ur cases have long held that when a licensing statute allegedly vests unbridled discretion in a government activity, one who is subject to the law may challenge it Facially without the necessity of first applying for, and being denied, a license. At the root of this long line of precedent is the time-tested knowledge that in the area of free expression a licensing statute placing unbridled discre- tion in the hands of a government official or agency constitutes a prior restraint and may result in censorship. And these evils engender identifiable risks to free expression that can be effectively alleviated only through a facial challenge. missing or too long. This may not happen if the discretionary review process for signs works well and if litigation would be expensive. What local governments may not know is that sign companies with a much bigger stake in holding a sign code invalid can attack a dis- cretionary review process. This is true even if the process does not apply to them; it is still possible to have a court hold the review process invalid. This strategy requires a sign company that plans to put up signs, such as billboards. It applies for permits, but the local government denies them because its sign code prohibits . billboards or because the billboards violate the code's size and height requirements. The sign company then brings a lawsuit in federal court in which it attacks the ordinance as applied to it through the permit denials. It can also attack other discretionary review procedures by claim- ingthey violate the prior restraint doctrine. Even though these procedures do not apply to the sign company's permit application, the company can attack them in addition to making its as-applied attack against the denial of its permits. This litigation opportunity arises because of a free speech doctrine adopted by the Su- preme Court called the overbreadth doctrine. Usually a litigant cannot sue in federal court unless it can show it has standing because it was injured by the government's decision; the sign company in this example was not injured by the discretionary review provisions that were not applied to it. The overbreadth doctrine is an exception to this rule. It allows the sign company to attack these provisions even though it was not injured by them. The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that this exception is necessary so that a regulation that violates the free speech clause can be struck down, even if it means allowing a party that has not been injured by the regulation to bring the case. Overbroad, standardless statutes are an example of overbroad regulations subject to a facial attack under the overbreadth exception by a plaintiff that was not injured by them. Nor does a plaintiff need to apply for aper- mitunder the discretionary review procedures it claims are unconstitutional in order to sue to This means a sign company is "subject to" and may challenge discretionary review proce- dures in asign code even if it has not applied for a permit or an approval under these procedures. It can attack these procedures in court and pos- siblyinvalidate the entire sign code if it convinc- esthe court that the discretionary procedures violate the prior restraint doctrine. HOW TO DRAFT S1GN CODES TO AVOID THE PRIOR RESTRAINT PROBLEM Local governments thus have considerable incentive to review their sign codes and correct problems in their discretionary review procedures that might raise prior restraint problems subject to judicial attack. Nor should local governments wait for litigation to carry out this review and make any necessary changes. While a local gov- ernment can revise its sign code to meet consti- tutional problems after litigation is brought, and may possibly be able to get a court to dismiss any challenges to the code, it will not be able to avoid claims for damages or attorneys fees. Here are some suggestions for making sign code revisions to avoid prior restraint problems: • Time limits must be provided for all discre- tionarydecisions, including decisions on sign permits, variances, and design review, and appeals from any of these decisions. Often the procedures for these approvals, such as variances, will be in other sections of the zoning ordinance or land development code. When this is the case, an amendment is nec- essary to those sections to specify time limits ZONINGPRACTICE 3.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION jpage y for sign applications that meet prior restraint requirements. Case law is not specific enough to suggest a clearly defensible time limit, though 6o days is probably safe. Consult the case law in federal decisions that apply to you. Be careful to include any decisions on electrical or other permits within the time limits set by the sign code; otherwise, the time limit for these permits will be added to the sign code permit, and the cumulative time limit may be too long. • Do not authorize the approval of signs as conditional uses. This is an invitation to judi- cialattack because the criteria usually adopted for conditional uses are too vague to satisfy prior restraint requirements, as the Moreno Volley case discussed earlier indicates. Accept- able criteria are hard to specify. Conditional uses are also unnecessary as they require decisions on each conditional use application one at a time, which invites the objection that decisions are arbitrary. It should be possible to specify locations for different types of signs that are compatible with their visual environ- ment if the drafting job is done right. • Variances should either be prohibited or al- lowed only in strictly controlled circumstances. This is another discretionary procedure that invites judicial attack, though it is easier to specify criteria for variances that meet prior restraint principles than it is for conditional uses. Variances can be prohibited entirely in a carefully drafted sign code, but occasional circumstances may arise in which a variance is necessary. An example is a sign whose required placement prevents it from being viewed adequately. Use variances that authorize a sign type not permitted by the code, such as a ground sign in place of a wall sign, should never be permitted. Variances that are allowed should be limited to area variances that authorize a change in height and setback requirements. This is the approach taken in the author's Street Graphics and the Law (Planning Advisory Service Report No. 5z7 (zoo4)), which de- scribes the content of an effective and defensi- ble sign code and contains a model ordinance. The model ordinance authorizes variances only from height and setback requirements, and recommends that the variance vary not more than z5 percent from code requirements. • Criteria for the approval of sign permits that are needed to display a sign should be objective and ministerial. One option is to provide that a permit will be granted if the sign complies with all the requirements for the display of the sign in the sign code, but these must be objective: height, size, spacing, and similar requirements. The requirements for a sign permit application should require all the information needed to make a decision that the requirements of the sign code have been satisfied. • Landscaping requirements for ground signs should be objectively specified and should not require the discretionary review of a land- scape plan. Ifthis review is required in the zoning ordinance or land development code, a separate and objectively specified landscap- ingrequirement should be provided for ground signs. Otherwise, the discretionary review of landscaping plans for signs will require highly specified review criteria and time limits, and these requirements are always subject to attack as prior restraints. This is unnecessary as land- scaping requirements for ground signs are not difficult to specify. • Planned unit developments present a special problem as the procedures for their review and approval are in a separate part ofthe zoning or- dinance or land development code. One option is to require signs within planned unit develop- ments to comply with the requirements in the sign code, but a specially designed sign pro- gram may be preferred so it can be integrated with the design of the development. One option is to include specially drafted sign regulations in the development plan for the project. Another is to include a design review process to be applied to individual sites as development on these sites is approved. These can be based on design review criteria similar to those discussed next. • Design review is a discretionary review pro- cedure that deserves encouragement. It can allow the approval of creative signs that do not meet code requirements but are aesthetic improvements on these requirements. The model ordinance in Street Graphics and the Law authorizes a design review process called a Program for Graphics. This option provides ZONINGPRACTICE 3.09 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION j poge 5 NEWS BRIE F COURTS DECIDE SIGN CASES ~~ the surrounding area." Criteria in the model ordinance require signs in a Program for Graph- ics to be compatible "with the theme, visual quality, and overall character of the surround- ingarea." They must also be "[a]ppropriately related in size, shape, materials, [lettering, color, illumination] and character to the func- tion and architectural character of the building or premise on which they will be displayed, and ...compatible with existing adjacent activities." The terms in brackets are optional. Street Graphics and the Law is cautionary about the validity of these criteria, but the cases have upheld similar requirements. In G.K. Ltd. Trove! v. City of Lake Oswego, 436 F.3d io64 (9th Cir. zoo6), for example, the Ninth Circuit upheld similar criteria and distinguished its Moreno Valleycase discussed earlier. Compatibility requirements are useful in design review, but a sign code can more posi- tivelyprovide criteria for improved design. The West Ho llyw ood, California, zoning ordinance, for example, authorizes procedures for the approval of creative signs. Design quality stan- dards for signs state that signs shall: a. Constitute a substantial aesthetic imp rove- ment to the site and shall have a positive visual impact on the surrounding area; b. be of unique design, and exhibit a high degree of thoughtfulness, imagination, in- ventiveness, and spirit; and c. provide strong graphic character through the imaginative use of graphics,color, to xture, quality materia Is, scale, and proportion. This ordinance also contains standards for design criteria, contextual criteria, and neighborhood impact. Illustrated design guide- linesprovide further guidance. The ordinance and guidelines are available on the city's web- siteand at www.law.wustl.edu/landuselaw. CONCLUSION Prior restraint requirements that carry out free speech principles are a real concern in sign regulation. Careful attention to the drafting of sign codes with these requirements in mind can avoid free speech problems and create a more effective and constitutionally defensible set ofsign regulations. Design review is a discretionary review procedure that can allow the approval of creative signs that do not meet code .. requirements but are aesthetic improvements on these requirements. By Lora Lucero, AicP From coast to coast, sign regulations are under scrutiny. Three recent court decisions illustrate some of the challenges planners face when they are drafting or revising.their sign codes. On January 6, zoo9, the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals ruled in favor of the City of Los Angeles in a challenge to that city's sign code. The case is Metro Lights, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 5Si F.3d 898 (lan. 6, zoo9). The code bans most off-site commercial signs, typically billboards, but the city exempts itself from this ban and contracts with a company to install such signs on city-owned transit stops. Traffic safety and aesthetics are the primary reasons given for the billboard ban. following an open bidding process, the city awarded the successful bidder the exclu- sive right to install and maintain commercial signs on the city's transit shelters, automated self-cleaning public toilets, trash receptacles, public amenity kiosks, and news racks. In exchange, the successful bidder agreed to install the shelters and public amenities, make annual payments, and post public service an- nouncements when requested by the city. At the time the sign code was adopted, there were approximately