Planning Commission Agenda 03-01-2011
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 1st, 2011
6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, William Spartz, and
Barry Voight
Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart
Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman – NAC
1. Call to order.
2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 1st, 2011.
3. Citizen Comments.
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend Title 10 of the Monticello City Code,
Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4.5, Signs
6. Consideration of amendment options related to Chapter 5.3 of the Monticello Zoning Code
relating to Adult Uses.
7. 2010 Housing Report Presentation
8. Director’s Report
9. Adjourn.
Planning Commission Minutes – 02/01/11
1
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Barry Voight, and
William Spartz
Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart
Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman-NAC
Other: Sandy Suchy, Chamber Director
1. Call to order
Commissioner Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes of January 4th, 2011
BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 4TH,
2011. MOTION WAS SECONDED BILL SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
3. Citizen Comments
None.
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
None.
5. Consideration of a report on the adoption of the comprehensive amendment to the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance
Angela Schumann presented a brief overview of the process of adoption of the revised
Zoning Ordinance. She noted that the new fully hyperlinked ordinance is now posted on
the city’s website and demonstrated how to access and navigate within it. She pointed out
that staff will continue to add functionality to the document as it becomes available.
Staff has already begun tracking both minor code adjustments and upcoming amendments.
Over the next three to six months, staff will be working on preparing report information
on the following items for possible amendment: Adult Use Ordinance, Subdivision in R-1
and R-2 Areas for Lower Monticello and Original Plat, Sign Ordinance, Temporary
Trash Receptacle Use, and DNR Overlay Amendments.
Adult Use Ordinance: Staff will research state statutes and recent court case analysis to
make sure the Adult Use Ordinance is up-to-date.
Planning Commission Minutes – 02/01/11
2
Subdivision in R-1 and R-2 Areas for Lower Monticello: Staff will look at setbacks
and consider an amendment related to previously platted lots within Subdivision in R-1
and R-2 Areas for Lower Monticello and Original Plat.
Sign Ordinance: Staff met with the Chamber Government Affairs Committee to
discuss sign ordinance recommendations from the business community. Items to
consider for amendment include: additional days for temporary signage for multi-
tenant spaces, allowing bonus temporary signage of up to 40 days within first six
months of new business operation, allowing off-premise signage within the
community, and sandwich board signage for businesses for a one year trial.
Temporary Trash Receptacle Use: Staff will consider an allowance for the temporary
placement of a dumpster for a specific period of time unrelated to construction.
DNR Overlay Amendments: Staff is awaiting final DNR comment about revisions to
the National Wild and Scenic and Flood Plain Management ordinances which were
brought forward as is from the previous zoning code.
Rod Dragsten asked the Planning Commission for a preliminary discussion related to
the temporary sign ordinance issues. There were some initial questions raised and
various scenarios considered. The Commissioners generally indicated that they would
consider options which might help a new business succeed in Monticello.
BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. MOTION WAS SECONDED
BY CHARLOTTE GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
The Commission expressed an interest in determining the extent of the business
community level of satisfaction with the multi-tenant temporary sign ordinance. Staff
agreed to clarify the number of multi-tenant buildings in the City and will work with the
Chamber to develop a short, email survey to obtain information about community
reaction to the temporary sign ordinance.
Chamber Director Sandy Suchy noted that the current sign ordinance makes it difficult
for multi-tenant buildings to provide sufficient marketing to the community. She agreed
that a survey would provide some useful information for decisionmaking. She indicated
that although there hadn’t been significant interest in advertising on billboards that it
may be a useful opportunity to consider.
6. Consideration of amendment options related to Chapter 5.3 of the Monticello Zoning
Code relating to Adult Uses
Planner Steve Grittman pointed out that changes in the City’s population growth and
the revisions to the zoning code require that zoning allowances and buffer distances be
updated to ensure that the Adult Use ordinance continues to meet legal standards. He
summarized the issue in a question and answer presentation.
Planning Commission Minutes – 02/01/11
3
The City is required by law to allow adult-oriented uses as a form of expression with first
amendment protection but it has the ability to regulate certain aspects of these uses within
the community. The City can create restrictions by zoning district that limit the ability of the
establishments, or the patrons of the establishments, to have an impact on defined sensitive
populations such as residential areas, daycare, schools, libraries, and churches. These
usually take the form of defining the uses, specifying which zoning district such uses
can be located in, and then creating a buffer zone from sensitive land uses that the City
wishes to protect from the secondary effects of the establishment. The ordinance must
provide for reasonable opportunity to locate within the community. The balancing act is to
provide some separation between uses, while continuing to provide a reasonable opportunity
area. The City is responsible only to provide opportunity through zoning for an adult use
establishment to locate. It is up to the real estate market to provide a location and the
City to determine to whom to sell a parcel.
Staff provided an outline of the City’s zoning districts, and a summary of the eligible
area under the current regulations. Xcel Energy property is not eligible for opportunity area
due to Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements and proximity to large areas of
parkland. The remaining I-2 zoned land provides less than 3% opportunity area, and just
over 1% when the current 700 foot buffer is applied. The challenge will be to find some
combination of buffer distance and increase in the area of properly zoned parcels to get
closer to 5%. Although a 5% area of opportunity within a community is not required, it
is generally considered a “reasonable” amount of area.
Staff presented several options to address this issue focusing on areas zoned industrial as
these are most likely to be separated from sensitive areas. Staff recommended
eliminating land area that fronted the freeway so that the use would be less visible. The
various scenarios outlined included making more land eligible with a smaller buffer or
less land eligible with a larger buffer or, as an alternative, the creation of a subdistrict.
The Commission had many questions and much discussion about the area of
opportunity, buffer zone, and the definition of reasonable. They shared their initial
opinions of these issues. Staff pointed out that the League of MN Cities would support
staying within the boundaries of what other localities have determined to be
appropriate.
The current Adult Use ordinance puts the City at risk to a challenge. In response to the
need for further information, staff suggested that the Commission take time to review
some model ordinances from other localities.
WILLIAM SPARTZ MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE A MORATORIUM ON ADULT USES WHILE THE PLANNING
COMMISSION STUDIES THE PARAMETERS OF THE ORDINANCE.
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ROD DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED 5-
0.
Planning Commission Minutes – 02/01/11
4
Steve Grittman encouraged all to respond to the Parks & Trails survey on the City’s
website.
Rod Dragsten asked about new construction in the City. Angela Schumann pointed out
that, in additional to the recent Housing Report, she will make available a rental
distribution map including trends and demographics. She also emailed the
Commissioners a link to the MN Association of Realtors to provide additional
background information. She agreed to find out the level of new construction permit
activity for neighboring communities.
7. Adjourn
WILLIAM SPARTZ MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:36 PM. MOTION
WAS SECONDED BY BRAD FYLE. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Recorder: Kerry T. Burri __
Approved: March 1, 2011
Attest: ___________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda: 03/01/11
1
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request to amend Title 10 of the Monticello City Code,
Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4.5, Signs. (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The amended Monticello Zoning Code is in its 6-month code tracking period, which is
intended to identify both minor code adjustments and upcoming amendments.
During its February meeting, the Planning Commission specifically discussed code tracking
as related to a number of potential amendments to Section 4.5, Signs.
The amendments presented in the attached ordinance are straightforward adjustments
identified by the Planning Commission during their February meeting. These amendments
are:
4.5(C)(2): Distinguishes that signs 2 square feet or less shall be permanent signs. The lack of
definition could create confusion with temporary sign regulations. These signs are intended to
supplement direction signage options as provided per section 4.5(J)(2)(d).
o (2) Permanent signs two (2) square feet or less in size.
4.5(D)(10): Additional regulation clarifying that Abandoned Signs (see definition of
“abandoned sign” in section 8.4) are prohibited by ordinance.
o (10) Abandoned Signs
4.5(I)(3) New Business Temporary Signage Allowance:
o Amendment allows bonus temporary signage of up to 40 days which can be utilized
anytime within first 6 months of operation. Current code requires the bonus use
beginning on first day of opening to public.
o Amendment further clarifies that this provision is available even when a property has
given up signage via the bonus square footage through message board provisions.
Subject to the provisions of Section 4.5(I)(1), 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 to be utilized within six (6) months of the first day of the business
opening to the public. Such signage shall not be limited by the provisions of
Section 4.5(I)(2).
In addition to the above amendments, the Planning Commission directed staff to complete
additional study for to the development of a possible amendment for temporary signage for
multiple tenant buildings and/or temporary relaxation of temporary sign regulations as a
whole.
Within this report, the Commission is provided with information resulting from the following
three initiatives relative to the development of the above:
Staff worked with the Chamber of Commerce to develop a temporary signage survey that
was emailed to entire business community. The survey queried businesses on their
current temporary sign usage in order to provide a baseline of information for the
Planning Commission Agenda: 03/01/11
2
Commission. Both a summary document and the actual tabulations are included for
reference. Of the 15% of businesses who responded, the average number of temporary
sign days used in 2010 ranged from 15-45 days, which pairs well with the current
regulation’s 40 day allowance. The survey response information also seems to indicate
that while the 40 days is generally acceptable for most business, multi-tenant buildings are
not on a level-playing field, given the need to split the 40 days under the current
ordinance.
Staff has surveyed surrounding communities for information on their temporary sign
regulations. A spreadsheet attached illustrates that most communities do allow for more
overall days of temporary signage. Two communities, St. Michael and Becker, allow for
signage days to be allotted per business as contrasted to regulating by property or
building. This type of regulation addresses the multi-tenant issue directly by allowing
every business, regardless of location type, the same number of days. St. Michael then
handles the aesthetic and message intensity by regulating distance between signs.
Finally, staff met one-on-one with a small group of property owners, tenants and leasing
agents for multi-tenant buildings. The goal of the meeting was to provide the Planning
Commission with ordinance language alternatives. The small group felt strongly that the
best analysis of temporary signage impact would be to have the least amount of regulation
possible.
As a result of these three initiatives, staff has developed three alternatives for the Commission
to consider. Commission should evaluate each and provide direction on a preferred
alternative, which will be crafted into a formal interim ordinance.
Framing the selected alternative as an interim ordinance would allow the Planning
Commission, and City as a whole, to analyze the temporary sign issue over a finite period and
determine the impacts (both positive and negative) of the interim regulation. At the end of the
interim ordinance period, the Commission would then be able to recommend final temporary
sign ordinance amendments.
The three interim ordinance alternatives are as follows:
Total
Number of
Days per
Year
Signs
Allowed
By
Number
of Signs
per
Location
Permit
Required
Off-Premise
Temporary
Signs
Allowed
Special
Multi-
Tenant
Allowance
Option 1 Unlimited No
requirement
No limit Yes – fee
waived
Yes No
Option 2 Unlimited Business No limit Yes – fee
waived
No No
Option 3 90 Business 1 sign
every 75
feet
Yes – fee
waived
No No
Planning Commission Agenda: 03/01/11
3
In all options, the following standards would also be incorporated into the interim ordinance:
Interim Ordinance terminates December 31, 2011.
Maximum sign area: 40 square feet (current ordinance allows signs up to 32
square feet)
Interim ordinance applies only to temporary signs (portable) and does not
include placard signs (movable staked signs of 6 square feet or less) or
permanent signage
Signs must be constructed of materials consistent with temporary signs
(portable) and may not be constructed of plywood, chipboard, unfinished
materials, or other similar materials.
No temporary signage would be allowed on vacant parcels. The ordinance
prohibits signage as a principal use of property via off-premise regulations
(4.5)(D)(2) and general allowable use regulations (5.1).
Signage days used would be required to be tracked by permitee (as required
under current code) in order to assist the City in determining actual number of
days used under the interim ordinance
Signs must be located on private property by permission of the owner and may
not be located on any public easement or right-of-way.
Mn/DOT and State Statutes regarding off-premise signage requirements apply.
The Commission should also feel free to develop its own preferred alternative from the three
options presented.
The multi-tenant small group recommends the Option 1 above, noting that the relaxation of
the majority of standards will allow for the maximum amount of flexibility for businesses,
while allowing the City to monitor the highest sign intensity level for potential impact. The
small group noted that an interim ordinance of this nature will send a strong signal to
businesses that the City is interested in providing every possible opportunity to businesses in a
difficult economic marketplace.
