The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 07-02-2013REGULAR MEETING MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 2nd, 2013 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Chairman William Spartz, Sam Burvee, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Grant Sala Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller 1. Call to order 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes. a. Regular Meeting of June 4th, 2013 3. Citizen Comments 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda 5. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a change in land use designation from Places to Shop to Places to Live and a request for rezoning from B -4 (Regional Business) District to R -4 (Medium -High Density Residence) District. Applicant: 1RET Properties 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of an ordinance amending Monticello Zoning Ordinance Section 4.3 (D) — Requirements for Fences & Walls by District Type Applicant: City of Monticello, Planning Commission 7. Community Development Director's Report 8. Adjourn. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 4, 2013 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Bill Spartz, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Grant Sala Commissioners Absent: Sam Burvee Council Liaison Present: Lloyd Hilgart Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman 1. Call to order Bill Spartz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes a. Regular Meeting of May 7th, 2013 CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 7TH, 2013 MEETING MINUTES. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. b. Special Meeting of May 21St, 2013 BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 21sT, 2013 MEETING MINUTES. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. 3. Citizen Comments None 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Variance from the rear yard building setback requirement for an Accessory Trash Enclosure. Applicant: Monticello Development Group, LLC, Planning Case Number: 2013 — 013 Dollar Tree Store representatives requested a variance to the rear yard building setback requirement at final plan review for the retail facility planned for 9350 Cedar Street to move the trash enclosure to a more suitable location. A 10' x 20' trash enclosure had been proposed along the east (rear) elevation, approximately 20 feet from the southeast corner of the building. Modifications now proposed include: Planning Commission Minutes — 6/04/13 Increasing the width of the enclosure from 10 to 15 feet to include a trash dumpster and a recycling dumpster (in a side by side configuration). The proposed enclosure would measure 15' x 19' and 6 feet in height. Shifting the enclosure southward to improve truck accessibility and movement. Changing the enclosure's finish materials to split face masonry block for improved endurance. The proposed modifications would result in a two foot encroachment and 4 foot setback into the 6 foot wide utility easement which exists around the site perimeter. Section 2.4(C)(4)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance states that approval of a variance may only be made upon a determination that practical difficulties will result based on a certain set of criteria. (i) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if the provisions of the Ordinance are strictly applied. (ii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable are unique to the property. (iii) The circumstances rendering the property unusable were not created by the owner thereof. (iv) A varian ce, if gran ted, will n of alter th e essen tial ch aracter of th e locality. (v) Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a sufficient basis for a Variance if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the regulation. Staff summarized that the property could be used in a reasonable manner if the trash enclosure was constructed according to the previously approved plan. Staff also noted, however, that certain practical difficulties exist which would allow for consideration of the variance. The property is unique in that it is limited by a 6 foot wide utility easement within which no utilities exist or are planned. These circumstances were not created by the owner. The proposed setback encroachment is also unique in that no other nearby uses would be impacted. The proposed enclosure expansion/relocation would not alter the essential character of the locality. The request is not related to economic considerations. The proposed setback encroachment would enhance the use of the site by allowing for improved service vehicle accessibility and trash collection efficiency due to enclosure size and location. The finish material proposed would also enhance the area. Commissioners noted that moving the trash enclosure away from the street would also provide improved screening from public view. Planner Steve Grittman suggested that the applicant respond to Commission questions related to the door previously included on the site plan. 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 6/04/13 Bill Spartz opened the public hearing. Jason Taduck, of 3027 Autumn Leaf Circle, Green Bay Wisconsin, speaking on behalf of the Monticello Development Group, explained that the door on the original site plan had been moved to the south side of the design for better trash access. He also noted that the door meets emergency exit requirements. Hearing no further comment, the public hearing was closed. Staff pointed out that all variances require an encroachment agreement. Such agreements state that, if the City requires access to the encroachment, repair costs would be the responsibility of the property owner. The request does not require City Council approval as the Planning Commission is the deciding body for variances. Decision 1: Adopting Resolution No. 2013 -044 approving a Variance from the minimum 6 foot rear yard setback requirement in the B -4, Regional Business District as requested at Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Business Center 4th Addition (9350 Cedar Street). BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2013 - 044 APPROVING THE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 6 REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT AS PROPOSED IN THE APPLICATION OF MAY 4, 2013, CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. Exhibit Z — Conditions of Approval Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Business Center 4th Addition (9350 Cedar Street) Variance from 6 Foot Rear Yard Setback Requirement 1. The color of the split -faced block to be utilized on the trash enclosure shall match the color of the block used at the base of the principal building. 2. Landscaping proposed on the north side of the trash enclosure shall meet minimum size requirements of the Ordinance. 3. A building permit shall be received and all requirements imposed by it be satisfied. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the height and construction standards for fences in residential front yards. Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Case Number: 2013 - 016 Planning Commission Minutes — 6/04/13 Steve Grittman summarized that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment would change residential height requirements for front yard fencing within 15 feet of the street right of way. It would eliminate the first 3 foot high step requirement and allow 4 foot high front yard fences from the front property line to the building line of the house and 6 foot fencing behind the building line. Staff suggested including language in the amendment which would create a definition of average heights over the span of a fence to accommodate common slope differences. There was also some discussion about the requirement that front yard fencing be at least 50% transparent and that the visibility triangle area at intersections be maintained. Staff recommended specifying in code language whether this applies to fencing along the front lot line or to fencing at the right of way line as well. Charlotte Gabler suggested that transparency rules could be drafted differently for interior lots as well as corner lot fencing. She also suggested that it would be useful to include illustrations to help clarify requirements. Bill Spartz opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the public hearing was closed. Spartz indicated that he would not vote on the request due to his interest in moving the issue forward. Lloyd Hilgart asked a number of questions about fencing location and visibility concerns. Ron Hackenmueller stated that tiering had been more of an enforcement concern than transparency. He agreed that the current tiered code is difficult to explain to residents. The proposed amendment would make code compliance and enforcement easier. The Commission seemed to agree that more information was needed to consider amending the fence ordinance. They specifically requested that "front yard" be specifically defined, and that fence height on slope and transparency issues be further discussed. Decision 1: Adopting Resolution No. 2013 -045 recommending approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance providing for a change to the City's fence regulations in Section 4.3 (D)(1). BRAD FYLE MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST, PENDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS IDENTIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF REPORT, AND TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CHANGE FENCE HEIGHT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL FRONT YARDS UNTIL THE JULY 2, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 -0. (Bill Spartz did not vote.) 