The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Agenda Packet 07-11-1994AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCEL Monday, July 11, 1994 - 7 pm. Mayor: Brad Fyle Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Patty Olsen, Warren Smith 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held June 27, 1994. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. 4. Consideration of a request to subdivide two existing residential lots, and a request for a variance allowing a 10 -ft encroachment into the front yard setback, and a request for a variance allowing creation of a substandard lot. Applicant, Jeffrey Michaelis. 5. Consideration of a conditional use request to allow a motor fuel station/ convenience store in a B-3 (highway business) zone. Applicant, SuperAmerica Croup. 6. Consideration of Liberty Savings preliminary plat. Applicant, Liberty Savings. 7. Consideration of a conditional use permit which would allow operation of an office facility in a PZM zone. Applicant, Liberty Savings. 8. Review of bids and consideration of award for building demolition of the old Gille house at 1324 West Broadway. 9. Consideration of obtaining independent appraisals for proposed land swap-- Oudots C and D and Emmerich parcel. 10. Consideration of approval of plans and specifications for 7th Street between Pine Street and Cedar Street, and realignment of Cedar Street at Oakwood Drive, City Project 94-03C, and authorization to negotiate the cost of a change order to include this work with the Cardinal Hills 4th Addition being performed by R.P. Utilities, Inc. it. Consideration of approval of plans and specifications for the Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet to the Mississippi River, City Project 93-12C. 12. Consideration of change order #I for City Project 93.07C, Second Stage Anaerobic Digester Cover Replacement Project. Agenda City Council July 11, 1994 Page 2 13. Consideration of City involvement or support of a community -owned congregate carelassisted living senior housing project. 14. Consideration of an application for a one -day gambling license --Monticello Rod and Gun Club Steak Fry. 15. Consideration of adopting Heartland Express Bus Management Plan for 1995. 16. Consideration of appointing Wanda Kraemer to the Development Services Technician position. 17. Adjournment. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 27, 1894 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Brad Fyle, Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Patty Olsen, Warren Smith Members Absent: None 2. Consideration of aoproval of minutes of the reeular meetine held June 13. 1994. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Warren Smith to accept the meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Citizens comments/netitions, requests, and complaints. Cathy Shuman, President of the Monticello Women of Today, requested that the City Council proclaim July 1 as Founders Day for the Monticello Women of Today. Brad Fyle reviewed the proclamation and thanked Shuman and her organization for the positive impact made on the community through the organization of various public service events and activities. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Shirley Anderson to adopt the proclamation. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration to aporove amendments to the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund Guidelines. In her memo to the City Council, Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak requested that the City Council adopt a GMEF Guideline modification as recommended by the EDA. The modification consists of an extension to the number of days provided under the non-performance provision from 120 days to 180 days. According to Koropchak, the additional time is necessary because companies are unable to order the designated equipment or machinery until after the award or approval of the funding dollars; and with the time necessary for design production and delivery associated with obtaining the equipment, 120 days appears to be insufficient. Koropchak also noted that the EDA recommends that the guidelines be amended to include a legal fee provision. Under this amendment, language would be added to the guidelines indicating that legal fees are the responsibility of the applicant. Page 1 Council Minutes - 6/27/94 After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to adopt the proposed amendments to the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund Guidelines. Consideration to review Greater Monticello Enterprise Loan No. 008. H - Window Comvanv, for compliance with the GMEF Guidelines. In her memo to Council, Economic Development Director 011ie Koropchak indicated that the equipment loan was approved for $50,000 at a 5.25% fixed interest rate amortized over 7 years. Koropchak noted that although the existing company is financed by the Norwegian parent company, the EDA determined a financial gap was established when the SCERG reduced their commitment to the program by $150,000. The funding program was also affected by the denial of a $100,000 grant from the Central Minnesota Initiative Fund. Koropchak noted that the loan supports the IDC's business retention expansion program and expresses the City's positive attitude toward business expansion. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst to accept EDA approval of the GMEF Loan No. 008 for the H - Window Company based on the finding that the loan is consistent with GMEF Guidelines. Voting in favor: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Patty Olsen, Warren Smith. Opposed: Brad Fyle. Review David HorniVs resuonse to Council action taken with reeard to disposition of Outlot A. Country Club Manor. Assistant Administrator O Neill reported that at the previous meeting of the City Council, staff was directed to inform Hornig that he must make a bona fide commitment to development of the site. This commitment must be obtained by the June 27, 1994, Council meeting. O Neill noted that he discussed the matter with Hornig and invited him to attend the Council meeting to discuss the matter further. Dave Hornig indicated that the proposal he submitted was predicated on a market study supporting development of a housing project as initially anticipated under his proposal. He noted that nothing has changed unless the market study reveals that a project of the magnitude originally anticipated is not feasible. Clint Herbst indicated that the other proposal was firm in its commitment to purchase all of the land associated with phase I. If Hornig is not willing to purchase the entire land area associated with 42 unite in phase I, then perhaps we should terminate negotiations. Page 2 G Council Minutes - 6/27/94 Dave Hornig stressed that he plans to proceed to purchase the property and develop the land as originally anticipated; however, he needs a few more days for the market study to be completed, whereupon he can confidently move forward on the project. Itwas the consensus of Council to allow a two-week delay in the requirement that Hornig make a commitment to purchase the property. The purpose of the delay is to allow for completion and analysis of the market study currently underway. Consideration of authorizine preparation of plans and specifications for improvements to the proposed Eastwood Knoll subdivision. Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator, reported that Taylor Land Surveying, along with OSM, is in the final stages of preparing the final plat for the Eastwood Knoll subdivision. The final plat is expected to be brought to the City Council in early July for approval. Wolfsteller reported that the final plat layout has been delayed for a number of weeks to allow the opportunity to negotiate with Dickman Knutson on the acquisition of land necessary to allow connection of the interior road to Meadow Oak Avenue. Wolfsteller noted that he has been able to reach an agreement on acquisition of the lots needed for the roadway extension and for the remaining lots in the Meadow Oak Estates plat that have outstanding special assessments debt and delinquent taxes. Wolfsteller noted that as part of the agreement with Knutson, the City will be responsible for payment of outstanding special assessment debt and delinquent taxes. In turn, Mr. Knutson will be provided $5,000 in tax assessment credits against two other lots he owns in the Meadow Oak 3rd and 4th Addition plats. Wolfsteller also noted that he is working with the City Attorney to assure that the City has clear title to Outlots C and D for platting purposes. Wolfsteller noted that the City could consider ordering plans and specifications at this time in anticipation of obtaining title to Knutson's lots and in anticipation of obtaining clear title to the property in the near future. Wolfsteller went on to describe another option that the Council may want to explore with regard to disposition of Outlots C and D. He informed Council that Tony Emmerich has presented the concept of completing a land exchange whereby the City would trade Outlots C and D for 33 acres of industrial property owned by Emmerich, which is located at the future intersection of School Boulevard and County Road 117. Wolfsteller noted that under this option, the City would be acquiring industrial land that could be used in conjunction with ongoing industrial development efforts. Page 3 9 Council Minutes - 6127/94 He also noted that it is certainly more common for cities to be involved in marketing of industrial land rather than development of residential lots. City involvement is generally more acceptable for industrial properties in connection with economic development activities. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst to authorize preparation of the grading plan for Outlots C and D but withhold authorization to complete preparation of utility plans and specifications. Staff is directed to negotiate possible terms of a land exchange between the City and Tony Emmerich and provide the City Council with a detailed report summarizing the costs and benefits associated with the proposed exchange. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of acceutine transportation elan. Assistant Administrator O'Neill introduced Traffic Engineer Chuck Rickert to review the transportation plan completed by OSM and City staff. O'Neill noted that it is the view of City staff that the report provides a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the existing and future transportation system. The information contained within the report will help the City achieve the goal of investing resources in a cost-efficient manner. Charles Rickert followed by providing a complete review of the transportation plan. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Patty Olsen to accept the report as submitted and to direct City staff to submit the document to Wright County and to state agencies to assist them in their transportation planning processes as it relates to Monticello. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of ndontine a strateev for addressin¢ workload demands. Assisti.nt Administrator O'Neill reported that a few weeks ago, the City Council conducted a special meeting for the purpose of reviewing problems associated with meeting increasing workload demands. As a result of the discussion, it was the consensus of Council to authorize staff to hire additional staff for the building inspection and motor vehicle departments. Staff was also directed to prepare a plan for addressing other staffing needs identified at the meeting. O'Neill noted that he has prepared a plan with close assistance from the Office Manager and input from the City Administrator and Public Works Director. He also noted that the plan was presented to city hall staff, and no objections were noted. O'Neill went on to note the underlying goals behind the plan, which included 1) the goal of maintaining existing service levels in the face of growing demands, 2) providing the opportunity for upward mobility for Page 4 9 Council Minutes - 6/27/94 eristing employees where appropriate, 3) identifyixng new funding sources to help pay for additional employees, 4) hiring additional employees only when it has been demonstrated that improving efficiency will not solve a problem. ONeill went on to detail eight steps that could be taken in response to the increasing City workload. The eight steps include: 1. Move motor vehicle department off site. 2. Create a Development Services Technician position. 3. Office Manager completes meeting minutes_ 4. Economic Development Director to participate in planning and zoning activities. 6. Hire a part-time receptionist working half days, primarily afternoons. 6. Hire a part-time receptionist/secretary working half days at the public works department. 7. Reorganize existing office spaces. 8. Continue to contract for assistance with building inspection as necessary. Council discussion focused on relocation of the motor vehicle department. After discussion, it was the consensus of Council to move the motor vehicle department to the Help Center location due to the fact that the cost to remodel an unused portion of the Help Center is equal or less than the cost to rent space for three years. After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Patty Olsen to authorize implementation of the steps noted in the plan submitted, including authorization to move deputy registrar to the Help Center under the condition that the remodeling costs do not exceed $30,000. Motion carried unanimously. Page 5 Council Minutes - 6/27/94 10. Review of feasibility study for reconstruction of 7th Street between Pine Street and Cedar Street, authorization to prepare plans and specifications and hold public hearing on improvements. After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Clint Herbst to approve the feasibility study and order plans and specifications and order public hearing on said improvement. Motion carried unanimously. 11. Review of feasibility study for realignment of Cedar Street at Oakwood Drive. and consideration of ordering plans and specifications. John Simola, Public Works Director, reported that the feasibility study for realignment of Cedar Street at Oakwood Drive has been completed. The estimated construction cost is $10,610. After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Patty Olsen to order plans and specifications for realignment of Cedar Street at Oakwood Drive. Motion carried unanimously. 12. Consideration of adoption of City of Monticello Emolovee Safety Manual. John Simola, Public Works Director, reported that as per Council's wishes, the safety committee has revised the manual to make each department head responsible for training and implementation of the safety program for those people directly under their supervision. The safety committee has also reviewed some of the comments made by Council concerning refueling of small equipment and wearing of hard hats and did make some slight changes to the safety manual in that regard. Simola went on to note that the revised safety manual would be a step forward in bringing us closer to compliance with state statutes; however, the program, in order to be in full compliance, must be implemented. City staff feels that without a coordinator to tie all the programa and information together regarding the safety manual and state statutes, the program may not be as effective. Therefore, City staff recommends adoption of the original safety manual and appoint an existing employee as the safety coordinator to tie the program together. The City Council was not convinced that it was necessary to appoint a safety coordinator and that department heads should be able to effectively implement the program once it's in place. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Shirley Anderson to adopt the safety manual in its revised form making Page 6 G Council Minutes - 6127/94 each department head responsible for the implementation of the safety program and training of the individuals under their direct supervision. Motion carried unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 94-20. 13. Consideration of aooroval of bills for the month of June. Shirley Anderson asked for a clarification on the cellular phone charges. Rick Wolfsteller noted that it appeared that the billing report showed a duplicate bill. After discussion, a motion was made by Warren Smith and seconded by Shirley Anderson to approve the bills as submitted subject to the City Administrator checking on the cellular phone charge duplicate bill. Motion carried unanimously. 14. Other matters. Assistant Administrator ONeill informed City Council that Taylor Land Surveyors requests that the final plat of the second phase of the Cardinal Hills subdivision be amended to show the presence of a power line easement along the southern boundary of the plat. Designation of this easement on the plat was inadvertently left out of the original plat. According to state statutes, the City Council needs to approve this housekeeping change in order for it to be placed directly on the plat. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Shirley Anderson to amend the final plat of Cardinal Hills, phase II, by allowing designation of the presence of a power line easement along the snuthern tier of lots to be placed on the final plat. Motion carried unanimously. B. Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator, reported that the City has obtained $9,500 for civil defense rel-ited items. Items that qualify include plain paper fax machines, copy machines, and computer upgrades. Wolfsteller noted that current equipment needs slightly exceed the amount funded and requested authorization to spend approximately $1,400 more than the $9,500 received through the civil defense grant. It was the consensus of Council to authorize purchases as reviewed by Wolfsteller. Page 7 9 Council Minutes - 6/27/94 C. John Simola, Public Works Director, requested that Council consider authorizing City staff to complete specs for underground tank removal associated with the Gille property and to apply for a permit accordingly. After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Warren Smith to complete the plans and specifications for underground tank removal and to apply for a land farming permit with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to land farm petroleum - contaminated soil on our 68 -acre site purchased previously from Remmele Engineering. Voting in favor. Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Warren Smith. Opposed Patty Olsen. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned. Jeff O'Neill Assistant Administrator Page 8 (9 Council Agenda - 7/11/94 Consideration of a request to sjibdivide two existing residential Iota and a reagest for a variance allowiniz a 10 -ft encroachment into the front vard setback. and a reaugst for a variance allowing creation of a substandard lot. Applicant. Jeffrev Michaelis. 0.0. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Jeff Michaelis entered into a purchase agreement to buy Lot 6, Block 9, from Connie Decker for the site of a relatively large home possessing dimensions noted on the attached plan. Under current code, Michaelis could build the home on the original parcel (Lot 6, Block 9) as proposed without variances. Unfortunately, he purchased the lot or entered into a purchase agreement before it was surveyed. When the site was surveyed, it was found that the driveway associated with Decker's home is located on the lot purchased by Michaelis. Michaelis is presented with the option of simply acting on the purchase agreement, thereby eliminating Decker access to the driveway, or he can attempt to subdivide the property in a manner that will allow Decker to maintain the driveway at its present location and allow him to build his home as originally proposed. The problem is, when the land is subdivided, the front and side lot line designation shifts. This shift creates the need for a 10 -ft variance to the front yard setback requirement. Jeff Michaelis requests that the City allow him to reconfigurate Lots 6 and 7 in Block 9 so as to allow development of an 85'x 30' home. The proposed reconfiguration will result in creation of two lots equal in square foot area (10,926). The proposal does not call for a simple realignment of the two lots from a nordVsouth direction to an east/west orientation. In the recent past, the City has allowed subdivisions to occur that simply change the lot orientation from an east/west direction to a north/south direction. The proposal that Michaelis has submitted is unique in that the north/south boundary line would be replaced with an cast/west line that angles through the two parcels in a fashion to match his home design. Please see the attached plan for a complete description. The plan for subdivision as proposed results in the need for two variances: 1) The subdivision design and home design together result in the need for a variance to the front yard setback requirement for the now home. As you can see, the plan as proposed results in the home being placed within 20 ft of the lot line in the front. The ordinance requires a 30 -ft setback. 2) The plan will also result in a reduction in the front footage width of one of the new lots. In other words, the subdivision as proposed will increase the level of non -conformity already established with the original lots. To clarify, the existing two lots have a 66 -ft frontage, which technically is less than the front footage required by ordinance already. Under the subdivision proposal, the lot that contains the existing house will have a front footage Council Agenda - 7/1V94 width of 59 ft. Under the City's subdivision ordinance, it is not acceptable to create a subdivision that will result in an increase in the level of non- conformity. Another issue that results from the proposal that is not covered by code is the issue of whether or not to allow the property line to have a number of bends within the line. As you can see on the survey, the boundary between the two properties will have two sharp turns. Over time, the precise location of this boundary line may be lost and become a source of confusion in the future. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS DECISION 1: A. Motion to approve the variance request or modification thereof allowing a 10 -ft encroachment into the front yard setback. B. Motion to deny the variance allowing encroachment into the front yard setback. Planning Commission recommended denial based on the finding that a hardship was not demonstrated. It was their view that the survey work should have been done and associated limitations should have been understood before the transaction and building plans were completed. The ordinance should not be comprised due to errors made by the present and future property owners. DECISION 2: A. Motion to grant a variance allowing a subdivision which would result in an increase in the level of non -conformity of a parcel. B. Motion to deny the variance allowing a subdivision which would result in an increase in the level of non -conformity of a parcel. Planning Commission recommended denial based on the finding that a hardship was not demonstrated. It was their view that the survey work should have been done and associated limitations should have been understood before the transaction and building plans were completed. The ordinance should not be comprised due to errors made by the present and future property owners. DECISION 3: A. Motion to allow subdivision as proposed or modified, subject to written approval from property owners. Council Agenda - 7/11/94 At the meeting, the applicant may submit a variety of alternatives or hybrids of the original plan, each of which may require a variance. Motion to deny subdivision as proposed. Planning Commission recommended denial based on failure to obtain necessary variances to support the subdivision. DECISION 4: In the event that Michaelis is unsuccessful in obtaining the variances under decisions I and 2 that would allow the "odd" subdivision, it is possible that he will request a subdivision that places the boundary line at the midpoint of the north/south boundary, thereby creating two conforming lots with front yard widths of 82.5 ft. Planning Commission urged approval of this alternative because it results in creation of two more valuable and conforming lots. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It appears that the need for the variances stems primarily from the desire to construct, a home with the dimensions of 30' x 85'. It also appears that a subdivision could be accomplished without variances if the dimensions of the home were changed. The need to design a home with this configuration appears to be the driving force beksind the variances. City Council needs to determine whether or not this reason is sufficient for granting a variance. As you know, a variance is supposed to be granted when there are some exceptional difficulties in obtaining reasonable use of the property without a variance. In this case, it appears that reasonable use of the property can be achieved without the variance; therefore, Planning Commission and staff recommend denial. SUPPORTING DAI©: Copy of site plan; Copy of letter from owner of existing home, Eileen Solberg; Copy of various alternatives for discussion. lNGroV .t,. CLlk RA — �(—IM :s -.,; wit 1. W. -�f C�;7:0,n '9040 ock 41h 'EA OF L*0(5 6 AND SO FT. jo 40 fr �11111- Oita" JJF IL 7n on�cllo Pam Coa.-r�� s.aj�cet : M, -A 9 " (v 4-,tA -7 I . t1",. .n +. l'a" ,ca, o m. 4� �—, 613 t „t. -t to 1 'Mo ", .YA.- , SS362_ \ CONTINUING EDUCATION DIVISION Anoka Technical College 1355 West Highway 10 Anoka, MN 55303 427-1880/1-800-247-5598 Council Agenda - 7/11/94 s. Considgration pf a conditional pse r"pest to allgw a motor fuel station/convenience store in a B -S (highwav business) zone. Aoolicant. SuoerAmerica Groun. 0.0J A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: For the sake of efficiency, the information provided to the Planning Commission is provided to the City Council regarding this matter. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use request. Please see the supplemental information for more detail. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of Planning Commission agenda information. "40W v I� v Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/% a. Public Hearing --A conditional use reauest to allow a motor fuel station/convenience store in a B-3 (highway business) zone. Applicant SuperAmerica Group. W.O. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: SuperAmerica requests a conditional use permit which would allow operation of a convenience store at the location previously occupied by Vance's Standard. City staff reviewed the original plan for adherence to code. The updated plan is attached. Please note that the updated plan arrived on Friday and will be reviewed by staff prior to the meeting on Tuesday. 7 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve conditional use permit to SuperAmerica Group allowing a motor fuel station/convenience store in a B-3 (highway business) zone. This motion could be based on the finding that the operation of a SuperAmerica convenience store in a B-3 zone is consistent with the character and geography of the B-3 zoning district and consistent with the uses in the business neighborhood proposed. The conditional use request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and will not result in a depreciation in the adjoining land values. Under this alternative, the development would be required to meet the general requirements of the zoning ordinance and meet the specific requirements of a convenience store/motor fuel station in a B- 3 zone. Motion to deny conditional use permit to Superhmerica Group allowing a motor fuel station/convenience store in a B-3 (highway business) zone. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The site plan prepared appears to meet the requirements of the city ordinance. There does not appear to be a negative impact, on adjoining properties, and the type of use is completely consistent with what is allowed in the B-3 zone; therefore, City staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit upon verification of zoning code compliance. Excerpt from ordinance defining motor fuel station conditions; Copy of site plan. 1 1 10. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this ordinance. 11. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 12. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. )00[C) MOTOR FUEL STATION, MOTOR FUEL STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE, AUTO REPAIR -MINOR, AND TIRE AND BATTERY STORES AND SERVICE PROVIDED THAT: 1- Regardless of whether the dispensing, sale, or offering for sale of motor fuels and/or oil incidental to the conduct of the use or business, the standards and requirements imposed by this ordinance for motor fuel stations shall apply. These standards and requirements are, however, in addition to other requirements which are imposed for other uses of the property. 2 The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. 3 . The entire site other than that taken up by a building, structure, or plantings shall be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage which Is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 4 A minimum lot area of twenty-two thousand five hundred (22,500) square feet and minimum lot dimensions of one hundred fifty (150) feet by one hundred thirty (130) feet. 5 A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be installed. 6 . A curb not less than six (6) inches above grade shall separate the public sidewalk from motor vehicle service areas. 7 . The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the public right-of-way and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [it), of this ordinance. / S. wherever fuel pumps are to be installed, pump islands shall be installed. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 13/f� 9. At the boundaries of a residential district, a 4./ strip of not less than five (5) feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 7 [G], of this ordinance. 10. Each light standard landscaped. 11. Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [G], of this ordinance. 12. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement, shall comply with Chapter 3, Section 5, of this ordinance, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 13. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this ordinance. 14. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise. 15. No outside storage except as allowed in compliance with Chapter 13, Section 4, of this ordinance. 16. Sale of products other than those specifically mentioned in Chapter 13, Section 4, be subject to a conditional use permit and be in compliance with Chapter 13, Section 4 [F], of this ordinance. 17. All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal request, finds that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or better by modifying the conditions. 18. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. [D] New and used automobile/ light truck sales and display provided that: 1. The enclosed principal use (sales and display office) is a minimum of 4,500 square feet, excluding the area used for mechanical repair and reconditioning. 2. Outside sales and display areas are fenced or screened from view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting "R" district in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 JGJ, of this ordinances. MONTICELLO ZONING. ORDINANCE V Ifmr I wmp,- rc,L"jr---- SWERAMERKA. #4479 tQ4 00 cam w kgWVAMLLA b@4dWXA MR—map" KKE M:E= C2 rc,L"jr---- PLOT PLAN C2 QT) AFA HTOIE • 4478 wrww• .o.o.n r�o.• KKE 1 SITE . UTLRY PLOT PLAN euuania ""'— �raaa�.�u G-9 - kWHAMERICA. .. HT016 # 4470 MMCMM O 10T"A4 WMMI01A KKr Mc— ;..`.. �- •� .� ,\\�� - ,< = , -' '',��.�.+.�_,��.�,-�-_,_.��._ 1 SITES :% of •" - // ` / aTi7Ti'i..A�•.'.�.'�'1= p.. �.:��: ... - r �• /. -- OowTaw ROT new OrWORMEj —•••-� — � ew agave _�^ 1 "nC4 NA ROIL 0 4479 ,W=,. MOO= KKE IN51TES .. ...... ...... ..... LAMMOAP@ MW PLAN mum Sa- 1�6)1 AFA SUKRAWRICA. sTom • 4479 'w uo n,wv MCOdCOU0, fiO4PdWA KKE F:= Mr-, FLOW PLAN Al 0 FF o- / / / / / / / / / o 0 -e ' ...:::_::::............: :::TSI i� X F- .. .., m9 O.... ..................... — .............. AFA SLVERAMERICA, eTow • 4479 r.. a os� v uowrceio W&Wow. KKE 4 E%TEAIOR ELEVATIONS R.r3taw• —...w blr no.�w —A3 Council Agenda - 7/11/94 Consideration of Liberty Savings orellminmm plat. Annlicant, Liberty Savings. AND Consideration of fLeonjoitional use nermit which oyguld allow operation gf an office fMility in a Mile zone. Ar2U&Mt Liber Savinsts. (d.C.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: For the sake of efficiency, the information provided to the Planning Commission is provided to the City Council regarding this matter. The Planning Commission recommends that the preliminary plat and conditional use request be approved. Please see the supplemental information for more detail. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of preliminary plat; Copy of Planning Commission agenda information. Planning Commission Agenda `-' 6. Public Hearing—Consideration of Libertv Savings oreliminary nlak AApollcant. Libertv Savings. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Liberty Savings is planning on purchasing approximately 3 acres of land located directly east of Riverroad Plaza between the Service Drive and East County Road 39. Their proposal calls for establishment of a bank/office facility which would utilize approximately half of the property. The other half of the property would be divided into a separate lot for future development. The Liberty Savings facility would be located on the southerly -most parcel. The property being platted was originally linked to the 16 -acre property owned by Gladys Hoglund directly east of the present alignment of East County Road 39. When East County Road 39 was developed in the mid- to late 80's, the subject parcel was isolated from the original piece when East County Road 39 was realigned to the east. This is a relatively simple matter. This subdivision does not require extension of any public utilities or roadway systems and simply utilizes utilities that are in place. City staff has reviewed the preliminary plat and found that it meets the requirements of the subdivision ordinance; therefore, there appears to be no reason why the plat should not be approved. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the Liberty Savings preliminary plat. 2. Motion to deny approval of the Liberty Savings preliminary plat. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat as proposed. D. SUPPORTING D&IA: Copy of the preliminary plat. 0, Planning Commission Agenda - 7/5/91ZO� Public Hearing—Consideration of a conditional use oermit which would allow oneration of an office facility in a PZM zone_ AoolicanL Liberty Savings. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND In conjunction with the platting of the Hoglund parcel, it is proposed that a 4,000 sq ft bank/office facility be developed on the site located in a PZM zone. Under the site plan proposed, the facility will adhere to all of the zoning standards as defined in the B-3 district. The purpose of a conditional use permit requirement for a business in a PZM zone is to provide for design standards that would allow placement of a commercial facility near or adjacent to a residential use. In this situation, it is clear that there will be no residential uses adjacent to the facility; therefore, it appears evident that the site should only be required to meet the minimum requirements of a commercial establishment being developed in a commercial zone. The site plan proposed meets the minimum requirements of the ordinance for a commercial use in a B-2 or B-3 zone. Due to the separation of the property from residential areas created by the Service Drive, no additional site standards or conditions are suggested. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Motion to approve the conditional use permit to Liberty Savings allowing development of a baWof&ce facility in a PZM zone as proposed. Motion is based on the finding that the operation of the bank/office facility at this location within a PZM zone is acceptable due to separation from residential areas. Development of the facility also is consistent with the comprehensive plan, will not result in depreciation of adjoining land values, etc. Under this alternative, the site is designed to meet the general requirements of the zoning ordinance for any commercial establishment in a commercial zoning district. No additional site requirements are contemplated under this alternative due to the fact that there will be no impact on residential areas caused by this development. 007 Planning Commissiun Agenda - 7/5/94 2. Motion to deny the conditional use permit to Liberty Savings allowing development of a bankloffice facility in a PZM zone as proposed. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: �cyl9 �e Copy of site plan. 5 Gj (0) ON FLI TUR SPARKING 3 CAR -P RKIN DRIVELIP RY BANK 4= sf� FU 11. PROJECI DA IA 911 m. , I.. m s H Mmcoc III, �sl w.g. 2m s, runwq ranwln 25 SIN It lun" p01w a tZ GENCIML NOILS: �(Z`Q)M — m lfli [4.111 1(111 911 A11PY1.a.1 Al Council Agenda • 7/11/94 Review of bids and consideration of award for buildine demolition of the old Gitle house at 1324 West Broadway. (J.SJ A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On Thursday, July 7, we received two bids for the demolition of the Gille house. The lowest bid was received from Veit and Company of Rogers, MN, for $6,193 for the demolition, $900 to excavate and cover 200 cu yds of petroleum contaminated soil, and $900 to provide, place, and compact approximately 200 yd8 of clean fill material, for a total cost of $7,993. The second bid was received from Schluender of Monticello, MN, for a total coat of $9,800. We received no formal proposals for sealing of the two wells on the Gille property. We are in the process of contacting some local well drillers who do this type of work and should have some costs for Monday evening's meeting. We do have a price from Agassiz Environmental, the firm that will be assisting us with determination of the extent of contaminated soil and the technical inspection during the project. Their price was $432 for the sealing of the two wells. We are continuing to formulate the specifications for the tank removal at the Gille site and should have those ready for advertisement for bids within the next 10 days. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The first alternative is to award the bid for building demolition and site preparation of the Gille site to Veit and Company of Rogers, MN, for a lump sum of $6,193 and an estimated cost of $1,800 for soil excavation and replacement, which will be based upon actual unit prices in cubic yards, for a total estimated project cost of $7,993. Agassiz will be used to monitor the soil excavation process; and unless we obtain a lower price by Monday for the well sealing, this alternative would include well sealing by Agassiz Environmental for $432. The second alternative would be not to award the demolition of the house and the excavation of contaminated soils at this time. Council Agenda - 7/11/94 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that we continue on with this project and award the demolition to Veit and Company of Rogers and the well abandonment to Agassiz Environmental or a company providing a lower proposal by Monday evening as outlined in alternative A1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of bid tab from demolition contractors; Copy of well sealing proposal from Agassiz Environmental. G �� BID TABULATION BUILDING DEMOLITION AND SITE PREPARATION FOR OLD GU LE HOUSE 1824 WEST BROADWAY Contractor Veit and Company, Inc. 14000 Veit Place Rogers, MN 66374 Schluender Construction 9731 Briarwood Ave. Monticello, MN 66362 Thursday, July 7, 10 a.m. Demolition Excavation Fill Total $6,193 $900 $900 $7,993 $7,300 $1,600 $900 $9,800 U Council Agenda - 7/1V94 Consideration of obtaining independent appraisals for proposed land swao--Outlots C and D and Emmerich parcel. (R.W.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the previous Council meeting, the Council authorized the City Engineer to continue with developing the grading plan for the development of the Eastwood Knoll plat but also authorized the staff' to investigate the feasibility of a possible land exchange proposed by Tony Emmerich creating industrial property for the residential parcel. In trying to analyze the pros and cons to the City on this land exchange, I was attempting to estimate the cost that the City would still incur in developing the 33 -acre industrial property to make this land available for industrial sales. I had to use a number of assumptions that included that some internal road, sewer, and water extensions would be needed within the 33 -acre parcel to make it developable, and also I assumed that sanitary sewer would be available adjacent to the parcel. When factoring in estimated utility extension cost, including road improvements and the sanitary sewer area assessment charges, improvements to the 33 -acre parcel could cost $450,000 or more to make the property developable into smaller industrial lots. When coupled with the original cost the City has already incurred in Outlots C and D of $164,500, and also assuming that it could take up to 10 years to fully develop the 33 -acre industrial property, we would need to average between $26,000 and $30,000 per acre to recapture our original $164,500 investment we figure we have in the property we are tradi ng. In discussing the proposed trade with Mr. Jay Johnson, it is their feeling that an independent appraisal should be obtained on both the City and Mr. Emmerich's parcel to establish a fair market value for determining an appropriate land exchange value. Mr. Emmerich suggested that an independent third party do an appraisal, with the cost of the appraisals being split between the City and Mr. Emmerich. Although we would not have a cost estimate at this time, I assume two well-done appraisals could cost between $500 and $1,000. The question is, does the City Council wish to share in the cost of obtaining these appraisals as part of the further consideration of the land swap proposal? Since we had originally sought proposals for the outright, purchase of the Eastwood Knoll plat, I have had a couple of conversations with a builder/ developer from the Big Lake and Elk River area who has expressed interest in the outright acquisition of the entire Eastwood Knoll subdivision. This builder has not made a specific offer at this time but did express a lot of interest in pursuing a proposal with the City. It's very possible that I may have additional information to bring to the Council Monday night or for a future meeting. Council Agenda - 7/11/94 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: If the Council is interested in continuing negotiations on a potential land swap deal, Council could agree to pay half the cost of obtaining an independent appraisal on the parcels in question. Since each party involved in this land swap has its own opinion as to what property may be more valuable, there may be merit in seeking an independent appraisal on which to base our decision for a potential swap. It is estimated that each appraisal could cost between $300 and $800 based on past history of similar appraisals obtained by the City. Council could decline to participate in the cost of obtaining an appraisal but allow Mr. Emmerich to submit an appraisal for Council consideration if he so chooses. Under this alternative, the Council keeps the option open of a potential land swap but is deciding not to incur any additional cost in obtaining appraisals at this time and would leave it up to Mr. Emmerich to do so if he chooses since it is his proposal to the City. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since the City always has the option of obtaining an appraisal if it so chooses, I would suggest the Council could indicate a willingness to look at any appraisal Mr. Emmerich had prepared for initially reviewing the potential of a trade. Since the proposal for a possible land swap was initiated by Mr. Emmerich, there may be justification for requesting that Mr. Emmerich be responsible for all of the appraisal cost. On the other hand, there certainly is merit to being a part of the appraisal process by selecting a neutral party to do the appraisals. Regardless of the Council's action, I will still be accepting proposals from interested builders/developers on an outright acquisition of the residential plat. Ut D. SUPPORTING DATA:Ro ao �b1'".- None. 4y�" Council Agenda - 7/11/94 Considergdon of apuroval of plane and specifications for 7th Street between Pine Street and Cedar Street. and realignment of Cedar Street at Oakwood Drive. Citv Prosect 94.03C, and authgrizition to negotiate the cost of a change order to include this grork with the Cardinal Hills 4th Addition prosect being performed by IRP, Utilities. Inc.. W.S.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The plane are now complete for the two above -referenced projecta. City staff requests approval of the plans and authorization to negotiate a change order cost with R.P. Utilities, the firm doing the Cardinal Hills 4th Addition. Since it is a change order, the specifications used for the project will be the same ones used on the Cardinal Hills project. We will then bring the change order cost to the City Council just prior to the public hearing on July 26 for the Council's consideration. Should the change order negotiation procedure prove not to be cost effective, we will prepare bidding documents and request authorization to go to bids on the 75th of July. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to approve the plane for the 7th Street reconstruction and the Cedar Street realignment, Project 94-03C, and authorize City staff to negotiate change order costs with R.P. Utilities to be reviewed at the July 25 Council meeting. Cp 2. The second alternative would be not to attempt to negotiate a change order but to bid the project immediately. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Engineer and Public Works Director that the City Council approve the plans and authorize negotiations for a change order as outlined in alternative N1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Please refer to your feasibility report delivered at the last meeting for the estimated construction costs. Reduced plan copies are enclosed. Full-sized plan sheets will be available at Monday evening's meeting. They reflect the actual drawings provided in the original feasibility report. 7TH STREET CAM CUT PAVEMENT SAW CUT PAVEMENT I ' SAM CUT PAVEMENT 1 STA. 0-25 I II I STA. 5+00 I � E•' Q 171 Mil I — I— I 1 /REMOVE d REPLACE Ex. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT. AGGREGATE BASE AND SUBGRADE PER DETAIL •A" SAW CUT PAVEMENT S.Y. [LEV. 947`.91 0 » o w roo TOP NUT HYDRANT - N.E. QUAD an 7th ST. AND CEDAR ST. e7o CEDAR STREET / 9 r ! c r ' !r Q Oa, o� t d r - r 2. ' r ' li7 1 r r eo :� o .o goo I B.Y. u[v. 960.33 J TOPNUI NfORANT CEDAR ST. AND OAKWOOD DR. bqq qq f p W W 9I0 •076% .7.001{ 960 •� arc;. • 00 ;� a Council Agenda • 7/11/94 i . Consideration of aooroval of plans and snecifleations for the Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet to the MississiuDi River. Citv Protect 99-12C. W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The City staff has been moving ahead with the development of final plans and specifications for the Meadow Oak storm sewer outlet. We have reached an agreement with Kerry Saxon of the Wright County Soil Conservation Office in regard to the project's design having no impact on the existing wetlands on the Gene Bauer property. Our storm sewer system will have an adjustable inlet at the manhole near the south end of Gillard, which will allow adjustment of the water level in the wetlands. Kerry Saxon's office will perform a wetland delineation, and the water level will be adjusted accordingly after the project is completed. The City Engineer has discussed the current design features with Mr. and Mrs. Bauer, and we are continuing under the premise that easement and drainage rights coats equal storm sewer benefit from this project, and we will be working out the written agreement the Bauers prior to award of the project. We aro continuing to work with the County and State in regard to their participation in the project. We have received a request from the County to bid three alternate pipe sizes in addition to our base project. It appears that the State may also request a similar three -alternative design. It is the City stairs opinion that we should not go beyond a single alternative, or we may lose or confuse the contractor in such a way as our base bid may not represent a true City cost and may be inflated. We, therefore, will continue to work with the County and State to formulate a single alternate bid to our base project. We will be using the same plan sheet; however, the actual profile sheet showing the depth of pipe and pipe sizes will be different and will require an additional set of drawings for each alternative due to the significant changes in size and depth and type of manhole. Consequently, those final details are to be worked out within the next week to 10 days. In order to keep the project on schedule for a 1994 completion, it is imperative that we move ahead with the project. Consequently, we are asking the City Council's approval of the plans in this preliminary stage and authorization to go to bide prior to the next Council meeting after the selection of an alternative pipe size and depth by the County and State. Based upon this scenerio, we would expect a bid opening date of August 12 and a bid award at the August 22 regularly scheduled Council meeting. I Council Agenda - 7/11/94 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: C {� 1. The first alternative is to approve the plans and specifications in the preliminary form and authorize advertisement for bids based upon our base system and one alternative pipe size and depth. 2. The second alternative would be to wait until the 26th of July, at which time the details about the alternative pipe size and depth will be known. This would bring our project award date into the first meeting in September. With an estimated 4660 day construction schedule, this would be extremely tight, and it is questionable as to whether the paving could be completed this year. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Engineer and Public Works Director that the City Council give preliminary approval to the plans and specifications as outlined in alternative #1 and authorize advertisement for bids. We are continuing to work with the Township to see if they will increase their participation in the cost of the project. We should have that information for the Council at a subsequent meeting. D. SUPPORTING DUA: Copy of letter to Monticello Township dated June 30, 1994, requesting additional participation in the project; Reduced copies of the preliminary plan sheets. ff OAMSX O= IX June 30, 1994 Mr. Franklin Denn Monticello Township Board Chairman City of Monticello P.O. Box 1147 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362-9245 Dn0 Park Place Genu, 5775 Wayzata Boutevard Minneapolis AIN 55116-12.28 612-595-5775 1-800.753-5775 FAX 595-5774 Engineers Architects Planners SA1TVe}9rS Re: Gillard Avenue Street Reconstruction and Stormwater Policy Dear Mr. Denn: 1 am writing this letter wf th regard to the proposed reconstruction of Gillard Avenue and the relationship of that reconstruction to stormwater management. As you are aware, the City of Monticello has authorized preparation of bidding documents for construction of a stormwater outlet to the Mississippi River so that the Meadow Oaks subdivision does not discharge into County Ditch No. 33. This project is one of several stormwater projects that we have been dealing with to ensure that all ponding facilities in the City of Monticello have positive outfalls. In order to pay for these facilities, the City of Monticello has been developing the drainage boundaries for future preparation of assessment rolls. Because Monticello Township surrounds the City of Monticello, the drainage boundaries in many cases overlap the City limits. In fact, of the 190 assessable acres in the Meadow Oaks drainage area, in excess of 60 are contained within areas outside of the City limits. While 1 am not asking you to directly contribute to the project for your share that is located within the Township, we are in need of your assistance in acquiring the appropriate facilities in the most efficient manner possible. The two projects that we have immediate needs on are as follows: Meadow Oaks Stormwater Outlet - As was previously discussed with you, the City of Monticello staff had requested your participation in the reconstruction of Gil lard Avenue. The Township's response at that time was that you would be wilting to pay for one-half of a two-inch overlay of the project. Therefore, when the preliminary assessment roll was prepared, we developed a cost of approximately $6,000 that would be attributable to the Township for your share of the overlay costs. We determined the cost of just replacing the road without any removal costs included at approximately $36,000. The Township share is approximately $6,000 of the total $18,000 benefit to the Township's half of the street reconstruction costs. "lite remainder of the $30,400 was spread to the City residents along the west side of Gillard Avenue and to the City of Monticello for the Township side. Upon reviewing this at the City Council Meeting, staff was requested to re -approach the Township to consider increasing their share in this reconstruction cost. As we discussed, we are proposing to try and improve the safety of the road along with possibly using some vertical grade modifications to slow the traffic down. We would like to get together again to discuss the possibility of you increasing your participation greater than the $6,000 proposed to date. N,\CM11t\MY\f?r61MCa\NVAmw➢D Mr. Franklin Denn Monticello Township Board Chairman Monticello, MN June 30, 1994 Page 2 Industrial Park Storm Sewer System - The second watershed area that the City is currently in the process of acquiring ponding property and planning future stormwater piping projects for is called the Industrial Park Watershed District. This area includes the Cardinal Hills development area and basically extends between County Road 118 and Fallon Avenue from the freeway to south of Cardinal Hills. The stormwater outlet is supposed to cross the freeway near the 118 overpass and then through the AME Readyrnix site and ultimately will enter the ditch along the north side of Hawk's Bar and then end up in the river through the large culvert underneath County State Aid Highway 39. It is proposed that a small ponding area in the Readymix site be constructed along with a pipe connecting that pond to the County State Aid Highway 75 ditch by means of augering a storm sewer pipe under the railroad tracks. We need your help to complete the process, as the Readymix site is located in the Township, and would like to speak with you further about how you could assist the City of Monticello in accessing this property and facilitating the construction. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss when a meeting could be arranged to address these items in further detail. I can be contacted at 595.5705, or through the City of Monticello City Offices. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES INC. Bret A. Weiss, P.E. City Engineer Rick Wolfsteller, City of Monticello Jeff O'Neill, City of Monticello John Simola, City of Monticello rim N %Cr -n Nu\r4oamluv\WM" AD -tAo. cjT-f Goll- cl I.S Ott rk. ilk ,J EASEMENT in NE GILLARD AVENUE / SANDBERG EAST$ ✓i DBERG EES' j � 2 I t0 9 ! 7 6 S r CUTLO 14 —\ 0•T -rC.[E 15'10•. ITCR ICI 2!'0•\ •[KIC[ Cf' 0.. •C•t •[[ ]1' O.r •[RICE 10' D•. 'v _ — -Ek.,E 10' Or. = r['L IC( l7' 0 E, .. .gyp � ••�,� I rE•I ICE 11' Lr. 771 ,•E•u C[ 1S' OTrt NOTE: 1. PENT)E d REPLACE 811UNINWS ✓ANEI .T IND DRIVE•ITS AS REWIRED. - B.M. ELEV 944•Ub I II PREL IMI NARY TOP NUT NTPL. EET•EEN LOTS , t 2. BLOCK 3 1 1 O Oo RI t1I ty0. 00 � �' sQ • �� HI [L w•r.d y � �g � i = � � F ►ROPOi1p GRID: CVK IENq TO < I:y .;` �_— ,12, L. L1i tUt• N i ou z� � yy:9. 10[10itO21.1.3 2-I_ Ilul1i .. .. �!•" - i 929.ur1, 32 ; i s 4x0'-30• RCR ch III 9,t.07, t2'1 I: I _'O.i9i ; 1416 _7I I2 7 I 921: 291 IN) t 920.09" I� • I I : � i i � I � .. i ` � . ; : i ' 1 : i iii ' �� i �930.ie •929L 10[IN,� 70, OU 111' 1 Ae. :1•RCDcI. if -94, 0141,1 f4t. 08 1 a11 q5o a� y0! •j� b !0 2, 0 SO 100 T- < ,[IL[ IN 11[14, 949.63 B.M• ELEV 2OP NUT N,D.I.T. 11E1.1EN N — LOTS G d I. BLOCK 2 WWW SA,em R• EAST J O ~ J yyyi W J u q5o a� y0! •j� NE GILLARD AVENUE 9 • s Y I SAP40SERG EAST - Q 2 r W401 . 2 1 nnnSS1 _. _ ��1 iiii�11„ I I ~/� '' �. ---------------�i4�yx+o i M Y NOTE: r. REr10VE 6 REPI+CE BITUMINOUS P4VEMENT 9jE f + AND DRVEWAfS AS REWIRED. i+.