i8,5oo transit stops in the city. Another sign company challenged the city's sign code, claiming the city was "auc- tioning off First Amendment rights" to the highest bidder. The Ninth Circuit concluded that another famous sign case from California controlled its decision in this case. In i98i, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Metromedia, /nc. v. [ityof5an Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981), that San Diego's ban on off-site commercial signs, including the 12 exceptions to the ban, was constitutional. The sign code in Los Angeles is "virtually identical," the court reasoned. The company argued that the city undermtned its stated concerns about aesthetics and traffic safety when it allowed commercial signs on city-owned property, but the court disagreed. Even though a sign code might be unconsti- tutional if it restricts speech too narrowly, be- cause an exemption is discriminatory or dimin- ishes the government's rationale for restricting speech, the court was persuaded that-was not the case with Los Angeles's sign code. The company presented a photograph that showed two off-site signs, one on a bus shelter ZONING PRACTICE 3.09 AMERICAN PLANNING As50CIATION ipage 6 ~~~ ¢ Memorandum TO: Members of the Monticello City Council & Planning Commission FROM: Monticello Business Members/Sandy Suchy, Monticello Chamber DATE: December 31, 2008 RE: Sign Ordinance Suggestions/Comments Sandy: Thanks for the invitation to attend the signage meeting last Friday. I want to make a few comments regarding the proposed sign ordinance. Freeway Corridor Exception: In my opinion the ordinance should be modified to benefit property owners that have more frontage. I think businesses that pay a premium for frontage land should be given more of a benefit to display signage than a business that purchases just a small amount of frontage land. Right now the ordinance does not differentiate between the two. I spoke with Steve after the meeting on this issue and he indicated some ordinances in other communities accommodate larger signs based on frontage. Freeway Corridor: Make sure the ordinance allows businesses a pole sign along the interstate and a monument along Chelsea. Businesses need reasonable exposure on Chelsea as well. Real Estate Signs - I think some flexibility needs to be granted for larger temp signs for development projects similar to the existing ordinance which ties it back to the size of the development (# acres). Bottom line is we have to give the property a chance to be noticed by the public especially in the Freeway Corridor where the public is traveling at 70 - 80 mph. We have the "letter of the laud' which is the ordinance we really need to keep in mind the "spirit of the law" which is to protect the public. In this instance a larger more visible sign would not have a negative impact on public safety and would potentially only increase new commercial growth in Monticello. Lastly, I was pleased to hear Angela mention the City is in the process of editing the entire zoning ordinance. I believe now is great time to do that. I would encourage the City to engage Steve Grittman's services to help properly align the new ordinance to compete with neighboring communities. Steve should be aware on what the neighboring communities are doing. I would also encourage the city to draw on local commercial real estate developers for guidance as well. In today's economic climate the City has to position itself to reasonably encourage and embrace real estate development and business growth. If the ordinances make it excessively difficult businesses will go elsewhere. Thanks, Andy Larson, CPC Nelson Building NOTE: Several business members plan to attend the sign meeting on January 6 at S: 00 to offer their suggestions. WINDOW SIGN: (I would like you to consider removing this part of the ordinance completely.) Many of our local businesses, including the chamber office use windows to communicate messages to those individuals driving by. This is an effective means of communication especially for our city. Because we have many cross roads and bringing in commuters from all directions, these types of signs get attention but do not create traffic hazards, aesthetic concerns, or threaten the public health, safety and welfare of our community. Business is created on effectively communicating your message to those who may need your service. Many businesses have creatively used their windows as a sales tool. In today's changing environment, we continually tell businesses they must think out of the box to advertise their products because the traditional mass marketing, newspaper advertising etc. isn't affective in today's market. DYNAMIC SIGN: The ordinance current states that the message on a dynamic sign should not change more than one time per two minute period except time and temperature displays which may change once every three seconds. If this ordinance is truly based on findings that signs can create traffic hazards etc. than this would also apply to the time and temperature signs. Another thought to consider, do all existing signs that are currently in place today have the ability to change to the 120 seconds rule or do they flash and change messages at a "set" time. Dynamic signs should not be more limiting in the new policy. Due to great business competition in neighboring cities, I again think it's important to mention that we need to allow signage similar to neighboring cities. I believe as a council member or planning commission member, you should have documented sign policies for neighboring communities as a part of your agenda item before making any decision for Monticello's new ordinance. I think it's also very important that the new policy does not create any hardship for business that has existing signage of this type. Businesses spend a lot of money on signage to promote their establishment. They often require signage on several different sides of their building to attract attention. The addition "9. No Dynamic Display shall be permitted to be located in a yard or on the side of a building which abuts a residential zones parcel should be reviewed. Often times the residential community was built next to the existing commercial district. In this case, businesses sign location should not be restricted. Residents should expect signage of all types when they purchase near a business district. If you feel this statement should remain, I suggest you change it to read "within "xxx" feet of a residential parcel. Many businesses own large parcels for expansion. On a side note: many residential Christmas lights are very obnoxious and distracting yet we don't punish the property own and ask them to remove them or only ask them to flash at certain intervals. Why do we regulate our business community with such minute details? A suggestion would be to limit the number of dynamic display signs within x miles. This allows businesses to use today's technology but also protects the visual and appearance and traffic hazards. Stay away from the smaller details -allow businesses to monitor their own signs. The city can monitor the number and types of signs. TEMPORARY SIGNAGE: Business of all sorts use banners attached to their building to advertise something new or a large sale. These types of items are included as temporary signage and subject to part of the 40 days. Again, this limits the business to advertise creatively in today's fast paced world. If a business has an empty wall and attaches a banner, what harm has it created if it remains 40 days or 365? Temporary signage is probably the best means of advertising at this time. It attracts an immediate response from the buyer. I understand wanting to limit the number of black signs that are placed around the city but then think out of the box and allow banners to be used in their place. They can be attractive and eye pleasing. Last year the chamber advertised the Marine band coming to town utilizing a banner placed on the building. What a great way to advertise other community events. I can see using a banner on the Chamber (City) building for events like Walk N Roll, Taste of Monticello, Riverfest, Art in the Park, the Business Expo, and Halloween Parade etc. What better way can we attract those travelers to our town? Peak their interest and encourage them to plan to stay awhile. You can't do this by putting the event on the kiosk for 1 week before the event. I'd say 2 weeks minimum. You want travelers to have a reason to come back to our town for a specific event. Our sign ordinance doesn't allow these types of ideas. We spend too much time telling people what they can't do that we don't allow businesses or organizations to be creative and use today's technology. Sandwich boards are allowed with no time limit however, if a business chooses to attach balloons to these boards do they fall under temporary signage or sandwich boards restrictions? This type of advertising is something businesses request! It's a way to advertise something new -balloons one week, streamers another week. This type of advertising might attract shoppers to stop at a place they normally wouldn't stop. The ordinance currently says attention getting devices are permitted but must go against a businesses 40 day allotment; therefore it must not threaten the health and welfare of the general public. Using this reasoning, then it there really shouldn't be an issue to attach them to sandwich boards. I challenge you to take a business such as Dunn Bros, who is struggling to remain in business. How would you help to promote this business to keep them in town? Isn't that what each one of us is here to do? Ensure our community growth, maybe one business at a time or maybe a whole shopping center at a time. Either way, what would you suggest to this business to capture traffic and help them grow their business? Does it fit into our current sign ordinance? Whether we like signs or not, they are the livelihood for many businesses. Sandy Suchy, Director Monticello Chamber of Commerce & Industry (As of now, this information does not have board approval. This is being presented as own my opinion and not the opinion of the Chamber Board). If you have comments or questions before Tuesdays meeting, please do not hesitate to contact me at 612-990-2172. 7000 Westgate ©r., Ste 252 St. Paul, MN 55i 14-1067 Angela Schumann Community Development Director City of Monticello 505'Wa1nu# Street Monticello, Minnesota 35352 March S, 2009 REt Proposed Changes #o the City of Monticello Sign Ordinance Dear Director Schumann: It has come to the attention of several of our members that Monticello is in fibs process of amending the sign ordinance portions of the Monticello code, The Minnesota Sign Association {MSA) is the trade association for Minnesota sign makers and represents the interests of sign makers thmughotrt M(innesata before the State Legislature and local governments. The MSA has some specific concerns with the dray ordinance changes, discussed glow, First, we have prepared a few suggested changes. to the proposed aruendment to the Monticello sign ordinance, which aze attached. MSA has no concerns with most of the proposed updating of the Monticello sign ordinance. However, the change language concerning Electronic Message Centers (EMCs) causes some concerns for sign makers and, likely, for local business owners.. Generally, MSA is concerned that the proposed sign ordinance changes with regard to EMGs will have a potentially negative impact on iacal businesses -during very difficult economic times, The Small. Business Administration estimates that businesses can raise their revenue anywhere from 15 to 150 percent with an EMC. Furthermore, EMCs are a good advertising value for small businesses that often cannot afford other means cif advertising that larger business can. As you know, EMCs are intended for a variety of uses. They can be used far identification, similar to a traditional sign, but are typically deployed to provide timely information to the public regarding goods, servrces, and promottons, They also provide public service information. Unlike signs utilized far strictly identification purses (e,g., Target),. EMC messages often need multiple frames to be effectively communicated.: Regulations placing restrictive message durations (longer than. a couple of seconds) .accompanied with area restrictions and minimum font sizes prevent the public from. seeing a complete message when passing $ .sign. Such requirements can -force EMC owners to span messages out to an impractical duration. Second, with regard to Sections ~A-4 j'E] and [F] of the prnpased ordinance: 1 ~ days and 60 days ..are quite long. periods of time to await a sign permit, Typicail3~, most Minnesota municipalities produce a permit for sign makers in two weeps - or less,. MSA suggests that seven days under subsection jEj and 15 days under subsection [F] would be more reasonable and business-friendly standards. Finally, -with regard to Section3A-4-7, MSA finds the ,proposed language to be vague. Few municipalities that MSA member sign. makers. deal with make this requirement, and the municipalities that do, only make these types of requirements for pylon signs. We did not make a specific language change suggestion in this instance, lout would like to work with the City to .come up with effective and clear language in this section. We would like for these concerns of Minnesota sign makers be considered at the March 1,Ocn meeting, Representatives of the MSA plan to be in attendance at the March l 0~' meeting and will be able to answer any questions that you ar the city council may have. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours,. Greg Rendali President Minnesota Sign Association Cc: Mayor Clint Herbst City Councilor Glen Posusta City Councilor Tom Perrault City Councilor Brian Stumpf City Councilor Susie Wojchauski Terra Wilson, Daktronics Adam Skase, Daktronics William J. Amberg, MSA attorney Monticello Sign Ordinance -suggested language alternatives to proposed sign ordinance amendment. March 5, 2009 Suggested language changes are underlined, and are as follows: Definitions Under Section 3A-2, the definitions for "Changeable Copy Sign, Electronic," "Dynamic Display," "Electronic Graphic Display Sign," "Scrolling Text" and "Video Display Sign" should be deleted. In Section 3A-2, the definition for "Flashing Sign" should be amended to read as follows: FLASHING SIGN• A sign displa~n~pattern of changing light illumination where the sign illumination alternates suddenly between fully illuminated and fully non-illuminated for the~urpose of drawing attention to the sign. In Section 3A-2 the following definitions should be inserted in their respective alphabetical order: ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER: A sign capable of displaying words, symbols figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. FRAME EFFECT• A visual effect on an electronic message center applied to a single frame to transition from one message to the next. Permit Required In Section 3A-4, the permitting times would conform to Minnesota municipal standards if they read as follows: [E] The Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant, in writing, of an incomplete application within ~~~~ seven 7 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 sij~y{-69} fifteen (15) days of submission of a complete application. Prohibited Signs Section 3A-10, Prohibited Signs, subsection [H] should be deleted and the remaining subsection should be reordered accordingly. Electronic Message Center Provisions Section 3A-9, Subsection W, pertaining to dynamic signs, should be deleted in its entirety, and replaced with the following: [W] Electronic Message Center: Such signs shall be permitted within commercial and industrial districts as a part of a freestanding or p l~g_n displaceprovided that: 1. The sigt complies in all other respects with the sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The sign does not create a traffic hazard or a nuisance. 3. The sign mawdisplay animation and frame effects so long as it does not display flashing. 4. The sign meets all requirements of the City's Building and Electrical Codes. 5. The electronic message center portion of the sign does not constitute more than fifthpercent (50%~ of the allowable pylon sign area, or sevent (~70) square feet, whichever is less. 6. All electronic message centers shall come equipped with automatic dimming technology with automaticallyadjusts the sign's brightness based on ambient light conditions. DAKTRON I CS Monticello, Minnesota Definitions In Section 3A-2, the definitions for "Changeable Copy Sign, Electronic," "Dynamic Display," "Electronic Graphic Display Sign," "Scrolling Text" and "Video Display Sign" should be deleted in their entirety. In Section 3A-2, the definition for "Flashing Sign" should be amended to read as follows: FLASHING SIGN: A sign displaying a pattern of changing light illumination where the sign illumination alternates suddenly between fully illuminated and fully non-illuminated for the purpose of drawing attention to the sign. In Section 3A-2 the following definitions should be inserted in their respective alphabetical order: ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER: A sign capable of displaying words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means. FRAME EFFECT: A visual effect on an electronic message center applied to a single frame to transition from one message to the next. Prohibited Signs In Section 3A-10, Prohibited Signs, Subsection [H] should be deleted and the remaining subsection should be reordered accordingly. Electronic Message Center Provisions Section 3A-9, Subsection W, pertaining to dynamic signs, should be deleted in its entirety, and replaced with the following: [W] Electronic Message Center: Such signs shall be permitted within commercial and industrial districts as a part of a freestanding or pylon sign display provided that: 1. The sign complies in all other respects with the sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The sign does not create a traffic hazard or a nuisance. 3. The sign may display animation and frame effects so long as it does not display flashing. 4. The sign meets all requirements of the City's Building and Electrical Codes. 5. The electronic message center portion of the sign does not constitute more than fifty percent (50°Io) of the allowable pylon sign area, or seventy (70) square feet, whichever is less. 6. All electronic message centers shall come equipped with automatic dimming technology with automatically adjusts the sign's brightness based on ambient light conditions. DAKTRON I CS Planning Commission Agenda - 03/10/09 7. Continued Public Hearing -Consideration of a request for amendment to Chapter 3 of . the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance, Title 10 of Monticello City Code as related to Final Platting. Applicant: City of Monticello REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND In further reviewing the Title 10, Monticello Subdivision Ordinance regulations, staff would ask that the Planning Commission move "No action" at this time. This request is made due to the number of ordinance changes and clarifications needed within Subdivision Ordinance as a whole. In contrast to updating only language pertaining to final platting, staff would like the opportunity to review Subdivision Code in conjunction with proposed changes to the Zoning Code. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion of no action on a request for amendment to Chapter 3 of the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance, Title 10 of Monticello City Code as related to Final Platting. • C] Planning Commission Agenda - 03/10/09 8. 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 Consulting Planner Steve Grittman will provide an update regarding this item during the meeting. The attachments following this cover are provided for reference during that discussion. C7 • 2008 Minnesota Statutes 462.358 OFFICIAL CONTROLS: SUBDIVISION REGULATION; DEDICATION. Subd. 2b.Dedication. (a) The regulations may require that a reasonable portion of the buildable land, as defined by municipal ordinance, of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as streets, roads, sewers, electric, gas, and water facilities, storm water drainage and holding areas or ponds and similar utilities and improvements, parks, recreational facilities as defined in section 471.191, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space. The requirement must be imposed by ordinance or under the procedures established in section 462.353, subdivision 4a. (b) If a municipality adopts the ordinance or proceeds under section 462.353, subdivision 4a, as required by paragraph (a), the municipality must adopt a capital improvement budget and have a parks and open space plan or have a parks, trails, and open space component in its comprehensive plan subject to the terms and conditions in this paragraph and paragraphs (c) to (i). (c) The municipality may choose to accept a cash fee as set by ordinance from the applicant for some or all of the new lots created in the subdivision, based on the average fair market value of the unplatted land for which park fees have not already been paid that is, no later than at the time of final approval or under the city's adopted comprehensive plan, to be served by municipal sanitary sewer and water service or community septic and private well as authorized by state law. For purposes of redevelopment on developed land, the municipality may choose to accept a cash fee based on fair market value of the land no later than the time of final approval. (d) In establishing the portion to be dedicated or preserved or the cash fee, the regulations shall give due consideration to the open space, recreational, or common areas and facilities open to the public that the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision. (e) The municipality must reasonably determine that it will need to acquire that portion of land for the purposes stated in this subdivision as a result of approval of the subdivision. (f) Cash payments received must be placed by the municipality in a special fund to be used only for the purposes for which the money was obtained. (g) Cash payments received must be used only for the acquisition and development or improvement of parks, recreational facilities, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space based on the approved park systems plan. Cash payments must not be used for ongoing operation or maintenance of parks, recreational facilities, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space. (h) The municipality must not deny the approval of a subdivision based solely on an inadequate supply of parks, open spaces, trails, or recreational facilities within the municipality. (i) Previously subdivided property from which a park dedication has been received, being resubdivided with the same number of lots, is exempt from park dedication requirements. If, as a result of resubdividing the property, the number of lots is increased, then the park dedication or per-lot cash fee must apply only to the net increase of lots. Subd. 2c.Nexus. (a) There must be an essential nexus between the fees or dedication imposed under subdivision 2b and the municipal purpose sought to be achieved by the fee or dedication. The fee or dedication must bear a rough proportionality to the need created by the proposed subdivision or development. (b) If a municipality is given written notice of a dispute over a proposed fee in lieu of dedication before the municipality's final decision on an application, a municipality must not condition the approval of any proposed subdivision or development on an agreement to waive the right to challenge the validity of a fee in lieu of dedication. (c) An application may proceed as if the fee had been paid, pending a decision on the appeal of a dispute over a proposed fee in lieu of dedication, if (1) the person aggrieved by the fee puts the municipality on written notice of a dispute over a proposed fee in lieu of dedication, (2) prior to the municipality's final decision on the application, the fee in lieu of dedication is deposited in escrow, and (3) the person aggrieved by the fee appeals under section 462.361, within 60 days of the approval of the application. If such an appeal is not filed by the deadline, or if the person aggrieved by the fee does not prevail on the appeal, then the funds paid into escrow must be transferred to the municipality. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Angela Schumann FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: March 4, 2009 RE: Monticello -Park Dedication Analysis NAC FILE: 191.06 - 08.41 Background This memo summarizes the City's Park Dedication requirements, based on data you sent to me relating to park and trail areas, current and future development areas, and the City's acquisition of a portion of the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park. To start off, it is important to remember a couple of basic principles. First, general "exactions" law requires that the City can exact property based on the proportionate share of demand placed on a system by the development in question. That is, if a development project constitutes 1 % of the overall demand on a public service, the City may expect to recoup 1 % of its costs from that development. Second, the state law permits the City to take some of its exactions in cash, but it is important that cash takings are generally equivalent to the value of land takings. Finally, it is important to apportion the costs of a system to both future and existing development - a City cannot ascribe all of its costs of a public service to future development when some of the demand for that service is attributable to current property owners. Land Dedication Based on the numbers provided, the current City population creates a demand for park land at a rate of 9.0% of total land use. That is to say, to satisfy current demand, 9.0% of the City's land is occupied by park and open space uses. For the purposes of this analysis, I will assume that reasonable estimate of the appropriate level of park service. With this assumption, we can then estimate the park area necessary to serve future population, as well as a reasonable apportionment of the Bertram Lake acquisition. The current City boundaries encompass approximately 4,900 acres, about 29.3% of the area of the future boundary including the orderly annexation area of 11,800 acres for a total of 16,700 acres. Current park and trail acreage is approximately 437 acres. Assuming that the future growth area will also require 9% of its land area to provide local and community parks, this will add about 1,060 acres to the City's park system, resulting in a local and community park supply of about 1,500 acres, rounded. Adding the City's share of Bertram Chain of Lakes to the mix, an additional 400 acres is being acquired by the City. This regional park acquisition is above and beyond the local park needs discussed above. As such, it needs to be added to the 9.0% park dedication requirement to permit the City to recoup dedication funds adequate to provide for both local and regional park needs. As noted above, the existing developed area of the City is 29.3% of the future park service territory. As such, that percentage of Bertram Chain of Lakes is the responsibility of existing property owners. The remaining 70.7% can be attributed to future development. This means that 283 acres of the Bertram Chain of Lakes Park is being acquired for future growth. Adding that to the 1,060 acres necessary for local park use results in a total acquisition of 1,343 acres of park land to be acquired for new development. Spreading that over the 11,800 acres of future development results in a park dedication amount of 11.4%. This is to say, by requiring every developer to provide 11.4% of their land for park dedication, you would acquire, through dedication, the number of acres expected for local and regional purposes. Fee in lieu -cash per acre Of course, most development will not occur in precisely the right location to provide for the park system you are seeking. As such, the City is able to require a cash fee lieu of land dedication to use for purchase of land that is located according to the City's plan, such as Bertram Chain of Lakes. Under Minnesota statutes, the City may set this fee to be equal to the value of raw land no later than at the time of final plat -this is the value of raw land that is immediately developable, but is not yet actually developed. An example of such land would be land that has utilities, streets, and all other services extended right up the edge of the property, but which has not yet been actually developed. You have estimated the value of this land at $28,000 per acre, based on data from the Bertram Lakes acquisition. We should pause here to recap. If a developer is proposing a subdivision, the City can require a dedication of 11.4% of the land as the proportionate share of park land owed 2 by the developer as a result of his development project. For an imaginary 88 acre parcel, the park dedication share would be 10 acres. In lieu of that acreage, the City may require that the developer provide a cash payment instead - in this case, $280,000 (the value of 10 acres of land). The result that comes from this on a per acre basis is $3,182 of cash payment in lieu of each acre of the development area. The City may also choose to split the dedication. Perhaps you would want half of the land area, and half of the cash - 5 acres and $140,000. Any similar requirement would be appropriate. Fee in lieu -cash per unit Requiring a payment from the developer at the time of final plat (or allowing by development contract apro-rated payment schedule) is the simplest formula, and it is most consistent with the language of the statute. However, Monticello has been in the practice of permitting the park dedication fee to be paid at the time of house construction. This fee commonly is added to the cost of a building permit, meaning that a builder pays the fee and adds that to the cost of the house sale. Obviously, if the developer pays the fee up front, is added to the cost of the lot price required from the builder -the only difference here is the timing. The difficulty with this approach can be tracking split land-fee dedication requirements. If the City takes some land -thus reducing the amount fee to be paid -somebody will need to track the fee payment as building permits are issued, rather than having a contract with the developer for a fixed sum. So, the question comes down to how to apportion the fee if you are not going to charge it to the developer on a per-acre basis. We have talked about population calculations, but a per-unit fee base provides a pretty reliable basis. This approach best approximates the impact of a development on the park system, since a denser project would create a greater park usage. We have estimated the net density of residential development to be 2.25 units per acre. This estimate accounts for road right of way, wetlands, and other deductions from the gross developable land area. For the 88 acre development discussed above, this would translate to an expected unit count of 198 units. Thus, rather than the $280,000 in lump sum cash, the City would pro-rate that over the unit count, resulting in a per-unit park dedication fee of $1,414 per unit. Summary This memo calculates the land dedication for parks that can be assigned to new development, and the commensurate fee that can be charged in lieu of land dedication. These are as follows: 3 11.4% of gross land area dedication $3,182 of cash payment per gross acre of development area $1,414 of cash payment per unit The per unit charge has the advantage (as noted above) of increasing the payment required when the City approves a residential project at a density higher than 2.25 units per acre. This should be fair, given the greater demand placed on the park system by higher density development. 4 PT m E E 'D V) O U (Cj U C 0 '+-a U Qi L LL r_ O O L ,V O CL N U) O :i 2 W I- 0) U) CL Z P:IL W Sc Cl v T R O O I'- r'It r N—, L'J r r N CO r U� r- r U U U U U U U U Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z O in = J Q N T 70 O W Q' CCS N (Ci = U � 0 o Cl) O m o mmmmUW �tC� m o U) U)I r N U) N U� N 4 U U U U U U U U O XCl) in = Q N T 70 W Q' CCS N (Ci � U o Cl) O m o mmmmUW �tC� o g n 9 r--. c Lo \ a \ g\ 3 QUUUQU gc CO r \ # / k U ■ « m //\ \f mmmgme 2 2 / 0 2 ® » m ) f 2 / & § ) o \ c = / 2 LL C/) 3f g k / g cw to o/ c 6 d 06 o \ \ m$a 5 \\ (D -a D g g g\ g gc CO r \ # k U ■ mmmgme � 05 ) S/a= _ k0 / \2 C/) 3f g .2 $ 0 = 7 m 3 0) = = 2 ? 0 x•- = § 2 2 13 E m g cw to o/ c 6 d 06 o \ \ m$a 5 \\ (D -a 2 2 � ®� k k U ■ � ƒ k § � �§ CL 77 Er §5 0 J 0 E S M @ 0 Q [m E « \ � 2 I k k c f0 °C +Q? \° ~ ~ O O Q a t0 00 F~ O f~ N ~ ~ d d Q Q V V in in c c -a -a eca ccv as d d d d zz ~w 0 0 d m ~ ~ c c ca co ~a ~ m m O .-. L ~ a °' c ° " m c o c ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` (9 ~ C C ,~ E Q ~ U ~ (/1 U~. N ~ + ~ w ass c-r ~ ~ o Q c ~~ o m c v a ~ f0 fB 0 7 ;- N ~ O CJ D. N O ~ U O~ O C a p N O Q~ O~ - C ~ 0 N~ O m ~ 4 ~_ 0 ~~ O ~ ~ U ~, r- m ~ a~ _ C m _ C O ~.Q O ~ O Q .O Q O CO ~ O U P U ~ ~ m i m a v v ~ o v ~ °n' ~ ~ fl. ~ °c. O L o- i a "'' ~ ~ y w +~ ~ O ~ f~ C 0) tq O Q L ~= U LL O O C O) ~ cp co 4 ~ ~ ~ a~ cu~N0000 M N ~ ~ O 0 ~j ~ .~ Q. ~ tf~ 0 o O N to N ~ O W W N m m dNNO00~ ~~ ~M~d ' O O O O O O ~ t~D 000 N T ~' t0 C 0) -\ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ Q V Q ~ ~ .~ a° ~ U ~ m ~~ R a ow a as ~ d ~ a~ ~ c ~ E 3 ~ ~ N ~, L W a v.. r o Planning Commission Agenda - 03/10/09 9. Consideration to appoint Chairman of the Planning Commission for 2009. (AS) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND As required by City Code, the Planning Commission shall elect a chairman for a term of one year. The appointment is made internal to the Commission and does not require Council approval. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to appoint Commissioner as 2009 Chairman of the Monticello Planning Commission. SUPPORTING DATA A. City Code Title 2, Chapter 1, Planning Commission • • CHAPTER 1 PLANNING COMMISSION SECTION: 2-1-1: Composition 2-1-2: Organization; Meetings 2-1-1: COMPOSITION: The Planning Commission shall consist of five (5) members appointed by the Council. No member of the Planning Commission shall hold any other public office in the City. All members shall be appointed for three year terms; however, said term maybe terminated earlier by the Council. One member shall hold office until December 31, 2000; two members shall hold office until December 31, 2001 and two members shall hold office until December 31, 2002. Annually thereafter, appointments shall be made for the term of three years. Said terms are to commence on the day of appointment. Vacancies during the terms shall be filled by the Council for the unexpired portion of the term. Every appointed member shall, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, take an oath that he will faithfully discharge the duties of his office. All members who attend at least one monthly meeting shall receive compensation of $50.00 for that month. (1/10/00, #337) All members who attend a special meeting requested by an applicant who pays a special meeting fee set by the City shall received additional compensation of$50 for each special meeting attended. (11/22/99, #336) 2-1-2: ORGANIZATION; MEETINGS: The Commission shall elect a chairman from among its appointed members for a term of one year, and the Commission may create and fill such other offices as it may determine. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one (1) regular meeting each month. This meeting shall be held on the first Tuesday. Regular meetings shall commence at seven o'clock (7:00) p.m. Hearings shall be heard as soon thereafter as possible. The Planning Commission shall adopt rules for the transaction of business and shall keep a record of its resolutions, transactions, and findings, which record shall be a public record. MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE TITLE IUChpt 2/Page 1 Planning Commission Agenda - 03/10/09 • 10. Community Development Director's Update. Development Communications Recently, the Community Development department has had a number of conversations with commercial and residential developers still owning vacant property/parcels within the community. The developers have shared some very valuable insights regarding their perceptions on future growth. In light of these conversations, Community Development will be putting together some informal listening sessions between policymakers (including Council reps) and individual developers. Staff believes these conversations will be more productive than a large forum, as they will offer the opportunity for more direct lines of communication and feedback. It is planned that these sessions will occur in mid to late March. As part of Commission's Tuesday actions, I am hoping that we could outline some possible dates and Commission members for participation in these sessions. Additionally, Community Development has prepared an informational piece for the development community noting City efforts to keep costs low, and offering opportunities to work together to proactively address common issues (maintenance, development costs, neighborhood stability, etc). A sample letter is attached for reference. Townhome Roundtable Community Development had originally discussed holding townhome roundtable this • spring. The