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 6/04/13 7. Public Hearing — Consideration of amendments to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2 — Community Context, Chapter 3 — Land Use and Chapter 4 — Economic Development Community Development Director Angela Schumann and HKGi Consultant Rita Trapp, provided an overview of the process used to revise Chapter 2 — Community Context, Chapter 3 — Land Use, and Chapter 4 Economic Development of the City's Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and highlighted some of the updates proposed. They summarized that representatives from the IEDC, EDA and Planning Commission had formed a small group tasked with evaluating the existing Comp Plan document and providing guidance about how best to revise it. Charlotte Gabler and Brad Fyle represented the Planning Commission in this effort. The City also engaged HKGi consultants to assist in the amendment process as HKGi was the lead consultant for the preparation of the original Comp Plan. As part of the Community Context chapter review, the small group consulted numerous resources including the latest Census data, surveys, and findings from recent economic development reports to determine specific recommendations for including data relevant for decision - making and policy development. Trapp provided a sampling of such data which underline trends that affect many local issues. Monticello is a young community with a large number of growing families with young children. It is traditionally difficult to engage this busy population in the community. The population is homogeneous in terms of race and ethnicity. The diversity of housing options in Monticello is similar to that of the Twin Cities. The local single family detached housing market has recovered more quickly from the recession than other housing types. Forty percent of rental properties were built prior to 1970. Monticello is primarily a commuter community. Those who commute to work elsewhere earn higher wages than those that work in the City. Fifteen percent of residents are employed within the City. There has been overall growth in local manufacturing employment. More than half of local employers have fewer than 4 employees. The leading employment sectors are retail, education, health care, manufacturing and hospitality. Higher education levels have increased since the 2000 census. Monticello's median household income is comparable to that of the Twin Cities. As part of the Land Use chapter review, the small group reaffirmed the existing five overall land use policies for Places to Work and recommended no modifications to the inventory of available industrial land. As part of the Economic Development chapter review, the small group confirmed the City's four overall economic development goals and added an emphasis on job retention. Other strategy amendments included broadening the focus for attracting industry, coordinating utility and transportation planning in expansion areas, and promoting the retention and expansion of health care services. The IEDC and EDA had both unanimously recommended adoption of the proposed 5 Planning Commission Minutes — 6/04/13 Comp Plan amendments with minor changes which have been incorporated. Staff pointed out that the proposed amendments have practical application in that they serve to guide annual workplan and budget development efforts. Bill Demeules asked Trapp how to determine if attracting or retaining businesses should be of a higher priority. Trapp stated that, in her experience, it has been more cost effective to retain and help grow businesses already in place. Citing two recent situations in which the City purchased property and removed the structure on site, Brad Fyle asked if the City was doing enough to retain small businesses. Grant Sala agreed that while business retention is important, the City must continue to try to address the needs of a young community. Bill Spartz opened the public hearing. As there were no comments, the public hearing was closed. BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2013 -023, RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 2 — COMMUNITY CONTEXT, CHAPTER 3 — LAND USE, AND CHAPTER 4 — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2008 MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BASED ON FINDINGS AS STATED IN SAID RESOLUTION. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. City Council will consider these amendments at its June 24th meeting. 8. Consideration to appoint a Planning Commission representative to the Transportation Advisory Committee Staff asked that the Commission formally appoint a representative to the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) because the prior decision to rotate member attendance at TAC meetings had proved ineffective. The Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for ratification. BILL SPARTZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPOINTMENT OF CHARLOTTE GABLER TO SERVE AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. 9. Community Development Director's Report Hillside Farm — Lots in Hillside Farm 3rd and 4th Addition have been posted for a Notice of Expiration of Redemption period for tax forfeiture. The City filed an affidavit of developer default against all 42 lots. The affidavit outlines the City's right to complete the remaining public improvements and to assess costs to the lots. The recorded Planned 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 6/04/13 Unit Development runs with the land via the development contract and is binding. Development standards will be upheld until amended. Potential buyers would be made aware of this information. Economic Development Position Update - The City Council approved 50% of the funding necessary to pay for economic development consulting services with WSB. The proposed contract will be reviewed at the June 12th EDA meeting. Building /Development Activity — Building Official Ron Hackenmueller highlighted recent Department of Building Safety statistics. 340 rental applications were received and 224 inspections completed. Help Desk inquiries related to blight decreased likely because banks have now sold many problem properties. 245 building permits have been issued so far this year. 80 permits were issued in the last month. The number of single - family home permits doubled in May. The average house value is $163,000. Hackenmueller has been attending Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) meetings and reviewing evacuation plans in preparation for a June 11th practice drill. FEMA will evaluate the drill scheduled for July 23rd. Hackenmueller has also been reviewing the $15,000 REP budget to determine priority spending. The budget had been used to purchase radios for the Fire and Public Works Departments in prior years. Brad Fyle suggested that REP be more closely aligned with the efforts of other public safety personnel. Angela Schumann pointed out that representatives from various departments have also participated in National Incident Management System (NIMS) training which provides a systematic structure to handling communications during emergencies. 9. Adiourn BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:48 PM. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. Recorder: Kerry Burri Approved: July 2, 2013 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Y 7 Planning Commission Agenda — 07/02/13 5. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a change in land use designation from Places to Shop to Places to Live and a request for rezoning from B -4 (Regional Business) District to R -4 (Medium -High Density Residence) District. Applicant: (NAC) Property: Lot 1, Block 2, Riverview Square (southeast quadrant of County Highway 39 and Hart Boulevard) The property consists of approximately 5.2 acres and is currently vacant. Planning Case Number: 2013 -023 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Comprehensive Plan Amendment from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live" and rezoning from B -4, Regional Business to R -4, Medium -High Density Residential District Deadline for Decision: 8/12/2013 Land Use Designation: Places to Shop Zoning Designation: B -4, Regional Business, and the Mississippi Wild and Scenic Recreational River Overlay District The purpose of the "B -4" regional business district is to provide for the establishment of commercial and service activities which draw from and serve customers from the entire community or region. The purpose of the MWSRR district is to protect and preserve the scenic, recreational, natural and historical values of the Mississippi River in the city by carefully controlling development of this river corridor consistent with the state Wild and Scenic River Act. Current Site Use: The site is currently undeveloped. Surrounding Land Uses: North: County Highway 39, Single Family Residential, zoned R -1 East: Church and Twin Homes, zoned R -1 Planning Commission Agenda — 07/02/13 South: Retail and Service, zoned B -2/B -3 West: Retail and Gas /Convenience, zoned B -4 Zoning Map Amendment Standards The applicants are seeking a rezoning and re- designation of the governing land use requirements for the subject site from commercial ( "Places to Shop ") and B -4, "Regional Business" zoning, to residential ( "Places to Live ") and R -4, "Medium -High Density Residential" zoning. This is a fundamental change in land use direction for the subject property. While there are technical aspects to any land use and rezoning question, such as street capacity, impacts on utilities, density and intensity of land use, and general impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, a rezoning of this type is essentially a policy question. Particularly in this case where the underlying zoning supports a highly intensive commercial activity, a higher density residential designation does not lead to extreme differences in impact. It is important to consider the request for re- designation in the context of the potential of one zoning/land use category to another — not (as is sometimes suggested by neighbors) a change from a vacant property to a developed one. Any new development on the subject property, whether under current or proposed zoning, will create significant new impacts on traffic levels, infrastructure use, and other changes. For the Commission's reference, the criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendment have been included as supporting data. The Zoning Ordinance also identifies the following standards for considering rezoning (or other zoning ordinance) amendment requests: 2.4 (B) (5) Approval Criteria Recommendations and decisions on zoning amendments shall be based on consideration of the following criteria: (a) Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error in the original text or map; or (b) Whether the proposed amendment addresses needs arising from a changing condition, trend, or fact affecting the subject property and surrounding area. (c) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with achieving the goals and objectives outlined in the comprehensive plan. Planning Commission Agenda — 07/02/13 Of these, (b) and (c) are relevant to the current request. The Comprehensive Plan question, item (c), is the primary policy consideration for the City, as the applicant contends that conditions (from the time of the original commercial designation) have changed dramatically, supporting the rezoning request. Therefore, as noted above, the issue for consideration is the change from one land use designation to another. When the property was originally platted and zoned for commercial use, the city required the platting of an access street (Hart Boulevard) for primary