+ aEjE X172 i U.M.T LLLV `l44.Ub TDP +R,HYDRANT. BETWEEN LOTS 16 2. BLOC- S %I REPT FIST �g� J »r ."It SEQ GR.DE O! l[i IiNV �lp� NEM.G, IIE • — : .4o.n I I »I n.o..90 � �� I i.7.y � 4.1. elr^+ «.v►o �: •+...Er ani `_- I I • I 909.OI • � 091.90 � u �c A 940 € 930 ice 9 10 00 8 �a !0 25 O 4000 ur, I• nn I B.M. ELEV 949.63 PRELIMINARY I roP NVt, NiBR.NT. BEt.EEN LOf` un1 1. BLOC. 2 I� 1 tar. t.<t JOC O F J �g� J »r ."It SEQ GR.DE O! l[i IiNV �lp� NEM.G, IIE • — : .4o.n I I »I n.o..90 � �� I i.7.y � 4.1. elr^+ «.v►o �: •+...Er ani `_- I I • I 909.OI • � 091.90 � u �c A 940 € 930 ice 9 10 00 8 Council Agenda - 7111/94 12. Consideration of change order •1 for Citv Proiect 99-07C. Second Stage Anaerobic Digester Cover Reolacement Proiect. W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Replacement of the second stage digester cover at the wastewater treatment plant is near complete. We are in the process of obtaining estimates for some additional purnp controls to safeguard the operation of the new digester cover. During the construction project, we noticed three minor problems with the digester tank itself. The first problem noted was with the sealant or caulking on the joints where the individual pours of concrete had been joined together. The cost of replacing this cau tWng was $1,387.10. The second area was a slight deterioration of the concrete overflow bo: at the top of the digester tank. The coat to repair this box was $406. Lastly, it was noticed that some of the nuts and bolts holding the interior piping together inside the digester tank itself were in need of replacement. These bolts and nuts were replaced at a cost of $192, bringing the total cost of change order N1 to $1,985.10. This increases the construction cost from $168,600 to $170,585.10. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to approve change order #1 with Gridor Construction, Inc., for additional work on the second stage digester cover project in the amount of $1,985.10. 2. The second al temative would be to not approve the change order. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the City Engineer and Public Works Director that the City Council authorize and approve change order bl as outlined in alternative M1. This work was necessary for the completion and rebuilding of the second stage digester tank and cover. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of change order 01. 13 ,Jv CHANGE ORDER NChange Order No: 1 City Project No. 93-07C III Project: Replacement of Second Stage Anaeobic Digester Cover OSM Project No. 5098.00 Owner: City of Monticello Date of Issuance: July 7, 1994 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 Contractor: Grodor Constr.. Inc Engineer: Orr-Schelen-Mayeron 1888 Berkshire Lane. P.O. Box 41246 and Associates, Inc. Plymouth, MN 55416-1226 You are directed to make the following changes In the Contract Documents: (1) Replace sealant on horizontal joints and vertical joints on interior of concrete digester lank. Cost of sealant replacement m $1387.10. (2) Bush Hammer and apply Sika product on digester overflow box to repair corrosion damage to concrete. Cost of overflow box repair - $406.00. (3) Replace corroded nuts and bolls on digester Interior pipe. Cost of replacement o $192.00. Purpose, of Change Order: The Change Order Is necessary to repair corrosion damage discovered during cleaning and painting of the digester tank and piping. Attachments (Ilst documents supporting change): N/A CIIANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE Originzil Contract Price: $160,600.00 Previous Change Orders No. - to No. -: $ -0- Contract Prico Pilur to this Change Order: $168,600.00 Nei Increase of this Change Order: $1985.10 Contrncl Prk;o with all Approved Change Orders: $170,585.10 Recommended By. -/-2 n /. Jar 0. Peterson, P.E. Approved : ) P D I Approved By: (Pp c works reclrn) (City Administrator) t N= W%dw 1—\"r w CHANGE IN CONTRACT ME Original Contract Time: June 1, 1994 Net Change from Previous Change Orders: N/A Contract Time Prior to this Change Order: June I, 1994 Not Increase (decrease) of Change, Order: N/A Contract 1line with Approved Change Orders: N/A Approved By: Grltlor Conshucuur Inc. Date of Council Action: Council Agenda - 7/11/94 13. Consideration of Citv involvement or suonort of a community - owned congregate care/assisted living senior housing uroiect. (R.W.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On June 22, the Hospital District Board and invited members of the City Council, HRA, and Planning Commission heard presentations by three groups interested in proposing development of a congregate care/assisted living senior housing project on the hospital grounds complex. Some of the HRA members, along with City staff; were present at the initial presentation. After presentation by the three groups, it was the general Wnsensus of the individuals in attendance at that meeting that a proposal presented by BRW Elness Architects, Inc., in conjunction with Presbyterian Homes of Minnesota, present additional information to the group at an HRA meeting scheduled for last Wednesday evening. It appeared from the presentations that the proposal by BRW and Presbyterian Homes may be the best -suited project for Monticello with more affordable rental cost projections for a 40 - unit senior housing project. The preliminary proposal presented at the HRA meeting July 6 centered on a 40 -unit senior housing project located just east of the hospital clinic building expansion project. The proposed development would utilize a common driveway that currently exists for the clinic and would he located on property the Hospital District had recently acquired next to the clinic building. It is my understanding the main reason the senior housing project would be located in this area is to provide a convenient access to the hospital and clinic, along with access to the nursing home that currently exists on the site. This is not to say that a housing project could not be located on the west side of the Hospital District complex, but it would require acquisition of additional property to accomplish this. Some concerns that were previously expressed by City staff during these presentations was the location of the proposed housing project in relation to our wastewater treatment plant. As we all know, the wastewater treatment plant does experience some odor problems occasionally, and the City should he concerned about the creation of additional housing in such a close proximity to the wastewater treatment plant. It is anticipated that this treatment plant will be expanded and kept in its present location for at least another 20 years, and any housing project located on the hospital property should take this under consideration and design their facility with the understanding that unpleasant odors may occur periodically. Although 1 was not able to attend the second presentation Wednesday evening, it is my understanding that two general sconorios were presented for the group to consider if a housing project is to be developed in the future. One option would be that a 501 (0) non-profit corporation be 14 Council Agenda - 7/1 V94 established for the purpose of building and operating a congregate care senior housing project. This type of entity would not place the burden on one special taxing district such as the Hospital or the City but would create a separate non-profit organization that would actually sell the bonds to finance the project and manage the facility. A board of directors consisting of representatives from the Hospital, HRA, City Council, and the community at large could be established to make this a community -type facility. Another option presented would be to have the Hospital District or HRA or City of Monticello be the actual owner of the facility by the issuance of essential function bonds from whichever entity was selected as the owner. The difference between Lhis option and the first scenerio is that whichever entity that took over ownership, they would be responsible for using general tax revenue to support the facility if the revenues were not sufficient to cover the debt. Also, if one jurisdiction was labeled as the owner, there may not be as much of a feeling of community involvement as there would be if it was set up initially as a non-profit organization. It is my understanding that the Hospital District does not want to be the individual owner of this property, and also the HRA is not interested in becoming the sole owner. Likewise, 1 would assume that the City itself may not want to be involved as the sole owner of the project but may want to consider lending support or be involved if it was created under the non-profit corporation status and it became a more community -oriented project. It is my understanding that the group in general is leaning more toward the creation of a non-profit corporation if this project is to proceed at all. The Hospital Board, along with the City HRA, will be considering at a future meeting their individual involvement in such a project, and the City Council is also asked to consider and recommend what involvement it wishes to have, if any, in a senior housing project located on the hospital grounds. It is anticipated that even under a non-profit corporation scenerio, the creation of a non-profit corporation could take nine months or longer. If the City Council is interested in participating in a community effort by being involved in a non-profit corporation, the Council may want to consider appointing two members to serve on the committee or eventual board of the corporation. If the Council would rather he involved by becoming an actual owner of the senior housing project and having the city taxpayers be ultimately responsible for the debt service of such a facility, the Council could volunteer to act as the conduit for issuing essential function bonds under the second scenerio proposed by the developer. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTJQ Council could indicate a willingness to support a community-based senior housing project by appointing two Council members to serve on the future board of directors for the non-profit organization. Council Agenda - 7/11/94 2. Council could show support for being involved as the eventful owner of the senior housing project by expressing a willingness to issue essential function bonds for such a project. 3. Council could support a community-based non-profit corporation but recommend that the committee look at alternate sites due to the proposed location's proximity to the wastewater treatment plant. 4. Council could indicate that they do not feel it's appropriate for the City to be involved in this type of housing for the elderly. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is certainly the recommendation of the Administrator and Public Works Director that if a senior housing project is to be considered on a site east of the current hospital/clinic facility, the developer should be well aware of potential problems with odors from our wastewater treatment plant. Likewise, it is hopeful that the building construction will take into account air filtering methods to minimize odor problems for the residents. It's the Administrator's recommendation that if the City is to be involved in this type of congregate care senior housing, it should only be under the non- profit corporation community -wide option. I do not think the City should be the actual owner of this project and subject the city taxpayers to the potential liability for supporting the project should the revenues not be sufficient. If general obligation taxation should be used, I would suggest the Hospital District is a better conduit for this in that they are a wider taxing jurisdiction than just the City of Monticello. Although the Hospital District currently owns sufficient land east of the clinic facility, the Council may want to ask the Hospital District to explore the feasibility of locating such a senior care facility on the west aide of the nursing homethospital to maximize the distance the facility would be from our wastewater treatment plant. D, SUPPORTING DATA: Memo from Presbyterian Homes. �� •' t i 1 � Jam, ti� ��•, 16 f*A** Memorandum Presbyterian Homes 01 .t1NN[sOTA DATE: July 6, 1994 Arden MtBs TO: Monticello Housing Project Members 3_20 tale Wnanna Blvd 1. Ar6cn H111}, MN 55112.7907 LM11C.n.d. MN55117-]W 1012761{-oow FROM: Dan Lindh FAA 16121611 d7M6 i BI—Iu on SUBJ: 40 Unit Senior Housing Project - Monticello, Minnesota G1de0n Pond Camms members. 10030 Newlon Ave 5 Bk+ammgi6n MN 55431-2656 torp u' Cwrtv� RoadP , R°,tulle MN 51112.1566 olti""3=., At our last meeting, we reviewed preliminary financial and summa 9. P ry summary 16121 AA.1.7601 FAX 1612,°4a-3017 marketing information relating to development of a 40 unit housing community at large after facility is built. project. This information is again enclosed for your information and c10W C"ntyk"" w 10 u• County Rued � review. 'Zille MN 55112-3590 16 21611.6o1A FM �a1276314032 In addition, the question was raised related to structure and potential board composition. in summary, our recommendation is to laMe Mlnneton4e develop a community owned and operated housing % �Mrrlmr pant project. nw P.111 XIN 551A44771 Assignment of leases and rents. 9 n7> "77..1541 AAAA,°,2i,;,.1d0„ The two o g: options we discussed include the following: UMe C -ads Scenarlo I., 501(c)3 The MayNeld 2650 Ma,ket 1>f" DI -1_ 1. Project owned by newly created 501(c)3 nonprofit LM11C.n.d. MN55117-]W corporation. FAX oi+E+Eiji,15 i A. Articles to provide for between 3 and 11 board members. R°aei1 B. Proposed mix of 2 from hospital board, 2 from HRA, 2 torp u' Cwrtv� RoadP , R°,tulle MN 51112.1566 from city council and hospital administrator, 2 from F1°;o211011112.012 community at large after facility is built. C. Board to elect its own members subject to provisions . in the articles. D. Mandatory maximum of 2 consecutive 3 year terms. corpom"Hl oc. 2. First mortgage on facility. 3220 (.alt 1011" 1114 3. Assignment of leases and rents. 9 51 Paul MN 55112 1661 16121611 .6100 4. 10% Debt Service Reserve Fund. FAA 10 121611.6106 5. Property tax exemption or equivalent through TIF. 6. Subordinate management fees. "'O"1lon 3^O 1a416nanna Blvd 7. Revenue bonds publicly sold. S'Paul MN s.0 2.1607 1e 121411.0105 S. Preleasin of 50% of project. 9 P 1 FAA 16721611.6106 Sonario II. Essential Function Bonds • 1. Project owned by Hospital District, or HRA or public entity. A. Committee assigned similarly to 1B above. I)r11..rd tt 14r 111p.,1p rtw 1./mrn/nar GO) Memorandum ,July 6. 5494 Page 2 2. First mortgage on facility. 3. Assignment of leases and rents. 4. 10% Debt Service Reserve Fund, 5. Property tax exemption or equivalent through TIF. 6. Subordinate management fees. 7. Revenue bonds publicly sold. 8. Preleasing of 50% of project. 9. Project exempt from Blue Sky rules, cost of issuance limitations and (can be) property tax. The above are intended as preliminary and for discussion purposes. End of Memo L BRW ELNESS ARCHITECTS INC June 10, 1994 Barb Schweintek, Administrator Monticello -Big Lake Hospital 1013 Hart Boulevard Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Ms. Schveintek, We -,look forward to meeting with you, your Board and City officials on Wednesday evening, June 22, at 7:45, to discuss your proposed new senior housing facility. The following is a summary of our proposal We believe a public-private partnership is necessary in achieving affordability and high quality in housing, and we have a team and a program to accomplish that goal for Monticello. We would assemble a program creating a beautiful facility which is community based and managed. The following is our proposed Project Team. PROJECT DESIGN: BRW ELNESS ARCHITECTS is a pioneer and national leader in design of senior housing and care facilities. BRWE would utilize its experience with Elder Homestead, Rosewood Estates and other recent facilities to create a model suiting the specific needs of Monticello. PROGRAMMING: Allen Black, of SENIOR INNOVATIONS, is a consultant with broad experience in programming and management of senior facilities. His experience would be invaluable during project planning in advising on what works and what does not in planning and operating senior facilities; and he could, in addition, advise on management during the initial period of operation. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT: PRESBYTERIAN HOMES OF MINNESOTA is a very experienced developer and operator of senior living facilities in the Twin Cities Metro Area. Dan Lindh would help assemble the financing, ownership and operating package. This might include establishing a community-based non-profit organization to assume ownership and management. Presbyterian Homes would work with the hospital to set up the operating and management plan, and consult during initial operation. We believe this team can provide Monticello with a beautiful, affordable facility meeting the needs of the community, and we will be pleased to discuss this further with you in person. Sincerely, BRW ELNESS ARCHITECTS. INC. -A ?V -IL Atvld E. Elnoes, FAIA Principal llllam A. J obeon, A A Project A c tett Council Agenda - 7/111% a . Consideration of an auollcation for q one•dav aamblinm license - Monticello Rod and Gun Club Steak Frv. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Monticello Jaycees has requested approval of a one -day gambling license to conduct a raffle as part of the Monticello Rod and Gun Club's Annual Steak Fry to be held August 13, 19%. Before the State of Minnesota will grant a license, the City Council must adopt a resolution supporting the request or denying the application. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt a resolution approving issuance of the license. 2. Do not adopt the resolution supporting the license application. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As the Monticello Jaycees have other gambling license operations within the city, I can see no reason why the City Council would not want to recommend approval of their one -day license request. D. SUP'P'ORTING DATA: Copy of application; Copy of resolution. S� C 17 July 1, 1994 Mr. Rick Molfsteller City Administrator City of Monticello 250 E. Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 RE: Monticello Jaycees Dear Mr. Molfsteller: The Monticello Jaycees would like to apply for a One -Day Off -Site Gambling License to conduct pull -tab sales at the Monticello Rod 8 Gun Club during their annual steak -fry which will be held this year on August 13. This application must be approved by the City. Please present this request to the City Council at their July 11, 1994, meeting and return the Application, together with the Council's Resolution, if approved, to me at P.O. Box 43, Monticello, MN 55362. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. If you have any questions, you may contact me at 295-4498 evenings or 295-2107 days. Sincer/e/ly, 1) / Barbara J. Scherbing Gambling Manager Monticello Jaycees Minnesota Lmgful CarnbHng `,, Application for One -Day For Board use only Off -Site Lawful Gambling Base License a Organization Nmma M oraraamnPMorr Nn,eor tica,w loner E.praam Dar Monticello laycees I (612 1 295-2107 I 02459 I 6/30/96 Adores (mw, W mm MtIO m. wror) P.O. Box 41 Gly Sm zip aam Mplitig-ello._ MN 55'162 Nara a CMM Eamamra Ofrnr forum °res! Pnorr fAnietr Thomas B. Perrault 1612 1 295-2GL6 �'Sifte Ir>)jor7natiort ,. No" at looms am,rm ofao Vrrd.0q M N hold Monticello Rod & Gun Cluc z Aoerm a ae.au Wm "W mrr,mnp arae � �°' 1821 W. River Street Monticello MN 55362 a. Oar a a—fty m.an Auaust 13, 1994 A. Nu rdur oraan,ramn a *AM Oft-ra 0amr+,° b OWer rani ❑ ya M rb f yea. Mon ran trr deo of ft oWK? Oath I aNrm Cut the above Mrmaloan is no and 000noot brpmmua a Croat E:aana u ser I Dam 7/01/94 Local GouernmentAcknafuledgement�' t. The ory mum sign Colt apPlntron II fa p°rMYrq pran,haa is lourd wAun dry Urn. 2. The gp = AND m>mtCln mum air this appliratbn II fit gan,barq pros Is loumd kh a orruldp. 3. The local uric of gowmmnf (city a ownty) rual pus • Mouton apadfully app,dvirq or CNN Yb aW eppblin a. A r m r M hA Hot l iiM el ones n r em° ri rm— a n emAm len n Kt ea MtAd+nd k Eit -____— 6. a No apps cation is daniod ty the bmf unit of povamnlant N should not be sulrnottsd Into fLmalnp Control Board. City or County Township Gey or county nomo TownJup norm 'City of 'Monticello S4rr°'n at pwn mod,+ro aooBrJoon Tidy, �]� Dar nconad Tido Dna racairad is atrrmrlip = _OrgwAM _Linapritod _ll+rnmrpauod Attach a copy of the boat for tlr O"W location and • COPY of the approving rosolutlon honf tit local unit of govo nmont Mail this application to: Gambling Control Board Rosawood Plaza SoLAN 3rd Floor 1711 W. County Rand B R4oavl0a, WN 55113 For Board Use only: Approved O Denied O taadtat..oaraer,ararq Mral caro am RESOLUTION 94- RESOLUTION 4 RESOLUTION AUTHORMING THE ISSUANCE OF A GAMBLING LICENSE WHEREAS, the Monticello Jaycees has submitted an application to the City Council of Monticello for approval to conduct a pull -tab gambling activity for the Monticello Rod and Gun Club Annual Steak Fry August 13, 1994, and WHEREAS, upon review of the organization's activities, the Council is not opposed to the gambling license being issued by the State Gambling Control Board, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL that the Monticello Jaycees' application for a one -day off-site gambling license to conduct pull - tab sales at the Monticello Rod and Gun Club is hereby approved, and the State Gambling Control Board is authorized to process the application. Adopted by the City Council this 11th day of July, 1994. Mayor City Administrator 9) Council Agenda - 7/11/94 15. Consideration of adoDVmg Heartland Exurem Bus N1anaqqmgpt Plan r 19915. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Due to time limitations, this item could not be completed in time to be placed in the Council packet; therefore, it will be presented at the Council meeting on Monday. It is expected that the management plan will be identical to the plan approved for 1994. I do not anticipate any significant changes in the budget beyond inflation -related increases. Thank you for your understanding. MANAGEMENT PLAN MONTICELLO HEARTLAND EXPRESS 1894.95 A. ORGANIZATION The Heartland Express is organized and monitored by the City of Monticello under a contractual arrangement with Hoglund Transportation of Monticello. The 1995 management plan, contract bid specifications, and budget are based on the service demand and delivery experience gathered during 4 1/2 years of service. Selection of the service provider for budget year 1995 resulted from a formal bidding process conducted in the fall of 1992. Final terms of the contract between the city and service provider must be negotiated and may not exceed 4% of 1994 contract. If negotiated service fee of 4% or less cannot be established with existing provider, then a bidding process must be executed to identify service provider for 1995. The balance of this plan assumes that Hoglund Transportation will continue to provide service in 1995. Hoglund Transportation operates the Monticello Heartland Express and is responsible for the day to day operation of the transit program. Gordy Hoglund, owner of Hoglund Transportation, is responsible for the day to day management and operation of the transit system. The service provider is responsible for hiring, establishing wages, and terminating all employees working in conjunction with the Heartland Express. The City of Monticello's Assistant Administrator, Jeff O'Neill, will represent the applicant in negotiating an assistance contract with the state. The Assistant Administrator, with the assistance of the Bookkeeper and Computer Analyst, will be responsible for monitoring the ongoing operation of the system and will assist the Monticello Transportation Advisory Committee and the City Council in development of the Monticello transportation system operation policy. In addition, the Monticello Transportation Advisory Committee will provide marketing and operations support for the program in the form of in- kind contributions of time. Hoglund' Transportation, as the present transportation service provider, currently provides bus service to the Monticello School District and to other organizations. The transportation company staff consists of 35 drivers and 1 dispatcher. Two employees in addition to existing staff have been employed to service the contract with the City of Monticello. Of the additional staff required, one is a full-time driver and one works part-time. Each part-time driver works approximately ten hours per week. The transportation service provider is responsible for filing required reports to the Transportation Regulation Board. MGNTPLAN.95: 7/11/94 Page 1 of 8 B. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES GOALS: The main goal for 1995 is to maintain a client base through delivery of an efficient and effective transportation service. 1. Cost Efficiencv Establish a service level designed to encourage ridership while maintaining reasonable operating costa through efficient use of employees and a single 25 passenger vehicle. 1995 Projected Estimated miles: 28,000 1995 Projected Cost per mile: $2.40 1995 Projected Hours per employee: 1,150 2. Service Effectiveness Target elderly and handicapped markets with a variety of marketing campaigns to attract initial ridership. Establish user -oriented system featuring a minimal call ahead requirement of one hour. Achieve a ratio of .55 passengers per mile 3. Cost Effectiveness Make efficient use of transit dollars by establishing cost per passenger at $4.35. Establish revenue to cost ratio of 15%. C. LEVELS OF SERVICE 1. Service Area and Pooulati The Monticello Heartland Express is intended to service the population residing within the city of Monticello, the areas immediately adjacent to the city known as the Orderly Annexation Area, and a portion of Big Lake and Becker Townships, which are populated areas lying adjacent to Monticello across the Mississippi River and within the Monticello School District boundaries. The population of the city of Monticello is estimated at 5,300. The Orderly Annexation Area and township area population is estimated to be 4,000. Thew areas are outlined on Exhibit A. MGNTPLAN.95: 7/11/94 Page 2 of 8 Transportation to the Big Lake Nutrition Center from points in Monticello will be provided once a day during the noon hours. Transportation to and from Kjellbergs West Mobile Home Park, which is outside the city limits, is now being offered. Also, transportation to churches and businesses located in the township but directly adjacent to the city is provided at no added charge. The cost per ride directly to individual mobile home units within the Nellbergs West Park costs $2 per ride. No other transportation outside the areas mentioned is anticipated. Of primary importance is maintenance of a transportation service level that is attractive to city of Monticello riders, as the City of Monticello is the primary source of local revenue for this program. Therefore, except for service outside the city noted above, extension of transportation service to areas outside the Monticello city limits will be phased in as the service demand and concurrent impact on service delivery becomes better understood. Extension of service level beyond city limits will be considered by the City Council when it can be demonstrated that service expansion will not diminish capability of the system to offer a desirable service level to Monticello citizens. In addition, it must be demonstrated that the City portion of the cost to deliver service to the outlying areas can be recovered through a combination of user fees and through added cost efficiency created by new ridership. At such time that the bus service is expanded into outlying areas, the City Council of Monticello will establish bus fares that reflect the added cost of servicing outlying areas that do not contribute to the local share revenue generated by taxation. Tvoe of Service to be Ouerated, The City will administer through contract a "dial a ride" service which will feature a minimum one hour call ahead requirement. The program marketing effort will stress the importance of calling ahead sooner than one hour before the ride is needed. Days of Operation The City will he providing 2,300 hours of service between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 1995, which is equal to 9.2 -hour a day service, five days per week, not including holidays. Sunday service may be provided during the months of January, February, March, November, and December. Service is to be provided between the hours of 8:15 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. This service will be provided if the total cost is funded via private donations. Any hours above 2,300 will be funded entirely by the group or organization requesting the service. On the average, 8.5 - hour -a -day service is planned for Monday through Friday. In addition, if additional revenue becomes available, such funds could be used to expand transportation hours. The cost to operate the bus beyond the MGNTPLAN.95: 7/11/94 Page 3 of 8 basic 9 -hour day would be financed entirely by the local share. Source of such funds might include donations from the Lions Club, M.S. Society, City of Monticello, or others. 4. Hours of Ooeration The budget calls for a total of 2,300 service hours per year. These hours will be used as follows: Summer month hours of operation - 8:15 a.m. to 5 p.m. plus .25 hours/day for bus prep time results in 8 hours per day. Total summer hours equal to 1.000. Winter month hours of operation - 8:15 a.m. to 5 p.m. plus .25/day for bus prep results in 9 hours per day. Total winter hours equal to 1.125. Surplus hours equal difference between total summer and winter scheduled hours minus budget amount (175 hours) will be used for special events and used to bring a second bus on line during peak demand periods. D. FARES The proposed fare structure calls for a base fare of $1.00 per one-way ride. This fare will apply to all city of Monticello riders, including elderly, children over the age of 6, and able-bodied adults. Children under 6 years of age may ride free with a parent or guardian. Reduced fares will be available to all potential users of the system through the purchase of ticket books. Reduced fares can be obtained when tickets are purchased in bulk through ticket books per the following table: Base rate: $ 1.00 10 -ride ticket book $ 7.50 ($.75/ride) 40 -ride ticket book $25.00 ($.62/ride) 35 -ride ticket book $25.00 ($.7Vride) It is a distinct possibility that the price of the 40 -ride ticket book will adjusted resulting in an increased fare from $.62/ride to $.71/ride. This would be accompliohed by reducing the number of tickets in a book to 35. Bus drivers will sell ticket books on the bus but will not make change for individuals paying the base fare. MGNTPLAN.95: 7/11/84 Page 4 of 8 Ticket books will be sold on the bus, at city hall, the senior center, and at the school district offices. The City Bookkeeper will be responsible for coordinating ticket printing, distributing ticket books, and collecting ticket book revenue. Fare structure for outlying areas shall be established by the City Council at such time that it is determined that it is feasible to serve outlying areas. MARKETING A major thrust of the marketing effort will be focused on the primary users of the system, which are the elderly and handicapped. Approximately 750 citizens over 60 years of age reside within the city of Monticello, of which a significant portion participate in programs offered by the local Senior Citizen Center. This center will be a major trip destination point and will also be the primary distribution point for marketing information regarding the program. Successful development of the senior market will occur if the Senior Center resources are properly used in promoting the program. In 1994, approximately 44% of the users included elderly and handicapped. The remainder of the transit market includes mostly children. In 1994, it was found that children utilized the system in conjunction with after school and summer recreation activities. In 1994, approximately 28% of the ridership consisted of children. Continued marketing efforts will be made to communicate the service to this segment of the population through cooperative efforts with the school district. Twenty percent of the local households are considered to be "low income" as defined by the State of Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development. This represents approximately 340 households within the city of Monticello. A portion of these households utilize the bus transportation program for economic reasons. An additional focus of the marketing effort will include communicating the program to this group through standard means and through organizations that have frequent contact with this segment of the population. Local social services such as the food shelf, the "WIC" program, Wright County Social Services, and local churches will be utilized as the medium by which the program can be marketed to this special group. Much of the work force that resides within Monticello commutes to points well outside the city limits. Marketine Concenk Standard methods for promoting the transportation system will be utilized. The City of Monticello will strive toward development of an efficient marketing program by utilizing many of the techniques now in MGNTPLAN.95: 7/11/94 Page 5 of 8 place in other communities. Such techniques may include but not be limited to the following: • Of secondary importance in development of an advertising campaign is utilization of the local newspaper. A series of advertisements may be developed to promote the system. ' Continued development and refinement of information brochures describing the transportation service. Brochures will be distributed to various organizations for further distribution. ' Development of an attractive image by maintaining a clean and attractive bus. Service image will focus on providing "coach" service rather than bus service. ` Clean and efficient operation of the transportation service will be goals which will allow the system to market itself through word of mouth advertising. • Local schools and the local library will be asked to participate in marketing availability of service to youngsters. ' The city newsletter will continue to be an important tool for advertising the system. • Posters will be used to a greater extent to advertise the bus. ` A larger sign/dial-a-ride phone number will be painted on the bus for maximum exposure. 3. Marketine Plan Cost/Benefit The proposed marketing plan is relatively inexpensive in terms of cost of advertising and supplies; however, it does require considerable effort in terns of conn -hours. Much of the marketing effort requires personal contact and one-to-one advocacy which is likely to reap significant rewards in terms of ridership. Fortunately, volunteer and man-hours are available to sufficiently market the service to groups and service organizations. COORDINATION WITH EXISTING TRANSIT OPERATIONS The degree in which this program is coordinated with the Annandale Heartland Express and the Sherburne County Heartland Express is limited. On occasion a Monticello rider will be transferred to a Sherburne County system vehicle for transport to points in Sherburne County. This type of occurrence is rather rare. Likewise, on occasion a Sherburne County rider is transported to a drop-off point in the Monticello transit area, with the MGNTPLAN.98: 7/11/94 Page 6 of 8 Monticello system then transporting the individual to a specific point in the city. In sum, system integration and coordination is not emphasized. Discussions between the three transportation providers in this area are now underway with the goal of improving system integration and efficiency. As noted earlier, the Monticello Heartland Express will be operating a once -a - week shuttle service to Big Lake and back in an effort to provide better service to more people in a cost effective manner. The Monticello Heartland Express will be coordinated with an existing volunteer driver transportation program originating from Wright County. Coordination of transportation service will allow volunteer resources to be used for other longer distance driving duties such as transporting individuals to metro locations and back. G. EXPENSE CONTRACT New, revised expense contract with the service provider was established in October 1992. This contract is attached. As you will note, the purchase of service charges for 1995 will need to be negotiated and must not increase over 4%. H. REVENUE CONTRACTS From time to time, requests are made by various organizations for Monticello Heartland Express service outside the standard hours of service. Financing of the hourly cost and mileage of added service is provided by the organization requesting the service. Such service is provided to all residents and not for the exclusive use by the organization requesting service. I. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Purchase of a $250 cellular phone is planned for 1995. J. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM The City shall monitor and enforce the terms of the transportation service expense contract, which includes a vehicle maintenance program requirement that is consistent with state requirements. Please see the transportation service expense contract for details. K. DRIVER SELECTION The City shall monitor and enforce the terms of the transportation service expense contract, which includes a driver selection process that is consistent with state requirements. Please see the transportation service expense contract for details. MGNTPLAN.95: 7/11/94 Page 7 of 8 INSURANCE The City shall monitor and enforce the terms of the transportation service expense contract, which includes an insurance requirement that is consistent with state requirements. Please see the transportation service expense contract for details. M_ TIME DISTRIBUTION RECORD The City shall monitor and enforce the terms of the transportation service expense contract, which includes maintenance of time distribution records in a manner that is consistent with state requirements. Please see the transportation service expense contract for details. NVIGNTPLAN.96: 7/11/94 Page 8 of 8 MONTICELLO HEARTLAND EXPRESS BUDGET SYSTEM NARRATIVE Personal Services The Monticello Heartland Express budget calls for administrative, management, and supervisory services in the amount of $2,869. This amount will pay for time spent working on the system by the Assistant Administrator, Computer Analyst, and Bookkeeper. Fringe benefits in the personal services category amount to $556. Total personal services expense is projected at $3,425. Administrative Charges Under tariffs and traffic expenses, it is projected that the City will spend $200 on tickets to be used in conjunction with the transportation program, and $600 for advertising. The budget includes $200 for legal fees and $140 for miscellaneous travel expenses, which results in a total of $1,140 budgeted for administrative charges. Vehicle Charges Gasoline and oil purchases made by the transportation service provider is covered under vehicle charges. Based on a projected total mileage of 28,000, it is expected that gasoline costs will amount to $4,800. This amount includes a 4% increase to the 1994 rates and includes the $.20 Per gallon gas tax credit. Operations Char eM The City has entered into a contract with Hoglund Coach Lines that can be extended to cover for services to be delivered in 1995. The purchase of service rate through the contract is estimated at $22.88/hour. The management plan calls for 2,300 hours of transportation service, which results in a projected purchase of service charge of $52,624. In addition, a mileage/maintenance expense of $.1872 per mile is included in the operations charge, which is estimated at $5240. Total operations charges amount to $57,864. Insurance Charges Hoglund Coach Lines, as transportation provider, is required to provide insurance coverage in the amounts of at least $1,000,000 per claim and at least $100,000 per occurrence. The operator also provides comprehensive coverage for each vehicle and collision coverage to provide replacement funds in the event of substantial loss. MN/DOT and the City of Monticello are included as additional named insured on the operator's insurance. All insurance charges are thus paid by the contractor and are part of the purchase of service fee. BUDGET94.NAR: 7/9/93 Page 1 of 2 Taxes and Fees No funds have been budgeted for taxes and fees, as no such expenses are expected given the design of the Monticello Heartland Express. Total Operatine Expenses Total operating expenses for the Monticello Heartland Express program during the 12 -month period from January 1, 1995, to December 31,1995, is projected to equal $67,229. Operatine Revenues, It is expected that passenger fares, including revenue oontracts, will amount to $10,075 based on a projected ridership of 16,500. Tine projection is based on no increase in the cost of bus fares. Cavital Expenses A replacement of the existing cellular phone is planned for 1995 at an estimated cost of $250 Budeet Summary For the 12 -month period from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 1995, it is expected that capital expenses will amount to $250. Operational expenses will amount to $67,229. Fare revenue will amount to $10,075, which creates a total operating deficit of $57,154. BUDGET94.NAR: 7/9/93 Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION 94- Resolved 4 Resolved that the City of Monticello enter into Contract Number with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, to provide public transportation service in Monticello. Further resolved that the City of Monticello agrees to provide 40% of the total operating cost from local funds and 20% of the total capital costs. Further resolved that authorization to execute the aforementioned Contract and any amendments thereto is hereby given to the Assistant City Administrator or the City Administrator. Further resolved that the Assistant Administrator or the City Administrator is authorized to execute requests for reimbursement from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the City of Monticello at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 11th day of July, 1994, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. Rick Wolfsteller City Administrator 1995 BUDGET OPERAT-im EXPENSES PERSONNEL SERVICES 1010 Administrative, Management & Supervisory Services 1020 Operator's Wages 1030 Maintenance & Repair Wages 1040 General Office Support Wages 1050 Operations Support Wages 1060 Fringe Benefits 1000 PERSONNEL SERVICES TOTAL ADMRWMRATIVE CHARGES 1110 Management Fees 1120 Tariffs & Traffic Expenses 1130 Adverrising, Marketing & Promodonal Charges 1140 Legal, Auditing & Other Professional Fees 1150 Security Costs 1160 Office Supplies 1170 Leases & Rentals (Admin. Facilities) (specify) 1180 Utilities 1190 Other Direct Administrative Charges (specify) 1100 ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES TOTAL VEHICLE CHARGES 1210 Fuel & Lubricants 1220 Maintenance & Repair Material (Vehicles) 1230 Contract Service Maintenance Labor 1240 Tires 1250 Other Vehicle Charges (specify) 1200 VEHICLE CHARGES TOTAL OPERATIONS CHARGES 1310 Purchase of Service 1320 Depreciation 1330 Mileage Reimbursement for Passenger Service 1310 Repair & Maintenance of Other Property 1350 Leases & Rentals (garages. vehicles. etc.) (specify) 1360 Other Operations Charges (specify) 1300 OPERATIONS CHARLES TOTAL Cl ANTICIPATED STATISTICS FOR NER' CONTRACT PER10D 2080 789 556 3425 200 600 200 140 1140 4800 4800 52,624 5,240 51,864 EX1iIBIT I 1995 INSURANCE CHARGES 1410 Public Liability & Property Damage on Vehicles 1420 Public Liability & Property Damage Other than on Vehicles 1400 INSURANCE CHARGES TOTAL TABES AND FEES 1510 Vehicle Registration & Permit Fees 1520 Federal Fuel & Lubricant Taxes 1530 State Fuel & Lubricant Taxes °�'� 1540 Other Taxes & Fees 1500 TABES AND FEES TOTAL 1600 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 67,229 OPERATING REVENUES 2010 Farebox Revenue 10,075 2020 System Revenues 2000 REVENUES TOTAL 10,075 6 2110 Federal Operating Grant (Section 9 only) 2120 Federal Capital Grant 7 ` CAPrTAL EXPENSES 1710 Vehicle 1720 Lift. Ramp, Etc. 1730 Radio Equipment 1740 Farebox 1750 Other Capital Expenses 1700 CAPITAL EXPENSE TOTAL EXHIBIT 1 0 1995 OPERATING STATISTICS The purpose of this form is to describe the anticipated operational characteristics of the participating transit system. ANTICIPATED STATISTICS PASSENGERS For New Contract Period 2500 TOTAL NUMBER OF PASSENGERS 15,500 Of this total, how many passengers will be: 2510 Disabled 351 2511 Elderly (55+) 7,133 2512 Adults (18-54) 4,105 2513 Youth (6-17) 2514 Children (0-5) 3.911 1Note: Total of 25ZO-2.114 mre4 egoal late 25001 Of Line 2500, how many will be: 2515 Dernand Response 15,500 2516 Fixed Route 2517 Volunteer Driver Passengers HOURS 2530 TOTAL SERvIcE HouRs Of this total, how many hours will be: 2.300 Regular Route Demand Responsive (Dial -A -Ride) 2,300 Route Deviation (Flex Fixed) Subscription Contract Shared Ride Taxi 2531 Volunteer Drivers MILES 2540 TOTAL VEHICLE MILES 28.000 Of this total, how many miles will be: Regular Route Demand Responsive 28.000 Route Deviation Subscription Contract Shared Ride Taxi 2541 Volunteer Drivers EXHIBIT 1 C3 REVENUE WORKSHEET 2010 FAREeOX REVENUES (Sum of 1 & 2 below) TOTAL 10.075 1. Cash Fara 2..500 2. Coupons, Passes, and Tokens 7.575 2020 SYs m REvENUE (Sum of 1-6 below) TOTAL 1. Special Route Guarantees 2. Contract Revenues 3. Advertising and Concession Revenues 4. Package Delivery Revenues 5. Vehicle/Facility Leasing Revenues i 6. Other Revenues rr i 2000 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES (Sum of Lines 2010 and 2020) TOTAL 10,075 C4 1 LOCAL SHARE WORKSHEET OPERATING REVENUES (LINE 2000) TOTAL 10,075 LOCAL APPROPRIATIONS TOTAL 16,816 CowrmLrrIONS TOTAL 2. 3. -4. LOCAL SHARE TOTAL 26,891 EXHIBIT 1 C5 Council Agenda - 7/11/94 16. Consideration of appointiina W@nda Kraemer to the Development Services Technician position. (J.O.) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: City Council is asked to consider making an appointment to the position of Development Services Technician. In response to the posting of the job opening internally, City administration received three applications from current employees. Applications were submitted by Pat Kovich, Marlene Hellman, and Wanda Kraemer. The qualifications of each individual were reviewed in terms of the minimum requirements as outlined in the job description. It was determined that Pat Kovich did not meet the minimum requirements of the position; therefore, she did not receive an interview. Both Marlene Hellman and Wanda Kraemer were interviewed on Wednesday, July 6, 1994, by a group of employees including the City Administrator, Economic Development Director, Building Inspector, Office Manager, and the Assistant Administrator. A series of questions were asked relating to the new position. Subsequent to the interviews, the group reviewed both applications in terms of the following general categories: 1. Experience and education background as it relates to the position 2. Ability to deal with the public in a positive manner 3. Ability to collect and prepare information/reports/ minutea/memos 4. Ability to follow procedures/operations b. Ability and aptitude to operate computers 6. Communication with co-workera/ability to work as a team 7. Knowledge of development process and codes As a result of the analysis done jointly by the interview group, it was determined that both individuals would meet the minimum qualifications of the position. Both candidates deal with the public in a very positive manner, both are excellent at following procedures and operations, and both appear to have an equal knowledge of the development process and codes. In other words, both are fantastic employees that deserve recognition for their service. It was a difficult choice; however, the group agreed unanimously that Wanda Kraemer should be selected for the position based on the strength of her experience working in a similar capacity in Plymouth, and based on a stronger team orientation, and problem solving aptitude. For the reasons noted above, it was the consensus of the interview group to recommend to the City Council that Wanda Kraemer he promoted to the position of Development Services Technician. Under this alternative, Wanda Kraemer would go from an annual pay of $25,377 at step 6 of grade 4 to a pay of $26,472 at step 3 of grade 7. At the end of the 6 -month Council Agenda - 7/11/94 probation period, she would be eligible for a step increase if she meets performance expectations. In order to pass probation, she will need to demonstrate her research and writing capabilities, along with becoming adept at applying the city code effectively. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to appoint Wanda Kraemer to the position of Development Services Technician and authorize City staff to advertise internally for filling the Receptionist/Utility Billing position. Under this alternative, Wanda Kraemer would continue to complete her duties as Receptionist/Utility Billing Clerk until such time that an employee is hired to fill this position. Kraemer would then start her 6 -month probationary period. 2. Motion to appoint Marlene Hellman to the position or motion to authorize staff to advertise the opening to the general public. If the City Council is not satisfied that Wanda Kraemer can successfully complete the duties of this position, then Marlene Hellman should be considered, or the position should be open to the general public. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: For reasons outlined in the discussion above, it is our view that Wanda Kraemer has the experience and drive to successfully complete the duties of this position. We are confident that in the areas where she needs some additional training, she will aggressively pursue improving her skills in these areas through coursework and study. Therefore, we confidently recommend that Kraemer be appointed to the position of Development Services Technician. We also commend Marlene Hellman for the fine work she has done for the City in her present position and thank her for applying for the new position. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Job description; Interview questions; Job opening notice. 20 Development Services Technician City of Monticello Title of Class: Development Services Technician Effective Date: June 27, 1994 DESCRIPTION OF WORK General Statement of Duties: Acts as initial contact with builders, contractors, and general public providing information and scheduling relating to development process. Provides administrative and technical services as directed to facilitate building, planning and zoning, and economic development department operations. Supervision Received: Works under the general direction of the Assistant City Administrator. Supervision Exercised: None. TYPICAL DUTIES PERFORMED The listed examples may not include all duties performed by all positions in this class. Duties may vary somewhat from position to position within a class. Serves as primary knowledgeable contact at public service counter and on telephone for technical information about planning, zoning, and building inspection matters and for general information about development activities in the city, including: Researches and collects information on various community development issues relating to land use regulations, site data (videos also), and construction; Directs community development inquiries to appropriate City personnel; Returns calls and develop written responses to inquiries as directed; Provides accurate and responsive information and direction promptly and courteously. Provide effective work direction to personnel whose secondary duties include conveying public information to assure accurate and timely service, including: Provides for familiarization and training for other personnel so that information conveyed is current and accurate; Creates and maintains supply of published information sheets, checklists, maps, and application forms; Provides administrative and technical services as directed to facilitate departmental operations, including: Receives plane and related materials and determine completeness for purpose of accepting complete applications and fees; Schedules site plan review meetings; Assures application materials are properly dated, logged, and distributed; Coordinates building inspection processes; Schedules inspections; Issues miscellaneous permits (i.e. decks, etc.); Monitor project 0 Development Services Technician City of Monticello status --flag problems; Coordinates building inspection and public works inspection activities; Performs planning, zoning, and building recordkeeping; Performs research as assigned for planning, zoning, and permit applications and reports findings in an articulate, complete, and timely manner; Assists with preparation, production, and distribution of staff reports, Planning Commission agendas; Attends Planning Commission meetings and record minutes; Research for Parks Commission as requested and attend meetings as needed; Prepare public hearing notices; File CRVs; Take Gopher State One calls until computerized. Provides coordination of an,: work direction for complaint investigations, responses violation verification, and initiation of appropriate administrative remedies, including: Assures bona fide complaints about codes and ordinances within department authority are acknowledged, logged, and investigated in a timely and accurate manner; Prepares public nuisance mailings; Coordinates with designated personnel within department as appropriate; Provides effective communication to other support personnel to assure timely and accurate administrative practices are followed so that proper records are created and maintained. Develops current public information materials about department operations and serves as liaison with commissions or committees as needed. Keeps abreast of and informs supervisor of developments and trends in subjects related to areas of responsibilities, including: Maintains working knowledge of zoning ordinance and related policies; Maintains familiarity with current building practices and municipal development; Coordinates preparation of periodic reports about department activities such as number of applications and permits processing, of inspections performed, and rate of processing. Assists with coordinating City involvement in community events. Supports office processes as needed (typing, filing, copying, etc.) and perform other related work as apparent or assigned. KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABHXMS Considerable knowledge of city operations, policies, procedures, and practices. Working knowledge of the operation of planning, building, and public works depai lments. Working knowledge of the operation of office equipment, including personal computer and ability to utilize various programs. I� Development Services Technician City of Monticello Working knowledge of county, state, and federal regulations governing development. Considerable ability to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, with City staff, elected officials, and the general public. Considerable ability to organize work and and maintain procedures and processes supporting development process. Working ability to research and analyze data. QUALIFICATIONS Minimum five years' municipal experience in a developing community with direct experience in the general area of community development. Demonstrated effective oral and written communication skills that can be directly applied to municipnl setting. Working familiarity with electronic data processing equipment and ability to utilize dictation equipment, photocopiers, and filing systems. Demonstrated working knowledge of municipal land use regulations, building codes, and construction practices, and the ability to relate these to lay persons and professionals. Ability to work consistently and effectively in a challenging and potentially stressful environment with a high volume of inquiries, applications, and communications. Current State of Minnesota driver's license. �01) INTERVIEW QUESTIONS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICILAN Wednesday, July 6 Describe in your terms what the role of this position will be in the organization. (How will it be helping Jef, 011ie, Gary, etc.) 2A. Why do you want to move to this position from your present position? 2B. How does acquiring this position relate to your career goals? What experience or education do you possess that qualifies you for this position? 4. What would be your favorite part of this job? Your lawt favorite? Interview Questions DST Position Page 2 b. In what areas do you feel you would need additional training? 6. What strengths would you bring to this position? 7. Describe your experience in preparing written and verbal reports. 8. Do you have a problem with an occasional night meeting or overtime? 