At the completion of the interim ordinance period, all permit records, corridor images and
complaint tracking will be provided to the Commission for reference. The same multi-tenant
small group will also be pulled back together to assist with impact analysis.
In summary, the Planning Commission is asked to take recommending action on the basic
code-tracking amendments as presented under Decision 1. The Commission is then to direct
staff to prepare an interim ordinance for public hearing and recommendation at the April
Planning Commission meeting as Decision 2.
Planning Commission Agenda: 03/01/11
4
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1: Adoption of Ordinance Amendment 524
1. Motion to recommend approval of Ordinance Amendment No. 524, an ordinance
amending Title 10 of the Monticello City Code, Monticello Zoning Ordinance,
Chapter 4.5, Signs.
2. Motion to deny approval of Ordinance Amendment No. 524, an ordinance amending
Title 10 of the Monticello City Code, Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4.5,
Signs.
Decision 2
1. Motion to direct staff to prepare an interim ordinance per Planning Commission’s
direction (to be stated) and to call for a public hearing regarding the interim ordinance on
March 1st, 2011.
2. Motion to table.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
For Decision 1, City staff recommends Alternative #1 above. The amendments prepared are
consistent with the direction provided by the Planning Commission during past meetings and
will provide greater clarity in the existing standards.
For Decision 2, City staff is supportive of an interim ordinance which incorporates the
flexibility presented within the three options, with the exception of any allowance for off-
premise signage. Under an interim ordinance scenario, the City has the opportunity to review
and study the impacts of the proposed temporary signage adjustments, and then determine
appropriate ordinance language based on that analysis.
Regarding the matter of off-premise signage, staff recommends specifically against any
provision allowing for such signage, temporary or permanent. It is the intent and
responsibility of a City, through its Zoning Code, to balance the health, safety and welfare of
all of its constituents. Off-premise sign prohibitions are common throughout the state and the
country, specifically to:
Preserve and maintain the scenic and aesthetic environment of the community
Protect and promote the quality of life of the City’s residents
Improve safety for local and visiting motorists and pedestrians
Reduce the distracting influence of uncontrolled off-premise signs
Minimize the possible adverse effect of off-premise signs on nearby public and private
property; which may include:
o Decommissioning of unwanted signage (especially after interim ordinance
terminates)
o Unpermitted placement of signage
Planning Commission Agenda: 03/01/11
5
o Undue influence on real estate pricing
Commission should note that cities can only regulate the time, place and manner for signage, but
cannot regulate content. As such, should the City of Monticello relax its regulations pertaining to
off-premise signage, it cannot control or limit the messaging appearing on such signage. Therefore, it
is the City’s position that allowing off-premise signage (including any relaxation of billboard
regulations) may actually have an adverse impact on Monticello’s business community, as there
would be no limitation on what non-local businesses may advertise on such signage. One of the
primary purposes of signage is to direct traffic to a specific location. In contrast, off-premise signs
direct attention to a business located somewhere than where the sign is located.
In addition, MnDOT regulations currently prohibit all off-premise signage adjacent to their rights-of-
way. This would eliminate any Highway 25 and Interstate 94 exposure that businesses (both
Monticello and otherwise) may be seeking under relaxation of the off-premise standards.
Once permitted in any way, the ability to remove off-premise signage based on message alone will be
difficult for the City. In short, any amendment allowing off-premise signage will be difficult to
unravel.
In summary, staff supports a flexible interim ordinance which provides the opportunity to examine
more closely an item that is often at issue in the sign code.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4.5 – Signs
B. Chamber of Commerce Sign Survey
C. Chamber of Commerce Sign Survey Summary
D. Chamber of Commerce Sign Survey Tabulation
E. Neighboring Community Comparison – Temporary Sign Regulations
F. Ordinance 525 – Amendment to Title 10, Chapter 4 - Signs
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.5 Signs
Subsection (A) Findings, Purpose, and Effect
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 187
4.5 Signs
(A) Findings, Purpose, and Effect
(1) Findings
The City finds:
(a) Exterior signs have a substantial impact on the character and quality of the
environment.
(b) Signs provide an important medium through which individuals may convey a
variety of messages.
(c) Signs can create traffic hazards and aesthetic concerns, thereby threatening
the public health, safety and welfare.
(d) 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.
(2) Purpose and Intent
(a) It is not the purpose or intent of Section 4.5 to regulate the message displayed
on any sign; nor is it the purpose or intent of this section to regulate any
building design or any display not defined as a sign, or any sign which cannot
be viewed from outside a building.
(b) The purpose and intent of Section 4.5 is to:
(i) 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.
(ii) Maintain, enhance and improve the aesthetic environment of the City by
preventing visual clutter that is harmful to the appearance of the
community.
(iii) 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.
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.5 Signs
Subsection (C) Permit Not Required
Page 188 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
(iv) Provide for fair and consistent enforcement of the sign regulations set
forth herein under the zoning authority of the City.
(3) Effect
A sign may be erected, mounted, displayed or maintained in the City if it is in
conformance with the provisions of this ordinance. The effect of Section 4.5, as
more specifically set forth herein, is to:
(a) 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 Section
4.5.
(b) Allow certain small, unobtrusive signs incidental to the principal use of a site
in all zones when in compliance with the requirements of Section 4.5.
(c) 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.
(d) Provide for the administration and enforcement of the provisions of Section
4.5.
(B) Permit Required
No sign shall be erected, altered, improved, reconstructed, maintained or moved in the
City without first securing a sign permit from the City:
(1) 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.
(2) Application for a sign permit shall be in conformance with the requirements of
Section 2.4(K), Sign Permits:
(C) Permit Not Required
The following signs shall not require a permit and are allowed in addition to those signs
allowed by Sections 4.5(I) and 4.5(J) of this section. 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 section or any other law
or ordinance regulating the same.
Section 2.4(K) Sign
Permits
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.5 Signs
Subsection (C) Permit Not Required
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 189
(1) 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 on a surface other than the surface of the
building.
(2) Signs two (2) square feet or less in size.
(3) One (1) sign per property in residential districts not to exceed four (4) square feet.
(4) All noncommercial signs are permitted on private property in any zoning district
with the express consent of the owner or occupant of such property. In a State
general election year, noncommercial signs of any size may be posted in any
number forty-six (46) days before the State primary in a State general election
year until ten (10) days following the State general election. Election signs
posted in connection with elections held at times other than those regulated by
Minn. Stat. 211B.035 shall not be posted more than 13 weeks prior to the election
and shall be removed by the party responsible for the erection of the sign or the
property owner within ten (10) days after the election.
(5) Official and Public signs.
(6) One (1) sign shall be allowed per street frontage when a property is offered for
sale or lease, provided that:
(a) Within residential zoning districts (see table 3-1), 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.
(b) For non-residential zoning districts (see table 3-1), as well as for any parcel
larger than ten (10) acres in any zoning district, signs may be up to ninety six
(96) square feet in area or twelve (12) feet in height as defined in this
ordinance. One (1) additional such sign shall be allowed for any street
frontage which exceeds one thousand (1,000) linear feet. For the purposes of
this section, frontage on any right of way, including local streets, County or
State Highways, or I-94 shall constitute a ―frontage‖, regardless of access.
(7) Sandwich board signs are allowed within all business zoning districts (see table 3-
1) provided that:
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.5 Signs
Subsection (D) Prohibited Signs
Page 190 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
(a) 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.
(b) The sign shall only be displayed when the business is open to the public.
(c) Except in the CCD district, 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.
(d) The signs shall be located so as to maintain a minimum five (5) foot
pedestrian walkway and so as not to obstruct vehicular traffic.
(e) 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.
(f) The sign shall conform to the following height and area requirements:
(i) Height: Five (5) feet.
(ii) Area: Six (6) square feet.
(g) For sandwich board signs within the CCD district, sandwich board signs may
be located in accordance with the provisions of subpart (c) above. 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 permit in accordance with the
provisions and process of Section 2.4(K) of this ordinance.
(D) Prohibited Signs
The following signs are prohibited:
(1) 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.
(2) All off premises signs greater than six (6) square feet in area.
(3) Flashing signs.
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.5 Signs
Subsection (E) Nonconforming Signs and Uses
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 191
(4) Roof signs.
(5) Rotating signs.
(6) Shimmering signs.
(7) Signs which move or imitate movement, except for dynamic scrolling signs as
defined in this ordinance.
(8) 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.
(9) Off Premises Signs:
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(E) Nonconforming Signs and Uses
(1) Signs: A non-conforming sign lawfully existing upon the effective date of this
ordinance as denoted in Section 1.4 shall be regulated in accordance with Chapter
6 of this ordinance.
(2) Uses: When the principal use of land is legally non-conforming under Chapter 6
of this ordinance, 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.
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.5 Signs
Subsection (H) General Provisions
Page 192 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
(3) When a sign is considered to be non-conforming due to size, location, or other
factor, but represents a conforming use of land, such sign may be continued,
including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement,
but not including expansion, unless it is considered to be abandoned as defined by
this ordinance. 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.
(F) Enforcement and Penalties
Section 4.5 shall be administered and enforced in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 7 of this ordinance.
(G) Substitution
The owner of any sign which is otherwise allowed by Section 4.5 of this 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.
(H) General Provisions
(1) Accessory Structures
Except as provided for by Section 4.5(D)(9), all signs shall be considered
accessory structures.
(2) Setbacks
All freestanding signs shall be set back fifteen (15) feet from any property line
abutting a public right-of-way and five (5) feet from any side or rear property line.
No sign may be located within a drainage and utility easement.
(3) Standards Adopted
The design and construction standards as set forth in Chapter 4 of the 1997 edition
of the Uniform Sign Code as may be amended, are hereby adopted.
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.5 Signs
Subsection (H) General Provisions
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 193
(4) Electrical Signs
The installation of electrical signs shall be subject to the State's
Electrical Code. Electrical service to such signs shall be
underground.
(5) 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 Community Development Department.
(6) 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.
(7) 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.
(8) Permit Display
Signs requiring permits shall display in a conspicuous manner the
permit sticker or sticker number.
(9) 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.
(10) 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.
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.5 Signs
Subsection (H) General Provisions
Page 194 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
(11) Square Footage Calculation (Total Area = A x B):
(a) For wall signs, the area of a sign shall be 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:
(b) For monument signs, area shall be calculated as for wall signs. Structural
members of the sign, including supports or other decorative features shall not
be considered as a part of the measured sign area:
(c) For pylon signs, the entire area of the sign face or cabinet shall be considered
as a part of the measured sign area. Structural supports, provided that they
have no message or other graphics, shall be exempt from the area calculation.
(12) 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.
(13) Landscaping
A site plan shall be submitted as a part of any application for a freestanding sign
which includes plans for the landscaping of the area near the sign, and which
demonstrates that the sign will complement the existing or proposed general site
landscaping of the property.
(14) Vehicle Fuel Facilities
Signs for vehicle 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.
(15) Window Signs
Window signs are not considered a part of the maximum sign area otherwise
allowed under Section 4.5 of this ordinance and do not require a permit.
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.5 Signs
Subsection (H) General Provisions
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 195
(16) Changeable Copy Signs
Within commercial and industrial districts and for civic and institutional uses
including, but not limited to, public school facilities, hospital and medical
facilities, municipal facilities and places of public assembly, 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
Section 4.5(I)(2) in which case the area of the changeable copy sign shall be
allowed in excess of the maximum sign area.
(17) 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.
(18) Projecting Signs
Projecting signs may be allowed in commercial districts provided that:
(a) There is a minimum of eight (8) feet of clearance under the base of the sign to
the ground below.
(b) 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.
(c) 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 4.5(J).
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.5 Signs
Subsection (H) General Provisions
Page 196 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
(19) Dynamic Displays
(a) Findings
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.
(b) Regulations governing Dynamic Signs
(i) Dynamic signs shall have messages that change instantaneously, and do
not fade, dissolve, blink, or appear to simulate motion in any way.