access, and utility extensions designed to be adequate to serve an intense commercial development. The applicants suggest that the construction of a 92 unit multi - family residential building on the 5.2 acre parcel as proposed would be feasible from an economic standpoint, manageable from an infrastructure standpoint, and compatible with the existing land uses in the area. As identified previously, the surrounding land uses are: • B -4 Commercial to the west (both developed and vacant — uses include gas /convenience store and retail); • B -2 and B -3 Commercial to the south and southeast (both developed and vacant — uses include print shop and bar /restaurant); • R -1 Residential to the east (uses include two- family homes and a church); and • R -1 Residential to the north, across County Highway 39 (uses are single family residential). The comprehensive plan amendment criteria requires that the City consider compatibility with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject properties. The proposed site plan illustrates how a building could be constructed on the property to meet the requirements of the zoning district, if rezoned to R -4. This specific plan is not under consideration as a part of the rezoning, but is helpful in showing how the property could be used if approved. The surrounding land uses are reasonably well isolated from the proposed site. Perhaps the most "incompatible" use, the single family neighborhood to the north, is separated from the proposed development site by at least 90 feet of road right of way, as well as existing and required setbacks. Traffic impacts from the project would be focused internally toward Hart Boulevard, just as would any commercial development under the current zoning. From a traffic generation standpoint, the proposed apartment project would be expected to generate approximately 700 trips per day. A retail commercial development on this site would be Planning Commission Agenda — 07/02/13 expected to generate around 1,000 trips per day, more if fast -food restaurant or other convenience uses were part of a project. The comprehensive plan amendment criteria identified in the zoning ordinance also includes a reference to whether the amendment at addresses a demonstrated community need. In a recent update to Chapter 2 — Community Context of the Comprehensive Plan, it was noted that almost 40% of the city's multi - family housing stock was constructed prior to 1970. This suggests a need for updated multi - family housing units, developed consistent with the comprehensive plan's overall goals for both step -up and life -cycle housing. Perhaps the greatest change since this site was platted and zoned — apart from economic conditions — would be the City's adoption of the Embracing Downtown study as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This study re- focused the community's attention on downtown Monticello development and redevelopment opportunities. Many of the uses allowed in the B -4 District would be those that the City might encourage — under the policies of the update Plan — to be located in the downtown area. The considerations above examine the impacts of the rezoning on the site in question. One of the related considerations for the City is how the reclassification of that land might impact other "competitive" locations in the community. While the Embracing Downtown project does not propose to "force" development to the downtown, it encourages the City to take positive steps that support downtown development. The zoning map envisions large areas of the community outside of the downtown that might accommodate regional business activity. Paring down that regional commercial land supply can be viewed as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in this way. Wild and Scenic Recreational River Overlay District Impacts. The Wild and Scenic River Overlay District would not change under this request. There are impacts on a proposed development under that district. These impacts would include a restriction on potential building height, which is currently 25 feet in the MWSRR, rather than the 3 or 4 stories expected for a multiple family building. This would need to be addressed as a variance from the MWSRR standard at the time of application. Finally, with the rezoning application occurring on a site that is subject to the MWSRR, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has 30 days to comment on the request. A notice is being forwarded to the DNR staff. However, final action must await the expiration of the 30 day period. Thus, the applicant should be notified of an extension to the 60 day City decision period under MN Stat. 15.99, and consideration before City Council will need to occur after the DNR has had the statutory opportunity for comment on the request. 4 Planning Commission Agenda — 07/02/13 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Resolution of Recommendation for Comprehensive Plan amendment reclassifying the subject property from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live ", and Rezoning to R -4, Medium -High Density 1. Motion to approve Resolution 2013 -052 recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment reclassifying the subject property from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live ", and Rezoning to R -4, Medium -High Density Residential, based on the findings identified in the Resolution. This motion should include a condition that the City's 60 -day decision period is extended to 120 days, and that the DNR has the required opportunity to provide comment on the rezoning. 2. Motion to deny Resolution 2013 -052, recommending a Comprehensive Plan amendment reclassifying the subject property from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live ", and Rezoning to R -4, Medium -High Density Residential, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. This motion should include a condition that the City's 60 -day decision period is extended to 120 days, and that the DNR has the required opportunity to provide comment on the rezoning. 3. Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified by the Planning Commission and staff report. C. STAFF RECOMMNDATION Land Use amendments and rezoning applications are policy - related decisions. As noted above, the proposed land use change from commercial to multi - family residential would have only minimal changes in traffic and other impacts, and in some cases would likely lessen the impact on the City's infrastructure. The Comprehensive Plan, as now amended with the Embracing Downtown study materials, can be read to support the rezoning, by taking steps that have the impact of focusing commercial development toward the downtown area, away from competing nodes. While this does not require the City to rezone undeveloped commercial land in any way, the proposed rezoning for this site can at least be viewed as being consistent with the City's land use policies in such manner. In some manner, the subject site should be able to function well under either commercial or high- density residential regulations. While there are several areas of the community that are zoned and can accommodate commercial land uses, the options for multiple - family residential are limited. Existing development patterns can often inhibit infill Planning Commission Agenda — 07/02/13 higher densities, and finding compatible high- density sites can be a challenge. This "alternative locations" factor supports the idea that rezoning to residential can be viewed positively. Finally, although unrelated to this proposal, the City has recently adopted an amendment to its zoning ordinance that establishes a zoning district that allows higher density residential development, but also places extensive requirements on that development to meet the Comprehensive Plan goal of higher quality development in all categories. Development of multiple family structures under that new district permit higher densities, but also apply greater performance standards (along with a requirement for Conditional Use Permit review) to ensure that the subsequent development proposal is consistent with the City's objectives. As a result, staff is supportive of the land use amendment and rezoning. There should be few, if any, negative impacts on surrounding land uses. The comprehensive plan supports land use decisions that have the effect of encouraging commercial development in the downtown area. There are several options for commercial development in the City, but relatively few competitive sites for high - density residential. And finally, the City's updated R -4 zoning district helps to ensure that multiple family residential development will be accomplished in a high quality manner and be a credit to the community. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution 2013 — 052 B. Aerial Image C. Applicant Narrative D. Zoning Map E. Land Use Plan F. Site Plan G. Comparable Concept Image H. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review Criteria CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - 052 Date: July 2nd, 2013 Resolution No. 2013 - 052 Motion By: Seconded By: A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP, REZONING FROM B -4, REGIONAL BUSINESS TO R -4, MEDIUM -HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, TOGETHER WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN REGUIDING SAID PROPERTY FROM "PLACES TO SHOP" TO "PLACES TO LIVE ", FOR THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: LOT 1, BLOCK 2, RIVERVIEW SQUARE WHEREAS, the property owner MMC Land Companies, together with 1RET Properties as applicant, have requested a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the property named above; and WHEREAS, said property is currently zoned B -4, Regional Business District; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes that the zoning map be amended to rezone the subject property to R -4, Medium -High Density Residential District; and WHEREAS, the property is designated as "Places to Shop" in the Monticello land use plan; and WHEREAS, the designation "Places to Live" would accommodate multiple family residential development; and WHEREAS, the "Places to Live" designation would accommodate residential development that would be compatible with the surrounding land uses; and WHEREAS, high- density residential development can be adequately served by existing public services, including utilities and roadways; and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning would be consistent with the land use plan as amended; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that the proposed uses of the property will be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive land use plan and proposed zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on July 2, 2013 to review the requests and receive public comment on the rezoning; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicant has met the requirements for Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning found in the zoning ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and a zoning map amendment to be identified as Ordinance #581. ADOPTED this 21 day of July, 2013 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: William Spartz, Chair ATTEST: Jeff O'Neill, City Administrator a uz M d ins So � o 6 V « r� a �I .pv Vi I4 +9�I _ f•e `.