goal was to bring townhome association representatives together to discuss their rights and responsibilities, and the City's role as related to townhome communities. In consultation with other staff and the City Attorney, it has been decided to instead prepare a resource document for all association residents as a more productive alternative. This is primarily due to the City's limited ability to provide assistance in association matters. Bertram Chain of Lakes The task force has developed an outline and strategy for the public input and park planning process for the Bertram Chain of Lakes. The park planning will consist of a three-prong approach that will ultimately yield a master plan for the regional park. The effort will include an assessment and research component, a public input process and a decision and direction component lead by a newly formed Bertram Lakes Advisory Council. Applications for the two Citizen-at-Large positions on this Council will be posted in the coming weeks. Draft information on the Council is also attached for reference. The public input piece of the planning effort will begin with an event at the Bertram property on Saturday, June 13th, 2009. Family-friendly activities are planned, along with numerous avenues for public input. Park planning efforts will include the scenario under which the City/County park includes only the already acquired 319 acres and 80 acres of athletic land, as well as the larger • 1,200 acre park scenario. Planning Commission Agenda - 03/10/09 • Rental Ordinance The 2009 deadline for rental application has passed. To date, the Building Departments has received responses from over two-thirds of rental properties. For the 2009 cycle, there are approximately 400 rental properties in Monticello. All require licensing through the City's rental ordinance code. Public Nuisance Ordinance Over the last few months, the Building Department has been preparing a revision to the City's Public Nuisance code. The code is a critical piece of Monticello's property maintenance policies. The code has obvious impacts on maintaining the quality and character of Monticello neighborhoods. The revision is intended to make the existing code more usable and cohesive. The changes also strengthen the City's ability to enforce the code and to work with Wright County Sheriff and Attorney's in this process. The proposed amendment is expected to go before the City Council on March 23~. City Newsletter Around March l0a', the City Council will receive the new City Newsletter in their mailbox. As previously noted, the 2009 newsletter received a major format update and is now published in full color. We ask you to be patient while we work out any bugs with the new format and editorial process. We also welcome Commission's feedback and input. Neighborhood Stabilization Grant The combined NSP application of the City of Monticello and City of Otsego resulted in an award of $523,923 in NSP funds by MHFA in early March. A release related to the grant award and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program plan is attached for reference. More information on the program will be forthcoming. The City needs to meet with project partners MN Housing Finance and Central Minnesota Housing prior to grant promotion and disbursement. Consultant Fees Review As requested by the City Council, the Community Development Department is collecting 2009 fee schedules from various planning consultants that the City currently does not contract with to compare against the 2009 fee schedule of the City's planning consultant, Northwest Associated Consultants. This information will be presented to the City Council on March 9, 2009. Metro Greenways NRI/A Grant Please see the attached email regarding Monticello's final Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment document. Signage at I-94 and County 75. The County is aware of the signage noted at County Highway 75 and I-94 in east Monticello. The property owners was previously prosecuted and convicted of a misdemeanor for this signage. As the property owner is now working with a new realty company, the County is working to notify the realtor to cure the violation. If the sign is not removed, the County will take further action. 2 February 25~`, 2009 MONTICELLO Mr. Wayne Elam Vantage Point Partners 21025 Commerce Boulevard, Suite 900 Rogers, MN 55374 Dear Mr. Elam, These are trying times for all of those interested in the growth of communities. The City of Monticello recognizes both the challenges and opportunities that the current economic conditions present. To help us continue to refine our approach to today's marketplace, I will be contacting you in the next two weeks, asking you to participate in a one-on-one conversation with Community Development staff and members of our elected and appointed commissions. The goal of this discussion is to hear your perspective on the existing state of development, ideas for working cooperatively to address issues, and your thoughts on growth trends beyond the current economic conditions. In thinking about those pending discussions, I'd also like to communicate some of the steps the City has taken over recent months to address the impacts of the economic crisis head-on as it relates to Monticello. Keeping costs low is critical during times of development stress. The City Council has kept development-related fees at a flat rate over the past two years (2008 and 2009). Building permit fees and building plan review fees remained level for 2009. Area charges from trunk sanity sewer, water and storm sewer have remained static. Sewer and water access charges have also remained flat. The City is updating its sign ordinance. The proposed ordinance is intended to be a clear, concise document which maximizes business opportunity while balancing public health, safety and welfare. The ordinance, which is expected to go to public hearing in April of 2009, represents the combined efforts of City policy makers, the Monticello Chamber of Commerce and dozens of local business owners. • New ventures in economic development are being initiated. A business newsletter, expanded business-related information and resources on the City's website www.ci.monticello.mn.us, and the development of new marketing partnerships are all pieces of a cohesive strategy being implemented by the City's new Economic Development Director, Megan Barnett. Monticello City Hall, 505 Walnut Street. Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362-8831 (763) 295-2 711 • Fax (763) 295-4404 Office of Public Works. 909 Golf Course Road, Monticello, MN 55362 •('763) 295-3170 Fax (763) 271-3272 Department of Motor Vehicles. 119 3rd Street East, l~Zonticello, MN 55362 (163) 295-2 712 Fax (763) 271-3239 Mr. Wayne Elam February 25"', 2009 Page 2 • The City will consider adoption of the Transportation Plan in March. The document, which can be viewed at www.ci.monticello.mn.us, provides a framework for both transportation within Monticello and its planning area. The goal of the plan is to study the current system, evaluate deficiencies and propose improvement options to serve the needs of the community today and into the future. • Numerous programs have been implemented to address the housing piece of this crisis, including application for grant funding for low-interest loans and rehabilitation, round table forums with lenders and realtors, partnerships with MN Housing Finance Agency and Wright County Community Action, just to name a few. • FiberNet Monticello continues to move forward. This technology, which provides the capability to move voice, data and image information at incredible speeds, will give Monticello an edge in attracting and retaining the businesses and industries of tomorrow. For more information on this system, please visit www.monticellofiber.com. The City believes that these initiatives will help keep Monticello a healthy, vibrant place to do business. These programs also represent direct responsiveness to growing citizen and business owner concerns about their community. As part of the City's commitment to working more effectively with the development community, we'd also like to offer some opportunities to work together over the coming months. • As part of the City's continued efforts to reduce public nuisance issues, particularly as related to grass and weeds in developing neighborhoods, the City would like to extend the offer of use of the City's contract mowing service. Each year, the City contracts with a fully licensed and bonded contractor for mowing services. • The City is working to develop volunteer programs to assist in clean-up and maintenance efforts. For example, Cargill Corporation employees will be working with the City's Public Works Department to clean up debris around the City's main storm water ponds. The City also offers an Adopt-a-Park program. Efforts such as these further contribute to the vitality of existing and developing neighborhoods. The items noted are only some of the programs and options in place or pending. I'm hoping that our individual discussions will yield other ideas on how to keep moving development forward. Thank you for your continued investment in Monticello. I look forward to talking with you in the next few weeks. ;sincerely, ,~`~' ~: ~, , .~~~~~ -~ ~' ~~AngeTa~ ann Comm ~ty evelopment Director c: Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator Bill Reinke Executive Director Central Minnesota Housing Partnership, Inc. 810 W. St. Germain Street, Suite 303 St. Cloud, MN 56301 Telephone: (320) 259-0393 Fax: (320) 259-9590 E-mail: bill@cmhp.net -----Original Message----- From: Minnesota Housing [mailto:mn.housing@state.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:40 PM To: bill@cmhp.net Subject: Neighborhood Stabilization Program Funding Awards Approved If you're having trouble viewing this email, you may see it online. x ____.___-- 0 Minnesota Housing eNews Alert February 26, 2009 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Funding Selections Announced Congratulations! You are receiving this notice because today, you were approved for NSP funding by the Minnesota Housing Board of Directors for the purpose of stabilizing neighborhoods plagued by foreclosure. This approval is subject to HUD's signing of a grantee agreement with Minnesota Housing. As you know, these funds will be used by local units of government to: • increase homeownership through incentive-based and needs-based down payment assistance • acquire and rehab dilapidated homes and rental properties • demolish blighted commercial and residential properties for the benefit of area residents • establish land banking of properties for future redevelopment, including infill new construction • maintain vacant structures or land with gardens and parks for public use To ensure compliance with the guidelines of NSP, Minnesota Housing staff will meet with awardees in the next 30 days to refine both the target areas and the level, mix, and structure of activities. As a state subrecipient, you will receive an awardee letter that will provide you with an overview of those conditions and next steps for the signing of grant agreements. Contractors named in your proposal were copied in this notification and will be included in all future communications. We appreciate your Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park Advisory Council Structure 2 2 Monticello City Council Members Wright County Commissioners The mission of Wright County and the City of Monticello is to acquire, develop, operate, and maintain the Bertram Chain of Lakes as a regional park and recreation area which enriches the quality of life for our residents and visitors alike, and preserves a natural resource for future generations. Advisory Council Planning Mission The public will be the primary driving force behind the master planning proc- ess for the Bertram Chain of Lake Regional Park. The Master Plan will be a dynamic, evolving document that will be the direct outcome of the site and resource analysis and the public participation process. Advisory Council Master Planning Objectives Public involvement in the process will come from a series of public meetings and the Bertram Chain of Lakes Advisory Council. The Master Plan will consider the history of the area, setting, needs of sur- rounding communities and citizens, natural and cultural resources of the site, and reclamation issues. Wright County Parks The Master Plan will provide for outdoor recreation opportunities for the Advisory Board public, resource management to ensure the continued protection and en - Members hancement of the natural setting, and include restoration appropriate to the park and its environment. Monticello City To ensure consistency with County and City planning objectives, policies and Parks Commission implementation, the planning process will include County and City staff. Members Citizens at Large Monticello Township Officer 1 Monticello School District Representative 1 Monticello Community Center Advisory Board Advisory Council Guidelines Suggestions from the public involvement process will be reviewed by the Council to determine how they meet the vision of the park and how they can be incorporated into the master plan. The Council will communicate to the public the decisions made, the process used, financial impacts and how public input affected these decisions. The park service area within Wright County will be used as the notification radius used to inform the public of events, meetings, proposed development, and master plan review and to invite their participation. The Council will provide policy makers the input received from the public process, as well as trends, survey findings, financial impacts and other infor- mation in a timely manner so that they may make informed decisions. CHAPTER 1 PUBLIC NUISANCES SECTION: 7-1-1: General Policy 7-1-2: Definitions 7-1-3: Nuisances Unlawful 7-1-4: Public Nuisance 7-1-5: Exception 7-1-6: Abatement 7-1-7: Penalty 7-1-1: GENERAL POLICY: It is determined that the uses, structures, activities and factors described with this chapter, if allowed to exist, will tend to be harmful to the public welfare, safety, and morals. No person shall maintain or permit to be maintained any public nuisance identified within this chapter on property in the city that is owned, leased, rented, occupied, or otherwise in the control of such person. 