Prohibited blinking signs shall include signs which are displayed as
continuous solid messages for less than the time required by subpart (iii)
of this subsection below. 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‖.
(ii) Dynamic signs shall not be permitted in any Residential zoning district.
(iii) No dynamic display shall change more than one time per five (5) second
period, except time and temperature displays which may change as
frequently as once every three (3) seconds.
(iv) Dynamic signs shall be no brighter than other illuminated signs in the
same district.
(v) 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.
(vi) Applicants for dynamic displays shall sign a license agreement
supplemental to the building permit agreeing to operation of a 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.
(vii) 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.
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.5 Signs
Subsection (I) Temporary Signs
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 197
(20) Design and Materials Standards for Signs in Commercial Districts,
Industrial Districts, the CCD District, PUDs, and Performance Based Mixed
Use Development
(a) In General
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.
(b) Specific Materials for Pylon Signs
All exposed pole or post structures must be wrapped or faced with stucco,
architectural metal, brick or stone consistent with building architecture.
(I) Temporary Signs
(1) For property in a Business District or an Industrial District (see table 3-1), 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.
(2) In cases where properties forego, in writing, temporary signage allowed by
Section 4.5(I)(1) above, an additional permanent message board sign up to fifty
(50) square feet in area shall be allowed. Such sign may be incorporated into a
property’s freestanding sign or the building as additional wall sign area.
Freestanding signs shall be subject to the height limitations of the applicable
zoning district.
(3) Subject to other provisions of Section 4.5(I), 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.
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.5 Signs
Subsection (J) District Regulations
Page 198 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
(J) District Regulations
In addition to the signs allowed by Section 4.5(C) and Section 4.5(I), the following
signs shall be allowed within the specific zoning districts:
(1) Within residential zoning districts (see table 3-1), the following additional
regulations apply:
(a) Except for the uses specified in Sections 4.5(J)(1)(b) and 4.5(J)(1)(c) below,
not more than one (1) sign shall be allowed provided that:
(i) The area of the sign shall not exceed four (4) square feet.
(ii) Freestanding signs shall be limited to a maximum height of four (4) feet.
(b) In addition to the sign allowed by Section 4.5(J)(1)(a) above, 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.
(c) 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.
(2) Within business and industrial zoning districts (see table 3-1), the following
additional regulations shall apply:
(a) Total Area of Signs
The total area of all signs (with the exclusion of freestanding signs as may be
allowed by this code) displayed on a lot shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent
of the total building facade fronting not more than two (2) public streets.
The Freeway Bonus
Sign Overlay District
allows for additional
signage in specific
commercial and
industrial areas
[Section 3.7(F)]
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.5 Signs
Subsection (J) District Regulations
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 199
(b) Freestanding Signs
(i) 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.
(ii) If a monument, rather than pylon sign is utilized, an additional one
hundred (100) square feet of area beyond the total area calculated in
Section 4.5(J)(2)(a) above, devoted to wall, canopy or marquee signs
shall be granted.
(iii) For shopping centers greater than one hundred and fifty thousand
(150,000) square feet of aggregate building square footage and greater
than twenty (20) acres in site area, two (2) freestanding signs may be
permitted. Two (2) pylon signs may be constructed or, as an alternative,
one (1) pylon and one (1) monument sign may be constructed. When the
latter option is chosen, the monument sign shall be no greater than
fourteen (14) feet in height nor more than one hundred (100) square feet
in area. The pylon sign may be no greater than twenty-five (25) feet in
height and three hundred (300) square feet in area.
(c) Wall, Canopy, or Marquee Signs
(i) Wall, canopy, projecting, and marquee signs shall be consistent with the
maximum area requirements of Section 4.5(J)(2)(a).
(ii) Wall, canopy and marquee signs are permitted on any building facade
except those which abut properties zoned for residential use.
(d) Directional signage
In addition to the sign allowed by Section 4.5(J)(2)(b)(i), directional signage
may be allowed on site in an amount not to exceed three (3) signs with an
individual square footage maximum of ten (10) square feet each and thirty
(30) total square feet.
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.5 Signs
Subsection (J) District Regulations
Page 200 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
(e) 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 Community Development Department based upon the following
requirements:
(i) 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 4.5(J).
(ii) Commercial retail, office, or mixed use multiple occupancy buildings
may display a freestanding sign consistent with the applicable zoning
district provisions in Section 4.5(J).
(iii) Except as provided by window, changeable copy, or temporary signs in
this ordinance, individual tenants of a multiple occupancy building within
a commercial or industrial zoning district shall not display separate wall,
canopy, or marquee signs unless the tenant's business has an exclusive
exterior entrance and subject to the following requirements:
1. Each sign shall be limited to the maximum wall sign size permitted in
the applicable zoning district provisions in Section 4.5(J).
2. 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.
3. 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).
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.7 Transitional Features
Subsection (A) Purpose and Intent
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 201
4. No permit shall be issued for a new or replacement sign for an
individual tenant except upon a determination by the Community
Development Department that it is consistent with the approved
comprehensive sign plan.
(3) 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.
4.6 Underground Utilities
All utilities within or serving new development [e.g. cable television, electrical
(excluding transformers), gas, sewer, telephone, and water lines] shall be placed
underground.
4.7 Transitional Features
(A) Purpose and Intent
Transitional features are architectural elements or site aspects that must be used to ease
the transition between new development and existing structures and community
character. It is the intent of these standards to:
(1) Blend land use types throughout the City to minimize visual conflicts;
(2) Limit the excessive consumption of land though the utilization of large vegetated
buffers to separate potentially conflicting use types; and
(3) Limit interruptions in vehicular and pedestrian connections created by efforts to
segregate uses.
Exhibit 5C
1
Sign Survey Brief Summary – February 2011
Number of surveys returned 68 (15%)
Approx. 450 emailed to business community
Number of surveys returned from multi-tenant buildings 30 (43%)
Number of businesses utilizing temporary signage 39 (57%)
Number of surveys utilizing window signage 32 (47%)
Number of surveys utilizing electronic message boards 16 (23%)
Number of surveys utilizing changeable copy boards 7 (10%)
Number of surveys utilizing sandwich boards 13 (19%)
20 businesses indicated the actual number of days used last year. Total days used: 1161;
however one business indicated 365 days of temp signage and two indicated 150 days
each. Average days used by other businesses range from 15 – 45.
25 temporary sign permits issued during 2010 by City of Monticello.
**Permit Issued Report shows only one area (300 block of Pine Street) where multiple
(two) temporary sign permits were requested for same block.
Comments:
*Everyone has seasonal business, we as every other business in Monticello needs t o advertise for the four
seasons.
*The only temp. Signs I used were to promote my work on permanent vinyl sign work we completed.
*Community sign usage would really depend upon fee.
*Individual tenants need to be treated as separate entities when usin g signage. Also, rather than looking at
how to restrict signage for beautification purposes, the city needs to look at signage as a tool that businesses
need to promote their business and give as much leeway as possible for the local business to succeed.
*These are difficult times for us all, I support any professional type of signage if it needed to help keep the
doors open and helps keep that business and its employees in town. We beg customers to come to town
why would we keep our specials a secret. We can tighten up on temp sign in better times. Signs need to
have a professional look thou. I’m not picturing a cardboard dry marker garage sale type of look.
*You should be asking the right questions...
*I would like to advertise on the liquor store sign if possible.
*Business is rough. Signage is very important. We need to help the business owner, and fill up the empty
stores. Most people don’t care about signage they find it very helpful.
*We have our own electronic message board. Thanks.
*Little Caesars has used both sandwich board signs at lunch and dinner.
*Does not apply, office out of home.
Exhibit 5C
2
*Our business is not one that utilizes advertising. We might be interested in promoting the “Driver of the
Month” or something on that line if available.
*I think the e-message board should be community based and not used for commercial purposes. I would
rather have each business have the opportunity to advertise near their establishment thus the message tying
in to the place of business.
*We have only used window signage at this time. But we feel that all options are important to us and we
would like to have minimal restrictions put in place.
*Do not use any of the signs in question but do appreciate including us though.
*The Women of Today advertise for its craft shows in the spring and fall. We also advertise on the
Chamber kiosk and hope to get on the EMR that the City has now.
*If we have sandwich boards on our property for promotions I do not see the problem. There should not
even be a grace period, they should be allowed on our property.
*The city needs to have an ordinance that is vendor friendly but takes precautions to protect the public
safety and that it doesn’t allow for eye sores. Garage sale signs left at intersections weeks aft er the sales, or
forever for that matter, are littering and if not picked up and disposed of should be fined. Good Luck.
*The city does not allow off site signage and that sucks. Good luck to any business that cannot afford
property on Hwy 25 or other such high traffic areas. We were promised a high traffic road on School Blvd
and that didn’t happen and now they change the city code so we can’t advertise off site. Real nice town;
wish we built in Albertville.
*Recently installed a new reader board sign, co-operating with Monticello Community Center and
FiberNet.
*As a company we have numerous signages that our corporate office puts out that we are unable to use due
to the current rules. And with the location of our business it would be a benefit to b e able to use this
signage (Hwy 25).
*Only temp signage I have used is occasional banners on my porch. I guess I am not sure if this is ok or
not, 5 or so years ago I was told by city design group of some sort that they did not like my current sign and
if I desired to make any modifications I would have to start completely over, businesses need flexibility
with creative signage but hopefully good taste is kept.
*Community Sign depends on what nominal really is!
*Why would a multi-tenant need signage? If single units can’t then neither should they. They need to
follow the sign ordinance or it needs to be changed for everyone equally.
Exhibit 5D
Multi
Use?
Use
Temp
Signs
Window
Signs
Elec Msg
Bd
Chg
Copy Bd Sand Bd # days
Temp
Mo?
Temp
Seas?
Temp Sp
Events?
Sand
25/75?
Comm.
Sign NOTES
Multi No No No No No No No No Yes Yes
Yes No No No No 150 Yes Yes No No No
The only temp. signs I used were to
promjote my work on permanent vinyl sign
work we completed. Thanks for the
survey.
No No No No No No No No No No
Multi Yes Yes Yes No No 40 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Multi No No No No No 0 No No No No Yes
No No No No No 0 No No No No Yes It would really depend upon fee.
Multi No Yes No No No 0 No No No Yes Yes
No Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes No 12 No No Yes Yes
Multi Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No
Indiv. Tenants need to be treated as
separate entities when using signage.
Also, rather than looking at how to restrict
signage for beautification purposes, the
city needs to look at signage as a tool that
businesses need to promote their
business and give as much leaway as
possible for the local business to succeed.
Multi Yes No No Yes No 28 No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes No No No
More
than
allowed Yes Yes Yes Yes
These are difficult times for us all, I
support any professional type of signage if
it needed to help keep the doors open and
helps keep that business and its
employees in town. We beg customers to
come to town why would we keep our
specials a secret. We can tighten up on
temp signs in better times. Signs need to
have a professional look thou. I'm not
picturing a cardboard drymarker garage
sale type of look.
Yes No Yes Yes No
unknow
n No No Yes Yes No
1
Exhibit 5D
Multi
Use?
Use
Temp
Signs
Window
Signs
Elec Msg
Bd
Chg
Copy Bd Sand Bd # days
Temp
Mo?
Temp
Seas?
Temp Sp
Events?
Sand
25/75?
Comm.
Sign NOTES
Yes Yes No No No 2 No Yes Yes Yes Yes
No Yes No No No No No No No No
No No No No No No No No No Yes
No No No No No No No No No Yes
Multi No No No No yes 0 No No No No Yes
You should be asking the right
questions…
No No No No No 1 No No Yes No Yes
Yes No No No No 1 No No Yes No Yes
No No No No No No No No No No
Multi No Yes No No No 45 No Yes Yes Yes
I would like to advertise on the liquor store
sign if possible.
Multi Yes Yes No No yes No No Yes No Yes
Business is rough. Signage is very
important. We need to help the business
owner, and fill up the empty stores. Most
people don't care about signage they find
it very helpful.