9. Questions from candidate. MON ICEu.O 250 East Bmadwav P.O. Box 1147 Monticello, MN 55362-9245 NOTICE Phone: (612) 295-2711 Metro: (612) 333-5739 fax: (612) 295-4404 TO: All City Employees ,(, FROM: Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrat4l DATE: June 29, 1994 ��///// RE- JOB OPENING AT CITY HALL This notice is to inform all city employees that the full-time position entitled "Development Services Technician" is now open for applications from City employees. A complete job description may be obtained from the Office Manager. If you are interested in applying for this position, please submit your application/resume to the Office Manager by 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, July 5. 1994. The comparable worth pointe have been established as follows: Knowledge B2 Accountability C lb Planning 4A Supervision AO Working Conditions 1B1 3C2 6D3 9B1 IOBI 40 64 9 0 8 111 TOTAL POINTS The pay scale for Chia position is from $24,066 to $30,082. COUNCIL UPDATE July 8, 1994 Update on Dvlon sign height variance granted to SuDerAmerica GrouD; 0.O. ) In conjunction with the conditional use approval granted to the SuperAmerica Group, the Planning Commission also granted a variance to the pylon sign height requirement. The present standard for pylons in the freeway bonus area is 32 ft. The Planning Commission granted a variance allowing a sign with a height of 55 ft. This variance was granted based on the finding that a hardship exists due to the fact that SuperAmerica needs freeway -bound customers and the pylon cannot be seen at 32 ft in the freeway bonus area; therefore, a variance is justified. Approval of this variance was on a 3 to 2 vote. According to the zoning ordinance, individuals wishing to appeal a decision made by the Planning Commission on a variance request have six days to appeal the decision. If an appeal is forthcoming, then the item is placed on the next agenda of the City Council. If any Council member believes that this item should be brought before the City Council for further review, then you should appeal the decision made by the Planning Commission. If not, no further action is required, and the decision made by the Planning Commission on the variance stands. As a final note of information that was not provided to the Planning Commission, in 1991 the Subway Shop submitted a very similar pylon sign height variance request. The Subway Shop request for a higher pylon sign was denied based on the finding that there was no hardship. Therefore, to approve the variance for SuperAmerica would appear to be inconsistent with the Subway Shop decision. Furthermore, the hardship defined by the Planning Commission in their finding does not establish a specific standard as to when a variance should be granted to allow visibility of the sign from the freeway. It could be argued that ¢nv bysiness that needs freeway exposure could argue that they suffer from a hardship because their business sign cannot be seen from the freeway. Where then does the City draw the line? From a planning and zoning code administration standpoint, it would appear that if the Planning Commission and City Council are comfortable with the 55 ft high sign at SuperAmerica, then the ordinance should be recrafted to allow for higher pylon signs but perhaps limit the area eligible for such signs. Under the variance as granted, the door has been opened up to allowing higher pylon signs throughout all areas within 800 ft of the freeway area. Following you will find the information presented to the Planning Commission, along with meeting minutes pertaining to the Subway Shop pylon sign height variance request, followed by research on sign issues and associated ordinance amendments discussed in 1989. Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89 Consideration of amendments to Section 3-9[E] 4 and 3-9[EI4(c) of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the regulation of pylon sign height, sign area, and the number allowed per business along t e Highway 25/ Interstate 94 corridors in the city of Monticello. Applicant, City of Monticello. Q.O.) In response to recent sign ordinance variance requests pertaining to sign height and size limitations, the City Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to examine the sign ordinance and consider making recommendations to Council which would modify the ordinance. Two variance requests were tabled pending the outcome of the deliberation over amendments to the sign ordinance. The first variance request involved First National Bank, which desired to place a pylon sign with a sign area that is slightly more than twice as large as that which is allowed in the 30 mph zone. The other variance involved the Tom Thumb Store, which desired to place two pylon signs on the Tom Thumb property. Following is a review of the major sign related issues that the Planning Commission has grappled with to date, a review of research done on other communities, treatment of such issues, and also included is an assortment of proposed changes to the existing sign ordinance- FOUR rdinance-FOUR MAJOR ISSUES The Planning Commission did not attempt to disect and rewrite the entire sign ordinance] rather, four areas were singled out for analysis and review. They included sign height and sign area, restrictions in the Highway 25 corridor, the number of signs allowed, and sign height and size limits for signs located near the intersection of Highway 25 and I-94 were examined. RESEARCH In conducting our research in this matter, the City collected six sign ordinances from various commnunities in the metro and outstate areas and also obtained seven sign ordinances from various communities as chosen by First National Hank. Each ordinance was reviewed in terms of the four issues noted above. An abbreviated version of how those ordinances treat those issues can be found on Exhibit A. Exhibit A lists each commwnity roughly an the basis of most liberal to most restrictive. Following is a quick review of Exhibit A in terms of the four issues studied. Maximum Height In the 30 mph zone in a business district, sign height in Monticello is limited to 18 feet. Sign heights in other communities in business zones range from n low of 18 feet in Monticello to a 36 -foot maximum allowed in Plymouth. There are a number of communities such as uaconia, Elk River, Lakeville, Chaska, and Mound which limit sign height to less than 25 feet. It, therefore, appears that relative to other communities, limiting sign height to 18 feet in the busineso zone is relatively restrictive. Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89 Maximum Square Foot Area Allowed. In the 30 mph zone, sign area is limited in Monticello to 50 sq ft. The research shows that sign area allowed in other communities ranges from 48 sq ft allowed in Mound to 250 sq ft allowed in Anoka. This particular regulation was difficult to get a handle on, relatively speaking, because each community tends to apply the maximum square foot area allowed for pylon signs in a slightly different manner. However, generally speaking, it appears that the average maximum square foot area allowed tends to fall somewhere around 80 sq ft for signs located in a business area similar to the Highway 25 corridor. Number of Pylon Signs Allowed Per Property. In looking at the research, you will note that most communities limit pylon signs to one pylon sign per property. However, some communities do allow more than one pylon sign as long as certain conditions are met. For instance, Minnetonka allows one pylon sign per every 200 feet of frontage that a property might have on a corner lot. Minnetonka also restricts pylon development to the extent that the pylon signs on a corner lot must be at least 200 feet apart. The City of Fairbault allows more than one pylon sign but limits the total sign area of all the signs to the same area allowed for a single sign. Freeway Sign Height and Size Limits. As you know, the City of Monticello has provided variances to this section of the ordinance on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, on some occasions, a hardship or special circumstance was not clearly defined when granting the variance, thus setting a precedence which has, in effect, raised the sign height and size maximum allowed in the community. The Planning Commission desired to look at this issue and determine if it wishes to change the ordinance to reflect the variances, or if it would rather reaffirm the pre-existing ordinance and hold firm on variance requests until sufficient hardship can be presented to justify individual variance requests. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance allows a 32 -foot sign to be placed in the freeway bonus area, which is within 800 feet of the freeway. The maximum sign area allowed for the freeway signs is 200 aq ft. Due to the granting of variances, the sign height maximum has been indirectly set at approximately 50 feet. Many of the communities noted in this survey do not have a freeway passing through the community. Therefore, their sign ordinances are not as applicable. However, it appears that for those communities that do have freeways passing through their communities, it generally appears that the sign height limitations range between 30 feet in Coon Rapids to 36 feet in Plymouth. It appears then that the Monticello maximum of 32 feet is reasonable relative to how other communities limit sign height along freeway areas. -2- Planning Coimnission Agenda - 4/4/89 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SIGN SECTION OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE The survey noted above has been shared with the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission has provided staff with sone input prior to development of the proposed changes to the sign ordinance. The following outlines proposed changes in terms of each of the four issues noted above. Pylon Sign Height The ordinance amendment proposes that the pylon sign height along Highway 25 be increased from 18 feet to 22 feet. denty-two (22) feet happens to be the sign height maximum for the 35 mph and seems to be an appropriate height relative to height restrictions found in other communities. In addition, if the pylon sign area allowed along the Highway 25 corridor is allowed to increase, then the sign height should be allowed to increase as well in order to maintain the proper sign height and size proportions. Maximum Square Foot Area Allowed. At the last meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission directed staff to apply the 35 mph restrictions to the Highway 25 corridor, which would have allowed all signs along the Highway 25 corridor to have a maximum sign area of 100 sq ft. There was some concern, however, at the time that we needed to look at some of the =11e r lots on Highway 25 and possibly develop some kind of formula that would limit pylon sign size on smaller lots to avoid the potential of "stacking" 100 sq ft signs. In response to that concern, staff put together an inventory of properties on Highway 25 which included the existing front footage of those businesses. We then started to work with numbers to try to establish a formula that would on the one hand allow properties with significant frontage to have a 100 sq ft sign, but an the other hand limit properties that are stacked together to signs of a lesser size. Exhibit A-1 reveals the property inventory and outlines a proposed formula for calculating sign area allowed along Highway 25. The basic formula is as follows: 10 aq ft of sign area would be allowed per every 3.03 lineal front feet with the following exceptions: a) All properties would be allowed a minimum of a 50 sq ft sign, which is consistent with the existing ordinance. This sign area allowance of 50 aq ft would be provided regardless of the lineal front feet owned by a business along Highway 25; b) The maximum size allowed would be capped at 100 sq ft regardless of the lineal front footage of the business along Highway 25. The impact of the proposed sign ordinance on individual properties can be found in Exhibit A-1. in summary, those businesses with 330 feet such as Security Financial, First National Bank, and Wright County State Bank would be allowed to place signs with a total sign area of 100 sq ft. On the other hand, numerous properties possessing 165 lineal front feet (one city block) would not be impacted by the proposed change, as those properties would be allowed a 50 sq ft sign. Under this ordinance, properties such as Royal Tire with 254 front feet would be allowed a sign that is greater than 50 sq ft but less than loo cq ft, as 254 X 3.03 - 77 sq ft allowed. Businesses such -3- Planning Commission Agenda - 4/4/89 as the Plumbery, which only has 122 lineal feet, would still be allowed to have a 50 sq ft sign. Businesses such as Monticello Ford, with 646 lineal feet, would not be allowed to have a 196 sq ft sign, as this ordinance calls for capping the allowable sign area at 100 sq ft. Planning Commission and Council may want to insert an adjustment which might allow a business with a very long frontage to install more than one pylon sign. This has been done in other communities such as Minnetonka. The formula, along with the maximums and minimums provided, will result in a potential increase in sign area along Highway 25 of 31 percent. Number of Signs Allowed. It is proposed that the number of pylon signs allowed remain at one sign per property. It is the view of staff and the Planning Commission that this is reasonable given the practice of other communities and given the character of the community. Sign Height and Size Limitations in the Freeway Bonus Area. The Planning Commission recommends to Council that no changes be made to this section of the Zoning Ordinance and that the 32 -foot height maximum in the freeway bonus area be reaffirmed. It is also the view of the Planning Commission that future variance requests should be required to show unique circmatances a--cociated with the development which require that variances be granted. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to recommend adoption of proposed amendments. 2. Motion to modify and adopt proposed amendments. 3. Motion to deny adoption of proposed amendments. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance amendments as presented. It is staff's view that the amendments as proposed do comply with Section 22 of the Zoning Ordinance: 1) The proposed amendments are consistent with the Municipal Comprehensive Plan; 2) The proposed amendments will not negatively affect the character of the surrounding area or geographic area involvedl 3) The amendments as proposed will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which the amendments will take effect; 4) The demonstrated need has been sufficiently demonstrated. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Exhibit A, comparison of freestanding/pylon sign regulations administered by various communities Exhibit A-1, proposed elements of sign ordinance amendments pertaining to pylon signs located along Highway 25; Proposed amendment to sign ordinance, Section 3-9-4(c). -4- CCMPARISON OF FREESTANOING/PYLON SIGN REGULATIONS TTY ,31JO18 J 4DMINISTERED BY VARIOUS COMMUNITIES law+ -.s O f•,� X n3. 4. IMAX IMAX I NUMBER IFREEWAY SIGN HEIGHT COMMENTS IHT. ISO FT I ALLOWED 1AND SIZE LIMITS I (AREA I 9ROIAREALYN CENTER I�I I --- I I I ' f SIGN HEIGHT & AREA 1 32 I 160 E PYLON PER 400' IND SPECIAL LIMITATIONS BASED ENTIRELY I I OF FRONTAGE. GAS ICONS IDERATICN ON SIZE OF BUILDING. I I 1 STATIONS ALLOWED ONE I I I ADDED PUMP PYLON 1 I I I MAX HEIGHT 15' I I I MAX AREA 20 SOFT. I ANOKA I I I TOTAL SIGN AREA 135 1 250 I TOTAL SIGNS NOT TO INOT APPLICABLE IS LIMITED TO 250 SOFT I I I TO EXCEED SQ FT MAX. I INCLUDING WALL SIGN I I I I I I FARIBAULT I I I I I I 2 SO FT OF SIGN AREA I 1 125 I NOT TO EXCEED THREE 55 FEET HIGH/SIGN ALLOWED PER LINEAL FT WITH TOTAL SIGN AREA IMESSAGE LIMITED TO SIMPLE OF BUILDING FRONT' UP I I ALLOWED NOT TO EXCEED IIDENTIFICATION TO 125 SQ FT, INFORMATION I I I SUM OF INDIVIDUAL SIGN 1 SIGNS SEPARATE I I AREA I I I I I 'ASKA 2 SO FT SIGN PER FRONT FT I I I 1 24 100 I MORE THAN ONE WITH INOT APPLICABLE OF BUILDING PLUS 1 SO FT I I SIGN AREA LIMITED SIGN AREA PER LOT FRONT FT I I I I NOT TO EXCEED 100 SO FT I I I I I LAKEVILLE I I I I I I SIGN REGIS ESTABLISHED 1 20 I 100 1 ONE IVARIABLE-BASED ON BY ZONING DISTRICT - I I I (CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS NOT BY SPEED LIMIT I I I I OF ADJOINING ROADWAY I I I I I OWATONNA I I I I I I I SIGN SIZE REGULATED BY 135 1 100 1 TWO PYLONS ALLOWED ISIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT DISTRICT. OWATONNA I I I ON CORNER LOT 1 35' MAXIMUM HEIGHT 8-2 DISTRICT IS EQUAL I I I PROVIDED TOTAL SIGN 1 200 SO FT MAX SIZE TO OUR B-4 DISTRICT. I I I AREA DOES NOT EXCEED (ADDITIONAL 1 SQ FT I I I MAXIMUM ALLOWED AND ISIGN AREA ALLOWED I I I EACH CORNER HAS MIN IFOR EVERY ADDITONAL I I I OF 75' FRONTAGE 1 100 SO FT OF BUILDING I I I 10VER 2.000 SO FT. I I I ICOND USE PERMIT NEEDED I I I FOR LARGER SIGNS W/1 500' COON RAPIDS 1I 30 11 100 I 1 SIGN PER FRONTAGE I NO SPECIAL CONSIDERATION I I I WITH LIMITS 1FOR HIGHWAY 10 SIGNAGE I I I 1 30' MAX HEIGHT ._YMOUTH ( 36 1 96 1 ONE IND SPECIAL CON31DERATICN L COMPARISON OF FREESTANDING/PYLON SIGN REGULATICNS rI7Y ADMINISTERED BY VARIOUS CCMT'UNITIES 1. 2. 3. A- IMAX IMAX I NUMBER IFREEWAY SIGN HEIGHT COMMENTS UHT. 150 FT I ALLOWED IANO SIZE LIMITS I (AREA I I I 1-1-1 I I I IMAX HEIGHT 15 36' WACONIA 1 20 1 80 1 ONE I I I INOT APPLICABLE I HOPKINS I I I APPLICATION OF SIZE LIMITS 1 35 1 60-80 0. TOTAL SIGN AREA IND SPECIAL DEPENDS ON WHICH ZONING I I ] OF BOTH NOT TO EXCEED 1PROVISIONS NOTED CATAGORY SIGN IS PLACED IN I I I MAXIMUM SIGN AREA 1 35' MAX HEIGHT APPLIES I I I ALLOWED I I BUFFALO I I I 1 25 1 64 1 ONE I I I ]NOT APPLICABLE I ELK RIVER 1 I I I SIGN REGS BASED ON 1 20 1 64 1 ONE INOT APPLICABLE DISTRICT REGS I I I I I I I MINNETONKA TOTAL SIGN SURFACE PERMIT- 1 32 1 60 NE PER 200 IZCNING DISTRICT ED WALL/PYLCN COMBINED I I I FOOT FRONTAGE. IRULES APPLY - NO IASED ON BLONG FRONTAGE I I TWO PER CORNER ISPECIAL CONSIDERATCN OF STRUCTURE - OR 15% OF I 1 I LOT 1F MORE THAN 1 32' MAX HEIGHT APFL:ES JILDING FACE - NOT TO 1 I I 200 FEET APART 1 E-<CEED 300 50 FEET. I I I I I I I MONTICELLO I 1 1 I SIGN REGS BASED ON 118 I 50 1 ONE IBY ORDINANCE -32' MAX WALL SIZE/ROAD CLASS/SPEED I (30 MPH ZONE) 1HEIGHT S 200' MAX AREA FIRST NATIONAL BANK/ I I I IBY VARIANCE - 50' MAX TOM THUMB ON MAJOR I OR I IHEIGHT & ??' MAX AREA THORO"FARE - POSTED SPEED ] 22 1 100 1 ONE IWITHIN 800' OF FREEWAY OF 30 MILES PER HOUR. 1 (35 MPH ZONE) I I MOUND I I I 125 1 48 I ONE INOT APPLICABLE RECCMMENDATION I I I I CONSIDER ADOPTING FORMULA 122 150 TOI ONE IREAFFIRM MAXIMUM SIGN FOR SIGNS ALONG HWY 25 I 1 100 I (NO CHANGE) 1HEIGHT OF 32' FOR PPOVIDING MAX OF 100 SO FT/ I I I IPROPEP.TIES IN BONUS AREA. MIN OF 50 SQUARE FEET AND I I I I (NO CHANGE) 10 SO FT SIGN AREA PER 3.031 1 I I LINEAL FEET FOR OTHERS. I I I 5« o,4,G.l f1 I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I L Planning Commission Minutes - 4/4/89 Public Hearing - Consideration of amendments to Section 3-9 [El4 and 3-9[E14(c) of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the regulation of pvlon mo sign height, sign area, and the nuer allowed per business along the Hignway 25/Interstate 94 corridors in the city of Monticello. Applicant, C_ty of Monticello. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members and members of the public the background to the research which led to the flow chart as indicated in the agenda supplement. The proposed sign ordinance amendment, with the changes as indicated, came out of discussions with the Monticello Planning Commission and the Monticello City Council at previous meetings. The proposed element of the sign ordinance amendment pertained primarily to the corridor of the Highway 25/1-94 area. If adopted, the proposed ordinance would increase the maximum amount of sign area from 50 feet of sign area to 100 feet of maximum pylon sign area. The pylon sign height would be increased from 18 feet in height to 22 feet in height. In the area of the properties lying within 800 lineal feet of the I-94 freeway, there would be no proposed changes to the maximum sign height of 32 feet above the public right -0f -way from which it gets its major exposure; no increase in the maximum amount of pylon sign square footage which would be 200 sq ft; and no additional pylon signs allowed per property, one being the maximum number allowed per property. With no further input, Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the public. There being no input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for any additYonal comments from the Planning Commission members. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that City staff had done a good job in researching this proposed ordinance amendment, and they felt quite comfortable with the proposed changes as presented. With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lem, to approve the formula for the establishment of the maximum sign square footage in the Highway 25/I-94 corridor as follows: a) The 10 sq ft of sign area per 3.03 lineal feet of front footage with the following exception: 1. All properties allowed a minimum of 50 sq ft of sign area regardless of the lineal front feet on Highway 25. 2. The maximum size allowed would be 100 sq ft regardless of the lineal front feet on Highway 25. The motion carried unani=uely, with Dan McConnon absent. In case of the subject: property directly abutting State Highway 25, pylon sign area may range from 50 feet to 100 feet, depending on the total lineal feet fronting Highway :5. Ten (10) square feet of Pylon sign area is allowed per every 3.03 feet of lineal front footage with the following exception: Planning Commission Minutes - 4/4/89 1. All properties may erect a pylon sign with a sign area of 50 sq ft regardless of front footage abutting Highway 25, and the maximum pylon sign area shall not exceed 100 sq ft regardless of total lineal footage of property abutting Highway 25. b) Motion by Mori Malone, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to approve the maximum sign height in the I-94/Highway 25 corridor to a maximum of 22 feet in height. Motion carried unanimously, with Dan McConnon absent. c) Motion by Cindy Lemur, seconded by Richard Martie, to reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the I-94 area as follows: The maximum pylon sign square footage remain at 200 sq ft; the maximum sign height remain at 32 feet above the public right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure; and the maximum number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property. d) Motion by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to add to the three above motions that these amendments do comply with Section 22 of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Municipal Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed amendments will not negatively affect the character of the surrounding area or geographic area involved. 3. The amendments as proposed will not tend to actually depreciate the area in which the amendments will take effect. 4. The demonstrated need has been sufficiently demonstrated. Motion carried unanimously, with Dan McConnon absent. 4. Public Hearing - A variance request to alla+ additional pylon sign height and sign area. Applicant, Security Flnanc:al. Cary Anderson, Zoning Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members Security Financial's variance request to be allowed an additional 25 square feet of pylon sign area and an additional 8 feet in pylon sign height. Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the public. Linda Mielke, Branch Manager of Security Financial, explained the request for the additional 25 square feet of pylon area to accommodate the express teller message. Ttey would like to just change the faces on the existing 10 x 10 pylon sign to reflect their new name change to Security Financial Banking b Saving. with no further input from the public, Chairperson Richard Carlson then opened the meeting for input from the Planning Commission members. The Planning Commission members felt a little uncomfortable considering an application for a variance from the newly proposed ordinance amendments to the Monticello Sign Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes — 4/4/89 With no further input from the Planning Commission members, motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Cindy Lemm, to deny the variance request to allow additional pylon sign height and sign area. Motion carried unanimously, with Dan McConnon absent. Reason for denial: Mr. Martie felt, the Planning Commission should stay within the newly proposed sign ordinance amendment. Applicant failed to demonstrate hardship and approving variance request would defeat intent of Zoning Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes - 914!90 5. Public hearinq--A variance recuest to allow additional ovlon sign height than the maximum 22 -fact Dvion height allowed. Applicant, Mark Anderson. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members and the public Mr. Anderson's request to be allowed additional pylon sign height over the maximum allowed, which should have been 32 feet rather than 22 feet, as Mr. Anderson's property lies within the freeway bonus 800 feet from the freeway right-of-way. Mr. Anderson's proposal was for a 13 -foot height variance for a total height of 45 feet. Mr. O'Neill explained to Planning Commission members the City Council action that was taken on April 10, 1989, to reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the 1-94 area as follows: The maximum pylon sign square footage to remain at 200 square feet, and the maximum height to remain at 32 feet above the public right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure, and the number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property. Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the meeting for input from the public. Mr. Mark Anderson, applicant, was present to explain to Planning Commission members and the public his rationale for granting approval of the variance, citing other instances where additional height for pylon signs was granted for fast food places, convenience stores, motels, and gasoline service stations. He indicated the precedent had already been set, and he was merely asking to be treated the same. He explained that a good share of his business would be in the form of 200 or more new people per day coming to the Subway Shop to eat. The intent wasn't to attract patrons from other eating establishments or local residents but to attract people traveling on the freeway that are looking for a Subway Shop in which to stop and eat. Mr. Anderson acknowledged that his primary exposure would be the east bound I-94 traffic and the people exiting the first exit off I-94, and he acknowledged the exposure that would be gained from his sign if placed at the 45 -foot height. He also explained that some exposure would be gained from the west bound traffic on I-94 if the sign was placed at the 45 -foot height. With no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the meeting for discussion amongst Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members felt sympathetic to Mr. Anderson's request to have additional pylon sign height as do other businesses in the area. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission and the City Council reatfirmed their ordinance requirements in regard to the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the I-94 area as follows: Maximum sign square footage remain at 200 sq ft; the maximum sign height remain at 32 feet above the public right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure; and the maximum number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property. Planning Commission Minutes - 9/4/90 Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Jon Bogart, to deny the variance request to allow additional pylon sign height over the maximum 32 feet allowed. Motion carried unanimously. Reason for denial: The Planning Commission would like to sr -ick to the City Council's decision made on April 10, 1989, to reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the I-94 area, as no hardship was sufficiently demonstrated. VARIANCE REQUEST FOPM (See chapter 23 of Zoning Ordinance) Sib 'Y APPL.ICANT:d=,aJI".&il. j DA7E FILED: �FE`- �Ci••� APPLICANTS AODRESS:ba X, ,�dCA.,kca PHCNE: HMY,(E-b)G2_ WK qy[-b'/y0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT----BLOCK--SUBDIVISION DESCRIBE VARIANCE REQUEST: f-/{ Po{Q S CURRENTLY ZONED: 9,-3 VARIANCE TO _— SECTION OF ZONING ORDINANCE Describe any applicable precedents: t tps� Awr iAo„4"A\, Croak`` % &S DEFINITION OF ALLEGED HARDSHIP: What are the unicue Circumstances associated with the lot that create exceptional difficulties when utilizing lot in manner customary and legally permissab('l�e? 11 1411; odlr _ Will approval of this variance impair the intent of the ordinance to the extent that a zoning ordinance amendment might be more appropriate? YES - NO PLANNING COMMISSICN FINDING: DATE: PING COMM. FINDING WILL APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST: A. IMPAIR AOECUATE SUPPLY OF LIGHT AND AIR TO ADJACENT PROPERTY? YES - NO 8. CREATE AN UNREASONABLE INCREASE THE CONGESTICN IN THE PUBLIC STREET? YES - NO C. INCREASE THE DANGER OF FIRE OR ENDANGER THE PUBLIC SAFETY? YES - NO 0. UNREASONABLY DIMINISH PROPERTY VALUES WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD? YES - NO E. BE CONTRARY TO THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE? E - NO COMMENTS REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSICN FINDING: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PEPORT COUNCIL FINDING IF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION IS APPEALED: APPEAL DATE: COMMENTS: Willi,- Consideration illi, l Consideration of amendments to Section 3-9(E14 and 3-9iEI4(c) of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the regulation of pylon sign height, sign area, and the number allowed Per business along Highway 25/ Interstate 94 corriaors in the city of Monticello. Applicant, City of Mont ice l to . Assistant Administrator O'Neill informed Council that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed sign amendments and recommended passage of the sign ordinance amendments as noted in the agenda supplement for the special meeting held April 3, 1969. It was noted by Ren Maus that this item had been discussed at length at the previous Council meeting and at that time it was agreed that the amendment represents a workable compromise between the desire by some businesses for larger signs and the need to control the size of signs that might be placed in close proximity to each other. The amendment does not propose to reduce the s ize of signs now allowed to any of the property owners on Highway 25; while at the same, the total sign area with any business, no matter how ruck frontage they own, is limited to 104 sq ft. After discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Shirley Anderson, to adopt an ordinance amendment and approve the formula for the establishment of a maximum sign square footage in the Highway 25/ 1-94 corridor as follows: a) The 10 sq ft of sign area pee 3.03 lineal feet of front footage with the following exception: 1. All properties allowed a minimum of 50 eq ft of sign area regardless of the linea 1 front feet on Highway 25. 2. The maximum size allowed would be 100 sq ft regardless of the lineal front feet on Highway 23. In case of the subject property directly abutting State Highway 25, pylon sign area may range f=rom 30 feet to 100 feet, depending on the total lineal feet frontinq Highway 25. Ten (10) square feet of pylon sign area is allowed per every 3.03 feet of lineal front footage with the following exception: 1. All properties may erect a pylon sign with a sign area of 5o aq ft regardless of front footage abutting Highway 25, and the maximum pylon sign area shall not exceed 100 sq ft regardless of total lineal footage of property abutting Highway 25. b! Approve the maximum sign height in the 2-94/Highway 25 corridor to a e maximum of 22 feet in hight. c) Reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the 1-94 area as follows: The maximum pylon sign square footage remain at 200 sq ft: the maximum sign height remain at 32 feet above the public right-of.—way from which it receives its major exposure; and the maximum number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property. d) Motions all based on the conclusion by the City Council that such action is consistent with Section 22 of the Zoning ordinance which requireo that: 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Municipal Comprehensive Plan. Public hearinq--A variance request to allow additional pvlon sign heiaht than the maximum 22 -foot pylon height allowed. Applicant, Mark Anderson. Mr. Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, explained to Planning Commission members and the public Mr. Anderson's request to be allowed additional pylon sign height over the maximum allowed, which should have been 32 feet rather than 22 feet, as Mr. Anderson's property lies within the freeway bonus 800 feet from the freeway right-of-way. Mr. Anderson's proposal was for a 13 -foot height variance for a total height of 45 feet. Mr. O'Neill explained to Planning Commission members the City Council action that was taken on April 10, 1989, to reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the I-94 area as follows: The maximum pylon sign square footage to remain at 200 square feet, and the maximum height to remain at 32 feet above the public right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure, and the number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property. Chairperson Dan McConnon then opened the meeting for input from the public. Mr. Mark Anderson, applicant, was present to explain to Planning Commission members and the public his rationale for granting approval of the variance, citing other instances where additional height for pylon signs was granted for fast food places, convenience stores, motels, and gasoline service stations. He Indicated the precedent had already been set, and he was merely asking to be treated the same. He explained that a good share of his business would be in the furm of 200 or more new people per day coming to the Subway Shop to eat. The intent wasn't to attract patrons from other eating establishments or local residents but to attract people traveling on the freeway that are looking for a Subway Shop in which to stop and eat. Mr. Anderson acknowledged that his primary exposure would be the east bound I-94 traffic and the people exiting the first exit off I-94, and he acknowledged the exposure that would be gained from his sign if placed at the 45 -foot height. He also explained that some exposure would be gained from the west bound traffic on I-94 if the sign was placed at the 45 -foot height. With no further input from the public, Chairperson Dan McConnon opened the meeting for discussion amongst Planning Commission members. Planning Commission members felt sympathetic to Mr. Anderson's request to have additional pylon sign height as do other businesses In the area. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission and the City Council reaffirmed their ordinance requirements in regard to the maximum amounts allowed In the 800 lineal feet from the I-94 area as follows: Maximum sign square footage remain at 200 sq ft; the maximum sign height remain at 32 feet above the public right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure; and the maximum number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property. Therefore, a motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Jon Bogart, to deny the variance request to allow additional pylon sign height over the maximum 32 feet allowed. Motion carried unanimously. Reason for denial: The Planning Commission would like to stick to the City Council's decision made on April 10, 1989, to reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the I-94 area, as no hardship was sufficiently demonstrated. ILL ge ' Sc 14: 43 091 MPLS, MN P. 1 C"ELCO Update TO, Meadeello Cay Council FRO?& Sttt A- Weiss. P.B. City Bn�aeer DACE: July k 1994 SWELT. Pwtbway Prgjeet Clq or Marideeno Project *-9"M ow P"Jai. O SLIM S.P. = am] This project has beets progressing on a newly bar relatively slow pace due to M=/DOT and "WA repiremeam We have just received the preHunnary, plan set back from Mn/DOT review this week and are currently completing the modifications to the plans acid preparing the sped8adons peudnew to city regrdiements. Simultaneous to the patliway plan preparation, the bridge plans have been ander review by the State Aid Bridge Division. Those plan are arrrently close to completion as well Upon completion of the plain and approval by Ma/DOT, Mn/DOT personnel cilli assemble the plans and spedfiudons and set a bid letting date. It is: my feeling that the bid letting date will be sometime between the first of September and the end of September, depending on how expedient Mn/DOT a in issuing the bidding documents. From that point, a contract must be prepared with the eomractor and the contractor must mobilim the site. It is very likely that this would not be able to occur until October 1st, at the earliest. As you are aware, this does not leave signiSatnt construction season available this year. We will continue to work expeditiously to complete as much work this year as possible and to ensure that the comma is let to allow terrain items includiag the bridge to be ready for early spring constructiorL However, it Is apparent that the path will not be ready for full use until mid-1995. We undetstaad that there are high expectations for completion of this path and we all anticipated that it could be completed significantly quicker than it is However, the federal aid process is esremely cumbersome and regimental and does not allow for expedient plan preparation as Is common with city projects. 1 apologize for any incowenience associated with act having the patb completed in M. I will coadmm to update you with the dedslo= regarding the bidding and eomoucYion initiation as they become identified. As of today, the federal moaq is allocated and is avafiahle far use.. cc Jeff O'Neill Rids Wol ueuar Tom Base John Simola MAdw�—\..�.ous. Vtstam