7-1-2: DEFINITIONS: (A) PREMISES: For purposes of this section, premises shall include any yard, lot, parcel, sidewalk, boulevard, street, highway, alley, park, playground, restaurant, cafe, church, school, any car or other motor vehicle, parking lot, drive-in, building used for business, commercial, or industrial purposes, washroom or lavatory, apartment hallway or other location whether public or private in the City of Monticello. (B) PUBLIC NUISANCE: Whoever by act or failure to act does any of the following is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance: 1. Annoy, injure, or endanger the safety, health, comfort, or repose of the public. 2. Offend public decency. 3. Unlawfully interfere with, obstruct or tend to obstruct or render dangerous for passage, a lake, navigable river, bay, stream, basin, public park, square, street, alley or highway. 4. In any way render a considerable number of persons insecure in life or in use of property. (C) TERMS DEFINED IN OTHER CODES: Where terms are not defined this chapter but are defined in the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) or elsewhere in the City Code, such terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them as stated in those codes. 143992v5 7-1-3: PUBLIC NUISANCE UNLAWFUL: It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association to maintain any public nuisance defined in this chapter and it shall further be unlawful to do any act that is defined as a public nuisance in this chapter. 7-1-4: PUBLIC NUISANCE: (A) Misdemeanors: The following nuisances are declared to be misdemeanors: 1. Unwholesome substance that is brought in, deposited, left, dumped, or allowed to accumulate within the city. 2. Junk Vehicles. A "junk vehicle" is a vehicle without a valid current license, or without a valid current registration (if applicable), or which is apparently inoperable located outside an enclosed building in a residential area including, but not limited to, automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, snowmobiles, trailers, all-terrain vehicles and watercraft. 3. Pest harborage. All exterior property shall be free from rodent harborage and infestation. Boxes, lumber, scrap metal, and similar materials shall not be allowed to accumulate outside a structure in a manner that attracts an infestation of pests. Materials permitted and approved for exterior storage shall be neatly stacked. 4. Garbage and Rubbish. (a) All household garbage, offal, dead animals, animal and human waste, and waste materials. (b) Accumulations of litter, glass, scrap materials (such as wood, metal, paper, and plastics), junk, combustible materials, stagnant water, plastic bags or trash. (c) Accumulations of clothing and any other items not designed for outdoor storage. 5. Non-trash items. (a) Accumulations of wood pallets. (b) Accumulations of vehicle parts or tires. (c) All construction and building materials unless such materials are being used at the time in the construction of a building, in which case such construction must be permitted and on a continuous uninterrupted basis. (d) All appliance or appliance parts. (e) All indoor or upholstered furniture of a type of material which is deteriorated by exposure to outdoor elements. (f) All other non-trash items which: (i) Are of a type or quantity inconsistent with the normal and usual use; or (ii) Are of a type or quantity inconsistent with then intended use of the property; or 143992v5 2 (iii) Are likely to obstruct or impede the necessary passage of fire or other emergency personnel. 6. Fertilizer and burial of waste. No person shall leave, deposit, or cause to be placed on any private ground any garbage. Sewage, waste, debris, carcass, or other substance or matter which is offensive or unhealthy by decomposition unless the same be buried at least three (3) feet under the surface of the ground; provided, that the use of manure and phosphorous fee fertilizer in the normal course for agriculture or horticulture is permitted. 7. Engaging within the city in any trade or employment which is hurtful to the inhabitants or dangerous to the public health, or injurious to neighboring property, or from which obnoxious odors arise, or undue noise emanates, and specifically no person shall operate a dump or garbage dumping area or rendering plant except such specific activity be authorized by the issuance of a permit as hereinafter provided. 8. Causing or permitting garbage, tin cans, or refuse to be thrown or scattered upon any street, alley, highway, parkway, boulevard, or real estate. 9. Causing or permitting detached structures not requiring a building permit that do not conform to the following requirements: (a) All such detached structures shall be constructed of uniform building grade material. (b) All sides, roof, and floor shall be securely fastened to the interior frame of said detached structure. (c) All surfaces of such detached structures shall be stained, sealed, or painted. (d) Exterior metal surfaces shall be treated with materials designed to resist corrosion. (e) Structures that do not have slab floors shall have a rodent barrier that extends eight (8) inches under the surface of the ground along the perimeter of the outside wall of the structure. (f) All such detached structures shall be permanently anchored to the ground. (g) Storage sheds erected after the adoption of the zoning ordinance shall meet district setback requirements. (h) Detached structures shall be erected in the side or rear yard of any residence. 10. Consumption of beer, wine or liquor in public except as provided bylaw. 11. Strewing, scattering, littering, throwing, or disposing of any garbage or refuse onto any premises except into receptacles provided for such purposes. 12. Marking with ink, paint, chalk, or other substance, or posting handbills on, or in any other manner defacing or injuring any 143992v5 3 public or private building or place within the city, or marking, defacing, or injuring fences, trees, lawns, or fixtures appurtenant to or located on the site of such buildings, or posting handbills on such fences, trees, or fixtures, or place a sign anywhere on any such site except as permitted by the owner thereof. 13. Lingering about the doorway of any building, or sitting or lingering upon the steps, window sills, railing, fence, or parking. area adjacent to any building in such a manner as to obstruct or partially obstruct ingress to or egress from such building or in such a manner to annoy the owner or occupant. 14. Obstructing pedestrian or vehicular traffic or otherwise causing an obstruction or interference with premises or rendering any premise dangerous for passage except in cases of emergency. 15. Failing or refusing to vacate or leave any premises after being requested or ordered, either orally, in writing, or by posted sign, to do so by the owner, agent, manager, or person in charge thereof, or by any law enforcement agent or official, and also the return at any time thereafter to any such premises after having been so requested or ordered to vacate or leave such premises. 16. Maintaining nuisance vegetation as follows: (a) In any area the existence of any noxious or poisonous vegetation such as poison ragweed or other poisonous plants, or any weed, grass, brush, or plants which are a fire hazard or otherwise detrimental to the health or appearance of the neighborhood. (b) In any area within 100 feet of the nearest building, the existence of weeds or grass in excess of six (6) inches in height or any accumulation of dead weeds, grass, or brush. (c) In any area on an occupied lot the existence of weeds or grass in excess of six (6) inches in height or any accumulation of dead weeds, grass, or brush. 17. All other conditions or things that are likely to cause injury to the person or property of anyone. (B) Petty Misdemeanors: The following nuisances are declared to be petty misdemeanors: 1. Racing the motor of any motor vehicle so as to cause unnecessary and unreasonable noise. 2. Causing, producing, or creating any unnecessary and unreasonable notice by shouting, mechanical means, the blowing of motor vehicle horns, or any similar noise. 3. Improper or annoying use of spot lights onto persons or premises. 4. Using profane, abusive, indecent, or threatening language in public. 143992v5 4 Occupying a standing motor vehicle in an area generally reserved for parking or occupies a standing motor vehicle while the vehicle is double parked. 7-1-5: EXCEPTION: The provisions of this chapter do not apply to the hauling or accumulation or spreading of manure for the purposes of agriculture provided the public health, safety, and welfare is not adversely affected thereby. 7-1-6: ABATEMENT: (A) Notice. Whenever the officer who is charged with enforcement determines that a public nuisance is being maintained or exists on premises in the city, the officer shall notify the owner and occupant of the premises of such fact and order that such nuisance be terminated and abated. The owner of the property will be determined as shown by the records of the office of the County Recorder. The notice shall be served in person or by regular mail. If the premises is not occupied and the owner is unknown, the notice may be served by posting it on the premises. The notice shall specify the steps to be taken to abate the nuisance and the time, not exceeding seven (7) days for any grass or weed nuisance and not exceeding thirty (30) days for all other nuisances, to either correct the violation or appeal to the City Council for a determination that the complained of activity does not violate the ordinance. (B) Accelerated abatement. For second or successive violations concerning grass, weeds and other vegetation in a calendar year, the City will post a notice of violation on the property providing that if the violation is not corrected within 48 hours after such posting, the City will, without additional notice, correct the conditions creating such violations and assess the cost therefore against the property. (C) Recovery of Cost: The owner of the premise on which a nuisance has been abated by the city shall be personally liable for the city's cost of abatement, including administrative costs. As soon as the work has been completed and the cost determined, the City Clerk or other official designated by the council shall prepare a bill for the cost and mail it to the owner. Thereupon the amount shall be immediately due and payable at the office of the city clerk. (D) Assessment. If the nuisance is a public health or safety hazard on private property, the growth of weeds on private property or outside the traveled portion of streets, or unsound or insect-infected trees, the city clerk shall, on or before September 1 next following abatement of the nuisance list the total unpaid charges along with all other such charges as well as other charges for current services to be assessed under Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101 against each separate lot or parcel to which the charges 143992v5 5 are attributable. The council may then spread the charges against such property under that statute and other pertinent statutes for certification to the county auditor and collection along with current taxes the following year or in annual installments, not exceeding ten, as the council may determine in each case. 7-1-7: PENALTY: Violation of this chapter shall have the penalties provided in Section 7-1-4. The imposition of one penalty for any violation of this chapter shall not excuse the violation or permit it to continue. Each ten (10) days that prohibited conditions are maintained shall constitute a separate offense. 