Multi Yes No Yes No No 15 No No Yes Yes No
Multi No No Yes Yes No 0 No No No No No
We have our own electronic message
board. Thanks
Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No Yes
Yes Yes No No yes 150 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Little Caesars has used both sandwich
board signs at lunch and dinner
No No No No No 0 No No No No No Does not apply, office out of home
No No No No No No No No No No
Our business is not one that utilizes
advertising. We might be interested in
promoting the "Driver of the month" or
something on that line if available.
Multi Yes Yes No No No 45 No No Yes No No
I think the e-message board should be
community based and not used for
commercial purposes. I would rather
have each business have the opportunity
to advertise near their establishment thus
the message tying in to the place of
business.
Multi Yes Yes No No yes 14 No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes No No all year No Yes Yes Yes No
2
Exhibit 5D
Multi
Use?
Use
Temp
Signs
Window
Signs
Elec Msg
Bd
Chg
Copy Bd Sand Bd # days
Temp
Mo?
Temp
Seas?
Temp Sp
Events?
Sand
25/75?
Comm.
Sign NOTES
No Yes No No No No No No No Yes
We have only used window signage at this
time. But we feel that all options are
important to us and we would like to have
minimal restrictions put in place.
Multi Yes No No No yes 15 No Yes Yes No Yes
Multi No No No No No No No No No No
Do not use any of the signs in question
but do appreciate including us though.
Yes No No No No 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes
The Women of Today advertises for its
craft shows in the Spring and Fall. We
also advertise on the Chamber kiosk and
hope to get on the EMR that the City has
now.
No No No No No No No No No Yes
Yes Yes Yes No yes No No Yes Yes No
If we have sandwich boards on our
property for promotions I do not see the
problem. There should not even be a
grace period, they should be allowed on
our property.
Yes Yes No No No 14 No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes No No No yes 30 No Yes Yes Yes
Yes No No No No
?? For
Rent
Sign No No Yes No No
Multi Yes Yes No No yes 25 No No No No Yes
Multi Yes Yes No No yes 0
Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Multi Yes Yes No No yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
The city needs to have an ordinance that
is vendor friendly but takes precautions to
protect the public safety and that it doesn't
allow for eye sores. Garage sale signs
left at intersections weeks after the sales,
or forever for that matter, are litering and if
not picked up and disposed of should be
fined. Good Luck.
3
Exhibit 5D
Multi
Use?
Use
Temp
Signs
Window
Signs
Elec Msg
Bd
Chg
Copy Bd Sand Bd # days
Temp
Mo?
Temp
Seas?
Temp Sp
Events?
Sand
25/75?
Comm.
Sign NOTES
No Yes Yes Yes No 40 No Yes Yes Yes No
The city does not allow off site signage
and that sucks. Good luck to any
business that cannot afford property on
Hwy 25 or other such high traffic areas.
We were promised a high traffic road on
School Blvd and that didn't happen and
now they change the city code so we can't
advertise off site. Real nice town. Wish we
built in Albertville.
Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes
No No No No No No No No Yes Yes
No Yes Yes No No 0 No No No No No
Recently installed new reader board sign,
co-oping with the Monticello Community
Center and FiberNet.
Multi No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes
Multi No Yes No No No 0 No No No No No
Multi Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No Yes
Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes
Multi No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes
As a company we have numerous
signage that our corporate office puts out
that we are unable to use due to the
current rules. And with the location of our
business it would really be a benefit to be
able to use this signage.
Multi No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes
No No No No No No No No No No
Multi No No No No No 0 No No No No Yes
Only temp signage I have used is
occasional banners on my porch. I guess
I am not sure if this is ok or not, 5 or so
years ago I was told by city design group
of some sort that they did not like my
current sign and if I desired to make any
modifications I would have to start
completely over, businesses need
flexibility with creative signage but
hopefully good taste is kept.
Multi Yes Yes Yes No yes 15 No No Yes No No
4
Exhibit 5D
Multi
Use?
Use
Temp
Signs
Window
Signs
Elec Msg
Bd
Chg
Copy Bd Sand Bd # days
Temp
Mo?
Temp
Seas?
Temp Sp
Events?
Sand
25/75?
Comm.
Sign NOTES
Multi Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Multi Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes
Multi No No No No No No No No Yes Yes
Yes No Yes Yes No 40 No Yes Yes No Yes
Multi Yes Yes No Yes yes 365 Yes No Yes No Yes #11 depends on what nominal really is!
Yes Yes Yes No No 45 No No No No Yes
Why would a multi tenant need signage?
If single units can't then neither should
they. They need to follow the sign
ordinance or it needs to be changed for
everyone equally.
Yes No No No No 14 No No Yes No No
5
Exhibit 5E
City Allowed By Number per Location Calendar Days Permit Required Multi-Tenant Allowance
Buffalo By Building 1 30 YES NO
Becker By Business No Regulation 60 YES NO
Big Lake By Parcel 1 60 YES NO
Elk River By Parcel 1 90 YES NO
St. Michael By Business 1 - 100 feet apart 90 YES NO
Neighboring Community Survey - Temporary Sign Regulations
ORDINANCE NO. 525
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.5 – SIGNS OF THE MONTICELLO
CITY CODE, KNOWN AS TITLE 10 - ZONING ORDINANCE, TO CLARIFY
WORDING RELATED TO TEMPORARY SIGN REGULATIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 4.5 (C) of Title 10 - Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows:
4.5 (C) Permit Not Required
(2) Permanent sSigns two (2) square feet or less in size.
Section 2. Section 4.5 (D) of Title 10 – Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to add the
following item:
4.5 (D) Prohibited Signs
(10) Abandoned Signs.
Section 3. Section 4.5 (I) of Title 10 – Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows:
4.5 (I) Temporary Signs
(3) Subject to other provisions of Section 4.5(I), 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 to be utilized within
six (6) months of the first day of the business opening to the public.
Such signage shall not be limited by the provisions of Sections
4.5(I)(2).
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage
and publication. Revisions will be made online after adoption by Council.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 14th day of March, 2011.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
____________________________
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator
Planning Commission Agenda: 03/01/11
1
6. Consideration of amendment options related to Chapter 5.3 of the Monticello Zoning
Code relating to Adult Uses. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Previously, the Planning Commission reviewed a summary of issues related to the regulation
of adult entertainment uses in the City which was focused on an update to the City’s
“opportunity area”. The City originally adopted regulations in the 1990s based on a series of
studies that suggested:
(1) that a dispersal of such uses would be the best method to avoid negative impacts on
the community overall, and
(2) that the creation of a buffer zone would be important between such uses and land uses
that might be sensitive to the negative secondary effects of adult entertainment (such
as parks, residential areas, schools, etc.).
Upon the Planning Commission’s request for additional information in February, the City
Council enacted a moratorium on such establishments until a more complete study can be
made of the issues.
The focus of the current study was intended to re-analyze the City’s “opportunity area” for
adult entertainment due to the significant increases in land area, population, and
commercial/industrial zoning, as well as changes to the land use planning and zoning that
have taken place since the adoption of the original ordinance.
Because much of the City’s industrial zoning is occupied by the Xcel Energy power plant
(making that land area inappropriate for commercial use), and because the City’s original
industrial park area (Oakwood) has seen the seen the construction of schools both adjacent to
and within the district, the amount of opportunity area anticipated by the original study has
shrunk significantly.
Staff’s focus and analysis over the past few months has been to examine what changes to the
eligible zoning districts and buffer zones would be necessary to re-establish an opportunity
area that approximates the “reasonable opportunity” required by the Court decisions that
validated this type of regulation. As noted in the staff analysis provided in February, the
general threshold has been presumed to be an area of about 5% of the City’s total size. As
pointed out in the previous report, the 5% “threshold” is just an approximation of “reasonable
opportunity”, and that Courts examine this opportunity on a case by case basis.
The Planning Commission asked staff to reopen this analysis in an attempt to determine
whether some lower percentage would provide adequate opportunity to meet a legal
challenge, while permitting greater protection for the community’s sensitive use areas. To
provide this information, the City Attorney’s office was directed to study more recent Court
opinions in an effort to uncover any trends or newer approaches. A memo from the City
Attorney’s office is attached to this report.
Planning Commission Agenda: 03/01/11
2
In her general comments, the City Attorney reiterates that while the 5% threshold is not a
“bright-line” standard, challenged ordinances that equaled or exceeded that percentage have
been uniformly upheld. She also notes that a number of ordinances with opportunity areas
below 5% have been upheld, particularly when community was able to argue other factors in
favor of the “reasonable opportunity” standard. Finally, the City Attorney notes that once
ordinances have fallen below the 1% opportunity area level, communities have had difficulty
supporting their regulations against challenges.
Based on the Attorney’s analysis, it seems relatively safe to assume that an ordinance that
makes available more than 5% of its total land area for the potential for adult uses is likely to
be upheld, whereas an ordinance that makes available less than 1% of its land area is at
extreme risk of being thrown out.
Between those two marks, the City would need to meet a relatively murky definition of
reasonable opportunity based on a Court’s examination of these other factors. The choice
would be a balancing of the perceived strength of those factors and the City’s tolerance for
risk in this area of land use regulation.
To defend an ordinance that falls below the 5% threshold, the City Attorney identifies a
number of factors that have been used. The Attorney’s emphasis is on the “case-by-case”
aspect of these situations, and various courts have used a wide variety of factual situations to
analyze whether a particular community has met its burden of “reasonableness”.
As noted above, the City Attorney states that there is no bright line test, and this is particularly
true when using these alternative factors to support the City’s choice. Nonetheless, she notes
that ordinances that fall below the 5% threshold, in combination with other factors, have been
successfully defended. Staff’s approach to date has been to encourage a “safer” set of
regulations (closer to the 5% threshold); safer in the context that the City has utilized these
types of regulations for some time, and that Court decisions have upheld ordinances in the
category without resort to more extensive analysis.
In the comments below, we have provided a brief summary of the factors highlighted by the
cases and how they might apply to Monticello.
Percentage of Commercial/Industrial Area. This factor was used in some cases to show that
while the overall city percentage was below 5%, the City had provided a reasonable
percentage of its commercial or industrial land. Some of these cases relied on the fact that the
City had a smaller percentage of commercial or industrial land anyway, and that it was not
unreasonable to thus have a corresponding smaller percentage of adult use area when
compared to the City overall.
In a few examples, the city was not permitted to count industrial land that was occupied by
uses that made an adult use establishment impossible (such as an airport or a large
manufacturing plant). Thus, under that reasoning, the city needs to be sure that land being
counted is truly available or adaptable to this use.
Planning Commission Agenda: 03/01/11
3
Number of Available Parcels. A few of the cases relied on an ordinance defense that
identified the number of available parcels for adult uses. A specific example upheld included
a case with 20 parcels in a “relatively small town”. Other cases had ordinances struck down
with just 10-12 parcels, but in much larger communities than Monticello.
In summary, with these factors, the City Attorney suggests that the City may be able to create
a limitation that provides for less than the commonly used 5% threshold if these other factors
can be used to convince a Court that the City has still met the “reasonable opportunity”
requirement. Because there is no certain standard, the City risks having its ordinance struck
down and rendered invalid if a successful challenge finds that the ordinance does not make a
reasonable area available for adult uses.
Additional analysis of Monticello’s commercial and industrial areas and number of available
parcels will be available for Planning Commission consideration at the meeting.
Other City Thresholds. At Planning Commission’s request, staff contacted a number of
nearby cities to find what standards for adult use regulations are being used in those
communities. Although this is not relevant to how a Court might view Monticello’s
regulations, it was considered to be valuable information for context as Monticello considers
its own ordinance. Information on surrounding communities will be provided in summary
format with Tuesday’s presentation.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
With further discussion and direction to be provided by the Planning Commission, staff will
work toward the development of a draft ordinance in anticipation of the April Planning
Commission meeting. Planning Commission should call for a public hearing on April 5th,
2011 for the purpose of reviewing amendments to the adult-oriented land use components of
the zoning code.