��r .t t �- ,.•Ili _�, i ". ° 1 + j y + ' ., T , 4 frP FW-gpmq "T AVI . = t V '?$ti- Cr fY OF YAD1rTd'IC1 LLO Cortimuspty Development ..�. WS WWM4 SbIbL. Seine I • 11A�tacello, MN f531S� Land Use Application .��C�I1t��.��i) (��}�ss z�I>, . .tea APPIlCJ4MON PROFE7t7Y �� P Addrwss *SW escrow shgeftwft G" Administrative nt Nota #cable Pr W N her Amsadmentto Ordinance $500 inak-faw 7= Owner Name Owner Address Owner II --LMO&"A&d t'� I ! i �►' L` —S-T?-61, - {irraai�seiei � Norm t Address Pharr Email ! - sag S _ + APPIlCJ4MON LAND USE APFUCAIM rfK APPt1C.1 AIM *SW escrow shgeftwft G" Administrative nt Nota #cable PAW Amsadmentto Ordinance $500 inak-faw 410 Map Amendment IRmnft) + escrow $1000 based + $10Wunit T Team Amendment $200 + asaow Comprehensive Plan Amendment $200 +escrow Total Feesfrom AbWe ■. Conditional use Permit $200 + escrcmr $ Planner! Unit Development $ Coliabo►rs ve $50 + escrow Concept $200 + escr&AI Development $Z00+ escrow Final $50 +escrow► Site Plan Review 00 + escrow SkMxh Plan Revkw Not a icable Subdivision Simple 5ubdivisionjAdmMistrative Lot Combination lot Lhe Adjustment $z00 + escrow Prelims Plat $300 +escraw Final Plat $50 +escrow variance $200 +escrow Vacation Cbsenvju or of $200+ escrow SPOdOl Planning Commission Meeting' +�aesae a $350 LAND URAPPIICAMM PLAN REVILW BCRM COMPllrClal *SW escrow shgeftwft G" Id 0-3 Acres PAW 1 unit $500 inak-faw 410 $6,000 I t units $1000 based + $10Wunit 11+ $10 o00 LAND USE Lr -gTION lid 4 RKVOW CJILC M'I'= Total Feesfrom AbWe ■. $ Total Escrow fnorn Above $ TOTAL TO BE PAID AT APPIJCATION I $ .M.A01 Revised 5/30!3013 Arum" 5maes Suess! I am the tee title owner of the described property and I agree to this application. I certify that I am ht compliance vim+ all ordinance mcorements and condh3aM regarding other Qty approval that have been prmiouly granted. {SAgnature * �' r Date t / ft ftN1MM* - -- This applcation shall be processed In my name and I am the party whom the City should contact ragwdng the applcation. I have completed all of the appkaMe tAing requirements and I hereby admawledge that 1 have read and fully understand the appRtaMe provlslons of the City Ordieearttes and current poWas related to this application and that the documents and Warmatio n I have submitted also true and oortect. 1 pdmorrledge the Fees & Escrow Purpose ex0anatkm below and hereby agree to pay all statemegts..alpived pertalning m acrid al rm seed CAty realew. __� Lv� TI *W Review MN State ISM allows a 6D-ft review period for final motor+ on a bnd tsta appkatici% aria that appkwon is found to be complet% unless the C ty estends the mm bww paned and so ncdft Oa appftnL your request urdll cwt be schaduled for public hearten; or City rarbr until all required Infornrstlos has been ptaWded amd Pound to be adequate by the Community Dxvafop ent Depano nt. Pure of Pon a EW ON fees: Tba application does eels used fm' publication of do public hmerlm nmtke In the Mcadwilo Times, for postage to mall the: nmiuked notice t a adleoat ptopartiss as nutlirted by ordinance. and nwordlrig fame. s The City uses oscraw da xWu forstaff and c oirwAtaet tFnwfor cats rMAGWand prop mU*pe of documents related to On application. V* may Include &VbwerkM legal, planner and ammlrormmwrW cone time_ Should the original esceow beenteedod, theapplicant or responsible party Weil be billed for all addittorral services. It is the polky ortha Qty of Monticello to r squire appikants doe land use appnwals to reimburse the chy far amsts Incarrad M r brtawtng and aeons upan applluttoM sc thatthem boats are not boena by the tames *f the City. These costs Include all of the CWs out -nit costs for avem —, lndulhtg the Ott/$ Covi for radew of the appffcMM by tho Clara staff. OsnaaMM Engimear, CmMidnS oglomr, City Att=W, or umber tonsedtants. The City vA1 (crack* the spp&=4 for these costs sdltlrin 3 motifs of final salon an the land use application and payment vratil bo due Britt n thhty {3M days. If pagmant ISM received as spired tty this U earnaet, the will! promed ors actTan to tam or Ilan. Pavement aQ cnb vA be t6grxTnad whohorthe appkstinn is VorMW or denbd. 9 5 s I k RE: Lot 1, Block 2, River View Square PID — R155 -177- 002010 IRET Properties has placed the parcel referenced above under contract with the hope to have the zoning changed from Business District B4 to R4, which would allow density up to 25 units per acre. The existing parcel is 5.02 acres in size and with the current setback requirements, we calculate that a 92 unit apartment community would be permissible under an R4 zoning. Our intent would be to construct a Class A market rate apartment complex with underground parking. IRET has owned and operated Monticello Village Apartments since 2004. During that time, the property has continuously operated at or near full occupancy, which is an indication of a market that is in need of rental housing. IRET has researched developing more apartments in Monticello in the past but determined that a project would not be economically feasible due to the prior zoning requirements that drastically limited density. The above referenced parcel has been for sale for several years as a commercial use opportunity. However, the fact that it is removed from the other core retail centers in Monticello and the central business district makes it a less desirable location for this use. Past interest in the site for commercial use has been limited and no successful sales have been obtained An apartment community on this site would very desirable. The location offers direct access to Interstate 94 and is in close proximity to schools, entertainment and medical. Also, the primary uses in the immediate vicinity are light commercial and multifamily housing so an apartment community would be a natural fit. We feel that with the property's close proximity to shopping, banking, healthcare, schools, recreation and transportation that a change in land use would be well suited for this location. The change would be supported by the city's comprehensive plan and would enhance the existing city's assets in building a great place to live, work, shop and play. Figure 3-2: Land Use Plan Map 3-4 1 Land Use City of Monticello llllhbbh. Ar \,4 cat ii a J: -F oC awe cc oma, 4) v � *- c0 LU 0 W JJL 0 N z W 0 cc "4 M� 0 llllhbbh. Ar \,4 cat ii a J: -F oC awe cc d 1" = 50' MONTICELLO APARTMENTS MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA SHEET NO. P=101 4/5/13 PRELIMINARY • n i 320\251.4109 i 320\251.4693 fx 3335 West St. Germain Street PQ Box 1228 \ St Cloud, MN 56302 -1228 63 - Layout : Plotted on 4/5/13 at 11:03 AM - /Users/ brad /Public/Miller Projects/Monticello Apartments/Monticello Apartments DN- l .pin 0 Copyright, Miller Architects & Builders, Inc. T 0 _ ViII, of IN II( i� y � Ilk r. e �I 3 4 II( i� y � Ilk r. e �I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (A) Comprehensive Plan Amendments (N) Reconsideration of Land Use Approval Applications No application for land use approval which has been denied by the City Council, in whole or in part, shall be reconsidered for a period of six (6) months from the date of City Council action on the application, except where there is substantial new evidence or proof of a change in conditions with respect to such application. Before any such reconsideration, the City may require the submission of the appropriate application fee and the application may be considered as a new application. 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements (A) Comprehensive Plan Amendments (1) Purpose and Scope This section sets out the procedure to follow when considering a change to the Comprehensive Plan. (2) Initiation of Proceedings Proceedings for the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan shall be initiated by one of the following: (a) An owner of property or an authorized representative of an owner pursuant to Section 2.3(B), Authority to File Applications; (b) Recommendation of the Planning Commission; or (c) Action of the City Council. (3) Application (a) All applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan shall be in accordance with Section 2.3, Common Review Procedures & Requirements. (b) In addition to the common review requirements, applications for Comprehensive Plan amendments shall also include the following: Section 2.3: Common (i) The name of the applicant; Review Requirements (ii) A narrative explaining the requested change and the reasons why the Comprehensive Plan should be amended per the request; (iii) The legal description of all real property proposed for change (if applicable); City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 19 CHAPTER 2: APPLICATION REVIEWS AND PROCEDURES Section 2.4 Specific Review Procedures & Requirements Subsection (A) Comprehensive Plan Amendments (iv) The existing and proposed land use and zoning designations for all properties proposed to change (if applicable); (v) A map of the properties to be modified to a different land use category, showing the addresses and land uses for adjacent properties (if applicable); (vi) The proposed text and /or maps to be added, amended, or deleted from the Comprehensive Plan along with documentation as to the location of the text changes in the Comprehensive Plan, if applicable. (4) Review (a) Planning Commission Before any amendment is adopted, the Planning Commission shall hold at Section 2.3a): Public Notification least one public hearing after proper notice has been issued in accordance with Section 2.3(I). Following the hearing, the Planning Commission shall adopt findings and recommendations on the proposed amendment as soon as practical. The Community Development Department may forward an application to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission only if it is deemed necessary to ensure compliance with state mandated deadlines for application review. (b) City Council The City Council may hold a public hearing on the amendment if they deem such necessary or it is deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. After consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation and /or hearing, if applicable, the City Council may adopt