143992v5 6 Council Agenda: January 12, 2009 10. Consideration to enter into a contract between Monticello, Central MN Housing Partnership, and the City of Otsego to obtain funds to establish a Neighborhood Stabilization Program in Monticello (MB) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Monticello also has an opportunity to obtain grant monies through the MN Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) to help facilitate a community wide Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) to address the on-set of foreclosures. MHFA completed a comprehensive study of zip codes in the State to determine where the greatest need to address foreclosures exists. Monticello has been identified as one of the communities with a high concentration of foreclosed homes. Based on the number of Sheriff's sales from 2007 through the 2nd quarter of 2008, Wright County is ranked sixth in the state for highest concentration of foreclosures. As a result, MHFA allocated approximately $523,923 non-competitive dollars to Monticello through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). It should be noted, while the dollazs have been tagged as "non-competitive" dollars, the City will be required to complete an extensive grant application and will be required to partner with anon-profit agency to complete the application and administer funding transactions. NSP dollazs are being allocated through Community Development Block Grant guidelines, which require extensive reporting and follow up. Staff met with Bill Reinke, from Central Minnesota Housing Partnership, Inc. (CMHP) to discuss establishing a partnership. CMHP is anon-project organization that has extensive experience in writing grants and administering Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). They have experience in Monticello administering CDBG projects. These projects include; Drakes Court (the purchase of property and construction of single family housing), rehabilitation and administering of Riverpazk View, Cedaz Crest, and Monti-Haven, to name just a few. Attached is a contract the City Council is being asked to approve to formally enter into a partnership agreement between Monticello and Central Minnesota Housing Partnership. The contract states CMHP is responsible for completing the NSP application and administering the funds in coordination with the direction of the City and in accordance with MHFA regulations. The agreement also includes language identifying a partnership with the City of Otsego. Otsego shazes a small portion of the zip code held by Monticello. Otsego is requesting to utilize 10% of the funds allocated to the 55362 zip code. They intend to rehabilitate a dilapidated foreclosed home. Staff is of the opinion that the request is reasonable; especially due to the fact that the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency specifically stated that communities sharing zip codes will be required to form partnerships in order to be awazded any funding. There will be no immediate impact on the City's budget, except City staff time. If the grant is awazded, 8.7% of the grant is eligible to be used for administrative costs, which will include CMHP's application processing and administering fees. In the event the City is not successfully awarded the NSP grant, staff did apply for reimbursement from Greater Minnesota Housing Fund to cover the $4,844.50 dollars CMHP will incur to complete the Neighborhood Stabilization Plan (NSP) application. Greater Minnesota Housing Fund made it clear Cities will be awarded funds to cover any application processing fees. Based on the criteria established by MHFA, City Staff and CMHP have put together a preliminary outline of how the grant could be utilized in Monticello (see attached): 1. Assist buyer in purchasing a home that needs minor improvements: $15,000 per buyer 2. Assist buyer in purchasing a home that needs major improvements: $30,000 per buyer 3. Provide down payment assistance to encourage purchasing of homes that are currently vacant: up to $30,000 per buyer 4. Purchase and/or demolition of foreclosed/vacant home: $100,000 *** This proposed program is intended for Owner/Occupied buyers (no rental). CMHP is well aware and versed in only processing buyers that intended to own the purchased home. The above outline provides the potential for approximately 14 homes within the community to be impacted. While it is not required to identify exact homes (due to the fact that this is a moving target), the City is required to identify what neighborhoods will be targeted to stabilize. In reviewing Sheriff sales data and completing field inspections, it appears Sunset Ponds, Featherstone, and Hunters Crossing neighborhoods have the highest concentration of foreclosed and vacant homes. However, these neighborhoods do not exhibit the most blighted homes. This leads to the idea of working with local lenders and residents to provide down payment assistance programs to help facilitate purchasing power for these homes. The "core" City and homes within west Monticello lends to a higher concentration of older homes that need to be purchased along with some rehabilitation. These homes would fall in the purchasing and improvement category. Staff is of the opinion that a home within the core city could either be purchased and/or demolished, or an existing dilapidated residence owned by the City could be demolished. MHFA has included a few challenging stipulations in the allocation of NSP funds. Cities must allocate at least 25% of the funds to individuals and families with incomes at or below 50% of area median income. In Monticello, this equates to approximately a family of four with a household income around $40,450 would qualify for a base house price between $100,000 to $150,000. However, with this said, the base house price could increase if the buyer was able to obtain down payment assistance. Additional stipulations include any purchasing of land must be at a 10% discount, housing must be the end user (i.e. a commercial building can be demolished but replaced with housing), percent of funding must benefit households at or below 120% AMI, and funds must be allocated within 18 months and completely expended within 4 years. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Motion to approve entering into a contract between Monticello and Central Minnesota Housing Partnership to complete the NSP application, submit application to MHFA, and administer funds upon being awarded an NSP grant. 2. Motion to deny entering into an agreement with Central Minnesota Housing Partnership. 3. Motion to table action for further action. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The state has a very aggressive schedule to expend these dollars. If the City were to receive all $523,923 dollars, these funds will be required to be allocated within 18 months to a specific resident or household and completely expended within four years. The state realizes this is an aggressive schedule and therefore will be looking favorably on grant applications that have included partnerships between Cities and non-profit organizations. The Central Minnesota Housing Partnership specializes in administering community block funds and will serve as a backbone to achieve the goals of the NSP Action Plan, resulting in the state ranking Monticello as a top candidate to receive the non-competitive funds. In partnership with CMHP, the City will need to complete the NSP Application by January 28, 2009. The EDA and City Council will also be required to adopt a Monticello Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) by the first part of February. Staff is diligently working, in cooperation with CMHP, on drafting an acceptable local NSP plan to bring to the City in February. Staff is recommending proceeding with entering into an agreement between Central Minnesota Housing Partnership (CMHP), the City of Monticello and the City of Otsego. D. EXHIBITS: a. Scenario planning spreadsheet b. Neighborhood Stabilization Program Map c. Contract Agreement between Central Minnesota Housing Partnership, City of Monticello, and City of Otsego rmlL Z0 Cl)rn -v C a � -n z _ y Q y m C .. • o o FIX,•CL • � r as �_ °' y (A co • co �• 1. — Z' o 3 C CD _ `� = caD ' DO 57 zz W • CD Q Q cp 4 Q O • y CD -v (D• a a _ -� a • -n a • o �� 2 o its N Cl)CD N • 4► 69 • Eli • �, O . ` • O 'w X O 0° � y F.,7, � ��111►Q_ � IT" 11111111/ PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT The City of Monticello, Minnesota and the City of Otsego, Minnesota, Minnesota municipal corporations ("Cities"), and Central Minnesota Housing Partnership, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation ("CMHP"), make this Professional Services Agreement ("Agreement") effective as of , 2009 ("Effective Date'). RECITALS A. The Federal Government has established the Neighborhood Stabilization Program ("NSP"), which is administered in Minnesota by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency ("MHFA"). B. NSP provides assistance to local governments with high levels of foreclosed and abandoned homes that might otherwise become sources of abandonment and blight. C. CMHP is a regional housing organization with experience in administering community development and housing programs and assisting local governments with funding provided through the state of Minnesota and the MHFA. D. MHFA has set aside certain funds under the NSP program for which the Cities are eligible and the Cities now seek CMHP's assistance in applying for and administering such funds. E. In consideration for CMHP's assistance, the Cities have agreed to pay CMHP certain fees for its services as provided in this Agreement. In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth in this Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which the parties acknowledge, the parties agree as follows: 1. Engagement of CMHP. The Cities engage CMHP, and CMHP accepts engagement on this Agreement's terms and conditions, as the Cities' exclusive administrator in regards to the NSP and any funds the Cities receive from the NSP. 2. Administration Services. CMHP shall provide such administration services, expertise and assistance in the name of and on behalf of the Cities as CMHP deems reasonably necessary for the application, acquisition, planning, coordination, implementation and management of the NSP funds, including without limitation, the following services on the Cities' behalf (the "Administration Services"): Kamwy 7, 2009:C2005 07 05 GAEcon Dev Di Wor\HousinglCNW & Monticello & Otsego Agreemcut.doc pac a. Application Preparation. CMHP will prepare the application for NSP funds on the Cities' behalf prior to the deadline of January 28, 2009, which shall include, but not be limited to the following: (i). Utilize research conducted by the Cities regarding foreclosure numbers and concentration of foreclosures, as well as other research; (ii). Coordinate with the MHFA and the Greater Minnesota Housing Fund ("GMHF") regarding the application process, resources and application format; (iii). Work with the Cities to define the scope of the Cities' NSP project and the administration of the NSP funds, including selection of appropriate eligible uses and geographic focus and the development of financing mechanisms and establishment of program parameters; (iv). Work with the Cities' staff in the application preparation and obtain the Cities' approval regarding elements within the application; and (v). Work with the Cities' staff in order to seek approval of the application concept from other city officials, which may include interaction with the city council during city council