1. Motion to call for a public hearing to consider an amendment to Title 10, Monticello
Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5 as related to Adult-Oriented Land Uses.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation at this time.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. City Attorney’s Memorandum, dated February 23, 2011
B. Interim Ordinance 524 - AN INTERIM ORDINANCE TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING
ADULT-ORIENTED LAND USES ON CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO
C. Staff report, February 1st, 2010
D. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Chapter 5 and Chapter 8: Adult Use Regulations
E. Official Zoning Map
F. Aerial Map
156187v1 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Angela Schumann
CC: Steve Grittman
FROM: Andrea McDowell Poehler
DATE: Wednesday, February 23, 2011
RE: Monticello – Adult Businesses and Zoning
Staff has asked this firm to review whether recent case law has addressed the issue of City
zoning ordinances limiting the areas in which adult businesses can lawfully operate.
Unfortunately there is no “bright line” test or clear answer to this question. A review of recent
cases is important to gather general information on how courts are analyzing the zoning question.
I. General Rule
The United States Supreme Court in the City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc. case in 1986
stated that the standard for determining what the proper zoning is for adult businesses is whether
an ordinance allows for reasonable alternative avenues of communication. In applying this
standard, the Supreme Court determined that, under the specific facts of the City of Renton, the
ordinance provided reasonable alternative avenues of communication where “five percent of the
entire land area” of the city was available for adult theater sites. Although cities have used the
5% figure from the Renton case as a benchmark, neither the United States Supreme Court, nor
the Constitution mandates communities make a minimum of 5% percentage of land available for
the operation of adult businesses or any specific percentage at all.
Thus, it is important for cities to review case law to understand the factors that a court may
consider when determining when reasonable alternative avenues of communication are made
available under an ordinance. Most cases look beyond a mere percentage to other factors, such
as the suitability of the areas purported to be available for commercial development, to determine
whether a reasonable alternative channel for adult communication exists in the community.
II. Total Land Available to Adult Uses Exceeds 5 percent.
A. Ordinance Found Constitutional.
Most of the authority since Renton has addressed factual scenarios where more than five
percent of the city’s land is available for adult uses. Where more than five percent is available for
adult uses courts have seemed generally willing to find the sexually oriented business ordinance
constitutional.
156187v1 2
In the 1991 case of Alexander v. Minneapolis, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld
a zoning ordinance limiting adult uses to 6.6% of commercial land.
In 2006, the Minnesota Court of Appeals similarly addressed the percentage of land
available for adult-use businesses under a county zoning ordinance in County of Morrison v.
Wheeler, and found the ordinance constitutional. The adult-use business owners argued only five
percent of the total land in the county was available for adult uses. The county responded by
arguing 64 percent of all commercial property in the county was available for adult-use
businesses. Id. In finding the area to represent a constitutional alternative source for operating of
an adult use business, the court stated “[t]he law requires at least some chance of an alternative
source; it does not require that it be immediately available and cheap.”
Quite a bit of the case law addresses zoning ordinances where more than five percent of a
city’s land area is available for an adult business. See e.g., D.H.L., 6 F. Supp. at 78-79 (finding
10.4 percent reasonable where additional factors indicated an adult business had a reasonable
opportunity to operate); Alexander v. Minneapolis, 928 F.2d 278, 284 (8th Cir. 1991) (finding
6.6 percent reasonable); Buzzetti v. City of New York, 140 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1997) (finding 11
percent reasonable); Specialty Malls v. City of Tampa, 916 F. Supp. 1222, 1231 (M.D. Fla. 1996)
(finding 7.5 percent adequate because the ordinance “not only [met], but exceed[ed] the First
Amendment protection required by Renton); Centerfold Club, Inc. v. St. Petersburg, 969 F.
Supp. 1288, 1303 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (finding 6.3 percent adequate).
II. Total Land Available to Adult Uses is Less Than 5 percent.
A. Upheld as Constitutional
Some courts have upheld ordinances that had the practical effect of allowing adult uses
on less than five percent of total land or of land zoned for businesses use.
In Schneider v. Ramsey, the District Court for the District of Minnesota found an
ordinance provided reasonable alternative channels for communication where 2.5 percent of the
total land in the rural community was available for adult uses. Approximately 88 percent of the
city was zoned for residential use, meaning that approximately 35 percent of the land zoned for
commercial use and 9.7 percent of the general urban area was available for adult uses.
In City of Crystal v. Fantasy House, Inc., the Minnesota Court of Appeals evaluated a
permanent zoning ordinance allowing for adult use businesses in “.9 [percent] of the land in [the
city] and 15 [percent] of the city’s industrial and commercial zones.” In overruling the district
court’s finding that the available land for adult uses was insufficient, the Court of Appeals noted
“the limited area available [for adult uses] in [the city] is a result of the city’s overwhelmingly
residential character and conservative planning practices.” Specifically, only six percent of
the entire city was zoned for commercial or industrial uses. The city’s conservative planning
practices meant that “any difficulty that [the business] has in locating in [the city] stems from
difficulties faced by all prospective real estate purchasers [and that] the permanent ordinance
provides reasonable alternative avenues of communication and is constitutional.”
156187v1 3
Following the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Renton, courts across the United
States have found that ordinances restricting adult use to less than five percent of the area
covered by the ordinance are reasonable and pass constitutional muster. See e.g., Casanova
Entm’t Group, Inc. v. City of New Rochelle, 165 Fed. Appx. 72, 73-74 (2d Cir. 2006) (upholding
an ordinance that had the effect of limiting adult uses to 2.77 percent of the city); Z.J. Gifts D-4,
L.L.C. v. City of Littleton, 311 F.3d 1220, 1240 (10th Cir. 2002), vacated on other grounds by
124 S. Ct. 2219, 541 U.S. 774 (holding availability of approximately one percent of city land
was sufficient where over 20 sites were available for adult businesses and given the small
population of the city and that only one adult business was located in the city)1; North Ave.
Novelties, 88 F.3d at 445 (holding the plaintiff business’s reliance on the fact that less than one
to three percent of land within the city’s limits was available was insuffici ent to find alternative
locations were unavailable); Lakeland Lounge v. City of Jackson, Michigan, 973 F.2d 1255 (5th
Cir. 1992) (holding availability of 1.2 percent of the city was sufficient); Allno Enters. v.
Baltimore County, 10 Fed. Appx. 197 (4th Cir. 1991) (upholding zoning ordinance leaving .16
percent of total acres in county available); M.J. Entm’t Enters. v. City of Mt. Vernon, 328 F.
Supp. 2d 480 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (granting summary judgment in favor of defendant city where .67
percent of city was available for adult uses); S & G News, Inc. v. City of Southgate, 638 F. Supp.
1060 (E.D. Mich. 1986) (holding 2.3 percent of the county’s land area was sufficient);
Stringfellow’s of New York v. City of New York, 91 N.Y.2d 382, 403, 694 N.E.2d 407, 419
(1998) (holding 4 percent of total land zoned for business in a city was sufficient).
In Casanova Entertainment Group v. City of New Rochelle, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of a topless dancing nightclub’s request for a
preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of local ordinances barring topless dancing at its
current location. In holding the appellant nightclub did not show a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits, the court noted that while only 0.04 percent of the city’s total land area
was available for adult-entertainment businesses, the “statistic [could] not be viewed in isolation
[because the city was] a highly developed residential suburb with less than 5 [percent] of its
total land area available for any commercial use. Six lots, representing 2.77 percent of land
zoned for “[l]ight [i]ndustrial development,” however, were available for adult-entertainment
purposes. In holding that the nightclub was unlikely to succeed on the merits, the court impliedly
held 2.77 percent is a sufficient alternative area where zoning ordinances restrict adult uses.
In Stringfellow’s of New York v. City of New York, 91 N.Y.2d 382, 403, 694 N.E.2d 407,
419 (1998), New York’s highest state court found a zoning ordinance limiting adult
entertainment establishments in certain zoning districts was constitutionally permissible where
“about 4 [percent of the total commercial land was available] when reduced by land
encumbered by properties that are unlikely to be developed for commercial use.”
156187v1 4
B. Struck Down as Unconstitutional
Some of the case law addressing a zoning ordinance where less than five percent of a
city’s land area is available has held the ordinance unconstitutional. See e.g., Franklin Jefferson,
Ltd. v. City of Columbus, 244 F. Supp. 2d 83 (S.D. Ohio 2003) (finding ordinance with effect of
limiting adult uses to 0.047 percent of the city’s land and allowing 11 sites for adult use
violated the United States Constitution); International Eateries of Am., Inc. v. Broward County,
726 F. Supp. 1556, 1567 (S.C. Fla. 1987) (finding 0.03 percent of the county’s land available
to be inadequate). These examples, however, seem particularly extreme in that the cities
attempted to limit adult uses to the extent that less than one half of one percent was available
(0.047 percent and 0.03 percent).
In 1990 in the Brookpark News & Books v. Cleveland case, the Ohio Court of Appeals
found that a city’s zoning ordinance unconstitutional where only 3.6 acres of 48,384 acres, or
seven one-hundred-thousandths of one percent (.00007 percent) of acres, in the city were
available for adult uses. The court held that “[t]his percentage of available adult usage in a city
the size of Cleveland on its face is unduly restrictive and significantly curtails freedom of
expression and access to protected speech.”
In 2002, the Federal District Court for the Western District of Michigan noted in Exec.
Arts Studio, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, that it was generally wary of finding an ordinance
limiting adult uses to less than one percent of the city’s acreage or to fewer than a dozen sites
constitutional. The court concluded by finding a zoning ordinance limiting adult uses to less than
one-half of one percent of the city’s commercial property unconstitutional.
In 2006, the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota weighed in the question
of adult uses in Northshor Experience, Inc. v. City of Duluth, Minn. On the city’s motion for
summary judgment, the court concluded that an ordinance making 4.34% of the city available
for adult uses was not per se reasonable or constitutional because it did not provide a reasonable
alternative avenue for communication. The court evaluated photographs provided by the
plaintiff adult business and found the “available land” was occupied by the airport or
“heavily industrial, either lacking infrastructure and inaccessible or occupied by an
existing heavy industrial use, such as a manufacturing plant or mineral piles.” As such, the
court stated that its evaluation of the reasonableness of available alternative locations and the
constitutionality of allowing adult uses in 4.24% of the city had to come further in the litigation.
Ultimately, this authority cannot be taken to mean that ordinances restricting adult uses to
less than five percent of a city’s land are per se unreasonable. Instead, the authority is better
taken to mean that there is no bright line separating reasonableness from unreasonableness and
additional factors necessarily inform a finding of reasonableness.
156187v1 5
III. No Bright Line Test.
Some Courts have been reticent to find that five percent represents a generally-applicable
guidepost. As such, the courts have found that additional inquiry into a particular zoning
ordinance and its affect on availability is necessary.
In PAO Xiong v. City of Moorhead, Minn. the District Court for the District of Minnesota
held in 2009 that it was unable to determine whether an available area of 6.25% of the City’s
total land area and 29% of the city’s commercial and industrial areas was sufficient to
constitute a reasonable alternative avenue for communication. On the city’s motion for summary
judgment, the court found it had insufficient information because the parties disputed whether
the sites were platted and accessible by road, the character of the areas had not been
established, and the court could not determine whether the space available was sufficient to leave
the “quantity and accessibility of speech substantially intact.”
The plaintiff business owner in North Ave. Novelties v. City of Chicago relied on expert
testimony to find that less than one percent of the land within the city limits was available for
adult use. In relying on Renton and other adult use zoning cases, the plaintiff business owner
argued the city’s availability represented a smaller acreage than other approved areas. The city’s
expert alternatively testified that between one and three percent of the city was available for
adult uses. In rejecting the plaintiff business owner’s comparisons to other cases, the court held
“that the amount of acreage, standing alone, is largely irrelevant.” The court noted that the
constitutional requirement of a reasonable opportunity to do business “can, and most likely does,
result in vastly different acreage percentages [between regions].” These differences, however, “in
no way imply that the regions with lower percentages are acting unconstitutionally.”