the amendment or any part thereof in such form as it deems advisable. Approval of an amendment shall require the approval of two - thirds of all the members of the City Council, except as may be exempted by State Statute. (5) Approval Criteria Recommendations and decisions on Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be based on consideration of the following criteria: (a) Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error or addresses the need resulting from some changing condition, trend, or fact arising since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan; Page 20 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Planning Commission Agenda — 07/02/13 6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of an ordinance amending Monticello Zoning Ordinance Section 4.3 (D) — Requirements for Fences & Walls by District Type Applicant: City of Monticello. AC A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Property: Planning Case Number: Request(s): Deadline for Decision: Land Use Designation: Zoning Designation: Current Site Use: Surrounding Land Uses: Amendment Description: M:1 2013-019 Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to change the fence regulations addressing height, visibility, and related elements of the code NA Places to Live Residential Districts NA NA In June, the Planning Commission considered an amendment request that would change the requirements for fence height in residential districts for any fence in the front yard, and within 15 feet of the street right of way (the front property line). The current ordinance creates a stepped requirement for front -yards fences. Beginning at the property line, a fence may be no more than 3 feet in height for the first 15 feet of length, then may be 4 feet in height up to the front building of the house. Behind the front building line, the fence may in height again up to 6 feet. The ordinance currently reads as follows: Ordin an ce R equ irem en ts: Section 4.3 (D)(1) (a) Front Yards (i) Fences and walls shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet in front yards and that part of side yards from the front lot line to the front building line. Planning Commission Agenda — 07/02/13 (ii) If a fence or wall in a front yard exceeds three (3) feet in height, it must be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the front property line. (b) Side or Rear Yards (i) Fences and walls shall not exceed a height of six (6) feet in side and rear yards. (ii) In side or rear yards which abut a public street, fences or walls which exceed thirty -six (36) inches in height must be set back at least six (6) feet from the property line, and the setback area shall be landscaped in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.3(J)(4), Appearance. As discussed at the June Commission meeting, the proposed amendment removes the first "step" requirement, and permits front -yard fences to be 4 feet in height from the front property line to the building line of the house, then continues to permit the increase to 6 feet behind the building line. The ordinance language would be changed to eliminate Subp. (a)(2), and would read as follows: (a) Front Yards (i) Fences and walls shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet in front yards and that part of side yards from the front lot line to the front building line. (ii) if ., fence o .,11 in ., front ..,r 0 eels three (3) foot in Leigh ;t n+ast be sot 6.aek ., minin+am of fifteen (1 5) foot from the front p pe fty %3e—. No change would be made to Subp. (b). The Commission also addressed a discussion regarding the "transparency" requirement in the ordinance. The code currently requires that any front yard fence be at least 50% "transparent ", such that a picket -style fence would have an equal amount of pickets and openings. Other fence styles may also comply (such as chain link, aluminum or wrought iron, etc.), and no change is proposed to this requirement. While the Commission discussed the idea that solid fences may be appropriate, staff would be concerned that the combination of raising fence height to four feet, and allowing them to be solid, would interfere with the visibility of vehicles backing out of residential driveways — both for the vehicle in the driveway and for passing traffic on the roadway. As such, no change the requirement for 50% transparency in the front yard is proposed. The code also continues the requirement that the visibility triangle area at intersections be retained — this amendment would not impact that regulation. Planning Commission Agenda — 07/02/13 Finally, the Commission discussed the issue of fences that were constructed along a sloping property line. Many fence styles are commonly purchased in prefabricated panels and installed between posts. These panels are typically 6 feet high and between 6 feet and 8 feet wide. When installed on a slope, the upper section of the fence may be 6 feet from the existing grade, but the fence height at the downhill section (presuming the top rail remains horizontal as designed) will be 7 feet to 8 feet above ground, depending on post spacing and slope. As an example, the steepest slope commonly approved for residential yards is 4:1, that is, 1 foot of vertical slope over a horizontal distance of 4 feet. With fence panels that are 6 feet high and 8 feet wide, on a 4:1 slope, the height of the fence at the uphill post would be 6 feet above the grade, but 8 feet high at the downhill post. If a person is using 6 foot wide panels, the height at the downhill post would be 7.5 feet on the same slope. The following photo shows a typical illustration of this concept: Planning Commission Agenda — 07/02/13 If the City wishes to accommodate this issue, language would need to address fence height. The current fence height measurement language is found in Section 8.2 (B)(5): (iv) Fence and Wall Height Fence and wall heights are to be measured from the adjoining average grade. In the case of grade separation such as the division of properties by a retaining wall, the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. An additional paragraph could be added as follows: v) Fence and Wall Height on Sloues in Residential Side and Rear Yards Where a fence is constructed of posts and panels down a slope in a side or rear yard of residential property, and the top rail of said fence or wall maintains a horizontal alignment, the height of said fence shall be measured as follows: The maximum fence height identified in the ordinance applicable to said fence shall be measured from existing grade to the top of the fence panel nearest to the uphill post. The height of the top edge of the fence panel may exceed the maximum required height by up to two (2) feet when measured at the downhill post. Any fencing used to enclose the gap below the fence panel shall match the panel in material, color, and style, or may be retaining wall constructed of stone, brick or concrete masonry units designed and sold explicitly for such purpose. The consideration of an amendment of this type is a policy question for the City. The appropriate height for fences, and the related setback, is a question of neighborhood character and aesthetics. In this case, the change will permit a small amount of additional higher fencing adjacent to the street setback area, but would remove the stepped appearance required by the code. Approval of the amendment would be supported by a finding that the change results in a more uniform condition for front -yard fences, and would be both easier to comply with and to enforce by reducing complexity. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Adopting Resolution No. 2013 -045 recommending approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance providing for a change to the City's fence regulations in Section 4.3 (D)(1). 1. Motion to adopt Resolution 2013 - 045 recommending approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment changing fence height standards in residential front yards. 4 Planning Commission Agenda — 07/02/13 2. Motion denying Resolution 2013 - 045 recommending approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment changing fence height standards in residential front yards 3. Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified by the Planning Commission and staff report. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the amendment as proposed. The step requirement does not appear to serve any public safety purpose, and makes the fence standards both difficult to construct or comply with, and unnecessarily complicates the requirements. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution 2013 -045 B. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, excerpt — Section 4.5 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2013 —045 Date: July 2nd, 2013 Resolution No. 2013 -045 Motion By: Commissioner Seconded By: Commissioner A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCE HEIGHT IN RESIDENTIAL FRONT YARDS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the zoning ordinance language for relating to fence height pursuant to the regulations of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 4, 2013 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The amendment is consistent with the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan for Places to Live; and 2. The amendment will have a beneficial effect on the construction of fencing and residential aesthetics in the front yard areas of residential property; and 3. The amendment removes an unnecessary complication from the language of the zoning ordinance, making it easier to interpret and enforce. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota: 1. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §462.357, the zoning ordinance amendment is hereby recommended for adoption by the City Council. ADOPTED this 2na day of July 2013, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION William Spartz, Chair /.I00IMI Angela Schumann, Community Development Director CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.3 Fences & Walls Subsection (D) Requirements for Fences and Walls by District Type (b) Fences which do not require a building permit under the provisions of Section 4.3(1))(4)(a) above may be constructed without a permit, but shall adhere to all fencing requirements in this ordinance. (D) Requirements for Fences and Walls by District Type All fences and walls shall conform to the following standards. In all cases, heights are measured from finished grade on the highest side of the fence or wall. (1) Residential Districts In residential districts (see Table 3 -1: Base Zoning Districts), fences and walls shall conform to the following: (a) Front Yards (i) Fences and walls shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet in front yards and that part of side yards from the front lot line to the front building line. (ii) If a fence or wall in a front yard exceeds three (3) feet in height, it must be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the front property line. (b) Side or Rear Yards (i) Fences and walls shall not exceed a height of six (6) feet in side and rear yards. (ii) In side or rear yards which abut a public street, fences or walls which exceed thirty -six (36) inches in height must be set back at least six (6) feet from the property line, and the setback area shall be landscaped in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.3(J)(4), Appearance. (c) Transparency Fences or walls located within a front yard or side yard adjacent to a street shall maintain a minimum of 50 percent transparency. (d) Access Where any fence or wall connects to a building used as a dwelling, at least one gate not less than 2 feet 6 inches in width shall be required to allow access around the building. City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 229 Planning Commission Agenda: 07/02/13 7. Community Development Director's Report Planning Recommendations The comprehensive plan amendments to Chapters 2, 3, and 4, recommended by the Planning Commission in June, were adopted by the City Council on June 24th, 2013. Once the final version of the documents has been posted online, an email with the link will be sent to all Commissioners. Transportation Advisory Committee Commissioner Gabler was formally appointed to the TAC by the City Council on June 24th, 2013. Economic Development The City Council authorized the final contract for WSB's Market Matching services for Economic Development. A copy of the scope of work, which is an addendum to the contract, is included for the Commission's reference. Embracing Downtown Update The EDA continues to push forward on efforts relating to the Embracing Downtown plan. In June, the EDA toured the entire downtown area, with the goal of identifying opportunities related to the expenditure of available tax increment funds in TIF 1 -22, the downtown district. Such opportunities could include additional acquisitions, housing projects, and infrastructure improvement opportunities, all consistent with Embracing Downtown goals. The EDA also appointed a sub - committee to begin developing proactive options agreement structures for future downtown acquisitions. The EDA is committed to developing partnerships with downtown property owners in future acquisition projects. The Planning Commission should also be aware that the City has successfully applied for and received state and federal transportation funding sufficient to fund all of the construction costs for the full build -out of the redesigned intersection at TH 25 and CSAH 75. The funding requires completion of the improvements by 2015. Engineering and environmental costs are not included in the funding and will need to be budgeted City expenses. Carlisle Village Overall building activity has increased within the City, including residential building in Carlisle Village. Carlisle Village lot development must be reviewed within the context of the original PUD, an amendment to the PUD, and a tree preservation plan. In an effort to assist property owners in understanding these development parameters, the City will be sending out letters to all vacant lot property owners in Carlisle Village for which tree preservation applies. The letters will provide detail on the preservation plans specific to each lot and the process for developing on any and all of these affected lots. WSAR & Associates, Inc. Monticello A proposal to provide: Economic Development Services r.. . . WSB & Associates, Inc. 4140 Thielman Lane Suite 204 St. Cloud, MN 56301 wsbeng.com April 2013 Tob(e of Contents Approach and Scope of Services .................. • Task 1: Data Collection • Task 2: Market Matching Deliverables ................. ............................... Appendix A - Data Collection ...................... Appendix B - Data Deployment .................... Appendix C - InfoTracker ............................. Appendix D - Market Matching Team .......... Appendix E - Market Matching Sales Process WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 wsbeng.com WSB & Associates, Inc. 477 Temperance Street St. Paul, MN 55101 wsbeng.com Contact: John Uphoff 763.267.2942 juphoff@wsbeng.com 1 .4 .8 10 11 12 15 April 17, 2013 Monticello City Council and EDA City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Economic Development Services Dear Members of the City Council and EDA: Thank you for taking time to discuss WSB's proposal to provide Economic Development services. For more than 17 years, WSB and the City of Monticello have enjoyed a success by partnering to deliver projects that have led to growth and prosperity. We are confident the addition of Economic Development services will continue this track record. Understanding and directly marketing Monticello's assets is at the heart of WSB's approach to economic development. Building relationships is the central tenet to success in directly marketing your city. WSB has an expansive network of professional organizations and maintains relationships within the development community. As part of our Economic Development services, we will continue to grow our network and will strategically deploy data representing the unique attributes the City of Monticello has to offer. In addition, WSB offers the full capacity of our Market Matching team and more than 170 team members in representing your community. Finally, we will utilize our expertise in community development to assist in all phases of the development process from pre - application to identifying potential funding opportunities. The Monticello EDA exists to direct goals and objectives to attract higher wage level jobs and expand City tax base. WSB's Economic Development service is aimed directly at helping you achieve your City's goals and objectives. The proposed price of WSB's Economic Development services is $4,000 per month with a minimum term of one year. We appreciate the opportunity to propose our services to fill this important role within your community. We further look forward to meeting with you to discuss firsthand how WSB can apply its capacity and expertise to help the City of Monticello continue to grow and prosper. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. John Uphoff Brian J. Bourassa, PE Economic Development Specialist Principal /Senior Project Manager/ (320) 534 -5951 Economic Development Specialist (763) 287 -8356 Approach and Scope of Services Introduction WSB & Associates has been in the economic development business for 17 years. We represent more than 35 cities as city engineer and perform services for more than 90 cities overall. We provide daily assistance to our clients in the area of infrastructure development related to growth opportunities in all types of development. Much of this work is related to how to best accommodate new development while respecting the needs of the existing system users and being fair from a cost and use perspective. It is beneficial to WSB when our clients are successful and are developing. We work hard to make sure that we represent our clients with their best interest first, knowing that what is good for our clients will be good for WSB. To that end, we get involved with short term strategies that will allow for development to occur without compromising the long term goals of the city. We are very strategic in finding funding for infrastructure projects that allow City funds to be used in other places of need. Our company has grown beyond the traditional engineering firm in an effort to recognize the benefits of economic development to our clients and to WSB. We have become active in local chambers, economic development groups and have developed relationships with many of the large developers and builders. Once these private organizations work with WSB, they appreciate how hard we work to make their project successful while preserving the needs and goals of the City. Additionally, we have developed a grant and funding program to provide searchable options for project funding. We have expanded our team to include community planning to complement our full array of services including engineering, environmental, survey, right of way and relocation. This most recent addition of economic development was necessary to complete our team approach to provide full services to our clients. We intend to team with the financial consultants when a deal requires funding analysis, but we have the resources to fulfill all of the other economic development analysis and support. WSB is continually improving in order to provide value to our clients and economic development is an obvious area that we can contribute to your success. Our vision for this effort is unique and focused on relationships, information and visibility. The following scope details how we will make an impact for your organization! Task 1: Data Collection During this task, WSB will analyze existing data related to Monticello's market sectors. We will examine the data that is available on the City's website as well as related city, county, and state -based economic development websites. We will also examine internal documents containing market data. Once we have completed our analysis, we will report our findings to City staff and the EDA. Based on our report, we will ask for a recommendation from the EDA to determine priority for data collection and for targeted prospects. Where data is incomplete or unavailable, WSB will research and compile new data sets to ensure all local market sectors are appropriately represented and the information is readily available (see Appendix A - Data Collection). To ensure the City's market data is readily available, WSB will deploy information where appropriate including the City's website, local economic development websites, GreaterMSP and MNDEED's customer relationship management systems. WSB will also utilize a GIS -based platform to deploy the City's market data during the Market Matching process (see Appendix B - Data Deployment). The dynamic nature of market data requires a built -in process of content management to ensure accuracy and relevance. Therefore, WSB proposes a system of periodic review which includes real -time updates. To support the real -time updates, WSB has developed the InfoTracker tool, which is made available to City staff and EDA (see Appendix C - InfoTracker). The deliverables provided in Task 1 include the following and are further described on pages 4 and 5. • Deliverable 1 : Market Data Report • Deliverable 2: New Data Sets (ongoing) • Deliverable 3: Data Deployment (ongoing) • Deliverable 4: System of Periodic Review of Market Data (ongoing) • Deliverable 5: InfoTracker (ongoing) Task 2: Market Matching The focus of Task 2 is to strategically and directly market Monticello's assets to prospective market entrants. WSB achieves this by utilizing our team's professional background and network to connect with prospects within our varied areas of expertise. The Market Matching team executes outreach to prospects through our Market Matching Network. Each member of WSB's Market Matching team is assigned to a market sector and systematically markets the City's assets within their respective network (see Appendix D - Market Matching Team). Also during Task 2, WSB's Market Matching team collects feedback from prospects and catalogs opportunities in our Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. Prospects that become leads are moved into the development or pre - application process involving City staff, EDA, and consultants (see Appendix E). The deliverables provided in Task 2 include the following and are further described on page 5. • Deliverable 6: Profile of targeted prospects (ongoing) • Deliverable 7: System of targeted prospect outreach (ongoing) • Deliverable 8: Deliver leads /assist in closing (ongoing) 1. General Market Data 2. City & EDA Owned Property 3. Housing 4. Manufacturing and Industrial Market Data 5. Retail Market Data This chart describes WSB's unique and comprehensive approach to economic development. WSB strives to present relevant asset information in the most effective and strategic manner possible. The graphic represents the ongoing flow of information and the continuous process of data management and market matching. 1. GIS -Based with Web Access 2. Traditional Collateral ■ Positively MN ■ Greater MSP Investor ■ MN Precision Manufacturing Association ■ NAIOP ■ MN High Tech Association ■ Minnesota Shopping Center Association ■ Wright County Economic Development Partnership ■ St. Cloud Downtown Alliance Foundation • Greater St. Cloud Development Corporation ■ MN Chamber ■ More Deliverables Task 1: Data Collection Deliverable l: Market Data Report WSB will provide City staff and EDA with a report that analyses the inventory and availability of the City's market data. The Market Data report will tell you if the assets embedded in your community are well defined and if the information related to your community's assets is open and accessible. The report will identify any weakness in the identification and /or presentation of your community's assets. If any asset is found to be misidentified or underrepresented, the report will provide details for recommended corrective action. This report will is also aimed at determining the City's Unique Selling Proposition (USP). The end result is your community's enhanced ability to help existing businesses expand, as well as attract, and communicate with, a wider array of prospective developers and business owners. Deliverable 2: New Data Sets The collection of new data sets is prioritized based on recommendations from the EDA. The goal of this deliverable is to achieve maximum effectiveness for data availability and diffusion. WSB will collect and organize data from existing sources and will conduct independent research to obtain data that is not otherwise available. It is important to note that the process of research and data collection is ongoing and is rolled into the system of periodic review. Deliverable 3: Data Deployment Data deployment occurs on a macro level - local, regional, and state -wide websites and databases, and on a micro level - through the direct marketing efforts of WSB's Market Matching team. As part of this process, WSB will provide data to GreaterMSP and MNDEED as requested, provide content for the City's websites, develop a GIS- based reporting tool, and provide a quarterly report to City staff and EDA on the status of data deployment. Deliverable 4: System of Periodic Review of Market Data City staff and the EDA review the Market Data Report and prioritize data collection efforts. WSB organizes a system of periodic review based on recommendations it receives from City staff and EDA. The figure on page b is a sample of the market data review and deployment timeline. Deliverable 5: InfoTracker City staff and EDA are often the first to become aware of changes in the marketplace. WSB will provide City staff and EDA with access to the InfoTracker tool, which provides the means to quickly and easily hand -off information to WSB so our team can update market data in a highly expedited manner. Please see Appendix C for a detailed description of the InfoTracker tool. Task 2: Market Matching Deliverable 6: Profile of Targeted Prospects Upon completion of the Market Data Report, WSB will ask the EDA for priority in determining a profile of targeted prospects. The profile of targeted prospects is derived from the City's asset information. WSB will utilize the City's asset information to highlight market strengths and to determine Monticello's USP. WSB recommends reviewing the profile of targeted prospects on a semiannual basis. Deliverable 7: System of Targeted Prospect Outreach Once the City's USP and profile of targeted prospects is developed, WSB's Economic Development Specialist briefs the Market Matching Team, providing them with relevant market data. Then the Market Matching Team will begin the process of converting prospects to leads through direct marketing to business contacts, association networking activity, responding to inquiries, and actively pursuing opportunities through various economic development agencies. WSB will provide the EDA with a quarterly report on targeted prospect outreach activity. Deliverable 8: Deliver Leads /Assist in Closing The closing component of the Market Matching process is a culmination of the successful execution of the steps that preceded it. WSB will work directly with potential market entrants from the prospecting phase to the pre - application or development phase. We will act as a conduit to provide information to City staff /EDA and act as a resource in identifying potential constraints. WSB will aid in identifying potential sites, and act as a resource in implementing a funding package as needed. Deliverable 9:Annual Bus Tour WSB places a high value on the importance of face -to -face interaction. Your community has a sense of place that can only be fully realized from an on- the - ground point of view. The annual bus tour gives your community the opportunity to show the best you have to offer and provides you an opportunity to promote your community's assets directly to potential market entrants. WSB's Market Matching team identifies and invites developers and business owners who are active in your region as well as those who are operating elsewhere but who have expressed interest in opening your market. We take care of all of the logistics, allowing you to refine and tailor your outreach to maximize your impact. The relationship your community makes with potential market entrants pays instant dividends, and also serves as a valuable resource for years to come. Deliverable 10:Annual Open House Economic Gardening is quickly becoming a buzz phrase. This concept is born out of the idea that economic growth happens brick by brick, primarily with those who are already living and doing business in your community. These are firms that have roots in your community and view the world around them, not simply through the lens of profitability, but also with an eye toward overall success of their community. The vitality of these firms is extremely important in realizing positive sustainable socioeconomic conditions. WSB's Economic Development service aims to support the firms and developers who are already doing business in your community. In addition to collaborating with local business owners and developers during the asset analysis phase, the Market Matching team gathers local operators for an annual open house to review the state of the local markets, as well as to provide them with opportunities to network with potential investors. The open house facilitates an intersection of landowners, business owners, and developers allowing them to share relevant market information leading to increased investment opportunities. Market Data Review and Deployment Timeline ....................... 4 ............. 4 ................ ............. ...................... .................. I I., .......... I u u 5 1 F ............... I ................ . . - .... - ............ ........... ... .. * .............. ......... - ...... I ....... - .... .................... ..... ...... ............ . --- ............ ......... Appendix A - Data Collection WSB recognizes that cities desire to move forward with marketing efforts as quickly as possible. Based on our research, WSB understands that we must have a good deal of information to be of value to prospects; they require market data. By providing a preliminary report on the inventory and availability of market data, we are providing City staff and the EDA with an opportunity to decide which market sector you would like to place your focus and prioritize WSB's data collection efforts. It is important to note that the process of collecting and deploying data is ongoing. The process of systematizing data collection carries added value in that it relieves the City of the obligation to conduct expensive periodic market study projects. The Market Data Report sheds light on the availability of critical data. It also aids in understanding the community's assets and informs the prospect identification and marketing process. This list below is a sample of the market data likely to be requested by prospects, and completed by WSB as part of the ongoing data collection effort: General Market Data • Population (MSA or County) - Age distribution • Annual per capita income - Household Income • Race and ethnicity • Unemployment rate • Cost of living index • Quality of life - Parks and trails - School data • Transportation and transit City & EDA -Owned Property • Available inventory • Size (developable acres) • Cost per acre • Zoning requirement - Uses permitted • Setbacks - Percent of site that may be utilized - Control of nuisances (dust, smoke, noise, etc.) - Site mitigation required • Available incentives • Inventory and list price of homes currently on the market Housing • Age and condition of current housing stock • Inventory and list price of homes currently on the market • Housing values • Renter - occupied units • Senior housing Manufacturing and Industrial Market Data • Existing available buildings — Size of building (square feet) — Cost per square foot — Year built — Previous use — Condition of building — Floor area ratio — Suitability of building for manufacturing — Current zoning — Climate controlled • Air conditioning • Heat — Surrounding uses — Opportunity for expansion • Existing available land — Size (developable acres) — Cost per acre — Zoning requirement • Uses permitted • Setbacks • Percent of site that may be utilized • Control of nuisances (dust, smoke, noise, etc.) • Site mitigation required — Surrounding uses • Infrastructure of manufacturing and industrial areas — Truck access — Rail served or adjacent to a rail line — On -site storage available • Trailer • Outdoor — Distance to: • Nearest commercial airport (name, miles) • Nearest inland port (name, miles) • Nearest ocean port (name, miles) • Nearest rail spur (name, miles) • Nearest intermodal facility (name, miles) • Nearest state highway (name, miles) * Nearest interstate exchange (name, miles) • Utilities available in manufacturing and industrial areas — Electric (on -site: Y /N; capacity) — Gas (on -site: Y /N; capacity) — Sewer (on -site: Y /N; capacity) — Water (on -site: Y /N; capacity) — Data /voice /fiber (on -site: Y /N; capacity) — Stormwater (on -site: Y /N; capacity) — Utility consumption incentives (rate discounts, hedging, etc.) • Retail market data — Synthesize data collected from previous retail market analysis Appendix B - Data Deployment The following are some of the locations where the City of Monticello's market information will be deployed: GREATER MSPTM _ MinneepD115 Saint Paul Regio POSITIVELY °I�..y � i� i Oaparhnenl mf EmPloymomarW ECUnomic 0eveluPment Monticello A& WSB & Associates, Inc. Market Matching Appendix B - Data Deployment m Appendix C - InfoTracker Effective and transparent communication with residents, business owners, and other community stakeholders is critical for achieving governmental success. WSB can help enhance your organization's communication process through our web -based market information management system - infoTrdcker. InfoTracker provides publicized, consistent messages coupled with streamlined documentation. InfoTracker efficiently and effectively transfers information to appropriate individuals within any organization, and can be customized to each organization's needs. By adding a link to the organization's website, constituents are also able to provide input and monitor the actions being taken resulting in a more connected community. Communication Process 0- Input market information into database and assign follow -up 91 a 0 3 00 0k After action is completed, it is documented (closed) in the database wsbeng. ccm ► Assigned team member notified via email m A a� �qP ► Assigned team member acts on market information or assigns follow -up to another team member InfoTracker Benefits • Immediate market information notification to the appropriate person(s) • "Chain-of-custody" for all documented market information • Easy prioritization and identification of critical market information • Permanent record of market information and resulting actions Interested in InfoTracker? This communication system, hosted by WS B, requires no additional IT support, and is provided with training. For more information or to setup a meeting, contact John Mac kiewicz at 763.287.71941 jniackiewicz@wsbeng.com. A WSB & Associates, i Appendix D - Market Matching Team (320) 534 -5951 juphoff@wsbeng.com (763) 287 -8536 bbourassa @wsbeng.com WSB's Economic Development Team includes the seven key individuals identified below and is supported by the entire WSB Team. The key staff have numerous direct connections to private sector businesses and development entities and have been assigned to various trade associations and business networks. Their collective network and emphasis on establishing economic development connections will raise the bar for traditional municipal economic development activities and will deliver ongoing value for the City of Monticello. John Uphoff Economic Development Specialist John is an economic development specialist with broad experience working with communities and organizations to achieve their economic goals. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Planning and Community Development from St. Cloud State University, where he also minored in Economics. John has direct experience in the areas of local economic development, housing, historic preservation, promotion, and marketing. He has served as the project manager on a downtown development initiative and a neighborhood stabilization /communication plan in the historic South Side Neighborhood, both located in St. Cloud. John will be the City's primary contact for WSB's Economic Development Services offering. He will lead the Asset Identification /Market Review and Asset Build -out efforts, and coordinate the efforts of the Economic Development Team. John will provide ongoing feedback to City staff regarding economic development opportunities discovered and provide reports /presentations and feedback to the EDA on a bi- monthly basis. Essentially, he will be an extension of City staff and will respond to both staff and EDA requests for information as the City's economic development expert. Brian Bourassa, PE Principal, Senior Project Manager, Economic Development Specialist Brian is a registered professional engineer with more than 20 years of experience in many types of municipal and general civil engineering projects. His engineering experience includes all phases of the project and has involved representation of both public and private entities. Brian's experience in the private development market sector has included both residential and commercial projects. He also has first -hand experience as a private developer. Brian is known for his focus on client needs and excellent customer service. Brian will take direction from John and identify and market to potential developer matches for the City of Monticello. He will focus on both the commercial, senior housing, and residential markets. (763) 287 -7173 mdawley@wsbengsom (763) 287 -8520 jwedel @wsbeng.com Morgan Dawley PE Associate, Municipal Senior Project Engineer Morgan is a registered professional engineer with nearly 20 years of experience in municipal and civil engineering projects including streets, storm sewers, water distribution systems, sanitary sewer systems, water and wastewater treatment, site grading, park improvements, development review, and municipal state aid systems. His current responsibilities include planning, coordination, design, and construction administration of a wide variety of municipal projects. Morgan has been a staff or consultant city engineer for the past 10 years. Morgan will take direction from John and identify and market to potential developer matches for the City of Monticello. He will focus on both the commercial and senior housing markets. Jason Wedel, PE Associate, Senior Project Manager, Economic Development Specialist Jason is a Senior Project Engineer in our Municipal Group. He has proven managerial expertise related to municipal engineering and land development. Jason's experience working as an in -house public works director /city engineer provides him with the management level expertise to work cooperatively with City Councils, Advisory Boards, and City staff at a high level. Jason also has experience working for a national home building company (Pulte Homes) as their Director of Land. In that role, Jason performed duties related to land acquisition, entitlement, and development, which gives him a unique perspective and understanding of how developers and cities can collaborate to develop mutually beneficial assets for the community. He is versed in public speaking, administration, financial analysis, project estimating, resolving complicated entitlement and design problems, document preparation, and site management. Jason will take direction from John and identify and market to potential developer matches for the City of Monticello. He will focus primarily on the residential market. (763) 287 -8521 kiohnson @wsbeng.com (763) 287 -7190 bweiss @wsbeng.com (763) 231 -4873 alewis @wsbeng.com Bret Weiss, PE President Bret is a registered professional engineer with more than 25 years of diverse municipal and general civil engineering experience. He is an accomplished city engineer and project manager responsible for the planning, coordination, design, and construction administration of a wide variety of municipal projects. Bret is a skilled negotiator and is passionate about serving the City of Monticello. Bret's role on the Economic Development Team will be to support John in identifying potential developer matches, make introductions of the other team members to key stakeholders in the area, and be part of the City's team regarding the developer negotiation process. Kelsey Johnson,AICP Community Planner, Grant and Funding Specialist Kelsey is a community planner with extensive public sector experience. She has served as the project manager and lead planner on land use plans, comprehensive land use plan updates, zoning ordinance updates, subdivision regulation updates, housing action plans, and small area studies. As a grant and funding specialist, Kelsey tracks funding and grant opportunities for WSB. Kelsey's role on the Economic Development Team will be to support John and the City in identifying potential funding opportunities to support development projects. Addison Lewis Community Planner, Research Analyst Addison brings a variety of experiences in working with local communities. He has a passion for sustainability and is an adept researcher. Addison's experience with working on municipal planning projects and interpreting zoning and land use ordinances has provided him with a unique perspective on the necessity of preparing realistic and implementable plans. Addison will support John with research during the Asset Identification /Market Review tasks and on an ongoing basis. Appendix E - Market Matching Sales Process "Ap Potential Business Lead Generation • City staff /EDA • Business Contacts • Association Networking Activity • Economic Development Agency Initial Market Matching • Business discovery — client needs assessment • Respond to a Request for Information - RFI • Preliminary information exchanged and discussion regarding known community asset(s) Follow -up Market Matching Presentation — if necessary • Complete information exchanged regarding community assets • Further business discovery and client needs assessment Community Development Engagement • Preliminary Project Review • Letter of Intent — LOI Community Development Process Review • Site Plan Approval /Developer Agreement Process • Project Review — Planning — Engineering — Financial — Legal Appendix E- Market M atc hi n g Sales Process 7= k� Cr 0, 5 I ; ?