meetings. b. NSP Plan Preparation. CMHP will prepare any program plan required under the NSP, which shall include, but not be limited to the following: (i). Work with the Cities to best utilize research data collected by the Cities in preparation of the plan; (ii). Work with the Cities' staff to obtain their approval of any required program plan as well as the appropriate approval of other city officials, as CMHP deems necessary, which may include presentations to small groups and participation in other public governmental meetings. (iii). Work with MHFA and GMHF regarding the preparation of any required plan and defining and meeting the expectations of MHFA and GMHF. C. Program Administration. CMHP, in conjunction with the Cities will administer the NSP program on the Cities' behalf, which shall include, but not be limited to the following: (i). Provide implementation and services necessary for start-up for the general administration of the NSP grant as well as implementation of the program elements. PJanuary 7, 2009:C2005 07 03 GAEcon Dev Dvector\Housing\CMHP & MouticeBo & Otsego Agrocment.doc pac (ii). Manage the overall NSP project, including, but not limited to the development of policies and procedure; homebuyer program education; interaction with homebuyer classes ("Home Stretch"); recruitment and liaison with participating lenders; outreach and liaison with real estate agents; other marketing activities; compliance with regulations and standards, including Fair Housing Equal Opportunity; compliance with financial and program requirements, and reporting. (iii). Field administration of the NSP, including, but not limited to: homebuyer outreach and recruitment; application processing and referral; property inspections; application approval for expenditure of NSP funds; scope of work preparation; assistance in selecting contractors; assistance in loan processing and approval; inspections and final loan closings. 3. Administrative Fee. As compensation for the Administration Services to be rendered by CMHP on the Cities' behalf pursuant to this Agreement, the Cities shall pay CMHP an administrative fee which shall equal 8.7% of the total amount awarded to the Cities under the NSP (the "Administrative Fee"). CMHP shall be deemed to have earned the total Administrative Fee upon the Cities being awarded the NSP funds. The Cities shall pay the Administrative Fee by making progress payments to CMHP throughout this Agreement's term, the amount of which shall be reasonably determined by CMHP. CMHP will invoice the Cities monthly throughout this Agreement's term. The Cities shall pay each invoice within 30 days after the Cities' receipt of such invoice. Unless expressly stated otherwise, any estimated fees provided to the Cities by CMHP are estimates based on the information available to CMHP and are not a guarantee of maximum price. 4 Reimbursement of Expenses. During this Agreement's term, CMHP shall submit monthly invoices to the Cities for all such expenses incurred on the Cities' behalf under this Agreement's terms and conditions, which the Cities shall pay within 30 days of receipt of such invoices. 5. Collection Costs. If the Cities fails to pay CMHP any amounts due and owing pursuant to this Agreement's terms, the Cities agree to pay all costs of collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees, in addition to any and all other amounts due and owing under this Agreement. 6. Indemnification. The Cities agrees to defend, indemnify and hold CMHP harmless from and against any and all claims, suits, judgments, attorneys' fees, costs, damages, losses, expenses or causes of action arising solely out of or in connection with the administration of the NSP and performance by CMHP of the services set forth in this Agreement; provided, however, that such claims, losses, damages or expenses shall not arise out of the gross negligence or willful misconduct of CMHP or its employees, agents, or assigns. Na nary 7, 2009:C2005 07 05 G:\Econ Dev Dhvctor\Housing\CM ? & Monticello & Otsego Agreeraent.doc pac 7. Termination. This Agreement shall immediately terminate (a) by the mutual written consent of the Cities and CMHP, (b) six (6) months after the date in which the remainder of all awarded funds under the NSP are committed (the "Fund Commitment Period"), or (c) six months (6) after the initial Fund Commitment Period or revocation of the NSP funding contract with the Cities and NSP funding source, whichever occurs first. Within ten (10) days of this Agreement's termination, the Cities and CMHP shall account to each other with respect to all matters outstanding as of the termination date, including payment to CMHP of the remainder of any and all amounts due and owing to CMHP under this Agreement's terms and conditions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the NSP is extended or the Cities are awarded additional NSP funds in addition to those awarded initially as a result of CMHP's performance under this Agreement, the Fund Commitment Period shall be extended accordingly until six (6) months after the date in which the additional NSP funds are committed. 8. Default. Upon default of any of this Agreement's terms, the party claiming the default shall provide the defaulting party written notice specifying the conditions of default and the actions necessary to cure such default. If the defaulting party fails to cure the default within five (5) days after receipt of notice, the party claiming the default may assert such remedies as provided under this Agreement and as otherwise may be available at law. 9 Excluded Services. The parties expressly understand and agree that CMHP's services are specifically limited to those duties necessary to properly administer the NSP on the Cities' behalf and do not include participation in any and all activities involving or related to the eviction of occupants from housing affected by the NSP. 10. Independent Contractor. The parties intend CMHP's relationship with the Cities during this Agreement's term to be that solely of an independent contractor. CMHP's agents, employees or servants shall not be deemed to be the Cities' employees, agents or servants. The Cities are interested only in the results obtained under this Agreement during its term. The manner and means of conducting the Administrative Services and activities during this Agreement's term shall be at CMHP's sole discretion and control. The Cities will not provide any benefits, such as health, life, workers' compensation, or employment compensation insurance, to CMHP or its employees, agents or servants. CMHP will be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of its agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of its services under this Agreement. CMHP will indemnify and hold the Cities harmless against all liability and loss in connection with, and will assume full responsibility for payment of, all federal, state and local taxes, premiums or contributions imposed or required under workers' compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, social security and income tax laws with respect to CMHP and its employees, agents, servants or subcontractors engaged in the performance of services under this Agreement. 11. Force Maieure. CMHP shall perform the Administrative Services in a prudent and timely manner, however the Cities acknowledge and agree that CMHP shall not be held responsible or liable for delays occasioned by factors which are beyond CMHP's control or by PJanuary 7, 2009:C2005 07 05 G:\Ecan Dev D rector\Housiog\CMHP & Monticello & Otsego Agrc=cat.&c pac factors which CMHP could not reasonably have foreseen at the time this Agreement was prepared and executed. 12. Assianment. Neither of the parties shall assign, transfer or otherwise convey this Agreement or their respective rights, obligation or duties under this Agreement, whether in whole or in part, to any other person or entity, without the other party's prior written consent. 13. Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Cities and CMHP, and no amendment or modification shall be valid or enforceable except by supplemental agreement in writing, executed by both parties. 14. Governing Law. Minnesota law shall govern this Agreement. 15. Severability. If any one or more of this Agreement's provisions shall for any reason be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this Agreement's remaining provisions shall remain unimpaired and shall continue in full force and effect. 16. Headings. Headings used in this Agreement are for purposes of convenience of reference only and shall in no way limit or affect the meaning or interpretation of any of this Agreement's terms. 17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter and supersedes all prior understandings, representations, proposals, discussions, and negotiations whatsoever, whether oral or written, between the parties. 18. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Facsimile or electronic signatures shall be sufficient for all purposes. 19. Reliance. No person other than the parties to this Agreement may directly or indirectly rely on or enforce this Agreement's provisions, whether as a third -party beneficiary or otherwise. 20. Notices. Any notices given pursuant to this Agreement will be in writing and will be sent by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered to the respective party at their principal place of business. 21. No Joint Venture. The parties are not engaging in a joint venture or partnership. Nothing in this Agreement is to be construed to create a joint venture or partnership of any kind between the parties. 22. Binding Agreement. This Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective successors and assigns. PJanuary 7, 2009:02005 07 05 G:\Pcon Dev Director\Housmg\CMHP & Monticello & Otsego Ag ament.doc pac 23. Advice of Counsel. Prior to executing this Agreement, each party has fully informed itself of this Agreement's terms and conditions, and has had (to the extent the parties desire to do so) this Agreement reviewed by an attorney of its choice and fully understands its effect, including without limitation, all federal income tax consequences. The parties agree that notwithstanding any provision of statutory or common law to the contrary, this Agreement will not be interpreted against the party drafting the Agreement. 24. Cooperation. The Cities will, without charge to CMHP, fully assist and cooperate in CMHP's attempts to obtain all governmental approvals for the administration of the NSP which are necessary in CMHP's sole judgment. The Cities will execute and deliver such applications, forms, worksheets, any other documents as may be required by governmental bodies, and any other contracts and agreements determined necessary by CMHP for its performance of the Administrative Services. [Signature page to follow] PJanuary 7, 2009:C2005 07 OS G:\Econ Dev Dvector\Housiog\CMHP & Monticello & Otsego Agreement.doc pac From: Marybeth Block[Marybeth.Block@dnr.state.mn.us] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 10:46 AM To: Angela Schumann Cc: Bart Richardson; Sharon Pfeifer Subject: Metro Greenways Community Assistance Grant Hi Angela, With regard to the Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment Report congratulations on a job well done! I recently read the report and thought it was very well done. It provides the City and others with excellent Natural Resource information, and that should prove valuable as Monticello creates policies and makes land use decisions. I was also excited that it showed a high quality natural area on the Betram Chain of Lakes December 08 acquisition that Metro Greenways contributed to! I do have a request - historically the DNR has been received MLCCS inventory data collected in the metro region. I checked the CD's in the back of the report and they do not contain the actual inventory data. Would you or your contractor please pass on that data? The shapefiles or geodatabase can be uploaded to this FTP site: ftp://ftp.dnr.state.mn.us/pub/incoming/. When you go to the site create a new folder, upload the data and tell us when it's there. We'll download it and remove it from the FTP server. One final thing, when you are done with the project please send me an email or letter indicating that you will not submit any further invoices and I will close out the contract (there still is a balance in excess of $5,000 I believe.) Thanks so much! Marybeth Block Community Assistant DNR Central Region Regional Operations marybeth.block@dnr.state.mn.us 651-259-5835