In M.J. Entertainment Enterprises v. City of Mt. Vernon, the District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to the defendant city where a zoning
ordinance made only .67 percent of a city available for adult uses. The court noted that the
constitution does not mandate a minimum percentage of land be made available for certain
types of speech and that the constitution only requires a location provide “a reasonable
opportunity to disseminate the speech at issue.” The district court judge then noted that at the
time alternative avenues of communication were only found constitutionally insufficient in one
of two circumstances. First, where there were no sites available. Alternatively, the judge wrote
that alternatives are found insufficient where the zoning scheme requires an existing adult
business to relocate to a particular area, prohibits an adult business’s establishment within 1,000
feet of a school or religious institution, and the ordinance is specifically enacted to create a
buffer between the existing business and a school.
IV. Factors Considered in Determining Reasonable Alternative Avenues of
Communication are Available.
Some courts have looked to a variety of factors in determining whether reasonable
alternative avenues of communication have been made available.
156187v1 6
A. Number of Sites Available
As an alternative to evaluating the percentage of land area available for adult businesses,
some courts have found that the question of constitutionally reasonable alternative locations can
be answered by the number of locations available that could accommodate additional
locations. See e.g., Diamond v. City of Taft, 215 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding where seven
sites were available, and three of those sites could house adult uses simultaneously, based on
the commercial real estate market in the city, the three sites created a constitutionally acceptable
alternative); R.V.S., LLC v. City of Rockford, 266 F. Supp. 2d 798 (N.D. Ill. 2003), rev’d on other
grounds by 361 F.3d 402 (7th Cir. 2004) (holding 11 or 12 sites were available which provided
a reasonable opportunity to disseminate the adult speech in this particular community); 3570
East Foothill Blvd., Inc. v. Pasadena, 912 F. Supp. 1257, 1265 (C.D. Cal. 1995), aff’d, 99 F.3d
1147 (holding an ordinance allowing for the opening of eleven additional adult businesses
was a reasonable opportunity where only one adult business currently existed).
Conversely, however, this parcel availability approach may indicate that a zoning
ordinance unconstitutionally limits the ability of a sexually oriented business to operate. See e.g.,
Janra Enters. v. Reno, 818 F. Supp. 1361, 1364 (D. Nev. 1993) (finding three parcels
insufficient).
B. Whether Proposed Sites are Physically and Legally Available
As in PAO Xiong, the Federal Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in TJS of N.Y. v. Town
of Smithtown evaluated in 2010 “whether proposed sites are physically and legally available, and
whether they are part of an actual commercial real estate market in the municipality.” Noting that
“[s]everal factual considerations underlie the question of whether sites are part of an actual real
estate market[,]” the court evaluated the likelihood of the sites becoming available, the
physical characteristics of the sites such as accessibility to the public, infrastructure, and
suitability to “some generic commercial enterprise.” Where these criteria are met, the sites
“can qualify as available, even if they are in industrial or manufacturing zones.” Requiring
the proposed adult business to develop the site does not render the site unsuitable; however,
“[w]here the physical features of a site or the manner in which it has been developed are totally
incompatible with any average commercial business” or there is a dearth of basic infrastructure
critical to private development.
It is important to note, that the failure of a particular site to meet the sizing, pricing, or
logistical needs of an adult business is irrelevant in determining the overall geographic
availability for adult uses. See e.g., TJS, 598 F.3d at 31-32 (citing Renton, 475 U.S. at 54;
Topanga Press, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 989 F.2d 1524, 1532 (9th Cir. 1993)) (stating
availability of a particular site is not limited by the site’s best suitability to a “big box”
enterprise); Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C., 311 F.3d at 1240 (holding only industrial, warehouse, office,
and shopping centers were not part of relevant commercial real estate market); Isbell v. City of
San Diego, 258 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2001) (rejecting argument that relevant alternative real
estate market must exclude parcels occupied by businesses like car dealership because potential
profits, overhead costs, and infeasibility of use were not appropriate factors in evaluating the
availability of alternative channels); Allno Enters., 10 Fed. Appx. 197 (4th Cir. 1991) (holding
156187v1 7
the unsupported assertion of an adult business operator that the owners of land would lease only
to industrial operations were not an appropriate consideration in determining overall
availability).
CONCLUSION
The authority from Minnesota case law and case law outside of Minnesota indicates that
multiple factors need to be taken into consideration in addition to a mere percentage of
availability. Courts review the specific facts of a particular city to determine whether alternative
avenues of communication have been made available to adult businesses, such as the percentage
of total land area devoted to commercial/industrial and whether a reasonable portion of the
commercial/industrial land available, whether a reasonable number of sites have been made
available, and whether sites are physically and legally available. As is evident in the court cases
noted above, there is no clear bright line test regarding what is “reasonable.” Courts have the
hardest time finding ordinances allowing adult uses on less than one percent of land
constitutional. Clearly, the “safest” area for a zoning ordinance, however, appears to be above
the five percent of total land area available as approved in Renton. Below the five percent, courts
seem to approve ordinances allowing adult uses on more than two to 2.5 percent of the land more
often than not, but courts will make a detailed analysis of the factors noted above.
Planning Commission Agenda: 02/01/11
1
6. Consideration of amendment options related to Chapter 5.3 of the Monticello Zoning Code
relating to Adult Uses. (NAC)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Attached to this report is a memorandum examining the impacts of the City’s growth over
time, combined with updates to its zoning ordinance as they relate to the regulation of adult
oriented uses. In summary, these changes have raised the need to adjust zoning allowances
and buffer distances to ensure that the ordinance continues to meet legal standards in this area.
Since it has been some time since the City conducted this type of analysis, staff has provided
a brief “Question and Answer” format for City official review. The regulation of adult uses is
often misunderstood, and due to first amendment issues, requires special attention.
QUESTION & ANSWER: ADULT USE ORDINANCE
Q.1. Why does the City have an ordinance that allows these uses?
A.1. In a long series of legal cases, entertainment and arts-related activities have come under
the protection of the “Free Speech” clause of the first amendment – perhaps more
descriptively thought of as “Free Expression”. As a form of expression with First
Amendment protection, the City has limited ability to regulate adult-oriented uses.
Q.2. Doesn’t creating an ordinance allowing adult uses encourage their location in the
community?
A.2. Probably not. Purveyors of adult entertainment base their location decisions like any
other business. These types of uses are allowed by nature of their first amendment protection
– not having regulations would diminish the City’s ability to manage where they go in the
community.
Q.3. Why don’t we create an ordinance that prohibits these uses?
A.3. The courts have made it clear that such ordinances are unconstitutional as an illegal
constraint on expression. If a City is found to have such an ordinance under a legal challenge,
a court would throw out the City’s code, and the adult use would have free rein to locate
where they wish, without the City’s ability to manage the impacts of the use.
Q.4. Can we create an ordinance that includes these uses as potentially allowed, but limits
their location in such a way that effectively zones them out of the City?
A.4. No. This would be called a “pretextual” ban – the City may regulate certain aspects of
these uses, but may NOT have an ordinance that effectively bans them under the guise of
“regulation”. A court would treat this type of ordinance the same as an outright prohibition.
Q.5. Well then, what kinds of regulations can we adopt?
Planning Commission Agenda: 02/01/11
2
A.5. In the area of speech regulation, the City typically has the ability create what are
commonly called “time, place, and manner” regulations. As a general rule, the City may not
discriminate by the content of the speech, nor may it discriminate by the identity of the
speaker. However, the City can place non-discriminatory restrictions based on location, or on
the style of delivery of a message, or on the duration or timing of a message in the protection
of public health, safety, and welfare. In addition, the City may prohibit “obscene” speech.
Thus, an adult use establishment which is otherwise properly located may be prohibited from
displaying messages that are judged to be obscene.
Q.6. What do you mean by “properly located”?
A.6. A number of US Supreme Court cases have addressed this issue. The most relevant is
City of Renton, WA v. Playtime Theatres, a case that arose in Renton, Washington over a
challenge to the City’s ordinance regulating the location of adult theatres. In Renton, the
Court majority established that the City’s regulations were not regulating the content of the
speech, but rather, regulating the “secondary effects” of that speech which might be imposed
on the public, especially populations judged to be sensitive to these effects. Renton’s
ordinance, and the court opinion validating it, established a number of standards for the
regulation of adult-oriented uses. Cities were granted the ability to regulate the location of
these establishments to mitigate the potential secondary effects of such uses.
Q.7. What kinds of regulations can the City adopt?
A.7. Essentially, the City can create restrictions by zoning district that limit the ability of the
establishments, or the patrons of the establishments, to have an impact on defined sensitive
populations. These usually take the form of defining the uses, specifying which zoning
district such uses can be located in, and then creating a buffer zone from sensitive land uses
that the City wishes to protect from the secondary effects of the establishment. It is critical to
note, however, that the zones and the buffers need to be placed in such a way that adult use
have a “reasonable” opportunity to locate in the community (see the comment on “pretextual”
prohibitions above).
Q.8. How much “opportunity” does our ordinance have to provide to avoid being
considered a “pretextual” prohibition? One lot? An entire shopping center?
A.8. Unfortunately, this is where the requirements are a little murky. The court’s standard in
Renton was a “reasonable” opportunity, a preciously minimal guide. In Renton, Washington,
evidence was introduced that the ordinance regulating adult uses created an opportunity area
of 5% of the City. The courts found this area to be meet its’ standard of reasonableness. In
the years since, many communities have confused the 5% threshold as some sort of silver
bullet standard. It is not. However, it is the only real guidance we have, so we think of it as a
good target to show evidence of reasonableness. Coming to far short of that threshold should
raise some questions about the effect of the ordinance in illegally regulating expression.
Q.9. What are these sensitive uses we can protect?
Planning Commission Agenda: 02/01/11
3
A.9. Monticello’s ordinance is typical, listing the following:
Residentially zoned property.
Agricultural land located in the neighboring township or in the City that is
guided for residential use.
A licensed daycare center.
A public or private educational facility (elementary, middle, junior high or senior
high school).
A public library.
A church.
Amusement places such as roller rinks, dance hall and bowling alleys.
Liquor sales (establishments)
Q.10. How much buffer can we leave from these uses?
A.10. Monticello’s current ordinance provides a 700 foot buffer. Others rely only on the
zoning district boundaries, and several ordinances use 100 feet or some increment as their
buffer zone. The balancing act is to provide some separation, while continuing to provide a
reasonable opportunity area.
Q.11. What if all of the land we provide is taken up by buildings and current uses?
A.11. The courts have been clear that it is not the City’s responsibility to play realtor for the
adult use establishment – they must fend for themselves in the real estate market and if all
properly zoned and located parcels are full, that’s the market working, not the ordinance, just
as it would be for any other business looking to locate in a particular zoning district.
Q.12. What do we need to do?
A.12. The attached memorandum provides an outline of the City’s zoning districts, and a
summary of the eligible area under the current regulations. Because staff, including the City
Attorney, believe that the Xcel Energy property is not likely to be considered “eligible” due to
Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements, not to mention its proximity to large areas of
parkland, the remaining I-2 zoned land provides less than 3 percent opportunity area, and just
over 1 percent when the current 700 foot buffer is applied. The challenge will be to find some
combination of buffer distance and increase in the area of properly zoned parcels to get to
“reasonable” – in general, something closer to 5%.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1: No decision is requested at this time. The purpose of this report is to permit
discussion of the options at the Planning Commission level, in preparation for ordinance
amendments to be considered at a future public hearing.
Planning Commission Agenda: 02/01/11
4
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation is offered at this time. This reference information is being presented to
the Planning Commission for discussion purposes and to generate a Commission-directed
course of action for future amendment, which staff will be prepared to bring forward in
March.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
1. Background Memorandum
2. Preliminary maps
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Grittman
FROM: Bob Kirmis
DATE: January 26, 2011
RE: Monticello - Adult Use Opportunity Area Analysis
NAC FILE: 191.07 - 10.20
At your request, I have conducted a review of the City’s adult use requirements in
specific regard to provided opportunity area. In this regard, the following comments are
offered:
Purpose. As noted in the Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of the City’s adult use
regulations is to provide for the establishment and operation of adult uses within the City
while providing controls which limit negative impacts upon residential and commercial
areas.
Legal Requirements. As a general rule, the City seeks to meet a threshold of
approximately five percent of its land as area potentially available for adult
entertainment uses. While this threshold is not an explicit legal requirement, it was a
level upheld by the United States Supreme Court in a Renton, Washington case that
established a right to regulate adult uses. In Renton, the City had adopted an ordinance
that created a dispersal requirement for adult entertainment uses, based on a finding
that such land uses had the potential to create negative “secondary” effects.
In most zoning theory, the City regulates the “primary” effects of land uses – noise,
traffic, light, odors, building mass, etc. However, entertainment is a form of expression
protected by First Amendment free speech principles. As such, the City may not create
a zoning regulation that prohibits, or has the effect of prohibiting, this form of
expression. In the Renton decision, the Supreme Court upheld the City’s restrictions on
adult entertainment uses since they regulated the “secondary effects” of the land use,
such as the potential for corruption of minors, but still made provision for such uses to
locate within the City. Renton’s ordinance provided an area of about five percent of the
City’s land area for these uses, and as such, five percent has become the common
2
numerical target for many of these types of regulations. It should be noted that the
Court’s standard is “a reasonable amount”, and they found five percent in Renton to
meet that “reasonableness” standard.
It is important to note that the City is not required to ensure that any of the land is
actually available for which a potential adult-oriented establishment would be eligible. It
has been said that the City is “not required to play real estate agent” for such uses.
Thus, if all eligible land is occupied and/or not for sale, that is the problem for the
prospective business operator, not the city. As a result, the analysis is basely simply on
a raw land area calculation, and any study of actually available real estate is
unnecessary.
When these ordinances are being considered or reviewed, a concern is often raised that
the City is somehow encouraging adult entertainment uses to locate within the
community. However, based on free speech jurisprudence, there is a presumption that
such uses are allowed. As such, the City’s regulation is an attempt to restrict where
those uses could go and protect sensitive land uses or individuals from their impacts.
Existing Regulations
District Allowance. Presently, principal adult uses are only allowed within the City’s I-2,
Heavy Industrial Districts.
There are five areas of the City which hold I-2 zoning designations as described below.
The largest is the Xcel Energy power plant site located on the extreme west end of the
City between Interstate 94 and the Mississippi River. The site overlays 549 acres of
land. While the site is considered eligible for a principal adult use from a zoning
standpoint, the land cannot be considered potentially available from a practical
standpoint. Thus, the site shall not be considered “developable” for the purposes of this
analysis.
The second area is located south of Chelsea Road East and east of County Road 117.
This area is characterized by typical industrial uses upon lots averaging approximately
five acres in size. The area is bordered by light industrial uses on the north and east, by
commercial uses on the west and by residential uses on the south. The area consists
of approximately 111 acres of land.
The third area is a single a single lot located south of Chelsea Road West and west of
Dalton Avenue. The lot is currently occupied by Apple Valley Ready Mix and measures
14.7 acres in size.
Finally, a triangular-shaped lot (having an I-2 zoning designation) is located east of
Riverview Drive between Interstate 94 and the BN rail line. The lot measures 1.7 acres
in size.
3
Not including the power plant site, 127.6 acres of I -2-zoned land exists in the City. This
equates to 2.6 percent of the City’s total “developable” acreage.
Opportunity Area. The City of Monticello covers 5,774 gross acres of land. However,
not all of this is considered “developable”. To provide a realistic representation of actual
“developable” land for principal adult uses, the following have been subtracted from the
referenced total land area of the City:
Xcel Energy power plant site (549 acres)
Federal, State and County roads (240 acres)
Subtracting the aforementioned property leaves 4,985 acres of “developable” land
within the City.
Of this “developable” total, approximately 128 acres are zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial (not
including the power plant site). This equates to 2.6 percent of the City’s total
developable land area.
To mitigate possible adverse impacts upon sensitive uses, the Zoning Ordinance states
that principal adult uses may not be located within 700 feet of the following:
Residentially zoned property.
Agricultural land located in the neighboring township or in the City that is
guided for residential use.
A licensed daycare center.
A public or private educational facility (elementary, middle, junior high or
senior high school).
A public library.
A church.
Amusement places such as roller rinks, dance hall and bowling alleys.
Liquor sales (establishments)
When the 700 foot separation requirement (from sensitive uses) is applied to the
eligible1-2 areas within the City, the opportunity area is reduced from 128 acres to 58
acres. On a percentage basis, this reduces the opportunity area from 2.6 percent (of
the City’s total “developable” acreage) to just 1.2 percent. Thus, the City’s present
opportunity area is significantly less than that suggested by the courts.
Alternative Regulations. To address the noted opportunity area deficit, the following
alternative regulations may be considered:
A. Reduction of Separation Distance Requirement (in I-2 Districts). One alternative
may be to reduce the 700 foot separation requirement applied to I-2 zoning
4
districts. As previously noted, the City’s present opportunity area totals 1.2
percent of the City’s developable area.
The following is a summary of varied separation distances upon eligible I-2-
zoned areas of the City:
BUFFER DISTANCE ACRES PERCENT OF TOTAL
700 feet 57.7 1.2
500 feet 81.1 1.6
300 feet 99.1 2.0
100 feet 119.6 2.4
B. Allowance of Use within I-1 Districts and I-2 Districts. A second alternative is to
make a further allowance for principal adult uses in the City’s I-1, Light Industrial
Districts. Presently 251 acres of I-1-zoned property exist within the City
There are two areas of the City in which hold I-1 zoning designations, each
consuming approximately half of the total I-1-zoned property in the City.
One area is located south of Interstate 94 and east of County Road 117 and
borders the industrial park.
A second area is located on the west end of the City south of Chelsea Road
West, east and west of Dalton Avenue.
If a 700 foot separation distance (from sensitive uses) were to be similarly
applied to the City’s I-1 Districts, an additional 173.7 acres would be available for
principal adult uses. This would increase the total opportunity area from 57.7
acres and 1.2 percent to 231.4 acres and 4.6 percent.
C. Rezoning of Parcels from I-1 to I-2. A third alternative is to rezone some I-1
parcels to I-2 thereby making such properties eligible for principal adult uses. In
review of the City’s zoning map and Land Use Plan, two alternatives have been
examined.
Option 1 - Fallon Avenue Area
In this option, the I-1 zoned parcels located south of Chelsea Road East and east
of Fallon Avenue have been considered for rezoning.
If such parcels were rezoned from I-1 to I-2, the following opportunity areas
would be provided according to separation distance requirement:
BUFFER DISTANCE ACRES PERCENT OF TOTAL
700 feet 71.5 1.4
5
500 feet 86.2 1.7
300 feet 117.5 2.4
100 feet 136.9 2.8
Option 2 - Fallon Avenue and Dalton Avenue Areas
Recognizing that the rezoning of the noted Fallon Avenue parcels (to I-2) would
fall significantly short of the 5 percent opportunity area threshold suggested by
the courts, additional I-1 properties which flank Dalton Avenue have also been
considered for rezoning (to I-2). Specifically, lands located approximately 700
feet south of Chelsea Road West have been considered .
If the Dalton Avenue parcels were also rezoned from I-1 to I-2 (in addition to the
referenced Fallon Avenue parcels), the following opportunity areas would be
provided according to separation distance requirement:
BUFFER DISTANCE ACRES PERCENT OF TOTAL
700 feet 129.3 2.6
500 feet 146.3 2.9
300 feet 177.6 3.7
100 feet 197.0 4.0
Conclusion
At 1.2 percent of the City’s total “developable acreage, the City’s existing adult use
opportunity area is clearly less than the 5 percent opportunity area suggested by the
courts.
There are a variety of options available to the City to address this opportunity area
deficit. The options examined as part of this analysis are as follows:
A. Reduce the separation distance requirement in I-2, Heavy Industrial
zoning districts.
B. Allow principal adult uses within both I-1 and I-2 zoning districts.
C. Rezone selected I-1, Light Industrial parcels to I-2, Heavy Industrial.
A reduction to 700 foot separation distance currently applied in I-2 Districts will not
approach the recommended 5 percent opportunity area. In this regard, it is important to
note that no separation distance at all would equate to an opportunity area of only 2.6
percent.
6
If the City were to allow principal adult uses in both I-1 and I-2 zoning districts with the
current 700 foot separation distance requirement, an opportunity area of 4.6 percent
would result. Lesser separation distances were not evaluated as the 5 percent
opportunity area would be achieved with the 700 foot requirement (lesser separation
distances would likely result in opportunity areas greater than 5 percent).
Rezoning selected I-1 parcels to I-2 would provide for greater opportunity areas, the
degree of which would be influenced by the applied separation distance requirement.
Summary
As can be seen on the “Target Opportunity Area Map”, we would need to get to about
198 acres to be at 4.0%, and 222 acres to be at 4.5%. The two main areas of I-2 and
I-1 shown on the map total 171.3 acres, leaving a deficit of 27-51 acres respectively,
with a 100 foot buffer. There are a total of 54.5 additional acres available by maximizing
the areas south of Chelsea on the west side, and including all lots without freeway
frontage on the east side. Obviously, increasing the buffer would change the calculus
by reducing the opportunity area throughout.
If you have any questions regarding this material, please advise.
33.1 Acres Milk
1.V. V V l NU ME
v�
Sim
Target opportunity area 4.5%:
4.0%:
City Industrial Park, 1-1 and 1-2 areas southwest of gas line easement:
Oakwood Industrial Park area, N/S of Chelsea, E/W of Fallon Ave.:
Subtotal
LN', 138.2 Acres
ON p
00 foot buffer
222.0 acres
198.0 acres
33.1 acres
138.2 acres
171.3 acres
Planning Commission Agenda: 03/01/11
1
7. 2010 Monticello Housing Report Presentation. (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Verbal presentation to be provided at the meeting.
•
E
L
W
W
i
0
•
•
•
se
U
O
U)
CL
E
O
AW
U)
O
U)
c
O
E
L-
0 O
C:
O
U
(1)
ry
73
4-
O
0
O
O
CL
4-a
0)
O
O
�ooE
U
cm
o
U�CS
coC�
73
4-
O
0
r
•
z
■ ■ O
O
U
Lii O Q)
o
�F-- cu
QL
L
cio V
1 T U
Z Zs
F- m Lo
•
cu
0
40
C
W.
!r;
CD
r
CD c
Iq N
j
•
i
0
I` m LO N 00 co
C) CD O � (3)
N N C'')
M r -
Cl)
.�
c 4-a
._ (3)
Cl).o U)
QL O
ca V .� �- v
N
O D cn LL
O
W a U O
�■ ; O
■ice �j O
Q:)
o Q (L,("), o O Q
O o o 0 0 LL o O�
4- E:4.-- to oz o T— >, 6 4-
Q o O .�+ NCD._ N O p 0 0
■■ ice, Q)LNU��
O M O O o
zs Zcm
°;� �j co � Z� L ->S
ca O
tt� Q) m o v C6co N CO C6 Q) O Z
OoOO o mo O O o Oo 0
O I— F— c� > lL z I— ZCO
1 • • I s
_ � " 1 I p , ♦ ��.�..� ....._ter � �
! • 4
CD
0 CD
U�� 1 r• A+d 1, I .. 9 1 I s
_ tN
"pA �� a I g 1 r. a. • '� ��"% ,fit iX a I i � 1 r �
N 4 1 1 C ilii 9•
o li• 1+1I1 •sIwN1+1 ,• a
h— i�iir�r� d� rr1,1 I e
I ,
r 1•a,A jr/i � �rLy' i��" I / 1 � '• ' / I Ii IMIe111!
"i ""� J !�II��i.�,`� �'r'•,'' X11,•; I/ I11 •..
1,1111.•,
,
• ` ,rI11+11�
}•fi.i 1 f
' � t' i ra 1'• , " 4• .x_..r t 9 ,a. .111 ,Y tr r•.
I I .I'f1 Jf
I ,'�f liter .'t•. f • ' r 1.} � I •','•, �!f f �I �WIII,
4 f �{ j �a•-r
' `' `"' � / ' ,,' �f �: l l � iii . r'�• _ ' • "
i� �I IiT.Ic
r � ,
LO 00 0')
'IT Nt d` O
Nt U
U) CT3
O 0
++ Q ..
_
o
.3 .w o. a
0
0 72 (/)o
.- .-
Wm O —
cu
a� a� LL a
_ E O — .Q O O
cz 4-0
70 4-0
O LL = U- 0. —'� O —
.—
O
0-3 �� O mmcN
c�
(" cnC ��
LL �d 0L
J� JV -
ca E
E N �� 4-�
Z O O O
70 Z E
C— L .m � O O
.— .—
C: 0 O
is cu
C F_
r �
N
' W
}
0-
0 O J
F- Q
z �—
w z
> w
z o
cn
0 w
J Z LU
IX
J Q z_
m JJ
a
J a. z
a� ��
V -
La
M
O
N
O
N
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
r
40
ti
Go
0 0 0 0 0 0
(D Lf) d' M N T-
(IN
C
0
C
c�
•> U
O 'C
s- 0) 0
> c C: > 0 -- a) Q
0 0 0
co
W
E
0-
0
0
�--' O
CD
0 N
U
NO
W
E
0-
0
0
�--' O
CD
0 N
•
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
0 0
0 0
LO o
N N
0 0 o a
0 0 0
LO o Ln
r
O
5
N
[-
I
Ll
0
N
a
N
•
•
•
U)
O
O x
T� O
O CDL
—
N
to O
4-0 -� U
4mi0 now -
O O
- — -+�
C: N m c0
r— U") co
O O
W
L
U
O
.C:
0
cn
U_
cu
C:
4)
m
Cn
U
O
c
U)
a)
O
0
O
N
4—
O
U)
CC5
O
CC5
U
C'C3
U
U
O
0
O
M
tu
$/� � ƒ
k E (
r CL
Ix 'o
CD
V
-4
•
ri7
000=%k
V
0
U.
1
U)
•
a o a
a _
M N N O
i
•
0
LO
O
M
�
O
O
, >
O
.0
�O
Co
tt.—
s,,eoo
U)
U)
co
w
O
•
•
0
(3)
0
z
(6
O 1
(O
r /
N
O O
r
O — - —
O N
O Lo C: O
_ 00 O 2E C: O
W •
CN
_} C6 N
O — O
70
75;
CO
U
Q
rn
0
0
N
O Lo
O NCO
�
Z)
0
rl
C/)
O
Q
O
�
Ir—
D
N
�5
oc).
CO
U
Q
rn
0
0
N
O Lo
O NCO
�
Z)
0
rl
ul
in
41111 z Q c
•
•
•
O
U)
75
U)
O
U)
C
.U)
O
_O
U
U
J
U
•
•
•
C�U)
0
Tmi0
CN
t
H
n�
W
� o
� U
O � Q
U cn o
C6 -0 O
,v a N
O0
E �—
a) E
Q O..
CD
v O
O �v, E
U -)
O
O U
42 N Cn O
C: F --
u
m
�U
O
Cn
U)
U
O
U
M
CC3
Al
U
cn
U
U
u
cm
O
I
0
s
•
.}r
W
co
E
cm
O
Al
m
U)
U)
C:O
>
Q
J
c�
CU
U
.EZ
U)
a)
07
�.
E
L
O
m
a)
C_6
�U
0
0o
cm
.C:
O
N
m
n
0
U
O
Bruce Westby
�om
.nt:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Good afternoon,
Jessica Hendricks Ohendricks@ci.ramsey.mn.us]
Monday, July 26, 2010 3:46 PM
broy@ci.maple-grove.mn.us; Bruce Westby; legg@ci.coon-rapids.mn.us;
JiII.Townley@brooklynpark.org; Amy.Baldwin@brooklynpark.org; adeckert@ci.elk-river.mn.us;
ethorvig@ci.anoka.mn.us; NHUPP@ci.blairie.mn.us; CLarson@ci.blaine.mn.us;
CLevitski@ci.cambridge. mn.us; adeckert@ci.elk-river.mn.us
Amber Miller; jdickinson@ci.andover.mn.us
Development fee summary
2010 Cost of Doing Business Analysis_lndustrial.pdf; 2010 Cost of Doing Business
Analysis_Residential.pdf
I have attached an amended fee summary. The numbers that were provided for the City of Andover were incorrect.
Thank you
Jessica
Jessica Hendricks
Management Intern
City of Ramsey
763-433-9903
ihendricksCc-� ci.ramsey.mn.us
From: Jessica Hendricks
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 3:08 PM
To: 'BPease@ci.andover.mn.us'; 'broy@ci.maple-grove. mn.us'; 'Bruce.Westby@ci.monticello. mn.us'; 'legg@ci.coon-
rapids.mn.us'; 'Jill.Townley@brooklynpark.org'; 'Amy. Baldwin@ brooklynpark.org'; 'adeckert@ci.elk- river. mn.us';
'ethorvig@ci.anoka.mn.us'; 'NHUPP@ci.blaine.mn.us'; 'CLarson@ci.blaine.mn.us'; 'CLevits ki@ci. cam bridge. mn.us';
'adeckert@ci.elk-river.mn.us'
Subject:
Good afternoon,
Attached you will find a copy of the development fee summary prepared by the City of Ramsey. Please feel
free to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Jessica
Jessica Hendricks
Management Intern
City of Ramsey
763-433-9903
jhendricksCa-) ci.ramsey mn.us
ovv�romomvo�norooth
N M r M t0 0 m t0 N N N O OJ r
� O r CO M tt 0 m Mr A N O� N� M th
m M M Ln m (V O O m N m O "t
o
N O O t0 N Cb m W W N m 0
69 d3 Vi 4i 69 fA b9 A 1A fA Yi fA fA fR IA 19
O Y m m N N
� fA E9 d3 69 Vf fA fA ER to 69 Nf fA EA fR fR fA
d o m o m
•` � i i i i i� M i i M M M�
F LL 7 d- M
64 69 H3 fA fR EA ER fA fA fR b3 69 69 fA 1R tR
E dO O O O O O O O N N N O
`p d CO O N O m tp O w O t0 r w
�y N O N CO m OD c m N m 4- r
O W Mm N N 7 m M N
y d V M N
C jp
v o 0 0 0 o m o 0 o m o o v
N O m N N CO Of O 0 CO N f0 O
Y ' m O m ' N m N N O O N M N N N IA
a 3 M M W CO N d' N N
H cn
Q
6? Vf 69 fR EA fA (R fA t9 fR fA (fl 0 61 f9 fR C
O
O t0 OON OO CO mOO r O
y O N N N to v C O O O t0 W< O
C N V: O M O W O m O N O
` m CD m M M m M O O m�2 M N O
EA fA fA fR fA fH fA fA Vi Yf fR fR fA b'i Ni eR N
C O
W O O O R O O O n O w O V N N G
p c O
r r 0cN O W O W II
m 0 ' CO NN
Fm m � (2 m O N CO t0 M N N
m U N N .-- A
II >
d
0 ER 63 fA V3 69 fR fR EA M fA 69 d) ffl tlT IA eR N
OO t0 r 00� tOOOOOt0 tff N
O N N W N M r 0 0 o CO N
V O N r N' N V N l0 l0 N O m CO M N C
Q M 10 O O O N t0 O m m M C2
> C
fA f9 fA f9 fA fA fA E9 fA fA fA fA 69 69 Vf fR II
O O O t0 O r 0 0 0 0 N O O M r e7 �
N Ln r O (D N r N tc
Cp (fl (p r O M CO N tD r M m N W n n a
UQ M M a M C1 N M N M N ( N
.- � � .2 0 .- '- M m � C
O
to fA fA fA f9 fA 69 fA M fA 69 fA 64 EA M fR �
m
C O
U am m ao o an d o 'c o L d
c v m- o c c U� rn Lj
>�c > U d c d d p Y
o E o
c E m ooc E m'o m d d m w
¢mm0 0mmm �wmmanmwoo L oo to m cO
c
,v
1
Jacob ThunanderFrom:Jeff O'NeillSent:Friday, February 18, 2011 11:50 AMTo:Angela SchumannSubject:FW: Waiving Fees
For the hip pocket From: Paul Zucker [mailto:office@zuckersystems.com] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:26 AM To: Jeff O'Neill Subject: Waiving Fees
Zucker Systems
February 2011
Waiving Fees
Dear Management Doctor, I have a question for the Management Doctor and fellow professionals. Periodically, my Board hears calls to waive or reduce all of our land use and building fees to stimulate economic growth and jobs in the community. I am skeptical, as the numbers show that fees are a tiny percentage of overall development costs. Also, I doubt that the economic factors that have led to the current recession will be influenced by local permit fee structures. I want to provide my Board with a reasoned response. I have heard that other communities have tried this approach. Has it worked? Not worked? Is there any real data that I could use? Thank you Wavering
Dear Wavering,
2
I am not aware of any data that supports waiving or reducing fees as an economic development strategy. I concur that the fees are a very small part of a projects costs. Developers are concerned with rapid and consistent service and are actually willing to pay more and higher fees if they can reduce timelines. Some of the fastest growing communities have high fees. Most governments today have budget concerns and are cutting building and planning staff. To the extent that cutting fees in your case would also reduce your resources and impact services, you would be shooting yourself in the foot by reducing fees. I recently did a study for the City of Fort Worth. As part of this study I interviewed the economic development staff and asked them about fee concerns. They indicated that they never once have had this issue raised in their recruiting efforts. I don’t have any hard evidence, but there could be one instance where at least delaying fees could be helpful. In the early part of the planning entitlement process, the developer may have to fund fees and studies out of direct cash rather than a bank loan. Waiving fees at this stage could provide some modest incentive. However, a better approach would be to simply move that fee to the building permit stage that is generally funded out of a bank loan. I am working with a major Canadian city that deliberately under charges for the planning fees and then over charges for the building permit fee. I hope this helps. Maybe a few of our emailers can add to this story. The Management Doctor
Company Info
Zucker Systems zuckersystems.com 619-260-2680 office@zuckersystems.com
Management Information is periodically distributed, free of charge, as a service of Zucker Systems. It is also posted on our website along with related information. If you would prefer not to receive this information, click the unsubscribe button below and we will remove your name. If you feel others would be interested in this email, please feel free to forward this.
This message was sent to jeff.oneill@ci.monticello.mn.us from:
Zucker Systems | 3038 Udall Street | San Diego, CA 92119
Email Marketing by
1
Jacob ThunanderFrom:Charlotte Gabler <charlottegabler@msn.com>Sent:Thursday, February 17, 2011 7:14 AMTo:Angela SchumannSubject:"Aging" Housing
My cousin in law Betsy works for Alchemy (they were featured in MSN's homes of smaller size, recycled homes)/ wee's not getting any younger . . .
by Elizabeth Gabler on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 at 2:17pm Although Alchemy gets quite a few calls about building new weeHouses, or simply new houses, we also get a fair number of calls about staying renovating existing houses (which we love to do!). Adapting a home for a changing lifestyle is a terrific design challenge. Lot of variables and considerable constraints make experienced designers all the more helpful. Maybe a young family is growing, so they're thinking about more space. Often, a family is rooted in their community and they're thinking about making an existing space 'smarter' for their lifestyle. And more and more people are asking us about 'mother-in-law' weeHouses, or growing 'outside' their existing box. Lots of options, lots of choices. Locally, the University of MN is taking a look at design that optimizes "aging" at home. Since wee's not getting any younger, we're looking forward to seeing it. Here's the info.: Smart House, Livable Community, Your Future
February 5 - May 22, 2011 The first of 70 million Baby Boomers will reach age 65 in 2011. The size and impact of this post-World War II generation will challenge America’s resources, communities, and concepts of what it is to be a “senior.” An AARP survey quoted in the Wall Street Journal (9/19/09) found that 85% of surveyed individuals age 50+ said they wish to remain in their community for as long as possible. What does the desire to continue living independently mean for the design of homes for aging Baby Boomers, and for the design of communities? Housing Studies professor Marilyn Bruin and Masters student Jodene Riha will address these questions in the upcoming exhibition, Smart House, Livable Community, Your Future, at the Goldstein Museum of Design (GMD), College of Design, University of Minnesota (February 5-May 22, 2011).